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.

[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. ]

FORWARD WITHOUT DELAY. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 8.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS, 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. YOU GUYS.

>> WE FINALLY MET. WE MADE IT HAPPEN. I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

[00:25:06]

APPROVE, LET ME SIT ON THAT. SO, I HAD AN EMAIL SENT TO COUNCIL, WE HAD A BIT OF A HICCUP WITH OUR FIRST ROUND OF INTERVIEWS, WE HAD A SECOND ROUND OF INTERVIEWS, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THERE, THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AN AGENDA ITEM WERE DISCUSSED. TONIGHT OR ANY OTHER TIME. WE DID INTERVIEWS, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW OPENINGS, STILL, BUT TONIGHT WE ARE MAKING THE MOTION, OR I'M GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE APPROVE CHARLES WARNER AND BEATRICE, BOTH FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW

COMMISSION. >> SECOND.

>> QUESTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KOLAR. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE BOAT.

>> BEING SAID, A COUPLE THINGS, FIRST OFF, SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WE STILL HAVE SOME OPENINGS. SO PLEASE BE WILLING TO SERVE OR TALK TO YOUR FRIENDS OR YOUR NEIGHBORS, SEE IF YOU CAN COERCE ANYBODY INTO SERVING, IT TRULY IS A BLESSING TO SERVE, IS NOT THE EASIEST THING TO DO. I PROMISE YOU, BUT IT IS VERY REWARDING. THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE ONE OPENING ON THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. WE HAVE NO APPLICANTS FOR THAT AS OF RIGHT NOW. WE HAVE ONE OPENING ON PLANNING AND ZONING, PENDING AN INTERVIEW ON THAT ONE. WE HAVE ONE OPENING ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION. SO, IF YOU'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT OLD TOWN, HISTORIC DOWNTOWN. WE HAVE ONE OPENING ON TURNER'S BOARD NUMBER THREE, WHICH, I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN WHICH ONE THAT ONE IS. MEGA SITE, OKAY, WE HAVE ONE OPENING THERE. WE DO HAVE SOME

APPLICANTS FOR OTHER BOARDS. >> AS WE SAID, DISCUSSION -WISE, UNTIL WE HAVE A VACANCY WHEEL INTERVIEW WHEN WE HAVE THE VACANCY AND WE HAVE THE APPLICATIONS ON FILE. THAT'S

WHAT OUR PROTOCOLS SAY. >> I DISAGREE WITH THAT, I THINK WE SHOULD INTERVIEW EVERYBODY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO APPLY WE NEED TO TALK TO YOU. I GUESS I WAS OUTVOTED ON THAT. THOSE ARE OUR OPENINGS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. SO, PLEASE GO ON

THE WEBSITE AND APPLY. >> QUICK QUESTION. WE'RE IN OUR COUNCIL PROTOCOLS DOES IT SAY THAT? THERE HAS TO BE A VACANCY, SO, WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING IS, IF SOMEONE RIGHT NOW PUT IN AN APPLICATION FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT, WE WOULDN'T INTERVIEW THEM, WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL WE HAD AN OPENING.

>> HERE'S THE QUESTION FOR AN ATTORNEY, CAN WE DISCUSS THAT? THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THAT'S SOMETHING ON THE AGENDA TO

DISCUSS AT THAT TIME. >> AT THIS POINT, YOU'RE DISCUSSION JUST THE CONSIDERATION ON POSSIBLE APPOINTMENTS, REAPPOINTMENTS, OR REMOVALS. IT'S RELATED BUT IF YOU WANTED TO EXPLORE YOUR COUNCIL PROTOCOLS ARE THERE, IT'S SOMETHING I DIDN'T REVIEW TO BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON IN TERMS OF GETTING YOU CLARITY ON WHAT YOUR RULES MAY OR MAY NOT

ALLOW FOR, THERE. >> I'M WONDERING WHAT OUR

PROCESSES FOR INTERVIEWS. >> WHAT IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN IN

THE PAST. >> IS THAT OKAY TO TALK ABOUT WHO WE'RE INTERVIEWING AND WHY WE'RE NOT INTERVIEWING THEM?

>> AS PART OF WHAT WAS BROUGHT BY YOUR SUBCOMMITTEE, I THINK IT'S A FAIR QUESTION FOR DISCUSSION, BUT, ANY DISCUSSIONS ABOUT HER OVERALL PROCESS AND MAKING CHANGES TO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING FOR A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM.

>> I'LL JUST MAKE A STATEMENT, I'M NOT GOING TO ARGUE WITH YOU TONIGHT. I'M GETTING FEEDBACK BACK THAT I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE'RE ASKING THE QUESTIONS, WHAT QUESTIONS WE'RE ASKING. WHEN WE START ASKING QUESTIONS AND IT'S ABOUT WHO YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE FRIENDS WITH, WHO YOU SUPPORT IN ELECTIONS, ALL THAT STUFF, I THINK THAT IS EXTREMELY INAPPROPRIATE AND VERY UNETHICAL, BECAUSE OF WE'RE LOOKING AT PUTTING PEOPLE ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS BASED ON WHO THEY'RE FRIENDS WITH OR WHO THEY'RE NOT, OR USING THAT AS A LITMUS TEST ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE QUALIFIED, THEN WE NEED TO STOP THIS. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WE HAVE OPENINGS IS BECAUSE I CONTINUE TO HEAR PEOPLE WHERE EITHER SKIPPING MEETINGS AND NO CALL AND NO-SHOW AS COUNCIL MEMBERS BECAUSE OF SOME REASON, OR WE GET IN ARGUE AND START CHANGING RULES, AND I'M LIKE WHAT ARE WE DOING? IF THREE OF YOU CAN'T HANDLE IT,

[00:30:03]

THEN WE NEED TO CHANGE THE PROCESS IN MY MIND, OR PICK A DIFFERENT THREE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO DO IT WITH A BLIND EYE TO WHO SOMEONE MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE MET OR KNOWN. I'LL JUST SAY THAT, IT'S DISGUSTING WHAT I'M HEARINO.

>> FOR THE RECORD, THE PROTOCOLS ARE POSTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL WEBSITE, IF ANYONE WANTS TO REVIEW THEM. THE PROCESS FOR INTERVIEWS CAN BE FOUND IN SECTION 1 , PARAGRAPH F IS THE ENTIRE SECTION. AND THEN THE SPECIFIC ONES I THINK THAT ARE BEING TALKED ABOUT HERE ARE PARAGRAPH, SUBPARAGRAPH THREE AND FOUR IF ANYONE WANTS TO REVIEW THOSE, AND IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT LATER, ADJUST IT OR CLARIFY IT.

[8.2 Consideration and possible action regarding recommendations or updates from City Council sub-committees (i.e. Legislative, HISD). ]

>> ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR 8.1? 8.2, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS OR UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES. HEARING NONE, WE'LL GO ON TO 9.1,

[9.1 Presentation and discussion related to the conceptual advanced manufacturing and distribution warehouse development known as the Chandler Road Project, located on the north side of Chandler Road between HWY 130 and County Road 100. (Amanda Brown) ]

PRESENTATION DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE CONCEPTUAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING AND DISTRIBUTION OF WAREHOUSE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS THE CHANDLER ROAD PROJECT LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHANDLER ROAD BETWEEN HIGHWAY 130 AND COUNTY ROAD 100.

>> MAYOR, COUNCILS, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE RECORD, PURSUANT TO COUNCIL TO REVIEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS THAT ARE PROPOSING COMPLETION OUTSIDE OF ONE OF OUR CCN'S, THIS DEVELOPER IS BRINGING THIS TO YOU TO PRESENT THE MERITS OF THEIR PROJECT BEFORE STAFF INVEST ANY MORE TIME AND EFFORT TAKING THINGS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. AMANDA BROWN IS HERE, SHE'S GOT A COUPLE OF HER TEAMMATES AS WELL, THEY'LL TAKE YOU THROUGH EVERYTHING AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED FOR YOU.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, MY NAME IS AMANDA BROWN WITH HD BROWN CONSULTING. IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS AN ADVANCED MANUFACTURING LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROJECT ON CHANDLER ROAD, AND A POTENTIAL INCORPORATION INTO THE HUTTO WASTEWATER CCN ONLY. THIS IS LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF CHANDLER ROAD. JUST EAST OF 130. SO, THIS IS A VERY CONCEPTUAL CONCEPT PLAN, AGAIN, THE INTENT IS TO , FOR THIS TO BE A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ADVANCED MANUFACTURING TYPE FACILITY , THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT IS AROUND IN THIS AREA. AGAIN, WE ARE REALLY LOOKING FOR A WASTEWATER SOLUTION, AND SO IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. ONE THING I DO WANT TO HIGHLIGHT IS THAT WE ARE IN JONAH CCN, WE HAVE RECEIVED CONFIRMATION FROM JONAH THAT THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO SERVE US WITH WATER.

THE REQUEST TONIGHT DOES NOT INVOLVE INCORPORATION INTO YOUR WATER CCN, THIS IS SOLELY ABOUT WASTEWATER. SO, WE HAVE AN INTERESTING JURISDICTION FOR THE SITE, AGAIN, WE'RE IN JONAH'S WATER CCN , WE ARE IN ROUND ROCK SEE TJ. THERE IS A PORTION AROUND ROCKS DPJ THAT CREEPS OVER ONTO THE EAST SIDE OF 130, ON THE HUTTO SIDE. WHICH IS WHERE WE ARE, AND YOU CAN SEE OUTLINED IN YELLOW, THERE, THE BLUE IS THE ROUND ROCK HE TJ AND THE GREEN ROUTE AND THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT IS WHERE WE SIT WITH IN ROUND ROCK HE TJ. SO, CONSIDERING WE'RE IN ROUND ROCK HE TJ, WE'VE BEEN READING WITH THEM FOR A LONG TIME, CLOSE TO A YEAR TO HOPEFULLY FIND A WASTEWATER SOLUTION, WITH ROUND ROCK. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S AN EXTREMELY LONG-TERM AND EXTREMELY EXPENSIVE PROJECT TO PULL THEIR WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE FROM THE WEST ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE EAST, TO OUR SITE, TO SERVE OUR SITE. SO, IT'S A VERY LONG LINE. IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT 10,500 FEET AWAY FROM THE EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, I HAVE NEW INFORMATION ON THAT LINE. IT'S A LONG UNDER TWO MILES TO PULL THAT LINE OVER, BUT THE REALLY BIG LIFT IS A LIFT STATION, NO PUN INTENDED. IT'S ABOUT $10 MILLION WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILD A LARGE LIFT STATION TO BE ABLE TO SERVE THE SITE FOR GROUNDWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. IN ADDITION TO THAT THERE IS NO TIMELINE. WE HAVE NO ANTICIPATED TIMELINE OF WHEN THIS PRODUCT WILL START CANNOT BE COMPLETED, OR BE FUNDED AT ALL. SO, HERE WE ARE IN RELATION TO HUTTO'S

[00:35:02]

JURISDICTION IN BLUE, YOU CAN SEE THE E TJ, THE PURPLE IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE YELLOW IN THE CORNER IS THE FULL PURPOSE ANNEXATION, FULL PURPOSE JURISDICTION. SO, AFTER WORKING WITH ROUND ROCK AND REALIZING WE HAVE A BIG WASTEWATER ISSUE, THERE, WE WANTED TO VISIT WITH HUTTO TO SEE IF WE COULD TIE INTO HUTTO'S WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH EXISTS JUST TO THE SOUTH. WE'RE ALSO SURROUNDED BY PROPERTIES THAT ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE SERVED BY HUTTO AS WELL , WITH LINES, IN TERMS OF LINES AND CAPACITIES. WE DID SUBMIT FOR A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO, WE DID RECEIVE AN APPROVED REQUEST FROM STAFF THAT SHOWS THIS AS BEING THE IMPROVEMENTS DOWN TO THE SOUTH, TO THE EXISTING LINE, TO THE SOUTH. SO AGAIN, I WANTED TO REITERATE THAT THIS IS REALLY ONLY ABOUT WASTEWATER, THE WASTEWATER CCN, AND WE WERE HAVING REALLY GOOD CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF IN HUTTO, AND HAVE HAD TO HOLD UNTIL WE CAN COME TALK TO YOU THIS EVENING.

SO WE REALLY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION WITH THE MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TO FIND THE BEST WASTEWATER SOLUTION THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. WITH THAT, WE HAVE OUR ENGINEER, HERE, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM AS WELL AND FROM OUR LAW FIRM. IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE ARE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THOSE AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? >> SO, I HAD SEVERAL. ONE THING IS, WE'VE BEEN LEGALLY SAYING OTHER PLACES WERE NOT GETTING OUT OF THEIR E TJ, AND ESSENTIALLY WE'RE ASKING ROUND ROCK, LET THEM OUT OF THEIR E TJ. THAT POSSIBLY CREATES A POTENTIAL LEGAL CONFLICT FOR US, I WAS CURIOUS FOR LEGAL ON THAT ONE. THE OTHER IS, IT'S ALSO IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR E TJ IN THAT SECTION, SO IF ALL THE SURROUNDING ONCE TRYING TO GET RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION TO RUN A LINE THROUGH THE OTHER PARTS OF ROUND ROCK HE TJ, MAY BE PROBLEMATIC AND IS CONCERNING TO ME. AND THEN, IF WE SAY NO, IS THE BACKUP PLAN A PACKAGE PLANT

FOR YOU GUYS? >> CORRECT. I THINK THOSE ARE REALLY GREAT QUESTIONS, ALL QUESTIONS WE ARE HOPING TO ALSO BE ABLE TO EXPLORE AND GET ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT WE CAN'T DO THAT UNTIL WE GET THE GO-AHEAD TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> AND THIS WOULD BE MORE OF A CITY ENGINEER, CITY STAFF QUESTION. FROM WHERE OUR CURRENT PLAN IS, OF OUR CCN THAT WE HAVE TO EXPAND TO WHERE WE'VE GROWN OUR LINE, WITH THIS ACTUALLY HELP US AND BE BENEFICIAL TO CITY TO SAVE MONEY FOR WHERE WE HAVE TO GO ON CURRENT TIMELINES OF THINGS? OR IS THIS SO FAR OUT THERE THAT ACTUALLY WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY AND AN OBLIGATION IN THE TIMEFRAME THAT THEY WOULD WANT THAT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE AND WE'D HAVE TO DO FOR YEARS AND YEARS, SO IT MIGHT NOT MAKE FINANCIAL SENSE, FROM OFF THE NAPKIN CALCULATION HERE.

>> GOOD EVENING, CITY ENGINEER. SO, IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ON ANY OF OUR PLANS, IS NOT OUR HE TJ. SO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY PLANNED EXPANSION UP TO THAT AREA. SO, I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT IT WOULD HURT US, OR HELP US, I JUST KNOW THAT WE RUN THE NUMBERS AND WE CAN PROVIDE THEM SERVICE, AND WE'VE GOT THE INFO STRUCTURE DOWNSTREAM ONCE THEY GET DOWN TO WHERE THEY NEED TO GET TO TO TIE INTO OUR SYSTEM.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THIS WAS NOT ON OUR RADAR PRIOR TO THEM CONTACTING US FOR THE SCR, BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN OUR CCN OR OUR E TJ. ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP IN PRIOR CONVERSATIONS, AND I'LL JUST PUT THAT OUT THERE FOR THE COUNCIL, IS THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN TRYING TO APPROACH THE SUBJECT WITH ROUND ROCK ABOUT MAYBE DOING AND HE TJ SWAP. BECAUSE WE'VE GOT STUFF ON THE WEST SIDE OF 130, THE COST OF ON THE EAST SIDE OF 130, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TRIED TO TALK TO THEM ABOUT DOING A 1 FOR 1 SWAP TO WHERE THEY SERVE MORE OF THE AREA ON THE WEST AND WE SERVE MORE ON THE EAST, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WOULD BE A POTENTIAL WAY FOR US TO REINVESTIGATE THOSE CONVERSATIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS YOU AT ALL. THAT'S MY BEST EFFORT TO TRY TO NOT ANSWER

YOUR QUESTION. YEAH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? >> GO AHEAD.

[00:40:01]

>> NO, YOU. >> SO Y'ALL HAVE THE PROPERTY THAT'S NORTH AND SOUTH OF CHANDLER, IS THAT CORRECT? CHANDLER GOES IT BISECTS THE PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> CURRENTLY NO, WHEN THIS SCR WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, WE HAD BOTH OF THEM, BUT, THAT'S SCR IS THE DEVELOPER IS OBLIGATED AND REQUIRED TO BUILD IT. THE CITY IS NOT GOING OUT ON A LIMB TO PAY FOR THIS TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO THIS SITE. IF THERE IS ANY UPSIZING THAT'S REQUIRED TO SERVICE OTHER SITES IN THE AREA, THERE MAY BE SOME SORT OF CAUTIONARY FROM THE CITY THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THIS BODY FOR APPROVAL. BUT IT WOULD BE ON THE DEVELOPER TO BE

CONSTRUCTING THAT LINE. >> AND I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AS WELL. SINCE YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET TO THE BOUNDARY WITH THESE OTHER D.A.S, THAT ARE ONGOING, SO, SO, YOUR PROJECT IS CONTINGENT ON THE SURROUNDING D.A.S THERE IN THE ETJ, IT LOOKS LIKE SOME OF THEM ARE IN THE ETJ AND IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE D.A. NUMBER FIVE AND FOUR IS LIKELY CITY. SO, IS IT CORRECT THAT YOU NEED TO SEE BUILDOUT IN THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN ORDER TO HOOK INTO THOSE PROPERTIES.

>> SO LET ME OFFER ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION. WHEN YOU'RE SEEING D.A., HERE, THAT'S ENGINEER SPEAK. IT'S DRAINAGE

AREA. >> NOT DEVELOP AN AGREEMENT.

>> SO, WHEN WE DID THE SCR, IN MY MIND, LOOKING AT THIS FROM AN OVERALL MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, IF WE'RE GOING TO GET THE AGREEMENTS WITH EVERYBODY ELSE, THEN IT MADE SENSE FOR US TO ACCOUNT FOR ALL THOSE OTHER AREAS, BECAUSE YOU'VE ALL BEEN HERE LONG ENOUGH TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PARCEL IN BLUE , THAT'S NORTH OF CHANDLER, WE BUILD THAT LINE COMING BACK DOWN TO THE CITY, YOU KNOW THE NEXT THING THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS THOSE PARCELS IN PURPLE ARE GOING TO COME SAYING HOW CAN WE TIE INTO YOUR SYSTEM? WE SAID LET'S SIZE EVERYTHING TO ACCOUNT FOR THAT, THAT'S HOW WE DID THE SCR. I WANTED TO CLARIFY , THOSE ARE DRAINAGE

AREAS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. WITH THAT, WHAT PORTION OF LINES WITH THE CITY BE RESPONSIBLE TO GET IT TO THE CLOSEST TIE IN?

>> WE WROTE THE SCR THAT THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL THAT GREEN LINE THAT YOU SEE. BASICALLY, AT THAT BOTTOM CALLOUT WHERE IT SAYS CONNECT TO OUR SYSTEM,

>> WHERE IS THIS AT? >> IS THERE A WAY TO ZOOM?

>> I THINK THE BOTTOM RIGHT. >> SO, IF YOU GO TO THE LOWER

RIGHT, JUST ABOVE. >> 18 INCH WASTEWATER MEAN?

>> THEY'RE TYING INTO THE NORTHERN SIDE OF EMORY CROSSING, WHICH IS WHERE WE ALREADY HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE.

>> THE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION AT THE VERY BOTTOM.

>> IF I MAY, REAL QUICK, BEN GREENE, PROJECT ENGINEER ON THIS. SOME OF THAT AREA NORTH OF EMORY CROSSING WAS PLANNED TO BE BROUGHT INTO WITH CCN RIGHT NOW, THERE WAS A STUDY DONE WITH THE SUBDIVISION FOR THIS WASTEWATER SAID, I DON'T THINK IT GOES ALL THE WAY TO CHANDLER FOR SOME OF THIS WAS ANTICIPATED TO COME INTO THE CITY LINES. THE EXISTING CITY LINE THAT WOULD BE TYING INTO IS THE NORTH SIDE OF EMORY CROSSING, AND WHAT THE CITY HAS SHOWN WITH THIS SCR IS EVERYTHING THE GRAVITY FLOWS TO THIS INTERCEPT OUR DEVELOPER WOULD BE CONSTRUCTING, SO, IN SOME WAYS, WE WOULD BE EXTENDING UP THE CITY INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS, ANOTHER IMPORTANT ITEM TO NOTE IS THERE IS SOME SENSITIVITY WITH WASTEWATER SERVICE IN THE CITY, THIS PROJECT WOULDN'T COME ONLINE AND NOT NEED WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR A FEW YEARS, THERE IS STILL A LOT OF PLANNING AND PERMITTING, AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME EFFORTS ON THE CITY SIDE TO IMPROVE THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, THIS WOULD COME IN AFTER SOME OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WERE MADE. SO, THOSE WERE SOME OF THE

MAIN HIGHLIGHTS. >> IT LOOKS LIKE SINCE Y'ALL ARE GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR BUILDING OUT THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, AT 7300 FEET, RIGHT, WITH ROUND ROCKS SERVICE

[00:45:04]

CCN, YOU'RE AT 10,000, WITH HUTTO YOU'RE 7300. YOU'RE LOOKING AT INVESTING 10 MILLION TO GET TO ROUND ROCK VERSUS 7.3 MILLION. TO GET TO HUTTO. IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? HOWEVER, THEN WHENEVER THERE'S OTHER BUILDOUT, YOU CAN RECOUP

COSTS , IS THAT CORRECT? >> EVEN GREATER TO YOUR POINT, THE RATIO OF LINE EXTENSION, IT DOESN'T MAKE LOGICAL SENSE WHY THE ROUND ROCK GOES BEYOND 130, THERE IS A RIDGELINE WHERE MOST OF THIS AREA DRAINS TO THE SOUTHEAST, EXTENDING PAST 130 THEY'RE REQUIRING A PUMP STATION, A LIFT STATION ACROSS 130 ON TOP OF THAT 10,000 FEET OF LINE, YOU HAVE THIS MULTIMILLION DOLLAR LIFT STATION WHEREAS IN THIS SCENARIO, EVERYTHING GRAVITY FLOWS TOWARD THE HUTTO SYSTEM, SO IN ESSENCE WE'RE EXTENDING CONVEYING THROUGH THAT SO THE COST MIGHT BE TRIPLE IF WE WENT TO THE ROUND ROCK SYSTEM. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE EASEMENT, THE COST OF EXTENDING THE LINE IN EASEMENT ACQUISITION WOULD BE ENCUMBERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT , NO REQUEST BY THE CITY TO DISSIPATE, OR PAY FOR THE LINE OR EASEMENT. WOULD BE ANOTHER BENEFIT IN THE SENSE THAT THIS DEVELOPER WOULD BE EXTENDING THE INFRA STRUCTURE AND INQUIRING THE PUBLIC WASTEWATER EASEMENT FOR THE CITY.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. >> IT'S MORE LIKE A FIVE TIMES THE COST TO GET TO ROUND ROCK THEN TO GET TO Y'ALL HERE. I'M WITH MARCH CAPITAL, THE DEVELOPER.

