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.]

NEXT, WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM 8.1. CONSIDERATION AND 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. >> MET AGAIN THIS WEEK. THANK YOU TO DAN THORNTON, PETER GORDON, FOR THEIR HELP WITH THIS. WE HAVE AN APPOINTMENT FOR ZBA. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THESE THREE INDIVIDUALS. ROSE LUANA FOR THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION. BRIAN KENARD FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, AND KEITH BURRIS FOR THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.

>> SECOND. >> THAT IS ROSA FOR ETHICS, WHAT

WAS THE THIRD ONE? >> KEITH BURRIS. AND KENNARD.

>> YES, SIR. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KING. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK THE NOMINATING COMMITTEE AND OBVIOUSLY THE CITY COUNCIL ITSELF, MOST IMPORTANTLY, ALL THE PEOPLE VOLUNTEERING AND STEPPING UP TO THE PLATE, EVEN SOME OF THESE INTERVIEWEES CAME A YEAR AGO OR SIX MONTHS AGO, MAYBE THINGS DIDN'T TURN OUT, BUT THEY ARE STILL STEPPING BACK UP. WE DO ENJOY THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT AND RESPECT THAT A GREAT DEAL. I DO WANT TO UPDATE THAT RIGHT NOW, THE ETHICS REVIEW COMMISSION HAS ZERO VACANCIES, INCLUDING THESE APPOINTMENTS. ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, WE HAVE ONE VACANCY AND THREE ALTERNATE VACANCIES.

AND THE DIB IS ZERO VACANCIES. THE ADVISORY BOARD IS ZERO VACANCIES. WE HAVE ONE VACANCY, EACH FOR THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS AND ALSO THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE. WE HAVE ONE THERE. SO, PLEASE CONTINUE TO VOLUNTEER AND WE'LL GET TO YOU AND GET YOU TO INTERVIEW US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. I HAVE NO

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

OTHER UPDATES. >> ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO ON TO 8.2. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS OR UPDATES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES. ISD HAS NOT MET SINCE OUR LAST MEETING. PUBLIC SAFETY MEETS TOMORROW. WAS GOING TO MEET TOMORROW, I THINK IT'S BEEN PUSHED. WE HAVE NOT MET. ARE THERE OTHER ONES?

>> ON THE UPDATE, APOLOGIES FOR THE DELAY IN THAT. MY GOAL IS, I BELIEVE THE GOAL IS TO GET THIS ON THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. IT IS 700 AND SOMETHING PAGES. WE NEED TO REVIEW, DOT I'S AND CROSS T'S AND MAKE SURE THIS TYPO ERROR WAS CHANGED. IT IS TEDIOUS IS GOING THROUGH 700 PAGES. WE DON'T HAVE TO MEET, YOU KNOW, AND ALL GET TOGETHER. WE ALL REVIEWED IT TOGETHER. EACH ONE OF US ARE JUST DIVIDING THE SEVEN OR EIGHT CHAPTERS. I HAVE MORE FREE TIME, I WILL SPEND MORE TIME ON IT THIS WEEKEND AND NEXT. BUT THE GOAL IS TO GET IT ON THE NEXT AGENDA AND GET THIS THING COMPLETE. I'M SURE YOU'LL

[9.1. Downtown Hutto Business Association quarterly update and possible action (Gracie Matthews)]

BE HAPPY, BUT FRUSTRATED. THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM, 9.1, DOWNTOWN HUTTO BUSINESS

[00:15:07]

ASSOCIATION QUARTERLY UPDATE AND POSSIBLE ACTION.

>> GET TO GO SO EARLY TODAY. GOOD EVENING. GRACIE MATTHEWS, FOR THE RECORD, REPRESENTING DOWNTOWN HUTTO BUSINESS ASSOCIATION FOR UPDATE. 2025 LOOKBACK, IT HAS BEEN A WHIRLWIND OF SEVEN MONTHS. I THINK I'M SO PROUD OF THIS ORGANIZATION. WHAT THEY'VE DONE. PUTTING THEIR DIFFERENCES ASIDE, COMING TOGETHER TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THESE ITEMS. SOME HIGH LEVEL ITEMS THAT WE DID WERE DEFINING WHAT IS THE DOWNTOWN. WE DEFINE IT AS EAST OF CO-OP, AND WE CREATED BYLAWS, REGISTRATION IS PENDING FOR NONPROFIT. WE HAVE SOCIAL MEDIA.

WE ARE UP TO 30 MEMBERS. EIGHT BOARD DIRECTORS, FOUR STAFF. AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE WORKED ON GETTING THE ORDINANCES AND THE GRANTS TOGETHER. WE HAVE THREE SOLID COMMITTEES. EXECUTIVE COMMITTEES JOB IS TO MAKE SURE WE ACT AS A POINT OF CONTACT FOR ALL THINGS DOWNTOWN. THE EVENTS COMMITTEE, THEY ARE FOCUSED ON REVITALIZING, BRINGING MORE FOOT TRAFFIC, ACTING AS A HUB. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, FINDING FUNDING SOLUTIONS, WHETHER THAT'S IN THE CITY OR OUTSIDE THE CITY. I THOUGHT HARD ABOUT HOW TO ACCURATELY RELAY THE FEEDBACK FROM THE DHBA MEMBERS THEMSELVES, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT. FOCUSING ON HOW DO WE STAY ON TRACK? HOW DO WE STAY ON OUR MISSION? PLEASE SKIM THROUGH ALL OF THESE BUSINESS OWNERS PART OF THE MEMBERSHIP. I THINK SOME OF THE COMMON THREATS WE HAVE HERE ARE, YOU KNOW, BEFORE WE WERE VERY DIVIDED, BUT TODAY, WE ARE UNITED. WE GO TOWARD COMMON GOALS OF REALLY BRINGING BUSINESS AND COMMERCE BACK DOWNTOWN. YOU KNOW, THIS IS MOSTLY VOICES OF THE TENANTS AND THE BUSINESSES, WHICH IS MORE EVENT COMMITTEE FOCUSED. AND I HOPE TO HAVE MORE VOICES FROM BUILDING OWNERS AND PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE FUTURE. LOOKING AHEAD AT 2026. SO, WE HAVE NEXT SATURDAY IS A SHOP SMALL SATURDAY, WITH TREE LIGHTING, COCOA AND CAROLS, THIS IS OUR FIRST JOINT EVENT WITH THE CITY.

PARKS AND REC HAS BEEN SUPPORTIVE WORKING WITH US.

WORKING THROUGH PERMITS AND EVERYTHING. DECEMBER 13, IS THE CRAWL, AND NEXT YEAR IS 150 YEAR ANNIVERSARY. SO I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF ACTIVITIES FOR THAT. THE MAIN ASK TODAY IS THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE. THE FINANCE COMMITTEE. WE IDENTIFIED THESE THREE ORDINANCES THAT IS LIVE AND THEY ARE ACTIVATED WITHIN THE CITY OF HUTTO. WE ARE SEEKING A CLEAR DIRECTION FORWARD OF HOW WE ACCESS AND APPLY FOR THESE INCENTIVES.

PROPERTY TAX REBATE POLICY, TAX FREEZE PROGRAM FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTIES, AND FACADE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAMS. THESE BUILDS HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED IN DECADES. IT'S ALL GOOD AND FUN TO DO EVENTS DOWNTOWN, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE, IT'S NOT GOING BE SUSTAINABLE. ALSO SOME OF THE EDC PERFORMANCE GRANTS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES, NEW BUSINESSES LOOKING TO LOCATE TO DOWNTOWN HUTTO. AND THEN POLICE SECURITY BUDGET FOR DOWNTOWN EVENTS. SO, THE CURRENT STATUS THAT I CHECKED WITH CHENEY, IT WILL COME TO COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 4, FOR POLICY AND PROCEDURE. BUT I THINK THIS GOT APPROVED IN OCTOBER. WE ARE MIDDLE OF NOVEMBER. ALREADY INTO THE FISCAL YEAR. WE ARE ASKING FOR A CLEAR PATH FORWARD OF HOW WE ACCESS THESE INCENTIVES AND GRANTS THAT WE HAVE SECURED. WE ARE GOING TO BE JOINING THE TEXAS DOWNTOWN AS NONPROFIT MEMBER REGISTRATION. THAT WILL GET US TEN MEMBERSHIPS, SO WE CAN NETWORK WITH OTHER DOWNTOWN CITIES THROUGHOUT TEXAS.

THERE'S OTHER GRANT PROGRAMS THERE. I KNOW THE CITY IS LIMITED WITH BUDGETS, SO NEXT YEAR, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE WANT TO FOCUS ON WHAT ARE SOME OTHER RESOURCES THAT WE CAN TAP INTO. A LOT OF THESE DATES ARE COMING UPON US, SO WE PROBABLY WON'T BE APPLYING FOR THE ACTUAL INFRASTRUCTURE GRANTS. I THINK A LOT OF SOFT COSTS, THE ARCHITECTS, ALL OF THOSE FEES, WE CAN SPLIT UP BETWEEN THE EDA, AND TEX DOT. YOU WILL BE HEARING

[00:20:05]

QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE ONE. SORRY. GO AHEAD.

SO BACK ON THOSE THREE ORDINANCES THAT YOU FOUND, ARE THOSE ORDINANCES THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN PLACE? THEY ARE JUST QUESTIONS ON HOW THEY APPLY TO YOU OR ORDINANCES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN INSTALLED THAT NEED TO BE INTO EFFECT?

>> THEY ARE IN EFFECT. THEY NEED TO BE REWRITTEN.

>> OH, I SEE. OKAY. >> THE CRITERIA FOR HOW IT GETS DONE IS NOT ACHIEVABLE TODAY'S PROCESS. YOU PROBABLY WANT TO PUT SOME CRITERIA ON WHO CAN APPLY, SO IN THE PAST, IT WAS SO LOOSE THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME RESIDENTIAL HOUSE GOT A BRAND-NEW ROOF THROUGH THIS GRANT, RIGHT? HOW DO WE MAKE IT SO IT GOES IN ALIGNMENT WITH OUR MISSION OF REVITALIZING AND REHABILITATING DOWNTOWN. BUILDINGS ARE REGISTERED IN THE DISTRICT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. A LITTLE MORE CRITERIA AND STANDARDIZATION IS WHAT WE'RE SEEKING.

>> AND ARE YOU ASKING TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT? I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS WHAT YOUR ASK WAS, IS TO HAVE MAYBE A MEMBER OR TWO OF COUNCIL, STAFF, AND THEN PEOPLE FROM DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION TO KIND OF WORK TOGETHER TO HAVE A

PROPOSAL? IS THAT YOUR VISION? >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA. HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS ENTIRE PROCESS OF REHABILITATING A BUILDING DOWNTOWN, I THINK THAT MAY BE VALUABLE FOR YOU GUYS TO MAYBE LISTEN TO SOME OF THE INPUT. WHATEVER THE CASE, WE JUST WANT TO START IT, KICK OFF SOMETHING SO WE CAN TELL ALL THE PEOPLE THIS IS AVAILABLE. WE JUST DON'T HAVE A CLEAR PATH

FORWARD. >> OKAY, THANKS. I FOUND THEM ON

THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. THANKS. >> GRACIE, ARE WE GOOD WITH THE PARKING PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED THREE OR FOUR MONTHS AGO? NOT THAT YOU GUYS SAY YES OR NO AND THAT STOPS US, IF WE START IMPLEMENTING THAT AT THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, HAVE YOU GUYS

TALKED ABOUT THAT ON YOUR END? >> NO, THAT TOOK A PAUSE, SO I THINK WE NEED TO PICK THAT UP. I DON'T THINK WE EVER CAME TO A CONCLUSION OF YES, NO, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE WAY STREET? SO YOU CAN HAVE ANGLE PARKING? I DON'T THINK WE CAME TO CONCLUSIONS. I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH MATT ON THAT.

>> AND THE OTHER THING. I KNOW YOU HAD THE MEETING, WHAT'S TODAY? THURSDAY? THIS WEEK OR LAST WEEK. I CAN'T REMEMBER.

>> TUESDAY, THIS TUESDAY. >> OKAY, IT GOES BY QUICK. I WAS COMMUNICATING THAT OUT AND I JUST WANT TO HAVE YOU VERIFY FOR EVERYBODY. THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT MAYBE IF WE RELY ON YOUR INPUT TOO MUCH, THERE'S POTENTIAL THAT WE'LL GO AROUND OR DO AWAY WITH THE HPC. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ARE GOING FOR, YOU PERSONALLY DONE WITH ONE OF YOUR BUILDINGS IS TAKE A NONCONFORMING BUILDING, BRING IT BACK TO HISTORICAL STANDARDS, AND REGISTER IT. THERE'S NO TALK ABOUT TRYING TO GO AROUND HBC, IT'S ACTUALLY OPPOSITE OF

THAT, RIGHT? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. I MEAN, OUR MISSION STATEMENT IS REHABILITATING, RIGHT? THE DOWNTOWN. THAT WAS -- THESE ARE THE THREE COMMITTEES, BUT BACK IN APRIL, THAT'S WHAT MADE ME GET INVOLVED, REHABILITATING THE DOWNTOWN. SO YES, MY BUILDING WAS KICKED OFF THE REGISTRY, WORKED WITH TEXAS AND WASHINGTON, D.C. TO GET IT BACK REGISTERED FOR THAT. SO PRESERVING THOSE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING. WORKING WITH A DEVELOPMENT TEAM FOR COMPLIANCE, RIGHT? FOR THE DOWNTOWN CODES. SO, NO DESIRE TO CHANGE THAT, IF ANYTHING, WE'RE SCARED OF WHAT THE NEW CODE IS GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING. IF THE NEW CODE IS GOING TO ALLOW FOR TALLER BUILDINGS AND MORE MODERN BUILDINGS THAT ARE NOT HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE. WE'RE THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, YOU KNOW? I'VE STUDIED THE HBC, STUDIED THE CODES, AND WE WANT TO RESTORE IT. NOT TEAR DOWN. THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.

>> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT, THANKS. WE HAVE SOME STUFF COME UP. I THINK YOU SAID THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER, THEY'LL START HITTING THOSE ORDINANCES.

>> I'LL SEE YOU IN Q1. >> ALL RIGHT. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR CITY MANAGER.

>> YES. >> FOR THIS DECEMBER 4 AGENDA ITEM, IS THERE -- NOT THAT THERE SHOULD BE. IS THERE ANY STAFF

[00:25:04]

DIRECTIVE NOW TO START LOOKING AT THOSE ORDINANCES AND ARE YOU

WAITING FOR COUNCIL DIRECTION? >> NO, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, SO CHENEY AND EMILY, THEY ARE RIGHT IN THE CENTRE OF ALL THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 11.1 THROUGH 11.12.

>> 10.1, ARE WE DOING THAT ONE? >> SORRY. ALWAYS TRYING TO PUSH

[10.1. Conduct a Public hearing and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2025-050 designating a geographic area within the City of Hutto as a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone pursuant to Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code, to be known as the SH-130 Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone, ("TIRZ 4"): creating a board of directors; and establishing a Tax Increment Fund (TIF) for the zone. (Cheney Gamboa)]

US ALONG. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 10.1. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 0-2025-050, DESIGNATING A GEOGRAPHIC AREA WITHIN THE CITY OF HUTTO AS A TAX INCRIMINATE REINVESTMENT ZONE PURSUANT CHAPTER 311 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE, TO BE KNOWN AS THE SH-130 TAX INCRIMINATE REINVESTMENT.

>> THANK YOU. WE HAVE WITH US HERE TONIGHT, TRAVIS JAMES FROM TXP, WHO IS THE CONSULTANT CREATING THIS IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. I'M GOING TO LET HIM GO THROUGH HIS PRESENTATION AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE SOMETHING WE NEED TO STATE FROM LEGAL ALSO, REGARDING THE 12-4 PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WE POSTED FOR TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS IN THE NEWSPAPER. THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, WE'RE JUST WANTING THE COUNCIL TO VERIFY THE BOUNDARIES, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW IF THE MAP THAT IS BEING PRESENTED IS IS THE MAP THAT COUNCIL WANTS TO ADOPT.

GIVE US AN INPUT ON WHO YOU WOULD LIKE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO BE AND WE'LL BRING THE FINAL ORDINANCE BACK. ALSO, THERE'S GOING BE A PRESENTATION ON THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN AND THERE COULD BE SOME COUNCIL CHANGES TO THAT, TOO.

>> OKAY. THANKS. >> GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY AGAIN.

TRAVIS JAMES WITH TXP. HERE'S A SLIDE. I'M DRIVING. I HAVE TO HIT NEXT. SO, AGAIN, IT'S GOOD TO SEE SOME OF YOU AGAIN. I HELPED YOU PUT IN THE MEGATOURIST, AND NOW NUMBER FOUR. THE TOOL FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR A SPECIFIC IMPROVEMENTS IN A ZONE. THERE'S A LOT OF THESE ACROSS THE STATE. YOU HAVE THREE OF THEM. MANY CITIES AND COUNTIES HAVE THEM. THERE'S NOT AN INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAXES.

THAT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT TO REMIND FOLKS. IT'S JUST DEDICATING A PERCENTAGE OF FUTURE GROWTH IN THE ZONE TO PAY FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THAT ZONE. ALL OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE GOING TO BE OUTLINED IN YOUR FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN.

THAT'S NOT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF YOU OR WHAT HAS BEEN PUT IN THE PACKET. YO U HAVE THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CREATED AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE TIRZ. WE HAVE COME BACK. I'LL GO OVER THAT TIME LINE BRIEFLY IN A SECOND. OBVIOUSLY, THE TOOLS USED TO CONSTRUCT NEEDED PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU ENCOURAGE NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE ZONE. YOU HELP OFFSET SOME OF THOSE PUBLIC SECTOR COSTS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY DEVELOPERS. LOTS OF THINGS YOU CAN DO. THEY ARE ALL OUTLINED IN STATE LAW. THIS IS A LIST OF THE TOP THINGS THAT MOST CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT CREATE A TIRZ. BUILDING FACADES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANTS.

