9.1. Hold a public hearing on Amendment No. 1 to the Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Williamson County Municipal Untility District No. 22 (Star Ranch) with the City of Hutto and limited purpose annexation of 15.513 acres of land (Sara Cervantes)

[9.1. Hold a public hearing on Amendment No. 1 to the Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Williamson County Municipal Untility District No. 22 (Star Ranch) with the City of Hutto and limited purpose annexation of 15.513 acres of land (Sara Cervantes)]

[01:25:13]

US TO A NUMBER 91. THE PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDMENT NUMBER ONE TO THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENTS WITH THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT 22 STAR RANCH WITH THE CITY AND LIMITED PURPOSE AND ANNEXATION OF 15.513 ACRES

OF LAND. >> THE EXPANSION OF THE STAR RANCH MUD FLOATING AROUND FOR LITTLE WHILE. THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO QUITE A WHILE AGO WHEN IT WAS FIRST FORMED AND WE HAVE TO AMEND THE AGREEMENT AND ANNEX THE 15 ACRES OF LAND TO INCORPORATED INTO THE CURRENT BOUNDARIES OF THAT LINE.

>> THIS IS NOT EXPANDING TO BE BIGGER.

>> THEY WANT INCORPORATES ADJACENT TO THE CURRENT PROPERTY. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MAP AND IT SHOULD BE ATTACHED IS THE EXHIBIT TWO --.

NORTH SO THERE IS THE UNDERPASS THE CUTS UNDERNEATH 130. IT IS

TO THE NORTH OF THE 15 ACRES. >> THE PURPOSE IS TO CAPTURE SALES TAX IN THE CITY CAN CAPTURE THE REVENUE FROM

BUSINESSES. >> WE ARE EXPANDING FOR A BUNCH OF THINGS. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SOUTH PART OVER BY

OTTO KING OR SOMETHING. >> THEY WANT TO INCORPORATE

THAT INTO THE MUD. >> OKAY. I GUESS IT IS COMING UP. WE DID A FIVE SOMETHING ACRE ONE ABOUT TWO MEETINGS

AGO. >> I BELIEVE SO. THE ONE THAT WAS RIGHT THERE NEAR WHERE THE HOME IS. UP ON THE HILL WITH THE CORNFIELD IS. NORTH OF THE DEVELOPMENTS WHERE H-E-B IS.

THAT IS THEIR LAST MONTH OR SO. IN THE SAME GENERAL AREA.

>> ANY OF THE QUESTIONS? >> WE HAVE TO HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. OPENS PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 OPENS PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20 8 AM. ANYBODY WANTING TO COME UP AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS ITEM? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:28 , AND

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

THERE IS NO ACTION. ITEM 10 ONE CONSIDERATION AND ACTION REGARDING THE APPOINTMENTS AND WE APPOINTMENT AND OR REMOVAL TO THE CITY BOARD COMMISSIONS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION AND TAX INVESTMENTS ON BOARD FOR THE CITY COUNCIL LIAISON .

>> THE COMMITTEE DID NOT MEET AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE APPLICATIONS. AS OF TODAY, WENT LIVE. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN APPLYING, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE DIFFICULT PROCESS OF DOWNLOADING THE PDF AND FILLING IT OUT. AND SCANNING IT AND UPLOADING IT AND EMAILING THIS TO SOMEBODY.

YOU CAN APPLY DIRECTLY TO THE CITY WEBSITE. YOU CAN APPLY THERE AND THE APPLICATION WILL GO WHEN AND IT'LL BE PROCESS AND HE CONCEDES. A MUCH IMPROVED PROCESS SOMETHING UP AND ASKING FOR FOUR YEARS. I'M GLAD THAT IT'S FINALLY ONLINE. IT'S ON THE CITY WEBSITE.

>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS ITEM? TO HEARING MEN, GO TO ITEM --. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION. AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF OCTOBER 1, 2023.

[01:30:01]

>> CONNIE COLLA ITEM 12 ONE? >> DISPOSE OF ITEMS FOR THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY FOR PROSECUTION.

AND THE ITEM FOR THE GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER. I'M SURE THIN OUT INTERESTING -- INTERESTED IN HEARING THE IMMUNITY ITEM BUDGETS.

>> WERE SAVING THE BEST FOR LAST.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on a resolution of the City Council of the City of Hutto, Texas, appointing a Deputy City Attorney and an Assistant Deputy City Attorney with Fitfield Brown & Palmquist, LLC, for the City of Hutto municipal court prosecution (Legal)]

>> CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION CITY COUNCIL ON THE CITY OF HUTTO TEXAS APPOINTING A DEPUTY ATTORNEY AND AN ASSISTANT DEPUTY ATTORNEY WITH FULFILLED . FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO IN A CIVIL COURT PROSECUTION. YES SIR? W.H.I.P. I WAS WONDERING WHO THE GUY WAS IN THE SHARP

GREEN TIE. >> I THOUGHT HE WAS AN FBI OR

SOMETHING. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITIZENS. I'M HERE IN MY OFFICIAL CAPACITY TONIGHT. WE HAVE NEED OF APPOINTING A NEW DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY. MR. -- WORKED WITH US FOR MANY YEARS. HE'S BEEN A PROSECUTOR FOR MANY YEARS. HE HELPED US OUT IN TIMES OF NEED AND HE'S FAMILIAR AND DEALING WITH THE COURTS OF RECORD AS WELL. HE BROUGHT HIM HERE TONIGHT AT THE COUNCIL HAS ANY QUESTIONS. HE'S GOOD AT WHAT HE DOES. HIS ASSOCIATES, IS NOT HERE BUT WE ASK HE BE APPOINTED AS WELL. SO WE HAVE A BACKUP. IF HE COULD NOT UNDERTAKE THE DUTIES NECESSARY, HE WOULD ALREADY BE APPOINTED AND BE ABLE TO STEP IN AS

NECESSARY. >> RESOLUTION PROVIDES APPOINTMENTS FOR THE DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY AND ASSISTANT.

MOTION? >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> DO WE NEED TO NAME THE INDIVIDUALS? BY NAME IN OUR MOTION? OR IS IT EFFICIENT TO

SAY --? >> IT IS SUFFICIENT TO SAY THE

RESOLUTION PRESENTED. >> THANK YOU.

>> HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> MAYOR SNYDER?

COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >>

MOTION PASSES, 7-0. >> I TOLD THEM HOW MUCH FUN THE COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I CAN

GET IT. >> YOU'RE MORE WELCOME TO STAY

AND WE MAKE IT OUT EARLY. >> WE CERTAINLY WILL NOW.

>> FOR THE RECORD, THE JUDGE WILL BE GIVING THEM THE OATH

OF OFFICE SPEAK. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH,

[12.3. Consideration and possible action on a Resolution No. R-2024-066 to approve a proposed memorandum of understanding between the City of Georgetown and the Williamson County Regional Animal Shelter Member Governments, including approving non-substantive changes and authorizing the Mayor to execute the agreement between Williamson County and the City of Hutto (Chief Jeff Yarbrough)]

APPRECIATED. >> CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION DOOR DASH 2024 E- 066. TO APPROVE A PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER MEMBER GOVERNMENTS INCLUDING APPROVING NONSUBSTANTIVE CHANGES IN AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ONE SOME COUNTY AND THE CITY OF HUTTO.

>> WE BRING YOU MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. BETWEEN US AND MONSON COUNTY TO BRING THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN INTO THE REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER GROUP. WE'VE BEEN A MEMBER SINCE THE INCEPTION PUBLICLY 10 YEARS PLUS. IT'LL REDUCE EVERYONE'S COSTS AND YEARLY COST TO BE A MEMBER OF THAT. TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, I BROUGHT MISTY WITH THOSE FROM THE DIRECTOR OF THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY ANIMAL SHELTER. AND I HAVE JACK DAILY.

THE ASSISTANT MANAGER AT THE CITY OF GEORGETOWN. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL. END AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER

[01:35:01]

THOMPSON. >> WELCOMES A HUTTO. ANY

DISCUSSION ON EMOTION? >> COUNCILMEMBER THORTON?

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-020 amending the budget for the fiscal year of October 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024 (First Reading) (Alberta Barrett)]

THANK YOU, GUYS. OKAY. IT BRINGS US BACK TO THE TIME, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON -- COME AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF OCTOBER 1, 2023. SEPTEMBER 30,

2024. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, ALBERTA BARATZ, FINANCE DIRECTOR. WE MADE ADJUSTMENTS TO SEVERAL FUNDS. BUT IT IS A GENERAL FUND. AFTER THE REVENUE AND EXPENSES. WE TAKE OFF THE SHORTFALL WE HAD ON THE RESERVE REQUIREMENT AT THE END OF THE YEAR, 341. DELETE THIS 146,000, 302.

EXPENDITURES , SORRY. THE NEXT ONE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FUND. WE INCREASED THE EXPENDITURE BASED ON APPROVAL AT THE PRIOR MEETING OF TWO 33,200 WHICH INCLUDES THE REGION 33,200 FOR THE COUNTY ROAD 137 REPAIRS.

500,000S FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL AND 500,000 FOR THE YMCA PROJECT. NEXT IS THE TRANSPORTATION FUND WITH A NET INCREASE OF 64,004 50. THE MAJOR DIFFERENCE IN REVENUE THERE IS THE INTEREST EARNING AND WE INCLUDED THE EXPENDITURE FOR 14,000 FOR THE BRIDGE BEAUTIFICATION LIGHTING. OKAY.

AND NEXT IS UTILITY FUNDS. IN TOTAL THEY ARE, WE HAVE AN ADDITION OF ONE 27,000 107 AS A NET INCREASE TO THE ENDING FUND BALANCE. REVENUE HAD AN INCREASE IN INTEREST EARNINGS OF FOUR TO $60,000. BASED ON WHERE WE ARE AT IN FEBRUARY. WE PROJECTED THIS OUT TO THAT. EXPENDITURES AND WE TOOK SOME SAVINGS AND SALARIES DUE TO ATTRITION AND HIRING DELAY. WE INCREASED EXPENSES FOR THE CCN TRANSFER AGREEMENT AND THE ENCLAVE LIST STATION REPAIRS. WE INCREASED TO $80,000 FOR CHARGES ON FINANCIAL SOFTWARE. THAT IS THE FEE THAT GETS CHARGED FOR THE CREDIT CARD COLLECTION. ONLINE PAYMENTS.

AND WE ARE LOOKING AT A THIRD-PARTY EFFORT TO ELIMINATE THOSE FEES AND GET THEM AND LOWER THAN WHAT WE ARE PAYING

NOW. >> WE HAVE SOME DATA WENT TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE FEE SCHEDULE? IS IT MAY. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT IS CLOSE TO

>> WE CAN FINISH RESEARCHING WITH IT SO WE HAVE AN OPTION TO GIVE COUNSEL. IF WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE MAY AND MAY BE THE

END OF MAY TO BRING IT BACK. >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO

WAIT UNTIL THE END. >> HE NEEDS TO COME BACK ON MAY

16. >> DO YOU WANT TO COME BACK ON

THE 16TH? >> THE SOFTWARE THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW. PEOPLE PAY ONLINE. WITH THE PHONE. WE ARE HAVING TO SPEND MORE FEES AND WE ARE TAKING IN. SO WE ARE INCREASING THE COST AND IS NOT BEING PASSED ON.

>> IS 100% BY THE CONSUMER. IT WOULD NOT BE AN INCREASE.

>> WE CAN LOOK FOR CHEAPER VERSION INSTEAD OF AN INCREASE.

TO ELIMINATE THE FEE BECAUSE --.

WE STILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION. >> TO SUMMARIZE. IT IS COMING BACK WITH WAYS TO OFFSET THE COST WE ARE INCURRING FOR

CREDIT CARD USAGE? OKAY. >> I THOUGHT CURRENTLY, WE

DID THAT. >> WE DO COLLECT. BUT EVIDENTLY, THERE WERE STILL SOME REMAINING. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THE EXPENSE IS INCREASING. IN INDICATES

[01:40:05]

GENERALLY THERE'S MORE PEOPLE PAYING WITH CREDIT CARDS. FOR WE DIDN'T FULLY SUBSIDIZE IT. WE DID SUBSIDIZE PART OF THE

COST. >> AT THE WE SUBSIDIZE THE

WHOLE THING? >> I THOUGHT WE PASSED 100%? IT WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I WILL SING NO ON. ANYWAYS. IT PASSED 100% OF THE CHARGES. WITH THE PERSON PAYING THE

BILL. >> THE FEES APPROVED WAS NOT

THE AMOUNT BEING CHARGED. >> HOW ABOUT APRIL 18? YOU TELL US WHAT IS RIGHT AND WRONG. WE HAVE FOUR DIFFERENT

VIEWS APPEAR. >> PROBABLY SEVEN DIFFERENT VIEWS. AT LEAST WE CAN ARGUE BASED ON WHAT WE ACTUALLY KNOW IS FACT BECAUSE I HAVE NO IDEA. I CAN HUNDRED PERCENT PASS IT

ON. >> WITH APRIL 18. THAT WAS THE SUMMARY ON THE BUDGET AMENDMENT. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION OR SOMETHING I CAN TOUCH ON?

>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COUNCIL ON ANY OF THESE NUMBERS?

>> WE APPROVE THE ORDINANCE NUMBER OH 2024 E- 20 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, 23 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 2024.

>> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN CLARK. A DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR REDUCING THE SALARIES. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN A CONCERN OF MINE WHEN WE THINK, WE WILL HIRE FIVE PEOPLE AND THEY COME IN IN Q2 OR Q3. SAVINGS GETS TO BE USED ANYWHERE WE WANT TO GO.

HOW DO WE HANDLE, WE HAVE THE REORGANIZATION. AND SO, IT CAUSES ME SOME CONCERN BECAUSE WHEN WE PASSED THE BUDGET IN AUGUST, WE STARTED WORKING IN AUGUST AND PASSED IN SEPTEMBER.