>> I KNOW YOU WENT THROUGH THE SCR PROCESS, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ARE GOING TO BE NEEDED, OR NOT YET, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW END-USERS AND THIS IS IN THE FUTURE.

>> WE REQUESTED 400 FROM JONAH WATER, WHICH WAS APPROVED. I THINK WE'RE CLOSER TO HAVING A 225, BUT, WE'RE NOT SURE HOW THAT ALL SHAKE OUT UNTIL WE FIND.

>> AND INDUSTRIAL. THANK YOU. >> THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE ROUND ROCK ETJ. CITY COUNCIL MAY BE AWARE, THERE IS A PROCESS TO REMOVE DMX, WITHOUT ANY REQUEST FOR HUTTO'S PER DISSIPATION, I THINK THE INTENTION IS IF WE DID RECEIVE WASTEWATER FROM THE CITY OF HUTTO, WE WOULD BE AN EXTRA ROUND ROCKS ETJ, AND POTENTIALLY THE CITY OF HUTTO ONE DAY AS

PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. >> I BE CRITICAL ON OUR SIDE, PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT TO US AND WE'RE TELLING THEM NO.

>> IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED.

>> ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR QUESTION? I THINK YOU ANSWERED , ONE OF THEM IS ON THE HOOK TO PAY FOR THIS, SOUNDS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT IS. AND THEN, THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS, REALLY, IT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT, NOT ONLY DO WE NEED TO PLAN , BUT REALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE PURPLE, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO CONNECT IN AND IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO TELL THEM KNOW WHEN THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE CITY THAN US. FOR ME, THAT'S THE DECISION WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT HERE, IS CAN WE HANDLE ALL OF THIS? IN ORDER TO SERVE YOU, BECAUSE WE KNOW THE REST WOULD BE COMING TO US, THE BIG QUESTION I HAD IS WHO'S PAYING FOR IT, AND I LIKE THAT ANSWER. FOR ME, IT'S A BIG QUESTION ABOUT HOW DO WE WORK WITH ROUND ROCK, AND MAYBE WE DO, WE'VE GOT PEOPLE ON THE WEST SIDE OF 130 THAT ARE TRYING TO DMX FROM US, LET'S JUST WORK TOGETHER. WE CAN CALL UP THEIR COUNCIL, AND HAMMER SOMETHING OUT. I THINK THAT'S ON US TO HELP FIGURE THAT PIECE OUT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I GUESS MINE ARE MORE STATEMENTS, NOT SO MUCH QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW THAT I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF SWAPPING ETJ'S, OR SWAPPING TERRITORY, IF YOU WILL. WE HAVE A LOT OF CIP PROJECTS ON THE WEST SIDE THAT WE'RE ALL HANDLING, THE DEVELOPERS ARE HANDLING, THE DESIGN IF WE START TRYING TO MOVE LAND AROUND, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S GOING TO PAY FOR THAT, AND THAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THINGS TO WHEN PEOPLE THAT WE SAID DON'T DO A PACKAGE PLANT, I'M AFRAID THAT IT WAS A YOU GUYS ARE SCREWING AROUND, DON'T DO IT. I KNOW ROUND ROCKS VERY SOPHISTICATED, AND I DON'T SEE WHY THEY WOULD NOT BE OKAY WITH AN OUT OF CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT. THEY DO THOSE FOR OTHER PEOPLE, THEY'VE ENDED IN ONE OF THOSE TO HELP US, SO, TO ME, THAT'S MAYBE AN EASIER THING AND I DON'T DISAGREE THAT MAYBE IF THERE TRULY IS A RIDGE ON 130, THEIR ENGINEER PERSON

[00:50:03]

HAS BEEN THERE 30 YEARS, I THINK JUST RETIRED, THOUGH. MICHAEL.

IF IT TRULY IS THAT WAY THAT I THINK OUR STAFF CAN WORK WITH THEIR STAFF, IF THERE IS AN OVERALL OUT OF CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT TO MAKE SURE THIS PIPE IS RIGHT SIZED, SO THAT EVERYTHING JUST EAST OF 130, I DO KNOW THAT THERE IS SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE TO RUN A WATER LINE AROUND 130 CHANDLER ROAD AREA. SO, THERE IS PROBABLY A BENEFIT TO THAT. NOT INTO THE ETJ SWAP, BUT THERE IS A SIMPLE AGREEMENT WE CAN DO, AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT PAYING FOR ANYTHING, NOT EVEN TRYING TO ENTER INTO SOME AGREEMENT FOR AN EASEMENT, THAT'S GOT TO BE ON YOU GUYS, OUR PEOPLE ARE PRETTY BUSY, AS LONG AS YOU GUYS ARE PAYING YOUR IMPACT FEES, BECAUSE WE'RE CHOKING RIGHT NOW ON THE COST OF WASTEWATER. AND THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS RIGHT SIZED, AND THEN WITH THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID, IF YOU GUYS EVEN TALK, I WOULD ASK STAFF, IF YOU GET THE IMPRESSION THEY MADE THE ANNEX, THEN JUST STOP ALL COMMUNICATION. IT'S NOT ONLY HYPOCRITICAL, IT'S NOT FEEDING OUR OWN INTEREST, WHICH WE'RE FIGHTING EVERYTHING A PERSON THAT TRIES TO DO THAT. SO YOU COULD OFFER US MILLIONS AND I'D BE AGAINST IT BECAUSE WE HELP YOU DO IT ONCE, AND THEN, IT JUST SPREADS. SO WE'RE TRYING TO CONTAIN THAT, I THINK WHAT THE LAW SHOULD BE, HOPEFULLY CHANGED IN THE STATE IS THEY'LL GIVE IT TO WHERE WE WORK WITH YOU ALL, AND WE WORK WITH THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK TO WHERE EVERYBODY'S LEVELHEADED, WE KNOW THERE'S A RIDGE, WE KNOW YOU CAN'T GET SERVICE. WE CAN SUPPLY IT, WE HAVE THE CAPACITY AND THERE'S AN EASY WAY, WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHO'S GOING TO LOSE PROPERTY TAXES. I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR OUT OF CITY SERVICE IF WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY WE COULD COME UP WITH ONE. ROUND ROCK CHARGES 50% MORE FOR THE WASTEWATER FEES, OUT OF CITY SERVICE, THEN IN CITY SERVICE. TINGS LIKE THAT, THEY HAVE FOUND TO BE PRETTY BENEFICIAL IN TERMS OF PEOPLE PAY THEIR IMPACT FEES AND THEY CAN TELL THEIR CONSTITUENTS THAT THEY'RE PAYING 50% MORE TO USE THE SAME SERVICE THAT THE CITIZENS ARE USING, WHICH MOST PEOPLE LIKE IT WHEN THE OTHER GUYS HAVING TO PAY A WHOLE LOT MORE. BUT, OUTSIDE OF THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE USE, IT'S A TRASH TRUCK HIGHWAY GOING TO THE DUMP, THERE'S A LOT OF INDUSTRIAL THINGS THAT ARE BEING PUT IN, THE COUNTIES GOT A MAJOR, IS NOT SHOWING UP ON HERE, THERE'S 100 ACRES IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF ITS BEING TAKEN RIGHT OF WAY FOR MAJOR FLYOVERS. THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON, CHANDLER LONG-TERM IS GOING TO BE THIS BIG TRUCK CORRIDOR. GOING ALL THE WAY EAST, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO HAVE INDUSTRIAL UP THERE. SO, GOOD LUCK TO YOU GUYS.

>> I WANTED TO ASK, YOU'RE SUGGESTING AN OUT OF CITY SERVICE, HUTTO APPROVE AN OUT OF CITY SERVICE AGREEMENT.

>> IF WE GO THE ETJ SWAPPING, I THINK IT'S GOING TO GET EXTREMELY COMPLICATED. WE DID THAT WITH PFLUGERVILLE THREE, FOUR YEARS AGO. AND THAT WAS JUST A SIMPLE, THE IST WAS RIGHT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CAN WE MOVE IT? AND IT TOOK 18 MONTHS. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR GUYS A TIMELINE IS, IF WE'RE DOING THAT AND WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HAVING A DEVELOPER DESIGN, WASTEWATER LINE, I THINK IT JUST, IT'S GOING TO MESS IT ALL UP AND NO ONE'S GOING TO BE HAPPY. MAYBE IT'S A COUNCIL DECISION IF WE DON'T HAVE A POLICY TO COME UP WITH ONE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE WOULD OBJECT. WOULD BE NICE TO HAVE PROPERTY TAXES, I CAN ALSO SEE THE CITY OF ROUND ROCK SAYING NO.

>> WE DID THAT. >> YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO A PACKAGE PLAN. AMANDA IS GOING TO HATE ME, I'LL DO WHAT I CAN TO STOP YOU FROM THAT PACKAGE PLAN.

>> THAT'S OBVIOUSLY PLAN C, PLAN B IS HUTTO, WE DON'T WANT

TO DO THAT. >> WE DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT PLAN C, SO, IF WE TOOK PLAN A AND PLAN B FOR ME, I'D GO OUT OF MY WAY TO HELP YOU GUYS. AS SOON AS I HEAR ABOUT C OR D, I'M SWITCHING TO PLAN E, HOW DO WE STOP YOU FROM DOING WHAT YOU'RE DOING? A AND B IS THE BEST FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME, WE APPRECIATE IT. ALL

[9.2 Presentation and discussion related to the conceptual mixed-use development known as ATX Legacy Park, located north of Limmer Loop near Limmer Loop and HWY 79 intersection. (Jake Heffelfinger) ]

RIGHT. NEXT, WE HAVE A 9.2, PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION RELATED TO THE CONCEPTUAL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS ATX G PARK, LOCATED NORTH OF LIBERALISM, IN HIGHWAY 79

INTERSECTION. >> SORRY, SUPER COLD IN HERE, DIRECTOR OF REAL ESTATE FOR THE RECORD. THIS PRESENTATION IS SIMILAR IN TERMS OF CONTEXT AND SCOPE TO THE ONE YOU JUST HEARD.

[00:55:02]

BRINGING A DEVELOPMENT TO YOU AHEAD OF TIME, BECAUSE WE ARE SEEKING ADMITTANCE INTO ONE OF OUR CCN'S, JAKE SHOULD BE HERE, I HAVEN'T SEEN HIM YET. PERFECT. HE'LL, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS HE'LL ANSWER THOSE AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. >> ARE YOU PRESENTING THIS ONE

AS WELL? >> WELCOME BACK.

>> STILL AMANDA BROWN.

OKAY, GOOD EVENING, AMANDA BROWN, HD BROWN CONSULTING IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING, REPRESENTING ATX CAPITAL FOR A PROJECT IN HUTTO. THAT INVOLVES A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT INCLUDES INCORPORATION INTO THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CCN. THIS HAS SOME INTERESTING JURISDICTION IDENTIFICATIONS AS WELL, WHERE IN THE HUTTO ETJ, WE ARE IN JONAH'S CCN, AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY WASTEWATER CCN. WE'RE IN NO MAN'S LAND WHEN IT COMES TO WASTEWATER. SO, THIS IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

OBVIOUSLY WE'RE IN HUTTO'S ETJ, THE CITY OF HUTTO HAS PUT A COVER HAS A PLAN TOGETHER TO PLAN FOR THIS SITE'S

DEVELOPMENT. >> REPORTER: BIFURCATED BY THE LOOP AND HAVE TWO MASS DESIGNATIONS, ONE WAS NEIGHBORHOOD ACTIVITY CENTER TO THE NORTH, AND CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH. SO, THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH IS RIGHT OFF 79, AND IS INTENDED TO BE COMMERCIAL OFFICE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL TYPE USES, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE LOOP AND TO THE NORTH OF THAT , MORE DENSE HOUSING , AND THEN TRANSITIONS TO THE NORTH AND A MORE TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY TYPE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH STAFF, TO GET THIS LAND PLANNED TOGETHER. I DO WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT PROCESS AND WHERE WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE A TIMELINE THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT LATER. WE ORIGINALLY APPROACHED THE CITY WITH THIS SITE A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. THIS PLAN HAS BEEN THROUGH MULTIPLE ITERATIONS TO TRY TO REFLECT THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THAT IS A NEW PLAN, TO REFLECT IT AS BEST AS WE CAN. THIS HAS MANY TRULY A MIXED-USE TYPE DEVELOPMENT, WE HAVE MORE RETAIL COMMERCIAL, MORE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVING COMMERCIAL. WE HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THAT ALLOWS FOR OFFICE AS WELL, AND TO THE NORTH CONTEMPLATES THE MORE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT , WALKABLE COMMERCIAL AS WELL. SO, I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CITY BENEFITS. WE HAVE SUBMITTED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, STAFF HAS BEEN REVIEWING IT, THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT INCLUDES STANDARDS AS AN EXHIBIT, IT INCLUDES WATER AND WASTEWATER WILL BE ACCESSED, IT INCLUDES HOW THESE ARE GOING TO BE BUILT, SO LIVER LOOP THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THEM AT THEIR MAX TWO ROWS THAT GO THROUGH THIS SITE THAT ARE IN THE CITY OF HUTTO MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN. THE FIRST ONE IS THE LIMITED EXTENSION THAT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE SITE. A DEDICATION OF 5.2 ACRES GIVEN TO THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THAT ROAD IN THE FUTURE, ONCE THAT'S TIME TO BUILD IT, IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE NORTH-SOUTH ROAD IS ALSO IN THE CITY OF HUTTO MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AND ALSO MAKING IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT ROAD TO INCLUDE SHADE TREES AND TO HAVE ENHANCED SIDEWALKS TO INCREASE THE WALK ABILITY OF THAT ROAD. THERE'S THE AS IT COMES TO WASTEWATER FOR STRUCTURE, WE ARE NOT IN ANYBODY'S WASTEWATER CCN. SO WE'LL BE PULLING WHEN WE GET TO THE SCR, WE'LL BE PULLING WASTEWATER AND FOR STRUCTURE FROM SOUTH OF 79 UP TO THE SITE, THAT GIVES ACCESS TO MANY OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN HUTTO'S ETJ, TO WASTEWATER IN THE FUTURE

>> OF COURSE OVERSIZED TO ACCOMMODATE DEVELOPMENT. THERE

[01:00:06]

IS A LOT IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT . THE BUILDINGS ARE BUILT UP TO THE ROAD, THERE'S NO PARKING ALLOWED BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AT THE ROAD. ALL THE PARKING IS TOWARDS THE REAR, REQUIREMENTS FOR BALCONIES TO MAKE SURE THERE IS A NICE, ACTIVE LIVE ROAD GOING INTO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT . OKAY, NOW ON TO WATER. AS I MENTIONED WE ARE IN JONAH CCN. I WILL GO OVER THIS IN A LITTLE BIT. THE WATER SOLUTION FOR JONAH IS NOT WORKABLE. WITHIN APPROACH THE CITY FOR A SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST TO ACCESS THE CITY WATER CCN. YOU SEE ON THE MAP WHERE WE ARE JUST NORTH OF HUTTO CCN. THE MAIN THING I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT , VERY IMPORTANT, THAT BLUELINE IS AN EXISTING CITY OF HUTTO 16 INCH WATER LINE. IT GOES RIGHT ACROSS THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY. THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE OUTSIDE OF THE PURPLE LOOP YOU CAN SEE. THERE'S NO PULLING OF LINES, NO INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED FOR US TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THIS. SO THIS IS OUR JONAH WATER SCR FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED. YOU CAN SEE THE GREEN DOTTED LINE WOULD BE THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS JONAH'S WATER, WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER 9000 LINEAR FEET OF A 16 INCH LINE. IN THIS SCENARIO WE WOULD HAVE A 16 INCH JONAH WATER LINE GOING RIGHT ALONG A 16 INCH HUTTO WATER LINE, DUPLICATING THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY. IN ADDITION TO THAT , IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE EXTRA COST AS WELL. SO THIS IS OUR PLANT , WE WOULD LOVE TO BE BECAUSE IT MAKES SO MUCH SENSE FROM UTILITY STANDPOINT TO ACCESS CITY OF HUTTO WATER . IN ADDITION, THIS WOULD BE PLAN B FOR US WHICH ALSO INCLUDES SOME SORT OF ON-SITE WASTEWATER FACILITY AS WELL. THESE ARE THE IMPROVEMENTS. THE GREEN LINE YOU CAN SEE, SERVICE EXTENSION REQUEST FOR WASTEWATER. YOU SEE WHERE WE ARE NEAR THE WASTEWATER CCN. THE GREEN LINE IS 7500 FEET OF AN 18 INCH WASTEWATER LINE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED TO SERVE.

WE WILL BE CONSTRUCTING THAT AND BRINGING IT UP NORTH OF 79. THAT WILL OPEN UP WASTEWATER TO MANY PROPERTIES NORTH OF 79 IN THIS AREA THAT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE IT . I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PROJECT TIMELINE. WE HAVE SPENT A YEAR AND A HALF , MANY ITERATIONS, CONCEPT PLANS, MANY LAWYERS HAVE BEEN COMPILED DOCUMENTS. WE SUBMITTED THAT, WE STARTED THAT CONVERSATION IN SEPTEMBER, 2023. WE RECEIVE RESULTS OF SCR OCTOBER 2024.

ULTIMATELY MY CLIENTS HERE AS WELL HAVE CLOSE ON THIS PROPERTY BECAUSE OF WORKING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE CITY AND GETTING POSITIVE FEEDBACK ON THESE DOCUMENTS. THEY OWN THESE PROPERTIES AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY FOR A YEAR AND A HALF. WE HAVE SUBMITTED ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS , THOSE ARE ALREADY READY. WE ARE VERY MUCH SO HOPING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT. WITH THAT, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS . WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE DEVELOPER AS WELL THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, AMANDA. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL?

>> I HAVE SEVERAL. ONE QUESTION, WE DO HAVE WATER , IT'S ALWAYS AN ISSUE. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY WE CAN GET AN INTERCONNECTED AGREEMENT THROUGH THE JONAH CONNECTION ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY SO AFFECT EVERY IT IS NOT ACTUALLY HITTING OUR WATER SUPPLY? WE KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT ON THE HUTTO BRIDGE EARLIER

[01:05:02]

, IF YOU LOOK AT MANVILLE AND SEE IF THAT'S A POSSIBILITY.

MAYBE THERE'S SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH JONAH FOR THIS PROPERTY? THAT WOULD BE ONE QUESTION AND THE SECOND WOULD BE FROM STAFF , YOU KNOW, WE MADE A CHANGE IN DIRECTION BECAUSE THINGS HAVE CHANGED ON THE GROUND FOR US BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE WATER CONTRACTS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON. SO IT KIND OF CHANGES THAT CALCULUS . ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I WOULD ASK STAFF SINCE THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH YOU FOR THIS TIME, THEY ALREADY INCLUDE YOUR SCR NEEDS WHEN WE LOOK AT PROJECTIONS FOR WATER, IT WAS EVEN PRESENTED TO US FOR TIMELY WHERE IT WAS GOING TO BE 2028 NOW IT MIGHT BE 2029 , THE QUESTION IS WHEN IS YOUR TIMEFRAME THAT YOU NEED WATER AT THAT PLACE? ANYTHING WE WOULD EVEN CONSIDER DOING IT YOU WOULD BE PAYING RESERVATION FEES FROM THE NEW WATER COMING , NOT FROM EXISTING. THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS MAYBE YOU CAN AGREE ON. YOU KNOW IT'S NOT EVEN A

QUESTION IN MY MIND. >> YES, WE ARE HAPPY TO DO A RESERVATION AGREEMENT AND PAY FOR THESE UP FRONT. I'VE NOT HEARD OF THE INTERCONNECTED AGREEMENT ABOUT THE WATER THAT YOU SUGGESTED BUT WE ARE CERTAINLY OPEN TO THAT AS WELL, ANY SOLUTIONS WE ARE ABSOLUTELY OPEN TO.

>> AND WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME? >> THIS IS VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, WE HAVEN'T EVEN STARTED DESIGNING THE SITES SO WE WILL GET THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ZONING AND FULLY ANNEXED TO THE CITY OF HUTTO . FROM THERE WILL BE THE PLOTTING PROCESS, SITE PLANNING PROCESS, BUILDING PERMITS AND CONSTRUCTION. WE ARE YEARS AWAY FROM EVEN STARTING CONSTRUCTION.

I WILL ALSO ADD THIS WILL MORE THAN LIKELY BE A PHASED PROJECT.

ONE PHASE WILL COME ON SO ALL THE WATER WILL NOT BE NECESSARY AND WILL BE TIERED AS THE FACES GO ON.

>> 2028 FOR PHASE ONE? >> RIGHT. MAYBE 2027 ?