LOTS OF THINGS YOU CAN DO WITH THIS TOOL, AGAIN, YOU IDENTIFY WHAT YOU WANT TO BE ELIGIBLE IN THAT FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN. YOU ALL KNOW HOW THIS WORKS, BUT FOR FOLKS WHO HAVEN'T SEEN THIS BEFORE, QUICK LITTLE GRAPHIC. YOU HAVE A BASE VALUE. SO ALL THE REVENUE YOU'RE COLLECTING OFF THE BASE VALUE, YOU CONTINUE TO COLLECT. YOU WOULD DEDICATE A PORTION, SOME OR ALL OF THE FUTURE REVENUE TO THIS ACCOUNT. IN THIS SIMPLE EXAMPLE, YOUR TAX RATE IS NOT 25 CENTS. IF YOU HAD A BASE RATE OF 1 MILLION. THAT WOULD CREATE $2500 A YEAR IN PROPERTY TAX.

THAT'S OFF THE BASE VALUE. YOU SEE IN THE TOP, THAT CONTINUES TO GO TO YOUR GENERAL FUND AS IF THE TIRZ NEVER EXISTED. IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL $4 MILLION OF GROWTH.

THE ORIGINAL $2500 THAT IS GENERATED OFF THAT $1 MILLION GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND. THAT ADDITIONAL $4 MILLION IN VALUE CREATES $10,000. AND MY SIMPLE EXAMPLE, WE'RE SPLITTING IT 50/50. YOU SEE THE $2500, THE BASE VALUE. 50% OF THE NEW GROWTH. $5,000 TO THE GENERAL FUND GETS $7500 IN THIS YEAR.

AND THE TIRZ ACCOUNT WOULD GET $5,000. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? YOU CAN RAISE OR LOWER. IT'S UP TO YOU TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO. YOU CAN CHANGE THAT IN THE FUTURE. IT GETS A LITTLE BIT TRICKY IF YOU HAVE BONDS, IF YOU ISSUE DEBT. BUT IN GENERAL, YOU HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY, OBVIOUSLY LEGAL KNOWS HOW TO DO THAT VIA ORDINANCE. SO HOW ARE TIRZ FUNDS

[00:30:02]

USED ON A CASH FLOW PAY AS YOU GO. YOU HAVE X AMOUNT OF MONEY.

YOU THEN SPEND THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY. YOU CAN REIMBURSE DEVELOPERS OVER TIME. THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON, A DEVELOPER PUTS IN A ROAD, SIDEWALKS, AND UTILITIES, AND IT MAY TAKE YOU 12 YEARS TO PAY THEM BACK. SOME CITIES DO ISSUE DEBT. YOU HAVE TO WORK WITH LEGAL AND FINANCE TO MAKE SURE THE TIRZ GENERATED ENOUGH MONEY TO MAKE SURE YOU COULD PAY THAT DEBT. YOU CAN ALSO ENTER IN SOME OTHER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATION THINGS.

THOSE TOP THREE ARE WHAT MOST CITIES DO. PAY AS YOU GO, YOU REIMBURSE A DEVELOPER FOR DOING SOMETHING YOU AGREE TO THAT YOU WANTED THEM TO DO, OR YOU CAN ISSUE DEBT DOWN THE ROAD. I TALKED ABOUT THIS LAST TIME. THERE ARE TWO KEY RULES. YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 30% OF THE PROPERTY IN THE ZONE AT THE TIME IT IS CREATED TO BE RESIDENTIAL. YOU CAN'T HAVE MORE THAN 30%.

NOT WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN THE FUTURE. AND THOSE NEXT TWO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T HAVE TOO MANY TIRZ. DEPENDING ON HOW BIG YOU ARE IN TERMS OF POPULATION OR YOUR CITY SIZE, IT DOES LIMIT HOW MUCH OF YOUR TAX BASE YOU CAN HAVE IN A TIRZ. HERE ARE THE STEPS TO CREATING A TIRZ. YOU HAVE TO GET THROUGH THE FIRST COUPLE OF THOSE TO LOCK IN THAT BASE VALUE OF 2025. THE PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN, YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF. I WORK WITH YOU TO CREATE THAT. YOU HAVE TO PUBLISH A NOTICE IN THE NEWSPAPER. AT LEAST SEVEN DAYS IN ADVANCE, HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, HAS TO GET APPROVED AT THAT POINT, YOU CREATED THE ZONE. YOU DEFINED HOW BIG IT IS. YOU DEFINED HOW MANY BOARD MEMBERS WILL BE ON IT. YOU THEN, AND I THINK THE PLAN IS TO WORK ON THIS AFTER THE HOLIDAYS, CREATE THE FINAL PROJECT AND FINANCE PLAN. THAT FIRST HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE BOARD, THEN COMES BACK TO CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL. SO THERE ARE STILL A NUMBER OF STEPS AND WEEKS TO GO. THERE'S A NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT ARE SORT OF PERCOLATING AROUND THIS ZONE THAT WE NEED TO REFINE WHAT THOSE REVENUE ESTIMATES WOULD BE AND THOSE COSTS. AS I SAID, YOU HAVE THREE TIRZ. I LOOKED UP THE NET TAXABLE VALUE. TAX RATES, OR VALUES, YOU SEE WHAT IS IN THE FIRST THREE TIRZ YOU APPROVED. YOU SEE WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSED TIRZ NUMBER FOUR. IT DOES COMPLY WITH NOT HAVING TOO MUCH OF YOUR TAX BASE. I THINK THE 5.9 MILLION IS YOUR NET TAX. ONCE YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOMESTEAD EXCEPTIONS, AND OTHER REDUCTIONS, THE TOTAL VALUE IS OVER $6 BILLION. WHEN YOU MAKE ADJUSTMENTS, THAT NUMBER IS GETTING UPDATED EVERY YEAR.

>> SIR, IS THE TOTAL THAT CAN BE IN A TIRZ, IS THAT A PERCENTAGE?

>> IT'S A PERCENTAGE. CAN'T BE MORE THAN 50%.

>> SO YOU'RE WAY UNDER. YOU CAN'T DO MORE THAN 25%. CITIES UNDER $100,000, IT'S YOUR INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

>> 3%? >> SO YOU ARE FINE THERE. THIS WILL GROW OVER TIME. I PULLED THESE OUT OF THE 2025 TAXABLE VALUE. I KNOW YOU THINK FISCAL YEARS, TIRZ THINKS CALENDAR YEARS. JUST TO REMIND EVERYBODY, IF YOU PUT THIS IN PLACE TODAY, 2025 IS THE BASE YEAR. WE TALKED ABOUT IN THAT GRAPHIC. THE FIRST YEAR OF GROWTH WOULD BE WHAT HAPPENS IN '26. AND '26 TAXES AREN'T DUE UNTIL '27. SO IT DOES JUST TAKE TIME FOR THE MONEY TO SHOW UP. SO I ALWAYS SAY TO COMMUNITIES, IF YOU THINK THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, IT'S BETTER TO PUT IN PLACE. IF NOTHING HAPPEN, PEOPLE SAY, WHAT'S THE WORST THING THAT HAPPENS? YOU WENT THROUGH THIS PROCESS TO CREATE IT. YOU CAN ALWAYS DISSOLVE A TIRZ. YOU HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY DEPENDING ON THE ENTITIES THAT HAVE JOINED. IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO READ.

IT'S PROBABLY A BETTER VERSION WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.

THE BLACK IS THE TIRZ THAT GOES ALONG THAT 130 CORRIDOR. YOUR CITY LIMITS ARE OUTLINED IN RED. I'M SORRY, YOUR CITY LIMITS ARE IN BLUE. SO A LOT OF THIS TIRZ IS GOING TO BE IN YOUR ETJ. VERY LITTLE OF IT IS IN YOUR CITY LIMITS TODAY. THESE PROPERTIES HAVE TO COME IN AND ASK FOR VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION BEFORE THEY START PAYING CITY TAXES. SO IF THESE AREAS DON'T ASK FOR ANNEXATION, THE TIRZ ISN'T GENERATING TAX REVENUE. YOU PUT THIS IN PLACE TO WORK WITH A DEVELOPER. THEY WILL THEN START PAYING TAXES. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYBODY? WHEN WE WERE -- I LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF MAPS. YOU DO HAVE THE STAR RANCH DOWN THERE WHERE THE RED ARROW IS. THAT DOES NOT PAY PROPERTY TAX TODAY. IT IS RELATIVELY DEVELOPED. SO IT IS UP TO YOU ALL TO CHOOSE TO PUT IT IN OR NOT. IT IS WITHIN YOUR ETJ, SO YOU COULD. IT DOESN'T PAY TAX AND THERE IS A MUD THERE.

>> SO WE ARE ABLE TO ADD THAT? >> DO WHAT?

>> WE ARE ABLE TO ADD THAT? >> YES, YOU CAN ADD THAT. JUST TO REMIND YOU, IF SOMETHING IS DEVELOPED IN YOUR ETJ AND YOU ADD IT, YOU DON'T GET TO ADD THAT AS NET NEW INCRIMINATE. SO

[00:35:04]

IF A PROPERTY IS ALREADY DEVELOPED TODAY, WHETHER IT'S IN YOUR CITY LIMITS, IT IS CONSIDERED PART OF THAT BASE

VALUE. >> I THINK HALF OF THAT IS

UNDEVELOPED. >> PART OF IT IS UNDEVELOPED.

PART OF IT IS. IF YOU HAVE A COPY --

>> YOU GET THE VALUE. LET'S SAY, RIGHT WHERE THE RED ARROW IS A NEIGHBORHOOD. IF THE AVERAGE HOME WAS $300,000, AND WE PUT IT INTO TIRZ, AND THEN TEN YEARS FROM NOW, WE ANNEX THIS INTO OUR CITY, BECAUSE WE MAY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. WE SET IT TODAY AT $300,000. IN TEN YEARS, IT'S $600,000. THE INCREASE FROM 3 TO 600. THAT'S WHAT WE COULD.

>> YOU WILL GET THAT, CORRECT. YOU DON'T GO FROM ZERO TO 300,000. IF YOU HAVE A COPY OF THIS ON PAGE TWO. IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING. I DO DESCRIBE WHAT IS WITHIN YOUR CITY LIMIT BOUNDARIES AND WHAT IS WITHIN THE ETJ. SO WE CAN LOOK AT THAT.

WE CAN MAKE THOSE CHANGES. THIS IS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IN TERMS OF LAND USE. THESE ARE STATE LAND USE. I TALKED ABOUT YOU CAN'T HAVE TOO MANY RESIDENTIAL AT THE TIME IT IS CREATED. THE BULK OF THIS IS UNDEVELOPED. YOU HAVE THE EAST WILLIAMSON HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED THERE IN YELLOW.

THAT'S WHAT THAT EXEMPT PROPERTY IS THAT DOES NOT PAY TAX, UNLESS IT IS SOLD TO A TAXABLE ENTITY. THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. YOU'VE GOT SOME COMMERCIAL. YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF OPEN SPACE, WHETHER IT'S QUALIFIED OR NONQUALIFIED.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CATEGORIES D AND E, DEPENDING ON HOW IT IS BEING USED AT THE TIME AND WHETHER IT IS QUALIFIED OR NOT QUALIFIED. C IS VACANT LOT. D AND E HAVE A PRETTY BIG

EXCEPTION ON THE TAXABLE VALUE. >> ARE WE ABLE TO ADD IN THE ISD SPACE? THEY OWN, SLATED AS A HIGH SCHOOL, BUT IT IS OPEN LAND. ON THE WEST SIDE OF 130, YOU HAVE THE GREEN SQUARE. THAT AREA THAT IS NOT MARKED BETWEEN THERE AND THE AREA TO THE GREEN.

>> WE CAN ADD IN WHATEVER YOU WANT. IF YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO BE OWNED BY THE ISD AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BECOME TAXABLE, YOU MAY WANT TO SPEND TOURIST MONEY ON IMPROVEMENTS CLOSER TO THAT SCHOOL. SO IN THAT CASE, YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO ADD IT. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO SPEND MONEY OUTSIDE OF A TIRZ IF IT BENEFITS A TIRZ.

IT'S EASIER TO ADD IT UP FRONT. THERE ARE SOME WAYS YOU CAN DO THAT. IF YOU JUST SAY LOOK, WE'RE DEAD SET ON BUILDING THE SIDEWALKS THERE. LET'S JUST PUT IT IN. THAT IS MY RECOMMENDATION. THAT WAY THERE'S NO CONFUSION OVER HOW MUCH IS IT BENEFITING, IS IT NOT BENEFITING. WE HAVE TO DO A PUMP STATION, A BLOCK OR TWO OVER THAT REALLY BENEFITS THE ZONE.

THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU WOULD DO OUTSIDE OF YOUR ZONE. TO BENEFIT. SO WE COULD MAKE ANY CHANGES TO THIS YOU WANT. YOU HAVE PLENTY OF ROOM NOT TO GO OVER THAT 50% OF YOUR TOTAL TAX BASE. YO U HAVE TO STAY WITHIN YOUR ETJ. YOU CAN'T GO OUT INTO THE UNINCORPORATED PART OF THE CITY.

YOU HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THE RED LINE TO THE LEFT. SO WE CAN MAKE WHATEVER CHANGES TO THAT YOU WANT. WE'VE PLAYED WITH THE NUMBER OF THESE SCENARIOS. SO THAT IS WHERE WE ARE. SO WHAT I DID, GOING THE WRONG WAY. I DID A SIMPLE FORECAST, 25 YEARS, HELD YOUR 2025 TAX RATE CONSTANT. AS YOUR TAX RATE GOES UP AND DOWN, THE AMOUNT OF MONEY YOU GENERATE GOES UP AND DOWN AS WELL. SO THE TAX RATE, YOU KNOW, FLOWS UP AND DOWN JUST LIKE YOUR OVERALL TAX RATE. I ASSUME 3%. I ASSUME $5 MILLION A YEAR OF NEW TAXABLE REAL PROPERTY. I THINK IT WILL BE HIGHER THAN THAT.

SIMPLIFYING ASSUMPTION, I ASSUME THE CITY AND COUNTY PARTICIPATED. THE COUNTY MAY NOT. FOR 25 YEARS, IF YOU HAVE $5 MILLION A YEAR OF NEW GROWTH EVERY YEAR, YOU PUT 50% IN, YOU KNOW, IT'S A $6 MILLION AND CHANGE THAT THE CITY WOULD CONTRIBUTE. THE GENERAL FUND WOULD GET AN EQUAL AMOUNT. AND IF THE COUNTY JOINED, I USED THE FULL TAX RATE. THE COUNTIES IS BROKEN DOWN BETWEEN A COUNTY RATE AND FARM TO MARKET BRIDGE.

THAT'S LIKE ABOUT 4 CENTS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY. 3 CENTS.

THAT'S WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THERE. SO 50%, YOU WOULD GENERATE $12 MILLION BETWEEN THE TWO OVER 25 YEARS. I THINK THERE WILL BE MORE GROWTH. YOU ARE AWARE OF THE TYPE OF PROJECTS COMING IN THAT AREA. AGAIN, JUST TO GIVE YOU ALL AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. WE CHOSE TO GO WITH 5 MILLION. THAT'S WHAT GETS REFINED NEXT YEAR. WE WOULD SPEND THE BEGINNING PART OF THE YEAR WORKING ON NUMBER SIX. REALLY REFINING THOSE FORECASTS, WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE KINDS OF COSTS. WORKING WITH YOU ALL ON WHAT PROJECTS YOU WANT TO INCLUDE AS ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES. IF THERE ARE THINGS YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND

[00:40:03]

MONEY ON, YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY THAT. SOME COMMUNITIES MANGE IT BROAD. PRETTY WIDE OPEN. BUT IF THERE ARE CERTAIN EXAMPLES THAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO ROADS OR SIDEWALKS AND YOU WOULD JUST PUT THAT IN THAT PROJECT PLAN. SO AGAIN, YO U HAVE TO APPOINT THE TOURIST BOARD. TOURIST BOARD WOULD HAVE TO MEET. THEY WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE THAT PLAN. THEN IT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR APPROVAL. AND THEN YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. YOU HAVE TO FINISH THOSE STEPS BEFORE YOU CAN SPEND THE MONEY. A LOT OF CITIES WILL KIND OF STOP. THEY LOSE FOCUS OR OTHER THINGS POP UP. YOU HAVE TO END UP WITH THE ZOMBIE TIRZ. YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO SPEND THE MONEY. SO YOU DO HAVE TO GET THROUGH THOSE STEPS TO HAVE SORT OF A FULLY FORMED TIRZ. JUST LIKE YOUR OTHER TIRZ, FINANCE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. YOU HAVE TO REGISTER THIS WITH THE CONTROLLER EVERY YEAR. YOU APPOINT A BOARD CHAIR EVERY YEAR. PUBLIC MEETING, STANDARD MEETING NOTICES THAT YOU ARE ALREADY DOING ON YOUR EXISTING THREE TIRZ. SO I THINK THE DIRECTION WE NEED TONIGHT IS, DOES THIS MAP MAKE SENSE? DO YOU WANT TO ADD AREAS WE CAN DO OVER THE NEXT DAY OR TWO? DOES 25 YEARS MAKE SENSE? DOES 50% MAKE SENSE? I THINK THOSE ARE THE KEY THINGS TO ANSWER TONIGHT OR GET SOME DIRECTION ON.

>> AND WE HAVE TO OPEN UP TO PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I'LL JUST LEAVE IT, MAYOR, FOR FOLKS TO TALK ABOUT.

>> ONE QUESTION. THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE REFERRING, YOU SAID PAGE TWO. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT.

