Jul 13, 2024 Special City Council

[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER]

[00:00:18]

>>>

[4.1. Discussion and possible action on the 5-year Capital Improvement Project Program (James Earp, Matt Rector, Alberta Barrett)]

>> GOOD MORNING, CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, FOR THE RECORD, I'M NOT IN FRONT OF YOU. I'M OVER HERE TO THE SIDE. SLIGHT CHANGE IN LOCATION. FIRST THING I WANTED TO DO WAS KIND OF RUN THROUGH ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE ARE PRESENTED YOU WITH SO THAT YOU CAN JUST KIND OF, AS WE BOUNCE AROUND -- BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF TO COVER, YOU WILL KIND OF KNOW WHAT KIND OF DOCUMENT TO REFER BACK TO. AND IN THE PACKET, BOTH IN YOUR TEAM'S FILES AND IN THE PRINT OUTS THAT WE HEADED OUT TODAY, YOU SHOULD HAVE A FILE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS. IT'S A FIVE-PAGE FILE THAT IS BLUE AND GRAY. THIS IS FROM WHEN WE PRESENTED THE CIP TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND IT HAS THEIR NOTES AND THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL. YOU WILL ALSO SEE A DOCUMENT THAT IS VERY COLORFUL. THIS WAS THE WATER MASTER PLAN COMPARISON TO THE PROJECTS IN THE CIP TO SEE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO COMPLETE THE MASTER AND THAT -- YOU WILL SEE IN THERE, IT SAYS THE PROPOSED WASTEWATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN. WHAT I'VE DONE IS I HAVE OVERLAID AND COLOR-CODED THE PROJECT SO YOU CAN SEE THE PROJECTS THAT THEY ARE IN HERE AND THE YEARS THEY ARE PROPOSED TO START. YOU WILL HAVE A WATER MAP SIMILAR TO THE WASTEWATER MAP, SAME THING, COLOR-CODED BY THE YEAR THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO START SO SEE HOW WE ARE EXECUTING IN A GRAPHICAL WAY COMPARED TO WHAT WAS IN THE FINAL THING. AND THE ROAD MAP SHOWING, AGAIN, COLOR CODING BY YEAR OF COMPLETION. THE TWO OTHER WASTEWATER WHEREBY YEAR OF START, SO THERE WAS A SLIGHT CHANGE WHEN WE WENT TO ROADS AND DRAINAGE, BUT THE ROAD PROJECT IS BY YEAR OF ANTICIPATED COMPLETION. THOSE ARE THE PACKETS DOCUMENTS THAT ARE INCLUDED. SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO JUMP INTO OUR ACTUAL PRESENTATION HERE. THE FIRST THING I WANT TO DO IS LET YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HAD TO MAKE SOME ASSUMPTIONS. PART OF ANY PLANNING PROGRAM, WE HAVE TO

JUST -- >> I DON'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU. COULD WE GET A COPY OF THE PROJECTS WITH A COST BROKEN UP PER YEAR WHILE YOU ARE GOING TO THE PRESENTATION? IT'S GREAT

TO HAVE THE PROJECTS . >> YOU WANT US TO GIVE YOU THIS PRINTOUT THAT I AM SHOWING ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW? IS THAT

WE WERE ASKING FOR? >> YES, SO I CAN WRITE NOTES ON WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>> MAY BE PAGE 7 THROUGH 12 THAT HAS THE SPREADSHEET ON ALL THE PROJECT FOR THE NEXT SIX YEARS.

>> THEY ARE GOING TO GET YOU PRINTOUTS. SO THE FIRST THING IS, THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE MADE -- YOU CAN SEE HERE, YOU CAN SEE HERE THE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUE FOR THE CITY IN FY '25

AT $5.1 BILLION. >> MATT, CAN -- I WANT TO JUMP IN REAL QUICK AND PRE-FACE WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO DO AND WHY. FOR

[00:05:03]

DISCOUNTED FOR PORTIONS OF THAT GOING BACK TO SKYBOX. WE ARE NOT COLLECTING ALL OF IT TO BE USED FOR DEBT SERVICE, SO TO WEEK. SO THAT HAS HAPPENED. AND THEN MATT WILL ALSO WALK YOU THROUGH THE HOMESTEAD VALUE. THAT IS A REAL VALUE AS OF RIGHT NOW. WE WILL HAVE REAL NUMBERS IN A FEW WEEKS AND THAT NUMBER WILL BE A DIFFERENT NUMBER, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, THAT IS A REAL NUMBER THAT WE ARE BASING OFF OF WHAT WE KNOW TO BE TRUE. RECAP THE HOMESTEAD VALUE GROWTH AT 8%, BECAUSE WE GENERALLY EXPECT THE CITY'S OVERALL VALUATION TO CONTINUE TO GROW GREATER THAN 8%. AND HOMESTEAD VALUES ARE CAPPED AT GROWTH RATE, SO WE KEPT THAT AS A MORE CONSERVATIVE YOU. THE INTEREST RATE IS CLOSE TO WHAT WE JUST RECEIVED BY ISSUING OUR DEBT ON A 25 YEAR NOTE IS WHAT WE ARE CHOOSING, IS THAT BETWEEN 20 AND 30. YOUR OPTIONS ARE GOING TO BE MORE AGGRESSIVE. IF YOU WANT TO BE MORE CONSERVATIVE, YOU CAN ISSUE THE DEBT FOR LONGER YEARS . WE CHOSE THE MIDDLE. 25, THAT IS THE STANDARD. THE OTHER NUMBERS THAT ARE ON HERE ARE THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS THAT WE HAVE. WATER. THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS THAT WE HAVE WASTEWATER. AND WHAT WE ARE SHOWING, THE GROWTH RATES, FOR THOSE ACCOUNTS TO HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE LAST TIME THAT WE CALCULATED INCREASES TO PAY FOR CEOS AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. WE ARE KEEPING APPLES TO APPLES ON OUR PROJECTIONS, AT THE VERY LEAST, AND SHOWING THAT WHAT WE EXPECT TO SEE THAT GROWTH RATE LOOK LIKE TRANSLATED IN THE LAST TIME THAT WE CALCULATED WHAT THE PROJECTED RATES WOULD DO. SO THAT WILL THEN LEAD YOU TO THE BOTTOM BOX, WHICH -- I GUESS I'M JUST DOING THIS FOR YOU, SORRY. THAT WILL LEAVE YOU TO THE BOTTOM BOX. IF YOU WANTED TO BORROW $10 MILLION TODAY AT 4.33%, WHAT WOULD THE COST BE -- WHAT WOULD BE THE ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE PAYMENT? WHAT WOULD THE IMPACT TO INS RATE BE? WHAT WOULD THAT DO FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER TODAY, OKAY? IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT 10 MILLION FOR 2028, THAT

[00:10:02]

>> CAN WE GO AHEAD AND GET THOSE? I HAVE A FEELING WE TRIED TO SCHEDULE 1,000,000,000 1/2 IN PROJECT, WE WILL PUSH MORE PROJECTS TWO YEARS AWAY, THREE YEARS AWAY.

>> SO YES, THEY ARE DISTRACTED OVER THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT I WILL MAKE SURE THAT HAPPENS IN JUST A MOMENT.

>> JUST ONE THING, THOUGH. THE CHANGE IN MAKING THAT FOUR YEARS MIGHT CHANGE THAT FINAL DIGIT 1000TH OF A PENNY OR A COUPLE THOUSANDS. IT WILL STILL BE 1.1 OR 1.0.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, IN ALL DEAREST ACT, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT WILL HOLD UP TO BE TRUE.

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS, IF WE DO 1.2 FOR THE COST, THAT IS MORE CONSERVATIVE. THAT IS A GOOD MIDDLE WAY TO --

>> OKAY, SO -- >> IF YOU GUYS WOULD JUST ENTERTAIN ME -- AND AGAIN, THERE'S SEVEN PEOPLE UP HERE .

IT WOULD BE GREAT ABLE TO SAY, YOU CAN BORROW $100,000,000.03 YEARS FROM NOW. THAT CHANGES MY MIND ON A LOT OF THINGS. OR IT MAY SHOW THAT, OKAY. 500 MILLION -- A 15% GROWTH ON 5 MILLION IS A $750 MILLION INCREASE. SOMETHING TELLS ME A 15% GROWTH EACH YEAR IS GOING TO DRAMATICALLY AFFECT OUR BORROWING CAPABILITIES AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ANNUAL COST OF TAXES. IF YOU GUYS CAN JUST ENTERTAIN ME . IF I'M WRONG, WE WILL POST ON FACEBOOK THAT I WAS WRONG. IF I'M RIGHT, WE WILL JUST REDO THE CALCULATIONS.

>> SO AS I WAS SAYING, THE OVERALL VALUATION OF THE CITY INCREASES DRAMATICALLY OVER THAT FIVE-YEAR WINDOW. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, ISSUING DATE DEBT LATER RATHER THAN SOONER DOES DRAMATICALLY REDUCE THE IMPACT ON THE HOMEOWNER OR THE BUSINESS OWNER OR WHOMEVER, BECAUSE THERE IS MORE VALUE TO

SHARE THE COST WITH. >> 15 GOES IN THE 72 --

>> YEAH, BUT EVEN THAT IS A FALLACY, BECAUSE WHEN YOU ADD IN SKYBOX, SKYBOX CAN -- 15% IS ON THE BASIC GROWTH. THEN WE GO IN AND DROP IN $1 BILLION. THAT IS WAY MORE THAN 15%. SO THE GROWTH OVER THIS FIVE YEARS KIND OF LOOKS LIKE THIS. IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE THIS. IT DOES NOT TRACK LINEARLY. IT IS MORE EXPONENTIAL. SO AS YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST YEAR, 5.1 BILLION. BUT BY THE TIME WE ARE AT 2029, WE ARE 12 BILLION. WE MORE THAN DOUBLED BECAUSE OF THE PROJECTIONS OF SKYBOX AND THE REGULAR GROWTH THAT IS HAPPENING. AND JUST TO, AGAIN -- ALL OF THIS IS MEANT TO HELP YOU ALL GET COMFORTABLE WITH A SET OF ASSUMPTIONS WE'VE MADE. SO WE ARE NOT ARGUING ABOUT PULLING LEVERS IN ALL THESE TYPES OF THINGS TO MAKE IT LOOK WORSE OR BETTER EITHER WAY. IT'S JUST THESE ARE THE SET OF FACTS SO WE CAN HAVE A■ CONVERSATION. AND THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE. I CAN GUARANTEE. THAT'S ONE THING I CAN GUARANTEE IS THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT IN THE FUTURE THAN THEY ARE TODAY. YES, COUNCILMEMBER.

>> SO I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS BECAUSE THE SKYBOX ASSUMPTIONS SEEM TO BE INCLUDING THE BUSINESS PERSONAL

PROPERTY. IS THAT TRUE? >> YES.

>> OKAY. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN LITERALLY PACK UP AND MOVE OUT OF THE CITY. IS THAT WHAT HAPPENED IN TWO YEARS? PROBABLY NOT. IS IT WHAT HAPPENED IN 10 YEARS? WE DON'T KNOW. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. THAT IS WHY I ASKED FOR US TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO SEPARATE THE BUSINESS PERSON AND THE PROPERTY , AND THEN WE CAN USE IT IN A WAY THAT JANET BENEFIT SKYBOX, TOO.

[00:15:02]

>> WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT. HOW DO WE SETTLE THAT WITH NEXT YEAR'S COUNSEL IN A WAY THAT THIS YEAR'S COUNSEL CAN SET UP

-- >> IT'S APPLES TO ORANGES, BUT ROUND ROCK HAD THIS PROBLEM OR THEY STARTED GETTING ALL THE SALES TAX, THEY RELIED ON THE SALES TAX, THEN THEY HAD BAD YEARS AND THEY HAD BUDGET PROBLEMS, AND THEY REALIZED WE NEED TO SEPARATE THIS MONEY AND USE THAT TO FUND PROJECTS. THEY CAN TELL YOU EXACTLY WHAT THEY FUNDED WITH THEIR MONEY OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS. IT'S A BOON FOR THEM, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY RELY ON FOR THEIR CITY. AND I DON'T WANT TO RELY ON THE SKYBOX MONEY TO RUN OUR CITY. I WANTED TO BENEFIT OUR CITY, BUT NOT SOMETHING THAT IS BUILT INTO OUR BUDGET WERE, IF IT FAILS, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THE REST OF THE CITY IS IN TROUBLE OR IT.

>> ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE COUNCIL NEEDS TO MAKE A DECISION AND TELL US WHAT YOU WANT. BECAUSE A COUNTER ARGUMENT TO THAT WOULD BE, IF YOU DON'T, THEN YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO BE ISSUING DEBT OFF OF THAT MONEY AND YOU ARE GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY HAMS BRINGING WHAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO, BECAUSE YOU COULD BE NOT SAYING I COULD EVER COUNT ON THAT STREAM OF REVENUE. THAT WOULD ARGUABLY TRUE FOR ALL SALES TAX, BECAUSE THE STATE COULD CHANGE THE WAY THAT CITIES COLLECT REVENUE. THOSE THINGS CAN HAPPEN.

>> THERE WOULD BE A COMPROMISE SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN.

>> RIGHT. >> IF YOU LOSE 500 MILLION, THAT IS ONE THING. IF YOU LOSE 4 BILLION IN BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY, THAT'S A MUCH BIGGER HIT.

>> RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE DEPRECIATED WHAT THEY HAVE SHOWN US BY 50%, BECAUSE THAT IS BUILT INTO THEIR --

>> BUT THEY ARE ALSO BUILT-IN TO KEEP REFRESHING. SO THAT'S WHERE WOULD HAPPEN , IS NORMALLY, IF IT'S GOING TO FAIL, IT'S NOT GOING TO RE-UP AS FAST.

>> AGAIN, LET'S GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS. IF THE COUNCIL WANTS US TO CHANGE THOSE ASSUMPTIONS, AND MATT CAN GO IN, WE CAN TAKE A SECOND, WE CAN BREAK, AND WE CAN REDO THE VALUATION GROWTH IS HAVING THE SKYBOX DOLLARS IT, OR HOW MUCH OF IT WE ARE HAVING HIT. IF YOU WANT US DEPRECIATED DOWN ANOTHER 5%, WE CAN DO THAT.

>> AT A BARE MINIMUM, I THINK WE NEED TO SEE THAT NUMBER CALLED OUT ON ITS OWN SO WE KNOW HOW MUCH --

>> AND YOU HAD A COLUMN REAL QUICK THAT DOESN'T AFFECT THE CALCULATIONS AND JUST TYPE IN THE NUMBER FOR THAT YEAR THAT

YOU ARE ADDING FOR SKYBOX? >> IT'S ALREADY HERE.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE -- >> THAT'S NOT REAL PROPERTY VERSUS BUSINESS PERSONAL PROPERTY?

>> ON THE TABLE THAT I SENT YOU, THERE IS THE BUILDING.

THAT VALUE IS REAL PROPERTY. THEN THERE ARE THE RACKS, SERVERS, ALL THE COMPUTER HE MEANT. THAT'S WHAT COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON IS TALKING ABOUT IS THE PERSONAL PROPERTY. SO NOW YOU JUST NEED TO BREAK UP THAT VALUE, PUT ANOTHER COLUMN, AND GO TOTAL UP ON THAT SPREADSHEET WHAT WAS PERSONAL PROPERTY AND NOT THE BUILDING. AND THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE THE SUBTRACT THE BUILDING FROM THE BIGGER NUMBER. AND THEN THAT WOULD GIVE YOU WHAT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY IS. AND IT'S GOING TO BE THE BUILDING IN THE ENCORE, BECAUSE THOSE ARE BOTH REAL PROPERTY.

>> I JUST HAVE A COMMENT. I FEEL LIKE THIS MEETING IS ALREADY BEING DERAILED. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE PRESENTATION THAT STAFF PREPARED FOR US, THEN WE CAN GO AT THE END OF THE MEETING , WE CAN EXTENDED ANOTHER THREE HOURS AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT IF'S AND CHANGING THEIR ASSUMPTIONS. BUT I THINK IT'S WISE ABOUT TIME TO JUST STAY ON TRACK AND FOCUS ON WHAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED, AND THEN AFTER THE PRESENTATION, WE CAN CHANGE NUMBERS. THOSE ARE JUST MY THOUGHTS. I SEE THIS BEING VERY UNPRODUCTIVE AT THIS POINT. SO I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STAY ON TRACK. AS A POINT OF ORDER.

[00:20:03]

>> I DON'T THINK THAT'S A POINT OF ORDER, BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD WE SHOULD QUESTION THE ASSUMPTIONS IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE A QUESTION ON. IF WE BASE OUR PLAN ON ASSUMPTIONS THAT CHANGE, THEN THE PLAN MAY

CHANGE. >> THE DEBATE ON HOW YOU DO THE ASSUMPTIONS, WHETHER IT HAPPENS NOW AND STAFF CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE SOME CHANGES WHILE HE DOES A PRESENTATION AND WE HAVE A DEBATE, EITHER WAY WE ARE HAVING A DEBATE. MY EXPECTATION IS THE FIRST COUPLE OF HOURS IS GOING TO BE ROCKY --

>> WE HAVE THREE HOURS, MR. MAHER.

>> WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE ARE GOING TO DO THE METHODOLOGY. WE ARE ALL GOING TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON CERTAIN THINGS AND HAVE A COMBINED PATH FORWARD ON HOW TO DO EVERYTHING. BUT I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH ASKING QUESTIONS TO THE PRESENTATION. IF YOU WANT TO WAIT TILL THE END OF A 40 MINUTE PRESENTATION AND THEN START ALL OVER, WE WILL ACTUALLY SPEND MORE TIME DEBATING WHEN WE ARE GOING TO DEBATE THAN WE ARE -- BUT ANYWAY.

>> I GOT A QUESTION ON ASSUMPTION. YOU SAY THAT IF WE MOVE SOME PROJECTS OUT, IT COULD BENEFIT BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE TAXABLE VALUE TO BE ABLE TO LET THAT FROM, CORRECT?

>> THE BENEFIT WOULD BE BY LOWERING THE IMPACT TO THE HOMEOWNER BASED OFF WHAT WE ARE SHOWING. BECAUSE THERE'S MORE -- THERE'S MORE VALUE TO SHARE THE COST WITH.

>> ARE WE ALSO TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INCREASED COST FOR DOING THE PROJECT LATER ON? IS THAT BUILT-IN AS WELL?

>> I WILL LET MATT DESCRIBE THE COST ASSUMPTIONS.

>> BECAUSE HOPEFULLY THE ONE WILL OUTSTRIP THE OTHER, RIGHT? IF WE CAN SPREAD IT AMONG ACTUAL VALUE AND THAT IS X PERCENT, AND THE COST TO DO THE PROJECT YEAR AFTER YEAR GOES UP, AND HOPEFULLY THAT IS LESS, AND IT IS A NET BENEFIT. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE TAKING THAT INTO ACCOUNT, TOO. IF THE PROJECT COST 10 MILLION TODAY, IT IS GOING TO COST 10 MILLION

NEXT YEAR OR THE YEAR AFTER. >> THINK WHAT YOU ARE ASKING IS, IF WE PUSH A PROJECT OUTCOME ARE WE ACCOUNTING FOR INFLATION? THAT IS NOT BUILT-IN TO MY ANALYSIS. IF YOU GUYS SAY WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS PROJECT IN 2025, WE WANT TO DO IT IN 2028. I DON'T HAVE SOMETHING BUILT INTO THIS PRESENTATION TO SAY HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THE FOUR YEARS OF EXTRA INFLATION. I HAVEN'T BUILT THAT IN. I CAN.

>> I THINK WE NEED TO. >> GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT ON THE ASSUMPTION TAB, THAT, YOU KNOW, PROJECT COST INFLATION RATES

PER YEAR . >> AND MATT, DO YOU ALSO HAVE LIKE A BREAK DOWN OF DOHERTY'S LIKE, IF WE WERE TO DELAY A ROAD PROJECT, THE SECONDARY -- LIKE THAT WOULD HAVE A SECONDARY EFFECT ON THIS PROJECT? THERE'S TIMES THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WE WOULD COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, BECAUSE YOU GUYS DELAYED THIS, WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DO THAT. I KNOW YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO ASSUME EVERY SINGLE PROJECT, BUT THIS IS THE PRIMARY, THAT PRIMARY COULD AFFECT THE

SECONDARY PROJECT? >> RIGHT.

>> I DON'T HAVE A QUANTIFIED ANYWHERE IN HERE , BECAUSE I HAVE STUDIED THE MASTER PLANS AND I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE GROWTH AND ALL THAT KIND OF TOUGH. I'VE GOT IT BOUNCING AROUND IN HERE. AND I EXPLAINED THAT WHEN WE PRESENTED TO THEM.

YOU HAVE TO DO THIS PROJECT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT PROJECT. I HAVE LAY THAT OUT FOR THEM. I CAN PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR YOU SO YOU CAN THIS PROJECT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THIS PROJECT CAN. FOR EXAMPLE, LET ME JUST JUMP AHEAD HERE. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TALKED RECENTLY ABOUT THE AVERY LAKE PHASE ONE AND AVERY LAKE PHASE TWO PROJECT. WE TALKED ABOUT ADDING THOSE IN. I HAVE SHARED THIS WITH MULTIPLE PEOPLE IN THE CITY . THAT IS FINE. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THOSE PROJECTS, PHASE FOUR NEEDS TO HAPPEN FIRST BECAUSE IT'S DOWNSTREAM OF THOSE TWO PROJECT. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE AVERY LAKE ONE AND AVERY LAKE TWO IF WE DON'T HAVE RUSHING CREEK 4.

>> I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE PERFECT, BUT JUST SOME SORT OF PRIORITIZATION WOULD PROBABLY BE HELPFUL. THAT WAY, WE DON'T END UP DOING SOMETHING, AND THEN LATER ON IN THE YEAR, WE HAVE THAT SAME DISCUSSION WHERE, YOU GUYS CHOSE TO DO THIS, AND BECAUSE OF THIS, GOT BACKED UP.

>> WE WONT ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN.

>> BUT WE DID, AND THAT'S THE REASON I'M ASKING THAT QUESTION. WE HAD ISSUES LIKE THAT THIS YEAR.

>> THERE HAS BEEN TIMES WE'VE BEEN LIKE, WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THIS? REMEMBER WHEN YOU GUYS VOTED THIS WAY? BECAUSE YOU

[00:25:03]

>> I'M NOT TRYING TO DEBATE. I APOLOGIZE. WHAT I'M TRYING TO COMMUNICATE IS, WE ARE ALL HERE IN THE ROOM TOGETHER AND YOU ALL ARE ASKING, IF WE MOVE THIS PROJECT, IT'S GOING TO AFFECT THESE OTHER PROJECT . THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

>> SO DID WE HAVE A NUMBER WE WANTED TO INFLATE EVERY YEAR?

>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND USING THE RIGHT ASSUMPTION.

>> I'M GOING TO USE THE PROJECT MANAGER INDEX, BECAUSE THAT IS -- IT'S NOT ANYBODY'S OPINION. IT JUST SAYS THE NUMBER. SO LET ME LOOK IT UP REAL FAST.

>> YOU DON'T THINK WE ARE QUALIFIED TO THROW NUMBERS OUT? AND I KNOW SOME NUMBERS ARE HARDER , LIKE WASTEWATER CONSTRUCTION COST HAS SKYROCKETED.

>> RIGHT NOW, WE ARE AVERAGING -- '21 WAS 19.6%. LET ME MAKE SURE I'M ON A GOOD SIDE AND I'M NOT QUOTING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT RIGHT. THIS IS -- GIVE ME A SECOND. I WILL FIND THE ACTUAL DATA AND SEND IT OVER TO YOU, SO THAT WAY WE ARE NOT JUST MAKING UP NUMBERS.

>> I APOLOGIZE, ARE WE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THE ASSUMPTION, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO GO BACK AND CHANGE THE SKYBOX STUFF

FIRST? >> I THINK MAKE A SEPARATE LINE. AFTER YOU ARE DONE WITH YOUR PART OF THE PRESENTATION, I THINK MAKE A SEPARATE LINE AND SOME POINT TODAY, WE WILL FIGURE OUT IF WE WANT TO JUST INCLUDE IT WITH BOND PURCHASES OR IF WE WANT TO KEEP IT SEPARATE.

>> OKAY. >> TODAY, YOU GUYS SHOULD HAVE DIRECTION. LOOKS LIKE IT HAD HISTORICALLY BEEN 45% ANNUALLY, BUT THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, IT'S BEEN 12 OR 13%.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS SEEING, TOO, BUT I WANTED TO GET TO AN

ACTUAL TABLE. >> MAYBE WE HAVE TO BE HIGHER FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

>> SO THIS ARTICLE TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION INFLATION HISTORY IS THAT IT TENDS TO BE DOUBLE WHAT THE CONSUMER INDEX IS. THAT IS A RESIDENTIAL EIGHT YEAR AVERAGE INFLATION. AND THEN IN 2021, IT WAS 14%. 2022 A, IT WAS 15.7%.

I WOULD SAY IF WE TOOK EITHER THE AVERAGE OF THOSE NUMBERS OR WE CHOSE THE HIGHEST NUMBER TO BE THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, THE AVERAGE WOULD BE MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD. IF WE GO BACK TO TRADITIONAL, THAT WOULD BE TOO ROSY OF A PICTURE, I THINK. SO 5% OR 14% ARE THE BOUNDS. SO -- 8%. 8.5%. IT'S

19÷2. >> I THINK AFTER THREE YEARS, THAT'S A NUMBER IT WOULD DRAW ME TO. BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE STILL -- BECAUSE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT PUSHING OUT TWO

OR THREE YEARS. >> WHATEVER ASSUMPTION WE WANT

TO MAKE -- YOU WANT TO DO 10? >> DICOCCO TO CHANGE HER DECISION-MAKING, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE GOING TO FIND PROJECT COST ARE GOING UP 12%. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE GO OUT AND BORROW $400 MILLION TODAY AND TRIPLE THEIR TAXES JUST SO WE SAVE 12%. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION TO KNOW, BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A CERTAIN PROJECT WE DON'T WANT TO PUSH.

ULTIMATELY, WE CAN'T DO 1,000,000,000 1/2 YEARS TO SAVE

8% INFLATION. >> COUNSEL, YOU WANT TO GO 10% INFLATION, OR A PERCENT INFLATION?

>> I WOULD LIKE 10. >> 10 IT IS. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. SO ONCE -- SO ETHAN IS NOW GOING TO BE HELPING WORK, TOO. BECAUSE MATT CAN'T TALK AND TYPE AT THE SAME TIME, AS GOOD AS HE IS. HE JUST CAN'T.

[00:30:01]

>> NOT VERY WELL. I CAN DO IT, BUT NOT VERY WELL.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO SEE THEM SHARING THE DOCUMENT HERE .

ETHAN WILL MAKE THE CHANGES LIVE THERE AT THE SAME TIME.

AND COUNCILMEMBER KOHLER, I'M SORRY. I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE REASON THAT I WANTED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION NOW IS BECAUSE IF THERE IS NOT TRUSTED HOW WE CALCULATED THE NUMBERS, THEN YOU ALL ARE GOING TO BE , I FELT, WOULD BE DEBATING MORE ABOUT, WELL, THEY SHOULD'VE CALCULATED THIS WAY OR THAT WAY AND THEN YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET INTO THE MEAT OF, WHAT WE WANT TO DO WHEN? WE KNOW THE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO CHANGE, BUT THESE ARE REASONABLE NUMBERS TO CHANGE TO MAKE A DECISION OFF OF. THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING TO ACHIEVE BY

COVERING ALL THE ASSUMPTIONS. >> ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, I TRUST YOU AND YOUR STAFF BECAUSE YOU ARE PROFESSIONALS. I COULDN'T PUT THIS TOGETHER ON AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET. SO WHAT I SAID BEFORE IS I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SEE IT FIRST, THAT I CAN BE LIKE, WELL, THAT DOESN'T SOUND RIGHT. BUT STARTING OFF FIRST, ASSUMPTIONS, WE COULD GO ON ALL DAY. THANK YOU THOUGH. I

APPRECIATE IT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT

THE ASSUMPTIONS ? >> I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THE

SKYBOX NUMBERS. >> I ALREADY DID.

>> OH, OKAY. SO HE CAN GO DO THAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO TACKLE? OTHERWISE, I'M GOING TO LEAD INTO WHAT MATT IS GOING TO DO WHEN HE STARTS GOING TO THE PROJECT LIST AND WHAT IS SCHEDULED AND WHEN. OKAY. THERE'S ALREADY BEEN A NUMBER OF PROJECT THAT MATT AND HIS STAFF IDENTIFIED AS BEING ABLE TO MOVE OUT OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIP WINDOW. NOW, I WANT TO GO BACK HOW THE FIVE-YEAR CIP WAS GENERATED IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THERE'S BEEN STATEMENTS MADE THAT THIS IS THE STAFF'S PLAN, THIS IS THE CITY MANAGERS PLAN . THE FACTUAL NATURE OF THIS IS, THIS IS THE DATA WE ARE WORKING WITH RIGHT NOW IN THE WAY WE HAVE THE DATA. THE MASTER PLANS THAT FED THE CIP, RIGHT, IS WHERE THE PROJECT CAME FROM. AND THE MASTER PLANS THAT WERE PRESENTED PUT ALL THE PROJECTS BASICALLY IN A FIVE-YEAR WINDOW. THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT WE CAN AND WHAT WE CAN'T DO IN THE FIVE YEARS. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING IS IN THE MASTER PLAN DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT HAS TO BE DONE IN THE FIVE-YEAR WINDOW. HOWEVER, THERE ARE ITEMS THAT YOU HAVE TO BE DONE IN THE FIVE-YEAR WINDOW BECAUSE OF A COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY MADE, OR A REQUIREMENT -- A STATUTORY REQUIREMENT SUCH AS A REGULATION TYPE REQUIREMENTS.

OR SOMETHING THAT IS CRITICAL FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE, WHETHER THAT BE WASTEWATER OR -- IN ORDER TO -- MOST CITIES DO NOT BUILD ALL OF THEIR CIP IN FIVE YEARS. THAT IS NOT TYPICAL.

NOW, AS A CITY OF HIGH-GROWTH, HUTTO IS IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO DO MORE IN THE WAY OF CAPITAL PROJECTS THAN MOST OTHER CITIES THAT ARE OUR SIZE WOULD HAVE TO. I HAVE SAID FOR QUITE SOME TIME , WE ARE HAVING TO CATCH UP FOR WHAT WASN'T DONE IN THE PAST. WE ARE HAVING TO BUILD WHAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT TODAY AND WE ARE HAVING A PLAN FOR WHAT NEEDS TO BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE. IT IS, QUITE FRANKLY, A PERFECT STORM OF A LOT OF PROJECTS, A LOT OF COST, AND A LOT OF MONEY. BUT EVEN IN THAT STORM, STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING TO MOVE PROJECTS OUT OF THE LIST. I'M NOT SAYING IF IT'S ON THERE, WE HAVE TO DO THAT. THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. WHAT I AM SAYING IS, WE COULDN'T FIND A REASON TO MOVE IT OFF YET, AND SOME OF THOSE IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT OUR DISCUSSION TO MOVE IT OFF.

PARKS PROJECTS, THINGS LIKE THAT, MOST OF THOSE ARE NOT CONSIDERED REQUIRED BY STATE LAW REQUIRED TO MEET SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, OBLIGATION ON OUR PART. WE DIDN'T REALLY MOVE PARKS PROJECTS AROUND, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO WASTEWATER AND ROADS, PARTICULARLY WATER AND WASTEWATER, WE ARE ABLE TO USE OUR DISCUSSION MORE, BECAUSE IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, FUNCTIONALLY, DOES NOTHING HAVE TO HAPPEN? IF THE ANSWER IS, NO, WE GOT OFF, YOU MAY DECIDE TO MOVE IT BACK. WE WANT TO AT LEAST LET YOU GET A HEAD START ON SOME OF THAT. WE COULDN'T USE THE SAME LEVEL OF DISCRETION HOWEVER ON BUILDINGS AND PARKS, BECAUSE THOSE ARE SOMEWHAT DISCRETIONARY.

ALTHOUGH THEY ARE NEEDED, THEY ARE STILL NOT REQUIRED BY SOME SORT OF A LAW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IN MATT'S METHODOLOGIES,

[00:35:05]

GENERALLY, WHAT YOU WILL SEE IS, THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE DEPENDENT UPON ANOTHER PROJECT EITHER BEING BUILT AT THE SAME TIME OR THE ONE THAT IS DEPENDENT IS BEING BUILT AFTER THE ONE THAT IT DEPENDS ON IS BEING COMPLETED. THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT YOU WILL SEE. YOU WILL SEE IT BROKEN UP BY YEAR. YOU WILL SEE WITH THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE IS. WHAT THE TOTAL COST IS, AND HOW MUCH OF THAT COST ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE NEW DEBT. THE NON-DEBT COLUMN, THAT BASICALLY MEANS IT'S BEING PAID FOR FROM ANOTHER SOURCE. MAY BE A DEVELOPER, MAYBE IMPACT FEES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. ALBERTA CAN TELL YOU IF YOU HAVE A PARTICULAR QUESTION, WE ARE SPECIFICALLY FOCUSED ON THE NEW DEBT COLUMN SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE IMPACT ARE. AND THEN HE HAS A TAB THAT WILL SHOW YOU BEFORE ANYBODY FEELS LIKE THEY NEED TO ASK, GO TO THE INS TAB FIRST. THE INS TAB, THIS TAB IS GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT THE COST OF ALL THAT YOU DEBT IS TO THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER UNDER THOSE ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE YEARS THAT THE DEBT NEEDS TO BE ISSUED.

BUT THE POINT IS, THAT CALCULATION HAS BEEN DONE SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THAT. AND THEN ON THE UTILITY ONE, THE UTILITY ONE TAKES THE DEBT THAT NEEDS TO BE ISSUED UNDER THE DEBT SERVICE AND ACCOUNTS FOR THE WASTEWATER AND IT TELLS YOU WHAT THE MONTHLY IMPACT IS IN THAT YEAR. OKAY? NOW, I'M GOING TO FIX -- LEAVE THAT HIGHLIGHTED RIGHT THERE. IF YOU ARE TO SOME THOSE LINES ACROSS, THAT IS WASTEWATER. IF YOU ARE TO SOME THAT ACROSS AND SAY, WASTEWATER RATES ARE GOING TO GO UP 75 BUCKS A MONTH, THAT WOULD NOT BE ACCURATE. THE REASON IT'S NOT ACCURATE -- AND I'M GOING TO ADD ANOTHER ONE RIGHT HERE. THIS IS WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE WE STARTED. THE REASON IT WON'T BE ACCURATE IS BECAUSE THE FIRST YEAR THAT IMPACT IS CALCULATED OFF OF THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS WE HAVEN'T '25. IN '26, WHEN YOU HAVE MORE ACCOUNTS, THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT WILL BECOME A SMALLER DOLLAR AMOUNT. '27, IT WILL BECOME EVEN SMALLER, BECAUSE THE DENOMINATOR IS GETTING BIGGER. THE NUMBER OF COUNTS YOU HAVE TO READ THE COST OVER. SO YOU CAN'T ADD ACROSS THE TOTAL IMPACT AND THAT BE AN ACCURATE NUMBER. I WILL GO CALCULATE WHAT $5.48 IN '24 WILL COST OUR WATER PAYERS OR THE CITY WATER PAYERS IN '29. BECAUSE THERE WILL BE MORE PEOPLE TO PAY, SO THE DENOMINATOR WILL GO UP. I WILL CALCULATE THE TOTAL FOR YOU RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE THOSE NUMBERS ARE, NOW YOU CAN SEE IN EACH INDIVIDUAL YEAR WITH THE IMPACT IS IN THAT YEAR, BUT YOU CAN'T TOTAL IT UP AND SAY, IT'S $75 A MONTH OVERALL, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE INACCURATE.

[00:40:49]

>> BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TALK OFF OF, SO THAT IS WHAT WE DID. IF YOU TOOK THE OWEN THEM OUT OF THAT NUMBER, YOU WOULD REDUCE THAT NUMBER PROBABLY DOWN TO ABOUT EIGHT DOLLARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT YOU DID THAT, I JUST HOPE IT NOW GOING FORWARD WE START TO DO THAT. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE SAME TIME. BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AWARE THAT A FEW MONTHS BACK.

>> I APOLOGIZE TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE WATCHING ALONG. I KNOW YOU CAN'T SEE THE DATA TO TERRIBLY WELL. IF YOU WANT TO GET A LITTLE CLOSER, FEEL FREE TO MOVE YOUR CHAIRS. SIT UNDERNEATH THE TVS OR WHATEVER. DON'T FEEL COMPELLED TO BE RIGHT THERE. BUT I FEEL COMPELLED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL , TWO YEARS AGO, YOU DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A CIP. I MEAN, ARGUABLY, YOU DID NOT. EVERY TIME THAT WE DO THIS, WE ARE BETTERING WHAT WE DID BEFORE. AND THE FIRST THING THAT WE DID WAS, TAKE EVERYTHING ON THE FIVE-YEAR CIP AND TAKE EVERYTHING FROM THE MASTER PLANS AND PUT IT INTO THE FIVE-YEAR CIP SO YOU CAN SEE THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO GET DONE. THAT WAS THE FIRST THING WE DID. EVERYONE IS LIKE, WE CAN'T DO THIS. I EVEN SAID, WE CAN'T DO ALL OF THIS. WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING TODAY, SAYING WE CAN AGREE, OR WE DON'T THINK THE CITIZENS WOULD AGREE TO AFFORD THAT. BUT YOU NOW ARE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE AS MUCH DATA AS YOU HAVE EVER HAD TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT THE VISION. THE DATA

JUST SIMPLY DID NOT EXIST. >> AND YOU GO BACK TO THE '25-'29 TAB? HOW CONFIDENT ARE YOU IN THE NON-YOU DEBT ? YOU SAID THAT WAS BEING SUPPLIED BY SOMEBODY ELSE. IS THIS AN ASSUMPTION, OR IS THIS DEFINITE , THIS IS GOING TO BE SUPPLIED BY ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE? IS THAT SIGNED, SEALED, DELIVERED? IS THAT DEPENDENT ON SOMETHING? BECAUSE I WOULD HATE TO SAY, YEAH, WE ARE GOOD ON THAT GLENN WOULD LIFT STATION, BUT THEN COMING LATER DOWN THE YEAR, OH, WE MADE SOMEONE MAD OR SOMEONE BACKED OUT AND NOW WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THAT 2 MILLION WILL COME FROM.

>> THE SHORT OF THAT ANSWER IS, NO, IT IS NOT GUARANTEED, NO MATTER HOW YOU CUT IT. AND THE REASON I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT GUARANTEED IS, EVEN IF I HAD A CONTRACT WITH A BUILDER THAT SAID THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD THE THING, THEY COULD DECIDE, WE ARE NOT GOING TO BUILD, AND THEREFORE THEY DON'T BUILD THE THING. WE TAKE IT OUT OF OUR DEBT BECAUSE IT IS NOT -- IT WOULD OVER INFLATE THE NUMBERS AND DISCOUNT THE FACT THAT DEVELOPMENT IS PAVING ITS OWN WAY FOR US NOT TO SHOW THAT WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND/OR AGREEMENTS AND OR WE HAVE EXPRESSED EXPECTATIONS THAT THE SEGMENT GETS BUILT BY A DEVELOPER. BUT IF THE COUNCIL IN THE FUTURE WERE TO DECIDE, THINK OF THE 42 INCH WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT ON THURSDAY.

THAT WE WERE PLANNING TO BE BUILT BY LENNAR. IT'S NOT ON THE BOOKS. BUT AT THE COUNCIL SAYS, WE WANT TO BUILD IT. AND WE PULL IT FROM THAT COLUMN INTO OUR COST COLUMN AND COUNSEL AT THAT TIME WOULD HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE COST

IMPLICATION OF DOING THAT. >> BUT THAT WAS JUST A PLAN.

THAT WAS NEVER, LET'S GO MAKE SURE THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS,

RIGHT? IT WAS NEVER A CONTRACT. >> THERE IS AN AGREEMENT THAT THEY WILL BUILD THE LINE, BUT THE WAY THAT MOST DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS IS, A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO BUILD THIS PROPERTY OVER HERE. AND I SUBMIT A SERVICE EXTENSION

[00:45:03]

ALL YOU GOT TO DO IS BUILD YOUR OWN INFRASTRUCTURE AND PAY THE IMPACT FEES AND YOU ARE GOOD TO GO. THAT IS ONE OPTION. ANOTHER OPTION IS, THERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT CAPACITY AROUND YOU TO SERVE IN THE SYSTEM THAT IS THERE, SO YOU ARE OBLIGATED IF YOU WANT TO BUILD, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO BUILD THIS CONNECTION FROM POINT A TO POINT B. AND THAT IS THE PROJECTS IN THE NON-DEBT COLUMN WHERE WE TOLD DEVELOPERS, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO HAVE TO BUILD THIS. NOW THERE ARE COST PARTICIPATION, USUALLY. I DIDN'T ASK MATT AHEAD OF TIME, BUT I ASSUME HE TOOK ACCOUNT FOR US HAVING THE COST PARTICIPATE IN SOME PROJECTS, AND SOME PROJECTS ARE FULLY FUNDED BY DEVELOPERS BECAUSE THERE ARE THREE OR FOUR DEVELOPERS SHARING THE CAPACITY AND THERE'S NO PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY, AT LEAST LONG-TERM.

>> IT IS ALTOGETHER. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT ONLY SERVES THAT DEVELOPERS NEEDS. BUT IF IT'S GOING TO AFFECT ALL THE OTHER PROJECTS, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND

THOSE IMPACT. >> WHAT I'M SEEING IN MY HEAD IS, SAY THE 42 INCH LINE WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO HELP THREE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS . BUT IF THOSE THREE ARE GOING AND PLUGGING INTO SOMETHING WE ARE DOING, I THINK WE NEED THAT HELP FOR MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT. AND WE CAN ALWAYS NEXT YEAR -- WE CAN MOVE THE BUDGET UP BECAUSE WE GOT IT FUNDED OR PAID FOR. BUT I WOULD HATE TO BE LOOKING ROSIER, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE CANNOT BUILD THIS APARTMENT COMPLEX WHERE THIS ISN'T HAPPENING BECAUSE THIS ISN'T HAPPENING. IF YOU GUYS DON'T WANT THE PACKAGE, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH $40 MILLION TODAY. THE MAJOR INFRASTRUCTURE ARE THE ONES PLANNING. AND THEN A DEVELOPER CAN COME IN AND MOVE THAT PROCESS UP. BUT THE CITY IS ALSO GOING TO WANT IT ON THE

BOOKS. >> NO MATTER WHICH PATH WE CHOSE, IT WOULD BE CRITIQUED. IF WE KEPT THE NUMBERS IN, I WOULD BE HEARING, WELL, THAT IS TOO HIGH, BECAUSE DEVELOPERS WILL BE PAYING FOR SOME OF THAT. IF I TAKE A COMPLETELY OUT, IT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW. THE POINT IS, WE DON'T KNOW. THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WE BELIEVE THE BEST TO BE PAID FOR BY DEVELOPMENT, BUT THINGS CHANGE. THAT'S WHY AM TRYING TO HELP YOU ALL UNDERSTAND.

