[1. CALL SESSION TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
>>> IT IS 7:12. WE WILL CALLED THE MEETING TO ORDER. CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THURSDAY, JANUARY 23RD, 2005. WE WILL START WITH ROLLCALL.
>> NEXT, IF YOU WILL RISE FOR INVOCATION, WE WILL BE LED BY -- OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS.
>> I WERE KIND AND GRACIOUS FATHER IN HEAVEN WE COME BEFORE THE THIS EVENING WITH GRATITUDE IN OUR HEARTS FOR THE BLESSING OF PEACE IN THIS NATION. FOR THIS WONDERFUL CITY THAT WE CALL HOME. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THY GRACE AND FOR THE WONDROUS BLESSINGS AND MIRACLES THAT GRACE UPON US EACH DAY. WE PRAY THIS NIGHT FOR PEACE TO BE UPON US ALL. TO BE IN OUR HEART'S, AND IN THE MANNER OF WHICH WE ADDRESS ONE ANOTHER. WE PRAY THAT THAT WILL HELP US FIND THE TRUTH AND SEEK INTEGRITY AND RIGHTEOUSNESS AND ALL WE CHOOSE TO DO. WE PRAY THAT WE MAY FIND I WILL FOR THIS WONDERFUL CITY. AS WE PUT OUR TRUST IN THE, WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THOSE WHO SERVE SO FEARLESSLY AND FAITHFULLY EACH DAY, I WILL FIRST RESPONDERS, EDUCATORS, CIVIC LEADERS, WE PRAY ESPECIALLY FOR THE FAMILIES OF THOSE IN THE WONDERFUL COMMUNITY THAT THEY WILL BE SUPPORTED AS THEY RAISE THE NEXT GENERATION OF THOSE WHO WILL LEAD AND GUIDE US IN THE FUTURE. WE PRAY FOR THOSE WHO ARE HERE AS LEADERS WHO HAVE ELECT TO AND PLACED IN A POSITION OF TRUST, THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO SENSE WHAT THOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO TO BEST SERVE THIS COMMUNITY. WE LOVE THE, THIS NATION AND ARE GRATEFUL FOR IT. IN THIS WE PRAY IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. AMEN.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
[5.1. Presentation of Proclamation for School Board Recognition Month. (James Gazzale) ]
>> NEXT, CITY COUNCIL, JOIN ME UP FRONT FOR PROCLAMATION AND MEMBERS OF THE SCHOOL BOARD. THEY ARE PRESENT. OR THE IAS P.
>> THAT IS WHAT IT IS. WE WERE JUST TALKING, THE SCHOOL BOARD IS HAVING A MEETING TONIGHT AND I DID NOT KNOW THEY WERE HAVING A MEETING TONIGHT. THEY ALWAYS DO AND IT IS , WE ARE THE ONES THAT MOVE THE MEETING. THIS IS A PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING SCHOOLBOARD RECOGNITION MONTH. WHEREAS, THE MISSION OF PUBLIC SCHOOLS IS TO MEET THE EDUCATIONAL NEEDS OF ALL CHILDREN AND TO EMPOWER THEM TO BECOME COMPETENT, PRODUCTIVE CONTRIBUTORS TO A DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND AN EVER-CHANGING WORLD . AND WHEREAS, LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE ELECTED BY THEIR COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR STUDENTS. AND WHEREAS, LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS WORK CLOSELY WITH PARENTS, EDUCATIONAL PROFESSIONALS, AND OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO CREATE THE EDUCATIONAL VISION WE WANT FOR OUR STUDENTS. CARL STERN AND WHEREAS, LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING THE STRUCTURE THAT PROVIDES A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM. AND WHEREAS, LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS ARE STRONG ADVOCATES FOR PUBLIC EDUCATION AND ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMMUNICATING THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO THE PUBLIC AND THE PUBLIC'S EXPECTATIONS TO THE DISTRICT. NOW, THEREFORE, MIKE SNYDER, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY COUNCIL, DO HEREBY DECLARE OUR APPRECIATION TO THE MEMBERS OF THE HUTTO ISD SCHOOL BOARD AND PROCLAIM JANUARY 2025 AS SCHOOL BOARD RECOGNITION MONTH IN THE CITY OF HUTTO. I URGE ALL CITIZENS TO JOIN US IN RECOGNIZING THE DEDICATION AND HARD WORK OF LOCAL SCHOOL BOARD MEMBERS AND IN WORKING WITH THEM TO MOLD AN EDUCATION SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE NEEDS OF BOTH TODAY'S AND TOMORROW'S CHILDREN. IN OFFICIAL RECOGNITION WHEREOF, I HEREBY AFFIX MY SIGNATURE THIS 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025.
[00:05:09]
>> IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO SAY?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, I AM DIRECTED OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF ISD. THE SCHOOL BOARD IS WORKING RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD RIGHT NOW. I AM HONORED TO ACCEPT THE PROCLAMATION ON THEIR BEHALF. THEY DO GREAT WORK, THEY ARE GREAT STEWARDS OF THE COMMUNITY, GREAT LEADERS OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THERE IS GREAT CITY LEADERSHIP HERE AS WELL. I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THAT PARTNERSHIP LONG INTO THE FUTURE.
[6. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ]
>> OKAY, NEXT THAT BRINGS US INTO ITEM NUMBER SIX. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. FOR THE RECORD, JAMES, CITY MANAGER.
THE QR CODE, IF YOU WERE TO SCAN IT, IT WILL TAKE YOU TO A LINK THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE THINGS I'M TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT. YOU CAN HAVE REFERENCE TO IT. IF YOU FIND SOMETHING YOU ARE INTERESTED IN, FOLLOW-UP ON. WITH NOTICE OF ROAD CLOSURES, CONTRACTOR FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO, JOB LIEN CONSTRUCTION, WILL SET UP A NIGHT LIEN CONSTRUCTION REOPENING AT 5:00 A.M. ON MONDAY, JANUARY 27. AT GLIMMER LOOP AND 1660. CLOSURE WILL ALLOW THE REMOVAL OF THE CONCRETE BARRIER CURRENTLY IN FRONT OF THE GAS STATION. UPCOMING EVENT NOTIFICATIONS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS, FIRST, YOU CAN ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY VOLUNTEERS DURING THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS STRATEGIC PLANNING SESSION THIS SATURDAY AT COTTONWOOD CREEK ELEMENTARY FROM 9:00 UNTIL 12:00 P.M. ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ARE EXPECTED TO BE IN ATTENDANCE AND MEETING ALONGSIDE WITH CITY COUNCIL TO WORK TO PROPOSE THEIR STRATEGIC PLANS TO PRESENT TO THE HUTTO CITY COUNCIL OVERALL FOR THE YEAR. NO RSVP REQUIRED AND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING IN A BOARD OR COMMISSION IT WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND. LEADER THAT THEY YOU CAN HEAD OVER TO THE LIBRARY FROM 2:30 UNTIL 4:30 TO ADOPT A PUPPY FROM WILCO ANIMAL SHELTER. THE EVENT IS CREDITED BY THE TEEN ADVISORY BOARD. ON FEBRUARY 1ST THE FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT DISCUSSION WILL TAKE LAZIER IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS . IT WILL BE SATURDAY MORNING, THE TIME IS NOT POSTED BUT IT WILL BE ON THE QR CODE. THE COUNCIL WILL MEET TO DETERMINE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. THIS INCLUDES ROADS, PARK IMPROVEMENTS, WATER IMPROVEMENTS, ALL THE HARD STRUCTURES THAT ARE BUILT IN THE CITY ARE CARBONATED THE PLAN. THAT ALSO SETS THE SPENDING PLAN ON DEBT SERVICE AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, WATER WASTE AND RATES. IT IS AN IMPORTANT MEETING AND A IMPORTANT CONVERSATION. NEXT THE LIBRARY HAS A NUMBER OF EVENTS COMING UP OVER THE NEXT FEW WEEKS. EVEN IF YOU'RE STREAMING AT HOME I WANT TO REMIND YOU TO USE THE QR CODE THERE TOO TO FIND DETAILS TO ALL EVENTS. IF YOU HIGHLIGHTS INCLUDE CELEBRATING THE LUNAR NEW YEAR WITH THE CHINESE DANCE STUDIO, A BLIND DATE WITH A BOOK AT THE WINE BAR AND A PERFORMANCE BY ELIZABETH -- IN CELEBRATION OF BLACK HISTORY MONTH. JUST FOLLOW THE QR CODE FOR MORE INFO. TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE WILL STOCK THE POND WITH 750 RAINBOW TROUT FOR THE ANNUAL TROUT DERBY. JOIN YOUR NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS FOR THE FREE FISHING DAY SATURDAY FEBRUARY 1ST AND REGISTER ONLINE. YOU NEED TO GET OUT THERE AND CATCH SOME OF THOSE LOVELY TROUT. IF ANYBODY IS GOING TO FLY FISH I WANT TO SEE PICTURES. SOMEONE MAKE SURE YOU
[00:10:01]
CAPTURE THAT. I WANT TO SEE THAT. LASTLY, FOR THE LIBRARY, YOU CAN TREAT YOURSELF OR GET A GIFT FOR SOMEONE AT THE LIBRARY SILENT AUCTION WHICH WILL BE HELD MONDAY, FEBRUARY 3RD FROM 10:00 A.M. UNTIL 5:00 P.M. IN THE CITY HALL LOBBY. FUNDS WILL SUPPORT THE FRIENDS OF THE HUTTO PUBLIC LIBRARY. COMING UP, ON VALENTINE'S DAY WE HAVE OUR SHOW LOVE FOR REVIEW LIVE, THE COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS RESOURCE FAIR WHICH WILL BE FROM 4:00 UNTIL 7:00 P.M. BEFORE YOU GO OUT TO DINNER OR TAKE YOUR SWEETHEART TO DINNER, TAKE YOUR SWEETHEART TO THE FAIR WHERE YOU CAN CONNECT WITH LOCAL NONPROFITS AND ENJOY SEVERAL ACTIVITIES, LEARN ABOUT VOLUNTEER OPPORTUNITIES AND THAT WE CAN LEVEL YOU LIVE. AND ON THE TOPIC OF COMMUNITY, THE CITY WILL HAVE AN IN-SERVICE DAY ON FEBRUARY 21ST FOR ALL STAFF ONE OF THE PROJECTS WE WILL WORK ON , STAFF WILL TAKE TIME TO PUT TOGETHER DONATION PACKAGES FROM ITEMS WE DONATED OURSELVES. WE ARE ASKING THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO DONATE TO INCLUDE IN THE PACKAGES, THE GIFTS WILL GO OR THE DONATIONS GO TO THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE DISTRIBUTED THROUGH THE ISD FOR THOSE THAT ARE IN NEED. WE ARE LOOKING FOR CLOTHING DONATIONS SPECIFICALLY. HIPPO HANGERS IS PROGRAM THAT COLLECTS KIDS OF ALL AGES, THERE IS A CURRENT NEED FOR WARM CLOTHING. AS YOU COULD IMAGINE. JACKET AND SOCKS,. MIDDLE SCHOOL AGED.BOOKS FOR ALL AGES ARE ACCEPTED AS AN INITIATIVE FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THERE ARE TWO DROP BINS CURRENTLY POSTED IN THE LOBBY AND THEY WILL STAY THERE THROUGH FEBRUARY 21ST. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO DONATE THAT IS SO YOU COULD DO SO. WE WILL PUT A
[7. PUBLIC COMMENT ]
HOLD THE PACKAGES AND THEN HANG THEM EIGHT HAND THEM TO THESCHOOL DISTRICT. >> WHEN I CALLED YOUR NAME , YOU CAN COME UP AND SPEAK, THE LIGHT WILL BE GREEN THEN MOVED TO YELLOW AND WHEN YOUR TIME IS UP IT WILL GO TO RED. FIRST UP IS DAVID.
>> HELLO. MY NATIVE -- MY NAME IS DAVID -- AND I AM CURRENTLY THE RANK OF WIFE SCOUT. ONE OF THE LAST RANKS IN SCOUTS IS EAGLE. FOR THE LAST RANK OR REQUIREMENT TO GET TO THAT RANK I NEED TO LEAD AND BUILD A SERVICE PROJECT . MY PLAN FOR THE SERVICE PROJECT WAS TO BUILD A BOOK WALK FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO. A BOOK WALK IS WHERE YOU HAVE A PODIUM WITH ONE PAGE OF LIKE A CHILDREN'S BOOK OPENED AND THEN A FEW FEET AWAY YOU HAVE ANOTHER PAGE OR PODIUM WITH ANOTHER PAGE OF THAT STORY AND THE IDEA IS THAT THE PERSON IS WALKING THROUGH THE BOOK. I HAVE TALKED WITH THE LIBRARY AND THEY ARE ON BOARD AND WILLING TO SUPPORT ME WITH THIS PROJECT. THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS TO PUT THIS BOOK WALK THROUGH THE CO-OP SECTION OF THE CITY.
BUT I HAVE LEARNED THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THAT LAND. SO WE ARE PIVOTING AND I AM ASKING FOR A PLACE TO PUT THE PROJECT.
IT IS ABOUT 15 PEDESTALS THAT ARE ABOUT 12 FEET APART. IN TOTAL I NEED ABOUT 180 FEET OF TRAIL. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR
YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. YOU DID A GREAT
>> MAYOR, FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE THAT JEFF FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WOULD BE A GOOD POINT OF CONTACT FOR THE GENTLEMAN TO REACH OUT TO.
>> I AGREE AND I WILL GET YOU DAVID'S INFORMATION. WE WILL GET JEFF, WHAT IS HIS TITLE? DIRECTOR OF PARKS? WORKS DIRECTOR. ALL RIGHT. BEFORE WE GO TO 8.1, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE 12.1 AND 12.3 UP NEXT AS WE HAVE COMMENTS. AND RIGHT NOW THEY ARE AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
[12.1. Discussion and possible action regarding signage in Durango Farms (Councilmember Thompson) ]
>> I AM HEARING NO OBJECTION SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO 12.1, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING SIGNAGE IN DURANGO
FARMS. >> I HAD THE ITEM TONIGHT TO BRING TO BASICALLY WHAT MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS. OUR
[00:15:05]
SUBCOMMITTEE MET WITH THE DURANGO FARMS BOARD LAST THURSDAY, IT WAS A VERY PRODUCTIVE MEETING, I BELIEVE.BELIEVE THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED, A LOT OF CLARITY THAT WAS PROVIDED. SO MY PURPOSE IN BRINGING THIS, AS YOU SEE FROM THE BACKUP MATERIAL, IS TO DIRECT STAFF TO GO INTO DURANGO FARMS AND BASICALLY SURVEY THE SIGNAGE THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE. AND LOOK FOR SIGNAGE THAT MAY BE MISSING, SIGNAGE THAT THE CITY CAN POTENTIALLY TAKE ON AS -- NOT PART OF OUR CIP BUT SIGNAGE THAT IS CURRENTLY MISSING AND PERTINENT TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY. AND BRING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO US SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN TO HELP OUT WITH ADDRESSING PUBLIC SAFETY MEASURES IN THE DURANGO FARMS COMMUNITY. THAT WAS MY MAIN ASK, TO START SMALL, LOOK AND SEE WHAT WAS MISSING CURRENTLY AND THEN WHAT WE CAN DISCUSS WHAT IS NEEDED BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF.
>> THANK YOU. AND BEFORE WE DISCUSS'S COUNCIL, -- HAS A
COMMENT. >> GOOD EVENING. HELLO. I AM BACK AGAIN. SORRY IF YOU ARE TIRED OF SEEING ME AT THIS POINT BUT I WILL BE HERE FOR A WHILE BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT TO ADDRESS IN OUR COMMUNITY. I WANT TO POINT OUT, BRIAN, THANK YOU FOR BEING CONSISTENT. I WAS DISAPPOINTED A LITTLE THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A LITTLE AGENDA ITEM ON HERE FOR THE FRENCH DRAIN. THAT IS FOR ANOTHER TIME. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT FOR THE CITIZENS, AS WELL AS YOU GUYS, WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS POSITION IF THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN PROPERLY ASSESSED AND SIGNED OFF ON. SOME OF THE SIGNAGE THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN , THEY ARE IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOCUMENTS I REVIEWED FROM THE DEVELOPER AND WERE SIGNED OFF ON. I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT WAS AN ACT OF NEGLIGENCE OR THERE WAS OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON. I WANTED TO SAY THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT WERE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND NOT COMPLETED. ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT TOO BECAUSE THERE WILL BE THINGS WE ARE ADDRESSING TONIGHT IN REGARDS TO AGREEMENTS AND PUDS, DURING THE MEETING THAT BRIAN MENTIONED, THE DEVELOPER SAID IMAGES COULD NOT BE USED OR UPHELD FOR WHAT IS GOING TO BE PROMISED TO BE DELIVERED. I WOULD LIKE TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU GUYS, AS YOU LOOK AT ENTRY, IT IS NOT REAL. IT IS NOT WHAT IS GOING TO BE DELIVERED. I WENT BACK TO 2019'S COUNCIL MEETINGS THAT ADDRESSED DURANGO FARMS AND I COULD DEFINITELY TELL YOU THE DEVELOPER TOOK ADVANTAGE OF THE CITY. I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU THAT IF THERE IS ANY KIND OF IMAGERY USED GOING FORWARD, THAT IT IS EXPLICITY WRITTEN IN THE PUD AGREEMENT OR DON'T HAVE THAT AGREEMENT AT ALL. THOSE ARE THE COMMENTS I WANTED TO MAKE . THERE IS ONE AREA THAT NEEDS NO PARKING BY OUR PARK AND THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE HAD HOMELESS AND VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF LARGE TRUCKS, WHICH I BELIEVE OLDTOWN WAS DEFINITELY AGAINST THAT AS WELL. I AM WITH THEM ON THAT.
IT IS DISRUPTIVE AND BUGS THEIR COMMUNITY AS WELL. I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT AS WELL AS YOU DISCUSSED THIS. THANK YOU.
>> A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU BEFORE YOU GO. THE PARK YOU ARE REFERENCING, IS THAT INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE PARK THAT IS THE CITY'S PARK THAT IS JUST IN OLD TOWN OUTSIDE OF
DURANGO? >> THIS ONE IS INSIDE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. OFF OF, RIGHT OFF OF MEEKER AND 1660.
>> THANK YOU. >> QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL OR
ACTION. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO BRING BACK AN ASSESSMENT OF DURANGO FARMS. THE SIGNAGE. AND ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY WOULD HAVE TO BRING DURANGO FARMS UP TO, UP TO SNUFF, THAT'S THE ONLY WORD THAT COMES TO MIND. I KNOW IT IS THE WRONG WORD. BRING THEM UP TO PAR.
BETTER WORD. RING THEM UP TO PAR WITH WHAT SAFE THE WOULD BE EXPECTED AND NEEDED IN THE CITY OF HUTTO.
>> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER
PORTERFIELD. >> CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO SPEED LIMIT SIGNS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IS THAT CORRECT?
[00:20:01]
I AM JUST NOT AWARE. >> I BELIEVE THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE ONE IN FRONT OF THE INCOMING, WHENEVER YOU ENTER THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I AM NOT SURE IF IT IS THERE OR NOT VISIBLE.
THAT IS SOMETHING THEY COULD BRING BACK. AND LET US KNOW.
>> RIGHT WHEN YOU TURN OFF OF 1660, --
>> BEEN LIKE I HAVE DRIVEN THREE WHEN THEY ARE MISSING A HANDICAP PARKING SPOT AT THE PARK. I IMAGINE THAT IS NOT A.D.A. COMPLIANT. THINGS LIKE THAT.
>> THANK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION. I WAS TRYING TO BETTER
UNDERSTAND. >> FOR SURE. I KNOW I DID NOT PROVIDE THE DETAILED DESCRIPTION AND I APOLOGIZE.
>> ARE YOU ALL OKAY WITH THE ASSESSMENT ON SIGNAGE AND LANE
MARKINGS TO INCORPORATE? >> I BELIEVE LANE MARKINGS WERE BEING DONE BY THE DEVELOPER SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THE DEVELOPER WILL KEEP THEIR WORD AND DO THAT. I DO NOT WANT TO
ADD IT TO MINE JUST YET. >> SO I AGREE WITH THE NEED TO DO THIS. I WILL MAKE A MOTION THEN TO AMEND IT TO ADD IN THE LANE MARKINGS ALSO. ONLY BECAUSE PART OF THE CONCERN IS THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT AND THEN I WILL SEE IF I CAN GET THE SECOND AND EXPLAIN.
>> SECOND. >> OKAY. MY ISSUE IS THE WHOLE ISSUE THE DEVELOPER HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWING THROUGH ON COMMITMENTS AND I THINK THAT STAFF WILL GO OUT THERE AND LOOK FOR SIGNAGE AND THEN STAFF SHOULD ALSO LOOK FOR CROSSWALK PAINTING, PARKING SPOTS, EVERYTHING THAT IS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN A COMMUNITY. THEN COME BACK. AT THE DEVELOPER SAY THEY DO IT AND STAFF WILL PROBABLY STILL HAVE TO CHECK IT ALL TO MAKE SURE, THERE SHOULD BE LANE MARKING HERE IN THIS.
IF WE HAVE ALL OF THAT THAN THEY CAN AGREE WERE TO COME BACK AND TELL THE DEVELOPER THAT YOU MISSED SOME STUFF.
OTHER THAN THAT I AM IN SUPPORT OF THIS BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HIT IT ALL AND IN ONE FELL SWOOP.
>> CAN YOU CLARIFY EMILY MARKING? WHERE IT IS JUSTIFIED.
I AM JUST THINKING DIVIDER LINE. CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME
WHAT YOU ARE THINKING? >> THERE ARE SECTIONS OF ON STREET PARKING THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN A HANDICAP PLACE YOU CAN PUT SIGNS UP AND WALKS, THEY ARE MISSING THE STRIPING AND SIGNAGE. I THINK IT IS A TWO-PART DEAL. JUST TO HIT IT ALL AT ONCE.
>> I AGREE TO GET THE ASSESSMENT DONE NOW, BECAUSE THEY COULD COME BACK AND THEY FIXED IT ALL AND THEN WE GO AND LOOK AT IT IS ONLY HALF OF WHAT WE THINK SHOULD BE DONE. THAT IS ANOTHER PROBLEM. WE MIGHT AS WELL HAVE THE LIST AS SOON AS WE CAN SO WE UNDERSTAND WHAT IS GOING ON AND I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT ABOUT NOT FOCUSING ON THE PICTURES. FOCUSING ON THE WORDS IN THE DOCUMENT. THAT HIT THE CITY SO MANY TIMES OVER AND OVER, PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW WHY THEY ARE BUILDING APARTMENTS IN CARMEL CREEK, THE DOCUMENT SAYS THEY CAN. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT IS IN THE PICTURE. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THEY SHOWED FIVE YEARS AGO, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. WE ALL NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ALWAYS PAY ATTENTION TO THAT.
