[12.1. Consideration and possible action on approval of Resolution No. R-2023-294 amending the City Council Protocol Policy adopted on May 19, 2022 (City Council)]

>> THANK YOU. >> LET US MOVE ITEM 12 UP .

>> ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON 22394 AMENDING THE PROTOCOL POLL OF MAY, 2022.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. AS PRESENTED 12.1

>> SECOND. >> BASED ON CURRENT PROTOCOLS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO TAKE A VOTE. BASED ON THE FACT THAT

NOBODY HAS SPOKEN ON IT. >> IS THERE A PRESENTATION BY

LEGAL? >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL WE DID HAVE OUR MEETING. AND I DID PROVIDE THE CORRECTIONS IN THE COPY. BUT I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ADDITIONAL CORRECTIONS. BUT I DID NOTICE ON ONE . MAKE SURE IT IS CITY MANAGER AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS IN THERE TWICE. ON PAGE SIX. IT SEEMS LIKE IT WAS A TYPO. THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR ADDING SOMETHING ON OBSCENITY. THE CASE LAW INDICATES THAT THERE IS A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. IF YOU'RE USING IT TO ADDRESS THE GOVERNMENT. THERE IS NO OBSCENITY RIGHT TO USE OBSCENITY. WITHOUT LINKING IT TO YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT.

ALSO FIGHTING WORDS YOU CAN DISRUPT THE MEETING AND TO BE REMOVED. THE WAY I WROTE THAT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE CASE

LAW. >> THANK YOU.

>> THOMPSON? >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS. AND COUNCILMEMBER GORDON . FOR YOUR WORK ON UPDATING OUR

PROTOCOLS. >> COUNCILMEMBER AMBERLEY KOLA?

>> THANK YOU. AND ALSO GETTING US TOGETHER ON A WORKSHOP TO WORK THROUGH SOME THINGS. ALSO TO LEGAL. THANK YOU

>> NOTHING FOR ME. THANK YOU. CLEAN THIS UP AND MAKING IT

BETTER THAN IT WAS. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. IT CAME TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND IT SEEMED LIKE WE

[01:35:01]

WERE TRYING TO LIMIT WHAT PEOPLE CAN OR CANNOT SAY. IT SEEMED TO BE AGAINST THE TEXAS OPEN MEETING SECT . IF SOMEBODY CAME UP AND A CITIZEN VIOLATED THE CITY COUNCIL PROTOCOLS.

WHAT HAPPENS? >> I THINK IT LEADS TO THE FACT THAT YOU ARE DISRUPTING THE MEETING. AND YOU ARE ABLE TO ASK THAT PERSON TO LEAVE OR BE REMOVED. DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL OF THEIR CONDUCT. IT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY IN THEIR. BUT THAT IS THE RIGHT. THE ONE I REFERRED TO ABOUT OBSCENITY. I WROTE IT WITH ALL PERSONS IN ATTENDANCE ARE EXPECTED TO DISPLAY CIVILITY AND DECORUM THAT IS RESPECTFUL TO OTHER PERSONS WITHOUT USING PROFANE OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGES. PUBLIC COMMENT WILL NOT NOT BE USED FOR PUBLIC ATTACK. WITH YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT IT WILL BE USED TO BRING UP WHATEVER IT IS THAT YOU WANT THE COUNCIL TO ADDRESS. NOT TO BE USED IN AN ABUSIVE OR FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS.

>> IN MY READING OF IT, THEY TEXAS OPEN ACT IS ALLOWING A PERSON TO CRITICIZE. I THINK IT IS TOUGH FOR US TO DETERMINE WHO IS ABUSIVE. BECAUSE I MIGHT BE REALLY SENSITIVE . I THINK THAT PERSON IS ABUSIVE TO ME. BUT THE TEXAS MEETING ACT ALLOWS PEOPLE TO SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO.

>> IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANYBODY FROM EXERCISING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. IT JUST LEADS TO WHAT THE EXPECTATION IS.

USED TO QUORUM. BE RESPECTFUL . DO NOT USE INSULTING, PROFANE, THREATENING OR ABUSIVE LANGUAGE. YOU CAN USE OBSCENITY IN CONNECTION WITH EXERCISING YOUR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. YOU CANNOT JUST START HURLING OBSCENITIES IN A PUBLIC MEETING TO DISRUPT THE MEETING. AND ALSO PERSONAL ATTACKS IS ALSO PUT IN JUST TO REMIND THE PUBLIC. WE EXPECT DECORUM AT OUR MEETINGS. AND PEOPLE CAN PRESENT THEIR STATEMENTS IN A MANNER THAT CAN BE RECEIVED AND UNDERSTOOD.

>> IS AS PUBLIC COMMENT WILL NOT BE USED FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS. THE WAY I READ IT. THAT YOU CANNOT BUT IF SOMEBODY DOES. I DO NOT KNOW WHAT WE SHOULD DO? MAYBE THE PUBLIC IS ENCOURAGED NOT TO USE PUBLIC COMMENT FOR A PERSONAL ATTACK.

BUT IT IS NOT A BIG THING FOR ME . OR PERHAPS FOR THE REST OF THE

COUNCIL? >> WE CAN LEAVE THAT OUT.

>> WE SHOULD EXPECT DECORUM . WHEN SERVING THE COMMUNITY.

>> ASSUMING THAT COMES UP. IF THEY SAY THAT THAT PERSON IS A HORRIBLE PERSON AND BAD FOR SOCIETY.

>> THEY WOULD HAVE TO SAY IT IN A WAY THAT THEY ARE ASKING YOU SOMETHING TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN YOUR GOVERNMENT POWERS. THAT IS THERE PUBLIC RIGHT. THEY CANNOT JUST START HURLING PUBLIC ATTACKS. THAT IS NOT THE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC AT A MEETING FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. IF IT IS A NON-AGENDA ITEM. IT IS NOT JUST TO BE USED TO STAND UP AND HURL PERSONAL ATTACKS. NOW, IF THEY DO? THERE SHOULD BE A REMINDER THAT THEY ARE BEING DISRUPTIVE OF THE MEETING. IF IT GETS TO FIGHTING WORDS? THERE ARE WAYS THAT YOU CAN DEAL WITH THAT. BUT I CANNOT OUTLINE EVERY SINGLE PERSONAL ATTACK AND WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT IS WHATEVER OCCURS AND THE LEVEL THAT IS ADDRESSED TO THE PERSON.

TO COMMENT ON THE AGENDA ITEM OR THE NON-AGENDA ITEM THAT IS

WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. >> THAT IS WHY I AM CONCERNED.

EACH OF OUR VIEWS OF WHAT IS RIGHT OR WHAT IS WRONG. WHEN I READ THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT PAGE 43 OF IT. THEY SAY THAT A CERTAIN SECTIONS HAS ENTITLED MEMBERS TO PUBLICLY SPEAK ABOUT

[01:40:04]

ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. TALKING ABOUT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT IN THERE. WE CAN LIMIT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF TIME THAT THE PUBLIC CAN ADDRESS THE GIVEN BODY. BUT IN SUCH RULES WE CANNOT DISCRIMINATE AMONG SPEAKERS FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW. SECTION 5 FOR OR AGAINST A PARTICULAR POINT OF VIEW.

SECTION 5.5.7 A GOVERNMENT BODY MIGHT NOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC CRITICISM. INCLUDING CRITICISM OF ANY ACTIVE POLICY, PROCEDURE.

I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. >> DOES NOT SAY PEOPLE.

