Sep 21, 2023 City Council

[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER ]

[00:00:02]

ALL RIGHT, 7:00.

WE'LL CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2023 TO ORDER.

WE'LL START WITH ROLL CALL.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, PRESIDENT COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER CLARK HERE.

MAYOR SNYDER'S HERE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON HERE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILCOX HERE, COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER HERE.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE'LL BE LED AN INVOCATION BY PASTOR JAMES SHKAROVSKY FROM CHRIST THE ROCK LUTHERAN CHURCH.

IF YOU'LL PLEASE STAND. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU GIVE A PASTOR A MIC, HE'S ALWAYS GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT. SO PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES IS WHEN YOU PRAY, YOU JUST GO THROUGH THE MOTIONS.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK TONIGHT JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WALK IN, YOU CAN ALREADY FEEL TENSION.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO ASK THAT WE WE HONOR GOD.

WE HONOR THOSE IN AUTHORITY, WE PEOPLE OF CHARACTER.

AND THAT TONIGHT WHEN WE PRAY, YOU JUST HEAR THESE WORDS.

LET THEM SPEAK TO YOUR HEART AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL SET A TONE FOR OUR MEETING TONIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO BOW OUR HEADS AND PRAY.

DEAR WISE AND LOVING FATHER, THANK YOU FOR YOUR MANY AND ABUNDANT BLESSINGS.

THANK YOU FOR THE ABILITY TO BE INVOLVED IN USEFUL WORK AND FOR THE HONOR OF BEARING APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITIES AND THE SCRIPTURES.

YOU'VE SAID THAT CITIZENS OUGHT TO OBEY THE GOVERNING AUTHORITIES SINCE YOU HAVE ESTABLISHED THOSE VERY AUTHORITIES TO PROMOTE PEACE, ORDER AND JUSTICE.

THEREFORE, I PRAY FOR OUR MAYOR, FOR THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF CITY OFFICIALS AND IN PARTICULAR THIS EVENING, FOR THIS ASSEMBLED COUNCIL.

I'M ASKING THAT YOU WOULD GRACIOUSLY GRANT THEM WISDOM TO GOVERN AMID THE CONFLICTING INTERESTS AND ISSUES OF OUR TIMES AND IN OUR CITY, A SENSE OF THE WELFARE AND TRUE NEEDS OF OUR CITY AND ITS PEOPLE.

CONFIDENCE IN WHAT IS GOOD AND FITTING.

THE ABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER IN HARMONY EVEN WHEN THERE IS HONEST DISAGREEMENT, PERSONAL PEACE IN THEIR LIVES AND JOY IN THEIR TASK. I PRAY FOR THE AGENDA SET BEFORE THEM TONIGHT.

PLEASE GIVE AN ASSURANCE OF WHAT WOULD PLEASE YOU AND WHAT WOULD BENEFIT THOSE WHO LIVE AND WORK IN AND AROUND OUR BELOVED CITY OF HUTTO.

ALL OF THESE THINGS.

WE COME BEFORE YOU AND ASK THE NAME OF YOUR SON, OUR SAVIOR, JESUS.

AMEN. AMEN.

THANK YOU. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS.

ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG.

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE.

TEXAS ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

NEXT, IF THE COUNCIL WILL JOIN ME UP FRONT FOR OUR PROCLAMATION HERE.

[5.1. Anne Cano Proclamation ]

WE DON'T DO TOO MANY PROCLAMATIONS LIKE THIS.

SPECIAL ONE. THIS IS A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING AN.

WHEREAS ANCANO IS A NATIVE TEXAN WHO IS KNOWN FOR HER DEEP LOVE OF TEXAS AND HER DEDICATION TO GIVING BACK TO HER COMMUNITY AND INDUSTRY.

AND. WHEREAS, ANCANO HAS A LONG, SUCCESSFUL HISTORY OF SERVING IN HIGH LEVEL LEADERSHIP POSITIONS ACROSS CENTRAL TEXAS.

AND. WHEREAS, ANCANO WAS ELECTED TO SERVE ON THE CITY COUNCIL FROM 2009 TO 2017 ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD FROM 2008 TO 2017, AND AS A DIRECTOR FOR THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS FROM 2014 TO 2018.

AND WITHIN THIS SAME GROUP SELECTED BY OUR PEERS AS THE 2015 REALTOR OF THE YEAR.

AND. WHEREAS, ANCANO WAS APPOINTED TO THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY ISD NUMBER THREE BOARD AND IS A GRADUATE OF THE PRESTIGIOUS AND INVITATION ONLY TEXAS REALTOR LEADERSHIP ACADEMY AND VOLUNTEERS AT SEVERAL NON-PROFITS.

AND. WHEREAS, ANCANO SERVED ON THE YMCA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS WELL AS THE HUTTO AREA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE.

AND. WHEREAS, ANCANO HAS TAUGHT BUSINESS PRINCIPLES AS AN ADJUNCT FOR TEMPLE COLLEGE, PARTICIPATED AT HUDDLE HOUSE OF PRAYER AND ATTENDED, ALONG WITH HER HUSBAND, THE MANY ATHLETIC EVENTS OF THEIR TEN GRANDCHILDREN.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED THAT THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTTO DO HEREBY RECOGNIZE ANCANO FOR HER LIFE.

WE ARE PROUD TO HAVE HER AS A MEMBER OF OUR COMMUNITY.

[00:05:04]

HELLO, JERRY. NO, THANKS.

SORRY FOR YOUR LOSS. SIR.

BUT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

LOVE.

GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT, WE HAVE CITY MANAGER COMMENTS.

[6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ]

COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITIZENS OF HUTTO, JAMES EARP, CITY MANAGER.

JUST A LITTLE CONTEXT FOR THOSE THAT THAT DIDN'T KNOW AND YOU CAN TELL WAS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR COMMUNITY.

AND SHE WENT TO GO BE WITH THE LORD A WEEK AGO MONDAY.

SO SO THAT WAS HER FAMILY THAT WAS HERE TO RECEIVE THE PROCLAMATION IN HER HONOR.

SO I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY SHOWING YOUR RESPECT AND SHOWING THEM THEIR SUPPORT AS THEIR MOURNING RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SPEAKING OF MOURNING, LET'S TALK ABOUT WATER CONSERVATION.

SO WE'RE STILL UNDER STAGE THREE.

WE DID HAVE THE GOOD RAIN, SO WE'RE THANKFUL FOR THAT.

TEMPERATURES ARE STILL WARM, BUT THEY'RE NOT AS WARM AS TO BE EXPECTED THIS TIME OF YEAR.

SO WE'RE WATCHING FOR THE CORRECT TRIGGERS TO GO BACK DOWN TO STAGE TWO.

BUT WE DON'T WANT A YO YO BACK AND FORTH.

SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WETTER CYCLES AND THE COOLER WEATHER IS GOING TO SET IN AND THAT WE SEE PRETTY CONSISTENT DECREASE IN WATER USAGE.

BEFORE WE MOVE BACK TO STAGE TWO, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT I'VE BEEN VERY PROUD AND WATCHING HOW HUTTO HAS RESPONDED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS.

IT'S RELATIVELY A NEWER THING FOR THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO WHO ARE ON HUTTO WATER, BUT EVERYONE HAS BEEN RESPONDING VERY WELL AND WE'RE VERY THANKFUL AND APPRECIATIVE OF THAT. EXTREME HOME MAKEOVER.

SO ANY OF YOU GET TO SEE ANY OF THAT.

THAT WAS PRETTY COOL.

IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT ME WITH A BLANK STARE, THEN WE HAVE TO SAY THAT THIS LAST WEEKEND, THE OR THE WEEK AGO AND THEN ON SATURDAY, EXTREME HOME MAKEOVER, NEW NEW HOUSE BUILD EDITION WAS HERE IN HUTTO.

THEY WORKED TOO TIRELESSLY TO BUILD A HOUSE WITHIN I THINK THEY SAID THEY DID IT IN 96 HOURS, WHICH IS JUST COMPLETELY UNBELIEVABLE FROM FROM SCRATCH TO TO THE HOUSE BEING COMPLETE.

THEY COULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT WITHOUT A LOT OF VOLUNTEERS AND EFFORT THAT WENT INTO THAT.

EVERYTHING FROM THE THE TRADES THAT CAME IN AND VOLUNTEERED THEIR TIME TO THE PEOPLE WHO HELPED GET FOOD THERE FOR THE FOR THE CREW AND EVERYBODY THAT WAS THERE WORKING.

THERE WERE LOTS OF VOLUNTEERS THAT CAME IN FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY.

I THINK THEY SAID 2 OR 3000 VOLUNTEERS WERE REGISTERED GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HELPING WITH THAT.

SO TAYLOR MORRISON WAS THE BUILDER FOR THAT HOME.

IT WAS OVER IN EMERY CROSSING, WHICH IS UP AT SCHMIDT.

UM, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT FOR A FAMILY WHO HAD WHO HAD AND HAS HUTTO ROOTS.

THEIR HUSBAND FATHER WAS THE REVEREND FRED B WARREN JUNIOR.

MANY OF YOU ALL KNOW THAT HE PASSED AWAY FAIRLY RECENTLY WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, 2021.

WELL, IT WAS HIS FAMILY THAT WAS SELECTED TO BE THE RECIPIENT OF OF THE HOME.

AND GETTING TO BE THERE AND SEE THE REVEAL OF THE HOME AND HOW EXCITED THE FAMILY WAS.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE GOES BY.

I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GRAMS OR G, G OR SOMETHING.

BUT SHE YOU KNOW, THE GRANDMOTHER WAS SO EXCITED, SHE COULD HARDLY CONTAIN HERSELF.

AND IT WAS REALLY NEAT GETTING TO SEE ALL THAT IN PERSON.

SO THAT WILL BE AIRED ON ABC LIKELY IN THE SPRING.

SO PROBABLY THE FEBRUARY MARCH TIME FRAME.

ALSO, WE WANT TO NOTE THAT WE'RE TAKING REGISTRATIONS FOR THE SECOND ANNUAL HUTTO HALLOWEEN HOUSE OFF.

WORDS ARE GOING TO BE GIVEN IN THREE CATEGORIES SCARIEST HOUSE, BEST USE OF MOTION OR ANIMATION AND BEST THEME RELATED TO A HALLOWEEN MOVIE OR CHARACTER TO ENTER.

[00:10:07]

SO THAT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO BRING OUT THE LITTLES FOR TRICK OR TREATING COSTUMES, VENDORS, THAT SORT OF STUFF.

I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHOWING, OH, IT SAYS HERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE SHOWING A MOVIE AND IT'S GOING TO BE HOCUS POCUS.

ALSO, THIS IS LIBRARY CARD SIGN-UP MONTH.

SO WE HAVE OUT A NEWLY REDESIGNED LIBRARY CARD AND LOTS OF SPECIAL EVENTS COMING UP IN THE LIBRARY.

AND STARTING NEXT MONTH, THE LIBRARY IS GOING TO START PROVIDING LINKEDIN LEARNING FOR FREE TO ALL LIBRARY CARD HOLDERS.

SO RATHER THAN YOU HAVING TO SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SERVICE, IF YOU LIVE IN HUTTO AND HAVE A LIBRARY CARD, YOU CAN ACCESS THE LEARNING NETWORK FROM LINKEDIN FOR FREE.

SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A CARD, PLEASE BE SURE TO GO BY AND GET ONE.

AND THEY HAVE JUST STARTED DOING TWO YEAR RENEWAL, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO RENEW EVERY YEAR LIKE YOU DID BEFORE.

AND THEN LASTLY, WE HAVE A CALL FOR VOLUNTEERS.

THIS IS FOR OCTOBER 6TH, WHICH IS A FRIDAY.

IT'S TWO FRIDAYS FROM NOW.

I THINK IT'S TWO FRIDAYS FROM NOW.

WHAT IT IS, IT'S OCTOBER 6TH IS THE DAY OF CARING AND THE UNITED WAY IS COMING TO.

TOWN WITH A FEW VOLUNTEERS.

AND THEN WE HAVE SOME CITY STAFF VOLUNTEERS, BUT WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS, TOO.

WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A DOWNTOWN SPRUCE UP AREA OR DAY.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE THINGS LIKE PUTTING IN NATIVE PLANTS, MULCHING, PICKING UP TRASH AND DEBRIS.

I THINK OUR PUBLIC WORKS CREWS ARE GOING TO BE OUT AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE REPAINTING THE INTERSECTIONS.

SO IT'LL ALL LOOK NICE AND FRESH RIGHT BEFORE THE HOLIDAY SEASON.

SO IF YOU ARE AVAILABLE TO COME OUT, THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE EARLY PART OF FRIDAY.

SO BULK OF THE WORK IS HAPPENING BEFORE LUNCH BETWEEN 10 AND 12.

SO IF YOU HAPPEN TO BE AVAILABLE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE SOME VOLUNTEER TIME AND YOU'RE INTERESTED IN COMING OUT.

WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THAT.

YOU CAN GO TO THE CITY'S EVENTS CALENDAR AND JUST LOOK FOR THE LINK ON THAT DAY TO SIGN UP AND WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF WORK TO BE DONE.

MAYOR COUNCIL, THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS.

ALL RIGHT. THANKS, SIR.

[7. PUBLIC COMMENT ]

WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME AND YOU COME UP, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.

THE LIGHT WILL BE GREEN. WHEN THERE'S 30S LEFT, THEY'LL GO TO YELLOW.

AND THEN WHEN IT GOES TO RED, YOUR TIME IS UP.

FIRST WE HAVE HEATHER MAC.

UM. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

AND MR. MAYOR. MR. MAYOR, I KINDLY ASK THAT YOU LOOK DIRECTLY AT MY CHILDREN.

THIS IS FOR THEM, IS WHY I'M HERE.

I STAND HERE TONIGHT WITH MY AFRICAN AMERICAN HUSBAND AND CHILDREN AND THEIR FRIENDS.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS SO THAT YOU, MR. MAYOR, CAN SEE THE CHILDREN OF THIS COMMUNITY.

UP UNTIL NOW, IT HAS BEEN ONLY ADULTS THAT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE YOUR GRAVE MISTAKES AND UNACCOUNTABILITY.

TODAY, THAT ALL CHANGES.

YOU HAVE NO CLUE WHAT YOUR ACTIONS DUE TO THE PEOPLE OF COLOR, NOR DO YOU WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING UNTIL YOU ARE CALLED OUT.

I AM DEEPLY TROUBLED BY THE RECENT INCIDENTS OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION PERPETUATED BY YOU.

AS A MOTHER OF FOUR AFRICAN AMERICAN CHILDREN, TWO OF THEM GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL AND ONE IS AT FARLEY.

I AM GRAVELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE HARM YOU ARE CAUSING TO OUR COMMUNITY AND NEGATIVE IMPACT IT HAS ON OUR CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING.

IT IS WITH A HEAVY HEART THAT I BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION THE NUMEROUS INSTANCES WHERE OUR MAYOR HAS DEMONSTRATED RACIAL BIAS PERPETUATING A CLIENT OF A DISCRIMINATION AND INEQUALITY.

THESE ACTIONS NOT ONLY UNDERMINE THE PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, BUT ALSO ERODE THE TRUST AND UNITY WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY.

I WAS BORN AND RAISED IN SMALL TOWN IOWA, IOWA, AND WAS FULLY AWARE OF WHAT A BANANA AND MONKEY MEANT.

BEFORE I MET AND MARRIED MY AFRICAN AMERICAN HUSBAND AND I WOULD HAVE NEVER USED THEM AS PROPS.

I FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT IT IS OUR COLLECTIVE RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS UPHOLD THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF INTEGRITY.

INCLUSIVITY AND RESPECT FOR ALL RESIDENTS.

THE MAYOR'S ACTIONS HAVE NOT ONLY VIOLATED THESE PRINCIPLES, BUT HAVE ALSO CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT THAT FOSTERS DIVISION, MARGINALIZATION.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT ALL OF YOU TAKE CLASSES REGARDING DIVERSITY, AND I FIND THAT FUNNY.

[00:15:06]

DOES ANYONE ELSE FIND THAT LAUGHABLE? I DO. A PERSON.

WE PUT IN A POSITION OF POWER TO RUN A CITY THAT LESS THAN 50% OF ITS POPULATION IS WHITE.

IT SEEMS THAT AS A NUMBER YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN BEFORE YOU APPLIED FOR THE JOB.

IF YOU NEED A DIVERSITY CLASS AS A MAYOR.

I ALSO BROUGHT MY CHILDREN WITH ME SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THE FACES OF THESE BOYS.

I HAVE TO TELL THEM WHEN THEY LEAVE THE HOUSE.

THESE BOYS. REMEMBER, YOU'RE BLACK.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO TELL YOUR SON THAT, MR. MAYOR? PROBABLY NOT.

HAVE YOU EVER HAD TO TALK THE TALK WITH YOUR SON, WHAT TO DO WHEN HE'S PULLED OVER BY A POLICE OFFICER? PROBABLY NOT.

I HAVE TO.

WHAT YOU DID WITH THE BANANAS AND MONKEY ONLY PERPETUATED WHAT'S ALREADY GOING ON.

YOU COULD BE ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS, BUT YOU CHOSE NOT TO BE.

YOU CHOSE TO BE SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO CONTINUE TO KEEP RACISM ALIVE IN OUR COMMUNITY.

I KINDLY REQUEST THAT YOU TAKE IMMEDIATE ACTION TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE AND INITIATE THE NECESSARY STEPS TO REMOVE THE MAYOR FROM OFFICE.

IT IS CRUCIAL THAT WE HOLD OUR LEADERS ACCOUNTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY DIRECTLY HARM MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY.

IN ADDITION TO MY CONCERNS, I AM CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE MANY OTHERS WHO SHARE THE SAME SENTIMENTS AND ARE EQUALLY COMMITTED TO FOSTERING A COMMUNITY THAT CELEBRATES DIVERSITY AND PROMOTES EQUALITY.

I URGE YOU TO CONSIDER THE VOICES OF THOSE AFFECTED BY THE MAYOR'S DISCRIMINATORY BEHAVIOR AND TAKE SWIFT ACTION TO RECTIFY THE SITUATION.

TOGETHER, WE CAN WORK TOWARDS A COMMUNITY THAT IS INCLUSIVE, JUST AND FREE FROM DISCRIMINATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE HAVE AARON KING.

I THINK I HAVE TO YIELD TIMES ONE FROM IDA WEAVER AND ONE FROM JAMES WEAVER.

GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR.

CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER.

MY NAME IS AARON KING.

I LIVE IN HUTTO.

CITY MANAGER PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET OR NRW.

SEVERAL WEEKS AGO ON AUGUST 17TH, THE CITY COUNCIL PASSED THE BUDGET AND I'M SURE AT THE TIME THAT Y'ALL WERE ON YOUR WAY TO WRAPPING IT UP AND RESPECTING THE TAXPAYER BURDEN ON THE RESIDENTS OF HUTTO AND STICKING TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

WE WERE TOLD THAT CITY COUNCIL WENT LINE ITEM BY LINE ITEM, AND ONCE ALL WAS SAID AND DONE, YOU ALL AGREED ON THE FINAL BUDGET. THEN ON AUGUST 27TH, A COUNCIL MEMBER REQUESTED A SPECIAL MEETING IN FAVOR OF RAISING THE TAX RATE, AND FOUR OF THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS JUMPED ON THE BANDWAGON.

YOU WENT BACK ON YOUR AGREEMENT TO STICK WITH THE THE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE BUDGET.

NOW, HERE WE ARE BECAUSE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, 5 TO 2 VOTE IN FAVOR OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TAX RATE INCREASE OF $0.45 PER $100.

NOW, $0.45 MAY NOT SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT WHEN YOU DO THE MATH, IT COULD BE QUITE A HIT TO SOME HUTTO RESIDENTS.

FOR EXAMPLE, A PROPERTY'S TAX ASSESSMENT VALUE ON A HOME OF $366,000 COMES TO A 100 AND OR $1,647 ANNUAL INCREASE OR $137.25 A MONTH.

WE'LL ROUND IT UP TO $138 TO SIMPLIFY THINGS.

THAT $138 COULD GO TOWARDS GROCERIES, GASOLINE, UTILITIES, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, HOME MAINTENANCE, PAYING OFF DEBT AND THE LIKE.

IF THE INCREASE THE FIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO PUSH THROUGH PASSES, YOU JUST TOOK THAT $1,647 OUT OF MY WALLET. NOW I'LL HAVE TO DO THE SAME WITH LESS.

MONEY IS ALREADY TIGHT IN THE ECONOMY.

YOU'LL MAKE IT EVEN HARDER ON FOLKS LIKE ME.

AND HERE'S THE THING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS.

LET'S SEE, $1,647 DIVIDED BY FIVE COMES TO $329.

[00:20:08]

AND THAT'S JUST ME.

DO YOU PERSONALLY HAVE MONEY TO GIVE THE REST OF THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO TO EASE THEIR TAX BURDEN? YOU'RE CONSIDERING IMPOSING ON THEM? YES, YOU DO.

IT'S CALLED THE BUDGET.

YOU MAY THINK THAT THIS TAX INCREASE ISN'T A BIG DEAL, THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU, BUT YOU NEED TO LOOK BEYOND YOURSELVES.

THIS ISN'T ABOUT YOU.

IT'S ABOUT THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO.

BY AND LARGE, TAXES INCREASE IN WAGES.

DON'T. HOW MANY OF US HAVE STOOD HERE IN FRONT OF YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE NRA BUDGET ASKING YOU TO NOT INCREASE TAXES ON THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO? THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO ELECTED YOU TO REPRESENT US, TO LOOK OUT FOR US, TO PROTECT US.

RAISING TAXES ON US ISN'T LOOKING OUT FOR US NOR PROTECTING US.

YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T REALIZE OR MAYBE YOU JUST DON'T CARE THAT SOME RESIDENTS COULD LITERALLY BE TAXED OUT OF THEIR HOMES.

THERE ARE CITIZENS WITHIN OUR COMMUNITY THAT ARE BARELY MAKING IT, AND YOU WANT TO PUT THIS BURDEN ON US.

IF YOU ALL ORIGINALLY AGREED ON THE NRA BUDGET, THEN BE RESPONSIBLE WITH THE BUDGET YOU AGREED ON.

LET THE BOTTOM LINE STAY THE SAME.

YOU CAN MOVE THE MONIES AROUND HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT.

MAKE A LIST OF ALL THE WANTS VERSUS THE NEEDS.

IF THE NEEDS DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS, THEN PULL FROM THE WANTS AS THE NEEDS ARE MET.

REPLENISH THE WANTS.

BUT THE BOTTOM LINE DOESN'T CHANGE.

IT'S THE SAME AS IT'S THE SAME FOR YOU.

IF YOU HAVE A PERSONAL BUDGET, IT'S DAVE RAMSEY 101 WITH A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING ON IN HUTTO RIGHT NOW WITH RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESSES, THERE IS A REVENUE INCREASE OF 8% OR $2.1 MILLION.

ONE OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AT THE AUGUST 31ST COUNCIL MEETING SAID THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT REDUCING THE CASH RESERVE BY 1 MILLION, $1.2 MILLION AND CONCERNED ABOUT HUTTO GOING INTO A RECESSION.

THE SUBDIVISION I LIVE IN, HOMES ARE BEING BUILT, FAMILIES ARE MOVING IN.

THESE FAMILIES ARE GENERATING REVENUE INCREASES.

FOR HUTTO. IF THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS CONCERNED ABOUT REDUCING THE CASH RESERVE BY 1.2 MILLION, YOU DON'T NEED TO BE NEW RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESSES HAVE ALREADY MET AND EXCEEDED YOUR CONCERN.

DOES THIS HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH RETAILERS, DEVELOPERS AND LAND OWNERS? I HOPE NOT.

WE DON'T NEED TO INCENTIVIZE BUSINESSES TO COME TO HUTTO BY RAISING TAXES ON THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO.

LET THE DEVELOPERS SPEND THEIR MONEY AND PAY THEM BACK WITH THE TAXES THAT THEY GENERATE AND LEAVE US THE CITIZENS ALONE.

MAYOR SNYDER AND COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON ARE TRYING TO EASE THE TAX BURDEN ON THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO BY STICKING WITH THE NER RATE.

THEY HEAR THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO FOR SOME REASON.

THE OTHER FIVE COUNCIL MEMBERS DON'T GET IT OR THEY'RE NOT HEARING US.

THEY WANT TO INCREASE OUR TAXES WHEN THERE'S CLEARLY NO REASON TO.

I'VE HEARD THOSE WHO ARE IN FAVOR OF TAX INCREASES AND IT MAKES ME WONDER WHY.

WHAT'S IN IT FOR THEM? IT HAS TO BENEFIT THEM SOMEHOW.

IT'S CLEAR TO ME THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO FINANCIALLY.

YOU KNOW WHAT MESSAGE THE FIVE OF YOU ARE SENDING TO THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO BY WANTING TO INCREASE THE TAXES? YOU DON'T CARE ABOUT US, AND YOU DIDN'T EVEN HEAR US.

YOU'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REPRESENTING US.

YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT LOOKING OUT FOR US.

YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE YOUR OWN SELF-SERVING AGENDAS.

IF YOU CARED ABOUT US, LIKE YOU SAID DURING YOUR CAMPAIGNS, YOU WOULDN'T BE PURSUING A TAX RATE INCREASE.

WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE HERE TONIGHT DISCUSSING THIS OR DEBATING THIS.

HONOR YOUR WORD AND STAY WITH THE BUDGET.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

WE ALL KNOW THAT YOU'RE VYING FOR THE SEAT TO YOUR RIGHT.

THAT'S YOUR GOAL.

WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE NOT TO INCREASE TAXES? WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE IF YOU WANT TO BE VOTED IN AS MAYOR TO EASE THE TAX BURDEN ON THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO AND ENCOURAGE THE OTHER FOUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO ARE FOLLOWING YOUR LEAD TO FOLLOW SUIT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WANT TO BE VOTED IN COME THE NEXT ELECTION.

IF THIS TAX INCREASE GOES THROUGH, I CAN PROMISE YOU THIS I WILL VOTE AGAINST ALL FIVE OF YOU AGAIN IF THIS TAX RATE TAX

[00:25:09]

WE, THE VOTERS, WILL REMEMBER AND YOU COULD VERY WELL BE VOTED OUT OF OFFICE AT THE NEXT ELECTION.

REMEMBER WHO YOU SERVE.

YOU SERVE US.

WE DON'T SERVE YOU.

DO THE RIGHT THING.

STAY WITHIN THE NRA BUDGET AND DON'T RAISE TAXES.

I DON'T THINK SO. ALL RIGHT, NEXT.

AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISPRONOUNCED YOUR LAST NAME.

TIM. IS IT HANEY? DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? PASS.

PASS. OKAY. WE HAVE ANISHA WILLIAMS. GOOD EVENING.

UM, THIS IS TO THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY COUNCIL.

UM, I'M ONISHA WILLIAMS. I'M THE CO FOUNDER OF BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO AND THE LEAD OF OUR SOCIAL ACTION AND VOTER MOBILIZATION SUBGROUP.

OUR ORGANIZATION SEEKS TO FOSTER OPPORTUNITIES FOR BLACK RESIDENTS TO DEVELOP SOCIAL AND BUSINESS NETWORKS, CONTRIBUTE TO COMMUNITY SERVICE, AND IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR BLACK YOUTH AND ADULTS IN HUTTO.

OUR AIM IS TO MAKE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT FOR THOSE OF US WITH A SHARED BLACK IDENTITY AND SHARED CULTURE TO THRIVE AS WE ARE IN OUR OWN, TO THRIVE AS WE ARE IN OUR OWN COMMUNITY.

WE ARE DEEPLY CONCERNED, DISHEARTENED AND DISAPPOINTED BY MAYOR MIKE SNYDER'S RECENT ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES.

NUMBER ONE, HIS INVOLVEMENT IN DISCRIMINATORY COMMENTS, AS EVIDENCED IN THE $12.5 MILLION LAWSUIT AWARDED TO THE FORMER CITY MANAGER WHERE A JURY FOUND THE BODY OF EVIDENCE CREDIBLE ENOUGH TO INFLUENCE THEIR DECISION THAT RACIAL DISCRIMINATION HAD OCCURRED.

THIS INCLUDES MAYOR SNYDER BEING QUOTED AS SAYING BLACKS ARE CROOKS.

SUCH A GRIEVOUS MISJUDGMENT NOT ONLY REFLECTS A FAILURE IN LEADERSHIP, BUT ALSO A BLATANT VIOLATION OF CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS.

WHILE THE CITY MAY BE APPEALING THIS JUDGMENT, IT DOES NOT ABSOLVE MAYOR SNYDER'S HARMFUL ACTIONS.

NUMBER TWO AT THE AUGUST 31ST, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, MAYOR SNYDER RECEIVED AND SHOWCASED A BANANA STAND FEATURING MONKEY AND A BANANAS AND BANANAS.

KNOWING THAT BLACK CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF WERE PRESENT, THIS ACT, RIFE WITH HURTFUL RACIAL CONNOTATIONS, REMAINED VISIBLE FOR HOURS, CAUSING RACIAL HARM AND DISTRESS AMONG MEMBERS OF BOTH THE BLACK AND WIDER COMMUNITY OF HUTTO.

RACIAL HARASSMENT AND DISCRIMINATION HAVE DEEP ROOTS IN AMERICA, OFTEN INTIMIDATING RACIAL MINORITIES FROM CIVIC ENGAGEMENT.

JUST DECADES AGO, MANY BLACK AMERICANS GAVE THEIR LIVES FOR THE RIGHT TO VOTE.

EXPERIENCING SUCH INCIDENTS IN 2023, ESPECIALLY FROM THE MAYOR, FEELS THREATENING AND ADDS TO THE SOCIAL TRAUMA RACIAL MINORITIES EXPERIENCE OVER A LIFETIME. IT JEOPARDIZES THE WELL-BEING OF OUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY.

WE STRONGLY CONDEMN MAYOR SNYDER'S RACIAL INSENSITIVITY AND VIOLATIONS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964, WHICH PROHIBITS DISCRIMINATION BASED ON IDENTIFIERS SUCH AS COLOR, RACE, SEX AND NATIONAL ORIGIN.

ADDITIONALLY, HIS CONTINUED SERVICE AS MAYOR AND CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL IS OF GREAT CONCERN.

WE ARE REQUESTING THE CITY COUNCIL TO PASS A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE IN MAYOR AND FOR MAYOR SNYDER, GIVEN HIS QUESTIONABLE MORAL AND PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT. TO MAYOR SNYDER, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU FORFEIT YOUR ELECTED POSITION.

YOUR ACTIONS HAVE CAUSED SUBSTANTIAL HARM TO THE COMMUNITY AND POSED A SIGNIFICANT LIABILITY TO THE CITY OF HUTTO.

WE AS TAXPAYERS AND DEDICATED CITIZENS OF VARIOUS ROLES WITHIN OUR FAMILIES AND THE COMMUNITY EXPECT AND DESERVE RESPECT AND REPRESENTATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

WE APPRECIATE OUR REQUESTS BEING HEARD AND STRONGLY CONSIDERED FOR IMMEDIATE ACTION.

RESPECTFULLY, THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

NEXT, WE HAVE TAMARA HANEY.

I CAN'T SAY ANY BETTER THAN MR. KING DID. OKAY.

AND THEN WE HAVE SHERYL STEWART.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? SO I FIRST WANT TO TOUCH ON TAXES.

[00:30:03]

YOUR WEBSITE INDICATES THE CITY'S WEBSITE INDICATES THAT THERE'S A PROPOSED TAX THAT WOULD BRING US UP TO 19%.

SO I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO SCRUTINIZE YOUR BUDGET FURTHER.

REMEMBER THE ANTICIPATED 8% INCREASE IN REVENUE NEXT YEAR? REMOVE THE QUARTERLY RETREATS, REVIEW THE COMP TIME.

GIVE OUR COPS A RAISE AND PAY THE DIFFERENTIAL.

YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT THE ISD DECREASE, BUT LET'S BE HONEST, THAT SAME ISD THAT IS LOWERING THAT TAX IS ALSO GOING TO BE HITTING US WITH BONDS ANY DAY NOW.

Y'ALL WILL BE HITTING US WITH HIGHER WATER BILLS AND A FEE ON OUR WASTEWATER.

I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU CALL IT, BUT YOU'RE POSSIBLY GOING TO BE BLEEDING US DRY.

AND THAT WILL BE HAPPENING AT THE EXACT SAME TIME THAT OUR ELECTRIC BILLS HAVE DOUBLED.

AT LEAST MINE HAS.

SO AS A CITIZEN OF HUDDLE, I DON'T CARE WHAT BUDGET IT COMES FROM, I DON'T CARE WHO'S CHARGING IT TO ME.

IT'S HITTING MY POCKET.

AND Y'ALL ARE POCKET WATCHING THE ISD.

I WANT YOU TO POCKET WATCH YOURSELVES.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH Y'ALL BEING CRITICAL OF EACH OTHER, BUT WHEN YOU BECOME CYNICAL, WE HAVE A PROBLEM.

Y'ALL ARE TEETERING ON SOPHISTRY, AND I'M NOT SURE YOU'LL EVER COME BACK FROM THAT.

LET'S NORMALIZE ASKING QUESTIONS FOR CLARITY INSTEAD OF MOVING ON THE STORIES THAT YOU'VE CREATED IN YOUR MIND, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT BE TRUE.

AT THE LAST MEETING, MS..

WILLIAMS SAID, AND I'M PARAPHRASING, THAT SHE CRIPPLED FOR FEAR FOR HER BLACK SON.

I, TOO, HAVE BLACK SONS.

I HAVE A WHITE SON WHO IS PROUDLY SERVING IN OUR US NAVY.

HE'S BEEN DEPLOYED.

I'VE NEVER FELT THAT CRIPPLING SENSE OF FEAR FROM MY WHITE SON THE SAME WAY THAT I HAVE FOR MY BLACK SONS.

I TOO, HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH MY BLACK SONS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU GET PULLED OVER BY A COP.

WE'VE HAD THE SAME CONVERSATIONS.

THAT MANY OTHER BLACK FAMILIES HAVE HAD.

BUT I'M WHITE.

I WILL NEVER BE A WHITE WOMAN.

I WILL NEVER KNOW WHAT IT FEELS TO BE A WHITE WOMAN.

BUT I'M RELATED TO BLACK PEOPLE.

I'VE LIVED WITH MORE BLACK PEOPLE THAN I HAVE WHITE PEOPLE.

AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE BLACK FAMILIES THAT I LIVE WITH, THAT I COMMUNICATE WITH, HAVE SAID TO ME THAT THEY FEEL THAT IT'S A REACH TO SAY THAT THE MAYOR NEEDS TO RESIGN.

HINDSIGHT IS 2020.

ARE THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT? ABSOLUTELY. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR THERE TO BE A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE FOR THE MAYOR, THEN LET'S HAVE THAT SAME VOTE FOR ALL OF YOU, BECAUSE ANY ONE OF YOU COULD HAVE REMOVED THOSE BANANAS.

THE CHARGES AGAINST MIKE, WHETHER WE WANT TO LIKE IT OR NOT.

THEY WERE DROPPED FOR LACK OF CONFIDENCE.

SO THAT CURRENT THING THAT'S BEING APPEALED, IT'S AGAINST THE CITY.

IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, IT'S NOT AGAINST THE MAYOR.

THE CHARGES WERE DROPPED AGAINST EVERY INDIVIDUAL PERSON.

SO IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY THINGS, LET'S SAY THE TRUTH, RIGHT? SO WE ALL HAVE UNCONSCIOUS BIAS THAT WE HAVE TO RECONCILE WITH.

BUT MY QUESTION IS, WHERE DO WE AS A COMMUNITY GO FROM HERE? WHAT'S OUR ULTIMATE GOAL? DO WE WANT TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH OTHER? DO WE WANT TO HEAL? DO WE WANT TO MEND? WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE? SO LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE HAVE IN COMMON AND WHAT WE CAN DO TO MOVE FORWARD.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE DR.

MORRIS KUNDA.

UNFORTUNATELY. EARPIECES GET CAUGHT UP IN THE MASK.

YOU KNOW, LAST TIME I WAS HERE.

I MENTIONED TO YOU ALL ABOUT ACTION REACTION.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DISTURBED ME WHILE I WAS HERE THE LAST TIME I WAS HERE WAS I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE.

INTIMIDATION OR POSSIBLY THREATS AGAINST, I GUESS, SOME CITIZENS AND EVEN SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS.

THIS IS WHAT I'M HEARING.

YOU KNOW, YOU'VE HAD TWO PEOPLE SPEAK TO SOMETHING HERE THAT'S RATHER INTERESTING.

ONE IS ONE MOM ASKED YOU SAID YOU COULD BE ONE OF THE GOOD GUYS.

THIS COULD BE A GREAT CITY.

I FEEL PERSONALLY.

AND WHEN I HAD TO EXCUSE ME, DO A KEYNOTE ADDRESS, I SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED HUDDLE, STANDING ON THE CUSP OF BEING ONE OF THE GREATEST CITY IN THE UNITED STATES, ACTUALLY BEING A BEACON OF LIGHT FOR OTHER CITIES THAT THEY COULD LOOK BECAUSE OF THE ECLECTIC GROUPS THAT HUDDLE HAS. THAT THEY CAN LOOK AT.

WOW, HOW DO THEY DO THAT? HOW DID THEY PULL THAT OFF? YOU COULD ACTUALLY BE A HERO.

[00:35:03]

YOU KNOW, I MENTIONED TO YOU ABOUT A VERBAL APOLOGY LAST TIME I WAS HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID OR DIDN'T, BUT WHAT I KIND OF CAUGHT FROM YOU WHILE I WAS STILL SITTING HERE AFTER EVERYTHING WAS SAID AND DONE, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE WANTING TO EXPLAIN WHY THIS HAPPENED RATHER THAN OR MAKE EXCUSES.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.

IF ANYTHING, LET'S GET PERSONAL.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO CALL ME DOCTOR.

I'M NOT GOING TO CALL YOU MAYOR.

SO I'M GOING TO SAY MIKE, YOU CAN CALL ME MAURICE.

MIKE, MAN UP.

STAND UP RIGHT NOW.

FORGET DECORUM BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T THINK ABOUT DECORUM.

YOU HAD THAT MONKEY SITTING UP THERE AND APOLOGIZE TO THE BLACK PEOPLE.

IT'S SIMPLE. IT'S REAL SIMPLE.

HEY, AFRICAN-AMERICANS, I BLEW IT.

EVEN LAUREN BOEBERT FOR SOME DIFFERENT REASON.

SHE APOLOGIZED AND I NEVER WOULD EXPECT HER TO APOLOGIZE.

THIS IS YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO BE THAT GREAT MAN.

THIS IS IT. IT MIGHT SAVE YOU.

IF YOU WANT TO BE MAYOR, YOU MIGHT SAVE IT.

SO STAND UP RIGHT NOW.

MAN UP RIGHT NOW AND SAY AFRICAN-AMERICANS.

I BLEW IT. I APOLOGIZE.

CAN YOU DO THAT? FORGET DECORUM FOR RIGHT NOW.

COME ON. COME ON.

WE'LL ALL DO IT TOGETHER. WE'LL APOLOGIZE TO EACH OTHER.

HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? IN MY LIFE.

I MESSED UP. I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S SIMPLE.

MM. OKAY.

YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

I UNDERSTAND. OR MAYBE DECORUM ALLOWS YOU NOT TO, BUT YOU NEED TO MAN UP AND STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT.

BECAUSE IF IT'S TRUE ABOUT THE THREATS, REMEMBER I TOLD YOU ACTION REACTION.

TODAY I GOT A VISIT FROM THE CITIZENS DEFENDING FREEDOM.

I WASN'T AT THE HOUSE.

WELL, I WAS ACTUALLY IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.

AND MY WIFE, THE INDIVIDUAL TALKED TO MY WIFE.

THAT PARTICULAR GROUP IS HEADED BY ELON WEST.

ELLEN WEST SO THAT YOU KNOW WHERE I STAND.

ELLEN WEST, TIM SCOTT, AND EVEN A SUPREME COURT JUSTICE, CLARENCE THOMAS.

I PERSONALLY CONSIDER THEM TRAITORS TO MY PEOPLE.

SO ELLEN WEST.

IS HEAD OF THIS GROUP, CITIZENS DEFENDING FREEDOM.

YOU KNOW, ALLEN WEST WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

HE, I THINK, FROM DOWN FROM HOUSTON.

SO THIS IS WHERE WE IS THIS WHERE WE ARE GOING TO GO? A CITY THAT'S SITTING ON THE CUSP OF GREATNESS IS THIS IS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS ROAD OF THREATS.

REMEMBER I ASKED YOU WHAT'S NEXT NAME CALLING.

SO IS IT THREATS? YOU TELL ME. MIKE.

COME ON, MAN. WE CAN DO THIS.

WE CAN STRAIGHTEN THIS OUT.

ARE YOU WILLING TO.

YES OR NO? WELL, NO ANSWER.

I WORKED BY NO ANSWER WHEN I'M DOING RESEARCH.

NO ANSWER IS AN ANSWER.

SO ANYWAYS.

YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO ACTUALLY SHOW MOVE FROM A SERVANT LEADER TO A TRANSITIONAL OR EVEN A TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADER.

WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO? IT'S AN EASY THING TO APOLOGIZE.

IT'S NOT THAT DIFFICULT.

BUT YEAH, IT TAKES SOME STRENGTH TO DO IT.

AND A LOT OF MEN CAN'T.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE HAVE ANDREW MURPHY.

GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MR. MAYOR. MY NAME IS ANDREW MURPHY.

I'VE LIVED IN HUTTO SINCE 2015, AND I'M GOING TO BE SHORT.

I'M HERE TO OPPOSE THE PROPOSED TAX INCREASE OF 17.5% ON THE ALREADY BURDENED PROPERTY OWNERS.

THIS IS AFTER EVERY ONE OF YOU HAD ALREADY APPROVED AND PASSED THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET.

MY HOME BUDGET IS ALREADY TIGHT WITH THE RAMPANT INFLATION AND I CANNOT AFFORD THE NEW TAX INCREASE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.

ISN'T THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE THE HIGHEST TAX RATE THAT YOU MAY ADOPT WITHOUT HOLDING AN ELECTION AND VOTER APPROVAL? STAY WITHIN THE BUDGET? DO NOT RAISE OUR TAXES.

NEXT WE HAVE TONY VILLA.

YOU. I'M HERE TO REMIND YOU ALL AGAIN.

ONCE AGAIN, TAXATION IS THEFT.

QUIT STEALING FROM US.

MIKE. DAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING OUR ADVOCATES.

THE REST OF YOU QUIT STEALING FROM US.

WE DON'T APPRECIATE IT.

WE KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND WE DON'T APPRECIATE IT.

THAT'S SIMPLE.

YOU'VE GOT A RULE IN PLACE THAT YOU CAN JUMP THROUGH A LEGAL LOOPHOLE EVERY TIME THAT YOU DON'T LIKE IT.

THAT NEEDS TO GO TO.

[00:40:01]

I MEAN, THE LOOPHOLE IN ITSELF, YOU KNOW, IS A PROBLEM.

BUT IT SHOULD BE A UNANIMOUS VOTE, NOT A MAJORITY VOTE, IN THE EVENT THAT IT IS USED.

I WATCHED YOU IN THAT LAWYER GUY.

GO BACK AND FORTH ABOUT FIVE MINUTES LAST TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW Y'ALL WERE GOING TO FINAGLE IT.

JUST MAKES MY BLOOD BOIL AS A CITIZEN.

I DON'T REMIND YOU ALL.

BOSTON TEA PARTY WAS A THREE CENT TAX INCREASE.

I THINK THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS NATION HAVE FORGOTTEN THAT TAXATION IS THEFT.

SO GET OUT OF MY POCKET.

YOU'RE HERE? YEAH.

THAT'S IT FOR THE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

WE ALSO RECEIVED WRITTEN COMMENTS FROM LANISHA, WILLIAM, EVAN PORTERFIELD, CRYSTAL COLLINS, LISA GEVURTZ, ERIC GUIDA.

NICK AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MISPRONOUNCING THESE NAMES.

NICK VOCE, WILLIAM MONTGOMERY, JESSICA SMITH.

JAINA SOULS.

DEB CAVANAUGH.

RICARDO TERAN.

SARA KASSEM.

SUSAN MRS. KEN MOSBERGEN AND PALLAVI THADANI.

AND SO EACH EACH COUNCIL MEMBER RECEIVED THOSE COMMENTS ALSO.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[8.1. Consideration and possible action on public hearing on the proposed 2024 tax rate (Anne LaMere) (Part 1 of 2)]

SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IS THIS OPENING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR RESIDENTS TO DISCUSS THAT? TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. THAT'S ALL WE'RE DOING.

THAT SAID, I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS SOMETHING TO BE SAID FIRST.

NO. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OH, SORRY. OKAY.

OKAY. SO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

7:44 P.M..

THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE TAX RATE.

YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME UP.

YES, SIR. THEY ALSO HAVE YOUR OR YOUR THING.

STEPHEN HARRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I DIDN'T THINK I'D HAVE TO COME UP THIS TIME.

BECAUSE YOU HAD PASSED THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THEN.

SURPRISE. HERE I AM.

I WANT TO QUOTE OH, BY THE WAY, STEPHEN HARRIS.

I LIVE HERE IN THE CREEK BEND SUBDIVISION.

