13.1. Receive legal advice pursuant to Texas Government Code Sec. 551.071 related to Pending Legal Requests, (Consultation with Attorney), related to the following pending and/or Council legal requests: (a) Urbana Limmer Loop Development Agreement; (b) relating to an agreement for Wholesale Wastewater service to the Development known as ’Halcyon“, (c) Meadowbrook Development Agreement; and (d) Estates of Hutto Development Agreement.

[13.1. Receive legal advice pursuant to Texas Government Code Sec. 551.071 related to Pending Legal Requests, (Consultation with Attorney), related to the following pending and/or Council legal requests: (a) Urbana Limmer Loop Development Agreement; (b) relating to an agreement for Wholesale Wastewater service to the Development known as ’Halcyon“, (c) Meadowbrook Development Agreement; and (d) Estates of Hutto Development Agreement.]

DO THAT BEFORE THE ANNEXATION. >> ANY OBJECTIONS? ]

>>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. WILL SECOND.

>> ONE ADDITION WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER WAS NOT IN THE AGREEMENT AND WE DON'T HAVE HOUSE BUILT 1295. SO MAKE SURE BEFORE THE CITY MANAGER SIGNS THAT IS CORRECTED IN THE AGREEMENT AND ALSO HOSPITAL 1295 PROCEDURES

ARE FOLLOWED. >> MAKE THAT PART OF THE

[00:50:04]

MOTION? >> OKAY.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR RESOLUTION R 2024-200. INSTRUCT THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY STAFF TO NOT APPROVE UNTIL WE HAVE OVER THE

AGREEMENTS? >> 1295 AND WE WILL INSERT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER FOR THE HUD WHICH IS 2024 051.

>> INSERTING THE ORDINANCE NUMBER.

>> YOU ARE OKAY WITH THAT? ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[8.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-050 approving the Annexation of the Meadow Brook Tract, 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, and to Establish the Base Zoning as Single-Family (SF-2) and Commercial (B-2) located off FM 1660S (Ashley Bailey)]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. GOING BACK EIGHT 8-1 POSSIBLE ACTION 2024-050 APPROVING ANNEXATION OF THE MEADOWBROOK TRACK 87.8 ACRES OF LAND TO ESTABLISH BASE ZONING SINGLE-FAMILY SF 2 AND COMMERCIAL B 2 LOCATED OFF FM 1660 SOUTH.

>> GOOD EVENING, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. YOU ORIGINALLY SAW THE ITEM AND HELD A PUBLIC HEARING IN DECEMBER LAST YEAR. FOR THE ANNEXATION WHEN ANNEXATIONS TOOK TWO MEETINGS SINCE THE CHARTER HAS CHANGED THIS IS BACK ON BECAUSE WE NEVER HAD THE SECOND MEETING AND WE ARE BETWEEN THE CHARTERS. YOU COULD HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING IF YOU WANTED TO TO OPEN IT TO BE SAFE BUT WE DID HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUIRED. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED AND CLOSED BACK IN DECEMBER. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY SAW THIS.

>> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR ACTION?

>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION REQUEST AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

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

[8.2. Continuation of a public hearing and consider possible action on Ordinance No. O- 2024-051 for the Planned Unit Development (PUD) request for the property known as Meadow Brook Planned Unit Development (PUD), 87.8 acres, more or less, of land, located off FM1660S (Ashley Bailey)]

HAVE ITEM 8-2 CONTINUATION A PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2024-051 FOR THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT REQUEST PROPERTY KNOWN AS MEADOWBROOK PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT 87.8 ACRES MORE OR LESS OF LAND LOCATED ON FM 1660 SOUTH.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN THE SAME PROPERTY WE JUST WENT OVER ON THE ANNEXATION ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SOUTH FM 1660 JUST WEST OF COUNTY ROAD 134 SOUTH OF THE COTTON BROKE DEVELOPMENT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH. PROPOSED ZONING FOR PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT WITH THE BASIC DISTRICT OF SINGLE-FAMILY SF 2 AND COMMERCIAL WHICH WOULD BE A LONG FM 1660 SOUTH TO ALLOW FOR MODERATELY DENSE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PRIVATE AMENITIES WITH SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN RUNNING TO THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE TRACK. YOU CAN SEE THIS IS EITHER UNDEVELOPED OR SINGLE-FAMILY AS WELL. WITH THAT THIS INCLUDES ATTACHED AND DETACHED TOWNHOME UNITS A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE SEEN PREVIOUS TO OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS THIS DOES QUALIFY FOR THE ATTAINABLE HOUSING WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR IN THE CONFERENCE A PLAN AND WITH SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE WITH THE 20/40 PLAN AND THIS PROJECT PREDATES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT THEY WERE LOOKING TO BE MORE FORWARD THINKING TO BRING SOMETHING THE COMMUNITY HAD BEEN LOOKING FOR AND HAD VERBALIZED PREVIOUSLY SO WE WOULD HAVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD SKILL WITH A WALKABLE DESIGN BUT IT IS A LITTLE MORE COMPACT. OVERALL ZONING THE MAJORITY OF SINGLE-FAMILY ON THE NORTH SIDE WITH A LARGE OPEN SPACE TRACK JUST AROUND 15 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE WITH THE SMALL ALLOWING THEM TO HAVE SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE ALONG FM 1660 SOUTH AND THE LOT ALLOCATION ALL WITHIN YOUR DOCUMENTS. THERE IS A MAXIMUM FRONTLOADED DETACHED UNIT FOR THE 45 FOOT LOT WITH AND YOU CAN SEE THE VARIANCE WITHIN 55 FEET DOWN TO THE ATTACHED UNITS AT 20 FOOT FOR THOSE ATTACHED TOWNHOMES. YOU WILL SEE HERE THE ROADWAY STRUCTURE WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE THE BLUE WILL BE THE ALLEYS WITH A PROVISION

[00:55:02]

THAT ALLOWS FOR THE ALLEYS IF THEY NEED TO BE FIRE LANES THAT THEY WILL BE WIDER, RIGHT NOW THEY ARE 20 IF NOT NEEDING TO BE FIRE LANE WILL GO TO 25 IF THEY ARE NEEDED WITH RESIDENTIAL STREETS AND RESIDENTIAL COLLECTIVE. YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A MINOR DEVIATION THE RESIDENTIAL COLLECTOR IS SLIGHTLY MORE NARROW BUT FUNCTIONS WELL AND IS APPROVE.

WITH THAT THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IS 7.8 UNITS PER ACRE ALL WELL WITHIN THE ALLOWED DENSITY IN THE CONFERENCE UPON WHICH GIVES MAXIMUM TOTAL OF 520 RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED 6-0 WITH ONE MEMBER ABSOLUTELY LOOKED AT THIS ONE EARLIER THIS YEAR WITH THE DENSITY GOING UP A LITTLE BIT SO THEY BROUGHT IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING EARLIER THIS YEAR WITH THAT IS CONTINUATION OF THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE WILL NEED TO OPEN AND THEN CLOSE AGAIN.

>> WE JUST NEED TO CLOSE IT. >> YES , OPEN.

>> ON CONTINUATION WE DON'T NEED TO OPEN. IT'S ALREADY OPEN. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME AND SPEAK REGARDING THIS ITEM. PLEASE COME UP. OKAY SEE NO ONE WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING 7:56 P.M. ON SEPTEMBER 5 OPENING UP TO COUNCIL EMOTIONS OR ACTION ITEMS.

>> LOOKING AT THE SITE, HOW BIG IS THE COMMERCIAL SPACE?

>> THE COMMERCIAL IS PRETTY SMALL, A FEW SMALL ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE TO ALLOW FOR A LITTLE COMMERCIAL ON 1660.

>> ANY RESTRICTIONS LIKE WITH IT BEING SO CLOSE TO OPEN SPACE AND POTENTIAL HOUSING , IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION FOR

WHAT THE COMMERCIAL COULD BE? >> ABSOLUTELY. THEY DID RESTRICT A FEW OF THE USES IN THE PUD WITH A FEW LARGE ITEMS SALES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHICH WOULD NOT WORK ON A SITE THAT SIZE, BUT TYPICALLY FOR GENERAL COMMERCIAL WITH AWARE -- WAY THAT IT READS NOW IS TYPICAL RETAIL, THAT TYPE OF THING. BECAUSE THERE IS FLOODPLAIN IN THE OPEN SPACE THEY WOULD HAVE TO RECLAIM OR STAY WELL OUTSIDE OF THE

FLOODPLAIN. >> OKAY IS THAT WRITTEN?

>> THAT IS IN AND IT IS IN THE UDC SO WHATEVER IS NOT IN THE PUD DEFAULTS TO THE CODE AT THE TIME.

>> ARE YOU GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING?

>> CLOSED AT 7056. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE

AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND

>> MOTION BY CLARK, SECOND BY THOMPSON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. THAT'S CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE

[8.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-189 authorizing and creating the Meadow Brook Public Improvement District within the City of Hutto pursuant to Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code (Sara Cervantes)]

ACTION RESOLUTION 2024-189 AUTHORIZING AND CREATING THE MEADOWBROOK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY PURSUING CHAPTER 372 TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

>> DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE. THIS IS BUILDING ON THE LAST THREE ITEMS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH, APPROVING THE AGREEMENT AND ITEMS THAT THE DIRECTOR ADDED. CREATION ALLOWING FOR THE CITY TO PURSUE BONDS TO ACCOMPLISH SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT RELATED ITEMS AND I'M OPEN FOR QUESTIONS YOU

WILL HAVE. >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR

ACTION? >> ASSUMING THEY DO 520 HOMES WHAT IS THE AVERAGE TAX RATE ?

>> I HAVE THE IF NOT HAVE MEMBERS OF THE TEAM HERE AS WELL. IS RICK ROSENBERG HERE? PERFECT.

>> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL FOR THE RECORD RICK ROSENBERG CONSULTANT TO THE DEVELOPER CURRENT PROJECTION SHOW $15 MILLION TOTAL ASSESSMENT GENERATING 1.5 MILLION COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE TO THE CITY, TARGETING EQUIVALENT TAX

[01:00:01]

RATE OF $.76 SUBJECT TO REVIEW BY THE CITY TEAM MOVING FORWARD.

>> HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO OTHERS IN THE AREA?

>> ON THE TOP END OF THE RANGE, BUT COMPETITIVE, DEVELOPER WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SELL IF IT'S TOO MUCH. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM

UNDER THE PETITION. >> $.76 ON TOP OF THE CITY OF

HUTTO TEXT. >> TOTAL OF $2.90 SUBJECT TO WHATEVER CHANGES ARE MADE IN THE 2020 FOR TAX RATES.

>> OKAY THANK YOU. >> ANY QUESTIONS?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2024-189 AUTHORIZING CREATION OF MEADOWBROOK IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE CITY OF HUTTO.

>> MOTION , DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KROLAR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >>

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> ITEM 10.3? WE HAVE A COUPLE VOLUNTEER BOARD MEMBERS WAITING.

>> ANY OBJECTIONS ? HEARING ON ITEM 10.3 DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING 0-2024-056 AMENDING CHAPTER 2 DIVISION A DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION CODE OF ORDINANCE CHANGING THE NAME TO DIVERSITY, EQUITY AND INCLUSION AND

BELONGING COMMISSION. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL, COMMUNITY AND CULTURE OFFICER FOR THE RECORD. THIS EVENING WE HAVE THE CHAIR FOR THE CURRENT DIVERSITY INCLUSION COMMISSION HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS , BUT THIS CAME FROM THE WORK SESSION PRESENTED DURING THE JULY 16 CHEESEMAN JULY 18 WORK SESSION AND DURING THE COMMISSION LAST MEETING AUGUST 20 THEY OFFICIALLY VOTED TO BRING FORWARD THE NAME FROM DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION COMMISSION TO THE DIVERSITY, EQUITY INCLUSION AND BELONGING COMMISSION.

>> THANK YOU, MA'AM. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR ACTION ?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE ZERO 2024- 056 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION AND SECOND ANY OTHER

DISCUSSION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO ASK WHAT WAS THE IDEA OR THE PROMPT BEHIND THE NAME CHANGE FOR THE

COMMISSION? >> HAPPY TO ANSWER BUT SINCE WE HAVE THE CHAIR I THINK SHE WOULD DO MUCH BETTER JOB.

>> GREAT, THANK YOU.

>> THE PROMPT IS JUST KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES. WHEN DIVERSITY FIRST DIVERSITY AND THEN DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION..

IT SHOWS THE PROGRESSION WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE WITH THE NAME CHANGE. IT IS A FORMAL NAME, SO THAT IS THE ONLY REASON FOR THE CHANGE. IT IS KEEPING UP WITH OTHER BUSINESSES, OTHER AREAS

REGARDING THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING ON PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> HAVE ITEM 8 POINT FOR CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION RESOLUTION 2024-190 APPROVING MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF THE HUTTO 130 JUSTICE TRACK LOCATED

OFF OF . >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN FOR 8.4 AND 8.5 THE DEVELOPER ASKS THAT THESE BE HELD AND WE WILL NOTICE AND COME BACK AT A LATER DATE OCTOBER OR NOVEMBER. WE

[01:05:05]

DID POST FOR PUBLIC HEARING SO WE HAVE TO OPEN AND CLOSE ON 8.5 BUT WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ACTION.

>> WE DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON A .4 OR 8.5.

>> 8.6 IS GOING ON IMPACT FEE.

>> THAT'S FINE WE JUST NEED TO TABLE BOTH.

>> OKAY AND REDO. >> WE WILL REDO THE NOTICE

ANYWAY. >> OKAY COOL. THANK YOU. ITEM

[8.6. Conduct a public hearing and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2024-053, amending the Hutto City Code Section A.12.004, Impact fees; adopting updated Land Use Assumptions; adopting updated Capital Improvements Plans for Water and Wastewater and for Roadway Impact Fees (Matt Rector)]

8.6 CONDUCT PUBLIC HEARING POSSIBLE ACTION ORDINANCE NUMBERS ARE 2024-053 AMENDING THE HUTTO CITY CODE SECTION A .12 .04 IMPACT FEE UPDATED LAND-USE ASSUMPTIONS ADOPTING UPDATED CAPITAL PREVENT PLAN FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER AND

ROADWAY IMPACT FEE'S . >> GOOD EVENING FOR THE RECORD CITY ENGINEER. THIS ITEM IS TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPACT FEE PROCESS WE HAVE BEEN GOING THROUGH, AS YOU MAY RECALL WE HAD CONSULTANTS COME IN AND PRESENT THE LAND USE ASSUMPTION AND PROCESS WE WERE GOING THROUGH WITH CI AC THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE SO THE PURPOSE IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO TALK ABOUT LAND USE ASSUMPTION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE OVERALL PRICE OR THE OVERALL COST OF THE IMPACT FEE SO WITH THAT I HAVE MASTER PLAN TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE.

>> GOOD EVENING. A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. WE ARE GOING OVER THE SCHEDULE FOR THE PROCESS OF THE IMPACT FEES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS YEAR. WILL GO THROUGH SOME OF THE HIGH-LEVEL SUMMARY OF THE WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY IMPACT FEE AND WITHIN THOSE THE GROWTH RATE SERVICE AREA IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE THAT WE FIND. TO GIVE EVERYONE AN UPDATE ON THE PROCESS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH. IN JANUARY WE PRESENTED TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MADE UP OF PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE WE PRESENTED SERVICE AREAS AND GROWTH RATES PRESENTATION AND APPROVAL BY THEM AND JULY 9 WE PRESENTED THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR THE IMPACT FEES FOR APPROVAL BY THEM AND SORRY THAT WAS APRIL NOW JULY 2 WE PRESENTED THE IMPACT FEE NUMBER TO THE CI AC PER RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVAL AND JULY 11 WE BRIEF CITY COUNCIL ON THOSE FINDINGS AND HERE WE ARE TODAY.

THE DETAIL IS IN YOUR PACKET I AM COVERING HIGHER-LEVEL STUFF NOW. TO KICK THINGS OFF WE WILL COVER WATER FIRST. SERVICE AREA ON THE RIGHT IS A REMINDER TO COUNCIL AND THE ATTENDEES THE SERVICE AREA FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY ARE ALL DIFFERENT AND BOUND BY DIFFERENT THINGS. WATER HAS A DIFFERENT CCN. SO THAT'S WHY THIS SHAPE DOES NOT GO AROUND CITY LIMITS. THIS IS A SERVICE AREA AND WITH OUR CURRENT FINDINGS AND DATA RESEARCH THERE 10,118 CURRENT SERVICE UNITS FOR CITY OF HUTTO RESIDENCE. WORKING WITH THE CITY AND RESEARCHING THE MASTER PLAN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR KNOWN AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE 10 YEAR PROCESS WE LOOK AT 27,337 SERVICE UNITS OVER 10 YEARS . A GROWTH RATE OF 10.45%. ADDITIONAL SERVICE UNITS OF 17,219.

>> BEFORE YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE .

>> HOW DO I GO BACK? OKAY THERE WE GO.

>> THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS THE MAYOR HAS BROUGHT UP MANY

[01:10:02]

TIMES AND I WANT TO REITERATE. I THINK THERE MAY BE A WAY TO GET THIS ANSWER. WHAT IS THE MAX SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAVE, YOU SAY 10% OVER A DECADE SO OBVIOUSLY THAT'S GROWTH AND THAT'S WHERE WE GET 17,000 UNITS, BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE AREA OF THE CCN HISTORICALLY LOOKING AT MOST DENSITY BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SAY WHAT IS THE MAXIMUM USAGE , THE SIZE THAT OF AN AREA COULD BE.

GRANTED YOU COULD HAVE A SUPER BIG WATERPARK AND THE NUMBER COULD BE HIGHER BUT THERE SHOULD BE AVERAGE HOLISTIC NUMBERS TO SAY AND I'M CURIOUS IS 40,000 THE MAXIMUM THAT COULD FIT , IS IT 27, IS IT 25 SO WE BASE OFF A PROJECTION WE CAN NEVER REACH WHICH IS WHAT THE MAYOR HAS ALLUDED TO. I KEPT THINKING WE WOULD GET IT AND IF IT'S HERE LATER THAN GREAT. BUT YOU GIVE THE NUMBER AND I DON'T SEE THE LINE ITEM AS A NOTE OR SOMETHING SO I WANTED TO BRING IT UP.

>> YOU HAVE THAT MAP THAT WE SAT DOWN AND HAD THE INFORMATION ON? I WAS THINKING IT WAS SENT OUT TO EVERYBODY.

>> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS SENT TO THE COUNCIL BUT I DO HAVE A AND I COULD FORWARD OUT TO EVERYONE. WE HAVE HAD A CONVERSATION INTERNALLY BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONS YOU HAVE RAISED AND THE MAYOR. MY TEAM AND I SAT DOWN AND LOOKED . WE TOOK THE CCN BOUNDARIES AND HOW MANY EXISTING LUE'S THERE ARE, 10 WHATEVER THOUSAND AND THEN WE TOOK ALL THE ZONING ALREADY IN CITY LIMITS AND BASED ON THE ZONING WE CAME UP WITH APPROXIMATE DENSITY WE COULD ACHIEVE BASED ON ZONING REGULATIONS AND SAID THAT'S X NUMBER AND THEN LOOKING AT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP FOR THE AREAS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS BUT WITHIN THE CCN AND CAME UP WITH A NUMBER THERE AND IT'S NOT EXACTLY THIS NUMBER BECAUSE IT'S TWO PROCESSES BUT IT IS PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT NUMBER. BUT I DO HAVE A MAP, THE DIRECTION I GOT FROM THE CITY MANAGER WAS TO PUT IT TOGETHER ALONG WITH A SIMILAR ANALYSIS OF WASTEWATER FOR THE WASTEWATER CCN AND BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A JOINT PRESENTATION. I WOULD BE GLAD TO SHARE THAT MAP WITH

EVERYBODY NOW IF YOU WANT IT. >> I THINK IT IS CRITICAL WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE AND IMPACT FEES. YOU ONLY GET IT AS PEOPLE PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL SERVICE UNITS.

SO YOU SAY 17,000 THAN WHATEVER WE ADOPT IS BASED ON A FIVE-YEAR WINDOW BUT HOW MANY OF THOSE AT THAT RATE DIDN'T SAY IT'S THIS MUCH MONEY AT THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT OR THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT OR WHATEVER SO IT DOESN'T MATTER. I'M SURPRISED IT WAS NOT SENT OUT TO ALL THE COUNCIL.

>> I CAN SEND TO EVERYBODY NOW .

>> THAT WOULD BE GREAT. >> WHEN HE SITS CLOSE TO THE NUMBER ARE YOU SAYING 27,000 IS THE FULL BUILDOUT? I DO NOT

QUITE UNDERSTAND. >> MY NUMBERS USING MY ANALYSIS PROCESS WE GOT 27-ISH. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACT DOWN TO THE SINGLE LUE BUT IT'S NEAR THIS.

>> THE QUESTION WAS TO KNOW WHAT THE NUMBER IS LIKE WHEN YOU CAN'T SQUEEZE ANOTHER LUE OUT OF THIS?

>> WE DID NOT LOOK AT TIME WE LOOKED AT MAX ABOUT THIS IS HOW MANY YOU COULD FIT BASED ON FUTURE LAND USE AND ZONING

WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES. >> WASTE ON THIS 10 YEARS WE ARE MAX BUILT OUT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING TODAY NINE YEARS?

>> PART OF THIS, SOME OF THAT IS PHASED-IN. WE ONLY LOOK AT 10 YEARS FROM THIS PERIOD. SO BEYOND THAT THE MASTER PLAN AND COMP PLAN HAVE MORE WITH SOME ADDITIONAL DENSITY PHASED-IN THROUGHOUT PARCELS AND THOSE ARE IN THOSE REPORTS. SO WE LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT PHASE FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS AND WHAT'S NO

ON THE BOOKS COMING UP. >> AS I RECALL THAT'S WHAT MATT AND STAFF DID, THEY WENT THROUGH EVERY LAST SQUARE FOOT OF LAND IN THE HUTTO CCN AND FIGURED OUT THE FUTURE LAND USE

[01:15:08]

MAP, WHAT WE KNOW NOW, WHAT TO EXPECT FROM MAX USAGE FOR BUILDOUT. THE MOST LUE'S WE WOULD NEED . WE NEED THAT TO KNOW BECAUSE SOMETHING I HAVE NOTICED, HE WAS A 10.45 STUFF IS LIKE NINE IN A FEW YEARS, 50 IN A COUPLE YEARS COMMITTING.

AND THEN WE GET A BUDGET WITH A DIFFERENT GROWTH RATE NUMBER AND NONE OF THEM MATCH UP TO PUSH THE ISSUE I GET TOLD REMEMBER THE ONE STUDY THREE YEARS AGO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE GETTING. I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW EVERYBODY HAS A DIFFERENT NUMBER LIKE SOMEONE HAS TO STICK TO SOMETHING. I'M LOOKING AT A DEAL WHEN YOU ARE DOING 10 I WOULD HAVE TO DO THE MATH. WE GOT 9% GROWTH, 9%, 18.8%, 18.8 AND 15 UP TO 2028. I DON'T KNOW HOW 10.5%, THAT'S A LOT TO GO TO CATCH UP WITH 18.8 .

>> THE 18 IS NOT JUST IN THE CCN. THAT'S ALL THE CITY. SO THAT'S WHY THAT NUMBER WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT TO BE TRUE BECAUSE WE DON'T IMPACT FEES ON OTHER PEOPLE'S CCN'S SO THIS REPORT IS HAVING IMPACT FEES, HOW WE ARE FUNDING $300 MILLION BASED ON A GROWTH RATE THAT'S ALMOST TWICE , NOT QUITE, BUT TWICE WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE GO WITH YOUR NUMBERS THE DEBT WE FINANCE IS THE MATH WORKING OR IN THREE YEARS WILL SOMEONE COME AND GO WE ARE SHORT WE HAVE TO RAISE RATES BECAUSE OF A MISTAKE WE DID TWO OR THREE YEARS AGO.