>> I THINK IT WAS E-MAILED TO YOU.

>> E-MAILED RECENTLY? >> NO. IT'S LIKE THIS.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:43 P.M. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP, REGARDING THIS TIRZ. COME ON UP. WE'LL LEAVE IT OPEN

FOR THE -- >> YOU CAN CLOSE IT, BECAUSE WE

ADVERTISED FOR THE OTHER. >> OKAY, SEEING NO ONE. WE'LL CLOSE AT 7:43. OPEN UP FOR COUNCIL QUESTIONS.

>> SO, MY INPUT, I DEFINITELY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE ISD PROPERTY ADDED. WHEN IT COMES TO THE THIRD HIGH SCHOOL, THAT IS PLANNED FOR THERE, EVENTUALLY THAT WILL HAVE IMPACTS OUTSIDE THE TIRZ THAT WE WOULD POTENTIALLY -- WHOEVER IS HERE THEN WOULD BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE THE TIRZ TO HELP THE IMPACT. AS FAR AS THE STAR RANCH PROPERTY, I WOULD LEAVE OUT THE RESIDENTIAL. I WOULD LEAVE OUT THE APARTMENTS. BUT I WOULD ADD IN THE COMMERCIAL. EVEN IF IT IS DEVELOPED. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY OKAY. DEFINITELY THE UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL FOR SURE, AND THE UNDEVELOPED LAND IN GENERAL. IN THAT AREA.

>> SO WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. IT MAY LOOK JIG JAGGED AT THE BOTTOM, WHICH IS FINE. YOU'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. IT WILL LOOK IN AND OUT. WE CAN DEFINITELY, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION, DO

THAT. >> WE'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE

-- >> THIS MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE PROCESS, BUT WITH THE BOARD COMPOSITION AND WITH THIS LAND BEING, WITH THE LOT OF IT BEING IN THE ETJ AS YOU ALREADY MENTIONED, HOW WOULD WE ENSURE, YOU KNOW, BALANCE BETWEEN THE CITY, THE COUNTY, AND PRIVATE SECTORS, STAKE HOLDERS, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD NOMINATE FOLKS OR HOW

WOULD THAT HAPPEN? >> BASE OFFEND WHATEVER, I WOULD SAY IT'S WHATEVER POLICY YOU TYPICALLY USE OR HOW YOU HAVE DONE THE FIRST THREE. I WOULD FOLLOW A SIMILAR PROCESS. THAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD PROCESS. STATE LAW SAYS YOU NEED A MINIMUM OF FIVE. NO MORE THAN 15. SO THAT IS UP TO YOU ALL TO DECIDE WHO YOU WANT TO APPOINT, WHAT THAT COMPOSITION LOOKS LIKE. EVERY TAXING ENTITY THAT JOINS DID CHOOSE TO JOIN. THEY WOULD GET AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEMBER. AND ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY WILL BE DONE THROUGH AN INNER LOCAL AGREEMENT WITH LEGAL AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE, OBVIOUSLY, AND YOU ALL.

MINIMUM OF FIVE. MAX 15, I WOULD SAY MOST KEEP IT SMALL OR MOST GIVE EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER AND THE MAYOR AN APPOINTMENT. I WOULD SAY IN GENERAL, THE PROCESSES YOU FOLLOW, WHICH YOU'RE DOING ON YOUR CURRENT TIRZ, OR WHATEVER YOUR NORMAL PROCESS IS. YOU HAVE TO APPOINT A BOARD CHAIR EVERY YEAR, THAT IS REQUIRED. SO THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK. THEY CAN BE STAGGERED OR NOT, THAT'S AT YOUR DISCRETION.

>> OKAY. >> SO CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP? IS THIS THE MAP THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO SEE? IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE BOUNDARY IS STOPPING CURRENTLY AT THE CREEK.

IT'S NOT ON THE EAST SIDE OF 130. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE

[00:45:01]

PROPERTY BETWEEN CHRIS KELLY AND 130, NOR DOES IT INCLUDE THE

MUD. >> IT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE MUD ON THE SOUTH AND MAY NOT INCLUDE ALL OF THE PROPERTIES. I SENT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS AND THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH.

BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY EXPAND IT. IT DOES PICK UP THE RIGHT OF WAY, ALL ALONG 130. SO THE FULL RIGHT OF WAY IS INCLUDED. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, 1300 ACRES. ONLY ABOUT 970 PARCEL ACRES BECAUSE THERE'S A COUPLE HUNDRED ACRES OF RIGHT OF WAY ALONG 130 AND ALL THE OTHER CITY ROADS.

>> WHAT ABOUT THE PARCEL THAT IS JUST SOUTH OF THE EXEMPT

PROPERTY? >> THAT IS NOT INCLUDED. JUST THE PARCELS YOU SEE THAT ARE COLORED, THAT'S ALL WE CURRENTLY HAVE INCLUDED. IT STOPS AT THE MUD. SO WE DIDN'T GO FURTHER SOUTH THAN THE MUD. WE CAN ADD OTHER PROPERTIES IF

YOU WOULD LIKE. >> OKAY. SO MY BELIEF IS THAT THE PARCEL THAT IS NOT IN THERE IS ACTUALLY WHERE TSTC IS.

>> TSTC IS THE YELLOW PROPERTY. >> WHY NOT THE PROPERTY BELOW

IT? >> SOUTH OF THE YELLOW. THE

YELLOW IS WHAT TSTC OWNS. >> THEY PURCHASED A PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. THE PROPERTY IS WHAT IS CUT OUT. THEY OWN THAT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. I'M SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE MADE THAT CLEAR. THERE IS AN OWNERSHIP MAP AS WELL IN THE APPENDIX TO WHAT YOU HAVE WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER'S NAMES. YOU'RE RIGHT, I SHOULD HAVE CLARIFIED THAT. THEY ARE THE OWNER OF THE YELLOW AND THEY HAVE THE OWNERS TO THE SOUTH AS WELL.

>> THE OVER THING WE HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF IS THE NUMBER OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT WE INCLUDE, IF WE INCLUDE THE MUD

TO THE SOUTH. >> IF WE ADD THE MUD, YOU CAN'T GO MORE THAN 30% AT THE TIME. MOST PEOPLE DO IT BY ACREAGE OR

VALUE. >> I WOULDN'T PUT THE

RESIDENTIAL IN THERE. >> WHY WOULDN'T YOU? AND

HERE'S WHY I'M ASKING. >> SIMPLE ANSWER, RIGHT? WHAT WE KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE IS WE DON'T COLLECT ENOUGH PROPERTY TAX FROM RESIDENTIAL TO MEET ALL THE NEEDS. WE NEED MORE COMMERCIAL. IF WE'RE BRINGING IN THAT RESIDENTIAL TO THE CITY, WE NEED THAT PROPERTY TAX. THE SAME AS ANY OTHER HOUSE IN THE

CITY. >> COMMERCIAL ALONG 130?

>> I WOULD TAKE THE COMMERCIAL AND DO THAT, YEAH. I JUST WOULDN'T DO RESIDENTIAL AND I WOULDN'T DO APARTMENTS, BECAUSE IT IS COMMERCIAL, BUT IT IS STILL RESIDENTIAL. I WOULDN'T DO ANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES EITHER.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION, BETWEEN CAN TELL ME WHAT I SCREWED UP ON IT. TO APPROVE THE MAP WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES. WE ADD IN THE ISD LAND THAT IS KNOWN AS THE THIRD HIGH SCHOOL. WE ADD IN THE STAR RANCH UNDEVELOPED LAND AND WE ADD IN THE STAR RANCH COMMERCIAL LAND THAT GOES ALONG 130 TO GADIS

ROAD. >> IS THERE ANY REASON NOT TO

ADD IN THE TSTC LAND IF >> THEY ARE BUILDING MORE ON

THERE. >> WE ADD THAT IN, TOO. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT WE -- IF I GET A SECOND, THE OTHER PART OF THIS IS, WE UTILIZE THE NEXT SIX WEEKS. WE TRY TO GET YOU ON THE AGENDA TO PRESENT THIS INFORMATION TO THE COUNTY TO TRY AND GET THEIR BUY-IN ON IT.

>> DEFINITELY CAN. I THINK WHAT IS COMMON. OBVIOUSLY, YOU ALL HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH THE COUNTY. A LITTLE BIT EASIER ONCE YOU ARE DONE AND IT'S APPROVED. YOU TAKE THEM AND APPROVED TIRZ

TO JOIN. >> WHAT THEY WILL BE INTERESTED TO SEEING, WHAT DO WE ENVISION USING THE MONEY FOR? AND ANY STIPULATIONS THEY WOULD HAVE. THEY WOULD PUT IN THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AND YOU ALL WOULD JUST -- THEY WILL SAY, COME IN AT 30%, NOT 50. THEY WOULD IDENTIFY ALL OF THOSE THINGS AS AT AGREEMENT. WE CAN DO THAT, MAYOR.

>> I HAVE A SECOND. >> SECOND.

>> DISCUSSION OF THE MOTION? >> CLARIFY, IT'S THE ISD LAND, THE TSTC LAND, AND YOU SAID TWO DIFFERENT STAR RANCH COMMERCIAL AND WHAT WAS THE OTHER? STAR RANCH UNDEVELOPED? IT IS UNDEVELOPED COMMERCIAL. NOT RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT RIGHT?

>> IT'S UNDEVELOPED LAND. >> WE DON'T KNOW. THEY COULD DO

ANYTHING ON IT. >> I HAVE TO PROBABLY LOOK TO SEE HOW. I HAVE TO THINK ABOUT HOW YOU WOULD DO THAT. HOW IT IS CURRENTLY ZONED OR WHAT THAT PLAN HAS.

>> I'M JUST DOING IT AS, THEIR UNDEVELOPED LAND. DOESN'T

BOTHER ME. >> WHAT WE KNOW IS THEY CAN

CHANGE WHAT THEIR PLAN IS. >> THE ISSUE MIGHT BE, IF WE LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS, AND I NEED TO LOOK THIS ONE UP. DO THEY HAVE PROPERTY THAT IS LISTED AS UNDEVELOPED WITHOUT AN

[00:50:01]

IDENTIFIED LAND USE? IF YOU DID PUT THAT IN THE TIRZ, IT COULD

BECOME RESIDENTIAL. >> IT COULD BE.

>> I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT. IF THEY HAVE PROPERTY THAT SAYS FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND THEY DON'T TELL US WHAT IT IS, DO YOU WANT THAT INCLUDED OR NOT?

>> WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS ALL UNDEVELOPED LAND, WHETHER IT BE

RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL. >> REGARDLESS WHAT THEY WILL USE

IT FOR. >> TO ME, IT'S A PLAN THAT

COULD CHANGE TOMORROW. >> IT'S KNOWN COMMERCIAL, EXCLUDING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL, AND UNDEVELOPED LAND REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO USE IT FOR. THE HIGH

SCHOOL, AND TSTC PROPERTY. >> IS THAT THE BIG TRIANGLE PIECE BETWEEN 35 AND CHRIS KELLY?

>> YEAH. THAT WOULD BE ONE. BECAUSE I HEARD APARTMENTS, I HAVE HEARD INDUSTRIAL. I HAVE HEARD OF SAM'S CLUB.

>> OKAY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. SOUTH -- I HAVE A MAP. IT'S AN OLD ONE. I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT CAME FROM. SOUTH OF 79 ON BOTH THE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND FRONTAGE ROAD OF 130. BASICALLY, UP TO BRUSHY CREEK, AND IT CONTINUES ON BOTH SIDES OF 130 FROM CHRIS KELLY OVER TOWARD STAR RANCH. ON THE WEST SIDE OF 130, ALL THE WAY DOWN, IS THAT THE MUD? WHY DID WE THINK ABOUT INCLUDING THAT AND ARE WE NOT

INCLUDING IT NOW? >> TALKING ABOUT THE MUD OR SOME OF THOSE PROPERTIES? I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT SPECIFIC MAP.

THERE ARE A COUPLE VERSIONS THAT I HAD A COPY, THAT WE LOOKED AT AND BASED ON WHERE WE HAD DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD LIKELY

TAKE PLACE. >> THE KEY THING FOR ME IS BOTH

THE NORTHBOUND, SOUTHBOUND. >> THIS WILL BE COMMERCIAL. I THINK IT'S A FLOOD PLANE. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A CREEK OR PARK. I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WAS, IF THEY ARE NOT PAYING TAXES, YOU DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE COMING IN. YOU CAN LEAVE THE MUD OUT, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN ADD THAT BACK IN. BECAUSE IT'S A MUD, WE DON'T KNOW. WHEN IT'S GOING TO COME IN, WHO KNOWS HOW STATE LAW CHANGES. LEAVE THAT ALONE, AND FOCUS MORE ON YOUR UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES. BUT WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADD IN THE COMMERCIAL AND UNDEVELOPED. BUT THAT'S A LOT OF THE STAR RANCH.

YOU CAN HAVE A TIRZ, SO WE DON'T WANT TO START CUTTING AREAS IN AND OUT AND TRYING TO DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. ALL RIGHT, ANY

OTHER DISCUSSION? >> YEAH, ONE CLARIFICATION. SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE THE MAP. DO WE ALSO NEED TO APPROVE THE FULL ORDINANCE, OR IS THAT TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS?

>> WE'LL BRING BACK THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO CREATE A NEW MAP AND ADD THESE PROPERTIES TO IT.

>> WE'RE JUST DOING THE MAP TONIGHT.

>> YOU CAN ALSO, IF YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR WHO MIGHT SERVE ON THE TIRZ BOARD, YOU CAN INCLUDE THAT IN THERE.

>> I JUST KEEP IT AS WHATEVER THE TIRZ IS OR SOMETHING, SIMPLE LIKE THAT FOR NOW, AND WE CAN CHANGE THE PEOPLE OUT WHEN IT HAS REVENUE OR STUFF TO DO, IN MY MIND.

>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S EASIER ONCE YOU IDENTIFY IN THE ORDINANCE. YOU SHOULD LISTEN TO LEGAL. MAKE SURE YOU ARE GOOD ON 25 YEARS, 50% WORKS, AND THIS BOUNDARY, YOU KNOW, NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TO DECIDE, AND MAKE SURE THIS BOUNDARY WORKS WITH THOSE ADDITIONS. THOSE ARE THE THINGS TO GET RESOLVED TONIGHT THAT MAKE LIFE EASIER GOING FORWARD.

>> YEAH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM PERSONALLY WITH THE PERCENTAGE.

I CAN SEE IT GOING HIGHER IF THEY WILL REIMBURSE THE MILLIONS WE ARE CURRENTLY EARMARKING TO SPEND FOR FUTURE WASTE WATER LINES AND IMPROVEMENTS IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE OUR WATER. WE CAN ALSO, 50%, AND THEN I AM PRETTY SURE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I'M PRETTY SURE THE VALUE THAT WE PUT IN THE TIRZ, THAT DOES NOT GO INTO THE CALCULATIONS FOR A TAX RATE, NO NEW REVENUE. THAT EXCLUDES ALL THAT WITH THE PROPERTY.

>> I THINK IT IS ROW 17 OF THAT TAX RATE WORK SHEET. YOU MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR THE VALUE YOU PUT IN THE TIRZ.

>> THAT'S WHAT I LIKE ABOUT THE TIRZ, SOME OF THIS HIGHER VALUE STUFF WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE MAJOR GROWTH OUT HERE. I SEE IT AS A WAY TO UTILIZE THE MONEY IN A CERTAIN AREA AND ALSO TO KIND OF SOFTEN THE INCREASES, BECAUSE A WHOLE BUNCH OF VALUE GOES UP, AND VALUE COME DOWN. SO, THAT'S KIND OF MESSY. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD CHANGE. I DON'T KNOW IT NEEDS TO BE CHANGED NECESSARILY. RIGHT NOW, WE'RE OFFERING TO PUT COUNTY PEOPLE ON, BUT THEY HAVEN'T COMMITTED TO BEING PART OF IT. SO THAT PART I DON'T KNOW. IT CAN BE RESOLVED AT THE NEXT MEETING.

BUT IF THEY HAVEN'T COMMITTED TO BEING IN, THEN I DON'T KNOW

[00:55:02]

IF THAT NEEDS TO BE THERE. BUT IF THEY DO DECIDE.

>> CHECK THE WORDING, THE WAY WE WRITE IT, WE'LL ADD, LIKE ESTABLISH THE TIRZ BOARD IS FIVE. HOWEVER THE COUNTY JOINS, I THINK THEY GET ONE OR MAYBE TWO. SAY TWO IN THE OTHER ONES.

JUST ONE. >> JUST ONE.

>> OKAY. >> SOMETIMES THE ORDINANCE SAYS IT WILL BE FIVE. IF THEY JOIN, THEY GET THE ONE. YOU COVER IT BOTH, BUT IT'S CLEAR THEY DON'T GET THE PERSON UNLESS THEY JOIN. I THINK YOU'RE ABLE TO WRITE IT.

>> WE'LL CLARIFY THAT. >> OKAY. MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KING.

>> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 8-0.

>> THAT BRINGS US TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 11.1 THROUGH --

>> ARE WE GOING TO WAIT TO DO THE BOARD MEMBERS UNTIL LATER?

>> I HEARD TO BRING TO THE COTTONWOOD PEOPLE.

>> SO, I LOOKED IT UP. THE COTTONWOOD PEOPLE ARE DAN THORNTON, JIM MORRIS, TANYA SNEAD, AND RICK HUDSON IS ON THERE. BASED ON OUR PASSING OF THE MOST RECENT PROTOCALLS, HE IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE, BECAUSE HE IS OVER THE TWO LIMIT. SO WE HAVE FOUR PLUS ONE OTHER ONE THAT NEED TO COME UP WITH.

>> WHO WOULD LIKE TO BE THE FIFTH?

>> IS MORRIS ALREADY ON THERE? >> YEAH.