DO WE REALLY NEED ALL THESE POSITIONS? IN THE CITY MAJOR AND STAFF IS ADAMANT. WE NEED ALL THESE POSITIONS AND THIS IS WHAT EVERYBODY WITH YOU. SIX MONTHS LATER WE ARE REORGANIZING WE DON'T NEED THIS POSITION. WE ARE HALFWAY THROUGH THE YEAR. I DO NOT REORGANIZE TO THE NEW BUDGET YEAR? EVERYBODY KNOWS I ALREADY DON'T HAVE FAITH IN THE SYSTEM. THIS IS WHY. 2:00 IN THE MORNING, WHY DO WE NEED EVERY SINGLE FTE ONLY FOR SIX MONTHS LATER TO HAVE A WHOLE NEW SYSTEM? APPROVED TO DO WITHIN THREE OR FOUR MONTHS WE CHANGED IT. THIS IS IT NOT JUST THE CITY MANAGER BUT EVERY CITY MANAGER THAT IS THERE WE APPROVE THE BUDGET AND IN MY MIND, BECAUSE IT IS LITERAL. THE APPROVED 100 PEOPLE WITH 100 SPECIFIC JOBS. EXPECT THEM TO DO THOSE JOBS. THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE MONTHS LATER WE CHANGE THE SYSTEM AND WE ARE USING THE MONEY IN MY MIND THE APPROVED AS THE COUNCIL TO DO SOME DIFFERENT POSITIONS. MAKES ME WONDER WHY WE APPROVED THE POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. YOU HAVE TO COME TO US AND SAY I DON'T NEED THESE 10 POSITIONS ANYMORE. I WANT TO CHANGE THEM TO THIS POSITION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A BUDGET OFFSETS. HE TOOK A POSITION THAT IS 80,000 A YEAR,

IS IT HIGHER THAN A DIRECTOR? >> LOWER.

>> YOU TAKE A LOWER POSITION TO MAKE IT HIGHER, I'M GOING, WHY? THAT TELLS ME THERE'S SOMEBODY THAT'LL FINISH THE POSITION. WE HAVE A LEGACY PERSON GOING FORWARD AND IT IS HOW BUREAUCRACY WORKS. ONE OF MY TYPICAL GRANTS WILL BE APPROVED 200 AND SOMETHING POSITIONS AND REORGANIZE THE CITY AGAIN. AND WE ELIMINATE 10 TO 15 POSITIONS CREATING ANOTHER 10 TO 15. AND REMOVING PEOPLE. WE REMOVE PEOPLE TO

[01:45:05]

THE EDC. BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT THAT. HOW CAN HE MOVE PEOPLE FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO ANOTHER? IN MANY CONNECTICUT TRANSFERRED? I DON'T THINK WE CHARTED UNTIL WE ACTUALLY APPROVED THAT. WHAT ARE WE EVEN DOING?

>> I DON'T SEE ANY DIFFERENCES IN AMOUNTS ON THE ITEM. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? IS THERE A MOVEMENT OF FUNDS FOR REORGANIZATION THE EMPLOYEES?

>> WE HAVE ECONOMIC CONVENTION SALARIES. WAS BUDGETED $334,294 , TAKING $100,000 OUT MAKING 208. WE HAVE AN EMAIL WE ARE ADDING TO POSITIONS. TO THAT.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I WASN'T PREPARED TO PRESENTS BUT I KNOW THE INFORMATION SINCE I DID IT AND ANNOUNCED IT. THE ORGANIZATION I DID IS EFFECTIVELY A CHANGE IN WHO REPORTS TO WHOM. AND WHAT SCOPE OF THE JOB ACTUALLY ENTAILS. THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY THE CHANGES THAT I MADE.

GRANTED, SOME OF THEM REPORT TO THE DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WHICH PUTS THEM IN ECONOMIC VELTMAN. I DON'T HAVE THE CHARGE THE AS OF RIGHT NOW. ALL THE CHANGES THAT REFLECTS THE WORK SHOWS UP IN THE NEW BUDGET CYCLE. WITH THE MONEY IS REDUCED FROM ONE DEPARTMENT AND SHIFTED OVER THE OTHER. FUNCTIONALLY, ALL OF DONE IS CHANGE WHO IS REPORTING TO FOOD. EVERYTHING I'VE CHOSEN TO DO IS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE MANAGER ABOUT ADMINISTERING THE ORGANIZATION. I DID NOT ADD FTE. I DID NOT INCREASE THE BUDGET OR THE FEATURE BUDGET. WE ARE MAKING THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. IF IT WAS A POSITION THAT CHANGE TITLES IT IS BECAUSE I TOOK MONEY FROM ANOTHER AND DROPPED IT DOWN. I BALANCED IT OUT WHERE THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL COST.

>> TAKE THE LIBRARY MANAGER, FOR EXAMPLE. WE NEED A MANAGER.

NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY NEED TO BE A DIRECTOR. THIS HAS THE

SALARY DROP IN 13,000. >> THIS IS A MIDYEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS. YOU TAKE THE SALARY SAVINGS WE HAVE IN THE DEPARTMENTS. TO OFFSET THE NECESSARY RESERVE AND EXPENDITURE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. FOR MAKES 20,000 THEY MAKE 100,000. YOU TAKE THE SAVINGS AND MAKE TWO 200,000. I HAD FOUR POSITIONS THAT MADE 100 1/5 IN MAY 200, WHICH I DON'T.

ALL I DID WAS TAKE THESE POSITIONS ACCOUNTING FOR AND MOVING IT SOMEWHERE ELSE. THERE IS NO TAKING THE EXTRA MONEY AND DUMPING IT INTO AN INCREASING COSTS. WHEN I RETITLED THE POSITION, IT WAS A PAY GRADE 21 OR LOWER THAT I MADE THAT POSITION. IT NETS OUT WITH NO NEW COSTS GOING

FORWARD IN THE BUDGETS. >> WE CAN CHANGE THE NAME OF THE LIBRARY MANAGER TO THE DIRECTOR. THE LIBRARY MANAGER, IT IS NOT, THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR. WHAT IS THE BENEFIT?

THIS WOULD INCREASE COSTS. >> THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR WOULD HAVE A HIGHER SALARY. BUT HAS A HIGHER SALARY BECAUSE IT TOOK ANOTHER POSITION THAT MADE MORE MONEY THAN THE MANAGER. AND MADE IT BECOME THE DIRECTOR. IT TOOK WITH THE MANAGER WAS MAKING SHIP THAT THIS LATERALLY SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS SO WE CAN RECRUIT SOMEONE WHO HAS MUCH DEPTH OF EXPERIENCE AND HIGHER QUALITY TO LEAD THE LIBRARY. THEN WE COULD AS A MANAGER.

>> WHAT IT WOULD NOT DO THAT WILL RESET THE BUDGET SIX MONTHS AGO? ALL THE STREAMLINING. WE GET TOLD

[01:50:02]

ALMOST SIX MONTHS LATER, WE DON'T NEED THIS HERE, WE MOVE THIS PERSON HERE. FOR IT BECAUSE --

>> BEFORE, I WOULD'VE BEEN LOOKING AT INCUMBENTS IN THE POSITION. INCUMBENTS MAY NOT OF BEEN THE RIGHT PERSON. TO BE WHATEVER THE NEW ROLE WAS. WHERE I COULD, TAKE PEOPLE, IT'LL BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE NEW ROLE. THEY SHIFTED INTERNALLY. AND WHERE I CANNOT FIND SOMEBODY INTERNALLY TO APPLY FOR THE NEW ROLE, IT IS A VACANCY THAT WOULD'VE

OCCURRED. >> YOU HAVE TO THINK THE BUDGET IS A PLAN. AND NOW, WE ARE AT MIDYEAR. WE ADOPT THE PLAN BASED ON ATTRITION. NUTRITION CHANGES. YOU ALSO SEE WHAT WORKS. WE HAVE BEEN ENTRUSTED THEM TO DO THAT. I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE. WE HAD A PLAN AND HAD THIS MANY FTES AS A MANAGER IN MY GROUP. I MAY SHIFT SOMEBODY FROM DOING SUSTAINING WORK TO DOING PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT. CHANGE THE TITLE BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY DO AND A BETTER FIT IN THE NEW BOARD. YOU NEVER SAY, NOT THAT YOU'VE CAST IN CONCRETE, SEPTEMBER 30. THAT'S ALL IT IS. HE'S DONE EXACTLY WHAT HE SUPPOSED TO DO. WE CAME OUT WITH A 30 MIDYEAR CYCLE. HE CHALLENGED HIM TO MAKE SURE WE GOT BACK TO THE 20% RESERVE NUMBER AND WE DONE AS WELL. WE SHOULD BE APPLAUDING THE CITY MANAGER THAT THEY TOOK CARE OF THE SHORTFALL. IN THE RESERVES. AND HAS MADE THE BUDGETS. AND HALFWAY THROUGH THE YEAR, HE'S BEEN A GOOD STEWARD OF

THE TAXPAYER-FUNDED PROGRAM. >> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. BUDGET SHOULD BE WRITTEN IN PENCIL, NO PEN.

BUDGET IS A PLAN AND GOAL. WHEN NEEDS CHANGE AND SOMETHING ARISES TO ADJUST THE PLAN, I PLOT THE MANAGER FOR TAKING THE INITIATIVE. HERE IS WHAT MAKES THE CITY FUNCTION BETTER WITH INFORMATION WE DID NOT KNOW SIX MONTHS AGO. OR PERSONAL ISSUES THAT DID NOT EXIST SIX MONTHS AGO. INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR ANOTHER BUDGET, THIS IS CHISEL AND STONE AND I CANNOT CHANGE IT FOR A YEAR, BUT MAY PIVOT AND BENEFIT THE ORGANIZATION AND THE CITY. I THINK IT IS GREAT AND HOW I AM USED TO THINGS HAPPENING AS WELL IN MY EMPLOYMENT. I REALLY APPLAUD AND I THINK IT IS GRADES. I APPRECIATE THE THOUGHTFULNESS THAT WENT INTO IT. AND I WANT TO APPLAUD YOU, THE EXTREME DETAIL WE GOT IN THE AGENDA ITEM. IT IS WONDERFUL. WE HAVE NOT ALWAYS RECEIVED THAT. IT IS SUPER HELPFUL TO GO THROUGH TO SEE WHAT IS THE NET ADD AND THE LOST -- AND TO HAVE ALL THE DETAILS IN THERE. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT, TOO.

>> I ECHO THE SAME SENTIMENTS. BEING ABLE TO BE THE SUBJECT MATTER EXPERT ON THE CITY AND THE NEEDS AND THE MANAGEMENTS.

I APPRECIATE BEING IN THIS DAY-TO-DAY PLACE, MAKING CHANGES ON THE FLY BASED ON WHAT YOU ARE SEEING. IN MY OPINION, THE CITY COUNCIL IS ABOUT GOVERNANCE. AND CITY MANAGEMENT IS ALL ABOUT MANAGEMENT. I APPRECIATE THE OVERSIGHTS. THE OVERSIGHT THERE TO MAKE CHANGES TO BETTER SERVE NOT ONLY YOUR STAFF BUT ALSO THE CITIZENS OF

HUTTO. SO, THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? THE

REST IS ON FACEBOOK, I'M SURE. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[11.2. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-021 updating water and wastewater rates and amending the fee schedule (First Reading) (Alberta Barrett)]

ADAM RIPPON TWO, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE ORDINANCE NUMBER, ZERO DASHED WHEN 24 DOWN 021 UPDATING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES AMENDING THE FEE SCHEDULE.

>> I APOLOGIZE FOR GETTING REVISED INFORMATION TO YOU SO LATE. I WANT TO GO OVER THIS EVENING IN MORE DETAIL. IT WAS MY FAULT BECAUSE JAMES AND MATT HAD GONE THROUGH THIS WITH ME IN DETAIL BEFORE. I WAS NOT REALLY GRASPING IT. SO, HERE WE ARE. THE REVISIONS THAT YOU HAVE ARE LOOKING AT CHANGING THE FEE SCHEDULE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES BASED ON THE METER SIZE, NOT JUST THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS OR THE DOORS AND A FLAT AMOUNT. BUT DOING IT BASED ON A SURFACE UNIT

[01:55:05]

BASED ON THE SIZE METER. THE SERVICE UNIT TO WHAT I USE TO COME UP WITH THE ADDITIONAL INCREASE AND APPLYING THAT TO WHATEVER SIZE METER YOU ARE REFERRING TO IN THE FEE SCHEDULE. AND THAT IS A LITTLE BIT SMALL, SORRY.

>> FROM MY EYES, THAT IS GOOD. THIS IS A BILL COMPARISON

LOOKING AT , I'M SORRY. >> THAT'S OKAY.

>> THE RESIDENTIAL ACCOUNTS LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL LOOKING AT 6000 GALLONS. THE FIRST OPTION, 1A, WAS TO INCREASE THE SEVEN DOLLARS. FOUR 5/8 AND THREE-QUARTER INCHES OF THE METER. THE RESIDENTIAL AND SMALL COMMERCIAL AND SMALLER METERS. AT SEVEN DOLLARS.

>> CAN I JUMP IN HERE? >> YES.

>> ONE A WAS THE OLD TENANT 10. THIS IS WHAT IT BECOMES WHENEVER YOU ACCOUNTS FOR THE DIFFERENT SIZE METER IS PAYING THEIR PRO WRITER SHARE. SO THE HOMEOWNER IS NOT PAYING THE SAME AMOUNT OF DEBT? AS AN APPOINTMENT COMPLEX? THE TENANT 10 GETS ADJUSTED BASED OFF OF NOW HOW MUCH MONEY YOU GENERATE IF YOU CHARGE THE HOOKS WHO HAVE BEEN METERS.