>> IN THAT SITUATION THE IMPACT FEE CAN BE UPDATED IF THE GROWTH RATE CHANGES. I'M NOT COMPLETE SURE OF THE 18%, BUT WHAT WE IDENTIFIED WITHIN OUR STUDY IS THERE IS 18% GROWTH RATE IN THE INITIAL THEN IT DROPS TO SIX AND THEN TWO SO WHAT IS ON THE SLOPE OF PROJECTED GROWTH BASED ON THE COMP PLANS. SO YOU AVERAGE THAT OUT.

>> THE MATH ON THAT? HERE'S WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. TWO YEARS AGO ANOTHER GROUP CAME UP AND SAID WE CAN LOWER WATER RATES BECAUSE WE RECALCULATED EVERYTHING AND WE DROPPED WATER RATES LIKE 30% WE HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY, TWO YEARS LATER THEY MESSED UP WE SHOULDN'T HAVE DONE THAT NOW WE ARE JACKING WATER RATES BACKUP AND I GET NERVOUS ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST IMPACT FEE LIKE WE ARE COLLECTING IN THE FUTURE, THE CITY MANAGER HAS MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF DEBT BY IMPACT FEES ON A GROWTH RATE MAYBE IT HITS AND MAYBE IT DOESN'T. IF WE DON'T HIT PROJECTIONS WITH THE RATES HE'S GOT THEN WATER RATES DRAMATICALLY GO UP BECAUSE THEY ARE THE BACKSTOP TO ALL THE DEBT. SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, HOW DID YOU GET 10.45? AGAIN I ONLY GOT 2028 AND THAT'S WHERE STAFF STOPPED GIVING PROJECTIONS. IT DID DIP IN 2028.

>> IT'S IN THE PACKET, WE HAVE CHARTS IN THE ACTUAL REPORT

ITSELF. >> FOR MICHAEL FURCATION YOU'RE LOOKING AT A ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF WHAT WOULD GROW WITHIN THE BOUNDARY OF THE WATER CCN. CITY MANAGER LOOKS AT THE ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF A BOUNDARY THAT'S TOTALLY DIFFERENT. HE IS LOOKING AT A GROWTH RATE OF A BOUNDARY ALL YELLOW IN THE MAP AND IT'S THE CITY. SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREAS. YOU CAN DISAGREE ALL YOU WANT. HANG ON.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT AREAS, TWO TOTALLY BOUNDARIES SO OF COURSE THE GROWTH RATE IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE SOME AREAS GROW FASTER BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND SOME AREN'T. SO TO ME IT MAKES SENSE I GET IT.

>> HOW DO WE COLLECT IMPACT FEES ON THE YELLOW OUTSIDE OF

CCN? >> WASTEWATER YOU CAN.

>> THE PROJECTION THAT CITY STAFF HAS GIVEN FOR WATER ONLY, I DID NOT MAKE THIS UP, THE CITY PROVIDED THIS.

>> THIS IS THE GROWTH RATE THE CITY HAS FOR THE CITY WATER CCN. STAFF SAYS 18.8% AND THAT IS DOUBLE-DIGIT TRICKLES DOWN

[01:20:02]

TO FUNNEL THE INCOME NEEDED TO PAY FOR THE DEBT.

>> YOU ONLY HAVE FOUR YEARS, THIS IS 10, HE AVERAGED.

>> NOBODY'S TALKING ABOUT JONAH TALKING ABOUT HUTTO, THE GROWTH RATE AND THAT'S WHY ASKED HIM THIS ONLY GOES TO 2028 AT 15% DOES THE MATTER GO 10.45% OVER 10 YEARS HE'S A LEVELS OFF STAFF HAS A DIFFERENT PICTURE I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IN THREE YEARS IT'S NOT GOING TO

ADD UP. >> IF YOU SEE THE SIMPLE CHART 18, 18, 15 AND THEN NINE, SIX, SIX AND TWO, TWO, TO THE AVERAGE WOULD BE 10 JUST LIKE WHEN YOU HAVE 10 GRADES AND A COUPLE OF ZEROS AND YOU HAVE 18, THEN YOUR AVERAGE DROPS

50%. >> STAFF HAS NEVER SHOWN US IN A GROWTH RATE IN THE TWO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE BEEN PUSHING TO GET. THE STAFF PROJECTIONS. THAT'S THE WHOLE

POINT. >> THAT IN THE COMP PLAN AND THE MASTER PLAN WHEN YOU STAND OUT FURTHER YOU GET INTO NOT AS I HAVE A GROWTH RATE THE EXPECTATION IS HUTTO IS A DESIRABLE PLACE TO LIVE A LOT OF PEOPLE TRYING TO MOVE YOUR AND WHEN UTILITY COMES TO OPEN UP DEVELOPMENT, IT WILL BE HERE SO CONNECTIONS WILL BE SOUGHT.

THE 10.45%, YOU KNOW THIS INCREASE IN ADDITIONAL SERVICE UNITS FROM THE MAP WE WENT THROUGH WITH THE CITY ON THIS, A GREAT PORTION OF THAT IS A LONG 79 CORRIDOR EAST OF 1660 EAST OF 1662 3349 THE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT'S OVER HALF THE GROWTH EXPECTED FOR THOSE SERVICE CONNECTIONS AND SOUTH MAKES UP THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE REST OF THAT SO THOSE ARE, THERE YOU GO.

>> I KNOW THAT'S KIND OF HARD TO READ AND THIS IS IN YOUR EMAILS AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE ADDING IT TO THE COUNCIL TEAM

BOX. >> IN THIS MEETING THIS TEAM

FOLDER. >> AS I INDICATED AND I LOOKED AT IT, MY NUMBERS WERE OFF A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE I AM SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN LANCE NUMBER SHOWING OF PHIL BUILDOUT WE ARE CLOSER TO 30,000 IN THE WATER CCN. LIKE I SAID WE FOLLOWED A DIFFERENT PROCESS. WE DO NOT LOOK AT THE GROWTH RATES OR TIMELINES. WE JUST SAT STRAIGHT UP, HERE'S THE MAN OF LAND AVAILABLE, HOW MUCH IS ALREADY DEVELOPED, THIS NUMBER HOW MUCH IS ZONED? AND WHAT'S THE DENSITY WE CAN ACHIEVE ON THE ZONING? THAT'S THIS NUMBER, HOW MUCH OF THAT IS ENCOMPASSED IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, WHAT IS THAT DENSITY? SO THAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PORTION.

WHEN YOU ADD CURRENT L UES, PLUS WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY APPROVED PLUS THE AREAS THAT ARE IN ZONE BUT WE DON'T HAVE SCR'S YOU GET CLOSE , JUST UNDER 30,000 IN THE WATER CCN.

>> 2033 WHERE ALMOST FULLY BUILT OUT.

>> BASED ON THE GROWTH RATE, YES. IF HIS NUMBERS HOLD TRUE AND MY ASSUMPTIONS WE DON'T CHANGE ZONING FUTURE LAND USE, BY 2023 WE ARE PROJECTING TO BE ALMOST FULLY BUILT OUT IN THE WATER CCN.

NOW, IS THE GROWTH RATE RIGHT? I CAN PROBABLY BRING AN ARMY OF DEMOGRAPHERS IN HERE AND TELL YOU I EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US IS WRONG. I DON'T KNOW A BETTER WAY. THIS WAS ORANGES TO APPLES COMPARISON BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT THE MAX WAS. IT'S INTERESTING TO ME WE DID NOT LOOK AT HIS NUMBERS, WE LOOKED AT LAND-USE AND THOSE KINDS OF THINGS AND WE GOT PRETTY CLOSE.

>> WHAT IS CLOSE HAS NOT BEEN PLOTTED OR SUBJECTED TO THE OLD IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES? ASSUMING THEY DON'T REPLIED AND TRIGGER

FEES. >> HOW MUCH ACREAGE IS LEFT

OVER? >> HOW MANY OF THE L UES WE

HAVE HERE. >> SORRY I CAN'T REALLY READ

[01:25:02]

THAT. ANYTHING EXISTING IS ON THE GROUND, THE SCR'S ARE WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED SO THE PROJECTS ARE COMING SO THEORETICALLY THEY HAVE ALREADY PLATTED AND ANNEXED AND THEY'RE

WORKING ON SITE DEVELOPMENT. >> SCR IS ALREADY PLATTED?

>> NOT 100% GUARANTEE BUT FOR THE MOST PART WE KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. ANYTHING WITH ZONE OR FUTURE IS BASED ON ZONING ONLY AND FUTURE LAND USE, WE DON'T HAVE PLATS OR SCR'S, WE JUST LOOK AT THE ZONING MAP AND SAY THIS IS WHAT THEY CAN DO BASED ON ZONING AND WE DID NOT ASSUME MAX DENSITY BECAUSE THAT'S ONE DIRECTION AND WE DID NOT ASSUME MINIMUM. WE TRY TO AVERAGE OUT BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD. SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT THE NUMBERS.

>> 9000 L UES ARE LEFT POTENTIALLY AFFECTED?

>> THE SCR'S . >> AM I WRONG? GENERALLY SPEAKING IT HAS ALREADY BEEN PLOTTED?

>> MANY HAVE, NOT ALL OF THEM. BECAUSE REMEMBER WHEN WE DO THE SCR SOMETIMES IT COMES IN THAT ANNEXATION SO JUST BECAUSE THEY ANNEX DOES NOT MEAN THE START OF THE PROCESS.

>> EXISTING COULD RE-PLATT AND TRIGGER.

>> AND WE HAVE MULTIPLE DEVELOPERS WERE REAPPROVED AND THEY WANT TO CHANGE WHAT THEY'RE DOING SO IT'S NOT AN EASY ANSWER TO SAY YES THEY ARE 100%.

>> NOT ASKING FOR 100%. GENERALLY SPEAKING THERE ARE

9000 LEFT. >> GENERALLY SPEAKING BASED ON THE LAND-USE IN THIS PROCESS. YES.

>> CAN YOU CLARIFY, I SEE LISTED , I THOUGHT THAT WAS THE

FIRST BUILDING ON THE. >> I'M SORRY FOR WHICH ONE?

>> NAME ] SITE IN THE MEGA SITE AREA?

>> YES. >> YEAH, SO I THINK THAT IS PER

THE SCR. >> FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT?

>> YES. >> OKAY HAVE GOTTEN DIFFERENT ANSWERS WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, LAST TIME I WAS TOLD

THAT WAS THE FIRST BUILDING. >> WHEN ANYBODY IS SENDING ME SCR I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE DOING THE PROJECT BECAUSE FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS CITY ENGINEER DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO SAY BUILT THE FIRST BUILDING BUT I CAN SERVE THE REST OF THE PROJECT. TO ME THAT'S MISLEADING. I WANT TO KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO AT FULL BUILDOUT TALKING TO YES WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVE YOU OR NO WE DON'T.

>> 500 IS FOR THE FULL BUILDOUT.

>> YES.

>> YOU CAN CONTINUE THE PRESENTATION. I WANTED TO SEE WHERE THAT CAME FROM. THANK YOU.

>> YES, THANK YOU. PAST THAT SORRY. CLICKER STOPPED WORKING.

NEXT ONE. THIS WAS , IMPACT FEE, CAP PRESENTED BASED ON MASTER PLAN FOR THE NEXT 10 YEAR PERIOD COORDINATING WITH STAFF AND FINANCE SO THIS IS THE LIST OF PROJECTS FOR THE WATER SITE. CLINIC, HERE IS A MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE IMPACT FEE FOR THE WATER. WE FOUND OUR TENURE RECOVER COST OF WATER FEE WAS 170 MILLION TAKING THOSE INCREASE IN SERVICE UNITS AT 17,000 WITH IMPACT FEE RECOMMENDED THE MAX ASSESSABLE

6800 FOR THE WATER. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. MATT MADE A STATEMENT THAT SAID OUT OF THE , OUT OF WHAT WAS IT, 10,000 IN SCR IF THEY PAID THEIR FEES THAT MEANS YOU HAVE 7000 THAT ARE APPLYING TO THE COST BECAUSE 10,000 HAVE ALREADY PAID AND YOU SAID IF THEY RE- PLAT OR WHATEVER THEN IT CHANGES NOW GRANTED THAT WOULD MAKE THE MAX ASSESSABLE HE FEE HIGHER. BUT WE HAVE THE WRONG FEE BECAUSE YOU ARE LIKE 10,000 ARE Y MORE MONEY THEY AL HAVE GOT IT WILL NOT PAY TO

THIS 100 MILLION IN PROJECTS. >> IF YOU GO BACK TWO MORE

[01:30:01]

SLIDES THEY SAY 2023 IS 10,000 118. STAFF HAD 7534. I DON'T KNOW WHERE 3000 WENT, BUT ACCORDING AGAIN TO WHAT WE WERE GIVEN AS OF FEBRUARY WE DO NOT HIT 10,000 UNITS UNTIL 2026. SO

I DON'T KNOW. >> SERVICE UNITS WERE TAKEN FROM THE METER COUNTS FROM THE CITY RECORDS. SO SORRY I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT

>> EITHER YOU ARE RIGHT OR STAFF BUT YOU CAN'T BOTH BE RIGHT BECAUSE YOU HAVE DIFFERENT NUMBERS.

>> UNDERSTAND. WE GOT NUMBERS FROM THE ACTUAL METER COUNT.

>> CAN YOU PULL UP THE OTHER MAP? I DID NOT THINK WE HAD THE

EXISTING. >> THE ONE I JUST PULLED UP?

>> CURRENT WATER, 10,000. >> CORRECT. 300 OF OURS.

>> I CAN'T READ THE TOP NUMBER.

>> 10,429. >> YEARS WAS 10,700?

>> 118. WE ARE 300 OFF, BUT OUR DATA IS MORE UP-TO-DATE THAN HIS DATA WHICH WAS FROM 2023. WE PULLED DATA BEFORE WE

STARTED THIS PROCESS. >> FINANCE 270 MILLION IN DEBT BASED ON THE NUMBERS SO THE NUMBERS KEEP CHANGING EVERY

TIME SOMEONE COMES UP. >> WHAT HE IS TALKING ABOUT HIS RIGHT HERE ON THE VERY 15, 2023 THEY SAID AS OF FEBRUARY WE WERE AT 7534 WATER L UES AS OF FEBRUARY. THEN YOU COME HERE

AND SAY WE ARE AT 10,000. >> HE IS SAYING FEBRUARY.

>> THE NUMBER WE CALL DECEMBER 31.

>> THIS CHART WAS PRESENTED AS OF FEBRUARY 2024 AND PROJECTED US AT THE END OF 2024 STAFF DID AT 8200.

>> WASN'T THAT SHE'D LIKE A DRAFT?

>> THAT'S HOW WE FINANCE THE DEBT WITH ALL THE IMPACT FEES AND HOW IT'S COMING IN. YOU GUYS DO THIS WE WILL CHARGE THIS MUCH. THAT'S WHAT WE DO THE WATER RATE INCREASE. I SAID

I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS. >> I THINK THAT'S A WORKING DOCUMENT. SHOW IT. HE DOES NOT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING

AT. >> I KID YOU NOT THIS IS WHAT

WE FINANCED. THE 2024 ISSUE . >> WE DID NOT FINANCE THAT

UNTIL JUNE? >> THE BOND WE ISSUED WAS WASTEWATER AND TRANSPORTATION.

>> OUT OF THE PAY FOR IT? >> LAWNS.

>> HOW DO WE PAY FOR THE BONDS? UTILITIES AND WHAT SUPPLIES REVENUE? ACCORDING TO THIS, IMPACT FEES AND SERVICES. THIS HAS WASTEWATER PROJECTS IN HERE BY THE YEAR WHAT WE ARE

SPENDING. >> YOU'RE USING THE FEBRUARY.

>> I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU BETWEEN FEBRUARY AND NOW WE ARE 3000 L UES OFF AND WE ARE MAKING DECISIONS HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DECISIONS AND THE NUMBERS DON'T ADD UP. NOT SEND YOU TO BE PERFECT BUT 50% OFF OR 40% OFF ON LUE COUNTS AND WE HAD A CONSULTANT TELLING ME YOU'RE WRONG BECAUSE WE USED A NUMBER IN THIS THING WE DID IN 2020 AND I SAID HAVE BEEN ARGUING THAT WAS OFF. AND THEN WE SAT DOWN ON THIS WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP AND STAFF SAID YES WE WAY OVER PROJECTED WATER USE , THIS IS MOST ACCURATE AND WE CAN CUT OUT A LOT NOW WE HAVE AN OF WATER SUPPLY COMING FOR WHAT WE THINK THE FUTURE WILL BE ASSUMING WE DON'T CHANGE.

>> WE APPROVED 500 FUTURE L UES TODAY.

>> THAT'S ALL AFFECTED IN HERE.

>> THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN FACTORED INTO THIS. CORRECT?

>> THINGS? >> IN THE PIPELINE.

DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PIPELINE. >> EITHER ON THE GROUND TODAY.

>> PROBABLY 500 OHMS IN CONSTRUCTION NOW .

[01:35:02]

>> WE HAVE ACTIVE SCR WITH THEM ALL ACCOUNTED FOR AND IF IT IS THE ZONE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THAT'S IN THE NUMBER AND IF IT IS FUTURE LAND USE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW BECAUSE TECHNICALLY IT'S YOU TJ AND IT'S IN THE NUMBER AS WELL. SO AS BEST WE CAN LOOK INTO THE CRYSTAL BALL AND PROJECT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ON FUTURE LAND DEVELOPMENT WE HAVE ACCOUNTED FOR EVERYTHING WE CAN.

>> WE RAISED WATER RATES MARCH 27 ONE MONTH AFTER THE REPORT WAS TAKEN. IF WE ARE RAISING PEOPLE'S RIGHTS, THE INFORMATION HAS TO BE CORRECT OR IS NOT ADDING UP WHICH IS WHY KEEP VOTING NO UNTIL EVERYTHING MATCHES UP AND IS CONSISTENT. EVERY THREE MONTHS SOMEONE COMES AND THE CHANGES I DON'T HOW WE CAN GO TO PEOPLE LOOK THEM IN THE EYE AND SAY YOUR BILL WILL GO UP 40 MORE DOLLARS A MONTH NEXT YEAR AND IN TWO YEARS SOMEBODY WILL TELL US IT DID NOT ADD UP, SOMEBODY MADE A MISTAKE WHO DOESN'T WORK FOR US ANYMORE. SO-AND-SO DOESN'T WORK FOR US TAKES ALL THE BLAME FOR MISTAKES AND TO ME IT'S US UP IRRESPONSIBLE TO SAY SOMETHING IS NOT MAKING

SENSE. >> CAN I ASK IF YOU CAN PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION YOU'VE GOT TO CITY STAFF SO THEY CAN REVIEW THE THINGS YOU'RE LOOKING AT. IF I CAN RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOU PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION TO THEM SO THEY CAN SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, THEY CAN COMPARE AND COME BACK AND TELL US WE WERE WAY OFF AND WRONG OR YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE WRONG NUMBERS. WHATEVER THE ANSWER.

>> YOU THINK I MADE THIS UP? >> I THINK YOU ARE CONFUSED AND YOU ARE CONFUSING EVERYONE ELSE , THAT'S WHAT I THINK. LET'S GET THE INFORMATION TO STAFF LET THEM FIGURE OUT, MOVE ON WITH THE PRESENTATION SO THEY CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE WE ARE RUNNING IN CIRCLES HERE.

>> WANT TO LOOK AT THIS FOR A MINUTE?

>> WE HAVE NOT EVEN HAD THE PRESENTATION PRESENTED.

>> WE ARE TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT INFORMATION IS NOT

MATCHING UP. >> MAYBE WE DO NEED THAT DEMOGRAPHER. SO WE KNOW THE CONSISTENT GROWTH RATE PROJECTIONS.

>> CAN I GET BACK TO THE POWERPOINT? THANK YOU. OKAY I'M GOING TO MOVE . THIS SLIDE OR ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY WASTEWATER. COVERS THE WHOLE YOU TJ CURRENTLY IN WASTEWATER SERVICE 13,411 SERVICE UNITS STUDYING SIMILAR PROCESSES WE DISCUSSED ON THE WATER THE OTHER PROJECTION 37,700 WITH ANNUAL GROWTH RATE OF 24,000 OF 24,293 SERVICE UNITS IN THE E

TJ. >> CAN BACK ON YOUR CHART WHAT

DOES IT SHOW FOR 2023? >> TO SHOWING IN 20 2413 709.

IN 2020 AND WE HAVE UES 24,253. SO IN 10 YEARS STAFF SAYS WILL

HAPPEN BY 2028 >> WHICH IS FOUR YEARS.

>> 24,000 WE ARE HALFWAY IN BETWEEN RIGHT?

>> 2028 STAFF SAYS 24,253 >> 2028 STAFF SAYS 24,250 3L

UES. NOT FAR OFF ON THAT ONE. >> 2028 WE GET TO WHERE YOU WILL SAY 20 2028 WE GET TO WHERE YOU WILL SAY 2033.

>> 37,000 . >> I GOTCHA.

>> THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. TO GO BACK TO THE WATER TODAY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE BECAUSE WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS HAVE SO MANY MORE. BASED ON YOUR OWN NUMBERS HE WAS ANGRY AT 3000 CUSTOMER DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CCN AND THE WASTEWATER ENTIRE NUMBER AND THAT'S WHY QUESTION THE 10,000.

>> WE ARE AT 10,000 DIFFERENT?

>> 27,000, WASTEWATER 37,000. >> 2023 10,000 AND ONLY 13,000 THE ENTIRE E TJ. I'M SORRY E TJ IS SO MUCH LARGER I DOUBT

[01:40:02]

IT'S ONLY 3000 DIFFERENCE. >> THAT'S FROM THE METER DATA WE HAVE. WE PULLED OUT FROM THE CITY DATA. WE DID NOT CREATE

THE NUMBER. >> UNDERSTAND, BUT WE WERE NOT DIRECTLY THROUGH FOR THE WASTEWATER. SONY PULLED THE METERS WE JUST CHANGED TO NOW WHERE WE GET THE DATA SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S WHERE THE DISCREPANCY IS COMING FROM.

>> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT WE TOOK THE HUTTO BILLING DATA AND MANIPULATED TO PULL IT OUT.

>> EVERYTHING, I DON'T KNOW IF HE WORKED WITH HER BUT MONICA HAS ALL KINDS OF NUMBERS ON JONAH. SHE WOULD ALWAYS BE ABLE

TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE QUESTION, GIVE US THE INFORMATION THAT WOULDN'T HAVE INCLUDED JONAH.

>> METERS GOING BASED OFF METERS.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THEIR METERS.

>> THEY BILL IT RIGHT? THEY BILL IT FOR US.

>> THEN THEY WRITE A CHECK EVERY MONTH. THEY SEND MONEY

EVERY MONTH. >> A WHOLESALE AGREEMENT IS WHAT WE CHANGED THE RATE.

>> SORRY. HOPE YOU ARE NOT PLANNING ON GOING ANYWHERE TONIGHT. LET'S FINISH AND WE WILL FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'RE

GOING TO DO. >> CIP LIST THIS IS THE PLAN YOU TJ CITY OF HUTTO WASTEWATER PLANTS. 49 PROJECTS, A LOT MORE THAN WATER AND HERE'S WHERE WE RECOMMEND MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE IMPACT FEE OF 12,670 WE FIND THE 10 YEAR RECOVERABLE COST AT ABOUT 308 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL 24,293 SERVICE UNITS OVER 10 YEARS. THIS SLIDE AGAIN. YOU SAW WHERE IT STACKS UP TO OTHER CITIES. NOT THE HIGHEST, BUT IN THE UPPER MIDDLE.

IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WE CAN ANSWER THEM OR

MOVE INTO ROADWAY. >> THIS IS BASED ON DATA YOU CAN COLLECT FROM OTHER CITIES BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY CONSIDER RAISING RATES AT ALL?

>> BRIGHT I WANT TO CLARIFY THOSE ARE IMPACT FEES. SO THIS IS CURRENTLY WHAT'S ON THE WEBSITE. I'M SURE IF OTHERS ARE DOING MASSIVE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENTS

YOU WILL SEE A JUMP. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT. I KNOW THEY'RE DOING WASTEWATER TREATMENT SO MY GUESS IS THEY HAVE DONE THE INCREASE. I CAN'T IMAGINE THEM

INCREASING MORE. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, CORRECT. NEW BROTHELS IS PRETTY RECENT. ANY OTHER THINGS BEFORE

WE MOVED TO ROADWAY? >> DON'T KEEP ASKING.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> VERY GOOD, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

TO THE ROADWAY PROGRAM. SIMILAR TO THE WATER WASTEWATER WE HAVE LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS WITH THE FORECAST OF HOW WE ARE GROWING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AIMED AT ADDRESSING GROWTH AND ULTIMATELY THE COST OF THE GROWTH DIVIDED BY SERVICE UNIT GROWTH BECOMING COST PER SERVICE UNIT. ONE OF THE KEY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WATER, WASTEWATER AND ROADS IS WE HAVE A OPEN SYSTEM OF IMPROVEMENTS. WATER WASTEWATER DEFINED SERVICE AREA REDUNDANCY WE HAVE A LOOP ALLOCATING SERVICE UNITS OF GROWTH. ROADS OTHER PEOPLE TO UP THE INTERSECTION. FOLKS PASSING THROUGH TIME-CONSUMING CAPACITY SO WE'RE DEALING WITH OPEN SYSTEM OF IMPROVEMENT WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE SECOND.

A STEP BACK THE UPDATE TO THE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE IS ROOTED IN THE MASTER MOBILITY PLANNING INITIATIVE. YOU MAY RECALL IN JULY WE ROLLED OUT THE DRAFT PLAN REVIEWED THAT, THAT'S THE BASIS FOR THE CIP TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE.

[01:45:03]

PROJECTS ARTERIAL OR COLLECTOR CLASS INCLUDED IN THE PROGRAM.

IT WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN THE SECOND. BY WAY OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT WE DID WORK WITH THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WE MET WITH THEM THREE TIMES TO DISCUSS LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, IMPROVEMENT PLAN, ULTIMATELY THEY HAVE DRAFTED A LETTER ON A POTENTIAL COLLECTION FOR YOU TO CONSIDER AS PART OF THIS. ALL TIED TOGETHER FOR THE WATER WASTEWATER. AS YOU ARE ASKING TECHNICAL QUESTIONS APPROPRIATELY THERE'S A LOT OF NUMBERCRUNCHING ON THE TECHNICAL SIDE. WHAT IS THE UNIT COST TO PROVIDE SERVICE? WE DEFINE THE CEILING WITH MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE NUMBERS IT BECOMES POLICY ON WHAT YOU WANT TO COLLECT. FOR EXAMPLE IN THE 2018 PROGRAM YOU ALL DECIDED AS POLICY TO COLLECT 20% OF MAX FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND 40% RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. NOW THE SOLE POLICY DISCUSSION COMES UP WITH A NEW CALCULATED RATE , THE COLLECTION RATE. ONE OF THE KEY , ALL WRAPPED AROUND THE SAME DISCUSSION SOMEONE WILL PAY FOR THE COST OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IMPACT FEES ARE A FINANCE TOOL , CALCULATION ASKING THE NEW SHARE AND COST AND WHATEVER YOU DECIDE BY WAY OF COLLECTION RATE THE OTHER HALF IS FUNDED BY THE TECH SPACE. WE BRING THAT UP FOR PURPOSES OF WHO PAYS FOR THE STUFF. IN THE IMPACT FEE PROGRAM , YOU KNOW 2018 STARTED FOR HUTTO FOR COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE SINCE 1989 PRIMARILY IT WAS NORTH TEXAS, EARLY 2000'S CENTRAL STARTED GETTING IN THE PROGRAMS, AREAS THAT NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT IMPACT FEES, SOUTHEAST, WEST TEXAS, FAR SOUTH NOW CONTEMPLATING OR HAVING PROGRAMS APPROVED. METHODOLOGY IS GENERALLY THE SAME. CALCULATE THE COST OF THE CIP DIVIDED BY SERVICE UNIT GROWTH THERE IS COST PER SERVICE UNIT. WE HAVE NOT CHANGED SERVICING OF HER ROADS, IT'S THE VEHICLE MILE THE UNIT OF MEASURE FOR HOW MUCH CAPACITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED , HOW MUCH DEMAND IS GENERATED IN THE FUTURE BY FUTURE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AND ULTIMATELY ASSESSING FEES BASED ON SERVICES REQUIRED TO SERVE DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS A UNIT COST WITH A FAST FOOD RESTAURANT 250 UNIT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TIMES THE SERVICE IN A GENERATION THAT'S THE IMPACT FEE. ONE OF THE BIG DIFFERENCES THIS GO AROUND , BECAUSE YOU ARE GROWING AND YOU COACHED MAXIMUM SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY BY LAW IT CANNOT BE GREATER THAN 6 MILES. YOU HAVE ENCROACHED ON THAT WITH THE DECISION MADE TO LOOK AT THE ALTERNATE STRUCTURE FOR HOW WE MAY ALLOCATE AND ADDRESS GROWTH AS WE GROW IN THE FUTURE. WE CAME UP WITH HIS OWN STRUCTURE SERVICE AREAS BASICALLY DIVIDED BY 1660 ALONG FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH, COUNTY ROAD 132 79, LOOP, 130 THE NORTH AND SOUTH WITH FOUR AREAS THE PROGRAM IS PREDICATED ON. BY WAY OF LAND USE ASSUMPTION, WE LOOKED AT SEVERAL HISTORIC ROAD TRENDS.

NOT ONLY HOW WE ARE GROWING IN THE PAST ONE, THREE, FIVE, SEVEN YEARS. CAMPO DATA, ACS DATA, KNOWN AND APPROVED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT WORKING WITH STAFF, THE POPULATION GROWTH FORECAST AT 8.75 THAT'S WHAT WE WORKED WITH PRESENTING TO THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHO ACCEPTED THAT, THAT TRANSLATES TO THE INCREASE OF 42,000 PERSONS OVER A 10 YEAR WINDOW OR 12,000 DWELLING UNITS BY DIVIDING THE NUMBER OF PERSONS BY THE PERSONS PER DWELLING UNIT CENSUS DATA FROM 2020 SO WE HAVE ABOUT 12,000. WHAT WE SAW IN THE LITTLE GRAPH IS WHERE'S THE GROWTH GOING TO OCCUR? ALMOST HALF IN THE EAST.

WE HAVE A LOT OF RESIDENTIAL GROWTH EAST OF 1660, NORTH OF 79TH THE SECOND LARGEST GROWTH AREA IN THE WEST , THE WHOLE AREA SOUTHWEST , FURTHER SOUTH IN THE WESTERN SECTORS OF THE CITY. CURRENT POPULATION OF 32,000 OR AT THE TIME WE PREPARED THE NUMBERS GROWING TO A TENURE POPULATION OF 74,000 GROWING TO A TENURE POPULATION OF 74,400. OR 200. WE LOOKED AT

[01:50:03]

TWO THINGS. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE TRAFFIC GENERATION IS DIFFERENT BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL.

ON THE EMPLOYMENT SIDE WE LOOKED AT THE SAME SOURCES, THE ACS, CAMPO DATA, TYPE OF GROWTH ANTICIPATED SO WE CAN COME UP WITH A GROWTH RATE FORECASTING GROWTH FROM FUTURE LAND USE ASSUMPTION WITH A GROWTH RATE OF 9%. WE ARE LOOKING AT THE INCREASE OF EMPLOYMENT OF 24,000 ALMOST 24,700 PERSONS OVER A 10 YEAR WINDOW. ALLOCATING FURTHER BY INDUSTRIAL GROWTH OFFICE GROWTH RETAIL GROWTH BECAUSE EACH HAVE DIFFERENT TROUBLE CHARACTERISTICS. TALK ABOUT THAT HERE IN A SECOND. BASICALLY THE MAJORITY OF THE DEMAND EMPLOYMENT WILL OCCUR IN THE EAST. LOOKING AT THE SERVICE AREA MAP THAT INCLUDES THE MEGA SITE OBVIOUSLY WAS SOME COMMERCIAL AREAS OCCURRING ALONG 79 AND MIND YOU THIS PROJECTION IS ON THE ROADS FOR THE CITY LIMITS ONLY BY LAW THE ROAD IMPACT FEES CAN EXTEND BEYOND CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

THIS LOOKS AT THE 10 YEAR GROWTH WITHIN CURRENT CITY LIMITS. SO WE HAVE GOT MAJORITY OCCURRING IN THE EAST FOLLOWED BY THE WEST. YOU HAVE INDUSTRIAL PARK ON THE WEST THE MEGA SITE ON THE EAST, INDUSTRIAL PARK ON THE WEST WITH SOME SUPPORT NORTH AND SOUTH BUT GENERALLY 25,000 IN PLACE. CURRENT EMPLOYMENT OF 17,500 UP TO 42,000 IN THE 10 YEAR WINDOW. USING SERVICE IN A GENERATION FOR THOSE CATEGORIES, THE RESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL OFFICE AND RETAIL WE ARE ABLE TO QUANTIFY HOW MUCH GROWTH BY SERVICE AREA IN TERMS OF UNITS OR VEHICLE MILES SO WE QUANTIFY ON THE TABLE HERE, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS ON THE FAR RIGHT , THE VMT GROWTH OVER THE 10 YEAR WINDOW BY SERVICE AREA FORECASTING INCREASE OF 144,000 VEHICLE MILES OF GROWTH BASED ON THE 10 YEAR LAND USE ASSUMPTION. AS I MENTIONED THE IMPACT FEE CIP IS PREDICATED ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN, THIS WAS THE IMAGE PRESENTED AT THE OUTSET OF THE FIRST MEETING IN JULY THAT YOU REVIEWED AND TOOK ACTION ON. ONLY ARTERIAL OR COLLECTIVE CLASS FACILITIES ARE CONTEMPLATED IN THE PROGRAM , THIS MAP REFLECTS THAT WITH TWO KINDS OF PROJECTS. THOSE IN PINK ARE PLANS OR PROJECTS BUILDING OVER THE 10 YEAR WINDOW PORTIONS OF . THOSE IN GREEN RECENTLY COMPLETED AND WE ARE RECOUPING THE COST OF EXCESS CAPACITY. IN TERMS OF COST. UNIT COST ESTIMATES WERE PREPARED FOR PROJECTS TO BE BUILT AND ACTUAL COST FOR THOSE RECENTLY COMPLETED WERE PUT INTO THE DATABASE AS PART OF THE ACTUAL NUMBERS. UNIT COST APPROACH WAS TAKEN BASED ON UNIT COST DATE 12 MONTH AVERAGE, TXDOT DATA, BID TABS IN THE HUTTO AREA SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH CONSTRUCTION COSTS. RIGHT-OF-WAY VERY, COST OF SQUARE FOOT ANYWHERE FROM ONE DOLLAR UP TO $2.50 ENGINEERING A PERCENTAGE OF CONSTRUCTION. BRIDGE, SIGNALS, PUTTING THE ROADWAY ON THE GROUND ELIGIBLE FOR IMPACT FEE CONSIDERATION. DEBT SERVICE IS A BIG CHUNK OF THAT. THE INTEREST RATE WAS AROUND 5% OVER THE 10 YEAR WINDOW. CREDIT ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED BECAUSE OF NEW FACILITIES BEING PUT ON THE GROUND SOMETIMES BY DEVELOPERS RAISING THE TAX THEY DON'T GET THE BENEFIT THERE IS CREDIT ANALYSIS THAT GOES INTO THAT THE CREDIT GETS TAKEN OUT OF THE COST OF CIP SO THEREFORE YOU HAVE THE CREDITED COST OF CIP DIVIDED BY THE TENURE GROWTH WITH COST PER SERVICE UNIT. ADDING A FEW PROJECTS PHYSICALLY OR THOROUGHFARE PLAN WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. WE DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE DEVELOPMENT WILL OCCUR AND IF DEVELOPMENT IS BUILDING OR CONTRIBUTING WHETHER A LANE OF ROAD OR RIGHT-OF-WAY THEY WILL WANT CREDIT AGAINST THE IMPACT FEE SO THE IDEAS PUT ALL THE PROJECTS IN CURRENTLY IN CITY LIMITS THEREFORE CREDITS CAN BE ISSUED WHEN A DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. OF THE 83 WE HAVE ABOUT 39,000 VEHICLE MILES OF CAPACITY, NET CAPACITY TRAFFIC CHEWING AWAY ON THE RECOUPMENT PROJECTS, THE GREEN ONES SO WE

[01:55:01]

HAVE 37,900 VEHICLE MILES OF ADDED CAPACITY FROM THE NETWORK WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. COST OF CIP 161 MILLION THE NET CAPACITY 153 MILLION , THAT'S THE MAXIMUM WE WILL BE ABLE TO USE IN THE CALCULATION. THIS IS SYSTEM TOTAL CALCULATING INDIVIDUALLY BY SERVICE AREA WHICH WILL MAKE THINGS FUN. YOU HAD ONE YET FOUR RATES ONE FOR EACH SERVICE AREA WE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS PROGRAM THE 2018 PROGRAM THE MAXIMUM COST PER SERVICE UNIT WHAT IS THE FULL COST TO PUT A UNIT OF ROAD ON THE GROUND, 1960 BY POLICY YOU DECIDED , THE PREVIOUS LEADERSHIP DECIDED A NONRESIDENTIAL COLLECTION RATE OF $400 PER SERVICE UNIT WOULD BE COLLECTED WITH 784 ON RESIDENTIAL COLLECT IT. 20% FOR NONRESIDENTIAL, 40% MAXIMUM FOR RESIDENTIAL. THE LARGER TABLE ON THE RIGHT HIGHLIGHTED IN THE BLUE REPRESENTS CREDITED MAXIMUM. WE SHOW THE FULL COST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT COSTS TO PUT THE ROAD ON THE GROUND, HIGHLIGHTED BLUE IS THE CREDIT MAXIMUM CEILING. WE HAVE A RANGE OF 191 IN THE WEST TO A HIGH OF 3645 PER VEHICLE MILE IN THE SOUTH. TAKING A STEP BACK IF YOU ALL WANTED TO DO NOTHING TONIGHT AND SAY KEEP STATUS QUO WE WANT TO COLLECT $784 PER SERVICE UNIT FOR RESIDENTIAL, 400 NONRESIDENTIAL AS LONG AS THE NUMBERS FALL UNDERNEATH CALCULATED MAXIMUM THAT COLLECTION RATE WOULD WORK . YOU CANNOT GO ABOVE SO NOW WE HAVE FOUR SERVICE AREAS AND YOU ARE THINKING WHAT WE WANT TO COLLECT? WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT OTHERS ARE COLLECTING. IF 991 IS WEST A LITTLE OVER 1000 IN THE EAST, NORTH AND SOUTH IS HIGHER. IF WE DECIDE MIDDLE-OF-THE-ROAD 2774 WHERE WE CAN 2774 AND THE NORTH, IN THE SOUTH, BUT THE MAXIMUM WE COULD COLLECT EAST AND WEST WOULD BE 1089 AND 991 RESPECTIVELY. THOSE ARE THE CEILINGS. CANNOT GO ABOVE THE CEILINGS AND THE REASON THE NUMBERS VARY IS BECAUSE WE ARE CONSUMING CAPACITY WITH MORE GROWTH STRETCH OUT THE COST DRIVING COST PER SERVICE UNIT DOWN. QUESTIONS ON THE DERIVATION OF THE COST PER

SERVICE UNIT? >> MY ONLY ONE , YOU SAY PROJECTS. WHAT HAPPENS FOR EXAMPLE WHEN WE HAVE TO FUND PUTTING SERVICE ROADS ON EITHER SIDE OF 130? THAT'S NOT CALCULATED AS A COST NOW WHICH WOULD MAKE THE WEST GO UP SIGNIFICANTLY. AND SO, MY CONCERN WHEN WE LOOK AT IT

VERSUS SINGLE. >> WE DID INCLUDE ON SYSTEM FACILITIES. BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE CONTRIBUTION WILL BE FROM THE CITY WHETHER IT'S 20% OF THE COST OR LESS OR MORE WE MADE A CONSERVATIVE ASSUMPTION THAT FOR ON SYSTEM ROADS 20% OF THE MAXIMUM WOULD BE CITY CONTRIBUTION. FOR THE ROADS SAY IN THE CASE OF CHANDLER IF THOSE FURNITURE ROADS ARE BUILT FOR THE WILCO HIGHWAY THOSE MIGHT BE FUNDED BY OTHERS . WE DO NOT WANT TO INCLUDE THE COST BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY ELSE PAID IS NOT FAIR FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT TO PICK UP THAT COST ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER AGENCY. THE WAY AROUND THAT IS IN THE NEXT PROGRAM UPDATE AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS THE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED 2 TO 3 YEARS RATHER THAN WAITING FIVE, IF WE BUILD THE ROAD WHERE THERE'S CONTRIBUTION WE PLUG IN THE CITY EXPENDITURE ON FRONTAGE ROADS, THE CITY COST BECOMES A RECOUPMENT IN THE NEXT CALCULATION. WE DID NOT WANT TO OVEREXTEND. LET'S SAY FOR EXAMPLE BRIDGE STRUCTURE OVER 79 BRIDGE STRUCTURE OVER 79 COUNTY RD. 132 WE DON'T KNOW WHO WILL PAY FOR THAT IF IT WILL PASS WE DO NOT INCLUDE THAT BRIDGE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD BE PAYING IF OTHERS WERE TO CONTRIBUTE WE LEFT IT OUT, FIVE YEARS IT'S BUILT THE CITY DOES CONTRIBUTE

AND WE CAN INCLUDE THE COST. >> YOU'RE TELLING ME THE BRIDGE WHERE WE HAVE ALREADY PUT IN LIKE $8 MILLION NO DID

NOT INCLUDE IN THE COST? >> WE DID INCLUDE SOME OF THE COST BUT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT CERTAIN WHO WOULD BE FUNDING THE FULL AMOUNT WE TOOK A VERY CONSERVATIVE ROUTE. SO ON THE BRIDGE IT IS A LOW AMOUNT AND ON THE APPROACH COUNTY ROAD 132

[02:00:06]

FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH IS A COST ESTIMATE.

>> OKAY THE BEST CASE WE COULD GET WOULD BE THE RAILROAD CLOSING GRANT WHICH IS LIKE HALF SO WHAT PERCENTAGE DID YOU USE? THE COUNTY WILL NOT PAY FOR THAT BRIDGE, I HAVE ALREADY SAID. SO THE CITY HAS TO PAY FOR THAT. IF YOU DO NOT INCLUDE THAT AT ALL THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR CONTRIBUTION TO THE EAST WHICH WOULD CHANGE THE CREDIT SERVICE. FOR THE EAST BY A LOT.

>> IT WOULD CHANGE THE EAST, YES IT WOULD. AGREED.

>> THAT IS A FUNDAMENTAL FLAW IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> ON THE OTHER HAND IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE AND MONEY BECOMES AVAILABLE WE DO NOT WANT TO BE AHEAD OF THE CURVE COLLECTING FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY CHANGE THAT'S WHY WE

WENT ON TO CONSERVATIVE. >> WHO MAKES THE DECISION OF BEING CONSERVATIVE AND NOT BEING AHEAD OF THE CURVE. I HAVE BEEN HERE FIVE YEARS SHORT OF COVERT MONEY WE HAVE NEVER HAD THE COUNTY HAS NOT BUILT ANY ROADS, THE STATE REPAVED 79 BUT NO ONE IS OUT BUILDING ROADS. IN MY MIND CONSERVATIVE WOULD BE NOBODY HELPING HUTTO PAY FOR ANY ROADS THAT'S CONSERVATIVE. SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE CONSERVATIVE FOR THE WRONG PEOPLE WHICH I'M NOT TRYING TO TAX THE GROWTH MORE THAN IT NEEDS TO BE BUT IF YOU ERR ON THE SIDE OF CONSERVATIVE AND AS I HUTTO TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY FOR A BRIDGE WITH SOMEBODY ELSE TURNS OUT THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN WHEN WE COLLECT THE

WRONG IMPACT FEES. >> THAT IS IF YOU COLLECT THE MAXIMUM CEILING THEN IT BECOMES IN THE EQUATION. THAT'S THE COST PER VEHICLE MILE. SO DEPENDING ON THE SIZE .

>> FOR A HOUSE IT'S 1000? >> YES WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A SECOND. FROM THE EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER COMMUNITIES, CITY CONTRIBUTION IS 20%, THIS PROGRAM IS DEDICATED 10 YEARS. IF IN FACT THINGS CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN WE START THE NEXT PROGRAMMATIC UPDATE WITH ACTUAL DOLLARS SPENT THAT GETS PUT IN THE CALCULATION.

>> OF THE 151 MILLION , THAT IS ASSUMING WE GOT NOTHING FOR THE BRIDGE WHERE DID YOU PUT IN 20% OF 80 MILLION WHICH IS $16 MILLION ABOUT WAS THE PORTION OF THAT? SO LIKE I SAID THAT IS A RIDICULOUS ASSUMPTION. WE ARE DESIGNING IT NOW GOING INTO THE FINAL DESIGN AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY MAGIC , THE ONLY WHEN WE HAVE IS THE GRANT WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CROSSING AT 50%.

>> THE AVERAGE PAYOUT ON THE GRANT IS $9 MILLION. AVERAGE PAYOUT IS $9 MILLION SO TO THINK 50% IS WISHFUL THINKING.

>> I KNOW BUT HE SAYS WE WOULD PAY 20%.

>> I'M SAYING 50% IS STILL WISHFUL THINKING. WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT 80 OR 90% AS WHAT WE'VE GOT TO PAY.

>> HERE BECOMES , TO YOUR POINT, TO YOUR QUESTION. IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE IN ANY OF THESE MAJOR FACILITIES WITH OUT CONTRIBUTION DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO GET A REFUND.

THAT IT IS THIS IT IS A REFUND IMPACT FEES BECAUSE WE HAD LARGE EXPENDITURE WITH OTHERS WE FOUND OTHER DOLLARS

AVAILABLE TO COVER >> RATHER CUT A CHECK AND NOT

TAKE OUT DEBT. >> SOUNDS LIKE A COUNTY ISSUE.

>> THAT WOULD BE ACCOUNTING ISSUE.

>> THAT'S BAD PLANNING. IF WE ARE ABLE TO REFUND AND THAT'S GREAT. I WOULD GIVE THAT MONEY BACK TO THE DEVELOPER, BUT TO SIT AND SAY IF IT WAS ONLY 60 MILLION YOU CAN'T WAIT FOR THE BRIDGE WE HOPE TO START CONSTRUCTION WITHIN A YEAR AND YOU SAY WE DON'T LOOK TO GO IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS AND THAT'S THE LARGEST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FOR THE ROADS WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS AND YOU DON'T EVEN INCLUDE IT.