>> HE LIKES TO DO IT TWICE. >> SINCE HE SPOKE FOR ME, I'LL SPEAK FOR HIM. I'LL THROW MY NAME IN THERE.

>> THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION. ARE YOU GOOD? DO WE NEED TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION?

>> IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, JUST READ THEM OFF. AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK IN THE ORDNANCE.

>> DAN THORNE SON, JIM MORRIS, AMBER LEE, TANYA SNEAD, AND EVAN

PORTERFIELD. >> THE RULE IS, YOU CAN'T BE ON MORE THAN TWO. THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY CATCH THERE. I'M NOT SURE

IF SHE WAS ON TWO. >> SHE'S ONLY ON ONE.

>> SHE IS ON ONE. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY, I WASN'T SURE. >> THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. I WAS GOING TO SAY, FOR THE REST OF US.

>> OKAY. ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? >> STAFF WILL CHECK TO MAKE SURE THESE PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO BE THERE AND IF NOT, WE'LL LEAVE

IT BLANK. >> SO, WE'RE SAYING AMBER LEE

CAN'T? >> SHE CAN.

>> THIS WOULD BE HER THIRD. >> OH, I THOUGHT YOU SAID SHE'S

ONLY ON ONE. >> SHE IS ON TIRZ BOARD NUMBER ONE, AND TIRZ BOARD NUMBER THREE.

>> WE NEED ONE OTHER PERSON UP HERE.

>> I'LL THROW MY NAME IN. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KING.

>> WE'LL HAVE TO NAME A CHAIR. >> ALL RIGHT. READY TO MOVE ON?

[11. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

ALL RIGHT, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 11.1 THROUGH 11.12. ANY ITEMS

ANYONE WISHES TO PULL? >> I WOULD LIKE TO PULL 11.1 AND

11.2. >> ANY OTHERS? ENTERTAIN A

MOTION FOR THE REMAINDER. >> SECOND.

>> THAT WAS THE FIRST. >> SECOND.

>> YOU DO FIRST AND SECOND, JIM. >> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

>> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER KING.

[11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-332 to award the Ed Schmidt Sidewalks Project to WJC Constructors in the amount of $529,239.90 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract with WJC Constructors (CIP Project T10-2023). (Matt Rector)]

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 11.1. CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-332 TO AWARD THE ED SCHMIDT SIDEWALKS PROJECT TO WJC CON INSTRUCTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $529,239.90 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH WJC CONSTRUCTERS.

>> MY QUESTION ON THIS ONE, MATT, EXCUSE ME, IS THIS, IT

[01:00:09]

LOOKS LIKE WJC CONSTRUCTERS IS NEW FOR THE CITY. THEY HAVEN'T WORKED WITH US BEFORE. CORRECT? HOW DID YOU VET THEM?

>> SO, THE WAY WE TYPICALLY DO IT IS WE ASK FOR REFERENCES IN THE BID PACKAGE AND WE HAVE THE CONSULTING ENGINEER CALL THE REFERENCES THAT ARE IN THERE AND ASK HOW THEY PERFORM FOR OTHER CITIES, COUNTIES, WHOEVER ORGANIZATIONS THEY LISTED IN THERE. AND SO WHEN -- SORRY. WHEN THE CONSULTANT CALLED THE REFERENCES, THEY ALL GAVE THEM GOOD REFERENCES. THEY GOT THEIR STUFF ON TIME AND THEY WERE EASY TO WORK WITH. THAT'S HOW WE

VETTED THEM. >> OKAY.

>> THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH MY ONLY QUESTION ABOUT THEM.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 11.1 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER

KING. OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. >> JUST A CLARIFICATION ON AGENDA ITEM 1. 11.1. IT SAYS PROJECT NUMBER ONE. THERE WERE BID SEPARATELY FOR PROJECT ONE AND PROJECT TWO.

>> CORRECT. SO AS DESIGNATED IN THE AGENDA ITEM REPORT. SO, 11.1 IS FOR PROJECT ONE, AND THEN WHEN WE GET TO AGENDA 11.2, THAT

IS FOR PROJECT TWO. >> CORRECT. SO TO CLARIFY, ORIGINALLY, THEY WERE AWARDED TO ONE CONSULTING FIRM, BECAUSE IT WAS THE ED SCHMIDT PROJECT, COUNCIL HAD SAID, FOCUSED ON THE SIDEWALKS ON THE SOUTH AND THE INTERSECTION ON THE NORTH. SO THAT'S WHAT WE DID AND THEN THE CONSULTANT SAID IT'S EASIER IF WE BREAK THEM UP INTO TWO DIFFERENT PLAN SETS SINCE THEY ARE SO FAR APART. THAT'S WHY WE BID THEM OUT AS PROJECT ONE AND PROJECT TWO. JUST BECAUSE IT MADE THINGS A LITTLE CLEANER TO BREAK IT AND IT HAPPENED WITH TWO DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS.

>> THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT I UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU FOR

CLARIFICATION. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO ESSENTIALLY, THEY WILL BE RUNNING AT THE SAME TIME, BUT W JC WILL BE TAKING CARE OF THE SIDEWALKS WHILE JARED JERDON ENTERPRISE IS TAKING CARE OF THE OTHER.

>> I'M TAKING AT THIS, RESTORE RESPONSIBILITY TO THE APPROACH.

OKAY? >> WOW.

>> WORKING ON THIS. >> HERE'S MY ONLY CONCERN ON THIS. I LOOK AT THIS -- SOMETHING HAPPENED, BECAUSE I KNOW AS I REMEMBER, WE WERE GOING TO ENGINEER THIS. AND I HAD QUESTIONS BACK THEN IN TERMS OF, SOME OF THIS, WE LOOK TO BE ENGINEERING AND POSSIBLY CONSTRUCTING ON STUFF THAT CURRENT PEOPLE ARE GETTING READY TO BUILD ON. ONE OF THEM IS SCOTT WHITE. MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN WHEN YOU REDO A BUILDING, YOU ADD, YOU'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE UPGRADES. PART OF ME IS, I WANT CONNECTIVITY, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT THE TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR SOMETHING THAT WE MAKE EVERY OTHER BUSINESS. THE DAYCARE, THE TOWN PLACE SUITES. ALL OF THEM HAD TO DO IT, AND SCOTT WHITE IS EXPANDING. THEY HAVE TO BUILD THEIR PORTION OF THE SIDEWALKS. I DON'T MIND ENGINEERING. THAT WOULD BE A GOOD PARTNER. THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE IS WHEN WE'RE GOING UP, WE HAVE PART OF IT IS IN THE ETJ, FOR THE CHURCH, WHICH THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CHURCH TO ANNEX INTO THE CITY. DOESN'T COST ANY TAXES, BUT WE COULD PUT CITY FUNDS TOWARDS PROPERTY THAT IS IN THE CITY. AND THEN JUST NORTH OF THE CHURCH, THERE'S REALLY, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON UNTIL THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS, WHICH WE JUST HAD A MEETING TODAY ABOUT IT. BUT TO BUILD A SIDEWALK ALL THE WAY ON THE EAST SIDE OF ED SCHMIDT. IF WE HAVE A SIDEWALK ON THE WEST SIDE, BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE NOW BUILDING A SIDEWALK AND THEN THE DEVELOPERS COME IN AND WE SHOULDERED $300,000 IN COSTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT AND IF WE DO BUILD IT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THAT BIG OF AN ISSUE, TO GET UP AND CROSS LEMAR OR ED SCHMIDT. SO I HAVE HESITATIONS FROM THAT. WHEN YOU LOOK ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SIDEWALK MISSING ON THE WEST SIDE OF ED SCHMIDT. MOST OF IT IS UP THE INTERSECTION OF 79. I THINK ALONG HOME DEPOT NEEDS TO

[01:05:03]

BE DONE. SOME SORT OF A CONTRADICTION. WHY WOULD I SPEND MONEY FOR THE HOME DEPOT SIDE? THEY BOTH DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS BASED ON OLD OUTDATED GUIDELINES. IF LOWE'S WAS TO REDEVELOP AND THAT TRIGGERED A NEED. IF WE DIDN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS, WE WOULD FORCE THEM TO DO IT THEN. THAT'S WHY I'M HUNG UP ON THIS. IT'S HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. WE'RE TALKING REAL MONEY. AND AT BEST, THE WEST SIDE OF, THE WEST SIDE OF ED SCHMIDT WILL BE USED. THE MONEY SPENT ON THE EAST SIDE WOULD BE SPENT ON SIDEWALKS DOWN OLD TOWN OR SOMETHING, VERSUS MONEY THAT WE HAVE DEVELOPERS THAT ARE MEETING WITH US ABOUT DEVELOPING A PROPERTY. SO I SEE SIDEWALKS ON THE EAST SIDE WITH OUR PLANS BEING DONE. I DON'T WANT TO BLOW THIS UP. I WOULD RATHER, I HAD IT MY WAY, I WOULD RATHER IT COME BACK AMENDED. WE NEED TO DO THE WEST SIDE. AND PAY US BACK, AND WHAT THAT LOOKS

LIKE. >> MAYOR, CAN I JUMP IN?

>> SURE. >> SO, JUST TO REMIND THE COUNCIL. SOME OF YOU ARE NEW. AND SOME OF YOU WEREN'T HERE FOR THE CONVERSATION. THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL BACK IN LATE '23, EARLY '24. AND THIS WAS PART OF AN ED SCHMIDT STUDY.

THE REASON WE WERE FOCUSING SIDEWALKS ON THE EAST SIDE WAS MOSTLY BECAUSE OF THE HIGH SCHOOL KIDS WALKING UP CARL STERN, CROSSING 79, AND WALKING THROUGH THE DITCH. AT THE TIME, THAT WAS ONE OF THE SAFETY CONCERNS. THE DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL BACK THEN WAS, LET'S PUT THE SIDEWALK IN. LET'S NOT DO ANYTHING ELSE PER THAT SAFETY REPORT. LET'S FOCUS ON THE SIDEWALK AND GET IT UP TO THE CHURCH. SO THAT WAS ONE THING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS YOU UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE FOCUSING

ON THE EAST. >> BEFORE YOU GO ON. SO THAT DOES, AND I SUPPORT THAT. BUT WE GOT IT GOING PAST THE CHURCH

NOW. >> IT STOPS AT THE NORTHERN

PROPERTY OF THE CHURCH. >> I THOUGHT I SAW PLANS GOING

UP ALL THE WAY UP. >> JUST TO THE CHURCH.

>> THE PLANS YOU SENT DIDN'T INCLUDE GOING UP ALONG THE POWER

LINE? >> NOT ALONG THE EAST SIDE. IT STOPS AT EMERY FARMS. IT'S EMERY FARMS SOUTH.

>> THE ONLY PART THAT CHANGED SINCE THEN, WHEN WE FIRST HAD THAT MEETING, NOT IN CONSTRUCTION, AND SINCE THEN, TORE DOWN PART OF THE BANK AND WENT INTO CONSTRUCTION, SO TO ME, THAT TRIGGERED, I HATE TO SAY THE WORD, NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION, THAT'S SOMETHING NEW.

>> YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, MAYOR. WE HAD E-MAILS. SO WHEN THIS CONTRACT WAS PUT TOGETHER, WE WERE WORKING THROUGH THE DESIGN. THERE WERE CONVERSATIONS GOING, SHOULD THEY BUILD A SIDEWALK? MY STANCE, IF THEY ARE TOUCHING THEIR SITE, THEY SHOULD BUILD THEIR SIDEWALK. SO OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE PUT THIS ON THE AGENDA, BECAUSE WE HAD TO HAVE THIS ON THE AGENDA, WHAT, LAURA, A WEAK OR TWO AGO? WE HAD TO HAVE IT ALL IN HERE. SO THIS WEEK, IN FACT, YESTERDAY WHEN I WAS IN MY ENGINEERING MEETING WITH MY TEAM, ONE OF MY PLAN REVIEW ENGINEERS BROUGHT ME A PLAN FOR THE SITE AND SAID HEY, DO YOU WANT THEM TO A PUT A SIDEWALK THERE? WE'RE ABOUT TO BUILD A SIDEWALK THERE. NO, THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THE SIDEWALK THERE. AND WE WILL DO A DEDUCTIVE MODIFICATION TO OUR CONTRACT TO EITHER REMOVE IT OR THEY CAN PAY US INSTEAD OF BUILDING THAT SIDEWALK, BECAUSE WE HAVE DONE THAT IN SEVERAL OTHER INSTANCES. THEY CAN PAY US THE COST THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PAY AND TAKE THAT MONEY AND PUT IT ON THIS CONTRACT AND WE'RE DONE. SO THAT'S THE FEEDBACK THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE GETTING. WE JUST GOT THAT SITE PLAN, LIKE LAST WEEK. AND SO IT JUST CAME IN FRONT OF ME

YESTERDAY. >> OKAY. SO THE $500,000 MINUS THAT WILL BE THE SIDEWALK ALONG WALGREEN'S? AND THEN RIGHT WHEN YOU GET TO A PLUS, THERE'S A SIDEWALK. IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP PAST LOWE'S. IT GOES THROUGH THE HUTTO, THERE'S A SPOT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WHERE WE USED TO VOTE. THE HOTELS HAVE IT. THE NEW HOTEL HAS IT. THE PAD BETWEEN THE NEW HOTEL AND THE CHILDCARE NEEDS THAT DONE. AND THEN ALL THE WAY UP ALONG EMERY FARMS IS DONE, BUT WE'LL BE PUTTING IT IN ALONG THE SUBSTATION. ACTUALLY, NO. ALONG THE SUBSTATION.

>> THE SCOPE OF THE SIDEWALK INSULATION, EMERY FARMS SOUTH.

>> THIS IS WHAT THEY SENT US. THEY SENT THIS TO US ON

WEDNESDAY. >> OH. YEAH.

>> THAT SHOWS IN RED WHAT THE ACTUAL, WHAT'S INCLUDED.

>> MY APOLOGIES. SHOULD HAVE HAD A BETTER MAP.

[01:10:05]

>> WHAT TIME? >> 11:43 A.M.

>> I LOOKED AT THAT ONCE I THINK.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE. IF I READ THIS RIGHT. THEY'LL HAVE

THIS DONE IN 90 DAYS. >> THAT'S THEIR TIME LINE.

THAT'S THEIR SCHEDULE THEY GAVE US.

>> THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID. YOU CAN IMAGINE, IT STARTS DECEMBER 1. SO, IF WE APPROVE THIS, THE BEST WAY TO GET THE $500,000 BACK IS TO HIT THEM WITH $750 A DAY.

>> THAT PART THERE. THAT'S THE $500,000 RIGHT THERE.

>> ON THE MAP THAT WE SENT OUT, IT'S JUST THE LITTLE PIECES IN RED? THAT'S WHERE WE'RE DOING THE WORK.

>> CAN I ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION? THE HOTEL SIDEWALK.

GOING TO STRETCH A LITTLE BIT. IS THERE GOING TO BE A RAILING THERE? I NOTICE IT'S REALLY ELEVATED OVER THE DRAINAGE. JUST

WONDERING IF YOU KNEW THAT. >> SO, IF WE ARE ADDING IT AND THERE'S MORE THAN A DROP OFF, THEN YES, WE WOULD ADD A RAIL.

IF THE HOTEL ALREADY BUILT IT, I CAN'T MAKE THEM ADD A RAIL NOW.

>> OKAY. >> I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS

YOUR QUESTION. >> I THINK YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT. I THINK THERE WILL BE MORE QUESTIONS.

>> DO YOU SEE A NEED THAT THE CHURCH, WE SHOULD TRY TO GET THE

CHURCH TO ANNEX IN? >> I DON'T THINK IT HURTS TO

ANNEX THEM IN. >> I MEAN BEFORE WE -- DO THE

SIDEWALK THERE? >> WHAT'S THE BENEFIT?

>> I THINK THE BENEFIT IS TO HAVE EVERYBODY IN THE CITY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU START DOING CITY SERVICES AND CITY IMPROVEMENTS. JUST -- I WOULD SAY WHY NOT COME INTO THE CITY,

IF YOU ARE ALREADY A NONPROFIT? >> I THINK AS FAR AS THIS PROJECT GOES, IT WOULD DELAY THAT PART OF THE PROJECT.

BECAUSE IT TAKES TIME. I THINK IT JUST INVITE THEM TO ANNEX, SAY HEY, WE'RE BUILDING THE SIDEWALK, WE WANT YOU IN THE

CITY. >> ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHY, I DON'T WANT TO SAY HOLD SOMETHING OVER THEM, BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING FOR SOMEBODY, THEY WILL SAY, WHY? WHY WOULD I ANNEX IN? PUT SIDEWALKS THERE ANYWAY.

I WANT ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM BEYOND.

>> IF A CHURCH DOESN'T ANNEX IN, WE DON'T GAIN PROPERTY TAX ANYWAY. WE'RE NOT LOSING ANYTHING. IF WE JUST SAY, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE YOU TO ANNEX IN THE CITY. AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE BUILDING A SIDEWALK ALREADY. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULDN'T AT THAT POINT. IF IT WAS A COMMERCIAL THING, AND THERE WAS MONEY INVOLVED, THAT MIGHT GO MORE WITH WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. I THINK IT'S OKAY TO DO IT THAT WAY, IN THIS CASE.

>> ALL RIGHTY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> SO I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, BUT TO STIPULATE THAT BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE NEEDS TO COVER THE COST OF THEIR PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK EITHER THROUGH BUILDING IT THEMSELVES AND THEN WE GET A DEDUCTIVE ORDER OR THEY REIMBURSE US.

>> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON. ANY DISCUSSION TO THE AMENDMENT? HEARING NONE. PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> THIS IS JUST A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WAS ACCEPTED OR A FULL BLOWN MOTION?

