12.2. Discussion and possible action on appropriating $1,814,600 from the Durango PIDcommunity benefit fees to CIP projects and/or road maintenance fund (Councilmember Amberley Kolar)

[12.2. Discussion and possible action on appropriating $1,814,600 from the Durango PIDcommunity benefit fees to CIP projects and/or road maintenance fund (Councilmember Amberley Kolar)]

3RD OR SOMETHING -- >> ACTUALLY MR. MAYOR CAN I MAKE A MOTION TO MOVE 12.2 UP?

>> ANY OBJECTIONS TO MOVING 12.2 UP? HEARING NONE WE'LL MOVE 12.2 UP. DISCUSSION ON POSSIBLE ACTION FOR

[01:30:02]

APPROPRIATING MONEY FROM THE DURANGO --

>> DON'T GO AWAY. >> SIT, SIT, SIT. STAY, STAY,

STAY. >> GO AHEAD.

>> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROPRIATING $1,814,600 FROM THE DURANGOPID COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES TO CIP PROJECTS OR ROAD MAINTENANCE FUND.

>> I WAS SURPRISED BECAUSE USUALLY IT'S PUSHED BACK, NOT BROUGHT FORWARD. I'M A LITTLE FRAZZLED RIGHT NOW. THIS WAS ACTUALLY AN ITEM YOU DISCUSSED LAST MONTH, I BELIEVE THE FIRST MEETING OF FEBRUARY THIS CAME UP. THE CONVERSATION WAS WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WITH THIS MONEY, WE NEED TO EARMARK IT FOR SOMETHING. THERE'S A COUPLE OF MOTIONS PUT FORWARD.

ONE WAS TO TALK ABOUT USING IT FOR PARKS FACILITY AND COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE AND THEN THERE WAS A LOT OF OTHER TALK, AND BASICALLY IT WAS LET'S HAVE STAFF COME BACK WITH SOMETHING IN THIS MEETING. I DREW THE LUCKY STRAW, AND I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE OPTIONS AS THE CITY ENGINEER. I KNOW WE REMOVED THE GEOGRAPHICAL RESTRICTIONS, BUT I LOOKED AT THE OTHER AREAS AROUND DURANGA FARMS. THAT'S THE MAP. DURANGO FARMS IS THE ORANGE PART, THEN THE COMMUNITY BUILDING DISCUSSED AT THE FEBRUARY BUILDING. WE HAVE THE FRITZ PARK PROJECT, THE LIVE OAK PROJECT, THE VETERANS MEMORIAL PROJECT. EXCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION DESIGN, LIMMER, THE EXCHANGE AT LIMMER, COUNTY ROAD 99. WE HAVE A LOT TO CHOOSE FROM. AND THEN ONES THOUGH THE SHOWN ON THE MAP HERE THAT WE COULD CONSIDER USING SOME OF THE FUNDING FOR IS THE PD BUILDING THAT WE'LL BE STUDYING, THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING THAT WE'RE STUDYING. THEN THE OTHER THING IS, I'LL JUMP HERE, IS TALKING ABOUT SIDEWALKS. THAT'S BEEN A CONVERSATION PIECE FOR COUNCIL SINCE I CAME BACK TO THE CITY.

THE BLOB IN THE MIDDLE OF OLD TOWN SIDEWALKS. THE RED MEANS WE DON'T HAVE ANY. THE GREEN MEANS WE HAVE SOME. THE FURTHER OUT I GO, THE MORE THE LIST GROWS, AND THE HARDER IT IS TO DO ANALYSIS, SO THE LIST OF PROJECTS THAT I PRESENTED TO YOU, I WENT AHEAD AND GIVE YOU A STATUS ON THEM. 1660 AT LIMMER IS ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AND FUNDED. WE COULD REDUCE THE DEBT BURDEN THE CITY CARRIES, BUT WE CAN'T PAY THE WHOLE PROJECT WITH THE FUND. THE PARKS BUILDING AND COMMUNITY MEETING SPACE, IT'S NOT PROGRAMMED YET, IT'S NOT PLANNED YET, AND IT WOULD EXCEED FUNDS AVAILABLE. FRITZ PARK IS IN DESIGN, SLATED FOR CONSTRUCTION. IT'S ALREADY FUNDED THROUGH THE 2018 PARKS BOND AND WOULD EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE. VETERANS MEMORIAL. THE CONCEPT IS AVAILABLE, WE HAVE TO DO THE DESIGN. IT COULD BE FULLY FUNDED WITH MONEY LEFT OVER. LIVE OAK RECONSTRUCTION IS IN DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION PER THE CIP CONVERSATION LAST SUMMER WAS TO START TO 2025, BUT IT'S GOING TO EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE ON THIS ONE.

1660 SOUTH AT 79 IS IN DESIGN. IT'S KIND OF ON HOLD DUE TO THE TEXTILE CHANGES AND WOULD EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE.

COUNTY 99 ROAD CONSTRUCTION IS IN DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION SLATED FOR 2025. EXCEEDS FUNDS AVAILABLE. EXCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION IN DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION IS TBD BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR IN THE CIP. IT WAS JUST LIKE GET IT UNDER DESIGN AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT CONSTRUCTION ONCE WE HAVE A COST ESTIMATE. BUT IT WILL EXCEED FUNDS AVAILABLE.

EXCHANGE AT LIMMER. THIS IS THE INTERSECTION THERE AT EXCHANGE AND LIMMER RIGHT BY THE SCHOOL. IT'S IN DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION IS SCHEDULED TO START IN 2025, AND WE COULD FULLY FUND THAT.

PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, WE JUST STARTED THE PROGRAMMING AND PLANNING, BUT IT'S GOING TO EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE. PD BUILDING, WE HAVEN'T STARTED THAT ONE YET. WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF TRYING TO SELECT A CONSULTANT. BUT, UM, IT'S GOING TO EXCEED THE FUNDS AVAILABLE. SIDEWALKS, WE COULD DO SOME SIDEWALKS IN OLD TOWN LIKE WE'RE DOING ON LAKE SIDE ESTATES. BUT THESE SIDEWALKS WILL BE MORE EXPENSIVE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO FIX THE DRAINAGE ISSUE AS WELL, SO YOU'LL BE

[01:35:01]

LIMITED ON HOW MANY YOU COULD DO. ALL RIGHT, SO I WENT AHEAD AND SAID OKAY, IF I WAS IN YOUR SHOES, HOW WOULD I RANK THESE PROJECTS? SO I RANKED THEM, I COME AT IT FROM A VERY ENGINEERING APPROACH. NO FRILLS, NO BELLS AND WHISTLES.

IT'S JUST THIS IS HOW I THINK. SO I RANKED THE SIDEWALKS AT NUMBER ONE BECAUSE THAT'S A FUNCTIONAL THING. IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITY HAS SAID THEY WANT, AND IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD PUT ALONG ALL OUR ROADS ANYWAY. THE CHANGE AT LIMMER IS RANKED NUMBER TWO BECAUSE THAT'S BEEN A HOT TOPIC FOR AWHILE, AND IT'S A SAFETY ISSUE THAT IMPACTS THE SCHOOL. SO I THOUGHT COMMUNITY BENEFIT, HEY, WE'RE HELPING THE KIDS OUT. WE'RE MAKING THINGS SAFE ON LIMMER LOOP. NUMBER THREE, I PUT DOWN THE LIVE OAK RECONSTRUCTION BECAUSE THAT'S ANOTHER OLD TOWN TIME PROJECT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME. THEN I WENT TO EXCHANGE, THEN THE 199. YOU CAN SEE MY THEME IS ALL LIKE, UM, TRANSPORTATION, LIKE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE DONE TO MAKE THINGS BETTER. I DID NOT RECOMMEND 1660 AT LIMMER BECAUSE WE CAN'T COVER THE COSTS AND IT'S ALREADY FUNDED.

WE ALREADY BORROWED THE MONEY. WE COULD PAY OURSELVES BACK AND SHIFT THE MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THAT SEEMED LIKE A LOT OF HEADACHE IN MY MIND. PARKS BUILDING AND COMMUNITY, I DID NOT RECOMMEND WE USE THIS MONEY FOR THAT ONE BECAUSE WE'RE DOING A PARKS MASTER PLAN, WE'RE DOING A TRAILS MASTER PLAN. MY RECOMMENDATION IS LET'S WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE THE PLANS, AND THEN FIGURE OUT WHERE THIS COMES OUT IN THAT PRIORITY SCHEME. FRITZ PARK, AGAIN, WE'VE ALREADY BORROWED THE MONEY SO I DIDN'T RECOMMEND PUTTING THAT ONE UP THERE. VETERANS MEMORIAL CAME OUT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE ONES I ACTUALLY DID RANK WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE COULD DO THAT WHOLE PROJECT AND HAVE MONEY LEFT OVER, SO THEN WE COULD USE WHATEVER IS LEFT OVER FOR WHATEVER OTHER PRIORITY COUNCIL CAME UP WITH. THAT'S KIND OF HOW I CAME THROUGH THIS PROCESS. ULTIMATELY THIS IS JUST, YOU GUYS ASKED US TO COME BACK WITH OUR IDEAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. THIS IS REALLY JUST TO FACILITATE YOUR CONVERSATION THAT WAS STARTED

LAST MONTH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. WE'LL START WITH QUESTIONS UNLESS SOMEONE, IF THERE'S NO QUESTION WE'LL

ENTERTAIN ACTION. >> MATT, HOW MUCH WAS LEFT OVER FROM VETERANS MEMORIAL? DID YOU PRICE THAT OUT?

>> WELL, WE HAVEN'T DONE THE FULL DESIGN YET, BUT THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE FOR CONSTRUCTION IS AROUND 500,000, AND THEN ANOTHER 150,000 SAY FOR THE DESIGN. SO 650,000. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ROUGHLY ABOUT 1.2, $1.1 MILLION LEFT OF

THE 1.8. >> CAN YOU, I KNOW YOU CAN'T GIVE AN EXACT NUMBER, BUT CAN YOU AT ALL BALL PARK WHEN YOU THINK, SINCE YOU HAVE TO DO DRAINAGE WITH THE SIDEWALKS, HOW MUCH YOU THINK YOU CAN GET THERE? AND ALSO IF WE JUST DID ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN THAT AREA, WHAT DO YOU THINK WE COULD DO IF IT WAS NOT THE FULL LIVE OAK TREATMENT, BUT A REBUILD THAT MADE THE STREET LAST AWHILE? I DON'T KNOW IF EITHER OF THOSE ARE THINGS ON MY MIND.

>> WOW, YOU'RE PUTTING ME ON THE SPOT.

>> IT IS, AND I'M NOT EXPECTING A FULLY ACCURATE ANSWER. I'M JUST ASKING LIKE ARE YOU TALKING ONE BLOCK OR

ONE STREET AT THE END? >> I DON'T, IF YOU WERE COMING DOWN LIKE E STREET TO DURANGO, YOU WOULDN'T GET ALL THE WAY TO 79 NO WAY. PROBABLY TWO OR THREE BLOCKS WHEN YOU CONSIDER

FIXING ALL THE DRAINAGE. >> FOR SIDEWALKS AND DRAINAGE.

THAT STUFF. THEN DEAL WITH UTILITIES IN THE WAY BEFORE YOU COULD EVEN PUT THE SIDEWALKS IN. THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT AS ACCURATE AS I COULD GET RIGHT NOW.

>> BUT IF WE DID THE STREETS LIKE A FULL DEPTH, THAT WOULD

BE MORE THAT IT WOULD COVER. >> YEAH. WELL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST MILLING OVER THE PAVEMENT AND NOT PUTTING

SIDEWALKS -- >> YEAH, AND I DON'T LIKE THAT, BUT THE WHOLE THING IS SUPER EXPENSIVE AND SOME OF THE ROADS REALLY NEED TREATMENT. IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE BAND-AID APPROACH. HOW LONG IS THE BAND-AID GOING TO LAST KIND OF THING. THAT'S A WHOLE DISCUSSION, I WOULDN'T COMMIT

TO THAT TONIGHT. >> I CAN TELL YOU WE JUST DID A MILLING OVERLAY ON 137 AND THERE WAS NO CURB OR ANYTHING.

I'M ASSUMING WE'D KEEP THE CURB IN OLD TOWN. WE GOT ABOUT

200,000 FEET FOR $300,000. >> WOW.

[01:40:01]

>> QUESTION, OH -- >> I WAS GOING TO MAKE A

MOTION. >> QUICK QUESTION, CLARIFICATION ON THE SIDEWALKS. SO YOUR BEST GUESS WAS THE FULL 1.8 MILLION WOULDN'T EVEN GET E STREET DONE FOR SIDEWALKS?

>> I WOULDN'T THINK IT WOULD.

>> SO WE'RE NOT GETTING A LOT OF BANG FOR OUR BUCK DOING

SIDEWALKS. >> NO, I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY FIXING THE DRAINAGE AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF BEFORE YOU COULD EVEN PUT THE SIDEWALK DOWN.

>> GOT IT. AND THEN HOW MANY FEET DID YOU DO 137?

>> IT WAS JUST UNDER 2, 000 FEET. 2,350 FEET FOR AROUND

$300,000. >> OKAY. ANOTHER POP QUIZ. HOW LONG IS LIVE OAK FROM NEAR CITY HALL TO 1660? LONGER THAN THAT

RIGHT? >> THAT'S ALMOST A HALF MILE, SO. I MEAN THE 2300 FEET IS ALMOST A HALF MILE.

>> YEAH. >> OKAY.

>> 26 SOMETHING. >> YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT, WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT 500,000 GO TO THE YMCA TO KICK OFF THE PROJECT NOW, AND THEN WE ADD BACK FROM THE REMAINING FUNDS, RESTORE BACK TO THE ROAD IMPROVEMENT BUDGET WHAT WE SPENT IN 137 REPAVEMENT FROM EMERGENCY SO WE CAN DO THE OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE COMMITTED, THEN COME BACK AND WE'LL DISCUSS WITH WHAT WE HAVE LEFT OVER. BUT GO AHEAD AND MAKE THOSE TWO SWINGS TONIGHT, AND THAT'S MY MOTION.

>> OKAY, I'D LIKE TO ADD AN AMENDMENT TO REQUEST YOU COME BACK WITH PLANS FOR PAVING, SEEING WHAT WE CAN DO WITH SOME KIND OF ROAD RECONSTRUCTION IN OLD TOWN WITH THE REMAINING

FUNDS. >> OKAY.

>> IS THAT ACCEPTABLE? >> WELL, I JUST SAID COME BACK TO NEW PROJECTS WITH WHAT'S LEFT OVER.

>> OKAY. >> SO MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT.

ALLOCATING 500,000 TO THE YMCA AND RESTORE, I PUT 300,000, BUT RESTORE THE MONEY BACK FOR ROAD MAINTENANCE.

>> FOR 137, AND WE TOOK IT FROM THE OTHER PROJECT THAT NEEDED

THE REPAVEMENT. >> COUNTY ROAD 133.

>> SO DISCUSSION ON A MOTION? >> DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION, SO LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE WITH MATT SAYING VETERANS MEMORIAL. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE COULD KNOCK OFF WITH THE FUNDS. THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE

ACCEPTABLE IN YOUR MOTION? >> NO, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY FOR THAT IF WE DO THE OTHER TWO THINGS. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO IF IT COMES BACK, BUT I WANT TO DO THESE TWO NOW, THEN HAVE SOME AMOUNT OF MONEY LEFT OVER, AND THEY CAN COME BACK WITH WHAT THEY COULD DO WITH THAT. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH. BUT SUBTRACT OUT THAT MUCH. IT'S 500 PLUS WHATEVER THEY PUT BACK IN THE FUNDS. THAT'S PROBABLY $900,000, WE'LL HAVE ABOUT 900 LEFT. I DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS THAT TONIGHT, BECAUSE THAT'S TOO MUCH STUFF AND THEY WANT

ANSWERS. >> YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE --

>> SO IT WAS 500,000 TO THE YMCA. HOW MUCH TO MAKE THE ROAD

MAINTENANCE BACK WHOLE? >> IT WAS 300 SOME ODD THOUSAND

DOLLARS. >> WE DID NOT TO EXCEED 333,000

OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> THAT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT.

>> SO THERE'S A MILLION LEFT OF THIS --

>> NOT QUITE A MILLION. >> YES, A MILLION YEAH.

>> WHICH IS MORE THAN ENOUGH FOR THE VETERANS.

>> I MEAN, THAT'S WHY I BROUGHT THAT UP BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU'RE KNOCKING THINGS OFF OF THIS PROJECT

LIST, I MEAN, MIGHT AS WELL. >> BUT I THOUGHT WE WERE GETTING FUNDING FROM THE COUNTY FOR VETERANS MEMORIAL. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR COST WAS THERE.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT WAS $125,000.

>> I WAS GETTING YELLED AT LAST MEETING TRYING TO TALK, TALK,

TALK. COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? >> YEAH, SO DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THIS IS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE THAT WAS, UM, GIVEN TO, GIVEN MY A DEVELOPER. JUST FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITY. SO IT CAN BE USED FOR ANY COMMUNITY BENEFIT. JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT'S GOING ON. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 500,000 FOR THE

[01:45:05]

YMCA. I THINK Y'ALL NEED IT NOW. IT WOULD BE GREATLY UTILIZED. YOU ALL SPOKE ABOUT THE YMCA AND COMMUNITY. I THINK THIS IS VERY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS, TO USE IT FOR THIS, AND ALSO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE 330 OF RESTORING THE CRACK SEAL FUND OF THE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE, JUST REPLENISHING THAT SO 133 CAN GET DONE AND OLD TOWN AS WELL. THE PROJECTS THAT WERE SLOTTED FOR STAFF TO GET THOSE DONE SO WE'RE ON TRACK FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO, I DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AGAIN, LIKE, I'D LIKE TO, IF THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, I WOULD LIKE TO THEN APPROPRIATE THE 1 MILLION. WE COULD HAVE A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION FOR STAFF TO GO BACK AND DO MORE WORK. MATT HAS ALREADY DONE A LOT OF WORK HERE, AND NONE OF HIS SUGGESTIONS HAVE BEEN PROPOSED, OR HAVING DISCUSSED TONIGHT, SO I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN HAVE A PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION ABOUT THE REMAINING $1 MILLION. IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO YOU, I APPRECIATE IT, THANK YOU MATT FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK AND ENGINEER MIND OF PRIORITIZING THESE DOLLARS. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE ASKED YOU TO DO IN THE LAST MEETING. BUT JUST AN AMENDMENT IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO DISCUSS THE MILLION DOLLARS --

>> HOLD ON, I'LL ASK THE QUESTION OF THE MAYOR. WE CAN TAKE THE VOTE ON THE MOTION TO APPROPRIATE THIS 700 SOMETHING THOUSAND, THEN MAKE A SECOND MOTION, RIGHT?

>> WE CAN DO THAT. >> CAN YOU REMOVE THE THIRD

PART OF YOUR MOTION? >> I DIDN'T HAVE A THIRD PART,

IT WAS JUST TO DO THE TWO. >> NO, YOU SAID TO DIRECT STAFF

TO COME BACK. >> OH, YEAH, I'D BE WILLING TO

STRIKE THAT TO GET A SECOND. >> OH, YES, SECOND.

>> DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SECOND IF SHE'S OKAY.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> OKAY, DONE? I WON'T SPEAK.

I SPOKE ENOUGH EARLIER. THIS IS HOW I'LL DO IT. I WANT TO SPEND THE TIME KICKING AROUND DOING A LOT OF TALKING. I'LL MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT WE ADD THE VETERANS MEMORIAL IN. ALL RIGHT, DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION?

>> QUESTION TO STAFF, I DIDN'T QUITE SEE WHAT YOU MOUTHED, BUT YOU GOT SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE COST TONIGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE HEARS WHAT THE COST IS.

>> SO I WAS INCORRECT WHEN I SAID THE COUNTY WAS CHIPPING IN 125,000 FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL. THEY'RE CHIPPING IN

100,000. >> AND WHAT WAS THE OVERALL

COST? >> THE OPC WITHOUT DESIGN WAS 500,000, AND DESIGN WAS AROUND 150, SO $650,000 BALL PARK.

>> IS THERE A SPOT ALREADY FOR THAT?

>> I BELIEVE IT'S ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO GO OUT HERE IN FRONT OF CITY HALL IN FRONT OF THE LIBRARY.

>> PROBABLY. >> YEAH, OVER IN THE GRASS

AREA. >> I BELIEVE THE PARKS BOARD IS

DOING IT IN FRITZ PARK. >> NO, WE MOVED IT.

>> I ASKED THE QUESTION. SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE THOUGHT IT

WAS GOING DIFFERENT PLACES. >> WE JUST PROVIDED THEM THE

REPORT ON THIS SITE. >> CAN WE JUST VOTE ON THE

$800,000? >> SO I ADDED THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE COSTS HAVE DEFINITELY ESCALATED SINCE IT WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP. BUT THE ONLY REASON WE'RE ABLE TO ARGUE UP HERE IS BECAUSE OF THE VETERANS. SO THE MONEY'S THERE. IT'S, TO ME THAT'S SOMETHING, SO YOU SPENT 10 MILLION ON A PARK TO DO ONE THING, YOU CAN SPEND $500,000 TO PRETTY A PARK-LIKE AREA OR GATHERING PLACE FOR PEOPLE. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A SIGNATURE THING IN HUTTO THAT WE DON'T HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE NEAREST PLACE FOR VETERANS TO GO. MY GUESS IS PROBABLY ROUND ROCK. THAT'S 500,000 MORE ROUGHLY, AND THAT LEAVES ANOTHER HALF MILLION FOR PEOPLE TO DECIDE WHATEVER THEY WANT. THE OTHER THING ON THIS DEAL WITH THE EXCHANGE IN LIMMER, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE LIGHT SIGNALS OR CROSSWALK?

INTERSECTION PROJECT -- >> WE'RE PAYING HALF OF AND

ISD IS PUTTING IN SOME? >> THEY'RE PUTTING IN SOME.

IT'S NOT A 50/50 SPLIT. I BELIEVE THEY HAD ALLOCATED 200

SOME ODD THOUSAND DOLLARS. >> A QUARTER MILLION.

>> IS THAT NOT ALREADY BUDGETED THIS YEAR? I THOUGHT IT WAS BUDGETED AND A SIGNAL AT LIMMER AND INNOVATION?

>> IT IS IN THE, IT IS, YES, IT IS IN THE CIP. BUT WE HAVEN'T BORROWED THE MONEY FOR IT YET. THAT'S WHY I WAS PUTTING IT ON THIS LIST IS BECAUSE THIS $1.8 MILLION COULD HAVE COVERED THE

WHOLE PROJECT. >> BUT IT'S IN THIS YEAR'S

BUDGET? >> YES, WE JUST HAVEN'T

BORROWED THE MONEY. >> SO WE BUDGETED STUFF WE

DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DO? >> WE JUST HAVEN'T BORROWED IT

YET. >> I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE --

[01:50:01]

>> FOR THE RECORD -- >> OKAY, HOLD ON. I'M CONFUSED. NORMALLY WE BUDGET THE MONEY. WE WENT OUT AND SOLD A BUNCH OF BONDS IN THE FALL RIGHT AFTER THE BUDGET HIT. WE WERE OUT SELLING BONDS THE NEXT DAY. THEN HERE WE ARE SIX MONTHS INTO THE YEAR, AND WE HAVE PROJECTS BUDGETED WE WON'T GET DONE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T SOLD THE BONDS YET?

>> THAT'S PRETTY CLOSE TO ACCURATE. THE BONDS THAT WERE SOLD IN THE FALL WERE PAYING FOR OTHER PROJECTS. THE CIP WAS APPROVED, WHICH MEANS THAT THE PROJECTS WERE APPROVED TO BE BUILT THIS YEAR. THE ITEM 12.4 IS ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT GATHERING ALL THE APPROPRIATE FUNDING FOR THE VARIOUS DIFFERENT ROAD PROJECTS THAT WERE IN THE CIP. SO YES, WE TYPICALLY DON'T SELL THE BONDS UNTIL THE PROJECTS ARE READY TO GO. WE'VE BEEN FRONTING A LOT OF DESIGN ON THE PROJECTS TO GET THEM READY TO GO. WE'RE NOT TYPICALLY ISSUED DEBT UNTIL WE

KNOW THE COST OF THE PROJECT. >> OKAY, I SET MYSELF AT FOUR MINUTES. OKAY, SO IT TAKES ABOUT 90 TO 120 DAYS TO SELL

BONDS, RIGHT? >> SOMETIMES, YES.

>> SO THAT'S THREE TO FOUR MONTHS. WE'VE NOW BUDGETED.

WHAT ELSE HAVE WE BUDGETED TO DO THIS YEAR THAT WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED SELLING BONDS ON? WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE BUDGETED STUFF, IT WON'T GET DONE THIS YEAR BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T STARTED THE BONDS, WHY DIDN'T WE START SELLING BONDS TWO MONTHS AGO TO GET THE PROJECTS DONE WE BUDGETED THIS YEAR? YOU GUYS ARE KILLING ME HERE BECAUSE IT'S LIKE SOMEONE UP HERE HAS TO SAY HEY, GO SELL BONDS SO WE CAN FULFILL THE PROJECTS IN OUR BUDGET. AND PEOPLE SAY A MICROMANAGE, BUT IF YOU DON'T BRING THESE THINGS UP, WHAT I'M HEARING IS IT'S BASICALLY APRIL, AND YOU HAVE SEPTEMBER, OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER, JANUARY, FEBRUARY, MARCH. WE'RE SEVEN MONTHS INTO THE FISCAL YEAR. APRIL, MAY, JUNE, WE MIGHT HAVE MONEY IN JULY TO HURRY UP AND DO SOME PROJECTS WE HAD BUDGETED TO DO THIS YEAR. I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN SELLING BONDS LIKE IN OCTOBER. BECAUSE WE BUDGET THE MONEY, WE RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES TO FUND THE INS DEBT, RIGHT?