I.E., USUALLY COMMERCIALS AND APARTMENTS. MORE THAN THE FLAT

$10. >> THREE QUARTERS AND 5/8. IT

IS TRADITIONALLY 5/8. >> FOR THE MOST PART, IT IS THE RESIDENTIAL. THE NEXT COMPARISON IS LOOKING AT ,

DON'T ADJUST. >> DON'T MOVE THE SLIDES

BECAUSE SHE HASN'T ZOOMED IN. >> WE CAN GO DOWN A LITTLE.

>> I WAS NOT QUITE THERE YET. >> WE CAN GO DOWN.

>> NEEDS TO BE REHEARSED BEFORE WE GET THE COUNSEL.

THIS DOESN'T BREED CONFIDENCE . IT'S LIKE I DON'T KNOW

WHAT IS GOING ON. >> FOR THE COMMERCIAL WITH 40,000 GALLONS, YOU CAN SEE FOR THE 1 INCH METER. THEY WOULD HAVE A BASE RATE INCREASE THAT EQUALS TO $25 MORE A MONTH. FOR WATER. AND $25 FOR WASTEWATER BASE RATE INCREASE.

THE BIGGEST CHANGE IF YOU GO DOWN THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. YOU CAN SEE WHERE HAVE THE 8 INCH WATER AND THEY HAVE ABOUT $900 A MONTH INCREASE. TO THE WATER-BASED RATES. IRRIGATION AND 2 INCH METER WILL BE 80. AND THEY HAPPEN HAVE TO IRRIGATION METERS. THE 8 INCH WATER, EXCUSE ME, IT'LL BE ANOTHER $900. IT'LL BE $1960 A MONTH INCREASE FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. BECAUSE THEY ARE A LARGER USER. AND SO, WE CAN MOVE OVER TO, THE NEXT TWO ? TO EIGHT, THE APARTMENT COMPLEX. WELL, LET US GO.

>> GREAT. END WE DID TWO A.

>> BASED ON THE SIZE AND AMOUNT OF DEBT BEING ISSUED.

FOR THE WATER AND WASTEWATER.

DOLLARS PER RESIDENTIAL INCREASE AND THEN GOING DOWN TO COMMERCIAL. AND 4875 , FOR A SEWER BASE.

AND HER APARTMENT COMPLEX , 450 FOR THE 8 INCH METER FOR WATER TO THE BASE RATE AND THEN SEWER WOULD BE 1007 55. AND THEN THE SAME SCENARIO FOR OPTION 3. IF YOU GO BACK RULE QUICK. SO, HERE YOUR RESIDENTIAL IS $2.80 TO THE WATER BASE RATE AND RESIDENT WOULD SEE $12.54 INCREASE ON

[02:00:08]

THE BASE RATE FOR SEWER. AND THEN GOING DOWN TO COMMERCIAL.

THEY WOULD SEE $10 FOR THE 1 INCH METER TO THE BASE RATE OF WATER AND 40 ON THE BASE RATE ON SEWER. SAME SCENARIO FOR THE APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THERE'S IS BASICALLY 1864 MORE A MONTH BASED JUST ON THE BASE OF THESE.

>> SO OPTION ONE A IS THE WHOLE $10 , THAT WAS THE HOLD COME OPTION 2 A IS BASED ON THE WATER CUSTOMER PAYING FOR THE WATER DEBT AND THE SEWER CUSTOMERS PAYING FOR THE SEWER DEBT. OPTION THREE IS BASED ON THE $10 AND $10 HOW MUCH REVENUE THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED, BUT NOW DIVIDED BY THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE HOW MANY WATER ACCOUNTS THERE ARE VERSUS HOW MANY WASTEWATER ACCOUNTS. SO YOU BASICALLY HAVE THE ORIGINAL OLD PRESENTATION AS ONE. TWO IS WATER PAYS FOR ITS OWN DEBT, WASTEWATER PAYS FOR ITS OWN DEBT AND OPTION THREE IS WE KEEP OPTION ONE, BUT INSTEAD OF BEING 10 AND 10 WITH THE NEW NUMBERS WITH THE WEIGHTED AVERAGES NOW IT GETS ADJUSTED BY HOW MANY WATER ACCOUNTS THERE ARE VERSUS HOW MANY WASTEWATER ACCOUNTS THERE ARE. SO THAT'S THE PREDOMINANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE METHODOLOGY IN ONE, TWO AND

THREE. >> I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. I KNOW IT WAS WRONG, BUT THE ORIGINAL DATA WE HAD ON OPTION TWO. YOU SHOWED THE 1950 BUT THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE THE INCREASE ON WASTEWATER SIDE IN BUDGET YEAR 27 BECAUSE IT IS ALREADY FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR, THE YEAR WE ARE ACTUALLY DOING IT. THE NEW FORM YOU SENT A OPTION TO THEIR A NOW SHOWING INCREASE OF 1950 EFFECTIVE TALKING ABOUT THE 1 INCH LINE SPECIFICALLY. 1950 AND THEN 975 IN 2027. CURIOUS WAS THAT OVERSIGHT, COPY DOWN BEFORE BECAUSE WHEN I TALKED WITH YOU WEDNESDAY YESTERDAY THAT WAS NOT THERE AND NOW IT IS AND I QUESTION THE NUMBERS ON THAT BECAUSE IF WE GO BACK AND LOOK AT OPTION ONE A ON THE 1 INCH LINE YOU ARE DOING $10 FOR 23 AND THEN INCREASING ANOTHER $10 TO AND THEN 750 YOUR 27. IF I LOOK AT THAT YOU'RE TAKING 2750 OVER THE SIX YEARS BUT EFFECTIVELY TAKING 1950 IN 23 THEN YOU HAVE TO INCREASE 975 IN YOUR 27TH AFTER THE PROJECT IS DONE AT THE SAME $27 RATE WHICH YOU FRONTLOADED BY SIX YEARS AT A HIGHER RATE SO THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE THE NUMBERS WOULD WORK OUT THE SAME AS INCREMENTAL INCREASE OVER SIX YEARS VERSUS BEGINNING AND END WHERE YOU INCREASE BY 50% DOUBLING THE AMOUNT YOU TOOK IN YOUR 1/6 YEARS BUT THEN YOU STILL NEED THE SAME DOLLAR AMOUNT AT THE END , SOMETHING IS NOT ADDING UP RIGHT THERE, THAT'S WRONG AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT OPTION THREE DOING 16 IN THE BEGINNING AND THEN 16 MORE IN 25 WHICH IS $32 INCREASE AND NOTHING FOR THE THIRD YEAR. SO I AM JUST, IT MAKES ME

WONDER IF THOSE ARE RIGHT. >> YES SO IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE TO A , WHEN WE FIRST DID IT I HAD 1950, BUT FOR THE THREE-QUARTER, THE RESIDENTIAL, THE SMALLER METER IT WASN'T 12 IT WAS THE 1950. AND SAME WITH THE WATER. I HAD IT AT FIVE INSTEAD OF TWO. SO FOR YOUR RESIDENTIAL CUSTOMERS IS TRYING TO LOWER THAT AMOUNT OF INCREASE, BUT INCREASE THE

WASTEWATER SIDE. >> OKAY SO THESE NUMBERS ARE NOW CORRECT. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE COUNCIL GOT CLEAR , LOOKING AT OPTION ONE, TWO, OR THREE ON THE A . YOU LOOK AT VOTING COME OPTION TWO IS VOTING FOR INCREASE IN 23 EFFECTIVE JUNE 1 AND THE INCREASES IN 27. GRANTED AFTER GROWTH AND OTHER STUFF BUT POTENTIALLY , NOT PUTTING IT IN STONE TODAY BUT THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT VERSUS WHEN YOU LOOK AT OPTION THREE UNIT A LOOK AT THIS INCREASE ACROSS THREE YEARS WITH THREE INCREASES AND OPTION ONE IS THREE INCREASES.

>> AGAIN THOSE WOULD BE MONITORED AS WE GO AS FAR AS WHAT KIND OF GROWTH WE HAVE WHETHER THE RATE NEEDS TO BE LESS OR MORE JUST LOOKING AT IT AS OF TODAY I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE IN NEED TO DO AT LEAST

[02:05:05]

ANOTHER ONE OR TWO INCREASES. >> I GET THAT, WITH THE NEW MODEL WHAT WE SAY IS WE THINK LONG-TERM OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS WE WERE LAST INCREASE FOR RESIDENTIAL EFFECTIVELY EIGHT DOLLARS AND THE WATER WOULD TWO DOLLARS STARTING JUNE 1 AND $6.05 YEARS LATER WHICH DOES NOT SEEM LIKE THAT'S TOO BIG OF A NUMBER TO EXPLAIN THAT SO I THINK THAT'S REALLY GOOD AND ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE $12 TO RESIDENTIAL AND THEN FIVE YEARS DOING SIX DOLLARS OR MORE. WE HAVE BEEN DEBATING HOW MUCH RATES WILL GO UP WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE LIVING OVER TO DO THIS PROJECT A DOLLARS IN WATER, AND $18 AND WASTEWATER OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

BRINGING IT UP LIKE THAT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE OTHER COUNCIL WAS AWARE OF HOW THE NUMBERS CAME AND WHAT WE WOULD LEAD FUTURE COUNCILS DOWN A PATH NOT THAT THEY COULD NOT CHANGE LATER AND WITH PROJECTION GROWTH YOU KNOW IMPACTING THESE. ALL THAT OTHER STUFF WILL IMPACT AND CHANGE THESE AND THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO THE RATE STUDY IN 25 TO KNOW WHERE WE ARE AT. WE ONLY HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL

FOR SO FAR. >> AT WHAT POINT DO WE DO THE RE-RATE STUDY TO GIVE US A MORE ACCURATE TO HONE IN? IS IT WHEN THE NATION -- WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT GETS COMPLETED, LIKE THE EXTENSION? WHAT ARE THE TRIGGERS TO GET

TO THE MORE ACCURATE? >> I WILL RECOMMEND IN THE CURRENT YEAR SORRY IN THE UPCOMING BUDGET, I WILL RECOMMEND WE GO AHEAD AND DO A RATE STUDY. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO DO IT AGAIN AFTER THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS CONSTRUCTED AND HAVE A VARIETY OF OPERATING EXPENDITURE BECAUSE THAT WILL BE REAL VERSUS PROJECTING WHAT WE THINK IT WILL BE. THAT IS STILL THREE YEARS OUT. I WOULD DO IT NOW, GET THE RATES ON A SCHEDULE AND THEN WE CAN DO AN AMENDMENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE BIG CIP PROJECTS COMING ONLINE IN THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS. ALSO WE WILL HAVE THE COST FOR THE ADDITIONAL WATER SUPPLY COMING ONLINE SO WE WILL ALSO HAVE TO BE ACCOUNTING FOR THOSE. I WOULD SAY WE DO ONE NOW WITH THE INTENT, NOW RELATIVE NEXT BUDGET, BUT NOW WITH THE INTENT OF ADJUSTING AND AMENDING THOSE AFTER WE HAVE THOSE BIG CHANGES AND WE HAD SOME EXPENSE TO KNOW WHAT

THE COSTS ACTUALLY ARE. >> THOSE RATE STUDIES, WHAT IS THE INTERVALS THEY WILL BE PROJECTING?

>> I HAVE SEEN THEM DONE AS OFTEN AS WELL FIVE YEARS USUALLY AS LONG OF A WINDOW AS YOU CAN STATISTICALLY THINK IS TRUE. WHEN YOU GET BEYOND THAT IT STARTS TO LOSE STATISTICAL RELEVANCE. FOR US I THINK FIVE YEARS IS TOO LONG BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH MAJOR CHANGES HAPPENING. WE WILL DO A FIVE-YEAR, BUT WE HAVE MAJOR CHANGES COMING AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ACTUAL COST ARE GOING TO BE. WE HAVE IDEAS, BUT UNTIL YOU KNOW HOW MUCH WATER YOU ARE PRODUCING AND PAYING FOR YOU DON'T KNOW THE OVERHEAD.

>> DO YOU OVERSEE THIS AS A BUDGET, SOMETHING TO BE COGNIZANT OF MOVING FORWARD TO FACTOR INTO THE BUDGET?

>> 100%. THIS IS SOMETHING WE WILL PROBABLY NEED TO DO EVERY OTHER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 6 TO 8 YEARS.

>> THE REALITY IS THIS IS BASED ON PROJECTIONS, GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND IF THOSE GROWTH PROJECTIONS COME OUT, FIRST OF ALL GROWTH PROJECTIONS NEVER COME OUT TO WHAT YOU PROJECT.

THERE ALWAYS GOING TO VARY. HOPEFULLY YOU AVERAGE OUT OVER TIME. BUT THIS IS BASED ON PROJECTIONS, IF PROJECTIONS FALL SHORT THEN THAT FALLS ON THE RATE PAYER, THAT FALLS ON THE CITIZENS. WHAT WE NEED TO BE TRACKING IS HOW THE NUMBERS IN THE FUNDS ARE DOING YEAR-TO-YEAR AND IF THEY START FOLLOWING MORE THAN WE ARE PROJECTING THEM, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHETHER WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE RATES TO AVOID RUNNING INTO A PROBLEM. THAT'S WHAT THE RISK SIDE OF IT IS.