>> I'LL ACCEPT IT. >> CAN IT BE FRIENDLY IF IT

CHANGES THAT MUCH? >> MAKER AND THE MOTION AGREE TO

ADD IT, THAT'S FINE. >> PARDON ME?

>> ARE YOU OKAY ADDING THAT? >> I'M FINE WITH THAT.

>> OKAY, MAKE IT A FRIENDLY MOTION. ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL

THE VOTE. >> MAYOR THORNTON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THOMPSON.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER SNYDER.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

>> AYE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER PORTERFIELD.

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

[11.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-333 to award the Ed Schmidt and Limmer Loop Intersection Improvements Project to Jerdon Enterprise, LP in the amount of $305,004.70 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the construction contract with Jerdon Enterprise, LP (CIP Project T10-2023). (Matt Rector)]

11.2, CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION H-2025-333 TO AWARD THE INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT TO JERDEN ENTERPRISE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE

[01:15:03]

CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH JERDEN ENTERPRISE.

>> SO, THE REASON I PULLED THIS ONE IS SIMILAR TO 11.1. SO, HOPEFULLY WE'LL GET THROUGH THIS ONE FAIRLY QUICKLY. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE HISTORY WITH JERDON ENTERPRISE. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> THE ONE WE JUST FINISHED.

>> AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT KEPT GETTING DELAYED? IS THAT -- OR

AM I CONFUSING THAT? >> EXCHANGE IN LIMMER. THEY WERE FLEXIBLE. WE HAD AWARDED THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT, AND NEEDED TO PUT THE TEMPORARY SIGNAL IN. SO THEY PUT THAT TEMPORARY SIGNAL IN, AND THEY FINISHED EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> DID THEY FINISH ON TIME? >> OTHER THAN WHEN YOU ACCOUNT FOR THE DELAY BECAUSE OF ADDING A TEMPORARY SIGNAL IN THERE, YES. WE HAD TO CHANGE THEIR CONTRACT TIME. WE ADDED WORK:

>> THE ONLY PROJECT THEY HAVE DONE WITH US?

>> AS FAR AS I KNOW, YES, SIR. >> THE BIGGEST CONCERN FOR ME IS WHEN THEY PRESENT A SCHEDULE THAT THEY HONOR THAT SCHEDULE.

AND DON'T MAKE ANY EXCUSES ABOUT WHY IT CAN'T BE DONE.

THERE CAN BE A WORK AROUND. SO, BASED ON THE HISTORY THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THEM, THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN. IS WHEN WE PULL THE TRIGGER, WE NEED TO HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE TO GETTING DONE

ON TIME. THAT'S ALL. >> YES, SIR.

>> MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KING. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THRONSON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-338 approving a Memorandum of Understanding with Texas Veterans Commission to Enhance Veteran Service Delivery and Benefit Access. (City Manager Earp)]

>> GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 12.1. CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION ON R-2025-338 APPROVING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH TEXAS VETERAN'S COMMISSION TO ENHANCE VETERAN SERVICE AND BENEFIT ACCESS.

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. ANGELA, I AM PRESENTING ON BEHALF OF KATE WHILE SHE IS OUT. FOR VETERANS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY BY PARTNERING WITH THE TEXAS VETERAN'S COMMISSION. THE TVC PROVIDES BENEFITS COUNSELING CLAIMS ASSISTANCE, REFERRALS FOR HEALTHCARE AND MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND ACCESS TO HOUSING RESOURCES. UNDER THIS, THE CITY OF HUTTO WILL COLLABORATE TO INCREASE THESE SERVICES LOCALLY. ADDITIONALLY, THIS COLLABORATION ENHANCES ACCESSIBILITY TO SERVICES FOR VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES WITHOUT REQUIRING ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL EXPENDITURE FROM THE CITY. IT'S ALSO ALIGNS WITH THE COMMITMENT TO IMPROVING RESIDENCE QUALITY OF LIFE, STRENGTHENING COMMUNITY WELL BEING AND FOSTERING SUPPORT OF PARTNERSHIPS. I'M WELCOMED TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. CITY MANAGER IS ALSO VERY WELL AWARE VERSED ON THIS AS WELL AS HE CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER H-2025-338.

>> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER

MORRIS. >> ANY DISCUSSION OR QUESTIONS?

>> HOW SOON WILL THEY BE ABLE TO START AND SET UP OPERATIONS?

>> I HAVE A MEET AND GREET WITH THEM NEXT WEEK, OR THE WEEK AFTER THANKSGIVING. I THINK IT MAY BE NEXT WEEK.

>> COOL: >> WILL THERE BE ANY DIRECT BENEFITS, LOCAL VETERANS OR THEIR FAMILIES WILL RECEIVE

DURING THIS PARTNERSHIP? >> I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT

YOUR QUESTION? >> YES. I'M SORRY. I WANTED TO KNOW WHAT WILL THE BENEFITS BE TO LOCAL VETERANS AND THEIR FAMILIES THROUGH THIS PARTNERSHIP? WILL IT BE SOMETHING THAT IS FELT IMMEDIATELY? IS IT OVER TIME?

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? >> WELL, WE'LL BE PROVIDING LIMITED OFFICE SPACING AND WI-FI FOR TVC TO HAVE A HOME HERE AT CITY HALL SO THAT WAY RESIDENTS HAVE SOMEWHERE LOCAL TO COME AND GET THE RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED. SO IT WOULD BE AN

IMMEDIATE IMPACT. >> DO WE ALREADY HAVE A PLAN TO MARKET THAT OUT AND MAKE THAT KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC?

>> I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE DISCUSSED WHEN CITY MANAGER

MEETS WITH THEM HERE SHORTLY. >> THANK YOU.

[01:20:01]

>> MAYOR, WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE TVC HERE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK

OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> IS THERE ANYTHING, YOU WOULD

LIKE TO ADD? >> DID YOU WANT TO ADD

SOMETHING? >> YEAH, IT WOULD BE GOOD. I'M NOT A VETERAN, SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE SERVICES WILL BE

PROVIDED. >> MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. I'M A CLAIMS OPERATIONS MANAGER. SO, QUESTION WAS, AS FAR AS WHAT WE'D BE ABLE DO FOR THE VETERANS OF THE COMMUNITY. SO THE CLAIMS BENEFITS ADVISER, WHAT HE DOES, HE'LL BE ABLE TO ASSIST VETERANS WITH BENEFITS, AS FAR AS THE VETERANS COMING IN AND ASKING ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS. AS FAR AS THEM FILING ANY KIND OF CLAIMS, THE BIGGEST THING THERE IS THE VETERAN COMES IN, OR THE SPOUSES OR SURVIVING SPOUSES AND DEPENDENTS THAT CAN COME IN AND FILE FOR ANY KIND OF BENEFITS. PRETTY MUCH. SO, COMPENSATION IS A BIG THING. BRINGING BACK TO TEXAS, MOST IMPORTANTLY, RIGHT? AND HAVING AN ADVISORY HERE IS A VERY, VERY BIG THING, WITH TEXAS VETERAN'S COMMISSION, THE CLAIMS APARTMENT WE HAVE 51 OFFICES ACROSS THE STATE. SO 160 OF THOSE PERSONNEL SPREAD ACROSS. SO THAT ADVISORY WOULD BE HERE TO HELP OUT THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY FOR HUTTO.

>> AND DO YOU GUYS COORDINATE WITH THE COUNTY? I KNOW THE COUNTY HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT TEXAS VETERAN, SORRY, VETERAN SERVICES. SO, WOULD YOU BE DUPLICATING ANY SERVICES? WOULD THERE BE SERVICES SPECIFIC TO YOU GUYS THAT WOULD BE OF

BENEFIT OR A MAIN FEATURE? >> THE COUNTY SERVICE OFFICER, AND ASSISTANT COUNTY OFFICERS. THEY HAVE ONE IN TAYLOR, AND I BELIEVE ONE IN ROUND ROCK. A COUPLE IN GEORGETOWN. IT'S NICE TO BRING ONE OVER HERE IN HUTTO. THAT WAY, SPREADING THAT ASSISTANCE ACROSS WILLIAMSON COUNTY. DUPLICATION SERVICES.

THEY HELP OUT MORE IN THE COUNTY ASPECT, RIGHT WITH WHATEVER THE COUNTY SERVICES THEY DO. I USED TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF SERVICES, YEARS AGO, BEFORE JOINED THE STATE, RIGHT? AS AN ADVISER WITH CLAIMS, THEY FOCUS MOST IMPORTANTLY WITH THE SIDE. WITH THE STATE, WE HAVE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THEY CAN ASSIST WITH HEALTHCARE, MENTAL HEALTH, FINANCIAL SERVICES. WE HAVE CLAIMS, I'M SORRY, FUNDS FOR VETERAN'S ASSISTANT. WE CAN BRING IN THOSE OTHER SERVICES IF NEEDED. OF COURSE, WITH THIS ADVISORY, BE ABLE TO FOCUS FOR CLAIMS, ESPECIALLY. BUT DUPLICATION SERVICES, IT'S GREAT TO HAVE THE SERVICE, YOU KNOW, SPREAD OUT AMONG THE COUNTY. THANK YOU FOR THAT INFORMATION.

>> YES, SIR. >> WHAT IS YOUR JOB TITLE AGAIN?

>> THE OPERATIONS MANAGER FOR THE CLAIMS DEPARTMENT FOR TEXAS

CLAIMS COMMISSION. >> IF SOMEONE -- CAN THIS ORGANIZATION HELP IF THERE'S A VETERAN WHO PASSED AWAY AND A FAMILY MEMBER IS TRYING TO GET THEM BURIED IN A CERTAIN CEMETERY AND RUNNING INTO ISSUES, CAN THIS ORGANIZATION HELP WITH THAT PROCESS? OR DISABILITY CLAIMS?

>> YES, SIR. WE CAN HELP WITH THAT PROCESS.

>> CAN I GIVE YOU A CARD? >> OF COURSE.

>> I HAVE MY CARD. >> THERE'S A LEGITIMATE DEAL, WHERE SOMEONE'S FATHER PASSED AWAY, AND GONE LONG ENOUGH WHERE THEY CREMATED THEM, AND STILL TRYING TO GET THEM BURIED AND WORKING WITH THE STATE. I'M TALKING TO THE WRONG

ORGANIZATION, IT SOUNDS LIKE. >> THE VA IS SPLIT INTO THREE DIFFERENT ADMINISTRATIONS, OF COURSE, WE HAVE HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, AND BURIAL ADMINISTRATION. BENEFITS, BUT ALSO WITH THE BURIAL. WE DO ASSIST WITH THE BURIAL SITE. KALENE HAS THE CEMETERY. SO THEREFORE, WITH THIS AREA, WE CAN ASSIST WITH VETERANS AND

THOSE PURPOSES AND SO FORTH. >> I THINK THIS IS GREAT THAT WE'RE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE SERVICES FOR THE COMMUNITY. JUST BY MAKING OUR FACILITIES OPEN AND LETTING YOU GUYS COME IN AND WELCOME AND HOPE YOU GET TO HELP A LOT OF

PEOPLE. >> I APPRECIATE IT. I APPRECIATE THE CITY MANAGER FOR ALLOWING US. I KNOW THE COMMUNICATION WE HAD FROM THE BEGINNING AND I BELIEVE SHE SPEARHEADED THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE BEGINNING. BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH

[01:25:03]

FOR ALLOWING US. I THINK IT'S A GREAT COLLABORATION THAT WE HAVE, AND WE HAD A MEETING THIS MORNING WITH AMERICAN LEGION, I BELIEVE POST 302, SO, THEY ARE EXCITED AS WELL, RIGHT? SO, POST COMMANDER FOR GEORGETOWN A COUPLE YEARS, SO IT'S ALWAYS GREAT TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN FOR THE VETERANS OF THE COMMUNITY HERE. SO THANK YOU SO MUCH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> THANK YOU, SIR. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION FROM COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> GORDON. >> AYE.

>> MORRIS. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER THRONSON. >> AYE.

>> THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

[13.1. Consideration and possible action pertaining to the Wolfe Tract water discussion with Manville. (Matt Rector)]

>> MOTION PASSES. 7-0. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 13.1, CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO THE WOLFE TRACT WATER DISCUSSION

WITH MANVILLE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL.

I DID NOT DO THIS THE LAST TIME, I APOLOGIZE. SO, THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY CAME BEFORE YOU, I THINK IT WAS IN APRIL, MAY TIME FRAME. BECAUSE THEY HAD APPLIED THROUGH AN SER AND ASKED FOR SERVICE. WE SAID THEY HAD TO TALK TO YOU GUYS. DIRECTED THEM TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH MANVILLE AND TO COME BACK AND FOLLOW UP WITH YOU. SO THEY ARE HERE TONIGHT TO FOLLOW UP WITH

YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M THE CEO.

WE ARE THE CIVIC ENGINEERS REPRESENTING THIS PROJECT. HERE THIS EVENING TO VERY QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THE PROJECT, WHICH SOME OF YOU HAVE SEEN ALREADY. I'LL TRY NOT TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME AND WALK THROUGH THE REQUEST FOR TEMPORARY WATER SERVICE FOR THE PROJECT. THIS PROJECT IS CALLED THE GATEWAY AT HUTTO. IT'S A MIXED USE MASTER PLAN PROJECT LOCATED ALONG THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY AND COUNTY ROAD 137. JUST TO LOCATE THE PROJECT HERE QUICKLY, THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY IS RUNNING EAST, WEST THROUGH THE PROJECT. WHICH IS IN YELLOW THERE. THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROJECT IS COUNTY ROAD 137, GOING UP TO BROOKLYNS. THE PROJECT IS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE HIGHWAY, AND PREVIOUSLY DEDICATED THE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THAT ROAD. AND THE PROJECT IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEEN THE LANDOWNER, STEVEN WOLFE. THE WOLFE FAMILY HAS OWNED THIS PROPERTY FOR SEVERAL DECADES AND ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. HERE IS THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE PROJECT. SINCE IT IS LOCATED ON A PRIMARY THOROUGH FAIR OF THE HIGHWAY, WHICH IS VERY NEARLY DONE. IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN DOWN THERE RECENTLY, IT HAS MOST OF THE DENSITY RIGHT THERE AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 137 AND THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY. THAT'S IN THE RED, IS MOST OF THE COMMERCIAL. THE LEGEND SHOWS THE USES THERE. SO WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY, TOWNHOUSE, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL, OFFICE, HOTEL CONFERENCE CENTER, WHICH IS IN PURPLE ON NORTH SIDE OF THE LAKE. AND THEN ABOUT 70-ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AROUND THE RESERVOIR LAKE, WHICH IS ALWAYS FULL OF WATER. I'M SURE YOU HAVE SEEN IT FROM THE ROAD. THERE'S SOME REPRESENTATIVE IMAGERY OFF THERE TO THE RIGHT. BLESS YOU. THIS ZOOMS IN A LITTLE BIT ON THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AT THE MAIN INTERSECTION. SHOWS SOME POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE LAKE, WHICH AGAIN, IS A RESERVOIR THAT ALWAYS HOLDS WATER. THERE'S SOME NEW ROADS THAT WILL CONNECT THROUGH AND IDEALLY UNDERNEATH THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY AS WELL. AND UP ON THE NORTH END OF THAT IS IN PURPLE IS THE CONFERENCE CENTER AND HOTEL. THESE ARE THE RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS. THERE'S ABOUT 200 SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. VERY SMALL AMOUNT IN RELATION TO THE OVERALL PROJECT. THAT WOULD BE A MIX OF USES FROM MULTIFAMILY TO TOWNHOUSE TO SINGLE FAMILY, KIND OF BLENDING BACK INTO THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS LIKE SOUTH GATE THAT ARE TO THE WEST. THIS IS THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN.

AGAIN, SHOWING SOME REPRESENTATIVE IMAGERY OF DEVELOPMENT, WALKING TRAILS, HIKING TRAILS AROUND THE LAKE.