>> I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> TYPICALLY YOU WRITE THE BUDGET, YOU HAVE TO SELL 10 MILLION IN BONDS, YOU COLLECT THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT. SO WE'VE COLLECTED MONEY FROM THE PEOPLE TO FUND DEBT THAT WE

HAVEN'T ISSUED YET -- >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S 100% TRUE. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IF WE WERE NOT ALREADY ISSUED THE DEBT AND DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE DEBT SERVICE WOULD BE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE BUILT THAT INTO THE TAX PAYMENT BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN MAKING ANY PAYMENTS THIS YEAR.

THE PAYMENTS WOULD HAPPEN NEXT YEAR, AND THAT'S WHEN THE DEBT SERVICE INS WOULD HIT. SO HOW DO WE BUDGET PROJECTS THAT HAVE

NO FUNDING? >> I MEAN, IT'S COMPLICATED, BUT THE SHORT ANSWER IS THE COUNCIL APPROVED A LONG LIST OF CIP PROJECTS TO GET DONE THIS YEAR. WATER AND WASTE WATER TOO. BUT WE HAVEN'T SOLD THE COS FOR THOSE YET EITHER BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DEBATING ON WHAT WE'RE WILLING TO IMPACT THE RATE PAYERS WITH, RIGHT? SO ALTHOUGH THE PROJECTS WERE APPROVED IN THE BUDGET, THERE'S NO FUNDING SOURCE FOR US TO DO UNTIL COUNCIL AUTHORIZES THE DEBT. WE'VE HAD VERY LONG AND DIFFICULT CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WATER WASTE WATER. ROADS WERE NO DIFFERENT. THE ROADS WERE WAITING FOR US TO GET WATER AND WASTE WATER OUT OF THE WAY BECAUSE THEY HAD PRIORITY. ROADS ARE HERE NOW. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN FUNDING A LOT OF THE DESIGN OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, RIGHT? OUT OF THE BUDGET. BUT THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS USUALLY COME FROM THE DEBT SIDE. SO ONCE THE DEBT IS ISSUED, THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION.

>> I HEAR ALL THAT, BUT WE HAD SO MUCH MONEY LAST YEAR WE MADE $6 MILLION IN INTEREST ON MONEY WE HAD IN THE BANK TO FUND THESE PROJECTS, AND WE WANT OUT AND HAD THE WHOLE THING ABOUT BUYING TREASURY BILLS AND INVESTING MONEY AND STAIR STEPPING AND ALL THIS. THIS IS THE FIRST BUDGET, THIS MUST EXPLAIN WHY WE DON'T GET ANYTHING DONE BECAUSE WE'RE BUDGETING ROAD PROJECTS, TELL PEOPLE WE'LL DO ALL THIS, BUT WE'RE NOT APPROVING ANY WAY TO FUND IT. SO WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS DONE IS PROMISED A BUNCH OF STUFF TO GET DONE WITH NO WAY TO GET IT DONE. IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME. WE CAN DESIGN, BUT CAN'T BUILD ANYTHING WE SET IN THE BUDGET UNTIL WE SELL BONDS.

BUT A NUMBER OF PROJECTS DIDN'T HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE

UNTIL THE DEBT IS ISSUED. >> GLAD I VOTED AGAINST THIS BUDGET BECAUSE I'M LEARNING MORE AND MORE, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE EYE OPENING THE NEXT BUDGET BECAUSE NOW I'LL ASK A QUESTION ON EVERYTHING, IS THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET TO DO THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BE SITTING HERE IN APRIL AND MAY DECIDING NOW IS A GOOD TIME TO SELL BONDS BECAUSE THE

[01:55:01]

BUDGET YEAR IS ALMOST UP. BUT MY TIME IS UP --

>> OKAY, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? >> I SAID MY FOUR MINUTES.

>> OKAY, SO BUDGETING IS YOUR PLAN, RIGHT? SO WHEN YOU SET A BUDGET, YOU SET YOUR PLAN OF WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND, RIGHT? AND WE KNOW THAT WE NEED TO TAKE OUT A LOT OF DEBT FOR A LOT OF THESE PROJECTS. SO WE, WE BUDGETED FOR THESE PROJECTS, BUT WE DIDN'T TAKE OUT, IT'S LIKE HAVING A CREDIT CARD. IF I KNOW THAT I HAVE TO PAY FOR A PROJECT SIX MONTHS DOWN THE ROAD, I'M NOT GOING TO TRANSITION THE MONEY FROM MY CREDIT CARD INTO MY BANK ACCOUNT TOO SOON BECAUSE I'M PAYING INTEREST ON THAT.

UNDERSTAND IT. IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE NOT PLANNING. IT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE DO KNOW WHAT WE ARE DOING. BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING OUT THE MONEY AND BORROWING THE MONEY AT THE RIGHT TIME TO NOT PUT TOO MUCH EXTRA BURDEN ON THE TAXPAYERS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO PAY INTEREST ON MONEY. YOU TAKE UP TOO MUCH MONEY AND YOU HAVE TOO MUCH MONEY IN THE BANK AND YOU ARE LOOKING FOR WAYS TO EARN INTEREST ON IT AND MAKE THAT MONEY WORK FOR YOU. SO IT IS WISER AND SMARTER TO TAKE OUT THOSE BOND DOLLARS RIGHT AS YOU NEED IT SO WHEN YOU TAKE IT OUT AND YOU GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO GET MONEY IT IS THERE IN THE BANK AND YOU CAN START PUTTING ALL THOSE THINGS. LIKE THE CITY MANAGER SAID, WE ARE FRONTING SOME OF THAT MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO REPAY OUR GENERAL FUND OUT OF THOSE DOLLARS BECAUSE WE CONFRONT THE MONEY. SAVING THE MONEY BECAUSE WE ARE NOT PAYING INTEREST.

>> ON THAT POINT, JUST FOR COMPLETE CLARIFICATION, WE DID A RESOLUTION IN OCTOBER. I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS A RESOLUTION. THAT SAID BASICALLY WE ARE GOING TO FRONT A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR THESE PROJECTS TO KEEP EVERYTHING MOVING ALONG. AND THEN WHEN WE ISSUE THE BONDS LATER IN THE YEAR, WE PUT OURSELVES BACK PLUS COVER THE COST.

>> THE THING I WANT TO EXPLAIN ON IT THAT IS BEING MISSED OR WAS KIND OF CONVOLUTED FROM MOTHER COUNCILMEMBERS' COMMENTS WAS, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TOOK OUT A LOT OF BOND DEBT FOR SOME OF THESE BIG PROJECTS WE KNEW, THE ARGUMENT WAS MADE AND I WAS PROVEN CORRECT , LOOK, WE ARE ABOUT TO ENTER -- THE FED HAS TOLD US THEY WILL RAISE RATES DRAMATICALLY OVER THE NEXT FEW YEARS. INTEREST RATES WENT UP. WE DID PUT IT IN THE TREASURY BILL AND STUFF AND EARNED GREATER INTEREST THAN WHAT WE EVEN BORROWED AGAINST AND THERE IS A LAW THAT YOU CANNOT EARN MORE MONEY THAN YOU EARN. SO WE KEPT ALL THAT MONEY THAT WE TOOK OUT AT ZERO COST TO THE TAXPAYER BECAUSE WE ARE EARNING A HIGHER INTEREST RATE OR WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE BONDHOLDERS THE DIFFERENCE. BUT BASICALLY IT IS AT ZERO. WHEN YOU GO INTO THIS YEAR, THE FED HAS SAID THEY ARE GOING TO CUT RATES THREE TIMES BETWEEN NOW AND THE FISCAL YEAR. THEY HAVE HELD UP BECAUSE OF INFLATION RATES.

THEY JUST ANNOUNCED YESTERDAY. BUT HE IS STILL EXPECTING TO CUT INTEREST RATES THREE MORE TIMES DURING THIS YEAR. SO THE COUNCIL IS BEING WISE WITH YOUR MONEY IN A YEAR WHEN YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE FED YOU ARE GOING TO CUT RATES, YOU DON'T TAKE THE DEBT OUT EARLY IN THE YEAR AND THEN THE RATE GETS CUT AND THE CITIZENS ARE PAYING A HIGHER INTEREST RATE FOR THE 30-YEAR BOND DEBT. WHAT YOU WOULD DO IS WAIT UNTIL LATER IN THE YEAR. HOPEFULLY THE INTEREST RATE CUTS HAPPENED.

THEY HAVEN'T. BUT IF WE END UP NOT SELLING FOR 30 OR 90 DAYS, WE MAY ACTUALLY GET A FIRST RATE CUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY TAKE THE DEBT ON TIME DELIVERY PAYMENT . SO THAT IS BEING VERY FISCALLY SMART OF HOW YOU USE YOUR MONEY. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE VARIOUS GROUPS OF PEOPLE APPEAR ON COUNCIL THAT HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. I DO HAVE A MASTERS IN FINANCE. SO I KIND OF UNDERSTAND SOME OF THIS. ANYWAY. THAT IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. IT IS NOT MISMANAGEMENT. IT IS NOT THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON. BOND MARKETS ARE KIND OF COMPLEX THINGS AND HOW YOU HANDLE IT TO LEVERAGE THAT

MAKES THE MOST SENSE. >> ON ANOTHER TOPIC , QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU. THE VETERANS MEMORIAL. SORRY I KEEP HARPING ON THIS. WITH THIS, IS THERE NO OPPORTUNITY TO FURTHER THE VETERANS MEMORIAL -LIKE VETERANS HILL ELEMENTARY OR VETERANS MEMORIAL STADIUM? I GUESS I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND . WHY ARE WE DOING ANOTHER VETERANS MEMORIAL IN HUTTO? DO

WE HAVE -- >> SO, COUNCILMEMBER, I WILL

[02:00:04]

TAKE THE RESPONSE ON THAT ONE. SO THE COUNTY APPROACHED THE CITY PREVIOUSLY WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO PARTNER ON AN ACTUAL MEMORIAL FOR VETERANS . AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS THAT WERE FLOATED. THE COUNTY WAS OFFERING SOME DOLLARS THAT WERE COMING FROM TIPPING FEES AT THE LANDFILL.

AND THERE WERE A NUMBER OF OPTIONS THAT WERE FLOATED.

ULTIMATELY THE OPTION THAT WAS SELECTED WAS TO BUILD A FREESTANDING VETERANS MEMORIAL AND THEN DESIGN OF THAT VETERANS MEMORIAL WENT THROUGH VARIOUS ITERATIONS UNTIL SOMEWHAT RECENTLY THE PARKS BOARD SETTLED ON THE MOST RECENT ITERATION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE AVAILABLE BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW WE WOULD BE TALKING ABOUT IT. BUT IT IS BASICALLY -- IF YOU CAN IMAGINE , IT IS BASICALLY A HALF CIRCLE THAT SITS IN THE GRASSY AREA THAT IS THE OPPOSITE WING WHERE THE LIBRARY IS. YOU HAVE THE LIBRARY. YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE LAKE AND THE GRASSY AREA. THE MEMORIAL IS DESIGNED TO BE A HALF CIRCLE WITH COLUMNS AND MARBLE PILLARS. THAT SORT OF STUFF . IN DEDICATION TO EACH OF THE BRANCHES OF THE ARMED SERVICES. THAT MONEY WAS SET ASIDE FOR DESIGN BY THE COUNCIL SO WE WENT INTO DESIGN. THE COUNTY HAS SAID THAT THEY WOULD CONTRIBUTE UP TO 100,000 NOW FOR THE CONSTRUCTION BUT NOT FOR THE DESIGN. AND THAT IS BASICALLY WHERE WE ARE AT.

>> SO ARE WE SURE THAT WE WANT TO PUT IT IN SUCH A SPOT WHERE IF WE WERE TO HAVE A VETERANS -- NOT A PARADE BUT A VETERANS CEREMONY LIKE THE ONE THAT ROUND ROCK DOES WHERE WE INVITE THE COMMUNITY TO COME OUT , IS THAT A CONDUCIVE SPOT TO PUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT THAT CAN POTENTIALLY IN THE FUTURE BLOCK TRAFFIC AND BLOCK A LOT OF CITY SERVICES ? OR IS THERE ANOTHER SPOT THIS COULD GO THAT COULD BE CONDUCIVE TO AN EVENT LIKE

THAT IN THE FUTURE? >> THE VETERANS MEMORIAL LITERALLY CAN GO ANYWHERE THAT THE CITY HAS ACCESS TO PROPERTY. THE CURRENT RECOMMENDATION IS BASED OFF OF THE WORK OF THE PARKS BOARD AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CAN I GET A TURN, MR. MAYOR?

>> WE REALLY SHOULD BE LIMITING OUR DISCUSSION TO THE MOTION THAT IS ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND THE

VETERANS MEMORIAL. >> YEAH. I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED, IF THAT'S OKAY.

>> I THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE. >> OKAY. SO I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF PUTTING $1 MILLION TOWARDS THE VETERANS MEMORIAL. $100 WAS APPROPRIATED FOR DESIGN IN THE COUNTY. SO THAT KIND OF KICK STARTED US. I THINK THE CITY CHIP IN 25,000 IN THE FISCAL YEAR TO COMPLETE IT. THEN AFTER THAT THE REST IS UP TO THE CITY. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COST IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN TO THAT POINT. SO IT COULD ONLY COST $500,000. SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE GOING TO GIVE $1 MILLION TO A MEMORIAL. I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD HAVE -- WE NEED TO APPROPRIATE THE MONEY IN THE NEXT BUDGET CYCLE TO MAKE SURE.

BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE NUMBERS COME BACK TO US SO THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE REALLY SHOULD SPEND ON IT. RIGHT NOW WE ARE JUST LIKE, HERE IS A MILLION-DOLLAR VETERANS MEMORIAL. THE PARKS BOARD IS GOING TO LOVE THAT. THEY ARE GOING TO MAYBE GET -- WANT TO BOOST IT UP A LITTLE BIT OR ADD THIS. I DON'T KNOW.

THEY PROBABLY WON'T, BUT ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE.

>> FOR CLARIFICATION, THE MOTION WAS NOT TO DO 1 MILLION.

REMAINING AMOUNT. >> NO. $500,000 .

>> FROM THE REMAINING AMOUNT. >> OKAY. ANYWAY. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS ON THE COST. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THOSE NUMBERS BACK IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING TO THAT POINT. SORRY.

HOT MIC. I AM IN FAVOR OF SPENDING THE 1 MILLION FULLY.

PAY THE CASH. THE DEVELOPER CASH MONEY SO WE DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OUT BOND DEBT AND TAKE OUT THE HIGH INTEREST RATES. THANK

YOU. >> OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE

AMENDMENT? >> WOULD YOU BE, OKAY WITH NOT

TO EXCEED $500,000? >> WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT? TO ADD IN THE VETERANS MEMORIAL AND NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $500,000. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? OUR FIRST VOTE OF THE NIGHT AT

[02:05:02]

9:00. WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS FIRST.

>> CAN YOU REPEAT ? >> WE ARE VOTING FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL TO BE ADDED TO THE USE OF THE MONEY IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 500,000. PLEASE CALL THE BOAT.

>> WE WOULD LIKE TO OFFER ANOTHER AMENDMENT.

>> I WOULD. I WOULD LIKE TO USE THE REMAINDER TO BE APPROPRIATED TO START LOOKING AT GETTING A 130 ENTRANCE OFF OF LEMMER LOOP. KICKSTART THAT. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING WITH SOME SENATE AND CONGRESSIONAL TEXAS LEGISLATURES ABOUT IT SO WE NEED TO APPROPRIATE SOME FUNDING TO GET THAT STARTED SO WE CAN --

>> WHICH INTERCHANGE? 685? >> I BELIEVE IT IS LIMMER AT

130. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. REMAINING FUNDS TO GO TO THE 130 LIMMER. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. DISCUSSION ON THIS AMENDMENT.

>> SO THAT WOULD BE 1.3 MILLION. OKAY.

>> MAYOR, CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION. IS THE 130 LIMMER

>> TALKED MORE RECENTLY TO THE CONGRESSMAN.

>> HE MADE THE MOTION. >> HE IS ASKING YOU.

>> I KNOW. I'M GOING TO LET AMBERLEY ANSWER.

>> YOU MADE THE MOTION. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION FOR? THEN TELL THE MAN.

>> WE NEED TO HAVE A STUDY DONE FOR THE TOTAL COST WE HAVE TO PAY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE SOUTHBOUND LOOP AND TO GET AN EXIT BECAUSE ONCE YOU CHANGE AN EXIT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT AND YOU HAVE TO DO A STUDY BEFORE YOU CAN EVEN GET THAT NUMBER. AND SO WE NEED TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO DO

THAT. >> I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION

THE STUDY COST $2.2 MILLION. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.

>> 2.1. >> I WILL SAY THIS. I'M NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE WE HAVE ONE .3 BILLION IN PROJECTS. THAT IS NOT ON THERE. WHILE I DO THINK THAT IS NEEDED, 1.3 BILLION IN PROJECT THAT WE CANNOT EVEN -- IT IS GOING TO TAKE US YEARS TO FUND THOSE. WE WILL HAVE TO GET CREATIVE AND FIGURE OUT ANOTHER WAY TO DO THAT. TO ME, THAT HALF-MILLION NEEDS TO GO TO 1660 BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LIVING THERE FOR 30 YEARS. EVEN IF YOU GOT THE STUDY DONE, YOU'VE STILL GOT TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO BUILD THE ROAD. WHAT DOES THAT TAKE PLACE OF? THAT IS HARD CHOICES COMING IN MY MIND. WHAT ARE WE REBUILDING? WHAT ARE WE PAVING? WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BE HONEST TO THE PUBLIC AND SAY WE HAVE TO LIVE WITH FOR FIVE MORE YEARS OR SIX MORE. TO ME, HALF-MILLION BEING A QUARTER OF THE COST OF THE STUDY I WOULD NOT EVEN SUPPORT ANOTHER 1.5 MILLION BECAUSE THAT IS AN INTERSECTION WE CAN PROBABLY DO. OR A RIGHT TURN LANE OR SOMETHING. BUT I DO THINK IT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE FIGURING OUT THROUGH FEDERAL MONEY. THE COUNTY. THEY DID NOT APPROVE A SINGLE PROJECT. I DON'T KNOW WHY. AND WE HAVE 40,000 PEOPLE HERE THAT WOULD BE VOTING IN COUNTY ELECTIONS.

I DID NOT VOTE FOR THE COUNTY BONDS BECAUSE WE DID NOT EVEN GET A DOLLAR OUT OF THAT MONEY. AND SO I THINK AS A COUNCIL WE NEED TO UNIFY. WE NEED TO BE PUSHING THE COUNTY TO REPRESENT US BETTER AND NOT THINK ABOUT HUTTO ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS BECAUSE WE ARE REBUILDING STATE ROADS, COUNTY ROADS. WE ARE NOT EVEN HITTING CITY ROADS BECAUSE WE'RE HITTING EVERYBODY ELSE'S ROADS. SO I THINK WE NEED HELP AND WE ALL PAY TEXAS TO THE COUNTY. I'M GOING TO BE PUSHING.

>> WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL MOTION?

>> THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS TO ADD THE 130 IN LIMMER

FEASIBILITY STUDY. >>

>> I THINK THAT WAS THE AMENDMENT.

>> THAT IS ALL WE ARE VOTING ON.

>> THAT IS THE MOTION WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR.

>> I WILL NOT BE SUPPORTING THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE I AGREE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED BUT IT IS NOT GOING TO COME NEAR FUNDING THIS AT ALL. THE OTHER REASON I'M NOT VOTING FOR THIS IS I KNOW WE ARE ALLOWED TO USE THIS MONEY ANYWHERE BUT WHEN DURANGO WAS APPROVED, COUNCIL AT THE TIME

[02:10:03]

SAID , WE'VE GOT MONEY. WE HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS IN OLD TOWN. THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND , LET'S FIND SOMETHING WE CAN DO FOR OLD TOWN WITH THIS MONEY. WE ARE USING A LOT OF THIS MONEY AND OTHER THINGS IN THE CITY THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO OLD TOWN. WE STILL HAVE A LOT OF NEEDS IN OLD TOWN. I THINK WE CAN STILL PAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF SOME STREET OR TWO STREETS MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW.

BUT WE CAN GET SOMETHING DONE THAT IMPROVES OLD TOWN WITH THE REST OF THIS MONEY. AND I REALLY AM GOING TO STICK TO TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING IN OLD TOWN THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE THAT

WE CAN PUT THIS MONEY INTO. >> I AGREE. I WANT TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THIS MONEY AS I CAN IN AND NEAR DURANGO FARMS. ALSO TO CLARIFY, IN THE NOVEMBER BONDS FOR THE COUNTY, THE COUNTY HAS SUNK A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY INTO THE EAST WILCO HIGHWAY, WHICH DIRECTLY BENEFITS HUTTO. SO I THINK TO SAY THAT THE COUNTY HAS NOT PUT ANYTHING IN HUTTO IS NOT ACCURATE. BECAUSE THAT IS GOING TO BE IN MY OPINION THE GREATEST RELIEF VALVE FOR HIGHWAY 79. THOSE OF YOU STUCK ON HIGHWAY 79. EAST WILCO HIGHWAY WILL HAVE A GREATER IMPACT THAN ANYTHING ELSE. SO I APPRECIATE THE COUNTY FUNDING THAT . AND THEY ARE SET TO BREAK GROUND ON THAT IN SECTION 2 IN JULY. SO A LOT SOONER THAN I THOUGHT.

>> I AM NEXT. >> THAT MONEY IN OLD TOWN. BACK TO THE ORIGINAL .

>> LIMMER LOOP. THE CIP PROJECT STATE HIGHWAY NORTH 130 ROAD.

THE AMOUNT IS $2.1 MILLION. UNFORTUNATELY 500,000 DOESN'T EVEN GET US CLOSE TO STARTING ON THIS PROJECT. UNFORTUNATELY I WON'T BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT DOES NOT EVEN GET US CLOSE. BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF IT. I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS ROAD IS RELEVANT TO THE DURANGO FARMS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ON THE NORTH -- NORTHWEST AND SOUTHWEST CORNERS OF LIMMER AND 1660. I THINK THIS ROAD IS NEEDED FOR OUR COMMUNITY BECAUSE A LOT OF RESIDENTS -- IT WILL HELP WITH CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC BECAUSE PEOPLE WON'T BE GETTING OFF AT 79 TO GET ON SCHMIDT TO GO OVER TO TURN ON LIMMER LOOP TO GET TO THE RESIDENT -- RESIDENCE. SO THAT WILL ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE CONGESTION PROBLEMS . ALSO, IF THIS FRONTAGE ROAD WAS COMPLETE, PEOPLE WOULD BE GETTING OFF AT LIMMER LOOP AND THEY WOULD JUST BE JUMPING ON LIMMER LOOP TO HEAD DOWN TO THEIR RESIDENCE. THAT IS RELEVANT TO THE AREA . SO I THINK THAT THIS ROAD IS ACTUALLY RELEVANT TO THE DURANGO FARMS COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN FOR WEST SIDE OF THAT DEVELOPMENT . I THINK THAT IT CAN DEFINITELY ALLEVIATE SOME TRAFFIC CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC FLOW ISSUES . SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO NEED TO DO. A LOT OF PEOPLE TALK ABOUT ROAD CONGESTION TRAFFIC AND THINGS OF THAT SORT . SO I THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR IT.

UNFORTUNATELY THE 500,000 DOES NOT GET US THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO MAYBE WORK IN THE FUTURE TOWARD WORKING WITH COMMUNITY PARTNERS SUCH AS THE COUNTY OR TSD C BECAUSE THAT FRONTAGE ROAD WOULD BE SUPER BENEFICIAL TO THEM TO GETTING THEIR STUDENTS. THEY ARE EXPANDING THEIR CAMPUS SOON. SO IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE STUDENTS THERE FOR SAFETY REASONS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. SO THAT IS MY OPINION ON THAT. THANK YOU.

WILL INVITE THE PUBLIC . I BELIEVE IT IS 2018 BONDS BY THE COUNTY. THOSE BONDS ARE AUTHORIZED BY WILLIAMSON COUNTY VOTERS IN PART TO FUND THE SOUTHEAST LOOP. SO IF YOU HAVE ALREADY SOLD THE BONDS TO FUND THE ROAD, YOU CANNOT COME BACK TO ME LATER AND TELL ME YOU DID ME A FAVOR. YOU VOTED FOR IT.

NO ONE DID ASSIST FAVOR IN MY MIND. WE VOTED. YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH WHAT THE VOTERS SAID. THE LAST BOND MEASURE HAD NOTHING FOR HUTTO. THAT IS WHERE I THINK WE DIFFER . I CANNOT GO THE NEXT 10 YEARS TELLING ME CONSTANTLY EVERY TIME THE COUNTY DOESN'T DO A ROAD HERE BECAUSE THE VOTERS APPROVED SOMETHING. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO START PUSHING PEOPLE TO HELP PAY FOR OUR ROADS BECAUSE WE CANNOT

FUND THEM ALL OURSELVES. >> ANOTHER CLARIFICATION. THE 2018 BONDS FUND IS SEGMENTS ONE AND THREE. THE 2023 BOND FUNDED SEGMENT TWO. THAT ROAD IS USELESS WITHOUT SEGMENT TWO. SO

[02:15:01]

YOU VOTE AGAINST AND YOU FILL THE 2023 BONDS. YOU DON'T GET THESE LOCAL HIGHWAY. ANYWAY, WE ARE OFF THE SUBJECT.