>> IS THERE SOME SAFETY NET , IS THERE A CHECK POINT, A CHECK IN WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE RATES ARE TRENDING , BECAUSE

OF FLUCTUATIONS? >> WELL, I WOULD SAY WHAT WE DO CURRENTLY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS AND FINANCIAL REPORTS, WE ARE TRACKING WHAT REVENUES ARE, WHAT EXPENSES ARE, HOW FAR OFF THEY ARE FROM PROJECTIONS WHICH IS ONE

[02:10:04]

REASON WE CHANGED A BUNCH OF PROJECTIONS TONIGHT. BECAUSE SOME PROJECTIONS WERE TRACKING LOW AND OTHERS WERE TRACKING TOO HIGH. SO WE MADE ADJUSTMENTS. WE DO THAT PRETTY REGULARLY. THE SAFETY NET I WOULD SAY IS MORE TO SEE IF YOU ARE ON THE PATH WITH THINKING, SAFETY NET IS THE FUND BALANCE SO AS LONG AS YOU MAINTAIN A HEALTHY FUND BALANCE YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THERE TO BE HICCUPS YOU ARE NOT EXPECTING AND THEN HAVE TIME TO COURSE CORRECT. SO YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS. SO IN THE PACKET WE HAVE OPTIONS ONE, TWO, THREE WHICH OF 10 AND 10, FIVE AND 1950, FOUR AND 16 AND THEN WE GOT THE EMAIL THAT HAD THE 1A, 2A, 3A. IF I AM READING THIS RIGHT EVEN THOUGH OPTION ONE SAYS 10 AND 10 THAT IS REALLY ONLY APPLIED TO THE LARGE USERS THE ONE 8 INCH. THE AVERAGE RESIDENTIAL USER WOULD BE THE LOWER NUMBER WHICH IS WHAT YOU PROVIDED IN THE EMAIL SEVEN DOLLARS AND 950 , A TOTAL OF 1650 RATHER THAN 20. IF I AM READING RIGHT WE ARE SHIFTING MORE OF THE BURDEN TO COMMERCIAL. NOT ONLY ARE THE USERS , NOT ONLY ARE THE WASTEWATER USERS PAYING A LARGER PORTION DOWN THE WATER USERS, BUT THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALSO PAYING A LARGER PORTION INSTEAD OF

RESIDENTIAL. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> IF I LOOK AT OPTION TWO WHICH GENERATES A TOTAL OF 3.5 MILLION PER YEAR THAT IS ACTUALLY THE LOWEST IMPACT TO THE RESIDENTIAL USER BECAUSE THE COMMERCIAL USER PAIN TOGETHER IF THEY WERE BOTH ON WASTEWATER A TOTAL OF 2450 WITH A RESIN PAYING 14 WHEN WE TOLD THEM THEY WOULD BE PAYING ABOUT 10. OKAY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS READING THAT RIGHT.

TO ME OPTION TWO SEEMED LIKE THE NO-BRAINER BECAUSE THAT WAS THE LEAST IMPACT ON RESIDENTIAL USER AND GREATER ON THE COMMERCIAL USER AND IT EVENED OUT FOR THE WASTEWATER USERS ARE PAYING FOR THE WASTEWATER NEEDS AND THE WATER USERS PAY FOR THE WATER NEEDS, THAT ALSO SEEMED FAIR TO ME SO FOR ME I WAS LEANING STRONGLY TOWARD OPTION TWO. YES, 2A.

>> YES, 2A DID EXACTLY WHAT I ASKED FOR AND OTHER PEOPLE. SO THAT'S THE MOST FAIR DISTRIBUTION OF THE BURDEN , OF THE OPTIONS WE HAVE THAT'S THE BEST ONE.

>> AGREED. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO GO FORWARD WITH OPTION TWO A MOTION TO GO FORWARD WITH OPTION 2A, EFFECTIVE JUNE 1 WITH THE

BILLING EFFECTIVE -- >> SECOND. )

>> APPROVING 2A, TO START JUNE 2024 WITH PEOPLE TO START

JANUARY 25. IS THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT.

>> WHAT WERE THOSE DATES? >> JUNE 2024 IS WHEN THE RATES CHANGE EXCEPT FOR CUSTOMERS THEY ARE JANUARY 25.

>> NO QUESTION THESE RATE INCREASES ARE FOR DEBT ONLY

NOT REGULAR OPERATING COST. >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> I'M NOT VOTING FOR THIS AND THE BIGGEST REASON IS , REASONS ARE ONE, WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP IN MY MIND TO FAIL BECAUSE WE ARE PUSHING GROWTH. WITH A MESSAGE OF PUSHING MORE COST FOR COMMERCIAL TO SAVE THE RESIDENTIAL PEOPLE , BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY WHO PAYS THE COST? A COMMERCIAL PERSON PASSES THAT ON. THE DEPARTMENT WILL PASS ON HIGHER RENT, RESTAURANTS WILL PASS ON HIGHER COST. PEOPLE DEBATE WITH ME ALL THE TIME THAT'S NOT HOW IT WORKS IN THE REAL WORLD BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN IN THE WORLD BECAUSE BUSINESSES PASS THE COST ON. AND THIS WHOLE THING IS PREDICATED ON MASSIVE GROWTH IN THE CITY LIKE WE HAVE NEVER GROWN BEFORE. AS SOON AS WE ARE WRONG, WE ALREADY HAVE MORE RATE INCREASES BUILT INTO THIS. WE WILL HAVE MORE COME FROM OPERATIONAL COSTS, WE WILL HAVE A RATE STUDY, WE NEED TO BE MORE HONEST WITH PEOPLE AND HAVE IT MORE, EACH YEAR YOU PAY SUCH AND SUCH AMOUNT. YOU CAN ALWAYS PEEL IT BACK, BUT I THINK IT IS EXTREMELY MISLEADING TO MAKE IT OUT LIKE IT'S A SMALL INCREASE AND AS LONG AS ALL THIS GROWTH HAPPENS AND WE DEVELOP ALL THE PROPERTY YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY. SO I HAVE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE OUT FRONT AND TRY TO GET

[02:15:04]

PEOPLE PREPARED AND NOT TRY TO GO THE OTHER WAY.

>> WHAT WOULD YOUR ALTERNATIVE BE MAYOR?

>> WHAT I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING. WITHOUT RELYING ON MASSIVE GROWTH AT 15% PER YEAR WHICH WE NEVER GREW BEFORE TO SAY THIS MUCH THIS YEAR, NEXT YEAR , THE YEAR AFTER. SOME SORT OF FEE TO WHERE WE CAN GENERALLY COME UP WITH WHAT WE CAN ANTICIPATE OPERATIONAL COSTS AND INCREASES TO BECAUSE

AS SOON AS -- >> YOU WOULD STILL BE

ANTICIPATING. >> YEAH, WE KNOW. WE KNOW LABOR GOES UP 3% TO 4% EACH YEAR. THERE ARE THINGS WE KNOW HISTORICALLY , THE COST OF DOING THINGS GOES UP, BUT WE ARE GOING TO PUSH THIS THROUGH, PAT OURSELVES ON THE BACK AND IN TWO YEARS DO A RATE STUDY AND SAY HOLY COW AND THEN WE HAVE ANOTHER PROBLEM. WE DID THIS BEFORE WE GOT INTO A PROBLEM. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY, I DO NOT VOTE FOR THIS MASSIVE INCREASE IN THE WASTEWATER CAPACITY ANYWAY. I THOUGHT WE SHOULD'VE DONE 4 MILLION AND I THINK WE'RE WAY OVER BUILDING THIS, TOO LATE NOW, AND I WENT TO FINANCE AND WE ARE RAISING RATES BECAUSE OF BUILDING A HUMONGOUS

INCREASE, TRIPLING CAPACITY. >> SO THE ONE THING TO GIVE A COUNTERPOINT. IT MAKES NO ECONOMIC SENSE WHEN YOU ARE DESIGNING AND BUILDING A CITY FOR THE LOWEST COST OVERALL WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 30 YEAR HORIZON WHICH IS WHAT WE NEED TO DO, TO DO A 4 MILLION GALLON FREE RATE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO REDESIGN IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS IT'S BUILT START DESIGNING TO GO TO SIX. AT ALMOST DOUBLE THE COST AGAIN. HOW WOULD THAT BE BETTER TO THE TAXPAYER? THAT IS SHORTSIGHTED. THAT STATEMENT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THIS IS DATABASED DRIVEN , THE BEST WE HAVE TODAY THAT SPREADS THE BURDEN APPROPRIATELY BETWEEN WASTEWATER BEING 90% OF THE FEE INCREASES AND WE ARE SPREADING OUT BASED ON THE USERS AND BEING RESPECTFUL OF THE HOMEOWNERS AND YES SOME COST COULD GET PASSED ON TO THE HIGHER STUFF, BUT THAT'S A VARIABLE COST WILL BE DIVIDED OUT AS INCREMENTAL COST ACROSS ALL CUSTOMER PRODUCTS. SO YOU KNOW IT IS WHAT IT IS. TO BE VERY SIMPLISTIC MODEL TO SAY WILL INCREASE THE DOLLARS EVERY YEAR FOR FIVE YEARS AND NOT DO DATABASE ANALYSIS, IS A SIMPLISTIC MODEL THAT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. SO I APPRECIATE USING DATABASE , WE WILL DO A REWRITE STUDY NEXT YEAR TO VERIFY AND MAKE SURE WE ARE THE PATH BUT RIGHT NOW BASED ON THE DATA WE HAVE AND THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS WE HAVE AND WE JUST HEARD WE WILL TELL THEM TO OPPOSE THE PACKAGE PLANT, GUESS WHAT YOU CAN ONLY MAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF YOU'RE BUILDING A 6 MILLION GALLON, YOU COULDN'T TAKE THAT ARGUMENT TO THEM IF YOU DID FOUR. YOU CANNOT HAVE YOUR BREAD AND CAKE AND EAT IT TOO. YOU WANT TO POST NONE OF THE PACKAGE PLANS BUT THEN COMPLAINING YOU SAY WE BUILT SIX INSTEAD OF FOUR. DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. YOU HAVE TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE AND LOOK AT WHAT CAN SAVE THE TAXPAYER AND RESIDENTS OF HUTTO LONG-TERM. THEY WILL LIVE VERY LONG TIME WITH THE BEST COST TO THEM, THE BEST IS NOT GOING FORWARD AND TURNING FROM 4 TO 6. THERE IS A REASON THEY HAVE THE LEVELS THEY HAVE, THIS IS A STATE REQUIREMENT WE HAVE TO BUILD AND WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT AND THIS IS A WAY

TO DO THAT SO THANK YOU. >> I THINK ON THE WATER SIDE WE CLEARLY NEED THE CAPACITY. EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING THERE IS PRETTY CLEAR NEED FOR THE COMMUNITY SO WE CAN GET OUT OF THE SITUATION. ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE WE ARE LOOKING AT FOUR DEVELOPMENTS NOT IN OUR PLAN THAT WANT TO BUILD PACKAGE PLANTS AND WE WANT TO TELL THEM YOU SHOULD BE CONNECTING TO US. YOU KNOW THAT IS AN INCREASE ON ITS OWN.

WITH THE WAY DEVELOPMENT IS GOING WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OPPORTUNITY TO STOP AND THE ALTERNATIVE TO STOPPING IS BRINGING IT IN WHICH INVOLVES GIVING THEM SERVICES. I THINK WE WILL GET THERE ON CAPACITY AND I DO HAVE CONCERN THAT TELLING CITIZENS WE WILL RAISE NO NOT AGAIN FOR FOUR YEARS, I DON'T KNOW THAT WILL HOLD TRUE. I THINK WE VERY MAY WELL HAVE TO RAISE IT IN BETWEEN BECAUSE THOSE ARE ROSY GROWTH PROJECTIONS THAT THERE IS A GOOD CHANCE WE FALL SHORT. ALL WE HAVE IS WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AND WHAT WE KNOW TODAY 2A WORKS AND MAKES THE NUMBERS WORK. IT DOES THE BEST WE CAN WITH THE

[02:20:07]

IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS AND CHARGING THEM MORE FOR SOMETHING NOW AND NOT NEEDING A LATER ISN'T THE WAY TO GO EITHER SO I THINK WE HAVE TO GO AHEAD WITH THIS. BUT THIS HAS TO BE LOOKED AT CLOSELY. IT IS CONCERNING TO ME. THE RISK OF SLOW GROWTH IS CONCERNING TO ME.

>> I AM IN TOTAL AGREEMENT WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER THORTON JUST SAID. MY PERSONAL APPROACH IS I WOULD RATHER CHARGE CITIZENS NOW WHAT WE KNOW WITH THE BASE DATA WE HAVE AND WHAT WE NEED TO CHARGE THEM AND NOT OVERCHARGE BECAUSE WE DON'T BELIEVE IN THE DATA, RATHER CHARGE THEM A REALISTIC NUMBER NOW AND THEN AT THE DATA DOES NOT PAN OUT IN A COUPLE YEARS WE HAVE A CONVERSATION. I THINK IF WE ARE TELLING THE MESSAGE YOU ARE SENDING NOW THIS IS ALL YOU HAVE TO PAY AND WE ARE NOT RAISING AGAIN THAT'S NOT TRUE AND NONE OF US SHOULD BE SAYING THAT. WE ARE SAYING WE ARE DOING THE BEST WE CAN WITH THE INFORMATION WE HAVE AT THE TIME AND WE HAVE TO RAISE AGAIN LATER ON THEN WE HAVE THAT CONVERSATION BUT I WOULD RATHER KEEP MINIMAL AND HAVE THE MINIMAL IMPACT NOW AND THEN HAVE THE CONVERSATION IN A COUPLE YEARS WHEN WE HAVE BETTER DATA THAN TO JUST SINK IT NOW AND SAY WE WILL CHARGE YOU A LOT MORE NOW BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE THAT GROWTH. AND IF WE DO AND WE DIDN'T NEED TO CHARGE MUCH NOW THAT IS NOT GOOD FOR THE CITIZENS. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT THAT'S WHY I LIKE 2A. I THINK THAT'S THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY, THE CITIZENS AND THE PLAN GOING FORWARD. I AM 100% IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONVERSATION WE HAD ABOUT THE 6 MILLION GALLON A DAY WASTEWATER TREATMENT IMPROVEMENT IF WE DO PIECEMEAL WE WILL BE CHARGING CITIZENS EVEN MORE BECAUSE THE COST WILL SKYROCKET IN THE FUTURE. YOU BUILD IT PIECEMEAL AND THE PAY TWICE AS MUCH THAN THEY COULD OTHERWISE.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK. A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH AND OVERSEE COMMUNICATION ON YOUR END.