MAYBE SOME FOUNTAINS IN THERE TO KEEP THAT LOOKING FRESH. THESE ARE THE POINTS OF DISCUSSION. AND I GUESS ONE THING, YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL MASTER PLAN, THIS IS 600,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AGAIN, ABOUT 200 UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY ON THE NORTH, AND ANOTHER 100 OR SO ON THE SOUTH. ABOUT 295-ACRES TOTAL. AS MATT MENTIONED, THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED TO THE COUNCIL AND THEN THE COUNCIL INSTRUCTED THE DEVELOPERS TO GO BACK AND ATTEMPT TO NEGOTIATE THE SERVICE FROM MANVILLE, WHICH

[01:30:04]

THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING ON WITH OUR TEAM VERY DILIGENTLY FOR QUITE SOME TIME. UNFORTUNATELY, MANVILLE IS NOT CURRENTLY ABLE TO SERVE THE TRACK. THEY ARE WORKING ON SIGNIFICANT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FROM THEIR PLANT AND WATER LINE EXTENSION THAT IS ABOUT 14 MILES LONG. THEY ANTICIPATE THE DURATION OF THAT IMPROVEMENT TO BE SOMEWHERE IN THE THREE TO FIVE YEAR PERIOD, WHICH IS NOT ALIGNING WELL WITH THIS PROJECT, WHICH AS THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY IS BEING CONSTRUCTED, THEY ARE READY TO GET MOVING. SO THE QUESTION HERE IS, WILL THE COUNCIL BE WILLING TO CONSIDER TEMPORARY SERVICE FOR THE TRACK FOR UP TO 400, UNTIL MANVILLE'S TRANSMISSION SYSTEM IS INSTALLED AT WHICH POINT THE WATER SERVICE COULD BE CONVERTED OVER. THAT WOULD BE A WATER LINE FROM THE EXISTING SYSTEM. NORTH ON COUNTY ROAD 137, KIND OF PLUGGING INTO THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SEE AT THE INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 137, AND THE EAST WELCO HIGHWAY. THEN IT WOULD LOOP UP ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROJECT AND TIE INTO THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THAT COULD SERVE AS A LONG-TERM INTERCONNECT BETWEEN MANVILLE AND THE CITY. YOU CAN SIMPLY PUT IN A COUPLE OF WATER VALVES ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SYSTEM AND HAVE THAT FOR A LONG-TERM OPERATION BETWEEN MANVILLE AND THE CITY. ONCE THIS IS CONSTRUCTED AND MANVILLE HAS THEIR IMPROVEMENTS INSTALLED, THIS SYSTEM COULD REVERT OVER TO MANVILLE, COME OFF THE CITY SYSTEM AND FREED UP FOR HUTTO TO USE ELSEWHERE IN THEIR SYSTEM.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS KIND OF THE BULLET POINT AT THE BOTTOM WITHOUT SOME WATER TO GET THIS PROJECT MOVING, IT IS REALLY NOT FEASIBLE TO GET STARTED. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CAPACITY, ACCORDING TO ERIC OVER AT MANVILLE TO GET THIS PROJECT MOVING. MATT AND JAMES HAVE BOTH BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH ERIC ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF SERVICE AT MANVILLE, WHICH IS NOT FEASIBLE. SO, WE ARE HERE ASKING YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THAT TEMPORARY SERVICE FOR UP TO 400 LUES. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY

QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS FROM

COUNCIL? >> I DIDN'T SEE IN THIS MAP THERE WAS ANY SITES ADDED FOR ANY AREAS ADDED FOR SCHOOL SITES. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT IN

THIS DEVELOPMENT? >> NO. COUNCIL MEMBER, THIS TRACT IS LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE COMMERCIAL INTENSITY OF PROJECT, WE ARE NOT CONTEMPLATING A NEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AS PART OF

THIS PROJECT. >> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WILL LOOK INTO WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS, WITH THEIR

RECOMMENDATION? >> IT'S POSSIBLE. I REPRESENT SEVERAL OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE FURTHER EAST ON EAST WELCO HIGHWAY. INCLUDING ONE THAT YOU WILL BE CONSIDERING, THAT DOES HAVE A POTENTIAL SCHOOL SITE ON IT. I IMAGINE THE DISTRICT WOULD SIMPLY SAY HEY, WE HAVE ONE A MILE AND A HALF EAST OF HERE.

AND ANOTHER ONE THREE QUARTERS OF A MILE NORTH. AND REALLY ARE ONLY, AGAIN, A COUPLE HUNDRED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS. I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT, BUT I CAN ASK THE DEVELOPERS TO GO RUN THAT BY

THE DISTRICT ONE MORE TIME. >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD SAY WITH FARLY, MIGHT BE HALF A MILE AWAY. AND RAY ELEMENTARY IS NEXT TO THERE. I GUESS IT WOULDN'T HURT TO ASK THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I WOULD BE SHOCKED IF THEY WOULD WANT ANOTHER SCHOOL HALF A MILE AWAY FROM THE OTHER SCHOOL. TO YOUR POINT, THEY HAVE THE SCHOOL SITE JUST SOUTH AND EAST OF HERE. I FORGOT HOW MANY ACRES. 30 OR 40 OR SOMETHING. THE REQUEST IS 400 LUES TEMPORARILY, BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE TEMPORARILY SO WE

CAN PROJECT IT? >> SO THE REQUEST WOULD BE 400 SP*Z LUES. THIS PROJECT IS CURRENTLY IN YOUR ETJ AS PART OF APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE BROUGHT IN AND ANNEXED FULL PURPOSE CITY LIMITS, WHICH IS AGAIN, A GREAT BENEFIT FOR THE CITY. I THINK WHAT WE WOULD DO IS COORDINATE WITH MANVILLE AND SAY, GIVE US A HARD DEADLINE OF WHEN YOU EXPECT THIS IMPROVEMENT TO BE COMPLETED. MAT WOULD NEED TO REVIEW THAT. GIVE US 12 MONTHS AFTER THAT IS EXPECTED BECAUSE YOU KNOW, UNLIKE ALL MATT'S PROJECTS ARE ON TIME. SOMETIMES CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS CAN TAKE LONGER. I THINK HAVING A CUSHION WOULD BE FAIR.

>> SO WE ARE AGREEABLE TONIGHT TO GET THE CONVERSATION GOING.

IF WE ARE AGREEABLE TO GIVE YOU ALL 400 EUE'S, NOT TO EXCEED

[01:35:07]

FIVE YEARS, THAT GIVES YOU TO START HAVING THE CONVERSATION AND YOU CAN COME BACK IF IT NEEDED TO BE MORE THAN THAT.

>> YEAH, WE HAVE A LOT OF GREAT INFORMATION, INCLUDING AN SCR.

WE ARE FAR DOWN THE LINE IN TERMS OF FEASIBILITY OF IT. AND I THINK THE DIRECTION WOULD BE FOR COUNCIL TO TELL MATT TO WORK ON AN AGREEMENT WITH MANVILLE AND THE DEVELOPER.

>> TO ME, AN AGREEMENT WITH MANVILLE IS NECESSARY, BECAUSE THEIR PLAN TODAY IS TO BUILD WITHIN THREE TO FIVE YEARS. BUT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER THAT. IF WE DON'T HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MANVILLE TO BACK UP THE BACK END OF THIS. THAT'S WHERE I HAVE AN ISSUE. I MEAN, 400 LUES ISN'T TREMENDOUS. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE AWAY 400 THAT WE MAY NEVER RECOVER AND THEN THE OTHER THING IS, WE ALREADY HAVE AN INTERCONNECT WITH MANVILLE. SO THERE'S LIMITED VALUE AND A SECONDARY CONNECT WITH THEM. WE GET WATERFRONT ALREADY. SO I DON'T REALLY SEE A LOT OF VALUE IN THAT ASPECT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE COST FOR SOMETHING THAT IS TEMPORARY PROJECT. THAT'S PART OF IT,

TOO. >> WHERE IS THE OTHER

INTERCONNECT? >> OUR INTERCONNECT WITH MANVILLE COMES DOWN EFFECTIVELY AT 1:30. AND THEN GOES DOWN CHRIS KELLY AND THEN ULTIMATELY TIES INTO THE GROUND STORAGE AND

ELEVATED AT THE HIGH SCHOOL. >> OKAY.

>> SO WHO WOULD BE PUTTING THIS CONNECTION IN RIGHT NOW? YOU ALL

WOULD PUT IT? >> WE WOULD NOT. IT WOULD BE

THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. >> I WAS HOPING JAMES WOULD SAY

IT WAS THE CITY. BUT YES. >> YOU HAVE KNOWN ME TOO LONG TO KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO ANSWER THAT.

>> ANY COST WOULD WOULD BE BY YOU ALL.

>> THIS WOULD BE FROM THEIR NEWEST, LARGEST CAPACITY TRANSMISSION LINE. I THINK THERE'S SOME VALUE IN HAVING

MULTIPLE POINTS OF CONNECTION. >> IT'S MORE LIMITED.

>> IT IS A SIDE BENEFIT OF THE PROJECT, I WOULD SAY, ANNEXATION, AND DELIVERY OF A BIG MIXED USE COMMERCIAL.

>> FOR US OPERATIONALLY, IS THAT THERE IS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TALK TO MANVILLE AS WELL, ABOUT POTENTIALLY TAKING MORE WATER THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY DO FOR MANVILLE, IN PLACE OF OR IN LIEU OF OTHER FUTURE WATER PROJECTS. AND THE CURRENT LINE THAT WE HAVE IS AT CAPACITY. SO WE WOULD NEED TO EITHER UPGRADE THAT LINE OR HAVE A SECONDARY TAKE POINT. THESE GUYS ARE GOING TO HAVE A CHALLENGE, TOO, BECAUSE THEY WILL NEED TO LOOP INTO OUR SYSTEM. BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GET FIRE CLEARANCE, AND WE WON'T BE ABLE TO GET GOOD WATER QUALITY. IF THEY DON'T LOOP IN. SO, THERE'S PROBABLY SOME OPPORTUNITY THERE TO WHERE WE DESIGN THE LOOP CONNECTION THAT THEY WOULD DO IN SUCH A WAY THAT WHENEVER MANVILLE DOES PROVIDE WATER HERE, THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO TURN IT AND HAVE THE WATER COME THE OTHER WAY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> AGREED. >> I SHARE A LOT OF THE SAME CONCERNS. 400 LUES, WHAT DOES THAT DO IF SOMEHOW, IN FOUR TO FIVE TO SIX YEARS, WE NEED THOSE, AND THERE'S SOME DELAY.

IT'S NOT A QUESTION FOR YOU TO ANSWER, IT'S MORE FOR ENGINEERING. MAYBE NOT TONIGHT. WHAT ARE THE CONTINGENCY PLANS IF WE DON'T GET THOSE BACK AND OR WE, THE CITY OF HUTTO, HAS A NEED PRIOR TO MANVILLE PROVIDING YOUR WATER. WHAT ARE THE CONTINGENCY PLANS? NOT TO ANSWER IT NOW.

>> I WOULD SAY, IF WE FIND OURSELVES NEEDING THOSE 400 BACK WITHIN THE FIVE YEARS WE'RE IN A VERY GOOD POSITION, BECAUSE WE HAVE EFFECTIVELY, NOW THAT MEANS WE HAVE RATE PAYERS PAYING FOR ALL THE WATER WE HAVE CONTRACTED. THAT'S A GOOD PROBLEM TO HAVE. SO THE CHANCES OF IT HAPPENING LOGISTICALLY ARE EXCEPTIONALLY RARE. IT'S PROBABLY LIKE 3 STANDARD DEVIATION POINTS OF A POSSIBILITY OF IT HAPPENING, BUT IF WE GOT TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAD AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEAL AND WE HAD TO HAVE THAT 400 LUES AND THEY STILL HAD THEM IN THAT TIME AND WINDOW, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT AN ADDITIONAL

SOURCE FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. >> OKAY.

>> 400 LUES, APPROXIMATELY, GUESSTIMATE. HOW MANY THOUSAND

GALLONS OF THAT A DAY? >> IT'S 280. SO, 280 TIMES 400.

>> WHAT'S THAT? 32,000? >> SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. SO HERE'S WHERE I DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF A CONCERN. I THINK WE HAVE 2 MILLION MORE GALLONS COMING ON IN FEBRUARY, LET'S

SAY. >> WE HAVE 4 MILLION MORE, BUT

TWO NET THAT WE CAN BRING HERE. >> TWO CAN COME HERE, AND TWO TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'LL DO WITH. I'M NOT MAKING LIGHT OF BEING IN STAGE TWO RIGHT NOW. BUT IF WE HAVE 2 MILLION MORE

[01:40:03]

COMING. PART OF THE REASON ARE WATER BILLS ARE GOING UP.

BESIDES THE WASTE WATER, IS WE'RE EFFECTIVELY PAYING RESERVATION RIGHTS TODAY FOR WATER WE'RE NOT USING IN FEBRUARY, WE'LL BE PAYING FOR 2 MILLION-GALLONS OF WATER WE'RE NOT USING, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO GIVE WATER AWAY AND I WILL NEVER VOTE TO GIVE IT AWAY, BECAUSE THE 2 MILLION ULTIMATE WILL NOT BE ENOUGH. I FEEL LIKE WE CAN DO IN THE INTERIM TO SOFTEN THE COST OF THAT $2 MILLION, TO ME, MAKES SENSE.

32,000 ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THE COST OF WATER, BUT A FEW DEALS, IN MY MIND, THAT ARE TEMPORARY IN NATURE MAKES SENSE, AND AS WE, IF WE DO THIS RIGHT, AS THESE DEALS COME OFF, IT COMES ABOUT THE TIME WE START NEEDING MORE WATER AND THEN ABOUT EIGHT YEARS OR WHATEVER. SO, BASICALLY, YOU GUYS, WE GET THIS FIGURED OUT, YOU WOULD BE PAYING FOR WATER WE'RE NOT USING ANYWAY, AND WE'RE PAYING FOR TO SOFTEN. IT'S 112,000 GALLONS, SO 2 MILLION COME ONLINE. NOT SIGNIFICANT.

>> THE CONCERN IS NOT THE FRONT END. IT'S THE BACK END.

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I PLAN ON SUPPORTING THIS. WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE IS THE AGREEMENT IS WOULD IT BE A TRIPARTY? EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT HAPPENS, I THINK WHAT THE MAYOR PROTEM SAID. WHAT HAPPENS IN FIVE YEARS, AND WE CAN'T JUST SHUT OFF A NEIGHBORHOOD OF WATER. SO IT WOULD MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, POTENTIALLY YOUR PRICE OF WATER QUADRUPLES. WE CAN'T SAY YOU HAVE APARTMENTS AND WE SAY HEY, TERM IS UP. YOU DIDN'T GET WATER. WE JUST SHUT THE VALVE OFF. WHAT WE CAN DO IS FINANCIALLY, BECAUSE IT NOW IMPACTS US AND OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY, YOU MAY HAVE TO RENEGOTIATE SIX MONTHS OUT, OR KIND OF LIKE IF YOU HAVE A HOLD OVER IN PROPERTY, YOU HAVE TO PAY A HIGHER RATE UNTIL YOU FIGURE IT OUT. I THINK IF WE HAVE A TRIPARTY AGREEMENT AND WE GET WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, A BUFFER, THEN WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND LOOK. THIS IS GOOD WAY TO GET THE CONVERSATION STARTED. THE LAST THING I WOULD SAY IS, WHEN I WAS TALKING TO YOU GUYS, THIS IS MORE FOR AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I HAD MY MIND, SOMETHING WE CAN START TALKING TO YOU GUYS ABOUT ON A SEPARATE ISSUE. BEING A POTENTIAL OF A HOTEL CONVENTION CENTER. I THINK THERE'S A BENEFIT TO THE CITY HAVING A CONVENTION CENTER. ONE WE CAN CHARGE A HIGHER HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX. BUT WHAT I'VE SEEN, I THINK IT WAS A ROUND ROCK, AND I BELIEVE ROUND ROCK BUILT THE CONVENTION CENTER OR CALAHARY. THEY WORK TOGETHER. THEY HAVE A CONVENTION CENTER THAT CAN BE USED AND TO ME, THIS IS A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR A JOINT VENTURE, ALLOWS THE CITY TO FILL A NEED IN THE CITY, BUT WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, WE DON'T HAVE TO SHOULDER THE COST. WE HAVE MEETING SPACE. THIS BEING AS

MUCH COMMERCIAL. >> IT WOULD BE A BEAUTIFUL PLACE FOR IT. MAYBE THEY NEED A PIT OR SOMETHING.

>> YEAH, EXACTLY. >> AND IT IS ANNEXING INTO THE CITY. I WANT TO REENFORCE THAT. IT'S NOT TAKING WATER FROM CITY LIMITS TO OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS. WHICH I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. SO YES, THE DEVELOPERS HAVE HAD MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH CHENEY WITH DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.

>> ANNEXING IN IS DIFFERENT. SO JUST BECAUSE AN ANNEX IS IN, FOR SOME OF US, WE HAVEN'T BEEN INCLINED TO GIVE WATER OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN BECAUSE THE FUTURE IS CLOUDY. BUT I THINK WE HAVE THE IMMEDIATE NEED FILLED, THIS MAY BE BENEFICIAL. I JUST THREW THAT OUT WITH WITH THE CONVENTION CENTER, JAMES.

>> CERTAINLY. >> SOMEONE OVER THERE GET THE

CONVERSATION STARTED. >> COUNCIL MEMBER THORNTON, YOU TALKED ABOUT HAVING A SEPARATE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND MANVILLE, CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT?

>> MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT WE HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH MANVILLE ABOUT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. BECAUSE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER, THE DEVELOPER, DOES NOTHING IF THEY BUILD IT IN FIVE YEARS AND THEY ARE GONE. AND YOU CAN'T SCREW THE HOMEOWNERS WHO MOVED IN, FOR SOMETHING THEY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW

ABOUT. >> I LIKE THIS.

>> I THINK WE HAVE TO MAKE AN AGREEMENT.

>> I AM GOING TO SAY, WE HAVE TO ANYWAY, BECAUSE IT IS MANVILLE SERVICE AREA. WE WON'T SERVICE IT WITHOUT THEM CONSENTING. JUST LIKE I WOULDN'T POACH SOMEONE'S SERVICE AREA. WE'LL DO THIS, BUT THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO. AND IF YOU DON'T DO IT, THIS IS WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IT HAS TO HAVE THE

CONTINGENCIES. >> JUST LIKE WE WERE APPROACHING

[01:45:01]

JONAH BEFORE, JONAH IS LIKE, NEVER MIND, WE'LL JUST DO IT.

WE'LL DO THE SAME THING ON MANVILLE.

>> IT'S NOT ON THE DEVELOPER, BUT HOPEFULLY THAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER THAT WE'RE TRYING TO ENSURE THE TIMETABLE.

>> YEAH, AND WE HAVE TALKED TO MANVILLE ABOUT THIS. THEY SUGGESTED WE TALK TO YOU ABOUT INTERIM WATER. EVERYBODY IS ON THE SAME PAGE AND WE CAN WORK TO GET AN AGREEMENT. YOU NEED PERMISSION TO SERVE ON THEIR CCN, I THINK THAT IS DOABLE.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE DIRECT STAFF TO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD IS, DIRECT YOU TO DEVELOP AND BRING UP AN AGREEMENT, TRIPARTY AGREEMENT BETWEEN YOU ALL, THE CITY, AND MANVILLE, FOR A PERIOD NOT TO EXCEED FIVE YEARS. 400 LUES AND BRING THAT BACK TO US FOR MODIFICATION ON YEARS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IF

THAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN. >> I'LL SECOND THAT.

>> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON. >> AYE.

>> THORNTON. >> AYE.

