10.2. Consideration and possible action regarding Ordinance No. O-2024-033 authorizing the issuance of City of Hutto, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 2024; authorizing the levy of an Ad Valorem Tax in support of the bonds; awarding the sale of the bonds; approving an official statement, a bond purchase agreement, a paying agent/registrar agreement, and other agreement related to the sale and issuance of bonds, and ordaining other matters relating to the issuance of the bonds (Alberta Barrett)

[10.2. Consideration and possible action regarding Ordinance No. O-2024-033 authorizing the issuance of City of Hutto, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 2024; authorizing the levy of an Ad Valorem Tax in support of the bonds; awarding the sale of the bonds; approving an official statement, a bond purchase agreement, a paying agent/registrar agreement, and other agreement related to the sale and issuance of bonds, and ordaining other matters relating to the issuance of the bonds (Alberta Barrett)]

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> NEXT, IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO MOVE ITEMS 10.2 AND 10.3 UP AHEAD OF THE AGENDA CONSIDERATIONS. WE'LL GO TO 10.2. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2024-033. TH-RGDZING THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND THE

[00:30:05]

TAX, APPROVING BOND PURCHASING AGREEMENT. REGISTER AGREEMENT AND OTHER RELATED TO THE SALES OF BONDS. AND ORDAINING -- IS THAT THE RIGHT WORD? ORDAINING OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE

ISSUANCE OF THE BOND. >> CORRECT. THANK YOU. ALBERTA GARRETT FOR THE RECORD. FIRST ITEM, IS THE BOND. IT'S IN THE MATTER, THE REMAINING 2005 DEBT. THOSE WERE APPROVED. JUST WEREN'T ISSUED. SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO BE USED NOW.

THEY WOULD BE USED FOR STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS. AND THE TOTAL OF THOSE PROJECTS IS $5,96700. SO 16 MILLION, FIVE WILL GO TO THAT 20 MILLION P STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS. I THINK A KEY THING IS THE INTEREST IN REALITY IN PROPERTY TAX RATES WILL REMAIN THE SAME. THOSE WILL NOT CHANGE. AND WE SHOULD RECEIVE DELIVERY ON THE MONEY ON JULY 2ND OF 2024.

>> WE ALSO HAVE OUR BOND COUNCIL AND JIM, OUR FINANCIAL ADVISER HERE, IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> SO, ALBERTA, I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THE BONDS THAT GO TO

MARKET TODAY? ? THEY DID. >> YES.

>> SO THEY DID GO TO MARKET TODAY. ACTUALLY, THEY CAME IN ABOUT 18 -- EXCUSE ME. 8 MILLION LESS THAN WHAT WE HAD PROJECTED OVER THE LIFE OF THE BONDS. SO WE HAD GOOD RATES.

FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION. WE RECEIVED A RATE OF 4.26, WHICH IS THIS ISSUE. AND THE NEXT ONE IS AT A RATE OF 4.33. SO OVER BOTH ISSUES, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION AND THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION ISSUANCES. WE HAD A GOOD SAVINGS. SO WE DID VERY

WELL IN THE MARKET TODAY. >> SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, BECAUSE THE 25/9 IS SPLIT BETWEEN THE G.O. AND THE C.O.

BOND. >> CORRECT.

>> IT WAS TWO DIFFERENT SALES? IS THAT WHY WE'RE GETTING THE TWO DIFFERENT INTEREST RATES ON THERE?

>> YES. >> OKAY .

>> ALBERTA, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE CURRENTLY, IN THE BANK,

FOR THE ROADS? >> I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AMOUNT. BUT WE HAVE THE PRIOR ISSUANCE. I COULD LOOK THAT UP.

BUT I DON'T HAVE IT WITH ME THIS EVENING.

>> BUT WHAT'S LIKE A BALLPARK? BECAUSE I WANT TO SAY AT ONE POINT, WE HAD LIKE 60 OR 80 MILLION THAT WE HAD SOLD BONDS, WAS SITTING THERE, EARNING INTEREST, AND THEY'RE EARMARKED

FOR DIFFERENT ROAD PROJECTS. >> I WOULD NOT SAY THAT THEY'RE THAT MUCH. AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT AMOUNT. I CAN GET IT FOR YOU. BUT ALL THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE ON EXISTING IS THE 22C.O., OR G.O.S. AND C.O.S. AND THOSE ARE ALREADY PROJECTS THAT HAVE STARTED. SO I DON'T SAY THAT WE HAVE THAT MUCH THERE. BUT I COULD GET YOU THE EXACT.

>> IS SOME OF THAT MONEY THAT THE MAYOR MAY BE TRYING TO PINPOINT FOR THE MAIN PROJECTS WITH LIKE 79, 1660 SOUTH. AND 79, 1660 NORTH. LIKE SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGING AREAS THAT

ARE WAITING TO GET STARTED? >> WELL -- WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, I DON'T REMEMBER -- I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MUCH IS LEFT OF THE ORIGINAL $75 MILLION FOR ROADS IN STREETS AND DRAINAGE. BUT TO DATE, I HAVE NOT SEEN A PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY OF THOSE FUNDS. I'VE SEEN BEHIND-THE-SCENES.

WELL, WE MISS MISSPENT SOME OVER HERE. WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT THIS OVER HERE. BUT NOTHING TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC AND SAY, OUT OF THE $75 MILLION THAT WAS DONE, HERE'S WHERE IT WENT. AND I BELIEVE A YEAR AGO, WE HAD LIKE $600,000 BUDGETED FOR INTEREST. AND WE REVISED OUR BUDGET TO $6 MILLION, DUE TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY, WE HAD SITTING IN THE BANK. SO MY FEAR IS, I WAS HOPING COUNCILMEMBER CLARK WOULD BE HERE. THERE IS ALWAYS THE DEBATE. BORROW WHEN IT'S GOOD. AND I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN FOR BORROWING WHEN WE NEED IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE BORROWING MONEY BECAUSE WAO*EUFR GOING TO SEND SPEND IT NEXT YEAR? OR BORROW BECAUSE WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO IT. AND I STILL HAVE YET TO SEE ALL OF THAT ACCOUNTABILITY. YOU'RE LIKE THE THIRD CFO THAT I JUST

[00:35:02]

SAID, I NEEDED ACCOUNTABILITY IN PUBLIC TO BE UP FRONT, SO WE CAN STOP HAVING DEBATE ON WHAT HAPPENED TO THE MONEY. THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS. HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE EARMARKING? DO WE HAVE LIVE REPAVING? IF WE DO, WHERE IS THIS MONEY ACTUALLY GOING TO? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST SELL BONDS AND THROW THEM IN A POT THAT IS SITTING THERE. AND I WOULD HOPE, WHEN WE'RE BEING ASKED TO SELL BONDS, WE WOULD KNOW.

BECAUSE I'M ALWAYS CRITICAL OF THIS. HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE IN THE BANK? IF WE SELL IT NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING IS, THE BOND MONEY, THE FIRST PAYMENT WILL BE DUE. THERE'S TWO A YEAR.

COULD WHEEZE WAIT SIX MONTHS AND NOT HAVE TOIC MAA PAYMENT? THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS ONE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE NEXT ONE, I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S REALLY WHAT IS. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY OF US HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF WHERE ALL THE MONEY IS, WHAT'S PARKED AWAY FOR WHICH PROJECTS. I THINK WE THINK WE DO. AND WE GO OUT AND TELL THE PUBLIC CERTAIN THINGS.

BUT SEVEN OF US SHOULD BE ABLE TO AGREE, WITHOUT A DEBATE,

WHERE THE MONEY IS ALLOCATED. >> SO WITH THIS ISSUE. -- I CAN'T SPEAK TONIGHT ABOUT THE PRIOR ISSUES. BUT THIS ISSUE, THE 26 MILLION ON STREETS AND DRAINAGE. A MILLION, 65. THE COUNTY ROAD 137 FROM 1660 TO BROUSSARD CREEK, AT 15 MILLION.

AND COUNTY ROAD 199, RECONSTRUCTION AT $4 MILLION, 832.3. SO ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS WILL BE SPECIFICALLY SPENT FROM THESE GOS AND COS THAT WE ARE ISSUING TONIGHT.

>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS THEN. BECAUSE I SAW THAT LET. I'M LOOKING THE IT NOW. WHERE THIS PARTICULAR MONEY IS GOING TO BE SPENT ON THESE PARTICULAR PROJECTS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, IF WE WANTED TO JUST DO COUNTY ROAD 167, WHY CAN'T WE JUST USE THE MONEY IN THE BANK FOR THAT?

>> IT'S ALREADY EARMARKED FOR OTHER STREET AND DRAINAGE.

>> THAT'S THE WAY I'VE ALWAYS UNDERSTOOD IT. THE REASON WE'RE TAKING THE MONEY OUT IS BECAUSE THE PROJECTS NEED IT. WE CAN'T KICK THEM OUT, EVEN IF THERE'S MONEY IN THE BANK. THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MONEY SITTING IN THE BANK AND MONEY THAT IS EARMARKED THAT YOU CAN'T TOUCH. CORRECT. THEY'RE ALLOCATED FOR THESE PROJECTS. I GET THE ARGUMENT. IF WE GOT 50 MILLION PROJECTS NEXT YEAR, AND WE HAVE $60 MILLION IN THE BANK. THEN THERE'S TWO POLITICS I KNOW WE CAN'T ACCESS. LAST I HEARD, 157, 1660 IS STILL IN DESIGN. THAT PROJECT IS NOT GOING ANY TIME SOON. SO WE'RE BORROWING THE MONEY MAYBE SIX MONTHS EARLY. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU BROUGHT IT ALL AT ONCE. THEN YOU HAVE THE LIVE OAK RECONSTRUCTION. LAST TIME I HEARD. MAYBE THE 199 RECONSTRUCTION IS WE'LL FIND OUT THE C.I.R.P. UPDATE. MY PROBLEM IS, WE GET A DESIGN, DOES BORROW THE MONEY. AND IT'S SIX MONTHS, A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF FROM NOW. WE'RE BORROWING THE MONEY. BUT CHARGING THE TAXPAYER AN INCREASE. I KNOW YOU SAID THE RATE IS NOT CHANGING. BUT THE HOME GOES UP 10%. SO THEY'RE PAYING AN INCREASED TAX BILL. LET'S FACE IT. WE TUT IN A RIGHT-TURN LANE LAST YEAR, WITH BOND MONEY. MAYBE THIS YEAR WILL BE BETTER AND WE'LL BE READY. I UNDERSTAND THE MONEY IS EARMARKED TO CERTAIN THINGS. WHY NOT MOVE THE MONEY FORWARD.

AND BORROW IN 2025. UNLESS IT'S THE ONE SET BY LAW.

THAT'S ALL I'M GETTING AT. WHAT I HOPE TO SEE. INSTEAD OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, WHAT WE BORROWED. WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE. THAT'S IT. WE'RE STARTING TO TALK REAL MONEY

HERE. ANYWAY. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW. MAYBE IT'S FOR THE CITY MANAGER. FOR LIVE OAK RECONSTRUCTION. I KNOW THAT WHENEVER I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO, THE COST WAS ABOUT $5 MILLION. KIND OF SEEMS LIKE IT STAYED THE SAME. IS THAT STILL FOR THE SAME KIND OF PROJECT? AND THE SAME THING FOR 199 RECONSTRUCTION, TOO. THE

[00:40:01]

137 AND 1660. THAT SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT. BECAUSE MATT HAS KIND OF WORKED WITH TXDOT AND THE NUMBERS ARE REALLY LAID OUT, WHAT TXDOT IS GOING TO DO. WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO DO. THAT VIETNAMS LIKE IT'S PRETTY ACCURATE. BUT I GUESS WITH THOSE NUMBERS, ARE THEY STILL PRETTY ACCURATE? OR ARE THESE PROBABLY LIKELY GOING TO GO UP?

>> WELL, IF YOU ASK ME, ARE CONSTRUCTION COSTS LIABLE TO BE MORE LATER THAN NOW. THE ANSWER IS YES. CONSTRUCTION COSTS WILL ALWAYS BE MORE. THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WAS ARRIVED AT WHAT WAS APPROPRIATE BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE DESIGN.

THAT MAY NOT INCLUDE THE COST FOR UTILITY RELOCATIONS, THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. THAT I CAN'T SAY. BUT AS FAR AS THE DOLLARS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, IT'S BASED OFF OF WHAT THE ENGINEERS ARE WORKING ON DELIVERING TO US. YOU KNOW, IS THERE THE

POSSIBILITY -- >> STAYED CONSISTENT.

>> RIGHT. AND THE DESIGN HAS CHANGED MULTIPLE TIMES BACK AND

FORTH, TOO. >> UH-HUH.

>> SO THE DESIGN NOW IS BACK TO, LIKE THE FULL TYPE OF REBUILD, WITH SIDEWALKS AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. INSTEAD OF IT JUST BEING, YOU KNOW, AN OVERLAY. THERE WAS A TIME WHEN IT WAS 5. THERE WAS A TIME IT WAS 1. AND NOW IT'S BASICALLY BACK TO THE ORIGINAL AMOUNT AGAIN. BUT THAT'S HOW WE HAVE ARRIVED AT THE NUMBERS. MATT RECTOR, OUR CITY ENGINEER. HE HAS BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY, TRYING TO GET CORRECT NUMBERS.

BUT TO YOUR POINT, UNTIL YOU BID IT OUT. YOU DON'T REALLY

KNOW. RIGHT? >> UH-HUH.

>> AND THEN IF WE ENCOUNTER AN UNINTENDED EXPENSE FOR UTILITY RELOCATES OR SHOTGUN LIKE THAT. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THERE ARE RISKS WHEN IT COMES TO RECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS. YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE PLANNING APPROPRIATELY. AND THEN YOU FIND OUT THAT THINGS ARE DIFFERENT, WHENEVER YOU START TO MOVE. SO -- I MEAN, THAT'S THE BEST WAY I CAN ANSWER THAT.

SHORT OF, COULD WE BUILD A MORE EXPENSIVE ROAD? SURE, WE CAN.

BUT THE IDEA IS TO TRY TO MAINTAIN SOME INTEGRITY ON THE

BUDGET, RIGHT? >> PERFECT. THANK YOU.

>> SO WHEN ARE THESE PROJECTS SUPPOSED TO KICK OFF?

>> SOME OF THEM WE STARTED. YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE COULD GET MATT UP HERE TO MAYBE ADDRESS MORE SPECIFICALLY THE DETAILS OF

CERTAIN -- >> WELL, YEAH. IT WOULD BE GOOD TO COVER THAT FOR SHOWER, MATT. SO COME ON UP AND LET THEM KNOW. BUT I WILL POINT OUT. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS. COUNTY HAS TAKEN TO ISSUE THE DEBT. WE ISSUED THE DEBT. TONIGHT IS ABOUT ACCEPTING THE SALE. SO MATT, IF YOU WOULD KINDLY, FOR THE BENEFIT, REMIND EVERYBODY ABOUT THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECTS.

>> WELL, FOR THE RECORD, MATT RECTOR, CITY ENGINEER. JUST THE

LIVE OAK PROJECT? >> I THINK THEY'RE ASKING ABOUT THE TIMING OF THE STREET AND DRAINAGE PROJECTS, WHETHER THEY WILL OCCUR IN THIS NEXT YEAR OR NOT?

>> OKAY. >> WHEN WOULD T5? WHEN IS THAT

EXPECTED TO BREAK GROUND? >> T5. WE HAVE TALKED WITH TXDOT. AND HAVE ASKED THEM TO SET THE DATE AVAILABLE TO BID.

THAT'S THE FIRST THINGS YOU DO, SET THE DATE FOR BEING AVAILABLE FOR BIDDING. AND THAT WOULD BE NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

>> DO WE ALREADY HAVE THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUIRED? OR DO WE STILL

HAVE TO DO THAT. >> THE CONSULTING TEAM IS WORKING ON RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION AS WE SPEAK. RIGHT NOW. THAT'S BOST REQUIREMENTS TXDOT IS GOING REQUIRE OF US.

THAT'S WHY WE SET IT OUT MONTHS FROM TODAY.

>> IS THE WATER LINE FULLY RELOCATED?

>> GAS LINE HAS NOT BEEN RELOCATED. WATER LINE WAS RELOCATED BY CITY STAFF, PARTIALLY, AND THEN I BELIEVE THE CITY BROUGHT IN A CONTRACTOR TO FINISH THAT BEFORE I CAME BACK. T9, WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT LAST YEAR DURING THE CIP, THE COUNCIL DECIDED IT DIDN'T WANT TO FUND CONSTRUCTION IN THE FY 24. SO WE WERE GOING TO DO IT. THAT WAS THE DIRECTION WE WERE GIVEN LAST YEAR.

>> YOU SAID THE CONSTRUCTION STARTED IN 2025?

>> THAT WAS THE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL, WHEN WE DID THE FY 24 THROUGH '28, CIP. I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE I HEARD THE NUMBER. THE $5 MILLION WAS OUR BEST ESTIMATE. I CAN TELL YOU

[00:45:03]

THAT ATMAS IS STILL CHANGING -- YOU'RE STEALING MY THUNDER A LITTLE BIT. BUT ATMAS IS GOING TO A MEDIUM PRESSURE LINE.

WHICH MEANS IT'S NOT GOING JUSTING TO RELOCATED. THEY'RE GOING TO SHARE THE DEAL. WE'VE ASKED ALL THE DRY UTILITIES.

AT&T, CENTURY LINK. ENCORE HAS SAID THAT THAT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THEM. AND ON TOP OF THAT, THEY ARE WANTING AN ACTUAL CONCRETE DUCT BANK. I'VE BEEN WORKING TO GET AN UPDATED NUMBER FROM THEM. PREVIOUSLY, THEY SAID THEY WERE GOING TO COME IN AROUND A MILLION DOLLARS TO PUT ALL OF THEIR LINES UNDERGROUND. BUT THEY JUST CAME IN WITH THIS WEEK.

AND I DO NOT HAVE AN UPDATED NUMBER FOR YOU.

>> SO THAT'S T5, T9. T19 IS IN DESIGN. THE ORIGINAL SCHEDULE WAS THAT WE WOULD FINISH DESIGN AROUND THANKSGIVING AND THEN START THE BIDDING PROCESS. SO THIS ONE WAS NOT ANTICIPATED TO START CONSTRUCTION UNTIL EARLY IN CALENDAR YEAR. AND LEGENDS OF HUTTO, THE DRAINAGE DITCHES. WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE MODELING PROCESS RIGHT NOW. BASED ON THE CONVERSATION I HAD. AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WRAPPING THAT UP NEXT MONTH. SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED FORWARD AND GET THE FINAL DESIGN. BUT AGAIN, WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT LATE FALL, EARLY WINTER

BEFORE WE GET TO CONSTRUCTION. >> SO NONE OF THE 26 MILLION IS GOING TO START IN THE NEXT 90 TO 120 DAYS. WE'RE TALKING MAYBE, ALL, IF NOT FIRST OF THE YEAR.

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE MOTION OF 10.2 AS PRESENTED.

>> QUESTION BY -- DO YOU HAVE A SECOND?

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

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> YAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> NO.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

[10.3. Consideration and possible action regarding Ordinance No. O-2024-034 authorizing the issuance of the City of Hutto, Texas Combination Tax and Waterworks and Sewer System (Limited Pledge) Revenue Certificates of Obligation Series 2024; levying an ad valorem tax and certain surplus revenues in support of the certificates; approving an official statement, a bond purchase agreement, a paying agent and registrar agreement and other agreements relating to the sale and issuance of the certificates; and ordaining other matters relating to the issuance of certificates (Alberta Barrett)]

>> MOTION PASSES, 4-2. >> NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 4-3.

REGARDING 0-2024-034. CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZING THE SEWER SYSTEM. LEVY AND AD VALOREM TAX.

APPROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A BOND PURCHASE AGREEMENT. A PAYING AGENT, A REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES AND ORDAINING OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE

ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES. >> OKAY. SO FOR THIS ISSUE, THE $9,46700 IS THE TOTAL FOR THE STREET PROJECT. SO THE $26

MILLION. >> THE $277 MILLION IS FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS. THOSE ARE LISTED THERE. AS I SAID EARLIER, WENT TO MARKET TODAY, FOR THE COS. WE RECEIVED A RATE OF 4.33. AND AGAIN, WE SHOULD RECEIVE THESE FUNDS FOR

THE PROJECT. >> SO THE BIG ONE I GUESS I COULD POINT OUT IN THE WASTEWATER IS ALMOST 200 MILLION IS FOR THE SOUTH WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT FINAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION. SO OUT OF THE TOTAL, THAT'S

YOUR BIGGEST PIECE. >> SO FOR THIS ONE. THIS IS ONLY THE WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS, CORRECT?

>> AND THE 9 .5 FOR STREETS, TO MAKE UP YOUR TOTAL OF 26.

>> THE TWO STREETS ARE INCLUDED IN BOTH ISSUES. SO THE TOTAL

[00:50:05]

THAT IS BEING SPENT FOR STREETS IS THE $26 MILLION. 6.5 IS COMING FROM THE SERIES 2008 THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BUT NEVER ISSUED. AND THE REMAINING IS OUT OF THE SERIES 24 OF ABOUT

$9.5 MILLION. >> ITEM 10.2. THERE'S 26 MILLION IN APPLICANTS. AND THE SAME 26 MILLIONS.

>> THE SAME STREETS. SAME STREETS AND DRAINAGE PROJECT, $26 MILLION. YOU'RE JUST FUNDING IT. GENERAL OBLIGATIONS OF 16.5 MILLION. AND THE REMAINDER IS THE $9.5. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE FUNDED FROM THE SERIES 2024COS. THE STREETS HAVE TWO FUNDING ISSUES TO MAKE UP THE 26 MILLION. OKAY.SO WHAT WE JUST APPROVED IN 10.2, WHICH JUST --

>> WAS PRETTY MUCH THE 16.5 FROM THE 2018GO

>> YEAH. IT WAS JUST THE G.O. >> JUST FOR PUBLIC CONFIDENCE.

I THINK IF WE DO THIS AGAIN. LIKE ITEM 10.2 LISTS 16.5 MILLION WITH THE PROJECTS. AND THEN THE REST OF THE 13, WHATEVER. AND THE OTHER ONE. BECAUSE LOOKING AT THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A DOUBLE DIP. AND WE'RE TELLING EVERYBODY THAT THERE IS SOME MATH BEHIND THE SCENES THAT DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT IS UP HERE. BUT I GET USING ONE UP.

THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE ONE HANGING OUT THERE.

>> OKAY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

ACTIONS? >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

10.3 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO

TEM. >> MAYOR.

>> YAI. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> THORNTON.

>> NAY. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> NAY. >> MOTION PASSES, 4-2.

>> THANK YOU. >> HAVE THE PAPER WORK FOR US TO SIGN, RIGHT? GOTTA BE DONE BY MIDNIGHT. ALL RIGHT. NEXT.

[13. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

IF THERE NO OBJECTION, WE'LL GO TO THE CONSENT ITEMS. I'VE BEEN ASKED TO TABLE 13.12. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I'D

LIKE TO PULL 13.4. >> JUST A QUESTION. IS THERE ANY RELATIONSHIP THAT WE SHOULD DO 11.1 BEFORE THE CONSENT

AGENDA? . >> OH. AUTHORIZATION OF THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO ? 13.1 IS DIFFERENT. IT'S NOT

REQUIRED. >> IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR THAT

ONE? >> WHICH ONE ARE YOU PULLING,

DID YOU SAY? >> 13.4. AND I'VE BEEN ASKED TO TABLE 13.12 TO A FUTURE DATE. SO WITH NO OTHER ITEMS TO PULL OR DISCUSS, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE 13.2, 3, 4,

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13 AND 11. >> MOTIONED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION? MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE.

[13.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2024-116 authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement with Nextiva for the transition to a digital communication system in the amount of $127,081.56 (David Reeves)]

BRINGS US BACK TO ITEM 8.1. >> ARE WE GOING TO DO 13.4?

>> I'LL JUST WAIT UNTIL YOU GET TO THAT.

>> THERE'S SOMEBODY WAITING FOR IT?

>> THAT'S THE ONE I WANTED -- >> OH, THAT'S THE ONE. I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT. IF THERE ARE NO COULDS, WE'LL DO 13.4 NEXT. HEARING NONE. 13.4, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2024-116 AUTHORIZING THE CITY COMMUNICATION SYSTEM IN THE AMOUNT OF $$127,081.56. I WASN'T TRYING TO PUT YOU TO THE END, I PROMISE.

>> IT'S OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO THE REASON I PULLED THIS. THERE'S SOME NUMBERS I WANT TO KNOW, RIGHT?

[00:55:02]

WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $127,000. IT LOOKED LIKE $36,000 OF THAT IS PER YEAR. IT'S A THREE-YEAR DEAL.

>> YES, SIR. >> I'M SORRY. FOR THE RECORD,

DAVID REEVES, TEAM MANAGER. >> THEN SOME THINGS CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. ONE, WE'RE SWITCHING. SO WE DON'T NEED V.O.I.P. SERVERS ON PREMISE. I KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE PHONES. WE USE THEM PERSONALLY. BUT WHEN IN SAYS THIS ELIMINATES AT LEAST HALF OF OUR CITY'S CELL PHONES?

>> YES, SIR. >> I SAW MONEY BEING USED TO DO THIS. BUT I DIDN'T SEE MONEY -- SO WE'RE SAVING -- THE QUESTION IS, HOW MANY CELL PHONES DO WE HAVE OUT THERE?

>> WE HAVE -- WELL, IT'S NOT JUST CELL PHONES. WE ALSO HAVE CONNECTED DEVICES LIKE TABLETS AND EVEN RUGGED LAPTOPS. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL OF THE DEVICES WE HAVE WITH VERIZON. I BELIEVE WE'RE SOMEWHERE AROUND 170 TOTAL DEVICES.

>> APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THAT? LIKE 86 OR 85, WE MAY NOT NEED

ANYMORE? >> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DOES THAT INCLUDE P.D. AS WELL OR NO?

>> P.D. WILL PROBABLY KEEP PHONES, ESPECIALLY PATROL OFFICERS, BECAUSE THOSE PHONES ARE ON VERIZON'S PUBLIC SAFETY NETWORK, WHICH GET PRIORITY, IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF EMERGENCY IN THE SYSTEM. AND CELL SERVICE. SO AT LEAST A CERTAIN NUMBER OF THOSE, WE BELIEVE, WE WILL KEEP WITH THOSE. AND THEN OUR RUGGED DEVICES THAT A LOT OF THE FIELD WORKERS USE, PUBLIC WORKS, STREETS, THEY'LL STILL USE THOSE DEVICES THAT NEED THE CELLULAR CONNECTION, WHICH IS THROUGH VERIZON.

>> THIS IS BEING PICKY. WHAT I LIKE TO SEE IS WHEN WE'RE DOING THIS STUFF. THIS IS GOOD, RIGHT? SPEND 36 AND SAVE, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH. IF WE'RE ONLY GOING TO SAVE TWO GRAND, I START QUESTIONING 85 PHONES AND TABLETS, MAKES ME FEEL LIKE WE'RE GOING TO SAVE MORE THAN WE ARE GOING TO SPEND. WHICH I THINK IS GREAT. BUT I'D LIKE TO SHOW THE PUBLIC THAT THERE UPGRADE IS A NET BENEFIT. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF IT SAID HALF THE CELL PHONES, I'M LOOKING FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT.

AND NEXT WE DO, TAKING MONEY OUT OF WHATEVER DEPARTMENT THAT IS. AND UTILIZING IT ON SOME OTHER.

>> IT WILL BE AN ADJUSTMENT THAT PROBABLY HIT MOSTLY NEXT FISCAL YEAR. BUT PROBABLY TWO- TO THREE-MONTH PROJECT TO IMPLEMENT THIS. AND VERIZON PHONES WILL HAVE TO START GRADUALLY CUTTING FROM OUR ACCOUNT. SOME EVEN STILL HAVE TIME LEFT THAT IF WE HAVE TO CUT THEM, WE'D HAVE TO PAY A FEE TO CUT THE REST OF THE CONTRACT. WE'LL LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE.

>> LAST QUESTION. WILL WE HAVE OPPORTUNITY? BECAUSE I KNOW THE NEXT PHONES THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH. WE'RE ABLE TO SEE EVERY PHONE CALL THAT COMES IN. WHAT TIME IT CAME IN. SO WE'LL HAVE, AS ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS FROM THE PUBLIC. I CALL CITY HALL, NO ONE EVER ANSWERS MY CALL. SO NOW, WILL WE BE THEN ABLE TO HAVE AN AUDIT? HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ANSWERING THE PHONE. AND HOW MANY ARE HAVING VOICEMAIL?

>> WE WILL. WE'LL HAVE LOGS OF THAT. AND EVERY CALL THAT COMES THROUGH. IT WILL BE EASIER TO GET THEM, IN FACT. BECAUSE IT'S CLOUD SERVICE. AND DOESN'T GO THROUGH AS MANY CONNECTION POINTS AND GOES THROUGH -- I MEAN, RIGHT NOW.

WE HAVE, IT'S NOT TRUE VOIP. IT'S PHONE LINES THAT COME IN THROUGH A REGULAR VOIP AND WE ROUT IT OVER OUR OWN INTERNET.

AND IN WILL BE CLOUD SERVICE. IT WILL BE THAT MUCH EASIER.

AND TELL BE IN THEIR SERVICE. >> AND WE'LL KNOW IF THE PHONES GET FORWARDED TO ANOTHER PHONE OR SOME OTHER PLACE? BASICALLY, IT TRACKS LIKE EVERYTHING YOU DO WHEN YOU'RE

ON THE PHONE, RIGHT? >> YES.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THE SAME ONE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2024-116

AS PRESENTED. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM

GORDON. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. MAYOR

SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES, 6-0. THANKS, DAVID. ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS

[8.1. Unified Development Code Update (Freese & Nichols)]

US TO ITEM 8.1. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE.

[01:00:02]

>> MAYOR AND DISTRICT ATTORNEY COUNCIL. I AM WILSON FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS. I WANTED TO START OFF WITH THE PROJECT TEAM. WE HAVE CHAMP SPARKS AS WELL AS CAITLIN CAN THE ATMYER.

SHE IS THE PROJECT MANAGER. I'M THE ASSISTANT PROJECT MANAGER. WE ALSO HAVE SEAN COMPTON ON THE PROJECT, WHO IS HELPING US ABSORB THE BASE CODE. AND WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH KINLEY HORN FOR THE CRITERIA MANUAL. ON OUR PROJECT PLANNING GROUP, WE HAVE REESE WILSON. AND JACOB ROHO, FROM OUR FREES AND NICHOLS TEAM. WE STARTED THIS PROJECT IN 2023.

AND WE'RE DEEP INTO PRODUCTION NOW. THE PRODUCTION FOR THE PROJECT IS SCHEDULED TO BE DONE IN AUGUST OF THIS YEAR. AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A COUPLE OF MONTHS OF FINALIZATION. AND HOPEFULLY MOVE ON TO ADOPTION WITH PNZ AND COUNCIL, FOLLOWING THAT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, HERE'S OUR SCHEDULE. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, WE'RE JUST ABOUT HALFWAY OR OVER HALFWAY WITH THE PROJECT. WE ARE WORKING ON OUR SIGN SECTION. RIGHT NOW, WITHIN THE ECM. WE'RE WORKING ON WATER SEWAGE. AND DRAINAGE.

