Jan 05, 2023 City Council

PRO TEM GORDON AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE.

MOTION PASSES. SEVEN ZERO.

NEXT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 95 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE SUPPLEMENT O FOUR TO TASK ORDER 2003 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH

[9.5. Consideration and possible action to execute Supplement 04 to Task Order (TO) 03 for professional services with HNTB for design modifications to the FM 1660 South and US 79 Project (HNTB Project No. 3) in the amount of $98,157.22.]

H AND TBE FOR DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO THE FM 1660 SOUTH AND US 79 PROJECT H AND TBE PROJECT NUMBER THREE IN THE AMOUNT AS LISTED ON THE AGENDA $98,157.22 THAT THE AMOUNT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IS LESS THAN THAT AT $77,825.63.

AND I ASKED THIS BE PULLED BECAUSE THERE ARE THERE'S ONLY A COUPLE OF THINGS I GET MORE MESSAGES ON AND IT'S THIS INTERSECTION.

SO ANY KIND OF UPDATE WE CAN GET IN TERMS OF ANYTHING I THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD LOVE TO HEAR.

OKAY, MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING.

QUICK UPDATE ON THIS PROJECT AND A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS ITEM.

SO LAST SPRING WE MET WITH TEXTILE REPRESENTATIVES AND U.P.

REPRESENTATIVES AND VISITED THE SITE.

LOOK THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY PLANS.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING WAS A DISCOVERY THAT THE.

THE TRAFFIC POLES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION THERE ON THE WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE 1660 NORTH PROJECT, JIM CAGE.

THOSE POLLS ARE ACTUALLY IN THE U.P.

RIGHT AWAY. AND SO THAT SPAWNED A LONG DISCUSSION ABOUT PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS THERE AS WELL BECAUSE THERE SIDEWALK RAMPS.

AFTER SOME DISCUSSION, THE ORIGINAL REQUEST FROM UP WAS TO HAVE SIGNAL MODIFICATIONS AT THE NORTH INTERSECTION. INCLUDE SIGNAL PREEMPTION.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS WHEN THE TRAINS COMING LOCKS DOWN THE ARMS IN A CERTAIN DIRECTION, IT ALLOWS TRAFFIC TO GO ON 79, BUT NOT THE CROSS STREETS.

WELL, SINCE THAT INTERSECTION AT JIM CAGE AND THE 1660 SOUTH, INTERSECTIONS ARE SO CLOSE, THEY'RE TIED TOGETHER.

THAT WOULD HAVE DRASTICALLY DELAYED THE NORTH PROJECT.

AND SO AFTER DISCUSSION WITH TEXTILE, WE WE MOVE SOME OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AS FAR AS THE THE BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF THOSE TO THE SOUTH PROJECT.

AND THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THE DESIGN EFFORT IS FOR THIS TASK ORDER.

THE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS ARE CROSSING SO THAT BECAUSE THE SIGNAL PREEMPTION WAS INCLUDED IN THE SOUTH CONTRACT, IT WAS NOT IN THE NORTH, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR IT AT THE TIME.

FAST FORWARD. SO WE HAVE THE NORTH PROJECT IS ON THE AGENDA TODAY FOR THE CONTRACT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND AWARD SOUTH PROJECT.

WE IN OCTOBER WE RECEIVED ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE FROM THE FEDERAL RAIL AUTHORITY AND WE HAD BEEN DELAYED IN MAKING RIGHT AWAY OFFERS UNTIL THAT CLEARANCE WAS OBTAINED.

AND SO WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF WORKING THROUGH THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION, TRYING TO FINALIZE THAT ON THE ONE PARCEL THAT WE NEED FOR THAT PROJECT.

AT&T IS WORKING ON FINALIZING THE 100% DESIGN DOCUMENTS AND THOSE WILL GO TO TECH START FOR THEIR REVIEW IN MARCH.

AND SO FROM A DESIGN STANDPOINT, WE ARE WE'RE RAPIDLY COMING TO A CLOSE.

WE ARE GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT BEHOLDEN TO TECH, STATE AND THE FEDERAL RAIL AUTHORITY TO FINALIZE THEIR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO AGENCIES.

WE ARE A PARTY.

AS A SUBSET TO THAT AGREEMENT, THE AGREEMENT IS BETWEEN TECH, STATE AND AND THE RAIL AUTHORITY.

AND SO UNTIL THEY FINALIZE THEIR AGREEMENT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD IN THE CONSTRUCTION.

SO WE'RE PRESSING TO GET THE DESIGN FINALIZED HERE IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, GET THOSE APPROVALS IN HAND, GET THE RIGHT AWAY.

ACQUIRED. AND THEN WE'RE BASICALLY WAITING TO GET THE GREEN LIGHT TO MOVE FORWARD ON CONSTRUCTION.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT PROCESS WILL WILL MOVE QUICKLY.

[00:45:01]

BUT THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

SO DESIGN, LIKE I SAID, SHOULD BE THE SCHEDULE HAS 100% GO INTO TO TEXT UP FOR THE REVIEW IN MARCH.

SO IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

WAIT, I GOT SOME QUESTIONS.

YES, SIR. YOU CAN PROBABLY EXPECT.

ALL RIGHT, SO YOU WEREN'T HERE.

BUT OVER THE PAST, I THINK MAYOR GORE AND I HAVE BEEN HERE EVERY SUMMER.

WE TALK ABOUT THIS ROAD INTERSECTION.

AND EACH TIME I ALWAYS ASK, AT WHAT POINT CAN THE CITY LET THE FEED STORE KNOW THAT CURRENTLY ALL THEIR PARKING IS IN RIGHT AWAY? AND SO FROM THE CITY STANDPOINT, WE'VE ALWAYS LOOKED AT IT LIKE THAT'S OUR PROPERTY.

SO IT'S EASY. WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ANY.

WHICH I GET. BUT FROM A BUSINESS OWNER STANDPOINT, THEY'RE NOT IS.

IN THE KNOW ON HOW THESE THINGS WORK.

AND SO, I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE THINK THAT FROM THE SIDEWALK TO THE STREET, THAT'S THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT CITY PROPERTY.

SO THIS BEING RIGHT AWAY, WHAT I'VE ASKED REPEATEDLY IS IF SOMEBODY I MEAN, I'LL DO IT IF I HAVE TO, BUT IF SOMEONE CAN GO AND TALK TO THEM AND LET THEM START PREPARING THAT, HEY, IN NINE MONTHS YOU'RE LOSING ALL OF YOUR PARKING FOR YOUR BUSINESS.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME CHANGES, LIKE START DOING IT NOW, BECAUSE WHAT WE TEND TO DO IS GOVERNMENT IS WE JUST COME IN JERSEY BARRIER OFF OUR RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE THAT'S OURS. AND THEN WHILE YOU GUYS WERE USING THE RIGHT OF WAY.

SO IT'S YOUR PROBLEM.

SO IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO KIND OF LET THEM KNOW.

SO ALONG THOSE LINES, WE'VE MET WITH THE OWNER OF THAT BUSINESS.

BACK IN THE SUMMER, IT WAS LIKE, I DON'T KNOW.

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE DATE. BUT IT WAS MONTHS BACK ABOUT THAT VERY ISSUE.

AND TO COMMUNICATE, NUMBER ONE, WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY WAS, WHAT THAT MEANT AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED THERE AND WHAT IMPACTS THAT MAY HAVE ON HIS INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THEIR PROPERTY.

SO WE MET WITH THE OWNER.

HE CAME TO CITY HALL.

WE WALKED THROUGH THE PROJECT.

WE HAD THE TV THERE AS WELL.

SO WE'VE HAD THAT COMMUNICATION.

WE CAN CERTAINLY FOLLOW UP AND GIVE AN UPDATE, BUT THE PLANS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE WHAT WE COMMUNICATED TO HIM AT THAT TIME.

SO WE HAVE TO SHARE THOSE THINGS WITH US JUST SO WE KNOW, BECAUSE IT ALWAYS COMES UP AND I ALWAYS THINK THIS POOR GUY HERE, ALL RIGHT, PEOPLE ALWAYS ASK ME ABOUT QUIET ZONES AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE PROCESS, BUT I KNOW THIS SEEMED TO BE A CENTRAL POINT IN THIS WHOLE QUIET ZONE.

THE OLD PEOPLE, OLDER PEOPLE IN HUDDLE, NOT LIKE AGE, BUT LIVED HERE LONGER.

RIGHT. THEY LIKED TRAINS, BUT I THINK SOME PEOPLE BOUGHT SOME HOMES AND THEY DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS A TRAIN THAT RAN THROUGH EVERY 15 MINUTES.

AND SO THEY'RE WANTING TO KNOW.

CAN YOU TELL US SOME OF WHAT THERE IS A PROCESS TO TO IDENTIFY WHAT'S CALLED A QUIET ZONE, MEANING THE TRAINS WON'T HONK THE HORN WHEN THEY COME THROUGH.

THERE ARE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT, NOT ONLY FOR THE PHYSICAL CROSSINGS THEMSELVES, BUT THE SPACING OF THEM AND SO FORTH.

WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WITH U.P.

ONE WHEN THEY WERE OUT LAST SPRING.

THERE ARE SOME IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTIONS THAT WE'RE DOING AS PART OF THESE PROJECTS THAT WOULD NOT PRECLUDE A QUIET ZONE IN THE FUTURE.

FOR EXAMPLE, A TALLER CURB AT THE MEDIAN BETWEEN THE TWO DRIVE AISLES ON ONE OF THE CROSSINGS, SOME OF THE WAY THE ARMS COME DOWN ON THE CROSSINGS.

BUT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF WON'T QUALIFY AS A QUIET ZONE.

SO FOR HUTTO, YOU'VE GOT THE THE 685 CHRIS KELLEY CROSSING, YOU'VE GOT TIM CAGE AND YOU GOT THE OTHER ONES.

SO BETWEEN THOSE SPACINGS, ALL THOSE IMPLEMENTATIONS HAVE TO BE IN PLACE AND THEN FRANKLY GET GET UP ON BOARD.

IT'S NOT IT'S SOMETHING THAT I KNOW THE CITY HASN'T LOOKED AT RECENTLY.

AND IT WAS IT WAS LOOKED AT PRELIMINARY IN THE PAST.

THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN VISIT WITH THEM ABOUT.

BUT THERE ARE SOME CHALLENGES JUST BASED ON THE GEOMETRY AND HUTTO AND WHAT WHAT'S THERE.

U.P. HAS BEEN ACTIVELY LOOKING FOR WAYS TO CROSS CLOSE EXISTING CROSSINGS.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE IMPROVEMENTS THERE AT 33, 49 AND 79, AS PART OF THAT AGREEMENT, SOME OF THE EXISTING OR THE OLD FARM CROSSINGS WERE REQUIRED TO BE CLOSED FOR THAT CROSSING TO BE IMPROVED.

U.P., FRANKLY, WOULD LIKE TO CLOSE ALL THE CROSSINGS IF THEY COULD.

SO AS FAR AS QUIET ZONES GO, IT'S IT'S A IT'S A BIT OF A PROCESS TO GET TO A POINT TO GET THAT APPROVAL.

I CAN'T STAND HERE TODAY AND TELL YOU THAT IT'S A NO BRAINER THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN.

BUT IT IS POTENTIALLY OUT THERE AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL IN DOING THOSE.

[00:50:04]

IT REALLY THEY LOOK AT THE CORRIDOR, NOT A PARTICULAR CROSSING.

SO MAKING SURE THAT CORRIDOR QUALIFIES AS A CHALLENGE AND AND HOW THAT GETS REVIEWED AND APPROVED.

SO SO DOES IT MAKE SENSE IF WE'RE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT IT TO NOT POUR A CURB TODAY THAT SAY, WE GOT TO DO THIS IN FIVE YEARS, WE HAVE TO RIP OUT A TALL CURB AND AS IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT A TALLER CURB IN TODAY, KNOWING THAT IT'S A POTENTIAL BECAUSE I WOULD IMAGINE THE COST OF THE HIGHER CURB, IT CAN'T BE SO, SO AND SO FOR THIS PROJECT, WE ARE DOING SOME OF THOSE THINGS THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR SOME IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT IN AND OF THEMSELVES THEY WOULDN'T QUALIFY AS REQUIREMENT.

MAYOR COUNSEL FOR THE RECORD.

JAMES ARP CITY MANAGER.

SO I HAVE QUITE A BIT OF EXPERIENCE WITH THIS.

BELIEVE IT OR NOT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND I DO THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF THE COUNCIL DECIDED IN THEIR STRATEGIC PLANNING THAT THEY WANTED TO IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY DOING QUIET ZONES, WE CAN GO DOWN THAT PATH.

JUST KNOW IT'S A 3 TO 5 YEAR WINDOW TO DO THIS TYPE OF STUFF.

BUT BY THE TIME YOU GET THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS WITH THE RAILROAD AND THEY THEY HAVE NOBODY IN THE WORLD MAKING THEM MOVE ANY FASTER THAN WHAT THEY WANT TO MOVE.

SO THAT SAID, YOU COULD DO IMPROVEMENTS NOW IN ANTICIPATION OF MAKING IT QUIET ZONE ELIGIBLE.

AND EVEN STILL THE RAIL COMMISSION OR THE U.P.

COULD COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, WE ACTUALLY NEED YOU TO DO THIS OTHER THING, AND THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO TEAR ALL THAT STUFF OUT.

SO I'VE HAD IT HAPPEN BOTH WAYS.

I'VE HAD IT HAPPEN WHERE THE THINGS THAT WE DID WERE PERFECTLY FINE AND WERE ACCEPTED.

AND I'VE HAD IT HAPPEN TO WHERE THE THINGS THAT WE DID, THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE ANGLE OF THE OF THE CROSSING AND THEY WANTED TO PUT IN ANOTHER ONE OF THE LITTLE PLATFORM THINGS CALLED THEY HAVE A NAME BUT WHERE WHERE THE ACTUAL LIKE THE TRACKS GO ACROSS.

SO IT'S LIKE THE CONCRETE THINGS YOU DRIVE ACROSS.

THEY WANT TO ADD ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE, WHICH MEANT THAT THE POLES NEEDED TO MOVE OUT.

SO THERE WAS ALL THIS EXPENSE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

IT'S COMPLICATED, BUT IT CAN BE DONE.

BUT I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY AND THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO PRIORITIZE AND SAY THIS IS A DESIRE WE HAVE FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND THEN WE CAN START THAT PROCESS AND THEN START MOVING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT PROTOCOLS.

THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT I BECAUSE I'VE LOOKED AT THIS WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND, YOU KNOW, OUT AT FRAME SWITCH, YOU KNOW, AT THE RAIL CROSSING OUT THERE, THAT'S JOINT I THINK IS ON TAYLOR SIDE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO BE A MILE AND A HALF CLEAR THE WHOLE WAY.

SO IT'S NOT JUST EVEN OUR CROSSINGS AND HUTTO THAT WE HAVE TO GET AGREEMENT WITH, BUT WE'D HAVE TO WORK TO OUR NEIGHBOR TO THE EAST TO TRY TO GET EITHER STUFF IN THE COUNTY. MORE STUFF FROM TAYLOR.

TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEM NOT BLOW THE HORN AND HUTTO FOR PEOPLE FURTHER DOWN THAT STILL HAVE A CROSSING.

SO IT'S A LOGISTICAL CHALLENGE.

NOT THAT I DON'T WANT WOULDN'T MIND HAVING IT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT'S ANOTHER CHANNEL THAT'S A CORRIDOR APPROACH THAT THEY'RE THAT THEY LOOK AT.

YOU'RE RIGHT. SURE. I'M THINKING MAYOR PRO TEM FROM LIKE 2019.

THIS IS SOMETHING WE WERE WORKING ON, WASN'T IT? YEAH, IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED.

IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP QUITE A ZONES.

IT'S KIND OF SHOCKING WE.

THAT'S WHY I ASK THE QUESTION IF I WERE AT OK, HOW FAR SOUTH I GET ASKED A LOT TO ON 1660.

HOW FAR SOUTH WE'RE REBUILDING IT.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO ALMOST TO LIKE GLENWOOD THE ROAD, I FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT GOING TO MAKE IT.

BUT SO PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ME, HOW FAR ARE WE REBUILDING 1660 DOWN SO THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE FIXED.

DON'T REMEMBER THE CROSS STREET THERE, BUT IT'S A FEW THOUSAND FEET SOUTH OF THE INTERSECTION.

THERE'S FRONT AND THEN THERE'S AUSTIN EAST.

AUSTIN IS THE NEXT ONE DOWN.

I THINK IT'S JUST PAST THAT ONE.

BEFORE YOU GET TO THE STORAGE BUILDINGS, ASK THE STORAGE.

YEAH. SO, POINT OF ORDER.

CAN I ASK DOTTIE, ARE WE GETTING AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL AGENDA ITEM IN THIS DISCUSSION? BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE INTERSECTION.

I JUST WANTED TO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 1660 SOUTH AND 79, RIGHT? THE INTERSECTION. AND THAT'S THE PLAN, RIGHT? SO I'M ASKING ABOUT THE PLAN BECAUSE DEPEND ON WHAT HE SAYS.

I MAY ASK FOR A CHANGE ORDER TODAY TO WHERE I WANT SOMETHING MORE THAN.

OR WOULD THAT BE? I THINK AFTER WE HAVE OUR WORK SESSION WHERE WE GET THE ROAD THING, WHERE THEY'VE LOOKED AT ALL THE ROADS BECAUSE THEY DROVE THAT ROAD TOO, SO THEY WOULD KNOW WHERE THAT BE A PRIORITY ON THAT DESIGN MODIFICATIONS TO THE INTERSECTION.

RIGHT? SO I CAN'T TELL YOU IF THERE'S A DESIGN MODIFICATION COUNCIL MEMBER THAT I'M WANTING TO PROPOSE UNTIL I FIRST FIND OUT THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING.

AND THEN BASED ON THAT, I MAY WANT TO CHANGE THE DESIGN OR MAKE AN OFFER A MOTION TO CHANGE A DESIGN.

I AM NOT MAKING ANY ACCUSATIONS OR, YOU KNOW, ASSUMPTIONS.

I'M JUST ASKING OUR CITY ATTORNEY, ARE WE STRAYING FROM THE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DISCUSSING IF IF HE'S STILL WANTING INFORMATION ABOUT THE DESIGN MODIFICATIONS SO HE CAN MAKE IT THE INTERSECTION, HE HE'S WITHIN THE AGENDA ITEM.

[00:55:04]

SO NOT DOWN 1660, BUT JUST THE INTERSECTION.

WHAT'S PART OF THE PROJECT? WE'RE REBUILDING PART OF 1660.

AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW FAR DOWN WE'RE GOING.

I'M NOT EXPECTING THIS TO GO DOWN TO FARLEY, BUT ARE WE GOING DOWN THE FRONT STREET, AUSTIN AVENUE? PEOPLE ASK ME, I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S PART OF THIS.

I MEAN, WE'RE REBUILDING PART OF 1660, ARE WE NOT? A SHORT PORTION.

IT'S IT'S IT'S AUSTIN STREET, WHATEVER THAT SECOND STREET IS THERE.

I WILL SAY, MAYOR, THAT I KNOW TEXAS HAS A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE AND I BELIEVE WELL, AT ONE POINT THEY HAD TALKED TO US ABOUT ABOUT AN OVERLAY ON 1660 SOUTH OF THIS PROJECT, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TO 137 AND EAST OF THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT IS ON THE SCHEDULE.

I CAN FOLLOW UP AND REPORT BACK TO YOU.

NO, IT'S FINE. I JUST WANTED HOW FAR THIS ONE WAS GOING TO GO.

I THINK IT'S KRISTIN.

IS YOUR NAME RIGHT? OKAY.

I WAS TALKING TO KRISTEN BEFORE, AND SO WE SAID WE COULDN'T START RIGHT AWAY UNTIL ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE.

BUT WHAT STOPS US FROM JUST WALKING UP TO A PROPERTY OWNER AND GOING, HEY, WE'D LIKE TO BUY 100 FEET OF DEPTH ALONG THIS PROJECT.

I MEAN, WHY CAN'T WE DO THAT? WHY DO WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE GET 100%, 100% OF EVERYTHING WHEN WE KIND OF ALREADY KNOW WHAT WE NEED? WELL, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THIS PROJECT, SINCE THERE'S FEDERAL DOLLARS INVOLVED, YOU GOT TO FOLLOW THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS, WHICH WHICH WHICH REQUIRES THAT YOU GET ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BEFORE YOU CAN MAKE AN OFFER TO A PROPERTY OWNER.

AND THAT'S IF YOU USE FED MONEY.

SO IF WE JUST USE REGULAR MONEY OUT OF GENERAL REVENUE, THEN WE CAN SKIP THAT, EXCEPT IT'S A FEDERAL PROJECT.

SO YOU STILL REQUIRE ALL THIS STUFF? YEAH, SO LONG AS MY UNDERSTANDING IS AND OF COURSE I'M NOT AN EXPERT IN THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS, IS SO LONG AS YOU'RE NOT INCLUDING FEDERAL FUNDING IN YOUR PROJECT, IT'S PURELY LOCALLY FUNDED.

IT'S NOT STATE FUNDED.

IT'S NOT FEDERAL FUNDED.

IT'S PURELY LOCALLY FUNDED.

THE ONLY REASON THAT YOU THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY WAIT TO GO AHEAD AND DO YOUR OFFERS AT THE END SO YOU'RE NOT PROCURING MORE THAN WHAT YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO NEED.

YOU'RE BEING MORE FISCALLY CONSERVATIVE.

AND THEN NUMBER TWO, YOU WOULD YOU WOULD GENERALLY GO BUY RIGHT AWAY OR EASEMENTS OR THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

YOU CAN DO THAT.

BUT IF YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO END UP IN CONDEMNATION, THEN THERE'S A CERTAIN PARTICULAR PROCESS YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW FOR THAT TOO.

SO SO SO IT'S A MULTIPRONGED ANSWER, BUT THE ANSWER IS YES, YOU COULD JUST GO BUY LAND.

I MEAN, I'VE DONE IT BEFORE IN MY POSITION, JUST WE WENT AND BOUGHT LAND.

WE KNEW WE WERE GOING TO PUT A ROAD THERE IN THE FUTURE.

WE WENT AND BOUGHT THE LAND, YOU KNOW, 120 FOOT.

WE'LL FIGURE OUT THE ACTUAL ALIGNMENT LATER.

BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, ANY TIME YOU INVOLVE THE STATE, THE RAILROAD, OR THE OR THE FEDS, IT COMPLICATES EVERYTHING.

AND IN THIS PARTICULAR INTERSECTION DOES ALL THREE.

BUT WE COULD JUST USE STRAIGHT GENERAL REVENUE MONEY SEPARATE FROM THE PROJECT.

AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IT SEEMS LIKE WE GET TO USUALLY WHENEVER AND I MEAN FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF I GET THIS WRONG, BUT USUALLY ONCE $1 OF FEDERAL MONEY COMES INTO A PROJECT, EVERYTHING IN THAT PROJECT HAS TO FOLLOW THE ENTIRETY OF THE FEDERAL PROCUREMENT PROCESS.

SO IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU'RE SPLITTING IT OR THIS PART OF IT IS JUST US AND THAT PART OF IT TO THEM, IF THEY PUT $1 IN, YOUR ENTIRE THING HAS TO FOLLOW THE PROCESS.

OKAY. WELL, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IS IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE WAITING UNTIL WE'RE FULLY DESIGNED, RIGHT.

THEN WE GO TO GET RIGHT AWAY AND WE'RE ADDING 6 TO 9 MONTHS ON SOME CRITICAL PROJECTS THAT IF WE DON'T HURRY AND GET THEM BUILT AND TO TAG ALONG TO WHAT CITY MANAGER SAID, ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTH PROJECT AND THE REASON WHY THERE'S A SEPARATE ONE.

IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THE DRAFT, THEY WERE ALL THREE TOGETHER BECAUSE THE FEDERAL DOLLARS WERE INVOLVED.

THAT TRIGGERED SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS.

WE IN COOPERATION, WORKING WITH TEXAS, WE SAID LET'S SPLIT THEM UP BECAUSE OTHERWISE IT'S GOING TO SLOW EVERYTHING DOWN, THE OTHER TWO DOWN.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS ONE'S A STANDALONE AGREEMENT THAT'S ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL.

ALL RIGHT. TWO OTHER QUICK ONES.

WE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT HOW WE'RE TIMING ALL THE ROAD PROJECTS WE'RE DOING IN HUTTO.

AND SO WHEN THIS ONE BLOWS UP, I THINK THE LATEST I SAW WAS CONSTRUCTION WOULD START AT THE END OF THIS CALENDAR YEAR.

DO WE HAVE A PLAN IN TERMS OF THAT'S GOING ON? WE ALSO HAVE THE SOUTHEAST LOOP.

DO WE KNOW LIKE, I GUESS MY FEAR IS, ARE PEOPLE GOING TO BE TRAPPED ON THE SOUTH END OF TOWN TO WHERE THEY CAN'T? GET THROUGH UNLESS YOU TAKE CARL STERN OVER TO 685, WHICH IS ALREADY KIND OF ITS OWN CLUSTER.

DO WE HAVE SOME KIND OF STAGING PLAN OR HAVE YOU COORDINATED WITH THE COUNTY? BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT DOING 1616 137.

THE FIRST. IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.

TO WHICH THEN MAYBE WONDER IF I LIVED IN GLENWOOD, I'D BE AFRAID TO.

SO I JUST PRAY THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO TALK ABOUT TODAY.

I JUST BRING UP I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING COMING UP HERE THAT HOW ARE WE GOING TO LET THE PEOPLE IN THE SOUTH GET TO THE NORTH?

[01:00:08]

WELL, MAYOR, I THINK I WAS PRETTY MUCH TOLD JUST TEAR UP EVERYTHING ALL AT THE SAME TIME AND GET IT DONE RIGHT.

THAT MAY BE THE BEST WAY.

YOU MAY SAY THAT. ALL I CAN SAY IS, WELL, AT LEAST WE TALKED ABOUT IT.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, LET'S JUST DEAL WITH IT FOR SIX MONTHS.

I DON'T KNOW. GENERALLY SPEAKING, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THERE'S CERTAINLY SOME WISDOM TO THAT AS THE PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD.

EACH PROJECT THAT THEN COMES FORWARD WITH THEIR TRAFFIC PLAN AS OPPOSED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SURROUNDING CONDITIONS.

BUT HOW FAR IS THAT SURROUNDING CONDITION? ARE THEY ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE OTHER QUADRANT OF TOWN? PROBABLY NOT SO, BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DEFINITELY TALK ABOUT, IS IF WE HAVE THESE THREE PROJECTS GO IN ORDER, WHAT DO WE ANTICIPATE THE OVERALL TRAFFIC IMPACT TO BE GOING FORWARD? SO. THE LAST ONE, THE COUNTY DOES A GOOD JOB WITH THIS.

WITH THE SOUTHEAST LOOP, THEY THROW OUT SOME PERSPECTIVE PLANS, IF YOU WILL, THAT KIND OF HAVE WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING LIKE THAT BEFORE.

AND I'LL BE HONEST, THE LAST TIME I SAW THESE PLANS WAS PROBABLY TWO YEARS AGO.

AND I REMEMBER I WAS TALKING THERE'S LIKE HUGE RETAINING WALLS GOING ON THE SOUTH END OF THE INTERSECTION AND.

IS THERE A WAY THAT WE CAN SHARE SOMETHING SINCE WE'RE AT 100%, ARE LIKE 90? CAN WE SHARE LIKE WITH THE BIG PRELIMINARY I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORDS GOT TO BE THAT WITH SO SO PERFECT TIMING OF BRINGING THIS UP.

SO STARTING AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING CIP UPDATES AT AT THE ONE MEETING A MONTH, EVERY MEETING OR EVERY MONTH.

SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT PROJECTS, WHAT STAGES THEY'RE IN.

IF WE HAVE DESIGN CRITERIA, WE'VE MET THE 30% THRESHOLD.

WE CAN WE CAN THROW UP A GRAPHIC OF THE 30%.

AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THE BUDGET SOFTWARE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT WE'RE IN IMPLEMENTATION FOR THAT BUDGET SOFTWARE ALSO LENDS ITSELF TO HAVING SIP PAGES, WHICH THEN IN TURN IS PLACES WE CAN PARK.

THE TYPES OF INFORMATION YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT.

WHAT ARE THE SCHEMATICS LOOK LIKE? WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED BUILD OUT LOOK LIKE? THOSE TYPES OF ITEMS AS WE AS WE CONTINUE TO COLLECT THEM? SO SO YES, WE CAN'T ON THIS SPECIFIC ONE, WE HAVE 60% TODAY, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH, WE HAVE 60% TODAY.