>> COUNCIL MEMBER KING. >> AYE.

>> PORTERFIELD. >> AYE.

>> THOMPSON. >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER. >> AYE.

>> MORRIS. >> AYE.

>> VOTE PASSES 7-0. >> THANK YOU.

[13.2. Consideration and possible action pertaining to the presentation updates for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. (Matt Rector) ]

>> THANKS, GUYS. >> THANK YOU.

>> NEXT, ITEM 13.3, CONSIDERATION POSSIBLE ACTION PERTAINING TO THE PRESENTATION UPDATES TO THE AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT ADA TRANSITION PLAN.

>> GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, MATT RECTOR. AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT BE AWARE, REQUIRED BY TEX DOT BECAUSE OF THE REQUIREMENT FROM THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION. WE HAVE HIRED KIM TO HELP US WITH THAT PLAN. I HAVE AARON HERE TO WALK US THROUGH THE PRESSIN

PRESENTATION. >> GOOD EVENING, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. AS MATT MENTIONED, WE'RE TALKING WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT, AND TRANSITION PLAN. SO, AGENDA, WE'RE GOING TO QUICKLY GO OVER WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT AND WHY COUNCIL SHOULD REALLY CARE ABOUT THIS INITIATIVE. TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TITLE 2 REQUIREMENTS OF THE ADA, THE LAW ITSELF, AND THEN TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR IN THIS CURRENT PHASE AND WHAT IS STILL LEFT TO BE DONE. AS MATT MENTIONED, CONSIDERATIONS FOR COUNCIL AND RECEIVING ANY FEEDBACK THAT YOU MAY HAVE. SO REALLY THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS IS THE TRANSITION PLAN ITSELF IS REQUIRED BY FEDERAL LAW. SO THAT IS TITLE 2 OF THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THIS CAN RESULT IN WITHHOLDING A FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING. IT'S OFTEN SOMETHING WE SEE AS A REQUIREMENT FOR GRANTS THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO APPLY FOR. SO HAVING THIS IS NOT ONLY A REQUIREMENT, BUT IT IS ALSO GOING TO HELP YOU GET SOME OF THAT FUNDING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED. THERE IS ALSO POTENTIAL FOR SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AS WELL AS PRIVATE LAWSUITS. BUT IN GENERAL, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO TO NOT ONLY HAVE THIS PLAN IN PLACE, BUT TO ALSO IMPLEMENT IT. AND IT CAN DIRECTLY AFFECT THE ACCESSIBILITY FOR THOSE THAT LIVE AND VISIT HUTTO. SO THERE ARE FIVE TITLES OF THE ADA. THE ONE WE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS TITLE 2, FOR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND THAT REQUIRES THAT THE CITY OPERATE ALL-YEAR PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND ACTIVITIES SO THEY ARE USABLE TO INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES.

AND SO PART OF THIS PLAN IS MAKING SURE THAT HAPPENS. SO THE GOALS OF THE PLAN RIGHT NOW WITH PHASE ONE AND THAT WAS TO DEVELOP THE INITIAL SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN. AND SO IDENTIFYING BARRIERS TO ACCESS AND THAT WAS WITHIN A FISCALLY CONSTRAINED BUDGET ALLOCATION. SO THAT LENDS ITSELF TO THE FUTURE EFFORTS THAT WE'LL BE TALKING ABOUT TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING FACILITY EVALUATIONS. BUT THE OTHER BIG GOAL OF THIS IS ONCE THE PLAN HAS IDENTIFIED ALL THOSE BARRIERS TO ACCESS, IT IS REALLY LOOKING AT HOW DO YOU IMPLEMENT THE BARRIER REMOVAL? AND SO THIS CAN OCCUR AFTER ALL THE EVALUATIONS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED OR OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE REMAINING EVALUATIONS. SO IN PHASE ONE, WE DID TAKE CARE OF A LOT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS REQUIRED BY THE TITLE 2 REGULATIONS. SO DEFINING THE ADA COORDINATORS RULES AND RESPONSIBILITIES. DEVELOPING A GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE AND FORM SO ANYONE DOES HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT BARRIERS TO ACCESS THAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCED WITHIN THE CITY, THEY HAVE A PROCESS THEY CAN FOLLOW WITH CITY STAFF TO RESOLVE THOSE. AND ALSO DEVELOPED AN ADA NOTICE, SO EVERYONE KNOWS THE CITY'S

[01:50:02]

OBLIGATIONS UNDER TITLE 2 OF THE ADA. AND THEN LOOKING TOWARDS THE FUTURE, WE DEVELOPED AN INVENTORY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT PROGRAMS, SERVICES, AND ACTIVITIES THE CITY DOES OFFER TO THE PUBLIC AND ANY PROCEDURES OR POLICIES THAT ARE USED TO IMPLEMENT THOSE, SO THEY CAN BE REVIEWED FOR COMPLIANCE. AND THEN FINALLY, WE LOOKED AT THE BUILDING EVALUATIONS. SO WE LOOKED AT ALL THE BUILDINGS, PARKS AND TRAILS, AND THEN SELECT PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY. AND WITH THAT, WE DEVELOPED THE TRANSITION PLAN THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF. SO JUST A VERY BRIEFLY GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THE THINGS WE FOUND WHEN WE COMPLETED THE EVALUATIONS, THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS SHOWING HUTTO POLICE STATION. LOOKING AT THOSE DISPLAYS THAT ARE SELF-SERVE, THE RETRAIN, SOMEONE WAS USING A MOBILITY DEVICE OR SEATED IN A WHEELCHAIR, THEY ARE TOO HIGH UP FOR PEOPLE TO REACH. AND THEN THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT IS SHOWING CITY HALL AND THERE IS A LABORATORY WITH AN ALCOVE. WHEN YOU HAVE A GREATER DEPTH, YOU NEED TO HAVE A WIDER WIDTH. SO SOMEONE THAT IS USING A MOBILITY DEVICE CAN ENTER THAT AREA TO ACTUALLY USE THE SINK. FROM THE PARKING TO THE PAVILION, AND GETTING FROM THE PAVILION TO ONE OF THE EACH OF THE AMENITIES THAT WERE NEAR THE PAVILION, SUCH AS THE GRILLS THAT ARE OUT THERE. AND MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S ACCESS TO ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS THAT NEED TO BE USED WITHIN THE PARK, SO EVERYONE CAN ACCESS THEM. AND THEN AT THE PLAYGROUND, THERE ARE BOTH ELEVATED PLAY COMPONENTS AND GROUND LEVEL PLAY COMPONENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR EXAMPLE, THE CREEK SIDE PARK, THERE WAS NOT A GROUND LEVEL PLAY COMPONENT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLAYGROUND. FOR THE TRAILS, THIS HAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL ISSUES. SO THESE ARE CREATE TRIP HAZARDS THAT ARE OVER A QUARTER OF AN INCH OR GAPS THAT ARE GREATER THAN A HALF AN INCH. REALLY JUST MAKING SURE THAT ALL OF THESE ARE WALKABLE AND THE SERVICE CONDITIONS ARE WHAT THEY NEED TO BE. THE PHOTO ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE IS SHOWING COTTON WOOD TRAIL. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE, THE DOG SERVICE STATION IS TOO FAR AWAY FROM THAT SIDEWALK. AGAIN, THE REACH RANGE FOR SOMEONE USING A MOBILITY DEVICE THAT CANNOT GO ON THAT GRASS. IT NEEDS TO BE MOVED CLOSER TO MAKE THAT REACH RANGE MORE ACCESSIBLE. AND THEN LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, SO THE SIDEWALK, AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE TRAILS, THERE ARE STRUCTURAL ISSUES GOING ON. IN THIS EXAMPLE, THE SIDEWALK PANELS HAVE SUNK DOWN, WHICH IS NOT ONLY CREATING SOME OF THOSE VERTICAL TRIP HAZARDS, BUT CREATING A SURFACE CONDITION THAT IS NOT COMPLIANCE. YO U HAVE THE DIRT SETTLING IN AND IT'S NO LONGER FIRM, STABLE, AND SLIP RESISTANT. AND ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. ALL OF YOUR ACCESSIBLE ROUTES ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. SO TEMPORARY OBSTRUCTIONS LIKE THIS BUSH, DO NEED TO BE MAINTAINED OVER TIME TO MAINTAIN THE ACCESSIBILITY.

AND THEN FINALLY FOR CURB RAMPS. IN THIS ONE EXAMPLE, THE DIAGRAM IS SHOWING FLARES IN THE RED SHADED AREAS, BUT BASICALLY, THEY NEED TO BE LESS THAN A 150% SLOPE. SO THE PHOTO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS SHOWING A COMPLAINT EXAMPLE OF THAT, AND THEN THE PHOTO THAT IS IN THE MIDDLE IS SHOWING STEEPER FLAIRS, WHICH IS

NONACCESSIBLE. >> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION

ABOUT THAT PICTURE? >> YES.

>> ARE YOU AN ENGINEER FOR ADA-TYPE STUFF?

>> YES. >> THE DOMES, SO, I'VE BEEN IN TRAINING ONCE, AND WHAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME, THAT IS FOR A PERSON WHO IS VISUALLY IMPAIRED TO LET THEM KNOW YOU ARE GETTING READY TO ENTER MAYBE LIKE AN UNSAFE SPACE, CROSSING THE STREET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO WHEN I SEE THE ONE ON THE LEFT, AND IT IS POINTED TOWARDS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME. WHEN I SEE THE ONE ANGLED OUT TO THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION, IT MAKES ME FEEL LIKE WE'RE TELLING THE PERSON VISUALLY IMPAIRED, THAT'S A SAFE ROUTE TO GO, TO THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION. THEY ARE NOT ANGLED RIGHT. AM I

WRONG IN SAYING THAT? >> A COUPLE DIFFERENT ISSUES THERE. THE CONNECTABLE WARNING SERVICES ARE REQUIRED ON CURB RAMPS, BASICALLY, AT ALL INTERSECTION, CROSSWALKS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE. SO THE ORIENTATION OF THE CURCURB RAMP.

THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BE PLACE WHERE HAD YOU ARE. YOU WANT TWO CURB RAMPS PER CORNER SO YOU CAN PROVIDE THAT DIRECTIONAL

[01:55:03]

GUIDANCE TO PEDESTRIANS AS THEY ENTER THE INTERSECTION, BUT SOMETIMES BECAUSE OF THE EXISTING CONSTRAINTS, IT'S JUST NOT FEASIBLE SO THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL SEE SINGLE DIAGONAL CURVE RAMPS. THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TURNING SPACE, SO ONCE SOMEONE IS IN THE STREET, THEY DO HAVE ROOM OUTSIDE OF THE VEHICLE PATH OF TRAVEL TO CROSS THE STREET SAFELY IN THE DIRECTION THEY WANT TO GO.

>> OKAY, THIS STUFF IS GOING TO BE INTERESTING. I USED TO BRING THIS UP, AND I GOT TIRED OF ASKING AND BEING TOLD NO, IT'S GOOD. WE PASSED TSA. I HAVE A FEELING WE HAVE A LOT OF FACILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED THAT WOULD NOT BE COMPLIANT WITH ADA, ESPECIALLY THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE SIDEWALKS WE JUST SPENT $3 MILLION PUTTING IN AT, YOU DON'T KNOW THE NEIGHBORHOOD, LAKE SIDE ESTATES. I WOULD SAY A SIDEWALK GO UP TO HIT SOME KIND OF SEWER OR WATER MANHOLE COVER AND GO RIGHT BACK DOWN. AND AGAIN, MY TRAINING WAS, THERE'S A SLOPE, THERE'S A MAXIMUM SLOPE YOU CAN HAVE AND ALL THESE THINGS THAT GO INTO IT. YOU HAVE TO MAKE EVERYTHING FLAT, AND YOU DRIVE THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE THESE UPS AND DOWNS ALL OVER. AND I GUESS I'M JUST SAYING THAT OUT PUBLIC, IF WE END UP SEEING THIS, IT'S GOING TO CAUSE ME GREAT CONCERN THAT WE SPENT MILLIONS AND SOMEONE WAS APPROVING THEM AND TELLING US IT WAS GOOD TO GO, WHEN IN REALITY, IF YOU COME BACK AND TELL US WE HAVE TO REDO STUFF, IT WILL MAKE ME MAD. BUT GOVERNMENT WORK IS

WHAT IT TURNS INTO. ANYWAY. >> THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT

UP. AND DEFINITELY, IF IT IS -- >> HOPEFULLY I'M WRONG. I WOULD

RATHER BE WRONG THAN RIGHT. >> AS PART OF THIS, WE ARE SIMPLY EVALUATING AND I'LL TALK IN A MINUTE, WE HAVEN'T DONE DESIGNS. WE HAVEN'T CHECKED THE FEASIBILITY. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO DO SO, THE REQUIREMENT IS, THAT YOU CONSTRUCT IT TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT FEASIBLE. THERE MAY BE INSTANCES WHERE THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED. WHERE IT MAY NOT BE PERFECT, BUT THEY GOT IT AS CLOSE AS THEY COULD WITH THE EXISTING CONSTRAINTS THAT WERE OUT THERE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS SLIDE?

>> NO, THEY GOT ME. I'VE SEEN A LOT OF STUFF TORN UP OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE THE SLOPE WAS JUST -- OUR GUY FROM THE JUSTICE

DEPARTMENT. >> NO, NO. THE THING I WENT TO WAS FOR A FEDERAL THING. THEY HAD A LEVEL THAT WAS DIGITAL AND THEY GO, YOU'RE OFF .1 OUTSIDE OF THE GUIDELINES. HAD TO DIG UP A BRAND-NEW WHATEVER, BECAUSE THE RANGE WAS 3 TO 3.5, AND YOU'RE AT 3.6. YOU SHOULD HAVE DONE A BETTER JOB WHEN YOU DID IT THE FIRST TIME. PEOPLE ARE OUT THERE WITH DIGITAL THINGS, CHECKING PATH OF TRAVEL, A BUILDING, AND THEN I SEE THE WORK THAT HAPPENS HERE IN THIS CITY, I WONDER, IT SEEMS LIKE MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS. THAT'S WHY THIS CAUGHT MY EYE WHEN THIS HIT OUR AGENDA. IT WILL BE INTERESTING TO SEE HOW FAR OFF WE ARE AND HOW MUCH IT WILL COST US TO GET

US BACK IN COMPLIANCE. >> UNDERSTOOD. THANK YOU FOR

SHARKING THAT. >> YEAH.

>> THE SLIDE YOU WANTED TO SEE. >> OH.

>> SO, FOR EACH OF THE FACILITY TYPES, SO THE TOTAL BUDGET ESTIMATES ARE SHOWN HERE. AGAIN, THIS IS NOT BASED ON DESIGN.

THIS IS BASED ON OUR BEST UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE CAN VISUALLY SEE OUT THERE. OBVIOUSLY, WITH BUILDINGS, WE CAN'T SEE WHAT IS IN THE WALLS. THESE COSTS ARE PURELY RELATED TO ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS. SO IF YOU DECIDE TO MAKE OTHER AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS, THESE COSTS COULD ALSO INCREASE. BUT THERE MAY BE THINGS THAT A DESIGNER IS ABLE TO TAKE CARE OF MULTIPLE ISSUES WITH ONE SOLUTION AND SO THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED TO HAVE THE DESIGN DONE BEFORE THESE FIXES ARE IMPLEMENTED BASED ON THESE. BUT WE DO WANT YOU TO HAVE A LONG RANGE PLANNING DOCUMENT AND THAT'S THE WHOLE PLAN OF THE ADA TRANSITION PLAN. SO YOU CAN PLAN FOR THIS OVER TIME AND THEN ALSO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GETTING THESE DESIGNS SO YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESSIBILITY ISSUES MOVING FORWARD.

