9.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-327 approving the municipal services agreement for the proposed annexation of the Meadow Brook tract, 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, located off FM1660S (Ashley Bailey)

[9.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-327 approving the municipal services agreement for the proposed annexation of the Meadow Brook tract, 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, located off FM1660S (Ashley Bailey) ]

THANK YOU. >> THANKS, MATT. NEXT ITEM 9.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2023-327 APPROVING THE MU ANIESAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

[00:40:08]

FOR THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE MEADOW BROOK TRACT 87.8 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF

LAND LOCATED OFF FM 1660 S. >> GOOD EVENING, THE FIRST ITEM IS THE PROPOSED ANNEXATION.

IT'S ALL IN YOUR PACKET, THIS IS JUST A STATUTORY ITEM WE HAVE TO GET THROUGH.

WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. >> OKAY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON. ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I DO HAVE A QUESTION.

IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, WE DON'T HAVE WATER RIGHT NOW BUT THERE'S A PLAN TO GET WATER.

>> CORRECT. >> FROM A FOUNDATIONAL THING, WHY DON'T WE JUST SAY WE CAN'T SERVE YOU WATER INSTEAD OF SAYINGWY DON'T HAVE WATER TODAY BUT IF WE DO, WE DOE DON'T HAVEY BUT IF WE DO, WE DO THIS THIS AND THIS. A LOT OF PLACES JUST SAY WE CAN'T GIVE YOU WATER RIGHT NOW, IT'S LOT OF PLACES JUST SAY WE T GIVE YOU WATER RIGHT NOW, IT'S LA LOT OF PLACES JUST SAY WE CAN'T GIVE YOU WATER RIGHT NOW, IT'S LIKE A FALSE PROMISE.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION, JAMES ERP, CITY MANAGER. I THINK IT'S A GOOD QUESTION TO FLESH OUT WHERE WE ARE AS A CITY. I WOULD SAY IF WE DID NOT HAVE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS IN FUTURE WATER SUPPLIES TO BE DELIVERED TO US IN DESIGNATED TIME FRAMES AND WE WERE NOT INTERESTED IN TRYING TO CONTINUE TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT NEW WATER SUPPLY NEEDING TO HAVE RATE PAWERS TO HELP PAY THE COST FOR, THEN YOU MIGHT RESPOND WITH NO, WE CAN'T PROVIDE YOU WITH WATER SERVICES. SINCE WE DO HAVE THOSE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS COMING IN, THEN WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONTINUING TO MATCH UP WITH WHEN WE START THOSE TAKE OR PAY CONTRACTS, THE COST OF WATER GOES UP SO YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE NEW RATE PAYERS, ANY CONNECTIONS JOINING TO USE THE CAPACITY THAT YOU'RE PAYING FOR SO THAT WAY THE COST BURDEN GETS SHARED OUT AMONGST MORE PEOPLE.

IF THEY'RE NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE TIME FRAME AS A DEVELOPER AFTER WE DECLARE WHAT THAT TIME FRAME IS, THEN THEY CAN MAKE A DECISION NOT TO PURSUE THEIR PROJECT NOW OR MAYBE TO DO IT LATER BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE'RE NOT STOPPING THE PIPELINE -- I DIDN'T MEAN TO MAKE A PUN, BUT YOU'RE NOT STOPPING THE PIPELINE OF NEW PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S USUALLY A TWO TO THREE-YEAR WINDOW OF STARTING THE PROCESS TO GETTING TO WHERE YOU'RE TURNING DIRT AND PUTTING IN METERS IF YOU WERE TO START DAY ONE SO YOU'RE NOT STOPPING THAT POP LINE AND HAVING TO RESTART IT AGAIN AFTER YOU HAVE THE INCREASE IN WATER COSTS HITTING.ILINE AND HAVING TO RESTART IT AGAIN AFTER YOU HAVE THE INCREASE IN WATER COSTS HITTING.PLINE AND HAVING TO RESTART IT AGAIN AFTER YOU HAVE THE INCREASE IN WATER COSTS HITTING.ELINE AND HAVING TO RESTART IT AGAIN AFTER YOU HAVE THE INCREASE IN WATER COSTS HITTING.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE STAYING THE WAY WE ARE, WE DON'T HAVE SUPPLY FOR THE FOLKS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE CITY LIMITS, NOT CURRENTLY IN TITLED PROJECTS BUT WE ARE WILLING TO ALLOW THEM TO BE PLACED ON THE CONTRACTS IN THE FUTURE. IF MY STAFF FEELS LIKE I DIDN'T

DO A GOOD ENOUGH JOB ANSWERING THAT QUESTION, THEY CAN JUMP IN. >> WHERE DOES IT SAY THE

DEADLINE? >> I DIDN'T DRIVE THE SER SO I DON'T KNOW.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ESTIMATION IS IN THE SER. >> IF A CON TRACK TO GET WATER WERE NOT TO HAPPEN, DO WE HAVE A LEGAL PROBLEM THAT WE TOLD SOMEONE WE'RE DOING THIS AND DOING THIS AND WE'LL HAVE WATER TO YOU IN THREE YEARS BUT SOMETHING HAPPENS AND WE DON'T HAVE WATER IN THREE YEARS, IT'S SIX YEARS AWAY, DO PEOPLE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A CITY

ATTORNEY, DO PEOPLE HAVE RECURIOUS? >> -- RECOARSE?

>> WE HAVE OUTLINED THAT ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF WATER AND WHEN IT COULD HAPPEN SO THEY CAN

MAKE THEIR DECISION BUT THERE'S NO GUARANTEE IN THE SER. >> YEAH, MR. MAYOR, IF YOU LOOK AT THE -- SO, IN THE SER, THE FIRST IS JUST A COVER LETTER AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE IS

[00:45:01]

TYPICALLY STARTING THE WASTE WATER AND SO USUALLY IF YOU GET TO PAGE, I DON'T KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE OF THE SER IS WHERE THE WATER INFORMATION USUALLY STARTS AND ON THAT WATER, FIRST PAGE OF THE WATER, IT USUALLY OUTLINES AND YOI DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFIC SER IN FRONT OF ME TO TELL YOU THE PAGE, BUT CRUCIALLY IT OUTLINES WE'REUSLY IT OUTLINES WEULY IT OUTLINES WEALY IT OUTLINES WELY IT OUTLINES WE'RE WORKING THROUGH

THE PROCESS -- >> 30 OF THE PACKET. >> OKAY.

ALL THESE NEED TO HAPPEN BEFORE WE CAN PROVIDE SERVICE SO THE DEVELOPER IS AWARE THAT IN ORDER FOR THEIR PROJECT TO BE SERVED, ALL THESE WHATEVER, THREE OR FOUR PROJECTS THAT'S LISTED ON THAT SER HAS TO HAPPEN PRIOR TO THEM GETTING SERVICE, ONE OF THOSE BEING THE NEW WATER SUPPLY

CONTRACT BEING ONLINE AND OPERATIONAL. >> RIGHT, SO WHEN IT SAYS SECURITY ADDITIONAL SHORT-TERM WATER SUPPLY WE PUT ONGOING, INSTEAD OF THAT WE HAVE A TIME LINE OR JUST SAY WE CAN'T SERVE. JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE APPROVING SOMETHING WE'RE SAYING WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE IT AND WE'RE WORKING ON IT AT YOUR OWN RISK,

I GUESS, RIGHT? >> IT IS AND TO BE COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT WITH YOU, I HAVE HAD MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS ASK THE QUESTION WELL YOUR SEC SAYS YOU CAN'T SERVE ME, DO I NEED TO STOP? AND MY ANSWER TO THEM IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CITY MANAGER STAID, WE'RE WORKING ON THIS, THE FIRST SHOULD BE ONLINE IN TWO YEARS, THE SECOND LARGER IN FIVE YEARS SO THAT'S OUR TIME LINE AND RATHER THAN STOPPING THE PIPELINE OF NEW PROJECTS, WE'RE WANTING TO CONTINUE THAT FLOW BECAUSE THE REALITY IS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S POINT, SIMILAR TO WHAT HE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER WITH THE HIRING OF POLICE OFFICERS, IF WE STOPPED ALL DEVELOPMENT, IF CITY COUNCIL WAS TO SAY STOP ALL DEVELOPMENT UNTIL WE HAVE THE WATER FLOWING, THEN WE STOP EVERYTHING NOW AND IN TWO YEARS WHEN THAT FIRST WATER LINE COMES ONLINE AND STARTING FLOWING, WE TELL EVERYBODY TO START AGAIN AND IT'S ANOTHER TWO TO THREE YEARS BEFORE YOU SEE ANY OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS HITTING THE GROANED AND HELPING TO PAY THAT BILL SO I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE THAT WE HAVEUND AND HELPING TO PAY THAT BILL SO

I THINK THAT'S THE BALANCE THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? >> I HAD ONE.

SO, WHERE ARE YOU TRACKING AGAINST AS THESE DEVELOPERS ARE COMING THROUGH? I WOULD ASSUME IT'S KIND OF A -- IS IT FIRST-IN, FIRST-OUT WHERE THE FIRST TWO YEAR TRANCHE AND THEN THEFECTION ONE COMES IN AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE] FECTION ONE COMES I AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE]NFECTION ONE AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE]EFECTION ONE AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE]XTFECTION ON IN AND YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE] ONE COMES I YOU SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT SERVING [INAUDIBLE] HOW ARE YOU TRACKING TO GUARANTEE YOU GET AS MANY PEOPLE IN TWO YEARS VERSUS FIVE BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A VERY SERIOUS PROBLEM IF THEY THINK THEY'RE GETTING IT IN TWO AND

THEN THEY GET SHOVED TO FIVE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, I WILL SAY THIS.

THE WAY OUR SERS ARE STRUCTURED, THEY'RE STRUCTURED IN HERE ARE THE COMPONENTS TO RECEIVE SERVICE IF ADEQUATE SUPPLY EXISTS. WHAT WE'RE NOT DOING CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW IS ALLOWING OR NOT REALLY HAVING DEVELOPERS ASK TO FIRM RESTRICT CAPACITY, SO IN OTHER WORDS, I'M GOING TO PREPAY FOR CAPACITY. THAT'S WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE REQUIRED FOR WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT A MENU OF HOW MANY CONNECTIONS WE CAN HAVE FOR THE TWO-YEAR PIPELINE, FOR THE FIVE-YEAR PIPELINE BUT AS FAR AS WHICH ONE'S FIRST IN FIRST OUT, THAT KIND OF STUFF, THAT HAS MORE TO DO WITH THE MARKET AND WHO IS IN THE POSITION OF WANTING TO PREPURCHASE THEIR CAPACITY SO WHEN THEY GET IT FIRST, WHEN IT COMES ONLINE, OR JUST THE MARKET ITSELF DRIVING WHICH PROJECTS GET DONE FIRST AND IF A PRUITT GETS -- IF A PROJECT GETS APPROVED RIGHT NOW AND THE CAPACITY IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE, OUR SER SAYS WHEN ADEQUATE SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE, THEY WOULD BE THEN SLATED TO THE FIVE-YEAR PIPELINE WINDOW BECAUSE THAT'S HOW IT WORKS OUT.

THAT'S THE BEST WAY I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.WINDOW WORKS OUT.

THAT'S THE BEST WAY I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> ONE FOLLOW YIP.

[00:50:01]

SO WE'RE GOING TO START PREPAYING TO RESERVE THE WATER THROUGH THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT THAT IS WE SIGNED. WE'RE LETTING THEM RESERVE AND PAY US AND WE CAN PASS THROUGH THAT PERCENTAGE OF COST ONTO WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR THE WATER SUPPLY.

>> THE SHORT ANSWER TO THAT, THAT'S WHY I PIVOTED THE WAY I WAS ANSWERING THE KWECHLT IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE PROHIBITING IT, IT'S THAT THEY'RE NOT COMING TO US AND ASKING US TO LOCK DOWN AND PAY US A CHECK. THEY CAN PAY ALL THOSE IMPACT FEES BUT THEY'RE NOT COMING AND SAYING THEY'RE INTERESTING DOING THAT. IF THEY ARE BECAUSE THEY WANT A GUARANTEE THAT THEY GET THE WATER SERVICE AT A CERTAIN DATE AND TIME, THERE IS A PROCESS FOR THEM TO CUT A CHECK AND PREPURCHASE THEIR WATER SUPPLY CAPACITIES.

A RESERVATION AND CAPACITY ISSUE. >> SO THEN MY FINAL QUESTION IS SHOULD WE THEN, AS A CITY, START DIRECTING THAT WE WON'T APPROVE ANY OF THESE PROJECTS UNLESS THEY'RE WILLING TO PUT THAT SKIN IN THE GAME TODAY? WHY SHOULD WE ALLOW THEM TO PREFILL UP OUR STUFF AND WE STILL HAVE OUR CURRENT WATER RESIDENTS PAY TO GET THAT CAPACITY FOR THESE PEOPLE BUT THEY'RE NOT PUTTING THE SKIN IN THE GAME TO PAY IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT NEEDS TO BE A SHIFT IN POLICY FROM THE CITY.

>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE CITY DISCUSSING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

ALL RIGHT, THEN I WILL START. I APPRECIATE WHAT COUNCILMAN CLARK IS SAYING.

I THINK STAFF AND PROFESSIONALS, YOU'RE THE ONES PAID MONEY TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS AND YOU ALL SHOULD BE SAYING IF I WAS A DEVELOPER, I WOULDN'T WANT AN SER LIKE THIS, THIS MEANS SOMETHING TO ME. IF THERE'S WATER AVAILABLE, YOU CAN HAVE IT BUT MAYBE GET BUMPED LATER, I DON'T KNOW. IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES, YOU'RE RESUMPING, IT'S SET UP.

YOU DON'T JUST GO IN AND SAY I THINK I NEED 500 LUES LATER ON AND THE CITY SAYS THAT'S GREAT, COME BACK AND SEE US IN TWO YEARS. I THINK THIS IS A PROBLEM, WE MAKE ASSUMPTIONS AND TELL DEVELOPERS AND LAND OWNERS THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IS GOING TO HAPPEN AND WE DON'T AND THEY SUE US BECAUSE THEY THINK THERE WOULD BE WATER IN TWO YEARS INSTEAD OF FIVE AND I THINK IF THE CITY WANTS TO START MOVING FORWARD LIKE THE CITIES THAT PERFORM WELL, WE DO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER CLARK SAYS AND SAY NO TO THIS ITEM, COME BACK, THE CITY NEEDS TO BE PREPARED BETTER TO COME BACK AND SAY THIS IS WHEN WE'LL HAVE THE WATER BASED ON A CONTRACT, MAYBE A FORCE MAJEURE OR SOMETHING WILL STOP IT THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT MAD AT US, OUR RATE PAYERS AREN'T PAYING PROMISING WATER TO PEOPLE WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BUILD.