SO WE CAN SHOW WE CAN DISCLOSE WHAT THE 60% LOOKS LIKE.

BUT GOING FORWARD, WE SHOULD BE STARTING TO SEE THESE ITEMS COMING REGULARLY TO COUNCIL AT LEAST MONTHLY.

ANY ANY MORE OFTEN THAN THAT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET REAL UPDATED INFORMATION, BUT AT LEAST THAT'LL SLOW DOWN MY FACEBOOK POSTINGS BECAUSE IT'S ALL ON THE WEBSITE.

I CAN JUST WE CAN, AS A CITY, CAN TRAIN EVERYBODY TO JUST GO TO THE WEBSITE AND SEE THE SCHEMATICS INSTEAD OF.

BEES AND BLUE BEAMS. I'M TRYING TO BUILD MORE AND MORE INFORMATION TO WHERE IT'S AVAILABLE FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SEE AND TO INTERACT WITH SO THEY CAN GENERATE THEIR QUESTIONS AND GIVE FEEDBACK AND COMMENTS.

WE'RE CONSTANTLY ASKING THE PUBLIC TO GIVE US INPUT, BUT THEN IT'S DIFFICULT MANY TIMES TO FOR THE PUBLIC TO ACCESS THE INFORMATION WE'RE ASKING THEM TO INPUT ON.

SO. OKAY, COOL.

THANKS, [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU.

THAT'S ALL I HAD.

SO MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT 95 AS PRESENTED AND.

WHAT WAS THE UPDATED AMOUNT? YOU SAID 77,000.

CAN YOU DO IT AT $77,825.63.

OKAY. SO MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK APPROVING NINE FOUR AS PRESENTED AS PRESENTED WITH THE CHANGE OF $77,825.63.

AS LISTED IN THE PACKET, NOT IN THE ITEM NUMBER.

ALL SECOND. AND TO CLARIFY, IT'S ITEM NINE FIVE.

YOU KNOW WHAT I SAY. NINE FOUR.

I GOT TOO MUCH RIDING ON THIS.

OK NINE FIVE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON AYE.COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON AYE.

MOTION PAST THE SEVEN ZERO.

LINE SIX IS EXEC.

I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS YOU TO ITEM NINE EIGHT.

[9.8. Consideration and possible action on the adoption of Ordinance No. O-2023-003 amending Section 10.609, Parkland and open space dedication, of the Hutto Unified Development Code to update the minimum standards related to parkland and open space dedication requirements. (First Reading) (Jeff White) a. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2023-003 to dispense with the second reading pursuant to Hutto City Charter Article 3, Section 3.13. (Legal)]

CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO DASH 2020 3-003 AMENDING SECTION 10.609 PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE TO UPDATE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS RELATED TO PARKLAND AND OPEN SPACE DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. SO I PULLED THIS BECAUSE I WANTED MORE CLARIFICATION.

SO WHEN THIS FIRST CAME OUT, I ASKED THE CITY MANAGER, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THIS MONEY IF PEOPLE START PAYING IN LIEU OF.

AND THEN I GOT A RESPONSE ABOUT SOME.

[01:05:03]

THE FUNDS ARE GOING TO BE USED FOR LAND ACQUISITION OF PARKS AND FOR 2023, THE PLANS TO SPEND ABOUT 250,000 FOR LIGHTING AT MEGA FIELDS, 500,000 FOR SOLAR LIGHTING IN THE PARKS, 50,000 FOR WAYFINDING SIGNAGE AND 50,000 FOR CONCRETE TRAIL REPAIRS.

HERE'S MY CONCERN. WE JUST PASSED A BUDGET THREE MONTHS AGO.

NONE OF THIS WAS DISCUSSED.

NONE OF THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET.

AND SO I GET A LITTLE NERVOUS.

I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOT THE IDEA TO SPEND THE MONEY, BUT.

I'M STILL CONCERNED THAT WE'RE AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO CHARGE DEVELOPERS TO GIVE US MONEY TO IMPROVE OUR PARKS.

BUT I'VE BEEN PUSHING IN THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE TO HAVE A PLAN FOR WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO FOR OUR PARKS, AND WE ENDED UP NOT DOING ONE.

AND THEN IT STARTED FEELING LIKE A PLAN IS STARTING TO GO.

SO IT'S MORE OF A.

LIKE A PUBLIC THING.

AT SOME POINT, WE NEED TO SIT DOWN AND DISCUSS AS A COUNCIL WITH WHOMEVER THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE PARKS? BECAUSE LIKE ME PERSONALLY, I HAVEN'T SEEN A PLAN FOR HALF A MILLION DOLLARS IN SOLAR LIGHTING.

BUT IF I DID A PUBLIC POLL, MY GUESS IS THEY DON'T WANT TO SPEND $500,000 ON SOLAR.

THEY'D RATHER SPEND 500,000 ON SWING SETS.

OTHER TRAILS, OTHER THINGS, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT UNTIL WE HAVE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION, THE COUNCIL LIKE US RESERVE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY ON BECAUSE IT THIS MAY BE A GOOD DOWN PAYMENT ON THE $5 MILLION FRITTS PARK THING, BUT AS I SAW THE BUDGET.

THERE'S I MAY HAVE THIS WRONG.

THERE'S WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO START THE YEAR WITH ALMOST 2.1 MILLION IN THE FUND AND FINISH IT WITH 2.4, BARRING ANY NEW CHANGES.

SO I WOULD LIKE US WHEN WE'RE TALKING CIP PROJECTS TO START HAVING DISCUSSION COMING UP RATHER SOON.

WHAT ARE WE GOING DO WITH 2.4 MILLION? IF WE WANT TO KEEP BANKING IT, THAT'S FINE.

BUT IF THESE PEOPLE START PAYING ALL THIS MONEY, I THINK WE AT LEAST HAVE A LIST OF PROJECTS WE CAN TELL THE PUBLIC.

THIS IS WHY WE'RE PASSING THIS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO DO X, WHICH RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST SAYING WE'RE PASS AN ORDINANCE.

WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A PLAN.

BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHY I PULLED THAT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN AS A GROUP KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT.

2023 I WANT TO SEE SOME IMPROVEMENTS IN SOME PARKS, AND I'M HOPING THIS FUND HERE SHOULDERS THE BURDEN OF THAT.

I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT I THINK THE PARKS CIP PROJECTS, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN DELIVERED TO US.

AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THIS NEXT BUDGET CYCLE BECAUSE WE WERE SO FOCUSED ON WATER, WASTEWATER, TRANSPORTATION LAST YEAR.

SO OF COURSE WE KNOCKED OUT A GOOD BIT OF THAT.

SO I THINK THAT THIS BUDGET CYCLE WE COULD REALLY FOCUS ON PARKS.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU, WE NEED TO DEFINITELY BE ABLE TO USE THAT MONEY FOR PROJECTS AND SPEND IT DOWN BECAUSE IT'S MONEY THERE.

IT SHOULDN'T JUST SIT. AND OUR PARKS DEFINITELY NEED A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT.

LOVE EXPANDING.

WE'RE DOWN ON OUR ACREAGE FOR THE CITY.

SO I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT OUT THERE SPENDING TIME AND ENERGY ON SOLAR LIGHTS AND WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT UP HERE.

WE MAY WANT THAT.

WE MAY NOT. I DON'T KNOW.

YEAH. MAYOR COUNCIL.

I CAN ASSURE YOU, IF THE ITEM ISN'T BUDGETED, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE THAT WE WILL SPEND.

SO WE WILL NOT SPEND IT WITHOUT COMING TO COUNCIL AND ASKING FOR APPROVAL AND AUTHORIZATION AND A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT SAID, THESE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW ARE THE EXACT TYPES OF THINGS THAT COME OUT OF YOUR STRATEGIC PLANNING INITIATIVE.

SO WHENEVER SO REMEMBER THEM.

WHENEVER WE GET TO MARCH AND WE'RE DOING STRATEGIC PLANNING, THAT'S WHEN YOU ALL AS A BODY WILL START DECIDING WHAT STAFF NEEDS TO PRIORITIZE OVER WHAT OTHER THINGS.

AND IF PARKS IS THE THING THAT WE'RE PRIORITIZING, THAT HELPS US AS WE COME AND START DEVELOPING OK WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BRING FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER? WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO IN THE WAY OF PLANNING? IF WE HAVE THE FRITZ PARK AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION ON FRITZ PARK, YOU KNOW, BRING ALL THAT INFORMATION TO COUNCIL SETTING THE PRIORITIES THAT THEN DRIVES THE STAFF'S REACTION TO TO WHAT THE COUNCIL IS SAYING.

IS THERE POLITICAL WILL? THAT'S HOW THE BUDGET PROCESS IS SUPPOSED TO WORK.

SO THAT WAY WE'RE PROPOSING THINGS THAT ARE IN LINE WITH WHAT GOALS YOU ALL WANT TO ACHIEVE.

BUT YOU SEE WHERE I'M COMING FROM. IF I DO, IF WE'RE PROPOSING A NEW ORDINANCE FOR REVENUE, LET'S CALL THIS A REVENUE ORDINANCE, THEN HOW MUCH? NOWHERE DOES IT SHOW US HOW MUCH WE ANTICIPATE IT TO.

GENERATE. AND SO WE CAN MEET ALL WE WANT IN MARCH.

BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE ANTICIPATED TO HAVE, THERE'S 2 MILLION SITTING THERE.

IF YOU GUYS SAY, LOOK, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LIKE AN EXTRA 3 MILLION THIS NEXT YEAR BUDGETED, THEN WE CAN HAVE IDEAS OF 5 MILLION PROJECTS.

BUT IF WE HAVE THIS SAME INFORMATION IN MARCH, WE CAN ONLY REALLY JUSTIFY 2 MILLION IN SPENDING.

AND JUST ANY TIME I SEE A FEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO START COLLECTING, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT WE SHOW THE PEOPLE WHO ARE PAYING THE FEES.

HERE'S SOME OF OUR PLANS.

AND I KNOW WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PARKS EMPLOYEE UP UNTIL I DON'T REMEMBER WHEN JEFF STARTED ABOUT SIX MONTHS AGO, SIX MONTHS AGO.

[01:10:06]

WELL, SO WE'VE ALREADY COME A LONG WAY IN THE PAST YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE NOW PRIORITIZING PARKS.

SO I JUST BRING THAT UP THAT A LIST OF PLANS, I GUESS I'M ASKING FOR WHAT STAFF THINKS IS IMPORTANT BASED ON THEIR FEEDBACK.

AND THEN WE CAN THEN DO THAT.

AND THEN BASED ON WHAT YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO BRING IN TERMS OF REVENUE, AND THEN WE MAY WANT TO THROW GENERAL REVENUE MONEY IN PROPERTY TAXES, I DON'T KNOW.

SO SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT.

FOR, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WAY OF SAYING IT.

WHERE WERE THE CART HAS GOTTEN BEFORE THE HORSE? THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE THIS ON THE BOOKS, YOU HAVE PROPERTIES THAT ARE COMING IN TO GET ENTITLED THAT DON'T HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE RULE BECAUSE IT'S NOT BEEN ADOPTED, BUT YET YOU DON'T HAVE THE MASTER PLAN IN PLACE AND ACCEPTED THAT WOULD TELL YOU WHAT FEE IS THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO BE COLLECTING.

SO THAT WAY YOU'RE IT'S KIND OF HOW YOU SET YOUR IMPACT FEES SO SO YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY REACTING IN A WAY THAT SURPRISES ME.

JUST KNOW THAT I DO KNOW THAT THE MASTER PLAN, THE PARKS PLAN IS IS SOMETHING THAT THAT JEFF HAS ON HIS LIST AND THE PARKS BOARD HAS ON THEIR LIST TO BE TO BE WORKING UPON. BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT IS IS COMING BEFORE YOU ALLOWS US AS DEVELOPERS ARE COMING IN AND ENTITLING NOW FOR US TO HAVE A WAY TO COLLECT FEES AND MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE CHANGE THAT NUMBER, THAT'S FINE TO MATCH WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE OVER HERE, BUT AT LEAST THE PEOPLE WHO GOT ENTITLED ARE CONTRIBUTING SOMETHING. SURE.

SO MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN IS THE FEE SCHEDULE GOING TO BE COMING BACK? IS IT GOING TO BE ON THE 19TH OR IS IT GOING TO BE IN FEBRUARY? SO IDEALLY, IT WAS IT WILL BE WE'RE LOOKING AT FORECASTING THE 16TH OF FEBRUARY IS THE DAY WE'LL DO THAT AND THE IDEALLY IN FEBRUARY 2ND, IF THIS GETS ADOPTED, WE'LL BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT TO THE PARKS MASTER PLAN WITH THIS UPDATED LANGUAGE IN IT.

AND THEN ON THE 16TH WE'LL HAVE THE PROPOSED FEE ANALYSIS COMPLETED FOR FOR THESE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS.

MY QUESTION HAS TO DO. THIS IS DETERMINED AT FINAL PLAT.

AS FAR AS WHEN IT'S GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, THROUGH PLANNING AND ZONING, WHATEVER IT GOES, FEES GET SET AT PLAT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FINAL PLOT. SO THE PLOT, DO THEY SET THE FEE AT THAT POINT IN TIME? AND THEN IF THEY DO PHASING, THEN THE DIFFERENT PHASES COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE DIFFERENT FEES.

BUT SO YEAH.

SO YES AND NO. IT'S AT PLOT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ALWAYS JUST FINAL PLOT.

OKAY. AND IF THEY DO A RE PLOTTING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT THEY DO A RE PLOT THEN THE, THEN THE RATES RESET.

SO I'M JUST WONDERING.

BETWEEN NOW AND.

FEBRUARY 16TH BECAUSE WE ALREADY KIND OF LAUGHED AT THE ACTUAL FEE SCHEDULE IN THE AMOUNT ARE WE GOING TO BE BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE LIKE I'M NOT TERRIBLY WORRIED COUNCIL MEMBER THAT THERE'S LIKE A LOT OF THINGS IN THE HOPPER WAITING TO GET ENTITLED THAT WOULD HAPPEN WITHIN TWO MEETINGS.

I'M NOT TERRIBLY WORRIED ABOUT.

I DON'T THINK IT'S A HUGE THREAT.

WELL, SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY GET ENTITLED.

SURE, POTENTIALLY.

BUT EVERYBODY LAST YEAR ALSO.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF THE THINKING OF COUNCIL.

WE THOUGHT, OH, WE PASS THIS IMPACT FEES.

WHERE ARE ALL THESE IMPACT FEES WHEN IN REALITY ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE DIDN'T GET HIT WITH THOSE FEES BECAUSE THEY HAD ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, THEY HAD ALREADY GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS. SO WHAT WE'RE THINKING MAY BE A REALLY LARGE LUMP SUM COMING INTO THE PARK LAND.

ALL OF THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS COMING ONLINE HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN THE PIPELINE FOR SOME TIME.

SO MORE THAN LIKELY, THESE NEXT COUPLE OF ONES THAT WE SEE OVER THE NEXT YEAR OR TWO MAY NOT EVEN BE CAPTURED IN THIS FEE.

SO I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, I GUESS.

BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE GOT A LOT OF ECONOMIC LEVELS WHICH MAY NOT BE HOMES AND THOSE AREN'T YET AND THEY ARE GOING TO BE COMING OVER THE NEXT YEAR.

I THINK THIS IS GREAT.

SO UNLESS I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED AND TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING.

SECOND, CAN WE DO IT ANYWAY, THE SECOND READING IN THE SAME ACTION, OR DO WE HAVE TO DO IT AND THEN DO IT AGAIN AS A SECOND, AS A WAY OF THE SECOND? I WOULD DO IT AND THEN DO AIDS.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY SUTTON COUNCIL MEMBER SETTING APPROVING NINE EIGHT IS PRESENTED.

DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? YES, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE., MAYOR SNYDER.

AYE., COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

AYE.. COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

AYE. SEVEN ZERO.

AND YOU STILL WISH TO READ THE SECOND READING? I DO, SIR. SECOND WAIVING OF THE SECOND READING BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[01:15:01]

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

THERE. SNYDER AYE.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS, BUT IS THERE A WAY TO.

GO BACK TO 93 AND WAIVE THE SECOND READING.

NO, BECAUSE IT'S A.

IT'S A UTILITY.

WE'VE GOT TO COME BACK. ALL RIGHT.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, THEN WE'LL TALK.

[10.1. Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution No. R-2023-005, approving the advance funding agreement for an on-system improvement project at FM 1660 South at US 79; and authorizing the City Manager to execute the agreement on behalf of the City of Hutto. (Wade Benton)]

WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM TEN.

ONE CONSIDERATION, POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER ART 2020 3-005, APPROVING THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR AN ON SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AT FM 1660 SOUTH AT US 79 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF HUTTO.

SO I DID HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

SO WITH US JUST PASSING THIS BUDGET IN SEPTEMBER, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE NUMBERS WERE PUTTING IN.

IN OUR AGENDA.

REPORTS ARE NOT MATCHING UP WITH WHAT WE PUT ON OUR THE CIP PLAN.

AND SO IT'S GOTTEN A LITTLE CONCERNED.

AND LIKE FOR INSTANCE, ON TEN ONE, IT SAID AVAILABLE BUDGET $4.583 MILLION.

AND WHEN I GO DOWN 1660 SOUTH AT 79.

WE HAVE 3.716.

SO WE'RE OFF ABOUT.

$800,000. LIKE NOW IT'S HIGHER.

THIS IS SAYING THE BUDGET FOR IT'S $800,000 IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IT WAS.

WE JUST PASSED THE BUDGET THREE MONTHS AGO.

AND SO THAT GOT ME.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, LIKE, I GUESS.

HOW'D ALL THAT HAPPEN? WELL, THE I THINK FROM WORKING WITH FINANCE, WE ARE ATTEMPTING TO GET ALL THAT SQUARED AWAY.

SO THE THE.

THE AVAILABLE BUDGET OR WHAT WAS SET UP IN THIS FISCAL YEAR.

BUDGET IS IS THE 3.6 OR 3.7 I THINK IS WHAT YOU SAID.

YEAH. AND REALLY THE WAY THIS IS SET UP.

AND I'LL TAKE THE BLAME FOR THIS IS THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE AS IT'S LISTED IS BASED ON THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THE AGREEMENT.

RIGHT. SO WHICH JUST MEANS THAT THAT'S THE MINIMUM I'LL CALL IT THE MINIMUM AMOUNT THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO PAY FOR THIS PROJECT.

SO WHAT'S BEEN ACTUALLY SPENT TO DATE IS A LITTLE LESS THAN 1 MILLION ON THIS PROJECT.

SO AND THAT INCLUDES DESIGN RIGHT AWAY.

COST, TOO, OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION.

THE CITY'S PORTION ON CONSTRUCTION.

SO WE DO NEED TO CLEAN UP THE DOLLARS ON THIS ONE TO GET THE THE THE BUDGET TO TO MATCH UP.

AND WE'LL WORK WITH FINANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT'S PRESENTED ACCURATELY.

YEAH. WHEN IT COMES TO THE ITEM AGENDA REPORT, RIGHT? CORRECT. YES. RIGHT.

IN MAYOR I'D ACTUALLY ASKED ONE OTHER THING OF OF STAFF AND I POSTED IT ON THE CITY FORM THAT I WANTED US TO START LOOKING AT AS WE GET TO.

PROBABLY I'LL HAVE TO WAIT TILL WE GET TO THE NEW BUDGETING SOFTWARE.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE.

BUT THEN HOW MUCH OF THAT EXPOSED PASSENGER IS ABOVE OR BELOW? WHAT WAS PART FOR THAT PORTION OF IT? IT'S LIKE, YES, YOU'VE GOT THE MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT, BUT DID YOU BLOW THROUGH WHAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SPEND FOR THIS PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME OF DESIGN OR WHATEVER? SO IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE'VE GOT 2.8.

WE SPENT WE HAVE 1.7 LEFT, BUT WE THINK THE REST OF THE PROJECT IS GOING TO NEED TO.

THEN WE'RE 250,000 SHORT, WHEREAS THAT'S NOT KIND OF LIKE THERE'S NO WAY TO SEE THAT FROM HERE.

SO THAT WAS THE UPDATE THAT I ASKED ABOUT ON THE.

I WANT TO GET A LITTLE BIT CLARIFICATION HERE FROM WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT ON THE FORM YESTERDAY.

100% AGREE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY NOT TO REHASH THREE MONTHS AGO, BUT I DON'T WANT TO BE BORROWING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS JUST TO HAVE IT SITTING THERE.

AND I KNOW THAT EVERY ESTIMATE IS THAT IT'S AN ESTIMATE THAT IT'S LIKE A WAG ESTIMATE AND A SWAG ESTIMATE.

AND THERE'S ONE THAT BASED ON.

LIKE TO BE BASED ON EVERY DAY THEY'RE DOING COST ESTIMATES.

THEY CAN SAY LOOK TO MOBILIZE A GROUP RIGHT NOW COST 50,000.

AND SO THEN OUR ESTIMATE OUGHT TO BE 50.

BUT IF IT COMES OUT AND WE'RE BUDGETING 20 AND EVERYBODY KNOWS IT'S 50 IN THE INDUSTRY AND YOU GET ALL THIS DONE AND WE END UP A MILLION OR 2 MILLION OFF.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO DIAL IT DOWN TOO MUCH BECAUSE THEN I KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.

THEN YOU OVER ESTIMATE TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD BE HAPPY IF YOU COME IN UNDER BUDGET.

[01:20:04]

RIGHT? RIGHT.

BUT THEN I GET JUST AS WORKED UP ON UNDER BUDGET BECAUSE I'M LIKE, WELL THEN WE JUST BROUGHT A BUNCH OF MONEY THAT WE DIDN'T NEED.

SO WHATEVER SOFTWARE WE NEED, AND I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS ARE USING AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET TO RUN BUDGETS, SO I GET THAT TOO, THAT I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW WE WELL, HOW WE CAN STILL FUNCTION.

BUT SO I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU'RE WORKING THROUGH.

ONE OF THE ONE OF THE COMPONENTS OF THE CIP REPORT THAT WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL IS THE PROJECT NAME, RIGHT? THE DESCRIPTION, WHAT IT WAS BUDGETED FOR, WHAT THE TASK ORDER IS ACTUALLY SET AT.

AND THEN THAT ALLOWS YOU TO KIND OF HAVE AN IDEA OF WHERE THOSE DELTAS ARE, AT LEAST ON THE UP FRONT PART.

THEN AS WE ACTUALLY EXPEND FUNDS, MAYBE WE DON'T EXPEND EVERYTHING OR WE SPEND LESS OR WE RUN INTO SOMETHING WE DIDN'T KNOW AND THEN WE'VE GOT TO AMEND THINGS.

BUT YOU'LL HAVE SOME PROJECTS THAT RUN OVER AND YOU'LL HAVE SOME PROJECTS THAT GO UNDER, BUT BUT WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT AND THE WHOLE PICTURE, YOU'RE NOT REALLY SURE IF YOU HAVE MORE PROJECTS RUNNING OVER IN A BAD WAY THAN YOU DO SAVINGS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

SO THAT'S ALL PART OF THE ATTEMPT OF DOING THE CIP REPORTS IS NOT JUST SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THAT PROGRESS IS BEING MADE, BUT ALSO SO AT LEAST THE BASIC INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO BE ABLE TO SPOT SOMETHING REALLY QUICK THAT SEEMS OUT OF A LINE YOU CAN DO.

WHAT WILL WE INCLUDE? LIKE HOW MUCH WE'VE SPENT TO DATE ON EVERY SINGLE ITEM? PROBABLY NOT, BECAUSE THOSE THOSE THOSE THINGS CAN COME IN BIG CHUNKS.

BUT AT THE VERY LEAST, ONCE WE GO OUT AND WE SCOPE SOMETHING AND WE SAY, HEY, THE TASK ORDER FOR THIS IS A MILLION BUCKS AND WE BUDGETED 900,000, THEN YOU CAN SEE THAT REAL QUICK BUDGETED 900,000 TASK ORDER 1 MILLION, RIGHT ON THE CIP ON THE SLIDES AND STUFF AS WE UPDATE THEM.

SO I HAVE A THOUGHT ON THAT AS WELL.

AT FIRST I LOOKED AT THE NUMBER AND ALSO KIND OF DID THE EYEBROW RAISE.

BUT IF YOU RECALL, WE GET 1.5 MILLION FROM THE CHRISTIE GRANT.

SO IF YOU ADD WHAT WE BUDGETED PLUS THE CHRISTIE GRANT FUNDS MINUS THE ROUGHLY 700,000 THAT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT, YOU GET THE NUMBER THERE, THE 4.5. YEAH, WE'RE NOT IN FINANCE.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF WHY THEY'RE SAYING THE AVAILABLE BUDGET IS 4.5.

I THINK THAT'S TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE CHRISTIE GRANT FUNDING GOING ON TOP OF WHAT WE APPROVED IN OUR BUDGET AND THEN MINUSES OUT THE 700,000 ROUGHLY THAT'S ALREADY GONE INTO IT WITH DESIGN.

SO IF YOU DO THAT, THAT COMES UP WITH ROUGHLY THAT 4.5 NUMBER.

SO WE KNOW HOW TO GET THE 4.5 BECAUSE THEY GAVE US SOME MATH ON THAT.

BUT I'M GETTING AT IS ON THE FISCAL NOTE PART ON THE SHEET WE PASS IN THE BUDGET.

LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THIS YEAR YOU SAID WE SPENT 700,000.

WE HAVE BUDGETED FISCAL YEAR 2023, 117,000.

I'M SAYING I'M SAYING JOB TO DATE.

IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. SO THAT'S SOME SENSE.

SO WHEN THIS SAYS 3.7 MILLION, IS THAT WHAT WE HAVE LEFT TO SPEND OR THAT'S WHAT THE PROJECT WAS.

THAT'S THAT IS THE THAT'S WHAT THE PROJECT WAS THE CITY'S PORTION FOR THE PROJECT.

OKAY. SO TOTAL PORTION.

SO YOU SEE WHAT I'M GETTING CONFUSED AGAIN, BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING IN THIS YEAR, 117,000 IS WRITTEN IN THIS NUMBER, BUT IN REALITY IT'S 707,000.

SO DOES THAT MEAN NEXT YEAR INSTEAD OF 3.1, IT'S ACTUALLY LIKE 2.7? OR DOES THAT MEAN IN FISCAL 25 WE DON'T NEED IT? BECAUSE AS WE START AS A COUNCIL, I REALLY DIG IT IN AND BORROWING WHAT WE NEED AS WE GO FORWARD, WHAT I WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS SOME WAY TO WHERE WHEN WE START PROJECTING THESE THINGS OUT, WE HAVE GOOD, ACCURATE PROJECTIONS BECAUSE TODAY AT 700,000, YOU GUYS MAY COME IN ON A BRIDGE AND SAY IT'S LIKE 12 MILLION OFF.

AND WE'RE LIKE, OH MY GOD, WE HAVE TO STOP CONSTRUCTION ON THE BRIDGE.

WE DIDN'T KNOW THAT. NOW, ANY TIME YOU HAVE PROJECTS THAT RUN MULTIPLE YEARS, IT JUST GETS COMPLICATED.

IT GETS COMPLICATED BECAUSE WE WE HAVE TO APPROPRIATE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS AND THEN THE PROJECTS LIVE LONGER THAN THAT.

SO WE'RE SPENDING MONEY AND THEN MOVING ON TO THE NEXT ANNUAL BASIS.

AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A WINDOW OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THAT YEAR OR WHAT WE EXPECT TO SPEND THAT YEAR.

ALTHOUGH OVERALL WE MIGHT SPEND $5 MILLION, WE MAY ONLY SPEND 300,000 THIS YEAR AND THEN 5 MILLION THIS YEAR, WHATEVER IT IS.

SO IT GETS COMPLICATED.

WE CAN WE CAN CERTAINLY TRY TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY OF SHOWING THAT MAYBE WE CAN PUT ON THERE LIKE FISCAL YEAR 20, FISCAL YEAR 21, FISCAL YEAR 22.

LIKE YOU CAN SEE WHAT WAS SPENT EACH FISCAL YEAR.

AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF STUFF THAT WE CAN ADD TO THE TO THE DETAIL OF THE INFORMATION.

AND WE DID GET THAT.

AND THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHAT SOME OF WHAT THE MAYOR IS REFERRING TO.

BUT MINE WITH THOSE EXACT NUMBERS IS DATED FROM JULY 20TH OF 2022.

