8.1. Discussion and possible action to execute Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to the existing professional services agreement with DCS executed August 23, 2019 related to the Glenwood Lift Station Decommissioning, Wastewater Interceptor, and Two New Lift Stations (Central Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP Lift Station #2 and South Wastewater Treatment Plan Lift Station) Project (CIP Project WW1) for the amount of $832,110.00. (Matt Rector)

[8.1. Discussion and possible action to execute Supplemental Agreement No. 2 to the existing professional services agreement with DCS executed August 23, 2019 related to the Glenwood Lift Station Decommissioning, Wastewater Interceptor, and Two New Lift Stations (Central Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP Lift Station #2 and South Wastewater Treatment Plan Lift Station) Project (CIP Project WW1) for the amount of $832,110.00. (Matt Rector)]

>> COUNSEL NUMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES 7 - 0. NEXT WE HAVE 8.1 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT NUMBER TWO TO THE EXISTING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DCS EXECUTED ON AUGUST 1 THROUGH 2019 RELATED TO THE GLENWOOD LYFT STATION DECOMMISSIONING READ WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR INTO NEW LYFT STATIONS THE CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT WT P, LIPP STATION NUMBER TWO AND SOUTH WASTEWATER LYFT STATION PROJECT CIP PROJECT WW $1,832,110. MY QUESTION TO THE CITY MANAGER.

WAS, I CANNOT TELL BY THE PACKET ARE WE REDESIGNING, 38236 IS NOW

42-INCH? >> MAYOR, COUNSEL JAMES ERB CITY MANAGER. YES IT'S CHANGING THE SCOPE IT IS THE ORIGINAL SCOPE ALSO HAD ADDITIONAL LIFT STATIONS TO AND THOSE ARE BEING REDUCED TO A FEWER NUMBER OF THE STATIONS.

BUT BOTH DCS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY ENGINEER ARE HERE TO ANSWER YOUR SPECIFIC DESIGN QUESTIONS.

>> THE DESIGN HAVE WEIRDLY DONE MOST OF THE WORK IN OUR

SCRAPPING AND STARTING OVER. >> SORRY I HAVE A PIECE OF INFORMATION I RECOLLECT FROM THE CITY MANAGER IF YOU WOULD LIKE

ME TO POTENTIALLY -- >> I BELIEVE IN THE LAST UPDATE WE HAD FOR MR. IIE ON THIS, THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT FOR THE GLENWOOD IT WAS GOING TO BE DECOMMISSIONED THAT WE WOULD GET RID OF THE ENTIRE GLENWOOD LIFT STATION, THAT WAS THE ENTIRE PLAN BUT NOW LOOKING AT THE MOBILITY AND THE FLOW OF THE WASTEWATER THEY HAVE DECIDED NOT TO DECOMMISSION THE LIFT STATION AND KEEP IT PUMPING TO THE CENTRAL IN THE SOUTH PLANT.

WHILE THEY ARE DOING ALL OF THOSE EXPANSIONS ON THE CENTRAL AND WITH THE SOUTH, GLENWOOD IS STILL GOING TO BE OPERATING IN IT WILL BE ESSENTIALLY FLIPPING ON AND OFF TO GO TO THE CENTRAL OR GO DOWN TO THE SOUTH. AS WITH DOING THAT IT WILL KEEP

[00:30:03]

THE MOBILITY OF THE WASTEWATER FLOWING.

IF THERE WAS EVER TO BE AN INCIDENT THEY WILL KEEP THE GLENWOOD LIFT STATION ONLINE VERSUS DECOMMISSION IT.

THE DECOMMISSIONING WAS A THE ORIGINAL PLAN BUT NOW KEEPING ONLINE ESPECIALLY WITH ALL THE OTHER EXPANSIONS ARE GOING ON HAS CAUSED A PIECE OF THIS REDESIGN THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER FROM HIS PRESENTATION AT THE LAST MEETING OR TWO MEETINGS

AGO. >> ALRIGHT, DURING WE MET.

>> I REMEMBER WE ARE KEEPING PART OF IT INSTEAD OF DECOMMISSIONING. IF I READ THIS RIGHT THE PROPOSED SERVICES TO INCLUDE INCREASING THE DIAMETER OF THE GLENWOOD INTERCEPTOR FROM 30 INCHES TO 36 AND 42 SO WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF THE $832,000, WE HAVE A BRIDGE WE SPENT COMEDY ON 20 OR 30% AND CHANGED HER MIND AND MOVED IT 50 FEET AND STARTED OVER AGAIN.

HOW MUCH OF THIS IS NEW INFORMATION THAT WE ARE REDESIGNING, IS IT 50 GRAND OR $832,000 IN REDESIGN, THAT'S

WHAT WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. >> DARREN WITH DCS FOR THE RECORD. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THERE IS ABOUT $100,000 IN THIS 830 THAT IS ADDRESSING THE CHANGES TO GO TO 36 AND 42. THE BULK OF THE WORK IS FOR THE NEW SOUTH LIFT STATION WHICH WILL BE A PERMANENT FACILITY THAT IS THE BULK OF THE DOLLARS IN THE 830.

$100,000 IS REDESIGNING A DESIGN THAT WAS COMPLETED BUT IT WILL BE UPDATED BASED ON THE MASTER PLAN UPDATE.

>> THAT DIDN'T BOTHER ME AS MUCH MY FEAR WAS THE LIFT STATION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN. WE BUILT IN 19 AND WE NOW HAVE TO BASICALLY TEAR IT OUT AND REDO IT.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAD A $800,000 REDESIGN WHO ARE WE

COMING AFTER FOR THAT. >> IT IS 100,000, PLUS OR MINUS.

>> TO I SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON ITEM 8.1. HEARING NINE I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION. >> SO MOVED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMAN MCKENZIE, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON TREAT ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> VICE COUNSEL SUTTON.

>> KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> SNYDER. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR CLARK.

[8.7. Consideration and possible action on approving the February 2, 2023 City Council meeting minutes (Angela Lewis)]

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

I BELIEVE THAT BRINGS US TO 8.7 CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION OF APPROVING THE FEBRUARY 2, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING

MINUTES. >> MAYOR THE ITEM THAT I NOTICED, ITEM 12.3 IN THAT AGENDA SAYS A MOTION WAS MADE TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK A CHANGE TO THE POLICY THAT BRINGS THE MINIMUM RESERVES TO 30% FOR 2023, 40% FOR 24, 45 FOR 25 AND 50% FOR 2026 AND THE MOTION WAS SECONDED AND WAS PAST 5 - 2 BUT I RECALL THE PORTION WHERE IT SAID 50% IN 2026 WAS REMOVED FROM THAT MOTION AND I WENT AND WATCHED THE VIDEO TO MAKE SURE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. I REQUEST WE REQ CORRECT THE RED TO SHOW THAT IT ONLY GOES TO 45% 2025 AND THE REST OF 50% TO 2026

SHOULD BE SURVEYED AND REMOVED. >> ALRIGHT.

DOES THAT COME WITH THE MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES FOR FEBRUARE REVISION REQUESTED UNDER ITEM 12.3 TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE OF 12.6.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

PROVING 8.7 WITH THE CHANGE IN ITEM 12.3 TAKING 50% MENTION OUT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY SPINNING AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> COUNCIL MEMBER.

>> AYE. >> COUNSEL NEVER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNSEL NUMBER GORDON.

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

[8.16. Presentation and possible action to accept the financial report for the month ended December 31, 2022. (Anne LaMere)]

[00:35:05]

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 816 PRESENTATION AND EXCEPT IN THE FINAL REPORT OF THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2023.

I PRINTED A COPY. >> MY QUESTION ON THIS WAS LOOKING AT THE FINANCES. IN THE PARKS IMPROVEMENT AND

ACQUISITION FUND. >> DAN CAN YOU SWITCH WITH ME.

ON THE PARKS IMPROVEMENT ACQUISITION FUND I BROUGHT THIS UP LAST MONTH. $97497 EXPENDITURE.

I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SECOND PAGE THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND EXPENSES WILL BE COMPRISED OF THE NECESSARY COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PURCHASE OF LAND, IMPROVEMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARKS AND RECREATION OF THE FACILITY.

MAKES SENSE. THE NEXT PAGE OUT OF OUR BUDGET THE PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND ONE OF THE REASONS I KEEP IDENTIFYING THIS BECAUSE I BROUGHT UP IN A BUDGET, WE ARE NOT BUDGETING ANY IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PARK. STAFF WAS OKAY WITH NO IMPROVEMENTS. WE DID NOT BUDGET ANYTHING AT ALL THREE THERE IS NO EXPENDITURES BUDGETED, NOTHING.

THE LAST TIME WE SPENT MONEY WAS 2021 FOR 24000.

THE NEXT PAGE IS ARE ENHANCEMENTS FOR PARKS AND RECREATION WE ADDED TWO POSITIONS, WE HAD RECREATIONAL PROGRAMS, RESTARTED SOME PROGRAMS, E SPORTS, THE CONTRACT, THE TENNIS COURT LIGHTS, ORDAIN PARK IRRIGATION.

NONE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. IN THE LAST PAGES GENERAL FUND OF NO CAPITAL OUTLAYS A PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

SO WHAT I KEEP TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW ARE WE SPENDING MONEY IN THE DEPARTMENT IN A LINE ITEM THAT THERE SHOULDN'T BE 1 DOLLAR SPENT. SURELY NOT OVER $50000.

WHEN I GO TO ITEM SECTION .10 AND THE CHARTER NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE OR OBLIGATION INCURRED AGAINST ANY ALLOTMENT OR APPROPRIATION EXCEPT IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTHORIZED APPROPRIATIONS WHICH WE DID NOT AUTHORIZE ANY IN THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS DESIGNEE CERTIFY A SUFFICIENT UNENCUMBERED BALANCE OF SUCH ALLOTMENT OR APPROPRIATION AND SUFFICIENT FUNDS ARE OR WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR RETAIL OBLIGATION WHEN IT BECOMES DUE AND PAYABLE. IT GOES ON IN SO MANY WORDS IF AN OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE LIABLE FOR SPENDING THIS MONEY ON AUTHORIZED THEY MAY BE LIABLE FOR THE AMOUNT SO PAID.

WE'VE GOT THE 1.7 MILLION THAT WE DIDN'T COLLECT.

BUT FORGET TO KEEP HAVING BUDGETS THAT ARE SO VAGUELY WRITTEN THAT I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT WE ARE SPENDING MONEY ON, THAT IS FINE BUT WHEN WE HAVE A BUDGET THAT THERE'S NOTHING WRITTEN IN AND MAKES IT EASIER TO FIND IT EXPENDITURE.

UNLESS I'M WRONG SOMEBODY OWES THE CITY OF HUTTO $97470 AND I THINK WILL TAKE A PERSONAL CHECK, CREDIT CARD OR WHATEVER OR SOMEONE CAN EXPLAIN WHAT WE DID TO IMPROVE A PARK THAT WASN'T BUDGETED, WAS ALLOCATED AND WAS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THIS YEAR I'M GOOD TO BE MORE AND MORE INTO THIS AS I STARTED THE LAST TIME BECAUSE QUITE HONESTLY EVERY TIME WE DID GET ON SOMETHING WE FIND OUT THAT THERE'S MONEY MISSPENT, MILLIONS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COLLECTED AND EVENTUALLY WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND THIS IS ONLY 100 GRAND, THAT IS MORE OF A STATEMENT NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION EITHER WE HAVE AN ANSWER BECAUSE I ASKED FOR LAST MONTH.

I DO KNOW IN THE FINANCE PORTION WHICH I DO APPRECIATE WE ARE KEEPING A RUNNING TOTAL OF EXPENDITURES THAT WE MADE OR WE BUDGETED 50000 FOR A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND IT CAME IN AT 55, I VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THAT SO WE CAN TRACK IT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DO A BUDGET AMENDMENT. WERE ABLE TO LOOK AND SAY YES WE APPROVE THAT, WE APPROVE THAT. BUT THIS IS JUST ONE IN MY ONLY GUESS IS BASED ON HOW BROAD THE BUDGET WAS WE JUST GOTTA PAY

[00:40:02]

ATTENTION AS A COUNSEL AND REALLY DIG IN TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS GETTING SPENT RIGHT.

ANYWAY. THAT WAS MY ONLY COMMENT ON THAT. I'M HAPPY TO BE WRONG THAT I WAS COMPLETELY WRONG BUT THAT'S WHY HAD ALL THE BACKUP.

>> MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT THE QUESTION OF THE MAYOR BROUGHT UP DUTY TO DO RESEARCH.

>> CERTAINLY I NEED TO DO RESEARCH I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME AT MY FINGERTIPS.

MAYBE JEFF KNOWS OFF THE TOP OF HIS HEAD OR NOT.

THE BEST THING TO DO IS LET ME LOOK INTO IT AND GET AN ANSWER TO EVERYBODY. AM I REMEMBERING WAS IN THIRD ITEM NOT TOO TERRIBLY LONG AGO THAT JEFF BROUGHT UP AND SAID HE WOULD BE FUNDING IT FROM THE PARKS IMPROVEMENT FUND AND WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT THE FACT THERE WASN'T ANYTHING BUDGETED FOR THIS YEAR. I THINK I REMEMBER SOMETHING LIKE THAT BUT LET ME LOOK INTO AND TRY TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH

THE ANSWER. >> THAT MAY BE.

>> THERE HAVE BEEN PLAYGROUND REPLACEMENTS.

THE EQUIPMENT WAS REPLACED TWO DIFFERENT SETS OF PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT I BELIEVE, I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A FULL MONEY BUT A PIECE OF THE PUZZLE I DON'T BELIEVE THE RESTROOMS ARE A PART OF THIS BUDGET BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT IS APPROVED LAST CYCLE.

I DON'T WANT TO GET THAT CONFUSED.

>> THE REASON I HAVE AN EXPLANATION THAT'S REALLY DETAIL. WHEN WE HAD AN EXPLANATION BEFORE THERE'S 2.6 MILLION THAT WE ARE NOT SPENDING WHY WE SPENDING GENERAL REVENUE ON PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND WE ARE TOLD IT IS FOR NEW IMPROVEMENTS NOT FOR MAINTENANCE AND THAT AGAIN WE GO BACK TO THE BUDGET, WHAT ARE WE DOING TO IMPROVE OUR PARKS BECAUSE CONTRARY TO THE SURVEY SOME PEOPLE WANT MORE IMPROVEMENTS. WHAT I AM DOING WILL BECOME TIME FOR BUDGET IN THE FALL I'M HOPING FOR A 500 PAGE, 600 PAGE BUDGET WITH THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHERE EVERY DOLLAR IS GOING TO GO, THE CHECKBOOKS ONLINE AND WE COULD JUST FOLLOW THROUGH AND GO. IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN MY ASSUMPTION IF WE START EARLY ON THE EXPECTATIONS OF A COUNSEL, IT EITHER NEEDS TO FLOW IN OUR FINANCIAL CHANGES THAT WE ARE MAKING AT THE END OF 816 I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NOTICES THE END OF A 16. THEY DID A GREAT JOB CAPTURING, WHERE IS IT. AT MY GLASSES.

CAPTURING WHERE WE CHANGED MONEY FOR SEPARATION PAY, SOFTWARE, A VALVE TRAILER, BACKHOE, EVEN THE 60 MILLION, TO ME THAT IS GREAT AND SHE IS THE MONTH WE ARE DOING IT IN LOW-LYING CODES.

IF YOU ARE AN ACCOUNTANT OR A FORENSIC AUDITOR WE DISLIKE RUNNING THROUGH. THIS KEEPS MISSING AND WE MAY HAVE APPROVED IT IN SOMEWHERE ON HERE WE HAVE TO CAPTURE.

, OTHER THAN THAT I JUST WANTED TELL YOU THANK YOU FOR THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL YOU ARE PUTTING INTO THESE REPORTS.

AND THE LAST THING I HAVE IS A CONCERN ABOUT THE VOTE UNDER BUILDING PERMITS I KNOW WE GOT AN E-MAIL SAYING WE ARE LOOKING AT IT BUT SINCE WERE FIVE MONTHS INTO THE FISCAL YEAR I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE TIME WE'VE GOT TO LOOK.

WHAT I'M SEEING IS A SIGNIFICANT SLOWDOWN IN PERMITTING I DON'T HOW MUCH I BELIEVE 3 MILLION IN THE BUDGET THAT WAS FROM PERMIT

ACTIVITY. >> WE SHARED THAT IN THE FRIDAY

LETTER THE PERMIT LAB REPORT. >> BASED ON THIS I SEE A SIGNIFICANT SLOWDOWN. IF WE HAD OUR BUDGET AND COLLECT 3 MILLION AND WE SEE A HUGE SLOWDOWN WHAT ARE WE CUTTING.

IF A COMES IN AT A MILLION WHERE IS THE 2 MILLION IN THE BUDGET COME IN AND MADE UP. MY FEAR WE WILL WAIT EIGHT MONTHS INTO THE YEAR END THE BARGAIN HAVE TO FIRE SOMEBODY BECAUSE WERE NOT TO BE ABLE TO CUT THE MONEY, I WOULD RATHER US MAKE SURE IF WE TRULY SEEN A DECREASE FOR INSTANCE 2021, 2080 HOMES. 2022 WE WERE DOWN 86%, JANUARY OF 23 IS DOWN 20% IN ADDITION TO THEY'RE DOWN NUMBER OF 2022.

THAT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS WITH INTEREST RATES AND PEOPLE GET OVER 7% RATES AND DECIDE TO BUY A BUNCH OF HOMES WE MAY BE SEEING A 20% INCREASE IN THE DECREASE ON A 3 MILLION-DOLLAR NUMBER WOULD BE 600 GRAND, WHERE ARE WE MAKING

[00:45:03]

THAT UP, I JUST WANT TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT SO WE DO ALL THIS AND GET SURPRISED IN OUR BUDGET AMENDMENT NEXT MONTH AND HAVE TO CUT OUT SIDEWALK REPAIRS OR WHATEVER WE GOTTA DO.

>> WE BUDGETED 2 MILLION NOT 3 MILLION.

>> I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER IF IT'S 2 MILLION WE GOTTA MAKE

A 400,000. >> WERE INCREASING OUR RESERVES WE GOTTA GO DOWN AND I DON'T WANT TO GET PINCHED.

>> I REMEMBER WE WERE CONCERNED WITH THAT AND WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE AT. THE TOTAL WERE GOING BACK TO ALMOST 19, 20 NUMBERS BECAUSE IT WAS ALMOST 3,000,000,020 AND 21 AND WE LOOKED AT THOSE BEING BUBBLES SO WE SAID WE WENT BACK TO THE 19 NUMBERS BUT WE DO NEED TO FOLLOW IT BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE SIX MONTHS LEFT AT THE END OF THE SCHOOL YEAR.

>> JANUARY 22 INTEREST RATES DID NOT POP UNTIL MAY SO IF WE ARE DOWN ON TOP OF THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

>> IT CERTAINLY A PART OF THE VARIOUS ITEMS THAT THE REASON WE DO THE FINANCIAL REPORTS SO WE HAVE AN IDEA AND SERVING AS INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR, SURELY KNOWS MY DESIRE TO MOVE US TO CASH STATEMENTS THAT WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF THE CASH FLOWS IN AND OUT. THAT IS A HEAVY LIFT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WILL BE ABLE TO GET TO RIGHT AWAY.

BUT WERE WORKING OUR WAY THAT DIRECTION.

WHERE YOU MIGHT HAVE A DOWNTURN IN PERMITTING YOU MIGHT HAVE AN AFTERNOON SOMETHING ELSE. ASSUMING YOU'RE NOT IN THE FUNDS PER SE, GENERALLY THEY ALL WASH EACH OTHER OUT.

WHERE WE MIGHT HAVE VARIANCE IN ONE AREA WE MIGHT HAVE VARIANCE IN ANOTHER AREA DOWN AND THOSE MAY BALANCE EACH OTHER OUT OR WE MAY END UP NEEDING TO HOLD OFF ON SOME OF OUR PURCHASES ON EQUIPMENT AND THINGS WERE PLANNING TO DO.

THAT'S PART OF WHY WE HAVE BUDGETS TO HELP US TO THE

PROCESS. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OF THE

FINANCIAL REPORTS? >> I WOULDN'T SAY THE TENNIS COURT LIGHTS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WOULD BE IT OVER I WANT TO SAY IT WAS MATT WHO DID A BIG PRESENTATION ON ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS AND WE ESSENTIALLY WENT PARK BY PARK BY PARK AND SOME OF THEM WERE PUT ON THE LAST CYCLE, HOW TO LAKE PARK WITH THE BASKETBALL COURT IN THE RESURFACING IN THE LIGHTING OVER THERE LAST CYCLE. I DON'T HAVE ALL OF MY NOTES FROM THAT MEETING BUT I REMEMBER US GOING AND TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC THINGS THAT NEED TO BE IMPROVED IN THE PAST BUDGET CYCLE WHATEVER WE LOOKED AT IT I REMEMBER YOU ASKING THE QUESTION WHAT CAN WE MOVE FROM THIS TO GO OVER AND COUNT AS AN IMPROVEMENT I WANT TO SAY THE TENNIS COURT LIGHTS IS ONE.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE OTHER ONE AS WELL.

I SAID I CAN'T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER YOU DOING THE PRESENTATION AND GOING ON BY LINE PARK BY PARK.

EXCUSE ME. AND LOOKING AT THAT THAT MIGHT HELP TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS AS FAR AS WHAT WE HAD ASKED TO BE MOVED OVER WHAT COULD BE CONSIDERED AN IMPROVEMENT. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WILL HELP THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS SEARCH FOR THE INFORMATION EITHER BUT I DO RECALL HAVING A CONVERSATION. FOR SURE.

I DO REMEMBER ACTUALLY SAYING 2021 WAS COMING ANOMALY WHENEVER WE MADE OUR BUDGET WE WERE CONSERVATIVE AND KIND OF TOOK OUT A BUBBLE YEAR FOR PERMITS BUT I DO AGREE WE NEED TO KEEP CLOSE ION THAT. THEY ARE AWARE 2021 AND THEY SAID THEY DID BUDGET BUT STAYING ON TOP OF IT IS AN IMPORTANT

THING TO DO. >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ANOTHER THING AS WELL. I DO AGREE WITH THE MAYOR OUR BUDGET, HOW IT IS PRESENTED, FEW OF US APPEAR THROUGH THE BUDGET LAST YEAR KIND OF EXPRESSED OUR WANT AND DESIRE FOR MORE DETAILS. HOPEFULLY THAT WILL BE DELIVERED THIS UPCOMING BUDGET CYCLE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE OUR OFFICIAL PERMANENT CITY MANAGER. I THINK WE VOICE THOSE CONCERNS AND I BELIEVE STAFF HAS TAKEN THEM SERIOUSLY SO WE SHOULD SEE SOME SUBSTANTIAL AND REALLY GREAT IMPROVEMENT WITH UPCOMING BUDGET CYCLE. PRAY THAT OUT OF HIS PUTTING PRESSURE BUT I AGREE WITH YOU TO APPROVE THE LINE ITEMS AND WHAT PROJECTS DO YOU SEE FOR PARKS IN THE NEXT YEAR.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE EXACT BUT MAYBE AROUND ABOUT FORGETTING DO $200,000 OF IMPROVEMENTS IN THIS GOING TO BE THESE FIVE THINGS.

I FEEL LIKE MAYBE WHEN IT COMES AROUND TO THAT TIME EACH DEPARTMENT CAN MAYBE GIVE US A BRIEFING OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING,

[00:50:04]

WHAT THEY FORESEE IN THE UPCOMING YEARS SO WE HAVE AN IDEA AND PUT IT ON OUR RADAR SO THEY THEN CAN PUT THAT IN THE BUDGET. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THE DETAILS OF THE NUMBERS AS PRESENTED HERE IT'S NOT CLEAR AT ALL BUT.

I DO EXPECT IMPROVEMENT DURING THE BUDGET.

>> ALL RIGHTS, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON 8.16.

HEARING THEN WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 9 .1.

>> ARE WE GOING TO TAKE ACTION? >> I DON'T THINK SO.

[9.1. Conduct a Public Hearing and 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)]

>> NO IS JUST A FINANCIAL REPORT.

>> INDUCTIVE POP UNDER PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE NUMBER TWO 0 23.0 0 SIX APPROVING A REVISED PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HUD ZONING ORDINANCE REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS NORTH TOWN COMMONS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT HUD 28.449 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF LAND LOCATED ALONG BLOOMBERG LOOP EAST OF FM 1660 NORTH.

>> GOOD EVENING ASHLEY. >> AN EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL SERVICES DIRECTOR. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT YOU MAY REMEMBER WE TALKED ABOUT IT WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING THAT GOT TABLE THAT IS STILL OPEN SO WE WILL NEED TO REOPEN, HOW DO YOU DO THAT YOU OPEN THE CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLICAN?

>> YES YOU OPEN THE CONTINUATION.

>> WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THIS WENT BACK TO PNC, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE PUD TO DECLARE THE COMMERCIAL USES FOLLOW WITH THE B-1 DISTRICT.

AND ALSO TO CLARIFY THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE DAYCARE SIZE ALLOWANCE DOES NOT MEAN ALL THE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS ONLY ALLOWED THE 10000 SQUARE FEET, THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT IN THE PD IT'S ALSO STANDARDS FOR THE UDC AND ALLOW FOR MURALS ON THE BUILDINGS, THERE IS A MODIFICATION FROM PNC THAT WE WILL GET TO ON THAT ONE FOR 25% OF COMMERCIAL USE FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, SECONDARY TO THE MAIN USE REMOVE PROPOSED RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT CONNECTS DIRECTLY INTO MEADOWS. YOU MAY RECALL THE LAST TIME WE HEARD THE HEARING WE HAD A SPEAKER SPEAKING IN FAVOR OF THAT. SO I CAN SHOW YOU WE KNOW THE USER IS A DOLLAR GENERAL MARKET IN THE AREA.

THESE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS THAT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE INTO THIS PLAN DEVELOP.

THIS IS A PROPOSED LAND ESCAPE PLAN, IT WOULD LOOK SIMILAR TO THIS, THIS ACTUALLY DOES FOR THE MOST PART MEET THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS IT IS RIGHT NOW. THIS IS THE LAYOUT RIGHT NOW AND THIS WOULD BE THE STREET THAT WOULD BE CLOSED THE STREET DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST IT'S ALWAYS BEEN PROPOSED IS EVER BEEN PLOTTED AND THERE IS THIS TAPESTRY OFF-SITE.

THIS IS THE AREA THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED IF THE STREET IS CLOSED PNC DID RECOMMEND IN FAVOR OF THAT.

>> IS NOT STREET PART OF THE NATURAL ABILITY PLAN.

>> NO. >> WITH THAT 210 PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED WITHIN 600 FEET. WE HAD SEVERAL TO BE IN FAVOR INTO AN OPPOSITION ONE ADJACENT DID SPEAK IN FAVOR OF CLOSING THE SUBSTRATE AT YOUR LAST MEETING.

BRAIDED IS CONSISTENT I HAVE ALL THE POD CRITERIA AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA. IT MAKES A CHANGE WITH THE REQUEST THAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL RESIGNED DOES NOT HAVE A GREATER SIGNIFICANT BURDEN, ONE OF THE COMMENTS I CAME INTO THE PNC DISCUSSION WAS TALKING TO THE ISD.

IT REALLY DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING BUT CLOSING NOT STREET.

IN FACT WHAT WE NOTICED THROUGHOUT TOWN IS HAVING THAT DIRECTION ACTION TO ALSO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA IS SOMETIMES NOT THE BEST FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SOMETIMES YOU CONNECT THE VIEWPOINTS ISSUED TO BE JUST TO THE RESIDENTIAL STREET.

SOMETIMES IT'S BETTER TO HAVE MINOR ARTERIAL OR A COLLECTOR BUT THAT WOULD REALLY BE CONNECTING IT TO A TRULY

RESIDENTIAL STREET. >> AS IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POD REVIEW CRITERIA, STAFF RECOMMENDED IN FAVOR.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE A RECOMMENDATION 60 MAXI ROW WE HAD ONE ABSENT COMMISSION MEMBERS.

TO VOTE WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT THE PARKING LOT WOULD BE 20 AND MURALS CAN ONLY FACE THE NONRESIDENTIAL AND RIGHT-OF-WAY PROPERTY IN ONE WORD MONUMENT SIGN THAT JODY AND THE PD WOULD BE ADDED BECAUSE THEY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THAT.

[00:55:01]

THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE IF DOLLAR GENERAL OR THE OTHER COMMERCIAL AREAS OVER THERE NEEDED ANOTHER MONUMENT SIGN THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE ONE WITH THE SPACE.

AGAIN THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS OPEN AT THE LAST

MEETING. >> AND THERE IS NO OBJECTION FROM COUNSEL I WOULD GO AHEAD AND OPEN UP THE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING. HEARING NONE, WE WILL OPEN UP THE CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M.

IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE SPUD AMENDMENT? ENON WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:55 P.M. AND OPEN UP FOR COUNSEL.

>> USUALLY YOU GUYS WILL ATTACH ALL THE SURVEY, NOT SURVEY, THE WEBER OPPOSITION FROM THE RESIDENCE.

I THINK THERE WERE SIX TOTAL, USUALLY THEY ARE IN THE PACKET.

YOU GUYS DID NOT ATTACH THAT. >> I THINK IT WOULD'VE BEEN THE

LAST ONE. >> DON'T RECALL SEEING THAT.

DO YOU RECALL THE REASONS MOSTLY WHY SOME WERE IN FAVOR AND WHAT

THE TWO OPPOSITIONS WERE. >> WE DO NOT USUALLY NORMALLY WE

GIVE THEM TO YOU. >> NORMALLY THE SITE IN FAVOR OPPOSITION IF THEY GIVE A REASON WE WILL GIVE THEM TO YOU BUT MOST OF THEM SAID FAVOR OPPOSITION.

IF THEY ARE LIKE THAT ESPECIALLY WITH 1100 PAGE PACKET.

>> ASHLEY IS THE CMM I CANNOT REMEMBER BECAUSE I WENT TO THE PNC MEETING. I'M A LITTLE MESSED UP.

IS THIS THE AMENDMENT THAT WILL ALLOW TO DO A RETAIL SPACE

UPFRONT? >> YES.

>> THIS ALLOWS THE RETAIL PORTION IN THE INDUSTRIAL SITE IN A MURAL THAT WILL BE STAFF APPROVED.

HE ACTUALLY HAS SOME SPACE THAT WOULD BE VISIBLE FROM 1660 BUT RIGHT NOW IN THE CODE MURALS ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN THE HISTORIC DISTRICT APPROVED BY PC SO WERE PUTTING THAT IN THE PUD SO WE CAN HAVE OUTSIDE OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

>> HE CAN'T JUST PAINT ANYTHING HE WANTS, YOU GUYS HAVE TO

APPROVE. >> A.