WHATEVER WE CAST TODAY IS NOT CAST IN STONE. THIS IS A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT, A PRIORITY DOCUMENT. THESE NUMBERS ARE GOING TO SHIFT AND CHANGE, AND NO MATTER WHAT ASSUMPTION WE MAKE TODAY, TOMORROW, FAX WILL BE DIFFERENT. BACK TO COUNCILMAN THORTON'S POINT ABOUT THE SKYBOX, THAT TO ME IS A FUNDAMENTAL VELOCITY CHANGE. WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT AND WE SHOW IT SO YOU ALL CAN HAVE THE DATA TO DECIDE ON. BUT MY CONCERN WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT SHOWING CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES ON HERE. WHICH PROJECT ARE WE ACTUALLY GOING TO GET DEVELOPERS TO PAY FOR THAT AREN'T BEING SHOWN YET? THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO SHIFT AROUND. SURE, EVEN IF SOMETHING IS IN THE NON-DEBT COLUMN, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT'S BEEN PAID FOR BY DEVELOPERS. IT JUST SO HAPPENS -- GENERALLY, THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE.

>> I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, REGARDLESS OF WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN RIGHT. AND SO I AM JUST SAYING, I GUESS IN THE FUTURE, KIND OF LIKE HOW YOU HAVE ON CELL A.B.

132 ALL THE WAY DOWN, MAYBE IN THE FUTURE, WE TAKE OUT THE NON-DEBT COLUMN AND WE HAVE A NOTE ANNOTATED ON THESE TOTALS THAT SAYS, OH, HEY. THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS PAID VIA DEVELOPER, BECAUSE LOOKING AT THIS AND SEEING THAT 17 MILLION, I CAN SEE WHAT THE MAYOR IS SAYING. JUST ME PERSONALLY, I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE -- THAT'S WHAT I WOULD -- THAT'S HOW I WOULD WANT IT. I WOULDN'T WANT MY WIFE SHOWING ME SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN, BECAUSE I WILL RELY ON IT.

>> SURE. WHAT WE DID IS WE PUT DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION IN THE NAME. IT SAYS INTERVAL SCEPTER DEVELOPER . AND THAT NUMBER IS IN THE NON-DEBT COLUMN. SO THE INFORMATION IS KIND OF THERE

[00:50:01]

WE HAVE TO STOP AT SOME POINT TO SAY, THIS IS GOOD ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE FROM. AND I HOPE THAT'S WHERE WE ARE AT.

BECAUSE THEN IT'S GOOD ENOUGH TO DECIDE FROM, AND THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT, NO MATTER WHAT WE CHOOSE. NO MATTER WHAT YOU WILL CHOOSE, THOSE THINGS WILL BE DIFFERENT.

>> THE EXPECTATION IS, THEY ARE NOT BILLING THE DEVELOPMENT.

>> SO THAT IS TRUE. THE REASON WE DIDN'T INCLUDE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN TO TIME THOSE, WHEN THEY WILL OCCUR, IF THEY WILL OCCUR. SOME OF THESE ARE ON THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE. IT IS COMPLICATED.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THERE WILL BE CAPITAL RECOVERY FEES, WHICH WILL MAYBE OFFSET SOME OF THE INFLATIONARY COST OR SOME OF

THE OTHER THINGS. >> I WILL BE HONEST -- YOU GUYS

ARE HIGHLY EDUCATED -- >> LET ME REPHRASE THAT -- I CAN HANDLE COMPLICATED. LET ME SAY THAT.

>> IS HER POTENTIAL -- >> WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T KNOW. WE HAVE NO SIGNED AGREEMENTS ON CAPITAL RECOVERY

FEES. >> WE GO PUT A $30 MILLION WAIST LINE IN , THE DEPARTMENT COMES IN AND TELLS US THEY ARE GOING TO GET IN THERE. THEY SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT AND WE RECOUP PART OF OUR COST, CORRECT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. ASSUMING THAT LINE WASN'T IN THE IMPACT

FEE CALCULATION. >> OTHER CITIES HAVE IT DOWN TO WHERE THEY CAN SIT THERE AND TELL YOU, SORRY, YOU'LL HAVE TO BORROW FROM ANOTHER QUADRANT OR WHATEVER, AND EVERYTHING IS SET UP A CERTAIN WAY. WE ARE TALKING $1 BILLION IN PROJECT.

WE WOULD HAVE TO SPEND SOME TIME TO MAKE ASSUMPTIONS. YOUR ASSUMING WERE GOING TO GET $29 MILLION IN FEES . I THINK THAT IS CRAZY THAT WE ARE MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION. I'M JUST SAYING, WHAT IS THE POTENTIAL CAPITAL COST? WHAT PROJECTS ARE WE ELIGIBLE, WHAT PROJECTS ARE WE NOT ELIGIBLE? AND I THINK EVERY -- 2 MILLION HERE, 4 MILLION THERE, YOU ARE TALKING SIDEWALKS FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD , BUT WE CAN AFFORD SIDEWALKS FOR THREE YEARS. AS SOON AS THIS CAPITAL RECOVERY COMES IN, IT TRIGGERS THIS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS TO BE REAL COMPLICATED IN THE DETAIL, OR JUST SOME KIND OF LAG. I HATE SAYING THAT. YOU MAY SAY OUT OF $1 BILLION IN PROJECTS, WERE GOING TO GET 400 MILLION BACK. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU MAY SAY, GUYS, WE LOOKED AT IT, AND IT'S $8 MILLION TOTAL.

>> SO, YES. WE CAN GO BACK AND SHOW WHICH PROJECT ON THE LIST WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CAPITAL RECOVERY. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY ARE ON THIS LIST, FRANKLY, THAT ARE NOT BEING ROLLED INTO THE NEW IMPACT FEE AMOUNT. THERE'S PROBABLY NOT ANY, FRANKLY. BUT THERE WILL BE SOME THAT WE HAVE ALREADY TRIGGERED AND STARTED THAT WON'T BE ROLLED INTO. SO YES, WE CAN DO THAT. THE REASON I'M NOT SHOWING IT IS BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE HAD TO COME UP WITH ASSUMPTIONS THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT TODAY. AND YES, IT WILL CHANGE. WE WILL GET REVENUES STREAMS THAT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE. OKAY. THAT'S EVERYTHING YOU SHOULD KNOW ABOUT HOW THE ACCESS. YOU ALSO HAVE THE O AND M AT THE LAST END OF THE COLUMN , AND THIS CAME FROM ESTIMATES FROM PUBLIC WORKS, SO THAT'S WHERE THE DATA CAME FROM. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY LIKE SOME ENGINEERING CALCULATION, PER SE. THAT'S WHERE THOSE COSTS CAME FROM. THAT'S WHERE THEY ORIGINATED FROM. BUT THEY ARE THERE. I KNOW IT WAS IMPORTANT AND IT WAS ASKED FOR. I THINK WE ARE READY TO START TALKING PROJECTS. MATT, HAVE I MISSED

ANYTHING OF SUBSTANCE? >> THE GREEN, YELLOW, AND THE

RED, MAYBE. >> OKAY. I THINK I'M DONE AND

I WILL PASS IT TO YOU NOW. >> IF IT'S OKAY WITH THE COUNCIL, SINCE WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT WATER AND WASTEWATER AND SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE SEVERAL TIMES ALREADY THIS YEAR, I WOULD PREFER TO START IN WATER AND

[00:55:03]

>> THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME LOOKING AT LINE 130. WE SEE THAT IT'S PARTIALLY FUNDED. AND I SEE A TOTAL COST OF 38 MILLION , YOU KNOW, AND THE TOTAL PROJECT IS 46. SO HOW MUCH IS IT NOT PARTIALLY FUNDED? WE PARTIALLY FUNDED $2 MILLION, AND WE HAVE 35 MILLION UNFUNDED? WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF

NOT FUNDED? THAT MATTERS. >> YEAH. BASICALLY, WE FUNDED EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE NEW DEBT.

>> OKAY. SO WHEN YOU MEAN PARTIALLY FUNDED, NO DEBT -- AND IF THERE'S A NON-DEBT SECTION, IS THAT ALSO COUNTED? SO FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE IS NO NEW DEBT, LIKE ON LINE 131 , OR FOR EXAMPLE, 134. SO YOU GOT NON-DEBT , THAT IF THAT MONEY HASN'T COME IN YET, BUT YOU'RE STILL SAYING IT'S FULLY FUNDED. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY. BECAUSE IN MY MIND, UNTIL THAT NON-DEBT, THE DEVELOPER GOING TO BUILD IT, HOW IS IT GREEN? IN MY MIND, IT WOULD BE PARTIALLY FUNDED.

SINCE IT IS NOW A STARTED PROJECT, THAT MEANS IT IS

FUNDED, SO THE NON-DEBT -- >> ALL OF A SUDDEN, CONSTRUCTION STOPS AND PRICES GO DOWN -- I GUESS, DID A POST

FISCAL FOR THAT PROJECT? >> THEY HAVE POSTED FISCAL.

THEY HAVE STARTED CONSTRUCTION. SO WE HAVE THEIR BOND. IF THEY WALK AWAY, WE CAN USE THE CONSTRUCTION BONDS TO FINISH.

>> NON-DEBT, THAT'S HOW YOU WOULD CALCULATE THAT? OTHERWISE, WE DON'T HAVE THAT BOND MONEY FOR THEM TO GO DO IT. SO THAT WOULD THEN HAVE IT COMPLETELY UNDER NON-DEBT, IT WOULD HAVE THE TRIANGLE -- DO YOU HAVE 142 ON HERE? WHERE AT LEAST IT'S A LINE ITEM THAT SHOULD SHOW NO COST IS LIKE

LINE 134? >> ACTUALLY, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 42 INCH LINE THIS WEEK. I HAVE NOT ADDED THAT PARTICULAR LINE TO THIS LIST. AND I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT UNTIL AFTER THURSDAY NIGHT , AND IT JUST DIDN'T GET ADDED IN TIME FOR THIS MEETING TODAY. SO THAT 42 INCH LINE IS NOT ON THIS

LIST AT ALL. >> BUT HOW WOULD YOU SHOWN IT?

>> I WILL ASK ALBERTO TO JUMP IN HERE AS WELL, BECAUSE AS JAMES ALREADY ANSWERED -- INDICATED, IF IT'S A DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION, WE ARE SHOWING THOSE AS NON-DEBT BECAUSE ALBERTA, I THINK YOU'RE ANTICIPATING THOSE ARE GOING TO BE PAID OUT OF IMPACT FEES AND NOT OUT OF ISSUING DEBT.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> SO THAT IS WHY WE ARE SHOWING THOSE IS FULLY FUNDED, BECAUSE SHE IS SHOWING THOSE COMING OUT OF THE IMPACT FEE FUND.

>> AND IT'S A DEVELOPER PROJECT. IT'S NOT COMING OUT OF THE IMPACT FEE FUND. OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OUR

PARTICIPATION? >>'S OF THE WAY WE DID THIS IS, EVEN IF IT WAS A DEVELOPER -- I HAVE NO WAY OF KNOWING WHAT OUR PRO RATA SHARE IS VERSUS THEIR PRO RATA SHARE, AND I DON'T HAVE PURVIEW ON ALL OF THE COST SHARE AGREEMENTS. WE TOOK WHATEVER THE COST WAS FOR THE PROJECT THAT IS SHOWN IN THE WATER OR WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AS APPROPRIATE, AND WE LEFT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT IN THERE, AND

[01:00:03]

UNTIL THE CONTRACTOR FINISHES HIS CONSTRUCTION. THEN WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR 5.7 HIT TO THE IMPACT FEE FUND ALREADY , AND SO WHEN THE BILL COMES DUE AND WE HAVE TO PAY 50% OF THAT NUMBER, WE ARE COVERED. THAT WAS MY METHODOLOGY, IS SAYING, ALL RIGHT. WORST-CASE SCENARIO, WERE ON THE HOOK FOR THE FULL 5.7 AND IT HAS TO COME OUT OF OUR IMPACT FEE FUND. BEST CASE SCENARIO, WE PLAY OUR PRO RATA SHARE ONLY AND WE'VE OVERESTIMATED HOW MUCH IT HAS TO BEAR ON THE PARTICULAR

PROJECT. >> HERE'S MY QUESTION ON THAT.

IF WE ARE TALKING FUNDING OF A FUTURE PROJECT WITH IMPACT FEES, DID WE NOT USE ALL OF OUR FUTURE IMPACT FEES TO FUND -- TO PAY THE DEBT SERVICE? BECAUSE WE HAVE ON THEIR WE ARE CONNECTING 29 MILLION AND WATER WASTE IMPACT FEES . THAT'S MORE MONEY THAN WE ARE ANTICIPATING COMING IN. I HAD THE IMPRESSION ALL IMPACT FEES FUND THE NEXT FIVE OR SO YEARS

TO KEEP THAT SERVICE LOW. >> ALBERTA, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT IS -- 100% OF THE IMPACT FEES ARE GOING TO OFFSET THE CO, BUT GO AHEAD AND SAY WHAT YOUR ASSUMPTIONS WERE. ARE YOUR CALCULATIONS THAT YOU SHOWED.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. THERE IS CONTINUED GROWTH IN THAT IMPACT FEE FUND. WHAT WE ARE INCLUDING AS A PRINCIPAL PORTION OF THE DEBT. SO OUT OF THE 278 MILLION THAT WE ISSUED JUST RECENTLY, ONLY THE PRINCIPAL PORTION IS COMING OUT OF THERE. SO WITH THE GROWTH AND THOSE PAYMENTS AND THE ANTICIPATED BORROWINGS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO IN THE FUTURE, WITHIN THIS NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS, IT HAS A POSITIVE FUND BALANCE THROUGH

YEAR 41. >> ALBERTA WOULD HAVE TO SEND

IT TO MATT. >> THAT'S LIKE A RABBIT TRAIL, BUT AGAIN, THERE'S 29 MILLION COMING TO THE DEBT SERVICE.

THIS PROJECT OVER HERE, WE MAY HAVE TO PAY 5 MILLION, 4 MILLION, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. WHAT I DON'T WANT IS TWO OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW, HERE'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. AND I APPRECIATE -- I DO TRUST STAFF, BUT SOMETIMES , WE ALL -- AT LEAST IN MY JOB, GET TUNNEL VISION OVER THINGS, AND IT WAS THREE YEARS AGO, MAYBE FOUR , A DIFFERENT SET OF STAFF CAME UP AND TOLD US, WE HAVE KILLED IT. WE ARE GOING TO DROP WATER RATES BECAUSE WE ARE DOING SO GREAT AND WE CAN EXPAND THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. WE HAD A HUGE DEBATE.

THEY SAID IT'S GOING TO BE FINE. NOW THE WHOLE FOCUS IS, HOW DO WE KEEP EVERYTHING LOWER? AND WERE TALKING ABOUT A $40 INCREASE NEXT YEAR. THERE'S A $40 INCREASE PER USER . SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE ARE DOING ALL OF THAT, WE'RE MAKING SURE WE ARE ALL ON BOARD WITH EVERYTHING SO WE DON'T HAVE A HOLY COW MOMENT. JAMES IS GONE, MATT IS GONE, ALBERTA IS GONE AND THREE YEARS AND THERE'S NEW GUYS -- WHICH IS WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH -- AND WE DON'T WANT ANY MESS UPS. THIS IS THE PLAN. BECAUSE WE ARE FINDING $6 MILLION IMPACT FEES A YEAR. I JUST ALWAYS TOOK THAT AS WE MUST BE THROWING EVERYTHING WE GOT ADDED . YOU GUYS ARE SAYING WERE ONLY THROWING A PORTION OF OUR IMPACT FEES.

>> WHILE SHE IS DOING THAT, THE OTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW IS THE TOTAL SCOPE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. SO ON THE WATER SIDE, OVER THIS FIVE-YEAR PERIOD, WE ARE TALKING ABOUT $2.8 MILLION OF IMPACT FEES IF YOU ADD UP EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE NOT DEAD:. THE WASTEWATER IS LARGER. IT IS 33 TOTAL IMPACT FEE , NON-DEBT. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 33 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS IN THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT, WHICH WE WON'T HAVE TO PAY AT ALL, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY A PORTION OF THAT WE END UP HAVING TO PAY, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT PORTION UNTIL THE PROJECT IS GOING AND COMPLETED.

>> HOW DOES THE PROJECT START AND THE CITY DOESN'T KNOW THE

LIABILITY? >> WE ARE ANTICIPATING THEM TO START, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT SHARE OF THE COST, HOW IT WILL

[01:05:02]

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS DIFFERENT, BECAUSE I THOUGHT, LIKE PROJECT 134, NOW WE ARE BEING TOLD SOME OF THAT ACTUALLY ISN'T AT 100% DEVELOPER FUNDED . IT'S ACTUALLY A PORTION OF THE CITY WITH IMPACT FEES, WHICH I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE BROKEN DOWN AGAIN SO THAT WE UNDERSTAND. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE USING A FUNDING SOURCE. THIS ONE OVERHEARS 40%. AT SOME POINT, SOME COUNSEL IS GOING TO GET STUCK. AND WE OWE 20 MILLION IN IMPACT FEES. WHO DID THAT? I THINK YOU GOT TO BREAK ALL OF THAT DOWN TO WHERE WE UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING IS BEING FUNDED. NOT DOWN TO THE PENNY, KNOWING IT'S GOING TO CHANGE.

TO ME, IF THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S 100% THE CITY. THE NEXT YEAR, IT'S REVISED, AND NOW IT'S 50%, AND THEN HOW IS THE 50% BY THE CITY GOING TO BE PAID? IS IT THROUGH IMPACT FEES, OR WHATEVER? TO ME, THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO BUDGET THIS SO WE GET DOWN AND THERE'S NO SURPRISES. IF IT WAS JUST 100,000, I WOULDN'T EVEN BE

SWEATING THAT. >> I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED

TO BE WORKING TOWARDS. >> AND WE MIGHT EVEN BE ABLE TO REFINE THIS BETWEEN NOW AND THE ACTUAL ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET, TOO. BUT ALBERTA IS NOT SHOWING YOU WHERE SHE DID HER CALCULATIONS, SO YOU CAN SEE, SHE PUT THOUGHT INTO IT. IT'S NOT THAT WE JUST RANDOMLY MADE A NUMBER. SHE LOOKED TO SEE IF THE IMPACT FEE CHANGES BASED ON THE GROWTH -- THIS IS ALSO ASSUMING WE DON'T RAISE IMPACT FEES, WHICH IT IS BEFORE THE COUNCIL TO DO. IF WE RAISE IMPACT FEES, REVENUES ALSO GO UP. 2500 FOR WASTEWATER, IT WILL GO SOMETHING MUCH MORE THAN THAT. SO ALL OF THESE REVENUE NUMBERS THEN GO UP

CONSIDERABLY. SO GO AHEAD. >> OKAY. SO THIS IS BASICALLY THE SAME GROWTH PROJECTIONS THAT WE WERE SHOWING YOU EARLIER, AND WHAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.

WHEN WE WERE PROPOSING THE ISSUANCE FOR THE 2024 . AT THE VERY TOP, THAT IS KIND OF THE ORANGE AND THE BLUE. AND THEN DOWN BELOW THAT IS THE ASSUMPTIONS FOR REVENUES BASED ON IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER INTEREST INCOME.

UNDER EXPENSES IS THE DEBT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. LINE 23. 24 IS THE SERIES THAT WE JUST ISSUED, AND THAT'S A PRINCIPAL PORTION OF THOSE DEBT ISSUANCES. THEN WE ALSO DID -- BASED ON PROJECTS THAT NEED TO BE DONE IN WATER AND WASTEWATER THAT CAN BE PUSHED OFF, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE BORROWING 103 MILLION IN '26, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY TOLD YOU ALL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, BUT SOME OF THE PROJECTS HAVE CHANGED AND MOVED UP. AND THEN AGAIN, '28, DOING ANOTHER ISSUE A 105 MILLION. AGAIN, JUST A PRINCIPAL PORTION OF THOSE THAT WE'VE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT SOME CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT EXPENDITURES, WHICH ARE THOSE DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS. WORST-CASE SCENARIO, IF WE ARE TO PAY 100% OF THOSE. SO THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YOUR ENDING FUND BALANCE. AND AGAIN, AS YOU GO ACROSS, IT HAS A POSITIVE FUND BALANCE UNTIL YOU ARE AT YEAR 41. SO WITH THE CONTINUED GROWTH AS IT IS RIGHT NOW WITH THE RATES ON IMPACT FEES THAT WE HAVE CURRENTLY SET, AND THEN USING OUR GROWTH PROJECTIONS, THAT IS HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT AND KNOW THAT YOU CAN AFFORD TO PAY THOSE IMPACTS.

>> WHEN WE ARE DEBATING WHERE WE SET THE RATE HERE FOR THE FEES , CAN YOU BE WILLING TO HAVE THIS IS A MODULAR TO ADJUST TO RECALCULATE THIS THING, JUST TO SEE THAT BUDGET FUND BALANCE IF WE GO NEGATIVE? WE ARE NOT GOING TO ADAPT THE MAC STATUTORY, BECAUSE WE WOULD BE THE MOST EXPENSIVE CITY

[01:10:02]

THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> AND SO RIGHT NOW, JUST TO ADD TO THAT, WE ARE PROJECTING ABOUT 33 MILLION THIS YEAR, AND THEN NEXT YEAR, YOU KNOW, IT DROPS TO -- I THINK THE LOW POINT IS IN '26 WHERE IT HITS ABOUT 27 MILLION RIGHT NOW ON

THIS PROJECTION. >> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. SO WE WILL GO BACK TO JUST RUNNING THROUGH THE PROJECTS. SO THE FIRST ONE THAT I HAVE UNDER THE WASTEWATER IS THE GLENN WATER STATION. THAT ONE IS ALREADY IN PROGRESS.

THERE'S ACTUALLY FOUR PROJECTS THAT ARE LISTED AS PART OF THIS ONE PROJECT. THAT'S THE WAY THE CITY ORIGINALLY ORDERED IT BACK IN 2020, WHENEVER THEY FIRST ORDERED IT. IT IS THE GLENWOOD LIFT STATION. IT'S THE GLENWOOD INTERCEPTOR, IT'S THE CENTRAL TREATMENT PLANT LIFT STATION, AND IT'S THE SOUTH TREATMENT PLANT LIFT NATION. LET ME FLIP OVER TO THE MAP SO YOU CAN KIND OF GET GEOGRAPHICALLY ORIENTED . SO HERE IS THIS PINK CIRCLE , THE GLENWOOD LIFT STATION. THIS LINE THAT I'M TRACING HERE'S THE GLENWOOD INTERCEPTOR. THIS LARGE PINK CIRCLE HERE WOULD BE THE LIFT STATION AT THE SOUTH PLANT, AND THEN THIS PINK CIRCLE UP HERE IS THE LIFT STATION AT THE CENTRAL PLANT. FOR REFERENCE, THIS GLENWOOD LIFT STATION IS ALREADY IN CONSTRUCTION. THIS GLENWOOD INTERCEPTOR IS IN CONSTRUCTION, AND THIS CENTRAL LIFT STATION, WE HAVE OPEN BIDS, WE HAVE SELECTED A CONTRACTOR, WE ARE WAITING ON THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD TO GIVE US THE OKAY TO AWARD GOING BACK TO MY PRESENTATION. SORRY, WRONG SPREADSHEET. PART OF THIS NON-DEBT THAT YOU ARE SEEING ON THIS PROJECT IS NOT FOR DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION. IT IS BECAUSE -- WE HAVE LEFT OVER WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD FUNDS FROM PRIOR PROJECT , SO WE ARE USING THAT MONEY TO FUND THOSE CENTRAL LIFT STATION PARTS OF THIS PROJECT, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE AT $2 MILLION AS NON-DEBT. WE ARE USING WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD MONEY INSTEAD OF CITY MONEY FOR A PORTION OF THIS PROJECT. SO YOU ARE SEEING THAT IN FY '25-'29, WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT IT'S GOING TO BE JUST UNDER $39 MILLION. THE TOTAL PROJECT, WHICH INCLUDES PRIOR-YEAR EXPENDITURES AS WELL AS THE DECK IN MY 25 IN '26 IS $46.4 MILLION. THIS DOES INCLUDE PART OF THAT ADDITIONAL DEBT ISSUANCE AND DECKING MY 26

OF $25.3 MILLION. >> OKAY. THAT BRINGS UP MY QUESTION. WHY IS IT PARTIALLY FUNDED? WHAT IS THE GAP?

>> WE HAVE NOT ISSUED THE $25.3 MILLION YET.

>> SO THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IT IS PARTIALLY FUNDED.

>> CORRECT. >> THE 103 THAT I WAS JUST

MENTIONING A '26. >> THAT HAS BEEN VOTED ON OR DONE. THAT'S WHERE YOUR SING OF THIS PARCEL. SO MANY OF THESE ARE NEW DEBT, AND THAT'S DEBT THAT WE'VE NOT TAKEN UP.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> EVERY ONE OF THESE THAT HAS A NEW DEBT COLUMN NOW , IS IT GOING TO TAKE ACTION FROM

COUNSEL TO DO THAT 105? >> 103, YES. 105 AND '28, BUT

YOU ARE CORRECT. >> IT WILL EITHER BE A TRIANGLE OR A DIAMOND. IF THE DIAMOND IS IN PLACE -- LIKE AVERY LAKE , WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH IT AT ALL. WE HAVEN'T -- IT'S 100% REAL DEBT. TRIANGLE MEANS WE HAVE SOME MONEY ALLOCATED OR APPROVED BY COUNSEL. THE DIAMOND MEANS WE HAVE NOTHING APPROVED BY COUNSEL YET TOWARDS THAT PROJECT.

>> YOU ARE SAYING -- YOU HAVE IT IN DECKING MY 25, SAYING WE WON'T TAKE OUT 103 TO 106. HOW CAN IT BE LISTED IF IT REQUIRES NEW DEBT? WOULDN'T IT HAVE TO BE IN FISCAL YEAR '26:?

[01:15:04]

>> THIS IS PROBABLY A BAD ONE TO JUMP DOWN TO IMMEDIATELY, BUT -- WE RECENTLY HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNCIL VOTED TO ACCELERATE AVERY LAKE PHASE ONE AND AVERY LAKE PHASE TWO TO ELIMINATE ONE OF THE PROPOSED PACKAGE PLANS THAT IS UP ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF TOWN. COUNSEL ASKED HOW WE ARE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT. MY RECOMMENDATION AS WE REMOVE THE IRON REMOVAL PORTION. COUNSEL'S DIRECTION AT THAT POINT WAS WE DON'T WANT TO DELAY THE IRON REMOVAL. WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. COME BACK TO US WITH ANOTHER PATH ON HOW WE ARE GOING TO FUND THIS PROJECT. WE STILL HAVEN'T COME BACK TO YOU WITH THAT PATH YET. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE ARE SHOWING THIS , BECAUSE WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS WITH AN ANSWER ON HOW WERE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT.

>> SO NOW MY QUESTION IS, IT SHOULD FREE UP 20 MILLION.

OBVIOUSLY WOULDN'T BE IN THIS PRESENTATION. WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THE IRON REMOVAL. THAT'S THE ACTION WE TOOK THURSDAY.

>> I WASN'T IN THAT PART OF THE MEETING, SO I HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD THAT YET. BUT IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN YES. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO THEORETICALLY COVER THESE TWO PROJECTS, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY VOTED TO ACCELERATE. AGAIN, LET ME THROW THIS DISCLAIMER OUT THERE AGAIN. I'VE TAKEN THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN IN HERE. WE ARE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE DEVELOPER. ACTUALLY, THERE'S TWO DEVELOPERS WE ARE CLOSELY WORKING WITH . THEY BOTH UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A PRO RATA SHARE ON THIS. WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH A 14.975 MILLION . IN REALITY, IT WON'T BE THAT MUCH. SO FOR EVERY OTHER PROJECT THAT COMES -- I SAY YES. I NEED TO GO BACK AND CHECK. IF THIS IS INCLUDED IN THE IMPACT FEES, THE NO. IF IT WASN'T INCLUDED, THEN YES, IT WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR RECOVERY. EVERY PROJECT THAT TAPS INTO IT FROM THAT POINT ON WOULD PAY US BACK OUR PRO RATA SHARE.

>> IF IT'S PART OF THE IMPACT FEE, WE CAN'T DOUBLE DIP, SO

TO SPEAK. >> I GUESS WE HAVEN'T ACCEPTED THE PLAN YET, RIGHT? WE JUST OPENED UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> THEY JUST GIVE YOU A HIGH-LEVEL BRIEFING. YOU'VE ACCEPTED YOUR WASTEWATER -- YOU DID THOSE IN DECEMBER OF '22.

YOU ARE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES, YOU HAVE NOT ACCEPTED THOSE YET. THAT WAS JUST TO GIVE YOU A HIGH-LEVEL BRIEFING AND TO DECLARE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THOSE. WHEN WE COME BACK TO YOU IN AUGUST FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, THAT IS WHEN YOU WILL SEE THE ENTIRE PLAN, YOU WILL KNOW WHAT IS INCLUDED AND WHAT IS NOT, HOW MUCH THEY ARE RECOMMENDING.

THEY WILL GIVE YOU THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON HOW MUCH THEY ARE RECOMMENDING, AND YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO ADOPT THE FEES AS YOU SEE IT.

OKAY. MOVING ON. >> MAY BE A PROCESS QUESTION.

ARE WE JUST GOING TO GO LINE BY LINE AND JUST TALK ABOUT WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE? I THOUGHT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS, I THOUGHT STAFF NEEDED GUIDANCE FROM COUNSEL ON THE PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THE BUBBLE. THERE ARE SOME THAT WE HAVE TO DO IF WE FULLY FUNDED THEM. IS THERE A NEED TO WALK THROUGH ALL OF THOSE THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE WE HAVE TO DO, WE'VE ALREADY DECIDED WE ARE DOING AND GOING DOWN THAT PATH ? DO WE NEED TO SPEND TIME WALKING THROUGH EACH OF THOSE, OR CAN WE REALLY FOCUS OUR TIME ON, THIS ONE COULD STAND DECKING MY 25, IT

MIGHT HAVE TO GO TO '26. >> WATER AND WASTEWATER I THINK ARE MORE HAVE TO HAVES, AND MAYBE WE CAN FUDGE IT . I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH EACH ONE. SAY TO AVERY,

[01:20:04]

>> YEAH. >> I GUESS IN REFERENCE TO THE AVERY LAKE PHASE, YOU SAID WE HAD TO HAVE THE INTERCEPTOR NUMBER FOUR DONE FIRST, RIGHT?

>> IT NEEDS TO BE FIRST, OR AT LEAST EXACTLY AT THE SAME TIME.

LET ME JUMP TO THE MAP REAL QUICK AND I WILL SHOW YOU. SO THIS PORTION OF THE PURPLE LINE UP HERE, BOTH 79, IS AVERY LAKE PHASE TWO. THIS PORTION OF THE PURPLE LINE THAT GOES BELOW 79 AND UNDER 130, THAT IS AVERY LAKE PHASE ONE. YOU CAN SEE IT DRAINS INTO THE 42 INCH LINE, WHICH GOES TO THE ENCLAVE LIFT STATION. THE ENCLAVE LIFT STATION IS BASICALLY A CAPACITY. THE ONLY OPTION WE HAD IS TO EITHER BASICALLY REBUILD THE ENTIRE LIFT PATIENT OR CONSTRUCT THE PHASE FOUR LINE, WHICH IS THIS PURPLE LINE THAT GOES BASICALLY FROM THE ENCLAVE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO -- THIS IS THE BRUSHING CREEK PHASE THREE THAT IS BEING BUILT FOR US RIGHT NOW.

>> SO WHERE ARE WE AT WITH PHASE FOUR? THE MAC WE HAVE NOT STARTED. WE HAVE NOT STARTED DESIGN, NOTHING. THIS IS JUST

IN OUR PLAN. >> AND IF YOU UPGRADE THE LIFT

STATION -- SORRY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP THAT ONE IN '25 AND POSSIBLY PUSH OUT AVERY LAKE ONE AND TWO TO

DECKING MY 26. >> BUT DON'T WE HAVE TO HAVE

THOSE IN '25 TO AVOID THOSE? >> YES.

>> IF WE DELAY IT, THAN THE PACKAGE PLAN COMES BACK.

>> WITH PHASE FOUR ISN'T GOING TO BE DONE TILL '26, WHAT HAPPENS? YOU BUILD THOSE OTHER TWO LINES, THEY CAN'T START.

>> IT WOULD BE SOME SORT OF PUMP AND HALL AGREEMENT.

>> SO THAT'S WHY WE CAN'T MOVE IT. WE ALREADY GOT THE 20 MILLION BACK. WE'VE ALREADY PARTIALLY FUNDED AT LEAST THE 10 MILLION FOR THE BRUSHING CREEK INTERCEPTOR. IT IS JUST THAT NEW DEBT FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR THAT WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE DONE OVER THE NEXT -- MAY OR JUNE THEY WILL BE COMING BACK

FOR THAT. INTEREST RATES. >> ONE THING THAT MIGHT BE CONFUSING IS, 10.5 MILLION AND 26.4 AND '26, AND YOU ARE SEEING ALL OF THE AVERY LAKE AND ACCOMACK 25. THE REASON WE DID THAT WAS BECAUSE THE AVERY LAKE, WE KNOW THAT COUNSEL IS ALREADY AGREED TO WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER AND PUSH THESE PROJECTS FORWARD. SO AGAIN, WE JUST PUT THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN NUMBERS AND PUT THEM INTO HALFWAY DECKING MY 25, BECAUSE WE ANTICIPATE SOME KIND OF COST SHARE AGREEMENT OR PRO RATA OR SOMETHING, AND TALKING TO THE ENGINEER, THERE IS NO WAY THEY HAVE THAT LINE 100% BUILT TO DECKING MY 25. PARTIALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO CROSS UNDER THE RAILROAD, AND THAT THEY WANT TO TOKE YOUR ASSETS TYPICALLY. THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET IT FASTER BECAUSE THEY SAY THEY HAVE CONNECTIONS.

>> YOU JUST SAID ONE TO TWO YEARS. THAT OTHER LINE THAT'S GOING UNDER -- WE COULDN'T GET ANYBODY TO SAY ONE TO TWO YEARS, AND YOU JUST SAID ONE TO TWO YEARS. NO MATTER WHAT WE

DO. >> IT'S A BALLPARK, YES , SOMEWHERE IN THAT. IT TYPICALLY TAKES A ONE TO TWO YEAR PROCESS TO COORDINATE THESE FOR THE RAILROAD. TYPICALLY.

>> I DON'T WANT TO GET DESIGNED AND THEN START THAT.

I'M WITH COUNCILMAN KOHLER HERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE THE EASY BUTTON I JUST TOOK 15 MILLION IN 2025. IF THEY ARE BUILDING THE LINE AND WE ARE REIMBURSING IT, AND TO ME, THAT COST SHOULD BE IN 2026, BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM UNTIL 2026. I THINK YOU WOULD SPLIT IT BETWEEN '25 AND

[01:25:07]

>> AT THAT POINT, WE ARE ONLY PAYING THE PRINCIPAL.

>> USE OF THE LIFT STATION IS AT CAPACITY AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO BUILD THAT PURPLE LINE TO THE EAST. IS THAT RIGHT? IF YOU UPGRADE THE LIFT STATION, YOU START TO DO THE PURPLE

LINE? >> YOU WOULD NOT -- MOST LIKELY WOULD STILL DO A VERSION OF THE PURPLE LINE, EXCEPT IT WOULDN'T FOLLOW THAT PATH. UPGRADING THE LIFT STATION MOST LIKELY WILL REQUIRE US TO UP TRADE THE FORCE MAIN. THE FORCE MAIN KIND OF FOLLOWS 1660 DOWN TO --

>> HOW MUCH IS THE PURPLE LINE?

>> BRUSHING CREEK FOUR WAS -- >> THAT THE PORTION OF THE 37,

RIGHT? >> THE TOTAL IS 37.4 MILLION.

>> YOU ARE SAYING MORE THAN LIKELY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND $37 MILLION, I'D LIKE TO KNOW, YOU GUYS COULD THAN 5 MILLION ON A LIST NATION, BECAUSE I COULD TELL YOU WHEN GARBER WAS HERE, EVERYTHING WAS -- EVERYTHING WAS A REBUILD, EVERYTHING WAS ENGINEERED AND REBUILT EVERYTHING, AND I DON'T BLAME THEM. THE ENGINEER DOING ALL THE WORK, OF COURSE.

AND SO I'D LIKE US -- LITERALLY IS FACTUALLY IS 100% CERTAIN AS YOU COULD. BUT I BET MONEY IF LESS THAN 37 MILLION.

JUST WE DON'T HAVE TO UPGRADE A LIFT STATION. THE LIFT STATION IS GOING TO DO IT. OR THE LIFT STATION BUYS US ANOTHER 10 YEARS . BUT TO ME, I LIKE TO HAVE A DEBATE ON SPENDING ON THE LIFT STATION AND WE FOCUS ON OTHER THINGS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THOSE THINGS WE'VE BEEN DOING, BECAUSE WE HAVE A LIFT STATION AND WE THINK IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY TO DO AWAY WITH THE LIFT STATION.

>> WITH THE MAINTENANCE OF THE LIFT SECTION?

>> WHAT'S THE DEBT SERVICE ON 8 MILLION? WE NEED TO GET BACK TO YOU. YOU ARE JUST WANTING TO DO IT FOR ENGINEERING. BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO NOTE COMING OUT. I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO KNOW , CAN YOU SAVE US $37 MILLION IF WE PUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT ? WHAT DOES IT COST? IN THE LONGEVITY OF THAT? I THINK THOSE ARE DISCUSSIONS TODAY THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL GOING THROUGH. AND WHAT WE DON'T

HAVE TO HAVE. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, BUT WITH ALL RESPECT, WE DID APPROVE A WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN AND THAT INTERCEPTOR WAS PART OF THE MASTER PLAN. SO WITH US RECONFIGURING IT, I GUESS WE NEED TO GO BACK AND DO ANOTHER MASTER PLAN, IF THAT IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. BUT ALL OF THESE PROJECTS WERE IN THE WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN THAT WAS ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO TO RECONFIGURE IT WOULD BE TO GO AGAINST THAT. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAVE MONEY AND CHANGE THE PROJECT SCOPE, BUT I JUST -- I DISAGREE WITH THAT.

>> THAT IS UNUSUAL. >> YEAH.

>> I'M LOOKING AT IT IS A WROTE THEIR AFFAIR PLAN. WE REALLY NEED TO IS FAILING. BUT WE MIGHT NOT HAVE $40 MILLION TO YOU. IF YOU SPEND 1.5 MILLION TODAY, I CAN GET YOU SEVEN OR EIGHT MORE YEARS. AND TO ME, THESE ARE DECISIONS WERE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE. WHAT WILL IT COST TO DO 1.5 BILLION IN PROJECT WITH PROPERTY TAX, OR WASTEWATER, AND WILL WE FIND

[01:30:01]

ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO? >> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PUSH OUT THE YEAR THAT YOU RELATE.

>> IF YOU PUSH IT OUT, YOU MIGHT AS WELL TAKE IT OFF THE

LIST. >> BUT IF WE HAVE SOMETHING IN

THE FUTURE -- >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THE DIS-ANNEXED FROM THE CITY . THAT PROPERTY HAS. THEY HAVE.

>> THEY HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING, BECAUSE WE ARE IN A LAWSUIT, AND WE STOPPED THAT THE ANNEXATION. THEY ARE CURRENTLY STILL UNDER E TJ. UNTIL THE LAWSUIT IS RESOLVED.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO JUST ACCOMMODATE THIS LINE FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS THAT WERE INVOLVED PREVIOUSLY. I'M NOT WILLING TO ACCOMMODATE ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY OUT THERE. THAT'S MY THINKING OF POSTPONING IT. THAT'S MY REASONING FOR DOING IT.

>> IF WE MOVE THE MONEY FROM THE '25 CALL INTO A '26 COLUMN , WHAT DOES THAT DO? DOES UP AT THE PACKAGE PLAN BACK INTO PLAY? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE ALL OF IT HAS TO HAPPEN, INCLUDING PHASE FOUR IN 2026, ANYWAY. ARE WE AT LEAST SPLITTING THE FUNDING EQUALLY OR IN SOME PORTION TO JUST SPREAD IT OUT? BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ARE ALL GETTING DONE BY 2026, AND THAT STILL PREVENTS THE PACKAGE

PLAN, RIGHT? >> THAT'S A CALL TO GET AN

ANSWER, I THINK. >> WE ALREADY SOLVE THE PROBLEM WITH THAT , AND THE MONEY ON THE DEBT WE ARE GOING TO DO.

THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE TO LEAVE IT AS IS, WE'VE ALREADY IDENTIFIED HOW IT WILL BE PAID FOR, WORST-CASE SCENARIO, WE JUST TOOK CARE OF THAT THURSDAY. AND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT PROJECT ISN'T ON THE IMPACT FEE LIST, WE CAN DO CAPITAL RECOVERY FOR IT. THAT'S THE ONLY AR THAT COMES OUT OF THIS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS JUST THE FUNDING SHEET.

>> I DISAGREE WITH THAT. THERE'S 105 MILLION IN PROJECTS IN 2025, AND THE DEBATE IS, ARE WE GOING TO DO ALL 1.5 MILLION? THAT'S A BIG INCREASE TO PEOPLE ON THEIR BILLS. AND I THINK TO COUNCILMAN KOHLER'S POINT, THE DEBATE IS IN THE MAYOR PRO TEM, MUCH OF THIS HAS TO BE IN 2025, IF IT DOES IT ALL? WE CAN BE OUT OF HERE IN 20 MINUTES. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TO BE MOVED.

>> I THINK YOUR POINT IS, DEBT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED.

>> THE DEBT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED. THE ONLY REASON IT

WASN'T FUNDED WAS BECAUSE -- >> NO, THAT WAS NOT FULLY FUNDED. THAT WAS FOR THE '26 --

>> YOU ARE BOTH WRONG. >> WE SENT DIRECTION TO TAKE CARE OF IT, BUT IT HASN'T FULLY BEEN TAKEN CARE OF YET.

WE ARE HOPING IT WILL BE IN THE NEAR FUTURE.

>> CORRECT. >> WE HAVE SENT DIRECTION TO HAVE STAFF COME BACK AND WORK WITH THE RECHARGE PEOPLE. JAMES MAY COME BACK AND SAY, IT DIDN'T WORK OUT.

>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE ALMOST A YEAR TO DESIGN THE LINE. IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYTHING WE DO TAKES A YEAR TO DESIGN.

>> BRUSHING CREEK WILL TAKE PROBABLY GOOD NINE TO 10

MONTHS. >> 1 MILLION IN EACH LINE FOR '25. AND WE ARE GOING TO DESIGN IT NEXT YEAR IN '26.

>> I CAN BREAK OUT THESE NUMBERS. TYPICALLY WHAT I WOULD DO IS I WOULD TAKE ABOUT 12% OF THE TOTAL COST AND PUT IT IN AS DESIGN, AND THAT I WOULD TAKE THE OTHER 88% , THEN TAKE THE REST OF THE COST AND PUT IT IN FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE SECOND

YEAR. >> I THINK THAT AT LEAST SHOWS THE DEVELOPER THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON IT, AND WAS GLAD TO GET MY 26 TO FIGURE OUT HOW WERE GOING TO PLAY PAY FOR IT.