WATER AND WASTEWATER ISSUES ARE NOT ONLY A HUTTO SPECIFIC CONCERN. IT IS A CONCERN FOR A LOT OF TEXAS COMMUNITIES. DOES NOT MATTER DFW, AUSTIN, YOU NAME IT. A LOT, NOT EVERY CITY, A LOT OF CITIES ARE HAVING THESE CHALLENGES COME TO THEM. IT IS A HARD DECISION. THIS IS SOMETHING HARD TO MOVE FORWARD WITH. BUT WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW IF IT COMES DOWN TO THE BASES, IF YOU'RE WANTING WATER AND YOU WANT THE WATER TO LEAVE YOUR HOME IN WHATEVER WAY IT DOES, GOING DOWN THE DRAIN AND THINGS, YOU NEED THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT. SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD STARTING POINT FOR US. OF COURSE WITH A REWRITE STUDIES WE WILL GET A MORE ACCURATE PICTURE AND AS WE DEVELOP AND HAVE THINGS, LIKE IT WILL GET EVEN MORE FINE-TUNED. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR HARD WORK. THIS IS NOT A UNIQUELY HUTTO CHALLENGE. A LOT OF CITIES ARE GOING THROUGH THIS. SO IT IS NOT JUST OUR COMMUNITY SO THANK YOU TO THE RESIDENTS AND USERS FOR HAVING SOME GRACE THROUGH ALL OF THIS BUT WILL HAVE WATER AND

WASTEWATER FOR YOU. >> I WILL ECHO THE SAME SENTIMENTS AS OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS AND SAY THANK YOU AND YOUR TEAM FOR FINDING THE SOLUTION. IT IS NEVER EASY , BUT IT IS NECESSARY FOR WHERE WE WANT HUTTO TO BE IN THE FUTURE. I APPRECIATE YOU KNOW THE AMOUNT OF DETAIL AS WELL AS EXPLANATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO HELP US MAKE THIS DECISION. SO AGAIN ECHOING THE SAME SENTIMENTS AS THE COUNCIL MEMBERS AND THANK YOU AGAIN.

WHAT WE NEED TO DO MORE AS A COUNCIL INSTEAD OF ALWAYS DEBATING WHAT I SAY , INSTEAD OF DEBATING ME, SPEND YOUR TIME DEBATING THE DATA AND YOU GUYS KEEP MENTIONING DATA. WHAT DATA DO WE HAVE ON THIS SPREADSHEET THAT'S A FACT? 2020 NUMBERS, 2021, 2022 AND 2023. THE REST OF THIS DATA IS ALL PROJECTIONS. WE THINK WILL GROW 12% IN 26 AND 27. WE THINK WE WILL GO 15% IN 27 AND 28 SO TO BE SO CRITICAL THAT THE MAYOR IS CRAZY AND I'M ALL ABOUT DATA, THERE IS NO IN A COMPANY DOES A JOB WHERE THEY GO BORROW $300 MILLION AND THROW OUT SUPER LOFTY NUMBERS IN AN EFFORT TO TELL THE PUBLIC

[02:25:05]

WE GOT THIS UNDER CONTROL BECAUSE EVERY TIME WE SCREW UP AND THE GOVERNMENT SCREWS UP WHAT HAPPENS? THE PEOPLE PAY.

ALL I'M ASKING IS WE STOPPED GOING OUT SUPER LOFTY NUMBERS WERE IN 2029 WE WILL GO 15% WATER AND 15% WASTEWATER.

THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN THEN WE ARE SCREWED. SO YOU CAN DEBATE ME ALL YOU WANT, BUT YOU KEEP SAYING YOU WANT DATA YOU ARE ALL ABOUT THE DATA, BUT YOU'RE MAKING ALL OF YOUR ASSUMPTIONS OFF OF SWAG NUMBERS THAT PEOPLE ARE PULLING OUT OF THE AIR. WE DON'T HAVE AN ECONOMIST ON STAFF. NOT KNOCKING ALBERT AS SHE IS DOING WHAT SHE HAS TO DO TO KEEP THE NUMBERS WORK, I'M NOT KNOCKING THE CITY MANAGER BECAUSE WE MADE THE LOOK FOR 6 MILLION. IF YOUR ARGUMENT ABOUT IS MORE SENSITIVE BUILD SIX THEN FOR WHY TO REBUILD TWO LANE ROADS WHETHER WE BUILD FOUR LANE ROADS? WE KNOW WE WILL WIDEN THEM IN THE FUTURE. WHY DO PEOPLE GET MARRIED AND BUY A THREE-BEDROOM HOME WITH ANOTHER WEB KIDS , JUST BUILD A FIVE BEDROOM HOME. YOU DO WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD AND WHEN YOU GET TO 4 MILLION GALLONS AND YOU SAY REQUIREMENTS TO GO TO 6 MILLION THEY'RE NOT REQUIRING US TO GO TO 6 MILLION HERE JUST TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING UP. WE COULD'VE GONE TO 4 MILLION YES IN FOR FIVE YEARS IF THE PROJECTIONS ARE RIGHT WE WOULD NEED EXPANSION BUT YOU WOULD HAVE TWICE AS MANY RATE USERS TO SHOULDER THE DEBT BURDEN AND INSTEAD YOU HAVE ONE GROUP A SMALL GROUP SHOULDERING THE BURDEN FOR THE NEXT 2/3. EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT DIVERSIFICATION OF TAX BASE MAKING EVERYTHING CHEAPER WE NEED ONE MORE BUSINESS ONE MORE THIS BRING THE APARTMENT COMPLEX IN, ALL WE DO IS MAKE DECISIONS THAT RAISE THE COST OF LIVING AND THEN WE LIE TO PEOPLE AND JUSTIFY WHY WE'RE DOING IT. STOP DEBATING ME, LET ME BE WRONG BECAUSE IF I'M WRONG I WOULD REJOICE IF I WAS WRONG, IF IN THREE YEARS WE LOOK BACK AND SAY WE GREW FASTER, THE MAYOR WAS WRONG, AND GOT BECAUSE IF I AM RIGHT AND 15% GROWTH WE HAVE NEVER GONE BEFORE IN THE HISTORY OF HUTTO IS INCORRECT, FOR TWO YEARS IN A ROW, I MEAN YOUR CHECKING BILLS UP ALL BECAUSE TODAY WE SHOULD OF BEEN CHARGING MORE , BUT INSTEAD WE WANTED TO SOFTEN THE BLOW AND WE DO NOT WANT THE PUBLIC MAD SO WE PLAYED A SHELL GAME SO THAT'S FINE. KEEP DEBATING ME, BUT SO FAR TEXAS KEEP GOING UP, RATES KEEP GOING UP, COST OF LIVING KEEPS GOING UP AND WE TELL EVERYBODY IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE'S FAULT EXCEPT TO THE PEOPLE APPEAR VOTING. WHERE THE ONES MAKING IT HAPPEN. SO WE JUST NEED TO BE HONEST WITH PEOPLE. HOPEFULLY I'M WRONG.

SO, >> FIRST I TAKE EXCEPTION TO YOU SAYING I LIKE TO PEOPLE I NEVER LIED. WHAT I SAID WAS THAT IF WE HAVE TO GO TO FOUR WE WOULD IMMEDIATELY AS SOON AS BUILD GO TO SIX AND INSTEAD OF BEING 180 MILLION OVER 30 YEARS OBLIGATION WE WOULD BE DOING PROBABLY 120 MILLION PROBABLY 120,000,004 AND TURN AROUND AND DO ANOTHER 150 MILLION TO GET TO SIX OR EIGHT AND WE WOULD'VE PUT WITHIN THE THREE-YEAR DIFFERENCE OF THE GROWTH NUMBERS STILL BE PUTTING 300 MILLION OR MORE DEBT OBLIGATIONS INSTEAD OF 180 OVER THE NEXT 30 YEARS WE WOULD DO 100 MILLION NOW AND THEN 200 MILLION IN FOUR YEARS. THAT IS WAY HIGHER DEBT OBLIGATION TO THE SAME NUMBER OF RATE PAYERS WITHIN TWO YEARS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT FROM A FINANCIAL POINT OF VIEW THEN MAKES NO SENSE. NOT ATTACKING YOU, WHEN YOU MAKE THE STATEMENT AND TRY TO GET PEOPLE TO VOTE WE ALREADY COME OUT AND SAY I WILL POST THIS AND THESE ARE THE REASONS WHY I WANT TO POST IT AND WE ARE TRYING TO GET EVERYONE TO CONSENSUS TO VOTE TO PASS MY MOTION OR NOT I AM THEN GOING TO GIVE REASONS WHY I AM NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF VOTING NO AND WHY THINK YOUR ASSUMPTIONS ARE WRONG, NOT THAT I'M ATTACKING YOU. THE THING OF IDEAS, YOU BELIEVE THIS IS WRONG AND WE SHOULD NOT VOTE THIS, I AM THEN GOING TO GIVE REASONS WHY I DON'T AGREE WITH YOUR ASSUMPTIONS, WHY I AM TRYING TO CONVINCE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE WITH ME TO PASS MY RESOLUTION. THAT IS NOT LYING OR ATTACKING. THAT'S WHY WE ALSO SAID WE WILL DO A RATE STUDY NEXT YEAR. THE GROCERY THIS YEAR IS ABOUT 6 1/2 AND THEN ATE AND THEN NINE.

TALK ABOUT 12 AND 15, THAT'S NOT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THE NUMBER IS HITTING IN 27. OBVIOUSLY BETWEEN NOW AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO KNOW IF THE RED PROJECTIONS ARE CORRECT AS WE GO IN BECAUSE WE'RE DOING RATE STUDIES WE WILL THEN CHANGE THE RATES IF WE NEED TO BASED ON REAL DATA AS IT HAPPENS. WHICH WE ALREADY ARE BUILDING THE 6 MILLION GALLON PLANT. THAT IS HAPPENING. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT THIS YEAR.

[02:30:02]

KNOWING HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE THERE ARE TODAY IN A PROJECTION OF OR SOMETHING WESA THE RATE TODAY. JUST BECAUSE I OPINION IS SOMETIMES I THINK WHILE I'M NOT GOING TO PUT THAT ON OTHER PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS. YOU KNOW THIS NUMBER WORKS THIS IS WHY I THINK WE SHOULD DO IT. YOU KNOW WE ALREADY DEBATED FOUR AND SIX. IT IS A RED HERRING TO BRING IT BACK UP BECAUSE THAT IS WATER UNDER THE BRIDGE YOU CANNOT GO BACK AND CHANGE TO FOUR TODAY AND WE HAVE ISSUED THE DATE -- DEBT OBLIGATION. AT THIS POINT WE ARE BUILDING A 6 MILLION GALLON PLANT, WE DON'T NEED TO TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU SHOULD'VE DONE WITH THE DESIGN EARLIER EVEN BEFORE I GOT ELECTED THAT IS GONE. SO YOU THEN DO IS SAY WE ARE AT SIX TODAY, WHAT DOES IT NEED TO BE WE KNOW IT IS 180 MILLION.

ANYTHING ELSE IS NOT REAL DATA I'M NOT MAKING STUFF UP THAT'S WHAT IT IS. WE CAN BASE SOME PROJECTIONS FROM CURRENT WHERE WE HAD ASHLEY TWO WEEKS AGO GIVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT OUR LUE THAT WILL BE CONSUMED OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. THAT IS WHERE THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS COME FROM. NOT JUST PIE-IN-THE-SKY, WE HEARD TONIGHT 2000 HOMES COMING AND BUILT. THEY ARE CONSUMING THOSE LUE SO IT'S NOT A CRAZY THING. HE ALSO SAY WHAT OTHER BUSINESS COMES IN YOUR THERE IS A MASSIVE $20 BILLION FACILITY CALLED SAMSUNG COMING. PEOPLE ARE GOING TO MOVE HERE TO WORK THERE. THAT IS GOING TO DRIVE GROWTH SO IT'S NOT CRAZY NUMBERS THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, THE PLANT WILL OPEN, PEOPLE WILL BE EMPLOYED THERE AND THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE TO THIS AREA. THAT'S WHY THE DEVELOPERS ARE BUYING UP LIBERTIES TO START PUTTING IN HOMES. SO IT'S NOT AN ATTACK TO YOU, YOU MADE SUPPOSITION THAT YOU ARE GOING TO VOTE NO SO MAYBE I'M TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU BUT AT LEAST I WANT TO MAKE SURE OTHER PEOPLE DO NOT VOTE WITH YOU BECAUSE I THINK YOU ARE WRONG BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN I THINK YOU ARE A LIAR, I JUST DISAGREE WITH YOUR CONCLUSION BASED ON THE DATA WE HAVE BEEN PRESENTED AND I'M GIVING MY VERSION OF THE WAY I READ THE DATA BASED ON MY OPINION. AS WELL.

ROLL CALL VOTE ] >> MOTION PASSES 6-1. THANK

[11.3. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-022 regaring the annual compliance review and reporting of all City incentive agreements and status, including chapter 380 (sale tax), chapter 312 (property tax), and chapter 311 (Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone) agreements (Cheney Gamboa)]

YOU MEM. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.3 CONSIDERATION ACTION 2024-022 REGARDING THE ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW AND REPORTING OF ALL CITY INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS AND STATUS INCLUDING CHAPTER 380 SALES TAX, CHAPTER 312 PROPERTY TAX AND CHAPTER 3/11 TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE

AGREEMENTS. >> IT EVENING. DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT I BELIEVE THIS WAS IN RESPONSE TO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED ITEM THIS ORDINANCE CREATES THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE AN ANNUAL REPORT ON THIS, THESE VARIETIES OF AGREEMENTS AND ESTABLISHES THE MONTH IN WHICH THAT WOULD OCCUR FOR YOU ALL. I DID HAVE ONE CHANGE, I SEE THE LANGUAGE IT SAYS ALL CITY INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS. ARE WE ABLE TO MODIFY TO SAY ALL CURRENT OR ACTIVE? I CAN SEE IN THE FUTURE WHERE IF IT IS ALL IT WOULD BE HISTORICAL SO THEN IT IS NOT AS RELEVANT. IN THE LANGUAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM REPORTING ALL CITY INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS. 11.3 IN THE AGENDA LANGUAGE. IT IS JUST ON THE AGENDA. THE LANGUAGE.