IT'S AMBIGUOUS STUFF. I DON'T SPORT UPORT TPORT THE W HAS PUT THE COUNCIL IN A POSITION WITH THE DEVELOPER WHERE THERE'S FRUKS AND I THINK WE DO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

SAYS. >> YEAH, I THINK IF WE DO THAT ANDCLARK SAYS.

>> YEAH, I THINK IF WE DO THAT AND ESCROW THE MONEY SO THEY CAN GET THEIR MONEY BACK.

THEY'RE PUTTING SKIN IN THE GAME BUT NOT AT RISK IF WE CAN'T DELIVER THE WATER BECAUSE OF WHATEVER HAPPENS. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD APPROACH.

I THINK IN GENERAL IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO KNOW -- I KNOW YOU KNOW BUT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR US TO KNOW WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND WHERE WE SIT WITH THE TWO YEAR SUPPLY AND THE FIVE YEAR SUPPLY AND WHAT THOSE TOTALS ARE AND HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO THOSE NUMBERS AND WHAT OUR GOALS ARE AND WHETHER IT'S NOW OR IN THE FUTURE, WE FIND WHAT THE GOALS ARE SO ONE PROJECT MAY

[00:55:04]

BE MORE ATTRACTIVE TO US FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS AND SO IT MAY BE APPLES AND ORANGES WITH WHAT WE WANT TO DO WITH THIS KIND OF SETUP. I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION ON THAT ASPECT AND COME UP WITH A STRATEGY AS A CITY FOR HOW WE WANT TO APPROACH

IT. >> SO I HEAR YOU, WE CAN WORK ON A PROPOSED RESERVATION AGREEMENT TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL. ONE OF THE DOWN SIDES IS YOU CAN HAVE PEOPLE LOCKING UP YOUR WATER THAT DON'T BUILD ON THE SAME TIME LINE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING YOU HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT AND PAY ATTENTION TO TO WHERE YOU COULD HAVE A LOT OF COMMITMENTS OUT THERE. THAT YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF A MORE HIGHLY DESI DESIRABLE PROJECT THAT'S WILLING TO BUILD RIGHT NOW.

>> I THINK YOU PUT A PROVISION IN THERE WHERE IT'S ESCROWED UNTIL WE HAVE THE WATER BY WE CAN TELL THEM, HEY, WE HAVE THE WATER, WE'RE READY TO TURN IT ON, AND THEN YOU HAVE A TAKE OR PAY PROVISION IN THERE WHERE PAYING FOR IT WHETHER THEY'RE YEUSING IT OR NOT AND THEN IT

PROTECTS US FROM THE DOWNSIDE. >> YEAH, WE CAN BRING THAT BACK FOR ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.

>> IT'S IN THE ROBERT'S RULES THAT EVERYONE ELSE NEGATED THEIR FIRST TIME AROUND SO THIS IS MY

SECOND TIME -- >> HOLD ON. HOLD ON.

I HAVE SPOKEN ONCE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU'RE SAYING EVERYONE HAS NEGATED THEIR TIME

TO TALK, ALL YOU HAVE HEARD TO ME. >> NO, YOU SPOKE TWICE ALREADY,

SIR. >> ALL RIGHT. WHAT YOU HEARD IS ME TALK, YOU HEARD COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON TALK. YOU DON'T KNOW THAT EVERYBODY HAS NEGATED THEIR ROUND TO TALK. YOU'RE NOT RUNNING THE MEETING. IF THERE'S ANYBODY HA HAS

DISCUSSION ON THIS. >> YEAH, I HAD MORE QUESTIONS ON THIS.

. GIVE THEM AN SER AND WE HAVE DONE IT THIS WAY, DOES THAT PUT IT IN ANY KIND OF LEGAL ISSUES IF WE SAY NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THIS, WE'RE GOING TO REDO THE PROCESS? WHAT KIND OF LIABILITY DOES THAT PUT US IN?

>> WE SAID IN THE SER, AND I BELIEVE THE SER EXPIRES 180 DAYS IS THAT -- I SAW THAT IN THIS

ONE. >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE AN EXPIRATION DATE.

>> AT THE END OF THE SER YOU WILL SEE ALL THE CONDITION THAT IS HAVE TO OCCUR BEFORE THEY GET THE WATER. SOME OF THE CITY'S MONEY THAT GOES INTO THIS THAT HAS TO BE COMPLETE. THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR SOME OF THE PARTS OF THE SER AND THERE'S ALSO COAST SHARING AND IF YOU RECALL WE DID THE CAPITAL RECOVERY ORDINANCES THAT WE CAN UTILIZE TOO. SO THERE'S A LOT OF AGREEMENT

THAT CAN OCCUR BEFORE THEY GET THE PRODUCT. >> I LIKE THE IDEA OF DOING WHAT WE CAN TO PASS THIS COST ON BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING TO DO IT AS A CITY AND SO I LIKE THAT IDEA.

I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS AND THEN THAT PUTS US IN ANOTHER LAWSUIT WHICH I DON'T WANT TO DO. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD PUT US IN JEOPARDY. WE COULD TABLE THIS AND LOOK AT IT, COME BACK AND TALK TOO THIS DEVELOPER AND SEE WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO ABOUT AN ESCROW SITUATION.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT? >> NO. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON?

>> YEAH, I LIKE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON WAS SAYING WHERE WE HOLD OFF RIGHT NOW AND SEE WHAT OTHER THINGS COULD BE DONE AND SO I REALLY LIKED HEARING THAT.

I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD AS WELL MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE BEING GOOD STEWARDS WITH WHAT WE

[01:00:03]

HAVE NOW AND WHAT WE'RE PROMISING OR HOPING TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE.

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, YOU HAD DECISION COMMENTS?

>> YES, JUST TO, YOU KNOW -- I DIDN'T SAY I WOULDN'T SUPPORT PUSHING THIS ONE TODAY.

AS YOU POINTED OUT IN THE PAST, TRYING TO CHANGE THE GAME FOR SOMEONE BECAUSE YOU FOUND A LOOPHOLE WE APPLIED THAT LOGIC TO OTHER ONES. I WASN'T TACTICALLY SAYING I DIDN'T SUPPORT THIS ONE, I WAS SAYING WE DON'T DO ANY OTHERS UNTIL WE GOT THAT PROCESS IN PLACE AND WE DIRECT STAFF. THAT'S THE NEW EXPECTATION, BUT THAT WAS MY COMMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHERS FOR THE SECOND ROUND? >> I WOULD SAY THAT WE'RE NOT REALLY NEGATING THE SER DIRECTLY. WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF SUSS WHETHER WE WANT TO APPROVE A MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT. IT'S OUR CHOICE, IT'S ALWAYS OUR CHOICE WHETHER WE WANT TO ANNEX OR NOT. IF WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN DOING THAT UNTIL THERE ARE CHANGES, THAT'S THE FEEDBACK AND THAT'S THE WAY IT IS.

IT'S DIRECT ACTION BY THIS COUNCIL WHETHER TO DO THIS OR N

NOT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE

THIS UNTIL JANUARY 4TH. >> I'LL SECOND. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ALREADY A

MOTION -- >> DOES THIS OVERRIDE THE ORIGINAL MOTION OR DOES IT NEED

TO BE RESCINDED? >> SHOULD I HAVE DONE AN AMENDMENT?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION TO TABLE. YOU'RE OKAY WITH TABLING IT

UNTIL JANUARY 4TH? >> YES, IF THE MAYOR PRO-TEM WILL AGREE AS WELL.

>> SO THEN THE MOTION WILL BE TO TABLE UNTIL JANUARY 4TH. >> DOES THAT REQUIRE

REPOSTING -- >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? >> JUST A QUESTION, CAN WE ASK STAFF TO GO BACK TO THIS DEVELOPER AND TALK TO THEM ABOUT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND WORK

THROUGH THE -- >> CERTAINLY STAFF WILL DISCUSS. THEY ARE HERE IN THE AUDIENCE AS WELL. THE ONLY THING I HAVE A CONCERN WITH ON JANUARY 4TH, I DON'T

KNOW IF I HAVE MISSED THE NOTICE DEADLINE. >> WE CAN APPROVE THIS FIRST SO WE CAN POSTPONE THAT BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THAT BEFORE THE ANNEXATION SEW IF WE DO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ANNEXATION AND CONTINUE IT, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO REPIECED.

>> I DON'T WANT TO SLOW THEM DOWN, JUST DON'T WANT TO SCREW THEM IN TWO YEARS WHEN THEY THINK THEY'RE GETTING SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[9.2. Conduct a public hearing and consider possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-080 approving the Annexation of the Meadow Brook Tract, 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, and to Establish the Base Zoning as Single Family (SF-2) and Commercial (B-2) located off FM1660S (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

NEXT, 9.2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2023-080 APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF THE MEADOW BROOK TRACT 87.8 ACRES, MORE OR LESS, OF LAND AND TO ESTABLISH THE BASE ZONING AS SINGLE FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LOCATED OFF FM 1660

S. >> ON THIS ITEM, BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT WAS TABLED IF WE COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THAT OPEN UNTIL JANUARY 4TH, WE WOULD NEED TO DO THAT TO MEEK

THE ANNEXATION LAWS. >> NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNCIL, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:05:00 P.M. ANY FROM THE PUBLIC WISH TO COME UP AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS ANNEXATION.

SEEING NO ONE, JUST MOVE ONTO 9.3, RIGHT? >> I THINK YOU NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4TH AND HAVE THAT AS PART OF THE RECORD.

>> I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL

[01:05:06]

MEMBER CLARK TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4TH.

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

[9.3. Conduct a public hearing and consider possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-081 for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) request for the property known as Meadow Brook Planned Unit Development (PUD), 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, located off FM1660S (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HERING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2023-081 FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, PUD, REQUEST FOR THE PROD KNOWN AS MEADOW BROOK PLANNED UNIT

DEVELOPMENT, PUD, 87.8 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND. >> IF I COULD HAVE THE SAME AS THE PRIOR ITEM, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL JANUARY 4TH. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST READING

OF THE PUD. >> IF NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNCIL, WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:06:00 P.M. IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS PUD REQUES REGARDING THIS PUD REQUEST PLEASE COME FORWARD.

WE'LL OPEN UP THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO KEEP

THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN UNTIL JANUARY 4TH. >> SECOND.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'LL SAY SOMETHING ON THIS. FOR THE PACKET WHEN THIS COMES BACK UP, IF THERE'S TALK IN THERE OF COMMERCIAL, I COULDN'T TELL IF THE COMMERCIAL THAT WE HAVE IS IN A FLOOD PLANE. IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS BUT I DIDN'T KNOW HOW IT WAS GOING TO WORK SO I'M HOPING TO HEAR HOW THE OPEN SPACE IS GOING TO COMBINE WITH THAT ONE LITTLE PIECE OF COMMERCIAL AND HOW THAT'S ALL GOING TO LOOK ON 1660.

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

[9.4. Conduct a public hearing and consider possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-082 for Durango Farms Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning ordinance amendment to add Section 3.10 Riparian Setback (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey) ]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2023-082 FOR DURANGO FARMS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 3.10

RIPARIAN SET BAKE. >> THIS IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE DURANGO FARMS PUD.

THIS IS TO ADD AN AMENDMENT ATTACHED THAT STATE THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT BEEN HELD TO THE RIPARIAN SETBACK IN PRACTICE SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S IN THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. IT'S SOMETHING A PRIOR CITY ENGINEER SAID WAS NOT NECESSARY WHEN THE PLATS WERE IN. IN PRACTICE IT HAS NOT BEEN DONE BUT STUFF WOULD STILL MAKE THE COMMENT BECAUSE IT IS IN THE UDC. I KNOW THIS IS IN YOUR PACKET BUT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS DONE AFTER THAT 2011 ADOPTION WERE ALSO NOT HELD TO THE RIPARIAN SETBACK. EVEN THOUGH COTTONWOOD PARK IS NOT INCLUDED THERE'S NOT A CONCERN BUT THIS IS TO ADD IN THE LANGUAGE OF RIPARIAN SETBACK AND THAT IT SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE DURANGO FARMS PUD AND SHOULD HAVE THE LOWEST FINISHED FLOOR AT TWO FEET OR MORE ABOVE THE FLOOD BASE ELEVATION AND THAT TWO FEET ABOVE THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IS PART OF THE PUD AS WELL. WITH THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE FROM THE 2019 ORDINANCE THAT WAS APPROVED, A MAJORITY OF THIS WAS SINGLE FAMILY. THERE IS SOME FLOOD PLANE CALLED OUT ON THAT WESTERN SIDE, WESTERN OF FM 1660 NORTH. THE PINK AREA IS MIXED USE SO COMMERCIAL, MULTIFAMILY, OR A SMALLER LOT SINGLE FAMILY COULD OCCUR OVER THERE.

THERE IS OPEN SPACE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH, THERE'S A LARGER PARCEL OF MULTIFAMILY, IT'S UNDER DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW, AND THAT SMALL RED AREA IS A DAY CARE.

[01:10:02]

WITH THAT IT WAS REALLY JUST THIS IS A CLEANUP ITEM JUST BECAUSE THE RIPARIAN SETBACK WAS NOT REQUIRED BUT THAT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THAT PUD. SO, AGAIN, THE LANGUAGE IS NOT CHANGED. IT WAS CALLED OUT BY SEVERAL PRIOR CITY ENGINEERS.

IT WAS BACK IN 2014 WHEN WE WERE NOT APPLYING THE RIPARIAN SETBACK.