>> MY ONLY OBJECTION WOULD BE THAT THE DEVELOPER DID SAY IN OUR WORK SESSION MEETING, FOR THOSE THAT WERE NOT IN THE MEETING, WE MET LAST THURSDAY WITH THESE DEVELOPERS. THEY DID STATE EMPHATICALLY THAT THEY WOULD DO THE STRIPING. I FEEL THAT IN A WAY THIS IS NOT KEEPING THEM TO THEIR WORD KNOWING THAT THEY COULD LOOK AT THE RECORDING AND JUST , HEY, THE CITY WILL GO SURVEY IT, THEY WILL DO IT. SO IN A WAY I SEE THIS AS BAILING THEM OUT. I WOULD RATHER STICK TO WHAT THE ORIGINAL MOTION WAS, GET THAT DONE. IF WE HAVE TO GO BACK OUT THERE I DO NOT THINK THAT WILL BE ON THE CITY. I THINK IT WILL BE ON THE DEVELOPER. THEN WE HAVE HOA MEMBERS THAT ARE ON TOP OF THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPER DOES KEEP THEIR WORD. BUT I MEAN, HEY, IT IS NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. I JUST THINK WE NEED TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO WHAT THEY
SAID THEY WOULD DO. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE DEVELOPER AGREED TO THE LANE MARKINGS BUT OBJECTED TO
SIGNAGE. NOT WILLING TO BUDGE. >> I DO NOT THINK THEY OBJECTED
TO IT. MORE SO THEY JUST -- >> DISREGARDED IT.
>> YOU COULD SAY THAT. THAT IS WHAT IS CAUSING THE ISSUE OF HEY, LET'S GO OUT THERE AND SEE WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE, SEE FROM THERE. WITH THE DEVELOPER BE WILLING TO -- I DON'T KNOW
[00:25:08]
WHAT THE NEXT PROCESS IS FOR THAT. I GUESS WE NEED TO SEEWHAT STAFF COMES BACK WITH. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
>> SO WHAT WORKINGS ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? PAINTING THE PARKING LOT AREA? THAT IS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? OR OTHERS ? PAINTING WEIRD THE PARKING SPACES ARE?
>> CORRECT, THEY DID SAY THEY WOULD DO THAT.
>> CARA, IF YOU WANT TO ADD TO THIS AS WELL --
>> THAT PART IS OVER. >> THAT IS OVER? GOTCHA. SORRY.
>> WHAT I GOT FROM THE DEVELOPER, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT THEY SAID NOT MY PROBLEM, BUT MORE LIKE HEY, YOU GUYS SIGNED OFF ON IT. WE WILL LOOK AT IT, ON SOME OF THIS STUFF, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD NOT PUT THE SIGNS UP BUT I DID IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL. I AM IMPATIENT, AS EVERYONE KNOWS.
SEND THE CITY OUT THERE, WRITE A LIST OF STUFF, RIGHT A LETTER TO THE DEVELOPER, SAY THIS AND THIS AND THIS AND MARK THIS AND THIS, IF THEY COME BACK AND ARGUE THEY OF PROPERTY ON THE EAST SIDE AND IN FRONT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY WON'T DO IT. IT IS JUST HISTORICALLY -- NOW WE DID HAVE THE CEO THERE WHICH WE HAVE NOT HAD TRADITIONALLY IN FRONT OF US. WE HAVE HAD ANOTHER PERSON. SO I DO THINK THAT SOMETIMES HE MAY HAVE NOT KNOWN WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND OTHER TIMES MAYBE HE DID KNOW WHAT WAS GOING ON. BEING MET HIGH UP I DO NOT KNOW HE WAS INTO THE DAY-TO-DAY. HE WILL PROBABLY BE MORE DAY-TO-DAY GOING FORWARD UNTIL AT LEAST WE GET OFF OF HIS CASE SOME OF YOU GUYS, I KNOW COUNCILMEMBER THORTON AND MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON HAVE NOT BEEN IN FAVOR OF THESE GUYS, ANYTHING I CAN DO TO HOLD THEM TO THE FIRE AND GET THINGS DONE QUICK, TO ME THAT IS THE DEAL. BUT I AM KIND OF WITH COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON. I THINK THEY WILL DO IT BUT IT WILL NOT HURT US TO BE READY TO SLAP THEM WITH A LIST OF DEMANDS ALSO.
>> I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER, WHAT WITH THE COST OF SIGNAGE, I KNOW YOU CANNOT PINPOINT IT BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT SURE WHAT IS THERE AND WHAT IS NOT, BUT SIGNAGE AS WELL AS LIKE PAINTING, STRIPING. I AM THINKING THE COSTS ARE NOMINAL. MAYBE YOU COULD GIVE ME INSIGHT OF WHAT IT WOULD MEAN FOR THE CITY AND MAYBE WE DO THE EVALUATION AND BRING IT TO THE DEVELOPER AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, WOULD YOU BE AT MINIMAL , TOO, YOU KNOW, BRING THIS PROJECT UP TO PAR? I GUESS SINCE YOU WERE NOT AWARE OF WHAT WAS GOING ON. THINGS LIKE THAT. I GUESS.
>> THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER. GENERALLY SPEAKING THE SPEED LIMIT SIGNS, THESE TYPE OF SIGNS ARE MOUNTED TO A GALVANIZED POLE THAT IS PUT IN THE GROUND AND THEN SUPPORTED WITH QUICK CREEK CONCRETE, THAT SORT OF STUFF. YOU ARE LOOKING ABOUT A $150-$250 FOR ALL OF IT. PURPLE SIGN. THAT IS FOR ALL OF IT. -- PER POLE SIGN. WHEN YOU ARE SETTING ASPHALT AND I CAN GET MORE EXPENSIVE. I DO NOT HAVE ANY WAY TO QUOTE ON THE STRIPING COST. WE HAVE THE THERMAL PLASTIC MACHINE THAT CAN PUT DOWN THAT IS SMALL, MEANT FOR PARKING SPACES AND THAT SORT OF STUFF. IT IS NOT MEANT FOR GOING OUT AND STRIPING THE ENTIRE ROAD. SO WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE EQUIPMENT.
IT WOULD JUST BE A MATTER OF MATERIAL AND LABOR.
>> THANK YOU. >> I THINK IT IS POTENTIALLY PROBLEMATIC FOR THE CITY TO DO SOME OF THAT WORK BECAUSE SOME OF THAT LAND IS PRIVATE LAND. THERE IS LEGAL IMPLICATIONS TO THAT. SO THAT IS A ROAD THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE FIGURED OUT IN THE FUTURE . I DO NOT WANT TO SAY THAT WE ARE DOING ANY WORK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY UNTIL WE HAVE THOSE ANSWERS. BUT AS FAR AS THE DEVELOPER BEING CONFUSED ABOUT OUR INTENTION AND GOING OUT AND HELPING TO MAKE THE LIST AND GET THE COMPLETE LIST, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT I AM NOT SUPPORTING THIS TO BAIL THE DEVELOPER OUT, I AM HOLDING THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO EVERYTHING THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT IS THE GOAL, MAKE THEM DO IT. MAKE SURE WE PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND THEN PUSH AS HARD AS WE CAN TO GET THEM TO DO IT. AT THE END OF THAT PROCESS IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT STILL NEED TO BE DONE THEN THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN BRIDGE AT THAT TIME. MY GOAL IS JUST TO FIGURE
[00:30:02]
IT OUT. THE ENTIRE SCOPE OF THE PROBLEM, DOCUMENT EVERYTHING AND SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU NEED TO DO TO MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOODWHOLE. >> CAN I MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT? TO DO THE SIGNAGE AND THE STRIPING FOR THE CITY TO EVALUATE IT, AND THEN DISCUSS WHAT THE DEVELOPERS -- ABOUT COMING INTO COMPLIANCE.
>> I AM FINE WITH THAT. >> THAT IS FINE WITH ME.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?
>> CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION, PLEASE?
>> ADDING THE LANE MARKINGS AND THE DISCUSSION WITH THE DEVELOPER TO THE ORIGINAL MOTION.
>> SO LIKE WHAT? >> IT IS JUST THE AMENDMENT?
>> WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL MOTION?
>> DIRECT STAFF TO DO THE ASSESSMENT ON SIGNAGE, NEEDS OF DURANGO, AND YOU SAID BRING THAT UP , BACKUP TO US? OR THE
>> AND BACK TO COUNCIL. WE ARE ADDING LANE MARKINGS AND FOR THE STAFF TO HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE NEEDS WITH THE
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. NOW WE WILL BOAT THE DISCUSSION ON THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT ON SIGNAGE AND LANE MARKINGS, TO DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THEN BRING BACK EVERYTHING TO THE CITY COUNCIL. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL
[12.3. Discussion and possible action regarding Development Agreements for properties located at 400 and 420 Hyview Lane. (Mike Snyder) ]
>> MOTION PASSES, 6-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.3. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 400 AND 420 HYVIEW LANE. AND WE HAVE SOMEONE TO SPEAK ON THAT.
>> I HAVE A HANDOUT. IS THAT OKAY?
>> YES, IF YOU WILL HAND IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.
>> GOOD EVENING. MAYOR SNYDER, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF. I WANTED TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU WILL GUARDING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS FOR 400 AND 420 HYVIEW LANE, AND ALSO FOR 60, HAS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND WILLINGNESS TO WORK WITH US TO FIND THE SOLUTION. TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RECAP, I HAVE BEEN HERE A COUPLE TIMES. THE PROPERTIES MATURED INTO A NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT IN MARCH OF 2019 . AT THAT TIME THE SURROUNDING AREA WAS PRIMARILY FARMLAND. HOWEVER AS YOU KNOW TIMES HAVE CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. TODAY THE PROPERTIES ARE SURROUNDED BY GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT, TRANSFORMING THE AREA INTO A THRIVING PART OF THE REGION.
PRIMARILY DRIVEN BY THE AVAILABILITY OF CITY OF ROUND ROCK CITY SERVICES. WHEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS MADE THE DECISION TO SELL WE DISCOVERED THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IMPOSED OVERSIGHT AND RESTRICTIONS. THE RESTRICTIONS HAVE DETERRED MULTIPLE INTERESTED PARTIES WHO HAD PLANS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES , A CHURCH, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AND DUPLEXES. UNFORTUNATELY THE OPPORTUNITIES CANNOT MOVE FORWARD DUE TO THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE AGREEMENT. WE BELIEVE THE AGREEMENT NO LONGER ALIGNS WITH THE CURRENT REALITIES OF THE AREA. OR THE CITY'S BROADER GROWTH STRATEGY. TONIGHT WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT AFTER REVIEWING THE UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PROPERTIES, YOU WILL WILL AGREE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO LONGER MAKE SENSE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. IF IT IS ALLOWED I DO HAVE A FEW MORE PAGES TO KIND OF SHOW THE AREAS. THANK
>> CONTINUE? >> YES, ANYTHING ELSE YOU
WANTED TO PROVIDE. >> THERE IS A MAP SHOWING THE PROPERTIES IN A FEW NOTES ABOUT THE SPECIFIC PARTIES, IF ANYBODY -- THE EXACT LOCATION OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE
[00:35:08]
FURTHEST NORTHEAST CORNER OF E T.J. AND THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE COVERED WITH ROUND ROCK. THEY WORKED OUT DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS TO PROVIDE SEWER AND DIFFERENT SERVICES.AND JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO THROUGH SOME OF THOSE AS WELL WITH ALL. BUT I DO NOT KNOW IF I AM ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
>> I THINK THAT WE HAVE QUESTIONS WE MAY ISSUE.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> YES. SO I BROUGHT THIS UP I KNOW WHEN WE PREVIOUSLY VOTED ON THIS. IT WAS MORE OF THE D ANNEXATION REQUEST. AND WE PRETTY MUCH WERE SAYING NO TO ALL OF THAT. AND TALKING TO MR. GRAVES, WE MET ONE DAY AND I TOLD HIM, YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN, WHAT I VIEW THE COUNCIL CONCERN HAS BEEN, PLANS AND THINGS HAPPENING THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL. AND I AND A LOT OF OUR VOTES HAVE BEEN PRETTY STRONG IN TERMS OF NOT LETTING PEOPLE ANNEX OUT FOR FEAR OF IT BEING TURNING INTO SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT FROM ME PACKAGE PLANT STANDPOINT. THE REASON I BROUGHT THIS BACK UP IS IN OUR CONVERSATION, I DID NOT HEAR BACK SO I DO NOT KNOW IF IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG. I SAID FOR ME IT DOES NOT MAKE GOOD BUSINESS SENSE FOR US TO BRING UTILITIES TO THE VERY FURTHEST CORNER OF OUR E T.J. BUT I WOULD NOT ANNEX PROPERTY JUST SO SOMEONE COULD, YOU KNOW, SO MR. GRAVES TOLD ME, WELL WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET SEWER FROM ROUND ROCK AND ALL THAT. I SAID THAT IS GREAT BUT DOES NOT HELP US BECAUSE AS SOON AS WE DO THAT WE DO THAT. SO I ASKED HIM IF WE ARE WILLING, IF THE COUNCIL AGREED AND YOU ARE WILLING, WOULD YOU DEED RESTRICT YOUR PROPERTY? ASSUMING THAT THE CITY ATTORNEY SAYS THERE IS A WAY TO DO THIS LEGALLY. THEY WOULD DEED RESTRICT TO SAY THAT THE SUBJECT COULD NOT BE THEY COULD DEVELOP THEIR PROPERTY IS IF THEY CONNECT TO A MUNICIPAL SERVICE OF SOME SORT. WHETHER IT BE GEORGETOWN, ROUND ROCK, OR HUTTO. I COULD SEE US PROTECTING THE EDGES OF THE BOUNDARY OF OUR E T.J. AND I COULD ALSO SEE WITH OUR CIP, IT COULD BE YEARS BEFORE WE GET UP THERE. SO I DO NOT NECESSARILY WANT TO HURT THEM. BUT I ALSO LOOK AT IT AND GO I WOULD ALSO NOT WANT TO SPEND 10 MILLION OR $20 MILLION SO THAT 100 HOMES COULD HOOK UP TO A SEWER. SO IN MY MIND I THOUGHT BRING THIS BACK UP, IF IT CHANGES ANYONE'S MIND, IF THEY AGREE TO DEED RESTRICT, IF IT IS LEGALLY POSSIBLE AND THEY WOULD BE FORCED TO USE A MELISSA PULL SERVICE. THAT WE WE WOULD BE INSURED IF THE PROPERTY DOES THE ANNEX OR THEY DO DEVELOP IT, IT WOULD NOT BE SEPTIC OR AS A PACKAGE PLANT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO CONNECT AT THIS POINT ROUND ROCK, SINCE THEY ARE THERE. SO IS THAT A SAFE RECOLLECTION OF WHAT WE
TALKED ABOUT? >> YES, AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE AGREEABLE AND FEEL THAT IS VERY FAIR.
>> SO ROUND ROCK SERVES SIENA, CORRECT, FOR THE WEST SIDE OF
THE PROPERTIES? CURRENTLY. >> I THINK ROUND ROCK IS ON A
MUD. >> SIENA IS MUD BUT ROUND ROCK HAS A LINE JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
>> DOES SIENA HAVE A PACKAGE PLANT OR IS IT ON THE ROUND
ROCK SEWER? >> I THINK THEY ARE ON THE
ROUND ROCK SEWER. >> AND VETERANS HILL IS ALSO ON ROUND ROCK. RIGHT. JUST BECAUSE IT IS THE EDGE. AND THEY AGREED TO SERVICE THEM. OKAY. LOOKING ON THE EAST SIDE, THE DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST SIDE, WHO SERVICES ?
>> THAT IS THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK. THEY WORKED OUT THE AGREEMENT WITH ROUND ROCK TO PROVIDE SEWER TO THEM. TO GET
THE SEWER LINE TO THE NORTH. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT PAGE SIX, I LOOK AT AN ANGLE OKAY, AT SOME POINT VETERANS IS ON ROUND ROCK, THE MANSIONS IS ON ROUND ROCK, TO GET TO THIS PROPERTY WE HAVE TO THEN RUN A LINE , GO THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY OR COME UP -- PUT UP THE EXISTING SEWER LINE, JUST
[00:40:02]
SO THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY CAN DO AND THEN KIND OF LIKE IT JUSTDOES NOT MAKE SENSE. >> YOU PROPOSE TO JUST RELEASE
THAT? >> YES, AS LONG AS THERE IS A LEGAL ROUTE TO DEED RESTRICT THE PROPERTY. WHICH I BELIEVE THERE IS. IT WOULD BE LIKE ANY OTHER DEED RESTRICTION.
>> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION IF THAT IS A MOTION.
>> I WILL SAY BASED ON IF IT IS LEGALLY POSSIBLE.
>> IS THAT LEGALLY POSSIBLE? >> SO YOU ARE NOT ASKING TO -- GET OUT OF THE HUTTO E T.J. AND GET INTO THE ROUND ROCK E T.J.
YOU ARE JUST ASKING FOR THE AGREEMENT TO BE ANNEXED FROM THE CITY? IS THAT MY UNDERSTANDING? I AM OKAY WITH
THAT. >> BUT THERE WILL NEED TO BE THE DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT AT WHO LOOKS AT THIS, TYING INTO THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK'S SEWER SYSTEM, IT IS RIGHT THERE.
SOUTH OF VETERANS HILL I THINK THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE 705 LIMMER LOOP THAT THEY WORKED OUT SOME AGREEMENT WITH Y'ALL AND THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK. WE JUST WANT TO NOT HAVE THE RESTRICTION AND JUST PUT IT OUT THERE. THE ANNEXATION, IT WOULD PUT THAT RESTRICTION ON THIS TO WHERE IT WOULD ANNEX US TO THE CITY OF HUTTO. THE PEOPLE ARE NOT INTERESTED BECAUSE ROUND ROCK HAS THE CAPACITY, THAT IS A 21 SEWER LINE, TO PROVIDE TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
>> STILL STAY IN HUTTO E T.J. THAT IS THE PROPOSAL. YOU ARE NOT ASKING TO GO TO ROUND ROCK E T.J. THAT IS THE CLARIFICATION I AM TRYING TO GET.
>> WE ARE NOT. >> THEY ARE NOT.
>> BUT I THINK WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN IS AS SOON AS THEY GO TO ROUND ROCK , ROUND ROCK IS GOING TO SAY EITHER WE ARE OKAY AND DOING THE OUT OF SERVICE CITY AGREEMENT AND YOU GUYS DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO OR YOU NEED TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OF ROUND
ROCK. >> SURE, AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE NEED TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK ON IF YOU TAKE THIS THEN WHAT DO YOU GIVE US KIND OF THING.
>> BUT THERE THING IS THEY WANT TO BE OUT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT NOW IF WE PLOT THE PROPERTY WE NEED TO ANNEX IN.
>> AND THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHAT ARE THE RESTRICTIONS, I GUESS, THAT YOU SPEAK OF? WHAT WERE INITIALLY
PROPOSED? >> ON THE SUBJECT PARTIES, IT IS THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY ALL HAD 10 ACRES WITH THE INVENTION. -- WITH THE AG EXEMPTION. THAT GOES WHERE THERE IS THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THE ACTUAL PLATTING OR CHANGE ANYTHING THAT KIND OF BASICALLY CHANGES IT FROM SINGLE-FAMILY RURAL, THEN THE CITY OF HUTTO CAN ANNEX IT INTO
>> A LOT OF THIS WAS DONE, THE TAIL END OF THAT IN MAY. IF I REMEMBER.
WERE LIKE CATEGORY TWO. WE COULD FORCE THE ANNEX. THE LEGISLATURE WAS WORKING ON TAKING THAT RIGHT AWAY. THERE WAS A COUNCIL MEETING WHEN I FIRST GOT HERE AND THE ITEMS WE TO Z-Z. A LOT OF PEOPLE TOLD ME AT THE TIME WHEN I WAS RUNNING, LOOK, THE CITY BASICALLY CAME DOWN HERE AND THAT YOU SIGNED THE AGREEMENT OR WE ARE FORCIBLY ANNEXING YOU. WE HAD A GUN TO OUR HEAD AND SAID DO WE TAKE THE BULLET TONIGHT OR A YEAR OR TWO FROM NOW? THE LEGISLATURE IN MY MIND DID A GREAT THING AND TOOK IT RIGHT AWAY. BUT WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED THINGS. I AM NOT SAYING THAT WE SIGNED IT AND IT IS A DOCUMENT AND IT IS WHAT IT IS, BUT THE ONES TO ME, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS ONE HERE I THINK A LOT COULD SAY THAT THE ITEM MAKE SENSE. I THINK WE HAVE TO EVALUATE. AND IT STOPPED RIGHT IN MAY. I THINK MEMORIAL DAY WEEKEND, DID WE HAVE A SATURDAY MEETING? A SPECIAL CALLED SATURDAY MEETING TRYING TO BE THE DEADLINE FROM THE GOVERNOR SIGNING SOMETHING. IT WAS A BIG PUSH AND I THINK
THAT WHAT LED TO THIS. >> THAT MAKE SENSE., THE ACRES ARE THE PROPERTY, LIKE THIS PROPERTY?
>> IT IS THREE 10 ACRE TRACTS, IT IS 10 ACRES TOTAL.
>> AND AS FAR AS CAPACITY. IT IS NOT TOO MUCH FOR ROUND ROCK TO TAKE ON. I WOULD ASSUME. I DO NOT WANT TO SPEAK FOR ROUND ROCK, OF COURSE. BUT MANAGEABLE.
>> SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE ARE KIND OF CONSTRAINED TO BE PROVIDING LEGAL OPTIONS. IF YOU COULD JUST DIRECT STAFF TO WORK WITH THIS PROPERTY REPRESENTATIVE. WE COULD BRING
[00:45:03]
BACK SOLUTIONS THAT ARE WELL RESEARCHED.>> THAT IS FINE. ALONG THE PERIMETERS WE ARE SETTING UP, AT LEAST THE DA, BUT AT LEAST THE RESTRICTION ON THE PROPERTY. I AM LOOKING AT THAT. THAT IS ALL I SAID. ALL WE COULD EVER DO. IF YOU SAY NO THEN THAT IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION. ANOTHER POSSIBILITY.
>> THE HOMEOWNERS, THEY HAVE CALLED THIS HOME FOR A LONG TIME. AND THEY DO NOT WANT SOMETHING, THEY DO NOT WANT A PLANT TO GO IN THERE. THEY ARE OKAY WITH THAT PARTICULAR RESTRAINT. THAT MAKE SENSE FOR EVERYBODY INVOLVED.