>> JUST WANTED TO GO OVER THE WORK COMPLETED. WE HAD MODEL 1A. AND MODULE. THAT'S SUPPOSED TO SAY 1B, WHICH WAS ZONING AND FORM BASED STANDARDS. AS I MENTIONED, WE DID ABSORB MOST OF THOSE KOEFDS INTO THE REMAINDER OF OUR UDC.

JUST TO REMOVE ANY CONFUSION. AND THEN WE'VE COMPLETED THE OUTLINE OF THE ECM. AND NOW, WE ARE WORKING ON THE CONTENT AND THE ENGINEERING MANUAL. I WANTED TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF MAJOR CHANGES WITHIN -- THESE ARE OUR USES. SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE KIND OF CALLING OUR LEGACY RESIDENTIAL USES. SO THESE ARE FORMALLY THE SFR AND SINGLE FAMILY ONE. WHICH IS THE RULE AND YOUR TRADITIONAL SUBURBAN SINGLE FAMILY. WE'RE CHANGING THESE TO AR AND R1. THE INTENT IS TO KEEP THESE AS USES. AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE KEPT WITHIN THE ZONING MAP AND ZONING ORDINANCE. BUT THESE ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE CREATED.

AGAIN, THESE ARE KIND OF YOUR LEGACY, HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE. THEY WILL NOT BE CHANGING. AND NEW DEVELOPMENTS WILL BE CLASSIFIED UNDER WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAMLET DISTRICT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE DISTRICT. WHICH THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAMLET DISTRICT.

THIS IS CHANGING THE SINGLE FAMILY 1, ZERO LOT LINE. AND THE SINGLE FAMILY 1 VILLAGE. AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY 2. ALL INTO ONE. AND WE'LL HAVE SOME SUBDISTRICTS AS WELL. SO WHENEVER WE'RE CREATING THESE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, THEY CAN BE CLASSIFIED IN THE NEW SUBDISTRICTS, WITHIN THE HAMLET. AND IF YOU'RE STARTING TO GO UP IN INTENSITY, IN DENSITY AREAS, YOU CAN MOVE INTO N2, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD VILLAGE. WHICH BRINGS IN SOME MULTIFAMILY.

HAPPENING IN THE CO-OP AS WELL AS SOME BUSINESSES AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES. AND THEN WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, I WANTED TO LIST SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE MADE CHANGES WITHIN THE DOCUMENT. WE DID REMOVE GENERAL STANDARDS. BECAUSE IT WAS A LITTLE REDUNDANT. REALLY ONLY HAD ONE SECTION IN IT. WE MOVED THAT DOWN INTO TRANSPORTATION.

AND WE ALSO MOVED ALL OF THE FORM-BASED CODE REFERENCES. AND ABSORBED ANY OF THOSE THAT ARE STILL RELEVANT INTO THE REMAINDER OF THE DOCUMENT, TO REDUCE CONFUSION. WE ALSO REMOVED A LOT OF OUR DESIGN GUIDELINES AND ANY ENGINEERING STANDARDS FROM THE UDC TO THE ECM, SO THEY'RE ALL IN ONE PLACE. THIS INCLUDES YOUR CURB CUT DIMENSIONS, DRIVEWAY.

DIMENSION FOR CURB AND LIGHT HEIGHTS. WE STRENGTHENED OUR LANDSCAPING LANGUAGE AND UPDATED OUTDOOR LIGHTING STANDARDS AND UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINE STANDARDS. SO ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT WITH OUR LANDSCAPING ORDINANCE IS THE SCAPING. WE'VE TALKED WITH YOU ALL QUITE A BIT. AND THAT IT'S CURRENTLY ENCOURAGED WITHIN THE UDC. BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR WHETHER THAT BE RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS. THAT THEY SHALL INCORPORATE ZERO SCAPING FOR THE PURPOSE OF WATER CONSERVATION AND REDUCED OPERATIONAL COSTS. ONE THING,

[01:05:01]

THIS IS JUST OUR INITIAL LANGUAGE. WITH YOUR DIRECTION, WE CAN CHANGE THIS TO ALLOW SOME TURF GRASS WITH, WE CAN PUT SOME PERCENTAGES OF TURF GRASS THAT IS ALLOWABLE HERE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THIS LANGUAGE. AND THEN I WANTED TO POINT OUT. WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF CONFUSION AROUND THE TERM "ZERO SCAPING." A LOT OF PEOPLE HAPPENING OF IT AS YOUR ROCK LAWNS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO WE DO HAVE ABOUT A 10-PAGE LIST OF DIFFERENT NATIVE TREES. IT'S REALLY JUST BEING NATIVE AND ADAPTABLE TO THE AREA. THAT'S ALL IT MEANS. SO WE HAVE ABOUT A 10-PAGE LIST OF NATIVE PLANTS THIS. INCLUDES TREES, SHRUBS, GROUND COVER, ANY TYPE OF FLOWERING. THINGS LIKE THAT. AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING THAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING. THIS IS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE CITY.

>> AND THEN I WANT TO MOVE ON TO WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. SO OUR ONGOING WORK. WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON OUR SIGNS AND SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. THESE SIGNS WILL INCLUDE EVERYTHING ALONG THE HIGHWAY, AS WELL AS MONUMENT SIGNS, WHICH WE KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH YOU ALL BEFORE. AS WELL AS INCREASING OUR -- AND STRENGTHENING WHAT PROHIBITED SIGNS ARE. AND WITH SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, THAT BRINGS IN PLATTING TYPES, PARK, ROAD ADJACENTS, ADEQUACY STANDARDS, AS WELL AS BIKE PAD REGULATIONS. BIKE AND PEDESTRIAN REGULATIONS. AND WITHIN THE ENGINEERING CRITERIA MANUAL. WE'RE WORKING ON WATER AND SEWER RIGHT NOW, AS WELL AS DRAINAGE AND G.I. SUITES. OUR NEXT STEPS, WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS PRODUCTION UNTIL AUGUST. THAT'S WHEN WE'RE ANTICIPATING COMPLETING THAT PRODUCTION, HAVING EVERYTHING TO STAFF AND P&Z FOR REVIEW. AS WELL AS YOU ALL, IF YOU DESIRE TO SEE THOSE AS WELL. AND AFTER WE GET COMMENTS BACK, WE'LL START DRAFTING OUR FINAL DELIVERABLE FOR THE NEW UDC, SO WE'LL HAVE AN OPEN HOUSE AND PUBLIC ONLINE. SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND WE MAKE SURE THERE IS NOT ANY FEAR GOING ON. AND MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING ON THEIR PROPERTY WILL REMAIN. AND IT'S NOT CHANGING. THIS IS FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS. AND THEN WE'LL MOVE ON TO ADOPTION HEARINGS WITHIN OCTOBER AND NOVEMBER OF THIS YEAR. SO WITH THAT, I'D HIKE TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT

YOU ALL HAVE. >> DID IT, UNDER 10 MINUTES.

>> HEY. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. ARE THOSE ALL OF THE REGULATIONS? OR THEIR ABILITY TO HAVE MORE PUT IN?

>> SO THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, GENERALLY, THAT'S COVERING THINGS LIKE PLATTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T PUT IN NEW SUBDIVISIONS. IT'S JUST SAYING HOW THE PROCESS OF CREATING A THROUGH SUBDIVISION WILL PLAY OUT WITHIN THE CITY PROCESS. SO WHEN THEY COME TO STAFF, THE TIME LINE THAT WILL BE NEEDED TO APPROVE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO A LOT OF THE PROCESSES ARE LAID OUT WITHIN

THAT. >> OKAY. SO NOTHING ABOUT LIKE MATERIALING BEING USED? THINGS OF THAT NATURE?

>> NO. NOT WITHIN THAT. THAT WOULD BE WITHIN DESIGN STANDARDS. AND WE DID TALK ABOUT SOME OF THAT EARLIER IN THE WORK SESSION. THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO TO -- TO TALK ABOUT MATERIALS. AND WE CAN ADD THOSE IN. WE'LL TALK WITH ASHLEY A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT. AND MAKE SURE THOSE ARE

AS STRONG AS POSSIBLE. >> GREAT. LOVE THAT THAT DIALOGUE IS GOING ON. SO THANK YOU.

>> UH-HUH. >> ALL RIGHT. THANKS, GUYS.

>> THANK YOU, ALL. >> GOT YOU OUT HERE EARLY TIME.

[8.2. Drainage Master Plan Update (Matt Rector)]

ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 8.2. DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN

UPDATE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD. MATT RECTOR. WE HAVE KAY FREESE HERE. AND ANDY AND VICKI ARE YOU TALKING?

>> JUST SUPPORT. >> WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO ANDY.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MATT. HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THIS AN IMPORTANT MESSAGE FOR THE SAFETY AND LIVES AND LIVELIHOODS FOR PEOPLE IN THE HUTTO AREA. WHAT WE'VE GOT IS A DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN THAT WE'RE WORKING ON. AND ESSENTIALLY, A DRAINAGE MASTER PLAN IS A PROJECT THAT LOOKS AT ALL OF THE FLOODING PROBLEMS WE HAVE IN THE CITY. AND LOOKS AT DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES, WAYS TO FIX THEM. SO WE'LL COME UP WITH A REPORT AT THE END. IT WILL LIST A NUMBER OF PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT. THAT THE CITY COULD IMPLEMENT IN THE FUTURE, TO TRY TO REDUCE FLOOD RISKS MOVING FORWARD. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WAS DONE BACK IN 2018. AND THIS SORT OF SUPPLEMENTS THAT PRIOR STUDY.

[01:10:01]

THIS CONTRACT THAT WE'VE GOT RIGHT NOW WITH THE CITY WAS SIGNED BACK IN 2023. GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF UPDATE ON WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN IN THE PAST SIX MONTHS. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS THE SCHEDULE FOR WHERE THE PROJECT IS, ESSENTIALLY. WE WERE SPENDING THE FIRST FEW MONTHS, PUTTING TOGETHER, YOU KNOW, COLLECTING DATA ON WHAT THE FLOOD RISKS ARE WITHIN THE TOWN. WE USED A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT SOURCES, BOTH FROM WITHIN THE CITY. PULLING UP RECORDS ON FLOODING, VARIOUS DAMAGES. WE PULLED UP PUBLIC -- OTHER PUBLIC SOURCES, YOU KNOW, THE FEMA MAX. AND WE ALSO EVEN DID A LITTLE MODELING OURSELVES. AT THE SAME TIME THAT THAT HAS GONE ON, WILLIAMSON COUNTY IS DOING AN UPDATE TO THE FEMA MAPS. AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MORE LATER ON. BUT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW IS WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE ASSESSMENT OF EXISTING FLOOD RISKS. AND WHAT WE'LL DO IS BE FINISHING THAT PROBABLY WITHIN THE IN, WEEK. AND WE'RE STARTING UP DEVELOPING PROJECTS. WE'LL BE LOOKING AT AND EVALUATING TO SEE WHAT WOULD WORK BEST TO REDUCE FLOODING. WHAT WOULD THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS BE? AND THEN WE'LL COME UP WITH A PRIORITIZED LIST. AND ONCE WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, WE'LL PRESENT TO THE PUBLIC AND PRESENT TO YOU, AGAIN, TO SHOW YOU WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS PROPOSE. AND THEN WE'LL FOLLOW UP WITH A REPORT THAT SUMMARIZES ALL OF THAT INFORMATION. AND THE TIME LINE FOR THAT, AS WE'RE LOOKING TO WRAP THIS UP IN THE OCTOBER TIME FRAME OF THIS FALL.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I MENTIONED SOME OF THIS THAT WE WERE COLLECTING INFORMATION ON THE DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE AND HISTORICAL FLOODING. AND AFTER WE PULLED THE INFORMATION TOGETHER. WE LOOKED AT ALL THE DIFFERENT FLOODING AND WE TALKED WITH CITY STAFF. AND CAME UP WITH THREE PRIMARY AREAS THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE FOCUSING OUR ASSESSMENT ON.

COTTONWOOD CREEK, WHICH HAS A LOT OF FLOODING GOING ON AROUND IT. THERE WAS ALSO SOME QUESTIONS TO LOOK AT FLOODING IN THE OLD TOWN AREA. AND TO LOOK SOUTH ALONG FM1660. SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THE FEMA MAPPING IN THAT AREA. AND WE'VE ALSO DEVELOPED WHAT WE CALL A 2D RAPID ASSESSMENT MODEL THAT LOOKS AT FLOODING IN A MORE LOCALIZED AREA. IT'S NOT FLOODING THAT COMES INTO THE CREEK. IT'S FLOODING RIGHT THERE, ALONG NEXT TO THE HOMES. OKAY. ONE OTHER SOURCE OF INFORMATION WE HAD. WE HELD A PUBLIC MEETING, ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO. IT WAS HERE IN CITY HALL. AND WE LISTED SUPPORT.

INFORMATION FROM THE PEOPLE, TO TRY TO FIND OUT, IF THERE WAS ANYTHING WE HAD MISSED. WE SHOWED SOME OF THE FLOODING AREAS THAT WE HAD LOCATED. AND ASKED FOR INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC ON WHERE THEY THOUGHT THAT WE MIGHT BE MIDDLING ANY FLOODING.

WE ALSO HAD A PUBLIC SURVEY ONLINE. THAT WAS OPEN FOR SEVEN WEEKS. AND WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THAT DATA AND ENGINEERING ANALYSIS AS WELL. SO WHAT WE DID. I MENTIONED THAT WE DID -- WE LOOKED AT FLOODING ALONG COTTONWOOD CREEK, AS BEING A REAL CENTER OF FLOODING, WHERE YOU SEE THE RED DOTS ON THE MAPS. THIS IS A LOOK AT THE NORTHERN HALF OF TOWN, ESSENTIALLY. NORTH OF 79. AND EVERYWHERE YOU SEE A RED DOT.

THAT'S A HABITABLE STRUCTURE, HOUSE OR BUSINESS THAT IS WITHIN THE 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE ON THAT MAP, THERE'S AN AREA AROUND OLD TOWN. THAT THERE'S SOME YELLOW LINES AND RED DOTS THERE. THAT'S ALSO HOMES WITHIN THE OLD TEN AREA. THAT HAS NOT DEEP FLOODING, BUT SERIOUS FLOODING THAT HITS SOME OF THESE HOMES. SO THOSE RED DOTS ARE SHOWING AREAS OF FLOOD RISK. AND I'VE GOT ANOTHER MAP THAT SHOWS THE SAME SORT OF THING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 79.

THIS IS NOT ALL OF THE FLOODING. A WE GET INFORMATION FROM THOSE SURVEYS. WE'LL BE ADDING DOTS TO THIS. NOW, I WANTED TO SHOW YOU WHAT IS GOING ON. THIS IS THE ETJ OF HUTTO, WITH ALL OF THE FEMA FLOOD PLAINS. THESE ARE THE REGULATORY 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAINS IN THE CITY'S ETJ AND I MENTIONED THAT WILLIAMSON COUNTY IS UPDATING IT NOW. AND I WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. BY THE WAY, THIS IS PRELIMINARY. HASN'T REPUBLICAN BEEN RELEASED OR ADOPTED BY FEMA YET. YOU CAN GO TO THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY WEBSITE AND PULL UP THIS INFORMATION YOURSELF FOR VIEWING. THERE'S HOW THE FLOOD PLAINS ARE GOING TO CHANGE. YOU CAN SEE, WHERE THEY WERE EXISTING BEFORE. THEY WERE LARGER. OFTENTIMES, LONGER AND MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAT. THERE'S A LOT MORE STREAMS THAT ARE BEING STEADY THIS TIME. AND WHAT THE WINSTON COUNTY FLOODING WAS SHOWING, THERE'S ABOUT TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF HOMES GOING TO BE IMPACTED AND BE IN FLOOD PLAINS, IF THESE NEW MAPS ARE ADOPTED AS SUCH. WE'LL BE

[01:15:04]

TAKING THIS SAME INFORMATION. WHICH, BY THE WAY, WE RECEIVED THIS THIS MORNING. WE'LL BE TAKING THAT SAME INFORMATION AND TYING IT IN WITH HABITABLE STRUCTURES. AND WE'LL EXPAND THAT MAP OF RED DOTS. SO WE CAN HELP IDENTIFY WHERE THE AREAS WE NEED TO BE FOCUSING ARE. AND WHEN WE TAKE THAT DATA, WHAT WE HAD BEFORE IS WE CAME UP WITH WHAT WE CALL A HEAT MAP. AND ESSENTIALLY IDENTIFIES, WHAT ARE THE AREAS OF GREATEST IMPACT? OR GREATEST CONCERN? AND THOSE LITTLE CIRCLES OR SEEM TO BE THE SAME FLOODING SOURCE. AND POTENTIALLY, THOSE COULD BE ADDRESSED WITH SAME PROJECTS. PROJECTS OR PROGRAM.

AS WE ADD IN THE DATA FROM THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY STUDY, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH IF MORE OF THOSE FLOODING DOTS. BUT WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE FLOODING IN THOSE LOCATIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO OUR NEXT STEPS. AS I SAID, WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE PHASE OF LOOKING AT THE FLOOD RISK ASSESSMENTS. WE'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPING PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS THAT CAN MITIGATE THOSE FLOODING CONCERNS. WE'LL BE DEVELOPING COSTS AND BENEFITS OF EACH ONE OF THEM. WE'LL COME UP WITH THE RANKING METRICS. TO SEE HOW WE THINK THESE SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED OVER TIME. AND THEN WE'LL COME TOGETHER TO MEET WITH THE PUBLIC. AND MEET WITH YOU ALL AGAIN IN THE FALL, PROBABLY IN THE SEPTEMBER TIME FRAME. AND WE'LL BE PRESENTING THAT INFORMATION. AND AFTERWARDS, WE'LL BE WRAPPING IT UP WITH A SUMMARY REPORT OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S MY PRESENTATION. BUT I'M WILLING TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANKS, SIR. >> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> I HAD ONE. SO AS WE'RE DOING THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO SHORE UP -- I GUESS DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE CITY.

>> UH-HUH. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS ARE, YOU KNOW, WORKING HAND IN HAND WITH THEM, TO HAVE ANY SORT OF MITTIGATION FOR ANY SORT OF POTENTIAL FLOODING RISKS HERE IN THE CITY? YOU KNOW, SHARING BEST PRACTICES? WHAT TO AVOID? WHATNOT TO AVOID? WITH DEVELOPMENT?

>> WE HAVE NOT BEEN WORKING WITH THEM SO FAR. AS I MENTIONED, WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS. SO SOME OF THE THINGS CAN BE ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY CONSTRUCTED PROJECTS. IMPROVEMENTS TO REDUCE FLOODING. BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, WHAT YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE ORDINANCE SIDE OF IT, AS NEW DEVELOPMENTS COME IN. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DON'T CREATE MORE PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE.

>> RIGHT. >> WE'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO PUSH HARD ON THAT. BUT I DO PLAN ON WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE A GOOD FIT, WE'LL BRING IT UP. BUT WE'RE NOT PLANNING ON DIGGING DEEP INTO THE ORDINANCES.

>> OKAY. >> BUT WE WILL BE AT LEAST

LOOKING AT THEM. >> WELL, THAT'S GREAT. TO HAVE AT LEAST ANOTHER SET OF EYES TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY, ON THIS MAY BE A POTENTIAL RISK, BEFORE IT ACTUALLY IS A PROBLEM.

>> THANK YOU. >> TO PIGGY-BACK ON COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. OBVIOUSLY, MITIGATION IS KEY.

AND YOU MENTIONED WORKING WITH CITY STAFF. DO YOU INTEND ON WORKING WITH EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT? I GUESS BECAUSE THIS IS THEIR FORTE. IT'S ALL ABOUT WORKING WITH THAT TEAM.

AND WHAT THEY NEED. TO SEE OBVIOUSLY, YOU ALL ARE ENGINEERS. AND YOU HAVE THESE MAPS. BUT ALSO, THEY'RE KIND OF THE BOOTSOTH. I GUESS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOUR COMPANY WORKS WITH? DO YOU ALL WORK IN THAT AREA, TOO? OR -- I GUESS, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WITH CITY STAFF? BEYOND ENGINEERING?

>> THERE'S ESSENTIALLY THREE PARTS TO FLOOD PREPAREDNESS.

FIRST OFF. TRY TO GET YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE. NICE, SUNNY DAYS. YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT GETTING READY FOR THE FLOODING. THEN YOU HAVE DURING THE FLOODING, THAT'S WHEN THE EVENT IS HAPPENING. YOU HAVE SORT OF THE ASSESSMENT, IS IT FLOODING? IS IT ABOUT TO FLOOD? ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM 2018 THAT WE'LL BE EVALUATING IS THE POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING IN SOME FLOOD GAUGES. AND THOSE DISCUSSIONS IN 2018, OF MAYBE PUTTING IT ON THE DAM. ONE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE TO EXPAND A BROAD, CITY WIDE FLOOD WARNING SYSTEM. WE CAN LOOK INTO SOME OF THOSE. AND WE HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE WITH IT. WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET VERY DEEP. THIS GOING TO BE SORT OF A CONCEPT LEVEL REVIEW OF DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE THINK IS SOMETHING THE CITY SHOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH. WE SHOULDN'T BE IDENTIFYING SPECIALIZED PLANS. ASSOCIATED COSTS. THAT THE CITY

[01:20:03]

CAN THEN IMPLEMENT IN FUTURE YEARS. AND I'M SORRY TO SAY, WITH THIS WRAPPING UP IN OCTOBER, OBVIOUSLY, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO GET INTO THE 25 CYCLE. BUT HOPEFULLY, PROJECTS WILL START LOOKING AT IT AFTER THAT.

>> WHEN YOU SAY THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. DOES THAT INCLUDE THE PROPERTY VALUE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY AN EVENT IN AN AREA, VERSUS THE COST OF THE MITIGATION?

>> IT CAN. THE RISKS OF LOOKING AT THE VALUE OF PROPERTIES IS SOMETIMES, YOU CAN END UP HAVING LOW-INCOME PROPERTIES GET LEFT BEHIND BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE HIGH DOLLAR VALUES

TO THEM. >> YEAH.

>> THAT'S MORE A CITY DECISION. A POLITICAL DECISION

AT THE END. DAY. >> RIGHT.

>> BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS -- YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES YOU MAY HAVE A MITIGATION THAT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, AND YOU'RE PROTECTING A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF HOMES. AND YOU HAVE TO MAKE A HARD

DECISION IN THAT CASE. >> AND THAT'S PART --

>> WHETHER YOU SHOULD BE SPENDING ALL OF THAT MONEY TO PROTECT THOSE HOMES OR WHETHER YOU SHOULD BE WORKING WITH THE HOMEOWNERS TO GET THEM OUT OF DANGER. ONE OF THE THINGS I MENTIONED WAS DOING A RANKING MATRIX. AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO DEVELOP, ESSENTIALLY. WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA? HOW DO WE RANK THESE PROJECT.

>> IS IT SOLELY COST? WE'RE NOT JUST LOOKING AT THE STRUCTURES. ALSO MEASURING OFF. HARD TO SEE ON THAT MAP, LENGTH OF ROADWAYS THAT WERE FLOODED. THAT'S SOMETHING DURING AN EVENT. THAT'S A REAL PROBLEM. MORE PEOPLE DIE FROM BEING IN CARS DURING FLOODING THAN IN THEIR HOMES. SO WE NEED TO LOOK NOT JUST AT STRUCTURES, BUT ALSO PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED DRIVING ON THE ROADS. SO WE'LL HAVE A LIST THAT WE'LL WORK WITH CITY STAFF TO COME UP WITH. WHAT ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA, WE WANT TO RANK THEM ON. AND WE'LL WEIGHT

THEM ACCORDINGLY. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

WHAT? I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. I THINK YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S LIKE EIGHT HOMES. WE HAD SOME PLAN. AM I RIGHT ON

THAT? >> THAT'S COTTONWOOD CREEK.

ALONG CREEKSIDE, IT HAS FLOODED INTO SOME OF THEIR HOUSES IN SOME OF THE WORST FLOODING WE'VE HAD.

>> WASN'T THERE SOMETHING WE WERE SUPPOSED TO BE LOOKING AT?

>> THERE WAS A PREVIOUS PLAN. >> THE QUESTION WAS -- I DIDN'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF THAT PLAN AND HOW MUCH AREA IT WAS SUPPOSED TO IMPROVE IF IT'S ONLY TO IMPROVE A SMALL AREA, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE NUMBERS. IF IT'S A WHOLE

DIFFERENT STRETCH. >> DO YOU REMEMBER THAT?

>> I REMEMBER, THEY WERE GOING TO DIG OUT THAT CHANNEL. AND THERE'S A BIG PLAN. I THOUGHT IT WAS TIED TO THAT DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS GOING INTO THE EAST OF IT. BUT I DON'T RECALL. I NEVER GOT A GOOD ANSWER ON WHAT THE SCOPE WAS THAT I WAS GOING

TO PROTECT. >> MAYBE YOU GUYS WILL UNCOVER

IT FOR US. >> THE 2018 STUDY I MENTIONED A LITTLE WHILE AGO, ACTUALLY DID INCLUDE TWO PROJECTS. I THINK THERE WAS ABOUT 8,000 FEET OF IMPROVEMENTLESS THAT WAS UP NORTH OF 79. AND ANOTHER 6,000 SOUTH OF 79. WE'LL BE EVALUATING THOSE PROJECTS AS WELL. POSSIBLY COMBINING THOSE.

WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THOSE. BUT THERE WERE PROJECTS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED SEVERAL YEARS BACK.

[8.3. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Updates (Matt Rector)]

>> OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 83.

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, CIP UPDATES.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO FIRST MEETING OF THE MONTH, WE ALWAYS GO THROUGH THE CIP. AND SINCE THIS IS NOT THE START OF A QUARTER, THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE FOCUSED ON TRANSPORTATION. HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GALLON PRETTY QUICK. FIRST ONE UP TONIGHT. 1660, JUST WANTED TO LET EVERYBODY KNOW THAT WITH ALL THE RAINS, THEY ARE SLOWING DOWN OUR PROGRESS. WE BASICALLY GOT IT RESOLVED AS OF TODAY.

BUT THEY WERE HESITANT TO LET US EXPOSE THE ENTIRETY OF THEIR

LINE. >> THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT EITHER. ORIGINALLY, THEY SAID YES. THEN THEY SAID NO. SO WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THEM. AND GOT THAT FIGURED OUT. AND THEN I HAD PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED THAT ENCORE WAS DELAYING. THEY ARE STILL DELAYED BECAUSE EVERY TIME THEY GET PROGRESS, THEY END UP PULLING THEIR CREWS TO SEE POWER OUTAGES. AT THIS

[01:25:06]

POINT IN TIME, WE ARE SEVERAL WEEKS BEHIND SCHEDULE. I'M WORKING WITH THE CONTRACTOR. TRYING TO SEE EVERY POSSIBILITY OF TRYING TO RECRUIT SOME TIME. IT'S PART OF DEALING WITH

WEATHER EVENTS. >> WE ARE ANTICIPATE BEING THEY WILL BE DONE IN LATE 24 WITH THIS PROJECT.

>> WITH ATMAS. THEY'RE NOT MOVING THE LINE, RIGHT?

>> IT'S VERY NEAR THE ROAD. AND PART OF OUR PROJECT WAS, IT REQUIRES US TO EXPOSE THEIR LINE. AND THEY ARE APPREHENSIVE ABOUT CITY STAFF OR ANYBODY EXPOSING A VERY LARGE GAS LINE.

AND WE UNDERSTOOD THAT. AND WE SAID, WHAT IF WE ONLY EXPOSE THE PART OF IT AT A TIME? AND THEY SAID, YEP. GO AHEAD. AND THEY SAID NOPE, WE'RE NOT WORKING WITH THIS. ORIGINALLY, THEY TOLD US THEY WERE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE. I THINK AS OF TODAY'S E-MAILS, WE HAVE RESOLUTION. AND THEY'RE OKAY WITH US MOVING FORWARD, AS LONG AS THEIR PEOPLE ARE ON SITE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH EVERYBODY. TRYING TO PUSH EVERYBODY AS HARD AS I POSSIBLY CAN.

>> DO WE HAVE E-MAILS WITH THIS GROUP, WHERE THEY SAY THINGS ARE OKAY. AND LATER ON, THEY CHANGE THEIR MIND. ARE THESE

ALL VERBAL. >> POTENTIALLY, WE HAVE E-MAILS. A LOT OF THIS WAS VETTED OUT DURING THE DESIGN PHASE. WHICH I WASN'T HERE FOR THE DESIGN PHASE. I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND PULL THAT FROM BEFORE MY TIME.

>> NOT KNOCKING YOU. YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR ALL OF THIS.

BUT EVERY PROJECT THAT GETS BEHIND, IT'S NEVER OUR FAULT.

IT'S ALWAYS TXDOT CHANGE YOUR MIND, ENCORE CHANGE YOUR MIND, CAN THE ATMOS SAYS THIS. AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A COMMON THING. LIKE IN EVERY GOVERNMENT. BUT AT SOME POINT, ONE OF THESE DAYS, SOMEONE HAS TO SAY, WE DROPPED THE BALL ON SOMETHING. AND I'M NOT SAYING YOU GUYS DID BUT IT'S ALWAYS SOMEBODY ELSE'S. NO WAY WE'RE HITTING THE DEADLINE. MAY IS THE WETTEST MONTH. AND I THINK OCTOBER IS THE SECOND WETTEST.

SO WE GOT IT FIGURED OUT TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE THE DELAYS. IF THEY'RE ON US. AND IF IT'S ON THE PEOPLE. IN MY MIND, IT'S COSTING US MONEY. AND WE NEED TO BE TALKING TO HIGHER UPS WHOEVER, GOING OKAY, WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS. YOU GUYS APPROVED IT. AND HERE WE GO AGAIN. YOU GUYS CHANGED IT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING IN RIDE WRITING POTENTIALLY.

>> NOT SO MUCH FROM ATLAS. >> THEY KEEP SAYING, WE'RE GOING TO BE DONE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. BUT TO GET PEOPLE WHEN THEY'RE DONE. IT'S A LITTLE BUREAUCRATIC.

>> ANYTHING WE CAN DO UP HERE TO HELP. IF YOU KNOW OF ANY GOOD, HIGH-UP CONNECTIONS AT ENCORE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

I'M WORKING MY WAY TO THEM. BUT WORKING MY WAY UP THE CHAIN

AS I CAN. >> NEXT ONE. LAKESIDE ESTATES.

PHASE 3. PHASE 1 AND PHASE 2. YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT THIS ONE A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK. JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE HAD ALL THE DOCUMENTATION TOGETHER SO WE COULD BRING IT FORWARD FOR ACCEPTANCE. TALKING TO SOME OF THE CITY STAFF BEFORE I GOT HERE. DIDN'T SOUND LIKE THEY WERE BRINGING ANY CIPS FORWARD FOR CITY COUNCIL. JUST WE'RE DONE. I'M CHANGING THAT. SO YOU'RE GOING TO START GETTING, WHEN I'M DONE WITH CIPS, YOU'RE GOING TO GET DEVELOPMENT PACKAGE LIKE YOU DO. I THINK THAT WILL BE EITHER COMING -- I WOULD THINK IT'S EITHER THE NEXT MEETING, JUNE 20TH OR IT WILL BE THE FIRST

MEETING IN JULY. >> LIVE OAK. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS ONE A LITTLE EARLIER DURING THE BOND DISCUSSION. SO ATMOS HAS SAID THEY ARE CHANGING TO A HUGE BOND LINE.