>> WILL GO BACK AND AMEND. >> YOU HAVE TO. WE CANNOT TAKE

ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT. >> FOR COLLECTIONS.

>> WITHIN THE NEXT FIVE YEAR PERIOD WHEN THIS COMES AGAIN, I DOUBT THE BRIDGE WILL BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT'S WHERE

I'M AT. >> NOT IF WE ARE NOT COLLECTING

IMPACT FEES. >> THAT'S FOR DANG SURE.

[02:05:04]

SORRY, GO AHEAD. >> COLLECTION RATES , IT IS MY POLICY HOW YOU WANT TO DO THAT. IF YOU WANT TO FIND THE MOST, SELECT AND APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD, SOME PERCENTAGE , RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL IT ALL BECOMES POLICY ON HOW YOU COLLECT. HOW YOU ASSESS IS BASED ON THE CREDITED MAX, HERE'S MAXIMUM ON SCHEDULE ONE THAT YOU WILL ASSESS WITH COLLECTION SCHEDULE TWO WHAT YOU COLLECT AT BUILDING PERMIT WHEN THE DEVELOPER PULLS A PERMIT. THERE WERE SPECIFIC POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE REGARDING TARGET DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT, CONSIDERED IN THE LETTER OF CONSIDERATION HOW WE MAY WANT TO DEAL WITH THAT. WE DID SOME BENCHMARKING TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ADJACENT TO HUTTO HAVE IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS, WHAT ARE THEY COLLECTING? SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE DEPICTED THIS EVIL FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, THE ACTUAL IMPACT FEE NOT THE COST PER SERVICE BUT THE IMPACT FEE. ROUND ROCK, TAYLOR AND GEORGETOWN. WHAT WE ARE SHOWING ARE TWO THINGS. AND WE ARE THREE OTHER LAND USES.

THE GRAPH IN THE DARKER COLOR REPRESENTS THE ADOPTED COLLECTION RATE. SO FOR EXAMPLE ROUND ROCK DECIDED IN EACH CITY THERE IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF SERVICERS. ROUND ROCK THREE BARS, THREE SERVICE AREAS, GEORGETOWN SEVEN BARS SEVEN SERVICE AREAS. ROUND ROCK THREE CALCULATED MAXIMUM OR LIGHTER COLORS WITH THEIR COLLECTING BY ORDINANCE IS THE DARKER COLOR.

LOOKING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ON A DWELLING IN A BASIS IMPACT 6420 ACROSS THE BOARD. THAT WOULD BE A VARYING COLLECTION RATE ON THE PERCENTAGE OF MAX. PFLUGERVILLE THE SAME THING, COLLECTING THAT ACROSS THE BOARD YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEY COULD'VE GONE TO IN THOSE OTHER SERVICE AREAS THEY WERE MAXED OUT IN THE ONE SERVICE AREA. THE REASON THIS COMES INTO DISCUSSION IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH MULTIPLE SERVICE AREAS YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPERS WITH SOME ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET AND THAT KIND OF THING. SOME COMMUNITIES WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER ACROSS THE BOARD SO IT'S THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD. IN THE ORANGE, WE HAVE HUTTO BY EACH SERVICE AREA. WE HAVE DONE THE CALCULATION USING MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IN EACH SERVICE AREA. WE HAVE CALCULATED AND YOU CAN SEE FROM $4000 AND YOU CAN SEE FROM $4000-$14,700. IN THE SOUTH. OKAY? BY WAY OF COMPARISON, CURRENTLY COLLECTING 3998. THAT WOULD BE JUST UNDERNEATH THE LOWEST ONES THERE. IN TAYLOR THERE IS ONE BAR WHERE THE NUMBER IS OFF THE CHARTS, IT WAS 34,987 THAT TAYLOR IS COLLECTING.

THAT IS TAYLOR CITY LIMITS. WHAT YOU ARE SAYING, IF WE PUT IT IN, YES, IT WOULD JUMP DRAMATICALLY. IF WE HAVE A NUMBER. SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU OVER TO GET THERE TONIGHT AND TONIGHT, IF YOU ARE CONSIDERING ADOPTING, YOU COULD SAY SUBJECT TO THE AMENDMENT FOR INCLUDING THE CITY PORTION OF COST ON THE EAST AND THEN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 19TH WITH THE ORDINANCE WE WOULD HAVE THE UPDATED NUMBER IF YOU WANTED TO DO THAT. SOMETHING FOR CONSIDERATION. MOVING TO THE BENCHMARK CHARTS, THESE WERE OTHER LAND USES. ON A PER THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT BASIS. WE STARTED WITH 100,000 SQUARE-FOOT INDUSTRIAL SO THE IMPACT FEE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE VERSUS WHAT THEY ARE COLLECTING FOR EACH OF THE PEER CITIES AND WHERE HUTTO WOULD BE UNDER CURRENT MAXIMUM CREDIT ALLOWED.

44,033 ON THE LOW END, 14,800 ON THE HIGH END. CURRENTLY 2328 , THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE CURRENTLY COLLECTING. $400 PER SERVICE UNIT. SHOPPING CENTER PER 1000 SQUARE-FOOT BASIS.

PEER CITIES HUTTO BY SERVICE AREA, CURRENT COLLECTIONS HER THOUSAND FOR SHOPPING CENTER WHICH IS 20% OF MAX AT 2996.

[02:10:03]

FINALLY, THE GEN. OFFICE AGAIN PEER CITIES, HUTTO BY SERVICE AREA THE CURRENT HUTTO COLLECTION RATE $3576.

THAT IS THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. CERTAINLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. WE HAVE OTHER CHARTS THAT TALK ABOUT THE COMBINED FEE , WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE INSTRUMENTAL AS YOUR DISCUSSION ON THE TOTAL IMPACT FEE, BUT THE THOUGHT WAS WE WOULD GO THROUGH TECHNICAL PIECES, WHAT ARE THE SAVINGS , PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN DISCUSSION ON WHAT ARE COMMUNITIES DOING BY WAY OF COMBINED COLLECTION

RATES. >> GOING BACK TO THE FIRST ONE.

>> ON THE RESIDENTIAL? >> YEAH.

>> SO I MEAN, I BASICALLY WONDER AND CONCERN ABOUT THE WEST BECAUSE IN THE WEST WE HAVE APPROVED AND I'M CURIOUS, WE PUT IN THE PLANS FOR THE ADDITIONAL 30 MILLION THIS YEAR , MAYOR? A LOT OF THAT WAS TO DO ALONG THE WITH IMPROVEMENTS, WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THIS CALCULATION?

>> YOU MAY RECALL THIS GRAPHIC HERE. ALL THE PROJECTS HIGHLIGHTED IN PINK ARE THE ONES WE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION. SO FOR EACH WHEN WE HAVE DERIVED UNIT COST FOR PAVEMENT, ILLUMINATION, SUBGRADE, I'M SORRY FOR THE PROJECT COST BY PROJECT. ALL OF THOSE LISTED IN THE APPENDICES WITH EVERY PROJECT BY SERVICE AREA.

>> HOW DID YOU COME UP WITH THE AREAS FOR EACH ZONE.

>> WE LOOKED AT WHERE YOU ARE CURRENTLY AND BASED ON ET J WE KNOW ET J IS A GRAY AREA WITH PEOPLE OPTING OUT. WHERE YOU COULD GROW SO THE THOUGHT WAS THINKING LONG-TERM WITH CONTINUED GROWTH HOW THEY GROW OR FALL INTO SERVICE AREA LONG-TERM. WE WERE THINKING LONG-TERM ABOUT POTENTIAL

FUTURE ANNEXATION. >> WHAT MAJOR DRAW THE LINES

WHERE YOU DREW THE LINES? >> WE WANTED TO TRY TO DEFY THE CITY EQUALLY NOW AND EQUALLY LONG-TERM. SO THAT'S WHERE THE DIVISION WAS 1960 AND CR 132, 79, LET ME SHOW YOU THIS FOR A SECOND. THERE YOU GO. ULTIMATELY FOUR SIZES ARE ABOUT THE SAME , THAT WAS THE IDEA. THE REASON FOR THAT, WHERE ONE SERVICE UNIT EQUIVALENCY TABLE. IF WE HAD THREE THE SAME SIZE AND ONE VERY SMALL LET'S SAY THE MEGA SITE THE TRIP LENGTH WOULD BE CUT BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE SERVICE AREA SO WE WANTED TO GENERALLY FEATURE THE SAME SIZE SERVICE AREA SO ONE TABLE CAN APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD.

>> THE REASON I'M ASKING, WOULDN'T THERE BE BENEFIT IN TRYING TO DRAW THE BOUNDARIES TO WHERE THEY ARE MORE EQUAL TO THE NORTH AND SOUTH, WHERE IT'S NOT SO DISPARATE FROM

EAST AND WEST? >> WE ALSO TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED NOW AND IN THE PROCESS . FUTURE AREAS OF GROWTH, THAT'S WHY NORTH IS SMALL-ISH WITH A LOT OF GROWTH ANTICIPATED TO GROW FOR THE NORTH. WE FIGURED THE NORTH WOULD GROW SIGNIFICANTLY OVER 10 YEARS SO WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BALANCE OUT.

>> IF WE ARE LOOKING AT THIS AND SEND YOU WANT TO UPDATE THIS IN THREE OR FIVE YEARS BUT MAYBE WE SHOULD IN TWO YEARS I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TRYING TO DRAW THE BOUNDARIES FOR TAN PLUS YEARS OUT. WE SHOULD BE DRAWING THEM AGAINST HER THE LOAD IS SHARED IN EACH ZONE AND THE CITY BECAUSE NOW THE WAY THIS IS WHEN WE ADJUST THE EAST AND EAST GOES UP THEN IF YOU WANT TO PUT IN RETAIL IT WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE EXPENSIVE TO PUT RETAIL ON THE EAST OF TOWN ON 79TH WITH A LOT OF OPEN SPACE VERSUS INFIELD DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST WHERE IT'S MORE CONGESTED. IT IS NOT MAKE FUNCTIONAL SENSE TO DO

THAT. >> WE CAN MAKE THE POLICY DECISION TO GO FROM THE ZONE TO THE FLAT.

>> THEN WE HAVE TO BRING THAT TO THE LOWEST LEVEL.

>> PERCENTAGE OF THE MAX. IF IT IS A PERCENTAGE OF THE MAX IT

[02:15:02]

STILL THE SAME PROBLEM. >> OH ONE MORE. KEEP GOING.

KEEP GOING. >> YOU ARE ENCOURAGING DEVELOPMENT AND ARE YOU ENCOURAGING WHERE YOU WANT OR

NOT? >> I GUESS I'M ASKING WHY CAN'T WE DRAW THE BOUNDARIES TO EAST AND WEST ARE HIGHER AND NORTH AND SOUTH ARE LOWER SO THEY ARE EQUAL? CLOSER TO EQUAL SO THEN YOU CAN DO ONE FLAT FEE AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE STUCK

WITH 1125. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED

FOUR IN HUTTO TODAY. >> WE TRIED THREE ZONE STRUCTURE AT THE OUTSET. JUST STARTING TO THE BOUNDARIES SO WE FIGURED WILL CHANGE SOONER OR LATER FROM THE INITIATIVE BOOKKEEPING PERSPECTIVE. MAKE A CHANGE KEEP IT SET FROM HERE ON OUT SO THAT'S WHY WE WENT WITH FOUR, BUT WE TRY TO GO WITH THREE AND IT WOULD NOT WORK ON THE FAR OUT OF REACH ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH. WE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE A ODD SERVICE AREA REALLY SMALL, GOING TO BE DIFFERENT SO WE CAME BACK TO FOUR. BEYOND THE 6 MILES YOU HAVE TO SPLIT. WE COULD KICK THE CAN DOWN THE ROAD IN TWO YEARS OR FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS DO IT AGAIN. SOMEONE IS TO KEEP TRACK OF THE FUNDS BY SERVICE AREA, WE COLLECTED AND WHERE YOUR SPENDING. KEEP CHANGING THEM AROUND SOMEONE IN THE COUNTY WILL HAVE FUN.

>> IS THAT WHY YOU HAVE TO SPLIT IT OUT IN THE FOUR

REGIONS? >> YES WE ARE LOOKING AT A MAXIMUM SIZE, 6 MILE MAXIMUM AND WE WERE THINKING LONG-TERM

OUT HUTTO WOULD ALL FIT . >> IF I CAN JUMP IN AND TRY TO TAKE SOME PRESSURE. THE FOUR ZONES WAS MY BRAINCHILD BECAUSE LIKE EDDIE SAID TO TRY TO FIT IN TWO OR THREE OR WHATEVER AND STRETCH IT OUT TO THE SIX AND WE DID A BUBBLE PROCESS WHERE WE WERE MOVING BIG CIRCLES AROUND TO COVER. KNOWING WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE INTERNAL WORKINGS OF THE CITY AND HOW BUSY EVERYBODY IS, THE ACCOUNTING NIGHTMARE OF EVERY TIME WE COME BACK TO REDO THIS AND WE CHANGE THE ZONE AND GROW THINGS BIGGER AND SHIFT THINGS AROUND AND I WE HAVE TO KEEP TRACK OF THAT STUFF. I SAID LET'S THINK ABOUT THE FUTURE.

TRY TO COME UP WITH ZONES THAT COVER THE ENTIRE CITY SO AS WE GROW WE DO NOT TO SHIFT THIS AROUND AND KEEP TRACK OF FIVE DIFFERENT SETS OF BOOKS TO FIGURE OUT LAST TIME IT WAS EAST, NOW THAT'S PART OF THE NORTH SO THAT WAS MY BRAINCHILD TO MINIMIZE THE EXTRA EFFORT ON YOU GUYS AND STAFF. AS WE GROW WE HAVE ESTABLISHED THESE ARE OUR ZONES NOW WE ARE SET UP SO AS WE GROW IN THOSE AREAS. THERE MAY BE VALUE TRYING TO GO BACK TO YOUR MID-POINT ABOUT TRYING TO TWEAK THE BOUNDARIES

>> YES, GIVE SOMEONE IN THE SOUTH ZONE TO THE WEST, THE NORTH TO EAST AND EQUALIZE THEM. IF YOU DRAW THE BOUNDARY A LITTLE DIFFERENT MAYBE THEY WOULD EQUALIZE. THEN WITH THAT MESS THINGS UP 5 TO 10 YEARS AND THEY WOULD GET OUT OF WHACK

ANYWAY? >> AS LONG AS WE STAY WITHIN THE 6 MILE LIMIT AND KEEP THE FOUR WHERE THEY ARE, THAT WAS THE POINT OF SETTING UP THIS WAY. TO SAY THESE ARE THE ZONES GOING ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE ENTIRE E TJ SO WHEN WE GROW OUT BECAUSE WE WILL GO OUT WE DON'T HAVE TO CREATE A NEW ZONE AND FIGURE OUT HOW TO TRACK THE DIFFERENT MONIES WE

RECEIVED AND SPENT. >> WHAT IT EQUAL OUT IF IT IS ALL , IF YOU EQUAL OUT OR GET IT AS CLOSE TO EQUAL AS NOW? AS YOU GROW WHAT YOU GIVE WAY? TO KIND OF PRIORITIZING HEY, THIS ONE IS GROWING AT A FASTER RATE HOW DO WE MATCH UP AND MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT GIVING MORE TO ONE ZONE VERSUS ANOTHER?

>> NOT SURE. I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM IS SAYING IF WE LOOK , YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT. LET ME. OKAY THINK WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM IS ASKING IF WE MOVE BETWEEN THE YELLOW AND GREEN SLIGHTLY FURTHER WEST SO WE ENCOMPASS

MORE EXPENDITURE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.

>> THAN THE DOLLAR NUMBER RESOLVE WITH CHANGE.

>> THE GREEN NUMBER WOULD GO UP.

>> AS LONG AS WE DO THAT, WITH EASY TO REMEMBER BOUNDARIES AND

[02:20:06]

WE DON'T EXCEED 6 MILE LIMITATION THAT I THINK THAT

COULD WORK. >> CAN GO TWO MORE SLIDES TO WHERE WE HAD THE FIRST. I WISH YOU PUT IN WHAT IT CURRENTLY WAS IN HUTTO FOR EXAMPLE IS A LINE ON THE GRAPH.

>> CURRENTLY YOU HAVE CURRENT CITY LIMITS.

>> LET'S KEEP GOING. YOU'RE GOING THE WRONG WAY. TRYING TO GO TO THE CHART. HERE, GO BACK ONE. IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU HAD SHOWN WHAT THE CURRENT IS ON THE GRAPH. YOU TOLD US BUT I CANNOT SEE IT IN THE VISUAL. MY POINT IS NO MATTER WHERE THESE ARE , IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE OTHER CITIES ARE, I KNOW EAST NEEDS TO COME UP AND WHEN WE PUT IN THE BRIDGE IT WOULD. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS A COUNCIL DO YOU WANT THE NUMBER TO BE? FOR EXAMPLE 4400 ALREADY PUTS US ABOVE MOST ZONES IN TAYLOR ALMOST EVERYTHING IN GEORGETOWN EXCEPT FOR ROUND ROCK MY QUESTION IS DO YOU NEED TO MOVE UP SOME? I KNOW SHIFTING SOUTH TO EAST WOULD BRING EAST UP AND MAYBE THAT MAKES SENSE SO AS A POLICY IF WE WANTED TO BE AT 5000 FOR EXAMPLE ACROSS THE BOARD THAT WOULD GIVE YOU FIVE AND NORTH AND 590S, FIVE AND SOUTH. I THINK EAST , YOU NEED TO GET WEST TO COME UP BY MOVING THE SOUTHWEST ORDER. SO THE QUESTION IS I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO GIVE DIRECTION IS YES WE WANT THE BRIDGE IN THERE MAKING EAST GOES UP SO WE CAN SET WHATEVER WE WANT BECAUSE THE NUMBER GO SO HIGH WE WILL LOOK LIKE THE TAYLOR GRAPH OR THE 19,000 FOR GEORGETOWN. WE WILL NOT SET TO 19 SO THE QUESTION IS IF WE AS A POLICY BODY SAY WE DON'T THINK WE WANT TO BE ABOVE 6500 AND HOW MUCH DO YOU CUT OUT OF THE SOUTH AND WEST SO THEN WE HAVE THE OPTION. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN MAKE ADOPTION TODAY UNLESS YOU COME BACK TO SHOW THAT. I THINK THAT'S WHERE YOU GET TO. IN THIS WE DON'T WANT TO PRIORITIZE AND GO WITH WHAT'S CHEAPEST SO ALL THE GROWTH COMES THERE FIRST. SO TO COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON'S POINT THE WRONG POLICY DECISION BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO GROW. I DON'T KNOW, YOU'RE PRETTY BUILT OUT IN THE WEST AND THAT'S WHERE THE TRAFFIC IS . SO WE DON'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE MORE GROWTH THERE BY MAKING EVERYTHING ELSE RELATIVELY MORE EXPENSIVE. SO DEVELOPERS SAY I CAN MAKE A QUICK BUCK IN THE WEST WITH A BIGGER PROFIT MARGIN VERSUS THE EAST. WILL NEED TO BUILD OUT THE EAST. MAYBE $400 DOES NOT MATTER MUCH AT THAT POINT. THE QUESTION TO THE BODIES DO WE WANT TO BE AT 5000 SO WE ARE LESS IN ROUND ROCK AND PFLUGERVILLE BUT MORE IN GEORGETOWN AND TAYLOR. AND THEN ADJUST THE BOUNDARIES AND THEN ETHICALLY AND LEGALLY DO THAT. PUTTING THE BRIDGE AND

WILL POP THAT NO PROBLEM. >> TO KIND OF MUDDY IT UP EVEN MORE. AS THE CITY GROWS IN THE NEXT PROGRAM UP TO YOUR CITY LIMITS WILL PROBABLY BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, A LITTLE BIT LARGER, INCLUDING THOSE PROJECTS CURRENTLY NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THEY ARE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS, THOSE PROJECTS CAN GET IN THERE. WHAT I AM SAYING IS WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT THE SERVICE AREA ZONE STRUCTURE AND WE CAN TINKER ALL WE WANT, BUT WE HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF PROJECTS WITH FINITE CAPACITY. IT'S THE COST THAT IS SKEWING THINGS BECAUSE WE CONSUME THE CAPACITY AND TO BECOME SENSITIVE. AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW HOPEFULLY WE'RE ADDING CAPACITY FROM THE ANNEXED AREAS AND THE NEW THOROUGHFARES THAT CAN BE ELIGIBLE FALLING BELOW 100% AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE MORE LEEWAY TO MOVE AROUND. I GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF WE DECIDE TINKER, MOVIES HERE, THE NUMBERS MAY COME UP NOT WHERE WE WANT THEM TO BE AND WE HAVE

TO DO IT AGAIN AND DO IT AGAIN. >> FIVE YEARS PROJECT CHANGES AND IT'S ALL OUT OF WHACK ANYWAY.

>> MAY BE, YEAH. BUT WE ARE AT YOUR WILL ON HOW YOU WANT US TO

PROCEED. >> AT MINIMUM WE HAVE TO HAVE FOR THE EAST AND THAT WILL POP THE SOUTH HIGHER. I DON'T THINK WE WILL ADOPT IT WILL MAKE THE SOUTH GO BECAUSE IT CROSSES THE BOUNDARY. FOR THE WAY YOU HAVE IT CUT.

>> IT MIGHT BE. >> ANY PROJECTS THAT ACROSS BOUNDARIES FOR YOU COUNT IN ONE?

[02:25:01]

>> THAT'S WHAT MADE THIS ONE CHALLENGING. EVERY PROJECT IS SPLIT BY SERVICE AREA. THOSE PROJECTS HAVE IN THE EAST, HALF IN THE NORTH, HALF IN THE EAST, HALF IN THE WEST, HALF IN THE EAST, HALF IN THE SOUTH. BECAUSE WE ARE ALLOCATING APPROPRIATE CAPACITY TO THE SERVICE AREA AND APPROPRIATE COST IN THE SERVICE AREA. SO WE ARE QUANTIFYING THE DEFINITIVE AMOUNT OF CAPACITY AT THE COST THAT IT TAKES TO PUT PROJECTS ON THE GROUND. IF WE WERE TO MOVE THE SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY WITH SOME PROJECTS MOVING ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER THE 50 MILL OR WHATEVER THAT IS WILL CHANGE TO THE EAST NO QUESTION. OTHERS WE MAY BE GUESSING THEN WE WILL SAY WE SHOULD'VE ADDED MORE PROJECTS. BECAUSE WE ARE ON A UNIT COST BASIS IT MIGHT NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE.

>> CAN YOU VERIFY OR HAVE YOU VERIFIED IF THERE ANY OTHER PROJECTS? THAT ARE ON THE CIP LIST THAT DID NOT MAKE IT IN AT

100%? >> CHANDLER AND MAYBE.

>> SO. >> GOING THROUGH HIS LIST AND I'VE TO GO THROUGH HIS EXHIBIT AND CHECK OFF EVERY ONE OF OURS. WILL IT ALL BE ROUGHLY YOU'VE GOT IT DOWN TO 7 MILLION AND HE WILL COME UP AT 7 MILLION OR DO WE KNOW FOR A FACT WE HAVE CAPTURED EVERYTHING?

>> AS FAR AS A PROJECTS ON THE CIP AND IN THE EXISTING CITY LIMITS AS SHOWN HERE IN THE LINK. WE HAVE VETTED A FEW TIMES. I CAN'T SAY I'M 100% CERTAIN WE HAVE CAPTURED EVERY SINGLE ONE, BUT I AM 99% CERTAIN.