>> AS LONG AS YOU CAN FIND A WAY FOR US TO LEGALLY DO IT. IF WE CAN'T WE NEED TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT. THE ISSUE IS WANT TO SELL IT YEAR OR LAND OWNERS ARE OKAY WITH THE IDEA BUT ONCE THEY SELL IT, THE FIRST DEVELOPER THAT GETS IT, THE FIRST THING THEY WILL DO IS THROW IN THE MATCH PLANT. I THINK WE KILLED TWO OR THREE OVER HERE. FOR US TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MESSAGE THAT WE WILL DO EVERYTHING WE CAN TO STOP IT FROM HAPPENING, BUT I AM SURE THERE IS PROBABLY A LEGAL ROUTE. YOU GUYS JUST NEED TO TALK. THAT IS ASSUMING
WE EVEN PASS THIS. >> AND WITH THAT, JUST COMMUNICATION WITH ROUND ROCK AND PUT IT ON THEIR RADAR. WE
ARE AT THE PRELIMINARY. >> SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND MR. GRAVES, EVEN THOUGH I AM ABOUT TO PLAY THE ROLE OF THE EVIL STAFF MEMBER AND RING UP THE DOWNSIDES OF RELEASING IT, I FEEL COMPELLED TO PUT IT ON THE TABLE SO EVERYONE IS CLEAR OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. FIRST AND FOREMOST IN 2019, HAD THEY NOT SIGNED THE DA, THE PROPERTIES WOULD HAVE BEEN ANNEXED. SO THIS WAS A PROTOCOL THAT HAPPENED BACK THEN FOR PROPERTIES THAT HAD AGRICULTURAL EXEMPTIONS, THEY WERE GIVEN THE OPTION OF BEING ABLE TO DELAY THE ANNEXATION BY TAKING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN LIEU OF THE ANNEXATION, CURRENTLY ON THE PROPERTY. THAT ALLOWS THE PROPERTY TO STAY IN AG STATUS AND BE USED BY THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE WAY IT WAS BEING USED BEFORE THE CITY'S ANNEXATION WAS BROUGHT UP OR PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
GENERALLY THAT IS BECAUSE OF PROPERTY TAXES, USUALLY THE BIGGEST OBJECTION IS BECAUSE ONCE I AM ANNEX TO HAVE TO PAY PROPERTY TAXES. EVEN IF I HAVE THE EXEMPTION, IT IS MORE OF WHAT I WAS BEING. THAT IS THE GENESIS OF THIS. AND MR. GRAVES SAID THIS EXACTLY RIGHT, IF THE PROPERTY CHANGES USED, IF IT IS SUBDIVIDED, THOSE ARE THE WHAT? SUBDIVIDED IS A PLAT. SO IT IT IS SUBDIVIDED OR IF IT CHANGES USED, NO LONGER MY FAMILY HOME AND I SELL IT FOR A BUSINESS, THAT TRIGGERS AUTOMATIC ANNEXATION. IT IS BASICALLY LIKE THE DELETE ANNEXATION THAT OCCURRED AFTER THE PROPERTY USED CHANGES. SO THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT WE PROVIDE SEWER OR WATER IN THE CITY LIMITS. WE DO THAT IN THE CCN, THAT IS WHY THAT BOUNDARY IS IMPORTANT. IT IS NOT IN THE CCN BOUNDARY FOR WASTEWATER AND IT IS FOR WATER. WE WOULD BE ABLE TO PROVIDE POLICE SERVICE AND IF THEY WERE STILL UNDER THE DA AND HAD ANNEX THAN ANY DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO ABIDE BY ZONING, SUBDIVISION RULES, THOSE THINGS. THE BIGGEST THING THAT I THINK IS LIKELY TO HAPPEN FORWARD WITH I AM ALMOST CERTAIN ROUND ROCK WILL NOT SERVE IT UNLESS IT IS ROUND ROCK. ALMOST CERTAIN THAT IS TRUE BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD WITH 705 LIMMER LOOP. I THINK THAT IS ONE ISSUE. THE SECOND ISSUE IS DEPENDING ON HOW THEY ARE STRUCTURED ON THEIR LEASE, WE COULD SET OURSELVES UP TO DISADVANTAGE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW A POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, A CHURCH WOULD BE TAX-EXEMPT, SAY IT WAS, WHAT WAS THE OTHER OPTION? AUTOMOTIVE? SOMETHING. LIKE A SMALL BUSINESS? SAY IT IS NOT THAT BUT TURNS INTO 30 ACRES OF APARTMENTS, WHICH IT COULD IF WE RELEASE IT AND NOW IT IS JUST ON THE E T.J. THE DEVELOPER THEN COULD HAVE THE NEGOTIATING LEVERAGE ON US. THEY WOULD BE LIKE IF YOU DO NOT ANNEX US WE WILL NOT DO X, Y, OR C. I THINK IF WE MOVE FORWARD, AT THE VERY FAR EDGE, IT IS BEHIND AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD CONSIDER RELEASING I WOULD NOT AROUND TO ACCEPT. THAT IS WHAT I EXPECT.
[00:50:05]
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU SAID. I THINK THE BEGINNING PART IS WHAT PUTS ME IN A POSITION TO SUPPORT IT. BECAUSE THE IDEA BACK THEN WAS CITIES WOULD GO AROUND AND SAY I WILL ANNEX YOU AND MAKE YOU PAY CITY TAXES UNLESS YOU SIGN THE AGREEMENT.
I THINK THAT IS A HORRIBLE WAY FOR ANYBODY TO RUN CITIES.
WITHOUT THE LEGISLATION PASSING WE HAVE BIGGER CITY LIMITS BUT ALL THESE PEOPLE PAYING CITY TAXES. THESE PEOPLE OUT THERE DID NOT DECIDE TO BE PUT ON OUR ET JAKE. WE BASED THAT ON WHAT WE WANTED. THIS IS WHERE I THINK LEGISLATURE SWINGS THE OPPOSITE WAY GO AFTER CITIES, WE TRY TO DEFEND WHY WE DID THIS. IT WAS ALL FOR A MONEY GRAB TO GRAB TAX DOLLARS. WHAT I THINK WE HAVE TO DO IS ON A CASE-BY-CASE UNFORTUNATELY, GO BACK AND LOOK AT WHICH ONE MAKES SENSE IN WHICH ONE DOES NOT. THE OTHER ISSUES I AGREE, WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE PAPERED UP TO WHERE WE DON'T COME UP BACK AND KICK OURSELVES. THERE'S ALWAYS A POSSIBILITY PEOPLE WILL SAY HEY, WOULD YOU DO ME NEXT? IF THEY ARE IN THE FURTHEST CORNER, WRAPPED BEHIND ALREADY PUBLIC UTILITY LINES FROM OTHER CITIES, SURROUNDED BY PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE CITY, IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A DOUGHNUT THERE. I DO NOT THINK YOU ARE WRONG. I JUST AGREE, I GUESS I AGREE ON HOW WE GOT THERE. I JUST DO NOT KNOW THAT IT WAS ME BE THE RIGHT
REASONING BACK IN 19. >> WHERE IS THE BOUNDARY OF ROUND ROCK AND HUTTO'S MEETING? WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, IS THAT, THERE CITY LIMITS? WHOSE JURISDICTION? IS THAT RIGHT? DON'T YOU HAVE TO HAVE NOT A -- DOTTIE, CAN YOU
EXPLAIN THIS BETTER? >> ADJACENT. AND YOU CAN USE THE NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENTS TO ESTABLISH ADJACENCY.
>> CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >> IF YOU HAVE THE NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND THEN YOU HAVE A PROPERTY NEXT TO IT THAT WANTS TO ANNEX THEM TO THE CITY, THEY CAN BECAUSE IT IS ADJACENT TO THE NON-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT PROPERTY. YOU CAN USE THAT.
>> THE AGREEMENTS ARE USED LIKE DEFERRED ADJUDICATION. IT IS JUST NOT. THAT ALLOWS YOU THAT WAS WHERE HE
>> IMMEDIATELY OUTSIDE OF THEM, NORTH AND WEST, IT MUST BE ROUND ROCK. I GUESS IT COULD BE GEORGETOWN. BUT I DO NOT THINK
SO. >> IS PROPERTY INCLUDED IN THE
MUD PART OF THE CITY? >> ETJ ARE ETJ AND AND YOU DR
MUD. >> STAR RANCH IS IN THE HUB OF
ETJ. >> YOU CAN HAVE -- YOU CAN HAVE SOMETHING IN THE ROUND ROCK ETJ WITH A HUTTO ADDRESS. YOU COULD HAVE SOMETHING IN HUTTO WITH A ROUND ROCK ADDRESS .
>> THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF HYVIEW LANE, THESE ARE JUST NORTH? IS THAT CORRECT? IT IS DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS ON THE SELL SIDE.
>> OKAY. IT JUST SEEMS SO ISOLATED. RIGHT? FOR IT TO BE 30 ACRES. TO FIGHT FOR THIS. BECAUSE IT IS DEVELOPED ALL AROUND, MINUS THAT, IT BACKS UP TO THE VETERANS HILL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. OBVIOUSLY THAT IS NOT RELEVANT.
[00:55:08]
>> IT IS ADJACENT TO THE MANSIONS, THEY COULD EXPAND INTO THERE. THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN. IT IS IN THE TOP CORNER. IT IS TOUCHING ROUND ROCK ETJ. AGAIN IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO CONSIDER RELEASING IT I AM PRETTY CERTAIN THE NEXT THING WE WOULD NEED TO BE DOING IS NEGOTIATING WITH ROUND ROCK ON WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR THEM TO AGREE TO SERVE IT BEFORE WE TOOK ANY OFFICIAL ACTIONS ON OUR SIDE. I AM ALMOST CERTAIN. DON'T YOU THINK, MAYOR?
>> NO, BECAUSE HONESTLY I THINK THAT IS OUR PROBLEM. WE ARE SAYING THAT IF THIS PASSES YOU DO NOT HAVE THE DEVELOPMENT ANYMORE BUT THERE IS STILL ETJ. RESTRICTIONS. YOU CANNOT DO SEPTIC. PACKAGE PLANT. THEY HAVE TO FIND THE DEVELOPER AND SAY NOW WE ARE NOT IN THERE SO WHAT DO WE DO? THEN THEY HAVE TO GO TO ROUND ROCK AND SAY OKAY YOU HAVE A LINE, CAN WE NOW DO THE CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SURE WHAT HUTTO WILL DO. IF THEY WILL NOT NEGOTIATE THAT WITH ROUND ROCK THEN I COULD SEE THEM COMING BACK AND SAYING WE NEED TO ANNEX. AND WE WOULD HAVE ANOTHER ITEM. POTENTIALLY THEY COULD GET CAUGHT TO WHERE WE ARE NOT WILLING TO DE-ANNEX AND THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO GIVE SERVICE TO ROUND ROCK BUT I THINK WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME ARGUMENT ON OUR SIDE THAT IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE. I WOULD PUT THE WORK ON THEM. NOT ON CITY STAFF. WE ARE ADDRESSING THE AGREEMENT GOES AWAY AND YOU GUYS FIGURE IT OUT. AND COME BACK WITH A SOLUTION. BUT DOTTIE HAS GIVEN THEM A DOCUMENT THAT TRIES TO CIRCUMVENT IN SOME WAY. I KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN SEPTIC RESTRICTIONS BEFORE, BUT IT WAS A LANDOWNER. I GET A LITTLE FOGGY ON WHO IT BENEFITS AND HOW IT BENEFITS AND THE CONSIDERATION MADE AND ALL THAT. THAT IS THE LEGAL PART.
>> I HAVE DONE RESTRICTIVE COVENANT AGREEMENTS WITH PROPERTIES IN THE ETJ FOR ANOTHER CITY. IT WAS IN THE FORM OF AN AGREEMENT. THEY HAD TO PUT THE RESTRICTION ON THEIR PROPERTY . IF THEY DID SOMETHING THAT WAS CONTRARY TO THE RESTRICTION THAT THE CITY WOULD ANNEX.
>> SOMETHING LIKE THAT I THINK WORKS. AT THE POINT THAT THEY COME IN WE HAVE TO PUT IN THERE THAT ONCE YOU EITHER HAVE AN AGREEMENT TO GET SERVICED, THIS PART OF WHATEVER GOES AWAY.
>> I THINK IT IS A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM TO WORK THIS OUT AND
BRING IT TO US. >> ASSUMING WE WITH THE AGREEMENT. THE MOTION IS TO DIRECT LEGAL TO DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER OF THE RELEASING OF THE DA WITH SOME SORT OF RESTRICTION ON HOWEVER IT IS ORDERED, SEPTIC OR PLANT OR WHATEVER THE TERMINOLOGY IS. ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. AND THAT WILL BRING US BACK TO ITEM 8.1,
[8.1. 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. ]
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS AND/OR REMOVALS TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISIONS, TASK FORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS AND TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARDS AND AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENT.>> MAYOR, WE DID NOT MEET. BUT WE DID GET A DOWNLOAD ON THE PROCESS. AND THERE IS NO SPOTS TO BE FILLED CURRENTLY. BUT WE DO HAVE A GOOD BENCH FORMING WITH BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
>> QUICK QUESTION. DIDN'T WE HAVE A VACANCY ON ONE OF THE
BOARDS? >> THERE IS A VACANCY AND ETHICS HAS A VACANCY. BUT THERE IS NO APPLICATIONS ON FILE FOR
>> TOURERS AND ETHICS HAS THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS ON SATURDAY. AND GETTING PLANS FOR THE YEAR
>> ALL RIGHT. 8.2 , CONSIDERATION OF ELECTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE. , THE DID NOT. THE RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME.
[9. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ]
[01:00:02]
>> NEXT WE HAVE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS 91, 9.2, 9.3, 94, 9.5
9.6. >> THE MOTION TO AS PRESENTED.
>>. >> NO OBJECTIONS AND I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEMS 9.3. AND 9.4 OUT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL NINE POINT OKAY, JUST APPROVING 9.1,
9.5, 9.6 AS PRESENTED. >> FINE WITH ME.
>> NO OBJECTIONS. >> ALL RIGHT, THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE 9.1, 9.5, 9.6 AS PRESENTED. ANY DISCUSSION ON
THE MOTION? >> THE ONLY ONE I HAVE, 9.5, WE ARE THREE MONTHS IN AND WE ARE NOT HITTING SALES TAX. SO I THINK IF AT THIS TIME NEXT, AT THE END OF OUR QUARTER, I GUESS WHATEVER FOUR MONTHS OUR, A THIRD, WE GET TO A THIRD OF THE YEAR AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AN AMENDMENT. IF WE ARE STILL NOT HITTING OUR NUMBERS. I'M AFRAID IF WE GO TOO FAR, WE GET 300,000 AND THE WHOLE IN SALES TAXES. BUT IT IS JUST, I WAS
TRYING TO SAVE YOU TIME. >> SAVING ME A FEW STEPS. GOOD EVENING. ALBERTO BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR. WE ARE MONITORING THAT. I LOOKED AT JANUARY AND JANUARY IS UP ALMOST 3% OVER WHAT WE HAD BUDGETED FOR THAT MONTH. IS A LITTLE SLOW TO GET STARTED BUT AGAIN FEBRUARY IS GOING TO BE OUR BIG MONTH. AGAIN LET'S WAIT TO SEE HOW THAT PLAYS OUT.
THEN WE WILL INCLUDE IT IN A MAJOR AMENDMENT IF WE JUST DO NOT THINK IT WILL BE WHAT WE PROJECT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. OKAY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
[9.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-029 authorizing the City Manager to execute a multi-year contract in an amount of $185,761.81 with Vertosoft, LLC for an asset and work management solution for the Public Works Department through TX-Department of Resources Cooperative: DIR-CPO-5327. (Rick Coronado) ]
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS 9.2.
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-029 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MULTI-YEAR CONTRACT IN AN AMOUNT OF $185,761.81 WITH VERTOSOFT, LLC FOR AN ASSET AND WORK MANAGEMENT SOLUTION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT THROUGH TX-DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES COOPERATIVE: DIR-CPO-5327.
>> SO I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THE QUOTES. WE HAD A STATEMENT OF WORK" ON THERE. HOPEFULLY I AM WRONG BUT IT LOOKS LIKE STATEMENT OF WORK EXPIRED ON 12-01, IN THE QUOTE EXPIRED ON 01-17. IF THAT IS TRUE I DO NOT KNOW HOW I COULD VOTE ON THE INVALID QUOTE. IF THEY COULD RE-UP THE NUMBER, THAT IS FINE.
I DO HAVE ANOTHER POINT TO MAKE BUT THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION.
>> RICK CORONADO, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR. YOU SAID THAT THE
QUOTE EXPIRES ON 12-17. >> THE STATEMENT OF WORK IS 12-31-24, AND THE QUOTE EXPIRES 1-17, SIX DAYS AGO. SO I WOULD FEEL BAD, I AM NOT SAYING THAT I WOULD OR WOULD NOT VOTE FOR THIS BUT I FEEL BAD VOTING FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE IF IT BE EXPIRED. HOPEFULLY THEY WILL NOT MESS AROUND.
>> WE HAVE THE VENDOR ONLINE THAT WOULD HONOR THE QUOTE. AND UPDATE THE INFO. BUT I CAN ALSO PROVIDE THAT.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT IN WRITING, PERSONALLY. IT MAKES ME NERVOUS TO APPROVE THAT WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THAT -- UNLESS I AM MISSING SOMETHING. PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG.
>> I THINK IT WAS A GOOD CATCH AND IT GOES TO SOMETHING THAT COUNCILMEMBER THORTON SAID. WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE ARE READING ALL THIS STUFF AND CATCHING IT. 99% OF THE TIME IT WILL BE FINE. BUT WE RUN INTO ISSUES WERE ALL OF A SUDDEN WE COME BACK FOR A CHANGE ORDER AND IT WAS NOT EXACTLY AND SOMETHING CHANGED. I COULD SEE WHERE WE PROBABLY NEED TO MAKE SURE IT IS BUTTONED UP AND BROUGHT BACK ON CONSENT WITH
THE RIGHT DATES. >> I AM SURE THAT THEY CAN JUST
[01:05:04]
-- GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS -- WITH -- IF I COULD MAKE A COMMENT ON THIS, SEEING IF IT HELPS WITH THE ISSUE AT HAND. WE WILL HONOR THE CURRENT STATEMENT OF WORK" AS IT CURRENTLY LIES. I WILL UPDATE THE DOCUMENTS AND HAVE THOSE SENT OVER FIRST THING TO RICK AND THE TEAM.>> WHEN DID YOU FIRST GET THIS QUOTE? WE HAD A COUNCIL MEETING
WHEN YOU GOT THIS? >> JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THE PROCESS, WE HAD SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF REVIEW. WHETHER IT WAS DEMONSTRATION SO THIS IS WITH VERTOSOFT, LLC, THE VENDOR THAT IS REPRESENTING OPEN GOLF. AND IT IS THROUGH A COOPERATIVE CONTRACT. WE SENT OUT THE REQUEST TO KIND OF GET THE DOCUMENTS UPDATED. IT PROBABLY WAS UPDATED AT LEAST RIGHT AROUND THE HOLIDAYS. SO IT JUST KIND OF GOT MISSED THROUGH UPDATING IT AND TRYING TO GET IT ON COUNCIL. WE COULD DEFINITELY UPDATE THE QUOTE ITSELF, ATTACHED TO THE AGREEMENT. LIKE WE HAVE NATE ON THE LINE WHO REPRESENTS OPEN
GOLF. -- OPEN GOP. >> I WOULD AGREE. IT IS NOT THAT DAY AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO HAVE COUNCIL MEETINGS, WE HAVE DIFFERENT RESCHEDULED MEETINGS. SO MAYBE IN THE BACKUP MATERIAL, MOVING FORWARD, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA FOR THAT SPECIFIC EVENING, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE AN EMAIL SENT TO US THAT THIS IS FOR TONIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE SENSITIVITY OF TRYING TO GET SOMETHING TO US. WE MAY NOT BE MEETING AND IT MAY PASS THE DATE AND IT IS STILL VALID. BUT AT THE SAME TIME IT STILL HAS THE WRONG DATE. I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT. YOU KNOW. AND THAT MIGHT MAKE IT EASIER FOR STAFF AS WELL.
>> UNDERSTOOD. >> I KNOW THAT WE DID HAVE TO SHIFT ONE WEEK. IT COULD HAVE BEEN LOST THROUGH THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. YOU KNOW, THE DATES BEING, NEEDING THOSE TO BE VALID. ALSO, I APPRECIATE IT NATE BEING ON MINE TO CONFIRM -- BEING ONLINE TO CONFIRM THAT PRICES WILL NOT CHANGE IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS ONCE HE UPDATES THEM. AND I DID MAKE THE MOTION TO CHANGE THAT. WE WERE INITIALLY GOING TO HAVE A JANUARY 16TH MEETING. SO JANUARY 17TH WOULD BE THE END DATE. I THINK THAT US PUSHING, DECIDING TO PUSH IT TO TODAY, MAYBE IT JUST GOT CROSS HAIRED SIDEWAYS. AND THINGS, JUST FOR A LITTLE BIT OF UNDERSTANDING, I DO NOT THINK THAT IT WAS DONE MALICIOUSLY OR IN BAD FAITH. BUT I DO AGREE WITH THE POINTS
OF IT BEING ACCURATE. >> MEAT, ARE YOU GUYS A PUBLIC
COMPANY. >> OPEN GOV IS A PRIVATELY
OWNED COMPANY. >> DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY MEMBERS
ARE ON YOUR BOARD? >> I DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME AS WE SIT HERE TONIGHT.
>> AND IF YOU HAD TO GUESS? >> LESS THAN 10 BOARD MEMBERS I
WOULD SAY. >> BECAUSE 1295, I MAY PROTEST THIS. I MAY ASK TO LOOK INTO THIS ONE. THERE IS NO ONE LISTED ON THE 1295. AND IF YOU ARE A PUBLIC COMPANY YOU DO NOT HAVE TO AND IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 10 BOARD MEMBERS YOU DO NOT HAVE TO. I AM OKAY BEING WRONG AND THAT IS WHAT THEY GET PAID TO DO. IT IS NOT OUR JOB. BUT AS A TAXPAYER I CAN THEN SEE THE AGREEMENT, SEND THE AGREEMENT TO THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION. IF THEY FIND THAT THEY HAD THE INTERESTED PARTY AND DID NOT LIST THEM AT THE 1295 THEN IT WOULD MAKE IT VOID. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOMEBODY OUT THERE. WE KEEP HAVING THESE POINT. I DON'T KNOW. EVEN THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION SAYS THERE ARE VERY FEW INSTANCES WHERE A BUSINESS WILL NOT HAVE AN INTERESTED PARTY.
>> OPEN GOV IS A DIFFERENT COMPANY THEN VERTOSOFT, LLC.
WHO IS ONLINE RIGHT NOW IS OPEN GOV. AND VERTOSOFT, LLC IS THE
COOPERATIVE OR CONTRACTOR. >> AND CAN YOU EXPAND ON THAT
[01:10:02]
MORE. DEPARTMENT OF AFFIRMATION RESOURCES. HOW THEY PLAY A ROLE IN OR MAYBE THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN CLARIFY ON THE SAFETY SECURITY OF MUNICIPALITIES AND THINGS OF THIS SORT.>> IT IS THE ACCEPTING OF BIDDING. IF YOU GO THROUGH THE DEPARTMENT OF INFORMATION RESOURCES.