>> A QUESTION ON THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION AT 130 LIMMER LOOP. CHANGE FEASIBILITY STUDY. ALL RIGHT. HEARING

NONE, PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >>

>> HOW DID YOU VOTE? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION FAILS. SO THE MOTION NOW ON THE FLOOR IS APPROVED $500,000 TO GOING TO THE YMCA TO RESTORE THE MONEY SPENT ON 137 AND TO ADD A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $500,000 FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL.

>> WE ALREADY VOTED ON THE MEMORIAL.

>> IT WAS JUST AN AMENDMENT. >> NOT PART OF THE MAIN MOTION.

333,000. >>

>> RESTORE THE MONEY BACK FROM 137. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? AS AMENDED. HEARING ON, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE . >>

>> MOTION PASSES. 7-0. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU, ALL, FOR STAYING SO LATE. YOU ARE DISMISSED.

>> THIS IS REALLY CITY COUNCIL RIGHT HERE.

[9.1. Conduct a public hearing and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2024-019 for a Specific Use Permit request for the property known as 2725 Limmer Loop, to allow a car wash in the B-2 (General Commercial) zoning district, as an accessory use to a gas station (Unified Development Code 10.304.6) (First Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-009 FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 2725 LIMMER LOOP TO ALLOW A CAR WASH IN THE ZONING DISTRICT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A GAS STATION. UNIFIED

DEVELOPMENT CODE 10.30 4.6. >> MR. MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE.

THANK YOU FOR GETTING THROUGH THAT. I DID NOT BRING THIS UP.

CAN WE PULL UP 13.7? >> I'M GOING TO OBJECT TO THAT. I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT IT IS.

>> ARE YOU ASKING TO TAKE IT OFF CONSENT?

>> THANK YOU. SORRY. >> IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED ?

>> YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION. >> I DID NOT REALIZE IT WAS

NONCONSENT. I APOLOGIZE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ADD A CAR WASH TO A CONVENIENCE STORE AND GAS

STATION . >> AND YOU LIFT YOUR MICROPHONE

UP A LITTLE BIT? >> I WORE HEELS. I'M SORRY.

THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PURPOSE TO ADD A CAR WASH AND CONVENIENCE STORE TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LIMMER LOOP AND ED SCHMIDT BOULEVARD. IT IS JUST OVER A TWO ACRE SITE. TO THE WEST IS TO STILL ZONED COMMERCIAL. YOU WILL SEE BASED ON THAT MAP THERE IS A SMALL PIECE OF COMMERCIAL BUT IT ALSO HAS SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO IT. THIS DID PASS THROUGH PNC. THERE WERE A FEW CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. ONE OF THEM IS THAT WHEN THIS WENT TO PNC THERE WAS THE POTENTIAL FOR A VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE WAS DENIED BY THE ZONE OF BOARDING -- ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. WHAT YOU HAVE IS THE CONDITIONS OUT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE THAT ARE JUST PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR WHEN YOU WOULD AT A CAR WASH. SO WITH THAT, I HAVE A DRAFT OF WHAT THE LAYOUT COULD LOOK LIKE. THEY WANTED TO SHOW THAT THEY COULD PUT A CAR WASH ON THIS SITE WITH THIS S.U.P. APPLICATION. BUT THIS HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF OTHER THAN TO JUST CONFIRM IT MEETS

[02:20:02]

THE SETBACKS. WE DON'T HAVE A FULL SUBMITTAL YET. WE ARE WAITING TO SEE IF THE USE IS ALLOWED . WE DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I WILL ADD THAT WE HAD A FEW OBJECTIONS IN YOUR PACKET AND TWO MORE CAME IN BY EMAIL

TODAY TO OBJECT. >> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING UP. 9:24 P.M. ANYONE HERE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS S.U.P. ? PLEASE COME FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:24 P.M. AND OPEN IT UP TO EITHER COUNCIL

QUESTIONS FOR ACTION. >> ONE QUESTION I HAD IS , IS THE S.U.P. GOING TO REQUIRE THAT THEY DO WATER REUSE RECAPTURE ? SO WOULD THEY ELIMINATE THE WASTEWATER DISCHARGE FROM A CAR WASH FACILITY? IS THAT MATCHED WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN OTHER CAR WASH FACILITIES IN HUTTO?

>> THAT IS NOT PART OF THE S.U.P. PERFORMANCE STANDARD, BUT YOU COULD REQUIRE THAT. TYPICALLY THAT IS HOW MOST OF THE CAR WASHES HAVE COME IN AND OPERATE.

>> I WANT TO MAKE -- IF WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THAT, I WANT

TO ADD THAT AS A STIPULATION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ?

>> FURTHER, IF WE NEED TO MODIFY THE S.U.P. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ADD TO THAT, WHEN WE ARE DOING THE REWRITE, WE ADD THAT AS A REQUIREMENT AUTOMATICALLY. JUST A GOOD,

ECOLOGICAL. >> IS GOING TO BE A LOT OF PERFORMANCE STANDARD CHANGES IN THE CODE DIRECTLY WRITTEN TO

WATER USAGE AND REUSE. >> QUICK QUESTION. AS FAR AS TIMELINE ON THIS, I GUESS MAYBE YOU COULD WALK ME THROUGH THIS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEVELOPER THAT CAME TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND PRESENTED THIS ON THE SCREEN.

PLANNING AND ZONING DID NOT ACCEPT IT. AND THEN THEY WENT TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND GOT DENIED. AND SO NOW WE ARE HERE AT CITY COUNCIL TO STILL GO WITH --

>> THIS WENT AS USE ONLY. THERE WAS A SEPARATE LAYOUT THAT CAME BEFORE THAT IS ALSO IN YOUR PACKET. THE USE PERMIT WENT TO P&Z AND CONDITION OF APPROVAL WAS ESSENTIALLY YOU COULD DO A LAYOUT SIMILAR TO THIS BECAUSE THE CAR WASH WAS CLOSER THAN 50 FEET SETBACK REQUIREMENT. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT SAID THE P&Z WOULD HAVE A CLOSER SETBACK. BUT THE ONLY THING ON THIS USE PERMIT IS ONLY THE CAR WASH USE IF YOU FIND APPROPRIATE. THIS HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED. THERE WILL

LIKELY BE CHANGES . >> SO THIS IS LIKELY TO CHANGE?

>> THEY ARE NOT GOING TO MAKE CHANGES UNTIL

>> AUTHORIZE IT HYPOTHETICALLY? LET'S SAY WE LOVE THE FORMAT AND IT LED TO CHANGE. ARE WE ALLOWED AS PART OF S.U.P. TO APPROVE THAT EXACT LAYOUT AND IF THEY DON'T DO THAT THEY

HAVE TO COME BACK TO US? >> THE ONLY THING -- I'M SURE YOU COULD. YOU ARE CITY COUNCIL. THE ONLY THING I WOULD CAUTION ON IS IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE

BEEN GRANTED A VARIANCE. >> I'M ONLY ASKING THAT BECAUSE WE CAN APPROVE THE USE. I'M OF THE OPINION , DON'T APPROVE ANYTHING UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. YOU GET HOODWINKED. YOU OUGHT TO AT LEAST KNOW AT THIS POINT IN TIME YOU HAVE DONE A SURVEY. YOU FIGURED OUT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. THE LEAST YOU COULD DO IS BEFORE YOU COME TO THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF HUTTO, IT IS GOING TO BE MATERIALLY JUST LIKE YOU SEE HERE. NOT, WE DREW IT UP REALLY GOOD. IF YOU APPROVE THE USE , WE CANNOT TELL YOU WHAT WILL HAPPEN. SEEMS LIKE THAT HAPPENED TO US MORE THAN ONCE.

>> YOU CAN CERTAINLY SAY YOU WANTED TO BE GENERALLY IN THIS LAYOUT AND WE COULD FINE-TUNE THAT ONCE WE GET INTO THE FULL APPROVING SOMETHING THAT COULD CHANGE BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE UNDERCOVER WITH TWO WALLS. SO THERE'S OBVIOUSLY TWO OPENINGS IN A CAR WASH. AND WHERE THOSE ARE POINTED HAS A BIG IMPACT ON WHERE THE NOISE GOES. AND THAT HAS A BIG IMPACT ON PEOPLE WHO LIVE NEARBY. SO THAT NEEDS TO BE A CONSIDERATION. I WOULD NOT APPROVE SOMETHING IF SOMEBODY COULD ROTATE IT 90 DEGREES AND

[02:25:05]

EVERYTHING IS GREAT. >> YOU COULD DO A CONDITION JUST TO STATE WHICH WAY YOU WANT THIS TO FACE FOR THAT YOU WANT IT IN THIS GENERAL LAYOUT IF YOU SO CHOOSE. THE ONLY THING STAFF WOULD CONSIDER IS THE USE IF IT IS APPROPRIATE AND THAT IT MEETS THE SETBACKS AND PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. BUT IF THIS IS THE GENERAL LAYOUT THAT IS DESIRED , THEN THAT WOULD LIKELY JUST BE A CONDITION OF APPROVAL.

>> QUESTION. WHAT IS THE NORMAL PROCESS? YOU WOULD COME TO US.

WE WOULD SAY, YEAH, WE ARE OKAY WITH A CAR WASH THERE. WE APPROVE THE USE. IT GOES BACK. THE LAYOUT GOES TO P&Z AGAIN?

>> NO. SITE PLANS ARE STRICTLY ADMINISTRATIVE BUT IT NEVER GOES BACK E UDC SAYS AND WHAT HAS BEEN ADOPTED IN THE UDC AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPMENT CODES.

>> SO IT WOULD JUST BE ON STAFF.

>> BUT THEY CANNOT DO THE CAR WASH USE WITHOUT THAT USE

PERMIT. >> GOTCHA. WITH THAT EXPLANATION I AM IN FAVOR OF WHAT HAS BEEN SAID HERE. GIVING SOME GENERAL GUIDANCE AS TO THE LAYOUT THAT WE PREFER.

>> I THINK IT IS THIS ONE BUT IT HAS BLOWN UP . I'M HAVING A HARD TIME FINDING -- HOW CLOSE ARE WE TO THE HOUSES? IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A CUL-DE-SAC RIGHT THERE.

>> THERE IS. YOU CAN SEE IT ON HERE. IT IS CLOSER TO THE -- IT IS STILL 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC. YOU HAVE TO BE 50 FEET AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTY .

SO THERE IS ONE THAT WENT FORWARD TO P&Z THAT IS IN YOUR PACKET. THERE IS ALSO THE UPDATED VERSION THAT IS FOR YOU BECAUSE THAT VARIANCE WAS NOT APPROVED.

>> AND WHAT HAS TO BE 50 FEET AWAY? THE ACTUAL IMPROVEMENTS ?

>> OKAY. LOOKS LIKE IT IS 97.7 FEET AWAY. LOOK AT THE CURRENT

ONE. >> I BELIEVE YOU ARE.

>> PAGE 19. >> I LIKE THE LOOK OF IT. BUT I ALWAYS GET NERVOUS WHEN YOU ARE THAT CLOSE. I VOTED AGAINST THE GUY COOKING CHICKEN. I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE TOO MUCH SMOKE AND -- IN PEOPLE'S YARDS. WE ARE GETTING RIGHT UP ON RESIDENTIAL. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS A COMMERCIAL CORNER , WHAT IS THE BACK FENCE? THE SCREENING. IS THAT

A SIX FOOT TALL WOOD FENCE? >> TYPICALLY IT IS SIX FEET MASONRY. RIGHT NOW IT WOULD JUST BE A PRIVACY FENCE FOR THE

LOCAL RANCH. >> SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO

ANY KIND OF MASONRY. >> THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO.

THERE IS STILL GOING TO BE BUFFERING REQUIRED FOR THE UDC.

THAT IS 25 FEET DEPENDING ON IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO AN UPGRADE OR

NOT. >> IS THERE ANY SORT OF NOISE STUDY THAT WAS DONE OR ANY SORT OF NOISE CANCELLATION THAT CAN BE DONE? FROM THE COMMENT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR PACKET, IS THERE ANYTHING BEING DONE WITH NOISE ?

>> FOR NOISE THEY WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW THE CITY CODE NOISE ORDINANCE AND THEN THERE ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION AND THOSE HOURS OF OPERATION P&Z DID INCLUDE IT CANNOT BE ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AND ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE 7:00 A.M. TO 9:00

P.M. HOURS. >> I MAY BE COMPLETELY IGNORANT TO THIS FACT, SO PARDON ME. BUT WE ARE WANTING TO WATCH OUR WATER USAGE. I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO DO SOME SORT OF WATER CONSERVATION. TELL ME ABOUT THE WATER PROCESS OF A CAR WASH. DO THEY USE IT AND IT SAVES IN AND GOES BACK AROUND?

IS IT LIKE A WATERFALL? >> THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO ESSENTIALLY CLEAN THEIR OWN WATER AND THEN BE ABLE TO REUSE THAT . THE LAST TWO STRICTLY CAR WASH USES WE HAD HAD THAT

SYSTEM . >> SO NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY BUT THOSE TWO DO IT. WILL THIS ONE DO IT AS WELL?

>> THAT IS WHY I PUT A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY HAVE TO AS PART OF THE S.U.P. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE. IF WE LOOK AT OTHER ONES , THERE IS ONE ON 685 ALREADY THAT IS EXACTLY 50 FEET RIGHT BEHIND A BUNCH OF HOMES AND WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY COMPLAINTS ON THOSE AND THOSE ARE ANGLED DIRECTLY AWAY. TO CLAIM THAT 97 FEET IS NOT ENOUGH WHEN WE HAVE ONE THAT IS LIKELY 50 ON CHRIS KELLY WITH PEOPLE OFF OF COFFMAN DRIVE IN THEIR BACKYARD -- I DON'T THINK THE CAR WASH IS AS LOUD AS OTHER POSSIBLE THINGS WITH

[02:30:04]

THE RESTRICTED HOURS. I DON'T THINK THAT IS TOO MUCH OF A

CONCERN ABOUT THAT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. SAVE OUR

WATER. >> YEAH.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ARE WE READY FOR ACTION?

>> MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY 9.1 AS PRESENTED. ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-019.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON TO DENY A S.U.P. FOR THE CAR WASH . NOT FOR THE

STORE. >> CONVENIENCE STORE FOR 5000 SQUARE FEET WITH A GAS STATION.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY WE TALK ABOUT REDUCING TRAFFIC.

HAVING A CAR WASH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN WHERE EVERYONE DOESN'T HAVE TO GO ON TO ED SCHMIDT OR CROSS 79 TO WASH THEIR CAR IN HUTTO WILL ACTUALLY -- YOU TALK ABOUT MAKING POCKET AREAS OF MOBILITY . IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE BEING COUNTERINTUITIVE IF YOU VOTE TO DENY THIS FOR TRYING TO KEEP MOBILITY OF PEOPLE IN ONE AREA OF THE CITY VERSUS TRANSGRESSING THE CITY AND INCREASING TRAFFIC ON THE ROADS THAT ARE MOST CONGESTED. JUST MY OPINION.

>> YEAH. ORIGINALLY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BUT WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MAPS AND SAW THERE IS ANOTHER CAR WASH ON HIGHWAY 685 SOUTH OF THE HIGH SCHOOL THAT IS ACTUALLY CLOSER, I THINK IT'S ALREADY BEEN SAID IT'S ACTUALLY CLOSER TO THE RESIDENTS AND THIS ONE IS PROPOSED TO BE. I KNOW THERE WERE MORE RESIDENTS WHO WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANY CONCERNS WITH THE CURRENT CAR WASH THAT HAS BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. SO THIS ONE IS ALMOST DOUBLE THE DISTANCE AWAY. SO THAT RESOLVED MY CONCERN WHEN I SAW.

>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IF THIS DEVELOPER WANTS TO HAVE A CAR WASH , WE NEED TO SEE SOME REDESIGN THAT FITS WITHIN THE

REQUIREMENTS. >> IT DOES FIT WITHIN THE

REQUIREMENTS. >> MR. MAYOR, CAN YOU RECOGNIZE

>> LEAH NOLAN. I GUESS I HAVE A TWO-PART QUESTION. ONE BEING , ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A CAR WASH THAT IS -- BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS AN AXON RIGHT THERE AT THAT CORNER BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IS A CAR WASH AT THE VALERO AT 1660 BECAUSE I USE IT. BUT I KNOW YOU OPENED THIS UP TO PUBLIC COMMENT BUT IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT IS TOTALLY COMPLETE YET FOR ME AS A RESIDENT THAT LIVES RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THAT AREA TO SAY, YES, I WANT TO SEE A CAR WASH AT AN ALREADY CONGESTED POINT. SO THAT IS WHAT I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.

THE CAR WASH BEING HERE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE STORE BEING HERE, BUT I DON'T VOTE ON ANYTHING THAT IS NOT NAILED DOWN. SO I HAVE BEEN THAT WAY. I FOUGHT WITH YOU ALL ABOUT THAT. I'M NOT GOING TO CHANGE NOW. I THINK WE OWE IT TO EVERYBODY TO HAVE VERY CLEAR-CUT, THIS IS WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE. KNOWING HOW DEVELOPMENT WORKS , ONCE YOU DO THE SURVEY IN AND YOU HAVE LAID IT OUT , HOPEFULLY YOU HAVE READ THE CODE. IF YOU HAVE DONE ALL THAT, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO PRESENT SOMETHING YOU KNOW 100% IS GOING TO BE AND IF YOU CANNOT DO THAT, THEN I THINK IT'S ALMOST LIKE WASTING OUR TIME. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. SO I ONLY SUPPORT DEFINITE THINGS IN WRITING THAT I CAN COME BACK AND HOLD. CITY MANAGER. STAFF ACCOUNTABLE FOR , THIS IS NOT WHAT WE WERE SHOWN. IF WE VOTE FOR THIS, I CANNOT GO BACK AND TELL ANYBODY WHAT IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

>> CAN I ASK YOU AN EXPERTISE QUESTION?

>> YOU DEAL WITH GAS STATION DEVELOPMENT. HAVE YOU EVER GONE TO A PLACE WHERE YOU GET YOUR S.U.P. TO HAVE A GAS STATION BEFORE YOU COME IN WITH A FULLY DESIGNED LOCATION?

>> IN A LOT OF CITIES WHEN YOU GO IN TO GET AN S.U.P. , YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ALMOST EVERYTHING COMPLETELY PINNED DOWN TO WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET MUCH MATERIAL CHANGE.

WE ARE ONE OF THE FEW CITIES THAT HAS HISTORICALLY SAID,

[02:35:01]

YEAH, GO DO IT. WE TRUST YOU. A LOT OF TIMES YOU NEED TO SAY, THIS IS HOW THEY ARE GOING TO CIRCULATE. THIS IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO SHOW THEIR LIGHT. WHAT CAN HAPPEN IN AN S.U.P. -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG -- IT GOES BACK TO THE PAINT THE BUILDING PINK. IF YOU WANT THE SPECIAL FAVOR , THEN YOU HAVE TO DO THIS, THIS, AND THIS TO MAKE US HAPPY AND WHEN YOU DON'T GIVE SPECIFICS, YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP TO A WHOLE LOT OF EXTRA STUFF . SO IT IS REALLY HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT. ME, I ALWAYS GO FOR THE DEFINITIVE BECAUSE YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT.

WE VOTE ON THIS MOTION IS, WHAT DO YOU NEED TO MAKE THIS -- NOT THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS IT IS A HACKLEY BECAUSE IT WILL PROBABLY NEED TO SHIFT OR WHATEVER , BUT -- IS THERE PRINCIPLE OF DESIGN WITH THIS LAYOUT KIND OF LIKE WHEN WE DO LAWYER STUFF. WE ALLOW MINOR CHANGES . SO WHAT LANGUAGE WOULD YOU NEED TO SEE THAT YOU WOULD THEN SINCE STAFF WILL BE DOING APPROVAL THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO GIVE YOU THAT SMALL LITTLE ROOM BUT UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR CONCERN IS?

IT HAS TO BE GENERALLY IN THIS CONFIGURATION PLUS OR -10% SO THAT IF THERE NEEDS TO BE LEGAL WE CAN. WE DON'T HAVE A FULL LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE DON'T HAVE FOR ONE ROUND OF REVIEW ON A SITE PLAN. THAT IS WHEN WE DETERMINED THIS HAS TO HAVE A VARIANCE. HE ALSO HAVE TO HAVE S.U.P. IF YOU ARE ADDING THIS IN. SO WE DON'T HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. THIS IS GENERALLY HOW IT IS GOING TO LOOK. BUT THE LAST ITERATION WAS NOT THIS LAYOUT. IT IS THE PRIOR THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED VARIANCE. SO IT IS JUST A SIMPLE -- THIS IS THE GENERAL

LAYOUT. >> THINK OF THAT ON YOUR MIND BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THIS MOTION. WE WOULD HAVE A COMPETING MOTION OF THIS ONE PASSED OR FAILED.

>> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I DON'T LIKE APPROVING SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE NAILED DOWN AS WELL. AND JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST, AND IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN A PROBLEM WHERE IT IS, FOR ALL WE KNOW THAT IS JUST A NEIGHBOR WHO HAS A COMPLAINT OR IS NOT REALLY SENSITIVE TO THE NOISE. AND CAR WASHES ARE BUILT DIFFERENTLY. DIFFERENT CAR WASHES MAY GENERATE MORE NOISE THAN OTHERS. SO IT IS HARD TO SAY THAT BECAUSE IT WAS APPROVED BEFORE WE SHOULD APPROVE EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE FUTURE OR THAT ONE FACTOR LIKE THE INCREASED DISTANCE IS GOING TO CURE EVERYTHING. SO I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ON THIS . AND I THINK THAT THE MESSAGE THAT IF THEY ARE WATCHING THAT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY -- I WOULD SAY I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO A CAR WASH. I JUST WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE AND EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DONE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORS. JUST BECAUSE IT WAS GOOD ENOUGH BEFORE DOESN'T MEAN THEY CANNOT DO A LITTLE BETTER NOW. AND MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I JUST WANT TO SEE MORE. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THIS UNTIL I

SEE MORE. >> PROCEED TO QUESTION. IF WE VOTE TO DENY THIS, I DON'T KNOW HOW -- DOES THAT MAKE THEM WAIT? SOME CITIES YOU HAVE TO WAIT A YEAR BEFORE YOU CAN APPLY AGAIN. CAN THEY GET A NOTE FROM US AND THEN COME BACK IN A MONTH WITH A BETTER PLAN THAT IS NAILED DOWN?

>> YOU COULD DO A NO. YOU COULD POSTPONE UNTIL THERE WAS AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND WE CAN GIVE YOU THE STAMP THAT WE CAN IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE AND THEN HAVE

THAT FOR YOU. >> BUT IF WE DO IT NOW --

>> I THINK IT IS A DELAY. I THINK IF ANY ZONING TYPE ACCESS FOR APPLICATION THAT GETS VOTED DOWN , USUALLY THERE IS A DELAY OF TIME. AND IT IS SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BEFORE THEY CAN REAPPLY FOR THE SAME REQUEST. SO I DON'T KNOW

WHAT IT IS. >> IS A YEAR . IT IS SQUARELY ONCE IT GETS TO THE USE PERMITS BECAUSE OUR USE PERMITS STILL RUN WITH THE LAND. SO IT IS STRANGE.

>> PERSONALLY I DON'T WANT TO PENALIZE HIM, BUT ASSUMING THIS FAILS OR WHATEVER, IF A PERSON SAID THEY WANTED TO POSTPONE THIS UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE SITE PLAN IS READY TO BE BASICALLY VOTED ON AND APPROVED , IS THAT APPROPRIATE TO GET WHAT YOU ARE HEARING FROM ME ?

>> YEAH. IF YOU WANTED TO POSTPONE THIS TO A FUTURE MEETING NOT DATE SPECIFIC, WE COULD RE-HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING WITH AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND BRING THAT TO YOU FOR THE APPLICANT KNOW THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO GET THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR THE CAR WASH AND WE COULD BRING THAT BACK.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT.

NEED TO DISPENSE OF THAT? >> PEOPLE THAT HAVE MADE THE MOTION AND SECONDED CAN WITHDRAW. THAT IS AN OPTION. MY

[02:40:04]

RECOMMENDATION FOR THE SITE PLAN TO POSTPONE IT UNTIL THE SITE PLAN HAS BEEN THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS. SO YOU CAN ATTACH IT TO THE ORDINANCE.

>> MR. MAYOR, I WILL RESEND MY MOTION TO DENY AND I WOULD LIKE

TO MAKE A MOTION. >> YOU NEED THE SECOND.

>> MOTION TO BRING THIS -- TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL STAFF CAN BRING US BACK A SITE PLAN -- OF FINALIZED SITE PLAN. THAT IS APPROVED ADMINISTRATIVELY.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR, MAY I MOTION TO MOVE UP 12.7 ?

>> I WILL OBJECT. >> OBJECT.

>> SOUNDS LIKE THREE ALREADY .

>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF WE COULD MOVE 12.1. JUDGE LUCAS IS

HERE AND HE HAS BEEN WAITING. >> ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK YOU THIS. THERE ARE TWO QUICK ITEMS BEFORE THAT. WE CAN MOVE IT UP.