I'M QUOTING TODAY FROM A FORBES ARTICLE FROM SEPTEMBER 5TH TITLED VIRAL TIKTOKER CLAIMS THE US IS IN A SILENT DEPRESSION WORSE THAN THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

WRITTEN BY JACK KELLY, HE QUOTES SOME STATISTICS FROM AN INDEPENDENT JOURNALIST AND TIKTOKER FREDDIE SMITH.

IN 1930, A HOME COST $3,900 TO RENT IF YOU CHOOSE.

CHOSE TO RENT WAS $216.

A CAR COSTS $600 AND THE ANNUAL INCOME WAS AROUND $1,300 A YEAR.

SO THE HOME WAS ABOUT THREE TIMES THE ANNUAL WAGE.

THE RENT COST ABOUT 16% OF THE ANNUAL WAGE, AND A CAR COSTS ABOUT 46% OF THE ANNUAL WAGE IN 2023.

HOWEVER. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE NUMBERS, BUT THE HOME IS NOW EIGHT TIMES THE ANNUAL WAGE OF $56,000.

RENT IS 42% OF THE ANNUAL WAGE, AND A CAR NOW COSTS 85% OF THE ANNUAL WAGE OF THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER WAGE IN AMERICA.

A COUPLE OF QUOTES FROM THE ARTICLE.

ALTHOUGH WAGE GROWTH HAS CLIMBED 0.2%, A WHOPPING 0.2%, I'LL ADD, IN AUGUST, ACCORDING TO THE RECENT JOBS REPORT DATA BY THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS, IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO CURB THE IMPACT OF HIGH INFLATION IN THE RISING COST OF LIVING.

THERE HAS BEEN A NOTICEABLE DOWNWARD SHIFT IN THE JOB MARKET, PARTICULARLY FOR WHITE COLLAR PROFESSIONALS.

COMPETITION TO GET A JOB IS INTENSE.

THE HIRING PROCESS SEEMS TO TAKE FOREVER.

JOBS ARE BEING RELOCATED TO LOWER COST CITIES AND COUNTRIES AND WORKERS SALARIES ARE BEING CUT BY EMPLOYERS UP TO 47%.

END QUOTE.

WHILE THIS DEPRESSION IS NOT ACCOMPANIED BY A STOCK MARKET CRASH OR 25% UNEMPLOYMENT LIKE THE GREAT DEPRESSION, THE KEY COMPONENT IN TODAY IS HYPERINFLATION.

THE DEVASTATION OF HYPERINFLATION IS FELT BY FAMILIES ACROSS OUR CITY.

[00:45:04]

TODAY, THAT SAME HOME COST FOR $436,000.

THE INTEREST RATE IS SEVEN AND ONE HALF PERCENT AND THE PAYMENT IS NOW $2,000 MORE PER MONTH.

THE PRICE OF NEARLY EVERYTHING AT THE GROCERY STORE IS INCREASED, INCLUDING MILK, BREAD, BUTTER AND ANY PROTEIN YOU CAN THINK OF.

THE PRICE OF A CARTON OF EGGS HAS INCREASED 250% IN THIS CALENDAR YEAR ALONE.

ACCORDING TO THE STUDY BY A GROUP BALANCING EVERYTHING, THE COST OF FOOD FOR ONE PERSON IN TEXAS SPECIFICALLY IS NOW BETWEEN $2801 AND $3200 A YEAR.

LOOKING AT OUR COMMUNITY AT A MACRO SCALE.

MANY FORMER, MANY OF MY FORMER COLLEAGUES AT DELL TECHNOLOGIES AND OTHER TECH COMPANIES IN THE AREA HAVE BEEN LAID OFF AND SOME ARE STILL SEARCHING FOR NEW JOBS.

MANY FAMILIES THAT ONCE HAD TWO INCOMES ARE FIGHTING TO STAY AFLOAT UNDER THE WEIGHT OF INFLATION WITH ONLY ONE INCOME.

NOW, I CONSIDER IT IMMORAL FOR ELECTED OFFICIALS TO HEAP LARGE TAX BURDENS UPON TAXPAYERS AND THEIR COMMUNITIES IN GOOD TIMES AND CERTAINLY IN BAD TIMES LIKE WE HAVE NOW.

TO CLAIM THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO INCREASE THE AD VALOREM RATE TO PAY FOR CITY SERVICES SERVICES IS SIMPLY DISHONEST.

AND I'M GOING TO HONOR THE RED LIGHT.

I JUST WANT TO CLOSE HERE.

COUNCIL, I PRAY FOR YOU REGULARLY.

I HAVE TREMENDOUS RESPECT FOR ANYBODY WHO WHO GETS UP THERE ON THAT DAIS AND AND WITHSTANDS THE VITRIOL THAT'S THROWN AT YOU ALL THE TIME.

BUT IF THIS ANYTHING HIGHER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS PASSED, I WILL CAMPAIGN TO REMOVE ANY OF YOU WHO VOTED FOR IT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, SIR.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE TAX RATE? ALL RIGHT. I DIDN'T COME PREPARED TO SPEAK, SO FORGIVE ME, BUT SINCE YOU GAVE ME A SHOT, I'M NOT A BIG FINANCIAL EXPERT.

STATE YOUR NAME. I'M SORRY. MARK ALEXEYEVICH, KYOTO RESIDENT.

I'M MAKING REALLY SHORT, VERY CONCISE AND SIMPLE HONOR THE NO NEW TAX RATE.

WE ALL KNOW THAT THESE ARE BAD TIMES, SOME WORSE THAN OTHERS FOR PEOPLE, SOME BETTER THAN OTHERS.

EVERYONE HAS THEIR OWN FINANCIAL ISSUES, AND I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THAT.

BUT IF YOU WANT TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO.

HONOR YOUR WORD.

KEEP THE TAX RATES AS LOW AS POSSIBLE WHEN ECONOMIC TIMES GET BETTER, WHEN PROJECTS GET FINISHED, MAYBE AT THE FUTURE TIME, MAYBE THEN IT'S A DECENT TIME TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAYBE PAY FOR SOME OF THESE AMENITIES THAT SOME OF THE CITIZENS MAYBE WANT.

BUT FOR NOW, I THINK NOT.

IT'S NOT A GOOD TIME TO DO IT.

I THINK YOU'RE JUST GOING TO ANGER A LOT OF THE POPULATION OF HATO IF YOU DO IT.

AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU, SIR.

RIGHT SEEING NO ONE ELSE.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:50 P.M..

AND WE HAVE JUST SO YOU ALL KNOW, THERE'S A FEW MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND THEN WE'LL GO TO THE ACTUAL VOTING ON THE TAX RATE.

NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM EIGHT TO CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 2020 3-210.

[8.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-210 approving the Personnel Policy (Irene Talioaga) ]

IS THERE A PRESENTATION OR YOU JUST WANT TO SAY, WELL, IN THE MEANTIME, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 8.2 AS PRESENTED.

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON APPROVING THE PERSONNEL POLICY AS PRESENTED.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

AND BEFORE WE VOTE. I'LL JUST SAY A FEW THINGS.

I WON'T BE SUPPORTING IT.

AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE OUR.

EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO GET BETTER BENEFITS.

I THINK WE'VE DONE A GOOD JOB IN PROVIDING MORE LEAVE, BETTER HEALTH INSURANCE AND SOME OTHER BETTER COVERAGES.

LIKE, I FORGET, PATERNITY COVERAGE FOR SPOUSES OF THOSE WHO ARE PREGNANT AND ALSO BETTER MATERNITY LEAVE, I BELIEVE, IN THIS YEAR'S DEAL.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THE ISSUES I HAVE IS THAT I FEEL LIKE THE CITY IS WE ARE IN THE SERVICE BUSINESS AND TO ME IT'S MORALLY NOT A GOOD THING WHEN I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE CALLED WHITE COLLAR EMPLOYEES, BUT THOSE WHO ARE NOT THE LIBRARIANS, THEY'RE NOT THE THE ROAD WORKERS, THEY'RE NOT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THEY'RE NOT THE PARKS PEOPLE.

THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TO COME TO WORK EVERY DAY.

AND WE'RE ALLOWING REMOTE WORK FOR.

[00:50:01]

I THINK EVERYBODY OUGHT TO COME.

EVERYBODY OUGHT TO PITCH IN.

IF THE LIBRARY NEEDS HELP SO SOMEONE CAN GO TO LUNCH, WHY CAN'T SOMEONE THAT'S ON A SECOND FLOOR COME DOWN AND SAY, I'VE GOT YOUR LUNCH FOR TWO HOURS? INSTEAD, THAT PERSON IN THE LIBRARY EITHER IS HAVING TO SKIP THE LUNCH OR SOMETHING ELSE.

I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE QUOTE, PREMIUM HOLIDAYS.

I THINK ALL EMPLOYEES SHOULD GET HOLIDAYS.

I DON'T I THINK IT'S A BAD PRACTICE FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO THEN DICTATE CERTAIN HOLIDAYS OR PREMIUM FOR CERTAIN PEOPLE ALL ON HIS DECISION.

I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE A CALENDAR WITH HOLIDAYS.

THOSE WHO WORK AND GET PAID, THOSE WHO DON'T ARE OFF.

HOWEVER, THAT'S DONE.

I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN, AND I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON SAID IT BEST ABOUT BOTCH IT UP ABOUT.

THE PUPPY. BUT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT.

THE CITY MANAGER CAN MAKE ANY CHANGE HE WANTS TO THE PERSONNEL POLICY FOR 60 DAYS AND AT THAT POINT COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND THEN ASK FOR US TO VOTE ON IT.

AND I THINK I THINK WHAT YOU SAID AND I'LL SCREW IT UP, WAS THAT IT'S LIKE YOU ASKED FOR A PUPPY, YOU GET A NO, BUT IF YOU GET A PUPPY FOR 60 DAYS AND THEN ASK, YOU ALWAYS GET A YES.

AND SO MY FEAR IS WE'LL IMPLEMENT POLICIES THAT MAYBE WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE PASSED, BUT WE'LL END UP VOTING FOR THEM BECAUSE THEN AFTER 60 DAYS, IT'S ALMOST I MEAN, IT'S ALMOST LIKE, HOW COULD YOU TAKE THAT AWAY FROM EMPLOYEES? SO THE LAST ONE IS THE COMP TIME.

YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO WORK IN DEPARTMENTS AND I'M NOT GOING TO PICK ON ONE NECESSARILY, BUT YOU GET PROMOTED TO BE A DIRECTOR.

AND THAT PROMOTION COMES WITH LIKE $175,000 SALARY.

THAT PROMOTION ALSO MEANS THAT YOU HAVE TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS OR P AND Z MEETINGS OR EDC MEETINGS.

AND NOW THAT EVERY PERSON WHO TOOK THAT JOB KNOWING THEY WERE GOING TO WORK SOME EVENINGS NOW WHEN THEY WORK MORE THAN 40 HOURS OR 8 HOURS IN A DAY, THEY GET COMP TIME. MOST OF THE PEOPLE I TALKED TO, ESPECIALLY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY, THEY WORK MORE THAN EIGHT HOURS A DAY AND 40 HOURS A WEEK.

AND THAT'S JUST TO PAY THE TAX BILL THAT KEEPS GOING UP.

AND SO.

WHERE I COME FROM, YOU TAKE CERTAIN PROMOTIONS AND YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO WORK EXTRA.

AND NOW WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ALL THE PEOPLE THAT ARE TOOK, THE PROMOTIONS ARE NOW GOING BACK AND SAYING, WELL, I DON'T WANT TO WORK MORE THAN 40 HOURS, BUT THEY'RE NOT CUTTING THEIR PAY. AND SO TO ME, IT SEEMS. IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT. BUT FOR THOSE REASONS, I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT IT.

BUT I DO WANT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY TO KNOW THAT I'M GLAD WE'RE ABLE TO GIVE THEM INCREASED BENEFITS.

I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE TO IMPROVE ON THAT.

BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ALL ARE HERE.

ALL ARE HERE.

WE ALL WE ARE ALL HERE.

THAT'S HOW I SHOULD SAY IT, TO SERVE THE PUBLIC.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN DO THAT WHEN WE'RE NOT IN THIS BUILDING OR WE'RE IN ANOTHER STATE OR ANOTHER CITY.

BUT. SO I GUESS WITH THAT, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO ASK IF THERE WAS ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR.

WELL, WE CAN.

I HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYBODY THAT HAD ANYTHING, AND THEN I DIDN'T HEAR NOTHING, SO I SPOKE UP.

BUT YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO.

WELL, YOU STARTED BY JUST I MEAN, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO.

I'M NOT TRYING TO RUSH IT. OKAY.

I JUST WAS GOING TO SAY, I REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF THE HARD WORK THE STAFF PUT INTO THIS.

IT WASN'T JUST ON A WHIM.

I MEAN, HOW WHEN DID THIS START? DO YOU REMEMBER HOW LONG YOU'VE BEEN PUTTING TIME INTO THIS FOR? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I WENT TO HUMAN RESOURCE DIRECTOR.

UH, IT'S STARTED OVER ABOUT MAYBE OVER A YEAR AND A HALF AGO.

OKAY, SO THAT'S A LOT OF WORK.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO RECOGNIZE AND THANK CITY STAFF, ESPECIALLY IRENE AND YOUR DEPARTMENT, FOR ALL THE WORK THAT YOU PUT IN THERE.

WE ALSO HAD, I THINK, AT LEAST TWO WORK SESSIONS WITH COUNCIL.

THREE? OKAY.

THREE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AT LEAST TWO.

I SAID AT LEAST TWO. AND SO REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF INVOLVING US, LETTING US ASK QUESTIONS, EXPRESS OUR CONCERNS.

I THINK WE ALL HAD CONCERNS OF ONE TYPE OR ANOTHER AND ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE AND ALL THAT.

AND SO I JUST REALLY WANTED TO JUST TAKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THANK YOU AND STAFF AND THE COUNCIL FOR FOR KIND OF WORKING THROUGH THIS.

WE DIDN'T ALL AGREE ON EVERYTHING THAT ENDED UP LANDING IN HERE.

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO TO SAY THANK YOU.

I APPRECIATE IT.

YOU KNOW, I YOU KNOW, I DON'T SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS THAT THE MAYOR DOES, BUT THAT'S OKAY.

THERE'S NOTHING WRONG WITH DISAGREEING ON CERTAIN POINTS.

I'M REALLY APPRECIATIVE OF OF, YOU KNOW, KIND OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO, IN MY OPINION, I THINK BUILD UP A WONDERFUL WORKFORCE AND TO BE ABLE TO ATTRACT A LOT OF GOOD PEOPLE TO WANT TO COME TO HUTTO AND TO DO THOSE THINGS OFFER SOME FLEXIBILITY WHERE IT MAKES SENSE. AND SO I, I JUST I'M IN I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS AND GRATEFUL FOR ALL THE WORK THAT WAS PUT INTO IT.

SO THANK YOU, SIR.

I WOULD LIKE TO ECHO THE SAME SENTIMENTS AS MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

THANK YOU FOR THANK YOU AND ALL THE STAFF FOR PUTTING ON IN THE INPUT WITH EVERYTHING.

[00:55:03]

THE CITY OF HUTTO OPERATIONS AND INFORMATION TO NEW EMPLOYEES THAT ARE IN CURRENT EMPLOYEES AS WELL TO OPERATE FROM THAT.

THIS IS A SOLID DOCUMENT FOR THE CITY.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX. AYE.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

AYE. MAYOR SNYDER.

NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

AYE. MEMBER THORTON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

AYE. MOTION PASSES.

SIX ONE. THANK YOU, IRENE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM EIGHT THREE CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 2020 3-211.

[8.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-211 approving the Police Shift Differential Policy (Jeffrey Yarbrough) ]

HELLO, CHIEF. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

MR.. I'M HERE REQUESTING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVE THE POLICE NIGHT SHIFT DIFFERENTIAL POLICY THAT WE PRESENTED AS AS AS PRESENTED.

AND I'M OPEN TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT IT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 8.3 AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME COMING.

SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE A WHILE. I'M GLAD WE'RE ABLE TO DO IT NOW.

THANK YOU. WE'RE GRATEFUL.

I SECOND THAT. YEP, I HEARD THAT.

I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR CHIEF TO BE ABLE TO FILL SOME MISSING POSITIONS AND TO BE ABLE TO MOVE SOME PEOPLE AROUND SO THAT WE CAN AGAIN, BRING IN SOME ADDITIONAL HELP AND HIRE SOME PEOPLE WHO MAYBE NOT WANT TO WORK THE NIGHT SHIFT.

BUT SOME OF THE GUYS THAT ARE HERE AND WOMEN WANT TO WORK NIGHT SHIFT.

AND SO IT GIVES YOU, AGAIN, A LOT MORE FLEXIBILITY.

AND I THINK THIS WILL HELP US GET THE RIGHT PERSONNEL WE NEED.

THANK YOU. WE DO. WE FEEL THE SAME WAY AND WE'RE VERY OPTIMISTIC.

WE'RE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK.

AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, WHO ARE WATCHING THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE WATCHING THE NEXT MEETING TO SEE WHERE WE GO WITH THIS.

SO THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH, I'LL SAY I APPRECIATE THE THE MEN AND WOMEN THAT HAVE BEEN HAVING TO WORK MIDNIGHTS AND WORKING HOLIDAYS AND DOING EVERYTHING WHEN THERE'S AN ICE STORM, THEY'RE OUT THERE WORKING.

AND SO ANY TIME WE CAN.

YOU'VE GOT TO GET PAID MORE TO DO MORE.

AND AS I SAID EARLIER, I MEAN, THEY CAN'T WORK FROM HOME.

AND SO THEY GO OUT IN THE STORMS, THE WRECKS, THE FLASH FLOODS.

AND SO WHEN IT'S ON THE MIDNIGHT, I THINK THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE THINGS WE CAN DO.

AND I SECOND WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK SAID, THAT IT'S A LONG TIME COMING AND I'M HOPEFUL THAT THE COUNCIL IS MORE SUPPORTIVE TODAY THAN WE'VE BEEN IN THE PAST WHEN WE TRY TO INCREASE POLICE PAY.

SO I'M HOPING IT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE MORE FOR IT NOW.

SO HOPEFULLY THIS WILL BE SEEN AS WE'RE BECOMING FRIENDLY AND WANTING TO SUPPORT YOU ALL MORE.

AND WE APPRECIATE THAT, MAYOR.

AND TO YOUR POINT, THIS POLICY AND THIS OPPORTUNITY IS VERY TIMELY BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, WE'RE COMPETING WITH SCHOOL DISTRICTS IN RESPONSE TO HOUSE BILL THREE.

YOU'VE GOT SCHOOL DISTRICTS THAT ARE TRYING TO HIRE MANY, MANY OFFICERS FROM A POOL THAT IS VERY, VERY LOW.

AND IT'S VERY APPEALING TO OFFICERS WHO'VE BEEN IN TEN, 15, 20 YEARS TO GO AND WORK A DAY SHIFT.

AND SO WITH THIS OPPORTUNITY, IT IT GIVES OUR OFFICERS THE OPPORTUNITY TO FILL THOSE NIGHT POSITIONS.

BUT IT OPENS UP THOSE DAY SHIFTS FOR OFFICERS WHO WANT TO COME TO HUTTO, BUT THEY JUST DON'T THEY'VE BEEN THERE, DONE THAT IN THEIR CAREER.

THEY WANT TO BE OUT AND BE VISIBLE AND INTERACT WITH THE PUBLIC ON A DAILY ON A DAILY BASIS.

SO THAT JUST IT BECOMES A FORCE MULTIPLIER WHEN IT COMES TO RECRUITING AND RETENTION.

SO WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOU, AND I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT ABOUT THE ISD AND I'M NOT KNOCKING THE ISD, BUT LAST I SAW, THEY WERE PAYING MORE THAN WE DO FOR POLICE.

AND SO YOU HAVE TWO CHOICES.

IF YOU WANT TO BE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT, YOU CAN GO WORK FOR THE ISD.

YOU CAN HAVE SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS OFF, NO MIDNIGHTS, NO HOLIDAYS, AND YOU WORK MAYBE SOME FRIDAY EVENINGS FOR THE FOOTBALL, BUT YOUR MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AND YOUR ODDS OF GETTING SHOT, LEGS BROKE, ALL THAT I WOULD IMAGINE ARE DRAMATICALLY DECREASE.

NOT THAT SCHOOL IS COMPLETELY UNSAFE.

OR YOU COULD BE AN OFFICER THAT EVERY TIME YOU PULL SOMEBODY OVER, WHETHER IT BE AT TWO IN THE AFTERNOON OR 2:00 IN THE MORNING, YOU HAVE A CHANCE OF GETTING SHOT.

AND THERE'S NOT A WEEK GOES BY THAT YOU DON'T SEE SOMEONE.

AND I SEE YOU'RE WEARING ON YOUR BADGE, YOU'RE WEARING THAT SOMEONE ELSE HAS PASSED AWAY IN A LINE OF DUTY.

AND SO, YEAH, 15% TO ME.

IT BECAUSE IT'S MIDNIGHT.

SO I'M HAPPY WITH THAT. BUT IF IT WAS REGULAR PAY, I'D BE PUSHING FOR A WHOLE LOT MORE.

AND THEN WE HEARD ONCE BEFORE THAT YOU GUYS MAYBE MAKE MORE THAN OTHER PEOPLE.

[01:00:03]

HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THAT TO YOU? IF YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MONEY, THEN GO DO THE JOB.

IT'S NOT EASY. YOU'RE UNDER CONSTANT SURVEILLANCE.

EVERY LITTLE MIX UP, MESS UP.

YOU HAVE ONE WRONG WORD.

IT'S SCRUTINIZED. IT'S ON NATIONAL TV.

AND THANK YOU FOR WHAT YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

AND WE APPRECIATE YOU.

THANK YOU. ALREADY IN OUR DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE.

HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MAYOR SCHNEIDER, A COUNCIL MEMBER.

CLARK, A MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THOMPSON A COUNCIL MEMBER.

KOHLER A COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILCOCK A COUNCIL MEMBER.

THORNTON A PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

NEXT WE HAVE ITEM EIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 3-209 APPROVING FISCAL AND BUDGET POLICY AMENDMENTS.

[8.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-209 approving Fiscal and Budget Policy Amendments (Anne LaMere) ]

SECOND MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLERK SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I REALLY APPRECIATED THE SCORECARD ASPECT THAT YOU PUT THROUGHOUT AND WHICH ONES WE'VE BEEN COMPLYING WITH, WHICH ONES ARE NEW, WHICH ONES WE HAVEN'T COMPLIED WITH, AND THEN WHY AND HOW WE'RE FIXING IT REALLY HELPS TO PULL IT ALL TOGETHER.

AND NOTES WERE EXCEPTIONAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AGREED. THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE TO DO THIS.

I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO THIS YEARLY.

CORRECT. AS WE GET INTO THE BUDGET CYCLE.

SO I DON'T BELIEVE WE DID THIS LAST YEAR.

SO I THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD ROUTINE TO GET INTO AND JUST I APPRECIATE ALL OF THE DETAILS AND REVISIONS.

NOTES. IT WAS AMAZING.

I WAS BLOWN AWAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I GOT TO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

SORRY. ON PAGE FIVE, AND THESE ARE MINOR THINGS FOR ME, BUT ONE THING I'VE LEARNED UP HERE IS WE'VE BEEN IN ALL LITIGATION IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAIZE AND SHELLS AND CANNON CANS.

WHEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT IMPACT FEES, IT SAYS THE CITY MAY IMPOSE IMPACT FEES AS ALLOWABLE UNDER STATE LAW.

WELL THAT GIVE A CITY MANAGER THE ABILITY WHEN THEY MAY IMPOSE AS ALLOWABLE, THAT THEY MAY ALSO NOT IMPOSE IMPACT FEES.

NO, THAT'S REALLY A LEGAL QUESTION.

IT'S JUST QUOTING THE STATUTE.

THE STATUTE USES THAT LANGUAGE.

IT JUST MEANS YOU CAN'T IMPOSE A FEE THAT'S NOT ALLOWED UNDER STATE LAW.

RIGHT. WHEN I HAVE.

NUMBER THREE ON THAT PAGE.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROCUREMENT.

I DON'T REMEMBER. I GOT A TERRIBLE NOTE.

IT JUST SAYS OVER 50,000.

I GUESS MAYBE I WAS TRYING TO CONFIRM.

SO THIS IS FOR ALL CONTRACTS GREATER THAN 50,000.

WE'LL GO THROUGH THE PURCHASING POLICY.

WHAT ABOUT THE CONTRACTS THAT ARE UNDER 50,000? WHAT POLICY DO THEY FOLLOW? THEY STILL FOLLOW THE PURCHASING POLICY.

SO SHOULDN'T WE JUST SAY THAT ALL CONTRACTS WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE PURCHASE? THE REASON I COULD DO THAT, THE REASON THE ONLY REASON I BRING THIS UP IS OKAY, SOME OF US HAVE BEEN UP HERE TO WHERE WE KNOW THAT THINGS HAVE BEEN PARSED TO WHERE SOMEONE SAYS THEY WERE OKAY. AND AND AND I KNOW I.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT DOING THIS BECAUSE I JUST TRUST JAMES.

I JUST DO IT FROM A CHECKS AND BALANCE.

BUT THAT'S ONE THAT WAS ONE QUESTION THERE.

AND I HAD ONE OTHER ONE AND IT WAS MORE OF LIKE, I'M KIND OF EXCITED FOR IT.

PAGE 11.

OF THE DRAFT, WE START TALKING ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.

STARS. AND SO I KNOW IT'S GOING TO COST US SOME TIME AND MONEY.

WE HAVE TO INSTITUTE SOME NEW POLICIES.

BUT I THINK IT'S THE TRANSPARENCY STARS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE.

CORRECT? THAT DOES THOSE.

AND I KNOW WE CAN'T DO THEM ALL BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A CELL.

WE CAN'T HAVE ALL OF THEM BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THEM IS A SELF FUNDED.

SOME SORT OF RETIREMENT PLAN.

I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS, BUT WE'RE NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR THAT.

WE USE TMS, BUT FOR THE REST OF THEM, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT WE STRIVE FOR THAT SO THAT WE'RE SHOWING PEOPLE HOW GOOD WE ARE.

OVERALL, I LIKED IT.

I WAS A. IT WAS GREAT TO SEE WHAT WE'VE BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WHEN WE HAVEN'T.

AND SO I HOPE WE GET YOU GUYS STAFFED UP BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE'RE FAILING ON COMPLIANCE.

AND SO WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS, IS WHEN WE'RE FAILING OUR.

AND THIS IS FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

IF WE HAVE A POLICY AND WE'RE NOT COMPLYING WITH IT, WHAT IS I MEAN, A BIG DEAL LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEONE BECAUSE GOING THROUGH HERE, THERE'S PROBABLY

[01:05:02]

SO WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH THE POLICY? ARE THERE ANY THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, STATE LAW REQUIREMENTS THAT ONE PARTICULAR SECTION THAT YOU READ, THE REASON WHY THE 50,000 GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL AND THEN THE STATUTE SAYS YOU CAN'T DO COMPONENT PARTIAL PURCHASES, YOU KNOW, IN LESSER AMOUNTS JUST AND HAVE THE CITY MANAGER APPROVE IT.

THAT WOULD BE A STATE LAW VIOLATION.

SO YOU HAVE TO LOOK TO SEE IN THE POLICY WHERE THE REQUIREMENT REFLECTS STATE LAW TO HAVE A PENALTY. OKAY.

SO THERE'S ONE IN HERE ABOUT WE SPENT MONEY THAT WASN'T.

ALLOCATED THROUGH THE YEAR.

SO WHAT'S THE PENALTY? READING THIS POLICY, WE VIOLATED THE POLICY.

WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE SLAP ON THE WRIST? SO FOR THAT ITEM AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, IAN LEMAIRE, INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THAT PARTICULAR ITEM, THAT'S A CITY POLICY.

AND SO THAT'S A VIOLATION FOR CITY POLICY.

WHAT YOU COULD DO IS IN THAT THAT PERSON'S PERSONNEL RECORD, YOU COULD HAVE A WRITTEN RECOMMEND REPRIMAND, YOU COULD HAVE AN ORAL REPRIMAND.

IT DEPENDS ON THE SEVERITY OF THE ITEM THAT OCCURRED.

AND THAT'S WHERE I GET TO.

THESE ARE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE UNDER THE CITY MANAGER AND THE CITY MANAGER MANAGES THOSE EMPLOYEES AND DICTATES WHAT THOSE PENALTIES ARE ON A BASIS FOR HIS EMPLOYEES.

AND THEN WE'RE TO COVER THE CITY MANAGER.

AND IF WE FIND HIM NOT DOING SOMETHING IN POLICY, THAT'S WHEN WE WOULD DIRECT.

CORRECT. SO THAT'S I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLARIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC WHY THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE THAT WAY.

OKAY. NOW, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO WE SAID BEFORE, WE WANT TO TRUST AND VERIFY EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON.

AND SO I READ THIS AND THERE'S ALL THESE COMPLIANCE, BUT WE DON'T GET NOTIFIED AS A COUNCIL THAT EMPLOYEES ARE VIOLATING OUR.

THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE VIOLATING THE FISCAL AND BUDGET POLICY.

SO, I GUESS, DO WE NEED TO THEN TAKE THAT UP TO THE CITY MANAGER AND SAY THAT YOU'RE GETTING KNOCKED ON YOUR NEXT EMAIL BECAUSE YOU HAD 14 VIOLATIONS? THIS IS KIND OF WHY I'M IN FAVOR OF AN AUDITOR BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE AN INDEPENDENT PERSON THAT THEN CAN REPORT TO US.

ANOTHER VIOLATION, ANOTHER VIOLATION INSTEAD OF ONCE A YEAR WE GO THROUGH.

AND SO YOU'RE NOT WRONG.

I JUST DON'T KNOW. I'VE NEVER HELD ANYBODY ACCOUNTABLE IN FOUR YEARS UP HERE WE HAVE TONS OF VIOLATIONS.

AND I ALWAYS FIGURE IF WE'RE GOING TO DO POLICIES, WE THERE'S ALWAYS A.

I DON'T KNOW. SO PARAGRAPH TWO DOES STATE THAT EVERY OCTOBER THAT THIS POLICY WILL BE PROVIDED TO CITY MANAGER AND COUNCIL WITH EITHER YES, COMPLIANT OR NO NON-COMPLIANT IDENTIFIED.

AND THEN WITH THAT, THERE SHOULD BE A PLAN FOR CORRECTION.

SO WHAT'S THE PLAN FOR CORRECTION IN THIS? I HAVEN'T DONE ONE YET, BUT IT'S DUE IN OCTOBER, SO WE'LL SEE THIS AGAIN HERE IN PROBABLY OCTOBER THE 19TH IS WHAT I'M SHOOTING FOR. OKAY.

I HAVE TO HAVE A POLICY FIRST AND THEN I CAN COMPLY WITH THE POLICY.

WAIT A MINUTE. WE CURRENTLY HAVE A POLICY, THOUGH, RIGHT? WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE A POLICY THAT DOES LOOK DIFFERENT FROM THIS, THOUGH.

OKAY. BUT WE DO HAVE ONE.

CORRECT. AND THIS UPDATE IS TELLING US CHANGES AND WHERE WE DIDN'T FOLLOW IT THE LAST TIME.

CORRECT? OKAY.

IN A DISCUSSION ON THE POLICY.

HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MEMBER THOMPSON. AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX. HI.

MAYOR SCHNEIDER. AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KOHLER COUNCIL MEMBER.

CLERK. HIGH COUNCIL.

HIGH FASHION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. MAYOR, BEFORE WE GO TO 8.5, WE HAVE BECAUSE 8.5 THROUGH EIGHT NINE ARE KIND OF ALL TIED TOGETHER.

IT'S ALL YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THEM HOLISTICALLY.

AND ONE THING I WAS WONDERING, SHOULD WE GO AHEAD AND GET THROUGH EIGHT, TEN AND 813 OUT OF THE WAY.

THEN CALL ALL OF THOSE TOGETHER SO WE CAN HAVE IT AS A POLICY BUDGET DISCUSSION.

BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL THIS STUFF IS WE'VE GOT TO DECIDE TAX RATE IS BASED ON WHAT ELSE YOU DO ON A MAINTENANCE FEE.

WHAT DO YOU DO FOR FOR THESE? SO THEY'RE ALL KIND OF MOVE TOGETHER.

YOU CAN'T JUST DO ONE AT A TIME AND NOT GET TO THE RIGHT SPOT.

SO IF I COULD SURMISE THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS CAN WE MOVE UP AND DO EIGHT, TEN THROUGH 813 AND THEN COME BACK AND COMBINE EIGHT, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE AS ONE ITEM TO BE ABLE TO OPEN THE DISCUSSION FOR ALL OF THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? NO, SIR. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO THEN WE'LL MOVE ON.

IT NEEDS TO BE QUICK FOR ANYBODY THAT'S WAITING FOR TAXES.

WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 810, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 3-062 FOR THE PROPOSED SPECIFIC USE PERMIT

[8.10. Conduct a public hearing and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2023-062 for the proposed Specific Use Permit request for the property known as 4037 FM 1660 (North), to allow an elevated water pump station (UDC 10.304.8) (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

UDC 10.30 4.8.

[01:10:06]

AND IF ANYBODY WANTS TO COME UP AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE IT AFTER YOUR AFTER YOU SPEAK.

SO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 812.

AND IF THERE'S ANYBODY I'D LIKE TO COME UP NOW, I'LL GIVE YOU ONE LAST CHANCE AFTER THE PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL ASHLEY BAILEY, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A SPECIFIC USE.

PERMIT ME GO AHEAD AND SWITCH IT OVER FOR THE JONAH WATER TANK THAT'S ACTUALLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

WE ARE CATCHING BACK UP.

THERE WAS THE IDEA THAT THIS WAS ACTUALLY IN THE EGG STILL WHEN THEY STARTED CONSTRUCTING.

IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CITY.

OUR REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT FOR ANY UTILITY USE, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

SO WE ARE JUST GOING THROUGH AND GETTING THEM TO WHERE THEY NEED TO BE.

THE FACILITY IS GOING TO INCLUDE 2 MILLION, 2 MILLION GALLON GROUND STORAGE TANK.

AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THAT WHEN YOU'RE OUT THERE.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? WE'LL GO THE NEXT. THANKS.

SO AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THE DEFINITIONS JUST THAT A PUBLIC UTILITY SUBSTATION.

THIS DOES REQUIRE THAT.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE? AGAIN, IT IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY ONE, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SINGLE FAMILY ONE ALLOWS FOR.

PUBLIC UTILITY STATIONS AND ALSO SCHOOLS.

SO WE DID NOT EVER REZONE IT BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T NEED TO FOR THE SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LOCATE IN THAT DISTRICT.

YOU CAN SEE HERE, THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY ALSO SURROUNDED EITHER BY ETJ WITH VARIOUS USES.

MOST OF THOSE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF FM 1660 NORTH ARE OF THE INDUSTRIAL VARIETY.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH THAT IS THE MUSTANG CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD.

NEXT ONE. HERE YOU CAN SEE I DID GIVE YOU THE ADDRESS PLOT ON THIS, JUST SO YOU CAN SEE KIND OF EXACTLY WHERE THIS IS, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE ASKING.

SO THIS IS THE ADDRESS PLOT WITH THE ADDRESSES IS ON THE NORTH END OF THAT LOT THAT YOU CAN SEE THERE.

SO NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO EVERYONE WITHIN 600FT.

WE GOT NO RESPONSES.

AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AS DID STAFF.

THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 020 2020 3-062 AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

WE DO NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT SOME POINT.

YES. YES. SO I'M IN A PICKLE HERE BECAUSE NORMALLY I DON'T LIKE TO I WANT TO VOTE FOR THIS BECAUSE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID A DEAL.

AND IF THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT AND WE NEED WE NEED TO BE WORKING WITH JONAH.

BUT EXHIBIT A AND EXHIBIT B ARE BOTH BLANK ON THE THING I'M SUPPOSED TO SIGN, AND THEN EXHIBIT C, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT MISSING ANYTHING.

ITEMS, ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR ARE ALL BLANK AND THEN ITEM FIVE.

AND SIX, SEVEN AND EIGHT HAVE THINGS.

BUT THEN ITEM FIVE IS GOT A BLANK, LIKE SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE FILLED IN.

AND SO WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS I DON'T GO SIGN IN SOMETHING.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMETHING GETS WRITTEN IN ON ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR.

I'M GOING TO REGRET THAT I EVEN VOTED FOR.

ON PAGE 250 OF THE PACKET.

YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THAT THE ONLY THING THAT WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE IS THAT THE LAYOUT ON THERE.

AND SO WE CAN DELETE ONE THROUGH FOUR IF YOU'D LIKE, ON THAT ATTACHMENT.

THERE IS NOTHING REQUIRED ON THOSE.

ALL RIGHT. AND THIS AND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS RESTRICTED TO HOW MANY SQUARE FEET OR WHATEVER IS GOING TO BE IN THAT EXHIBIT.

THAT'S ALL IT'LL BE FOR THEIR LOT.

OKAY? YEAH. THANKS.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ANYONE FROM THE CITY WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM BEFORE I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? I SEE. NO ONE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AT 816.

AND WE'LL CALL THE VOTE.

OH, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARKE.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX.

AYE. MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

AYE. MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 810.

I'M SORRY. 811. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023 063 FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE TOWN WEST

[8.11. Conduct a public hearing and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2023-063 for the proposed amendment to the Townwest Commons Planned Unit Development (PUD), 18.83 acres, more or less, of land, located northwest of US79 and Ed Schmidt Blvd (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

[01:15:04]

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE AT THIS TIME.

ASHLEY, CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE REALLY QUICK? GOOD. SO, AS YOU STATED, MAYOR, THIS IS THE OVERALL LOEWS YMCA SITE.

YOU'LL SEE THE ACADEMY. IT'S ALREADY IN CONSTRUCTION AROUND THERE.

WE DO HAVE COMMERCIAL TO THE NORTH.

WE HAVE SOME BASE COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH.

MOST OF THIS AREA IS WITHIN THAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST.

IT IS CURRENTLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AFTER ALLIANCE BOULEVARD AND TO THE NORTH WE DO HAVE SOME SINGLE FAMILY IN EMERY FARMS OR EMERY CROSSING.

SORRY, CAN WE GO? NEXT SLIDE. SO THE PROJECT SEEKS TO MODIFY THE POD THAT WAS EXISTING FROM 2006 IN SEVERAL AREAS TO PROVIDE A SITE PLAN FOR PHASE TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS NEVER CONTEMPLATED IN THE ORIGINAL PHASE ONE.

THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS, I THINK THERE IS ONE THAT WE DON'T HAVE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THEY COULD MEET THE UDC AS IT'S AS IT READS, TO ALLOW UNIFORM PARKING LOT LIGHTING WITHIN THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS INTERNAL LOT LINES TO MODIFY THE PYLON SIGNAGE AND PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL BUILDING SIGNAGE, A REVISED LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR PHASE TWO.

WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO END UP TAKING THAT PART OUT.

IT'S NOT IN YOUR PACKET.

THEY WERE ABLE TO VERIFY THAT THEY CAN MEET THE UDC AS IT'S WRITTEN FOR OUR LANDSCAPING.

AND THEN THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE FOR A POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMER AND OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES IN LIEU OF UNDERGROUND AND GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.

THAT IS HOW IT WAS REQUESTED.

THAT IS STILL IN YOUR PACKET.

HOWEVER, STAFF IS AWARE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN WORKING WITH ENCORE.

THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO LOCATE THE GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT.

THEY WILL NOT NEED THE POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS AND IT WAS ALSO THAT STAFF HAD MADE THE RECOMMENDATION TO PNC THAT WE DO NOT ALLOW POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS.

THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED PER THE ORIGINAL 2006 PUD THAT WAS APPROVED, NOR THE 2011 UDC THAT WAS APPROVED.

AND THAT'S HOW THE RECOMMENDATION ACTUALLY COMES TO YOU TONIGHT, IS JUST NOT TO ALLOW THAT POLE MOUNTED.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE? SO LET'S ACTUALLY GO TO THE NEXT ONE.

I WANT YOU TO YOU TO SEE THE ELEVATIONS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS PHASE TWO.

ONE MORE. BECAUSE I CAN TALK ABOUT THIS.

I KNOW ALL THIS STUFF. ONE MORE.

ONE MORE. ONE MORE.

OKAY, SO THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST RETAIL BUILDINGS.

THIS WILL ACTUALLY BE JUST NORTH OF EVO.

THIS ONE ESSENTIALLY IS COMPLIANT WITH THE FULL UDC BECAUSE OF OUR UDC REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPARENCY AND OTHER THINGS.

THIS ONE ACTUALLY MEETS IT, BUT WE DID WANT THIS IN THE IN THE POD.

CAN WE GO NEXT ONE? THIS IS ONE THAT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING DEVELOPED.

BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE IT'S ANOTHER IT REALLY BLENDS WITH WHAT'S EXISTING, BUT IT ALSO MEETS THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR FOR OUR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. NEXT SLIDE.

AGAIN, MORE RETAIL SPACE.

ONE MORE. MEAN, HERE'S THE ACADEMY.

THIS IS WHAT IS THE BUILDING THAT'S CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN YMCA AND THE FIRST LOWE'S DRIVEWAY.

THIS IS THE WHAT YOU WILL SEE WHEN IT IS COMPLETE.

AND HOPEFULLY WE ARE STILL WE SHOULD STILL BE ON TRACK TO OPEN IN NOVEMBER AND HAVE THAT GRAND OPENING AS ANNOUNCED.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS JUST ANOTHER RENDERING LOOK SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THOSE ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

THE DIFFERENCE OF THESE ELEVATIONS FOR THE UDC IS YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THOSE WINDOWS.

THOSE ARE GOING TO BE FAUX WINDOWS AND IT ALMOST MEETS THE UDC BECAUSE WE DO ALLOW FOR SOME FAUX WINDOWS, BUT THIS IS MORE FOR THEIR INTERNAL MERCHANDIZING AS WELL AS JUST FOR THEIR SAFETY WITH THE AMOUNT OF ITEMS INSIDE THE STORE THAT THEY SELL THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT SOMEBODY BREAKING INTO AND TAKING THEM.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS THE EVO.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AMAZING.

THAT IMAX LABEL IS NOT A MISTAKE.

WE ARE GETTING AN IMAX HERE.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE? AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS BUILDING, IT DOES NOT HAVE ALL OF THE GLAZING, OBVIOUSLY, WITH THE INTERNAL USES.

HOWEVER, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IS THEY ARE ADDING SOME LED LIGHTING STRIPS.

THEY'RE REALLY BRINGING THIS DOWN TO THE PEDESTRIAN LEVEL.

YOU'LL SEE A LARGER SOMEWHAT GARDEN OR.

GRASS AREA WITH A STAGE FOR SOME OUTDOOR AREA.

A MUCH LARGER ENTRY THAT'S GOING TO BE PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AND THEN ALSO A LITTLE PULL OFF FOR THE CAR.

SO YOU HAVE A LITTLE DROP ZONE OUT THERE.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE AS WELL? AND THIS IS ANOTHER REALLY BIG ONE BETWEEN THOSE RETAIL BUILDINGS THAT WE SHOWED YOU EARLIER.

THIS IS A PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION BETWEEN THE EVO BUILDING, BUT THEY REALLY DID BRING EVERYTHING DOWN TO PEDESTRIAN SCALE.

SO YOU DON'T JUST LOOK LIKE YOU'RE IN A SERVICE CORRIDOR IF YOU'RE PARKED IN THE BACK TO BE ABLE TO COME TO THE FRONT AND THAT LIGHTING WRAPS AROUND SO YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE IT WILL BE SAFE FOR PEDESTRIANS TO ACCESS THIS ONE.

THIS IS THE SIDE THAT YOU WOULD SEE IF YOU'RE COMING FROM.

IF YOU'RE LOOKING NORTH ON 79, THERE WILL BE BUILDINGS BETWEEN THIS.

[01:20:04]

THAT'S FINE. AND HERE IS THE SIGNAGE.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT THEY HAVE APPROVED.

WE DID GO ONE MORE SIGN AND YOU CAN SEE THAT WHEN STAFF WILL BE REVIEWING THIS, WE ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT DOES THE SIGN LOOK LIKE.

AND THEN WE USE THAT TO LOOK AT THE OVERALL SITE PLAN FOR BOTH PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ACTUALLY ADHERING TO WHAT THE PD HAS.

NEXT SLIDE. SO ESSENTIALLY THIS JUST ALLOWS FOR A LOT MORE CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION.

THE BIG ONE WITH THIS IS THAT THEY REALLY WORKED WITH US BECAUSE WHAT THE CODE'S INTENT IS TO HAVE THAT BE MORE PEDESTRIAN SKILLED AND NOT JUST HAVE VERY LARGE BUILDINGS.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY SEEING AND GETTING OUT OF THOSE OTHER ELEVATIONS.

CAN WE GO TO THE NEXT ONE? SO WE HAVE A FEW THINGS THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH FAIRLY QUICKLY.

I WILL TELL YOU THAT THIS PUTT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMUNITY, NEIGHBORHOOD AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT PLANS, AND IT DOES NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT LAND WITH SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC CULTURAL OR RECREATIONAL OR ESTHETIC VALUE.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

IT WILL GIVE BENEFITS THROUGH PROVIDING OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT THERE.

YOU COULD SEE THE GRASS AREA THAT'S OUT THERE.