>> CAN I GET AN ANSWER FROM STAFF FIRST.

>> YES, GO AHEAD. >> MY QUESTION FOR STAFF , WHEN YOU GIVE THE WATER USAGE IN YOUR SAME PROJECTIONS SLOW DOWN FROM WHEN YOU DID THE STUDY THAT CAME OUT BEFORE BECAUSE RIGHT NOW INITIAL PROJECTIONS WOULD BE OUT IN 2028 AND IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE FURTHER OUT SO WE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE WHERE WE WERE. QUESTION IS WHEN YOU'RE GIVING THE NUMBERS FOR 2028, SINCE YOU BEEN WORKING SINCE 2023 IS THAT SOMETHING WHERE YOU GIVE THE PRESENTATION YOU WERE ALREADY INCLUDING THIS ONE IN THE INITIAL DATA POINTS

YOU GAVE US? THE 500 LUV'S ? >> YES I BELIEVE THE ATX LCR WAS INCLUDED IN THE DATA THAT WE PRESENTED LAST FALL-ISH. SO THEY

WERE IN THAT WHOLE ANALYSIS. >> THANK YOU, THAT CHANGES HOW I THINK ABOUT THIS PROJECT. THAT WAS ALL OF MY QUESTIONS .

>> SO BACK TO THE WATER RESERVATION FEES , SO THAT'S A THREE-YEAR COMMITMENT? I KNOW YOU SAID THIS IS SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE SOMETHING THAT WILL BE PHASED, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON HIS WATER RESERVATION FEES FOR THREE YEARS? THEY EXPIRE AND YOU HAVE TO RE-UP IT AGAIN. JUST KIND OF TALKING THROUGH YOUR TIMELINE. IS THAT SOMETHING Y'ALL ARE ABLE TO DO? IT'S SOMETHING FOR A FUTURE PROJECT

RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH SARAH, THAT RESERVATION AGREEMENT IS A DOCUMENT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER AND IT IS A LITTLE FLEXIBLE. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT TIMELINE THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE FIVE YEARS . PHASE ONE WILL BE WITHIN THREE YEARS, WE MIGHT HAVE AN ALTERED TIMELINE WITHIN THE AGREED-UPON RESERVATION AGREEMENT. IF THAT IS A WISH OF THE COUNCIL TO MAKE SURE THAT WE NAIL DOWN THAT PHASING TO KIND OF LIGHTEN THE LOAD FOR THE LUV'S WE ARE HAPPY TO CONSIDER THAT AS WELL. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA BECAUSE WE WILL MORE

THAN LIKELY PHASE IT ANYWAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> OF THE QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? CAN YOU GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES? RIGHT NOW THERE'S NOT REALLY A

[01:10:03]

ROAD OUT THERE? >> OH YEAH, THERE IS NOTHING OUT

THERE RIGHT NOW. >> THE DEVELOPER WILL GIVE US THE LAND AND WE WILL BUILD THE ROAD.

>> WHICH SLIDE DID YOU WANT TO SEE?

>> THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. THEY WILL GET THE RIGHT AWAY, WE WILL

BUILD THE ROAD. >> RIGHT, WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT IT AND ULTIMATELY BECAUSE THERE'S SO LITTLE UP THERE RIGHT NOW IT MADE SENSE TO US AND STAFF TO DEDICATE THE LAND TO THE CITY FOR THE FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.

>> NOT ONLY DO THEY DONATE THE LAND BUT THEY BUILT THE ROAD BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT ALL THE CITY OF HUTTO ISSUES . IF WE SAY GUESS WHAT WE WILL RAISE SOME TAXES BECAUSE WE WILL BUILD A ROAD AND ONCE WE BUILD THE ROAD WE WILL GET APARTMENTS TO COME OUT THERE WE WILL GET FOOD. SO IT HAS TO PAY FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. IF WERE IN A PROCESS COMPLETELY CAUGHT UP, THIS IS MY OPINION, IF WE ARE CAUGHT UP IN THIS IS THE NEXT THING WE WILL DO IN A COUPLE OF YEARS IT CHANGES MY MIND-SET. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS EVEN ON OUR CIP PLAN . WE ARE STILL TRYING TO GET THE ROAD THAT FEEDS THE FIRE STATION FIXED. TO ME, ANY DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES IN, MAYBE THEY NEED TO DO A PIT OUT HERE AND THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE THE MONEY BUT THEY NEED TO RUN WESTBOUND, CARAMEL CREEK WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE. THE DEVELOPMENT SHOULDERED THE ROAD, ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS, AND AS PART IS THAT HE PUT IN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND THEY GOT MONEY BACK. I THINK YOUR LAST PAYMENT THIS YEAR OR NEXT YEAR FOR CARAMEL CREEK ?

>> THIS YEAR, IT'S THE LAST ONE .

>> IT TOOK THEM 10 YEARS TO GET THE MONEY BACK BUT THEY GOT IT.

THE IDEA IS WE TAKE ON DEBT SO THEY CAN BUILD, I CAN'T GET BEHIND THAT. THE CITY OF HUTTO WATER YOU HAVE A TOUGH JOB. IF WHAT COUNCILMEMBER CLARK IS PROPOSING IS AN IDEA THAT WE HAD. IF THAT'S JONAH NOT HAVING WATER BUT THEY CAN GIVE US WATER. ON THE WESTSIDE IT CAN SOMEHOW COME IN AND IT DOESN'T TAKE AWAY FROM OUR SUPPLY THEN I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

I JUST HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPORTIVE. THE WAY I LOOK AT HER WATER WHETHER IT'S 2028 OR 2029 , A DEVELOPMENT STOPS IF WE DON'T FIND MORE WATER SUPPLY. THE NEXT IS 2031, 2033. THAT GAP MAKES ME GO, WATER IS MORE VALUABLE THAN MONEY BECAUSE WE CAN GET MONEY EVERY YEAR. WE CAN TAX IT. BUT WE CAN'T JUST FIND WATER. UNTIL WE HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT AND OUR STAFF SAYS THAT HELPS, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DO. I AM SORRY THEY CLOSE ON OUR PROPERTY WITH GOOD FAITH FROM THE CITY. KNOWING THE GOVERNMENT, IT IS A RISK. THEY MAY SIT ON IT FOR A WHILE. JUST FOR ME, THE WATER IS THE MAIN ISSUE. THE ROAD, THE INFRASTRUCTURE, LAST THING WE WANT IS AN APARTMENT BUILDING BUILT WITH NO ROADS OR SOME DINKY 20 FOOT WIDE COUNTER ROAD WHERE THE SHOULDERS ARE FALLING APART AND WE HAVE ANOTHER THING WE HAVE TO GO AND ADDRESS.

>> 70 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY, 70 FOOT COLLECTOR. THE NORTH SOUTH ROAD.

>> NO, I'M TALKING WHATEVER IS OUT THERE. THE FUTURE HOWEVER THEY GET UP THERE AND BUILD THE APARTMENTS, ALL THE COUNTY ROADS OUT THERE ARE IN TERRIBLE SHAPE. WE HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD NORTH , 132 AND IT LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY BOMBED THE WHOLE ROAD AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS IN CONSTRUCTION AND PEOPLE ARE ASKING US TO FIX THE ROADS. I WISH WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ALL THE

WAY UP THERE. >> WELL, WE WANT GOOD INFRASTRUCTURE AS WELL. THE NORTH SOUTH ROAD IS A 70 FOOT COLLECTOR WHICH WE WILL BE BUILDING WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

IT WILL BE A ROAD IN THE CITY OF HUTTO MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN BUILT THE FULL CITY OF HUTTO STANDARDS AS WELL .

>> KIND OF LIKE THE LAST DEAL. AS LONG AS THE HAVE TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING. THE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR WATER, ROADS, WASTEWATER, WHATEVER IT NEEDS TO HAPPEN OUT THERE THEY NEED TO SHOULDER ALL THE COSTS AND THAT'S WHY IT MAY BE BETTER FOR THEM. YOU TALK SIGNIFICANT MONEY BUT IF THEY PAY FOR IT AND GET REIMBURSED I HAVE SO MUCH OF AN ISSUE BUT THE MINUTE I HAVE TO GO UNTIL THE OTHER PEOPLE OF HUTTO WE HAVE TO TAKE MONEY OUT OF THEIR POCKETS TO HELP OTHER PEOPLE MOVE IN, TO ME THAT CHANGES THE WHOLE DEAL.

[01:15:01]

>> ALL OF THE IMPROVEMENTS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT. WATER, WASTEWATER, THE ROADS, NONE OF THAT WILL COME OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND OF THE CITY OF HUTTO. EVERYTHING HAS BEEN STRUCTURED WITH 380 AGREEMENT WHERE IT WILL BE FUTURE INVESTMENTS. THE FUTURE LIMB ROAD DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE CITY WE ALREADY FIGURED THAT OUT THAT WILL BE IN ADDITION TO THE TRANSPORTATION FEES WE WILL BE PAYING IF WE ARE

INTO THE CITY. >> IMPACT FEES AREN'T JUST NECESSARILY FOR THEIR WORK IF THEY MOVE 1000 PEOPLE IN THAT'S 1000 PEOPLE GOING TO LOWE'S AND HOME DEPOT, CLOGGING UP AREAS OF THE CITY WE ALREADY HAVE PROBLEMS. TO ME THE IMPACT FEES IS NOT JUST IMMEDIATE IMPACT, THEY NEED TO BUILD ALL OF THAT.

THE IMPACT FEES THIS OFFSET ALL OF THE LIGHTING 685. WHO KNOWS HOW MUCH IT WILL BE TO FIGURE THE MESS OUT. THAT'S THE IMPACT FEES YOU'RE GOING FOR BEFORE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF THE ROAD IT'S ANOTHER 132 ISSUE. WE HAVE PEOPLE DYING OUT THERE SO THEY WILL WANT TO USE LIMERICK LOOP AND WE ALLOW THEM TO USE IT AND THEY COME BACK AND SAY HARPING, WHEN DO YOU DELIVER THE LOOP? WE DON'T HAVE 20 ALIEN DOLLARS TO PUT IT THEY HAVE TO THINK OF THE WAYS TO DO IT. RIGHT AWAY ALONE IS THE EASIEST THING ALONE THE DEVELOPER TO DO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STICK US WITH THE ROAD .

>> WE WORK WITH STAFF ON THAT. ULTIMATELY IT'S THE BEST WAY FORWARD BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE A CHUNK OUT THERE

WHERE OPEN TO CONVERSATION. >> THAT IS THE HARD-NOSED ME GOING , IT'S APARTMENTS . IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS, IF WE WERE BUILDING A GROCERY STORE IT'S A DIFFERENT THING BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING EVERYBODY GETS BEHIND. IT'S AN AMENITY TO THE CITY. I DON'T SEE A LOT OF VALUE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'M NOT TRYING TO BE MEAN. WE POST THIS OUT TO THE PUBLIC THERE MIGHT BE THREE PEOPLE IN THE WHOLE CITY THAT GETS EXCITED BY IT.

EVERYBODY ELSE MIGHT BE COMING AFTER OUR HEADS BECAUSE WERE CHOKING ON TRAFFIC AND WATER ISSUES. THE ONLY THING YOU CAN DO IS LOWER OUR WASTEWATER BILL BUT THAT IS JUST A STRAIGHT DIRECT WAY AND NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH ME WHICH IS FINE. I

DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING UP. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF WE SAY NO?

YOU JUST SIT ON THE LAND? >> NO, THE OTHER OPTION WOULD BE TO DO THE JONAH IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE IN THERE CONTEMPLATED SCR, STATE IN THE COUNTY AND PROCESS AND ON-SITE WASTEWATER

PERMIT THROUGH THAT TC Q YOU . >> SO YOU WOULD BUILD ANYWAY?

>> SO IF WE STILL SAY NO WE GET APARTMENTS, WE GET THE TRAFFIC, WE WOULD NOT GET THE ROAD DEDICATION , WE WOULD NOT GET THE IMPACT FEES, WE WOULD MARKET THE PROPERTY TAX, WE WOULD NOT THE SALES TAX, WE WANT TO GET ANY OF THAT AND WE WOULD STILL

GET IT. >> CORRECT.

>> AND WE WOULD GET A PACKAGE PLAN?

>> CORRECT . >> I AGREE WITH YOU ON A DEAL WHERE THERE'S EASY ACCESS TO GET WATER. BUT THEY'RE NOT GETTING WATER. THEY RUN 9000 FEET OF WATER LINE. THE COST ON

THAT. >> MAYOR, ALL I ASKED WAS A QUESTION. I ASKED HER A QUESTION, I DIDN'T ASK YOU A QUESTION. YOU MAY NOT HAVE LIKED HER ANSWER OR BELIEVED IT BUT SHE GAVE AN ANSWER. THE QUESTION WAS WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IF WE SAY NO , THE ANSWER I HEARD IS THEY WILL BUILD ANYWAYS, IT WILL COST THEM MORE, AND BECAUSE IT WILL COST THEM MORE THE CITY OF HUTTO WILL NOT GET A LOT OF STUFF BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO USE THAT MONEY TO BUILD THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE. THEY WILL SAVE MONEY BY DOING A PACKAGE PLAN . ALL I'M ASKING IS, FOR ME THAT'S A BIG QUESTION. THAT COMES UP A LOT WHEN WE TALKED WERE CITIZENS, WHAT YOU SAY YES TO ALL THESE THINGS? WHAT YOU SAY YES TO DEVELOPMENTS? USUALLY THE ANSWER IS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS. NOW IF IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. IF IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAYS AND WE ARE GOING TO GET THE TRAFFIC AND WE GET NO TAX BENEFIT, NO SALES BENEFIT, WE LOSE ALL OF THAT STUFF, WHAT HAVE WE GAINED? THAT'S THE QUESTIONS THAT I'M ASKING. IF WE SAY NO OR YES WHAT ARE THE TRADE-OFFS? THAT'S WHY I ASKED

[01:20:04]

THE QUESTION. COULD YOU COULD DO A MUD AND PAY FOR THAT WEIGHT

AND WE WILL NEVER SEE IT . >> CAN STAFF GIVE A BALLPARK FIGURE ON WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THE COST TO RUN A WATER LINE 9000 FEET? IT'S EASY FOR PEOPLE TO SAY WE WILL BUILD ANYWAY BUT THE COST OF THERE BEING REALISTIC IT'S $39 MILLION TO RUN A WATER LINE THAT FAR AND IT'S 10 YEARS OUT? ON OUR SIDE WE SHOULD WORK TO GET INFORMATION TO KNOW HOW SERIOUS THEY ARE.

>> I SUSPECT THE DEVELOPER KNOWS. IF YOU'RE ASKING IF WE CAN CALCULATE IT RIGHT HERE RIGHT NOW?

>> NO, JUST A CONCEPTUAL THING BUT WHEN IT COMES FOR APPROVAL WE ARE LAYING WATER LINE ALL OVER THE CITY SO WE KNOW THE

COST OF THAT. >> WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS IN FRONT OF US BUT WE HAVE DEFINITELY LOOKED AT IT IN THE PAST WHEN EVALUATING WHICH DIRECTION TO GO. I DON'T HAVE

THEM RIGHT WITH ME. >> THE REASON I'M TRYING TO ASK IS , I WOULD AGREE WITH HIM IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT SEEMED REALISTICALLY TO WHERE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OPTION A AND OPTION B IS NOT THAT MUCH AND WE'VE DONE IT ON THE NORTH EAST OF LIMB OR AND 1660. THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE DID THE SAME THING. I HAVE SUPPORTED DEALS THAT REALISTICALLY HAD A CHANCE OF GETTING INFRASTRUCTURE. IF I CALL BILL BROWN AND HE LAUGHS AND SAYS IT'S 10 YEARS AWAY, AND I'M NOT HERE TO HELP FOR THAT. I DO AGREE WITH THAT. IT HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE DECISION-MAKING, BUT WE DON'T

HAVE TO DO THAT RIGHT NOW. >> DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO

ADD? >> I WAS JUST CLARIFYING BECAUSE ONE OF THE OTHER SLIGHTS HAD 925 FEET AND NOT 9000. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE PROPER NUMBERS WERE LISTED.

>> AND YOU'RE FORGETTING THEY CAN CAPITALIZE IT OUT AND DEPENDING ON FINANCES THEY CAN GET CAPITAL RECOVERY ON ALL THE JONAH DEVELOPMENTS AS THEY ARE NOT IN THE CITY ANYMORE AND THE CONNECT TO JONAH. YOU NOT ONLY GIVING UP THIS PROPERTY BUT PROPERTY TAX VALUE FOR ALL OF THESE THAT WILL BUILD IN THE AREA WITH NO SAY IN THE COUNTY BUILDING STANDARDS. YOU WILL GET ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC. ALL OF IT IS STILL GOING TO COME IN THAT ENTIRE AREA BUT ONCE THEY BUILD THE JONAH LINE THEY WILL GET THE CAPITAL RECOVERY AND WE WILL HAVE NO SAY ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES THEY ARE TOUCHING IN THE GREEN. THAT IS A LACK OF THINKING BY THE COUNCIL TO HAVE CONTROL OF WHAT DEVELOPS OUT THERE. THAT'S ANOTHER THING I WANT TO BRING UP TO THE PUBLIC.

>> I WANT TO ADD ALL THE LAND UP THERE IS IN THE E TJ AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL , SO IT IS PLANNED FOR IN THE

DOCUMENTS. >> WITH ATX CAPITAL , THE DEVELOPER, TO PROVIDE CLARITY IT MIGHT SEEM LIKE A LONG LINE AND IT CERTAINLY IS BUT THE ESTIMATED COST IS ABOUT TWO OR $3 MILLION. FAR FROM THE $30 MILLION REFERENCED . SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IF ULTIMATELY HAD TO BE CONSIDERED.

THE OTHER THING IS WE DID APART OF THE PROPERTY AND BEFORE ACQUIRING THE PROPERTY WE HAD TO NOTE THERE HAD TO BE DIFFERENT AVENUES TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT SO WORST-CASE WE ARE NOT STUCK WITH AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO IN TERMS OF LAND USES . WE WANT TO BUILD SOMETHING HERE THAT WILL ADD VALUE TO THE CITY AND THE CITY WILL BE EXCITED ABOUT. MAKE TWEAKS TO THE SITE PLAN AND WE CAN TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR SOMETHING THAT WORKS FOR BOTH PARTIES.

>> CITY ATTORNEY, I'M CURIOUS WE CANNOT TAKE ACTION BUT CAN WE DIRECT STAFF WITH THE WAY WE'D LIKE THEM TO ACT WITH A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSING TO MAKE THAT A FUTURE ITEM?

>> KNOW WE CANNOT. >> I DIDN'T SAY TO TAKE ACTION TO WORK I SAID CAN WE DIRECT STAFF TO TAKE ON A FUTURE AGENDA

ITEM TO DISCUSS IT? >> YOU CAN DO THAT UNDER ITEM 16.2 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS . THIS PARTICULAR ITEM JUST AS PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION. DIRECTING STAFF ON THIS WOULD BE AN ACTION ITEM. IF YOU WANT TO DO SOMETHING ON 16 2 MAKE A

[01:25:03]

NOTE. TELLING YOU ON THIS ITEM WE DON'T HAVE ACTION. WE PRESENTED, WE ARE DISCUSSING AND THAT'S WHERE WE ARE.

>> OKAY, THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR INFORMATION.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS? STATEMENTS? ALL RIGHT, THANKS A

[9.3 Presentation on the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the Year Ended September 30, 2024 (Alberta Barrett) ]

LOT. NEXT ITEM .3 , PRESENTATION ON THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE REPORT FOR THE YEAR END SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2024.

>> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

>> FOR THE RECORD COUNSELOR THORTON IS GOING TO LEAVE AT

8:25 . >> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ALBERTA BARRETTE , FINANCE DIRECTOR. TONIGHT WE HAVE JOHN WATSON WITH BROOKS WATSON AND COMPANY. WHICH HE WILL BE GOING OVER OUR AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DOING AN OVERVIEW OF FINANCIAL SINCE SEPTEMBER 30TH 2024.

>> THANK YOU. JOHN, WELCOME BACK .

>> THANK YOU MAYOR, COUNCIL, JOHN WATSON HERE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR TO PRESENT YOUR AUDIT REPORT. IN THE YEAR SEPTEMBER 24 YOU HAVE A BOUND REPORT IN FRONT OF YOU. IF YOU FLIP IT OPEN YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION TO GO OVER AND LETTERS AS WELL I WILL TOUCH ON AT THE END. WE CONDUCT THE AUDIT WITH U.S. MS GENERAL AUDITING STANDARDS. A THREE-WAY APPROACH. THE FIRST PHASE IS PLANNING PHASE. WE LOOK AT FIRST-YEAR RESULTS, WE COMPARE THEM TO PRIOR YEARS AND WE TRY TO FOCUS OUR TESTING AREAS ON THE AREAS WE FIND MOST SUSCEPTIBLE TO RISK OF FRAUD. WE DRAW SAMPLES, VOUCH UNDERLYING EVIDENCE, CONFIRM BALANCES WITH THIRD PARTIES, MAKE SURE THEY AGREE TO WHAT THE CITY IS SHOWING. WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES AS TO WHY AND ADJUSTMENTS IN THE REPORTING PHASE. HOW PREPARED THE REPORTS IN FRONT OF YOU AND A COUPLE LETTERS. THAT IS U.S. GAG HIS AUDIT AND THAT IS WHAT YOU RECEIVED. THE REPORT ITSELF THERE ARE SEVEN SECTIONS TO IT THE FIRST SECTION IS INTRODUCTORY SECTION AND HAS BASIC INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY MIDDLE-MANAGEMENT DESCRIBING THE CITY'S BRIEF HISTORY AND FORWARD-LOOKING. AUDIT OPINION FALLS THAT, THAT IS FROM US OR INDEPENDENT AUDITOR WHICH DESCRIBES WHETHER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE WITH U.S. GAP OR IF THERE'S MODIFICATIONS.

