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

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

10.1. LOOK AT POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS AND/OR REMOVALS. EXCISIONS TASK FORCE, PICK CORPORATIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS AND TAX INVESTMENT AND AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS. ALL RIGHT.

>> I NEED TO FIND THE E-MAIL THAT LAURA SENT OUT.

>> HEY, MAYOR. THE NOMINATION COMMITTEE MET. WE WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THE NOMINATIONS, ANDREW HARTMAN, TO SERVE ON THE LIBRARY, MARY SALINAS. AND ED TRUXEL.

>> EDWARD WHO? >> TRUXEL, T-R-O-E-X-L.

>> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. DO WE HAVE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

[00:30:03]

VOTE. COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> CRAB KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> SNIDER. >> AYE.

>> THORNTON? >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES. ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR 10.1?

[8.1. Presentation on the Development and the Plan of Finance between the City of Hutto and Cottonwood Public Improvement District Improvement Area #2. (Development Planning & Financing Group - DPFG; Hilltop Securities) ]

>> NO, THANK YOU. >> THAT BRINGS US BACK TO ITEM 8.1. PRESENTATION BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTO AND DISTRICT. IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER 2.

>> GOOD EVENING. ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO THIS EVENING, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT COTTONWOOD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT. AREA NUMBER 2. SO AT THIS TIME, FIRST, I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COTTONWOOD TO TALK ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE PROCESS.

AND THEN AFTER THAT, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO JIM, WITH HILLTOP TO GO OVER THE PLAN AND FINANCE.

>> THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS. I UNDERSTAND THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE PRESENTATION THERE. I UNDERSTAND I PRESS AND GO.

>> YEP. >> WE'RE GETTING FANCY HERE.

>> WAS THERE SUPPOSED TO BE A DIFFERENT --

>> YEP. >> THEIRS IS THE ONE THAT

STARTS WITH, YEAH, DPFT. >> WOW. I HAVE THE PACKET. IS

IT IN THE PACKET? >> AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, COTTONWOOD CREEK. I'M WITH LENNAR HOMES.

>> SORRY. >> AND WE ARE THE DEVELOPERS IN COTTONWOOD. THAT HAS 997 HOME SITES. THE ORIGINAL PID WAS APPROVED IN APRIL 2021. AND THEN THE ORIGINAL SERVICE AREA PLAN, ASSESSMENT PLAN WAS APPROVED JUNE OF 2021. AND THEN THE FIRST BONDS WERE LET IN OCTOBER OF 2021. AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, LAST MONTH, YOU JUST HAD AN APPROVAL OR UPDATE OF ASSESSMENT PLAN. SO I'M TRYING TO GIVEN YOU AN OVERVIEW. THE PROJECT ITSELF IS DOWN OFF OF 132. AND CARL STEARN MOVE THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT. SORRY.

>> RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT, THE MIDDLE AREA, CARL STEARNS COMES ACROSS. EVERYTHING NORTH IS PIT AREA NUMBER 1.

THERE ARE 526 HOME SITES IN THERE. PRETTY MUCH ALL DEVELOPED OUT NOW. BUT THE AREA SOUTH IS -- WRONG DIRECTION. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OPERATOR ERROR. I GUESS WHERE MY POINTER IS NOW. USUALLY A HAND IS WHERE PLANS 2 AND 3 ARE GOING TO BE. WHERE AREA SITE ASSESSMENT 2, SPECIFICALLY, WILL HAVE 282 HOME SITES. SO PROJECT AERIALS. THERE ARE TWO PICTURES ABOVE THAT ONE ABOVE THE OTHER. THAT'S PRIMARILY ASSESSMENT 1. EXAMPLES OF OUR HOME ELEVATIONS IN THE PACKET.

WE WILL SEE THAT OUR HOMES RANGE FROM 1600 SQUARE FEET, ALL THE WAY TO 3100 SQUARE FEET. PRICING TO 380. TO $425,000. SO THE AMENITIES THAT WE'VE PUT IN OUT THERE, THAT WEREN'T PAID UNDER P.I.D. DOLLARS, ARE POOLS. WE HAVE A PLAYGROUND, SEVERAL PLAYGROUND AREAS. BASKETBALL COURT. HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS. THOSE ARE ALL IN ASSESSMENT NUMBER 1. WE WILL BE PUTTING IN PARKS AND PLAYGROUND AND TRAILS IN ASSESSMENT AREA NUMBER 2. AND I DON'T I CAN'T BLOW THAT UP ANYMORE. SO GREENA ASSESSMENT AREA NUMBER 1. PURPLE IS ASSESSMENT INCOME 2. DOES BROWN, TAN, FOR LACK OF BETTER TERM, WILL BE ASSESSMENT AREA 3. PHASE 5 HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. IT WILL BE ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA FOR NOVEMBER 17TH, I BELIEVE. FOR ACCEPTANCE OUT THERE. WE HAVE SEVERAL PERMITS BEING PULLED. AND WE EXPECT TO HIT THE GROUND RUNNING ON THAT. PHASE 6. WE STARTED CONSTRUCTION IN APRIL.

AND WE ANTICIPATE IT ALL TO BE PAID IN NOVEMBER OF 2025.

[00:35:03]

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THE REPORT I HAVE. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? EXPWHRZ NEXT WE HAVE CITY OF

HUTTO AND PRAIRIE WINDS. >> PLAYER I HAVE THE PLAN FOR.

>> JIM SABONES WITH HILLTOP SECURITIES FOR THE RECORD.

HAVE APPEARED AS A SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED BOND ISSUES. AND WHAT IT WOULD MEAN. IN SUMMARY, THIS IS PHASE 2 OF A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT. AND IF I WERE TO SUMMARIZE IT.

THIS IS STANDARD 3 #EU 2K FINANCING. IT'S UNIQUE.

BECAUSE THE AVERAGE PRICE POINT.

PRICES ESCALATING UPWARDS. THIS PHASE, PHASE 2 ALONE, WILL BE BASED ON GENERAL ADLORRUM. EARLIER, THERE'S BEEN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE'VE ISSUED PHASE 1 BONDS. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE DEVELOPER IS ACTUALLY ALREADY WORKING ON PHASE 2, IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEY'LL ACTUALLY BE WRITING CONTRACTS SOON. THE GOAL WAS TO GET THE BONDS IN PLACE, SO THE LEVY WOULD BE THERE FOR WHEN THE HOMEOWNERS TRANSFER TITLE. THIS IS ABOUT A $5.5 MILLION FINANCING. THE AVERAGE LIEN ON THE HOME WILL BE ABOUT $22,700.

IT'S A VERY MODERATE ASSESSMENT. SO THE VALUE OF COMPLETED LOT VERSUS THE LIEN. THE ANNUAL PRIVILEGE TAX BASIS.

EACH HOMEOWNER WILL PAY $1464. OR $57,000 OVER THE LIFE OF THE PID. THIS IS THEIR BUILDOUT CATEGORY FOR THIS PROJECT. THE THOUSAND THAT WE GENERATE.

ON THE BOND STRUCTURE, THIS IS A STANDARD, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS APPROVED TRANSACTION. WE'LL BE ISSUING BOND.

FOLLOWING DEBT SERVICE APPROVE FUND.

A FULL LEVY WOULD BE PUT IN PLACE.

WE'VE INDICATED A VERY CONSERVATIVE RATE OF 6.5%.

LENNAR BEING NATIONWIDE. AND TEXAS WIDE ENTITY. WE'VE WORKED ON PROJECTS FOR OUR OTHER CLIENTS. AND WE WOULD EXPECT ACTUALLY A PROJECT TO BE CLOSE TO 5%. ULTIMATELY, IT WOULDN'T BE MORE OF A CASH FLOW PAYMENT FOR HOMEOWNERS.

BUT SAME CASH FLOW TO TAKE PLACE. BUT THIS IS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN THE PRELIMINARY SERVICES ASSESSMENT PLAN.

>> THE TOTAL PRINCIPLE AND INTEREST ON THE BOND, $13 MILLION. THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL ADMINISTRATIVE COST ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND INTEREST TO FUND PREPAYMENT AND DELINQUENCY RESERVES. $50 MILLION FOR THE TRANSACTION. ALTHOUGH ANNUAL LEVY WOULD BE ABOUT $431,000 SPLIT BETWEEN THE HOMES. FOR HOMEOWNER. AND TO ME, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO ME. THE AVERAGE HOME WILL BE PAYING $1646. ACTUALLY, LET ME GO FORWARD TWO PAGES. I SHOWED YOU HOW THIS COMPARES TO OTHER PROJECTS.

IT'S IN THE BLUE. AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT EMERY CROSSING AND COTTONWOOD DURANGO. THIS IS EXISTING PITS.

THIS IS REALLY IN THE MIDDLE. SIMILAR OVERALL ASSESSMENT LEVEL. WITH THE UNIQUE DIFFERENCE THAT THIS IS THE HIGHEST-PRICED HOMES THEY'RE BEING OFFERED ON THOSE PROJECTS. SO THE -- I'M GOING TO GO BACK

ONE MORE PAGE. >> THIS ONE?

>> ONE MORE PAGE. >> OH, SORRY. THIS ONE?

>> THIS IS OUR SCHEDULED EVENTS. AND TONIGHT, WE'RE

[00:40:04]

HAVING THIS. AND IF YOU DECIDE TO DIRECT US TO MOVE FORWARD, AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE RESOLUTION, DETERMINING COSTS. AND ALWAYS LEVYING ASSESSMENTS ON THE PROPERTY. AND THEN WE'LL BE COMING IN DECEMBER WITH THE SALE OF THE BONDS ITSELF. SO WE CAN CLOSE BY THE END OF THE YEAR. SO THE PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS. WE'VE ACTUALLY COMPLETED MOST OF THE INTERNAL ADMINISTRATIVE WORK TO DO THIS. AGAIN, A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT.

MODERATE LEVEL OF ASSESSMENTS. OVERALL, WE THINK THIS WOULD BE STRAIGHTFORWARD REPRESENTING THE BEST PRACTICES THAT WE KNOW HOW TO DO. WITH THAT, I'D ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND PROVIDE ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> NO. I APPRECIATE IT. AND ITS LOWER PRICE ON A HUNDRED -- VALUATION AT 39. AND SOME OF THE OTHER VALUATIONS WE'VE HAD COME THROUGH. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD -- SHOWS THE DEVELOPERS TRYING TO BE CONSCIOUS TO THE PEOPLE BUYING THE CITY. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT CITY STAFF AND THE FINANCE TEAM TO PRESENT THE PID FINANCE.

>> I THINK IT'S JUST A PRESENTATION.

>> HE ACTUALLY SAID, UNDER THE ITEM IN BLUE, SAID THEY WOULD LIKE US TO APPROVE TO COME BACK ASK TO MAKE A MOTION TODAY, UNDER NUMBER 3. UNDER THE OCTOBER 17TH.

>> ON THE PAGE THAT'S OVER HERE, RIGHT?

>> CITY ATTORNEY. AS 8.1 IS WRITTEN IN THE AGENDA, AM I RIGHT IN THAT IT'S JUST PRESENTATION ONLY? OR ARE WE

ALLOWED TO ACT ON THAT? >> I'M TRYING TO FIND IT.

>> I'M SORRY. I SEE IT. >> I HAVE TO GO BY WHAT'S

WHNTED TO THE PUBLIC. >> RIGHT. 811 IS JUST THE

PRESENTATION. RIGHT? >> SO ARE WE ALLOWED TO ACT ON

THAT? >> THERE'S NO ACTION LISTED.

>> OKAY. >> WELL, WE HAVE TO DIRECT THEM TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK WITH THE PLAN OTHERWISE, WE HAVE TO

WAIT TO GIVE THEM DIRECTION. >> IS THAT TRUE, THOUGH?

>> I'LL TAKE A LEAP OF FAITH THAT, I'LL BE HERE IN THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING TO NOT GO FORWARD.

>> THE PEOPLE THAT ARE DEVELOPERS OR THEIR CONSULTANTS. IT'S GIVEN US A HEADS UP. ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WE GOT QUESTIONS WHY IS IT 35 CENTS? AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A BAD DEAL OR WHATEVER OUR CONCERNS ARE.

YOU DO THAT. MAYBE YOU COME BACK. THAT'S TYPICALLY HOW I EXPERIENCE THIS I LOOK AT IT AS PRESENTATION OPPORTUNITY.

WHENEVER YOU PICK OR YOUR DEVELOPER PICKS.

>> AND ONE THING I SAY, MAYOR, IN GENERAL, THIS IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH PHASE 1. OBVIOUSLY, THE DIRECTOR OF COUNCIL, WE WOULD DISCUSS WHATEVER WE WANT TO DO. IT PARALLELS WHAT'S DONE. THE NEXT IS AN ITEM BEING PROPOSED.

I THINK THERE'S MORE DIRECTION NEEDED.

>> NEXT ONE IS A DIRECTION ONLY.

>> IT'S ON THE AGENDA AT A SEPARATE PLACE.

>> RIGHT. MAYBE LATER. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE

[8.2. Presentation on the Plan of Finance between the City of Hutto and Prairie Winds Public Improvement District. (Hilltop Securities) ]

DISCUSSION ON THE COTTONWOOD PID? NUMBER 2. THEN ITEM 8-2.

PRESENTATION OF THE PLAN FOR HUTTO.

>> MAYOR COUNCIL. YOU ARE CORRECT IN THAT THIS PRESENTATION BY MR. SABONES IS DIRECTLY TIED TO AGENDA ITEM 9.2. SO YOU'LL SEE A SIMILAR PRESENTATION. AND WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE PRAIRIE WINDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, FINANCING PLAN.

>> JIM, WELCOME BACK. >> WELCOME BACK. GOOD TO BE

HERE AGAIN. >> THIS PRESENTATION IS ORGANIZED THE SAME WAY IT WAS. DEVELOPING AGREEMENT. AND FINANCE AGREEMENT. DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED.

BUT INNOCENCE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN LATER ON THE AGENDA. THAT WOULD REFLECT THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS INDICATED HERE. ON THIS PROJECT. IT IS GOING TO BE SPLIT BETWEEN 45S AND 50S.

ULTIMATELY, ABOUT 8 VALUE. IN JULY OF '23, THE COUNCIL

[00:45:04]

APPROVED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. ON ITEM 9.2 IS PUBLIC AGREEMENT FINANCING AGREEMENT THAT TAKES THE TERMS WE HAVE HERE. BASED ON THE VALUES THAT ARE PROJECT IN THE THIS PROJECT. THEY'RE PROPOSING A TOTAL BOND ISSUE OF 27 MILLION. AND AVERAGE ASSESSMENT LEAN. ABOUT $47,000. IT'S ABOUT DOUBLE WHAT MOST OF THE OTHER ASSESSMENTS THAT THE DISTRICTS ARE. AND IT'S DUE TO THE ANNUAL TAXABLE ASSESSMENT RATE OF 84 CENTS. SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THE OTHER PROJECTS WE HAD IN PLACE. WE WOULD ACTUALLY REQUIRE PROPOSAL. OVER THE LIFE OF THE TRANSACTION. 118,000.

>> AT THE PROPOSED TERMS. THE VALUE TO LOT IS ABOUT 2.1, WHICH IS BELOW OUR FINANCIAL POLICY, WHICH WOULD MEAN A WAY BEFORE THAT, WHEN THEY WENT FOR BONDS.

AT THE SAME TIME, WE BELIEVE THIS WOULD BE STRUCTURED AS A CREDIT WORTHY PROCESS. IT'S NOT AN ISSUE. PHASE 1 OF THE PROJECT WOULD BE ABOUT 280 HOMES. 112 MILLION. THEN THEY WOULD MOVE FORWARD IN TWO OTHER PHASES WE COMBINED THEM INTO.

MY EXPECTATIONS, THEY WOULD BE DONE IN TWO SEPARATE PHASES.

AND AGAIN, LASTLY, $47.4 MILLION. STANDARD BONDS STRUCTURED IN COVENANCE. WE INDICATE 35 YEARS AS REQUESTED BY THE DEVELOPER. WE'RE USING 6.5%. AGAIN, KNOWING THE PARTICIPANTS AND HAVE WORKED WITH THEM, WITH OUR OTHER CLIENTS, I EXPECT THE INTEREST RATES TO BE LOW, WHEN THEY'RE READY TO ISSUE. RESULTING IN A SLIGHTLY HIGHER PAR. BUT SAME OVERALL CASH FLOW BY THE HOMEOWNERS. PHASE 1 WOULD HAVE ABOUT 33.7 MILLION PAYMENTS OVER THE LIFE OF THE BONDS OUTSTANDING. IN ALL, IT WOULD BE ABOUT $133 MILLION. SO VERY LARGE PROJECT. THAT I THINK WOULD BE DONE.

AGAIN, SUCCESSFULLY IN PHASES. FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ON THIS PROJECT. KEEP GOING TO THE AVERAGE VALUE OF HOME ONE. SHOWING THE CONSISTENT UPWARD TREND IN HOME VALUES IN THE COMMUNITY.

$41,400 WOULD BE THE LEAN PARCEL, REQUIRING AT THE $200,000 VALUE, A TAXABLE RATE OF 85.46 CENTS. ULTIMATELY, WE WERE GENERATING ABOUT 1.8 MILLION.

AND AGAIN, WE'VE WORKED WITH THIS FIRM IN OTHER CITIES. THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT THEY'VE DONE IN OTHER PLACES.

THE ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, AS POINT OF KNOWLEDGE.

THAT THE ASSESSMENT LEVEL IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DONE WITH THE OTHER PAGE. AND THIS SUMMARIZES WHAT HAS BEEN PUT IN PLACE. AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

THAT SUMMARIZES THE FINANCIAL TERMS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THE PUBLIC FINANCE AGREEMENT.

THAT IS LATER ON THE AGENDA. >> DOES IS THAT ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS? >> QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM

COUNCIL? >> SO ON THIS, I SEE THE -- I SEE ON THIS PAGE HERE. MY BIG CONCERN IS THAT THEY THINK THAT THEY'RE PLAN IS THAT THEIR ASSESSMENT RATE IS GOING TO BE MORE THAN DOUBLE WHAT THE CITY TAX RATE IS.

I THINK THAT'S -- YOU KNOW, WE'RE ARGUING BETWEEN BETWEEN BEING 39 CENTS AND 49 CENTS. AND THEY'RE COMING IN PROPOSING 84 CENTS FOR THEIR LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.

I MEAN, WHAT IS THAT GOING TO PUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN IN THIS AREA? WHAT'S THAT GOING TO PUT THE AVERAGE CITIZEN? $300 PER VALUATION. I THINK THAT'S JUST UNSUSTAINABLE FOR EVERYONE. PLUS, YOU GOT THE 10-CENT ESD.

>> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I'LL FOLLOW UP WHEN YOU GIVE IT TO THE STAFF. AGAIN, UNIQUELY, I WOULD TELL FROM MY EXPERIENCE, WORKING WITH HUNDREDS OF THESE. DO I THINK IT COULD BE CREDIT WORTHY? THESE HOMES WILL SELL.

PEOPLE WILL PAY THEIR ASSESSMENTS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE HAVE A DIFFERENT BENCHMARK.

AND IT'S A POLICY DECISION. BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, ON AN

[00:50:05]

MANUAL BASIS, YOU WILL PROVE THE LEVIED ASSESSMENTS. AND THAT PEOPLE COME TO YOU ABOUT JUSTIFICATION FOR THAT.

>> SO WHAT'S DRIVING THE 84 CENTS? DO THEY HAVE A LOT MORE

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE OTHERS. >> I DEFER THAT QUESTION.

>> CAN WE ASK HIM NOW? OR IS IT DURING 9.2?

>> PER THE CITY ATTORNEY. PROBABLY APPROPRIATE --

>> I WOULD 'OF IT. >> I'D PROBABLY SAY 9.2.

I WOULD JUST SAY THIS. TO ME, IT'S -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. LET'S SAY IT IS TOO HIGH. AND THE PEOPLE BOUGHT A HOUSE AND CAN'T AFFORD IT. DOES THAT COME BACK ON THE CITY OF HUTTO? LET'S SAY THEY DO THIS AND AND I UNDERSTAND, WE'RE STILL GOING TO CHARGE THEM AN ASSESSMENT. IF THEY DON'T PAY THAT ASSESSMENT, THE CITY WILL SELL IT, WHATEVER. THE GUYS THAT GOT THE BONDS TO THIS RATE, THEY'RE THE ONES ON THE HOOK FOR THIS, RIGHT?

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK IT'S HIGHLY UNLIKELY.

>> I'M JUST TALKING, IF IT'S WORST CASE.

>> ANY STAGE, THE ASSESSMENTS PUT IN PLACE. THE LAND OWNER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. THE ANNUAL TAX LEVY AND

ASSESSMENT. >> IS IT HIGH? IT'S HIGH TO ME. I MAY NOT BUY A HOUSE THERE. WE WORKED WITH WILLIAMSON COUNTY. THEY'RE GOING TO SHOOT ME BECAUSE I CAN'T REMEMBER THEIR NAME. BUT THE REAL ESTATE ASSOCIATION.