IS THAT RIGHT, COUNCILMEMBER? >> THAT WORKS AS FAR AS

[01:35:04]

TWO BUCKETS FOR ONE PROJECT. >> IT KIND OF MAKES SENSE.

>> OKAY. SO I DON'T REMEMBER --

>> BEFORE YOU DO THAT, WILL YOU MAKE SURE IT RECALCULATED CORRECTLY? BECAUSE UTILITY RATE IMPACTS, I THINK THOSE ARE MANUALLY PUT INTO THOSE COLUMNS . SO I WILL HAVE TO HAVE ETHAN OR SOMEONE ELSE IN THE BACK UPDATING THAT SHEET AS YOU MOVE MONEY AROUND, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THESE -- WILL YOU CLICK ON THE ONE THAT HAS THE MONEY ON IT AND SEE IF -- I'M SORRY.

K 17. IS THAT A HARD KEY NUMBER, OR IS THAT REFERRING TO

THE SHEET? >> DO YOU THINK THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF ANY KIND OF DEBATE ON THAT?

>> I WILL JUST JUMP DOWN AND WE WILL KEEP GOING ON THE LINE.

THE NEXT ONE IS A CENTRAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT EXPANSION PHASE ONE. I KNOW WE ARE WORKING ON PHASE ONE OF THE SOUTHWEST WATER TREATMENT PLANT. JUST FOR HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE, THE REASON I'VE BEEN SO ADAMANT THAT WE NOT PUSH THIS IS BECAUSE WHEN I WAS HERE PREVIOUSLY, THIS WAS A TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. WE WERE BASICALLY AT CAPACITY OF THE CENTRAL PLAN. WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH SOME DEVELOPERS AND DO SOME LIFT STATIONS AND SOME FINAGLING TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT TO KEEP COMING. AND RICK CAN SPEAK TO THIS BETTER THAN I CAN, BECAUSE HE'S MORE IN LINE WITH THE ONES WHO RUN THE PLANS FOR US, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN LETTING US KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN TRIGGERING THE 75% CAPACITY AND PER RULES, WHEN YOU HAD 75%, YOU SHOULD BE PLANNING FOR EXPANSION. WHEN YOU HIT 90%, YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE THERE, IS MY POINT. I AM SHOWING A STARTING DESIGN AND DOCUMENT 26 BUT NOT ACTUALLY STARTING CONSTRUCTION UNTIL '28, AND I WAS PARTLY BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION WE HAD BACK IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH ABOUT HOW WE WERE GOING TO FUND ALL OF

OUR UTILITY PROJECT. >> THAT SOUNDS LIKE IT NEEDS TO

BE MOVED UP TO '25. >> I HAVE TALKED TO RICK ABOUT IT. WE DO HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING ON THE CENTRAL PLAN WITH THE GLENWOOD PROJECT THAT I MENTIONED AT THE START, WHERE WE ARE UPGRADING THE LIFT STATION. SO WE HAVE SOME GRAY AREA THAT WE CAN WORK TO SAY WE ARE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS ALREADY, BUT THAT'S WHY I'M OKAY WITH NOT STARTING IT IN TECH IN MY 25 AND PUSHING IT OUT A YEAR TO LET THAT IMPROVEMENT HAPPEN. AND THEN START THE DESIGN

FULL-BLOWN IN '26. >> WE COULD JUST MOVE IT UP SIX

MONTHS. >> THE ONE THING THAT ALWAYS CATCHES US OFFGUARD AS OUR GROWTH.

>> SORRY. TRYING TO MOVE FAST.

>> OKAY, CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN?

>> WHEN I SAY FISCAL YEAR '26, I AM THINKING OF OCTOBER 1ST OF '25, WE WOULD START THE DESIGN. I'M SUGGESTING JUST MOVING IT OUT SIX MONTHS SO WE CAN HAVE THE DESIGN AND NEXT YEAR WE CAN START DESIGNING AND THEN WRAP IT UP, AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DEBATE THEN BASED ON OUR GROWTH RATES AND WHERE THEY ARE AT . OR MAYBE WE HAVE A RECESSION OR SLOWS DOWN OR

SOMETHING. >> MY TAKE IS, THERE'S NOTHING OTHER THAN THE HOLD THAT CONVERSATION. FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S NOTHING WHEN STARTING THE DESIGN EARLIER IN FINISHING THE DESIGN AND HAVING THE PLANS ON THE SHELF SO THAT WHENEVER WE ACTUALLY WANT TO GO PULL THE TRIGGER AND CONSTRUCTION, WE WERE CONSTANTLY DESIGNING STUFF, AND WHEN CONGRESS WOULD RELEASE A BIG BUCKET OF MONEY, THEY WOULD JUST GRAB WHATEVER WE THOUGHT WAS PRIORITY PROJECT OFF THE SHELF. YOU GOT MONEY, GO. MY TAKE IS, I THINK IT'S OKAY SPLITTING IT . HOLDING OFF TEMPORARY , SHOWING UP IN '28.

[01:40:01]

>> WHAT IS WASTEWATER MEGA SITE PHASE TWO? I KNOW IT'S IN THE FUTURE. THAT WAS TOTALLY OFF THE FIVE-YEAR CIP, IS THAT

CORRECT? >> I PUSHED THAT WENT COMPLETELY OFF THE LIST, AND MY WATCH THERE WAS THAT WE HAVE THE FIRST PHASE HAPPENING, THE LIFT STATION IN THE WASTEWATER LINE, IN MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS -- RIGHT NOW, THE MEGA SITE IS GOING TO START DEVELOPING, AND IS GOING TO START DEVELOPING FAST. WE GET OUR ROAD BUILT, EVERYBODY IS GOING TO WANT TO JUMP ON THAT BANDWAGON. SO LET THEM BUILD THE EXTRA LINES.

THAT WAS MY THINKING. IT'S COUNSEL'S PREROGATIVE IF THEY

WANT ME TO PULL IT BACK. >> CAN YOU PUT IT ON THE LAST YEAR OF SAY, '29, AND PUT A POSSIBLE DEVELOPER? JUST SO THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE PROJECTING INTO THE FUTURE.

>> YOU STILL GOT IT IN THE PLAN.

>> LET ME JUST REMIND YOU WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR. THIS NOMENCLATURE THAT WE HAVE FOR THE TITLES, THE FIRST THREE TO FOUR DIGITS ARE THE TYPE OF PROJECT, AND THE NUMBER , THE LAST FOUR DIGITS, OR THE YEAR THAT I AM ANTICIPATING US

DARTING THIS PROJECT. >> SO AT LEAST IT IS ON THE RADAR OF THE CITY. IF THE DEVELOPER IS OUT THERE, KNOCK IT OUT BY '28, YOU CAN TAKE IT OFF.

>> IT'S ALREADY YEAR 30, 2030. IF IT'S GOING TO MOVE UP, IT'S ONLY GOING TO MOVE UP BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEVELOPER

PAYING FOR IT. >> FAIR ENOUGH. MY VISION RIGHT

NOW IS THE FIVE-YEAR PERIOD >> MY POINT IS, IF THE LAND IS UNDEVELOPED, IT'S NOT BEING BUILT IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, PERIOD. THE ONLY WAY IT MOVES UP AS IF YOU HAVE A BUYER COMING IN AND SAYING I'M PAYING FOR IT. IT MOVES UP, BUT THEN IT'S ON THE NON-DEBT SITE. IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THIS LIST OF FIVE YEARS FOR US AT ALL. BECAUSE THE ONLY REASON IT WOULD MOVE INTO FIVE YEARS IS IF THE DEVELOPERS PAYING FOR IT, WHICH MEANS WE ALSO NEED TO CONSIDER IT FOR WHAT WE ARE SPENDING MONEY ON. THAT JUST ADDS ANOTHER COMPLEX THING WE DON'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT TODAY. IF IT NEVER BUILDS OUT THERE, THAN THE PROJECT NEVER HAS TO COME TO US.

>> IF IT'S NOT ON THAT LIST, IT'S NOT ON YOUR RADAR.

>> 2030. >> I PUSHED IT JUST OUTSIDE OF THE WINDOW. I DIDN'T WANT TO DELETE IT FROM THIS LIST. I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I WAS JUST TAKING STUFF OFF WITHOUT TALKING TO YOU GUYS ABOUT IT. I RECOMMENDATION IS PUT IT OUT FOR 2030, AND AS DEVELOPERS COME ON, I'M GOING TO PUSH THEM TO GO BUILD THESE LINES SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO, OR THAT WE AT LEAST GET A REDUCTION IN OUR PRICES . AND THAT WAY, I'M SHOWING THAT I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT IT. IT IS STILL THERE, BUT JUST NOT IN MY FIVE-YEAR WINDOW. BUT AGAIN, I'M PUTTING IT OUT THERE FOR COUNSEL TO TELL ME OTHERWISE.

>> I FORGOT WITH THOSE MEANT. >> OKAY. THE NEXT ONE IS THE WW 15 IRONWOOD WASTEWATER LINE. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THAT YOU SEE THAT IS DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION. THE IRONWOOD PROJECT IS, JUST A REMINDER, I WILL JUMP OVER TO THE MAP BROKE. IRONWOOD IS UP HERE BETWEEN INNOVATION AND ALLIANCE, AND YOU SEE THE CYAN COLORED LINES, THAT'S THE LINES IN QUESTION. THE DEVELOPERS BUILDING THOSE FOR US. THEY ARE WORKING ON SOME SORT OF COST PARTICIPATION. SO JUST LIKE THE OTHER ONES, WE HAVE IT IN OUR SPREADSHEET FULLY FUNDED BY THE IMPACT FEE FUND FROM THE CITY, BUT WE WON'T -- WE SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT, BECAUSE ONCE THEY GET THERE COST SHARE AGREEMENT AND WE HAVE THEIR BONDS IN HAND, AND IF THEY WALK AWAY, WE CAN GO PULL THEIR BOND

AND FINISH THE PROJECT. >> BUT THEY ARE MOVING DIRT

RIGHT NOW. >> THAT'S WHY I MOVED IT UP AT A 2026, BECAUSE THEY ARE MOVING DIRT RIGHT NOW. THEY ARE

WORKING. >> THERE'S NO WAY -- I MEAN, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE BUILDINGS UP TO THE END OF NEXT

YEAR. >> I DON'T HAVE THEIR TIMELINE OF WHEN THEIR BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE OPERATIONAL. I KNOW THEY HAVE A MULTI-PHASED DEVELOPMENT AND THEY ARE WORKING ON -- THEY JUST HAVE BUILDINGS TWO, THREE, AND FOUR, WHICH ARE NOT GOING IN THAT IN ORDER , NECESSARILY, PERMITTED.

BUILDINGS ONE, FIVE, AND SIX, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TIMELINE

IS. >> THEY CAN'T USE ANY BUILDINGS UNTIL THAT LAND IS PUT IN.

>> THERE PUTTING THAT IN, SO THAT'S JUST A PLACEHOLDER FOR

[01:45:03]

'25 WERE TAKEN MY 26. >> HOW DOES THAT WORK IF THEY ARE PAYING FOR ? ARE YOU SAYING WE MAY OWE THEM MONEY?

>> YEAH. SO WHEN THEY GO TO DO CONSTRUCTION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GIVE US BONDS FOR WHATEVER THEY ARE BUILDING . AND SO WE HAVE A PERFORMANCE AND A PAYMENT BOND THAT COVERS THE COST OF WHATEVER THEY PROPOSE TO BUILDS. AT THE SAME TIME, THEY ARE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH SARAH CERVANTES TO GET A COST SHARE AGREEMENT BROUGHT TO YOU GUYS SO THAT YOU CAN AGREE TO REIMBURSE THEM FOR ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY ANYWAY. AND SO IN THE COST SHARE AGREEMENT, IT WILL SPELL OUT THAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO ALL THE DESIGN, WHICH THEY MIGHT NOT. THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE CONSTRUCTION, AND WE ARE GOING TO PAY A PORTION OF THE COST BACK TO THEM, WHICH TYPICALLY, I AM PUSHING FOR DEVELOPERS JUST TO CHARGE US FOR THE UPSIZING. IF THEY NEEDED A 12 INCH LINE AND WE ARE TOLD TO GO BUILD A 15, WE MAKE THEM BUILD OUT BOTH THE 12 AND 15 AND WE PAY THE DIFFERENCE. THAT IS TYPICALLY HOW WE'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF THESE COST SHARES.

>> WE ARE NOT PAYING IT'S IMPACT FEES.

>> RIGHT. >> IT DEPENDS. IF IT'S ON THEIR IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE, THAN THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PAY IMPACT FEES. IF IT IS NOT ON OUR IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE AND THEY ARE BUILDING THAT IN PRACTICE, THE IMPACT FEES ARE ONLY CAPTURING THE CAPACITY THAT IS ON THIS PROJECT THAT IS ON

THOSE LISTS. >> PERSONALLY, I WOULD MOVE IT UP. AND SOMEHOW WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR WHAT WE ARE GOING

TO APPROVE. >> WHAT IS THE USUAL TIMELINE

OF PAYING THEM? >> USUALLY WE DON'T -- MOST OF THE DEVELOPERS WE HAVE COST SHARE AGREEMENTS WITH, WE DON'T PAY THEM UNTIL WE GET THE FINAL ACCOUNTING ON WHAT IT ACTUALLY COST THEM TO CONSTRUCT.

>> BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE TO BE UP AND OPERATIONAL?

>> ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN PLACE. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED, ACCEPTED, AND FINAL ACCOUNTS WITH ALL CHANGE ORDERS FROM THE CONTRACTOR.

>> WHAT'S THE TIMELINE ON THAT? THE LIKE IT VARIES FROM CONTRACTOR TO CONTRACTOR. THAT PHASE THREE LINE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THAT HAS BEEN IN CONSTRUCTION SINCE I CAME BACK TO THE CITY, AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FROM THEM ON THE DEVELOPER. AND SO YOU ARE TALKING 18 MONTHS. THESE GUYS HAVE LESS IN THEIR WAY, SO PROBABLY A GOOD NINE TO 12 MONTHS, THEY WILL BE READY TO COME BACK TO US WITH A BILL SAYING, WE WANT YOU TO PAY US BACK.

>> WHICH WILL BE IN FISCAL YEAR '25. IT MAY BE SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT, YOU ARE JUST PAINTING WORST-CASE .

>> I AM TRYING TO BE CONSERVATIVE IN MY ESTIMATES.

>> ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ONES ARE SIMILAR. THEY ARE STILL VERY PRELIMINARY. YOU JUST SAW THE -- WAS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR MEADOWBROOK? AND SO I AM PUSHING THOSE COSTS FOR THOSE LINES -- I WILL JUMP TO THE MACRO QUICK SO YOU CAN SEE THE AREA WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S THESE GREEN LINES OVER HERE. AND SO ASHLEY WOULD HAVE TO TELL ME WHICH ONE IS WHICH.

ONE OF THESE IS MEADOWBROOK AND ONE OF THESE IS KIRK.

>> THEY WILL LIKELY PAY FOR THAT, AT ANY UPSIZING --

>> IT WOULD BE BASICALLY THE SAME THING WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. WERE GOING TO BUILD IT, AND WE WILL PAY FOR ANY

UPSIZING. >> PERFECT.

>> AND SO I'M JUST HOLDING THOSE OUT. I DON'T SEE ANY PATH THAT THEY ARE GONNA '25 SINCE THEY ARE JUST STARTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND SO OF COUNSEL DISAGREES WITH ME OUT THERE DECKING MY 28 AND '29, MOVING IT UP TO '26-'27, I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE BIT STRETCHED, TO PUT IT INTO '26

EVEN. >> I THINK THEY NEED A HARDER TIMELINE ON WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. IF THEY ARE

STILL IN THE EARLY STAGES -- >> OKAY. THESE NEXT SEVERAL I WILL COVER IT ONE TIME, AS YOU CAN SEE I PUSH THEM ALL OUT TO 2030. BY FOLLOWING THERE IS THAT THESE ARE ALL THINGS THAT SHOULD BE DONE AT SOME POINT, WHETHER WE ACTUALLY GET RID OF

[01:50:06]

>> WITH THERE BE ANYTHING THAT WOULD PROMPT OR TRIGGER -- ANYONE OF THOSE PROJECTS , WOULD THERE BE SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS , LIKE, WOW, WE NEED TO MOVE IT UP? OR NOT REALLY?

>> YES. LET ME JUST JUMP TO THE MAP SO I CAN POINT TO THE AREA.

SO YOU HAVE THE BROOKLYN LIFT STATION, BROOKLYN IS HERE, FARLEY IS HERE. AND SO IF THEY HAD SOME HIGH DEVELOPMENT COMING HERE ON THIS NORTHEAST CORNER, AND THEN WE GO TO THE BROOKLYN LIFT STATION, THAT CAN PUT US IN A SITUATION WHERE MAYBE WE NEED TO PUSH THAT PROJECT BACK INTO THE FIVE-YEAR WINDOW . WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANYTHING ON OUR RADAR THAT WOULD TRIGGER THAT. THAT'S WHY I AM SAYING LET'S HOLD IT OUT THERE. AND THE OTHER THING IS, OBVIOUSLY IF A DEVELOPER COMES IN AND THEY ARE THE ONE TRIGGERING THE IMPACT, I'M GOING TO PUSH THEM TO BEAR THE BRUNT OF DOING THAT.

>> IS THAT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OR IS THAT AN E TJ? IF IT'S IN THE CITY, YOU CAN SAY YOU HAVE TO DO IT ALL

OTHERWISE. >> YEAH, I THINK OF THE CITY

LIMITS. >> I THINK THAT THE CITY LIMITS. THINKING FOR THIS FARLEY ONE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE KNOW THAT THERE'S PROJECTS HAPPENING HERE ON THIS NORTHWEST CORNER , THE SOUTHEAST OF 137, THE 1660.

I'M WORKING WITH THOSE DEVELOPERS RIGHT NOW TO MAKE THE NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THEIR PROJECT. BUT AT THIS PROJECT THAT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 1660 WERE TO HAPPEN, AND THEY WOULD BE DRAINING TO THAT, THEY WOULD PUSH IT BACK INTO NEEDING TO DO IT SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. BUT AGAIN, THEY WOULD BE THE ONE TRIGGERING IT. I WOULD BE PUSHING THEM TO BEAR THE LION'S SHARE OF IT. AND CURRENTLY, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACTIVE PROJECTS ON THE SHARE

PIECE OF LAND. >> IS IT IN CITY LIMITS UP

THERE? >> YES. WE HAD A PROJECT THERE, BUT THAT PROJECT -- THEY'VE GONE AWAY. THEY ARE NOT EVEN DOING DESIGN ANYMORE. THAT IS MY THINKING ON THIS PROJECT , IS JUST PUSH THEM OUT. WE DON'T NEED TO SHOW THEM, WE DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT RIGHT NOW. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS, AGAIN, IS THE SH 130. THIS IS ANOTHER DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION . LET ME JUMP BACK TO THE MAP SO YOU CAN SEE. THAT IS UP HERE. THESE GUYS ARE -- IT'S THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. ARE ACTIVELY WORKING RIGHT NOW TO GET DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND THAT KIND OF STUFF . THEY ARE WANTING TO GET TO CONSTRUCTION AS QUICK AS POSSIBLE, SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT I HAVE IT OUT THERE IN '26-'27, BECAUSE THEY SEEM VERY AGGRESSIVE, AND THEY WANTED TO ACCOUNT FOR THEIR AGGRESSIVE NATURE.

>> WHERE IS THIS AT? >> SORRY. THIS IS THE LOOP HERE. 130 YEAR. AND SO THIS IS CHANDLER ROAD APPEAR. SO IT IS THIS CHUNK OF LAND HERE. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING, LAST I HEARD, IT WAS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING BASICALLY ALL OF THIS LINE FOR US.

>> THANK YOU. >> WITH THAT FLOW INTO THAT DEVELOPER BUILT ONE THAT IS IN CONSTRUCTION IF YOU GO FURTHER

DOWN? >> NO. IT FLOWS INTO THIS 24 INCH. THESE ARE ACTUALLY TWO SEPARATE LINES. YOU JUST CAN'T SEE IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PIXELS WORK. I THINK IT WAS A 12 INCH LINE ON THE SIDE AND IN A NICHE LINE ON THE SIDE THAT

TIES IN. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. I SAID THE LAST ONE, BUT IT WASN'T THE LAST ONE.

NOW THE LAST ONE. COTTONWOOD CREEK INTERCEPTOR PHASE ONE.

[01:55:01]

US. >> OVERSIZING? UPSIZING?

>> IT IS BASICALLY CREATING A PARALLEL LINE TO GIVE US THE CAPACITY WE NEED TO THE CENTRAL PART OF TOWN.

>> RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT 18 INCHES?

>> IT GOES FROM AN 18 TO 24 TO A 27. AND WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING

IS A 36 UP TO A 42. >> YOU ARE NOT REPLACING THE OTHER ONE, YOU'RE JUST GOING PARALLEL TO IT ?

>> THAT'S HOW MUCH CAPACITY IS GOING TO SERVE, IS DOUBLE.

>> WILL YOU DECOMMISSION THE OLD LINE EVENTUALLY, OR STILL

PLAN ON USING BOTH? >> BOTH.

>> SORRY. THAT SOUNDED REALLY LOUD.

>> SO DO YOU THINK 2028 IS AN ACCEPTABLE TIMEFRAME?

>> MAYBE '27. >> THE REASON I PUSH IT OUT TO 2028 IS THE SAME REASON I USED ON THIS NATURAL PLANT, IS BECAUSE OF THE FUNDING CONSTRAINTS WE WERE UNDER. THIS WAS THE EARLIEST WE COULD GET IT IN BASED ON THE FUNDING

CONVERSATIONS WE ALREADY HAD. >> SPLITTED THROUGH '25 AND '26. IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE DO BETTER ON -- WHERE I SEE THE KIND OF CONVERSATION COMING UP IS, YOU GUYS TELLING US EACH YEAR WE ARE GOING TO GET, SAY, $15 MILLION. WE MAY SAY THE FIRST YEAR, 15 MILLION, WE COULD BANK IT ADVOCATE MY 26 OR '27, AND THEN A '28, WE CAN PARENT WITH THE NEXT. AND I SEE IT AS ALL THESE ARE DESIGNED. LIKE YOU SAID, PULL THEM OFF THE SHELF. THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO SPEND THE MONEY ON STUFF

THAT IS PROBABLY NOT NEEDED. >> IT'S NOT LIKE NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, THAT'S NOT A PROJECT THAT IS EVER NOT GOING TO BE NEEDED. AND THAT DESIGN IS NOT GOING TO FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE. MAYBE A REFRESHED COUPLE OF YEARS LATER UNTIL THE CONNECTION WAS ADDED OFF THE LINE.

>> MY POINT IS, YOU ARE ALREADY AT THE LINE. NOTHING'S BEEN CONNECTED TO IT, YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE. YOU MAKE SURE YOU HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION THAT ARE CURRENTLY

NEEDED. >> I'M LOOKING AT NUMBER 25 --

>> NO. >> 27?

>> NO, TO '26. >> OH, THE DESIGN. OKAY.

>> OKAY . AND THAT'S IT ON WASTEWATER , OTHER THAN THE 42 INCH LINE . AND LIKE I SAID, I CAN ADD THAT TO THIS LIST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO SHOW AT THE SAME WAY AS

DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION. >> I THINK WE HAVE TO SHOW IT .

UNTIL WE GET THE NEW AGREEMENT. THEY NEED TO SHOW IT, THAT WE NEED TO PAY THE FULL AMOUNT. BECAUSE IT IS GOING TO BE ON

THE WASTEWATER IMPACT FIELD. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> YES, WE HAVE THEM ON THE HOOK TO BUILD IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE AN OUTSIZED COST. BUT IF WE TAKE OVER THE PROJECT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FULLY FUND THAT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE IT AS, DID IT FULLY FUNDED. HOW CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WE DO THAT IN '25? IT HAS TO BE FULLY FUNDED IN '25 BY US IN CASE WE PAYBACK LENNAR TO TAKE OVER THE DESIGN.

[02:00:04]

>> COULD WE GET A QUICK REFRESHER OF THE 212, KIND OF

JUST LOOKING INTO NEXT YEAR? >> I WAS GOING TO ASK HOW MUCH THAT, IF ANY.

>> DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION -- THAT WOULD JUST BE OUR PAYMENT.

>> YOU ARE ASKING HOW MUCH THE 212 IS?

>> I'M ASKING FOR THAT, AND COUNCILMAN KOHLER IS ASKING FOR

-- >> OKAY, IT LOOKS LIKE RIGHT HERE, ALMOST FIVE, IN THE SOUTHERN WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH WE'VE ALREADY FUNDED, IS IT CORRECT? AND THEN 11 -- OKAY. THAT MAKES ME FEEL BETTER. THANK YOU.

>> 48, 58, 59, 60 -- 63 MILLION.

>> A LOT OF THE STUFF IN FY '25, A LOT OF THE STUFF THAT WE ARE SHOWING A '25 OTHER THAN WHAT WE JUST WENT OVER WAS ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE DEBT ISSUANCE WE JUST DID. SO IT WOULDN'T BE NEW DEBT. IT WOULD BE THE DEBT WE JUST

BORROWED. FOR FY '25. >> YES.

>> OTHER THAN WHATEVER WE JUST MOVED OVER.

>> WHERE IS THE IRON REMOVAL ON THIS LIST?

>> IT'S IN WATER. >> I NOTICED IN THE WATER LIST, IT DID GET MOVED TO NEW DEBT, NOT THE EXISTING DEBT. THAT MEANS WE ALREADY MOVED IT OUT OF THE EXISTING ISSUANCE, WHICH I AM OKAY WITH, AS LONG AS IT IS ON THE LIST. BECAUSE THAT IS THE DIRECTION WE ARE MOVING IN. BUT THAT MEANS THEY FREED UP 20 MILLION. AND SO HAVE WE SUCKED UP THAT 20 MILLION INTO OTHER PROJECTS? WHICH WE SHOULD DO. AND THEN THAT MAY REDUCE THE NEW DEBT IN '25 BY POTENTIALLY UP TO 20 MILLION. AND IT'S OKAY

IF WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET. >> WE HAVEN'T DONE IT YET, I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT. BECAUSE I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT CAME OUT OF

EXECUTIVE THURSDAY NIGHT. >> AS WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS, AS LONG AS WE ARE OKAY AS A COUNSEL IN SAYING, WERE NOT GOING TO COUNT THE IRON REMOVAL UNDER THE CURRENT ISSUANCE, THAT IT WOULD BE NEW DEBT IF WE END UP HAVING TO PAY FOR IT AFTER ALL. IF WE ARE OKAY WITH THAT DECISION, WHATEVER THE NEED THAT NUMBER IS A '25, WE CAN MENTALLY REDUCED BY 20 MILLION. AND THAT CAN JUST BE FIGURED OUT.

>> WE ARE FINE. >> THERE MAY STILL BE NEW DEBT

, THOUGH. >> YES, BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT YEAR. I'M SAYING FOR THIS YEAR, FOR THEY CANNOT 25, WE MOVED UP AVERY RANCH FOR COST. IT JUST MOVED UP THE DESIGN OF THE CENTRAL LINE, WHICH WAS 205. SO WE ARE AT 4.5 MILLION IN '25. I'M JUST SAYING, IF WE FREED UP THE 20 -- HOPEFULLY THE DEAL HAPPENS, BUT IF NOT, WE STILL HAVE IT ON THE LIST FOR THAT DECK IN MY 26 ISSUANCE OF THE 23 MILLION. AS LONG AS WE STAY UNDER 25, IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE RATE WE JUST SET FOR RESIDENCE FOR WASTEWATER, BECAUSE IT'S

ALREADY BEEN CALCULATED. >> THIS IS THE NEW STUFF WE DONE SO FAR, RIGHT? STARTING TO -- GO UP A LITTLE BIT. THAT IS THE FOUR THAT ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR. IT WOULD BE NEW DEBT OR NEW FUNDING FOR. JUST SO FAR UNDER WASTEWATER.

>> NO, IT'S ALSO LINE 1.4. >> WE SPLIT IT INTO 25 AND 26.

>> JUST 25. >> CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT THAT? CAN YOU MAKE THOSE A COLOR? THE BOX? THE ACTUAL BOX. NO, JUST

FOR '25. >> WE ARE GOING TO SEE WATER GOING UP, WASTEWATER IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO UP. TAXES ARE

GOING UP. >> JUST THE ONES THAT WE

CHANGED. >> 37, 38, 39, PLEASE. MAKE THOSE A DIFFERENT COLOR. THERE WE GO. AND THEN DO 141 , AND THAT CENTRAL LINE , WHEREVER IT WENT. THE DESIGN FOR THE --

>> THAT IS '26. >> OKAY. IT IS $5.4 MILLION.

[02:05:15]

>> DID WE DELETE ANYTHING FROM '25?

>> WE DID REDUCE '25. >> WE MOVED THOSE TWO TO DECK

IN MY 26. >> OH, I SEE. THEY WERE THE

NON-DEBT. OR NEW DEBT. >> I KNOW THAT YOU PLAN ON ADDING THE 42 INCH LINE, AND THEN I GUESS WHENEVER IT COMES TIME FOR , I GUESS, THE BUDGET TO MAYBE HAVE AN APPROXIMATE COST, I KNOW THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE VERY HARD TO GET DONE IN THAT TIMEFRAME, BUT JUST SOMETHING AS TO, YOU KNOW,

WHAT WE CAN EXPECT FOR '25. >> I WILL WORK WITH ALBERTA AND WE WILL GIVE IT ALL TO JAMES AND WHEN HE PRESENTS THE BUDGET IN TWO WEEKS, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU GUYS.

>> SO WE WOULD HAVE THOSE FOUR PLUS DESIGN. IF NOT, '25, IT'S EITHER GOING TO GET DONE OR WERE GOING HAVE TO TAKE OVER THE DESIGN. SO THE DESIGN COST TO BE INCLUDED IN '25 EXPENDITURES. PLUS THESE FOUR . AND THEN HOPEFULLY THAT'S UNDER THAT 20 MILLION, AND WE ARE AT LEAST OKAY .

>> I AGREE. THAT GIVES US THE ONE PROJECT THAT IS KIND OF CRITICAL THAT WE DO HAVE MONEY AVAILABLE IF WE NEED TO SPEND

IT THIS YEAR. >> WHY WOULD WE DO DESIGN WHEN WE ARE NOT DRIVING THE SEAT OF THE DESIGN?

>> IT WILL EITHER GET DONE BY THEM OR WE TRIGGER AND TAKE OVER. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE WORKING OUT. YES, IF WE AGREE TO YOUR PUMP AND HALL, IF YOU DON'T BUILD THE LINE BY X DATE, WE TAKE OVER YOUR DESIGN SO WE DON'T HAVE TO START OVER, WHICH MEANS WE WILL HAVE TO PAY THEM FOR THE DESIGN AND THEN FINISH THE DESIGN WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM AND SUBMITTED TO UNION PACIFIC AND ALL THAT HAS TO HAPPEN IN FISCAL YEAR '25. SINCE WE WANT TO PROTECT OURSELVES, WE NEED TO INCLUDE THE COST OF WHAT THAT DESIGN WOULD BE IN '25 SO THAT DOESN'T DERAIL OUR PROJECT. CONSTRUCTION, MIGHT BE '26 OR '27. AND YES, THERE WOULD BE AN UPSIZE CHARGE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT, SO WE KNOW IT WOULDN'T BE THE FULL PRODUCTION COST. BUT FOR SURE, IT THE DESIGN SITE AT THAT POINT.

>> I AGREE. A RISK RIGHT NOW , WE NEED TO COME UP WITH A BUNCH OF MONEY WE DON'T HAVE OR DELAYING A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO DELAY THE IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR THE CITY VERSUS THE RISK HERE IS, WE BUDGETED THE MONEY WE DIDN'T HAVE TO SPEND NOW AND WE CAN JUST PUT IT TO THE NEXT PROJECT IN LINE, AND THAT'S A RESPONSIBLE WAY TO DO IT. I AGREE 100%.

>> AND I JUST POINT OUT ONLINE 141, THAT'S A PROGRAM, SO WE WON'T BORROW MONEY FOR THAT. IT WILL COME OUT OF PROBABLY THE IMPACT FEE FUND FROM THE DEVELOPER. SO IT WON'T BE A

DEBT ISSUANCE FOR THAT. >> IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ACCELERATED AT THE END OF THIS, WE MAY POTENTIALLY

HAVE THE FUNDS. WE WILL SEE. >> OR AT LEAST THE DESIGNS.

>> SO NOW WE ARE READY FOR WATER? I WILL DO THE SAME THING. I WILL JUST KIND OF JUMPED PAST THESE TOP PROJECTS, BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY HAPPENING THERE . YOU CAN SEE THEY ARE IN PROGRESS AND FULLY FUNDED, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT THOSE. MOST OF THEM ARE EITHER IN DESIGN OR CONSTRUCTION ALREADY. WE WILL JUMP DOWN TO -- ACTUALLY, I WILL JUST TELL YOU. MOST OF THE WATER PROJECT , WE PUSHED THEM OUT. BUT WE'VE GOT IRON REMOVAL IN HERE. I WASN'T AWARE OF THE CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED THURSDAY NIGHT, SO I'M STILL SHOWING IT AS 2026. WE CAN MOVE IT HOWEVER THE COUNCIL WANTS TO OR WE CAN MOVE IT AS A PLACEHOLDER. KIND OF LIKE WHAT

WE ARE DOING WITH THIS -- >> I THINK YOU LEAVE IT THERE, BECAUSE WE WILL EITHER HAVE AN AGREEMENT OR WE WON'T.

>> HOPEFULLY HE GETS REMOVED ALTOGETHER, BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD PLACE TO PUT THEM.

>> WHAT YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT FROM THE FUNDING, CORRECT? THE

BORROWING? >> THAT IS STILL GOING TO SHOW UP IN THE COST THAT WE PAY RECHARGE. SO IT ISN'T GOING AWAY. IT'S JUST, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ISSUE THE DEBT AGAINST

WHAT YOU HAVE AUTHORIZED. >> IT WILL STILL AFFECT PEOPLE'S POCKETBOOKS, IS WHAT I AM SAYING.

[02:10:02]

>> OKAY. SO I PUSHED THE EMERGENCY INTERCONNECT OUT TO 2030. MY RATIONALE BEHIND THAT WAS THAT IT WAS ORIGINALLY SLATED IN 2023, BUT BECAUSE HE VENTURED INTO THE TWO WATER RESERVATION AGREEMENT , WE NEVER PULLED THE TRIGGER ON ACTUALLY DOING THIS. IT WAS BASICALLY A CONNECTION WITH ANOTHER WATER PROVIDER IN CASE WE CAME INTO A SITUATION WHERE WE HAD TO HAVE A MUCH BETTER INFLUX SUDDENLY. WE NEVER PULLED THE TRIGGER ON THE PROJECT. SINCE WE HAVE THE TWO WATER RESERVATION AGREEMENT NOW WITH RECHARGE AND -- THANK YOU.

>> LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, RECHARGE WAS NOT ADDITIONAL WATER. IT IS WATER REPLACING -- FOR INSTANCE, IF THE LINE OUT TO THE COUNTY CARRIES 5 MILLION GALLONS FOR PUMPING OUR WELLS MAX, AND ALL RECHARGE IS DOING IS TESTING THE STRAIN OF THE PUMPS, WE CAN'T GET MORE THAN THAT THROUGH THE PIPES. IT'S NOT GIVING US MORE WATER, IT IS JUST TAKING THE STRAIN OFF THE PUMPS. IS THAT NOT CORRECT?

>> IS PARTIALLY CORRECT. WE ARE ESTIMATING THAT THE PIPE BETWEEN SHILOH AND FRAME SWITCH CAN CONVEY SOMEWHERE JUST OVER 5 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. OUR WELLS CURRENTLY PRODUCE ABOUT 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. THE RECHARGE AGREEMENT IS ANOTHER 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. SO THE CONVERSATION THAT I'VE HAD WITH RICK IS, MOST LIKELY WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WE WOULD TAKE THE 4 MILLION GALLONS WE ARE GETTING FROM RECHARGE AND THEN REDUCE THE AMOUNT WE ARE PULLING FROM OUR WELLS, SINCE IT'S A TAKE OR PAY WITH RECHARGE. IT MAKES SENSE TO TAKE IT. IT WOULD TAKE THE 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY FROM RECHARGE, SUPPLEMENTED WITH 1 TO 1 1/2 MILLION GALLONS OF OUR WATER, SO WE WOULD TECHNICALLY GET ON EXTRA 1.5 MGD OF WATER

FROM THE RECHARGE AGREEMENT. >> AND THAT IS ONLY UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT WE DECIDE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO

CONVEY MORE WATER, RIGHT? >> YOU COULD, BUT THE POINT IS, THING YOU COULD DO IT IF YOU EVER GOT IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU NEEDED TO. THERE IS A NET INCREASE, IT'S JUST NOT ALL 4 MILLION IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE PUMPED. THAT'S WHY WE ARE DOING THE PRESSURE TESTING TO DETERMINE EXACTLY HOW MUCH WE CAN MOVE WITH THE EXISTING FACILITIES.

>> SO TODAY, WE PUMP APPROXIMATELY HOW MUCH IN JULY? HOW MUCH WATER ARE WE PUMPING THROUGH THE PIPE? 4 MILLION

GALLONS? >> I WILL DEFER TO RICK ON THAT ONE.

>> HE IS NOT LIKE YOU, CHIEF. HE TALKS A LITTLE SOFT.

>> THIS TIME OF YEAR, IT'S ANYWHERE FROM 2.5 TO THREE MGD PUMPING CAPACITY CURRENTLY. SO AS OF TODAY, I WILL GET AN UPDATE, AND IT WILL SHOW UP SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 2.5 AND 3 MGD. THAT IS HER CURRENT RATE RIGHT NOW.

>> WE ARE PUMPING 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY. THE WELLS ARE 4 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, AND THE PIPE CARRIES APPROXIMATELY --

>> WERE ESTIMATED BETWEEN 5.6 AND 5.5 MILLION GALLONS.

>> OKAY. IF YOU GO BACK TO THAT PAGE YOU GUYS BROUGHT UP BEFORE

ABOUT THE DEBT SERVICE . >> THIS ONE?

>> YEAH. OKAY. SO WE ARE TALKING WATER ACCOUNTS INCREASING 15%, 15%, 10%, 5.9 . AND SO IF YOU GO UP JUST A LITTLE BIT, WHAT IS THE YEAR ON THIS?

>> THIS IS AT THE TOP. THE YEARS ARE DOWN HERE.

>> TODAY, WE ARE AT 900 ACCOUNTS. SO WE ARE 9100 TODAY.

AND I KNOW THIS IS NOT APPLES TO APPLES. BUT THE 9100 ACCOUNTS EQUAL 3 MILLION GALLONS. I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THESE WATER QUOTES ARE JUST HUTTO .

>> THESE ARE WATER CUSTOMERS. WATER ACCOUNTS.

>> THAT EQUATES TO 3 MILLION GALLONS. AND YOU GO UP -- I'LL HAVE TO DO THE MATH REAL QUICK , BUT IF YOU GO 12%, 15, 15, 10 -- THAT COMES IN RIGHT ABOUT THERE, RIGHT?

[02:15:03]

>> THAT COURT IS SUPPOSED TO COME ONLINE IN '26, SUE WOULD COME ONLINE RIGHT AROUND HERE. OH, RECHARGES '26.

>> RECHARGES '26 . >> FEBRUARY OF '26 IS THE LAST

DAY. >> '28? FIRST, I WANT TO STOP, BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY STARTING TO MISS ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOUR MATH THAT'S WHERE YOU WANT TO GO.

THAT IS NOT OUR ONLY WATER SOURCE. WE GET WATER FROM TAYLOR. SO OUR TOTAL PRODUCTION LEVEL FOR THE ENTIRE CITY THAT WE CAN PRODUCE RIGHT NOW IS THE FOUR-POINT WHATEVER MILLION GALLONS THAT WE HAVE PERMITTED, +800,000 GALLONS A DAY. IS THAT RIGHT, THROUGH MANVILLE? NO, ARE WELL PRODUCTION. WE COULD PRODUCE UP TO 4 MILLION GALLONS AT THE WELLS.

>> OKAY. WITH THE MAYOR IS GOING TO WANT TO CALCULATE, IF I AM READING WHERE YOU ARE GOING CORRECTLY, IS -- WELL, MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE TALKED ABOUT THIS DIRECTLY OR NOT. IF WE HAVE 9100 ACCOUNTS USING THAT MUCH WATER TODAY, AND OUR GROWTH RATE PROJECT THIS MANY MORE CONNECTIONS, THEN THAT IS X AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL CAPACITY THAT SHOULD BE BEING GENERATED. AND WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO MEET THAT DEMAND BASED OFF OF THE CONSTRICTIONS THAT WERE BEING DISCUSSED AT RECHARGE. HOW IS THAT?

>> IF THEY COME IN '27 , THEY'D BE THE FIRST ON TIME.

IN '27, IF WE GROW 9, 12, AND 15 AND ALL THIS STUFF COMES ONLINE, DOES OUR CURRENT 4 MILLION -- 4 MILLION GALLONS AND 9% IS, WHAT? 4.3 MILLION ?

>> SEE THAT ONE MORE TIME. >> 307,000.

>> IT WOULD BE LESS THAN 10%. >> 4.3, YOU GO UP ANOTHER 10%, WHICH IS ANOTHER 400. ROUGHLY IN FIVE YEARS YOU EDIT 5

MILLION GALLONS. >> WE CAN MOVE -- WE CAN --

YES. >> 3 MILLION GALLONS OF THE WELL SUPPLEMENTED WITH TAYLOR AND MANVILLE GETS US TO 4

MILLION. >> WE ARE ABOUT 2.5 FROM THE HEART OF TEXAS, AND THEN WE GET ADDITIONAL BETWEEN MANVILLE -- THE 3 THAT I JUST MENTIONED THIS WITH THE OTHER WATER

PROVIDERS. >> THE USAGES 3. THE MAX IS GOING TO BE 4. YOU GET INTO IT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO -- I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE SUPPLY. IF THE PIPE HOLDS 5.5 , AND TODAY WE ARE RUNNING -- HOW MUCH WATER TO THAT PIPE? I THOUGHT YOU SAID WE ARE PUMPING 3 MILLION.

>> RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE OF THE PEAK, WE GO UP AS HIGH AS DO THE TESTING, WE DID UP TO 3 MILLION EXISTING. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE ARE CONSUMING ABOUT 2.5 FROM THAT PIPELINE.

>> I THOUGHT YOU SAID 2.5 TO 3 MILLION IN JULY.

>> WE HAVE GOTTEN UP TO THE MAX CAPACITY IN THE SUMMER AND WE DO ANTICIPATE TO MAXIMIZE OUR PUMPS -- EXISTING PUMPS -- RIGHT NOW. WHICH, IN ORDER OF RUNNING TO PUMPS OR SOMETIMES EVEN THREE. WE WILL GET UP TO THE 3 MILLION THAT WE ARE PUSHING FROM SHILOH FROM OUR EXISTING PUMP STATION.