FOLLOWING THAT MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS CODES CURRENT YEAR OVER SIGNIFICANT CHANGES YEAR-OVER-YEAR. IS A FINANCES FOLLOW THAT THOSE ARE PRESENTED ON TWO DIFFERENT BASIS OF ACCOUNTING. FULL ACCRUAL ARE YOUR GOVERNMENTWIDE STATEMENTS, THAT'S GOT ALL YOUR LONG-TERM DEBT CAPITAL ASSET ACTIVITIES, FUND LEVEL MORE NEAR-TERM LOOK. IT IS MORE MODIFIED ACCRUAL SO MORE CASH FLOW INFLOW TYPE OF LOOK AND YOUR BACKUP WE HAVE YOUR BUDGET TO ACTUAL SCHEDULES, WE HAVE YOUR PENSION SCHEDULES, WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR GENERAL FUND BUDGET WE WILL ALSO TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR PENSION SCHEDULE ON THE REPORT WE HAVE THE STATISTICAL SECTION. YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE CITY WAS OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS. OKAY, THAT REPORT MENTIONED THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF OPINIONS YOU CAN RECEIVE FROM CPA UNMODIFIED IS THE BEST, THEN IT GETS PROGRESSIVELY WORSE FROM THERE. THE CITY IS RECEIVING AN UNMODIFIED OPINION. THAT'S THE HIGHEST CPA CAN RECEIVE THAT'S A GOOD THING. FINANCE TEAM DID A GOOD JOB ANSWERING ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS AND HELPING US TO GET TO THAT CONCLUSION TODAY. IN ADDITION TO THAT THE CITY RECEIVED A CERTIFICATE OF ACHIEVEMENT AND EXCELLENCE OF FINANCIAL REPORTING, GOVERNMENT FINANCE. COUNTRY WIDE BODY THAT REVIEWS REPORTS MAKE SURE THEIR MEETING REPORTS AND THEY ACHIEVE THAT AWARD. THAT'S GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE BASIC STANDARD OF GETTING AN AUDIT OPINION SO IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THIRD PARTY AS WELL. FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS, THIS IS AS OF SEPTEMBER 2034. TOTAL ETHICS IT CEDED TOTAL LIABILITIES BY 234 MILLION PERKS CITY HAD AN OVERALL INCREASE IN THE POSITION OF ABOUT 9.2 MILLION OF THE YEAR. 7.8 MILLION

[01:30:03]

WHICH IS ABOUT 20% OF YOUR ANNUAL GENERAL EXPENDITURES SO THAT'S ABOUT THREE MONTH DESSERT. ANYTHING OVER THREE MONTHS IS GOOD. IMPRESSION TO C THIS IS A PIE CHART OF REVENUES JUST TO GOVERNMENTAL ACT BESIDE , REVENUES IN THE CURRENT YEAR 51,249,000 RELATIVE TO PRIOR YEAR WAS FIFTH 54 MILLION.

PROPERTIES MAKE A 54% OF THAT PRIOR YEAR WAS 50 MILLION 1700 5000 PROXIMATELY SALES TAXES MAKE UP 19% ABOUT 9.6 MILLION PRIOR YEAR IT WAS ABOUT 100 MILLION HUNDRED 55,000. CHART CHARGES FOR SERVICES ABOUT 22% 11.4 MILLION PRIOR YEAR WAS $9.1 MILLION IMPACT IS PRIMARILY LOOKING AT THE INCREASE.

ASSESSMENTS WERE 8% 4.3 MILLION PRIOR WAS 6 MILLION BIG CHANGE THERE WAS THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CROSSING IN THE PRIOR YEAR FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT THERE. THIS IS THE EXPENSE SIDE. YOUR TOTAL REVENUE 46 MILLION, PRIOR YEAR ABOUT 35.6 MILLION. THE LARGEST FUNCTIONS PUBLIC SAFETY MAKES UP 19%, 9,030,000. PRIOR YEAR 34 MILLION. PUBLIC WORKS 68 MILLION. PRIOR YEAR CLOSER TO 5 MILLION. CD ADMINISTRATION MAKES UP 12 PERCENT. PRIOR YEAR IT WAS ABOUT 4.8 MILLION. BUSINESSES MAKE UP 9%. THE NO FORGIVENESS FOR THE EC LOAN IS INCLUDED IN THERE. THAT IS INCREASE YEAR-OVER-YEAR. THAT'S THE INCREASE IN CHARGES STAY RELATIVE A .3 MILLION YEAR-OVER-YEAR.

>> THAT WAS JUST TO REMIND THE COUNCIL I BELIEVE THAT WAS 5

MILLION. >> SIX.

>> DEVELOPMENT SERVICES EXPENDITURES ACTUALLY WENT DOWN

RELATIVE TO THE PRIOR YEAR ? >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES SIR. SO THIS IS A LOOK AT YOU GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS CHANGES. THE LEFT FUND WE HAVE YOUR GENERAL SERVICE FUND FOLLOWS AND WORKING LEFT OR RIGHT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND . THE LEFT MILLION COLUMN RIGHT HERE THAT FED INTO THAT 27% UNASSIGNED RESERVE SO THAT IMPROVED YEAR-OVER-YEAR. EVERYTHING ELSE IS KIND OF WORKING WITH HER EXPECTATION. EMORY CROSSING DEFICIT DUE TO THE SURPLUS FUNDS BEING USED FOR CAPITAL FUNDS IN THE CURRENT YEAR. CAPITAL PROJECT 2022 GEO FUND SO THOSE USE ARE GENERATED PRIOR THIS YEAR SO THERE IT USING THOSE FUNDS THAT'S WHY IT'S NEGATIVE. 2024 CO GEO GENERATED A SURPLUS OF 27 MILLION THAT RELATES TO THE CURRENT YEAR BOND PROCEEDS RECEIVED SO THAT FED INTO THE CHANGE I RECEIVED EARLIER. OKAY, THIS IS A SUMMARY LOOK AT YOUR BUDGET ACTUAL SCHEDULE FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND THE PAGES NUMBERS ARE HERE IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE DETAILS. THE LEFT BUDGET IS THE ORIGINAL BUDGET PUTS ALL BUDGET AMENDMENTS FOR THE ORIGINAL YEAR. AFTER ALL BUDGET AMENDMENTS LOOKING FOR A THAT OPERATING DEFICIT OF 280,008 AWAIT AN ACTUAL IN THE MIDDLE INTERFERENCE TO THE RIGHT. TOP RIGHT TOTAL REVENUE EXCEEDED BUDGET BY 100,059 THAT WAS PRIMARILY PERMITS LICENSES WERE OVER BUDGET. TOTAL EXPENDITURES WERE OVERBUDGET BY ABOUT 1.3 MILLION. THESE FED INTO POSITIVE NET VARIANCE OF 235 MILLION THOUSAND 39 I JUST HAVE A FEW MORE SLIDES FOR YOU. SO ALL THE LOAD TO THIS POINT WAS ON THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND SIDE. THIS IS PROPRIETARY SO WE HAVE UTILITY SYSTEM , SOLID WASTE IN THE MIDDLE, TOTAL ON THE RIGHT. WE EXPECT TO SEE OPERATING SURPLUS HERE SO THE FUNDS CAN FUND LARGE CAPITAL FOR THEM. WE SEE THAT, UTILITY SYSTEM OPERATING 5.9 MILLION SURF WAS, STILL SURPLUS AFTER TRANSFERS. SOLID WASTE ALSO OPERATING AT A SLIGHT SURPLUS . PENSION YEAR-OVER-YEAR LOOK. WE HAVE 10 YEARS OF PENSION IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT THE PAGES 112 113. THE MOST RECENT PAGES ON THE LEFT COLUMN.

YOU CAN SEE THE PENSION LIABILITY CIRCLED AT THE BOTTOM LEFT IN READ 158,852. THAT IS A PENSION THAT IS 99% FUNDED,

[01:35:08]

WHICH IS ABOVE AVERAGE. NATIONWIDE AVERAGE IN 2023 WAS 78.1%. YOUR ASSET IS 99% OF THE PROJECT DID PITCH . BUDGET HIT THE MARK IN 2024 FROM 2022 BUDGET START 11.8% OF TOTAL PAYROLL 12.33 SO TMR S IS ADJUSTING THOSE RATES ANNUALLY AND THAT'S WHERE IT IMPACTS YOUR BUDGET BUT THE PENSION IS VERY WELL-FUNDED OKAY SO THAT'S EVERYTHING ON RESULT WISE.

INFORMATION IN THAT REGARD. THESE ARE COMMUNICATION LETTERS THAT ARE ALSO INSIDE YOUR BOOKLET. WE HAVE TWO LETTERS.

THE FIRST IS STANDARD COMMUNICATION WITH GOVERNANCE.

THAT DESCRIBES THAT WE ARE INDEPENDENT AND WE FOLLOW ALL ETHICS REQUIREMENTS WE DON'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE CITY OUTSIDE OF CONTRACT. MANAGEMENT THEY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN RESPONSIVE TO OUR REQUESTS. ALL THE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN POSTED. THERE'S NOTHING WE DISAGREED WITH AND THOSE AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE DID THOSE ARE LISTED IN THE BACK OF THE AUDIT LETTER. OKAY? SECOND LETTER RELATES TO INTERNAL CONTROLS. AS ALWAYS, I'VE SEEN A LOT OF YOU FOR YEAR OR TWO NOW. ANYTHING WE IDENTIFY WITH CONTROLS WILL BE LISTED IN THAT LETTER. THAT'S KIND OF THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT. WITH THAT I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR COUNCIL?

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS PRESENTATION.

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WORK AND DETAILS PUT INTO THIS.

WHENEVER I FIRST GOT ONTO COUNCIL I THINK WE MISSED THE MARK OF THE PRESENTATION BY MONTHS AND THEN BY LAST YEAR WE WERE RIGHT ON THE TIMELINE OF WHEN THE AUDIT SHOULD BE OCCURRING, HAPPENING IN SEPTEMBER AND PRODUCING SOME RESULTS. THIS YEAR IS ANOTHER REPORT ON TIME. THANK YOU TO STAFF FOR DOING THAT. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH THEM AND STAYING ON TOP OF TIMELINES AND PROVIDING INFORMATION AND A GREAT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THIS CITY HAS MADE PROGRESS ABSOLUTELY IN THE PAST THREE YEARS.

>> I HAVE OBSERVED THE SAME. >> THANK YOU JOHN. COMING ONTO COUNCIL THERE WERE A LOT OF IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED. WHERE WE WERE AND WHERE WE ARE NOW I KNOW IT'S YOUR GUIDANCE BUT ALBERTA AND HER TEAM THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR PREPARING THE REPORT AND YOUR CONSTANT OVERSIGHT AS WELL. IT HAS BEEN EXTREMELY AWESOME TO SEE THE PROGRESSION WE HAVE MADE.

>> I APPRECIATE IT. >> YOU DOING A GREAT JOB.

>> I CANNOT DO IT ALL BY MYSELF SO I WANT TO THANK STAFF. I APPRECIATE THIS REPORT AND KNOWLEDGE, IT'S BEEN GOOD AND

WERE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS. >> NEXT THAT BRINGS US TO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 11 THROUGH ONE.

>> I KNOW WE HAVE TO TAKE A VOTE. DO WE HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE

OR APPROVE? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. IT JUST

HAS TO BE PRESENTED. >> ITEM 10 ONE FOR THE UNIFIED

[10.1 Conduct a public hearing for the Unified Development Code rewrite. (Ashley Bailey)]

DEVELOPMENT CODE. SPECIFICALLY ASKED NOT TO SKIP THAT ONE.

>> I THINK IT WILL BE SKIPPED BECAUSE PANSY HASN'T MET.

>> HELLO. >> THIS FEELS AWKWARD. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING. WE SCHEDULED IT KNOWING IT WOULD BE A LITTLE DICEY TO GET A SPECIAL CALL MEETING. WE WERE NOT SUCCESSFUL AND WE WILL BE REPOSTING THIS SO WE CAN OPEN IT OR CLOSE IT I HAVE TO REPOST THIS YOU CAN OPEN IT AND LEAVE IT OPEN UNTIL THE

SECOND MEETING OF MAY. >> SUGGESTION OPEN PUBLIC

HEARING AND LEAVE IT OPEN. >> SECOND.

>> NO OBJECTIONS WE OPEN THE PUBLIC MEETING AT 39 P.M.

MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN COME UP AND SPEAK ABOUT WHAT YOU WISH

[01:40:02]

TO SEE CHANGED. >> AND THE LINK IS ONLINE IN THE PACKET AND WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTS ONLINE AS WELL . I WOULD SAY THAT IT'S CLOSED JUST BECAUSE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THE FINAL DOCUMENT BUT WE ARE ALWAYS ACCEPTING.

>> OKAY SO THERE IS A WAY TO GO ONLINE AND SUBMIT COMMENTS?

>> BECAUSE THE INTERACTIVE SITE IS DOWN BECAUSE WE HAD TO PULL IT DOWN TO PULL THE COMMENTS OFF . WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUAL DOCUMENTS POSTED ONLINE AND IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME WE CAN AT LEAST GIVE IT TO PLANNING COMMISSION.

>> SEEING NO ONE COME UP . >> WE NEED TO DO DATE SPECIFIC .

YOU SAID MAY 2ND? >> DO I NEED TO LEAVE IT OPEN

WITH A CERTAIN DATE? >> MAY 15TH.

>> WE WILL JUST SAY MAY 15TH. ALL RIGHT, THAT BRINGS US TO

[11. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ]

CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ONE AND 13 FOR CONSIDERATION.

>> MAYOR MANAGER REQUEST 11 THREE AND 1110 ARE POLLED OR TABLED. 11 3 WE ARE NEGOTIATING WITH THE COUNTY AND 1110 THIS WILL BE BASED ON A NEW AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR.

>> ANY OTHERS WHO WISH TO PULL? MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEMS AS

PRESENTED . >> I MOVE.

>> SECOND. >> DISCUSSION OF MOTION? HEARING

NONE PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> IS THERE A SECOND?

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2025-013 amending the budget for the fiscal year of October 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025. (Alberta Barrett) ]

PASSES 6-0. ¿ 2025 ZERO DEST THREE AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR

THE FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER 2004TH . >> AGAIN, FOR THE RECORD ALBERTA BARRETTE FINANCE DIRECTOR. SO IF WE CAN TURN TO EXHIBIT A, THE GENERAL FUND . JUST GO THROUGH SOME HIGHLIGHTS FOR THE REVENUE.

WHERE PROPOSING TO INCREASE REVENUE BY 750,000 ON PROPERTY TAX FOR A TOTAL REVISED BUDGET OF 40 MILLIONTHS WE ARE LOWERING THE SALES TAX RECEIPT FROM THE ORIGINAL BUDGET OF 7,000,009 62 239 BY 338,003 95 AND THAT'S BASED ON ACTUAL RECEIPTS SO THAT WOULD RING A REVISED BUDGET TO 7,000,006 23 844. WE ALSO LOWERED THE HALF SALES TAX AND PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION LINE ITEM BY 162,006 95 SAME REASON WITH THE SALES TAX RECEIPTS BEING LOWER THAN BUDGETED. INTEREST REVENUE OR INTEREST EARNED, EXCUSE ME, WAS BUDGETED AT 735 SO WE PROPOSED TO LOWER THAT BY 304,007 36 TO A TOTAL OF FOUR 3524. BASICALLY THE REASON FOR THIS IS THE SWEEP ACCOUNT WE IMPLEMENTED WITH WELLS FARGO DIDN'T GET IMPLEMENTED UNTIL JANUARY. THAT IS THE DELAY THERE. MOVING DOWN TO EVENT REVENUE. WE BUDGETED 67,000 150 HOWEVER THAT PROGRAM WAS MOVED TO THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FUND.

WE ARE MOVING THAT EXPENSE TO ZERO IN THE GENERAL FUND AND MOVING TO THE COMMUNITY FUND. THE OTHER HIGH ONE, LARGE AMOUNT IS GENERAL FINES . FOR COURT REVENUE WE BUDGETED FOR 70 50 67. THESE FINES ARE MORE THAN WHAT WE BUDGETED JUST INCREASED ACTIVITY SO WHERE PROPOSING TO ADD 109,008 15 FOR A TOTAL OF 584 882. THE TOTAL REVENUES ARE PROPOSED WHEN YOU SOME THOSE DOWN BY 114,003 84 MOVING TO EXPENSES BY DEPARTMENT , MOVING DOWN TO MUNICIPAL COURT THE BANK AND FINANCE CHARGES UNDER THE INCREASE IN ACTIVITIES SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD 54,000 TO THAT

[01:45:04]

EXPENSE FOR A TOTAL OF 79 NINE. ALSO ARE ADDING AN EXPENSE OF 49,009 10 FOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES THAT WAS NOT BUDGETED SO WE ARE ADDING THAT. UNDER THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THE BIG ONE IN THERE IS MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT OF 66,009 65 WHICH IS RELATED TO A GRANT AWARD. SO IS UP ABOVE.

ALSO WE INCLUDED VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE LINE ITEM OF 32,000 872 AND IT'S JUST HOW WE ARE RECORDING THEM INSTEAD OF BEING WITH FLEET MAINTENANCE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL REWARD THEIR OWN. MOVING TO THE NON-DEPARTMENTAL UTILITIES.

WATER WE BUDGETED 138 THOUSAND 100 BASED ON ACTIVITY WITH THE RATES WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD 102,006 74 FOR A TOTAL OF 240,000 774. THAT IS JUST A TRANSFER BETWEEN THE TWO SO THE UTILITY FUND BILLS IN THE GENERAL USE OF WATER AND THE GENERAL FUND TURNS AROUND AND PAYS THE UTILITY FUND. THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD BE AT THE BUDGET YEAR IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MAINTAIN OR KEEP TRACKING. FINANCE FOR THE REDUCTIONS WE ARE LOWERING FOUL SALARIES BITE 88,003 28 WHICH IS DUE TO VACANCIES. THAT IS PRETTY MUCH IN ALL THESE CASES WITH THE SALARIES DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WHERE LOWERING BY 52,000 737.

ENGINEERING 60,007 37 DUE TO POSITION IN VACANCIES.

CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION LOWERING 29,008 62. STREETS AND DRAINAGE WERE LOWERED BY 17,000 964. AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS POLICE DEPARTMENT WHERE LOWERING BY 19,000 606 SO WHEN YOU TOTAL UP ALL THE INCREASES AND DECREASES TO EXPENDITURES THERE IS A NET INCREASE OF 105,000 503 SO THE NET INCREASE TO THE FUND BALANCE WOULD BE 8000 881 FOR THE TOTAL BUDGET. THE NEXT SECTION IS JUST TAKING BOTH ADJUSTMENTS , OR AMENDMENTS THAT WE WENT THROUGH IN DETAIL, AND PUTTING THEM INTO APPROPRIATE DEPARTMENTS FOR DIVISION I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THERE IS AN ERROR ON INFORMATION AND TECHNOLOGY. THE FORMULA ERROR. AND IF YOU JUST TURN TO THE BACK PAGE JUST TO GO OVER THOSE CHANGES WE HAVE ON THE SHEET 33,000,020 40 50 AS THE REVISED BUDGETED EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL FUND AND IT REALLY SHOULD READ 33,017,000 $750 . WE ARE ACTUALLY ADDING TWO FUND BALANCE 305,000 238 VERSUS THE 296 359 WE ORIGINALLY BUDGETED . THESE ARE ENDING FUND BALANCES AS 6,000,005 84 74 FOUR IN EXCESS OF RESERVE REQUIREMENT BY 93,000. SO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE BUDGETED. MOVING TO THE UTILITY FUND . SAME FORMAT. THE REVENUES FOR WATER CONNECTION FEES WE BUDGETED 115,000 WE ARE PROPOSING TO ADD 94,500 TO 209 500 FOR YOUR TOTAL REVISED BUDGET AND THAT IS JUST DUE TO THE INCREASE IN RECEIPT. SAME WITH WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEES.

THOSE ARE GOING UP BY 11,000. INTEREST EARNED WE ARE REDUCING BITE 196,800 AGAIN DUE TO THE LAG IN IMPLEMENTING THE SWEEP ACCOUNT. CREDIT CARD FEES WE BUDGETED ZERO. WE ARE REQUESTING TO AMEND THAT TO 283,000 OH 98. AND THAT IS THE CREDIT CARD. WE HAD PROPOSED PROBABLY BACK IN MID-SUMMER , JUNE JULY AUGUST TIMEFRAME TO US WITH OUR CREDIT CARD PROCESSING. IF Y'ALL REMEMBER THAT. THAT WAS GOING TO REDUCE THAT PERCENTAGE AND THE PASS-THROUGH COST. HOWEVER, WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO GET THE CONTRACT SIGNED AND IMPLEMENTED SO ALL THAT IS TRANSPIRING HERE IN THE NEXT WEEK. THAT SHOULD PRETTY MUCH TAKE CARE OF THE EXPENSE IN REVENUE FOR THAT. SO THAT IS THE REVENUE PIECE. THE EXPENSE PIECE IS DOWN BELOW WHERE WE BUDGETED 7000 AND WERE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE EXPENSE TO 494 24 WHICH WILL OFFSET DUE TO US NOW GOING TO INVOICE CLOUD SO WE WILL HAVE A

[01:50:06]

DIFFERENT CREDIT CARD PROCESSOR SO WE SHOULD SEE A SAVINGS FROM THERE. MOVING TO THE DEPARTMENTS UTILITY BILLING , SALARIES ARE REDUCING BITE 47,000 633. SALARIES AND OPERATIONS REDUCING BY 213,008 20 AND JONAH CCN TRANSFER AGREEMENT WE BUDGETED 396 900. WE WILL HAVE THAT PAID OFF THIS MONTH SO WE WILL HAVE A SAVINGS OF 74,000 60 . SO THE NET INCOME CHANGES TO REVENUE VERSUS THE INCREASE AND DECREASE TO EXPENSES SHOW A NET INCREASE TO FUND BALANCE IN THE UTILITY FUND FOR 25,000 676 . SO, FOLLOWING AGAIN IS THE SAME REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES.