>> WE KNOW YOU HAVE NOT DONE 100% BECAUSE WE HAVE THE BRIDGE AND THE NUMBERS BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT.

>> IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE BRIDGE IS SHOWN ON HERE.

>> WE DID NOT INCLUDE THE BRIDGE STRUCTURE. THE ROADS TO

THAT. >> THE PROJECT IS THERE BUT THE

BRIDGE IS NOT INCLUDED. >> THE ROAD STRUCTURE. THE 6

LANE RD. PART OF IT. >> IF WE HAVE TABLE THIS WE WILL HAVE TIME. MY FEAR IS, NOT TRYING TO GET MORE MONEY OUT OF DEVELOPERS. I AM LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER CLARK, WHAT DO WE WANT IT TO BE AT? IT'S TOUGH TO MAKE A DECISION WHEN I CANNOT TRUST THE DATA BACKING UP THE DECISION SO I THINK WASTEWATER MADE SENSE, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I THINK THE NUMBERS ARE OFF. I'M GETTING MY NUMBERS FROM FEBRUARY 15 MEETING WERE RESET WE PREPARED FOR THE WATER RATE AND YOU GET TO THE TRAFFIC AND WE'RE MISSING A MAJOR COMPONENT IN ONE IS LIKE A FELLA EVERYBODY NEEDS TO GO BACK DOUBLE CHECK ONE MORE TIME AND THEN COME BACK AND SAY I CAN GUARANTEE EVERYTHING IS CAPTURED AND YOU CANNOT FIND NOTHING BECAUSE NOT THAT COUNCILMAN CLARK DOES NOT HAVE A GOOD EYE FOR DETAIL BUT OUT OF THE GATE CAPTURE THE BRIDGE WE DID NOT CAPTURE THE BRIDGE.

I WAS READY TO TABLE THE CONVERSATION AT THAT POINT ON WAITING UNTIL WE MAKE SURE WE GOT IT ALL.

>> IF YOU COME BACK NEXT WEEK WE CAN STILL DO IT THEN AND WE STILL HAVE ANOTHER MEETING IN SEPTEMBER OF THE 19TH. GIVING US UNTIL OCTOBER 1 SO I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES THE TIMELINE WHEN WE WANTED TO START LEGISLATIVELY. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE TO WORK IN THE NEXT SEVEN DAYS.

>> WHEN WE HAD THE SATURDAY DEAL JAMES WAS SHARING SOME KIND OF NEW FORMULA HE HAD COME UP WITH ABOUT IF WE WENT WITH A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES THIS IS WHAT FINANCES WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE WATER RATES. DO WE HAVE

THAT? >> NOT SURE, I WOULD NEED TO CHECK WITH CITY MANAGER AND HIS TEAM.

>> WHAT HE PRESENTED WAS BASED ON THE CURRENT RATES NOT WHAT WE WOULD ADOPT.

>> YOU ARE NOT HERE. HE WENT IN AND ADJUSTED THEM, CAME OUT AND SAID THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL IF THIS RATE, I DON'T KNOW HE

TALKED TO US. >>

>> BACK TO THE SPREADSHEET. BACK TO THE PRIVACY PARTS. THE END OF THE CURRENT CFP SCENARIO. AND IN THE PRESENTATION, WHERE YOU WANT TO COLLECT IS YOU GETTING -- ANY

[02:30:09]

OTHER QUESTIONS YOU HAVE? YOU HAVE THOSE COMBINED CHARTS, TO?

>> >> THE WHOLE THING FOR US. I

HAVE THE INFORMATION. >> I'VE A QUESTION. SO IF YOU DO INCLUDE THE 1 TO 2 BRIDGE, IT WOULD CREATE THE MAXIMUM,

CORRECT? >> IF I CAN COME UP WITH THE WAY OF THE MEMBER CLERK IS TALKING, HE IS TRYING TO STAY COMPETITIVE IN THE AREA WITH GROUND LOCK AND THE REGION. SO THERE IS NO REASON TO INCREASE THE RATE BASED ON ONE PROJECT WE ARE TRYING TO BE COMPETITIVE FOR THAT NEIGHBORS BUT YOU'RE BASING IT OFF OF TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA?

>> MY POINT WAS, WE ARE AT 6500. I CANNOT GET TO BECAUSE OUR MAX IS 4400. I THINK OF THE POLICY, MAYBE WE ONLY GET 6400 DOCUMENT APPLICABILITY BECAUSE THEY DID NOT PROVIDE A BIT OF IT ON THE PROJECT WITH 80% COVERED AND THAT NUMBER IS NOT 1089, IT IS 2500. THAT ALLOWS YOU TO GO UP TO A MAXIMUM CHARGE OF $9000. NOW THE POLICY WE SET TO 6500, BUT WE ARE NOT TYPING RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE HE DID NOT INCLUDE THE RICH, WE ARE HANDCUFFED AND WE CANNOT GO ABOVE 1089 LEGALLY. I THINK IT IS NOT VALID. IT SHOULD NOT BE TIED LEGALLY TO 1089 IT SHOULD BE WHATEVER IT IS INCLUDING THE BRIDGE. THAT IS OUR BIGGEST CAPITAL PROJECT WE HAVE. THAT IS AN ESTATE.

IT IS A MESS. THAT IS A BIG MESS.

>> IN OUR DISCUSSIONS WAS THAT SOMETHING YOU DISCUSSED WITH MATT, THE CITY HAS AN EAR? WHAT WAS THE REASON BEHIND LEAVING IT OUT FROM A PROFESSIONAL STAFF POSITION?

>> WELL, SO WE DID DISCUSS IT. EDDIE HAD SAID EARLIER, MY CONCERN WAS HOW IT IS GOING TO LOOK TO THE COUNCIL. IF WE INCLUDED THE BRIDGE IN THERE, AND SOMETHING HAPPENED. PART OF THE CIP CONVERSATION WAS TO SHOW WE ARE ACTUALLY SERIOUS ABOUT DOING THIS PROJECT NOW. GO BACK TO TEXTILE IN THE COUNTY AND GET SOME OF THAT FUNDING. SO MY CONCERN WAS, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE TO YOU GUYS? WHENEVER WE PUT IN THE MAXIMUM RATE, THEY WERE GOING TO SPEND ALL $80 MILLION ON THIS BRIDGE. AND ALL THE SON WE HAVE GOT TO START CUTTING CHECKS TO DEVELOPERS BECAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO GET SOME MONEY OUT OF TEXTILE OR OUT OF THE COUNTY OR WHOEVER. SO I SAID, DO NOT PUT THE FULL AMOUNT IN THERE. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT WAS MY FAULT BUT I MADE AN ASSUMPTION FOR THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOT WANT TO CUT CHECKS BACK TO THE BOARD. THEY WOULD RATHER WE BE CONSERVATIVE IN OUR ESTIMATION. AND BE ABLE TO RECOUP THAT MONEY FOR A FUTURE ITERATION OF THIS.

>> SO WE COULD RECOUP IT IN FIVE YEARS? IF WE ARE UNDER

COLLECTING. >> CRACKED . I CAN DO THIS EXERCISE AGAIN . HOPEFULLY, WE WOULD HAVE THE BRIDGE. AND IN FIVE YEARS, THE 5-10 YEARS FROM NOW, WE COULD RECOUP WHAT IS MISSING. THE MISSING DOLLARS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> THE MONEY AND DEVELOPMENT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED.

>> WE ARE RECOUPING ALREADY . IT SHOWS IN THE HIGHLIGHTED AREAS WERE THE CITY IS RECOUPING HERE IN GREEN.

>> ARE WE ABLE TO RECOUP MONEY ON A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS

ALREADY --? >> YOU'RE ABLE TO RECOUP MONEY ON PROJECTS THAT ARE AT CAPACITY. IN OTHER WORDS , YOU

PUT -- >> I MAY NOT BE SAYING IT

RIGHT. >> CAN I RECORD LABEL TO RECOUP MONEY ON A NEW PROJECT THAT COMES UP AND YOU CANNOT GO TO SOMETHING THAT IS BUILT AND SAY, HEY, WE SHOULD'VE CHARGED

YOU. RIGHT? >> AND LEFT CITY DOLLARS ARE EXPECTED, CITY DOLLARS WERE EXPENDED, THEN THAT BECOMES --

>> THE DEVELOPER. WE HAVE SOME ARTIFICIAL WEALTHY CONSULTANTS THAT SAY YOU CAN COME BACK LATER. YOU CAN GO BUILD A MAIN SQUARE FOOT FACILITY. YOU PAY US AN AMOUNT.

>> THAT'S IT, YOU ARE DONE. UNLESS THEY EXPAND.

>> YOU ARE KILLING ME HERE BECAUSE I HAVE GOTTEN ABOUT HALF OF IT OUT AND YOU ARE NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU JUST TOLD US WE COULD RECOUP IT. OKAY, SO WE GO BUILD HIS BRIDGE FOR 80 MINUTES ALLOWS EVERYBODY LOOKING AROUND IT. THE WHOLE AREA AROUND THE BRIDGE IS TO BE BUILT OUT AND MAYBE FIVE YEARS OR MORE. I AM TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, HOW DO YOU RECOUP SOMETHING WITH THE BRIDGES BUILT? THE BUILDING AUTHORITY PUT UP AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS OVER? WILL WE RECOUP THE MONEY

[02:35:02]

AT ? >> IT IS ALL DEVELOPED WITHIN THAT SERVICE AREA. IT IS NOT JUST THE ADDITION CORNERS.

>> SIR, I DO NOT SAY BASIC CORNERS.

VOLUME ] I DO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE ALL HAD THEIR IMPACT THESE RELATED, OKAY? WE BUILD THE BRIDGE IN TWO YEARS. MAGICALLY, WE GET SOMETHING DONE AND REBUILD THE BRIDGE. THE DATA CENTER IS COMPLETELY BUILT OUT, FIGURE OUT SOMETHING AT COTTONWOOD, HOW THAT BUILDOUT. WE GO AROUND THE BRIDGE BUT NOT THE CORNER, SIR BUT I'M TALKING 50, 80, 100 ACRES BUT HOW DO YOU RECOUP THAT? YOU'RE TELLING US TO RECOUP THAT

LATER. >> THEY ARE GOING TO BE PAYING UNDER THE CURRENT COLLECTION RATE.

THAT. LET'S JUST SAY -- >> HOW DOES THE RECOUPING THE

IMPACT THESE OCCUR? >> ON THE BUILDING THAT IS BUILT. IT HAS EMPLOYEES IN THERE. BACK IN THE NEXT

EXERCISE WE DO IN FIVE YEARS? >> THAT IS ONLY OF THE UPDATE.

>> IN FIVE YEARS --

>> BUT THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WOULD INCUR THAT COST.

>> THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE IS NO RECOUPING ON EXISTING. SO IF WE SAID IT WRONG BECAUSE YOU DO NOT INCLUDE, I AM TRYING TO BE VERY NICE WHEN I SAY THIS . I'M NOT BUYING THE STORY ABOUT WHY THE 80% IS NOT IN THE SETBACK. IF THE FEAR IS, WELL, YOU WOULD'VE DONE 50/50. IF THE FEAR IS WE DID NOT INCLUDE IT BECAUSE WE DO NOT ALSO WANT THE -- UNLESS YOU KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. DAD, YOU HAVE NOT COME UP AND TOLD US THAT WE HAVE A FUNDING SOURCE FUNDING 88 MILLION BUT WHY WOULD HE DO ANYTHING LESS THAN 100%? IN THE WORST CASE, WE GET 2 MILLION OUT OF THE RAILROAD AND 3 MILLION OVER HERE. ANYTHING LESS THAN 100%, IT IS BEST TO SAY WE MISSED IT. THE MORE YOU GUYS TALK, THE MORE I FEEL LIKE WE ARE WASTING ON OUR MONEY ON THIS WHOLE EXPERIMENT. WE WILL COME UP WITH REASONS WHY WE DID NOT DO IT. AND YOU'RE TELLING US WE CAN RECOUP IT WHEN WE DO IT AGAIN. I TO FIND OUT HOW YOU RECOUP IT ON DEVELOPMENT THAT WHERE THIS BRIDGES, THAT IS THE HOTTEST AREA OF THE CITY. THERE IS A 60 ACRE SUBSTATION JUST TO POWER EVERYTHING GOING AND GET IN FIVE YEARS, IF WE SAID IT WRONG TODAY AND IT SHOULD'VE BEEN HIGHER, THAT IN FIVE YEARS, WE ARE OUT AND WE STICK IT TO THE TAXPAYER WHEN IT PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH ACTIVE INFORMATION, POTENTIALLY A HIGHER IMPACT FEE. THESE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE ARE GOING TO PAY. MAYBE WE DO NOT WANT -- TO ME, YOU'RE GIVING US A WHOLE BUNCH OF INFORMATION THAT SKIRTS THE WHOLE ISSUE. APPROVE IT AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD AND WE WILL FIGURE IT OUT IN THREE YEARS.

>> WE HAD A PRESENTATION A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO ON THIS,

ACTUALLY. >> NOT THE FINAL NUMBERS.

>> NOT THE FINAL NUMBERS, BUT WE HAD A HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW.

>> LARGEST CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT. THE INSTRUCTOR PROJECT. THAT IS A MESS. PERIOD. WE CAN STILL SET A LOWER BASED ON POLICY, BUT PUT IT IN AND GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE THAT DECISION AND YOU HAVE NOT DONE THAT .

>> IF YOU GO TO THE DEVELOPER AND THEY COULD'VE DONE 20 AND WE DID FIVE. INSTEAD OF, WELL, WE COULD'VE DONE FOUR AND WE

DID FOUR IT WOULD BE NICE -- >> DOES ANY , THE DEVELOPERS, LIKE OH, WE ARE DOING THEM A FAVOR? DEVELOPERS PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT?

>> THEY DO. BUT IT IS ALL HOW YOU WOULD STOP.

>> OH, WE ARE HELPING YOU OUT AS A CITY ON THE POLICY.

>> I DON'T THINK YOU WANT TO PUT OUT THERE. THE DISADVANTAGE CITY TO DO BUSINESS IN. GOING TO TAX YOU TO DEATH I THINK THERE IS A GOOD ARGUMENT TO BE MADE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING TO DEVELOPERS. LOOK. WE ARE ACTIVELY WORKING ON THINGS TO MAKE IT WHERE WE DON'T CHARGE YOU THE MAXIMUM ON THINGS THAT WE TRY TO CHARGE YOU WHAT WE NEED TO GET DONE WITH WHAT WE DO. IT IS JUST A DIFFERENT WAY OF DOING DEVELOPMENT, I GUESS.

IF YOU WANT TO LOOK FORWARD, WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS OR WE CAN

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. TALKING ABOUT REFUNDING MONEY, RIGHT? THAT ONLY HAPPENS IF THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS WE DID IS LESS THAN WHAT WE COULD'VE CHARGE THEM?

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> IF THE COLLECTION RATES , WHEN ACTUAL PROJECTS ARE BUILT, IF THOSE NUMBERS ARE LOWER AND IT IS GREATER BY 10%, IT PUTS THE REFUND --

>> BY 10% OF WHAT? >> THE COST.

WE HAVE PLANNED NUMBERS. >> OKAY, BUT IF WE COULD'VE CHARGE THEM FOR $100 MILLION PROJECT, BUT WE ONLY CHARGED 50%. DO WE HAVE TO HAVE -- PROJECTS? OR DO WE HAVE TO HAVE

[02:40:01]

45 MILLION? BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON 50%?

>> I'M KIND OF NOT TRACKING. OKAY, THE NUMBER , HERE IS -- INAUDIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]

>> LET'S USE A 3645. AND LET'S SAY THAT WAS WHAT IT IS . IT WILL NOT BE, BUT JUST FOR THIS BID AND WE SET OUR 8.6 BE $2000. OKAY? WHAT HE IS SAYING IS, IF THE COST CAME OUT WHERE IT WAS 3500, SO UNDER OUR 36 ESTIMATE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A REFUND BECAUSE WE STILL SET IT AT LESS THAN 25. YET ANOTHER REASON WHY YOU PUT THE BRIDGE IN. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THOSE ACTUAL NUMBERS COME OUT AND IT IS NOT 10 89, IT IS $800, THEN YOU ARE

WRITING CHECKS . >> SIR, THAT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. CONSTRUCTION COSTS ARE NOT GOING DOWN. THEY ARE NOT GOING DOWN. YOU LEFT OFF --

>> CAN WE TALK IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER TO THE PRESENTER ? I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT. RESPECTFUL.

>> TO ME? >> TO THE COUNCIL.

>> OKAY.

>> WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A SITUATION WHERE WE MIGHT CHARGE A THIRD IN THE EAST AFTER WE HAVE THE BRIDGE IN. JUST AS A HYPOTHETICAL. AS LONG AS WE SPEND A THIRD OF THAT MONEY, WE ARE GOING TO -- WHATEVER HE HAS COLLECTED, SPENDING A SERVICE

>> RAPID BUT IF IT IS THREE TIMES AS MUCH OF ONLY CHARGING UP THIRD. I DO NOT THINK IT IS 100% BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A

SUPER HIGH RATE. >> SO THE DANGER SEEMS TO BE VERY -- I DO NOT HEAR OF OTHER CITIES WRITING CHECKS AND SOME OF THEM HAVE PRETTY HIGH RATES. I THINK WE ARE GOOD. I THINK WE NEED THE BRIDGE IN THERE. I AM STILL COMFORTABLE WITH THE WEST, BUT THAT IS NOT A PROBLEM. SOUTH OF 79, MOST OF THAT --

THAT IS A SMALLER AREA. >> I WOULD LOVE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO DOUBLE CHECK THE WATER NUMBERS BASED ON LOOKING AT THE MAYOR'S NUMBERS UNTIL NOW. TO CLARIFY AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING PRESENTED, I KNOW THE WATER METERS IN ALL OF THAT. BUT THE 30% OFF BETWEEN WHAT WE ARE PRESENTING IN FEBRUARY AND NOW. WHY? WHAT HAPPENED? TO GIVE US AN UPDATE IN MARCH , AND WE FIXED IT A WEEK LATER. FINE. THAT IS FINE. AND NOW TO REVISE, WE HAVE MORE OF WHATEVER IT WAS HIT SO JUST A CLARIFICATION ON THAT. AND THEN THE ROAD , I THINK YOU NEED TO PUT A BRIDGE ON IT.

MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO THAT NEXT WEEK WITH THE UPDATED NUMBERS FOR THAT WAY, WE CAN SET A RATE VOLUME ]

>> NEXT WEEK? >> HOLD ON. YOU WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK THE WATER AND ALL THE NUMBERS AND THEN --

>> A BRIDGE FOR THE EAST.

>> LIKE I SAID, THAT WOULD ALSO BE SOUTH, TECHNICALLY.

>> I WILL SECOND THAT. AND ALSO, AS PART OF THAT AS GOING PART OF THE SPECIAL MEETING NEXT WEEK.

>> CRACKED. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I DON'T THINK WE EVER OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. AND IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER -- POSTPONING UNTIL NEXT WEEK WITH UPDATED INFORMATION, WE SHOULD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL NEXT

WEEK. >>

>> WE WILL COME TO PUBLIC HEARING . IT IS NOW 9:44 P.M.

ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THE IMPACT FEES BEING PROPOSED?

>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME, SIR. >> RICK -- I AM SURE -- HAS ALREADY GOTTEN IN. YOU KNOW, AS A BUILDER, Y'ALL ARE PROPOSING -- IT WOULD COST ME $20,000 FOR WATER AND SEWER HER LOT. AND I AM JUST -- TOO EXCITED ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO YOU WILL NEED TO REALLY THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING. BECAUSE YOU CAN STIFLE GROWTH OR YOU CAN ENHANCE IT. BUT A $20,000, PER LOT, THE WATER AND SEWER IMPACT. IT WOULD STOP FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> MY NAME IS TOM -- AND I AM

[02:45:01]

WITH -- THE ONLY THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY WAS SOME DISCUSSION , I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE SITUATION. THE DEVELOPERS INTENT TO TAKE ALL THE COST AND PUT IT INTO THE SALES , OF THE

SALE OF THE HOUSE. >> REALLY, THE FUTURE HOMEOWNERS IS REALLY ABSORBING THE COST. AND SO -- THERE WAS A PREVIOUS POSITION. IF THEY DO NOT DOUBLE IT, THEY ALMOST TRIPLED IT. I THINK IT IS JUST SOUTH OF $30,000. EVEN $1000, THAT IS 10%. A LOT OF MONEY. AND IT USUALLY GOES TOWARD , IT IS USUALLY SUPPLEMENTED BY WE TAKE HOUSE COSTS , OR WE TAKE PROFIT. BUT WE TAKE MORE RISK, AND WE ARE NOT ACQUIRING ANY MORE -- LIKE NOW.

SO IT IS A DISADVANTAGE. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE KIND OF HAD AWAY FROM IF WE HAVE TO. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT , WITH THE REST DEVELOPERS PAYING FOR EVERYTHING. THE REALITY OF IT IS, IT GETS EATEN UP AND DISCHARGED TO THE SCALES TO THE HOUSE. AND EVERYTHING ELSE. THESE ARE THE FUTURE OF OTHER RESIDENTS WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE POSITION YOU GUYS ARE IN. IT IS NOT EASY. BUT IT IS NOT COMING OUT OF NOT NECESSARILY COMING OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. IT DOES CREATE A HARDSHIP. THE CHALLENGE THAT -- I THINK YOU SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK? WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT

9:47 P.M. >> WILL CONTINUE UNTIL THE NEXT

MEETING. >>

>> OKAY, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. NUMBER 12.

DOES THAT SOUND GOOD? THAT BRINGS US BACK TO THE MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. HAVING EVERYTHING CHECKED AT THE BRIDGE. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? I'LL MAKE A COMMENT NOT TO GET A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF STARTED HERE. BUT I APPRECIATE THE BUILDERS COMMENTS. RIGHT? WE ARE IN A PICKLE. WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT OR I AGREE OR DISAGREE, WE HAVE A MAJOR EXPANSION OF THE WATER PLANT .

IN MY MIND, IT IS PUSHING A LOT OF THE ISSUES WE HAVE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT WE HAVE TO ALMOST GROW NOW FASTER THAN WE HAVE EVER GROWN JUST IN ORDER TO MEET THE INCREASES WE HAVE. IT PUTS ME IN A DIFFICULT POSITION EVERY TIME WE VOTE ON THINGS BECAUSE I WANT US TO GROW. I AGREE IF YOU'RE NOT GROWING, BUT IF YOU GROW SO FAST, YOU CAN ACTUALLY KILL ANYTHING. I FEEL LIKE EVERYTHING WE ARE DOING IS PUSHING US TO GROW FASTER AND FASTER. IT IS COMPLICATING THE ISSUES .

I'M AFRAID OF FREE RICE PRICES TOO HIGH, AND RAY'S IMPACT IS TOO HIGH, IT WILL CAUSE DEVELOPMENT TO GO TO DOWN BUT IF DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT HIT THESE REALLY WONKY NUMBERS WE HAVE HERE, THE TAX PAYER WE CURRENTLY HAVE, THAT STOPS ALL OF THAT BUT I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE MAGIC FORMULA IS. IF IT IS TOO LOW, TAXPAYERS PAY. IF IS TOO HIGH, THEY'RE GOING TO PAY

MORE. >> THIS IS REALLY DIFFICULT THING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.

>> YEAH. THERE IS NO WAY WE KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWER, THE BEST ANSWER ON THIS. WE ARE GOING TO TAKE OUR BEST SHOT AT IT. THAT IS KIND OF FRIGHTENING BECAUSE WE ARE TAKING A GUESS. WE ARE USING ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE. UNTIL WE SEE THE RESULTS, I THINK WE ARE GOING TO BE COMING BACK AND ADJUSTING THIS THE RELATIVELY SOON.