THEY'RE CHANGING THEIR SYSTEM. BUT WE DO HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE THEM TIME TO DO THEIR DESIGN. SO THAT'S SLOWING US DOWN. BECAUSE WE EXT CONSTRUCTION UNTIL FY '25. SO

[01:30:06]

FAR, NOT SEEING A BIG SCHEDULE HIT. THE BIGGER ISSUE IS THE ENCORE, INDICATING THAT THEY DON'T WANT A JOINT TRENCH.

THEY WANT A CONCRETE DUCT BANK FOR THEIR LINES. YOU ALL KNOW CONCRETE IS NOT EXACTLY CHEAP. AND ORIGINALLY, WHEN WE WERE TALKING JUST A JOINT TRENCH, THEY HAD PATED THAT IT WAS GOING TO COST A MILLION DOLLARS TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS AT LEAST ON YOUR RADAR. SO THAT WHEN I HAVE TO COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, THEY'VE NOW SAID THAT THIS DUCK BANK IS AN EXTRA MILLION ON TOP OF THE PREVIOUS MILLION, OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER ENDS UP BEING, THAT I'M NOT

BLINDSIDING YOU. >> IS THAT A COST THAT THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO INCUR. VERSUS THEM REQUIRING IT? AND

THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE IT? >> AND I'VE -- SO THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT I'VE TRIED ESCALATING. BECAUSE HERE IN THE CO-OP. WHEN WE DESIGNED EVERYTHING IN THE CO-OP, CITY HALL, ALL OF THE ROADS AND EVERYTHING. WE WORKED WITH ENCORE AND ATMOS, AND AT&T AND EVERYBODY ELSE. AND WE GOT THEM TO GO INTO A JOINT TRENCH. AND FOR LIVE OAK I GAVE THAT TRENCH. AND SAID, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN DO THIS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE CITY. AND THAT'S THE PATH WE WERE WORKING TOWARDS.

AND NOW, ENCORE IS SAYING THAT'S NOT GOING TO WORK FOR THEM. SO I'M TRYING TO CHANGE IT UP AND SEE HOW WE CAN GO BACK TO SOME REASONABLE SOLUTION.

>> IS THAT IS INTERESTING. MAYBE IT'S LIKE A POLICY,

SOMETHING NEW THEY'VE DONE. >> DO WE HAVE

>> FOR THAT STRETCH OF ROAD THE ORIGINAL ESTIMATE ENCORE GAVE US WAS TO PUT IT OVERHEAD. YOU HAVE THE FREEZE EVENTS, WHERE PEOPLE DON'T HAVE POWER. AND THEORETICALLY, THAT'S NOT AS LIKELY AS WHEN YOUR LINES ARE UNDERGROUND. AND RUDC DOES SAY THAT UTILITY LINES SHOULD BE UNDERGROUND. SO IT'S KIND OF IN COMBINATION OF GET IN LINE WITH THE UDC AND PROVIDING A MORE RELIABLE SERVICE. BUT I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY THERE. SO THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IT UNDERGROUND.

WE WOULD JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF OUR SHARED YOUTH PATH OR ANYTHING WE'RE NAVIGATING AROUND THOSE POLES.

>> YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO USE PEDESTRIAN-SCALE LIGHTING IF YOU DON'T HAVE UNDERGROUND POWER FEEDING THEM. SO THAT'S

ANOTHER ASPECT OF IT, TOO. >> WON'T BE ABLE TO USE WHAT?

>> WON'T BE ABLE TO USE THE LOWER END LIGHTS. YOU'D HAVE TO STICK WITH THE COBRA HEADS THAT ARE UP ON THE POLES. SO WHENEVER YOU DO YOUR PEDESTRIAN LIGHTINGS AND THE THINGS YOU DO IN STREET AND SCAPE. CO-OP. THOSE GET FED FROM POWER UNDERNEATH THE GROUND. NOT FROM A POWER LINE DROPPING DOWN.

PREDOMINANTLY, IT'S THE SAFETY. TREE LIMBS. TREES FALL. LINES GET TAKEN OUT. TRANSFORMERS STILL BLOW FROM AUTO ACCIDENTS.

SO YOU'RE NOT REALLY FIXING THE TRANSFORMER ISSUE.

>> SO MATT, DID I HEAR YOU SAY, IT BRINGS US IN LINE WITH THE UDC CODE? BUT THERE'S NOTHING SAYING IT HAS TO BE BELOW GROUND? ISN'T THAT KIND OF A CONTRADICTION?

>> THE UDC SAYS ALL UTILITY LINES THAT COME IN HAVE TO BE UNDERGROUND. SO ALL OF THE NEW ONES COMING IN THE CITY, WE'RE MAKING THEM PUT IT UNDERGROUND. OLDER ONES, THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS, WE HAVE TO FIX THAT. BUT AS NEW PROJECTS ARE COMING ON, WE ARE TELLING EVERYBODY, PUT YOURS UNDERGROUND. I'VE HEARD, WE SHOULD BE FOLLOWING OUR OWN RULES. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE DON'T HAVE TO DO IT. BUT IT'S ONE OF OUR OWN RULES.

SO IT JUST MAKES SENSE FOR US TO FOLLOW OUR OWN RULE.

>> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU. >> I AGREE. IT'S A BENEFIT TO HAVE IT UNDERGROUND. BUT IF IT'S GOING TO COST A MILLION OR MORE, WE'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THAT WHEN WE KNOW THAT

ANSWER. OKAY? >> THE HENRY FARMS INTERSECTION, FINAL DESIGN IS BEING REVIEWED BY STAFF RIGHT NOW. WE ARE TRYING TO PUSH THEM TO GET INTO CONSTRUCTION THIS

[01:35:03]

SUMMER. THE IDEA BEING THAT IT WILL BE DONE. I'VE TALKED TO THE CONSULTANT. THEY'RE ANTICIPATING VERY SHORT CONSTRUCTION. SO WE'RE THINKING, THREE TO FOUR MONTHS MAX FROM THE TIME WE MOBE TO WHEN WE DE-MOBE. WHEN I MET WITH THE HDA, I SHARED THE SAME INFORMATION THAT, THEORETICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE DONE BY THE HALLOWEEN TIME

FRAME. >>> EXCHANGE BOULEVARD AT LIMMER. ACTUALLY, IT WAS THE AGREEMENT WITH HISD, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT, WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY APPROVED. AND THE PROJECT IS OUT FOR BIDDING RIGHT NOW. AND THAT ONE IS -- AND YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE ACCELERATED EVERYTHING. SO WE'RE BIDDING IT EARLIER THAN WE THOUGHT WE'RE GOING TO START CONSTRUCTION. AND WE'RE GOING TO COMPLETE IT EARLIER

THAN WE THOUGHT. GOOD JOB. >> GREAT ON THAT ONE.

>> THANK YOU. >> CR199 CONSTRUCTION. THAT ONE WAS DISCUSSED EARLIER. WE'RE AT 60% PLANS IN PROGRESS NOW.

WE'VE ALREADY REVIEWED 30%. WE'VE TAKEN THOSE COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION. I PROVIDED ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON TOP OF WHAT THE PUBLIC GAVE US, ASKING CONSULTANTS TO TAKE A DEEPER DIVE AND LOOK AT THINGS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE. BUT NOT JUST FROM A TYPICAL BIG ROAD PERSPECTIVE. SO THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE INCORPORATING ALL OF THAT TO GET US INTO THE 60%. I THINK THEY ARE SHOOTING FOR THIS MONTH TO HAVE 60%

PLANS FOR US TO REVIEW. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT

ONE. >> OKAY.

>> IS IT ALL THE WAY FROM 1660 SOUTH TO 132. IS IT JUST LIKE

WHERE THE NEW NEIGHBORHOOD IS? >> IT'S FROM 1660 SOUTH FROM

132. GOES FROM WHERE -- >> THAT WE JUST DID THE OVERLAY ON, JUST LIKE A YEAR AGO, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE

THE COMPLETE ROAD. OKAY. >> YEP.

>> AND JUST FOR YOUR AWARENESS. YOU REMEMBER ON THE 1660 SOUTH AT 79 PROJECT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE RAIL CROSSING. TXDOT IS PUTTING A SIGNAL THERE AT 199 FRONT AND 1660. RIGHT? AND SO I'VE BEEN COORDINATING BETWEEN THE TXDOT CONSULTANT AND OUR CONSULTANT TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE TALKING TO ONE ANOTHER. TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE GET TO 1660 SOUTH TO DO OUR ROAD PROJECT. THEY'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT. AND WE THOUGHT ABOUT OUR SIGNAL WHEN WE PUT OUR LANES DOWN.

>> IS THIS RECONSTRUCTION? THIS IS LIKE REDOING THE BASE? CURBS, GUTTER, THE WHOLE NINE YARDS?

>> CORRECT. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE WERE STARTING THE REPAIR PROJECT LAST YEAR. I HAD ASKED THE COUNCIL TO DO A GEO TECHNICAL ANALYSIS, WHICH YOU GUYS DID. AND WE WENT OUT THERE AND FOUND IN SHOULD SPOTS, WE HAD LIKE AS LITTLE AS A HALF INCH OF ASPHALT. ASK IN SOME PLACES, WE ONLY HAD LIKE AN INCH OR TWO OF BASE MATERIAL. WE TOOK THAT GEO TECH. AND SAID WHAT DOES THE CROSS SECTION ACTUALLY NEED TO BE? BASED ON THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES WE'RE SEEING OUT THERE. AND WHAT WE THINK ARE GOING TO GROW, AS NEW PROJECTS KEEP COMING ONLINE. SO THE GEO TECH REPORT INDICATED THAT WE NEED THAT COUPLE OF INCHES OF BASE, REALLY NEEDS TO BE MORE LIKE THREE FEET OF

BASE. >> UH-HUH.

>> SO YES, TO YOUR POINT, MR. MAYOR. IT'S FULL RECONSTRUCTION. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RIP EVERYTHING OUT AND

REDO IT. IN ADDITION -- >> HOW OLD IS THAT ROAD?

>> I'M NOT SURE. IT'S AN OLD COUNTY ROAD. I DON'T KNOW HOW

LONG IT'S BEEN THERE. >> JUST CURIOUS.

>> YEAH. IN ADDITION TO THE RECONSTRUCTION, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE ADDING SIDEWALKS, CURB, GUTTER, ALL OF THAT STUFF. TAKING IT FROM A TRADITIONAL COUNTY ROAD TO MORE OF A CITY ROAD. AND THAT'S IT FOR THE UPDATES.

>> QUICK QUESTION. APPROXIMATELY WHERE ARE WE AT WITH THE 1660 SOUTH AND 79 REDO OR WHATEVER?

>> SO ALL OF OUR STUFF IS 100% DESIGNED. WE ARE WAITING FOR THE TXDOT CONSULTANT TO FINISH THEIR SIGNAL DESIGN AT FRONT STREET. AND THEY JUST YESTERDAY SENT US THE 60% PLANS. SO THEY'RE MOVING A LOT FASTER THAN TYPICAL TXDOT PROJECT WOULD. WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL HAVE THE 90 -- BECAUSE TXDOT HAS TO GO 60, 90, 100. SO WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT WE'LL HAVE 90% PLANS BY AUGUST. 100% PLANS BY SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER.

RIGHT IN THAT TIME FRAME. TALKING TO THE RAIL DIVISION OF

[01:40:04]

TXDOT. THEY ARE INDICATING THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE THOSE SHEETS. AND GO WITH UPIR. SO IT'S LOOKING LIKE PROBABLY THE EARLIEST WOULD BE SOMETIME IN THE MIDDLE OF '25. CAN

THAT'S A BEST-CASE SCENARIO. >> CAN YOU GO BACK ONE SLIDE?

>> YES. >> ONE THING I TALKED ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE PRIORITIZING PROJECTS TWO WAYS.

ONE BASED ON MONEY. ONE BASED ON TEARING UP THE WHOLE CITY.

I'M GUESSING IF WE RIP UP 299. IF YOU'RE TALKING THAT FAR DOWN. YOU'RE TALKING, EVERYBODY HAS GOT TO GO. THE NEW ARBANA WILL BE VERT CAL BY THEN. WHERE DO ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE GO? IT'S MORE OF A RHETORICAL. WHERE DO THOSE PEOPLE GO? AND THEN IF THAT PROJECT STARTS IN THE EARLY PART OF '25 THEN THEN WE'RE GOING TO RIP UP 25. SIX MONTHS LATER, TO ME, YOU'VE GOT MAJOR ROAD PROJECTS THAT ARE OCCURRING. AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE ANYBODY IS GOING TO GO.

YOU'RE GOING TO CUT OFF THE ENTIRE SOUTHEAST SIDE OF THE CITY. AND WRAP THEM DOWN CARL STERN ALL THE WAY TO ED SCHMIDT. WHICH IS ALREADY A CLUSTER ON FRONT STREET. SO SEEMS TO ME LIKE AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT. 1660 SOUTH? OR 189. CAN IT WAIT A YEAR? I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE TOTALLY GRASPED HOW WE'RE GOING TO NAVIGATE PEOPLE AROUND FOR A 12-MONTH PROJECT. I'D LIKE YOU GUYS TO FIGURE THAT OUT AND MAYBE ASK THE PUBLIC. BECAUSE WE DID THAT WITH THE HIGH SCHOOL. WE SAID, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET OUT OF HIGH SCHOOL AND GET EVERYBODY OUT? AND ESSENTIALLY, FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT, WHERE DOES EVERYBODY GO ON 199 AFTERWARDS? AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO TEAR UP AND BLOCK THE INTERSECTION OF 1660 AND 79. SO

THEN THEY ALL GO TO JIM CAGE. >> SO MATT, WHAT'S THE TRAFFIC

PLAN LIKELY TO BE ON 199? >> WELL, I MEAN, SINCE WE'RE DOING FULL-DEPTH RECONSTRUCTION, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD NOT CLOSE THE WHOLE THING. WE WOULD SHUT IT DOWN TO ONE LANE. WE WOULD HAVE FLYERS HELPING TO GET TRAFFIC ON ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER. THE OTHER THING IS, WE ARE WIDENING THE ROAD, AS WELL AS RECONSTRUCTING IT, TO COMPLY WITH EVERYTHING. THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY CONSTRUCT ONE OF THE NEW LANES? AND THEN TAKE A SECTION OF THE OLD ROAD OUT, SO THAT YOU COULD THEORETICALLY HAVE TWO LANES GOING? I'LL -- WE'RE -- WE'RE NOT QUITE THAT DETAILED YET IN THE DESIGN PROCESS. BUT I CAN TALK TO THE CONSULTANT AND SEE WHAT THEY COME UP WITH. AND ONCE WE GET CLOSER TO HAVING THE TXDOT DESIGN DONE ON 1660 AND FRONT. I CAN START FIGURING OUT WHEN TXDOT THINKS WE CAN GET THAT THING. AND START LOOKING AT ALL

OF THE TIME LINES. >> SAME THING I HAVE WITH 137, AND 1660. AND THE SOUTHEAST LOOP AND 1660 ASK 79. IT'S LIKE WE'VE GOT A LOT OF PROJECTS ON THE SOUTH END OF TOWN THAT ARE NEEDED. BUT THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO COME GLUED, IF THEY'RE LIKE REALLY TRAPPED IN THERE. AND I UNDERSTAND THE FLYERS AND ONE-WAY TRAFFIC. YOU'RE TALKING A ONE-YEAR PROJECT THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO GO EASTBOUND AND CAN'T GO WEST? UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A GUY WITH A FLAG, 24 HOURS A DAY. BECAUSE THAT'S LIKE, ANYBODY WHO HAS DRIVEN THAT AT NIGHT. IT IS LIKE A FIRE HYDRANT RIGHT ON THE CORNER THERE. YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL. PLUS, YOU GOTTA GET THE BUSINESSES THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TESLA IS DOING THERE.

BUT SOMEHOW, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE DON'T SPRING IT ALL ONE DAY AND TELL EVERYBODY, GOOD NEWS. BUT THE BAD NEWS IS, WE DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO YOUR HOUSE.

>> NO. THAT'S A VALID CONCERN. I'LL START TALKING TO ALL THE CONSULTANTS AND FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE TRAFFIC

THROUGH THIS. >> AND ON THAT NOTE, WE WOULDN'T JUST SAY, BY THE WAY, THE ROAD IS CLOSED. AND YOU NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS. PART OF THE REASON I ASK WHAT THE TRAFFIC PLANS LOOK LIKE. THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. YOU STILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN EMERGENCY ACCESS, DRIVEWAY ACCESS. YOU STILL HAVE TO -- WHATEVER YOU PLAN TO DO. WHETHER IT BE A COMBINATION OF THINGS TALKED ABOUT OR NOT TALKED ABOUT. YOU STILL HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION INGRESS AND EGRESS. IT WILL DEFINITELY BE BUILT INTO THE PLAN. THE COMPOUNDING FACTOR OF DOING THAT, AT THE SAME TIME. THAT'S PROBABLY THE PART THAT HE NEEDS TO TALK TO THE CONTRACTORS MORE

ABOUT. >> I DON'T WANT TO ARGUE WITH YOU GUYS. BUT RIGHT BEFORE WE CLOSE DOWN GLENWOOD, BLOCK BY BLOCK. THEY GOT A 72-HOUR NOTICE, SAYING YOU CAN'T DRIVE

[01:45:05]

DOWN THIS, AND PEOPLE FREAKED OUT. THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE YEAR. WE DO GIVE NOTICE. 72 HOUR, TO ME. WE'RE EITHER WORKING WITH 132. TXDOT. MAYBE CAN WE GET A TEMPORARY SIGNAL ON 39 TO LET PEOPLE MAKE A TEMPORARY LEFT? WE HAVE THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE THAT HAVE TO INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT OF HERE. THINGS LIKE THAT. BECAUSE WHAT I'M AFRAID IS, WE'LL PUT OUT A FACEBOOK POST SAYING, STARTING NEXT WEEK, 199 IS SHUT DOWN OR ONLY GOES ONE WAY. AND I'M LOOKING FOR MORE OF LIKE HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT OF THERE SAFELY? AND I DON'T WANT ANYBODY DYING WHILE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET TO AND

FROM. >> WE CERTAINLY WILL HANDLE A ROAD THAT IS GOING TO TAKE A YEAR TO GET BUILT DIFFERENTLY KNOW THAN ROADS THAT WILL JUST NEED TO BE FOR MAINTENANCE.

>> WHAT IS THE TIME FRAME? IS THAT THE FIVE-YEAR CIP? ? THE 132 OVERPASS? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE --

>> YEAH. JUST LIKE THE ROAD CONDITION THERE AS WELL. THE CONDITION IS ROUGH AS WELL. AND I KNOW IN THE FUTURE, THE OVERPASS IS COMING. AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. BUT MAYBE YOU'LL

ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> YEAH.

>> I GUESS I FORGET. LIKE TIME FRAME ON THAT ROAD. LIKE DOWN

ON THE GROUND. >> YEAH. SO WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT, WHEN WE GET INTO THE CIP FOR THE NEXT CYCLE OF THE CIP BUT JUST SO YOU HAVE A FRAME OF REFERENCE. FROM 199 UP TO LIMMER LOOP IS THE EXTENT OF THE OVERPASS PROJECT. AND FROM 199 SOUTH, THERE IS NO CURRENT PROJECT WORKING ON THAT

SECTION OF 132. >> SO THE NORTH SIDE OF 79 --

>> SAY THAT AGAIN. >> COUNTY ROAD 199, WHERE IT INTERSECTIONS WITH COUNTY ROAD 132.

>> UH-HUH. >> ALL THE WAY ACROSS 79. AND TO LIMMER LOOP. THAT WAS THE EXENT OF THE OVERPASS PROJECT THAT WE HAVE A CONSULTANT WORKING ON. SHORTLY AFTER 1 99 WHEN THEY DO THEIR PROJECT, IT WILL GET VERTICAL. AND SHORTLY AFTER 79, IT WILL START COMING BACK DOWN, TO GET BACK DOWN TO GRADE. SO THAT IT CAN TIE IN SO THAT SECTION OF 132.

>> GOING TO BE INCORPORATED WITH THE OVERPASS?

[8.4. Capital Improvement Project 5-year Plan (Matt Rector)]

>> CORRECT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. FIVE-YEAR

PLAN. >> IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> THIS IS LABELED AT CIP WORKSHOP. THE GOAL OF THIS ITEM RIGHT NOW IS TO PRESENT THE CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE HAPPENED TO DATE FOR THE '25 THROUGH '29 CIP. WE HAVE TAKEN ALL OF THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD IN THE WORKSHOPS IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, INTO ACCOUNT. WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IN YOUR -- I BELIEVE IT'S IN YOUR PACKETS, PLANNING AND ZONING HAS PROVIDED YOU A SPREADSHEET THAT HAS THEIR FEEDBACK FOR EACH OF THE PROJECTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THEM. ASK I'LL JUST ASK YOUR FORGIVENESS. I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST WAY TO CONVEY A LOT OF INFORMATION TO YOU GUYS. AND, LIKE, YOU GET TITLES. AND YOU GET PROJECT NUMBERS AND YOU GET DOLLAR AMOUNTS. AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE INEVITABLE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND A LOT OF FLIPPING BACK AND FORTH. SO I'LL HAVE TO APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. RIGHT UP FRONT. SO FIRST THING. JUST TO REFRESH EVERYONE'S MEMORY. THE CURRENT CIP FROM FY 24-28. WE HAD 172 TOTAL PROJECTS. THE FY 24 WAS 262 PLUS MILLION. AND THE TOTAL CIP FOR ALL FIVE YEARS WAS 1.3 BILLION DOLLARS.

>> YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 153 PROJECTS. FOR A TOTAL CIP OF 1.5 BILLION DOLLARS. SOY SO LET ME START WITH THE EASY

[01:50:02]

ONES. YOU HAVE BIDDING AND FACILITIES. THIS IS THE EASIEST ONE BECAUSE IT'S THE SHORTEST LIST. WE HAVE THE NEW PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY THAT WE STARTED THAT ONE THIS YEAR. SO THAT ONE IS BEING PROGRAMMED AND PLANNED, AS WE SPEAK. WE ALSO HAVE THE NEW POLICE STATION OR JUSTICE CENTER, ALSO BEING PLANNED AND PROGRAMMED STARTING THIS YEAR. SO THOSE TWO ARE ALREADY IN PROGRESS. YOU CAN SEE THAT WE HAD ALLOCATED ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR THEM IN '25. AND THEN THE ONLY NEW ONE THAT WAS STARTING UP WAS THE FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR -- I'M SORRY. I'M GETTING -- YEAH. THE FEEDIBILITY STUDY FOR THE THAT IS THE ONLY PROJECT MEANT TO BE ADDED TO THE BUILDING AND FACILITIES PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS '24 TO '28. LET ME JUMP TO '25 SO YOU CAN SEE CHANGE. YOU CAN SEE IN '25, WE SAID, HOLD UP. SO I'M GOING TO FLIP BACK AND FORTH FOR A SECOND. YOU CAN SEE IN 25, FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS. WE HAD 3.75 MILLION.

REMEMBER, THESE ARE IN MILLIONS. 3.75 MILLION. YOU CAN SEE THAT I PUSHED THAT OUT TO 26. MY THOUGHT BEING THAT WE'RE PLANNING IT AND PROGRAMMING IT. WE DON'T HAVE LAND FOR IT. AND POTENTIALLY, WE DON'T HAVE THE FULL PRICE TO GO OUT AND CONSTRUCT THIS. SO I PUSHED IT OUT A YEAR. BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO GO OUT FOR A BOND TO SEE IF THE CITIZENS WOULD SUPPORT THAT DEBT. SAME THING ON THE POLICE -- SO YOU CAN SEE THAT THE POLICE WAS BACK-TO-BACK YEARS, UNTIL WE GOT IT COMPLETED. WE'RE STILL PLANNING IT AND PROGRAMMING IT RIGHT NOW. BUT IN '25. WE'RE SAYING LET'S SKIP A YEAR, GET IT ALL PLANNED, PROGRAMMED. GET A COST. FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH COST WE NEED TO GO BUY. AND FIGURE OUT, IF WE ALREADY HAVE LAND, WHERE WE WANT TO PUT IT. THEN IN '26, WE WOULD START THE FULL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION PROCESS. SO THEN THE ONLY PROJECT THAT WE'RE STARTING IN '25, REMEMBER, WE ORIGINALLY SAID, WE'RE GOING TO START THE REC CENTER IN '25.

THIS YEAR, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS, LET'S KEEP THE REC OUT ANOTHER YEAR. AND TALKING TO PNC, THEY THOUGHT THE LIBRARY SHOULD BE POSITIONED HIGHER THAN THE REC CENTER. PARTIALLY BECAUSE AT THE TIME, CITY COUNCIL HAD JUST VOTED TO HELP THE YMCA DO THEIR EXPANSION. SO THEY SAID, WE'RE JUST EXPANDING THE Y, LET THEM DO THEIR THING. AND THEN WE'LL TALK REC IN THE FUTURE. SO PARKS AND I'LL JUST BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH YOU. I'M LEAST VERSED ON ALL OF THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS. BUT WE HAVE THE PARKS DIRECTOR HERE. HE CAN JUMP IN TO BAIL ME OUT, WHEN I PUT MY FOOT IN MY MOUTH. IN '25. YOU CAN SEE WE GOT THE P01. JUST ANNUAL RECURRING MAINTENANCE. AT THE THEATER. THE NEXT THING IS, FINISHING OUT THE FRITZ PARK IMPROVEMENTS. SO YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE KEEPING IT AT THE $11 MILLION THAT COUNCIL HAS ALREADY APPROVED. WE'RE JUST FINISHING OUTTHAT NUMBER IN FY '25. THIS IS NOT COMPLETE. BUT SHOULD BE WRAPPED UP SO WE SHOULDN'T BE FUNDING ANYTHING IN '25. TRAIL LIGHTING, FY 24 CIP, WE HAD TWO DIFFERENT PARKS THAT WE HAD TRAIL RIDING. WE COULD ONLY DO ONE OF THE PARKS. WE RECOMMENDED PUSHING THAT SECOND PARK INTO FY 25. AND THEN WE HAVE THE VETERANS MEMORIAL, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY VOTED ON TO FUND COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES. WE HAD THE YMCA. AND TRAIL EXTENSION.

THAT WAS ALREADY IN '24. THIS IS JUST FINISHING IT OUT.

RECREATION AND PARKS AND P&Z WAS TO START DOING THE ATHLETICS FIELD. I KNOW COUNCIL HAD A WORKSHOP, WHERE WE DID A FEASIBILITY STUDY. COUNCIL PROVIDED THE FEEDBACK. SO THIS IS JUST TRYING TO ESCALATE THAT TO GET IT MOVING FASTER. THE NEXT THINGS IN '25 ARE TO FINISH UP THE PICKLEBALL COURTS. WE STARTED FINISHING THAT THIS YEAR. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE FINISHING THAT. SO '25 WOULD BE FINISHING UP THE DESIGN. AND THEN 26 WOULD BE STARTING CONSTRUCTION. AND THEN

[01:55:03]

THE REST ROOM. AGAIN, THAT'S ONE WE STARTED IN '24. SO THAT EXTRA NUMBER IN '25 IS JUST TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION. AND I KNOW I'M FLYING THROUGH THESE ALL PRETTY QUICK. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BORE EVERYBODY WITH A BUNCH OF NUMBERS AND FIGURES. IF YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS, PLEASE JUST JUMP IN AND STOP ME. THEN YOU HAVE THE NEXT '25 PROJECT IS THE HUDDLE LAKE PARK, WHICH IS MAKING IMPROVEMENTS THERE. THEN YOU HAVE THE TRAIL EXTENSION, AT HUDDLE LAKE SOUTH THEN JUMPING DOWN TO THE HUDDLE LAKE PARK PLAYGROUND. THEN YOU HAVE CARMEL CREEK TRAIL EXTENSION, WHICH IS FROM BRUSHY CREEK TO CARL STERN. AND SO THAT'S A TOTAL PARKS CIP IN FY 25 OF JUST OVER $14 MILLION. YOU WANT ME TO JUST KEEP PUSHING THROUGH? OR DID YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THE PARK PROJECTS BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE NEXT?

>> IF IT'S JUST ABOUT PRIORITIES? DO YOU WANT THAT

NOW? >> IT'S YOUR SHOW, SIR. I'M

JUST HERE TO TALK. >> ON THAT NOTE. IT MIGHT BE PRUDENT FOR ME TO JOIN IN AND SAY, SO LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE DEVELOPED A FIVE-YEAR CIP. AND COUNCIL WASN'T ABLE TO RECEIVE THAT UNTIL EFFECTIVELY THE END OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. IT WAS DAYS BEFORE I WAS PRESENTING A PROPOSED BUDGET. THAT'S ALSO PART OF THE REASON THAT WE'RE ISSUING THE DEBT THAT WE ISSUED TONIGHT. THIS TIME OF YEAR. WAS PREDOMINANTLY BECAUSE IT TOOK US A GOOD BIT OF THIS FISCAL YEAR, IN ORDER TO GET CONSENSUS ON WHAT WE WERE ACTUALLY GOING TO FUND, VERSUS WHAT THE PROJECTS WERE. SO NOW WHAT WE'RE DOING IS STARTING THE PROCESS MUCH EARLIER. AND THIS IS TO ALLOW COUNCIL TO SAY, THERE'S A PROJECT ON HERE, SLATED FOR NEXT YEAR, THAT WE DON'T THINK WE WANT TO DO NEXT

YEAR. >> UH-HUH.

>> OR FOR YOU TO SAY OTHER THERE'S A PROJECT NOT ON THERE NEXT YEAR, THAT WE DO THINK WE NEED TO DO NEXT YEAR. AND WHAT HAPPENS, WHENEVER THAT LIST GETS MASSAGED BETWEEN NOW AND THE END OF JULY. THAT EFFECTIVELY IS SETTING YOUR DEBT PLAN FOR THE BUDGET YEAR. SO THAT -- BY THE TIME YOU GET DONE WITH WHATEVER IS IN THE 2025 COLUMN. THAT WILL BE, HEY, WE NEED TO ISSUE THIS MUCH DEBT FOR PARKS, THIS MUCH C.O.S FOR UTILITY PROJECTS. THAT ALL GETS BUILT INTO THE PROJECT. SO YES.

IT IS APPROPRIATE FOR YOU TO BE GIVING FEEDBACK.

>> I DON'T SEE THE Y AS EXPANDING MUCH OF ANYTHING.

IT'S KIND OF A BAND AID. IT DOESN'T GIVE MUCH AGREEMENT.

SO MY DISAGREEMENT IS, FLIPPING THE LIBRARY AND REC CENTER.

I'D RATHER SEE THEM FLIPPED BACK. THE LIBRARY IS IMPORTANT.