>> RIGHT. >> WHAT THIS SAYS IT DOES NOT

VIOLATE WHAT YOU JUST READ. >> PLEASE LET ME SPEAK . THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IS THAT A GOVERNMENT BODY MAY NOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC CRITICISM. PERSONAL ATTACK AND VIEWS OF ME . IF THEY ARE ATTACKING ME? THERE ARE FOUR MEMBERS? PERHAPS THEY DO NOT THINK IT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. NOW IT IS JUST A CRITICISM. NOW WHO IS MAKING THE CALL? IF YOU'RE GOING TO GET ESCORTED OUT. THE MINUTE WE ESCORT SOMEBODY OUT WILL GET SUED FOR A FIRST AMENDMENT VIOLATION. WHAT WE SEE AS A PERSONAL ATTACK HAS NOT DEFINED LEGALLY. IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT WE CANNOT PROHIBIT PUBLIC CRITICISM OF THE GOVERNMENT BODY. IF THEY COME UP AND SAY THAT WE ARE TERRIBLE AT OUR JOBS. THE MAYOR DID A TERRIBLE JOB. OR THE MAYOR IS A TERRIBLE PERSON? THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THAT. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO SAY THAT THAT IS A PERSONAL ATTACK. CAN YOU REMOVE THAT PERSON? AND PUT THEM OUTSIDE OF CITY HALL. WE DO NOT HAVE TO DEBATE IT. BUT I KNOW WHERE THE DEBATE IS GOING TO GO. BUT I KNOW THAT THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN PUT A COUPLE OF WORDS. ENCOURAGING PEOPLE NOT TO DO SOMETHING. BUT AS I SAID IN OUR MEETING. WHEN YOU SAID THAT YOU WANTED TO LIMIT TO THREE MINUTES. THAT IS GREAT. BECAUSE WHEN I TRIED TO STOP SOMEBODY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCILS AND LET THEM SPEAK. I'M NOT GOING TO ASK TO REMOVE ANYBODY . BECAUSE THE MINUTE I DO THAT, I WILL PERSONALLY GET ATTACKED. IF YOU LET THAT PERSON SPEAK YOU DO NOT LET THIS PERSON SPEAK. I AM NOT HERE TO BE A MORAL PERSON OF WHO IS RIGHT AND WHO WAS WRONG.

I DO NOT WANT THAT JOB. I JUST WANT TO RUN THE MEETING. WHEN THE THREE MINUTES IS UP. THAT IS ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

>> LET ME MENTION. I USED THE WORD WILL INSTEAD OF SHALLOW.

SHALLOW MAKES IT MANDATORY. THAT WOULD BE RUN INCONGRUENT WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT. IF WE COULD PERHAPS CHANGE THE WORD TO SHOULD. WE WANT TO REMIND THE PUBLIC TO DISPLAY DECORUM. AND NOT JUST COME UP AND ATTACK SOMEBODY WITHOUT USING THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO REDRESS THE GOVERNMENT.

>> THAT IS THE BEST 30 MINUTES OF THE MEETING FOR SOME PEOPLE.

IT IS UP TO ANYBODY THAT MAKES EMOTION.

>> CLARK? >> I'VE NOTHING TO ADD.

>> DAN THORNTON? WE, AND HAVE A RECORD OF GOING DOWN THIS PATH BEFORE. MANY PEOPLE WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT COUNCILMEMBERS. SOME OF THE CRITICISM BECAME PERSONAL.

CRITICIZING THEM FOR CERTAIN CHARACTERISTICS THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY. I KNOW THEY WERE SHOT DOWN. THE POLICY CHANGED. BECAUSE THEY GOT FEEDBACK. NOBODY WANTS TO HEAR PERSONAL CRITICISM. BUT IF THAT IS WHAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO DO ? I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO STOP THAT. THERE WAS A GUY IN THE DALLAS-FORT WORTH AREA THAT GOES TO MEETING . AND HE MAKES YOUTUBE VIDEOS OUT OF IT. IN THE CITY COUNCIL JUST SITS THERE AND LETS THEM GO. AND WHATEVER THE TIME LIMIT IS. PEOPLE CAN COME AND SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SAY. THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF THE PUBLIC ITEM IS THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE TIED TO AN INDIVIDUAL. AT A MINIMUM, CHANGING IT TO SHOULD WOULD MAKE SENSE. I DO NOT KNOW IF WE CAN STOP PEOPLE TO COME IN AND SAY SOMETHING NEGATIVE. BUT IT IS A PUBLIC COMMENT. PEOPLE CAN EXERCISE THEIR FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT. AND IT SPECIFICALLY DOES

[01:45:01]

NOT HAVE TO BE ABOUT ANYTHING.

>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, LET ME OPEN UP TO US FOR A MOTION.

>> APPROVED WITH THE CHANGE TO PUBLIC COMMENT SHOULD NOT BE

USED FOR PERSONAL ATTACKS. >> WITH THE ADDITION OF THE WORD SHOULD . SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY UPDATES. BUT I

DID SEND YOU A COUPLE. >> I THINK THEY ARE IN THEIR.

>> I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WERE SOME SUGGESTED CHANGES THAT I SENT IN. THEY COULD HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE WORK SESSION THAT I SUGGESTED SOME UPDATES ON

DISCUSSIONS THAT WE HAD HAD. >> WHEN WERE THOSE?

>> LET ME CHECK MY EMAIL. >> ONE 6 FULL OF PROVISION OF 75% ATTENDANCE. ONE RECOMMENDED CHANGE WAS THAT WE ALSO PUT IN MISSED FOUR CONSECUTIVE MEETINGS IN A ROW.

THAT WOULD WIND UP SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE FOR THE CITY COUNCIL. I DO NOT REMEMBER THE NUMBER THAT WE ENDED UP LANDING ON. THIS IS AN EVER-PRESENT TOTAL OR MISSING FOUR CONSECUTIVE MEETING. THERE ARE SOME BOARDS THAT MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN WHAT IS GOING ON.

>> IT IS IN THERE. >> IT IS IN THERE. BUT THAT WAS NOT IN THE DRAFT. IN THE WORD SECTION. - THE WORKSHOP SESSION. AND THE CHARGE WE ALSO DISCUSSED THIS EARLIER TODAY. IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THE STAFF, ANNUALLY. THERE WAS A CLARIFICATION IN 2L . JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE SPOKEN. A LOT OF THIS WAS JUST REWORDING AND CLARIFICATION. YES . JUST CLARIFICATION ON THINGS LIKE SOCIAL MEDIA. SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS. A LIST BUT LIMITED BUT NOT LIMITED TO AND CLARIFYING THAT IT IS NOT PERSONS PERSONAL FACEBOOK PAGE . BUT IT IS CLARIFYING ADDING THE WORD USED IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY. I THINK

THAT IS IT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION

>> IT IS NOT DIRECTLY RELATED BUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC DESIGNATE THEIR TIME TO ANOTHER SPEAKER.

OR NOT PROCEED A TOTAL FOR 9 MINUTES. TO HELP THAT GO ALONG.

WE ARE GOING TO BE CHANGING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO ACTUALLY LET YOU LIST THOSE PEOPLE ON THE FORM. IT WILL BE CHECKED. YOU WILL HAVE TO DO THAT WHEN YOU TURN IT IN. THAT WAY, PEOPLE CANNOT AVOID GOING OVER THERE TIME. SO JUST AHEAD

[01:50:07]

OF TIME, THEY CAN ASSIGN WHO THEY WANT TO ADDRESS. KEEPING

IT EASY. >> RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[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.]

POSSIBLE ACTION . WITH APPOINTMENTS, RE-APARTMENTS AND REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS. TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, AND TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE. AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS AND LIAISON.

>> JUST TO NOTE WE RECEIVED ONE APPLICATION LATE LAST NIGHT. WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE ACTION. SO THE BOARD WILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT ONE. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SUBMIT FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? GET IT IN. WE WILL LOOK AT THOSE APPLICATIONS. BUT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY ACTIONS TONIGHT.

[10.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2023-072 authorizing the issuance of City of Hutto, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 2023A for Fritz Park Renovations; Authorizing the levy of an ad valorem tax in support of the bonds; Awarding the sale of the bonds; Approving an official statement, a paying agent/registrar agreement, and other matters relating to the issuance of the bonds (Anne LaMere, Jim Sabonis, Bart Fowler)]

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS? CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION AND ORDINANCE MEMBER. AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY TAXES OF HUTTO. IN SUPPORT OF THE BONDS AND AWARDING THE SALE OF THE BONDS APPROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

RELATING TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. JIM?