FOR ME TO TELL. >> IT MIGHT NOT BE.

>> NO TO OBJECTIONS. >> NO ACTIONS ON 10.1.

>> WE ARE AFRAID TO GET A TICKET, I THINK. DON'T KEEP

[12.1. Consideration and possible action relating to creating a Municipal Court of Record (Legal)]

THE MAN WAITING. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 12.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO CREATING A MUNICIPAL COURT OF

RECORD. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD. WE HAD SOME CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS. WHEN YOU HAVE A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD, YOU CAN HAVE ABATEMENT DOCUMENTS, ORDER ABATEMENTS. THAT IS ONE OF THE MAIN ADVANTAGES OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD. ALSO WHATEVER ACTION HAPPENS -- ONLY A CERTAIN WAY TO APPEAL RIGHT NOW . IF SOMETHING IS APPEALED OUT OF YOUR MUNICIPAL COURT, IT STARTS WITHIN THE COUNTY. SO IN A NUTSHELL WE GIVE YOU A MEMO ON THIS AND STAFF IS JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION WHETHER OR NOT COUNSEL WOULD LIKE TO CREATE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD. WE HAVE VISITED WITH THE JUDGE AND HE IS HERE TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> YES, PLEASE.

>> NOT THAT I DID NOT DO A GREAT JOB, BUT THERE ARE SOME BIG WORDS IN THERE AND HAVE NOT BEEN IN FRONT OF YOU. CAN YOU TELL US A CODE? PICKETT IS MISSING AND I REFUSE TO FIX IT.

I GUESS I'M GOING TO GO IN FRONT OF YOU AND ARGUE A REASON WHY I CANNOT FIX IT. IS THAT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT HERE? >> UNFORTUNATELY NOT. COURT OF RECORD IS REALLY SET UP SO THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT DEALING WITH VERY LARGE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROBLEMS WHERE WE HAVE HOUSES THAT ARE ABANDONED OR IN A POOR STATE OF REPAIR.

OR IF WE HAVE MOTOR VEHICLES THAT ARE ABANDONED OR IN A POOR STATE OF REPAIR. THAT IS WHAT A COURT OF RECORD ALLOWS THE CITY TO DO. TO TAKE ACTION ON THOSE ITEMS WHEN NORMALLY IF THE CITY HAD A SITUATION LIKE THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO DISTRICT COURT AND FILE . IT IS NOT EXTREMELY COMMON BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS COMING UP AND IS BEING USED MORE OFTEN. I WILL BE HONEST WITH COUNCIL. IT IS USED MORE IN LARGER CITIES WHERE YOU HAVE REALLY BIG AREAS AND WHERE YOU HAVE A LOT OF THIS . TAYLOR ESTABLISHED A COURT OF RECORD MANY YEARS AGO . THAT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE DEALING WITH A LOT OF ABANDONED HOUSES. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL REMEMBER THIS. IF THERE WAS A REALLY BIG PROBLEM IN THE SOUTH PART OF TAYLOR WITH ABANDONED HOUSES THAT HAD A LOT OF VAGRANTS. THE BIG ISSUE WAS THEY COULD NOT IDENTIFY A SINGLE OWNER BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY ERRORS. AND SO IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO APPROACH A SINGLE PERSON AND SAY, HEY, YOU'VE GOT TO FIX UP YOUR HOUSE OR WE ARE GOING TO GIVE YOU A BUNCH OF TICKETS. SO BY ESTABLISHING A COURT OF RECORD THEY WERE ABLE TO DEAL WITH THESE PROBLEMS THROUGH THE COURT OF RECORD. CITY ATTORNEY ALSO POINTED OUT ANOTHER THING WHICH IS IMPORTANT. IF YOU HAVE A COURT OF RECORD, NORMALLY

[02:45:08]

ANY CRIMINAL APPEAL -- LET'S SAY SOMEBODY GETS A DRAFT TICKET AND THEY GO TO A JURY TRIAL. THEY ARE FOUND GUILTY.

RIGHT NOW AS IT STANDS THEY ARE ENTITLED TO APPEAL THAT CASE WHAT IS CALLED THE NOVA. IN OTHER WORDS THEY JUST SAY, HEY, I WANT TO APPEAL IT AND THEIR CASE GETS TRANSFERRED TO GEORGETOWN IN THE COUNTY COURTS. AND THEY GET A WHOLE NEW BITE OF THE APPLE. THEY BASICALLY GET TO TRY THEIR CASE AGAIN. WHAT A COURT OF RECORD DOES IS ANY APPEALS FROM A COURT OF RECORD GO DIRECTLY TO THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS. SO IN SOME WAYS THAT IS GOOD BECAUSE IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF APPEALS THAT YOU HAVE COMING OUT OF MUNICIPAL COURT, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE OF SOMEBODY APPEALS TO THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS , THE CITY COULD INCUR ATTORNEYS FEES FOR DEALING WITH THAT TYPE OF APPEAL. IT IS KIND OF A SIX IN ONE AND HALF A DOZEN OF THE OTHER. I REALLY DON'T HAVE A STAND. I AM A JUDGE IN A COURT OF RECORD. ALL MY CLERKS HAVE ADVANCED CERTIFICATION. WE ALREADY HAVE THE RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN PLACE IF THE CITY WANTED TO DO THAT. AND THAT IS THE BIGGEST EXPENSE. MOST OF THE TIMES CITIES CONSIDER THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO RECORD ALL OF THE PROCEEDINGS.

BUT BECAUSE CITY COUNCIL ALREADY HAS THAT RECORDING EQUIPMENT IN PLACE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TRANSITION PRETTY EASILY. IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHERE THE CITY WANTS TO GO. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE MAY NOT NEED REALLY URGENTLY RIGHT NOW BUT WITH THE GROWTH OF HUTTO WE MAY NEED IT IN FIVE OR 10 YEARS. SO THAT IS REALLY UP TO THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS?

>> CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT HAS COME BEFORE YOU THAT YOU WERE NOT ABLE TO TAKE ACTION ON BECAUSE THEN IT WAS RESET AND IT WENT TO THE COUNTY?, NO. THERE HAS NOT BEEN ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO HANDLE SO FAR. SO THAT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION . WHEN I WAS NOTIFIED ABOUT THIS I WAS TOLD I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THE CHIEF OF POLICE CONTACTED HER ABOUT SOME CODE CONCERNS AS

WELL. >> THERE WERE SOME CODE CONCERNS I VISITED WITH THE CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF ON AND SAID WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE IT TO MUNICIPAL COURT . THEY WERE HAVING DIFFICULTIES WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. THAT IS WHEN I FOUND OUT THAT WE DID NOT HAVE MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD. I JUST ASSUMED THAT WE DID. AND ALSO SOME MATTERS THAT ASHLEY HAD REFERRED TO ME AND I SAID, YOU NEED TO GET WITH A PROSECUTOR THAT IS MORE IN CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATION.

IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACT ON CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS. TO GET IT CORRECTED IF YOU DON'T HAVE A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD.

>> EXACTLY CORRECT. WE HAVE NOT SEEN ANYTHING SPECIFIC YET, BUT IT IS A CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE CHIEF AND BY CODE ENFORCEMENT THAT MAY MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO ASK IF WE WERE A COURT OF RECORD. ONE OTHER POINT THAT I NEED TO BRING UP. IF WE WERE TO BECOME A COURT OF RECORD , WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED ANOTHER CLERK. THE REASON IS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CLERK WHO CAN READ -- RUN THE RECORDING SYSTEM AND IS IN CHARGE OF KEEPING ALL OF THOSE RECORDINGS FROM EVERY COURT SESSION. EVERY TIME I HAVE A COURT SESSION, EVERYTHING HAS TO BE RECORDED. EVERYTHING HAS TO BE PUT IN A CATEGORY , SAVED, PRESERVED BECAUSE IF IT IS APPEALED AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT RECORD, WE LOSE THE APPEAL. AND SO IT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO HAVE A CLERK THAT IS WELL-TRAINED AND REALLY FOCUSES ON THAT. SO I WOULD NOT WANT THEM DOING ANYTHING ELSE IN THE COURTROOM OTHER THAN PAYING ATTENTION TO WHEN I NEEDED TO GO ON THE RECORD OR OFF THE RECORD. I WILL TELL YOU BECAUSE THIS IS PROBABLY SOMETHING YOU NEED TO KNOW AS WELL. OUR TICKET COUNT HAS JUMPED . THE CHIEF AND HIS COMMAND STAFF AND THE POLICE OFFICERS ARE REALLY DOING AN OUTSTANDING JOB. I KNOW WE HAVE HAD A LOT OF NEW OFFICERS COME ON BOARD. OUR TICKET COUNT IS REALLY GOING UP. OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT CASES ARE REALLY GOING UP. SO IF WE BECOME A COURT OF RECORD AND CODE ENFORCEMENT STARTS FILING THE TYPES OF CASES THAT SHE IS ADDRESSING , THAT IS ALSO GOING TO ESCALATE. THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE MORE COURT TIME. THAT IS GOING TO REQUIRE MORE CLERK TIME AS WELL.

>> YOUR HONOR , I WAS TRACKED ON PRETTY GOOD UNTIL YOU SAID , ADD FTE. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR AN EXAMPLE. THERE IS AN ABANDONED HOUSE AT THE CORNER OF LIMMER AND ED SCHMIDT. 119. I THINK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT USED IT FOR TRAINING GROUNDS SOMETIME LAST YEAR. SOMEONE JUST LEFT IT. IF WE

[02:50:01]

WERE A COURT OF RECORD, LET'S SAY CODE COMES DOWN AND IT IS CORPORATION AND YOU NEED TO TAKE THIS DOWN . YOU GUYS LET THE FIRE DEPARTMENT DO TRAINING . NOT OUR PROBLEM. FIX IT. IF THEY AFTER 30 DAYS OR WHATEVER DON'T DO IT, THERE -- DOES A COURT OF RECORD HELP US GET THAT REMOVED QUICKER? AN EXAMPLE OF IF YOU COULD NOT FIGURE OUT WHO THE ACTUAL OWNER WAS. DOES IT HELP YOU WITH CORPORATIONS THAT ARE BASICALLY LIKE , LOOK, WE HAVE BIGGER PROBLEMS IN HUTTO AND THEY BLOW THIS OFF? I'M TRYING TO THINK OF AN EXAMPLE BECAUSE IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADD A BODY FOR SOMETHING THAT IS REALLY NOT COMING UP VERY OFTEN BUT COULD COME I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT

, WHAT ARE WE MISSING? >> YOU ARE HITTING THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. THAT IS SUCH A HARD QUESTION TO ANSWER BECAUSE THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE CODE ENFORCEMENT REACHING OUT TO THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE. AND SAYING, HEY, YOU HAVE THESE VIOLATIONS AND EITHER YOU REMEDY THEM OR WE WILL FILE CASES WITH MUNICIPAL COURT. SO THAT IS YOUR FIRST STEP.

COMPLIANCE. WE ALWAYS WANT COMPLIANCE. IF WE DON'T GET THAT AGREED COMPLIANCE, THEN THEY WOULD FILE CASES WITH US.

WE DON'T HAVE TO BE A COURT OF RECORD FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. YOU CAN FILE CRIMINAL CASES. YOU CAN FILE A CRIMINAL CASE FOR EVERY DAY THAT THE VIOLATION IS IN EFFECT. SO BASICALLY YOU CAN FILE A CRIMINAL CASE FOR 30 DAYS AND THE FINES AND FEES WOULD REALLY STACK UP. THAT NORMALLY GETS PEOPLE'S ATTENTION. IN THE 28 YEARS I HAVE BEEN IN THE CITY AND 20 YEARS AS A JUDGE, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO RESOLVE ALL OF OUR ISSUES WITH JUST FILING VIOLATIONS. OKAY? THE COURT OF RECORD HELPS AND COMES INTO PLAY IF THE PERSON DOES NOT RESPOND TO THOSE CODE ENFORCEMENT VIOLATIONS AND

CITATIONS. >> OR I HAD THIS IN ANOTHER CITY WHERE THERE WAS $9000 WORTH OF FINES AND THEN THEY JUST APPEALED . IT JUST GOT WIPED OUT.

>> THE GOOD NEWS ABOUT THAT IS THAT AT LEAST RIGHT NOW IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY ANY APPEALS THAT GO UP ARE HANDLED BY THE COUNTY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. OKAY? SO THEY BASICALLY PROVIDE US WITH FREE REPRESENTATION FOR APPEALS AND CURRENTLY IF WE HAVE A CASE THAT IS APPEALED AND THEY FINE ASSESSED ON APPEAL, THEY ARE RETURNING THAT FIND TO US. SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN GETTING FINES RETURN TO US BY THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY. THE CLERK'S OFFICE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE WERE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION LIKE SHE IS ADDRESSING WHERE WE HAD $9000 WORTH OF FINES. BUT THAT IS JUST REALLY RARE.

>> LAST QUESTION. IF THIS IS APPROVED BUT WE DON'T APPROVE THE FTE, IS THERE ANYWAY YOU CAN GET THAT DONE THROUGH PART-TIME OR ON A CASE-BY-CASE TO WHERE SOMEHOW THE CITY SECRETARY -- SHE HAS TO KEEP RECORDS KIND OF THE SAME WAY .

BUT IS THERE ANYWAY YOU CAN THINK OF? IT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO. FOR SOMETHING THAT IS NOT COMING UP. ANYTHING WHERE YOU CAN SEE THE CITY SECRETARY THAT SOMEHOW HER OFFICE COULD HELP WITH THAT? OR IS IT NOT KOSHER

TO DO THAT? >> NO. WE WILL GET IT DONE. WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT BECAUSE WE WILL WORK AROUND HOWEVER IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE COULD WORK WITH THE CITY SECRETARY. WE COULD MAYBE HIRE A PART-TIME PERSON TO COME AND DO THAT AT A MUCH LOWER COST. SO I CANNOT PROMISE YOU THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS OVERWHELMING US AND WE REALLY NEED AN EXTRA PERSON, BUT, YES. TO START WITH WE WOULD DEFINITELY WORK AT GETTING IT DONE AND MAKE SURE.

BECAUSE LAST MONTH WE HAD 611 CASES FILED . OUR NORMAL CASELOAD OVER THE PAST YEAR OR SO IS ABOUT 300 PER MONTH. SO WE ARE GETTING DOUBLE THAT. LAST YEAR WE HAD ABOUT 240 CODE COMPLIANCE CASES FILED. PRIOR TO THAT, WE WERE ONLY HAVING 50 OR 60 A YEAR. SO IT IS REALLY GOING UP. IT IS REALLY KIND OF STRESSING THE LOAD A LITTLE BIT. WE ARE STILL OKAY. LIKE I SAID, Y'ALL HAVE GOT INCREDIBLE CLERKS IN MUNICIPAL COURT THAT ARE HANDLING IT AND WE ARE DOING IT AND WE CAN MAKE IT WORK . BUT I WOULD SIMPLY ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT WE MAY HAVE TO COME BACK IN A YEAR OR TWO IF

THAT CASE CONTINUES. >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY NEXT QUESTION. IF WE DID NOT GET AN FTE FOR THIS POSITION WITH THE ADDITIONAL LOAD YOU GUYS ARE GETTING, WHEN DO YOU FORESEE NEEDING ANOTHER FTE? TWO YEARS?

[02:55:01]

>> IF THE CASELOAD CONTINUES. WHAT I HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THAT CHIEF OF POLICE , STAFF, AND THE OFFICERS ARE REALLY OUT THERE WORKING THE AREAS THAT NEED TO BE WORKED, WHICH I TOTALLY -- THAT IS WHAT WE NEED . WE NEED THEM OUT THERE.

THEY'RE DOING A GREAT JOB. IF THEY CONTINUE FILING CASES AT THE RATE WE ARE, WE ARE

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ACTION?

>> MAKE A MOTION TO POST ON THIS ITEM UNTIL WE CAN MAKE IT A PART OF OUR FISCAL YEAR 2025 BUDGET DISCUSSIONS.

>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION TO POSTPONE. UNTIL IT IS PART OF THE BUDGET. MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. DEPENDING HOW THE VOTE COMES OUT, YOU MAY HAVE SAVED YOURSELF FROM HAVING TO COME OUT AT BUDGET TIME WHICH MIGHT BE 2:00 OR 3:00 IN THE

MORNING. >> WITH COUNCIL'S PERMISSION, I WILL PROBABLY REACH OUT TO CODE ENFORCEMENT AND JUST GET A MEETING TO SIT DOWN WITH OUR PROSECUTOR AND ME AND SAY, OKAY, LET'S IDENTIFY SPECIFIC AREAS THAT YOU THINK YOU NEED A COURT OF RECORD FOR. CAN WE ADDRESS OR SOLVE THOSE PROBLEMS WITHOUT THE COURT OF RECORD? IF NOT, I MAY ASK IF I CAN COME BACK AGAIN AND SAY, BASED ON WHAT I HAVE HEARD FROM POLICE AND CODE, WE REALLY DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH COURT OF

RECORD. >> THANK YOU FOR TAKING THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR STAYING HERE SO LATE, YOUR HONOR.

>> NOT A PROBLEM AT ALL. HUTTO IS MY SECOND HOME. I HAVE BEEN HERE FOR 28 YEARS AND I HOPE TO RETIRE AS A JUDGE HERE. SO I LOVE BEING HERE. I LOVE TRYING TO HELP OUT THE CITIZENS AND

HELPING Y'ALL OUT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I WOULD JUST SAY I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR THE MOTION BECAUSE THE CHIEF THINKS IT IS NEEDED. WE DON'T HAVE IT. GROWING CITIES. IF WE VOTE AGAINST THIS, WE ARE ALMOST PROLONGING THE PROCESS . THE JUDGE CAN START THE PROCESS NOW AND CAN GET THINGS PREPARED AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TO BUDGET TIME OF THIS KIND OF WHAT HE SAID. HE CAN HANDLE IT.

SO I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT AND OUR PEOPLE ALL THE TOOLS THEY CAN TO MAKE SURE WE KEEP HUTTO UP .

>> CLARIFICATION QUESTION ON THAT. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT WE CAN -- YOU HAVE NEVER NEEDED A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD TO DATE. YOU HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET BY WITHOUT ONE. SO WHAT ARE WE MISSING OUT ON IF WE DELAY THIS UNTIL THE BUDGET DISCUSSION, WHICH WOULD BE IN ABOUT SIX MONTHS? HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEGATIVE

IMPACT IS. >> IF THERE IS A CODE ENFORCEMENT OR COMPLIANCE ISSUE THAT INVOLVES PUBLIC HEALTH OR SAFETY THAT COMES UP BETWEEN NOW AND THEN , THEN WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT IN THIS COURT.

>> WE HAVE THE PROCESS TO SEND IT TO THE COUNTY.

>> TECHNICALLY, YES. FILE PLEADINGS IN DISTRICT COURT.

>> THERE IS THE CHAPTER 51 THAT YOU COULD GO IN, BUT THAT

WOULD BE ATTORNEYS FEES. >> SO THAT IS THE DILEMMA. IF WE HAVE AN ISSUE THAT COMES UP, WE CAN FILE IT IN COUNTY COURT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO THEN PAY THE FEE. WHEREAS IF IT WAS A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD, THERE WOULD BE NO FEE.

>> IF I CAN ADD ONE MORE THING, I AM HAPPY TO JUST IF YOU WANT TO PUT THIS OFF FOR A MEETING OR TWO. I CAN SET UP A MEETING WITH THE POLICE CHIEF VERY QUICKLY AND SIT DOWN WITH HIM AND CODE AND IDENTIFY . HEY, WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS WE ARE LOOKING AT IN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR OR TWO THAT YOU THINK WE WILL NEED A COURT OF RECORD FOR AND THEN I WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING BACK SPECIFICALLY THAT INFORMATION TO YOU AND SAY, YES. I THINK THAT WE DO NEED IT OR I THINK

WE CAN HANDLE IT WITHOUT IT. >> WE HAVE YOUR SUPPORT.

>> CHIEF JONES. >> CHIEF JONES CAN SAY SOMETHING. GOOD EVENING , MAYOR, COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD.

CODE ENFORCEMENT IS WORKING ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN DIFFERENT PROPERTIES WITHIN THE CITY THAT ARE HORRIBLY OVERGROWN AND WERE NOT GOING TO MAKE A WHOLE LOT OF HEADWAY. THAT IS WHY THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP WITH DOTTIE. SO WE ARE FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT WE ARE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY HEADWAY ON THESE PROPERTIES JUST BECAUSE OF THE ENORMOUS COST TO MITIGATE THESE PROPERTIES. WE DON'T HAVE THE MONEY IN OUR

[03:00:03]

BUDGET. SO THAT IS KIND OF WHERE THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP.

YOU COULD AND WOULD LIKE TO ACT ON SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.

>> WE HAVE ACTIVE CASES ON EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM RIGHT

NOW. >> ALL RIGHT. I WITHDRAW MY

MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 11.ONE -- SORRY, 12.1.

>> IS THAT WITH FTE? >> NO. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN BUDGET PROCESS. WE ARE NOT GOING TO IMPROVE A BUDGET

TONIGHT. >> ARE MAKING A MOTION AS PRESENTED. YOU CLARIFIED NO FTE. COURT OF RECORD.

>> CORRECT. SECOND. >> DO YOU SECOND?

>> NO, SIR. I JUST ASKED THE QUESTION.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WILCOTT. OKAY. DISCUSSION ON

THE MOTION. >> IT DEFINITELY HELPED ME A LOT TO HEAR SPECIFIC CASES THAT THIS IS ON THE RADAR. NOT WHETHER THIS WAS A GOOD IDEA TO DO AT SOME POINT BUT IS THERE SOMETHING THAT IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF US THAT WE SHOULD GO

THERE. THAT HELPS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. GO AHEAD. >> I GUESS I'M JUST CONFUSED BY THE SIX OR SEVEN CASES THAT ARE OCCURRING RIGHT NOW THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE USED. WE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE ACTION , BUT WE ARE NOT MAKING ANY HEADWAY. HOW CAN THIS HELP US? HOW CAN A COURT OF RECORD HELP THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS CLEANUP THAT

PROPERTY? >> I'M ABOUT TO GET STUCK IN A LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONUNDRUM HERE BECAUSE -- NO, IT'S OKAY. THOSE ARE CASES THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE ME.

>> I CAN ADDRESS THAT. THE ADVANTAGE IS THAT COURT OF RECORD CAN ORDER ABATEMENT. ORDER A PROPERTY OWNER TO DO SOMETHING. IF THEY DON'T DO IT WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF

TIME, THERE'S CONSEQUENCES. >> WHAT ARE THOSE CONSEQUENCES

BESIDES FINDS? >> YOU CAN SEIZE THE LAND.

>> CLEAN THE PROPERTY UP YOURSELF. PUT A LIEN ON THE PROPERTY. I HAVE TO LOOK AT OUR SUBSTANDARD. THAT IS TYPICALLY WHERE YOU GET THE MOST MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORDS WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT. BUT I WILL SAY ONE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE WHERE THE FIBER COMPANIES ARE DIGGING IN SOMEBODY'S YARD AND THEY ARE IN THE PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT -- THEY CAN FILE A COMPLAINT IN A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD AND ORDER THAT COMPANY TO REPAIR

THEIR YARD . >> OH, YEAH.

>> COULD HAVE GOTTEN AN FTE AND EVERYTHING ON THAT ONE.

>> SO JUST HAVING A COURT OF RECORD IN WORKING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS , THAT WOULD BE A BIG ADVANTAGE TO GET THE COMPANIES TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO BEFORE THEY EVEN COME TO

THE COURT . >> THANK YOU.

>> MY ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. WE CAN ALWAYS GO TO THE DISTRICT COURT. YOU PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE TO FILE MANY AT DISTRICT COURT AND YOU WOULD HAVE ALREADY PAID FOR YOUR FTE JUST IN LEGAL COST TO THE ATTORNEY. THAT IS WHY I WAS SAYING GETTING HUNG UP -- COUNSEL NUMBER KOLAR. SIDEBAR,

PLEASE. >> JUST TO ADD SOMETHING ELSE.

IT IS USUALLY AN ABATEMENT DOCKET . SO IT IS KIND OF CONDENSED. SO A PART-TIME PERSON IS PROBABLY THE WAY TO

LOOK AT IT FIRST. >> RIGHT. I WAS JUST SAYING THAT WE ARTY HAVE SIX ACTIVE CASES. THOSE WOULD EASILY STRIP IF WE ACTUALLY GO FORWARD AND ASK OUR POLICE TO ENFORCE IT FOR WHAT THE COST WOULD BE FOR AN FTE SO WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THIS NOW BUT WE WILL HAVE TO DO THE BUDGET FOR THE FTE. WE CAN LOOK AT THAT IN BUDGET.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR . WE CAN DO IT. IT IS NOT A PROBLEM SETTING UP COURT OF RECORD. I'M QUALIFIED TO DO IT. OUR PROSECUTOR IS QUALIFIED TO DO IT. IT JUST MEANS I DON'T WANT Y'ALL TO BE SURPRISED DOWN THE ROAD IF I COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, THIS HAS REALLY INCREASED OUR NUMBERS AND WE NEED MORE HELP.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> READY TO VOTE? PLEASE CALL

THE VOTE. >>

[10.1. Consideration and possible action regarding possible appointments, re-appointments and/or removals to City Boards, Commissions, Task Forces, Economic DevelopmentCorporations, Local Government Corporations and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone Boards, City Council Liaisons, and Area Government appointments.]