>> WHAT PART OF THE ORDINANCE?

>> THE ENACTMENT CLAUSE PUT IN SECTION 20.06 AND IT'S GOING TO BE ADDED INCENTIVE AGREEMENT COMPLIANCE ON OR BEFORE APRIL 30 OF EACH YEAR CITY COUNCIL WILL REVIEW COMPLIANCE WITH INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS INCLUDED BUT NOT LIMITED TO CHAPTER 380, CHAPTER 312 TAX ABATEMENT AND ANY OTHER INCENTIVE AGREEMENT AUTHORIZED BY LAW THAT THE

CITY HAS EXECUTED. >> THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT

MATTERS NOT THE MOTION. >> THEY CAN CHANGE IF THEY WANT

TO. >> CAN WE ADD IN THERE AS

WELL? >> ARE THEY DOING STANDALONE

INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

>> WRITES. -- RIGHT. >> CITY AGREEMENTS HERE'S

[02:35:07]

WHERE I'M GOING. WE APPROVED A ROAD WE COULDN'T EVEN SEE THE CONTRACT TO BE APPROVED SO I HAD TO GET TO A SPOT WE HAVE THE AGREEMENT YOU PRESENT TO US WITH WHAT I'VE HEARD .

>> I DON'T SEE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

>> THAT'S FINE, ASKING FOR HAS EXECUTED. SO THAT SEEMS TO IMPLY WOULD HAVE TO BE REPORTING ON HISTORICAL ONES THAT ARE CLOSED AND SHE JUST WANTS IT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ACTIVE AND DURING THE TERMS OF THE

AGREEMENT. >> INSTEAD OF SAYING ANY OTHERS JUST SAY ANY CURRENT INSTEAD OF AGREEMENT AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE CITY OR HEDC HAS EXECUTED.

>> ONE QUESTION, IS THIS YOUR INTENT YOU WILL DELIVER THIS REPORT FOR THIS APRIL 30 OR DO WE ALLOW A GRACE PERIOD FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND ACTING IN APRIL?

>> I HAVE COMMUNICATED WITH FINANCE AND WE FEEL CONFIDENT WE WILL BRING THE REPORT ON THE 18TH.

>> I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION WITH THE , WITH THE CAVEAT TO ADD THE CHANGES, AFTER REPORTING ALL CHANGING THAT YOUR CURRENT AND ACTIVE AND THEN ALSO ADDING THE HEDC.

>> SECOND. >> I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS BACK SO QUICKLY AND HOPEFULLY THIS HELPS US IN THE FUTURE TO KEEP BETTER TRACK OF THESE.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. I AGREE IF WE GET SOMETHING LIKE A BUSINESS MOVING OUT WE CAN DEFAULT. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> ORDINANCE YOU CAN WAVE THE SECOND READING WE DO NOT PUT IT ON THE AGENDA BUT YOU CAN IF YOU WANT TO.

>> MOTION TO WAIVE SECOND READING.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND , WAITING THE SECOND READING. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS MOTION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[11.4. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-023 amending the Hutto Code of Ordinances Chapter 8, Business Regulations by adding Section 8:08, Game Rooms and Amusement Redemption Machines (Legal)]

ITEM 11 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2024-2 TO 3 NEXT ITEM 11 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2024-2 TO 3 AMENDING COURT OF ORDINANCE CHAPTER A BUSINESS REGULATION BY ADDING SECTION 8.08 GAME ROOMS AND AMUSEMENT REDEMPTION MACHINES.

THE GAME ROOM ORDINANCE THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING. THIS ALLOWS THE COUNCIL TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE AND ADD IT TO YOUR BUSINESS CHAPTER 8 IN YOUR HUTTO CITY CODE SPECIFICALLY ARTICLE 808. INCLUDES THE SAME DEFINITION OF WHAT A GAME ROOM IS . NOT A GAME ROOM, THE AMUSEMENT REDEMPTION MACHINES. THE APPLICANT THAT IS GOING TO APPLY FOR A GAME ROOM LICENSE TALKS ABOUT ARCADE GAME ROOMS . THAT THE DEFINITION . WHO ENFORCES , THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND BUILDING OFFICIALS. IT TALKS ABOUT OTHER CITY OFFICIALS THAT HAVE DUTIES UNDER THE ORDINANCE AND THEN IT REQUIRES A LICENSE AND THEY HAVE TO PAY THE STATE OCCUPATION TAX ACCORDING TO THE OCCUPATION CODE FOR EACH AMUSEMENT REDEMPTION MACHINE AND THEN TYPICALLY THAT IS REFERRED TO THE CITY TAG FEE. THE ANNUAL INSPECTION IS TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE THE ADDED MACHINES NOT TAGGED. AND THEN THERE'S A LICENSE FEE OF $2400. AND THEN STATE LAW UNDER THE OCCUPATION CODE ALLOWS THE CITY TO CHARGE $15 PER MACHINE AS THE ANNUAL OCCUPATION TAX WE'LL FIX THE

[02:40:07]

TAG SO YOU KNOW HOW MANY THEY HAVE. AND THEN THE LICENSE EXPIRES ON DECEMBER 31 EACH YEAR. THEY HAVE TO RENEW IT.

THERE IS RESTRICTIONS, THE SAME RESTRICTIONS THAT WERE IN THE ORDINANCE LAST TIME EXCEPT WE ADDED ONE WITH FURTHER RESEARCH TO INDICATE THESE EIGHT LINERS CAN'T BE WITHIN 300 FEET OF ANY CHURCH, SCHOOL OR HOSPITAL. SO WE ADDED THAT BECAUSE STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO DO THAT. AND THAT IS THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE, THE SAME AS PRESENTED LAST TIME.

THE ORDINANCE WITH ALL THE DETAILS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. IN THE INITIAL ONE I THOUGHT IT WAS 1500 I THOUGHT IT WAS $1500 NOW WE'RE TALKING $1400 AND IN THE INITIAL THERE WASN'T A $15 WHERE IS IT? PER MACHINE . SO THAT SOMETHING NEW THAT HAS BEEN ADDED? FROM LAST TIME?

>> THE SAME ORDINANCE AND I BELIEVE WE PRESENTED LAST TIME.

HYPOTHETICALLY THIS PASSES TONIGHT, HOW SOON WOULD IT HAVE UNTIL THEY HAD TO BE LICENSED BEFORE WE CRACKDOWN , I DON'T WANT TO SHUT IT DOWN.

>> FIRST OF ALL THE REQUIRES TWO MEETINGS AND THEN YOU CAN

DELAY THE EFFECTIVE DATE. >> WITH THE SECOND READING?

>> IN THE SECOND YOU CAN SAY THIS ORDINANCE TAKES EFFECT ON WHATEVER DATE, YOU CAN PROVIDE NOTICE TO THE GAMING OPERATORS.

HIGHLIGHTED? >> THE REDLINE.

>> OKAY PERFECT. >> WE DO NOT GET THE REDLINE.

>> I WAS SCROLLING THROUGH AND I DON'T SEE THE REDLINE. IF WE CAN IN THE FUTURE AND THE CHANGES THAT ARE MADE CAN WE GET THOSE ADDED TO THE PACKET SO THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT JUST READING THEM OFF AND WE HAVE TO FOLLOW. CAN WE MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS? THANK YOU. FOR THE SECOND READING OR BY THE SECOND READING BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE IT COME BACK AGAIN.

>> DO WE WANT TO HAVE IT CLOSE AT 11:00 P.M. FRIDAY AND

SATURDAY? >> WHAT DID YOU SAY?

>> IN THIS WE HAVE CLOSING AT 11:00 P.M. SATURDAY, FRIDAY AND SUNDAY. I DID NOT THINK WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT TIME.

A SECOND READING. 102 OF THE PACKET. SO . I AM WONDERING WHY WE WOULDN'T DO SUNDAY TO THURSDAY AND THEN FRIDAY AND SATURDAY A DIFFERENT TIME. THAT WOULD BE ONE CHANGE I WOULD SEE THE QUESTION IS FRIDAY AND SATURDAY, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LETTING FOOD TRUCKS BE OPEN UNTIL MIDNIGHT I'M WONDERING WHY WOULD RESTRICT IF WE HAVE RESTAURANTS. BARS CAN BE OPEN UNTIL 2:00. WE WANT TO SPECIFY SINCE THIS IS THE SAME , NOT SPECIFICALLY THE SAME

CLIENTELE, BUT IT COULD BE. >> ENTERTAINMENT.

>> I'M WONDERING 2:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY APPROPRIATE AND THEN 10:00 P.M. THURSDAY THROUGH SUNDAY.

>> DON'T WE HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE. NOW WE'VE GOT 11:00 HERE, 2:00 THERE. MIDNIGHT HERE.

>> SOME ARE STAY LAW. >> WE TRACK THE OCCUPATION CODE , BUT I WILL DOUBLE CHECK.

>> THANK YOU. >> BRING IT BACK TO THE NEXT MEETING WITH , SOUNDS LIKE EVERYBODY IS OKAY WITH 2:00 A.M. FRIDAY AND SATURDAY AND I DON'T KNOW 10:00 THE REST OF THE DAYS. I WOULD SAY MIDNIGHT HE STILL HAVE 11:00 , A LOT OF BUSINESSES OPENED UNTIL 11:00 RIGHT NOW. MONDAY TO THURSDAY, SUNDAY THROUGH THURSDAY. I WOULD SAY WE NEED

[02:45:04]

TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES. ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THEM BEING

OPENED UNTIL MIDNIGHT? >> I JUST WANT TO GO WITH A RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF. I'M NOT TRYING TO SET THE HOURS.

>> RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS CLOSING AT 10:00. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN THE PACKET RECOMMENDATION.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THE REDLINE SO HOW IS THAT A RECOMMENDATION CAN SPOT WHAT YOU SEE IN FRONT OF US IS STAFF, HERE IT IS , IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES MAKE CHANGES AND BE DONE AND PASS

OR FAIL. >> NOT GOING TO ARGUE BUT WE DON'T HAVE A REDLINE SO THAT'S NOT , THERE CHANGES HERE WE ARE NOT SEEING. I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS STAFF

SAYING TO PASS THIS. >> STAFF OR LEGAL. WHICH WOULD

MAKE THE CHANGES? >> LET ME GET BACK I DON'T WANT TO SPEND THE TIME. WHEN UNDERSTANDING WAS WHEN IT WAS REVIEWING THIS DISTANCE THING WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD

BE DIFFERENT. >> LOOKING AT THAT, 2500 OR 2400 AND THEN 15 PER MACHINE.

>> THAT'S ONLY 300 BUCKS. >> 15 IS SET BY THE OCCUPATION CODE FOR THE TAGGING SO YOU CAN KEEP TRACK OF IT.

>> WE NEED TO KEEP THAT. >> THE GAME ROOM LICENSE FEE?

IS THAT STATE ISSUED? >> I BELIEVE THAT'S THE COST

OF THE ANNUAL INSPECTION. >> THE INSPECTION FEE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE LICENSE FEE? BECAUSE IT SAYS FIVE DOLLAR

FEE. FOR THE INSPECTION. >> THE OUTLINE SAYS 20 WE ARE GETTING READY TO SHUT DOWN. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY IS IN THAT

PLACE IF YOU HAD TO GUESS. >> IT SHOULD BE BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE PERCENTAGE, NOT THE NUMBER.

>> HOW MANY GAME ROOMS THAT WE HAVE HERE?

>> TWO THAT I KNOW. WE HAVE ONE DEDICATED GAME ROOM.

ANOTHER ONE WITH GAMING MACHINES. BUT I DON'T KNOW I WOULD PUT A LIMIT . ONE MACHINE PER FIVE OCCUPANTS I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY IS IN THERE AND MY INTENT , I DON'T THINK THIS IS STAFF RECOMMENDATION OR LEGAL RECOMMENDATION, IF ANYTHING IT IS THE MAYOR RECOMMENDATION OR A COUNCILPERSON BROUGHT IT UP. THERE IS NO REGULATION FOR THESE. THERE WAS A SHOOTING AT ONE LIKE 4:00 IN THE MORNING ON ONE AND MY ARGUMENTS WITH A LOT OF THIS, WHILE THESE HAVE A PURPOSE AND A TIME AND PLACE TO BE AT I DON'T KNOW THEY ALWAYS NEED TO BE NEXT TO SAY DAY CARES OR SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT. THE NEEDS TO BE SOME REGULATION BECAUSE IF YOU DON'T HAVE SOME REGULATIONS YOU CAN HAVE PROLIFERATION AND BY THEN IT'S TOO LATE. I DON'T WANT TO SHUT DOWN ANYBODY CURRENTLY DOING BUSINESS OR DETER PEOPLE FROM WANTING TO DO IT. I JUST DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP ONE DAY AND HAVE 15 OF THEM LINED UP BECAUSE THE ONE I ATTEND OCCASIONALLY IS FAIRLY BUSY. THAT WOULD LEAD ME TO BELIEVE SOMEONE IS GOING I COULD DO THIS TOO. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEEDS TO BE ALL OVER THE CITY.

>> A LOT OF CITIES THEY ARE IN CONVENIENT STORES. SO IT

PROLIFERATES THAT WAY. >> YEAH. EVERYBODY COMPLAINS ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF CONVENIENCE STORES NOW AND LIQUOR STORES.

THEY WANT TO START ADDING GAMING MACHINES. SO FOR ME I WOULD CHANGE THE HOURS WHEN YOU WOULD BRING IT BACK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE 2:00 ON THE WEEKEND , MAYBE MIDNIGHT THE REST THE TIME BECAUSE WE HAVE BARS AND STUFF CLOSING DOWN 11:00 OR MIDNIGHT ANYWAY SO THAT GOES IN LINE WITH REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS FOR LATE-NIGHT PEOPLE AND I DON'T KNOW I WOULD LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF MACHINES IN THERE. THAT CAN BE DONE BASED ON OCCUPANCY . ICING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAID 70 PEOPLE CAN BE IN THE BUILDING ONLY LONG 20 IN THE BUILDING THERE WOULD NOT HAVE 100 MACHINES.