>> MAYOR, COUNCIL. WE SOLD IN A COMPETITIVE SALE. IN OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR IS HERE TO TELL US ABOUT THE EVENTS OF

TODAY. >> GOOD AFTERNOON. PART OF THE TEAM THAT REPRESENTS HUTTO FINANCIALS AND ADVISORS. AND I HAVE WORKED WITH JIM SABONIS AND ANNE LAMERE . LET ME GIVE YOU A QUICK REFRESHER. IN SEPTEMBER, JIM WAS WELCOMING YOU AND WALKING YOU THROUGH A PLAN TO ADDRESS PONDS FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS. PARK, RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AND ANY RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. NOTHING HAS CHANGED BETWEEN NOW AND THEN. WE IMPLEMENTED THAT PLAN BACK IN SEPTEMBER. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT WITH YOUR CITY, STAFF IN YOUR BOND STAFF MEMBER THAT IS HERE TODAY. BUT A QUICK REFRESHER ON WHAT THE CITY WOULD BE APPROVING TODAY. IF YOU DECIDE TO DO SO IS ISSUANCE OF GENERAL BONDS. FOR FUNDING OF $11 MILLION OF YOUR NOVEMBER 2018 VOTER AUTHORIZATION. THE CITY HAS REMAINING OUT OF THAT BOND REFERENDUM, $41 MILLION . HE WOULD BE ACCESSING $11 MILLION. THIS WOULD HAVE A LEVEL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS FOR THE MATURITY IN THE LIFE OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS A 25 YEAR ISSUANCE. IT IS A TAX-EXEMPT FIXED RATE FOR THE LIFE OF THE ISSUANCE. IF YOU'RE SELLING THOSE ON NOVEMBER 29TH CLOSING DATE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON AN OFFERING DOCUMENT. WE WENT THROUGH A DUE DILIGENCE AND FOR THE RATING PROCESS. WE WENT THROUGH THAT BUT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS EVERY TIME WE ISSUE BONDS. WE GOT A STRONG AFFIRMATION. AA- FROM STANDARD & POOR'S AND WE CONTINUE TO HOLD THAT RATING. WE HAD THAT RATING PRIOR TO TODAY. LET ME HIGHLIGHT WHAT THAT REPORT INCLUDES . IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE PUBLIC AND ANYBODY CAN ACCESS IT. AND WITH THE STANDARD AND POOR'S, HUTTO STILL IS A STRONG TAX BASE. THAT IS A VERY STRONG COMPONENT OF YOUR CREDIT RATING. AND ALSO STRONG RESEARCH WHICH IS ANOTHER FACTOR THAT THE S&P USES FOR THAT RATING OF AA- . IT WILL CONTINUE TO GROW WITH TAX BASE AND POPULATION WILL CONTINUE TO

[01:55:07]

GROW. THEY SEE THAT AS A POSITIVE. YOU HAVE A STRONG OPERATING PERFORMANCE FROM THE STANDARD & POOR'S. CAN YOU CONTINUE TO BUILD THOSE . AND GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND POLICIES IN PLACE . HATS OFF TO YOUR ADMINISTRATION. THAT THE S&P SEES TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR REPORT. THERE IS A FORMAL INVESTMENT AND A CITY REQUIREMENT OF GIVING THAT FUND AND AT LEAST 10% OF EXPENDITURES. IF NOT MORE. A LONG-TERM CAPITAL PLAN BASE. ALTHOUGH THE S&P IDENTIFIES IT ALSO. YOU HAVE THE AFFIRMATION. IN PUBLISHING THE DOCUMENT. WITH THE AA- RATING . A TOTAL OF SIX BIDS CAME IN. THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE IN A COMPETITIVE SALE . YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE TOP THREE. 4.85% ACROSS-THE-BOARD. AND WINNING BY ONE THIRD OF A DECIMAL POINT. THIS IS WHAT WE KNOW THAT THIS IS A GREAT MARKET TODAY. FOR A MARKET THAT HAS BEEN SEEING TURBULENCE AND INTEREST RATES. AN INCREASING INTEREST RATES SINCE WE LAST SPOKE TO YOU. THEY WORKED WITH YOU IN THE PAST. THEY HAVE WORKED WITH 2023 BONDS IN APRIL. THERE WERE THE SECOND TO YOUR CERTIFICATES. AND THEY WANT YOUR 2021. THEY UNDERSTAND THE CREDIT. AND THEY KNOW THE CITY OF HUTTO. THEY HAVE SHARPENED THEIR PENCIL TODAY. THIS IS A TAX-EXEMPT BID FOR THE LIFE OF THE TRANSACTION. THE COMPONENTS IS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE AN EIGHT-YEAR PREPAYMENT ON THESE BONDS. WITH THE INTEREST RATE TODAY WE ARE CONTINUING TO PUSH FOR SHORTER.

IN THAT FLEXIBILITY. TYPICALLY EIGHT TYPICALLY 810 YEAR PREPAYMENT. WHAT WE DO IS TALK TO OUR TRADING -. AND HOW SHORT CAN WE GO WITHOUT IMPACTING THE PRICING? AND EIGHT YEARS SEEMS TO BE THE DELIVERY. WE CAN LOCK THAT IN ON THE SPOT ISSUANCE.

THERE IS ALSO THE FUTURE FROM APRIL. ALSO THE CITY WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE BEGINNING $11 MILLION TO THE IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. IN NOVEMBER 29TH IS THE CLOSING DATE. THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO THE BUDGET NUMBERS THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER. THE MARKET MOVED AWAY FROM US ABOUT 30 BASIS POINTS. WE DID HAVE A CUSHION IN THOSE WINDOWS BECAUSE THERE COULD BE A HIGHER INTEREST ENVIRONMENT. WE WERE ABLE TO STAY THERE WITHIN $30,000. AND BASED ON WHAT WE SAW BACK IN SEPTEMBER. WE SUPPORT THE BAIRD BID. AND AS WE SET FORTH IN THE PLAN OF FINANCE. IF WE DO MOVE FORWARD, THIS IS A GOOD BID FOR YOU AND AN EFFICIENT ONE. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> WE ARE NOW UNDER THE FIRST PROTOCOL. SO NOW WE DO IS CALL

FOR EMOTION. - MOTION . >> NOT THAT I DO NOT TRUST YOU.

BUT WE HAVE HAD THINGS COME UP. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT SECTION

THAT IS? >> L2

>> THANK YOU FOR PUSHING FOR THE THESE ISSUANCE OF THESE BONDS. I REMEMBER THAT YOU STARTED THIS MONTHS AGO. I AM HAPPY THAT WE ARE FINALLY HERE.

>> LET US ENTERTAIN A MOTION .

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. 10.1 PRESENTED EACH COUNCIL MEMBER WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. AND NO COUNCIL MEMBER WILL SPEAK TWICE UNLESS EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS A SPOKEN ONCE. NO COUNCIL MEMBER SHALL SPEAK MORE THAN TWICE ON THE AGENDA ITEM WHICH WILL BE SUSPENDED. CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE THE TIME FOR EACH COUNCIL MEMBER TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM THAT WOULD BE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES. FOR EACH OPPORTUNITY TO

SPEAK. WHO HAS A STOPWATCH? >> I CAN KEEP TIME.

>> THE CITY SECRETARY WILL START TRACKING PEOPLE'S TIMES .