THE PUD WAS ONLY AMENDED ONE OTHER TIME. JUST FOR REFERENCE, IT WAS TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED SIZE OF DAYCARE. AT THE TIME OF PUBLISHING THE PACKET, STAFF HAD RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES OF PUBLIC NOTICE, TWO AGAINST AND ONE IN FAVOR. WE DID HAVE ONE SPEAKER WHO OBJECTED AT THE P AND Z MEETING ON TUESDAY NIGHT.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED 6-0. WE DID HAVE ONE ABSENT COMMISSIONER BUT 6-0 RECOMMENDED IT FOR APPROVAL. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> NO OBJECTIONS FROM COUNCIL WE'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IT'S 8:11. IF ANYONE WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS PUD AMENDMENT, PLEASE COME UP. SEE NOTHING ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUD MEETING AT 8:12 AND OPEN IT

UP FOR A MOTION. >> MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 9.4 ORDINANCE

O-2023-082 AS PRESENTED. >> MOTIONED BY MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL ON THIS? ALL RIGHT. I'LL START. I HAVE A FEW.

THE QUESTION I STARTED PUTTING TO A LOT OF THINGS LATELY AS WE KEEP HAVING DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE INFRASTRUCTURE, HOW IS THIS GOOD FOR HUTTO? HOW DOES THIS BENEFIT HUTTO? EVERYTHING WE HAVE GOING ON IN HUTTO, THAT'S A RHETORICAL QUESTION, REALLY. I HAVE BEEN GETTING FEEDBACK.

WE HAD TWO COMMENTS TODAY VERSUS ON THE POTENTIAL HOTEL AND WHEN THIS IS DONE BEFORE, IT WAS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT COUNCIL. ONE OF THE POTENTIAL ISSUES AND PEOPLE COME UP FOR AMENDMENTS IS WE DON'T JUST HAVE TO AMEND THE ONE THING THEY WANT, THEY'RE THE ONES ASKING FOR AN AMENDMENT.

BACK THEN, WE HAD ENGINEERS THAT DID STUFF AND ALLOWED STUFF AND THAT'S WHY WHEN THE PUBLIC HEADS WEST, DOES IT MATCH UP? IF WE MAKE DECISIONS TODAY BASED ON WHAT SOME PREVIOUS ENGINEER WHO CAN'T EVEN LINE UP ROADS CORRECTLY DOES, THEN WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE CITY ENGINEERS THAT WE HAVE TODAY AND JUST LET IT BE LIKE IT WAS BEFORE. I MEAN, THERE ARE SO MANY ISSUES IN THIS STAY BASED ON WHAT THE PREVIOUS ENGINEER DID WE HAVE TO REALLY CONSIDER AND I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T DO THINGS HERE, WHAT I'M PROJECTING AND THINKING IS INSTEAD OF HAVING A 60-FOOT TALL POTENTIAL HOTEL THAT WE PUT IN REQUIREMENTS LIKE WHEN THIS HOTEL COMES UP, IT CAN'T HAVE WINDOWS FACING THE BACK OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, IT CAN BE LIMITED TO ONLY SO MANY FEET UP AND IF THE DEVELOPER SAYS THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEY CAN WORK AROUND THE CURRENT PUD THEY HAVE. THE PUBLIC IS ASKING ME AND I'M SURE YOU RECEIVED COMMENTS, THEY'RE ASKING FOR CHANGES AS WELL. SO PRIOR CITY ENGINEER.

THE LAST THING I'LL SAY IS I THINK WE HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT OUT HERE THAT'S BEEN KIND OF HANGING OVER OUR HEADS FOR A WHILE AND I DON'T KNOW, I GUESS WE CAN WAIT UNTIL EXECUTIVE SESSION BUT I DON'T REMEMBER A RESOLUTION OF ANOTHER MATTER SO I'M SITTING HERE GOING THERE'S BEEN A GLOBAL TALK ABOUT EVERYTHING AND EVERY TIME WE HAVE TO GO AND DO THINGS, THE CITY GIVES. I HAVE NEVER SEEN THE DEVELOPER GIVE TO THE CITY AND SAY LET'S MEET YOU HALF WAY. IT'S ALWAYS THE CITY IS HAVING TO STRONG ARM PEOPLE TO DO WHAT'S IN WRITING TO DO. THIS IS THE LAST THING THIS DEVELOPER WANTS AND IF YOU REMEMBER, WAS IT SIX MONTHS AGO? WE HAD THE RESIDENTS COME UP, ALL THE FLOODING FROM DURANGO?

[01:15:03]

IT'S THE SAME PROJECT. THESE SETBACKS ARE THERE FOR A REASON.

IF EVERYBODY IS COMPLETELY 100% POSITIVE THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE FLOODING I NEED TO TALK TO THE RESIDENTS ON THE WEST SIDE OF 1660 AND ASK THEM HAS THE FLOODING STOPPED? HAS YOUR BASEMENT STOPPED BEING RUINED? THEY WERE ADAMANT THEY WEREN'T BEING LISTENED TO BY THE CITY OR THE DEVELOPER AND WHILE THIS DEVELOPER DIDN'T BUILD THE HOMES, THEY DID THE GRADING WORK AND GOT THE LOTS READY AND THEN SOLD TO THE HOME OWNERS IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. FOR ME, THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO SIT DUNE AND -- SIT DOWN AND RUSHING TO DO DEALS. WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS GETTING PASSED BECAUSE THIS IS HOW IT HELPS HUTTO AND WE CAN GO OUT AND PUBLICIZE HOW WE'RE HELPING EVERYBODY, LETTING PEOPLE BUILD IN A FLOOD PLANE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT HELPS US WITHOUT MAKING SURE EVERYTHING ELSE IS DONE.

ANYONE ELSE? >> MY COMMENTS ARE JUST ABOUT THE GENERAL SYSTEM OF GETTING THE FEEDBACK WITH THE NOTICES TO PEOPLE. IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN A LOT A LOT OF PEOPLE JUST SAY NO BECAUSE THEY WANT TO SAY NO. THERE ARE TWO ISSUES, ONE IS PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK. I SEE PEOPLE WHO SAY WE VOTED AGAINST IT, WHY DID YOU APPROVE IT? IT'S NOT A VOTE, IT'S INPUT BUT THERE'S NO EXPLANATION.

WE WANT TO KNOW WHAT'S CONCERNING YOU? AND THE OTHER ISSUE IS NOBODY KNOW WHAT IS THE HECK IS ABOUT. NOTHING IN THAT NOTICE, AND I'M WITHIN THE DISTANCE ON THIS ONE.

NOTHING IN THE NOTICE TELLS YOU WHAT THE CHANGE IS AND SO I HAVE TO SHOW UP AT THE P AND Z MEETING TO FIND OUT WHAT IT IS SO WHEN YOU MAIL THAT NOTICE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT THEY WANT TOO CHANGE. I KNOW THAT'S THE WAY IT'S DONE, BUT IF WE WANT TO DO THIS BETTER, IT WOULD BE GREAT TO FIND A WAY TO TELL PEOPLE WHAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CHANGE IS THAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND THAT THEY NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S A PROBLEM FOR THEM AND NOT JUST SAY NO. THAT IT'S ONLY USEFUL IF YOU GIVE US REASONS. I KNOW IF SOMEBODY GIVES A VALID REASON, RICK AND EVERYBODY ELSE ON THE P AND Z IS GOING TO THINK ABOUT IT AND TRY TO ADD THAT TO EVERYTHING THEY CONSIDER BUT IF

THEY JUST SEE FIVE NOES, THAT DOESN'T HELP THEM. >> RIGHT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN REQUIRE ANYBODY TO GIVE US A REASON. WHEN WE GOT A FEW CALLS ON THIS, WE GOT RESPONSES BUT ON THE NOTICES WE GIVE OUT THE NUMBER AND THE GENERAL PLANNING E-MAIL JUST IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS. SOMETIMES WE GET QUESTIONS OF WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? HOW DOES THIS AFFECT ME? WE STILL NOTICE WITHIN 600-FEET OF THE FULL PROPERTY.

A LOT OF TIMES THEY STILL CAN'T BUILD IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THIS IS JUST A SET BACK INBACK IN ADDIT THE FLOODPLAIN. YOU COULD RECLAIM SOME OF THAT FLOODPLAIN BUT EVEN THEN, IT WAS AN ADDITIONAL 75-FEET OF A SET BACK. THERE ARE THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS, WE ANSWER THEM. WE HAVE STARTED TO PUT A LITTLE BIT IN THERE AND IT'S PART OF THE RIPARIAN SETBACK IN THIS SECTION.

I GOT TWO CALLS WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? BUT THEY WERE ON THE OUT SKIRTS BUT WITH NO ADVERSE IMPACT, THERE'S NO IMPACT TO THOSE OTHERS.

CERTAINLY THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAME OUT OF P AND Z TUESDAY NIGHT, TO CHANGE UP OUR NOTICE PROCESS. WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GETTING INPUT. CERTAINLY THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT BETTER WOULD HAVE HAVING A 15 PAGE NOTICE GOING OUT.

>> THAT DOESN'T WORK EITHER BECAUSE NOBODY IS GOING TO READ 15 PAGES.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT A SIMPLE ANSWER BUT ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT BETTER IS A GOOD THING.

>> IF I MAY, MAYOR, SINCE I STEPPED OUT TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE PRIOR, DID WE EXPLAIN WHAT RIPARIAN SETBACK IS AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? DID THAT GET DONE ALREADY?

>> I WOULD SAY WE HAVE NOT EXPLAINED IT, WE READ IT IN A PACKET.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE TOLD THE PUBLIC WHAT IT MEANS. >> I'M NOT A PLANNER BUT I PLAY ONE ON TV EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE. BASICALLY YOU HAVE TWO DIFFERENT ISSUES WHEN IT COMES TO DRAINAGE AREA, CREEKS, RIVERS. YOU HAVE THE FLOODPLAIN WHEN YOU HAVE AN INUNDATION OF RAIN, THE

[01:20:06]

WATER USUALLY LEAVES THE BANKS OF A CREEK OR A DRAINAGE WAY OR A RIVER OR WHATEVER ELSE.

THAT'S CALCULATED BASED OFF REAL DATA THAT HAS BEEN SEEN SCIENTIFICALLY ON WATER FALL RATES FOR YEARS. THEY RECENTLY UPDATED THE SCHEDULE TO A NEW SCHEDULE CALLED ATLAS 14 WHICH IS A DIFFERENT CALCULATION OF EXACTLY HOW MUCH WATER YOU HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT ON THE PROPERTY WHEN YOU DO YOUR MODELING. THAT'S FLOOD PLPLAIN.

WE DO NOT ALLOW PROPERTY TO BE BUILT ON THE FLOODPLAIN. YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO FEET OF FREE BOARD. YOUR PROPERTY HAS TO BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE TO BUILD. SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. CAN YOU RECLAIM FLOODPLAIN? YES, YOU CAN, THERE ARE PROCESSES FOR THAT. IF YOU HAVE EVER GONE INTO A PARTICULAR AREA WHERE THERE IS A LARGE RETAINING WALL AND THE CREEK OR THE DRAINAGE AREA HAS BEEN CHANNELIZED WHERE IT'S NARROWER AND DEEPER, THAT'S USUALLY A RECLAMATION PROJECT WHERE PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECLAIMED BY BACKFILLING AND CHANNELLING IT.

THAT REQUIRES A LENGTHY PROCESS AND GENERALLY YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH A LETTER OF MAP REVISION THROUGH THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THERE'S A WHOLE BIG PROCESS. RIPARIAN SETBACKS ARE MORE FOR PROTECTING THE BANKS OF THE RIVERS, THE CREEKS, AND WHATNOT FROM EROSION AND PROVIDING PROTECTION FOR THE FLORA AND FAUNA, WILDLIFE AND THAT KIND OF THING.

WHAT YOU WANT TO DO IN A RIPARIAN SETBACK REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS IS YOU HAVE SETBACKS THAT YOU LOOK AT LAYING OVER WATERWAYS, CREEKS, LAKES, THOSE SORT OF THINGS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE EROSION BY BEING DISTURBED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT AND THEN ALSO BEING ABLE TO HAVE AN AREA FOR, LIKE I SAID, THE WILDLIFE AND TREES TO GROW AND THAT SORT OF THING.

SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN RIPARIAN BOUNDARY WHICH IS USUALLY WILDLIFE AND THAT SORT OF THING AND FLOODPLAIN. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH GOING ON BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING, A RETAINING WALL HAS BEEN BUILT, IMPROVEMENTS HAVE BEEN PUT IN PLACE. THE PROPERTY IS ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED AND THE DEVELOPER HAS SHIFTED ITS RIPARIAN EFFORTS TO THE FOUR TO FIVE TO SIX ACRES THAT'S STILL LEFT ALONG THE CREEK AREA, BY WHEN YOU DO A PURE INTERPRETATION OF THE RIPARIAN SETBACK BY JUST MEASUREMENT, IT GOES OVER WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS AND ENCROACHES INTO THE AREA THEY HAVE RECLAIMED. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS, TALKING ABOUT THEM INSIDE THE PUD HAVING A DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT SO THEY CAN USE THE LAND THAT THEY HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED APPROVAL TO RECLAIM. MAYOR, YOU DID MISSION -- MENTION THIS WAS THE LAST THING THE DEVELOPER NEEDED AND A GLOBAL SETTLEMENT AND I KNOW ENOUGH OF THE DETAILS TO TALK SOME ABOUT THAT. THIS REQUIRES TWO RETEINGS.

A SECOND READING NEXT WEEK, THERE AREADINGS. A SECOND READING NEXT WEEK, THERE ARE TWO MORE ITEMS COMING BEFORE COUNCIL THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE AND THE RELEASE OF THE PID DOLLARS AND THE GIN LOT, THIS ISN'T THIS PROJECT, BY THE WAY, THAT'S A

DIFFERENT PROJECT. >> BUT IT'S PART OF THE GLOBAL SETTLEMENT.

>> ALL RIGHT, HEARD FROM A COUPLE OF US, ANYBODY ELSE FOR ROUND ONE?

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. >> A COUPLE QUESTIONS --

>> I DON'T THINK, WELL, FOR ROUND ONE, HAVE WE EVEN MADE A MOTION YET?

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE. >> RIGHT. SO WE'RE STILL IN QUESTIONS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I THOUGHT WE HAD A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> YEAH, WE HAVE A MOTION. COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON AND MYSELF HAVE SPOKEN.

[01:25:01]

DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK? >> I DO.