>> I'M GOING TO USE 3 MILLION JUST FOR MINE. AT LEAST 3 MILLION WE ARE PUMPING IN, AND I'M GOING TO -- WE HAD THE 9%, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE 3.3 , AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO ADD -- WHAT IS IT, 10%? 12%? 3.3 AT 12%. WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, BECAUSE WE KEEP PUSHING THIS GROWTH, AND AT SOME POINT, SOMEONE IS GOING TO STAND UP THERE AND SAY, GUYS, WE HAVE A PROBLEM. WERE HITTING STAGE FOUR BECAUSE PHYSICALLY, WE CAN'T PUMP MORE THAN 5.5 MILLION GALLONS.

[02:20:01]

>> TO SEE THAT REAL QUICK, YOU WOULD TAKE THE 3 MILLION÷9%, LIKE YOU SAID, AND TAKE THE NEW NUMBER, TIMES THE 12%, AND THEN THAT NEW NUMBER TIMES THE NEXT YEAR'S GROWTH, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD STOP. IF THE NUMBER IS LESS THAN 5.5

MILLION, THEN YOU ARE GOOD. >> THAT'S 4.22 . I'M GOING TO SAY ONE MORE YEAR. I'M LOOKING AT '27- '28.

>> GO ONE MORE YEAR THEN.

THAT WILL PUT YOU PROBABLY RUN 4.8, 4.9, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I JUST RAN THE NUMBERS HERE ON THE SHEET. I KNOW YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT. I DID INTO THE GROWTH. ALL I DID WAS SAY, IF WE ARE TAKING 3 MILLION GALLONS A DAY FOR 9100 PEOPLE, THAT COMES OUT TO 329.4 GALLONS PER DAY PER UNIT , PER ACCOUNT.

THAT I MULTIPLY THAT NUMBER TIMES THE 9926, WHICH GROWS IT AT 9%. IN THE 11.17, WHICH GROWS IT AT 12. AND SO ON. IT GETS US TO AN ULTIMATE OF $4.8 MILLION A DAY.

>> IS A WE'VE GOT TO, MAYOR?'S

>> WE GET TO 4.9. THAT'S ASSUMING THE PRESSURE TEST GETS

US THE RESULT WE ARE HOPING. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS RATED AT ALL. WE HAVE BEEN PRODUCING UP TO THREE, THREE POINT FIVE TO SHOW THAT WE CAN DO THAT TODAY WITH THE EXISTING

INFRASTRUCTURE. >> I'M GETTING TO WHERE WE ARE GETTING SO CLOSE. I'M GETTING READY TO START REDLINING IT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE PUSH OUR GROWTH NUMBERS, WE REALIZE THAT AT SOME POINT, WHEN THEY HAVE BEEN ON WATER RESTRICTIONS, THEY FIND THE DELAY AND GET EVEN MORE BEHIND , OR THE PIPE DOESN'T GENERATE THE AMOUNT OF PRESSURE THE WERE HOPING. ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE HAVE A REALLY QUICK CONVERSATION ON, IF WE SLOW DOWN, ALL OF OUR FINANCING IS BASED ON -- EVERYTHING IS BASED ON GROWTH. HOW MUCH CAN WE PHYSICALLY PUT ON THE LINE WITH THIS EFFORT? WHERE THIS IS COMING FROM IS, I DON'T KNOW THAT -- THE ONLY REASON I WAS SAYING ALL THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD PUSH OFF AN

EMERGENCY -- >> YOU GOT TO DESIGN THAT,

RIGHT? >> WE HAVE TO FIND A WHOLESALE PROVIDER WHO WANTS TO INTERCONNECT WITH US, AND WE HAVE TO DESIGN THAT AND THEN CONSTRUCT.

>> GOING AHEAD TO TRY TO GET SOMETHING SET UP, AND HAVE SOMEONE EARLIER TO DESIGN IT. BECAUSE IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, THEY GO BANKRUPT AND THEY CAN'T PHYSICALLY FINANCE ON THE LINE. LITERALLY, THE WHOLE CITY IS MORTGAGED UNDER A COMPANY THAT ONLY HAVE IS IN AGREEMENT WITH US. THERE'S NO

WAY FOR US TO FORCE IT. >> I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WAY FOR US TO FORCE THEM TO BUILD THE LINE AND GIVE US THE WATER . IF THEY GO BELLY UP FOR WHATEVER REASON, I THINK THERE IS SOME PENALTIES, AND I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT IN THE WEEDS ON

THE LEGAL AGREEMENTS. >> IS THERE A POSSIBILITY TO BUY MORE WATER FROM MANVILLE? AND TAYLOR , IF WE GET INTO A

STICKY SITUATION? >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MANVILLE. HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO NEGOTIATE SOME WITH TAYLOR TO GET ADDITIONAL WATER. WITH THEIR CURRENT AGREEMENTS WITH SAMSUNG, I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.

THE OTHER THING, LAST YEAR WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE AND WE WERE TRYING TO FIND ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCES IN ADDITION , WE WERE TALKING TO BRA BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE LINE, AND THEY HAVE -- YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE PROVIDED WATER TO TAYLOR, THEY ARE PROVIDED WATER TO JONAH, AND THEY DID SAY THEY WERE WORKING ON ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AND ONCE THEY HAD ADDITIONAL CAPACITY, THEY WOULD LOVE TO TALK TO US. BUT WE DIDN'T PUSH IT BECAUSE THEY WERE STILL LOOKING FOR CAPACITY AT THE SAME TIME WE WERE. I THINK THEY SAID THEY WOULD REACH OUT TO US

IN '26. >> COUNCILMEMBER, REAL QUICK ON THAT. MANVILLE HAS GONE ONTO THE RECORD TO SAY THEY ARE NOT SELLING US ANY MORE WATER AND WHEN OUR CONTRACT IS UP, THEY WANT THEIR WATER BACK. THAT HAS PARTLY BEEN PLAYING INTO OUR PORTFOLIO AND WHAT WE HAVE BEEN REPOSING AND PLANNING. AS FAR AS GETTING MORE WATER FROM OTHER WATER PROVIDERS , THE BEST OPTION ON THE TABLE FOR A FUTURE PARTNERSHIP IS WITH THE CITY OF TAYLOR, OR WITH JONAH . PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE CONNECTIONS OR THE ABILITY TO HAVE A CONNECTION WITH THOSE UTILITIES. TAYLOR HAS THEIR OWN WATER ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE, BUT SOME NUANCES OF THEIR CONTRACTS WITH BRA AND WHAT

[02:25:04]

ALSO, WE COULD POTENTIALLY LOOK AT RENEGOTIATING OUR DEAL AND POTENTIALLY ASKING TO PROCURE MORE WATER THROUGH THE NORTH.

AS OUR FACTS CHANGE, WHAT WE DO IN MANAGEMENT AND THEN LEADERSHIP IS THAT WE HAVE TO CHANGE OUR PLANS BASED ON THE SET OF FACTS THAT ARE BEFORE US. RIGHT NOW, WE ARE ANTICIPATING RECHARGE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS SHOULD WE HAVE TO GO PURSUE THEM. BUT MANVILLE IS NOT ONE OF THEM.

>> TAYLOR IS ONE, AND POTENTIALLY BRA '26.

>> I WAS A TAYLOR, JONAH, AND THEN BRA. JUST BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SO COMPLICATED TO GET THE WATER FROM BRA TO US. BUT TAYLOR ALREADY CONNECTS WITH US, AND TAYLOR COULD EASILY SAY, WE WILL INCREASE YOUR ALLOTMENT, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO PAY THIS RATE OR WHATEVER. JONAH, IS THIS WHAT THIS INTERCONNECT IS? THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED?

>> IT'S JUST THE EMERGENCY INTERCONNECT.

>> WITH? >> THAT'S THE THING, WE NEVER

FOUND ANYBODY. >> WHATEVER. IF YOU DID WITH JONAH, YOU DID WITH TAYLOR, THOSE OF BEER TWO CHOICES TO DO

IT WITH. >> TODAY, WITHOUT AN

INTERCONNECT -- >> IF WE DID IT WITH TAYLOR AND JONAH, WE ALREADY HAD INTERCONNECTIONS. THAT'S OF THE CITY MANAGER SAYING. THERE WOULDN'T BE A DESIGN, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY CONSTRUCTION. IT WOULD JUST BE RENEGOTIATING

OUR CURRENT CONTRACT. >> JUST SAVED 8 MILLION.

>> THAT'S WHAT I DO. I SAVE YOU GUYS MONEY. OKAY. SORRY. I JUST TOTALLY LOST MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT. MOST OF THE WATER LINE PROJECT YOU WILL SEE, WE PUSH THAT UP TO 2030. THE EXCEPTIONS ARE THE WATER LINE, AND THERE ARE SPECIFIC REASONS. LET ME JUMP OVER TO MY WATER MAP TO SHOW YOU THIS ONE. IT IS THE ONE I HAVE HERE IN GREEN. AND THE REASON WHY I AM SHOWING THAT ONE IS, AS YOU SAW ON THE WASTEWATER PROJECT MAP, WE HAVE PROJECTS COMING IN HERE IN THE SOUTH. AND WHILE THEY SHOW THAT WE CAN TECHNICALLY PROVIDE THEM SERVICE , AND WE CAN TECHNICALLY ALLOW THEM TO START CONSTRUCTION, ONCE THEY GO TO FULL BUILDOUT, THEN THEIR FIRE FLOWS START GETTING CALLED INTO QUESTION, BECAUSE THERE'S NOT ENOUGH WAY TO GET WATER IN ONE DIRECTION. AND SO PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM IS, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO BUILD THIS LINE? THAT'S WHY I'M SHOWING THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PRIORITIZE ON THE 2028 JUST FROM A LIFE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE FOR THESE DEVELOPERS SO THEY CAN FINISH THEIR DEVELOPMENTS OUT. THEY ARE BUILDING THEIR OWN WATER LINES, THEY ARE DOING UPSIZING ON ALL OF THAT STUFF.

WE ARE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR THAT IN THIS PROJECT. BUT THAT'S WHY I'M SHOWING THIS PARTICULAR LINE OUT HERE IN 2028. PLUS THE FACT THAT OUR NEW WATER TOWER SHOULD TECHNICALLY BE COMING ONLINE, AND WE WOULD WANT TO CREATE THAT LOOP ANYWAY TO KIND OF MAKE OUR SYSTEM MORE ROBUST.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? SHOULD WE SHIFT IT, LEAVE IT? OKAY. SO THE NEXT TWO WE PUSHED OUT TO 2030. SAME THING FOWE DISCUSSED IN WASTEWATER. JUST LET THE DEVELOPERS FIGURE THAT OUT. IF WE NEED TO ACCELERATE SOMETHING LATER, WE CAN PULL IT BACK IN. BUT FOR NOW, WITH WHAT WE KNOW TODAY, I THINK WE SHOULD PUSH THEM OUT TO 2030. JUST KEEP THE PLACEHOLDERS AS WE REVISIT THE CIP IN FUTURE YEARS, WE CAN BRING IT BACK.

>> I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE IS

[02:30:01]

EDC AS A CORPORATION, THEY DON'T KNOW WE ARE PLANNING ON FUNDING WHATEVER THAT PROJECT IS. I DON'T WANT TO TO COME BACK, ANOTHER CITY HAS TO DO IT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T PUT IT IN OUR AGREEMENT. SO NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THESE, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME TRIGGER FOR OUR OTHER UNITS SO THEY DON'T GET SIGNED WERE THERE NOT INCLUDING THAT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK IT'S OKAY FOR ME TO SAY THIS. PART OF THE CONVERSATION I'VE HAD WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND WITH JEANNIE FROM THE EDC IS, BECAUSE OF EVENTS THAT HAVE HAPPENED ASSOCIATED WITH SPINE ROAD AND OTHER THINGS THAT ANY TIME THERE IS AN AGREEMENT FROM THE EDC'S PERSPECTIVE , THAT IT WOULD INCLUDE CONVERSATIONS WITH ENGINEERING AND THE MANAGERS SO THAT ALL OF US ARE ON THE SAME PAGE, ALL OF US ARE OPERATING FROM THE SAME UNDER HANDING SO WHEN IT EDC PROJECT CALMS AND THEY SAY, THE EDC AGREED THE CITY WAS GOING TO DO THIS, AND THE CITY SIDE OF THINGS WAS ALREADY IN THE LOOP.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE COVERING THAT BASE.

>> THAT IS GREAT, BECAUSE ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE STAFF IS TELLING EDC THE GOOD AND THE BAD, IT'S THE CITY MANAGER AT

THIS POINT. >> YEAH, THEY ARE.

>> OKAY. THE ONLY OTHER PROJECT I AM SHOWING -- YOU CAN SEE THERE IS ONE RIGHT HERE, BUT THE ONLY OTHER ONE THAT I AM SHOWING IN THE CURRENT CIP IS IS HIGHWAY 79 WESTERN WATER LINE CROSSING. LET ME JUMP TO THE BACK REALLY QUICK SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE THAT IS. RIGHT HERE, KIND OF THE CENTRAL PART OF HUTTO. IN MY THINKING THERE IS, AS WE ARE MAKING ALL OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS, ADDING MORE TOWERS, ADDING MORE PUMPING CAPACITY, THIS EXTRA CONNECTION BECOMES PIVOTAL IN ENSURING THAT WE GET ALL OF THE CORRECT PRESSURES IN THE CENTRAL PART OF TOWN, AND SO AS WE CONTINUE TO GET CLOSER TO BUILDING OUT IN BOTH PRESSURE PLANES, THAT BECOMES UNIMPORTANT INTERCONNECTION, AND THAT SO THAT'S WHY I'M SHOWING THIS

ONE OUT THERE IN 2028. >> WHAT IS THE WATER

RECLAMATION ? >> WATER RECLAMATION, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SEE IS FUNDED WITH NON-DEBT. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED LAST YEAR, BECAUSE WE ARE UPGRADING THE SOUTHWEST WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO BE ABLE TO DO TYPE ONE RECLAMATION OF WATER . ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING WAS EXPANDING -- IF YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH AUSTIN, THE PURPLE PIPE TYPE SYSTEM. AND THIS IS TO START KIND OF LAYING OUT A NETWORK OF PURPLE PIPES.

IT IS JUST TO BARELY SCRATCH THE SURFACE. IS CURRENTLY, WHEN WE GET THE SOUTH PLANT DONE, IF YOU WANT TO USE RECLAIMED WATER, GOING TO BE THE PULLEY TRUCK UP, LOADED UP, AND THEN USE IT. AND SO ULTIMATELY, FOR WATER CAPACITY REASONS, AND JUST GOOD ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP, WE WOULD WANT TO START CREATING OUR OWN PURPLE PIPE WATER RECLAMATION SYSTEM SO THE IRRIGATION LINES, FOR EXAMPLE, INSTEAD OF PULLING POTABLE WATER IN THE GROUND, WE WOULD HAVE RECLAIMED WATER. IT IS JUST A START, PLANNING THAT EFFORT IN GETTING US INTO THAT FRAME OF MIND. SO THAT'S WHY IT IS A SMALL NUMBER. IT'S WHY

IT IS SHOWN IS NOT DEBT. >> I AM IMAGINING -- IN ORDER TO GET THE WATER OUT OF THE PLANT, TO THE MEGA SITE, YOU WILL NEED IN 8, 12, SOMETHING INCH WATER LINE, RIGHT?

>> THAT WILL BE FOR THE PLAN. THAT WILL EFFECTIVELY BE FOR THE PLAN, AND IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN CAPITAL COST.

>> WERE STRUGGLING TO GET WATER EVEN JUST TO THE CURRENT LINE.

OR THE PARALLEL LINE JUST FOR IRRIGATION. IT SEEMS TO BE CHEAPER -- I KNOW WE ARE NOT MAKING THIS EASIER FOR NEXT YEAR, BUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORSE BENDING 10, MAYBE $100 MILLION TO BRING THIS WATER INTO AN ENVIRONMENT THAT MAYBE WE WILL BE LOOKING WORTH THE ZERO SKATE AND NOT REQUIRING EVERYBODY TO HAVE SO MUCH LANDSCAPING . I MEAN, AUSTIN SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY, AND

[02:35:05]

WATER THAT IS RECLAIMED. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT'S NOT SO MUCH ABOUT THAT AS IT IS ABOUT EVERY DROP OF RECLAIMED WATER THAT YOU CAN PUT TO USE IS ONE DROP OF POTABLE WATER YOU DO NOT HAVE TO PROCURE IN THE FUTURE.

AND THAT IS REALLY WHAT IT'S MEANT TO BE FOR. LET'S SAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE A RECLAIMED SYSTEM AT ALL . AND WE INSTEAD DECIDED TO DO DIRECT POTABLE REUSE. WE PUT A WATER TREATMENT PLANT AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND PUMPED IT INTO WATER TREATMENT, TREATED IT, AND HAD ANOTHER 6 MILLION GALLONS A DAY OF DRINKING WATER. YOU CAN DO THAT, BUT THE CAPITAL COST FOR A WATER TREATMENT PLANT, AND OF COURSE, THE PERCEPTION OF TOILET TO TAP IS NOT ALWAYS PLEASANT, THAT ASIDE, THE CAPITAL COST OF A WATER TREATMENT PLANT , YOU ARE SEEING WHAT IT IS COSTING US TO BUILD A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. SO IMAGINE 200, $300 MILLION FROM THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT TO THEN HAVE MORE POTABLE WATER. YOU CAN BUILD A RECLAIMED SYSTEM, USUALLY, FOR MUCH LESS THAN THAT AND EFFECTIVELY GET THE SAME THING. BECAUSE FOR EVERY DROP THAT PEOPLE ARE NOT USING OF POTABLE WATER, THAT IS ALLOWING YOUR EXISTING SUPPLY TO GO FURTHER INTO THE FUTURE.

>> THAT ALL MAKES SENSE. A CITY WITH A CCM'S EXPANSIVE . UNTIL WE FIGURE OUT WHAT THE MAXIMUM, AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE MAXIMUM CITY AMOUNT OF WATER WE CAN PUMP OUT. WHEN WE HAVE THAT NUMBER, THAT I THINK WE CAN START MAKING PLANS ON WHAT HAPPENS IF WE GO ABOVE THAT. BECAUSE WE MAY BE PRODUCING MORE WATER THAN WE EVER NEED .

>> THAT IS THREE YEARS OUT, SO WE HAVE EXACTLY TIME TO DO

THAT. >> I'M JUST GIVING OUT SOME --

>> FAIR ENOUGH. >> THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW OUR MAXIMUM USAGE YET. WE MAY HAVE OVER PROCURED WATER . WE DON'T KNOW.

>> BECAUSE WE ARE DOING SO MANY WASTEWATER PROJECTS, WE ENDED UP JUST REQUIRING THAT THEY COME IN AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN IF IT WASN'T GOING TO BE CONNECTED TODAY, BECAUSE IT WAS CHEAPER WHEN YOU HAVE THE TRENCH OPEN AND EVERYTHING ELSE, IT IS CHEAPER JUST TO GO AHEAD AND PAY FOR SOME ADDITIONAL PIPE TO DROP INTO THE TRENCH , AND TO HAVE IT THERE RATHER THAN HAVE TO GO BACK AND RE-EXCAVATE TO PUT IT IN LATER. BUT, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT, YES. THAT'S THE REASON I THINK THE PLAN IS SEVERAL YEARS OUT, IN ORDER FOR US TO GET TIME TO DO THOSE SORTS OF CALCULATIONS AND DETERMINE IF IT IS SOMETHING WE EVEN NEED TO PURSUE.

>> THE CLAIM TO BE ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS IS NOT A BAD THING. BUT IF YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SCOPE OF THE COST, YOU CAN'T HAVE A REALISTIC DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A GOOD IDEA. JUST LIKE WE HAVE A MASTER PLAN FOR WATER , WE NEED A MASTER RECLAMATION PLAN FOR THE CITY.

IT WOULD BE EIGHT COUNTY DOCUMENT . NONE OF US WILL BE HERE WHEN THAT COMES UP. SO IT WILL BE THE DISCUSSION OF THIS COUNSEL. I MEAN, EVAN MIGHT BE HERE. 2028, THAT COUNSEL CAN DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO DO THE RECLAMATION ENVIRONMENTAL

STUDY. >> SO THAT IS THE LAST.

EVERYTHING ELSE HAS BEEN PUSHED OUT TO 2030 OR BEYOND. SO I'M GOING TO JUMP OVER HERE REAL QUICK TO THE UTILITY , BECAUSE THIS IS THE NEXT PIECE. SO THESE ARE ALL THE PROJECTS.

THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF DEBT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO INCUR, ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO WE WANTED TO SHARE WITH THIS.

>> THAT TABLE HAS NOT CHANGED BECAUSE YOU HAVEN'T MOVED PROJECTS. SO YOU WILL NEED TO GET THE UPDATED VERSION FROM ETHAN, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT HE WAS WORKING ON BACK THERE.

>>'S YOU WANT ME TO WAIT AND WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS?

>> I WOULD COME BACK TO WHAT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT IS ONCE

YOU HAVE THE UPDATED TABLE. >> SO THEN WE WILL JUMP BACK UP TO THE TOP AND WE WILL GO INTO BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES. AND SO YOU CAN SEE , THE SAME SYMBOLS HERE . WHAT I'M SHOWING , THURSDAY NIGHT YOU WERE PRESENTED WITH THE FIRST

[02:40:03]

CONSTRUCTION IN '27. >> AND THE DOLLAR AMOUNT EFFECTIVELY WILL CHANGE BASED ON WHAT THE DESIGNS END UP BEING. THESE ARE PLUG NUMBERS FOR RIGHT NOW .

>> THESE ARE MY BEST GUESS. ON THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, IT'S MY BEST GUESS WORKING WITH RICK. ON THE JUSTICE CENTER, IT'S MY BEST GUESS WORKING WITH CHIEF. ON THE LIBRARY, IT'S MY BEST GUEST BASED ON OTHER THE CITIES. THE AQUATIC CENTER, SAME THING, LOOKING AT OTHER CITIES.

DOWNTOWN RESTROOM WAS JUST A NUMBER THAT WE GOT FROM, I THINK FROM JEFF AT THE PARKS BOARD HELPED COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. AND SO THAT IS KIND OF HOW I HAVE LAID OUT THE BUILDING AND FACILITIES. OBVIOUSLY, ANY OF THIS CAN SHIFT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITY IS STILL THE LIBRARY AND THE REC CENTER OR NOT, BUT THAT IS KIND OF HOW I HAVE LAID THINGS OUT FOR YOU.

>> MY ONE QUESTION ON THE ASSUMPTIONS ONTO THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY, FOR EXAMPLE -- THAT IS TO BUILD UP THE FACILITY. IS THIS CONFLATED TO THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US THURSDAY NIGHT BASED ON WHAT THEY SAID? BECAUSE IF WE ARE LOOKING AT 40 ACRES, I SERIOUSLY DOUBT YOU'RE BUILDING THAT WHOLE THING FOR $20 MILLION. I'M JUST SAYING, WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT, IT'S NOT JUST THE BUILDING. IT'S WHERE YOU PUT IT. AND POTENTIALLY, IT COULD BE A THIRD OR A HALF OR MORE OF THE TOTAL COST.

>> MY ONE CAUTION IS, I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S ANYTHING . I THINK IF THAT IS THE CASE, THAT MAY BE A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN

MAKING A PRIORITIZATION CALL. >> YOU ARE CORRECT. I DON'T HAVE LAND ACQUISITION IN THERE. I DON'T EVEN HAVE THE FULL COST ON WHAT BUILDINGS. LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS JUST RICK AND I TALKING THROUGH WHAT WE THOUGHT IT COULD COST TO BUILD THE BUILDING. IT WASN'T UNTIL WE GOT IT INTO THE PROGRAMMING AND THE PLANNING , WHICH IS WHY WE DO THOSE THINGS. SO THAT WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WE DON'T HAVE A PIECE OF LAND BIG ENOUGH FOR THIS THING. WE HAVE TO GO OUT AND BUY 40 ACRES OF LAND. THAT CHANGES THE SCENARIO COMPLETELY. BUT THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING, THIS IS US TAKING OUR BEST EFFORT AT PUTTING A DOLLAR NUMBER OUT THERE . AT THE END OF THE PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING, WE WILL HAVE A BETTER COST FIGURE, SO WE CAN CHANGE THOSE FIGURES. THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WE WOULD DELETE IF WE WANTED A BOND ELECTION, BECAUSE THEN WE CAN GO TO THE VOTERS WITH MORE REALISTIC NUMBERS.

>> IT IS LAND ACQUISITION FOR GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS.

>> BECAUSE WHAT YOU HAVE, YOU CAN'T BUY A 40 A SPOT. A 10 ACRE, A 20 ACRE, AND USE EXISTING 4.5 ACRES WE HAVE. WE HAVE ONE THAT SAYS, PURCHASED LAND ACQUISITION PURCHASE FOR A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING , AND THE VOTERS SAY, YEAH. WHEN YOU PURCHASE THE LAND, A LARGE PIECE SOMEWHERE, IT WILL BE FOR CIVIC HOLDINGS FOR A LONG TIME. ROUND ROCK AND OTHER CITIES WENT AND BOUGHT LAND. AT SOME POINT, THEY BUILT ON IT. WHAT

[02:45:07]

BECAUSE HOW CAN YOU DESIGN SOMETHING IF YOU DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CASE ? AND LAND DOESN'T GET CHEAPER.

>> EDC HAS HOW MANY HUNDREDS OF ACRES ? I'D LIKE RICK TO BE ABLE TO COME UP AND TELL US , BECAUSE WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS SELL LAND TO SOMEONE AT FIVE DOLLARS A FOOT TO BUILD A WAREHOUSE SO THAT WE CAN THEN GO BUY LAND AT $12 A FOOT. I THINK WE ALREADY TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE LAND. NO OFFENSE TO PUBLIC WORKS, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT THAT IN THE COTTONWOOD AREA, BECAUSE THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING. I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LAND IS LEFT. WE NEED TO START HAVING CONVERSATIONS THERE. IF THERE'S A SITUATION WHERE WE THINK WE NEED LAND, IF YOU SPEND 100,000 ON ACRES OF LAND, YOU ARE AT 4 MILLION BASED ON THAT. I WOULD SAY THIS -- ME PERSONALLY, YOU MIGHT AS WELL DO THE SURVEYS ON THE LIBRARY AND REC CENTER , AND I THINK IN 2026, WE BRING ALL THE PROJECTS THE PUBLIC, AND AT SOME POINT, WE NEED TO ASK THE PUBLIC WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. WE KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD, WE KEEP WAITING, WE DEBATE WHETHER WE NEED IT. I THINK IF WE ARE HONEST WITH THEM, TELL THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS A $10 MILLION LIBRARY THAT'S GOING TO COST YOU EXTRA $80 A YEAR, WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. IF THEY SAY YES, WE BUILD THE LIBRARY. THEY SAY NO, WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THE LIBRARY BE AS SUCCESSFUL AS POSSIBLE. SAME WITH THE REC CENTER. THE PEOPLE SAY THEY WANT TO SPEND 50 MILLION, RAISE YOUR TAXES BY 50 MILLION. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THEM ALL THE INFORMATION OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST ,

750,000 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN. >> CORRECT.

>> THINGS LIKE THAT, IF YOU GIVE IT TO EVERYBODY WITH THE PLAN, AND THEN YOU DEBATE THE PLAN THAT GOES TO THE VOTERS, LIKE I SAID LAST MEETING, IF WE WANT THE YMCA OR AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THEM TO RUN THE REC CENTER, THEN THAT SEEMS OH AND M, BUT THERE'S STILL A COST. IF THE CITY RUNS IT, THEY SOUGHT TO PAY MEMBERSHIP FEES, POTENTIALLY. I THINK WE HAVE TO GET EVERYTHING DONE AND SEND IT OUT TO THE VOTERS AND THEY CAN MAKE THE DECISION GOING FORWARD. I THINK WE ARE APPEAR TO MAKE BIG DECISIONS . NOT $50 MILLION DECISIONS. I THINK THE PUBLIC -- EACH DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO JUSTIFY TO THE PUBLIC WHY THEY NEED $53 MILLION . AND THERE'S REASONS TO BE THERE, BUT THE CHIEF DOES A GOOD JOB OF COMING UP AND TALKING ABOUT IT. AND AS A COUNSEL, ARE THERE OTHER OPPORTUNITIES? DO WE REALLY BE THAT $53 MILLION JUSTICE CENTER TODAY, OR DO WE NEED A SATELLITE STATION THAT GETS US ANOTHER THREE OR FOUR YEARS, OR POLICE DEPARTMENT VEHICLES, WHATEVER WE NEED.

EVERYTHING CAN'T BE A $53 MILLION FIXED. WE WANT OUR RETENTION RATES TO BE DOWN , BECAUSE WE HAVE SUBPAR FACILITIES. WE HAVE THE BEST FACILITIES IN THE METRO AREA AND THE BEST PAY, AND WE JUST CAN'T AFFORD IT. IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS JUST OKAY. I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING TO IS, I WOULD MOVE THE STUDY FOCUSED TO THE REC CENTER.

>> SO THE REC CENTER AND THE AQUATIC CENTER, WHERE THOSE ON TWO SEPARATE LINES? AS I ASSUME THEY WILL BE TWO SEPARATE FACILITIES IN BOTH RUN BY THE CITY?

>> YES, THE REC CENTER WAS JUST THAT. MEETING SPACE, GYMS, THAT KIND OF THING. JEFF CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS BETTER THAN I CAN. THE AQUATIC CENTER WAS MORE LIKE POOLS AND SPLASH PAD AND, AGAIN, JEFF CAN SPEAK TO THAT BETTER THAN I CAN.

>> YES. GOOD MORNING, STILL, COUNSEL. JEFF WHITE, DIRECTOR PARKS AND REC. IF YOU CHOOSE TO COMBINE THEM, THAT IS FINE.

[02:50:04]

AND AN AQUATICS FACILITY. >> PERSONALLY, I AM AGAINST HAVING A CITY RUN REC CENTER AND A CITY RUN AQUATIC CENTER.

THOSE THINGS ARE -- THEY COST THE CITY MORE MONEY THAN THEY ARE WORTH. YOU KNOW, ESPECIALLY AFTER THURSDAY'S PRESENTATION FROM THE YMCA, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A REGIONAL YMCA THAT WE CAN SEE INTO -- HOW DO I SEE IF THEY WANT TO PUT INTO IT, ASK TAYLOR, TAYLOR CITY, ASK WILLIAMSON COUNTY. YOU KNOW, WE GET SKYBOX TO SEE IF THEY WANT TO PUT IN SOME MONEY, SAMSUNG.

WE HAVE SO MUCH THAT OUR PIECE OF THE PUZZLE WOULD BE SO LOW.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US REPLACE THOSE TWO WITH MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE THAT. AND THEN IT GETS SENT TO THE VOTERS, ASK HIM IF THAT'S WHAT THEY REALLY WANT. IS THAT WE WANT? YES OR NO? TAYLOR CAN ASK THEIR VOTERS, YOU CAN ASK THEIR CONSTITUENTS WHAT THEY WANT TO

FUND. >> I SAY THIS, JUST FOR THE CITY STAFF TO KIND OF WORK WITH THOSE PARTNERS, AND THEN FIGURE OUT NEXT STEPS AS FAR AS -- THEN WE NEED TO DO A STUDY ON A MORE REGIONAL THING, BUT WE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE ON BOARD, FIRST. WE CAN'T JUST ASSUME THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CS.

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE NEED TO FIND OUT WHO REALLY WANTS TO

PARTICIPATE. >> WE MIGHT NOT BEAT TO DO THAT STUDY INTO WE ARE PARTNERS OF THE TABLE.

>> THEY ARE NAMING A COMMITTEE. THEY HAVE SUGGESTED NAMING THE HEAD OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS FOR SAMSUNG AS ONE MEMBER, AND THEN HAVING TAYLOR CITIZENS AS THE OTHER MEMBERS. THEY ARE LOOKING AT THIS ROAD. I THINK WE AS A POLITICAL BODY -- THERE IS A POLITICAL DECISION HERE. WE HAS A POLITICAL BODY, AS A COUNSEL, NEED TO CONTACT THE TAYLOR COUNSEL AND HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT DOING A JOINT PROJECT. BECAUSE IF WE THINK A JOINT PROJECT MAKES SENSE, THIS IS THE TIME TO TALK TO THEM. IF THEY THINK IT MAKES SENSE, AND HIS TWO POLITICAL BODIES, WE CAN SET EVERYTHING ELSE IN MOTION TO START DOWN THAT PATH.

IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO GO DOWN TWO SEPARATE PATHS.

>> WE WANTED TO BE CITY RUN, OR ARE WE OKAY WITH THE Y OR SOMEONE LIKE THE WHY -- BECAUSE IT IS REGIONAL. I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. WE MAY SAY WE WANT TO REACH OVER, AND THAT'S A DISCUSSION WE CAN GO HAVE WITH TAYLOR. WE SAY, LOOK. WEATHERBY REGIONAL -- BECAUSE YOU CAN BUILD IT REALLY NICE, AND YOU COULD CHARGE HUTTO PEOPLE, AND TAYLOR PEOPLE PAY 50% MORE. AND THEY MAY PUSH , HEY, WE REALLY WANT TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT.

BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DECIDE WHO IS GOING TO RUN IT, BECAUSE THERE IS -- THERE IS A STAFF , WITH A PARKS BOARD IS NOT IN FAVOR OF A YMCA FACILITY. AND SO I THINK WE NEED TO SET THE TONE ON WHAT IT IS. BECAUSE IF WE SAY WE DON'T MIND IT BEING RUN BY THE YMCA OR ANOTHER NONPROFIT -- I FORGOT THE OTHER ORGANIZATION. THEN WE CAN THEN MAKE -- THE M■AYOR PRO TEM AND I CAN MAKE INROADS WITH THE CITY OF TAYLOR, ASK TO HAVE A MEETING, AS TO HAVE A JOINT MEETING, AND WE MAY HAVE A JOINT CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO TALK ABOUT A REC CENTER. I

THINK FIRST, WE HAVE TO BE -- >> MAYOR, WHAT IS THE HARM IN TASKING THE EDC -- WE TALK ABOUT THEY HAVE LAND, THEY ALLOCATE MONEY TO PROVIDE INCENTIVES TO BUSINESSES, RIGHT? WHAT IS THE HARM IN TASKING THEM WITH, HEY, THE OVERALL ATMOSPHERE IN THIS CITY IS THAT FOLKS WANT TO EXERCISE, WHETHER IT BE A YMCA, A GYM, WHATEVER. WHAT IS THE HARM IN TASKING THEM WITH, HEY, ONE OF YOUR INITIATIVES THAT WE REALLY WANT IS FOR YOU GUYS TO PARTNER OR FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET A GYM TO THE CITY. AND UTILIZE YOUR CONTACTS, UTILIZING INCENTIVES, FIGURE OUT STRATEGICALLY HOW TO DO THAT, AND THAT IS JUST SOMETHING THAT IS OFF OF OUR PURVIEW. THAT'S AN INITIATIVE FOR THEM TO WORRY ABOUT. THEY GIVE US UPDATES, AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ESSENTIALLY A YM CA, HOW TO FUND IT, HOW TO STAFF IT. THEY ARE WORKING TO GET A GYM, THEY

[02:55:01]

>> THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. WE ARE WORKING AS A BODY TO WORK WITH

TAYLOR. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP IS. IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A WHOLE LOT BETTER TODAY.

>> THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE YMCA?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D BE ABLE TO WORK WITH US ON A DEAL

LIKE THAT. >> I TALKED TO THREE OTHER COUNCILMEMBERS , AND TWO OF THEM ARE VERY OPEN TO THE POSSIBILITY OF A REGIONAL THING. THEY THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR CITIZENS WOULD SAY. BUT A COUPLE OF THEM SAID, YEAH. THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO IT. I HAVE TO GET MORE INFORMATION, TO GET MORE DATA. THEY HAVE BEEN JUST STARTING THE PROCESS, LOOKING INTO IT. DON'T KNOW WHETHER SAMSUNG WOULD WANTED TO BE MORE IN TAYLOR RATHER THAN IN HUTTO.

AGAIN, THEIR FRAMEWORK -- YEAH, LET'S TALK MORE.

>> THE TASKING OF THE EDC, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM DIRECTION. IT WOULD ALSO BRING POTENTIAL JOB OPPORTUNITIES, AND ALSO REVENUE STREAM INTO THE CITY WITH SOME SORT OF JIM , AND THAT IS AN INITIATIVE THAT CITY COUNCIL DIRECTLY GAVE TO EDC TO DO IN FY '26 OR FY '27. THEY WOULD HAVE THE BACKING OF COUNSEL, AND THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD EASILY ALLEVIATE THIS CONSTANT BACK AND FORTH ON, HEY, DO WE PUT IN AQUATIC CENTER? DO WE PUT A BIGGER YMCA? COULD WE PARTNER WITH? THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD SOLUTION THERE.

>> I THINK IT'S TWO THINGS. YOU BROUGHT UP L.A. FITNESS.

ONE, GENERATING SALES TAX, BECAUSE IT'S ALL SERVICE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO FIT THE NEED OF WHAT PEOPLE IN THE PUBLIC OR WANTING IN TERMS OF A REC CENTER, WHETHER SENIOR PROGRAMMING, THERE IS FOR CHILDREN AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE ARE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED SOME SORT OF COMMUNITY

CENTER TO RUN THAT. >> THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE YMCA TO PROVIDE THOSE OPPORTUNITIES THAT OF THE SERVICES RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM USE THEM AS THAT.

>> BUT I DON'T WANT ANY PRIVATE COMPANY TO PROVIDE SERVICES THAT EITHER A CITY RUN COMMUNITY CENTER OR A YMCA COMMUNITY CENTER WOULD PROVIDE.

>> THE YMCA HAS THAT AND CITY COMMUNITY CENTERS HAVE THAT.

>> I AM SAYING YOU ALLEVIATE THE NEED FOR A GYM, AND THE

YMCA BECOMES OUR COMMUNITY. >> A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THEIR MEMBERSHIP IS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO BE A GYM. IF YOUR IDEA IS TO JUST HAVE THE YM'S EA THE OTHER STUFF OTHER THAN A GYM AND HAVE A SEPARATE GYM, I DON'T THINK A YMCA WOULD BE VIABLE. NOW, I THINK THERE IS A NEED IN THIS CITY ESPECIALLY AS WE ARE GROWING TO HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL GYM.

>> PEOPLE WHO MAKE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY ARE JUST NOT GOING TO GO WORK OUT AT THE YM'S EA.

>> YOU CAN HAVE A YMCA ANY PRIVATE GYM AND I THINK THEY WOULD BOTH BE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS TOWN.

>> AND THERE'S A CROSSOVERS WITH OTHER PROJECTS. THERE'S A LOT OF SPORTS THINGS IN ONE PLACE. IT WOULD FIT IN BY THE TYPE COMPLEX IN THE BUILDING. THAT KIND OF THING , IT EDC

BRING SOMETHING LIKE THAT -- >> THIS NEEDS TO BE CITY

DIRECTED, I THINK. >> I HAD Y SD PARTNERING WITH THE L.A. FITNESS . IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> I DON'T KNOW YOU ALL WOULD BE UP FOR THIS, BUT I FOLLOW YOU ON THE YM'S EA AND THE EXPANSION AND REGIONAL AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF, BUT THINKING ABOUT JUST A COMMUNITY CENTER FOR RESIDENTS TO HAVE MEETING SPACE, IS A SOMETHING THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD BREAK OFF SEPARATELY THAT WOULD BE CITY

RUN? >> THAT'S I THINK THE OLD YMCA BECOMES. WE ON THAT BUILDING, RIGHT? IF YOU HAVE A NEW YM'S EA ON THE EDGE OF TOWN YOU WANT DEVELOPED, WE COULD PROGRAM IT

FOR THAT. >> WE WOULD SHIP ALL OF THOSE NUMBERS OVER TO WHERE WE ARE AT A?

>> YOU HAVE TWO. THAT CURRENT LOCATION WOULD BE CLOSED DOWN

[03:00:04]

>> PEOPLE WOULD STILL EXIST. >> GOOD SOLID NOTE. APPRECIATE IT. THAT'S ALL WE HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU.

>> SO WE CAN GET SOME KIND OF DIRECTION, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO MAKE AN ACTION ITEM TO WHERE THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND I TRIED TO SET UP MEETINGS WITH THE CITY OF TAYLOR AND HAVE A JOINT COUNCIL MEETING TO DISCUSS TWO CITIES WORKING TOGETHER?

>> 100%. >> SHOULD BE AT AN ACTION ITEM, ARE YOU OKAY WITH US JUST GOING -- JOINT MEETING TO DISCUSS JUST THE POSSIBILITIES. AND THEN THEY CAN ACT ON RESPECTIVE COMMUNITIES. AND REALLY, I PERSONALLY DON'T CARE IF IT'S ON THE LAST. I HAVE NO PROBLEM. I DON'T KNOW FROM REFINANCING STANDPOINT HOW FAR THE MONEY CAN GO.

>> YEAH, YOU WOULD CREATE SUMS SORT OF PARTNERSHIP CONCEPT, ALTHOUGH THIS PUBLIC -PUBLIC. THERE IS WAYS TO STRUCTURE IT.

YOU CAN DO IT. DALLAS, FORT WORTH, THEY FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO AN AIRPORT BETWEEN THEM, THOUGH --

>> IF YOU JOINED TOGETHER, YOU COULD HAVE A REALLY SIGNIFICANT

NICE FACILITY. >> CEDAR PARK AND LEANDER, WHAT ARE THEY DOING ? THEY WORK TOGETHER ON THAT, AND I THINK

THERE'S WAYS . >> SO GET BACK TO THE CIP ASPECT. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION TO PRY WHAT WE NEED TO DO WITH NUMBERS. HOW MUCH DID THE EXISTING FACILITY -- HOW MUCH DID THE EXISTING FACILITY TO THE YMCA COVER THE CAPITAL COST OF? HOW MUCH DID THE CITIZENS PAY FOR THE BUILDING VERSUS HOW MUCH DID THE YM'S EA PAY FOR THE BUILDING

QUESTION MARK >> IT'S A $10 MILLION

FACILITY. >> WAS THAT IN THAT

PRESENTATION? >> IT'S NOT A LOADED QUESTION, I AM ASKING BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER. OKAY. SO AS FAR AS THE NUMBERS GO, IF WE PARTNERED WITH THE YMCA, WE WOULD BASICALLY STILL BE INVESTING THE BULK OF THE CAPITAL THAT WE ARE SHOWING. YOU WOULD STILL BE ISSUING DEBT. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF, MAYBE YOU ARE GETTING A BETTER BUILDING, OR BECOMES THAT A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THE YMCA IS PARTNERING THAT WITH THEIR FUND, OR MAYBE SOME ECONOMY SCALE BECAUSE WE ARE PARTNERING WITH TAYLOR. THE QUESTION IS, IS THE DOLLAR THAT WE ARE SHOWING FOR THESE FROM FACILITIES, THAT A GOOD NUMBER TO KEEP HIM FOR THE CIP PLAN FOR THE PURPOSES OF DISCUSSIONS? AND IF SO, AND THEY MAY COME DOWN OR WHATEVER A LITTLE BIT THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO MOVE THROUGH THE CIP, WHICH IS BASICALLY -- THE MONEY DOESN'T GO AWAY BECAUSE WE PARTNERED. WE STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ISSUED DEBT AND GO CONTRIBUTE.

>> I WOULD CHANGE THE NUMBERS .