SO THAT OBVIOUSLY COST OF EVERYTHING IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FINANCIALLY AND DIFFERENT.

SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME NUMBERS FROM JULY, I MEAN ROUGHLY.

I'VE DONE SOMETHING.

I SHOULDN'T CHANGE THAT DRASTICALLY.

I DON'T DISAGREE, BUT DEFINITELY CHANGES ARE TO BE EXPECTED WITH ANY SORT OF CONSTRUCTION BUDGET.

[01:25:03]

SO I'M NOT ARTICULATING SOMETHING RIGHT.

THIS IS IN A BUDGET THAT WE WE JUST APPROVED.

WE JUST APPROVE THIS THREE MONTHS AGO.

IT ONLY SAYS 117,000.

THAT'S WHAT THIS SAYS FROM JULY 20TH OR 2022.

OKAY. SO MY POINT BEING, CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE NOT SKYROCKETED IN THREE MONTHS.

IF ANYTHING, THEY'VE COME DOWN.

AND IF WE'VE ALREADY SPENT I'M SURE YOU GUYS DIDN'T SPEND 700,000 IN THE PAST 60 DAYS ON A PROJECT.

ALL I'M ASKING IS WE'VE GOT TO HAVE MORE ACCURATE NUMBERS WHEN WE'RE DOING BUDGETS, BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE RAN OUT OF MONEY AS A CITY ONCE BEFORE, BECAUSE AND I'M NOT SURE WHO'S DOING IT, BUT IF WE HAVE 115,000 OUR BUDGET AND IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE CLOSER TO A MILLION, I MEAN, WE JUST STARTED THE YEAR.

WE HAVE NINE MORE MONTHS.

WE'VE ALREADY SPENT 700.

WHAT IS THAT NUMBER REALLY SUPPOSED TO BE? IS IT 2 MILLION? IS IT 3 MILLION? AND THANK GOD WE BORROWED MORE MONEY.

AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM WAS RIGHT.

WE SHOULD HAVE BORROWED MORE MONEY BECAUSE I LOOKED AT 15 MILLION IN PROJECTS AND I SAID, WE NEED LIKE 20, WE SHOULD BE FINE.

BUT NOW MAYBE WE NEED NOT 15, 17.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET, IS THE INFORMATION WE GOT WHEN WE'RE NINE MONTHS INTO THE FISCAL YEAR.

I GET IT, THE NUMBERS GET FURTHER APART.

BUT DANG, I MEAN, WE'RE IN Q1 AND ALREADY.

WE HAVE DRASTIC CHANGES, WHICH MAKES ME NOT TRUST THE NUMBERS.

WE HAD TO DO THE BUDGET, BUT THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT AS SOMEHOW WE NEED BETTER SOFTWARE, BETTER, I DON'T KNOW SOMETHING THAT WAY.

I AND OTHERS CAN TRUST THE NUMBERS AND KNOWING THAT WHEN YOU PUT A MILLION, THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T COME IN 1,000,001 OR MEAN TWO OR SOMETIMES 2 MILLION, BUT.

THAT'S ALL I'M GETTING AT. I'M JUST PULLING NUMBERS OUT OF THE BUDGET.

BUT OH, AND IN THAT IT SHOWS IT GOES TO ORGAN STREET.

YOU WERE ASKING BEFORE.

RIGHT. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING, BECAUSE I SAW IT IN THERE.

BUT THEN I'D NEVER HEARD WE WERE GOING TO THE GAME BEFORE.

ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO WE GET? WE'VE ALREADY BEEN AWARDED THE CHRISTIE GRANT, CORRECT? YES.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

THE RESOLUTION ARE TO ZERO 20 3-005 APPROVING THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR AN ON SYSTEM IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR 1660 SOUTH AT US 79 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THAT AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF HUTTO.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

YOU KNOW THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

AYE. TEM GORDON.

AYE. MAYOR SNYDER.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON. AYE.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

NEXT WE HAVE ITEM TEN TO CONSIDERATION.

[10.2. Consideration and possible action to approve Resolution No. R-2023-006 to award the FM 1660 North at US 79 Operational Improvements Project (CSJ No. 1566-01-017) to the lowest responsive bidder, Aaron Concrete Contractors, in the amount of $637,042.00 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract with Aaron Concrete Contractors. (Wade Benton).]

POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER ART 2020 3006 TO AWARD THE FM 1660 NORTH AT US 79 OPERATIONAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CCGG NUMBER 1566201017 TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIVE BIDDER.

AARON CONCRETE CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $637,042 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH AARON CONCRETE CONTRACTORS.

SO I HAD A QUESTION ON THIS ONE ORIGINALLY.

OBVIOUSLY, THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE WAS 440,000 CAME IN AT 637.

MY QUESTION IS, WHEN DID AGENT B PROVIDE THAT ESTIMATE? BECAUSE IF THEY GAVE THAT ESTIMATE IN OCTOBER AND THEN THEY'RE OFF BY 33% THREE MONTHS LATER, THAT'S AN ISSUE.

IF THEY PROVIDED THAT ESTIMATE TWO YEARS AGO AND THEN FOR TWO YEARS WE DIDN'T DO THE PROJECT AND NOW WE GET TO 600,000.

IT'S A LITTLE MORE UNDERSTANDABLE.

SO THAT WAS KIND OF MY ONE QUESTION THAT I HAD ABOUT IT.

SO THEIR THEIR ESTIMATE WAS PROVIDED PRIOR TO TO START APPROVING THE LETTING, WHICH WAS BACK IN LATE SUMMER. I WILL SAY TO YOUR POINT, THOUGH, THAT AND TEXT JUST RELEASED THE NUMBERS THIS LAST WEEK, WHICH THEY DO ON A MONTHLY BASIS, ENGINEERS ARE HAVING A HARD TIME BEING THE LOW BIDDER ON PROJECTS ARE THE NUMBERS ARE GOING UP SOME CRAZY PERCENTAGES.

I MEAN I'M JUST GOING TO SAY THERE'S DOUBLE DIGIT INCREASES OVER THE LAST 6 TO 9 MONTHS ON A VARIETY OF PROJECTS ALL OVER THE STATE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS DISTRICT.

THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, AS YOU NOTICED, WE HAD TWO BIDDERS.

[01:30:03]

OUR CONTRACTOR I'VE HAD WORKED WITH THEM IN THE PAST ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS.

THEY DO PROJECTS ALL OVER THIS AREA.

WE WENT OUT AND BEAT THE BUSHES ON THIS ONE TO GET BIDDERS.

WE EXTENDED THE BID DATE TO TRY TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL BIDDERS AS WELL.

I WAS FRANKLY DISAPPOINTED.

WE ONLY GOT TWO BIDDERS, BUT WE DID AND OBVIOUSLY ONE OF THEM WAS WAS WAY OFF THE MARK.

THE OTHER ONE WAS A LITTLE CLOSER TO WHAT WE HAD ESTIMATED, BUT UNFORTUNATELY IT WAS GREATER THAN THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE AT THE TIME.

I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I'VE SEEN THIS ON A NUMBER OF PROJECTS ALL OVER THE STATE IN THE LAST YEAR ON PROJECTS WE'VE BEEN DEALING WITH.

SO IT'S NOT UNCOMMON.

IT'S UNFORTUNATE. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, I FELT LIKE WE'VE GOT A GOOD CONTRACTOR FOR THIS PROJECT AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD THE RECOMMENDATION FOR AWARD.

SO MY FOLLOW UP TO THAT, IF YOU WILL INDULGE ME FOR A SECOND, IS THAT IS THAT IT SHOWS OUR AVAILABLE BUDGET WAS 674,000.

SO WAS THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU STAFF THOUGHT THE NUMBER WAS GOING TO COME IN AT OR IS THAT THE 674 WAS ASSUMING YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE A 400,000 FOR THIS PHASE AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER 200,000 THAT NEEDS TO BE SPENT ON ANOTHER PART OF THE PROJECT THAT NOW WE'RE $200,000 IN THE HOLE FOR THIS ENTIRE PROJECT.

AND THAT WAS KIND OF WHERE I WAS LEADING TO WITH THE MY COMMENTS ON THE FORUM IS THAT IT WAS SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THIS ITEM FOR THAT.

SO THAT WAS A LITTLE CLARIFICATION I WANTED AS WELL.

RIGHT. WELL, THAT BUDGET WAS BASED ON OUR BEST INFORMATION WE HAD AT THE TIME AND AND THIS PAST SUMMER BASED ON THE CURRENT ESTIMATE FOR THE PROJECT.

SO. YOU KNOW, WE TRY TO BE HAVE SOME SOME BUFFER THERE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBERS ARE WHAT THEY ARE AT THIS POINT.

SO RIGHT NOW, WE'RE STILL COMING UNDER BUDGET, IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE CASE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT.

SO LET ME ASK THIS. WHAT HAVE WE SPENT TO DATE? GOT THAT ANSWER YET? WELL, I JUST MENTIONED THAT WHILE AGO ON THE.

WHAT WE SPENT TODAY IS ABOUT $900,000 FOR THIS PROJECT.

I'M SORRY. THAT WAS ON THE SOUTH PROJECT.

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME FOR THIS ONE.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE I'D LIKE TO SEE IN THESE PACKETS, BECAUSE THE BUDGET, AS I SEE IT, WAS $566,610, AGAIN, AS APPROVED THE WEEK BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST.

SO WE'RE TALKING THREE MONTHS AGO, 566.

YOU'VE GOT THE NUMBERS THAT THEY CAME IN AND SAID X AMOUNT.

AND I DON'T EVEN WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE SPENT TO DATE.

AND SO THIS STUFF ALWAYS SCARES ME.

WE MAY HAVE SPENT $2 MILLION ON ENGINEERING FOR A $500,000 PROJECT, AND NO ONE CAN TELL ME I'M WRONG BECAUSE NO ONE REALLY KNOWS.

THE OTHER THING YOU'RE SAYING THIS COST IS UP.

ARE YOU SAYING BECAUSE INFLATION.

I'M SAYING BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF ALL THE ACTIVITY IN THE AREA ACROSS THE STATE.

I MEAN, THE LATEST NUMBER I SAW ON THE TECH SIDE INCREASE WAS AN 18% INCREASE FOR THEIR UNIT PRICES.

AND THEY TRACK THESE ON EVERY PROJECT THAT GETS LED ACROSS THE STATE BY DISTRICT.

HERE'S WHAT I GET AGAIN, I GET CONFUSED.

EASY. THERE'S A LETTER IN NOVEMBER 18, 2022 THAT I BELIEVE THEY WROTE YOU AND THEY SAID, HEY, HERE'S THE BIDS FOR AARON AND DIRT.

THE LOWEST BIDDER WAS AARON.

AND THEY SAY THAT THEY ATTRIBUTE THE HIGHER THAN EXPECTED PRICE IS DUE TO THE SMALL QUANTITIES OF WORK RELATED TO ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION AND UNIQUE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED BY THE PROJECT.

SO IS IT BECAUSE OF INFLATION OR BECAUSE OF SOMETHING TO DO WITH A STORM DRAIN SYSTEM THAT.

AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING OUT THERE, BUT WE'VE GOT MINOR STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS ON THIS PROJECT.

THIS IS A RELATIVELY SMALL PROJECT FOR OUR TRANSPORTATION PROJECT AROUND HERE.

THERE ARE SOME SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS WITH THAT.

THE MATERIAL COST ON THE SIGNALS ARE VARYING WIDELY.

TRAFFIC SIGNAL COST OF.

NOT QUITE DOUBLED, BUT THEY'VE INCREASED SIGNIFICANTLY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE'VE SEEN THAT IN A NUMBER OF AREAS.

SO I CAN'T ADDRESS HIS PARTICULAR COMMENTS ON WHAT HE'S ATTRIBUTING IT TO.

BUT I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST YEAR.

OH YEAH. AND I'M TRYING TO STAND H AND TO BE SENDING LETTERS TO THE CITY SAYING, HERE'S WHY THE COSTS ARE HIGHER, BUT THEIR REASONS ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY'S REASONS. AND I'M JUST AGAIN, I'M LOOKING AT IT LIKE.

I'D LIKE THE INFORMATION PRESENTED TO MATCH UP, OR YOU JUST COME UP AND SAY H AND TBS LYING TO US OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE CASE IS.

[01:35:05]

BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S A SMALL PROJECT TODAY, BUT WE'RE BUILDING A $40 MILLION BRIDGE THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO BE OFF 20 TO 30% ON THAT.

SO WHATEVER WE'RE DOING, WHEN I SEE THESE, YOU GUYS PUT A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE AND I APPRECIATE IT BECAUSE I READ UNFORTUNATELY, I READ EVERY PAGE.

AND THE REASON IT STUCK TO ME IS.

CUSTOMER, CLARK PUT SOMETHING ABOUT LIKE POSSIBLY INFLATION.

I WAS LIKE, WELL, NO, IT'S NOT INFLATION.

IT'S SOME KIND OF UNIQUE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, WHICH I'M LIKE, HOW UNIQUE IS IT TO BE THAT FAR OFF? BECAUSE WHAT I WAS GETTING AT THEN IS.

THE ENGINEERS ENGINEERED THIS THING, AND I WOULD THINK AFTER THEY SURVEYED IT, THEY GOT SOME [INAUDIBLE] BILLS.

THEY DID ALL THAT THEY WOULD ALREADY HAVE.

BY THE TIME WE APPROVED OUR BUDGET, THEY WOULD ALREADY KNOW THERE WAS A UNIQUE ISSUE AS ARE DESIGNING IT AND FOR THE UNIQUE ISSUE TO COME OUT AFTER THEY'VE DESIGNED IT AND AFTER THEY BID IT OUT PUTS US AT A DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE.

I DON'T WANT TO I DON'T WANT TO BE I GUESS I DON'T LIKE BEING CAUGHT OFF GUARD WITH UNIQUE STORM DRAIN ISSUES THAT I WOULD THINK AN ENGINEER WOULD KNOW WHEN THEY WERE IN THE 30% PHASE OR 60% PHASE OF DESIGNING IT.

NOT THAT IT WOULD. IT REAR UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A BID.

BUT SO ANYWAY.

SOMEHOW, AND I'M SURE THE SOFTWARE WILL HELP THAT JAMES IS TALKING ABOUT, BUT.

AS WE START TALKING $110 MILLION IN PROJECTS.

I JUST WANT US TO GET SHARPENED PENCILS A LITTLE BIT MORE ON HOW WE'RE GETTING OUR NUMBERS.

AND ALSO WHEN WE I KNOW WHEN YOU DO, IT'S PROBABLY BLIND BIDDING, BUT YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT WHEN YOU HAVE A RELATIONSHIP AND WE GET SOME STUFF, THEY'RE SAYING IT'S A SMALL JOB, BUT WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING LOTS OF ROAD CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENTS.

WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE A PRESENTATION NEXT COUNCIL MEETING OF WHERE WE'RE GOING TO IDENTIFY PROBABLY SOME GENERAL FUND DOLLARS TO GO IMPROVE SOME ROADS IN HUTTO IF THIS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY KNOWS THAT THEY WOULD BE A POSSIBLE BIDDER ON THAT, THEN MAYBE WE GET A LOWER PRICE ON THIS BECAUSE NOW THEIR CREWS ARE ALREADY OUT HERE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE TRYING TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO BE.

TO GET THE BEST PRICE POSSIBLE.

SO EVEN IF YOU HAVE A SMALL JOB, IF YOU CAN COMBINE THREE OR FOUR SMALL JOBS, THEN WE MIGHT GET A REASONABLE PRICE ON ALL THREE OF THEM INSTEAD OF WE BID OUT THREE SEPARATE SMALL JOBS. ALL OF THEM COME IN 40% HIGH BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO GET THEIR MARGINS AND THEIR SMALL JOBS RIGHT.

AND SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY OTHER QUESTIONS ON WHEN YOU MAKE THIS STATEMENT ABOUT WHEN YOU SAW THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE SMALL JOB, BECAUSE I'M LIKE, WELL, WE'VE GOT LOTS OF JOBS IN HUTTO. SO I DON'T.

RIGHT. AND TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, ON ON THE FRAME SWITCH PROJECT AND SHADOW, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE DID.

WE BUNDLED THOSE THREE INTO ONE PROJECT.

THERE IS A NEED TO GET THIS PROJECT UNDERWAY.

AND I WOULD BE LYING TO YOU IF I TOLD YOU I WAS DISAPPOINTED IN THE NUMBER OF BIDDERS AND WHERE WE ENDED UP ON THE BID COMPARED TO OUR ESTIMATE.

BUT I DO FEEL LIKE WE HAVE A GOOD CONTRACTOR HERE THAT CAN GET THE WORK DONE QUICKLY.

THIS CONTRACT IS SET UP BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF IT.

IT'S IT'S SOME SIGNAL WORK AND THEN THERE'S SOME A LITTLE BIT OF PAVING WORK FOR THE RIGHT TURN LANE.

THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT LEAD TIMES ON POLES AND SIGNAL EQUIPMENT.

AND SO PART OF THIS CONTRACT IS AN EARLY NOTICE TO PROCEED THAT ALLOWS THE CONTRACTOR TO ORDER THAT EQUIPMENT.

AND NO WORK CAN START UNTIL THAT EQUIPMENT'S IN HAND.

IT'S PROBABLY A 90 DAY CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME ONCE THAT MATERIAL IS HERE.

SO, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HUGE PROJECT, BUT IT IS ONE THAT'S OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY AND WE'D LIKE TO SEE IT MOVE FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT. LAST QUESTION FOR YOU GUYS.

DO WE GO BACK AND WE HAVE A PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST OR SOMETHING, RIGHT? YES, WE DO. WE HAVE A PROCUREMENT PERSON.

YES. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THESE TWO.

THEY GO BACK AND TALK TO THEM LIKE, HEY, DID YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE OF WORK COMPLETELY OR DID YOU? WE SEE SOME MAJOR DISCREPANCIES BECAUSE I KNOW, LIKE WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME AT WORK TOO, WHERE YOU COME IN REALLY LOW, WE GO TO MISS SOMETHING BECAUSE WE GENERALLY KNOW LIKE WHATEVER A SQUARE YARD OF CONCRETE IS GOING TO CAUSE.

THE REASON I ASK THAT IS LIKE ONE OF THE ITEMS AND TONY'S GOING TO SHOOT ME.

SO I WON'T SAY THE COMPANY NAME, BUT TONY, THE CONDUIT PVC SCHEDULE 43 INCH.

SO THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE IS 4300.

AARON CAME IN AT 10,300.

THE OTHER GROUPS, $150,000.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S LIKE, HEY, WE'RE SO BUSY.

WE'RE JUST GONNA THROW SOME NUMBERS ON THERE.

BUT I JUST WANTED DO WE EVER GO BACK AND SAY, GUYS, I MEAN, WE WANT TO DO BUSINESS WITH YOU, BUT YOU CAN'T.

YOU'VE GOT TO BE, YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT REALISTIC BECAUSE EITHER HE'S RIGHT OR THE ENGINEER, WHICH WE ALREADY SAID SOMETIME IS OFF OR ARENDT'S OFF, BUT. AND IT'S RIDDLED WITH THAT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER DO THAT TO KIND OF WORK WITH THEM, ALMOST LIKE, HEY, WE DON'T WANT WE DON'T WANT YOU, BUT WE ALSO WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE THE SIDEWALK WAS THIS WAY.

IT WAS WE HAD ONE REALLY CHEAP AND TWO REALLY FAR OFF.

[01:40:01]

AND I DO KNOW THAT FROM SMALL JOBS IT WOULD BE NICE TO PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.

BUT MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY DON'T BECAUSE THEY'RE ALWAYS CHASING THE NEXT BIG JOB.

AND TO MOBILIZE FOR A JOB IS GOING TO TAKE WHATEVER THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A MONTH OR TWO.

IT'S NOT WORTH THEIR TIME, LIKE BUILD AN OVERPASS IF YOU WANT TO SAVE SOME MONEY.

YOU KNOW, BUILD, BUILD, LIKE THE SOUTHEAST LOOP.

YOU'LL DO THAT CHEAPER. BUT I JUST BRING THAT UP TO I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DOING IT.

YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING.

JUST DON'T IT OUT THERE THAT OTHER PRIVATE INDUSTRY DOES THAT ALL THE TIME AND MAYBE THESE GUYS CAN SEE THEIR MISTAKES.

YEAH, I'VE CERTAINLY SEEN BIDS REJECTED BEFORE.

YEAH. BECAUSE THEY, THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO BE IN LINE WITH WHAT REALITY OR EXPECTATIONS WERE.

SO IT CERTAINLY HAPPENS.

THERE'S NOT A A SIT DOWN AND NEGOTIATE TYPE BACK AND FORTH ON ON LINE ITEMS BUT THERE CERTAINLY HAS BEEN A NUMEROUS NUMEROUS PROJECTS WHERE THE BIDS HAVE JUST OUTRIGHT BEEN REJECTED AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK OUT AND START AGAIN.

YEAH, AND I'M NOT SAYING NEGOTIATE, JUST I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS.

YEAH. DO WE GO BACK AND SAY, HEY, LOOK, THE REASON BECAUSE IF THEY ALWAYS MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AND ALWAYS GET REJECTED, WE'RE LOSING A PERSON.

BUT THAT'S WHY THEY KNOW, HEY, THE REASON WE DIDN'T GO WITH YOU IS SOME OF YOUR NUMBERS WERE LIKE, YOU KNOW, 25 TIMES WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING.

SO MAYBE YOU GUYS GOT A FORMULA WRONG IN YOUR SPREADSHEET, OR MAYBE THAT'S JUST WHAT YOU'RE SURE? I MEAN, THAT'S THAT'S MORE RELATIONSHIP TYPE STUFF.

SURE. NO KNOW.

I'LL HEAR ABOUT IT FROM TONY. SO.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? YEAH, I JUST GENUINELY THINK IT WAS MORE OF A MISTAKE WHENEVER THEY WERE PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

SO AGAIN, IF WE GO BACK TO OUR PROJECT WORKSHEETS FOR THESE PROJECTS, WHENEVER THEY WERE PRESENTED BACK IN JULY, THESE NUMBERS, THEY'RE NOT PERFECT, BUT THE ACTUAL RIGHT OF WAY AND DESIGN.

WAS THE 444,000.

THE TOTAL PROJECT WAS 1.3.

SO THE REMAINING PART, IF THEY ADD, THEY ARE ESTIMATING 511 FOR CONSTRUCTION AND THEN CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES AND THEN MANAGEMENT 3%. SO IF YOU ADD THAT 511, THE 40 AND THE 15, YOU ROUGHLY COME UP WITH A 566.

SO I'M WONDERING IF SOMETHING SOMEHOW IS GETTING JUST I THINK WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THE INFORMATION AND I JUST DON'T THINK IT GOT TRANSFERRED OR PUT INTO THE BUDGET OR PACKET.

CORRECTLY, BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE CONSTRUCTION AND THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES SHOULD HAVE ROUGHLY BEEN ABOUT 551 AND THEN THIS IS 637. NOW, WHILE THAT IS STILL AN INCREASE, IT'S ABOUT 10% OR ROUGHLY MAYBE TEN, 12%, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT MORE.

YEAH. SO. SO THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

YEAH, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AT PLAY.

ONE'S THE ENGINEER ESTIMATE, WHICH IS JUST THE ENGINEER.

WE THINK BIDS WILL COME IN AT X.

AND THEN THERE'S THE WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR.

RIGHT. AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE BUDGETED MORE THAN WHAT THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE WAS WE CONSUME BECAUSE THIS IS ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WENT OVER YEARS.

SO WE CONSUME MONEY IN THE PAST THAT ISN'T REFLECTED IN THE CURRENT BUDGET.

BUT OVERALL, THIS LOOKS TO ME TO BE ABOUT 110,000 OVER BUDGET.

SO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME.

SOMETHING AROUND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S THE TYPE OF STUFF THAT UNTIL WE CAN UNTIL WE CAN GET BETTER WITH THE WAY THAT WE REPORT DATA AND THE WAY THAT WE SEE DATA AND THE WAY THAT WE INTERACT WITH IT, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GET TO THESE THINGS UNTIL UNTIL LIKE THIS PARTICULAR QUESTION GETS ASKED.

IT'S LIKE, WELL, WHAT DID WE SPEND IN THE PAST? WELL, IT'S GOOD FOR US TO HEAR THAT YOU ALL WANT TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT IN A FORMAT THAT IS EASILY DIGESTIBLE, PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE WE WERE ALREADY PLANNING TO DO IT ANYWAY.

BUT THAT JUSTIFIES THE PATH THAT WE'RE GOING ON AND LETS US KNOW THIS IS THE TYPE OF DATA THAT COUNCIL IS LOOKING FOR.

SO LET ME MAYBE ASK YOU THIS WAY.

I THINK THIS IS WHERE SOME OF US ARE GETTING CONFUSED, INCLUDING MYSELF.

SO WHEN IT SAYS AVAILABLE BUDGET 674,000, THAT'S AVAILABLE BUDGET FOR THE PROJECT.

YEAH. CARDLESS OF YEAR REGARDLESS OF BUDGET YEAR.

THAT'S HOW MUCH WE WE BUDGETED FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PROJECT.

AND I THINK A LOT OF US ARE LOOKING AT, WELL, WE ONLY BUDGETED X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS THIS YEAR AND WE'RE NOT KIND OF WE'RE NOT KIND OF MAKING THAT LINK THAT, LIKE YOU SAID, PROJECTS GO OVER MULTIPLE YEARS.

AND SO IF WE COULD SEE AGAIN THAT HERE'S THE HERE'S THE AVAILABLE BUDGET FOR THIS PROJECT, X AMOUNT OF IT WAS SPENT LAST YEAR, HERE'S HOW MUCH BUDGET WE HAVE THIS YEAR AND HERE'S WHERE WE'RE ON TRACK, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'VE I'VE MENTIONED TO YOU MULTIPLE TIMES, IS I JUST WANT TO SAY IT'S HARD FOR ME TO TELL FROM THIS IF WE'RE ON TRACK OR NOT.

I JUST I CAN'T TELL THAT.

SO WE WILL CERTAINLY START TO INCLUDE BETTER INFORMATION IN THAT REGARD.

SO IT'S IT'S MUCH CLEARER.

[01:45:02]

BUT THIS IS ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT LOOKS TO BE SLIGHTLY OVERBUDGET OVERALL BY THE TIME YOU INCLUDE WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY SPENT UP TO DATE, SO ON AND SO FORTH.

AND THEN THERE WILL BE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WILL BE UNDER BUDGET.

BUT IF YOU CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'VE SPENT AND WHAT YOU'VE BUDGETED IN THE PAST AND THEN HOW ALL THAT NETS OUT, YOU CAN'T YOU CAN'T SEE THAT SO EASILY.

SO WE WILL START TO ADDRESS THAT AND GET IT RESOLVED TO WHERE IT'S IN THE DATA THAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU ALL.

SO I ASSUME THAT THIS WILL THEN BE A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

THE SEMIANNUAL THAT YOU'RE GOING TO COME WITH IN MARCH WILL BE ADDING THIS 110,000 TO THAT.

I'LL HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE HOW THE BUDGET WAS ACTUALLY SET UP, BECAUSE IF IT IF IT WAS BUDGETED BY ACTUAL PROJECT AND WE'RE GOING TO EXCEED THE PROJECT, THEN YES, THAT REQUIRES A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

YEAH, IT WASN'T I'D LIKE TO GET TO THAT POINT ONE DAY BECAUSE I THINK THE BEST SCORECARD FOR THE TAXPAYER IS.

UNDER BUDGET ON TIME, AHEAD OF SCHEDULE, UNDER BUDGET, BUT WE KIND OF DO JUST A BIG LUMP SUM.

AND SO WE'RE ALWAYS WE'RE ALWAYS DOING GOOD JOBS AND THEN WE END UP ONE DAY GOING WE NEED MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE GOT MORE PROJECTS.

AND SO NO ONE REALLY KNOWS. BUT YEAH, YOUR SOFTWARE, I THINK TO HELP US GET GET IT THERE, WE'RE SAYING BUDGET NUMBERS FROM OCTOBER, BUT MY NUMBERS MATCH THIS JULY 20TH FROM JULY 20TH.

NICE AND CLEAR. THOSE NUMBERS THAT GO UP ON THE BUDGET IS FROM JULY 20TH.

SO IT'S REALLY NOT JUST IT'S WHEN WE APPROVED IT WAS THREE MONTHS AGO, BUT THE NUMBERS ARE THE EXACT SAME FROM A MEETING WE HAD IN JULY.

SO. I THINK IN THAT FACT AND KIND OF FACTOR IN INFLATION AND ALL THE OTHER COSTS AS WELL.