THERE'S ALSO DETENTION AREAS ON THE NORTH THAT I KNOW THAT THERE HAD BEEN SOME QUESTIONS ON FACEBOOK THAT IS NOT BEING DEVELOPED.

THEY ARE SIMPLY ADDING A LITTLE BIT MORE DETENTION SPACE IN THERE.

SO ANYTHING THAT'S GOING ON IN THERE THAT WILL REMAIN THE DETENTION POND, THE BENEFITS OF PRESERVING LAND FOR OPEN SPACE, AGAIN, THEY ARE PROVIDING THAT OPEN SPACING AND THEN AGAIN WITH THE BUILDING MASSING AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS AND THE LANDSCAPING, THIS REALLY DOES MEET THE INTENT OF THE CODE.

CAN WE GO? NEXT SLIDE. THIS DOES CONTROL THE EXTERNAL EFFECTS ON NEARBY LAND USES.

WE ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE BUFFERING TO THE REAR AND SO THEY WERE ABLE TO WE DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING ON THE SETBACKS OR ANYTHING, SO THEY WILL STILL BE BUFFERED COMPLETELY. AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS SUBJECT TO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES WHICH MAY BE UTILIZED ON THE ADJACENT ROADWAYS WITH COUNCIL APPROVAL.

IF WE COME FORWARD WITH THAT AND THE PD WILL BE SERVED BY ADEQUATE FACILITIES AND THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

THERE WAS JUST THAT ONE SECTION, AGAIN, THAT WE COVERED IN HERE WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE POLE MOUNTED.

BUT AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS MADE TO NOT HAVE THAT.

AND WE HAVE SINCE LEARNED THAT THAT WILL NOT BE A REQUIREMENT.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. RIGHT.

CAN YOU GO BACK ON IT? SO WHEN THIS SAYS STAFF DOES NOT SUPPORT THIS REQUEST, YOU NOW SUPPORT THE REQUEST.

WE DO NOT SUPPORT A POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMER.

YOU READING DISTRICT NUMBER SIX IN OUR MOTION.

THEY DON'T NEED IT ANYMORE BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT.

WE DIDN'T SUPPORT IT AT THE TIME THAT THIS WAS SUBMITTED AND THE TIME THAT IT WENT TO P AND Z.

BUT WE BUT NOW WE ARE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY EITHER.

SO IT'S A CUSTOMER CLERK SAID, WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION, WE NEED TO DO WHAT NOW? BECAUSE THE WAY THE PUD IS STILL WRITTEN, I WOULD JUST IF YOU WANT TO STILL CARRY THAT MOTION FORWARD, JUST SAY THAT A POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMER WILL NOT BE ALLOWED.

AND THIS DOES NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY A SIGNIFICANTLY GREATER BURDEN ON THE CITY'S EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT DOES SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM TO THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE AND THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, HARDSCAPING EVERYTHING THAT I'VE SHOWN YOU.

IT DOES SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORM.

AND THE ONLY THING REALLY WITH THOSE LARGER BUILDINGS WERE THOSE TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS.

BUT THEY REALLY THE INTENT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE EVO, THERE'S SOME GREEN SCREENS AND THEY'VE REALLY ADDED SOME REALLY COOL ELEMENTS.

SO IT DOES BRING IT DOWN TO THAT PEDESTRIAN LEVEL.

BUT WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PD AMENDMENT PROCESS FOR THAT.

SO REALLY WITH THE BLENDING OF THE NEW AND THE OLD THAT'S ADJACENT, IT'S THE FEATURES ARE ALL COMPATIBLE.

SO YOU REALLY WON'T BE ABLE TO TELL TOO MUCH THAT, OH MY GOODNESS, THIS IS BRAND NEW.

OBVIOUSLY WE'RE ALL EXCITED ABOUT THE NEW THINGS, BUT YOU WON'T REALLY IT WON'T BE A STARK CONTRAST TO WHAT'S THERE.

IT'LL REALLY BLEND PRETTY SEAMLESSLY WITH THE REST OF WHAT'S OCCURRING COMMERCIALLY IN THE CITY.

NEXT SLIDE. THERE WAS ONE MORE REQUEST OR CLARIFICATION THAT WE NEED TO ADD TO THIS.

SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT THIS COMES FORWARD WITH A MOTION IS THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY MORE IN THE PARKING AREA, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHAT IT SAYS IS THAT THE RATIO IS A 1 TO 250.

BUT WHEN WE WERE REVIEWING A TENANT, A STAND TENANT FOR A RESTAURANT, WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WE ARE ALSO MAKING SPACE FOR THE TWO STANDALONE RESTAURANTS THAT ARE OUT THERE.

SO WE NEED TO ALSO REQUEST A ONE FOR EVERY 50FT² OF THE BUILDING AREA FOR THOSE STANDALONE RESTAURANTS, 1 TO 250 FOR EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE RESTAURANTS.

HAD TO BE ONE FOR 50.

YES, PLEASE. THAT'S JUST TO KEEP IT LIKE IT IS.

BUT THEN ADD IN THAT IT HAS TO BE ONE ONE FOR EVERY 50FT² FOR RESTAURANTS, STANDALONE RESTAURANTS, STANDALONE RESTAURANTS.

AND BECAUSE THIS DOES REQUIRE TWO READINGS, THAT WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE SECOND READING.

BUT THIS IS A REQUEST THAT CAME IN AFTER THE PACKETS WERE CREATED.

STAFF DOES SUPPORT THAT REQUEST.

I WILL LET YOU KNOW THAT THIS DID NOT GO TO PNC BECAUSE AGAIN, THIS CAME THROUGH MONDAY, TUESDAY TIME FRAME THIS WEEK, BUT WE DO SUPPORT IT.

[01:25:06]

WE KNOW THAT THIS WILL ACTUALLY HELP THOSE TWO RESTAURANTS BE ABLE TO LOCATE HERE.

SO WITH THAT, WE NOTIFIED EVERYBODY WITHIN 600FT.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS BACK.

AND WITH THOSE TWO AMENDMENTS.

STAFF AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS ESPN'S.

YOU WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SIR? YEAH. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS IN THE PUBLIC? OH, SURE. COME ON UP. IF YOU JUST WILL STATE YOUR NAME.

YEAH. TANYA WARD, COMMITTEE, LIBRARY COMMITTEE.

AND I'M ALSO HERE FOR THE PUBLIC ON THIS ONE.

YOU MENTIONED THE TREES AND BEAUTIFICATION.

ARE YOU WORKING WITH THE BEAUTIFICATION PROGRAM AND APPLYING FOR ANY GRANTS WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS OR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO HELP WITH MAINTAINING THE WATER FEATURES THE PARKS AND REC TREES, GRASS AND NATIVE FLOWERS OF TEXAS.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD REQUIRE AS A CITY AND WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE.

ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE ON THERE WOULD BE JUST ESSENTIALLY TAKEN CARE OF BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

YEAH. SO TO HER CONCERNS.

SO THAT'S A GOOD CONCERN. WHO'S MAINTAINING THAT THIS WON'T BE ON THE CITY? THIS WILL BE ON, I ASSUME THERE'S A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION OR SOMETHING AND THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO.

CORRECT. THERE WILL BE A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION.

OKAY. YES, MA'AM.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 828.

OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL COMMENT OR ACTION.

SIR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE O DASH 2020 3-063 AS PRESENTED WITH THE FOLLOWING TWO CHANGES, WE STRIKE THE ALLOWANCE OF POLE MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS AND WE ADD A REQUIREMENT OF STANDALONE RESTAURANTS HAVE A MAXIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 50FT² OF BUILDING AREA WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE REFLECTED IN THE SECOND READING.

MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, PLEASE.

IT. ALL RIGHT.

SO SO PARKING SPACES.

IT SAYS MINIMUM AND THEN MAXIMUM.

YEAH, YOU SAID MAXIMUM. I CAUGHT THAT TOO.

YEAH. SO HE SAID MAXIMUM OF.

IS IT A MINIMUM OF.

IT'S A MINIMUM OF ONE PARKING SPOT PER 50FT².

RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK THAT.

YEAH. SORRY. CAN YOU RESTATE THAT? YES. YES. MAKE IT MINIMUM.

YES. YES. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE MINIMUM? OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, MAYOR PRO TEM, I DID ASK THIS QUESTION AHEAD OF TIME.

DETENTION POND WHERE IN ALL THESE AGREEMENTS.

DO WE COVER THE DETENTION POND AND HOW IT GETS USED AND WHO'S MAINTAINING IT AND ALL THAT.

BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT IT UP. THERE WAS A CONCERN.

SOMEONE THOUGHT THEY WERE BUILDING A BUILDING ON IT.

I DON'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE CURRENT.

HUD. I DO SEE IN THE OLD HUD THAT MAYOR LOVE SIGNED BACK A LONG TIME AGO.

BUT IT LOOKS LIKE FROM AND I'M EYEBALLING BECAUSE THERE'S NO DIMENSIONS.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE DETENTION POND IS HALF OF WHAT THE CITY'S DETENTION POND IS.

NOW, IF I GO TO PAGE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS IS.

IT WAS LIKE 310 OF THE PACKET.

CAN WE GO TO THE OVERALL SITE PLAN PAGE IN THE PRESENTATION? THE DETENTION POND RIGHT NOW IS ACTUALLY ON CITY PROPERTY.

IT WAS DEDICATED OVER TO THE CITY.

SO THERE ARE IT'S A CITY DETAIN OR MAINTAINED.

HOWEVER, HERE'S WHAT IT COMES FROM.

WHEN THEY STARTED GRADING IT AS A CITY MANAGER, I SAID, WHO'S GRADING? WHY IS SOMEONE GRADING IN THE CITY AND THE CITY OWNED LAND? BECAUSE NORMALLY IF THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT, I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT OR SOMETHING.

IT WOULD HAVE COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

AND HE SAID HE THOUGHT IT HAD TO DO WITH THIS.

BUT THEN THE WEIRD THING IS, IS I'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO SEE ANYBODY GRADE IN AN ELECTRICAL EASEMENT.

LIKE THERE'S LIKE A NO GRADING.

AND SO THEY DROPPED IT. IT LOOKED LIKE ABOUT FOUR FEET DOWN.

AND THEN I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING WHERE THE DETENTION POND WAS ABLE TO BE USED BY ANYBODY.

AND THEN WHEN I SAW THIS AGREEMENT.

THIS PAGE HAS LIKE HALF THE DETENTION POND IS THEIRS.

OR I'M LOOKING AT SOMETHING 20 YEARS OLD.

SO YOU SAID ENOUGH WORDS TO CALL THE CITY ENGINEER UP HERE.

AND HE HAS BEEN DEALING WITH ALL OF THE DEGRADING TREATMENT.

SO I'M GOING TO LET HIM ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD.

MATT RICHTER, CITY ENGINEER.

SO I CAN'T ANSWER YOUR QUESTION AS FAR AS WHERE IT STATES IN THOSE AGREEMENTS, HOW MUCH OF THE DETENTION IS THEIRS AND HOW MUCH IS NOT.

BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE ONE OF THE ROLES THAT I HAVE TO DO AS PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IS FOR THEM TO SUBMIT A VERY DETAILED, A VERY LENGTHY DRAINAGE ANALYSIS THAT INDICATES WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THEIR DIFFERENT STORMWATER.

PART OF THIS SITE WAS ALREADY DRAINING TO THAT DETENTION POND.

AND SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE TOOK THOSE EXISTING CONDITION MODELS, WE HAD THEM UPDATE THEM FOR ALL OF THE NEW IMPERVIOUS COVER.

[01:30:03]

AND I ALSO HAD THEM UPDATE IT FOR ATLAS 14.

SO FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE NOT AWARE, ATLAS 14 IS THE NEW RAINFALL DATA.

SO IN 2019, I THINK IT WAS NOAA CAME OUT WITH THEIR NEW GUIDANCE BASED ON BASICALLY INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL THAT WE EXPERIENCE IN ANY GIVEN EVENT. AND SO I HAD THEM UPDATE THAT MODEL FOR THAT.

AND THEN BECAUSE THERE WAS ADDITIONAL FLOWS THAT THEY HADN'T ANTICIPATED GOING TO THAT DETENTION POND, THAT IS WHY I SAID PART OF THEIR CONSTRUCTION PLAN WOULD BE TO ENLARGE THAT DETENTION POND TO ACCOUNT FOR THE EXTRA FLOW THAT THEY ARE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT AREA.

SO NOW THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO. WE'RE LETTING MORE WATER GO INTO A CITY FACILITY, BUT THERE'S NO EASEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO ME WHEN I WAS ASKING, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS WHO'S GOING TO MAINTAIN THIS AND DO WE NOT NEED SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT? OR HOW DOES A PRIVATE DEVELOPER USE CITY LAND? TO PUT THAT IN, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THE UPKEEP IS NOW MORE ON THE CITIZENS.

WHEN WHEN IF YOU WERE A PRIVATE DEVELOPER, YOU'D SAY, YEAH, YOU CAN USE MY DETENTION POND, BUT YOU HAVE TO START PAYING THE MAINTENANCE.

BUT DON'T WE NEED SOME SORT OF AGREEMENT OR HOW HOW IS THIS ALL WITH NO EASEMENTS? HOW IS ALL THIS HAPPENING? WHAT HAVE WE TYPICALLY DONE IN THE PAST FOR THIS PARTICULAR POND? YEAH, WELL, THIS PARTICULAR POND WAS CREATED, I DON'T KNOW, BACK WHEN THIS ORIGINALLY WAS BUILT, EITHER THIS OR THE SUBDIVISION.

I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE CAME FIRST, BUT THIS.

SO THE THE YMCA AND PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ALREADY DRAINS INTO THAT LAND.

AND SO I DIDN'T SINCE IT WAS JUST BASICALLY DRAINING THE WAY IT'S ALREADY DRAINING AND WE WERE ALREADY OWNING THE PROPERTY AND MAINTAINING IT AS A PUBLIC PIECE OF PROPERTY.

I DIDN'T THINK TO ADD ANY EXTRA REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS PARTICULAR IF IT WAS A DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE THEY WERE CREATING SOMETHING, IT WAS DRAINING ACROSS PROPERTY, THEN YES, I WOULD HAVE ASKED FOR AN EASEMENT, BUT IT'S DRAINING BASICALLY OFF OF THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY ONTO OUR PROPERTY AND IT WAS ALREADY THERE.

WE'RE JUST MAKING THEM USE THE SAME STORM SYSTEM THAT WAS IN PLACE AND THEY'RE JUST CONTRIBUTING MORE FLOW THAN THEY WERE ALREADY CONTRIBUTING.

SO I DON'T I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF WE NEED TO ADD EXTRA REQUIREMENTS ON THE DEVELOPER OR NOT.

CAN WE LOOK AT THIS FOR A SECOND READING TO SEE IF WE CAN? YEAH, THAT'S FINE. WHAT I'D LIKE TO ASK THE DEVELOPER IS THEY'RE BENEFITING FROM IT AND WE'RE GIVING THEM A WHOLE LOT OF BENEFITS AND SO I'D LIKE THEM JUST TO KEEP IT UP.

THEY GRADED IT, THEY CHANGED IT.

IF THEY DID SOMETHING WITH THE STRUCTURE, INTEGRITY OF THE WALLS THAT WENT AROUND OR WHATEVER, I DON'T.

BECAUSE WHAT ALWAYS SEEMS TO HAPPEN IS EVERY TIME WE HELP SOMEBODY OUT, WE END UP COMING BACK LATER AND HAVING TO FIX SOMETHING.

AND SO IN MY MIND, WOULD IT BE FIRST READING OR SECOND READING IF PRIVATE PEOPLE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE REGIONAL DETENTION, WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN.

RIGHT. WE LEARNED THAT A MONTH AGO.

SO WE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEM WHERE PRIVATE DEVELOPERS CAN DUMP INTO CITY FACILITIES AND WE'RE TELLING OTHER DEVELOPERS, YOU HAVE TO PAY MONEY NOW TO DO THAT.

AND THESE GUYS, SINCE THERE'S NO AGREEMENTS IN PLACE AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY MONEY, I THINK IT'S FAIR THAT THEY KEEP THE GRASS CUT.

THEY WHATEVER THEY GOT TO GO THROUGH BECAUSE WE CAN'T AFFORD I DON'T THINK WE CAN AFFORD MORE WATER TO GO INTO A SYSTEM AND MORE UPKEEP.

AND SO WHETHER WE DO IT NOW OR THE SECOND, THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING, IS THAT THEY PICK THAT UP AND THEY SPREAD IT AMONG ALL THESE BUSINESSES THAT ARE GETTING TAX BREAKS AND THEN WE JUST STOP MAINTAINING IT.

BUT THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR.

AND I DON'T KNOW I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS WITH AGREEMENTS BECAUSE I'VE NEVER DUMPED WATER INTO A PUBLIC FACILITY BEFORE LIKE THAT.

WE'LL NEED TO LOOK AT SOME SORT OF REQUIREMENT BETWEEN NOW AND SECOND READING TO ADDRESS THAT AND WHETHER WHAT WE CAN LEGALLY DO. OKAY.

WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES OF THEM USING THIS TO RUN THE WATER OFF TO THE DETENTION POND? WHAT ARE THE DISADVANTAGES OF THIS? IT'S HARD TO QUANTIFY DISADVANTAGES SINCE THEY'RE STORMWATER WAS ALREADY GOING THERE.

IT'S JUST NOW WE'RE ADDING MORE TO IT CAPACITY.

YEAH. SO AND I MEAN, IS THE DEVELOPER PAYING TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY OR IS THIS THEY ARE INCREASING IT ON THEIR OWN? THEY ARE. THEY ARE ENLARGING THE DETENTION POND.

THEY ARE EXPANDING THE STORM PIPE THAT FLOWS INTO IT.

THEY ARE DOING THEY ARE CREATING THE BAFFLE BLOCKS THAT ARE REBUILDING, THE BAFFLE BLOCKS THAT THE STORMWATER DUMPS OUT TO, TO PREVENT EROSION IN THE ENTRY TO THE DETENTION POND.

I'VE MADE THEM JUMP THROUGH ALL OF THOSE HOOPS, SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO QUANTIFY WHAT OTHER DISADVANTAGES THERE WOULD BE BECAUSE I'M MAKING THEM FIX EVERYTHING.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE ADDING TO IT.

OUR DETENTION POND? YEAH, DEFINITELY. BECAUSE IT'S DATED, RIGHT? IT NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED A BIT BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE CAPACITY OR MORE FLOW CAPACITY OR WHATEVER, RIGHT.

SO THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

SINCE YOU'RE STANDING, ARE YOU GUYS OKAY?

[01:35:01]

I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL 2006 AGREEMENTS THIS THE BASIN WAS CONSTRUCTED TO SERVE TOWN WEST COMMONS, WHICH WAS THE LOWS AS WELL AS THIS PHASE TWO AREA. AS MATT MENTIONED THERE.

YOU KNOW, AS WE'VE ALL DISCOVERED, IT SEEMS LIKE THE 100 YEAR STORM KEEPS HAPPENING EVERY OTHER YEAR.

SO THEY'VE THEY'VE GONE THROUGH AND CHANGED THAT ANALYSIS.

SO WHEREAS THERE WERE THE ORIGINAL SYSTEM BACK IN 2006 AND I'M JUST USING A NUMBER WAS DESIGNED FOR, SAY, A TEN INCH RAINFALL.

WITH THE NEW DATA AND THAT STORM NOW BEING A 12 INCH RAINFALL.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'VE EXPANDED THE BASIN IS TO FOR THIS PHASE TWO AREA THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING IS TO CAPTURE THAT ADDITIONAL RAINFALL EVENT.

SO THIS BASIN WAS ALWAYS INTENDED TO PROVIDE DETENTION FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE PHASE TWO AREA.

AND WE'RE JUST HELPING MAKING SURE THAT IT'S UP TO THE CURRENT STANDARDS FOR WHAT'S GETTING BUILT OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.

SO I THINK THE ORIGINAL I THINK THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS CALL FOR THE CITY TO MAINTAIN IT.

I MEAN, WE WE CONSTRUCTED THE BASIN BACK IN 2006 AND THEN THE PORTION THAT'S RIGHT BEHIND THE YMCA, I THINK THAT WAS THAT WAS CONVEYED AND DONATED TO THE CITY. AT THE SAME TIME, THE LAND FOR THE YMCA WAS DONATED.

AND THAT BREAK IN THERE IS WHERE THAT ELECTRICAL EASEMENT KIND OF CUTS ACROSS.

WE'RE TRYING TO WORK SOUTH OF THAT FOR THIS FOR JUST BASICALLY PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL VOLUME WITHIN THE BASIN.

AND ONCE THE WORK'S DONE AND IT'S ALL RESEEDED, IT REALLY JUST KIND OF GOES BACK TO BEING THE MAIN PROJECT.

AS MATT MENTIONED, THERE WAS SOME THE CONTROL STRUCTURE, THE WEIR WAS A LITTLE BIT DAMAGED AND WE'RE FIXING THAT AS WELL AS THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL KIND OF THERE ALONGSIDE THE LOWE'S. I THINK THERE WAS A COUPLE OF TREES GROWING IN THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH AND CLEANED ALL THAT OUT.

SO IT'S REALLY GOING TO HELP THE FLOW THROUGH THERE AND EVERYTHING TO HELP THE SYSTEM FUNCTION A LOT BETTER.

BUT WE WILL REVIEW WITH THE ATTORNEY AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS SPELLED OUT AND COVERED IN THE AGREEMENTS.

AND I JUST OFF TOP OF MY HEAD, I BELIEVE THE AGREEMENT DID CALL FOR THE CITY TO MAINTAIN IT BACK FROM 2006.

YEAH, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SWITCH THAT ON BECAUSE I THINK OF LIKE STONE HILL.

YOU GUYS OWN THAT, RIGHT? YES. YES. SO I'M ASSUMING YOU GUYS ARE MAINTAINING YOUR OWN DETENTION POND THERE AND IT'S BEING PAID FOR BY EVERY PERSON WHO THAT'S THAT'S CONTROLLED BY A MAINTENANCE ASSOCIATION.

YES, SIR. YEAH. AND THAT'S THAT'S I'M HOPING WE GET TO DO AS A CITY IS SHIFT THE BURDEN SINCE IT'S BENEFITING YOU GUYS.

YOU GUYS BUILT IT ON CITY LAND.

I'M JUST THINKING IT'S UNUSUAL FOR ME TO HAVE TO HEAR THAT PRIVATE PEOPLE ARE USING PUBLIC FACILITIES AND THEN THE PUBLIC HAS TO PAY FOR THE MAINTENANCE WHEN IT'S LIKE SINCE IT BENEFITED YOU GUYS, IT WOULDN'T COST MUCH.

YOU ARE FIXING IT AND YOU CAN TELL THAT WE DON'T DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF MAINTAINING BECAUSE IF WE WERE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TREES AND STUFF GROWING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF A POND.

BUT. WELL, AND THERE WAS I THINK THE CITY WAS DOING A GOOD JOB ON THE POND ITSELF.

I THINK THE AREAS WHERE THERE WERE SOME TREES WAS THAT OUTFALL CHANNEL.

AS THAT CHANNEL GOES OUT TOWARDS 79, IS THAT WATER CONTINUES FLOWING ON SOUTH.

I THINK THE CITY'S DONE A GOOD JOB IN MAINTAINING THE BASIN UP TO THIS POINT BECAUSE IT REALLY IS JUST MOWING IS ALL IT IS, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS WHETHER IT NEEDS TO BE SOME COST SHARING ON THAT OR NOT.

RIGHT. AND MATT, MAYBE YOU COULD SPEAK TO THIS.

WHAT DOES MAINTAINING THAT LOOK LIKE FOR THE CITY? LIKE IT'S REALLY JUST UNLESS THERE'S A CATASTROPHIC.

WHAT KIND OF MANPOWER DOES THAT TAKE OVER? DO WE KNOW? YEAH. OR MAYBE LIKE, WE CAN COME BACK.

YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE RICK.

EITHER THAT WOULD BE RICK'S TEAM.

OKAY, SO I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY MAN HOURS IT TAKES, BUT, I MEAN, AND I THINK THAT PROBABLY THAT'S ONE OF THE CONTRACT ITEMS WHERE WE HAVE A CONTRACT TO TO HAVE THAT MODE ON A REGULAR BASIS.

OKAY. THAT THAT'D BE MY ASSUMPTION.

BUT I CAN VERIFY WITH RICK WHEN HE GETS BACK AND ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.

YEAH. I GUESS WHENEVER IT COMES BACK FOR A SECOND READING, JUST TO ADD THAT IN AS WELL, PLEASE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

HI. HI, MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

NAY. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

COUNCIL MEMBER KELLER. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

A QUESTION PASSES.

SIX ONE. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 812 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2020 3-208.

[8.12. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-208 approving the municipal services agreement for the proposed annexation of the TCR Allora tract, 16.954 Acres, more or less of land located on the west side of CR132 approximately 0.46 miles north of US 79 (Ashley Bailey) ]

79. OKAY.

SO THIS IS THE RESOLUTION FOR THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET.

THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS AND IT THEN GOES BACK TO THE APPROVED SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST INCLUDED.

AND I DID MAKE SURE BECAUSE THIS WOULD BE IN THE JONAH WATER AREA, THAT THAT IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE MSA.

THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

[01:40:01]

LISTEN BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, DO YOU HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. SO IF I READ THIS RIGHT, EVERYBODY'S GRIPING ABOUT ALL THE MULTIFAMILY THAT'S COMING INTO TOWN.

AND THIS IS AN ATTEMPT BY US TO ANNEX PROPERTY INTO TOWN THAT THEN WILL BECOME MORE MULTIFAMILY.

IS THAT CORRECT? SO IF YOU MAY RECALL IN MAY, THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WAS AMENDED THAT WAS DONE, I BELIEVE, IN 2018 TIMEFRAME.

AND THE REQUEST IN MAY, THEY CAME FORWARD WITH THEIR ELEVATIONS AND A FEW OTHER THINGS TO DEVELOP THIS AS MULTIFAMILY.

SO THEN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT REQUEST WAS ONE OF THE IN LIEU REQUESTS.

SO NOW THAT THAT IS ALL APPROVED, THEY WOULD AUTOMATICALLY BE ANNEXING ANYWAY.

ALL RIGHT. AND THIS ALSO IN SCR SAID THAT THE NEWLY ANNEXED PARCELS WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AS APPROPRIATE AND EXTENDED SERVICES WHEN DEEMED FEASIBLE IN LIGHT OF TOPOGRAPHY AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS.

SO IS THIS IS THIS ON OUR LIST TO THEN BRING SEWER HERE OR IS THAT ON OUR CIP LIST OR DO WE NEED TO ADD THIS? THIS IS NOT ON THE LIST FOR THE SIP NECESSARILY, BUT THOSE OVERALL PROJECTS THAT WERE APPROVED IN THE WATER WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN IN DECEMBER ARE WHAT THE CERS WERE ALL BEING REVIEWED TO. SO THE ESSER ACTUALLY MAKES MENTION OF THOSE LARGER PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THOSE MASTER PLANS.

OH, MY GOD. MATT.

SORRY. THAT'S OKAY.

SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THERE IS A WASTEWATER ON THE MASTER PLAN.

IT IS NOT CURRENTLY LISTED IN THE CIP.

HOWEVER, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THAT DEVELOPER AND THE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE JUST TO THE SOUTH OF THEM AS PART OF THEIR PROCESS TO HAVE THEM PULL THE LINE UP THERE.

AND THEN I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE WORKING ON COST SHARE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE THREE FOUR PARTIES TO COVER THE COSTS OF CONSTRUCTING OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TO SERVE THAT ENTIRE REGION.

AND FOR WHAT WE'RE PAYING 29%, THEY'RE PAYING 71% BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO OVERSIZE FROM A 15 TO 21.

I DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGES OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT THE SIZES ARE CORRECT.

YES, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO GO FROM A 15 UP TO 21 SO THAT WE COULD SERVE MORE OF THIS AREA WITH THAT LINE.

DO WE KNOW THE APPROXIMATE COST OF BRINGING THIS IN AND SUPPLYING THAT LINE? BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MOVE AROUND DIFFERENT PROJECTS AND WATER AND WASTEWATER TO KEEP THE IMPACT ON THE PEOPLE LOW.

SO IS THIS LIKE A $10 MILLION ITEM OR IS THIS LIKE A $1 MILLION ITEM THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO.

JUST I DON'T HAVE THE COST ESTIMATES.

I WASN'T PREPARED TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM, BUT I'M GUESSING YOU'RE CLOSER TO THE TEN THAN YOU ARE THE ONE.

BUT WITH $3 MILLION.

AND IF WE WERE THAT, IF IT COMES OUT TO ABOUT $10 MILLION, YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER COLTER.

HI, MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK HIGH.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

I. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, A COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX, I.

MOTION PASSES 6 TO 1.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 8.13.

[8.13. Conduct a public hearing and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2023-061 approving the Annexation of the TCR Allora Tract, 16.954 Acres, more or less of Land and to Establish the Base Zoning as MF (Multi-Family) located on the west side of CR132 approximately 0.46 miles north of US 79 (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE LRA TRACT 16.954 ACRES, MORE OR LESS OF LAND, AND TO ESTABLISH A BASE ZONING AS MF MULTIFAMILY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CR 132 APPROXIMATELY 0.46 MILES NORTH OF US.

79. OKAY, SO THIS IS THE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION THAT FOLLOWS THE ANNEXATION AGREEMENT OR THE IN LIEU OF ANNEXATION AGREEMENT THAT WAS ALSO IN YOUR PACKET AND I INCLUDED THAT IN YOUR PACKET WITH THAT.

SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THAT WOULD WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT WILL ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE AFTER THEY COME THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS OF PLATTING AND SITE PLANNING.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY JUST WHAT'S REQUIRED BY THE STATE STATUTE.

THEY SUBMIT TO US.

WE THEN DO THE PUBLIC NOTICES TO THE NEWSPAPER AND THE SERVICE PROVIDERS.

THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN DONE.

WE DID NOT GET ANY RESPONSE BACK FROM ANY OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS.

AND SO NOW WE CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER OH 2020 3-061 IS PRESENTED.

BUT THOUGH WE DO NEED TO DEAL WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING PART FIRST.

SECOND. A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOEHLER.

ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE DISCUSS, LET'S OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 847.

IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ANNEXATION?

[01:45:03]

ANNEXATION, ANNEXATION AND REZONING.

OH, IT IS ANNEXATION AND REZONING OR ANNEXATION AND ZONING TOO.

IT'S THE ORIGINAL ZONING OF THE TRACT.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE COME UP, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:47 P.M..

DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL.

I HAD ONE QUESTION ON THE THE SITE PLAN.

IS THAT RED DOTTED LINE THE RIGHT OF WAY? LIKE, ARE WE MAKING SURE THEY'RE GIVING US RIGHT OF WAY BEFORE.

THEY DEVELOP EVERYTHING LIKE THE POND WAS VERY CLOSE TO THE ROAD.

CORRECT. SO THAT IS JUST A DRAFT OF WHAT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CONCEPTUAL PLAN BASED ON THAT DAY.

WE KNOW THAT ONCE WE GET INTO THE PLOTTING AND WE FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHERE THOSE ROAD TIES ARE, THEN WE'LL KNOW THE THE ACTUAL LOCATION.

BUT THAT'S THE APPROXIMATE LINE OF THAT COUNTY ROAD 132 EXPANSION.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOCK.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KOHLER, AYE. MAYOR SNYDER.

NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THORNTON, AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, AYE.

MOTION PASSES. SIX ONE.

AND WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEM 9.192.

SO IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS.

IF WE COULD DO 9192 BEFORE WE HIT THE BUDGET, BECAUSE THAT MAY TAKE SOME TIME.

ALL RIGHT, THEN. HEARING NO OBJECTIONS.

CAN WE. CAN WE DO NINE? CAN WE DO 930 AS WELL? JUST KIND OF FINISH THAT UP? YEAH. WELL, THAT ONE WE DON'T REALLY.

I THINK WE JUST DO NINE ONE AND NINE TWO BECAUSE THE OTHER 1ST MAY TAKE A WHILE.

AND THE PUBLIC'S HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET AND SEE WE NEED TO RESPECT THEIR TIME, IN MY OPINION.

WELL WELL, 930 WAS SUPPOSED TO BE IN A YEAH.

NINTH SESSION. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO PUT IT TO THE WORKSHOP, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

IT'S FINE. IF YOU ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS, WE CAN DO THAT, TOO.

NO, I ORIGINALLY HAD IT FOR A WORK SESSION, SO I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT THERE.

OKAY, SO WE'LL JUST STRIKE. SO WE DO 930 THEN BECAUSE WE COUNCIL MEMBER IS OKAY WITH THAT.

I'M CONFUSED. SO WE DO WANT TO DO 930 OR WE DON'T.

HE WANTS TO MOVE IT TO A WORK SESSION.

LET'S MOVE IT TO A WORK SESSION.

YEAH. OKAY. I THOUGHT WE JUST SAID THAT WE WANT TO RESPECT THE PUBLIC'S TIME.

SO WHY DIDN'T WE JUST DO THE EIGHT EIGHT, FIVE THROUGH EIGHT? NINE? OKAY, SO WE'LL DO.

ARE WE OKAY WITH DOING NINE ONE AND NINE TWO? NO. THREE, PLEASE.

OKAY. THE 911.

I'M CONFUSED. SO COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

IF I UNDERSTAND. RIGHT.

NINE THREE. YOU HAD WANTED THAT TO BE A WORK SESSION RATHER THAN A DISCUSSION IN HERE.

SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH POSTPONING THIS ITEM? FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT AND RESCHEDULING IT AS A WORK SESSION.

I AM. YEAH. I MAKE THAT MOTION.

IF WE COULD DO NINE THREE AND THEN JUST DISPOSE OF THAT AND GET IT OUT OF THE WAY.

OKAY. WHAT I'M ASKING IS, ARE WE OKAY BRINGING UP NINE ONE AND NINE TWO NEXT BECAUSE WE HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT.

SURE, WE CAN TAKE CARE OF NINE THREE AND FIGURE OUT WHAT WE WANT TO DO ON THAT.

BUT WE'RE OKAY WITH NINE ONE AND NINE TWO NEXT.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

SO NINE ONE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, RE APPOINTMENTS AND OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC

[9.1. 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. ]

AND WE HAVE CRYSTAL ERICKSON COLLINS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

NOT SEEING CRYSTAL.

OKAY. OPEN THIS UP TO THE COUNCIL FOR.

SO IF MISS COLLINS WOULD LIKE TO EMAIL US ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

JUST EMAIL. ALL OF US SO THAT WE'RE AWARE OF HER COMMENTS.

SO THE THE THE COMMITTEE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS WE MET ON WAS IT TUESDAY NIGHT? AND SO WE INTERVIEWED A CANDIDATE FOR THE LIBRARY BOARD.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO GO.

I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO ADD KYLE PARKINSON TO THE LIBRARY BOARD.

HE WAS. HE ATTENDED THE CITY.

TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE.

SO HE'S HE'S READY TO GO.

I'M EXCITED ABOUT WHAT HE CAN BRING.

THAT'S KYLE PARKINSON, CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER APPOINTING KYLE PARKINSON TO LIBRARY BOARD.

DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? JUST A REMINDER TO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE ASKED THAT THE COUNCIL GET NOTIFIED AHEAD OF THE MEETING OF WHO'S GOING TO BE PROPOSED SO THAT WE CAN KIND OF BE PREPARED TO KNOW WHO'S BEING NOMINATED.

JUST A REMINDER, WE COULD GET THAT AHEAD OF TIME.

[01:50:03]

JUST INFORMATIVE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OR USE THE ANGELA OR THE MESSAGE BOARD.

YEAH. OR USE THE MESSAGE BOARD TO SHARE.

BECAUSE WHATEVER THE APPLICATION IS GOING TO BE A PUBLIC RECORD.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MAYOR SCHNEIDER. AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLARKE.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

WOOLCOTT. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THORNTON, AYE.

THE MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. DO THEY HAVE A QUORUM NOW? YES. THEY.

THEY. YES.

YEAH. WE STILL HAVE TWO MORE VACANCIES.

PERFECT. ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR NINE ONE? I THINK THREE MORE VACANCIES.

THEY JUST WENT BACK TO FOUR BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THREE, I THINK.

SO ANYWAY, THERE'S MULTIPLE VACANCIES ON THE LIBRARY BOARD AND WE HAVE A BRAND NEW VACANCY.

ON THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION INCLUSION COMMISSION.

THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO MEET THIS WEEK BECAUSE OF THAT.

WE REALLY NEED PEOPLE ON ON THAT BOARD.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MEET AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW.

SO. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR 9.1? I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE TIERS BOARDS.

WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS FOR THAT? BECAUSE WE'VE CREATED THE ZONE.

WE'VE CREATED THE ZONE.

RIGHT. I GUESS WHAT ARE WE DOING TO MOVE FORWARD? AND WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO TALK ABOUT THAT.

NOW, YOU CAN ASK THAT UNDER PENDING LEGAL.

OKAY, PERFECT. YEAH. THANK YOU.

MOVE ON TO NINE TO CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON ASSIGNING THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION TO BRING DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION TRAINING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL AT

[9.2. Consideration and possible action on assigning the Diversity and Inclusion Commission to bring Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) Training recommendations to council at the September 28th City Council Meeting (Councilmember Brian Thompson) ]

BUT CRYSTAL ERICKSON COLLINS HAD REQUESTED TO SPEAK ON THIS ISSUE BACK.

ALL RIGHT. SO I HAD PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, BASED ON RECENT ACTIONS AND INACTIONS COUPLED WITH, YOU KNOW, THE LOOMING LAWSUIT THAT WE HAVE FOR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, WE SHOULD MAKE THIS A PRIORITY NOT JUST FOR OURSELVES NOW, BUT WE SHOULD ALSO BE COMMITTED TO ADDRESSING LONG TERM TRAINING AND ACTIONS, STARTING WITH THIS.

AND SO WITH THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET, I GUESS A QUESTION THAT I HAVE FOR COUNCIL IS HOW DO WE PROCEED WITH THIS? BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO TO HAVE NOW AND MOVING FORWARD.

I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN OTHER ENTITIES IN THE CITY THAT HAVE USED, YOU KNOW.

TRAINING. LIKE. LIKE DR.

DONG, FOR INSTANCE.

THAT'S NO LONGER WITH THE ENTITY THAT'S IN THE CITY.

SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY THAT WE COULD USE.

BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS IN ON.

ONE SUGGESTION UNTIL WE GET TO A FULL BOARD AT QUORUM, WE COULD ASK THE HR FROM THE CITY TO PROVIDE A TRAINING LIST THAT THEY WOULD USE THAT IN THAT WAY IT'S THE SAME.

THAT SHOULD BE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION AND AND SENSITIVITY TRAINING AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WHATEVER THOSE ARE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FROM THE CITY.

HR COULD PROVIDE IT TO COUNCIL, WHICH IS BE A GOOD THING.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE JUST DO THAT.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT CAN BE SUPPLEMENTED ONCE THE DNI COMMISSION BRINGS THEIR, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER THE LIAISON TO THAT BOARD, WHICH IS COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON, WOULD BE ABLE TO THEN SAY, HEY, WE NEED WE NEED YOU ALL TO GIVE US A RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE MORE TRAINING IS NOT A BAD THING.

SO I WOULD SAY WE START WITH THE ONE INTERNAL FROM THE CITY, AND THEN THEN WE AS SOON AS THEY MEET AND GIVE A RECOMMENDATION, THEN WE'LL TAKE THAT AS WELL.

YEAH, I LIKE THAT.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD BEING THE LIAISON? I WAS JUST GOING TO ALSO SUGGEST THAT WE THE THE TRAINING THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD LAST YEAR WAS A CONSULTANT WHO PROVIDED OVER ZOOM BASICALLY AND JUST PROVIDE THAT AS AN OPTION TO THAT MAY BE LOOKING INTO THAT SAME TRAINING RIGHT, FOR FOR THE COUNCIL AS ONE OF THE OPTIONS POTENTIALLY.

SO WE'LL I THINK HR PROBABLY CAN COME UP WITH A LIST TOO THOUGH.

SO YEAH, BUT I LIKE THAT IT'S NOT IT'S NOT A ONE AND DONE KIND OF THING.

IT'S AN ONGOING THING, RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE US TRY TO DO THIS AS LIKE MAYBE A SATURDAY DEAL TO WHERE WE CAN HAVE LIKE WE DID WITH THE OPEN MEETINGS.

WE CAN HAVE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS COME, WE CAN HAVE THE CITY MANAGER WANTS EMPLOYEES TO COME.

WE CAN HAVE MEMBERS FROM THE PUBLIC.

WHEN WE DID THIS, TALKED ABOUT THIS TRAINING A YEAR OR TWO AGO, I HAD READ AN ARTICLE ABOUT A PERSON AND HE'S WITH A ADJACENT CONSULTING JASON

[01:55:01]

AND ONE OF THE THINGS HE TALKED ABOUT WAS AS MANY OF THE COMMUNITY PEOPLE YOU CAN BRING IN, THE BETTER.

AND HE SAID THAT YOU CAN SET UP TO WHERE IT'S IN PERSON, BUT ALSO YOU CAN LIVESTREAM IT ALSO TO WHERE PEOPLE AT HOME CAN BE INVOLVED, TOO.

IT'S JUST NOT A CERTAIN GROUP BECAUSE AS ONE OF YOU ALL SAID, THE TRAINING IS NOT GOING TO HURT ANYBODY THAT GOES TO IT.

IT'S ALL BENEFICIAL.

BUT I JUST BRING THAT RECOMMENDATION UP THAT WHATEVER WE LOOK AT, WE LOOK AT DOING IT ON A DAY.

AND THE REASON I SAY A SATURDAY, IT'S SOMETHING THAT MORE OF THE PUBLIC CAN BE INVOLVED AND AS WELL AS BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.

BUT I LIKE THAT.

I WOULD JUST EMPHASIZE THAT IT'S NOT ONLINE.

I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE IN PERSON, ESPECIALLY FOR US.

SO YEAH, I THINK IN PERSON, I'M JUST SAYING IN PERSON, BUT ALSO HAVE IT ONLINE SO THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, SINCE IT WON'T COST ANY MORE, THEY CAN, THEY CAN HAVE IT LIVE STREAMED AND I MEAN PEOPLE CAN OUTSIDE FROM HUTTO CAN ALSO PARTICIPATE.

SO THIS IS THE RECORD.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT STAFF HR.

BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS TO US OR FOR US FOR THIS AS WELL AS.

ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WOULD COME FROM DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION.

IF THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET BEFORE BEFORE STAFF BRINGS US BACK ANY SORT OF RECOMMENDATION.

YEAH. I MEAN, THE EARLIEST THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET IS NEXT MONTH AT THIS POINT.

SO LET ME INTERRUPT YOU.

BUT. SO HE MADE A MOTION.

YOU OKAY? SECONDING IT.

YEAH. I'LL SECOND IT. SORRY.

NOW YOU CAN TALK. YEAH.

I MEAN, SO I GUESS THE TIMING IS THE QUESTION.

WHEN DO WE THINK IT'S REALISTIC TO COME BACK WITH IT? I MEAN, ULTIMATELY, I'D LIKE IT TO COME BACK NEXT MONTH, BUT.

OR NEXT MEETING. BUT I MEAN, I DEFINITELY LIKE THE NEXT MEETING IS ONE WEEK AWAY.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I SAY STAFF MUCH TIME.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY I SAY I'D LIKE, YOU KNOW, DIVERSITY INCLUSION TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

SO IF WE NEED TO PUSH IT, YOU KNOW, WELL, SINCE IT'S NOT A ONE AND DONE, WE CAN GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND THEN WE CAN ADD THE DNI COMMISSION WHEN THEY'RE ABLE TO MEET AGAIN. WE MEET AGAIN ON OCTOBER 12TH, WHICH WOULD GIVE THREE WEEKS FOR FOR STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THAT.

SO IF THAT WOULD WORK INSTEAD OF SEVEN DAYS FROM NOW, THAT WOULD BE MY THING, IS THE NEXT TIME WE'RE MEETING IS ON THE 12TH.

THAT'D BE GREAT. YEAH. SO SPECIFY THAT WE WANTED WE WANT RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER.

OCTOBER. CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. SO YOU GUYS'S MOTION IS TO BRING BACK HR, BRING BACK RECOMMENDATIONS BY OCTOBER 12TH.

YOU ALL AGREE WITH THAT? YES.

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

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILCOX. AYE.

MAYOR SNIDER. AYE.

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER COLTER.

HI. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CLERK. AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

SO NOW WE'LL GO BACK TO THE BUDGET.

I'LL READ ITEMS EIGHT, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE.

AND THAT WAY WE. MR. MAYOR, CAN WE CAN WE DO 9.3? WE ALREADY SAID, OKAY.

SO WE'VE ALREADY DONE THAT. THAT'S DONE.

OKAY, WE CAN DO THAT LATER.

OKAY, PERFECT.

SO I'LL READ ALL THE ITEMS AND THAT'LL ALLOW US TO COMBINE THEM ALL IN ONE.

[Items 8.5. - 8.9.]

8598485. START WITH EIGHT FIVE.

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 3-058 CREATING A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

ITEM EIGHT SIX CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 3-066 AMENDING APPENDIX A OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ARTICLE 83.001 FOR AN INCREASE FOR SOLID WASTE COLLECTION FEES UTILITY BILLING RATES SECTION.