WE'VE DONE ALL OF THAT. THERE'S BIGGER FONT. BIGGER NOTICES. A PERSON BUYING THIS HOME, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU BUY IN AN HOA. THIS IS JUST MY OPINION.

YOU BUY HOA IN A PID DISTRICT. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD THAT, IT SHOULD BE LIKE ANYTHING ELSE. IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD A $500,000 HOUSE, DON'T BUY A $500,000 HOUSE. WE SHOULDN'T BE DICTATING SOME OF THOSE THINGS. WE'RE GETTING PAID OFF OF THIS. YOU DIDN'T GO THROUGH HOW MUCH WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THIS. BUT IT'S USUALLY A PRETTY GOOD CHUNK. TO ME, IT'S A DEVELOPER RISK ITEM. AND IF THE DEVELOPER THINKS

THEY CAN DO IT. >> GENERALLY, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING. AND I'VE SEEN THIS EXPERIENCE IN OTHER PROJECTS.

WHERE ASSESSMENTS ARE OVER TIME. CONSISTENTLY THROUGHOUT THE STATE. AND CITIES. BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN IN SOME PLACES, WHERE, AGAIN, THEIR REIMBURSEMENTS WILL BE $40,000 A LOT. VERSUS COTTONWOOD. 2022. WE'VE SEEN SITUATIONS, WHERE THOSE TWO DEVELOPMENTS COMPETE AGAINST EACH OTHER. AND THE ONE WITH HIGHER ASSESSMENT SELL A LOT. THEY CAN SELL FOR $10,000 LESS. AND MAKE $10,000 MORE IN PROFIT. SO IT'S JUST A COMPETITIVE DYNAMIC. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU. THAT TO ME, I THINK -- AND MY EXPERIENCE IS, I BELIEVE THESE WOULD BE CREDIT WORTHY. ASSESSMENTS. OTHER PROJECTS WE CAN DO THERE. AND GEOGRAPHIC AREA.

YOUR COMMUNITY IS MOVING, AND I WOULD EXPECT THEY WOULD SELL.

AND IT'S OPPORTUNITY TO DEVELOP. ESPECIALLY IN A MULTIPHASE PROJECT. WHERE THE FINANCE DOESN'T MEAN THEY ACTUALLY ASSESS IT. THEY HAVE TO JUDGE THE MARKET. AND GO FORWARD. I AGREE WITH ALL OF YOUR COMMENTS THERE.

I'D SAY THEY, AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME, WHEN IT'S AN ACTION ITEM, COME AND TALK TO YOU ABOUT WHAT THEIR THOUGHTS ARE AND MARKETING STRATEGY AND HOW THEY WILL APPROACH THIS.

AND LAST QUESTION. I FEEL LIKE WE CAN'T COMPARE CITY TAX RATES WITH THE RATE ON A PID. CITY TAX RATES, ADDING IN VALUE TO THE CITY. IF I UNDERSTAND THINGS RIGHT. THAT'S DEGREE TO MAKEOB OUR RATE GO DOWN. AND IF YOU HAVE COST GO UP.

WHAT THE CITY DOES WITH THIS AND ANY KIND OF VALUATIONS THEY ADD. THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PIDS. RIGHT? IF COSTS GO UP, AT SOME POINT, YOU EITHER ADD MORE HOMES TO KEEP THE RATE LOWER. OR YOU RAISE THE RATE. OR AM I WRONG ON

THAT? >> AND I AGREE ON THAT.

SOMETIMES IT'S AN APPLES AND ORANGES.

EARLY ON. WE START THINKING ABOUT THOSE THINGS. BUT THE REALITY IS. WE RECEIVE TAXES. THEY WILL ACTUALLY. AS A RESULT OF THOSE HOMES, THEY WILL DRIVE OUR TAX DOWN. HOMES ARE HIGHER THAN AVERAGE PRICE IN THE COMMUNITY.

AND I'VE WORKED WITH COMMUNITIES MAYBE FARTHER ALONG IN EVOLUTION. WE'VE SEEN THE AGGREGATE OF THESE TYPE PROJECTS. ESPECIALLY IN YOUR CASE, WHERE THERE IS NONE TO

[00:55:05]

SUPPORT THIS. THEY WILL DRIVE PRICE DOWN AND BRING PRICE UP.

AND I'VE LEARNED. THEIR ASSESSMENTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE BOTTOM LOIN IS, I'VE SEEN THEIR CONSULTANT DO THIS ASSESSMENT. AND HATE TO QUOTE WHAT I'VE SEEN HIM DO.

FACT OF THE MATTER IS, $40,000. IF THERE WASN'T A PID HERE.

THOSE LOTS WITH HOMES WOULD HAVE TO PAY $40,000 MORE. WE'RE PAY ARE FIGURE ONGOING BASIS. THEY'RE MEANT FOR TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. AND THE ONE THING THAT IS IMPORTANT ABOUT THEM THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE CITY. WE BELIEVE BEST PRACTICE.

WE'VE DONE IT WITH ALL OF YOUR PIDS. ONCE THE ASSESSMENT SET.

IT'S NOT DOLLAR RATE. JUST REFERENCE POINT. IT'S A DOLLAR. YOU LOOK UP 10 YEARS FROM NOW. THAT HOME MIGHT BE $500,000. YOUR TAX RATE HAS MAYBE EDUCATED ME A LITTLE BIT.

THE HOME MAY HAVE GONE MORE. BUT NEVER PAY MORE THAN. AND THE OFFSET, WHEN YOU HAVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS. A LARGE THOUSAND HOME PROJECT, THAT COULD ALTERNATIVELY PAY THE MUD. IT'S A MIXED TIME.

>> COOL. >> I GUESS LOOK LIKE PRAIRIE WINS THE PID RIGHT HERE. THIS LOOKS LIKE OVER A THOUSAND HOMES. THEY'VE DONE IT IN PHASES WITH THEIR PID, I GUESSACIMENT FEES. AND HOW THEY'RE FINANCING THE INFRASTRUCTURE, RIGHT? SO MAYBE JUST BECAUSE IT IS SUCH A LARGE COMMUNITY THAT THIS IS, YOU KNOW.

>> I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THAT THERE'S SIZE DEVELOPMENT.

WE'RE TALKING WHAT WAS IT? 262? THEIR FIRST PHASE IS 280

HOMES. IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR. >> OH, YEAH.

>> WHILE WE SHOW WHAT IS REMAINING BUILDUP, IT'S UNUSUAL TO SEE SOMEONE GO FORWARD.

>> SO THIS IS THE TOTAL? >> I PROSPECT TO PROBABLY SEE

TWO PHASES ON THAT. >> PERFECT. THANK YOU FOR

CLARIFYING. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR JIM? ALL RIGHT. THANKS, SIR. I GUESS WE MIGHT SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 10.1.

AMENDING THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT AND THE LIMITED PURPOSE AND ANNEXATION OF 4.1 ACRES OF WILLIAMSON COUNTY, WATER, SEWER, IRRIGATION, DRAINAGE DISTRICT

AND THEN, DEPENDING ON COUNCIL ACTION, ANNEX THE 4.88 ACRES, DO CITY LIMITS. FOR PURPOSE OF USED TAX SALES ASK ADD THE COLLECTION. SO HOLDING THIS PUBLIC HEARING TURNED THE LAW IS THE FIRST STEP. AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO ITEMS A&B.

>> WE'LL OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:59F. ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WISHES TO COME AND SPEAK, REGARDING THE LIMITED ANNEXATION OF THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY WATER, SEWER, IRRIGATION, AND DRAINAGE DISTRICT NUMBER 3. PLEASE COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE

[9.1. Conduct the second of two public hearings on Resolution No. R-2024-199, amending the Strategic Partnership Agreement and the limited purpose annexation of 4.881 acres of Williamson County Water, Sewer, Irrigation, and Drainage District No. 3. and related actions:(Sara Cervantes) ]

HEARING AT 7:59 P.M. AND NOW WE MOVE ON TO ITEM A, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. . >> OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM A. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. BETWEEN THE INDUSTRY AND WILL WILLIAMSON COUNTY.

>> CORRECT. SARA CERVANTES, APPROVING THIS WOULD T WILL EXPAND THE JURISDICTIONAL COVERAGE OF THAT AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE THE 4.88 ACRES. THAT IS THE ACREAGE WE JUST CONCLUDED THAT PUBLIC HEARING ON. SO EXPANDING THE SCOPE OF THAT AGREEMENT AS ALE WHOLE. AND I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT ORIGINALLY. IT WAS SEPARATE OWNERSHIP. AND IT WASN'T

SOMETHING ON FOR THE TIME. >> DO YOU HAVE AN EXHIBIT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT? >> THIS IS IN THE STAR RANCH

AREA. >> IT'S THE 635. SOUTHEAST AND NORTHEAST. AND ALSO, THE OLD, IS IT THE CLANTONHOFF HOUSE AM.

[01:00:05]

>> THE COLLISION KING OVER WHATEVER IS THERE. IT'S RIGHT BY THE NEW FIRE STATIONS. THAT ALL WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, IF WE SAY FOE WOO DON'T COLLECT SALES TAX.

>> CORRECT. >> THIS NEXT ITEM IS TO INCORPORATE THESE INTO THE UNDERLYING AGREEMENT. ONCE IT'S ADDED, THEN SUBITEM B IS TO APPROVE THAT SUBANNEXATION.

I WILL POINT OUT, THOUGH, THAT THERE NOTHING ON THAT PROPERTY.

WE ANTICIPATE THAT HAPPENING SOMETIME IN THE NEXT THREE TO

FIVE YEARS. >> BUT IF WE SAY NO TO THIS, WE

DON'T HAVE TO GO TO B THEN. >> CORRECT. YES.

>> I'LL PAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2024-2O --

>> 250. >> 250, YES. SORRY.

>> SECOND. >> SO MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2024-250. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> YOU'VE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR.

>> CONSIDERATION ON 0. FOR THE LIMITED ANNEXATION OF THE LAND THE AND THE CITY'S JURISDICTIONAL.

>> . >> THIS WOULD BE THAT ACRE THAT YOU WOULD PASS TO THAT UNDERLYING AGREEMENT.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> APPROVING ORDINANCE 0-2024-066. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> CRAB

[9.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-251 approving the Public Improvement Financing Agreement between the City of Hutto and GRBK Edgewood, LLC for the Prairie Winds Public Improvement District. (Sara Cervantes)]

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 2.

CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R SHOULD HAVE 2024-251. IMPROVING THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT, FINANCING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND GRBK EDGEWOOD LLC.

AND PRAIRIE WINDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT.

>> DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE. HAVEN'T GONE ANYWHERE. THIS IS THE PUBLIC FINANCING AGREEMENT THAT WE JUST HEARD A PRESENTATION FROM, FROM MR. SABONES.

THERE IS INFORMATION THAT WE ARE EXPECTED TO COME OUT OF THIS DIRECTLY. AND WE DO HAVE SOME OF THE DEVELOPER STAFF HERE. THEIR FINANCIAL OFFICER WAS NOT ABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT.

BUT WE HAVE THEM ON HAND FOR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY

HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> MOVE FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION ON 9.2?

>> YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WAS DRIVING THE 80-ODD CENTS. INSTEAD OF THE 40 CENTS. JUST CURIOUS.

>> LIKE THEY GOT SPECIAL ROADS OR SOMETHING?

>> MAYBE. GOLD-PLATED FIXTURES. AND MAYOR, COUNCIL. APPRECIATE IT. I DIDN'T DO THE PRESENTATION.

I THOUGHT MAYBE YOU WERE TIRED OF SEEING ME. SO WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED TO THE CITY IS ACTUALLY A 2.85 EFFECTIVE TAX RATE. I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE DISCONNECT IN NUMBERS ARE. BUT EFFECTIVELY, WE'RE TRYING TO NOT BE BELOW ALL THE MUDS. AND WHAT WE PROPOSE IS 2.85 IN OUR PRPFRE.

ONE WAS A SURPRISE TO ME. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE

SCREEN SO WE CAN SEE? >> TO THE FINANCE SCREEN?

>> YEAH. THE ONE THAT HAD THE RATES.

>> AND YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY, THIS ISN'T LEVYING ANY KIND OF TAXES. THIS IS JUST THE AGREEMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

AND TO MAYOR'S POINT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISCLOSE TO EVERY BUYER IN OUR COMMUNITY, WHAT THE TAX RATE IS. WHAT THEIR PAYMENT IS GOING TO BE. WE DON'T WANT TO GET SUED OBVIOUSLY. AND DON'T WANT ANY ISSUES WITH THE CITY. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED UP FRONT.

[01:05:05]

>> THE ONE THAT HAS GOT ALL THE RATES THAT HAD.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD WAS.

>> NEXT TO LAST, OF COURSE. >> OKAY. SO THIS MIGHT BE OFF

BY 15 CENTS. >> YEAH. SO YOU CAN SEE THE ALL-IN RATE AT 3.04. I GUESS IS WHAT IS ON THIS. AND YOU CAN SEE EMERY CROSSING, ALL IN. 3.094.

EMERY CROSSING, 2.756. SO WHAT WE PROPOSE IS A LITTLE LOWER THAN WHAT IS UP THERE. WITH THE OTHER PIDS AND BELOW

THE MUDS. >> AND DURANGO FARMS REMEMBER.

>> SO WE'RE THINKING OF THAT ROAD THAT SAYS 2.1 MAY BE OFF? BECAUSE IT REALLY IS DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHERS.

EMERY CROSSING. >> I'M NOT SURE. HONESTLY, I HAVEN'T SEEN THIS. BUT IT MAY BE ULTIMATELY, WE COULD, PER OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, GO UP TO .81. WE HAVE ROOM TO GO UP. BUT TO THE MAYOR'S POINT. WE DON'T WANT TO WHERE WE

CAN'T SELL HOUSES. >> THE FLORA MUD, WE'RE THINKING SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 3.1. WE DEFINITELY NEED TO UNDERCUT THAT AND GET PEOPLE IN OUR HOUSES FIRST.

>> THAT'S HELPFUL. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

>> THANK YOU ALL. >> IF A HOMEOWNER WANTED TO PAY THAT AND DIDN'T WANT TO PAY THE FINANCING COST? OOZE IT'S GONE. THAT'S THE BEAUTY, TO THE MAY ARE ONA POINT, IF YOU PAY IT OFF, THAT'S GONE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DISCLOSE, BECAUSE THEY CAN PAY IT ALL OFF ON DAY 1 AND JUST

PAY CITY TAXES. >> ONE THING I LIKE ABOUT PIDS.

WE USED TO ARGUE ABOUT IT. LIKE ABOUT PIDS ARE. SEEMS LIKE BEFORE PIDS CAME AROUND. ALL THE TAXPAYERS TO HELP PAY FOR THIS. I MEAN, YOU BUILD INDIVIDUAL ROADS. BUT THE WIDENING OF THE MAIN ROADS. AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE. WE'RE ALL PAYING. NOW, YOU WANT TO BRING IN A THOUSAND ROADS, THAT'S FINE. BUT YOU HAVE TO THINK OF THE UPT UPRISING. I LOOK AT IT.

LIKE THIS IS GROWTH. PRETTY MUCH PAYING FOR GROWTH. AND BY DOING IT THIS WAY. WE GET A CHECK THAT COMES BACK. AFTER YOU'VE PAID YOUR IMPACT FEES. AND ALL OF THE EXTRA THINGS THROWN IN AT YOU. THEN WE HAVE A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, THAT WE THEN GET TO IMPROVE OTHER THINGS IN THE COMMUNITY.

>> YES, SIR. >> I LOVE THE PEOPLE THAT HELP GO TO PIDS. BECAUSE IT MAKES THINGS CHEAPER FOR THE REST OF

US AND MORE AFFORDABLE. >> WE'RE EXTENDING MAIN HIPPO OVER THE WAY TO COUNTY ROAD 133. AND OBVIOUSLY DOING OTHER STUFF THAT WILL MAKE IT AN EXCELLENT COMMUNITY THAT WILL SELL QUICKLY.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> CRAB KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> CRAB COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.

[11. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ]

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM -- CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS 11.1, 2, 3, 4, AND 5. ARE THERE ANY ITEMS ANYBODY ISSUES TO PULL?

>> I'D LIKE TO PULL 11.1, 3. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO

PULL. >> I WILL MAKE THE MOTION TO

APPROVE 11.2, 4 AND 5. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE

[01:10:01]

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE! S COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> CLARK. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-252 authorizing the City Manager to purchase wastewater collection system lift station Flygt Pumps for an amount of $150,982.77 from authorized supplier Xylem Water Solutions USA Inc. (Rick Coronado) ]

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. NEXT. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2024-2225.2.

COLLECTION SYSTEM. LIFT STATION. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO SAY THAT WORD. WHAT IS THAT? F- L-Y-G-T.

>> I THINK IT'S "FLIGHT." >> THE FLYGT ACCOUNTS FOR AN AMOUNT OF O. FROM AUTHORIZED SUPPLIER.

XYLEM. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> WATER SOLUTIONS USA INCORPORATED.

>> WHAT YOU GOT FOR RICK? >> OH. WE JUST GET TO RANDOMLY ASK QUESTIONS? WELL, THAT'S FUN. SO I HAD A QUESTION ON, WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT THIS. WE HAD THE QUOTE FOR THESE FOUR PUMPS THAT ROUGHLY NUMBERS, 50K, 42K, 37K. IT CAME UP TO AROUND 150K. BUT I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS 400,000 IN THIS BUDGET FOR THIS LINE ITEM. SO I WAS CURIOUS.

FIRST QUESTION, ARE THERE OTHER ITEMS SUPPOSED TO BE WHICHEDDED IN IN THIS BUDGET? OR WAS IT JUST THESE PUMPS, FOR THAT?

>> RICK ORNATO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. THE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLAR LINE ITEM CAN RANGE FROM THESE PUMPS THEMSELVES.

IS A SUBCOMPONENT OF THAT BUDGET LINE ITEM. THERE COULD BE OTHER NEEDS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT WE MAY HAVE. NOT JUST MOTORS. BUT THERE MAY BE ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS.

SO THAT 400,000 IS THE BUDGET FOR THE YEAR THAT WE'VE USED IN THIS PAST YEAR. THE FISCAL YEAR, WE'VE HAD OTHER TYPES OF PURCHASES, INCLUDING JUST PUMPS AND MOTORS. SO IT'S NOT -- IT WASN'T JUST DEDICATED FOR THESE PUMPS. THERE ARE OTHER COMPOPENTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR THAT WE HAVE TO REPLACE. INCLUDING ELECTRICAL COMPONENTS

AS WELL. >> SO THE 400 IS NOT JUST FOR THESE PUMPS.

>> NO. IT'S FOR OTHER THINGS THAT MAY BREAK DOWN.

>> ON THE QUOTE THAT WE HAVE. IT SAYS ALTERNATE ONE VERSION 2. IS THERE A VERSION 1 THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO SEE ON THE QUOTE? I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. FOR BUDGETING PURPOSES. FOR MY OWN BUSINESS. IT HAS BEEN DONE BEFORE. WHERE A MANAGER GOES OUT.

AND CALLS SOMEBODY AND SAYS, HEY, I NEED A QUOTE. I NEED TO PRESENT THIS TO SOMEBODY. SO I CAN GET A BUDGET APPROVED.

THEN WE GO BACK. MY OWN PERSONAL -- IT SAYS ALTERNATE VERSION 1 OR 2. I WAS WONDERING IF THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE

QUOTE. >> SURE. I CAN RESPOND TO THAT ONE. SO INITIALLY, WE HAD REACHED OUT TO XYLEM, WHICH SATURDAY SOLE SOURCE FOR THESE PUMPS, BACK IN THE SUMMER. WHICH INCLUDED AN ADDITIONAL PUMP.

SO WE HAVE SINCE REPLACED THAT PUMP. WE UPDATED THE QUOTE TO REFLECT A DEDUCTION. I THINK THE INITIAL ONE WAS 171,000. SO WE DON'T NEED THAT PUMP, THAT SPARE PUMP. SO THAT'S WHY THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IN THE VERSION.

>> SO JUST REMOVAL OF THE PUMP THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE.

>> I DIDN'T SEE THE FORM IN THE PACKET .

>> SEE IF WE HAVE ONE? >> I DO NOT SEE THAT. BUT WE'LL HAVE THAT UPDATED, IF THAT'S PART OF THE AGREEMENT THAT

LEGAL PROVIDED. >> HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO BE

CLEAR ON. >> IT'S A STATE LAW.

>> AND ONE OF THE THINGS I KEEP BRINGING UP.

WE HAD TWO ITEMS. WE HAD TWO ITEMS THAT COME BACK TO US.

BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE 1295S. AND THAT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO,

[01:15:03]

AND I DIDN'T COME BACK. BUT THE THING ABOUT THE 1295 IS, IT EVEN SAYS IT, UNDER NUMBER 2 SOLICITATIONS. THAT THIS HAS TO BE ALREADY FILLED OUT, ON FILE WITH THE CITY WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF EVEN STARTING NEGOTIATING ON THE CONTRACT. WE KEEP DOING AGREEMENTS. AND THEN WE BRING THE 1295, TO GET ME TO SHUT UP.