>> THE COMPANIES HAVE INVENTED THOROUGHLY AT THE STATE LEVEL.
FOR SECURE INFO. AND SAFETY. >> CORRECT.
>> SO IS IT A NONPROFIT? >> IT IS STATE.
>> DO YOU MEAN VERTOSOFT, LLC? I DO NOT KNOW.
>> ON THE DIR THEY ARE A SEPARATE CONTRACT. I DO NOT
BELIEVE THEY ARE NONPROFIT. >> DIR IS A STATE AGENCY.
>> SO FOR VERTOSOFT, LLC YOU MIGHT VERIFY WITH THEM, THE MAYOR IS A JERK AND HE IS -BENT ON GETTING THESE THINGS BUILDOUT RIGHT. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN 10 BOARD MEMBERS YOU ARE PROBABLY OKAY AND IF YOU ARE PUBLIC YOU ARE PROBABLY OKAY. IF YOU ARE NOT THEN HE MAY WANT TO THROW THE WHOLE AGREEMENT. IF YOU WANT TO MARK AS AN INTERESTED PARTY THEN THAT IS GOOD. I KEEP COMING ACROSS THIS AND NOT THAT WE WILL KNOW THESE PEOPLE AND ONE OF THEM HAS AN EMPLOYEE OR FAMILY MEMBER PURCHASING AND EMPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT, BUT WE FILL THEM OUT AND PEOPLE SCRUTINIZE THINGS.
>> IF WE MOVE THE ITEM TO THE NEXT MEETING TO GET CORRECTED WITH THE DATE, WHAT IS THE TIMELINE ON ITS LIMITATION TO THE SOFTWARE FOR PUBLIC WORKS? DOES THAT SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT?
>> IT IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. IT IS STILL THE SAME TIME I IN THIS FISCAL YEAR, THE REMAINDER NUMBER OF MONTHS IN THE FIRST PHASE. THEN ANOTHER PHASE WOULD CONTINUE AFTER THAT FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR. AND IT IS BROKEN DOWN THAT WAY JUST BECAUSE THERE IS ONLY SO MANY STAFF MEMBERS THAT CAN KIND OF MANAGE THROUGH THE DIFFERENT GROUPS. THE FIRST YEAR IS CRITICAL FOR DEVELOPING THE STREETS , WATER, WASTEWATER, -- GROUPS AND START LAUNCHING THAT . AFTER THAT THERE IS OTHER GROUPS THAT WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO HAVE INCLUDING FACILITIES AND FLEET AND SO FORTH. SUBSEQUENT FISCAL YEAR. ONE COUNCIL MEETING WON'T DETER THE CONTRACT OR THE SCHEDULE.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO BRING IT BACK.
>> SECOND. >> THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING.
WHICH IS? WE ARE BACK IN TRACK FEBRUARY SIX.
>> ANY DISCUSSION UNTIL THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING? 02-06.
SEEING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. SORRY WE DID NOT GET TO YOUR POINT WE
[9.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-030 authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 1 to the agreement with KFriese in the amount of $163,268.63 related to the Exchange Boulevard project (T15-2024). (Matt Rector) ]
WILL GET TO A NEXT TIME. >> THAT IS FINE.
>> 9.3. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-030 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH KFRIESE IN THE AMOUNT OF $163,268.63 RELATED TO THE EXCHANGE BOULEVARD PROJECT, T15-2024. TWO COMMENTS. ONE, AWESOME FIX I THINK FOR THIS SNAFU THAT YOU INHERITED.
>> YES, SIR. >> MY CONCERN IS THERE IS ONLY FOUR PROPERTY OWNERS. WE JUST HAD THREE, ONE IS CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH OUR CITY AND TRYING TO GET APARTMENTS. ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. THE NORTHWEST AND THE SOUTHWEST JUST CAME THROUGH. WE HAVE GOT TO HAVE THEIR CONTACT INFORMATION. THE NORTHEAST , YOU GUYS WERE NOT HERE FOR IT AND I COULD GIVE YOU THAT HE LIVES IN IDAHO, OR UTAH, THE LANDOWNER. WE HAD AN ISSUE AT THE POST OFFICE. IF I READ THIS RIGHT WE ARE GETTING READY TO PAY $61,000 FOR RIGHT AWAY SERVICES TO A CAR RAN AWAY FROM KFRIESE. WE ARE KNOW THREE OF THE PEOPLES INFORMATION. $61,000 TO REACH OUT TO SOMEBODY AND GO HEY, WE NEED TO BUY X AMOUNT OF LAND SEEMS LIKE A HUGE, BAD IDEA. I THINK WE HAVE A RIGHT AWAY PERSON ON STAFF THAT WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE HIRING. ISN'T THERE AN
ENGINEER? >> THE LAW FIRM DOES IT.
MARIANNE BANKS, THE ATTORNEY HERE AT THE LAST MEETING.
[01:15:01]
>> AND YOU DO IT LESS THAN $61,000? LITERALLY YOU COULD, I JUST SEE IT AND GO, IT REMINDS ME OF THE TIME WE DID THE MEGA SITE FOR THE ROAD AND THOSE PEOPLE WERE GETTING MONEY FOR SERVICES THROUGH THE ROOM LAND. AND I WAS LIKE IT IS THEIR OWN LAND? BUT I ONLY BRING IT UP BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO REALLY LIKE CONSIDER REMOVING THIS FOR $61,000 LESS THAN WHAT WE HAVE UP HERE AND SECURE IT OUT AND FORCE THE ETERNITY -- ATTORNEY
TO DO IT FOR LESS. >> YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THE ENGINEER TO DRAW UP THE BOUNDS THAT ARE NECESSARY REGARDLESS.
I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT IS IN THE 61. I THINK WE CAN TAKE YOUR CONCERNS TO KFRIESE AND THAT IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH IN HIS NEGOTIATIONS TO HOLD THE COST AND TELL THEM THAT IF THEY CANNOT PROVIDE THE ACTUAL SERVICES CHEAPER THAN OUR LAW FIRM AND WE WILL ENGAGE THE LAW FIRM TO DO THAT AND THEY CAN
DELIVER THE MEANS INBOUNDS. >> I DO NOT KNOW HOW THIS STUFF WORKS BUT I'M JUST GOING OFF THE SECTION 2 PAYMENT AND IF I'M HEARING YOU SAYING THAT WE SHOULD PASS IT AND THEN WORK IT OUT ON THE BACKEND. OR DO NOT PASS IT ?
>> I AM SAYING TO WAIT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
>> MOTION TO POSTPONE UNTIL FEBRUARY 6.
>> SECOND. >> WE DO NOT HAVE CRITICAL
TIMELINES ON THAT EITHER. >> AND THEN SECONDED.
>> MAYOR SNYDER AND COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SURVEYS, IT SAYS LAND RIGHTS ACQUISITION SERVICES. AND THEY HAVE GOT GEO, MAYBE SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO COME UP HERE BUT IF THEY COULD EXPLAIN WHAT THEY WOULD GET FOR 61,000 AND IF THE CITY ATTORNEY CAN DO IT FOR LESS, THAT IS SIDEWALKS DOWN 1660, IN MY
>> OKAY, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >>
[9.4. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-031 authorizing the City Manager to execute an IPO with Cobb-Fendley in the amount of $70,329.50 for Utility Coordination Services related to the Exchange Boulevard project (115-2024). (Matt Rector)]
>> THE MOTION PASSES 6-0. ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 9.4.
CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-031 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN IPO WITH COBB-FENDLEY IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,329.50 FOR UTILITY COORDINATION SERVICES RELATED TO THE EXCHANGE BOULEVARD PROJECT, T15-2024.
JUST ONE QUESTION. IN GENERAL LAYMAN'S TERMS, WHAT DO THEY
DO FOR $70,000? >> IF YOU REMEMBER WHEN WE HAD THE MEETING WITH ENCORE, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW WE HIRE THE THIRD PARTY TO GET ALL THE STUFF OUT OF THE WAY. THAT IS
WHAT THEY ARE DOING. >> ALL RIGHT, I HAVE ONE COMMENT. AND THEY HIT A DEADLINE? AS YOU REMEMBER NOW IN THE ENCORE MEETING, THEY SAID A LOT OF THE ISSUES IS COMMUNICATION. SOMETIMES ON OUR END. IF WE ARE PAYING SOMEONE $70,000 I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW, WE CAN APPROVE THIS ONE BUT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE FOR $70,000 I WANT COBB-FENDLEY OR WHOEVER NOT TWO YEARS FROM NOW WE ARE STILL WORKING ON IT . AND THEN I MEET WITH ENCORE AND THEY SAY THAT OUR CONSULTING IS TERRIBLE. IF THEY COULD RETURN THE EMAILS AND STUFF WE COULD GET THIS STUFF DONE. I DO NOT KNOW IF IN THE FUTURE WE COULD START HAVING LIKE $70,000 AND YOU ARE GOING TO GET IT DONE IN SIX MONTHS. OR WHATEVER. IS WE ALWAYS COME UP AND SAY THE REASON THE PROJECT IS BEHIND IS UTILITIES. THAT IS WHY I
BROUGHT IT UP. >> THAT IS FAIR.
>> THIS WHEN I WILL NOT DIG IN ON BUT THE NEXT ONE I MIGHT
START. >> IT GIVES ME MORE LEVERAGE TO
HOLD THEIR FEET TO THE FIRE. >> ESPECIALLY FOR $70,000, HAVING A PHONE CALL WITH ENCORE IN SAYING WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THIS HERE? THAT EVERYBODY SAYS I AGREE. OKAY, SIGN HERE AND
PAY ME. >> THEY HAVE A BUNCH OF NAMES ON THE 1295. DOES THAT WORK WITH YOUR GRANT?
>> NO, IT MEANS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE CONFLICT.
>> TO PIGGYBACK BACK FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION POTENTIALLY, I DID ASK THIS OF THE CITY MANAGER. IF THIS COULD BE SOMETHING, I GUESS PART OF ENGINEERING STAFF FOR THE FUTURE TO EXPEDITE THINGS. MAYBE BE MORE AFFORDABLE. I DON'T KNOW. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? OBVIOUSLY WE WILL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION DURING STRATEGIC PLANNING AND BUDGET SEASON. I GUESS JUST TO BRING THAT IN-HOUSE. YOU KNOW, THE
[01:20:01]
CITY MANAGER, JUST TO EITHER SAY SAVING ON COST, SPEEDING UP TIMELINES, REALLY DIRECTLY COORDINATE WITH UTILITIES.>> COUNCILMEMBER, I APPRECIATE THE QUESTION. I WOULD SAY UNTIL WE ARE READY TO DESIGN PROJECTS OURSELVES, WHICH I DO NOT INC.
WE WILL WANT TO DO FOR QUITE SOME TIME. BUT IN UNTIL THAT TIME I AM NOT ENTIRELY SURE IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE ENGINEERING STAFF. THE PART YOU REALLY HAVE TO DO THAT THE ENGINEERS HAVE TO DO IS THE SCHEMATIC. THEN THE MEANS INBOUNDS FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THEN YOU HAVE THE LAND PERSON ASPECT OF IT THAT IS THE NEGOTIATOR. LET ME GET THE EASEMENT FROM YOU. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? THAT SORT OF STUFF. CURRENTLY WE ARE USING -- FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION AND THEN THE ENGINEERS FOR THE MEANS INBOUNDS, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SCHEMATICS AND THAT. SO WE KIND OF HAVE IT IN-HOUSE BY HAVING THE ATTORNEYS DO IT SEPARATE. WE COULD HAVE A LAND PERSON DEDICATED BUT WE WOULD REALLY HAVE TO BE KICKING UP -- I GUESS 70,000 WOULD PAY A GOOD CHUNK OF SALARY. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? BUT IT IS
SOMETHING YOU COULD DO. >> I UNDERSTAND BUT JUST MORE ON EFFICIENCY TIMELINE WITH PROJECTS. WE ARE KIND OF AT THE MERCY OF CONTRACTORS AT THIS POINT. RIGHT?
>> YOU ARE SAYING POTENTIALLY ADDING AN FTE THAT DOES THIS? THEN AT LEAST WE CAN COME UP AND YELL AT HIM FOR, WHY ARE YOU BEHIND? YOU ARE KILLING US. WHEREAS NOW THEY ARE LIKE SOME CONSULTANT WE NEVER MET THAT MAYBE IS NOT EVEN LIVING IN OUR CITY OR THIS METRO AREA. I LIKE THAT. ESPECIALLY IF ONE PROJECT IS $70,000. DON'T GO AND SPEND $250,000 ON A PERSON.
>> EVEN PAY 100 TO MAKE THEM WORTHWHILE.
>> WE COULD LOOK AT THAT IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. SEE IF Y'ALL
ARE INTERESTED. >> I GET IT, THE DESIGN PHASE.
IS AN OUTSIDE PERSON NOT BEING INVOLVED IN THE DESIGN. RIGHT? SO I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT I GUESS WE NEED TO THINK OF THAT AS A COUNCIL. HOW THE PROJECTS ARE RUNNING.
>> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE AN ACTION FOR THIS ITEM?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> MOTION . TO HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE
>> MOTION PASSES BY ONE. THANK YOU, MATT. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM
[10.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2025-004 amending construction requirements for Hutto Code of Ordinances Article 18.03, Right-of-Way Management. (Legal) ]
10.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2025-004 AMENDING CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES ARTICLE 18.03, RIGHT-OF-WAYMANAGEMENT. WELCOME BACK. >> I DID NOT REALIZE THAT WE WERE ENGINEER, THE ITEM HERE BEFORE YOU IS KIND OF A LONG HISTORY , SOMEWHAT LONG. I GUESS. YOU MAY REMEMBER BACK IN LATE 23 THREE WE WERE GETTING A LOT OF ISSUES AND COMPLETES FROM HOMEOWNERS, BUSINESSES ABOUT DRY UTILITY WORK HAPPENING WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO UPDATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE AND MANUAL. SO WE WOULD MINIMIZE THE OUTCRY FROM THE PUBLIC. WE DID. MY TEAM WORKED WITH DOTTIE'S TEAM AND WE CAME BACK TO COUNCIL IN DECEMBER OF 2023 WITH A NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE AND MANUAL. PART OF THE REQUIREMENT IN THE ORDINANCE AND MANUAL WAS WRITTEN SPECIFICALLY TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE PLANS WE WERE GETTING. AND INITIALLY WE GOT PUSHED BACK FROM EVERY SINGLE DRY UTILITY COMPANY. I HAD SEVERAL TELECOM COMPANIES BASICALLY SAY IF THIS IS THE WAY YOU ARE GOING TO BE WE WILL NOT DO BUSINESS IN HUTTO ANYMORE. AT WHICH POINT I SAID THANK YOU, HAVE A NICE DAY. THEY CAME BACK A LITTLE LATER AND SAID NEVERMIND. WE WILL COMPLY. WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS A SAMPLE OF PLANS WE WERE GETTING PRIOR TO US LAMENTING THE ORDINANCE. VERY LITTLE INFORMATION. THERE IS NO SURVEY TIES, THERE IS NO REAL SUBSTANCE OF ANYTHING THERE FOR US TO LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE WE ARE MINIMIZING CONFLICTS AND
[01:25:03]
TRYING TO AVOID THINGS BEFORE WE START PUTTING SHOVELS IN THE DIRT. WHAT YOU SEE ON THIS SLIDE IS WHAT WE WERE GETTING AFTER WE IMPLEMENTED THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY ORDINANCE ANY NEW RIGHT-OF-WAY MANUAL VASTLY DIFFERENT YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE PROFILE, CLEARLY SEE WHAT DEPTH EVERYTHING IS. ULTIMATELY WHAT COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO WORKED. WE HAVE DRASTICALLY REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CONFLICTS THAT HAVE BEEN HIT IN RIGHT-OF-WAY WORK BY DRY UTILITIES. WE REDUCED AMOUNT OF COMPLAINTS WE GOT FROM CITIZENS. EVERYTHING WORKED. THE MAIN STICKING POINT, WHY WE ARE HERE TONIGHT IS THERE IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE MANUAL AND ORDINANCE THAT SAYS ALL PLANS MUST BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS. WE TOOK THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE WE MODELED OUR ORDINANCE AFTER THE CITY OF -- ORDINANCE. AS I INDICATED EARLIER INITIALLY EVERY SINGLE DRY UTILITY COMPANY PUSHED BACK AND SAID WE ARE NOT DOING THIS.WE ARE NOW AT A POINT WHERE EVERY SINGLE DRY UTILITY COMPANY'S EXCEPT ONE HAS COME INTO COMPLIANCE. WE HAVE HAD REGULAR MEETINGS WITH ENCORE AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DEAL WITH THE SITUATION. WE GOT TO AN IMPASSE AND WE WANT TO KEEP PROJECTS MOVING, WE WANT TO HAVE A PARTNERSHIP, WE WANT TO COOPERATE WITH EVERYBODY ACROSS THE BOARD. THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO SACRIFICE THE QUALITY WE WERE GETTING AND GO BACK TO THE CHAOS THAT WAS HAPPENING IN 2023. SO WE CAME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. BASICALLY IT REMOVES THE REQUIREMENT THAT ALL PLANS BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER. BUT, WHEN WE TAKE THE LANGUAGE OUT WE ARE STRENGTHENING THE LANGUAGE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN AND PROFILE, HAVE TO SHOW WHERE THE POLLS ARE GOING TO GO, HOW DEEP THEY WILL GO, THE FOOTINGS, ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE ARE GETTING ON THE NEW HIGH QUALITY PRINTS.
YOU HAVE TO GIVE THAT TO US. FINE, YOU WILL NOT HAVE THE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SIGN AND SEAL IT ANYMORE BUT YOU STILL HAVE TO GET THAT TO HAVE THE PERMIT TO WORK IN OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT IS ALL FOR YOU TONIGHT. I THOUGHT I HAD ONE MORE SLIDE BUT I GUESS I DO NOT. ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT I WILL MENTION IS THAT WE ACTUALLY DID -- THE LEGAL TEAM DID RESEARCH TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW MANY OTHER CITIES ARE HAVING THIS ISSUE. I CAN TELL YOU BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT THE CITY OF COLLEEN AND ALICE -- DALLAS REQUIRE SIGN SEAL AND DELIVER FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY, SHERMAN, FLOUR, -- HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY. I ALREADY TOLD YOU ARLINGTON, WE BASED OUR MODEL OFF OF THEIR MODEL. THEY HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENT. AND THEN THERE IS TWO CITIES THAT HAVE RESPONDED SO FAR THAT SAY THEY DO NOT REQUIRE IT, PLANO AND UNIVERSITY PARK. THE ITEM THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS BASICALLY AMENDING THE ORDINANCE TO REMOVE THE PE SIGN AND SEAL REQUIREMENT. BUT WE ARE CLARIFYING RINGWOOD IN THERE TO MAKE THE MANUAL AND ORDINANCE SUPPORT EACH OTHER CLEARLY. TO SAY WE WILL GIVE YOU ALL THESE THINGS IN YOUR PLANS OR WE WILL
NOT GIVE YOU THE PERMIT. >> IS IT CORRECT THAT ENCORE IS COMPLIANT IN SOME CITIES BUT NOT WANTING TO BE COMPLIANT TO THE SIGN AND SEAL HERE IN HUTTO?
>> BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE GOTTEN BACK THROUGH THE LEGAL TEAM RESEARCH, YES, THERE ARE SOME CITIES IN TEXAS WHERE ENCORE HAS TO SUBMIT SIGN AND SEAL PLANS. THEIR STANCE FOR US IS THAT THEY ARE NOT SET UP FOR THAT. THEY DO NOT DO THAT. SO WE HAVE COME UP WITH THIS KIND OF -- WHAT IS THE WORD?
>> COMPROMISE. >> THANK YOU. TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT THE WAY TO REMOVE THE ONE STUMBLING BLOCK TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE HIGH-LEVEL PLANS AND HIGH-LEVEL ANALYSIS BEFORE THEY
PUT THE SHOVEL TO THE GROUND. >> GO AHEAD.
>> SORRY. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND ENCORE IS THE SERVICER OF TRANSMISSION DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. RIGHT.
[01:30:04]
FOR OUR AREA AND REGION AND ALL THE OTHER CITIES TOO. SO THERE IS NO OTHER OPTION. RIGHT? DID I FIND IT INTERESTING THAT WHAT IS THE LANGUAGE IN THOSE CITIES WHERE THEY COMPLY? AND WHAT IS OUR LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THEM TO NOT BE WILLING TO COMPLY?WITH THE SIGN AND SEAL. >> I CANNOT ANSWER THE FIRST PART BECAUSE I HAVE NOT GONE BACK AND READ ORDINANCES FOR ALL THE CITIES. BUT THE WAY OUR ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN, BASICALLY IT SAYS ALL PLANS FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST BE SIGNED AND SEALED BY THE LICENSED ENGINEER UNLESS IT CONFLICTED WITH THE STATE REGULATIONS. ENCORE'S STANCE TOWARDS US IS PURVEYOR INTERPRETATION OF THE LICENSING REGULATIONS IS THAT THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE SIGN AND SEAL PLANS. OUR STANCE AS BEEN THAT THAT IS NOT THE WAY THAT THE STATE LICENSING REGULATIONS READ. YOU ARE NOT EXEMPT AND STILL HAVE TO SIGN AND SEAL YOUR PLANS. SO THAT IS KIND OF
WHERE WE HAVE THE IMPASSE. >> HAVE OTHER CITIES THAT DON'T HAVE THE LANGUAGE, HAVE THE SCENE ANY ISSUES WITH ENCORE AND GETTING THE PROJECTS COMPLETED IN A TIMELY MANNER? I GUESS YOU SAID YOU HAD NOT TALKED TO THEM.
>> WE DID NOT DO THAT KIND OF RESEARCH.
>> WOULD IT HURT TO DO THAT? TO KIND OF SEE? BECAUSE REMOVING SOMETHING JUST GIVES ME CAUSE TO PAUSE . I JUST DO NOT SEE HOW WE COULD OR SHOULD DO THAT. SO THAT IS WHY I AM ASKING, HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND YOU KNOW, HOW THAT WOULD AFFECT ANYTHING THAT WE HAVE GOT GOING ON. IN A POSITIVE WAY OR A NEGATIVE WAY,
I GUESS. >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE AT THIS IMPASSE WITH ENCORE, THERE IS ALMOST NO ENCORE PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD WITH IN HUTTO.
AS WE ARE NOT GRANTING THEM PERMITS, THEY ARE NOT COMPLYING WITH OUR REGULATIONS. YOU GUYS KNOW THIS BUT I WILL GO AHEAD AND SAY IT, MY JOB AS YOUR CITY ENGINEERS TO TOW THE LINE ON CITY ORDINANCES THAT YOU GUYS IMPLEMENT. SO THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I HAVE DONE. I HAVE DRAWN THE LINE IN THE SAND WITH THEM AND I HAVE SAID I WILL NOT APPROVE ANY PERMITS UNTIL YOU COMPLY. SO WE HAVE ACTUALLY STARTED TO GET DELAYS ON MANY PROJECTS. SOME ARE BIG PROJECTS THAT IMPACT US BECAUSE WE HAVE EDC PROJECTS THAT NOW ARE GETTING POTENTIALLY DELAYED.