>> I AGREE. BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ALL THE SAME PAGE WITH THAT. ALL YOU TAKE AWAY IS THE O AND M COLUMN.

THAT'S IT. >> IS THE ONLY CHANGE THAT I THINK WE ARE ASKING.

>> I BROKE MY MICROPHONE EVIDENTLY. 200,000. OKAY.

>> AND I JUST AT ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION? IT SOUNDS LIKE COUNSEL IS PRETTY MUCH IN ALIGNMENT. TO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK'S STATEMENT ABOUT LAND, IT SOUNDS LIKE -- I MAY NOT HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING CORRECTLY. WE MOVE THE 200,000 IN THE '25, BUT WE WANT TO PUSH THE CONSTRUCTIONS START FOR THESE PROJECTS TO MORE LINED UP WITH EVERYTHING ELSE SO THAT WE CAN GET LAND, WE CAN ACQUIRE LAND. IF WE NEED TO NEGOTIATE WITH TAYLOR, WE CAN. DID I HEAR CORRECT THAT WE WANT TO WAIT TO LINE EVERYTHING UP FOR ONE BIG ELECTION?

>> '26 IS DESIGNED, RIGHT? '27 IS STARTING CONSTRUCTION?

>> TO BE, I WOULD BRING UP THE LIBRARY AND THE ARCTIC AND THE

[03:05:08]

>> WE COULD TELL THE VOTERS WHAT OUR INTENTION IS, AND WHICH EVERYONE GETS THE HIGHEST PERCENTAGE, WERE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH FIRST. BUT WE CAN'T LEGALLY BIND ANYBODY TO THAT, BECAUSE COUNSEL WOULD CHANGE.

>> I'M THINKING NEXT YEAR, WE GET SOMETHING LIKE THAT. WE CAN'T SPEND -- I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS. WE CAN'T SPEND $151 MILLION OVER THREE YEARS. WE ALL WANT TO SEE THIS A PRIORITY. WE COULD DO THAT IN '25, WE CAN MOVE IT UP TO '26. AND THEN THE PEOPLE CAN MAKE THE DECISION. IF THEY WANT TO RAISE THEIR TAXES BY THAT MUCH, AND YOU RAISE IT BY THAT MUCH, AND YOU GO BREAK GROUND. DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A NONBINDING VOTE NEXT YEAR?

>> THE ONLY THING I WORRY ABOUT IS, WILL WE HAVE ALL THE DATA AND -- WE HAVE ACCURATE ESTIMATES FOR ALL THE PROJECTS FOR THEM TO KNOW? BECAUSE WHAT'S IT GOING TO COST ME?

>> YOU COULD EFFECTIVELY ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING BY USING YOUR SURVEYING TOOLS. BECAUSE THOSE ARE STATISTICALLY RELEVANT. YOU COULD EFFECTIVELY DO A TARGETED SURVEY USING THE SAME STATISTICAL STYLE THAT WE HAVE DONE TO PULL PEOPLE TO ASK THEM TO INFORM WHAT THE COUNSEL THINKS THAT THE PUBLIC WANTS TO

SEE . YOU COULD DO THAT. >> WE BE DOING THAT COMMUNITY

SURVEY. >> THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF IN THE COMMUNITY SURVEY. IF YOU WANT TO ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION, YOU WANT THESE FOUR THINGS, YES OR NO? AND IF YOU DO RANK THEM, RIGHT, AND SEND THAT OUT, AND YOU HAVE DATA BACK THAT WOULD GIVE YOU A PRETTY GOOD IDEA OF WHAT THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY WANTS, AND IT WOULD BE STATISTICALLY VALID.

>> IT CAN'T JUST BE A POLE THEY GET SENT OUT? IT HAS TO BE DONE TO A COMPANY THAT DOESN'T DO A METHODOLOGY THAT MAKES IT

STATISTICALLY RELEVANT. >> RIGHT.

>> THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, COULD WE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION PUT POINT WHERE WE COULD SAY -- IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT A POOL, EVERYBODY SAYS YES. YOU WANT TO HUNDRED $50 A YEAR? SOMETHING TELLS ME THE SUPPORT STARTS WAVERING. WE COULD HAVE A VERY EDUCATED GUESS WHAT IS GOING TO COST?

>> I THINK SO. THE PREFACE THAT BY SAYING, THERE'S TWO METHODOLOGIES. THERE'S ONE THAT IS PRETTY ACCURATE, AND THERE IS ONE THAT IS NOT ACCURATE, BUT WORKS. THE ONE THAT IS NOT ACCURATE BUT WORKS IS BASICALLY WHAT WE HAVE DONE HERE. THIS IS WHAT WE THINK IT'S GOING TO COST, BUT WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. THE ACCURATE ONE IS TO GO THROUGH THE PLANS, GET THE PLANS DONE. EVERYONE IN HERE POKES OF THE PLANS AND GETS THE PLANS TO WHERE THIS REFLECTS WHAT WE THINK IS THE RIGHT THING TO BUILD. NOW, ENGINEERS GIVE US YOUR BEST COST AND CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE. NOW WE HAVE AN ACTUAL NUMBER. SOME CITIES WILL JUST GO TO THE VOTERS AND SAY, HEY, GIVE US $50 MILLION TO GO BUILD THESE ROADS WITHOUT HAVING DONE ANY OF THE PREP WORK. THEY STARTED WHILE THE DESIGN, AND SCOPES CHANGE. THERE ARE THINGS YOU DIDN'T THINK ABOUT, AND SUDDENLY THE COST IS MUCH HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU THOUGHT. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND WE DO THAT. I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND YOU GO TO THE VOTERS WITH JUST A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND SAY WE WILL BUILD THESE THINGS WITHOUT HAVING DONE THE LEGWORK FIRST, TO HAVE A DIAL DOWN TO PRETTY CLOSE. YOU MAY BE OFF BY FIVE OR 10% WITH CONTINGENCIES, BUT THE IDEA THERE WOULD BE, YOU FINISH YOUR PLANS. THE COUNCIL DECIDES THAT WHAT IS BEING RECOMMENDED IN THE PLAN IS SUITABLE FOR OUR COMMUNITY, AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE THAT, WE CAN PRICE IT. YOU ALL KNOW WHAT I MEAN. WE INCLUDE ALL OF THAT. YOU HAVE A BETTER ESTIMATE AT THAT POINT IN TIME, TOO. THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU DO. THE REASON I SAID I HESITATE, COULD WE GET THROUGH THE OTHER TWO PLANS BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR? PROBABLY. PROBABLY. THESE TWO

WILL BE DONE. >> SO IF YOU DO THE LIBRARY AND '25, AND WE ASK THE Y TO DO THE AQUA CENTER, THE AQUATIC

[03:10:02]

CENTER -- >> THE STUDY ?

>> THE STUDY. WHICH I'M SURE THEY WOULD DO. THEN THAT WOULD HAVE ALL THAT WE NEED. MAY '26, WE CAN HAVE AN ADVISORY VOTE AND WE CAN HAVE IT BASED ON THAT . WE COULD THEN GO TO THE VOTERS IN NOVEMBER OF '26 , AND BY '27, WE ARE BREAKING GROUND. WHETHER THEY SAY TO DO IT OR NOT, WE ARE GOING TO HAVE

TO DESIGN SOMETHING. >> AND THAT ALSO ALLOWS US NEXT YEAR TO DO SOMETHING FOR THE POLICE.

>> CHANCES ARE, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO -- I'M SORRY,

I CUT YOU OFF. >> THAT ALLOWS US TO GO '25

FOR THE ELECTION . >> SO WE WOULD BE PUSHING A PUBLIC WORKS AND POLICE ANOTHER YEAR?

>> I'M NOT SAYING WE MOVE IT AT ALL. I'M SAYING, IF WE GO

OUT IN '26 -- >> YOU DO AN ADVISORY VOTE, AND '25. AND THEN A '26, YOU BRING IT TO THE VOTERS TO VOTE

BASED ON THE ADVISORY VOTE. >> TECHNICALLY, YOU COULD PROBABLY DO IT IN THE NOVEMBER ELECTION OF '25, TECHNICALLY.

BUT REALISTICALLY, EVEN IF THEY DID THE VOTE IN NOVEMBER AND YOU IMMEDIATELY WENT TO GO ISSUE DEBT, WE WOULD BE ISSUING DEBT PROBABLY IN JANUARY ANYWAY. PERSONALLY, I WOULD ONLY DO THAT IN NOVEMBER. WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND SAY, IT'S YOUR FAULT WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE.

>> WHATEVER. I'M SAYING, THAT WOULD BE THE EARLIEST. OF COURSE, YOUR NEXT OPTIONS -- YOU ONLY DO IT IN MAY OR NOVEMBER. YOUR NEXT OPTION WOULD BE -- ARGUABLY, ISSUING THE DEBT TAKES ABOUT ANOTHER 90 DAYS.

>> IS THEIR STOMACH FROM ANYBODY TO MOVE THE POLICE STATION OF PUBLIC WORKS TO 25?

>> YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT THE COUNSEL USUALLY WOULD LEAN TOWARD CHOOSING TO NOT FUND THAT WITH ACO. THEY WOULD USUALLY CHOOSE TO FUND THAT WITH A GEO, WHICH REQUIRES THE VOTERS TO APPROVE. IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO DO THAT, THERE IS A VERY NARROW WINDOW TO CALL THE ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER. YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE CALLING THE NOVEMBER ELECTION PRIOR TO HAVING THE STUDIES COMPLETED. I BELIEVE THAT'S

TRUE. >> WHERE ARE WE FOR THE STUDIES OF POLICE AND PUBLIC WORKS?'S

>> PUBLIC WORKS WAS JUST PRESENTED, AND I THINK -- WHAT WAS THE SCHEDULE FOR FINAL DELIVERY? BY SEPTEMBER. BUT I WOULD THINK -- IF MEMORY SERVES, I THINK THE LAST DAY TO CALL THE BOND IS LIKE THE FIRST OR SECOND WEEK OF AUGUST. I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH DOTTIE TO SEE FOR SURE.

>> WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED DELIVERY ON THE PD FACILITY PLAN?

>> I THINK NOVEMBER '25 NEEDS TO BE THE GOING OUT FOR ASKING.

>> SO THAN THOSE WITH STAN '26 TO ACCOMPLISH NOVEMBER '25.

>> CORRECT. >> HE WOULD DO NOVEMBER OF '25,

CORRECT. >> LIBRARY, WRECKED, AND

AQUATIC CENTER OF THE '26? >> I THINK YOU JUST NEED TO DO

THE DESIGNS. >> WE MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE 4.5 TO $20 MILLION SITTING AROUND TO PREPAY DESIGN.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. THEN YOU ARE ABLE TO GO TO THE

VOTERS. >> SO YOU WANT THEM ALL IN THE SAME COLUMN, AND THEN EVERYBODY PICKS? IN NOVEMBER, FROM

EVERYTHING RIGHT HERE? >> THE NUMBERS OF '25, ARE

THOSE THE DESIGN NUMBERS? >> THAT'S THE STUDY.

>> AND THE 800 AND 200 ARE THE DESIGN? I DON'T THINK THAT'S EQUIVALENT. BE GOING TO THE VOTERS IN PSYCHOLOGY WANT TO DO

A STUDY? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE WOULD BE STRAIGHT UP FUNDING THE DESIGN.

>> AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE NON-DEBT COLUMN -- I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE. I SAID THAT WRONG. THE STUDY SHOULD BE PAID FOR, NOT WITH AN AUDIT THAT IS YET TO HAPPEN. WE SHOULD PAY FOR THOSE EITHER WITH OUR FUND BALANCE OR WITH COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND THEN WE CAN REIMBURSE IT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO AFTER YOU ISSUE THAT. YOU REALLY NEED THOSE STUDIES TO HAVE A SCOPE. IDEALLY, COUNCILMEMBER CLARK,

[03:15:04]

NOT. >> WE HAVE A SURVEY COMING A

'26, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. IT IS EVERY TWO

YEARS. >> AND WE PAY THEM TO DO A

TARGETED STUDY IN BETWEEN? >> YES.

>> I THINK YOU ARE GETTING A BETTER NUMBER . DESIGNING EVERYTHING TO GET A HARD COST, AND THEN THE STUDY WOULD GIVE YOU A PRETTY GOOD NUMBER. WE NEED 80 MILLION FOR THE SCHOOL, AND IT PASSES, THEN THEY GO OUT AND THEY DESIGN IT, AND SOMETIMES UNDER, SOMETIMES OVER. I DON'T CARE IF THE REST OF IT MOVES, HONESTLY, BUT IT WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TAKE OUT THE O AND M FOR THE REC CENTER AND FOR THE AQUATIC CENTER.

>> I AM FINE WITH THAT, YEAH. >> I DIDN'T BRING A THING, SO

-- >> THEY COULD JUST DIRECT STAFF

TO DO THAT. >> HE WANTS TO MAKE SURE THERE

IS CONSENSUS. >> I WANT DIRECTION, I WANT THE PARKS BOARD TO KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL AS WE SEE IT TODAY, WE EITHER ARE OR NOT IN FAVOR AND WE WANT THEM TO KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE CITY OPERATIONAL OFF THE TABLE. SOME PEOPLE ARE PLANNING BUDGETS. CAN WE SAY WE WANTED TO BE RUN BY THE CITY? AND I THINK JAMES NEEDS TO START WORKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT ON, HEY, IF THIS COMES TO FRUITION, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THIS AND ALL THOSE PLANS. THAT'S REALLY

WHAT IT IS. >> YOU ARE SAYING REMOVE OWEN AND FROM THE RACK AND THE AUDIT?

>> WE GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF IN THE PARKS BOARD THAT THE INTENT OF, AS OF TODAY, WE ROUNDED UP FOR SALE SHOULD ONE BECOME AVAILABLE. I FORGOT YOU WERE HERE.

>> CAN YOU GIVE ME THE CLIFF NOTES ON THAT?

>> JUST REMOVE THE O AND M FROM THE REC CENTER AND THE AQUATIC

CENTER. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> WAS A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ALL RIGHT. HEARING ON,

LET'S CALL A BOAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. GORDON.

COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. COUNCILMAN OR KOHLER.

COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. MAYOR SNYDER.

>> MOTION IS PASSIVE , 7-0 . WE WILL HAVE A YEAR TO FIGURE THAT OUT. ARE YOU GUYS DONE WITH FACILITIES? OR I GUESS, THAT

PART OF THE FACILITIES? >> THE ONLY THING WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT IS, LIKE I SAID, IS --

>> ULTIMATELY, ONCE WE HAVE THE PLANS COMPLETED, WE WILL KNOW FOOTPRINTS AND SIZES, AND THEN WE WILL HAVE TO DECIDE, AS A BODY, WE WANT TO CO-LOCATE ALL OF THAT INTO EIGHT SINGLE PLACE? DO YOU WANT TO SPLIT IT UP? YOU WANT TO SEND PUBLIC WORKS OUT TO THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT? AND THEN THAT INTERN WILL THEN ALLOW US TO KNOW WE GOT TO GO PROCURER X NUMBER OF ACRES AND DISLOCATION OF TOWN, AND THEN WE CAN PRICE

IT. >> I GET ALL THAT, BUT MY POINT IS, IF YOU WAIT UNTIL 2026 TO SAY, NOW WE NEED TO GO RESERVE LAND, THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GET CHEAPER LAND MAY ALREADY BE

GONE. >> IT WILL DEFINITELY BE GONE, BECAUSE LAND JUST GETS MORE EXPENSIVE.

>> YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, I WILL WAIT TILL 2026 ON THE LAND.

>> I THOUGHT WE JUST AT 40 ACRES.

>> I WOULD LIKE FOR -- I WOULD LIKE FOR STAFF TO PURSUE 40 ACRES IN THE MEGA SITE FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY TO SEE IF

THAT IS FEASIBLE. >> MAKE THAT A MOTION.

>> IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE ADJACENT TO THE MEGA

SITE. >> IT WASN'T THAT THE AGREEMENT? WASN'T THAT THE AGREEMENT THAT WE HAD WITH THE EDC, TO SAY, IT IS EVEN STEPHEN IF, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS ALLOCATE

[03:20:02]

FOR -- >> WE TALKED ABOUT THE MEGA SITE WITH PUBLIC WORKS. THERE WAS A MENTION OF PUBLIC WORKS IN COTTONWOOD, AND WE WERE TOLD THAT WAS NOT A GOOD FIT. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE EVER MENTIONED IT AT THE MEGA SITE.

AT LEAST THAT WAS MY RECOLLECTION.

>> MAKE A DIRECTION TO STAFF. I THINK THIS IS IMPORTANT, TOO.

BECAUSE THEN I THINK IT SENDS A MESSAGE TO THE EDC. AS YOU GUYS

ARE WORKING THINGS OUT. >> HEARING A NOTE WITH A REASON IS FINE. WE JUST WANT TO PURSUE THIS AS AN OPTION BECAUSE IT

MAKES SENSE TO ME. >> CAN WE DO 30? NOT 40?

>> WELL, THEY WANTED 38 ACRES. >> WHAT WE HAVE 4.5 RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT WOULD GET US TO 35. >> HOW ABOUT A PUBLIC WORKSHOP?

>> THE LAND IS ALL THE WAY ON THE EAST SIDE, RIGHT? IT'S NOT

CLOSER. >> HAVE TO SOUND WILL NEED THAT

SITE ANYWAY. >> I'M JUST THINKING THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF STUFF, THEN PUBLIC WORKS.

>> THAT IS THE TRADE-OFF. >> MIDDLE 30.

>> WE ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE THE SOUTHEAST ONE THERE THAT WILL GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CITY, AND YOU WILL HAVE THE ARTERIALS GOING ALL THE WAY OUT.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, IT'S A LOT OF GAS MONEY TO GO ALL THE

WAY OVER THERE. >> WE COULD TAKE OUT THE AMPHITHEATER AND PUT PUBLIC WORKS ON THERE.

>> IF IT'S A BUSY DEBT SERVICE -- CAN YOU SAVE AS A DEBT

SERVICE? >> NO, NOT ON THE RUSHING

CREEK, YOU CAN'T. >> I THINK THIS WILL ALSO SEND A MESSAGE TO WORK WITH PEOPLE AND SAY, LOOK, IF WE WANT 40 ACRES, 30 ACRES, WE PROBABLY NEED TO STRONGLY CONSIDER THIS.

YOU NEED TO COME BACK AND SAY WHAT I WOULDN'T REALLY WORK ALSO. BUT IF HE SAYS IT WORKS, WE SAVE IT OUT AND MAYBE ONE

DAY. >> JUST BALL PARKING WITH TRAINING, LOOKING AT THE MEGA CELLS, THAT'S PROBABLY ABOUT A $13 MILLION PROCUREMENT. FOR 40 ACRES, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> IT'S A GOOD THING WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER SO GOOD RIGHT NOW. SO WE WILL BE A 30 TO 40 ACRE SITE FOR PUBLIC WORKS.

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

VOTE. >>

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. ALL RIGHT . ARE WE READY FOR THE

MAINTENANCE AND AMPHITHEATER? >> ARE YOU SAYING YOU ARE READY TO MOVE ON TO PARKS? ALL RIGHT.

>> WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS, WHEN THE POLICE STUDY COMES IN, THEY WILL ALSO HAVE A RECOMMENDED AVERAGE. WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS, AND IF WE BALLPARK IT, IF WE THINK IT MIGHT BE 15, WE SAY, OH, WE ARE GOING TO LOOK FOR MAY 15 TO 20 ACRE AREA ALSO AS A DIRECTION. SO WHEN THAT END-OF-THE-YEAR PRESENTATION COMES, IT'S NOT JUST THE PRESENTATION. AND THESE ARE THE ACTUAL SITES WE THINK WE CAN DO, AND WE ARE CONSIDERING PRIORITY COTTONWOOD DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY FOR THAT ONE.

>> THAT'S AT THE EDC IS EXPECTING.

>> IS PART OF WHAT THEY PROVIDE TO US IN DECEMBER. OTHERWISE, THEY HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT, AND THEN THEY GO OFF TO TALK TO THE EDC THREE MONTHS LATER, AND THEY COME BACK. WE NEED TO NOTE, THIS IS NOVEMBER OF '25. THIS IS HOW MUCH WE HAVE TO PAY THE EDC BACK. THIS IS HOW MUCH THE POLICE STATION IS GOING TO BE , AND THAT THIS IS THE COST OF THE PHYSICAL BUILDING. AND THAT IS YOUR BUDGET PRESENTATION NOVEMBER OF '25.

I WANT TO DO A SECOND VOTE BASICALLY FOR THE SAME THING, BUT 20 ACRES SOMEWHERE APPROPRIATE IN THE

PRESENTATION. >> I THINK THE EDC IS WELL AWARE THAT IN THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES, WE ARE ALLOCATING

-- >> WE NEED A DIRECT STAFF.

>> YOU ARE MAKING A MOTION TO ADD THE POLICE STATION FOR 15

TO 20 ACRES? >> YES.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT, BUT I WILL ASK IF WE CAN ALSO INCLUDE

LIBRARY. >> YES.

>> PROBABLY FIVE ACRES. >> POLICE STATION LIBRARY SOMEWHERE ON THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES.

>> REMINDED WELL INCLUDE THE POTENTIAL FOR THE REC CENTER.

[03:25:02]

>> MY THINKING -- >> HAVING LAND AVAILABLE IS SOMETHING THAT IS PART OF THAT DISCUSSION.

>> MY BIGGEST WORRY WITH THAT IS THE CURRENT COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES, I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD MAYBE CONSIDER IT NOW. I THINK THAT IS WAY, WAY TOO FAR WEST FOR TAYLOR TO REALLY CONSIDER PARTICIPATING. I THINK WE WOULD LOSE THAT IF THAT WAS OUR PROPOSAL, SO THAT'S WHY -- SO I -- I COULD CERTAINLY PURSUE THIS, BUT I THINK -- OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE OWN THE LAND, I DON'T THINK PUTTING A JUSTICE CENTER INSIDE OF A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THE COTTONWOOD DEVELOPMENT WOULD DO AS MUCH GOOD AS SOMETHING ELSE IN THAT SAME FOOTPRINT. SO WE WILL HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. BUT OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE HAVE THE LAND, GENERALLY, YOU WOULDN'T CONSIDER DOING IT UNLESS YOU NEEDED AN ANCHOR FOR THE SURROUNDING BUSINESSES .

BUCK CITY HALL IS KIND OF FOR CO-OP, SO UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO DO THAT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF -- THERE'S NOT A LOT OF GENERATIVE ECONOMICS THAT HAPPENS BY PLACING A POLICE

STATION, RIGHT? >> I WAS THINKING MORE ON THAT VERY NORTHEAST CORNER , LEASING OUT VALUABLE LAND FOR

COTTONWOOD. >> IF I HAD WHAT UNDERSTAND WHAT HE WAS SAYING, PUBLIC WORKS, WE KNOW FROM THE STUDY WHAT THEY NEED. WE DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT THE POLICE STATION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LIBRARY. EDC HAS ALREADY SAID THEY ARE GOING TO WORK WITH US. I THINK IT'S PREMATURE TO START THROWING OUT ACREAGE NUMBERS. WE DON'T KNOW SIZES, AND THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL US ANYWAY FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, BECAUSE WE ARE TWO TO THREE YEARS AWAY. I THINK THE PUBLIC WORKS ONE WAS IMPORTANT. THIS ONE, THEY ALREADY AGREED. OKAY. POLICE STATION, 15 TO 20 ACRES, THE

LIBRARY, FIVE ACRES. >> JUST MAKE IT 20. THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE CO-LOCATED.

>> I DO KIND OF AGREE THAT THAT WAS ALREADY AGREED TO IN THE

MOTION WE HAD LAST TIME . >> EVEN STEPHEN.

>> AND ABOUT PRESERVING LAND THAT WAS AGREED TO BY THE EDC.

>> I'M JUST NERVOUS ABOUT THROWING OUT THE ACREAGE. IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE CITY OF LIKE, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING LIKE LAKEWAY, I THINK THERE POLICE STATION IS LIKE 900 SQUARE FEET , OR 9000 SQUARE FEET. WHAT DOES THAT ACREAGE LOOK LIKE? WHAT IS IT WITH THE CARS AND ALL THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THEY HAVE? THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE WHAT WE NEED. SO I JUST -- I DON'T THINK THAT IS --

>> GO AHEAD. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, ALL TO ME THIS MOTION IS, THESE TWO MOTIONS TOGETHER TO ME IS JUST SENDING A MESSAGE TO THE EDC. WE WOULD LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER RESERVING SOME LAND FOR PUBLIC WORKS DOWN THE MEGA SITE AND

FOR THE POLICE STATION. >> I THINK WE ALREADY VOTED ON

THAT. >> LISTEN TO OUR MEETING ON MONDAY. WE TALKED ABOUT HOW GRATEFUL WE WERE THAT COUNSEL WENT THROUGH THE EVEN STEPHEN PROCESS WITH US, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT, I THINK IT WAS A LIBRARY, IT WAS A -- I THINK WE TALKED ABOUT PUBLIC WORKS AND WE TALKED ABOUT A JUSTICE CENTER. I DON'T WANT TO SAY YES OR NO.

>> I SHARE SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS, SO I WILL BE VOTING

AGAINST THIS MOTION. >> I JUST KNOW THERE WAS THREE POINTS, AND ONE OF THEM WAS A JUSTICE CENTER, FOR SURE.

>> I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE'S

CONCERNS TO THE MOTION. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> WHEN SHE BRINGS THE >> JENNY:, DID INCLUDE SOME LOCATIONS , AND THE ACREAGE THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE?

>> WIRE ME MAKING THE MOTION WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE

INFORMATION RIGHT NOW? >> THE MOTION IS THE POLICE CHIEF WRINGS HIS REPORT AND IT INCLUDES THAT INFORMATION.

>> THAT HAS NOTH THE AC.

>> I DID NOT UNDERSTAND IT THAT WAY.

>> I WOULD SAY THIS ON THAT MOTION. EVERYBODY GETS PAID A LOT OF MONEY . CHIEF, IF THE PRESENTATION WE HAD THURSDAY , THE CHIEF KNOWS THERE ARE EXPECTATIONS TO MEET ANY VALUE ON STAFF A REQUEST FOR $50 MILLION TO BUILD THE CENTER, I

[03:30:03]

AND I THINK IF THEY ARE JACKING AROUND AND WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS, I THINK STAFF WILL BE LIKE, HEY, THEY REALLY WANT TO KNOW THE DETAILS, WHAT THE PLAN IS. WE KEEP VOTING MONEY, WE SAY HERE'S $20 MILLION. BUT THEN THEY FIGURE, WE NEED TO BE GIVING ALL THE DETAILS. BUT I THINK THE CHIEF KNOWS THAT.

>> I ACTUALLY DON'T WANT THEM TO COME UP AND SAY, HEY, THESE ARE THE THREE LOTS WE THINK ABOUT. BECAUSE THEY GET A LOT

MORE EXPENSIVE. >> I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY TO THAT POINT , BUT PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY -- WE DID NOT CHOOSE THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY FOR THESE REASONS.

>> HAVING COTTONWOOD BE SOMETHING THAT THEY LOOK AT,

ABSOLUTELY. >> WE DON'T NEED THIS MOTION

THEN? >> COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, DID

YOU RESEND, OR NO? OKAY. >> HERE'S WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING. I THOUGHT THE FIRST MOTION TO PASS 7-0 WAS BASICALLY TO JUST SEND A MESSAGE TO THE EDC THROUGH STAFF THAT, HEY, WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PUT A PUBLIC WORKS CENTER , AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO PUT IT ON THE MAIN STAGE. FOR THIS MOTION, I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE SAME THING. IS GIVING -- SENDING A MESSAGE TO EDC THROUGH STAFF TO SAY, HEY, WE KNOW WE NEED TO BUILD A JUSTICE CENTER AND BUILD A LIBRARY SOMEWHERE. WE ARE THINKING THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE FOR THAT, AND JUST CLARIFYING THAT THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT THE SECOND MOTION

WAS. >> USED TO WANT TO SECOND IS

MOTION? >> IS THAT WITH THE MOTION WAS? BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO TELL THEM TO RESERVE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF ACRES FOR THIS. THIS IS ABSOLUTELY WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. THAT'S NOT WHAT I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING. IF THAT WAS THE MOTION, I DON'T WANT TO SECOND THAT. I THOUGHT THE MOTION WAS JUST TO SAY, HEY --

>> IN GENERAL, WHEN WE HAD OUR WORK SESSION, WE BASICALLY SAID, WE ARE GOING TO FORGIVE A BUNCH OF DEBT, AND YOU JUST HAVE TO WORK WITH US ON IT. NOW I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING WAS KIND OF MAYBE SOLIDIFYING A LITTLE MORE TO SAY, HEY, HERE'S SOME THOUGHTS WE ARE THINKING , PUBLIC WORKS OVER HERE, AND WE ARE THINKING POLICE AND LIBRARY OVER HERE.

MAYBE JUST KIND OF TELLING THEM, HEY, HERE'S MORE OF OUR THOUGHTS. GO TALK TO MIDWAY, LET MIDWAY KNOW THAT THE CITY COUNCIL IS KIND OF THINKING ABOUT JUSTICE OVER HERE. AND YOU WORK THAT INTO THE THING OR TWO BACK AND TELL US, THAT'S A DUMB IDEA, DON'T DO THAT. I DIDN'T THINK WE WERE SAYING WE WANT THE SPECIFIC PIECE OF LAND PULLING FOR US.

>> THIS IS A DIRECTIVE TO EDC TO SAVE 20 ACRES FOR A POLICE STATION. IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING?

>> 20 ACRES? >> POTENTIAL. POTENTIAL LAND. I

WASN'T MARRIED ON ACRES. >> SUGGESTED DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH EDC ON POTENTIAL SITES OF THE LIBRARY ON A

COMMON PROPERTY. >> THERE ARE MULTIPLE THINGS

YOU CAN DO TO CHANGE THE SIZES. >> THAT'S RIGHT. SURE.

>> IF YOU DON'T DO SURFACE PARKING, YOU DO STRUCTURED PARKING. IF YOU BUILD OVER STRUCTURED PARKING, THERE'S ALL KINDS OF THINGS YOU COULD DO TO SHRINK FOOTPRINTS.

>> HE'S DIRECTING STAFF TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE EDC THAT ARE DESIGNED ON A POLICE STATION, LIBRARY, THAT KIND OF THING. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT?

>> NO ACREAGE. >> OKAY, PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.

>>

>> SORRY, I LOST TRACK. MOTION PASSES. NOW WE ARE READY FOR

PARKS, RIGHT? >> MR. MAYOR, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO LET YOU IN THE COUNCIL IN PUBLIC AND STAFF KNOW THAT I WILL BE LEAVING AT 12:45. I DO HAVE A

PRIOR COMMITMENT. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> OKAY. SAME THING WITH PARKS. >> WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER US

PRIORITIZE? >> IN 10 MINUTES? I DON'T

BELIEVE THAT WILL MATTER. >> IS OR ANYTHING YOU WANT TO

CONTRIBUTE OR ADD? >> GO AHEAD, AND BEFORE I HEAD

OUT, I CAN SAY SOMETHING. >> IN 10 MINUTES, IS THERE

[03:35:03]

>> OKAY. SO WE ARE LOOKING RIGHT HERE.

>> AS I SEE IT, SOMETHING'S GOT TO CHANGE ON THE ROAD .

THAT'S WHAT WERE GOING TO HAVE THE ISSUE, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH ROAD GOING UP OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

>> OKAY, SO THESE ARE SIDEWALKS. YEAH, SCROLL DOWN, BECAUSE THESE ARE PRETTY MUCH FUNDED AND MOVING, CORRECT? YOU CAN JUST GO AHEAD WITH THE PRESENTATION, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T -- OBVIOUSLY, THINGS THAT ARE ONGOING RIGHT NOW , AND MOVING FORWARD IN PROGRESS AND THEY ARE FUNDED, I HAVE EXPRESSED MY CONCERNS AT A WORKSHOP FOR ROAD 137 IN 1660 SOUTH , REGARDING THE ROUNDABOUT. BUT THAT DID NOT REACH CONSENSUS. SO EVERYTHING ELSE, I AM OKAY WITH. THAT IS

CONTINUING RIGHT NOW. >> I WILL FOCUS ON THE ONES THAT ARE PARTIALLY FUNDED. WE GOT THE DRAINAGE DITCHES THAT THE DESIGN RIGHT NOW. BUT BASED ON PRELIMINARY COST NUMBERS FROM THE ENGINEERING TEAM, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO FINISH THE PROJECT, AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE AN ADDITIONAL $3.6 MILLION NEXT YEAR.

>> FOR DESIGN? >> FOR CONSTRUCTION. YOU HAVE LAKESIDE ESTATES, PHASE THREE . THAT IS ALREADY DESIGNED, BUT BASED ON THE NUMBERS THAT WE HAD LEFT OVER IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO COVER CONSTRUCTION, SO THAT'S WHETHER AN EXTRA $2 MILLION NEXT YEAR. LIVE OAK, THAT ONE, COUNCIL VOTED LAST YEAR TO NOT FUND CONSTRUCTION UNTIL FY '25, AND THE ENTIRE CONSTRUCTION COST HAS BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE CHANGES. SO THAT IS WHY THAT IS SHOWN AS AN EXTRA 9.3 AND '25. THESE NEXT GROUP ARE ALREADY FULLY FUNDED. COUNTY ROAD 163, ONE IS NOT FUNDED AT ALL. WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT, AT LEAST -- I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS WRITTEN, BUT WE HAVE A VERBAL AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER THAT IS DEVELOPING OUT THERE THAT THEY WOULD PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE. AND SO THAT IS -- THAT IS THAT ITEM. AND THE JUMPING DOWN TO -- YOU GUYS ARE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE 132 OVERPASS. THAT IS A DESIGN WE ARE PUSHING TO TRY TO GET IT IN FRONT OF YOU PRR TO GET YOU IN THE CONSTRUCTION. THEN YOU HAVE THE EDGE IMPROVEMENTS. WE STARTED THAT ONE. COUNSEL LAST YEAR VOTED TO ONLY PUT ENOUGH MONEY ASIDE TO DO A SIDEWALK ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE EDGE BENT, AND THEN THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE NORTH INTERSECTION OF LIMBER LOOP.

THAT ONE IS PARTIALLY FUNDED. THE REST OF THE CONSTRUCTION PRICES, ALL THE MEDIAN IMPROVEMENTS THAT CAME OUT OF THE STUDIES ARE NOT FUNDED. YOU HAVE THE EXCHANGE BOULEVARD RECONSTRUCTION, SO THAT IS IN DESIGN, WE DON'T HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDED. YOU HAVE THE PROJECT THAT IS IN DESIGN BUT YOU DON'T HAVE CONSTRUCTION FUNDED. THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, BUT NOT FULLY FUNDED. I JUST HIGHLIGHTING THOSE IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK BEFORE YOU NEED TO LEAVE IN THE NEXT

SIX MINUTES. >> I GUESS WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THESE PROJECTS ARE DIFFERENT PHASES, RIGHT? THE OVERPASS IS

PROBABLY JUST 30%, MAYBE. >> WE ARE EXPECTING 30% FROM

YOU GUYS, YES. >> IT IS HARD TO JUDGE THESE.

AND 199, WHERE WE ARE WITH THAT, WE WOULD NEED TO FUND CONSTRUCTION AND THAT WOULD BE A HIGH DOLLAR AMOUNT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE USED. I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE ARE AT WITH THE DESIGN

ON THAT. >> 199 IS AT ABOUT 60% DESIGN.

AND THIS IS THE 60% CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE, IS THE

19 MILLION. >> I KNOW WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BUYING US SOME TIME. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THIS WILL LITERALLY ONLY BIAS UNTIL NEXT FISCAL YEAR? WE HAD A NEW LINE ITEM SO THAT WE CAN SHIFT 19 MILLION TO '27 OR SOMETHING?

>> WE DID AN OVERLAY LAST YEAR. IT WILL BIAS -- AND I CAN TELL YOU AN EXACT NUMBER. IT WILL BIAS SEVERAL YEARS, I CAN PUT

IT THAT WAY. >> THE DISCUSSION ON COUNSEL NEEDS TO BE THAT ONE AND IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE A '25?

[03:40:03]

>> IN THE OVERLAY GO THE WHOLE LENGTH? IT ONLY WENT ON THE

CURB. >> IT WENT FROM THE BRIDGE DOWN

TO THE SECOND 90 DEGREE BEND. >> YEAH. SO IT WASN'T FULLY OVERLAID. IT WAS ONLY A PORTION OF IT, LIKE MAYBE A THIRD.

>> BUT THAT WAS THE WORST PART OF IT, WAS BETWEEN THE BRIDGE

AND -- >> WE HAVE THE SPINE ROAD COMING IN THERE, SO YOU WILL HAVE ANOTHER ARTERIAL CONNECTING IT. THE DISCUSSION MIGHT BE THAT NOW, BECAUSE WE DID THAT -- YOU KNOW, WE DID OWN SOME WATER ONES WERE, BECAUSE HE DID THIS, WE CAN MOVE THIS OUT. I'M SAYING WE WENT AND DID THAT, BUT OTHERWISE, WHY DID WE DO THAT? YOU'RE GOING TO START CONSTRUCTION SIX MONTHS LATER.

>> THERE'S APARTMENTS, I BELIEVE. THAT ROAD, THAT WASN'T AN OVERLAY. IT'S QUANTITY TO BREAKDOWN. IF WE HAVE A FREEZE OR FLOOD OR WHATEVER A LIP THIS

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO ARGUE THAT CUSTOMER PARTICIPATION OR DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION IS ONLY $2 MILLION OUT OF THAT.

>> THE PARK THAT WE MILLED AND OVERLAID WAS AT FIRST --

>> IT'S ROUGHLY FROM RIGHT HERE TO RIGHT HERE.

>> IN THE 19 MILLION IS THE ENTIRE THING.

>> THAT IS TO FULLY RECONSTRUCT THE ENTIRE STRETCH.

>> AND THE COUNTY IS ACTUALLY REDOING 199 EAST OF 132. SO THEY ARE IMPROVING THAT , BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, THAT IS

THEIR JURISDICTION. >> TO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK'S POINT, THIS IS WHERE THE MEAT IS ON ALL OF THIS DISCUSSION.

THIS IS WHERE, IF YOU CAN LAYER IT UP AND YOU GO TWO INCHES ON TOP OF A ROAD AND YOU GET SEVEN MORE YEARS, YOU DO THAT AT THE COST OF A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS OR 300,000, AS OPPOSED TO 20 MILLION TODAY, KNOWING EVERY 10 MILLION EQUALS HOW MUCH MONEY ON TOP OF THE PARKS IMPROVEMENTS IN THE WATER RATE INCREASES. SO EVERYTHING IS NEEDED , ULTIMATELY, BUT WHAT

CAN WE DO TO BUY US TIME? >> TO HELP GIVE YOU GUYS SOME PERSPECTIVE, WE DID AN OVERLAY OF EDGE IN 2018, I THINK IT WAS. OKAY, 2019. AND THE RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME WAS THAT ROAD NEEDED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED, BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY, SO WE JUST DID A MILL AND OVERLAY OF IT. IT WAS A VERY QUICK PROJECT, VERY SMOOTH PROJECT, AND YOU SEE WHERE THE ROAD IS TODAY. AND THAT IS FIVE YEARS LATER.

>> ALL IN ALL, 5 MILLION. IF YOU CAN SPEND A QUARTER OF $1 MILLION AND BUY OR SELL FIVE MORE YEARS, TO ME, THAT IS A PROPER THING TO DO UNTIL YOU GET TO A POINT WHERE TAXES HAVE STABILIZED, PROJECT IS STABILIZED. AND 199, WE TALKED

ABOUT THAT BEFORE. >> IT'S GOING TO GO TO THREE LANES, RIGHT? RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST ONE WAY EACH WAY. THEN

THERE WOULD BE A CENTER TURN. >> BUT IF YOU TEAR IT UP, THERE'S NO WAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE TO --

>> IS EXPLAINED TO US HOW IT WOULD WORK DURING WORKSHOP, SO IT WORKS. BUT IT IS BETTER TO TEAR IT UP NOW WHILE THERE IS NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREA, VERSUS --

>> SPEAKING DIRECTLY TO COUNTY ROAD 199, THE MILL AND OVERLAY IS NOT GOING TO LAST VERY LONG, BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY GETTING TORN UP. ON THAT PARTICULAR ROAD. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY PROFESSIONAL TO SAY ANY OTHERWISE.

>> YOU DRIVE IT, AND ALL IT TAKES IS SOME EXTRA FLOODING

WATER. >> THERE ARE SO MANY TRUCKS THAT GO THERE, IT'S ALREADY TORN UP.

>> THERE IS NO SIDEWALK THERE TODAY.

>> IT IS. AND IT WASN'T CONFIRMED DURING THAT WORKSHOP, NO. WE TALKED ABOUT IT WHEN WE WERE THERE. THE TRAFFIC FLOW FOR THE 18 MONTHS OF CONSTRUCTION IS GOING TO BE --

>> IT'S NOT GOING TO BE GOOD FOR ANYBODY.

>> IF YOU GOT THREE MORE YEARS, FOUR MORE YEARS OUT OF THE 199 AND THE OVERPASS OVER 32 IS BUILT, THEN PEOPLE CAN GO BACK A QUARTER-MILE AND GO UP. OR YOU ARE GOING TO TALK A YEAR ONE-WAY TRAFFIC. ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON A MAJOR ARTERIAL FOR

A YEAR -- >> PLUS, WE HAVE ALL THE TRUCK

TRAFFIC. >> YOU CAN'T FIX THIS BY RECONSTRUCTING EVERYTHING. THAT'S WHY START TO GET TO,

[03:45:04]

>> YOUR TOTALS ARE UP TOP. >> FOR TRANSPORTATION AND '25, IF YOU DO ALL THE PROJECTS AS PRESENTED, IT'S $45.37 A MONTH

PER HOME. >> AVERAGE.

>> IT'S ABOUT FOR $20 A YEAR. IT'S ABOUT $420 A YEAR.

>> ACTUALLY, MORE LIKE 30. >> $.42.

>> YOU SAID 311,000? >> 311 508 . WHAT'S OUR TAX RATE?

>> 311,508 TIMES WHAT? DIVIDED BY 1000. SO THE AVERAGE

HOMEOWNER -- >> IT'S $1100.

>> THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER PAYS $1300 . 1313.93 . 73÷12, THAT'S $428. SO NEXT YEAR WILL BE A 33% INCREASE IN TAXES. AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR -- SO THEN THEY PAY -- I WILL DO ONE MORE YEAR. SO IT WILL TAKE THAT TAX, SO NOW THEY ARE PAYING

$1742.69. >> DID YOU CHANGE THE HOME

VALUE? >> NO, IT'S JUST TOTAL TAXES.