I KNOW WITH P AND Z YEARS AGO, WE HAD RIPARIAN SETBACK AT 150-FEET AND WE CHANGED IT TO MATCH MORE WITH ROUND ROCK. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS KIND OF EXPLAINED BUT ONE OF THE REASONS IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT IN THIS BUT WE WANT TO GET ALL THE -- I AGREE WITH YOU, WE CAN PASS IT TONIGHT AND ON SECOND READING WHEN WE GET EVERYTHING TOGETHER SO IT HITS A T THE SAM TIME BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A RECLAIMED AREA, THIS IS DIFFERENT BUT YOU KEEP IT TO KEEP IT IN A NATURAL STATE THE WAY IT ALWAYS WAS. THE PROBLEM FOR HUTTO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CREEKS IF YOU SAY RIPARIAN SETBACK OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE IT'S OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN THE RIPARIAN NUMBER STARTS, ALL THIS LAND WAS FARMLAND WHERE IT'S NOT NATURAL LAND WHERE IT WAS THE WAY A CREEK IS NATURALLY IT'S BEEN FARMED AND TILLED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS SO THE RIPARIAN SETBACK IS NOT MAKING AS MUCH SENSE BECAUSE IT'S NOT VIRGIN LAND VERSUS HILLED UP CORNFIELDS BECAUSE THERE'S WITHIN A LOT OF EROSION WITH THE CORNFIELDS WHICH MAY HELP IN SOME OF THESE CASES JUST THE WAY THE AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF HUTTO HAS BEEN.

>> ARE WE STILL DOING COMMENTS? >> YES, SIR. >> I REALLY LIKED WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON TALKED ABOUT WHERE I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE EFFORT -- EFFORT IS THE WRONG WORD BUT MAYBE SOMETHING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FREQUENTLY VIEWED, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HEY HUTTO, IF THAT'S A DIFFERENT NEWSLETTER THAT'S PRODUCED BY PLANNING AND ZONING BUT BEING ABLE TO EXPLAIN THESE THINGS AND HAVE THE PUBLIC UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT THEM AND EDUCATING THEM SO THEY CAN PROVIDE US WITH NOT DETAILS BUT MORE PREFERENCES IN ORDER TO HELP US FORMULATE A DECISION. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A LOT MORE BENEFICIAL THAN JUST, HEY, THERE WERE A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO SAID NO AND A COUPLE OF PEOPLE WHO SAID YES.

I WOULD WANT TO KNOW THAT. I THINK THAT WOULD ALSO HELP OUT THE P AND Z.

AGAIN, IF THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME SORT OF RECOMMENDATION, WHETHER HE THAT'S A PHONE CALL FROM THEM TO US, IT WOULD HELP TO MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION SO I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE.

THERE MAY NOT BE SEEKS WE CAN MAKE TO IT BUT IF THERE ARE, I WOULD APPRECIATE STAFFTO IT BUT APPRECIMAKE TO IT BUT IF THERE WOULD APPRECIATE STAFF EXPLORING THAT.

>> THAT'S WHAT CAME UP AT P AND Z ON TUESDAY, CAN WE EXPAND ON THE NOTICES AND, YES, THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT IS EXPANDED, IT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE PUD AND IF YOU WERE INTERESTED YOU WOULD ASK TO SEE THE PUD OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. WE RARELY SEE ANY QUESTIONS WHEN WE SEND THESE OUT. SOMETIMES THEY OBJECT BECAUSE OF LAND USE.

>> IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY TO PUT POTENTIAL RESIDENT IMPACT AND PUT THAT ONTO SOME SORT OF DOCUMENT LIKE WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT'S GOING EFFECT AND POTENTIAL CUSTOMER IMPACTS?

>> YEAH, COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, WE HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON AND THORNTON AND SEE I SEE RICK OVER THERE SHAKING HIS HEAD, WE CANI SEE RICK OVER THERE SHAKING HIS HEAD, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT.

>> I WOULD HATE, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, WE DO THESE THINGS AND IS IT THE BEST FOR HUTTO AND PEOPLE HAVE IDEAS ABOUT WHY THINGS WERE DONE, JUST STICKING WITH FACTS WOULD RATHER HAVE ALL THE FACTS LAID OUT, HOW IT COULD AFFECT AND LET THE CITIZENS TELL US WHAT THEY WE DEVELOP FROM THERE AND THAT TRANSPARENCY ACROSS THE BOARD SO I THINK THAT WE COULD IMPROVE

THAT, THAT SYSTEM A LITTLE BIT BETTER. >> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER

[01:30:03]

DISCUSSION? >> SOME QUESTIONS. THIS AMENDMENT AFFECTS WHICH PARCELS? JUST THOSE PARCELS TOUCHING THE FLOODPLAIN?

SO TWO, THREE, AND SIX OR >> MOSTLY TWO, THREE, AND SIX. THOSE ARE THE ONLY AREAS THAT HAVE THE FLOODPLAIN. PARCEL SIX DOESN'T HAVE IT CALLED OUT BUT WE KNOW THERE'S FLOODPLAIN ON PARCEL SIX. THE MAJORITY OF THE OTHERS HAVE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BUT IT COULD BE THAT MULTIFAMILY. AGAIN, THAT'S UNDER DEVELOPMENT AND DOES NOT HAVE THAT ADDITIONAL SETBACK. THEY HAVE ALL DEVELOPED OUTSIDE THE FLOODPLAIN BUT ON HERE, THE MAJORITY, EVERYTHING IS PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT EXCEPT FOR PARCEL SIX.

>> OKAY. AND WHAT DROVE THIS PUD AMENDMENT? WAS IT STAFF WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS IN ALIGNMENT PAPERWORK WISE?

>> THE DEVELOPER ASKED IT BECAUSE MOVING FORWARD THE COMMENT ALWAYS COMES BACK AS YOU HAVE TO GIVE US A RIPARIAN SETBACK. YOU DON'T HAVE A VARIANCE

OPTION. >> SO COMMENTS WERE GIVEN TO THEM ON THEIR DEMENT PAPERWORK AND THEY JUST SAID HEYVELOPMENT PAPERWORK AND THEY JUST SAID HEY LET'S RESOLVE THIS?

OKAY, AND REMIND ME GET? IT WAS A 6-0? >> IT WAS 6-0 WITH ONE ABSENT.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT ANY HOTEL THAT GOES VERTICAL CAN'T HAVE WINDOWS THAT FACE A

RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> MAYOR, I DON'T THINK WE'RE POSTED FOR THAT OR NOTICED FOR

THAT. >> SO WE CAN ONLY -- SINCE WE'RE AMENDING THE PUD, WE CAN ONLY

AMEND THE ONE EXACT THING THEY WANT? >> YOU HAVE TO GO BACK AND

RENOTICE FOR THAT AND TAKE IT THROUGH P AND Z. >> ALL RIGHT, FORGOT THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

[10.1. 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 ]

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. DID Y'ALL MEET?

>> WE DID. WE HAVE ONE FOR THE DIVERSITY INCLUSION COMMISSION, JACQUELIN COLEMAN, SHE HAS A BACKGROUND IN HUMAN RESOURCES, SHE'S A CERTIFIED PROFESSIONAL COACH WITH A DES VEERSTYIVERSITY MANA CERTIFICATION. SHE'S PART OF THE WRITE'S LEAGUE OF TEXAS. I HAVE HER APPLICATION AND I THINK SHE WOULD BE A HUGE ASSET

TO THE DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION. >> IS THAT MOTION?

>> YES. >> SECOND. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THIS IS JACQUELIN COLEMAN, RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> WE SAID WE WANT TO UPGRADE OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, THIS IS SOMEONE WHO IS PROFESSIONALLY LIE LICENSED AND CERTIFIED IN THIS AREA AND CAN REALLY UPGRADE SO

REALLY, REALLY EXCITED ABOUT HER CANDIDACY. >> ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-078 approving a Project and Financing plan for Hutto Megasite Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Number Three, City of Hutto, Texas, established pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code (Cheney Gamboa) ]

PASSES, 6-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2023-078, APPROVING A PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN FOR HUTTO MEGASITE TAX INCREMENT REVINESTMENT ZONE NUMBER THREE, CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS,

[01:35:04]

ESTABLISHED PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 311 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED. >> IT'S AN ORDINANCE. >> ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED,

SORRY. >> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CLERK.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> WHEN WE READ THIS AND IT'S AN ITEM, I THINK WE NEED SOME SORT OF PRESENTATION FOR THE PUBLIC JUST TO SAY HERE'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS AND RUSHING THROUGH THIS TO HURRY UP AND APPROVE IT AND SOMEONE WILL COME IN AND SAY WHAT DID YOU DO? WHEN I SEE IT OTHER PLACES, THE ITEM IS READ, A STAFF MEMBER IS GOING AND SPEAKING AND THEN WE'RE MOVING IN THAT WAY.

>> I THINK CHENEY IS HERE. >> I KNOW BUT AS A COUNCIL, WE'RE ALREADY MOVING FORWARD.

STAFF, I DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO PRESENT IT. THEY'RE NOT STANDING, BUT IT'S

JUST SOMETHING. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> FOR THE PUBLIC'S BENEFIT, I'M ON THE BOARD SO IT'S A BOARD THAT MEETS TO SET FINANCING PLAN TO BE ABLE TO COLLECT PART OF THE PROPERTY TAX THAT COMES IN ON A PARTICULAR SET OF PROPERTY AND TO DO IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY SO THIS IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT PLAN. THE BOARD MEETS AT A MINIMUM OF ONCE A YEAR TO DO THAT AND THIS WAS THE FIRST MEETING OF THE BOARD.

>> AND THIS COVERS THE MEGASITE SOUTH OF 79 OUT EAST TO 3349 SO IT COVERS THE SKY BOX DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEING BUILT NEAR 132 AND COVERS THE EDC OWNED LAND OUT BY 3349.

THIS WILL RECOVER SOME OF THAT PROPERTY TAX INCLUDING THE PINE ROAD THAT WILL BE GOING THROUGH

THAT AREA. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IF KNOWN, CALL THE VOTE.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-320 agreeing to certain requirements of a watersmart funding opportunity for water reclamation and reuse projects and supporting the application to the Bureau of Reclamation for GIP projects WW05-2023 and VVW06-2023 (Matt Rector) ]

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2023-320 AGREEING TO CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS OF A WATERSMART FUNDING OPPORTUNITY FOR WATER RECLAMATION AND REUSE PROJECTS AND SUPPORTING THE APPLICATION TO THE BUREAU OF RELA MEDICATION FOR CIP PROJECTS.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MATT RECTOR, CITY ENGINEER. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ITEM EARLIER THIS YEAR. THIS IS A WATERSMART GRANT OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION AND SO THIS IS BASICALLY US AGREEING TO FOLLOW CERTAIN FEDERAL PROCUREMENT REQUIREMENTS AND IT WOULD OPEN THE DOOR FOR POTENTIALLY UP TO $30 MILLION IN GRANT FUNDS FOR

HELPING US PAY FOR THAT PROJECT. >> ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS OF MATT?

>> HOW WAS THIS FOUND? DO WE HAVE SOMEONE ON STAFF THAT SEARCHES FOR THESE TYPES OF OPPORTUNITIES AND DID WE ALSO HAVE A GRANT REQUIRE THAT HELPED US OUT HERE?

HOW DID THIS COME ABOUT? >> WE DO NOT HAVE SOMEBODY ON STAFF WHO SEARCHES FOR THESE OPPORTUNITIES. THIS ONE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WHEN I WAS WORKING WITH GARVER, OUR CONSULTANT, AND I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT THE COSTS AND THEY CAME ACROSS THIS GRANT AND I WORKED WITH THEM TO COME UP WITH THE FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION. THEY WROTE THE DOCUMENT, I PRESENTED AND THEY HAD THE

[01:40:16]

AGREEMENT AND THE RESOLUTION THAT GOES WITH THE AGREEMENT THAT SAYS WE WILL FOLLOW THE

RULES AND REGULATIONS IF THEY AWARD US THIS MONEY. >> WELL DONE.

>> OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR FROM STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR 12.1. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE 12.1 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT.

DISCUSSION ANT I ITEM? DISCUSSION ANT I ION IT ITE IT? >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO DO SO WE DON'T HIT OUR CUSTOMERS IN HUTTO WITH AN EXORBITANT BILL SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT $200 A MONTH WATER BILL. THIS IS A WAY TO BE FORWARD

THINKING TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM SO I APPLAUD CITY STAFF. >> I SECOND.

THINNANK YOU, MATT. >> YEAH, WE CONSTANTLY HARP ON THE ISSUES THAT ARE LOOMING AND IT'S OFTEN PRESENTED WITHOUT A SOLUTION TO THOSE PROBLEMS AND SO I APPRECIATE STAFF GOING AND TRYING TO FIND SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE POTENTIAL PRICE HIKES IN WATER AND WASTE WATER SO I THINK THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD BE DOING BUT I'M NOT SAYING -- I JUST APPRECIATE FINDING A SOLUTION TO IMPENDING PRO PROBLEMS SO THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> YEAH, THIS IS A DOUBLE BENEFIT IN MY OPINION FOR WHAT THIS IS.

NOT ONLY COULD IT OFFSET THE COST OF OUR $180 MILLION WASTEWEATHER TREATMENT PROJECT BY IT CAN ALSO ALLEVIATE SOME OF OUR WATER CONCERNS BEING ABLE TO USE WATER CREATIVELY IN SOME OTHER WAYS. IT ALSO HELPS WITH OUR WATER USAGE.

ALSO GREAT THAT GARVER STEPPED UP AND SAID THEY'RE NOT JUST HERE TO TELL US TO WRITE CHECKS BUT HERE TO SAY HERE ARE WAYSIC REDUCE SOME OF THESE PROJECT COSTS.

THEY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT BUT THEY DID THAT SO THANKS TO THEM TOO.THEY DOESN'T HAVE TO DO THAT

THEY DID THAT SO THANKS TO THEM TOO. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[12.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-326 authorizing the City Manager to execute an lnterlocal Agreement between the City of Hutto and Hutto Independent School District for the land and site development standards and procedures for the construction of HISD educational facilities (Mayor Mike Snyder) ]

MOTION PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, MATT. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2023-326 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND HUTTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THE LAND AND SITE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION

OF HISD EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES. >> FOR THE RECORD, AGAIN, ASHLEY BAILEY.

THIS IS YOUR ITEM, SO HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED ON THAT? I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT

YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS. >> I'M NOT SURE HOW TO DO THIS WITH THE PROTOCOL.

>> I CAN PROVIDE BACKGROUND INFORMATION. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AGREEMENT. I DID FORWARD IT OVER TO THE ATTORNEY FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THEY PASSED THE AGREEMENT THINKING THERE WERE NO OTHER CHANGES AND WE DID HAVE SOME CHANGES WHICH I FORWARDED TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY COMMENTS TO OUR CHANGES. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER CHANGES. I HAVE REACHED OUT TO STAFF TODAY.