DOING THE COMPROMISE WITH THEM WE CAN ALLOW THEM TO MOVE FORWARD AND STILL THEORETICALLY HIGH-QUALITY DRAWINGS.
>> WOULD IT MOVE ANY OF OUR PROJECTS UP? COULD WE GET BACK THE SAME TIMELINE THAT WE WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNING FOR?
>> COUNCILMEMBER, IF WE DO NOT DO THIS COMPROMISE THERE IS NO ENCORE PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD. UNTIL WE GET ENCORE TO THE TABLE TO AGREE TO SOMETHING ELSE. WE DID MEET AND ASK IF THEY WOULD CONSENT TO THIS CHANGE. THEY DID AGREE.
EFFECTIVELY THAT PUTS THE REQUIREMENTS, THE BENEFIT OF THE PE WAS ADDITIONAL DETAILS. I BELIEVE MATT FEELS LIKE HE HAS PUT IN THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE DETAILS WOULD BE REQUIRED EVEN WITHOUT THE STAMP. WHICH SOLVES THE PROBLEM WE WERE TRYING TO SOLVE. NOW IT IS A MATTER OF PRINCIPLE RATHER
THAN PRACTICALITY. >> THEIR POSITION IS THAT THEY EMPLOYED LICENSED ENGINEERS AND THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM THE ENGINEERING PRACTICES TO HAVE TO PUT THE SEAL ON THE PLANS.
THAT IS THEIR POSITION. WE READ IT DIFFERENTLY AND CITIES READ IT DIFFERENTLY THANK. IF YOU READ AT 275 OF YOUR PACKET, WE TOOK OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TEXAS ENGINEERING PRACTICES ACT TO PUT SIGN SEALED PLANS. AND ON YOUR RESOLUTIONS 12 FIVE, YOU WILL MEND THE MANUAL TO REQUIRE THE DETAILED LANDS.
SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS GOING TO BE NO SEAL. YOU ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE, THEY WILL STILL HAVE THE ENGINEER PREPARE THE PLANS AS FAR AS THEY HAVE REPRESENTED. BUT THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO PUT THE SEAL ON IT. THAT IS WHAT THIS HAS BEEN.
THAT IS THE SOLUTION WE WORKED OUT.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
[01:35:03]
>> I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I THINK MYSELF, MATT, THE CITY MANAGER, SOMEONE ELSE HEAR FROM THE CITY. WE WERE OUTNUMBERED. IT WAS JUST THE THREE. MORE OF THEM THAN US. I DO NOT DISAGREE THAT THEY SHOULD PROVIDE ENGINEER PLANS.
BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THE PRIVATE SECTOR EVERYTHING IS CONSULTED OUT. IF YOU WILL. AND SO NO ONE, EVERYBODY HAS, THE BIG PEOPLE HAVE ENGINEERS IN THEIR BUILDING. BUT THEY DO NOT DO THE WORK. THEY VERIFY THAT SOMEONE ELSE DO. IT IS ALMOST LIKE C WHY A. MIKE DUNN ON ME BUT ON THAT PERSON. JUST THE WAY IT IS DONE. NOT THAT I AGREE. THE PROBLEM IS, THE ORIGINAL PROBLEM, DROPPING UTILITIES AND TEARING EVERYTHING UP. NOBODY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. WE WOULD DRAW THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL LINE. OUR SOLUTION IS TO GET DETAILED DRAWINGS. I DO NOT KNOW THAT THEM BEING STAMPED MAKES IT BETTER FOR US. OR WORSE. IF WE DO DIG IN THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT THE PROJECT WITH THE THEATERS, THEY WON'T MOVE FORWARD FOR A WHILE. THE -- IS DONE, THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER PROJECTS. I WAS VERY CLEAR WITH THEM THAT I DON'T THINK IT IS FAIR AND JUST THE TRUTH. ENCORE IS BIG ENOUGH, IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING THEY DO NOT RETURN EMAILS AND DO NOT CALL YOU. YOU HAVE ONE OR TWO OPTIONS. EITHER KICK AND SCREAM, WE ARE NOT BIG ENOUGH TO GET ANYBODY TO LISTEN TO US IN THE STATE. OR UNFORTUNATELY, I GUESS THE WORD IS FALL IN LINE. I AM SURPRISED. MATT DID A GREAT JOB I THINK ON THE LANGUAGE. I AM SURPRISED THEY WENT FOR IT. IT GIVES US WHAT WE WANT. JUST WITHOUT A THIRD PARTY SEAL WHICH THEY SALE WOULD BE ASTRONOMICAL IN PRICE. THEY WILL JUST NOT DO IT. I THINK IF WE DECIDE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND AND IT IS ALMOST LIKE A MORATORIUM. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CITY.
SOMEHOW WE CAN CONVINCE ENCORE TO DO IT OR SAY YES, WE GET WHAT WE WANT. AND WE FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET THEM LATER ON SOMETHING THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TEETH.
>> AND ON PAGE 292 OF YOUR PACKET, FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT, UNDER GROUNDING WAS PREFERRED. WE CHANGED IT TO REQUIRED. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER CHANGE I WANTED TO POINT OUT.
>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? >> THANKS MATT FOR GETTING THIS
DONE. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> WHO GOT TIED FOR SECOND? >>
>> IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION R-2025-032 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM FOR CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025, COTTONWOOD CREEK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT AREA #2.
[11.5. Consideration and possible action on Resolution R-2025-036 amending the Public Right-of-Way Permitting and Construction Manual. (Legal) ]
>> MAYOR, DID YOU WANT TO TAKE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY MANUAL?
>> 11.5 IS ASSISTING WITH 10.1. YOU CAN DO THEM TOGETHER.
>> 11.5. THIS IS JUST PUTTING INTO WRITING OUR MANUAL.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO-TEM GORDON.
ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. LEASE CALL THE VOTE.
WAITING ON YOUR VOTE. >> 11.5.
[11.1. Consideration and possible action on a Resolution R-2025-032 of the City Council of the City of Hutto, Texas, approving the form and authorizing the distribution of a preliminary limited offering memorandum for "City of Hutto, Texas Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2025 (Cottonwood Creek Public Improvement District Improvement Area #2). (Alberta Barrett) ]
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. ALL RIGHT, ITEM 11.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION R-2025-032 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, APPROVING THE FORM AND AUTHORIZING THE DISTRIBUTION OF A PRELIMINARY LIMITED OFFERING MEMORANDUM FOR CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2025, COTTONWOOD CREEK PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IMPROVEMENT AREA #2 .
>> S, THANK YOU. I AM FINANCE DIRECTOR, ALBERTA BARRETT. THIS
[01:40:07]
IMPROVEMENT AREA, NUMBER TWO, FOR COTTONWOOD CREEK, WE ARE APPROVING THE LIMITED OFFER MEMORANDUM FOR THE SERIES 2025 ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS. THIS EVENING WE HAVE -- WITH HILL TOP SECURITIES AND BART -- WITH -- TO GO THROUGH A MOREDETAILED OFFERING MEMORANDUM. >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR THE RECORD I AM BART AND IT IS A PLEASURE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. THE MEMORANDUM IS IN YOUR PACKET AND TODAY IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLETE. I THINK THERE ARE A COUPLE ITEMS BEING WORKED ON. ONE MAY HAVE BEEN UPDATED BEFORE THE MEETING IN REGARDS TO ONGOING LITIGATION WITH THE CITY. GEORGE HYDE, AS WELL AS -- CITY ATTORNEY WORKED FOR THE DISCLOSURE. THAT WAS DONE EARLIER THIS WEEK. I BELIEVE IT WAS TUESDAY. TUESDAY OR WEDNESDAY. IT HAS BEEN REVISED AND AMENDED IN THE OFFER OF MEMORANDUMS THAT IS COMPLETED AT THIS POINT. THERE IS ONE MORE, PARKLAND, I THINK YOU WILL DISCUSS IT LATER TONIGHT AND ONCE YOU DECIDE THE ISSUE IT WILL BE UPDATED AS WELL TO REFLECT WHAT IS DETERMINED THIS EVENING. PART AND IF I AM THE SPEAKING OF ANY OF THIS.
YOU MAKE A DECISION WE WILL HAVE THAT TOMORROW MORNING AND THEN GET THE RANDOM POSTED SO YOU CAN START MARKETING BE BONDS FOR SALE AT THE NEXT MEETING ON FEBRUARY 6. TONIGHT YOU ARE NOT ISSUING ANY DEBT ISSUANCE. THAT WILL COME BACK ON FEBRUARY 6 WITH INFORMATION. WE WILL SPEAK TO YOU ON THAT INAUDIBLE ] AND TO THAT DATE. TONIGHT IS JUST TO GET THE PROCESS STARTED TO MARKET THE BONDS AND GET READY FOR SALE ON FEBRUARY 6. THIS MEMORANDUM IS SOMETHING YOU HAVE SEEN.
SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR FORM. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THIS HAS BEEN CREATED BY ONE SERIES OF BONDS FOR IT ALREADY, FOR SERIES NUMBER ONE. THIS IS THE NEXT SERIES OF DEVELOPMENT, AREA NUMBER TWO. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPER THEY HAVE THEIR ATTORNEYS HERE TONIGHT IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THEM. OTHERWISE I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TURN IT OVER AND HE WILL SPEAK WITH THE BOND ISSUANCE ITSELF.
>> THANK YOU. AT EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AS BART MENTIONED THIS IS THE OFFERING DOCUMENT THAT THE A POTENTIALLY FINAL FORM OF THE DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE FINALIZED TOMORROW. HOPEFULLY WE CAN DISTRIBUTE THIS EITHER TOMORROW OR MONDAY. READY TO BRING THE TRANSACTION TO YOU ON FEBRUARY 6. WE ARE LOOKING AT APPROXIMATELY $6 MILLION OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS FOR COTTONWOOD CREEK. SOME OF THE IMPORTANT STATISTICS ARE ON THE SCREEN. 162 LOTS, THEY ARE EXPECTED TO BUILD HALF, $108 MILLION, WHICH WOULD PROVIDE AT THE CURRENT TAX RATE ABOUT $430,000 OF TAXES TO THE CITY.
THE CITY DOES GET A PICKED FEE, OF ABOUT $533,000. AFTER THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS, OCCURRING IN FEBRUARY. IF YOU APPROVE THE DOCUMENT AGAIN WE WILL GO TO THE MARKET WITH THE BONDS AND WE WILL WORK ON THE UNDERWRITER WITH ANY QUESTIONS. QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON BEHALF OF YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISORY AND THEN WE WILL NEGOTIATE WITH THEM ON THE MORNING OF EVERY SIX. AND MY PARTNER WILL BE HERE PRESENTING THE FINAL
>> QUESTIONS OR ACTIONS FROM COUNCIL?
>> MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. THANKS GUYS. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT. GLAD
[11.2. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. R-2025-033 repealing Resolution No. R-17-04-20-12a, withdrawing from Williamson County Interjurisdictional Emergency Management Program and establishing the City of Hutto's Emergency Management Program. (Jake Isbell) ]
TO GET YOU OUT OF HERE BEFORE MIDNIGHT. NEXT IS ITEM 11.2.CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-033 REPEALING RESOLUTION NUMBER R-17-04-20-12A, WITHDRAWING FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY INTERJURISDICTIONAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM AND ESTABLISHING THE CITY OF HUTTO'S EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM.
>> AT EVENING. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. JAKE ISABEL, DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT HERE. THIS ITEM IS BASICALLY TO REPEAL THE PREVIOUS ORDINANCE, WHEN THE
[01:45:02]
CITY DID NOT HAVE ITS OWN INDEPENDENT EOP OR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR. THUS BEING DEPENDENT TO WILLIAMSON COUNTY FOR A JOINT INTERJURISDICTIONAL PROGRAM.WHAT THIS DOES IS OFFICIALLY TAKE THE ACTION THAT WE ARE ALREADY OPERATING UNDER AS OUR OWN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL RESOLUTIONS IS OFFICIAL TO THE
CURRENT STATUS. ANY QUESTIONS? >> FOR THE PUBLIC, WHENEVER MENTIONING JAKE CHECKING OUT THE WEATHER, JAKE HAS CHECKED
THIS OUT. THIS IS JAKE. >> NOT FROM STATE FARM.
>> THAT ARE FROM STATE FARM BECAUSE HE GIVES US WEATHER UPDATES AND HOW THE ROADS ARE DOING AND WHAT ROADS ARE CLOSING, WHEN THEY WILL BE OPEN AND GOD FORBID WE HAVE SOMETHING DRAMATIC HAPPENED, JAKE IS IN CHARGE OF TAKING SURE THE RESPONSE IS APPROPRIATE. THAT IS JAKE.
>> THANKS JAKE FROM CITY OF HUTTO FOR GETTING THIS DONE.
APPRECIATED. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THANK YOU. THE WORK THAT YOU AND BILL DID. YOU ARE A GREAT -- YOUR PREDECESSOR, IT SPEAKS VOLUMES TO SAY THAT WE CAN STAND ON OUR OWN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT WISE AND WE DO NOT DEPEND ON THE COUNTY. AND WE ARE TAKING CARE OF THE
CITIZENS. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR GETTING US TO THIS POINT AND KEEPING BILL'S MOMENTUM GOING. APPRECIATE IT.
>> MY QUESTION IS OBVIOUSLY WE ARE ESTABLISHING OUR OWN INDEPENDENCE AS AN EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT PROGRAM. WHICH IS GREAT. THE PROGRAM IS REALLY NEW FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO. I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT HERE IN 2022 OR 2023 WINCING THE MANAGER -- GOT ONLINE IN THE BUDGET. SO IT IS DEFINITELY FLOURISHED SINCE BEING ESTABLISHED AND GROWN. GROWN SLOWLY. BUT YOU ALL HAVE DONE A LOT OF GREAT WORK. MY QUESTION IS WHAT DOES THAT MEAN FOR THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY AND WILLIAMSON COUNTY ? I GUESS DO WE NEED AN MO YOU? WE ARE WORKING TOGETHER IN THESE ARE COUNTY PARTNERS. WE DO HAVE THE JURISDICTION. YOU ARE IN CONTROL. OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE OTHER STAFF MEMBERS THAT ARE IN YOUR PURVIEW TO HELP IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN. YOU HAVE THAT PLAN. I GUESS WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WITH THE COUNTY TOO? JUST HAVING A COMMUNICATION WITH THE COUNTY AND MAINTAINING THE
RELATIONSHIP. >> IT IS A GREAT QUESTION. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THE CURRENT RESOLUTION IS TO WET -- TO WHAT OUR INDEPENDENCE WOULD BE, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN NOW, THE CITY TO GO INTO AGREEMENT THAT THE COUNTY WILL PICK THE CITY'S EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT COORDINATOR. WHICH IS TYPICALLY THE COUNTY EMC. THIS PROGRAM IS DESIGNED FOR CITIES WHO ARE NOT AT THE SPOT IN THEIR HISTORY THAT CAN INVEST AND ADEQUATELY AND NEED ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE. NOW THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS AND WE WILL BE PART OF THIS PROGRAM, THAT DOES NOT LIMIT US AT ALL TO COLLABORATE OR EVEN ASK FOR RESOURCES. WE CAN SUBMIT OUR REQUEST TO THEM, SHOULD OUR CAPACITIES BE SOMEHOW AN INCIDENT OVERWHELMED THE STEAM -- THE SAME FOR THE STATE AND ALL LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. WHEN IT COMES TO INCIDENTS OR DISASTERS. COLLABORATION UP, COORDINATION HI, JUST NOW WE ARE ACTING AS OUR OWN INDEPENDENT PROGRAM.
VERSUS BEING WRITTEN INTO THE PLAN AND UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THEIR STAFF AND PERSONNEL.
>> CASSANDRA, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR HELP TOO.
>> WHAT ITEM WAS THAT? ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
[01:50:01]
>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR.
[11.3. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-034 approving Amendment No. 1 to the Development Agreement for a single-family residential development known as Urbana Limmer Loop. (Sara Cervantes) ]
>> THE MOTION PASSES 6-0. NEXT ITEM 11. 3 CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2025- O'034 APPROVING AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS URBANA LIMMER LOOP.
>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, SARA CERVANTES DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE RECORD. LONG STORY SHORT THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR URBANA AT LIMMER LOOP WAS APPROVED VIA THE RESOLUTION ON THE SCREEN.
DURING THAT APPROVAL TIME THERE WAS A REVISED SER GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. IT WAS HIGHLY ANTICIPATED THE RESULTS OF THAT REVISION WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING EARTH SHATTERING.
THE ONLY REVISION IS THE LUE COUNT WAS UPDATED FROM 182 TO 196 DUE TO SOME MINOR CHANGES IN THEIR CONCEPT PLAN. THIS AMENDMENT IS ACCOUNTING FOR THAT CHANGE. YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR PACKET THE EXHIBITS ARE LABELED I THINK C- 1 IS THE CONCEPT PLAN AND SE MIGHT BE D-1.
WE'RE REVAMPING OUR DOCUMENTATION ON OUR SIDE TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE HAVE AMENDED DOCUMENTS THEY FLOW CORRECTLY AND YOU'RE ABLE TO LINK THE PROGRESSION OF A DOCUMENT THROUGHOUT TIME. THIS IS DOTTING OUR IS AND CROSSING OUR TS AS PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD.
>> THANK YOU, SARA. QUESTIONS OR ACTION --
>> MOTION TO APPROVE 11. 3 IS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION AND MOTION?
>> HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE
VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.
>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> MOTION PASSES 6-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.
[11.4. Consideration and possible Action on Resolution No. R-2025-035 regarding the designation of the Gin Building to adopt a preferred use for Certified Farmers Markets. (Kate Moriarty) ]
4, CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025- 035 REGARDING THE DESIGNATION OF THE GIN BUILDING TO ADOPT A PREFERRED USE FOR CERTIFIED FARMERSMARKETS. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. KATE MORIARTY, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE RECORD.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A REFERENCE TO PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION TO ADOPT A PREFERRED USE FOR THE GIN BUILDING, THAT BEING CERTIFIED FARMERS MARKETS. I DO UNDERSTAND THERE WERE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT SECTION 6 IN THE RESOLUTION SPECIFICALLY REGARDING HOURS OF OPERATION. TO CLARIFY, THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY ADDED BECAUSE THE CURRENT FARMERS MARKET AND THE ONE THAT IS LOOKING TO RETURN TO HUTTO, THESE ARE THE HOURS THEY OPERATE WITHIN AND TO KIND OF P MINDFUL OF THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR IN THE CO-OP.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE, HAPPY TO HEAR THAT DISCUSSION.
IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE AS WELL.
>> I WAS ONE OF THE ONES THAT ASKED ABOUT IN SECTION 6.
SO THERE'S TWO MONTHS THAT ARE JUST NOT ACCOUNTED FOR.
>> MM-HMM. >> DO THEY FALL UNDER THE 8:00 P.M. OR THE 6:00 P.M.?
>> FRANKLY I THINK THAT'S JUST A STAFF ERROR.
>> THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THAT HERE.
YEAH. BECAUSE I MEAN -- AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE BEHIND DIFFERENT ENDING TIMES BASED ON -- IS IT LIKE BECAUSE OF DAYLIGHT SAVINGS TIME? IS THAT --
>> THE DAYS ARE LONGER IN THE SUMMER, AND THEN JUST THETHE FOR MORE VENDORS BEING WILLING TO PARTICIPATE IF THEY'RE POTENTIALLY UNDER SOMETHING WITH A COVERED SPACE AND THAT HAS FANS. I KNOW PREVIOUSLY PARTICIPATION HAS BEEN LESS THAN WHEN THEY'VE BEEN OUT IN THE SUN DURING THE SUMMER.
>> OKAY. YEAH, I MEAN IF WE APPROVE THIS I'D JUST LIKE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ACCOUNTING FOR MARCH AND APRIL THAT AREN'T IN THERE. I MEAN, I GUESS I JUST DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF LIMITING THEM.
IF IT THEY WANTED TO STAY OPEN LATER DURING OCTOBER THROUGH FEBRUARY, I MEAN, I WOULDN'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. I JUST -- I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
>> IF I MAY, ANOTHER REASON THAT THAT WAS ALSO INCLUDED IS AT THE NEXT MEETING COUNCIL HAD ALSO ASKED FOR EFFECTIVELY A MENU OF FEES OR EVENTS THAT COULD OCCUR AT THE GIN BUILDING AND IF COUNCIL DOES DECIDE TO PERMIT VASHS CELEBRATORY EVENTS LIKE WEDDINGS WHICH HAVE OCCURRED AT THE GIN BEFORE THOSE COULD POTENTIALLY BE THOSE EVENING
EVENTS. >> YOU COULD DO FARMERS MARKET EARLIER AND SOMETHING LATER. GOT YOU.
>> THAT ALMOST MAKES ME THINK IT OUGHT TO BE SOMETHING LIKE 10:00 TO 6:00 ALL THE TIME. THAT WAY YOU CAN HAVE AN EVENT ON A FRIDAY AND A SATURDAY. BECAUSE THE WAY I READ THIS AGREEMENT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS JUST ONE USE THAT COULD BE THERE.
AND IF IT WERE TO BE A CERTIFIED, STAFF'S GOING TO COME INTO FACILITY USE AGREEMENT
[01:55:02]
THAT BASED ON THE PARAMETERS OF THISTHIS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE A MORE REGULAR OFFERING, IF YOU WILL, OF PLACES.>> THIS SAYS MAY OPERATE. IT DOESN'T MEAN THEY HAVE TO.
>> WELL, IT'S WEIRD FOR ME. IT SAYS MAY ONLY.
WHAT DO YOU CALL THAT WHEN YOU DO A SHALL BUT --
>> MAY ONLY KIND OF CONTRADICTS,
>> IT SHOULD JUST BE SHALL INSTEAD OF MAY ONLY.
>> KATE, IS THERE GOING TO BE ANOTHER ROUND OF THIS WHERE LIKE YOU HAVE LIKE STANDARDS FOR, YOU KNOW, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS IN THE GIN BUILDING? SOUND IN THE GIN BUILDING.
IS THAT GOING TO BE SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S BROUGHT BACK TO US OR DOES THAT NEED TO BE COVERED IN THIS?
>> THAT IS IN THE FEE REVISION MENU THAT IS BEING BROUGHT TO YOU ALL AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. I'VE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH PD TO BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DECIBEL REQUIREMENTS ARE HERE SPECIFICALLY IN THE CO- OP IN THE SCENARIO THAT YOU ALL WANT TO APPROVE MUSIC EVENTS TO OCCUR THERE.