ARTICLE 84000 PUBLIC FACILITY RENTALS AND CONSOLIDATING FEES.

ITEM EIGHT SEVEN CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2023 064 OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2023, AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024, FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS.

ITEM EIGHT EIGHT CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER R DASH 2020 3-240.

RATIFYING THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REFLECTED IN THE CITY OF HUTTO FISCAL YEAR 2023 TO 2024 OPERATING BUDGET AND ITEM EIGHT NINE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 2020 3-068 OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS LEVYING AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE USE AND SUPPORT OF THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2023 2024.

SO BEFORE YOU GET STARTED AND I HAD A LITTLE EVERYONE LIKES TO SAY MY POWERPOINTS BUDGET SEASON, SO I'M GOING TO DO IT.

SO IF YOU CAN PLEASE HOLD ON.

I'M NOT GOING TO ALLOW THAT BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS LAST YEAR YOU DON'T SHARE IT WITH ANYBODY.

WE DIDN'T GET AHEAD OF TIME.

THE PUBLIC HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO DO IT.

YOU THROW UP A POWERPOINT, YOU START STIPULATING A WHOLE BUNCH OF THINGS THAT ARE FACT.

[02:00:03]

I CALL A POINT OF ORDER.

IT'S NOT FOR YOU TO JUST DECIDE ARBITRARILY.

I CAN'T DO IT SO WE CAN VOTE TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT.

THANK YOU. SO WE'LL HAVE A I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS BODY TO HAVE A VOTE.

WHAT DOES IT NEED TO BE A MOTION OR CAN WE JUST SKIP STRAIGHT TO THE VOTE ON ACCEPTING WHATEVER THIS PRESENTATION IS? OR CAN YOU EVEN DO THAT? LIKE DO ARE YOU ABLE JUST TO BRING STUFF UP? YOU'VE MADE THE RULING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ALLOWED, AND THEN HE'S RIGHT AT THE POINT OF ORDER APPEALING YOUR RULING.

THE SECOND TO APPEAL.

RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. OH.

SECOND, THE MORE INFORMATION THAT WE CAN ADD TO THIS, THE BETTER.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I HAVEN'T SEEN IT.

I'D LIKE TO SEE IT. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE THE MOTION IS TO APPEAL.

I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.

I GUESS MY REFUSAL TO NOT ALLOW THIS INFORMATION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

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

MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE SO WE AND I VOTE IS TO APPEAL TO APPEAL.

SO I COUNCIL MEMBER KOEHLER, MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

NAY COUNCIL MEMBER CLERK I COUNCIL MEMBER.

THORNTON I COUNCIL MEMBER.

THOMPSON I COUNCIL MEMBER.

WILCOX. HI. SO IN ADDITION COPIES SORRY, PLEASE MOTION PASSES TO APPEAL SIX ONE.

OKAY. NOW YOU MAY PRESENT.

OKAY. THE CITY SECRETARY ALSO MADE COPIES THAT SHE CAN GIVE OUT TO COUNCIL.

AND THE PAPER COPIES.

YES. FOR THEM. AND THEN I WANT THE SLIDE TO BE FOR EVERYONE IN THE PUBLIC.

SO ONE OF THE WAYS I KIND OF CORRELATE HOW I THINK IS I THINK PICTURES TELL A THOUSAND WORDS.

AND SO YOU COULD HEAR ME SAY THOUSANDS OF WORDS AND LOSE EVERYBODY.

THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF NOISE OUT IN SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER PLACES.

SO I WANT TO KIND OF CLARIFY THE AIR.

I EVEN HEARD A LOT OF PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I APPRECIATED ALL OF THEM.

AND, YOU KNOW, BUT SOME OF THEM I HEARD, I'M LIKE, WELL, THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT.

SO I WONDER IF I PUT ALL THE DATA CORRELATED TOGETHER, GIVES US A COMMON GROUND THAT AT LEAST WHERE I'M COMING FROM.

AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS OVER ALL THESE THINGS AND AND KIND OF UNDERSTAND WHERE I'M AT.

SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT TAX DATA FOR, FOR AS OF 2023.

IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THANK YOU. SO JUST A LITTLE SEPARATION.

WE'VE HAD THIS BEFORE IN THE CLEAR GOV AND STUFF, BUT I'VE JUST KIND OF CORRELATING EVERYTHING TOGETHER.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN OTTAWA IS 11,597 THIS YEAR.

OF THOSE 8160 ARE HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES.

OKAY. AND THE TOTAL NON HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES IS 3437.

SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT BASICALLY 70% OF ALL RESIDENTS ARE HOMESTEADED, WHICH IS A GREAT THING.

SO WHAT I WANTED TO PUT TOGETHER, THIS DATA HAS BEEN SHARED, BUT SINCE WE ADOPTED A RATE, WHICH IS WHAT WE CAN DISCUSS TOO, SO EVERYONE KEEPS HEARING THIS $0.45, THAT'S THE MAX WE COULD ADOPT.

NOW, THE VOTER APPROVED RATE I HEARD SOMEONE ASK ABOUT THAT'S UP AT LIKE ALMOST $0.47.

SO WE'RE NOWHERE NEAR THAT.

SO I ONLY PUT IN SOME MARKERS BETWEEN THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE ALL THE WAY UP TO $0.45 BECAUSE CURRENTLY COUNCIL CAN DISCUSS AND WE CAN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET AND FIGURE OUT WHAT THE RATE CAN BE ANYWHERE BETWEEN NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND $0.45.

SO ALL OF THE DATA HERE IS CORRECT AND GENERATED FROM OUR STUFF.

I MADE IT A BOX UP HERE ON THE I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A.

YEAH, RIGHT HERE.

SORRY. THE AVERAGE INCREASE PER HOME WOULD BE NO MATTER WHICH RATE THIS IS, IF YOU BLEND THE COST OF THE NUMBER OF 30% OF THE NON RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES.

SO THAT'S THIS COST.

BUT SINCE 70% OF ALL OUR RESIDENTS ARE HOMESTEADED, I WANTED TO SHOW JUST WHAT THIS MEANS IF YOU'RE A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY.

SO EVEN IF YOU'RE AT NO NEW REVENUE RATE, YOUR TAX BILL ON AVERAGE IS GOING TO GO UP $74 FROM WHAT YOU PAID LAST YEAR FOR CITY TAXES.

CITY IF WE INCREASE BY $0.01 EACH TIME WE GO UP, IT INCREASES YOUR BILL BY $31 APPROXIMATELY.

SO WHEN I HEARD SOMEONE SAY YOU'RE GOING TO PAY ME 16,000, $6,300 AND IT'S NOT BEEN DONE.

NO, THE $1,300 IS WHAT'S ALREADY BEING PAID FOR THAT HOUSE, EVEN AT NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, ARE YOU ADDING ANOTHER $34 ON TOP OF THAT, DEPENDING ON WHICH RATE YOU'RE ON FROM.

NO NEW REVENUE ALL THE WAY UP TO $0.45.

AND THEN THE NUMBERS DOWN HERE ARE KIND OF GIVING YOU THE REST OF THE DATA.

[02:05:03]

SO THEIR TAX BILL IS GOING TO GO DOWN $487 ON AVERAGE IF THEY'RE A NON HOMESTEADED PROPERTY, WHEREAS HOMESTEADS ARE GOING TO GO UP BECAUSE LAST YEAR THEY GOT A BIG REDUCTION. BUT THE THE HOMESTEAD, THE NON HOMESTEAD ONES TOOK A TOOK A HIT.

SO JUST KIND OF KIND OF EXPLAINING THE BASE RATE AND WHAT YOU'RE REALLY LOOKING LIKE AT A NUMBER.

WHAT WE'RE REALLY DISCUSSING IS DOES YOUR BILL GO UP $74 OR A MAX OF 223, NOT PER MONTH.

THIS IS FOR A YEAR FOR THE CITY, FOR JUST YOUR CITY PORTION OF YOUR TAXES.

SO I KIND OF WANTED TO NOT THE SKY IS FALLING.

NOT THAT ANY COST IS NOT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AND IT DOES.

BUT JUST THE THE SCOPE IN THE MARGIN OF OF THE VALUE DOES NEED TO BE PUT IS CONTEXT.

SO THE NEXT THING THAT I CREATED WAS A SLIDE LOOKING AT THE CURRENT TAX RATES BY THE SOME OF THE CITIES AROUND OUR AREA TO KIND OF COMPARE WHERE WE ARE NOW.

LAST YEAR I USED A ZILLOW NUMBER WHICH AS PEOPLE RIGHTLY POINTED OUT, WAS A FALLACY.

SO THIS YEAR I WENT TO THE CERTIFIED TAX RULES TO GET THE AVERAGE HOME SALE OR THE AVERAGE VALUE BASED ON THE PROPERTY TAX VALUES OF EVERY SURROUNDING CITY, INCLUDING HUTTO.

SO BASICALLY THE ORANGE BARS ARE WHAT THEIR ACTUAL ADOPTED RATE IS.

THE BLUE BAR WOULD BE WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW MUCH THE AVERAGE HOME IN HUTTO IS, WHICH IS $320,000 COMPARED TO, SAY, ROUND ROCK, WHICH IS ALMOST $400,000, THAT THERE'S A CHANGE OF THE TAX RATE WOULD SHOW YOU BASED ON THE VALUES THAT THEY WERE INEFFECTIVE TO A HUDDLE RATE OF $0.41.

SO THE BLUE NUMBERS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO LOOK AT WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ON A PER DOLLAR BASIS.

AND JUST TO MAKE IT VERY SIMPLE, IF YOU KNOW YOU HAD AN $800,000 HOUSE AT $0.20 IN ONE TOWN AND YOU'RE $400,000 HOUSE IS THE AVERAGE HOUSE IN ANOTHER TOWN, AND THEY WERE AT $0.40, BOTH OF YOU WOULD BE PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY TO LIVE IN YOUR HOUSE IN EITHER CITY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU SEE THE DIFFERENT RATES.

SO THAT'S WHY I NORMALIZED IT WITH THE BLUE AND I PUT OUT HERE IN THE PICTURE.

THE TWO VALUES THAT WE HAVE IN HUTTO IS THAT WE COULD BE UP TO 45 OR AT THE 40.22.

SO THAT'S WHERE YOU ARE AND YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE.

WE ARE RELATIVE TO ALL OF OUR PEERS.

SO AT ANY ONE OF OUR RATES, WE'RE RIGHT THERE IN THE MIDDLE AND NOT THE HIGHEST TAXING, NOT THE CHEAPEST.

OBVIOUSLY, ROUND ROCK AND GEORGETOWN ARE THE CHEAPEST, BUT THEY'RE MUCH LARGER CITIES THAT ARE ALREADY GOT ALL THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE BUILT OUT.

THEY'RE ALSO ALONG THE I-35 CORRIDOR.

SO THEY'RE KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN EVERYBODY ELSE.

BUT IF WE LOOK AT PFLUGERVILLE, WE'RE MUCH LOWER THAN PFLUGERVILLE CEDAR PARK.

LEANDER TAYLOR RIGHT NOW IS LOWER.

IF YOU LOOKED AT AN EFFECTIVE RATE, THEY'RE AT $0.62.

BUT BECAUSE THEIR HOME VALUES ARE AVERAGING ONLY $220,000, THEY SHOW AT 43.

SO THEY WOULD BE.

YOU KNOW AHEAD OF US IN CHEAPER RATE.

BUT I HAVE IMAGINE AS SAMSUNG OPENS THIS VALUE IS GOING TO DRASTICALLY RISE.

SO THE OTHER THINGS I WANTED TO LOOK AT IS TO BE TRUTH.

THE OTHER RATE THAT WE HAVE TO TALK ABOUT WITH OUR CITY VERSUS OTHERS IS WE DO HAVE AN ISD IN THIS TOWN.

THERE ARE ONLY OUT OF ALL THESE CITIES, THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER CITY THAT HAS AN ISD THAT'S BEING PAID AND IT'S PFLUGERVILLE AND THEY'RE PAYING 9.4 CENTS.

SO $0.51 IS WHAT THE CITY PAYS.

BUT THEN ON TOP OF THAT, THEY PAY AN ADDITIONAL 9.4 CENTS TO THEIR ISD.

SO THEY'RE AT ALMOST $0.61 PER $100 EVALUATION IN PFLUGERVILLE.

SO WHEN WE'RE SAYING WE'RE AT $0.40, WELL, WE ARE, BUT REALLY WE HAVE A TEN CENT ISD RATE, SO WE'RE AT $0.50 PER $100 VALUATION IF YOU LOOK AT COMBINING THAT.

SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE SAYING, OH, WE'RE SO MUCH LOWER, BUT WE HAVE THIS $0.10 WHERE SAY, TAYLOR, LEANDER, CEDAR PARK AND ROUND ROCK DO NOT HAVE THAT OR GEORGETOWN. THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO BRING UP IS I WAS ONE OF THE PROPONENTS AND BROUGHT UP THE IDEA ABOUT THE ROAD, THE ROAD FEE.

SO THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT WAYS THAT ROAD FEES CAN BE CALCULATED IN DIFFERENT CITIES.

AND ROUND ROCK AND GEORGETOWN, THEY VOTERS ACTUALLY TOOK A PORTION OF THEIR 2% SALES TAX AND ADOPTED IT TO PAY FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE.

AND IF YOU DO THAT AND LOOK AT THEIR AVERAGE SALES TAX BY THEIR VALUES OF THEIR HOMES AND THE NUMBER OF HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES, THAT EFFECTIVELY MEANS THEY'RE CHARGING A ROAD FEE UNDER SALES TAX OF 6.4 $0.08 AND ROUND ROCK'S 8.64.

BUT IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOUR TAX RATE BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON SALES, PROPERTY SALES TAX.

[02:10:05]

THE ONLY CITY OUT OF THESE THAT CURRENTLY HAS A ROAD FEE IS TAYLOR, AND IT'S AT $8 PER MONTH, WHICH IF YOU DIVIDE IT BY THE AVERAGE HOME RATE THAT COMES OUT TO IF YOU WERE TO DO IT AS A TAXING RATE, IT'D BE ANOTHER $0.04.

SO YES, THEY'RE AT 43, BUT REALLY YOU'D ADD ANOTHER $0.04 ON TOP OF THAT BECAUSE EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN TAYLOR IS CURRENTLY PAYING A UTILITY BILL.

SO THEY'RE AT 40, 47.5 EFFECTIVE RATE COMPARED TO US WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT BETWEEN 40 AND 45, BUT WE'RE ADDING THE $0.10 FOR ISD. SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? TRUTH ABOUT OUR TAX RATE FROM THE SLIDE ABOVE.

IF WE ADOPT ANY RATE LESS THAN $0.43, WE ARE IN THE EXACT MIDDLE OF TAXATION IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY WHEN WE INCLUDE THE ISD COSTS, WHICH WE SHOULD.

IN MY OPINION, IF WE EXCLUDE THE ISD, IT WOULD PUT US ONLY BEHIND ROUND ROCK AT ANY AT A RATE OF $0.43 OR LESS.

SO ON OUR BUDGET YOU'VE HEARD ABOUT IN AN ITEM, I THINK IT'S 8.5, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

SOME ROAD FEES WE TALKED ABOUT WAS $6, $8 AND $10 TO KIND OF SEE WHAT IT IS.

SO IF I CONVERTED THAT TO WHAT HOW MUCH THAT WOULD BE AS A TAX RATE, IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT IT ON OUR AVERAGE HOME SALE, THAT WOULD BE 2.2 $0.04 AT $6 IF WE DID A ROAD FEE INSTEAD OF PUTTING IT INTO THE TAX RATE, IF WE DID AN $8 FEE, THAT WOULD BE ALMOST $0.03.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY A $10 WOULD BE EQUIVALENT TO A $3 AND 70 OR 3.7 $0.03.

AND I BRING THIS UP BECAUSE PEOPLE ASK, WELL, WHY DID I COME BACK ON THE NO NEW REVENUE? ASK US TO CHANGE THE NUMBER, TO BE ABLE TO GO TO 45 TO HAVE A REASONABLE DISCUSSION WHEN AT THE TIME WE HAD A DECISION AT COUNCIL THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO GO FORWARD WITH THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE, THEN I NEEDED US TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO FIGURE OUT HOW CAN WE TAKE CARE OF OUR ROADS, THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR BONDS WILL PAY TO BUILD NEW ROADS THEY DON'T PAY TO BUILD THE ROADS OR TO MAINTAIN THE ROADS WE HAVE.

AND THAT LISTENING TO VOTERS, THAT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT THINGS THAT I COMMITTED TO DOING.

SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DO THAT.

THIS ALLOWS US TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, SO WE GO FORWARD TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SO THE NEXT THING I WANTED TO SAY, TRUTH IN TAXATION SAYS NO MATTER IF WE ADOPT THE MAX $0.45, WHICH I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO, NO ONE'S OVERALL TAXES WILL GO UP IN THE TOWN.

WHEN YOU LOOK ACROSS YOUR ENTIRE BILL, THIS IS ACTUALLY MY BILL.

I'M NOT LYING.

IF YOU LOOK HERE, IF WE DID THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF $0.45, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING WE WOULD, IT WOULD BE $1,646 FOR MY HOUSE, FOR EXAMPLE. IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE ADOPTED TAXES, EVERY OTHER TAX RATE HAS BEEN ADOPTED EXCEPT FOR OURS.

SO THAT'S WHY THIS COLUMN SAYS ZERO.

SO THIS IS HOW MUCH IS THERE.

SO IF YOU ADD THAT PLUS THIS NUMBER, WHICH I'M NOT SAYING WE GO TO $0.45, THAT'S $6,742.

LAST YEAR I PAID $7,188 TO MY HOUSE AS A HOMESTEADED PROPERTY.

SO I'M GETTING A REDUCTION OF $446 OFF MY OVERALL TAX BILL THIS YEAR.

EVEN IF WE ADOPTED THE HIGHEST RATE, WHICH I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE DO.

SO THE FEAR MONGERING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET PRICED OUT OF YOUR HOME IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

YOUR ACTUAL HOME VALUE, YOUR TAX OVERALL TAXES ARE GOING TO GO DOWN THIS YEAR, PERIOD.

THAT IS A FACT.

AND YOU CAN GO TO YOUR OWN LOOK AT THE NUMBER AND WHAT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO.

TAKE THIS NUMBER RIGHT HERE AND ADD UP.

AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT THIS RATE.

I BUT SINCE THIS IS THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, TAKE THIS NUMBER, ADD IT TO THAT ONE AND SEE IF IT'S LESS THAN THIS ONE IN YOUR CASE.

AND IF IT'S NOT, I'D LIKE TO KNOW ABOUT IT BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADOPT THE FINAL THING FOR TWO WEEKS.

BUT I THINK YOU'LL SEE THAT I'M TELLING THE TRUTH.

SO SOME DATA TO THINK ABOUT IN IN OUR RATE RAISES $2.14 MILLION ABOVE LAST YEAR.

THAT'S A TRUE STATEMENT.

HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T TELL THE FULL STORY.

WE UNDERFUNDED MANY PROJECTS IN OUR RATE BUDGET THIS YEAR TO HAVE A CHECKS BOX THAT WE MADE A BUDGET THAT WORKED AT NR.

HERE'S SOME EXAMPLES OF HOW I CAN DEFINITIVELY SAY THIS IS A TRUE STATEMENT.

ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE WAS FUNDED AT $850,000.

THAT COMES FROM $750 FOR PAVEMENT REPAIR AND $100,000 TO TAKE CARE OF SIGNAGE, PAINTING THE STRIPES ON THE ROADS.

AS MANY OF YOU HAVE DRIVEN AROUND HUTTO, LOTS OF THE STREETS.

YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE THE LANE LINES ANYMORE.

THAT COSTS MONEY TO REPAIR, TOO.

AND THEY NEED TO BE MAINTAINED FOR SAFETY.

SO WE HAD AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT COME OUT AND THEIR VALUE, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS 1.5 MILLION.

IF WE WANTED TO MAINTAIN ALL OF OUR ROADS OVER TO THE ACCEPTABLE IMPROVEMENT LEVEL, THEY SAID 1.2 IS THE MINIMUM WE SHOULD DO.

1.5 WOULD GET US TO MAINTAINING OUR BACKLOG TO THE SAME LEVEL THAT IT IS TODAY.

BUT THAT WAS JUST FOR THE PAVEMENT REPAIR.

THAT'S NOT INCLUDING DOING SIGNAGE, PAINTING THE STRIPS SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT LANE YOU'RE IN, DRAINAGE OR SIDEWALK REPAIR ALONG ALONG THE STREETS OF THE OF THE

[02:15:08]

THAT NEEDS TO BE ABOUT 300,000.

SO IF WE DO THOSE TWO NUMBERS, THAT SAYS THAT RIGHT NOW WE CURRENTLY HAVE A SHORTFALL OF $950,000 IN OUR BUDGET AT NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

SO HOW DO WE CLOSE THAT? THE OTHER THING THAT I WANTED TO SAY IS THAT WE HAVE NOTHING BUDGETED, WHICH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE EVEN SAID THAT THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO.

WE HAVE NOTHING BUDGETED FOR AN EMERGENCY FUND FOR CLEANUP ACTIVITIES LIKE WE EXPERIENCED JUST THIS YEAR.

WE HAD $250,000 BILL JUST COME FROM THAT ONE WINTER STORM.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT.

AND AS YOU'RE BEING A PROACTIVE CITY THAT IS GROWING AND DOING THE RIGHT THINGS, NOT HAVING AN EMERGENCY FUND, NOT FULLY FUNDING YOUR ROAD MAINTENANCE IS GOING TO COST YOU MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE OVER TIME.

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME, GO LOOK AT THE REPORT THAT WE AUDITED.

IT'S AVAILABLE IN THE CITY.

I WILL ASK THE CITY, THE THE CITY MANAGER TO HAVE IT AVAILABLE FOR THE REPORT FOR THE REPAIRS.

BECAUSE WHEN WE DO THESE REPAIRS, WE HAVE A LIST OF THE ROADS.

WE'RE GOING TO DO THE ORDER, THEY'RE GOING TO DO THEM AND WHY THEY NEED TO BE DONE THAT WAY.

BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T MAINTAIN THEM EACH YEAR, THEY'RE GOING TO FALL INTO FURTHER DISREPAIR AND THEN THE COST GROWS ASTRONOMICALLY.

IF YOU DON'T MAINTAIN THEM AT THE CURRENT LEVEL, GOING BACK TO A GREEN WHEN THEY FALL DOWN, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FULL REBUILD WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AT LIKE LIVE OAK WHERE YOU CAN'T JUST REPAIR IT NOW YOU'VE GOT TO GO SPEND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO COMPLETELY REDO THE STREET.

I'M TRYING TO PREVENT THAT SO THAT OVER TIME WE CAN HAVE A CITY THAT'S FUNCTIONAL, COST EFFECTIVE AND IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF THAT ISN'T GOING TO HAVE US HAVE MAJOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT OUTLAYS THAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THESE ROADS BECAUSE WE LET THEM GET TOO FAR.

DEGRADATED MY LAST THING IS SO KIND OF WHAT MAKES SENSE JUST TO KIND OF KICK OFF THE DISCUSSION, NOT THAT I'M NECESSARILY SAYING WHAT THIS IS BECAUSE THIS WOULD WE'D HAVE TO CUT THINGS OUT OF BUDGET AND WE CAN GET LOWER.

BUT WHERE I LOOK AT IT, WHERE WE'RE AT AT A MINIMUM BASELINE TO TALK IS IF WE SET AN OVERALL BASE RATE OF 43.2114, THAT WOULD MAKE US IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL CITY TAX COSTS BASED ON HOME VALUES IN THE AREA.

AND IT WOULD ALLOW US TO FULLY FUND ALL THE ROAD REPAIR WORK FROM THAT REPORT.

THE OTHER OPTION IS TO GO AHEAD AND GO WITH NO NEW REVENUE, BUT ADD AN $8 PER MONTH ROAD FEE TO THE UTILITY BILL, WHICH I DISCUSSED BEFORE.

IF YOU DID THAT, THAT'S ALSO WOULD MAKE YOU THE SAME EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET PER YEAR AS BEING AT THE 43.211 $0.04 ON HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES. LASTLY, IF YOU'RE OVER 65 AND HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, YOUR TAXES ARE FROZEN WITH A CEILING.

SO WHENEVER YOU GOT YOUR CEILING, IF YOU ALWAYS BUDGET TO YOUR CEILING, YOU WILL NEVER GO ABOVE YOUR CEILING.

IN SOME YEARS, IF WE HAD A GREAT SALES TAX YEAR OR SOMETHING GREW AND WE DROPPED LOWER, YEAH, YOU MIGHT GET A REFUND BACK BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T NEED TO BE AT YOUR CEILING.

BUT IF YOU ALWAYS PLAN FOR YOUR CEILING, YOU'LL ALWAYS IT'LL NEVER GO ABOVE YOUR CEILING.

BUT IF WE ADD THE FEE INSTEAD OF THE TAX RATE INCREASE, IT WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT OVER 65 DISABLED BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE PAYING THE FEE, NOT BE UNDER THEIR CEILING CAP FOR TAXES.

SO THAT WAS THE ONE THING I WANTED TO BRING UP FOR THAT.

AND I THINK, YEAH, THAT'S THE END OF MY MY COMMENTS DISCUSSION ON THE PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THOSE NUMBERS TOGETHER.

ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS, JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, CAME FROM CLEAR GOV.

THEY'RE THE NUMBERS WE WERE GIVEN AND HE PUT THEM IN AN EASY TO ACCESS AND TO READ SLIDE.

THANK YOU FOR BEING REALLY CLEAR AND TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE NUMBERS.

I HEARD SOMEONE SAY A 17.5% RATE INCREASE.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT WE HAD A CROWD WHO WERE REALLY UPSET ABOUT AN INCREASE.

THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE THAT WE HAVE NOT EVEN DISCUSSED OR SHARED.

THE REASON WHY WE CAME BACK TO WHEN WE TOOK AWAY THE NO NEW REVENUE FOR ME WAS BECAUSE I NEEDED TO SEE THESE NUMBERS SIDE BY SIDE.

I NEEDED TO SEE WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF WE DO A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE? WHAT IS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE IF WE GO UP 1 OR $0.02 OR PERCENT? SO IT'S NOT THERE'S THERE'S NO UNDERLYING AGENDA.

IT'S WHAT'S GOING TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE.

SO THANK YOU FOR USING THE THE PROPER RATES AND SHOWING WHAT IT REALLY WILL LOOK LIKE TO CITIZENS AND NOT A 17.5% INCREASE. IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO A SLIDE WHERE IT SAYS TRUTH IN TAXATION SAYS NO MATTER IF WE ADOPT THE MAX, $0.45, NO ONE'S OVERALL TAXES.

YEAH. OH, SORRY.

KNOW HOW TO GO BACK? OH, HERE WE GO. HERE WE GO.

OKAY. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN IF YOU.

THIS IS HOW YOU FIGURE OUT 17%.

IF WE PASS A 45 CENT, 1646 32 PROPOSED -14.03 46.

YOU GUYS GET, WHAT, $243? IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? YEAH.

[02:20:02]

I'M JUST USING MATH.

AND SO YOU CAN ARGUE IT'S ONLY $230.

BUT PERCENT WISE, THE PROPOSED TAXES THAT WE'RE PUSHING THROUGH, YOU GUYS MAY GO LOWER.

THAT'S FINE. IT'S A 17.3% INCREASE.

SO THAT'S. WE CAN DEBATE IT.

BUT IF YOU DO THE MATH AND YOU PULL OUT YOUR CALCULATORS, IT'S 17.3%.

THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS SLIDE IS, YES, THE STATE HAS PASSED A BILL.

IT HAS NOT BEEN IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON BY THE PUBLIC.

I'M ASSUMING THEY WILL PASS IT IN NOVEMBER.

BUT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS STARTED THE PROCESS OF PREPARING FOR THIS PASSING.

AND SO THEY DROPPED THEIR TAXES $600 IN ANTICIPATION OF THE LAW PASSING.

AND SO WHAT I'VE HEARD UP HERE BEFORE FROM SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS IS, WELL, THEY'RE COMING DOWN SIX OR NOT 600, BUT THE ISD'S COMING DOWN.

AND SO WE CAN GO UP SOME.

AND OVERALL, EVERYBODY HAS A NET MINUS THE PART YOU DIDN'T PUT IN HERE.

THAT LAW IS ONLY FOR THREE YEARS.

SO IF YOU START MAKING CHANGES OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS TO SOAK UP SOME OF THE SAVINGS THAT THE STATE ENACTED TO GIVE TO US, WHAT DO YOU DO IN THREE YEARS? IF THE STATE SAYS WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DO THAT ANYMORE, THEN THE ISD TAXES GO RIGHT BACK UP WHERE THEY WERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE LOOKING AT ANOTHER POINT IN TIME WITH WE'RE ALSO YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A BUNCH OF LARGE, HOPEFULLY COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIES THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING IN OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

I'M JUST I'M JUST SAYING.

SO YOU CAN'T SAY WHAT ONE LEGISLATIVE BODY WOULD DO IN THE FUTURE VERSUS ANOTHER.

ALL WE CAN TALK ABOUT IS THIS YEAR.

I DIDN'T INTERRUPT YOU.

SORRY. ONE TIME.

YES, SIR. OKAY. SO WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WHEN IT GOES UP? AND RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC IS, IN MY OPINION, IS WE CAN GO UP SOME NOW BECAUSE THE STATE PASSES SAVINGS AND YOU'RE STILL GOING TO GET A SAVINGS.

AND IN THREE YEARS, I CAN'T PROJECT THREE YEARS, SO I'M NOT GOING TO WORRY ABOUT IT.

AND SO FOR FOR ME, I LOOK AT IT LIKE THAT.

IF YOU GO ONE MORE, IF I HAD THIS AHEAD OF TIME, I'D GIVE YOU MY NOTES.

CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT ONE? DATA TO THINK ABOUT? YEAH. WE'RE TRYING TO SCARE PEOPLE AND WE CAN'T FUND ROADS IF WE PASS NO NEW REVENUE.

NOWHERE IN ALL YOUR EXAMPLES HAVE YOU MENTIONED ANYTHING WE DON'T HAVE TO HIRE.

THERE IS NOT A NEED, A NEED FOR 40 ADDITIONAL PEOPLE.

THAT IS A WANT.

WE WANT TO EXPAND THE HOURS OF THE LIBRARY.

WE WANT TO EXPAND PROGRAMING AT THE PARK.

THOSE ARE WANTS.

SO YOU'RE TELLING EVERYBODY IF WE DO NO NEW REVENUE, WE CAN'T FUND ROADS.

WHAT I AM ARGUING IS WITH THE AMOUNT OF OF OF MONEY WE ARE GOING TO NEED IN THIS CITY, I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STRONG LOOK AT EVERY SINGLE THING AND GO, DO WE REALLY NEED TO EXPAND THE LIBRARY? WHO HAS AN 80% FAVORABLE RATING BASED ON THEIR LAST SURVEY? IF THE ANSWER IS YES, THEN YOU FUND IT.

BUT WHEN YOU PUT EXAMPLES, YOU'RE USING SCARE TACTICS ON THE ROADS, BUT YOU'RE NOT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WE DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A SHOWER IN CITY HALL, WE DON'T HAVE TO BUY TRUCKS.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE DON'T HAVE TO DO.

WE JUST WANT TO DO THEM.

I WOULD ARGUE ROADS IS A NEED AND IF YOU GO TO THE LAST ONE, THE PROPOSAL.

THE VERY ONE. THE LAST ONE YOU SAY.

LASTLY, IF YOU IF YOU ARE OVER 65 AND HAVE A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, YOUR TAXES ARE FROZEN AND ARE NOT NEGATIVELY AFFECTED BY THIS.

UNLESS WE DO A FEE THAT'S THAT'S INACCURATE BECAUSE THEIR TAXES WILL GO UP THIS YEAR, BECAUSE THOSE WHO HAD WHEN WE DID THE FREEZE THREE YEARS AGO, OVER THE PAST THREE YEARS, THEIR TAXES HAVE SLOWLY COME DOWN.

NO, THEY HAVEN'T. YES, THEY HAVE.

THEY STILL HAVE THEIR CEILING.

I'D LOVE FOR YOU TO SHOW ME ONE.

MY TAXES HAVE GONE DOWN THREE YEARS IN A ROW BECAUSE NO NEW REVENUE EACH YEAR HIT A CEILING.

YOU DON'T HAVE YOU DON'T HAVE THE CEILING.

THIS IS WHERE WE ALWAYS GET IN DEBATE.

LISTEN TO WHAT I'M SAYING.

IF THREE YEARS AGO A PERSON OVER 65 TAXES WERE SET AT 1800.

OKAY, LAST YEAR, WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT HAPPENED? EVERYBODY, EVERY HOMESTEADED PERSON'S TAXES DID WHAT, LAST YEAR? THEY DROPPED. RIGHT.

SO THE CEILING IS 1800.

THEIR TAXES DROPPED TO 1500.

NO, THEY DIDN'T. I'VE LOOKED UP.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY I'VE LOOKED FOR.

I HAVEN'T FOUND ONE YET, MAYOR.

I HAVEN'T FOUND ONE YET.

I'VE LOOKED UP. LET ME LET ME JUST FINISH MY THOUGHT.

I, I HAVE LOOKED UP LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS OF PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THE FREEZE THAT RECEIVED THE FREEZE IN 2020.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM.

NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM WENT DOWN.

THEY'VE ALL STAYED FLAT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S POSSIBLE BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE'S TAXES AT HOMESTEAD WENT DOWN.

BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THE REASON I LOOKED UP BECAUSE BECAUSE THEIR HOME VALUE, THE REASON WHY IS BECAUSE YOU'RE FORGETTING THE MAJOR POINT.

IF THEIR HOUSE WHEN IT WAS FROZEN WAS CAPPED AND SAY THEIR HOUSE WAS WORTH $200,000 AND THEIR CEILING WENT IN AND SAID IT WAS 1800 BUCKS, THEN THE NEXT YEAR, NO MATTER WHAT WE SAID, OUR RATE, WHAT THEY DO IS SAY, OH, BUT YOUR HOME VALUE IS NOW 300,000 TIMES THIS LOWER RATE IS $2,500.

[02:25:06]

THAT'S WHY NO ONE HAS SEEN A CHANGE, NOR WOULD THEY.

HOME VALUE CONTINUES TO CLIMB BECAUSE YOU'RE FORGETTING THE HOME VALUE PART.

SO IF IT DOES DROP, THEY DON'T DROP BELOW WHAT THE CAP WAS.

SO WE'RE DONE DEBATING WITH WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY SO I CAN FINISH BECAUSE AGAIN, I DON'T EVER INTERRUPT YOU.

I DON'T INTERRUPT ANYBODY, BUT I GET THREE WORDS OUT AND AS SOON AS YOU DON'T AGREE WITH IT, WHAT I'M SAYING IS, HAD YOU YOU SAID I WAS WRONG AND I'M TELLING YOU I WASN'T WRONG.

HAD YOU PASSED OUT PRESENTATIONS AHEAD OF TIME? IT GIVES EVERYBODY WE HAVE AN ENTIRE FORUM TO TALK ABOUT THINGS.

AND SO IN A SPLIT MINUTE, YOU IT STARTED OFF YOUR PRESENTATION WITH LAST YEAR.

YEAH. I USED INFORMATION THAT WASN'T GOOD, BUT THIS YEAR THE INFORMATION IS CORRECT.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, I'LL GO AND LOOK AT PEOPLE'S HOUSES BECAUSE I KNOW SENIORS AND LAST YEAR THEY SHOULD HAVE GOT A DECREASE BECAUSE EVERYBODY, EVERY OTHER HOMESTEADED PERSON DID. AND SO IF YOU HAD A CAP LAST YEAR AND IT DROPPED $300, YOU SHOULD HAVE GOT AN INCREASE OR I MEAN A DECREASE.

AND SO IF THAT DIDN'T HAPPEN, THEN WHAT YOU ALL DO IS HELP THEM TALK TO THE ASSESSOR'S OFFICE OR THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND ASK THEM WHAT HAPPENED.

YOU'RE FORGETTING THAT IT WENT UP AND UP AND UP AND UP AND THEN DOWN.

WHAT WENT UP? THEIR HOME VALUES, THEIR HOME VALUES CONTINUE TO GO UP FROM 2019 TO 2020.

I HEAR YOU. AND MY VALUES WENT MY MY TAXES.

AND EVERYBODY I KNOW WHO WAS A HOMESTEAD WENT DOWN LAST YEAR, BUT DOWN ONE YEAR.

SO HERE'S WHAT I'M GOING TO SUM UP BECAUSE I'M LOSING MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AND IT MUST BE BECAUSE IT'S ON PURPOSE IS WE ARE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME JUSTIFYING WHY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MORE MONEY, BUT WE'RE NOT SPENDING ANY TIME ON HOW TO BE BETTER STEWARDS OF THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE.

WE'RE NOT SAYING, HEY, MAYBE WE DON'T DO LIBRARY EXPANSION THIS YEAR BECAUSE EVERYBODY'S SATISFIED AND THAT'S FOUR FULL TIME PEOPLE.

MAYBE WE DON'T DO A SHOWER.

WHAT ALL THIS EFFORT IS TO HOW DO I GET MORE OF THIS MONEY NOW? AND LIKE YOU SAID, WE MAY BE ENTERING A RECESSION.

WELL, IF WE ARE, IS NOW THE TIME TO TAKE MORE MONEY FROM PEOPLE? WHAT YOU OUGHT TO BE SPENDING YOUR TIME ON IS GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET AND FIGURING OUT WHAT WE REALLY NEED TO DO, BECAUSE NEXT YEAR WE'RE DOING THIS ON A ONE YEAR.

THIS IS JUST NEXT YEAR, BUT WE HAVE $1 BILLION IN PROJECTS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND THEM.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THE FRITTS PARK PLAN BECAUSE YOU SPENT $11 MILLION TODAY AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HIRE PEOPLE AND TAXES WILL GO UP.

AND NEXT YEAR WE HAVE LIKE $117 MILLION IN PROJECTS WE HAVE TO COME UP MONEY WITH.

SO THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING IS, IS YOU CAN SPEND ALL YOUR TIME TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHY TO TAKE MORE.

I JUST THINK ABOUT US SPEND TIME ON HOW TO TAKE THE SAME AMOUNT AS LAST YEAR AND DO BETTER WITH IT BECAUSE WE DID HAVE 2.1 MILLION AND WE HAVE MASSIVE.

YOU DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING IN THIS ABOUT TAXES AND FEES, ABOUT THE 120 TO $180 INCREASE IN WATER RATES PER MONTH, THAT'S A $2,400 A YEAR INCREASE POTENTIALLY TO 2000.

WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THAT.

SO I'M NOT SAYING NOW YOU GUYS CAN RAILROAD THE BUDGET THROUGH AND THAT'S FINE.

BUT THE REASON I SAY IT, NO NEW REVENUE IS BECAUSE I'VE ALWAYS SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, UNLESS I GET THE FEELING THAT WE HAVE, WE ARE ONLY FUNDING THE NEEDS. I'M NOT I'M NOT RAISING PEOPLE'S TAXES FOR A BUNCH OF WANTS AND WISH LISTS.

SOMETIMES WHAT YOU CONSIDER A WHAT SOMEONE ELSE CONSIDERS A NEED LIKE EXTENDED LIBRARY IS NECESSARILY MIGHT BE A NEED FOR SOME PEOPLE.

I HAD A BUNCH OF PEOPLE REACH OUT TO ME AND SAID, PLEASE, WHY ARE YOU ADDING THESE OTHER POSITIONS THAT NO ONE ASKED FOR, LIKE YOUR EXTERNAL AUDITOR, BUT YOU CUT THE LIBRARY ONE WHERE PEOPLE DID WANT THAT EXTRA LIBRARY HOUR AND THAT COST IS A LOT LESS THAN YOURS.

SO YOU SAY THAT THAT'S A NEED.

I SAY THAT'S A WANT BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR SO IT 100%.

SO OKAY, SO WHEN YOU SO YOU IN YOUR OPINION.

THERE YOU GO. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

EVERYBODY HAS DIFFERENT OPINIONS OF WHAT'S WANTS AND NEEDS.

SO, SO I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO REMOVE FROM THE BUDGET.

IS THIS THE APPROPRIATE TIME FOR ME TO TAKE THIS OFF, GIVE YOU SUGGESTIONS? I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF GO, OKAY, JUST WEIGH IN ON THIS.

YES, PLEASE. SO WE DO HAVE TO VOTE ON THESE THINGS SEPARATELY.

SO, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER ONE THING YOU PROBABLY WANT TO ADDRESS FIRST IS THAT STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THE DISCUSSION SHOULD FOCUS ON.

ARE WE DOING A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE OR ARE WE DOING THE INCREASE IN THE TAX RATE AND WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE? WHICH ONE WOULD BE MORE BENEFICIAL? YEAH. SO I WOULD LIKE TO DO A MOTION SO WE CAN START THE CONVERSATION SO WE CAN SQUASH SOME ITEMS OR GET THE CONVERSATION ROLLING AND TAKE SOME ACTION.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REPEAL ORDINANCE 2023 058 THAT WAS APPROVED ON THE AUGUST 17TH, 2023 CITY COUNCIL MEETING THAT WAS PROPOSED TO CREATE A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

[02:30:05]

IT'S ON SECOND READING.

IT'S NEVER IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN.

YEAH. SO I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THE MOTION WOULD BE TO NOT ADOPT THE ORDINANCE.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY.

WE HAVE THE INNER TALKING. WE'VE GOT TO GET THE MOTION AND WE GOT TO GET THE SECOND, THEN WE CAN DISCUSS.

SO. OKAY. PLEASE.

SECOND MOTION. I SECOND.

I SECOND. I'M JUST SAYING. BUT IT'S NOT.

HOLD ON. SHE JUST GOT TOLD.

DON'T REPEAL, DON'T ADOPT.

SO YOU'RE SECONDING A REPEAL.

BUT SHE JUST SAID, DON'T DO THAT.

NO, I'M SAYING I'M SECONDING MOTION FRIENDLY MOTION TO NOT ADOPT.

I'LL SECOND IT. ORDINANCE 2020 3-058 FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AUGUST 17TH, 2023.

SECOND. AND THIS WAS EIGHT.

EIGHT, FIVE, RIGHT? YES, SIR.

OKAY. SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

WHY DO WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING TO NOT ADOPT? DO WE JUST CAN WE JUST NOT ACT? OR IS THERE A SECOND READING HANGING OUT THERE FOREVER? IT'D BE HANGING OUT THERE FOREVER.

IT JUST CLEANS UP THE RECORD.

NOT UPTO 2023.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT NOT ADOPTING A MOTION NOT TO ADOPT.

THE ORDINANCE THAT HAD A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE OF 2023 058.

IS THAT RIGHT, SIR? DID I GET A SECOND OR NO? YEAH. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

OKAY. SO DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION TO NOT ADOPT THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

YEAH, GO AHEAD. YOU WANT TO START.

AND YOU MADE THE MOTION SO YOU CAN.

YEAH. SO I GUESS I'LL START IT OFF WITH.

ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE THE INGENUITY BEHIND THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, EVERYBODY KNOWS KIND OF WHERE I STAND ON THIS, AND SO I'M STILL ADVOCATING AGAINST IT ON THE UTILITY BILL.

OUR INTERIM CITY.

CFO, SORRY, NOT CITY CFO.

SHE'S KIND OF SHE HAS PRESENTED SOME NUMBERS THAT WE COULD FUND IT THROUGH THE TAX RATE AT A HALF OF A PENNY. AND WHENEVER THAT COUNCIL MEETING HAPPENED ON AUGUST 17TH, IT WAS PROPOSED AT $10.

THEN COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON WAS TRYING TO WORK WITH IT SO THAT WE WEREN'T OVER COLLECTING.

AND SO HE WAS HE WAS TRYING HIS BEST TO WORK WITH US SO THAT WE WOULDN'T OVER COLLECT AND OVER COLLECT.

AND I DO APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE HE HE WAS DOING A GREAT JOB OF THAT AND TRYING TO MITIGATE THAT.

SO EVEN AT THE $5, IT WAS STILL COLLECTING TOO MUCH THAT THE CITY NEEDED TO GET TO THE 1.2 MILLION FOR STREET MAINTENANCE. THEN THERE WAS A MOTION MADE TO TO TAKE YOUR RESERVES DOWN, NOT $1.2 MILLION, BUT 2.2 MILLION 382,510. AND THAT MOTION PASSED 6 TO 1.

I WAS THE NAY ON THAT TO TAKE DOWN OUR RESERVE BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS A FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE ACTION BECAUSE WE DIDN'T NEED THAT.

AND I THINK IT WAS THAT NIGHT WAS JUST THERE WAS A LOT OF UNCLARITY OR THERE WAS, YEAH, IT WAS UNCLEAR, I GUESS, WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO.

IN ADDITION TO OTHER CITIES, THEY WORK ON A TIERED SYSTEM WHICH WAS PRESENTED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER, MATT.

HE DID BRING THAT TO US.

THAT WAS, I GUESS, NOT TAKEN WELL.

BUT I THINK THAT IF IT MAYBE WOULD HAVE GONE THAT WAY, IT WOULD HAVE MAYBE BEEN SUCCESSFUL.

AND SO I THINK THAT.

EXCUSE ME, CAN WE GET SOME ORDER IN THE CHAMBER? MR. MAYOR.