I HAVE QUESTIONS, WHETHER OR NOT SOME OF THE THINGS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE

QUESTIONS I HAD. >> THEY'RE REALLY JUST CLEANUP ITEMS IN NATURE THAT WE HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT. ONE THAT WAS STATE THAT HAD THE ISD COULD USE ONLY THE SHORT FORM PROCESS, A SINGLE CYCLE PLAT. THE ISSUE WITH THAT IS IF IT

[01:45:03]

DOESN'T MEET WHAT WE CONSIDER A SHORT FORM PLAT IT DOESN'T MEET THAT CRITERIA, IT WOULD BE HARD, NO EXTENSIONS OF PUBLIC SERVICE, IT WOULD BE HARD TO SAY THAT THE ISD GETS TO GO THROUGH A PROCESS THAT NO ONE ELSE WOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF GOING THROUGH AND THEN LATER IN THE SAME DOCUMENT IT THEN STATES PRELIM AND FINAL. WE CAN GO SHORT FORM, PRELIM OR FINAL AND THEN ANY PLAT THAT COMES THROUGH NEEDS TO MAKE UDC AS AMENDED BECAUSE THERE MAY BE TRACKS THAT THEY HAVE THAT MEET THAT SHORT FORM PLAT AND THERE MAY BE SOME WE GO THROUGH PRELIM AND FINAL ON.

>> JUST TO ADD TO THAT. THE AGREEMENT SAYS APPROVAL BY THE CITY IN WRITING ON THE SHORT FORM. THERE WILL BE EXCHANGE BETWEEN CITY STAFF AND HISD STAFF ON WHETHER OR NOT THE SHORT FORM IS APPROPRIATE OR IF THEY USE IT, WHATEVER AGREEMENT OR WRITING

WOULD TAKE PLACE. >> IT'S ESSENTIALLY HOW ARE WE GOING TO PROCESS EVERYTHING.

IT DOES REQUIRE THE LANDSCAPING AND THE REST BECAUSE THAT'S WITHIN WORKING WITH HOW WE HAVE BEEN DOING THIS. IT CLEANS UP A FEW MORE THINGS AND EXPANDS ON THE TOPIC THAT'S BEEN SOMETHING THAT WE WANTED TO GET CLARIFICATION AND GET SOMETHING IN WRITING.

>> ALL RIGHT, QUESTIONS FROM STAFF? >> WHEN I SAW THE BULLETED LIST THERE IN THE THING, THE FIRST, THIRD, AND FIFTH WERE THE ONES THAT STOOD OUT TO ME.

I SAW THAT THEY GET 15 AND WE GET 10 AND I THOUGHT THAT'S NOT FAIR.

THE LAST ONE, THE FISCAL SURETY, IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS WORDED THAT IF THEY BUILD THE ROAD THEY DON'T HAVE TO BOND IT I THOUGHT DOES THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILD ROADS?

I DON'T THINK THEY DO. >> I DON'T REMEMBER YOUR EXACT WORDING BUT I KNOW YOU HAD AN

ANSWER FOR THAT. >> MY ANSWER IS IN THE AGREEMENT, THERE'S THE BUILD TO USE THE LETTER AGREEMENT. THEY CAN CALL ON THE BOND OR IF THE CONTRACTOR DOESN'T PAY THE SUB CONTRACTORS, THEY CAN CALL THE PAYMENT BOND BUT THERE'S A LETTER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE HISD AND I'M SURE THE CITY STAFF CAN POINT OUT THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THAT PERFORMANCE AND PAYMENT BOND BUT IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEY WANTED TO DO

THAT. >> BUT IF THERE WAS A FAILURE IN THE ROAD, IT WOULD BE THE ISD'S

RESPONSIBILITY, IT WOULDN'T FALL ON THE CITY? >> THERE'S STILL A REQUIREMENT FOR THE MAINTENANCE BOND. THE ISD COULD HAVE TO GIVE US A MAINTENANCE BOND IF THEY CREATED ANY PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. I RAISED THE SAME QUESTION. THE QUESTION WAS POSTING FISCAL BEFORE THEY CONSTRUCT THE PUBLIC SO TYPICALLY, WHEN A DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME IN AND BUILD A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, THEY WILL POST A FISCAL SO IF YOU WANT TO TALK AWAY, I ROSS THIS QUESTION AS WELL BUT THE MAINTENANCE BONN AS WELL BUT THE MAINTENANCE BOND IS STILL IN THERE IT'S JUST THAT PRELIMINARY FISCAL THAT'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ISD AND THE CITY.

>> OKAY, AND FOR THE FEES CAN WE COLLECT FEES FROM A -- >> IT'S NOT AN ABSOLUTE NO IN STATE LAW. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY IMPACT FEES UNLESS THE BOARD IS -- IF THE FEE IS NECESSARY FOR THE PROJECT BY AGREEMENT, THEY CAN BE PAID.

UNLESS YOU PAY THIS IMPACT FEE, WE CAN'T BUILD THIS, SO THAT'S WHY THEY WOULD ENTER INTO THE

AGREEMENT, MAYBE PAY PART OF THE FEE, SOME OF THE FEE. >> I THINK RIGHT NOW IT -- YOU NEED THE IMPACT FEE FOR SOME REASON, THE ISD HAS THAT IN THEIR BUDGET AND THAT CAN BE

[01:50:05]

PAID. >> IT CERTAINLY DOESN'T LIMIT OR PRECLUDE US FROM HAVING THAT

CONVERSATION REACHING AGREEMENT IF NECESSARY. >> ALL RIGHT, THOSE WERE THE

MAIN QUESTIONS. >> QUESTIONS IN ANYONE ELSE? DID THEY NOT LIKE THE TWO

QUESTIONS I HAD FOR -- >> I PUT ON THE SIDEWALKS -- >> I THINK IT'S SECTION 4G AND 4J. THE WAY I'M READING THIS, THE ISD HAS TO INSTALL SIX FOOT SIDEWALKS ALONG COLLECTIVE STREAK WHAT I WANT TO KNOW IS SWINDLE LANE IS A PRIVATE ROAD FROM WHAT I CAN TELL AND IT'S BETWEEN TWO ISDS.

DOES THIS FORCE ISD TO RUN A SIDEWALK? OR IT'S A PRIVATE ROAD?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WOULD RETROACTIVELY REQUIRE THEM -- >> IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TOMORROW, WOULD THEY HAVE TO BUILD SIDEWALKS ALONG SWINDLE LANE OR

SAY IT'S NOT A PUBLIC ROAD, WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT? >> WE TODAY PUT IN THERE SIDEWALKS ALONG PRIVATE ROAD AND ALONG HISD PROPERTY SHOULD BE REQUIRED.

>> I MISSED THAT, OKAY. >> THEY DID SAY THAT THEY AGREED TO THESE CHANGES.

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. IT'S RIGHT THERE IN BLUE. >> WERE THE INSPECTORS?

>> YEAH, I HAD A QUESTION HERE, I WAS TALKING TO HENRY ABOUT THIS ON TUESDAY OR SOMETHING, THE WAY I'M READING THIS, THE CITY -- I DON'T LIKE THE WEIRDS CAN BECAUSE THAT MEANS IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN UNLESS WHATEVER SO THE CITY CAN PROVIDE INSPECTIONS OR WE WILL ACCEPT CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY INSPECTS SUBMITTED TO THE RECORD ON FILE. TO ME WE HAVE EMPLOYEES ON STAFF, SO WHY WOULD WE NOT USE OUR OWN EMPLOYEES AND IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THE ISD AND OTHER PEOPLE TO USE THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS, IT SOUNDS LIKE A MONEY SAVER, WE COULD NOT HAVE INSPECTIONS ANYMORE, JUST RELY ON THIRD PARTY BUT I WAS TALKING TO HENRY ABOUT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SEE ANY VALUE ABOUT THIS, IT'S WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, IT SOUNDED LIKE HIS CONCERN WAS THEY DON'T WANT THE CITY TRYING TO INSPECT SOMETHING THEY DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER LIKE THE ETJ GU IF IT'S CITY, MAYBE SHY SHOULD. SHOULD IT NOT FALL IN OUR

PURVIEW TO EXPECT IT. >> I WOULD BE IN THE OPINION TO PUSH BACK BECAUSE BUILDING CODES ARE BUILDING CODES. YOU SHOULD BE INSPECTING THE SAME STUFF, WHETHER YOU'RE IN

THE CITY OR NOT. >> YOU CAN'T APPLY THE BUILDING CODES IN THE ETJ.

>> YOU CAN IN AGREEMENT. >> I WILL BRING IN THE EXAMPLE, STADIUM GETS BUILT, IT FAILS OUR INSPECTION AND THEY OPEN IT UP ANYWAY. IN MY MIND, WE HAVE PEOPLE, YOU'VE HIRED PEOPLE TO INSPECT THINGS, WHY WOULD WE THEN SAY WE HAVE PEOPLE ON STAFF, IN THIS

MATTER YOU DON'T NEED US. >> I WOULD TAKE THE POSITION THAT WE SHOULD REQUIRE -- THEY

SHOULD HAVE CITY INSPECTIONS. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING WE DIDN'T KNEE THAT.

>> THAT.

>> NE THAT.

>> I WAS SAYING WE DO. AND IF IT'S OUTSIDE THE LIMITS, THEY COULD AGREE TO HAVE THE CITY PERFORM BUILDING INSPECTIONS JUST LIKE SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS DO BY AGREEMENT. WE MAKE SURE THE HOMES AND STRUCTURES ARE INSPECTED

APPROPRIATELY. >> OR THEY COULD HIRE A THIRD PARTY.

>> FROM MY RECOLLECTION IT WAS BECAUSE THE NINTH GRADE CENTER WAS NOT YET ANNEXED.

[01:55:02]

SINCE I HAVE BEEN HERE NOW, WE HAVE DONE ALL THE INSPECTIONS. >> DOES THIS GUARANTEE WE'RE INSPECTING -- THE WAY I'M READING IT, WE WOULD AGREE WITH A THIRD PARTY TO INSPECT IT.

>> I SAY WE PUSH BACK AND SAY IF IT'S INSIDE THE CITY, IT'S THE CITY'S INSPECTION TEAM

ESPECIALLY BECAUSE WE HAVE A 24 HOUR TIMEFRAME. >> IF IT'S GOING TO BE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY WE NEED TO INSPECT IT. EVENTUALLY, EVERYTHING IN OUR

ETJ WOULD BE -- AID [INDISCERNI] >> THAT WAS ALL OF MY QUESTIONS. >> SO THE NOTION HERE WOULD BE TO HAVE AN AMENDMENT IN L, INSPECTIONS, THE CITY SHALL PROVIDE BUILDING INSPECTIONS

WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS? >> NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY, I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS.

THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING TOWARDS. I'M JUST ASKING THE QUESTIONS BEFORE THE MOTION IS MADE.

>> IT SAYS THE CITY CAN PROVIDE INSPECTIONS OR ALTERNATIVELY WILL ACCEPT CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS THAT WILL BE SUBMITTED WITH THE CITY FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.

SO WHAT THAT SAYS TO ME IS IF THEY DECIDE THEY WANT TO DO A THIRD PARTY INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS WE HAVE TO ACCEPT IT BUT THEY CAN CHOOSE TO USE THE CITY INSPECTIONS IF THEY WANT AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE FLIPPED. I THINK IT SHOULD BE IF YOU'RE IN THE CITY LIMITS YOU SHALL HAVE YOUR BUILDINGS INSPECTED BY THE CITY AND ALTERNATIVELY IF YOU'RE NOT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, THEN WE CAN ACCEPT CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS.

I THINK THEY NEED TO BE FLIPPED. >> YEAH. >> I WOULD AGREE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2023-326 AS PRESENTED WITH AN AMENDMENT TO SECTION 4, PARAGRAPH L TO REQUIRE CITY INSPECTIONS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND ALLOW THIRD

PARTY INSPECTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. >> AND MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON, IF

YOU WOULD ALLOW US TO CLARIFY SUBDIVISIONS OUR UDC. >> YES, I AGREE WITH THAT.

>> I SECOND IT BUT I NEED TO ADD A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. THAT THE CITY HAS TO GET APPROVAL OF USING THAT PARTICULAR THIRD PARTY. IT HAS TO BE OFF AN APPROVED

THIRD PARTY LIST FROM THE CITY. >> IT SAYS CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY INSPECTIONS.

>> BUT WHAT IS CERTIFIED? >> COUNCILMAN CLARK, YOU MADE YOUR AMENDMENT, BEFORE WE EXPLAIN, WE NEED A SECOND AND THEN WE CAN DISCUSS IT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON AMENDING REQUIRING THE CITY TO APPROVE? HEARING NONE THE AMENDED MOTION DIES.

NOW THAT WE HAVE THE MOTION, WE'LL OPEN THIS UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR 12.2.

ANY DISCUSSION? >> MY OPINION ON THE AMENDMENT WAS FOR ME THIS IS STUFF.

IT DOES SAY THEY'RE CERTIFIED THIRD PARTY, I'M GUESSING IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE STATE.

>> THROUGH ICC. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH THE EXTRA STEP OF SAYING MAY WE PLEASE USE THIS INSPECTOR, AS LONG AS THEY ARE SEHRT FIED.

>> I THINK IT'S OVERCERTIFIED. >> I THINK IT'S OVER KILL FOR THEM TO COME TO THE ■CITYAND SAY HERE'S THIS INSPECTOR AND I WOULD HAVE RESERVATIONS ABOUT UTILIZING ONE OF OUR COMPANY THAT IS WE USE AND TAKING THEM OFF ANOTHER PROJECT TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE ISD.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THAT.

ALL THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, MOST NEW BUILDINGS OF THE SCHOOL ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE IN ETJ WHICH MEANS THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO CONTINUE TO USE WHATEVER INSPECTORS THEY WANT AND NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CITY SO IT'S WORTHLESS IF YOU DON'T MAKE THE FRIENDLY AMENDMENT I'M SUGGESTING BECAUSE THEY WILL NOT USE ANY CITY INSPECTOR OR ANY THIRD PARTIES THAT ARE CITY PARTY NOTICES, OTHERWISE, WHY EVEN BOTHER HAVING THE CITY INSPECT

[02:00:03]

EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING THEY DO, 90% OF THEIR WORK IS NOT NET CITY BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING SCHOOLS IN THE ETZ SO YOU'RE NOT EVEN BOTHERING W WITH THE AMENDMENT. IF YOU'RE NOT GOING TO ADD THAT, I WILL BE VOTING NO.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> MAJOR, IF I MIGHT, I'M NOT SHORE THAT WE MAINTAIN A THIRD PARTY INSPECTOR LIST AS OF TODAY RIGHT KNEW.