IN TERMS OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I FELT THAT THAT WOULD LAND MORE SO IN THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FORM THAT WHOEVER IS RENTING THE SPACE SIGNS AND ACKNOWLEDGES AND TAKES LIABILITY FOR UPON BOOKING THE SPACE.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY WITHIN HERE THAT CAN BE DONE.
>> THAT COULD ALSO BE JUST FACILITY USE AGREEMENT TOO,
>> I MEAN, PERSONALLY I'D LIKE TO SEE IT BOTH PLACES.
I MEAN, YOU ALREADY HAVE KIND OF THE STRUCTURE FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO BE IN THIS DOCUMENT. I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HURT TO HAVE IT IN BOTH PLACES. THAT'S WHAT I'D PREFER, THOUGH.
>> YEAH, I FEEL LIKE JUST JUST ESSENTIALLY THIS RESOLUTION IS THE GIN BUILDING IS GOING TO BE USED FOR CERTIFIED FARMERS MARKET.
AND THERE ARE SOME BASIC PARAMETERS WE'RE GOING TO BE OPERATING UNDER.
I THINK MAYBE WE COULD GET TO THE NITTY- GRITTY MAYBE IN THE NEXT ITEM.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, FOR THE RECORD, CITY MANAGER, WHAT IT'S SAYING IS IT'S THE PREFERRED USE.
MEANING IF WE GET AN APPLICATION FOR A CERTIFIED FARMERS MARKET DURING THOSE DESIGNATED HOURS AND WE GET AN APPLICATION FOR A BIRTHDAY PARTY DURING THOSE SAME HOURS PREFERRED USE WOULD BE THE FARMERS MARKET.
IF THE FARMERS MARKET HAS A FACILITY USE AGREEMENT, THEN THEY GET PREFERRED PRICING VERSUS THE NON- PREFERRED USE.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT THIS RESOLUTION SAYS.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE A FARMERS MARKET THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A RECURRING TIME OR DATE THAT'S THERE, YOU KNOW, DURING DESIGNATED DAYS AND TIMES THAT'S WHERE THE USE AGREEMENT COMES INTO PLAY, SO THEY HAVE THE ASSURANCE THAT THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THAT FACILITY ON THOSE DAYS, YOU KNOW, GOING FORWARD. THAT'S WHY WE WOULD WANT TO ENTER -- INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THEM TO HAVE TO REQUEST THE RENTED, YOU KNOW, MONTH BY MONTH FOR THOSE DESIGNATED DAYS AND THEN MISSING OUT BECAUSE SOMEONE ELSE DID BOOK IT. SO THAT'S HOW WE INTEND TO TACKLE IT. AND THE PREFERRED USE BASICALLY MEANS IF WE HAVE TO DECIDE BETWEEN TWO THEN THE FARMERS MARKET GETS THE PREFERENCE.
AND THE CERTIFICATION NOT JUST TO PILE ON, BUT THE CERTIFICATION KEEPS US FROM HAVING THE ISSUE THAT I THINK WAS BROUGHT UP AS A POSSIBLE CONCERN OF WHAT IF I JUST CALL MYSELF A FARMERS MARKET AND THEN BOOK IT FOR EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. EVEN THOUGH THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M DOING, I JUST WANT TO HAVE IT BOOKED AT THE LOW PRICE.
SO THAT KEEPS THAT SORT OF THING FROM HAPPENING.
YOU HAVE TO BE CERTIFIED THROUGH THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THAT SORT OF STUFF, AND HAVE -- MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS.
>> YEAH, I LIKE IT. THANK YOU.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 11. 4 AS PRESENTED WITH THE CHANGE OF SECTION -- SECTION 6. THAT THE HOURS BE 10:00 TO 6:00, 12 MONTHS A YEAR.
>> MOTION BY MAYOR SNYDER, SECOND BY -- I CAN'T REMEMBER YOUR LAST NAME.
>> MADE THE CHANGE. THE PROPOSED CHANGE TO 6 BASED ON THE MAYOR PRO TEM. AND THEN ALSO DIDN'T THINK ABOUT A SECOND OPTION. SO THAT WOULD ALLOW SOMEONE TO HAVE A FARMERS MARKET AND THEN WE COULD THEN BOOK IT ON A FRIDAY FOR, SAY, A CHRISTMAS EVENT OR I GUESS IN THIS CASE IT COULD BE SOMETHING IN THE SUMMER. BUT WE COULD HAVE IT FOR AN EVENT WITHOUT INTERRUPTING THEM.
[02:00:02]
AND THEN, YEAH, AS PRESENTED ON EVERYTHING ELSE.>> AND FOR THE FACILITY USE AGREEMENT DID YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT TO SHALL INSTEAD OF MAY?
>> STRIKING MAY ONLY AND REPLACING IT WITH "SHALL.
>> YES. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> MOTION PASSES 5-1. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 11.
[12.2. Discussion and possible action regarding a right turn addition to westbound Carl Stern at 685/Chris Kelley. (Peter Gordon) ]
2, DISCUSSION POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING A RIGHT RETURN ADDITION TO WESTBOUND CARL STERN AT 685. CHRIS KELLY.>> SO THIS WAS AN ITEM THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP BEFORE.
THE MAYOR AND I MEET MONTHLY WITH THE BOARD PRESIDENT, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE ISD.
WE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT THIS OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS. THEY CAME BACK AND SAID THAT THEY ARE OPEN TO PRESENTING TO THE RESULT OF THEIR BOARD AND TO THEIR STAFF ABOUT PARTICIPATING IN THE COST OF THIS SPECIFICATIONLY DEDICATING THE RIGHT OF WAY, MOVING THE FENCE, MOVING THE SIDEWALK. YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T TAKEN A VOTE. THEY HAVEN'T SET ASIDE ANY MONEY. BUT THEY ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION. SO REALLY WHAT I WANTED TO DO TONIGHT IS JUST GET A FEEL FOR COUNCIL TO SEE IF WE WOULD BE OKAY ADDING THIS TO OUR DISCUSSION IN THE CIP WORKSHOP ON FEBRUARY 1ST AND JUST ADDING THIS INTO THE MIX AND THEN WE CAN DECIDE IF WE WANT TO DO IT, IF WE DO WHAT YEAR WE WANT TO PUT IT IN, IF WE WANT TO TRY TO SCHEDULE IT FOR THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR OR THREE YEARS FROM NOW, FIVE YEARS FROM NOW.
BUT AT LEAST JUST HAVE IT AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSION ON THE 1ST.
>> YEAH, I DON'T MIND HAVING A DISCUSSION.
WHEN WE JUST TELL THE COUNCIL, WHEN WE TALKED, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS THAT -- AND STAFF CAN CORRECT ME.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT. BUT WE HAD AS PART OF OUR APPROVAL OF THE ISD EXPANDING THE HIGH SCHOOL, THEY WERE TO DO A TIA, COMPLETE IT PRIOR TO THEM GETTING CO ON THE NEW FACILITIES. HAVE WE SEEN THAT TIA YET?
>> THE MAYOR'S ASKING IF WE'VE RECEIVED THE TIA FROM THE HIGH SCHOOL.
AS A PART OF THEIR EXPANSION OF THEIR FACILITIES.
>> I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU.
I NEED TO GO BACK AND CHECK OUR RECORDS.
I KNOW WE'VE BEEN GETTING TIAS AND WE'VE BEEN COORDINATING WITH THEM. BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PROJECT THEY HAVE GOING. SO I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU YES AND I'M THINKING OF A DIFFERENT PROJECT.
>> OVER THE YEARS WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH AND FOUGHT AND MADE UP AND ALL THAT, ALL OVER THE INTERLOCAL. SO WE JUST REDID THE INTERLOCAL AND AS I READ THE INTERLOCAL IT SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO DO A TIA ON CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S GOING TO DETERMINE THE PERMITS NEEDED AS A RESULT OF PROJECTED TRAFFIC. IF MORE THAN ONE SCHOOL'S GOING TO BE BUILT. ALSO FACILITIES TIA.
PHASING PLAN FOR THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE PROPOSED BY ISD.
AND IT GOES THROUGH ALL THESE THINGS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AND THEY'VE GOT TO MEET WITH THE CITY. SO I DON'T DISAGREE THIS WORK NEEDS TO BE DONE. MY CONCERN TO THE BOARD WHEN WE MET WAS THAT I DON'T THINK THIS IS A CITY ISSUE BECAUSE I THINK THE TIA IS GOING TO SAY THIS ROAD IS FINE EXCEPT FOR ALL THE TRAFFIC YOU GUYS ARE GENERATING BY ALL YOUR EXPANSION AND ALL THE PEOPLE YOU'RE BRINGING AND IN A LOCAL AGREEMENT YOU GUYS ARE ON THE HOOK TO PAY FOR THIS, NOT US.
I MEAN, WE CAN HELP ENGINEER IT, WE CAN HELP WITH CLOSING DOWN THE ROAD, BUT MY COMPLAINT -- OR MY CONCERN HAS ALWAYS BEEN I WANT TO WORK WITH PEOPLE BUT THEY THOUGHT DID NOT DO THE TIA AND THEN WE PUSHED THAT THROUGH AND THEN THEY'RE SAYING THERE'S ISSUES AND WE AGREE THERE'S ISSUES BUT I THINK THE ISSUE ALWAYS COMES DOWN TO WHO'S PAYING FOR IT AND THEY'RE THREE TIMES OUR SIZE AND THEY HAVE A BUDGET FOR THEIR IMPROVEMENTSAR MORE THAN US AND WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WE'VE VOTED ON, THEY'VE VOTED ON, EVERYBODY'S AAGREED TO THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE THESE CHANGES.
SO TO ME -- ONE OTHER THING THEY DID SAY IS I SAID YOU KNOW, THIS INTERSECTION IS HORRIBLE.
MAYBE IT'S NOT THE BEST PLACE TO EXPAND THE SCHOOL.
AND THEY SAID WELL, ONCE WE DO THE NINTH GRADE CENTER I THINK IT WAS 40% OR SOMETHING, A LOT OF THE TRAFFIC GOES AWAY FROM HERE. SO THEN I WAS LIKE IS NOW THE TIME TO DO A MAJOR ROAD PROJECT BECAUSE ONCE YOU FINISH THAT SCHOOL IN TWO YEARS WILL IT EVEN BE NEEDED.
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY EXPENSIVE BASED ON YOU
[02:05:04]
TALKING ABOUT MOVING UTILITIES AND POLES AND SIGNAL BOXES. WE JUST SPENT A MILLION DOLLARS, OR WE'RE GETTING READY TO, ON A SIGNAL FOR A CROSSWALK THAT AGAIN I THINK THEY PROBABLY SHOULD PAY FOR. AND THE LAST THING I BROUGHT UP WAS THAT WHEN WE DO THESE PROJECTS, THEY JUST DID ANOTHER SCHOOL WHERE THEY DIDN'T COME TO US AND SAY HEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS SCHOOL SITE. INTERLOCAL SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO MEET WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE THE ONES THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THE ROAD WIDENING AND ALL THE COMPLAINTS. SO I THINK WE'VE GOT TO HAVE A BETTER COMMUNICATION AND I THINK -- I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TO THIS POINT AGAIN. BUT WE CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY FOR ALL THE FACILITIES THAT THEY DO ON THE ROADS WHEN THEY BUILD SCHOOLS. I MEAN, THEY BUILD A NICE SCHOOL BUT THEN WE'RE EXPECTED TO BUILD THE SIDEWALKS AND CROSSWALKS AND LANE ADDITIONS AND IT'S LIKE -- IT'S JUST NOT WHAT THE AGREEMENT SAYS. IF WE WANT TO RENEGOTIATE IT AND SAY THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY OF THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO GO BACK AND REDO IT.BUT OTHERWISE I THINK WE NEED TO WAIT FOR THE TIA TO BE COMPLETED, YOU TO COME BACK AND TELL US IT EITHER IS WARRANTED OR IT IS NOT.
AND THEN I THINK THEY PER THE AGREEMENT NEED TO GET WITH YOU AND COME UP WITH A HERE'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE TO DO THIS, CAN YOU GUYS HELP US A LITTLE OR CAN YOU EXPEDITE REVIEW OR NOT MAKE US PAY FEES OR WHATEVER, BUT I STRESS I REALLY WANT TO WORK WITH THEM, I JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S ALWAYS THE CITY HAS TO PROVIDE FINANCIAL SUPPORT AND WE CAN'T EVEN KEEP UP OUR OWN STUFF LET ALONE KEEP UP THE ISD. AND OUR POLICE STATION, LOOK AT THEIR SCHOOLS AND LOOK AT OUR POLICE STATION. THEY BUILD MAGNIFICENT SCHOOLS, AND THE COPS, WE'VE GOT EQUIPMENT IN STORAGE CENTERS OUT BACK BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO OUR OWN BUILDINGS.
IT'S ALWAYS A TOUGH LINE WITH ME.
AND I KNOW I'VE BEEN TOLD NOT TO TREAT THEM LIKE A DEVELOPER BUT THEY DO DEVELOP BUILDINGS THAT HOUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE AND CREATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC.
I JUST THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE ON THE HOOK FOR THE TRAFFIC PER THE AGREEMENT THAT THEY CAUSE.
BUT I DON'T MIND TALKING ABOUT IT AND YOU TELL US MAYBE WHAT IT'S GOING TO COST. MAYBE IT'S NOT THAT BIG A DEAL, IT'S A COUPLE HUNDRED GRAND.
>> WELL, I THINK A LOT OF IT WOULD COME DOWN TO THE DETAILED ENGINEERING TO SEE IF WE HAVE TO MOVE THAT POLE AND THAT MAST ARM AND RELOCATE ELECTRICAL BOXES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO GET PRETTY PRICEY PRETTY QUICKLY.
IF WE CAN AVOID THOSE THINGS, THEN IT MIE BE AY BE MORE IN THE PRICE RANGE YOU'RE THINKING.
BUT REALLY WE'LL HAVE TO DO A DETAILED SURVEY.
THAT PICTURE WE JUST HAD UP THERE, THAT'S ME EYEBALLING IT BASED ON AERIAL IMAGERY AND TRYING TO ESTIMATE THE BEST I CAN. THAT WASN'T ON THE GROUND GETTING A DETAILED SURVEY, FIGURING OUT WHERE ALL THE ACTION ITEMS ARE.
>> YOU DIDN'T STAMP THOSE PLANS?
>> NO, I DIDN'T STAMP THOSE PLANS.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION JUST TO ADD IT TO OUR CIP AND THEN DISCUSS IT FURTHER ON TIMELINE AND MONEY.
AND THEN PARTNERING WITH THE ISD ON COSTS.
>> ALL RIGHT. SO MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR SECONDED BY MAYOR SNYDER TO ADD IT TO THE CIP LIST. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
[8.2. Consideration and possible action regarding recommendations from City Council sub-committees (i.e. Legislative). ]
>> MAYOR BEFORE WE MOVE ON CAN I CALL BACK UP 8.2?
>> YES. NO OBJECTIONS? ITEM 8. 2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS FROM CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES.
>> SO I KNOW THAT WE TALKED ABOUT SUBCOMMITTEES IN THIS ITEM AND THAT JUST HEARING THE DISCUSSION THAT ENSUED, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR WHENEVER YOU AND THE MAYOR PRO TEM MEET WITH THE ISD TO GIVE US AN UPDATE ON HOW THAT WENT SO THAT WAY WE CAN GET AHEAD OF THINGS LIKE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT. I'D LIKE THAT TO BE ADDED TO THE REGULAR UPDATES THAT WE GET IN 8.2.
>> WE CAN DO THAT. IT'S GOING TO BE FINE.
>> LOOKING FOR A SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION, WHAT WE DISCUSSED AND BRING IT BACK?
>> ALSO, THANK YOU FOR PULLING THIS UP. I JUST WANTEDWANTED -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED A VOTE OR CLARIFICATION.
WE DID PASS THE RESOLUTIONS THAT WERE DRAFTED IN FAVOR OF THE FOUR OR FIVE ISSUES.
[02:10:05]
IS THERE A PREFERENCE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE COMMUNICATING THOSE RESOLUTIONS TO MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE? DO YOUALL WANT TO DISCUSS THAT? >> SO THEY WERE E- MAILED TO -- WE GOT COPIED ON THOSE TODAY. I THINK EMSLER E- MAILED --
>> I DIDN'T COPY THEM TO ALL COUNCIL BECAUSE YOU ASKED THE
>> SO THEY HAVE BEEN SENT TO OUR REPRESENTATIVES HERE. WE HAVEN'T COMMUNICATED IT OUTSIDE OF THAT. I'LL FORWARD THOSE E- MAILS TO AWFUL COUNCIL.
BUT YEAH, SINCE YOU ASKED THE QUESTION --
>> THOSE RESOLUTIONS HAVE BEEN SENT TO OUR LOCAL -- OUR REPRESENTATIVES.
>> SCHERTNER AND HARRIS DAVILA.
>> AND AS WARRANTED WE CAN MAKE THE DECISION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER -- OKAY.
>> AND NOT TO BE FUNNY, IF YOU COULD PASS THEM ON AT AT WORK. WHILE YOU'RE THERE.
[13. EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
>> NEXT, WE HAVE EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE ITEM 13. 1, RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551. 071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, RELATED TO THE FOLLOWING, GRANTING A GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH GAS ONE.
ITEM 13.2. RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551. 071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY RELATED TOTO A, PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2021-037. COTTONWOOD CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
B, THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE OVERSIZING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND TC/F HUTTO LP AS IT RELATES TO A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS HUTTO GATEWAY.
>> MAYOR, THE HUTTO GATEWAY ASKED FOR THAT TO BE POSTPONED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
>> WHICH ONE'S BEING POSTPONED?
>> OVERSIZING REIMBURSEMENT. >> C, THE RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 45 GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE TO A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY KNOWN AS CIELO RANCH. D, KIRK TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. AND 13. 3, RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.
071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY, AND 551. 087, DELIBERATIONS REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS RELATED TO PROJECT V. AND BEFORE WE GO BACK I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE TO PULL 13.2- D OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>> DID WE GET A MEMO ON THIS ONE? I DON'T --
>> YES. AND IT'S ALSO 14. 3 UNDER ACTION ON YOUR AGENDA. SO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS JUST IF YOU HAD LEGAL QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH. I OBJECT I SUPPOSE JUST SO I CAN I GUESS REVIEW THE MEMO.
>> SOON AS HE COMES BACK WE'LL HOLD A VOTE.
>> WE HAVE TO ALL BE PRESENT TO VOTE.
>> YOU ALL KNOW WHO'S MISSING.
>> THE LEGAL MEMO REALLY POINTED OUT THE ISSUE OF THE CITY ENGINEER AND HIS FINDINGS, WHICH YOU'RE ABLE TO DO AN OPEN SESSION. SORRY.
>> IT DEPENDS. WE CAN BE BRIEFED ON THAT HERE.
I CAN'T REMEMBER HOW THIS WORKS.
DO I NEED A SECOND TO PULL IT OUT OR JUST A VOTE BECAUSE I ASKED TO PULL IT OUT?
>> YES, YOU NEED A SECOND AND A VOTE.
>> SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PULL
>> THIS IS ON THE KIRK TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD. MY REASON FOR THIS IS THE LEGAL MEMO SAID THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET AN UPDATE BY THE CITY ENGINEER IN THE BACK. HE'S NOT AN ATTORNEY.
SO REALLY IF WE GO BACK THERE WE WON'T HAVE THE CITY
[02:15:02]
ENGINEER WITH US BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY THERE TO GET CONSULTATION FROM OUR ATTORNEY ON LEGAL ISSUES.SO I THINK IT'S NOT A LEGAL ISSUE. IT'S A DO R DO WE WANT TO GIVE WATER TO A GROUP THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN AND THAT'S THE DEBATE AND DO WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO THAT.
UNLESS THERE'S LEGAL QUESTIONS I GUESS, CAN WE DO THAT OR HOW DO WE DO THAT LEGALLY, I DON'T SEE A REASON TO GO BACK THERE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO PULL ITEM 13. 3 OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSIO SESSION.
>> AT THE BARE MINIMUM I FEEL LIKE THE PUBLIC OUGHT TO KNOW WHY WE'RE GOING BACK THERE BECAUSE AGAIN, THE REASON WE'RE GOING BACK THERE IS NOT A LEGAL REASON.
WE MAY HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS. BUT I DON'T -- AT SOME POINT WE NEED TO UPDATE THE PUBLIC ON PROJECT B AND I THINK WE OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO DISCUSS WHAT THE ISSUE IS OUT HERE AND THEN IF WE HAVE LEGAL QUESTIONS BASED ON THAT THEN WE CAN GO TO THE BACK AND DISCUSS WITH THE ATTORNEY WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING.
>> YEAH, I WOULD OBJECT TO THIS ITEM.
I THINK THERE ARE SOME INTRICACIES THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND GETTING FULL CONTEXT FROM OUR EDC DIRECTOR.
SO I AM NOT IN FAVOR AT ALL FOR THIS.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
[14. ACTION RELATIVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]
EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.NEXT ITEM IS CONSIDERATIONCONSI DERATION POSSIBLE OX ORDINANCE 0-2025- 005 GRANTING A GAS FRANCHISE TO ONE GAS INCORPORATED.
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE PRESENTED THE ONE GAS FRANCHISE AGREEMENT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WENT OVER ALL OF THE TERMS. THIS WAS THE AGREEMENT THAT THE COMPANY ONE GAS HAD AGREED TO. I BELIEVE THEIR REPRESENTATIVE LARRY MIGHT BE AVAILABLE BY -- IS HE ON THERE?
AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S -- WE PRESENTED THE ONE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT YOU HAD SENT YESTERDAY AFTERNOON AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR THE COUNCIL TO
CONSIDER. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION -- OH. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2025-005. GRANTING A GAS FRANCHISE TO ONE GAS INC.
>> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL
MEMBERS. >> HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 14. 2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE OVERSIZING REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH TC/F HUTTO LP FACILITATING THE REIMBURSEMENT OF CERTAIN ALLOWABLE COSTS FOR WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY TO SERVE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS HUTTO
GATEWAY. >> THAT ONE WE ASKED TO DEFER
TO. >> I DON'T REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT THAT.
>> 14.3. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON APPROVING THE KIRK TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND NASON GARETT HENGST, TRUSTEE OF THE HENGST FAMILY TRUST, RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND COMMERCIAL TRACT.
>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR, COUNCIL.
[02:20:04]
FOR THE RECORD, CITY ENGINEER. IN FRONT OF YOU YOU'LL SEE DOCUMENTS THAT I HAD PREPARED TO SHOW YOU -- THE FIRST ONE IS DATED DECEMBER 5TH, 2024, AND THAT IS THE PRESENTATION THAT WE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THAT FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ULTIMATE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY WITHIN THE CITY. THE SECOND FORM YOU'LL SEE IS DATED JANUARY 23RD, 2025. THAT IS THE UPDATED VERSION.SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT ON DECEMBER 18TH THIS CAME BEFORE COUNCIL AND THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE KIRK TRACT HAD BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR ORIGINAL ANALYSIS.