[02:00:07]

WHO IS FIRST? >> I WILL START. HOW DOES THIS

IMPACT THE TAX RATE? >> LET US GO BACK TO PAGE SIX

PLEASE. >> PAGE SIX IS A SCHEDULE THAT LAYS OUT CONSERVATIVELY. WHAT WE THINK THE TAX RATE ASSOCIATED WILL BE. THE COLUMN ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE. NOTICE AT THE VERY TOP, THE TAX RATE IS .13363 THAT IS THE CURRENT TAX RATE THAT WAS JUST APPROVED. THIS SCHEDULE DOES , CONSERVATIVELY PROJECTING 9% GROWTH. BUT LET ME TELL YOU.

THAT INTEREST RATES ARE GROWING FASTER. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS

WILL HAVE NO IMPACT. >> THANK YOU. I DO NOT KNOW IF THIS IS RELEVANT. BUT I ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS . AND WHAT OUR TAX AND DEBT SERVICES IS TO THAT. I GUESS IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING. THE SELLING OF THE LAND . THAT BOND IS COMING TO AN END. OUR FINAL PAYMENTS IS IN FEBRUARY. THAT INCLUDES $1.1 MILLION IN PRINCIPAL. AND $11,000 IN INTEREST. THAT WILL BE OUR FINAL PAYMENTS. THAT IS GOING OFF. AND WHAT I LIKED IN THE PRESENTATION . I KNOW THAT IS JUST AN AVERAGE THAT YOU SAID. $800,000 AND BE THE AVERAGE ANNUAL PRINCIPAL INTEREST. I THINK THIS IS GREAT. THAT BOND ISSUANCE IS KIND OF GOING OFF THE TAX ROLLS. IN OUR OBLIGATION. AND IT IS PAID FOR AS IN THE LAND ITSELF. OBVIOUSLY THERE IS ANOTHER PORTION TO IT. THIS PAYMENTS IT IS NOT GOING IN. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE ON BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THIS IS ENTERING INTO THE SCENARIO. SO THIS IS DOUBLY SOMETHING THAT I SEE THAT THE CITY CAN TAKE ON.

AS A FINANCIALLY RESPONSIBLE TASK. THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> WHAT I WOULD ADD TO THIS. I STILL CANNOT SUPPORT IT. I STILL DID NOT KNOW THAT WE HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ARE GOING TO BE TO THE ROADS AND THE REST OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS. WE KNOW THE WATER RATES ARE GOING TO GO FROM 120 122 LESS THAN $20 A MONTH INCREASE BASED ON THE LAST ESTIMATE. IT HAS NOT BEEN REVISED YET. I SEE A LOT OF THINGS COMING DOWN THAT WILL INCREASE ACROSS THE BOARD OF LIVING IN HUTTO. IT REMINDS ME OF HAVING A BIG ROWING FAMILY. WHEN WE HAVE TRIPLETS COMING, WE CAN GO OUT AND BUY A BRAND-NEW CAR? FIRST WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO HAPPEN THE WAY THAT IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. I WOULD RATHER WAIT UNTIL THE LARGEST DEAL COMING. AND GETTING TAX REVENUE FROM THAT. THAT IS OUR PILLAR OF FINANCIALS STABILITY.

WAITING FOR THE MONEY COMES IN. AFTER THAT, MAKE PLANS ON HOW TO SPEND IT. I DO AGREE. THIS WILL INCREASE OUR TAX RATE BUT I'VE NEVER BEEN ONE TO CARE ABOUT THE TAX RATE. BECAUSE THE TAX RATE STAYS THE SAME. I ALWAYS THINK IT IS A LITTLE FUNNY MATH WHEN WE SAID THE RATE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE. BUT EVERYBODY SAYS THAT WHY THERE BILL IS GOING UP. IN YOUR PRESENTATION YOU KNOW THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES GOING UP. SOME PEOPLE MAY DISAGREE. THAT IS FINE. I DO NOT OPPOSING THIS VIEWPOINT WHEN IT COMES TO MONEY. I HAVE NO DOUBT THIS WILL BE A GREAT LOOKING PARK. I AM JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE CITY OF HUTTO TO PAY ANY MORE MONEY THAN WHAT WE ARE PAYING NOW. TAXES, WATER RATES. LET ME FINISH WITH UNTIL WE FIND OUT ? I WILL NOT

[02:05:04]

BE SUPPORTING ANY BOND MEASURES ON ANYTHING. ON HOW WE ARE GOING TO FIND $100 MILLION FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS ON ROADS. THIS $10 MILLION IS SMALL COMPARED TO WHAT WE HAVE COMING. IT SEEMS LIKE THE PRIORITY SHOULD BE ROADS. AND WITH WE COULD HAVE A GREAT PLAN AND DESIGN FOR PARKS. SO WITH THIS OTHER MONEY COMING IN, WE CAN USE IT. I APPRECIATE THIS. I THINK JIM WAS THE ONLY PERSON I MET. GOOD TO SEE SOME OTHER PEOPLE ON THE HILLTOP SECURITY FIRM. ANYBODY ELSE? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. 6-1 THE MOTION PASSES CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

[11.1. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2023-296 designating STR Constructors, LLC, Liberty Hill, Texas as the Construction Manager at Risk in accordance with Texas Government Code 2269.056(a), as the Most Qualified Firm and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate an agreement with STR Constructors, LLC, Liberty Hill, Texas for "Construction Manager at Risk" services associated with the Fritz Park Improvement Project (Matt Rector)]

ACTION RELATING TO RESOLUTION 296 DESIGNATING STR AS A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. 2269.056 AS THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH STR CONSTRUCTORS FOUR SERVICES ASSOCIATE WITH THE FRITZ.

>> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID WITH THE SOUTHWEST WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THE IDEA IS NOT NECESSARILY A COST SAVINGS MEASURE. IT IS A RISK REDUCTION MEASURE. AND IT HELPS US SPEED UP SOME OF THE PROCESSES THAT WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH. TRYING TO PROCURE CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES FOR THESE PROJECTS. IN JULY THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FRITZ PARK IMPROVEMENTS. BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE THINGS QUICKLY. THIS SEEMED LIKE THE BEST FIT.

THE CITY WENT OUT AND WE DID A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. YOU DO NOT TYPICALLY FOLLOW A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. YOU ACTUALLY GET QUALIFICATIONS. OF WHO YOU THINK IS THE MOST QUALIFIED. YOU WILL TALK TO THEM AND SEE WHO COMES OUT ON TOP.

WE DID THIS . IN AUGUST WE PUT A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS. WE PUT IT IN THE NEWSPAPER AS WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO. AND ALSO ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. IN THE SECOND POSTING OUT OF THE NEWSPAPER. WE FOLLOW THE TYPICAL PROCEDURES. WE RECEIVED TWO STATEMENTS OF QUALIFICATIONS. ONE WAS FROM FDR AND THE OTHER WAS FROM MRI. WE HAD A COMMITTEE MEET TO EVALUATE THOSE QUALIFICATIONS. THAT WAS WITH YOUR ENGINEER AND THE PROCUREMENT AND JEFF, THE PARKS DIRECTOR. THEY EVALUATED THE QUALIFICATIONS. THEY DETERMINED THAT MRI PROVIDED A QUALIFIED RESPONSE. AND THEY DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH AN INTERVIEW WITH SDR. THEY DID THE INTERVIEW. IN THE COMMITTEE AGREED TO MOVE FORWARD AND SELECT THIS CONTRACTOR. THIS IS JUST TO ACCEPT THAT RECOMMENDATION AND ALLOW US TO

DESIGNATE THEM. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION? >> APPROVE. SECOND.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? >> THANK YOU. IT IS COOL THAT THE CITY IS WORKING TO GIVE OTHER PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. AND CREATING THAT CULTURE OF ACCOUNTABILITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME EMPOWERING OTHERS TO

[02:10:02]

BROADEN THEIR SKILLS AND MAKE DECISIONS. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH

FOR DOING THAT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

[11.2. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2023-287 authorizing the City Manager to submit an application to the Texas Historical Commision for its undertold historical marker program regarding the Shiloh Black Cemetary (Councilmember Dana Wilcott, Councilmember Brian Thompson)]

>> 7-0 CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO 287 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION FORTS UNDER TOLD US TO MARKER PROGRAM REGARDING THE SHILOH BLACK CEMETERY.