>> I WOULD SAY I FIND THE HOURS RESTRICTIVE. I THINK THERE'S ROOM TO INCREASE THE HOURS. WHAT I WOULD ASK IS

[02:50:01]

WHEN THIS COMES BACK WHATEVER ASPECTS OF THIS WE ARE DOING BASED ON EXISTING STATE CODE OR SOMETHING IF WE CAN HAVE A SUMMARY CALLING OUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS WE KNOW WHY THEY ARE THERE. AND THAT'S NOT SOMETHING OFF TO US BUT IT IS IN THE STATE CODE BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO CHANGE IT. AND THEN IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT STAFF HAS WITH CERTAIN HOURS OR WHATEVER IT IS THEY COME BACK WITH A REASON FOR THAT. YOU KNOW BECAUSE LIKE YOU KNOW I DON'T KNOW, NOBODY SUGGESTING THEY STAY OPEN 24 HOURS, BUT I THINK HPD MAY SAY PULL BACK ON SOME OF THE LATE-NIGHT HOURS A LITTLE BIT IF WE DID THAT.

WHATEVER THOSE ARE, ANY CONCERNS LIKE THAT WILL BEGIN INFORMATION AS THE BACKGROUND.

>> WHEN DOES THE NIGHT SHIFT END AND TURNOVER BECAUSE THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER CONSIDERATION FOR CLOSING TIME.

>> CRIME DOES NOT STOP WHEN THE SHIFT TURNS OVER.

>> IF THE SHIFT GOES DOWN WE WANT TO CUT IT OFF FOR THE SHIFT GOES DOWN. WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM EXTRA TO WORRY ABOUT. BE COGNIZANT OF THEIR WORK DUTIES.

>> THE ONLY THING I WOULD ADD IS THE REDLINE OF NOT CHANGES AT THIS ONE BUT A REDLINE FROM THE FIRST ONE WE SAW. NO ACTIONS. ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON ITEM 12.2 CONSIDERATION AND

[12.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-067 approving a 50% exemption of City ad valorem tax for eligible child-care facility operators (Alberta Barrett)]

POSSIBLE ACTION RESOLUTION 2024-067 APPROVING A 50% EXEMPTION OF CITY TAX FOR ELIGIBLE CHILD CARE FACILITY

OPERATORS. >> THANK YOU. FINANCE DIRECTOR. AT THE MARCH 7 COUNCIL MEETING WE WERE ASKED TO LOOK AT DOING A 50% TAX EXEMPTION FOR ELIGIBLE CHILD CARE FACILITIES THAT WERE ZONED COMMERCIAL THE FIRM LOOKED CANNOT FIND ANYTHING WE DID ASK THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS THEY CANNOT APPLY IT TO A CERTAIN AREA IT HAS TO APPLY TO ALL PROPERTIES.

WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU IS TO APPLY 50% TO ALL THE CHILDCARE FACILITIES THAT ARE ELIGIBLE AND RIGHT NOW THERE IS THREE.

IF SOMEBODY DOES A DAYCARE IN THEIR HOME AND THEY MEET THE QUALIFICATIONS, SO THEY WOULD QUALIFY FOR WHATEVER EXEMPTION WE GIVE WITHOUT EXEMPTION APPLY TO THE ENTIRE HOME OR PROBABLY -- THE PORTION OF THE HOME THE USE FOR THE DAY CARE.

PORTION THEY USE FOR THE DAY CARE.

>> I APPRECIATE . EVERY TIME YOU ASK A QUESTION AND WE GOT THE ANSWER I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION OR A DIFFERENT WORD IT OR I WAS WORDING GET A DIFFERENT WAY AND I APPRECIATE THE PATIENCE WITH THAT AND THE INTENT IS WHEN WE PASS THIS YOU CANNOT JUST GO BACK AND CHANGE IT SO WE DID THE SAME THING WITH THE SENIOR TAX CEILING, THAT WAS A HUGE DEBATE AND EVERYTHING FROM ME WAS TO MAKE SURE WHEN YOU MAKE THE DECISION WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE FEAR OF IF THERE'S A 10,000 FT.÷ SHOPPING CENTER IN A 1000 FT.÷ DAYCARE COMES IN LIKE 1000 OF THE SHOPPING CENTER WILL BE EXEMPT AND 50% OF THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT. SO I APPRECIATE YOU CHECKING IN ON THAT. MAKES

THINGS EASIER FOR ME. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

ACTION FOR THIS? >> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2024-067 APPROVING 50% EXEMPTION CITY TAX FOR ELIGIBLE CHILD CARE FACILITY OPERATORS.

>> SECOND. MOTION AND SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NON-PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> WE WILL BRING BACK ORDINANCE NEXT TIME TO IMPLEMENT THIS AND THAT WILL REQUIRE TWO READINGS BECAUSE IT IS A TAX AND THAT WILL BE SENT TO THE COUNTY SO THEY WILL KNOW WE IMPLEMENTED

[12.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-068 to approve the $125,000 expense of the Hutto Economic Development Corporation for the Planning and Development of the Corporation-owned Cottonwood Properties (Cheney Gamboa)]

[02:55:02]

IT. >> NEXT LIVE ITEM 12 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION 2024-068 TO APPROVE THE $125,000 EXPENSE OF THE HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT OF THE CORPORATION OWNED COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES.

>> THANK YOU, GOOD EVENING. ONE QUICK THING BEFORE I PRESENT THE ITEM. IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM REPORT THE FISCAL NOTE THERE IS AN ERROR. IT ADDS UP TO $142,000 WITH WHAT IS ITEMIZED. WANTED TO MAKE A CORRECTION IN THE MARKETING SERVICES WHICH ENDS IN 4616 THAT AMOUNT SHOULD BE 15,000 NOT 32,000 AND THAT GETS THE FULL 125. SO THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED BY THE EDC AT THE MEETING ON MARCH 18 IT IS MOU SIX MONTH TERM WITH MIDWAY SELECTED AS THE MASTER DEVELOPER COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES THE COST IS $125,000. IT IS A COST SHARE SO THEY SPLIT IT A LITTLE BIT IN OUR FAVOR, THE TOTAL COST ESTIMATED TO BE 270,000 SO LITTLE LESS THAN HALF OF THAT. THE OTHER THINGS IT WILL BE ON REIMBURSED BASIS WE ARE NOT FRONTING THE MONEY IT WILL BE EXPENDED AS EXPENSES OCCURRED AND SUBMITTED FOR REIMBURSEMENT. WE DO CURRENTLY HAVE A $28,000 AMOUNT IN A LINE ITEM IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUDGET IN FUND 10 SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATED FOR THE MASTER PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT OF COTTONWOOD SO WE WOULD BE ASKING THOSE FUNDS ARE TRANSFERRED TO THE EDC FOR THE USE OF FULFILLING THE MONEY HERE WITH NO BUDGET INCREASE JUST REALLOCATED CURRENT FUNDS APPROVED IN THE CURRENT ONE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2024 -068 AS

PRESENTED. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> THE NUMBER 15 INSTEAD OF 32. ACCOUNT NUMBER 35 500-008-6416

TO BE 15,000 INSTEAD OF 32. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. APPROVING $125,000 TO BE SPENT TO WORK ON GETTING PROPERTY ON THE CONTRACT? SMART FEASIBILITY SO THEY WILL DO A VARIETY OF THINGS, THE GEO-TAG PHASE 1 MARKET ANALYSIS CONCEPT STUDIES PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, DRAINAGE ANALYSIS, SURVEYS, IT WILL BE EXPENSES RELATED TO MASTER PLAN ARCHITECT, MASTER PLAN LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, CIVIL INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEN SOME

ZONING EVALUATIONS. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS THE PURPOSE IS IF I'M READING THIS RIGHT. IT SAYS THE PURPOSE WAS THIS MOU IS TO FACILITATE DISCUSSIONS AND NEGOTIATIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT TO FORMALIZE PROCESS ENTERING INTO MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCE AGREEMENT PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PARTIES WE ARE GOING TO AGREE NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH IT SEEMS WEIRD TO ME WE WOULD ALLOCATE MONEY TO LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING. I WOULD THINK FIRST THEY WOULD HAVE IT UNDER CONTRACT AND THEN WE WOULD ALLOCATE MONEY BECAUSE THE CITY PUT THIS PRESS RELEASE OUT, WE PICKED A NEW PERSON. WE HAVE NOT PUT THEM ON CONTRACT YET SO THEY COULD LITERALLY GET TIRED OF US AND WALK AWAY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO SPEND $125,000 TO GET UNDER CONTRACT TO I WOULD ASSUME DO THOSE THINGS.

>> IT WILL BE DOING THESE THINGS DURING THE SIX-MONTH MOU PERIOD. WE WILL WORKED WITH THE CONTRACT BUT THIS IS TO KICKSTART THINGS WHILE WE SOLIDIFY THE CONTRACT AND THE

TERMS. >> HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN SINCE

WE MADE THE PRESS RELEASE? >> THE END OF THE YEAR IN

NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER. >> FOR FIVE MONTHS WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET THIS UNDER CONTRACT? AM I OFF? IS THIS WEIRD, FOR FIVE MONTHS WE HAVE NOT GOT THE LAND UNDER CONTRACT NOW WE WILL SPEND MONEY TO GET UNDER CONTRACT? WHAT TRIGGERS US TO PUT THIS UNDER CONTRACT?

[03:00:01]

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS WORK HAS TO BE DONE REGARDLESS BUT IT INFORMS THE DEVELOPER ON HOW TO BEST USE THE LAND SO IT WILL INFLUENCE THEIR MASTER PLAN CONCEPT AND THEN ALSO THE FUNDING STRUCTURES TO PROPOSE BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE TRADITIONAL MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT LIKE YOU MIGHT FIND OR JUST SELLING THE LAND, THERE UNDER CONTRACT THEY SELL THE LAND AND GO DO DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS MUCH MORE OF A PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATION SO THE BENEFIT OF DOING THIS NOW IS TO YOUR POINT, IN SIX MONTHS AT THE END OF THE MOU IF THEY FEEL IT'S NOT A FEASIBLE PROJECT WE GET TO KEEP ALL THE INFORMATION. ALL THE STUDY DONE, ALL THE INFORMATION WE WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN OVER TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER OR MASTER DEVELOPER THAT WAS THE

DIRECTION. >> LOOKING TO DO JB WITH THEM.

JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS INFORMATION IS ONLY GOOD FOR THE PARTIES THAT GOT IT. WE MAY HAVE INFORMATION. WE PAY $630,000 AND SAID WE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION AND THE NEXT GUY THAT CAME UP, THESE GUYS THEY DON'T WANT THE WOLVERINE INFORMATION BECAUSE EVERYBODY WANTS THEIR OWN INFORMATION WITH THEIR OWN CONSULTANTS. I DON'T KNOW IT'S TAKING SO LONG. EACH MONTH WE ARE NOT UNDER CONTRACT IT'S $100,000 ROUGHLY AND INTEREST CARRYING COST ON THE LAND. IT HAS BEEN LIKE 14 MONTHS MAYBE SINCE WE BOUGHT THE LAND. WE BOUGHT THE LAND WITH INTENT TO DO A QUICK TURNAROUND AND IN 14 MONTHS WE HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT WE PICKED SOMEONE TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY NOW WE WANT TO SPEND $125,000 TO START DOING THINGS THAT WORK ON PUTTING IT UNDER CONTRACT AT THE COST OF $100,000 A MONTH. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO GO FASTER? THEY BOTH SAMSUNG FASTER THAN WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS TO THIS POINT BECAUSE SAMPSON WAS NOT UNDER CONSTRUCTION 14 OR 15 MONTHS AGO. WHATEVER WE DO IF 125,000 GETS IT DONE LET'S DO IT AND WE HAVE TO MOVE FASTER AS A CITY. WE ARE MISSING OPPORTUNITIES WHILE WE ARGUE ABOUT WATER RATES AND ALL THAT. THIS IS WHY I AM FEARFUL OF OUR GROWTH. IF IN 14 MONTHS WE CAN PUT A PIECE OF PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT WITH A DEVELOPER HOW ARE WE EVER GOING TO GO 50% IN A YEAR? THAT'S NOT YOU, I'M NOT KNOCKING YOU. IT STARTS AT THE TOP. IT IS US AND THEN CITY MANAGER AND YOU'RE DOING WHAT YOU ARE TOLD. WE ARE NOT GIVING A DIRECTION.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD MAKE AS WE ONLY SELECTED MIDWAY TO THE EARLIER POINT FOR A FIVE MONTHS AGO SO GETTING THIS UNDER CONTRACT DID NOT TAKE 14 MONTHS, THERE WAS A CHANGE IN DIRECTION DURING THAT.

>> IT WAS TO FIGURE OUT WE WANTED TO PICK A DEVELOPER. SO BASICALLY WE SPENT $800,000 TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION WE NEEDED A DEVELOPER AND THEN SPENT HALF $1 MILLION TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION WE PROBABLY NEED TO PUT IT UNDER CONTRACT AND MEANWHILE $100,000 A MONTH WHATEVER THAT IS A DAY, $3000 A DAY WHICH IS CRAZY. I'VE NEVER SEEN SOMETHING TAKES A LONG IN MY LIFE. THANK YOU FOR NOT GIVING UP ON IT AND STICKING WITH US. ONE DAY.

HAVE A MOTION.

[12.5. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-070 authorizing the publication of notice of intention to issue City of Hutto, Texas Combination Tax and Revenue Certificates of Obligation; authorizing the preparation of offering documents by public financial management and other matters related thereto (Alberta Barrett)]

>> YOU. NEXT ITEM 12 FIVE CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RESOLUTION 2024-070 AUTHORIZING PUBLICATION OF NOTICE OF INTENTION TO ISSUE CITY OF HUTTO TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AUTHORIZING THE PREPARATION OF OFFERING DOCUMENTS BY PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO.