IF SOMEONE COMES TO US WITH CERTIFICATIONS THAT THEY ARE ALLOWED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS, WE RESPECT THAT BUT WE DON'T RETAIN A LIST. IF WE WANT TO DO THAT, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW WE WANT TO GO ABOUT SELECTING THAT LIST. WE MAY HAVE TO DO AN RFP FOR IT BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE REFERRING BUSINESS TO SPECIFIC FOLKS, RIGHT?

AND WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, EITHER. >> DON'T THEY ANNEX BEFORE THEY

BUILD THEIR BUILDINGS ANYWAY? >> SOME DO, SOME DON'T. A FEW ARE IN THE IN THE CITY LIMITS. I KNOW WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH WITH THE ISD NOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT DURING ZONING LOOKING AT TRYING TO RESERVE OR AT LEAST RESERVE FOR A CERTAIN TIME FRAME SCHOOL SITES AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE ACREAGE CAME FROM IN THAT ILA, SO WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS ARE 20 ACRES AND WE GO UP FROM THERE AND EVERY SIX TO EIGHT WEEKS WE MEET WITH THE ISD TO LOOK AT THE PROJECTS AND DEMOGRAPHICS AND GENERAL CONCERNS OF DWOUMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITYDEVELOPMENT THROUGHOUT THE CITY AND ANYTHING ELSE UNDER THE SUN THAT WE CAN DISCUSS. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE HALF AND HALF.

ONE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON NOW, THERE'S WIN SITE IN THE ETJ BUT IT'S A MUNICIPAL UTILITY

DISTRICT SO THAT WOULD BE ONE. >> THIS IS WHY THEY LIMIT ME TO FIVE MINUTES.

I WILL START WITH THIS HERE. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE WAY WE HAVE THIS SET UP.

THERE'S GOING TO BE RENOVATIONS. THERE'S GOING TO BE ADDITIONS AND SO I'M NOT AT ALL WANTING TO GET INTO ETJ AND MESS WITH THAT. I THINK SOME MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT ARE STARTING TO WARM UP TO UNDERSTANDING ME AND THAT ALL I WANT IS FOR US TO FOLLOW WHATEVER AGREEMENT WE PASS. THE REASON WE'RE HERE IS BECAUSE, IN MY OPINION, THE CITY WASN'T FOLLOWING THE PREVIOUS AGREEMENT SO I HOLD PEOPLE TO THE RULES.

IF SUBSECTION J SAYS THIS, YOU NEED TO DO THIS. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, AMEND THE DOCUMENT. THE PROBLEM I HAVE IS THAT THE ISD IS THE ONLY ONE WORKING ON THIS. THE CITY, FROM WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, IS THAT WE ARE NOT COMMUNICATING WITH THEM. JOAN IF WE NEED TO ADD IN HERE THAT WE WILL RESPOND TO E-MAILS A NOTHING DRIVES ME CRAZIER THAN SOMEONE NOT RESPONDING TO A QUESTION FOR TWO WEEKS. THE IMPRESSION I'M GETTING IS THAT'S HOW THIS IS WORKING RIGHT NOW. THAT'S THE PERCEPTION AND PERCEPTION IS REALITY. THEY PASS THEIR OWN ILA BECAUSE THEY GAVE UP ON THE CITY.

WE TALKED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND SAID WE DIDN'T WANT THIS ITEM ON HERE.

I TOLD THE SUPERINTENDENT WE WILL HAM THEY ARE -- HAMMER THIS THING OUT UNTIL MIDNIGHT IF WE HAVE TO. I GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT LACK OF RESPONSE.MIDNIGHT IF WE.

I GET A LOT OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT LACK OF RESPONSE. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THE EL MAIL I GOT BECAUSE I'M NOT HERE TO THROW PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS WE NEED TO DO BETTER.E MAIL I GOT BECAUSE I'M NOT HERE TO THROW PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS WE NEED TO DO BETTER.- MAIL I GOT BECAUSE I'M NOT HERE TO THROW PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS WE NEED TO DO BETTER.MAIL I GOT BECAUSE I'M NOT HERE TO THROW PEOPLE UNDER THE BUS WE NEED TO DO BETTER. I WAS PROUD OF THE AGREEMENT WE MADE.

IT WAS NOT LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL IS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL SO WE'RE GOING TO PASS WHAT FAVORS US.

[02:05:02]

THE ONLY TWO THINGS FOR ME WERE THE SIDEWALKS WHICH MADE IT TO RAY AND THE CITY INSPECTIONS WHICH I THINK THEY WILL BE OKAY WITH. THEY ACCEPTED THE CITY COMMENTS SO IF WE WANT TO STOP HAVING ISSUES WITH THE ISD, PASS THIS, THEY FOLLOW IT AND IF THE CITY OF HUTTO DOESN'T FOLLOW PARTS OF IT, I'LL BE THE FIRST ONE TO CALL THAT OUT BUT THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN TO THE ISD. WE HAVE THESE AGREEMENTS IN PLACE FOR A REASON, WE NEED TO FOLLOW IT AND I TOLD THEM ALL I'M VERY HAPPY WITH THE WORK THAT THEY DID ON THIS AND NEXT TIME AROUND WE WILL BE MORE VIVEED AND TRYIED AND TRY TONED AND TRY TO INVOED AND TRY TLEVED AND TRY T SOONER THAN THIS.

>> IF I MIGHT RESPOND TO THAT, I WILL BE MEETING WITH SUPERINTENDENT PENA NEXT WEEK AND I WILL DISCUSS WITH HIM THE PERCEPTION ISSUE. FROM WHERE I SIT, THE COMMUNICATION HAS BEEN FINE. MOST OF THE COMMUNICATION IS BETWEEN THEIR LEGAL COUNCIL AND MY O LU LR LEGAL COUNCIL. I DID SEE THE E-MAIL GOING AROUND BUT THAT DOESN'T REFLECT WHAT I SEE TO BE THE REALITY. I WILL TALK WITH HIM AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THE BLIND SPOT IS. IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK THROUGH RECORDS, YOU WILL SEE THERE'S COMMUNICATION BETWEEN OUR LEGAL COUNCIL AND THEIR LEGAL COUNCIL QUITE A BIT LEADING UP TO THAT.

>> I WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THE ONLY TIME I COMMUNICATED WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ATTORNEY WAS TO, BECAUSE I KNEW WE WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOMETHING IN SENT AND I SENT HER AN E-MAIL AND SHE SENT BACK THE AGREEMENT WHICH I FORWARDED TO CITY STAFF TO

PROVIDE COMMENTS. >> SINCE I GOT A MINUTE-AND-A-HALF I'LL KEEP GOING. I DON'T WANT THE CITY ATTORNEY NEGOTIATING FOR US WITHOUT ASKING US WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SEE IN THE AGREEMENT? THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING ANYTHING AND REALLY DIDN'T DO MUCH OF ANYTHING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MEETING ON IT BECAUSE WE'RE WAITING ON STAFF TO BRING US SOMETHING TO SAY HEY, GUYS, THIS WAS SENT TO US IN FEBRUARY AND HERE'S CHANGES WE PROPOSE WHAT DO YOU ALL AS COUNCIL THINK? IT'S ALL FLIPPED AROUND, STAFF IS OUT DOING SOMETHING AND THEN SOMEWHERE IT BREAKS DOWN AND THEN THE MAYOR PRO-TEM AND I SIT IN MEETINGS, WHERE ARE YOU AT ON THIS? I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW WE WERE LOOKING AT INTERLOCAL AND WE SHOULD BE DIRECTING YOU ALL ON WHAT WE WANT BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES THAT REPRESENT THE PEOPLE THIS AFFECTS. IF YOU'RE SPENDING YOUR TIME AND ENERGY MESSING AROUND WITH AGREEMENTS THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN TOLD YOU WHAT WE WANT IN IT, WE'RE WASTING TIME BECAUSE WE COULD HAVE SAID START ALL OVER AND THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EMBARRASSING BECAUSE SOMEONE ON THE ISD WOULD HAVE SAID DID YOU NOT TALK TO ANYBODY ON THE COUNCIL.

IT'S THE E-MAILS AS A MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO-TEM. IT'S 'EM PARISING -- EMBARRASSING FOR ME, I'M SPEAKING FOR ME. WHEN THEY ASK ME SOMETHING BUT I'M OUT OF THE LOOP OF WHAT'S GOING ON. THE COMMONATION BEUNICATION BETD THE ISD. I WILL STOP BEING FRUSTRATED THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON IN A CITY THAT ARE MAJOR THINGS I'M SUPPOSED TO VOTE AND AND I GET THIS DOCUMENT ON FRIDAY AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED BY THE ISD. THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. I THINK MY FIVE MINUTES IS UP. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES, 6-0. NEXT WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA. ANYONE HAVE ANY ITEMS THEY WISH

[13. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

TO PULL? >> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 13.3, 13.6, AND 13.10 UNTIL AFTER

EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> OH MY GOSH, OKAY. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 13.7, 13.9,

[02:10:10]

13.11 AND 13.14. >> ANY OTHERS? WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE ITEMS 13.1, 13.2, 13.4, 13.5 (READING FROM TEXT)

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTIONED AND SECONDED. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[13.7. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-075 amending Chapter 18, Streets and Public Places, Article 18.03 to provide for construction requirements, insurance, bonding, enforcement and penalties; repealing ordinance in conflict and providing for an effective date (Second Reading) (Legal) ]

>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. OKAY. 13.7, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2023-075 AMENDING CHAPTER 18, STREETS AND PUBLIC PLACES, ARTICLE 18.03 TO PROVIDE FOR CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS, INSURANCE, BONDING, ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES REPEALING ORDINANCE IN CONFLICT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

I DOESN'T SEE ANYTHING IN THE PACKET ON THIS ITEM. I SAW THE AGENDA AND THE ORDINANCE AND SINCE WE'RE AMENDING IT, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT WE'RE AMENDING.

I WOULD HIKE TO SEE THIS COME BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING WITH A RED LINE OF WHAT THIS IS

AMENDING. >> I THOUGHT THIS WAS IN THE BODY IN 13.6 --

>> IT DOES HAVE THAT, I'M LOOKING FOR THE ORDINANCE BEFORE AND AFTER BECAUSE IF YOU REMEMBER THAT ONE TIME WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE AND THERE WAS A CHANGE AND WE HAD TOO BRING IT BACK UP BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE. BRING BACK UP BECAUSE THERE WERE MORE

CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE. >> I DID THE ORDINANCE ON THIS ONE.

THE ONLY THING I DID WAS CHANGE THE ONE DATE FROM THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING THAT COUNCIL REQUESTED TO JANUARY 1ST AND I MADE SURE THAT THERE WERE NO TYPOS OR FORMATTING ERRORS AND

THAT IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE LAID OUT OUR CODE. >> SO ARE WE ON 13.7?

>> YES. >> THIS IS AMENDING THE CODE AND NOT ANOTHER ORDINANCE.

SO YOU WANT TO SEE A RED LINE OF THE CODE WITH THE CHANGES THAT THE ORDINANCE YOU'RE CONSIDERING

INSERTED INTO WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE CODIFIED? >> YEAH, PRETTY MUCH.

RIGHT NOW IT'S HERE'S AN ITEM, HERE'S THE ORDINANCE TO PASS. >> I THINK WE CAN CERTAINLY WORK THAT IN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE BEFORE. THE CODIFICATION IS DONE BY A THIRD PARTY SO WE CAN GIVE YOU AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT WE WOULD EXPECT IT TO LOOK LIKE BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE COMPANY THAT DOES THE CODIFICATION MAKES THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE

PHRASEOLOGY AND THAT MAY GET COMPLICATED. >> SO YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT ENGINE ELSE IS GOING TO DRAFT AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE IT --

>> NO, HOLD ON. WE LAY IT OUT HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE CODE.

>> OH, I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. >> WE DID THE FIRST READING OF THIS, WE HAD THAT DETAILED RED LINE. THE ONLY CHANGE WAS THE DATE TO JANUARY 1ST.

>> SO IT'S MORE LIKE A FORMALITY THING. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE

THIS UNTIL THE 14TH OF DECEMBER. >> SECOND. >> AND MY DISCUSSION ON THIS IS THIS WAY THE PUBLIC CAN SEE WHAT THE CHANGES ARE SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ANYONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[13.9. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2023-079 amending the Fee Schedule of the City of Hutto, Appendix A, of the Hutto Code of Ordinances to add Section A 1.010 to include a schedule of fees and charges for use of the Public Right-ofWay (First Reading) (David Amsler) ]

MOTION PASSES 6-0. NEXT IS 13.9, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2023-079 AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE OF THE CITY OF HUTTO APPENDIX A OF THE HUTTO

[02:15:02]

CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ADD SECTION A1.010 TO INCLUDE A SCHEDULE OF FEES AND CHARGES FOR THE USE OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THIS WITH OUR PROTOCOLS BUT I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE 14TH AS WELL.

I GUESS IF I GET A SECOND I WILL EXPLAIN WHY. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. SO I'M GOING THROUGH THE FEES AND SCHEDULES AND THERE ARE OVERDUE BOOK FINES IN THERE AND I'M ALMOST POSITIVE DID WE NOT REPEAL THAT?

>> WE DID. >> BUT IT'S IN THERE AS 25¢ A DAY UP TO VALUE OF THE BOOK SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RIGHT FEE SCHEDULE. BRING BACK ON THE 14TH THE FEE SCHEDULE AND IF THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE, OKAY, BUT TRICKS RUDY COULD TELL YOU BUT I'M ALMOST

POSITIVE WE DID AWAY WITH FEES. >> YOU'RE CORRECT, SIR. I DON'T REMEMBER THE DATE BUT I REMEMBER THAT. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, CALL THE VOTE.