MORE THAN JUST THREE MONTHS.

WE'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE SPENT ALREADY.

NO, I'M JUST SAYING THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT WE JUST APPROVED IN THE BUDGET WERE THE EXACT SAME NUMBERS WE WERE PRESENTED WITH IN JULY.

RIGHT. THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN THE ITEM AGENDA REPORT, I THINK IS WHERE SOME OF THE ISSUE IS.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING LIKE THE ITEM AGENDA REPORT THAT AVAILABLE BUDGET AND THAT NUMBER WAS EXACTLY WHAT WE APPROVED.

I'D HAVE A WHOLE LOT LESS QUESTIONS, BUT WHEN IT'S OFF, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW DID THAT BUDGET NUMBER GET INCREASED AND WHERE IS THAT AT AND WHO MADE THAT CHANGE SINCE WE DIDN'T MAKE THAT CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK THIS 674 ISN'T BY FISCAL YEAR.

YEAH, NO, LOOK, IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, I CAN TELL WHAT HAPPENED.

WHAT HAPPENED WAS, IS THAT THEY KEYED IT IN WRONG.

THEY KEYED IN WHAT THIS PURCHASE ORDER TASK ORDER IS, PLUS THE EXTRA 37,000.

THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING FOR RIGHT AWAY.

AND THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT GOT PUT IN FOR THE AVAILABLE BUDGET RATHER THAN THE ACTUAL BUDGET NUMBER.

SO IT JUST GOT PUT INTO THE WRONG PLACE WHEN IT GOT KEYED IN.

AND SO THAT'S AND THAT'S WHY NOBODY CAN GET TO THE RIGHT NUMBER.

EXACTLY. IT'S BECAUSE IF YOU ADD IF YOU ADD WHAT THIS TASK ORDER IS FOR, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AWARD AND YOU ADD IN THE EXCESS MONEY, THAT SHOULD LEAVE YOU WITH THE OTHER NUMBER, DOES THAT LOOK RIGHT? TO, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE.

GOING BACK HOWEVER MANY YEARS WE GOT TO GO BACK.

WHAT WAS THE BUDGET FOR THIS PROJECT? NO, THAT'S NOT. YES, SIR, IT WAS.

THAT'S WHEN I SEE LIKE AVAILABLE WHEN I START SEEING, LIKE THE BUDGET OF THE PROJECT.

MAYBE IT'S A TERMINOLOGY THING.

I'M THINKING, WHAT DID WE WHEN WE FIRST SAID, LET'S GO DOWN THIS ROAD AND DO THIS PROJECT, WHAT WAS THAT BUDGET 1.3, FIVE, FIVE, NINE, TEN AND WHAT HAVE WE SPENT YEAR TO DATE AND WHAT STUFF? BECAUSE THIS SAYS DO I? 20 444,587 AND THAT DATE BEING 720 IS THE LAST ONE THAT I HAVE AN UPDATE ON.

IT SAYS 37,000.

ONE, AND I THINK THE NUMBER IS FIVE LEFT AND IT'S BASED ON THE MILLION.

OR IS THAT BASED ON.

YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? I DO.

THAT'S WHY WE GOT TO GET ALL THIS CLEANED UP TO WHERE IT'S EASIER TO SEE.

AND I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE DEALING WITH.

UNFORTUNATELY, WE STILL DEAL WITH THE PAST ISSUES, SO I GET IT.

JUST A GENERAL COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE THE FISCAL NOTE PORTION OF THE PACKET, ALTHOUGH IT DOES NEED TO BE CLEANED UP AND BE ERROR FREE.

I LIKE THAT THERE'S MORE DETAIL IN THAT AND JUST MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S GREAT HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE CITY OR HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST THE CITY OR OBVIOUSLY IF WE'RE IN BUDGET WITH WHAT'S BEEN ALLOTTED, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

ON THE PACKET SO.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR ACTION FOR THIS ITEM.

MOTION TO APPROVE. 10.2 IS PRESENTED.

MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

WE HAVE A SECOND ACCOUNT.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER KINSEY AYE.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

[01:50:04]

NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 11 ONE CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023-005 APPROVING A

[11.1. Conduct a Public Hearing and take possible action on Ordinance No. 2023-005 approving a Revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning ordinance request for the property known as 411, 421, 431 and 441 Ed Schmidt Boulevard Planned Unit Development (PUD), 4.30 acres, more or less, of land, Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 of the Emory Farms Commercial Subdivision, located on Ed Schmidt Boulevard. (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) a. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2023-005 to dispense with the second reading pursuant to Hutto City Charter Article 3, Section 3.13. (Legal)]

REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 411 421 431 AND 441 SCHMITT BOULEVARD PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HUD 4.30 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOTS, TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE OF THE EMORY FARMS COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED ON EDGE SCHMIDT BOULEVARD.

THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS TO THE PUBLIC HEARING.

HEARING NONE PUBLIC HEARING AT 851.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? SEEING. NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 851.

GOOD EVENING, ASHLEY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

YOU MAY RECALL THAT YOU SAW THIS BACK IN AUGUST OF 22 BECAUSE THE MINOR MODIFICATION IN THE PUD DOES NOT STATE THAT A SITE LAYOUT SATISFIES A MINOR MODIFICATION OF PART OF THAT PIE.

I CAN'T DO THIS ADMINISTRATIVELY.

THIS IS WHY IT'S BACK BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

SO YOU MAY RECALL THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL PAD THAT WAS DONE BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2020.

IT ALSO INCLUDED THE FOUR STORY HOTEL.

HOWEVER, THE HEIGHT WAS THE ISSUE.

IT SAID FOUR STORIES, BUT IT STILL MAINTAIN THAT HEIGHT AT 35 FEET.

SO WE HAVE REVISED THAT BACK IN AUGUST OF 22.

AND NOW WE ARE BACK WITH THIS.

THIS IS THE THE ORIGINAL THAT WAS DONE WITH THE SUBMITTAL.

AND NOW WE'VE GOT LET ME GET TO IT.

OH. WE'VE GOT THE POOL IS MOVING SLIGHTLY AT THIS NORTH END.

AND SO THE WAY THAT PLANNING COMMISSION ACTUALLY RECOMMENDS THIS IS THAT THEY RECOMMENDED AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, NOT JUST A SIX FOOT WALL, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BACK THERE. WE KNOW THAT THE POOL IS MOVING TO THE BACK.

THIS INCREASES THE DISTANCE TO JUST OVER 90 FEET AWAY FROM THAT SHARED LINE.

SO IT'S STILL IN COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT YOU HAD SEEN BACK IN AUGUST.

SO STILL NO HABITABLE WINDOWS ON THAT BACK SIDE.

WE'RE STILL DOING ALL OF THOSE THINGS.

IT JUST MOVES THE POOL FROM THE FRONT TO THE REAR.

BUT AGAIN, THE BUILDING HAS TO MOVE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY.

AND THEN SO THE EIGHT FOOT WALL AND THEN ALSO THEY SUGGESTED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE, BECAUSE EVEN AT P AND Z ON TUESDAY, THIS HAS ALREADY CHANGED.

AND I GOT ANOTHER LAYOUT.

SO WE JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO KEEP COMING BACK.

JUST GO AHEAD AND SAY AS LONG AS IT'S IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH WHAT IS IN THE PAD, WE CAN GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SITE PLAN.

SO THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IN MY TIME ON P AND Z, WE DEALT WITH THIS A LOT.

ORIGINALLY, THE HOTEL WENT NORTH SOUTH WITH ALL THE WINDOWS LOOKING INTO EMERY FARMS AT P AND Z.

WE DECLINED IT AT THAT TIME.

GOT HIM TO ROTATE THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU KNOW, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING THEY HAVE.

I LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE MOVING THE POOL TO THE BACK.

THAT SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE.

ALSO, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE HOURS WHERE THE POOL IS NOT ACCESSIBLE, SO IT'LL IT'LL KEEP IT EVEN QUIETER FOR THE RESIDENTS AND IT KEEPS THE BUILDING EVEN FURTHER AWAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, I, I LIKE THE NEW CHANGE.

I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT, BUT I'LL SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE.

I SAW THERE WERE FOUR RESPONSES FROM THE PUBLIC AND THEY WERE ALL IN FAVOR.

IT HAD ANY MORE COME IN SINCE THE PACKET WAS I THINK WE HAVE NOTICED THIS ONE AND NOTICE THIS ONE SO MANY TIMES PEOPLE ARE JUST LIKE, JUST LET THE HOTEL HAPPEN.

THAT'S, I THINK, REALLY THE REASON FOR THE SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE RECOMMENDATION, JUST SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO CONTINUE TO BRING THIS BACK BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT CHANGED THE MINOR OR MAJOR LANGUAGE IN THE PUD.

SO WE WENT AHEAD AND DID THAT AS A CONDITION OF JUST THIS, AS LONG AS IT SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS TO THE LAYOUT SHOWN IN THE PAD.

WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORS.

IT'S GOING TO BE PERPENDICULAR THE WINDOW ISSUE AND THAT IT'S FURTHER AWAY WITH THE MASONRY WALL AND THEN ALSO LANDSCAPING.

WE'RE PRETTY GOOD. IT IT WILL MEET IT'LL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE UDC AS WELL.

OKAY. AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, WHEN WE GOT THE PACKET, P AND Z HADN'T MET YET, WAS IT A UNANIMOUS VOTE TO APPROVE? IT WAS OKAY. AND SO MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED INCLUDES THE EIGHT FOOT WALL, OR DO WE NEED TO ADD IN? THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL FROM P AND Z WAS TO INCLUDE AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, A MASONRY WALL, INSTEAD OF JUST SIX FEET.

THEY WANTED TO INCREASE IT AND THEN INCLUDE THAT AS LONG AS THE SITE PLAN SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMS WITH THE LAYOUT AND THE PAD THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING TO BRING IT BACK IF ANYTHING CHANGES.

RIGHT. SO IF SOMEONE SAYS.

WE'D LIKE TO PROVE THIS AS PRESENTED IS AS PRESENTED INCLUDE EIGHT FOOT WALL OR DO WE NEED TO ADD THAT IN AS PRESENTED WITH THE ADDITION OF AN EIGHT FOOT WALL? AND PLEASE ADDED IN JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT PART OF THE STAFF REPORT BECAUSE THESE WERE SO BACK TO BACK BETWEEN TUESDAY AND THURSDAY IN SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT YOU SAY WITH THE LAYOUT AS PRESENTED IN THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.

[01:55:03]

RIGHT. SO WHEN WE APPROVE WITH THAT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY SENT A NEW LAYOUT, CORRECT.

POTENTIALLY PUTTING THE POOL IN THE CENTER.

IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, A LITTLE BIT FURTHER.

SO IT WAS JUST OK.

I DO HAVE IT, BUT BECAUSE PNC DIDN'T SAY HAVE IT, I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO GET IT JUST BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S FAIR THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE THAT AS WELL RECOMMENDING. BUT IT REALLY IS.

IT'S BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE GOING TO LIKELY BE CHANGES, WHICH IS WHEN YOUR SITE PLANNING CHANGES OCCUR.

WE JUST KNOW THAT SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE, IT WILL COMPLY.

OKAY. SO WHERE EXACTLY IS THE POOL? IS IT IS IT GOING TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING? CORRECT. SO THIS IS THE OLD LAYOUT THAT WAS IN THAT FORMER.

THIS IS WHAT WE HAD WHEN NOT REALLY THE OLD LAYOUT.

THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.

BUT THE POOL ORIGINALLY, THE LAST TIME YOU SAW THIS BACK IN AUGUST, THE POOL WAS UP ON THIS END.

WHAT THEY'VE DONE IS JUST MOVED IT TO THE BACK.

I THINK THE NEW KIND OF HAD IT HERE, SO IT SHIFTS IT A LITTLE BIT FURTHER NORTH, BUT IT'S STILL ON THAT WEST SIDE.

OKAY. AND DID THE BUILDING MOVE EAST OR DID THEY REPLACE LIKE WAS PARKING THERE WHERE THE BUILDING DID MOVE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER EAST? IT WAS ABOUT 65 FEET AWAY.

NOW WE'RE ALMOST TO THE 90.

OKAY. SO YEAH, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY CLOSER, BUT IT WAS FINE BECAUSE THEY HAD NEVER HAD THE PARKING OR ANYTHING REALLY IN THE FRONT.

SO THIS STILL COMPLIES.

IT'S STILL YOU CAN SEE ON HERE WITH ALL THESE LINES, THERE ARE EASEMENTS THAT THEY'VE ALREADY CALLED OUT.

THERE'S BUILDING SETBACKS.

WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE.

BUT IF THEY JUST MOVE ANYTHING ELSE ON SITE, I JUST DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO PLANNING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL EVERY TIME I'M IN.

AND ACTUALLY, IS THIS TYPICAL OF A PROJECT FOR THINGS LIKE THIS TO HAPPEN AND LIKE THE MOVING PIECES OF THE PUZZLE? OR MAYBE IT'S LIKE A A SOIL OR LAND ISSUE, LIKE MAYBE SHIFTING.

SO THEY WANT TO MAYBE KIND OF MOVE IT IN FURTHER OR I DON'T KNOW, IS THAT NORMAL FOR THEM TO KEEP COMING BACK TO YOU WITH ALL OF THESE CHANGES? YES. WOW.

ALWAYS. I THINK, ESPECIALLY IF YOU ARE IN THE HOTEL INDUSTRY, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, THEN THEY HAVE TO PRESENT IT TO THAT BOARD.

AND THEN THE BOARD LIKE THEIR CHAIN ACTUALLY GETS TO SAY YES OR NO.

IT'S MORE MORE TIMES I'VE WORKED ON HOTELS, THERE'S MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO MARRIOTT OR YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO HILTON AND SAY, OKAY, THEY DON'T LIKE THIS. WE HAVE TO CHANGE IT.

BUT IT HAPPENS ON THE MAJORITY OF PROJECTS THAT IF SOMETHING ISN'T WORKING OR A DRIVEWAY SPACE WRONG, YOU'LL HAVE PROJECTS COMPLETELY FLIP OVER.

IT'S GOOD. SO IF CHANGES ARE MADE, THERE'S THE THE REAR.

PART OF THE HOTEL WILL NOT GET ANY CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTS.

SO THERE ARE NO HOTELS ON THE WEST SIDE.

MY SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE, THE WAY THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT IS AS LONG AS IT'S STAYING IN THAT DISTANCE, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY INFORMING THE POOL, MOVING A LITTLE BIT, SOME PARKING SPACES MOVING AROUND, AS LONG AS IT'S IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THIS, IT'S JUST A DRIVE WHILE THE EIGHT FOOT WALL AND LANDSCAPING, THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE. IF THIS MOVES NOT PERPENDICULAR OR WE'RE NOW PARALLEL, YOU'LL SEE IT AGAIN.

AND IS IT LIKE THE FULL LENGTH OF THAT, THAT LOT? THE EIGHT FOOT WALL? YES, IT WOULD BE THE FULL.

SO WE DO. SO THE BUFFER YARD STANDARDS, YOU CAN DO A SIX FOOT OR AN EIGHT FOOT WALL ALLOWED BY A CODE.

EIGHT FOOT IS ONLY ON COMMERCIAL.

AND SO THEY'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT ADDING THAT INSTEAD OF JUST DOING A SIX FOOT STANDARD.

PLANNING COMMISSION ASKED FOR THAT TO BE INCREASED TO EIGHT FEET.

I THINK THERE'S ONE TWO STORY HOME BACK THERE, BUT THE MAJORITY OF THEM ARE SINGLE.

STOREY BUT YOU STILL WANT TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT THEM AS WELL FROM, OF COURSE, ANYTHING.

BUFFERING IS GOOD. ACTUALLY, IN THE PACKET THERE'S SOME EXHIBITS THAT CALL THIS A TOWN PLACE SUITE MARRIOTT.

THAT'S GOING TO GET MAD IF I.

WE CAN'T COMMUNICATE THAT WE PASS ANOTHER HURDLE ON A MARRIAGE, SO GO FOR IT.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE AS WELL IN OUR THAT'S WHAT WAS SUBMITTED.

AND I DO KNOW IT'S A MARRIOTT BRAND.

SO. I THINK YOU'LL BROKEN.

I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN VERY FLEXIBLE TRYING TO MEET EVERYTHING WE ASKED THEM TO DO.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

11.1 WITH THE ADDITION OF AN EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL AND TO ALLOW.

TO MOVE FORWARD WITH MINOR CHANGES AS LONG AS IT CONFORMS TO THE MAJORITY CONFORMANCE TO THE CURRENT PWD AS PRESENTED TONIGHT.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

WITHIN THE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION THERE, IS THERE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN MAJORITY OR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE? I DON'T JUST DON'T WANT TO.

YOU HAVE 51% COMPLIANCE.

BE SEEN AS MEETING A STANDARD BECAUSE YOU SAID MAJORITY.

SO. OH, ASHLEY.

YES, I SAID MAJORITY.

DO I NEED TO CHANGE THE WORDING TO SUBSTANTIAL SUBSTANTIALLY WOULD BE A LOT MORE.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

I'LL MAKE THAT FRIENDLY EMOTION AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE PD PRESENTED TONIGHT.

[02:00:02]

COUNCIL MEMBER IS OKAY WITH THAT? YES. LATER DISCUSSION ON A MOTION COUNCIL.

I DID WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION THAT WE DID PUT SOME AMENDMENTS TO THIS ORDINANCE IN YOUR DROPBOX TODAY AND WHICH INCLUDES AN ENACTMENT OF ENFORCEMENT CLAUSE AFTER REVIEWING THE CHARTER AND REVIEWING ZONING ORDINANCES AND STATE LAW.

THIS PROBABLY WOULD BE TREATED AS AN ORDINANCE THAT CARRIES A PENALTY.

SO UNDER OUR CHARTER, WE'D HAVE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE READINGS AND PUBLISH IT IN THE NEWSPAPER TWICE.

SO UNTIL WE FIX OUR ORDINANCE SECTION, WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO FOLLOW THAT PROCEDURE BECAUSE IF THEY DIDN'T PULL THE APPROPRIATE BUILDING CODE OR VIOLATED THEIR SEO, THEY COULD BE SUBJECT TO A PENALTY OR A FINE.

SO WHAT ARE YOU SAYING? WE CAN'T WAIVE THE SECOND READING OR WE CAN'T DO THE FIRST READING? WE CAN'T WAIVE THE SECOND READING.

OKAY. BUT WE DID INCLUDE THAT IN THERE JUST FOR THE REFERENCE TO THE PENALTY.

OKAY. CAN'T DO.

ASHLEY IS PART OF THE PUTT. IT'S A IT'S A RESTAURANT AS WELL GOING IN THERE AND THE OTHER PARCELS.

SO THE OTHER PARCELS ARE JUST STILL COMMERCIAL.

THIS WAS REALLY JUST TO DEAL WITH THE LAYOUT.

SO IT'S BUT THE OTHER PARCELS, JUST SO THAT WE'RE CLEAR, ARE NOT UP TO THAT FOUR STOREY HEIGHT.

THOSE WE'RE STILL STAYING WITH THE REGULAR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, WHICH I BELIEVE ALLOWS UP TO ABOUT 35 FEET AS THIS DID.

AND IT KEPT JUST SAID, IT JUST REFERENCED THE 35 FEET.

SO THE OTHER BUILDINGS WOULD ONLY BE A 35 FOOT HEIGHT, BUT ANY COMMERCIAL COULD GO OKAY.

IT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE..

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

AYE. I LOST TRACK.

WAS THAT ALL SEVEN? YES, SIR. MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 11 TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023-006, APPROVING A REVISED PLAN

[11.2. Conduct a Public Hearing and take possible action on Ordinance No. 2023-006 approving a Revised Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning ordinance request for the property known as NorthTown Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), 28.449 acres, more or less, of land located along Limmer Loop east of FM1660 North. (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) a. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2023-006 to dispense with the second reading pursuant to Hutto City Charter Article 3, Section 3.13. (Legal)]

UNIT DEVELOPMENT PUD ZONING ORDINANCE REQUESTS FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS NORTHTOWN COMMONS.

PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HUD 28.44 AND NINE ACRES, MORE OR LESS.

I AM LOCATED ALONG LEMMER LOOP EAST OF FM 1660 NORTH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM WAS ACTUALLY TABLED AT THE TUESDAY MEETING.

IT WAS POSTPONED.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAD QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SO THE APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT.

THUS WE THIS ENDED UP BEING POSTPONED BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

I CAN RUN THROUGH THIS VERY QUICK IF WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE TO DISCUSS THE AMENDMENT IS JUST FOR THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE PWD.

IT WAS TO CLARIFY THE SIZE.

THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN MADE IT LOOK LIKE ALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS HAD TO BE 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE INTENT WAS ONLY THAT DAYCARES COULD BE UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET.

NOT THAT ALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, JUST COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS CAN STILL MATCH THE B ONE DISTRICT, AND THERE'S NO REGULATION ON THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LIMIT.

ALSO, TO UPDATE THE FENCING STANDARDS TO MEET THE UTC, ALLOW FOR MURALS ON THE BUILDING.

THAT WAS A POINT OF DISCUSSION WITH P AND Z THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE MURALS TO BE ABLE TO FACE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

SO THAT WILL LIKELY BE SOMETHING WHEN WE COME BACK THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING.

PROVIDE UP TO 25% OF COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.

SO JUST SECONDARY ANY OF THE I THINK REALLY FOR TONIC IS THE ONE THAT STARTED THIS, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY A REALLY COOL IDEA TO JUST LET THEM HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ANCILLARY COMMERCIAL ON THEIR USES IF IT WORKS WITH THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.

AND THEN ALSO TO REMOVE THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY THAT COULD CONNECT DIRECTLY INTO MAJOR MEADOWS.

SO THE ONLY COMMENT THAT WE GOT IN OPPOSITION THAT ACTUALLY GAVE A REASON WAS BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS TO REMOVE THIS RIGHT OF WAY ON THE FAR EAST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT DIRECTLY CONNECTS INTO MAJOR MEADOWS.

AND THAT'S ONE OPPOSITION THAT WE HAD THAT SAID THIS IS WHY THEY STILL WANTED THAT CONNECTION.

AND THAT WAS ALSO A POINT OF DISCUSSION WITH P AND Z, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS POSTPONED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE APPLICANT THERE TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS.

YOU WILL SEE THIS AGAIN.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GO AHEAD AND HOLD THAT.

SO. PERSON WAS IN OPPOSITION OF OBTAINING THE ROAD.

THEY WANT A ROAD FROM LIMBER TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

CORRECT. AND THE REASON THAT STAFF HAD SAID WE WERE OKAY WITH THIS IS BECAUSE WE HAVE SEEN HOW THIS DOES NOT WORK IN OTHER SITUATIONS.

EMERY FARMS BEING A VERY GOOD EXAMPLE THAT YOU TYPICALLY DON'T WANT THE DIRECT CONNECTION, RIGHT? HOWEVER, I THINK BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY A STUB STREET, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THAT STUB STREET BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY THERE.

DOES THAT JUST BECOME A PARK? DOES WHAT DOES THIS WHAT'S THE CITY'S PLAN FOR THAT? RIGHT OF WAY AFTER THE FACT.

BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT ON THIS APPLICANT.

IF THAT ROADWAY GOES AWAY, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS INTERNALLY AND BRING BACK TO YOU AS A PROPOSAL, BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN IN THIS RIGHT AWAY.

HALF OF IT GOES TO THE LANDOWNER ON THE WEST AND HALF GOES TO THE LANDOWNER ON THE EAST.

SO ABANDONING THIS RIGHT OF WAY ONLY WOULD AFFECT THIS PARCEL THAT'S OWNED BY TEX, TEXAS FIXTURES.

[02:05:02]

OH, THEY HAVE IT ALL ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

WE COULD HAVE FIRST RIGHT OF REFUSAL, HAVE THESE ON EITHER SIDE OR THE CITY COULD SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO ABANDON IS RIGHT OF WAY.

WE'RE GOING TO USE IT AS EASEMENT MAKE IT INTO A POCKET PARK.

THERE ARE OPTIONS, BUT I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULDN'T DECIDE AT A P AND Z LEVEL.

I DID NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

IT WAS MORE, WE NEED TO GO HAVE THOSE INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS AND PRESENT SOMETHING TO COUNCIL.

SO. RIGHT. SO YOU JUST WANT US TO OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? AND THEN YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND ACT FOR THE FIRST READING AND YOU COME BACK TO THE SECOND OR YOU WANT TO JUST A TABLE THIS.

JUST POSTPONE IT, PLEASE.

THAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM P AND Z IS JUST FOR US.

SO I WOULD OPEN AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO REPUBLISH.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.

ALL RIGHT, SO THEN IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 906.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? THANK DO. PARTY WILL COME UP, SIR, AND STATE YOUR NAME.

LUCAS MORTON 200 COURT AND DRIVE IN MEGA MEADOWS.

I'M JUST. I'M HERE IN FAVOR OF THE AMENDMENT THAT WOULD REMOVE THAT ROADWAY.

CONNECTING MEGA MEADOWS TO LIMBER LOOP.

ALL RIGHT. I'M SORRY. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? LUCAS MORTON. LUCAS MORTON.

OKAY. ARTIE.

THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN.

NO OBJECTIONS.

WE'LL JUST TABLE THIS AND TELL THE I GUESS THE NEXT MEETING IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

IT'LL BE FEBRUARY BECAUSE IT'LL BE PNC.

WON'T MEAN TO. OR DO WE WANT TO SEND IT BACK TO OR.

I GUESS IT HAS TO GO TO PNC.

GO BACK? YEAH. SHE WANTS THE TABLE TILL FEBRUARY 2ND.

WELL, NO, IT'LL BE AFTER THAT BECAUSE SHE'S 16.

LIKELY COME BACK TO COUNCIL THE SECOND MEETING JUST BECAUSE OF THE TIMING.

FIRST TUESDAY IS MY NEXT PNC, THE TABLE OF FEBRUARY 16TH.

YES. PLEASE LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN THE WHOLE TIME.

YES. GOOD DUTY.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT. HEARING. THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 11 THREE.

[11.3. Conduct a Public Hearing and take possible action on Ordinance No. O-2022-059 approving the proposed Specific Use Permit for the Hutto Independent School District at 573 Chris Kelley Boulevard (Hutto High School), 76.135 acres, more or less, of land, to allow a reduction in the required landscaping (UDC 10.407.5), required parking (10.405.9) and roof-mounted mechanical equipment (10.406.6.8). (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) a. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2022-059 to dispense with the second reading pursuant to Hutto City Charter Article 3, Section 3.13. (Legal)]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO.

DASH 20222059.

APPROVING THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AT 573.

CHRIS KELLEY BOULEVARD HIGH SCHOOL, 76.135 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND TO ALLOW A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING.

UDC 10.40 7.5 REQUIRED PARKING 10.40 5.9 AND ROOF MOUNTED MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT.

10.406 6.8.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

YOU MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM THE LAST REGULARLY CALLED COUNCIL MEETING IN DECEMBER.

WE DO HAVE SOME ANSWERS FOR YOU.

I CAN RUN THROUGH THE FULL PRESENTATION AGAIN JUST IN CASE WE HAVE ANYBODY WATCHING THAT WAS NOT AT THAT LAST MEETING OR HADN'T TUNED INTO THIS.

THE ISD IS ASKING FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT PER THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT OR ILA THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE WITH THE CITY.

THIS DOES OUTPACE THE REWRITING OF THE ILA THAT WE WILL BE THE CITY WILL BE DOING WITH THE ISD ACTUALLY HAVE A MEETING NEXT WEDNESDAY SCHEDULE TO DISCUSS THAT WITH THE ISD. SO WHAT THEY ARE SEEKING TO DO WITH THAT SAP OR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS TO ASK FOR A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING, THE PARKING AND DEFINING THE ROOF MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SCREENING.

AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS QUESTIONS ABOUT LANDSCAPING.

SO WE CAN GET INTO THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE JUST IN THE ORANGE, THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AFFECTED RIGHT NOW WITH THIS MODERNIZATION.

AND THIS IS ALSO THE PARKING LAYOUT WHERE YOU CAN SEE THERE WAS THAT ITEM AS PART OF THIS THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE 31 SPACES DEFICIENT.

SO THAT IS PART OF THAT.

BUT HERE YOU GO AGAIN WITH THE PARKING ADJACENCY.

YOU CAN SEE THE CAMPUS IN THE MIDDLE AND THEN HOW MANY CAMPUSES THEY HAVE THAT ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM P AND Z WHEN IT WENT IN JANUARY WAS TO GO AHEAD AND SAY I'M SORRY, WHEN IT WENT IN DECEMBER, THAT THEY WILL BUS IN WHEN IT'S NECESSARY FOR THAT STADIUM.