APPROVAL. >> MAKE SURE IT IS NOT

ADVERTISING. >> ALRIGHT.

>> ARE THEY ASKING FOR ANY LANDSCAPING VARIANCES?

>> 30 IN THE PUD. BASICALLY IT'S A REALLY GOOD PUD RIGHT NOW AND THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO AMEND AT LEAST NOT THAT

SECTION. >> I WATCHED THE MEETING FROM HOME AND THE CAMERA WAS STUCK ON ONE BOARD NUMBER THE ENTIRE MEETING WHICH HAPPENS SO I CAN UNTIL HE WAS TALKING SOMETIMES AND IT SEEMED LIKE SOMEBODY ON THE BOARD SUGGESTED THE MONUMENT

SIGN AND NOT THE APPLICANT? >> DATED 70 FROM PNC SAID DO THEY NEED ANOTHER SIGN AND THEY SAID THAT IS SOMETHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD AND THEY SAID LET'S ADD ONE JUST IN CASE.

I COULDN'T SEE THE REACTION SO I HAD NO IDEA IF PNC DECIDED ON THEIR OWN OR THE APPLICANT WAS THERE.

>> WAS DEFINITELY DO YOU THINK THAT THEY NEED ONE AND WE LOOKED IN THE PUD IN A LOOKED LIKE THEY MAY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO HAVE ONE. USUALLY WHEN THE PUD IS SILENT THEY COULD GO BACK IT WAS SAFER TO HAVE THAT IN THERE JUST IN CASE SO ANY FUTURE STAFF THE INTENT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE

THAT SIGN. >> I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION WOULD BE AT THE EAST SIDE OF THE PUD?

IS THAT CORRECT? >> HOW FAR WOULD THAT BE AWAY? THERE STANDARDS ON HOW FAR THAT HAS TO BE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL.

>> IT WOULD BE SO THEY HAVE OVER HERE.

>> AT THE SAME STANDARDS OF THE OTHER SCIENCE WORDS INTERNALLY

LIT WHERE THEY WERE DISCUSSING. >> IT WOULD MATCH WHAT'S ALREADY

IN THE PUD. >> THE DOCTOR TO GET AN LED SIGN FLASHING AS OF IS WINDOWS IT CAN BE THE STANDARD BACKLIT SIGN WITH WHATEVER THE BUSINESSES ARE.

>> ATTORNEY MATCH THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE PUD IT WAS TO MAKE SURE WE ARE RESPECTING THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THERE IS AN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD RIGHT HERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

OR ACTION ON THIS ITEM? >> I MOVE TO ACCEPT ITEM 9 .1 AS PRESENTED INCLUDING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM PLANNING AND

ZONING COMMISSION. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM

GORDON, DO WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON APPROVING ORDINANCE TWO 0 23 DODGE 0 0 SIX WITH A RECOMMENDATION FROM PNZ, ANY

OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> HEARING ON CALL ABOUT.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER. >> AYE.

[01:00:07]

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK. >> AYE ASS COUNCIL MEMBER

KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES 7 - 0 IS ELIGIBLE FOR WAITING THE SECOND

READING? >> UNFORTUNATELY, NO BECAUSE THESE TWO HAVE THE ENFORCEMENT CLAUSES IN THEIR ORDINANCE SO THEY ARE CONSIDERED TO BE POTENTIALLY LEVYING A FEE OR A

[9.2. Conduct a Public Hearing and Possible Action on Ordinance No. O-2023-012 Approving the Annexation of the Titan 44 Trelia Tract, 44.029 Acres, more or less of Land and to Establish the Base Zoning as LI (Light Industrial) located on the south side of US 79. (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

CASE OF VIOLATION. >> UNDERSTAND.

ALRIGHT ITEM 9 .2 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE O-TWO 0 23-12.

APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE TITAN 44 TRULY ATTRACT 44-POINT 0 29 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND AND TO ESTABLISH A BASE ZONING OF LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF U.S. 79.

>> THIS IS VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION FOLLOWING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND LOU SIGNED IN 2014 IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE.

THE BASE ZONING WILL BE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WITH THE LAND USE MAP AND NOW THE NEW FUTURE LAND USE WAS IN THE SECOND READING IT ALL FITS. STILL 44 ACRES VOLUNTARILY ANNEXED IT IS IT IS THE FURTHEST WEST IT SUBMITTED TO STAFF PUBLIC NOTICES SENT OUT IN A PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDINANCE AND THIS WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A SECOND READING BECAUSE OF THE ZONING.

>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION TO COUNSEL WILL OPEN UP TO PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:01 P.M. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS ORDINANCE REGARDING THE

ANNEXATION OF THE 44 ACRES? >> SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE AT 8:02 P.M. AND OPEN UP THE COUNCIL DISCUSSION OR ACTION.

>> MAYOR MOVED TO APPROVE 9.2 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> I HAD ONE QUESTION THE SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST WAS DEEMED THAT WE CAN DO THAT FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, CORRECT? SPINNAKER BACK THAT WAS DONE IN THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT'S WHAT MR. WHITEHEAD HAD SPOKEN ABOUT AND HAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE EDC BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME BETWEEN THE FUTURE.

>> WAVE MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON SECOND BY COUNCIL NUMBER THORTON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. CALL ABOUT.

>> , BUT CAN THEY. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNSEL NEVER CLARK. >> AYE SPINNAKER COUNCIL MEMBER

GORDON. >> AYE.

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7 - 0. WERE GOING TO FAST.

[9.3. Conduct a Public Hearing and Possible Action on Ordinance No. O-2023-013 Approving the Annexation of the Titan Mega 144 Tract, 143.576 Acres, more or less of Land and to Establish the Base Zoning as LI (Light Industrial) located on the south side of US 79. (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

9.3 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE O-2023-0 13 APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE TITAN MEGA 144 TRACK 143.576 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND INTO ESTABLISH THE BASE ZONING AS LI LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOCATED ON THE SOUTH

SIDE OF U.S. 79. >> THE SECOND IS ALL MOST THE SAME AS THE FIRST, THE EXACT SAME APPLICANT 143 ACRES ALSO ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 79. THIS TRACT IS YOU CAN SEE THE TRAIL YOU TRACK IS RIGHT HERE THIS IS THE EASTERN TO OF THAT AND SUBMITTED TO STAFF AND YOU APPROVE THAT MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT ALL IN YOUR PACKET YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DOCUMENTATION, PUBLIC NOTICES POSTED IN THE NEWSPAPER.

THE SERVICE PROVIDERS WERE NOTIFIED THE PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE AND IT DOES REQUIRE A SECOND READING.

>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION FROM COUNSEL WE WILL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. 8:04 P.M.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK? ON THE ORDINANCE RF LAND SOUTH OF 79? SEEING NO ONE. WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:04 P.M. AND OPEN IT UP TO COUNSEL

DISCUSSION OR ACTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

9.3. >> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON APPROVING 9.3 AS PRESENTED.

DO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION?

>> THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE ATTACHED SCR WERE ADDRESSED.

>> CORRECT IN THE PARTICIPATION. >> HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION,

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMAN REGARDING.

[01:05:01]

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM ACCORDING.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

[9.4. Consideration and possible action regarding the adoption of an Ordinance authorizing the City Manager to approve blanket purchase orders greater than $50k for consumable type items authorized in the budget (such as gasoline, office supplies, chemicals, water meters, recurring software) with a full fiscal year listing of all such approvals attached to the Monthly Financial Report provided to Council (Anne LaMere)]

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

NEXT WE HAVE 9.4, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS GREATER THAN $50000 FOR CONSUMABLE TYPE ITEMS AUTHORIZING THE BUDGET.

SUCH AS GASOLINE, OFF OFFICE SUPPLIES, CHEMICALS, WATER METERS, REOCCURRING SOFTWARE, WITH A FULL FISCAL YEAR LISTING OF ALL SUCH APPROVALS ATTACHED TO THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT

PROVIDED TO COUNSEL. >> ARE YOU PRESENTING ON THIS

ONE OR AM I? >> YOUR NAME IS LISTED SO I WAS GOOD TO GIVE YOU THE OPTION OF DOING IT.

MAYOR COUNSEL JAMES ERB CITY MANAGER.

WHAT THIS IS EVERY YEAR WE RECURRING EXPENSES.

WE GAVE YOU A LIST OF SOME EXAMPLES ELECTRIC BILLS THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. GENERALLY WHAT HAPPENS DOES GET BUDGETED AND COUNCIL APPROVED THE BUDGET AND A BLANKET PO IS ISSUED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FISCAL YEAR AGAINST EVERY TIME THE ELECTRIC BILL COMES IN WE CHARGE AGAINST, SO ON AND SO FORTH. MOST CITIES HAVE A POLICY IN PLACE THAT ALLOWS THOSE TYPES OF PO'S TO BE GENERATED AND AS YOU ALL WELL KNOW WE JUST WENT THROUGH AND ADOPTED OUR FINANCIAL POLICIES. THIS WAS NOT ONE OF THE POLICIES THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT. ANYTIME WE ENCOUNTER ANYTHING A TYPICAL RECURRING EXPENSE. I CAN THINK OF SAND AND OTHER MATERIALS IN PUBLIC WORKS. THESE ARE GENERALLY THINGS THAT ARE BLANKET PO AND AS WE CONSUME WE CHARGE AGAINST.

SINCE MY DISCRETIONARY IS LIMITED TO 50000, A LOT OF THOSE CUMULATIVELY ARE MORE THAN 50000 THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

I NEED COUNSEL TO SPECIFICALLY STATE IF IT'S IN THE BUDGET IN THE CONSUMABLE AND RECURRING EXPENSE THEN IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO AUTHORIZE THE PO'S. THAT IS WHAT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT.

INVISIBLE MIRROR IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS OR IMPLICATIONS THAT YOU MIGHT THINK ABOUT THAT YOU WANT TO ASK

ABOUT. >> DISCUSSION FROM COUNSEL.

>> MY FIRST QUESTION HOW ARE THESE BEING PAID BEFORE THIS

REQUEST. >> I WILL LET HER ANSWER THAT

QUESTION. >> WHEN I CAME INTO THE CITY, WHAT I FOUND SOME HAD BEEN HELD BECAUSE PURCHASING DID NOT KNOW HOW TO PROCESS THEM. AND OTHERS SUCH AS ELECTRICITY AND WATER HAD BEEN PAID BUT TO A POINT THAT WAS MADE PREVIOUSLY.

IF YOU DON'T HAVE PROPER APPROVAL IN THE PO IN PLACE YOU SHOULD NOT BE SPENDING MONEY. SO BASICALLY THIS TYPE OF RESOLUTION IS GENERALLY PRESENTED TO COUNSEL THE SAME TIME BUDGET IS PRESENTED TO COUNSEL.

SOMEHOW THE STEP WAS MISSED WHEN THE 2023 BUDGET WAS APPROVED.

WERE COMING IN NOW TO ASK FOR PERMISSION TO PAY THESE TYPES OF EXPENSES WITH THE CITY MANAGERS APPROVAL AND COUNCIL HAS APPROVED THESE EXPENDITURES IN THE BUDGETARY PROCESS.

QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, I'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS $50000 LIMIT, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT

MEAN. >> THE $50000 LIMIT, HUTTO, IT WAS ADOPTED BUT ALSO FROM STATE LAW, THE STATE LAW 50000 LIMIT IS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE.

ANY EXPENDITURE AS A SINGLE EXPENDITURE OR THE RECURRING SEQUENTIAL ONES AS ARE DEFINED IN THE STATE LAW WILL ADD UP TO MORE THAN 50000, HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESSES. SO WHAT THIS ORDINANCE ALLOWS, I WORKED WITH HER ON THIS IS FOR COUNSEL TO AUTHORIZE THROUGH THE BUDGET AMOUNT THAT YOU SENT AS A CEILING THAT CAN BE SPENT OVER 50000 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER IN THE CHARTER TO GO UP TO THAT AMOUNT AS LONG AS THEY COMPLY WITH THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS. THEY WILL HAVE TO FOLLOW THE STATE LAW FOR THE BIDDING REQUIREMENT BUT THE PROCUREMENT MANUAL AND THE POLICY THAT WE ADOPTED LOCALLY IS WHAT PUT A CAP ON THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY TO SPEND OVER THAT.

THIS IS CREATING AN AUTHORIZED CERTAIN TYPE OF EXPENDITURES OVER 50 WITHIN THE COUNCIL APPROVED BUDGET AMOUNT.

>> WITHOUT WE'VE HAD THREE CITY MANAGERS INTO IN TERMS, THEY SAY

[01:10:04]

$50000 OUTSIDE CARE FOR. HOW MANY TIMES CAN A PERSON SPEND UP TO $50000 BECAUSE I'VE HEARD THAT SO MUCH AND I'M TAKING WHAT CAN YOU SPEND 50000 A DAY, IS IT 50000 A MONTH, WHAT IS ACTUAL LIMIT. THE WAY IT IS ALWAYS THROWN OUT THERE, I SPEND UP TO 50 GRAND WHICH MEANS IT'S ALMOST UNLIMITED. WHAT IS A STOP TO WHERE A PERSON

CAN'T SPEND. >> YOU ASKED A GREAT QUESTION, THERE'S UNFORTUNATELY NOT QUITE TO BE A CLEAR ANSWER BUT SINCE THERE'S NOT A TIMELINE IN THE STATE LAW WITHIN A FISCAL YEAR OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THE STATE LAW SAYS FOR THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PURPOSES, THE 50000 DOES APPLY TO A SEQUENTIAL OR COMPONENT OR SERIES PURCHASES I BELIEVE AS REFERRED TO. THOSE ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ANYTHING A REGULAR PURCHASING PRACTICE YOU WOULD BUY THEM UNDER ONE CONTRACTOR ONE GO SO IF YOU'RE OFFICIALLY BREAKING THINGS UP TO FALL BELOW 50000 AND DOING A SERIES OF PURCHASES THAT'S ONE ISSUE THAT COULD RUN A FOUL TO THE 50000 LIMIT BUT THE 50000 IS REALLY IN THE STATE LAW ABOUT THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURES HAVING TO BE FOLLOWED IN HERE AND HAD NO THE AUTHORIZATION FOR CITY MANAGER DELEGATED SPENDING APPROVAL.

WHAT THIS IS DOING AGAIN IS EXTENDING THE PARTICULAR I PURCHASE ORDERS. THE 50000 AUTHORIZATION DELEGATED TO THE CITY MANAGER OVER THAT TO THE BUDGET AMOUNT SO YOU STILL HAVE A GAP AND ALLOWING IT WITH THE BLANKET

ORDERS. >> WHAT I FEEL LIKE IN HER BUDGET $4 MILLION IN PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A PLACE TO SPEND BUT WE WANTED THE MONEY SO WE PARKED IT. SOME STATE LAW SO WE PARKED IT SO WE COULD SPEND IT LATER MY FEAR THE REASON I GET WOUND UP THE PHONE TO UNDER $50000 DO WE REALLY SPEND $250,000 OR DO WE ONLY SPENT $75000 BUT WE BUDGET TO 50 WHICH THE CHARTER ALLOWS A CITY MANAGER TO MOVE THAT MONEY FROM TO ENTER $50000 BUDGET TO SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE DEPARTMENT IN A WAY IF YOU OVER INFLATE EVERY SINGLE LINE ITEM YOU CAN WITH THE MONEY ALL AROUND AND YOU NEVER EVER PROBLEM SPENDING MONEY BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS IN THE BUDGET AND YOU HAVE ONE CITY MANAGER THAT KEPT THINKING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHERE ALL THE MONEY COMES FROM AND WE RAN OUT HIS INTERNET REALLY TO 50, IS IT REALLY 925,000 WE SEE THAT REGULARLY BUT OFFICE SUPPLIES $141,000.

AND WHAT ARE YOU TO BUY WE HAVE OFFICES AND FURNITURE JUST TACKED, I DON'T REALLY KNOW BUT JUST IN CASE.

ONE YEAR WE WENT THERE AND TOOK ALL THAT OUT.

MY ONLY FEAR WITH THIS JAMES GETS HIT BY A BUS, THE NEXT PERSON COMES IN LIKE THE PEOPLE WE HAD BEFORE NOW THEY SAY $141,000 YOU GUYS ARE USING BIG PINS AND $141,000 AND THERE IS SOME OTHER FLEET VEHICLES 601,000 AND WE HAD INDIVIDUAL LINE ITEMS WITH FOUR PATROL CARS I LIKE THAT WERE ASKING IN SUMMARY HAS TO ASK US FOR APPROVAL.

WHERE WAS IT, ANYWAY THAT'S MY ONLY FEAR BECAUSE HER BUDGET PEOPLE CAN PULL MONEY AND PULL NUMBERS OUT OF THE AIR IN THE BUDGET WITH NO EXPLANATION OF WHAT WE SPENT LAST YEAR PREVIOUSLY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE BECAUSE IF JAMES LEAVES US THEN WHOEVER TAKES OVER FOR HIM HAS HOWEVER, MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. LASTLY WHEN I DON'T TRUST THE NUMBERS ON THE PAPER I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN GIVE THE

[01:15:04]

AUTHORITY TO SPEND THE MONEY BUT I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE AND I DON'T WANT EVERY ELECTRIC BILL TO COME UP.

IF WE GO BACK AND AMEND THE BUDGET AND DO IT RIGHT AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I THANK YOU PASS THIS LETTER IN THE BUDGET IS WRITTEN CORRECTLY I WILL BECOME TUBAL PASSING AND APPROVING THE LETTER BECAUSE WERE ONLY GOING TO SPEND $81423 IN ELECTRICITY BECAUSE 9% OVER LAST YEAR BECAUSE OF WHATEVER.

>> I WILL ADDRESS THAT BECAUSE AND THAT THE HAVE ENOUGH OF THE INFORMATION. THE BUDGET THAT YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS THE BUDGET THAT WE WILL BE BUILDING.

THE WAY THAT BUDGETING IS SUPPOSED TO WORK AND WERE SUPPOSED TO SHOW YOU LAST YEAR AND UP TO THE POINT LOOKING AT THE BUDGET THIS YEAR AND WHAT WE EXPECT IN THE YEAR WITHIN OUR EXPENDITURE LINE ITEMS BY THE TIME THE BUDGET YEAR CONCLUDES THAT IS WHAT IS STANDARD ACROSS THE INDUSTRY IS SHOWING YOU THAT. I GUARANTEE AN EVER STRONG SENSATION OF FEELING IF I HAVE A LINE ITEM OF $4 MILLION IN THEIR AND I SPENT 50000 THAT'S WHAT I REPORT BACK YOU ARE GOING TO FIND SOMETHING ELSE TO DO WITH THE $3,950,000 LEFT OVER ITS REAPPROPRIATED TO OTHER PLACES THAT IS THE POINT THE POINT IS WE DO WHAT OVER BUDGET AND BE RIGHT THE BUDGET IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE CRYSTAL BALLS AND WE CAN'T GET EVERYTHING DOWN TO THE PENNY EXACTLY RIGHT BUT SOME THINGS WE CAN AND SOME ARE KNOWN WE KNOW WHAT DO I GET SERVICE PAYMENTS ARE GOING TO BE. WE KNOW ARE LEASE PAYMENTS OF ENTERPRISE WE KNOW CERTAIN THINGS AND WE MAKE SOME SORT OF AN ESTIMATION BASED OF NEW FACILITIES THAT ARE, LINE SO WANTED SUPPORT. THAT IS THE BUDGET THE BUDGET YOU ARE DESCRIBING IS THE BUDGET WE WILL BUILD THIS YEAR TO REPORT BACK WHAT'S BEING SPENT WHERE THE REAL BUSINESS ISSUE OF TECHNICALLY WE SHOULD NOT PAY THE ELECTRIC BILLS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A PO TO PAY THE ELECTRIC BILLS THAT IS WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO RESOLVE 50000 COMMENT THE CITY ATTORNEY WAS BEING DIPLOMATIC. AT THE END OF THE DAY IF YOU PURPOSELY BREAK UP EXPENDITURES TO BE LESS THAN 50000 TO GET AROUND TO THE ROLE THAT IS VERY BAD IN MANY WAYS.

YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT. IF YOU HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS PURPOSELY BREAKING OUT BELOW THE 50000 WITHIN THEIR DISCRETION IN THE DOING MULTIPLE PURCHASES WITH THE SAME ENTITY OR WHATEVER THAT IS ACTUALLY A PROBLEM. THAT IS THE STUFF THAT SHOULD STOP WITH THE RIGHT POLICIES IN PLACE AND FINANCES THOSE DO STOP THOSE WILL BE THE CHECKS AND BALANCES AGAINST THE CITY MANAGER AGAINST ME OR ANYBODY ELSE TO SAY THIS IS THE SECOND PO FOR THIS YEAR AND THIS IS COMBINED OVER 50000 SO WE CAN AUTHORIZE THE SECOND PO WITHOUT XY AND Z.

>> IS A FINANCE DIRECTOR I AM A LINE OF DEFENSE FOR COUNSEL.

I AM TASKED WITH ENSURING COMPLIANCE AND I'M TASKED WITH INSTILLING INTERNAL CONTROLS OF THE FINANCE ORGANIZATION TO ENSURE WE HAVE THE CORRECT SPENDING OF THE BODY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW UNIVERSITY POLICY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MAKING SURE WE ARE FIDUCIARY LAYERS POSSIBLE TO THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO. I HEARD YOU SAY THREE ITEMS. NUMBER ONE SAME BACKING OF THE BUDGET.

NUMBER TWO CIRCUMVENTION OF PURCHASING AND NUMBER THREE ESTABLISHING COMPETITION. NUMBER ONE SANDBAGGING THE BUDGET IF SOMEONE OVER BUDGET AND THEY WANT TO MOVE THAT TO ANOTHER LINE ITEM THEY HAVE TO GO TO A CITY MANAGER IN THE CONTROL THE CITY MANAGER WILL APPROVE THAT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AND HOW DO YOU KNOW WHEN THAT'S OCCURRED WERE REPORTED NOT IN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT AND THERE IS A LIST OF ALL OF THOSE APPROVALS THAT HAD BEEN DONE BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE ENTIRE FISCAL YEAR ATTACHED YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENT SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THOSE TRANSFERS HAD OCCURRED AND WHY. IN TERMS OF CIRCUMVENTION THE GENERAL RULE IF YOU BUY MORE THAN ABOUT 12 MONTH PERIOD YOU ARE REQUIRED TO BID IT IS NOT 12000 IS NOT 3000 WITHIN THE

[01:20:10]

DEPARTMENT IS 3000 FOR THE WHOLE CITY.

IN THE $50000 THRESHOLD IS ALSO AT THE CITY LEVEL FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS. IF WE SPEND MORE THAN $50000 IN OFFICE SUPPLIES A YEAR WE ARE REQUIRED TO BID THAT.

WHAT IN JUST A WIRE OFFICE SUPPLIES SO EXPENSIVE.

YOU MENTIONED PINS AND PAPERCLIPS BUT WHAT CAUSES OFFICE SUPPLIES TO BE SO EXPENSIVE IS PAPER.

A REAM OF PAPER IS $7 NOW. WE USE A LOT OF PAPER WITHIN THE CITY. WERE TRYING TO GO TO MORE ELECTRONIC STORAGE BUT WE STILL USE A LOT OF PAPER.

TONER CARTRIDGES FOR PRINTERS FOR XEROX MACHINES ARE EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE. JUST THE PAPER IN THE PRINTERS AND THE PRINTER CARTRIDGES ARE PUTTING US OVER THE $50000 THRESHOLD. THE OTHER ITEM HOW DO WE KNOW WE CAN BEST VALUE FOR THE CITY. IN THE PURCHASE ORGANIZATION WE ESTABLISH COMPETITION AND WE WORK ON A BID WE DON'T SELECT AND LOW PRICE BETTER WE DOING EVALUATION OF THE BIDS RECEIVED AND WE MAKE A BEST VALUE DECISION FOR THE CITY.

WE DOCUMENT THAT IN OUR FILES AND THAT'S AUDITED AS PART OF OUR ANNUAL AUDIT PROCESS. WE ARE EXCITED IN OUR PURCHASING ORGANIZATION THAT WE ARE ABLE TO SAVE THE CITY MONEY BECAUSE WE ESTABLISH COMPETITION BY BENDING IT OUT AND TRYING TO GET THE LOWEST PRICE. YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> MORE OF A STATEMENT WHEN I FIND MYSELF GOING BACK IN THE PAST BUT I STILL TAKE VACATION DAYS AND GO TO COURT DATES FOR THE PAST I THINK IT'S STILL RELEVANT.

EVERYTHING YOU SAID MAKES COMPLETE SENSE.

WHEN A CORRUPT CFO AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS A CORRUPT CFO IN A CORRUPT MANAGEMENT AND WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING ALL THE SAFEGUARDS REALLY WENT OUT THE WINDOW TO WHERE THE CITY MANAGER COULD SAY TO YOU. IF YOU DON'T SIGN THIS YOU ARE FIRED AND YOU SAY ALL FIGURED OUT LATER SO YOU SIGN IT.

AS AN AUDITOR YOU CAN IMAGINE ONE LINE OF DEFENSE.

I DON'T KNOW THE FIX BECAUSE FOR ME THE WOUNDS ARE STILL TOO FRESH BECAUSE WE KEEP HAVING IT. THERE WAS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED WITH ANOTHER CITY MANAGER AND PASSED A POSITION AND HAD THE IDEA OF AN AUDITOR THAT WOULD DO NOTHING BUT A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY MANAGER CANNOT DO ANYTHING. SOMETHING LIKE THAT I WENT OUT AND SCRUTINIZE EVERYTHING YOU'RE AFRAID TO SPEND MONEY AND EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR RECEIPT I'LL BE HONEST WE DON'T CHECK THE CITY MANAGER'S RECEIPT I DON'T HOW MUCH EXPENSE HE COULD RUN UP A $20000 PEAK CARD BILL WE DON'T KNOW, WE DON'T ASK AND WE DON'T GET THE INFORMATION OR PROVE IT.

I'M ASSUMING ONE OF THE CITY MANAGER SUBORDINATES THE ANSWERS TO HIM IS IN FACT IMPROVING HIS EXPENSE REPORT.

I HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT HOW TO FIX THAT EITHER BUT THAT SCARES ME NOT THAT I'M SCARED OF JAMES BUT I'VE BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW, I FORGOT WHAT IT IS UNCHECKED POWER OR WHATEVER.

UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT THINGS LIKE THAT UNTIL YOU SAY WITH THE CORRUPTION THE CORRUPTION COMING UP I TOLD JAMES THIS WEEK, I DON'T HOW TO TRUST THE GOVERNMENT BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS YET TO PROVE TO BE THAT CAN BE TRUSTED AND WE KEEP FINDING ISSUES LIKE 1.7 MILLION THIS WEEK.

1.7 MILLION I GOT A TRACK THAT DOWN.

>> I'M LOOKING AT 1.7 MILLION. I'M SORRY YOU HAD BAD EXPERIENCES IN THE PAST. ALL I CAN TELL YOU I DON'T LOOK GOOD IN ORANGE. I LIKE THE CITY OF HUTTO.

I'M NOT TO GO TO JAIL FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO.

IF JAMES WERE TO ASK ME TO DO SOMETHING THAT I FELT WAS UNETHICAL WERE NOT RIGHT. I HAVE RESOURCES THAT I GO TO.

I HAVE A CITY ATTORNEY I CAN GO TO.

I HAVE AN AUDITOR THAT I CAN GO TO.

IVAN COUNSEL I GO TO I KNOW YOUR NUMBERS AND I WOULDN'T HESITATE TO CALL YOU. I HAVE FOUND SOME THINGS THAT NEED TO BE CLEANED UP WITHIN THE CITY AND IT IS GOING TO TAKE

[01:25:02]

SOME TIME. I THANK YOU ALL KNEW THAT.

THIS IS ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT I HAVE FOUND THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY NONCOMPLIANT ON CREED WE'VE BEEN SPENDING MONEY TO BUY WATER WE SHOULD HAVE A PO, FOR ME TO BRING THESE LITTLE ITEMS BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL, WE CAN WHICH WOULD BE MY NEXT STEP IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THIS. IT IS CUMBERSOME YOU ALREADY APPROVED THE ITEM IN THE BUDGET AND THE ROUTINE KIND OF ITEMS.

>> I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING I UNDERSTAND BAD PROBLEMS, I WANT TO CREATE AN EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT, I FEEL HE STARTED DOWN THE PATH AND WE HAVE CHECKS AND WE ADOPTED THE CLEAR.GOV THAT WILL BE COMING ONLINE IN APRIL.

WERE GETTING THE MONTHLY AUDIT REPORTS OF WHAT'S BEING PAID FOR AND PART OF MY REQUIREMENT WHEN THESE BILLS COME DOWN THE ONLY STIPULATION IS SHOWING THE REDUCTION OF WHAT WAS SPENT VERSUS THE BUDGET DOLLAR WHEN WE SEE A GAP WE SEE THAT DROP IMMEDIATELY. IF WE DO THAT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BUDGETING SOFTWARE WE HAVE A COMPETENCY WE SHOULD BE AN EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT WE SHOULD NOT BE BOGGED DOWN BECAUSE OF OF FEAR.

I FEEL LIKE WE DONE THAT AND MOVING FORWARD IT TAKES TIME TO ADD ALL THAT STUFF UP BUT TO SAY NO ONE IS LOOKING AT FINANCIAL THINGS AND THINGS ARE BEING MADE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE THAT AS AN ENTRY STATEMENT AND I GET THE FEAR OF NOT WANTING TO EVER GO THERE AND MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHAT WE ALSO NEED TO MAKE SURE WE MOVE FORWARD AS A MODERN CITY TO MOVE EFFICIENTLY PAY OUR ELECTRIC BILL CORRECTLY. YOU CAN GO ABOUT THAT.

PREDICTABLY GOES ABOVE THAT IN THE BUDGETING MONTHLY PROCESS.

IF SOMETHING IS GETTING PAID AND PEOPLE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT EVERY CHECK AND THE REGISTRY IS AVAILABLE.

I THINK WE HAVE THOSE IN PLACE WHERE WE CANNOT GO BACK TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. EVEN IF GOD FORBID WE GOT A BAD ACTOR THERE IS TOO MANY THINGS THAT WE PUT OUT INTO THE PUBLIC SPACE THAT IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.

IT'S NOT THE SAME CULTURE THAT COULD ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN AGAIN. THAT IS MY THOUGHT.