>> THIS IS MY DEAL. THE TEXAS HISTORICAL COMMISSION IS ACCEPTING SUBMISSIONS FOR UNDER TOLD MARKERS. THAT ADDRESSES DIVERSITY, AND DOCUMENT UNREPRESENTED AREAS . WE HAPPEN TO HAVE ONE HERE IN HUTTO. I WANTED TO SUBMIT THIS FORM. THE BLACK SHILOH CEMETERY AS YOU KNOW . HERE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS OF IT. IT IS A DESIGNATED BURIAL SITE FOR BLACK INDIVIDUALS DURING SEGREGATION IN THE 1800S. A FINAL RESTING SPOT THAT IS BEEN VANDALIZED OVER THE YEARS. THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 100 BARRELS RECORDED. BUT ONLY 24 HEADSTONES ARE VISIBLE. THERE WAS A CLEANUP THAT STARTED. WHEN THE FAMILIES OF HUTTO BEGAN THE CLEANUP, THEY FOUND HEADSTONES OF VETERANS IN WORLD WAR I AND WORLD WAR II THAT WERE BURIED AND LEFT THERE.

THIS ALLOWS US TO GET A MARKER THAT CAN PROMOTE THE CEMETERY.

AND GIVE THEM A PLACE . WE PASSED IT ON TO THE HUTTO HISTORICAL SOCIETY. THEY GAVE US THE GREEN LIGHT. AND THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO . THIS ALLOWS US TO COMPLETE THAT APPLICATION.

SEND IT OUT AND WE CAN GET A MARKER FOR THE SHILOH CEMETERY.

I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER GORDON HAS BEEN A LOT OF TIME ON THOSE

CLEANUP DAYS. >> THOMPSON WAS ALSO ON THIS, AS

WELL. >> YES. IT IS A GREAT CAUSE. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COUNCILMEMBER FOR BRINGING THIS UP. ALSO FOR THE COUNCIL CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE? SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> LAST NIGHT, THE STORE PRESERVATION HELD AN UNSCHEDULED MEETING. TO CONSIDER THIS ITEM. IN THE PAST UNANIMOUSLY IN A LETTER OF SUPPORT. THEY ARE IN FULL SUPPORT OF IT. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO COST. IT IS FUNDED THROUGH THIS PROGRAM. IF WE GET APPROVED? THEY WILL COME

OUT WITH THE MARKER. >> LET ME ADD TO THE BEAUTIFICATION THEY ARE DOING. TO THE CEMETERY.

>> I AM EXCITED TO VOTE ON THIS. IS A GREAT THING. ANY TIME WE CAN PROMOTE DIVERSITY IN OUR HISTORICAL INTEREST OF OUR TOWN.

IT IS GREAT. AS A HISTORY PERSON I AM EXCITED. I BEEN OUT THERE ON THE INITIAL CLEANUP. EVEN GOTTEN A BAD CASE OF POISON IVY. I AM GLAD THAT IT IS GETTING CLEANED UP. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THAT MARKER SO WE CAN HAVE IT AS PART OF OUR

HISTORY. >> THEY DESERVE A POSITIVE

RESTING PLACE. >> ANY OF THE DISCUSSION?

>> THANK YOU. I AM VERY HOPEFUL AND POSITIVE THAT THIS WILL GET DONE BY THE IS TO COMMISSION . I THINK THAT HOW I SEE IT .

THIS MARKER IS NOT GOING TO JUST BE LIKE HEY, THIS IS THE SHILOH BLACK CEMETERY. IT WILL HAVE A HISTORY ON THERE. IT WILL HAVE A NICE PLACARD THAT HAS THE HISTORY. THE NAME OF THE

[02:15:03]

CEMETERY. THE HISTORY. AND IT IS JUST GOING TO BE KIND OF LIKE THE SIGN FOR THE PROPERTY. THAT IS HOW I SEE IT AND ENVISION IT.

IT IS GREAT. IT IS KIND OF UNMARKED, ON ALL AND WE WANT TO PRESERVE THIS. IN THE FUTURE IT WILL NOT GET VANDALIZED. OR THE LAND JUST NOT BEING TAKEN CARE OF. SO IT CAN BE PRESERVED.

BECAUSE THIS MARKER IS HERE. IN THIS LAND NEEDS TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE COMMUNITY. OR WHOEVER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. I THINK

THIS IS GREAT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> YES . THIS IS THE TYPE OF THING THAT SHOULD BE IN THE PROGRAM. AND PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME

ALREADY. A GOOD CATCH. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> IN THE SHADOW TO THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO TO CONTINUE ON WITH THIS PROJECT. CLEANING UP THE SHILOH BLACK CEMETERY IN THANK YOU TO THE CITIZENS OF COME OUT. SUPPORTING THEIR EFFORTS. VOLUNTEERED. THE CONSISTED COMMITMENT TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE ARE HERE AT THIS POINT. THERE IS BEAUTY AND US COMING TOGETHER. THE CITIZENS COMING TOGETHER AND WORKING ON SOMETHING. SEEING IT THROUGH.

THIS OUTCOME I HOPE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE CITY CAN FOLLOW THESE SAME STEPS. BY ORGANIZATIONS LIKE THE BLACK FAMILIES OF HUTTO TO GET LIKE THINGS LIKE THIS ON THE AGENDA.

FOR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, AGAIN TO ALL OF THE CITIZENS THAT SUPPORTED THIS PROJECT. AND SAW IT THROUGH TO WHERE WE ARE,

TODAY. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

[11.3. Consideration and possible action relating to Resolution No. R-2023-297 authorizing the purchase of a 36' tall holiday tree for a total of $64,465 from Holiday Outdoor Decor (Kristi Barnes)]

>> 7-0 POSSIBLE ACTION AND RELATING TO RESOLUTION 287 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS . THE PURCHASE OF A 36 TALL HOLIDAY TREE FOR A TOTAL OF 64,004 AND $65 FOR HOLIDAY OUTDOOR DECK CORE.

>> HELLO. THANK YOU. THIS WAS EARMARKED FOR $75,000 AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE TREE AT $64,000 FOR THE 65 AND THAT INCLUDES THE BASE, THE INSTALLATION , THE STAR AND THE ORNAMENTS. 64,465 AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN THE PREVIOUS TREE. WE ALSO ALREADY HAVE STORAGE IN PLACE. I AM

HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> LET US ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> THANK YOU FOR COMING IN UNDER BUDGET.

>> WE NEED TO GET A MOTION FIRST. AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS

IT. >> I LITERALLY WAS TRYING TO SAY THE MOTION. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. SECOND. . ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> DO WE HAVE AN ORDER? >> WE HAVE NO ORDER ANYMORE.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHO IS GOING TO INSTALL THE TREE IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS? I KNOW WHO IS GOING TO DO IT THIS YEAR.

>> A GREAT QUESTION. FOR OUR OTHER TREE THAT WE DO OWN. WE CONTRACTED THAT OUTCOME ALREADY. THAT IS PART OF THE EARMARKED BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR. EVEN IF WE DID NOT RECEIVE THAT NEW TREE.

THAT IS PART OF OUR OVERALL HOLIDAY DECOR PACKAGE.

>> HOW OLD IS OUR CURRENT TREE?

>> I WAS ACTUALLY ASKING MY OLD COLLEAGUE WHO IS NOW IN GEORGETOWN. SHE BOUGHT THE TREE IN 2014.

>> OKAY. I AM EXCITED ABOUT GETTING A NEW HOLIDAY TREE . OF

[02:20:04]

COURSE I DO REALIZE THAT WAS IN THE BUDGET. FOR $75,000 BUT THIS COMES IN AT $10,000, LESS. I AM GOING TO SUPPORT THIS .

BUT MY ONLY ISSUE . I'LL BE LOOKING FOR THIS IN THE FUTURE.