HERE IS THE ROOF PLAN ADDITIONS.

I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A CONDITION THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY REVISIT THAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING.

THIS IS SIMPLY JUST TO SAY THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO SCREEN ALL OF THE EXISTING.

IT WOULD JUST BE WHERE THEY ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE AFFECTING THE BUILDING.

AND HERE IS THE LANDSCAPING FROM THE LAST TIME.

AND THERE WAS A.

OR ACTUALLY STILL IS A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE BUSHES AND THE TREES ALONG CHRIS KELLY AND THEN I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A QUESTION AND THE TREES THAT ARE SHOWN IN BLUE THERE'S SEVERAL HERE AND THERE'S A FEW INTERNAL TO THE SITE.

THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE ADDED FROM THE CEP WHEN IT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY THAT THEY DID ADD THOSE TO THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN.

SAW THE SIX NEW TREES THAT ARE GOING TO GET REPLACED.

OH YEAH. THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKET.

IT IS. APOLOGIZE.

IT'S ON PAGE 269 OF 309.

THANK YOU. WHAT YOU DO? I DON'T KNOW. APPARENTLY, I GOT TO THE END OF IT AND I WAS DONE.

JUST SMALL AGAIN.

[02:10:01]

YEAH, THERE WERE SIX TREES THAT ARE SHOWN IN RED ON THAT IN YOUR PACKET.

AND THAT IS PART OF WHAT THE WHAT YOU HAD ASKED FOR.

SO THE ISD RESPONDED WITH THAT AND THEY ALSO SHOWED YOU YOUR TRAFFIC PLAN.

AND I KNOW THAT YOU, I BELIEVE, WERE PROVIDED A MEMO FROM THE POLICE CHIEF THAT THEY DID HAVE THE CONVERSATION.

WE DO HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE ISD HERE.

I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACK AND FORTH ON THIS.

SO I WAS GOING TO GET OUT OF THE WAY FOR YOU TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

AND I DID DOUBLE CHECK.

THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE PACKET FOR SURE.

THE ORDINANCE IS IN THE PACKET.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT ORDINANCE IS IN THE PACKET.

SO WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY CONFUSION ON THAT ONE.

WE SHOULD HAVE THAT FULLY VETTED FOR YOU.

SO IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM, IF YOU HAVE ANY.

FOR THE ISD, THEY ARE HERE.

SO I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU FIRST.

OKAY. SO WE HAD THREE REQUESTS THAT WE WERE GOING TO ASK TO ATTACH TO THIS SOUP.

TWO OF THEM PASSED, ONE OF THEM FAILED, 3 TO 4.

I FURTHER ASKED AFTER THE FACT, COULD WE DO WE HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF A TIRE EVER HAVING BEING DONE FOR HOW TO HIGH SCHOOL? FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHERE WE ARE ON THAT, WHAT STAFF FOUND OUT AND GIVE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THAT? ABSOLUTELY. SO THERE HAS BEEN.

I WAS THINKING OF A DIFFERENT I KNEW THAT I HAD SEEN A TIRE.

IT'S ACTUALLY FOR THE NINTH GRADE CENTER.

SO I KNOW THAT I BELIEVE YOU WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE MEMO.

THERE WERE EMAILS SENT BY THE ISD TO PRIOR STAFF STARTING IN MARCH OF 2001, AND THEN I BELIEVE THEY ENDED THE CONVERSATION JULY 1ST OF 2001, 2001 OR I'M SORRY, 2021.

OKAY. WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YEAR IT IS RIGHT NOW.

DIDN'T CATCH UP ON THAT. SO IN 2021.

SO MARCH OF 2021 TO JULY OF 2021, ASKING FOR A SCOPING MEETING.

I AM ALSO AWARE THAT THOSE REQUESTS WERE NEVER RESPONDED TO FROM THAT CITY ENGINEER TO THE ISD'S CREDIT.

I WILL SAY THAT EVEN THE DAY AFTER THE MEETING THEY DID REQUEST A SCOPING MEETING AND THAT HAS BEEN SCHEDULED.

WE ALWAYS HAVE THOSE LITTLE KIND OF 6 TO 8 WEEK MEETINGS, BUT I BELIEVE THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE SEPARATE.

KIND OF LIKE OUR ILA MEETING IS SEPARATE.

WE HAVE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS JUST AS THE BULK.

SO WE WILL BE SCOPING THAT TO KNOWING EVEN THOUGH IT FAILED AT THAT LAST MOTION STUFF AND THE ISD HAVE STILL AGREED THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD ON GETTING THAT THE COMPLETED. HOW QUICKLY WHAT'S THE TIME FRAME ON THAT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY SCHOOL'S GOING ON RIGHT NOW.

IT STARTED SECOND SEMESTER.

LIKE HOW QUICKLY CAN THEY GET OUT THERE, GET THE DATA ON THE GROUND.

ONCE WE HAVE THE SCOPING MEETING, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO HIRE WHOMEVER THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE TO PERFORM THAT, AND IT SHOULD BE FAIRLY QUICK.

YEAH, SO THAT WENT BACK TO MY POINT IS I DON'T IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO US ADDING IT AS A REQUIREMENT FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO BE ADDED, WHICH WOULD OCCUR IN 18 MONTHS IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT AND THEY'RE IN GOOD FAITH SAYING THEY'RE DOING IT.

ADDING THE REQUIREMENT I THINK NOW IS APPROPRIATE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE CONTRACT.

AND IF THEY'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, THEN IT'S NOT JUST LIP SERVICE, BUT IT ACTUALLY HAS A REQUIREMENT.

BUT THE RESULTS COULD POSSIBLY BE SKEWED BECAUSE THIS IS A PLACE THAT THE STADIUM IS RIGHT THERE.

AND USUALLY EVENTS LIKE FOOTBALL GAMES HAPPEN IN THE FALL.

SO THAT COULD ACTUALLY HAVE MORE DATA, RIGHT, BECAUSE MORE PEOPLE ARE COMING THROUGH THAT AREA.

WELL, THEY KNOW HOW MANY SEATS IN STADIUM.

IT TAKES ALL THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

THERE'S I FORGET WHAT THEY CALL IT, THERE'S A MANUAL AND IF YOU HAVE LIKE A C STORE WITH SIX PUMPS OR EIGHT PUMPS OR WHATEVER, THERE'S A TRIP GENERATION THAT GOES TO ALL THESE THINGS. AND SO IT'S ALL DATA DRIVEN TO WHERE YOU TAKE IN SOME INFORMATION.

I GET IT. I GET IT.

THAT IS VERY ACCURATE INFORMATION.

BUT TO.

I APPRECIATE BOTH THE CITY AND THE ISD WANTING TO TO DO IT.

I MEAN, I'M NOT AGAINST IT BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE GOING TO DO THE WORK WITHOUT US ASKING FOR FOR IT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S JUST. SO MY POINT IS, IF SOMEONE SAYS IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY TO YOU, HEY, I'M GOING TO PAINT THIS COMMON FENCE BETWEEN TWO NEIGHBORS, RIGHT? AND THEY GO, I'M GOING TO DO IT AND I'M GOING TO DO IT BY APRIL.

AND YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WHERE THEN YOU SAY, OKAY, SO I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET REIMBURSED OR WHATEVER IT IS TILL YOU DO IT BY.

YOU SAID YOU CAN DO IT BY APRIL. SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE CAN ADD A TRIGGER POINT THAT SAYS WITHIN 18 MONTHS IT SHOULD NOT TAKE THEM 18 MONTHS TO DO IT.

IF THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE JUST ADD IT BECAUSE THIS IS OUR ONE CHANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT GETS DONE.

BECAUSE, I MEAN, PRIORITIES COULD CHANGE.

A SCHOOL BOARD MOTION FAILED, RIGHT? WE CAN ADD IT NOW.

WE'RE HERE NOW. TODAY WE CAN ADD THAT BACK IN TODAY WE HAD WE DIDN'T APPROVE ANYTHING LAST TIME, RIGHT.

WE DIDN'T IMPROVE ANYTHING.

SO I STILL I WOULD LIKE TO I MEAN, IF THE ISD WANTS TO TALK, BUT, YOU KNOW, MY MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADD

[02:15:02]

BACK LOOK, TO ADD BACK IN THE REQUIREMENT TO BUY FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, A TIRE IS DONE ON THIS PROPERTY.

I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTIONS TO APPROVE THIS IS PRESENTED WITH THE END OF THE TIA, COMPLETED BY THE CEO, CORRECT? AND JUST TO GIVE SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, LIKE WHEN THE SCHOOL WAS BUILT AND THE ORIGINAL LIKE ENTRANCES ARE THERE.

I LIVED HERE IN HUTTO AT THAT TIME, CHRIS KELLEY WAS A TWO LANE ROAD WITH NO DIVIDED MEDIAN.

NOT YOU'D BE ABLE TO MAKE A LEFT HAND TURN OUT OF THE HIGH SCHOOL ONTO CHRIS KELLY.

THE CHRIS KELLY HAS CHANGED THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS.

IT WAS A3A HIGH SCHOOL WHEN I MOVED HERE.

IT'S A6A HIGH SCHOOL.

SO AND THE FACT THAT IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE AND THEY AGREE IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

WE HAVE EMAIL DOCUMENTATIONS FOR SINCE APRIL OF 20.

IN JULY OF 2021.

THEY AGREED IT NEEDED TO BE DONE.

THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT ON THEIR OWN AT ANY TIME.

SO I FEEL LIKE WE DO NEED TO HAVE A REQUIREMENT.

OTHERWISE WE'VE BEEN TOLD IT'LL BE DONE BEFORE AND THEY'VE NEVER DONE ONE.

SO THAT'S WHY I WANT REQUIREMENT.

HOW WILL THAT IMPACT? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ADDING THAT REQUIREMENT DOESN'T PROHIBIT THEM FROM STARTING THE WORK.

THAT'S WHY WE SENT THE CERTIFICATE.

RIGHT. AND THEN THE OTHER PART OF IT IS TO COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR'S POINT, YOU WANT TO HAVE ACCURATE DATA THAT GOES INTO THE TIA AND HAVING ACTUAL FOOTBALL GAME DATA COLLECTED.

WHAT IS THE SCOPE? I MEAN, HOW LONG DO THEY THINK THIS CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO TAKE? IS IT SOMETHING THEY'RE JUST GOING TO FINISH AND DO? 18 MONTHS SO YOU'LL GO THROUGH A FOOTBALL SEASON? OKAY. YEAH. SO I JUST THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THERE'S NO REASON YOU CAN'T GET A FULL TERM BECAUSE IT'S STILL GOING TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION IN FALL TERM.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY FOR.

I'M FINE WITH REQUIRING IT.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE.

MY SON WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES THAT WENT TO THAT HIGH SCHOOL.

IT WAS GREAT BACK THEN.

NOW IT'S A NIGHTMARE TO GO THROUGH THERE, BUT I DO APPRECIATE THE COMMITMENT TO THE ISD, WORKING WITH STAFF AND CHIEF YARBOROUGH FOR MEETING AND CLARIFYING WHAT THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES ARE AND MAPPING IT OUT VERY CLEARLY SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THAT'S GOING TO WORK.

I KNOW IT'S STILL GOING TO BE DIFFICULT AT BEST, ESPECIALLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION.

SO I'M GOOD.

SO, YES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS ON THE CITY SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE STUFF IN THE TREES BACK IN, GETTING THE TRAFFIC PLAN, REACHING OUT TO THE CHIEF.

I SAID PUBLICLY ON THE FORUM, REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THE ISD, WHAT THEY DID WITH THAT COMING BACK AND THEN IDENTIFYING THE TREES, EVERYTHING WE DID.

BUT LIKE I SAID, I THINK THIS ONE STILL NEEDS TO HAPPEN.

AND I'LL ALSO JUST ADD THAT OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT A TIRE AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY AT THE TIME DROPPED THE BALL, NOT NOT BLAMING ANY ANYBODY IN THE ROOM, BUT IT WAS THE CITY'S MISTAKE.

AND SO ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, I WOULD APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE OWN BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE THINGS DON'T HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE ADDED IN, YOU KNOW, TO SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS FROM DAY ONE SO THAT EVERYTHING GOES SMOOTHLY.

AND THAT'S WHAT HOPEFULLY WE WORK THROUGH WITH ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE AGREEMENTS AND ALL THAT.

SURE THING. I MEAN, THEY'VE BEEN INFINITELY PATIENT SEEING THOSE EMAILS AND KNOWING EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.

I WAS LIKE, OKAY, SO WE NOW HAVE IT ON OUR SIDE THAT WE NEED TO ACTUALLY PERFORM.

AND SO IMMEDIATELY MEETINGS WERE SCHEDULED.

WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT SCOPING DONE.

WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM ON THEIR WAY.

WE'RE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN TO ALSO GET THIS DONE, BECAUSE WE DO KNOW THAT WE AS THE AS THE STAFF, DROP THE BALL ON THAT.

SO WITH HAVING HAVING THIS INFORMATION WHILE IT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION, WHAT ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO WITH THIS INFORMATION TO DIGEST IT FOR THE FUTURE OF AFTER ALL IS SAID AND DONE? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE ALL KNOW GOING THROUGH THAT AREA, IT'S JAMMED UP DURING THE SCHOOL ZONES, FOOTBALL GAMES AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

THAT'S JUST KIND OF THE NATURE OF THE AREA BECAUSE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL THE SCHOOLS RIGHT THERE, THERE'S CERTAIN ENTRANCES AND EVERYTHING.

BUT ONCE ALL IS SAID AND DONE, I MEAN, THAT'S THE SAME ISSUES STILL GOING TO BE PRESENT BECAUSE THE ROADS AREN'T WIDENED RIGHT THERE THAT MAYBE COULD POTENTIALLY FIX SOME TRAFFIC ISSUES.

RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST THEM IMPROVING THAT.

OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE SOME ISSUES WITH STUDENTS COMING AND GOING, BUT THAT'S LIKE A NORMAL DAY TO DAY THING.

THANKFULLY, I MISS IT IN BETWEEN THE ELEMENTARY AND THE HIGH SCHOOL HOURS, WHICH IS GREAT.

BUT I GET IT THAT DURING THE ELEMENTARY HOURS IT'S CRAZY AND HECTIC, BUT IT ONLY LASTS SO LONG.

AND THE SAME THING WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL.

IT ONLY LASTS SO LONG. SO ONCE ALL THE CONSTRUCTION IS DONE, IT'S GOING TO STILL BE THE SAME ISSUE.

SO WHAT IS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT? WHAT WAS IT GOING TO TO TELL US? SO I'LL GIVE YOU THE CONSTRUCTION.

[02:20:02]

OKAY. SO I'LL GIVE YOU A PERFECT EXAMPLE.

SO RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LOOK ON THIS MAP, IF YOU SEE THE LITTLE CIRCLE AT THE BOTTOM HERE, HERE, HERE, YES.

YEAH. YOU GO IN THROUGH THAT ENTRANCE HAS BEEN CLOSED BY THE ISD.

THEY JUST ARBITRARILY CLOSED IT.

SO WHAT A TIRE WOULD SAY.

AND THEY CLOSED IT BECAUSE THEY SAID PEOPLE WERE GOING 50 MILES AN HOUR ON CHRIS KELLY AND THEY DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TURNING IN THERE AND IT BACKING UP TO GO.

SO WHAT ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID HERE RECENTLY IS WE PUT IN A SCHOOL ZONE THAT'S GOING TO GO IN RIGHT THERE ALONG THAT TO LOWER IT TO 25.

SO WHEN THE TIRE, THEY'LL KNOW THAT.

SO THEY MAY SAY, HEY, BECAUSE IT'S NOW A SLOWER SPEED, YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE THAT ENTRANCE CLOSED.

OR THEY MAY SAY, YEAH, THE ENTRANCE IS CLOSED.

SO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS PUT A DECELERATION LANE IN THERE TO CUE UP CARS TO TURN IN THERE AND MAYBE THEY SAY FOR COMING OUT BECAUSE OF THE SPEED THEY NEED TO HAVE AN ACCELERATION LANE.

THAT'S WHAT A TIRE WILL DO AND IT WILL IMPROVE THINGS.

BUT WE NEED TO KNOW AND IT ALSO GUIDE FOR THE NEXT PHASE OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION WHEN THEY DO THEIR NEXT THING.

AND WE KNOW THESE THINGS, THEN WHEN THEY GO TO BID OUT THE WHEN THEY DO EXPAND MORE THE HIGH SCHOOL BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER THING WE'LL ALREADY HAVE THAT DATA TO KNOW AND IT WILL BE BASED ON A CERTAIN THE ISD WILL PROVIDE.

HEY OUR OUR THEY SHOULD PROVIDE IN THIS TIRE WHAT THE MAX BUILD OUT OF THAT HIGH SCHOOL FOR A NUMBER OF STUDENTS IS GOING TO BE MAYBE TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE NINTH GRADERS AT THE HIGH SCHOOL, WE'RE ONLY AT SAY, 1500 STUDENTS.

RIGHT. BUT WHEN THEY BUILD A SECOND HIGH SCHOOL AND THEY SPLIT, MAYBE THAT NUMBER OVER TIME, BASED ON OUR PROJECTIONS OF GROWTH, THEY THINK THAT HIGH SCHOOL IS GOING TO GET TO 2000. SO THEN THE TIRE WILL MIGHT SAY WHILE YOU'RE AT 4500, YOU ONLY NEED THIS.

BUT ONCE YOU ARE GOING TO GROW TO 50 TO 2000, THAT CHANGES YOUR TRIP AMOUNTS COMING IN.

YOU MAY HAVE TO MAKE SOME OTHER CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE PART OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLANS GOING FORWARD.

IF THEY GO TO A LARGER SCHOOL, YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU HAVE THE DATA.

SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO ASK FOR THE DATA.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO ASK FOR IT.

AND LIKE I SAID, IF IT HAD BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO AND THEY KNEW WHAT THEIR.

BUILD OUT WOULD HAVE BEEN YOU WOULD JUST SAY, HEY, JUST ATTACH IT TO IT.

BUT SINCE IT'S NEVER BEEN DONE, THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO DO IT.

OKAY. SO THAT DOES LEAD ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION IS LIKE WE GET THE IDEA BACK.

THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT NEED TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.

THAT WILL BE A FUTURE CONVERSATION AS TO CITY ISED RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE THE MODIFICATIONS BASED ON THE TIRE CORRECT.

OR IT MAY JUST BE A CONVERSATION THAT WE ALL HAVE TO HAVE TOGETHER BETWEEN THE CITY TECH STYLE BECAUSE WE KNOW THERE'S TECH START ROADWAYS, WE KNOW WE'RE CONSTRAINED ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE THE UNION PACIFIC, BUT WE DO STILL HAVE SOME CARL STERN IT'S LIKELY THAT IT'S FULL BUILDOUT, BUT THERE IS ALSO A FRONT STREET.

THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT THEY DO ON THE SITE I THINK IS COUNCILMEMBER CLARK STATED THAT MAYBE YOU UTILIZE THINGS ON SITE TO GET EVERYBODY OFF THE STREET.

AND THAT'S USUALLY ONE OF THE THINGS WE HEAR SO OFTEN FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF THE ISD IS THAT WE WANT TO GET EVERYBODY OFF THE STREET SO THAT THEY CAN JUST ROUTE ALL THAT TRAFFIC INTERNALLY. SO THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT CAN COME OUT OF IT.

THERE ARE SOME SUGGESTIONS THAT CAN COME OUT.

IT CAN EVEN BE DOWN TO LIGHT TIMING.

SO IT'S NOT ALWAYS JUST ADD THIS WIDENESS.

THERE CAN EVEN BE LIGHT TIMING THAT COMES OUT OF A TIRE.

SO I THINK JUST TO HAVE THAT BASE INFORMATION WILL BE HELPFUL FOR US MOVING FORWARD.

ABSOLUTELY. AND THE OTHER THING, YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS PICTURE, BUT.

IF YOU IF YOU CAN DO THAT LIGHT FIXTURE IN THE UPPER PARKING LOT RIGHT UP HERE.

YEAH. SO THEY CURRENTLY ALLOW THAT PARKING LOT TO BE THERE AND THEY LET PARENTS PARK THERE AND WALK CHILDREN ACROSS THE STREET TO NADIN JOHNSON, WHICH CREATES A STOP POINT FOR EVERY THAT IS NOT A CONTROLLED THING THAT THEN BACKS UP TRAFFIC ALL THE WAY TO 1660 BECAUSE OF TRYING TO GET THROUGH THERE WITH PEOPLE STOPPING INSTEAD OF THEM GOING THROUGH THE DROP OFF LANE LIKE THEY'RE REQUIRED.

SO IT MAY BE THAT THEY BLOCK THAT AND DON'T LET PARENTS DROP IN AND WALK ACROSS THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE DROP OFF LANES ON TWO SIDES OF THE SCHOOL FOR A REASON.

RIGHT. SO WHEN THEY LOOK AT THIS WHOLE AREA, THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF THAT WOULD BE BE SEEN.

SO LIKE I SAID, IT'D BE VERY VALUABLE.

TO KNOW. I MEAN, MIKE.

UM, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH SOME STAFF, OTHERWISE WE WENT AND FIRED THEM.

I HAVE ONE REQUEST OUT OF THE ISD.

IF YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TO DO A TIA GOING FORWARD AND YOU CAN'T GET SOMEONE AT THE CITY STAFF LEVEL BELOW THE CITY MANAGER TO RESPOND BACK THEN, EITHER CONTACT A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WILL THEN CONTACT THE CITY MANAGER OR CONTACT THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WE HAD SOME OTHER ISSUE.

WE'VE GOT AN ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD WHO'S GOT ROADS CRUMBLING BECAUSE THEY ALL EMAILED ONE GUY WHO DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO HIT REPLY ON AN EMAIL.

AND SO NOW WE'RE IN POTENTIAL LITIGATION ON THAT.

SO IT'S A LOT EASIER TO GO TO CITY MANAGER IF I HAVE AN ISSUE AT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND I'M NOT GETTING A RESPONSE OUT OF THE PRINCIPAL, I DON'T JUST GO HOME AND GET UPSET.

I'D CALL THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT, SUPERINTENDENT, I'D CALL THE T.A.

I'D KEEP GOING UP UNTIL I GOT MY ISSUE RESOLVED BECAUSE I KNOW CONTRACTUALLY I GOT SOMETHING TO DO.

[02:25:01]

SO I THROW THAT OUT THERE.

WE OBVIOUSLY GOT A LOT OF ISSUES ON OUR SIDE.

WE CAN CONTROL SO MUCH.

WE HAVE A CITY MANAGER THAT'S MORE ENGAGED NOW THAN WE'VE HAD.

PROPERLY ENGAGED SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE BACK IN THE OLD DAYS.

SO THE THING ABOUT THE SCOPING, THOUGH, I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS I READ THE THE INTERLOCAL IS THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MULTI.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE THEIR BEST GUESS OF THE BUILD OUT OF THE PARK CENTER AND THIS AND THAT AND EVERYTHING THEY'RE GOING TO DO THAT HAS TO ALL BE IN THERE BECAUSE WHAT I WHAT I DON'T WANT IS TO HAVE THIS FIGHT EVERY TIME THERE'S AN UPGRADE.

AND THE GREAT THING ABOUT THEIR LOCAL AGREEMENT I ACTUALLY LIKE IT IS THAT WE DO THAT.

THEN WE MAKE PLANS ON FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS.

WHEN YOU DO THE PARK CENTER, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE.

WHEN YOU GUYS DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE THIS.

IF WE ONLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT LITTLE BITTY PIECES AND WE PIECEMEAL TOGETHER, IT'S GOING TO BE A NIGHTMARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S RESPONSIBLE IN OF THE DAY.

WE'RE ALL TRYING TO KEEP THE KIDS SAFE AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS.

RIGHT. ALL THE DATA TELLS YOU EVERYTHING.

YOU CAN, THEN RUN IT THROUGH LIKE A SYNCHRO PROGRAM AND ACTUALLY SHOW IT ALL MODELED OUT HOW EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BACK UP AND NOT AND HOW MANY PEOPLE RUN STOP SIGNS.

ALL THAT'S IN THERE.

THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO MAKE THE CITY OF HUTTO OPERATE EXTREMELY EFFICIENTLY.

AND THE PROBLEM IS IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE TOO LATE ON SOME OF OUR ROADWAYS, BUT WE CAN FIX IT LATER.

I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS LOOKING AT THE TREES AND I APPRECIATE THE MEETING WITH THE CHIEF.

I THINK THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

THIS PARTNERSHIP IS THAT WHEN YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING AND YOU'RE GETTING COMPLAINTS IN TERMS OF BACKUPS AND CONGESTION, INSTEAD OF JUST GOING, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO.

HOPEFULLY WE SEE US.

NOT WHAT WE CAN'T DO.

NOTHING. IT'S WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

LET'S GO MEET WITH THE CITY AND LET'S PARTNER BECAUSE WE END UP CATCHING ALL THE GRIEF ON EVERY BACKUP.

AND NO ONE EVER COMPLAINS THAT THE BACKUPS, BECAUSE OF SCHOOL, IT'S ALWAYS YOU NEED MORE COPS TO DO THIS.

YOU SHOULD HAVE HAD PEOPLE DO THIS.

YOU GUYS NEED TO COME OUT AND WIDEN THE ROAD.

AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY LIKE 20 YEARS BEHIND ON WHERE WE NEED TO BE ON ROADS.

SO ANYTHING WE CAN WORK TOGETHER ON, ESPECIALLY AS YOU GUYS BUILD OUT THE NINTH GRADE CENTER.

I WAS TALKING TO THE CITY MANAGER.

I MEAN THAT ALONE, IF YOU BUILD THAT WHOLE HIGH SCHOOL AND MIDDLE SCHOOL AND ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, I MEAN SOMEONE'S GOING TO HAVE TO WIDEN 1660 AND LINEAR LOOP.

AND MY GUESS IS THE TIRE WILL SAY YOU GUYS ARE PART RESPONSIBLE FOR SOME OF IT AND WE'RE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE BULK OF IT BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ADD, YOU KNOW, 5000 STUDENTS IN THE NORTH END OF TOWN AND US PAY TO GET THEM UP THERE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO WITH EVERY DEVELOPMENT.

IF WE BUILD A SHOPPING CENTER IN THE EDGE OF TOWN, WE WOULD ASK THE SAME THING.

THE TIRE WOULD BE DONE AND WE'D SAY, THAT INTERSECTION THREE MILES AWAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO.

BUT THIS ONE OVER HERE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ARE YOU'RE GOING TO CONTRIBUTE.

SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE NEED TO MEET BETTER.

AND THE LAST THING I'D SAY IS, PLEASE GOD, IF WE CAN WRITE THIS STUFF DOWN AND MEMORIALIZE IT LIKE THE INNER SAYS TO DO SO, THAT THEN WHEN WE HAVE A NEW COUNCIL, THE PLANNING DIRECTORS, THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY MANAGER'S NOW A STATE SENATOR, WHATEVER'S GOING ON, WE HAVE IT MEMORIALIZED.

SO AT LEAST THE NEXT COUNCIL CAN SAY THEY CAN BE JERKS AND NOT FOLLOW THROUGH.

OR THEY CAN SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU GUYS MET, YOU FOLLOWED EVERYTHING.

I THINK THAT MAKES FOR A LOT BETTER PARTNERSHIPS AND A LOT LESS JUST GRIEF IN GENERAL.

SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK EVERYBODY HAS DONE AND I THINK THE LANDSCAPING LOOKS GREAT AND I DO HOPE WE.

CHANGE OUR LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE SOON.

AND I KNOW WE'RE WAITING ON THE COMP PLAN FOR THAT.

SO. IF THEY CAME OFF AS MEAN AS IT WAS SUPPOSED TO, BUT.

SO WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT FIRST AMENDMENT FIRST.

WE HAD A MOTION IN A SECOND CHAIR FOR THAT TIME.

I DO NOT BELIEVE SO. THAT'S NOT CONTEMPLATED IN THE ILLINOIS.

MEANING GOOD FAITH MOTION WITH AN AMENDMENT.

SO IT'S NOT AN AMENDMENT.

OKAY, YOU APPROVED IT.

YOUR MOTION, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WAS APPROVED.

11 THREE IS PRESENTED WITH WITH THE MOTION WITH THAT NEW ADDENDUM.

YES. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCIL THORNTON APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO, DASH 2022, DASH 059 AS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION THE TIRE GETS COMPLETED BEFORE SEO IS WAS ISSUED.