NOW YOU PAY AN ADDITIONAL 25 . 55. SO YOU PAY AN ADDITIONAL $306 THE FOLLOWING YEAR. WHICH WOULD BE -- AN 18% INCREASE IN TAXES. SO AS PRESENTED, WE POP TAXES 33% ONE YEAR FOLLOWED BY 18% THE NEXT. IT GETS BETTER FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, AND THEN IN '29, THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'VE GOT TO MOVE SOME PROJECTS FROM THIS YEAR AND NEXT YEAR OUT TO '27, '28 TO KIND OF -- PEOPLE'S TAXES ARE GOING UP. THAT GOES TO THE QUESTION OF AND TALKING ABOUT WITH JAMES. YOU GUYS WANT TO LOOK AT IT AS A PERCENT OF TAXES BECAUSE IT'S A POLITICAL THING, OR DO YOU WANT TO DO DOLLARS? WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO

RAISE TAXES ON? >> WITH THIS DRAINAGE COST, THOUGH, THAT IS NOT JUST -- IS THAT ON JUST THE DEBT SURFACE, OR IS THAT -- BECAUSE WHAT I'M SAYING IS, THAT 35, HOW MUCH IS THAT ALREADY INCLUDING WHAT WE ARE ALREADY IN OR AT? BECAUSE HE'S JUST ADDING AN ADDITIONAL --

>> NEW MONEY, AND IT SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE O AND M WHEN O AND

M EXIST. >> WILL HAVE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC, SAY WE ARE RAISING YOUR TAXES X PERCENT EVERY YEAR.

WHAT NUMBER DO WE WANT THAT TO BE? WE AGREED TO A RANGE, AND WE PRIORITIZE PROJECTS. IF WE SAY 20% IS THE NUMBER, THEY TELL US HOW MUCH WE CAN SPEND THE NEXT YEAR.

>> THESE NUMBERS ARE JUST THE TRANSPORTATION, IS HE STILL GOT PARKS AND THE BUILDING AND FACILITIES.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. THEY ARE ALL THERE FOR YOU.

>> THAT'S NOT EVEN THE TOTAL.

>> IF I SAY I WILL RAISE YOUR TAXES 20% OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WHAT CAN WE FIT IN THERE?

>> SINCE YOU ARE STUCK TO THE 3.5% ON THE YEAR-OVER-YEAR

REVENUE RATE -- >> YOU ARE DOING THE INS FIRST,

SO WE MAY HAVE TO CUT. >> BUT ARE YOU CUTTING --

>> TELL ME IF I'M WRONG >> THAT'S WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

[03:51:34]

THAT COULD BE A REALLY HIGH NUMBER. IT WOULD STILL BE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, BUT IT WOULD GET COMPRESSED. BECAUSE WHATEVER THE INS IS WOULD BE HEATING UP THE ABILITY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> LAST YEAR, WE COULD DO NO

NEW REVENUE . >> RIGHT. THAT'S WHERE YOU COULD GET IN TROUBLE. THAT YOU HAD 10 SENSE OF INS FOR WHATEVER REASON. IF YOU ARE TRYING TO TARGET NO NEW REVENUE, YOUR OWEN THEM WAS BEING CONSUMED BY ALL THE THINGS YOU ARE DOING. YOU HAVE TO SUBTRACT BASICALLY THAT $.10 BAND WITH ALAMO AND M, WHICH IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. IF YOU DO THAT, YOU ARE LAYING OFF PEOPLE, YOU ARE NOT BUYING CAPITAL, YOU ARE NOT DOING ALL THAT STUFF BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THE OPERATION. THE WAY THAT THIS IS CALCULATED IS, IT IS DEBT. AND THESE ARE AVERAGES. THE REASON WHY WE DO IT ON A MONTHLY BASIS OR NOT AN ANNUAL PERCENTAGE BASIS IS BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE PAY THEIR BILLS BY MONTH AND THAT IS WHAT THEY UNDERSTAND. THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT THE OTHER WAYS, BUT IF I GO AND ASK SOMEBODY, HEY, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU AFFORD A 20% INCREASE ON THE TAXES, THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS NO. HOW MUCH IS THAT? I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH THAT IS, BUT I CAN'T AFFORD IT. IF I SAY, COULD YOU AFFORD 35 BUCKS? THEY SAY NO, I CAN'T. OR YES, I CAN, AND HERE'S WHY.

THAT'S HOW I DO IT ON A MONTHLY BASIS, BUT YOU CAN STRUCTURED AND PERCENT INCREASE, TOTAL ANNUAL INCREASE. VERY FEW PEOPLE CUT A CHECK AND PAY THEIR TAXES AT ONE TIME. THEY TYPICALLY PAY ESCROW IN THEIR MONTHLY RENT OR

MONTHLY MORTGAGE. >> WHEN YOU CUT IT DOWN TO JUST

THREE CUPS OF STARBUCKS -- >> I HAVEN'T DONE THAT.

>> I KNOW, BUT WHEN YOU GET IT DOWN TO THE MONTHLY, THE ORIGINAL VALUES, AND I'M NOT SAYING LIMIT WHAT WE ARE DOING.

IF WE RAISE PEOPLE'S BILLS 50 BUCKS A MONTH, ON TOP OF THAT, WE ALSO HAVE THE UNITED STATES RAISING, COUNTIES RAISING. SO THE CITY CONTROLS EVERYTHING. I LIKE THE 7%. THAT'S OF THE HEADLINES GOING TO BE. IN MY MIND, YOU SAY TO THE PUBLIC -- WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. 20%, AND THEN WE TRY TO GET IT -- I THINK IF WE DO IT ANY OTHER WAY, WE GET TO THE END AND GET TO THE SAME ANSWER. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I AM NOT SUPPORTING

33% TO PEOPLE'S TAXES. >> I AGREE. SOMEBODY'S GOT TO

[03:55:01]

>> I THINK WE REALLY LOOK AT THESE AND SCRUTINIZE THEM. THE ONLY THING WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO NEXT YEAR IS UNDERSTAND THAT THE 1660 AND THE 79 -- THOSE ARE THE HAVE TOEWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS BEEN DESIGNED, CAN WE PUSH THROUGH HERE, CAN BE CONSTRUCTED, CAN BE AN OVERLAY. WE CAN ALSO SIT THERE AND TELL PEOPLE, LOOK. YOU GUYS CAN TELL IS A GENERAL NUMBER THAT THEY WILL BE BRINGING TO US IN 2026. AND WE CAN SAY, OKAY, HERE IS OUR LIST OF PROJECT. YEAR TWO IS GOING TO PAY FOR THIS. AND SO NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE DONE THAT WAY. WE COULD ALSO DO SALES TAX FUNDS. WE HAVE THE SALES TAX TO DO THAT, BUT I'M JUST SAYING, THERE'S OPTIONS OUT THERE THAT TAKES AWAY FROM THE FUNDING ON THE CITY HALL SIDE. I JUST BRING ALL THAT UP, BECAUSE IT CAN'T ALWAYS BE JUST THE TAXPAYER HAS TO PAY FOR IT. AT THE END OF THIS, IF YOU FIGURE THIS OUT, WE'VE ALREADY GONE THROUGH 1300 TO $2000 IN TWO YEARS, AND YOU GO A YEAR AT 531, 29.5, WE ALMOST HIT $3000 A YEAR . IN FIVE YEARS, OUR TAXES HAVE ALMOST TRIPLED. AND THAT'S GOOD FOR PARKS AND BUILDINGS. IF YOU KEEP PLUGGING THIS FIVE TO $6000 NUMBER, AND FIVE YEARS, YOUR OVER $6000 A YEAR JUST ON THE CITY SIDE. I DON'T THINK THEY ARE GOING TO LIKE THAT.

WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A HEART-TO-HEART WITH PEOPLE AND SAY WE APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERNS ON 99, BUT WE NEED TO BUY FOUR MORE YEARS. WE NEED TO BE HONEST WITH THEM, AND WE NEED TO LOOK AT -- JIMMY PIERCE IS GOING TO BE UP YOUR NEXT MEETING, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO SAY THIS IN PUBLIC, WHAT I SAID TWO YEARS AGO, WE SHOULD -- AND WE NEED TO PUSH THAT UNTIL WE GET CRITICAL THINGS DONE. I THINK EXCHANGE IS A CRITICAL ROAD, AND THAT'S A VERY HEAVY TRUCK ON A RIDE THAT IS NOT STABLE. BUT THE OVERPASS ON 132 FOR ME IS IMPORTANT. BUT THOSE ARE THE THINGS I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE TO --

>> I THINK IT SHOULD WAIT. THERE'S A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION.

THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR UP A BRAND-NEW ROAD. WE WILL BE TEARING UP A ROW DURING ALL THIS CONSTRUCTION FROM ALL THE -- MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE TO PUSH THE EXCHANGE OUT.

>> I DRIVE ON EXCHANGE EVERY DAY, AND I WONDER WHY.

>> I'M NOT SAYING NEXT YEAR, THAT'S A CONVERSATION WE WILL HAVE, BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THIS YEAR. HEY, IT'S GOING SO BAD, WE CAN LAY ASPHALT. WITHIN FIVE YEARS, YOU'RE ONLY 15 MONTHS OUT AND YOU REALLY NEED TO DO IT.

>> AND ON OLD TOWN, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD ACTUALLY REALLY BRING IT ALL UP TO DATE. BUT IF IT'S WAY TOO MUCH MONEY -- THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR A WORKSHOP SPECIFICALLY. HOW DO YOU FIX OLD TOWN ? YOU CAN'T. YOU CAN'T FIX EVERYTHING . IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO WORK. WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SHORTER-TERM FIXES ON A LOT OF THOSE ROADS. AND WE WILL HOPEFULLY BE ABLE TO DO MORE

OVER TIME. >> BEFORE WE DIG IN, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A QUICK RECESS? HAVE SOME CHIPS?

>> THIS IS WHERE I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE THE MOST IMPACTFUL, AND REALLY, I DON'T EXPECT ANY OF US TO LEAVE HERE AFTER THIS CONVERSATION HAPPY AND ABLE TO GO TO THE PUBLIC AND GO , I'M GOING TO BE RAISING TAXES MORE THAN I EVER SAID I HAD TO. WERE NOT GOING TO GET ROADS DONE WE THOUGHT, AND HAVE THE SAME CONVERSATION THAT -- WE JUST CAN'T. OR WE MAY SAY AS A MAJORITY, JUST -- I DON'T KNOW.

>> IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION , WE WILL RECESS AT 1:00. DO WE WANT TO LEAVE YOUR GET SOMETHING TO EAT REALLY QUICK?

>> THERE'S STILL BREAKFAST TACOS OVER THERE, BUT --

>> STAFF, YOU HAVE BEEN HERE. YOU GUYS WANT TO -- JUST A

QUICK 15 MINUTE? >> I'M AFRAID IF I LET THEM LEAVE, THEY WON'T COME BACK. CHIEF WENT TO GO GET WATER AND I WAS LIKE -- I WENT OUT THERE AND I WAS LIKE, YOU ARE GETTING

WATER, RIGHT? >> DO YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE A 30 MINUTE AND GO GET SOMETHING TO EAT, OR DO YOU WANT TO JUST -- I ASSUME IT'S GOING TO BE TWO OR THREE MORE HOURS.

>> I WILL NEED TO LEAVE AT 2:00. THAT IS MY HEART STOPPED

[04:00:04]

TODAY. >> WE WANT TO JUST ORDER A

NUGGET TRAY? >> I CAN DO PIZZA. IS THAT

OKAY? >> I WILL JUST ORDER PIZZA.

>> OR WE CAN GET A BOX OF BURGERS.

>> IS GETTING THE PIZZA? >> ALL OF US ARE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY. ALL OF US ARE THAT LIVE IN THE CITY.

>> THIS WHEN I DON'T MIND, COUNCILMEMBER. IT'S AN ALL DAY

DEAL. >> WHEN YOU SAY IT'S COUNSEL,

IT'S ALSO STAFF. >> LET'S RECESS FOR 10 MINUTES

AND THEN COME BACK. >> SOUNDS GOOD.

>> IS 1:12, WE ARE BACK FROM RECESS. WHERE WE LEFT OFF WAS HOW MUCH OF AN INCREASE , I THINK, ARE WE WILLING TO -- AT LEAST GOING FOR NEXT YEAR OR MAYBE THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

>> CAN WE GO BACK TO THE -- LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, COUNTY ROAD 199 WHERE WE HAD THE 19 MILLION '25. IF WE CAN DO AN OVERLAY AND MOVE THAT ONE OUT, WE'VE ALREADY SAVED 19 MILLION OUT OF THAT INCREASE. I THINK THE NUMBER, IF WE GO BACK -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GET BACK TO THE MAIN PAGE.

>> BACK TO MATT, TO THE SPREADSHEET THAT HAD ALL THE

DETAILS. >> SO FOR EVERY 10 MILLION RIGHT NOW THIS YEAR, IF WE LOOK AT A MONTHLY COST BEING, IS $3.37. SO 19 MILLION WOULD BE DOUBLE THAT. SO THAT IS, SAY, $6.70. YEAH, $6.40. SO THAT PROJECT, YOU TALK ABOUT THAT $35 , WE CAN ALREADY REDUCE JUST BY MOVING THAT ONE OUT $6.40. SO I THINK THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO LOOK, WE DO AN OVERLAY THIS YEAR, THAT 19, IF WE MOVE THAT WHEN ONE YEAR OVER, WE NOW SAVE $6.40 PER MONTH OUT OF THAT 45.

>> YOU ARE SAYING MOVE 13 MILLION, BUT NOT KEEP $9.60 FOR

IT OVERLAY? >> WE ALREADY DID THE MILL AND

OVERLAY. >> WOULD WE NEED TO DO IT FOR

THE REMAINDER? >> THAT WOULD BE AN ENGINEERING QUESTION. IF THEY SAY, YEAH, WE NEED TO SPEND 500,000 '25 AND THAT HE CAN MOVE THAT 19 TO YOUR '27, FINE. DO THAT. I'M JUST SAYING, WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT IN '25, I DON'T THINK.

>> I AM IN FAVOR OF MILL AND OVERLAY, MAYBE THE REST OF IT

IF NEEDED. >> I THINK THAT IS BACKWARDS.

WHY DON'T WE LOOK AT THE PROJECTS THAT WE KNOW FOR SURE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS AS A COUNCIL TO MOVE OUT, AND THEN

SEE WHERE THE NUMBER IS. >> HOW DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH TO

MOVE? >> I WANT TO MOVE AS MUCH AS WE

CAN. >> WHAT I WANT TO DO IS AS MUCH AS WE CAN UNTIL THEN. WE CAN POLITICALLY BE OKAY WITH SAYING, ARE YOU OKAY RAISING PEOPLE'S TAXES 20%?

>> NOT IF I CAN'T JUSTIFY IT.

>> YOU COULD JUSTIFY A 40% INCREASE, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN SAY WE DID IT ALL. PEOPLE WILL STILL SAY I CAN'T AFFORD IT. IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO THINKS 20% IS TOO HIGH

ON A HACK STRIKE? >> I'M NOT COMFORTABLE GIVING A NUMBER, AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE TALKING PERCENTAGE UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT PROJECTS WE ARE GOING TO DO AND WHAT WE ARE

NOT GOING TO DO. >> YOU JUST WANT TO PICK AND CHOOSE PROJECTS AND SAY, LET'S GO BACK THROUGH?

>> WHAT I HEAR YOU ASKING ME, IS YOU ARE GIVING ME A BUCKET OF MONEY AND SAYING, GOING TO THE STORE AND BUY WHATEVER YOU

WANT. HERE IS YOUR LIMIT. >> THAT'S WHAT MOST PEOPLE DO.

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY WHO GOES TO THE GROCERY STORE, SHOPS, RINGS THE BASKET UP, AND SAYS, $300, I'VE ONLY GOT A 100. LET ME START PICK AND CHOOSING WHAT I WANT. THIS IS HOW PEOPLE SET BUDGETS. HOW MUCH CAN WE SPEND, WHAT CAN WE FIT IN THAT? I THINK IT IS COMPLETELY BACKWARDS. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY

[04:05:01]

>> TO ME, THAT'S BACKWARDS. THAT'S WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR AND THAT'S WHY HEAT WE WERE HERE UNTIL 2:00 IN THE MORNING, BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO GET TO A NUMBER, AND SO CONSTANTLY, WHAT CAN WE CUT HERE? LET'S MOVE THIS OUT. IN MY OPINION,

IT WAS A TRAIN WRECK. >> LET'S DO IT YOUR WAY, THEN.

WHAT ELSE DO WANT TO MOVE? >> MAYOR, THERE'S ANOTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT YOU ASKED SPECIFICALLY BUT OTHERS THAT ASKED, TOO, AND THAT IS, IF WE WERE GOING TO GO AND DO ROADS , TEARING UP ROADS ALL IN THE SAME PART OF TIME IS NOT A GREAT IDEA FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. MATT PUT TOGETHER PACKAGES OF ROADS THAT ARE GROUPED. THAT IS JUST ANOTHER LEVEL OF INFORMATION FOR YOU ALL TO USE SO YOU DON'T END UP PUTTING ALL THE ROADS INTO THE YEAR THAT WOULD WRECK TRAFFIC, BASICALLY. HE JUST WANTED REAL QUICK TO GIVE THAT TO YOU ALL, SO HE EXPLAINS IT TO YOU THAT YOU HAVE THAT RESOURCE IN FRONT

OF YOU. >> YEAH. SO FIRST THING ON OUR ORIGINAL ROAD MAP, YOU CAN SEE THAT I TRY TO COLORCODE AND SPREAD THINGS OUT SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TOO MUCH CONSTRUCTION IN ONE SPOT. THE OTHER THING THAT WE TALKED TO YOU GUYS ABOUT IN JANUARY, OUR WORKSHOP, WAS THE IDEA OF GOING OUT AND DOING A PACKAGE. AND MY RECOMMENDATION AT THAT TIME WAS TO FOCUS ON YOUR PRIMARY RELIEF VALVES THROUGHOUT THE CITY, TO CONSIDER A ROAD BOND PACKAGE. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHAT THIS MAP SHOWS YOU, IS, IF YOU WANTED TO FOCUS ONLY ON -- FOR LACK OF BETTER TERMINOLOGY, BASELINE MAINTENANCE TYPE STUFF FOR OUR ROADS RIGHT NOW, AND PUT TOGETHER A BIG ROAD PACKAGE FOR THE BIG ROADS THAT ARE GOING TO PROVIDE RELIEF, AND THESE WOULD BE THE ROADS THAT I WOULD RECOMMEND AS AN INITIAL THOUGHT. WE CAN REFINE THIS, WE CAN TAKE THESE OFF IF YOU GUYS DON'T THINK THAT I CHOSE THE RIGHT ROADS. I AM LOOKING AT PRIMARILY WHERE I THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE TRAFFIC WOULD FIND A RELIEF TO WHAT WE ARE SEEING CURRENTLY. AND SO YOU CAN SEE, WE ALL KNOW THAT THAT IS A BAD, HIGHLY TRAVELED ROAD.

IT IS VERY CONGESTED. YOU PRETTY MUCH CAN'T MOVE DURING

RUSH HOUR. >> I DON'T THINK YOU NEED TO EXPLAIN WHATEVER ROAD IT IS. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS. YOU HAVE THOSE TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION TO INFORM YOUR DECISIONS. THIS IS WHAT HE WOULD RECOMMEND YOU FOCUS ON IF YOU WANT TRAFFIC TO MOVE AND YOU DON'T WANT TO PRIORITIZE MAINTENANCE AND REBUILDING LOCAL ROADS. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE WAS THE SPREADING OUT OF THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS, IT KIND OF SHOWS YOU WHERE THEY ARE GEOGRAPHICALLY SO YOU ALL CAN KEEP THAT IN

MIND WHENEVER YOU ARE MOVING. >> YES, SIR.

>> I STILL THINK THE 19 MILLION , AND THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME MONEY TO DO ADDITIONAL MILL AND OVERLAY, IF THE REST OF IT, WE WERE TO MILL AND OVERLAY THAT SECTION AGAIN -- THE OTHER CONCERN WE HAD, ALL THOSE DUMB TRUNKS ARE RUNNING UP ANYWAY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR UP ANOTHER ROAD, BECAUSE THAT ROAD IS NOW CLOSED. THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO GO A DIFFERENT ROUTE. AND THEN WE RIP UP THAT ROAD, YOU

KNOW, THAT IS AN ISSUE. >> COUNCILMEMBER, WHAT I WOULD ASK, WHAT DID WE PAY TO DO THE SEGMENT OF 199 THAT WE'VE

ALREADY DONE? >> RICK, PLEASE JUMP IN HERE. I WANT TO SAY IT WAS A COUPLE HUNDRED THOUSAND. I DON'T

REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER. >> IT WAS, I BELIEVE, ABOUT 100,000, FROM 1660 TO THE CURVE.

>> SO I WOULD PUT IN 200,000 IN THERE AGAIN, AND THEN PUT THAT ENTIRE THING OUT UNTIL '26 OR '27.

>> THE OTHER THING, DON'T WE HAVE , PER COUNCIL DIRECTION LAST YEAR, TO HAVE ROUTINE REGULAR MAINTENANCE AND MILLING AND OVERLAY IS HEART OF THAT? THERE WAS A CERTAIN BUDGET WE WERE SUPPOSED TO ACHIEVE. AM I MISREMEMBERING THAT?

[04:10:02]

>> THIS UPCOMING YEAR. WE DIDN'T DO THAT BEFORE.

>> THIS IS JUST -- >> EFFECTIVELY, WHAT YOU WOULD JUST DO IS JUST MOVE IT, AND THEN THE DIRECTION WOULD BE TO MILL AND OVERLAY, AND THEN -- THAT IS THE RATIONALE FOR MOVING IT MULTIPLE YEARS, RIGHT? WE JUST HAVE TO ADD IT

IN. >> AND THE COST WILL GO UP BASED ON THE INFLATION RATE, SO WE WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND RECALCULATE THOSE, TOO. BUT THERE YOU GO.

>> YEAH, WE ARE ALSO SPREADING IT AMONG THE HIGHER POPULATION

OF PEOPLE. >> I TOTALLY GET IT. THERE IS ZERO PROJECTS THAT ARE ON THE TRANSPORTATION LIST THAT I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE OUR MISSION CRITICAL THAT HAVE TO GET DONE RIGHT NOW, OTHER THAN WHAT'S ALREADY UNDERWAY.

EVERYTHING ELSE, COUNCIL HAS FULL REASON AND PREROGATIVE TO

MOVE THINGS AROUND. >> THAT ONE, I THINK IF WE DO A NEW MILL AND OVERLAY AGAIN BETWEEN 79 UP TO BASICALLY THE POST OFFICE, THAT PROBABLY SECTION IS GOING TO HAVE TO GET

DONE SOONER THAN LATER. >> IT JUST GOT DONE.

>> TENANTS GO DOWN THIS YEAR. THE ONLY THING I THINK WE NEED TO BREAK OUT HERE IS GETTING THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IN. BECAUSE THAT'S PART OF THIS PROJECT. IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NOT THE TRAFFIC LIGHT, BUT THE INTERSECTION FIXED.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD LOOK AT FIXING THE INTERSECTION.

>> OKAY. >> YEAH, LINE IT UP TO WHEN THE NEW LIVE OAK EXTENSION CAN COME UP TO IT.

>> IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE A LIGHT AT SOME POINT?

>> NO, NOT NECESSARILY. IT WILL PROBABLY BE A ROUNDABOUT. IT'S BECAUSE THE GEOGRAPHIES ARE OFF. ROUNDABOUTS HAVE USES, SO THE GEOGRAPHY IS OFF. THE OTHER WAY TO OTHERWISE FIX IT WOULD BE TO CONSISTENTLY TEAR UP THE LIVE OAK AND REALIGN IT. A CIRCLE ALLOWS THE TRAFFIC TO ENTER HERE AND EXIT OVER THERE.

>> BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND STUFF.

>> YEAH. >> BUT WE NEED THAT SPLIT. WE

CAN SPLIT OR MODIFY THAT. >> YEAH, THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, TO SPLIT OUT THE COST OF THE INTERSECTION.

>> MOVE IT TO PROBABLY 27, 28, AND THEN IN '25, WE HAVE A NEW PROJECT, WHATEVER, THAT IS THE INTERSECTION. ITSELF.

>> INTERSECTION TO '26. >> CORRECT, YEAH.

>> I WE STARTED A DESIGN ON IT YET?

>> WE GOT THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING REPORT. WE HAVEN'T FULL-BLOWN GONE INTO DESIGN YET.

>> I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. IT WILL TAKE YOU NINE MONTHS TO

DESIGN THE INTERSECTION. >> WE ARE GOING TO MOVE THIS

OUT TO WHAT YEAR? >> DOES IT MAY BE MAKE SENSE TO PUT SOME MONEY IN FOR DESIGN THIS YEAR?

>> YOU SHOULD PUT MONEY IN FOR DESIGN, AND YOU SHOULD PUT MONEY IN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUNDABOUT OF THE INTERSECTION. THE CONSTRUCTION WOULD BE '26 WITH THE INTERSECTION, MOST LIKELY. THE DESIGN IS ALREADY FUNDED.

>> OKAY. >> IT WOULD JUST BE CONSTRUCTION ONCE WE GET THE DESIGN COMPONENT.

>> HOW MUCH IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROUNDABOUT?

>> 1.5. I DON'T KNOW WITHOUT UTILITIES OR ANYTHING LIKE

THAT. >> THAT WOULD HAPPEN IN '25

COMING UP. >> TO HAVE AN ENGINEERED IT YET, SO I WOULD SAY IT USUALLY TAKES ABOUT SIX TO NINE MONTHS TO DESIGN AND INTERSECTION, WHETHER IT'S A RED LIGHT OR A ROUNDABOUT. AND THEN YOU HAVE A UTILITY THAT ALSO HAS TO BE DONE. IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSER THAN THE NINE MONTHS. THEY COULD, IN THEORY, BE READY FOR CONSTRUCTION ONLY ABOUT MAY OF

NEXT YEAR. >> WE WERE PUSHING TO HAVE DESIGN COMPLETE BY CHRISTMAS OR NEW YEAR'S.

>> WELL, HOWDY DOODY THEN. >> YOU ARE NOT FAR OFF. YOU ARE STILL PROBABLY TALKING FEBRUARY OR MARCH.

>> IT'S CONSTRUCTION FOR THE INTERSECTION IS GOING TO HAPPEN IN '25, SO THAT NEEDS TO BE A NEW LINE ITEM. IN THIS PROJECT IS EITHER 9.8, BECAUSE YOU ALREADY SAID THE DESIGN COST IS ALREADY PAID FOR. SO IT EITHER NEEDS TO BE -- IT IS 9.8, OR WILL BE SOME NUMBER LESS, BECAUSE NOW YOU HAVE A

CONSTRUCTION COST. >> YOU WOULD PUT THE, SAY, 2 MILLION IN '25 AND PUT 7.8 MILLION TO '28 , SOMETHING

LIKE THAT. >> NEEDS TO ADD WHAT, 10%?

>> IF WE ARE BEING HONEST HERE , REALLY, YOU GOT TO ADD 10,

10, 10. >> CAN WE BALANCE THAT LATER?

[04:15:04]

BUILT INTO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. >> MATT, THESE ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT -- IF WE MOVE THIS, THERE'S NO, LIKE, SECONDARY EFFECT THAT IS HAPPENING, RIGHT? THAT WE ARE NOT BEING

TOLD? >> WHEN WE STARTED THE EXCHANGE PROJECT, IT WAS BECAUSE THE ROAD WAS IN SUCH BAD CONDITION, THIS WAS BEFORE WE HAD THE CONTRACTORS GO IN AND DO THEIR MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT ON THE SOUTH SIDE. WE KNEW THE ISSUE WITH THE INTERSECTION, AND SO HE SAID, WHY NOT JUST COMBINE IT ALL IN ONE PROJECT AND GET IT DONE IN ONE SHOT RATHER THAN DOING, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE BIT HERE, LITTLE BIT THERE, AND JUST TORTURING EVERYBODY WITH CONSTANT, NEVER-ENDING CONSTRUCTION. I WAS A THOUGHT BACK IN '23 WHEN WE ORIGINALLY

PUT THIS ON HERE. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IF THERE'S SOMETHING WHERE WE ARE MOVING OR DOING SOMETHING, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MESS UP ANOTHER PROJECT THAT YOU ARE WORKING ON, WHETHER IT'S WATER OR WASTEWATER OR TRANSPORTATION THAT IS BEING ARTICULATED TO US

NOW. >> THE ONLY IMPACT -- AND IT'S NOT AN IMPACT TO ANY OTHER CITY PROJECT. THE ONLY IMPACT IS THAT WE DO HAVE A PROJECT ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CO-OP THAT WAS PROPOSING TO RECONSTRUCT SOME OF THEIR WASTEWATER LINE AND THEY WERE GOING TO TRY TO TIME IT WITH OUR PROJECT. IF WE ARE NOT DOING THAT ROAD PROJECT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT ON THEIR OWN.

>> ONE QUICK QUESTION. SO WE JUST MOVED $28 MILLION . WHEN YOU IMMEDIATELY GO, IS IT A REAL-TIME UPDATE ON THE NUMBERS? WE DROPPED FROM 35 TO 26. SO WE'VE ALREADY CUT A THIRD IN TRANSPORTATION JUST BY DOING THOSE TWO CHANGES.

>> I ALSO JUST LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY, THE 2 MILLION NUMBER THAT I THREW OUT, DO YOU CONCUR WITH THAT,

OR AM I OFF? >> I THINK IT'S GOOD. I WILL GO BACK AND VERIFY WITH THE ENGINEER BEFORE WE PUT A FINAL

TOGETHER. >> I KNOW READ LOTS ARE USUALLY 1 MILLION, 1.5 MILLION, SO THAT'S WHAT I WAS INKING.

>> WE ARE DOWN TO 33%. WILL IT BE READY TO BREAK GROUND NEXT

YEAR? >> NO.

>> OKAY. HOW MANY YEARS UNTIL WE COULD -- I MEAN, REALISTICALLY, WE HAVE ALL THAT DONE . WHAT YEAR?

>> BREAKING GROUND? THE MAC SPENDING $63 MILLION, WHEN REALISTICALLY IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN?

>> I THINK YOU WOULD BE BREAKING GROUND LATE '26,

EARLY '27. REALISTICALLY. >> IT HAS BEEN FUNDED FOR UP TO 30% DESIGN. PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, STARTING THE CONVERSATIONS WITH TXDOT AND UPR ARE.

>> SO IT NEEDS TO THE REST OF THE DESIGN FUNDED, IS WHAT I'M SEEING. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THIS NUMBER, THIS 80 MILLION, IS THAT INCLUDED? I KNOW WE PUT IN FOR THE GRANT FEDERALLY, BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING ACROSS A RAILROAD CROSSING, WE COULD GET FUNDS. I KNOW WE HAVEN'T ACCEPTED IT YET, BUT WHEN WE KIND OF LOOK AT THIS AND YOU PUT THIS COMPLETELY, ALL THIS NEW DEBT, IF WE ARE ANTICIPATING WE THINK WE ARE

GETTING THAT AMOUNT, OR -- >> IT'S NOT INCLUDED.

>> I'M SAYING, WHEN WE LOOK AT FUTURE PLANNING, ALL THESE OTHER PROJECTS, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE 100% NEW DEBT. WHEN WE GOT TO THE VOTERS FOR THIS NEW PROJECT, I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD KNOW IF WE'VE ACCEPTED THAT GRANT. MY QUESTION IS, I WOULD PUT ON THIS PROJECT OUR PLAN. THE PLAN IS, WILL YOU GO TO BUILD IT, AND ASK THE VOTERS -- NEED A DOLLAR AMOUNT. I'M NOT GOING TO COME TO THE VOTER AND SAY, VOTERS, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY A .1 MILLION, KNOWING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GAVE US 20 MILLION, OR WHATEVER IT IS. IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, WE GOT TO MOVE IT OVER. WERE NOT MOVING TO THAT BOND ELECTION UNTIL HE MOVED OVER.

>> BUT ARGUABLY, YES, WE CAN PUT IN $20 MILLION INTO NON-DEBT TO KIND OF BETTER REFLECTED. WE WOULD NOT GO TO THE VOTERS UNTIL WE KNEW WE WERE GETTING THAT.

>> I THINK WE SHOULD DO THAT HERE ON THIS ONE, AND THEN FULLY FUND IN '25 THE DESIGN, AND MINUS THE 63, WHATEVER THAT IS, AND IN THE 20 MILLION GOES TO THE NON-THAT DIED. OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS. IF THAT'S THE VALUE WE THINK WOULD BE WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

>> TO ME, IT'S A DEBT UNTIL WE CAN ACCEPT IT AND BE APPROVED.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO START WRITING BUDGETS. WE OUGHT TO BE

[04:20:04]

IT THEN. >> YOU ARE RIGHT ABOUT THAT.

I'M SORRY, COUNCILMEMBER. >> MOVING INTO '27 SEEMS A LITTLE -- ARE WE GOING TO NEED IT BEFORE THEN?

>> BECAUSE UNION PACIFIC, THEY HAVE TO APPROVE TO GO OVER

THERE RAILROAD. >> THAT IS WHEN HE IS SAYING WE

CAN REALISTICALLY -- >> IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM -- BECAUSE I THOUGHT FROM OUR WORK SESSION, WE HAD -- WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED DESIGN OR -- FROM THE OPTIONS -- I THINK IT WAS OPTION A, B, RC, WE HAVEN'T FINALIZED THE PRICING. DO WE NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT IN ONE OF THESE --

>> THAT'S WHY WE SAID WE NEED A FULLY FUNDED REST OF THE DESIGN. THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AT 60 AND SAY NOW WE WANT TO DO OPTION C BECAUSE WE GAVE THEM SOME DIRECTION. WE FULLY NEED TO FUND THIS YEAR THE REST OF THE DESIGN TO GET ITS 100%

DESIGN. >> ONCE A 100% IS OUT OF 25 -- DON'T WE NEED TO LEAVE THOSE IN THERE?

>> NOT 63 MILLION. >> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

WE'VE ASKED THEM TO DO THAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, I THINK WHAT THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT, COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON WAS ASKING ABOUT PUTTING A '26 WAS A CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS TO START A '26, BECAUSE HE FELT PUTTING THE CONSTRUCTION DOLLARS AND DECKING ARE 27 WAS TOO LATE.

>> OKAY. >> BUT WE DO HAVE TO CONTINUE FUNDING THE DESIGN NEXT YEAR. AND I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT WE DON'T HAVE SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR THESE NUMBERS FOR NEXT YEAR. SO COUNCIL MAY HAVE TO BE ISSUING CEOS, OR WE MAY HAVE TO RAISE THE PROPERTY TAXES UP AND USE M AND O AND PUT IT IN THE FUND BALANCE. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND.

>> OKAY, YEAH. I DEFINITELY WANT TO KEEP SOME FUNDS, BECAUSE THAT'S DEFINITELY A PROJECT THAT WE NEED TO BE

MINDFUL OF. >> YEAH. I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET THE NUMBER.

>> 74 MINUS WHATEVER? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO DO?

>> MINUS THEIR 12%. >> O, L PLUS N, AND THEN YOU GET 12% OF THOSE TOGETHER?

>> IT'S A CIRCULAR PROBLEM. >> DON'T YOU LOVE EXCEL?

>> IT'S ABOUT 12 MILLION. SO YOU COULD JUST TAKE -- INSTEAD OF THAT BEING A FORMULA, YOU COULD PUT 12 MILLION AND '25

AND TAKE 12 MILLION -- >> I KNOW.

>> THERE YOU GO.

>> DONE. >> BEAUTIFUL.

>> WHAT IS OUR NUMBER NOW? >> THAT MADE A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> WELL, IT DOES WHENEVER YOU ARE NOT BORROWING 60 OR $70

MILLION. >> IT WAS 100 MILLION. WE USED

100 MILLION OUT. >> IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

>> THAT'S GOOD WORK. >> WE SAY THAT, BUT NEXT YEAR

-- >> YOU KNOW WHAT? 27 IS REALLY WHENEVER THE STUFF STARTS TO KICK IN. YOUR POINTS LATER ON,

-- >> WHAT PERCENTAGE ARE WE ON

NOW? OF INCREASE? >> WHAT YOU HAVE FOR TOTAL

PROJECTS FOR '25 NOW? >> TOTAL PROJECT , IT'S DOWN

TO 34.7 MILLION. >> PLUS PARKS IS 37.

[04:25:03]

>> 37 . 37, 37, 36. >> THAT'S LIKE $12 TOTAL.

>> IS THAT SHOWS ON THE INS TAB?

>> SOMETHINGS WRONG WITH THE OTHER ONE. THERE'S SOMETHING

MISSING ON THIS. >> BECAUSE YOU GOT 439+832.

HE'S NOT SHOWING PARKS. OR, NOT SHOWING WATER AND WASTEWATER. THIS IS JUST TRANSPORTATION.

>> 37 MILLION . >> 3.7 TIMES THE NUMBER HE CALCULATED, RIGHT? ON THE $10 MILLION COST FOR 10 MILLION. GO TO THE COST FOR 10 MILLION SHEET. SO $3.37 IS YOUR COST FOR 10 MILLION. YOU WOULD MULTIPLY THAT TIMES THREE POINT SEVEN, BECAUSE YOU ARE DOING 37 MILLION IN PROJECTS. WHAT

NUMBER DOES THAT GIVE YOU? >> THAT'S RIGHT .

>> $12.46. NOW GO BACK OVER TO THE INS TAB. WHAT DO THOSE TWO NUMBERS GET TOGETHER? IT IS BALLPARK.

>> EYEBALL PARKED IT. >> IT'S 11%.

>> THAT'S BETTER. >> WHAT IS THE NEXT YEAR?

>> IT SEEMS THAT WE HAVEN'T SOLVED ANYTHING.

>> IT IS 40% NEXT YEAR. >> IT WON'T BE.

>> THAT'S ALL FACTORED IN. >> HE DOES HAVE IT FACTORED IN,

CORRECT. >> IT'S A $36 INCREASE NEXT

YEAR. >> THAT'S BECAUSE PREDOMINANTLY, YOU MOVE THE BIG PURCHASE OF COUNTY ROAD 132

INTO 26. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS --

>> I'M EXPLAINING IT TO YOU. >> THE IDEA IS TO DO FIVE YEARS, HOW TO GET READY. SO NEXT YEAR IS A 90% INCREASE, AS IT SITS.

SO TO ME, SOMETHING NEEDS TO GO FROM 2026 INTO 2025.

>> YES, BUT YOU HAVE TO REMEMBER, THE OTHER THING THAT THIS NUMBER IS, THEY ARE ONLY USING THE 10 MILLION THAT THAT ASSUMPTIONS NUMBER FOR THIS YEAR FOR ALL FIVE OF THOSE. SO

THOSE ALSO WOULD CHANGE. >> HE WAS SAYING THAT '26 GOT OVERBURDENED. NOW WHAT CAN WE PULL FROM '26 BACK INTO '25 TO MAKE THE '25 NUMBER GO UP AND THE NUMBER '26 NUMBER

COMES DOWN. >> NEXT YEAR, 43%, NEXT YEAR, 5%, NEXT YEAR, 38%. ARE WE WILLING TO STOMACH 15%? CAN WE MOVE SOMETHING IN? 26 OF 27, MOVE SOMETHING UP ?

>> IT'S GOT TO BE MORE BALANCED.

>> THERE ARE TWO LEVERS THAT YOU CAN PULL HERE, BECAUSE PARKS AND RECREATION EXPENDITURES GOES UP -- WHAT IS THAT? ALMOST 18 MILLION IN '26? YOU COULD LOOK FOR PARKS PROJECTS TO MOVE UP. I WOULD BE ONE OPTION. YOU COULD LOOK AT THE TRANSPORTATION PROJECT THAT ARE FUNDED IN '26 AND SEE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE WORTH MOVING UP TO '25.

>> I WOULD PREFER TO START A TRANSPORTATION.

>> THE SURVEYS HAVE ROUTINELY SAID TRAILS , BIKE PATHS, AQUATIC CENTER . THESE ARE THE NEXT THINGS, BUT THOSE ARE --

>> I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE TRYING TO CONVINCE ME. I DON'T NEED TO BE CONVINCED. I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT YOUR OPTIONS

ARE. >> MATT, CAN YOU JUST SCROLL THROUGH AND FIND US THE '26 PROJECT AND TRANSPORTATION?

>> YES, I CAN. ONE THING I WANTED TO ASK BEFORE WE GO THERE IS -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT TO DO LIVE OAK, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE MADE A DECISION BEFORE WE WENT TO BREAK. IT'S CURRENTLY SLATED FOR CONSTRUCTION AND '25. DO WE WANT TO MOVE THAT OUT TO A DIFFERENT YEAR, OR ARE WE GOING TO KEEP IT THERE? I CAN SCROLL DOWN TO GET TO THE

PROJECTS WE ARE DOING A '26. >> THEY ARE LOOKING FOR PROJECTS IN '26 TO MOVE INTO '25.

>> WE THINK WE CUT MORE THAN WE NEEDED IN '25.

>> WITH THE MATCH POINT, THE PRIORITY POINT, WE STILL HAVE TO PRIORITIZE THE PROJECT. WE STILL GOT TO GO IN THE 2025.

>> LET'S SEE. WHATEVER. IS LIVE OAK THE PROJECT THAT NEEDS

[04:30:07]

>> LOOKS LIKE ED SCHMIDT, THAT IS ONE WE IDENTIFIED IS A HIGH ISSUE. IF WE PULL THE 9 MILLION INTO '25, COULD WE EVEN DO THAT? IS IT PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE IN HERE? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, TOO. IF WE PHYSICALLY CAN'T BUILD IT IN

12 MONTHS -- >> IF YOU CAN'T, YOU WOULD ISSUE THE DEBT, AND YOU WOULD HAVE THE MONEY, AND THAT WOULD BE THE PING ON THE INS RATE. ARGUABLY, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT AND HAVE A BUNCH OF INEFFICIENCIES.

>> THERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT THAT I CAN DO.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> SCROLLING DOWN TO THE STUFF STARTING IN 2026, I -- I HAD PRIORITIZED THE CR 132 PROJECTS. LET ME JUMP TO THE MAP REALLY QUICK SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE THAT. THAT IS BASICALLY -- RECONSTRUCTING FROM WHERE THE OVERPASS PROJECT STOPS UP TO 1660. SO THIS PORTION DOESN'T EVEN EXIST RIGHT NOW. IF YOU WANT TO GET ONTO 133, YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO 132 AND THEN COME OVER. AND SO THIS WAS ALWAYS PART OF THE PLAN TO CHANGE IT. TRACE THIS LINE ON TOP OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2018. SO THAT IS THE PROJECT THAT WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT THAT

STARTS IN 2016. >> THAT IS BASICALLY THE NORTH

PART OF WHAT WILL BE 1660? >> YES.

>> OKAY. THAT ACTUALLY CHANGES THE DISCUSSION ON THURSDAY NIGHT, BECAUSE I WAS ASKING WHY WERE TALKING ABOUT A SECTION OF ROAD THAT IS EVEN GOING TO BE PART OF THE ULTIMATE PLAN.

>> WHAT'S THE DEAL WITH THE ALLIANCE?

>> SO THAT ONE IS BASICALLY JUST WIDENING ALLIANCE BOULEVARD FROM '79 TO EMERY FARMS/SNYDER BOULEVARD. AND JUST BECAUSE OF -- AS I TOLD YOU I WOULD, I PRIORITIZED THE HEAVIER TRAFFIC ROADS OR ROADS THAT ARE PROJECTED TO BE HEAVIER, LIKE ARTERIALS AND ABOVE OVER THE SMALLER COLLECTOR ROADS. THAT'S WHY I PUSH THAT ONE OUT TO '27 AND PULL THESE INTO A CLOSER YEAR.