CAN WE PLEASE HAVE. ORDER IN THE CHAMBER.

THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

APPRECIATE IT. UM, SO I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I AM WITH THIS.

IT'S, YOU KNOW, BRINGING THE FLAT FEE.

IT WAS IF YOU'RE A BUSINESS THAT GENERATES A LOT OF TRAFFIC OR IF YOU'RE AN APARTMENT TENANT, YOU HAVE TO STILL PAY THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY AS THE LOWE'S OR HOME DEPOT.

AND SO YOU ALL KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THIS.

AND SO THAT WAS THE BACKING OF MY MOTION.

AND I THINK THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THE BUDGET AND FIND THAT 260,000 TO FUND AND TO TO TO FIGURE IT OUT.

AND I SECONDED THIS MOTION.

ALONG WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER KOEHLER SAID ABOUT OUR CFO BEING ABLE TO FIND HOW TO ACCOMMODATE THIS IN THE TAX RATE, WHICH I DO APPRECIATE. MS..

LEMAIRE I STILL THINK THAT THIS STREET MAINTENANCE FEE POSES A DISPROPORTIONATE EFFECT ON CERTAIN CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY LOW INCOME WITH WITH FAMILIES OR INDIVIDUALS.

[02:35:02]

I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHENEVER YOU ARE FUELING UP, I THINK YOU GET A GAS TAX OR A FUEL TAX THAT THAT GOES ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, YOU FILLING UP YOUR YOUR VEHICLE. AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS, I WON'T BE SUPPORTING THIS AS WELL.

DO WE GET ANY MONEY FROM THE GAS TAX TO IMPROVE OUR ROADS? NO, I BELIEVE IT GOES TO THE STATE.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

BUT IT'S STILL A TAX THAT WE PAY.

IT DOESN'T GO TO THE CITY, BUT IT COMES BUT IT DOES GO TOWARDS MAINTAINING ROADS.

SO POTENTIALLY 16 60 SOUTH THAT JUST GOT REPAVED.

COULD HAVE BEEN STATE TAX DOLLARS THROUGH THE GAS TAX TO FUND THAT.

BUT I WOULD HAVE TO DO SOME RESEARCH.

BUT FROM WHAT I RECALL, IT JUST GOES FOR BUILDING THE ROADS, DOESN'T DOESN'T GO TOWARDS MAINTAINING.

HERE'S WHAT I'D SAY. WE CAN'T CONTROL IT.

YES. AND SO WE MAY BE PAYING IT.

AND IT'S GOING TOWARDS THE $5 BILLION EXPANSION OF I-35, FOR ALL I KNOW.

BUT HERE'S THE SO I WANT TO BE AS EQUITABLE AS I CAN TO PEOPLE WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES.

AND I REALLY APPRECIATE.

THE THOUGHT THAT A FEE MAY AFFECT THOSE LOW INCOME, BUT THE FEE IS SET.

WHATEVER IT IS, SAY IT'S $5 A MONTH.

THAT IS A SET AMOUNT.

WHEN YOU RAISE THE TAX, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO RAISE THE TAX THE EQUIVALENT TO THE $5.

AND THEN NEXT YEAR, WHEN THEIR HOME VALUE GOES UP, THEIR TAX BILL GOES UP, AND THE NEXT YEAR, WHEN THEIR HOME VALUE GOES UP, THEIR TAX BILL GOES UP WITH A FEE, IT'S $5 OR WHATEVER. YOU PICK EVERY SINGLE MONTH, 60 BUCKS A YEAR.

AND TO ME, WHEN YOU ALSO DO A TAX, IT IS UP TO THE COUNCIL EVERY YEAR TO DETERMINE WHERE THOSE DOLLARS GO.

SO WE MAY AGREE TO PUT THE MONEY INTO A ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND, BUT NEXT YEAR THAT COUNCIL MAY VOTE TO SPEND IT ON.

WHO KNOWS WHAT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT.

AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE IT JUST IN A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE FUND, THE MONEY ONLY GOES TO THAT FUND.

IT CAN ONLY BE SPENT THERE.

AND SO I LIKE IT FROM A FROM A STANDPOINT OF YOU GET TO YOU GET TO ALLOCATE MONEY SPECIFICALLY TO ROADS.

IF YOU THINK FIVE IS TOO HIGH, FOUR, THREE, TWO, ONE, YOU CAN DO IT AT TWO.

WE'RE ALREADY PAYING $1 OR $0.88 OR WHATEVER IT WAS.

BUT. YOU'RE GOING TO END UP IMPACTING THE PEOPLE YOU'RE TRYING NOT TO IMPACT MORE.

AS SOON AS OUR HOME VALUES INCREASE, WHICH I'M ALMOST POSITIVE, VALUES IN THE HOMES WILL GO UP OVER THE NEXT 5 OR 10 YEARS.

BUT SO I ORIGINALLY VOTED IN FAVOR OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

IT PASSED ON A VOTE OF 4 TO 3.

I KIND OF LIKED THAT IDEA OF OF HAVING IT A FLAT FEE, SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD PLAN FOR.

BUT AS WE'VE HAD ALL THESE CONVERSATIONS AND SINCE THE LAST TIME THAT WE MET THE ROAD FEE, THEN A TWO VOTES SWITCHED.

AND SO IT FAILED ON THE LAST TIME THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT.

I HAD NO HOPES OF IT PASSING AGAIN.

AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I WAS IN FAVOR OF RESETTING THE THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE THAT WE WOULD CONSIDER SO THAT WE COULD HAVE, AGAIN, ANOTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT IT, WHETHER WE WANTED TO DO THE ROAD FEE, WHETHER WE WANTED TO DO IT THROUGH TAXES.

BECAUSE WHEN MY BIG TAKEAWAY, WHEN WE HAD OUR BUDGET DISCUSSION WAS WE WERE 1.6 MILLION SHORT.

AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT UP, WE HAD TO TAKE IT OUT OF THE UNRESERVED BALANCE.

WE HAD TO TAKE IT OUT OF SOMEWHERE.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS NOTION THAT WE PASSED THE NON REVENUE BUDGET ON THE FIRST TIME.

I DON'T THINK WE DID.

WE DIDN'T PASS THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET.

WHAT WE DID WAS WE ADDED 1.6 MILLION TO THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET, AND THEN WE TOOK IT OUT OF THE PIGGY BANK TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

THAT'S WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING.

AND SO THIS NOTION THAT, WELL, YOU PASSED THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE CHANGING THE TAX RATE AND YOU'RE DOING ALL THESE NEFARIOUS THINGS.

I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT.

I THINK WHAT WE DID WAS WE I REALIZED THAT, OKAY, THE THE ROAD FEE IS PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PASS ANYMORE.

AND WE'RE SHORT ON ROAD MONEY.

SO WE GOT TO WE GOT TO GET IT SOMEWHERE.

SO WE EITHER MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TAX RATE OR WE DO THE ROAD FEE.

BUT WE GOT, IN MY OPINION, WE GOT TO DO ONE OR THE OTHER BECAUSE THE ROADS ARE IMPORTANT.

ROADS ARE WHAT WE NEED TO FOCUS ON.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT I KEEP HEARING FROM THE CITIZENS.

AND, YOU KNOW, AND I HEAR THE MAYOR SAYING, YOU KNOW, IT'S I REALLY LIKE THE FACT THAT YOU CAN PUT IT INTO A FEE OR INTO A BUCKET OR WHATEVER.

AND IT DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE.

A FUTURE COUNCIL CAN'T TOUCH IT.

I REALLY LIKE THAT AS WELL.

UM, BUT I.

WHEN I LOOK AT THE EQUITY THING.

THE PEOPLE WHO ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS.

WHO WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE TAXES ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OVER 65 AND THE DISABLED.

EVEN IF WE PUT IT IN A TAX RATE.

THOSE INDIVIDUALS WILL NOT HAVE TO PAY THIS.

BUT IF WE DO IT AS A FEE, THEY WILL.

SO THE MOST VULNERABLE, IN MY OPINION, ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY.

[02:40:03]

BUT EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM WHO CURRENTLY HAS THE CEILING, IF WE DO IT VIA THE TAX RATE, YOU DON'T PAY ANY MORE, YOU'RE PROTECTED.

BUT IF YOU BUT IF WE DO THE FEE, YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET HIT WITH, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO $5 A MONTH, THAT'S $60 A YEAR THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO PAY.

BUT IF IT WAS IN THE TAX RATE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY IT.

AND SO IT DOES PUT IT MORE ON THE PEOPLE WHO CAN AFFORD IT MORE THAN THOSE.

SO THAT WAS THAT'S PROBABLY MY BIGGEST RESERVATION AGAINST DOING THE FEE IS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE STRUGGLING THE MOST WOULD WOULD HAVE TO PAY IT. SO SO THAT WAS I MEAN, SO I KNOW WE'VE KIND OF BOUNCED AROUND A LOT.

I'M MORE IN FAVOR BECAUSE BECAUSE MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET IS MONEY OUT OF YOUR POCKET.

WHETHER WE PUT IT ON YOUR BILL AT $5 A MONTH OR WHETHER WE DO AN EQUIVALENT TAX RATE THAT EQUATES TO $5 A MONTH.

I DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE.

I REALLY DON'T SEE A DIFFERENCE.

I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THAT'S HOW THAT IS ANY DIFFERENT TO INDIVIDUALS.

I'LL SAY PERSONALLY I DON'T WANT TO DO EITHER, BUT REALISTICALLY, WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING BECAUSE THERE'S GOING TO BE A DEFICIT IF WE DON'T.

THE IRRESPONSIBLE THING WOULD BE TO DO NOTHING AND JUST HOPE THAT WE MAKE IT THROUGH THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS.

THE RESPONSIBLE THING WOULD BE TO START TO GET A LITTLE BIT EXTRA COMING IN SO THAT WE CAN SET OURSELVES OURSELVES IN A BETTER SPOT TO BE ABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN FINISH OUT THESE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE BEEN WAITING VERY LONG, MOSTLY ROADS TO GET DONE.

I WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO EITHER ONE.

SO. AND GO AHEAD.

SORRY. SORRY. NO. YEAH.

SO I DISAGREE.

WHEN I MADE THE MOTION TO DRAW DOWN THE FUND BALANCE, FIRST OF ALL, WE WERE TOLD AT THAT TIME THAT THE FUND BALANCE WAS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO 8 MILLION.

NOW WE'RE TOLD IT'S UP ABOVE 9 MILLION.

SO WE HAVE A MILLION MORE THAN WE WERE TOLD WE HAD WHEN THAT MOTION WAS MADE.

SO THE MOTION WAS TO DRAW DOWN TO A SPECIFIC AMOUNT, BUT THAT WAS JUST TO GET THE MONEY THAT WE NEEDED FOR THE THINGS WE NEEDED TO PAY FOR.

WE DON'T NEED TO GO DOWN TO 7 MILLION BECAUSE WE HAVE OVER A MILLION MORE THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT AT THAT POINT.

SO IT'S MORE LIKE 8 MILLION.

BUT THEN THAT'S ALSO NOT COUNTING THE MONEY THAT WAS FOUND ELSEWHERE TO PAY FOR THE POSITIONS THAT WERE ADDED.

AND SO ALL WE NEED TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL WE NEED TO SPEND TO FUND THE STREET REPAIRS AND HOW WE CAN FIT THAT INTO THE BUDGET.

AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, IF WE HAVE THINGS WE WANT TO CUT FROM THE BUDGET THAT CAN GET US THERE RIGHT, RIGHT THERE.

SO IF PEOPLE HAVE THINGS THEY WANT TO CUT, THAT GETS US A LOT CLOSER TO WHAT THE FINAL ANSWER IS GOING TO BE.

SO I KIND OF THINK WE'RE GOING AT THIS A LITTLE BIT BACKWARDS.

I THINK WE SHOULD CUT EVERYTHING WE WANT TO CUT AND THEN WE KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.

AND THEN AND THEN YOU CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR PREFERRED SOLUTION TO THAT PROBLEM IS.

RIGHT? BECAUSE THE OTHER PART THAT YOU'RE NOT MENTIONING WHEN YOU SAY, OH, WE GOT ALL THIS OTHER MONEY, BUT THE BUDGET WAS ALSO ASSUMING THAT A AGREEMENT THAT'S IN PROGRESS THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S GOING TO PASS WAS A 1.7 MILLION THAT WE WERE GOING TO USE ELSEWHERE, THAT NOW WE CAN'T RIGHT NOW AS OF TODAY.

SO THERE'S 1.7 SHORTFALL IN OUR FUNDING ON THE ON THE REVENUE SIDE THAT IS NOT THERE THAT YOU'RE NOT MENTIONING EITHER.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING THERE'S A BUNCH OF SHIFTING THINGS.

AND ONCE ALL THIS CAME TO LIGHT, THAT'S WHY THEN I SAID, HEY, WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A REAL DISCUSSION WITH THE PUBLIC, LAY OUT ALL THE OPTIONS AND REALLY EXPLAIN WHY.

I HAVE ALWAYS SAID, IF I CAN GET TO KNOW NEW REVENUE AND WE CAN GET THERE, GREAT.

BUT YOU DON'T JUST DRAW THAT LINE AND SAY, WELL, THAT'S THE ONLY OPTION AND THERE'S NO OTHER WE CAN'T EVEN LOOK AND EVEN TALK.

JUST LIKE LAST YEAR, WE DID NOT SET NO NEW REVENUE FOR THE INITIAL DISCUSSION.

WE SET 47% OR $0.45 OR WHATEVER IT WERE.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHATEVER IT IS, WE DIDN'T SET THE WE DID THE VOTER APPROVED RATE AT THE TIME TO DO THE DISCUSSION.

AND THEN WE ENDED UP ON NO NEW REVENUE AT THE END.

SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PROCESS AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE THING.

SO THE QUESTION IS.

OH, SORRY. GO AHEAD. SORRY.

SO THEN.

AND SO MY MY BIG THINKING IS BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THE LESS VULNERABLE AND STUFF AND BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE THE I PERSONALLY, I THINK IF BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE CAPPED WITH THE CEILING, I THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT IN A THOUGH IN THE TAX RATE IF WE HAVE TO DO THAT.

SO THAT'S HOW I WOULD VOTE NOW, THOUGH, I REALLY WOULD PREFER THAT WE I MEAN, I LIKE THE IDEA THAT THEN WE HAVE A DEDICATED FUND THAT IS NOW INDEPENDENT OF COUNCILS, SO THAT BECAUSE ROAD MAINTENANCE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE, IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO DO.

WE KNOW THE AMOUNT THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

WE KNOW THAT.

SO ASSUMING CONSTRUCTION COSTS TO REPAIR PAVEMENT DOESN'T GO UP, WHICH WE KNOW IT IS, BUT ON TODAY'S DOLLARS, WE KNOW THAT NUMBER.

SO THAT'S WHY IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE IT AS A AS A FEE THAT'S COLLECTED.

[02:45:01]

I GUESS MY MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S COLLECTED ON THE UTILITY BILL.

IT GOES INTO THE UTILITY FUND, THEN WHEN IT GETS TRANSFERRED TO GENERAL FUND TO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND, IT WOULD BE A NEW FUND CREATED JUST FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE.

YEAH, BUT IT'D BE IN THE UTILITY, RIGHT.

AND SO THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT ANN HAS FOUND BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN COLLECTING A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE VIA OUR HEAVY TRUCKS OR TRASH TRASH BILL.

RIGHT. IT'S $0.90 A MONTH.

YOU HAVE BEEN PAYING A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

IT HAS BEEN IT HAS BEEN COLLECTED.

IT'S BEING COLLECTED.

HOWEVER, IT'S NOT MAKING IT TO THE RIGHT PLACE TO BE APPROPRIATED, TO BE SPENT ON ROAD MAINTENANCE.

SO THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN WITH THE FEE.

IF IT'S IN THE TAX RATE, IT'S IN GENERAL FUND, IT'S IN ROAD MAINTENANCE.

WE HAVE OUR TAX BASE.

WE GET OUR MONEY IN DECEMBER, THE CITY GETS THE MONEY IN DECEMBER.

AND THEN THAT PORTION, THAT PERCENTAGE OR THE 1.2 GETS PUT INTO THAT FUND.

AND THAT IS IT.

THAT'S THAT'S IT.

AND SO I GUESS THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THE THE THE FUND SWITCHING AROUND.

SO MAY I MAKE A STATEMENT ON THAT? YES, SIR. THE REASON I THINK THE MONEY'S NOT GETTING SENT OVER THE WAY IT'S SUPPOSED TO IS BECAUSE THIS CITY COUNCIL THAT SAT HERE LAST YEAR DIDN'T DIG THROUGH THE BUDGET AND QUESTION THE FEES WE'VE HAD SINCE I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL.

WE'VE HAD THE TRASH FEE COME UP TWICE.

WE'RE NOT ASKING ENOUGH QUESTIONS.

WE WERE QUICK TO PASS ITEMS. WE'RE NOT QUICK TO ASK THE STAFF.

OKAY, WHY DO YOU WANT TO INCREASE THIS TO $18.48? WHERE DID THIS MONEY GO? WHAT'S THE ACTUAL COST? WE'RE NOT DOING THAT.

WE'RE JUST GOING THROUGH IT REAL QUICK.

AND WE IT'S LIKE IT SAYS IN THIS DOCUMENT, TRUST BUT VERIFY.

AND I'M TELLING YOU, THAT'S OUR PROBLEM IN MY MIND.

SO IT'S OUR FAULT THAT MONEY DIDN'T GET TRANSFERRED BECAUSE WE SET ALL THE PROCESSES.

WE SET THE WE SET THE FEE SCHEDULE.

WE TELL STAFF WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT THE MONEY, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO PUT IT, WHERE ARE YOU GOING TO SPEND IT? AND UNTIL WE DIG IN LIKE WE STARTED TO THIS YEAR AND IT HELPS HAVING A BUDGET THAT HAS MORE THAN AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET ON THREE PAGES.

SO I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE NOW WE HAVE MORE DETAILS AND WE CAN FIND OUT THIS INFORMATION.

LAST BUDGET SEASON, WE COULDN'T EVEN ASK THE QUESTION TO SEE LIKE, WHAT IS THIS? RIGHT? BECAUSE IT WAS JUST FOR ITEMS. IT WAS LIKE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, NOT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, SALARIES, YOU KNOW, THINGS LIKE THAT.

IT WAS LIKE FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE IS PASSED.

SO EVERY MONTH WE CAN DIRECT STAFF TO ADD IT TO THE REPORTS THAT WE GET EVERY MONTH AND EVERY MONTH WE SHOULD SEE WHATEVER, SAY IT'S $1 PER PERSON.

WE SHOULD SEE $17,000 ADDED INTO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE EVERY SINGLE MONTH.

IT SHOULD GO UP. AND IF WE DON'T SEE THAT AND WE'RE WATCHING THE FINANCES AND WE CAN ASK STAFF, WHY DID THIS NOT GO UP $1 TIMES 17,000 HOUSEHOLDS ARE SEWER TAPS. I MEAN, TO ME, THAT'S OUR JOB IS THE MONEY.

AND THE CITY MANAGER AND I KNOW IT SUCKS WHEN I SPEND 20 MINUTES GOING THROUGH CHECK NUMBER 5001.

WHY DID IT NOT CASH? BUT AS SOON AS THERE'S AN ISSUE, I FEEL LIKE IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO JUST ASK THE QUESTIONS.

BUT SO HOW DID WE VOTE ON THIS? WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IS WE HAVE THE POWER TO DIRECT THE MONEY, TO WATCH THE MONEY AND TO MAKE SURE THE MONEY IS THERE.

AND IF IT'S NOT GOING IN THE RIGHT ACCOUNT, THAT'S A CITY COUNCIL ISSUE, IN MY OPINION.

THAT'S NOT STAFF BECAUSE ANNE'S NEW AND WE HAVE TURNOVER ALL THE TIME AND WE'RE THE ONES NOT TURNING OVER AND IT'S REALLY NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY MANAGER UNLESS WE TELL THEM TO DO SOMETHING, HE DOESN'T DO IT.

AND THEN WE NEED TO, YOU KNOW, DO WHATEVER WE GOT TO DO TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.

BUT IT'S ALL OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

I APPRECIATE YOU SHARING THE BLAME.

WELL. AND MAYOR, I THINK LIKE YOU SAID, IT'S YOU KNOW.

WELL, SO YOU SAID YOU GAVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHY WE SHOULDN'T TRUST BUT VERIFY.

BUT THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE WAS TRUSTING WITHOUT VERIFY AND I'VE.

I AGREE. WE NEED TO TRUST BUT VERIFY.

BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT WE TRUSTED THAT IT WAS RIGHT.

AND THEN WE NEVER VERIFIED THAT THAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT IT WAS.

SO THE EXAMPLE YOU JUST SHARED OF WHY WE SHOULDN'T TRUST BUT VERIFY WAS AN EXAMPLE OF TRUST WITHOUT VERIFY.

I AGREE THAT WE SHOULD TRUST AND VERIFY.

THAT'S THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING.

BUT JUST MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU'RE SHARING EXAMPLES OF WHY YOU SHOULDN'T TRUST BUT VERIFY, YOU'RE REALLY SHARING EXAMPLES OF WHERE YOU GO BACK AND YOU VERIFY STUFF.

OKAY, LET'S GET BACK ON THE MOTION AND NOT ON ME.

WE CAN SPEND WELL, I JUST WANT TO CORRECT.

WE JUST SPEND THE WHOLE CLARIFY ABOUT ME.

SO THE MOTION IS TO NOT ADOPT ORDINANCE ZERO DASH 2020 3-058, WHICH IS A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE NOT ADOPTING THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE? OKAY. SO, MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL LATER IN THE DISCUSSION WHERE WE CAN HAVE A MORE DISCUSSION ON WHAT WE WANT TO ACTUALLY REMOVE.

[02:50:02]

TAKE THIS UP NOW. I SECOND THAT.

ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION TO TABLE.

THE MOTION. WELL, LET ME DO THAT NOW.

I THINK IT'S MORE POSTPONE IT TO POSTPONE AND BRING IT BACK.

WELL, TABLE IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BRING IT BACK DURING THE SAME MEETING.

POSTPONE IS WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BRING ABOUT THIS DUE TO YOU GUYS OKAY RESCINDING YOUR MOTION.

NO, I'M READY TO VOTE ON A PROPER, PROPER MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO TABLE BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILLCOTT.

SO AN EYE VOTE IS TO TABLE A NAY VOTES TO PUSH FORWARD AND MAKE A DECISION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HARRY NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CALLER NAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER WOLCOTT, I.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, NÉ COUNCIL MEMBER CLARKE, I.

THE MAYOR. SNYDER.

NEY. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

A MOTION PASSES FOR THREE.

WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT TO PICK UP NEXT? ROAD MAINTENANCE FEES ON PAUSE.

WE CAN TALK. SOLID WASTE FEE INCREASES.

PROBABLY NEED TO DO THAT ONE.

LET'S GET ON THE SAME PAGE HERE.

WHERE ARE WE? WHERE ARE WE AT, MR. MAYOR? EIGHT.

SIX. WE CAN DO EIGHT, FIVE, EIGHT, SIX, EIGHT, SEVEN, EIGHT, 8 OR 8.

NINE EIGHT, SIX, EIGHT SIX IS SOLID WASTE.

DIDN'T CITY ATTORNEY SAY THAT WE HAVE TO APPROVE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

SO WHY ARE WE GOING TO COUPLE THEM IF WE HAVE TO APPROVE THEM ONE AT A TIME? THERE ARE A COUPLE TOGETHER SO WE CAN DISCUSS.

WE CAN GET OUTSIDE OF TALKING ABOUT THE THE COLLECTION FEES ON SOLID WASTE AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT AND DISCUSS ALL OF THEM BECAUSE YOU'VE OPENED THEM ALL UP. BUT YOU HAVE TO VOTE ON THEM TO VOTE ON THEM SEPARATELY.

YEAH, LET'S GO. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'D HAVE TO SEE WHAT WE'D HAVE TO POSTPONE SOLID WASTE TWO BECAUSE THAT DETERMINES WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO POSTPONE THAT SOLID WASTE BECAUSE THAT'S DETERMINED BY THE FEE OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

SO SO AT THIS POINT, THERE'S BEEN SEVERAL COMMENTS MADE TONIGHT THAT APPARENTLY COUNCIL HAD APPROVED A BUDGET.

COUNCIL HAS NOT APPROVED A BUDGET.

THE CITY MANAGER PROPOSED A BUDGET AND SENT THAT TO COUNCIL.

THERE'S BEEN NO VOTE ON THE BUDGET SO FAR.

I THINK WHAT WE DID IS WE VOTED A NON-BINDING VOTE.

IS WHAT WE DID. NO, WE JUST ASKED FOR.

YEAH, WE VOTED, VOTED ON.

BUT IT WASN'T. YES.

ON EACH. WE SPENT THAT NIGHT UNTIL TWO IN THE MORNING AND WE VOTED ON EACH DEPARTMENT.

CORRECT. AND THEN WE LEFT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, TO MAKE ANOTHER REVENUE BUDGET CAME BACK.

AND THEN IN THE MEANTIME, WE THEN CHANGED THE NOT TO EXCEED TAX RATE TO $0.45.

CORRECT. SO WE DIDN'T TECHNICALLY VOTE ON A BUDGET.

WE VOTED ON TO DIRECT A STAFF TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE BUDGET IS HOW I WOULD PRESENT.

SO TONIGHT WHAT WHAT HAS TO OCCUR IS APPROVAL OF A BUDGET, ADOPTING A BUDGET PRIOR TO ADOPTING A TAX RATE. AND WHATEVER YOU PUT IN THAT BUDGET DRIVES WHAT THE TAX RATE WILL BE.

SO AT THIS POINT, THERE'S SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING FEES AND WHAT THE FEES NEED TO BE TO SUPPORT EXPENSES. SO AT THIS POINT, I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE TO DETERMINE IS WHAT YOUR EXPENSES ARE GOING TO BE.

AND THEN AFTER YOU DETERMINE THOSE EXPENSE LEVELS, THEN YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOUR REVENUE WILL BE.

SO I'M I THINK THE ONLY OUTSTANDING ITEM ON EXPENSE AND I COULD BE WRONG.

I THINK IT'S THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

I WOULD SAY THE OUTSTANDING ITEM ON EXPENSES IS THE ENTIRE BUDGET.

OKAY? BECAUSE THE ENTIRE BUDGET IS THE EXPENSE.

AND SO I WOULD SAY WE COULD VOTE TO DO AWAY WITH THE ENTIRE DEPARTMENT IF WE WANTED TO AS AN EXPENSE.

BUT CORRECT IN TERMS OF THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET AT 750,000.

AND AND THAT STREET MAINTENANCE EXPENSE.

AND I'VE HEARD THAT SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE THAN THE $750,000.

AND SO THERE ARE SEVERAL WAYS TO GET TO A HIGHER NUMBER.

ONE OF THOSE WAYS IS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE HAVE BUDGETED FRANCHISE FEES FROM THE LARGE TRUCKS.

THERE'S FOUR COMPANIES THAT HAVE THE LARGE TRASH COLLECTION TRUCKS ON OUR STREETS AND THEY REMIT FRANCHISE TAX FEES.

CURRENTLY, THOSE FRANCHISE FEES WERE BUDGETED IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND BECAUSE AT THE TIME THAT THE BUDGET WAS PROPOSED.

THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO GO.

AND I'VE SINCE LEARNED THAT THOSE REALLY SUPPORT STREET MAINTENANCE AND NEED TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND.

[02:55:01]

SO THAT WOULD BE 170,000 PLUS 189,000 WOULD GIVE YOU POTENTIALLY $939,000 FOR STREET MAINTENANCE.

BUT BUT IF RIGHT NOW THE UTILITY FUND IS ASSUMING IT HAS THAT MONEY TO DO STUFF, THEN YOU'RE JUST GOING TO TURN AROUND AND RAISE WATER RATES TO COVER THAT GAP, CORRECT.

I MEAN, YOU'RE JUST MOVING MONEY AROUND.

YOU'RE NOT IT'S NOT MAKING EXTRA MONEY.

IT'S THAT MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED FOR SOMETHING ELSE.

SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING, LIKE, YOU CAN MOVE IT OVER HERE AND SAY, OH, WELL, THIS SIDE BALANCES, BUT NOW YOU'VE GOT A DEFICIT ON THE OTHER SIDE THAT WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH.

STILL A FEE TO THE UTILITY RATE, WHICH IS WHY I'M LIKE, WE NEED TO DO IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, EITHER BY ITS OWN ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE OR BY FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CUT IN THE BUDGET OR SETTING A TAX RATE TO PAY FOR IT.

THEY'RE NOT MOVE AROUND THE OTHER STUFF BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE JUST CREATING A BIGGER HOLE THAT WE'VE GOT TO FILL IN UTILITY AND WE ALREADY KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A UTILITY FEE DISCUSSION.

WHY MAKE IT WORSE? IN MY OPINION, I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THE REASON I AGREE WITH ANNE ON THIS, I THINK YOU'RE ADVOCATING MOVING AROUND IS BECAUSE WE'RE CHARGING A FEE OVER HERE AND PUTTING IT IN THE WRONG FUND. AND SO TO ME, YEAH, YOU'RE MAKING A MORE DEFICIT IN THE UTILITY FUND, BUT THE MONEY'S NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE UTILITY FUND.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO TO ROAD MAINTENANCE.

AND SO YOU START MOVING TO ROAD MAINTENANCE AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER.

BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, IT'S THE SAME MONEY.

WE JUST NEED TO START ALLOCATING THE MONEY CORRECTLY BECAUSE ONE THING THE CITY DOES IS WE JUST TAX EVERYBODY, THROW IT IN A BIG POT.

AND IT SEEMS LIKE AT THE END OF THE YEAR, WE DON'T HAVE MONEY FOR THE CERTAIN CATEGORIES.

WE KEEP TELLING EVERYBODY MONEY IS GOING TO.

SO I'M OKAY PERSONALLY MOVING IT TO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO GO.

IF ANYTHING, YOU DECREASE SOMETHING YOU'RE GOING TO PUT OVER THERE.

AND MAYBE THE TAXES DON'T GO TO $0.43, MAYBE THEY GO TO $0.42 OR SOMETHING.

AND THEN YOU KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A $5 INCREASE OR A $3 INCREASE, WHATEVER IT IS, ON THE UTILITY FUND.

BUT TO ME, AT SOME POINT WE GOT TO GET THE MONEY ALL LINED UP.

RIGHT. RIGHT. SO IN IDENTIFYING THAT CORRECTION THAT NEEDED TO OCCUR TO TAKE THE FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE FROM THE LARGE GARBAGE TRUCKS, PUT THAT IN THE GENERAL FUND.

WE ALSO IDENTIFIED THAT CURRENTLY WHAT WE ARE CHARGING OR WHAT WE'RE PAYING CLAWSON FOR TRASH PICKUP IS EXACTLY WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE PAYING.

SO THAT THERE IS NO ROOM FOR THE ADMINISTRATIVE COST ASSOCIATED WITH TRASH PICKUP, WHICH INCLUDES UTILITY BILLING CLERKS.

IT INCLUDES MAILING OUT THE BILLS.

IT INCLUDES THE PUBLIC WORKS TEAM THAT SUPPORTS THE CLAWSON CONTRACT SO THAT THAT'S ABOUT 215,000 PER YEAR.

SO THAT WHAT WE WOULD NEED TO DO IS INCREASE THE CURRENT UTILITY BILL BY BY $1.20 TO $1.40 DEPENDING ON BIN SIZE. HOW DOES IT COST MONEY TO SEND A BILL OUT TO TRASH WHEN WE'RE ALREADY SENDING A BILL OUT FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER? DON'T THEY JUST ADD THEY'RE ON THE SAME BILL? CORRECT. BUT A PORTION OF THAT UTILITY BILL SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO YOUR WATER FUND AND SOME SHOULD BE ALLOCATED TO YOUR TRASH FUND BECAUSE TRASH IS ON THE SAME BILL. I'M SAYING FROM AN EXPENSE STANDPOINT, LIKE WE'RE NOT REALLY INCURRING ANY BILLING MANPOWER, OUR EXPENSE, RIGHT? BECAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING IS.

YOU MENTIONED SOME OF THE COSTS, LIKE $200,000 IS FOR BILLING CLERKS.

BUT IN REALITY, IF WE JUST STOPPED COLLECTING THE TRASH FEE, OUR BILLING CLERK HOURS DON'T GO DOWN BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL HANDLING WATER WASTEWATER.

IT'S JUST IT'S JUST SO WE SPEND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR OUR UTILITY BILLING DEPARTMENT AND OUR PUBLIC WORKS ADMINISTRATION.

SO A PORTION OF THOSE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT ARE SPENT ARE ALLOCATED TO THE SOLID WASTE FUND FOR THE PORTION RELATED TO THE TRASH.

AND THAT'S $215,000 PER YEAR.

SO I GUESS TO, I GUESS, HAVE A CONVERSATION OR NOT A CONVERSATION STARTER, BUT JUST TO KIND OF HAVE A LINE DRAW.

RIGHT. SO THE NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET HAS $750,000 ALLOCATED ALREADY FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS GREAT.

I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

AND THEN IF WE MOVE THE 189 FRANCHISE, WAS IT FRANCHISE THE FRANCHISE FEES? YES. IS THAT CORRECT? THE CORRECT TERMINOLOGY.

SO THAT IF WE MOVE THAT OVER TO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE, THAT'S 939 K CORRECT.

RIGHT. I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

LET'S START THERE AND LET'S BE THERE.

LIKE LET'S BE THERE IF Y'ALL WANT TO GET TO ANOTHER NUMBER.

I THINK THAT'S A GOOD START FOR YEAR ONE OF ROAD MAINTENANCE.

I KNOW THAT THE DATA DRIVEN ROAD PEOPLE TRUCKS TOLD US THAT IT WOULD TAKE 1.2 OR 1.5, BUT THAT'S THE DATA.

[03:00:04]

SO WE'RE AT 939.

SO THAT I THINK THAT'S A GREAT STARTING POINT FOR OUR FIRST YEAR OF MAINTAINING OUR ROADS IF WE WANT TO GO THROUGH AND THEN CUT SOME OF THE BUDGET, THE ITEMS THAT WE DO CUT, WE CAN MOVE TO ROAD MAINTENANCE TO INCREASE IT.

IF SOME MEMBERS ON THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE 1.2, 1.5, MAYBE IT'S 2 MILLION.

IF WE CAN CUT THE BUDGET, LET'S DO IT.

IS THAT A MOTION? BECAUSE I'D SECOND THAT.

OKAY. MOTION TO START THE CONVERSATION AT 939 OF THE CURRENT FUNDING AND TO MOVE FORWARD IN TRIMMING THE BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN THEN EITHER KEEP IT AT 939 OR FUND IT MORE.

I LIKE THE DIRECTION YOU'RE GOING.

CAN WE CAN WE REVISE THAT TO JUST SAY.

FOR MY SECOND.

ARE YOU OKAY? JUST SAYING. JUST MOVE.

189 030 AND FRANCHISE FEES OVER TO MAKE IT 939.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

YEAH. TO MOTION TO MOVE 189 FROM THE FUND 72 THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE IN THE GENERAL FUND.

GENERAL FUND, STREET MAINTENANCE, STREET MAINTENANCE.

SO I'LL SECOND THAT.

AND NOW TO GET US TO NINE, 930, 930, WHICH I THINK WILL AUTOMATICALLY START A CONVERSATION ON.

HOW TO MAKE UP ANY OTHER SHORTFALL.

OKAY. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? MOVING THE MONEY OVER.

SO I'M. I'M OKAY WITH MOVING THE MONEY OVER.

THE WAY I WOULD LIKE TO AND IT'S PROBABLY JUST SEMANTICS, BUT THE WAY I WAS THINKING WAS I WOULD LIKE TO SET THIS LINE ITEM AT 1.5 MILLION, INCLUDING 189,000 MOVING OVER.

AND THEN WE START CUTTING BACK.

WE LOOK FOR AREAS WHERE WE JUST START CUTTING BACK TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE.

SO IS THAT AMENDMENT? YES. MOTION.

SO MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, MAY I SAY THAT YOUR MOTION IS TO SET THE STREET MAINTENANCE AT 1.5 MILLION? ALL RIGHT. HER SECOND, SECOND, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CLARK, WHICH I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD CAUSE THAT WOULD FORCE US TO CUT OR RAISE REVENUE. RIGHT.

YES. SO WE NEED TO LOOK FOR 561,000 TO CUT SOMEWHERE OR RAISE THE MOTION RIGHT NOW IS TO SET THE IS TO AMEND THE MOTION TO MAKE THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND GO TO 1.5 MILLION.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT AMENDED MOTION? SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO HATE US, ANGELA, BY THE END OF TONIGHT, I FEEL A LOT OF THESE COMING.

YEAH. SO IF WE GO TO 1.5 AND THEN WE HAVE TO CUT, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T CUT? WE JUST HAVE TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE OR DO A MAINTENANCE.

WE CUT EVERYTHING WE CAN.

YEAH, WE'RE EITHER GOING TO HAVE TO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT A RAISE UNTIL WE GET TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

I SAY WE CUT EVERYTHING THAT WE POSSIBLY CAN AND SEE WHERE WE'RE AT.

THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY APPROACH.

YOU JUST START. YOU SET? YOU SET THE ONES WHERE YOU YOU KNOW, YOU NEED TO BE AT A MINIMUM IN ORDER TO LIKE THE ROADS.

I THINK WE NEED TO BE AT 1.5 MILLION JUST TO BREAK EVEN.

AND SO THEN YOU JUST START.

YOU START CUTTING EVERYWHERE ELSE.

WE CAN GET RID OF THIS. WE CAN GET RID OF THIS.

WE CAN GET RID OF THIS. OR ARE WE LOW ENOUGH YET? NOPE. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ELSE CAN WE CUT? ARE WE LOW ENOUGH YET TO THAT? WHAT ELSE WE CAN'T CUT? THEN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION OF YOU GET TO SOMETHING THAT WE CAN AGREE TO CUT TO THEN SAY, OKAY, NOW WHAT'S THE SHORTFALL? DO WE. DO WE? IS IT SMALL ENOUGH THAT WE CAN GO DOWN ON OUR GENERAL FUND BALANCE? OR DO WE SAY, OH, WE REALLY CAN'T DO THAT NOW WE'RE AT WE NEED TO GO UP, YOU KNOW, A QUARTER OF A PENNY FOR THE SHORTFALL OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU GET THE ONE POINT. YEAH, WHERE'S 1.5 COMING FROM? BECAUSE IT'S IT WAS ALWAYS TALKED ABOUT 1.2 AND NOW IT'S 1.5 AND 1.8.

AT LEAST 300 GRAND IS TO DO THE STRIPING AND TO DO THE OTHER STUFF AND TO IS PAVEMENT AND ALL THAT STUFF.

IT'S PAVEMENT ONLY.

YOU'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE CONCRETE WITH NO SIGNAGE YOU'RE GIVING YOURSELF.

WE HAVE THESE ESTIMATES.

CAN'T YOU DO LIKE 1,300,000 0.2? NO. SO SO THE WHOLE.

RIGHT, SO THE WAY TO GIVE YOU A BUFFER AND AND WE'VE GOT WE KNOW CONSTRUCTION OVERRUNS GO HIGHER ALSO THE OTHER THING ABOUT IT IS THE 1.5 IS 1.2 FOR PAVEMENT.

AND WHAT THAT LETS YOU DO IS IF YOU DON'T GO ON THE IMPROVEMENT SCHEDULE THEY DO, THEN ROADS WILL FALL INTO THE NEXT CATEGORY OF DISREPAIR, WHICH THEN WILL INCREASE THE COST TO REPAIR THEM.

FIVE X SO YOU'RE STEPPING OVER A DIME.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE TRYING TO PICK UP A DIME AND STEPPING OVER A DOLLAR.

THAT'S GOING TO COST US MORE THE NEXT YEAR.

WE CAN'T NOT DO THE MAINTENANCE.

WE NEED TO DRAW A LINE IN THE SAND AND SAY WE ARE GOING TO COMMIT AS A COUNCIL THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO MAINTENANCE IN THIS CITY.

THIS IS THE WHOLE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BE A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW I'VE ALREADY GOT A COUNCIL MEMBERS SAYING, HEY, WHAT CAN WE JUST DO? 900,000, NOT WHAT THE THE INDEPENDENT CONTRACTED AUDIT.

[03:05:03]

AND THEY SAID, WHY DIDN'T OUR BUDGET, OUR NO NEW REVENUE BUDGET, WHY DID IT NOT INCLUDE POINT $2 MILLION IN THE BUDGET? IT SHOULD HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED AS A NO NEW REVENUE.

IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OVER THE TAX RATE.

OKAY. IF WE WOULD HAVE INCLUDED THAT IN THEIR PREVIOUS TWO, THEN THESE CONVERSATIONS WOULD HAVE HAPPENED AND SOME OTHER ACTIONS HAPPENING AS WELL.

OKAY. SO NOT TO TRY TO BUY OFF, I'LL GET TO THE BUDGET HERE IN A MINUTE.

RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A MOTION ON MAKING THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND SET IN THE BUDGET, 1.5 MILLION.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON 1.5 MILLION BEING GOOD OR BEING BAD? ANYTHING ELSE WE GOT TO WAIT ON? SO THIS IS JUST THE FUND IN THE BUDGET.

THIS IS JUST. YEAH, JUST THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND.

YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND CHANGE IT AFTER WE GET ALL DONE, BUT IT'S JUST TO SET IT PRELIMINARY, RIGHT? 1.5 MILLION.

OKAY. YEAH, WE CAN CHANGE IT. IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPEND ANY MONEY ON STREET MARKETING, YOU CAN SPEND 1.5 MILLION.

UNLESS WE TELL THE CITY MANAGER THAT HE HAS TO SPEND 300,000 ON LANE MARKINGS.

WELL, THERE'S TWO. THERE'S TWO ROWS, 2.5 MILLION TO SPEND ON ROADS MAINTENANCE, AND IT MAY BE 400,000 STREET MARKINGS.

IT MAY BE I DON'T KNOW.

THAT'S UP FOR HIM AND RICK TO FIGURE OUT.

I THINK AT 1.5 MILLION.

YES, SIR. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. HEY, NONE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. MAYOR SNYDER.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARKE.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLCOTT.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

AYE. AMENDED MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

SO NOW THE AMENDED MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO HAVE A STREET MAINTENANCE FUND AT 1.5 MILLION AND TRANSFER OVER $189,030 IN FRANCHISE FEES.

FROM FUND 70 TO THIS FUND.

HOW MUCH WAS THAT? $189,030.

A DISCUSSION ON THE TRANSFER OF MONEY OVER AND HAVING A BALANCE SET AT 1.50, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CALLER HI.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOCK, I.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, A COUNCILMEMBER.

CLARK. A MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

A MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

A COUNCILMEMBER.

GORDON. A. MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. NOW, SINCE WE'RE TALKING SOLID WASTE FUND, DO WE WANT TO TAKE THAT UP NEXT? IF I HEARD YOU RIGHT BY DOING WHAT WE JUST DID, WE NOW HAVE A $1.20, $1.40 DEFICIT.

SO WE'RE CHARGING, SAY, $15.

BUT THE COST OF ACTUAL SERVICE THAT WE'RE BEING BILLED FROM A CDI IS $1.20 TO $1.40 MORE DEPENDING ON THE BIN SIZE.

INCORRECT IF WE'RE MICROPHONE AND.

OH, I'M SORRY.

FOR THE RECORD, ANNE LEMAIRE, INTERIM FINANCE DIRECTOR.

SO IF WE ARE BEING CHARGED FROM CLAWSON FIVE 1520, THEN WE ARE CHARGING THE RESIDENT.

1520? EXACTLY.

NOT ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS PAY.

AND SO WE HAVE UNCOLLECTIBLE ACCOUNTS.

THAT'S ABOUT 20,000 PER YEAR.

AND THEN THERE'S ADMINISTRATIVE FEES OF 215,000 PER YEAR.

IF WE DIVIDE THAT BY THE TOTAL NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS, THAT AMOUNTS TO $1.20 PER TO $1.40 PER BIN SIZE.

OKAY. SO WE'RE CHARGING THE EXACT SERVICES.

BUT NO, WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR BAD DEBT AND WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE FEES.

CORRECT. SO IT NEEDS TO BE $1.20 TO $1.40 MORE THAN WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY CHARGING TO BREAK EVEN.

CORRECT. TO BREAK EVEN TO HAVE THAT FUND BREAK EVEN.

YEAH. RIGHT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO WHO WANTS TO MAKE THAT MOTION OR DISCUSS IT? I'LL MAKE IT SO ALL I MAKE A MOTION TO INCREASE THE SOLID WASTE FEES BY.

DID YOU SAY $1.20 FOR THE SMALLER BIN AND $1.40 FOR THE LARGER? IS THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO? SO I CAN GIVE YOU THE THE RATES FOR CUSTOMERS WHO HAVE A 95 GALLON SOLID WASTE CONTAINER AND 95 GALLON RECYCLING CONTAINER.

IT WOULD BE $1.20 INCREASE OVER THEIR CURRENT RATE.

SO THEIR RATE WOULD WOULD GO TO $19.86 INSTEAD OF THE $18.66 THAT THEY PAY TODAY.

THE 95 SOLID WASTE AND 65 GALLON RECYCLING IS $1.25 INCREASE PER MONTH INSTEAD OF THE 1779

[03:10:03]

THAT IS AN INCREASE OF $1.34 PER MONTH.