[03:05:04]

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. 10.1. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS, 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.

>> WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> ANY OBJECTIONS TO MOVING ON?

>> AND I MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT REAL QUICK? THE STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON A NEW APPLICATION SOFTWARE FOR THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. IT IS THE SAME SOFTWARE WE ARE NOW USING FOR APPLICATIONS FOR EMPLOYMENT. THE NEO-GOD SOFTWARE. WE HAVE NOW COMPLETED EFFECTIVELY A TRAINING MODULE. AND WE WILL BE ROLLING OUT ACCESS TO ALL CITY COUNCIL. AND THE TRAINING ON HOW TO ACCESS. AND EVERYONE WILL BE ABLE TO LOG IN AND SEE ALL OF THE APPLICATIONS FOR ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AS THEY COME INTO THE SYSTEM. SO THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING YOU HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR FOR A WHILE ON A BETTER WAY OF HANDLING THAT. AND THAT IS WHAT IS COMING TO THE COUNCIL SOON. SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW.

>> THANK YOU FOR THAT. ONE QUESTION ON THAT. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO UPLOAD THE EXISTING APPLICATION SO THAT WE

HAVE THEM? >> I DON'T THINK IT WORKS THAT WAY BECAUSE THE APPLICANTS HAVE TO CREATE A PROFILE. SO ANYONE WHO APPLIES -- I MEAN, WE CAN UPLOAD THOSE INTO A SEPARATE LOCATION. TWO THE TEAMS FOLDER FOR ALL OF COUNCIL. BUT FOR ANYBODY WHO HAS APPLIED THROUGH THE SYSTEM, THERE IS A PROFILE THAT THE USER CREATES THAT THEIR APPLICATION TIES TWO. WE CANNOT JUST INJECT

APPLICATIONS. >> ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ON PAGE

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-057 authorizing the City Manager to execute a purchasing agreement with Flock Group, Inc. for a not-to-exceed amount of $66,491.50 for the purchase and service of license plate reader software (Chief Jeffrey Yarbrough)]

TWO. 11.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2024-057 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO GET A PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH FLOCK GROUP INC. FOR A NOT TO SEEK -- EXCEED AMOUNT OF $66,491.50 FOR THE PURCHASE OF SERVICE OF LICENSE PLATE READER SOFTWARE. WHILE HE IS COMING UP, I SENT AN EMAIL AND COPIED YOU ON IT. ARE WE ABLE -- ARE YOU ABLE TO SHOW SOMETHING ON YOUR SCREEN AND US ALL SEE IT UP HERE? HOW

WOULD I DO THAT? >> YES. YOU CAN GIVE IT TO HER AND THEN SHE CAN PUT IT ON ANY OF THE SCREENS.

>> OKAY. ADJUSTER AFTER THE PRESENTATION .

>> MAYOR COUNCIL, ASSISTANT CHIEF OF POLICE. TONIGHT WE ARE BRINGING YOU THE FLOCK CAMERA RESOLUTION. MYSELF AND A FEW OTHER OFFICERS HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READER SYSTEM FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW. WE DID HAVE IT IN THE BUDGET. IT WAS APPROVED IN THE NORMAL BUDGET PROCESS. MARK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE WORKED WITH US EXTENSIVELY. ABOUT THE PAST SIX MONTHS IN ORDER TO GET THIS TO YOU WITH THE CONTRACT AND ALL THE LEGAL LANGUAGE THAT WE NEEDED TO HAVE IN PLACE. AND I HAVE A FLOCK REPRESENTATIVE WITH ME TODAY AS WELL. WHAT WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS JOIN OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS OFTEN TAYLOR , BROWN ROCK , WILLIAMSON COUNTY. ALL OF THOSE DEPARTMENTS ALREADY HAVE THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEM IN PLACE.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, PFLUGERVILLE JUST GOT APPROVED FOR 50 CAMERAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WE DO BELIEVE BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE DONE RESEARCH ON -- IT WILL BE A GAME CHANGER FOR US AS FAR AS HAVING LEADS ON SUSPECTS WHEN WE HAVE CRIMES THAT INVOLVE CARS . IT SHOULD HELP US CLEAR QUITE A FEW WARRANTS. IT SHOULD HELP US RECOVER STOLEN CARS, STOLEN PROPERTY. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT IN OUR LIST OF LICENSE PLATES THAT HAVE WARRANTS ON THOSE PLATES , WHICH WILL ALERT PATROL OFFICERS TO THAT VEHICLE. WHAT QUESTIONS CAN WE

ANSWER FOR YOU? >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> I REALLY APPRECIATED THE EMAIL WE GOT ABOUT THE PRIVACY POLICY. STANDARDS AND PROCEDURES ON THAT. FLOCK HAS BEEN IN THE NEWS ACROSS THE COUNTRY . YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STORIES ABOUT THE CRIMES THAT ARE SOLVED THE BECAUSE OF IT BUT ALSO THE PRIVACY CONCERNS THAT HAVE COME UP IN A LOT OF PLACES. I WAS HAPPY TO SEE THE POLICY THAT SAYS WE OWN THE DATA. THEY DON'T OWN THE DATA. THE DATA GETS ERASED IN 30 DAYS

[03:10:01]

NO MATTER WHAT. WE CAN SAVE IT ON OUR OWN IF WE WANT TO SAVE IT FOR AN ACTIVE CASE OR SOMETHING. WE HAVE PROCEDURES IN PLACE SO THAT AN OFFICER HAS TO HAVE AN ACTIVE CASE TO LOOK IT UP. THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT CAN HIT ON IN THE DATABASE BUT BASED ON THOSE HITS THERE ARE STILL OTHER INVESTIGATIONS THAT NEED TO BE DONE BEFORE THE CAMERA DATA IS USED TO GO AND ARREST SOMEBODY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> YOU NEED TO VERIFY THAT INFORMATION FIRST.

>> I APPRECIATED ALL THOSE POLICIES. THOSE HIT ALL THE THINGS I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT. THE ONLY OTHER THING I HAVE HEARD NUMEROUS TIMES ABOUT FLOCK IS THAT THEY JUST PUT THEIR CAMERAS UP WHEREVER THEY WANT TO WITHOUT GETTING PERMITTED. IT HAS HAPPENED IN SOME OTHER STATES. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS HAPPENED IN TEXAS, BUT IT HAS HAPPENED IN OTHER STATES. THEY HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF NOT FOLLOWING PROPER

PERMITTING PROCESS. >> WERE DEFINITELY FOLLOWING THE PROCESS. ONE OF THE ITEMS ON CONSENT IS A TXDOT RESOLUTION THAT WILL ALLOW US TO WORK WITH TXDOT TO PUT THEIR CAMERAS IN THEIR RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> GREAT. AS LONG AS WE ARE FOLLOWING PROCESSES, THOSE ARE

THINGS I WANT TO HEAR. >> HAD A MARK WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. APPARENTLY THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITH OTHER MEMBER CITIES. HE WAS A HUGE HELP IN

HELPING ME GET THIS ITEM . >> THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK

ON THAT. >> SO I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT UP THE THING ABOUT THE FLOCK BEING IN THE NEWS. IF YOU PUT ONE OUT IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND YOU DIDN'T HAVE A PERMIT, I WILL BE THE FIRST ONE TRYING TO TAKE IT DOWN OUT OF SPITE BECAUSE IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THE RULES, I AM THAT GUY THAT IS -- I WILL STICK IT TO YOU A COUPLE OF TIMES. I DON'T KNOW HOW EXPENSIVE THEY ARE. I LIKE EVERYBODY TO FOLLOW THE RULES.

BUT I DO GOT A QUESTION. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO KEEP THE VIDEO. LET'S SAY -- LET ME ASK THE FLOCK GUY THIS.

I APOLOGIZE. I DON'T THINK WE HEARD YOUR NAME.

>> DALE . >> ALL RIGHT, DALE. IS THERE A WAY TO TRACK EVERY TIME SOMEONE ACCESSES A VIDEO FROM

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? >> YES. THERE IS A PRETTY ROBUST AUDITING PLATFORM WITHIN FLOCK. YOU CAN RUN THAT RECURRENTLY OR YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO MANUALLY OUTPUT ALL OF THE LOGINS, ALL OF THE SEARCHES, WHAT THEY WERE ASSOCIATED TO AND THE OUTCOMES OF EVERY HIT AND SEARCH.

>> IS THAT IN OR DO WE HAVE TO TURN THAT ON? IS THAT JUST A

STANDARD THING? >> YES. THAT IS PART OF THE

PLATFORM. >> MY CONCERN IS SOMEONE MIGHT WANT TO CHECK ON SOMEONE'S GIRLFRIEND. WHERE WAS SHE AT? THERE WATCHING THROUGH THE CITY. IT IS SUPPOSED TO GO AWAY IN 30 DAYS BUT THEY KEEP IT ON A THUMB DRIVE. I DO HAVE A PRIVACY CONCERN. I ALWAYS HAVE A CONCERN THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN -- YOU DON'T KNOW ME, BUT I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF BIG GOVERNMENT. HERE WE ARE GIVING GOVERNMENT THE OPPORTUNITY TO TRACK EVERYTHING. HOW MANY TIMES I GO TO MCDONALD'S AND BUY CHICKEN NUGGETS AND STUFF. THAT PART I DON'T WANT. BUT I DO AGREE. THERE IS A VIDEO IF YOU COULD PLAY THAT. THIS CAME TO ME. YOU GUYS ALREADY GOT SOME LEADS. THE FIRST THING I SAID IN THE EMAIL WHEN I SENT IT WAS, IS THERE A WAY TO GET ONE OF THOSE CAMERAS AT THE ENTRANCE OF FRITZ PARK? I FELT SORRY FOR THE GUY.

THE SOUND WORKS TOO. THIS IS IN FRITZ PARK. AND SO THE SOUND DID IT FOR ME TOO BECAUSE SOME GUY HAD TO HEAR THAT. BUT I WAS THINKING IF THESE CAMERAS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY THIS GIVES FOR CAMERAS. MY THOUGHT IS, IF THERE WAS A CAMERA AT FRITZ PARK IN CERTAIN KEY AREAS TO WHERE IF YOU GO IN AND ARE CAUSING TROUBLE -- I COULD SEE A DRAMATIC DECREASE IN CRIME BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GET POPPED. YEAH.

ACTUALLY THAT WAS. >> ONE OF THE LOCATIONS WE HAVE TENTATIVELY APPROVED IS RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE TO ADAM MORGAN PARK FOR TRAFFIC COMING INTO HUTTO. SO IF YOU ARE COMING INTO HUTTO FROM THE SOUTH TO NORTH , THEY WOULD DRIVE RIGHT BY ONE OF THE CAMERAS. THERE IS ACTUALLY A LOT OF HLA AND PRIVATE COMPANIES BUYING THESE CAMERAS AS WELL. IF YOU DRIVE INTO THE LOWE'S PARKING LOT, THEY HAVE THREE FLOCK CAMERAS ALREADY SET UP . THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GIVE US ACCESS TO THAT AS SOON AS THEY GET THEIR PROGRAM VETTED OUT . AND THAT IS ONE OF THE BEAUTIES OF THE PROGRAM. ALL THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES THAT HAVE FLOCK HAS THE ABILITY TO SHARE WITH ANYBODY. IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEBODY IN NEW YORK THAT GOES TO NEW YORK AND WE PUT THEIR LICENSE PLATE IN , SOME POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN NEW

[03:15:01]

YORK CITY VERY WELL COULD STOP THAT CAR FOR US.

>> I WILL MAKE IT QUICK . >> KIDNAPPING , SEX OFFENDERS.

LOOKING FOR A WHITE WHATEVER -- SEDAN THAT WAS STEALING STUFF OUT OF CARS, YOU CAN SAY, WELCOME IN THE LAST FOUR HOURS

THERE WERE ONLY TWO. >> THAT IS REALLY ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TRIGGERED US LOOKING AT THE SYSTEM AS WE WERE GETTING KILLED WITH CONSTRUCTION THEFTS . LATE HOURS OF THE NIGHT. OUR GUYS WOULD GO BY A CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THERE IS NOBODY THERE. TWO HOURS LATER THERE IS SOME VAN LOADING UP WITH CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS. AND THAT LEAVES US WITH ABSOLUTELY NO LEAD WHATSOEVER TO GO WITH. SO HOPEFULLY IF THIS VAN THAT WE HAVE A TIMELINE BETWEEN 11:00 AND 2:00 A.M. -- WE ARE LOOKING FOR A WHITE VAN THAT WAS ON 1660 NORTH . THAT KIND OF NARROWS IT DOWN FOR US. IT GIVES US A PLACE TO GO TO START LOOKING. THAT'S WHAT IT REALLY DOES. AS OF NOW, WE HAVE NO LEADS WHATSOEVER.

>> ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS OR ACTION FOR THIS ITEM?

>> MR. MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 11.1 AS PRESENTED.

GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION ?

>> YEAH. I GUESS ALL I HAVE TO SAY IS I DEFINITELY SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS AS COUNCILMEMBER THORTON ADDRESS.

PRIVACY CONCERNS AND POTENTIAL MISUSE. KIND OF SEEMS LIKE WITH THE SOP PLAN , I GUESS THE FIRST STEP CAN ALWAYS BE APPROVED. I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR . SURVEILLANCE AND BIG BROTHER TYPE. I'M CAUTIOUS TOWARDS THINGS LIKE THIS. BUT WE HAVE A CELL PHONE THAT TRACKS DATA AND A LOT OF INFORMATION. SO I THINK THIS COULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I CAN BE IN FAVOR OF IT. AND THEN ALSO IT WAS IN THE BUDGET SO IT IS NOT LIKE IT IS AN AMENDMENT OR AN ASK. THE SOFTWARE WAS ALREADY -- I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> OFFICERS HAVE ACCESS TO A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION. THIS IS A LITTLE PIECE OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE ACCESS TO. AND WE CHECK ALL THE TIME . LUCKILY, KNOCK ON WOOD, WE HAVE

>> THANK YOU FOR ALL THE HARD WORK ON THIS BECAUSE I KNOW IT

HAS BEEN A PROCESS. >> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THERE'S GOING TO BE RULES OR REGULATIONS ON HOW THEY USE IT.

BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE THAT IN PLACE.

>> THEY WANT BE ABLE TO USE IT UNLESS THEY HAVE A CASE NUMBER OR EVENT NUMBER. IT IS NOT USED FOR TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT AT ALL. UNLESS IT IS A JAIL ABOUT TRAFFIC OFFENSE LIKE RECKLESS DRIVING. A CAR THAT YOU DID NOT GET TO SEE.

>> ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE TOOK A MOTION. NO OTHER DISCUSSION.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >>

[12.3. Consideration and possible action on approval of a funding plan for approved water and wastewater Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and provide direction to Staff and Bond Counsel to prepare a resolution authorizing the issuance of Certificates of Obligation (Alberta Barrett)]

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. THANK YOU, GUYS. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.3. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVAL OF A FUNDING PLAN FOR APPROVED WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AND BOND COUNSEL TO PREPARE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

>> YES. THANK YOU. FOR THE RECORD, ALBERTA BARRETT.

FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO I WILL GO THROUGH THE FUNDING AND FUNDING OPTIONS. AND THEN I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO JIM'S A BONUS OF HILLTOP SECURITIES TO TURN IT OVER TO HIM . I WANT TO THANK HIM FOR HIS TIME AND ASSISTANCE WITH THIS. SO AT THE LAST MEETING COUNCIL APPROVE CERTAIN WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS BUT WE DID NOT GET INTO MUCH OF THE DISCUSSION ON THE FUNDING. SO IF WE COULD GET YOU TO RETURN TO THE LONG-RANGE PLANS FOR THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND AND THE UTILITY FUND, I THINK IT IS, LIKE , PAGE SIX IN YOUR SCHEDULE OR IN YOUR

PACKET. >> WHAT PAGE OF THE PACKET?

>> MINE DOES NOT HAVE A PAGE ON IT. IT SHOULD BE 100 OR 101.

IT HAS LONG-RANGE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND. THAT ONE.

[03:20:01]

OKAY. SO FROM SOME OF THE DIRECTION THAT WE GOT AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT A 10-YEAR BUDGET TIMEFRAME.

INSTEAD OF JUST THE FOUR OR FIVE YEARS. SO THE WATER GROWTH IS ACCOUNTS, NOT LUE AS I HAD PREVIOUSLY REPORTED. SO WHAT HAS CHANGED ON THIS SCHEDULE FROM WHAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED WAS WE KIND OF REDUCED THE PERCENTAGE OR GROWTH RATE BASED ON WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS GOING ON NOW AS FAR AS THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS. AND IN ADDITION , WHEN I FIRST PRESENTED, I GOT THE INFORMATION FROM JIM A■S O WHAT THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST WOULD BE FOR PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. I JUST STRAIGHT-LINE DATA. WHEN WE GOT FURTHER AND I TOLD HIM HOW MUCH WE NEEDED, HE ACTUALLY WENT IN AND DID A CALCULATION. SO THAT IS WHY WE GOT SOME BETTER NUMBERS THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT LATER. BUT JUST TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND, WE ARE STARTING THE YEAR WITH 27,291,990, WHICH IS THE FUND BALANCE FOR THIS PARTICULAR FUND . WE ADD IN OUR REVENUES, WHICH IS INTEREST INCOME, WATER IMPACT FEES, AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES BASED ON THE GROWTH -- REDUCED GROWTH FOR THIS YEAR. THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR WE ARE PROJECTING 6 1/2% . FOR THIS YEAR, EXCUSE ME. 8% FOR NEXT YEAR. WHEN YOU ADD THOSE REVENUES AT 8,000,456 500 , OUR EXISTING DEBT FOR PRINCIPAL ONLY ON OUR CURRENT DEBT IS 3,000,691 600 . AND THEN WE HAVE A TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND FOR 4.3 MILLION, WHICH ARE PROJECTS THAT IN DOING THOSE WE REALIZED THAT THOSE WOULD BE FUNDED EITHER THROUGH IMPACT FEES OR DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS OR SOME OTHER SOURCE INSTEAD OF THROUGH THE ISSUE.

SO WITH THAT WE WOULD ADD 451,800 TO THAT FUND BALANCE, BRINGING IT TO THE END OF THIS YEAR AS OF SEPTEMBER 30TH, 27,743,790. SO WE START THE NEXT BUDGET YEAR WITH THAT AMOUNT. AGAIN. WE STILL HAVE INTEREST INCOME. YOUR WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES FOR A BUDGET AMOUNT OF 10.4 MILLION. WE HAVE FOR THREE YEARS ABOUT 13 MILLION TO TRANSFER TO THE UTILITY FUND TO OFFSET SOME OF THE OPERATING COSTS . WE HAVE OUR EXISTING PRINCIPAL. 25 AND 26 WE START PAYING ON THIS 24 ISSUE, WHICH IS THE 278 MILLION . AND THEN IF YOU LOOK OVER IN 28-29, WE PICK UP THE PRINCIPAL AT 900,000 FOR THE 26 ISSUE, WHICH IS 52 MILLION. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT 24-25 , THAT EXPENSE FOR PRINCIPAL ONLY IS 4,000,097 -- 4,970,000 . SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

THAT YEAR ACTUALLY USED 1.7 MILLION OF THE FUND BALANCE BRINGING YOU DOWN TO 25,990,000. SO THAT IS THE KEY LAYOUT FOR THIS FUND. AND AS IT CONTINUES OUT, IT HAS A POSITIVE FUND BALANCE UNTIL YEAR 2041. SO THAT IS JUST PAYING FOR THE PRINCIPAL ON THIS '24 ISSUE OF 278 MILLION AND THE 26 ISSUE AT 52 MILLION. IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE , THE UTILITY OPERATING FUND. SO WHEN WE FIRST PRESENTED AND WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING HERE IS THAT WE WOULD INCREASE THE WATER BASE RATE FOR EVERY WATER ACCOUNT PER MONTH BY $10. AND WE WOULD INCREASE THE WASTEWATER RATE ON THE BASE FEE BY $10 EVERY MONTH PER ACCOUNT. AND WE WOULD MAKE THAT EFFECTIVE JUNE. FOR THE UTILITY -- ALSO, I NEED TO POINT OUT THAT TO MAKE THIS FUNDING, WE WOULD THEN INCREASE THE RATES ABOUT 7% IN YEAR '25-'26 AND 10% IN '27-'28. I JUST USED A PRESENTED BECAUSE IF YOU DID A PERCENTAGE OF THOSE THAT ARE HIGHER USERS WOULD PAY MORE THAN YOUR LOWER USERS. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I USED A PERCENT. BUT I DO HAVE SOME DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT CONVERTS IT TO A DOLLAR. SO IN LOOKING AT YOUR PROJECTED FOR 23-24, THE UTILITY FUND HAS A

[03:25:02]

FUND BALANCE OF 12,647,933. WE WOULD ADD REVENUES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER OPERATIONS , BILLING. AND THEN YOUR OTHER OPERATING OF 1,990,000 GETS TOTAL REVENUE . YOU HAVE YOUR OPERATING EXPENSES AT ABOUT 12 MILLION. YOUR BOND EXPENSE IS JUST THE INTEREST PORTION OF THE DEBT. YOUR PRINCIPAL IS PAID UNDER THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND AND YOUR UTILITY FUND IS PAYING THE INTEREST PORTION. 7,000,001 62,800 . CAPTIONERS TRANSITIONING ] AND THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT HAVE A THAT IS NEEDED AS FAR AS THE FUND BALANCE. WE CAN MOVE TO 2425 FOR THE BUDGET ANY START THE YEAR WITH $13 MILLION YOU ADDED 24.5 MILLION IN REVENUES FROM WATER AND WASTEWATER AND OTHER OPERATING REVENUE. SHEER, WE HAVE UTILITY FIND. 5.5 MILLION WHICH IS REIMBURSEMENT FOR EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE PAID FOR THROUGH THE UTILITY FUND FOR THE PROJECTS WE ARE FUNDING FROM THE 24 CEOS. AND THEN, WE WOULD HAVE THE TRANSFER IN FROM THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE OTHER FUND. FOR 13 MILLION. THE OPERATING EXPENSES AT ABOUT $11 MILLION AND THE BOND EXPENSE AS YOU CAN SEE, GOES UP TO $26 MILLION FOR THE INTEREST PORTION WHICH PICKS UP TO 24 ISSUE WHEN YOU START PAYING IT BACK. CAPITAL OUTLAY AT 200,000. AND A TRANSFER OUT FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AT 4.1 SHOWS YOU USING 2.5 MILLION OF THE FUND BALANCE. LEAVING YOU 10,000,005 81 654 FOR THE ENDING FUND BALANCE. I WANT TO POINT OUT IN THE OPERATING EXPENSES WE TOOK INTO ACCOUNT IF YOU ARE LOOK INTO THE YEAR 25 AND 26. THE OPERATING EXPENSE INCREASES TO 13,000,009 54 200. WHICH IS ABOUT A 19% INCREASE. IT INCREASES AGAIN SUBSTANTIALLY IN 27 AND 28 BY ANOTHER 23%. AND IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE UP CORE AND RECHARGE WATER AGREEMENT.

THIS TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE INTER-OPERATING EXPENSE. AND THEN, I THINK THE NEXT THING TO POINT OUT IS, FROM THERE AND 2627, ON, WE ADD THE FUND BALANCE UNTIL 32 AND 33. THE TRANSFER TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT STARTING IN 28 AND 29. FIVE AND HALF MILLION AND 9 MILLION, 12 MILLION. IT GOES TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND TO DO WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS. WHICH COULD OFFSET SOME FOR FUTURE DEBT. REAL QUICK. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS WAS.

INSTEAD OF DOING 7% IN 25 AND 26 AND THEN ANOTHER 10% AND 27 AND 28, CONVERTING THAT TO A DOLLAR. IF WE WERE TO DO $10 TO THE BASE FEE EFFECTIVE JUNE . LIKE WE TALKED ABOUT. THE 7% CONVERTS TO SEVEN DOLLARS. TO THE BASE FEE FOR WATER. SEVEN DOLLARS FOR THE WASTEWATER TO THE BASE FEE. 27 AND 28, 10% BASED ON THE RESTRUCTURING THAT JIM DID PAY THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS LOWER. WE COULD TO $4.50. THAT IS HOW THE SEVEN AND 450, AND LOWER. HE IS RESTRUCTURING THE DEBT FOR US. IT SAVED US ABOUT 22 MILLION. SO, WE ARE SEEING THAT WITH THE PRINCIPAL INTEREST PAYMENTS.

>> IT'S ONLY FOUR DOLLARS? >> 450. FOR THE 52 MILLION

[03:30:01]

BASED ON RESTRUCTURING. >> FOR ONE SIZE. 450 FOR THE

WATER. >> 450 FOR THE WASTEWATER.

>> NOT 10% FOR THE CURRENT BASE CHARGE? 10% OF WHAT?

>> 10% OF THE CURRENT BASE CHARGE WITH $10 EDITION. IT IS 63 SOMETHING? $10 AND 73. 7% OF 73 IS $4.50. AND 10% OF THAT IS? $7.50. AND THINKING 73+4 IS ACTUALLY 77. $7.70.

SERVICE AND MAYBE THIS IS WHERE THE BOND COUNSEL HAS FIXED IT.