BASED ON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I STILL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. >> WE CAN STILL TALK ABOUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A MOTION OF 70 WANTED TO SECOND.

>> I WILL SECOND SO WE CAN CONTINUE THE DISCUSSION.

>> A MOTION BY CLARK, SECOND BY PRO TEM GORDON.

APPROVING AS PRESENTED I BELIEVE COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON IS NEXT.

>> I JUST WANTED TO SAY WHEN I SAW THIS ON THE AGENDA I GOT VERY ANXIOUS ABOUT IT BECAUSE OF OUR HISTORY IN THE PAST AND WHERE WE CAME FROM. I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS WAS BROUGHT TO US ON THE AGENDA IS A STEP IN THE ACTION.

IT IS A STEP WHERE WE'VE BEEN FEELING AND LACKING AND I TRULY APPRECIATE THAT. CITY MANAGER, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO US WHEN YOU FOUND A FLAW IN THE SYSTEM THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED. I AM STILL UNCOMFORTABLE WITH IT. BUT I THINK WITH THE CHECKS AND BALANCES THAT WE HAVE NOW IN THE REPORTING THAT WE HAVE NOW WE WILL BE ABLE TO SEE IT FASTER IF THERE IS A PROBLEM GOING ON, I WOULD HOPE SO. I CAN'T SAY NEXT MONTH I WANT TO SEE OUR ELECTRIC BILL WHY IS IT SO HIGH SHOULD WE CUT IT OFF HERE AND NOT SPEND MONEY THERE AND IT COULD END UP WE NEED TO LOWER THE ELECTRICAL, I DON'T WANT TO BE THAT PART OF HANDS-ON IN THE RUNNING OF THE CITY. I THINK WERE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION. LIKE I SAID BRINGING THIS ON THE AGENDA IS A SHOW OF CARE FOR THE CITY AND HOW THINGS NEED TO BE DONE AND HAVEN'T BEEN DONE IN THE PAST.

I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> WE LITERALLY HAD A CONTRACT THAT WENT OUT THAT WAS SKIRTING THE $50000 LIMIT AND AUTOMATICALLY REVIEWED WHICH BLEW AWAY THE LIMIT AND RIDICULOUS STUFF THAT IS HAPPENED.

THAT IS ALWAYS A PAIN POINT. I DO LIKE THAT WE ARE GETTING MORE ACCOUNTABILITY ON THESE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THE BEGINNING THAT COMPETITION I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE REPORT ON THE BIDDING PROCESS ON THESE COME TO THE COUNCIL SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT HAPPENED WITH THOSE CONTRACTS.

ONE THING THAT I SEE HERE, MO FOR POLICE IS A VERY SIMPLE ITEM

[01:30:02]

AND WE KNOW WHERE IT WENT TO BUT WHEN IT COMES TO OFFICE SUPPLIES THE GETTING DIVVIED UP AROUND THE CITY IN DIFFERENT WAYS AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAD 141,000 AS ONE BUDGET ITEM OR DIFFERENT THINGS COMING UNDER DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

>> DIFFERENT THINGS COMING OUT OF DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.

>> AS WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND ALLOW US TO SEE HOW THAT FLOWS BACK TOGETHER AND WHERE THE 141 IS COMING FROM OUT OF THE BUDGET SAME WITH THE FLEET VEHICLES, I'M SURE SOME POLICE VEHICLES AND PUBLIC WORKS WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL.

I THINK WE GET A MORE DETAILED BUDGET THAT HELPS IN THIS AREA GOING FORWARD AND I THINK BEING ABLE TO CROSS-REFERENCE EASIER WITH BETTER SOFTWARE AND HAVING THE CHECKBOOK AFTER HELPS PUT MORE POSSIBILITY FOR PEOPLE TO CATCH GOING OFF TRACK BEFORE IT GOES TOO FAR. OVERALL, I THINK WE ARE IMPROVING HERE. THERE'S ALWAYS ROOM FOR MORE.

WE CAN THINK OF THINGS TO MAKE IT BETTER THAT IS GREAT.

IF WE COULD GET THE COMPETITIVE ASPECT AND MATCHING OF THE BUDGETS I THINK IT WOULD MAKE PEOPLE HAPPIER WITH THE WHOLE

THING. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY FOR ME I LIKE THE CONCEPT THAT TRUST WOULD VERIFY.

IF THIS PASSES I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT TO PASS AND I'M TRUSTING YOU BUT ALSO GLAD WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THEIR HAVING THE NUMBERS SET THAT WE ARE DELIMITED ON THE BUDGET AND APPROVE THE BUDGET AND WE ALREADY SET THE LIMIT. AS YOU SAID IF ANY EXPENDITURES NEED TO BE SWITCHED AROUND WE ARE GOING TO SEE THAT AND GET THE REPORT AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON THERE.

I ALSO REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK GOING INTO NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. I HAVE A STRONG CONFIDENCE IS GOING TO BE CONTINUALLY IMPROVED HERE AFTER YEAR END WE WILL GET MORE CONFIDENCE AS WE GO ON I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT I APPRECIATE THAT YOU BROUGHT THIS TO US.

THIS IS SOMETHING IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE DOING IT, WE NEED TO STOP AND GO TO COUNSEL AND GET APPROVAL.

I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> WHENEVER THINGS LIKE PHONE, INTERNET, OFFICE SUPPLIES, ARE THESE PAID IN ONE LUMP SOME OR OVER 12 MONTHS.

>> IS OVER A 12 MONTH PERIOD. >> ESSENTIALLY ONLY FOR ITEMS ON THE LIST THAT GO OVER THE 50000 LIMIT PER SE.

IF YOU'RE DOING IT AS WE JUST HEARD YOU CAN DO 50000 A DAY A WEEK OR MONTH IF THE PHONE, INTERNET, OFFICE SUPPLIES, GASOLINE IF YOU BREAK THESE DOWN LIKE MOST RESIDENTS PAY BY THE MONTH OR WATER BY THE MONTH IS UNDER THE 50000 MARK.

>> THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED CIRCUMVENTION OF PURCHASING PRE-WHEN YOU READ THE PURCHASING GUIDELINES IN THE STATE GUIDELINES AND ALL THE LEGAL OPINIONS OUT THERE.

IT IS A TOTAL PURCHASE WITHIN A 12 MONTH PERIOD.

IF YOU ARE SPENDING $100,000 IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD TOTAL IN TOTALITY IT NEEDS TO BE BID AND WE NEED TO AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE ORDER AND ALL THOSE RULES FALL INTO PLACE.

WE MIGHT ONLY PAY 1001 MONTH, WE MIGHT PAY 50000 THE NEXT MONTH.

EVEN THE $1000 IS CONSIDERED PART OF THE LARGER PIECE TO JUST LOOK AT A THOUSAND DOLLARS IN A MONTH WOULD BE CONSIDERED CIRCUMVENTION OF PURCHASING. THAT YOU BROKE APPROACHES UP INTO SMALLER PURCHASES TO GET AROUND THOSE GUIDELINES.

WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT WE WANT TO FOLLOW THE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE IN PLAY AND IF WE GOING TO SPEND MORE FOR THIS TYPE OF ITEM IN A 12 MONTH PERIOD WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE PURCHASING REGULATIONS FOR BEING GREATER THAN A $50000 PURCHASE. I THINK ON THIS I'M KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE NIGHT AND TO AGREE WITH THE MAYOR MORE ON THIS OPTION OR ITEM BUT I ALSO HEAR CLARK'S POINT ABOUT WANTING TO BE MORE EFFICIENT AND STREAMLINED, HOWEVER, LIKE YOU SAID THE WORD IS CONFIDENCE IN THE CONFIDENCE IS GROWING WE HAD ANOTHER CHANGE IN CFO AND YOU ARE STILL FINDING THINGS.

THAT BRINGS DOWN MY CONFIDENCE. NOTHING AGAINST YOU PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU'RE FINDING SUCH GREAT WORK.

I THINK IN WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS ONE IF IT NEEDS TO COME BACK UNTIL WE GET THE CONFIDENCE, SO BE IT, THAT'S WHY

WERE HERE. >> I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS DOES

[01:35:06]

THE CITY HAVE OUTSTANDING BALANCES DUE TWO DEPARTMENTS NOT KNOWING THE PROCESS TO PAY THAT FOR THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR EXAMPLE SAY THE PD HAS A GAS CARD AND WHATEVER COMES TIME TO PAY THE MONTHLY BILL THEY ARE UNSURE.

ARE THERE ANY OUTSTANDING BILLS OUT THERE THAT THE CITY HAS THAT

IS IN THIS CATEGORY. >> I AM AWARE OF ONE BILL THAT HAS NOT YET BEEN PAID. BUT THE ISSUE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT BILL IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT THE CONTRACT

HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED. >> ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CONTRACT OF PROVIDING THE CITY A COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY AND SOME OTHER ITEMS HAVE NOT BEEN FULFILLED BY THE SUPPLIER. WE ARE WITHHOLDING PAYMENT WAITING FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL THE ITEMS TO BE FULFILLED.

BUT I'M ONLY AWARE OF ONE THAT IS NOT BEEN PAID.

>> THANK YOU. >> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO CLARIFY THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE BASED OFF SOME OF THE THINGS THAT COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY ASKED WOULD BE A TRUE STATEMENT TO SAY UP UNTIL THIS POINT THE CITY HAS BEEN CIRCUMVENTING PURCHASES BECAUSE OF THE PROCESS THAT WE HAVE BEEN USING UP UNTIL NOW,

GIVE OR TAKE. >> I THINK WHAT THE EMPLOYEES AND THE FINANCE ORGANIZATION THOUGHT.

IF IT IS IN THE BUDGET IT IS APPROVED FOR PAYMENT AND THAT WAS THEIR THINKING. WHEN I CAME IN I SAID YOU KNOW IF YOU FOLLOW THAT PROCESS AND YOU'RE NOT ISSUING A PURCHASE ORDER THEN YOU'RE NOT COLLECTING YOUR EXPENDITURES BY PURCHASE ORDER AND YOU'RE NOT SAYING HERE'S THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT AND HERE'S THE AMOUNT SPENT AND HERE'S THE REMAINING BALANCE.

YOU ARE MISSING AN INTERNAL CONTROL BY NOT ISSUING THE PURCHASE ORDER. ONCE WE LOOKED AT THAT AS A T TEAM. THE FINANCE ORGANIZATION REALIZES WE NEED TO ISSUE PURCHASE ORDERS FOR THESE ITEMS. YET WHEN THEY PUT THE PURCHASE ORDERS IN THE SYSTEM IT STOPPED.

>> WHEN IT GOT TO ME AND I WAS LIKE WHAT THE HELL IS THIS.

>> THE CITY MANAGER SAID WE ARE BUYING WATER I UNDERSTAND WERE BUYING WATER AND WE NEED A PURCHASE ORDER FOR INTERNAL CONTROL PURPOSES AND TRACKING BUT RIGHTLY SO THE CITY MANAGER SAID MY APPROVAL AUTHORITY IS 50000 SO I CAN'T APPROVE THIS.

THAT'S WHEN WE SAID WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A BETTER WAY.

TO TAKE ALL THESE ITEMS TO COUNSEL THAT ARE JUST ROUTINE KIND OF ITEMS. IT'S JUST GOING TO CLOG THE AGENDA. IT'S WHAT I THOUGHT WAS.

IF YOU WANT TO SEE THEM WE CAN BRING THEM TO YOU.

>> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THE WORK IN BRINGING THIS TO US.

EDUCATING US ON THE PROCESS. I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF CREATING A MORE EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT GOVERNMENT AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A STEP TOWARDS THAT.

I'M DEFINITELY NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PRACTICES OF CIRCUMVENTING PURCHASES THAT HAVE BEEN GOING ON PREVIOUS TO NOW AND YOU MADE US AWARE OF THIS AND THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR WORK.

>> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE A DISCUSSION?

>> ONE MORE. IF WE WERE TO PASS THIS TONIGHT.

IN THE FUTURE IT WOULD COME TO IS POSSIBLY ON CONSENT WITH EACH BILL ON EACH RECEIPT TO PROVE, IS THAT HOW THAT WOULD WORK?

>> A LOT OF THESE IT WOULDN'T BE OVER THE 50000 FOR THE MONTHLY

BILL. >> WE WOULD NOT BRING THE MONTHLY BILLS TO YOU WE WOULD BRING THE PURCHASE ORDER TO YOU.

>> WE WOULD BRING THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR SOLID WASTE FOR 1.8 MILLION TO AL CLAWSON. EACH ITEM WOULD BE LISTED AS A SEPARATE PURCHASE ORDER FOR YOU TO APPROVE THE AUTHORIZATION OF

BUYING SOLID WASTE SERVICES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER I DON'T WANT TO CLOG OUR AGENDA EITHER BUT THIS IS NEW INFORMATION COMING TO US AND HOW THINGS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST AND HOW WE CAN HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE TRY IT COMING BEFORE COUNSEL TO SEE HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK AND THEN WE CAN MOVE INTO THE POSITION OF WE ARE COOL WERE ALL GOOD WE'RE GOING TO SEE HOW THIS IS GOING

[01:40:04]

TO WORK MOVING FORWARD THAT'S JUST WHERE I'M AT.

>> I WAS HOPING TO OFFER ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.

WHAT I AM HEARING, I HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

GENERALLY THE WAY THIS IS SUPPOSED TO OCCUR, THE BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN OCTOBER AFTER THE BUDGET IS APPROVED. GENERALLY SPEAKING BECAUSE IT'S A BLANKET PURCHASE ORDER THERE IS A ROLE THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DO X, Y AND Z BECAUSE THERE PURCHASE ORDERS.

I DON'T CARE. I AM FINE WITH DISCLOSING WHAT WERE DOING AND ALL THOSE THINGS AS YOU WELL KNOW, WHY DON'T WE JUST AGREE FOR RIGHT NOW WE WILL ADD ANY BLANKET PURCHASE ORDERS THAT I APPROVE TO THE FINANCIAL REPORT THAT YOU GET MONTHLY SO YOU CAN SEE EXACTLY WHAT BLANKET, IF YOU APPROVE THIS EACH ONE THAT I APPROVE AND GOING FORWARD WHEN WE COME TO OCTOBER. THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR WILL DO ALL THE BLANKET PO'S AT ONE TIME IN OCTOBER IN ONE REPORT AND YOU WON'T SEE THEM AGAIN BECAUSE THE BANK APPEALS WOULD BE APPROVED.

THAT IS MORE GENERALLY WHAT I'M USED TO, BLANKET POS IN OCTOBER FOR THE REST OF THE BUDGET YEAR FOR THE FISCAL YEAR.

AND WERE TRYING TO CONTINUE TO FIND THINGS.

AND WERE TRYING TO FIX THEM AS WE ENCOUNTER THEM.

>> WE WILL SEE THEM AT THE REPORT AS THE MONEY HAS BEEN

DONE ON THEM. >> WE CAN DO THAT TO WE CAN CERTAINLY SHOW HOW MUCH THE BALANCES ARE OUTSTANDING.

>> IS IS ON THE AGENDA ITEM WITH FULL FISCAL YEAR LISTING SUCH APPROVALS ATTACHED TO THE FINANCIAL REPORT PROVIDED TO COUNSEL. IT WOULD ALREADY BE ON THOSE REPORTS THAT ARE PUT ON CONSENT OR DISCUSSED.

>> I'M THINKING IN TABULAR FORM SO IT'S EASY TO SEE AND CALLED OUT IN THE EXHIBIT THAT IS IN THEIR THAT IS SHOWING YOU THE POS THAT ARE LISTED IN EXHIBIT A AND IT WOULD LOOK LIKE THAT AND APPROVED FOR HOW MUCH AND HERE'S HOW MUCH IS REMAINING.

>> ME PERSONALLY SAY A THOUSAND DOLLARS PHONE BILL YOU CAN GO INTO A BLACK HOLE HOW MANY PHONES DOES THE CITY OF HUTTO HAVE I JUST FEEL LIKE EFFICIENCY THAT IS NOT EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY, YOU CAN GO DOWN A BLACK HOLE WHAT IS THIS, WHAT IS THAT WHO HAS DATA EVERYBODY HAS DATA.

WHO IS USING REMOTE WI-FI OR REMOTE DATA AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. YOU COULD GO ON AND ON.

I APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS. AND SUGGESTIONS.

>> CLARIFICATION THE CITY MANAGER YOU SAID IN ADDITION TO WHAT YOU PLANNED AND PUTTING IT IN THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT YOU WOULD ALSO BE WILLING TO GIVE US COPIES OF THE POS ONCE THEY ARE CUT SINCE WE MISSED THAT STEP IN OCTOBER YOU ARE WILLING TO DO THAT NOW THROUGH THE YEAR UNTIL THE NEXT OCTOBER.

>> WE HAVE A NUMBER THAT NEEDS TO BE CUT I WOULD DISCLOSE WHICH ONES WE HAVE APPROVED THAT OVER MY 50000 BUT RECURRING AS MANAGERS. HOW MUCH THOSE DOLLARS ARE AND

WHO THEY ARE FOR. >> I KEEP HEARING THE WORD EFFICIENCY. WE ARE SO EFFICIENT FOR THIS BUDGET I AM EMBARRASSED THAT WE ADOPTED.

IT WAS GIVEN TO US, A FIVE MINUTE PRESENTATION IN A MOTION WAS MADE TO ACCEPT AS PRESENTED. JUST LIKE THAT THE SCARES THE DEATH OUT OF ME AS WE TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY.

EFFICIENCY IS NOT WHAT WERE HERE FOR THAT IS WHAT STAFF IS HERE FOR STAFF IN MY MIND WE'RE SAYING WE SHOULD TRUST AND WERE GETTING CAUGHT IN THIS ABOUT TRUST.

I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF US DID ANYBODY ELECT US AND SAY AM ELECTING YOU TO TRUST OFF TO DO THINGS STAFF NEEDS TO BE DOING THINGS TO BUILD TRUST WITH US. INSTEAD OF PRESENTING THINGS AND IF YOU PASS IT AND WE DO THIS, I SAY YOU TABLED IT AND CHANGE THE PROCESS TO MAKE IT TO WHERE WE CAN TRUST.

I TOLD THE SAME ANSWER I'M NOT TRUSTING ANYBODY UNTIL SOMEONE CAN SHOW ME A REASON TO TRUST BECAUSE 1.7 MILLION IS THE LATEST NUMBER. THAT WAS BY AN EMPLOYEE WHO TOLD THE DEVELOPER YOU DON'T HAVE TO PAY THIS.

NOW WE HAVE TO GO CHECK AND $1.7 MILLION THAT GOES TO RHODES. WE KEEP TRUSTING AND VERIFYING BUT I TOLD THE CITY MANAGER. I DON'T DO THIS OFTEN BUT THE ONLY REASON I THINK WE KNOW ABOUT THE 1.7 MILLION IS BECAUSE OF THE BUDGET I KEPT HARPING ON WHERE IS THIS IMPACTED WHERE IS

[01:45:01]

THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES. NOBODY WANTED TO DIG INTO IT OR DIDN'T KNOW IT AND THE STAFF DID NOT KNOW IT OR WHATEVER.

FIVE MONTHS LATER WERE LIKE 1.7 MILLION OFF.

BUT IF WE ARE BEING EFFICIENT AND APPROVING STUFF IT'S DONE IT'S A RUBBERSTAMP IN MY MIND TRUST HAS TO BE BUILT IT IS DEFINED, THE FIRM BELIEF IN THE RELIABILITY, TRUTH, ABILITY OR STRENGTH OF SOMEONE OR SOMETHING, IS ANYBODY HERE HONESTLY HAVE TRUST IN OUR FINANCIAL SYSTEM BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER CFO THAT IS SAYING WE HAD TO CLEAN UP STUFF THE LAST CFO TOLD US THEY CLEANED UP THE LAST CFO DID SOMETHING.

IT IS JUST NUMBERS AND SHOULD NOT BE THAT DIFFICULT TO RUN A BUDGET. I THINK HAVING AUDITOR EXPERIENCE IS GOING TO BE A PLUS.

THE PROBLEM IS HELPING US OUT TEMPORARILY YOU ARE NOT MOVING HERE. I LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON SAID IN TERMS OF ITS GOING TO BE A PAIN IN THE REAR BUT TO BUILD TRUST AFTER WORK A LITTLE EXTRA HARDER AND WE MEET EVERY TWO WEEKS, SOMETIMES THREE AND I DON'T KNOW IS SINGLE BILL THAT COMES IN THE HAS A NET 14 DAYS AND MAYBE IF WE AS A COUNSEL SAY WE DON'T TRUST YOU GUYS, STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH EXTRA HOOPS AND DO CERTAIN THINGS MAYBE THAT WILL SEND A MESSAGE TO STAFF THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR BECAUSE MAYOR PRO TEM AND I HAVE BEEN ON HERE THREE YEARS AND EACH YEAR HARPED ON THE BUDGET AND EACH OF YOU GET THE SAME BUDGET.

THIS YEAR IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE BETTER BUT IT'S LIKE GROUNDHOG DAY, EVERY YEAR IT IS THE SAME JUNK AND IT WASN'T, FOR THREE YEARS WE FOUND OUR OPERATING AN ENTIRE CITY ORGANIZATION ON AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET, I DID NOT KNOW THAT.

FOR ME I'M A TO BE ABLE TO TRUST, I CANNOT TRUST AND VERIFY BECAUSE THEY DON'T TRUST MY KIDS AND THEY KNOW THAT.

IT IS EARNED, YOU EARN THE TRUST AND IF IT'S A PAIN IN THE REAR ON STAFF THEN I PUT IT ON STAFF NOT COUNSEL, WE DID NOT CAUSE AND EFFICIENCY. STAFF, NOT CURRENT STAFF NECESSARILY BUT STAFF PREVIOUSLY HAS CAUSED THE INEFFICIENCY AND ADVOCATE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN MY MIND UNTIL SUCH POINT HOPEFULLY THE MAJORITY COUNSEL SAYS NOW WE ARE MORE TRUSTWORTHY.

BUT YOU BUILDING THE BUDGET THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND JAMES IS SAYING IS COMING THAT IS A BIG STEP IN TRUST AND I HAVE NOT SEEN IT AND I PASS ALL THESE THINGS AND VOTE YES AND THEN GET A BUDGET IN AUGUST AND I'M LIKE OH MY GOD IT'S THE SAME THING.

THEN I KNOW IF WE DON'T ACCEPT THE BUDGET AND WE VOTE NO TO TIMES THAN THE BUDGET THAT THE CITY MANAGER PRESENTED IS ACCEPTED. YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DIG IN AND SAM LOCKWOOD TO DO THIS BUDGET THIS IS NOT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THAT YOU CAN SHUT DOWN IF YOU DON'T APPROVE THE BUDGET FOR THE CITY MANAGER'S BUDGET PRESENTED GETS APPROVED. YOU HAVE THREE WEEKS TO APPROVE WHATEVER HE SENDS IT IF IT IS NOT GOOD YOU STILL HAVE TO PROVE

IT. >> I OWE YOU A BUDGET CALENDAR.

BEFORE I CAME TO THE CITY OF HUTTO I LOOKED AT YOUR WEBSITE AND LOOK UP YOUR BUDGET. AND I WAS SHOCKED THAT IT WAS SO FEW PAGES. EVERY CITY IN TEXAS IS REQUIRED TO PUT THEIR BUDGET ON THEIR WEBSITE.

YOU CAN PULL UP WHICHEVER ONE THAT YOU WANT.

THE BIGGEST ONE IN TEXAS IS SAN ANTONIO LIKE 750 PAGES.

THAT IS WAY TOO MUCH DETAIL. BUT THE VERY FIRST DAY THAT I WALKED IN THE DOOR I HAD A COPY OF MY BUDGET FROM THE LAST CITY THAT I WORKED AT AND I MET WITH HER BUDGET OFFICER AND I EXPLAINED THAT THE CITY BUDGET THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY IS NOT WHAT I WANTED TO PREPARE FOR THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE FOR 2024.

FROM DAY ONE WHEN I WALKED IN THE DOOR I'VE ALREADY SET THE EXPECTATION WITHIN THE FINANCE ORGANIZATION THAT WHAT YOU ARE PRESENTED WILL BE DIFFERENT. FROM THE COUNCIL THAT I SERVED DURING THE LAST BUDGET CYCLE THERE WERE TWO WORKSHOPS AND THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THE INPUT, THE COUNCIL HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE INPUT INTO THE BUDGET PROCESS.

I DO OWE YOU A BUDGET CALENDAR AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA MAY BE UNDER THE COMMENT SECTION FOR NEXT COUNSEL SO YOU CAN SEE THE BUDGET PROCESS AND YOU CAN HAVE INPUT INTO THE CALENDAR SO IF YOU WANT FIVE WORKSHOPS, WE WILL SCHEDULE

FIVE WORKSHOPS. >> WHERE YOU FROM.

>> CANADA. >> THE BUDGET WEBSITE IS ON THAT

WEBSITE. >> IF YOU CAN.

IT OFF IN MARKET OFF WHAT YOU LIKE AND WHAT YOU DON'T LIKE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. INPUT INTO THE PROCESS.

>> DON'T TEMPT ME WITH A GOOD TIME.

[01:50:01]

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> CITY MANAGERS.

IF THIS PASSES TONIGHT, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO SCRIPT THE CITY?

>> HOW AM I GOING TO SCRIPT THE CITY.

>> HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PULL ONE OVER ON US.

>> WITH THE LOOPHOLES YOU GOT IN YOUR?

>> WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO. >> I'M NOT.

>> I'M GOING TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE ORDERS THAT ARE FOR THE CONSUMABLE ITEMS THAT COUNSEL HAS ALREADY BUDGETED FOR AND I'M GOING TO HAVE AND DISCLOSE TO YOU ALL VIA THE FINANCIAL REPORT THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT WHICH PEELS I APPROVE FOR HOW

MUCH TO WHOM. >> IF THAT'S WHAT I'M DOING.

>> THE BUDGET PASSED UNANIMOUSLY THIS PAST SEPTEMBER WE PASSED THE BUDGET AND WE ALL APPROVED AND SAID IT WAS OKAY.

THESE ARE THE ITEMS IN THE RIGHT COLUMN ON PAGE 1034.

THOSE ARE THE ITEMS WE AGREED WERE GOOD AND COMFORTABLE BASED ON WHAT THE CITY MANAGER GAVE US AND WHAT THE DEPARTMENT GAVE US.

WE WERE OKAY WITH THAT AND WE APPROVE THESE.

WHAT I ALSO HEARD YOU SAY IF FOR ANY REASON LIKE INTERNET SERVICE ONLY COMES UP TO $100,000 AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO TO 250 AND YOU HAVE A NEED SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO MOVE IT WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT BUT IS REPORTED BACK TO US.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD NOT KNOW ABOUT AND WE WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO DO. WE ARE APPROVING THINGS IN MY MIND THINGS THAT WE'VE ALREADY BUDGETED THAT WE AGREED ARE GOOD FOR THE BUDGET AND IF THE BUDGET IS OFF WHICH VERY WELL COULD BE THAT YOUR ALSO COMMUNICATING TO US WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND WHY AND WHEN IN YOUR WILLING TO GIVE US A COPY OF THE PO'S WHICH WE SHOULD'VE GOTTEN OCTOBER. IF YOU WOULD'VE BEEN HERE LAST YEAR THAT'S THE PROCESS WE WOULD'VE GONE THROUGH.

I GET WERE SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE COMING FROM.

I GET IT IS HARD TO GET OVER THE HURT THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH AND A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE BEEN THROUGH.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH TRUST WITH VERIFY.

WHAT TRUST WITH VERIFY MEANS I'M WILLING TO PUT MY TRUST IN YOU BUT GOING TO CHECK THAT YOU REMAIN TRUSTWORTHY.

STAFF IS DOING WHAT WE COMMITTED YOU TO DO.

YOU ARE DOING WHAT WE ASKED YOU TO DO AND WHEN YOU BRING THINGS TO US ONE OF THE BIGGEST THINGS I GOT A LOT OF INCREASED TRUST IN THE BOTH OF YOU BECAUSE THIS IS ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT TO US AND WE NOTICED AN ISSUE THAT STAFF WAS CIRCUMVENTING THE PROCESS BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE NOT INTENTIONALLY.

THEY HAD A MISUNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE AND WHAT WAS REQUIRED AND WITH YOUR KNOWLEDGE YOU BROUGHT THAT IN AND SAID NOPE THIS IS NOT HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE THIS IS WHAT WE GET IT YOU WE'RE GOING TO PUT A STOP TO THINGS AND VERNACULAR PAY ANYTHING UNTIL IT COMES TO COUNSEL.

I APPRECIATE THAT. MAYOR AND I TALK ABOUT THIS ALL THE TIME, HE DOESN'T TRUST ANYONE AND I TRUST A LOT MORE PEOPLE THAN HE DOES AND THE TRUTH IS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE. TO ME THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE SOMETHING WERE PUTTING OUR TRUST IN YOU BUT STILL VERIFYING AND CHECKING THAT YOU'RE STILL COMMUNICATING WITH US.

TO ME I AM COMFORTABLE I AM FINE I UNDERSTAND SOME OR NOT AND WILL SEE HOW THE VOTE GOES BUT WORST-CASE SCENARIO WE WILL HAVE A BUNCH OF CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS IN THE FUTURE AND WE WILL BE APPROVING PINS AND WHAT ELSE WE NEED TO PREPARE THE SOUTH INTO

THE WORLD IF IT DOESN'T PASS. >> MAYOR.

>> GO AHEAD MAYOR PRO TEM THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD I DID LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON BROUGHT UP I THINK I WOULD ASK FINANCE TO ALSO INCLUDE THE VARIOUS LINE ITEMS THAT MAKE UP THE OVERALL PURCHASE ORDER BECAUSE WERE AS COUNSEL MAY HAVE APPROVED ELECTRICAL IN 14 DIFFERENT PLACES THROUGHOUT THE BUDGET IT IS ONLY GOING TO BE ONE PURCHASE ORDER FOR ALL OF THE VARIOUS LINE ITEMS AND THAT IS A VERY EASY THING FOR US TO REPORT OUT, THAT IS WHERE IT'S DIFFICULT FOR YOU ALL TO VERIFY AS FAR AS TRUST BUT VERIFY YOU MAY HAVE A LINE ITEM THAT SAYS ELECTRICAL BUT YOU HAVE A PO WITH COOK CARRILLO OR WHATEVER THE NAME OF THE ELECTRIC COMPANY OFF OF OUR CONTRACT SO IT IS ONE PO BUT 14 ITEMS AS A ELECTRICAL AND VARIOUS PLACES OF THE BUDGET. WE CAN PUT THOSE LIGHT INODES AND CDS FOR LINE ITEMS IN THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS FOR THESE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT MAKE THE TOTAL PO OF WHAT WERE DOING.