>> TO ME, THAT NEEDS TO BE IN DESIGN NEXT YEAR WITH CONSTRUCTION STARTING IN '26. BECAUSE THIS TIME NEXT YEAR, YOU HAVE THAT AND ALL THE INDUSTRIAL ON THAT ROAD.

>> LOOKING AT THE SCOPE OF THAT PROJECT, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE DESIGN WOULD TAKE THAT LONG. YOU COULD PROBABLY DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT THE SAME YEAR. 2.7 IS NOT A LOT OF SCOPE.

>> YEAH . I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT INNOVATION . THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF KIDS ON ALLIANCE.

>> YEAH , PARTICULARLY WITH ALL THAT STUFF COMING IN. SO YOU WOULD BE RECOMMENDING TO MOVE THE 2.75 INTO '25?

>> WAS THERE CONSENSUS ABOUT THAT?

>> OKAY. >> THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> OKAY. >> THE 1660 NORTH EXPANSION, I ASSUME THAT'S COMING FROM LIMITS IN CONSTRUCTION NORTH ?

>> YES. >> WHAT YEAR IS THE NINTH CENTER SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT OUT ?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> IT WILL BE BUILT OUT, BUT THERE IS AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IN CONSTRUCTION THERE AS WELL.

>> EVER GOING TO BE DOING COUNTY ROAD 199 IN '27, IF YOU WAIT ON -- CAN FRONT STREET REALLY WAIT ? AND IF YOU GET THAT ONE FIXED, AND IT'S LOOKING GOOD AND THEN IT'S

[04:35:02]

MAYBE DESIGN NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN '25 , SO WHEN WE ARE ALSO DESIGNING THAT INTERSECTION ACROSS FROM UNION PACIFIC, WE GET THE ALIGNMENT OF FRONT STREET AT THAT SAME TIME.

>> I DRIVE FRONT STREET PRETTY REGULARLY. IT DOESN'T HAVE THE TRAFFIC , THE CAR COUNTS AREN'T THERE.

>> I THINK A LAYER OF ASPHALT FIXES A LOT OF THINGS.

>> WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ON 199 WITH ALL OF THOSE BUILT OUT, AND THE ENTRANCE TO THE HIGH SCHOOL IS RIGHT OFF FRONT STREET FROM 199 AND YOU GOT THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT AT 1660? THE TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE GOING TO GO EXPONENTIALLY UP ON FRONT STREET. TODAY, I AGREE WITH YOU. THERE'S NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE COMING UP TO 199 BECAUSE THERE IS NO LIGHT. ONCE THERE IS A DEDICATED CONTROL LIGHT WITHIN 18 MONTHS , AT FRONT STREET AND 199, THE TRAFFIC COUNTS ARE GOING TO

SKYROCKET. >> WHICH PROJECT IS WHEN YOU

ARE TALKING ABOUT? >> THE 1660.

>> I'M ASKING WHAT IS CALLED ON HERE. 1660 SOUTH.

>> YEAH, IT SHOULD BE. WAIT'LL HE SCROLLS UP. IT'S IN HERE

SOMEWHERE. >> THE 1660 SOUTH CONSTRUCTION

-- >> 79.

>> THERE IT IS. >> SO THAT IS THE END OF THAT PROJECT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS, ONCE THAT IS DONE -- FRONT STREET TRAFFIC IS GOING TO ESCALATE A LOT.

>> THE PROJECT YOU ARE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT IS THE FRONT

STREET PROJECT. >> BECAUSE OF THIS ONE. SO I'M SAYING, MAYBE WE DESIGN A '25 FOR THAT ONE.

>> WE PUSH 199 OFF UNTIL '27 OR '28?

>> PEOPLE ARE STILL WOULD BE TURNING OUT ON THAT OVERLAY AND

USING THAT INTERSECTION. >> THE REASON PEOPLE AVOIDED NOW IS BECAUSE IT GETS STUCK AND CAN'T GET ACROSS 1660 PEOPLE FILL THE LANE. THEY SHOULDN'T, OR THEY GOT ONCOMING CARS COMING ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACK, AND SO PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO GO THAT WAY. THE MOMENT YOU HAVE A LIGHT, MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY, THAT IS THE QUICKEST WAY TO THE HIGH SCHOOL. IT'S THE QUICKEST WAY TO GET ONTO 79, BECAUSE I NOW HAVE A DEDICATED LIGHT. WE CAN'T IGNORE THAT ONE. IF A CHAIN COMES THROUGH, THEY'RE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT ON FRONT STREET UNTIL IT ROLLS AROUND, BECAUSE IT GOT CONSTRUCTION OTHER PLACES. YOU CAN'T DO 199 IN THE FRONT STREET AT THE SAME TIME. YOU PUT THEM ON THE SAME YEAR, '28, I'M SAYING YOU DO

FRONT STREET FIRST. >> YOU ARE SAYING NOT TO DO FRONT STREET FIRST? YOU ARE SAYING TO 199 FIRST?

>> YEAH. I AM SAYING THAT , I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILMEMBER PARK. BUT IF YOU REPAVE THE ROAD, IT IS SMOOTH, AND RECONSTRUCTING IS NOT MAKING MORE LANES. AND SO AGAIN, YOU ARE DROPPING $20 MILLION TO DO -- WHAT ARE YOU BENEFITING OUT OF THAT? HALF 1 MILLION IN SMOOTH ROAD, WHICH IS 20 MILLION GET YOU BY RECONSTRUCTION THAT YOU DON'T GET JUST PUTTING A LAYER OF ASPHALT?

>> WEARS THE FRONT STREET LIST ? IT'S NOT THERE ANYMORE.

>> YOU ARE WIDENING 199 . VERSES FROM FRONT STREET, YOU

ARE JUST REPAVING, RIGHT? >> WHAT IS FOR FRONT STREET, 8

MILLION? >> I WOULD SAY NO TO 8 MILLION.

[04:40:01]

>> IS THAT WHAT IS HAPPENING, ON 199, YOU ARE DEFINITELY WIDENING IT ON FRONT STREET THOUGH? YOU ARE REPAVING IT,

CORRECT? >> WE ARE FULLY RECONSTRUCTING, ADDING AND A CURVED GUTTER, THE WHOLE THING. ON FRONT STREET, THIS NUMBER IS BASICALLY JUST TO GET IT TO THE PROPER WITH AND GET REPAVED AND FIX ALL THE ISSUES. IT IS NOT A FULL ADD CURB AND GUTTER SIDEWALK, IT'S NOT THE WHOLE THING.

>> I WOULD DEFINITELY -- I SEE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM, COUNCILMEMBER, AND I KNOW FOR THOSE RESIDENTS, THAT IS -- FOR A LOT OF THEM, THAT THEIR PRIMARY WAY OF GETTING OUT OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF WE ARE TAKING A LONG TIME ON 132 ON THAT OVERPASS, THEN, I MEAN, 199 IS REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO GET OUT OF CROSS CREEK , COTTON BROKE I THINK IS WITH ANOTHER ONE IS CALLED. I WOULD DEFINITELY AGREE THAT 199 PROBABLY TAKES PRIORITY OVER -- OR DEAFLY SHOULD TAKE ALREADY

OVER FRONT STREET. >> YOU COMING BACK AND FIXING INTERSECTIONS. IF YOU WANTED TO FLOAT RIGHT, I THINK THE WIDENING OF THE ROAD , IT CAN FACE SOME REBUILDING AND

REPAVING. >> YEAH, START FROM THE BACK AND MOVE YOUR WAY UP. I THINK.

>> I THINK THERE'S ALSO GOING TO BE AN ADJUSTMENT WHEN SOUTHEAST LEAP GETS DONE. THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE AN ISSUE. WE ARE WIDENING THAT WITHOUT ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRAFFIC FLOWS IN SOUTHEAST LOUP. AND THEY COMPLETELY

CHANGE. >> SO SINCE WE ARE DOWN TO 70 MINUTES, HOW MUCH SHOULD I BE BUDGETING FOR THE INS IN THIS COMING BUDGET YEAR TO BE INCREASED , AND THEN THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN OR OUT CAN STILL BE ADJUSTED, BUT I NEED TO KNOW FOR MY MATH PURPOSES, FOR BUDGET PRESENTATION ON HOW MUCH I AM GOING TO ASSUME COUNCIL IS WILLING TO -- WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO STRUCTURE DEBT IN SUCH A WAY THAT WE PAY FOR IT. WE CAN START AT THE YEAR AFTER. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND, WHAT NUMBER AM I GOING TO ASSUME THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO INCREASE INS BY ? SO I CAN BUILD AND INTO BUDGET.

>> THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW IT WOULD COME IN HANDY FOR YOU.

>> YOU ARE AT 1364. >> IS THERE ANYWAY YOU COULD GIVE A PERCENTAGE INCREASE ONLINE 12?

>> SO WE DON'T HAVE TO KEEP CRUNCHING NUMBERS.

>> YEAH. I WOULD NEED SOME GUIDANCE ON --

>> TIMES 12, AND DIVIDE 1313, 93 -- THAT'S ON GETTING THE

MAC DONE. >> IT TOOK THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER PRICE , DIVIDED BY 100, TIMES THE TAX RATE, AND THEN YOU TOOK WITH THE NEW ANNUAL AMOUNT WOULD BE, AND YOU DID A BASIC SUBTRACTION TO DETERMINE THE PERCENT INCREASE.

SO THE NEXT THING WOULD BE -- >> THAT'S A 12.5% INCREASE

RIGHT THERE. >> AND YOU ARE COMFORTABLE

WITH, WHAT, 15? >> IS THE SUM OF 9, 10, AND 11.

DIVIDED BY THE CURRENT VALUE, THE CURRENT RATE.

>> MATT, THE NEXT THING YOU WOULD DO IS AT THE END OF THAT YOU WOULD PUT DIVIDED BY, OPEN PARENTHESES. GO TO THE ASSUMPTIONS PAGE , AND IT IS GOING TO BE FIELD B 5 TIMES -- OKAY. FIELD B-5 TIMES .5422 -- WHAT IS IT, ZERO?

[04:45:08]

>> CURRENT TAX RATE. >> IT IS -- .42211 .

>> DIVIDED BY 100. WE ONLY QUOTE TO 5.

>> NOT ON YOUR ACTUAL TAX BILL, YOU DON'T.

>> THAT'S ANOTHER PERCENT INSTEAD OF A DOLLAR.

>> AND THEN YOU CONTRACT THAT ACROSS.

>> GO BACK UP TO THE FORMULA AND PUT IN THE $SO IT LOCKS IT.

THERE YOU GO. AND THEN THE REST OF THAT SHOULD WORK.

>> THE ONLY CHANGES HAVE TO BE --

>> THANK YOU. >> YOU TO DO THE MATH

CALCULATION EVERY TIME. >> JUST TO MAKE ME HAPPY, WILL YOU CLICK ON THE SECOND YEAR'S TOTAL TO MAKE SURE THAT THE B DIDN'T BECOME 6. OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THE ONLY THING IS, I THINK THAT WHAT IS 45% INCREASE BACK

TO THE ORIGINAL -- >> IT IS 45% GOING BACKWARDS,

YEAR-OVER-YEAR. >> I THINK THE TAX DOLLAR INCREASE, I ADDED TO THE PERMANENT.

>> WE WILL DO MORE FORMULAS LATER. WE HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> I DON'T WANT ANY INCREASES , BUT THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN GO FIVE OR 10 YEARS WITHOUT INCREASES. TO ME, I AM COMFORTABLE WITH 13% . WE START FIRING PEOPLE IF WE ARE NOT HITTING PROJECT. BECAUSE AT SOME POINT, THE CITY HAS TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION. I THINK THE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO PAY SOMETHING , GETTING SOMETHING, BUT WHATEVER THE NUMBER, IT'S HIGH. IN THE '26 , WE NEED TO WORK TO MOVE TO THE 27, AND '27 TO '29. I THINK MINIMUM, WE NEED THREE YEARS TO AT LEAST START HAVE CARVING CONVERSATIONS , AND THEN YOU GUYS CAN WORK WITH DEVELOPERS ON OTHER ALTERNATE WAYS . I

DON'T KNOW. >> SO IF WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF

TIME, CAN WE GET BACK TO IT? >> WE CAN WORK PAST 2:00. I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO WORK WITH ON COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON HERE IS , THERE'S A COUPLE MILLION HERE AND THERE, WE CAN ALWAYS

CHANGE THAT IN THE BUDGET. >> I AM FINE WITH THE '15.

>> AT THE MAYOR'S FINE WITH '15, I AM FINE WITH THAT.

>> I THINK IT SHOULD BE MOVED TO '25. THERE'S A MIDDLE SCHOOL THERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THERE'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TODAY, IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN. WE SHOULD DO

THAT ONE AS SOON AS WE CAN. >> IT'S IN OUR PROJECT FOR

'29. >> IT IS NOT CURRENTLY IN THE CITY LIMITS . TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, THE REASON IT'S IN YOUR CIP IS BACK IN DECEMBER, COUNCIL VOTED TO INCLUDE THE PROJECT FROM THE THOROUGHFARE MASTER PLAN BECAUSE OF THE STATE LAW CHANGES ON HOW FUNDING WORKS AND ALL THAT KIND

OF STUFF. >> OTHERWISE, YOU CAN'T

INCLUDED FOR IMPACT FEES. >> WHAT CAN WE MOVE FROM '26?

>> 26? >> IT'S ALREADY IN YOUR TEAMS

FOLDER. >> BEST GUESS, IT'S GOING TO

BE LATE '26 FOR '27. >> WE HAVE A FEW PROJECTS, '27 -- NOW I'M THINKING '27 IS GOING TO WORK.

>> THE MAJORITY FOR THE COST OF YOUR BRIDGES ACTUALLY A '27.

>> CAN WE MOVE ANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS FROM '26 TO '25?

>> I THINK YOU CAN MOVE THAT TO '27, '28. WHAT YOU REALLY NEED IS A RIGHT TURN LANE TO GET THE TRAFFIC FLOWING. WE ARE DOING SIDEWALKS . I THINK THAT'S A BIG --

>> I THOUGHT I HEARD EARLIER WAS '25, THE TAX RATE IS LOWER THAN WHAT YOU FEEL YOU CAN STOMACH, AND '26 IS WAY TOO

HIGH. >> I THOUGHT WE WERE TRYING TO LOOK THAT OUT. I HATE TO SAY THIS. IF IT HELPS EVEN OUT

[04:50:21]

>> THE ONE ADVANTAGE IS -- IN THEORY WE ARE ALSO REDUCING THE

COST . >> THAT IS WHERE I'M THINKING WE MOVE SOME OF THESE OUT AND START PUBLISHING THIS STUFF. A FIVE-YEAR PLAN. THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO GET DONE. THE PROBLEM WE ARE SEEING NOW IS THERE IS NOTHING PLANNED. THERE

IS NOTHING HAPPENING . >> THE OTHER THING YOU WILL WANT TO BE CAREFUL OF IS WHILE YOU DO HAVE AUTHORIZED GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT FROM PARKS AND REC YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE FOR TRANSPORTATION. SO ANYTHING WE ARE GOING TO DO IN '25 THAT IS DEAD WOULD BE CO AND YOU ARE NOT GOING TO WANT THAT CO TO BE TERRIBLY BIG. YOU CAN DO A CO , BUT YOU DON'T WANT THAT NUMBER

TO BE 50, 60, $70 MILLION. >> IF YOU TOLD PEOPLE WERE DOING 50 MILLION AND IT'S GOING TO ROADS AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE OUT THERE SHOVELING ASPHALT, DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO BE UPSET BY THAT. WHAT I SEE THEM IS PASSING IT.

IF THEY DON'T START SEEING SOME STUFF DONE SUPERQUICK. DO

YOU GUYS DISAGREE WITH THAT? >> I JUST WANT TO RAISE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE AUTHORITY TO BE ISSUING DEBT

UNDER PREVIOUS. >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH MOVING IT OUT? HOW HARD IS IT TO ENGINEER AND PUT IN A RIGHT TURN LANE NORTHBOUND ? IT WON'T SOLVE IT ALL, BUT JUST TO HER -- TWO OR 300 FEET. YOU'VE GOT A FEW PEOPLE TO GO NORTH. ONE PERSON GOES NORTH. THEY STACK UP THE WHOLE ROAD.

JUST AN EFFORT TO BUY US A FEW MORE YEARS TO WHERE WE DON'T WASTE IT IT'S GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT .

>> I WOULD NOT SAY THAT IT IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT, BUT IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE TAXING WHEN YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE UTILITIES ALREADY IN THE GROUND AND ALL

THAT KIND OF STUFF. >> GOING TO HAVE TO MOVE THE RED LIGHT BECAUSE THE ARMS OF THE RED LIGHT MASTER ARE IN THE WAY. I WOULD SAY YOU CAN DO IT.

>> YOU CAN. AND I THINK WHERE THOSE NUMBERS ARE RIGHT THERE, 17.5 MILLION. YOU CAN PROBABLY DO THAT FOR 4 1/2. SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BETWEEN THE UTILITY RELOCATE. THE REDO OF THE

TRAFFIC LIGHT. >> IN PRIVATE WORK IT WOULD BE

A LOT LESS TO UNDERSTAND. >> I WOULD HATE FOR YOU TO

BUDGET TOO LOW. >> INNOVATION IS 2.1 MILLION FOR A SIGNAL. THAT IS A COMPLETELY NEW THING. I WOULD THINK FOR NOT MUCH MORE THAN 2 TO 3 MILLION YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT . AND THEN YOU MOVE THOSE OUT ANOTHER COUPLE YEARS.

YOU GET THE RIGHT TURN LANE. THINGS SET UP TO WHERE WHEN YOU

ADD IN -- >> I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH RIGHT-OF-WAY THERE IS THERE BECAUSE OF THE HIGH TENSION POWER LINES. THE HIGH-VOLTAGE POWER LINES. BUT YEAH. I THINK YOU COULD MOVE THAT OUT ARGUABLY. IF YOU LEFT , SAY, 4 MILLION-ISH BEHIND, THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN

GET THAT DONE. >> 27. 28 .

>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL LANE WIDENING'S . I ASSUME THAT IS THE SORT OF STUFF IN THAT.

>> THIS WAS TO TRY TO FIX ALL THE ISSUES INCLUDING THE SIGNAL . FIXING THE SIDEWALKS. WIDENING THE ROAD. FIXING ALL THE INTERSECTIONS IN BETWEEN. THIS IS TRYING TO ADDRESS ALL THOSE ISSUES IN THE DEVIOUS STUDIES.

>> ALSO WORKING TO GET A LIGHT . ED SCHMIDT .

>> CLOSE DRIVE. >> CHANDLER.

>> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT?

[04:55:01]

>> THEN YOU COULD MOVE THOSE OUT .

>> I'M TRYING TO GET PROJECTS TO 27.

>> YOU CAN MOVE THOSE TWO OUT TO 27 AND 28.

>> 4 1/2 IN 27. 9 MILLION IN 28.

>> YOU GUYS ARE AGREED TO DO THAT?

>> BUT I WOULD SAY THIS , IT PROBABLY NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING LESS THAN THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE STILL NEED TO DO THE FULL DESIGN BECAUSE IF WE ARE GOING TO GO OUT FOR A GEO BOND AND THIS WOULDN'T BE ONE OF THE NAMED PROJECTS , THEY HAVE ALREADY SAID THEY ARE WILLING TO DO IT . THEN WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE DESIGN. WE KNOW THE COST IDEA BECAUSE THAT MAY PULL IT FORWARD. AT LEAST PEOPLE ARE VOTING FOR IT.

>> IF YOU GO REALLY DETAILED, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET SUPPORT. OTHER CITIES DON'T GO OUT AND DO IT REGULARLY. I THINK THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO SAY 200 MILLION . I WOULD RATHER EACH INDIVIDUAL -- PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO SPEAK ON IT OR VOTE ON IT OR US VOTE ON IT. I DON'T THINK THERE IS A

PROBLEM WITH IT. >> YOU CAN GENERALLY GET MAY BE BETTER -- I WOULDN'T SAY INTEREST RATES, BUT YOU GET A BETTER PACKAGE WHEN YOU ARE SELLING MORE BECAUSE YOU ARE GETTING MORE ECONOMY OF SCALE OF THE COST OF ISSUING DEBT .

SO YOU USUALLY DON'T WANT TO ISSUE SMALL ISSUANCES, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ISSUE BIG ONES. MOST CITY COUNCILS END UP CHOOSING TO TAKE ROAD PACKAGES TO THE VOTERS BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM POLITICAL COVERAGE TO THE POINT THAT WAS BEING SPOKEN OF EARLIER. IF THE VOTERS WANT TO RAISE THEIR TEXAS . BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO. COUNCILS HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ISSUE DEBT, PAY FOR CRITICAL PROJECTS. JUST KNOW THAT IF YOU DO GO TO THE VOTERS AND THEY VOTE NO, THE STATE HAS CHANGED THE RULES TO WHERE THE COUNCIL CANNOT COME BACK AND ISSUE A CO TO DO IT AFTER THE FACT. YOU HAVE TO WAIT A NUMBER OF YEARS BEFORE

THE COUNCIL CAN DO IT. >> WHAT ABOUT MOVING TO 48 INTO '25 AND THEN MOVING T 47 OUT TO '27 .

>> EVERY TIME WE DO A BIG CHANGE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO

ANOTHER SHADE? >> AGAIN, I LIKE TO SEE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A WAY TO DO IT. IF YOU DO CO, CAN YOU REPAVE THE MONEY WITH THE CO MONEY?

>> YEAH. WHAT YOU CAN'T USE IT FOR HIS OPERATIONAL EXPENSES.

>> IF WE ARE GOING TO REBUILD AND DELAY THEIR ASPHALT DOWN.

LITERALLY. >> I WOULD NOT DO THAT WITH CO MONEY. I WOULD DO THAT WITH O IN AND -- YOUR TRAFFIC AND COMMUNITY BENEFITS. THE REASON IS THAT ASPHALT YOU'RE PUTTING DOWN WON'T LAST 30 YEARS AND YOU ARE PAYING INTEREST ON 30 YEARS. YOU COULD DO TAX NOTES MAY BE. SEVEN YEARS.

>> 30 YEARS . WE BORROW SO MUCH MONEY . HOWEVER YOU SPEND IT .

AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO DO OTHER THINGS BECAUSE THERE'S

OTHER ROADS OUT THERE. >> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND AS CITY MANAGER YOU SPEND DEBT TO PUT ASPHALT ON A ROAD. THAT'S

RIGHT. THAT'S RIGHT. >> WHATEVER IT TAKES TO GET IT

DONE. >> TRYING TO MOVE UP TO 1660 INTO '25 TO TRY TO FLATTEN THINGS OUT. I THINK FROM INNOVATION TO SCHMIDT COULD MOVE OUT. THAT WOULD TAKE 13 -- ALMOST 14 MILLION OFF OF 26. IT WOULD PUT A LITTLE MORE IN 25.

AND THEN WHERE DO WE LAND? T 47 ?

>> I AGREE. YOU ARE SAYING, MOVE ONE UP , MOVE ONE BACK.

>> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WILL BE READY TO GO FOR CONSTRUCTION TO 1660. AND WE ARE JUST TEARING UP THAT INTERSECTION.

YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT DONE AND THEN TEAR UP THE REST OF IT

AT THE SAME TIME. >> RIGHT NOW YOU GET THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION . IF YOU ARE A MORNING RUSH-HOUR PERSON YOU

GET THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION. >> ALL THE COMPLAINTS. I HAVE

[05:00:03]

TO SEE THEM. >> I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO HEARING PEOPLE COMPLAINING THAT THE ROADS ARE BEING BUILT. I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE NOW THEY'RE GOING TO GET THROUGH . THEY ARE JUST JUMPING RIGHT INTO THE NEXT.

>> REALISTICALLY DO YOU THINK 247 AND 48 -- CAN EITHER ONE OF THOSE ACTUALLY BE COMPLETED OR STARTED IN 25?

>> LIKE YOU SAID, WE HAVE THE MONEY. WE CAN JUST JUMP RIGHT INTO IT AS SOON AS IT IS READY.

>> THAT'S TRUE. I GUESS WE COULD MOVE STUFF TO 25 AND WE

MAY NOT ACTUALLY GET IT. >> WE CAN TRY IN 25.

>> AS LONG AS THAT IS NOT ON THE LIST OF THINGS I'M GETTING FIRED FOR, I'M GOOD TO GO. WE PUT THAT AT 25 AND YOU DIDN'T

GET IT STARTED. JUST KIDDING. >> IF WE PUT IT IN 2025, I

GUARANTEE. >> THERE YOU GO, MATT RECTOR. I

LIKE IT. >> MOVE THOSE TWO INTO 25 .

THOSE TWO VALUES. >> SO YOU ARE SAYING PUT THESE

TWO -- >> I THINK BOTH OF THEM MIGHT

BE A BIT MUCH. >> I THINK WE WILL BE OKAY. I THINK IF WE DO BOTH WE WILL KIND OF LAND WHERE WE WANT TO

BE. >> TAKE THE CONSTRUCTION VALUE AT 6.7 TO 7.1 AND PUT THOSE ON TOP OF THE DESIGN VALUES OF

748. >> YEAH.

>> AN EFFORT TO MAKE IT TO 26.

>> RAISE TEXAS. >> IT DEPENDS IF WE DON'T HAVE STREETS WE PRESENT OTHER STUFF.

>> WE'VE ALREADY GOT A STREET SWEEPER. WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER

ONE. >> RIGHT AT 15%.

>> EQUIPMENT FOR MAINTENANCE EITHER WAY.

>> 26 . WHAT ELSE CAN WE TAKE OUT OF THERE. WE ARE STILL SITTING AT 28, 29, AND 41. MOVING 26 , HOW MUCH FLATTER ARE WE REALLY GOING TO GET? WE CAN MOVE A LITTLE BIT OF 26 TO 27 AND 28, BUT THEY ARE ALL GOING TO COME IN.

>> 30%. OVER 30%. >> RIGHT NOW WE ARE NOT SHOWING

ANY. >> ANYTHING OVER 20. 20% INCREASE. SOMETHING HAS GOT TO GIVE IN '26. MAY HAVE TO COME OUT OF PARKS . MAY HAVE TO COME DOWN TO BUILDING FACILITY. YOU GET TO 27. NOT MUCH WITH THE PARKS. AGAIN NOW YOU ARE INTO BUILDING FACILITIES. HE MET GOT TO GET IT ROLLING . EVEN THAT IS A CHICKEN AND EGG THING. WE HAVE TO GET FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THE DEVELOPMENT HAVE SOMETHING FEASIBLE TO WORK WITH.

>> WHAT MAKES UP THE 988 IN 26?

>> A ME ONE SECOND. I WILL SCROLL UP A LITTLE FURTHER.

>> HUTTO LAKE PARK. >> I MOVE THE HUTTO LAKE PARK.

'25 AT 10 MILLION. THAT NEEDS TO GO TO 29 OR SOMETHING. MAYBE

EVEN 30. >> HUTTO LAKE PARK NEED SOME HELP. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS IN THE SCOPE OF THAT 8 MILLION. I

DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW. >> IF ONLY WE HAD PARKS DIRECTOR SITTING RIGHT HERE YOU COULD ASK WHAT THE SCOPE WAS.

>> WHAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO ON DOLLAR MONEY THAT IS GOING TO BE MEANINGFUL TO HUTTO LAKE PARK ?

>> ONE OF THE JEFF WYATT DIRECTORY OF PARKS AND REC. ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT SHOULD BE FARTHER DOWN FOR THE PLAYGROUND. THAT IS REDOING THAT WHOLE PLAYGROUND. THAT WAS BUDGETED AT $500,000. BRUSH CREEK . BASICALLY EVERYTHING IN

[05:05:03]

THE PARK EXCEPT THAT AREA. >> PARK RENOVATION. THAT NUMBER WAS -- WE USED THE TERM, ASSUMPTION . WE ARE DOING A SITE MASTER PLAN AS PART OF PARKS MASTER PLAN FOR HUTTO LAKE PARK. I THINK IT IS COMING IN CLOSER TO 4 1/2.

>> I'M LOOKING MORE AT LINE 434. -- 34. IF WE ARE GOING TO PARTNER WITH THE REGIONAL ATHLETIC CENTER, WHO KNOWS. MAY BE WE EXPAND AND PUT FOOTBALL FIELDS BEHIND IT OR SOMETHING.

>> THOSE ARE NOT BUILT INTO THOSE ASSUMPTIONS OF COST

THOUGH. >> THE ATHLETIC DEALER .

>> OKAY. THAT IS ALSO NOT -- >> WAIT A MINUTE. LET'S GO

BACK TO HUTTO LAKE PARK. >> FOR PLAYGROUND.

>> THAT WAS FOR ANY DESIGN COSTS GOING TO GO IN WITH IT.

>> IF YOU PUT A PLAYGROUND IN -- PUT A PARK IN.

THAT HIS SIGNATURE PARK. 10 MILLION. NEED TO SPEND ANOTHER 10 MILLION OR 9 MILLION ON ANOTHER PARK RIGHT OUT OF THE GATE . WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON CANNOT NOT GO TO 28, 29, AND 30?'S MAC FIRST YOU JUST SAID THAT EIGHT BECOMES FOUR. THAT

IS HALF OF IT ALREADY. >> THEN THE DESIGN COST GOES

DOWN AS WELL WITH THAT. >> 5 MILLION IN THE PARK GO OUT

TO 2030. >> THAT IS FOR YOU TO DECIDE AS

COUNCIL. >> IT IS A NEW PLAYGROUND.

ADDING MORE PARKING. MORE PARKING. ADDITIONAL PARKING LOT THERE. ADDING PERMITS TO THE LAKE ITSELF. ADDING A PUBLIC ART PLEASE. REDOING THE TRAIL TO MAKE IT MORE CONDUCIVE .

DECOMPOSED GRANITE TRAIL. WORKING WITH UPPER BRUSH , OF COURSE. BECAUSE THEY HAVE AN EASEMENT. MAKING SURE THEY ARE COMPLIANT WITH EVERYTHING GOING ON THERE.

>> I THINK THE PLAYGROUND NEEDS TO HAPPEN. YOU GUYS JUST REBUILT THE DOCK READY RECENTLY. THE REST OF THE PARK SEEMS TO BE KEPT IN GOOD SHAPE. IT HAS REALLY BEEN CLEANED UP OVER THE LAST COUPLE YEARS . DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT THAT IT IS IN BETTER SHAPE THAN IT WAS?

>> OH, YEAH. THAT LINE IS GONE. WE PUT A NEW DOCK OUT THERE.

THIS IS JUST MORE GENERAL IMPROVEMENTS .

>> I WOULD LOVE TO SEE SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS . PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE. A WHOLE SEPARATE ENTRANCE. I WOULD LOVE TO DO THOSE THINGS WHEN WE CAN FIGURE OUT A GOOD TIME TO SPEND THAT MONEY. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS IT.

>> THE ONE THING WE MIGHT CONSIDER LEAVING IN. IT GOT KIND OF GLOSSED OVER. THE TRAIL AROUND IT IS A VERY NICE TRAIL . AND IT IS GOOD FOR ALL SORTS OF FOLKS. BUT IT IS DECOMPOSED GRANITE, WHICH MEANS IT IS NOT ACCESSIBLE. AND THEN YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF THE COMPOSITE THAT ARE LIKE FOOTBRIDGES. I REALLY THINK IF YOU ARE NOT GOING TO DO A BIG PARK ADJUSTMENT YOU OUGHT TO LEAVE MONEY IN FOR SHIFTING THE DECOMPOSED GRANITE TO A PERMEABLE CONCRETE OR WHATEVER THE DISTRICT WILL ALLOW. AND YOU SHOULD REPLACE THE FOOTBRIDGES WITH SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY SUITABLE FOR A.D.A. SO THAT WAY EVERYBODY CAN ACCESS. YOU DON'T REALLY NEED TO DO A WHOLE LOT .

>> THAT CAN GET OUT TO THE DOCK.

>> THEY CAN FISH. THEY CAN EXERCISE.

>> THE PAVILION IS IN GOOD SHAPE FOR THE RESTROOM PROBABLY

NEEDS -- >> I WOULD CUT IT ALL OUT.

INAUDIBLE ] PARK IMPROVEMENT. >> IF IT IS NOT IN 25 IT CAN BE FUNDED WITH PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDS.

>> ALL TRAIL EXTENSIONS OUT . I THINK THE CITY NEEDS TO REALLY WORK WITH SOMEONE TO SPONSOR TRAILS . THEY HAVE BUSINESSES .

THEY HAVE A SIX AND EIGHT FOOT WIDE TRAIL. BUT TO ME ATHLETIC FIELDS ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO THE CITY AND I THINK THAT IS GOING TO TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER TRAIL EXTENSIONS. I THINK TRAIL EXTENSIONS ARE IMPORTANT BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A

DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING THAT . >> THE LAST SURVEY WE GOT,

[05:10:03]

TRAILS WERE AT THE TOP. >> NOT ATHLETIC FIELDS.

>> TRAILS ALWAYS RANKS HIGH IN OUR SURVEYS. NEXT THURSDAY OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING ADOPTING OUR TRAILS MASTER PLAN THAT CALLS OUT FOR A 10-YEAR SCOPE OF HIGH, LOW, AND MEDIUM PRIORITIES RELATED TO THE FUTURE TRAIL EXPANSIONS. THE OTHER THING TO CONSIDER IS WE DO NEED FIELDS. WE DO NEED AQUATICS. WE DO NEED A REC CENTER. WE DO NEED ATHLETIC FIELDS. AS FAR AS ONM COST, USUALLY TRAILS IS AT THE LOWER END OF ANNUAL REOCCURRING UNLESS THERE IS BROKEN CONCRETE HERE OR THERE.

>> I'M NOT SAYING I'M AGAINST TRAILS. I JUST THINK THERE IS A REALLY EASY SOLUTION . THE ONLY WAY TO GET US TO ACTUALLY DO IT IS TO SAY WE NEED TRAILS AND WE ARE NOT FUNDING THEM WITH TAX DOLLARS. WE NEED SPONSORS. LET'S ADOPT A TRAIL. TRAILS ARE NOT SUPER EXPENSIVE TO DO GRID QUARTER-MILE. HALF-MILE.

>> I WOULD VIEW THAT AS A COUNCIL POLICY . PROBABLY THE TIME TO DECIDE THAT IS WHENEVER YOU ARE ADOPTING THE MASTER PLAN. WE COULD USE DIFFERENT SOURCES OF REVENUE, WHICH I HAVE ALWAYS POINTED OUT . WHICH AGAIN IS WHY WE HAVE THE DATA THE WAY WE DO TO BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT IT. USE YOUR PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDS. RAISE MONEY BUT ALSO ISSUED DEBT. THAT IS THE DECISION THE COUNCIL DOES NEED TO MAKE A DECISION ON AND

SET A POLICY FOR ITS >> I WOULD MOVE ALL OF THEM TO THE NON-DEBT. THAT GIVES DIRECTION FOR THEM TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO DO FUNDRAISING, WHICH WOULD BE THE CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP OR WHATEVER THING. BUT IT IS NOT NEW DEBT ISSUANCE

FOR TRAILS. >> DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH

THAT? >> NO.

>> THEY NEED STUFF . >> SO I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN STAY IN 25. IF YOU GET A SPONSOR, THAT TRAIL GETS BUILT THIS YEAR. TAXPAYERS ARE NOT PAYING FOR IT. I WOULD ALSO HIGHLY ENCOURAGE YOU GET AN ATHLETIC FIELD COMPLEX WITH A

LARGE CORPORATE SPONSOR. >> OH, YEAH.

>> THERE SHOULD NOT BE HUTTO ATHLETIC FIELD. IT SHOULD BE HUTTO ATHLETIC FIELDS SPONSORED BY SOME COMPANY.

>> I DON'T MIND IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE

NASCAR. >> WE DON'T WANT IT TO LOOK LIKE NASCAR.

SPONSOR. >> BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK TACKY.

>> IF YOUR PAVILION HAD A BRIGHT BLUE ROOF , DON'T THINK THE MAJORITY OF THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO CARE. WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO LIKE AS THEY CAN AFFORD TO EAT THERE BECAUSE ALL OF THIS STUFF COMBINED HELPS OUT . TRAILS. SPLASH PAD. A LOT OF THINGS PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO DO.

>> I COULDN'T IMAGINE YOU COULDN'T GET A SPONSOR FOR

PICKLEBALL RIGHT NOW. >> DISC GOLF. 275,000 IS A DISK GOLF COURSE.

YOUR DISK GOLF COURSE AND YOU CAN PUT SIGNAGE UP . DOING GREAT. WE WOULD LOVE TO DO THAT. WE WILL BUILD IT TODAY.

AT THE END OF 10 YEARS WE IMPROVE IT. THE ONLY WAY TO DO THAT IS A CITY COUNCIL POLICY HAS TO BE WE ONLY BORROW MONEY WHEN WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO BORROW MONEY AND ALL OTHER OPTIONS HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED. IF I COULD GET SOMEBODY TO SPONSOR A BRIDGE, I WOULD BE PUSHING THAT.

>> 235 THAT WOULD BE BUSY. HOW COULD YOU NOT SELL A SPONSORSHIP?

>> YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED. ANYWAY. THE TRAILS TO NON-DEBT.

IF YOU HAVE TO PUSH THEM OUT SO THAT IT DOESN'T MESS WITH 25.

I THINK ONCE WE GET 25, 26, AND 27 LOT BETTER GRASP OF WHAT IT IS DOING TO OUR TEXAS. AND THEN I THINK WE ARE GOING TO HAVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ASSUMPTIONS , BUT I DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT HAPPENING BEFORE

[05:15:01]

27. DO YOU, JAMES ? >> 27 IS GOING TO BE YOUR FIRST

KEY. >> WHAT WAS THE DIRECTION ON

THE ATHLETIC FIELDS? >> THE ATHLETIC FIELDS THEY DID

NOT GIVE A DIRECTION ON. >> THAT IS OUR YOUTH IN MY MIND. TRAILS TEND TO BE YOUR OLDER PEOPLE.

>> THAT COULD ALSO BE YOUR PARTNERSHIP WITH AN ENTITY THAT COMES IN AND DOES WHATEVER ELSE.

>> AS YOU RECALL , LAST THURSDAY THE NUMBER THAT WE HAVE HERE -- THE NUMBER THEY PRESENTED GAVE YOU FOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THE MOST AFFORDABLE ONE WAS TO BUILD ON TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW. IF YOU TAKE OUT THE NEED FOR A PLAYGROUND BECAUSE WE HAVE SOME OF THE BILLIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, IT REALLY GETS IT DOWN TO PROBABLY 4 1/2 MILLION DOLLARS.

TALKING WITH MHS . NOT TO SAY WE HAVE TO GO WITH THEM TO DO THIS OR NOT, BUT TALKING WITH THEM THEY THOUGHT THIS WOULD BE A GOOD CANDIDATE FOR A TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE GRANT. THEY PERSONALLY HAVE 70 TO 80% HISTORY OF SUCCESSFUL GRANTS.

NOT TO SAY WE HAVE TO GO WITH THEM OR NOT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE AWARE OF THAT AS AN OPTION.

>> IT WOULD GET YOUR DESIGN FEES COVERED BASICALLY.

>> CAN YOU STOP FOR JUST A SECOND? WE HAVE ALL THIS ATHLETIC FIELD MONEY. WOULDN'T THAT INCLUDE SOCCER FIELD IMPROVEMENTS WHEN THEY ARE GOING TO BE RELOCATED TO A NEW LOCATION? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT ONE DEPENDS ON THE OTHER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE DOUBLE COUNTING.

>> WE ARE BIG INTO SOCCER.

MORE MONEY INTO RIVERWALK SOCCER FIELDS. I WOULD MAKE IT PART OF THE COMPLEX. SOCCER TOGETHER. YOU COULD HAVE SOCCER, FLAG FOOTBALL , AND LACROSSE . TOURNAMENTS. IF YOU BUILD ENOUGH OF THEM YOU COULD HAVE ALL OF THAT AND NEVER BE

LEFT OUT. >> THAT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE YMCA . THEY COULD PROBABLY AT THAT POINT TAKE OVER RIVERWALK INSTEAD OF PLAYING IN THE TWIST YOUR ANKLE BETWEEN RAY AND FARLEY, WHICH IS WHY IT IS A REAL CHALLENGE.

>> YOU ARE RIGHT. THEY COULD DO THAT. THEY COULD TAKE OVER THE MAINTENANCE. 12 KIDS. THAT IS REALLY WHAT THAT IS GEARED TOWARD. BECAUSE I THINK IF THE Y FOCUSES ON THE ELEMENTARY INAUDIBLE ] THE CITY FOCUSES ON MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL.

AND ADULT. I THINK THAT IS A GOOD PERSON. I THINK IT IS A REALLY GOOD -- WORKING TOGETHER.

FIELDS AND ALL THAT . >> SO DO YOU WANT TO ADD AN ITEM ON THERE FOR THAT ATHLETIC COMPLEX?

>> THAT IS PART OF THE BALL FIELDS.

>> WELL, AS THE PRESENTATION HAD THE OTHER DAY, THEY HAD THE FOUR OPTIONS. THEY RANGE IN PRICE BASED ON WHAT YOU WANT TO

DO. >> THE PRICE IS BASED ON WHICH OPTION. YOU HAVE $26 MILLION. WHAT OPTION WHERE YOU WERE

ASSUMING ? >> WE DID THIS BEFORE THE STUDY

CAME OUT. >> I THINK WE NEED TO COME BACK AND GIVE YOU FURTHER DIRECTION. I FORGOT THE OTHER QUESTION. I DEFINITELY WOULDN'T . ANY MONEY IN THE RIVERWALK. IF THERE ARE OTHER ONES BUILT, TURN IT OVER TO THE YMCA. AND THEN THAT WILL SAVE US COSTS .

>> YOU ARE NOT EVEN CONSIDERING THE PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP EITHER. THAT IS PROBABLY A REALISTIC THING TO CONSIDER TOO. SO I THINK IF YOU SCRAP THE SOCCER AND THEN YOU LEAVE THE 26 MILLION BUT MAYBE BUMP IT OUT A YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT IS PROBABLY ABOUT RIGHT BECAUSE WHAT THEY DID NOT QUOTE YOU IN THAT ASSESSMENT WERE ANY TURF FIELDS. AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE SOME FIELDS THAT ARE TURF AND THOSE ARE EXCESSIVELY EXPENSIVE IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER FIELDS. YOU ARE GOING TO NEED THAT IN ORDER TO HAVE YEAR-ROUND ALL WEATHER PLAY IF YOU ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE A COMPLEX. IF YOU'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE BALL FIELDS HERE AND THERE , NO BIG DEAL. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A COMPLEX, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED AT LEAST SOME TURF. OKAY. YEAH. LOWER 26 BY MOVING THE 17 OUT. THAT IS A

[05:20:01]

NET DECREASE. >> IT WENT TO 34. NOW WE ARE AT

12. >> OR YOU BORROW MORE. BORROW MORE IN '25 TO FUND MORE IN '26.

>> THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE LAND ACQUISITION .