BUT I SEE 19 MILLION, 20 MILLION BASICALLY FOR BOND INTEREST PORTION EXPENSE AND WE'RE TAKING ANOTHER 56 MILLION OUTS IN 25 AND 26 AND I IMAGINE IN THE 26 AND 27, ENTRANCE PAYMENT IS ONLY $2 MILLION ON THAT. DID IT GET MISSED THROUGH HERE? I SEE THE JUMP FROM 7 TO 20. THAT IS FOR THE FIRST TRANCHE OF THE 24 CO. WHERE IS IT SHOWING THAT OTHER 52 MILLION COMING IN ON THE INTEREST PAYMENT SITE? I SAW THAT ON THE PRINCIPAL ONLY PAYMENT JUMP WITH THE PREVIOUS ONE BECAUSE WE WENT FROM THREE TO LEVERETT WAS FOR THE PRINCIPAL YOU ADDED THE OTHER 26 AND ADDED IN 28 AND 29. I WAS CURIOUS. IT DID NOT LOOK LIKE THERE WAS AN EQUIVALENT.

>> SOME OF THEM FELL OFF FOR ME GOT SMALLER AS THEY GO DOWN.

>> WE KIND OF BLENDED THE INTEREST RATE?

>> WHEN HE WAS STRUCTURED IT. SO IT'LL BE FLAT.

>> THE LAST QUESTION I HAD. WITH THE PROJECT THAT WE DO.

WHAT ARE WE LEAVING OFF THE TABLE WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE FUND OR IS THIS SCUM ARE THESE NUMBER PROJECTS WE ARE DOING GIVING US ENOUGH FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS? WHERE ARE WE GOING ? BACK TO WHERE WE ARE GOING , SHOWING THE CAPITAL FUNDING EXPENSE. WHERE WAS IT. TO THAT IS BASICALLY 20 TO 29, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW. WE HAVE EXTRA OPERATING REVENUE. 5.5 AND NINE AND 12 AND 22 MILLION STARTING FROM THIS YEAR'S.

THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS ON THIS FUNDING WITH THESE TWO CEOS, DOES IT BY US TO 22 TO 29? DO WE HAVE TO COME BACK AT 26 AND 27 TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE KNOW IT IS NOT GOING TO GET US WHERE WE HAVE THE 4.5 MILLION. THE PROPOSAL OF THE AMENDED C.A.P. PLAN AND THE BULK OF THE PROJECTS ARE THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR. THAT ASSERTED SOMETHING MILLION DOLLARS. THERE ARE DOLLARS IN YEARS 34 AND FIVE OF THE FIVE-YEAR C.A.P. BUT THOSE ARE PRETTY INCONSEQUENTIAL COMPARED TO THE BIG LIFT. WITH THAT SAID. THE GOAL IS TO GET US THROUGH THE FIVE-YEAR C.A.P. WITH THESE PROJECTS. AND IF WE REALLY DO NEED TO RECONSIDER, WE HAVE THAT OPTION THREE OR FOUR YEARS FROM NOW. FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, WE HAVE EXTRA REVENUE. HOPEFULLY WILL HAVE GAINS , THE DATA CENTER SHOULD HAVE ONLINE BUILDINGS AND THE FUTURE.

>> I THINK IT IS GREAT WORK AND I APPRECIATE IT. THOSE ARE ALL MY QUESTIONS. YOU ANSWER THEM ALL.

>> AND I CLARIFY ONE ITEM? SOMETHING YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER. DURING THE FIRST FIVE YEARS . WHEN THE DESIRE IS TO

IMPLEMENT THIS. >> I WOULD REALLY LIKE THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER PUTTING THAT AND ADDING IT TO THE RECOMMENDATION LIST FOR THE 26 ISSUANCE. EVEN IF HE SAID RIGHT NOW, WE WANT TO DO I AM REMOVAL, WE DECIDED TO MAKE UP OUR MINDS THE $20 MILLION. IT'LL TAKE A SEER TO DESIGN IT OR MORE. AND THEN WE WILL GO TO CONSTRUCTION SO WE WON'T NEED THE DEBT BACK TO THE EARLIER CONVERSATION UNTIL 26.

PROBABLY. IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD AND ADDED IN, WE PROBABLY WILL CUT A LITTLE TO THIN WHENEVER WE CUT DOWN THE

[03:35:07]

LIST. OUR COUNTRY, WE SHOULD'VE KEPT THE REMOVAL IN AND WE DIDN'T. THE SIZE OF THE SOPHISTICATION LEVEL WE ARE GETTING TOO, WE OUGHT NOT TO BE HAVING BROWN WATER EVERY TIME

WE HAVE A LINE BREAK. SO. >> THAT IS AN ONGOING COMPLAINT FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY. DEFINITELY ONE THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED WHEN WE CAN. I KNOW WE HAVE THINGS WE HAVE TO ADDRESS. THAT IS NOT TOP OF THE LIST. BUT IT SHOULD BE ON THE LIST. FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS

APPROPRIATE TO ADDRESS. >> THE ONE ISSUE I HAVE HERE IS LOOKING AT THE C.A.P. OVER 90. 92% OF THE C.A.P. IS WASTEWATER. AND ABOUT 8% IS WATER. AND YET, WE ARE PUTTING $10 ON THE WATER USERS AND $10 ON THE WASTEWATER USERS.

PEOPLE HAVE A $20 BILL INCREASE THIS YEAR AND THE PEOPLE ON JONAH AND MANVILLE WHO USE THE SAME SEWER CAPACITY THE PEOPLE ON CITY -- WILL HAVE A $10 INCREASE. IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE AVERAGED OUT ACROSS ALL THREE FOR THE SEWER TO BE 90% OF THE MONEY WE WANT TO TAKE IN. AND HAVE A PERCENT OF THE MONEY WE WERE TAKEN OUT OF THE WATER USERS.

>> YOU THINK THE NUMBER MAY NOT HAVE TO PRETEND? IT MAY BE 13 ON WASTEWATER AND FIVE CITY WATER? IN THAT CASE, I LIKE TO

SEE WHAT THE NUMBERS SAY. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE INCOME, WE ARE GETTING ABOUT THE SAME INCOME.

>> WE DID TRY TO LOOK AT IT ALSO BY METER SIZE WHICH I KNOW IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I SUGGEST THAT IF YOU AGREE THAT WE HIRE A CONSULTANT, THEY LOOK AT THE RATE STRUCTURE. MAYBE THEY MAKE IT EVEN MORE OF A CONSERVATION TYPE OF STRUCTURE VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE. WHAT KIND OF RATE IS NEEDED BASED ON THE OPERATION. AND GET A

RECOMMENDATION FROM THEM. >> WHAT IS THE COST ON THAT?

>> I AM THINKING, OF COURSE, WE NEED TO DO A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL. BUT, I WOULD THINK THAT, WE WOULD PROBABLY BE

AROUND 40 50,000. >> S.A.N.E. ETERNALLY CAME UP

WITH THE TENANT ATTEND. >> I DID.

>> YOU CAN SAY, THAT IS 20 BUCKS INCREASED. 90% IS WASTEWATER. WHAT YOU SAY IS, WASTEWATER THREE TIMES THE NUMBER OF CUSTOMERS? YOU CAN PROBABLY, THAT IS NOT A HARD MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION. WE DON'T HAVE TO PAY $50,000 TO COME OUT AND SAY WASTEWATER GOES UP 15. IN THE CITY OF --

GOES UP FIVE. >> WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL.

>> THAT MIGHT BE IT. >> I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP. I DID NOT CATCH THAT. BUT YOU ARE RIGHT. 90% OF THE CAUSE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE CITY. IT WILL BE POINT BY THE

ENTIRE CITY. >> IS MY QUESTION. IF I'M READING IT RIGHT. IN 2028. 2026. ONE OF THE THREE I THINK. IN 2026. THE TOTAL DEBT AND INTEREST IS $24,700,000. BY 2029, IT WAS UP TO $32 MILLION. AND IT'S DAYS TO 32 MILLION. ONE MORE. BACK ONE MORE.

>> IT HAS THE ONE AND 52 MILLION AND HAS 277 MILLION.

25 MILLION IN 2026 AND WE GO TO 32 MILLION IN 2029. IF WE GO BACK TO THE BUDGET. THE INTEREST DID NOT SEEM TO GET STEADY THROUGHOUT THAT WHOLE TIME. THIS IS THE INTEREST PORTION. IN 2024, IT STAYS STEADY. THE $4 MILLION INCREASE IN DEBT SERVICE. WHAT IS THE PAGE OF THE IMPACT FEES. DOES A GO UP 4 MILLION TO CAPTURE THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE WHICH ONE OF THE SPREADSHEET JIM HAS. BUT THE ONE THAT ORIGINALLY USED IS ON PAGE , I DON'T KNOW,

[03:40:04]

DOESN'T HAVE IT. PAGE 99. BUT SINCE HE IS RESTRUCTURED IT, YOU CAN SEE ORIENTED. IT STARTED AT 13 MILLION, 796. THE FIRST YEAR OF PAYING BACK THE 13 MILLION HIS INTERESTS.

1.4'S PRINCIPAL. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT JUMPS AND 28. FROM

1,000,750 TO 4.2. >> THE GRAPH THAT YOU HAVE?

>> PAGE 99. >> PAGE 99? MECCA DEPENDS ON THE PACKET YOU ARE LOOKING AT. IT'S AN AMENDED PACKET THAT WENT OUT EARLIER. THE ONE THAT WAS POSTED ONLINE IN THE ONE AMENDED. THERE ARE ONLY FEW PAGES APART. BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT. TO THE WATER USE? IS THAT THE ONE? SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE TWO.

>> PHASE TWO OR PHASE ONE? >> PHASE TWO. THAT IS A

DIFFERENT ONE. >> IT IS THREE OF FOUR.

>> PAGE ONE OF TWO. PAGE 102. THAT IS WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT. ON PAGE 102 OF THE PACKET. IN 2026. 25 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE A PRINCIPAL INTEREST. BY 2029, GOES TO 32 MILLION. THE INTEREST PORTION IN 2026 IS 19 MILLION. 25 MILLION DEBT SERVICE. AT SOME POINT, IT GOES UP FROM 25 TO 32.: 7 MILLION. BUT THE INTEREST IS NOT GO UP TO 2033.

WOULD IT THE 7 MILLION GO? IS IT IN THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENT? NEAR BACK ON THE PRINCIPAL. DID YOU GO BACK ON YOUR PAGE TO

THE PRINCIPAL PART? >> WHEN.

>> OKAY. 9.1. >> IT JUMPS TO THE 4.2. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT JUMPS BEFORE .2. IT'S THERE. IT TRACKS.

>> QUITTED THE 7 MILLION COME FROM?

>> AT THE EE. LINE THE LETTER E, TOTAL TRANSFER UTILITY THAT SERVICE. LINE THE LETTER E. YOU HAVE THE PRINCIPAL, NOT JUST FOR THE ISSUANCES BEFORE THE EXISTING ONE. THAT IS WITH THE FIVE, SIX, EIGHT, $11 MILLION COME FROM.

>> 4.5 VISIT 16. YOU HAVE 4.2 OF THE NEW ISSUE.

>> THE OVERALL CONCERNED WITH WHAT I'M SEEING. THE WAY I'M READING THAT. WE HAVE A LOT OF HOPE AND ON GROWTH. AS LONG AS GROWTH HAPPENS, WE WILL BE OKAY. WE HAVE ONE SLOWDOWN, WE DON'T DO WITH 12% WITH 15% GROWTH . IT'LL RIPPLED THROUGH THIS. AS LONG AS IT IS GROWING AS FAST AS WE CAN. FASTER THAN WITH EVER GROWN BEFORE. ONLY NOW WE HAVE A BIGGER CITY GROWING EVEN FASTER AND WE ARE FINE. WE HAVE ONE HICCUP, AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, FROM WHAT JAMES TOLD US. AND NEARLY DROPS DOWN TO THE PUBLIC. I WOULD ALMOST FEEL BETTER IF WE RELIED A LITTLE BIT LESS ON IMPACT FEES. I DON'T MIND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES GOING TO THIS BUT I DO MIND THAT WATER IMPACT FEES GO TO THIS BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE FUTURE WATER PROJECTS. THAT ARE IN MY MIND, WE ARE ROBBING PETER TO PAY PAUL BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING FUTURE IMPACTS OF NEW THINGS TO PAY OLD PROJECTS TO MAKE IT WORK. WASTEWATER WORKS BECAUSE YOU BUILD A 6 MILLION PLANT AND YOU HAVE TO USE IT. ANYTIME WE HAVE A SLOWDOWN, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. I WOULD RATHER SEE A MODEST INCREASE WITH THE YEARLY INCREASE IN OUR RATES.

WE ARE NOT RELYING AS MUCH ON IMPACT FEES. THAT WAY, TWO THINGS, WHEN. WE HAVE IMPACT FEE MONEY TO DO PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. WE WILL STARVE OURSELVES IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE WE ARE THROWING ALL THE IMPACT FEES AND TODAY'S

[03:45:02]

PROJECTS. WE DON'T EVEN WITH THE PROJECTS ARE, 10 YEARS FROM NOW. I DON'T WANT US TO BE CASH-STRAPPED 10 YEARS FROM NOW. AND THE OTHER PART IT WOULD SOLVE. IF WE DID HAVE A SLOWDOWN, WE WOULD HAVE MORE MONEY BASED ON ACTUAL REVENUE THAN PEOPLE. I'M NOT TRYING TO RAISE PEOPLE'S BILLS. WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS , AND THREE YEARS, WE DON'T HAVE A RECESSION. OR TWO YEARS. AND SOMEBODY HAS A , HOLY CRAP, MELINDA. WHEN NOT RUNNING. WERE NOT RUNNING AHEAD THAT WE HAVE MILLIONS. WE WOULD TREAD WATER. AND IF ANYTHING, WE HAVE TO FIX IT TO WITH A WASTEWATER CHARGE IS PROPORTIONATE THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. BUT THEN, I'D RATHER US HAVE THE YEARLY INCREASE IN SMALL AMOUNTS. TO NEGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF A MAJOR INCREASE IN 10 YEARS. YOU COME TO THE COUNCIL AND SAY, WE MADE SO MUCH MONEY FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS AND ALL THE PROJECTS THEY DID 10 YEARS AGO WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY TO. WE HAVE THE PLAN FOR LINE MAINTENANCE, LINE PREPARE, STATIONS THAT NEED TO BE REPLACED. THE WAY I SEE IT, WE DON'T KNOW THE CIP PROJECTS YET. WE HAVE NOT ENTERED OUR MEDIA, I GUESS.

>> THIS IS A HUGE IMPROVEMENT FROM TALKING FROM 120 ONE $20-$200 . I'LL BE AFRAID TO DO THIS, I GUESS, COME UP AND TELL US IN THREE YEARS? AND WE HAVE A MAJOR PROBLEM.

>> AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE. THE RATE INCREASE THAT WE DECIDED NEXT YEAR TO DO THIS. WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT DOING A $10 STARTING YEAR. WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. COME BACK IF HE PREFERRED TO SEE A SET OF SEVEN AND 10%. AND 3%. 3%, AND 3%. THAT IS A DIFFERENT DISCUSSION ON A DIFFERENT NIGHT, NOT TONIGHT. WE CAN GO WITH $10 IN JUNE. THAT'S MY ONLY DIFFERENCE . I THINK WE'RE TRIED TO DELAY.

I THINK WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE FUTURE ONCE . THAT'LL CHANGE ALL THESE NUMBERS COMPLETELY. I DON'T WANT TO GET HUNG UP ON THAT. THE APPROVE THE'S. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CIP PLAN PRESENTED.

>> WE HAVE A SECOND. >> SECONDED BY THE MAYOR.

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION. >> HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO COME BACK , LOOKING AT 10 AND 10? MAYBE FIVE AND 15. MAKE IT MORE HEAVILY WEIGHTED TOWARDS THE WASTEWATER.

>> IS A NEED A SECOND READING? >> NO. THIS DOESN'T. YOU'LL BE ASKING FOR THE BOND COUNSEL AND FINANCIAL ADVISER TO BE PREPARING THE ISSUANCE DOCUMENTS. THOSE WILL BE COMING BACK. THE COUNCIL WILL SPECIFICALLY VOTE ON IT. FOR WE FIDDLE WITH THE $20. WE CAN FINE TUNE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

WE CAN APPROVE IT AND STILL CHANGE THAT. WHEN I LOCKING IT

IN. >> WILL LEAD TO COUNCILMEMBER

BOUNCING IT OUT? >> THE RESIDENCE WILL STILL BE PAYING 20. BUT IT SHOULD REALLY BE IS IT SHOULD, MATHEMATICALLY. AND 13 WASTEWATER. BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE DOUBLE NUMBER OF PEOPLE. THEY ARE EFFECTIVELY PAYING 17 INSTEAD OF 20 AS THE POZO TODAY. THAT DID NOT SOLVE THE PROBLEM. MAYBE IT IS 10 AND FIVE? OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

COMES OUT A FEW DOLLARS CHEAPER FOR THE CITY WATER CUSTOMERS IN A FEW DOLLARS MORE ON --. AND THE -- CUSTOMERS.

>> BUT THE RESIDENTS ARE ALSO PAYING THAT.

>> ME NO MORE THAN A $10 PLAN. THE CUSTOMERS ARE PAYING MORE THAN EVERYBODY ELSE TO MATTER WHAT? BUT THEY'RE SHARING MORE OF THE OTHER SIDE. I'LL ADDRESS THAT. MAYBE TONIGHT IS

[03:50:02]

NOT THE NIGHT TO BE FIGURING THAT OUT? LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE. GET THROUGH TODAY. UNTIL JUNE AND COME BACK AND

GET IT. >> WHAT I AM SAYING, WE HAVE TO APPROVED TO GET THE FUNDS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HIT AND THAT THE PROJECTS GOING. THEY CAN COME BACK AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOU NEED TO COME BACK WITH THE RATE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN THE WASTEWATER AND WE CAN DO THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL ADJUSTMENT.

>> THE LIEN INTO THE FIRST MEETING OF APRIL.

>> RIGHT. FOR THE NEXT MEETING.

>> YOU'RE SAYING TONIGHT IS NOT TONIGHT. BUT IT IS THE APPROVAL OF A FUNDING PLAN FOR 300 MILLION + IN THE PROJECTS.

AND, PART OF THE ISSUE , THE COMPLAINT I HAD, WE CONTINUE TO GO , HERE IS ONE YEAR OF HOW TO DO IT. WE WILL WORK ON THIS OTHER STUFF. MAYBE WE'LL COME BACK AND DO IT LATER. WE NEVER COME BACK. IN MY MIND, WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING SUSTAINABLE, 5 TO 10 YEARS. HE CAN ADJUST THE NEXT YEAR. AS INFORMATION CHANGES. BUT, I'M NEVER GOING TO VOTE FOR SOMETHING THAT IS THIS ONE YOUR LOOK. WE PROJECTED RINGS OUT. BUT I HAVE CONCERNS WHEN YOU START SEEING NEGATIVE INCOME A YEAR FROM NOW, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS FROM NOW. THAT IS ALL CONTINGENT ON HYPERGROWTH. AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE HYPERGROWTH, WE LOSE 7.7 MILLION. IN 2026. THAT GOD, WHAT HAPPENED? WE DON'T HAVE 10% GROWTH ON TOP AT NINE ON TOP OF EIGHT. SOME OF US MAY WANT TO SAY, IT GETS US THROUGH AND WE CAN TAKE A BACK UP LATER. THAT'S BEEN MY COMPLAINTS AND WHY WE ARE IN THE SITUATION WE ARE IN. IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, I THINK WE NEED TO GO AHEAD AND HIT PEOPLE BY 10 BUCKS A MONTH. WE KNOW IT IS COMING. YOU CANNOT SELL 3 MILLION IN LOANS AGREEMENT SIX MONTHS. FOR WE DON'T HAVE TO DO 10 AND 10 TONIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING. WE CAN WAIT

A WEEK. >> HERE'S A CONSERVATIVELY ENCASED WITH SLOWDOWN. HAVING GREAT PAYERS PAID AND NOT IMPACT FEES. TO ME, THIS IS AGGRESSIVE. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN EASY ANSWER. IF I SAW THE OTHER ROUTES, I'M NOT SURE I WOULD VOTE FOR THIS. I DON'T WANT SOMEBODY TO COME BACK BECAUSE WE HAD A RECESSION NEXT YEAR. IN THE 7.7 MILLION TURNED TO 17 MILLION. AND WERE HAVING A HOLY COW, WOULD WE DO? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISING IMPACT FEES WHICH CAN BRING IN LESS REVENUE BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY HIGH. THIS LOT IF SENT REJECTIONS AND HOPE. WERE TALKING 15. IN THE BUSIEST.

THE BUSIEST YEAR WE EVER HAD IN THE CITY WAS 14.3% IN 2020.

>> HOLD ON. >> THE BUSIEST YEAR WE EVER HAD. 43. IN 2027. 15%. I'M NOT REALLY GOOD AT MATH LIKE YOU ARE. I DON'T HAVE A DOCTORATE AT THIS. IF I PAY GROWS BY SIX AND HAVE PERCENT, AND PERCENT , AND NINE. THIS 12% IN 2026 BLOWS AWAY THE GROWTH WE HAD IN 2020. THE STORE'S WHAT WE HAD WITH THE BUSIEST YEAR EVER. I GET IT.

FROM PLANT TO MANUFACTURING FACILITIES AND DATA CENTERS.

THAT WE HOPE IN SIX OR SEVEN YEARS OR THEY ARE. BUT THE WHOLE FUNDING PLAN IS BASED ON 50%. IF 1210 10 TO 4% BECAUSE OF A RECESSION, RUN IT THROUGH THE MODEL. AND NOW YOU DON'T NEED 50% GROWTH. YOU NEED SOMETHING WAY IN EXCESS. WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL WHAT WE DO. A COUPLE OF US CAME ON HERE AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST CRITICISMS IN 2019 WAS THE CITY DID NOT PLAN FOR THE FUNDING. WAS AT THE TREATMENT PLAN? I DON'T ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEM.

>> THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLAN. THE PEOPLE APPROVED IT AND DID NOT DO THE JOB. I DON'T KNOW IT IS EASY. IT IS, LOCATED STUFF. YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU MADE A GOOD DECISION.

UNTIL 10 IS FROM NOW. >>

[03:55:06]

IS TO PROVIDE RATEPAYERS INSTEAD OF --. IF I CAN GET 10% INCREASES IN MY SALARY FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, I WILL BE FINE. WOULD YOU DO IF YOU DON'T GET IT? I LOOK AT IT AND I SAY, WE HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB LIMITING THE IMPACT ON RATEPAYERS. BUT TO ME, IT IS A 50/50. IF IT HITS ALL THE NUMBERS WE SAY IT'LL HIT, IT IS FINE. BUT IF IT DOESN'T, THE RATEPAYERS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE BECAUSE HALF THE MODEL IS BUILT ON IMPACT FEES. THAT ALSO WERE TAKEN AWAY FROM THE FUTURE WATER PROJECTS WE NEED. THAT WE ARE PAYING FOR THE WATER PROJECTS WE DID TODAY. TO THE IMPACT FEES CAN ONLY BE CAPTURED BASED ON THE FIVE YOUR MODEL OF WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING. AND ONLY PERCENTAGE OF THE CONTRIBUTION TO ITS. THEY'RE NOT PAYING FOR THE FUTURE. THE IMPACT FEATURE IS BASED ON THE --. I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

4 MILLION AND IMPACT FEES. YOU LOST HALF THE IMPACT FEES IN THE STILL THERE BUDGET WISE. BECAUSE 6 MILLION WHICH IS ANOTHER YEAR AND HALF THE IMPACT FEES. YOU'RE STILL AT 18 MILLION IN THE BUDGET IF THEY WERE WRONG AND HALF THE AMOUNT OF GROWTH. ANY GOOD AT 2526. THAT'LL BE THE ONE YOU HAVE TO START LOOKING. IF YOU NOT SEEN GROWTH WE WILL ADJUST THE FEES AFTER TWO YEARS OF DATA. WERE NOT THERE AND IT DID

NOT HAPPEN. SO, . >> PHILIP WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF HOW WE ARE GOING TO COVER THE COST OF THE DEBT ISSUANCE. WHAT WE REALLY NEED TONIGHT IS DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL FOR FINANCIAL ADVISER AND BOND COUNSEL TO PREPARE DOCUMENTS THAT ISSUED DEBT. AND HOW WE PAY FOR IT. WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK TO DECIDE WHICH OF THE DIFFERENT STRATEGIES AND WHAT WE SET THE RATE TO BE. NOT TO BE MAKING PAYMENTS RIGHT AWAY ANYWAY. WE HAVE TIME TO DECIDE AND WE ARE ASKING FOR DIRECTIONS. WE DON'T COME BACK WITH AN ANSWER BECAUSE WE CAN'T CHANGE THE RATES UNTIL THE COUNCIL BOTH TO CHANGE THE RATE. LAST THING I WOULD ADD AND ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IN THE MOTION. IS, I WOULD ASK THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER ADDING $20 MILLION TO THE 2026 SERIES. TO COVER THE PROJECTED COST OF REMOVAL FROM THE WATER SYSTEM.

>> WHAT IS IT DUE TO THE MODEL?

>> IT'LL ADD $20 MILLION TO THE 52 MILLION ISSUANCE.

THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE US TO HAVE TO COLLECT ANOTHER TWO BUCKS OR THREE BUCKS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN 2026 AND

2027. >> INSTEAD OF SEVEN AND 10 AT SEVEN AND, . SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.