ISSUED? WAS THE PUBLIC HEARING ALREADY OPENED AND CLOSED? DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT AGAIN FIRST BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE? WE GOTTA DO THAT AGAIN. YEAH, LET'S DO THAT THEN.

IF WE CAN TAILOR YOUR MOTION.

SURE. WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 930.

PM. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE CITY THAT.

WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

[02:30:01]

CNN WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN WE'RE BACK TO THE MOTION.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SINCE WE'RE ADMITTING THAT IT IS SOMEWHAT A FAULT OF THE CITIES, DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD COST SHARE ON THAT IDEA IN GOOD SPIRIT WITH THE IOWA? NO. WHY IS THAT? BECAUSE THEY WERE EMAILING A CITY ENGINEER THAT.

WASN'T RESPONDING, AND NO ONE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO GO TO THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR THE CITY MANAGER.

AND SO, AGAIN, IF I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH A TEACHER, I RESOLVE ALL RESPONSIBILITY AND THEN SAY, WELL, THEY WERE GOING TO PAY FOR IT AT THAT TIME.

WHAT CHANGES A YEAR LATER, LIKE WHY? JUST BECAUSE IT DIDN'T GET DONE DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT ASKING THAT IT CHANGES.

PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IF WE'RE PUTTING IT AS A CONTINGENCY AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM THEIR CEO, IF THEY DON'T DO IT, THEN I DON'T.

IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT GOOD SPIRIT, AND THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE DIFFERENT FROM A DEVELOPER, AND I DON'T KNOW WHY.

THERE ALWAYS SEEMS TO BE THIS DISCONNECT AND THE FACT THAT COUNCIL ADDS THE STUDENTS.

DEVELOPERS ARE FOR PROFIT.

THAT'S WHY THERE'S IMPACT FEES.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ISN'T.

WE COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TAX RATE AND THINGS LIKE THAT WITH THE ISD, WHEN IN FACT A LOT OF THAT IS RELATED TO THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT ARE HAVING TO BUILD ALL OF THESE EXTRA CAMPUSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND MARY, I KNOW YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PAY.

I MEAN, TEACHERS ARE RIGHT THERE AS WELL.

AND I'M NOT COMPARING AS FAR AS THE DANGER OF THE LINE OF WORK, BUT AS FAR AS BEING A PUBLIC SERVANT AND WHERE THE PAY IS IN THE DUTY THAT THEY PERFORM, IT'S PRETTY LOW AS WELL AS FAR AS PAY GOES AND TREATMENT.

AND IT'S BEEN A MASS EXODUS.

SO IF THAT'S OUR REQUIREMENT AND WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT WE DROPPED THE BALL IN SOME WAY.

I'M NOT SAYING THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IT 100%.

BUT YOU DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S.

SOME SORT OF COST SHARING THAT SHOULD GO INTO THAT, BECAUSE THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY BUDGETED WHENEVER THEY WERE PLANNING THIS PORTION TO TALK ABOUT SCREENS AND LANDSCAPING.

I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WERE BUDGETING THAT.

A TIA WOULD GET THROWN IN THERE JUST WELL, THE TIA SHOULD HAVE BEEN BUDGETED WHEN THE PROJECT WITH THE PROJECT ITSELF.

SO AND WE DID COST SHARE SKILLS DOWN ON LIMMER THAT I DON'T THINK WAS OUR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE A TIA WOULD SOLVE THAT.

WE DID COST SHARE AN ISSUE WITH SIDEWALKS AT I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SCHOOL NAME AT WHO I THINK IT'S.

SWINDELL YES. WENDELL YES, AND ELAINE.

SO WE DID THAT. SO IF EVERY TIME THE CITY MAKES A MISTAKE, WE CALL SHARE WITH THE OTHER PERSON, WE'RE REALLY GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM.

BECAUSE NOT THAT YOU'RE I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT PERFECT, YOU'LL MAKE MISTAKES.

BUT WE HAD SOME PRETTY BAD ACTORS IN THE CITY, AND WE'RE ALREADY PAYING ENOUGH FOR THAT.

AND THEY ARE. FOUR TIMES YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT A PARTNERSHIP AND BETTERING THAT PARTNERSHIP.

SOMETIMES YOU'VE GOT TO WORK TO MEND THINGS AND IT MAY COME AT A COST, RIGHT? AND SO WE'RE KIND OF IN THAT MENDING PHASE SO THAT WHENEVER WE DO HAVE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, THEN IT'S SET IN STONE, THINGS ARE LAID OUT AND THEN THERE MAY NOT BE COST SHARING.

BUT, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD ARGUE, WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY I THINK THE COST SHARING, IF THAT WAS TO COME UP, THAT MAY BE WHAT THE RESULTS OF THE TIA SAYS.

WELL, KEEP IN MIND, THERE'S AN LOCAL.

NO ONE'S PROVIDED PROOF THAT THEY FILED THE INTERLOCAL.

THE INTERLOCAL SAYS YOU MEET WITH THE CITY, YOU WRITE EVERYTHING DOWN, ALL YOUR DEVELOPMENTAL ISSUES, AND THAT'S YOUR PLAN FOR IT.

NOBODY PROVIDED THAT. SO I THINK.

THE MOTION COULD BE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE TIRE DONE BEFORE WE EVEN LET YOU START CONSTRUCTION LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD.

SO WE'RE I MEAN, IT COULD BE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PASS COUNCIL.

RIGHT? WELL, I MEAN, BUT I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GIVING IS WE'RE SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO REQUIRE THAT BEFORE THE START.

WE'RE GOING TO LET YOU DO IT.

JUST MAKE SURE IT'S DONE BEFORE YOU'RE DONE BEFORE YOU'RE DONE WITH THE PROJECT AND YOU DON'T.

AND WE'RE NOT MAKING THEM TAKE CARE OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP IN THE TIRE AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.

EITHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE FUTURE.

AT THIS POINT, WE'RE NOT ASKING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GOING TO SAY.

SO THERE'S REALLY NO WE DON'T KNOW.

BUT BUT WE WE'RE GIVING THEM PERMISSION TO DO THE PROJECT SO WE CAN'T STOP THIS PROJECT.

BASED ON THAT. ALL WE'RE SAYING IS DO IT.

BEFORE THE CAR, WE DIDN'T SAY DO THE TIRE AND COMPLETE $14 MILLION IN IMPROVEMENTS THAT IT COMES UP ON IT.

SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE A TIRE.

MY GUESS IS THE NEXT PHASE THAT COMES IN.

IS WHEN WE'RE GOING TO START HITTING ON OK NOW, NOW THAT YOU'RE EXPANDING, WHATEVER YOU'RE EXPANDING, THAT'S WE'RE GOING TO DO SO.

SO THEN THE NEXT PROJECT THE CITY CAN COVER BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO COVER THIS PROJECT.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN. THE NEXT.

NO, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GET THE DATA RIGHT AFTER THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE.

SO THEY SAY THE C PAYS FOR IT, RIGHT? SO I DON'T KNOW.

NORMALLY I NORMALLY THEY PAY KINSEY ON COST SHARING BETWEEN THE CITY AND NOT NECESSARILY MAYBE A 50, 50, MAYBE 6040.

[02:35:02]

BUT I MEAN, I WANT THIS PROJECT TO GO FORWARD AND I'M OKAY WITH THE IDEA BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I WANT THE WANT THIS TO MOVE FORWARD.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME COST SHARING AND BUT.

LET'S SAY YOU MAYOR PRO TEM.

THANK YOU. MY TURN.

SORRY, SIR. I'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE PATIENT.

SO I WAS JUST GOING TO.

MY ONLY COMMENTS WERE THAT I VOTED IN FAVOR OF ASKING THE ISP TO GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK TO SEE HOW MANY TREES REALLY DIED AND TO BE COMMITTED TO REPLACE THEM.

THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT.

I SUSPECTED THE NUMBER WOULD BE PRETTY LOW.

I'M COUNTING SIX.

SO APPRECIATE THAT.

I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU. ALSO, I VOTED IN FAVOR OF ASKING YOU TO GO BACK AND JUST DOUBLE CHECK WITH BOTH PARTIES TO MAKE SURE THAT THINGS WERE GOOD.

LOOKS LIKE THEY CAME UP WITH A SLIGHTLY MODIFIED PLAN.

AND I APPRECIATE YOU WORKING TOGETHER ON THAT.

THAT WAS AWESOME. I ORIGINALLY VOTED AGAINST TYING THE TIRE TO THIS, BUT NOW I'M IN FAVOR OF IT FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE IS BECAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY COMMITTED TO DO IT AND YOU'RE ALREADY WORKING WITH STAFF AND IT'S GOING TO BE DONE BEFORE THE 18 MONTHS IS DONE ANYWAY.

YOU ALREADY DOING IT. AND SO IT'S NOT ADDING AN ADDITIONAL BURDEN THAT I CAN SEE.

AND ALSO THE FACT THAT YOU WERE ALREADY WILLING TO DO IT OVER A YEAR AGO AND AGAIN FOR A MYRIAD OF REASONS IT DIDN'T HAPPEN THEN, BUT YOUR INTENTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO DO IT. YOU JUST NOW WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT.

SO I'M GRATEFUL THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD.

IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT A GOOD PLAN AND I'M READY TO VOTE.

I UNDERSTAND. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? WHAT WE WERE DOING, MAN.

SORRY. WE STARTED RUNNING AGAIN.

NO, NO, NO, NO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND THEN I REMEMBERED. YOU DID. SORRY.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

AYE. MAYOR SNYDER.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.

AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

AYE. PASSES 701 TO WAIVE THE SECOND READING SO MOVED.

SECOND QUESTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

WE CAN'T WAIVE THE SECOND READING.

THIS IS ANOTHER ZONING ORDINANCE.

IT SAYS IT'S A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH IS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, SO IT WILL BRING IT BACK ON CONSENT NEXT TIME.

LET THE RECORD SHOW. I TRIED TO GET IT PASSED ON A SECOND READING.

OKAY. CAN WE TAKE A QUICK BREAK AND TAKE A RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES AT 937? CATCH ON THE PUBLIC HEARING. RIGHT.

RECONVENING FROM RECESS AT 947.

[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. (City Council)]

NEXT ITEM WE HAVE IS ITEM 12 ONE CONSIDERATION 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.

SO, MAYOR, THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE MET LAST WEEK AND WE DISCUSSED AND ARE PREPARED TO PUT FORTH NOMINEES FOR TERM BOARD NUMBER TWO THAT NEEDS TO BE FORMED.

I ASKED THE CITY MANAGER TO SEND OUT THAT LIST SO EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED IT.

I THINK YESTERDAY, THE FULL LIST.

BUT THE NAMES THAT WE'RE PREPARED TO PUT FORTH ARE MIKE MENDEZ, WHO WOULD ALSO LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT HE BE NAMED CHAIR.

ALSO, AARON CLANCY, MARCUS COLEMAN, KURT SCHWARZENEGGER, MIKE SNYDER, RANDALL CLARK AND DAN THORNTON. AND THESE ARE MADE UP OF MEMBERS OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, THE CITY COUNCIL, AND ONE MEMBER OF PLANNING AND ZONING.

THAT'S MOTION. YES.

SECOND MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

THE PLANE CARRIES IS CHAIR.

ERIN CLANCY AND MARCUS COLEMAN.

HOW DO YOU SAY HIS NAME? CURT SHORT.

CURT SHORT FIGURE.

MIKE SNYDER. RANDALL CLARK.

AND DAN THORNTON TO THE TOURIST BOARD TO.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

MY ONLY DISCUSSION IS SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO NOTICE POSSIBLE EDC QUORUM EVERY TIME WE MEET.

YEAH. YEAH.

AND WE DISCUSSED THAT.

OK JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT OUT THERE.

THE EDC AND EVERY ONE OF THEIR AGENDAS, THEY NOTICE POSSIBLE FORM OF COUNCIL JUST IN CASE MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS SHOW UP.

SO WE FIGURED THAT WOULD BE PRETTY EASY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE STAFF IS AWARE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT.

[02:40:03]

JUST HAVE IT AS PART OF THE POSSIBLE EDC QUORUM EVERY TIME.

DISCUSSION. PETER, CAN YOU SAY WHO'S FROM WHICH I KNOW MIKE, CDC.

OH, SURE. SO MIKE MENDEZ, ERIN CLANCY AND MARCUS KOHLMANN ARE ALL MEMBERS OF THE EDC.

KURT IS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING.

OKAY. AND THEN RANDALL AND MIKE ARE.

SO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE. QUORUM IS QUORUM, RIGHT? EXACTLY. IT IS.

YEAH. THAT'S WHY I SAID WE NEED TO NOTICE THE COUNTY NOT BEING PART OF IT.

WE WANT TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT.

EDC AND COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE ON IT AND THAT WAS JUST KIND OF OUR POOL.

AND THEN OF COURSE, CURT WAS OUR PLANNING AND ZONING.

OPTION TWO.

SO MUCH. I WANT TO RECOMMEND OTHER PEOPLE.

WE CAN DEFINITELY DISCUSS THAT.

BUT. YES.

WE CAN TALK THROUGH, I GUESS, OUR REASONING BEHIND IT.

MY ONLY MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHEN DID YOU ALL MEET? BUSTER WAS THIRSTY.

SO THE THIRD.

OH, SO. SO THAT'S YOUR OFFICIAL LAST ONE THEN? YEAH, THAT WAS OUR LAST. YEAH.

BECAUSE NOW IT SWITCHES OVER, RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH, THAT WAS OUR LAST ONE.

SO SINCE BY CHANCE WE HAVE THE EDC GENERAL COUNCIL HERE.

YEAH. FOR INSTANCE, RIGHT NOW YOU HAVE A QUORUM OF YOUR COURT WITH DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ON COUNCIL, BUT YOU DON'T DO A DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGENDA EVERY COUNCIL MEETING BECAUSE THE ITEMS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKING ACTION ON OR CITY COUNCIL ITEM.

WHAT WE DO WITH THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AGENDA IS THERE IS A PARAGRAPH AT THE BOTTOM THAT SAYS THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF COMMISSIONS OR BOARDS OR THE COUNCIL MAY ATTEND IN NUMBERS THAT MAY CONSTITUTE A QUORUM, BUT THAT IF THEY DO, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY ACTION TAKEN BECAUSE THERE'S NO ACTION FOR THAT THAT THAT BOARD.

AND SO WE DO GIVE PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THERE'S A POTENTIAL QUORUM, LIKE A NOTICE OF POSSIBLE QUORUM, BUT THAT THEIR ACTION IS GOING TO BE TAKEN.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD WE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DO THE TERS MEETINGS BECAUSE YOU WOULD BE DEALING WITH TURGEMAN TERS BUSINESS ONLY AND THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER ITEMS FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

OKAY. HEARD IN THEIR DISCUSSION.

HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY I COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AYE..

COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.

AYE. TEM GORDON, AYE..

MOTION PASSES, SEVEN ZERO.

I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. I'M SORRY.

I SHOULD'VE ASKED IT BEFORE. DID EVERYONE ON THIS LIST, WERE THEY ASKED OR NOTIFIED TO? B, NOT THE COUNCIL, NOT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WEREN'T THERE, BUT ALL THE OTHER.

BUT THE OTHER ONES? YES.

PETER, YOU TOOK CARE OF THAT, RIGHT? YES. YEAH. YEP. OKAY.

THE OTHER, MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T LIKE, HEY, GUESS WHAT? WE ACTUALLY LIKE THREE WE HAVE IN CASE SOMEBODY SAID NO.

WE HAD SOMEONE SAID, NO WAY, CALL A, B AND C OR PETER DID IT.

ANYWAYS, WE JUST KIND OF WERE TALKING TODAY.

ALL RIGHTY. INTERACTION FOR 12 ONE.

I JUST WANT TO SAY IT WAS IT WAS GREAT TO SERVE ON THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE THIS PAST YEAR.

I THINK WE ENJOYED IT, THE THREE OF US, AND SET FORTH SOME PRETTY GOOD STANDARD PRACTICES I THINK REALLY WELL MEETING WITH INCLUDING THE THE CHAIRS OF EACH OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AND THEY REALLY APPRECIATED PARTICIPATION.

SO I THINK IT WENT, YEAH, MAYBE WE SHOULD JUST THROW A POST ON THE FORUM AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ADD COMMENTS TO IT AND JUST SAY WHAT WE THOUGHT WENT WELL THIS YEAR SO THAT I KNOW THE MEMBERS TAKING OVER CAN.

USE THAT AS THEY WISH OR IGNORE IT OR WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE TO DO.

I LIKE THAT. SO IT'S 135 NOW, RIGHT? SO FOR NOW.

ONE, TWO, THREE. YEP. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT ITEM 12 TWO PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO ACCEPT THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDING OCTOBER 31ST, 2022.

[12.2. Presentation and possible action to accept the financial report for the month ending October 31, 2022 (Christina Bishop)]

THE MOST EXCITING TIME.

I AGREE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

CHRISTINA BISHOP, ACTING FINANCE DIRECTOR.

I HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THE FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT REPORT FOR OCTOBER 31ST, 2022.

IT IS BRIEF BECAUSE IT IS THE FIRST MONTH OF THE YEAR, SO THERE REALLY ISN'T A WHOLE LOT OF ACTIVITY TO REPORT.

FIRST, WE HAVE A GENERAL FUND SNAPSHOT.

WE'RE AT 4.2% OF REVENUES, 2.75 OF EXPENDITURES.

REALLY ON THE REVENUE SIDE.

THERE'S NOT A LOT OF AD VALOREM TAXES COLLECTED IN OCTOBER.

THOSE GET COLLECTED CLOSER TO THE DUE DATES.

FRANCHISE FEES IN GENERAL ARE COLLECTED QUARTERLY, SO WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THERE.

INTEREST IN THIS ENVIRONMENT IS VERY FAVORABLE.

WE'VE COLLECTED ALMOST 200% OF OUR BUDGET.

AND THEN ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE, WE'VE SPENT ABOUT 3% OF EXPENDITURES.

[02:45:01]

AND PERSONALLY, FOR ME, THE EXPENDITURES ARE ALWAYS A LITTLE BIT PAINFUL TO LOOK AT IN OCTOBER BECAUSE YOU SEE ALL THE HOLES, FOR EXAMPLE, IN ENGINEERING.

IF YOU'RE NOT BILLED FOR THINGS UNTIL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AFTER THE FACT, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY EXPENDITURES THERE.

AND THAT'S A BIG HOLE. SAME WITH LEGAL.

IF WE GOT OUR BILL IN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER, I'M SORRY, IT MIGHT NOT BE POSTED IN OCTOBER.

SO THE FIRST MONTH IS REALLY A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT SOMETIMES TO DRAW SOME CONCLUSIONS ON.

WE DID HAVE A VERY FAVORABLE MONTH OF SALES TAXES ONCE.

ONCE AGAIN, WE EXCEEDED OUR ESTIMATE BY.

ALMOST 200,000.

SO THAT WAS GOOD TO SEE.

AND I KNOW LAST TIME I PRESENTED A FINANCIAL REPORT, THERE WERE QUESTIONS ON HOW OUR BUILDING PERMIT REVENUES ARE LOOKING BECAUSE WE WERE EXPECTING THINGS TO SLOW DOWN OVER PRIOR FISCAL YEARS.

WE DID BUDGET CONSERVATIVELY THIS YEAR.

SO I PUT TOGETHER A CHART THAT WE CAN USE IN OUR FINANCIAL REPORTS GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TRACK.

NOVEMBER WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A SLOW MONTH.

SO BASICALLY WHAT THIS TO BACKTRACK, WHAT THIS CHART SHOWS IS FOR THE PRIOR FISCAL YEARS, HOW MUCH OF OUR ACTUAL REVENUES WERE COLLECTED IN THAT PARTICULAR MONTH. AND FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, I LOOKED AT HOW MUCH OF OUR BUDGET WAS COLLECTED IN THAT.

SO IN OCTOBER WE HAD 8%, WHICH WAS KIND OF IN LINE WITH HISTORICAL TRENDS.

3% IS A LITTLE LOW, BUT WE EXPECTED THAT AND WE'RE NOT TERRIBLY ALARMED AT THIS POINT.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING TO MONITOR GOING FORWARD TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENTS TO OUR BUILDING REVENUES.

THEN MY FINAL SLIDE IS A SUMMARY.

I THINK THE BIGGEST ACTIVITY THAT HAPPENED IN OCTOBER WAS THE ISSUANCE OF THE 2020 TO GO BONDS.

WE HAD $25 MILLION IN PROCEEDS.

AND THEN AS PART OF THIS, THIS BOND ISSUANCE, WE HAD TO SET ASIDE OUR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF WHAT IT WOULD COST TO COMPLETE THE FME 1660 PROJECTS BASED ON THE MOST RECENT COST ESTIMATES FROM AGENCY B, WE ARE EXPECTING IT TO COST ABOUT 14 AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO FINISH THOSE THREE PROJECTS, AND THOSE FUNDS NEED TO BE SET ASIDE.

FINALLY, THERE WAS ALSO DISCUSSION ON THE REIMBURSEMENT FOR PREVIOUS 1660S SOFT COSTS.

WE ARE EXPECTING THAT TO BE TWO AND ONE HALF MILLION DOLLARS.

I THINK IT COULD COME IN AT A LITTLE BIT LESS.

WE'RE WORKING TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHICH COSTS ARE GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BE REIMBURSED.

AND IF WE DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH THAT REIMBURSEMENT, WE WILL NEED TO PASS A RESOLUTION PER OUR FISCAL POLICY.

SO THAT WOULD LEAVE US WITH TWO SCENARIOS.

IF WE DO REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND OR IT WILL BE WE'LL HAVE ABOUT $8 MILLION FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

IF WE DON'T REIMBURSE THE GENERAL FUND, WE'LL HAVE ABOUT TEN AND A HALF MILLION DOLLARS FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

SO I'M SORRY I WENT THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT QUICKLY.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT TO REPORT IN OCTOBER, BUT I'M VERY HAPPY TO FIELD QUESTIONS.

SO THE ONE I HAVE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO SLIDES TO THE SALES TAX? YES, SURE. SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD ON AND I JUST DON'T KNOW THE DATA, THE DETAIL OF DATA YOU GET FROM DO YOU JUST GET A FLAT AMOUNT OF THIS IS HOW MUCH WE COLLECTED FOR THAT MONTH? OR DO YOU HAVE IT BROKEN OUT BY WEEKEND OR DATES OR SO AS WE DO FESTIVALS OR WE DO AN EVENT OR YOU KNOW, WE'VE HEARD THAT YOU TALK ABOUT WE HAD PLAYOFF GAMES IN NOVEMBER THAT WERE HOSTED AT HUTTO.

I WOULD LIKE TO START SEEING IF WE'RE IF WE'RE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DATA TO SEE DO YOU SEE SPIKES IN DATA OR PEOPLE COMING TO COKE FEST AND THEN SPENDING MONEY IN HUTTO AND WE SEE THAT UPTICK BECAUSE AS I LOOK FORWARD OF WHEN WE AS AN EDC LOOKING FOR INCENTIVIZING THINGS, IF YOU DON'T SEE ANY UPTICK OF ANY OF THESE OTHER THINGS, THEN YOU'RE JUST KIND OF THROWING MONEY AWAY VERSUS YOU'RE INCENTIVIZING SOMETHING THAT CREATES GENERATION AND THEN THAT HELPS YOU DECIDE WHICH PROJECTS YOU SHOULD FUND OR WHAT TYPES OF PROJECTS YOU SHOULD FUND GOING FORWARD.

IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A PARTICULAR OUTCOMES, I MEAN, BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOU INCENTIVIZE SOME THINGS BECAUSE THERE'S A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, WHICH IS AN INTANGIBLE DOLLAR AMOUNT, BUT THEN SOMETIMES YOU MAY INCENTIVIZE SOMETHING BECAUSE YOU PUT OUT A LITTLE MONEY BECAUSE YOU EXPECT TO MAKE MONEY FROM, FROM THE PROJECT, YOUR ROI.

SO I WAS JUST KIND OF CURIOUS, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU SAY LIKE THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, DOES DOES IT BREAK OUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF WE DID EAT TREATS ON E STREET OR WHATEVER, DID WE SEE THAT WEEKEND? IT WAS A HUGE SPIKE UP ON THAT SATURDAY OR.

SURE. GOOD QUESTION. WE DO HAVE A PRETTY SOPHISTICATED SOFTWARE THAT DOES GIVE US A LOT OF SALES TAX INFORMATION.

I'VE PERSONALLY NEVER LOOKED TO SEE IF IT DOES BREAK DOWN BY DATES, WEEKENDS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT I USE IT MORE FOR THIS INDUSTRY IS WE'RE COLLECTING THIS MUCH FROM THIS INDUSTRY AND THESE TAX PAYERS.

IT IS A VERY SOPHISTICATED SOFTWARE AND I WILL FIND THAT ANSWER FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT IS VERY VALUABLE INFORMATION TO HAVE.

THANK YOU. YEAH, I DO AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION MULTIPLE TIMES WITH THE CITY MANAGER THAT.

[02:50:08]

THERE ARE SOME EVENTS YOU DO JUST TO SPEND MONEY AND THERE ARE SOME IF WE THINK WE'RE DOING THIS EVENT AND WE DROP $50,000 TO SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES, BUT THEY GET A MODEST INCREASE IN REVENUE.

I SAID IT MAY BE CHEAPER FOR THE CITY JUST TO WRITE CHECKS TO THE BUSINESSES.

RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU CAN SPEND A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY AND MAKE A LITTLE BIT.

NOW, SOME THINGS YOU MAKE IT UP AN ENJOYMENT, QUALITY OF LIFE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT'S THE QUALITY. AND THOSE ARE THAT'S A TANGIBLE BENEFIT.

THAT ALSO IS A DECISION THAT'S COUNCIL.

BUT JUST TO KNOW, HAVE THE DATA BEHIND IT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, AND THESE ARE THESE AREN'T THE ANSWER NOW BUT THINGS ARE LOOK AT.

SO THE SALES TAX ON THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE IS ESTIMATED AT 7.75.

BUT THE BUDGET 7575.

AND SO I DON'T KNOW.

AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE USING EXCEL SPREADSHEETS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A MISS KEY.

AND THEN PAGE 281 OF THE PACKET I WAS TRYING TO FIND THAT PAGE 21 HAS THE SALES TAX AT 7.615 AS A BUDGET.

SO WE'VE GOT THREE DIFFERENT BUDGETED NUMBERS FOR SALES TAX.

AND THEN I AM CONCERNED ABOUT IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE PERMIT LICENSE ONE.

I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A LARGE CATEGORY.

WE'RE ALREADY DOWN. IF TRENDS CONTINUE, WE'LL BE DOWN LIKE 25%.

BUT LOOKING AT LIKE 20, 21 TO 2022, WE'RE AT NINE, THEN 18, TEN, 11.

AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT WHEN INTEREST RATES STARTED KICKING UP BECAUSE THEN WE STARTED DROPPING BELOW.

AND SO WE'VE BEEN TRENDING LOWER THE WHOLE REST OF THE YEAR.

AND NOW WE'RE STARTING TO THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND SO I'D LIKE US TO ALMOST HAVE A PLAN THAT POTENTIALLY, IF WE TREND DOWN 25% FOR THE YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING, I THINK.

I THINK THAT NUMBER WOULD BE LIKE ALMOST 950,000.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT MONEY.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR SALARIES.

I HOPE NOT. BUT IF WE CAN START PLANNING NOW, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS CITIES STRUGGLED WITH BEFORE IS WE SAID, WELL, LET'S WAIT A COUPLE OF MORE MONTHS AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN ONE DAY.

AND THEN YOU ANSWERED ABOUT ENGINEERING.

BUT CAN WE NOT FORCE HIM TO SEND A BILL REGULARLY? I DON'T GET PAID BECAUSE I THINK WE JUST PAID LIKE 750,000 ALL AT ONCE.

AND TO ME, THAT SEEMS AN AWFUL WAY TO MANAGE MONEY WHEN WHEN THEY NEED A PAYCHECK, THEN THEY SEND US A BILL.

BUT I WOULD THINK IT'D BE MONTHLY OR LIKE YOU DON'T GET PAID OR SOMETHING.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CONTRACT SAYS, BUT.

MAYOR COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD, JAMES EARP, CITY MANAGER.

I GUESS IT DEPENDS.

AND I GIVE THIS ANSWER A LOT.

I KNOW IT DEPENDS IF IF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE ENGINEERING THAT'S GOING ON WITH LIKE ENGINEERING ON 1660 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN REQUIRE THAT THEY INVOICE US AT ANY POINT IN TIME.