AND WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY LAWSUITS THAT WERE INVOLVED IN 1295. GOING BACK TO A YEAR I WON'T SAY. SO HELP ME MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. BECAUSE TO ME, THE 1295 IS NOT FILLED OUT. I DON'T WANT TO ASK FOR DATE STAMPS. BUT IF IT WASN'T FILLED OUT FOR SEVEN DAYS. I THINK YOU GUYS REOPEN WHAT YOU'RE DOING. BECAUSE NO POINT OF DOING THIS AFTER WE PICKED A GROUP THAT THEN SAYS, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY CONFLICTS.

>> IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE PUT OUT ON A BID SITE?

SO IS IT RELEVANT? >> THIS IS SOLE SOURCE FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT THE LAW DISTINGUISHES AND FILLING OUT THE FORM THAT THE MAYOR IS TALKING ABOUT.

BECAUSE I THINK IT APPLIES TO EVERYTHING. EVEN THOUGH THIS IS THE SOLE SOURCE. MIGHT HAVE TO PUT THE PAPERWORK OVER AGAIN.

BUT THERE'S NO PLACE FOR THEM TO GO TO GET THIS PUMP. BUT THE PAPERWORK NEEDS TO BE RIGHT. I AGREE.

>> I WAS JUST CURIOUS. >> THERE'S A MOTION. IF I DON'T GET A SECOND WE CAN GO BACK?

>> SECOND. >> NOW WE CAN DISCUSS.

>> AS I UNDERSTAND THE LAW, IT'S A CONTRACT OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. OR IT HAS TO BE VOTED BOO BY THE COUNCIL.

BASICALLY EVERYTHING BUT THE PHONE BILL.

>> BUT IT'S ONLY REQUIRED. >> IT'S AN OR.

>> THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID. >> AS I UNDERSTAND IT. AND I PULLED IT UP BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I ALWAYS APPRECIATE,

KEEPING ME HONEST. >> IF IT'S A CONTRACT, OVER A MILLION DOLLARS. OR IT HAS TO BE VOTED ON BY THE GOVERNING BODY. AND IN OUR CITY, ALMOST EVERYTHING, SHORT OF THE PHONE BILL GETS VOTED ON. ALMOST EVERYTHING COMES UP FOR US. AND I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T DIG INTO THIS. BUT I DIDN'T SEE THE ANTI-ISRAEL, THE ANTI-GUN, THE ANTI-OIL. A LOT OF THOSE HAVE TO BE IN EVERY AGREEMENT. SO I'D MAKE SURE ON ALL OF THAT. I DON'T WANT TO GO AND READ THAT. IT OUGHT TO BE A TEMPLATE TO WHERE EVERYBODY ANSWERED THE PHONE.

DID YOU FILL THIS OUT? NO. CALL US BACK. BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M BEING LOOK FOR. BECAUSE I DON'T WANT ANY ISSUES.

>> I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS IT THAT THESE WEREN'T DONE.

OR THAT THEY WERE DONE. AND WE NEFLECTED TO PUT THEM IN THE

PACKET. >> I'D HAVE TO DEFER TO ALBERTA. WE DON'T KNOW THAT. IT CHECKS OFF ALL THE BOXES TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS IN PLACE BEFORE IT GOES FORWARD.

THAT'S GENERALLY THE PROCESS. ALBERTA SAYS SHE DOESN'T SHOW THE 1295. WE'LL HAVE TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THIS MADE IT TO THE AGENDA. WITHOUT BEING SIGNED OFF

THROUGH PURCHASING. >> I GUESS WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO STREAMLINE, I GUESS, ITEMS THAT REQUIRE THE ITEMS THAT THE MAYOR WAS, YOU KNOW, REFERENCING. 1295. SO THAT IT'S MORE STREAMLINED. REGARDLESS OF THE DEPARTMENT YOU'RE IN. IT HITS ENGINEERING. DEPARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. PUBLIC WORKS. JUST TO KIND OF STREAMLINE THAT.

THAT COULD BE A STAFF. YOU KNOW, STREAMLINE SYSTEM.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE TABLING?

>> YEAH. THANK YOU TO THE MAYOR FOR -- I KNOW IT'S YOUR BIG TO-DO, TO ALWAYS CHECK THIS OUT. IT'S A GOOD EYE ON THINGS

FOR SURE. >> THANKS. I APOLOGIZE FOR

BEING THE CONSTANT JERK ON IT. >> FOR GOOD REASON.

>> IF I DIDN'T GO TO DEPOSITIONS, I WOULDN'T EVEN

KNOW ABOUT THIS SO. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> KOLAR. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

[11.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-254 approving the Fiscal and Budgetary Policy (Alberta Barrett) ]

>> MOTION PASSES. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 11-3.

CONSIDERATION ON RESOLUTION APPROVING THE FISCAL BUDGETARY

[01:20:06]

POLICY. HERE'S WHAT I CAN DO ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AND HAVE THE STAFF BRING THIS BACK.

TELL ME THE BEST WAY TO SAY THIS.

BUT TO BRING THIS BACK AS A POLICY. AND SEPARATE OUT, THE

ASSESSMENT. >> IS THAT --

>> SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS THAT THE COMPLIANCE BE PUT IN AN ADDENDUM REPORT, RATHER THAN EMBEDDED IN THE ACTUAL POLICY?

>> YEAH. >> I'D LIKE TO SEE A POLICY.

>> AND LIKE -- >> A SELF ASSESSMENT.

>> A TABLE OVER HERE THAT SAYS PARAGRAPH ONE. THAT SORT OF

STUFF. >> YEAH.

>> ASK ALBERTA, IS THERE ANY COMPELLING REASON?

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. SORRY, ALBERTA.

>> FOR THE RECORD, ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. NO, THIS WAS JUST THE FORMAT THAT IT WAS DEVELOPED INTO. SO WE JUST CONTINUED ON WITH IT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE CAN DO THAT. SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.

>> I TALKED TO JAMES. LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR.

IT KIND OF THREW ME FOR A LOOP. I'LL BRING UP REASONS WHY. I WANT TO VOTE FOR THE FISCAL POLICY. BUT I DON'T WANT TO VOTE FOR WHAT WE HAVE NOW. BECAUSE SOME OF THE THINGS WE HAVE IN HERE. SOME OF THE ASSESSMENT THINGS, I'M NOT EXACTLY AGREEING WITH. AND ONE OF THEM WAS LIKE, NUMBER 2, ON THE FRONT PAGE. IT'S TALKING ABOUT INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTING, BASICALLY AUDIT. IT SAYS, IF THE REPORT IS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THIS TIME FRAME OF SIX MONTHS FOLLOWING FISCAL END. WELL, TO ME, THE STATE LAW SAYS IT HAS TO BE WITHIN SIX MONTHS. SO THERE IS NO PROVISION STATE LAW, FOR ANYBODY TO GIVE US A REASON. IT HAS TO BE DONE. SO TO ME, LIKE THAT'S A CHANGE. IT CAN BE DONE IN POLICY.

BUT -- AND WE DID HIT THAT ON ASSESSMENT.

WE WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT, IS THERE A WAY TO GET -- I DON'T WANT TO SAY, THE TAX RATE. BUT IS THERE A WAY TO GET A PRELIMINARY BUDGET, BASED ON A CERTAIN TAXING DEAL IN MAY? TO WHERE WE CAN THEN START HAVING DISCUSSION. HOW ARE WE LOOKING BASED ON CONDITIONS, TO WHERE WE CAN START IT EARLIER.

BECAUSE WE SEEMED TO START AT JULY. WE HAD SOME MEETINGS ON, WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT? BUT REALLY, WHAT IS NOT THE EFFECT? WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THAT ON TAX BILLS. TO ME, IF WE HAD THAT EARLIER ON, WITH THE PRELIMINARY BUDGET. IF WE JUST TAKE THE SAME TAXES THIS YEAR. HERE'S ALL WE CAN AFFORD TO GET. THEN I THINK WE SPEND THE SUMMER, TALKING ABOUT WHAT CAN WE AFFORD. AND HOW DO WE PUT IT IN THERE IS THIS INSTEAD, WE'RE CRAMMING THAT IN, IN LATE JULY, EARLY AUGUST. AND IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD HAVE LESS LATE MEETINGS IF WE JUST START EARLY ON. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE TOO MUCH WORK FOR YOU GUYS. BECAUSE YOU SAY, BASED ON THE NUMBERS LAST YEAR. HERE'S ALL WE CAN AFFORD TO GIVE. JUST AN IDEA TO FILL OUT THERE. SORRY. I GOT A FEW ATTACHMENTS HERE.

ON THE -- WE HAD ONE, LIKE EFERLINGSZ FIVE.

THE CITY SHALL WORK WITH OTHER LOCAL JURISDICTION TO SHARE ON AN EQUITABLE BASIS, THE COST OF SERVICES, AND DEVELOP JOINT PROGRAMS. WE SAID YES. BUT I PEDESTRIAN A COMMENT HOW.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW OF ANYTHING THAT WE'VE DONE. TO ME, THAT WOULD BE AN N/A. WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING.

NOT THAT IT'S A NO OR YES. ANIMAL SHELTER WOULD BE ONE.

>> THAT COULD BE. >> EMERGENCY SERVICES. 911.

>> OR, NO. WHAT'S IT CALLED? >> AND WE PIGGY-BACKED OFF

SEVERAL CONTRACTORS, TOO. >> I DON'T PUT QUESTIONS OUT THERE. BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GET PEOPLE OUT THERE.

THE FIRST THING THAT POPPED INTO MY MIND WAS NOT THE ANIMAL SHELTER. BUT THAT'S A GOOD EXAMPLE OF.

>> THE ADVOCACY CENTER. ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS PUSHING FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WAS COULD WE DO OUR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS GROUP? OR DO WE HAVE TO HAVE OUR OWN SMALL

THINGS? >> OKAY. WE GET TO A DEAL IN

[01:25:03]

PROCUREMENT. AND THIS IS ONE, I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT WAS MARKED AT. THIS IS ONE I GOT A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT. WE SAY WE'RE FOLLOWING A PROCUREMENT POLICY.

BUT IT SAYS TO ENCOURAGE COMPETITIVE BIDDING AT ALL TIMES. TO SOLICIT NEW VENDORS.

SPECIFICALLY, HISTORYICALLY, UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES OR SMALL BUSINESSES. AND WHEN I READ THROUGH THERE, SOME OF IT IS, WE SUPPOSED TO BE CONTACTING, STEREO.

THEY SAY THERE'S A LAW THAT REQUIRES TWO HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES, IF THE CITY MAKES EXPENDITURE BETWEEN 3,050. I DON'T WANT TO AUDIT ANYBODY. BUT IF I WAS ASKED FOR AN AUDIT, OF WHO WE HAVE CONTACTED FOR EVERY SINGLE THING WE'VE DONE FOR OUR MARGINALIZED BUSINESSES. I WOULD ALMOST VENTURE TO SAY, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT. THERE'S A WHOLE ORGANIZATION THAT IS TRYING TO GET MINORITY CONTRACTORS TO GET THEIR FOOT IN THE DOOR.

>> SOME THINGS WE MARKED YES ON. AND MAKES ME WANT TO AGAIN QUESTION, ARE WE DOING THAT? BECAUSE WE TEND TO ONLY USE BIG COMPANIES. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY HUTTO -BASED COMPANIES THAT ARE DOING OUR WORK. ONE WAS ON DEBT MANAGEMENT. THE CITY WILL STRIVE TO BALANCE NEEDS. THAT WAS MORE OF KIND OF A QUESTION THING. AND THEN THE FUN BALANCE, WHEN IT COMES TO THE C.I.P. PLAN. THE FOLLOW-UP FUND BALANCE TO BE INVESTED. WE HAVE IN OUR POLICY, AND INCOME-GENERATED, WILL OFFSET INCOME COSTS AND OTHER COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT. BUT WE'RE -- TONIGHT'S AGENDA, WE'RE LOOKING AT USING, I THINK IT'S TONIGHT.

WE'RE LOOKING AT USING INTEREST THAT WE'RE EARNING, WHICH I THINK IS THE INCOME. TO NOT OFFSET CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT USING THE INCOME TO BORROW MORE MONEY.

WHICH IS -- >> I DON'T THINK SO.

>> DURING THE BUDGET, WE WERE GOING TO DO 30 MILLION IN BONDS. BUT THAT'S CONTRARY TO WHAT OUR POLICY WAS. WE NEED TO CHANGE. IF WE AS A COUNCIL WANT TO DO IT. I DON'T THINK WE CAN BORROW MONEY IN IT. I'M GOING, I DON'T THINK WE CAN FOLLOW

THIS . >> IF I CAN CLARIFY FOR A MOMENT. MAINLY IT'S YOUR OPERATING FUND. TYPICALLY, YOUR FUND. YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND. YOU'RE BORROWING ALL YOU'RE GOING TO EARN IS ADDITIONAL REVENUE ITEMS.

>> BECAUSE YOU'RE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY. EXPENDITURES THAT

ARE GENERATED. >> I AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT.

>> POLICY SAYS, INCOME GENERATED, GOES TO CONSTRUCTION COSTS, NOT TOWARD DEBT SERVICE. SO TO ME.

THE ONLY OTHER THING I SAW THAT IS A LITTLE WEIRD IS WE HAD A DEAL, THAT SAID IT IS THE CITY'S FUND TO APPROVE CASH, APPROVED DEBT. AND NONVOTER APPROVED DEBT MAY BE USED FOR EXPENDITURES. CITY CONTINUES TO LIMIT THE C.O.S. SO WE'RE SAYING WE'RE LIMITING C.O.S. BUT WE HAVE 300 MILLION IN C.O.S. TO ME, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE LIMITING IT. WE'RE JUST DOING IT. SOME OF THESE THINGS WE OUGHT TO BE

PUTTING NO. >> IN THAT REGARD. YOU ONLY ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, GENERALLY IN UTILITY FUNDS. SO YOU DON'T HAVE VOTER APPROVAL WASTEWATER.

IT IS ALMOST ON GENERAL IMPROVEMENT. WE HAVE BEEN

[01:30:03]

ISSUING DEBT AGAINST AUTHORIZED IMPROVEMENTS.

>> DESPITE G.O. OR C.O.? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THAT ONE

SPECIFICALLY. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS A G.O.?

>> NO. A G.O. HAD TO BE APPROVED BY THE VOTERS.

>> I BELIEVE IT WAS PUT AGAINST THE AMOUNT THAT WAS APPROVED

FOR ROAD BONDS, I THOUGHT. >> ACTUALLY, IT WAS.

>> GO BACK AND LOOK. GO BACK AND LOOK. ALBERTA.

>> REALLY DETAILED ALL THE BONDS. AND BEFORE I MAKE AN

ARGUMENT. >> YOU'RE NOT WRONG, MAYOR.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE 30 MILLION THAT WAS A C.O.

WE ARE GOING TO GET BACK TO A BOND TO THE VOTERS.

>> I WAS SAYING, AUGUST 31ST. THE 394 MILLION IN BONDS WAS BROKEN DOWN. AND WE HAVE 2022C.O. EVERYBODY NEEDS TO REMEMBER, WE SPENT THAT $75 MILLION. THAT'S GONE. WE DID THAT A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. NOW WE ARE IN THE C.O. IT'S A WHOLE DEBATE TO SAY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE STUFF ALBERTA IS PUTTING OUT THERE. I KNOW I'VE VOTED ON C.O.S. AND I'VE EVEN TOLD THE MANAGER, I DON'T MIND BOND PURCHASES OR AS C.O.S.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED A VOTE EVERY TIME WE NEED A 10 MILLION ROAD. THAT'S OUR PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE RIGHT NOW. I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD THING.

>> MAYBE WHAT WE NEED IS TO CLARIFY WHAT THE THRESHOLD ACTUALLY IS. IT SEEMS TO ME, LIKE LIMITING

IS SUBJECTIVE. >> AND THEN ONE OTHER THING.

ETHICS. >> NO MORE THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL OUTSTANDING DEBT. OR SOME PERCENTAGE OF THE DEBT.

>> AGAIN. I DON'T CARE. WE COULD TAKE THE WHOLE THING OUT.

AND CHANGE OUR BUDGET POLICY. AND SAY, LOOK. IT'S WHATEVER THE BEST MECHANISM FOR THE BEST FOR THE TAXPAYER.

>> S ONLY OTHER THING I SAW WAS ETHICS FOR EMPLOYEES.

WE PUT IN COMPLIANCE. NOT APPLICABLE. TO ME THAT IS DEFINITELY YES OR NO. EMPLOYEES ARE FOLLOWING IT. OR THEY'RE NOT. BUT TO SAY IT'S NOT APPLICABLE.

>> MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, YES, IT'S A GOOD POLICY. BUT PEA AS A FINANCE DIRECTOR, I DON'T KNOW THAT SOMEBODY HAS ACCEPTED A GIFT OF $10. SO I CAN'T HONESTLY SAY, YES, IT'S BEING FOLLOWED OR NOT. BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A SITUATION, EITHER SAYING IT HAS OR HASN'T BEEN FOLLOWED.

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I JUST TAKE THE QUESTION OUT.

>> THAT WAS KIND OF, YOU KNOW. TING IT'S A CITY POLICY. GOOD TO HAVE. BUT AS A FINANCE DIRECTOR, I HAVE NO WAY OF

KNOWING. >> RIGHT. AND I THINK IT'S ALSO STATE LAW. BUT IT'S ONE THAT IS STATE POLICY.

>> SO I CHANGED IT TO N.A. BECAUSE I CAN'T ANSWER THAT.

>> YEAH. >> OH. THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING. PURCHASE CARDS. I WOULD WANT TO SEE SOMETHING PURCHASE WITH P CARDS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOUR COMPANY IS. BUT WHEN I GO OUT, I CAN'T PAY FOR MY BOSS'S MEAL. BECAUSE MY BOSS APPROVES MY PURCHASE CARDS. SO THE HIGHEST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CALL IT, SO THE HIGHEST-RANKING PERSON ALWAYS HAS TO BE THE PERSON WHO PAYS FOR EVERYTHING. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THE POLICY. BECAUSE IT'S REALLY EASY TO HAVE A BOSS -- BECAUSE WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. IN MY WORK, WHERE THE BOSS SAYS, GO AHEAD AND GET ON IT. AND DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. I'LL APPROVE IT. YOU PAY FOR IT. IT MAY BE BEST. MAYBE WE MAKE A LITTLE TWEET AND PURCHASE CARDS THAT SAYS SOMETHING TO THE EFFECT OF THE HIGHEST-RANKING PERSON ON THE LUNCH OR WHATEVER HAS TO BE THE ONE TO PAY FOR IT.

OTHERWISE, WE'LL END UP WITH, I FORGOT WHAT THE DOUBLE EAGLE WAS. WE HAD A DINNER FOR $400. FOR THREE OR FOUR PEOPLE ONCE.

AND THINGS LIKE THAT HAPPEN, WHEN THE SUBORDINATES PAY AND I

THINK IT'S GOOD PRACTICE. >> ME, I SPEND MORE THAN $12 FOR LUNCH. AND I GET A PHONE CALL. I DON'T EVEN TURN IT IN ANYMORE. THOSE ARE CHANGES. HAPPY TO SHARE WITH EVERYBODY.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MAYBE SPLIT UP. WE JUST HAVE A

POLICY. WE HAVE AN ASSESSMENT. >> OKAY.

>> WELL, UNDER THE P CARDS TSAYS IT WILL BE AUTHORIZED UNDER THE PURCHASING POLICY. YOU DON'T HAVE THIS TO THE COMPLIANCE REPORT. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE INTO THIS DOCUMENT

REGARDLESS. >> COULD BE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT

THE BEST PLACE TO PUT THAT. >> SO WHAT WOULD BE A MORE EFFECTIVE, OR EFFICIENT WAY TO REVIEW OUR POLICY BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE YOU ARE THE PERSON THAT REVIEWS EACH INDIVIDUAL

[01:35:03]

ITEM. AND YOU WENT THROUGH AND SAID, COMPLYING, NOT COMPLYING,

OR N/A. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT.

>> OKAY. I GUESS MAYBE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL. WHAT WOULD BE A MORE -- EFFECTIVE, EVALUATION, IF IT WERE NOT OUR CFO THAT DID THAT. BECAUSE I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT WE MAY DISAGREE ON SOME OF THE VALUATIONS THAT THE CFO DID.

BUT SHE IS IN THE PERSON IN THE DEPARTMENT, APPROVING THE MONEY. AND RUNNING THE DOLLARS OF THE CITY. SHE'S THE BANK OF THE CITY. WHAT OTHER PERSON WOULD WE ALLOW TO REVIEW THIS? I GUESS LIKE I SAID, A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL. ALTHOUGH WE MAY NOT AGREE WITH WHAT ALBERTA EVALUATES IT AS, WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE. BUT I GUESS WHAT IS A MORE ALLOWABLE YOU KNOW,

JUDGE ON THIS. >> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO VARY BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, RIGHT?