SO THEIR BILL WOULD INCREASE FROM 1625 TODAY TO $17.59.

AND THEN FOR THE 65 GALLON SOLID WASTE AND 65 GALLON RECYCLING, IT'S A $1.39 INCREASE.

THEIR BILL WOULD GO FROM $15.38 TODAY TO $16.77.

IT'S A 95 AND 95 IS A BUCK 2095 AND 65 IS ONE, 2565 AND 95 IS ONE, 34 AND 65 AND 65 IS 139.

CORRECT. AND WE THINK THE MAJORITY OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE 95 AND 95.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

YEAH. YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FEE SCHEDULE AS OUTLINED BY OUR INTERIM CFO.

THANK YOU. SECOND. SECOND.

SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT.

SO THIS FEE APPLIES TO ALL TRASH CUSTOMERS.

BUT WE ONLY BILL CITY OF HUTTO WATER CUSTOMERS FOR TRASH, RIGHT? WE DON'T BILL, JONAH AND MANVILLE BILL FOR US.

RIGHT? ALTHOUGH JONAH BUILDS FOR US, WE DO RECEIVE THAT REVENUE BACK.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY.

SO WE'RE CHARGING FOR BUILDING EXPENSES, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY BUILDING EXPENSES FOR THE PEOPLE WHO PAY THROUGH JONAH.

OR SIGNIFICANTLY LESS ANYWAY.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE TO ADMINISTER THAT CONTRACT.

AND SO THERE'S AND WE WE DO ISSUE THEM BILLS AND WE DO COLLECT BACK FROM THEM.

SO WE DO HAVE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

YOU'RE MAKING IT OVERLY COMPLICATED.

IT'S THE SAME RATE FOR EVERYBODY.

WELL, SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS WE'LL TELL JONAH THEY NEED TO CHARGE A LITTLE MORE.

THEY'LL GIVE US MORE. SO WE'LL INSTRUCT THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO CORRECT MORE FOR THEIR CONTRACT.

OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. SO THEY MAY BE GETTING JONAH WATER, BUT THEY'RE LIKELY TO WASTE WATER.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES. AND TRASH JONAH.

JONAH BUILDS THEM FOR ALL OF THAT AND SENDS US THE MONEY.

OKAY. SO IT'S THE SAME AMOUNT.

WELL, OKAY, SO WE'RE SAYING SAME AMOUNT.

IT'S $0.19.

I DON'T MAKE A BIG DEAL. BUT IF WE'RE BILLING FOR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES, WHY IS IT $1 OR $20 OR $25? $34 OR 39? WHY IS IT JUST AN ACROSS THE BOARD BUCK 25 INCREASE? WHY IS IT WHY IS IT DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF YOUR CONTAINER, YOUR ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES COSTS MORE? WOULDN'T IT JUST BE A FLAT INCREASE ALL THE WAY ACROSS BECAUSE CLAWSON HAS A TIER? CLAWSON HAS A TIERED HOW BIG YOUR BINS ARE.

YEAH. CLAWSON CHARGES US A DIFFERENT RATE PER BIN SIZE.

BUT HOW DOES THAT AFFECT THE MAINTENANCE OF THE CONTRACT OR THE BILLING? IT DOESN'T. THAT'S A FLAT THAT'S A THAT'S A FLAT AMOUNT.

ALL RIGHT. AND ONE LAST THING.

IF I SAW THIS RIGHT OR NOT, I GUESS THE WAY I READ IT, THERE WAS PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T HAVE RECYCLING BEFORE AND SO THEY JUST HAD TRASH.

AND SO NOW WE'RE MOVING ALL THE COSTS JUST TO TRASH.

NO, THAT'S INCORRECT.

THIS IS THE CURRENT BIN SIZE.

ALSO INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS IS ARE SALES TAX ON THE BINS.

SO WHEN YOU MULTIPLY THE 6.5% SALES TAX AGAINST AN AMOUNT, IT'S DIFFERENT AMOUNTS BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT BIN SIZES.

AND MAYOR COUNCIL JAMES EARP CITY MANAGER FOR THE RECORD, THE OTHER THING THAT'S NOT BEING EXPRESSED EXPRESSED DIRECTLY IS THAT THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THERE.

SHE'S CALCULATING AS IF Y'ALL ARE ANTICIPATING TO REPEAL THAT AND THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT VARIES DEPENDING ON THE SIZE.

SO WHENEVER YOU TAKE A FIXED NUMBER AND YOU SUBTRACT OUT VARIOUS DIFFERENT ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE AMOUNTS, IT BECOMES THE DELTA BECOMES A VARYING NUMBER AND THEN YOU PUT SALES TAX ON TOP OF THAT, IT MAKES IT VERY EVEN FURTHER.

SO SO IF YOU DO NOT REPEAL THE ROAD FEE, THE $0.80 TO $0.90 ROAD FEE, THEN THAT RATE ACTUALLY NEEDS TO GO UP EVEN MORE.

CORRECT? SO IN ON PAGE 215 OF THE PACKET, WE'VE SCRATCHED OUT RECYCLING AND BULKY WASTE CHARGES.

AND WE'VE UPPED THE SOLID WASTE MONTHLY FEE FROM $11 TO $18.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

ARE THERE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO DON'T RECYCLE? AND SO THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR 37, THEY JUST GET A TRASH CONTAINER.

AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IS NOW MAKING IT JUST BE 18 TO 35 WHETHER YOU RECYCLE OR NOT.

HOLD ON. THEY PAY FOR RECYCLING.

[03:15:04]

THIS IS MONICA BURKE, WHO IS OUR UTILITY BILLING MANAGER.

HEY, GIRL. NEW, NEW FACE, NEW INFO.

WE GOT TO CALL YOU UP HERE BECAUSE IF YOU WAITED TILL 10:00, YOU GOT AT LEAST GET SOME SCREEN TIME.

YES. NEW INFORMATION.

HELLO, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MONICA BURKE.

UTILITY BILLING MANAGER.

SO THEY PAY FOR RECYCLING EITHER WAY.

IT'S NOT OKAY IF THEY CHOOSE TO RECYCLE OR NOT.

IT IS CONCLUDED IN THE TRASH SERVICE.

OKAY, SO THIS IS THEN. THIS IS REALLY OUT OF DATE BECAUSE THIS MADE IT LOOK LIKE THERE WAS A SOLID WASTE FEE RECYCLING FEE, A BULKY FEE AND A STREET MAINTENANCE AND A SALES TAX.

THESE SCROLLS ARE ALL SCRATCHED OUT.

IT'S JUST THAT WAS THE OLD SCHEDULE THAT HAD IT BROKEN OUT.

AND I'M JUST RECOMMENDING WE DON'T PUT IN THOSE PIECE PARTS.

WE JUST PUT IN, HERE'S YOUR FEE.

RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO VERIFY, IS THAT IT WAS ONE FEE BEFORE BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT SOMEONE WHO DIDN'T HAVE RECYCLING AND ALL OF A SUDDEN GO, WELL, MY BILL JUST WENT UP FIVE BUCKS A MONTH. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN? WELL, YOU MIGHT AS WELL GET RECYCLING BECAUSE WE'RE CHARGING YOU.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING WE CHARGED ANYWAY? YES, WE JUST IN OUR FEE.

WE JUST BROKE IT OUT FOR EVERYBODY.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN VOTE ON THIS BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DECIDED IF WE'RE REPEALING THAT $0.98 ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE YET.

MAYBE THIS VOTE CAN DETERMINE THAT.

WELL, RIGHT NOW, BY PASSING THIS, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

NO, IT'S STILL IN THERE BECAUSE SHE SAID IF YOU TAKE THAT OUT, THEN YOU'VE GOT TO ADOPT THIS AGAIN BY YOU'VE GOT TO INCREASE AGAIN ANOTHER DOLLAR.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT'S THE WAY I READ THIS, THERE IS NO STREET MAINTENANCE FEE AS PROPOSED.

CORRECT. SO WHAT I'VE DONE IS TAKEN OUT THAT STREET MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM BECAUSE MY ASSUMPTION WAS WHEN I PRESENTED THIS WAS THAT Y'ALL WERE REPEALING THAT OR TAKING THAT OUT OF HERE.

YOU DID THAT WHEN YOU APPROVED THE ORDINANCE FOR THE $5, BUT THEN YOU CAME BACK AND SAID, WELL, WE MIGHT NOT WANT THE $5 ORDINANCE.

WE WANT THE TAX RATE.

THAT STILL HASN'T BEEN DECIDED.

OKAY. BUT REGARDLESS, IT WOULDN'T BE UNDER THIS LINE ITEM HERE.

CORRECT. WHAT WE DID. SO THAT'S FINE TO HAVE IT OUT AND CORRECT.

AND YOU'RE STILL GOOD AT THE 1986, 1904, 1759 AND 1670? CORRECT? YES. OKAY.

ALL OF THAT WORKS EXACTLY AS PRESENTED UNLESS THE COUNCIL SAYS WE WANT TO KEEP THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE IN THE SOLID WASTE FUND, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND ADD THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IN.

BUT IF WE DO A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE INTO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND, IT DOESN'T GO INTO THIS.

NO, YOU CAN'T TRANSFER IT FROM HERE ANY MORE WITHOUT RAISING THIS EVEN FURTHER.

RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY. YES, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON? YEP. YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY.

NO, JUST CLARIFY.

THAT WE ARE INCREASING THE SOLID WASTE TO FUND FUND 70.

YES. OKAY.

DOLLAR. $20. $25, $34.39.

BUT THOSE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S ON HERE.

NO, THAT'S WHERE IT WAS.

AND THEN SALES TAX.

OKAY. IN KNOW DISCUSSION.

NO. YOU GUYS GOOD? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER COLTER. AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

NAY. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

HI. MAYOR SCHNEIDER.

HI, COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

HI. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

HI. COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOX.

HI. MOTION PASSES.

SIX ONE. OKAY.

SO I'M GOING TO TENTATIVELY MARK OFF EIGHT, SIX, SIX IS DONE.

THERE WAS A LOT MORE UNDER EIGHT SIX, WASN'T THERE? YES, THERE IS MORE UNDER EIGHT.

SIX. JONAH WASTEWATER.

WELL, ACTUALLY, I THINK WE'RE BACK TO COUNCIL SAID THAT THEY WANTED 1.5 MILLION IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND AND CURRENTLY THERE'S 939 ON THE TABLE.

SO THAT LEAVES A DELTA OF 561,000.

AND SO Y'ALL ARE GOING TO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANTED TO CUT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR $561,000.

I ALREADY GOT TWO.

YEAH, BUT THAT'S NOT UNDER EIGHT SIX NECESSARILY.

YEAH, IT ALL FEEDS INTO IT THOUGH.

YEAH. WHAT ELSE? WHAT ELSE WAS IN 86.

WAS THERE AN INCREASE? I MEAN, I SAW SOMETHING. WE'RE TAKING OUT A TECH FEE.

SO THE THE FEE SCHEDULE HAS TO BE APPROVED AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

AND SO WHAT WHAT WE'VE PRESENTED IS THE DRAFT FEE SCHEDULE.

SO NOW WHAT WE'LL HAVE TO DO TO THAT DRAFT IS CHANGE THE THE TRASH TABLE AND CORRECT THAT.

[03:20:02]

SO MAYBE HOLD OFF ON THIS.

THE OTHER ONE IS A RIVER WALK.

SO HOLD OFF ON THE REST OF 86 UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE FEES.

CORRECT? OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'RE AT THE POINT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO TELL ME WHAT ITEMS YOU WANT TO CUT OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND BUDGET THAT TOTAL 561,000 OR THAT YOU WANT TO GO MOVE THAT COST TO THE STREET MAINTENANCE ITEM? SO A COUPLE CLARIFYING THINGS.

THIS IS ALL BASED ON WHAT TAX RATE? BECAUSE ALL THIS PAPERWORK WE GOT, I DON'T KNOW WHEN YOU SAY WE STILL NEED FIVE 60 ONE, IS THAT AT A 45 CENT OR IS THAT AT THE NO NEW REVENUE? SO THE BUDGET THAT WE ARE WORKING OFF OF CURRENTLY IS NO NEW REVENUE.

AND SO THERE'S $939,000 FOR STREET MAINTENANCE AND COUNCIL'S VOTED TO INCREASE THAT TO 1.5.

AND SO THERE'S A $561,000 DELTA.

IF YOU WANTED TO CONVERT THE 561,000 TO ACTUAL TAX, I COULD DO THAT.

IT'S PROBABLY ABOUT ONE AND A HALF CENTS.

I DON'T SAY THAT. YEAH, OKAY.

I THINK SO. AND I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BEFORE I GET STARTED WITH SOME TO CUT TO KIND OF HELP US GET THERE.

ONE THING I KEEP TALKING ABOUT, THAT 1.7 THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT THE BUDGET ORIGINALLY WAS YOU GOING TO USE.

HAS THAT BEEN CORRECTED? BECAUSE THAT'S A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE.

BECAUSE IF IT HASN'T, THEN YOU'RE NOT 561 OFF YOUR 561 PLUS 1.7, WHICH IS ALMOST OVER $2 MILLION.

AND THIS IS THE THE BIGGEST CRUX THAT I BROUGHT UP IN AUGUST THAT I WANTED AN ANSWER TO TONIGHT SO THAT WE COULD MOVE THROUGH WITH THAT.

WHAT WAS SO MR. CITY MANAGER.

YES, MA'AM. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED AND IS STILL BEING WORKED.

IT HAS NOT BEEN RESOLVED.

IT IS STILL BEING WORKED.

IT IS STILL POSSIBLY ON THE TABLE.

SO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE THE DOLLARS THAT I HAD BUDGETED FOR PROJECTS OUT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FROM DOLLARS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DURANGO PID THAT THEY HAVE CURRENTLY PAID.

SO I HAD PUT IN THERE 1.611..

YEAH, IT LOOKS LIKE $1.61 MILLION AGAINST THERE, $1.8 MILLION OF PROPOSED PROJECTS.

SO IF IF WE'RE NOT ABLE TO SPEND THOSE DOLLARS OUTSIDE OF DURANGO AFTER ALL, THEN THERE IS THE ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT.

WHERE ONE POINT WHATEVER I SAID 1161.

YEAH IT LOOKS LIKE 561 WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO DO THE TAX RATE BACK BECAUSE THIS IS WHY I CAME SAYING, HEY, IF WE DID THE 1.5IN A ROAD MAINTENANCE, I THINK WE COULD BE AT 1.9 BECAUSE THEN THAT WOULD ALL PULL THAT OUT COMPLETELY AND THEN WE'D ONLY HAVE THIS ONE SIX WE'D HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

BUT SO ON THOSE ITEMS, IF I JUST MIGHT, LET ME READ THEM TO YOU SO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE ON THE 161 ON THE 161.

YES. OKAY.

SO, SO THE FIRST ONE IS PROJECT T 20.

WHICH IS THE FM 3349 OVERPASS ESTHETIC UPGRADE.

OKAY. THAT WAS $260,000.

PROJECT F02 $260,000.

PROJECT. F02 IS THE POLICE STATION JUSTICE CENTER MASTER PLAN 300,000.

THAT'S THE FACILITY.

PROJECT. 2000 ZERO SIX.

WHICH IS THE NEXT PHASE OF LAKESIDE ESTATE SIDEWALKS.

$500,000. IN PROJECT T01, WHICH IS A RECURRING ANNUAL SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OF $550,000.

THOSE ARE THE ITEMS THAT I HAD TARGETED TO BE PAID FOR OUT OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FROM DURANGO.

THE LAST ONE IS FIVE 5550.

SO FOR ME. I'M GLAD WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION BECAUSE TO ME, NONE OF THAT MONEY SHOULD COME OUT OF THAT BENEFIT FEE, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE WHEN I VOTED ON THAT BENEFIT FEE, WHAT WHAT I TOLD AND WHAT I THOUGHT THE COUNCIL WAS SAYING AT THE TIME, WHICH COULD ALWAYS CHANGE, WAS THAT THAT COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE WAS GOING TO BENEFIT OLD TOWN AND THE ROADS LEADING INTO OLD TOWN AND IMPROVEMENTS ON OLD TOWN.

AND SO EVERY TIME WE DID A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, WE SAID, OKAY, THIS ONE'S GOING TO GO TO LAKESIDE ESTATES BECAUSE THIS PROJECT'S IMPACTING THEM OR IT'S GOING TO GO TO GLENWOOD OR WHOEVER. AND IF WE START MOVING MONEY AROUND AND AGAIN, WE CAN CHANGE DIFFERENT COUNCIL.

[03:25:04]

SO ME PERSONALLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE 2 MILLION IS EITHER SPENT ON THE PARK IF YOU DON'T GET THE AGREEMENT WORKED OUT OR IT'S SPENT ON.

WEST STREET. EAST STREET.

WHATEVER IT TAKES TO MAKE BELIEVE IT WAS MAIN STREET AND EAST STREET.

THE STREETS LEADING INTO.

SO THOSE ROADS ARE NOT CURRENTLY ON MY CIP PLAN TO FUND.

SO I FUNDED PROJECTS THAT WERE ON MY CIP.

SO IF YOU WANT TO STRIKE THOSE OR FIND ANOTHER WAY TO FUND THEM AND THEN JUST LEAVE THE MONEY SITTING, THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

SO I INTERPRETED UTILIZING WELL, OKAY, I INTERPRETED A LOT OF THE CRITIQUES THAT I HAD HEARD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR ABOUT UTILIZING THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE SITTING AROUND THAT'S AVAILABLE TO BE USED.

SO THAT'S WHY I WENT AND LOOKED FOR PROJECTS THAT I FELT WERE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW AN EXAMPLE RIGHT NOW THAT I COULD THINK OF THAT WOULDN'T BE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT THAT I COULD USE THOSE DOLLARS FOR.

SO I DID NOT NOT FUND MAIN STREET, WEST STREET, WHATEVER ELSE, IN ORDER TO DO THESE, BECAUSE THOSE ROADS WERE NOT ON MY LIST OF THINGS TO FUND.

SO THAT'S MY POINT IS RIGHT NOW, THIS FEE SHOULDN'T BE USED FOR ANY OF THIS.

SO WE STILL HAVE A $1.6 MILLION SHORTFALL PLUS THE 561.

SO THIS IS WHY I WANTED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE TAX RATE OF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO EITHER CUT $2 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET OR YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TAX RATE.

I LIKE TO CUT AND I'M JUST I'M JUST BEING FIRST, I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE, DO WE WANT THIS MONEY TO COME OUT FROM THAT? DO WE WANT TO FUND THESE PROJECTS AND DO WE WANT TO COME OUT? BECAUSE IF THE CITY MANAGER GETS IT WORKED OUT, THEN WE'RE FUNDING THESE.

AND SO WHEN YOU SAID THAT'S WHY WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING THIS, I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER.

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THE BENEFIT FEE? ARE WE GOING TO DO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY SAID OR ARE WE GOING TO CHANGE AND USE IT SOMEPLACE? IT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL RIGHT NOW.

NO, IT'S NOT. MAYOR. I MAKE A MOTION TO REMOVE THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FROM DURANGO FARMS FROM THE ANTICIPATED PROJECTS THAT THE CITY MANAGER LISTED.

THEY WOULD NOT BE FUNDED FROM THAT COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE.

A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

WE HAVE A SECOND. SO THE QUESTION IS.

BUT YOU STILL WANT THEM TO BE FUNDED? I'M ASKING. YEAH.

ARE YOU SECONDING THE DISCUSSION? YES. THANK YOU. SO I'M JUST SAYING, YOUR MOTION MEANS THAT YOU STILL WANT THEM FUNDED.

YOU JUST DON'T. DON'T USE IT FROM THIS.

WE'RE NOT USING WE'RE NOT USING THAT.

SO THAT 1.61 MILLION IS NOW BACK BECAUSE WE DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE CAN USE IT FOR THESE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE.

AND SO I'M SAYING LET'S JUST SET IT BACK TO WHERE IT WAS, WHERE IT CAN ONLY BE USED IN OR AROUND THE PID AREA.

AND NOW WE NEED TO FIND ANOTHER 1.61 MILLION IN THE BUDGET.

WE JUST TALKED ABOUT USING THESE FOR THE PARK BUILDING ON DURANGO FARMS. SO I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY KIND OF SPOKEN FOR THAT 1.6.

REGARDLESS IF YOU THINK OF IT, WE HAVEN'T SPOKEN FOR ANYTHING BECAUSE THE ONLY THING THAT THIS IS WHAT WE GOT TO UNDERSTAND, THIS IS WHAT.

WE'LL GO BACK IN HISTORY TOO MUCH.

BUT WE DON'T SPEAK AS A BODY UNTIL WE SAY I OR NAY AND PASS SOMETHING.

ALL WE DO IS TALK AND GIVE OPINIONS.

AND SO WE HAVEN'T SPOKEN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

I WAS JUST REMINDING ONES THAT THAT WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AT 6:00 TONIGHT, THAT THAT WAS KIND OF BROUGHT UP.

AND I JUST WANTED TO REMIND COUNCIL THAT WE HAD ALREADY THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE SEEM TO NOD THAT THEY THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA BROUGHT UP.

IT COULD VERY WELL FELL AND IT MIGHT.

BUT I'M JUST SAYING. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S SO THE MOTION IS TO TAKE THE 1.61 MILLION, TAKE ALL THE PROJECTS OUT OF IT.

AND KEEP THE THE BENEFIT FEE FOR THAT AREA TO BE DETERMINED LATER BY US.

YEAH. AND YOU SECONDED THAT.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? MAKING GOOD PROGRESS HERE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. OH.

SECOND WAS COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

THANK YOU. IT'S ONLY $2 MILLION.

IT'S A $300 MILLION BUDGET.

WE CAN SHAVE 2 MILLION LIKE THAT OF THE RIGHT FUNDS.

IT'S NOT. WE'LL SEE.

29,000,000 MILLION CITY BUDGET.

SO YOU'RE CONFLATING MONEY.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. THOMPSON.

HI, COUNCILMEMBER WILCOCK.

HI, MAYOR SNYDER.

HI. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

HI. COUNCILMEMBER COLTER.

NAY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK A COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON A.

MOTION PASSES 6 TO 1.

BEFORE WE MAKE OUR NEXT MOVE HERE, ONE THING I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ON THE BUDGET AND YOU PROBABLY HAVE THESE NUMBERS, BUT WE HAVE I LOOK AT THE BUDGET LIKE IT'S ALMOST A

[03:30:06]

WE ARE HIRING PEOPLE.

LET'S SAY IF WE HIRE $100,000 POSITION, BUT WE HIRE THEM IN Q4, WE'RE RECOGNIZING A $25,000 SALARY HIT THIS YEAR.

BUT NEXT YEAR WE HAVE TO DO A 100,000.

AND SO THAT WOULD BE A $75,000 INCREASE IN THE WINDOW.

AND IF WE DO THAT WITH I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY EMPLOYEES WE WERE DOING THAT TO, BUT IF WE HIRE THEM IN Q3, IT'S A $50,000 HIT.

SO POTENTIALLY THE WAY WE HAVE THINGS STAGGERED THIS YEAR.

NEXT YEAR WE COULD HAVE TWO, THREE, $400,000 INCREASE IN OUR M AND O EXPENSES BEFORE WE EVEN START.

THAT'S ONE THING.

AND SO FAR, KIND OF THE NUMBERS MAY NOT, BUT THE THEORY THE SECOND ONE IS.

THE FRITZ PARK DEAL.

WHERE BORROWING THE MONEY THIS FISCAL YEAR.

BUT WE'RE USING INN'S MONEY THAT'S EXTRA TO PAY NEXT YEAR'S DEBT SERVICE.

THE FOLLOWING YEAR WE HAVE TO INCREASE THE INN'S RATE, WHATEVER THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN VALUES INCREASING.

BUT WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO START COLLECTING THE DEBT SERVICE ON $11 MILLION.

TWO YEARS FROM NOW, RIGHT? CORRECT. HOWEVER, THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO PRESENT THE PARK BONDS AT THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING, AND I DON'T WANT TO STEAL HIS THUNDER, BUT I BELIEVE WE'RE PRESENTING WITH NO INCREASE IN TAX RATE DUE TO AN EXPECTED INCREASE IN VALUATION. BUT NO INCREASE IN TAX RATE DOES NOT MEAN NO INCREASE IN TAX BILL.

CORRECT. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING THAT'S WHAT I'M PUTTING OUT TO EVERYBODY, IS WE PASS IT THIS YEAR, EVEN IF WE DO NO NEW REVENUE THIS YEAR AS THE BUDGET PRESENTED NEXT YEAR, WE HAVE TO MAKE UP FOR THE INS DOLLARS.

WE HAVE TO COLLECT EXTRA EITHER THROUGH INCREASE IN AV OR ALL THAT.

AND WE HAVE THE NO.

SO WE HAVE UNTIL.

MR.. JAMES WE HAVE HUGE PRESSURES IN MY MIND.

THAT'S WHY THIS YEAR I DON'T WANT TO SPEND A BUNCH BECAUSE I ALREADY KNOW NEXT YEAR I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE IS ON 11 MILLION, BUT IF YOU KEEP THE TAX RATE, THE SAME PEOPLE'S BILLS GO UP ANYWAY.

SO AND THAT ALONE WOULD MEAN NOT NO NEW REVENUE NEXT YEAR.

I WAS TELLING COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON I DON'T SEE ANY WAY OF DOING NO NEW REVENUE NEXT YEAR BECAUSE DEPENDING ON HOW WE DO THIS YEAR, WE'RE GUARANTEEING NO NO ABILITY TO DO THAT BECAUSE THE INS RATE GOING UP.

WELL, WE'LL HAVE.

BUT IT WON'T. NO, IT WON'T IMPACT THE INS GOING UP.

AND THEN ALSO ANOTHER THING WITH SP TWO THAT WAS PASSED IN 2019 FOR MUNICIPALITIES LIKE CITIES, COUNTIES, HOW THEY TAX RATE.

SO IT WAS MEANT TO KIND OF SQUASH THE THE TAX RATE TO KIND OF LOWER THAT.

SO IT'S DONE THAT FOR YOUR CITY OF HUTTO AND MOST OF YOUR OTHER TAXING ENTITIES.

YOUR TAX RATE FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO HAS GONE DOWN LIKE 2 TO $0.03 EVERY YEAR SINCE 2020.

RIGHT. BUT WE'RE SEEING THIS YEAR IT'S NOT MEANT TO LOWER YOUR TAX BILL.

RIGHT? YOUR TAX BILL.

WHAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR HOMESTEADERS IS ACTUALLY GOING UP, EVEN THOUGH THE RATE WENT DOWN.

YOUR TAX BILL IS GOING UP FOR HOMESTEADERS.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS LIKE JUST YOU GOT TO THINK IT'S HARD TO THINK ABOUT IT BECAUSE LIKE YOU'RE BECAUSE THAT'S THE INS. THAT'S THE PORTION OF IT.

YOU'VE GOT ME COMPLETELY CONFUSED.

NO, IT'S BECAUSE HOME VALUES FOR NON HOMESTEAD ARE DROPPED 15%.

BUT HOMESTEAD VALUES WENT UP 10% ALWAYS BECAUSE THEY OF COURSE.

YEAH. YEAH. SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE PAYING MORE.

SO EVEN AT THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE YOU ARE GOING TO BE PAYING MORE DOLLAR WISE THAN YOU DID LAST YEAR, EVEN THOUGH YOUR TAX RATE WENT DOWN TO PENNIES ON THE HOMESTEAD ON THE HOMESTEAD, FOLKS.

BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WHAT IS YOUR NUMBERS RANDALL 8160 HOMESTEADS OUT OF 11,500 IS 70% 70% OF THE TAX BASE.

RIGHT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU BORROW MONEY IN THIS YEAR AND YOU USE SOME OVERAGES IN A FUND TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE NEXT YEAR, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COLLECT THE MONEY.

AND WHEN YOU COLLECT THE MONEY, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE THE MONEY.

AND I DON'T KNOW THE RATE.

MAYBE WON'T GO DOWN AS MUCH AS IT COULD OR THE RATE WILL GO UP A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IT DEPENDS ON THE VALUATIONS.

BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE MORE MONEY OUT OF PEOPLE'S POCKETS TO PAY FOR THE DEBT SERVICE.

WELL, MAYBE YOU DON'T KNOW THAT NECESSARILY, BECAUSE THE ADAGE I GAVE VERY SIMPLY, IF IF IF THE DEBT SERVICE TO PAY FOR OUR DEBTS IS, FOR EXAMPLE, 100 BUCKS A YEAR AND YOU'VE GOT FOUR PEOPLE PAYING IT, EVERY PERSON IS PAYING $25.

BUT IF IN THIS NEXT YEAR, FOUR MORE PEOPLE MOVE IN, YOU COULD KEEP YOUR SAME RATE.

BUT NOW EVERYBODY'S NOT PAYING $25.

THEY'RE PAYING 1250 BECAUSE EIGHT PEOPLE ARE SHARING THAT BURDEN.

SO THE INS RATE MIGHT ACTUALLY EVEN DROP OR IF IT STAYS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IF YOUR EVALUATIONS WENT UP, THE INS RATE MAY DROP BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT MORE POPULATION SHARING THE BURDEN. SO TO USE 23 IS AN EXAMPLE.

[03:35:03]

AND THEN THERE WERE BONDS THAT WERE ISSUED.

THERE WAS $26 MILLION IN ROAD BONDS, AND THEN THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL $12 MILLION FOR THE EAST WEST SPINE ROAD.

SO THAT'S 30 SOMETHING MILLION IN BONDS THAT WERE ISSUED.

HOWEVER, THE DEBT SERVICE RATE FOR FY 24, YOU KNOW, UNDER UNDER THE THEORIES Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT, THE DEBT SERVICE RATE IS GOING TO INCREASE. WELL, YOU SHOOT 30 PLUS MILLION IN BONDS, BUT THE DEBT SERVICE RATE DECREASED BY $0.01, WHICH IS $0.13.

THE REASON IT DECREASED IS BECAUSE VALUATIONS INCREASED BY 18%.

RIGHT? THAT'S WHY I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE RATE.

I DON'T CARE. BECAUSE IF OUR HOMES GO FROM 300,000 TO 600,000, THE RATE AUTOMATICALLY DROPS IN HALF AND WE CAN'T PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK AND GO, WE DROPPED YOU RIGHT IN HALF BECAUSE YOU'RE TAXING THE SAME.

SO I DON'T CARE WHAT THE RATE IS, I ONLY CARE AND IT'S ALWAYS TELL US SABONIS WHEN HE'S HERE DON'T TELL ME THE RATE TELL ME WHAT THE DOLLAR EFFECT IS OUT OF PEOPLE'S POCKETS AND SO WHETHER NEXT YEAR VALUES DROP AND INS RATE GOES UP, THAT'S JUST TO COLLECT THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY OR VALUE SKYROCKET AND THE RATE DROPS.

SO FOR ME, WHAT THE POINT AND I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY ANY BETTER IS YOU CANNOT SPEND $11 MILLION IN BOND MONEY, COLLECT MONEY TO PAY THAT DEBT SERVICE AND TELL EVERYBODY YOU'RE GOING TO PAY LESS NEXT YEAR.

IT'S IT'S ALMOST UNLESS IT'S UNFATHOMABLE THAT YOU WOULD NOT HAVE SOME SORT OF INCREASE IN THE TAX BILL UNLESS YOU HAD A MAJOR INCREASE IN GROWTH BECAUSE YOU CANNOT BORROW MONEY AT NO COST.

SOMEONE HAS TO PAY THAT.

AND IT'S FINE IF WE JUST NEED TO BE ABLE TO TELL PEOPLE IT'S GOING TO COST YOU 30 BUCKS A YEAR FOR THE PARK AND EVERYBODY SAYS, OKAY, FOR 30 BUCKS, I'LL DO IT.

BUT IF WE TELL PEOPLE.

SOME MAGICAL WAY WE'RE ABLE TO DO THIS AND IT COSTS YOU NOTHING.

AND WE'RE KEEPING THE RATE THE SAME.

THEN WHEN THEIR BILL GOES UP, MOST OF THE PEOPLE OUT THERE THEN BLAME THE VALUATIONS AND IT'S NOT THE VALUATIONS BECAUSE THEY WENT IN MARCH AND WE SET THE RATE IN AUGUST.

AND SO THIS IS WHERE I TALK ABOUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT MULTI YEAR LOOKING AT STUFF, I LOOK AT THE HOLISTIC COST TO THE CITIZEN FOR WHAT THEY ACTUALLY CARE IS NOT WHAT THEY'RE ONE LINE ITEM ON THEIR TRUTH IN TAXATION IS FOR THE CITY.

WHAT I CARE ABOUT IS HOW MUCH I ACTUALLY HAVE TO WRITE TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S OFFICE.

IT'S GOING TO GO DOWN NO MATTER WHAT RATE.

I'M GOING TO BE PAYING THEM LESS THIS YEAR.

SO IF WE SET A TAX RATE THAT ALLOWS US, THEN NEXT YEAR WE DON'T HAVE TO INCREASE IT AS MUCH BASED ON YOUR OWN ASSESSMENT OR WE'RE ABLE TO DROP IT NEXT YEAR BECAUSE WE MAINTAINED A LEVEL TAX RATE THAT WE COULD, COULD, COULD GO FOR THAT'S BETTER FOR THE CITIZEN OVER TIME BECAUSE THEN THEY'RE PAYING THE SAME REAL DOLLAR TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY TAXING AUTHORITY.

I'M NOT I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO RAISE OUR TAXES ANYWAYS.

I'M JUST SAYING THAT JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE, SOME ANOTHER ENTITY LOWERED THEIRS, I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

BUT CAN WE START CUTTING SOME STUFF? ALL RIGHT. 2 MILLION. LET'S GO.

GO. SO. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I WANTED TO PROPOSE.

THIS CUTS IS ONE.

AND I THOUGHT WE ALREADY DID THIS WHEN WE LOOKED AT ON THAT SATURDAY AND THEN WE SAW THE 500,000 AND THE 550,000 FOR TOTAL SIDEWALKS, I THOUGHT WE SAID THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO HALF THE AMOUNT TO LAKESIDE AND THEN JUST DO 500,000 TOTAL TO SIDEWALKS.

AND IF HALF OF IT WAS SPENT TO LAKESIDE AND THE OTHER HALF WAS TO OTHER STUFF.

BUT IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, WE WERE SAYING, HEY, I WAS HEARING THAT I SAID THE DUMB FALLACY.

I KNOW I SAID THAT SATURDAY.

I SAID, REALLY? YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON SIDEWALKS THAN REPAIRING OUR ROADS WHEN WE HAD THE 750 BUDGET AND I SAID, THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

SO I'M WITH YOU ON ON.

I REMEMBER THAT CONVERSATION AND WE DIRECTED STAFF AND THEN IT DIDN'T HAPPEN IN THE BUDGET AS LONG AS IT HAPPENS NOW.

SO, SO MY POINT WAS I'M ON BOARD WITH THAT.

SO I WAS SAYING CUT THE 550 AND THEN BASICALLY THE LAKESIDE, IT'S 50% GOES TO LAKESIDE, 50% GOES TO OTHER STUFF.

SO IS THAT A MOTION? YES. SO YOUR MOTION IS TO MAKE THE TOTAL SIDEWALKS BE 250,000 TO LAKESIDE AND 250,000 TO ANNUAL SIDEWALK.

SO 250 TO T SIX AND 250 TO T ONE.

CORRECT. IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

YES. SO I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS LIKE WE HAVE MADE SUCH GOOD PROGRESS IN LAKESIDE, AND I'M SURE THE RESIDENTS ARE SUPER HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

AND I THIS IS JUST REALLY THROTTLING IT BACK.

UM, SO YEAH, THAT'S JUST MY THING.

I WANT TO GET THESE SIDEWALKS DONE.

THEY LIVE IN THE CITY. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOREVER.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LIKE ONGOING FOR A DECADE OF GETTING THEM SOME SIDEWALKS.

AND SO I JUST DON'T THINK TWO 250 K WOULD JUST.

GET THEM LIKE ONE NEXT PHASE.

AND I THINK IN ONE YEAR WE'VE DONE TWO PHASES, SO MAYBE WE DO ONE PHASE AT A TIME.

[03:40:04]

WE'RE DOING OKAY.

SORRY, I'M STUTTERING.

THE PHASES THAT WE HAVE DONE ARE ABOUT $500,000 A POP.

SO YEAH, THIS IS DEFINITELY DEFUNDING US LAKESIDE ESTATES.

THIS IS SCARY.

WELL, SO YEAH, I MEAN, I'M JUST SAYING WHY I'M VOTING AGAINST IT.

SO WHAT WE DID IN THE FIRST TWO PHASES WAS HIT THE HIGHEST TRAFFIC AREAS THAT HAD THE MOST BENEFIT FOR THE COMMUNITY.

NOW WHAT'S LEFT, A LOT OF WHAT'S LEFT ARE CUL DE SACS AND SHORT ROADS THAT DON'T HAVE AS MUCH VEHICULAR TRAFFIC.

SO THERE'S YES, IT'S STILL A SAFETY ISSUE.

YOU STILL WANT TO HAVE SIDEWALKS, BUT IT'S NOT AS BIG AN ISSUE AS WHERE YOU'VE GOT A ROAD WHERE PEOPLE ARE GOING 40 MILES AN HOUR AND YOU'VE GOT KIDS WALKING DOWN THE SIDE OF A ROAD WITH NO SIDEWALK.

SO WE'RE STILL ADDRESSING IT.

WE'RE JUST SLOWING THE PACE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH, AND IT'S ONLY ON ONE SIDE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I'M NOT QUITE SURE, BUT THE SIDEWALK HAS ONLY BEEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD OR HAS IT BEEN ON BOTH SIDES? LIKE BOTH SIDES. IT'S ONLY BEEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD.

SO THAT STILL POSES A SAFETY ISSUE.

SO YOU'D HAVE TO CROSS THE STREET IN ORDER TO GET THE SIDEWALK, VICE VERSA.

SO I MEAN, I MEAN, IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE PIECEMEALING IT TOGETHER.

AND I MEAN, YOU STARTED SOMETHING.

MIGHT AS WELL FINISH IT.

YEAH, I DON'T I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT PROGRESS.

WELL, WE'RE STILL YEARS AWAY FROM FINISHING IT NO MATTER WHICH APPROACH WE USE.

ABSOLUTELY NOT LIKE IT WAS GOING TO BE DONE IN A YEAR OR TWO ANYWAY.

RIGHT. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN BE OVER AND DONE WITH.

SO THEN WE CAN PUSH THAT MONEY TO SOMETHING ELSE, RIGHT? RIGHT. START COMPLETE A PROJECT BEFORE WE START A NEW ONE.

WELL, I SUPPORT THIS IS THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE YEARS OF NEGLECT AND WE CAN GO SPEND $8 MILLION NEXT YEAR AND KNOCK OUT BOTH SIDES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GET IT DONE.

BUT THEN WE STILL HAVE ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AND IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A PIECEMEAL, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU CAN FIX EVERYTHING.

AND IF YOU DRIVE UP THE PRICE, TOO MUCH OF PEOPLE WHEN THEY MOVE, YOU'RE JUST BUILDING SIDEWALKS FOR THE NEXT PERSON THAT MOVES IN.

I MEAN. WE ARE MAKING GIANT STRIDES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT WE HAVEN'T BUILT SIDEWALKS IN ANY OTHER NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE ENTIRE CITY.

I MEAN, IN LEGENDS, THERE'S A WHOLE STREETS THAT ARE VERY BUSY THAT HAVE NO SIDEWALKS EITHER.

SO AND THEY'VE BEEN IN THE CITY FROM THE BEGINNING, TOO.

SO THAT COULD BE THE NEXT TO DO, RIGHT.

ONCE WE FINISH THE PROJECT SITE IS WHEN LAKESIDE WAS ANNEXED.

THEY WERE PROMISED THAT THEY WOULD GET SIDEWALKS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS THE CASE WITH LEGENDS.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THEY WERE ALSO PROMISED THAT DRAINAGE ISSUES WOULD BE.

YEAH, EXACTLY. AND THAT TOOK, LIKE A DECADE, SO.

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

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOCK CAN YOU.

IT WAS JUST INSTEAD OF SPENDING 1,050,000 ON SIDEWALKS, WE CUT THAT IN HALF AND THEN GIVING HALF OF IT TO LAKESIDE AND HALF TO OTHER STUFF IN THE CITY. WAIT A MINUTE. WE DIDN'T CUT IT IN HALF.

I ASKED YOU 250,000 TO 6 AND 250,001.

YOU SAID YES. CORRECT? 1050 AND HALF IS NOT 500.

IT'S CUTTING REDUCING THE ANNUAL BY 300 AND REDUCING LAKESIDE BY 250.

CUTTING BY 551 BY.

CORRECT? YES. OKAY.

SO THE MOTION IS 250,000 GOES TO T6 LAKESIDE ESTATES AND 250,000 GOES TO T1, WHICH IS AN ANNUAL SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM, CUTTING THE PROJECT OUT BUT SLOWING IT DOWN.

IT'S ALREADY GOING TO BE SLOW.

I. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

I. COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.

NO. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

A. MAYOR SNYDER.

A COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

NAY. MOTION PASSES FIVE TWO.

OKAY, SO THE NEXT.

HOLD ON A MINUTE. SO THAT CUT OUT 550.

ALL RIGHT. ROADS ARE FUNDED AND I'M USING.

NO, NO, WE GET THAT ONE POINT.

WELL, YEAH, I MEAN, BUT PRETTY MUCH SO NOW WE CAN DO THE OTHER.

HOLD ON A SECOND. WHO'S SEEN THE MOVIE, DAVE? MANY YEARS AGO? WE'RE DOING.

I LOVE THAT MOVIE. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE STILL NEED 1.6 TO 1 MILLION AND EITHER SPENDING CUTS OR TAX INCREASES.

IS THAT CORRECT? NO, IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

IT'S 2.171.

IT'S IT'S FIVE. IT'S 500.

IT'S 561 FOR THE ROADS.

YEAH. 300,000 FOR THE POLICE STATION.

260,000 FOR FM 369.

IT'S 561,000 PLUS 1.6.

1 MILLION. YEAH.

RIGHT. 0.171.

THAT'S 217.

ONE -550,000.

IF I DID A CALCULATOR. 1621.

RIGHT. YES. SORRY. YES, YOU'RE CORRECT.

OKAY, SO WE HAVE 1.621 MILLION TO EITHER CUT IN SPENDING OR INCREASE IN TAXES.

OKAY. SO THERE'S ONLY TWO WAYS WE CAN DO IT.

RIGHT? AN CUT OR RAISE?

[03:45:01]

SO THE A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANTED TO SUGGEST AFTER WE DUG INTO THE DETAILS, THE SECURITY ANALYST WOULDN'T HAVE PREVENTED THE ONE PROBLEM WE HAD.

IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS ASKED FOR BY STAFF.

IT'S A VERY EXPENSIVE POSITION.

I THINK IT WAS 150,000 PLUS BENEFITS IS WHAT I HAVE.

YEAH. PLUS BENEFITS.

OH, SO IT'LL BE IT'LL BE SIGNIFICANT.

AT LEAST $200,000.

CAN WE DO THIS? AND THEN I WAS ALSO GOING TO SAY THE WE ALREADY PAY A THIRD PARTY COMPANY TO AUDIT.

WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE ANOTHER AUDITOR INTERNAL TO OUR BUDGET, WHICH IS ALSO A VERY EXPENSIVE FINANCE PERSON THAT WAS NOT ASKED FOR AND IS NOT NEEDED.

IT IS A WANT FOR A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THAT'S OVER 250,000 MAKE IT IN THE FORM OF A MOTION.

OKAY. I MAKE A MOTION TO CUT THE LIST AND WE'LL GET A SECOND.

OKAY. AND THEN WE CAN TALK THROUGH WHY YOU MADE THE MOTION.

SORRY. SO I MAKE A MOTION TO CUT THE CYBERSECURITY ANALYST POSITION THAT WAS ADDED.

THE FINANCIAL.

HOW MUCH WAS THAT? 118.

IT'S. IT'S 118 005.97.

SO 118,005 I'LL PUT 119 BUT WELL THAT MATTERS.

WELL WHAT ABOUT THE BUT THERE'S ALSO ALL THE I'M TELLING YOU THE EXACT NUMBERS.

YEAH. THAT IS INCLUDED. I'M TELLING YOU THE EXACT NUMBERS THAT ARE COMING FROM WHAT FINANCE CALCULATED 119 AND WE GOT A BUDGET WITH TWO GRAND AT THE END.

IF WE GET DOWN TO PENNIES HERE, I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME KEEPING TRACK OF THIS.

OKAY? YOU GUYS CAN DO ON YOUR SIDE.

AND THEN I HAVE A I HAVE A SIGNIFICANT DOUBT THAT YOU HAVE A HARD TIME KEEPING UP WITH THE PENNIES.

118 YES.

SO 118 FOR THE CYBERSECURITY.

AND I ALSO MAKE THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE SAME MOTION.

YES, TO REMOVE THE FINANCE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR.

THAT'S 150.

YEP. SO THE AUDITOR.

OKAY. 150 AND THEN TO ADD BACK THE ONE LIBRARY POSITION SO WE CAN HAVE THE EXPANDED HOURS, HOW MUCH WAS THAT? UM, BUT I STILL DON'T SEE HOW IT'S 150 WASN'T BASED BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING REMOVE LIBRARY ASSISTANT SALARY AND BENEFITS IS 51,742 6950 2000 MINUS MINUS PLUS.