REC CENTER, YOU CAN PROVIDE FOR THE COMMUNITY AND HIRE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. BUT YOU CAN ALSO ATTEMPT COST RECOVERY. OR YOU CAN CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY ELSE TO RUN IT FOR YOU AND NOT JUST A BUNCH OF EMPLOYEES. SO THAT, TO ME, IS A DIFFERENCE THAT IS IMPORTANT. BECAUSE IF WE HAVE A CHOICE ON WHEN WE HIRE A BUNCH OF EMPLOYEES, THE FURTHER ALONG, WE DO THAT. THE MORE TAX REVENUE, THE CITY HAS. AND THE EASIER IT IS TO TAKE ON THAT.

THAT IS THE REASON THAT I THINK THAT SHOULD BE FLIPPED. NOT REALLY ANY DIFFERENCE IN PRIORITY FOR THE PROJECTS THEMSELVES. BUT JUST THE FEASIBILITY OF THE CITY BEING ABLE TO AFFORD TO STAFF AND RUN THE PROJECTS.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE DOWNTOWN LIGHTING, TO BE ADDED TO THIS.

BECAUSE JUST FROM WHENEVER THE DRONE SHOW HAPPENED AT CHRISTMASTIME, I THINK TEMPORARY LIGHTING WAS BROUGHT IN. BUT IF YOU WALKED DOWN, LIKE A SIDE STREET. IT WAS DARK, RIGHT? AND SO JUST LIKE SOME PERMANENT, NICE LIGHTING THAT IS NOT SUPER BRIGHT. YOU KNOW, THE BIG LIGHTS. JUST APPROPRIATE FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT ADDED. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A PARK OR BUILDING AND FACILITIES. SET AREA. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT FITS IN.

>> MAYOR, I MIGHT SUGGEST IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY ON THE LIST, AND THERE'S A REQUEST TO MOVE IT UP OR DOWN.

I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR YOU ALL TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM TO SEE IF THERE IS OR NOT. IF THERE'S SOMETHING NEW THAT WE HAVEN'T PRICED YET. THEN WE'LL NEED TO TAKE THAT, BRING IT AND PRICE IT, BRING IT BACK, AND THEN COUNCIL WILL VOTE ON INDIVIDUAL ITEMS, THAT NEVER KNEW WHERE TO INCLUDE THEM OR WHETHER TO INCLUDE THEM.

>> HONESTLY, I THINK I'D LIKE TO JUST GET THE PRESENTATION. I

[02:00:03]

THINK WE NEED A WORKSHOP. YOU'RE PROPOSING IN FIVE YEARS, 1.3, 1.5 BILLION IN PROJECTS. IN THE HUTTO WEBSITE, SAYS IN 2023, WE HAVE $86 MILLION IN DEBT. AND TAX-SUPPORTED DEBT. AND $102 MILLION IN REVENUE. I HAVE YET TO HEAR, WHAT DOES $1.3 BILLION DO TO OUR TAXES. AND YEAH, LET'S DO THIS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND MOVE THAT AROUND. BUT WE HAVE YET TO ASK, WHAT IS THE PUBLIC? WHAT CAN THEY STOMACH? BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GO FROM $250 MILLION IN DEBT. WE'RE GOING TO ADD $1 IMPORTANT 3 BILLION ON IN YEARS. THAT'S GOT TO DO SOMETHING IN THE TAX BILL. WE HAVE EVERYTHING DOWN.

MAKES IT LOOK LIKE IT. NOT SAYING YOU GUYS DID THIS ON PURPOSE. BUT I SHOWED THIS PEOPLE. AND THEY'RE LIKE, THAT'S 11 CENTS. WHAT IS THAT? $110,000. EVERYTHING SEEMS TO ME TO BE MADE TO MINIMIZE. AND AT SOME POINT, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE IT. STORM THIS BUILDING AND DRAG US OUT OF HERE. AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, MY BILL WENT FROM $1600 TO $4500. WHY DID YOU DO THAT? AND YOU'RE GOING TO GO, WELL, WE TOLD YOU HOW MUCH IT WAS. WE ARE GOING TO DO IT, LIKE, HERE'S THE COST OF DEBT. TO ME, THIS IS A COMPLETE WASTE OF TIME, UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT THE COST ACTUALLY IS. OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST -- IT'S LIKE MONOPOLY MONEY. AND I KNOW THE ONE THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CRITICAL OF THIS. BUT KEEP IN MIND, $250 MILLION IS WHAT WE OWE IN MONEY. WE'RE GOING TO POP PEOPLE'S TAXES. BECAUSE WE JUST SOLD $26 MILLION IN DEBT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT $1.3 MILLION DOES. BUT YOU GUYS MAY BE WASTING YOUR TIME, DOING ALL OF THIS WORK, ONLY TO FIND OUT, THE PUBLIC IS LIKE, I DON'T WANT TO PAY $8,000 A YEAR IN CITY TAXES. I CAN'T AFFORD THAT. BUSINESSES ARE GOING TO CLOSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, I CAN'T AFFORD MY TAX BILL ANYMORE. AGAIN, WE MINIMIZE IT ALL DOWN TO THE SMALLEST NUMBER TO WHERE IT'S EASIER TO DIGEST. SO IT'S WHATEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS. IF YOU WANT TO PRIORITIZE IT. BUT AT SOME POINT, WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THIS COSTS, LIKE IN REAL MONEY. INSTEAD OF

JUST IN MY MIND. >> I AGREE WITH THAT POINT. THE REASON WE ARE SPENDING OVER $300 MILLION THIS YEAR IS SPECIFIC WATER AND WASTEWATER PROJECTS THAT COUNCIL DECIDED HAVE TO GET DONE THAT ARE NOT AN EVERY YEAR KIND OF THING.

THAT NUMBER IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE AMOUNT FOR US TO SPEND EVERY YEAR. THAT'S A HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE SPENT ONCE. I DON'T SEE ANY WAY THAT WORKS.

>> AND THIS IS WHY I BROUGHT IT MULTIPLE TIMES. LIKE I WANT 199 TO LOOK GOOD. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE COULD JUST KEEP GOING ON. AND WHAT WE DID THIS ONE OVER HERE. LET'S GO SPEND $10 MILLION. AND WE'RE NOT COMPUTING WHAT THIS IS ACTUALLY DOING. SO TO ME, TO REALLY PRIORITIZE THIS. WE HAVE TO GET LEVEL WITH THE PUBLIC AND GO, LOOK. A MILLION DOLLARS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S LIKE, ONE TOILET OR IF THAT'S FIVE.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE DOWN TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, THE CONVERSATIONS TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT HEY, YOU GUYS WANT A POOL? IT'S GOING TO COST YOU $200 A YEAR IN PROPERTY TAXES, ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. PEOPLE MOVE FORWARD. I'M WITH COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. WE SPEND $200 MILLION, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY? I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE WHAT THAT WOULD LIKE LIKE IF WE DID THAT FOR FIVE MORE YEARS.

AND THIS DOESN'T EVEN INCLUDE THINGS PEOPLE WANT. THERE'S OTHER THINGS THEY WANT. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO IT. I TELL YOU ALL THE TIME. THIS COUNCIL HAS GOT TO JUST HAVE A SATURDAY AND JUST DUKE IT OUT AND BE HONEST WITH THE PUBLIC.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A LIBRARY IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS.

SO HOW DO WE MAKE THE LIBRARY WE HAVE WORK? OR WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LIBRARY, BUT YOU'RE NOT HAVING A REC CENTER, YOU'RE NOT HAVING A POOL. IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT TO HAVE A TAX BILL THAT TRIPLELESS OR QUADRUPLES EVERY THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. AND THAT'S ASSUMING ALL OF THESE OTHER BIG COMPANIES ARE COMING IN. AND THEY MAY SLOW DOWN AND ECONOMIC IMPACTS AND ALL THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW. IF ANYBODY IS AGAINST HAVING A SATURDAY. AND I HATE DOING THIS STUFF ON SATURDAY. BUT I DON'T THINK A THURSDAY NIGHT IS A GOOD TIME TO BUST OUT $1.3 BILLION IN PROJECTS AND PRIORITIZE THEM AND CHECK THAT BOX. THIS CERTAINLY ISN'T THE END OF THE PROCESS. THAT'S WHY WE'RE DOING IT AT THE BEGINNING OF JUNE, NOT THE END OF JULY. THE THING IS TO POINT OUT TO YOU OBVIOUS NO-GOES OR MISSES. OR SOMETHING LIKE COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR DID. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING THAT IS NO WAY, NO HOW. THEN IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REMOVE IT

[02:05:02]

AT THAT POINT. BUT THEN WHAT WE'LL INTEND TO DO IS CONTINUE OVER THE NEXT 60 DAYS, TO GET THIS FINE-TUNED, WHICH COMES WITH THE COST AND WHAT HAVE YOU WITH WHAT THE PROJECT DETAILS.

AND A LOT MORE DETAIL. >> BUT HOW DO YOU DO THAT

WITHOUT KNOWING THE PRICE? >> THE PRICE IS UP THERE FROM

WHAT THEY'RE ESTIMATING. >> YOU'RE ASKING US TO SHOP.

GO TO THE STORE, PUT ANYTHING YOU WANT IN THE BASKET. AND THEN WE'LL TELL YOU WHAT IT COSTS. BECAUSE NOT EVERYTHING UP THERE ENDS UP GETTING PAID FOR WITH DEBT. SOME THINGS, LIKE THE PARK PROJECT WOULD BE PAID WITH PARK IMPROVEMENT

PROJECT. >> I WOULD ARGUE EVERYTHING GETS PAID WITH DEBT. IF YOU BUY ONE THING, YOU USED DEBT. YOU COULD USE YOUR FUNDS MORE APPROPRIATELY AND HAVE LESS DEBT. OR HAVE SALARIES AND PHONES AND BORROW ALL THE MONEY. MONEY SPENT IS MONEY SPENT. I DON'T CARE WHERE IT COMES FROM. IT'S MONEY THE PUBLIC -- WE COULD HAVE USED IT ON SIDEWALKS. INSTEAD, WE SPENT IT ON THIS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU GUYS ARE ASKING US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T WORK, WHEN A POLICE STATION, WHAT DOES $53 MILLION

DO? >> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE NEEDING FROM US IS THE PROJECTS. AND FROM THERE, WE'RE GOING TO NARROW IT DOWN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SEVERAL OF THESE MEETING THE TO KIND OF FINE-TUNE IT.

LIKE THE LIBRARY. THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A STUDY.

ON LIBRARY FEASIBILITY. SO THAT'S PROBABLY AN ACCURATE NUMBER ON A STUDY. AND THEN AS WE GET CLOSER TO, I GUESS, THE BUDGET SEASON, THEY'LL ACTUALLY HAVE THESE NUMBERS IN THERE. BUT THAT LIBRARY SAY, THEN WE'LL FINE-TUNE WHAT WE SPENT. WILL WE STAY ON TRACK? IT WILL FINE-TUNE THE END RESULT OF WHAT WILL BE SPENT OVER THREE YEARS. RIGHT? SO WE HAVE TO AT LEAST COMMIT TO SOME PROJECTS.

>> I JUST KEEP ASKING. WHAT IS $10 MILLION BORROWED EQUAL TO

THE POCKETBOOK? >> ACCORDING TO ANN LAMERE, THE GREAT ANN LAMERE. EVERY $10 MILLION IS .01, I THINK, ON THE

TAX RATE. >> THAT WAS LAST YEAR'S --

>> ANYWAY. IT WOULD BE LESS. >> I'M DONE.

>> OR LESS. I DON'T KNOW -- >> I'M JUST SAYING, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU. I JUST -- IF YOU DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS A LIBRARY, MAYBE I WANT A LIBRARY FOR $10 MILLION.

MAYBE THAT'S A BIGGER THING THAN A POOL FOR $16 MILLION.

BUT IF IT ONLY COSTS TAXPAYERS $10 A YEAR, LET'S BUILD THE LIBRARY AND THE POOL. WE CAN CERTAINLY PUT THESE IN THE PROJECT IN THE SAME FORMAT AS WE DO FOR A PUBLIC WORKSHOP, WHERE WE EXPLAIN WHAT THE COST IS. NOT PER 100,000. TO THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER, WE ACTUALLY GO AND GET THE REAL MATH. WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT AND SAY THIS IS WHAT IT IS. NOW, OF COURSE, THERE'S A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS, AS YOU WELL KNOW, THAT GO INTO THAT. BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT CALCULATION, THAT THE CITY IS ISN'T GOING TO GROW FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS AND THAT VALUES ARE GOING TO STAY THE SAME. THAT'S ASSUMPTION. OTHERWISE, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME SORT OF ASSUMPTION THAT WILL MAKE THAT LOOK SMALLER. SO WE CAN DO THAT, AS PART OF THE EXERCISE.

AND WHENEVER YOU ALL GET TO THE POINT OF HAVING YOUR SET WORKSHOP TO JUST TALK ABOUT THIS, THEN YOU'LL HAVE KIND OF LIKE A MENU IN FRONT OF YOU OF WHAT THINGS ARE EXPECTED TO COST. AND THESE ARE, ARGUABLY, SOME OF THE MORE -- SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT ARE -- WHAT WOULD YOU SAY? THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED BY TECQ, THEY'RE -- OPTIONAL? NOT REALLY THE RIGHT WORD. ONE WOULD BE REQUIREMENT. THESE ARE WANTS. WE WANT A POOL, WE WANT A DOWNTOWN REST ROOM. WE WANT A LIBRARY. WE NEED SEWER CAPACITY.

>> CORRECT. WE NEED WATER CAPACITY. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT HERE TO DEBATE WHAT'S A WANT AND A NEED TODAY. I'D SAY $1 BILLION OF THIS IS PROBABLY WANTS. AND WHAT ARE THE ACTUAL NEEDS. AND I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY. BUT ANYWAY. HOWEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO IT. I MEAN, AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE IS GOING TO FIGURE OUT, WE JUST ISSUED A TON OF DEBT, AND WHEN A BILL COMES, AND I IMAGINE THIS BUDGET CYCLE WILL BE PART OF THAT. AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, I DIDN'T REALIZE ALL OF THESE THINGS WE ARE APPROVING EQUAL THIS. BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT

IT AT 11 CENTS, 89 CENTS. >> MAYOR, IN ALL FAIRNESS.

[02:10:01]

THAT'S PUT UP THAT WAY, ON THE SLIDE, SO YOU CAN SEE IT. I MEAN, WE COULD -- THE EARLIER FIVE-YEAR CIP HAD ALL THE ZEROS ON IT. THAT'S JUST COMPRESSED SO IT CAN FIT ON THE SLIDE.

OTHERWISE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO SEE ALL IN ONE SHOT.

THAT'S THE ONLY REASON IT'S WRITTEN THAT WAY.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO JUST KEEP GOING. LET MATT PRESENT THIS.

AND THEN WE CAN JUST ADD COMMENTS. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GET SIDETRACKED AND POSTPONE THIS TO SOME OTHER

TIME. >> I DIDN'T SAY POSTPONE IT. I DON'T WANT TO VOTE ON IT ON THE PROPER ORDER AND PRIORITIZE EVERYTHING IF WE DON'T KNOW THE COST. I'D LIKE TO HEAR IT, US MULL IT OVER AND MEET ON A SATURDAY, TO FIGURE OUT, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO IN 2025. THIS, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND $125,000. BUT WHEN YOU START ADDING UP ALL THE SLIDES TOGETHER. IT COULD BE $200 MILLION THAT WE JUST APPROVED, BUT IT'S ALL SECTIONED OFF IN A MANNER.

>> LET'S DO PRESENTATION AND MAYBE NO COMMENTS.

>> ONE THING I WOULD LIKE US TO DO, AND I THINK IT MOSTLY APPLIES TO THE BUILDING FACILITIES AND MAY APPLY A LITTLE BIT TO SOME OF THE OTHERS. BUT SOME OF THEM, IT DEFINITELY APPLIES. WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE M&O COSTS TIED TO THAT PROJECT IS. IF YOU HAVE TO HIRE 10 PEOPLE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, A MILLION OR TWO MILLION IN M&O. DEPENDING ON WHAT YOU NEED IN SUPPORT FOR THAT ON AN ONGOING BASIS. AND THAT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE TAXPAYER AS WELL.

IT BECOMES A DOUBLE HIT. I THINK THE PROJECTS WHERE THERE'S AN OBVIOUS HIT THAT COMES WITH IT. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT. IN THIS CONTEXT TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

>> SURE. THE BIGGEST ONE WOULD BE THE REC CENTER.

>> REC CENTER LIBRARY. >> YEAH OF.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE. >> YOU ALREADY HAVE STAFF AT A LIBRARIAN. SO IT WOULDN'T BE LIKE A FULL, YOU NEED A WHOLE BUNCH OF PEOPLE TO GO. YOU WOULD BE EXPANDING WHAT YOU

EXIST. AND THAT DELTA -- >> LIKE GEORGE TOWN HAS ABOUT FOUR TIMES AS MANY. IF YOU'RE EXPANDING.

>> I'M SAYING IT'S THE DELTA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> YES. THE DELTA. NOT THE FULL COST. BUT WHAT THE DELTA IS.

>> YEAH. >> TIME?

>> YEAH, PLEASE. I DON'T WANT TO CUT OFF THE CONVERSATION.

BUT JUST -- OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE TO STREETS AND DRAINAGE. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT WE STARTED THE LEGENDS OF HUTTO IN '24. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER DURING THE BOND CONVERSATION.

THAT CARRIES OVER INTO '25. YOU HAVE THE RECURS EVERY FISCAL YEAR, SIDEWALK COUNCIL SAID THEY WANTED. IN '24, WE HAD ALLOCATED $250,000. BUT THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL, WE WANTED TO ALLOCATE $550,000 A YEAR, SO YOU CAN SEE WE'VE GOT THAT STARTING IN '25, AND CONTINUING ON. THE NEXT ONE IS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT LEFT OVER IN '25, I THINK THAT'S JUST THE FINAL PAYOUT, ONCE THE FINAL PROJECT IS DONE. BECAUSE AS I INDICATED EARLIER, THEY PROBABLY WON'T BE DONE WITH IT, UNTIL WE'RE PARTIALLY INTO FY '25 ANYWAY. AND LET ME GET ON THE RIGHT SLIDE, SO I CAN MAKE SURE THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT YEAR. OKAY. AND THEN WE HAVE 1660 SOUTH AT 79.

YOU CAN SEE, I'M PUTTING THE COSTS THAT WE HAVE BEEN CARRYING FORWARD ON THAT ONE. INTO FY 25. WE HAVE THE CR137, FM 1660. I PREVIOUSLY INDICATED WE'RE ANTICIPATING TXDOT LETTING US BID THAT IN NOVEMBER. SO THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS WILL BE FULLY IN FY-'25. LAKESIDE ESTATES AND SIDEWALKS.

THIS ONE IS ONE COUNCIL SAID IN '24, TO WRAP IT UP. THE FINAL DESIGN PHASE SECTION, '23, THE COSTS FOR CONSTRUCTION ARE MORE THAN WE BUDGETED IN '24. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT NUMBER IN '25. THEN YOU HAVE THE CR132 OVERPASS. AND EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT'S A BIG-TICKET ITEM. WE HAVE THAT AT $16 MILLION. THEN YOU HAVE THE CREEK CONSTRUCTION WE TALKED ABOUT. WHEN WE TALKED IN '24, COUNCIL SAID THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO CONSTRUCTION UNTIL '25. SO I CARRIED THE CONSTRUCTION COST OVER INTO 25. THEN YOU HAVE THE ED SCHMIDT CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. APPARENTLY COUNCIL HAD ALREADY APPROVED THIS. RIGHT AT 79. UP TO -- BASICALLY UP TO THE

[02:15:05]

CHURCH AND THEN THE SPWREUBGZ INTERSECTION AT ED SCHMIDT AND LEMMER LOOP. THEN YOU HAVE THE SIGNAL AT INNOVATION AND LEMMER. THAT WON'T BE FULLY DESIGNED UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR. THAT'S THE COST YOU'RE SEEING. AND SAME THING, AND LEMMER LOOP IS CARRYING ON ANY MAIN CONSTRUCTION. I'M THINKING, WITH OUR UPDATED TIME LINES THIS MAY GET SHIFTED. BUT I PUT IT THERE, IN CASE WE HAD TO CARRY OVER ANY INTO '25.

THEN YOU HAVE THE EXCHANGE RECONSTRUCTION. SO WE'RE DESIGNING THAT ONE NOW. IT STARTED THIS YEAR. CONSTRUCTION WOULD START NEXT YEAR. THEN YOU HAVE COUNTY ROAD 23.

COUNSELORSIL DIDN'T THINK IT WAS HIGH ENOUGH PRIORITY. MOVE TODAY TO '25. TALKING TO P&Z, THEY THOUGHT IT SHOULD BE KEPT IN '25. AMANDA, CAN YOU MOVE OVER THE SLIDE.

>> WHICH ONE, MAVERICK? >> THE --

>> HOLD ON. HOLD ON. >> THIS ONE.

>> OKAY. IS THIS THE RIGHT ONE? CIP LOCATIONS? OR YOU WANT THE ARTERIAL OR THE WASTEWATER OR THE WATER?

>> SO I WAS TRYING TO BE PREPARED.

>> SO YOU SEE WHERE THE CAN YOU ZOOM IN THERE RIGHT TO WHERE

THE BROOKLYN IS? >> OVERWHERE BROOKLYN IS. I'M TRYING TO ZOOM. I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT WORKING.

>> OKAY. SO THAT IS COUNTY ROAD 163. YOU HAVE COUNTY ROAD 137 ON THE BROOKLINES AND SCHOOL. AND ALL OF THAT. COUNTY ROAD 163 IS AN OLD, GRAVEL COUNTY ROAD. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER GOING DIRECTLY TO THE EAST OF IT, WHICH IS CALLED HERITAGE MILL. AND THEY HAVE AGREED TO PAY HALF THE COST OF THAT ROAD BEING PAVED. SO THEY HAVE AGREED TO CONTRIBUTE THEIR HALF. SO BASED ON THE FACT THAT WE'RE GETTING FUNDING FROM THEM. AND WE TRIED TO GET THEM TO PAY THE WHOLE THING. AND THEY WOULDN'T GO FOR THAT P&Z AND I AGREE THAT WE MAY WANT TO PRIORITIZE HAVING THAT FULLY PAID BEFORE THESE SUBDIVISIONS

ARE FULLY BUILT OUT DOWN THERE. >> SLOW DOWN. THE SUBDIVISION'S GROWTH, IF THERE WAS A GRAVEL ROAD? WITH A SIGN BY THE CITY, THAT WE'RE NOT PAYING THIS FOR FIVE MORE YEARS? I SAY THAT JOKINGLY. PEOPLE SAY, WE'RE GOING TO PUT ALL OF THESE ROADS IN HERE. AND THEN WE HAVE TO JUMP ROAD PROJECTS AHEAD OF EVERYBODY ELSE. I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO PAY THE WHOLE THING. BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT FORCES US TO GO THROUGH AND SPEND $5 MILLION ON A ROAD? I ASSUME THEY WON'T SELL AS MANY HOMES WHEN IT'S A GRAVEL ROAD.

>> NO, I MEAN. THERE'S NOTHING THAT FORCES US. I WAS JUST TRYING TO -- BASED ON CONVERSATIONS THAT I HAVE BEEN HAVING WITH DEVELOPERS, TRYING TO PRIORITIZE PROJECTS WHERE WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING AND THEY'RE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE FUNDS TO HELP US PAY FOR SOME OF THIS STUFF. AGAIN, IT'S COMPLETELY COUNCIL'S PREROGATIVE. MAYBE WE DON'T PAVE THIS UNTIL '28-'29. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE TRACKING WHERE COUNTY ROAD 167 IS. WE HAVE A LOT OF C.R.S. AND NOT MANY KNOW WHERE THEY'RE AT.

>> I NEVER HEARD OF THAT. >> CAN YOU FLIP BACK OVER TO

THE PRESENTATION, PLEASE? >> YES, OF COURSE. WAIT. WAS

THAT IT? >> NO. THE ONE YOU WERE ON.

>> THIS? >> YEP. THANK YOU.

>> THEN YOU HAVE COUNTY ROAD 199 RECONSTRUCTION WHICH WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IN 25. SO THEN YOU GO DOWN INTO -- THESE ARE GETTING TO PROJECTS THAT ARE NOT IN ANY FY '24. AND YOU CAN SEE -- AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT UPDATING THE NUMBER. YOU CAN SEE THIS, ORIGINALLY I HAD SLATED THAT FOR 28. BUT BASED ON CONVERSATIONS WE BARK IN FEBRUARY IN ONE OF OUR

[02:20:01]

WORKSHOPS. I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PRIORITIZE OUR MAJOR ARTERIALS. AND YOU CAN SEE THE ARTERIALS AND YOU CAN SEE I TRIED TO DO THE 132 AND THE LEMMER LOOP. CAN YOU FLIP BACK TO THAT MAP JUST SO THAT I CAN CLARIFY?

>> UH-HUH.

LOOP >> I DON'T KNOW WHY.

>> WHILE SHE'S DOING THAT. SPEND $80 MILLION ON THE BRIDGE. YOU GOTTA SPEND $40 MILLION TO GET TO IT?

>> YEAH. APPROXIMATELY. BUT THAT'S TO BUILD A BRAND NEW

ROAD FROM 1660 TO THE OVERPASS. >> I THOUGHT THE COUNTY WAS COVERING THE NORTH AND SOUTH IF WE BUILT A BRIDGE? ? THE COUNTY HAS IT ON THEIR MASTER PLAN. AND THE COUNTY IS -- AND I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY. WE'RE GOING TO POSE IT TO CAMPO, TO POTENTIALLY GET CAMPO FUNDS. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE COUNTY IS NOT FUNDING THAT AT ALL.

>> IS THAT ACTUALLY 133 IN THAT AREA?

>> ON THE NORTH SIDE, IT'S 133. ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

>> ACTUALLY, 132 DOES HIT 1660, EAST-WEST. BECAUSE IT BRANCHES

OFF, RIGHT? >> NO. SO -- I DON'T HAVE A

POINTER, I DON'T THINK. >> THAT'S WHY I WAS CONFUSED.

IN BETWEEN THE TWO NEIGHBORHOODS. TO CONTINUE GOING NORTH ON 133. BUT IF YOU TURNED LEFT, YOU'D HIT 1660.

>> CORRECT. ON THE NORTH SIDE. BUT ON THE SOUTH SIDE.

>> BUT IT'S A SHORT AREA. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING

ABOUT. >> SO YOU CAN SEE, I TRIED TO COLOR CODE THIS, TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE. SO THE PURPLE LINES AND DOTS ASK SQUARES THAT YOU SEE ON THERE, ARE ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WE STARTED IN FY '24 FOR ROADS. SO YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE THE ED SCHMIDT SIDEWALK, WHICH IS JUST THAT LITTLE SECTION THAT I MENTIONED. YOU CAN SEE THERE, GOING TO THE 132. YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE'VE GOT THE OVERPASS PROJECT. THE SECTION OF 132 THAT I PUT IN THERE TO MOVE UP TO 25 IS THAT PINK LINE, DIRECTLY NORTH OF THERE. WHICH WE -- WE ALREADY HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. BECAUSE WE HAD WORKED WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPERS BEFORE TO GET ALL OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY. SO IT BASICALLY WOULD TAKE THAT 133, WHERE YOU COULD COME OUT AND TURN, AND YOU'RE ONTO 132. AND IT WOULD CUT IT THROUGH HUTTO HIGHLANDS AND BEND IT DOWN AND COME BACK TO LEMMER LOOP. SO YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO GO, BASICALLY FROM 16 -- FROM CHANDLER, SORRY. DOWN PAST 1660. ALL THE WAY TO 79, WITHOUT HAVING TO SNAKE YOUR

WAY THROUGH ANYMORE. >> UH-HUH.

>> SO THAT'S THE 133. AND OVER ON THE LEFT SIDE, WHERE YOU HAVE LEMMER LOOP. AND YOU SEE THE FOUR PURPLE SQUARES, WITH THE PINK LINES IN BETWEEN? THOSE PURPLE SQUARES ARE INTERSECTION PROJECTS THAT WE SARTED THIS YEAR. THAT'S THE INNOVATION AT LEMMER. ED SCHMIDT AT LEMMER, EXCHANGE AT LEMMER. AND 1660 AT LEMMER. AND THEN MY SUGGESTION WAS, SINCE WE'RE ALREADY DOING THOSE INTERSECTIONS, THE FOLLOW-UP IS DID LEMMER LOSE IMPROVEMENTS? THAT'S WHERE MOST OF OUR CONGESTION OF TRAFFIC IS OCCURRING IS IN THAT SECTION AM SO TO WIDEN THAT AND APPROVE THAT AREA, TO MEET THE MOBILITY MASTER PLAN. SO THE PINK LINES ARE WHAT I'VE SUGGESTED WE START IN '25. THE PURPLE LINES AND SQUARES AND CIRCLES ARE ROUND-ABOUTS, OR INTERSECTIONS OR ROADS THAT WE HAVE ALREADY STARTED IN 2024. SO I WAS STARTING TO GIVE YOU A VISUAL

OF THE NUMBERS. >> IF THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS STUFF. THEN WE CAN GO BACK TO THE PRESENTATION.

AND JUMP INTO -- I THINK WATER IS NEXT. SORRY.

>> BUT TO CLARIFY. THIS IS A COSTFUL PROJECT? THIS IS NOT A

FUNDING SOURCE. >> KCORRECT.

>> THIS ISN'T SAYING WE HAVE TO BORROW SOME OF IT. IT COULD BE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES. IT COULD BE BORROWING THE MONEY.

IT COULD BE ANY NUMBER OF SOURCES. CORRECT.

>> AND I THINK THAT'S THE PART THE MAYOR IS MISSING. YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THIS IS, WE GOTTA BORROW? HOW MUCH OF THIS IS COMING FROM THESE OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, TO HELP US FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, HOW DO WE PAY FOR IT ALL?

[02:25:01]

>> I'LL JUST KIND OF TELL YOU HOW I EXPLAINED IT TO P AND Z WHEN I EXPLAINED IT TO THEM. THEY ASKED A LOT OF THE SAME QUESTIONS. SOMEWHAT TONGUE IN CHEEK, I SAID, I'M JUST THE ENGINEER. I JUST TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH THEY'RE GOING TO COST AND WHEN WE SHOULD DO THEM. THE FUNDING SOURCE COMES FROM, WELL, NUMBER 1. WE NEED TO JUST PICK THE PROJECTS AND SAY THESE ARE THE PROJECTS WE WANT TO DO. THEN WE START TO LOOK AT HOW MUCH DEBT WILL WE INCUR? AND THE THAT WHEN WE BRING ALBERTAS AND CITY MANAGERS AND SAY, WHERE DO YOU GET THIS MONEY FROM? AND THEN WE START SAYING, WELL, WE CAN'T AFFORD THIS AND WE DON'T WANT TO ISSUE 1.3 MILLION. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. THAT'S WHAT I

TOLD P AND Z. SO. >> I THINK WE'RE DOING IT BACKWARDS. YOU GUYS HAVE THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS. YOU GUYS TELL US WHAT THE IMPACT FEES, TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES YOU'RE EXPECTED TO GET OVER FIVE YEARS. YOU TELL US WHAT YOU'RE EXPECTING TO GET IN PROPERTY TAXES. YOU GUYS HAVE ALL OF THE MODELS AND INFORMATION. IT'S NOT THAT I'M MISSING ANYTHING.