>> EXACTLY. >> SOME OF THEM MIGHT HAVE

DIFFERENT ANSWERS AM. >> YEAH.

>> I'LL TELL YOU MOO I DREAM. VERY SUBJECTIVE.

>> BROUGHT UP THREE YEARS AGO. AND IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT AUDITOR. THAT OPERATED ALMOST LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY TO WHERE THEY COULD NOT BE FIRED, UNLESS FIVE VOTES OF CITY COUNCIL FIRED THEM BECAUSE ANY OTHER AUDITOR YOU HAVE, THAT WORKS FOR CITY MANAGER IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE CONFLICTED. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD KNOWINGLY DO IT. BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT TO START HAVING ISSUES WITH YOUR BOSS. MYSELF DREAM IS TO HAVE A PERSON, WHY EVERYBODY GOES OUT TO LUNCH AND, WE DON'T NEED AN E-MAIL LIKE THAT. AND DON'T GET AN APPETIZER. TO ME, THAT PERSON NEEDS TO BE DREADED BY ALL AND RESPECTED. AND THEY DO ONE THING. LOOK FOR COMPLIANCE WITH OUR POLICIES UPON.

>> WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? >> WE PASSED THAT POSITION IN THE BUDGET. OKAY? SO IT'S IN THE BUDGET. BUT IT'S -- IT'S BEHOLDEN TO THIS. AND IT'S NOT KNOCKING JAMES. IT'S THE STRUCTURAL THING. THEY'RE NOT BEHOLDEN. OR THEY ARE BEHOLDEN TO THE SAME AGENT. THE MONEY IS ALREADY BEING SPENT. ALREADY BUDGETED. BUT YOU ASK THAT THING. IF IT'S NEVER INDEPENDENT. THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO BE AFRAID I COULD CATCH FIRE. AND TO ME, A PERSON THAT IS COMPLETELY FEARLESS TO

DO THEIR JOB. >> I WOULD JUST HAVE TO PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT. AND SAY THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO BE GETTING ON FIRE IF THEY DIDN'T EXPECT TO FIND THE ISSUES AND

POINT THEM OUT. >> I AGREE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES FOR. >> WE HAVE ALL OF OR POLICIES AND PROCEDURES, LIKE THE STATE PASSED 1295. EVERYBODY SHOULD BE FOLLOWING CONFLICT OF INTEREST. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE ARE ALL COGNIZANT. FIRST OF MIND.

>> NO. I WAS JUST UNDERSTAND RESPONDING TO, THEY WOULD ALWAYS POINT OUT IF THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG. I WOULD

DISAGREE. >> IF THEY TURNED YOU IN.

>> CITY MANAGER? YOU DON'T THINK THERE'S A CITY MANAGER OUT THERE THAT WOULD GO -- THAT PERSON IS A REALLY BAD

EMPLOYEE? >> IF I DID SOMETHING THAT DESERVED TO BE HIGHLIGHTED AND IDENTIFIED AS A RULE. IT NEEDS

TO BE POINTED OUT. >> I'M NOT SAYING YOU.

>> THERE'S 285 OF YOU. >> I'LL DISAGREE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT. BECAUSE NO MATTER HOW MUCH SOMEBODY THINKS, YOU'RE A GOOD GUY, YOU'RE A MANAGER. YOU'RE ABOVE BOARD.

WHEN IT COMES TO IT, AM I GOING TO TURN HIM IN? IT'S GOING TO GIVE SOMEBODY THE THOUGHT THAT IF YOU HAVE THE POWER.

>> REALLY DOESN'T MATTER IN THE END.

>> ALSO WHISTLEBLOWER. >> EVEN A GOOD MANAGER.

>> WE DON'T HAVE THAT JURISDICTION IN THE CHARTER. WE HAVE ONE EMPLOYEE. DOESN'T SAY WE HAVE MULTIPLE EMPLOYEES.

>> JUST FOR THE RECORD. I'VE SEEN IT GO THE OTHER WAY, TOO.

>> IF THIS IS THEIR ONLY PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT.

>> EVEN RESPONDING AND TURNING IN THE THREAT. COUNCIL COULD GET UPSET. THAT'S THE BENEFIT OF HAVING OUT-OF-HOUSE LEGAL COUNCIL. THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY BEHOLDEN TO THIS PARTICULAR CITY. THEY'RE ABLE TO BE ABOVE BOARD AND ETHICAL ALL THE TIME. AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY

[01:40:01]

ABOUT THEM THINKING ABOUT THEIR INCOME ONLY.

>> YOU HOPE SO. >> FAIR ENOUGH.

>> I'D LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION. I WOULD LIKE TO AMEND THE MOTION TO ACCEPT IT AS PRESENTED. BUT SAYING THAT IN -- NEXT IN 2025, TO BRING THIS FISCAL AND BUDGETARY POLICY BACK. AND TO SEPARATE IT OUT, TO HAVE THE ACTUAL POLICY AND

THEN THE COMMENTS. >> SECOND.

>> QUESTION BY CUSTOMER KOLAR. >> SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM

GORDON. >> JUST SO I UNDERSTAND YOUR MOTION. IT'S TO AGREE TO DO THE CHANGE. BUT NOT TO DO IT

THIS YEAR. BUT NEXT YEAR. >> YES, SIR.

>> AND I GUESS MY COMMENTS ON THAT ARE -- I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU. WITH KIND OF SPRATSING IT OUT WITH THE COMMENTS CLEAN AND TOUCH CUT. BECAUSE IT'S CLEANER AND AN IMPROVEMENT FROM THE PAST YOO YEARS. AND THE MAYOR BEGAN THIS PROCESS AND PUT THIS POLICY -- OR BROUGHT A POLICY. AND WE TO KIND OF TWEAK IT. AND OF COURSE, ALBERTA IS JUST CONTINUING THAT SAME STRUCTURE. AND OBVIOUSLY MAKING SOME CHANGES. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE JUST EFFICIENT TO DO THOSE CHANGES NEXT YEAR. BEGINNING NEXT YEAR.

AS AN UPDATE. >> DID UNITED STATES HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE POLICIES OR THE ASSESSMENT TODAY THAT WE

RECEIVED? >> NO LIST THAT LIKE YOU HAVE.

>> I'LL JUST SAY GENERALLY NO. >> I DIDN'T HAVE ANY CURRENT POLICIES. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THAT GOING FORWARD. SEEMS LIKE THIS IS KIND OF FORM ATING. IT'S MOVING THE INCOMPLIANCE, YES OR NO TO ADDENDUM IN THE BODY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM REFORMATTING.

DON'T SEE IT NECESSARILY PERSONALLY TO DELAY THIS FOR PRIMARILY FORMATTING ISSUES. OR FORMATTING.

>> WE'VE CONTACTED OVER THE PAST YEAR.

I'D RATHER NOT GET IN ALL OF THAT. WE'RE NOT FOLLOWING OUR POLICY. BUT WE'RE SAYING WE ARE.

>> SO WHICH SPECIFIC NUMBER AND ITEM. PAGE NUMBER. IT WAS THAT

SPECIFIC CONCERN. >> PAGE 14 OR PAGE 199.

>> THIS PROCUREMENT SECTION. >> AND AGAIN --

>> SO WHICH NUMBER? UNDER PROCUREMENT NUMBER?

>> NUMBER 3? >> NUMBER 3.

>> LIKE NUMBER 1 SAYS -- >> THE PRIMARY GOVERNING AUTHORITY SHALL BE THE CITY'S CHARTER IN CONJUNCTION WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, 252. PURCHASING CONTRACTING AUTHORITY, MUNICIPALITIES. ALL CITY PURCHASES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY'S CURRENT POLICY AND STATE LAW.

SO I PULLED UP WHAT IS STATE LAW WHEN IT COMES TO THAT.

AND I FORGET WHAT THAT LITTLE SYMBOL MEANS. LOOKS LIKE A C

AND&S. >> SECTION 2-107.

HISTORICALLY REALIZED BUSINESS. HEB. SAYS STATE LAW REQUIRED TO CONTRACT. AT LEAST TWO HISTORICALLY UNDERUTILIZED BUSINESSES. AND THE VENDOR MUST BE AT LEAST

[01:45:02]

50%, BLACK AMERICAN, HISPANIC AMERICAN, NATIVE AMERICAN, AMERICAN WOMAN OR SERVICE DISABLED WOMAN. IT GOES ON.

SO -- >> YES. WE DO. IT'S PART OF OUR PURCHASING. WE HAVE A CHECKLIST THAT GOES THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT'S PURCHASING WITHIN THAT RANGE.

THEY DO. WE RELIEVE THE LIST. AND DO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET A QUOTE FROM THOSE. IF THERE ARE WITHIN THE COUNTY ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES THAT ARE PROVIDING THE SERVICES.

>> ARE WE CONTACTING THEM? >> RIGHT. WE CONTACT THEM TO GET A QUOTE FOR WHATEVER SERVICE WE'RE REQUESTING.

>> CAN WE START HAVING THE QUOTES, WHEN WE SEE THE BID, WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE, CAN WE HAVE THE TWO THAT WE REACHED

OUT TO, INCLUDED ALSO? >> DID THEY RESPOND?

>> I HAD A LOT OF LOCAL PEOPLE WHO WERE TELLING ME, THEY GET A

PHONE CALL BACK. >> I E-MAIL QUESTIONS.

>> WHEN DO I GET A SHOT. WE'RE IN HUTTO.

>> THE HUB SPECIFICALLY. YOU HAVE TO BE ON THE HUB REGISTRY.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS. >> RIGHT. IF THEY'RE NOT ON THE HUB REGISTRY. WE HAVE TO USE THE APPROVED LIST. SO THAT'S WHAT SHE HAS TO USE WITHIN OUR COUNTY.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. CAN THEN IT TELLS THE LIST OF APPROVED HUB VENDORS FOR GOOD AND SERVICES. AND THAT'S EFFECTIVELY THE PROCESS YOU USE FOR GRANTS AND EVERYTHING, TOO.

>> I'M HAPPY TO VERIFY -- >> THEIR STATUS.

>> ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY START FINDING PEOPLE SIGNING UP THE ASK THEY'RE NOT GETTING CONTACTED. I'M LOOKING FOR THE ONE, MINORITY-OWNED BUSINESS HAS BEEN CONTACTED. ASK I

CAN'T FIND IT. >> CAN WE MAKE SURE WE PUT INFORMATION ON OUR WEBSITE? TO INFORM BUSINESSES HOW TO -- YOU KNOW, WHERE TO GO TO SIGN UP FOR THAT?

>> TO BE -- >> TO GET INTO THE PROGRAM?

>> TO BE IDENTIFIED IN THE HUB THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS?

>> SURE. >> THAT SHOULD BE FRONT AND CENTER ON ANYTHING WHERE PEOPLE SHOULD GO TO SIGN UP.

>> I'M JUST SAYING, WE SAY THINGS. WE ARE MAKING THE EFFORT. I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE NOT. BUT ALSO, I'M TELLING YOU THAT I HAVE PEOPLE THAT CALL ME THAT, I'M LIKE, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. BECAUSE WE JUST DID A WHOLE THING WITH ALL OF OUR CONTRACTS FOR CONSULTING SERVICES. AND I VOTED NO.

REMEMBER, WE JUST EXTENDED A CONTRACT.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW LAST YEAR. WE DIDN'T FOLLOW THE PROCUREMENT POLICY LAST YEAR. SO WE JUST KEEP DOING IT. I PROMISED,

WE'D BE OUT ONE AN HOUR. >> ONE THING. THERE WAS A NO UNDER THE FINANCIAL SERVICES. I GUESS SOMEONE CLICKED ON AN ATTACHMENT. IS THAT SOMETHING JUST WITH OUR RECENT HISTORY? IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE DAVID IS AWARE OF THAT? AND PROPER PROCEDURES HAVE BEEN IN PLACE.

DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. AND THAT LARGER SITUATION

DOESN'T HAPPEN GAIN? >> GOOD POINT. THIS WAS JUST A TEST TRANSACTION. BUT ONCE YOU CLICK ON THAT, THAT'S NOT IN THIS CASE, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL TRAINING THAT WE GO THROUGH AND YOU HAVE TO DO IT WITHIN A CERTAIN TIME FRAME.

YOU CAN MONITOR THAT YOU ATTEND THOSE TRAININGS AND TO TRY TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING AGAIN.

>> YEAH. I THINK GOING ON WITH COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR'S POINT. I THINK NEXT YEAR, JUST KNOWING THE REMEDY FOR THE ONES THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, IN COMPLIANCE, KNOW COMMENTS, AND THE REMEDY THAT IS BEING TAKEN TO MITIGATE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, YOU

KNOW, FOR MOVING FORWARD. >> SURE.

>> THANK YOU. >> UH-HUH.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOARNTDZON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> NAY.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> NAY.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES, 4-3. THE MOTION IS AMENTIONED WITH US SPLITTING IT UP NEXT YEAR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT.

>> HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[01:50:06]

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> CLARK?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on approval of Ordinance No. O-2024-067 regarding Blanket Purchase Orders (Alberta Barrett) ]

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> NAY.

>> MOTION PASSES. 4-3. >> WE HAVE POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2024-067. REGARDING BLANKET

PURCHASE ORDERS. >> MOTION TO -- OH, WAIT. YEAH, MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. I DID HAVE A QUESTION ON THIS.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS RIGHT. WHEN WE GET TO THE PAGE, EXHIBIT A. LIKE THE CITY ATTORNEY LEGAL SERVICES. $842,000, EXACT SAME AMOUNT.

>> THE THEIR 830, 042 IS THE TOTAL THAT IS BUDGETED FOR ALL LEGAL SERVICES. AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BREAK DOWN THE PIPES OF SERVICES. BUT IT WON'T EXCEED THE 830.

YOU HAVE YOUR LEGAL, THEN YOU HAVE SOME LITIGATION. YOU HAVE SOME OF OUR SPECIAL COUNCIL FEES. ABOUT YOU IT ALL INCLUDES -- IT WILL NOT EXCEED THE 830-042.

>> SAME BASIC CATEGORY. >> WHY WOULDN'T IT SAY LIKE CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES. SPECIAL ACCOUNTS, LEGAL

SERVICES. >> YOU HAVE TO BE A DIFFERENT

ACCOUNT NUMBER? >> COULD BE A DIFFERENT VENDOR.

WE COULD HAVE A COUPLE OF ATTORNEYS.

BUT THE TOTAL COST OF ALL OF YOUR LEGAL WILL NOT EXCEED.

>> FOR THAT CATEGORY. >> FOR THAT ACCOUNT NUMBER.

>> YES, SIR. >> SO THAT'S THE SAME FOR THE I.T., THE PHONE SERVICES, INTERNET?

>> UH-HUH. >> AND TO CLARIFY ON THE WATER N. THE MIDDLE. ONE OF THEM IS FOR TAYLOR. THE OTHER IS FOR MANVILLE. SO WE'LL JUST CLARIFY THAT BETTER NEXT TIME.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? >> EXCUSE ME. HEARING NONE.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK IS THIS.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON. >> MAYOR SNYDER?

[13.1. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. 2024-256 authorizing the City Manager to enter into the Amended and Restated Professional Services Agreement with P3 Works, LLC to provide creation and administrative services related to Public Improvement Districts and Tax Increment Reinvestment Zones within the City. (Sara Cervantes) ]

>> NAY. >> MOTION PASSES. 6-1.

>> NEXT SET BRINGS US. NUMBER 2024. 2-6. AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AUTHORIZE THE AMENDED AND RESTATED AGREEMENT. P3 WORKS LLC. AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES RELATED TO PUBLIC DISTRICT.

>> ESSENTIALLY, THIS AMENDMENT AND RESTATEMENT WAS AN EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT OUR CONTRACT WITH P3 WORKS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR THOSE PIDS AND THOSE TURS.

>> THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR THAT IS GOING TO COVER EVERYTHING THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING FOR US. BACK IN 2020, WHEN P3 STEPPED INTO THIS ROLE. THEY WERE STEPPING INTO TURS AND PIDS THAT WERE ALREADY ONGOING. SO ONE OF THE BIG GAPS IN THE CURRENT CONTRACT IS ENSURING THAT WE HAVE CREATION AND ADMINISTRATION SERVICES. THIS WILL ESSENTIALLY CAPTURE ALL OF THE SERVICES THAT THEY ARE DOING FOR US. AND BY AMENDING AND RESTATING, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY REPLACING THE OLD DOCUMENT WITH THE NEW ONE. IF YOU SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM OF THAT DOCUMENT, IT DOES HAVE ALL OF THE HOURLY PRICING, LISTED OUT, THE TYPES OF SERVICES. SO MUCH MORE DETAILED. A MUCH EASIER PATH FOR STAFF TO TRACK. AS A REMINDER, AS PARTSZ OF OUR PID POLICY,A THE LEAST. I BELIEVE IT'S A $100,000 CHECK. THAT IS WHERE THE FUNDS FOR A LOT OF THOSE UP-FRONT, PID EVALUATIONS, AND ALL OF THOSE COME OUT OF. AND IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PID SIDE OF THINGS, THE ASSESSMENTS THAT GO INTO THOSE, PAY FOR LEGAL FEES AND ALL OF THOSE OTHER TYPES OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. SO THE FINANCIAL PLANS, ALL OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS, THAT'S ALL FULLY

FUNDED ON THAT END. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> DISCUSSION OR ACTION FOR 13-1.

[01:55:12]

>> THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT WENT OUT FOR SOLICITATION. P3 WORKS IS DOING A LOT OF THESE DUTIES FOR US ALREADY. AND WHETHER WE GOT INTO THE WEEDS TO SIPHON OUT THOSE BILLING TYING DIRECTLY TO THE SERVICES. WE REALIZE THAT THAT SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE ORIGINAL CONTRACT WASN'T CAUGHT UP WITH WHAT WE WERE DOING FOR THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF.

>> OH, WOW. >> OKAY. SO ONCE THAT'S MET.

WILL IT THEN BE REEVALUATED THEN, THE RELATIONSHIP?

>> WE DEFINITELY CAN. I HAVEN'T. LET ME CHECK WHAT OUR TERMINATION DATE IS ON THIS ONE.

IN THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. LET ME PULL UP MY TERM.

BUT YES. THERE'S ALWAYS THE OPPORTUNITY AT THE CONCLUSION OF A CONTRACTUAL PERIOD, TO GO OUT FOR BID. SOLICITATIONWISE.

THAT'S ALWAYS ON THE TABLE. >> BUT WE NEED TO MEET THE CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATIONS. CORRECT.

>> OF COURSE. >> SO THE WAY I CAN UNDERSTAND IT. WE'RE BASICALLY AMENDING THE AGREEMENT TO KIND OF REFLECT WHAT THEY'RE ALREADY DOING.

>> CORRECT. THEY JUST CAME INTO THE ORIGINAL TIME, WHERE A LOT OF THESE PIDS AND TURS WERE ALREADY UNDER WAY.

MAKING SURE THAT THAT SCOPE OF WORK IS ACCURATE. SO YOU'RE ABLE TO TRACK, DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR, EVERYTHING THAT IS ONGOING. THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY BLANKS OR ESTIMATES.

WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING SOLIDIFIED FOR THEM.

>> IS THERE ANY COST ASSOCIATED WITH WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING,

AND WHAT WE -- >> CORRECT. SUBMITTED BY PID FEE. OR THROUGH THE ASSESSMENTS ON THE PIDS. SO ALL OF THESE SERVICES ARE PAID FOR, BY THE ENTITIES THEMSELVES, AS THEY PROGRESS THROUGH THE LIFE OF THE ENTITY.

>> OKAY. >> SO THERE'S NO LIKE

RETROACTIVE. >> NO. NO.

>> MAKE A MOTION TO ARESOLUTION.

>> SECOND. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> I'M SORRY?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

[13.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2024-257 expressing official intent to reimburse certain expenditures of the City of Hutto, Texas (Alberta Barrett) ]

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 13.2. EXPRESSING THE OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE THE OFFICIALS AT THE CITY OF

HUTTO, TEXAS. >> ALBERTA BARRETT. WE HAD A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION, TO REIMBURSE THE CO. WE CAN START THE ENGINEERING PROCESS AND DESIGN FOR THE THREE -- EXCUSE ME. FOUR PROJECTS THAT WE HAD BUDGETED TO DO A DEBT ISSUANCE.

IN THE BUDGET, WE PROPOSED -- ACTUALLY, WE PROPOSED FIVE. BUT T7 IS ON HOLD. SO THAT LEAVES T10, WHICH IS ED SCHMIDT, AT $4 MILLION. THE ALLIANCE EXPANSION. LIMMER LOOP. AND INNOVATION TO ED SCHMIDT. IT SAID MILLION 440. FM 1660.

WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER $22 MILLION. THAT WOULD BE A DEBT

ISSUANCE. >> WITH A PROJECT OF T7 BEING PUT ON HOLD, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE USE THAT FUNDING TO START THE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE.