WE ARE PROBABLY GOING TO GET ROBBED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER. BUT

WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. >> YEAH.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON? >> CONTENT.

>> -- >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> AYE.

[8.7. Conduct a public hearing on Fiscal Year 2024-2025 Budget (Alberta Barrett) (Part 1 of 2)]

>> THE MASH AND PASSES 10 MINUS AT THE NEXT IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON FISCAL YEAR 2024-25 BUDGET. WILL OPEN UP

[02:50:03]

THE HEARING AT 9:50. SEPTEMBER 5TH IT IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS YEAR'S BUDGET? SEEING NO ONE. I WILL CLOSE THE HEARING AT 9:50 P.M. THAT IS ON

[8.8. Conduct a public hearing on the proposed FY 2024-2025 tax rate (Alberta Barrett)]

-- CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 2024-25 TAX RATE. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 9:51. ALSO ON SEPTEMBER 5TH. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING THE TAX RATE ? THINK NO ONE, WE WILL CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM 9.1.

>> A POINT OF INQUIRY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY ? WHEN THEY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE HAVE TO ANNOUNCE THAT WE ARE SETTING THE TAX RATE. THE MEETING TIME AND PLACE? I THOUGHT THAT WAS A

STATE LAW REQUIREMENT. >>

>> I DON'T HAVE MY NOTES IN FRONT OF ME.

>> GOOD EVENING. FOR THE RECORD, ALBERTA OR BARRETT FINANCE DIRECTOR. I DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC ANSWER TO THAT, OTHER THAN WE HAVE PUT THE NOTICE IN THE PAPER. WE ARE HOLDING THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTING THE TAX

RATE. NEXT WEEK ON THE 12TH. >> I THINK WHEN I READ THE STATE LAW, THERE IS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT TO BE ANNOUNCED AT THE MEETING THE TIME, PLACE, AND THE DATE AND PLACE. WHERE THE TAX RATE WOULD BE SET. I THOUGHT THAT WAS IN --

>> 26 . >> YES, YES, I WOULD LIKE TO.

>> WE WILL MOVE ON AND JUST RECALL.

>> GO AHEAD AND ANNOUNCE IT. AND WE WOULD RECALL IT TO MAKE A MOTION. THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE

>> IS THAT MEETING AT 7:00 P.M. ON THURSDAY? OR IS IT 6:00 P.M.

? 6:00? >> WHEN YOU CHECK INTO THE TIMELINES BECAUSE I KNOW THE COUNTY WANTED US TO HAVE EVERYTHING ADOPTED BY NEXT THURSDAY. THAT IS IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE COUNTY. THERE ARE DIFFERENT STATUTORY GUIDELINES TO THAT BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE PROACTIVE, A LITTLE MORE ACCURATE WITH THE DATE. SO WITH THE COUNTY

REQUESTING THAT. >> WAIT. WHAT ARE YOU

SUGGESTING WE DO? >> THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL FIND OUT ACCURATE INFORMATION SO WE CAN SET THAT DATE

APPROPRIATELY. >> YOU WANT TO RECESS OR KEEP

MOVING ON? >> MR. MAYOR?

>> THE GOVERNING BODY MAY VOTE ON THE TAX RATE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE ARE NOT -- OF THE GOVERNING BODY DOES NOT VOTE ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE GOVERNING BODY SHALL ANNOUNCE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE, TIME, AND PLACE OF THE MEETING AT WHICH IT WILL VOTE ON THE

PROPOSED TAX RATE. >> WHAT DOES -- HAVE TO SAY?

>> THE DATE, TIME, AND PLACE. >> SO SEPTEMBER 12, 6:00 P.M.

CITY HALL. VOTING ON THE TAX RATE. THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

>> WHAT IS THE NUMBER?

>> 45. >> ALBERTA, DO YOU HAVE THE

NUMBER? >> THERE ARE OPTIONS.

>> OKAY, TO CLARIFY. THE TIME IS 7:00. I'M SORRY? THURSDAY

IS THE SIXTH? >> 6:00.

>> THE 12TH. >> WE ALL KNOW WE HAVE A

MEETING ON THE 12TH, RIGHT? >> YES.

7:00. >> OKAY.

[02:55:02]

>> HAVING A MEETING AT 6:00. >> TOMORROW IT WILL BE

INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] >> YES. I AM NOT SURE.

>> THE ADVERTISEMENT FOR 7:00 ON THE NINTH.

>> ON THE 12TH. >> ON SEPTEMBER 12TH .

>> CORRECT. >> 9/12.

>> THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE -- AN IT IS PROPOSED AT 0. 4539. I CANNOT TALK, SORRY. . 045-9347 PER $100 VALUE.

>> SO THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC TAX HEARING VOTE ON SEPTEMBER 12TH, 7:00 P.M. AT THE HALL. WITH THE PROPOSED TAX RATE NOT TO EXCEED 0. 459347 PER $100 VALUE. IS THAT?

>> MAKE SURE THAT IT IS RECORDED IN THE MINUTES. THE

ANNOUNCEMENT. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO -- >> WE WILL VERIFY THE TIME TO MAKE SURE IF IT IS 6:00 OR 7:00

>> IT HAS TO BE 7:00 BECAUSE WE JUST ANNOUNCED IT. IT WILL SEE IN THE NEWSPAPER SO I GUESS. IT SAYS -- YEAH.

MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST A RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES,

PLEASE. >>

>> A RECESS AND WE WILL COME BACK AT 10:12.

P.M.. CAPTIONER ON STANDBY. ] >>

[03:13:08]

IT IS 10:13 AND WE ARE BACK FROM RECESS.

[03:13:15]

>> MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO RECALL ITEM 1025

[03:13:20]

>> OKAY, 8.8 . CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY

2024-25 TAX RATE . >> I PUT A PRESENTATION INTO A BUDGET FOLDER. I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH IT. IF YOU COULD PLEASE PULL THAT UP?

>> THERE'S NO PRESENTATION . >> I CAN PROVIDE COUNCIL, AND I PLAN ON DOING THAT WITH THIS I CONSULTED WITH OUR CITY

ATTORNEY. >> SO WE HAD POSTED A PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THE COUNCIL MEMBER TO PLACES COMMENTS IN

THE PUBLIC HEARING. PEER >> THAT IS WHAT I AM ASKING BUT I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WILL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:14.

I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. BRINGING STUFF UP HERE, AND I GET -- BY Y'ALL. EVERY YEAR, --

>> IT IS BEEN IN OUR BUDGET FOR FIVE DAYS SINCE LAST WEEK, SIR.

TO EVERYONE. AS PER YOUR REQUEST LAST YEAR, I POSTED IT TO EVERY SINGLE COUNCILMEMBER.

>> I JUST, -- >> ALL RIGHT BUT I DO THIS EVERY YEAR. I GIVE KIND OF MIGHT TRUTH IN TAXATION ABOUT THE TAX RATES BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF RHETORIC AND I DO NOT DO SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS. I DO IT IN THE PUBLIC FORUM IN THE PUBLIC BUSINESS AND PUBLIC SPACE. THIS IS MY THIRD YEAR DOING THIS SO IT IS NO SURPRISE. THIS IS A -- DATED

[03:15:04]

SEPTEMBER 2024. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

>> SO I WANTED TO GIVE A SNAPSHOT OF THE HOMESTEAD VERSUS NON-HOMESTEAD UNITS . THE TOTAL NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IS 12,000 785 PUT ALL THE DATA PRESENTED COMES FROM THE -- TAX ASSESSORS OFFICE BUT EVERYTHING I AM PRESENTING CAME FROM THAT. THAT IS WHERE THE DATA CAME FROM.

THE TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES IS 7008 59. THE TOTAL NON-HOMESTEAD IS -- AND I PROVIDED THE TWO TAXABLE VALUES WITH THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE IN 2023 WAS 350,000, 134. AND AS PEOPLE KNOW, THE MARKETS HAVE SLOWED DOWN. CURRENTLY, THE AVERAGE HAS DROPPED OVER $20,000 TO 331266 FOR THAT IS ABOUT 6. 19% FROM LAST YEAR. SO NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. OKAY. THE TOTAL TAX COST BETWEEN THE 2023 RATE AND THE -- RATE. BASED ON THE PREVIOUS LIKE, ONLY 61% OF ALL RESIDENTS ARE HOMESTEADED.

THAT MEANS EVERY 500,000 WE CUT FROM THE BUDGET IS ONE PENNY ON THE TAX RATE. I REPRESENT ABOUT $2.76 PER MONTH TO THE HOMEOWNER. THIS IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE. THERE ARE DIFFERENT NUMBERS WHERE IF WE DID THE VARIABLE RATE, OF -- THE AVERAGE HOMESTEADED PERSON WOULD PAY $15.95. WITHOUT HOMESTEAD , THAT WOULD BE ABOUT -- THAT WOULD BE AN OVERALL TAX TO THE CITIZENS OF 1436 BUT IF WE WENT TO KEEPING THE SAME TAX RATE THAT WE ADOPTED FOR 2023, THAT IS THE 3 1/2 2024 NUMBER.

$.42. THE AVERAGE HOMESTEADER VALUE WOULD INCREASE $5.81. THE AVERAGE NON-HOMESTEADED TAX BILL WOULD DROP $.27 PER MONTH.

THAT GIVES THE OVERALL TAX INCREASE OF $4.05 PER MONTH.

AND IF WE GO TO NO NEW REVENUE RATE, THAT IS ANY REVENUE RATE.

WE HAVE ACTUALLY DROPPED THE TAX BILL BY THIS AMOUNT. AND THEN I LISTED ALSO WHAT THE CURRENT TAX WAS FOR 2023. OKAY.

SO WHAT I AM WILLING TO DO IS , LOOKING AT CITY RATES, LOOKING AT THE VIEW. YOU HAVE TWO NUMBERS , RIGHT? YOU HAVE THE VALUE. THIS IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR EVERY CITY IN OUR SURROUNDING AREAS AND MOST OF THEM ARE -- GEORGETOWN. AND THE TWO DIFFERENT NUMBERS I JUST MENTIONED IT ON THE REVENUE RATE AND THE POSSIBLE RATE WE PAY DOWN. THAT IS THE RANGE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, YOU ALSO HAVE TO SCALE THEIR TAX RATE BASED ON THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE FOR THAT CITY. SO I PROVIDED THESE TAX EVALUATIONS. THEY CAME FROM -- THEY WERE NOT CREATED BY ME. THESE ARE THE ACTUAL TAX DATA FROM ONLY IN SOME COUNTY. AND PART OF TRAVIS COUNTY. OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS A SPLIT. SO IF YOU DO THAT, YOU GET IN THE FORMS. KIND OF WHAT THE PUBLIC TAX RATE . IF YOU MOVE THAT HOME IN HUTTO, THAT WOULD BE YOUR TAX RATE. IF LOOKING AT THIS, THAT KIND OF MAKES SENSE. TAYLOR IS $.59.

BUT THEY HAVE, BOTH OF THEIR HOMES ARE OLDER HOMES AND THE AVERAGE HOME VALUE IS ONLY $236,000. SO YOU SEE THEM AT 4229. SO IF YOU LOOK AT ANY NUMBER WE ADOPT AS A CITY, IF WE ADOPT ANYTHING LESS THEN $.42 , WE ARE THE CHEAPEST CITY IN ALL OF CENTRAL TEXAS IN THIS AREA. SO TO CLAIM WE ARE TAXING PEOPLE OUT OF THEIR HOMES FOR THEIR CITY, THAT IS NOT TRUE, ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DATA OF WHERE WE ARE COMPARED TO OUR CITY PEERS. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE TRUTH ABOUT THE TAX RATE. IF WE ADOPT ANY RATE LESS THAN 4229, WHERE THE LOWEST TAXING CITY IN THE TEXAS AREA. ALSO, I WANT TO GIVE THIS REFERENCE POINT. PEOPLE LIVING IN STAR RANCH. THERE IN THE MUD. THEY ARE NOT IN THE CITY. THERE HAVING THE MUD. THE MUD DISTRICT RATE IS 59. $.99. WE ARE MUCH LOWER THAN EVEN ONE OF OUR CLOSEST MONTHS TO HUDDLE. WELL, YOU'RE NOT MOVING TO STAR RANCH. THEY ARE SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN US.

SO I KIND OF WANTED TO PUT THAT IN A FRAME OF REFERENCE FOR

[03:20:03]

PEOPLE WHEN TALKING ABOUT A TAX RATE AT $10 AND $14. IT IS NOT THAT WE ARE BEING REALLY AGGRESSIVE COMPARED TO OUR CITY PEERS. WE ARE WIDE AND LONG AND RESPONSIBLE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE REVENUE RATE ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE IS ACTUALLY PHYSICALLY IRRESPONSIBLE FOR THE LONG-TERM GROWTH OF THIS GROWING CITY. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. SO SOME OTHER DATA TO THINK ABOUT RED NO NEW REVENUE IS TRUE. THE MAYOR SAID WE RACE $2 MILLION LIMITED LAST. THAT DOES NOT TELL THE FULL STORY.

FOR EXAMPLE, ROAD MAINTENANCE IS ONLY FUNDED AT 1. 2 MILLION LAST YEAR. WE KNOW TO THAT 1 MILLION PER YEAR IS NEEDED AT A MINIMUM BASED ON AN INDEPENDENT AUDIT. IN ADDITION, WE HAD A TERRIBLE ICE STORM LAST TO THAT CAUSED AGER ROTARY BEARS NOT ANTICIPATED. WE HAD A SHORTFALL OF $1 MILLION WITH THE NEW REVENUE RATE FOR EXAMPLE TWO. DISPATCH FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES . THIS IS ON DIAL 911, WE GET CHARGED BY THE COUNTY. THEIR COST INCREASES THE BILL THEY SENT US FOR THAT IS INCREASED BY $400,000. WILL 31. 4 MILLION OF THE 2. ONE THAT THE NEW REVENUE WE GENERATED. EXAMPLE THREE LESTER, WE FIND A PARITY FOR POLICE $500,000. 250,000 FROM THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS IN THE CITY. WE MADE A COMMITMENT LAST YEAR WE WOULD COMPLETE THE PARITY PAY FOR THE ADDITIONAL EMPLOYEES THIS YEAR. THAT COST IS AN ADDITIONAL $789,000. SO JUST ADDING THOSE THREE, YOU HAVE ALREADY EXCEEDED THE REVENUE. NOT ADDED IN THE NEW SERVICES WE NEED FOR THE CITY. WE HAVE NOT TAKEN CARE OF INFLATION, THAT IS ALSO INCREASING. IT IS GONE. SO NO NEW REVENUE, YOU BASICALLY STAY A BARE-BONES CITY WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO DO THE THINGS. THIS IS NOT DOING THE STUFF WE WANT TO DO . THE MORE PROJECTS WE NEED TO DO AS A CITY AS WE GROW. THIS IS JUST STUFF WE NEED TO DO OUR ROAD MAINTENANCE. WE HAVE TO PAY FOR 911 SERVICE. AND WE SHOULD DO THE PARITY PAY THAT WE TOLD PUBLICLY WE WOULD DO FOR THE EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY A YEAR AGO. THEY HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY. THE CITY IS GROWING. WE NEED SEVERAL NEW POSITIONS TO GET WORK DONE ON DRAINAGE REPAIRS. UNTIL HEALTH, ENGINEERING, ALL THE CIP FOR ROADS AND INFRASTRUCTURE. OVER 60 PROJECTS. WE NEED MORE ENGINEERING NEVER HAD A -- WE NEED THAT. WE HAD ONE MENTAL HEALTH PERSON. THERE WAS A SUICIDE PREVENTION PREPAREDNESS PRESENTATIONS TODAY. THEY'VE ASKED FOR MORE PEOPLE. GUESS WHAT? THAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE REVENUE. THOSE ARE NEW POSITIONS. THAT IS NEW FUNDING NEEDED. BARRY SHOWN THAT WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REVENUE AND WE HAVE NOT EVEN TALKED ABOUT THOSE THINGS. LASTLY, OUR RESERVES ARE AT 20%. AND ALL THE COUNCIL STATED PUBLICLY LAST YEAR AND A DESIRE TO GET TO 30%. THE BUDGET PROPOSED AT THE 45 SENT AT ABOUT 1. 4 MILLION TO OUR FUND BALANCE. TO ENSURE THE ABOVE 20%. AND THAT WE CAN HANDLE ADDITIONAL UNDRESSING ISSUES. WE ARE READY HAD AN EXAMPLE OF THE BIG STORM WE WERE NOT ANTICIPATING LAST YEAR. SUCH AS EMERGENCY REPAIRS BUT ALSO HAVE LOTS OF LAWSUITS AND SETTLEMENTS WE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE TO PAY. ET CETERA. THESE WILL ALL ARISE IN THE FUTURE. BEING FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE AS A GOVERNING BODY IF WE DO NOT TAKE CARE OF AND PLAN FOR THOSE WITH THE RAINY DAY FUND. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. LASTLY, I KEEP GOING ON AND ON ABOUT THIS. 120% TAX INCREASE. WELL, WHEN YOU USE THE NUMBERS, THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN GET THERE IF YOU ASSUME EVERY SINGLE YEAR THE HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES ARE INCREASING ONTO THE 10% CAP EVERY YEAR. THAT WOULD MEET ALL VALUES OF HUTTO WOULD BE UNDERVALUED. I KNEW IN MY MIND , THAT MADE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE THAT I REACHED OUT TO THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR'S OFFICE. I HAD MY ANNUAL REPORTS. AND I ASKED THE PET I SAID, HOW MUCH ACCESS CAP UNDER THE ACTUAL HOMESTEAD FOR THE AVERAGE HOMESTEAD IN HUTTO STILL EXISTS ? EVERY 30% UNDER MARKET? AND IF YOU WOULD HAVE THREE YEARS OF 10% GROWTH? WHERE ARE WE AT? WELL, IF YOU EXCLUDE THOSE THAT ARE OVER 65 THAT HAVE A HOMESTEAD . THAT MEANS BASED ON OURS, THOSE TAXES DO NOT GO UP. THEY ARE FOREVER CAPPED.

OBVIOUSLY, -- CONTINUES TO GROW WITH THE MARKET. ONLY 11% IS NOT UNDER MARKET. THAT MEANS FOR MOST HOMES IN HUTTO, AFTER NEXT YEAR, THERE NOT BE AN AUTOMATIC 10% INCREASE PERIOD.

WE WILL BE AT MARKET RATE BUT HAVE ANOTHER EXPLOSION WHERE PROPERTIES DOUBLE 40% AGAIN. SURE. I MEAN, THE MARKET CAP IS

[03:25:03]

BASICALLY GONE. AFTER NEXT YEAR. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. YEAH, I THINK THAT WAS THE LAST ONE. I WANTED TO GET OUT THERE. THAT IS NOT BEING WHERE I THINK WE SHOULD BE AT. I THINK THE REVENUE IN THE STATE. WHAT ARE THE NUMBERS WE LINE UP.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE TO CUT THINGS OUT OF THE BUDGET. B 45, I THINK IT IS JUSTIFIED WHERE WE ARE AT. I CAN ALSO SEE WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TRIM SOMETHING TO GET SOMETHING UNDER THAT. AS YOU GET INTO THIS PROCESS, I MEAN, ONE OF THE PUBLIC TO HEAR. THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY TOTAL REVENUE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. THERE IS ALSO SOME REALITY THAT NEED TO BE INJECTED INTO THE DISCUSSION OF, HOW DO WE REALLY COMPARE? $.45 IS TOO-WELL, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE TO THE PEOPLE JUST DON'T THE STREET? WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT BASED ON PROPERTY VALUES, WE ARE NOT OFF. THAT IS ALL I HAD.

>> THAT'S IT? >> YES, SIR.

>> ANY OTHERS? ANY OTHERS FOR ITEM 8.8? DOING WHAT WE HAD TO

DO BEFORE STATUTORILY? >> CORRECT. WE ARE NOW MOVING

ONTO 9.1. >> I THINK WE NEED TO CLOSE THE

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

PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS. >> I AM CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 10:26.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. ALL RIGHT, 9.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT , REAPPOINTMENT AND/OR EMERGENCY CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARDS, AND

AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS. >> THERE ARE NOT ANY

RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAKE. >> OKAY. ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR

[10.1. Discuss and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2024-054 approving a budget amendment for the current FY24 Hutto Economic Development Corporation Budget to reallocate $10,000 from the Dues and Memberships line item to the Professional Services line item to pay for the Hwy 79 Corridor Study in partnership with Williamson County Economic Development Partnership. (Cheney Gamboa)]

THIS ONE? HARRY NUNN, WE WILL MOVE ON TO 10.1. DISCUSSED CONSIDER AN ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2024-05 FOR APPROVING A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CURRENT FY 24 HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BUDGET TO REALLOCATE $10,000 FROM THE DUES THE MEMBERSHIP LINE ITEM TO PAY FOR THE HIGHWAY 79 CORRIDOR STUDY IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ALLISON COUNTY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR OWNERSHIP.

>> THANK YOU. DIRECTOR OF -- DEVELOPMENT. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT THE BOARD -- THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS APPROVED AT THEIR MEETING ON THE 12TH OF AUGUST.

IT IS THE REALLOCATION FOR THE NET ZERO IMPACT OF THE FISCAL YEAR. WHEN THE CURRENT BUDGET WAS APPROVED, THERE WAS A $20,000 PROPOSED NUMBER WITH THE EDP. HOWEVER , THAT WAS FOR TWO REPRESENTATIVES WHO SIT ON THE BOARD. WE DECIDED TO KEEP IT WITH THIS -- JUST ONE BIT IN EXCESS OF 10,000 FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY FOR THE QUARTER CAME THROUGH THAT WAS A $10,000 COST. SO IT IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED OR PROPOSED RATHER IN THE FY 2025 BUDGET. WE CAN REALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FROM

COUNCIL ON ACTION? >> I MOVED TO APPROVE ITEM 10.1

AS PRESENTED. >> I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> SO THIS MONEY WAS ALREADY IN YOUR DEPARTMENT BUDGET, CORRECT?

>> IS IN THE CORPORATION BUDGET. OKAY. SO WITHIN THAT, IT WAS NOT MOVING IT FROM ONE PART OF THE CITY TO THE

CORPORATION BUDGET? >> NO, MA'AM. IT IS MOVING IT

FROM LINE ITEM TO ANOTHER. >> OKAY. TRICKY.

>> SO WHAT IS THE OVERALL COST OF THIS ITEM?

>> IT IS PROPOSED AT $100,000.

>> AND THAT GOES FROM ROUND ROCK TO -- THAT IS PRETTY

BROAD. >> IT IS. BUT WITH ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENING IN THE EASTERN PART OF SOME COUNTY, AND ALTAR -- OTHER COUNTIES, ALL THE WAY OUT TO COLLEGE STATION, THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLABORATION AND UNDERSTANDING THE GROWTH HAPPENING ON THAT QUARTER. SO THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED THE INTEREST IN THE STUDY. WE ARE PARTNERING WITH OTHER CITIES OUTSIDE OF WILIIAMSON COUNTY TO CONTRIBUTE. IT IS NOT JUST THOSE FOLKS. TOO.

YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE, I WOULD THINK WITH THE 10 GRAND, I THINK BEFORE HE STARTS SELLER -- SETTING 79, WE WOULD HAVE

[03:30:03]

14. WHICH WE ARE JUST NOW WORKING ON.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.

>> AYE. >> --

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

[10.2. Discuss and consider action on Ordinance No. O-2024-055 regarding approval of a budget amendment for the current FY24 Hutto Economic Development Corporation Budget to increase the contract amount with Placer.ai for an additional $1,380.00 to adjust for the annual rate increase and align the billing cycle with the Corporation's Fiscal Year. (Cheney Gamboa)]

>> AYE. >> THIS PASSES SEVEN MINUS YOUR NEXT IS ITEM 10.2 . DISCUSSING CONSIDER ACTION ON ORDINANCE O-2024-055 REGARDING APPROVAL OF A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE CURRENT FY 24 HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION BUDGET FOR AN ADDITIONAL $1020 TO ADJUST FOR THE ANNUAL RATE INCREASE ALIGN THE BILLING CYCLE WITH THE CORPORATION'S

FISCAL YEAR . >> THANK YOU. SIMILARLY, THIS ITEM WAS APPROVED BY THE CORPORATION OR DIRECTORS ON THE

12TH AS WELL. >> IT IS BUILT-IN YEAR-OVER-YEAR INCREASE BY 5% IN THE CONTRACT. I WAS JUST AN OVERSIGHT IN THE BUDGET THIS YEAR. IS ALSO MAKES IT ALIGN WITH THE FISCAL YEAR BETTER. RIGHT NOW, IT RENEWS IN AUGUST AND THAT IS SUCH AN AWKWARD TIME. IT IS SPLIT UP INTO TWO PAYMENTS. IT IS A LITTLE INEFFICIENT. SO THIS KIND OF CORRECT THAT AS WELL WITH THE CONTRACT. I DID HAVE ANOTHER AR ARE FOR YOUR REFERENCE FOR THIS LINE ITEM AND ALSO NEED TO BE ADJUSTED IN FY 2025 FOR THE CORPORATION BUDGET TO THE COUNT FOR THE YEAR-OVER-YEAR . THAT AMOUNT WAS INCLUDED IN THE AR ARE AS WELL. IF THAT IS NOT PART OF THIS, IT IS JUST FOR REFERENCE. THEY MET THANK YOU.

>> SO FOR THE 2025 PROPOSED BUDGET, WOULD IT ALSO BE INCREASED FOR 1380? OR WOULD IT INCREASE BY THE 30,000?

>> IT IS NOT IN CHRIST BY THE 3000 AMOUNT. THE THREE FOR TONIGHT WOULD BE THE TOTAL LINE ITEM AMOUNT. IT IS CURRENTLY BUDGETED AT 27,600. THE TOTAL NET INCREASE THAT LINE ITEM

WOULD BE $2829 IN 2025. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ACTIONS ON THIS ITEM?

>> A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> A SECOND BITE COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON -- ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING ON , PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE .

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. THE AYE.

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-191 appointing Judge Randall, "Randy" Stump as the Associate Municipal Court Judge for the Municipal Court of Record No. 1 and the Municipal Court of Record 2. (Legal)]

>> THIS PASSES, 7-0. >> THANK YOU. THE NEXT IS ITEM 11.1. APPOINTING JUDGE RANDALL RANDY STOP AS THE ASSOCIATE MISERABLE COURT JUDGE FOR THE MISSILE COURT OF RECORD NUMBER ONE IN THE MEDICINAL COURT OF RECORD NUMBER TWO.

>> I PUT IN YOUR STAFF REPORT THE REFERENCE WE DID ESTABLISH THE NEWEST RECORD NUMBER ONE. FOR CRIMINAL MATTERS THE MEDICINAL COURT RECOMMENDED NUMBER TWO FOR THE CIVIL MATTERS. THIS RESOLUTION WOULD ALLOW THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ASSOCIATE TO TAKE THE PLACE OF THE JUDGE IF THE JUDGE IS UNAVAILABLE. WE DO HAVE NOW THE CIVIL MATTERS , THE CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, AND ALSO THE CIVIL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS WHERE THE JUDGE RULES AND HAS BEEN APPOINTED AS ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER. SO HEARING APPEALS FROM THAT PROCEEDING, IT WOULD GO TO JUDGE STOP. THE ASSOCIATE JUDGE WOULD BE ABLE TO ASK AS THE APPEALS HEARING OFFICER. THIS IS JUST TO ALLOW THE ORDINANCE THAT CREATED THE NEED OF SUPPORTIVE RECORD TO HAVE JUDGES AVAILABLE FOR THEIR PROCEEDINGS. AND ALSO JUDGE STOP HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED AS AN OUTSTANDING -- BY THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL COURT. HE HAS SERVING AS THE -- COURT JUDGMENT I HAVE KNOWN RANDY STOP SINCE FOREVER.

HE IS A VERY HONEST JUDGE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. ANY

QUESTIONS OR ACTIONS? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO PRESENT AND APPROVE 11.1 AS PRESENTED.

>> ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING ON, CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON . AYE. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON .

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. AYE. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE.

[11.2. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. R-2024-192 related to the Urbana Limmer Loop Development Agreement (Sara Cervantes)]

[03:35:03]

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. THE NEXT IS 11.2. CONSIDERATION AND

POSSIBLE ACTION -- >> THE REAL ESTATE FOR THE RECORD. THE URBANA LIMMER LOOP AS SHOWN ON THE MAP CONTEMPLATES 248 RESIDENTIAL UNITS BUT AS A REMINDER, THIS ROOM IS LOCATED IN THE COUNTY. THE DEVELOPER IS WORKING TO CERTAIN DESIGN STANDARDS IN EXCHANGE, IF YOU WILL, FOR BEING ANNEXED IN TERRITORY.

>> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR ACTION?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO WHAT WITH THESE PAY IF WE AGREE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT? OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CURRENT MONTH, CORRECT?

>> YES YOU'RE CORRECT THROUGH ONE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL IN SOME OF OUR DISCUSSIONS PREVIOUSLY, THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, WE WORKED IN AGREEMENT THAT THIS DEVELOPER COULD PAY UNDER THE CURRENT FEE SCHEDULE AND MEET CERTAIN THE MOMENT MILESTONES. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE EVERYTHING IN THE NEXT TWO YEARS FOR THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED BECAUSE THE SMELL OF IT IS LOOKING AT THE COUNTY FOR THEY CAN ESSENTIALLY DEVELOP ANYWAY THEY WANT AND WOULD HAVE NO CONTROL. YOU CAN THE BACK, THAT PROPERTY IS VERY CLOSE TO A BIG PART OF OUR CITY

AND OTHER RESIDENCES. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK ON THIS.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> OKAY. A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY

DISCUSSION? >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I DO NOT SEE THE HOUSE BILL 1295 FOR THE VERIFICATIONS OF THE BOYCOTT PROVISIONS. I THOUGHT THAT WAS ATTACHED TO THIS, BUT I DO NOT SEE IT IN YOUR COUNCIL PACKET. I WOULD ASK YOU INCLUDE THAT

WITH THE RESOLUTION. >> ADDED TO THE

OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] >> AGREED.

HOW ARE WE MISSING THIS? THAT IS STANDARD OUT, RIGHT? 12 95.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE -- AGAIN. >> I BELIEVE WE HAVE HAD THAT

AS AN EXHIBIT NOW. >> CORRECT. IT IS EXHIBIT D.

>> EDITS, BUT IT IS THE IN THERE?

>> THERE IS A SINGLE 12 95 FORM PROVIDED TO THEM. WITH THE LINK ON, I BELIEVE, THE SECRETARY OF STATE WEBSITE TO GET THAT DONE.

THAT IS NOT AN ACTUAL ATTACHMENT. WE CAN ADD THAT AND IF WE WANTED TO HAVE THAT COMPLETELY DONE.

>> TRYING TO CREATE AN EXHIBIT TO MAKE IT SO IT IS NOT -- SPELLED OUT IN THE AGREEMENT. A STANDARD FORM THEY HAVE TO DO.

THEY MET THE ETHICS COMMISSION, I GUESS.

>> CORRECT. >> SO I THINK IT IS IS THE HOUSE BILL 1295. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE IT IS DONE FOR THE

MANAGER SIGNS. >> PERFECT.

>> I FORGOT THE RULES ON THAT. TO CHANGE THAT TO WHERE -- TO CHANGE THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> I COULD DO A MAGIC TRICK.

JUST KIDDING. I DON'T KNOW ANY MAGIC TRICKS.

>> I DO APPRECIATE THE WORK YOU HAD TO DO AND I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER ON THIS BEING WILLING TO ENTER INTO THE CITY OF HUTTO . AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BE IN -- IT IS NOT ALWAYS EASY.

>> THANK YOU. >> DID YOU TAKE YOUR SHOES OFF?

>> WE ARE WAITING ON IT. WOULD SOMEBODY BE WILLING TO GO?

INAUDIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] >>

[03:40:04]

HERE. I'M REALLY SORRY EVERYBODY HAS TO BE PRESENT.

>> ONCE WE TAKE THE MOTION. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. AYE.

MAHER? AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. AYE. -- AYE .

COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. AYE.

[11.3. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. R-2024-193 authorizing the City Manager to enter into a Wholesale Wastewater Agreement with the Williamson County Water Control District No. 2 to provide wastewater service to the development known as Halcyon (Sara Cervantes)]

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. AS WE HAVE 1025. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A WHOLESALE WASTEWATER AGREEMENT WITH THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY DISTRICT NUMBER TWO TO PROVIDE WASTEWATER SERVICE TO DELIVER BLOWOUT -- THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS HALCYON .

>> IS REMINDER, THE DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF HUTTO , DOWN THAT WAY. THERE ARE BEEN TALKS OF A PACKAGE PLANT HAVE GONE BACK AND FORTH AND THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO WORK WITH US. ESSENTIALLY WHAT THIS WHOLESALE WASTEWATER AGREEMENT DOES IS IT ALLOWS FOR US TO PROVIDE THE WASTEWATER SERVICE TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND NEGATE THE NEED FOR WHAT WOULD'VE BEEN A VERY LARGE PLANT ON THIS PROPERTY.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

11.3 AS PRESENTED . >> A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY DISCUSSION? THANK YOU, SARAH AND TO ALL PARTIES INVOLVED. I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A BIG ISSUE. THANK YOU FOR EXHAUSTING ALL EFFORTS TO GET THIS RESULT.

>> OF COURSE BID WHEN THE DEVELOPERS, THEY WERE VERY EASY TO WORK WITH WHEN IT CAME DOWN TO GETTING INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY AND MAKING SURE THE LOGISTICS AND THE AGREEMENT WORKED OUT. IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BE FEASIBLE FOR BOTH PARTIES. THEY WERE DEFINITELY IN ON THIS, FOR SURE.

>> AWESOME. PLEASE LET THEM KNOW THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORK, TOM. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US BUT I KNOW IT WAS EASY TO JUST KEEP GOING. I WOULD LET THE PUBLIC KNOW THAT WHERE THEY WERE AT, THEY WERE GOING TO BUILD UP PRACTICE PLANT. THEY WERE PRETTY MUCH DONE. THEY WERE ABLE TO COME BACK TO THE TABLE.

BASED ON OUR TIMELINE, MATT AND HIS TEAM WORKING TO GET THINGS SET FOR THE TIMELINE THAT ALLOWED THEM . I THINK AS WE KEEP THE PACKAGE IN FINANCE, WE KEEP -- I WANT THE PUBLIC TO KNOW. IT IS A LASER FOCUS. WE ARE DROPPING ALL THE THINGS TO MAKE SURE THIS HAPPENS. I THINK THIS IS TWO NOW WE HAVE STOPPED. I JUST TO TAKE MORE. THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY THAT WAS

INVOLVED. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE . -- AYE . MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. AYE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. AYE. COUNCILMEMBER

THORNTON. AYE. >> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT

[11.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-194 authorizing the City Manager to execute an Individual Project Order (IPO) with WSB, LLC. in the amount of $410,791 for the Legends of Hutto Drainage Improvements project (D01-2024) (Matt Rector)]

WE HAVE 11.4. POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2024-194 AUTHORIZING THE MANAGER TO EXECUTE INDIVIDUAL PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $410,791 FOR THE LEGENDS OF HUTTO DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT BUDGET -- PROJECT. PEMEX

>> THAT EVENING, AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO AS INDICATED, THIS IS THE RESOLUTION TO APPROVE A DESIGN CONTRACT. BUT BEFORE WE GET TO THAT, WE HAVE POINTS WITH THE ENGINEERS HERE TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE BEFORE WE GET INTO THE ACTUAL DESIGN CONTENT . WITH THAT, I WILL TURN IT

OVER. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE UPDATE. SO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION. WE CAN GO TO THAT. AND THAT IS COMING UP, I HAVE DAN WITH ME. HE IS OUR WATER RESOURCES ENGINEER. WENT OVER BRIEFLY TODAY AND WHAT WE HAVE DONE SO FAR. WHAT AREAS WE FOCUSED ON.

WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR YOU. AS FOLKS WE KNOW IN THE ROOM, I KNOW YOU ALL ARE AWARE. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT -- EVEN WITH SMALL STORMS. ALL OF THE STORM WATER SURFACE FLOWS

[03:45:03]

ACROSS THE LOTS, INTO THE STREETS AND INTO THE CHANNELS THAT ARE BETWEEN LOTS. THOSE CHANNELS SIMPLY CANNOT CARRY

THE FLOW. >> THE -- IS VERY SLOW BUT WHICH COMPOUNDS THE ISSUE. IT MAKES THOSE HEADWATERS INCREASE. TO MAKE THE MATTERS MORE INTERESTING, THE RETENTION POND IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALSO OUTFALL TO A FEMA FOOTPRINT. SO WE ARE A LITTLE CONSTRAINED. WE DO NOT WANT TO CHARGE MORE TO THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT WE REALLY NEED TO GET THOSE WATERS INTO AND OUT OF THOSE TERMINALS FASTER. SO THE APPROACH WE TOOK IS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS FIRST HAD TO DEFINE THE PROBLEM BEFORE HE KNEW EXACTLY WHAT TO FIX THAT AGAIN, THAT TAKES A LOT OF THE HYDROLOGY MODELING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SENDING MORE WATER INTO THAT FOOTPRINT.

WE GOT SOME INPUT VIA MATT RECTOR. THOSE THEY THOUGHT WERE THE HIGHEST PRIORITY. WE DID FOCUS ON THOSE AS WELL. I HAVE A MAP I WOULD LOVE TO SHOW YOU.

YOU ARE GOOD. I CAN ALWAYS GO BACK TO IT. IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT THE HOA NOTED THAT HAD THE MOST CONCERN, WE FOUND A FEW OF THE CHANNELS AS WELL THAT WERE OF GREAT CONCERN THAT WERE CONTRIBUTING TO THAT. I WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THOSE WERE.

IN GENERAL, WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AGAIN, I ALLUDED TO IT. IT IS UNDERSIZED. THEY ARE STILTED IN THE LOAD VELOCITY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

FIVE. OKAY. THAT IS A GOOD ONE. YES. ONE MORE UP. PERFECT. THE RED AND YELLOW CHANNELS, THOSE ARE THE CHANNELS NOTED BY THE HOA THAT WERE POSED -- CAUSING THE MOST PROBLEMS. AND IN ORANGE, THOSE ARE THE CHANNELS WE MODELED. WE NOTED ALSO THEIR HAVING LOTS OF ISSUES. SO WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS VERY CRITICAL IN DETERMINING WHAT WAS HAPPENING SO WE KNEW WHAT TO FIX. WE DO NOT WANT TO COME THROUGH THOSE DEEPENING CHANNELS. WE KNOW WE HAVE GOT TWO DETENTION PONDS. LIMITED CAPACITY IN THE PONDS CONNECTED TO THE FEMA.

WE CANNOT BE IMPACTING FOLKS DOWNSTREAM AS WELL. OKAY. ON THE MAP RESTING ON THE RIGHT, I KNOW IT IS VERY HARD TO SEE. I WANTED TO SHOW YOU AREAS YOU SEE IN BLUE. THAT IS THE 100 YEAR MODEL FLOODING CONDITION. AND ALTHOUGH IT LOOKS LIKE GREAT. IT IS BEING CONTAINED IN STREETS AND CHANNELS, DARREN IS VERY METICULOUS WHEN HE ZOOMS INPUT HE REALLY SEES FLOODING IN BACKYARDS. THERE REALLY IS A CONCERN THAT SHOULD NOT BE HAPPENING.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. WE WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS THE CAUSE OF THE ISSUE? A LOT OF THESE CHANNELS , THEY ARE STILTED IN.

SOME HAVE THE CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL IN THE BOTTOM, BUT YOU CANNOT SEE IT IN SOME OF THEM.

THE WATER MOVES VERY SLOWLY THROUGH THESE CHANNELS AND IT IS NOT HELPING THE SITUATION. WE HAVE SOME IPADS BUT WE HAVE SOME CHANNELS THAT ARE -- IT IS BYPASSING. IT IS NOT A GREAT SITUATION BUT WE CAN FIX THAT. WHEN WE STARTED LOOKING AT SOLUTIONS, WE KNOW YOU DO NOT HAVE AN UNLIMITED BUDGET. WE WANT TO DEMISE THE IMPACT AS MUCH AS WE CAN FOR THESE FOLKS.

WE LOOKED AT THE MOST MINIMAL IMPACT AND WORKED OUR WAY UP UNTIL THE SOLUTION WAS FOUND. WE LOOKED AT MAYBE IT IS AS EASY AS REDEFINING THE CHANNELS. THAT WAS NOT ENOUGH AND WE LOOKED AT CONCRETE LINAGE GET THE WATER OUT OF THERE FASTER. NOT QUITE ENOUGH. LOOKED AT RETENTION PONDS, FRESH CLEARINGS. WE LANDED WITH RESHAPING THE CERTAIN CHANNELS TO BE CONCRETE AND RECTANGULAR. WE WILL SHOW YOU WHAT THAT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU, WE LOOKED AT THE HOA PRIORITY AREAS, AND HE WANTED

TO PRESENT A PHASED APPROACH. >> JUST YOU CAN GET SOMETHING OUT THE DOOR. THEY CAN CONDITIONS A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD NOW. NOT HAVE TO WAIT 5-10 YEARS TO RAISE ALL THE MONEY. WE CAN MAKE AN IMPACT NOW WITH THE BUDGET YOU DO HAVE. I AM GOING TO BE WITH AARON. HE WILL WALK YOU THROUGH SOME OF THIS. FEEL FREE TO ASK QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY. SHE MET THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

VOLUME ] AS ANGIE MENTIONED, THE PHASE ONE RECOMMENDATION

[03:50:04]

FOCUSES ON SOME OF THE PRIORITY AREAS THAT THE HOA STRUCK OUT AND WE FOUND WHAT THEY ARE MODELING. SO THROUGH THE THEORIES OF ANALYSIS WE RAN WITH OUR MODELING, WE TRIED SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS KIND OF WORKING WITH VERY MINIMAL CHANGES. WORKING TO THE MOST , TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT IS GOING TO WORK. WE WANTED TO FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE CAN DO TO REALLY GET THE BIGGEST BANG FOR OUR BUCK DID SO WITH THAT, WHENEVER WE ARE INCREASING THE CAPACITY OF THE CHANNEL BY GOING FROM THE -- IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE. AND DOING THE CONCRETE LINING, WE ARE GETTING THE WATER IN THE CHANNEL DOWN TO THE DETENTION PONDS INCREASING THE FLOW AND GETTING THAT DISCHARGE DOWN THERE. WITH THAT, SINCE IT IS DISCHARGING INTO A FEMA FLOODPLAIN, IF IT GOES OUT OF THE RETENTION POND, THAT INCREASES THE WATERS DOWNSTREAM TO AN EXTENT. AND OF THE FEMA IMPACTS, THERE ARE THE ADMINISTRATORS, PERMITS. THAT I STARTED LOOKING AT THE DETENTION PONDS. HOW CAN WE IMPROVE THIS TO GET THOSE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS TO ALSO BE CONSIDERED? SO IN PHASE ONE, WE ARE THINKING ABOUT, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT DOING IS THE FIRST STEP WOULD BE TO MODIFY THE RETENTION POND. THE NORTH END OF THE TENSION POND WHERE WE EXCAVATE. OUT OF THE RETAINING WALL. ON THE NORTH END, SO IT IS NOT IMPACTING ANY OF THOSE PROPERTIES. AND WE WOULD GO TO THE ALPHA, INCREASE IT BY ABOUT HALF A FOOT. JUST A KEEP THOSE NEW -- COMING TO IT. WITH EXTRA CAPACITY. AND THEN WE WOULD START LINING UP THE CHANNELS. EXCAVATING , LIGHTING, GETTING ALL THE NEW CAPACITY WE CAN CHARGE TO THE -- WITH THE CAPACITY. THE DISCHARGE WITH NO IMPACTS TO DOWNSTREAM. SO THE LITTLE CIRCLE -- WE ALSO THOUGHT WHEN THE FLOW IS COMING DOWN FROM -- AND TRYING TO MAKE THAT HARD 90 DEGREE BEND TOWARD THE WEST, THAT IS ALSO OVERFLOWING INTO THE SOUTHERN TOWN BETWEEN -- WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IT LIKE A LITTLE BURN THERETO UNLOCK THE WATER THE WAY IT WAS MEANT TO GO IN THE ORIGINAL DESIGN. AND ALSO, THE OTHER CAUSES OF THIS BEING UNDERSIZED. IT IS THE CLAIMANT HAS CHANGED. THIS WAS DESIGNED I THINK IN 2004. THE EARLY 2000'S. SO THINGS ARE CHANGING. THERE IS NOT THE CAPACITY TO HANDLE THAT. WITH THE PHASE ONE RECOMMENDATIONS , YOU'RE STILL GOING TO SEE A SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT TO THE GREEN LIGHT IN PHASE TWO. WHAT WE ARE CALLING PHASE TWO RECOMMENDATIONS. BY DIVERTING ALL THE WATER TO THE WEST, AND KEEPING OUT OF THE MAIN CHANNEL BETWEEN -- WE'RE GOING TO SEE A HUGE IMPROVEMENT THERE. ALSO SEE IMPROVEMENT ON THE STORM SEWER AND -- BOULEVARD, DOWN INTO PHASE TWO. YOU'LL SEE A SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT THERE BUT NOT A BIG IMPROVEMENT, BUT JUST ENOUGH TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONSIDERATION. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A VISUAL REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE PROPOSE. SO USING PARCEL LINES.

THE CITY WEBSITE FROM THE DATA, I OFFSET THE PARCEL LINES ABOUT 2 1/2 FEET TO GIVE MYSELF SOME WIGGLE ROOM. AND FROM THERE, I MANUALLY MANIPULATED THE TERRAIN TO RETAIN THE CHANNEL TO GET THAT -- ACROSS THE DIFFERENT CHANNELS , I MEAN, WE HAVE AN AVERAGE OF ABOUT 50-75% IN GENERAL FALLING FOR THAT WILL PROVIDE THE EXTRA CAPACITY. AND ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT, THAT IS A TRAPEZOID CHANNEL THAT IS BEEN CONSTRUCTED AND DEVELOPED OUT THERE. I THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY AT THE SOUTH END OF THE REFERENCE. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD REPRESENTATION OF WHAT WE WOULD DO. THE RECTANGULAR SHAPE. IN HINDSIGHT, WITH ALL OF THIS, IT WILL BE ABOUT 2 1/2 TO A THREE FOOT BOX. I KNOW KIDS, PEOPLE STILL LIKE TO KNOW.