>> I'M SORRY, WHO WAS THE SECOND? >> IF I COULD INTERRUPT YOUR VOTE, THIS ITEM IS ONLY POSTED TO AMEND THAT ONE SECTION. IT REQUIRES TWO READINGS BECAUSE THERE'S FEES. IF THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE ORDINANCE, WE CAN CORRECT THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS BECAUSE I DIDN'T GO THERE ALL THE FEES BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE LOOKING AT TWO VERSIONS AGO OR LITERALLY AN ERROR, I DON'T KNOW.

>> BUT THIS AGENDA ITEM WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT A1.010. WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE WHOLE

THING. >> WHEN IT COMES BACK NEXT WEEK, I'M LOOKING THAT WE VERIFIED THIS IS THE RIGHT THING AND IF IT'S NOT, I'M ASSUMING IT WILL BE ANOTHER ITEM AND WHATEVER WE

HAVE TO DO TO FIX IT. >> OKAY, BECAUSE THE FEES NEED TO GO INTO EFFECT WITH THE RIGHT

OF WAY ORDINANCE. >> THE RIGHT OF WAY ONES BEING HELD FOR ANOTHER MEETING ANYWAY,

RIGHT? >> YEAH, BUT THIS WOULD BE ONLY FIRST READING.

>> HOW DOES THAT CHANGE THE VOTE? IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THIS ON FIRST READING TO REQUEST TO LOOK AT ALL THE OTHER FEES TO MAKE SURE THIS IS CORRECT?

>> YES. >> YOU HAVE TO TELL ME HOW THAT WORKS.

WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF VOTING, HOW DO YOU STOP A VOTE ONCE IT STARTS AND THEN --

>> YOU CAN COMPLETE YOUR VOTE AND THEN RECONSIDER. >> THERE YOU GO.

>> WHO ALL HAS VOTED? >> JUST ONE PERSON. >> YEAH, I THINK I WAS THE ONLY

ONE. >> AND THIS VOTE IS TO TABLE UNTIL THE 14TH.

>> THIS IS TO TABLE UNTIL THE 14TH. AND DOES THAT AFFECT SOMETHING

TO NOT TABLE IT? >> IT WOULD BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE THE FIRST READING ON THE

14TH. >> IF IT FAILS, YOU CAN MAKE A NEW MOTION.

ONE PERSON VOTED. >> ALL RIGHT. HOW DID YOU VOTE?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SAY. >> YOU CAN WITH DRAW YOUR VOTE AND CHANGE IT.

>> THERE YOU GO. . I WITHDRI WITHDRA

>> SO WE CAN CHANGE IT NOW. I HAVE LEARNED SO MUCH. OKAY.

SO I WILL RESCIND THE TABLING. WE'LL ENTERTAIN A DIFFERENT MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION, AND THIS IS 13.9, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> TO APPROVE ORDINANCE O-2023-079 AS PRESENTED WITH A REQUEST THAT FOR THE SECOND READING STAFF CORRECT THE ERROR WITH REGARD TO THE BOOK FEES AND LOOK FOR ANY OTHER SCRIBNER'S

ERRORS THAT MAY BE PRESENT. >> SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION FOR THE MOTION? HEARING NONE CALL THE VOTE.

[02:20:19]

MOTION PASSES 6-0. NEXT WE HAVE 13.11, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

[13.11. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-331 authorizing the City Manager to execute a temporary construction and permanent access easement to A-S 64 CR 119-HWY 79, L.P., a Texas limited partnership in substantially the same form as Attachment "A" with the form to be approved by the City Attorney (Matt Rector) ]

ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2023-331 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AND PERMANENT ACCESS EASEMENT TO A-S 64 CR 119-HWY 79, L.P. A TEXAS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP IN A SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME FORM AS ATTACHMENT A WITH THE FORM TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. HERE'S MY QUESTION: IN THE PACKET I DIDN'T SEE OUR AGREEMENT WITH THE YMCA BUT DO WE HAVE AGREEMENT OR DO OUR TEN INNOCENT -- TENANT HAVE TO ION OFF ON IT? TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE WITH LEASEHOLDS ON PROPERTY.ON OFF O? TYPICALLY THE PEOPLE WITH LEASEHOLDS ON PROPERTY. HAVE WE DONE THAT?

>> YES, AND I BELIEVE THERE'SAP. HAVE WE DONE THAT? >> YES, AND I BELIEVE THERE'S A SIGNATORY. THE ATTORNEY FOR THE -- [INDISCERNIBLE] EVEN THOUGH WE

HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE FOR ALL EASEMENTS. >> SO WE CONTACTED YMCA, HOW DO

WE CONTACT THEM? >> THEY'RE A LEASEE SIGNATORY. >> I KNOW BUT HOW DID WE CONTACT

THEM? >> I CAN'T SPEAK FOR JEFF BUT I HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH JEFF, THE YMCA MANAGER AND RICH, HIS MAINTENANCE MANAGER. THEY'RE AWARE, THEY HAVE SEEN THE DOCUMENT. I CAN'T SPEAK AS FAR AS JEFF AS IF HE'S HAD ANY VERBAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM OR NOT. IT'S BEEN CONFUSING, JUSTIFY AND JEFF AND JEFF.

>> IT IS CONFUSING BECAUSE I HAVE A DIFFERENT STORY. I THOUGHT THEY WERE DEALING WITH A MANHOLE COVER NOT ACCESS EASEMENTS. SO FROM A FORMALITY STANDPOINT, YOU WERE ASKING THE CITY COUNCIL, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF HUTTO TO AUTHORIZE A DOCUMENT THAT WE DON'T EVEN THOUGH IF THE OTHER PEOPLE WOULD AGREE TO YET, THAT

BEING THE Y? >> I THINK THE TECHNICAL REASON FOR THIS IS FOR YOU TO DEFINITIVELY STATE THAT THE CITY MANAGER HAS THE AUTHORITY TO SIGN THE DOCUMENT ON YOUR BEHALF

ASSUMING THE OTHER PARTY AGREES AS WELL. >> AND APPROVED TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AS TO FORM AND THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF E-MAILS BETWEEN THE ATTORNEY IN OUR OFFICE, MARYANN BANKS WHO HAS BEEN WORKING WITH MATT AND THE ACADEMY AND YMCA AND MAKING SURE THEY UNDERSTAND AND THEY HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF THIS FOR REVIEW.

>> WOULD IT PRIZE YOU ALL THAT THE YMCA DOES NOT KNOW ABOUT THE ACCESS EASEMENTS? THAT THEY HAVE NOT HEARD BACK FROM THEIR ATTORNEY YET? DOES THAT SURPRISE ANYBODY? OUR ATTORNEYS ARE E-MAILING YOU GUYS AND YOU GUYS E-MAIL OVER TO THE Y BUT IS ANYBODY SURPRISED

THAT THE Y DOESN'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE? >> I CAN'T SPEAK TO THEIR ATTORNEY BUT I WOULD BE SURPRISED THAT THEIR DIRECTOR AND MAINTENANCE OPERATOR ARE NOT AWARE WITH THE EASEMENTS BECAUSE I HAVE HAD COMMUNICATIONS WITH THEM AS LATE AS TODAY TALKING ABOUT THE EASEMENTS. THERE ARE TWO EASEMENTS IN THE DOCUMENT AND THAT WAS MOSTLY ME

[02:25:02]

PUSHING, ONE IS THEY WANTED A FULL ACCESS EASEMENT IN FRONT OF THE YMCA FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC TO GO THROUGH THAT ACCESS AND I SAID ABSOLUTELY NOT. UNLESS WE'RE GOING TO RESTRICT THE HOURS FOR DELIVERY UNTIL AFTER THE HOURS OF OPERATION. THE MAIN TAPOINT IS THERE ARE KS RUNNING ALL AROUND THAT PARKING LOT. THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE HOUR RESTRICTION SO I SAID THEN YOU HAVE TWO ACCESS EASEMENTS, ONE IN THE BACK OF THE Y WHERE WE DON'T HAVE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND KID TRAFFIC GOING OVER TO MAKE DELIVERIES AND THEN YOUR REGULAR TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF THE Y JUST LIKE IS HAPPENING NOW AND THEY'VE AGREED TO THAT AND THAT'S THE CONVERSATION I WAS HAVING WITH THE Y STAFF AS LATE AS TODAY SAYING THIS IS WHY YOU'RE GETTING TWO EASEMENTS INSTEAD OF ONE. IT WOULD COMPLETELY SURPRISE ME

IF THEY TOLD YOU THEY WERE NOT AWARE. >> WHERE IN THE DOCUMENT DOES IT

STOP TRACTOR TRAILERS FROM GOING IN FRONT OF THE Y? >> I CAN'T QUOTE THE PAGE AND VERSE FOR YOU BUT THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT EASEMENTS LISTED IN THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT.

THE FIRST ONE TALKS ABOUT ROUTINE TRAFFIC AND THE OTHER TALKS ABOUT DELIVERY TRAFFIC.

>> MY QUESTION IS DO WE HAVE A RIGHT TO ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT?

I GUESS THAT'S WIN QUESTION, WHILE WE'RE LOOKING THIS UP. >> ANY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE COMMUNICATIONS, THERE'S STILL A QUESTION ON BOTH PARTS BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE THE Y LEASE

AGREEMENT. >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT THAT'S WHAT'S SCARING ME.

YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S STILL QUESTIONS AND YOU ASKING US TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON AND WHAT I FEEL LIKE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, THINGS SHOULD BE BUTTONED UP, THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS SO WHEN WE APPROVE IT, IT'S DONE BECAUSE WE KEEP APPROVING STUFF ONLY FOR SIX MONTHS LATER SOMEONE SO COME BACK AND TELL US THIS IS REALLY SCREWED UP HERE, WE DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT OVER HERE AND THAT'S WHY I'M PUSHING ALL THESE QUESTIONS. I FEEL LIKE, OH, ACADEMY, YOU NEED AN ACCESS EASEMENT, YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY? OKAY, LET'S GET THIS DONE. WHAT'S IT IN FOR HUTTO? WHAT'S IN IT FOR THE TAXPAYER? WE DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A RIGHT TO DO SOMETHING OR GIVE THE CITY MANAGER APPROVAL TO DO SOMETHING AND WE'RE GIVING A TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON A ROAD THAT'S ALREADY BUILT SO THAT'S GOT ME CONFUSED. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT AND THEN PARAGRAPH THREE, ACCESS EASEMENT ACROSS GRANTOR PROPERTY. I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT LIMITS THE TRICKS. THAT'S THE SAME CONCERN I HAD. WHY ARE WE LETTING SIMEMIS DRIV

THROUGH BASKETBALL PRACTICE. >> I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME BUT THERE ARE TWO EXHIBITS,

ONE WITH TRUCK ACCESS NOT BACK AND THE OTHER IS REGULAR. >> IT'S PARAGRAPH FOUR.

IT'S RIGHT AFTER. >> BUT IT'S USE OF THE YMCA ACCESS EASEMENT AND YOU'VE GOT

WHAT DEFINES IT SO THE YMCA ACCESS EASEMENT. >> IT SAYS IN PARAGRAPH SUB B FOR THE PURPOSE OVER DELIVERY TRUCK EGRESS ONLY IF USING THE ACCESS PATH TO THE REAR OF THE

YMCA BUILDING AS DESIGNATED ON THE YMCA SITE PLAN. >> YEAH, WHY WOULDN'T YOU HAVE TWO EASEMENTS? WIN YMCA ACCESS EASEMENT ACADEMY TRUCK ACCESS EASEMENT.ON YMCA A

TRUCK ACCESS EASEMENT.E YMCA ACY TRUCK ACCESS EASEMENT. >> I THINK THE CONFUSION IS THAT THEY'RE BOTH ACADEMY ACCESS EASEMENTS ACROSS THE YMCA SO MAYBE THAT'S THE DISCONNECT.

THE REGULAR, YOU AND MANY, WE WOULD HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT IN FRONT OF THE YMCA BUT IF WE WERE

TRUCK DRIVERS, WE WOULD HAVE TO. >> IF THERE'S ONE THING I KNOW, IT'S EASEMENTS, YOU CALL THEM OUT SEPARATELY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY I HAVE THE RIGHT TO DRIVE A TRUCK.

[02:30:08]

IF YOU WANT TO TWEAK HOW WE'RE DOING IT IT'S GETTING INSTRUCTION --

>> WHY ARE WE DOING THIS NOW? ACADEMY IS OPENED. TYPICALLY EASEMENTS ARE DONE IN DEVELOPMENT, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION, TCES ARE DONE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PART SOMETIMES.

WHY ARE WE JUST NOW DOING AN ACCESS EASEMENT AFTER THE THING IS OPEN?

>> WE STARTED THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE NEW QUEST AND ACADEMY GROUP BACK IN I THINK FEBRUARY OR MARCH AND IT'S TAKEN THIS LONG GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THEIR LEGAL TEAM TO GET US TO

THIS POINT. THAT'S WHY. >> THAT'S A FAILURE ON US BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T UNDERSTAND IS WHY THERE'S A BACK AND FORTH. WE HAVE PROPERTY THE CITY OWNS.

YOU ALL NEED AN EASEMENT OVER IT, HERE'S HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE.

IF YOU WANT ACCESS OVER THE LAND, HERE'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. WHY THE BACK AND FORTH? I'LL ASK QUESTIONS, SO NOW THEY'RE USING OUR PROPERTY FOR ACCESS BUT THE MAINTENANCE IS 100% ON THE TAXPAYERS. EVERY OTHER ACCESS EASEMENT IT'S AT LEAST A 50/50 SHARE, SO WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR THE FULL BRUNT ON THE WEAR AND TEAR ON THE ROAD.

WHY ARE THEY NOT PAYING 50% LIKE EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT. IF WE NEEDED ACCESS TO THEIR

PROPERTY, I GUARANTEE IT WOULD BE 50% >> WE ARE GETTING ACCESS FOR THE SAME PURPOSES. NORMALLY WHAT'S GOING ON IS YOU HAVE A MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT THAT HUSBAND MULTIPLE SITES AND THERE ARE WAYS TO GET THAT DONE. THERE ARE NO ISSUES FOR ACCESS ISSUES OR THEY SELL TO AN END USER AND THOSE FOLKS, WHO ARE LANDLOCKED, THEY GO FORTH WITH THE ACCESS EASEMENT OPTION. IN THIS CASE, ACADEMY IS IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT WITH THEM IN ALLIANCE AND THE YMCA WOULD WANT TO BE ABLE TO RECEIVE TRAFFIC THROUGH THE ACADEMY PARKING LOT FROM LOWE'S AND EVERYTHING ELSE SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL SITES THAT ARE OWNED BY DIFFERENT OWNERS, WE NEED TO ACCESS EASEMENTS JUST SO SOME DAY ACADEMY DOESN'T GO AND PUT UP A BLOCKADE OVER THE DRIVEWAY AND SAY, WELL, YOU DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT SO WE CAN BLOCK IT SO THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

SAME THING WITH THE YMCA BLOCKADING OVER TO THE ACADEMY. THAT'S HOW THESE THINGS ARE STRUCTURED AND IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, THE NEW QUEST, OF COURSE, IS OWNING PARCELS INSIDE OF THIS THAT THEY'RE NOT TRANSFERRING AND IT'S GOING TO BE ONE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT.