THAT WILL THEN GIVE US A BETTER ESTIMATE FOR WHAT THAT CONSTRUCTION COST WOULD NEED TO BE. BEFORE WE GO OUT FOR DEBT ISSUANCE. IT WOULD PROBABLY TAKE CLOSE TO A YEAR FOR THEM TO FINISH THE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN PHASE FOR THESE PROJECTS. SO. THEN ONCE WE RECEIVE THE PROCEEDS FOR THE ISSUANCE, THEN WE'LL REIMBURSE THE SERIES 22 FOR THE T7

PROJECT. >> SO WE'RE TAKING THE MONEY

FROM THE T7 TO USE -- >> TO START THE DESIGN.

>> THE T10. >> NOT TO EXCEED 3 MILLION

REMEMBER. >> AND THE T7 BOND MONEY.

[02:00:02]

FUTURE BOND MONEY TO REIMBURSE IT.

>> IT'S AN EXISTING SERIES 22 FOR T7.

>> THE ACTION ITEM IS, YOU COULD REIMBURSE THAT WITH A FUTURE BOND, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE?

>> RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO USE FUTURE TO REIMBURSE THE $3 MILLION. SO I'M CONFUSED. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE TAKING DEBT MONEY. AND THEN WHEN WE BORROWED MORE MONEY IN THE FUTURE. WE'RE GOING TO REIMBURSE PREVIOUS DEBT ISSUANCE. JUST SEEMS LIKE EXTRA COUNTY WORK. WHY WOULDN'T YOU

JUST -- >> TAKE LESS MONEY.

>> YOU COULD ALSO -- WE TAKE 22 MILLION OUT.

>> IT'S LIKE THAT PARKS THING. WHERE WE ALREADY GOT THE DEBT.

SO WE'RE SAYING, IF WE VOTE FOR THIS. WHAT I'M SAYING, IN THE FUTURE, WHEN WE BORROW MORE MONEY, WE'RE GOING TO PAY BACK

THIS OTHER DEBT. >> IF YOU DON'T DO IT, BEFORE YOU EXPEND THE FUNDS. I DON'T BELIEVE YOU CAN GO BACK AFTER THE FACT AND SAY THAT YOU WANT TO REIMBURSE YOURSELF FROM

FUTURE BOND ISSUANCES. >> WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO HAVE

THAT OPTION? >> PREVIOUS DEBT, WHEN THE BOND DEBT IS ALL FOR ROADS. YOU'RE JUST MOVING MONEY AROUND.

WHAT'S THE BENEFIT? >> SO.

WITH THE SERIES 22. WE BORROWED X AMOUNT OF DOLLARS TO DO

CERTAIN PROJECTS. >> AND ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS IS T7. SO JUST RECENTLY. WE PUT THAT PROJECT ON HOLD.

SO WE HAVE THAT THREE MILL EXRON THAT WE WERE USING OUT OF THE SERIES 22 FOR THAT PROJECT. SINCE IT'S ON HOLD. I'M SAYING, LET'S USE THAT MONEY TO DO THE ENGINEERING AND

DESIGN. >> THAT IS NOT RESTRICTED,

THOUGH, RIGHT? >> IT IS RESTRICTED FOR STREETS. THIS IS STREET PROJECT.

>> IT'S NOT RESTRICTED TO T7. IT'S RESTRICTED FOR STREETS.

OKAY? >> SO YOU'RE STILL USING IT FOR STREETS. BY THE TIME WE GET READY TO REIMBURSE THAT $3 MILLION. SEVERAL THINGS THAT WERE GOING TO HAPPEN. I'M SURE BY THAT TIME, COUNCIL WILL DECIDE WHETHER THEY WANT TO PROCEED WITH THAT OVERPASS. IF THEY DON'T. MAYBE WE JUST DON'T REIMBURSE IT FOR T7.

WE JUST LOWERED THE AMOUNT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BORE IN THE FUTURE. I JUST DIDN'T RECOMMEND THAT BECAUSE I WANTED THE COUNCIL TO BE AWARE THAT THERE'S STILL THAT POTENTIAL TO DO THAT PROJECT AT THIS POINT.

>> BUT HERE'S MY POINT. COUPLE OF THINGS.

HERE IS THE 3 MILLION NOW. WE PUT THE PROJECT ON HOLD.

DESIGNING IT AS THE OVERPASS BRIDGE. WE DID NOT PUT IT ON HOLD COMPLETELY. WHAT WE SAID IS GO OUT TO TXDOT.

AND WE MAY HAVE TO PAY FOR THAT. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT HAPPENS, IF, IN SIX MONTHS, UNION PACIFIC AND TXDOT SAYS, YEAH. WE WERE ALREADY PUTTING THAT TEMPORARY UP NEXT DECEMBER. AND YOU CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT. I GUESS WE JUST ISSUED A G. O.

FOR THAT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS T7 MAY HAVE A BENEFIT.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO OUT FOR AN ACTUAL NAMED PROJECT TO THE NAMED VOTER FIST ARE THAT. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE IN THE 50, 60, TO $80 MILLION. SO IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, OH, WE'RE JUST GOING TO DO A G.O. BOND FOR $80 MILLION. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WE NEED

TO REIMBURSE THIS. >> JUST POINT. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO THAT AS A G.O. BECAUSE THAT REQUIRES A VOTE.

IT WOULD REQUIRE A VOTE. >> AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S NOT ENOUGH IN THE G.O. TO DO THE BRIDGE ANYWAY. WE'LL HAVE TO GO OUT FOR MORE BOND. SAID WHEN WE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THE BUDGET, FOR T7. SINCE IT WAS PUT ON HOLD. WE WEREN'T GOING TO ISSUE IT RIGHT NOW.

SPZ. >> I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CONFUSION IS.

>> IF WE SAY NO TO THIS, RIGHT? YOU CAN STILL TAKE THE 3

MILLION. >> TO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK'S POINT. IF YOU DO PASS THIS. AND YOU MOVE IT, THEN IN THE FUTURE, YOU BORROWED THREE MILLION MORE.

I HAVE 3 MILLION UNSPENT THERE. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. IT SEEMS LIKE -- I'LL BE HONEST. IT SEEMS COMPLETELY NOT NECESSARY TO PASS THIS. BECAUSE BORROWING IS BORROWING.

[02:05:02]

>> THE MONSEALL RESTRICTED TO STREETS ONLY. IT'S NOT SUPER RESTRICTED TO LIKE LIMMER AND 1660.

>> RIGHT. >> WEIRD. WE AGREE, I THINK,

THAT IT'S NOT NEEDED. >> BORROW LESS IN THE FUTURE.

>> I GUESS I'M CONFUSED. >> BECAUSE I GENUINERY BELIEVE IN GIVING THE COUNCIL THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE.

AND YOU CANNOT DO THAT, UNLESS YOU TAKE THIS ACTION. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT YOU ARE DECIDING THAT YOU WILL ISSUE 3 MILLION MORE AND REIMBURSE. BUT THAT DECISION IS TAKEN AWAY FROM YOU. OR THE FUTURE COUNS COUNCIL, IF YOU DON'T DO THIS.

>> THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. WHY WOULD WE COME UP WITH THAT DECISION IN THE FUTURE, LIKE, HEY, I GOAT AN IDEA. LET'S BORROW 3 MILLION EXTRA. REMEMBER THAT ONE BOND PROJECT WE DID? LET'S REPAY THAT BOND. NOW WE'RE DONE. ZEROED OUT.

WHY WOULD WE MAKE THE DECISION? >> WHY WOULD YOU MAKE THAT DECISION. IT'S JUST ANOTHER. NOW IT HAS TO GO BACK. INSTEAD OF THE 2020G.O.S. NOW THERE'S THREE MILLION THAT WE HAVE TO

TRACK AGAIN. >> IF IT WAS 3 MILLION FROM THE GENERAL FUND. THEN YOU'REIM BURSING SOMETHING YOU WOULDN'T DO OTHERWISE. BUT IF IT'S JUST REIMBURSING A DIFFERENT BOND, AND THEY'RE OFF THE ROADS, WHO CARES?

>> WHY BOTHER? >> I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THIS IS THE OUTCOME THAT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE MOST FLEXIBILITY ON MAKING DECISIONS. THAT'S WHY WE BROUGHT IT. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DONE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT. BUT IF WE DIDN'T BRING IT, THEN WE HAD SPENT THE FUNDS. AND WE GOT INTO A THING IN THE FUTURE. LIKE WE NEED TO PUT MONEY INTO T.O.7. WE'RE LIKE, WE CAN'T REIMBURSE IT. WE WANT TO GIVE THE MAXIMUM DECISION. THAT'S ALL. THIS DOESN'T BIND YOU TO DO ANYTHING IN THE FUTURE. IT JUST GIVES YOU THE OPTION TO

CHOOSE TO DO IT. >> LET'S SAY THAT HAPPENS.

LET'S SAY THAT T.O.7, WE'RE MOVING ALONG WITH THAT. AND IT COMES UP SHORT. COULDN'T WE JUST USE THAT FUTURE GEO BOND MONEY, INSTEAD OF REIMBURSING THAT? JUST PAY

IT OUT OF THAT? >> TO DO A G.O. YOU WOULD HAVE

FUTURE. >> AND YOU CAN MOVE T.O.7.

>> TO THIS. SO THIS WOULD -- BECAUSE T.O.7 IS FROM A G.O. RIGHT? THAT'S A G.O., NOT A C.O.?

>> NO. IT'S IN 2022. >> IF YOU TAKE MONEY OUT OF THERE. WITH THIS REIMBURSEMENT. Y WOULD COULD DO THAT WITHOUT

AGAIN. >> IF WE RAN OUT OF MONEY ON T.O.7. IF WE NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING. WE WOULD HAVE TO TAKE THE VOTERS.

>> BECAUSE TO7 WASN'T ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS A REQUIRED PROJECT TO GET DONE. SO THAT WASN'T ONE OF THAT LIST. SO ARGUABLY, YOU CAN JUST SWAP OUT T.O.7, WITH THESE FOUR PROJECTS ASK SAY YOU'RE PAYING TO DO THE ENGINEERING HERE. YOU COULD DO THAT. AND THEN THE CHANCES OF T.O.7, NOT GOING TO THE VOTERS, IS PROBABLY PRETTY LOW, I WOULD GUESS. DEPENDING ON THE SCALE OF THE PROJECT. SO THEN YOU TAKE THE WHOLE PROJECT AT THAT POINT IN TIME. TO THE VOTERS.

TO SAY YES OR NO. >> OKAY.

>> THAT'S HELPFUL. WE WERE TRYING TO GIVE THE

MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF CONNECTIONS. >> SO I'VE NEVER DONE THIS BEFORE. I WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE

WORD IS. >> NO ACTION.

>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A RECORDED VOTE. BECAUSE I DON'T

LIKE THE THOUGHT OF US. >> THAT'S THE TERM TO NOT BE

ABLE TO COME BACK. >> WHAT'S THE WORDING I'M

LOOKING FOR? >> I'M NOT SURE Y ALSO'S PRACTICE. IT'S USUALLY A RULE.

AND THEN YOU WROTE IT DOWN. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO DENY. I'M NOT GOING TO PROHIBIT YOU FROM MAKING A

MOTION TO DENY. >> I THINK IF I VOTE IN THE

[02:10:02]

AFFIRMATIVE. NOW THAT I VOTE AGAINST IT. I CAN'T VOTE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, RIGHT? I FORGET. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO DENY RESOLUTION. R-24-257. SEE WHAT THAT DOES.

>> SECOND. >> AND THAT DOESN'T BREAK

ROBERT'S RULES. CITY ATTORNEY? >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT DOES.

>> IT'S COMPLICATED TO APPROVE. YOU GOTTA GET A SECOND TO GET A MOTION ON THE TABLE. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT TAKE IT INDEFINITELY. IT HAS THE EFFECT DYING. A MOMENT AGO, YOU MENTIONED TABLING IT ALL. THAT'S ALSO ANOTHER WAY TO DEFEAT A MOTION. DEFEAT AN ITEM .

>> A MONTH LATER. MISSED THAT. TABLING INDEFINITELY. IS THE

DIFFERENCE. >> I'M OKAY THEN. AMENDING IT

INDEFINITELY. >> THAT'S NOT MEANT TO SIGNAL TO US THAT YOU ARE NOT OKAY WITH US USING THAT $3 MILLION

TO FUND THESE PROJECTS. >> YOU GUYS WANT TO GET OUT EARLY, SO YOU DON'T WANT A 30 MINUTE CONVERSATION EVERY TIME

THIS COMES UP. >> I THINK FOR ME. I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. BECAUSE IT'S GOTTEN VERY CONFUSING. AND I THINK THIS IS, YOU KNOW, CITY STAFF TRYING TO BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE TO -- FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE THAT AUTHORITY OVER $3 MILLION AND TO GIVE FUTURE COUNCILS THE OPTION. BECAUSE IF AND WHEN THAT 132 BRIDGE DOES MAKE IT, IT'S GOING TO BE FIVE-PLUS YEARS, NOBODY SITTING UP HERE IS GOING TO BE THERE.

>> JUST CALL THE VOTE. >> MY QUESTION JUST IS, DO YOU WANT SOMETHING SEPARATE TO DIRECT -- DO WE NEED A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM TO DIRECT MONEY ON --

>> A SECOND MOTION WOULD BE -- WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.

>> LET'S VOTE ON THIS FIRST. >> YEAH. JUST TO CLARIFY. I MEAN, EVERYBODY IS ALL ABOUT, CERTAIN PEOPLE UP HERE ON THE DIAS HERE. ABOUT KEEPING THIS STRAIGHT. AND THIS KIND OF GIVES THE CITY, LIKE OUR CITY STAFF THE ABILITY TO -- AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN STREETS AND ROADS AND STUFF. I LIKE THAT THAT WOULD BE A SECOND MOTION. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> I APPRECIATE THE TRANSPARENCY IN LAYING OUT ALL

THE OPTIONS. >> I DON'T THINK IT'S RISE TO MARRY YOURSELF TO ONE OPTION SO EARLY IN THE PROCESS. I DON'T THINK IT'S WISE TO GO ABOUT THIS ROUTE.

>> BUT THANK YOU, ALBERTA, FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION.

>> YEAH. >> I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS. IT'S NOT TYING OUR HANDS UPON IT'S NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO DO IT. IT JUST ALLOWS A FUTURE COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT DECISION. IF WE VOTE IT DOWN, WE'RE TAKING IT OURSELVES. AND THEY MAY CHOOSE TO DO IT, MAY CHOOSE NOT TO DO IT. REALLY, THERE'S NO HARM IN IT. THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. THERE'S NO HARM IN VOTING FOR IT. THERE'S NOT MUCH HARM IN VOTING FOR IT BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE. I DON'T KNOW. IT'S ACADEMIC,

AT THIS POINT TO ME. >> CAN I ASK FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION, BEFORE YOU ALL VOTE ON ANYTHING?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> I'M NOT SURE, COUNCILMEMBER, WHAT YOU WERE WANTING TO ADD. IT'S POSSIBLE TO AMEND THE MOTION. I'M NOT SURE IF THE MATTER WILL STILL BE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. TO ACTUALLY HAVE ANOTHER ACTION ON

IT. >> YEAH.

>> CAN WE MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO REDIRECT STAFF TO SPEND THE $3 MILLION ON T71 AND T48. FROM THE G.O.22 SERIES ON -- FOR THE DESIGN. NOT TO EXCEED $3 MILLION. SECOND THAT

AMENDMENT. >> T7.

>> MONEY FROM T7. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> DESIGN NOT TO EXCEED 3 MILLION.

THEY WERE SAYING THEY CAN DO IT ANYWAY.

>> WE HAVE -- WE HAVE TO TELL THEM ON THAT PROJECT.

[02:15:01]

>> IT'S OVER $50,000. >> THEY CAN'T SPEND IT UNTIL YOU BRING BACK THE CONTRACT. IT'S JUST OUT THERE.

>> WOULD YOU BE WITH THEM TO DIRECT CONTRACTS?

>> THOSE ENGINEERING CONTRACTS ARE COMING BACK TO YOU ANYWAY.

>> THAT'S WHEN WE WERE APPROVING THE MONEY.

>> BUT THIS GIVES US DIRECTION THAT YES, YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT WE PROCEED WITH ENGINEERING DESIGN. IT'S THE THREE SERIES 22. THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO T27.

>> OKAY. I GOT ROBERT'S QUESTION. LET'S SAY THIS

AMENDMENT -- >> YEAH.

>> I THINK THIS IS GETTING CONVOLUTED.

>> YOU KNOW WHAT IT IS? THAT GETS THE MOTION. THE MOTION

STHAT'S IT. >> THEN WHAT HAPPENS, IF THE SECOND MOTION -- THE MAIN MOTION AMENDED FAILS?

>> YOU CAN BRING ANOTHER MOTION.

>> IT'S LIKE WHAT WE HAD LAST MEETING. IF THIS IS APPROVED, AND YOU CAN'T TABLE THIS INDEFINITELY. NOW YOU'VE TAKEN A NO ACTION. AND AMENDED IT TO HAVE AN ACTION.

>> JUST SAYING, DO THIS WITH THIS MONEY. THAT YOU'RE NOT

SPECIFYING. >> OH, SO YOU'RE NOT LEAVING

IN THE TABLE ANYMORE. >> I THOUGHT THAT WAS STILL

PART OF THE MOTION. >> THE MOTION NOW WAS JUST

GIVING THEM DIRECTION ONLY. >> MOVE THE T7 MONEY TO THE FOUR PROJECTS. SO WE'LL HAVE TO VOTE TWICE. ONCE FOR THE AMENDMENT. AND THEN WE'LL -- NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ASK FROM --

>> NO. EXCEPT NOT TO ALLOW THE REIMBURSEMENT. THERE'S NO

REIMBURSEMENT. >> THAT'S THE ONLY THING.

>> OKAY. NO REIMBURSEMENT. GOT IT. WE CAN CALL THE AMENDMENT.

>> CAN WE TAKE THE MOTION, PLEASE? CLARIFICATION?

>> SO THE AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION IS TO MOVE THE T7 MONEY TO THE OTHER FOUR PROJECTS, T14, T21.

>> T10. T21. >> T10, T21 -- INAUDIBLE

INAUDIBLE. >> HERE'S THE PROBLEM I HAVE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF HALF OF THE MOTION. NOT THE OTHER HALF.

>> YOU CAN VOTE IT DOWN. IF IT FAILS.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF DIRECTING STAFF WHAT TO DO. I PREFER TO LEVER THE OPTION OPEN. TO BE ABLE TOY IMBURSE IN THE FUTURE AND UPON SOMEONE SOMEONE SO CHOOSES.

>> THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO REVOTE DOWN THE AMENDMENT.

THAT'S WHAT YOUR OPTION IS. >> I MEANT 10:45.

>> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> NAY.

>> MOTION PASSES, 4-3. NOW WE'LL CALL FOR THE MAIN MOTION, WHICH IS THE SAME MOTION.

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> WHAT WAS THE SECOND ON THAT?

I'M SORRY? >> THE MAIN MOTION WAS CLARK.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> KOLAR. >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

[14.1. Consideration and possible action establishing the City’s legislative plan for the 89th regular session of the Texas legislature. (David Amsler) ]

>> MOTION PASSES, 4-3. >> NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 14-1.

CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION. ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE PLAN OF THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE.

AND THEY THINKS, ALBERTA. I DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS GOING TO

BE LIKE THAT. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, DAVID AMSLER DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS FOR THE RECORD.

THIS ITEM IS COMING BACK TO YOU ALL FROM LAST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER. WHAT STAFF IS LOOKING FOR IS DIRECTION ON WHAT THIS COUNCIL IS WANTING STAFF TO DO, CONSIDERING THE LEGISLATIVE PLAN. LIKE BEFORE, THERE IS STILL THE EIGHT RECOMMENDED ITEMS THAT STAFF BELIEVES THIS COUNCIL WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN, AS WELL AS THE 69 ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE TML LEGISLATIVE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. THEY DID RELEASE THE RESOLUTION THAT THEY APPROVED ON OCTOBER 10TH, AS PART OF OCTOBER 18TH UPDATE. ON THEIR WEBSITE TODAY.

I DID E-MAIL THAT OUT. AFTER A FEW LOOK-THROUGHS, IT LOOKS THAT THE APPROVED RESOLUTION, THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES FROM

[02:20:06]

THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION. THAT'S BEEN IN YOUR PACKET.

STAFF IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ASK TAKE DIRECTION.

>> QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION. I GUESS YOU CAN'T DISCUSS QUESTIONS OR ACTION FOR COUNSEL.