GENERALLY AS THEY EXPENSE WORK THAN THEY INVOICE FOR FOR A MONTH OR THE, OR IF WE HAVE IT SET IN THEIR CONTRACT, YOU WILL PAY A FIXED RATE FOR 30% THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT WAY OF OF BEING BILLED THE THE 775 NUMBER THAT WAS THE ANNUAL CONTRACT DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE FOR THE IN HOUSE ENGINEERING SO THAT NUMBER DOESN'T GO UP OR DOWN.

IT WAS IT WAS A SET NUMBER.

THEY JUST BUILT IT AT THE END OF THE YEAR SO.

RIGHT. BUT SEE SO YEAH, THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO SEE THIS MONTHLY BECAUSE WE SAID HEY, WE'LL GIVE YOU FIVE MORE POSITIONS AND YOU'LL ADJUST YOUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ENGINEERING OFFSET BY THAT.

WELL WHAT I DON'T WANT AND MY BIGGEST FEAR I THINK I TALKED TO CUSTOMER TALK ABOUT IS WE'RE GOING TO COME LIKE FIVE MONTHS IN AND GO, OH SNAP, WE'RE 100,000 OVER BECAUSE WE USE OUR PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ENGINEERS MORE THAN WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE, AND WE DIDN'T WIN THEM OFF IN TIME.

AND THEN I'M REALLY GOING TO BE I MEAN, I HAD A CONVERSATION WITH I WAS LIKE, I'M GETTING NERVOUS HERE.

AND SO I'M AFRAID IT WILL GO THROUGH.

WE HIRED EVERYBODY. WE'LL GO THROUGH EVERYTHING CHUGGING ALONG, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO SEND US A BILL AND WE'RE GOING TO GO, WE'RE OVER.

AND I'M STILL NOT HAPPY THAT WE SPENT $2 MILLION ON PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LAST YEAR FOR ENGINEERING, BECAUSE IF IF WE KNEW MONTHLY, WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN BEFORE WE HAD A 500,000 BILL FOR SITE PLANS, WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AND I WOULD HAVE MADE A MOTION TO FIRE THAT COMPANY.

AND THEN IF WE WOULD HAVE KNOWN WE WERE UP TO 1,000,002 AND CITY ENGINEERING FEES, I WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST GUY GOING, WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY HERE, LIKE HIRE SOME PEOPLE. SO IN OUR BUDGET I MEANT TO BRING THE BUDGET WITH ME, BUT OUR ENGINEERING NUMBER ON THERE SEEMS AWFULLY LOW FROM WHAT WE ALL THE STUFF WE HAVE GOING ON.

SO YEAH, WE'RE THREE MONTHS IN.

I'D LIKE TO SEE SOME ENGINEERING DOLLARS SPENT SO THAT WE THEN WHEN WE START HAVING THESE SALARIES COME IN.

[02:55:02]

UM, YEAH, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE ROAD PEOPLE, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S A LONG THING.

AND I FORGOT WHAT THAT NOTE IS.

OH, YEAH. THERE'S 1,000,001, TWO, TWO 746 IN ENGINEERING.

AND WE APPROVED FIVE POSITIONS AND WE AGREED ON 1117 TO REDUCE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BY 775,000.

SO THAT LEAVES 347,736 TO BE SPENT BY PROFESSIONAL SERVICE ENGINEERS BASED ON THE WAY WE WERE CHEWING THROUGH MONEY LAST YEAR.

THREE MONTHS IS UP.

THAT MEANS, LIKE IN MY MIND, GARVER IS DOWN TO A COUPLE OF WEEKS.

IF WE CONTINUE ON THE BUDGET, WE SAID, BECAUSE YOU ONLY GOT 350,000.

AND THEN. THIS IS A WEIRD ONE.

THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

ON ONE OF YOUR SLIDES YOU GAVE US, THE BUDGET FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WAS 92,000 AND THERE WAS A LINE ITEM IN OUR BUDGET.

WE APPROVED FOR REQUIRED PUBLIC NOTICES AT 20 GRAND.

BUT NOW THE PACKET WE GOT SENT.

HAS PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AT 112,000.

SO IT'S THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT BUT DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

AND SO I'M GOING TO GET IN TROUBLE FOR SAYING BACK IN THE OLD DAYS.

BACK IN THE OLD DAYS WE HAD A CFO, AND THIS ISN'T YOU.

I'M SURE IT'S RECONCILIATION, BUT WE HAD A CFO THAT WOULD COME UP, I SWEAR TO GOD EVERY MONTH AND WOULD TAKE A BUDGET AND SPLIT IT BETWEEN TWO CATEGORIES AND THEN ANOTHER BUDGET, ANOTHER CATEGORY.

SHE WOULD COMBINE TWO THINGS AND ME AND THE MAYOR PUT HIM AT THE TIME KEPT SAYING, STOP DOING THAT BECAUSE I CAN'T KEEP TRACK OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

WE WANT THE BUDGET TO BE THE EXACT SAME UNTIL THE COUNCIL.

MAKES AN AMENDMENT.

AND THEN LO AND BEHOLD, WE DID A FORENSIC AUDIT AND FOUND OUT THAT SHE MADE LIKE 70 SOMETHING TRANSFERS IN ONE DAY AND WE STILL CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED.

SO WHEN I SEE THAT, IT'S I'M SURE IT'S NOTHING, BUT IT ALWAYS TRIGGERS ME TO LIKE, HEY, WHY DID WE SPLIT UP A CATEGORY? WHY DO WE COMBINE IT? AND THEN A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONCE UPON A TIME I READ WE HAVE TO REPORT OUR HOT FUND EXPENDITURES TO THE STATE, BUT WE HADN'T DONE IT.

WHEN I GO WHEN I WENT ON THE WEBSITE, IT'S BEEN A YEAR OR TWO, WE WENT I WENT ON A SECRETARY OF MAYBE IT'S A STATE OR COMPTROLLER.

WE HADN'T REPORTED IT IN OUR BUDGET.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOT REVENUES COMING IN, AND I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD LAG A LITTLE BIT.

BUT WE WOULD BE MAYBE GETTING LIKE SALES TAX, WE'D BE GETTING SAY JULY IS HOT TAXES IN OCTOBER.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS, BUT THAT'S ANOTHER ONE THAT I'M CURIOUS BECAUSE WE'RE USING HOT MONEY TO FUND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCILMEMBER CLARK IS TALKING ABOUT.

AND SO WHEN THERE'S A RECESSION, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING UP OR DOWN.

AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS.

PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND BUDGET AMENDMENT.

I'VE GOT NO MONEY BUDGET NOW WE HAVE 15,370.

SO IN THAT PARKS IMPROVEMENT.

CATEGORY HERE.

WE BUDGETED NO EXPENDITURES IN THAT IN THAT DEPARTMENT OR IN THAT CATEGORY.

BUT WE'VE ALREADY SPENT 15,000.

AND SO IT JUST POPPED IN MY MIND.

IT'S NOT THAT IT MEANS ANYTHING.

IT'S PAGE 287 OF THE PACKET, BUT I'LL SEE IT.

AGAIN, 15 GRAND.

NOT OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT IT, BUT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS.

SURE. SO I CAN SPEAK ON A COUPLE OF THESE THINGS.

SO I WILL CHECK IN ON COMPLIANCE WITH THE HOTEL TAX REPORTING.

I'LL SEND A STAFF TO MAKE THAT A HIGH PRIORITY.

WE HAVE ONE OF OUR HOTELS WHO REMITS MONTHLY.

SO ONCE I KNOW WE'RE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND WITH AS THIS IS THE OCTOBER REPORT, BUT COME NOVEMBER, WE SHOULD SEE THAT ONE HOTEL REMITTING THEIR THEIR FIRST MONTH OF REVENUES.

THE OTHER HOTELS IN TOWN REMIT THEM QUARTERLY.

IN TERMS OF THE PARKLAND FEES.

SO THIS WAS ACTUALLY A RECEIPT THAT GOT DEPOSITED AT A DEVELOPER HAD GIVEN US MONEY FOR A TREE IN LIEU OF FEE.

IT WASN'T THE TRADITIONAL PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEE.

AND SO WHAT WE DID IS WE HAD A DISCUSSION IN OCTOBER THAT, YES, WE CAN BUY THE TREES WITH THOSE FUNDS, BUT WE NEED TO COME BACK WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENTS MIDYEAR IN MARCH.

YES. OKAY.

AND AND AGAIN, FULL DISCLOSURE, I KNOW THAT I'M EXCITED TO SEE WHAT CITY MANAGERS COME UP WITH, WITH THE BUDGETING AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING HERE IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, BECAUSE I'M SURE IT'S GOING TO MAKE ME REALLY EXCITED FOR ALL THE CHANGES.

SO I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.

YEAH. AND THEN AND THERE MAY BE A REASON.

I KNOW WE HAVE A WELLS FARGO BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS OUR OPERATIONAL ACCOUNT THAT BASICALLY I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY FIND ONE THAT AT LEAST GIVES YOU 0.1%, BUT BASICALLY IT EARNS 0%.

SO MY QUESTION IS, THOUGH, YOU ONLY TOOK OUT $500,000 OUT OF THAT ACCOUNT OVER THE YEAR.

[03:00:06]

OVER THE MONTH, BUT WE EARN 0%.

SO DO WE NEED TO KEEP 13 MILLION IN THAT ACCOUNT OR CAN WE MOVE 8 MILLION OF IT INTO THE TAX POOL ACCOUNT AND BE GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL INTEREST? AND THEN EVEN IF YOU HAVE TO DO A MONTHLY BALANCE TRANSFER, AT LEAST YOU EARNED A PERSON SALARY AND INTEREST JUST BECAUSE WE'RE $8 MILLION SITTING AT 3%, THAT'S FREE MONEY THAT WE'RE JUST NOT TAKING ADVANTAGE OF.

SO YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

THAT IS SOMETHING ON THE TO DO LIST IS TO SORT OF SET SOME OUR MINIMUM BALANCE.

AND WELLS FARGO, BECAUSE THERE IS A LOT IN THERE RIGHT NOW JUST BASICALLY NOT EARNING INTEREST, YOU ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

YEAH. SO I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS, BUT I MEAN, I WOULD THINK YOU COULD AT LEAST MOVE 8 MILLION OF IT PROBABLY.

ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT BEFORE YOUR NEXT UPDATE THAT THAT'S HAPPENED, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO WASTE ANY MORE MONTHS OF LOSING BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN FOUR MORE MONTHS AND WE'RE PROBABLY STILL AT 13 MILLION IN THAT ACCOUNT.

AND THAT'S I CAN ALWAYS MAKE A CONSERVATIVE MOVE IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND IF YOU FIND OUT LATER THAT YOU CAN GO EVEN FURTHER THAN GREAT, BUT AT LEAST YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT REVENUE.

SO I'M ASSUMING THIS IS COMBINED RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

YES, I BELIEVE. YES, I BELIEVE SO.

IS THERE A WAY TO SPLIT IT OUT AND TO LOOK AT THOSE SEPARATE LAYERS THAT DIFFICULT? I LIKE THAT. I MIGHT HAVE TO DEFER TO ASHLEY ON THAT TO SEE IF RESIDENTIAL IS DROPPING, BUT COMMERCIALS STILL STAYING STEADY OR GOING UP AND I'M LESS WORRIED.

I SHOULD NOT KNOW THESE NUMBERS.

SO FOR THE SUMMER, WE ENDED THE YEAR AT 709, WHICH IS DOWN FROM HOW MANY WE DID IN THE LAST YEAR.

IT IS DOWN FROM THAT 851 THAT WE DID THE YEAR PRIOR IN 2020.

I THINK WE ENDED AT SEVEN OR NINE FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL.

HOWEVER, IF I BELIEVE YOU'RE GETTING THIS IN YOUR NEXT FRIDAY LETTER ON THE NUMBER OF PERMITS I WAS JUST LOOKING AT TODAY, YOU GUYS, I DON'T REMEMBER THESE THINGS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I THINK FOR COMMERCIAL, I THINK THE LAST YEAR WE DID 14 COMMERCIAL PERMITS.

THIS YEAR WE'VE DONE 27 OR THAT'S WHAT WE ENDED 2022 WITH AND WE DO GRANTED.

I HAVE TO TELL YOU, THIS IS BASED ON THE FISCAL YEAR.

THE WAY THAT I'M TRACKING PERMITS IS ACTUALLY ON THE CALENDAR YEAR.

SO WHEN I'M DOING THE NUMBERS, I HAVE TO GO, OKAY, WE'LL WAIT.

LET'S PULL THOSE NUMBERS AND LET'S PULL THESE NUMBERS WHEN WE GET BACK TO THE FISCAL.

SO WE ARE A LITTLE BIT BUSY ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE BECAUSE WE'RE SO MUCH BUSIER ON THE MULTIFAMILY SIDE.

SO CERTAINLY I THINK YOU'LL SEE AN UPTICK.

THESE ARE JUST THE PERMIT REVENUES, BUT I THINK YOU'LL SEE AN UPTICK IN THE IMPACT FEES AND SITE PLAN FEES AND SOME OF THE PLANNING FEES BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING MORE ZONING AND WE'VE CHANGED THAT IN THE FEE SCHEDULE.

BUT YEAH, WE WERE DOWN, I THINK WE DID 851 AND 2020 FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR.

WE DID 709 AT THE BY THE END OF 2022 AND THEN LAST YEAR I DON'T EVEN WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT WAS, I DON'T REMEMBER IT, IT WAS IN 82.

SO OUR HOUSING NUMBERS HAVE DROPPED BY 60, 70% THEN.

HOWEVER, THAT'S WHAT WE EXPECTED.

LAST YEAR WAS AN ANOMALY AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE EVEN BUDGETED FOR.

AS I SAID, DO NOT USE THIS YEAR THAT WE'RE HAVING, BECAUSE WITH COVID, A LOT OF PEOPLE WEREN'T DOING ANY RESALE HOMES.

THEY WERE ONLY BUYING NEW. SO I THINK WE SAW THE HUGE UPTICK, BUT THAT'S WHY WE BUDGETED MORE TOWARDS THOSE 2020 NUMBERS PURPOSELY, BECAUSE I SAID I THINK THIS IS JUST AN ANOMALY.

I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM TO HAVE THAT MUCH OF AN INCREASE.

SO WE WENT BACK ABOUT TO OUR 2020 NUMBERS.

SO IF WE LOOK AT IT, IF WE JUST TAKE OUT LAST YEAR, WE'RE A LITTLE BIT SLOWER THAN THAT NUMBER, BUT NOT BY MUCH BECAUSE OUR COMMERCIAL TICKED UP SO MUCH.

IF IT'S POSSIBLE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT SPLIT OUT GOING FORWARD, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL, SO WE CAN GET THAT GOOD PICTURE OF WHAT'S DROPPING, WHAT'S INCREASING, WHERE THAT'S AT JUST ON THE PERMIT REVENUES.

LIKE THIS SLIDE HERE, HAVE IT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND HERE'S HOW MUCH THE INCREASE AND DROP IS CAN WE DO IF WE NEED MULTIFAMILY TO BE GOOD IN MULTIFAMILY IS IN COMMERCIAL.

MULTIFAMILY IS IN COMMERCIAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT UNDER THE IRC.

SORRY. SO WE CAN RESIDENTIAL UNDERSTAND THAT DIFFERENCE TO.

I THINK IT'D BE USEFUL. I CAN PUT SOME ASTERIX IN THERE JUST SO WE MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THE MULTIFAMILY IS ALWAYS DONE UNDER THE COMMERCIAL CODE BECAUSE OUR POPULATION GROWTH IS NOT SLOWING 60% BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING THE MULTIFAMILY.

SO IT'S STILL IN THE MIDDLE SOMEWHERE.

WE'RE DEFINITELY GETTING SOME OF THAT MISSING MIDDLE THAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING FOR.

YEAH, SINCE I MEAN, WE ONLY HAD ONE TRUE APARTMENT COMPLEX WHEN I STARTED IN 2018.

FIVE YEARS LATER, I THINK WE'VE GOT SIX ALMOST COMING ONLINE AND THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE BUILD THE FOUR RENT SINGLE FAMILY THAT WE HAVE COMING.

WE'LL GO, WHAT, THREE OF THOSE FOUR? TWO OF THOSE THREE? WOW. BECAUSE IT'S URBANA, SCHMIDT'S CREEK.

[03:05:03]

UPPER SCHITT'S CREEK IS ANOTHER ONE THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING.

AND THEN WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING OVER WITH THE LANDING SITE FOR SMITHS CREEK.

I'M WORRIED ABOUT THE BELL YARD.

WE'VE GOT THOSE TWO. THEN WE'VE GOT SOME OTHER ONES COMING IN OVER OFF THE EDGE.

WE HAVE A FEW CONDOS GOING IN AND THE RC OR THE EMERY DEVELOPMENT.

WE ALSO HAVE ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE CALLED HUTTO STATION.

SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM COME UP TO THIS MANY, MANY.

SO, YEAH, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE IS MORE ON THE COMMERCIAL PERMIT SIDE RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE GROWTH THIS YEAR.

THAT'S WHY I'M NOT AS CONCERNED, BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WE'VE SLOWED DOWN A LITTLE BIT ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, BUT IT'S ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE REALLY BIG PROJECTS COMING IN LIKE DALE WALKER AND STROMBERG, THAT JUST HAVEN'T STARTED PLOTTING YET.

SO WE'RE FINISHING UP SOME, WE'RE STARTING SOME OTHERS.

AND IN THAT MEANTIME, WE'RE REALLY BRINGING UP THOSE COMMERCIAL PERMITS.

SO I GUESS MY ASK WOULD BE TO GET THE MULTIFAMILY NUMBER AND TO ALSO GET THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT ARE TIED TO THAT.

I LIKE THE WAY YOU THINK. OKAY, LET'S DO THAT.

OH, YEAH, I'M LOVING THIS BECAUSE YEAH, IT'D BE NICE TO BECAUSE THE MORE YOU HAVE THAT, THE MORE YOU CAN EITHER.

NO, WE MAY START VOTING NO ON MULTIFAMILY JUST BECAUSE LIKE, WE HAVE LIKE 2100 COMING.

WE WANT SOMETHING ELSE.

BUT RIGHT NOW, I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WE HAD FIVE RENTAL COMMUNITIES COMING.

I CAN GIVE YOU. FORGET OUR LOT NUMBERS ARE OUR NORMAL.

I THINK OUR NUMBERS COMING IN FOR JUST UNIT COUNTS THAT WE KNOW OF ALREADY.

I CAN GIVE ALL OF THAT WITH THIS NEXT ONE.

IT'LL JUST TAKE ME, LIKE, 20 MINUTES.

FOR THREE DAYS, MAYBE THREE DAYS.

WE'RE GOING TO BE HERE A FEW HOURS.

SO WE HAVE LOTS OF TIME.

I KNOW I LIKE TO SEND EMAILS AS I'M LEAVING COUNCIL.

I TOLD YOU THAT I DON'T THINK I'M GOING TO SEND THAT OUT TONIGHT, THAT YOU GUYS, BECAUSE I DON'T HATE YOU WHEN I ASK THIS.

BUT IS THERE A WAY ON OUR MONTHLY WE CAN ALSO GET IMPACT FEE INCOME BECAUSE I STILL DON'T KNOW THAT I FULLY OR THAT WE'VE FULLY GOTTEN AN ACCOUNTING OF OUR IMPACT FEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

AND I KNOW LIKE CITY MANAGER AND I TALKED, I KNOW IT'S COMING, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE NORTH OF LIMBER, WEST OF 132, WERE ALL THEY ALL CAME ON BOARD ALL THROUGH FINAL PLAT AFTER WE ADJUSTED THE IMPACT FEE FEES FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.

BASED ON THE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE GROUND, THERE SHOULD BE SUBSTANTIALLY MORE MONEY IN THOSE ACCOUNTS THAN WHAT WE'RE SHOWING.

AND SO I'M HOPING WE GET THAT NEXT HERE FAIRLY SOON.

IT MAY BE WORTH PUTTING A LITTLE MONEY INTO.

I HATE TO USE THE WORD, BUT A FORENSIC AUDIT OF THOSE FEES TO FIND OUT WERE THEY CHARGED.

RIGHT. WE NEED TO GO BACK TO DEVELOPERS AND GET MONEY BACK BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SO MUCH DEVELOPMENT COME TO ONLY HAVE LIKE A MILLION SOME IMPACT FEES.

EVEN. I WAS SHOWING THE MATH TO THE CITY MANAGER EVEN UNDER THE OLD.

FEE SCHEDULE.

WE SHOULD HAVE MUCH, MUCH MORE MONEY.

AND SO WE DOUBLED THE FEES AND.

BUT IF WE CAN SEE THAT GOING FORWARD, JUST SO WE CAN TRACK ALL THAT STUFF.

SO IT'S A LITTLE EASIER WITH YOUR BUDGETING, TOO.

SO TO CLARIFY, YOU WOULD LIKE SO I HAVE THE UTILITY IMPACT FEES FUND WITH WHAT'S COMING IN EACH MONTH, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE ACTUAL FUND BALANCE THERE IS THAT NO, THERE'S TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE.

YEAH, THE IMPACT FEE, LIKE ALL THE WASTEWATER WATER AND ROAD IMPACT FEES, BECAUSE I THINK THE BUDGET AT ONE POINT DIDN'T HAVE ANY ROAD IMPACT FEES, BUT WE'VE HAD THAT ON THE BOOKS FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS.

AND SO SOMEONE SURELY IS PAYING FOR IT BECAUSE I WANT TO SAY THERE'S LIKE FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS OR FOUR PLATS THAT ALL GOT DONE AFTER WE INSTITUTED THAT.

THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGED THOSE ROAD IMPACT FEES.

AND I THINK THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO PAY FOR SOME OF OUR IMPROVEMENTS WITH THAT MONEY.

LIKE THE URBANA, ONE EXAMPLE, BECAUSE I WAS ON THE IMPACT FEE STUDY THING AND I TALKED TO COUNCIL AT THE TIME AND SAID, IF YOU VOTE FOR THIS TONIGHT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE GOING TO PLAT, BUT THIS WILL BE APPROVED AHEAD OF TIME.

THAT ONE WAS LIKE $2.1 MILLION AT ONE PROJECT.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE KIND OF STUFF WHERE THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SAYING, HEY, WHERE'S THIS THESE NUMBERS? BECAUSE I WILL CLARIFY I WILL I WILL CONFIRM THIS.

BUT I DO BELIEVE THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND IS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES.

I WILL CONFIRM THAT.

AND THAT'S I'M NOT SURE WHAT PAGE IT IS IN THE PACKET.

WHICH ONE IS IT CALLED? THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND.

IT'S PAGE 287 OF 309.

CAN WE DO THAT IN LIKE A PARENTHESES, LIKE YOU GUYS, THERE WAS A CHANGE OF THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND.

CHANGE NAMES. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH. NOW IT'S A PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND ACQUISITION FUND AND THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND IS THE IMPACT 15.

YEAH. AND THEN ON PAGE 288 IS THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND.

SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER WE COLLECTED 478,000 IN IMPACT FEES.

AND THEN I'LL ALSO INCLUDE THE GOING FORWARD INCLUDE THE FUND BALANCES SO WE KNOW WHAT THE BALANCE IS IN THESE FUNDS, NOT JUST WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON YEAR TO DATE TO BE GOOD.

[03:10:06]

BECAUSE THERE SHOULD BE LIKE.

WE DID THE PILOT FOR MITCHELL'S PLACE ON EXCHANGE, AND I'D HAD TO GO LOOK AND SEE WHEN WE REDID THAT, BUT WE REDID IT AFTER THE FUN, SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A HUGE CHECK. COME IN THERE.

AND THEN TO YOUR POINT, THEY'RE BUILDING ON THE NORTH END OF 1660 AND 137 AND THERE SHOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CHECKS IN ORDER.

AND I THINK SIGNIFICANT IS BECAUSE EVERY TIME A COMMERCIAL PERSON COMES IN WITH RETAIL, THE FIRST THING THEY TELL THE EDC IS YOUR IMPACT FEES ARE OUTRAGEOUS.

THERE'S HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IN FEES.

AND I'M LIKE, WELL, THEY'RE NOT SHOWING UP ON THAT REPORTING.

SO. SO ON THAT NOTE, THE COMMERCIAL USUALLY PAYS THEIR IMPACT FEES AT THE BEGINNING BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY A PROJECT.

RESIDENTIAL USUALLY PAYS AS THE HOUSES OR CODE.

SO IT DOESN'T COME IN JUST A BIG A BIG CHECK.

USUALLY IT'S SPREAD OUT OVER TIME AS A AREA CLOSES OUT, THEN, YES, YOU WOULD EXPECT THAT YOU WOULD HAVE.

IF YOU WERE EXPECTING 2 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES, YOU WOULD HAVE COLLECTED 2 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES.

BUT IF YOU HAVE, SAY, 500 UNITS OUT THERE AND THEY'RE SELLING TEN A MONTH AND YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO RECEIVE TEN IMPACT FEES A MONTH AT IF THEY'RE DOING THE CEO'S.

YES, SURE. NO, I'M JUST THINKING OF ALL THE STUFF WE APPROVED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS.

MOST OF THOSE HAVE NOT YET COMPLETED THEIR SITE PLANNING INTO THE BUILDING PERMITS, WHICH IS, AS OUR CITY MANAGER STATED, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE COLLECTING A LOT OF THAT IS ONCE YOU'RE INTO THE BUILDING, ONCE THEY PAY THEIR PERMIT FEES, IS WHEN WE'RE REALLY COLLECTING A LOT OF THE ANY OF THE IMPACT FEES.

SO EVEN ON A SITE PLAN BECAUSE AGAIN, REMEMBER THAT WE TREAT MULTIFAMILY AS COMMERCIAL ONCE THEY GET THAT SITE PLAN APPROVED AND THEN THEY GO INTO THEIR BUILDING PERMIT, THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GETTING IT. SO I THINK RIGHT NOW WE JUST RELEASED THE FEES FOR ONE OF THE LANDING PROJECTS THIS WEEK, SO IT WAS APPROVED A LONG TIME AGO.

THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED.

THEY'RE GETTING THEIR BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED AND ONCE THEY GET THEIR BUILDING DEPARTMENT APPROVED, THAT'S HOW WE KNOW.

WHAT ARE YOUR IMPACT FEES? WHAT WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? WE WOULD HAVE ALREADY COLLECTED LIKE TAKE FIVE TACO COSTS TO PULTE.

ALL THOSE GUYS, BASED ON AS MUCH BULKING AS PEOPLE DO AT THE EDC ON STAFF.

I'M JUST THINKING THERE SHOULD BE ROAD IMPACT FEES.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S CALCULATED.

IT'S AWFUL. BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE WORK CLOSELY.

MY TEAM WORKS CLOSELY WITH ENGINEERING BECAUSE THEY ASSESS THOSE FEES.

MY TEAM THEN COLLECTS WHAT WE'VE BEEN TOLD TO COLLECT.

IT'S MUCH EASIER ON A RESIDENTIAL.

WE KNOW HOW MUCH WE'RE COLLECTING.

THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE IS, I THINK ABOUT 4000 A UNIT.

BUT AGAIN, YOU SEE THE SLOWDOWN.

SO AS THE CITY MANAGER STATED ON A HOUSE THAT'S JUST ADDED INTO THEIR BUILDING PERMIT FEE, SO THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GETTING IT.

FOR MOST OF THESE, WE'RE GETTING IT ONCE WE GO TO BUILDING PERMIT.

BUT YES, TO YOUR POINT, TACO CASA.

OTHERS BASED ON THAT FINAL PLOT DATE, SO MIGHTY FINE, HAD A NEWER PLOT.

SOME OF THOSE OTHER ONES HAD OLDER PLOTS.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE GET THAT LITTLE BIT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS WE HAVE TO GO BACK TO WHAT THEIR PLOT DATE WAS.

THAT'S WHY WE ALWAYS REQUIRE FINAL PLOTS AND SITE PLANS AND SITE PLANS APPROVED AND BUILDING PERMITS, AND WE KIND OF MOVE THEM ALL TOGETHER SO YOU CAN CONTINUALLY TRACK WHERE YOU WERE ON YOUR IMPACT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS I CAN ADDRESS TODAY.

GREAT JOB. WE'LL SEE YOU MONDAY.

OH, YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH.

EDC. SORRY.

YOUR NIGHT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

I BRING THIS UP ITEM 12 THREE CONSIDERATION.

[12.3. Consideration and possible action on proposed Charter Amendments. (Legal)]

POSSIBLE ACTION ON PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

SO WE HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO ACCEPT THAT FINANCIAL REPORT.