IT'S THAT LACK OF INFORMATION. YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FROM TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES, DEVELOPMENT FEES, EVERYTHING ELSE, DEVELOPER. YOU ALL ARE THE ONES HAVING THE BACK ROOM CONVERSATIONS WITH DEVELOPERS ON WHO IS GOING TO FUND WHAT. AGAIN, BRING ALL OF THAT IN.

AND WHAT WE OUGHT TO BE DOING, WHICH I SEE IN OTHER CITIES, WE SAY $5.5 MILLION. WE ANTICIPATE HALF A MILLION DOLLARS FROM THE IMPACT FEES FROM BLAH, BLAH UBLAH. WE KIDNAP $2 MILL TWROPB FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT THERE. THAT'S WHAT I'M EXPECTING. IT'S NOT THAT I'M MISSING ANYTHING. IT'S THAT ANOTHER PEOPLE ARE MISSING THINGS. LIKE PICK THE PROJECT.

YOU TELL US ALL OF THE INFORMATION, THEN WE CAN MAKE EDUCATED DECISIONS. I WOULD BE AFRAID. THE WHOLE THING IS -- SCARES ME TO DEATH. I FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS KNOW THE NUMBERS. BUT YOU WON'T TELL US BECAUSE IF YOU TOLD US WHAT $1.3 BILLION LOOKS LIKE, WITH $5 MILLION IN PIT FEES AND $12 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES, NOW WE'RE AT $1.28 BILLION THAT'S SIMPLE MATH FOR WHOEVER HAS THE SPREADSHEET. IF YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL AUGUST,

WE'LL WAIT UNTIL AUGUST. >> I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION. IT'S TO FIGURE OUT AN ORDER.

>> YES. IT'S TO FIGURE OUT AN ORDER. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO KNOW THE FUNDING SOURCES TO FIGURE OUT WHICH PROJECTS WE THINK ARE IMPORTANT. AND TO MATT'S POINT, WHAT WE DO IS FIGURE OUT, WHAT ONES ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT TO US. THE THEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY, BASED ON WHAT ONES ARE MOST IMPORTANT, HERE'S HOW MUCH IT'S GOING TO COST YOU. HOW MUCH ARE YOU WILLING TO EXCUSE ME? HOW MUCH WILL THE CITIZENS WILLING TO STOMACH? THAT'S WHERE THE LINE GETS DRAWN. OH, I REALLY WANT THAT ONE. THAT'S WHEN WE REALLY START SWIZZLING THINGS AROUND. THAT'S WHEN YOU SAY, I THOUGHT I REALLY WANTED THIS ONE. THAT'S WHAT THEY DID AT THE CITIZEN BUDGET MEETING.

WHERE A LOT OF THE -- YOU KNOW, THE CITIZENS SAID. WHEN THEY CAME BACK WITH THE COST. YOU ARE LIKE, OH, I REALLY DON'T WANT THAT ONE AS MUCH ANYMORE. IT'S GOING TO COST THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO COST. I CAN GET THESE THREE THINGS FOR THE PRICE OF THAT ONE THING. BUT ISN'T THAT KIND OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IN JULY-AUGUST TIME FRAME? YOU GET FROM US KIND THE LIST OF WHAT WE THINK IS MOST IMPORTANT. THEN WE GET THE COST. AND THEN THAT'S WHEN WE FINE-TUNE IT? OR AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING IT?

>> IS HE RIGHT IN WHAT HE'S SAYING?

>> AS FAR AS -- YEAH. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS JUST FOR YOU

GUYS TO TELL US -- >> PRIORITIZE IT.

>> YEAH. SO LIKE I'M JUST GOING TO SAY W5 UP THERE. WE DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO IT TO 26. WE SHOULD DO IT IN 25.

SHIFT AROUND, AND COME BACK IN I THINK, JULY. COME BACK IN JULY AND SAY, THESE ARE THE NEW NUMBERS BASED ON WHAT YOU GUYS GAVE US. WE SHIFTED IT ALL AROUND. AND THIS WHERE WHERE

WE'RE AT. >> THE AFFORDABILITY ASPECT IS CERTAINLY A PART OF IT, TOO. BECAUSE FUNCTIONALLY, WHAT THE FIVE-YEAR CIP ASK R DOES IS IT INFORMS THE BUDGET DECISION.

AND HOW YOU PAY FOR THINGS IS BUDGET. THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE BUDGET IS. IT'S PART OF, B LIKE WIRED SO DIFFERENTLY.

[02:30:04]

BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, WE'RE SAYING, PRIORITIZE THE PROJECT, COME BACK AND SAY HOW MUCH. AND REPRIORITYIZE THE PROJECTS BASED ON WHAT THEY COST. I'M JUST ASKING, LET'S JUST PRIORITIZE ONE TIME. IT'S LIKE GOING TO A GROCERY STORE, LOADING UP A BASKET, RINGING IT UP. I ONLY HAVE $200. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? TO ME, IT WOULD BE BETTER TO KNOW, HOW MUCH YOU HAVE TO SPEND, WHAT THE THINGS COST. DO IT ONE TIME. THAT'S WHAT THE INTENT IS, PRIORITIZE, GET THE COST AND REPRIORITIZE.

SEEMS LIKE THE FASTER WAY COULD BE DONE. BUT IF THIS IS THE WAY

WE WANT TO DO IT. >> WE CAN CERTAINLY -- LOOK.

I'M OPEN TO TRYING DIFFERENT KAY WAYS. BUT GENERALLY, THE REASON WE DO IT THE WAY WE DO IT. ONCE YOU DEVELOP YOUR FIVE-YEAR CIP, IT REALLY SHOULDN'T CHANGE TOO MUCH, RIGHT? LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST ATTEMPT AT IT. WE DIDN'T REALLY GET DIALED IN. WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS ONLY ADDING TO THE CIP. AND YOU'RE NOT ADJUSTING THINGS ANYMORE.

UNLESS THERE IS SOME CIRCUMSTANCE THAT HAS CHANGED DRAMATICALLY. WE'RE JUST NOT THERE YET. WE'RE STILL FAIRLY ADOLESCENT, WHEN IT COMES TO CIP PLAN. SO TO YOUR POINT, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE IS THAT WE HAVEN'T MISSED THE BOAT ON SOMETHING. THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOMETHING SLATED FOR '25, THAT OUGHT NOT TO BE THERE. OR THAT WE DIDN'T SLATE SOMETHING THAT SHOULD. AND WE'RE TRYING TO TELL YOU THE MAGNITUDE FOR WHAT WE BELIEVE. ONCE WE KNOW THE LIST IS FAIRLY ACCURATE. THEN WE GO PRICE EVERYTHING. AND TELL YOU, HERE'S WHAT WE THINK IT WOULD COST. WE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU PAY FOR THINGS THIS WAY. THAT TAKES A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT.

YOU HAVE TO TRY TO GO AND MATCH UP. YOU PAY FOR THIS PROJECT AND PAY WITH COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, RIGHT? YOU PAY THIS PROJECT WITH TRANSPORTATION FEE. YOU KNOW? BASICALLY, WHAT I DID LAST YEAR FOR YOU ALL. IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, I LISTED WHAT PROJECT SHOULD BE PAID FOR WITH WHAT. AND YOU DIDN'T AGREE ON SOME. AND YOU SHIFT TODAY AROUND. THAT'S HOW YOU PAY FOR THINGS. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING IN THERE THAT YOU WANTED TO DO, THAT EITHER YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR OR HAS TO GO TO THE VOTERS, THEN THAT'S THE DECISION. LIKE WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR THIS, OR WE CAN'T, SO WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT TO '26. EVEN THOUGH WE WANTED TO DO IT IN '25. OR THESE THREE THINGS, WE TAKE TO THE VOTERS AND HAVE THE VOTERS WEIGH IN ON IT. THAT'S WHERE THIS ENDS UP AT. SO.

>> OKAY. I'M GETTING CLOSE. I PROMISE. SO THE ONLY WATER PROJECT THAT WE'RE DOING IN '25 IS PRETTY MUCH THE ONE WE STARTED THIS YEAR. ACTUALLY ARE WE STARTED IN '23. THE NEW ELEVATED STORAGE TANK. THAT ONE, WE DEPARTMENT SHIFT. WE JUST DROPPED OFF THE '24, AND KEPT THE PRICES JUST WHERE THEY WERE, TO GET CONSTRUCTION DONE IN '25 AND '26.

>> I'M GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION. WASTEWATER. --

>> SORRY. ON WATER. I DIDN'T NOTICE THAT WE HAD THE IRON

REMOVAL ADDED ON THE LIST. >> ITEM REMOVAL.

>> OH, SORRY. IT FLIPPED. I DIDN'T SEE IT. NO PROBLEM.

>> I APOLOGIZE. SO YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THAT ONE SLATED IN '26

AT $20 MILLION. >> OKAY.

>> AND THAT'S IN LINE WITH ALL OF THE FUNDING CONVERSATIONS WE HAD BEFORE WE ISSUED THE BONDS.

>> ALL OF THE ONES FOR WASTEWATER ARE JUST PRETTY MUCH CARRY-OVERS THAT WE HAD ALREADY STARTED WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AVERY LAKE INTERCEPTOR PHASE 1. AND THE AVERY LAKE PHASE 2. THE BRUSHY CREEK. THAT'S THE WAY WE PLANNED IT.

COUNCIL DECIDED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING THAT WE WANTED TO EXPEDITE THE AVERY LAKE PHASE ONE AND PHASE TWO.

>> MATT, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE LIST AND

PROVIDE FEEDBACK . >> YOU CAN ONLY SEE ONE SLIDE.

[02:35:03]

AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE WRITTEN FEEDBACK.

>> IN YOUR TEAM'S FILE. THE POWER POINT IS IN THE COUNCIL POWER POINT FOLDER AND ALL OF HIS ATTACHMENTS ARE IN A FOLDER, LABELED 6-6-24 DOCUMENTS.

>> AND YOU'LL SEE A SPREAD SHEET IN THERE THAT HAS THE FY 24 PROJECTS. AND ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS AND SO FORTH. YOU'LL SEE A LIST OF THE FY 25. AND IT WILL SHOW YOU WHEN EVERYTHING IS GOING TO START. AND I COLOR-CODED THEM.

IT'S GREEN TEXT IN THERE. SO THEY CAN SEE IT.

>> IT'S NOT A SPREADSHEET. IN YOUR FILES. WE DID CHANGE IT TO

PDF. >> IT'S A PDF OF A

SPREADSHEET. SORRY. >> OH, WAIT.

>> NO. >> WE HAVE THIS ONE -- WE ARE USING THE SPREADSHEET. JUST KIDDING. WHICH ONE? P AND Z COMMENTS OR THIS ONE? THE 1 SHOP DRAFT?

>> OKAY. >> AND THE ONES THAT I'VE HIGHLIGHTED IN THAT ORANGISH COLOR ARE THE ONES THAT ARE

SAYING WOULD START IN '25. >> OKAY. SO THEN YOU CAN PROVIDE THE COMMENTS. AND I GUESS WITH THE COMMENTS, DO YOU JUST WANT THE PROJECT NUMBER AND THEN WHERE WE THINK IT

SHOULD GO? >> WELL, YEAH. THAT'S PROBABLY THE SIMPLEST. JUST GIVE ME THE PROJECT NUMBER AND SHIFT IT TO '28 OR SHIFT IT TO '25 OR WHATEVER YOU WANT.

>> I WAS REALLY HOPING YOU WOULD SAY, SHIFT IT TO THE LEFT, SHIFT IT TO THE RIGHT. I MEAN, WHEN DO YOU NEED THAT BY?

>> WE'RE DOING THE WORKSHOP. I BELIEVE IT'S JULY 27TH.

THAT'S THE ONE I'M PRESENTING THE DRAFT BUDGET. WE'LL HAVE TO HAVE A TIME FOR COUNCIL BETWEEN NOW AND THEN TO DO SPECIFICALLY CIP. SO IT'S NOT CURRENTLY SCHEDULED, THEN WE'LL

GET SOMETHING SCHEDULED. >> SO AS QUICK AS YOU GUYS CAN

GET IT TO US. >> COOL. AWESOME. THANK YOU.

>>> SO ALL OF THESE ATTACHMENTS, YOU CAN SEE THE MAPS, ALL OF THAT KIND OF STUFF. YOU'LL ALSO SEE SOME TABLES IN THERE THAT ARE LIKE A RED AND BLUE AND GREEN COLOR.

AND WHAT I DID WAS I SHOWED YOU, LIKE YOUR WATER MASTER PLAN, YOUR WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN, AND LISTED ALL OF THE PROJECTS IN THE MASTER PLAN. AND RIGHT BESIDE THOSE, I LISTED ALL THE CIP PROJECTS THAT COORDINATE. YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY ARE BASED ON THE MASTER PLAN THAT YOU APPROVED.

SO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. SO ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE THE PROJECT NUMBER THAT COME OUT OF THE MASTER PLAN. THE PROJECT TITLE IN THE MASTER PLAN. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT, UNDER CIP, IS WHICH CIP PROJECTS ARE COMPLETING THAT MASTER PLAN PROJECT? I TRIED TO GIVE YOU A LOT MORE INFORMATION THIS YEAR THAN WE GAVE YOU LAST YEAR, TO TRY TO HELP YOU CONNECT ALL THE DOTS.

>> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, MATT.

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

>> ALL RIGHT. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 9.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS AND/OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMICS DEVELOPMENT, LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TAX INCREMENT, CITY LIAISONS AND AREA GOVERNMENT

APPOINTMENTS. >> MAYOR, WORKING WITH CITY STAFF, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO EVERY PERSON WHOSE TERM IS SET TO EXPIRE AT THE END OF THIS MONTH, TO SEE IF THEY'RE INTERESTED TO STAYING ON THE BOARD THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON, OR IF THEY WANT TO ROLL OFF. A MAJORITY OF FOLKS SAID THAT THEY ARE INTERESTED IN BEING REAPPOINTED. WE DO HAVE A FEW WHO SAID THEY ARE READY TO ROLL OFF AND ALLOW SOMEBODY ELSE AN TOOUNT TO SERVE. SO THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE HAS RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION FROM STAFF. WE WILL BE REVIEWING IT BETWEEN NOW AND NEXT MEETING. AND THEN WE'LL BE PREPARED TO PRESENT A NUMBER OF NAMES FOR MOST OF THEM WILL BE REAPPOINTMENTS. I DID. T O SAY TONIGHT THAT WE DO HAVE -- BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE RECEIVED, WE WILL HAVE AT LEAST ONE OPENING FOR BUILDING AND STANDARDS, TWO OPENINGS ON DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION, TWO OPENINGS ON THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION, TWO OPENINGS ON THE ZONING BOARD ADJUSTMENTS. THOSE ARE ONES WHERE NEW OPENINGS WILL BE UP OR WE CURRENTLY HAVE VACANCIES RIGHT NOW. AND THEN WE'RE ON THE LIBRARY BOARD, WHICH IS CURRENTLY VACANT. WE'LL HAVE A BUNCH OF OPENINGS. AGAIN, GO ONLINE. APPLY IF YOU'RE INTERESTED.

WE'LL GET THAT PING, IT WILL LET US KNOW WHEN YOU APPLIED.

AND THEN THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE WILL BE LOOKING TO FILL AS MANY AS WE CAN END OF THIS MONTH.

[02:40:04]

>> ARE YOU ALL ABLE TO OPEN UP THE NEO GOV E-MAIL?

>> YES. >> I MUST HAVE BLOWN THROUGH A

PASSWORD. RIGHT? >> IT EXPIRES.

>> KATE CAN HELP YOU IF YOU NEED HELP.

>> SEND HER A TEAMS MESSAGE. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS SPAM AT

FIRST. >> I WAS LIKE --

>> YEAH. I ASKED THE QUESTION. I SAID, HEY, I HAVE NOT BEEN SEEING THESE. AND KATE SAID, I CAN SEND THEM. SO SHE SPAMMED

[9.2. Consideration and possible action appointing the Mayor Pro Tern pursuant to Hutto City Charter Section 3.05 (Legal)]

US ALL. >> YEAH.

>> BRINGS UP THE NEXT ITEM. 9.2. CONSIDERATION, POSSIBLE ACTION, APPOINTING A MAYOR PRO TEM, PURSUANT TO HUTTO CITY

CHARTER SECTION 3.05. AND -- >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE COUNCILMEMBER PETER GORDON.

>> ALL RIGHT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A NOMINATION TO APPOINT COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR, IN ORDER FOR OFFICE OF MAYOR PRO TEM.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS?

>> ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE TWO NOMINATIONS. I'M READING THROUGH THE ROLES HERE. ONE FOR MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON, ONE FOR COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. NOWHERE IN THE RULES SAYS WHY WE SAY?

>> I GUESS YOU CAN. IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

>> SO MY REASON FOR NOMINATING COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR IS, WE'VE HAD, SINCE I'VE BEEN UP HERE, I'VE WORKED WITH COUNCILMEMBER ROSE, COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON, COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. THEY'VE ALL BEEN MAYOR PRO TEM. I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO MIX THINGS UP SOME. THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAS DONE A GOOD JOB FOR TWO YEARS. COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR IS THE NEXT HIGHEST, I GUESS, WE CALL IT RANKING IN TENURE, COUNCILMEMBER. SO WE'VE DONE THIS WITH OTHER LIAISONS, MOVED THINGS AROUND. SO IT'S NOTHING THAT I THINK YOU'VE DONE ANYTHING WRONG. I THINK IT'S GOOD TO HAVE A DIVERSITY OF EXPERIENCE UP HERE, AND THIS IS ONE THAT I THOUGHT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL.

>> AND MY REASONING FOR NOMINATING COUNCILMEMBER GORDON IS JUST CONSISTENCY. I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE TWO OF YOU ALL WORK WELL WITH YOUR MEETINGS. YOU KNOW, THE MAYOR.

GOES IN STRONG. AND THEN WE HAVE PETER THAT JUST KIND OF -- A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. SO MINE IS KIND OF THE OPPOSITE OF WHAT YOURS IS. JUST CONSISTENCY AND YEAH.

>> SPEAKING OF

WE'RE VOTING . STP-GS R >> I GUESS CITY SECRETARY --

>> EACH PERSON VOTES ON THE NOMINATION. AND WHOEVER GETS

THE MOST -- >> WELL, THEY GOTTA GET 4.

>> YES. >> SO FIRST PERSON HAS TO GET FOUR. VOTING WILL BE REPEATED FOR VOTING NOMINEES. SO I GUESS THE TWO PEOPLE. WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THAT. I GUESS I'LL START. COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> GORDON. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> GORDON. >> I VOTE FOR KOLAR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER. >> GORDON.

>> AND COUNCILMEMBER, I'M NOT GOOD WITH LAST NAMES.

PORTERFIELD. >> KOLAR.

>> AND KOLAR. >> GORDON.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S 3-3. THAT FAILS.

>> WELL, I WASN'T -- >> ANYWAY.

>> THAT WASN'T A FAIL. THAT WAS A --

>> OH, I GUESS A VOTE. SO WE'LL JUST DO IT AGAIN UNTIL --

>> WELL, NOW IT'S A TIE. >> THE RULES DON'T STIPULATE A TIE. JUST SAY THE NOMINEE WITH THE LOWEST TOTAL ARE DROPPED.

>> NO. IT'S A TIE. SO DOTTIE CAN EXPLAIN.

>> JUST GOING BY THE RULES. >> IF IT'S A TIE, THERE'S NO ACTION. SO YOU CAN JUST PUT IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA, WHEN YOU HAVE FULL COUNCIL 7. SO IT WOULD BREAK THE TIE THAT WAY.

>> EXCEPT CHARTER DOESN'T ALLOW US TO DO THAT.

[02:45:02]

>> UNLESS YOU HAVE A TIE. UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO CHANGE

THEIR VOTE. >> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

TIE DOESN'T COUNT FOR THE CHARTER. SO I THINK WE GO BACK THROUGH AND SEE IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR VOTE.

>> YOU CAN DO THAT. >> WELL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER

NOMINATIONS? >> THAT'S TRUE.

>> OKAY, HEARING NO OTHER NOMINATIONS. I THINK WE DID

THIS ONCE BEFORE BACK IN '19. >> WE'VE DONE IT TWICE BEFORE.

AND BOTH TIMES WE MOVED IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> SO THAT'S THE CHARTER. >> IF YOU CAN'T MAKE A DECISION ON SOMETHING. AND IF IT'S A TIE VOTE, THEN YOU POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> THAT'S NOT HOW THE CHARTER IS WRITTEN.

>> OR WE CAN SIT HERE FOR THE NEXT HOUR, AND KEEP VOTING 3-3

IF YOU WANT. >> I BELIEVE ON THE AGENDA.

IT'S THE OLD CHARTER PROVISION. IF YOU HAVE A RUNOFF. BUT SINCE THE RUNOFF WAS CANCELED LAST MEETING, THEN THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS IT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> COUB THOMPSON.

>> GORDON. >> GORDON.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> KOLAR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> GORDON.

>> WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST TABLE IT TO THE END OF THE MEETING AND COME BACK TO IT. BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M NOT -- IN

MY MIND -- >> I SAY WE TABLE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING

THIS. BUT -- >> OKAY.

>> WE'RE NOT IN A GOOD SITUATION, BECAUSE WE ARE

MISSING A COUNCILMEMBER. >> BOTH VOTES WERE A TIE VOTE.

THEN MOVED IT TO A MEETING WITH SEVEN PRESENT. THEN WE DID IT.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PULL.

>> HERE'S MY QUESTION. WHEN DO WE FOLLOW THE CHARTER? AND WHEN DO WE NOT? THE CHARTER SAYS YOU HAVE TO DECIDE.

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE. >> WHAT DOES THE LANGUAGE SAY?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM SHALL BE COUNCILMEMBER ELECTED BY CITY COUNCIL AT THE FIRST REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHICH NEWLY-ELECTED COUNCIL QUALIFIED AND SEATED, FOLLOWING RUNOFF ELECTION IF APPLICABLE. SO SINCE YOU DIDN'T HAVE THE RUNOFF, THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY

TO APPOINT. >> DOESN'T IT SAY --

>> SO YOU'RE SAYING WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE CHARTER THE LAST

TIME? >> ALL CITY COUNCIL SEATED?

>> WE DON'T HAVE ALL CITY COUNCIL SEATED.

>> NO. HE'S SEATED. HE'S JUST NOT PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

>> AS IN SITTING IN OFFICE. >> SO WHAT'S THE DIRECTION FROM OUR LEGAL ATTORNEY? WHAT DO WE DO? JUST SIT HERE FOR THE NEXT HOUR AND KEEP VOTING? OR MOVE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING?

>> I THINK THAT YOU CAN HAVE -- SOMEBODY CAN MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT MEETING.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE IT TO THE NEXT

MEETING. >> I'LL SECOND.

>> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? YOU GUYS KILL ME.

BECAUSE THERE ARE TIMES WE DIG IN ON A CHARTER, AND WE SAY, OH, YOU VIOLATED A CHARTER. AND THEN THERE'S TIMES WHEN WE SAY, NOW IS NOT A GOOD TIME. OR WE SAY, WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING ROBERT'S RULES, THEN WE MAKE MOTIONS TO SUSPEND ROBERTS RULES. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS WANT. BUT I'M MORE OF A BLACK-AND-WHITE. WE EITHER FOLLOW THE RULES OR WE DON'T.

I THINK AS COUNCILMEMBER MARTINEZ ONCE SAID. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, LET'S CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR? AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.

>> NAY. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

[10.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-032 updating credit card fees and amending the fee schedule (Alberta Barrett)]

>> NAY. >> MOTION PASSES. 4-2. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 10.1. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE 0-2024-032, UPDATING CREDIT CARD FEES AND AMENDING THE FEE

SCHEDULE. >> THANK YOU. ALBERTA BARRETT.

FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO THIS ONE IS COMING BACK TO YOU FROM A DISCUSSION WE HAD BACK IN APRIL. AND WE WERE TO LOOK AT THE CREDIT CARD FEES. AND PROCESSING FEES. SO IN DOING THAT ANALYSIS, WE DETERMINE THAT THE FEES THAT ARE BEING CHARGED THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND ARE SUFFICIENT TO COVER OUR COSTS. HOWEVER, ON THE UTILITY FUND, IT'S NOT -- AND THE REASON OR THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE IS THE $2

[02:50:04]

TRANSACTION FEE THAT IS CHARGED ON UTILITY ACCOUNTS, IF YOU PAY YOUR UTILITY BILL ONLINE OR BY PHONE SO THAT $2 TRANSACTION FEE IS PASSED -- IS INCLUDED IN THE -- RIGHT NOW, IT'S INCLUDED IN THAT PERCENTAGE. SO WE CAME UP WITH SEVERAL OPTIONS. OPTION A WOULD BE TO HAVE A PROCESSING, A CREDIT CARD FEE OF 4.35% TO COVER THE ONLINE. BUT THEN WE WOULD PASS THE $2 SEPARATE TRANSACTION FEE FROM THE FINANCIAL SOFTWARE ON TO THE CUSTOMER DIRECTLY. AND NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE PROCESSING FEE OR CREDIT PERCENTAGE . OPTION B WOULD BE TO INCLUDE THOSE AND MAKE THAT PROCESSING FEE 5.80% TO COVER BOTH THE $2 TRANSACTION FEE, PLUS THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE.

>> AND OPTION C. LAST ONE IS TO KEEP IT AS IT IS, AT 2.45%. WE DID AMEND THE BUDGET AT THE MIDYEAR TO COVER THE COST FOR THE REST OF THIS YEAR. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING, STILL, AT SEVERAL FIRMS TO GIVE US A BETTER RATE ON THE PROCESSING FEE AND MAYBE EVEN COVERING THE $2 TRANSACTION FEE. WE DID HAVE ONE THAT WE THOUGHT WAS A GOOD OPTION. BUT THE REFERENCES DIDN'T CHECK OUT. SO WE DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE. SO WE'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF DOING THAT AND HOPEFULLY, SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING TO WHERE WE CAN INCLUDE IT, EFFECTIVE OCTOBER,

WITH A NEW BUDGET YEAR. >> I'M NOT SURE I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. THE RATE WE'RE BEING CHARGED BY THE PROCESSOR

IS 4.35? >> YES. THAT IS THE COST OF THE PROCESSING FEE. FOR THOSE THAT PAY BY CREDIT CARD. AND WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYBODY CHEAPER?

>> WE HAVE SEVERAL WE'RE LOOKING AT. BUT FOR THE CREDIT CARD, THAT'S REALLY PRETTY MUCH IT. REALLY, THE ONLY OPTION, THERE IS MAYBE SOME SAVES ON THE PROCESSING FEE.

BUT THE BIGGEST SAVING IS GOING TO BE ON THE $2 PER TRANSACTION. I GUESS A CLARIFYING QUESTION. I REMEMBER WHENEVER THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT TO US THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT TRANSACTION TYPES. I GUESS PARKS USES ONE VENDOR. UTILITY USES ANOTHER. AND THEN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO WHENEVER WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS $2 TRANSACTION. WHICH OF THOSE CATEGORIES ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? OR IS THIS ACROSS THE BOARD? MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY SYNC UP WITH THEIR SOFTWARE.

>> RIGHT. >> IT'S ONLY ON UTILITY

ACCOUNTS. >> THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT HERE. WE'RE ONLY DISCUSSING UTILITY. NOT GOING

TO MESS WITH THE PARKS. >> IN FACT, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS IN THE PROCESS OF CONVERTING THEIRS RIGHT NOW.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO CHART -- ALL OF THOSE CHARGES WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE CONSUMER. SO WE WON'T -- THOSE FEES WILL BE ELIMINATED FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> THIS IS UTILITY? >> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

>> HAVE WE APPROVED THAT? >> I BELIEVE SO. IT WAS

INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET. SO -- >> BUT WE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE ON FEE SCHEDULES TO MAKE THAT CHANGE?

>> I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND DOUBLE CHECK. BUT I THINK I DO

REMEMBER THAT. >> I WOULD ASSUME SO.

>> WE PAY 4.35% PLUS $2. 4.35% FEE, PLUS $2 IS --

>> THE $2 IS THE SOFTWARE TRANSACTION FEE. YOU HAVE THE 4.35 WHICH IS YOUR CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE. OR THE $2 TRANSACTION FEE. OR YOU CAN COMBINE THEM NOW AND RAISE IT

TO 8.350. >> I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GOT INTO A POSITION WHERE WE'RE PAYING SO MUCH.

I'M PRETTY SURE WE PAY LIKE 2-POINT-SOMETHING PERCENT. AND THAT'S A FAIRLY LARGE CREDIT CARD PROCESSOR. SO WHO ARE WE

WITH EXACTLY RIGHT NOW? >> WELL, IT'S WHOEVER -- WHOEVER YOU USE. I MEAN, SO LIKE IF IT'S VISA OR MASTERCARD. WHOEVER -- WHATEVER THE CUSTOMERS CHARGE -- CREDIT

CARD IS, IS THE PROCESSING FEE. >> MAYBE IT'S DIFFERENT IN

[02:55:01]

PRIVATE WORLD. PRIVATE WORLD, YOU PAY LIKE 2.5%, 30 CENTS. AM I WRONG? YOU PAY LIKE 2.5%. IN SHORT OF BANK OF AMERICA, DINER'S CLUB. I'VE NEVER HEARD WHERE YOU PAY WITH A BANK

OF AMERICA FEE AND CHASE. >> ONLY THING ON THE PRIVATE SIDE DIFFERENCE IS WHETHER IT IS CREDIT OR DEBIT TRANSACTION.

THEY DON'T CARE WHAT CARD IT IS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT

WORKS. >> SO WE SHOULD HAVE SOME KIND OF PROCESSOR. LIKE IF YOU'RE IN RESTAURANTS, IT WOULD BE LIKE CLOVER, SQUARE? WHO ELSE IS THERE?

>> TOS. IT IS LIKE TWO POINTS. THERE'S GOT TO BE A SERVICE WE HAVE. IT'S NOT THE CONSUMER'S CREDIT CARD THAT DICTATES YOUR -- AGAIN, PRIVATE. MAYBE MUNICIPAL WOULD GET RIPPED OFF IN EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT THIS ONE HERE HAS ME THROWN FOR A LOOP. BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE PAYING SO MUCH.

>> SO ARE WE GOING TO BE CHANGING OUR UTILITY BILLING SOFTWARE? HOW ARE WE GOING TO GET THIS $2 PROCESSING FEE OFF, WITHOUT CHANGING THE COMPATIBILITY?

>> THERE ARE COMPANIES OUT THERE THAT WORK WITH THEM TO BASICALLY OFFER THE SERVICE TO WHERE YOU CAN MAKE THE PAYMENT THROUGH THEM, INSTEAD OF THROUGH OUR FINANCIAL SOFTWARE.