USING THE COMPANY THAT WE USED IS HERE IN TEXAS . AND IN SAN ANTONIO. BUT THEY OUTSOURCE IT BY THEIR TREE. OUR TREE IS GOING TO BE COMING FROM ALLENTOWN, PENNSYLVANIA WITH A $3000 SHIPPING CHARGE. I'M NOT A FAN OF THAT. JUST FOR FUTURE REFERENCE I WILL BE LOOKING FOR THAT. BUT I THINK THAT WE CAN FIND A TREE IN TEXAS FROM A COMPANY IN TEXAS. OR SOMEBODY

CLOSE BY. >> LET ME COMMENT.

>> DEFINITELY. >> SO, YES. I'M STILL GOING BACK AND FORTH TO GET THAT. THEY WERE ABLE TO FIND A TREE AND TEXAS. THAT PRICE COULD COME DOWN EVEN FURTHER . BUT THIS IS THE CURRENT QUOTE. THE SHIPPING COULD EVEN BE BACK. THEY DO HAVE A WAREHOUSE IN TEXAS . BUT I WILL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT FOR

NEXT YEAR. >> WE WILL LOOK FOR THAT IN THE NEXT BUDGET. I'M EXCITED. THAT HURTS.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> YES. IF IT IS SHIPPED OR WHATEVER. THAT IS THE TREE THAT WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT IS UNDER BUDGET. AND YOU COULD EVEN GET A TAX HISTORY THAT IS $5000 MORE. SO THANK YOU FOR BRING IT FURTHER DOWN ALSO THE CURRENT TREE. IS IT ABLE TO BE USED IN ANY OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY? THAT WAS THE OTHER PART THAT I WANTED TO ASK.

>> ANOTHER GREAT QUESTION. THERE ARE A FEW ISSUES WITH THE LIGHTS THAT ARE IN BEDDED IN THE TREE. WE ARE WORKING TO SEE IF WE CAN HAVE IT INSTALLED SOMEWHERE . PERHAPS SLIGHTLY IN THE DISTANCE. FAR AWAY BUT WE ARE LOOKING TO SEE IF WE CAN USE THAT AGAIN THIS YEAR. MAYBE NOT AS THE FOCAL POINT OF THE TREE LIGHTING. USING IT IN SOME WAY. IT REALLY COMES DOWN INSPECTION. THEY ARE INSPECTING THE TREE ITSELF . BECAUSE IT WOULD TAKE ELECTRICAL AND WOULD HAVE TO BE INSTALLED AND

RUNNING. >> IN THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS.

[11.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-298 authorizing the City Manager to execute an Interlocal Agreement for the Allocation of Sales Tax Revenue between Williamson County Emergency Services District NO. 3 and the City of Hutto, Texas (Legal)]

CITY ATTORNEY? >> ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THIS?

>> I CAN, IF YOU LIKE. >> THE SAME AGREEMENT. THEY GAVE US A SIGNED COPY AND IT IS IN YOUR PACKET.

>> ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THIS ITEM.

>> I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS. WITH AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST TO GO BACK OUT FOR AN AMENDMENT FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS.

[02:25:02]

>> CLARK APPROVING RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. AND ASKING TO FULLY EXECUTE FOR THE STAFF TO COME BACK. WITH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?

>> YES. >> SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE BRICK I JUST WANT TO THANK THE BOARD AND CHIEF OR WORKING ON THESE. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING ON HERE AND TALKING ABOUT THIS. SO EXCITED TO GET THIS PAST. I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH AT LEAST THE REQUEST ONCE WE LIMIT THIS TO GET WAYS TO ELEMENT THIS . THE MAIN QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE AN ECONOMIC DEAL THAT COULD OUTLAST THE CONTRACT. PERHAPS A CARVEOUT OR AN AMENDMENT OR OPPORTUNITIES FOR US TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE OFFERING THIS TO PEOPLE THAT WE CAN RELY ON THE LONGEVITY. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE WORK.

BRINGING THIS BACK TO US. >> LET ME ECHO THOSE SENTIMENTS.

THANK YOU TO THE BOARD. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. >> 7-0 CONSIDERATION OF

[12.2. Consideration and possible action relating to a determination of whether Mayor Mike Snyder had a conflict of interest relating to Ordinance No. O-2023-033 approving a Specific Use Permit for a drive through facility located at 901 Ed Schmidt Boulevard, Hutto, Texas (Mayor Mike Snyder)]

POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO A DETERMINATION OF WHETHER MAYOR MIKE SNYDER HAD A CONFLICT OF INTEREST RELATED TO ORDINANCE 033 APPROVING A SET SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A DRIVER THROUGH FACILITY LOCATED AT 901 AND SCHMIDT BOULEVARD HUTTO, TEXAS

. >> I PUT IN YOUR PACKET THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION. IT TALKS ABOUT WHEN A ZONING REQUEST COMES BEFORE COUNSEL. AND THE TERRITORY . THE COUNCILMEMBERS RESIDENTS OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. SOMEBODY THAT IS UNDER CHAPTER 171 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

RESIDES IN THAT AREA AND TRIGGERS CHAPTER 171. SO THE AREA OF THE ZONING REQUEST DOES NOT SAY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.

BUT THE STATE LAW REQUIRES NOTIFICATION WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE ZONING REQUEST. SO 200 FEET IS A GENERAL RULE THAT MOST CITIES USE. THAT WOULD TRIGGER WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING REQUEST COULD HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST UNDER CHAPTER 171.

THERE IS A SECOND PART. THAT THEY TALK ABOUT WITH A SPECIAL ECONOMIC EFFECT. WHICH IS DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLE. SO HOW THEY DEFINE A SPECIAL EFFECT IS GENERALLY IF YOUR PROPERTY VALUE IS REQUEST TO MAKE YOUR PROPERTY VALUE GO UP. OR MAKE IT GO DOWN. IT HAS TO HAVE SOME IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE GOVERNMENT. I PUT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION IN YOUR PACKET FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

TO USE IN DISCUSSING THE SITE.

>> THANK YOU. LET ME ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO THIS ITEM. HEARING NONE. LET ME MAKE A RELEASE TO THIS MEMO.

>> I DID NOT PREPARE A LEGAL MEMO. I THOUGHT COUNSEL WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION IN THE DIRECT ME TO A MAKE A MEMO.

>> I WILL REVISE THAT. TO ASK YOU TO CREATE A LEGAL MEMO.

REGARDING THIS ITEM. AND SUBSEQUENTLY BE RELEASED.

SECOND. >> DISCUSSION?

>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION. I DO NOT KNOW IF A LEGAL MEMO WAS NECESSARY. TO USE CITY ATTORNEY RESOURCES TO CREATE A MEMO. I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NON-ISSUE AT THE TIME . THERE

[02:30:08]

WAS A QUESTION RAISED AT THE TIME WHETHER THERE WAS A CONFLICT. I THOUGHT WE GOT AN ANSWER TO THE CITY ATTORNEY. NE CONFLICT. I THINK THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION THAT SPEAKS TO THAT. SAYING THAT THERE IS ANY CONFLICT. MAYBE WE NEED TO UTILIZE MORE TIME ON IT. I DON'T KNOW. I HAVE BEEN GOOD WITH

THAT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> IF WE LIST THE MEMO NUMBER TO THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OPINION. I AM THE ONE WHO ASKED. WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT SMOKE AND THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID NO. WE TOOK A VOTE. WE TOOK A BOAT ON THE SECOND READING TWO WEEKS LATER.

THERE WAS NEVER ANY QUESTION OUTSIDE THE MEETING AT THAT MOMENT. JUST ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION. WE ALSO HAD THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION THAT WAS LISTED. JUST PUT IN THE MEETING MINUTES, WHAT THE ITEM NUMBER WAS. SO WE DO NOT HAVE TO SPEND THE ATTORNEY'S TIME DOING THAT. ANY DISCUSSION?