I THINK WE COULD DO THAT TO. >> WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK WOULD IT BE CONSIDERED FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT TO YOUR MOTION AND ALSO TO ADD THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A REPORT ON THE COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCESS ON EACH OF THESE ITEMS,

TO COUNSEL. >> I THINK THIS PROBABLY COME UP

AS NEW ONES,. >> THEY DON'T NECESSARILY GO TO

[01:55:01]

COUNSEL. >> EVERYTHING ALREADY NEGOTIATED

JUST NEW ONES GOING FORWARD. >> THAT IS UNDERSTOOD VERNACULAR RENEGOTIATE BILLS WE ALREADY PAID.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS PART OF IT.

>> WHAT WAS ASKED. >> THAT WE WILL GET THE LINE ITEM TOTALS I GO UP TO THE TOTAL PO FROM THE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS AND FUTURE AND THEY DO PURCHASE NEGOTIATIONS THAT WE GET BLIND COPIED TO THE COUNCIL FOR THE INFORMATION.

>> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? SINCE YOU ARE THE SECOND.

>> DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AND SECOND MY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE - MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

[10.1. Consideration and possible action on the Plan of Finance to issue $12M in General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023, to fund roadway construction for the E. West Spine Road at the Megasite. (Anne LaMere / Jim Sabonis with Hilltop Securities).]

>> NÉE. >> MOTION PASSES 5 - 2.

NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 10 - 1 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE PLAN OF FINANCE TO ISSUE 12 MILLION IN GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2023 TO FUND ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION FOR THE EAST WEST ROAD AT THE MAGA SITE.

>> I DON'T SEE JIM HERE. >> ANGELA WERE YOU ABLE TO

CONFERENCE AND. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE CAN HEAR YOU JIM. >> IF YOU DON'T WANT ME TO SHARE MY COMPUTER ALL GO TO THE PRESENTATION.

>> I THINK IT IS SHARED. >> I'VE NEVER BEEN A BIG FAN OF

ZOOM AND TEAMS. >> JIM, WE HAVE YOUR

PRESENTATION UP. >> THE STAFF DIRECTED ME TO PUT TOGETHER 13 MILLION FOR THE AUTHORIZED GENERAL OBLIGATION THE PLAN WOULD BE TO AUTHORIZE 25 YEARS TO MOVE THE STRUCTURE WITH EXISTING DEBT BY THE CITY VERY CONSERVATIVE WE EXPECT NO INCREASE THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE RECENTLY IN SEPTEMBER WE RECEIVED A STRONG AFFIRMATION WE EXPECTED TO TAKE PLACE EARLY BUT WE HAVE THAT BY 25 BASIS POINTS AND IF WE ISSUE THIS WEEK IT WOULD'VE BEEN 3.7 OR SOMEWHERE ALONG THAT RANGE.

20.2 BILLION ASSUMPTION 14.8 THE PLAN WOULD BE FOR STAFF TO WORK WITH US AND SUBMITTED TO THE AGENCY'S AND SUBMITTAL OF THE TRANSCRIPT FOR REVIEW OF APPROVAL ON FUNDS ON MAY 18.

BOND INVESTORS ARE BIDDING WHICH WORKS IN HER FAVOR AND ONLY 11.6 THE WAY BONDS ARE BEING BID WE COULD PAY FOR OUR COST STRUCTURE

[02:00:09]

EVEN THOUGH IT'S ONLY 11.6 MILLION BASED ON HER RULES AND REGULATION BUT WE CAN FULLY FUND AUTHORIZATION.

THE LAST THREE WEEKS THEY WERE ALL SIMILAR WITH NUMEROUS BIDS.

TURN TO PAGE FOUR PRIMARY CASH FLOWS THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND PROGRAM. WHAT WE HAVE HERE SHOWS THE ASSESSED VALUE IN WHAT IS BEING PROJECTED 3.8 BILLION IN THE NEXT THREE YEARS 4.7 OF 854 MILLION THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 2250 HOMES AND IT'S AN ESTIMATE WE USED PREVIOUSLY IN THE THIRD YEAR THE COLUMN SHOWS EXISTING OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE IN EXCESS FUNDS AND IT'S BEEN USING ANNUAL BASIS AND THE NET RESULT IS THE OBLIGATION LIABILITY AND WE ARE CALCULATING THE TAX RATE AND THE VARIANCE IN YOU CAN SEE IN YOU CAN SEE BASED ON THESE ASSUMPTIONS.

>> THANKS JIM. THE RESULT OF A COMPETITIVE SALE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ON THE PREVIOUS MEETING.

IN SUMMARY THE CITY HAS A VERY POSITIVE RATING PROCESS IN THE NUMEROUS BIDDERS FOR THIS PROCESS AND BASED ON CONSERVATOR ASSUMPTION. THAT CONCLUDES MY FORMAL COMMENTS I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL FOR JIM?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION JIM, IF WE WOULD HAVE KEPT THIS ON OUR CIP LIST WHEN WE WENT OUT LAST FALL, TO WHAT IT HAVE SAVED US TO

INCLUDED IN THE BOND SELL? >> I'M NOT SURE WE SEE RATES UP A LITTLE BIT AND COME BACK DOWN THE PRESENTATION THEY ARE COMING UP BUT THEY'RE COMING BACKOWN WITH VERY GOOD SUCCESSFUL SALES.

AT THIS TIME I CAN'T GIVE YOU AN ACTUAL INDICATION FROM WHAT I HEARD I WILL FOLLOW-UP. WE ARE IN THE RANGE THAT WE WERE

IN THE FALL. >> OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY WERE TAKEN THE 12 MILLION FROM THE 2018 BONDS AND NOT THE

[02:05:03]

APPROVED AMOUNT FROM THE FALL OF 2022.

IS ACCURATE, DID YOU SAY THAT RIGHT?

>> THAT'S FROM 2018 BOND MEASURE?

>> CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION THE 2018 AUTHORITY WITH PRO

PROCEEDS. >> ONLY UNDERSTAND AND CLARIFY.

I'M GOING TO REFER TO JIM TO GIVE ADDITIONAL DETAIL.

DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WERE INCLUDED THESE ARE ADDITIONAL

BUT DIFFERENT PROJECTS. >> BECAUSE WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE SPINE ROAD IN THAT LIST THAT THE 25 MILLION WOULD COVER WE ARE HAVING TO REACH INTO THE 2018 POCKET.

>> THAT'S FOR THE 2022 CAME FROM THE 2018 BOND ISSUANCE PREVIOUS AUTHORIZATION FROM THE CITIZEN SAY WE AUTHORIZE YOU.

WE TOOK A PORTION OF THAT 2022 AND WERE TAKING MORE IN 2023 WE ARE DOING AN ADDITIONAL BOND ISSUE BECAUSE WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE DIDN'T COMPREHEND DOING BECAUSE IT WAS

GOING TO BE PAID FROM THE EDC. >> IT WAS FROM 2018 PROPOSITION.

I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT BUCKETS THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME UNDERSTANDING I THOUGHT IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT POTS.

UNLESS I AM WRONG ON THAT. OFFER ANY KIND OF CLARIFICATION.

>> ONLY THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY, WAS THE BOND ELECTION

IN 2018 OR 2019? >> 18.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DATE IS RIGHT.

>> THAT BRINGS MORE QUESTIONS TO MY MIND I THOUGHT WE COULD NOT TOUCH ANY OF THAT UNTIL WE COMPLETED THE PROJECT THAT WERE

VOTED ON. >> AS LONG AS WE PARKED THE FUNDS OF WHAT WAS NAME WHICH WE DID THE 25 MILLION BECAUSE 14 HAD TO GET PARTS FOR THOSE THREE SO NOW WE CAN GO FORWARD ON OTHER STUFF. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THIS THE EDC WILL BE ADOPTING THEIR BUDGET TO PAY FOR THIS OBLIGATION BACK TO THE CITY WHEN THEY CAN AND WE WILL PROBABLY COME UP WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM FOR A FUNDING AGREEMENT TO

WORK OUT WITH THE EDC ON THIS. >> ESSENTIALLY IF THEY'RE REIMBURSED AS WELL. I THINK THAT'S A PLAN PRETTY COUNCIL MEMBERS POINT AND SOMETHING YOU SAID WE SET THAT MONEY ASIDE HOW DO YOU KNOW WE SET THAT ASIDE.

>> THEN COVERED IT WITH THE FINANCE OFFICE.

>> WHERE IS THE DOCUMENTATION. >> A BOND ISSUANCE OF ONE WHICH

WAS ENCUMBERED FUNDS. >> OF TALKING RIGHT NOW WE JUST

SOLD 25 MILLION OF BONDS. >> WE ENCUMBERED 14 MILLION

SIGNED OFF ON THE BOND SALE. >> OUT OF THE 25 MILLION WHAT IS LEFT WHAT IS ALLOCATED? I DON'T KNOW.

>> WE HAVE THE CIP PROJECT WHICH SHOWED HOW MUCH HAD BEEN ALLOCATED AND WENT THROUGH ALL 39 PROJECTS.

>> YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO THE QUESTION.

WHAT WE ASKED SEVERAL YEARS AGO IF YOU HAVE A BOND PROJECT YOU PUT THAT MONEY TO THE SIDE AND YOU WALK AWAY.

WE DIDN'T DO THAT WE MISSPENT THE BOND MONEY AND BOUGHT PARKLAND WITH ROLLING WE GOT TROUBLE.

ALL THE INFORMATION THAT THEY GAVE US THERE IS NOTHING IN HERE THAT SHOWS INTO MERE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN LOCKED AWAY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE 25 MILLION IS SITTING IN SOME ACCOUNT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IS NECESSARILY GOING TO THIS ROTOR THAT ROAD WERE THIS PROJECT.

WHAT WE APPROVED HAS NOT HISTORICALLY BEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED. HERE WERE ASKED TO DO 12 MORE MILLION AND I CHALLENGE EVERYBODY WITH WHAT WE HAVE OF WHAT THE PUBLIC SEES. WHAT WE DONE WITH THE 25 MILLION ALL OF OUR ROAD PROJECTS ARE BEHIND SCHEDULE.

THE EARLY 3 - 4 - 6 MONTH BEHIND SCHEDULE.

>> I HAVE NOT TALLIED IT UP BUT WE HAD IPOS COME BEFORE US ON AVERAGE OVER A MILLION IF I WERE TO GUESS EVERY AGENDA THAT WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC NUMBER BUT AS FAR AS WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS SEEN I WOULD VENTURE TO GUESSTIMATE AN AVERAGE OF A MILLION OF AN AGENDA ITEM THAT

[02:10:04]

IS GONE TOWARDS THESE PROJECTS WHETHER IT BE DESIGN OR WATER OR WASTEWATER A PART OF THE CIP I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT TOTAL NUMBER OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR BUT IF WE STARTED TALLYING UP EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN IMPROVING EVERY SINGLE AGENDA.

MY GUESS IT WOULD COME OUT TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER.

>> WHOSE JOB IS IT OUR JOB TO MAKE SURE.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A 12 MILLION-DOLLAR ROAD HERE, WHAT I'M WONDERING HOW DO WE KNOW THERE'S NOT $30 MILLION IN UNSPENT MONEY. WE WANT 8 MILLION TO GO TOWARDS THE CR 199, 137 BUT WE KNOW IT'S A YEAR BEHIND SCHEDULE.

ARE WE OUT BORROWING MONEY FOR A PROJECT WE'RE GOING TO DO TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND MONEY SITTING IN A BANK ACCOUNT FOR A PROJECT FOR DOING NEXT YEAR.

EVERYTHING -- WE STILL DON'T HAVE ANY KIND OF TIMELINE.

OUR LAST PRESENTATION EVERYTHING GOT PUSHED SO FOR ME FOR GOING TO START DOING THIS I SAID BEFORE WE CAN SPEND THE MONEY I HAVE NO PROBLEM VOTING FOR ADDITIONAL BECAUSE WE NEED THE PROJECTS DONE BUT I CAN'T BE VOTING FOR MORE MONEY WHEN I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DID THE FIRST BATCH AND YOU SAY IS LOCKED AWAY BUT YOU SAY WE LOOKED AT THE FINANCIALS CAN YOU SAY WHAT

ACCOUNT. >> YOU'RE SAYING IS LOCKED AWAY.

>> THEY PUT IT IN THE TEXT BULL AND LISTED AS ENCUMBERED FUNDS PAGE 16 OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT. THAT 814.

PAGE 16 I DON'T HAVE A COPY IN FRONT OF ME BUT IT SHOULD BE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL OF THE BUDGET AND FISCAL YEAR '23 ISSUE TOTAL THE AMOUNT OF THE BONDS THAT WERE ISSUED 26.422.523 MILLION WE ALSO HAD SOME THAT PRE-REIMBURSED.

>> THAT'S EXACTLY MY POINT, FOR INSTANCE THE 22 MILLION AND HAS IN THE MEGA SITE EAST, WEST 3.5 MILLION I ASSUME THAT IS

ENGINEERING. >> CORRECT THAT'S ENGINEERING

FOR THE EAST-WEST SPINE ROAD. >> MILLION REPAYMENT OR PAVEMENT RECONSTRUCTION WHICH WE HAVEN'T FIGURED OUT I GET CONFUSED WHAT IS GOING ON WE KEEP SAY WERE GOING TO DO IT.

WE HAVE A MILLION ON THE LAKESIDE ESTATE SIDEWALKS 1.7 MILLION FOR 132 OVERPASS. WHAT I'M GETTING AT WHERE ARE WE ON ALL OF THESE PROJECTS? FISCAL 24 WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL 9 MILLION SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT WE CAN TAKE 9 MILLION OUT OF THE EAST, WEST ARTERIAL AND 253.5 MILLION OUT BECAUSE APPARENTLY NOT GOING TO SPEND THREE YEARS.

THAT'S GOING TO GO TO 2023 WHICH HOPES 2024 DROP FROM 20 MILLION.

>> EXCEPT 5.3 IS PROBABLY GOING ALL THE COST TO 199.

>> I DON'T WHAT ON PROPERTY. >> THAT'S WHY IT WAS BUILT OUT WITH THE FIRST HALF OF SPINE ROAD IN THE SECOND HALF GOING

THE REST OF THE WAY ACROSS. >> IS GOING BACK TO THE LEVEL OF DETAILS THAT WE ARE GOING TO NEED WE HAVE CONTRACTION OBLIGATION YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET, I LOOKED AT ALL OF THESE BUDGETS AND I HAVE A PROJECT THE CITY OF BELTON, 8.49 MILLION LAST SUCH AND SUCH MONEY FOR A FEDERAL PROGRAM LAST SUCH AND SUCH MONEY FOR GENERAL REVENUE AND LAST SUCH AND SUCH FOR THIS AND IS, ON PAGE FOUR AND WE JUST HAVE A SPREADSHEET THAT WE ARE BORROWING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THIS IS NOT YOU YOU'RE WALKING INTO THIS MESS AND I'M SURE YOU'RE NOT USED TO THIS EITHER.

>> I'M USED TO IT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTION ITEM REPORT THE VERY FIRST PAGE OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR 10.4 AND THE VERY LAST ITEM OF MY DESCRIPTION WHERE IT DESCRIBES PAGES 15 THROUGH 18 I MADE YOU A PROMISE.

[02:15:01]

I SAID I KNOW THIS REPORT NEEDS TO HAVE MORE DATA ON IT PRETTY NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE SPENT TODAY YOU NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE BUDGET IS PRETTY NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH WE SPENT AGAINST THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET AND WHAT THE BUDGET YEAR REMAINING.

WHAT THE PERCENT COMPLETE ON THE PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE IN TROUBLE. SO I MADE YOU A PROMISE THAT I OWE YOU THE INFORMATION BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO WAIT UNTIL I HAD THE WHOLE REPORT BUILT BECAUSE I KNOW YOU NEED SOME INFORMATION ON YOUR CONSTRUCTION IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

INFORMATION I COULD GIVE YOU IS THE BUDGET AND WERE WORKING INTERNALLY TO GET THE OTHER PIECES OF THE REPORT.

I PUT MY PROMISE TO YOU IN WRITING THAT I OWE YOU MORE AND I HOPE YOU TRUST ME THAT I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU.

I PUT MY PROMISE IN WRITING, THOSE OTHER PROJECTS FOR THE BOND ISSUE. HAVE WE SPENT ALL THAT MONEY, NO. I THINK WE SPENT VERY LITTLE OF THE BOND MONEY. MOST OF THE PROJECTS DURING THE DESIGN PHASE CURRENTLY AND YOU CANNOT ISSUE A CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION UNTIL YOU HAVE THE DESIGN.

THAT'S WHERE WE ARE ON THE PROJECTS.

YOU ARE CORRECT AS OF COUNSEL. THE BOND ISSUE SAID IT WAS FOR STREET PROJECTS IT DID NOT NAME SPECIFIC STREET PROJECTS BUT THOSE THAT WERE AT THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST FOR STREET PROJECTS. YOU CAN TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM ANY PROJECT YOU WANT TO ASSIGN IT TO EAST-WEST SPINE ROAD IF YOU WANT

TO ISSUE MORE BONDS. >> WE HAD THREE NAMED THEY WOULD NOT APPROVE UNLESS WE ENCU ENCUMBERED.

>> IT IS FM 1660 T-1, TWO AND THREE.

>> THOSE WERE NAMED IN A PROJECT.

>> WE STILL NEED TO DO THE OTHER THINGS AND THAT'S WHAT THIS HAS TO GET ISSUED BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 12 MILLION ONCE YOU PARK IS WAY WE ONLY ISSUE 25 IT ONLY LEAVES YOU NINE AND THAT'S NOT EVEN LOOKING AT LIVE OAK OR THE MAINTENANCE ROADS OR ANY OTHER STUFF. WE SHOW THE 22 AND I'VE NO PROBLEM WITH THE 12 FOR THIS NOW.

IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO THE EDC.

>> WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT THE EDC HAS TO DO IT WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THIS IS NOT A CITY ISSUE.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THE FUNDING OF IT I DON'T KNOW WHY

WERE ON THE AXLE. >> HERE'S WHY WERE ON THE AXLE WORKING TO BE ASKED IN A YEAR TO DO 25 MILLION MARK AND IF WE HAVE THE SAME LEVEL OF DETAIL IN A YEAR.

>> THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM. >> YOU KEEP RAMBLING ON AND PEOPLE CAN VOTE AND GET ME TO SHUT UP.

WE DON'T HAVE THE LEVEL OF DETAIL.

>> HAVE A TANTRUM IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE LEVEL OF DETAILS AND MEET THE EXPECTATION TODAY ON THE 12 MILLION NUMBER GETTING AHEAD WITH A 50 MILLION-DOLLAR DEAL AND I'M GOING TO SAY WERE COMPLETELY GOOD AND GET TO SPEND I HAVE NO DOUBT YOU SPEND IT I NEVER MET A GOVERNMENT THAT CAN EXPEND MONEY THAT'S ALL THEY DO.

OUR JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE TELL PEOPLE WERE DOING 12 MILLION THEY WANT TO KNOW WHAT DID YOU DO WITH THE LAST 25 MILLION LIKE THE COUNCIL MEMBERS SAID, WE DON'T HAVE INFORMATION TO SHOW THEM WE JUST HAVE AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET, I DON'T KNOW THE MAJORITY OF PUBLIC IS OKAY WITH THAT.

WHAT THEY ARE WANTING IS TO MAKE SURE THE NEXT TIME AND COMES APPEAR IN JAMES COMES UP WITH THE DEAL THAT IS SO CRYSTAL CLEAR WHAT'S GOING ON AND IT HELPS TO BOND PEOPLE IF YOU'RE BUYING BONDS IN THE CITY THE OC THAT'S ONLY CITY I KNOW THEY SHOW ME EVERYTHING RIGHT NOW THEY SURE LIKE HIPPOS BECAUSE THEY DON'T NEED A LOT OF DETAIL. TODAY I'M DOING IT TO MAKE SURE WE COME BACK IN SIX MONTHS WITH THE BUDGET WHOLE BUNCH OF BOND

LANGUAGE THAT THERE IS DETAIL. >> I AGREE BUT YOU WERE SAYING THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE KNOW ANYTHING AND I'M LIKE NO WE HAVE 22 MILLION-INCH TRACT IT'S GOING TO GET BETTER AND MORE DETAIL COMING. AS I SAID THE CLEAR GOLFING IN APRIL THE OTHER THING NOT TALKED ABOUT IS THE CIP PROJECTS ARE GETTING ADDED OVER TIME TO THE BUDGETING THING AS WELL.

AS THE MONEY GETS SPENT ON THE NAMED PROJECTS IT WILL SHOW THE 7 MILLION ON THE FM 16 WE SPENT THIS MUCH IN DESIGN IT'LL SHOW THE SUBTRACTION AND ON THE WEB FOR ANYONE TO SEE IT IF YOU WANT TO SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE L CAMPO ALREADY USES THE SOFTWARE AND PUT THEIR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND ADOPTED THIS.

LIKE I SAID THE EDC IS GOING TO PICK UP THE DEBT SERVICE ON THIS ONE WE ARE JUST DOING IT BECAUSE WE GET A BETTER RATE THAN THE EDC ISSUING THE BOND. WHEN YOU LOOK AT OVERALL TAXING AUTHORITY HOW CAN WE SAVE THE MOST MONEY, THE ETCS A RATED WEIRD AA MINUS IT WOULD BE FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE THIS AED SEE YES YOU ISSUE AT A HIGHER DEBT COST SO IT'S FULLY ON YOUR BUDGET WHEN WE COULD DO A FUNDING AGREEMENT AND SAY WE WILL ISSUE AT THE LOWER COST OF ISSUANCE AND WE WILL HAVE THE

[02:20:05]

EEC REIMBURSED US. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND COMPLETELY LOOKING AT STUFF IT IS ALREADY LISTED WITH THE PROCESS GOING FORWARD. I GET IT YOU WENT THROUGH A BAD PROCESS THAT I WAS NOT APPEAR FOR BUT I ALSO SEE WHERE WE ARE MOVING FORWARD AND WHY AND WHEN YOU TELL THE STORY WERE TRYING TO SAVE THE CITY MONEY, IT'LL COST THEM MORE TO DO ANYTHING GOING TO PAY US BACK LET'S SAVE THE TAXPAYER MONEY BETWEEN THE TWO THEY ARE ALL TAXING AUTHORITY AS A CITY I LOOK AT THE LOWEST COST TO GET A PROJECT DONE AND THIS IS THE CHEAPEST WAY WE CAN GET IT DONE RIGHT N NOW.

>> I APPRECIATE THE EXPECTATION THAT WE WILL GET THE CIP BUDGETING WE NEED ALL THOSE NUMBERS SO THEY ARE RIGHT THERE AND EVERYBODY CAN SEE THEM WITHOUT HAVING TO DIG THROUGH AND GO BACK AND LOOK. WE NEED THAT WHENEVER COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE BUT ONE OTHER LAYER IS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY ESPECIALLY FOR THE CITIZENS BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR $70 MILLION SO WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY DIRECTLY ON THE 70 MILLION THIS IS HOW MUCH WE SHOULD SO FAR.

THIS IS WHERE THE MONEY HAS BEEN SPENT AND THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE MONEY ISSUE THAT IS ALLOCATED TO THE PROJECTS AND THIS IS HOW MUCH WE HAVE ISSUED YET. WE NEED THAT FOR THE 70 MILLION AND PARKED BOND BECAUSE SOME OF THAT HAS BEEN ISSUED.

THE STREETS IS MORE IMPORTANT THE PARKS BOND BECAUSE HOPEFULLY IN A POSITION AS WE GET THE ROADS CAUGHT UP TO START LOOKING AT GETTING BACK TO PROJECTS THAT ARE FALLING BEHIND AS WELL.

>> IF I PIGGYBACK BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, HOW MUCH IS LEFT OF THE

2018 AUTHORIZATION. >> I AM NOT SURE.

>> HAS THREE BOND ISSUES AGAINST IT.

>> YOU NEED TO SPEAK AT THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD AND

THE FOLKS AT HOME. >> FOR THE RECORD INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH IS LEFT OF THE AUTHORIZATION BUT I KNOW THREE BOND ISSUES.

I WILL GET TO THE DATA AND WILL GET IT OUT TO ALL COUNSEL.

IT IS VERY LITTLE THAT IS LEFT. >> WE DID 25.

>> THIS IS THE THIRD. >> TO PRIOR TO THIS.

PRESENTATION DURING BUDGET CYCLE DEBATING IF WE TOOK IT DOWN THERE WAS 44 AND WE TOOK DOWN 25 INSTEAD NOW YOU WILL TAKE ON ANOTHER 12. 44 MINUS 25 MINUS 12 PROBABLY 9 MILLION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> SEVEN. >> SORRY IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF

LATE NIGHTS. >> THE REASON SINCE WERE SO CONFIDENT WE WILL SPEND ALL OF THIS IS THE REASON NOT TO JUST

USE UP THE LAST OF IT? >> THAT WAS THE WHOLE ARGUMENT

BACK IN OCTOBER. >> I'M ASKING NO ONE'S MAKING AN

ARGUMENT TODAY. >> I DID THE WHOLE SPREADSHEET WHERE I EXPLAINED I WAS CORRECT ISSUING IT ALL AT ONCE WOULD BE CHEAPER WHEN YOU LOOKED ACROSS A 30 YEAR DEAL BUT DOING IT PIECEMEAL AS YOU DID IT WOULD BE A LITTLE CHEAPER AS FAR AS THE CURRENT TAXPAYER BECAUSE AS THE CITY GROWS YOUR SPREADING THE BURDEN OUT IN THE INFLECTION RATE WAS 12 YEARS SO THE PIECEMEAL IS CHEAPER AND THAT BUT IF IT'S ONLY 7 MILLION LEFT MAYBE THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO TAKE IT DOWN ESPECIALLY WERE GETTING 3.2 FIVE INTEREST SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE CARRYING A LOT THAT IS A WHOLE OTHER DISCUSSION.

>> COST OF INTUIT'S. >> AT WHAT POINT SHOULD YOU TAKE THE REST DOWN BECAUSE THE COST OF ISSUANCE OF 7 MILLION WOULD MAKE THAT YOU WOULD NOT WANT TO USE IT BECAUSE THE BOTTOM OF THE BARREL UNLESS YOU WENT OUT FOR NEW BOND ISSUANCE IN THE FUTURE YOU CAN SAY SEVEN PLUSES FROM THE TWO AND IT'S ONE BOND ISSUANCE IF THAT'S A LOT THAT I THINK WE WILL KEEP DOING

PIECEMEAL. >> FROM LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS IT'S VERY FAVORABLE FOR THE CITY TO ISSUE BONDS YOU CAN ISSUE AT A PREMIUM AND JIM WAS SAYING HE DIDN'T ISSUE, DID YOU SAY 3.7 WHAT YOU GOT AND A COMPETITIVE BID.

IT'S VERY FAVORABLE TIME TO BE ISSUING PRETTY IN TERMS OF WHAT PROJECTS PAGE 16 OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT TELLS YOU WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING OUT FOR THE FUTURE.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOTAL OF ALL PROJECTS TO ISSUE 19 MILLION IN BONDS RIGHT NOW YOU COULD DEFINITELY SPEND IT.

YOU HAVE THE PROJECTS BEFORE YOU.

>> IT BLOWS ME AWAY WERE ALMOST THROUGH THIS APPROVED BOND AMOUNT AND THERE'S HARDLY A DAMN THING DONE.

[02:25:03]

>> WE HAD TO EXPAND TO PEOPLE WE SOLD 70 MILLION IN BONDS, WHAT DID YOU GUYS DO. WE HAVE SOME STUFF IN DESIGN.

>> THERE IS A LOT IN DESIGN CURRENTLY.

>> AS SOON AS IT TRIGGERS. >> THAT IS NOT ANYBODY ON STAFF IN THE ROOM CURRENTLY. PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY IN HERE AS WELL AFTER 99% OF THE MISTAKES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

IT IS FRUSTRATING. >> THIS IS JIM WITH HILLTOP A

QUESTION WAS ASKED EARLIER. >> WE RECEIVED SIX BIDS IN THE LOW ONE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY [INAUDIBLE] 4.27 CURRENTLY ESTIMATING 4.2 WHICH IS UP 25 BASIS POINTS.

USUALLY MY SPONSOR LAST COUPLE WEEKS [INAUDIBLE]

>> PLANNING VERSUS LOCK I PREFER PLANNING.

>> I PREFER NOT DOING ANY BONDS PERSONALLY.

>> THE DIFFERENCE IS MINIMAL SINCE THE BONDS ARE ISSUED IN AN COST IS BASED ON SIZE AND PERCENTAGES IN THE AVERAGE COST.

OVERALL IT MIGHT BE IN A SITUATION THAT WOULD WORK OUT WELL FROM A TOTAL COST PERSPECTIVE.

>> THAT'S WHY I DON'T GUARANTEE RATES RIGHT THERE BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW OR DO WE WANT ACTION ON THIS OR WHAT ARE WE GOING TO

DO? >> ONLY ACTION REQUIRED IF YOU WISH TO CONTINUE WITH THE PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED TO MAKE THE MOTION AND THE AGENDA PACKET UNDERNEATH THE SUMMARY REQUEST APPROVED THE PLAN INTO A DIRECT THE STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THE PLAN TO BRING BACK THE ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION IN APRIL.

THERE IS PREPARED LANGUAGE IN THE AGENDA ITEM REPORT FOR 10.1

THAT YOU CAN USE IF YOU WISH. >> MAYOR I MOVED TO APPROVE THE PLAN OF FINANCE ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2023 AS PRESENTED INTO DIRECT STAFFING CONSULTANTS TEMPLEMAN TO PLAN AND PRESENTED COUNSEL IN APRIL 2023 IN ORDINANCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION

BONDS SERIES 2023. >> DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND. >> MOTION BY MERT PRO TEM GORDON AND SECOND BY SUTTON. I WILL VOTE FOR THIS TODAY BY APRIL THERE'S NO DETAIL ON VOTING NO JUST WHERE WERE AT WHERE WE SPENT THE MONEY WHAT THE PLAN IS AND EVERYTHING.