SO IN OTHER WORDS, IT WON'T BE THROUGH TYLER THAT WE'RE USING RIGHT NOW. IT WILL BE A THIRD PARTY.

>> OKAY. SO WE'RE USING TYLER. >> FOR THE TRANSACTION -- THE $2 FEE. YES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT GETTING

REMOVED. >> BUT THAT'S WITH THE NEXT BUDGET? YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE NEXT BUDGET IS THIS.

>> YES. >> IT WILL TAKE A WHILE TO

IMPLEMENT. >> PER TRANSACTION. UH-HUH. IF YOU PAY ONLINE OR WITH A CREDIT CARD OR BY PHONE.

>> AND THEY'RE NOT CHARGING FOUR AND A QUARTER?

>> NO, THEY CHARGE THE $2 TRANSACTION PEA FEE.

>> OBVIOUSLY WITH ONLY THREE AND A HALF MONTHS LEFT IN THE YEAR, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO ADD THE $2 FEE ON PEOPLE'S BILLS AND TAKE IT AWAY. I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY TO FIX -- GET A BETTER BILLING SYSTEM THAT DOESN'T CHARGE THAT FEE, AND JUST EAT THAT DIFFERENCE IN THE MEANTIME FOR

A COUPLE OF MONTHS. >> I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW, IS THAT SOFTWARE OR WHATEVER, IS IT LICENSED? SUBSCRIPTION-BASED? ANYTHING LIKE THAT?

>> I'M NOT SURE. >> THE LOU ONE THAT THEY'RE

PROPOSING OR CURRENTLY USING? >> CURRENT.

>> WE HAVE BOTH THINGS. CONTINUE TO PAY FOR.

EFFECTIVELY, I WOULD GUESS, WITHOUT DOING A DEEP DIVE ON THIS, IS THAT THIS $2 PER TRANSACTION FEE, REDUCES HOW MUCH OUR COST FOR THE SOFTWARE IS, RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE PASSING THAT TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE USING IT TO PAY. SO WHAT WILL MORE THAN LIKELY HAPPEN, AND WHAT I SUSPECT IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN, IS WE MIGHT FIND ANOTHER THIRD PARTY, WHO WILL HANDLE THE TRANSACTIONS FOR US. BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO PAY THEM $50,000 OR $60,000 FOR THSERVICE TO NOT HAVE THE $2 TRANSACTION FEE AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF STUFF THEY'RE TRYING TO TRACK DOWN TO FIND OUT WHAT THE PROS AND CONS ARE. DO WE CONTINUE TO ABSERB IT? WHICH BY "WE," I MEAN, THE UTILITY AND WATER ITSELF. DO WE ABSORB THE COST? OR PASS PASS IT ON. TRY TO GET IT TO THE ACH.

>> WE REDUCE OUR TRANSACTION. THAT'S THE SORT OF STUFF WE

HAVE TO LOOK AT. >> BECAUSE YOU'RE USING VISA, MASTERCARD, OR WHATEVER WE ACCEPT, RIGHT? THAT'S THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY. THEN THE $2 TRANSACTION FEE IS CHARGING

US PER TRANSACTION. >> CORRECT.

>> IF WE GO WITH OPTION C, AND YOU WORK A LITTLE MORE TOWARDS FINDING A BETTER ALTERNATIVE WITH GETTING THE $2 OFF. IS THERE -- SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY THE NUMBER 1 PRIORITY, $2 OFF? AND THEN -- ARE YOU THINKING THAT YOU COULD GET THE

PERCENTAGE RATE DOWN, TOO? >> THAT'S OUR HOPE, YES.

THAT'S THE GOAL? YEAH. BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT.

>> I'M HAVING -- I'M TRYING TO WRAP MY BRAIN AROUND IT. BUT THE $2 TRANSACTION SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE USING TAX DOLLARS TO BUY A SYSTEM. THEN CHARGING $2 SO IT'S JUST ANOTHER TAX. WE NEED

[03:00:02]

TO ADJUST OUR BUDGET ACCORDINGLY. IT'S GOING TO BE THE SAME THING. BUT WE GOTTA GET RID OF THAT $2. I FEEL LIKE WE'RE GETTING HOSED ON THE PERCENTAGE. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A BUSINESS, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO MAKE MONEY. BUT SOMETHING

HAS TO GIVE. >> BASICALLY, WHAT IT MEANS, THE UTILITY RATES HAVE TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER.

>> UH-HUH. >> IN ORDER TO ABSORB THAT $2 PER TRANSACTION FEE, THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY INCURRING FOR PEOPLE

-- >> UH-HUH.

>> AND THAT'S WHAT IT MEANS. WHICH IS WHY WE WERE ASKED TO

COME BACK WITH A SOLUTION. >> YEAH.

>> I MEAN, JUST THINKING ABOUT IT. LIKE IN THE SUMMERTIME, ON AVERAGE, YOUR BILL IS GOING TO BE $200. SO THAT'S 16-PLUS DOLLARS EXTRA. SO 18, ACTUALLY. BECAUSE YOU GOT THE $2.

>> WITH THE $2 IT WOULD BE PEN. >> PLUS, WITH A 10. $8 FOR

EVERY $100. >> 4%. SO IT WOULD BE $4 PER --

>> I'M SORRY. I'M THINKING ABOUT TAX -- YOU'RE RIGHT.

NEVER MIND. BUT YEAH, JUST -- >> IF YOUR BILL WAS $200. YEAH.

I'M SORRY. I WAS THINKING THAT 8.2%.

>> MINUS, PLUS THE $2.50 TRANSACTION FEE.

>> WE JUST GOTTA GO DOWN TO BEST BUY? WALMART? TARGET? THEY'RE IN THE 2S. THIS IS CRAZY TO ME.

>> YEAH, MUNICIPALITY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A GOOD DEAL, RIGHT?

LIKE THIS IS CRAZY. >> I KNOW A GUY SELLING PIZZAS THAT CAN GET THIS FOR HALF THE PRICE YOU GUYS ARE PAYING. SO THIS PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL HAS ZERO BUYING POWER. AND WE HAVE THE CITY OF HUTTO RUNNING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS A MONTH THROUGH THE SYSTEM. YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE THIS FIGURED OUT.

I MEAN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHY -- HOW MUCH DUE DILIGENCE DO YOU HAVE TO DO -- I MEAN, I HEARD OF TYLER. BUT WHAT ARE PEOPLE CHARGING? IT COSTS YOU 50 CENTS, PLUS 2 1/2%. WE JUST SAVED PEOPLE, $6 A MONTH, OR $4 A MONTH. WE'RE NOT BUYING A STREET SWEEPER. IT'S A CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE. AS LONG AS IT'S LEGIT AND NOT RUN BY A FOREIGN COMPANY THAT TEXAS SAYS WE CAN'T DO BUSINESS WITH. TO ME, IT SHOULDN'T TAKE MONTHS.

BUT I'M AN IMPATIENT PERSON. BUT BUYING POWER, I CAN HELP

YOU OUT. >> I'D LIKE TO DIRECT STAFF TO GO WITH OPTION C. FOR THIS AGENDA ITEM, I FORGET WHICH ONE

THIS IS. >> 10.1.

>> 10.1 . >> IF THAT'S A MOTION I'LL

SECOND. >> YES.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. SECONDED BY

COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> I'D LIKE TO GIVE YOU AN AMENDMENT TO GIVE YOU A DEADLINE TO GET THIS FIGURED OUT. WHAT IS A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME YOU NEED TO DO THIS RESEARCH TO FIND ANOTHER COMPANY TO SAVE US MONEY?

>> WELL, WE'RE CONSTANTLY WORKING ON IT. I WOULD SAY, WE

COULD COME BACK WITHIN A MONTH. >> SO SECOND MEETING IN JULY?

>> UH-HUH. >> HOW ABOUT THE FIRST MEETING

IN JULY? >> OKAY.

>> LET'S GIVE THEM TIME FOR THE BEST RATE. IT'S A

ONE-WEEK DIFFERENCE. >> HOW MANY ACCOUNT HOLDERS DO

WE HAVE? ROUGHLY? >> 9,000?

>> I WAS THINKING CLOSER TO 13. >> $26,000 TO WAIT ONE MONTH.

AND I'M THINKING FOR $26,000. IT IS NOT COMPLICATED. ANYBODY RUNNING A RESTAURANT, YOU PICK ONE OF 5 AND GO WITH IT. AND THEY'RE ALL ROUGHLY CLOSE. I THINK YOU ALL CAN FIGURE THIS OUT. FIRST MEETING IN JULY. AND YOU CUT IT DOWN 2 OR 3%. NOT ONLY DO WE SAVE $26,000, WE SAVE EVERY CONSUMER, EVERY PERSON IN HUTTO $26 A MONTH. I KNOW I'M IMPATIENT.

>> IT'S A WEEK. WE'RE NOT GOING TO MEET ON FOURTH OF

JULY? >> I'M NOT. I'M GOING TO BE AT THE PARK, WATCHING THE FIREWORKS.

>> ARE YOU GUYS OKAY WITH JULY 11TH?

>> WHAT IS IT? JUNE? JULY 11TH? >> JULY 11TH.

>> YEAH, PERFECT. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION IS TO GO WITH OPTION C UNTIL JULY 11TH. AND THE EXPECTATION IS TO HAVE PROPOSALS READY FOR US TO VOTE ON, OR FOR THEM TO JUST GIVE US

AN UPDATE. >> YEAH.

>> WHICHEVER ONE -- >> WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR IS THEIR PLAN. WE'RE GOING TO GO WITH COMPANY B, AND THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE US THIS MUCH MONEY AND WE'RE GOING TO SAVE.

OR WE'VE LOOKED AND LOOKED AND LOOKED. AND THERE'S NO ONE THAT CAN GIVE US ANY BETTER. THAT'S THE ANSWER I WANT.

[03:05:03]

>> OKAY. >> DOES THIS HAPPEN TO BE OPEN TO BID? OR IS THIS A NONBIDDABLE ITEM? LIKE DO WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE BANK NETWORKS?

>> YEAH. IT'S GOING TO DEPEND.

>> IF IT WILL GET US THE LOWEST RATE.

>> IT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED. BECAUSE YOU MIGHT FIND SOMETHING THAT WORKS WITH THE SOFTWARE WE ALREADY HAVE. OR YOU MIGHT HAVE TO SWITCH SOMETHING. THEN THAT BECOMES A

WHOLE DIFFERENT -- >> COST.

>> -- ANIMAL. >> LET'S KEEP THAT GUY IN

OFFICE. >> $26,000 A MONTH. YOU CAN HIRE AN EMPLOYEE THAT DOES NOTHING BUT TAKE THE CHARGE FROM ONE PROGRAM AND TYPE INTO ANOTHER. YOU COULD HIRE FIVE EMPLOYEES FOR THAT PRICE. THAT'S HOW MUCH WE'RE TALKING THAT WE'RE LITERALLY SPENDING. SO JULY 11TH.

>> SO ADD FIVE EMPLOYEES IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> IF IT'S A NET POSITIVE AND YOU CAN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A CHEAPER RATE, I MEAN, WE GOTTA DO WHAT WE GOTTA DO TO

SAVE MONEY AROUND HERE. >> THE FISCAL AMOUNT SAYS IT'S

$110,000 A YEAR. >> THAT TELLS US SOMETHING IS OFF. BECAUSE $2,000 AN ACCOUNT. TIMES 13 ACCOUNTS IS ALMOST

$300,000. BUT -- >> ALL RIGHT. CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

[10.4. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-035 amending the Hutto Code of Ordinances, Chapter 1. General Provisions, Article 1, Code of Ordinances, by adding Division 3, Ordinances, to provide for publication of ordinances (Legal)]

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES, 6-0. >> THANK YOU.

>> POSSIBLE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HUTTO ORDINANCES. SAYS BY ADDING THREE DIVISION ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE

PUBLICATION. >> I LOVE THAT WE'RE DOING AN ORDINANCE ON PUBLISHING ORDINANCES.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I PUT THE STATE LAW ON PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES. AND IF YOUR CHARTER REQUIRED YOU TO PUBLISH THE FULL IN PAPER, THERE WAS A PROVISION IN STATE LAW THAT ALLOWED YOU TO ONLY PUBLISH THE CAPTION. THE SECOND PART SAID THE CHARTER, IN STATE LAW, PROVIDES FOR THE PUBLIC, IF YOU DON'T PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF AN ORDINANCE IN YOUR CHARTER, THEN YOU PUBLISH THE CAPTION TWO SUCCESSIVE TIMES IN THE CITY'S OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. SO BEFORE OUR CHARTER AMENDMENT, WE WERE PUBLISHING, ORDINANCES THAT HAD A FINE PENALLALITY, DEALING WITH FRANCHISE TAX, PUBLIC UTILITIES, IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER TWICE BEFORE THE ORDINANCE WOULD BECOME EFFECTIVE. SO WITH THE NEW CHARTER AMENDMENT, IT PROVIDES THAT THE ORDINANCES AND PUBLICATIONS SHALL BE ENACTED AS ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, AND THE CAPTIONS SHALL BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, WHEN REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. SO THERE REALLY IS NO STATE LAW. MOST DEAL WITH NOTICE, LIKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING. NOTICE OF BUDGET, NOTICE OF TAX RATE. THERE'S A LOT OF NOTICES THAT GO OUT FIRST, BEFORE YOU TAKE ANY ACTION. WHEN WE TALKED TO THE CHARTER REVIEW COMMITTEE ABOUT THIS, THEY SUGGESTED THE PLACE PEOPLE LOOK, REALLY, TO FIND OUT ABOUT YOUR ORDINANCES IS YOUR WEBSITE. SO THIS ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR YOUR PUBLICATION OF ORDINANCES. SO THE FIRST PORTION OF THE ORDINANCE SAYS, YOU'LL PUBLISH THE FIRST ORDINANCE THAT YOU PASS ON THE WEBSITE. FOR EXAMPLE, ORDINANCES, PASSED IN 2024, YOU WOULD JUST LIST THEM ALL. SO SOMEBODY LOOKING FOR A NEW ORDINANCE WOULD KNOW WHERE TO GO. THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS ARE THAT IT'S PUBLISHED IN YOUR MINUTES THAT YOU PASS THAT ORDINANCE. SO THERE'S ANOTHER PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT OR YOU PUBLISH IT IN THE CITY CODE. WHICH IS A PROCESS THAT OCCURS, WHENEVER YOU AMEND YOUR CITY CODE. CITY ORDINANCE TAKES IT TO THE AMENDMENT. AND IT GOES TO THE PEOPLE THAT CODIFY YOUR CITY CODE. AND IT APPEARS ON THE WEBSITE PRETTY MUCH WITHIN A WEEK. SO THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT PLACES THAT YOUR CITIZENS, OR ANYBODY LOOKING AT THE YOUR ORDINANCE ADOPTED, WOULD FIND A NEWLY PUBLISHED ORDINANCE. BUT IN SECOND PART OF THE ORDINANCE GIVES YOU THE

[03:10:03]

FLEXIBILITY TO PUBLISH IT IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU THINK THIS ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER, SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE MAY SEE IT. YOU HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO DO THAT. IT'S PERMISSIVE. AND YOU WOULD SAY IN YOUR ORDINANCE. AND MOST LIKELY, STAFF WOULD, IN BRINGING ORDINANCE TO YOU, WOULD SAY, THIS IS ONE THAT WE RECOMMEND YOU PUBLISH IN THE OFFICIAL NEWSPAPER. BUT THE WHOLE POINT OF IT THE PRIOR CHARTER BEFORE YOUR ORDINANCE BECAME EFFECTIVE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE PUBLISHED TWICE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE PUBLISHER'S AFFIDAVIT. WE'D HAVE TO BE AWARE OF WHEN THAT ORDINANCE BECOMES EFFECTIVE. THE NEW CHARTER ALLOWS YOUR ORDINANCE TO BECOME EFFECTIVE, WHEN YOU PASS IT, THE PUBLICATION PARTS OF THIS IS JUST TRYING TO GET NOTICE OUT TO THE PUBLIC OF WHAT THE CHANGES ARE.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 10.4 AS PRESENTED.

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

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM

GORDON. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON IT.

BECAUSE YOU SAID THE THREE OPTIONS POSTING IT ON OUR WEBSITE. THE MINUTES AND THROUGH THE LITTLE ORDINANCE

SOFTWARE. >> RIGHT.

>> SO ARE WE GOING TO PICK ONE? >> THE THIRD IS ONLY IF IT'S

AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY CODE. >> OKAY.

>> THAT GOES TO THE CITY SECRETARY TO GIVE TO THE -- TO THE COMPANY THAT PUTS THAT CODIFIES IT AND PUTS IT ON YOUR WEBSITE. OKAY. SO IT'S GOING TO BE ALL THREE?

>> YES. >> OR -- DEPENDING ON THE THIRD ONE. DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD?

>> YAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> FOR CLARIFICATION, DID YOU

SAY YEA OR NAY? >> YEA.

>> MOTION PASSES. >> THIS IS MY FIRST MEETING,

MAN. >> I SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-111 to authorize the City Manager to enter into Sidewalk Escrow Agreements as approved as to form by the City Attorney (Legal)]

AMENDMENT TO PUBLISH IN THE NEWSPAPER.

>> NEXT, ITEM 11.1. CONSIDERATION OF R-2024-111. TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO SIDEWALK ESCROW

AGREEMENTS. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, A COUPLE OF METINGS AGO, WE HAD THE COTTON WOOD SIDEWALK AGREEMENT WHERE THEY HAD ESCROW TO NOT PUT THEIR PROJECT. THIS IS A PROGRAM AND FORM AGREEMENT WHICH WOULD GIVE AN AUTHORIZATION TO A DEVELOPER, THAT IF THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S A CITY PUBLIC PROJECT THAT IS GOING TO INTERFERE WITH THE TIMING OF THEM EITHER PUTTING IN A SIDEWALK OR SHARED-USE PATH, WHICH IS A PATH THAT WOULD CONNECT TO OUR TRAIL SYSTEM, THAT THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PUT THIS MONEY IN ESCROW. AND NOT HAVE TO BUILD IT. AND IT GIVES THE AUTHORITY TO THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THESE AGREEMENTS. NOW, IT'S A FORM AGREEMENT, IF FOR SOME REASON, THE DEVELOPER HAD A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PROVISIONS OTHER THAN JUST PUTTING THE MONEY IN ESCROW. WE WOULD, OF COURSE, BRING THAT TO COUNCIL.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR ACTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2024-111, AS

PRESENTED. >> AND DO I HAVE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON?

[11.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-112 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and enter into a contract with Enterprise Leasing to lease three (3) 2024 Ford Police Interceptors and one (1) Chevrolet Tahoe Police vehicle. (Chief Jeff Yarbrough)]

COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR. AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 6-0. NEXT WE RELTZLUTION, R-2024-112, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH ENTERPRISE

[03:15:05]

LEASING TO LEASE THREE FORD POLICE INTERCEPTORS AND ONE

CHEVY TAHOE. >> CHIEF JEFF YARBOROUGH. I'M ASKING FOR THIS RESOLUTION. FOR THE FOUR VEHICLES. THE THREE FORD EXPLORERS AND THE CHEVY TAHOE. SOME MAY AROUND WOWHY WE WANT TO ADD THESE TO THE BUDGET? ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WE FACE YEAR AFTER YEAR, NOT ONLY US, BUT EVERY OTHER LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY. BUDGET YEARS FOR 2025, NOT ONLY STARTS FOR US. IT STARTS FOR EVERYONE. SO EVERYONE IS VYING FOR THE SAME EQUIPMENT, SAME VEHICLES. AND YOU FIND THAT YOU REACH A LEVEL WHERE IT'S DOG-EAT-DOG. WE WORKED WITH ONE OF OUR VENDORS AND FOUND OUT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET YEAR, WHEN EVERYBODY IS ORDERING VEHICLES, THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES AND THE NEED FOR PEOPLE NOT ONLY IN THE STATE OF TEXAS BUT AROUND THE COUNTRY IS EXTREME. BUT YOU ALSO WILL FIND THAT THERE IS A LULL, WHEN THOSE VEHICLES ARE DELIVERED AT THE END, LIKE WE HAVE JUST RECENTLY GOTTEN VEHICLES THAT WE ORDER ORDERED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. WE JUST GOT THEM THIS MONTH. WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE, WE HAD VEHICLES BECAUSE OF THE CHIP SHORTAGE, WE ORDERED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET YEAR, THAT WE DID NOT RECEIVE FOR THAT ENTIRE YEAR. SO WHAT WE'RE WORKING ON, AND OUR GOAL IS TO ORDER THOSE VEHICLES NOW. BECAUSE -- AND PEOPLE MAY SAY, YOU CAN GO DOWN TO A CHEVROLET DEALER AND ORDER IT OFF THE LOT. IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE. WHEN YOU'RE GETTING POLICE VEHICLES, NOT ONLY ORDERING THE VEHICLES, BUT THE EQUIPMENT. THE DEMANDS ARE UNIQUE. SOME VEHICLES MAY NEED CAMERAS INSIDE. SOME MAY NEED CAGES. SOME MAY NOT NEED. SOME MAY NEED DIFFERENT TYPE OF MDT TERMINAL HOLDERS. SO THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE VARIABLE. SO IF YOU WAIT UNTIL THE NEW BUDGET YEAR, THOSE VENDORS DO NOT KEEP THOSE TYPES OF EQUIPMENT ON HAND. THEY HAVE ORDER THE EQUIPMENT IN ADDITION TO THE VEHICLE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAN CONTRIBUTE TO THE DELAY. MY REQUEST IS THAT WE GO AHEAD AND ORDER THE VEHICLES NOW. IN FACT, WE HAVE A LENDER WITH ENTERPRISE. THEY SAY, WE HAVE THE VEHICLES. IF YOU CAN ORDER THEM NOW, WE CAN START OUTFITTING THEM FOR YOU AND HAVE THEM FOR YOU AT THE BEGINNING OF THE BUDGET YEAR.

SO WE HAVE THE BUDGET AND LINE ITEMS TO GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THOSE VEHICLES AND DEPLOY THOSE VEHICLES AND HAVE OUR OFFICERS OUTFITTED WITH THOSE VEHICLE NEGLIGENCE A TIMELY FASHION. SOME MAY WONDER, WHY ARE YOU TRYING TO DIVERSIFY YOUR FLEET? WE CURRENTLY HAVE A FLEET OF FORD EXPLORERS. THEY'RE GOOD VEHICLES. THEY'RE NOT MULTIPURPOSE. SO WHEN WE DIVERSIFY A FLEET, YOU GET A LARGER VEHICLE WITH CHEVY TAHOE. AND CONTRARY TO POPULAR BELIEF, THE CHEVY TAHOE IS ONLY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE TAHOE IF YOU GET A FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE. IF YOU GET A TWO-WHEEL DRIVE, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, IT'S A LOWER-COST VEHICLE. AND IT GIVES US THE ROOM SIZE WE NEED FOR A DEPLOYMENT OF EQUIPMENT THAT OUR OFFICERS CARRY. SOME OF THAT EQUIPMENT, WE ARE LEAVING INSIDE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THERE'S SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR OFFICERS TO HAVE THAT AND THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT THEY NEED. SO IF THERE'S AN ISSUE LIKE WE HAD A FEW DAYS AGO, OFFICERS ARE HAVING TO GO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO RETRIEVE THE EQUIPMENT THAT THEY NEED AND TAKE IT OUT INTO THE FIELD AND DEPLOY, BECAUSE THERE'S SIMPLY NOT ENOUGH ROOM. SO OUR GOAL IS TO DIVERSIFY THE AMOUNT OF EQUIPMENT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IN ADDITION TO THE CURRENT FLEET. SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO VEHICLES.

>> AND THE TAHOE FIXES THE EQUIPMENT ISSUE?

>> YES. IT FIXES THE EQUIPMENT ISSUE. BUT IT'S ALSO A MORE RELIABLE VEHICLE. AND I'M SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE OF USING BOTH AND DEPLOYING BOTH VEHICLES. IT'S A MORE RELIABLE VEHICLE. IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS YOU'LL SEE A LOT MORE TAHOES ON THE STREETS NOW. PEOPLE ARE FINDING THAT THEY LAST LONGER. YOU GOT A LOT MORE -- THE LITTLE THINGS, LIKE THE FUEL TANK SIZE IS BIGGER. SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO FUEL AS QUICK. A LOT OF BENEFITS TO HAVING THAT TAHOE.

>> SO INTERCEPTOR IS $217 MORE PER MONTH TO HAVE THE INTERCEPTOR. IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE AND THE TAHOES ARE BETTER, MORE RELIABLE, HANDLES IT ALL. WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST ORDER FOUR TAHOES AND NO POLICE INTERCEPTORS? I KNOW IT MAY DELAY IT. BECAUSE ENTERPRISE DOESN'T -- IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING, WHY NOT DO IT RIGHT? AND WE'RE EARLY? AND MAYBE THEY GET HERE IN NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANT TO DO IS CONTINUE TO DIVERSIFY. SO

[03:20:01]

WE DO WANT TO HAVE SOME FORD EXPLORERS. BUT WE ALSO WANT TO HAVE SOME OF THE TAHOES. BUT NOW, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE ARE GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE EXPENSIVE THAN THE TWO-WHEEL DRIVE. SO OUR GOAL IS TO HAVE SOME TWO-WHEEL DRIVE, SOME FOUR-WHEEL DRIVE, SO WE'RE BALANCING THE MONEY EXPENDITURES, WHERE YOU'RE NOT HAVING TO GO OUT AND BUY THE HIGH END. SO YOU HAVE THAT DIVERSEIFICATION IN OUR FLEET. THAT'S ONE REASON WHY WE'RE NOT WANTING TO GO OUT AND GET ALL TAHOES.

>> HOW MANY INTERCEPTORS DO WE HAVE?

>> ALL OF OUR PATROL ARE INTERCEPTORS. WE HAVE SOME

UNDERCOVER VEHICLES OR -- >> YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT THEY

LOOK LIKE. >> YES. THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE

NOT. >> MAYBE THEY'RE NOT.

>> UNLESS. >> YOU HAVE 30 INTERCEPTORS AND GO WITH FOUR TAHOES. I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT DIVERSIFY. SEEMS TO ME, YOU'D HAVE 30 INTERCEPTORS AND FOUR TAHOES. BUT ONE TAHOE TO ME DOESN'T COME OUT TO

DIVERSIFICATION. >> ONE OF THE REASONS WE ARE DOING THAT NOW. IT'S A PHASE-IN APPROACH TO THE DIVERSIFICATION. WHAT WE CAN DO WITH SOME OF THE NEW VEHICLES THAT WE'RE GETTING. WE STILL HAVE EQUIPMENT IN THE OLD ONES THAT WE WILL BE TAKING OFFLINE. AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO SAVE COSTS ON USING THAT EQUIPMENT THAT WE CAN PUT IN SOME OF THE VEHICLES. SO THE LIKE KIND FROM FORD EXPLORER TO FORD EXPLORER.

THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE LIKE, LET'S START BRINGING IN TAHOES. AND USE SOME OF THE EQUIPMENT. AND WHEN THAT EQUIPMENT HAS REACHED ITS AGE OF MATURITY, WHERE IT CAN'T BE USED ANYMORE, THEN WE CAN TRANSITION TO HAVING A MORE BALANCED FLEET. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, WE'LL HAVE VEHICLES -- EQUIPMENT IN SOME OF THE CURRENT EXPLORERS THAT WE WON'T HAVE ANY FURTHER USE FOR. SO IF WE CAN CONTINUE TO USE THAT UNTIL IT REACHES ITS -- SAY FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE EXPLORERS, FORD CHANGES ITS VEHICLE DESIGN, AND THAT EQUIPMENT IS NO LONGER PLIABLE, THEN WE WILL -- IT WILL GIVE US

THAT JUSTIFICATION. >> CHIEF, CAN I JUMP IN HERE A LITTLE BIT. SO WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS, WHENEVER YOU

BUY A POLICE VEHICLE. >> I'M SORRY? YOU SAID, HERE'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT.

>> I MEANT CHIEF. I APOLOGIZE. WHAT CHIEF IS TRYING TO EXPLAIN IS WHEN YOU BUY THE VEHICLE. AND I USE POLICE INTERCEPTOR LOOSELY, BECAUSE BASICALLY, THAT'S THE HIGHER ENGINE.

IT'S GOT A LITTLE BIT MORE -- >> TRANSMISSION.

>> HIGH-END TRANSMISSION. IT'S GOT OTHER THINGS INTO IT TO MAKE IT BE ABLE TO ACCELERATE FASTER AND DRIVE UNDER HOTTER CONDITIONS. THAT'S USUALLY WHAT AN INTERCEPTOR IS. THE TAHOE IS THE SAME TYPE OF STUFF. THE DIFFERENCE IS THE EXPLORERS ARE ALL-WHEEL DRIVE. AND THE TAHOE IS TWO-WHEEL DRIVE. THAT'S ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES. WHAT HE'S EXPLAINING NOW. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT VEHICLE, THERE'S AN UPFIT CHARGE. EFFECTIVELY, WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IS GO INSIDE AND LIKE WHENEVER YOU SEE THE GUYS GET PUT INTO THE BACK AND THERE'S LIKE A CAGE IN THERE. AND THE BACK SEAT IS ALL HARD PLASTIC. SO THEY CAN DO STUFF INSIDE THAT IS KIND OF GROSS OR WHATEVER. THAT YOU CAN PULL OUT OF ONE TRUCK AND PUT

IT INTO ANOTHER. >> IT'S LIKE A UTILITY TRUCK.

IT'S AN F150. THINKS I'M DONE. I GET IT. I'M JUST TRYING TO SAY, THE NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION IS THE INTERCEPTORS ARE ALL-WHEEL DRIVE, TAHOE IS NOT. BECAUSE WHAT THE INFORMATION SAYS IS THAT TAHOE IS A BETTER VEHICLE. IT'S CHEAPER, BUT WE DON'T WANT -- WANT TO DIVERSIFY.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THE INTERCEPTORS ARE ALREADY, BASICALLY ESSENTIALLY 4-WHEEL DRIVE. I GET THAT THE TAHOE HAS A DIFFERENT -- I'VE BEEN AROUND LONG ENOUGH. THEY CARRY EVERYTHING FROM EXTRA MAGAZINES TO WHATEVER YOU CALL IT, THINGS THAT STOP THE BLEEDING. I GET ALL OF THAT. THAT'S THE

DIFFERENT IS ALL-WHEEL DRIVE. >> NO. THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE.

THERE WAS ANOTHER DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING WRONG. YOU HAVE EXPLORERS THAT YOU CAN TAKE OFFLINE AND PUT IN THE NEW EXPLORERS TO SAVE MONEY.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> YOU SAID THAT. I GET IT.

BECAUSE YOU DIDN'T WEAR OUT THE CAGE IN THE BACK.

>> RIGHT. >> SO THAT CAN GO INTO THE OTHER VEHICLE. JUST LIKE THE UNDERSEAT STORAGE. IT WORKS IN EVERY F150 UNTIL THEY CHANGE THE BACK CAB. SO ALL OF THAT MAKES SENSE. JUST DIDN'T KNOW THAT PART ABOUT THE 4-WHEEL

[03:25:03]

DRIVE. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, BECAUSE I LOVE THE QUESTIONS.