OKAY. SO MINUS THE CYBERSECURITY AT 118, MINUS AN AUDITOR AT 150.

ADD IN A LIBRARIAN AT 52.

IS THAT THE MOTION? YES, SIR.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

68. AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM OR MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

SO THAT'S A NET EFFECT OF -216,000.

ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER WILLCOTT.

HI. MAYOR SNYDER.

AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER KOHLER.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CLERK. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THORNTON. AYE. MOTION PASSES.

SEVEN ZERO. WHAT ELSE YOU GOT? WHAT'S OUR DIFFERENTIAL NOW? ONE POINT. 1.4.

5 MILLION. OH, I GOT.

OH, HOLD ON. SO I HAD ONE.

YOU HAD ONE MORE. YOU CAN MAKE ALL THESE IN ONE MOTION.

YOU THINK THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GO? THAT'S RIGHT.

NO, THAT'S FINE. WE CAN.

WHAT'S YOUR NEXT ONE? I'LL HOLD OFF FOR NOW.

SO I'VE GOT. I'VE GOT ONE.

I'VE JUST GOT A QUESTION.

SEE IF I NEED TO MAKE THIS MOTION.

SO ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, WE HAD ADDED A NUMBER OF PARKS PROJECTS, TRAIL EXPANSION AT CROSS CREEK, PICKLEBALL COURTS AT MORGAN RESTROOMS, TRAIL LIGHTING AND TRAIL EXTENSION AT MORGAN.

AND IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, WE HAD MADE THE MOTION TO FUND THOSE OUT OF GENERAL FUND.

NO, NO, NO. OUT OF PARKS AND PARKS.

SO IT'S ALREADY OUT OF PARKS? CORRECT? YEAH.

SHOOT, THAT WAS 700 GRAND I WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET RID OF.

SO WE'RE FUNDING. DON'T TOUCH MY PROJECTS.

WE'RE FUNDING A POLICE STATION, A LIBRARY AND A AND A PUBLIC WORKS STUDY.

SO I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW MUCH WAS HOW MUCH WAS THE LIBRARY? 119 LIBRARY WE PUT IN AT 119.

I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION TO REMOVE THE LIBRARY FOR THIS YEAR.

THE LIBRARY STUDY. THE LIBRARY STUDY.

SO MOTION BY THE LIBRARIAN FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER CLERK.

[03:50:01]

WE HAVE A SECOND.

I'LL SECOND THAT, AND HERE'S WHY I'M SECONDING IT.

THE PEOPLE WANT RHODES, RHODES AND RHODES, AND WE CAN DO A STUDY, AND WE'RE NOT.

HERE'S WHAT I'M HERE'S WHAT I'M TELLING MYSELF.

WE'RE GOING TO DO A STUDY AND IT'S GOING TO COME BACK AT 25 OR $30 MILLION LIBRARY EXPANSION.

AND THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO STOMACH THE COST OF THAT BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE ANOTHER 100 MILLION IN ROADS TO DO.

AND SO THEN WE'LL PUSH IT BY A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN 2 OR 3 YEARS GO BY AND WE'LL SAY, WELL, LET'S WE NEED TO UPDATE THE LIBRARY STUDY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ALWAYS TELL US.

AND SO WE'LL BASICALLY SPEND $120,000 TO FIND OUT.

WE DON'T HAVE THE BUDGET FOR IT TO THEN COME BACK LATER AND HAVE TO REDO IT.

AND SO TO ME, IT SEEMS LIKE UNFORTUNATELY, AS MUCH AS I LIKE THE LIBRARY.

THAT'S ALL I WANT TO GET THE HOURS NOW.

MY, I WILL BE VOTING AGAINST THIS BECAUSE I THINK THAT IT IS WISE TO DO THIS STUDY ALONG WITH THE POLICE STATION STUDY SO THAT WE KNOW IN THE FUTURE, YES, A LIBRARY IS NOT GOING TO GET BUILT NEXT YEAR.

THE LIBRARY IS NOT GOING TO GET BUILT IN TWO YEARS, BUT THE LIBRARY WILL BE BUILT IN FIVE YEARS.

SO IF WE CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THAT STARTED, GO TO THE VOTERS, FIGURE IT OUT THROUGH A BOND.

IT'S WORTH THE INVESTMENTS LIKE FRITZ PARK.

IT STARTED IN 2018 OR 2019 WITH THE PLAN THAT WE'VE COME TO NOW, JUST AS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IT AT 6:00 AND NOW IT'S JUST NOW COMING TO FRUITION IN 2013. ONCE WE GET THE STUDY, ONCE WE FIGURE OUT THE COST, WE COULD BE LIKE THEN WE CAN BE LIKE CITY MANAGER JAMES ERB.

PLEASE PUT THIS IN 2030.

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS.

WE CAN'T STOMACH THIS.

AT LEAST WE KNOW WHERE WE STAND WITH TELLING PEOPLE ABOUT THE LIBRARY WITH OTHERWISE EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE COMING AND BE LIKE, WE NEED EXPANDED HOURS.

WE NEED A BIGGER LIBRARY.

I VOLUNTEERED AT AN EVENT HERE WITH THE THE REPTILE SHOW AND THEY PACKED THIS PLACE OUT AND PEOPLE CAME IN THINKING THAT THIS WHOLE BUILDING WAS THE LIBRARY. THEY'RE LIKE, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL LIBRARY.

AND I WAS LIKE, THIS IS THE WHOLE CITY HALL OF HUD.

I MEAN, I DIDN'T SAY THAT. OBVIOUSLY. I WAS LIKE, THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, I WAS VERY GRACIOUS WITH IT, BUT I WAS LIKE, THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.

LIKE, WHAT IF THIS COULD BE OUR LIBRARY, LIKE, ELSEWHERE? RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH THIS.

THIS IS OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN IMMEDIATE NEED, BUT FOR 119.

YEAH, THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY.

I MEAN IT'S NOT REALLY IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS.

I THINK IT'S JUST WISE TO BEGIN THIS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE SOME WORK FOR THE CITY MANAGER IN THE FUTURE SO THAT HE CAN KEEP WORKING AND WE CAN KEEP THROWING PROJECTS AT HIM INSTEAD OF GO HARD ON ROADS AND THEN STOP AND BE LIKE, WELL, WHAT ELSE CAN JAMES DO IN SIX YEARS ONCE WE'RE DONE WITH ROADS? AND I WAS LIKE, OH YEAH, MAYBE WE SHOULD BUILD A LIBRARY, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THIS.

SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS.

WELL, I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE THE CIP FOR AND IT'S ON THE CIP, SO I THINK WE'RE NOT GOING TO FORGET.

YEAH, I THINK POSTPONING IT IS A TOUGH QUESTION.

YEAH. HOW EARLY DO YOU WANT TO DO A STUDY COMPARED TO WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD IT? AND IT'S KIND OF IF IT'S MORE THAN TWO YEARS, I THINK IT'S GETTING TO BE QUESTIONABLE IF IT'S THE RIGHT TIME TO DO THE STUDY.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED WITH FRITZ PARK, RIGHT? THEY THEY HAD IT TO A CERTAIN POINT.

THEY KIND OF RE SHOOK THINGS UP AS TO WHERE WE'RE AT IN 2023.

AND NOW WE'VE GOT WHAT WAS PRESENTED NOW.

BUT THAT'S FINE. FAIR ENOUGH.

DOES THE CITY HAVE A GRANT WRITER? DO WE HAVE A GRANT WRITER? NO, MA'AM, WE DO NOT.

SURE WOULD LOVE TO SEE MORE GRANTS ON THE TABLE.

WE KIND OF SUGGESTED THAT BEFORE IS THERE'S LIKE A THIRD PARTY COMPANY WHERE THEY GET A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THE GRANTS THEY DO BRING IN SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR IT OURSELVES BECAUSE THERE'S LIBRARY GRANTS WE CAN LOOK AT.

YEAH, WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY TOWARD BEING ABLE TO HANDLE GRANTS AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT SIZE WE'RE LOOKING AT OR DREAMING OF, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THE ONE THAT PFLUGERVILLE IS PUTTING IN AND THE ONE THAT I THINK ROUND ROCK DID.

I MEAN, IT'S LIKE THE PRICE OF AN OVERPASS.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND OUT.

TO COUNCILMAN THORNTON'S POINT, IF IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO BE 5 OR 6 YEARS AWAY.

I THINK YOU WAIT 2 OR 3 YEARS TO DO IT BECAUSE SOMETHING MAY CHANGE.

THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE A ROAD THAT NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED.

WELL, BUT AND IF WE DO GET TO A POINT WHERE JAMES SAYS THEY'RE ALL DONE, WHAT'S NEXT THEN? I THINK THAT'D BE A GREAT TIME.

BUT I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO BE 5 OR 6 YEARS OF TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FINANCE.

AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR WE'RE DOING ALL THESE THINGS.

I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT JIM TELLING US, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CREDIT WILL ALLOW US TO SELL IN BONDS BECAUSE IF WE HAVE 400 MILLION IN ROADS THAT WE GOT TO BUILD THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN BUILD 400 MILLION ROADS, 10 MILLION IN PARKS OR $30 MILLION LIBRARY AND CHIEF CLOSURE IS A $50 MILLION PUBLIC SAFETY STATION BECAUSE AT SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEONE'S GOING TO SAY, BECAUSE OUR LAST THE LAST BOND WE DID, IF YOU REMEMBER ONE OF THE KNOCKS ON US AND WE GOT GOOD NOT GREAT.

[03:55:06]

WHAT DO THEY CALL IT? THE DEBT TO VALUE RATIO.

THE DEBT RATIO. THE DEBT RATIO IS ALREADY HIGH AND WE'VE GOT HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PROJECTS.

AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE WILLING, IF I'M UP HERE TAKING A DEBT DECREASE OVER A LIBRARY WHEN THE ROADS ARE GOING TO COME FIRST OR SAFETY.

BUT THE THING IS, IT'S LIKE IT'S LIKE LIKE PARKS, THE THE BOND WENT OUT.

IT WAS APPROVED 50 MILLION.

TEN HAS A 9.5 HAS BEEN USED.

THERE'S STILL OUTSTANDING.

SO OBVIOUSLY YOU'D HAVE TO USE IT UP.

YOU CAN'T JUST LIKE NOT USE IT AND IT'LL GO AWAY EVENTUALLY.

RIGHT. IT'S LIKE IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

AND SO IF IT DOES GO TO BOND AND APPROVED OR MAYBE THE VOTERS JUST SHUT IT DOWN, I MEAN, INFORMATION CHANGE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WHEN WE PASS IN 2018, THE CITY WAS GROWING SLOW AND EVERYTHING SEEMED WE WEREN'T TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A $280 MILLION WASTEWATER PLANT INFORMATION CHANGE.

A BUNCH OF PEOPLE MOVED HERE AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING PEOPLE'S TAXES LIKE NOT TAXES.

WATER FEES, $180 A MONTH.

SO I THINK IF YOU GO BACK OUT AND SAID, HEY, DO YOU GUYS WANT TO GO DO 50 MILLION IN PARKS, SOMETHING TELLS ME SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, CAN YOU FOCUS ON THE ROADS, FIGURE OUT THE WATER AND TAKE A BREAK ON PARKS? THAT'S WHY I SAID LAST YEAR WE OUGHT TO GO BACK OUT AND ASK PEOPLE TO REDO THIS BECAUSE THE WHOLE WORLD'S CHANGED IN FIVE YEARS.

WE'VE HAD COVID, THE CITY.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DOUBLED IN FIVE YEARS POPULATION, BUT IT'S DRAMATICALLY INCREASED.

AND NOW ALL EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT IS ROADS.

BUT MAYBE JIM COULD TELL US ONE DAY HOW MUCH HE THINKS HE COULD BORROW BEFORE THE BONDHOLDERS SAY THERE'S TOO MUCH UNTIL YOU CAN'T BORROW ANYMORE.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD PROBABLY CHANGE SOME OF OUR DECISION MAKING IF WE KNEW WE ONLY HAD A CREDIT LIMIT OF 300 MILLION OR SOMETHING.

HAVE YOU GUYS ALREADY DONE THIS? YES. YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? YES. WHAT IS IT? WELL, YOU KNOW, IN TALKING WITH GM, WE THINK THAT WE CAN GET THE 311 MILLION THAT'S NEEDED THIS YEAR FOR THE WATER PROJECTS.

WAIT A MINUTE. YOU GUYS THINK YOU CAN GET THAT THIS YEAR? DOES THAT MEAN THERE'S A 1% CHANCE OR MORE THAT WE MAY NOT SELL ENOUGH BONDS TO FUND OUR OWN? IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? I THINK IT'S A I'M SORRY.

LET ME CHANGE THAT STATEMENT.

WE CAN GET THE 311 MILLION FOR THE WATER PROJECTS THIS YEAR BY CREATING A REVENUE STREAM THAT WILL GET US THERE.

SO WE STARTED THAT DISCUSSION LAST COUNCIL MEETING WHERE WE PUT UP THE SLIDE AND WE SAID THE WORST CASE SCENARIO IS $200 PER MONTH.

WE HAVEN'T FINISHED THAT DISCUSSION.

YOU GAVE STAFF SOME TASKINGS, WHICH WE ACCEPTED, AND WE OWE YOU A RESPONSE ON THAT TO BRING IT BACK.

BUT BUT THE BUT THE QUESTION THAT THAT THE MAYOR WAS TRYING TO ARTICULATE WAS WHAT IS OUR TOTAL DEBT CAPACITY LOAD? COULD WE ISSUE 800 MILLION? COULD WE ISSUE 1.5 BILLION? AND WE HAVEN'T WE HAVEN'T ASKED THAT QUESTION.

BUT BUT WE HAVE POSED OUR CIP PROJECT LIST TO JIM AND HIS TEAM.

AND THEY DON'T THEY'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE ABILITY TO TAKE DOWN THAT AMOUNT OF DEBT TO DO THOSE PROJECTS.

RIGHT. AND THAT ALSO WE HAVEN'T ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHAT'S THE 90 MILLION IN DEBT NON UTILITY, RIGHT.

NO, IT'S MUCH MORE THAN THAT NON UTILITY THOUGH.

NON UTILITY. IT'S MORE IT'S MORE THAN THAT.

91 AND 92.

NO IT'S IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

HOLD ON HERE GABE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN FIND IT FASTER THAN I CAN.

UM, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY MORE.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE? WE DO. IT WAS ABOUT THE.

LIBRARY. STUDY. LIBRARY STUDY.

WHAT'S THE COST OF THAT? 19,000. WE'LL CALL A VOTE ON THIS IF WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT, BECAUSE.

YEAH. THE CHIEF'S GOING TO BE MAD AT ME.

I BELIEVE I HAVE YOUR ANSWER.

I BELIEVE IT IS.

$439 MILLION OUTSTANDING UTILITY DEBT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT.

DOES THAT INCLUDE MAYBE THAT'S TOTAL DEBT, TOTAL OF THE DEBT SERVICE BETWEEN NOW AND 2057.

SO THAT'S A LOT OF FOR LIKE IF WE WON POWERBALL AND IT HAD 100 MILLION COME IN, I WANT TO SAY 90 ROUGHLY 90 MILLION IS OUR NON UTILITY DEBT, NOT THE SERVICE FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

JUST THE DEBT. YEAH. I MEAN THE PRINCIPAL OVERALL FOR THE CITY IS 265, BUT IT'S NOT BROKEN DOWN HERE BETWEEN UTILITY AND NON UTILITY.

SO ANYWAY IT'D BE ON IT WOULD BE A CONSTANT THING PROBABLY.

[04:00:05]

SO THE ONE WE'RE DOWN TO ONE POINT.

4 MILLION.

BUT IF IF THE AT SOME POINT WE CAN ALSO SAY, HEY, IF WE'RE TRULY AT 9 MILLION FOR GENERAL FUND AND 1.45 IS GOING TO TAKE YOU FROM 9 TO 7 AND A HALF AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE TO CUT ANYMORE AND YOU COULD BE AT NO NEW REVENUE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M JUST SAYING. AT SOME POINT YOU DON'T HAVE TO JUST KEEP DOWN TO GET TO ZERO IF YOU WANT TO DO THE OTHER BIT OF THE NINE, 4.2 MILLION OF THAT IS OUR RESERVE THAT WE CAN'T TOUCH, RIGHT? THAT'S THE 20%, RIGHT? AND IT'S NOT NINE, IT'S FIVE SOMETHING.

BUT BUT LIKE LIKE WE'VE SAID, SHE'S FOUND MORE MONEY.

SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO I'M LIKE, IF THAT NEEDS TO CHANGE, LIKE BECAUSE BEFORE WE WERE GOING TO TAKE TWO AND I'M JUST SAYING WE'VE GOT DOWN TO ONE AND WE WEREN'T EVEN REALLY TRYING TO TAKE TWO. WE WERE TRYING TO TAKE ENOUGH TO PAY FOR THE ROADS.

SO YEAH, I MEAN, WHAT'S AN ACCEPTABLE NUMBER? IS EIGHT AN ACCEPTABLE NUMBER? IF WE ENDED UP AT AN $8 MILLION? YEAH, I WOULD BE PERFECTLY I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT.

BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING WE'VE GOT OVER $1 MILLION, LET'S VOTE ON GETTING RID OF THE.

BUT I'M SAYING WE MAY NOT NEED TO GET RID OF IT IF IF WE THAT MOTION IS ON THE TABLE.

WELL, OKAY. BUT I'M JUST TRYING TO WE'RE TRYING TO SAVE IT.

I THINK WE'RE DOING THIS TO ME.

WE'RE DOING THIS. WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SAVE IT.

WE OUGHT TO BE FIGURING THAT MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THE WE OUGHT TO BE FIGURING OUT LIKE, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO? AND IF YOU CAN'T BUILD A LIBRARY LIKE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I MEAN, IF WE CANNOT IF WE LITERALLY CANNOT IF WE KNOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FUND IT FOR 5 OR 6 YEARS, WHY SPEND 300,000 TODAY? AND AND WE'RE LOOKING AT I THINK WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT WAYS TO SPEND MONEY OR NOT SPEND ENOUGH.

AND I'M LIKE LIKE WHEN I FIRST JAMES AND I FIRST TALKED, MY IDEA WAS, WHAT IS THE BUDGET GOT TO BE TO HAVE LAST YEAR'S SERVICES THE SAME EMPLOYEES UP 3% AND THEN WHAT DO YOU NEED? AND THEN YOU START ADDING ON NEEDS AND THEN YOU GET DONE AND YOU'RE LIKE, WELL, WE'RE WELL UNDER NO NEW REVENUE.

WELL, NOW LET'S START ADDING ONCE.

I THINK WHAT WE TEND TO DO IS WE GO BACKWARDS.

WHAT'S THE MOST WE CAN COLLECT AND THEN START PIECING THINGS AWAY.

AND I'M LIKE, ALL THESE ARE ALL ONCE THE LIBRARY IS A WANT, IT'S NOT A NEED.

THE POLICE STATIONS ARE ONE, IT'S NOT A NEED.

SIDEWALKS ARE A WANT.

THEY'RE NOT IN NEED.

I THINK THE BIG THING IS ALL SUBJECTIVE.

ABSOLUTELY A NEED.

YOU CAN'T PUBLIC SAFETY.

WELL, BUT OKAY. SO IF SIDEWALKS ARE A NEED, THEN WE NEED TO DO ALL THE SIDEWALKS IN THE ENTIRE CITY AT ONCE.

BECAUSE WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS WHY ARE YOU PICKING ONE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER THE OTHER? ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING IS SOMETHING LATER ON IN THE AGENDA IS THE PAY PARITY TO RIGHT THE STUDY AND DECISIONS ON THAT.

I MEAN, THAT ALSO PLAYS INTO IT.

BUT THAT'S NOT A BUDGET CONVERSATION, RIGHT? SO YOU CAN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, NO, IT IS A BUDGET.

IT IS. YEAH.

BECAUSE OUR BUDGET. YEAH. BUT WE DIDN'T OPEN UP THAT ITEM.

RIGHT. OR IS IT ON THIS PART OF THE BUDGET AND WE'VE ALREADY FUNDED IT AT, AT THE FIRST HALF FOR ALL HOURLY EMPLOYEES.

THAT WAS I FUNDED A QUARTER, A QUARTER OF GETTING US TO THE MID POINT, RIGHT.

YEAH. SO WE'RE NOT ON THE DEBT CURRENTLY 129,000,029 MILLION IN OUTSTANDING TAX SUPPORTED DEBT IN US DEBT, 295 MILLION IN UTILITY DEBT, 424 MILLION TOTAL DEBT WAS THE UTILITY. YOU SAID 129 MILLION FOR INS TAX SUPPORTED DEBT, 295 MILLION FOR UTILITY DEBT.

TOTAL DEBT $424 MILLION.

TOTAL BONDED INDEBTEDNESS $424 MILLION.

AND THAT'S PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST THAT WE OWE.

AND THAT'S PRINCIPAL. THAT'S PRINCIPAL ONLY.

OKAY. DO YOU WANT TO.

SO HERE'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT. SO IF WE OWE $129 MILLION, SUPPORTED BY AN INS TAX RATE OF $0.14, THE AMOUNT THE CITY NEEDS TO GROW, I THINK YOU SAID $0.14, BUT THE $0.13 IS WHAT'S FY 24.

OKAY. $0.13. YEAH.

IF YOU THROW 500 MILLION IN PROJECTS OVER THE NEXT 2 OR 3 YEARS IN ROAD PROJECTS, THE BRIDGE IS 88 MILLION ALONE.

WE CAN ALMOST TRIPLE OUR DEBT AND WHATEVER THE GROWTH DOESN'T EVEN OUT, WE'RE ALL PAYING MORE FOR IT.

SO THAT'S BEEN MY POINT ON ALL THIS.

YOU TAKE YOUR $0.13 AND YOU CAN DO THE MATH, BUT IF A FOURTH OF THAT, IF TWO THIRDS OF THAT IS EQUALS $0.13, IF YOU DO AN $88 MILLION BRIDGE, WHICH I ASSUME NEXT YEAR WE GOT A FUND BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE DESIGNED WELL, THEN THAT 88 MILLION, THAT ALONE COULD BE 6 OR $0.07, THAT TAX RATE ASSUMING WE WE HAVE A MODEST GROWTH AND WE DON'T GROW A LOT.

IF WE GROW REALLY FAST, IT'LL HELP IT OUT.

BUT YOU'RE STILL TALKING A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE.

AND A 30 MILLION I MEAN, A 30,000,000 MILLION LIBRARY WOULD BE A SMALL ONE.

THAT'S A FOURTH OF OUR ENTIRE DEBT.

WHICH WOULD BE IF WE BUILT IT THIS YEAR WITH NO GROWTH, THAT'S A 4% INCREASE.

[04:05:03]

WE'RE TALKING A QUARTER IN OUR TAX RATE IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

AND I'M JUST SAYING, HOW DO YOU FUND ALL THAT AND HOW DOES THE BOND MARKET FEEL THAT WE'RE WANTING TO BORROW ALL THAT? BECAUSE IF WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN'T BUILD ROADS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE CREDIT FOR IT, THAT'S GOING TO BE SOME UPSET PEOPLE.

THEY'RE GOING TO THEY'RE GOING TO ASK, WHY DID YOU BUILD THIS AND WHY DID YOU GO DO THAT? WHY DIDN'T YOU DO ROADS LIKE WE TOLD YOU TO? BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE COULD DO IT ALL.

AND I FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE WE COULD DO $1 BILLION IN.

SO I THINK THE DISCUSSION IS PREMATURE.

BEFORE WE COULD GO OUT FOR TAX SUPPORTED DEBT, YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE VOTER APPROVAL.

IT WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE VOTERS.

AND THEN ON THE UTILITY DEBT, WE DO NEED TO DEVELOP A REVENUE STREAM, WHICH WE BEGAN THE CONVERSATION LAST COUNCIL MEETING, BUT WE HAVE A LONG WAY TO GO TO WORK TOGETHER TO FIGURE OUT THE REVENUE STREAM FOR THAT.

RIGHT. SO LIBRARY STUDY 119.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? YEAH, I'D LIKE TO KEEP IT, BUT I'M HAPPY WITH BEING ABLE TO PUT THAT FULL TIME EMPLOYEE BACK IN.

I'M. I'M HAPPY WITH THAT.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

A MAYOR SNYDER, A MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

A COUNCILMEMBER.

COLTER NAY. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, A COUNCILMEMBER WILK, A COUNCILMEMBER CLERK.

A MOTION PASSES SIX ONE.

THAT ONE WAS ONE 119.

YEP, THAT WAS 119 WE NEED AN ADDITIONAL 1.286 MILLION IN CUTS.

CORRECT. OR THAT'S WHERE WE COULD EITHER INCREASE.

THEN THIS IS WHERE YOU START HAVING DISCUSSION OR DO YOU INCREASE THE.

THE TAX RATE OR DO YOU REDUCE THE GENERAL FUND BALANCE TO COVER THAT OR KEEP THAT? OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD THAT PUT THE TAX RATE AT? WELL, IF YOU IF YOU IF YOU WENT DOWN FROM THE IF YOU WENT DOWN FROM THE GENERAL FUND REVENUE, IT WOULDN'T YOU'D STILL GET NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

YOU JUST REDUCED 1.2 MILLION FROM OUR RESERVE, WHICH I THINK WOULD STILL KEEP US ABOVE EIGHT, WHICH WOULD KEEP US ABOVE EIGHT AT THIS POINT.

THAT'S WHY I WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S OUR NEW NUMBER, BECAUSE BEFORE IT WAS SEVEN AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING IT'S NINE.

SO. AND DID YOU HAVE THAT CALCULATION? I DO. SO EVEN THOUGH WE CAN DRAW DOWN THE FUND BALANCE AND I DO KNOW IT'S ON THE TABLE, I HAVE TO POINT OUT THAT MANY OF THE PROJECTS THAT Y'ALL ARE AGREEING THAT WE NEED TO KICK OFF ROAD PROJECTS, WATER, WASTEWATER, ALL THOSE THINGS GENERALLY, WE HAVE TO HAVE A WAY TO FUND THOSE BEFORE WE GET THE DEBT DOLLARS TO PAY FOR THE SOFT COSTS.

SO I WOULD I WOULD JUST CAUTION YOU ABOUT PULLING DOWN THE RESERVE, THE FUND BALANCE, NOT THE RESERVE PULLING DOWN THE FUND BALANCE TOO MUCH, TOO FAST BECAUSE YOU MAY NOT REIMBURSE YOURSELF FOR A YEAR OR MORE, DEPENDING ON WHAT PROJECTS IT IS THAT WE'RE DOING.

SO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO CARRY THAT COST AND THEN PUT THE MONEY BACK IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

SO THE CHIEFS OUT OF THE ROOM.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO.

WELL, I HAVE A BEFORE WE ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, CHIEF COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON 1.286 MILLION EQUATES TO 2.8 $0.02 ON THE TAX RATE. IF I ADD THAT TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, YOU'RE AT $0.43.

YEAH. CAN I CAN I MAKE A PROPOSAL FOR TAX RATE EVEN IF IT GETS TAKEN OUT? SO AT LEAST WE KNOW.

WHERE WE'RE STAYING. I'M SURE.

ALL RIGHT. SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO SET THE TAX RATE AT 0.422114, WHICH IS $0.02 ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE.

FOUR, TWO, TWO, ONE, ONE FOUR.

YES, SIR. I HAVE A SECOND.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

I'M NOT READY TO VOTE ON THAT YET BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN CUT AND MOVE AROUND.

I MEAN, I DON'T MAKE SENSE, BUT I'M NOT I'M NOT THERE YET.

I'M THE SAME WAY BECAUSE IT'S LIKE I SAID, I'D LIKE TO START IT.

WHAT IS IT? WHAT CAN WE DO WITHOUT INCREASING TAXES AND THEN HAVE A STORY WHY WE INCREASE THEM IF WE NEED TO INSTEAD OF WE VOTE TO INCREASE? AND THEN HOW TO SPEND THE MONEY? YEAH, BUT WE NOW KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW WE COULD FUND EVERYTHING AT LESS THAN $0.03.

WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE TO CUT BEFORE WE HAVE THAT VOTE.

AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT I WOULD THINK.

OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET A TEMPO SO THAT MAYBE WE CAN CUT SOME CONVERSATION OUT, RIGHT? MAYBE IN SOME VOTES. I'M JUST BEING HONEST HERE, SO I'M TRYING TO LOWER IT.

WE'RE TRYING TO LOWER IT. WE'VE ALREADY GONE FROM 45.

[04:10:03]

RIGHT. SO AT LEAST I'M THERE.

I THINK THE MAYOR WAS ABOUT TO CUT ANOTHER 300,000, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

WE GOT TO HURRY UP. OH, ABOUT TWO MORE THAN THAT.

OKAY. SO WAIT, DO WE DO WE RESCIND THAT MOTION, THEN, SO YOU CAN MAKE YOUR MOTION? OKAY. YEAH, I'LL RESCIND IT THEN.

I SUPPOSE I'LL RESCIND THAT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CUT THE PUBLIC SAFETY STUDY.

I'LL SECOND IT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE REALISTICALLY WITHIN TWO YEARS OF OF GETTING GOING ON BUILDING THAT.

SO AND THE ONE THING I WOULD SAY ON THAT, BECAUSE I KEEP COMING BACK, I KIND OF AGREE WITH YOU THAT IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN ONE YEAR, THE ONLY, THE ONLY THE TWO COUNTER POINTS TO THAT IS WE DO HAVE SOME CITY SLASH EDC CONTROLLED LAND.

AND IF WE DO THE STUDY, WE KNOW KIND OF THE SCOPE AND SIZE AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE WE NEED.

SO WHEN WE DO A MASTER PLAN OF THAT LAND, IF WE NEED TO TALK WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT GROUP OF, HEY, THIS IS HOW MANY ACREAGE WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED THERE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO BUY LAND IN TWO YEARS.

LET'S RESERVE THAT AMOUNT.

IF WE GET THAT ANSWER NOW, WE WITHIN AN ACRE ARE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE.

MAYBE IT NEEDS TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT IN TWO YEARS, BUT IF WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE THAT STUDY, I GUARANTEE YOU WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT WILL GET SOLD AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO BE GOING OUT TO FOR FAIR MARKET RATE FOR MORE LAND BECAUSE WE WON'T KNOW WHAT HOW MUCH LAND WE NEED.

AND THEN HOW CAN YOU TELL THEM TO RESERVE SOMETHING WHEN YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE AN IDEA WHERE IT IS? SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONE COUNTER POINT OF DOING IT NOW VERSUS WAITING.

EVEN IF WE CAN'T WAIT FOR TWO YEARS AND I DO THINK IT WILL BE IN TWO YEARS, BECAUSE WHAT WE HOPE IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS THE, YOU KNOW, THE LARGE DEVELOPER DEAL THAT WE'VE CLOSED, THEY'RE GOING TO OPEN IN 25.

AND IF THEY BUILD OUT, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT REVENUE COMING IN THE WAY WE'VE STRUCTURED IT, WHICH WOULD HELP US PAY SOME OF THIS.

SO THAT'LL BE THE HOW.

BUT UNTIL IT HAPPENS, YOU CAN'T COUNT ON IT AND WE CAN'T BUDGET FOR THAT.

BUT I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE.

BUT SO I GENERALLY TRY TO STAY QUIET ON THESE TYPES OF ITEMS. BUT I DO FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS.

THERE'S SO MUCH MORE TO A POLICE FACILITY PLAN THAN JUST THE BUILDING AND THE FOOTPRINT.

THERE'S THE PROJECTED MANPOWER THAT YOU SHOULD BE ANTICIPATING OF ADDING NEW POSITIONS.

THERE'S WHAT THOSE POSITIONS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE.

IT'S AND THEN THE REASON THAT THEY HAVE TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE THEN THEY GO AND BACK INTO, WELL, IF YOU HAVE, SAY, YOU KNOW, FIVE DETECTIVES, WELL, EACH DETECTIVE NEEDS THIS MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEN EACH SUPPORT POSITION THAT SUPPORTS A DETECTIVE NEEDS THIS MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THAT'S HOW THEY BACK INTO THE NEEDS OF A OF A FACILITY WITHOUT EVEN TALKING ABOUT ARCHITECTURE AND HOW THINGS LOOK.

NOW, THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PATH, BUT THERE'S.

THERE'S MORE TO THIS PLAN THAN JUST GO TELL US WHAT A BUILDING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE YOU GET ALSO THE STAFFING LEVEL ANALYSIS TYPICALLY ALONG WITH THAT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO THAT, TOO, BACK INTO THE BUILDING.

SO I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S ALSO AN ADDITION.

AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU ALL KNOW WHERE I CAME FROM.

WE DID THE, THE, THE THE STUDY AND IT AND THEN THE COUNCIL DECIDED THAT THEY JUST WANTED TO GO BUILD A BUILDING REALLY FAST.

SO WE BASICALLY USED THE STUDY TO JUSTIFY THE POSITIONS THAT WE NEEDED.

BUT THEN WE JUST WENT AND FOUND ANOTHER POLICE STATION THAT WORKED FOR US AND THEN WE NEGOTIATED WITH THE ARCHITECT AND THE AND THE CONTRACTOR, AND THEN WE BROUGHT THEM ON BOARD AND MODIFIED THE PLANS.

AND AND THAT'S HOW THAT'S HOW I NAVIGATED THAT IN KYLE WHENEVER KYLE DECIDED TO BUILD A PD STATION.

SO YOU CAN DO IT WITHOUT THE FACILITY PLAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE IT.

BUT THERE IS BENEFIT TO THE FACILITY PLAN OTHER THAN JUST THE FACILITY.

SO THAT'S THE TWO THINGS I WOULD OFFER.

I DON'T MIND HAVING A FACILITY, A PLAN WITHOUT A FACILITY, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS IN THE BUDGET.

AND SO FOR ME, I KNOW THAT THERE IS I CAN ALMOST GUARANTEE THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD AFFORD TO BUILD THAT SAME POLICE STATION BECAUSE IT'S BIGGER THAN THE CITY HALL.

AND SO ALL THE NEEDS IN THE CITY, WE CAN GO DO A STUDY AND EVERYBODY CAN GET EXCITED AND THEN IT'S GOING TO BE 5 OR 6, SEVEN YEARS BEFORE WE DO IT.

AND IT GOES BACK TO EVERYTHING I KEEP SAYING, SO WHAT IS THE STAFFING LOOK LIKE? AND SO WE'RE I MEAN, OUR WATER WASTEWATER, WE DID THIS ON THE PROJECTION STRAIGHT UP.

AND SO THEN IT LEVELED OFF WITH THE INTEREST RATES.

AND SO WE GO OUT AND DO A STUDY, EVERYTHING'S GOING TO CHANGE.

AND WE'RE EITHER GOING TO BUILD A BUILDING TOO SMALL, TOO BIG TO ME IF THIS PASSES AND YOU COME BACK NEXT WEEK AND SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO FIND $85,000 FOR A PERSONNEL STUDY ON WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED FOR STAFFING, I CAN SUPPORT THAT.

BUT TO ME, THERE'S NO SENSE IN TELLING THE OFFICERS THAT POTENTIALLY YOU COULD HAVE A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT POLICE STATION, BUT IT HAPPENED SOMETIME IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

[04:15:04]

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IF YOU TOLD ME WHAT IT COST JUST TO DO PERSONNEL, THEN I'D MODIFY THIS TO THAT.

BUT I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, I WOULD GUESS IT'S, IT'S PROBABLY HALF OR A THIRD OF THAT IF I HAD TO GUESS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ARCHITECTURAL RENDERINGS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE FLIP SIDE ALSO IS EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE A FIVE YEAR HORIZON, THESE SORTS OF THINGS ARE THE THINGS THAT YOUR RECRUITS LOOK FOR WHENEVER THEY'RE DECIDING.

WHICH WHICH FORCES THEY'RE GOING TO JOIN.

IF THEY IF THEY SEE THAT THE THE CITY IS SERIOUS ABOUT MOVING FORWARD TOWARD A NICE FACILITY THAT THEY WOULD BE PROUD TO WORK IN.

YOU KNOW, SO ON AND SO FORTH, THAT THERE'S A LOT OF VALUE TO THAT, TOO, IN YOUR RECRUITMENT SIDE.

SO THERE'S THERE'S OTHER ASPECTS TO IT.

I'M GLAD YOU SAID THAT. SO I'D RATHER SEE US FUND THE POLICE APPROPRIATELY BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING LIKE GETTING A LOW PAYCHECK BUT A NICE BUILDING TO BE IN.

AND MY GUESS IS WHAT I'VE BEEN ARGUING IS THE PEOPLE I TALK TO, MOST OF THEM WOULD RATHER BE ABLE TO PAY THEIR BILLS AND NOT HAVE NOT HAVE TO WORK OVERTIME AND HAVE A WAGE BECAUSE OUR PARITY, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, JUST GETS US TO THE 50% LEVEL.

THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S TRUE TO ME.

WE'RE STILL WAY UNDERPAYING OUR POLICE.

SO YOU CAN GO GET THEM A BRAND NEW BUILDING AND THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HATE COMING TO WORK BECAUSE THEY JUST WORKED A 12 HOUR YESTERDAY.

PLUS THEY HAD A SIX HOUR EXTRA SHIFT THEY HAD TO DO JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD TO PAY THE INCREASE OF THEIR MORTGAGE.

WHEN I'M SAYING LET'S PAY EVERYBODY CORRECTLY, LET'S STAFF THEM CORRECTLY, AND THEN FIGURE OUT HOW TO HOUSE PEOPLE BECAUSE.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT COMES FIRST AND WHAT MAKES THEM MORE HAPPY.

BUT THE PEOPLE I'VE I'VE TALKED TO.

REGULARLY ARE LOOKING FOR.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A BIGGER PAYCHECK THAN THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A BETTER PLACE.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR BUDGET, I WENT WITH THE 50TH PERCENTILE BECAUSE THAT APPEARED TO ME TO BE WHAT THE POLICY HAS BEEN OF THE CITY HISTORICALLY.

BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL DOES NEED TO DISCUSS FOR FUTURE.

IF WE WANT TO MOVE TO 75% OR 85 PERCENTILE OR WHATEVER, THOSE ARE JUST NUMBERS THAT SHIFT AROUND ON HOW MUCH MORE WE CHANGE AND SET OUR RATES OF PAY.

CAN I JUMP IN? YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN WAITING.

JUST DON'T WANT TO CUT ANYBODY OFF.

BUT I'D REALLY LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THIS POSITION.

SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING TO BE SAID FOR WORKING CONDITIONS.

WE HAD A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY HOW PEOPLE NEED TO BE AT WORK AND THEY NEED TO WHEN THEY'RE AT WORK, WE EXPECT THEM TO BE HERE DOING THEIR JOBS.

BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME, WE TURN AROUND AND WE WANT TO CUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT, AS OUR CITY MANAGER SAID, IS A MAJOR FOOTPRINT IN THIS CITY.

IT GOES TOWARDS RECRUITING EFFORTS.

IT GOES TOWARDS MAKING SURE THAT CITIZENS FEEL SOME SORT OF WAY ABOUT SAFETY PROTECTION HERE IN THE CITY OF HUTTO.

AND SO JUST SITTING HERE AND SAYING, HEY, LET'S JUST WILLY NILLY CUT SOMETHING THAT WE JUST WATCHED A COUPLE HOURS AGO.

LOOKED AT THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND SAID, HEY, THANKS FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO OUR CITY.

THANKS FOR DOING ALL OF THESE THINGS.

BUT HEY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO GO AHEAD AND SCRATCH YOUR POTENTIAL.

YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT A NEW FACILITY.

I THINK WE'RE SPEAKING OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF OUR MOUTH.

AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS COUNCIL WOULD BE HAPPY WITH MOVING FORWARD IF WE DIDN'T FUND SOMETHING LIKE THIS.

SO I DISAGREE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE IF WE FUND A STUDY AND THEN WE CAN'T BUILD IT FOR FIVE YEARS, WELL, YOU GET A BOOST IN THE FIRST YEAR BECAUSE YOU GOT TO STUDY AND IT SAYS, HEY, LOOK AT THIS BUILDING WE WANT TO BUILD.

AND THEN ONCE YOU CAN'T BUILD IT FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS IN A ROW, THEN EVERYBODY'S LIKE, WELL, THAT STUDY WAS, YOU KNOW, YOU SOLD ME A BILL OF GOODS.

THAT'S NOT HAPPENING.

SO WHERE'S THE BEEF? YOU KNOW, WHERE'S WHERE'S THE ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, WHERE'S THE DELIVERY ON THE PROMISE? AND THEN ON THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY ASPECT OF IT.

I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED A FULL STUDY TO DECIDE HOW MUCH LAND WE WANT TO TRY TO RESERVE FOR A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CITY FACILITIES THERE.

I THINK WE CAN WORK OUT SOMETHING AND THEN MAKE OUR FACILITIES WORK WITHIN THOSE FOOTPRINTS BECAUSE I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DO A PLAN ANYWAY, IS YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE WHAT YOU WANT, BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE WHAT LAND YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO PUT IT ON.

I MEAN, AND WE WANT MULTIPLE CITY FACILITIES OVER TIME, SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO TAKE ALL THE ROOM WITH THE FIRST FACILITY.

SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD JIVE.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT JIVE IS.

IS THAT ALL? EVERYONE WAS HERE ON THE SATURDAY CIP.

SATURDAY, AND WE ALL AGREED THAT WE WOULD DO A PUBLIC SAFETY.

FACILITIES STUDY.

NO ONE SAID NO, I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH THIS OFF.

IT'S JUST NOT POSSIBLE. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE BEING SO SHORTSIGHTED FOR JUST ONE YEAR AND I GET IT.

[04:20:01]

AND I THINK WE'VE BEEN VERY PRODUCTIVE WITH CUTTING SOME STUFF.

BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE.

WE WERE ALL HERE AND NO ONE HAD.

NOW WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE THE CIP LIST UP ON THE CITY MANAGER.

AND THAT WAS PUBLIC WORKS.

THIS IS PUBLIC SAFETY.

YEAH, PUBLIC WORKS. BUT WE ALSO DID PUT WE PUT THE SAFETY STUDY FOR THIS YEAR AS, AS AS A TO DO ON THE TO DO LIST.

AND HERE'S WHY. RIGHT.

AND SO NO ONE HAD ANY.

BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN NOW TONIGHT WE'RE READY TO JUST CUT THIS WHOLE IDEA, THE FUTURE OF THE FUTURE OF OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

RIGHT. THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT'S TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, HELL, EVEN TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

RIGHT. IF IT STOPS GROWING AND WE DON'T NEED IT, THEN IN TEN YEARS, YOU KNOW, AND THEN IT STARTS TO GROW.

WE NEED IT, THEN THAT'S FINE.

BUT AT LEAST WE KNOW THAT OUR CITY, IF WE KNOW OUR COMMUNITY IS GROWING, WE KNOW THAT OUR POLICE OFFICER, POLICE OFFICERS ARE KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE AND WE NEED TO INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY.

AND YEAH, I MEAN, WE'VE ALREADY GOT 5 MILLION IN APPROVED PUBLIC SAFETY BONDS, BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO CUT IT, OF COURSE.

BUT I'M JUST I FEEL LIKE WE'RE JUST BEING SHORTSIGHTED BECAUSE WE'RE JUST SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE QUICK TO CUT, WHICH IS GREAT.

BUT I JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC SAFETY STUDY IS WHERE WE SHOULD BE AT FOR THE FUTURE OF HUTTO AND OUR PD, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I'VE GOT TWO QUESTIONS.

WHAT'S THE DOLLAR AMOUNT TIED TO THIS? I NEVER THOUGHT 300, 300, K, 300 EVEN.

AND THEN IF WE DID A STUDY THIS YEAR, HOW LONG WOULD IT BE? HOW LONG WOULD IT BE STAY FRESH? HOW LONG WOULD IT BE GOOD FOR.

WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO TEN YEARS.

WELL, GENERALLY THEY PROJECT 10 TO 15 YEARS BECAUSE THAT'S THE LIFE CYCLE OF A BUILDING BEFORE YOU'RE LOOKING TO WHAT CHANGES YOU MAY NEED.

SO WHATEVER THEY WOULD DO TODAY, I WOULD ANTICIPATE WOULD BE VALID FOR UP TO 15 YEARS.

WOW. OKAY. THAT'S A LOT LONGER THAN I THOUGHT.

WELL, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY VALID BECAUSE IF IT'S GOING TO MEET OUR NEEDS FOR THE NEXT 15 YEARS, THEN YOU WOULDN'T GO AHEAD AND BUILD THAT BUILDING 15 YEARS FROM NOW BECAUSE THAT'S NOT GOING TO MEET YOUR NEED GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S TRUE. IF YOU ARE IN YEAR 13 AND 15, THEN YOU EFFECTIVELY HAVE TWO YEARS LEFT ON THAT CYCLE.

BUT AS OF WHEN THEY WOULD COMPLETE THE STUDY, IT'S IT'S USUALLY THEY'RE PROJECTING FOR A 15 YEAR LIFE CYCLE ON A BUILDING AND SOME BUILDINGS, THEY GO LONGER THAN THAT.

I WANT TO SAY GEORGETOWN.