>> THANK YOU. FINANCE DIRECTOR. AGAIN, WE WILL USE THE SCHEDULE THAT WE JUST PASSED EARLIER THE WILCOTT VERSION. WHAT IS INCLUDED WAS THE REVISED AND RESTRUCTURED DEBT SERVICE THAT JIM HAD PROVIDED IT DOES INCLUDE IN THE 26 ISSUE WE RAISED IT BY 20 MILLION FOR THE IRON REMOVAL

[03:05:06]

WHICH BROUGHT TO A TOTAL OF 72 MILLION BUT FOR THIS ISSUE THE 24 ISSUING 277,764,800 WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS. AND 9 1/2 MILLION FOR DRAINAGE AND STREET PROJECTS. THE NOTICE OF INTENT WILL HAVE TO BE ADVERTISED IN TWO CONSECUTIVE WEEKS. IN THERE BASICALLY IT IS SAYING THAT WE ARE ISSUING THE DEBT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING IMPROVING, DESIGNING, ACQUIRING, EXPANDED, INCLUDING LAND EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY AND EQUIPPING CITY WATER AND WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND EXTENDING AND UPGRADING WATERLINES TO INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF THE CITY'S SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANNING SELECTION. INSTRUCTING AND EXTENDING STREETS AND TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES INCLUDING ACQUIRING LAND EASEMENT AND RIGHT-OF-WAY SIDEWALK DRAINAGE TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS PARKING AND LIGHTING. AND THROUGH THE PAYMENT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE CONNECTION WITH LEGAL AND PHYSICAL ENGINEERING AND COSTS RELATED TO ISSUING. THAT'S WHAT WILL BE PUBLISHED LETTING THE CITIZENS KNOW HOW MUCH WE ARE ISSUING AND WHAT THE PURPOSE WOULD BE FOR. THAN THE PRICING WILL COME BACK THE FIRST PART OF JUNE AND WILL GET APPROVAL THERE. AND THEN WE SHOULD RECEIVE THE FUNDING JULY

2. >> WE HAVE NOT ISSUED THE DEBT

YET? >> WE ARE ASKING TO PROVE

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE. >> WE HAVE NOT ISSUED YET OKAY.

BEFORE WE ISSUED. >> 100% DESIGN ABOUT TO GO TO

CONSTRUCTION. >> STARTING THE PROCESS. LAST MEETING COUNCIL APPROVED TO START THE PROCESS SO THIS IS

STEP ONE. >> JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHER

TIMES WE HAVE DONE IT. OKAY. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION AND SECOND. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MOTION PASSES 6-1. >> DO WE HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY SAY USING UP TO BECAUSE SHE MENTIONED WHEN TALKING WE DID NOT SAY IN THE MOTION JUST CARRIES TO HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY

SAY 2 A? >> JUST AUTHORIZING THE

PUBLICATION. >> YOU SHOULD NOT NEED TO I WAS

[14. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

JUST REFERENCING THAT'S THE PLAN WE WOULD USE. NOT NEEDED.

ITEMS 14 ITEMS 14.1, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN,

EIGHT, NINE, 10 AND 11. >> HAVE TWO I WOULD LIKE TO

PULL OUT. >> ANY ITEMS WE WOULD WISH TO

REMOVE? >> 14.6 AND 14.9.

>> ANY OTHER ITEMS? HEARING NONE , NO OTHER ITEMS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THOSE THAT ARE LEFT.

>> SIX AND NINE? MOTION TO APPROVE THE REMAINDER.

>> SECOND. >> SORRY MY VOICE IS GOING

OUT. >> IT'S NOT EVEN MIDNIGHT.

MOTION AND SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[14.6. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-076 to authorize the City Manager to execute a three-year with Granicus Inc. regarding the provision of citizen request tracking services for a not-to-exceed amount of $61,368.20 (David Amsler)]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 14.6 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2024-076 TO AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACT REGARDING THE PROVISION OF CITIZEN REQUEST TRACKING SERVICES NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $61,368.20.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE FISCAL NOTES WE HAVE A SHORTFALL OF LIKE $2200 AND I WANTED TO KNOW WHERE WE

[03:10:01]

WOULD COVER THAT AND WHAT'S THE PLAN BECAUSE WE DID A MID BUDGET AMENDMENT AND ON THE SAME DAY WE WILL BE DEFICIENT $2200 SO I WAS THINKING OR I WOULD'VE THOUGHT WE DID THE BUDGET MIDYEAR TO SAY WE HAVE TO ADJUST FUNDS BACK INTO LICENSE AND MAINTENANCE HOWEVER IT'S DIFFERENT.

>> CALLING 11.1? >> I'M JUST ASKING.

>> WE ARE COVERING IT. I DO RELY ON FINANCE FOR THE SPECIFIC LINE ITEM BUT IT IS PLANNED FOR. I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHEN THE BUDGET AMENDMENT WOULD COME TO COUNCIL BECAUSE

THAT'S MORE OF THEIR ARENA. >> I BELIEVE ALBERTA SAID WE ARE IN THE PLUS 110,000? SO THIS COULD COVER.

>> I WAS NOT DISPUTING THAT BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO VOTE TONIGHT I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WASN'T IN THE MID BUDGET APPROVAL TODAY SINCE IT IS THE SAME DAY.

>> 300 MILLION, 2200. >> IS THE PROCESS.

>> REALLY JUST A TIMING DIFFERENCE. I HAD DONE THE MIDYEAR WHEN THE ITEM CAME THROUGH. SO WE WILL PICK IT UP ON THE NEXT BUDGET AMENDMENT WHICH WILL BE IN SEPTEMBER WHEN WE DO OUR BUDGET AND END OF THE YEAR PROJECTIONS.

>> ALSO WELL WITHIN MY AUTHORITY TO TRANSFER. IF YOU HAD APPROVED BEFORE YOU APPROVED THE ITEM, THAT'S USUALLY SOMETHING WE DON'T TO. SO THAT'S WHY IT DID NOT WORK

OUT THE WAY YOU ENVISIONED. >> THAT'S FINE. EVERY ONE ELSE WE DO NOT HAVE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST ONE WE HAD THIS YEAR WITH SHORTFALL SO I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT BY PULLING IT OUT.

THEY HAVE THE FUNDS AND OTHER ITEMS.

>> IT IS A BUDGET TRANSFER WE'RE MOVING.

>> MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN IF I UNDERSTAND, WE PROVE STUFF REGULARLY THAT PUTS US IN NEGATIVE AND THEN YOU COME UP EACH MONTH WITH A LINE ITEM ABUTS NEGATIVE AND IN SIX MONTHS WE APPROVE ALL THE TRANSFERS SO WE KEEP APPROVING STUFF AND IF YOU GO BACK AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR IT.

MOVE IT ALL AROUND, SO TO ME THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN

DOING. OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE 14.6 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE

MOTION? >> I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE SOFTWARE TO GET RESIDENTS TO INPUT THEIR CONCERNS AND I GUESS AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO THE APPROPRIATE PERSON THAT CAN ADDRESS THAT FOR THE RESIDENT. OTHERWISE SOMETIMES WE GET EMAILS AND I FUNNEL IT TO HIM AND HE FUNNELS IT TO WHOMEVER TAKES CARE OF IT SO I AM EXCITED ABOUT THIS.

IMPROVING COMMUNICATION WITH THE RESIDENTS. THANK YOU.

>> YOU MAY HAVE NOTICED THESE SIDE SCREENS SWITCHED BECAUSE WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GRANICUS ON THE CALL SO SHE IS ABLE TO HEAR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT THE ADAM.

>> CAN WE CUSTOMIZE IT? IF A PERSON HAS A QUESTION ABOUT , I DON'T WANT TO CALL ANYBODY OUT. THEY HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS THEY DIAL 759 AND THE NUMBER AND LEAVE MESSAGES AND DON'T GET THEM RETURNED. THERE IS NO WAY TO TRACK THAT SO I'M ONLY SAYING NO ONE EVER RESPONDS TO PEOPLE. IS THERE A WAY TO GET IT WHERE PEOPLE HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT X DEPARTMENT THEY CAN GO ON AND SUBMIT AND THERE IS A LOG FOREVER WERE SOME CAN COME BACK AND AUDIT AND GO HOW COME YOU HAVE HAD 50 DIFFERENT PEOPLE REACH OUT AND NOT ONE TIME DID YOU REACH RESPOND BACK?

>> THERE IS EXTREME AUDIT CAPABILITY. I HAVE USED THIS.

ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE RECORD. I HAVE USED THIS SPECIFIC SOFTWARE AT ANOTHER CITY, THE CITY OF MESQUITE AND PART OF WHAT LEADERSHIP WOULD DO IS TRACK THIS TO THE POINT YOU CAN SEE HOW LONG THE SERVICE REQUEST TAKES TO COMPLETE, HOW LONG IT TAKES TO RESPOND. IT IS EXTREMELY DETAILED. I DO HAVE HEAR FROM GRANICUS WHO CAN SPEAK MORE TO THE INTRICACIES IF YOU ALL ARE INTERESTED TO

HEAR THAT TENANT. >> HELLO SAY IT'S NOT LIKE HEY HOW DOES SOMETHING WORK IS MORE ALONG THE LINES OF HEY

[03:15:01]

THERE IS A POTHOLE OR ISSUE AT THE PARK SO IT IS KINDA LIMITED

TO REPORTING THINGS. >> YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO DO X AND CALLING AND SAY HAVE 10 THEY CALLED THREE DIFFERENT NUMBERS AND WHO DO I GO TO AND I'M LIKE I DON'T KNOW YOUR CALLING EVERY NUMBER THAT I WOULD. IF THERE IS A WAY THE CITIZEN TRACKER CAN PUNCH IT IN.

>> IF IT WAS TODAY THE PHONE SYSTEMS ARE DOWN.

>> TWO WEEKS WE CAN HAVE ONE-ON-ONE AND SAY WE WILL WORK ON THAT BECAUSE SO-AND-SO. I TOLD THE PERSON I THINK THE ISSUE IS WE HAVE PHONE NUMBERS. THAT ARE BEING ROUTED AROUND AND WE DON'T KNOW WHO ALL IS ANSWERING. WE FIXED A LOT, WE HAD SOME ANSWERING MACHINE TO PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN AVOIDED FIVE OR SIX OR SEVEN YEARS. IF THIS WILL HELP THEN MY WAY IT IS ACCOUNTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY OF THE PUBLIC WERE ABLE TO SAY THIS IS 60,000 AND GOOD MONEY BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU ASK FOR A QUESTION THE POTHOLE NOT GETTING FILLED NOBODY CAN SAY I DID NOT KNOW, NOW WE KNOW.

>> AND THE CITIZEN CAN FOLLOW ALONG AS WELL. SO THIS IS A FAR CRY ABOVE AND BEYOND THE SYSTEM.

>> WHEN DOES IT GO LIVE OR IS THERE A TIME PERIOD WHERE YOU

LEARN IT? >> BECAUSE IT IS SO ROBUST AND YOU CAN GET EXTREMELY SPECIFIC IT IS 69 MONTH IMPLEMENTATION.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WILL COME ONLINE THIS YEAR.

AND THEN A LOT OF TRAINING IS INVOLVED AS WELL. AS WELL AS A MARKETING PUSH THAT WILL APPLY TO ALL RESIDENTS SO THEY CAN START USING. IT COMES WITH AN APP AND WEBSITE.

>> I'M READY TO SUBMIT MY REQUEST. THANK YOU.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[14.9. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-049 relating to the Wholesale Wastewater Service Agreement with the Lakeside Municipal Utility District No. 9 and the City of Hutto, Texas (Sara Cervantes)]

IMPORTANT .9 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RESOLUTION 2024-049 RELATING TO THE WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH THE LAKESIDE MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER NINE IN THE CITY OF HUTTO , TEXAS.

>> THE REASON I WANTED THIS PULLED HIS WE ADOPTED A NEW FEE WE ARE ABOUT TO PUT IN EFFECT JUNE 24 AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT SO I WANT TO BE SURE THIS GETS UPDATED IMMEDIATELY AND IF WE HAVE TO DELAY VOTING TO THE 18TH OR

JUST BY DIRECTING. >> IT DOES SAY WHEN SETTING THE RATE , IT REMAINS SUBJECT TO CHANGE THEIR CITY COUNCIL

ACTION SO I THINK . >> I GET THAT BUT WE ARE STARTING TO DO THE AGREEMENT. I WANT WHAT WE KNOW AS THE RATE TO BE IN IT TO START FROM NOW AND NOT HAVE TO GO BACK A MONTH AND SAY BY THE WAY WE ARE CHANGING ANOTHER 20 BUCKS FOR THE WASTEWATER AND I KNOW THERE IS A PORTION OF THIS THAT SOMETHING KEEPING TO DO INTERNAL INCREMENTS. I WANT THE AMOUNT OF 1950 AND 12 FOR THE RESIDENTIAL LINES INSIDE TO GET ADDED TO THE BASE RATE PLUS WHATEVER THEY WANT TO KEEP , BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE FULL COST IS PASSED ON TO THEM WITH THE NEW RATE STUDY. AS FAR AS STAFF GOES. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OTHER WHOLESALE WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS WE HAVE BUT I KNOW WE MADE A DECISION WE SET IT WOULD BE UPDATED BUT THAT'S NOT A WHOLESALE AGREEMENT, THAT'S JUST ADDING IT TO THE BUILDING STRUCTURE JANUARY 25. I WANT US TO PULL THE OTHER WHOLESALE SERVICE AGREEMENTS AND START THE PROCESS OF UPDATING AS SOON AS WE CAN JUNE JUNE 2024 TAB THOSE INCREASES. BECAUSE WE ARE MAKING , WE HAVE WHOLESALE AGREEMENTS THEY NEED TO PAY FOR THE NEW DEBT SERVICE.