I LOOK AT THIS TO GET IT GOING WHILE WE GET THINGS READY TO GO BUT IF BY APRIL WE DON'T HAVE A CIP PLAN AND PUTTING MONEY OUT IN AN ACTUAL PLAN OF WHEN WERE PUTTING PROJECTS IN I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO BORROW MORE MONEY LIKE THE COUNCIL MEMBER SAID THAT WILL BE $61 MILLION WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR BUT A

BUNCH INTEREST. >> WITH THAT I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING WITH THE EDC BECAUSE WE KEEP SAYING THE EDC IS GOING TO AND THEY SHOULD AND THEY WOULD BUT I'M NOT A MEMBER OF EDC SO I DON'T KNOW I KNOW YOU TWO ARE SO YOU HAVE A BETTER FEEL FOR THAT IN THE ROOM BUT MAY BE A JOINT WORK SESSION WOULD BE VERY MUCH APPROPRIATE FOR NOT ONLY THIS AGENDA ITEM BUT THE OTHER AGENDA ITEM FOR THEY'RE DOWN IF I GO

BACK AND FIND IT. >> ALL GET IT SET UP WILL TALK TO THE CHAIRMAN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ON THIS IN THE DETAIL AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF I QUESTION FOR JIM ISSUING THIS DOWN THE ROAD DOES IT IMPACT THE INS RATE SUBSTANTIALLY? OR IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WILL BRING BACK IN APRIL.

[02:30:02]

>> IT WAS IN THEIR ESTATES INSANE.

THAT'S ALSO NOT ASSUMING ANY PAYBACK FROM THE EDC BECAUSE WE

HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY. >> I REMEMBER THAT BEING THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY DO THIS AMOUNT WITHOUT AN INCREASE IN INS RATE.

>> IT IS THE RATE SO THE RATE STAYING THE SAME DOESN'T MEAN

THE BILL STAYS THE SAME. >> THE RATE DOES NOT MATTER.

LIKE THE ISD SAYS PAST 600 MILLION BONDS THE RATE WILL NEVER CHANGE. THAT IS BAD BECAUSE OF YOUR HOUSE DOUBLES IN VALUE IN THE NEXT 15 YEARS SO DOES YOUR TAXABLE BUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN PUSHING FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BORROW MONEY STRUCTURED DEBT TO WHERE THE TAX BILL DOES NOT CHANGE FOR PEOPLE WITH THEIR GROWTH AND I THINK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS POINT WHEN THE EDC MONEY IS FACTORED IN THEY WILL PAY A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS A YEAR TOWARDS THIS, I DON'T KNOW HOW AND WILL FIGURED OUT HOW YOUR INS DEBT SERVICE WHAT THE RATE NEEDS TO BE AND TAKING TO INTO ACCOUNT THE DEBT NEED TO COLLECT AND CITIZEN SHOULD NOT SEE AN INCREASE DUE TO DEVELOPMENT.

>> THE TREASURE REIMBURSEMENT IS ALSO.

>> WE HAVE A LOT OF MECHANISMS TO PAY IT BACK.

THINK THE WAY THE EV C WAS TALKING BECAUSE MONEY IS SO CHEAP AND THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT WE CAN DO ONCE YOU OWN IT AND YOU COULD DO DEVELOPMENT THE THINGS HOW DO WE USE THE MONEY

TO DO MORE INFRASTRUCTURE WORK. >> NOT NECESSARILY FIND A WAY TO PAY IT OFF REALLY QUICK BUT YOU ISSUED IT IN YOUR PAYING IT NOW

LET'S BUILD STUFF. >> WHICH IS WHY WE NEED THE

JOINT SESSION. >> TO ADD TO YOUR POINT OF WANTING THE DETAILS I WOULD LIKE THE AGREEMENT WITH THE EDC SO WE ARE NOT BORROWING MONEY AND HOPING THEY WILL PAYBACK WERE BORROWING AND KNOWING THEY'RE COMMITTED TO PAYING IT BACK.

>> WE ARE PAYING IT BACK. >> I WOULD STILL RATHER DO IT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

[10.2. Discussion and possible action to execute Individual Project Order (IPO) 2023-10 for professional services with Garver, LLC to conduct periodic Wastewater (WW) Service Extension Request (SER) reviews in support of engineering and development services in the not-to-exceed amount of $155,280 and to direct staff to add associated fees to the City Fee Schedule. (Matt Rector)]

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> LET'S COUNT, THAT WAS SEVEN, MOTION PASSES 7 - 0.

NEXT 10.1 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE PROJECT ORDER IPO TWO 0 23 E- 10 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH GARVER LLC TO CONDUCT PERIODIC WASTEWATER WW SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST SCR REVIEWS AND SUPPORTIVE ENGINEERING IN DEVELOPING SERVICES IN THE NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF 155,280 INTO DIRECT STAFF TO ADD ASSOCIATED FEES TO THE CITY FEE SCHEDULE.

GOOD EVENING. >> A NEW MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M THE CITY ENGINEER. THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS BASICALLY WE'VE BEEN DOING THE SCR'S FOR A WHILE NOW BUT WE'VE BEEN PAYING OUT OF THE STAFF AUGMENTATION SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM WAS TO COME BEFORE YOU AND AWARD A CONTRACT TO GARVER TO CONTINUE DOING THE SCR'S BUT TO ACTUALLY CREATE A SEPARATE IPO ANSWER BRING BACK AND ADD THAT BASICALLY TO THE FEE SCHEDULE SO THE PRIVATE COMPANIES ASKING US TO RUN THESE MODELS ARE BASICALLY PAID FOR INSTEAD OF THE CITY PAYING FOR OUT OF GENERAL FUND. THAT WAY WE CAN CONTINUE BUT IS PASSED THROUGH TO THE DEVELOPERS FOR THEIR COST.

>> GREAT IDEA, QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

I HAVE ONE NOTE TEAR AND YOU CAN ONLY IMAGINE WHAT IT SAYS IT SAYS NO WAY HOW DO WE GUARANTEE GARVER DOES NOT KNOW WHAT A REPLY BUTTON ON E-MAIL IS. HOW DO WE GUARANTEE THAT NOW WERE SAYING BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THEIR OWN SCR BUT THIS PEOPLE BEEN WAITING TWO MONTHS TO GET A RESPONSE ON SIMPLE ENGINEERING QUESTIONS, ONE MONTH OF ALL THE ENGINEERING COMPANIES. WHY GARVER? IS THAT NOT ANYBODY ELSE THAT CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REVIEW AND SCR IN A TIMELY MANNER BECAUSE NOW I'M A BUSINESS PAYING FOR IT AND IF I HAVE TO WAIT THREE MONTHS TO GET INFORMATION I WOULD PAY TWICE AS MONTHS TO GET AN ANSWER IN TWO WEEKS. I LOVE THE SYSTEM I LIKE THE PROVIDER I'M NOT HAPPY WITH THE SERVICE THEY DON'T RETURN E-MAILS, EVERY DEVELOPER AFTER HIS COMPLAINING NO ONE WILL RETURN E-MAILS NO ONE IS TIMELY, MONTHS BEHIND SCHEDULE BECAUSE WERE WAITING TO GET SIMPLE BASIC INFORMATION WE ARE STRUGGLING ON HER OWN PROJECTS DUE TO THE RESPONSE TIME.

[02:35:03]

QUITE HONESTLY I'M A LITTLE SHOCKED.

I THINK YOUR WAY OVERTAXED, THEIR GREAT COMPANY THAT IS WAY OUT OF BANDWIDTH AND FOR US TO EVEN BE CONSIDERING MORE WORK FOR THEM, PART OF THE REASON WE BROUGHT NOT HERE WAS BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T DOING A GOOD JOB WITH TIMELINESS AND HERITAGE ARE NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO RUN OUR STAFF ARE WORKING TO BRING IN-HOUSE BUT YOU'RE GOOD ENOUGH TO DO MORE PROJECTS.

I DON'T KNOW. >> MAYOR I WILL TALK TO THEM A LITTLE BIT AND HAVE MATT TELL YOU WHERE WE ARE ON THE SCR.

THIS IS WORK THEY ARE ALREADY DOING GARVER DEVELOPED THE WASTEWATER MODEL AND IS DOING THE SCR'S RIGHT NOW.

THIS IS NOT MORE WORK FOR THEM. WE ARE MOVING TO STOP THE STAFF AUGMENTATION YOU ALL KNOW THAT. THE PLAN IS IN PLACE EFFECTIVELY TO BRING THAT TO AN END AT THE END OF MARCH SO NUMBER STAFF AUGMENTATION. THIS IN TURN JUST TALKING ABOUT HOW WE DO PROCURING AND ALL THOSE SORTS OF THINGS THIS IS THE PO THAT WILL BE CHARGING THE SCR REVIEW AGAINST.

THE ITEMS I AM AWARE OF OF ISSUE IN SCR HAS BEEN ONE OF THE MAIN COMPLAINTS I'VE HAD IN THE AMOUNT OF TIME IT'S TAKEN TO GET RESPONSES INTO GET THE SCR'S O OUT.

THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF PROCESS IMPROVEMENTS THAT EVER OCCURRED SINCE NOVEMBER. MATT FEEL FREE TO GIVE US A REPORT ON WHERE WERE AT ON A TURNAROUND ON SCR'S THAT YOU ARE

AWARE OF. >> I TELL YOU IT STARTED RIGHT BEFORE I GOT HERE WITH DAVID IN THE A2 TEAM COMING IN TAKING HOLD OF THE WHOLE PROCESS AND FIGURING OUT A WAY TO STREAMLINE IT. EVEN MORE SO WHEN I CAME ON I STARTED WORKING WITH DAVID TO MAKE SURE WE WERE PUSHING AND WE HAVE OTHER THAN A COUPLE OF REQUEST FOR UPDATES THAT JUST CAME IN THIS WEEK WE HAVE ALL SCR'S OUT TO THE DEVELOPERS THAT WE OWED THEM TO AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH GARVER AND FREEZE NICHOLS WHO'S DOING THE WATER SCR'S AND YOU WILL SEE THAT ON THERE THEY ARE IN THE AGENDA THEY BOTH COMMITTED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE GETTING THE RESPONSES BACK WITHIN TWO WEEKS FROM THE TIME THAT I SEND IT TO THEM. SO FAR SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THEY

HAVE BEEN MEETING THE TIMELINES. >> IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE

CONTRACT REQUIREMENT. >> I DO BELIEVE IT'S IN THE CONTRACT THAT WITHIN TWO WEEKS OF US SENDING IT THEY WILL HAVE A RESPONSE BEEN A WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF THEY DON'T?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IS A PENALTY. >> ADDITIONAL PENALTY.

>> THERE'S NO TEETH. THAT WOULD BE MY ONE UPDATE WHATEVER CUSTOMARY PENALTY SO THEY KNOW IT'S A PRIORITY.

THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD AND IS NOT NECESSARY TO THEM BUT AS WE GROW AS THE CITY AND WE GET ALL THE OFFICE SPACES AND OTHER STUFF. I WOULD LIKE TO FIND OUT DO WE DO A LOCAL BID FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FIRST AND THEN WE GO OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. PEOPLE ARE PAYING PROPERTY TAX IF YOU'RE CAPABLE AND MEET THE BIDDING CRITERIA IF WE HAVE THAT GOING FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE THE TITAN BUSINESS PARK, THE IRONWORKS COMING, WE HAVE STUFF COMING AT THE MEGASITE.

ALL OF THESE AREAS WILL HAVE MORE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF ENGINEERING COMPANIES IN HUTTO AND I WOULD LIKE US TO FIGURE OUT FROM CITY ENGINEERING AND GOING FORWARD THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THIS PRODUCT BUT IN GENERAL HOW CAN WE GET A POLICY IN PLACE WHEN YOU ARE DRINKING FOR REQUEST OR WHATEVER A FIRST PASS OUT TO ALL THE LOCAL COMPANIES THAT HAVE APPLIED THAT THEY WANT TO BE ON THE BID PROCESS TO KEEP HUTTO DOLLARS IN HUTTO. THEN THEY CAN HIRE NEW PEOPLE AND THEY CAN GROW AND WERE KEEPING OUR OWN ECONOMY GROWING.

WHEN THAT GETS BACK TO YOUR SAYING WHY ANYBODY WITH GARVER BUT THAT COMES TO MY THOUGHT IF THIS CAPABILITY IN HOUSE IN THE CITY LIMITS I WANT YOU TO UTILIZE THE CITY LIMIT RESOURCES BEFORE WE GO OUTSIDE OF THE CITY AS WE GROW.

FOR A WHILE THERE WAS NOTHING SO YOU ALWAYS HAD TO GO OUTSIDE.

AS WE GROW IN THREE BUSINESS PARKS COMING I EXPECT WE WILL HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET AHEAD OF THAT AND START GETTING

A POLICY IN PLACE. >> THIS IS A STOPGAP UNTIL WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN DO THESE IN-HOUSE.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T SEE THE TWO WEEKS OF

THE AGREEMENT. >> I DO BUT IT DOESN'T DISSIPATE IT THAT THE RESPONSE WILL BE WITHIN TWO WEEKS.

>> WEBPAGE. >> 1058 OF THE PACKET.

[02:40:04]

TWO OF THREE OF THE SCOPE OF SERVICES.

>> THEY ANTICIPATE THEY WILL BE SUBMITTED IN TWO WEEKS AFTER RECEIPT AND THEN IT SAYS THE SCHEDULE MAY BE FLEXIBLE ON THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WHO GETS TO DECIDE ON THE NATURE AND COMPLEXITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. PROCESS THE CITY CAN DECIDE TO EXTEND THE TWO WEEKS I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.

I DON'T WANT THEM TO SAY THIS IS COMPLICATED IS GOING TO TAKE A MONTH OR TWO WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU.

WE CAN TIGHTEN THAT UP AND MAKE IT WHERE WE'RE THE ONLY ONES THAT CAN EXTEND THE TIME THE NETWORKS A LITTLE BETTER FOR ME.

>> LET'S SAY AYE GET AN E-MAIL EVERY TIME I GET AN E-MAIL THIS GUYS BEEN WAITING A MONTH TO GET A REPLY.

LET'S SAY IT HAPPENS AGAIN AND EVERYBODY'S LIKE THIS IS RIDICULOUS, IT SHOULD NOT TAKE SIX WEEKS TO GET A RESPONSE ON SOMETHING WHAT IN HERE ALLOWS US TO TERMINATE SOMEBODY.

WHAT I READ EARLIER FOR A WHOLE YEAR.

>> IS SINCE OCTOBER OF 2023. >> CORRECT SHORT-TERM.

>> WE VOTED FOR THE REST OF THE FISCAL YEAR SO WE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS AGAIN NEXT YEAR WITH WHICHEVER COMPANY.

>> TO CLARIFY MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE IPO IS PART OF THE MASTER CONTRACT THE MASTER AGREEMENT. IF WE WANTED TO LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS I WORK WITH MATT AFTER THIS BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER THE TERMS IN THE MASTER AGREEMENT PROBABLY THAT WOULD BE MORE LIKELY OF THE INDIVIDUAL IPO THAT WE ARE

LOOKING AT TONIGHT. >> AND OC SEVERABILITY IN THE.

>> OF THE BUILDERS FROM THE PREVIOUS FIVE MONTHS OF WORK.

>> YES OR WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THEM AND WE GOT THE INVOICES SO WE ARE UP TO DATE ON ALL THE INVOICING.

>> WHAT DID THAT, TO BE. >> ON WHICH THING FOR THE STOCK

AUGMENTATION OR SCR'S? >> 1 MILLION INTO WITH GARVER

BEFORE. >> THE INVOICES WE DIDN'T GET.

>> FOR FIVE MONTHS WE HAD NOT BEEN INVOICED.

>> THE STAFF AUGMENTATION NUMBER, GO AHEAD IT'S OKAY.

>> FOR 2022 THEY HAD SPENT SOMETHING LIKE $750,000 BETWEEN OCTOBER AND AUGUST. THE AUGUST BILL WAS RECEIVED IN OCTOBER. THIS WEEK I RECEIVED THE BILL FOR SEPTEMBER WHICH IS ANOTHER $80000 SO THAT BRINGS THE TOTAL FOR AUGMENTATION FOR $222,830,000.

I DID RECEIVE INVOICES FOR AUGMENTATION YESTERDAY FOR OCTOBER THROUGH JANUARY AND THE AMOUNT IS $338,000 FOR THE INVOICES. HOWEVER, THOSE INVOICES ARE IN REVIEW AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE REVIEW IS GOING TO SHOW.

I BELIEVE 338,000 WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM BUT I THINK POSSIBLY SOMETHING LOWER THAN THAT IS ACTUALLY OWED TO GARVER.

>> FOR 300,000 OVER HOW MANY MONTHS?

>> FOUR MONTHS. >> OCTOBER TO JANUARY THE INVOICES WERE SUBMITTED FOR STAFF AUGMENTATION FOR 338,000.

>> ONE MONTH OF THEIR SERVICE IS ONE EMPLOYEE SALARY A YEAR ALMOST NOT NECESSARILY AN ENGINEER.

>> IT IS PROBABLY HALF. IT'S ABOUT $80000 A MONTH.

BUT FOR AN ENGINEER AND THE BENEFITS THAT GO WITH THE SALARY YOU ARE PROBABLY AT HALF AN ENGINEER EACH MONTH.

>> THAT SIX ENGINEERS A YEAR WITH AUGMENTATION.

>> YOU LOOK AT 830 FOR LAST YEAR FOUR MONTHS IS 338 THAT IS THAT PACE FOR A MILLION THIS YEAR. IT'S GOING UP.

>> WE MADE THE RIGHT CHANGE. >> WERE GETTING READY TO ADD

THEM ON. >> THIS IS GOING TO BE A

PASS-THROUGH FEE. >> THAT'S FINE.

>> THIS IS GETTING US TO THE POINT.

>> JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS NOT AN ADD-ON WE ARE PAYING THIS

RIGHT NOW. >> WE ARE CARVING OUT AND SAYING

ONLY THIS MUCH, HERE'S A LIMIT. >> IS LIKE A FRANCHISE YOU'RE

[02:45:02]

BASICALLY RAISING THE COST ON A BUSINESS.

WHAT WE ARE SAYING POSSIBLY WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE COST IS TO BUSINESS PRE-DECEMBER DAY COMES AND WANTS TO OPEN UP A BREAKFAST DINER AND WE SAY YOU GOTTA GO TO GARVER IF IT'S OVER 1400 OR 1500 IT'S A SEPARATE FEE NEGOTIATION WHO KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS.

I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT IT HITTING OUR BUDGET ONWARD ABOUT HITTING THE GUY COMING UP AND WE CHARGE THEM MORE MONEY TO GO TO THE D.C. AND THEY SAY WE NEED HELP WITH OUR FEES BECAUSE WE SPENT $100,000 MORE THAN ANYBODY EVER THOUGHT.

ULTIMATELY YOU KNOW WHO PAYS. >> THAT'S WHY OVERTIME ONLY HIRE MORE ENGINEERS WE WILL BRING IN-HOUSE AND SET THE FEE SCHEDULE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TIME AN AVERAGE ONE ENGINEER IS THIS JUNE APPLYING IF IT'S 10% OF THE JOB TO BE 10% OF THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND A LITTLE BIT MORE WHICH I GUARANTEE YOU WILL BE UNDER THIS FEE SCHEDULE WILL ADOPT FOR ANYONE.

YOU GOT HAVE A BLIND SUMMER AND APPOINT WITH THE GOAL THERE WERE ALWAYS GOING TO MOVE THE LINE TO MAKE IT BETTER THAT IS HOW ENGINEERING WORK IS DONE IN MY ENTIRE CAREER YOU ISSUE APPOINT AND YOU SAY THIS IS WHERE MY RELEASES IS THAT ALL THE WAYWARD NEEDS TO BE I NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING ON THE GROUND NOW AND THE DATE OF OCTOBER 23 IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE WE WILL CHANGE THAT AND THAT'S WHERE THE NEXT GOAL WILL BE TO BRING IN-HOUSE I WOULD LIKE THEM TO COME IN WHEN IS A PLAN TO TRANSITION IS AT NINE MONTHS FROM NOW AND WILL HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE THE STILL TO THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE OR ARE YOU COMMITTED FOR THE 24 BUDGET THAT WE WILL HAVE A IN-HOUSE BY THAT TIME.

IT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW BUT I'M DOING TWO THINGS OF THIS. ONE I AM CAPPING IT IS THE FIRST THING BY SAYING A NOT TO EXCEED NUMBER.

THAT WAY IF IT ENDS UP NEEDING TO EXCEED THAT WE NEED TO COME BACK AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND THERE'S ACCOUNTABILITY.

MAYBE WE HAD A LOT OF GROWTH AND A LOT OF SCR'S THAT NEED TO GET RAN AND IT'S GOOD TO BE MORE THAN THAT OR MAYBE WHY ARE WE SPENDING $25000 TO DO A SINGLE SCR THAT IS THE STUFF THAT THIS DOES BY PUTTING A CAP ON IT. THE SECOND THING THAT I'M DOING IS GIVING THE OPTION TO RECOVER THE FEES FROM DEVELOPMENT.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A NEGOTIATED FEE.

IT COULD BE A SET FLAT RATE THAT WE CHARGE AND SOME WILL WIN AND SOME WILL LOSE IT IN THE END IT AWASH ITSELF OUT.

WE CAN DO IT THAT WAY. BUT ULTIMATELY SINCE I'M MOVING AWAY FROM USING THE STAFF AUGMENTATION AND THESE BEING DONE UNDER GENERAL PO'S I'M TRYING TO GET IT TO WHERE THERE'S MORE TRANSPARENCY ON WHAT WERE PAYING FOR AND CAPPING THOSE NUMBERS SO THERE'S ADDITIONAL CONTROLS.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY GARVER'S CONTRACT.

WE'LL SEE IF THAT MIXES THINGS UP A LITTLE BIT I MAY NOT GET A

SECOND BUT. >> DOES OUR CITY HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO DO THE SCR'S CURRENTLY? THE AMOUNT OF ENGINEERS THAT WE HAVE?

>> YOU CAN JUST PICK ANOTHER FIRM BUT BEFORE WE DISCUSS IT WE

NEED TO SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND. >> I GUESS THAT WAS A SECOND.

>> HEARING NO SECOND EMOTION DIES.

>> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OTHER ENGINEERING FIRMS OR CURRENT

ENGINEERING STAFF. >> OR CURRENT ENGINEERING STAFF.

I'M ASKING WHETHER IT BE GARVER OR WHOEVER WE ESSENTIALLY DO

NEED TO HAVE SOME AUGMENTATION. >> RIGHT NOW YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR ENGINEERING STAFF IN-HOUSE. COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT WITH TRYING TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND THE CIP STUFF AND I HAVE STARTED TRYING TO TAKEN THE NEW DEVELOPMENT REVIEWS FOR PLOTS AND CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO WE CAN STOP PAYING A THIRD PARTY FOR THAT PRETTY DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THE BANDWIDTH TO TAKEN SCR'S AS WELL.

>> I THINK WE WOULD GET A DELAY IF WE WENT WITH SOMEONE ELSE THEN GARVER BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE THE MODEL SO THEN YOU PROBABLY HAVE TO PAY TO LET ANOTHER ENTITY USE THE MODEL BECAUSE WE DON'T ON THE MODEL AT THIS TIME?

>> ACTUALLY I WAS ABLE TO GET THE MODEL FROM GARVER I HAVE HER

[02:50:05]

WADDLE UNDERWATER MODEL IN A WASTEWATER MODEL BUT THE CAVEAT TO THAT WE DO NOT HAVE THE SOFTWARE TO OPEN OR MANIPULATE THAT MODEL, EITHER ONE OF THEM. IN A TALK TO CITY MANAGER AND HE'S AWARE OF THIS IS PART OF WHAT WE WILL BE BRINGING FORWARD IN THE BUDGET. IF WE CAN DO THE MODELING AND MANIPULATE THOSE THINGS BUT CURRENTLY NO WE CAN INTO IN-HOUSE EVEN IF WE HAVE THE STAFF.

>> WE COULD DO IN-HOUSE BUT OTHER FIRMS HAVE THE SOFTWARE.

THAT'S MY POINT I JUST DON'T WANT GARVER DOING THEM I DON'T THINK MATT HAS BEEN WITH AND IF HE DID TO TRY TO FIGURE HOW WE CAN DO ALL THE WORK HIMSELF I DON'T LIKE OVERDOING IT AND I DON'T LIKE EXCUSE THAT THEY MADE THE SYSTEM THAT'S THE PROBLEM I HAD WITH DCS DCS WOULD DO THE STUDY TELL YOU WHAT YOU NEEDED TO DESIGN AND THEN THEY WOULD DO THE DESIGNING AND THEY WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY.

>> I AGREE BUT TRYING TO SHIFT GEARS IN THE MIDDLE GOING TO DELAY SCR'S GETTING ISSUED IF YOU TRY TO DO THE ART WOULD SAY LET'S GO TO THE END OF THE YEAR IN THE BID PROCESS OVER MULTIPLE ENTITIES AND COUNSEL US AS WE LIKE TO BREAK IT UP A LITTLE BIT MORE I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S A LOCAL OPTION AND OTHER PEOPLE LIKE TO SEE OTHER THINGS IF ORGAN EXTENDED TO 23 FOR NEXT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A BIDDING PROCESS WHERE WE GO OUT FOR RFQ TO DO THIS IF ORGAN HOW TO CONTINUE PAST THIS YEAR.

EXPEDIENCY RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO CONTINUE THIS FOR 10 TO AND 103.

>> THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT RIGHT NOW THAT THEY ARE UNRESPONSIVE.

EVERYBODY IS READY DELAYED I GET IT THERE CAUGHT UP BUT YOU LOOK AT THE PERMIT SCHEDULE IN THE PERMIT APPLICATION THEY FALL OFF

THE CLIFF. >> WHAT ARE YOU WORRIED ABOUT.

>> IS A PERSON DOES A TERRIBLE JOB YOU DON'T GIVE THEM MORE BUSINESS YOU LEARN YOUR LESSON. YOU'RE AN ENGINEER LET ME ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IF YOU ARE ENGINEERING AND YOU HAVE AN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THEY MAKE MISTAKES AND MISSED DEADLINES IN YOUR SUPER FRUSTRATING THEN WHEN A NEW PROJECT COMES UP TO HAVE ALL NEW PROJECT LET'S DO MORE OR DO YOU TAKE STUFF AWAY AND FIND SOME VIDEOS.

>> I BELIEVE WE DID THAT WE HIRED MATT AND WE SAID WE WOULD TRY TO BRING THIS IN-HOUSE AT THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR.

THE OTHER THING A WANTED CHANGE IS A PENALTY DAN WAS SAYING STAFF DETERMINES HE CAN GET PAST THE TWO WEEKS AND THEN THERE NEEDS TO BE A PENALTY DIDN'T GET PAID FOR THE SCR MAY BE LULU'S HALF OF THE SCR FEE THAT THEY WERE DEGENERATED.

THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CHANGE WOULD WANT TO SEE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION EXCEPT 102 PRESENTED WITH THE AMENDMENT TO TIGHTEN UP THE LANGUAGE ON PAGE TWO OF THE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE TWO WEEKS TIME.

TO TIGHTEN IT UP TO MAKE SURE THE CITY AS COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON SAID THE CITY MAKES A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT THEY GET EXTENDED AND ALSO ADD AN AMENDMENT THAT SOME SORT OF PENALTY WHETHER A FEE, LOSS OF WORK IF WE COULD WORK THAT IN TO

KEEP WORK EXPEDITED. >> IS THAT POSSIBLE I KNOW YOU SAID -- THAT WAS CANCELING THE TOTAL AGREEMENT.

>> I SECOND THE MOTION. >> NOW WE CAN DISCUSS THE MOTION MCIVOR ANOTHER QUESTION ON THE FEE ABOVE 1500 A VALUE WHEEZE IS THAT BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER AND GARTER OR IS THE CITY INVOLVED

DISCUSSING THAT FEE. >> THERE WILL BE NOTHING DIRECTLY BETWEEN GARVER AND THE DEVELOPER I WILL BE INVOLVED IN

EVERY CONVERSATION. >> OF GARVER SAYS THAT WILL COST $100,000 SHE WILL SAY GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE THAT IS NOT

OKAY. >> YES OR.

>> OKAY. >> COUNCIL MEMBER, THERE IS NOTHING THAT COMPELS US. WHAT WOULD BE THE RIGHT WORD A GUARANTEE THAT EVERY SCR THAT WE DO GOES TO GARVER.

>> I HAVE A BIG PROJECT AND WE TELL THEM GO TO GARVER THEY WILL TAKE CARE OF YOU AND ALL OF A SUDDEN IT'S NOT COMPETITIVE AND GARVER CHARGES WHATEVER THEY FEEL LIKE.

>> THIS IS TO CREATE A TASK ORDER SO THEY CAN DO THE WORK.

SHOULD WE HAVE ANY ISSUES OR CONCERNS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSING BY ANY CHANGES TO THE CONTRACTOR THE MOTION.

THERE IS NOTHING THAT KEEPS THE CITY ENGINEER OR STAFF COMING

[02:55:02]

BACK AND SAYING WE WANT TO REDIRECT THE SCR'S AND WILL HAVE A TRANSITION. WILL HAVE A NEW TASK ORDER FOR

THAT. >> WE GOT A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON, FEKETE BY CLARK AS PRESENTED WITH A TWO WEEK

TIGHTENING UP ON TWO WEEK. >> WE MAY HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT GOT US INTO PROBLEM WITH THE $900,000 BUT WE AUTHORIZE IT AND WE SAID IN AMENDED AND SAID WE WOULD LIKE TO GET MONTHLY UPDATES. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL WE HAVE THE TWO WEEK LANGUAGE IN THE PENALTY BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO GO OUT AND VOTE ON AN AGREEMENT AND WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IT SAYS.

WE APPROVED IT AND IF WE DECIDE WE DON'T LIKE IT IT'S ONLY OUR FAULT BECAUSE WE LITERALLY JUST SAID TIGHTEN IT UP AND PUT A PENALTY AND WERE GOOD TO GO. IN MY MIND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL SUCH POINT YOU PROVIDE THE LANGUAGE NEEDED AS

YOU HEAR. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> WE CAN'T DO THAT. >> WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE FIRST MOTION THAT IS A REPLACEMENT FOR MOTION.

YOU CAN'T DO THAT. YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THE FIRST ONE. I'M IN AGREEMENT THAT PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS ARE TOO BIG FOR ME.

>> WE NEED TO HAVE A COMEBACK. >> THEM GET A VOTE ON SOMETHING I NEED TO KNOW EXACTLY AND WHAT IT IS.

THAT'S TOO VAGUE FOR ME BUT I'M IN AGREEMENT I FEEL THE CITY NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION WHETHER GOES BEYOND TWO WEEKS.

I WOULD LIKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS ON STAFF BUT THE

PENALTY COULD OR SHOULD BE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM I TAKE NO ISSUE WITH THAT IN LEGAL STAFF AND CITY ENGINEER CAN WORK THAT OUT AND BRING IT BACK. THIS WILL NOT BREAK AS IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS APPROVED BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.