>> WE ARE ARGUING THE DEBT. AND HOW WE PRETEND TO PAY OR

NOT PAY. >> YOU HAVE TO EDIT IN. NO MATTER HOW MUCH LABOR YOU SPEND, WE WASTING A LOT OF WATER DOING THAT. TO ME, THAT HAS GOT A GET DONE. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO PAY FOR THIS. I HAVE NO PROBLEM ISSUING THIS. TO IT'LL BE THE 277, 764 804 2024 SERIES. AND THEN 72, 003 500 FOR THE 26 SERIES.

>> I LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO DO THAT. 20 MILLION FOR THE PROJECT FOR THE 2026 ISSUANCE. SECOND.

>> ALREADY. AND TO DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK WITH THE FIRST MEETING IN APRIL WITH THE BLENDED BEING PAID ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE VERSUS THE --. CONSIDERED 50/50. IT IS A 277.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. TWO 77 MILLION. 277, 764 800.

>> 72 MILLION. 70 2003 500. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE NEED TO ISSUE THE DEBT?

[04:00:09]

THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED TO DO. GET THAT DIRECTION.

>> HEARING THEN. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[12.4. Consideration and possible action on approval of a funding plan for approved transportation Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and provide direction to Staff and Bond Counsel to prepare a resolution authorizing the issuance of Certificates of Obligation (Alberta Barrett)]

THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE EASIER . APPROVAL FOR THE FUNDING PLAN PROVIDING DIRECTION TO THE STAFF RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

>> LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO FIND THE SLIDE.

THIS IS FOR THE STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS. MATT AND I NEED TO APOLOGIZE BECAUSE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT IT EARLIER WITH THE EXCHANGE, THE TRAFFIC EXCHANGE, THAT IS ALREADY BUDGETED AND FUNDED AND IT WAS FUNDED THROUGH THE 22 GEOS.

>> ALBERTA DOES NOT NEED TO APOLOGIZE. I SAID IT WAS NOT FUNDED. IT WAS FUNDED OUT OF 2022. I WAS THINKING IT WAS OF THE PROJECTS WE HAVE NOT FUNDED WE ARE TRYING TO DESIGN. AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MISSTATING THINGS.

>> YOU HAVE HUNDRED PROJECTS. IS THE MONEY IN THE BANK?

>> YES. WERE SPENDING IT NOW.

>> IS 30% DESIGNER MORE. >> 90% DESIGN. I'M GOING TO

TELL PEOPLE TO START MONDAY. >> IT IS MONEY AND BORROWED SITTING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 90% IS EXCHANGED. AND BARRING SOME MAJOR ISSUE AT HUNDRED PERCENT. IT SHOULD BE MOVED

BEFORE WE APPROVE THE BUDGET. >> HE WENT TO TARGET THAT'S

BE BUILT IN THE SUMMER. >> WE DON'T NEED IT RIGHT AWAY. I'M TRONIC AT THE SCHOOL TO WORK WITH US. FOR

SOME KIND OF EXCHANGE. >> HOW ABOUT THE LIFE OF A PRIVATE ROAD IN EXCHANGE? IT IS NOT A PUBLIC ROAD.

>> THE EXCHANGE. YOU CAN CALL IT THAT.

>> LET'S SEE IF THEY REMOVE THE SPEED BUMPS TO MAKE IT

PUBLIC ROAD. >>

>> FOR THIS ONE. IT IS FOR THE STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECT THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED AT THE LAST MEETING. AND SO NOW.

WE ARE ASKING TO BORROW IN ADDITION TO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS. 26 MILLION. OF THAT. 16.5 MILLION WILL BE FUNDED FROM THE 2018 GEOS THAT WERE AUTHORIZED BUT NOT ISSUED. NINE AND HALF MILLION OF ANY ISSUE OUT OF THE 24. AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO JIM AND HAVE THEM TALK ABOUT THE INTERESTED IN SINKING PORTION

OF THE DEBT. >> THE 9 1/2 IS A CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. ALL FOR THIS YEAR SERIES 24. THE OBLIGATION THAT IS WHAT IS REMAINING FROM THE 2018 AUTHORIZATION.

>> CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS? SOME OF US ARE NEW. I NEED A REFRESHER. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CO AND GL.

>> THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND IS AUTHORIZED BY THE VOTERS. GO TO THE VOTERS AND ASK FOR THEM TO APPROVE AUTHORIZATION OF DEBT. THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO AN ISSUE THAT THROUGH THE MECHANISM. GENERAL OBLIGATION. CERTIFICATE PUBLICATION. IT IS NOT BUDDHA AUTHORIZED. THE COUNCIL DOESN'T NEED VOTER APPROVAL TO ISSUE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. BUT YOU DO NEED VOTER APPROVAL TO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION.

>> ANY OF THE QUESTION? YOU CAN USE THE INS RATE TO PAY

[04:05:02]

THE SERVICE IN THE --. FOR YOU CAN USE THE DEBT SERVICE.

>> LIKE THE THEATER? >> THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> WHITING GL AND NOT CL? TWO REASONS PEOPLE DO IT. THEY ARE DOING A PROJECT THE PUBLIC SAYS IT'S IMPORTANCE.

>> THE SECOND IS IF IT HAS --. 90% OF THE DEBT WE ISSUED , WATER SEWER STREETS AND IT WILL BE A MAJOR PROGRAM. IN YOUR CASE IN THE CITY, THE CITY LIED MAJOR PROGRAM.

>> MY ANSWER TO THAT IS VERY SIMILAR IN THE SENSE THAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE GL ON ITEMS THAT ARE LARGE IN SCALE. $300 MILLION PROJECT. YOU TYPICALLY SEE GL ON BECAUSE IT'LL BE

HITTING THE HIGH RATE. >> THE OTHER TIME YOU SEE ONE IS ONE OF THERE IS AN SURETY AMONGST THE COUNCIL ABOUT WHETHER THE PUBLIC HAS AN APPETITE FOR SOMETHING OR NOT.

IF YOU BUILD A PLAYSTATION, YUKO LED BE 30 OR 40 MILLION.

THAT IS USUALLY WHENEVER YOU SEE THE COUNCILS NOT TO USE THEIR FIDUCIARY POWER TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION.

WHENEVER IT IS SCALED OR THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON WHETHER THERE IS AN APPETITE FOR

PARTICULAR PROJECT OR NOT. >> I PUT THE SCHEDULE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS. THE CERTIFICATE PUBLICATION.

THE ONE WHEN YOU HAVE IN APRIL. THERE IS AN INTENT TO ISSUE THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. IT GETS PUBLISHED AND THEN, WAS THE PUBLICATION MINIMUM TIME 45 DAYS FROM THE PUBLICATION THAT IT WAS ISSUED. WE SEE IT AS A TWO-MONTH PROCESS. IT ALLOWS FOR THE POTENTIAL PETITION TO FORCE AN

ELECTION PROCESS. >> WHAT WE TALK ABOUT HERE EXPRESS ACCENTS FOR WHAT WOULD BE DONE TYPICALLY STANDARD PRACTICE FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. I'M COMBINING BOTH THE STREET AND A UTILITY PROGRAM INTO ONE FINANCING PACKAGE. WE ARE PROPOSING. THE CAPITAL PLANTS IS 26 MILLION FOR THE STREETS AND 26 MILLION IS 16.9 MILLION LEFT OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BY THE AUTHORITY. 9.6 MILLION FOR THE CERTIFICATE OBLIGATION. 277 MILLION IS FUNDED BY CERTIFICATES. THE EXPECTATION IS WE DO WANT CERTIFICATE.

IT'LL FUND BOTH THE WATER , SEWER AND THE STREETS.

ELIMINATION OF THE REDUNDANT COST. AND SYNERGIES OF SCALE.

THE BIGGER POWER AMOUNT. THERE, AND THAT WE MIX A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT USES WE DO ALLOCATION TABLES. SO THAT CAN BE ALLOCATED AND WHAT IS THE INS AND WHAT IS DONE BY UTILITIES. THE PLANS TO DO TWO $9 MILLION CERTIFICATE OBLIGATION. IT'LL BE ALLOCATED TO THE STREETS. 280 IS ISSUED FOR THE UTILITIES. WE CAN DO THE GENERAL OBLIGATION SIMULTANEOUSLY. FOR THE TOTAL OF ABOUT 370. WE MAINTAIN THE MINUS RATING. WE WENT THROUGH A RATING REVIEW PROCESS IN THE FALL. WE ARE BECOMING ONE WITH THE PROGRAM AND TO SCALE. IT WAS ACCEPTED AND INDICATED THAT IT TOOK PLACE. BASED ON CURRENT INTEREST RATES. 25 INTEREST

POINTS. FOR A BUFFER. >> THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SOURCE AND USE FOR THE STREET PORTION OF IT. AS I INDICATED. WE ARE FINDING $26 MILLION PROJECT BETWEEN CERTIFICATES GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. 26.5 MILLION A SPLENDID TO FUND THE COST OF ISSUANCE. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROJECT. THE TOTAL COST OF INTEREST FOR THIS WILL BE ABOUT 45 MILLION AND ABOUT 1.8 MILLION PER YEAR. PER ESTIMATE OF INTEREST RATE IS THE DAY WE PULL THE MARKET DATA ABOUT 4.22%. WE RUN AT 4.47%.

[04:10:02]

I WAS LOOKING AT THE MARKET IN THE LAST 20 YEARS. WE ARE RIGHT AT THE MIDPOINT. AT THE HIGHEST. WHEN A HALF PERCENT HIGHER THAN THE LOWEST ONE AND HALF PERCENT. THERE IS AN ONGOING STRUCTURAL BATTLE BETWEEN COLLATION AND MONETARY GOALS OF REDUCING INTEREST RATES. WE ARE A BUFFER, AS WELL. WE ARE IN A GOOD POSITION IS TO GO FORWARD. I EXPECT THIS TO BE WILL RECEIVED. WE HAVE THE WINNING BIDDER. YOU HAD TO SAY THIS BEFORE. TEXAS IS THE GOLDEN ECONOMY OF THE UNITED STATES. A LOT OF MONEY COMING IN.

>> HOPE IT IS IN YOUR PACKAGE SO YOU CAN READ IT. THIS IS OUR PLAN. IT'LL COST US, ABOUT $46 MILLION TO THE PROJECT.

BUT, WE WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING INS TAX RATE. WE USE GROWTH RATES AS YOU CAN SEE IN COLUMN B. LOWER THAN WHAT WE HAD. THEY ARE ACTUALLY LOWER INCLUDED IN THE MULTIYEAR PLAN FOR WATER AND SEWER. THIS IS LOWER GROWTH RATES. WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT TAX. WE CAN REDUCE THE TAX RATES WITH THE EXPECTATION WITH OTHER GROWTHS AND FUNDING. WHAT I THINK TAKES PLACE. THIS IS MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN WE USE FOR THE WATER SEWER. WE DO NOT NEED TO USE IT MUCH. BUT THE REAL EXPECTATION IS, A YEAR FROM NOW, IT'S FROM NOW. THE QUALITY WILL BE DOING THE NEXT PROGRAM. AND WE ARE GROWING FASTER. THIS IS THE MODEL WE ARE USING. AGAIN. IT IS PRETTY CONSERVATIVE FOR THE OVERALL PROCESS. WE HAVE A NINE AS FUND BALANCE OF 2.2 MILLION. IT IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. WE DO HAVE GROWTH. WE EXPECT THIS GROSS 60% GOING FORWARD. THE GOOD THING ABOUT .2 MILLION. WE ARE USING IT TO BUFFER HOW WE ACTUALLY ADD IN THE DEBT SERVICE. WE GROW SLOWER WHEN YOU CAN USE MORE AND LESS . WE DON'T USE AS MUCH AND HELPS YOU GROW TO THE DEBT SERVICE THAT YOU HAVE. I SHOULD SET UP FRONT. IT IS HEARTENING TO SEE OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. WHEN I FIRST WAS INVOLVED IN THE ISSUES WE FACED. THE HARD WITH JAMES AND ALBERTA HAVE DONE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE PROGRAM FOR MONTHS. THE CITY HAS PLANNED FOR YOU. FOR IT. IT'LL BE ABLE TO BE ABSORBED.

STREET PROGRAM FUNDED TAINTED INS TAX RATE. ON WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM. I'M GOING TO FOCUS ON 2024. WHEN WE DID THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 2026 ISSUE AND WE HAVE A PROGRAM AT A TIME. THE ALLOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION IS 200 AND THE ALLOCATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION IS 280 MILLION. I'LL HAVE A 30 YEAR --. THE EXPECTATION IS WE HAVE BEFORE .47% INTEREST RATE ON THIS. IT AVERAGES ABOUT 18 MILLION. PER YEAR. WE WORKED WITH ALBERTA AND THE SENIOR STAFF. BRING IN THE --. WHAT TAKES PLACE IS, THE COMBINED AMORTIZATION OF THE 2024 AND 2026. THEY DON'T HIT THE LEVEL OF THE SERVICE UNTIL 2029. 20 GENERATE EXCESS CASH FLOW WITH EXTRA PROJECTS.

BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, WE WRAP UP SLOWLY. IN LINE WITH WHAT THE GROWTH SCENARIO IS. BUT THE ISSUE ITSELF. IT'LL TAKE YOU TO ABOUT 27 POINT IT'LL TAKE YOU TO ABOUT 27.7 MILLION IT'LL TAKE YOU TO ABOUT $27.7 MILLION OVERALL WITH THE ANNUAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS. THE DISCUSSION OF THE PREVIOUS ITEM ABOUT THE ANNUAL BENCHMARKING . WE SPENT EXTENSIVE TIME TALKING ABOUT HOW WE TALK TO THE --. WE HAD PRELIMINARY CALLS. SOMETHING WE'VE DONE IS WE HAVE THE CONTINUED ANALYSIS OF THE EXISTING RATE TO PAY THE DEBT

[04:15:04]

SERVICE. WE EVALUATE THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST THE DEBT SERVICE. IT SEEMS TO ME BASED ON MY OBSERVATION WORKING WITH MY CLIENTS. OPERATIONAL RESULTS ARE A BIG ISSUE ON A YEAR-BY-YEAR BASIS. LOOK AT THE DEBT SERVICE AND WHAT YOU ARE WITH OPERATING COST THEN. LOOKING AT THE DECISION TO GO THROUGH THE BUDGET. AND THE INITIAL FIVE-YEAR BENCHMARK AS YOU GO FORWARD. ARE WE ON TRACK TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS. THE SYSTEM GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER WITH MORE ACTIVE MANAGEMENT ON THE PROCESS. WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE GROWN TREMENDOUSLY OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS. BUT THE CHALLENGE YOU FACE, AND HOPE SOMETHING DECISIONS -- THE CITIZENS APPRECIATE. YOU DON'T WANT TO SHORTCHANGE YOURSELF AND NOT BUILD CAPACITY. YOU NEED A PLANT GROW INTO IT WITHOUT OVERBURDENING EXISTING CUSTOMERS AND IS A FINE LINE. THIS IS OUR PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT. THE TIMEFRAME WE HAVE . IF YOU APPROVE THE PLAN TO GO FORWARD AND FUND CAPITAL PROGRAM. HE WILL WORK WITH -- AND THEY WILL HAVE THE NOTICE. IT'LL BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THE APPROVAL. WE WORK TO ISSUE BONDS IN JUNE WITH THE CLOSING AFTER THE ATTY. GEN. APPROVES IN JULY. MY EXPECTATION IS MAINTAIN THE RATINGS. AND, I THINK WE ARE IN SOME WAYS OVERLY CONSERVATIVE. THE BUFFER ALONE IS ABOUT A PERCENT HIGHER INTEREST COSTS FOR THE TRANSACTION. I'M SURE WE ARE DOING PRETTY GOOD. I HAVE TO SAY. THAT IS SOMETHING. IT IS SOMETHING WE CAN EXECUTE AND BE ABLE TO PERFORM FOR THE CITIZENS. GRADUALLY STAFF. THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS AND ARE INVOLVED TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE GOING FORWARD. THAT CONCLUDES MY COMMENTS. IF I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PERMISSION ,

I WILL. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FUNDING PLAN FOR THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PRESENTED FOR THE ROAD AS PRESENTED?

>> OF THE 26 MILLION? >> WE HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECONDED BY COUNSELOR? >> I KNOW WE HAVE THE ISSUE MONEY. WE HAVE THE PRIORITIZATION OF THE PROJECT AND HOW WE CAN SPEND IT. OBVIOUSLY, WE NEED MONEY.

>> AND DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION. HEARING THEN, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> HA

>> THE MOTION PASSES, 7-0. >> WE WILL GO TO ITEM 12 SIX.

[12.6. Consideration and possible action relating to TPDES Wastewater Permit Applications in the City of Hutto Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (Legal)]

CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION RELATING TO THE TPD ES WASTEWATER PERMANENT APPLICATION IN THE CITY OF THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION.

>> WE ALSO HAVE A MAP. WE CAN HELP WITH PRESENTATION. ON OF THE PAYMENTS WE FOUND OUT ABOUT.

>> THE FIRST ONE WAS THE PRESERVE --. THE HEARING NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE CASE IS MOVING TO THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. WE HAD A REQUEST FROM -- TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE EXPERT WITNESS IN CASE. WE DISSIPATE THE CALLS TO BE 15,000 WITHIN THE CITY MANAGER AUTHORITY. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION, WE WILL GO AHEAD AND PARTICIPATE IN THE CASE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY ANY OF THE REMARKS ON

THAT PARTICULAR ONE? >> WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT

[04:20:01]

IT SINCE I CAME BACK TO WORK FOR THE CITY. IT'S WHEN WE HAD BASICALLY AGREED TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER GO OVER THERE.

AND HELP THEM CHANGE THEIR MIND. WITH STAR RANCH. EVER SINCE TO FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD. THIS HAS BEEN REALLY

WELL-INFORMED ON. >> I SUPPORT IN FIGHTING BACK.

BECAUSE I THINK IT SHOULD BE A LAST RESORT. NOBODY REACHED OUT TO ME AND SAID THE CITY SCREWING AROUND AND THEY CAN'T GET PROPER PERMIT. IT'LL BE THE ONE ON ONE ITEM AND I THINK THEY TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE. BUT UNFORTUNATELY. WE HAVE TO PLAN 34 YEARS OUT HAVING A PACKAGE PLAN ASKED WHEN HE BROUGHT IT. EVERY TOLD ONE GUY , I CAN DO ANYTHING TO STOP IT. PREPARE FOR THE LONG TRIAL FIGHT. I KNOW IT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE. IT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF --.

BUT 14 YEARS I THINK WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE ANNEXED STAR RANCH FOR 12 YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT IS NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY. BUT ANTENNA 14 YEARS, STAR RANCH MAY BE PART OF THE CITY. AND NOW WE HAVE THE PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. ABOUT TWO AND THREE.

>> THE NEXT ONE IS 705. SPOKE ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING WEEKLY TO PATIENT WITH THE AGENDA ITEM. IN THE PUBLIC MEETING ON APRIL 9. WE HAVE ANOTHER ATTORNEY, WITH MATTHEWS THAT PROVIDES COMMENTS FOR US.

>> EDITS NEXT TO VETERANS? >>. THAT IS THE ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE NEXT TO -- ELEMENTARY.

>> IS A 15 INCH LINE COMING FROM THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT IS CURRENTLY USING,. IF WE DO NOT HAVE ANY PLANS. THERE WAS MILLIONS OF DOLLARS TO GET

WASTEWATER UP TO THAT AREA. >> RATE. FOR WOULDN'T IT BE IN OUR BEST INTEREST ALTHOUGH THEY'RE NOT VOTERS TODAY.

STILL PART OF THE COMMUNITY. WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET ROUND ROCK TO DO THE OUT OF CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT? WITH THAT ENTITY SO THEY CAN UTILIZE THAT LINE AND WE DON'T HAVE TO SPEND TENS OF MILLIONS. IF WE HAD TO GIVE MONEY FOR CAPITAL TO LET THEM DO THAT, THAT'LL SEEN BETTER FINANCIALLY THAN FOR US TO FIGURE HOW TO RERUN TENS OF MILLIONS OF SEWER ALL THE WAY UP TO THE FARTHEST CORNERS. THERE'S A LINE RIGHT THERE. I UNDERSTAND OVERSIZED.

THEY WANTED LAND IN THE FUTURE.

>> THERE IS A WASTEWATER LINE THAT RUNS DOWN THE LOOP. THE VETERANS HILL DOES RECEIVE SERVICE THROUGH THAT LINE.

THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE IST AND -- AND ROUND ROCK YEARS BACK. LOOKING THROUGH THE PACKET, THEY APPROACHED ROUND ROCK ABOUT GETTING THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICES AS VETERANS HILL OR SIENA. AND ROUND ROCK TOLD THEM NO. THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATION ONCE A CHANGED. WHEN THEY PETITION TO GET RELEASED BECAUSE THE CONVERSATION WAS IF THEY GOT RELEASED AND THEY WOULD JOIN ROUND ROCK, ROUND ROCK WOULD SERVE THEM. THAT IS THE SITUATION WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER PETITIONS WE ARE GETTING, THE CATALYST DECIDED YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT UNTIL THE CAN FIGURE OUT THE STATE LAW AND THE CONSTITUTIONALITY .

>> THEY'RE STILL THE PROCEDURE UNDER STATE LAW WHERE THEY CAN REQUEST ANY TJ RELEASE TO THE EXCHANGE. THAT IS STILL

AVAILABLE TO THEM. >> HOW DO WE DO THIS? WHAT IF HE COULD CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE. HOW DO WE WORK IT OUT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE --. WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE. I WAS TALKING WITH THE UTILITIES DIRECTOR AND ROUND ROCK. I CANNOT SPEAK ,

[04:25:03]

THE CITY MANAGER CAN SPEAK BETTER TO ANY CONVERSATION HE'S HAD WITH THE HIGHER-UPS. THEY ARE WILLING TO SERVE ANYTHING ON THE SITE IS RELEASED THAT AREA TO ROUND ROCK. I PROPOSE TO HIM, WHAT IF WE DID A SWAP? ROUND ROCK HAS -- ON THE EAST SIDE OF 130. WE HAVE ANY TJ ON THE WEST SIDE. WHAT IF WE DID A ONE-FOR-ONE SWAP? HE SAID IT WAS A NONSTARTER ON HIS SIDE AND WE SHOULD GIVE UP EVERYTHING ALONG 130. THAT IS A NONSTARTER ON OUR SIDE. I INFORMED THE CITY MANAGER. I BELIEVE, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THE CITY MANAGER.

>> IS ANYBODY POST THE LAND IF WE TOOK THE DEVELOPER WILL FIND

A WAY TO ANNEX ROUND ROCK. >> IT IS RIGHT ON THE EDGE BASICALLY. BEST THING IN GENERAL SEEMS TO BE TO LINE INSTEAD OF --. SEEMS LIKE IT IS FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD TO DO THAT RATHER WORRY THAT WE LOST A FEW ACRES OF LAND. SEVEN TAX REVENUE. ANNEXED THEM IN. WE DON'T HAVE --.

>> IF YOU ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.

>> WE SAID WE WILL LET YOU GO. THE ARGUMENT IN THE CASE IS YOU CANNOT GOING ON. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS VALID.

>> THE LAWS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. THERE IS A WAY TO DO IT. HE TJ

RELEASED UNDER CURRENT LAW. >> WE'VE RELEASED AND MOVE

STUFF AROUND. >> THAT WAS A SWAP. THAT'S THE ISSUE I HAVE. ROUND ROCK IS AN WILLING -- UNWILLING TO

EVEN SWAP. THREE. PAVING . >> WE HAVE COMMUNICATED ANY CASE WE CAN SET UP A MEETING. REGARDING THIS ISSUE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THE COUNCIL. PART OF THE PROMISE WHAT I ALLUDED TO. WHAT GUY GOES AND SAYS, CAN WE DO THIS.

IT'LL PROBABLY BE PRETTY POWERFUL. IF WE HAD A LETTER DRAFTED IN SEVEN PEOPLE SIGNED ON, WE REALLY WANT YOUR COOPERATION TO HELP US WITH SOMETHING.

>> TO ME, THAT IS A POWERFUL MESSAGE TO SEND TO A NEIGHBORING CITY. WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AND OUR COUNSEL WORKS WITH YOU IS. LET'S NOT SCREW THE PEOPLE OF SIENA AND WORK AGAINST EACH OTHER WITH THE PACKAGE PLAN. LET'S FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION HERE. THAT IS ALL I WOULD ASK. WE WANT TO WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THEM. WITH DIRECT STAFF TO WRITE A LETTER REP. WE AGREED TO COME IN AND WE SIGN IT BE THE FIRST TIME HERE IN 19 THAT WE AGREED ON ANYTHING.

>> WE AGREE ON STUFF ALL THE TIME. FOR WE CAN DO ABOUT.

>> CAN YOU PLEASE HELP US DO X, Y, AND Z? CAN YOU PLEASE

WORK WITH US ON THAT? >> I LIKE THAT IDEA. FOR OTHERWISE AM GOING TO SAY WE HAVE TWO 77 MILLION IN SEWER LINES. LET'S PUNCHLINE ALL THE WAY THROUGH WITH EVERYTHING WE CAN. AND DO STUPID STUFF. BECAUSE THAT IS LITERALLY WHAT THIS IS TURNING INTO.

>> I HEAR YOU. WERE SPENDING MILLIONS.