>> I BROUGHT THIS UP BECAUSE AT THE TIME OF EVENT . WE DID NOT GET LEGAL OPINION. BUT WE ASKED A QUESTION. I FORGOT THE GUYS

NAME. >> .

>> I SAID THAT MY RECOLLECTION OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST WAS PREVIOUS GUIDANCE. SO WHAT I FIND REGULARLY UP HERE. ALTHOUGH EVERYBODY WILL TALK AND I SPEAK. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHALLENGE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE HAD A BOAT. AND AS SOON AS WE HAD THE BOAT WE HAD A COUNCILMEMBER SAY THAT WE NEED TO BRING THAT ITEM BACK UP. AND YOU LIVE 500 FEET AWAY. I MEASURED IT EXACTLY. BECAUSE YOU LIVE 500 FEET AWAY. HE HAD BROKEN THE LAW AND HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. I AM TIRED OF BEING ACCUSED OF DOING SHADY STUFF. TOWING THE LINE SO EVERY TIME WE ARE GOING TO HAVE ACCUSATIONS YOU NEED TO BACK IT UP WITH LEGAL. AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ACCUSATION? THERE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE LEGAL DOLLARS SPENT ON THAT. THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW WHO IS SPENDING WHAT. IF YOU MAKE AN ACCUSATION.

NOW WE JUST GOING TO LET IT GO SO YOU CAN USE IT LATER? WE NEED A LEGAL DETERMINATION. SO NEXT TIME IF SOMEONE WANTS TO THROW IN AN ACCUSATION WE CAN GO BACK. GO OVER THE LEGAL MEMO THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY PREPARED. OUR MEETINGS GET OFF THE RAILS REALLY QUICK. AND THAT ONE WAS RECALLING AN ITEM . EXACTLY WHERE YOU LIVE. I MEASURED IT MYSELF. AND I DID NOT KNOW IT WAS 500 FEET. IT TURNED OUT TO BE 509 FEET. SO, TO ME, THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE. I WOULD IMAGINE IT WOULD TAKE HER 20 MINUTES TO WRITE THE LETTER. SEND IT OUT AND SEND IT TO THE PUBLIC. ALSO WE WANT TO SCROLL IT ON THE INTERNET AND PUT ON THE FRONT PAGE. AND LET IT SLIDE THROUGH. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT THE FIXATION IS WITH ME. BUT WE NEED TO BE CONSISTENT.

EVERYTHING THAT I AM ACCUSED OF HAS BEEN UP THERE. SO LET PEOPLE SCROLL THROUGH IT. WHEREVER YOU WANT TO STICK IT. ON THE COUNSEL PAGE. THAT IS WHY I BRING THIS UP. I'M SURE THEY'RE GOING TO BE OTHERS AS WE GO TO THE NEXT FEW SESSIONS. WE WILL JUST KEEP DOING IT. EVENTUALLY, THE PUBLIC WILL KNOW EVERYTHING. SO NOW THE MAYOR IS TRANSPARENT. LET US GET IT AND POST IT. ANY OTHER

DISCUSSION? >> I AM READY TO VOTE.

>> >> AYE. NAY

[13. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> MOTION FAILS . 5-2 CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. 13.1-13.12 ARE ALL UP FOR CONSIDERATION. AND I ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR THAT.

>> LET ME PULL 13.1, 13.2, AND 13.3

[02:35:05]

>> LET US PRESENT 13.4-13.12 AS PRESENTED. SECOND. ANY

DISCUSSION? >> SINCE WE ARE JUST DOING 13.413.12 DO WE NEED TO DO THE SECOND MOTION AS THE READINGS?

MOTION TO INCLUDE AND 13.11A >> LET ME AMEND MY READING FOR

THE READINGS. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> THIS MOTION PASSES 7-0 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

[Items 13.1 & 13.2]

ACTION OF 299 REGARDING THE USE OF UTILITY FUND BALANCE IN THE AMOUNT OF 4000 -- 4,203,944 THE MEGA SITE WATER LIGHT PROJECT. .

POINT 2 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 288 TO AWARD THE MEGA SITE WATER LINES PROJECT TO THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY IN THE AMOUNT OF $9 MILLION 767,000 $9 MILLION $767,050 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT. >> I HAVE ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES IN MY MEETINGS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND I DO NOT KNOW IF IT WAS JUST NOT REGISTERING. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE $4.2 MILLION FROM THE UTILITY FUND. BUT WE DO HAVE BONDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT. WITH A TOTAL PROJECT IS $9.7 MILLION. IF I AM FOLLOWING IS CORRECT THE BOND FUND COULD BE USED WHY ARE WE NOT USING THE UTILITY FUNDS? DO

I HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING? >> YOU UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY. WE DEBATED WHAT THE BEST PATH FORWARD WAS. YOU ARE RIGHT. WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE BOND FUNDS LEFT OVER FROM LAST YEAR'S BOND

ISSUANCE. >> FOR WATER?

>> FOR UTILITIES. . DO WE PULL THE EXTRA $4 MILLION FROM THOSE PROJECTS? WHAT I'M GOING TO A WARD BOTH OF THOSE PROJECTS.

THOSE REMAINING PROJECTS WERE HOLDOVERS ARE GOING TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE GOING TO BID OUT THE BASE WATER LINES.

WE WILL SEE THE NORTHWEST TRANSMISSION LINE. THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD GET THE FORMULA DOLLARS OR SO THE QUESTION IS DO WE DO IT NOW? OR DO IT THEN. LET US PUT THE BAND-AID OFF AND DO IT NOW TO COVER THE CONSTRUCTION COST.

>> THE BOND THAT WE HAVE SITTING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WILL BE USED FOR 2 WASTEWATER PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING UP?

>> ONE IS WATER . >> OKAY.

>> WITH ABOUT $36 MILLION REMAINING . WE HAVE $36 MILLION OF BOND FUNDS REMAINING FROM THE BONDS THAT WERE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION THAT WERE ISSUED LAST YEAR. OF THAT $36 MILLION, ABOUT 5 MILLION IS OBLIGATED TOWARDS THIS PROJECT.

AND THERE WERE SOME OTHER PROJECTS THAT OTHER AMOUNTS WERE OBLIGATED TO COME ALSO. $4.2 MILLION WAS IN THE CURRENT YEAR BUDGET. AND WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE BONDS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER. WE HAVE HAD SOME PRESENTATIONS . I THINK THE MAYOR ALLUDED TO THOSE, EARLIER. WE WERE LOOKING AT ISSUING $300 MILLION IN BONDS. THE MAYOR TASKED STAFF TO GO IN AND ASKED

[02:40:05]

THE PRIORITY. TO TRY TO PUSH THE PRIORITY OF PROJECTS TO OTHER EAR YEARS. THAT IS TAKING A LOT LONGER THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD'VE TAKEN. WE HAVE BEEN DILIGENTLY WORKING THAT'S TASKING. IN PUSHING SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS OUT AND CHANGING SOME OF THE STRUCTURE FOR THE CONTRACTS. WE THINK WE HAVE GOT IT DOWN TO 24 INSTEAD OF ISSUING $3 MILLION, WE HAVE ISSUED $166 MILLION IN BONDS. AND WE WOULD NEED TO COME UP WITH A FUNDING STREAM FOR THAT. OF ABOUT $9 MILLION, ADDITIONAL ABOVE WHAT WE HAVE, CURRENTLY. IN LOOKING AT THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SOME ITEMS THAT COULD FEED THAT $9 MILLION TO THAT WE NEED FOR THOSE BONDS. ONE OF THOSE ITEMS YOU ARE AWARE OF IS THE JONAH CONTRACT FOR SEWER. WE ARE CHARGING $20 PER ACCOUNT. BUT IN HUTTO, WE ARE CHARGING $60 PER ACCOUNT . IF WE WERE TO GO IN AND RENEGOTIATE THAT CONTRACT. IT HAS BEEN WORKED BY OUR CITY MANAGER AND STILL BEING WORKED BY OUR CITY MANAGER. THAT WOULD BE $1.7 MILLION-$9 MILLION. WE HAVE A CONTRACT OUT TO LOOK AT DRAINAGE. CURRENTLY WE CHARGE FOUR DOLLARS PER ACCOUNT FOR DRAINAGE. AND WHEN FREE STUFF THEIR IMPACT ACCOUNT WE THINK THEY WILL COME BACK AND THAT IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN FOUR DOLLARS FOR DRAINAGE. FOR --K FREEZE .