>> HE IS RIGHT WE CAN'T TABLE THE.

>> I WILL WITHDRAW MY MOTION SOFA COMES BACK WITH THE DOCUMENTS SUPPORTING THE CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

>> THE MOTION IS RESCINDED. DO WE NEED TO TABLE IT OR LET IT

COME BACK? >> JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT YOU ARE INTENDING IS A MOTION TO POSTPONE AND CHOOSE YOUR DATE.

>> MARCH SECONDS OF FIRST MEETING IS THAT ENOUGH TIME.

>> OF MOTION TO POSTPONE 10.2 INTO THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY MOTIONING TO POSTPONE THE ITEM UNTIL MARCH 2.

SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT ONE? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> SIDER.

>> AYE. >> SUTTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

[10.3. Discussion and possible action to execute Individual Project Order (IPO) 2023-10 for professional services with Freese and Nichols, Inc. (FNI) to conduct periodic Water Service Extension Request (SER) reviews in support of engineering and development services in the not-to-exceed amount of $55,300.00 and to direct staff to add associated fees to the City Fee Schedule. (Matt Rector)]

>> AYE. >> PASA 17X 0, NEXT ITEM 10 - 3 DISCUSSION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER IPO 2023-ONE 0 FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AS AN EYE TO CONDUCT PERIODIC WATER SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST SCR REVIEWS IN SUPPORT OF ENGINEERING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND NOT TO EXCEED AN AMOUNT OF 55300 INTO DIRECT STAFF TO ADD ASSOCIATED FEES TO

THE CITY FEE SCHEDULE. >> AND LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING. I IMAGINE IT MEANS THE SAME PENALTY TWO WEEKS EVERYTHING UNTIL THE MARCH 1ST.

>> ALMOST IDENTICAL. >> I WILL SECOND IF YOU CHANGE

TO POSTPONE. >> YES, SORRY.

>> POSTPONE UNTIL MARCH 2 MAYOR CLARK SECULAR BY AIR PRO TEM.

>> AGAIN EVERYBODY COMES CONFUS. >> WHAT ARE THE THINGS THEY ARE THE ONES THAT THEY DID THE STUDY? WHAT ARE THE WORKADAY DOING INNER-CITY? I'M TRYING TO SEE IF THERE TIMELY WITH PROJECTS.

>> THE CIP PRESENTATION THAT WE DID LAST COUNCIL MEETING HIGHLIGHTED EVERY FIRM ON EVERY PROJECT SO THERE IS A LIST AND I DO NOT HAVE A MEMORIZED BUT IT IS AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW FOR THE

VERY PURPOSE. >> NOT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

[03:00:04]

CAN YOU START WITH TASK ORDER ONE.

>> OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW WHY WE WENT IN-HOUSE BECAUSE PREVIOUS ENGINEERING ISSUES WHEN WE WERE POSTPONING IS NICHOLS A PERSON YOU'RE OKAY PUTTING HER NECK ON THE LINE FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS KNOWING IF THEY'RE NOT RESPONDING TO PEOPLE'S E-MAILS, YOU'RE CONFIDENT THERE BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE BECAUSE YOU SEE IT NOW AND TIMELY RESPONSES? AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER. WHILE WERE POSTPONING IF IT'S NOT THE RIGHT COMPANY I WOULD JUST RATHER ANOTHER COMPANY, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY OF THIS.

THE IDEA IS NOT TO MAKE THE JOB HARDER BECAUSE NOW YOU'RE FOLLOWING UP WITH PEOPLE AND I THINK THE IDEAS TO MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER WERE WERE PROFESSIONALS. I WILL HAVE TO DO CHECKING BUT I

DID HEAR OF R FREEZING NICHOLS. >> THAT IS CORRECT FREEZE IS DOING SOME ROAD WORK FORCE. FREEZE AND NICHOLS HAS W3, W4.

>> ALL THE WATER PROJECTS. >> WASTEWATER IS GARVER, WATER

IS FREEZING NICHOLS. >> THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO THAT I AM SEEING. MAYBE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING INTO THAT, THEN LOOKED INTO THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT WE WENT INTO BACK IN JULY WHEN WE DID THE STUDIES WE WENT INTO THE AGREEMENTS WITH GARVER AND FREESE AND NICHOLS.

I DON'T KNOW THE AGREEMENT OF SEVERABILITY IF WE WANT TO SWITCH. THEN MENTIONED NOT LOOKING INTO

THAT. >> TO CLARIFY, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT TRYING TO TERMINATE PARTICULAR PARTS OF THE IPOS WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IN TERMS OF THE BROADER AGREEMENT SOUND LIKE THE DIRECTION OF COUNSEL TONIGHT IS TO GO INTO MEN THESE IPOS WITHIN THE TWO WEEK TIMEFRAME WHICH I THINK IS DOABLE IF YOU WANT A REAL VISIT THE MASTER AGREEMENT IT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS FURTHER TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

>> THE QUESTION OF WHAT THE SEVERABILITY CLAUSE LOOKS LIKE.

THAT WOULD BE PRETTY SIMPLE TO COPY AND PASTE THAT AGREEMENT.

>> A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK SECOND BY PRO TEM GORDON POSTPONING FOR MARCH 2. HEARING NONE CALL THE VOTE.

>> GORDON. >> AYE.

>> SIDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNSEL NUMBER SUTTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER JORDAN. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

[10.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2023-028 amending the methodology for calculating the fee in lieu of parkland within the 2020 City of Hutto Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails Master Plan (Jeff White)]

>> AYE MOTION PASA 17 MAXI REPRESENTATIVE.

NEXT WE HAVE 10 - FOR CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION OF RESOLUTION ARE JUST 2023-0 28 AMENDED METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING THE FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND WITHIN A 2020 CITY OF HUTTO PARKS AND RECREATION OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND PARKS AND RECREATION.

ITEM 10 .4 IS UPDATE THE METHODOLOGY USED TO CALCULATE THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARK DEDICATION THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE 2020 PARKS MASTER PLAN WITH A NEW FORMULA ON HOW THE FEES ARE DETERMINED. THIS IS NOT TO ADOPT THE FEES WE WILL DO THAT AT A LATER TIME THIS IS TO APPROVE THE METHODOLOGY JUSTIFICATION FEES CONSULTANTS TO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS AND PAUL HOWARD IS HERE AND IS GOING TO LEAD YOU TO THE PRESENTATION OF HOW THEY GOT TO WHERE THEY GOT TO.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WILL GET STARTED WHERE THE POWERPOINT IS COMINGTHE CITY OFE CONSULTANTS TO EVALUATE THE PARK DEDICATION PIECE THE SCHEDULE FOR FEES THAT HAS BEEN IN PLACE IS OUTDATED GIVEN THE FACT THAT PROPERTY VALUES ARE INCREASING.

THE COST OF MATERIAL AND LABOR IS INCREASING SO THEREFORE THE COST OF LAND ACQUISITION FOR PARKS AND DEVELOPMENT PARKS NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. IS THIS THE CLICKER? I THINK SO, THAT MIGHT NOT WORK. CAN YOU JUST GO TO THE NEXT LINE. IN AS I SAID NEW DEVELOPMENT OFY TYPE, RESIDENTIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL GENERATES A DEMAND FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE SO THE PREVAILING WISDOM THESE

[03:05:03]

DAYS IS TO USE A PARK DEDICATION ORDINANCE TO ENSURE THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT PARKS IS BORNE BY THOSE INCREASING THE DEMAND FOR PARKS AND OPEN SPACE.

THESE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN TESTED IN THE U.S. SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS THE SUPREME COURT IN VARIOUS PARTICULAR CASE STUDIES SO THEIR EXISTENCE IS LEGAL. THOUGH THE PARTICULAR METHODOLOGY FOR DETERMINING FEES IN DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF PARKLAND TO BE DEDICATED HIS LEFT SOMEWHAT VAGUE AND ALL THE CASE LAW. THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING FROM THE SUPREME COURT THERE NEEDS TO BE A ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY BETWEEN THE CONDITIONS BEING IMPOSED ON THE DEVELOPER AND THE DEMAND FROM THE PROJECT TO DEVELOP IT.

THEY SAY NO P PRECISE BUT SOME INDIVIDUALIZED DETERMINATION THAT THE REQUIRED DEDICATION IS RELATED IN NATURE AND THE EXTENT OF THE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT L SLIDE. ANYWAY.

DID WE GO TO THE NEXT LIGHT? I'M SORRY.

>> THAT IS THE ONE. THE METHODOLOGY IS AN OVERVIEW THIS IS THE CLIFF NOTES OF WHAT YOU GOT IN YOUR PACKAGE.

SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO INTO SO MUCH DETAIL.

THE FIRST STEP ESTABLISH A MARKET VALUE FOR LAND ACQUISITION THE PARK DEDICATION IS DESIGNED TO ACQUIRE EDIT ENTER DEDICATION OF LAND OF A MINIMUM OF 15 ACRES IN SIZE UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE THAT WAS MOST RECENTLY PASSED.

THERE IS ALSO AN OPTION FOR A FEE IN LIEU OF LAND DEDICATION SO WE NEED TO ESTABLISH THE MARKET VALUE TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE SECOND TO ESTABLISH THE DESIRED LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PARKLANE THE CITY HAS ESTABLISHED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE WHICH IS THE AMOUNT OF PARK ACREAGE PER POPULATION THAT IS 1000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKLAND FOR EVERY DWELLING UNIT WHICH EQUATES TO 44 DWELLING 1 ACRE OF PARKLAND FOR EVERY 44 UNITS.

THAT INFORMATION CAN ALLOW US TO DETERMINE A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AND TO DETERMINE PARK DEVELOPING FEES FOR SINGLE-FAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT LIGHT PLEASE I DON'T THINK THIS DOES ANYTHING. TO DETERMINE THE LAND VALUE WE TOOK THE WILLIAMSON TAX ROLLS FOR CURRENT YEAR IN USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS WE ARE ABLE TO COOKIE-CUTTER THE PARCELS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND THE ETJ BECAUSE ANY LAND ACQUISITION FOR PARKS OR DEDICATION OF PARKLAND WOULD ACTUALLY BE UNDEVELOPED LAND IN ALL CASES.

WE SELECTED ALL THE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES AND WE QUANTIFY THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE FROM THE TAX ROLL FOR THOSE PROPERTIES.

THEN WE DIVIDE THAT BY THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THAT LAND AND THAT YIELDS AN AVERAGE COST OF $50569 PER ACRE.

THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT MARKET EVALUATION IS LOWER THAN THE TRUE MARKET VALUE. IT'S THE MOST RELIABLE SOURCE THAT WE HAVE TODAY. IT'S A GOOD CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TO THE MARKET IN THESE TIMES. GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE PLEASE AS I MENTIONED THERE IS AN ESTABLISHED SERVICE OF 1000 SQUARE FEET OF PARKLAND PER DWELLING UNIT.

THEN WE SAID IT WAS 1 ACRE OF PARKLAND FOR 44 DWELLING UNITS THAT IS CONVERTING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE INTO AN ACREAGE THEN WE TAKE THE TOTAL COST DIVIDED BY 44 DWELLING UNITS OR LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THAT YIELDS A FEE OF $1147 PER DWELLING UNIT THAT WOULD BE THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION WHICH WOULD BE LEADING THE DEVELOPMENT BEAR 100% OF THE COST OF THE LAND ACQUISITION FOR NEW PARKLAND.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT LIGHT. FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WE CAN APPLY A SIMILAR POLICY OR SIMILAR METHODOLOGY.

MULTI-FAMILY HAS A HIGHER DENSITY OF HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE THAN A SINGLE-FAMILY PRE-THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR 14 .

THAT ALLOWS US TO DETERMINE DENSITY PAGE WILL TAKE AN

[03:10:03]

AVERAGE OF 14 - 20 AND MAKE IT 70 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.

WE KNOW THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY IS .34 ACRES IF WE BRING THAT TO A PER ACRE THAT EQUATES TO 2.94 HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE. SO THEN WE TAKE THE 2.94 HOUSEHOLDS WILL CALL IT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND WE WILL DIVIDE BY THE 1 1712 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE THAT IS ALLOWED AND MULTI-FAMILY ZONES. THAT WILL GIVE US A RATIO FACTOR OF .173. THIS WAS GOING TO BE THE MULTIPLIER THAT WILL BRING IT DOWN TO PER DWELLING UNIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY. WE TAKE A SINGLE-FAMILY FEE THAT WE ESTABLISHED $1147 PAID WE MULTIPLY IT BY THE DENSITY FACTOR OF .173 THAT YIELDS $198 PER UNIT FOR MULTI-FAMILY DWELLINGS. ONCE YOU ESTABLISH THE FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND IS ALSO THE PART DEVELOPMENT FEE TO PROVIDE IMPROVEMENTS FOR A GIVEN PARK. WHAT WE USED IS THE OPINION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FROM 2019 PARK ENTRANCE MASTER PLAN.

WE HAD PROTOTYPICAL TART UNDER PARTS SET UP IN THEIR AND IF 15-ACRE PARK WITHIN ARRANGEMENT AMENITIES AND A PROTOTYPICAL 5-ACRE PARK. AND TO BRING THE VALUES UP TO THE 2023 STANDARD FOR MATERIALS AND LABOR COST AND THEN WE LOOK TO ONGOING OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGNS FOR REGISTRATION TO FRITZ PARK IN OUR OPINION OF PROBABLE CAUSE FOR THAT TO GET AN AVERAGE COST PER ACRE OF LAND FOR PART DEVELOPMENT.

I DID NOT WRITE THAT DOWN IS $50000, EXCUSE ME $504,000 IN CHANGE FOR DEVELOPMENT PER ACRE OF PARKLAND UNDER THE MATERIALS AND LABOR AND CONTRACTOR MARKUP AND ALL OF THAT.

FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY PART DEVELOPMENT FEE NEWS ONLY A 15-ACRE MINIMUM PARK DEDICATION IN HUDDLE.

SO WERE LOOKING AT A COMMUNITY PARK.

INSTEAD OF HAVING THAT DEVELOPMENT PAY 100% OF THE COST OF DEVELOPING THE PARK WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE PRETTY EXORBITANT ON THE DWELLING UNIT BASIS.

BECAUSE THE PARK WILL BE USED PEOPLE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF HUTTO. IN THE AVERAGE COST OF 15-ACRE PARK 7,560,955 AND THEN WE DIVIDE THAT BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN THE CITY LIMITS.

CURRENTLY 10464 HOUSEHOLDS WHICH YIELDS A DEVELOPMENT COST OF $723 PER HOUSEHOLD. THAT IS FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. THE ORDINANCE DOES NOT CURRENTLY ASSESS A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR MULTI-FAMILY.

FOR NONRESIDENTIAL THE PREMISES THOUGH THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY BRINGING FULL-TIME RESIDENTS INTO THE COMMUNITY WOULD NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THEY ARE INCREASING THE DEVELOPED SPACE IN IMPACT TO THE OVERALL ENVIRONMENT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AND HUTTO. USING THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT YOU TAKE THE $723 PER DWELLING UNIT AND YOU USE A FACTOR OF 2.942 BRING THAT TO A PER ACRE BASIS AND THAT YIELDS $2105 PER ACRE FOR A DEVELOPMENT FEE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL. IN SUMMARY FOR PARKLAND FEE IN LIEU OF DEDICATION WOULD BE A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, $1147 PER DWELLING UNIT WILL TO FAMILY 198,000 PER DWELLING UNIT AND FOR DEVELOPMENT FEES, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE $723 PER DWELLING UNIT IN NONRESIDENTIAL WOULD BE $2125

PER ACRE OF DEVELOPMENT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THE MULTI-FAMILY IS SO MUCH LOWER THAN THE SINGLE-FAMILY.

I WOULD THINK YOUR HOUSEHOLD SIZE MIGHT BE HALF SO YOUR USAGE

[03:15:04]

OF PARKS WILL BE HALF OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY WHY IS IT 70%?

>> THE IMPACT IS NOT AS GREAT. >> THE IMPACT IS THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE WHY IS THE IMPACT NOT AS GREAT AS THE PEOPLE IN THE

NUMBER OF THE DWELLING UNIT. >> FOR MULTI-FAMILY?

WHERE IS THE 70% COMING FROM. >> 17% OF PER DWELLING UNIT FOR

SINGLE-FAMILY. >> GET 17.3% THAT'S WHAT THAT WORKS OUT TO $198 VERSUS 1147. YOU DO NOT HAVE OVER FIVE TIMES AS MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE AS YOU DO AS A MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENT. WHY IS THERE THAT BIG OF A

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO. >> GIVE A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT I GUESS THE QUESTION A THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT WOULD BE THREE DWELLING UNITS OR IS IT ONE?

>> ONE APARTMENT, ONE DWELLING. >> THE POINT YOU COULD HAVE A THREE BEDROOM HOUSE OR THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT.

THE HOUSE IS GETTING PAID $1100 BUT THE THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT THAT WOULD HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE WANTING TO USE THE

PARK IS ONLY PAYING 198. >> THAT IS A HUGE DISCONNECT.

>> THE BASIS OF THE CALCULATION HOW MUCH SPACE THE DWELLING UNIT TAKES UP AN ACREAGE AND HAS NOTHING TO DO HOW MUCH DEMAND

THEY PUT ON THE PARKS. >> TO YOUR POINT I WOULD SAY AS WE MOVE FORWARD WE PROBABLY HAVE MORE MULTI-FAMILY AND WERE TAKING LESS MONEY INTO IT SO THEN WE HAVE A GREATER STRAIN ON PARKS AND LESS COMMUNION AND BECAUSE OF THE DENSITY IS INCREASING YOU NEED MORE PARK SPACE SO THEY HAVE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE BECAUSE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE HAS THEIR OWN BACKYARD WHERE THEY COULD PUT A SWINGSET THEY WANTED IN THEORY OR A TRAMPOLINE OR WHATEVER AND UP APARTMENT DOES NOT. ALL THEY WOULD HAVE IS A PARK TO GO TO. ENTER COUNTER TO THAT IS PROBABLY MOST MULTI-FAMILY ARE KNOCKING TO PAY THE FEE IN LIEU OF BECAUSE WITH HER GETTING PEOPLE TO GO TO THEIR APARTMENTS BY HAVING THE PLAYGROUND PARK AREA.

>> IF IT'S NOT 15 ACRES IT DOES NOT COUNT IS ON THE CITY PARK

THEY CANNOT DO THAT. >> THE NEW ORDINANCE DOES NOT GIVE CREDIT FOR THE VALUE ADDED AMENITIES IN THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> WE DID HAVE A DRAFT OR PREVIOUS DRAFT WHERE WE JUST ASSUMED ALL DWELLING UNITS REGARDLESS OF SINGLE-FAMILY OR MULTI-FAMILY COMING AT THE SAME WAY WHICH IS AN OPTION IT DOES CREATE SOME PRETTY LARGE FEES ON PER ACRE BASIS FOR A SITE SO THIS IS THE OPTION TO NOT BE -- IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER.

>> ALMOST NONE OF OUR COST FOR MULTI-FAMILY ARE BASED ON THE ACREAGE THEY ARE BASED ON HOW THE PEOPLE YOUR CRAMMING INTO GIVING AN ACREAGE WHETHER TRAFFIC, WATER, WASTEWATER IT'S ALL THE SAME THE ACREAGE OF THE MULTI-FAMILY DOES NOT MATTER.

IF YOU BUILD HIGHER WE NEED MORE WATER, WASTEWATER AND PARKS SO THE ACREAGE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT IN MY MIND IT'S ALL ABOUT THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE.

IF YOU GIVE ME A CALCULATION THAT SAYS MULTI-FAMILY HAS 1.7 PEOPLE PER DWELLING UNIT IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY HAS 2.99 THEN WE CAN BASE IT ON THAT. WITHOUT THAT I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO BASE IT ON AND THEY'RE BOTH DWELLING UNITS.

>> WHICH ARE THE CADET THAT THERE'S NO CENSUS DATA TO SHOW.

THERE'S NO POPULATION DATA ON THE HOUSEHOLD DENSITY OF POPULATION FOR MULTI-FAMILY. UNLESS WE START A SURVEY.

THE CENSUS DOES NOT CALCULATE OR RECORD THE INFORMATION AND YOU HAVE SO FEW DWELLING UNITS AT THE TIME OF THE CENSUS OF MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING. THIS IS A RELATIVELY NEW PHENOMENON IF YOU LOOK IN THE STUDY DOCTOR JOHN CROMPTON A PROFESSOR AT TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY DID A STUDY OF 48 TEXAS CITIES. IN MOST CASES THEY DID NOT HAVE METHODOLOGY. BUT THOSE THAT DID BASED ON POPULATION. BUT THERE WAS DISCREPANCIES IN A NUMBER OF CITIES IN THE WAY THAT THEY DO IT THEY WERE USING OWNER VERSUS RENTER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITS TO DETERMINE WHAT WAS MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY AND THAT'S RATHER DISINGENUOUS IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT. THERE IS PLENTY OF RENTERS IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

OWNER-OCCUPIED VERSUS RENTER OCCUPIED IS A METRIC FOR THAT.

>> ANY COUNTERPOINT TO THE WAY THAT HE IS CALCULATED.

[03:20:02]

THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND YOU BUILD HOW MUCH OF THE LAND INSIDE OF THE CITY IS BEING CONSUMED. WHAT THEY SAY YOU HAVE THIS AMOUNT OF FREE SPACE IN THE CITY SO IF YOU BUILD SEVERAL HOMES THAT HAVE THREE PEOPLE IN THEM THEY CONSUME 10 ACRES VERSUS A MULTI-FAMILY THE SAME 10 PEOPLE BUT THERE ON 1 ACRE SO THERE'S K VERSE IN THE MULTI-FAMILY BUT IN THE SINGLE-FAMILY THEY CONSUME 10 ACRES SO THE 10 ACRES ARE GONE FROM THE MARKETPLACE SAID BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO BUY THE ADDITIONAL LIEN.

THERE'S WHERE THEY COME IN AN ADDITIONAL WAY OF LOOKING AT IT I AGREE BUT YOU COULD ARGUE THIS METHODOLOGY IS BASED ON SCARCITY OF THE LAND WHICH IS WHY WHEN THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT TAKES A BIG THING THEY HAVE A HIGH FEE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LARGE CHUNK OF AVAILABLE LAND SPACE IN THE CITY AND THE PAIN THE PARKLAND FEE THE IDEA WE WOULD BUY THE LAND THAT'S WHY THE MULTI-FAMILY PRICES THEY ARE SAYING YOU NEED TO BUY THE LAND BUT THEY'RE NOT CONSUMING MORE ACREAGE SO YOU COULD BUY THE LAND AT THE LOWER PRICE BUT THEY ASSUME THE OTHER 9 ACRES OF THE FAMILY WOULD.

>> DO YOU AGREE WITH WHAT HE SAYING.

>> 100% OF THE CITY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS ON THE ORDINANCE.

THE FEE FOR MULTI-FAMILY IS LOWER THAN THAT OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. AND HAD A MULTI-FAMILY IS CURRENTLY VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY AT $300 WHICH IS A LITTLE LESS THAN DOUBLE. THAT IS A TREND MULTI-FAMILY NOT TO PAY EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUNT THERE IS HIGHER DENSITY AND LESS OF AN IMPACT OVERALL IN TERMS OF LAND LIKE YOU'RE SAYING.

>> THIS REMINDS ME OF YELLOWSTONE A DEAL WHERE HE FIRED HIS WHOLE CABINET I DON'T IF YOU KNOW THE EPISODE.

>> I'M ON SEASON FIVE. >> THEY WERE DOING SOLAR FIELDS AND SCRUB BRUSH A BIRD. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME IF YOU THROW IN 800 UNITS ON 10 ACRES THAT THE 800 UNITS YOU SAY IS NOT QUITE THE SAME IT'S LIKE A PRICE OF THE HOUSE.

SOMETHING TELLS ME BEING REALISTIC NOT THE MAJORITY BUT MORE PEOPLE WHO OWN A HOME WITH A BACKYARD PROBABLY UTILIZE A FAR LESS THEN 800 PEOPLE CRAMMED ON 10 ACRES THAT THEY DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO WALK THE DOG. TO CHARGE THOSE PEOPLE DRAMATICALLY LESS OR THE BUILDERS DRAMATICALLY LESS TO ME DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I WOULD ALSO TELL YOU AUSTIN IS LOOKING AT A NONBUSINESS COMMERCIAL PARK FEE BUT ALMOST NO OTHER CITY HAS ONE IN THIS AREA.

>> I THINK THERE ARE THREE IN THE STATE.

>> THERE IS THREE AND WERE TRYING TO ATTRACT BUSINESS SO TO ME THIS LOOKS LIKE A TAX ON BUSINESS BECAUSE I WANT YOU TO BUILD AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING, BUT IF YOU DO BUILD IN YOUR MARKETING USER PARK SYSTEM ALL HIT YOU WITH ANOTHER TAX JUST FOR COMING IN WITHIN REALITY THE TAX AUDIT GO TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING WHICH IS NEW RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE.

I THROW THAT OUT THERE AND GET A WRITE THAT DOWN IT'LL BE ONE OF THREE CITIES TAXING BUSINESSES FOR OUR PARKS WHICH I IMAGINE IF WE HAD TOO MUCH COMMERCIAL GROWTH WE COULD SLOW IT DOWN.

WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF ALL OF THIS? THE WHOLE THING FOR FEE-ONLY WHAT IS THERE PURPOSE ARE WE WANTING MORE MONEY FOR PARKS, ARE WE WANTING MORE PARKS?

>> THE PURPOSE IN THE FIRST PLACE IS TO ACQUIRE MORE PARKS.

THE PROBLEM WITH THE SMALLER ACREAGE WITH LAND DEDICATION THEY TEND TO BE LESS DESIRABLE PROPERTIES IN THE STRIPS OF UNUSABLE LAND AND YOU END UP WITH UNDESIRABLE LOCATIONS AND THE PUBLIC INPUT AND TRAILS MASTER PLAN SIGNET DECLENSION INDICATED HIS DESIRE FOR MORE COMMUNITY PARKS AND NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND I WAS NOT PART OF THE MOST RECENT ORDINANCE REVISION BUT THAT WAS THE GENERAL PREMISE OF LIMITING IT TO 15-ACRE PARCELS WERE LARGER FOR LAND DEDICATION THE FEE IN LIEU OF IS TO GET THE LAND AND THE DEVELOPMENT FEES ARE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THE LIEN.

>> HERE'S WHY I BRING IT UP HE IS A CONSULTANT YOU ARE THE GUY RUNNING IT IS HE RIGHT THAT'S WHAT WERE TRYING TO DO?

>> THERE WERE THREE SECTIONS OF ITEMS THAT WE NEEDED TO UPDATE

[03:25:02]

THE HAD BEEN UPDATED SINCE 2011. THE STANDARD OF CARE WHICH WE TOOK CARE OF IN OCTOBER. THE PARKS AND RECREATION ORDINANCE THAT WE TOOK ADVANTAGE OF.

I THANK YOU GUYS ADOPTED IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR OR MAYBE DECEMBER OF LAST YEAR. AND LASTLY PARKS AND RECREATION OPEN-SPACE DEDICATION AND JUST TO UPDATE THAT, IT IS BEEN 12 YEARS, 12 OR 13 YEARS SINCE WE UPDATED THAT.

ALONG WITH THAT WE UPDATED THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE 15-ACRE MINIMUMS WE HAVE NOT UPDATED THE FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT IN THE SECTION AND ORDINANCES IN THIS SECTION WE ADOPTED APART LAND UNDER PARKLAND 6.09 THE PARKS MASTER PLAN IS A REFERENCE GUIDE FOR OUR FEES SO WERE ASKING TO UPDATE THE METHODOLOGY THAT WE USE THE PARKS MASTER PLAN TO HAVE ME TO THE ORDINANCES THAT WE JUST ADOPTED FOR THE PARKLAND.

>> WHY ARE WE CHARGING FEES FOR PARKLAND? WHAT IS THE POINT OF THAT. I THINK ANOTHER POINT BUT I WANT TO KNOW FROM STAFF WHY ARE WE TRYING TO CHARGE MONEY TO DEVELOPERS WHAT IS THE POINT OF THAT WHY EVEN DO THAT AT ALL?

>> NO OFFENSE HE'S THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BREAK THE BUDGET

NEXT YEAR. >> SURE IT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT THAT WE HAVE TWO CHARGE THAT FEE FOR EITHER IMPACTING OUR PARKS OR ADDING NEW PARKS AS OUR CITY GROWS.

THAT IS WHY IT'S GONE TO THE TEXAS STATE CONSTITUTION THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AND THEY WEIGHED IN AND SAID WE HAVE

A AUTHORITY TO CHARGE US. >> HERE'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. I ASSUME THE REASON WAS WE WANTED FOR DEVELOPMENT TO HELP NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE COMING INTO DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR BETTER PARKS.

I DON'T VOTE FOR STUFF JUST BECAUSE YOU NEVER WRITE YOU WOULDN'T WANT ME TO USE MOST OF THEM PROBABLY.

I LOOK AT THE BUDGET AND I ALWAYS GO BACK TO THIS BUDGET.

LAST YEAR ESTIMATING WE TOOK $340,000 IN PARK FEES.

ACCORDING TO YOUR THING WE COULD NOT BY AN ACRE OF LAND WITH THAT. IN 2021 THE NOMINAL YEAR WORDS NEVER GET TO GO THAT FAST WE TOOK IN 700,000.

WHAT I GOT OUT OF THIS WE ARE RAISING PARK FEES WE ARE RAISING THE FEE UP AND IF THE POINT IS THIS IS AN ECONOMIC THING TO GENERATE MORE MONEY TO DO SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW THAT RAISING THE FEE IS GOING TO GET PEOPLE TO DO IT.

IN THREE YEARS WE HAVE COLLECTED $1 MILLION SO AT THE RATE THAT WERE GOING IT'LL TAKE 10 YEARS OF COLLECTING THE OLD FEE SCHEDULE BEFORE YOU CAN BUY ENOUGH LAND TO DREAM ABOUT BUILDING SOMETHING ON IT. SOMETIMES THE IDEAS COLLECT MORE MONEY AND YOU DON'T ALWAYS RAISE THE PRICE OF THINGS BECAUSE PEOPLE MAY BUILD MORE PARKS AND IS PROBABLY NOT WHAT YOU WANT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT 15-ACRE PARKS AROUND THE PLACE.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING WHAT IS THE PURPOSE.