MIKE NO.

OKAY. MAYOR COUNCIL YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET THE PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENTS IN RED LINE FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

I CAN GO THROUGH THEM ONE AT A TIME IF YOU LIKE ME TO.

WELL, MAYBE I'LL JUST START OFF BY SAYING I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING ANY CHARTER AMENDMENTS THIS YEAR.

THE REASON IS BECAUSE I WOULD PREFER TO FOLLOW THE STANDARD PROCESS OF CALLING A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND HAVING TO GO THROUGH THEM.

IF WE DO ANY AMENDMENTS HERE LEGALLY, WE CAN'T FORM A COMMISSION FOR TWO YEARS.

AND AND LET ME MENTION, IT WILL BE IT HAS TO BE TWO FULL YEARS.

SO TWO YEARS FROM THE MAY 6TH ELECTION, IT'S MAY 2ND.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TWO FULL YEARS.

YOU'LL HAVE TO WAIT ACTUALLY THREE YEAR.

YEAH. OKAY. THEN I'M EVEN MORE IN FAVOR OF NOT DOING THIS ANYTHING AT ALL AND DELAYING IT.

AND THESE ARE MOSTLY TECHNICAL CLARIFICATION AMENDMENTS.

IT DOESN'T REALLY GET INTO SEE ANYTHING BIG.

I THINK THE BIGGEST THING THAT WE WERE REALLY WORRIED ABOUT WAS THAT QUESTION ABOUT THE PAY.

BUT WE'VE GOT AN AG OPINION, AG PENDING AG OPINION THAT HOPEFULLY SHOULD CLARIFY AND ANSWER THAT IN THE MEANTIME.

SO YEAH, FOR ME, I'M I'M IN FAVOR OF JUST TABLING THIS INDEFINITELY AND FORMING A COMMISSION NEXT YEAR.

[03:15:06]

I SECOND THE MOTION FOR THAT.

YEAH, I AGREE. I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO NEED TO RUSH ANYTHING HERE RIGHT NOW.

AND IF WE JUST PLAN THAT, WE'RE GOING TO DO IT NEXT YEAR.

FORMER COMMITTEE LATE THIS YEAR BASICALLY TO BE READY FOR NEXT YEAR.

I THINK THAT SHOULD WORK.

WE'VE GOT A GOOD HEAD START FORM.

YEAH. YEAH.

WE'LL FORM SOMETHING TO MAYBE AUGUST.

I MEAN COUNCIL ULTIMATELY DECIDES WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT, BUT I'D STILL LIKE A COMMITTEE TO GO THROUGH AND MAKE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS, GET ALL THAT INPUT AND THEN DO IT.

SOME OF THESE SEEMS, SOME OF THESE ARE SIMPLE.

I WOULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I'D BE OKAY JUST DOING SOME OF THEM AS AMENDMENTS TO THE VOTERS IF WE COULD DO IT.

BUT SINCE IT'S GOING TO DELAY BEING ABLE TO DO A COMMITTEE BY THREE YEARS AFTER THAT, LET'S JUST HOLD OFF AND DO A COMMITTEE.

THAT'S MY OPINION.

WELL, I'M TRYING TO IF I WANT TO DO AN AMENDMENT HERE, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH ANOTHER AGENDA ITEM, BUT BASED ON THE LEGAL MEMOS ON RESIDENCY, I THINK SOMETHING NEEDS TO CHANGE TO SECTION 3.02.

AND THEN I'M STILL KIND OF THE PAY THING.

I'M ALWAYS INTERESTED IN SEEING WHAT THE VOTERS THINK ABOUT PAYING US.

SO I DON'T REALLY WANT TO WAIT ON THINGS, BUT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS THING AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NECESSARILY NEED A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION ON THINGS.

WE JUST DID ONE AND WE'VE FOUND SOME ISSUES.

ONE OF THEM NOW WHAT WE FOUND TWO.

NOW ONE IS PAY AND BY STATE LAW, OR DO WE GET PAID AND ONE OF THEM IS POTENTIALLY RESIDENCY.

AND DO WE TIGHTEN IT UP OR TAKE THAT AWAY? IT'S LIKE ME PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF A CHARTER REVIEW.

I THINK SPENDING ALL THE TIME IN A WORK SESSION.

WHY PUT OFF SOMETHING THAT WE ALREADY KNOW? WE HAVE THINGS WE NEED TO WORK ON.

BECAUSE I WANT TO FOLLOW THE WAY THE CHARTER SAYS WE SHOULD DO IT, AND THEN WE WILL BE OUT OF COMPLIANCE OF A FOUR YEAR IF WE HAVE TO WAIT THREE IF WE DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN TOO. SO THEN WE'RE ALSO IN VIOLATION OF CHARTER FOR HOW FREQUENTLY WE CALL THE CHARTER AMENDMENT COMMITTEE BY STATE LAW.

SO THERE'S ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SHOULD WAIT AND DO IT THE RIGHT WAY.

WE START TALKING ABOUT FOLLOWING CHARTER THE RIGHT WAY.

THE CHARTER GIVES US A COUPLE OF OPTIONS.

SO WE DO HAVE OPTIONS.

EVERYBODY WAS ALL ABOUT DOING THIS UNTIL I BROUGHT UP.

HEY, LET'S BRING TO THE VOTERS.

SHOULD SHOULD WE GET PAID? AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN IT TURNED INTO I DON'T KNOW IF RIGHT NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO DO THIS.

AND SO EVERYBODY WAS GUNG HO.

WE HAD A WORK SESSION, LET'S GET IT DONE.

AND THEN I BLEW IT UP, I GUESS, BY SAYING MAYBE WE OUGHT TO ASK A VOTE OR SHOULD WE EVEN GET PAID? AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE WANT TO TABLE IT.

WELL, SO YOU'RE SAYING EVERYBODY, I'VE NEVER BEEN IN FAVOR OF DOING THIS.

I'VE NOT WANTED TO DO A CHARTER CHANGE THIS YEAR.

I'VE WANTED TO WAIT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE EVER SAID MAYBE NOT.

MAYBE I SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN AS LITERAL ON THAT.

NOT EVERYBODY.

BUT SOMEHOW WE WENT DOWN A PATH HERE AND NOW, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO BE A JERK, BUT DEPENDING ON HOW OUR DISCUSSION IS, LATER IN THE NIGHT, WE FOUND ANOTHER ISSUE IN THE CHARTER. AND I THINK WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO FIND LITTLE THINGS THAT POP UP IN THE CHARTER THAT WERE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF THINGS THAT WE DO.

BUT FOR ME, FOR THE VOTE, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO DO AN AMENDMENT JUST SO THERE'S A RECORD OF VOTE.

BECAUSE I THINK, LIKE I SAID, WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH ALL THIS AND I UNDERSTAND YOU GUYS WANT TO SOME PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE ON, BUT.

I WAS ORIGINALLY AGAINST DOING THE CHARTER AMENDMENTS JUST BECAUSE IT KIND OF SEEMS LIKE WE'RE RUSHING IT, THE TIMELINE.

IT'S REALLY WE'RE REALLY PUSHING IT BECAUSE I THINK BY NEXT MEETING OR SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY, WE HAVE TO HAVE THE LANGUAGE REALLY LOCKED DOWN AND VERY CLEAR.

WE HAVE TO APPROVE THAT LANGUAGE OF WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BALLOT.

IT JUST KIND OF SEEMED RUSHED TO ME.

BUT I AM ACTUALLY WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS.

I'VE CHANGED MY POSITION SINCE OUR WORKSHOP THAT WE HAD.

I THINK WHAT LEGAL HAS DONE FOR US HAS MADE IT SUPER CLEAR IT'S CLEAN.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY COME UP WITH.

I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD ALWAYS KILL IT THEN IF WE DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE, RIGHT, THAT THEY THAT THEY BRING TO US OR WE CAN CHANGE IT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS MOVE FORWARD TO THE NEXT STEP.

IF WE IF WE DECIDE AS A COUNCIL NOT TO DO THAT.

BUT I THINK THAT THESE THINGS ARE IT'S VERY CLEAN.

IT'S IT'S IT'S NOT CONFUSING AND IT'S NOT A LAUNDRY LIST OF OF AMENDMENTS THAT ON THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION, CHARTER COMMISSION, IT WAS LIKE 16 INITIATIVES OR BALLOT AMENDMENTS.

AND THAT'S JUST A LOT FOR THE VOTER TO TAKE ON, A LOT OF INFORMATION TO DIGEST, TO BE INFORMED WELL ON.

[03:20:02]

BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

JUST BECAUSE I WAS ORIGINALLY AGAINST IT, BECAUSE IT WAS KIND OF TIME WE WERE RUNNING OUT OF TIME.

BUT NOW I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE IT'S IT'S SIMPLE, IT'S CLEAN.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE FIVE AMENDMENTS.

SO IF YOU REMEMBER IN THE WORK SESSION, THEY ALSO SAID THAT THERE WAS OTHER THINGS THAT WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT AND DISCUSS, BUT THEY SHOULD COME FROM A CHARTER COMMITTEE.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD WAIT AND HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS FOR THAT.

SO IF WE DON'T DO IT NOW, THEN WE CAN START A CHARTER COMMITTEE IN LIKE AUGUST.

SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M NOT SO IT'S THE CHARTER BUT WE AT ALL.

BUT IF WE IF WE MOVE FORWARD NOW, WE HAVE TO WAIT THREE YEARS BEFORE WE CAN CALL ANOTHER ONE.

WHERE DOES IT SAY THAT IT'S IN STATE LAW.

IT SAYS TWO YEARS.

IT'S TWO YEARS. WHAT'S THE TWO YEARS IS IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION FOR HOME RULE.

AND BECAUSE THE CHANGE OF WHEN THE ELECTION WILL OCCUR, THE NEXT ELECTION WOULD THEN NOT BE FULL TWO YEARS, SO THAT YOU'D HAVE TO WAIT A WHOLE NOTHER YEAR.

SO IT'S THREE YEARS. IF WE DO IT TONIGHT, AFTER THIS MAY, BEFORE WE COULD CALL ANOTHER CHARTER.

YEAH, YOU HAVE A NOVEMBER ELECTION, YOU KNOW, TO SHORTEN UP THAT SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, BUT TYPICALLY CHARTER AMENDMENTS YOU WANT TO DO WITH YOUR COUNCIL.

YEAH. WELL THAT'S WHY I WAS ALWAYS THE STATE LAW ON THAT BECAUSE I REMEMBER READING IT AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION FOR HOME RULE CHARTERS. AND ACTUALLY IT SAYS FULL CALENDAR YEAR.

IT REALLY SPECIFIES IT.

YEAH, IT REALLY SHOULD SAY 23 MONTHS OR SOMETHING SO THAT YOU JUST COULD DO IT EVERY TWO YEARS BECAUSE YOUR DATE CHANGES YEAR TO YEAR.

YEAH. OR, OR MUNICIPAL IF TWO.

RIGHT. OR MUNICIPAL ELECTION.

YEAH, WHATEVER.

THAT'S NOT THE WAY THEY WROTE IT THOUGH.

I KNOW, I KNOW, I KNOW. I'M JUST SAYING IT SHOULD BE.

AND YOU WILL. YOUR CHARTER DOES SAY TO THAT YOU SHALL APPOINT THE COMMISSION IN THE FOUR YEARS.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO KIND OF RUN AFOUL OF THAT TOO.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IF WE DO THIS NOW, THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE IN VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER BECAUSE IT SAYS WE HAVE TO CALL ONE EVERY FOUR YEARS, BUT WE'LL ALL HAVE IN FIVE YEARS WE WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THAT CHARTER PROVISION MINIMUM, RIGHT? YOU HAVE TO TRANSITION AT MINIMUM.

BUT WE WON'T BE ABLE TO SAY NO LATER THAN FOUR YEARS AND WE'D BE IN VIOLATION OF THAT IF WE DO THIS THING NOW BECAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO CALL IT FOR THREE.

AND WE DIDN'T DO THE LAST CHARTER COMMISSION TILL TWO YEARS, TWO YEARS FROM NOW.

SO WE'D BE FIVE YEARS INSTEAD OF FOUR.

THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING LEGALLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS TO WAIT AND WE'LL DO IT IN AUGUST.

YOU DO IT, MY THORNTON SAID, WHICH IS YOU ADJUST THE 4 TO 5.

AND THEN IF IT FAILS IN THE VOTE AND THE VOTERS SAY, NO, I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FIVE YEARS, I WANT TO DO FOUR OR LESS, THEN YOU'RE COUNCIL MEMBER CAR.

IT DOESN'T CAUSE NOTHING.

IT'S A LITTLE EFFORT TO GO TO THE NEXT STEP.

UM. TO ME, IT COSTS A LOT BECAUSE WE'RE CUTTING OUT THE CITIZENS, WE'RE CUTTING OUT THE PROCESS THAT WE SET FORTH IN THE CHARTER THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO INVOLVE THE CITIZENS, WE'RE GOING TO FORM A COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS.

YOU KNOW, THIS IS THIS IS OUR CONSTITUTION.

THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD BE DIFFICULT TO CHANGE.

IT SHOULD BE A DELIBERATIVE, THOUGHTFUL PROCESS.

AGAIN, I FEEL THAT THIS IS A LITTLE BIT RUSHED.

WE DO HAVE A FEW THINGS THAT ARE LISTED IN HERE.

BUT TO COUNCILMAN CLARK'S POINT, AT THE END OF THE MEETING WAS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN CONSIDER IN HERE.

THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER THINGS THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE AND LOOK AT AND CONSIDER, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DONE.

WE'RE JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT THIS LIMITED LIST HERE.

SO, YEAH, FOR FOR ME, I'M STILL.

I'M STILL. WHAT'S THE RUSH? WHAT IS WHAT IS THE RUSH TO DO ALL THESE? IF WE CAN WAIT A FEW MONTHS FORM A COMMISSION, LET THEM RECOMMEND TO US GIVE THIS TO THEM AS A STARTING POINT TO JUMP OFF POINT AND LET'S.

LET'S DO IT RIGHT.

IN MY OPINION, THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO DO IT.

SO WHO SAID TABLE ME? SO MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON SAID TABLE IT.

AND THAT WAS SECONDED BY I SECONDED IT.

BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

AND I'M GOING TO OFFER UP AN AMENDMENT TO ADD IN A COMPENSATION CLAUSE AND A 3.0 FOR THAT, THE MAYOR AND THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL SERVE WITHOUT COMPENSATION, EXCEPT THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO REIMBURSEMENT OF ALL NECESSARY AND REASONABLE EXPENSES INCURRED IN THE PERFORMANCE OF THEIR OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL DUTIES. AND THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS, WHILE NOT CITY EMPLOYEES, MAY BE PROVIDED CERTAIN BENEFITS.

NOW, SCRATCH THAT PART.

THE BENEFITS. SO I CAN GIVE THIS TO YOU.

BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

I DON'T THINK THAT TYPE OF AN AMENDMENT CAN EVEN BE MADE BECAUSE THIS IS A MOTION TO TABLE.

I'M GOING TO MEAN TO NOT TABLE IT.

AND TO ADD THAT YOU CAN'T DO THAT.

FOR ROBERT'S RULES. YOU CAN'T.

YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE TABLE FIRST.

AND THEN IF. THEN I'LL GIVE THE OTHER THING I WANT TO DO SO THAT AT LEAST I CAN VOICE IT.

SO WE HAVE THE ISSUE WITH POTENTIAL RESIDENCY, AND I READ UP ON THIS AND CLEARLY A PERSON.

[03:25:06]

A PERSON NAMED FRANK CORTEZ JR WAS ACCUSED OF NOT LIVING IN HIS DISTRICT IN 2008.

HIS HOUSE WAS, IN FACT, ANOTHER DISTRICT.

AS A REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT AND THE DEMOCRATS SQUAWKED.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY'S SIN IS TO REPLACE HIM.

BUT HE OWNED A LOT IN THE DISTRICT HE REPRESENTED AND SAID HE INTENDED TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE AND LIVE IN IT.

AND HE ACTUALLY GOT MAIL DELIVERED THERE.

AND UNDER STATE LAW, THAT WAS ENOUGH.

AND SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACTUALLY LIVE UNLESS YOU HAVE IT SPELLED OUT IN A CHARTER.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN THE CITY.

YOU JUST HAVE TO OWN A LOT AND HAVE MAIL DELIVERED THERE.

AND YOU MEET THE THING WHICH MADE ME THINK THAT.

POTENTIALLY THAT NEEDS TO BE BEEFED UP SO WELL THAT THE RESIDENCY IN OUR CHARTER, THERE'S NO DEFINITION FOR WHAT IT IS.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT OTHER CITIES, CHARTERS, THEY'LL SAY THINGS LIKE YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE HAS IT KNOW THEY'LL THEY'LL BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT WHAT CONSTITUTES RESIDENCY.

SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, THEN YOU CAN MAKE A FINDING THAT RIGHT.

SO BUT THAT IS SOMETHING YOU REALLY WANT TO STUDY BECAUSE YOU WANT TO GET THAT RIGHT.

THAT'S WHY THAT'S YOU DO THAT FROM A CHARTER COMMISSION, THOUGH.

YEAH, WELL, WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED A CHARTER COMMISSION FOR THAT.

WE NEED LEGAL REVIEW FOR THAT FOR SURE.

BUT REGARDLESS, WE DON'T. WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING THAT ISN'T GERMANE TO THE MOTION.

THE MOTION? WELL, THIS IS TRUE.

WELL, OKAY, SO I WOULD.

I WOULD LIKE TO ALLOW ALL THE DISCUSSION OF EVERYTHING.

AND THEN AT THE END, WE CAN DECIDE WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THAT DISCUSSION, BECAUSE AT LEAST WE CAN MOVE THE BALL FORWARD ON IDENTIFYING POSSIBLE CHANGES, POTENTIALLY ASKING FOR ACTION FROM LEGAL TO DEVELOP THEM, WHETHER IT'S FOR FEBRUARY OR FOR FUTURE CHARTER COMMISSION.

WE CAN DECIDE THAT.

WELL, THEY'RE RIGHT. SO IT'S SLIGHTLY LATER TONIGHT.

SO YOU HAVE TO THEY HAD TO RESCIND IT.

WE GOT TO TAKE A VOTE. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

DAN, JUST ALLOW. JUST TO JUST RESCIND THE MOTION TO TABLE FOR NOW.

ALLOW THE DISCUSSION.

AND THEN WHAT? A POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENT.

OTHER POTENTIAL CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE TOPIC IS CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

YEAH. AND THEN WE CAN AT LEAST GET THOSE OUT THERE, AND THEN THEN WE CAN DECIDE WHETHER WE WANT TO TAKE ACTION TONIGHT OR WHETHER WE WANT TO TABLE IT AND COME BACK AND HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY GO.

BUT I WOULD ARGUE, DAN, THAT WHENEVER YOU'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO I'M SORRY, ROBIN, I'M SORRY.

SORRY, GO AHEAD.

I'M JUST SAYING IT'S SOMETHING THAT WASN'T IN THE PACKET FOR US TO EVEN CONSIDER LOOKING AT THE WHOLE CHARTER AND COMING UP WITH IDEAS THAT WE WANT TO BE PART OF IT.

AT LEAST I DIDN'T.

SO I THINK I MEAN, WE CAN PUT IT ON ANOTHER ITEM ON A SEPARATE AGENDA OR HAVE A WORK SESSION WHERE WE CAN HASH OUT WHAT WE THINK AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CHARTER COMMISSION ON WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE DONE AS THEY COME TOGETHER AND WORK ON IT IS WHAT I'M THINKING.

WE ALREADY DID THAT. SO YOU HAD A WORK SESSION.

WE ALREADY HASHED OUT CHANGE A WHOLE DIFFERENT BUT WE'RE DEALING WITH WE TALKED ABOUT THIS STUFF.

WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE STUFF YOU'RE PRESENTING NOW.

THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE US MAKE CHANGES ON.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO MAKE CHANGES.

I'M BRINGING UP DISCUSSION POINTS, BUT WE'RE GETTING.

WE'RE GETTING BACK. IT WAS.

WAIT, WAIT, WAIT. I HAVE ONE.

I HAVE ONE THING THAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY.

IS IT WITH THE TABLING? YEAH.

YES, IT DOES.

SO HERE, HERE'S MY POINT.

IF IF WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT, IF THE MOTION PASSES THAT WE'RE GOING TO TABLE IT TO, WE HAVE A CHARTER COMMISSION.

THIS BODY HERE TODAY DOES NOT NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT THEY WANT IN THE CHARTER, BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? WE HAVE THREE SEATS THAT ARE GOING TO BE UP FOR ELECTION.

IT MAY BE THE SAME PEOPLE, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

BUT THOSE COUNCIL WHOEVER SEATED AFTER THE MAY ELECTION, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO CALL A CHARTER COMMISSION IF WE'RE DELAYING IT NOW.

NOBODY UP HERE UNTIL THE ELECTION.

AND YOU HAVE THAT COUNCIL SEATED AFTER THE MAY ELECTION.

THAT IS THE BODY THAT WILL DECIDE AND SET WHAT SHOULD GO INTO THAT CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND DISCUSS.

AND YOU HAVE THAT DISCUSSION THEN WITH WHOEVER'S UP HERE AT THAT TIME, IF THIS BODY IS GOING TO TABLE.

SO I DISAGREE WITH SAYING DISCUSS IT NOW, BECAUSE IF YOU DISCUSS IT NOW AND THEN YOU STILL TABLE IT, WHO CARES? WHAT IF THREE I MEAN, IT'S POTENTIALLY WE COULD HAVE THREE OF THE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS NOT HERE IN JUNE.

SO I PARTIALLY IF IF THEY DON'T GET REELECTED, I DON'T REALLY WHO REALLY CARES WHAT THEIR OPINION WAS.

SO WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING ANY MORE ACTION.

YEAH. THESE SEATS ARE WHERE EVERYBODY SITTING IN THE SEATS TO MAKE A DECISION RIGHT NOW.

RIGHT. AND THE DECISION RIGHT NOW IS TO TABLE THOUGH PROJECT INTO THE FUTURE OF HOW COUNCIL MEMBERS POTENTIALLY IF THEY'RE HERE OR NOT.

YEAH, NO, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TONIGHT TO TABLE, THEN IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CURRENT COUNCIL MAKEUP WOULD WANT TO BE ON THERE BECAUSE THEY MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHEN IT'S GOING TO GET PICKED UP.

IF WE SAY IF IF THE TABLE IN MOTION IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A CHARTER COMMISSION AND SAY, AUGUST OR SOMETHING, THEN THIS BODY WILL NOT EXIST IN THE FORM THAT IT IS TODAY

[03:30:05]

POTENTIALLY. WELL, CRYSTAL WILL BE MOVED, SO FOR SURE IT WON'T EXIST.

THE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SITTING IN THESE SEATS WILL THEN MAKE THAT DECISION.

RIGHT. AND THEY MAY THE PEOPLE IN THE SEATS MAY DECIDE NOT TO DO A CHARTER COMMISSION MAY DECIDE TO PUT IT ON THE BALLOT AND IN THE NEXT IN THE FOLLOWING ELECTION.

SO THEY'D HAVE TO NOTE THIS CYCLE, NO, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO CALL ONE WITHIN FOUR YEARS.

SO IT EITHER HAS TO GET CALLED NEXT AFTER THIS ELECTION OR AFTER THE ONE IN 25.

OKAY. SO LET ME LET ME CLARIFY THE INTENTION OF MY MOTION.

THE INTENTION OF MY MOTION WAS TO.

TO NOT TO HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO HOLD.

TO MAKE ANY CHARTER AMENDMENTS WITH THIS COMING MAY ELECTION.

I'M AGAINST THAT FOR THE REASONS THAT I'VE STATED.

I'M AGAINST MAKING ANY CHANGES NOW BECAUSE THAT WOULD DELAY FOR ALL THE REASONS THAT WE HASHED OUT.

AND SO MY INTENTION ISN'T TO STOP A DISCUSSION ON WHAT CHARTER AMENDMENTS COULD BE DONE.

AND SO MAYBE I COULD REWORD MY MOTION TO SAY I, I MAKE A MOTION TO.

FORMER. COMMIT TO FORM A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION NO LATER THAN X DATE FOR THE INTENTION OF MAKING CHARTER AMENDMENTS IN THE MAY 2024 ELECTION.

I MEAN, IS THAT IS THAT BETTER? BECAUSE BECAUSE I MEAN, I DON'T CARE IF WE CONTINUE TO DISCUSS IT AS A COUNCIL AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO, YOU KNOW, ON OUR OWN OR IF WE WANT TO DO ANOTHER WORK SESSION TO DO IT. BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION, THAT'S THEIR ROLE.

THEIR ROLE IS TO FIGURE IT OUT AND THEN TO BRING IT TO US.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER CHARTER AMENDMENT WE NEED TO DO THEN AND TAKE OUT THE ABILITY TO DO CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

RIGHT. SO. BUT THAT'S YOUR OPINION.

THAT'S THAT'S 11A7.

RIGHT. BUT SO WHAT'S WHAT DO YOU WANT YOUR MOTION TO BE.

WE TABLING IT OR.

WELL OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO RESCIND IT.

HAVE THE DISCUSSION THEN YOU CAN ALWAYS MAKE A MOTION.

I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS ANY POSSIBLE CHANGES BECAUSE TO ME, WHAT'S THE POINT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES FOR THIS COMING MAY, THEN WHY HASH THROUGH AND WHY SPEND THE NEXT HOUR GOING THROUGH? WHAT CHANGES TO MAKE IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY CHANGES? RIGHT. SO SO LET'S JUST CALL THE VOTE.

I'LL JUST I'LL JUST LEAVE IT.

IT'S JUST TO THE TABLE AND DEFINITELY CHARTER AMENDMENTS.

WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT SAYS AND THAT WE WILL FORM A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION BY SEPTEMBER ONE OF 2023.

I MEAN, THAT'S FINE.

I MEAN, MY MY, MY HOPE IS THAT WE WILL FORM A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION AND MAKE CHANGES NEXT YEAR.

SO I WAS DOING IT THIS YEAR BECAUSE HE'S IN SEPTEMBER.

WILL FORM THE FORM THE COMMISSION THIS YEAR.

THE 2023 BE FORMED IN 2023 IN ORDER FOR THEM TO GET THEIR WORK DONE IN PREPARATION FOR 2024.

SO THE MOTION IS AMENDED, FRIENDLY OR WHATEVER IS TO TABLE INDEFINITELY AND TO FORM A CHARTER REVIEW COMMISSION BY SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2023. YES, HE.

THE TABLE INDEFINITELY MEANS IT JUST GOES AND IT NEVER GETS TO COME BACK.

YEAH. FOR ROBERT'S RULES.

CORRECT. WELL, TABLE IT TILL AFTER THE ELECTION.

SAY, LIKE JUNE 1ST.

RIGHT. HOW ABOUT YOUR TABLET? TILL SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2023.

THERE WE GO. THERE YOU GO.

OKAY. I MEAN, BECAUSE INDEFINITELY, TO ME, MEANS IT'S INDEFINITE.

IT'S NOT DEFINITE. YOU CAN BRING IT BACK.

YES, DEFINITELY. MEAN FOREVER.

I CAN. I CAN TABLE THE DATE CERTAIN IF THAT'S IF THAT'S THE BETTER WAY TO DO IT, THAT'S THE BETTER OR REALLY THE BETTER WORD IS POSTPONE AND NOT TABLE.

BECAUSE WHEN YOU USE TABLE, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION TO TAKE IT OFF THE TABLE.

SO I RESCIND MY ORIGINAL MOTION AND I MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL AT LEAST AUGUST 1ST. AUGUST 1ST.

I WAS GOING TO SAY IT'S BECAUSE ANY RUNOFF ELECTIONS WILL BE DONE BY THEN, 23 AUGUST 1ST.

WAS THERE A SECOND? I THINK I'LL SECOND.

SO WE'RE POSTPONING AUGUST 1ST, 2023, AND WE'RE TAKING OUT THE FORMER CHARTER.

WE'RE JUST POSTPONING.

RIGHT. YEAH, BECAUSE THEN THAT WILL ALLOW US TO.

FORM A COMMISSION AT THAT TIME.

IF NOW THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT CHARTER AMENDMENTS, ARE WE STILL BLOCKED BECAUSE NOW WE'RE NOT?

[03:35:02]

I THINK YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE MOTION TO POSTPONE BEFORE YOU CAN TAKE UP ANYTHING ELSE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ON THE POSTPONING HEARING? NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON NAY.

MAYOR SNYDER? NAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, AYE..