DEMEANOR, WE HAVE NOT PROVIDED THIS TO ANYBODY YET. BUT IF YOU HAVE SOME OF THESE THERE WAS ABOUT A $2 MILLION SHORTFALL THAT I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY A SOURCE FOR. THE REMAINING WOULD BE THE WATER ACCOUNTS THAT YOU ALLUDED TO EARLIER. IT COULD GO UP TO $200 PER ACCOUNT. IN ORDER TO COLLECT $200, THAT IS GOING TO BE ABOUT $15 PER ACCOUNT. NOT THE $20,000 THAT WE HAD BEEN TALKING. WE ARE WORKING THE 24 BOND ISSUE . BUT WE ARE JUST NOT QUITE THERE YET. WHAT WE ARE ASKING COUNCIL TO APPROVE IS THAT THESE AMOUNTS THAT WE THINK THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABOUT $15 MILLION. IS WHAT THE RESOLUTION SAYS. IT ESTIMATES THAT WE WILL HAVE A LIST OF PROJECTS. IN THE CURRENT PROJECTS WE ARE AWARE OF ARE LISTED IN THE RESOLUTION OF EXHIBIT A. IT WILL ALSO HAVE MORE OF THESE PROJECTS THAT MATT WAS ALLUDED TO. TOTALING $15 MILLION BEFORE WE CAN GET TO THE POINT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE $9 MILLION REVENUE STREAM. AND WE WERE ABLE TO BREED A PACKAGE BEFORE COUNSEL FOR YOU TO APPROVE TO -- READING THIS TO

COUNSEL. . >> THIS WILL GET REFUNDED BACK?

>> I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW THESE RULES. YOU'VE HAD FIVE MINUTES.

AND THESE RULES SAY THAT I WILL LET THE COUNCILMEMBERS SPEAK.

AND I WILL LET THEM SPEAK BECAUSE IT WAS HER ITEM.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. LET ME CLARIFY THAT WE ARE READING 13.1 AND 13.2 TOGETHER. SHOULD WE APPROVE BOTH?

>> YES. >> ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> YES. >> JUST ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THIS DIALOGUE IS THAT THIS WAS STAFF PRESENTATION THAT HAPPENED BEFORE THE DISCUSSION BEFORE THE MOTION. I WAS NOT EXPECTING THAT TO COUNT IT AGAINST THE QUESTION . BECAUSE THE MOTION HAD NOT BEEN MADE. WE WERE HEARING VISITATION FROM STAFF. THAT WAS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING. THAT IS THE PROCESS WE WERE FOLLOWING. WE WERE HEARING REPORTS FROM STAFF SO SOMEBODY COULD HAVE ENOUGH

INFORMATION. >> I WILL ACCEPT THAT WITH OUR NEW RULES. STAFF PRESENTS AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. AND

[02:45:05]

WE WILL SEE WHAT THESE NEW RULES ARE AS COUNCILMEMBERS STARTING WITH QUESTIONS. TURNING IT INTO A DISCUSSION. WHICH IS CONSTRUED AS A PRESENTATION. AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

AND WE WILL TAKE TURNS. BECAUSE ANOTHER WE ARE GOING TO HAVE AN ITEM COMING UP ONE OF THESE DAYS. AND SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE PASSIONATE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE FOLLOWING

THESE >> HOWEVER , HOW ARE WE GOING TO

HANDLE THESE QUESTIONS? >> LET US JUST CALL THE VOTE. I

DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. >> BEFORE THAT, DOES ANYBODY

HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? >> I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE FIVE MINUTES OUT OF THEIR RESPONSE? BECAUSE THAT IS NOT ME TALKING. I THINK ASKING STAFF.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT COUNSELOR PROTOCOLS. AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT. YOU HAVE FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK AND INTERACT WITH THE STAFF . THE NECESSITY OF FIVE MINUTES. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO WHAT CONGRESS DOES. BUT THE WAY THAT WE HAVE IT SET UP WE CAN DISCUSS THAT MORE. AND WE CAN DISCUSS IT MORE BUT THAT IS HOW I INTERPRETED IT. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION TO

APPROVE 13.1, 13.2? >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> AYE. >> AYE.

>> AYE. THE MOTION PASSES 7-0 THE NEXT ITEM IS 13 . 3

[13.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-219 authorizing the City Manager to execute an Individual Project Order (IPO) with WSB LLC in the amount of $346,500 for the Ed Schmidt Improvements (T-10) project (Matt Rector)]

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 209 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INDIVIDUAL PROJECT ORDER. IN THE AMOUNT OF $346,000 FOR THE SCHMIDT

IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT. >> WHO GOES FIRST UNDER YOUR

DIRECTION? >> LET US ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND

WE WILL DISCUSS IT. >> THANK YOU FOR THE RECORD.

THIS RESOLUTION IS TO IMPROVE THE IPO WITH WSB. WE GAVE DIRECTION OF FOCUSING ON THE SIGNAL AT SCHMIDT STREET . THE SIDEWALKS OF SOUTH I-79 TOWARDS THE CHURCH. THAT IS THE ITEM

THAT WE ARE PRESENTING. >> THANK YOU. AND LET US

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I APPROVE 13 POINT 3 AS

PRESENTED. SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> MY ONLY STATEMENT IS THAT I AGREE WITH ALL THE STUFF THAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT CLOSING OFF WHEN THEY COME BACK FROM THEIR REPORT. THE INTERSECTION THAT CROSSES BETWEEN CHICK-FIL-A, DAIRY QUEEN AND LOWE'S HOME IMPROVEMENT. EVEN THAT REPORT NEEDS TO HAVE A TRAFFIC LIGHT. PUTTING SOMETHING IN THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RIP OUT IS WASTEFUL AND NOT GOOD. UNTIL WE SAW THE OTHER ISSUES. WE ARE JUST CRATING ANOTHER TRAFFIC MORE PROBLEMS. - TRAFFIC NIGHTMARE. IT SAYS MEDIANS BUT IS NOT FARTHER OFF. IT WAS CLEAR THAT IT SHOULD NOT BE

THAT INTERSECTION. >> PRELIMINARY CONVERSATIONS WOULD INDICATE THAT WE PROBABLY NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT FUNDING IN THIS PROJECT. TO HANDLE THE MEDIAN, THE SIDEWALKS AND THE SIGNAL TO THE NORTH. BASED ON THE CONVERSATION THAT THE COUNCIL HAD THE LAST MEETING. THE PRIORITY IS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND THE SIDEWALKS FROM 79 TO THE CHURCH SO WE ARE NOT TALKING MUCH IS DOING THE MEDIANS OR ANY OTHER AREAS OF THIS TIME. MY GUT IS TELLING ME THAT WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO DO SOME OF THE SIDEWALKS IS A BIT ALTERNATE. --AS A BID ALTERNATE.

[02:50:58]

THE LOWER END OF THINGS WHEN IT COMES TO FUNDING. THAT WAS NOT PART OF THE MOTION. THAT WAS NOT IN THE MOTION AS FAR AS THE DIRECTION. AND ALSO I DO NOT KNOW IF COUNSEL WANTS TO DISCUSS THE INTERSECTION . BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE ARE DOING THE BARE MINIMUM AND AT SCHMIDT. I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE ARE DOING WHAT IS IN BUDGET. BUT WITH THE MONEY AND WHAT WE ARE ASKING.