IF IT IS TO RAISE MORE MONEY I THINK WERE GOING ABOUT IT THE WRONG WAY, TAXING BUSINESSES IS NOT MUCH MONEY BUT ANOTHER TAX, TAXING SINGLE-FAMILY, THIS YEAR IT'S GOING DOWN.

HOW DOES THIS WORK FOR HORIZONTAL RENTALS.

YOU DOING EVERYTHING AND THEY HAVE A NAME FOR IT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT LOOKS LIKE A NEIGHBORHOOD BUT THEY'RE ALL RENTING UNITS BUT THEY ARE 40-FOOT LOTS OR 30-FOOT LOTS NOT 65 OR 70.

>> ARE CALLED BUILD TO RENT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE ARE CAPTURING ENOUGH THE METHODOLOGY HOWEVER, WE'RE GOING

TO DO IF THAT'S CAPTURED IN. >> THAT POINT I WOULD BELIEVE IT SPECIFICALLY OUTLINES WHAT IS A RESIDENTIAL AND WHAT IS THE NONRESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE PREFER TO THAT TO BE CONSIDERED MULTI-FAMILY. AGAIN I DON'T HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN BUY A FIVE, SIX, 700,000-DOLLAR HOUSE AS THE WAY JIM SAID ON HIS BOND TALK OUR HOUSES CAN BE WORTH A MILLION DOLLARS IN FIVE YEARS SO MORE PEOPLE ARE GETTING GO TO THE BILL TO RENTAL COMMUNITIES. IF THEY ARE BUILT LIKE A REGULAR HOME BUT THEIR MULTI-FAMILY HOME AND WE ARE CHARGING THEM LIKE A MULTI-FAMILY. IN REALITY THEY SHOULD BE CHARGED LIKE A REGULAR HOUSE I WOULD THINK THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. I DID HAVE THE SIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY MULTI-FAMILY IS SOLO AND I HAD QUESTION I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW NONRESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY INCREASES PROPERTY.

YOU SAID THAT TO START OFF WITH AN EYE DON'T KNOW IF THE

[03:30:02]

WAREHOUSE COMES UP AND BUILDS 5S INCREASING OUR NEED FOR BARBECUES. IT MAY DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF AVAILABLE LAND FOR PARK BUT I CANNOT BEHIND FEW BUILDING INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IT DOES NOT MAKE MY FAMILY WANT TO GO TO THE PARK MORE. I THINK WE HAVE TO RETHINK THIS WHOLE PROCESS BECAUSE DEPENDING ON WHAT YOUR GOAL IS THE GOAL IS TO RAISE MONEY AND NOTHING REALLY TO BUT TO BUILD MORE PARKS AND UPDATE PLANS THE LAST THING I HAVE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS COST TO DO BUT I CANNOT FIND IT IN THE BUDGET EITHER.

I'M NOT TRY TO BE FUNNY BUT THERE WAS NO ENHANCEMENT WE DID ALL THE STUDIES. I DON'T HOW MUCH THIS COST AND WHAT LINE ITEM THE SCHEMATIC. BUT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE BUDGET ABOUT UPDATING AND HIRING HER TO DO ALL THIS.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A MASTER AGREEMENT.

WE DO BUT I'M STRUGGLING I DO WANT TO HAVE MASTER AGREEMENTS.

SOMETIMES I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW ARE WE UPDATING IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW BEFORE WE DID IT AND THEN WE COULD'VE TALKED ABOUT IT FIRST AND SAID HERE'S WHAT WE ARE THINKING IN THE GUISE COULD'VE GONE AND COME UP WITH A PLAN BASED ON WHAT WE THINK IS WHAT WE WANT AND YOU COULD'VE SHOWED US WHY WE WERE WRONG OR RIGHT. GOING BACK TO YOUR STATEMENT MAY OR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEDICATION THEY HAVE THE LIMIT MEETS THE CRITERIA AND APPROVED BY THE PARKS BOARD THEN WE ACCEPT THE LAND. IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE LAND REQUIREMENTS THEN WE DEFER TO THE FEES.

IT COULD BE A COMBINATION DEPENDING ON WHERE THEY ARE AT IF THEIR PROJECTED LAND MEETS WITH THE PARKS MASTER PLAN THEN WE COULD TAKE THE LAND. IF WE DON'T WE DEFER TO THE FEES. THE IDEA IS TO GROW FINANCIALLY OR TO GROW AND LAND RIGHT NOW LIKE YOU MENTIONED WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EITHER WAY. ONE OF THE GOALS IS TO HAVE MORE LAND FOR POTENTIAL PARKLAND OR MORE FUNDS TO IMPROVE OUR

EXISTING PARKS. >> DO WE WANT MORE PARKLANE BECAUSE WE CAN TAKE CARE OF THE PARKLAND THAT WE GOT AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DRIVES TO THE PARKS AND SAY THEY IMPROVE NICE AS A COUNSEL DO WE WANT MORE PARKLANE OR DO WE WANT MORE MONEY TO FIX THE PARKS WE HAVE OR DO WE WANT ACCOMMODATION.

>> THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE PLAN THAT YOU GUYS ADOPTED.

THAT IS THE CRITERIA. IF THEY MEET THE CRITERIA FOR THE LAND WE ACCEPT IT IF THEY DON'T THEN THEY HAVE TO PAY THE

FEES. >> AND THINK WITH THE MAYOR IS GETTING OUT WE NEED A STRATEGIC DISCUSSION OF WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO SET A PRIORITIZING AND BUYING NEW LAND.

>> WE CAN HAVE A BIG DISAGREEMENT BECAUSE WE NEED TO BUY LAND WHEN IT'S AVAILABLE WE DON'T NEED TO DEVELOP IT BUT IF WE DON'T GET THE LAND WHEN WE HAVE A CHANCE TO WE WILL NEVER GET IT. THERE IS A TRADE-OFF THERE.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT I GO WITH HOW WE'VE DONE SOME GOOD THINGS IN THE PAST AND LOTS OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES LOOKING AT WATER, WASTEWATER ALL THESE THINGS.

HAS COUNSEL EVER VOTED IT'S ALWAYS COME BACK AND SAID WE ARE NOT GOING TO VOTE ON THIS UNTIL YOU GIVE US AN ANALYSIS OF THE SURROUNDING AREAS BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT IS TAYLOR, GROUND ROCK, GEORGETOWN, NONE OF THAT IS PRESENTED. I CANNOT VOTE ON THIS WITHOUT

HISTRIONICS BETWEEN THE OTHERS. >> I'M GOING TO LOOK AT BEN FOR CLARIFICATION. WE ORIGINALLY WERE LOOKING AT HER SIMPLE CITIES AND SURVEY CITIES TO DO THAT.

I'LL LET BEN FILL IN THE REST. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK AND THE REST OF THE COUNCIL WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK TO OTHER CITIES AS A FIELD TO SEE WHAT DIFFERENT RATES ARE SET UP.

WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED IN THE STUDY HERE AND DISCUSS BRIEFLY ON THE LEGAL BACKGROUND IT WOULD NOT LIKELY MEET THE CONSTITUTIONAL TEST OF OUR PROPORTIONALITY AT THE CITY OF HUTTO WERE SAYING WERE SETTING OUR FEE AT THIS BECAUSE THE AVERAGE BETWEEN THE SIX CITIES AROUND US.

WHAT WE HAVE TO TIE IT BACK TO HIS OR HER LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR PARKLANE WITHIN THE CITY OF HUTTO IN THE ATTACHMENTS THERE.

>> WHEN WE DO THAT BEFORE WE CALCULATED THE MAX FEE ALOUD BASED ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS WE WE'RE GOING TO DO AND THAT'S A NUMBER. THAT WOULD BE THE MAX THAT WE CAN SET IT HAS TO BE JUSTIFIED BY LAW.

THAT NUMBER BECAUSE WE ARE A GROWING CITY IF WE ADOPTED THAT

[03:35:01]

WILL PUT US AT THE HIGHEST IN A 200-MILE RADIUS SO WE ADOPTED SOMETHING LOWER SO WE WEREN'T THE MOST EXPENSIVE AND ALL OF THE AREA. THAT IS STILL JUSTIFIED BECAUSE YOUR UNDER THE NUMBER THAT IS THE TRIGGER BASED ON THE STATE LAW THAT IS THE SAME THING I'M ASKING HERE WE HAVE THIS BASED ON STATE LAW BUT WE COULD ADOPT LESS AND THAT IS PERFECTLY LEGAL AND FINE BUT I CANNOT MAKE THE DETERMINATION IF I DON'T HAVE A BASELINE OF OTHER THINGS AROUND ME.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT. AS I SAID I THANK YOU COULD DO THE SURVEY TO DETERMINE THAT WE CAN'T BASE OUR MAXIMUM BASED OFF

OF THE SERVICE. >> RIGHTS, I WAS NOT SAYING T

THAT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO GO PLEASE.

>> DID THIS GO TO PARKS IN RECORD?

>> NO THIS IS NOT GOING TO AUCTION BACK.

>> I KNOW MAYOR TOUCHED ON THIS THE BUILD TO RENT THE BECAUSE I THAT WE APPROVED BUT ESPECIALLY LIKE PIGS I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 14 - 19L UES WHENEVER HE DOING MULTI FAMILY.

A LOT OF THE PODS AND PIGS ARE OUTSIDE OF THOSE THEY'VE GONE FOR VARIANCE, SOMETIMES A SLOWER INNER FAVOR BUT A LOT OF TIMES THE VARIANCES ASKED FOR MORE LIKE 22 PER ACRE.

SO DO YOU FEEL LIKE THAT IS ADEQUATELY CAPTURED IN THE ST STUDY. WEIRD OUTLINING PODS, PITS, THE QUASI-TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENTS? WHAT CATEGORY WOULD THEY FALL INTO BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT INTO THE 14 - 19 THE NUMBER THAT WAS

PRESENTED HERE. >> THAT WAS BASED ON A CLEAR DEFINITION IN THE ZONING FOR MAXIMUM PER ACRE BUT IF THERE'S HYBRIDS AND OTHER SCENARIOS. A BIG QUESTION DOES IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO GO WITH THE STREET PER HOUSEHOLD FEE REGARDLESS OF THE DENSITY THAT'S BEEN DONE IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AWAY.

YOU ALREADY HAD A MULTI-FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE-FAMILY SYSTEM IN PLACE. WE JUST LOOKED AT HOW TO MAKE THE FEE SOMETHING THAT IS REPRODUCIBLE AND I THINK OVER

TIME. >> ANYTIME THERE'S MORE ADDITIONS OR PLOTS OR HOUSES THE DEVELOPER SUBDIVISION IS RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING ANY ADDITIONAL FEES OR PROVIDING

ADDITIONAL LAND. >> WHICH ONE WOULD I PAY I'M NOT A 14 NUMBER 12 SO DO I PAY MULTI-FAMILY.

>> I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HAVE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT. >> I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF THE QUASI-DWELLINGS THAT DON'T FALL INTO THE SINGLE-FAMILY BUT THEY'RE NOT QUITE AS HIGH. THEN WE HAVE SOME THAT ARE OVER THE 19, SOME EARLY 22. I THINK THE FEES ARE OUTDATED.

WE HAVE UPDATED ALL OF THE IMPACT FEES THIS IS A DECADE OLD SO THAT MAY BE PART OF THE REASON WHY THE MONEY IS NOT CATCHING. THIS IS 12 YEARS OLD AND HAS NOT BEEN UPDATED AND IF I RECALL WHEN YOU FIRST BROUGHT THIS I THOUGHT THE COUNCIL HAD HAD A CONVERSATION THAT WE ARE SEVERELY LACKING IN PARKLAND, PER PERSON IN THE CITY OF HUTTO WE ARE LACKING. THAT'S MY UNDERSTAND THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE THE FEE IN LIEU OF AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OHIO.

WE WANTED THE USABLE PARK SPACE, NOT THE FLOODPLAIN THAT 1R GAVE US. IT IS NOT USABLE FOR ANYTHING WE WOULD WANT TO USE IT FOR. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE COUNCIL DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN IN ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHERE WE WERE LEANING TO BUT WE WOULD STILL DO THE FEE IN LIEU OF AN OPTION I THINK WE ARE SEVERELY BEHIND IN PARK SPACE.

THE COMP PLAN THE COMMUNITY SURVEY, EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE GETTING OUT. THESE ARE ALL HIGH RATED THINGS THAT THE CITY WERE CITIZENS ARE WANTING MORE PARK SPACE AND WE NEED TO IMPROVE ON WHAT WE HAVE. EITHER WAY I THINK THE FEES NEED TO BE UPDATED AND BE MORE BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE COLLECTING RIGHT NOW IS 12 YEARS OLD AND WAY BEHIND THE CURVE BALL.

WE ARE NEVER GOING TO CATCH UP WITH YOU TO UPDATE THESE SOM SOMEHOW. I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF MORE PARKLAND THAN OUR FEE IN LIEU OF.

[03:40:01]

THAT WAS JUST MY RECOLLECTION OF THE COUNCILS CONVERSATION IN THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE A FEW MONTHS AGO.

>> I WOULD USE DIFFERENT ADJECTIVES BASICALLY BUT IN AGREEMENT ON THE SUBSTANCE I'M NOT TRYING TO SET AN ABSORBENT FEE I'M TRYING TO SET A FEE THAT GIVES US A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY TO SUPPLY THE PARKS WITH THE PEOPLE COMING IN ARE GOING TO DEMAND AND GOING TO USE. ONE THING DON'T WE HAVE DIFFERENT LU WE VERSUS A SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS A MULTI-FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT. >> SENSE THAT IS MAJORING THE LITERAL HUMAN IMPACT ON OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER THAT IS A RATIO THAT SHOULD WORK JUST FINE FOR MEASURING THE IMPACT ON OUR PARKS IT IS NOT PERFECT BASED IN REALITY AND BASED IN CITY SERVICES THAT WE CAN MEASURE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WITNESS A MULTI-FAMILY UNIT IS WHATEVER THE LU WE.

>> I AGREE. >> 1147 PER DWELLING AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIPLY FOR MULTI-FAMILY OR WHATEVER THE DEVELOPMENT HAS CHARGED AND THAT'S WHAT SETS

THEIR FEE. >> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO SHOW

IN THE QUALITY. >> IS AN INTERESTING QUESTION

HAS BEEN PROPOSED. >> CROMPTON STUDY WHICH EVALUATED AT THE SUPREME COURT U.S. SUPREME COURT LEVEL DECIDED IT MIGHT BE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT.

THEY SAID IT WAS NOT AN IMPACT FEE.

THERE WAS SOME LEGAL DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN IMPACT IN PARK DEDICATION FEE. SO HOW THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED

MY OWN QUESTION I SEE THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING PER UNIT SO THEN WHAT DOES A MULTI-FAMILY FALL UNDER DOES IT FALL UNDER THE NONRESIDENTIAL.

IF IT DOES BECAUSE IT'S A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THAT PEOPLE ARE RENTING FROM, THEN I WOULD WANT TO BREAK IT OUT BETWEEN DIFFERENT ZONING NUMBERS SO IT'S A BLANK WAREHOUSE IT ISN'T $2000 FOR THE BLANK WAREHOUSE BUT WILL CAPTURE THE MULTI-FAMILY THEN IS THE PARK OUTSIDE I THINK WE NEED TO DO A REVISION OF COMING BACK AND HAVING THE SAMPLE SIZE LOOKING AROUND THE AREA.

>> LOOKING AT L UES, SOME OF THE ACRONYMS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE AS AN OPTION WE HAVE TO RUN THAT BY LEGAL.

>> COULD YOU DO IT BASED ON ZONING LIKE B-1 IS A GAS STATION AND A NAIL SALON. OBVIOUSLY THE USAGE IS GOING TO BE WAY DIFFERENT I DON'T OFFEND SOMETHING THE STATE ALLOWS BASED

ON ZONING. >> TO CLARIFY ON THE LEGAL ASPECT THERE WILL NOT BE A LOT OF GREAT CLEAR LEGAL GUIDANCE BECAUSE I THINK THE PHRASE WAS USED EARLIER NO PRECISE MATHEMATICAL FORMULA APPLIED BY THE COURTS IS THE BROADER NOR NOTIONS OF PROPORTIONALITY. HIS THINGS WE CAN LOOK AT AND EXAMINE ON THESE IDEAS AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY PARTICULAR CASES THAT HAVE COME UP. BUT I WOULD NOT ANTICIPATE THAT WE WOULD RUN INTO A LOT OF CLEAR GUIDANCE BUT WE WILL DO WHAT WE CAN TO FIGURE IT OUT AT THIS TIME.

>> WE ESSENTIALLY DON'T LIKE THE WAY THAT THESE ARE BEING CALCULATED I THINK WE HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS OF HOW IT CAN BE CALCULATED AND MAYBE TO GIVE MY DIRECTION I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE PARKLAND ITSELF I DON'T WANT THE FEES IN LIEU OF PERSONALLY EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE WHAT THEY PREFER.

>> I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY IS DATA DRIVEN BUT ONE LU EE THAT COULD BE HOME BUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT THAT COULD BE A RESTAURANT BUT IF YOU PICK UP AT THE RESTAURANT AS ONE LUE, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT IF THEY WASH DISHES, TOILETS.

>> IS BASED ON WHAT THE GETTING YOU.

>> 5 - 10 DEPENDING ON HOW A CITY WANTS TO TREAT YOU.

IF THEY NEED MONEY THEY COULD CHARGE MORE.

>> THAT IS TIED INTO YOUR REQUEST.

>> NO THERE IS A BOOK OR SOMETHING SOME KIND OF GUIDELINE

[03:45:05]

LIKE A RESTAURANT IF YOU DO AN OFFICE BUILDING HOW MANY SINKS AND TOILETS SO NOW YOU HAVE PEOPLE NOT PUTTING RESTROOMS AND TO SAVE MONEY BECAUSE YOUR IMPACT RESEARCH ARE HIGH IT IS

RIDICULOUS. >> ALL THE OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE BEEN TESTED FOR PARK DEDICATION.

IT'S ALWAYS -- THE ONES I HAVE A METRIC SUMMER ARBITRARILY PUTTING NUMBERS ON. IT'S ALWAYS BASED ON POPULATION.

YOU CAN GET THERE MATHEMATICALLY FROM ANY NUMBER OF WAYS WHETHER THE CENSUS DATA WAREHOUSING UNITS OR NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. WERE LIMITED ONLY BY THE DATA AVAILABLE IF WE WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY. SIMPLE IS BEST, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SKIP THE DEVELOPMENT BUT YOU WANT FEES TO BE PAID, EVERY DEVELOPER SAYS HOW MUCH AND W WHEN.

WIND IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST FACTORS A SLOWDOWN OF STRANGE CALCULATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT'S MORE OF A DETERRENT THAN ACTUAL FEE SOMETHING SIMPLE AND EASY TO CALCULATE THE CAPUT INTO THE MODEL AND IF THEY HAVE TO ADD OR SUBTRACT A FEW MORE LOTS IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE

THAT WORK THEN THEY DO SO. >> HE GOES BACK TO WHAT JORDAN SAID WHAT ARE EXACTLY RETURN TO COLLEGE? THE IDEA IS TO GET MONEY PAID WE TALKED ABOUT FEES BEING 14 YEARS OLD FOR THE MULTI-FAMILY FEE WAS $175 AN HOUR UPDATING TO 198.

WERE ONLY TALKING $23. UNDER THE OLD METHODOLOGY AND 800 UNIT APARTMENT COMPLEX A DOING ON EXCHANGE HE HAD TO PAY $140,000. UNDER THE NEW 1,158,000 I'LL TAKE 18000 IS CHANGING HOW DOES PARK SYSTEM ANYTIME SOON IF YOU BUILT 1600 HOMES THAT HAVE THEIR OWN BACKYARD AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT I WOULD HAVE TO PAY 1.8 MILLION SO SOMETHING TELLS ME. I THINK THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT AS A BODY WHAT WE WANT TO HAPPEN IN AS A CITY YOU HAVE TO DECIDE WHAT YOU TRY TO ACCOMPLISH PRE-WHO CAN USE MORE PARKS MAYBE YOU SHOULD STUDY THE EXACT SAME PEOPLE IT DOESN'T MATTER IF YOU LIVE IN A HUNDRED SQUARE-FOOT BEDROOM WITH A FAMILY OF FIVE WHEN THEY USE THE PARK AS MUCH OF A 3500 SQUARE-FOOT HOME. SOMETHING TELLS ME 1600 APARTMENT UNITS ARE GOING TO USE MORE PARKLAND AND MORE CITY SERVICES IN 1600 HOMES BUT WE MAY ENTER AN ERA OF MULTI-FAMILY AND A BUNCH OF RENT TO BUILD SO WE DEVELOP ALL THE SYSTEM AND WERE HITTING THE HOMEOWNERS IN THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES AND WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING WE DON'T DO ANY OF THOSE PER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WHY ARE WEAKENING ANY MONEY.

WERE NOT GETTING MONEY BECAUSE THE APARTMENT GUY IS THE ONE THAT IS GETTING BUILDING. WE GOTTA THINK OF WHAT WE WANT AND WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO FIX AND WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE.

>> ADDICT WE ALL AGREE 17% DIFFERENT I THINK WE ALL AGREE ONE INDEED IS TOO LOW IT IS WAY TOO LOW.

>> WE WENT IN BLIND TO WHAT THE OUTCOME IS GOING TO BE.

TO MAKE A METRIC THAT IS DEFENDABLE AND REPEATABLE AND NOT TO FIND OUT WHAT THAT FEE. WE DO NOT HAVE A GOAL OR TARGET THRESHOLD IT ENDED UP BEING MORE IN THE METHODOLOGY SIGNIFICANTLY MORE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY BUT NOT MULTI-FAMILY THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED BY REVIEWING THE METHODOLOGY AND TO PUT SOMETHING ON PAPER THAT IS AN ACTUAL METHODOLOGY.

IT WAS A NEVER PULLED OUT OF A HAT EXTENSIVELY THERE IS NO METHODOLOGY WRITTEN IN THE ORDINANCE AND EXPLAIN HOW THE NUMBER WAS ACHIEVED AT $300 PER DWELLING UNIT.

THAT'S A CASE OF MOST OF THE CITIES IN TEXAS AND THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED WAS ARGUING IN HIS PAPER THESE ARE NOT DEFENSIVE IN COURT. AND OFTEN THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE

IS COPY VERBATIM IN SOME CASES. >> WHAT GIVES SENSE TRANSIT DEVELOPMENT AND MAYBE THERE IS A BETTER WAY IN DEALING WITH

MULTI-FAMILY ISSUES. >> WE NEED TO DO A POPULATION MORE THAN JUST LAND IS A BLEND OF THE TWO AND YOU GET THERE WITH THE PARTS OF A MOVIE EXCEPT INNOCENT NONRESIDENTIAL APARTMENT. THERE IS NO DELINEATION OR

VARIATION BETWEEN THE TWO. >> I WOULD ADD TO THE

[03:50:05]

MULTI-FAMILY CONVERSATION. WE ARE CONCERNED IS TOO LOW BECAUSE THE PEOPLE IN THE APARTMENT COMPLEXES GOING TO USE THE PARKS MORE. I'M IN THE THOUGHT PROCESS OF THEIR GOING TO USE THEM LESS. MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT FOCUSED ON KEEPING THE RESIDENCE THERE AND BUILDING PARKS IN POOLS AND GYMS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO LEAVE HOME OR LEAVE THE AREA.

HAVING LIVED IN APARTMENT WITH MY CHILDREN IN THE MULTI-FAMILY MORE THAN A USE A CITY PARK. IT'S A DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESS IN MY REGARD. I THANK YOU COME HOME FROM WORK AND YOU TAKE YOUR KIDS ON TAKEN TO THE PARK RIGHT THERE IN YOUR COMMUNITY AND NOT GET THEM IN THE CAR AND LOAD UP AND GO

SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> WHAT IS LIVING IN A HOUSE MAKE YOU LOSE YOUR KIDS UP AND DROVE ACROSS TOWN TO GO TO THAT

PART. >> UNLESS YOU CAN AFFORD TO

BUILD A PARK IN YOUR BACKYARD. >> AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND IF I LIVE IN A HOUSE AND MORE LIKELY TO COME HOME GRAB THE KIDS AND DROVE TO A PARK. BUT IF I LIVE IN AN APARTMENT I

MOST LIKELY TO DO THAT. >> NOT WHEN YOU HAVE A PARK

RIGHT THERE TO GO TO. >> WHAT DOES THE PARK LOOK LIKE A CRUMBLE CREEK DO THEY EVEN HAVE ONE.

>> OBJECTIVE MULTI-FAMILY COMMUNITY.

>> I'VE NEVER BEEN IN THE. >> I DON'T KNOW I THINK THEY

JUST HAVE A POOL. >> I'M NOT CAN ARGUE THE POINT I'M JUST STATING MY THOUGHT PROCESS.

>> WERE KNOCKING TO SOLVE IT TONIGHT.

I THINK THEY NEED TO COME BACK I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE ON AND

THEY NEED TO COME BACK. >> WHAT WE CAN DO WE CAN BRING BACK A FUTURE MEETING POTENTIAL DIFFERENT TRACES OF METHODOLOGY AND WE COULD DECIDE ON THE AND WHAT YOU DECIDE ON METHODOLOGY

THAT WILL SET THE FEE SCHEDULE. >> WITH WHAT OTHER CITIES.

>> WE WERE ORIGINALLY LOOKING AT THAT AND SOME ARE IN THE BALLPARK IS WHERE THE NUMBER LANDED.

>> WE WANT TO SEE THE DATA. >> DO WE WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WE DO STRATEGIC PLANNING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE ON THIS.

MY PERSONAL PREFERENCE, I WANT TO ENCOURAGE LAND INSTEAD OF THE FEE IN LIEU OF. THAT IS WHERE I AM AT.

BUT ANYONE OF YOU ALL I CAN GET FEELS OF WHERE YOU ARE BUT WE NEED TO ESTABLISH OTHER COUNSEL WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE ARE THERE TONIGHT IF WE COULD GIVE THEM THAT DIRECTION OR IF WE SHOULD WAIT UNTIL WE DO OR PAOLO.

>> I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. IF WE SAY WE WANT LAND THEN I WOULD SAY I'LL GIVE YOU 30 ACRES AND I HAVE TO PAY THE FEE.

WE SAY THAT WE WANT MONEY THEN I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT BUT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY SAT

DOWN. >> THIS IS MY THINKING.

WHAT POLICY OR NUMBER IS GOING TO ENCOURAGE A DEVELOPER, BASIC NEIGHBORHOOD TO KEEP IT SIMPLE, ENCOURAGE THEM TO GIVE THE CITY LAND FOR A PART WHAT POLICY OR WHAT NUMBER IS GOING TO DO THAT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THEIR LAND THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IT. BECAUSE THEY WANT THE MONEY, AND RETURN. AND WHAT IS TO SAY THERE KNOCKING ON $1200 TO THE PRICE OF EACH HOME SAY THE AVERAGE HOME EVERY HOUSE IS 300,000. ACTUALLY IS $302,000 FOR THIS HOME. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WORKS LIKE THAT. BUT IT CAN.

THEN THE CITY IS STILL LOST ON THE PARKLAND AND SEE IF WE GET THE MONEY, I THINK I DID THE MATH 650 HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO GET 15 TO GET THE MONEY AT THE $50000 PER ACRE FOR 15 ACRES. THAT IS AT THE 50000 PER ACRE WE

KNOW PER ACRE IT COSTS MORE. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> IT'S DIFFICULT WHAT DIRECTION TO GO IN.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> MIGHT THINK IT IS OPPOSITE OF THAT. IF WE WANT LAND RATHER THAN THE

[03:55:01]

MONEY WE ARE TAKING WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE US.

IF WE TAKE THE MONEY WE CAN BUY THE LAND THAT WE WANT THAT'S WHERE I LOOK AT IT I WOULD MOST PREFER THE MONEY RATHER THAN MILLION BECAUSE WE CAN DECIDE DO WE WANT A REGIONAL PARK DO WE WANT TO SAVE UP AND FIGURE THIS OUT AND PLAN IT OUT WELL OR DO WE WANT TO TAKE WHATEVER LAND THEY WILL GIVE US BECAUSE AGAIN THERE GOING TO GIVE US THE LEAST IT MAY NOT BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE WERE NOT QUICK TO LET THEM DO THAT BUT WILL GET THE LEAST AMOUNT OF LAND POSSIBLE BUT PROBABLY AN AREA IN THE BACK OF A SUBDIVISION HARD TO GET TO DO SO AGAIN WE GOING TO TAKE WHAT THE GIVENNESS VERSUS JUST BEING MORE PLEADING FOR ABOUT IT THAT'S WHAT I WAS LEANING TOWARD I WOULD'VE MUST HAVE THE MONEY AND DECIDED TO HAVE A STRATEGIC PLAN TO FIGURE OUT WHERE DO WE WANT THESE PARKS, CAN WE DO IT THAT WAY AND AM ALSO AN AGREEMENT NEEDS TO BE BASED ON PEOPLE THAT WE ANTICIPATE USING THE PARTS AND MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME AND I AGREE WITH ALL

THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. >> LAST THING WE NEED TO DO IT QUICKLY AT SOME POINT RELATIVELY BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE WILL ACCEPT PARKLAND'S UNLESS IT'S 15 AND IF THEY DO WANT TO DO THAT THEY CAN

PAY 300 BUCKS. >> TONIGHT WERE NOT NEGOTIATING

FEES. >> WE NEED TO MAKE SOMETHING BE GREATER BECAUSE UNTIL WE ADOPT SOMETHING IT IS 300.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND UNTIL WE ADOPT ANYTHING IT

IS 300. >> IS 300 ABOUT NUMBER.

>> THE TO PAY THE PARKLAND EVOLVEMENT IS ACTUALLY $800 FOR

SINGLE-FAMILY. >> RIGHT NOW OR SAY WE DON'T HAVE THAT MUCH MONEY WERE NOT GETTING IT IN.

>> AND OUT OF A HUNDRED IS THE RIGHT NUMBER, 500 MAYBE OR 1200 AND WE KEEP TRYING TO RUSH INTO THINGS, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WERE TRYING TO COME UP WITH AS A CITY BECAUSE INSTITUTING FEES AND IDEAS WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING A PLAN, WHAT PROBLEM ARE RETURNED TO SOLVE I THINK WE DO IT SHE SUGGESTED AN ORDEAL AND THEN WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE WANT TELL US WHAT WE WANTED YOU LEGALLY SO WE CAN TELL YOU WHAT WERE TRYING TO GET IN YOU GUYS CAN COME UP WITH A METHODOLOGY THAT PASSES THE SMOKE TEST HERE'S WHERE WE FIGURE OUT IF IT'S A LEASE PER CAPITA OR WHATEVER IT IS BUT TO ME WERE JUST DRIVING BLIND THROWING

IDEAS OUT. >> ONE SUGGESTION THAT I HAVE WE HAVE AN ALTERNATE MODEL FOR THAT IT IS A TRUE LEVEL OF SERVICE RETAKE THE TOLLING UNDER TOTAL EXISTING PARKLAND AND YOU DIVIDE THAT INTO POPULATION IT TELLS YOU HOW MANY HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE IN THE PARKLAND IN THE CITY THAT IS YOUR STANDARD.