TRYING TO PUT THOSE WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE DIVISIONS. IF YOU WILL TURN TO THE BACK PAGE , AGAIN THERE IS AN ERROR ON THAT PAGE WHEN WE LOOK AT LEAST INTEREST THERE IS A FORMULA ERROR. WE HAD 3500, WE DIDN'T CARRY IT OVER TO THE REVISED BUDGET. BASICALLY YOUR EXPENSES, AS THEY REFLECTED AT 38,007,007 99 SHOULD BE 38 MILLION 11,000 299. REDUCING OUR FUND BALANCE TO 10 MILLION 873,000 482 WHICH STILL EXCEEDS OUR RESERVE REQUIREMENT OF ABOUT 3.3 MILLION . FOLLOWING THAT ARE THE SMALLER FUNDS . UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND IS SHOWING AMENDMENTS TO THE REVENUE. WE HAVE WATER IMPACT FEES, DECREASING BY 4 MILLION 32,500 . THAT IS BASICALLY BASED ON THE NEWLY ADOPTED IMPACT FEE RATES AND THE CHANGES THERE. HOWEVER, WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES WOULD BE INCREASED BY 572,900. SAME WITH THE OTHER FUNDS.

INTEREST EARNED IS LOWERED BY 175,000 308 SO THE TOTAL REVENUE DECREASES IS 3,000,006 34 908 . SO WE BUDGETED THAT WE WOULD HAVE AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 21 MILLION 905 994 ASSUMING THAT WE WOULD HAVE A BEGINNING FUND BALANCE AT 26 MILLION. HOWEVER WE HAD A HIGHER FUND BALANCE ONCE THE YEAR CLOSED , SO WE REALLY STARTED THE YEAR WITH 28 MILLION 967 TO 84 VERSUS 26.

VERSUS THE AMENDMENT . VERSUS BUDGETED EXPENDITURES WILL HAVE AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 20 MILLION 558 755 AND THE IMPACT

FEE FUND VERSUS 28.9. >> BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO, YES WE DID TAKE DOWN THE NEWLY ADOPTED IMPACT FEE FOR WATER BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL WATER CAPACITY THINGS TO CHARGE FOR CIP FOR THAT, BUT ARE WE GOING TO START HAVING A LINE ITEM FOR WATER RESERVATION FEES?

>> YES, AS WE START GETTING THOSE WE WILL HAVE A REVENUE

LINE ITEM FOR THAT. >> AND WHAT IT BE IN THIS FUND?

>> WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN ANY YET BUT WE CAN EITHER PUT IT THERE OR IN THE UTILITY FUND, SINCE THAT IS KIND OF WHERE THE EXPENDITURE IS HITTING. ONCE WE START GETTING THOSE WE WILL POINT THOSE OUT AS TO WHERE WE BOOKED THOSE. MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS UTILITY FUNDS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EXPENSE IS HITTING , WATER RESERVATION EXPENSES.

>> YOU'RE SAYING IT WOULD BE AN IMPACT FEE?

>> CORRECT I WOULD PUT IT AS AN IMPACT FEE.

>> BECAUSE WERE PAYING FOR THE WATER REGARDLESS.

>> EXACTLY. >> MOVING TO SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS. A FEW SHORT ONES HERE. COURT SECURITY FUND. WE HAD ONE CHANGE, WE DID SOME BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS WHERE WE MOVED THE CUSTOMER SERVICE WINDOW FROM UPSTAIRS TO DOWNSTAIRS, WHERE NOW THEY HAVE DUAL WINDOWS INSTEAD OF JUST ONE. SO WE USED $8188 FROM THE COURT SECURITY FUND FOR THAT. WITH THAT EXPENSE, WE HAVE AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $18,445 VERSUS THE 26 BUDGETED. PARK IMPROVEMENT FUND, THE BIG ONE THERE IS PARKLAND FEES AND REVENUES ARE INCREASING SO THAT'S JUST THE ONE BIG ONE FOR MY DELL WALKER. THEN THE EXPENSES FOR THAT CHANGE ABOUT 697,000 487. SHOWS ENDING FUND BALANCE OF THE HUNDRED 78,005

[01:55:03]

38. MOST OF THOSE ARE CARING OVER COMPLETING THE PROJECT.

PROBABLY STARTED AT THE YEAR BEFORE AND DIDN'T ACTUALLY COMPLETE THEM BY SEPTEMBER 30TH SO THEY ARE CARRIED OVER INTO THIS YEAR. THAT'S WHY WE STILL HAVE EXPENDITURES FOR THEM. SAME WITH COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FUND. HERE WE HAVE THE EVENT REVENUE AT 15,000 THAT WE RECEIVED. COTTONWOOD CREEK PIT 533 OH 63 THAT WE JUST RECENTLY CLOSED FOR AREA NUMBER TWO SO WE SHOULD BE RECEIVING THAT WITHIN THE NEXT FEW WEEKS AT THE LATEST.

EXPENDITURES ARE INCREASING BY 1 MILLION 193 790 AND THAT WOULD LEAVE US AT ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 103,499. AGAIN, MOST OF THOSE ARE PROJECTS THAT WERE STARTED THAT WE ARE COMPLETING IN THE FISCAL YEAR HURT AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND. INTEREST HERE IS HIGHER THAN WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR ABOUT 50,500. EXPENDITURES WE ARE INCREASING BITE TO MILLION FOR 20 913 WHICH IS 1 MILLION A WE ARE BUDGETING FOR TO BEGIN SIDEWALKS ON PROJECT T 10 WHICH IS ADVANCED SAFETY AND OPERATIONS PROJECTS. SO, OVERALL THAT IS BRINGING THE FUND BALANCE ON THE TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT BALANCE TO 85,000 987. SO, THAT CONCLUDES UNLESS THERE ARE QUESTIONS .

>> I JUST HAVE ONE ON THIS ONE. >> TAKE LIKE FOUR INSTANTS INNOVATION NUMBER. WE HAD IT AT 2.1 AND NOW WE ARE AMENDED TO 2.2. WE JUST GOT AN EMAIL TODAY THAT IT'S ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE CLOSE TO THAT. WHAT WOULD CAUSE IT TO BE AMENDMENT UP SINCE WE DECIDED? WE DECIDED THIS WEEK AND YOU PROBABLY WORKED ON THIS A MONTH BUT I FORGET WHAT THE COUNTY TERM IS.

THIS ISN'T MONEY THAT WAS SPENT, THIS WAS JUST BUDGETED?

>> RIGHT, BASED ON WHAT WE BUDGETED AND WHERE WE ARE AT EXPENDITURES WE WERE PROPOSING TO INCREASE BY 130,003 82.

>> WRIGHT, IT'S JUST WEIRD BECAUSE T 13 WAS KIND OF A WAG TO GET THE PARTY STARTED FOR SURE BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT AWAY REQUIREMENTS OR DRAINAGE , SO THE ENGINEERING STUDY CAME IN AND IT WILL BE A LITTLE LESS THAN 400,000. WE JUST IMPROVE ON ITEM 11 1. SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS, WHAT TRIGGERED TO SAY 130,000 MORE ? AND THEN WE CAME IN TO 1.8 MILLION UNDER THIS BUDGET ? SO RIGHT NOW WE ARE AT MIDYEAR BUT WE REALLY DON'T HAVE 85,000 IN THE ACCOUNT. IT'S GOING TO BE

ALMOST 2 MILLION BUCKS. >> AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE BUDGET AND WHERE WE ARE AT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THESE. WHEN WE GET THE ACTUALS AND WE CLOSE OUT THE YEAR WE WILL HAVE THE ACTUAL. WE MIGHT HAVE A FUND BALANCE OF 987 ONCE IT'S CLOSED THOSE EXPENDITURES DON'T COME THROUGH AND YOU HAVE A FUND BALANCE OF EXCESS IN THAT CASE IT COULD BE 2 MILLION OR 1.8 THAT COULD BE

ADDED TO THAT. >> IF WE DECIDE TO MOVE ANOTHER PROJECT UP SOONER BECAUSE WE HAVE THIS MONEY ARE YOU GOING TO THEN WAIT UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR TO FIX THAT?

>> NO, WE CAN AMEND THAT AGAIN IF THAT'S THE CASE. IF THAT PARTICULAR LINE ITEM IS GOING TO BE LESS ANYONE TO MOVE ANOTHER PROJECT INTO THEIR THAT WILL BE PAID TO THAT FUND THEN YES WE WILL COME BACK WITH ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO MAKE THAT CHANGE TO

MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT. >> ALBERTA, THE PERSONNEL ON ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND FINANCE IN MUNICIPAL COURT, ARE THOSE POSITIONS NEXT? ARE WE STILL HIRING FOR THOSE POSITIONS?

[02:00:50]

>> WITH THE CREDIT CARD FEE RATES?

>> APRIL 1ST. >> APRIL 1ST. OKAY. I KNOW THE BUDGET AMENDMENTS, THERE ARE DIFFERENT ONES IN THE UTILITY FUND. SO GENERAL FUND, ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT , THAT IS ACTUALLY MONEY THAT IS HITTING THE CITY BECAUSE IT HAS NOT PASSED THROUGH. IT IS A PASS-THROUGH. THE CUSTOMER IS PAYING THAT FEE. WE ARE TAKING A HIT ON THE CITY IS TAKING A HIT ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> WE DO NOT BUDGET ON THE YOUTH -- THE UTILITY SITE BUT WE HAD TO RAISE THE EXPENSE TOO.

>> I GUESS, THIS MIGHT BE A CITY MANAGER QUESTION. CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHY WE HAVE NOT IMPLEMENTED THE NEW SOFTWARE ? I THINK WAS SUPPOSED TO COME ONLINE IN OCTOBER. CONNECTING WITH TYLER AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. THE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING. THEY WILL HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER. ALL OF THAT APRIL 1ST?

>> I GUESS I KNOW WE HAVE KIND OF ADDRESSED UTILITY SIDE OF THINGS. BUT MAYBE IN THE FUTURE WE CAN LOOK AT THE DUAL FUND SIDE OF HOW MAYBE WE CAN FIGURE OUT LOWER CREDIT CARD FEE RATES.

MAY BE LOOKING AT WHERE WE ARE AT RIGHT NOW WITH PROCESSING AND I WILL TELL PEOPLE THEY ARE PAYING -- OUT THE WINDOW, RIGHT? MAYBE WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT GETTING A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT BUT THAT SHOULD THAT IS HITTING THE GENERAL FUND.

JUST IN GENERAL. >> DEBBIE DOES IT THAT WAY.

>> >> WHEN WE RENEWED THE BANK DEPOSITORY WHICH WAS EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 30TH, OR ACTUALLY, OCTOBER 1ST. WE DO NOT GET THE CONTRACT SIGNED OCTOBER 1ST. THE FIRST PART OF JANUARY. WE ALL AGREED ON THE TERMS IN THE SIGNATURES. KIND OF MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS, THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, WE SHOULD ALL KIND OF PULL BACK AND NOT IMPACT?

>> THANK YOU. >> ADOPTED BASICALLY 5%. WE DO NOT SEE THE VISIBILITY. WE WERE HAD BEFORE CHRISTMAS AND NOW IT IS A CONTRACTION. WE WERE SLOW AND NOW IT IS BUILDING UP.

BUILDING UP IN A YOU SEE AN UPWARD TREND GOING FORWARD NOW, BUT YOU STILL ARE KIND OF REDUCING THAT NUMBER. THAT WAS ONE QUESTION. IS IT DIFFICULT -- INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX ? AT LEAST IN THAT STATEMENT . I AM CURIOUS IF THAT WAS TYPICAL? OR IF THERE WAS AN ADJUSTMENT AMOUNT WE HAVE SEEN IN CITY OF

HUTTO. IS THAT AN ABERRATION? >> TO ADDRESS THE SALES TAX FIRST, GENERALLY, EXCUSE ME, OCTOBER-JANUARY WAS SLOW BUT IN FACT, WE WERE LOW EVERY MONTH THROUGH THAT FIRST QUARTER.

FEBRUARY, WHICH RECEIVES ALL OF YOUR MONTHLY AND ANNUAL TAXPAYERS. WE SAW AN INCREASE. WE ARE HOPING THAT CAN KIND OF

[02:05:03]

CONTINUE. WHEN WE SAW THE NUMBERS FOR MARCH, IT WAS LOW AGAIN. IT IS MORE OF THE LATTER PART OF WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. IT STARTED OFF SLOW AND WE THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO GET BETTER AND IT DID NOT. IT IS JUST GOING TO KIND OF TRACK AND BUDGET BASED ON THAT OVERALL. AS IS THE PROPERTY TAX, WE DID RECEIVE A LOT MORE REVENUES FRONT. YOU KNOW, WE ARE JUST ASSUMING THAT SOME OF IT IS DUE TO THOSE PROTESTS. SOME OF IT MAY BE THEY ARE PAYING MORE UP FRONT. WE ARE ALMOST AT THE 14 MILLION AS OF NOW. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT NUMBER.

>> EVERYTHING YOU HAVE MORE AND MORE PEOPLE THAT ARE ON A MORTGAGE WITH AN ESCROW THE COUNT THAT ARE GOING TO GET PAID WITH TIME SO THAT IS NOT --, YOU KNOW, GOING TO AFFECT, YOU WILL GET IT SOONER. SO WILL THAT INCREASE? OR IS IT JUST BOTH OF OUR PROPERTY OWNERS, ARE NEWCOMERS IN THE CITY?

>> I DO NOT REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER TO WHAT THE REASONING IS . BUT WE ARE GETTING OUR MONEY SOONER.

>> OKAY. BUT TO THE INCREASES TO GET IT SOONER, BUT NOT THAT WE EXCEEDED THE BUDGET, YOU THINK WE ARE GOING TO GET ABOUT -- FOR

THE HOLIER? >> WERE OVER THE BUDGETED AMOUNT ALREADY. THE ORIGINAL BUDGET CUT THAT IS WHY IS THAT I FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THIS REJECTION.

>> THANK YOU, MAN. >> ? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 0-2025-013 LETTING THE BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR OCTOBER 1, 2024-SEPTEMBER 30, 2025.

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SOME GUY WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT AGAIN FOR YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS BUT HONESTLY, THIS IS VERY DETAILED AND A LOT OF NUMBER CRUNCHING, BUT I KNOW THAT IS YOUR FORTE. AGAIN, THE PROGRESS THE CITY HAS MADE IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS IN DISPLAYING THIS. IT IS GREAT. THANK YOU. GREAT WORK.

>> THANK YOU, ALBERTA, FOR THE NOTES SECTION. THAT IS REALLY HELPFUL TO SEE WHY. AND THAT CLEARS UP ANY SORT OF CONFUSION AND MISUNDERSTANDING. THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING THIS.

>> THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. >> THIS IS EASY VERY TO READ AND UNDERSTAND. VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU.

>> THAT IS THE GOAL. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[13.1. Consideration and possible action on finalizing the 5-Year CIP. (Matt Rector) ]

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

>> THANK YOU. WITH NO OBJECTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT 13 POINT 1 AT THE END OF THE 13S.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO OBJECT. >> OKAY. 13.1, CONSIDERING THE

FIVE-YEAR CIP. >> WHILE HE IS ON HIS WAY UP, CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT 11.3 AND 11 POINTS NR? DID YOU TAKE ANY ACTIONS ON THOSE YET ARE YOU WAITING FOR ME TO GET BACK? OKAY, I THINK 11.3 IS DEFINITELY NEEDING TO BE POSTPONED.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO 13.1 IS A FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT DURING THE WORK SESSION. SO I FEEL LIKE I DID A LOT OF THE TALKING DURING THE WORK SESSION.

FINALIZE WHAT YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT ON FEBRUARY 1ST AND WE TALKED ABOUT AGAIN EARLIER THIS EVENING. SO I DO NOT KNOW THAT I HAVE A LOT TO ADD. SO I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR YOU CAN DISCUSS OR HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PROCEED.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, SIR. SO FOR ME, THEY WAITED A VAST MAJORITY OF THE WORK ON THAT SATURDAY SESSION. I WAS NOT EXPECTING TO RECOMMEND A LOT OF CHANGES. THE ONLY REAL THING THAT KIND OF CHANGED FOR ME THE TRADE THAT FEBRUARY 1ST AND NOW IS THE REALIZATION WE HAVE GOT ANOTHER TRACK $21 MILLION BECAUSE OF THE INNOVATION SIGNAL AND WHAT IT IS GOING TO BE BUT I

[02:10:07]

DO NOT KNOW IF THERE WAS ONE OF THE ONES WE PUSHED OUT THAT WE COULD DO THAT WOULD NOT AFFECT ONE OF THE OTHER PROJECTS IF YOU WANTED TO KIND OF TAKE A LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE THAT WAS ONLY KIND OF THE FIRST THOUGHT I HAD. IF THERE IS SOMETHING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF NOW RATHER THAN JUST SITTING ON MONEY WAITING.

>> OKAY.

WE WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE . YOU SEE A PROJECT YOU WANT TO

MOVE UP? >> WELL, I DO NOT KNOW IF HE WANTED TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION IF ANYBODY WANTED TO SAY, NOPE, LET'S GET ON THAT MONEY AND SEE IF ANYTHING ELSE COMES UP.

>> AND MAYBE HAVE AN ITEM ABOUT JUST THAT ONE, YOU KNOW? THAT

DOLLAR AMOUNT? >> I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT TO MAKE SURE WE ARE NOT JUST -- YEAH.

SO I WOULD MAKE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM STAFF. THAT

WAS MY BIG THING. >> TO BE HONEST , I REALLY THINK THIS ITEM OUGHT TO BE POSTPONED UNTIL WE TRANSLATE THE INFORMATION . THE LAST 45 MINUTES GOING OVER AND WE COULD SPEND HOURS ON THIS . TRYING TO FIGURE OUT DIFFERENT THINGS CAN WE REALLY HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO DIGEST THE NEW INFORMATION.

>> WHILE TALKING ABOUT THE SAVINGS ON THE SIGNAL? IS THAT WHAT Y'ALL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT?

>> I AM THINKING -- YEAH, WHEN WE DO THIS ON SATURDAY, WE MADE A LOT OF CHANGES AND WE HAVE NOT SEEN WHAT IS THE EFFECT NOW. TO ME, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, 2026 IS A MODEST INCREASE IN TAXES. 2027 IS A HUGE INCREASE. TO ME, I FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

I CANNOT FATHOM A 24% INCREASE TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE TAXES IN 2027 IF I'M READING IT RIGHT. I NEED TO LOOK FOR OTHER PROJECTS AND START LOOKING. HEY, WHAT NEEDS TO MOVE AROUND?

>> TO THAT POINT, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. BUT THIS IS JUST, YOU KNOW, OUR CIP PLAN. THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY , YEAH, THERE HAS TO BE FUNDING BEHIND IT. IF THERE IS NOT MONEY BEHIND IT, THEN IT CANNOT GET DONE. AND SO THIS IS JUST A PLAN OF LOOKING TO THE FIRST YEAR. I THINK ON THAT SATURDAY , THAT WORKSHOP, WE DID A REALLY GREAT JOB OF PLANNING FOR THREE YEARS. THE FIVE-YEAR CIP. MATT IS REALLY TRYING TO GET US TO FOCUS ON. I THINK WE REALLY FOCUSED ON THE NEXT THREE YEARS. AND AS TIME MOVES FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO RELAY, YOU KNOW, HONE IN ON COSTS AND REALLY KIND OF STAGGERING THE COSTS ARE RELIEVING SOME OF THOSE COSTS WITH THINGS IN THE FUTURE. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED IN THE WORKSHOP. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT, HEY, THIS IS 100% WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT IS A FLUID AND WORKABLE DOCUMENTS. SO I DON'T WANT TO MAKE ANY CHANGES BECAUSE I THINK WE DID A LOT OF GREAT WORK. I THINK WE ARE MOVING IN A GREAT DIRECTION WITH GETTING SOME PROJECTS DESIGNED. FROM THERE, THE COUNCIL , IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT IS ONE YEAR, TWO YEARS, FIVE YEARS, WHATEVER. THE COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THE FUNDING TO GET THAT FUNDED.

>> I WILL SAY THAT 2027 IS 18 MONTHS AWAY. I DO NOT FEEL LIKE -- I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO HAVE A TWO TO THREE YEAR OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO. BECAUSE IF WE LEAVE IT LIKE AS IS, THIS MAYOR, WE ARE WORKING HIM TO DEATH. HE HAS STILL GOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PROJECTS HE IS GOING TO BE WORKING AND WE WILL BE SPENDING MONEY ON ENERGY AND PROJECTS IN 2027 THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO. WE ARE GOING TO COME SIT DOWN HERE NEXT TO GO, MY GOD. WE ARE NOT RAISING TAXES 25% SO WE HAVE TO MOVE SOMETHING THAT I THOUGHT THE WHOLE POINT OF THE FIVE-YEAR CIP PLAN WAS TO SAY, OKAY, I HAVE REACHED THE 2026 IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. 2027 WE STILL HAVE 1660 AND 137 BEGUN AT THE SAME TIME AS CR 163 BUT I THOUGHT WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT? BUT TO ME, WHEN I SEE THESE THINGS, WE ARE TELLING OUR STAFF , BE PREPARED TO PUT BOTH ROADS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. IF I'M WRONG, JAMES, BUT YOU GUYS

[02:15:05]

ARE GOING OFF WHAT WE HAVE ON THIS LIST.

>> WE CERTAINLY GO OFF OF THE RECORD, JAMES, CITY MANAGER. WE CERTAINLY GO OFF OF THE LIST. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE HAS TO BE FUNDING TO MOVE INTO DESIGN. WE WILL START PLANNING FOR THAT.