>> I GUESS MY THING WOULD BE, THERE ARE TWO WAYS TO CREATE A MUD. ONE IS LEGISLATIVELY. JUST KIND OF TRACKING CREATIONS OF MUDS. WE HAVE -- I BELIEVE. THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT HERE THAT IS IN THE ETJ, THAT THAT MUD WAS CREATED BACK IN THE '90S. I HAVE IT ON MY CITY LAPTOP. BUT I KIND OF DID SOME RESEARCH ON IT. SO THAT WAS LEGITIMATELY CREATED IN THE LEGISLATURE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY WAS -- I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OTHER DEVELOPER OR ANYBODY WAS PLANNING TO BRING IN OUR AREA, TO BRING A MUD, JUST TRACKING THAT.

AND I GUESS INTENTIONS, THINGS OF THAT SORT.

OF COURSE, ANOTHER THING WOULD BE WASTEWATER PACKAGE PLANT.

IMPROVING TCU. RULES AND REGULATIONS OR CHANGES. RIGHT NOW, IT'S KIND OF -- IT'S JUST KIND OF LIKE A PAPERWORK PROCESS FOR THAT. AND SO, JUST KIND OF TRACKING ANY POTENTIAL CHANGES THAT COULD HAPPEN. I KNOW TCQ IS UNDER SUNSET PROVISION LAST SESSION. A LOT OF BIG MAIN CHANGES WERE MADE. AND RULES ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED.

NOW BUT ANY OTHER I GUESS SMALL CHANGES THAT COULD POSSIBLY BE MADE, JUST TRACKING THAT. HOPEFULLY IN FAVOR OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND MUMISAPPELLATES.

>> THERE WAS AN ITEM ON THE LIST ABOUT KIND OF IMPROVING THE TCQ PROCESS FOR PACKAGE PLANTS AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE HANDLED AND THAT PEOPLE ARE PROTECTED, AND THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY TRYING TO DRIVE IT MORE REGIONAL SOLUTIONS THAN INDIVIDUAL ONES. I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT TO US. I THINK OBVIOUSLY, THE SALES TAX SHARING, WITH THE SDS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US.

ANYTHING DEALING WITH AUTHORITY IN THE ETJ. THERE IS MENTION IN THERE, OF THE 2038. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY IMPORTANT TO US.

I THINK THERE'S A FEW OF THOSE. SOME OF THE ONES ON THE LIST THAT YOU HAD. LIKE, I THINK WE PROBABLY HAD SOME DEBATE ON WHETHER TRANSITIONING SD BOARDS TO ELECTED, WAS A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING FOR US NOW. AND WHETHER THAT'S ALSO SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE STICKING OUR NOSES INTO.

SO YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT -- I MEAN, IT AFFECTS US. BUT IT'S ALSO NOT -- I DON'T KNOW HOW WE FEEL ABOUT ASD STICKING OUR NOSES INTO HOW WE GOVERN OUR CITY. SO THAT'S A TOUGH ONE. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WANT US TO GO AND ACTIVELY BE DOING MUCH ON THESE. BUT THERE'S A FEW OF THEM, I WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO BE AWARE AS WE CAN OF WHAT IS GOING ON. AND WHAT IS HAPPENING. THE ONLY ONE REALLY, WHERE I THINK THERE IS SOMETHING WE POTENTIALLY HAVE TO ADD. IS THE SALES TAX SHARING BECAUSE WE HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH THAT.

>> OR THE 1295 DISCUSSION. >> I'M WITH COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. I SAW WHERE YOU GUYS WERE

ASKING. >> MAYBE WE COULD HAVE STAFF

COME UP. >> GOOD WORK DOWN THERE.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF ALL OF THAT.

WE GOT A REPRESENTATIVE. SHE LIVES CLOSE BY.

TO ME, IF WE GOT ISSUES, BRING THEM TO HER. IF SHE'S NOT GOING TO REPRESENT US. AND ROUND ROCK AND WANTS SOMETHING DONE. THEN WE NEED TO DRESS OUT THE BALLOT BOX.

WE HAVE ENOUGH STUFF GOING ON. >> I DON'T NEED A

SUBCOMMITTEE. >> AND WE'RE A SMALL FISH IN A BIG POND. I DON'T KNOW IF HUTTO CAN GO DOWN THERE AND CARRY A LOT OF WEIGHT.

I THINK WE JUST SIT BACK, SEE WHAT IS GOING ON.

AND REPORT BACK ANY CHANGES THAT HAPPEN.

[02:25:02]

AND YOU GUYS CAN TELL US IF SOMETHING IS COMING UP THAT WE CAN TALK TO OUR SENATOR. WE CAN TALK TO OUR REPRESENTATIVE. AND THEN RELY ON OUR CONTACTS WITH THE MAYORS OF THE BIGGER TOWNS THAT HAVE THE POWER TO MAYBE GET SOMETHING DONE.

>> MY THOUGHT ON IT WAS, I DIDN'T MIND THE IDEA OF HAVING A SUBCOMMITTEE, MAINLY TO KIND OF DETERMINE WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS THAT COULD COME BEFORE COUNCIL, AS FAR AS WHAT PRIORITIES WE WOULD WANT TO DO. AND KIND OF WHERE WE'RE AT ON, ARE WE IN FAVOR OF THIS, ARE WE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS? AND THEN AS A SINGLE VOICE, WE COULD THEN COMMUNICATE WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVE AND SENATOR TO SAY, HUTTO. THIS -- HUTTO CITY COUNCIL, ARE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS WITHIN HUTTO.

ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS. WE'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS.

OTHERWISE, I THINK IT'S JUST SEVEN OF US ALL TALKING TO OUR STATE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, SAYING I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS.

AND THEN SHE COULD BE GETTING CONFLICTING MESSAGES, I THINK, FROM THE COUNCIL. SO I KIND OF LIKED THE IDEA OF A SUBCOMMITTEE. BUT IT'S -- KIND OF -- I GUESS MY VISION OF IT WAS THAT TWO OR THREE OF US ON COUNCIL COULD THEN COME UP WITH A PROPOSAL, TO SAY HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE THINK WE COULD VOTE ON.

WE SAY YEAH. WE WANT TO -- WE WANT TO FIGHT IN FAVOR OF THESE PIECES OF LEGISLATION. WE DON'T WANT TO -- WE'D RATHER DEFEAT THESE. THIS IS KIND OF THE LIST. AND THEN WE JUST GIVE THAT. AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORK BEYOND THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO TO THE CAPITOL. IT'S JUST LIKE A ONE AND DONE THING. THAT'S KIND OF HOW I INVISIONED IT.

THAT WAY, THERE'S A CLEAR COMMUNICATION THAT THE CITY OF HUTTO IS EITHER IN FAVOR OF, OR AGAINST THESE MEASURES THAT COULD BE COMING BEFORE THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

>> AND TO THAT, I WANT TO SAY WE ALREADY HAVE THE TML, WHERE THESE ARE IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED. IT WOULD BE THAT SUBCOMMITTEE, ANYTHING THAT IS DIFFERING FROM WHAT TML SAYS. WE WANT TO TRY TO CHANGE OPINION. WE WANT TO SAY THREE ITEMS. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY SAID THAT THEY'RE GOING TO POSE DECLARING. WE DON'T WANT TO INJECT PARTY MONEY INTO LOCAL POLITICS. BUT YOU KNOW, MAYBE THIS COUNCIL WAS LIKE, THIS -- THAT WOULD SAY IN THAT ONE EXAMPLE.

AND WE WOULD PUT THAT. I WOULD GO FORWARD AS A CITY THING. I LIKE THAT IDEA. BUT JUST KEEP IT SIMPLE.

GO THROUGH THE TML LIST. >> IT'S TOUGH FOR ME TO LOOK AT THAT LIST. AND GO, YEP, NO. YES, NO. BECAUSE I GOTTA SEE THE BILL. I GOTTA SEE WHAT IS CARVED OUT.

>> THIS IS THE RULES, UNLESS YOU'RE IN THE COUNTY. NEXT TO THE COUNTY OF GALVESTON. AND HAVE A POPULATION OF 100 MILLION 58,000. THAT DOESN'T MATTER TO US. I DON'T KNOW, WE'RE OUT THERE, BECAUSE IT'S A BIG ISSUE.

SOME OF THESE THE STUFF IS SO FLUID.

NOW WE'RE ACTIVELY AGAINST IT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH CITIES CAN INVOLVE TO THIS POINT. BUT I'M SURE -- I KNOW THE BIG ONES DO. BUT I'M OKAY. I DON'T REALLY CARE. WHATEVER YOU GUYS WANT TO DO. I DON'T THINK IT MATTERS. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY IS GOING TO LISTEN TO HUTTO DOWN THERE. SO TELL PEOPLE TO IN OUT AND VOTE.

ON NO ONE IS GOING TO TELL PEOPLE HOW TO VOTE.

>> SO ACTION ITEM? >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FORM'S SUBCOMMITTEE TO REVIEW THE TML PROPOSALS AND TO GO THROUGH THOSE. AND GO THROUGH ALSO THE ITEMS THAT CITY STAFF HAD HIGHLIGHTED AND FOR THE COMMITTEE TO BRING BACK FOR COUNCIL VOTE, RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT WE WANT TO COMMUNICATE

TO OUR STATE LEADERS. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> ANY MOTION OR DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.

>> AYE. >> CRAB THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> CRAB KOLAR.

[02:30:05]

>> AYE. >> NAY.

>> NAY. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 5-2. ITEM

14-2. >> QUESTION ON THAT. WHO WILL ACTUALLY SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE? IS THAT SOMETHING, MAYOR, YOU WOULD MAKE THOSE ASSIGNMENTS? OR DO WE NEED TO

VOTE ON THAT TONIGHT? >> I CAN MAKE IT. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I'LL PUT IT ON THE MESSAGE BOARD. FIRST THREE THAT VOLUNTEER. IF I AM PICKING SOMEONE.

>> I'LL VOLUNTEER ON THIS CONTRIBUTE.

>> I WAS GOING TO VOLUNTEER. >> THAT'S TWO. IS THERE A

THIRD -- >> I'LL VOLUNTEER.

>> I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO RECOMMEND THE THREE OF US.

BECAUSE -- >> WE WORK WELL TOGETHER.

>> I DON'T THINK WE CAN DOE THAT ON THE ITEM.

>> WHAT IS THAT? >> WE CAN'T ACT ON IT.

>> WE'RE STILL ON IT. >> THORNTON. GORDON.

>> BECAUSE WE'RE SWITCHING TO THE OTHER.

>> ANY ISSUES WITH THOSE THREE BEING ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE.

>> SO BE IT. >> CONSIDER IT DONE.

[14.2. Consideration and possible action on amending the established parity cap for Fiscal Year 2025. (James Earp) ]

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. >> RIGHT? 14-2. CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDING THE ESTABLISHED PARODY CAP FOR

FISCAL YEAR 2025. >> MAYOR COUNSEL, JAMES EARP.

THIS IS WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A SIMPLE REQUEST.

AFTER DEPLOYING THE PARITY PLAN. THE COUNCIL PUT ON A $455 CAP PER EMPLOYEE. AND NOT TO EXCEED $5,000 IN THE BUDGET.

WHENEVER I DEPLOY THE PLAN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, NOT THAT MANY. I THINK IT'S 12 TO 15. BUT I THINK IT'S 12 EXACTLY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT I'M STILL NOT ABLE TO PUT INTO THE VERY FIRST STEP OF THEIR PAY PLAN FOR THEIR PAY GRADE WITH THEIR 4500 CAP. I'M ASKING FOR THAT PART OF THE RESTRICTION FOR ANY EMPLOYEE.

WHO I WASN'T ABLE TO GET INTO THE FIRST STEP SO LONG AS I

DON'T EXCEED THE BUDGET CAP. >> MOTION TO AMEND THE PARITY CAP FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025. TO ALLOW THE POSSIBILITY TO EXCEED THE $4500 CAP FOR THE SIX EMPLOYEES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. SIX IN GENERAL FUND. AND SIX IN

UTILITY. >> SPECIFICALLY TO PUT THEM INTO THE FIRST STEP OF THEIR PAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE

ATTEMPTING TO DO. >> SECOND.

>> MOTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?

>> SO YOU'RE GOING TO -- ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE GOING TO NOT GIVE SOMEONE -- OR SOMEONE DOESN'T NEED A BIG INCREASE ON THEIR PARITY TO COVER THE EXCEPTION HERE FOR THESE 12,

CORRECT? >> NO ONE ELSE IS GIVING UP IN ORDER FOR THESE TO BE ABLE TO CATCH UP.

>> THEY'RE STILL UNDER THE $500,000 BUDGET AM.

>> OKAY. SO EVERY EMPLOYEE GOT A $4500 INCREASE?

>> THAT WAS ELIGIBLE, UP TO THAT AMOUNT. SO NOT EVERY EMPLOYEE GOT A FROM 4500 INCREASE. BECAUSE NOT ALL OF THEM NEEDED THAT TO GET TO THAT.

AND I HAD SOME NEEDED TO GET TO THEIR PAY GRADE.

>> HERE'S THIS. WE SET A CAP. WE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT GIANT PAY

RAISES. >> THE AVERAGE INCREASE IS GOING TO BE $10,000. $186 INCREASE. SOMEONE MAKING $180,000? GOING TO $190? SOMEBODY MAKING 60 GOING TO 70? I DON'T KNOW ANY OF THAT STUFF. SO I FEEL LIKE THERE'S AN ASK, BUT TLIKE, LITTLE TO NO INFORMATION ON WHERE THAT'S ALL GOING. AND THE WHOLE POINT I THOUGHT OF THE 4500 CAP, WAS TO MAKE SURE THERE WEREN'T GIANT INCREASES IN PAY.

I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH ALL OF THAT, HOW IT WAS FORMULATED. BUT I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION, PERSONALLY.

>> MAYOR, I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS GOING INTO THIS AGENDA ITEM. I HAD A LOT OF CONCERNS. ASK JUST NEEDED A LOT OF CLARIFICATION, IN MY ONE ON ONE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. WE SPENT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF TIME GOING OVER THIS. HE TOOK THE TIME.

[02:35:01]

I THINK IT PROBABLY TOOK 30 MINUTES OF HIM EXPLAINING IT.

DIFFERENT WAYS, AND ME ASKING QUESTIONS AND DIFFERENT QUESTIONS. AND ALSO QUESTIONING WHAT WAS REALLY GOING ON BECAUSE I WASN'T JUST LIKE, OKAY, YES, THIS IS TOTALLY OKAY. BUT HE TOOK THE TIME TO ANSWER MY QUESTIONS. AND THEY WERE -- AND HE SHOWED ME NUMBERS, EXAMPLES, AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. BECAUSE I JUST HAD SERIOUS CONCERNS OVER THIS. BECAUSE I WAS JUST LIKE, HEY. YOU KNOW, WE SET THIS AT 4500. BECAUSE UNDERSTANDABLY TO YOUR POINT, WE DIDN'T WANT PEOPLE TO -- TO GO -- TO GET HUGE PAY INCREASES, WHICH I AGREE WITH. BUT IN GOING THROUGH THAT AND HIM JUST WALKING ME THROUGH THINGS. I WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. OF COURSE, I MADE THE MOTION. JUST ASKING THOSE QUESTIONS, TAKING THE TIME TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

HE'S VERY TRANSPARENT WITH ME ON THE NUMBERS.

AND WITHOUT REVEALING ANY PERSONAL INFORMATION AND THINGS OF THAT SORT. THANK YOU, JAMES, FOR DOING THAT.

>> I KNOW IT WAS KIND OF LIKE PULLING TEETH WITH ME. YOU CAN UTILIZE YOUR TIME WITH THE CITY MANAGER WELL. WHENEVER IT COMES TO THINGS THAT ARE COMPLICATED AND DIFFICULT, AND WHENEVER IT DEFINITELY INVOLVES BUDGETED MONEY THAT WE HAD ALREADY

APPROVED. >> OKAY. I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING ALL OF THAT. BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY MY ISSUE WITH THE WEDNESDAY ONE-ON-ONES, IS THAT THE INFORMATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDED TO THE COUNCIL, IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. SO THE PUBLIC KNOWS WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND IF WE'RE LITERALLY HAVING, 30-MINUTE CONSERVATIONS ON AGENDA ITEMS, AND NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THEIR POSITION, THAT WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MY ISSUE WITH THOSE

ONE-ON-ONES. >> YOU CHOOSE TO USE YOUR ONE-ON-ONES, SPEAKING ABOUT OTHER ISSUES, WHICH IS TOTALLY FINE, SOMETIMES I DO THAT AS WELL. BUT THIS WAS DEFINITELY SOMETHING I WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF INITIALLY. AND I ASKED A LOT OF QUESTIONS. AND I WAS JUST LIKE, HEY, $4500, THAT SOUNDED RIGHT OR WHATEVER.

AND SO, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THE ONE-ON-ONES, AND MAYBE TOMA COMPLIANT OR NOT. BUT IF YOU REALLY DIG IN TO TRY TO UNDERSTAND THINGS, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE ALL OF THE

INFORMATION AVAILABLE TO YOU. >> I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE PREUBTS FOR THAT 30-MINUTE CONVERSATION. SINCE YOU SAY CITY MANAGER DIDN'T GIVE AWAY CONVERSATION. IT WOULD BE PRUDENT FOR THE PUBLIC TO HAVE THAT. AND NOT TO HAVE CONVERSATION, NOT THAT THEY DON'T TRUST US OR YOU.

>> AND IF I COULD -- HOLD ON. >> YES, SIR.

>> I WAS TALKING. >> SORRY.

>> AGAIN. BACK TO -- I APPRECIATE YOU SAYING THAT.

THAT WAS MY WHOLE THING. THE WHOLE POINT OF THESE AGENDA ITEMS IS NOT THAT WE HAVE PRECONCEIVED IDEAS WHEN WE COME IN TO VOTE. STAFF IS GOING TO PRESENT AN ASK. HOW THE ASK IS HELPING OR NOT HELPING, WHATEVER THE CASE IS, WE'RE GOING TO DELIBERATE AND MAKE A DECISION. AND AT THE POINT THAT WE'RE GOING IN AND HAVING A CONVERSATION. I WAS A NO. NOW I'M A YES. AND THROUGH YOUR WHOLE EXPLANATION. YOU NEVER ONCE SAID WHY YOU'RE A YES. YOU NEVER SAID ANYTHING ABOUT WHY THIS IS GOOD FOR ANYBODY. IT'S LIKE DECISION IS MADE.

>> OKAY. I'LL EXPLAIN THAT. I'LL EXPLAIN THAT.

>> OKAY. AND WHAT I'M SAYING, THAT CONTINUES TO BE MY CONSTANT CONCERN. THAT THESE DISCUSSIONS SHOULD NOT BE HAD BEHIND CLOSED DOORS. THEY SHOULD BE HAD OUT IN THE PUBLIC. JAMES SHOULD GIVE A 10-MINUTE PRESENTATION OR FIVE OR WHATEVER IT IS, ABOUT, HERE'S WHERE I RAN INTO ISSUES? HERE'S WHAT I TRIED TO DO. INSTEAD, IT'S I HIT A BUBBLE, NEED HELP. YOU GUYS DISAGREE WITH ME. AND THAT THE

FINE. >> YOU DON'T HAVE --

OVERLAPPING SPEAKERS ] >> POINT OF ORDER. WE'RE NOT

FOLLOWING -- >> I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER. SO WHAT DOES THE FIRST BEGINNING PAY RATE IN A POSITION REPRESENT? IS THAT 50% PLRKT RATE?

>> IT'S A VERY SIMPLE THING. YOU DON'T NEED TO GET INTO, SHE MAY HAVE HAD A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS. IT'S VERY SIMPLE.

WE HAD -- WE DID A RATE STUDY. WE HAD A THIRD PARTY COME IN.

WE AS A COUNCIL SAID WE WANT THE PAY RATES TO BE POLICE 80% OF THE MARKET. FOR CITY STAFF, WE SAID 50%.

>> I HAD 12 PEOPLE. THAT I CAN'T GET MY STARTING FOR THIS

[02:40:05]

JOB. IT'S GOING TO COST THIS AMOUNT. AND GUESS WHAT? WE'RE STILL UNDER BUDGET FOR WHAT YOU SENT TO COUNCIL.

NOT BECAUSE I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO $5,000.

>> YOU REDUCED IT SAID, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT OVER ONE YEAR. THERE'S STILL THAT STILL AREN'T AT THEIR MARKET RATE. THIS IS NOT GETTING INTO THE FIRST POSITION ON THE TRACK. AND AS WE'VE NOW SAID AS A COUNCIL, WHICH WE DID, WE DID A STUDY. ASK WE SAID 50%. THAT WAS THE CRITERIA WE SET TO THE THIRD PARTY COMPANY. THAT SHOULDN'T BE A HARD DISCUSSION TO DECIDE. WE'RE UNDER BUDGET. AND IT GETS THEM TO THAT, WHICH IS WHAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE ALREADY DONE. WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE. I SAY WE CALL A VOTE.

>> YOU ARE SO QUICK TO DO THAT ALL THE TIME. IF YOU'VE GOT A

PLACE TO GO. >> LET EVERYBODY THAT HAS OPPORTUNITY THROUGH OUR PROTOCOLS TO TALK. YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, I CALLED THE VOTE. I SPOKE.