WHAT IS A 4-BY-4 TAHOE? HOW MUCH MORE ARE WE TALKING? A

THOUSAND DOLLARS A MONTH -- >> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT IT IS ANNUALLY. IT'S ABOUT $2100 ADDITIONAL MORE THAN THE FORD

EXPLORER. >> OKAY.

>> I'M SORRY. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNSEL COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON AND SECONDED BY PRO TEM GORDON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON?

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PROTEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD,.

[12.1. Discussion and possible action concerning the 2024-2026 Hutto Strategic Plan establishing Council priorities and reaffirming Hutto's Strategic Pillars and Core Values (David Amsler)]

>> AYE. >> THANK YOU.

>> MOTION PASSES, 6-0. NEXT ITEM, 12.1. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION CONCERNING THE 2024-20 TWEUBGT HUTTO STRATEGIC PLAN, ESTABLISHING COUNCIL PRIORITIES AND REAFFIRMING HUTTO'S STRATEGIC PILLARS AND CORE VALUELESS.

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DAVID AMSLER. I AM PLEASED TO PRESENT THE DRAFT STRATEGIC PLAN TO YOU TONIGHT.

ANY GOOD PLAN STARTS WITH HISTORY. HAS A LONG DIVERSE COMMUNITY. FULL OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR EACH NEW GENERATION. OVER THE LAST DECADE, HUTTO. YOUNG FAMILIES ARE PART OF HUTTO 'S POM POPULATION. HUTTO HAS OVER 10,000 STUDENTS ENROLLED. THE STUDENTS THERE SPEAK OVER 22 LANGUAGES, SHOWCASING HUTTO'S DIVERSITY. GROWTH IS A FUNDAMENTAL SEPTEMBER OF HUTTO. YOU'LL FOCUS ON DATA AND STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THAT ADDRESS THE CURRENT AND ANTICIPATED EXPANSION OF HUTTO. ADDITIONALLY, COMMUNITY INPUT FROM STATISTICALLY VALID SURVEYS, CONDUCTED IN 2021 AND 2023, HELPED INFORM THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THAT YOU SEE LATER IN THIS PLAN. THIS IS THE CULMINATION OF A JOURNEY THAT THE CITY COUNCIL AND LEADERSHIP HAS TAEN, INCLUDING FACILITATION SESSIONS FROM STRATEGIC COORDINATORS. AND OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE WORKED ON, INCLUDING DEVELOPING A VISION STATEMENT, THE CORE VALUES YOU SEE UP HERE AND THE STRATEGIC PILLARS. ALLOWS THE CITY MARG AND STAFF TO WORK EFFICIENTLY, AND MAKE CALCULATED BUDGET RECOMMENDATIONS EACH FISCAL YEAR. BY SETTING THESE CLEAR EXPECTATIONS TO FINDING PROCESSES AND DETAILED TRACKING, LEADERSHIP CAN ESTABLISH KEY PERFORMANCELESS THAT ALIGN WITH THE COUNCIL'S VISION. THE TRANSPARENCY PROVIDES RESIDENTS WITH CLEAR INSIGHT INTO AREAS OF FOCUS.

THE PROGRESS AND THE NARRATIVES BEHIND THE DECISION-MAKING AS A RESULT. THIS PROMOTES INCREASED COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT AND GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITY. THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE ENACTED OVER THE NEXT 24 MONTHS, WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR REPRIORITIZATION AND STAFF REPORTING AND THE STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION IN MARCH OF 2025. AND OF COURSE, WHAT IS THE STRATEGIC PLAN FOR HUTTO FOR WORKING ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. THAT CONCLUDES MY INTRODUCTION OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN. NEXT, STAFF IS REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR ANY ITEMS THAT YOU FEEL ARE NOT REPRESENTED IN THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES FOR THE COUNCIL TO MAKE NOTE OF THAT AND INSTRUCT STAFF TO MAKE CHANGES.

BEGINNING WITH PILLAR 1. WHICH IS COLLABORATE FOR OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND EFFICIENCY. MEANING THE CITY OF HUTTO STRIVES TO BE A BEACON BY HOLDING EACH OTHER ACCOUNTABILITY. ACHIEVING ALIGNMENT AND ACCURACY AND EFFICIENCY. DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE ANARE

[03:30:02]

NOT LISTED HERE THAT YOU BELIEVE -- OR NOT REPRESENTED HERE FROM THE LIST THAT YOU CREATED BACK IN THE STRATEGIC

PLANNING SESSION? >> IT LOOKS RIGHT. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE MISSED SOMETHING OR NOT.

>> DID A GOOD JOB PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I DIDN'T SEE

ANYTHING THAT WAS MISSING. >> OKAY. THE NEXT PILLAR IS MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY, STANDING FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO.

INCLUDING LONG-TERM FINANCIAL HEALTH AND ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCES. FOR THIS OBJECTIVE, DO YOU GUYS SEE ANYTHING MISSING HERE? OR WOULD LIKE ANYTHING TO BE ADDED?

>> NO. LOOKS GOOD TO ME. >> OUR THIRD STRATEGIC RESPONSIBILITY. LEVERAGING RAPID GROWTH THROUGH STRATEGIC PLANNING, REVENUE, GENERATING BUSINESSES AND ADOPTING INNOVATIVE INFRASTRUCTURE AND POLICIES AND PROJECTS. DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY POLICY ON THESE OBJECTIVES?

>> LOOKS GOOD. >> OKAY.

>> FINALLY, THE CITY OF HUTTO IS PROUD TO BE CONSISTENTLY RANKED AMONG THE SAFEST CITIES IN TEXAS. IN ADDITION TO THE STANDARD, HUTTO WILL CREATE A COMMUNITY THAT IS ENGAGED, TOLERANT AND COMPASSIONATE ABOUT EVERYONE. LEVERAGING DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES. TO BUILD AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE EVERYONE CAN FEEL THEY BELONG AND HAVE THEIR VOICES HEARD.

DOES THE COUNCIL HAVE ANY EDITS TO PILLAR 4, "CREATE THE

HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE"? >> DID A REALLY GOOD JOB ON

THIS ONE. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES THIS. NEXT STEPS WOULD BE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, WHICH THEN, THE MARKETING DEPARTMENT WILL ENSURE THAT THIS IS MARKETED TO OUR RESIDENTS AND THEN COME MARCH 2025, THAT REPORT THAT YOU GUYS DID THIS YEAR WILL INCLUDE ACTIONS THAT STAFF HAS TAKEN TOWARDS MEETING THESE OBJECTIVES. AND THEN BEGINNING TO BUILD A PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. THAT WE REPORT ON. AND SHOW TO

RESIDENTS. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. ANY

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> THANKS FOR ALL THE WORK, TAKING WHAT WAS JUST A LIST OF WORDS AND TURNING IT INTO A WHOLE PICTURE PRESENTATION AND REALLY TYING IT INTO REAL ACTIONS. THAT REALLY HELPS. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. >> I'M EXCITED TO SEE THESE GET ACCOMPLISHED AND WOULD BE HAPPY TO HELP WHERE NEEDED TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. THANK YOU. AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE GREAT

WORK TO BRING TO RESIDENTS. >> THANK YOU, COUNCILMEMBER.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 6-0.

>> MAYOR, IF I MIGHT ASK, POINT OF CLARIFICATION, I ASSUME IF WE ENCOUNTER ANY GRAMMAR ERRORS, PUNCTUATION ERRORS, YOU ALL GO WITHOUT ASKING FOR THEM, CORRECT?

>> YES. >> IF YOU WANT A BETTER-LOOKING

PICTURE. >> MIGHT HAVE HAD A DUMB LOOK ON MY FACE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS INTENTIONAL.

>> LET ME CLARIFY. >> ON ONE OF THE PHOTOS, PART OF THE REASON WE'RE REACHING OUT TO TAKE A COUNCIL GROUP PHOTO IS ONE OF THE PAGES BE UPDATED ONCE WE HAVE THAT GROUP PHOTO. SO THERE ARE SMALL CHANGES.

[12.2. Discussion and possible action providing direction to staff on the 42-inch wastewater line for the Cottonwood/Allora property (Mayor Mike Snyder)]

>> EVERY BUSINESS WANTS A GLAMOUR SHOT.

>> THANK YOU. >> NEXT WE HAVE 13.2.

[03:35:01]

CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION TO AWARD THE DOWNTOWN ELEVATED STORAGE TANK PROJECT. I CAN'T REMEMBER. WERE YOU IN THE MEETING WITH ME ON THIS?

>> YES, SIR. >> I ASKED FOR THIS TO BE ON THE AGENDA. BECAUSE COUNCILMEMBER AND I WERE IN A MEETING. AND JAMES, MAYBE I WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT DIDN'T KNOW THIS. BUT COTTONWOOD PROPERTY CAN'T BUILD OUT, IN WILL THIS 42-INCH WASTEWATER LINE IS DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY, GOING UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD TRACK. THE CONCERNING PART FOR ME WAS PERSONALLY, WE ARE DEPENDING ON ANOTHER DEVELOPER TO DO ARE THE DESIGN WORK. AND THEY HAVE NOT STARTED, OR THEY'RE STARTING, THEY'RE NOT VERY FAR LONG. SO I TOLD JAMES, MY CONCERN IS, WE'VE GOT PROPERTY THAT COST US $3,000 A DAY IN CARRY COSTS.

$100,000 A MONTH. AND IF WE DON'T, AS A COUNCIL PRIORITIZE THIS. WE'RE DEPENDING ON A DEVELOPER THAT MAY OR MAY NOT EVER DESIGN A WASTEWATER LINE THAT IS OUR WHOLE KEY TO GETTING THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY KNEW THAT. I TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE ON EDC. THEY WERE NOT AWARE. I DON'T KNOW IF MIDWAY WAS AWARE. IT WAS KIND OF A SHOCK TO ME. I DON'T KNOW -- IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, IT'S NOT ON OUR CIP PLAN. SO I TOLD JAMES, I SAID, IN MY OPINION, AT $3,000 A DAY, IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO SAVE MONEY BY BEING A PEOPLE WHO DESIGN THE LINE, INSTEAD OF DEPENDING ON SOMEBODY ELSE, BECAUSE THAT'S ALMOST LEVERAGE AGAINST US, WHERE THE DEVELOPER COULD DO NOTHING. AND WHILE THEY'RE DOING NOTHING, WE'RE WAITING, PAYING $3,000 A DAY, THAT WE CAN'T DEVELOP THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE LINE IS BUILT. SO IT WAS NEWS TO ME, ANY TIME I GO TO A MEETING, I LIKE TO SHARE IT WITH EVERYBODY. YOU GUYS MAY KNOW ALL OF THIS. BUT I WAS LIKE, HOLY COW. DID THAT PRETTY MUCH SUM IT UP?

>> PRETTY MUCH. >> MY QUESTION IS FOR MATT.

LOOKING AT THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN. THERE'S COTTONWOOD. WAIT. WAIT. THAT'S COTTONWOOD CREEK. WHAT PROJECTS ARE -- I'M TRYING TO FIND IT ON THE PAGE RIGHT HERE. WHAT PROJECTS ARE -- THAT ARE IN THE C.I.P. LIST -- OR MASTER PLAN, THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN, ARE RELEVANT TO THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES? I WISH I HAD ENOUGH TIME TO SCROLL AND FIND. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND IT. IS IT CALLED NORTH COTTONWOOD CREEK S.E.R. PROJECTS? NO. I GUESS, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN THE MASTER PLAN, RELEVANT TO THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY?

>> CONVENIENTLY, FOR THE CIP CONVERSATION EARLIER. I HAVE A

WASTEWATER MAP. >> OH, BOY.

>> IS THAT A SPREADSHEET? >> NO. THAT'S THE ACTUAL

WASTEWATER MAP. >> OKAY. WASTEWATER. NOPE.

OKAY. NOPE. SORRY. THERE WE GO. THIS ONE?

>> WE'RE DONE WITH THAT, WE CAN EXIT THAT, RIGHT?

>> OH, HOT DIGGITY DOG. OKAY.

>> THAT GOOD? >> THANK YOU.

>> SO, TO YOUR QUESTION, THIS IS THE MAP PULLED STRAIGHT OUT OF THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN. AND I'VE COLOR-CODED THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE CIP. SO YOU'LL SEE THERE, YOU HAVE PROJECT 26 IN THE CENTER, RIGHT BASICALLY, WHERE THE CREEK IS.

AND THEN OFF TO THE RIGHT, YOU HAVE PROJECT 33. AND SO BASICALLY, THOSE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN, IN ORDER FOR THIS ENTIRE AREA THAT IS KIND OF IN THAT LIGHT BLUE COLOR TO CONTINUE TO BE FULLY SERVED, BASED ON FULL BUILDOUT THAT WAS DONE IN THE MASTER PLAN. AND SO WHAT IS IN THE S.E.R. THAT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO LENNAR IS BASICALLY, THAT 21-INCH LINE THAT YOU SEE FOR PROJECT NUMBER 33 AND THAT VERY SOUTHERN PORTION OF PROJECT 26 THAT CROSSES UNDER 79 AND GOES

TO THE CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT. >> RIGHT NOW, IF LENNAR WALKED.

AND SAID, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO GET THE HOUSING MARKET TURNED. THEN SOMEONE HAS -- WHETHER IT BE US, SOMEONE HAS TO PICK IT UP AND DESIGN IT IN ORDER FOR COTTONWOOD TO HAVE

[03:40:02]

FULL BUILDOUT. CORRECT. SAID SO WHAT YOU ASK -- YOU WANT US TO DESIGN IT? YOU WANT EDC TO DESIGN IT?

>> FIRST IS, BECAUSE I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN THE ONLY PERSON TO PICK UP ON. THIS IS LIKE A MAJOR PROBLEM. AND MY ASK IS EITHER -- TO BE HONEST, I DON'T THINK THE CITY COUNCIL HAS TO PICK IT UP. EDC IS UNDER AMENDMENT TO PICK IT UP. TO WORK WITH 250 ACRES THAT CAN'T GET DEVELOPED UNTIL THEY GET WASTEWATER SERVICE. THAT WOULD BE ON THE EDC I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HAVE A RESOLUTION SAYING, HEY, GUYS, HEADS UP.

NOBODY IS DESIGNING THIS LINE RIGHT NOW. SO THERE'S NO SENSE IN LOOKING FOR GROCERY STORES OR ANYTHING ELSE, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T DO IT. WE'RE ABOUT OUT OF MONEY. THERE'S $1.3 BILLION. AND THIS WASN'T ONE OF THEM, RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> I'M ALREADY FREAKED OUT

OVER $1.3 BILLION. >> DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT -- THE DEVELOPER'S 42-INCH PROPOSED LINE WOULD GO? TO TIE INTO THAT 42-INCH. BECAUSE I KNOW AT THE MEETING, THEY TALKED ABOUT, OBVIOUSLY HAVING THE CITY BE AN ADVOCATE FOR THE RAILROAD.

ISSUES WITH UPRR. BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THEY CAN'T COMMUNICATE WITH THE FEDS LIKE WE CAN, THE STATE CAN, THE COUNTY CAN. SO OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD HAVE TO HELP THEM. TO GET IT UNDERNEATH, TO GET TO THE CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO WHERE IS THEIR PROPOSED? DO WE KNOW WHERE

THEY'RE PROPOSED -- >> WHEN WE HAD THAT MEETING, UPSTAIRS WITH THEM, THEY HAD JUST SUBMITTED THE FIRST ROUND OF REVIEW FOR THAT LINE. IT'S ROUGHLY WHERE THAT RED LINE IS SHOWING IT CROSSING UNDER. BUT THE LENNAR REPRESENTS EVEN INDICATED IN THAT MEETING THAT THEIR SUGGESTION TO THE ENGINEER WAS GOING TO BE TO SHIFT IT FURTHER TO THE WEST, TO USE THE CURRENT TRAIL CROSSING THAT GOES UNDER, YOU KNOW, FROM FRITZ PARK, WHERE YOU CAN CROSS UNDER 79 AND UNDER THE RAILROAD AND CROSS COUNTY ROAD 99 TO THE TRAIL.

THEY WERE GOING TO SUGGEST TO THEIR ENGINEER THAT THEY SHIFT THAT OVER. SO WE HAD THAT MEETING, I THINK IT WAS BACK IN APRIL. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. THEY HAD SUBMITTED THE PLANS IN APRIL. WE REVIEWED THEM. WE PROVIDED THEM THEIR COMMENTS. WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING BACK FROM THEM, SINCE WE SENT THEM THEIR COMMENTS IN EARLY MAY. BUT GENERALLY, WHERE THAT RED LINE IS, IS WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THE LINE GO.

AND THEY HAD COORDINATED THE TIE-IN TO THE CENTRAL PLANT, WITH DCS, WHO IS DESIGNING THE NEW CENTRAL LIFT FOR THE PLANT.

>> SO DO YOU MEAN -- YOU SAID -- OKAY. SO YOU DID SAY WEST.

BUT THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY IS ON THE EAST OF THAT RIGHT

THERE? >> YEAH. SO -- THAT 21-INCH

LINE THAT YOU SEE COMING DOWN. >> --

>> YEAH. >> ALONG THE SIDE OF THE

PROPERTY. >> YEAH.

>> SO THAT'S ALREADY DESIGNED. THAT'S PART OF WHAT LED TO THE ULTIMATE CONVERSATION IS BECAUSE THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THEIR PROJECT PERMITTED FOR CONSTRUCTION IN ONE OF THE ROUNDS OF REVIEW, I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE. THEY HE SAID 21-INCH TO TIE INTO A FUTURE 42-INCH TO BE DESIGNED BY OTHERS. SO WE MADE A COMMENT SAYING, WHERE IS THE DESIGN AT ON THIS 42-INCH? YOU GUYS STARTED DESIGNING AND BUILDING IT. AND THAT STARTED LEADING TO THE CONVERSATIONS THAT SAID, WE NEED TO START BUILDING OUR PROJECT. BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN WAITING ON IT. I DON'T KNOW THE TIME LINE, HOW LONG THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING. BUT THEY SAID WE HAVE BEEN WAITING. AND WE'RE ALMOST THERE. AND THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST HANGUPS. SO THE 21-INCH IS FULLY DESIGNED AND READY TO GO. THAT 42-INCH IS THE KIND OF PIECE THAT'S MISSING.

>> WHAT'S THE TIME LINE ON THIS 42-INCH? FOR --

>> I -- NOBODY WANTS IT. >> WHY IS IT HIGHLIGHTED? OR

WHY DO YOU -- >> IT'S NOT HIGHLIGHTED ON HERE. IT'S JUST SHOWING -- THIS IS THE WASTEWATER MASTER

PLAN. >> OKAY.

>> SO THE POINT IS THAT PROJECT 26 GOES ALL THE WAY UP BEYOND -- GOES TO JUST UNDER, WHAT IS THAT?

>> WHAT IS THAT? >> IS THAT --

>> YEAH, GOES ALMOST ALL THE WAY UP TO THE EMORY CROSSING

STATION. >> UH-HUH. THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE AN INTERCEPTOR THAT COMES DOWN THE CREEK RIGHT NOW. AND PART OF THE MASTER PLAN, WE'RE GETTING REALLY CLOSE TO MAXING OUT THAT INTERCEPTOR, AND SO TO CONTINUE THE GROWTH IN THIS CENTRAL BLUE AREA, THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE MASTER PLAN WAS THAT WE PUT A PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR IN THE CREEK TO GET

[03:45:02]

ALL THE FLOWS TO THE CENTRAL PLANT. SO THAT TINY LITTLE SECTION THAT IS FROM THE 21-INCH TO THE CENTRAL PLANT WAS IN THE S.E.R. FOR LENNAR TO DO, AS PART OF THEIR PROJECT.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THEY CAN GET TO THE CENTRAL

PLANT. >> SO THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IS RIGHT THERE AT 79?

>> I DON'T -- THAT'S WHAT THE AGREEMENT IS FOR THEM TO DO. I DON'T KNOW HOW WILLING OR EXCITED THEY ARE ABOUT DOING

IT. BUT. >> AND TO DATE, HOW LONG HAVE

THEY BEEN WORKING ON THIS? >> SO I ACTUALLY PUT A TIME LINE WE STARTED IN MARCH OF LAST YEAR. AND IN MAY, I CONNECTED THEM WITH DEAD CS, SO THEY COULD START DOING THE DESIGN. THEY HAVE BEEN WORK ON THE DESIGN FOR OVER A YEAR NOW.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M IN FAVOR, NECESSARILY, OF THE THREE AND A HALF-FOOT DIAMETER SEWER PIPELINE THROUGH OUR TRAIL AREA. WE DON'T HAVE VERY MUCH. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A BETTER WAY TO GO THROUGH THE RAILROAD. SO TO YOUR POINT, MY ASK IS, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, IT'S LIKE A COUNCIL THING. IF OTHER PEOPLE NEED AN ISSUE. LET'S FIGURE OUT A PATH FORWARD. DO WE TELL STAFF TO LIKE BRING THIS BACK AN ITEM? GET IT BID OUT AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO DESIGN IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY LEVERAGE ON LENNAR, OTHER THAN THEY CAN'T BUILD HOMES, UNLESS THEY DESIGN IT.

>> EVEN THAT IS TENUOUS. BECAUSE IT'S THE FRITZ GRINER PROPERTIES. THEY ARE ACTUALLY NOT IN THE CITY. THEY DID NOT ANNEX. SO WHAT I HAVE DONE IS ALL OF THEIR PERMITS ARE GOING BASICALLY THROUGH THE COUNTY, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THIS WASTEWATER LINE. SO I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE COUNTY ENGINEER, AND HE'S REQUIRING THAT ON THEIR PLATS, THEY PUT A NOTE THAT SAYS, BASICALLY, UNTIL THEY HAVE SOME SORT OF

VIABLE. >> GAME OVER FOR US.

>> THEY -- I MEAN, THEY COULD PROPOSE TO PUT A PACKAGE PLAN

UP THERE. >> THAT 21 IS DEPENDING ON THAT

42, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. BECAUSE 21 IS JUST DRAINING EVERYTHING DOWN TO THAT 42. AND ONLY REASON THAT'S A 42 IS EVERYTHING COMING TOGETHER.

>> YOU SAID THEY ALREADY COULD. BUT THEY'RE DOING IT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CITY. CHANCES ARE, IF THEY PLAY TOO HARD BALL. IT WILL BE A PACKAGE PLAN. THEY'VE GOT A PACKAGE PLAN BEFORE THEY WALKED AWAY, RIGHT?

>> I WOULD ASSUME. BUT THEY WOULD JUST -- YEAH. BEFORE THEY

WALKED AWAY FROM EVERYTHING. >> SO --

>> I'M A VISUAL PERSON. SO THEIR PROPERTY -- CAN IT BE

SERVICED BY THE 21? >> THEIR PROPERTY IS. SO IT'S GOING TO FLOW GRAVITY RIGHT DOWN AND THEN THEY CONNECT WITH

THE 42-INCH. >> YEAH.

>> TO GET TO CENTRAL. AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY?

>> YEAH. SO HERE'S THEIR S.E.R. THAT IS UP ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT IT STARTS WITH, I BELIEVE IT'S A 15-INCH. I CAN'T REALLY READ THAT. THE CIRCLE

NUMBER 1 UP THERE. >> UH-HUH.

>> SORRY. DOES NOT -- I CAN'T READ THAT.

>> THIS ONE? >> CIRCLE NUMBER 4. SO THAT'S THE PROPERTY HOWEVER YOU CALL IT. SO THERE'S A 15-INCH THERE. AND THEN YOU HAVE NUMBER 5, WHICH IS --

>> MATT, YOU NEED TO GET BACK TO THE MICROPHONE. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. JUST ZOOM IN MORE IF YOU NEED TO.

>> THEN YOU HAVE THE FRITZ AND GRINER PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH OF THEM. AND YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A CONTINUATION OF THE PIPELINE THAT TIES INTO THE 21-INCH STARTING AT LEMMER LOOP. AND THEN THAT 21-INCH GOES DOWN ALONG THE EAST SIDE, ALONG COUNTY ROAD 132. THE EAST SIDE OF FRITZ AND GRINER AND COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES, BETWEEN THEM AND 132. AND THEN IT TURNS AND GOES WEST, BETWEEN THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY AND U.S.

79. THEN IT TURNS SOUTH AND CROSSES UNDER 79. SO -- I'M

SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER. >> GO AHEAD.

>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, TO THE MAYORY POINT. THE ONLY SEGMENT THAT HAS TO GET BUILT, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO SERVE COTTONWOOD IS THE PART THAT GOES UNDER 79 AND CONNECTS, AS THE BOTTOM SEGMENT. BECAUSE THAT IS COTTONWOOD DEVELOPS, IT COULD BUILD OUT ITS OWN INTERNAL SEWER LINES TO BUILD TO THAT CONNECTION. BUT WITHOUT THAT CONNECTION, THERE'S

NOWHERE FOR THE SEWER TO GO. >> OKAY REMEMBER.

>> SO HOW MUCH OF THAT 42-INCH LINE IS TAYLOR MORRISON BUILDING? I MEAN, I KNOW, NORTH OF LEMMER LOOP, THEY'RE COMING THROUGH COTTONWOOD CREEK TO RENT A LINE.

[03:50:02]

>> I'M NOT SURE -- TAYLOR MORRISON. YOU'D HAVE TO HELP ME WITH WHICH PROJECT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

>> SO THEY'RE -- CAN YOU SCROLL UP, HOW FAR NORTH DOES THIS PICTURE GO? CAN YOU SCROLL TO THE LEFT? THAT PINK LINE

THERE. >> SO WE ACTUALLY HAVE THREE DIFFERENT PROJECTS UP THERE THAT ARE ALL PARTICIPATING IN THAT PURPLISH, PINK COLORED LINE.

>> BUT THEY'RE ONLY DOING THE PURPLISH-PINK?

>> THAT GREENISH COLORED CYAN BETWEEN THE PURPLE AND WHERE WE CROSSED THE 79. IS STILL TO BE DETERMINED FOR THAT.

>> RIGHT NOW, IT'S ON THE CIP. BUT IT'S IN FURTHER-OUT YEARS.

>> SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ISSUE IS.

WE HAVE THE 21-INCH LINE GOING TO BE SERVICED. AND IF WE CAN HELP THEM GET THE 42-INCH UNDERNEATH THE RAILROAD, AND THEY'RE WILLING TO DO IT, THEN, I MEAN, I KNOW IT DOESN'T -- IT'S NOT FOR -- IT'S NOT ADVANTAGEOUS FOR THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY. BUT LIKE THE CITY MANAGER SAID, THEY'LL BUILD THEIR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE OUT AND TIE IN SOME WAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER WHAT I WAS SAYING IS THAT IF THE 42-INCH THAT GOES UNDER 79, UNDER THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND THEN CONNECTS ON THE SOUTH PART OF ALL OF THAT, IF THAT DOES NOT GET BUILT, THEN THERE'S NOWHERE FOR THE SEWER TO DRAIN.

>> ABSOLUTELY. BUT IF THAT DOES GET BUILT. JUST THAT LITTLE SEGMENT. NOT ALL OF IT, RIGHT? IF JUST THAT SEGMENT GETS BUILT, THEN THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR COTTONWOOD TO BUILD ITS OWN SEWER NETWORK TO DRAIN TO THAT POINT, RIGHT?

>> UH-HUH. UH-HUH. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO

SAY. >> IN AUGUST OF TWO YEARS, ROUGHLY. 22 MONTHS. WE'RE JUST SITTING HERE. THERE'S A POTENTIAL IN MY MIND, TWO YEARS FROM NOW, WE COULD BE GOING, SHOULD WE BUILD THE 42. SHOULD WE DESIGN IT? AND IN MY MIND, WE DON'T CONTROL OUR OWN FATE. YOU HAVE THE 100,000 A MONTH.

WAITING TO SPEND ON THE LINE. >> I GUESS I DON'T REMEMBER THE MEETING. I GUESS -- I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT ANYWHERE. I'M JUST SAYING. I GUESS, WERE THEY NEEDING CLARIFICATION AS TO WHERE THEY WERE GOING TO DO IT. CITY WAS GOING TO DO IT. OR THERE WAS GOING TO BE JOINT VENTURE.

>> ALL I GATHERED WAS, THEY WERE WORKING ON IT. THEY WANT TO PUT IT IN THE GROUND, THOUGH. BECAUSE THEY CAN DO IT FASTER. I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE SAID. HE WAS LIKE, GIVE ME 18 MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I THINK HE WANTED TO GO AHEAD AND USE THE 21-INCH AND DO A PUMP-AND-HAUL AGREEMENT. IF WE COULDN'T FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THROUGH THE RAIL LINE. AND THEY WERE LIKE, LOOK. WE CAN DESIGN IT. ALL OF OUR ENGINEERS QUIT. WE'RE STARTING ALL OVER AGAIN. WE WANT TO GO OUT AND BUILD OUR DEVELOPMENT.

WHICH SCARES ME A LITTLE BIT. >> THAT IS GOING TO BE MAJOR.

>> SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S MULTIPLE OPTIONS HERE. I MAKE A MOTION TO DELAY THIS TO GET MORE INFORMATION TO FIND OUT, TO GET MY QUESTIONS ANSWERED. BECAUSE LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME, HE DOESN'T KNOW IF EVERYONE UP HERE KNOWS ABOUT ALL OF THIS. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING ABOUT IT. I THINK IT WOULD BE A LITTLE HASTY TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST NOW HEARING ABOUT. SO I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DELAY -- OR MY MOTION IS TO DELAY THIS, TO GET MORE CLARITY AND A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION. SOUNDS ALSO LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT HAPPENED IN A MEETING THAT I WASN'T PRIVY TO. JUST WOULD WANT TO GET MORE CLARIFICATION THERE BEFORE VOTING ON SOMETHING.

>> YEAH, I'LL SECOND THAT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I MEAN, THERE'S ABSOLUTELY NO BACKGROUND INFORMATION IN OUR PACKET, BUT THERE'S A TON OF INFORMATION HERE. IS THERE A REASON WHY ALL OF THIS BACKUP WASN'T PROVIDED TO US SO THAT WE COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWING THIS FOR THE LAST WEEK?

>> DON'T LOOK AT ME. I DON'T KNOW.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M LOOKING AT YOU. IT'S GOT YOUR NAME ON IT.

>> I CAN TELL YOU WHAT I PUT IS STAFF EXPECTATIONS. SO WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ACTION. AND WHAT IS PLANNED TO HAPPEN WITH

[03:55:02]

THE DESIGN. WHO IS DOING IT AND WHAT THE TIME LINE IS. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT LENNAR IS DOING THE DESIGN WORK. AND HUTTO NEEDS THE DESIGN. THE CONSTRUCTION TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY. SO WHY IT WASN'T SHARED? I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD SAY, YOU GUYS MEET WITH THE CITY MANAGER, EVERY WEDNESDAY. IF ANYBODY DIDN'T ASK.

>> I ASKED. HE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. BECAUSE IT WAS YOUR ITEM AND YOU DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY MATERIAL.

>> WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON. IF HE SAID THAT, WE'VE GOT A PROBLEM. BECAUSE HE'S ON THIS E-MAIL. DOTTIE IS ON THIS.