AND THEN ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE A DEBT ISSUANCE OR SOMETHING IN THAT REGARD WOULD COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE SAID THAT BEFORE WE DO THE PROJECTS. YES, WE WILL TAKE THE LIST AND START PLANNING TO IMPLEMENT THE LIST FOR NEXT YEAR. AND THEN PARTICULARLY THE ONES THAT ARE EITHER GOING INTO CONSTRUCTION ARE THE ONES THAT WOULD GO INTO DESIGN. IF IT IS A PROJECT THAT IS SCHEDULED FOR TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, AND IT STILL NEEDS DESIGN, UNLESS WE ARE SHOWING CURRENTLY IN THE CURRENT YEAR COMING UP THAT WE HAVE SLATED SOME OF THE COST OF DESIGN, WE WILL NOT BEGUN THAT PROJECT UNTIL, WE WILL NOT PLAN TO BEGIN THAT UNTIL THE YEAR IT IS SLATED FOR THAT IS CURRENTLY THE WAY WE APPROACH THE CIP.

>> THAT IS BASED ON WHAT WE LINED UP FOR RIGHT NOW. THERE IS NO FUNDING. OR THE FUNDING -- REGARDLESS OF WHEN YOU START THE PLANNING , THE DESIGN, YOU WILL ALWAYS COME BACK TO STAFFER TO

THE COUNCIL ANYWAY. >> WELL , LET ME REPHRASE THAT BUT NOTHING THAT IS NOT ALREADY BUDGETED IS BUDGETED. SO THAT PROBABLY IS OBVIOUS, BUT IT IS A BIG PART OF THIS. SO WHAT THAT MEANS IS, MANY OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THOSE ARE BUDGETED. THEY ARE FUNDED. THEY EITHER HAVE MONEY ON HAND, OR WE ARE ANTICIPATING DOING A FUTURE ISSUANCE AND WE HAVE NOT YET DONE THAT ISSUANCE, RIGHT? THOSE ARE USUALLY THE THINGS YOU WANT TO GET BEYOND THIS YEAR INTO NEXT YEAR, UNLESS THERE IS MONEY SHOWING IN THIS YEAR FOR DESIGN, AND WE ARE READY HAVE THE DESIGN FUNDED, UNLESS IT IS GOING, CHANCES ARE IT IS NOT FUNDED YET. SO THAT WILL REQUIRE US TO GO THROUGH THE BUDGETING CYCLE LIKE WE DID THIS YEAR AND THEY ARE GOING TO TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES? YOU KNOW, ARE GOING TO PRODUCE PROPOSED NEW DEBT ISSUANCE IT WILL PROPOSE THE -- OFF OF DEPOSITS? THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENT POOLS OF MONEY WE COULD

POTENTIALLY FUND WITH. >> SO LOOKING TO THE PROJECTS , BECAUSE THAT MONEY SAVINGS IS ON US. WHAT I LOOK YEAR, ALLIANCE EXPANSION. WE HAVE BEEN THIS FISCAL YEAR, 500,000 BUT I THINK THAT IS FOR THE DESIGN, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. >> MY POINT IS THAT THE TOTAL ESTIMATE OF 2.7. WE CAN ALMOST BASICALLY FULLY FUND AND WORK ON THAT PROJECT WITH THAT SAVINGS ON THAT ONE PROJECT. SO I WOULD KIND OF LIKE, WHAT I THINK ABOUT ALL THE WORK AND THE NEW ENTERTAINMENT CENTER , ALL OF THE RETAIL THE MOMENT THAT IS COMING THAT IS RIGHT OFF OF ALLIANCE BOULEVARD, I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT TRAFFIC, AND IMPROVEMENT AND A BANG FOR YOUR BUCK WITH THE CITY , IN MY MIND, THAT KIND OF TRIGGERS THE ONE THAT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE. SO, YOU KNOW, THAT IS THE KIND OF THING I'M LOOKING FOR. IT IS ALREADY IN DESIGN FOR THIS YEAR BUT IF I LOOK OUT, I DO NOT EVEN SEE, UNLESS IT GOT ANY FURTHER, I SEE NOTHING TO DO ALLIANCE PAST 2028. THAT SEEMS VERY SHORTSIGHTED TO ME. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT ONE WAS PUSHED OUT FOR FIVE YEARS. WE ARE MAKING THINGS .

>> I REMEMBER THE REASON WE DID THAT IS BECAUSE WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS STUFF ENGINEERED. WE WANTED THE DEVELOPER, SINCE THE DEVELOPER IS BUILDING THE INDUSTRIAL. THEY ARE BUILDING ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL. THE DEVELOPERS, AT SOME POINT, THEY NEED TO FUND THE LIGHTING OF THAT ROAD . JUST LIKE WITH INNOVATION. WE ARE NOT SEEING , AT LEAST FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, WE ARE NOT SEEING A BANG FOR OUR BUCK THAT HELPS OUT THE ISSUES WE ARE HAVING TO SEE THE TRAFFIC. SO THE MONEY NEEDS TO BE ALLOCATED MORE TO THAT THE WHEN THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT COMES TO STAFF AND THEY SAY, HEY, WHEN YOU GUYS HIT A LINE IN THE ROAD. WE ALREADY HAVE A DESIGN READY TO GO FOR YOU.

REMEMBER, THAT IS WHY WE PUSHED OUT TO 2029 IN THE EFFORT TO HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SHORTSIGHTED

>> SO YOU HAVE THE REIMBURSEMENT AFFECT.

>> NOT NECESSARILY. IT IS NOT ALWAYS THE REIMBURSEMENT. YOU CAN HAVE A GUY WHO WANTS TO BUILD 1 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL. PART OF THEIR DEAL WHEN THEY COME TO US AS THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO -- SO WE WILL NOT REIMBURSE.

>> I MEAN , YEAH, COULD BE THEY DO THE IMPROVEMENT OR BECAUSE

[02:20:05]

THEY WENT ON THE IMPROVEMENT AND THIS IS YOUR IMPACT FEE ON THE

ROAD FOR THE SIZE. RIGHT? >> WE CAN CHANGE IT.

>> I DO NOT LIKE THAT IDEA, POOR SLEEP AND IF WE GO OUT AND BUILD ROADS AND WAIT FOR PEOPLE TO DEVELOP TO PAY US BACK, ALL THAT DOES IS LEAVE THE HIGHER TAXES WAITING FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO GO IN AND I THINK THE MESSAGE I GET FROM PEOPLE IS THEY WANT IMMEDIATE STUFF DONE AND SOMETHING THEY DRIVE THROUGH EVERY DAY. THAT IS 685. THAT IS -- WE CANNOT REALLY MESS WITH.

IT IS ROADS LIKE THAT. >> THEY ARE STILL BUILDING ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE BIG CONCRETE BUILDINGS THAT ARE GOING UP RIGHT NOW. BOTH SIDES OF THAT ROAD ARE GOING TO BE FULLY BUILT OUT WITHIN A YEAR. YOUR THING, LET'S NOT GO UNTIL 2029 BUT WE HAVE THIS MONEY AND WHERE ASKING TO BE SPENT ON TRANSPORTATION.

MY ASK IS, DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR THE IMPACT FOR TRAFFIC AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE YOU RECOMMEND? OR THERE IS A DIFFERENT ONE IN THE CITY? THIS SEEMS LIKE IT WILL BE A MAJOR CORRIDOR THAT WE CAN CONNECT ALL THE WAY UP TO EMORY FARMS WHICH WOULD ALLOW ANOTHER ROUTE TO GET TO 79 THROUGH EMORY FARMS AVENUE TO ALLIANCE TO GET OUT TO 79 AND AVOID THE 685 /79 INTERCHANGE.

THAT MAY ALLEVIATE TRAFFIC THAT WAY FOR EVERYONE WHO LIVES IN EMORY FARMS IN THE NORTHERN AREA TRYING TO GET TO THIS MAJOR SHOPPING CENTER . IF THERE IS ANOTHER WAY IN AND OUT OF THAT DEVELOPMENT BUT I DON'T KNOW? IN MY MIND, IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD HELP SOME OF THE TRAFFIC OFF OF CHRIS KELLY AND 79.

>> MATT, YOU WOULD NEED TIME TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE COULD DO WITH THAT EXTRA? OR WHAT THAT REALLOCATED MONEY, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU ARE LOOKING FOR ACTUALLY DOING THE ANALYSIS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF AND TELL YOU ABOUT GETTING THE BIGGEST BANG FOR THAT BUT, YES, I CANNOT DO THAT RIGHT NOW ON THE SPOT. BUT IF YOU GUYS HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE AS A MORE PRESSING NEED, THEN YOU DO NOT WANT TO GO THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS , THAT I THINK THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

>> IF YOU HAVE IDEAS, HEY, MAKE SURE WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING, LOOK AT THIS AREA. THAT HELPS ME NARROW IT DOWN AS WELL. WE MET I WELCOME AN AMENDMENT AND I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT YOU TO GO BACK AND DO AN ANALYSIS ON WHERE YOU FEEL IT WOULD BE BEST. IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO SPEND THAT MONEY AND SPEND THAT EXTRA. LIKE I SAID, I WOULD WELCOME AN AMENDMENT TO THAT TO NARROW IT DOWN.

>> I THINK I WOULD LIKE AN AMENDMENT TO NARROW IT DOWN TO OFFER THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH IS ALREADY GOING TO BE ON THE ARTERIAL CORRIDORS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. THAT IS WHERE WE PUT THE MONEY. IT IS GOING TO BE FROM THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG IT IS GOING

TO TAKE THEM TO GET THAT REPORT. >> IT MIGHT TAKE SEVERAL WEEKS.

>> OKAY. NOT MUCH IS WHAT I'M SAYING, RIGHT?

>> YEAH, I WOULD ASSUME. IT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUPER FAST. BUT I CANNOT TELL YOU IT IS GOING TO BE DONE IN APRIL.

>> BUT MAY OR JUNE, RIGHT? I THINK THAT IS REASONABLE.

>> -- TO HURRY UP AND WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PROJECTS

NEXT YEAR THAT NEED MONEY. >> YEAH.

>> EVERY TIME WE FIND 1 MILLION BUCKS, WE TRY TO MOVE SOMETHING UP. THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CIP IS TO PRIORITIZE THE PROJECTS WE WANT DONE AND TO FIT THE FUNDING AND COULD NOT FINDING PROJECTS -- THE ARGUMENT WITH ALLIANCE IN THE SAME ONE WITH INNOVATION.

REMEMBER, WE PUMPED THAT ONE OUT. IT WAS THEY ARE BUILDING ON BOTH SIDES. I KNOW THEY COMPLAIN ABOUT THE TRUCK TRAFFIC . THEY ARE THE ONES CAUSING IT. FOR ME, IT FALLS ON A DEAF EAR. I AM

MORE LOOKING , YOU KNOW, -- >> MATT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> WAS THAT A MOTION? >> SORRY. YOU SAID AMENDMENT.

YOU NEED THE MOTION FOR WHAT NOW?

>> THIS IS TO DIRECT MATT TO GO WHERE IT IS BEST PRUDENT . THE BEST POSSIBLE PLACE TO SPEND THAT AND GIVE US THAT OPTION.

[02:25:03]

BEFORE WE TO MAKE A DECISION ON CIP. THAT WAY, IT LEAVES IT OPEN IF SOMEBODY DOES NOT WANT TO DO THAT. IF YOU BRING US A RECOMMENDATION, THEN AND WE ALL DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT, WE COULD STILL HOLD ONTO THAT BUT IT DOES NOT MARRY US TO, WE ARE KEEPING THAT FOR NEXT YEAR, OR WE ARE GOING TO SPEND IT ON SOMETHING.

>> OR YOU CAN JUST SAY IT IS REDUCING THE -- AND GO OUT BY

1,000,000 1/2 . >> DIRECTED STAFF TO FIND THE BEST POSSIBLE USE OF THE SURPLUS AND THE SIGNAL FOR ELIMINATION .

IS THAT CLOSE ENOUGH? >> YEAH .

>> SECOND? >> DID YOU SECOND IT? I MADE AN AMENDMENT THAT IT BE TIED TO THE TRAFFIC PROGRAM THAT ] . AND YOU SAID YOU COULD GET THE RESULTS BY MAY?

>> SO THE SECOND TO MOTION? >> IT WAS AN AMENDMENT.

>> A SECOND TO THE AMENDMENT? >> AYE.

>> SO NOW IT IS THE SURPLUS FUNDS OF LIMMER LOOP, WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THAT? LJA TRAFFIC STUDY.

ANYTHING TO ADD? OKAY, THAT IS THE MOTION. YOU THINK THAT WILL TAKE A FEW MONTHS?

>> YEAH, YEAH. THEY COLLECT ALL THE DATA IN THE AFTER PROCESS THE DATA AND PUT THE REPORT TOGETHER. THAT IS WHY I'M

SAYING BY MID-JUNE. >> OKAY. SO MAY OR JUNE. I GUESS WE ARE DONE WITH THIS TONIGHT. WE COULD WAIT FOR THAT TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS. IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS ARE SUGGESTING?

>> THAT IS WHAT I AM SUGGESTING. YES.

>> SO PUT IT ON

OKAY. >> I THINK WE CAN STILL TALK ABOUT OTHER STUFF. THAT IS JUST THE USE OF AN EXTRA 9 1/2 WE DID NOT KNOW WE WERE GOING TO HAVE UNTIL TODAY. I MEAN, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT I MEAN, I HAD ANOTHER IDEA. I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT ANOTHER ROAD I

AM CONCERNED ABOUT. >> WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE MOVING STUFF AROUND IF WE ARE WAITING ON THIS TO COME UP?

>> I AM COMFORTABLE MOVING SOME STUFF AROUND HER TO ME, I THINK THIS IS KIND OF EXTRA MONEY WE DID NOT REALIZE WE WERE GOING TO HAPPEN WHERE CAN WE BEST USE IT? THAT IS KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING BUT I THINK WE CAN STILL MOVE SOME STUFF AROUND. WE THINK FI 26 , FY 27 IS TOO HEAVY AND WE WANT TO PULL SOME INTO FI 26, I DO NOT THINK THAT AFFECTS WHAT WE ARE ASKING.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS ONE .5 MILLION THAT IS BEEN A COST SAVINGS TO THIS TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THAT IS FOR THIS CURRENT FISCAL YEAR, CORRECT? 25 THAT WE ARE IN

RIGHT NOW? >> THIS IS THE BUDGET WE HAVE

ALLOCATED FOR THIS YEAR. >> I THINK THAT, WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS OF NOT ALLOCATING IT? I DO NOT THINK IN SIX MONTHS

-- >> COMING BACK WITH, HEY --

>> HOW IS THAT ON OUR SIDE RIGHT NOW?

>> THAT IS NOT A GOOD THING TO DO OR , YEAH, WE COULD DO THIS WITH THAT. JUST GIVE US THAT RECOMMENDATION .

>> CAN WE JUST REDUCE IT BY AT 21 BECAUSE WE WILL NOT BE EXPENDING THAT THIS YEAR? THAT IS WHERE I AM AT . FOR ME, I WILL NOT BE VOTING IN FAVOR OF THIS, IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK IT IS BUSY WORK FOR STAFF. IT IS VERY DETAIL ORIENTED. AND AS THINGS WE DO NOT NEED AT COUNCIL LEVEL BUT I THINK WE JUST NEED TO SUBTRACT THE 1.5 SAVINGS AND NOT EXPANDED THIS YEAR. WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT IN THE FUTURE OR IF SOMETHING POPS UP , WE CAN ALLOCATE THAT. THAT IS WHERE I AM AT RIGHT NOW.

>> DIDN'T WE BUDGET SEVERAL BONDS THIS YEAR? AM I WRONG? 130 MILLION PROJECTED TO BE POWERED?

>> I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT. ALBERTA CAN COME UP AND SAY THE

NUMBER. >> SHE DOES NOT HAVE TO COME UP.

BALLPARK. JUST SHAVE OFF 1.5 IN FUTURE BORROWING. MAYBE.

>> YES. SORRY. ELDER BAIRD, FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE RECORD

[02:30:05]

THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TOMORROW -- IN THE FISCAL YEAR 24 -25 FOR

STREET PROJECTS . >> I DO NOT WANT TO USE THE P WORD. THAT WAS THE FIRST HALF OF THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THIS YEAR THAT WAS THE BUDGET TO BE PAID FOR BY INTEREST FROM CURRENT

MONTH. >> RIGHT. SAY THAT AGAIN? I'M

SORRY. >> THE INTEREST THAT WE ARE EARNING ON CURRENT BONDS WE ARE GOING TO USE THAT MONEY TO PAY FOR THE DEBT SERVICE ON THAT ISSUANCE FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR,

IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. >> YES, WE HAVE INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET HE WAS THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE EXISTING 24 ISSUANCE TO GO TO THE DEBT SERVICE AND TO LOWER THE DEBT IN

FUTURE YEARS. >> SO WE COULD BORROW LESS AND JUST USE LESS OF OUR INTEREST IF WE RUN DOWN OUR CURRENT DEBT?

>> SO YOU'RE GETTING READY TO LOOK AT YOUR INTEREST IN THINKING WE COULD ACTUALLY , POTENTIALLY LOWER THAT RATE BY

THE INTEREST WE HAVE EARNED. >> I SEE.

>> WHEN I LOOK AT THIS THING , I THINK I'M MISSING SOMETHING BUT IT SHOWS TOTAL TAX VALUE IN THIS BOX AND THAT SIDE BOX.

>> MOTION ? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

MOTION FAILS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO -- YEAH? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO FINALIZE THE FIVE-YEAR CIP PLAN AS PRESENTED BY THE CITY ENGINEER, AND TO SUBTRACT 1.5 MILLION FROM EXPENDITURES FOR THE FISCAL YEAR

25. >> I WILL SECOND THAT.

>> THE MOTION TO FINALIZE THE FIVE-YEAR TRAGEDY FOR PLAN AS PRESENTED MINUS THE COST SAVINGS MADE BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER

THOMPSON. DISCUSSION? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR FINANCE. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS THING AND IT SHOWS TOTAL TAX VALUE WITHOUT THIS SKYBOX AND THAT SKYBOX . IT SHOWS THE ONLY VALUE IS GOING TO BE HALF $1 MILLION. THAT MAKES ME THINK THIS IS LOOKING JUST AT THE PROPERTY TAX 50% VALUATION, NOT THE PERSONAL PROPERTY TAX OF THE SERVERS AND STUFF INSIDE THE BUILDINGS. OTHERWISE, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE AT 800,000 VALUATION FOR TAXABLE ITEMS. SO MY THING IS, THIS WHOLE THING WHEN YOU THINK SKYBOX, YOU ARE ASSUMING REAL PROPERTY. MY CONCERN ON THAT IS THAT DOES NOT -- SO YOU'RE JUST DOING REGULAR SKYBOX PROPERTY TAX VALUE, THAT GOES INTO -- SO THAT WOULD NOT EVEN BE HERE. AND IF IT IS PERSONAL PROPERTY, IT WOULD NOT BE 400 MILLION. IN VALUE. WE ARE TALKING IT IS A $10 BILLION PROJECT AND YOU GET 50%. SO HOW IS IT ONLY GOING TO INCREASE THE TAXABLE VALUE BY THE CITY BY, WHAT IS IT? 20 MILLION? 25 MILLION? I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED ON WHAT THIS LINE IS WHEN I LOOK HERE ON THE SHEET.

>> THE REASON WE PUT THE 24 1/2 MILLION , TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION CAN WE PUT THAT INTO 26. IF IT AFFECTS OUR TAX ROLLS, WILL NOT SEE ANY BENEFIT OF THAT UNTIL YOU'RE 26. THAT IS THE FIRST TIME WILL BE ABLE TO RECOGNIZE ANY REVENUE FROM SKYBOX. WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT FIRST YEAR TO BE THE 24 1/2

MILLION. >> BUT YOU ARE INCLUDING BOTH THE PERSONAL PROPERTY AND THE REAL PROPERTY? IN THESE

CALCULATIONS? >> I NEED THE CITY MANAGER'S

HELP ON THIS ONE. >> YES, IT IS BOTH. THE REAL PROPERTY IS ONLY HALF OF THAT. SO THE MODIFICATION YOU WOULD

[02:35:11]

MAKE IS 50% OF THE REAL PROPERTY VALUES. IT WAS BASED OFF OF THE SCHEDULE THAT SKYBOX PROVIDED TO US . WE DID NOT MAKE THE NUMBERS UP AND PULL THE NUMBERS OFF OF WHAT THEY PROVIDED US THAT IT IS BOTH THE REAL PROPERTY AND THE BUSINESS PROPERTY .

>> FOR THE SERVERS? >> THE SERVERS ARE IN THERE TOO.

AND THEIR REPLACEMENT SCHEDULES AND ALL OF THE THINGS PROVIDED

IN THAT REGARD. >> WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT 2028

INAUDIBLE ]? >> YES.

>> 50%. SO $3 BILLION . OKAY. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. CURVE BALLS HERE.

BUT FOR TEAM. OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD?

>> IS A MEGA SITE PHASE TWO. OH, YEAH, SORRY.

>> OKAY. >> OKAY. I WAS TALKING TO JAMES ABOUT THIS A WEEK OR SO FOR A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. WHAT IS THAT

ALL INCLUDING? >> I HAVE GOT THE MAP HERE.

>> IS I'M GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS STUFF, IT IS ALL STARTING TO BLEND IN IN TERMS OF WHAT WE ARE DOING OVER HERE.

>> YOU HAVE THE PDF? >> THE MAP?

>> YEAH. YES. >> WHICH MAP --

>> PLENTY OF INFORMATION.