I MIGHT BE SPEAKING OUT OF MY HAT A LITTLE BIT, BUT LIKE GEORGETOWN, IF MEMORY SERVES, THEY ACTUALLY HAVE WINGS OF PHASES TO ADD ONTO IT OVER TIME.

SO THEY ACTUALLY PLAN FOR MUCH FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE, BUT THEN THEY ONLY BUILD THE SEGMENT THAT THEY NEED FOR THE 15 YEAR WINDOW.

SO LET ME ASK IT THIS WAY.

IF WE DO THE STUDY THIS YEAR AND WE DECIDE WE CAN'T BUILD THE BUILDING FOR TEN YEARS, DO WE HAVE TO REDO THE STUDY? YOU WOULD REDO THE STUDY AT THE AT PROBABLY YEAR 8 OR 9? I DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO I THINK YOU'D WANT TO BECAUSE YOU'D HAVE BECAUSE YOU'D ONLY HAVE FIVE YEARS.

I'M ASKING IF IN REALISTICALLY WE WOULD BE HAVING SO MANY OTHER PROBLEMS BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY CONTINUE TO GROW THE FORCE AND CONTINUE TO USE THE EXISTING LOCATION.

SO WE WOULD PROBABLY BE RENTING SPACE SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WE WOULD BE DOING OTHER THINGS.

SO ON ONE THING THAT HE JUST SAID, YOU SAID, IF WE CAN'T BUILD IT FOR TEN YEARS, HE SAID WE'D REDO THE STUDY IN 8 OR 9 YEARS, WE'D REDO THE STUDY 1 TO 2 YEARS BEFORE WE COULD BUILD IT. THAT'S RIGHT.

SO WHY DO WE WANT TO DO THE STUDY UNLESS WE THINK WE'RE 1 OR 2 YEARS FROM BUILDING IT? WELL, AND I THINK WE NEED TO BE PERSONALLY, I MEAN, I THINK I WOULD LOVE TO BE, BUT THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY THAT I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S COMING FROM.

WELL, OKAY, SO WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT PROLOGIS COMING.

I MEAN, LIKE, ARE WE NOT? BUT WHEN ARE THEY COMING AND HOW MUCH ARE WE GETTING? WE'RE NOT GETTING ALL THAT MONEY IN YEAR ONE.

AND YEAR ONE ON THE TAX ROLLS IS PROBABLY 2026 FOR ANY SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, AND IT'S PROBABLY IN THE RANGE OF 2 TO $3 MILLION.

IT'S NOT WE'RE NOT GETTING WE'RE NOT GETTING THE WHOLE THING IN ONE SHOT.

WE'RE GETTING ONE BUILDING. SO NOW WE'RE CHANGING THE NARRATIVE, NOT CHANGING THE NARRATIVE COMING.

PROLOGIS IS COMING, BUT IT'S NOT COMING AS FAST AND WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH.

I THINK YOU'RE MISTAKEN.

YEAH. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS ALREADY PRE-RELEASED.

YEP. SO IT'S ALREADY FULL, SO IT'S NOT BUILD.

HAVE YOU SEEN THE BUILT? CUSTOMER CLERK. HAVE YOU SEEN THE LEASE? NO. OKAY.

SO THERE ARE THERE ARE MORE THAN ONE CITY HAS GONE OUT THERE.

FOXCONN WAS ONE IN WISCONSIN.

THERE'S ANOTHER ONE, I THINK IN NEW JERSEY.

AND THEY WENT OUT ON A HUGE PLAN ON EVERYTHING THEY'RE GOING TO DO BECAUSE OF DEVELOPMENT WAS COMING.

AND THEY WENT OUT AND SPENT THE MONEY FIRST AND MADE ALL THE PLANS AND THEN IT DIDN'T COME.

SO I HOPE THAT PROLOGIS COMES HERE.

BUT IF WE GO ON A PLAN OF.

WE START TELLING EVERYBODY IT'S ALL LEASED UP.

IT'S DONE. IT'S READY TO GO AND IT DOESN'T HAPPEN.

[04:25:02]

WELL, WE WOULDN'T SPEND 2 MILLION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 300,000.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO BUILD THE POLICE STATION HEADED DOWN THAT ROAD.

WHEN WHEN I STARTED HEARING PEOPLE SAY IT'S ALL LEASED UP, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE LEASES, BUT IT'S ALL LEASED UP.

OR WHAT ABOUT THIS? LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S COMING TO ME.

YOU WAIT TILL THE DIRT'S MOVING, YOU WAIT TILL THE STUFF'S COMING IN, AND THEN YOU AND THAT YEAR'S BUDGET, YOU SAY, OKAY, IT'S MOVING IN NOW.

LET'S DO THE STUDIES.

THE STUDIES GET DONE THE NEXT YEAR YOU'RE FUNDING THEM BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE THE STUFF, YOU HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE THERE.

BUT ALL THE WHILE, WE'RE LOSING OUT ON RECRUITING COUNTIES, UPPING THEIR PAY.

WE'RE ASKING OFFICERS TO COME TO THIS DUNGEON OF A OF A OF A FACILITY.

THEY'RE SEEING THAT WE DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT POLICE OFFICERS.

WHAT DOES THAT SEND TO THE PUBLIC? WHY WOULD ANY BUSINESSES WANT TO COME HERE? BECAUSE WE DON'T OBVIOUSLY DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR POLICE FORCE.

HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE PROTECTED? SO, I MEAN, THERE'S BOTH SIDES TO YOUR ARGUMENT.

THE CITY MANAGER, I THOUGHT HAD A COMMENT.

YEAH. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO, TO GET OUT IS THAT IT'S A TWO YEAR PROCESS.

WHEN YOU DECIDE THAT YOU WANT TO BE READY TO ASK THE QUESTION OF THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE YOU ULTIMATELY GENERALLY WOULD TAKE SOMETHING LIKE THIS TO THE PUBLIC.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO. YOU COULD ISSUE A CO YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL COULD VOTE TO DO THAT.

BUT GENERALLY YOU TAKE THIS TO THE VOTERS AND THAT PROCESS IS ABOUT A YEAR LONG PROCESS IN AND OF ITSELF.

SO IF YOU THINK THAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON ISSUING DEBT IN 26 OR 27, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, WHICH IS WHY I DIDN'T PUSH BACK WHEN YOU ALL ASKED TO DO IT ORIGINALLY IN 24, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO START THE PROCESS IN 24 BECAUSE THAT'S A YEAR LONG PROCESS TO GET THE ASSESSMENT.

AND THEN YOU GOT A YEAR OF DESIGN IF YOU'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AFTER THAT.

AND IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU'RE GOING TO WAIT, THEN YOU GOT A YEAR OF PREP FOR THE BOND ELECTION CALL.

SO YOU'RE 26, 27 BEFORE YOU COULD ARGUABLY HAVE MONEY IN HAND TO BE TURNING DIRT IF YOU START IF YOU WANTED TO START TODAY.

SO HOW MUCH IN ROAD BONDS ARE YOU ANTICIPATING FOR THIS ONE? YEAH, THIS IS A PRIORITY FOR ME.

WE'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, SEALING THE CRACKS.

YOU SAVE YEARS, YOU PUT OFF HAVING A MILL AND OVERLAY FOR YEARS AND THEN.

YOU DO THAT AND THEN YOU PUT OFF HAVING TO TOTALLY REBUILD THE ROAD BY EVEN MORE YEARS AND YOU EXTEND THE LIFETIME OF THE ROADS AND IT PAYS OFF OVER TIME.

SO THIS IS A SMART INVESTMENT.

SO I'VE GOT ONE QUESTION.

WHAT ELSE ARE YOU WILLING TO.

YOU SAID. THIS IS NOT THE ONE I'D WANT TO CUT.

SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CUT? WELL, WE'VE GOT SOME MORE TIME FOR THIS ONE.

I HAVE TO FIND $1 MILLION WORTH.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER IT. I'M TRYING TO FIND $1 MILLION TO CUT.

ASKING FOR AN ANSWER. MORE OF, LIKE, A RHETORICAL QUESTION.

WE KEEP SAYING NO TO EVERY CUT, AND WE KEEP ADDING 800 GRAND TO IT WASN'T PLANNED.

THAT'S $0.02 RIGHT THERE.

SO. ALL RIGHT, START OUR DISCUSSION ON THE ROAD MAINTENANCE TO A MILLION.

HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MAYOR SNYDER. HI, COUNCIL MEMBER.

CLERK. DE MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON MAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, NÉ COUNCIL MEMBER KOEHLER, COUNCIL MEMBER WOLCOTT.

COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON. MOTION FAILS.

3 TO 4. OKAY.

SO I'D LIKE TO ASK, WE HAVEN'T REALLY CIRCLED BACK ON THE UNRESERVED BALANCE THAT WE HAD AND THE LAST TIME WE HAD TALKED AND DONE OUR KIND OF INITIAL VOTES, WE THOUGHT WE HAD 8 MILLION.

4.2 OF THAT WAS THE RESERVE.

AND SO WE HAD ABOUT JUST UNDER 3.8 MILLION LEFT OVER.

I HEARD TONIGHT THAT YOU FOUND ROUGHLY A MILLION OR MORE THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THAT.

IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT SURE THAT I FOUND I THINK IT WASN'T IN A DRAWER SOMEWHERE.

NO, I THINK I THINK ON AUGUST 24TH AT 3 A.M., WHEN WHEN COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON ASKED ME WHAT THE FUND BALANCE WAS, I THINK I DIDN'T ADD PROPERLY.

OKAY. BUT LET GO THROUGH THE CUSHIONS AND ALL THE COUCHES IN YOUR PACKET ON PAGE 1109, WHICH IS UNDER THE CONSENT PART OF THE AGENDA UNDER ITEM 13.1, WHICH IS THE THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE MONTH OF AUGUST.

WAS IT 1109? THAT'S THE SALES TAX PAGE.

UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE IT IN HERE.

THAT'S SALES TAX. IT'S AFTER THE SALES TAX PAGE.

I'M SHOWING THE SALES TAX AS 11 GENERAL FUND.

GENERAL FUND? YES.

ON THE GENERAL FUND PAGE, UNDER PROJECTED 930, THE BUDGETED RESERVES ARE 4.8 MILLION.

[04:30:03]

IF WE ADD THE 4.8 TO THE 4.5, I THINK THAT'S 9.3 TONIGHT.

I LOOKED AT THE SAME NUMBERS AT 3 A.M.

ON AUGUST 24TH FIFTH, AND I CAME UP WITH EIGHT TOO.

SO I'M SORRY THAT I GAVE YOU BAD DATA THAT NIGHT.

AND SO NOW IT'S 9.3.

IT WAS 9.3.

THEN. I JUST WASN'T THINKING.

BUT NOW WE'RE KNOWING IT'S 9.3 AND NOW WE KNOW IT'S 9.3.

AND THE OTHER COMPONENT OF THAT IS THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT WILL GO UP BECAUSE WE'VE ADDED APPROXIMATELY $2 MILLION TO THE.

TO THE BUDGET. SO OUR THE AMOUNT THAT WE NEED FOR RESERVES GOES UP.

IF OUR BUDGETED AMOUNT GOES UP.

THAT IS CORRECT IN THE CALCULATION OF THE UNRESERVED FUND OF THE RESERVE FUND BALANCE FOR 24 BUDGET BECAUSE YOU CALCULATE IT BASED ON TOTAL EXPENDITURES.

AND THAT'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR THOUGH.

WELL, IT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR BEFORE WE ADDED $2 MILLION TO THE.

OH, I SEE. TO THE TO THE BUDGET.

SO HOW MUCH MORE DOES IT BUMP IT UP? WELL, $2 MILLION INCREASES BY 400,000.

20% OF 40 BE 20% OF OF THAT NUMBER.

SO 400,000. WE WERE AT FOUR POINT, WHAT, 4.2? I THOUGHT. SO NOW WE'RE AT 4.6 NEEDED.

NOW IT'S 4.8, 10% PER THE CHARTER, 20%, 4.8.

WHAT THE BUDGET BUDGETARY POLICY ON THE DYESS SHALL HAVE A GREAT BIG ELEPHANT PAGE THAT TELLS ME WHAT TOTAL EXPENSE IS FOR GENERAL FUND.

CAN YOU PROVIDE ME WITH THAT NUMBER? EXPENDITURES EXPENDITURE FOR GENERAL FUND IT WAS 29,730,000.

AND THEN WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 2 MILLION.

2 MILLION, 2 MILLION, 2,000,026.

SO THEN THAT MAKES IT 31 MILLION TIMES 31 720%, 31 731 SEVEN.

SO IF WE TAKE 31 SEVEN SHOULD BE 6.2 MILLION, RIGHT? YOU'RE. YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT.

BUT RIGHT NOW, MY BRAIN'S NOT WORKING.

HOW ABOUT 6.4 AMOUNT? DIDN'T CHANGE. WELL, I GUESS BECAUSE YOU TOOK THAT ORIGINALLY YOU WERE TAKING THAT MONEY OUT OF THAT COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND.

CORRECT. OR IS THAT SITTING IN YOUR FUND? RIGHT. IS IT OKAY.

THAT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN IN THE REQUIREMENT.

SO PART OF IT IS WE INCREASED 189 FOR STREET MAINTENANCE.

THEN WE CAME BACK AND INCREASED ANOTHER 561 FOR STREET MAINTENANCE, AND THEN WE INCREASED 1.6 MILLION BECAUSE OF DURANGO FARM.

SO THAT'S WHERE THE 2 MILLION IS COMING FROM.

AND ACTUALLY, NOW THAT I THINK ABOUT IT, IT'S ACTUALLY MORE THAN THAT BECAUSE THE 189 AND THE 343 FROM THE TIME BEFORE.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER FIVE. THE 343 FROM THE TIME BEFORE IS ALREADY CALCULATED IN THIS.

29 SEVEN. YES.

OKAY. SO IF IF WE SAY OUR EXPECTED EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL FUND ARE 31.7 MILLION, 20% OF THAT WILL BE 6.3 MILLION, WHICH IS THE NEW CALCULATED RESERVE FUND BALANCE FOR GENERAL FUND.

SO THAT'S THE 20% THAT WE CAN'T TOUCH.

CORRECT. AND SO THEN 6.3 AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS 9.3.

SO WE HAVE 3 MILLION, CORRECT.

NOW, THE 9.3, I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT'S AN ESTIMATE SUBJECT TO CHANGE.

AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WILL BRING TO YOU THAT'S NOT FIGURED INTO THIS ON 928 IS THE BOND FUND IS NOW RECONCILED AND THE GENERAL FUND WILL HAVE TO PICK UP 500,000 IN INELIGIBLE BOND EXPENDITURES.

AND I HAVEN'T CALCULATED ALL THE YEAR END ENTRIES THAT ARE GOING ON RIGHT NOW, BUT IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE 9.3 WOULD DROP SLIGHTLY.

SO LISTENING TO ALL THE MATH.

IF COUNCIL MEMBER KOALAS VOTE TO REDUCE THE THE ROAD FEES DOWN TO A MILLION WOULD HAVE SAVED 500,000.

AND COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK'S PROPOSITION TO ADD A.

$3 PER ACCOUNT.

ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE TO A BILL WOULD GENERATE 500,000.

YOU COULD INFECT DROP YOUR PROPERTY TAX RATE DOWN, COVER UP THE DIFFERENCE, AND THEN YOU STILL HAVE ALL THE MONEY FOR.

THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FOR YOUR ROAD MAINTENANCE AT 1.5 MILLION AND NOT PULL DOWN THE.

THE RESERVE ANYMORE.

UM, I'M NOT TRACKING WITH YOUR MATH.

WHAT ARE YOU SAYING IS IF WE DID A $3 STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, THAT WOULD GENERATE 500,000.

SO THEN YOU WOULD SAVE 500,000.

SO THEN INSTEAD OF BEING AT 44, SIX, FIVE, SIX, SIX, YOU'D BE.

[04:35:05]

AND THEN FROM THERE YOU COULD PULL DOWN THE RESERVE FURTHER IF YOU WANTED TO, TO OFFSET ONE OR THE OTHER.

YOU KNOW, I JUST I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE RESERVE GETTING PULLED DOWN ANY FURTHER THAN WHAT WE ALREADY KIND OF ARE AT UNTIL WE START SELLING LAND AND REIMBURSING OURSELVES. THAT'S THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.

SO SO I THINK WHAT I HEARD, WE WERE AT 2,027,000 AND I THINK YOU SAID WE WANT TO DECREASE STREET MAINTENANCE FOR FROM 1.5 MILLION DOWN TO A MILLION.

BUT THAT FAILED. THAT FAILED.

THAT FAILED. WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE WANT TO TAKE A I JUST WANTED TO SEE THE A NUMBER.

IF WE DID A $3 STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

OKAY. THAT WOULD COVER THAT 500,000 THAT SHE WANTED TO TAKE OUT OF THE BUDGET, PUTTING TOO MANY BUCKETS.

FOR ONE THING, IT'S FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES AND A FEE ON THE UTILITY.

I'M JUST NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT.

IT'S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER.

SPLIT IT DOWN THE MIDDLE.

IT'S THE SAME THING.

THAT'S MY OPINION. SO WITH A $3 FEE, THAT WOULD EQUATE TO A HALF $1 MILLION, THAT DROPS THE NEED TO 1.5.

RIGHT. SO OUT OF THE 1.5, YOU'RE THINKING YOU WANT TO FUND HOW MUCH OF THAT FROM FUND BALANCE? NO, I WAS JUST SAYING THAT WOULD BE HOW MUCH TAX RATE? THAT WOULD BE WHAT? OH, ON THE TAX RATE, 1.5 WOULD EQUATE TO 3.3 CENTS.

SO YOUR TAX RATE WOULD BE 43.5 602 CENTS.

SO THEN YOU'D NEED ANOTHER YOU NEED ANOTHER PENNY OF RESERVES IN ORDER TO GET DOWN TO THE 42.

AND A PENNY IS WORTH 456,500, HALF A MILLION DOWN.

LET'S OPEN THE FLOOR UP TO ANY MOTIONS, OTHERWISE.

THE TAX RATE IS 44.6566.

43 KNOW THAT BECAUSE THAT MOTION HASN'T BEEN MADE YET.

THE CURRENT EXISTING ONE. OKAY.

SORRY. THAT WAS A LOT SAID, SO I COULDN'T REALLY FOLLOW IT.

BUT I'M JUST LIKE I.

I CANNOT SUPPORT ANYTHING HIGHER THAN 42 OR LIKE, WHATEVER.

WHATEVER I SAID EARLIER. THEN HOW ARE YOU GOING TO FUND IT? WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO CUT? WELL, I WAS HOPING I WAS GOING TO GET THERE WITH THE HALF A MILLION AND WE NEED TO DO A MILLION.

IF WE CAN GET DOWN ON A MILLION, I THINK WE'D BE GOOD.

SO. SO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR 500.

YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. I'M LOOKING FOR A MILLION.

ONLY A MILLION IN OVERAGES ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE.

AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT 2 MILLION.

THIS IS WHY I MEAN, IF YOU SAY YOU DON'T WANT TO SPLIT IT, IF YOU DID A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE, YOU'D BE AT NO NEW REVENUE AND YOU'D BE AT THE BUT WE'D BE CHARGING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. DOUBLE, DOUBLE, NO, TWO POTS.

SO, SO SO YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST SAYING LET'S CHARGE A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE SO WE CAN SAY WE GOT TO NO NEW REVENUE? NO, BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF IT IS, IS EVERY TIME SOMEONE'S HOUSE GOES UP IN VALUE, YOU'RE CHARGING THEM MORE MONEY FOR.

FOR WHAT? IT DIDN'T CAUSE THE ROAD.

THE FIX. THE ROAD DIDN'T GO UP TO STAFF.

THE LIBRARY DIDN'T GO UP.

AND SO PEOPLE GET TO WHERE OUR HOUSE MAY GO UP ANOTHER 20% IN THE NEXT YEAR.

AND SO YOU JUST PAY MORE.

WHEREAS IF YOU TAKE THE MONEY AND YOU EARMARK IT LIKE THE TRASH GOES TO THE TRASH, THE THEN WHY NOT DO THE WHOLE THING DRAINAGE? I MEAN, TO ME, I'D LOVE TO DO THE WHOLE PART OF IT.

TO ME, IT'S EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER, RIGHT? SO YOU EITHER WANT OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE HAVE TO BE FOR US TO STAY AT NO NEW REVENUE.

OH, IS THAT THE QUESTION OR IS IT? WHAT WOULD THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE HAVE TO BE TO COLLECT 1.5 MILLION? THAT'S WHAT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING ME IS YOU WANT A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE THAT WOULD EQUATE TO 2 MILLION, $27,000 AND YOU WOULD WANT THAT FEE 1.5 MILLION.

WELL, I THINK.

WELL, WE KNOW IT'S SIX GIVES YOU A MILLION, BUT YOU WANT TO KNOW TO GET TO KNOW.

YEAH. SO SHE WANTS TO KNOW.

OH, GOTCHA. YES.

WHAT DOES THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE GOT TO BE TO GET TO 2 MILLION? 27,000. WELL, IT CAN'T BE BECAUSE WE ONLY BUDGETED 1.5 FOR ROADS, RIGHT? YEAH, WE ONLY.

WE ONLY HAVE A DEFICIT OF 561,000.

ASKED A QUESTION AND THEN WE GET THE ANSWER.

YOU CAN DISAGREE WITH. SO YOU WANT TO JUST.

OKAY. REARRANGE EVERYTHING TO 2 MILLION.

27,000. AND I ASSUME THAT YOU WANT TO CHARGE THIS FEE ON UNITS.

[04:40:07]

FIVE BY 12, BUT THAT MEANS WE'RE FUNDING $2 MILLION FOR ROAD.

THAT'S WHY I SAID WE'LL GET THERE IN A SEC.

OKAY. YES.

OKAY. WE'RE JUST GETTING THE NUMBERS. OKAY.

YEAH. $11.41 PER MONTH PER UNIT? NOPE. YEAH.

SO WHAT DOES IT NEED TO BE TO GET 1.5 MILLION 840? 25% LESS? 844 844.

844. SO IF WE DO THAT AND WE TAKE 1.5 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET, WHAT'S OUR TAX RATE? IF YOU TAKE 1.5 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET.

41.3672. OKAY.

I THINK YOU SOLD ME. SAME DIFF? PRETTY MUCH.

AND IT'S 1:00 AND THE ADVANTAGE OF THAT, I STARTED THE AGENDA JUST SAYING.

NOW THE GOOD NEWS IS IT GETS FASTER.

SO WHAT IS THAT? AND SO WHAT? SO $0.41.

THAT'S IF WE DID. WHAT IF WE DID AN $8 AND 44 CENT ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE SO WE'D STILL BE DOING BOTH.

WE HAVEN'T EVEN TALKED ABOUT THE WATER INCREASE.

RIGHT? WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR TONIGHT.

YEAH, THAT THAT IS WHEN WE DISCUSS.

YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT THAT FUTURE FOR SURE, BUT LIKE, JUST TO KNOW IN THE FUTURE IT'S GOING TO BE A MONTHLY INCREASE AS WELL ON ON.

SO LET'S SAY IT WOULD BE 100 MAXIMUM $20 FOR THE 40 $0.01 TAX RATE.

THAT WOULD BE $105 PER YEAR FOR A NON FOR A HOMESTEADED PERSON INCREASE AND A NON HOMESTEADED WOULD DROP THEIR TAX RATE $450 TAX BILL TAX BILL WHICH GIVES YOU A BLENDED ACROSS ALL HOMEOWNERS A $9 DECREASE.

ON THEIR TAX BILL ACROSS ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE $8.44.

ROAD FEE, WHICH MEANS GOING FORWARD, THE FUTURE, OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE IS THEN SECURED GOING FORWARD.

WHAT'S IT DO TO THE COMMERCIAL PEOPLE WHOSE PROPERTY VALUES WENT UP 40%? HM. WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THAT.

SO HOMES DROP 15%.

BUT COMMERCIAL IN THIS AREA AND THIS IS SOMETHING, A PREDICTION THAT COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON CAME UP WITH LAST YEAR.

SO COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WAS UP 40 TO 60% IN THIS AREA, AND SOME PEOPLE HAVE ATTRIBUTED THAT TO THE SAMSUNG EFFECT.

IF THAT EFFECT GOES AWAY AND THAT PROPERTY DROPS NEXT YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO BE IN A WORLD OF HURT WHEN IT COMES TO TAXES BECAUSE JUST LIKE THIS YEAR, THE REASON THE HOMESTEAD IS PAYING MONEY ON ANNUITY REVENUE IS BECAUSE LAST YEAR THEY GOT THE CUT IN A NON HOMESTEAD, DIDN'T GET THE CUT AND THIS YEAR WE GOT 10% HOMESTEAD UP NON HOMESTEAD DOWN 15 AND COMMERCIAL UP 40.

NEXT YEAR COMMERCIAL DROPS 20%.

THAT'S GOING TO NEXT YEAR.

COMMERCIAL UNDER 5 MILLION WILL BE CAPPED AT 20%.

BUT IF IT DROPS, IT'S LIKE EVERYTHING EVERY TIME NON HOMESTEAD OR COMMERCIAL DROPS IN VALUE HOMESTEAD STILL GOING UP FOR MOST PEOPLE 10% A YEAR.

BUT WITH SAMSUNG COMING IN, WHY WOULD YOU THINK COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO DROP IN THIS AREA? EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING COMES UP.

IT'S LIKE A GOLD RUSH. EVERYBODY THINKS THEY'VE GOT TO BE HERE.

THEN INTEREST RATES COME UP, IT STARTS TO CALM DOWN.

AND THEN BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, PEOPLE ARE MORE REASONABLE WITH PRICING AND THE MARKET CHANGES.

BUT LIKE, WHAT POINT ARE YOU TRYING TO MAKE? I'M JUST SAYING BE READY FOR NEXT YEAR.

THAT WHEN YOU SAY, WELL, IT'S ONLY A $100 INCREASE FOR HOMESTEAD PEOPLE THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR, IF PRICES SOFTEN MORE, WHICH THEY ALREADY ARE AND COMMERCIAL SOFTENS HOMESTEAD, PEOPLE'S TAXES GO UP AND COMMERCIAL IS GOING TO COME DOWN BECAUSE EVERY INCREASE WE DO TODAY IS AN INCREASE.

THEIR HOMESTEAD, THEY'RE CAPPED AT 10% MAX NEXT YEAR.

IF NON HOMESTEAD GOES, IF PROPERTY VALUES DROP ACROSS THE BOARD HOMESTEAD AND PEOPLE'S TAXES WILL PROBABLY STILL GOING TO GO UP BECAUSE THEY'LL GET A 10% INCREASE, NON HOMESTEADED PEOPLE WILL GO DOWN BECAUSE THEY'VE STILL GOT TO GET BACK TOGETHER AND THEN COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

I MEAN, IT REPRESENTS WHAT PERCENT OF OUR PROPERTY TAX IS COMMERCIAL NOW.

IT'S OVER 50%, I THINK, NOW, ISN'T IT? I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT HIGH. I DON'T THINK SO, NO.

I'D HAVE TO GO LOOK, BUT I THINK YOU'RE FORGETTING THAT THERE'S AN ELECTION IN NOVEMBER WHERE THE VOTERS WILL DECIDE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE A $100,000 HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

THAT'S NOT ON THAT'S ON CITY TAXES.

THAT'S ONLY ON ISD. THAT'S ON ISD.

OH, I THOUGHT IT WAS ON CITY ALSO.

[04:45:01]

WEIRDER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED.

SO WHAT ARE YOU GUYS GOING TO DO? WE'RE GOING WITH THE 44, SIX, FIVE, SIX SIX TAX RATE.

ARE WE DOING SOME ROAD FEES OR WHAT'S.

I CAN'T DO 44.

AGREED. SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO CUT, SIR? ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. LET'S GO.

LET ME CLICK. I'M.

WELL, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SO I'M OKAY WITH 42, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO ABOVE THAT.

UM, ALL RIGHT, FINE.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO SET A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE AT $8.44 PER UNIT.

UM, AND DIRECT THAT THAT 1.5 MILLION BE PUT INTO THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND AND THAT WE REDUCE THE OVERALL FUND TO GET US TO A TAX RATE OF WHAT DID YOU SAY? 41 3.4136720.41.

3672. YEP.

IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND.

OR NOT. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION.

DO WE HAVE A LIST OF WHAT ROADS WE'RE GOING TO DO? BECAUSE I KNOW WHEN I SUPPORT THIS BEFORE, IS IT SOMEWHERE ON THE WEBSITE WHERE WE CAN SHARE WITH PEOPLE? I NEED TO GET TO THE WEBSITE MORE OFTEN.

YEAH, I CAN REPEAT THE MOTION.

YEAH. YEAH. REPEAT THE MOTION.

YEAH. THE MOTION IS TO SET THE TAX RATE AT 0.413672.

AND TO IMPLEMENT A $8 AND 44 CENT PER UNIT.

ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE, $8.41.

44. I THOUGHT I HEARD 844.

THAT WOULD FUND.

THE 1.5 MILLION WE WOULD NEED IN THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

RIGHT. SO WHERE WOULD I FIND THAT? ASK HIM RIGHT NOW. HE LOOKED EARLIER.

IS THIS A PROBLEM I HAVE WITH OUR WEBSITE IS I ALWAYS THINK I KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

AND THEN I LOOK AND I FIND I MISINTERPRETED WHAT HE SAID.

I'M SORRY. THE ROAD REPORT'S NOT ON THE WEBSITE YET.

IT'S THE SURVEY THAT'S ON THE REPORT.

OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'S ON THE WEBSITE.

SO AS I SAID BEFORE, WE NEED TO MAKE IT MORE.

WELL, AS I SAID BEFORE, I WAS WILLING TO SUPPORT IT ON THE SECOND TIME AROUND, ASSUMING WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE WEBSITE, SHOW PEOPLE WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO GET, WHAT THIS 844 GOES TO, BECAUSE IF WE PASS IT IN MY MIND AND WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THE LIST LATER OR THE PLAN AND ALL THAT, I CAN'T SUPPORT THAT.

I CAN ONLY SUPPORT CONCRETE BECAUSE EVERYBODY KEEPS PAYING MONEY AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING NOTHING OUT OF IT.

SO YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE LIST THAT WAS EXACTLY PREPARED AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DELIVERING IS FROM THE LIST DIRECTLY.

SO I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY CONTINGENT UPON THE PUBLISHING OF THE ROAD LIST.

I THOUGHT THAT WE DID IT.

BUT FOR ME, I MEAN, I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR.

WE NEED TO KNOW, I GUESS, WHAT IS WHAT'S ON THE PRIORITY LIST FOR THIS 1.5 EARMARK? UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS BECAUSE THE 40 $0.01 TAX AND THE FEE TOGETHER IS THE 4044 TOTAL.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH IT.

YEAH, I'VE MADE I'VE MADE IT I'VE MADE ATTEMPTS BEFORE TO REDUCE.

BUT YEAH, YEAH.

WHEN I WAS SUPPORTING IT BEFORE, MY INTENTION WAS WE WOULD BE AT NO NEW REVENUE AND A LITTLE BIT I WAS OKAY WITH BEING AT NO NEW REVENUE AND A LITTLE BIT OVER WITH THE FEE BECAUSE I DO FEEL LIKE.

COST OF LIVING IN THE GHETTO IS GOING TO GO UP.

BUT I'M TRYING TO MINIMIZE WHAT BUCKETS ARE GOING.

BUT I CAN'T RAISE I CAN'T GO ABOVE I CAN'T RAISE PEOPLE'S PROPERTY TAXES AND RAISE FEES AT THE SAME TIME BECAUSE.

I WAS HOPING FOR NO INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES AS A NET AND YOU'D PAY LIKE FIVE BUCKS A MONTH IN FEES.

SO THEN THE ONLY THEN THEN IF THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE AT, THEN THE QUESTION IS, DO WE HAVE TO GO MULTI STEP ON THE POLICE TO 75%? BECAUSE IF WE WENT FROM 50 TO 65%, IT WOULD GO FROM 800 TO PROBABLY.

450, WHICH IS BETTER THAN BEING AT 50%.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT OTHER WHERE YOU WANT TO GET BECAUSE IN YOUR EXAMPLE, THEN WE GOT TO CUT 500,000 OUT.

I MADE LIKE FOUR ATTEMPTS AT CUTTING CLOSE TO THAT OUT AND THEY'VE ALL FAILED.

AND SO YOU GUYS GOT BETTER IDEAS THAN I DO.

I'VE ALREADY USED UP MY ONE GOOD ONE.

AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT THIS UNTIL WE BECAUSE AGAIN, WE HAVE STUFF IN MY OPINION, THEY'RE ONCE THEY'RE NOT NEEDS.

AND PEOPLE CAN TELL ME THAT I'M WRONG AND THAT'S FINE.

[04:50:02]

THAT SURVEY RESULT AND MAYBE WE KNOW BETTER THAN PEOPLE, MAYBE THEY DON'T KNOW THE WHOLE STORY AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE A DIFFERENT EVEN.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE PICTURE OF THAT SATURDAY WHERE THEY LISTED ALL THE THINGS YOU HAD.

WHAT WAS A POSITION, JAMES? YOU HAD THE THE MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST WAS NUMBER ONE POLICE PARODY PAID NUMBER TWO, INCREASED POLICE OFFICERS, NUMBER THREE AND EVERYTHING ELSE WAY DOWN HERE.

AND WE FUNDED FOR FOUR FTES IN A POSITION THAT WAS THE VERY FAR RIGHT.

I GOT LIKE THREE STICKERS.

THESE OVER HERE HAD LIKE 30 STICKERS.

AND SO WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO PEOPLE.

AND SO WE'RE MAKING UP OUR MINDS AND WE ASK PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE IN ACTIVITY AND THEN WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH IT.

AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES BECAUSE WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO THEM.

SO WE DO NO NEW REVENUE.

IT'S 1141 STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

THAT'S IF YOU DON'T CUT ANYTHING.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT WE'RE NOT LISTENING TO PEOPLE.

I DON'T THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE THE THE IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A STATEMENT LIKE THAT, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PAPERS WITH THE STICKERS.

I WOULDN'T GO OFF OF YOUR, YOU KNOW, MISCHARACTERIZATION OF US NOT LISTENING TO THE CITIZENS.

I'D ACTUALLY LIKE TO SEE THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO BRING THAT UP.

SO, JAMES, IF YOU HAVE THOSE PAPERS, WHICH I DON'T THINK YOU DO, BUT IF YOU HAVE THOSE PAPERS, I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM.

BUT I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

MENTAL HEALTH SPECIALIST GOT THREE SIX.

SO. SO NINE RED STICKERS.

I'D RATHER STAY ON TASK.

SO THAT'S ALREADY REALLY LATE IF IF I CAN RESPOND TO THAT.

SO I'M THE ONE THAT DEVELOPED THE BUDGET.

SO WHEN YOU SAY WE, YOU MEAN CITY MANAGER.

AND WHAT I DID DO WAS LOOK AT THE REQUESTS THAT CAME IN AND I DID ADDRESS THOSE BECAUSE THESE THINGS INFORM THE OVERALL DECISION AND THAT'S WHAT I DID. SO THE ONES THAT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN FIND ANYTHING THAT GOT A LOT OF INTEREST FROM THE FROM THIS SPECIFIC EXERCISE THAT DID NOT MAKE ITS WAY INTO THE BUDGET, BUT I INCLUDED OTHER THINGS TOO, THAT I ALSO KNOW IS IMPORTANT, I.E.

MENTAL HEALTH. SO JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING DIDN'T SCORE WELL IN ANY ONE PARTICULAR FACET DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT OUGHT NOT TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE BUDGET BECAUSE THERE ARE THINGS FROM THE SURVEY THAT ARE IN THE BUDGET.

THERE ARE THINGS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS DISCUSSED THAT'S IN THE BUDGET THERE.

SO ALL THESE THINGS INFORMED WHAT THE FINAL BUDGET PROPOSITION WAS.

AND AND I KNEW I HAD PROVIDED THE LIST.

I WAS JUST MISTAKEN WHERE IT WAS BECAUSE THE SPREADSHEET OF THE LIST WITH ALL THE ROADS AND SEGMENTS AND ALL THAT STUFF IS ACTUALLY ATTACHED TO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE ITEM INSIDE A CLEAR GOV. SO IF YOU HAD, IF YOU OPEN THE ATTACHMENT, THE FILE ATTACHMENT, YOU HAVE TO GO INTO THE ACTUAL ONE YOU HAVE TO LOG INTO.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ATTACHMENT FOR THAT ROAD MAINTENANCE LINE, EVERY SEGMENT OF ROAD AND, AND ALL THE DATA IS ACTUALLY ON THAT SPREADSHEET AND ATTACHED TO THAT ITEM SO THAT IT IS THERE, BUT IT'S NOT ON THE WEBSITE IN A WAY THAT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH IS VERY NICE AND CLEAR AND EASY FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ SOMETHING TO GO THROUGH 1200 PAGES.

AND TO BE CLEAR, I'M NOT SAYING YOU THIS IS US BECAUSE YOU PRESENT A BUDGET.

IT'S OUR JOB TO DIG THROUGH AND FIGURE OUT WHAT PRIORITIES ARE AND SEND IT BACK TO YOU.

AND SO THIS ISN'T A DEAL, BECAUSE IF IT WAS, I MEAN, WE'D ALL BE SAYING, JAMES, FIND 2 MILLION, $27,000 AND MAKE IT HAPPEN.

BUT IT'S OKAY.

IT'S US. BUT OKAY, SO THE MOTION IS TO MAKE THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE 844 PER UNIT.

AND TAKING OUT 1.5 MILLION OUT OF THE BUDGET ON A ROAD MAINTENANCE AND SUBSTITUTING THIS FEE WITH THAT AND THE POSTING OF THE LIST ON THE WEBSITE SOUND RIGHT? YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MEMBER THORNTON. NAY.

COUNCIL MEMBER? NO.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CLARK.

I. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, NÉ.

COUNCIL MEMBER. NAME.

MAYOR SNYDER. NAY.

MOTION FAILS.

2 TO 5.

OKAY. I'M GOING TO BE I'M GOING TO BE BOLD HERE, FOLKS.

SO I HAVE THREE THINGS.

I'M GOING TO MAKE ANOTHER ATTEMPT.

I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND DOWN TO 1.2 MILLION.

THAT'S 300.

I WOULD LIKE TO REDUCE THE BUSINESS RESOURCE SPECIALIST UNDER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WHICH APPROXIMATELY 100,000.

YOU ALL TELL ME THE REAL NUMBER ON THAT IS 75 ON WHAT I'M SEEING AND REDUCING THE PD FROM 800

[04:55:01]

OKAY. I DIDN'T CATCH ALL THOSE.

SO REDUCE WHAT STREET MAINTENANCE? REDUCE STREET MAINTENANCE TO 1.2 MILLION.

REDUCE BUSINESS RESOURCE SPECIALIST.

FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO REDUCED RESOURCE SPECIALIST LIKE CUT IT OUT.

LIKE CUT THAT POSITION.

YEAH, YEAH.

CUT OUT THE POSITION NEW POSITION AND REDUCE THE PD.

PAY PARITY FROM 800 TO 600.

YOU HAD ME UNTIL THE LAST ONE.

MAYOR. I GUESS $0.02 OF IT IS YOU.

I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO BE LIKE KILLING ME, BUT $0.02 IS YOU, RIGHT? WHAT IS THAT? PULL US UP. SO THAT'S A PLUS UP OF 600 APPROXIMATELY, DEPENDING ON THAT.

THAT, THAT FTE, WHAT WAS THE PD AT.

MINUS TWO. -200 WE DID.

SO WE'RE STILL GIVING THEM 600.

OKAY. BUSINESS RESOURCE SPECIALIST IS HOW MUCH I DIDN'T MAKE.

I HAVE I HAVE IT IN FOR 94,890.

OKAY. 94 WE'RE JUST GOING TO CALL IT 95, 95.

AND THEN WE'RE REDUCING STREET MAINTENANCE BY 300 AND THE POLICE IS REDUCING BY 200.

WHAT'S THE MATH ON THAT? BECAUSE I ROUNDED UP ON THAT.

595. RIGHT.

WHAT IS THAT AT 595? OKAY. THANK YOU MY FINGERS.

595 CHENEY COUNCIL MEMBER IS IS THEY'RE JUST ASKING, IS THERE ANOTHER POSITION THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT POTENTIALLY CUTTING? BECAUSE I DO SEE A LOT OF VALUE WITH THAT WITH THAT POSITION THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE EDC BOARD AS WELL. OKAY. LIKE I SAID, I'M MAKING A BOLD STATEMENT.

I DIDN'T GET A SECOND, DID I? HOLD ON. WE'RE DISCUSSING A MOTION WITHOUT HAVING A SECOND.

SO FOR ALL WE KNOW, THIS IS GOING TO DIE.

DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SECOND THIS MOTION? OKAY. HEARING NONE. IT'S DIED.

NOT WITH THAT FTE.

OKAY, THEN. I'LL THANK YOU FOR BEING BOLD ON THAT.

DANG IT. OKAY, SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DO TWO OF THE TWO OF THE THREE THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED.

REDUCING THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

STREET MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM TO 1.2 MILLION AND REDUCING THE POLICE LINE TO 600 FROM 800 K.

I'LL SECOND THAT. YEAH.

A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, SECONDED BY COUNCILOR WILLCOTT.

THAT'S A TOTAL OF 500.

OKAY, WE'LL GET THIS STRAIGHT.

YOU GUYS WOULD RATHER, INSTEAD OF PAY THEM MORE MONEY, THE OFFICERS, YOU'D RATHER PAY THEM SOME MORE AND THEN SPEND MONEY ON. SPEND MONEY ON A STUDY ABOUT A NEW BUILDING INSTEAD OF PAYING THEM MORE MONEY.

I WOULD RATHER PAY THEM A AMOUNT THAT WE CAN MANAGE VERSUS SOMEONE JUST PULLING OUT 800 K OUT OF THIN AIR AND US TRYING TO REWORK A BUDGET TO TRY AND STAY UNDER SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY WANTS TO DO A CERTAIN TAX RATE AT.

SO YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE AND BRINGING PEOPLE HERE, INCENTIVIZING POLICE OFFICERS HERE IS MORE THAN JUST STRICTLY PAY.

IT IS IT IS THEM KNOWING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE NICE FACILITIES TO WORK IN AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF.

IT IS NOT JUST STRICTLY PAY GRADE.

WOULD YOU BE FAVORABLE TO AN AMENDMENT TO DOING THE PD AT 500? SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET A HALF $1 MILLION INSTEAD OF THE 600.

SO 500.

SO WE'RE GOING TO TAKE IT DOWN ANOTHER 100 MILLION.

I MEAN, SO TAKING IT, I SAID FROM 8 TO 6.

SO I WOULD LIKE EIGHT FROM FIVE, EIGHT TWO 8 TO 5.

IF YOU WERE FAVORABLE TO THAT AMENDMENT, THAT'S HALF $1 MILLION TO GIVE TO THE PD AND ONE ONE FISCAL YEAR.

THAT'S GREAT.

UM. OKAY, FINE.

COUNCILMAN WOLCOTT, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT? I AM. YEAH, THAT'S A GOOD START.

STILL. AND I'M SO SORRY BECAUSE IT WAS WHAT IT WAS RIGHT NOW THEY WERE.

SO THIS IS 600 K OFF TOTAL ON THIS MOTION.

NOW, LET'S SEE IF IT GETS US TO WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

OKAY? SO THE EFFECT OF THIS THEN IS THAT THE REQUEST BEFORE WAS TO GET HIM TO THE 75TH PERCENTILE, WHICH IS ESTIMATED AT 100.

BUT YOU WANT TO CAP IT AT 500.

AND SO IT'S GET THEM TO WHATEVER PERCENTILE, 500 EQUATES TO GET THEM CLOSE TO THAT, SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN 50TH AND 75TH.

[05:00:07]

IT WAS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE WHICH COMPUTED TO 800,000.

NO, IT WAS ACTUALLY PULLED OUT OF THIN AIR BECAUSE.

800. THE 800,000.

YES, THAT WAS A SWAG.

I THOUGHT HE JUST DID THE MATH AND SAID IT WAS RIGHT AT 800.

WHAT I SAID WAS, WELL, WE GUESSED 800 AND I GUESS BASED OFF OF GOOD METHODOLOGY, BUT I STILL DOES.

AND THEN AIR RAN THE NUMBER WHICH WAS 494,000 FOR JUST THE SALARIES.

YEAH. SO THEN YOU ADD IN 35% FOR BENEFITS AND ANOTHER 10 OR 15% FOR OVERTIME AND THAT GETS YOU UP TO 800,000.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE.

I GUESS I GET CONFUSED OUT OF THIN AIR.

IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMEONE DID A SWAG.

AND YOU'RE TELLING ME YOU GUYS DID THE NUMBERS AND IT'S REALLY CLOSE.

YOU DID A NUMBERS JUSTIFY THE ESTIMATION THAT I GAVE YOU? OKAY. BEFORE I HAD THE NUMBERS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IT'S THE HARDEST WAY TO WRITE A BUDGET I'VE EVER SEEN.

I DON'T DISAGREE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? STREET MAINTENANCE DOWN TO 1.2 AND HPD TO 500 K.

WHATEVER PERCENT THAT IS.

ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOCK, I.

MAYOR SCHNEIDER. NEY, MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON I COUNCIL MEMBER.

KOHLER. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER.

THOMPSON. AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CLARK.

AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON.

NAY. MOTION PASSES FIVE TO.