- MUFFLED ] SOME KIND OF SIGNAGE TO KEEP KIDS AT A WITH THE RISK OF FALLING. I HAVE TWO OF KIDS OF MY OWN BUT I WOULD HATE FOR THEM TO FALL AND FALL INTO A CONCRETE CHANNEL. THE NEXT THING I KNOW I AM CALLING 911. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THIS IS A SUBDUED VIEW ON THE RETENTION POND. WE WILL TAKE THE UPPERMOST STRIP. OFFSET FROM THAT PARCEL LINE. EXCAVATE ABOUT 15 FEET OUT. I BELIEVE IT IS 15. IT WILL HAVE FIVE OR SIX

[03:55:03]

TO GET THAT EXTRA CAPACITY. WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE CONCRETE . NOT MATCHING ANYTHING TO THE COHORTS.

INCREASING THAT BURN WITH THAT EXTRA WATER COMING IN. SO WE CAN MAINTAIN THIS SO WE DO NOT -- NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

>> THESE PROPOSALS WILL HELP THIS PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ESPECIALLY HANDLING THOSE SMALL AND LARGE STORMS CAN WE KNOW IT FLOODS EVEN IN THE SMALL STORMS. WHAT WE ARE DOING AGAIN IS INCREASING THE FLOW AND GETTING THE WATER OUT FASTER.

THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING WE BELIEVE IS MAINTAINABLE RIGHT NOW. IT HAS THE TRAPEZOID CHANNELS. IT IS HARD TO MOW BACK THERE. HOPEFULLY WE ARE HAVING LESS SILTATION IN THEIR BID WILL HAVE HEIGHT CONSIDERATION. RAILING, GUARDRAIL, AND SOME SIGNAGE. BUT WE REALLY LIKE ABOUT THIS IS THE PHASE ONE IMPROVEMENT ALSO HELPS OTHER AREAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT DIRECTLY DOING CONSTRUCTION. THIS IS SOMETHING WE BELIEVE WE CAN AFFORD NOW WITH THE FROGS.

LONG-RANGE LIKE WITH FEMA. WE ARE NOT AFFECTING THE PLAN.

NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE BIG QUESTION IS WHAT IS NEXT? TIMING, RIGHT? THAT WAS THE FEASIBILITY. WHAT TO DO AND WHEN TO DO IT. HAVING A PHASED APPROACH. THOSE TWO IN THE DEFENSIVE POND CHANGES. WE COULD VERY LIKELY BE IN SPRING OR SUMMER OF 2025. A GOOD OPENING AND HAVING A CONTRACTOR ON BOARD IN THE SUMMER. A YEAR FROM NOW . WE ARE EXPECTING CONSTRUCTION TO LAST 10-12 MONTHS. THAT IS MORE OF A LINEAR CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE TO START AND BUILD IT UP. WE CANNOT HAVE CONCUR CONSTRUCTION. THAT IS WHAT IS MAKING IT SO LONG. BUT AS BAD AS BEING CONSTRUCTED, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, WE HAVE GOT PHASE TWO AND THREE. WE HAVE PROCESSES FOR THOSE. WE NEED TO START PLANNING FOR THOSE. IF THERE IS ANY -- TO BE DONE WITH THOSE, ANY RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, WE CAN BE PLANNING FOR THOSE IN THE MEANTIME. BUT WHAT IS AHEAD OF YOU TODAY IS JUST THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION FOR THAT PHASE ONE SO WE CAN GET SOMETHING GOING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> QUESTIONS OR ACTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> THIS MITIGATION PLAN, WHAT IS YOUR BEST ESTIMATE FOR HOW LONG IT WOULD BE A FEASIBLE PLAN FOR MITIGATING FLOODING? IN THIS AREA. THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST QUESTION. AND THE SECOND QUESTION. TALKED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THAT IS A FACTOR IN ALL OF THIS BID WAS SOMETHING LIKE EROSION, WOULD THAT BE A FACTOR IN SOMETHING LIKE THIS? YOU KNOW, STANDING UP, WEAR AND TEAR. WHAT IS THE LIFESPAN OF THESE , THIS CONCRETE SLAB LASTING FOR YEARS, DECADES?

>> YEAH. THOSE ARE GOOD QUESTIONS. SO TO MITIGATE LETTING IN THE AREA WE CALL PHASE ONE. THAT WILL BE DONE UPON COMPLETION OF PHASE ONE.

LET DARREN TALK ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE. THE RETAINING WALLS IS 50-100 YEARS. MAYBE YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND SPRAY PESTICIDE WITH THE WEEDS COMING UP FROM THE CONSTRUCTION. REALLY, THEY ARE MEANT TO LAST A LONG, LONG TIME. WITH THE MODEL DATA, TALKING ABOUT -- CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> SO I LOOKED AT CLIMATE CHANGE. WE KNOW THE CLAIMANT IS ALWAYS -- SO RAINFALL. WHEN THESE CHANNELS WERE DEVELOPED, ARE INCREASING. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE TO SAY THEY MAY NOT COME UP WITH ANOTHER ONE IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS. I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY'RE COMING OUT WITH AN OUT OF RAINFALL DATA.

FLOODPLAINS CHANGE. BUT UNDER THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE POINTS DOWNSTREAM , HOW CLOSE HOUSES ARE TO EACH OTHER WITH

[04:00:04]

STRAIGHTAWAYS. THE FLOODPLAINS. WITH THE CLIMATE AND THE RAINFALL WE HAVE NOW, GIVEN THAT EXTRA CAPACITY, CONTAINING THE 100 YEAR WITHIN THAT -- AND THE RETENTION POND.

>> OKAY. 20. SO -- WHENEVER WE GET OUR EXISTING CONDITION MODELING , AS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE RETENTION PONDS WERE ALL DESIGNED . SO STANDARDS CALL FOR THE DEPENDENT SIZE OF THE CONTRIBUTING AREA GOING TO THE CERTAIN THIRD PARTY PARTS BUT I BELIEVE FOR THE PHASE ONE RETENTION POND, IT HAS TWO FOOTER ONE FOOT RETENTION FOR A 100 YEAR STORM. WHEN WE MODELED IT WITH -- WE FOUND IT WAS THAT MEETING -- SO DOING THAT, WHATEVER WHAT IS PROPOSED, WE SAY WE ARE NOT GOING TO TRY TO EXIT BUT WILL FOCUS ON THE DITCHES AND TRY TO GET THE RETENTION BACK TO NORMAL CONDITIONS. WE ARE TRYING NOT TO WORSEN IT ? TRY NOT TO IMPROVE IT. WE ARE SOLELY FOCUSING ON THE DAMAGED DITCHES. WHATEVER WE INCREASE THE REAR AND WE INCREASE EXTRA CAPACITY WITHIN THE RETENTION POND TO WHAT IT WAS. THERE IS A SLIGHT INCREASE IN THE HEADWATER OF. 10. SO LESS THAN TWO INCHES OR THREE INCHES. BUT THE TAIL WATER CONDITIONS AND DISCHARGE DOWNSTREAM WERE EXACTLY THE SAME. THE RANGE OF WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS WERE.

>> YOU STILL MAINTAIN -- IN THE FOOTPRINT. THERE IS STILL SOME CAPACITY IN THE POND OF 100 YEARS GETS BACK YES. GETTING IT BACK TO THE MODEL THAT EXISTS. AND HAVING A PROPOSED TO MATCH THE ON ENGINEERING FOLKS IN THE ROOM , FREE BOARD, THE WE WE DO FIND THAT IS YOUR MAXIMUM WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IS HERE. THE BOARD IS THE GAP BETWEEN THE TOP OF THE POND AND THE TOP OF YOUR WATER SURFACE. WE SAY WE HAVE A FOOT OR TWO FOOTER FREE BOARD, THAT MEANS HE TALKED ABOUT A FIVE FOOT TALL WALL.

THAT MEANS TWO FOOT LOW THE TOP OF THAT WALL IS THE TOP. SO EVEN WITH CLIMATE CHANGE , THEORETICALLY, SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MASSIVE EVENT LIKE WE DID IN 2017.

ATTAINTED ALL THE DATA THAT CAME OUT. THE TWO EACH SHOULD THE COUNT FOR CLAIMANT GROWTH WITHIN REASON.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS THE QUESTION?

>> YEAH, YEAH. I AM TRYING TO PROCESS THAT.

>> SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TIMELINES FOR PHASE TWO. AND WHEN YOU WENT BACK TO A COUPLE OF YOUR -- SO IF YOU GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES. YOU SHOULD ABOUT WHY THE HOA SAID THE ONES THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO THEM.

>> YES. >> OKAY, THERE ARE THREE REDLINES VERTICALLY OFF OF FULL IMPACT FROM THOSE. THE REASON WHY, LIVED ON THAT STREET SINCE IT WAS CONSTRUCTED BUT I'VE ALREADY REBUILT MY REAR FENCE THREE TIMES. I WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. SO THE QUESTION IS, WHAT YOUR DESIGN FOR PHASE TWO WHEN YOU GO? WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE DONE AGAIN? IT IS BECAUSE OF THE EROSION . BASICALLY, NO MATTER WHERE YOU PUT IT, FIRST WOULD BE IT WAS NOT DEEP ENOUGH AND WE HAD TWO MORE CONCRETE. AND THEN THEY SAID WE HAVE TO PUT POSTS IN BECAUSE IT WOULD FIX IT. IT DOES NOT. BECAUSE IT DRAINS AND NOW WE HAVE DIRT. YOU CANNOT SEE THE CONCRETE. IT IS ABOUT THIS DEEP OF DIRT OUT OF A FOOT.

SO MY QUESTION IS , THE IMPROVEMENTS FOR PHASE TWO, IS IT GOING TO ADDRESS THAT? THOSE ONCE YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT DOING THE CONCRETE. YOU TALKED ABOUT PHASE ONE. FOR THOSE THREE STREETS, IS IT GOING TO BE THE CONCRETE GOING VERTICAL SO IT STOPS THAT EROSION? OTHERWISE, I DO NOT KNOW HOW WE FIX THE PROBLEM. OH WE JUST CLEAN IT OUT, FOR THOSE THREE.

AND WE APPROVE IT WITH THIS MAJOR PHASE ONE DOWN WITH RICHARD AND BEHIND CURLY AND CAMPO. THE THREE DOWN HERE , THOSE ARE SOME OF THE OLDER HOMES. A LOT OF THAT WAS BUILT LATER. I KNOW EVERYONE ON THOSE STREETS . THEY ARE MY NEIGHBORS. THEY BEEN WANTING AND ASKING AND THEY WILL WANT TO KNOW. WELL, WE ARE DOING THIS ONE AND IT IS NOT REALLY GOING TO HELP YOU ON THOSE STREETS. IT WILL NOT FIX YOUR FENCES. WE DO NOT KNOW WHEN PHASE TWO IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

I WOULD LIKE TO AT LEAST KNOW WHEN PHASE TWO IS PLANTED 2028?

[04:05:05]

YOU ARE SAYING 2026. THAT IS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE TO REDO THEIR FENCES BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.

>> I'LL ADDRESS THAT A LITTLE BIT BUT I AM NOT SURE WITH FUNDING. YOU'RE RIGHT. WE PUT IN THE LINE CHANNELS, THAT WILL HELP. GOING TO PREVENT ANY MORE OFFENSES FROM FALLING IN? I CANNOT GUARANTEE THAT. IT WILL NOT MAKE THE CONDITION WORSE.

IT IS THE EROSION AND THE LACK OF FOOTING THAT IS CAUSING THOSE FENCES TO STOP. NO, WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE IMPROVEMENT MADE ON THAT SOUTHERN RED CHANNEL, EAST OF -- WHAT WE ARE DOING IS DECREASING THE FLOW GOING DOWN THERE. IT WILL NOT MAKE IT THE FLOODING 100%. I AM MAKING SURE THESE ARE ALL THE

QUESTIONS. >> YES.

>> A VOTE , I WILL BE EXCUSING MYSELF FOR A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. EVEN THOUGH IT IS OF FAITH I AM NOT IN, IT IS STILL IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD . ABOUT ONE MORE THING. THE OTHER REASON WHY WE DID NOT DO THOSE THREE CHANNELS SOUTH RIGHT NOW IS BECAUSE IF WE LINED UP RIGHT NOW AND SENT THE FLOW TO THE EXISTING DETENTION POND, WOULD BE DISCHARGING ONE TO THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. YOU NEED A PERMIT. THAT WILL TAKE ANOTHER 6-12 MONTHS.

WE CAN DO WHAT WE SAY IS STAYS ON FIRST AND DIVERT SOME OF THAT FLOW, IT HELPS THE CONDITION ON THIS AREA SOUTH.

MAYBE WHEN YOU GET TO ALIGN THOSE CHANNELS, YOU DO NOT HAVE

TO DO THE FIRM UP EVENING. >> DEAR QUESTION ABOUT TIMING OR PHASE TWO AND PHASE THREE. WE PUT THE NEXT PHASE , AT THE TIME IN THE CIP WE WERE NOT SURE WHAT PHASE IT WAS GOING TO BE BECAUSE WE WERE STILL RUNNING ALL THE MODELS. WE PUT A FACE IN THE 2025 CIP FOR COUNCIL TO PROVIDE. SO AS FAR AS THE FUTURE PHASES, IT IS NOT IN THE CIP YET . WE WERE NOT SURE WHAT THE PREROGATIVE OF THE COUNCIL WAS GOING TO BE.

>> I THINK I ADDRESSED IT EARLIER. WHILE PHASE ONE IS IN CONSTRUCTION , THEY ARE READY KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN PHASE TWO AND PHASE THREE. WE CAN BE DOING THE DESIGN. THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION SO YOU COULD HAVE BACK TO BACK OR FINISHING PHASE ONE. BUT REALLY COMING DOWN TO WHAT COUNCIL WANTS TO DO AS FAR AS FUNDING AND THE TIMELINE PERSPECTIVE.

>> THAT WAS MY OTHER QUESTION. WE HAVE TO SEE WHERE THIS IS BUDGETED IN 2024. THIS IS A 2025 ITEM, RIGHT?

>> THE CONSTRUCTION, YES. EXACTLY.

>> OR IS IT IN THE 2024 BUDGET?

>> YEAH. THERE IS A -- THERE IS A 2024 CIP PROJECT IN HUTTO.

THERE IS A NUMBER ON THE ORIGINAL. YEAH, SO THIS STUDY WAS $134,000 THIS YEAR. IN THE 2023-24 PROJECT. OKAY.

>> SO WE BUDGETED $134,000 CURRENT YEAR? SO HOW ARE WE, FROM THE -- THE PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, IF YOU BUDGETED 130,000 , 2023-24, ARE WE ABLE WHILE WE ARE IN 2023-24, TO APPROVE A CONTRACT FOR HALF $1 MILLION AND THAT IS NOT BUDGETED? WOULDN'T THAT HAVE TO BE APPROVED? THEORETICALLY, THIS MAY NOT GET APPROVED . THE BUDGET FOR 2025. ARE WE APPROVING THINGS THAT WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY ALLOCATED MONEY

TO? >>

>> I KNOW WHERE YOU ARE HEADING.

>> WE DID THIS LAST YEAR. THE NUMBERS FOR LAST YEAR THERE WAS A BIG PUSH BUT IT WAS 3 MILLION IN PROJECTS THE CITY MANAGER HAD BEEN WE HAD ACTUALLY PUSHED IT INTO THE MID-FISCAL YEAR TO MAKE SURE WE HAD APPROVED THE FUNDING.

>> PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN DO IT TODAY.

[04:10:14]

>> TYPING IN A PASSWORD. >> DAVID IS GOING TO CHANGE IT.

WHILE THEY'RE GETTING AT, DOES PHASE ONE PUT ANY PRESSURE ON PHASE TWO ? GOING ON? IF YOU DO PHASE ONE, DURING PHASE ONE, DOES THAT, LIKE, STOP OR PUT EXTRA PRESSURE ON THE PHASE TWO PLANS? AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO DOWN AND PUT PRESSURE ON THE PHASE THREE PLANS? OR DOES IT NOT REALLY MATTER?

>> ACTUALLY, IT TAKES SOME BRUSH HER OFF OF FAITH TWO.

>> OKAY. THERE'LL BE A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF THERE.

>> YOU KNOW, YOU DO NOT SEE IT EVERY DAY. YOU WILL NOT NOTICE

IT. >> OKAY.

>> THERE IS A REASON IT DOES NOT PUT ANY PRESSURE TO MAKE ANY CHANGES ELSEWHERE. THAT MEANS YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO GO FASTER? OKAY.

>> IT MAKES THE SITUATION BETTER IN PHASE TWO. WE STILL

HAVE TO ADDRESS THE FLOODING. >> GOTCHA.

>> IN THE CIP WORKSHEET , AS IS FOR 2025, IT IS 3. 6 A LOT OF GOOD THE CIRCLE THAT IS FUNDED AND THERE IS THE PARTIALLY FUNDED. I AM NOT SURE WHAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE.

>> YEAH. LET ME BACK UP. MAYOR, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION FOR THE 2024 BUDGET IS 171,000 BUT WE ARE CURRENTLY PROJECTING WE WILL SPEND 134 OF THAT. IN 2025, THAT IS WHERE WE HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE CIP. ANTERIOR POINT , WE ARE PROJECTING THE TOTAL, THE TOTAL PHASES WOULD BE 3. 6.

NOT FULLY FUNDING. THAT IS WHY IT IS PARTIALLY FUNDED

>> GOT IT. THE FULL AMOUNT IS THERE BUT IT IS PARTIALLY

FUNDED >> I AM CONFUSED. DO WE HAVE FOR THE $10,791 IN THE 2024 BUDGET TO APPROVE THIS CONTRACT AS WE SIT HERE TODAY? BECAUSE I JUST GOT DEPOSED IN SECTION 810 OF THE CHARTER, WE ARE IN LAWSUITS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD OTHER PEOPLE AUTHORIZED SPENDING WITHOUT ACTUALLY GETTING A BUDGET. TO ME, IF THE ANSWER IS NO, WE NEED TO SAY, WE WILL SEE YOU GUYS IN OCTOBER. BECAUSE OTHERWISE, UNLESS WE ARE STANDING HERE TO CERTIFY THAT SHE KNOWS WHERE THE $400,000 IS , I DON'T KNOW HOW WE DO IT. AM I BEING TOO PICKY? CITY ATTORNEY?

>> WE DO HAVE TO MAKE SURE IT IS EITHER IN THE CURRENT BUDGET OR IF YOU INTEND TO BRING A BUDGET AMENDMENT. THAT IS AN ISSUE THAT JAMES HAS POINTED OUT. OR CERTIFY WITH THIS

STATEMENT. >> RIGHT. SO FOR THIS NEXT PHASE, COME BACK WITH THE 2024-25 BUDGET. WE HAVE SIX ALLOCATED. BUT YOU HAVE NOT ADOPTED IT YOUR -- .

>> -- ADVOCATE HERE. ASSUMING THAT PEOPLE GO TO WORK A MONTH FROM NOW AND THEY FILL AN INVOICE. AND THEY SAY, OH, GUESS WHAT? THE COUNCIL DID NOT APPROVE THAT CONTRACT. SO IT IS NOT NORMAL BUSINESS TO BE APPROVING CONTRACTS. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY, RIGHT? YOU BASICALLY GOT MONEY.

>> YOU HAVE THE MONEY. THERE ARE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THIS PROJECT. IT IS INCLUDED IN THE 2024-25 BUDGET. THAT IS NOT ADOPTED YET. BUT I CAN SAY THAT NEITHER MATT NOR I WOULD LET THE PROJECT GO WITHOUT HAVING IT APPROVED.

>> IS IT GOING TO HURT THE PROJECT IF YOU WAIT UNTIL THE COUNCIL MEETING? AND HAVE IT AS AN EXTRACTION ITEM ?

[04:15:01]

>> NO.

>> I WOULD RECOMMEND DOING THAT BECAUSE THEN YOU WOULD BE

CERTAIN. YOU HAVE A BUDGET. >> I KID YOU NOT, IF I DRIVE OUT TO HOUSTON AND SIT AT A MEETING AND GET QUIZZED ON APPROPRIATIONS NOT PROPERLY FUNDED AND HERE I AM VOTING ON ONE, THEN THEY CAN SAY YOU GUYS DO IT ALL THE TIME. IT IS A REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS A WIRE YOU COMPLAINING ABOUT THIS ONE? WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL.

EVERYTHING WE GO WE EITHER HAVE THE MONEY OR DOES BUDGETED BID ARE GETTING TO A TECHNICALITY HEARING, WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET IT GO UNLESS IT IS FUNDED. WELL, THEN YOU TECHNICALLY WERE BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING FOR IT -- FOR US TO VOTE

FOR TODAY AND IT IS NOT FUNDED. >> REMEMBER IF IT IS A GENERAL FUND FUNDING? OR IS IT PART OF THE BOND PACKAGE WE RECENTLY APPROVED? I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT'VE BEEN PART OF THAT?

>> I'M SORRY? YES, AND A PART OF THE SERIES 2024 ISSUE WE RECEIVED IN JUNE. IT WAS 1 MILLION, RIGHT? WE HAVE NOT

DONE THE WHOLE 3. 6 MILLION. >> THE 3. 6 IS ALLOCATED FROM 2024. THE REASON I THINK IT WAS PARTIALLY FUNDED, BUT IT WAS SPLIT FROM OPERATING FUNDS AND THE 3. 6 FROM 2024.

>> 20. >>

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL OCTOBER

3RD. >> SECOND.

>> THAT WAS A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK .

>> OKAY. >> I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND INAUDIBLE - OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ]THAT.

>> THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

>> THIS OCTOBER EITHER PROBABLY.

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

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. AYE . COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. AYE .

COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. AYE. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE

. >> THE MOTION PASSES 6-0.

[12. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

>> THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. ITEMS 12.1 THROUGH 12.7. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT COUNCIL WISHES TO BE REMOVED? I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REPORT THE

REMAINDER. >> SO.

>> SECOND. >> A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. PROVING ITEMS 12.1 THROUGH 12.7. DISCUSSION?

>> HEARING ON, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. AYE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. AYE .

COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. AYE . COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE . COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. AYE. MAYOR SNYDER. AYE.

[12.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-197 accepting the infrastructure improvements for the subdivision known as The Landing (Rick Coronado)]

>> THE MOTION PASSES 7-0. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RESOLUTION ACCEPTING INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION KNOWN AS THE LANDING.

>> I WANTED TO ASK RICK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

>> FORCE DIRECTOR.

JUST BECAUSE THIS IS BEEN RELATIVELY PAINFUL FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON THE EXCHANGE. SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE. IS THIS, ARE WE DONE WITH EVERYTHING IN THE LANDING? I KNOW THERE ARE APARTMENTS THAT HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN STARTED YET OUT THERE. AS A RESULT INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT WE EXPECT THERE?

>> WELL, THIS ITEM IS JUST FOR THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. IF THERE IS OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE , IT IS PROBABLY NOT RELATED TO THIS ONE. I KNOW THERE IS SOME DRAINAGE ITEMS ON THE APARTMENT COMPLEX, I BELIEVE. SO IF WE HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THAT, I WILL HAVE TO CONFER TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THAT ITEM HAVE TO COME BACK. AS FAR AS I KNOW, THIS IS ALL PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH SHOULD COMPLETE --

>> OKAY.

[04:20:01]

THEY SHOULD NOT ANTICIPATE THE CITY -- THAT IS WHERE THEY HAVE GOTTEN A LOT OF ISSUES. THINGS GETTING DUG UP. I JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF WE ARE DONE IN THAT AREA. ANYTHING WE KNOW OF,

AT LEAST . >> AS FAR AS I KNOW, THIS IS

THE INFRASTRUCTURE. >> YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING --

>> LET'S SEE WHAT I HAVE HERE.

>> I DON'T WANT TO TELL THE PERSON THAT LIVES THERE THAT EVERYTHING IS GOOD IF IT IS NOT. THAT'S ALL.