>> FOR INSTANCE, ALL THESE LINES ARE GOING TO MAKE -- WHICH ONES ARE NEEDED CURRENTLY? I GUESS , WHICH ONES ARE NEEDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHICH ONES ARE NEEDED FOR WHATEVER THEY ARE NEEDED FOR? RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE GOT THE CITY -- AND WE HAVE ALL OF THESE PROJECTS GOING OUT. I THINK I HAVE KIND OF, LIKE, I SCREWED IT UP. THERE MIGHT BE THREE DIFFERENT WATER PROJECTS OUT THERE. AND SO I THINK, IF I AM, THE ONE RIGHT THERE IN THE

MIDDLE YOU HAVE HIGHLIGHTED. >> THAT IS 1B CONSTRUCTED RIGHT

NOW WITH THE MEGA SITE. >> OKAY. SO WHAT IS THE ONE TO

THE WEST OF THAT? >> THAT ONE HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED OR CONSTRUCTED YET. SO THAT IS WHY WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CMP SPREADSHEET, YOU SEE THERE IS NOT ANY FUNDING FOR THE MEGA SITE, THESE TWO BORDERLINES. THE CONVERSATION WE HAD, I DUNNO IF IT WAS THE LAST YEAR CIP OR WHAT EUROPE WAS. WE GOT EVERYTHING STARTED OUT THERE. WHEN DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEY SHOULD TAKE A LINE FROM THAT AND THAT IS WHY WE HAVE GOT IT IN THE CIP, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE IT SHOWN IN FUNDING IN 2025-26.

>> SO HOW DO I FIND OUT WHICH ONE IS W 214? YOU ARE RIGHT.

THESE ARE -- LIKE WE DID BEFORE. 2030.

>> I AM TRYING TO REFRESH MY MEMORY. JUST GIVE ME A SECOND.

SO I BELIEVE THAT W 14 IS -- YOU CAN SEE THIS LINE OF HIGHLIGHTED

[02:40:05]

IN A CYAN COLOR . OKAY. SO LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT WE ARE DOING. SO WHEN WE STARTED THIS COTTONWOOD PROJECT TO WORK ON THE COTTONWOOD STORAGE , THAT ACTUALLY GOT MOVED OVER TO HEAR FROM WHERE WE ORIGINALLY PLANNED IT TO BE. WAS ABOUT THE SAME TIME THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THAT AND THEN AFTERWARDS WE TALKED ABOUT HAVING DEVELOPERS BUILD THIS LAND FOR US. THEN COMPOUNDING THAT WAS WHEN WE MOVED THE WATER TOWER OVER TO THIS GENERAL VICINITY. WE REALIZED THIS LINE WAS NOT BIG ENOUGH TO FEED THAT TOWER. WE COULD NOT GET ENOUGH WATER INTO THE TOWER. SO WE HAVE ALREADY MADE AN AMENDMENT TO THE DESIGN TO BASICALLY REPLACE THIS 12 INCH LINE WITH A 30 INCH LINE EFFECTIVELY GETTING RID OF THIS, THE NEED FOR THIS LINE TO GO TO THIS TOWER BECAUSE THE TOWER IS OVER HERE. MOST OF THE 12 INCH LINE REPLACED WITH A 30 INCH LINE WHICH EFFECTIVELY ELIMINATES THE WATER LINE PHASE TWO. WE HAVE COMBINED IT WITH THE EXISTING 20 INCH . WE PUT IT AS PART OF THIS.

>> WHERE IS PHASE ONE? PHASE ONE IS NOT DONE YET, RIGHT?

>> PHASE ONE WAS THIS LINE. THIS LINE. AND AT THIS LINE.

>> WHAT PURPOSE DID THAT SERVE?

>> SO THIS CONNECTED US -- IT CAME DOWN AND CONNECTED SO THAT -- COULD GET WATER. THAT IS WHY THIS STUFF COMES DOWN SO THEY COULD GET WATER FROM THERE. AND WE COULD REALLY EXTEND AND

CONNECT EVENTUALLY . >> SO THAT WAS A CONNECTION TO THE WATER, AND THEN IT WENT FROM -- 279 AND THEN IT WENT DOWN 79?

>> YOU CAN SEE THE RED DASHED LINE HERE THAT RUNS FROM FRONT STREET OR 199 ABOUT HALFWAY TOWARD THE MEGA SITE. THAT WAS A SEPARATE WATER LINE PROJECT THAT WAS STARTED BACK IN 2020, I THINK. WE JUST FINISHED THAT ONE LAST YEAR. SO THE MEGA SITE WATERLINE TAPPED INTO THAT LINE, WENT DOWN HERE SO THEY COULD TIE IN AND RUN THEIR LINE. AND FACILITATE US TO BE ABLE TO EXTEND IT FURTHER. AND THEY JUMPED THIS OTHER PROJECT AND PICK IT UP HERE AND RAN IT ALL THE WAY OUT TO --.

>> THAT IS ALL THE SUPPLIED WATER TO THE MEGA SITE?

>> NO. THIS IS NOT JUST FOR THE MEGA SITE BUT THIS ONE COMING DOWN TO SUPPLY WATER INTO THE MEGA SITE. THIS WAS TO IMPROVE OUR FEED FROM THE NEW FRAMING PUMP STATION THROUGHOUT THE REST

OF THE CITY . >> SO TIGHT WILL GET THE WATER

OFF OF THE --? >> TITAN WILL GET THE ROUTER OFF OF THIS LINE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAPPEN

HERE. >> OKAY. WHAT ABOUT, I SEE WW08? I AM ASKING QUESTIONS ON THE PLAN YOU WANT TO APPROVE. I MEAN, LET'S DO THIS. I WILL JUST QUIT BECAUSE IT IS NOT EASY TO TELL PEOPLE WE ARE MAKING MOTIONS WITH THIS PLAN -- ABOUT THE BUDGET. WE WILL JUST FIGURE OUT WHAT WE DID LATER. WE CAN ALWAYS APPROVE IT AND BRING IT BACK UP IN JUNE.

>> WHAT WAS THE MOTION? AS PRESENTED?

>> AS PRESENTED. >>

>> PLEASE CALL THE BOAT. >> HOLD ON. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I'M OPEN TO HEARING MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS THAT I'M OPEN TO KIND OF TALKING ABOUT, I WANT TO HEAR WHAT YOUR CONCERNS ARE BUT I CAME OUT OF THE SATURDAY MEETING FEELING PRETTY GOOD ABOUT THIS. I GUESS I AM JUST WONDERING ?

>> ON A BUDGET YEAR WHERE EVERY 10 MINUTES IT IS THING CALLED THE VOTE, CALLED THE VOTE. WE HAD A STUDY GOING IN JUNE BUT I DO NOT WANT TO BE HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT EVERY 15 MINUTES THAT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A WHOLE BUNCH OF PRODUCTS. THE WAY THIS PLAN IS, HE HAS GOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK AHEAD OF HIM TO DO BECAUSE WE ARE NOT SHAVING OFF. WE ARE SAYING GET READY, MATT. HAVE A LOT OF CONTRACTS THAT WE MAY FIGURE OUT HOLE TO FUND $3 MILLION NEXT YEAR BECAUSE MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS READY. WE MIGHT WANT TO MOVE IT. IT IS EASIER TO HAVE A DEBATE.

[02:45:03]

>> BUT IF IT NEEDS TO MOVE OUT OF 2026 TONIGHT, WHY DO WE NOT MOVE IN ON SATURDAY? I REMEMBER COMING OUT OF THAT MEETING AND EVERYONE WAS HAPPY AND I SAID, HEY, WE HAD A GREAT MEETING.

THERE WAS A FACEBOOK POST AND I AGREE. WE HAD A LOT OF REALLY GREAT WORK. SO HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT HAS CHANGED?

>> MOVING ALL AROUND AND SCRAMBLED IT ALTOGETHER, AND SAID CAN YOU GUYS COME BACK TO US AND LET US KNOW HOW IT WORKS? SO 2026 LOOKS PRETTY GOOD. WE CAN WORK WITH -- 2027 , 21% INCREASE? THAT IS A NO GOOD

2028? INCREASE. THAT IS A NO >> WHETHER HE WANTED TO MOVE MUCH OF 2027 STUFF INTO 2026 TO EVEN IT OUT? OR IS THE PLAN TO

KICK EVERYTHING TO 2029? >> WE DEBATED THIS FOR 20 MINUTES. HE HAS WHAT IS PAID FOR, WHAT IS IN DESIGN BUT HE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB IN 20 MINUTES, I CANNOT MAKE THOSE DECISIONS IN 20 MINUTES THAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHATEVER YOU DO TONIGHT , IT WILL NOT MATTER BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS BRING A BACKUP IN TWO MONTHS. OKAY, NOW THAT WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND HAVE TIME TO READ THIS, NOW THAT WE HAVE HAD TIME TO ACTUALLY LOOK AT IT -- BACK TO THAT POINT, MAYOR, I THINK WE HAVE ACTUALLY CREATED DIRECTION FOR THE CITY ENGINEER TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL TWICE A YEAR TO KIND OF JUST REVISIT WHERE WE ARE AT IN THE CIP BUT MAYBE YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT? I GUESS WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING -- WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING AS TO THAT? THAT IS WHAT I REMEMBER. THAT IS TO ADDRESS WHERE WE ARE AT, WHERE WE ARE GOING , IF CHANGES NEED TO BE ADJUSTED AND NEED TO BE

MADE. >> IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS ON THE ITEMS AND YOU DO NOT WANT TO ACCEPT IT AS IT IS . WE SHOULD NOT BE WORRIED ABOUT POLICY DECISIONS WHEN HE IS GOING TO COME BACK AND GIVE IT TO US BECAUSE THAT IS NOTHING TO DO

WITH THE MOTION. >> YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT -- UNTIL 2029 IS GOING TO SAY THAT WOULD EXCEED YOU BIG ON COUNCIL OR ANYBODY UP HERE. EVERYBODY WOULD NO LONGER BE ON COUNCIL BY THAT TIME. IF IT IS A READY PUSHED OUT THAT FAR, I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE EVEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BUT I MEAN, IF IT HAS ALREADY BEEN MOVED THAT FAR OUT AND WE ACCEPT THAT TODAY TO MOVE THAT, THEN WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE TAX RATE NEXT YEAR OR THE RAFTER THAT BUT WERE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPERS PAYING FOR IT ANYWAY . THAT IS WHAT IT SAYS IN THE LINE ITEM.

THAT IS WHAT I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS ABOUT THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT THE QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING BEING PRESENTED FOR THE YEAR 2026 OR 2027. THAT IS COMING UP IN AUGUST. BUT DISCUSSING IF THERE'S A PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH 2026, YOU HAVE GOT TIME FOR 2027. NOTHING WILL GET FUNDED FOR THAT UNTIL YOU FUND THE BUDGET FOR 2026 IN AUGUST. YOU KNOW, I WAS KIND OF WONDERING ON THAT.

>> I MEAN, I AM COMFORTABLE APPROVING IT NOW AS LONG AS WE CAN, LIKE YOU SAID, TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT AND MAYBE JUNE, RIGHT? LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS A LOT OF INFORMATION . YOU MADE A LOT OF GOOD POINT THAT A LOT OF THE NUMBERS UP HERE BUT WE DO NOT HAVE THE NUMBERS TO KNOW WHAT THE EFFECT WAS.

>> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME?

>> I AGREE WITH MAYOR SNYDER. >>

>> EVERY TIME WE DISCUSSED THE BUDGET, WE ALWAYS DISCUSS CIP

PER >> WITH LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CHANGE IT. ALL OF THESE THINGS AS A CITY MANAGER SAID, WE DO NOT HAVE THE FUNDING, YOU KNOW, IT IS GOING TO BE MIXED ANYWAY AND WILL NOT BE ABLE TO DO IT ALWAYS HAVE TO COME BACK. WE'RE STARTING TO WORK ON THIS PROJECT HERE. SO I THINK THAT ADDITIONAL LAYER OF THIS IS WHAT WE ARE DOING, THAT IS WHY FELT COMFORTABLE WITH THE MOTION AS PRESENTED.

>> YEAH. I WILL JUST ADD, SO THERE ARE A LOT OF LAYERS HERE.

NORMALLY, WE APPROVE , YOU GUYS, APPROVE THE CIP AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS IN JUNE. THAT IS THREE MONTHS OUT, ROUGHLY, TWO MONTHS, I GUESS. SO WE WERE GOING TO BRING IT TO YOU TWICE A YEAR JUST TO MAKE SURE WE WERE ON TRACK WITH EVERYTHING AND EVERYTHING IS DYNAMIC, RIGHT? WE HAVE A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT AND A LOT OF STUFF GOING ON . PRIORITIES CHANGE IN ME UNDERSTAND THAT. THAT IS WHY WE BROUGHT THIS BACK TO COUNCIL AT THE END OF NOVEMBER, BEGINNING OF DECEMBER BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT GOT PUSHED. AND IT GOT PUSHED TO FEBRUARY. AND WE ARE STILL REVISITING IT. IT IS ALMOST TIME TO DO THE NEW VERSION OF THE CIP

[02:50:01]

FOR FY 26 THROUGH FY 30. SO IT WILL COME BACK YOU FOR OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION. THAT IS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO I DO NOT KNOW IF THAT HELPS WITH CLARITY FOR ANYBODY YET BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU ARE TRACKING. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION AND THEN I STILL HAVE TO GO FOR OUR CHARTER AND HAVE THEM RECOMMEND A CIP FROM 2026-30 FOR YOU GUYS AND HAVING TO BRING THAT BACK FOR OFFICIAL ADOPTION BEFORE WE CAN INCLUDE

THAT IN THE BUDGET. >> I'M SORRY BUT I'M TRYING TO GET TO WHERE YOU KNOW THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND YOU CAN JUST GO TO THE DEVELOPER. WITH THIS PLAN, YOU CAN SAY, IT IS 2028 .

RIGHT NOW, THAT IS NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE THAT I DO NOT THINK UNTIL WE GET TO A POINT WHERE WE LOCK IT DOWN, I THINK WE ARE CAUSING YOU A LOT MORE WORK AND A LOT MORE CONVERSATIONS AND CAUSING CONFUSION IN THE MARKET. NOBODY KNOWS WHEN ANYTHING IS GETTING DONE . WE HAVE REALLY NOT SIFTED THROUGH A TABLE TO SAY, TO ME, OF 4% INCREASE, WHATEVER YOUR 2029 IS 150% INCREASE. WE KNOW THAT UNLESS SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE CAN MOVE SOME STUFF AROUND AND WILL NOT DO CERTAIN PROJECTS. THE WAY WE HAVE IT NOW, I DO NOT SEE US FUNDING THE 2027 THINGS AND GETTING A CONTRACT TODAY. YOU HAVE TO DO IS SEE OUR REQUESTS COMING UP WITH, I DON'T KNOW. COUNCIL HAS THIS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU'RE TALKING TO A DEVELOPER, I DO NOT SEE THEM APPROVING ANYTHING IN THAT YEAR, BUT WE DON'T KNOW. THAT IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, BUT I DO NOT MIND WAITING A FEW MONTHS. NOT MY

PROBLEM. >> LET ME ASK THIS.

] . LET ME ASK THE COUNCIL. WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR YOU GUYS, RATHER THAN APPROVING THIS TONIGHT , JUST SAY, HEY. WHEN YOU COME BACK TO US IN JUNE OR JULY OR WHATEVER IT IS IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, BRING IT BACK AND SAY, TRY TO FIT IT WITHIN 3% IN 2026? 5% BUT WHATEVER THE NUMBERS ARE. AND THEN WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGER, WITH ALBERTA BARRETT, WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND TELL THEM THE PARAMETERS YOU HAVE SENT ME BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS AND YOU SAY, YEAH, AND TRIED TO STAY IN THE PARAMETERS WE SET WE WANT THIS PROJECT SIFTED OVER HERE NOT HAVE IT OVER THERE BUT IN THAT WAY, YOU HAVE GOT AT LEAST A STARTING POINT THAT WAS CLOSE

TO THE NUMBERS YOU WANTED. >> WOULDN'T THAT MAKE MORE SENSE FOR PNZ TO DO THAT? THEY ARE THE GROUP THAT WOULD BE, WE ARE ALL TAXPAYERS ANYWAY. WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE THAT THE VOLUNTEER GROUP GIVE US RECOMMENDATIONS ON WHAT THEY THINK THEY COULD STOMACH? VERSUS US JUST PULLING A NUMBER OUT OF

A HAT? >> I MEAN, I PRESENTED TO PNZ OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I CAN TELL YOU , THEY WANT TO DO ALL THE THINGS , AND THEY BASICALLY LOOK TO YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IS GOING TO BE OR HOW YOU'RE GOING TO FUND IT. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TOLD THEM.

FUNDING IS NOT YOUR JOB AS PNZ. YOUR JOB IS PLANNING AND MAKING SURE THAT THINGS ARE PRESENTED TO CITY COUNCIL.

>> YOU COULD ASK HIM TO SAY, GIVE US YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON TOP OF PRIORITIZATION. GIVE US YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON FUNDING.

IN THE PERCENTAGE. BECAUSE I MEAN, YOU HEAR IN THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION , HEY, YOU DID NOT TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATIONS. WHY DO YOU EVEN HAVE A PNZ? YOU COULD ASK THEM , TOP OF THE RECOMMENDATION, GIVE ME YOUR PERCENTAGE THAT YOU WOULD RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL AS WELL. AND THEN WE GET TO GET THAT IN JUNE, SEE WITH THAT IS, AND THEN FROM THERE, WE HAVE THE FINAL SAY , AND THEN YOU RUN WITH THAT, RIGHT?

>> I MEAN, THAT WORKS AS WELL. I HAVE TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO PNZ. IF YOU GIVE ME KIND OF PARAMETERS ON WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE THE NUMBERS, THAT I CAN'T TRYING TO SHIFT PROJECTS AROUND THE SUN WHAT I AM SEEING IN THE DATA. AND SEE HOW I CAN FIT THE NUMBERS ARE GETTING CLOSE. BUT I CAN GET IT PRETTY CLOSE, AND THEN I CAN GO TO PNZ AND SAY THESE ARE THE PARAMETERS BEFORE I CAME TO YOU GUYS. SO THEN YOU MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK TO THEM BASED ON THE FEEDBACK READ AND THEY SHIPPED PROJECTS AROUND AND CHANGE THE NUMBERS AND GIVE YOU THEIR ULTIMATE

RECOMMENDATION. >> I WOULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE PUTTING A RESTRICTION ON THE RECOMMENDING BODY TO COME BACK

TO US . >> OKAY, OKAY.

>> I THINK THAT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO THEM .

>> FOR ME, IT IS KIND OF OPPOSITE. I THINK WE ARE THE MONEY PEOPLE, RIGHT? TO ME, WE CONTROL THE PURSE STRINGS. WE

[02:55:06]

AUTHORIZE MONEY. WE SET THE TAX RATE AND DECIDE WHAT THE BUDGET IS GOING TO BE PAID I MEAN, KIND OF HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN PNZ FOR A FEW YEARS AND BEING A LIAISON FOR A WHILE, I DO NOT SEE THEM SO MUCH . I KIND OF SHY WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT BUT I DO NOT SEE THEM THINK, I THINK THEY WOULD PREFER TO SAY, TO HEAR FROM COUNCIL. HERE IS YOUR BUDGET . FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK WITHIN THAT BUDGET BUT I THINK THAT IS WHERE THEY COULD REALLY EXCITED AND SAY THESE ARE PARAMETERS AND WHAT WE NEED TO DO. WHAT ARE OUR PROJECTS? WHAT ARE THE IMPORTANT PROJECTS, RIGHT? TO ME, I THINK I LIKE THE IDEA, YOUR INITIAL IDEA. YOU KIND OF SET THE PARAMETERS. WHAT IS YOUR STOMACH FOR A PERCENT INCREASE EACH YEAR? AND THEN LET PNZ RUN WITH IT. JUST KNOW I DEMAND A KIND OF HOW THEIR PROCESS WORKS, I THINK THEY WOULD WORK WITHIN THAT BETTER. AND THAT LEAVES THE MONEY TO US AND WE SAY HERE IS THIS FIGURED OUT.

>> I AGREE.

LAUGHTER ] I SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT PROCESS IS THE PROCESS OF PNZ'S VIDEOS OF VERONA PRETTY SOON , WE DO NOT KNOW WHAT PERKS TO DO BECAUSE WE NEED TO SAY, WE NEED THE PARKS. AND PRETTY SOON, WE ARE THE ONES COLLECTING THE PAYCHECK. EVERYONE HAS TO ANSWER TO THE PEOPLE AND WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISIONS. I THINK IT IS UP TO US TO DETERMINE THAT. AND WHEN THE BOARDS ARE THERE TO GIVE US RECOMMENDATION , LIKE THE LIBRARY PEOPLE. THEY WENT TO LIBRARY. THE PARKS ALWAYS WANT PARKS IT IS OUR JOB TO SHIFT. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO DO LIBRARY AND PARKS AND BALL FIELD DID WE ARE

THE ONES THAT MAKE PEOPLE MAD. >> I HAVE ONE LAST FINANCIAL QUESTION FOR ALBERTA BARRETT ON THIS. SO WHEN THEY COME BACK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL FOR OTHER PEOPLE. WE HAVE THE TOTAL TAXABLE VALUES GOING OUT AND IT SAYS THAT HOME VALUE GROWTH IS 8%. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THAT INCREASE FROM? BECAUSE AS WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND IT HAS BEEN STATED MULTIPLE TIMES PUBLICLY, COUNCIL MEMBERS WILL VOTE NO TO NO NEW REVENUE. THAT MEANS YOU DO NOT HAVE A HOME VALUE GROWTH OR PROPERTY VALUE GOING UP, EXCEPT FOR THE NEW PROPERTY COMING IN. SO IS THIS SAYING YOU BELIEVE THAT WE ARE GOING TO GET 8% ADDITIONAL NEW BUILDING GROWTH PER YEAR INTO THE CITY? AND THAT IS WHERE YOUR TAXABLE VALUES ARE GOING UP IN 2026-28? IN AN COROLLARY TO THAT, IF YOU ARE ASSUMING REVENUE DROPPING AS SALES TAX GOES UP ON 2026-28, THAT MEANS SKYBOXES GOING TO DOWN EVERYONE OF THOSE YEARS YOU DROPPED THE RATE. THEY ARE FIXED ASSET THAT IS ALREADY AT THE PROPERTY. AND IN THEORY, YOU ARE AT NO NEW REVENUE. UNLESS THEY BUILD NEW CONSTRUCTION, THE VALUE THEY PAID YOU BEFORE IS GOING TO DECREASE , AND THAT IS FOREVER NOT CAPITALIZED AS A NET PRESENT VALUE OF MONEY. YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS YOU CAN HELP THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE HERE. SOME OTHER SOLUTIONS AND IDEAS. I WAS KIND OF CURIOUS ON THIS CHART, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? OR WHAT IS THIS

NUMBER? >> LET ME RUN INTERFERENCE FOR HER. THE 8% IS A LEGACY ITEM THAT SHOULD HAVE COME OFF. ALL THE 8% WAS DOING WAS MODIFYING THE HOME VALUE SALE OF IT.