THE SIMPLE ANSWER IS NO BECAUSE THEIR SER WAS SO LONG. THEY'D BEEN WORKING WITH US SINCE 2022.
>> AND THE SERS ARE ONLY GOOD FOR 180 DAYS.
SO MY STAFF FOLLOWING MY DIRECTION, IF THEY ARE BEYOND 180 DAYS WE'RE EXPIRING THE SERS.
HOWEVER, WE DID GO BACK AFTER THE QUESTIONS WERE RAISED AND ADD THEM BACK IN TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IN THE LOWER RIGHT- HAND CORNER OF THE TABLE THEY ACTUALLY, BECAUSE THEY ARE A LOWER- INTENSITY USE, YOU CAN SEE÷÷ THEY ARE IN THAT -- THEY'RE JUST NORTH OF THE SOUTHEAST LOOP OR EAST WILCO HIGHWAY WHERE IT'S KIND OF A BROWNISH COLORED OVER A -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT COLOR IS. ORANGE AND BROWN.
THOSE ARE EMPLOYMENT AND HIGH- DENSITY COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS. BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A SINGLE- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IT IS ACTUALLY LESS OF A BURDEN ON US THAN THOSE HIGHER-DENSITY PROJECTS. AND SO YOU CAN SEE THAT OVERALLOVERALL WOULD DECREASE THE DEMAND ON WATER OUTSIDE OF THE CCN AREA.
SO WE'VE DONE THE SER. WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM.
THEY KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THEM SERVICE.
WE CAN SERVE THEM. THE QUESTION IS DOES CITY COUNCIL WANT TO SERVE THEM OUTSIDE OF THE CCN? THEY ARE ACTUALLY LESS IMPACTFUL IF WE'RE GOING TO SERVE THIS AREA FOR LIKE THE COMMERCIAL AND ALL THAT STUFF THAT WE HAD ANTICIPATED AT ONE TIME FOR BEING LONG THE EAST WILCO HIGHWAY.
THIS IS A LESS DEMANDING USE IN THAT AREA.
>> SO THE NUMBER OF LUES IS 334? ISH? KIND OF?
>> SO NUMBERS IN DECEMBER DID NOT INCLUDE IT.
>> BUT IF WE WERE TO INCLUDEINCLUDE IT'S LESS INTENSE IN FUTURE
USE -- >> THAN WHAT WE DID INCLUDE IN ANALYSIS.
>> SO I'M STILL DEAD SET AGAINST IT BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY YOUR INITIAL ANALYSIS AS I REMEMBER, IF WE GET THE WATER IN TWO YEARS, IF WE FIGURE OUT THE ISSUE WITH THE WATER IN FIVE YEARS, IF WE SHOULD HAVE ROUGHLY ENOUGH WATER FOR OUR CCN TO BUILD OUT, WHICH IS A HUGE CHECK MARK I WOULD HOPE OUT OF EVERYBODY'S BOX.
THANK GOD WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WATER ANYMORE. EVERY -- IN MY OPINION EVERY LUE OF WATER WE GIVE OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN MEANS WE TOOK A PROBLEM THAT WAS NOT ON OUR BOARD AND NOW WE'VE GOT THIS THING TEN YEARS FROM NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AA OR EIGHT YEARS OR 15 BUT NOW WE'RE USING WATER WE DON'T HAVE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD DO THAT. IF IT WAS FOR SOME -- SOMETHING THAT WAS AN APPOINTMENT WE HAD TO HAVE MAYBE I COULD COME AROUND TO IT.
BUT IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL HOMES NOT ONE PERSON IN THE CITY IS HAMMERING ME SAYING HEY, COULD YOU HELP US BUILD MORE HOMES? WE NEED MORE HOMES. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS SICK OF HOMES. THEY'RE AT CAPACITY. THE ROADS ARE CLOGGED UP.
HELL, YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY CHEWY'S OPENED UP ANYMORE WITHOUT SOMEONE SAYING YEAH, BUT WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIX THE ROADS? SO TO ME I APPRECIATE YOUR ANALYSIS BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL WANTED.
BUT AS WE TALKED THAT DAY, YOU WEREN'T HERE ON THE 18TH, ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN I'M JUST A NO AND A HARD NO UNTIL SOMETHING REALLY, REALLY SPECIAL COMES UP THAT WE JUST CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT. AND THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE TO THAT IS IF THEY COULD GET WATER AND THEY WOULD DO A PACKAGED PLANT, ANNEX THEM IN TO REGULATE THEM. BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE WATER THEN I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM A SEWER AND GIVE THEM WATER. AND WITHOUT WATER THEY CAN'T BUILD ANYWAY. SO.
>> YEAH, I PRETTY MUCH AGREE. IT'S BASICALLY PROMISING
[02:25:08]
350LUES TODAY TO SAVE 50LUES DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE NET DIFFERENCE IS. ABOUT 50 LUES. TO ME IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. IF WE WERE TALKING WE WERE SAVING -- WE WERE GOING TO GIVE 500 AND WE WERE GOING TO SAVE 500 BECAUSE IT WAS HALF THE USE THEN MAYBE WE'VE GOT TO START THINKING ABOUT IS IT REALLY WORTH IT AND WHAT'S THE TIME PERIOD.BUT WE'RE ACCELERATING SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT EVEN COME TO US FOR ANOTHER FIVE, TEN YEARS.
FOR 350 LUES THAT YEAH, COULD BE, YOU KNOW, HELPING STRETCH US A LITTLE FURTHER. SO YEAH, I'M NOT REALLY IN FAVOR OF JUMPING OUTSIDE THE CCN TO SERVE THAT. ESPECIALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL.
BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTING OUR ROADS TOO.
>> AND THIS IS IN THE HUTTO ETJ, CORRECT?
>> JUST OUTSIDE THE -- I GUESS WHICH IS THE BLACK DOTTED? OR I GUESS IT'S NOT ON THIS.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO DENY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE KIRK -- OR THE KIRK TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND NASON GARETT HENGST, TRUSTEE OF THE HENGST FAMILY TRUST.
>> AND SO IF THEY'RE ABLE TO GET WATER FROM JONAH BECAUSE I HEARD THE MAYOR SAID SOMETHING EARLIER ABOUT JONAH NOW HAS MORE WATER THAN THEY THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO HAVE. AND JONAH COMES BACK AND SAYS YEAH, WE CAN SERVE YOU. THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THEY JUST STAY IN THE COUNTY, THEY DON'T ANNEX, THEY JUST GET WATER FROM JONAH, THEY GET WASTEWATER FROM -- THEY'RE IN OUR WASTE WATER CCN, RIGHT?
>> SO THEY GET WASTEWATER FROM US, WATER FROM JONAH, THEY DEVELOP, THEY DON'T ANNEX. THAT'S THE ALTERNATIVE.
RIGHT? >> THAT'S A POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVE, YES. I CAN'T GUARANTEE THAT THAT'S THE PATH THAT EVERYBODY WILL GO.
BUT YES, THAT'S A VERY VIABLE POSSIBILITY.
>> BUT TO GET WASTEWATER FROM US WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO ANNEX. AND BECAUSE WE HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA --
>> -- THEY'D HAVE A HARDER FIGHT WITH TCQ BECAUSE IT'S NOT THAT WE CAN'T SUPPLY THEM THE CAPACITY. IT'S JUST THAT THEY DON'T WANT
TO. >> SO DO THEY HAVE TO ANNEX IN ORDER TO GET OUR WASTEWATER?
>> NO. OUR WASTEWATER CCN IS WAY BEYOND OUR CITY LIMITS.
>> BECAUSE THEY'RE IN OUR CCN TECHNICALLY ACCORDING TO THE PUC RULES WE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING THEM SERVICE.
THE ONLY WAY TO NOT PROVIDE THEM SERVICE WAS TO DECERTIFY THAT AREA FROM OUR CCN AND BASICALLY SAY THAT'S NOT OUR CCN ANYMORE, WE DON'T WANT TO SERVE IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SERVE IT, SOMEBODY ELSE CAN HAVE IT. AND THEN THEY HAVE TO GO EITHER COME UP WITH A PACKAGE PLAN OR FIND SOMEBODY ELSE TO TAKE OVER THAT CCN TO PROVIDE THEM
SERVICE. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING. THEY'RE ASKING -- THE QUESTION ISN'T DO WE HAVE TO SUPPLY THEM SERVICE. IT'S IF WE SUPPLY THEM SERVICE DO THEY HAVE TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY OR CAN THEY SAY NO, I WANT TO BE IN THE COUNTY BUT BE AT A CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT?
>> WE DO ALLOW -- IT'S IN OUR SYSTEM THAT WE ALLOW OUT OF CITY SERVICES.
SO THEY COULD THEORETICALLY GET OUR WASTEWATER SERVICE BECAUSE THEY'RE IN OUR CCN AND THEN JUST PAY AN EXTRA 10% OR WHATEVER THE INCREASE IS TO GET OUT OF CITY SERVICES INSTEAD OF IN- CITY
SERVICES. >> CAN WE FORCE THEM TO ANNEX TO GET OUR SEWER?
>> SO MAYOR, THAT'S TECHNICALLY A LEGAL QUESTION AND I JUST WANT TO REDIRECT IT TO DOTTIE BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD FROM ADVICE OVER THE YEARS OF WHETHER THAT'S POSSIBLE OR NOT.
SO IT'S BETTER TO LET THE ATTORNEYS SAY WHETHER WE CAN -- IF WE CAN FORCE THEM TO ANNEX IN ORDER TO RECEIVE SEWER OR NOT.
>> WELL, WHAT CITIES DO IS DECERTIFY, THAT IF THEY DON'T WANT TO BE ANNEXED IN THEN THE CITY JUST DECERTIFIES THE AREA. TECHNICALLY THE -- THERE ARE ARGUMENTS THAT YOU CANNOT FORCE THEM TO ANNEX AND FOR THE
WASTEWATER. >> DECERTIFY AS IN --
>> RELEASE FROM THE WASTEWATER CC --
>> SAY WE WON'T SERVE ANY AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN OUR CITY LIMITS. THAT'S OUR
POLICY. >> SO THEN THEY TRY TO DO A PACKAGE PLAN AND WE CAN --
>> AND HOW DOES THAT AFFECT OUR CASE? IF WE CONTEST IT AND SAY WE'D BE HAPPY TO SERVE THEM AS LONG AS THEY ANNEX.
IS THAT A GOOD CASE? I MEAN, THAT'S HARD
TO SAY. >> ALL THESE HYPOTHETICALS ARE LEGAL ARGUMENTS AND REALLY NOT APPROPRIATE TO BE DISCUSSING THE -- IT SOUNDS
[02:30:02]
LIKE THE SOLUTION IS IF THEY WILL GET WATER FROM JONAH WE WOULD BE WILLING TO SERVE.IS THAT SOMETHING COUNCIL WANTS TO CONSIDER?
>> SO I GUESS WHERE -- FROM WHAT I REMEMBER WE HAD TWO ITEMS ANDAND WAS WATER AND COUNCIL VOTED TO KEEP WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS.
SERVICE AREA WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. WHENEVER IT CAME TO WASTE WATER, WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT -- BEYOND OUR CITY LIMITS WHAT -- CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. BUT IT WAS NOT RESTRICTED ON WASTEWATER BECAUSE WE ARE BUILDING THE CAPACITY.
WE CAN SAY YES TO THESE BECAUSE -- IS THAT NOT CORRECT? AM I NOT RECALLING THAT?
>> I BELIEVE WHAT WAS SAID WAS TO -- ONLY TO PREVENT PACKAGE WE'RE OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA. WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE APPROVING THINGS OUTSIDE OF OUR AREA.
>> BUT THIS IS INSIDE OF OUR AREA. SO WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO IT.
>> WELL, WE'RE OBLIGATED TO DO IT OR POTENTIALLY REMOVE THEM. SO THAT IS A CHOICE.
>> YEAH. AND THEN WE REMOVE THEM AND THEN THEY GO THE PACKAGE ROUTE.
>> MM-HMM. >> WHICH WE CAN STILL FIGHT.
>> I'M TRYING TO KIND OF WALK MY HEAD THROUGH LIKE WHAT HAPPENS. WE SAY NO TO THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE SAY NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU WATER. AND WE HOPE OR WE'RE ASSUMING THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP AND IT'S JUST GOING TO SIT THERE.
>> THE OTHER PART OF IT WAS IT IS NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER JONAH HAS WATER OR NOT. THE REASON THEY CAN'T GET JONAH WATER IS THEY'RE FAR AWAY FROM EXISTING JONAH WATER. SO JONAH WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET THERE. IT'S THE SAME ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD LOOKING AT SOME OF THE THINGS NORTH OF 79 WHERE WE SAY GEEZ, THAT'S A BIG ONE WE'VE GOT TO PUT IN AND SOMETIMES WE'VE BIT THE BULLET
AND -- >> THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT. SO JONAH AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND IT ISN'T THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER CAPACITY.
>> WASN'T THERE A QUOTE IT WAS SOME OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNT OF MONEY IT WOULD TAKE BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO PUT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET
THERE? >> I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER BUT I KNOW THE REASON THEY WANTED US TO SERVE THEM WATER WAS BECAUSE IT WAS GOING TO TAKE BASICALLY A MOUNTAIN FOR JONAH TO BE ABLE TO GET THEM SERVICE IN THE TIMELINES THAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO THEIR PROJECT.
>> THAT'S WHAT I COULDN'T REMEMBER. I COULDN'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS JONAH DIDN'T HAVE THE CAPACITY OR IF JONAH SAID IT WILL COST YOU A TON FOR US TO GET THE --
>> I DON'T THINK JONAH EVER TOLD THEM THEY DON'T HAVE CAPACITY.
>> IT'S GOING TO TAKE A MOUNTAIN
OF -- >> THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM BEING ABLE TO GET WATER IS STILL REALLY REMOTE.
>> SO JONAH IS NOT ACTIVELY SERVING SOUTHERNSOUTHERN -- SOUTH OF 79 LIKE AREAS.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY CAN --
>> I THINK THEY HAVE SOME. I THINK THIS IS JUST FAR AWAY FROM WHERE THEY ARE BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH UNDEVELOPED LAND
IN BETWEEN. >> I THINK IT'S THE SAME ISSUE WITH THE PEOPLE AT HYVIEW.
YOU GET TO THE VERY BOTTOM CORNER OF JONAH'S TERRITORY BECAUSE THEY WRAP AROUND HUTTO.
THEY'VE GOT STUFF UP HERE BUT TO BRING IT ALL WAIT DOWN TO HIT ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THEY MAKE YOU PROVIDE A SHARE OF THE IMPROVEMENTS. IF THEY NEED TO BUILD A 2 MILLION GALLON WATER TANK THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE YOU PAY FOR YOUR PORTION OF THAT WATER TANK. AND IF YOU DON'T DO IT YOU JUST DON'T GET WATER.
>> AND THE MAJORITY OF JONAH'S LARGE INFRASTRUCTURE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN WHERE THEY HAVE THE MAJORITY OF THEIR CURRENT CUSTOMERS. THERE'S VERY FEW CUSTOMERS IN THIS SOUTHEAST PORTION. AND SO WHATEVER INFRASTRUCTURE THEY DO HAVE, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S MINIMAL AT BEST. LIKE TWO- INCH LINES TO SERVE SINGLE-FAMILY FARM HOUSES.
>> AND I THINK THIS IS -- I MEAN, THIS IS PART OF WHAT -- THE REASON WHY WE SAID WE REALLY NEED TO START SITTING DOWN WITH JONAH AND SAYING HEY, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT OUR PLANS ARE.
YOU'RE HAVING TROUBLE PUTTING WATER IN SOUTH OF 79, WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE PUTTING IN SEWER NORTH. YOU APPROVE AND SUDDENLY WE'RE IN A BAD POSITION, STATEMENT THING COULD HAPPEN WHERE WE STEAL FROM YOUR CCN OR YOU'RE KIND OF IN A POSITION WHERE YOU'D HAVE TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY. WE NEED TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
>> HOW CLOSE IS OUR WATER CCN, OUR -- HOW CLOSE IS I GUESS THE LAST PIPE IN THE GROUND TO THIS PROPERTY?
>> SO WE HAVE WATER GOING THROUGH THE COTTONWOOD --
>> BECAUSE WE SERVE COTTONWOOD CREEK RIGHT HERE.
[02:35:03]
>> MEADOWBROOK HAS AN AGREEMENT WITH US TO EXTEND WATER. THOSE ARE THE TWO CLOSEST PROJECTS TO THIS AREA.
>> AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S JUST ONE PARCEL OF LAND ININ BETWEEN?
>> AND MEADOWBROOK'S THE BOUNDARY.
THAT'S OUR FAR EASTERN BOUNDARY OF OUR WATER CCN.
>> IT'S PRETTY DANG CLOSE. I FEEL LIKE JONAH IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER.
>> BUT JUST BECAUSE WE PHYSICALLY CAN GET IT THERE, IF IT'S NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY WE'RE JUST ADDING ON TO OUR PROBLEMS. THAT'S WHERE I HAVE ISSUE WITH
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY I FEEL BAD BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR SO LONG. BUT I MEAN MAYBE THIS IS A WAY TO GET SOMETHING -- A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY A LITTLE BIT MORE.
RIGHT? I MEAN, BECAUSE -- MY BIG CONCERN IS OKAY, IF WE DON'T DO THIS I DON'T WANT THEM TO START GOING DOWN THE ROUTE OF WELL, I'M GOING TO DO IT ANYWAY AND WE WANT A PACKAGE PLAN.
IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO HAVE WATER.
AND IF THERE'S ANOTHER PACK PROJECT THAT COMES, IT'S ALL COMMERCIAL OR SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT, I THINK WE'D BE MORE WILLING TO GIVE THEM WATER. IF IT WAS SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL.
>> I THINK IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL WANTS THEN I THINK THIS IS THE OPPORTUNE TIME TO GO BACK TO THEM AND SAY OKAY, THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOESN'T WORK FOR US, WE WANT YOU TO UP THE ANTE AND PROVIDE US SOMETHING THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO SWEETEN THE POT.
>> YEAH. SO THE DEAL IS IS THAT THEY DON'T DEVELOP BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET WATER. FAST FORWARD FIVE YEARS.
THIS USE GETS CHANGED AS THE EAST WILCO HIGHWAY DEVELOPS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE, BUT IT MAY BE MORE INTENSE LUES. SO SAY, INDUSTRIAL THAT HAS A -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S -- AND JONAH'S STILL NOT PRESENT IN THE AREA BECAUSE IT'S ONLY GETTING MORE EXPENSIVE BY THE DAY.
AND THEN THEY COME BACK AND SAY HEY, YOU KNOW, WE NEED A HEAVIER LOAD AND THIS IS MAYBE THE LAST DEVELOPED AREA. AND I KNOW THIS IS LIKE WHAT IF, BUT A LOT OF WHAT IFS ALWAYS GET THROWN AROUND HERE. BUT THE USE -- OR THEY COULD THROW IN MULTIFAMILY AND IT COULD BE BE A HEAVIER LOAD ALSO WASTEWATERWISE, RIGHT? AND SO -- I THINK IT MAKES SENSE.
AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE WATER ON LINE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE MOVING WITHIN TWO OR THREE YEARS OF NOW. THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING MONEY ON THE TABLE FOR US TO GET TO OUR FUTURE WATER SUPPLY BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE HOLDING THOSE LUES.
ONLY 334 LUES, NOT 500-PLUS, 1,000, A HUGE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THIS IS LIKE MANAGEABLE. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUCKING THE CITY DRY. I KNOW SOME VIEW THAT -- SOME MAY VIEW THAT AS WHAT THIS IS DOING. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS 334 LUES IS GOING TO HAVE THAT NEGATIVE OF AN IMPACT TO OUR WATER SITUATION. AND THE PROXIMITY IS CLOSE.
THEN THEY'LL BE IN CITY LIMITS.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? HOW MANY LUES WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO GIVE OUT OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN?
>> I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE A NUMBER.
BUT I THINK THAT THIS 334 IS -- I MEAN, WE'RE OVER HERE AT MEADOWBROOK AND THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN.
WE'RE SERVING THEM. THAT WAS SOMETHING RECENT THAT WE DID WITHIN THE PAST YEAR. RIGHT, SARA? OH, SHE'S PROBABLY GONE.
>> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WATER ON
THAT. >> WHAT WAS THE TIMELINE ON MEADOWBROOK?
>> I BELIEVE MEADOWBROOK AND KIRK TRACT HAVE BEEN FLOATING AROUND THE CITY FOR ABOUT THE SAME AMOUNT OF TIME. I WANT TO SAY --
MEADOWBROOK? >> INITIAL CONVERSATIONS LIKE 2019 TO 2021. I KNOW KIRK TRACT IS THE LAST OF THE LIKE HISTORICAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH. I THINK THE MEADOWBROOK FOLKS, THAT IS A PID IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. YEAH.
DEFINITELY. SO THEY WENT A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT ROUTE. BUT VERY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN TERMS OF FOLLOWING SOME SORT OF D.A. ANNEXATION ZONING, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
THAT'S WHAT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WOULD ANNEX THEM AND BRING THEM INTO THE CITY.
BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US AS STAFF TO ALLOW FOR Y'ALL TO REALLY EVALUATE ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR SOME OF THESE HISTORICAL -- I SAY HISTORICAL. WITHIN THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS.
TO REALLY SEE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON UP UNTIL
[02:40:02]
THIS POINT.AND I UNDERSTAND POLICIES CHANGE, WE'RE MOVING IN A NEW DIRECTION. BUT WE DO HAVE A FEW OF THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PRETTY FAR INTO IT DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE'VE GOT TO EITHER TAKE A HARD LINE OR EVALUATE SUBJECTIVELY EVERY TIME ONE COMES UP AND THEN GIVE US DIRECTION THAT WAY. BUT THIS IS ALMOST THE INVERSE OF THE HYVIEW PROPERTIES.
THERE'S A LOT TO CONSIDER. THERE'S A LOT OF SERS THAT ARE BEING CONDUCTED AND COMPLETED JUST TO THE EAST. THE SOUTHEAST OF THAT TRACT.
STROMBURG IS TO THE NORTHEAST. IT'S A MATTER OF HOW YOU AS THE COUNCIL ENVISION THE CITY GROWING AND IN WHAT CAPACITY THAT HAPPENS.
WE'RE HERE TO FOLLOW YOUR DIRECTIVES. BUT DEFINITELY WANT YOU TO HAVE THESE TYPES OF CONVERSATIONS.
IT'S HARD TO DRAW A HARD AND FAST RULE WHEN YOU'VE GOT SO MANY PLAYERS AND THINGS MOVING FOR SO LONG FOR SOME OF THESE.