STATE SECRETARY IS ON THIS. YOU GUYS WANT TO POSTPONE IT. YES, WE HAD A MEETING, YOU WEREN'T PRIVY TO IT. THAT'S THE REASON WE HAVE THIS. YOU SAID, I HAVE QUESTIONS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ANSWERED. YOU HAVEN'T ASKED ANY. YOU'RE HERE. WE'RE THERE.

THIS WAY, THE GOAL IS TO BE ON THE SAME PAGE. YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THE INFORMATION FROM A MEETING UNLESS YOU ASK A QUESTION. WE CAN'T SHARE EVERYTHING INDIVIDUALLY, QUORUMS. I'M NOT UPSET, IF YOU WANT TO TABLE IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TABLING. BECAUSE THE WHOLE POINT WAS, WE DIRECT STAFF TO DIRECT BY SUCH-AND-SUCH MEETING. BUT IF YOU WANT TO TABLE IT UNTIL YOU DIRECT STAFF TO DO SOMETHING.

THAT'S OUR PROBLEM, AS A COUNCIL, WE DON'T EVER DIRECT STAFF TO DO THINGS. WE WAIT FOR STAFF TO COME TO US FOR SOLUTIONS TO PROBLEMS. THEY DON'T ALWAYS KNOW THERE'S A PROBLEM. BECAUSE ARE WE CONCERNED ABOUT THIS? MAYBE NOT. WE CAN SIT BACK AND WAIT. YOU'RE ON THE EDC. IF YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW ABOUT THIS, YOU'RE PAYING $7,000 A DAY, WHILE SOMEBODY IS CONTROLLING YOUR FUTURE. THAT'S A HUGE WASTE IN MY MIND. SOMEONE OUGHT TO GET ON THIS.

>> MY MOTION WAS TO DELAY FOR MORE INFORMATION. SO STAFF, CAN YOU PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION ON THIS ITEM FOR THE NEXT MEETING?

>> WHAT INFORMATION WOULD YOU LIKE, SO WE CAN GIVE YOU THE INFORMATION YOU'RE LOOKING FOR?

[04:01:39]

>> LAKE AVERY NUMBER -- >> POINT OF ORDER,

>> POINT NOT TAKEN. >> RAISE A POINT OF ORDER TO

YOUR POINT NOT TAKEN. >> YOU ARE OVERRULING MAYOR, THEN THE REST OF THE COUNCIL VOTES ON WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE OFF THE TOPIC.

>> SO, WE WILL VOTE -- EVERY TIME I MAKE A GOOD ARGUMENT THIS HAPPENS.

SO -- >> WAIT, WHAT?

>> WE ARE VOTING TO SEE IF WE ARE STOPPING THE CONVERSATION ON HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT. WE WILL CONTINUE. IS THAT SAFE TO

SAY? >> THE MOTION IS JUST TO

POSTPONE THE ITEM. >> CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT? A TON OF THAT IS APPROPRIATE. YEAH, LET'S DO IT.

>> WHAT DOES A AYE VOTE MEAN? WHAT IS A NAY VOTE MEAN?

>> AYE MEANS WE ARE OFF TOPIC?

>> HE AYE VOTE MEANS THAT YOU ARE -- YOU OVERRULED HIM.

>> I'M SORRY, MY VOTE IS THAT A NAY MEANS WE ARE OFF-TOPIC.

>> A AYE VOTE IS TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, A NAY IS TO PROCEED WITH THE VOTE OF THE MOTION ON THE TABLE? OKAY.

>> IT IS GETTING GOOD. >> HE PROMISED HE WOULD THROW YOU A CURVEBALL.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON?

>> NAY. >> MAYOR SNYDER?

>> THE MOTION PASSES OR WHAT IS THAT -- OBJECTION PASSES ?

>> OBJECTION SUSTAINED.

>> SO I HAVE BEEN VERY ADAMANT WITH THE CITY MANAGER TO NOT DIRECT ANYBODY TO DO ANYTHING. IN FACT, THE OTHER DAY, WHAT MEETING WHERE WE IN, AND I MET A GUY I THOUGHT WAS A NEW EMPLOYEE, HE HAD BEEN HERE FIVE YEARS AND I HAVE NEVER MET HIM BEFORE BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN GO IN HERE TO DO ANYTHING AND I DON'T ASK THEM TO DO ANYTHING. SO MATT ASKED ME NUMBER FOUR, THE 42 INCH WASTEWATER LINE, COULD YOU CLARIFY ITEM AND STAFF EXPECTATIONS? TO WHICH AGAIN, I SAID STAFF EXPECTATIONS SO THAT WE HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE FACTS AND WHAT IS PLAN TO HAPPEN WITH THE DESIGN, WHO IS DOING IT, AND WHAT THE TIMELINE IS. IT IS MY UNDERSTAND THAT HUTTO NEEDS IT CONSTRUCTION ALLIANT TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY. SO I DON'T WANT TO BE STRUNG UP AND INVESTIGATED FOR DIRECTING STAFF, BECAUSE THAT IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER, BUT I UNDERSTAND THIS STUFF DID NOT COME IN AND I DID NOT SEE IT BEFORE HAND. I UNDERSTAND THE FRUSTRATION. I THINK WHAT WOULD BE VERY GOOD AT TO DO IS TO SAY I DIRECT STAFF TO PROVIDE EVERYTHING TO US WITH ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE, AND THAT WAY WE CAN HAVE ANOTHER AGENDA WHERE WE ARE ALL

[04:05:06]

BETTER PREPARED, BUT I DON'T THINK IT IS HELPFUL TO GET VAGUE WITH I NEED INFORMATION. WHAT INFORMATION? I DON'T KNOW. LIKE WHAT DO WE WANT SO THAT HE KNOWS WHAT TO DO, BECAUSE NOT EVERYBODY IS HAPPY WITH WHAT HE PROVIDED AND SOME OF THIS IS NEW. I DID NOT SEE ALL OF THIS BEFORE. AND SO IF I WAS YOU GUYS, I WOULD CHANGE THE AGENDA ITEM TO WHAT YOU WANT. AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THEN WE WILL HAVE ANOTHER MEETING AND FIGURE OUT IF IT IS A PROBLEM. YOU GUYS MIGHT NOT THINK IT IS A PROBLEM. SORRY YOU MISSED INFORMATION, I DID NOT GET IT EITHER. BUT THEY GAVE US SO MUCH INFORMATION TODAY -- GIVE IT TO ME EARLIER ANYWAY. SO ANYWAY.

>> OKAY. I WOULD PREFER TO HAVE INFORMATION IN THE PACKET AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SO THAT I CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION IN THE COUNCIL MEETING AND ASK INFORMED BASTIONS, THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING FOR. HOWEVER THIS HAPPENED, I AM NOT STARTING AN INVESTIGATION, I WOULD JUST LIKE, IN THE FUTURE, IF WE HAVE AN ITEM, I HAVE HAD ITEMS BEFORE AND I HAVE ASKED THE CITY MANAGER IF I'M ABLE TO WORK WITH STAFF TO HELP ME PREPARE FOR MY ITEM, WHICH I HAVE DONE, AND STAFF HAS HELPED ME PREPARE WHAT INFORMATION I HAVE PROVIDED THEM WITH. I HAVE PROVIDED THE SUMMARY RICK WEST AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, RIGHT? SO THAT IS ALL I AM ASKING FOR. THERE IS A LOT OF INFORMATION PRESENTED TO US AND I HAVE NOT HAD TIME TO DIGEST IT, SO THAT IS WHY I SECONDED THE MOTION, BECAUSE I WOULD LOVE TO READ THROUGH THE PROBLEM STATEMENT AND FULLY UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON SO THAT WHEN WE DO HAVE A DISCUSSION I CAN ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION OR ASK FOR A DECISION AND THAT IS THE ONLY REASON THAT I SECONDED THE MOTION DOES THAT IS HOW I WOULD PREFER THAT WE WORK THIS. HOW IT HAPPENED, WHATEVER, THAT IS FINE.

>> WE CAN ALSO USE OUR GREAT MESSAGE BOARD TO RELAY SOME INFORMATION. I LIKE TO DO THAT ON A FEW ITEMS I HAVE HAD BEFORE, JUST PUTTING IT OUT THERE, JUST THE BASICS OR MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT OF THINGS AND YOU MAY DISAGREE ON THINGS. AT LEAST YOU KNOW WHAT I AM BRINGING TO THE TABLE YOU KNOW TO EITHER AGREE OR DISAGREE ON.

>> ONE MORE SUGGESTION, MY PHONE NUMBER, IT SAYS THAT ANYBODY COULD EMAIL ME, ANYBODY COULD HAVE CALLED ME IT IS EITHER 269-1771 AND BOTH AREA CODE 512. I AM PRETTY AVAILABLE. SO IF IT IS THAT BIG OF A CONCERN, HEY -- WALK ME THROUGH WHAT IS GOING ON HERE .

>> WE CANNOT DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING INTO A QUORUM.

>> YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF ON THE MESSAGE BOARD.

>> I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE SAID THAT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK WAS THERE, YOURSELF AND ME, SO --

>> I'M JUST SAYING THERE ARE A LOT OF AVENUES.

>> I'M NOT ASKING ANYBODY TO SPEND $10 MILLION RIGHT NOW BUT THE ASK IS EVERYTHING I DO ALWAYS HAS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION BECAUSE WHAT I HATE MORE THAN ANYTHING IS DISCUSSING SOMETHING AND THEN THE CITY ATTORNEY GOING YOU CANNOT DO THAT, YOU HAVE TO GO POST IT AGAIN, SO THERE IS ALWAYS -- BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE BAD FOR ME TO PUT AN ITEM ON HERE AND ME LOOK BACK AND SMIRK AND GO YOU CAN'T DO NOTHING BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAY DISCUSSION, SO -- ALL RIGHT, SO WE COULD DO NO -- I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS EMOTION TO DO NO ACTION ON THE ITEM.

>> I HAVE NOT GOTTEN ASK ANY BASTIONS

>> POINT OF ORDER, YOU MAY SPEAK.

>> SO I GOT CONFUSED BY THE NAMES BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE FLORA. SO LENNAR IS ON THE EAST OR THE WEST SIDE OF 133?

>> 132.

>> IT IS STILL 132.

>> THEY HAVE THE FRITZ REINHARDT PROPERTIES AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE CALLING IT THE WINFIELD DEVELOPMENT IS WHAT

THEY'RE CALLING IT, AND -- >> AND THAT IS 900 SOMETHING? I SAW THE SCR'S FLYBY IN HERE AND IT WAS LIKE 900 SOMETHING.

>> I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER.

>> HERE WE GO. OKAY. SO IT IS JUST A SMALL CORNER .

>> CORRECT. IT IS IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER OF THE BLUE

SECTION BY NUMBER FOUR. >> THE REASON I GOT MORE EXCITED WAS BECAUSE FLORA IS HUGE AND IS ALREADY GOING DOWN THE PACKAGE PLANT PATH AND THAT SHIP HAS BASICALLY SAILED AT

[04:10:03]

THIS POINT.

>> CORRECT. >> THAT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF

THIS. DOESN'T BORDER THIS? >> IT IS FURTHER NORTH.

>> FURTHER NORTH AND EAST. >> IT IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF

133. >> OKAY. SO THE SAME GENERAL AREA BUT NOT RIGHT ON -- NO RELATION TO THIS. OKAY.

>> I THINK IT IS 2000, BUT -- IT IS A LOT, WHATEVER IT IS.

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS HIGHER BUT I DON'T EXACTLY REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

>> ALL RIGHT. I THINK YOU CAN DO A MOTION AND CONTINUE THE MOTION TO DELAY OR JUST NOT DO ANYTHING AND IT COULD BE

BROUGHT BACK UP. >> MY AMENDMENT WOULD BE TO BRING IT BACK FIRST MEETING IN JULY 2 DISCUSS EVERYTHING.

JUST A MONTH FOR EVERYBODY TO DIGEST EVERYTHING AND GET AS MUCH INFORMATION AS THEY NEED.

>> BRINGING IT BACK JULY 11? SOUNDS GOOD. YOU WANT TO RESEND

IT YOUR -- >> I WILL RESEND THAT.

>> WE WILL BRING IT BACK JULY 11.

ALL RIGHT, ITEM 12.3 -- >> THAT WE NEED TO VOTE ON

THAT? >> THE COUNCILMEMBER GRADE.

[12.3. Discussion and possible action regarding staff recommendations regarding signal/light pole standards (Mayor Mike Snyder) ]

>> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WHOLE STANDINGS. PUT THIS ON HERE.

FIRST I WILL BACK UP WITH HOW WE GOT TO THE AGENDA ITEM. I DON'T KNOW WHAT INFORMATION YOU HAVE IN HERE. BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT WE WILL COVER THIS PART HERE. I SAID THAT -- I WAS ASKED AGAIN ON THIS ONE WHAT THE EXPECTATIONS WERE AND I SAID WE NEED AN ITEM ON DISCUSSION ACTION REGARDING ACCOMMODATIONS OF STAFF REGARDING SIGNAL LIGHT POLES STANDARDS AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS ANY BACKLIT SIGNS, PULL COLORS, AND THE PROCESS FOR GETTING THESE REPLACED AND WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT. THE REASON FOR THE ITEM WAS WE HAD THIS EMAIL THAT CAME OUT THAT SAID WE ARE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THE PULL COLOR AND IT MAY NOT HAVE TIME TO GO TO CITY COUNCIL. AND IF WE DO THAT IT COULD CAUSE A DELAY, TO WHICH I ASKED, I THINK I ASKING THE BEGINNING LIKE HEY, ARE WE TALKING ABOUT -- LET ME BACK UP HERE. WE NEED TO DECIDE COLORS OF HOW THE STREET SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE SHOWN AND PARAPHRASING THAT HE SAID YES AND THEN I SAID I AM CONFUSED AND THE EMAIL SAYS I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND SEE THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE VARIOUS COLORS AND I AM LIKE WE HAVE NOT FIGURED OUT PULL COLORS AND I SUGGEST USING THE FACEBOOK OR NEWSPAPER TEST AND THAT IF WE WERE TO TALK ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR WHATEVER, AND GOING THROUGH A LONG STRENUOUS PROCESS THERE WILL BE A DELAY IN GETTING SIGNALS UP , WHAT WILL PEOPLE THINK? AND JUST PICK A COLOR, BUT THEN I SAID WITH THAT, I SAID I WOULD GO WITH GRAY AND BURNT ORANGE BACKLIT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT BLUE HAS TO DO WITH HUTTO BUT IN REALITY, WHAT IS THE COST? WE JUST NEED THE PULLS UP. LET'S PUT IT ON THE AGENDA AND FIGURE IT OUT. IF WE ARE DELAYED WE WILL DEAL WITH IT. I DID FEEL LIKE WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH BROWN POLES, AND I THINK WHAT I WAS SELLING THE CITY MANAGER WAS THAT AT THE POINT WE ARE GETTING READY TO CHANGE WHAT EVERY SIGNAL IN HUTTO LOOKS LIKE GOING FORWARD WITH THE BACKLIT, I THINK THAT IS A DECISION THE CITY COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE HIM A STAFF SHOULD NOT MAKE THAT BECAUSE OF STAFF GOES WITH THAT AND WE DON'T LIKE THAT, THEN WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE IN A FEW YEARS AND WHAT IS THE COST OF DOING ALL THAT ? AND SO THAT IS THE PREMISE FOR DOING THE AGENDA ITEM AND WHATEVER INFORMATION THAT HAS . IF YOU SHARED IT WITH ME BEFORE HAND, THIS WILL BE BRAND-NEW FOR ME TOO, SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO COME BACK ON THIS ONE AS WELL.

>> I HAVE NOT SHARED INFORMATION WITH ANYONE. THE INFORMATION IS WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO USE THE BROWNISH COLOR THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT THE CO-OP . THAT IS THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT SIDE THERE. IT IS ACTUALLY NOT BROWN. IF YOU LOOK AT THE TITLE OF THE COLOR, IT IS CALLED OLD WORLD GRAY. THAT IS THE BROWN COLOR, SO THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO DO ALL SIGNALS THE SAME COLOR FOR ALL OF THE ONES THAT THE CITY IS

[04:15:02]

DOING, AND THEN THE BACKLIT STREET SIGNS JUST LIGHTS IT UP AT NIGHT. YOU CAN SEE AN EXAMPLE. THAT IS JUST AN IMAGE I PULLED UP SO YOU COULD SEE IT. AND THEN PUBLIC WORKS HAS WORKED THROUGH THE SIGNED TEMPLATE SHOWING THE BLUE BACKGROUND AND THE WHITE LETTERING WITH THE STAR IN THE UPPER RIGHT CORNER. THOSE ARE THE COLORS AND SCHEMES WHEN YOU PIECE ALL OF THAT TOGETHER THAT WE ARE SUGGESTING TO INCLUDE IN THE SIGNAL PROJECTS WE ARE WORKING ON.

>> HOW MUCH TO HAVE IT BACKLIT? WHAT IS THE MAINTENANCE ON IT ? IS IT $50,000 TO MAKE THAT THING LIGHT UP?

>> YOU ARE ALREADY HAVE ALL THE ELECTRIC THERE TO RUN THE SIGNAL. IT IS JUST ADDING THE FRAME FOR THE SIGN WITH THE LIGHT BEHIND IT, AND THEN YOU'RE JUST MAINTAINING THE BULBS PRETTY MUCH. THEY BURN OUT.

>> DO WE HAVE LET ONE'S ALREADY, LIKE LIGHTED SIGNS

ALREADY? >> I CANNOT THINK OF ONE. I

DON'T KNOW. >> THEY ARE CERTAINLY SAFER FOR NIGHTTIME NAVIGATION BUT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY IN THE CITY. I THINK ROUND ROCK HAS SOME AND GEORGETOWN HAS SOME. I THINK YOU CAN SEE THEM THERE.

>> FRISCO HAS THEM. WHAT DOES IT COST? LIKE WHAT IS THE ADD-ON? OR EVEN TO HAVE THE POLLS? BECAUSE I AM ASSUMING THAT WE WILL WANT TO REPLACE A COUPLE HOLES.

>> THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO. THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS THAT WE ARE STARTING TO ORDER FOR THE ONES THAT WE ARE DOING, WE WILL HAVE TO ORDER THE POLLS FOR THOSE LIGHTS. NOT TO START REPLACING LIGHTS. SO THE NOTION WAS, WE HAVE TO PAY TO POWDER COAT THEM, SO WHAT IS THE COLOR ? IF WE ARE GOING TO START WITH A HUTTO LOOKS A CERTAIN WAY, THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SPEND $1 MILLION ON TRAFFIC LIGHT POLES THAT ARE NOT THE COLOR THAT YOU WANT. SO TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, WHAT DO WE WANT HUTTO TO LOOK LIKE? THAT IS WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT.

THIS CAME UP ABOUT ONE MONTH AGO AND THE QUESTION WAS WHAT DOES IT COST AND WE HAVE TO POWDER COAT IT NO MATTER WHAT SAY YOU JUST HAVE TO PICK A COLOR IF YOU WANT A CERTAIN

AESTHETIC. >> SO WHAT IS THE BACKLIT COST?

>> I DON'T KNOW. MATT WAS DOING THE INVESTIGATION ON THAT. BASICALLY ALL THE COSTS ARE THE SAME EXCEPT FOR ADDING IN THE LIGHT BOX. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, BUT STILL MORE THAN A STANDARD SIGN WITH REFLECTIVE --

>> YOU'RE TALKING A A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS BUT PROBABLY AN EXTRA THOUSAND DOLLARS FOR EACH OF THESE THAT WE PUT UP COMPARED TO JUST PUTTING OF REGULAR REFLECTIVE BACKGROUND SIGNS LIKE YOU WOULD SEE ON ANY OTHER ROAD.

LIKE I SAID, THE BIGGEST THING IS JUST MAINTAINING IT. WHEN THE LIGHTS GO OUT YOU HAVE TO REPLACE THE BULBS.

>> ARE THEY L.E.D.? >> I WOULD ASSUME AT THIS POINT L.E.D. IS AN OPTION. I HAVE NOT CHECKED INTO ALL THE DIFFERENT

BOLD TYPES. >> THE ONLY ONES I HAVE SEEN

OUR LEDS. >> HOW MANY ARE WE TALKING?

LIKE 50 OR 20 4000? >> WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING ON

THREE TRAFFIC SIGNAL WALLS. >> HOW MANY DO WE HAVE IN THE

CITY OF HUTTO OF THE ? >> THAT IS THE THING. SO CURRENTLY WE HAVE -- I'M NOT SURE OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, LIKE FIVE OR SIX TRAFFIC SIGNALS, BUT THEY ARE ALL TECH STOCK TRAFFIC SIGNALS. IF WE WANTED TO DO THIS WITH THOSE SIGNALS THEN WE WOULD HAVE TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE OVER OWNERSHIP, MAINTENANCE OF THOSE TXDOT SIGNALS. THAT WILL HAPPEN WHEN WE HIT A POPULATION OF 50,000 WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT. BUT THEY'RE NOT LOOKING TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD GET INTO REPLACING ALL THOSE POLES AND SIGNS ALREADY UP, LIKE ON A 1660, 79, AND 137, ALL THOSE.

>> YOU CANNOT JUST PUT THESE ON EXISTING POLES? IT HAS TO BE A

WHOLE NEW -- >> THE RUNNING RUNS THROUGH THE

[04:20:07]

MAST ARM. I'M SURE THERE IS A WAY TO RETROFIT THEM, BUT TYPICALLY, WE ARE PUTTING UP BRAND-NEW SIGNALS. WE ARE THINKING WE WILL DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT MANY. >> THE RETROFITTING IS CERTAINLY PLAUSIBLE. THE PROPOSAL IS NOT GOING TO BE -- STAFF DOES NOT PROTECT ¿ INTEND TO PROPOSE A MASS REPLACEMENT.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE LOOKING TO DO. WE ARE MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WE ARE ABOUT TO GO BY IS NOT A WASTE LIKE I WISH WE HAD REALLY STARTED DOING THE BRANDING STUFF THEN, BECAUSE NOW THE POLLS ARE BRAND-NEW AND WE WILL NOT WANT TO REPLACE THEM IN FIVE YEARS.

>> SO Y'ALL ARE SUGGESTING THIS BLUE COLOR?

>> YEAH, THE BLUE NAMEPLATE WITH THE WHITE LETTERING WITH THE LETTER H *WHICH IS THE HUTTO LOGO, IN LINE WITH THE COLOR SCHEME FOR ALL THE BRANDING.

>> ME PERSONALLY, CAN WE TALK? OR DO WE STILL HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> NOTHING , I WILL PUT THAT AWAY.

>> OKAY .

>> YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO ONLY QUESTIONS, BUT WE HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TONIGHT SO IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY, STATEMENTS --

>> I LIKE THE AESTHETIC OF WHAT IS OUT BY THE CO-OP. I LIKE THE BROWN OR THE GRAY AND I LIKE THE CLASSIC GREEN SIGN, NOT THE BLUE OR THE BACKLIT. ANOTHER THAT IS EXTRA AND MODERN, BUT I FEEL LIKE IF WE WANT TO KEEP SOME KIND OF CHARM TO HUTTO AND THE SMALL TOWN FEEL, JUST KEEP IT A SIX. THAT IS JUST MY OPINION. I LIKE THE BASIC GREEN SIGN AND THE INDUSTRIAL LOOK OF THE BROWN POLE.

I MET A PERSONAL FAN OF THE LAWYER. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE FOLLOWING THEIR GPS ANYWAY. THEIR CAR IS TELLING THEM WHERE TO TURN. THE CAR WILL TELL THEM WHERE TO TURN IN FIVE YEARS.

YOUR CAR WILL TURN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WONDER IF YOU ARE AT WATERWAY AVENUE. MAYBE NOT.

>> I LIKE THE LOOK. MY CONCERN , I WAS JUST TALKING TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM, AND ANY BIG CHANGES LIKE THIS, I KIND OF FELT LIKE PEOPLE OUTSIDE THE COUNCIL WERE MAKING BRANDING DECISIONS FOR THE CITY WHICH MADE ME GO INTO THE AGENDA ITEM, BECAUSE IF WE WANT IT TO THEIR NEEDS TO BE A DECISION, DO WE LIKE THE H? OTHERWISE, YOU HAVE TO DO SOMETHING CRAZY AND IT GETS THROWN OUT AND THEN SOMEBODY SAYS WHO APPROVED THAT AND WE WILL GO I DON'T KNOW. TALK TO JAMES, HE DID IT. SO IF WE ARE BUDGETING SIGNALS, WE SHOULD BUDGET JUST FOR THE SIGNAL, AND IF WE HAVE ANYTHING SPECIAL, THAT HAS TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND WE WILL GO I KNOW HE'S GOT THE ABILITY TO SPEND MONEY, BUT IF WE WANT TO DO AN UPGRADE WE WANT TO MAKE A CHANGE FOR THE WHOLE CITY BECAUSE I WAS HERE WITH THE LAST BRANDING CHANGE AND WE JUST THREW IT UP ON A SILO AND SAID HERE IS NEW BUSINESS CARDS IT IS A NEW THING. SO , I DO LIKE THE WAY IT IS BACKLIT. I THINK I HAVE SEEN IT AND IT DOES KIND OF GIVE -- IT POPS AT NIGHT, IF IT MAKES SENSE, BUT I DID WONDER ABOUT BLUE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE ARE RED , WHITE AND BLUE. DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THEY DON'T COME IN BURNT ORANGE. OR MAYBE UT WON'T LET US HAVE BURNT ORANGE. BUT I WAS THINKING SOMETHING LIKE THAT. TWO WHERE AGAIN, FRISCO USES .

AND THAT STICKS OUT AND I THINK AROUND ROCKS IS CLEAR, RIGHT?

>> A LOT OF THE CITIES ARE USING BLUE SIGNS. THE GREEN IS A LITTLE MORE OLD AND RUSTIC, SO A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO BLUE.

>> IF WE'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO MAKE HUTTO BE DIFFERENT, AND MAYBE INSTEAD OF THE H , IT WILL SOUND STUPID, BUT MAYBE A LITTLE HIPPO FACE THERE WHERE THEY KNOW THESE ARE FANATICS. BUT , FOR ME IT ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO HOW MUCH. I DOUBT IT IS A COUPLE HUNDRED BUCKS BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BUY A TELEPHONE HERE WITHOUT IT BEING $500. I'M SURE THEY ARE RIPPING EVERYBODY OFF THAT ARE PUTTING THESE UP BUT IF IT IS A COUPLE THOUSAND BUCKS AND YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE PLANS TO RETROFIT THE WHOLE CITY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM.

AND IF THEY HAVE TO BE POWDER COATED ANYWAY, I DON'T HAVE A

[04:25:05]

PROBLEM WITH THAT, AS LONG AS WE MAKE SURE IT IS A STANDARD THAT EVERY NEW SUBDIVISION HAS A NEW LIGHT POLE OR SIGNAL WHOLE, EVERYTHING GOES THAT WAY, OTHERWISE I DON'T WANT TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY TO HAVE SOME LOOKING GRAY AND SOME BLACK AND SOME OVER HERE THAT ARE SILVER.

IT WOULD BE A LONG PROCESS TO GET THEM ALL FIXED ANYWAY.

>> SO THAT IS BROWN AND BACKLIT GREEN WITH A HIPPOPOTAMUS?

>> YEAH, I COULD GO FOR THE BACKLIT GREEN AND THE HIPPO.

>> OLD SCHOOL, LET AND WE WILL ADD SOME 21ST-CENTURY STUFF TO IT I GUESS.

>> A WHITE PENCIL HIPPO FACE. >> A SOLO BUT MAYBE.

>> PUTTING A DIFFERENT COLOR IN THEIR PROBABLY DOESN'T WORK.

>> I WAS NOT A TERRIBLE BIG FAN OF WHAT COUNCIL ENDED UP DOING, BUT THEY DID THE SIGN HALF RED AND HALF BLUE. SO ALL THE STREET LINES HAVE THE CITY BRAND, JUST LIKE THE HUTTO IS.

SO YOU CAN DO DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS WHEN IT IS YOU ARE ROAD SIGNS, BUT YOU CANNOT DO THAT TO TXDOT, AND THEIR STANDARD IS GOING TO BE THE GREEN.

>> THAT PART YOU COULD PROBABLY SWAP OUT PRETTY EASILY.

>> YOU TOTALLY CAN. >> IF YOU WANTED TO DO BURNT ORANGE SIGNS, I AM SURE YOU DO BURNT ORANGE SIGNS. AS LONG AS YOU ARE OFF THE TXDOT SYSTEM IT DOES NOT MATTER.

>> THAT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT ANY ISSUES IT MIGHT HAVE WITH VISIBILITY FOR COLORBLIND PEOPLE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.

>> CAN I DO IT? >> YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT

TO DO. >> MOTION TO RECOMMEND THE BROWN POLE WITH THE GREEN AND WHITE WITH BACKLIT? IS THAT WHAT IS CALLED ? BACKLIGHT, AND NO HUTTO EMBLEM, BUT REPLACING IT WITH A HIPPO SILHOUETTE.

NOT EATING ANYTHING. >> THAT WE HAVE IT EATING A

DUCK OR SOMETHING? >> THAT JUST STARTED A WAR.

>> DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BITE MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

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

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON MARK >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER HORTON? >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES 5-1. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.4, CONSIDERATION

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

AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO TPDES WASTEWATER PERMIT APPLICATIONS AND TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. THIS IS THE REOCCURRING ONE. I DO NOT HAVE ANY UPDATES EXCEPT FOR WHAT WE HAVE ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

>> I THINK WE COULD GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE ONE THAT IS AT THE PEARL ESTATES WHICH I THINK IS NUMBER SIX. THERE IS A MEETING EARLIER THIS WEEK AND WE MADE QUITE A BIT OF PROGRESS ON IRONING OUT THE WASTEWATER AGREEMENT WHICH OF COURSE ARE THE CIP PROJECTS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE AVERY LINES.

SO THAT AGREEMENT IS PRETTY FAR ALONG IN GETTING INKED. SO WE HAVE PRETTY GOOD PROGRESS ON THAT AND WE HOPE TO HAVE THAT BEFORE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION HERE PRETTY SOON.

>> I HAVE NOT HEARD -- WHAT IS IT, NUMBER FIVE? I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE, I WAS JUST LOOKING ¿ I BELIEVE THAT IS THE JUNE 13

AGENDA OR WAS GOING TO BE? >> YES, WE ARE WAITING FOR ROUND ROCK TO TAKE THEIR ACTION.

>> THAT COULD BE AN UPDATE FOR THE CITY

>> I WILL BRING IT UP LATER THAN.

>> I THINK IT IS NUMBER ONE OR FOR ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?

>> IT IS , IT IS FOR ON THE POSSIBLE DIRECTION, AND ONE IS THE ONE WE HAVE BEEN ASKED TO JOIN IN ON THE OPPOSITION.

[04:30:12]

>> OKAY, SO I THINK IN ESSENCE WE ARE MAKING VERY GOOD PROGRESS, AND I DON'T THINK WE ARE GIVING EVERYTHING AWAY. WE ARE BEING TOUGH AND FIRM BUT FAIR ON EVERYTHING.

AND I HAVE BEEN IN MEETING WITH THE COUNCILMEMBER AND WHO IS