>> YOU ASK AMBERLY WENT BACK AND FORTH.

>> DO ME A FAVOR. YOU SAID YOUR PEACE. MAYOR PRO TEM, MAY HE

SAY SOMETHING? >> I KNOW. CALL THE VOTE.

THAT'S WHY WE STARTED MAKING AMENDMENTS TO THE BUDGET IN THE NEXT MEETING BECAUSE WE YELL AND RANT SO FAST.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM? >> I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THIS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND IN MY ONE ON ONE. I DID NOT BREAK TOMA. I DID NOT BREAK THE LAW. WE RECEIVED MULTIPLE E-MAILS AND AT LEAST ONE MEMO FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY THAT SAYS, TALKING ABOUT THESE THINGS WITH THE CITY MANAGER AHEAD OF THE MEETING IS NOT BREAKING THE OPENING MEETINGS ACT. SO I DIDN'T GO INTO AS MUCH DETAIL AS AMBERLY DID. BECAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT IT WHEN I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER. HE EXPLAINED TO ME, THAT THERE'S 12 INDIVIDUALS, WHO IF THEY GET THE 4500, THEY'RE STILL NOT GOING TO BE EVEN AT THE STARTING POINT OF WHERE THEY WANTED TO BE. SO FOR ME. THAT ANSWERED THE QUESTION FOR ME. I DIDN'T NEED TO KNOW. AND PERSONALLY, IN MY OPINION, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THE SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS OF WHO THIS IS AND WHERE THEY'RE AT AND WHAT THEIR PAY IS. AND WHAT IT ISN'T.

WHAT'S IT'S ANSWERING . IF WE WANT TO BE COMPETITIVE. THEN WE FOLLOW WHAT -- WE PAID A LOT OF MONEY TO HAVE THAT STUDY DONE SO WE CAN DO THIS ACCURATELY. I DIDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THIS. ESPECIALLY FOR TWO REASONS. ONE, IT'S ONLY FOR 12 INDIVIDUALS. IT'S ONLY FOR THOSE INDIVIDUALS WHO AREN'T AT THE MINIMUM. AND WE'RE STILL UNDER BUDGET FOR WHAT WE APPROVED. SO IT WAS A SIMPLER, KIND OF CONVERSATION WITH ME.

BUT I ALSO APPRECIATE MY MEETINGS WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

WHERE WE'RE ABLE TO WALK THROUGH, ASK THESE QUESTIONS, TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEHIND THESE -- YOU KNOW, THESE ITEMS. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY WHAT THAT WEDNESDAY MEETING IS FOR. WE'RE NOT UNIQUE AS A CITY.

I MEAN, MOST CITIES, THE VAST MAJORITY OF CITIES AND CITY COUNCILS DO THIS. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH GETTING THAT DETAIL IN OUR INFORMATION AT OUR MEETING SO WE CAN HAVE A MORE EDUCATED CONVERSATION AND MORE EDUCATED DECISION-MAKING IN OUR MEETINGS. THAT'S WHY I'M IN FAVOR WITH IT. I DON'T

HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? THANK YOU TWO FOR SAYING THAT. THE MORE WE TELL THE WORKINGS OF GOVERNMENT, I THINK IS BETTER.

I DON'T -- I DON'T KNOW THAT SPECIFIC PERSON. BUT WE KEEP

APPROVING -- >> NOBODY --

>> BUT WE KEEP APPROVING THINGS IN THE BUDGET. WE DON'T KNOW THE POSITION -- THE PUBLIC. WHEN I SAY "WE," THE PUBLIC DOESN'T KNOW THE POSITION. THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT POSITIONS GOT RAISES. HOW THEY ARE. WE KNOW NONE OF THIS INFORMATION. AND IF YOU'RE TELLING ME, THE ONLY WAY TO GET IT IS TO HAVE A ONE ON ONE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. THAT'S NOT OPEN GOVERNMENT. PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHO GOT A 2% INCREASE, 13% INCREASE. GROWN WHEN WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT TO THEM. BUT NOW WE'RE APPROVING 61,000 ADDITIONAL MONEY. AND THE LAST THING IS, THAT'S WHY WE HATE BUDGETS.

HAS ANYBODY EVER WORKED FOR OUR COMPANY THAT COMES IN UNDER BUDGET? AND AS ALWAYS, WE BUDGET UNDER $500 THOUSAND?

>> THAT'S NOT DEL. >> I KNOW.

>> IT WAS INITIALLY, ALMOST $800,000.

>> AND YOU BROUGHT IT UP. AND DELL HAS LAYOFFS REGULARLY. AND

[02:45:01]

YOU SAID THAT'S JUST A WAY OF LIFE THERE.

>> I NEVER SAID THAT. REORGANIZING. I NEVER SAID LAYOFFS. IT'S A CONSTANT THING. WE'RE GETTING OFFER THE SUBJECT. BUT WE REORGANIZED WITHOUT LAYOFFS UPON.

>> I AM SAYING, I KEEP APPROVING STUFF. WE ARE VOTING FOR SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE ZOTING FOR. AND I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE CARVED OUT MY TIMES AND SAID, HEY, JAMES, CAN YOU TELL ME THE SIX PEOPLE. SHAME ON ME. IF ANYBODY HAS HAD A TALK LIKE THAT, I'D LIKE YOU TO SAY I DID.

>> I WOULD HOPE SEVEN PEOPLE WOULD RAISE THEIR HANDS AND SAY I TALKED TO THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS TIME.

>> YES. >> I UTILIZE MY WEEKLY MEETING.

>> YOU'RE NOT BREAKING TOMA. >> MULTIPLE MEMBERS HAD CONCERNS THAT GOT SPECIFIC ANSWERS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN NICE IF THOSE WERE SHARED. WHETHER YOU ASKED THE QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU'RE MEETING OR NOT. WE SHOULD STILL HAVE THE

SAME INFORMATION. >> I THINK IF THERE WAS A QUESTION FROM JAMES, AND ONE OF YOU GUYS THAT HAD A QUESTION. I THINK WE WOULD HAVE ANSWERED IT.

I DIDN'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS COME THROUGH IN MY E-MAIL,

THOUGH. >> FROM US?

>> YEAH. WE CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS.

>> THAT'S WHY I SAID. IF YOU WANTED TO SEND IT TO JAMES. AND

HE WOULD HAVE PUT IT OUT. >> THE ONLY WAY WE WOULD GET THE RESPONSE BACK IS IF WE E-MAIL JAMES. IF WE VERBALLY TALK TO JAMES, IT DOESN'T COME TO US?

>> I'M NOT GENERALLY IN THE PRACTICE OF SHARING INFORMATION VIA E-MAIL. IF SOMEBODY SHARED UNLESS THEY SHARED IT WITH COUNCIL. THAT'S GENERALLY NOT THE HABIT I WOULD HAVE BEEN IN.

THERE COMES A POINT IN TIME, WHEN ARE YOU TALKING TO ME IN CONFIDENCE ON A TOPIC? AND WHEN AM I GOING TO TAKE WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME AND -- I SHOULDN'T BE MAKING THAT DECISION MYSELF.

>> I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. IZ JUST -- YOU KNOW, IF WE WEREN'T HAVING CONVERSATIONS ON WEDNESDAY. IT'S ABOUT AGENDA ITEMS. BUT BY HAVING THOSE MEETINGS AND PEOPLE --

>> YEAH. >> ANYWAY.

>> ANYBODY ELSE GOT A SECOND TIME BEFORE WE DO THE CALL TO VOTE? YOU READY? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTER FIELD. >> NAY.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> I'M SORRY. DID YOU CALL ME?

>> UH-HUH. >> NAY.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. >> YAI.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON. >> NAY.

[14.3. Discussion and possible action regarding Road Maintenance Fee for FY 2025. (Councilmember Clark) ]

>> MOTION PASSES. 4-3. >> ALL RIGHT. 14-3. DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025.

>> SO I HAD ASKED IN OUR MOTION TO BRING IT UP. WHAT THE BACKGROUND WAS I COULD ASK FOR. IT WASN'T IN THE PACKET. BUT WE DID GET AN E-MAIL OUT. BASICALLY, WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS, BECAUSE WE HAD TO REDO THE ROAD MAINTENANCE. I WANTED TO SEE IF COUNCIL WOULD BE INTERESTED IN STARTING.

MOST OF THE SURROUNDING CITIES DO HAVE A MAINTENANCE FEE. IN THE WASTEWATER UTILITY LINE ITEMS FOR THE CUSTOMERS TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE. BECAUSE OVER TIME, WE DE-COUPLE ROAD MAINTENANCE, WHICH SHOULD ALWAYS BE DONE FROM EVALUATIONS OF HOME VALUES. AND SO THE NUMBER THAT WAS SENT OUT WAS, I BELIEVE, $1.67, WOULD GET TO US FROM WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE AT. BASED ON CURRENT BUDGET. BUT OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S A WEIRD NUMBER. I WANTED TO DISCUSS LIKE $2 OR $3. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST KIND OF START THERE AND HAVE THAT AS WE KNOW THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME ROAD MAINTENANCE THAT IS IN THE -- JUST IDENTIFIED YOUR -- INDEPENDENT OF GENERAL FUND TIED TO PROPERTY VALUES.

>> MOTION TO TABLE 14.3. >> SECOND.

>> CAN YOU SHARE THE PURPOSE OF TABLING? YOU JUST WANT TO GET

MORE INFORMATION ON IT? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO TABLE THIS. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE.

I ADVOCATED AGAINST IT SINCE IT WAS PROPOSED ALMOST TWO YEARS

[02:50:05]

AGO. OR I DON'T REALLY KNOW THE TIME FRAME. BUT IT'S JUST BRINGING IT BACK UP AGAIN. I LIKE THAT IT'S IN THE GENERAL FUND UTILITY BILL IS FOR YOUR TRASH, YOUR WATER, AND YOUR WASTEWATER SERVICES. ROAD MAINTENANCE IS A CIP PROJECT, GENERAL FUND. PROJECT HAVING ROAD MAINTENANCE ON A UTILITY BILL JUST MUDS THINGS. THERE'S SEVERAL REASONS. AND I DON'T NEED TO GO ON AND ON ABOUT IT. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE THE POINT THAT IN FISCAL YEAR '24, THE CITY MANAGER PROPOSED $750,000 IN ROAD MAINTENANCE.

AND IT WAS INCREASED TO $1.2 MILLION. AND THOSE PROJECTS HAVE SUCCESSFULLY BEEN COMPLETED.

TO DATE. SO THAT'S GREAT. AND THEN IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR '25, CITY MANAGER PROPOSED $2.1 MILLION. IT WAS, UNFORTUNATELY, BROUGHT DOWN TO 1.825. HOWEVER, FROM FUNDING, SO THOSE PROJECTS WOULD BE COMPLETED BY THIS TIME NEXT YEAR. SO MOVING FROM YEAR ONE AT 1.2 MILLION TO YEAR 2 AT 1.825 MILLION. I STILL BELIEVE WE'RE MAKING GREAT PROGRESS AS A CITY. IN THE FUTURE.

I DO BELIEVE THAT WE WILL GET TO THE 2.1 FULLY FUNDED. AND MAYBE WE CAN DO SOME CATCHUP AS THE CITY GROWS AND BEGINS TO THRIVE. AND IT'S HUTTO ECONOMICS. SO YEAH. THOSE ARE MY POINTS THERE.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU. THREE YEARS AGO. THERE WAS NO PLAN IN THE CITY. THE ROAD MAINTENANCE THAT GOT DONE EACH YEAR WAS BASED ON WHO YELLED THE LOUDEST, OR WHO GOT COUNCILMEMBER TOES VOTE FOR IT. SO WE PUSHED THE SURVEY. I PUSHED FOR THAT. WE WENT TO A LITTLE OVER 1.8. WE'RE ABOUT 85% OF WHAT THE FULL FUNDING WOULD BE ON THE $2.1 MILLION.

SO WE'RE ON THE RIGHT TRACK TO GET TO FULL FUNDING.

THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE MAINTAINING OUR ROADS. AND WE SHOULD TRY TO GET THAT TO 100%. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO ADD A FEE TO GET US THERE. I'M WITH YOU ON THAT.

>> I SECOND THAT. BECAUSE I AM IN FAVOR OF ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE. WITH THE REDUCTION IN PROPERTY TAXES. BECAUSE I THINK THE PROPERTY TAX ISSUE BECOMES A POLITICAL FOOTBALL. BECAUSE THE FIRST THING WE DID THIS YEAR IS CUT THE ROAD MAINTENANCE. IN AN EFFORT TO PROVE A POINT ABOUT PEOPLE NOT WANTING TO RAISE TAXES. BUT I THINK ONCE YOU PASS THE BUDGET, YOU CAN'T COME BACK A MONTH LATER.

AND I THINK THE ROAD MAINTENANCE, IT'S A BETTER WAY TO PROJECT YOUR EXPENSES, BUDGET YOUR EXPENSES, BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT, AS AN ADDED ON FEE. IT'S GOT TO BE INSTEAD OF TAXES. AND THE REASON I LIKE IT OVER PROPERTY TAX. GENERAL REVENUE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN USE ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE. I DON'T THINK YOU CAN USE CIP MONEY IF ARE ROAD MAINTENANCE.

I THINK YOU CAN DO THAT. I THINK IT'S AN EQUITABLE DEAL. THERE ARE SENIORS AND PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THE INCOME TO KEEP PAYING THE EVER-INCREASING TAX BILL.

BECAUSE AT NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, OTHER THAN THEY LIVED IN A HOUSE THAT IS DOUBLE THE VALUE IN THREE YEARS. IF WE KEEP BRINGING THE TAX RATE DOWN TO MAKE THE TAX BILL THE SAME, CALL IT NEW REVENUE. IT'S A DIRTY WORD FOR SOME PEOPLE. BUT IF YOU DO THAT, AND YOU ARE MAKING A LITTLE BIT LESS, TO WHERE EVERYBODY KNOWS, I PAY AN EXTRA $3 A MONTH, TO ME, THAT'S BETTER THAN PUSHING THROUGH 15% TAX INCREASES ASK SAYING, IF YOU WANT YOU'RE ROAD IMPROVED, YOU HAVE TO PAY 15% TAX INCREASE. AND THE ROAD TAXES GO ON AND ON AND ON AND GO UP AT NO FAULT OF PEOPLE. BUT SINCE WE WELL ORDER PASSED THE BUDGET. TO ME, IT'S GOT TO BE PAYABLE UNTIL NEXT YEAR'S TAX BUDGET. WHETHER IT'S $3 OR $5. PEOPLE ARE TAXED ENOUGH.

THEY WANT US TO BE MORE EFFICIENT WITH MONEY. WE PROVED

[02:55:01]

WE DIDN'T DO THAT THIS YEAR, IN MY OPINION.

BUT WE NEED TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE VERY EFFICIENT AND WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF MONEY, I HAVE NO DOUBT.

>> SAID ONLY THING I DISAGREE WITH THAT IS FOR THE SENIORS THAT WERE CALLED OUT SPECIFICALLY AND ARE WORKING ON FIXED INCOMES. WE DID PASS -- THREE YEARS AGO, FOUR YEARS AGO, A TAX CEILING TO PROTECT THOSE INDIVIDUALS. SO NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, WHETHER IT'S NO NEW REVENUE, OR VOTER APPROVED.

THEIR TAXES WILL NOT GO UP. BUT WITH MAINTENANCE FEE. THE MONEY PAY WOULD PAY, THOSE INDIVIDUALS WOULD HAVE TO PAY MORE. BUT WE'VE PROTECTED THEM WITH THE TAX CEILING. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'VE BEEN AGAINST A ROAD MAINTENANCE FEE. JUST BECAUSE THOSE IDEAS THAT ARE MOST VULNERABLE THAT WE'VE PUT SPECIFIC PROTECTIONS IN PLACE. THEY WOULD HAVE. THAT'S WHY I'VE ALWAYS BEEN KIND OF

AGAINST THE IDEA. >> VOTE?

>> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON? >> AND THE MOTION WAS TO TABLE,

CORRECT? >> YEAH.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON?

AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTSERFIELD.

>> AYE. >> THAT WAS CALL FOR LOST

TRACK. >> ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES,

7-0. >> AND MAYOR, I'M GOING TO SAY, WE ARE BASED ON DISCUSSION, TABLING IT

INDEFINITELY? >> YEAH. I MEAN, IF COUNCILMEMBER CLARK CHOOSES TO BRING IT FROM THE TABLE NEXT YEAR. OR ANYBODY ELSE IN COUNCIL, IN 10 YEARS IN THE COUNCIL WANTS TO PULL IT FROM THE TABLE?

>> NO. TABLE IS, YOU HAVE TO -- YOU PUT IT ON THE TABLE FOR

THIS MEETING. >> I'M JUST SAYING, MY INTERPRETATION IS THAT YOU ALL ARE DONE DEALING WITH THIS

UNTIL NEXT -- >> YEAH. THE MAYOR DID KIND OF ALLUDE, IF WE WANT TO DO THAT DISCUSSION

>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 14.4. DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SIGNAGE IN OLD TOWN.

>> MAYOR I WOULD ASK THAT THIS ITEM BE POSTPONED. DINOT PROVIDE ANY BACKUP MATERIAL. I'M STILL WORKING WITH OUR DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR, ON THIS ITEM, AND HOPING TO HAVE BACKUP MATERIAL IN A FUTURE MEETING. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THIS ITEM

[14.5. Discussion and possible action regarding Game Room Ordinance. (Mayor Snyder) ]

BE POSTPONED. >> ANY OBJECTIONS FROM ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT. WELL, IN THE 14.5. DISCUSSION REGARDING POSSIBLE

GAME ROOM ORDINANCE? >> I THINK THE ORDINANCE AS PROVIDED TO US. WHAT BROUGHT THIS UP. I MET WITH THE PEOPLE THAT OWNED SNUFFY'S. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS OUR INTENT. I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS. BUT WHEN WE SET THIS. IF YOU HAVE ONE GAME ROOM, OR ONE GAME MACHINE, YOU'RE REGARDED --

>> TELL ME WHEN I GET WRONG ON THIS, JAMES. BUT ONE MACHINE MAKES THE GAME ROOM. YOU CAN'T HAVE AN EMPLOYEE UNDER 18. YOU CAN'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT UNDER 18. SO STUFFY'S TO LET GO OF ANYONE UNDER 18 THAT WAS WORKING THERE. BECAUSE THEY WERE ABLE TO GAME ROOM. AND I WAS TALKING TO JAMES, AND I SAID, I THINK THE INTENT, AS I SAW IT, YOU WALK IN, AND 100% GAMING MACHINES. THAT'S THE FOCUS. NOT IF CHILI'S PUTS IN A SWEEPSTAKES MACHINE ON THE BAR AREA, ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY HAVE TO LET GO OF EVERY EMPLOYEE, SERVER UNDER 18. I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE INTENT. SO I THINK THE EASY FIX IS UNDER GAME ROOM DEFINITION WHERE IT SAYS. ANY BUSINESS THAT DRIVES ANY REVENUE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY. IT SAYS OF ONE OR MORE MACHINES. IF WE CHANGE THAT OPERATION TO SEVEN OR MORE. SNUFFY'S HAS SIX AM THEN THAT WOULD THEN NOT IMPACT US. BRINGING THAT UP, I WASN'T TRYING TO PUT ANYBODY OUT OF BUSINESS. IT WAS TO REGULATE

ACTUAL GAME ROOMS. >> WELL BEING MY ONLY QUESTION ABOUT THAT IS, YOU KNOW -- THEN, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE.

IF YOU THEN GO 6. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, EVERY LAUNDRY MAT IN HUTTO HAS 6. THEN YOU HAVE GAME SLOT MACHINES EVERYWHERE. WHICH WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF THE ORDINANCE, SO THAT WE HAVEN'T WOULDN'T HAVE THAT. O MY CONCERN IS, YES. I FEEL BAD IF -- BUT NOTHING SAYS THAT

[03:00:03]

SNUFFY'S HAS TO KEEP GAME MACHINES IN THEIR ROOM BUT YOU KNOW, I WONDER, IF YOU GO AND DO SIX. IS THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE, NOW YOU'RE GOING OF TO EVERY SINGLE --

>> ENTITY? >> ENTITY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, GOING TO HAVE GAME MACHINES? AND THEN YOU KIND OF HURT THE COMPANIES THAT ARE THEN PAYING AND HAVE 48. WHAT IS THE INCENTIVE THERE, IF NOW YOU CAN GO TO SNUFFY'S AND MAYBE DOWNTOWN HALL OF FAME IN THE LAUNDRY MAT. AND YOU CAN DO IT AT ALL OF THESE PLACES. THEN IT'S LIKE YOU CREATE AN ORDINANCE THAT IS NOW HURTING THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING A LICENSE. THAT'S WHY I DON'T THINK WE CHANGE IT. AND YOU KNOW, THAT BUSINESS CAN DECIDE THAT HEY, THEY HAVE MOST OF THEIR BUSINESS COMES IN FROM PEOPLE BEING UNDER AGE 18 FOR A BURGER THAN FINE? JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW I MEAN, OR IF THE ORDINANCE CAN CHANGE THAT IF THEY'RE TURNED ON AFTER A CERTAIN TIME. THAT'S WHEN AGE 18 APPLIES. SO IT'S LIKE IN A BAR, WHERE YOU GET A HAND STAMP. CAN THEY SAY NO CHILDREN UNDER THIS AGE AFTER 8:00 P.M. THAT ONE A WAY TO MAYBE CHANGE IT, WHERE THERE STILL IS THIS GAME ROOM. BUT DOESN'T AFFECT THEIR EMPLOYEES AFTER A CERTAIN TIME. JUST LIKE IF THEY'RE SERVING A LOT OF ALCOHOL, 18-YEAR-OLDS CAN'T CARRY THE ALCOHOL IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT OF LEGAL AGE. SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS ON

THAT. >> I AGREE.