IN THIS CASE I THINK IT IS CLOSER TO 89 HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE OF PARKLAND. I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT MY NOTES. WHICH IS DIFFERENT THAN THE 44 HOUSEHOLDS PER ACRE THAT WAS EARLY IN PLACE IN THE ORDINANCE FOR THE LAST 12 YEARS BUT IS MORE DEFENSIBLE BECAUSE NOW YOUR METRIC YOU INCREASE YOUR POPULATION THEREFORE IT CREATED A MUCH LARGER RATIO BETWEEN THE POPULATION AND AVERAGE OF PARKLAND. YOU CAN DIRECTLY TIE THE

INCREASE. >> I AGREE WITH YOU IF WE HAD EARLY BEEN BUILDING PARKS AT THE RATE WE SHOULD OF BEEN AND WERE AT A RATIO WE BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE I WOULD AGREE WITH THE METHODOLOGY TO GO FORWARD AND BE DONE.

BUT THE PROBLEM WE SHOULD BE AT 89, WE SHOULD PROBABLY BE AT 44 OR 40 IF WE WANT TO TRULY HAVE THIS WORK, LIVE, PLAY HERE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT THAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING THAT MODEL IS NOT OKAY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IS NOT DEFENSIBLE AND IS NOT WHERE WE WANT TO BE AND WERE TRYING TO GET TO SOMETHING BETTER.

DON'T EVEN GET ON A PATH. >> I WOULD ARGUE THE PEOPLE WHO COME UP WITH HOW MUCH PARK YOU SHOULD HAVE HER PARKS PEOPLE.

IT'S LIKE ASKING A SMOKING COMPANY IS SMOKING GOOD FOR YOU.

OF COURSE THERE'S NEVER GOING TO BE ENOUGH PARKS FOR PEOPLE WHO DO PARK STUDIES FOR A LIVING. NO OFFENSE BUT YOUR JOB IS TO GET US TO DO MORE PARKS WERE NEVER GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH PARKS THE QUESTION IS I GOES BACK TO STRATEGIC PLAN YOU WANT TO HAVE ALL THE PARKS THAT WORK BUT STOCK AND SPEND ALL YOUR TIME SEEING THE TERRIBLE ARE REALLY NICE PARKS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT PEOPLE LIKE SAINT GET ALL THE WAY THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN GO THEREFORE PEOPLE ARE GOING THERE WE CAN TRIPLE THE PARKS SIZE BUT SOMEONE'S GOTTA MAINTAIN IT.

YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH A 20 MILLION-DOLLAR PROJECT FOR ONE PARK SO WERE GETTING THE $100 MILLION FOR PARKLAND TO

[04:00:03]

MAKE THE LITTLE PLANS, WHAT COMPANY BROUGHT THAT

PRESENTATION? >> THE ONE THAT WE DID EARLIER

THIS YEAR. >> A BMX SKATE PARK, WHAT

COMPANY BROUGHT THAT UP. >> THE $20 MILLION WAS DUE FOR

MORE OF THOSE. >> IT WAS $20 MILLION.

>> IT WAS NINE. >> 10 MILLION.

>> 30 - 50000000 IF WE DO ALL THE PARKLAND AND YOU GO AROUND WHATEVER GHETTO FOR THAT WE CAN AFFORD OUR ROADS.

THAT'S WHAT HE GOES BACK WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANTED TO CITY, MULTIPLE PARKS OR JUST REALLY NICE PARKS INHABITED FOR RATIO BUT I WOULD NOT KNOW NO OFFENSE PEOPLE GET PAID TO BUILD PARKS AND WHAT THEY THINK YOU NEED IN THE PARKS.

>> THEY ARE NOT THE DEFINING FACTOR THE SPECIAL ORGANIZATIONS THAT WE BELONG TO THE SET THE STANDARD.

>> BUT THEY'RE ALL PART -- >> IT'S A NONPROFIT ASSOCIATION

SO IT'S NOT FOR PROFIT. >> IT IS CALLED NATIONAL

RECREATION AND PARK ASSOCIATION. >> THEY HAVE A STANDARD THEY SURVEY EVERY CITIES OR MOST CITIES ACROSS THE STATE AND DETERMINE THE STANDARD LEVEL FOR YOUR POPULATION.

OURS IS ROUGHLY A HUNDRED AND 5 ACRES.

THE CURRENT PARKLAND IS FIVE TO 65 BASED ON A POPULATION.

>> THAT IS LAID OUT IN THE MASTER PLAN ANYBODY CAN LOOK AT THE BAR AND TRIP PARKS MASTER PLAN WE SHOULD BE WHEN THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED AND CONSIDER HOW MUCH WE'VE GROWN SINCE THEN.

>> WHEN THE IN RPA UP UNTIL 10 OR 15 YEARS AGO THEY HAD A NATIONWIDE STANDARD OF SIX TO 10 AND A HALF ACRES PER THOUSAND POPULATION THAT WAS THE STANDARD I THINK THE TIME OF THE MASTER PLAN WE WERE ON THE END OF THAT BUT WITHIN RANGE AND HUTTO BUT IF SENSE COUNTRY DIFFERENT MO MODEL.

NOT EVERY CITY SHOULD FOLLOW THE SAME STANDARD YOU NEED TO CREATE THE LOCAL BUT COMPARE AGAINST OTHER CITIES WITH POPULATION SIZE WITH THE AREA AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

WITH AN AGENCY AND SELF-REPORT EVERY YEAR THE PARK MANAGER CAN GO ON THEIR AND FILL OUT THE QUESTIONS IT GIVES YOU A SENSE OF WHAT IS TRENDING AND WHAT DO PEOPLE WANT YOU COMPARE THAT TO YOUR LOCAL SURVEYS THAT YOU'VE DONE ON THE COPPERHEADS AND PLAN THAT WOULD OFFER GUIDANCE IN THAT REGARD.

ALL THAT COMBINED WILL GIVE YOU THE LOCAL STANDARD OF WHICH YOU WANT TO SEE FROM PARK SPACE AND COUNCILMAN CLARK SAID THERE'S A DESIRE TO DO MORE IN THE BENCHMARK IS AND WHAT YOU HAVE

NOW BUT IT'S SOMETHING BETTER. >> IF I MADE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN MAY DOES THAT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO GET TO THE STRATEGIC SCHEDULE.

>> WERE LOOKING AT THE STRATEGIC MEETING WITH COUNSEL, THE SECOND WEEK IN MARCH OR THE SECOND WEEK IN APRIL.

>> I WILL MAKE IT THE FIRST MEETING.

LET'S POSTPONE ON MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL THE FIRST MEETING IN MAY IN THE MEANTIME IF YOU CAN WORK ON THE MULTI-FAMILY CALCULATION AND HOW THAT'S DONE AND EVEN THE PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> THE MOTION TO POSTPONE MAY 4. >> I SECOND THAT.

>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> PCOUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER SUTTON AYE.

[11.1. 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.]

>> MOTION PASSES 70 MAKE 0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.1 CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS AND/OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TAX FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPER CORPORATION, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARDS, CITY COUNCIL LIAISONS IN ERIE GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING YET. WHAT I DIRECTED THE CITY SECRETARY TO CREATE A MEETING ON MARCH 1 AT 5:00 P.M. HERE AT CITY HALL. ANY BOARD CHAIRMAN CHAIRPERSON IS GOING TO REACH OUT BY THE SECRETARY IF THEY HAVE VACANCIES TO COME TO THE MEETING AND TO START DRUMMING UP AND BRING UP APPLICATIONS. I KNOW FOR A FACT WE NEED THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT BECAUSE OF LEGAL WE NEED AT LEAST FOUR REPLACEMENTS ON THAT. THERE'S TWO VACANCIES FOR PARKS BOARD AND WE ONLY RECEIVED ONE APPLICATION SO FAR.

[04:05:03]

WE DEFINITELY NEED PEOPLE TO VOLUNTEER AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEETING AT 5:00 O'CLOCK ON MARCH 1.

ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SERVE IN THE CITY, TO THAT DATE THIS WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET ON BOARD.

>> JUST TO ADD THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD HAS ONE OPENING

RIGHT NOW TO. >> I THINK WE WILL BE DISCUSSING COMBINING THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION ALONG WITH THE EDA TASK FORCE. JUST SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE ALWAYS

LIKE TO HEAR INPUT. >> THAT WOULD NEED TO BE MODIFIED BY ORDINANCE RIGHT. YES.

>> YOU THINK WE COULD ADVERTISE AFTER HUTTO OR THE NEWSLETTER.

>> RIGHT HERE AT CITY HALL. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

[11.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-038 awarding a contract to JER HR Group LLC to facilitate the 2023 Compensation, Classification, and Staffing Analysis Study in the amount of $60,980 and directing staff to prepare a future budget amendment of $23,785. (Irene Talioaga)]

NO. MOVING ON TO ITEM 11.2 CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION ARE JOSH 2023 E- 0 38 AWARDED A CONTRACT TO JE OUR HR GROUP LLC TO FACILITATE THE 2023 COMPENSATION, CLASSIFICATION, AND STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY IN THE AMOUNT OF $60980 AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A FUTURE BUDGET A MEMBER OF $23785.

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL I AM DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. EVERYONE, IF YOU MAY RECALL LAST YEAR MAY 2022 WE CONDUCTED AND COMPLETED A MARKET STUDY AND WE CALL THAT A PHASE ONE. YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE THERE WERE SOME THINGS COMPLETED AT THAT TIME IF YOU REMEMBER A FORMER INTERIM CITY MANAGER TOGETHER WITH THE TEAM AND WE WORKED WITH THE CONSULTANT. A 4% ACROSS-THE-BOARD PAY INCREASE WAS GIVEN TO OUR WORKFORCE.

SOME PAY ADJUSTMENTS WERE ALSO GIVEN TO EMPLOYEES WHOSE POSITIONS WERE BELOW THE MARKET. THAT SAME MONTH COUNSEL AGREED TO CONDUCT A FURTHER STUDY COMPENSATION, BENEFITS AS WELL AS STAFFING NEEDS ACROSS THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2022-INCH .

THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE POINTING EARLIER.

SORRY. WHAT WE HAVE DONE FOR PHASE TWO WORK SO FAR. WE POSTED THE RFP IN DECEMBER.

WE HAD APPROXIMATELY 25 FIRMS PULLED AND REVIEW THE RFP.

ONLY ONE FIRM SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL.

JE ARE HR, I FEEL LIKE IT'S A TONGUE TWISTER.

I WANT TO CALL IT JER. WE REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL WITH THE CITY MANAGERS TEAM AND THEY AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD.

FURTHER, WE CONDUCTED REFERENCE CHECKS AND COMPLETED ASSISTANCE OF THE ACM AND THEY'RE ALL POSITIVE.

WE GOT POSITIVE FEEDBACK FROM FORMER AND CURRENT CLIENTS.

SO WHO IS THE JER AGE GROUP THEY WERE ESTABLISHED IN 1990.

A TEAM OF OVER 30 HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL CONSULTANTS.

AND THEY HAVE CONDUCTED SEVERAL COMPREHENSIVE A JOB ANALYSIS PAY IN MARKET REVIEW OF VARIOUS CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THEY ALSO DEVELOPED ANNUAL SURVEYS INCLUDING RETIREMENT SAVINGS PROGRAM, HEALTH INSURANCE, LEAVE OR PAID TIME OFF. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS THE SCOPE OF WORK IN THEIR PROPOSAL THERE WILL BE AN INITIAL MEETING WITH CITY LEADERSHIP AND HR STAFF.

A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF THE CITY CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM.

IF YOU RECALL MAGGIE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB WITH THIS.

WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THAT ROBUST SYSTEM.

WE HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH THEM A FEW TIMES AND EXPLAIN WHERE WE ARE AT ON THE COMPENSATION SYSTEM.

REVIEW AND ANALYZE EACH JOB AND DEVELOP A SCHEDULE FOR THE COMPLETION OF ALL ACTIVITIES THEY WILL ALSO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF CURRENT POSITIONS AND ORGANIZATION NEEDS BASED ON EACH DEPARTMENT OPERATION PERFORM AN ANALYSIS ON RECRUITING HARD TO FILL POSITIONS.

A CONTINUATION THEY WILL ALSO PERFORM AN ANALYSIS OF WAGE AND

[04:10:02]

SALARY INCLUDING BENEFITS AND LEAVE THEY WILL ALSO CONDUCT AN ANALYSIS OF STATUS BASED ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE JOB WHICH A PREVIOUS FIRM DID NOT CONDUCT AFTER WE DISCUSSED WITH THEM A FEW TIMES PERFORM AN ANNUAL MAINTENANCE OF THE PAID PLAN TO INCLUDE RECOMMENDATION FOR PAY RANGES AND TO STAY COMPETITIVE AND CURRENT FOR FIVE YEARS AFTER THE START OF THE CONTRACT THE STUDY WILL TAKE APPROXIMATELY 12 WEEKS TO CONDUCT IN OF COURSE THEY WILL BE COMING TO PRESENT THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN THROUGH THE CITY'S LEADERSHIP AND COUNSEL.

WORKPLAN DELIVERABLES. AGAIN A MEETING WITH HER LEADERSHIP TEAM AND HR STAFF AND SIMILAR TO THE SCOPE OF WORK IN THE STUDY WILL BE CONDUCTED. THEY WILL BE COMING HERE TO MEET WITH THE STAFF ALSO. THERE WILL BE A SCHEDULE BASED ON OUR COMMUNICATION WITH THEM. THEY WILL BE GIVING US, IF WEEKLY HOW MUCH UPDATES WE NEED FROM THEM THEY WILL ENTERTAIN THAT THAT WE ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME SCHEDULE. THE COST PROPOSAL, THE COMPENSATION OF CLASSIFICATION OF 51500 STAFFING ANALYSIS IS ONLY 500, PACKAGE IS 54100 BUT WE WILL BE ADDING WITH THAT COST, THE ON-SITE VISIT, THE PRESENTATION WHICH WE ARE ADDING 16 HOURS THAT IS FOR TWO DAYS, $480 PER HOUR PLUS TWO DAYS OF TRAVEL. 60,980,000.

>> ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS POLICE PAY HIS POLICE COMPENSATION, WITHOUT BE A SEPARATE STUDY?

>> THAT IS INCLUDED PRETTY WAS 20000 OVER THE BUDGETED AMOUNT?

>> CORRECT WE ARE SHORT 23. >> YOU NOT ASKING FOR 60000

ASKING FOR 23000. >> I KNOW WHEN THIS BUDGET CAME OUT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISAPPOINTMENT FOR THE RESULTS WE GOT ON THAT. I KNOW AT THE TIME WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE PAY AND HOW OTHERS PERCEIVED US WANTING TO GIVE ALL STAFF THE RECOMMENDED 4% OF NOT WANTING TO GIVE THE POLICE A RAISE. I SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES ONCE WE GET JAMES WAS COMING IN ONCE WE GET STABILIZED TO TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THAT AND IF IT'S PAID IS HINDERING RECRUITING EFFORTS THEN THAT'S AN ISSUE WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT.

I LIKE THE FIGURE TO GO INTO THE SCOPE OF WORK INTO THE DUTIES RESPONSIBILITIES AND AFTER BEING COMPENSATED FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING BUT I AGREE WE AGREE AND NEEDED TO BE DONE AGAIN AND DONE RIGHT AND THOROUGH I THINK AFTER THAT DEEPER DIVE INTO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WOULD NEED TO BE LOOKED AT AS WELL AFTER WE GET THE RESULT THAT MAY GIVE US THE RESULTS WE ARE LOOKING FOR.

>> IS IT DISCOMFORTING WE ONLY GOT ONE PERSON I KNOW YOU GUYS SAID YOU REFERENCED AND EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT BUT I'M

WORRIED. >> WERE GUESSING IT IS THE TIMING IS DURING THE HOLIDAYS WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT WHO REVIEWED IT WE WERE HOPING TO GET THREE BUT I BEEN IN CONTACT WITH THEM, THEY'RE VERY RESPONSIVE IN MY OBSERVATION THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE LAST FIRM GOT APPROVED BEFORE I GOT HERE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL WHEN I GOT HERE IT WAS ALREADY SIGNED OFF SO I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH OF THE PRESENTATION TOOK PLACE SO

[04:15:01]

BASICALLY WE CONTINUED ON WITH THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS APPROVED BUT IN THE MIDST OF IT IF YOU REMEMBER THE CONSULTANT VANISHED OR DISAPPEARED AND WE GOT A DIFFERENT ONE IN THE MIDST OF THAT. THREE WEEKS BEFORE.

ISAAC WAS DISAPPOINTED WE WERE ALL DISAPPOINTED.

THIS WAS HER COMMITMENT AND HER PROMISE AND ALSO THE COUNSEL AGREED LET'S DO ANOTHER ONE RECALLING THE NEXT WHEN THE PHASE TWO AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL NOT HAVE THE SAME OUTCOME WHICH IS VERY DISAPPOINTING TO ALL OF US.

>> I SHARE THE SAME CONCERNS WITH THIS BEING THE ONLY PERSON OR THE ONLY COMPANY THAT SUBMITTED A PROPOSAL.

IN YOUR DISCUSSIONS HAVE YOU TALKED TO THEM ABOUT ISSUES WITH THE STUDY LAST YEAR ARE THEY AWARE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE NEEDING IN REQUIRING THAT WERE NOT INCLUDED IN LAST

YEAR'S? >> I HAVE.

WHAT I DID TELL THEM WE WILL GET INTO DETAILS IF WE APPROVE OR HIRE THEM TO BEER CONSULTED. I DID GIVE THEM GOOD INFORMATION

OF WHAT HAPPENED LAST YEAR. >> DEVICE EITHER GET TO GIVE US UPDATES OVER FIVE YEARS IS THAT HOWEVER, THAT RIGHT.

>> WILL HAPPEN IF WE WILL HIRE THE FIRM CHECKING IN A YEARLY THING WITH THE PHYSICIANS THAT NEED TO REVIEW AND THEY'RE COMMITTING TO THE FIVE YEARS PLAN.

>> THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PRICE? YES.

>> BASED ON THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE

CONTRACT AS PRESENTED. >> I WILL SECOND.

>> MOTION BY CLARK SECOND BY SUTTON.

THAT INCLUDES A FUTURE BUDGET AMENDMENT.

I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE BUDGET AMENDMENT TO BE $5980.

THE REASON BEING IN THE PACKET THAT IS ALL THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE COMPENSATION CLASSIFICATION STAFFING ANALYSIS STUDY.

I THINK WE NEED TO DIFFERENT PRESENTATION ON THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THE 23785 IS NOT A BUDGET AMENDMENT WITH THE STUDY BECAUSE WE HAVE 55000 AND WE NEED 65980.

>> THE DELTA IS THE COST. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT YOUR PACKAGE

SAYS. >> BEFORE WE GO ON I GOT TO GET A SECOND GHETTO MAKING AMEN AMENDMENT.

>> THE MOTION TO MAKE THE AMENDMENT 85880.

IS THERE A SECOND? HEARING NONE IT DIES.

YOUR PACKET THERE IS A BENEFIT IN MINISTRY TO THAT WE BUDGETED 27000 AND WE NEED 30 MORE THOUSAND FOR THEM YOU HAVE AN EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PROGRAM THAT YOU WANT TO ADD BUTCHER GREAT THINGS BUT WE NEED TO PRESENTATION THAT THOSE THINGS.

>> IT'S TRUE. >> I SEE WHAT YOU ARE SAYING SO

THEY TRY TO ADDED ADDITIONAL. >> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED IF I GO TO THE AGENDA ITEM REPORT FOR THIS ITEM IS 51000 SEPARATE $1,154,154,100. I'M ON PAGE 103,110,000 WOULD IT BE ACCURATE FOR THIS PACKET 1031 OF THE PACKET.

IT'S 54100 THE COMBINED PRICE OF THE TWO PLUS AN ADDITIONAL $6880 TO COVER 16 HOURS OF $180 FOR THEM TO TRAVEL AND TO COME HERE THAT YOU GET TO THE 60000 PRETTY GOOD OF THE NEXT PAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM THIS IS SHOWING YOU WHAT THE BUDGET LINE ITEMS ARE AND UNDER HR AND WHERE THEY SUGGEST PULLING THE MONEY FROM AND WHAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT THE NEED FOR THE BUDGET A MEMBER

[04:20:04]

OF THE 23785. ALL THAT WAS BUDGETED FOR THE COMPENSATION AND STAFFING STUDY WHAT WAS BUDGETED WAS 55000.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE 5980 IS RIGHT THERE.

>> COMPENSATION BUDGET 55000, CURRENT 65 65980 BUDGET 980.

>> THE CONVOLUTED MORE THAN ONE THING.

>> ADDING THESE OTHER TWO WITH NOTHING WITH AGENDA ITEM.

THE MAYOR IS CORRECT IT SHOULD BE 59 - 80.

>> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S WHY THINK IT NEEDS TO GO FORWARD BUT I DON'T WANT TO GIVEN A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR

EXACTLY WHAT WERE DOING. >> WHY DID YOU PUT THE BENEFIT ADMINISTRATOR AND EMPLOYEES ASSISTANCE HERE INSTEAD OF AS A SEPARATE ITEM WHERE THEY BUNDLED WITH THIS.

>> IT MIGHT BE A CARRYOVER MISTAKE OR SOMETHING.

>> IF YOU ONLY APPROVE THE BUDGET INCREASE OF 5990 WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH IN THE BUDGET THAT WE CAN ISSUE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH REMAINING BUDGET TO ISSUE THE PURCHASE ORDER FOR THE STUDY AND THE REASON THERE IS EXPENDITURES THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES.

SO THE EXPENDITURES OCCUR BECAUSE FINANCE LOOKED AT THE AMOUNT OF THE BUDGET AND THE EXPENDITURES COMING IN FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES SO THE CHECKS OF EARLY BEEN CUT FOR ONE OF THE ITEMS IN EAP PLAN AND EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE PLAN LAST YEAR WAS PROVIDED UNDER CIGNA AND IT WAS FREE BUT IT WAS NOT A VERY GOOD PLAN SO THE BUDGET CONTAINS 0 FOR THE AP PLAN BUT WE ACTUALLY MOVED TO A NEW CARRIER AND THAT WAS AT A COST OF $4500. THAT HAZARDING BEEN CUT OUT OF

THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. >> THE AGENDA ITEM IS A STUDY I UNDERSTAND WE SPENT A BUNCH OF MONEY WE DIDN'T BUDGET WHICH GOES INTO THE REOCCURRING IN MY RIGHT WE CAN'T BE APPROVING MONEY FOR STUFF THAT WE DIDN'T POST.

>> TO CLARIFICATIONS IF I MAY ONE BEING I THANK YOU CAN CONSTRUE THIS WITHIN THE POSTING BECAUSE OF HOW SHE'S DISCUSSING IT. THE ISSUE HERE WITHIN THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO THE CITY TO FUND THIS ITEM THIS CONTRACT FOR THE COMPENSATION STUDY 23000 IS WHAT IS NEEDED THE FISCAL NOTE IS EXPLAINING WHY THE OTHER FUNDS ARE ALREADY FROM THE HR BUDGET

LINE ITEM. >> WAITED FOR DESCRIPTION BUDGET SPENT CURRENT NEED REQUESTED BUDGET AND THEN WE QUICKLY BASICALLY SPEND OUR MONEY ON COMPENSATION STAFFING ON OTHER

ITEMS. >> IS A CORRECT STATEMENT.

>> IT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT WE SHOULD'VE HAD A SPENT COLUMN IN THERE THAT WOULD'VE MADE IT MORE CLEAR.

>> IS THE SECOND CLARIFICATION RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU WOULD VOTE ON IS ONLY TO DIRECT THE STAFF TO COME BACK WITH A BUDGET AMENDMENT IF YOU WOULD LIKE MORE OF THE INFORMATION THAT IS NEEDED WHEN STAFF COMES BACK WITH THE BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WOULD BE THE ORDINANCE TO REALLOCATE THE 23000 AND CHANGE.

THAT IS WHERE WE CAN HAVE A FULLER INFORMATION PRESENTATION.

>> AND MAKE SENSE WERE AT $23785 SHORT FROM DOING THIS CONTRACT WHICH AGAIN IS NOT 90 GRANTS WERE NOT TOTALLY FREAKED OUT B BUT. THE MOTION TO APPROVE IT.

>> YES OR. >> CLARK SECOND BY SUTTON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KINSEY.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THORTON. >> THE MOTION PASSES 70 MEXICO,

[11.3. Consideration and possible action to authorize release of a February 7, 2023 Memo relating to the Hutto City Charter and state nepotism laws. (Mayor Snyder, Legal)]

THE LAST ITEM ON THE REGULAR SESSION.

>> I WOULD ASK THAT TO BE MOVED THE ONE THAT WE PULLED OUT OF CONSENT SO WE CAN DEAL WITH ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

[04:25:02]

>> THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO FOR THE ONLY REASON WE HAVE ADDITIONAL MEMOS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS BEFORE WE CAN VOTE ON

THIS. >> WE CAN PULL A BACKUP.

11.3 CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION TO RELEASE FABRICE 72023, RELATED TO THE CHARTER LAWS IS A REASON I ASKED FOR THIS TO BE ON THERE. I THINK WE FINALLY GOT INTO A REALM THAT I DID EVERYTHING WE WOULD GET INTO IN HUTTO.

WE HAVE A PERSON WHO IS APPLIED TO RUN FOR OFFICE AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, MEMBERS IT FEELS LIKE AN INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER THE QUALIFIED. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S AN ABUSIVE OFFICE POTENTIALLY BECAUSE AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WE SEE A GUY OR A GIRL RUNNING FOR OFFICE SO WE GO TO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO START TALKING ABOUT ARE THE EVEN QUALIFIED TO DO THIS IT COULD BE ELECTION TAMPERING SOME PEOPLE COULD LOOK AT LEAKAGE OF A PERSON RUNNING FOR OFFICE AND THEREBY DO THEIR OWN BUSINESS AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW LEGAL MEMOS GOING BEHIND THE SCENES WHAT THEY CAN CAN'T DO NO ONE IS BROKEN 80 LAWS THE ONES VIOLATED ANY CONSTITUTIONS, NOTHING.

IF THEY WIN THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE BUT ALL READ ONE LAST THING. I'M SCARED WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. THE LETTER THAT WE SENT OUT TO PROSPECTIVE CANDIDATES SAYS THIRD PARAGRAPH DOWN, AS A CANDIDATE IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THE LAWS APPLICABLE TO CAMPAIGNING FOR OFFICE FOR THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE CANNOT INTERPRET OR ADVISE ON ANY MATTER RELATED TO CAMPAIGN-FINANCE LAW FOR THE CANDIDATE.

I WOULD NOT SAY THE CITY ATTORNEY ADVISED THE CANDIDATE BUT IT IS ADVISING COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO THEN A COUNCIL MEMBER BEFORE OR AFTER GETTING THE LEGAL MEMO IS CONTACTED THE CANDIDATE TALKING TO THEM ABOUT HAVE YOU READ THIS HAVE YOU DONE THIS. I THINK WERE REALLY GOING DOWN A PATH. ADDITIONALLY ALL COMPLAINTS CONCERNS AND VIOLATIONS REGARDING CAMPAIGN PRACTICES SHOULD BE REPORTED TO TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION AND NOT THE CITY OF HUTTO. PLEASE KNOW ALL ELECTION CAMPAIGN REPORTS ARE SUBJECT. I'VE BEEN APPEAR THREE YEARS AND WHEN WE RAN THERE WAS CRAZY STUFF GOING ON I DON'T KNOW IF I WAS EVER INVESTIGATED, PROBABLY NOT.

IF I WAS I WOULD'VE MADE IT I WOULD'VE BEEN IN JAIL FOR SOME REASON. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL AS THE COUNCIL WILL USE THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WILL BE INVESTIGATE POTENTIAL PEOPLE RUNNING BECAUSE THE CAN AND UPLOADED THE SAY SOMEBODY'S GET A TICKET AND THEY GET A COMEBACK AS A CITY AND SAY YOU INTERFERED WITH MY ELECTION YOU ARE NOW CALLING ME UP AND QUESTIONING HOW CAN I RUN I THINK THIS IS UNPRECEDENTED AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S OVER WITH BECAUSE OF WHAT HAPPENED BUT IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK AND REALLY SOMETHING ELSE I DON'T THINK IT JUSTIFIES THE COUNCIL IS USING CITY TAXPAYER DOLLARS TO POTENTIALLY INFLUENCE AN ELECTION BY MAKING A PERSON I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS PERSON ARE THEY MARRIED

ANYMORE. >> WAITED PRESENTATION IT WITH ALL THE NEW EMPLOYEES TO THE CITY AN INDIVIDUAL WAS PRESENTED TO A NEW EMPLOYEE OF THE CITY WHO I PERSONALLY MET THAT WE CAN BEFORE AND WAS INTRODUCED AS THE SPOUSE OF A PERSON WHO IS RUNNING. THE ONLY THING THAT I ASK BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN READING THE CHARTER SO MUCH, THE CHARTER SAYS YOU CANNOT HAVE OUR CHARTER AND NO CITY EMPLOYEE CAN BE EMPLOYED AND HAVE TO BE UNDER CONTINUED EMPLOYMENT FOR A YEAR.

MY ONLY STATEMENT WAS DOES ANYONE KNOW THIS IS NOT A VALID RULE BECAUSE TEXAS LAW IS SIX MONTHS AND IS THERE A PROBLEM THAT WAS ALL MY QUESTION ENDEMIC TO CANDIDATES NO THE LAST THING YOU WOULD WANT TO SOMEONE NOT KNOW THEY GET TO THE ENDED TO SOMEONE. TODAY REACH OUT TO THE PERSON I FOUND OUT THIS I DON'T CARE IT'S WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO DO YOU KNOW THIS IS A POSSIBLE THING I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER YOU NEED TO LOOK IT UP BUT THIS IS WHAT THE CHARTER SAYS THAT WAS A CONVERSATION. LEGAL I ASKED THAT QUESTION IN EXECUTIVE THEY WROTE THIS MEMO BASED ON THAT THAT I SAID IN FRONT OF EVERYONE INSTEAD OF US HAVING WEIRD CRAZY THINGS AND