>> 300 MILLION. WE CAN GO SPEND THERE.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT. TWO MINUTES PARTIES CAN

WORK TOGETHER. >> AND WHAT ABOUT NUMBER

THREE? >>

>> THEY JUST FILE THAT ONE. >> THIS CAME UP IN PUBLIC

[04:30:06]

COMMENT AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. IT'S A DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS --. WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM SOLUTIONS . STAFF HELPED FACILITATE MULTIPLE MEETINGS. BETWEEN DEVELOPERS.

AND OTHER DEVELOPERS. AS WELL AS LANDHOLDERS THAT ARE NOT TRYING TO DEVELOP RIGHT NOW TO SEE HOW WE CAN COME UP WITH THE REGIONAL SOLUTIONS. THE DEVELOPER. SLOW DOWN BECAUSE OF COST BASICALLY. IT IS A CONVERSATION I HAD WITH THE ENGINEER. IT'LL BE TOO MUCH FOR THAT FRONTAL COST. WE DID NOT HAVE THIS IN AN HOUR , I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHEN THEY STOPPED TALKING TO US. BUT AT SOME POINT, THEY STOPPED TALKING TO US DOING THIS APPLICATION. IT WASN'T ON MY RADAR THEY HAD APPLIED. UNTIL CITIZEN CONTACTED US AND SAID, WHAT IS THIS LETTER THAT I GOT FROM --. THAT IS WHEN WE CAME DOWN TO DO THE RESEARCH AND CAME UP WITH THE LAST CITY

MEETING. >> THE CAPITAL COST TO RUN WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE REGIONAL LINE OF THE PROPERTY.

AND IT IS CHEAPER. THAT THE PACKAGE PLAN WILL BE RIGHT NEXT TO --. IT'S THE LAND THE IST PURCHASED FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL NUMBER THREE, I BELIEVE IT IS. END I SET UP A MEETING WITH THE ENGINEER. THE ASSISTANT SUPERINTENDENT TO TALK ABOUT POTENTIALLY THE SCHOOL HELPING US OUT WITH EASEMENT IN RETURN FOR US GIVING THEM SOME CAPACITY IN THAT LINE.

>> THAT IS NOT THE TIME THE CONVERSATION STOPPED.

>> IT IS RIGHT BY THE 15 INCH LINE.

>> THIS PROJECT IS JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF --. AT A DIAGONAL ACROSS THE STREET FROM NUMBER TWO WE JUST TALKED.. TO GET A PACKAGE PLAN. WE FIGURED OUT A WAY TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK. AND IT SUCKS TO BE THIS WAY. UNLESS SOME UNDERSTANDING THINGS WRONG. HE SPENT WHATEVER, THROW NUMBERS. $20 MILLION. YOU CAN SPEND MILLIONS TO COLLECT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS A MONTH. IT IS BAD BUSINESS. IT SUCKS ANY GIVE UP --. WE DO WHAT WE CAN TO MAKE PEOPLE ENJOY LIFE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE SCHOOLS. I HATE TO STICK IT TO THE DEVELOPERS AND STICK TO THE IST. ENTRIES AND STUFF.

>> IT'S GETTING UP .1:30. WE ARE STARTING TO GET SORE POINTS. WE SET A PRECEDENT MAKE IT TO 130. WE CAN START DOING MULTIPLES HERE. THAT'S THE CONCERN.

>> IT'LL BE INTERESTING. TELL US APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH CAPACITY THE 15 INCH LINE CAN CARRY. CAN THE ONE LINE, I ASSUME ROUND ROCK DID THE SAME THING. THIS IS SUCH A GREAT DEAL OVER HERE. WE CAN RUN ANOTHER LINE ALL THE WAY UP THERE. AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN PACKAGE PLAN.

>> THAT LINE IS A 28 INCH LINE. TO THE COUNCILMEMBERS POINTS.

WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER WE ARE GOING TO FIND SERVING THAT SIDE OF 130. IN BUILDING IT. THOSE ARE PROJECTS WE MOVED OUT OF THE PROPERTY WINDOW. IT IS NOT IN THE CURRENT FUNDING. ARE WE GOING TO DEVELOP IT OR NOT?

>> I DON'T WANT TO SPEND COLLECTIVE DOLLARS FROM CITIZENS TODAY TO COLLECT CITIZENS IN THE FUTURE.

THAT'S MILLIONS WE CAN BE SPENDING TO HELP OUR OWN PEOPLE OUT. I THINK IT IS A TERRIBLE SITUATION TO BE IN. PEOPLE YOU HAVE AT LEAST TWO REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE WANTING TO DEVELOP OVER THERE. THAT COULD COST PARTICIPANTS TOWARD THE LINE. THE PROBLEM IS, THAT IS PROBABLY A THIRD OF THE COST OF THE LINE. YOU COULD HAVE DEVELOPMENT PAY SOME OF THE LINE BECAUSE THEY MIGHT HAVE THE PROPERTY THEY COULD. BUT

[04:35:02]

NO ONE PROJECT CAN AFFORD TO BUILD THE LINE THEMSELVES.

THEY'RE LEFT WITH WHAT WE DO?

>> I SEE THE REQUEST WAITING MONTHS AND MONTHS AND MONTHS TO

GET UP IN THAT AREA. >> NEGATIVE. IF WE ARE MOVING FAST, NOT YEARS AGO, WE WORKED AT STAR RANCH EXPANDING THE DEAL WORKING WITH THE TEX-MEX PEOPLE. AND IT NEVER SEEMS TO GO ANYWHERE. TIME IS MONEY. I KNOW WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. IS THE THINGS WE ARE NOT WORRIED ABOUT NOT 685 OR 130. THEY HAVE NO OPTION DOWN THERE. HERE, THEY HAVE OPTIONS. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON HOW TO WE THE PROTECTIVE? WE DON'T WANT TO FUND IT. I DON'T KNOW.

>> ULTIMATELY, THAT IS A DECISION THAT HAS TO BE MADE.

THERE WAS, ABOUT A YEAR AGO. CLOSE TO ALIGNMENT ONE, PEOPLE COMING TOGETHER TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN ON THE WEST SIDE. AND THE FOLKS BACKED OUT AND SAID WERE NOT GOING TO BUILD --. WHICH IS A SEGMENT UNDER 138 GOING AWAY. WHENEVER THAT HAPPENED AND THEY SAID THEY WERE NOT GOING TO PAY THE COST TO GO TO THE REST OF THE WAY. THEY WERE ALL EFFECTIVELY LOOKING AT TRYING TO CAUSE PARTICIPATES. NOT ONE OF THEM WANTED TO DRIVE. WHEN THEY SAID, WERE NOT READY TO EXPEND THE KIND OF MONEY YET, THE REST OF THEM FELL OFF TOO.

>> IS MUCH AS I HATE POLITICIANS POLITICALLY, SOME OF US KNOW SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE. AND IF WE SAT DOWN AND FIGURED OUT FROM A POLITICAL STANDPOINT, HOW CAN WE HELP YOU. NOT FROM A STAFF CITY, BUT POLITICALLY, WE NEED YOU GUYS . IF I WOULD'VE KNOWN NOW, I WOULD'VE GONE AND SAID, HEY. WHAT IS GOING ON. HOW DO WE MAKE IT HAPPEN. THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOUR LAND AND --.

>> BACK WHEN WE WERE ALL TALKING, I WORKED WITH ALL THE OTHER ENGINEERS AND ALL THE PROJECTS. WE HAD A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT OVER THE LANDS WOULD GO AND WE HAD BASIC SLOPES. WE HAD WITH CAPACITY NUMBERS. THAT IS HOW TO START TALKING TO ALL THE OTHER LANDOWNERS IN BETWEEN TO GIVE THEM AN IDEA FOR THE LINE WILL GO. NONE OF THE LAND OWNERS WHO WERE NOT DEVELOPING OR WILLING TO DISSIPATE IN THE COST OF THE PROJECTS. THEY WILL GIVE US EASEMENTS BECAUSE THEY KNOW IT'LL BENEFIT THEM IN THE FUTURE. ONCE IT FELL APART,

FELL APART FAST >> I WANT IS THAT YOU GUYS DOWN ON THIS. UNLESS SOMEBODY HAS AN OBJECTION TO MEETING --. I WOULD NOT MIND AS THE CITY TO FUND IT. IF YOU REIMBURSING US LATER. IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE LAND MORE VALUABLE. BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU, TALKING TO SOME OF THEM. THEY DON'T WANT THE PACKAGE PLAN BUT THEY TELL ME THEY WANT THE LINE. WE HAVE THE CAPITAL RECOVERY. ALLOWS US TO BUILD THE LINE. WHENEVER THE DEVELOPERS CONNECT TO IT, THEY HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES.

AND THEIR SHARE OF THE COST AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> WERE ALREADY DOING IT. DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THE COST OF BUILDING THAT SEGMENT IS? IT WAS TOO BIG SEGMENTS.

>> IT GOES TO THE ENCLAVE UNDER THE TEX-MEX SITE UNDER 79 AND THE RAILROAD. AND ALL THE WAY AROUND THE LOOP. WE DID NOT HAVE FULL DESIGN BUT THE MAGNITUDE WAS AROUND $50

MILLION. >> YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHEN IN THE DEVELOPERS WERE JUMPING AT THE CHANCE TO GO FIND THAT.

THAT'S WHY THE DEVELOPERS ARE ALL HESITANT. THEY WANTED US TO

GO FIRST. >> WE TALKED IT TO DEATH. WHAT

ARE WE DOING? >> WE HAVE TO DO A LETTER?

[04:40:01]

>> THAT IS WHAT I THINK. >> WE SECURE ALL THE EASTERN

SIDE OF 130. >>

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DRAFT A LETTER WE CAN SIGN AS COUNSEL. TO SEND TO THE CITY COUNCIL ROUND ROCK QUEST AND COOPERATION TO FIGURE OUT THE ISSUE.

>> I SECOND THAT. I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU CAN PROOFREAD THE

SUM. >> HAPPY TO LOOK IT OVER

BEFORE IT COMES TO THAT. >> THREE MONTHS LATER, WAS

STILL WORKING ON IT. >> DO YOU WANT US TO BRING IT

BACK THE NEXT MEETING? >> IF YOU CAN GET A WRITTEN UP,

THAT OF THE GREAT. >> IS LEADERSHIP. WE WILL MAKE A FEW CHANGES MAY BE. AT PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL.

>> WAS THE TIME? IS THERE A TIMELINE BETWEEN HAVING THE HEARING AND MAKING A FINAL DECISION? IS THAT THE LAST

THING ? PUBLICLY FACING? >> I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO

THAT. >> WE NEED TO HAVE URGENCY ON THIS BECAUSE THEY MAY BE GETTING TO THE END OF THE

PROCESS. >> THE HEARING ON THE NINTH IS ACTUALLY FOR THE ONE THAT IS DOWN BY STORAGE. STAR RANCH.

THERE. IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NINTH FOR THE PUBLIC TO

BE INVITED TO TESTIFY. >> IS THAT 705?

>> 705. >> THERE IS A HEARING FOR THE

PRESERVE, CORRECT? >>

>> THAT WAS ALREADY HELD FIBBER 21ST. WE'VE BEEN OPPOSING THAT. WE ASK FOR THE CONTESTED CASE HEARING. ABOUT THAT IN

THE NEXT 60 DAYS. >> I APOLOGIZE IN THEIR IS A

LOT OF PROJECTS. >>

>> THE USE OF AUTHORITY TO PAY FOR HALF OF THE EXPERT WITNESS WE WILL NEED TO CONTINUE TO CONTEST? THE NUMBER . IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING. WE FILED COMMENTS. THERE'S NOTHING FOR US TO DO RIGHT NOW EXCEPT TRY TO WORK OUT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE HAVE JOE FEELING THE HOPE STUFF COMMENTS.

>> THAT'S THE POINT WHERE WE HAD A LETTER FROM PUBLIC COMMENTS ASKING US TO FORMALLY CONTESTED.

>> >> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, WE CONTINUE TO USE -- TO FILE THE COMMENTS CONTESTING.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >>

[13. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> THE MOTION PASSES, 7-0. >> CHEERING. ITEM 13 ONE, 13 , 13 , 13 613 SEVEN. UP FOR CONSIDERATION. THE MOTION TO

ACCEPT. >> AND MAKE THE MOTION TO

ACCEPT. >> CAN WE PULL 13.7? NEED

SOMETHING. >>

[04:45:05]

>> WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECTS.

>> 13 ONE. WE MADE A DECISION A MONTH AGO TO WAIT TILL JUNE

TO THE REST OF THE PROJECTS. >> WE FINALLY GOT ALL THE

DOCUMENTS DONE. >> THE MOTION WAS. IF WE DIDN'T GET IT BY APRIL TO LATE. TO DO ONE COMBINED. 'S

HEARING. CALL THE VOTE. >>

[13.7. Consider possible action on Ordinance No. 0-2024-017 for the Specific Use Permit request for Hutto Elementary School #8 project on FM 1660 to allow a daycare, and deviations from bulk, setback and buffers, architectural style, language and materials, landscape and parking lot and vehicular screening (Second Reading) (Ashley Bailey)]

PASSING, 7-0. CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE --. THE PACIFIC USE PERMIT REQUEST FOR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

NUMBER EIGHT. >> PARKING IS NOT REQUIRED AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR HE DOES NOT NEED TO BE ADDED.

>> I CAN SEE THIS THE NOTES. THAT A MISSILE WITH WHAT YOU

GUYS ARE SAYING? >> THAT IS IN THE.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IT

IS NOT REQUIRED. >> THE DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

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

SAID. DID NOT RECOGNIZE YOU. IT LOOKS LIKE A JOHN DEERE.

WHAT ARE THEY HERE FOR? >> LISTEN TO THE WHOLE THING.

[12.7. Consideration and possible action relating to City Council meeting decorum and professionalism (Mayor Mike Snyder)]

WE DID 12 SIX, BRINGING UP ITEM 12 SEVEN. RELATING TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO CALL HIM AND PROFESSIONALISM. AND I BROUGHT IT UP. THEY ALLUDED TO THIS EARLIER. I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOU WANT OUT OF ME. WE HAD PEOPLE LAUGHING AND THEY STOPPED THE LEFT AND THEY WERE LOUD. I'M NOT BE ABLE TO DO A PERSON HOUSE. DO IS WE SENT OUT AS WE DO. WE DON'T ON THE PUBLIC INTERRUPTING US WILL INTERRUPT EACH OTHER. WE WILL PROTEST UP HERE BUT WE DON'T WANT THEM PROTESTING OUT THERE.

PEOPLE WEAR SHIRTS WITH, AND I DON'T CARE WHAT WE DO. WE WERE SHIRTS WITH SLOGANS AND STUFF ON IT. I THINK WE NEED TO THINK HARD ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS ACCOUNT. NO PEOPLE ARE REACTING. TONIGHT HAS GONE TO GET AWAY. WHEN I'M GETTING

[04:50:02]

ATTACKED, I THINK EVERYBODY. THANK YOU MA'AM. THANK YOU, SIR. SOME OF THEM GO UP TO SIX AND 70 IN IT. I'M A FIRM BELIEVER HERE TO REPRESENT PEOPLE. IF THEY ARE MAD AT ME, THEY NEED TO DO IT. . WHEN SOMEBODY'S ATTACKING ME, SOMEBODY APPEAR CAN TAKE THE POSITION AND GO, THE POINT OF ORDER PASSING FOR THREE MINUTES. WE ONLY SEEM TO DO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE IS GETTING ATTACKED. WE HAVE 30 MINUTES IT THIS. I TREAT EVERYBODY EQUALLY. THEY WILL DO THIS FOR TWO HOURS. SOME PERSON RAILS ON YOU FOR AN EXTRA 15 OR 30 SECONDS. I'M NOT CAN CUT THEM OFF BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING. WE ALL LIKE IT. WE HAVE TO LIKE IT WHEN IT HAPPENS TO US AS MUCH AS ANYBODY ELSE. DO YOU HAVE A TIMER? WE CAN PUT ON THE SCREEN IN THREE MINUTES. YOU SHUT THE MIC OFF AND EVERYBODY'S IN UNISON.

REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU SAY, WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME IS UP. WE HAVE TO BE WILLING TO STAY ON THE GROUND AND IF YOU REALLY MAD AT ME. YOU GO, YOUR TIME IS UP. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

WE HAVE TO SET ANOTHER EXAMPLE. WE CAN ALL DO BETTER WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE ONE OR TWO OF YOU GET INTO IT WITH EACH OTHER ON VARIOUS THINGS AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. IN MY MIND, I WANT US TO GET ALONG BETTER AND HAVE HEATED DISCUSSIONS ON THE TOPIC. NOT THE PERSON. I'M A MEAN PERSON IN PATIENTS. EVERYBODY KNOWS. HOW DO YOU EXPECT TO DO THIS IF YOU'RE UPSET. THE PUBLIC WILL SEE THAT. I THOUGHT TONIGHT WAS A WHOLE LOT BETTER AND SOMETIMES YOU HAVE TO TAKE A STEP BACK TO TAKE TWO STEPS FORWARD. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> I COMPLETELY AGREE. THANK YOU FOR PICKING UP THE POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE. THERE'S ALSO A POINT OF GENERAL PRIVILEGE. WE CAN CALL A POINT OF GENERAL PRIVILEGE.

WE CAN SAY, ENSURE THE PUBLIC REMAINS QUIET AND RESPECTFUL IN THE VOLUME OF THE CHAMBERS TO OUT TO HEAR THE SPEAKER.

ATTACHED GOT A LITTLE BIT ACQUIRED IN THE CHAMBER. THE POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE LIKELY WOULD DO FOR YOU THE MAYOR IF SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING INAPPROPRIATE TO YOU.

THE POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE WILL BE FOR US TO SAY, THERE IS A POINT OF PRIVILEGE. CAN YOU REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING THAT WAY TO THE MAYOR? THE BIGGEST POINT IS THAT I HAD NO IDEA WE WERE PROTECT BUT THE PHENYL CODES. I THOUGHT I ACTUALLY HAD TO SAY, I NEED TO STAY HERE AND BECAUSE THAT. THERE ARE PENAL CODE TO PROTECT US TO ALLOW FOR GOVERNMENT COUNSEL OPERATES IN A PRODUCTIVE WAY. AND NOW THAT I KNOW THAT. I KNOW THERE IS RECOURSE. IF WE DO NEED TO MAKE SOME THINGS HAPPEN. YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. WE NEED TO MODEL WHAT WE EXPECT. WE HAVE SEEN THINGS AND I THINK I'VE ONLY BEEN HERE FOR EIGHT MONTHS. IN EIGHT MONTHS, I SEE THINGS I THOUGHT WERE ACCEPTABLE AND ALLOWED. AND THEY WERE NOT. IF WE CAN STOP THE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, WE COULD HAVE SOME PRETTY GOOD COUNCIL MEETINGS WITHOUT HAVING ALL OF THIS BACK-AND-FORTH IN DIFFICULTY. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FIGHTING WORDS. IT CAN BE A VERBAL DISTURBANCE.

>> I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THE PENAL CODE. THAT DID COME UP.

THAT'S ANOTHER THING I NEED HELP ON FROM THE COUNCIL. THE WAY I READ IT. IT IS ALL UP TO INTERPRETATION WAS DISTRACTING . THE PHONE WENT OFF EARLIER. IT DID NOT DISTRACT. ONE PERSON CAN SAY, I LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT AND I VOTED WRONG.

WHEN WE GO TO EXERCISE THAT THAT IS A COUNSEL WE ARE READY . IF WE ARREST A PERSON FOR SAYING SOMETHING ELSE, WHEN THOSE PEOPLE WERE LEAVING AFTER THE YMCA. THEY WERE LAUGHING

[04:55:02]

AND HE PAUSED. IN MY MIND, I JOKED TO THE MAYOR. HE PAUSED BUSINESS. THAT WAS INTERRUPTING US. WE HAVE TO BE FAIR. WE NEED TO ISSUE CITATIONS TO 30 PEOPLE. WHEN THEY LEFT, THEY DID NOT DO IT IN A MANNER THAT DID NOT DISRUPT OUR MEETING.

NOT PULLING UP OLD THINGS. I GET TUNED INTO THINGS AND HAVE MY ARGUMENTS. I'M ROCKING THROUGH THINGS AND I'M READY TO GET ON THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT SOME. YOU HAVE TO HELP ME. I DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO A LOT OF THINGS. AND I BLOCK THEM OUT. LET'S BE CAREFUL TO NOT ALL OF A SUDDEN, SAY, CHIEF. TAKE THE MAN OUT. BECAUSE IF WE MESS IT UP ON TIME, DEPENDING ON THE COURT, THAT WAS DISRUPTIVE. IF THEY SAY NO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENS.

>> HANDLE IT, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT TEACHERS DO, SO THOSE NOISES THAT GET REALLY LOUD DO DISTURB ME. I WAS UNABLE TO FINISH MY THOUGHT, AND IT SOMEHOW GOT ONTO REIMBURSEMENT OF $81, AND I HAVE NO IDEA HOW MY THOUGHTS ON AN AGENDA ITEM TURNED INTO MY FINANCIAL SITUATION FOR AN $81 REIMBURSEMENT, SO IT IS THINGS LIKE THAT THAT TAKE IT WAY OUT OF CONTEXT, AND IT DID NOT HAVE TO HAPPEN, IF WE WERE TO JUST SAY IT IS TOO LOUD IN THE HOUSE, CAN WE GET A LITTLE QUIET? WE CANNOT CONDUCT BUSINESS.

>> WAS JUST SAYING YOU WERE SAYING ABOUT BEING CONSISTENT.

I THINK AT A MINIMUM I THINK YEAH, IF YOU DO PROTOCOL FOR PEOPLE HAVE THE NEW SHEET WHERE THEY ONLY CAN DO THREE, SIX, OR NINE, SO I DO THINK THAT WE CAN BE MUCH MORE STRICT WITH THE TIMER NOW, AND WE SHOULD, AND I THINK THE CITY SECTOR IS GETTING BETTER ON THAT. SO, I THINK THAT CONSISTENCY, THERE CANNOT BE ANY DIRECT ACTION ON REMOVING ANYONE, WITHOUT I WOULD SAY, AT LEAST ONE WARNING FROM COUNSEL, POSSIBLY TWO.

UM-- YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS THINGS GO, YOU KNOW, WHEN PEOPLE IN THE CHAMBER MUTTER THAT THEY DON'T THINK SOMEONE IS ASKING A QUESTION I THINK IS APPROPRIATE OR IS IN VIOLATION OF SOMETHING IT IS ALL UP TO INTERPRETATION FOR US AS THE LEGAL GOVERNING BODY. WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET CLEAR COMMUNICATION THAT IS DISTRACTING, AND IT'S NOT THE PLACE TO DO THAT. YOU CAN DO THAT IN YOUR OWN PUBLIC COMMENT, AND YOU CAN REACH OUT TO ANY COUNCIL MEMBER AFTER COUNSEL AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS. AND I WILL SPEAK WITH ANYONE, ANYTIME. IF THEY CALL ME UP, I WILL TALK TO ANYBODY. I DO NOT SHUN ANYONE. UM-- BUT THAT IS THE PLACE, NOT IN THE CHAMBER WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO CONDUCT BUSINESS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

[12.8. Consideration and possible action of acceptance of appointment of acting City Manager(s) in case of extended city manager absence, per City Manager Absence policy (City Manager, James Earp).]

ELSE. ITEM 12-8 CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION OF ACCEPTANCE OF APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CITY MANAGER'S MANAGER, MANAGERS, IN CASE OF EXTENDED ABSENCE POLICY .

>> MAYOR ? I AM PUTTING FORTH TO SERVE ON MY EXTENDED ABSENCE, AND OF COUNSEL ACCEPTS THAT, AND MOTION TONIGHT, I WILL FOLLOW WITH CITY SECRETARY.

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MANAGERS APPOINTMENT SUGGESTIONS, AND TO FILE THAT LETTER.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED, MOTION BY CLARK, SECOND BY THOMPSON. THIS IS EITHER OR, NOT BOTH AT THE SAME

TIME? >> CORRECT. MY QUESTION , IF

[05:00:03]

HE'S UNAVAILABLE, IT WOULD FALL TO--

>> OKAY, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE WISE RATHER THAN HAVE A

SINGLE PERSON. >> I AM OKAY WITH THAT. AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO IT, BUT WHAT I WAS HESITANT ON IS I WANT A POINT OF CONTACT, THAT WAY, AND I THINK WE SHOULD ALL HAVE ONE.OF CONTACT, THAT WAY IF THERE IS AN ISSUE YOU ARE NOT LIKE, OH, THE MAYOR PRO TEM SPOKE WITH SO AND SO, WIRES

GOT CROSSED. >> ONE REQUEST. WHEN YOU PUT THE LETTER THAT YOU ALSO, NOT IN THE LETTER FOR PUBLIC , BUT LIKE WE HAVE YOUR PHONE NUMBER TO REACH YOU. WHEN YOU ARE NO LONGER AVAILABLE I NEED TO BE ABLE TO CALL MATT. RIGHT NOW I WOULD HAVE TO CALL UP TO CITY HALL AND TRY AND LISTEN TO THE THING TO GET CONNECTED THROUGH LIKE--

>> WELL I HAVE PROVIDED THAT BEFORE. BUT I WILL PROVIDE IT AGAIN. JUST SAVE IT IN YOUR CELL PHONE SO YOU HAVE IT PERMANENTLY. BECAUSE, THEY WON'T CHANGE , UNLESS I COME TO COUNSEL AND GIVE YOU NEW NAMES.

>> CORRECT. >> SO I WILL HAVE THEM RESEND THEIR CELL PHONE NUMBERS. JUST SAVE THEM LIKE YOU HAVE FOR ME.