I MEAN, THERE'S A SAYING, YOU CAN'T BE A LITTLE BIT PREGNANT? YOU'RE EITHER PREGNANT OR NOT. IF YOU HAVE GAMING, YOU'RE A GAMER. AND IF WE WANT TO REGULATE GAME ROOMS, SOME ARE REGULATING GAME ROOMS AND IF NOT, WE'RE GOING TO END UP WITH 100 GAME ROOMS OVER TOWN BECAUSE EVERYBODY CAN PUT A GAME IN. TO FLIP WHAT SNUFFY'S DOES ." WHAT IF YOU HAVE ONE BEER TAP? IT'S THE SAME THING TO ME.

>> THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE COFFEE SHOPS THAT HAVE THEM.

>> I MEAN, JUST EVERYBODY HAS THEM. WELL, YOU HAVE TO GET LICENSED. YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE LICENSING REMEMBER.

>> YEAH AM. >> YOU CAN'T JUST PUT IN ONE BEER TAP BECAUSE IT'S ONLY ONE.

>> HERE'S WHAT I'M DOING. WE'RE ON EDGE SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS. I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> I'LL DO A SECOND SO WE CAN DISCUSS.

>> I WILL JUST MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ADJUST THE GAME ROOM DEFINITION AND SWAP OUT THE WORD ONE FOR THE WORD SEVEN.

>> SECOND. SO NOW WE FREE TO DISCUSS?

>> NOT HERE. NOT IN HUTTO. BUT I'VE BEEN TO OTHER BARS THAT THEY HAVE TWO OR THREE -- MAYBE NOT SIX. MAYBE I'M NOT PAYING ATTENTION. BUT THEY HAVE -- I MEAN, THEY'RE A GAME ROOM AND THEY HAVE POOL TABLE AND DARTS AND WHATEVER. NOW THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY DERIVING INCOME, I GUESS, OTHER THAN IT KEEPS PEOPLE BUSY DRINKING. BUT THEY HAVE A COUPLE OF LIKE THESE TYPES OF MACHINES. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL THEM.

AND DIFFERENT STATES HAVE DIFFERENT KINDS OF MACHINES, BASED ON WHAT IS ALLOWED. I DON'T KNOW THAT -- I DON'T KNOW ABOUT SIX OR SEVEN OR WHATEVER.

BUT TO ME -- TO ME, A SMALL NUMBER OF THESE MACHINES DID NOT MAKE YOU A GAME ROOM. IF THERE WERE A LOCAL COFFEE SHOP THAT WANTED TO PUT ONE IN THEIR LOBBY JUST BECAUSE.

OR THEIR AREA OR WHATEVER, JUST BECAUSE. WHY CAN'T THEY? NOW THEY'RE A GAME ROOM BECAUSE THEY HAVE ONE? I'M JUST SAYING, TO THE POINT. THIS IS NOT PREGNANCY. YOU CAN HAVE A LITTLE FUN WITHOUT BEING A GAME ROOM.

I DON'T KNOW. I'M -- AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE NUMBER SIX FOR ME. OR SEVEN OR WHATEVER. BUT YOU KNOW, IF YOU WERE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE WHATEVER. IF EVERYBODY HAD TWO OR THREE.

THIS DOESN'T TURN US INTO VEGAS. I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. I THINK IT'S FUN. ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE GOING TO THE BAR. YOU ARE GOING TO STAY LONGER, DRINK MORE. THAT'S WHAT THE BAR WANTS. THEY'RE THERE TO MAKE MONEY. SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M KIND OF BACK AND FORTH ON THAT ONE.

>> AND I THOUGHT ABOUT A BETTER WAY MAYBE IF THE MAJORITY OF YOUR REVENUE IS TO RIPEN THEM. BECAUSE THAT'S A GAME ROOM.

AGAIN, TO YOUR POINT. YOU WALK IN, I DIDN'T KNOW THEY HAD THEM. THERE'S TWO IN THE CORNER. AND ONE UP ON THE COUNTER. TO ME, IT'S A SMOKE BAR.

AND I HAD TO COUGH, BECAUSE I WAS THERE FOR AN HOUR.

[03:05:04]

>> I GUESS -- >> BUT PEOPLE LIKE TO SMOKE.

AND THEY LIKE TO HAVE THAT A LITTLE BIT OF ENJOYMENT. AND TO ME, THAT'S NOT THE GAME ROOM. FOR ME, I'M FOCUSED ON IS THE ONE THAT YOU WALK IN. THERE'S -- THE WHOLE THING IS GAME ROOM. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT PROLIFERATION REMEMBER BECAUSE SIX MONTHS AGO, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS. WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP, IT WASN'T TO STOP THEM FROM HAPPENING. IF EVERYBODY WANTS TO HAVE THEM, THAT'S GREAT. IT'S TO MAKE SURE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT KNOWS WHO IS OPEN UNTIL 2:00 IN THE MORNING, DOING THIS TYPE OF STUFF. THEY DO HAVE ISSUES FROM TIME TO TIME. AND WHAT REALLY SPURRED IT WAS DYLAN RUNBERG.

OR SOMEBODY GOT SHOT IN THE MORNING. THOUGHT IT WAS BEST TO REGULATE THE TIME. HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO SCHOOLS. BUT NOT NECESSARILY PUT A DAMPER ON PEOPLE'S RIGHTS TO OPERATE THINGS. BUT JUST GET TO A POINT, WHERE BASICALLY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT KNOWS WHAT IS GOING ON. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT TWO OR THREE ARE GOING TO CRAZY AN ISSUE.

AND DO WE HAVE A LAUNDRY MAD? >> NO. WHY WOULD YOU PUT A BUSINESS IN HUTTO THAT LOSES WATER.

>> HE KEPT SAYING LAUNDRY MAT. >> I LIKE TO USE THINGS THAT

ARE NOT NECESSARILY. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY, GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE PEOPLE SPEND TIME.

>> THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE A LAUNDRY MAT IN TOWN. I WAS JUST LIKE, IF THERE WAS ONE. I WANTED TO DIRECT PEOPLE.

>> OKAY. CAN I -- GO AHEAD. >> I JUST WANT TO ASK, IF THE PREVAILING ISSUE IS THE 18-YEAR-OLD RESTRICTION, IF THAT'S THE PREVAILING ISSUE, THEN WHY NOT MAKE SMALLER THAN X NUMBER EXEMPT FROM THE 18-YEAR-OLD REQUIREMENT. SOMETHING -- IF THAT'S THE ACTUAL ISSUE.

>> SO MY ISSUE WITH THAT -- AND AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO BE 18-PLUS TO PLAY THE GAME. THE SWEEPSTAKES GAMES.

AND SO I SECONDED IT. I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH TWO OUT OF THE THREE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE COMMUNITY. JUST KIND OF SEE WHERE THEY'RE AT. THERE'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS THAT WERE GOING ON. BUT GOING OFF OF -- I SECONDED THE MOTION. I DON'T AGREE WITH THE SEVEN OR MORE. JUST DUE TO COUNCILMEMBER CLARK'S CONCERNS WITH -- ANYBODY JUST GOING TO THEN POTENTIALLY ADDING SOME. SO I DO LIKE THE -- WHENEVER I -- I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT JUST TO SAY THAT A BUILDING FACILITY OR OTHER PLACE, INCLUDING PRIVATE CLUB OR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS LOCATION, THAT DERIVES MORE THAN 25% OF REVENUE, DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY, FROM THE OPERATION OF ONE OR MORE AMUSEMENT OR REDEMPTION MACHINES REMEMBER THEN IT GOES ON. I HOPE WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT WHAT SNUFFY'S DOES AS THEIR BUSINESS, IS NOT THE SAME AS WHAT A GAME ROOM AND OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS DO. WHAT SNUFFY'S DOES, THEY'RE A BAR AND GRILL. THEY HAVE BEVERAGES AND FOOD. AND THEY HAPPEN TO HAVE SIX MACHINES IN THEIR ESTABLISHMENT. TO PUT THEM -- I GUESS THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS WHEN WE STARTED DISCUSSING THIS. IT WOULD KIND OF CAPTURE BUSINESSES, AND IT MAY IMPACT THEM NEGATIVELY. AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE ORDINANCE DID.

IT CAPTURED SNUFFY'S. I FEEL LIKE IF WE GO MORE ALONG THE REVENUE. AND SPEAKING WITH THE OWNER. YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T SHARE ANY SPECIFIC NUMBERS. BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY BUSINESS TO KNOW WHAT THEIR BUSINESS IS. BUT IT'S HEAVILY ON BEVERAGE SALES. SECONDLY ON FOOD. AND THIRD IS A NOMINAL PORTION OF THEIR BUSINESS. AND REVENUE.

SO THAT'S WHY I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE MORE THAN 25% REREVENUE

FROM THE MACHINES. >> BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, THEN YOU HAVE TO GO AUDIT THEIR BOOKS IF THEY'RE DOING THAT ANYTHING WHATEVER. THEN THEY'RE EXEMPTED FROM HAVING THE LICENSING OF THE MACHINES. WHICH WE'RE GETTING. I THINK IT SHOULD BE. IF YOU WANT TO GO WITH THE SEVEN. IF YOU HAVE SEVEN OR MORE. THEN E&F APPLY TO THE RULE. OTHERWISE, IT DOESN'T. WHICH WOULD THEN TAKE CARE OF SNUFFY'S PROBLEMS. AND WE GET ALL OF THE LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.

[03:10:01]

>> HOLD ON. LET ME GET ON THE PAGE.

>> PAGE 324. >> RESTRICTIONS, REGULATIONS,

LIMITATIONS, E&F. >> NO PERSON OF AGE SHALL BE PERMITTED IN THE GAME ROOM, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN SIX. SO THE 18 RESTRICTION APPLIES IF THEY'RE ONLY SIX.

ONLY 18 IS ALLOWED INSIDE THAT GAME ROOM. ALSO, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN SIX. IF YOU JUST DO THAT CARVEOUT, THEN WE DON'T NEED TO DO THE REVENUE. WE DON'T NEED TO DO STUFF. AND THE CITY, THE POLICE WILL ALL KNOW, EVERY GAME MACHINE. IT STILL PROVIDES THE REGISTRATION OF WHAT HOURS THEY CAN BE OPEN.

WHAT DAYS THEY CAN DO IT. CAN WE STILL WANT TO DO THE LICENSING PART. WE JUST DON'T WANT THEM TO BE AFFECTED AND SAY, HEY, YOUR KIDS CAN'T COME IN THE RESTAURANT. AND THEY CAN'T HAVE A 16-YEAR-OLD SERVING BURGERS AND FRENCH

FRIES. >> THAT'S A BETTER SOLUTION.

BECAUSE ALSO, IF YOU DID IT BY REVENUE, IF YOU HAD A LARGE BUSINESS. IF YOU HAD A LARGE ENOUGH BUSINESS, YOU COULD OPEN UP A ROOM WITH YOUR BUSINESS. IF YOU'RE MAKING MONEY OFF OF SOMETHING ELSE. AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU'RE HAVING, WHAT IS A REAL -- WHAT EVERYBODY IS SAYING IS A GAME ROOM. I THINK

THAT'S A BETTER SOLUTION. >> I THINK HE'S SAYING THE

DEFINITION OF A GAME ROOM. >> DON'T CHANGE THE

DEFINITION. >> I'M SAYING SEVEN OR MORE

APPLIES. >> HE'S SAYING CHANGE IT TO SEVEN OR MORE BUT THAT IT ONLY APPLIES TO E&F.

>> EVERYTHING APPLIES. >> E&F ONLY APPLY --

INAUDIBLE ] >> THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE YOU

MAKE. >> BUT IS THAT AN AMENDMENT?

>> CAN WE JUST START FRESH? >> I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

THAT'S IN, WHAT DID YOU SAY? >> WILL YOU STATE THAT? BECAUSE HE MADE THE MOTION. I SECONDED IT. WILL YOU MAKE THE -- DO

WHATEVER YOU DO? CLAIRVE? >> IL I'M OKAY WITH WHAT HE'S SAYING. HE'S JUST SAYING, MAKE IT PARAGRAPH 4.0.

ON SUBSECTIONS, E&F. STAFF HAS GOT TO BRING THIS

BACK FOR ONE FINAL VOTE. >> SOUNDS GOOD.

>> FOR US TO DIRECT STAFF TO ADD IN THERE.

WHATEVER THE EFFECT OF. IT DOESN'T APPLY TO MORE THAN 7

MACHINES. >> OR ONLY MORE THAN SEVEN

MACHINES. >> ALL YOU WOULD SAY, IN MY MIND. IF IT'S THOSE TWO PARAGRAPHS. IT WOULD SAY, IF THE ESTABLISHMENT HAS SEVEN OR MORE MACHINES. THESE TWO APPLY

AS A SUBHEADING UNDER THAT. >> YOU STILL HAVE TO CHANGE THE

FIRST DEFINITION? >> NO.

>> THEY DON'T WANT TO CHANGE. >> I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE

DEFINITION. >> IT'S STILL A GAME ROOM.

>> THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO A SIGN. AND PEOPLE UNDER 18 ARE COMING IN THE BUILDING, WHICH TAKES CARE OF SNUFFY'S PROBLEMS. AND IF PEOPLE WANT TO PUT ONE IN PLACE. THEY STILL HAVE TO DO THE LICENSING REGULATION.

>> WE KNOW THEY HAVE ONE. >> WE KNOW THEY HAVE ONE. THE POLICE HAVE ONE. AND THAT'S FINE. AND WE COULD ALWAYS -- IF WE FIND IT'S A PROBLEM, THEN WE CAN WORK ON THE ORDINANCE

LATER. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. FROM THE PERMITTING STANDPOINT. DOES THE FEE NEED TO CHANGE? SINCE NOW YOU'RE TALKING A PERSON THAT HAS TWO. AND IT'S THE SAME VERSUS A PERSON HAS 65 MACHINES?

>> UH-HUH. >> BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, IT'S $2400 FOR A LICENSE. IF YOU ONLY HAVE A COUPLE OF MACHINES.

>> THEN THAT'S FINE. I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A PROLIFERATION. THAT ALSO PREVENTS PEOPLE FROM SAYING, IT'S JUST $15. I'M GOING TO STICK ONE IN THE CORNER IF IT MAKES MONEY. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE A HURDLE IF THAT'S PART OF YOUR BUSINESS. THAT'S FINE.

>> NOT NECESSARILY A DETERRENT. >> WE'RE JUST BEING FAIR.

>> I'D BE OKAY WITH A LOWERED FEE. I WOULDN'T WANT TO GO DRAMATICALLY LOWER. WHAT IF YOU GET FOR SIX OR LESS?

>> ONLY TWO PEOPLE. >> I'M SAYING, THEY WERE HAPPY TO PAY IT AT SIX. OBVIOUSLY THE FEE WAS HIGH FOR THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. THAT WOULD BE A COUNCIL DECISION. BECAUSE WE'RE CHANGING A FEE GOING FORWARD. I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE

RIGHT THING TO DO. >> I'M SAYING, SOMEBODY AT SIX WAS STILL WILL BE TO PAY THAT FEE AND FOUND IT FINANCIALLY VIABLE. WELL, I THINK THEY FOUND OUT AFTER THE FACT THAT THEY HAD TO PAY THE FEE AND THEY PAID IT.

>> HOW DID YOU GET TO 12? >> I JUST CUT IT IN HALF. IT'S

JUST SMALLER. >> BUT IT'S NOT A TOTAL LOW --

>> IT'S A ONE-TIME FEE. >> IT'S NOT AN ANNUAL FEE.

[03:15:04]

>> IT'S ANNUAL FEE. ANNUAL. >> ANNUAL?

>> YEAH. >> EVERYBODY IS IN COMPLIANCE.

AND THEN THEY HAVE TO READ IN DECEMBER.

>> I CAN'T -- I DON'T THINK YOU CAN CUT THAT IN HALF.

>> BUT WHAT WE DID IS, IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN SIX, YOU HAVE TO FOLLOW THE OTHER RULES. SO YOU'RE BASICALLY AT THAT POINT DECIDING IF YOU WANT TO BE IN A GAME ROOM.

>> IT'S ONLY ONE RULE. IT'S THE 18.

>> I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S -- AND THEY'RE MAKING MORE

MONEY. >> I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A PROLIFERATION OF THEM EVERYWHERE.

>> IF IT DOESN'T, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. WE HAVE GAME ROOMS. WE DON'T NEED TO MAKE EASIER TO PUT GAME ROOMS AT LESS THAN

SIX. >> I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT EVERYWHERE IN HUTTO.

NO. LEAVE IT AT $200 FOR EVERYBODY. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO MAKE MONEY ON IT? YOU BECOME A FULL GAME ROOM.

GUESS WHAT. THEY'RE A BUSINESS. THEY'LL PULL THEM OUT. IF IT'S NOT FINANCIALLY MAKING THE MONEY. AND IT'S NOT OUR JOBE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO MAKE MORE GAME ROOMS IN MY OPINION. IT MAY BE ECONOMIES OF SCALE.

>> I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE IT MORE. JUST TRYING TO MICK MORE

REASONABLE FEES. >> MAKES MORE EFFORT.

>> SO MOTION, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR IS AT. >> 08006. SECTION E AND F.

>> STAFF WILL COME BACK TO LANGUAGE THAT THOSE TWO DON'T

APPLY TO. >> NUMBERS LESS THAN 7. OR ONLY APPLY TO SEVEN. ARE YOU OKAY WITH THAT?

>> UH-HUH. FOR CLARIFICATION. IS THAT AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MAIN MOTION? OR DID YOU WITHDRAW?

>> NO. WE WITHDREW AND REDID IT.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PROTEM GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER CLARK REMEMBER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTSON?

[14.6. Discussion and possible action for an Ordinance regarding parking regulations for the Enclave at Brushy Creek neighborhood. (Mayor Snyder)]

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

>>> ONE MORE ITEM. 14.6. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION FOR ANENANCE REGARDING PARKING AT ENCLAVE AND BRUSHY CREEK NEIGHBORHOOD. ESSENTIALLY, WHAT THIS IS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU

GUYS CAN PASS IT AROUND. >> I CAN SEND IT REAL QUICK.

>> THERE'S BEEN I FORGOT, IF YOU JUST LOOKED AT AN AERIAL OF GOOGLE EARTH, THE ROADS OF CHAPMAN, KAUFMAN, ARE JUST LIKE WALL-TO-WALL CARS, BOTH SIDES DURING THE SCHOOL YEAR.

>> WE'VE HAD PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ISD. HANDS ARE TIED. BECAUSE THEY HAVE REQUIREMENTS. MAY AGREE OR DISAGREE. THEY'VE HAD APARTMENTS IN SOME DON'T HAVE INSURANCE. SOME OF IT MAY BE THAT YOU CAN PARK CLOSER. IT IS A SHORTER WALK THAN PARTS OF THE PARKING LOT. IT CAN ALSO BE IF YOU'RE ON DELIA CHAPPA AND YOU LIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF TOWN, YOU COULD WALK, GET IN YOUR CAR, AND NOT HAVE TO WAIT OUT ON THE TURN. REGARDLESS OF THAT, THE HOA HAS BEEN MEETING.

WE HAD A MEETING AND I SAID, LOOK. THERE IS NOTHING THAT THE CITY CAN DO. IN TALKING TO JAMES. THERE'S FIGURETHE CITY CAN DO. WE CAN'T TICKET CARS, BECAUSE WE CAN'T TELL WHO LIVES THERE, WHO IS A FRIEND OR RELATIVE.

>> I DON'T HAVE IT. NOT IS THAT I CAN FIND HERE. BUT WHAT KEY WITH DO IS MAKE IT WHERE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE ROAD.

>> BUT WE DO HAVE THE MAP. >> YEAH. I THOUGHT I SENT YOU

WHAT THEY VOTE. >> LIKE PUT UP NO PARKING

SIGNS. >> YEAH. PAINT A RED STRIPE.

NOT LIKE A FIRE LANE. BUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN IN OLD TOWN.

>> ALL THE WAY DOWN TO -- >> YEAH. IF YOU GO TO DEL CHAPPIA. THE FIRST 32 HOMES AT KAUFMAN