>> I'M HOPING TO GET THAT. >> WHAT I'M CONSIDERING -- I KNOW IT IS YOUR PREROGATIVE, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO REALISTICALLY BE DEVELOPING COTTONWOOD BY '26 AND YOU ARE REALISTICALLY GOING TO CONSIDER A PUBLIC PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP FOR BALL FIELDS, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT THE BUDGET SLATED FOR 26. SOME BUDGET. MAYBE NOT ALL OF IT.

>> I WOULD PROBABLY DO THE FULL DESIGN THING WHICH WOULD BE,

LIKE, 3 MILLION. >> YES.

>> DO YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT THOUGHT?

>> YOU MOVE 3 MILLION INTO 25?

>> NO. THREE IN 26. >> HOW IS COTTONWOOD DEVELOPING IN 26 IF WE ARE NOT EVEN STARTING DEVELOP THE BRIDGE IN

27. >> THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTY.

INAUDIBLE ] THEY WON'T BE BUILDING RETAIL RIGHT AWAY.

>> YOUR PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING. GOING INTO MEGA SITE DOWN THERE. I'M SORRY. I MEANT TO SAY THE POLICE BUILDING. THEY CAN GET ACCESS OFF THE EXISTING ROAD NETWORK. RESIDENTIAL.

TOWNHOMES CAN. SO IT WILL BE THE COMMERCIAL THAT WILL BE

DEPENDENT ON THE OVERPASS. >> IT IT DEPENDS ON INTERNAL

ROADS. >> AND IT IS A 30% INCREASE.

BUT ALSO WHAT -- WE CANNOT LOOK AT THE OTHERS.

>> NO WAY THE PUBLIC -- THERE IS NO WAY THEY ARE GOING TO

HANDLE THE TEXAS . >> $28 A MONTH. $34 A MONTH.

>> THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE. FOR US , THIS PERCENTAGE THING MAKES SENSE. YES, IT DOES. BUT I THINK WHO KNOWS -- WHEN I THINK OF PERCENTAGE, I WOULD SAY 30%. IF I WAS LISTENING TO THE SOUND BITE OR PARTIALLY READ SOMETHING ON SOCIAL MEDIA OR WHATEVER, IF YOU TOLD ME 12% OR 32%, I WOULD MULTIPLY -- THEY WOULD ASSUME BECAUSE IT IS HUTTO ALWAYS THEIR TOTAL TAX BILL WENT UP 30%. IF I PAID $6000 ON MY HOUSE , YOU ARE SAYING IT IS GOING UP 30%. MY FIRST REACTION WOULD BE IT IS GOING UP $1900. IT'S NOT. IT IS GOING UP $40 A MONTH. 450.

THAT IS ONLY 7.5% TOTAL INCREASE. ISD COULD GO UP AND STUFF. IT ISN'T GOING UP . COUNTY COULD GO UP. NUMBER THREE CANNOT GO UP . A LOT OF THOSE ONES ARE FIXED. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE. SO I'M JUST SAYING IF YOU USE PERCENTAGE, THAT IS WHY I KIND OF LIKE THE MONTHLY COST NUMBER OR AN ANNUAL COST DOLLAR BECAUSE IF YOU JUST SAY PERCENTAGE I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE WOULD MULTIPLY THEIR ENTIRE TAX BILL BY 30% AND GO, GOSH, I WENT FROM $6000-$9000 AND THAT IS NOT WHAT IS HAPPENING. IT IS GOING FROM

$6000 TO $6400. >> IF YOU KEPT IT LIKE THIS , $1300 PER MONTHLY BASIS, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY THESE PEOPLE ARE PAYING SIX OR 7000 A YEAR IN TOTAL TEXAS.

$4000 . EVERYBODY ELSE'S IS BOUND TO GO UP . RULE 72. EVERY TWO POINT SOMETHING YEARS IT IS DOUBLING. IN FOUR YEARS AT 30% INCREASES YOU HAVE GONE THROUGH 13 TO 26 TO 5200. YOU JUST CAN'T DO THAT. THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE TO TELL PEOPLE, WE CANNOT DO X. WE CANNOT DO Y BECAUSE WE CAN'T.

>> ALL OF THE PERCENTAGES . REMEMBER WE COULD NOT MAKE THE

[05:25:04]

>> IT SHOULD GET A LITTLE LESS.

>> BUT IF YOU DO

>> ADD UP THE COST AND SEE WHAT THE SAME PERSON LIVING HERE WOULD BE PAYING ON THE TAB . THE SAME PERSON LIVING HERE IN THE SAME HOME . WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR THAT. SO IF YOU TOOK ALL THE DOLLARS THAT ARE THE TOTAL MONTHLY INCREASES -- I'M SORRY. K 9 THROUGH K 11. ALL THE WAY DOWN. TELL ME THE SUM OF THAT NUMBER. HOW MUCH IS THAT?

>> $159.02. >> THEY WOULD BE PAYING $159 A MONTH MORE IF YOU DID EVERYTHING THE WAY THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW. THAT IS 159÷12, WHICH IS, WHAT? $3000 ? I'M

SORRY. >> 159÷12 WOULD BE $1900.

>> $1900 MORE. THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

>> $159 TIMES 12. $482 . >> EVEN THAT NUMBER IS NOT RIGHT BECAUSE UNLESS THIS DOLLAR NUMBER IS ALSO ASSUMING YOU ARE INCREASING THE TAXABLE VALUE BASED ON POPULATION GROWTH FROM THOSE MONTHLY INCREASES EACH YEAR.

>> ALL OF THE ACTUAL COLUMNS THAT ARE NOT PERCENTAGES ARE ACCOUNTING FOR INCREASE IN HOME VALUE, INCREASE IN TAX BASE.

ALL OF IT. BUT IF I AM LIVING IN MY HOUSE THE WHOLE TIME AND THINGS GROW THE WAY WE PROJECTED WITH THE ASSUMPTIONS, I WOULD BE PAYING IN FIVE YEARS $159 A MONTH MORE FOR MY MORTGAGE FOR CITY TEXAS. YOU TAKE 159÷12 AND IT IS THAT

TOTAL AMOUNT. >> $1900.

>> WHATEVER THE MASS IS. I'M NOT DOING IT.

>> THESE CALCULATIONS. INITIAL VALUE OUT SEPARATE. IS THAT

INCLUDING THAT OR EXCLUDING ? >> IS STILL INCLUDED.

>> I THINK IT IS STILL INCLUDED. IT IS JUST BROKEN OUT

SO YOU CAN SEE IT. >> SO THIS IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS WE ARE GOING TO BE USING THAT.

>> WE HAVE NOT GOT THE DATA TABLE SOPHISTICATED ENOUGH TO PULL OUT AND THEN ALIGN PROJECTS WITH TIMING

SPECIFICALLY . >> COMING ONLINE AND MAKING AN

IMPACT. >> WE SIMPLY USE THE TABLE THEY SHARED WITH US. WE DIDN'T MAKE UP NUMBERS. WE JUST TOOK WHAT THEY GAVE US AND THAT IS WHAT THEY USED.

>> THIS IS WHERE I THINK WE GET TO THE FACILITIES. THIS IS THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THE FACILITIES. THAT HELPS THREE DOLLARS . IT WILL GO TO THE VOTERS. DO YOU WANT TO BUILD A POLICE STATION. THE ANSWER IS YES AND I DON'T MIND IT GOING ABOVE 15% BECAUSE THEY VOTED FOR IT KNOWING WE HAVE EDUCATED THEM. WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, WE SAY WE ARE DOING IT EACH YEAR WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE, DO YOU STILL WANT TO PUMP IT MORE.

IF THEY SAY YES, I SAY WE HOLD IT. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD KEEP BUILDING FACILITY COSTS IN OUR COMPUTATIONS NECESSARILY BECAUSE I DO ALL OF THOSE . NOT BEING OUR DECISION. VOTER DECISION. WE ARE NOT SELECTING ANY OF THOSE ON THE GROUND.

>> REAL QUICK CAN YOU -- THERE WAS SOME THAT WAS --

>> STREET MAINTENANCE FEE. DRAINAGE FEE IS FOUR DOLLARS A MONTH. WE'RE TRYING TO DO MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN DRAINAGE

WORK ON FOUR DOLLARS A MONTH. >> THIS YEAR IS THE ONLY YEAR WHERE THAT REALLY MATTERS. THERE WERE DIFFERENT BUCKETS OF MONEY TO PAY FOR THINGS. WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE A WAY TO TALK ABOUT IT TO WHERE IT IS ALL THE SAME.

>> I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK -- I DON'T LIKE PROPERTY TAX MONEY BECAUSE YOUR HOUSE GOES UP EVERY YEAR. ONCE YOU SELL THE DEBT, IT IS ALL SET FOR YOUR VALUE TO GO UP AND PAY OFF MORE. IT GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE EVERY YEAR. EVEN IF YOU STOP ISSUING DEBT. SO IF YOU GO TO JUST FLAT FEES LIKE

[05:30:02]

HOUSE IS. >> IT IS REGRESSIVE. WHATEVER

YOU DO -- IT IS REGRESSIVE. >> PROPERTY TAX GOING 30%.

>> PROPERTY TAX IS PROGRESSIVE CONCEPTUALLY. AND FLAT TEXAS OR FLAT CHARGES ARE REGRESSIVE. PROPERTY TAX MEANS PEOPLE WHO HAVE MORE WEALTH HAVE MORE VALUE. PAY MORE VERSUS PEOPLE WHO PAY LESS OR LESS VALUE. THE PERCENTAGE OF MY CONSUMABLE INCOME. IF I AM PORTER OR I HAVE LESS VALUE IN MY HOME AND I PAY THE SAME FEE THEN I AM PAYING A HIGHER PERCENTAGE.

THAT IS WHAT PROGRESSIVE AND REGRESSIVE TEXAS ARE. YOU DO HAVE TO HAVE A BALANCE OF THOSE. WE DO HAVE A BALANCE OF

THOSE. GO AHEAD. >> EXCEPT FOR THAT DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT GENTRIFICATION, WHICH HAPPENS BECAUSE -- JUST BECAUSE THE TEXAS ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE. THEY ARE ALL REGRESSIVE BECAUSE SOME LADY DID EVERYTHING SHE WAS SUPPOSED TO DO AND SHE RETIRED AT THE AGE OF 55 .

>> HER TEXAS ARE FROZEN. HER TEXAS KEEP GOING UP AND UP . IT IS NOT HER FAULT THE VALUE KEEPS GOING UP. HE DID NOT DO ANYTHING. IT IS HURTING THEM. SO I THINK WE'RE SOMEWHERE IN

THE MIDDLE . >> THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I SAID.

WE HAVE BOTH. WE DON'T HAVE JUST ONE OR THE OTHER.

>> BECAUSE YOU SEE THAT MORE PEOPLE HAVE THAT BECAUSE THEIR TEXAS ARE TOO HIGH OF NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. THE CITY KEEPS

PUMPING THE TEXAS. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS IN THAT LOGIC WE HAVE PUT IN -- WE TRIED TO PROPOSE A $10 ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE . THERE MONTHLY INCREASE STILL WENT UP $20 OR 18. IT IS JUST YOU HATED 10 OF IT IN THEIR WATER BILL. IT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER . IF YOU SUBTRACT THE $10 OUT OF ALL

THREE OF THOSE YEARS. >> I WOULD PUSH ON THAT ONE BIT BECAUSE THIS IS AVERAGE. SO WHAT YOU HAVE CHANGED IS NOW THE PEOPLE WHOSE HOUSES ARE NOT WORTH 300 OR MORE WOULD BE PAYING LESS THAN THE $10. THAT IS WHY IT IS PROGRESSIVE AND REGRESSIVE WHEN YOU HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THESE THINGS. SO YOU ARE NOT HIDING IT PER SE, BUT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS NOW DOESN'T MATTER IF YOUR HOUSE IS $1 MILLION OR 200,000. YOU ARE STILL PAYING 10 BUCKS A MONTH. THAT IS THE MAIN DIFFERENCE. YOU ARE DECOUPLING IT FROM THE CALCULATION OF THE

VALUE OF YOUR PROPERTY. >> AND IF WE LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS -- FOR EXAMPLE, TRANSPORTATION DRAINAGE FEE. AN INCREASE OF $28 IN FISCAL YEAR 26 . IF THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST , YOU DID $10. NEXT YEAR IT IS INCREASING 18. YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND SAY NOW WE ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE OF $10. THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE IS GOING TO BE $20.

>> I STILL THINK WE'VE GOT TO PUSH PROJECTS. WE STILL HAVE TOO MUCH IN 26. WE HAVE TOO MUCH IN 27, 28, 29. I THINK ALL WE HAVE DONE IS LEVELED IT. WE STILL HAVE TO DROP 20, 30, 40 MILLION OUT OF EACH YEAR. HOW DO WE LEAVE HERE THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. 32, 30, AND THIS IS IF WE DON'T HAVE A SLOWDOWN . IF WE DON'T HAVE A DECREASE IN PROPERTY VALUES OR IF THE GROWTH OF THE CITY DOES NOT GROW LIKE THIS, WE ARE STILL BUILDING FIELDS. SO I STILL THINK WE HAVE ROADWORK . I DON'T THINK THE BUILDING IS AS IMPORTANT. IT TAKES A BIGGER PORTION OF THE INCREASE. 28 IS 15%.

>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION ON THE ASSUMPTION. YOU ARE USING ALL OF THE COST COMING FROM PROPERTY TAX VALUE. BUT WE HAVE SALES TAX REVENUE AS WELL. ARE YOU JUST ASSUMING ALL THE SALES TAX REVENUE IS JUST GOING TO OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE ?

>> GENERALLY YOU DON'T UNDERWRITE THAT WITH SALES TAX.

IT IS VOLATILE. GENERALLY YOU DON'T. YOU WILL DO IT . DELL DIAMOND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY WILL SELL A REVENUE BOND THAT WOULD BE BASED OFF OF THE MONEY THAT FACILITY IS GOING TO EARN. THEY GENERALLY ARE NOT GOING TO DO A SALES TAX BOND.

EVEN IF YOU DID END UP DOING A SALES TAX BOND, YOUR INTEREST RATE ENDS UP HIGHER BECAUSE IT IS MORE RISKY.

>> YEAH. I'M JUST USING IT AS AN EXAMPLE.

[05:35:01]

>> THAT IS WHAT WE WERE FIGHTING ABOUT. DO WE GIVE ONE GUY EXTRA MONEY FOR THE IMPACT FEE? 300,000 A YEAR. WE CAN BUILD A COMMUNITY CENTER OR WE CAN BUILD A SPLASH PAD OR WHATEVER THAT WILL ALLOW US TO BUILD. IF YOU TAKE OUT THE BUILDING MONEY , WE ARE UNDER 15%. 29 , 15%. 27 WE ARE PRETTY CLOSE. 26. I THINK THERE IS JUST A RIPPLE. TAKE THE BUILDINGS OUT. LEAVE THAT TO THE VOTERS. STICK TO JUST PARKS AND TRANSPORTATION. EXTREMELY CLOSE TO BEING THERE.

>> IT IS THAT BRIDGE. IT IS SUCH A BIG NUMBER. THERE IS

REALLY NO WAY TO KEEP IT . >> JUST MOVE EVERYTHING DOWN ONE MORE. 5 MILLION FROM 26 TO 27. 28. BORROWING EXTRA ON 25 IN AN EFFORT TO OFFSET 26. SOME OF US CAME TO POWER IN A YEAR -- WHAT WAS THAT INCREASE? THAT MADE HEADLINES.

>> DID YOU JUST SAY WE CAME TO POWER? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

>> IT WAS ALMOST ANARCHY. 32% POP IN TEXAS AND PEOPLE FLIPPED

OUT. >> ONE THING WE HAVE TO DO THAT MAYBE WE CAN DO IN THE NEXT YEAR . ROLLING ENOUGH TO START FINANCE PLANS TO GIVE US REALISTIC NUMBERS. THAT IS WHAT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO TAKE A GOOD CHUNK OFF OF THAT.

>> WHAT THAT WILL DO -- IT WON'T CHANGE THE MATH, BUT IT WILL CHANGE WHO IS PAYING FOR IT.

>> IT WILL CHANGE THE RATE GOING FORWARD BECAUSE THE DEBT

PAYMENTS -- >> RIGHT. BUT THAT IS VALUE THAT YOU ARE NOT RECEIVING WHICH MEANS YOUR OTHER STUFF

COMES GREATER. >> IS THAT IN THE PROJECTIONS?

>> WE HAVE NOT MESSED WITH ANY OF THAT. COULD BE FUNDED AND COME OUT ALTOGETHER BUT WHENEVER YOU DO THAT YOU ARE

ALSO LOSING VALUE. >> I THOUGHT WE IF SOMETHING DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE MOVING THAT TO 26?

>> YOU ARE MISSING COUNCILMEMBERS THAT ARE USUALLY PRETTY PRO-PARKS. AT THE VERY LEAST I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU FOLLOW BACK UP AND MAKE SURE THEY ARE NOT HAVING ISSUES.

>> HIGHLIGHT THE ONES THAT GOT MOVED SO WHEN THEY GET THEM --

>> WE WILL BE ABLE TO COMPARE THE TWO.

>> WHAT ELSE IN 26 IS THERE? >> SCROLL DOWN.

>> KEEP GOING. >> WHY IS THIS NATURE PARK?

>> 45. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM IF THEY

WANT TO PUSH IT BACK. >> I BELIEVE IT WAS LOOKING AT THE CONNECTION BETWEEN RIVERWALK AND ADAM . THAT AREA AS A POTENTIAL NATURE PARK. THERE IS STILL A GAP IN BETWEEN

THEIR -- >> AT THE 29. THAT REALLY

DOESN'T HELP 26. >> I THINK JAMES IS RIGHT . IT IS A ROAD ISSUE. LESS ROADS IN 26. OKAY. WIDENING. THAT HAS TO BE DONE. THAT IS THE ONE THAT BOMBED OUT .

>> THAT IS THE ONE THAT WAS BUILDING THE NORTH SEGMENT.

BASICALLY WHAT BECOMES 1660. >> WAIT A MINUTE THEN.

>> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 17 1841.

>> THAT NEEDS TO LINE UP. SO T-28 IS FIXING THE ROAD.

[05:40:07]

>> I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SCREEN.

>> T-28. OH, NO. MAYBE I MISREAD THAT. WHICH ONE IS WHICH? I THINK I GOT THAT WRONG. I THINK THAT IS A

DIFFERENT PROJECT. LINE 78. >> T-28 IS YELLOW.

>> YELLOW IS THE ONE WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. PUT T-28 ON

HERE. >> STICK WITH YELLOW FOR A MINUTE. YELLOW WAS T 41. THAT FIXES THE ROAD THAT IS ALMOST IMPASSABLE. OR IS THAT AN EXTENSION AND WIDENING ?

>> THAT IS EXTENSION. WIDENING. THE ROAD IS BEING FIXED . I HAD TOLD YOU GUYS SEVERAL COUNCIL MEETINGS BACK THAT I HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH A DEVELOPER UP THERE TO DO AN OVERLAY OF

COUNTY ROAD 33 . >> KIND OF USE YOUR MOUSE TO OUTLINE THE AREA YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> SO THIS SECTION, WHICH IS COUNTY ROAD 33. IT CONNECTS INTO FM 1660. THE ROAD IN QUESTION, WHICH IS VIRTUALLY AN OFF-ROAD. IT IS NOT REALLY A ROAD ANYMORE. BUT WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO IS DOING THIS LARGE DEVELOPMENT OVER HERE AND THE COUNTY. AND SO THE DEVELOPER HAS TAKEN ON THE BURDEN. THEY HAVE ALREADY DONE THE DESIGN. IT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED TO BASICALLY FIX THAT ROAD AND TO WIDEN IT TO A STANDARD TWO-LAID ROAD WITH. THAT IS ALREADY BEING DONE AT

THE COST OF THE DEVELOPER. >> THAT IS ALREADY UNDER

CONSTRUCTION. >> BACK TO THAT LINE. THAT WAS 19 OR 14? SO WHAT IS THAT 19 MILLION?

>> THAT IS TO START DOWN HERE AT LEMEAR LOOP AND TO WIDEN THE ROAD AS WELL AS CONSTRUCT A BRAND-NEW ROAD THAT DOES NOT EXIST. THERE IS NO ROAD HERE. AND THEN WIDEN THIS . ALL THEY ARE DOING IS PUTTING IT TO A STANDARD TWO LANES , WHICH IS 24-ISH FEET. THIS WOULD ACTUALLY WIDEN THIS OUT TO

MATCH UP WITH THE OVERPASS . >> ME? I WOULD PUT THAT TO 2030. I WOULD RATHER FIX -- PEOPLE HAVE BEEN PAYING TEXAS HERE FOR YEARS. THEY ARE GOING TO AT LEAST HAVE THE TWO-LANE.

>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE THOUGH? THERE IS ONE SECTION WHERE THERE IS NO ROAD. RIGHT?

>> RIGHT HERE. >> I WOULD AT LEAST SAY BEFORE THEN WE NEED TO DO AT LEAST A TWO-LANE OF THAT CONNECTOR THROUGH BECAUSE IF IT IS OVERLAID AND AT LEAST A TWO LANE THE HALLWAY , THEN WE CAN WAIT A LONG TIME TO GET THE BRIDGE BUILT. THEN ONCE IT IS DONE EVERYTHING STARTS FILLING IN AND WE GO, OKAY. A LOT OF DEVELOPERS BUILDING ALONG THAT.

ALL OF THE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES. THEY ARE DUMPING ONTO A TWO-LANE ROAD. IT WIDENS BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC CUTS BECAUSE OF THEIR TRAFFIC STUDIES. AND THEN WE ARE NOT HAVING THE

CURRENT SYSTEM PAY FOR THAT. >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MILLING AND OVERLAYING SECTION 132.

>> I AM SAYING IF WE ARE GOING TO PUSH IT ALL THE WAY OUT TO 2030 WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING IN THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO GAP IT BETWEEN THE BRIDGE COMING UP UP TO WHERE THE DEVELOPER DID THE ONE SECTION.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY BUILDING THAT ROAD THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY IS NECESSARY IF THE OTHER ROAD THAT DOES EXIST IS FUNCTIONAL. I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE STATE OF THAT SECTION IS. IT'S NOT GREAT BUT IT'S NOT AS BAD.

>> COUNTY ROAD 132 IS NOT AS BAD AS COUNTY ROAD 33 UP HERE.

>> IF YOUR COTTONWOOD PROJECT IS GOING TO GO AND 1660 IS GOING TO REALIGN AND YOUR OVERPASS IS GOING TO HAPPEN, YOUR GOING TO WANT THAT CONNECTION UP TO A SMALL PAYMENT OF 133. RECONSTRUCTION ABOVE THE NEW SEGMENT THE REST OF THE WAY COULD BE PUSHED. YOU FOCUS SOUTH OF WHERE THE 132 SECTION. NOT NECESSARILY TO THE NORTH IMMEDIATELY. THEN AS THE

[05:45:05]

THE SOUTHERN SEGMENT. >> IS THE IDEA TO MAKE THAT

>> THAT HAS BEEN THE PLAY THE WHOLE -- WHICH IS WHY WE ALSO HAVE TO BUILD TO A CERTAIN SPEC.

>> THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE 1660 BECOME 1660 BUSINESS.

>> JUST IF I CAN JUST JUMP IN REAL QUICK, THAT IS WHY YOU CAN SEE IT TWICE. GETTING IT RIGHT INTO A THREE-LANE SECTION.

ULTIMATELY THAT ROAD IS SUPPOSED TO BE SIX LANES WIDE .

SIX LANES JUST LIKE THE OVERPASS IS.

>> I CAN'T IMAGINE US MAINTAIN IT . NO OFFENSE TO THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT LIVING THERE YET. I WOULD RATHER SEE IMPROVEMENTS TO 685 . THE HEART

OF THE CITY. >> A LOT OF THAT ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON -- AT ONE POINT I HAD WORKED WITH THE COUNTY AND TXDOT AND WE HAD STATE FUNDS THROUGH OUR PASS-THROUGH PROGRAM TO FUND THAT PROJECT BECAUSE WE TOOK SO LONG. I'M NOT SAYING THAT IN A BAD WAY.

WE JUST TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE. THE COUNTY AND STATE DECIDED TO REALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS SOMEWHERE ELSE. SO TXDOT AND THE COUNTY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ON THE PATH WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHERE EVENTUALLY THAT WHOLE NEW ROAD WOULD BECOME THE NEW FM 1660 WE TAKE THE SMALL FM 60S FROM THEM.

REALLY WHAT I'M GETTING FROM THE COUNTY AND TXDOT IS HUTTO ACTUALLY SERIOUS THIS TIME? AND SO THAT IS WHY I PUT THESE PRIORITIES ON THE CIP TO SHOW THAT WE ARE SERIOUS AND PROGRESSING. I'M ALSO WORKING WITH THE COUNTY BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING READY TO UPDATE THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN .

I'M WORKING WITH THE COUNTY SO THAT WE BOTH CONCERT -- SPONSOR THAT PROJECT ALL THE WAY TO 1660 SOUTH AND HAVE BOTH THE COUNTY AND CITY SPONSORSHIP IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN.

>> AND WE POTENTIALLY MOVE SOME OF THAT?

>> POTENTIALLY. >> MY POINT TO THE MAYOR IS WE NEED TO SHOW THAT WE ARE TRULY SERIOUS SO THAT I CAN ACTUALLY HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THEY ARE JUST

WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE. >> SO WE NEED TO HAVE IT IN THE PLAN. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN FUNDING IT. I DON'T WANT TO BORROW $19 MILLION FOR IT IF THEY ARE GOING TO PAY A SERIOUS CHUNK OF IT.

IS BEING INTENDED TO BE TURNED OVER TO TEX.WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO PUT OFF RECONSTRUCTING THAT NORTHERN SECTION.

OTHERWISE THEY WON'T TAKE IT. WE WANT THEM TO MOVE THE DESIGNATION AND WANT THEM TO MAINTAIN THE OVERPASS. WE DON'T WANT TO MAINTAIN THE OVERPASS. WE WANT THEM TO HAVE

THAT. >> WHAT'S LINE A? IS LINE 82

ASSOCIATED WITH THIS? >> LOOKS LIKE 78, 81 AND 82.

>> SO, 82 IS CR132 FROM CR132. THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY SHOWN ON HERE. I APOLOGIZE. THAT IS THIS SEGMENT THAT YOU SEE IN THIS

LIGHT GRAY LINE. >> IN THE SOUTH. IT'S NOT GOING NORTH. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING?

>> YEAH. FROM 132. IT GETS CONFUSING BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY DIFFERENT COUNTY ROAD 132'S. TO GOES DOWN TO 1660.

>> WE'RE GETTING READY TO DROP LIKE $150 MILLION BUILDING A NEW NORTH SOUTH A RT ERIAL. I DON'T ACCOUNT THE SOUTHEAST

[05:50:03]

NOW. >> YES. YOU TYPICALLY BUILD THESE TYPES OF ROADS IN AREAS WHERE PEOPLE DON'T LIVE.

>> BUT WE'RE USUALLY CAUGHT UP ON THE CORE.

>> WHAT I BELIEVE -- WHEN I WALKED IN TO WAS A COMMITMENT BY THE CITY TO HAVE A WAY TO GET OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

132 IS THE BEST OPTION TO DO THAT. IT MAKES NO SENSE TO BUILD AN OVERPASS OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS IF YOU CAN'T MOVE TRAFFIC OVER THE OVERPASS SO YOU HAVE TO BUILD THE OTHER CONNECTIONS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT ALL AT THE SAME TIME. YOU WILL WANT YOUR SOUTHEAST LOOP TO CONNECT TO WHERE THAT OVERPASS IS BECAUSE YOU WILL WANT PEOPLE TO USE THAT RATHER THAN BEING IN THE INTERNAL ROADS OF YOUR TOWN IF THEY ARE TRYING TO GET NORTH SOUTH, SOUTH NORTH. SO.

>> AND 40 MILLION IS A YEAR'S WORTH OF ROAD PROJECTS.

>> I DON'T DISAGREE. I UNDERSTAND THE SCALE.

>> WE TELL EVERYBODY WE'RE NOT BUILDING A LOT OF ROADS BECAUSE WE'RE BUILDING THIS NEW ROAD IN THE CORN THAT WILL HELP US IN THE FUTURE I THINK THERE'S A SERIOUS CONVERSATION TO BE HAD. WE NEED TO HAVE IT ON THE LIST I THINK BUT ONLY WHEN WE GET CAMPO MONEY. THIS NEW SECTION OF 1660 IS GOING TO BE A HUGE ROAD. THAT BENEFITS THE -- THAT BENEFITS THE STATE.

THAT BENEFITS US. >> TRUE WHICH IS WHY WE WOULD BE TRYING TO GET PARTNERSHIP DOLLARS.

>> THE COUNTY DIDN'T HELP US WITH ANY OF OUR ROADS FOR DOING THAT. WE'RE HAVING TO FUND EVERYTHING ON STATE AND COUNTY ROADS SO WE CAN'T AFFORD TO BUILD OUR OWN ROADS BECAUSE WE'RE TO BUSY DOING EVERYBODY ELSE'S ANDAL THE MONEY IS GOING TO THE BIGGER CITIES. WE GOT TO PAY MONEY. WE PAID $4 MILLION TO MOVE A WATERLINE TO HELP OUT SAMPSON. THAT'S 4

MILLION WE COULD HAVE SPENT. >> I GET T I WISH I COULD TELL YOU THAT THE -- THAT THIS IS UNIQUE TO HUTTO BUT IT IS NOT.

THE STATE HAS STOPPED SPENDING MONEY THE SAME WAY THAT IT USED TO AND HAS PUT THE BURDEN OF NEW STATE ROADS ON THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS. THE COUNTY -- WHAT'S THAT? CAMPO FUNDS GO TO THE BIGGER CITIES, ABSOLUTELY, 100%.

>> IS THERE A WAY TO MOVE THAT IN ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. I WAS -- LIKE I SAID I WAS JUST PUTTING IT ON HERE AND PRIORITIZING IT SO I CAN GO BACK TO THE COUNTY AND SHOW HOW SERIOUS WE ARE ABOUT PUSHING THIS FORWARD, THAT WE'RE NOT AFRAID TO PUT OUR MONEY WHERE OUR MOUTH IS SO TO SPEAK AND WE'RE COMMITTED TO GETTING THE PROJECTS DONE.

EVERY TIME I TALK TO THEM ABOUT GETTING THEIR MONEY THEY ARE LIKE WE HAD MONEY FOR YOU. YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT AND WE MOVED ON. UNLESS YOU SHOW US WHERE YOU ARE SERIOUS WE'RE NOT GOING TO CONSIDER GIVING YOU MONEY AGAIN.

>> IF THEY MOVE IT OUT? >> WE START HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS SAY IT'S IN THE CIP WE ARE PLANNING ON DOING

IT. WE HAVE -- HOW FAR OUT? >> 29 AS A NON, NONDEBT ROAD.

>> I WOULD RATHER KEEP IT SOONER AND JUST, I WILL -- YOU

KNOW. >> FORGET THE AGREEMENT.

>> WE DON'T -- I DON'T WANT TO ISSUE DEBT TO PAY FOR IT. I DON'T WANT TO PUSH IT OUT EITHER.

>> IF WE DO DESIGN AND GET DESIGN DONE AND HAVE THE RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE TWO PIECES ALONG THAT SECTION IS DONE. RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION WILL ONLY GET MORE EXPENSIVE AND THEN IF DESIGN.

THAT'S ANOTHER WAY -- WE HAVE THIS SHOVEL READY PROJECT. GIVE US THE MONEY AND WE'LL START T I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.

WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD A BRIDGE TO NOWHERE. YOU DON'T WANT TO BUILD A BRIDGE THAT ONLY CONNECTS TO 199 WHICH --

[05:55:02]

KEEPING IT ON THE PLAN. IF YOU HAVE TO MOVE IT BACK IN AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THE FULL SCALE. WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN A TWO LANE ROAD. TWO LANES OF PAVEMENT. WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT IN AND THAT WILL BE THE FIRST PHASE OF IT. PUTTING IN THE -- WHATEVER THEY ARE. THE ACCESS ROADS OR WHATEVER INSTEAD OF THE FULL EXPANSION. THEN YOU COME BACK IN AND YOU MAKE YOUR CONNECTION WHILE YOU ARE TRYING TO GET THROUGH THE CAMPO PROCESS AND GET STATE FUNDS TO BUILD IT TO ITS FULL

SIZE. >> AND THEN --

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT US TO BUILD. FRANKLY I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE TO BUILD IT, ALL SIX LANES FOR THEM TO ACCEPT IT. I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

>> AND THE SOUTHEAST LOOP IS ADVERTISED AS TWO FRO NTAGE

ROADS. >> SO YOU ARE GOING TO TAKE 81, 82, MAKE THEM NONDEBT, EXCEPT FOR THE DESIGN PART, RIGHT?

>> RIGHT. AND THEN RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION IF THERE IS ANY THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THAT AS REAL COST FOR US. THEN IF WE HAVE TO ACCELERATE SOMETHING AT SOME POINT. AT SOME POINT MAYBE KIND OF LIKE START OUT LIKE ROUND ROCK DID WHEN YOU TAKE UNIVERSITY DRIVE GOING TOWARD THE MALL AND ALL OF THAT. FROM 130 IT WAS A TWO LANE ROAD. ITS BEEN A TWO LANE ROAD. THEY ALREADY GOT THE LAND ALREADY THERE FOR IT TO BE A FOUR LANE OR SIX LANE DIVIDED ALL THE

WAY. >> I'M SAYING IN THE ORIGINAL START DATE IT WAS TWO LANES AND YOU HAD A BIG OLD GRASS FIELD AND THEY HAD IT. THEY COULD DO A FINAL BUILD OUT OF SIX LANES.

IT'S AT FOUR NOW BUT I'M SAYING IT STARTED OUT AS A TWO LANE AND THEN THEY BUILT THE OTHER LANE. THEN THEY BUILT THAT OTHER COMPLETE LANE AND THEN WERE ABLE TO SHUT DOWN THE OTHER ROAD AND REDO THE STRIPING THEY DID A NEW OVERLAY ON THE OTHER SECTION BECAUSE THEY GOT MORE TRAFFIC ON IT AND WANTED THEM TO BE EQUAL AND THEN THEY OPENED ALL FOUR. I

THINK WE DO THE SAME WITH THIS. >> [INAUDIBLE] SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE IT'LL BE A FOUR LANE.

[INAUDIBLE]. >> WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING IT AS A FOUR LANE FROM DAY ONE AND I DON'T THINK WE DO THAT.

>> THEY WERE GOING TO FUND. >> THEY WERE AND THEN THEY

SAID. >> AND EVEN IF THEIR PLANS TODAY. I JUST GOT THEIR FINAL SCHEMATIC. THEY DID THAT DESIGN FOR IT. THEY SHOW THEIR PROJECT STOPPING.

WE ARE SHOWING LIMBER LOOP UP TO CHANDLER ROAD. ON THE OTHER SIDE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. TRAFFIC IS CHOKING EVERYTHING.

>> A LOT OF THAT WILL BE FIXED WHEN THE LOOP IS CONNECTED.

IT'LL BE. YEAH. >>

>> THE ROAD IS COMING FASTER THAN THE FIXES. WE WILL TALK TO THEM COMING IN AND HAVE A THREE LANE ROAD, ANOTHER ONE.

>> 79 RIGHT NOW A LOT OF CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AND IT'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THAT.

ONCE 1:30 GOES IN. ONCE THAT CONNECTION GOES IN MANY FOLKS WILL USE THAT TO BYPASS. THERE WILL BE NO RED LIGHTS, NONE OF THAT SLOW DOWN, WAIT IN TRAFFIC. A LOT OF THE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC WILL LEAVE AND GO THE OTHER WAY. THAT WILL MAKE A BIG DIFFERENCE. A LOT OF 79 TRAFFIC IS ALSO LOCAL.

I HAVE TO DRIVE UP TO # 9 TO DO A LOCAL TRIP. THE MORE NORTH

[06:00:10]

>> YOU DROPPED A COUPLE POINTS.

>> DIDN'T MOVE MUCH. >> I DON'T KNOW.

>> I DON'T THINK IT WORKED IT. THAT DIDN'T CHANGE AT ALL.

IT'S NOT GOING TO BE -- IT'LL BE WHATEVER IS FEEDING THOSE NUMBERS TO SEE IF THEY DIDN'T KNOW. YOU CAN GO DOWN AND TEST IT. FIND ONE THAT YOU CAN MOVE. SEE IF THE TAX RATES ARE

SHOWING UP. >> YES. IT'S T33. STATE

HIGHWAY 130 FRO NTAGE. >> 21 MILLION. THAT GETS YOU TWO WAY.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW THE ANSWER. LET HIM DO THE MATH PART BECAUSE HE CAN'T THINK AND DO MATH. AT LEAST I DON'T THINK

HE CAN. >> I CAN'T THINK AND DO MATH.

>> LOOK AT SOME OF THESE. ATTITUDE.

>> TOLD YOU BEFORE. >> RIGHT ALL THERE. LIKE 80,

81. ALL THAT. >> THE COUNTY, I THINK IT GOES A LOT LONGER THAN US FIGHTING WITH EACH OTHER. [INAUDIBLE]

OUR NEEDS ARE. >> YES. [INAUDIBLE]

>> DID YOU HAVE THE LOGIC SET TO DO THE SEARCH ON THOSE AS WELL? TO SUBTRACT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEW DEBT AND THE PROJECT VALUE? WELL GUYS LOOK. IT'S LATE. WE'RE GETTING TIRED. WE CAN CERTAINLY FIX THE MATH. YOU HAVE MADE SOME -- YOU MADE SOME GOOD CHOICES TO MOVE SOME REALLY BIG PROJECTS AND WE CAN GET THE UPDATED NUMBERS OUT. IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE WAY THAT THE FORMULA IS SET UP. IT IS LIKE CAPTURING IT RIGHT NOW. IT WAS CAPTURING IT BUT NOW IT'S NOT SO THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S OFF SOMEWHERE.

>> WE NEVER TRIED TO SEE. WE WERE ONLY LOOKING AT MOVING BETWEEN YEARS.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SO THIS, IS THE NORTHERN.

GOING TO HAVE TO PUT SOME MONEY TO DO THE -- WHAT DO YOU CALL? HAVE TO DO THE STUDY. STILL GOT TO BUY THEM OUT.

>> WE HAVE BEEN -- EVERYTHING I HAVE BEEN -- [INAUDIBLE]

>> [INAUDIBLE] WORK ON THAT. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO SEE.

>> THAT WOULD BE [INAUDIBLE]

[06:05:01]

>> SIX YEARS. [INAUDIBLE] THE COUNTY HAD A MILLION DOLLARS FOR IT BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS STILL THERE. I DON'T -- I WAS TOLD A FEW MONTHS BACK THAT THE COUNTY HAD ALREADY DONE THE STUDY FOR ALL OF THE DRONES BUT I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYONE WHO

KNOWS WHERE THAT REPORT IS. >> I KNOW THEY USED IT FOR THEIR -- ONE AND THAT'S WHERE PART OF THAT CAME FROM WHEN I

WAS TALKING TO THEM. >> REACHING OUT TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER. I'M STILL TRYING TO TRACK DOWN THE REPORT.

>> I GUESS IT'S BILLIONS. >> WAS IT THE 130 REPORT? DID I HEAR? IS THAT IT? THE COUNTY SAID THEY WOULD PROVIDE THAT

DATA TO US. >> I REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY ENGINEER BUT HE HASN'T PRODUCED IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS A DIFFERENT CONTACT I NEED TO USE.

>> MAYBE I JUST DON'T HAVE THE HIGH ENOUGH CLOUT AT THE CITY

MANAGER DOES. >> WHAT -- WHAT'S NEXT STEP? GET OTHER PEOPLE'S IFFO.

>> THIS ISN'T A LOCKED PLAN. NOT LIKE WE'RE COMMITTING WRITING IN STONE THE PLAN.

>> I THINK WE EXPECT A 15% AND THEN FIGURE OUT IF WE ISSUE DEBT AND LEAVE IT IN FUNDS AND WHAT GETS IN 26. I THINK WE HAVE MOVED ENOUGH PROJECTS AROUND. THEY NEED TO GO CLEAR OUT THEIR TABLES, SAY HEY IF THE COUNTY IS DOING NONDEBT -- I THINK SPENDING ANY MORE TIME ON THAT MAKES NO SENSE. I THINK WE'RE AWARE OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE AT 25. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING ELSE FOR 25. IF WE DO WANT TO PULL ONE OR TWO THINGS IN WHEN WE GET TO BUDGET CYCLE THAT'S FINE OR IT'S JUST ISSUE DEBT AND WE HOLD IT AT 4% INTEREST AND.

>> AND WE'RE NOT ADOPTING THE CIP RIGHT NOW. THIS WILL COME

BACK TO US. >> RIGHT.

>> WITH EVERYTHING CLEANED UP. >> AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO.

>> RIGHT. >> TWEAK IT.

>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN TWEAK -- I DON'T THINK WE CAN TWEAK IT MORE ESPECIALLY WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS, WE'RE BARELY AT

QUORUM. >> WE HAVE ANOTHER OF ONE OF THESE IN TWO WEEKS FOR THE BUDGET PRESENTATION WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE UPDATED VERSION, CLEANED UP VERSION OF THE CIP AND THEN YOU GUYS ARE MORE THAN FAMILIAR THAT WE HAVE A COUPLE OF MONTHS OF BUDGET CONVERSATIONS HAPPENING SHORTLY

AFTER THAT. >> IS THAT ON AUGUST 3RD WE'RE

THINKING? >> I BELIEVE THE NEXT MEETING TO TALK BUDGET AND CIP IS ON JULY 27TH.

>> HONESTLY. >> I MAY HAVE TO CALL.

>> WE GOT ONE YEAR TO WHERE I THINK PEOPLE ARE OKAY WITH IT.

AT LEAST HERE, NOT OUT THERE NECESSARILY. WE COULD GO AS FAR AS WE COULD AND GET ALL FIVE YEARS IN LINE AND IT'LL CHANGE

NEXT YEAR. >> I THINK -- I THINK WE'RE -- I STILL THINK IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE BEFORE THE BUDGET. END OF THE CALENDAR YEAR WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB ON -- DEPENDING ON THE NUMBERS -- I KNOW THEY WILL CHANGE. IF IT IS STILL IN THE 20, 35% RANGE WE WILL HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT. WE WILL HAVE TO KEEP MEETING, LOCK OURSELVES IN A ROOM UNTIL WE CAN SAY WE HAVE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN. WE HAVE DONE -- AS SOON AS WE ALL AGREE WE WILL HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO THE PUBLIC YOU NEED TO PLAN FOR THIS TO HAPPEN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE -- TAXES ARE DOUBLE, WHATEVER THE NUMBER S NOT TO SCARE PEOPLE BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE RAISING FAMILIES KNOW THAT YOUR HOUSE PAYMENT WILL GO UP AT LEAST FROM THE CITY IT'LL GO UP FOR FIVE YEARS STRAIGHT AND THEN WE NEED -- THE LAST THING

[06:10:05]

>> WE'RE JUST -- [INAUDIBLE] >> ALL RIGHT. THIS IS WHY, YOU KNOW, PLANNING EVERY YEAR -- COULD HAVE DONE THAT FOR THE LAST TEN YEARS AND STILL THE SAME 145% GROWTH AND ONLY 14% YEAR OVER YEAR. THESE BIG JUMPS.

>>

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.