BECAUSE WE ARE USING THAT TO CALCULATE WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO THE TEXT HERE. BUT WE EQUALIZED THE HOME VALUE AND KEPT AT THE SAME AND WE LEFT THE SALE ON THERE. SO IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY SERVE , THE 8% DOES NOT SERVE ANY FUNCTION ANYMORE.

>> THIS IS WHY IT'S A DOUBLE DEBT

>> ALL THE WAY ACROSS . IT USED TO SAY -- AND THEN IT WAS -- ON YOUR POINT AFTER THAT WAS 1024%. YES, YOU HAVE THE WRONG ONE.

THAT WAS THE ONE BEFORE. >> THAT WAS FROM THE LAST TIME.

THAT WAS WHAT WAS GIVEN TO ME TODAY

>> SO THAT 8% WAS ENTIRELY BUILT . HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SHIFT OF VALUE BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. IT HAD EVERYTHING TO DO WITH TRYING TO ACCURATELY DISPLAY WHAT THE TAX IMPACT WOULD BE TO THE HOMEOWNER. YOU KNOW, THE MORE

[03:00:01]

YOUR HOME IS WORTH, THE MORE TECHNICAL TAXES YOU PAY AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. WE STARTED TO REALIZE THAT WHILE WE WERE BUILDING THAT INFLATION AND, WE WERE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR OTHER THINGS AND IT MADE SENSE, WE ARE NOT DROPPING THE TAX RATE WHICH IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD'VE BEEN DOING BUT WE DECIDED TO EQUALIZE IT. THE SAME TAX RATE SO THAT WAY, YOU'RE LOOKING AT, I KNOW IT IS NOT REAL. THIS IS A TOOL TO HELP ALL FIGURE THINGS OUT TO

BE ABLE TO COMPARE. >> THANK YOU. I AM GOING TO MISS IT BECAUSE THE VALUE OF THE HOMES --

>> IF THE VALUE OF THE HOME WENT UP AND I KEPT THE TAX RATE THE SAME , TAXES GO UP. THAT IS NOT ACTUALLY THE RIGHT WAY TO SHOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO SHOW YOU GUYS. SO WE JUST LEVEL IT OUT AND WE LEFT THE 8% ON THE CHART AND WE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN IT OFF.

>> THAT WAS CONFUSING WITH 8% . REVENUE SHOULD NOT BE INVOLVED

IN THIS . >> WE ARE DOING NO TAX CUTS.

>> THAT IS A HOW DO YOU FUND THINGS? HOW DO YOU DO A CIP? NO ONE IS TRYING TO BUILD A CIP OFF OF MONEY REVENUE. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO FOR MY PERSPECTIVE IS THERE IS NO WAY IN HELL

INAUDIBLE ]. >> NO. NO ONE WOULD EVER DO THAT

. >> WHAT IS THE STUMP -- THE

STOMACH PEOPLE CAN HANDLE? >> THAYER NUMBER, MAYOR. THEY

ARE NUMBER. >> IT ALWAYS STARTS OFF AT ZERO

UNTIL WE DISCUSS IT. >> THAT IS YOUR DIRECTION TO PNZ

? >> AND I HAD A RECOMMENDATION TO PNZ, TELL ME WHAT ORDER YOU WANT THE STUFF DONE. DO NOT TALK

ABOUT THE COST. >> I FEEL COMPELLED TO POINT OUT IN 2027, THE BULK OF THAT TAX RATE IMPACT IS FOR FACILITIES TO GET VOTERS TO APPROVE. SO IF YOU DO NOT AUTHORIZE THAT OR DO NOT CALL THAT BOAT, YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT ABOUT SEVEN OR SOMETHING PERCENT. IF YOU TAKE THAT $18 OUT, YOU ARE LEFT WITH EIGHT DOLLARS FOR THAT IS THREE FORCE FOR ABOUT 7% .

>> I AGREE BUT I ALSO KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE.

THEN THEY FREAK OUT THAT THEY ARE BUILDING. I DO NOT KNOW HOW THAT WORKS IN PEOPLE'S MINDS THAT I THINK THAT MIGHT BE A DISCUSSION OR WE CAN TAKE THOSE OUT AND HAVE SEPARATE LINES FOR

THE CAPITAL ITEMS. >> WHAT I'M SAYING IS -- IT BACK BUT THE VOTER APPROVED THAT .

>> CALL TO THE NUMBER THEY DO NOT GO ABOVE 7%, WE ARE NOT GOING TO PUT THE FACILITIES IN THAT CALCULATION BECAUSE THEY WILL POP 8% THE MATTER WERE WE PUT THEM. OKAY.

>> PLEASE CALL THE BOAT . >> JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON IS TO APPROVE IT TONIGHT , BUT IT IS STILL GOING TO COME BACK? WE WILL DIG INTO IT IN JUNE. AND THAT WILL GIVE US A GOOD COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO THROUGH THIS, DIGEST WHAT YOU

HAVE GIVEN US, RIGHT ? >> I THINK THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED AND --

>> YOU CAN BRING IT BACK NEXT WEEK.

>> OKAY. I DO NOT WANT TO GIVE THE IMPRESSION IF I VOTE YES THAT I AM SAYING I'M GOOD TO GO ON THIS AND WASH MY HANDS AND I DO NOT HAVE TO LOOK AT THIS IN FIVE YEARS.

TO LOOK AT IT AGAIN. I ALSO WANT TO DIGEST THIS BUT I ALSO WANT TO LOOK. WE HAVE THE PNZ COMMENTS I HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH. I'M GUESSING THIS IS FOR PARKS STUFF. THERE IS A LOT OF STUFF WHEN YOU GO THROUGH JUST TO DOUBLE CHECK. YEAH. I STILL WANT TO LOOK AT THIS . LET'S GIVE US A COUPLE MONTH TO DIGEST IT AND GO THROUGH AND FIGURE IT OUT. THAT'S WHAT I

WANT . >> SOME FINAL COMMENTS. THIS IS KIND OF CONFIRMING THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN DONE BY OUR CITY ENGINEER AND THROUGH THE CIP SATURDAY WORKSHOP AT THE COUNCIL WORKED ON AS WELL. IT IS NOT SOLIDIFYING IN SETTING A MOTION INTO ANYTHING BUT IT IS CREATING A FRAMEWORK TO A DIRECTION FORWARD. WE WILL ABSOLUTELY BE ADDRESSING THIS , YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE. THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.

>> LET ME CLARIFY THE MOTION TO SAY IT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT .

STAFF COMING BACK NO LATER THAN JUNE.

>> IS THAT OKAY WITH YOU GUYS? >> MAKE THE MOTION .

>> THAT IS WHAT YOU SAID WOULD HAPPEN. IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, IT WILL BE TAKEN TO PNZ ANYWAY AND THEN BRING IT BACK IN

JUNE. I GUESS FOR -- >> SO EVERY SUMMER, WE BRING IT TO YOU GUYS . AND THEN HAVING A SATURDAY WORK SESSION TO GO

[03:05:08]

THROUGH JUST THE CIP AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS .

>> HONESTLY, THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE A FORMALITY.

>> I JUST HAVE ONE LAST STATEMENT BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE.

SORRY. >> WE COULD'VE GOTTEN THIS THING REARRANGED IN THE TIME IT HAS TAKEN US TO DECIDE.

>> I'M JUST SAYING THAT FOR PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FREAK OUT THING 2029, 128% TAX INCREASE . THE REASON THAT IF THERE IS BECAUSE WE ARE USING THAT TO PART . BECAUSE THE LEGISLATORS REQUIRED TO GET TIPS AND IMPACT FEES AND STUFF BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE STUFF LISTED ON YOUR CIP BUT ESSENTIALLY, IT IS A FIVE-YEAR CIP. BY PARKING IT IN THE LAST YEAR, WE PARK IT THERE SO WE CAN COLLECT FEES FOR THE PLANNED PROJECTS , AND THEN IT WILL GET SHIFTED OUT AS WE GET CLOSER TO 2028-31. THAT IS NOT A REAL NUMBER. THAT IS JUST TOO LEGISLATIVELY FOR US TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR TRACKING WATER IMPACT FEES -- FEES THAT I WANTED TO SAY THAT FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> MOTION PASSES 4-2. THE NEXT ITEM , 30 POINT TUBE

[13.2. Consideration and approval of modifications to the City of Hutto Strategic Plan. (David Amsler) ]

RECONSIDERATION APPROVAL OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE CITY OF

HUTTO STRATEGIC PLAN. >> THANK YOU, MATT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. DAVID AMSLER FOR THE RECORD FOR THE ENEMY FOR YOU TONIGHT IS A REVISION AND SITE MIGHT OF OCCASIONS TO THE CURRENT CITY OF HUTTO STRATEGIC PLAN BASED OFF OF WORK SESSIONS THAT WERE FACILITATED ON FEBRUARY 8 , 2025, AS WELL AS A FOLLOW-UP WORK SESSION TO PLACE ON EVERY 20, 2025. FOR THE PUBLIC ABOUT THIS INFORMATION, THE PURPOSE OF THE STRATEGIC PLAN IS TO SET GUARDRAILS AND GUIDING POSTS FOR CITY STAFF TO LOOK AT THE STRATEGIC OBJECTIVES THE CITY COUNCIL IS SETTING OUT , AND HELP US BUILD OUR BUDGETS TO DEPARTMENTAL GOALS. IN AND FOR US TO BUILD OUR KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS BASED OFF OF THOSE DEPARTMENTAL GOALS TO SEE IF OUR GOALS ARE SUCCESSFUL. AND NOW I WILL USE THIS NEW TOOL.

THE PAGE THAT I AM PRESENTING RIGHT NOW IS THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF ALL THE STRATEGIC PILLARS AND OBJECTIVES. SOME KEYNOTES TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WERE CHANGED IS IN PILLAR ONE, COLLABORATE FOR OPERATIONAL EXCELLENCE AND EFFICIENCY. THREE THIS WORDING TO ALL THE OBJECTIVES LEAD STAFF TO FOCUS INTERNALLY AND NOT HAVE AS MANY DEPARTMENTAL GOALS FOCUSED ON EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS. THERE WAS CONSENSUS AMONG THE CITY COUNCIL THAT THESE SHOULD WORD AND FOCUS ALSO ON EXTERNAL PARTNERSHIPS .

SO ALL OF THE OBJECTIVES HAVE ADDED A SECTION FOR THAT.

ANOTHER KEYNOTE IS UNDER PILLAR TWO, MAINTAIN FINANCIAL STABILITY. THERE WAS A CONSENSUS THAT THE RESERVE FUND , WHILE 20% IS A GOOD NUMBER, THERE SHOULD BE AN ASPIRATIONAL GOAL TO GET THAT RESERVE FUND TO 25%.

>> I PLACED A DATE HERE SO THAT WOULD HELP STAFF KNOW HOW QUICKLY THEY NEED TO MOVE ON IT . OBVIOUSLY, THAT WOULD BE UP FOR DISCUSSION BY THE COUNCIL. IN OBJECTIVE THREE, OR PILLAR THREE, THAT IS TO GROW RESPONSIBILITY AND SUSTAINABILITY. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CLEAR OBJECTIVES HIGHLIGHTING WATER SPECIFICALLY. THERE HAS BEEN AN OBJECTIVE ADDED TO ENHANCE WATER SUSTAINABILITY BY COLLABORATING WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS TO SECURE RESOURCES, EDUCATE THE PUBLIC, AND ESTABLISH A LONG-TERM CONSERVATION STRATEGY.

AND IN PILLAR FOUR, CREATE THE HIGHEST QUALITY OF LIFE. THERE

[03:10:04]

ARE TWO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT. THE FIRST ONE IS 4A BIT PREVIOUSLY, THAT WORDED AS WE NEED TO WORK ON A JUSTICE CENTER AND IT NEEDS TO INCLUDE EMERGENCY OPERATIONS CENTER. THAT IS PARAPHRASING, BUT THAT IS WHAT THE OBJECTIVE AMOUNTED TO. THE NEW OBJECTIVE HIGHLIGHTS ALL OF THE CITY FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED AT COUNCIL.

PRIORITIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS IMPROVEMENTS AND PHASES. AND THEN SETTING A DATE TO THE JUSTICE CENTER. THAT IS THE OTHER ITEM I BELIEVE THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THOUGHTS ON BY 2028.

AND THAT INCLUDING SOME LANGUAGE THAT STATES WE ARE THINKING ABOUT THE LIBRARY AND PARK FACILITIES, BUT NOT HYBRIDIZING THEM BEFORE PUBLIC WORKS IN THE JUSTICE CENTER. AS WELL AS A COMPLETE REPHRASED OF OBJECTIVE 4C PRINT THAT STATES DELIVER RELIABLE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS , RESPONSE, RECOVERY, CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES TO MEET COMMUNITY NEEDS WHILE PROVIDING TIMELY UPDATES TO KEEP RESIDENTS INFORMED AND ENGAGED. WITH THAT, THOSE ARE ALL THE MAJOR CHANGES. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY ACTION FROM COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU, SIR . QUESTIONS OR ACTIONS FROM COUNCIL?

>> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> ANYMORE DISCUSSION? HEARING

ON, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >>

>> THE MOTION PASSES 6-0. >> GREAT JOB, DAVID FOR 10

[13.3. Discussion and possible action related to the release of the letter from the City of Hutto to the ESD regarding the sharing of sales tax. (Mayor Snyder) ]

MINUTES. >> THAT IS NOT BAD FOR MATT.

>> DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO THE RELEASE OF THE LETTER FROM THE CITY OF HUTTO TO THE ESD REGARDING THE SALES OF -- THE SHARING OF SALES TAX. INFORMATION TO RELEASE THE

LETTER. >> SECOND.

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

VOTE. >> I'M SORRY, WAS THE SECOND ?

>> MAYOR, CAN WE BRING BACK UP 11.10 ?

>> WILL THE PROCESS BE OF RELEASING IT TO THE PUBLIC? WOULD WE POST IT ON THE CITY COUNCIL PAGE SOMEWHERE? HOW WILL

WE DO THAT? >> WHAT DO YOU WANT? FACEBOOK?

>> I JUST POST IN THE MORNING. WE CAN MAKE A MOTION ON HOW TO DO IT BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO PUT IT ON THE

[11.10 Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-077 authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended and Restated Wastewater Pump and Haul Agreement with Lennar Homes of Texas Land and Construction, Ltd. governing pump and haul wastewater service for a residential community known as Winfield Park. (Sara Cervantes) ]

COUNCIL PAGE WITH THE OTHER DOCUMENTS. CAN YOU MANAGE THAT? THAT WE WE HAVE A CENTRAL LOCATION. OKAY. THANK YOU.

IF NO OBJECTIONS, ITEM 11.10, BRINGING THAT BACK. HEARING NONE , CONSIDERATION AND -- AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE FIRST AMENDED AND RESTATED WASTEWATER PUMP AND HOLLER AGREEMENT WITH LENNAR HOMES OF TEXAS LAND AND

CONSTRUCTION -- >> FOR THE RECORD. GOING INTO THIS MEETING, WE HAD A PARTIALLY EXECUTED VERSION OF THIS DOCUMENT BUT I WAS OUT OF TOWN QUITE A . FOR THE PAST WEEK FOR FAMILY MATTERS. AN UPDATED DOCUMENT WAS AGREED UPON FOR THE NEW DOCUMENT WAS CIRCULATED TO COUNCIL VIA EMAIL THIS MORNING.

THE BIG CHANGE WAS THE ADDITION OF A COMPLETION DATE WHICH ESSENTIALLY DRIVES DEVELOPER TO COMPLETE THE WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT. AGAINST BOTH THE CITY CERTAINTY OF IF AND WHEN WE NEED TO TAKE OVER THAT PROJECT. IT ALSO GIVES OTHER DEVELOPERS ARE LOOKING FOR THAT LINE TO BE COMPLETED CERTAINLY IN THEIR OWN TIMELINES AS THEY PROGRESS FORWARD. AS THE CHANGE THAT WAS MADE AND I THINK THAT IS WHY IT WAS PULLED FROM CONSENT SO YOU ARE AWARE OF EVERYTHING. I MAY ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THEY ARE AGREEABLE? >> WE HAVE A PARTIALLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT THAT WAS SENT VIA EMAIL WITH THE CITY SECRETARY READY TO BE EXECUTED ON OUR END.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAKE A MOTION THROUGH APPROVE

-- AS PRESENTED. >> MOVED BY COUNCILMEMBER CLARK

[03:15:10]

AND A SECOND BY -- ANY DISCUSSION? IS THIS

]? >> THIS IS THE LINE THEY WERE CONCERNED WOULD NOT GET IN TIME. THE 42 INCH? YEAH.

>> AND THEY ARE BUILDING TO WHAT POINT?

>> TO SERVE FOR -- THIS IS ONE THAT GOES DOWN TO THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY ACROSS 79 UNDER THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

>> SO BUILDING ALL THE WAY DOWN AND ACROSS?

>> CORRECT . >> THIS IS ALSO THE ONE, IF YOU RECALL, THE COUNCIL ASKED FOR THE CITY TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SELF-SERVICE TODAY, LENNAR, NOT GET IT BUILT. COTTONWOOD RELIES

ON THIS SEWER SERVICE LINE. >> WHAT DID I SAY?

>> SELF-SERVICE. I NEED SOME SELF-HELP. THIS IS THAT ONE.

THAT IS WHY WE ASKED WHEN THE AGREEMENT CAME THROUGH, OKAY, YOU NEED TO PUT IN THE ACTUAL DATE WHEN YOU WILL HAVE IT DONE.

Y'ALL CAN TELL THEY ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION OUT THERE. YOU CAN SEE TRENCHING AND DIRT AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF GOING ON. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DATE AND THAT IS WHY WE

ASKED FOR IT TO BE PULLED. >> WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE

INAUDIBLE ]? >> THEY ARE.

>> ACTUALLY, MATT UPDATED THIS EARLIER BUT I CAN GET IT, MATT, BECAUSE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE GONE. GOODBYE. WE HAVE ALL THE APPROVALS THAT ALL THAT IS, THEY HAVE TO GET THE -- INSPECTORS.

TO AGREE. THAT IS WHERE THEY ARE AT RIGHT NOW. KIND OF COMMENTS

WITH THE UPR INSPECTORS. >> OKAY. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

[13.4 Discussion and possible action regarding the letter agreement and parking associated with the downtown property where Kozy Cannabis is located. (Councilmember Randal Clark/Mayor Mike Snyder) (Part 1 of 2)]

ITEM 13 POINT FOR REGARDING THE LETTER AGREEMENT AND PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THE DOWNTOWN PROPERTY WHERE KOZY CANNABIS IS LOCATED. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO -- TWO PARKING SPOTS . PER THE AGREEMENT THAT WAS RATIFY AND REAFFIRM? THE PREVIOUS LETTER AGREEMENT?

>> I WILL PUT ON MY ATTORNEY HAD AND SAY YES.

HE IS LOOKING IT UP AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT MAKES IT NO PARKING US FOR TO BE ABLE TO

ENFORCE IT. >> I DO NOT FEEL CLARIFIED THAT THERE WERE VARIOUS PROVISIONS IN THAT PRIOR LETTER. SO IN YOUR MOTION, YOU ARE JUST APPROVING THE TWO DESIGNATED PARKING

SPOTS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I AM -- THE OTHER STIPULATIONS ARE IN THERE WILL STILL BE IN THE PLAT .

>> WE MAY NEED TO GO TO EXACT ON THIS ITEM COULD HAVE SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS PROVIDED ON THE MEMO THAT WAS GIVEN TO COUNCIL.

>> COULD HELP PROVIDE , I MEAN WE HAVE GOTTEN THE MEMO, BUT I

GUESS JUST MORE ? >> SO ARE YOU LOOKING FOR AN

ANSWER? >> YEAH.

>> I AM DONE. WELL, THE RATIFICATION THAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THE WORDS ARE RIGHT. RATIFY?

>> YOU CAN CERTAINLY RATIFY THE PRIOR LETTER. THAT WOULD WORK, YES. TO MAKE A MOTION TO RATIFY THAT LETTER AND APPROVE IT FROM CITY COUNCIL. OKAY, REGARDING GOING INTO EXECUTIVE, COUNCIL

ALWAYS HAS THE OPPORTUNITY . >> OKAY, YES. SO THE ISSUE FOR ME IS -- A LOT OF OUR DEALS, WE OTHER RATIFY OR REAFFIRM . WE TERMINATED THEM OR MADE THEM NULL AND VOID. IN TO THE ONES THAT INVOLVED MONEY, WE MADE NULL AND VOID, OR WE AMENDED THEM SO, NOW THE AGREEMENT THE CITY MANAGER MADE, WE HAD TO PAY DEVELOPERS MONEY OR THEY DID NOT HAVE TO PAY US MONEY. THIS IS AN AGREEMENT THAT, GOING BACK THROUGH IT ALL, WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR NOT , WE TOOK TWO PARKING SPOTS FROM THAT LANDOWNER. PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS MONEY AND GETTING TWO OTHER PARKING SPOTS BACK. IN MY MIND, THAT DOES NOT COST THE CITY ANY MONEY AND THAT WAS THE DEAL THAT WAS MADE. SO THAT IS WHY I DON'T