>> AS POLITELY AS YOU CAN SAY THIS, THIS IS SCREWED UP. LOWE'S IS ITS OWN ENTITY.

YOU'RE HAVING THE Y GIVE ACCESS TO THE ACADEMY AND THEN YOU'RE LETTING LOWE'S ACCESS AND YOU CAN'T DO THAT LEGALLY. EVERYBODY HAS TO GET ON. THE Y OPERATED FINE BEFORE THE ACADEMY WAS THERE BECAUSE IT WAS JUST DIRT. MY GUESS IS IT WILL CONTINUE TO OPERATE FINE AND ACADEMY CAN'T BLOCK OFF THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THERE'S AN AGREEMENT TO RUN IT TO ALLIANCE. WE'RE JUST MAKING A MESS OF THIS AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE GIVING ACCESS TO PEOPLE THAT NEED TO SIGN OFF ON THIS, I HAVE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING QUITE LIKE THIS. TELL ME HOW IT'S GOING, THIS IS HOW I THINK IT'S WRONG.

THESE ARE DONE BEFORE THE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT. YOU DON'T BUILD BUILTINGS AND HAVE TRAFFIC NAVIGATING AND THEN START SLAPPING EASEMENTS ON THINGS.

THIS IS YOUR LEVERAGE TO SAY YOU NEED THIS TO OPEN ON TIME. WE HAVE TO BE MORE PROFESSIONAL

[02:35:01]

IN THIS. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, AGREEMENTS COME BEFORE PEOPLE OPEN UP.

YOU DON'T COME IN AFTER ITS OPEN AND SAY, OKAY, NOW I NEED ACCESS.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE ISSUES AT THE MEGASITE AND IN THE CITY BECAUSE THE DEVELOPERS ARE RUNNING ALL OVER US AND YOU'RE TELLING ME HOW THE PROCESS IS AND I'M TELLING YOU NOW -- SORRY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ANYBODY WANTS TO DO BUT I'M OUT OF QUESTIONS. HOW DID WE EVEN GET TO THIS POINT? HOW DOES A STORE OPEN WITHOUT EASEMENTS IN PLACE?

>> IS THERE A RESPONSE TO THAT QUESTION? >> I CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT, A STEER OPENED UNDER A TCO WITH A CONDITIONALLY APPROVED SITE PLAN AND IT WAS ALL IN AN EFFORT TOO ASSIST ACADEMY BECAUSE OF ISSUES BETWEEN CITY STAFF AND THE DEVELOPER AND SO WE CONDITIONALLY APPROVED THEIR SITE PLAN, WE GAVE THEM A TCO ON THEIR STORE.

THERE WERE ISSUES LEADING UP TO THAT WITH MULTIPLE INSPECTIONS AND MULTIPLE ISSUES, THEY DID TRY TO CLOSE DOWN THE ACCESS ROAD AND WE HAD TO GO OUT THERE AND REQUIRE THAT THEY REMOVE BARRICADES SO THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES THERE AND, LIKE I SAID, THE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ACCESS EASEMENT STARTED EARLY AND IT'S BEEN AN ON GOING ISSUE AND DOTTIE'S TEAM HAS DONE A LOT OF THE HEAVY LIFTING AND NEGOTIATING WITH THEIR ATTORNEY AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THIS PINT BECAUSE WE THOUGHT WE WERE AT A POINT WHERE WE COULD GET EVERYBODY TO SIGN THIS DOCUMENT AND THEIR ATTORNEY SAID, WELL, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE A RESOLUTION IN PLACE THAT SAID YOUR SISTER MANAGER CAN SIGN EASEMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL, WE DON'T THINK HE CAN.

>> REMEMBER WHEN SOMEONE TRIED THROWING THEIR WEIGHT AROUND AND WE SAID GO SOMEWHERE ELSE? DON'T BE AFRAID TO SAY NO. OUR TAXPAYERS WANT A CERTAIN THING AND YOU CAN'T CLOSE DOWN THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR WHATEVER. I HAVE NEVER SEEN A DEVELOPER PUSH THEIR WEIGHT AROUND SO MUCH. WE NEED TO TAKE THE POWER BACK FROM NEW QUEST AND SAY LOOK, IN THE CITY OF HUTTO, WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT YOU BUT NOT GOING TO COME IN HERE AND TELL US HOW YOU'RE GOING TO WRITE THINGS AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO THINGS BECAUSE NO OTHER CITY DOES THAT. THEY JUST SAY GO SOMEPLACE ELSE. I'M ALMOST POSITIVE I'M RIGHT

ABOUT OVERBURDENING. >> I DID ASK THAT WE GOT AN EASEMENT WITH THEM GIVING US EASEMENT IN FRONT OF ACADEMY AND LOWE'S AND I BELIEVE THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THEY SOLD OFF THE PRATOPERTY TO LOWE'S SO THEY COULDN'T AGREE TO THAT AND I DON'T REMEMBER THE LEGAL JARGON

BUT THAT WAS THEIR POINT. >> I HAVE TO ADD LOWE'S TO THE AGREEMENT AND IT'S A FREAKING NIGHTMARE BECAUSE THEN THEY WANT CHANGES MADE ON YMCA'S PROPERTY THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THEM AND THEIR ATTORNEYS WANT TO COMMENT AND IT'S DIFFICULT. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO DO ALL THIS, BUT I THINK YOU NEED TO GET IN COUCH WITH THE YMCA AND VERIFY THAT THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT. I DON'T KNOW WHY THE Y NEEDS AN ACCESS EASEMENT.

>> NOT TO TRY TO ARGUE WITH YOU, MR. MAYOR, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY DON'T HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT BUT THERE WAS A FIRE LINE WITH AN EASEMENT AND WE HAD TO TELLED THEM YOU CANNOT SHUT THIS DOWN THIS IS THE FIRE LANE FOR THE Y SO THIS HAS TO STAY OPEN. THEM YOU CANNOT SHUT THIS DOWN THIS IS THE FIRE LANE FOR THE Y SO THIS HAS TO STAY OPEN.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYED OUT BACK IN THE DAY. >> SOUNDS LIKE ANY QUEST HAS A PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS THEY NEED TO FIX.N QUEST HAS A PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS THEY NEED TO FIX.EW QUEST HAS A PROBLEM ON THEIR HANDS THEY NEED TO FIX.

>> AND TO YOUR POINT ABOUT MAINTENANCE, THAT'S THE ISSUE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT FOR YMCA. THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THEY'RE ON THE HOOK FOR ALL THE MAINTENANCE

[02:40:01]

COSTS AND IN OUR DOCUMENTATION WE WROTE IN THE EASEMENT THAT THE CITY IS ON THE HOOK FOR THE MAINTENANCE COSTS SO THEIR QUESTION IS WHO IS ON THE HOOK FOR THE MAINTENANCE COSTS SO

THAT'S THE ONE ISSUE I'M STILL TRYING TO RESOLVE >> DO YOU SEE WHY I'M RESOLVED ABOUT PASHING SOMETHING WE'RE STILL TRYINGING SOMETHING WE'REL TRAING SOMETHING WE'RE STILLSING SOMETHING WE'RE STILLSING SOMETHING WE'RE STILL TRYING TO RESOLVE?

I'M BREAKING TO RULES HERE, I APOLOGIZE. >> MY ONE STATEMENT ON THE MAINTENANCE IS [INDISCERNIBLE] I DON'T THINK IT INCLUDED THE ROADS SO THAT MAY BE WHERE THE DISCONNECT IS AND IF IT IS FOR EVERYTHING ON THE PROPERTY, HEY, GREAT, THE Y OWNS THAT BUT WHEN THAT ORIGINALLY CAME UP, I THOUGHT IT WAS FOR THE BUILDING. I REMEMBER THEY TOOK OVER THE MAINTENANCE AND WE REDUCED THE LEASE PAYMENT THEY PAID US TOO SOME SMALL NUMBER BUT THEY TOOK OVER THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ALSO INCLUDED THE ROADS.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SCOPE IT, IF IT'S JUST LIMITED TO THE BUILDING

>> SO DOES THE [INDISCERNIBLE] >> WE HAVE UNDER THE CHARTER THE VARIOUS RIGHT OF WAY AGREEMENTS AND IT DOES SAY EASEMENT BUT IN ORDER TO CLARIFY ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTIES, WE CHOSE TO BRING THIS TO COUNCIL SO AND TO MAKE A SPECIFIC RESOLUTION FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE SO THERE

WOULD BE NO QUESTION. >> ARE WE ENTERTAINING MOTIONS? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE EASEMENT AS HE'S ALLOWED TO DO ON THIS NAMED

CHARTER. >> I HAVE A SECOND. >> SO ILL T FAILS FOR A LACK O

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

>> A SECOND? >> NO SECOND. THAT MOTION DIES.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS UNTIL THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY TO ALLOW STAFF TOO IRON

OUT DETAILS. >> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THE POSTPONE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NOTHING, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> ANGEL? >> YOU'RE READY FOR THE VOTE?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

[13.14. Consideration and possible action on sunsetting of Emergency Preparedness Task Force whose terms expired in June 30, 2023 (City Council) ]

>> MOTION PASSES 5-1. OUR LAST ONE, 13 HNT 14, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON SUNSETTING OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS TASK FORCE WHOSE TERMS EXPIRED JUNE 30, 2023. IT DOESN'T SAY WHAT THE ACTION IS SO I DON'T THINK WE COULD PUT IT ON CONSENT SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WOULD HAVE APPROVED SO EITHER WE SUNSET IT OR DON'T SUNSET IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> OR TAKE NO ACTION BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY TERMINATED. >> YOU COULD DO THAT BUT IF WE ACCEPT IT AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ACCEPTING.

>> THE INTENT OF A SUNSET IS THAT YOU WOULD BE APPROVING THE FACT THAT THE TASK FORCE HAS RAN ITS COURSE AND IT IS DONE SO THAT WOULD BE A VOTING ON SUNSETTING.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SUNSET IT, THAT IS A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PROCESS.

I THINK THAT'S WHY. IT'S NOT ON AN AFFIRMATIVE -- AN AFFIRMATIVE VOTE WOULD SUNSET

[02:45:02]

IT. >> ALL RIGHT. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO

OFFICIALLY SUNSET IS EMERGENCY TASK FORCE. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> ALL RIGHT, SUNSETTING THE EMERGENCY TASK FORCE, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. ALL RIGHT NEXT WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS, 14.1, RECEIVE

[14. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 (READING FROM TEXT) ITEM 14.2.

(READING FROM TEXT) .. ITEM 14. (READING FROM TEXT) .ITEM 14.2. (READING FROM TEXT) .ITEM 14.2.

(READING FROM TEXT) .ITEM 14.2. (READING FROM TEXT). ITEM 14.3, (READING FROM TEXT).

ITEM 14.4, (READING FROM TEXT). ITEM 14.5, (READING FROM TEXT .

ITEM 14.6, (READING FROM TEXT). ITEM 13.3, (READING FROM TEXT). 13.10, (READING FROM TEXT ).

>> THOSE WERE TO BE TAKEN UP AFTER EXEC. NOT DURING.

>> DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU. YOU WERE ON A ROLL, I WAS GOING TO LET

>> IT'S 11:47, WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

[13.6. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2023-322 to assign the City of Hutto contract with K Friese for the design and construction services of the Spine Road to the Hutto Economic Development Corporation (Cheney Gamboa) ]

OUR NEXT ITEM IS 13.6, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2023-322 TO ASSIGN THE CITY OF HUTTO CONTRACT WITH K FRIESE FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES

[02:50:06]

OF THE SPINE ROAD TO THE HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING ON DECEMBER 14TH.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 6-0. >> MAYOR, CAN YOU CHECK YOUR NOTES TO SEE IF 13.3 WAS WIN

THAT WAS PULLED? >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY. >> IT WAS.

>> SO THIS IS THE BID AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES CONTRACT THAT WE WERE TALKING

[13.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-321 regarding amendment No. 2 to the K Friese Contract in the amount of $80,505 for the Megasite East/West Spine road project (GIP T08-2023) (Matt Rector) ]

ABOUT SO THIS WOULD BE AWARDING THAT TO K FRIESE. >> ALL RIGHT, SO 13.3.

GOOD CATCH, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION (READING FROM TEXT ).

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 13.3. >> A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WILCOTT? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 6-0. LOOKS LIKE 13.10 IS NEXT. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

[13.10. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2023-328 regarding amendment No. 2 to the K Friese Contract for the Megasite Wastewater Lines project (CIP WW07-2023) (Matt Rector) ]

ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2023-328 REGARDING AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE K FRIESE CONTRACT TO THE

MEGASITE WATERWATER LINES PROJECT. >> MAY I MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE 13.10 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[15. ACTION RELATIVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]

AGENDA. THAT BRINGS US TO 15.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS. >> I HAVE A MOTION RELATING TO 14.1. MY MOTION IS TO DENOW HIGHWAY 3349, LLC PETITION BECAUSE SENATE BILL 2038 IS AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL DELEGATION OF LEGISLATION I HAVE AUTHORITY AND CONFLICTS WITH TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 42.023. THE CITY DOES NOT CONSENT TO A REDUCTION OF ITS ETJ AND WE AUTHORIZE THE MESSER FORT LAW FORM TO ADD THE PETITION --

>> SECOND. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 6-0. ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION?

>> I HAVE ONE RELATING TO 14.3 BUT WE NEEDED A RESOLUTION FOR THIS ONE IF I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION AND I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET A RESOLUTION NUMBER.

>> DID YOU PROVIDE US WITH A RESOLUTION NUMBER, ANGELA? >> CAN WE COME BACK TO THAT ONE?

[02:55:01]

MY COMPUTER IS MOVING A LITTLE SLOW. >> OKAY.