>> MM-HMM. SEE, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
IT'S HARD FOR ME TO DRAW THAT HARD LINE MOVING FORWARD, ESPECIALLY WITH SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN -- THAT HAVE DATED LONGER THAN I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL, RIGHT? AND SO JUST THE CITY --
>> DEFINITELY. THIS ONE OUTDATES MY EMPLOYMENT. I'VE BEEN HERE FOR A YEAR AND NINE MONTHS. I THINK IT HAD BEEN FLOATING AROUND 18 MONTHS PRIOR TO ME JOINING STAFF.
>> IT OUTDATES PROBABLY EVERYBODY UP HERE.
>> WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE BRINGING UP STROMBURG TRACT BUT WE'RE NOT SUPPLYING WATER TO THE STROMBURG
I WAS JUST REFERENCING THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GROWING EAST OF WHERE THE KIRK TRACT IS CURRENTLY LOCATED.
>> FOR Y'ALL IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW YOU SEE THAT GROWTH HAPPENING, HOW YOU SEE SERVICES EXPANDING TO THOSE AREAS THAT ARE JUST SLOWLY COMING ONLINE IN SOME CAPACITY.
>> BUT I JUST DON'T -- IMAGINE -- HOW WOULD WE FEEL IF RON ROCK STARTED PROCESSING SER REQUESTS IN OUR CCN? I HEARD HUTTO CAN'T SUPPLY WASTEWATER ON THE WEST SIDE BUT WE GOT YOU AND THEY STARTED PROCESSING IT.
AND THEN DEVELOPERS STARTED COMING TO YOU GUYS AND SAY HEY, IF YOU GUYS CAN'T SUPPLY I'VE ALREADY GOT THIS WORKED OUT WITH ROUND ROCK. WOULD WE NOT BE OFFENDED BY THAT? WOULDN'T WE SAY MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS, WHY ARE YOU PROCESSING SER REQUESTS IN OUR WASTEWATER
CCN? >> BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED
HERE. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE. SOMEONE IS NOT ABLE TO GET SERVICE. IN THIS INSTANCE SOMEONE ON THE SOUTH CAN'T GET WASTEWATER SERVICE. SO IF THEY WENT TO PFLUGERVILLE AND PFLUGERVILLE PROCESSED AN SER REQUEST SAYING WE CAN GIVE YOU SERVICE, THAT IS THE EXACT SAME THING WE'RE DOING WHEN THIS GUY SAYS JONAH DOESN'T HAVE CAPACITY, WILL YOU SERVE ME.
AND WE'RE PROCESSING SER REQUESTS IN SOMEONE ELSE'S CCN. IT'S THE EXACT SAME THING.
THAT'S WHY I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING IT.
WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH WATER FOR OURSELVES.
LET'S BE GREEDY AND LET'S PROTECT OURSELVES ON WATER. I'M AMAZED WE DEBATE THIS SO MUCH AND WE'RE MAKING STAFF GO THROUGH THIS. WE TRIED TO DO THIS AT 685 AND 130. THAT GUY COULDN'T GET WATER. WE SAID WE CAN GET YOU WATER, WE'LL RUN A LINE DOWN AND BUILD SOME APARTMENTS AND SOME INDUSTRIAL. AND THAT JUST MAKES THE STAR RANCH PEOPLE UPSET. LIKE WE'RE NOT GOING TO RELEASE THIS.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE JONAH SAID HEY, MAYBE WE CAN.
BUT I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE DOING THAT.
>> BECAUSE HE WENT TO JONAH -- NOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
HE WENT TO JONAH AND SAID NO, WE CAN'T SERVE YOU.
>> SO WE WENT TO HUTTO AND SAID YEAH.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE NOW FLIPPING THE SCRIPT AND SAYING THAT WE'RE LIKE MEDDLING IN JONAH'S CCN WHEN JONAH TOLD THEM WE CAN'T SERVE YOU, SEE IF HUTTO CAN SERVE
YOU. >> OUTSIDE OF THIS AGREEMENT.
I AGREE WITH YOU ON THIS AGREEMENT THAT HAPPENED.
>> THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAID. THIS IS DIFFERENT.
>> AND I TOLD YOU THIS ONE IS DIFFERENT. BUT MY POINT IS WE AS A CITY, ARE WE NOT PROCESSING SER REQUESTS FOR OTHER TRACTS OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN?
>> THAT'S WHERE WE'RE MEDDLING.
NOT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE. THIS PARTICULAR --
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
>> I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WHOLE THING --
>> WELL, THAT'S NOT ON THE SUBJECT AND THAT'S NOT ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> I THINK WE NEED TO STICK TO THE --
>> I'M TRYING TO MAKE A POINT HERE THAT OBVIOUSLY IS NOT GETTING THROUGH.
>> JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T AGREE WITH YOU ON SOMETHING DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO TALK DOWN TO US AND TRY TO EDUCATE US AND SAY YOU'RE SO DUMB YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND, LET ME EXPLAIN IT AGAIN.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING FROM STAFF -- AND TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.
YOU WANT DIRECTION FROM US ON WHAT YOU WANT US TO DO WITH THESE THINGS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A MAP THAT SHOWS ALL THETHE CCN AREA WE CAN TAKE IF WE WANT TO SUPPLY WATER. YOU NEED DIRECTION.
WE CAN'T SEEM TO GIVE YOU DIRECTION BECAUSE WE KEEP TRYING TO CONFUSE AND CONFLATE THE ISSUE AND WHAT I'M SAYING IS THEY ARE OUT THERE PROCESSINGPROCESSING SERS IN OTHER PEOPLE'S AREAS.
THIS PARTICULAR -- THIS ONE PARTICULAR KIRK TRACT JONAH SAID IT WOULD PROBABLY BE EASIER IF YOU GUYS DID IT.
[02:45:02]
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION.OKAY? THEY'RE LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FOR US TO TELL THEM STOP WASTING YOUR TIME, WE DON'T WANT TO SUPPLY WATER TO RESIDENTIAL.
BUT WE WANT TO KICK THE CAN DOWN, WE WANT TO HAVE MEETINGS IN THE BACK TO DISCUSS THIS STUFF. IT'S NOT A LEGAL QUESTION.
IT IS A POLICY POLITICAL THING, DO YOU WANT TO GIVE WATER WHEN WE'RE RESTRICTING PEOPLE OUT THERE FOR THEIR WATER USAGE UP UNTIL DECEMBER? DO YOU WANT TO GIVE THEIR WATER TO SOMEBODY ELSE TO BUILD HOUSES? THAT'S THE QUESTION. AND NO ONE WANTS TO ANSWER THAT IN PUBLIC AND TALK ABOUT IT.
WE WANT TO BS EVERYBODY AND COME OUT LATER AND BLAME SOMEONE ELSE. I'M NOT BLAMING MATT FOR DOING SER REQUESTS ALTHOUGH I HATE HIM DOING THEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TELLING HIM TO STOP. WE'RE SAYING 685 AND 130, CONTINUE. AND SO HE'S DOING WHAT WE'RE TELLING HIM TO DO. SO TO ME HE'S GOT MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT AND SO DOES STAFF.
>> I THINK IT'S BEING MISCONSTRUED THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE AWAY AND TAKE AWAY THE CURRENT CITIZENS' WATER.
I THINK THAT'S EXTREME LANGUAGE.
YES, WE ARE UNDER STAGE 1 WATER RESTRICTIONS BUT THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN OH WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GIVE AWAY 334LUES TO A DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF OUR WATER CCN AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ALL THE WATER, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF WATER AWAY FROM THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF HUTTO. I THINK THAT'S JUST HARSH LANGUAGE THAT CAN BE EASILY MISCONSTRUED. I JUST -- I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE PIPELINE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN MOVING FOR THE PAST FOUR TO FIVE YEARS BECAUSE OF WHATEVER REASON.
WE NEED TO TAKE THESE ON BY A CASE BY CASE AND THEN MAYBE WE DO MAKE A POLICY DECISION TO DRAW THAT HARD LINE MOVING FORWARD TO SAY YOU KNOW, FEBRUARY 1ST, MATT, PLEASE STOP DOING OUTSIDE SER REQUESTS AND DRAW THAT LINE. I THOUGHT WE DID THAT A MONTH OR SO AGO.
I GUESS IT'S STILL NOT CLEAR. BUT I DO THINK THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THESE ON CASE BY CASE AND JUST REALLY THINK ABOUT THIS AND NOT BE SO AFRAID. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW.
I ASKED YOU THIS QUESTION PREVIOUSLY, DO YOU KNOW ABOUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE HUTTO WATER CCN IS BUILT OUT? WERE YOU ABLE TO LIKE EVALUATE
AND WE DID TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND I HAVE THAT NUMBER.
I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.
BUT I WANT TO SAY THAT IT'S -- I'M NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A NUMBER BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO PUT A NUMBER OUT THERE AND THEN BE COMPLETELY WRONG. SO I PROMISE YOU I WILL FOLLOW UP AFTER THIS MEETING WITH THAT ANSWER.
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE ENGINEERING SPECIFIC SO I CAN RELEASE HIM SINCE HE'S NOT FEELING WELL?
>> I JUST -- I MEAN, WE DID STATE THAT AS THE DIRECTION. SO DID YOU NOT GET -- I MEAN, WE STATED THE DIRECTION WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT?
>> THIS SER WAS DONE BEFORE THAT
>> AND THE DIRECTION THAT YOU GUYS GAVE ON DECEMBER 5TH WAS ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR WATER CCN HAS TO COME TO YOU FIRST. LIKE THEY HAVE TO COME TO YOU GUYS FIRST AND SELL THE MERITS OF THE PROJECT BEFORE WE EVEN CONSIDER AN SER.
>> ANYTHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA OR THAT DOES NOT DRAIN TO OUR WASTEWATER SERVICE AREA, SAME THING, THEY HAVE TO COME TO YOU GUYS FIRST BEFORE WE WILL CONSIDER RUNNING ANY SERS. NOW, THERE ARE A FEW THAT ARE KIND OF IN THIS GRAY LIMBO AREA THAT WERE KIND OF IN BEFORE THE POLICY CHANGE. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO GUIDE THEM THROUGH. BUT THIS ONE SPECIFICALLY, THIS SER WAS WRITTEN BEFORE I GOT
AND SO IT'S BEEN EXPIRED FOR SEVERAL YEARS. EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE STILL BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY, THEY HAVEN'T HAD A VALID SER IN TWO TO THREE YEARS
>> MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THE WASTEWATER WE WERE -- OR THE WATER, SORRY. THE WATER WE WERE JUST A HARD NO. I DON'T REMEMBER GIVING DIRECTION THAT THEY HAD TO COME TO US AND KIND OF STATE THEIR
PROJECT. >> COUNCIL MEMBER, I THINK THE DOOR WAS LEFT OPEN FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER.
MAYBE A BIG EMPLOYER OR SOMETHING ELSE.
WHICH IS WHY PRESENTING TO COUNCIL, SELL THE MERITS AND THEN YOU ALL HAD TO SAY YEA OR
[02:50:03]
NAY. >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING TOO. IT'S A HARD NO FROM STAFF AND THEN HOW DO WE GET PAST NO? THE ANSWER FROM STAFF IS YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL TO GET PAST
NO. >> OKAY, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
THERE WAS THE HARD NO. OKAY, PERFECT.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
VOTE. >> CAN YOU RESTATE THE MOTION
PLEASE? >> DENY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT -- TO DENY THE KIRK TRACT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND NASON GARETT HENGST, TRUSTEE OF THE HENGST FAMILY TRUST.
>> THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
[13.2. Receive legal advice pursuant to Texas Government Code Section 551.071 (Consultation with Attorney) related to: a) parkland dedication requirements pursuant to Ordinance No. 0-2021-037, Cottonwood Creek Planned Unit Development District; b) the Wastewater Infrastructure Oversizing Reimbursement Agreement by and between the City of Hutto and TC/F Hutto, LP as it relates to a residential development known as Hutto Gateway; c) the Retail Wastewater Service Agreement by and between the City of Hutto and Municipal Utility District No. 45 governing the provision of retail wastewater service to a residential community known as Cielo Ranch; and d) Kirk Tract Development Agreement. ]
>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE DIDN'T POST SPECIFICALLY 13. 2A OR C.
>> YEAH, I WAS GOING TO RECALL THOSE.
>> AND THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER TAKING ACTION.
>> NO OBJECTIONS. I'LL RECALL ITEM 13..
2A, PURSUANT TO TEXAS CODE 551. 071 CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY RELATED TO A, PARKLAND DEDICATION REQUIREMENTS PURSUANT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2021- 037, COTTONWOOD CREEK PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
>> SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE'VE BRIEFED COUNCIL IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THERE IS A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.
IT DOES SAY IN THERE THAT IF THE DEVELOPER OFFERS TO THE CITY 83 ACRES THAT THAT WOULD SATISFY THEIR PARKLAND REQUIREMENT.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE PARKS BOARD WHERE THEY WERE CONSIDERING MAKING A PAYMENT IN LIEU OF DEDICATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THEY LOOKEDLOOKED THE LANGUAGE OF THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE THEY ARE REQUESTING COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THEIR OBLIGATION FOR PARKLAND SATISFIED SINCE THEY'RE OFFERING THE 83 ACRES.
AND HOW THEY HAVE PREPARED THEIR PHASE 7 PLANT IS TO SHOW THE 83 ACRES TO BE OWNED BY THE CITY BUT MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.
AND THERE'S ANOTHER REQUIREMENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SECTION 4. 9 FOR AN EIGHT- ACRE MULTIPURPOSE TRACT AND THE DEVELOPER IS -- IT'S NOT CLEAR WHAT PHASE THE DEVELOPER HAS TO OFFER THAT IN. THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT SAYS IT WOULD BE IN THE 83 ACRES. HOWEVER, THE SECOND AMENDED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE OPTION TO DESIGNATE WHERE THE EIGHT ACRES WOULD BE IN THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER PHASE 5 WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE PLACE AND THEY WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY AND AMEND PHASE 5 TO INCLUDE THE EIGHT ACRES THERE. AND THERE IS A FIVE- YEAR TIME PERIOD IN THE EIGHT ACRES THAT IF THE CITY DOESN'T ACCEPT IT WITHIN THAT TIME PERIOD THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE FREE TO DEVELOP THAT LAND AS THEY CHOOSE.
>> SO THE QUESTION I HAD AS I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION PUT BEFORE US, DO WE WANT THE EIGHT ACRES IN PHASE 5 OR PHASE 7? THE DEVELOPER SAID HEY, IN OUR OPINION YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT PHASE 7. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE PHASE 5 AND PHASE 7 WAS AND I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THE EIGHT ACRES WAS AT.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT'S OFF OF 685. LEGENDS OF HUTTO WHERE YOU'VE GOT THE BALL FIELDS RIGHT THERE FOR MULTIPURPOSE.
OR IF IT'S SOMETHING TUCKED INSIDE OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. IS THERE A WAY TO TELL US WHERE EXACTLY THIS IS AT?
>> THIS IS THETHE PLAT. IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN TO THE BOTTOM SECTION THERE. OF THE LOWER LEFT QUADRANT.
[02:55:02]
THERE YOU GO. SO IF YOU CAN -->> THERE'S BRANSON. YOU CAN SEE JUST ABOVE HER CURSOR. SO IF YOU GO ABOVE A LITTLE BIT.
>> DRAG IT DOWN. IT SAYS MULTIPURPOSE.
>> THAT'S PHASE 5 RIGHT THERE. SO ON THIS PAPER THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT NORTH IS TO THE RIGHT.
>> AND THAT'S CARL STERN NORTH.
SO YOU CAN GET TO IT FROM CARL STERN -- YOU CAN SEE IT FROM CARL STERN AND YOU CAN GOATGET IT FROM BRANSON AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT A BUNCH OF PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH THE
NEIGHBORHOOD. >> AND THAT'S PHASE 5.
LAURA, IF YOU CAN GO, SCROLL DOWN.
>> SAME PAGE. PHASE 7 YOU'LL SEE IS ON THE LOWER -- SO OVER THERE UNDER CADWELL.
>> OH, I SEE IT. IT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THAT'S PHASE 7. SO THEY'RE CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTING PHASE 5 RIGHT NOW.
>> TO ME IT MAKES SENSE IF IT'S RIGHT OFF CARL STERN, EASY ACCESS IN AND OUT. FOR ME THAT'S THE PROBLEM I DIDN'T KNOW IS WHERE WE WERE GOING TO TRY TO PUT THE EIGHT ACRES. AND IS THAT -- IS THAT BUMP OUT THE EVANS PROPERTY?
>> DON'T HAVE THE GREEN SPACE. ALL RIGHT.
SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ACTION FOR THIS ONE?
>> ACCEPT IT? RIGHT? DO WE HAVE TO MAKE A MOTION?
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND A MOTION TO HAVE THE 83 ACRES IN THE PHASE 7 AND HAVE THE 8- ACRE MULTIPURPOSE FIELD IN PHASE 5 WITH THE DEVELOPER REQUIRED TO REPLAT THAT PROPERTY.
>> WITH THE HOA MAINTAINING IT.
>> 8 ACRES IN PHASE 5. AND HOA MAINTAINS 83 AND THE CITY MAINTAINS THE 8.
>> YEAH, IN PHASE 5. AND THAT'S MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR, SECOND BY PORTERFIELD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> AYE. THE MOTION PASSES 6-0.
NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 13. 2C THE RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT NUMBER 45 GOVERNING THE PROVISION OF RETAIL WASTEWATER SERVICE TO A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY KNOWN AS CIELO RANCH.
>> I HAVE A MOTION. IT'S QUITE LENGTHY.
SO I WILL STATE IT SLOWLY AND CLEARLY. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT THE DEVELOPER MAY PREPAY ANY AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AT THE PREVAILING RATES IN EFFECT THROUGH FEBRUARY 2N D, 2025. PREPAID WASTEWATER CREDITS WILL EXPIRE ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2030.
WASTEWATER CREDITS ARE REALIZED AT BUILDING PERMIT AND ANY REMAINING PREPAID FUNDS FOR WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AS OF FEBRUARY 4TH, 2030 WILL BE CREDITED DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR AGAINST FUTURE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES DUE FOR THE PROJECT.
IN ORDER TO RECEIVE THIS CREDIT THIS AGREEMENT MUST BE SIGNED BY THE DEVELOPER NO LATER THAN JANUARY 31ST, 2025 AND THE PREPAYMENT OF WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES SHALL BE RECEIVED BY THE CITY'S FINANCIAL INSTITUTION WITHIN TEN BUSINESS DAYS OF THE CITY COUNTERSIGNING THE
AGREEMENT. >> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER KOLAR. DO WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON. DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION?
[03:00:02]
ALL I'D SAY IS FOR ME NOT NEGOTIABLE AND UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE UNABLE TO REIMBURSE FEES FOR THE POTENTIAL DESIGN AND PERMITTING OF THE PACKAGE PLAN. BUT HEARING NO OTHER DISCUSSION, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.
>> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM GORDON.
[15. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS]
NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 15. 1, GENERAL COMMENTS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. DO WE HAVE ANY? I'VE GOT ONE. PUT MY LITTLE PROP ON HERE.IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FUNNY HERE IN A BIT.
TONIGHT UNDER EXECUTIVE SESSION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PROJECT V WE WERE MEETING ON EVO AND THAT IS ALL I'M ALLOWED TO SAY AT THIS TIME. MORE TO COME. THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 15.2.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. FRENCH DRAIN FOR DURANGO.
IF YOU CAN GET THAT WORDING. WHATEVER --
>> YEAH. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE E- MAIL WE GOT FROM DURANGO --
>> I E- MAILED HER BACK. WE'RE NOT READY TO HAVE THAT COME BEFORE COUNCIL. SO I CAN GIVE AN UPDATE.
SO WHAT'S GOING ON THERE IS THE BUILDER IS WORKING ON THE FINAL DESIGN FOR THAT AND THEY'RE BEING HELD UP BY THERE'S ONE RESIDENT WHO'S NOT AGREED TO LET THEM GET ON THE PROPERTY TO DO THE SURVEYS.
SO IT'S DELAYING THINGS A LITTLE BIT. LONG STORY SHORT, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE A FINAL DESIGN READY IN ABOUT TWO OR THREE MONTHS AND ONCE THEY HAVE THAT FINAL DESIGN AND WE KNOW EXACTLY HOW BIG IT IS AND HOW BIG THE EASEMENT IS THEN I'LL PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR CONSIDERATION TO POSSIBLY HAVE THE CITY TAKE OVER THE EASEMENT RATHER THAN HAVE THE HOA DO IT. WE'RE NOT READY YET BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THE EASEMENT'S GOING TO BE.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. 15.3, FUTURE ADDITIONAL OR RESCHEDULED MEETINGS AS ALLOWED BY HUTTO CITY CODE SECTION 1.02. 033 ADDITIONAL OR RESCHEDULED MEETINGS.
RANDALL'S NOT HERE. HE USUALLY BRINGS THESE UP.
>> I'VE GOT A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE A SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING ON SATURDAY THE 22ND OF MARCH I THINK IT IS? I MEANT TO PULL OUT MY CALENDAR BEFORE I ASKED THAT.
>> COUNCIL MEMBER, IF THAT'S A DATE, IT WOULD MOST LIKELY BE CITIZEN SPEED DATING BUDGET EXERCISE IS WHAT I WOULD GUESS.
>> I DON'T HAVE IN THE CALENDAR FOR THAT ONE.
>> I HAVE SOMETHING ON MY CALENDAR BUT IT JUST SAYS CITY COUNCIL.
MUST HAVE BEEN AFTER MIDNIGHT WHEN I PUT IT IN MY CALENDAR BECAUSE I DIDN'T PUT IN ANY OTHER DETAILS.
>> THERE'S A PUBLIC BUDGET WORKSHOP ON SATURDAY THE
22ND. >> BUT THAT'S NOT A COUNCIL
MEETING. >> NOT A COUNCIL MEETING.
>> WORKSHOP. THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'VE DONE AT THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL WITH THE DOT EXERCISE.
>> I SAW AN E- MAIL FROM STAFF AND I WAS PLUGGING IN --
>> YEAH, SAME. THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DOING. IT HAD LIKE ALL THE DATES.
REMEMBER -- >> IS THERE A WAY WE JUST HAVE THOSE ALWAYS COME OUT TO ALL OF US AND WE CAN JUST ACCEPT THEM?
>> YEAH. I MEAN, IF THERE WAS A PUBLIC MEETING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE -- BECAUSE I HAVE LIKE --
>> WE MOVED THE MEETING FROM THE 20TH TO THE 27TH BUT WE HAVE SOMEWHAT OF AN OBLIGATION ON THE 22ND I WOULD THINK.
>> I'VE GOT TO CALL THE COUNCIL MEETING --
>> I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION.
>> SINCE IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL COUNCIL MEETING THAT'S PROBABLY WHY.
BUT ALL THE SAME I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION. I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE ANYTHING.
>> ALL RIGHT. IF NOTHING ELSE THEN WE'LL ADJOURN AT
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.