TRANSITIONING ]

[02:00:10]

>> BUT ALL THESE IMPROVEMENTS SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO YOUR BUSINESS AS USUAL. SO LOOKING AT EXISTING PROJECTS THAT ARE UPCOMING, YOU WANT TO INCORPORATE ANY OF THOSE IDENTIFIED BARRIERS INTO THOSE EXISTING SCOPES. SO WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY SAYING THIS NEEDS TO BE AN INDEPENDENT LINE TO IT. BY IF YOU HAVE ANY EXISTING CONCERNS FROM THE PUBLIC, YOU DO WANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THOSE AND SEE IF THOSE CAN BE TAKEN CARE OF SOONER RATHER THAN LATER. BUT HAVING THAT PUBLIC INPUT PROCESS, THEN MAKING SURE THAT YOU ARE GETTING THE FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE . BUT ALSO LOOKING AT DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRIORITIES, SO THAT STARTING WITH THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING GOING INTO THE ACCESSIBLE ROUTE TO GET INTO A FACILITY OR GET TO AN AMENITY. AND THEN IF YOU'RE INSIDE A FACILITY, THE ACCESS TO THE GOODS AND SERVICES. IF YOU DO HAVE AVAILABLE FUNDING, GO AHEAD AND USE THAT RIGHT AWAY. WE'RE NOT SUGGESTING THAT ANYTHING BE PUT ON HOLD FOR ANY REASON. IF YOU HAVE THE FUNDING, GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN THE REST OF THIS, JUST LOOKING AT SEVERITY OF NONCOMPLIANCE. SO YOU WERE MENTIONING THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S SLIGHTLY OUT OF COMPLIANCE. THAT'S GOING TO BE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING ALL YOUR EVALUATIONS DONE IS YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHERE YOUR HIGHEST RISK AREAS ARE, AND YOU CAN SPEND YOUR DOLLARS WHERE THEY'RE MOST NEEDED UP FRONT. AND THEN LOOKING AT PROXIMITY TO MAJOR GENERATORS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MOST PEDESTRIANS, AND THEN ALSO AS YOU'RE BRINGING PEOPLE IN FOR PROGRAM SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY OFFERS TO THESE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, THOSE ARE GOING TO BE A HIGHER PRIORITY THAN LOCATIONS THAT DON'T HAVE PUBLIC ACCESS . AND THEN I MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT, IS THIS A MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY OR IS THIS A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT, AND FIGURING OUT HOW TO WORK THAT INTO YOUR BUSINESS AS USUAL. AND WE WORKED CLOSELY WITH STAFF TO COME UP WITH A RECOMMENDED TIMELINE FOR IMPLEMENTATION FOR WHAT'S BEEN EVALUATED TO DATE, SO THAT IS GOING TO BE THE THREE-YEAR TIMELINE THAT YOU SEE THERE AT THE $2.3 MILLION PER YEAR. AND I KIND OF ALLUDED TO THIS SLIDE A LITTLE BIT AGO, WHERE WE ARE AT STEP ONE, THE MASTER PLANNING PROCESS. THIS IS YOUR MASTER PLAN FOR ACCESSIBILITY. IT IS INTENDED TO BE A LIVING DOCUMENT, SO AS YOU BEGIN IMPLEMENTATION, YOU HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO CHANGE THAT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE BASED ON NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT FIND OUT, WHETHER THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS OR YOU REALIZE THAT YOUR FUNDING MAY HAVE CHANGED. BUT I MENTIONED YOU DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAVE DESIGNED SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE SURE THAT THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE CORRECTLY, AND THEN THAT WILL PROVIDE THAT OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS FOR YOU SO THAT YOU CAN GET THE EXACT NUMBER THAT YOU'RE GOING TO NEED. AND THEN LASTLY, THAT CONSTRUCTION STEP. AND THEN THE FUTURE EFFORTS THAT WE SAW LEFT, I MENTIONED THE PROGRAMMATIC INVENTORY THAT WE DID. SO IT'S LOOKING AT WHAT NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED FOR THAT. LOOKING AT THE REMAINING PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY SIDEWALK CORE DOORS, SO THERE'S ROUGHLY 170 MILES REMAINING. AND THEN PUBLIC OUTREACH, THAT IS A REQUIRED COMPONENT, BUT IT'S ALSO VERY IMPORTANT IN HELPING YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY. AND THEN ANY TRANSITION PLAN UPDATES, JUST SO YOU'RE DOCUMENTING ALL THIS ADDITIONAL WORK . WE'LL PLAN TO COORDINATE CLOSELY WITH STAFF DURING THE PROJECT MEETINGS, AND THEN ALSO PROVIDE STAFF TRAINING. SO MAKING SURE PEOPLE ARE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS ARE. AND THEN LASTLY, WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS ARE SELF-SUFFICIENT, YOU'RE ABLE TO MAKE DECISIONS ON FUNDING AND FIGURE OUT WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR PROJECTS, AS WELL AS TRACKING THOSE OVER TIME. AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE SUGGESTING A DASHBOARD. ALL THE FIELD DATA THAT WE WILL COLLECT GETS PUT INTO THAT, SO YOU ARE A NON-GIS USER, YOU'RE ABLE TO QUICKLY LOOK ON THE WEB BASED APPLICATION, FILTER THROUGH THE DATA, AND MAKE THE FUNDING DECISIONS BASED ON THAT. BUT OUR ASK OF COUNSEL THIS EVENING IS TO APPROVE THE ANNUAL BUDGET THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRANSITION PLAN FOR THOSE EVALUATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE, AND THEN ALSO APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE PLAN THAT'S BEEN COMPLETED THIS YEAR.

>> AND WHAT WAS THAT ANNUAL BUDGET THAT WE NEED TO EQUIP

TONIGHT? >> THAT WAS 2.3, ROUGHLY $2.3 MILLION FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

>> YEAH, SO, AARON, WHAT'S LEE, WHAT'S THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENT ON THAT LIMITATION AS FAR AS TIME?

>> SO IN THE A.D.A. REGULATIONS, EVERYTHING SHOULD HAVE, ALL THE BARRIERS TO ACCESS SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY 1995, SO THEY BASICALLY GAVE EVERYONE A THREE-YEAR TIMELINE IN THAT ORIGINAL REGULATION. AND SO THAT'S PART OF WHERE THE THREE YEARS AND STAFF MAKING CONSIDERATIONS, WHERE THAT CAME

FROM. >> GOING, GOING BACK, THIS IS, I GUESS IT'S SLIDE SIX. IT SAYS PHASE ONE, CURRENT PHASE. I

[02:05:04]

DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT PHASE TWO, THREE, FOUR, OR FIVE. AND THEN WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT, ON SLIDE 15, STEP ONE, STEP TWO, STEP THREE, STEP FOUR. AND THEN IT TALKS ABOUT THIS 2.3, I MEAN, THIS THREE YEARS. IS THAT THE COMPLETE PHASE ONE? BECAUSE PHASE ONE IS NOT CONSTRUCTION. SO I'M CONFUSED ABOUT THE

PHASES. >> NO, THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION. SO THERE'S, IT'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE EVALUATION SIDE OF THINGS, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW. BUT THEN WE COME UP WITH THE CONCEPTUAL BUDGET ESTIMATES, TAKING OUR, THE KNOWLEDGE THAT WE HAVE ABOUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE TO IMPLEMENT THOSE BARRIER REMOVALS, AND THAT IS GOING TO BE THAT $7 MILLION FIGURE. SO THAT'S THE IMPLEMENTATION. SO WE'RE WORKING WITH STAFF RIGHT NOW TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOR THE FUTURE EVALUATIONS, BUT THAT IS NOT PART OF THE ASK THIS EVENING.

>> OH. >> IT IS SIMPLY FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF WHAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED TO DATE.

>> OKAY. SO THAT'S WHAT THE, THE $2.3 MILLION FOR A YEAR IS NOT ANY FURTHER UNDERSTANDING THAT WE NEED A CHANGE, IT'S WHAT

WE KNOW RIGHT NOW. >> CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> SO THAT NUMBER COULD GO UP ,

PROBABLY WILL GO UP. >> YES, WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVALUATIONS, THERE IS A VERY GOOD CHANCE THAT NUMBER WILL GO

UP. >> AND THEN THE QUESTION, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD, SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT YOU CALL THEM, THE, MAYOR CALLED THEM TRUNCATED DOMES, WHERE THE, WHERE YOU CONNECT -- YEAH. SO, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, I, I KNOW, I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S THE MIDDLE ONE, THAT'S NONCOMPLIANT, AND IT'S COMING UP ON 25 YEARS OLD. WHERE THERE REGULATIONS TO WHERE THIS PAST THE REGULATION BEFORE, BUT THEY'VE BECOME MORE STRINGENT, AND THAT'S WHY IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE NOW, OR DID THEY JUST

BUILD IT WRONG FROM DAY ONE? >> SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.

FACILITIES ARE ONLY REQUIRED TO BE COMPLIANT WITH THE STANDARD THAT WAS IN PLACE AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THESE WERE CONSTRUCTED, BUT TYPICALLY FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY FOR THAT REASON, WE EVALUATE EVERYTHING PER THE CURRENT GUIDELINES FOR THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES. AND SO THE STANDARDS, AS THEY, THEY HAVE MADE A FEW CHANGES OVER TIME, BUT IT'S USUALLY MORE FOR CLARIFICATIONS THAN ACTUALLY CHANGING THE COMPLIANCE THRESHOLD. SO THAT'S SLOW FOR THE FLARES THAT YOU SEE ON HERE HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT REGARDLESS OF WHEN THEY WERE CONSTRUCTED AND WHAT'S WRONG, YOU DO HAVE AN ONGOING OBLIGATION TO REMOVE BARRIERS TO ACCESS, AND SIDEWALKS ARE CONSIDERED A PROGRAM, AS WELL AS THE CURB RAMPS, WHICH WERE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE REGULATION. SO WITHOUT SPLITTING HAIRS ON THAT, THEY STILL NEED TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE

OVER TIME. >> OKAY. YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE IF, IF THOSE WERE ONES THAT MAYBE -- YEAH. I, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IS IF THEY WERE COMPLIANT. SO WAS THIS NOT COMPLIANT, THEN, WHEN IT WAS

BUILT IN 2000, 2001? >> THERE IS A GOOD POSSIBILITY, BUT ALSO IN THE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY, YOU ALSO CAN HAVE A LOT OF SHIFTING SOILS, YOU CAN HAVE TREE ROOTS THAT COME UP. SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN THAT CAN CHANGE THE ORIGINAL CONSTRUCTION, AND IT MAY VERY WELL HAVE BEEN COMPLIANT ON DAY ONE, BUT NOW, TODAY, IT'S NOT. AND SO I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO WHAT CAUSED THAT.

>> I KNOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, I LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, SO THE, THE, THE STREETS ARE SINKING AT AN ALARMING RATE.

YOU'VE GOT MANHOLE COVERS, AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE STREET THAT'S PROBABLY, THERE'S ONE THAT'S ON HILTON BY, LIKE, COUNSEL FOR THORTON'S HOUSE. IT'S, WHAT, FOUR INCHES?

>> THEY PUT A CONE OUT. >> THERE IS A CONE OUT. SO I CAN, I CAN SEE THAT WHERE HIS DOUBLE STREET IS SINKING, BUT THE, THE SIDEWALK ISN'T, THEN IT, IT WOULD INCREASE THE, THE

PITCH, SO. >> LEAVING THE GAP FOR THE TRUNCATED DOME TO THE SIDEWALK. I DON'T REMEMBER THE, THE GAP -- I REMEMBER THERE WAS A TOOL THEY HAD, AND THE GAP BETWEEN -- PEOPLE WOULD USE, LIKE, A BIG -- FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, YOU KNOW? IT'S LIKE, NO, THAT'S TOO FAR OUT. AND WHEN WE DID THE CITY HALL -- I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE A PAPER SYSTEM OUT HERE FOR THE ENTIRE SIDEWALK, BECAUSE I'M LIKE, LONG TERM, THE MAINTENANCE ON IT, I WOULD'VE DONE STAMPED CONCRETE, BECAUSE YOU CAN MAINTAIN THE, HOW IT IS BETTER, IN INDIVIDUAL LOCKS MOVING, BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU SEE ONE GO DOWN, WHATEVER IT IS, HALF-INCH MAINTENANCE, AND I'M JUST LOOKING AROUND, I'M LIKE, THIS IS JUST ONE BIG A.D.A. NIGHTMARE MAINTENANCE. IT LOOKS COOL, BUT WHAT I FOUND OUT PROBABLY 15 YEARS AGO WAS WHAT LOOKS COOL IS NOT WHAT'S THE BEST. BUT I, I DON'T THINK THIS IS, I DON'T THINK OUR CITY IS ANY WORSE THAN ANY OTHER. I MEAN, YOU WALK DOWN IN DOWNTOWN AUSTIN, THAT'S A FREAKING NIGHTMARE DOWN THERE. I MEAN, IT'S A NIGHTMARE FOR PEOPLE WHO DON'T HAVE ABILITY ISSUES. AND SO WHILE, I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE PERFECT, I DON'T LOOK AT THIS AS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO GO -- WE DON'T HAVE TO $.3 MILLION TO SPEND THIS YEAR, SO WE, WE

[02:10:01]

JUST DON'T BUDGET -- LIKE THAT. BUT I DON'T SEE THIS AS SOMETHING TO WHERE WE NEED TO DROP EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING AND ONLY FOCUS ON THIS. I THINK WHAT WE, IN MY MIND, WHAT WE NEED IS STAFF BETWEEN PUBLIC WORKS AND CITY ENGINEERING AND THE CITY MANAGER IS TO GO THROUGH YOUR LIST AND IDENTIFY, WHAT ARE THE, THE REALLY BAD ONES WHERE YOU HAVE A FOUR INCH DROP ON THE SIDEWALK. AND I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT THE ONES TODAY THAT ARE .2% OUT OF GRADE COMPLIANCE, BECAUSE THAT , MAYBE, WE GOT BIGGER ISSUES. BUT FIX THE ONES THAT WERE THE, THE CONCRETES BROKEN UP BY GRAHAM CRACKERS, AND IT'S ALREADY TRIPPING HAZARDS FOR PEOPLE TO WALK. THE ONES THAT HAVE ISSUES FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE IN WHEELCHAIRS, OR THAT HAVE VISIBILITY ISSUES. TO ME, IT'S WORKED THROUGH ALL THOSE AND IDENTIFY. BECAUSE WE JUST, WE JUST STOLE MONEY AT THE PROBLEM.

WE DON'T, TODAY, NO, UNLESS, LIKE COUNCIL, I THINK WE NEED TO BE SHOWN THIS STREET, THIS, THIS SIDEWALK, THIS INTERSECTION, THIS PIECE HERE, THIS PIECE THERE. SOMETHING, I THINK. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID, WHERE WE KNOW INSTEAD OF -- AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BUDGET AND FIGURE OUT ALSO WHAT'S GOING TO BE FIXED AND REDEVELOPMENT THAT'S OCCURRING, WHAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE FIXED, LIKE, THAT THING WE'RE DOING, THAT'S GOING TO FIX SOME ISSUES.

>> SO I HEARD THAT -- I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING. YOUR ASK WAS THAT WE PASS A VOTE THAT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO BUDGET $2.3 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS.

WHAT HAPPENS IF WE DON'T DO THAT? WHAT HAPPENS IF THE, THIS COUNCIL SAYS, NO, WE DON'T HAVE THAT MONEY, WE DON'T HAVE THAT IN THE BUDGET, WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DESIGNATE THAT MUCH MONEY? SO THE FEDERAL REGULATIONS SAY THAT YOU DO NEED TO IDENTIFY A SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT YOUR TRANSITION PLAN. SO IF THREE YEARS IS NOT THE ANSWER, THEN WE NEED TO WORK WITH YOU AND GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT YOU FEEL IS A REASONABLE TIMELINE TO ADDRESS THE BARRIERS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED SO THAT CAN BE DOCUMENTED IN THE PLAN AND WE CAN REWORK THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

>> OKAY. SO, SO THERE IS SOME LEEWAY WITH THE THREE YEARS.

>> CORRECT. >> OKAY, OKAY.

>> MAY I ADD -- REGARDLESS OF THE THREE YEARS OR EXTENDED TIMEFRAME, MY QUESTION, I THINK, IS, IS IF WE DON'T DO THE BUDGET TONIGHT, DO WE HAVE 30 DAYS OR 60 DAYS TO COME UP WITH A BUDGET ITEM? IN OTHER WORDS, I DON'T, I, I CAN'T VOTE FOR A BUDGET ITEM TONIGHT FOR $2.3 MILLION A YEAR. I CAN'T. SO.

>> SO COUNCILMEMBER, NOT, NOT TO TRUNCATE AARON AT ALL, BUT IT

WASN'T POSTED FOR -- >> OKAY.

>> THERE WAS NO FISCAL NOTE FOR A BUDGET AMENDMENT. THIS WAS MEANT AS A PRESENTATION TO RECEIVE THE INFORMATION.

>> OKAY. >> I THOUGHT THE ASK FOR TONIGHT

WAS -- >> I'M JUST RE-CLARIFYING HER,

HER DELIVERY OF WORDS. >> OKAY.

>> THAT, THAT WHAT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED WOULD RESULT IN $2.3 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS. BUT THEY STILL ARE IN THE PROCESS OF FINALIZING THE PLAN. NOW, ONCE YOU ACCEPT AND ADOPT THE PLAN, THAT LAYS OUT TIME AND MONEY. NOW, YOU'RE GOING TO -- YOU'RE GOING TO BE ON THE CLOCK. AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE, TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, IF THE FEDS COME LOOKING, RIGHT, AND SAY, HEY, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. YOU SAID YOU WERE GOING TO SPEND $1 MILLION, YOU'RE SPENDING $2000, THAT AIN'T GOING TO CUT IT.

>> AND DON'T INTERPRET THIS AS ME BEING AGAINST THIS. I'M 100% FOR THIS. YOU KNOW, THE FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY OF HOW

WE'RE GOING TO FIT IT IN. >> AND ARGUABLY, JUST FOR, JUST FOR REFERENCE, $2.3 MILLION A YEAR IS ROUGHLY FIVE CENTS ON

THE TAX -- >> SO ONE THING THAT I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT, CITY MANAGERS, IS CORRECT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS NOT PUT ON THE AGENDA AS A BUDGETARY ITEM. WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK FROM YOU GUYS ON, ON WHAT YOU WANT THE PLAN TO SAY, BECAUSE, AS AARON SAID, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GIVE THIS PLAN -- WE'VE ALREADY BEEN GETTING THE SURVEYS FROM TXDOT, BECAUSE THEY ARE THE ENFORCER ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AND WE ARE, WE FAILED ALL THOSE SURVEYS. I NEED, I DON'T KNOW A BETTER WAY TO SUGARCOAT IT.

>> I MEAN, WE'RE NEW NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WE SENT ACCEPTED AS BEING TOLD THAT THEY WERE BEING IN COMPLIANCE.

>> NO, IT'S NOT, THEY DON'T COME OUT AND CHECK ALL THE NEIGHBORHOODS. WHAT THEY DO IS THEY ASK, DO YOU HAVE A TRANSITION PLAN , DO YOU HAVE ALL THESE ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS IN PLACE, DO YOU HAVE COMMUNICATION PLANS, DO YOU HAVE ALL THESE OTHER, DO YOU HAVE PUBLIC OUTREACH, IS YOUR WEBSITE

-- >> SOP IS PREPARED.

>> CORRECT. AND SO, SO, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE THINGS, WE ARE BASICALLY DEEMED, I THINK THEY CALL IT A RED LETTER. IS THAT CORRECT? WE GET A RED LETTER FROM THEM SAYING WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE AND WE'RE NOT BREAKING PROGRESS TOWARDS COMPLIANCE. AND SO THEN WE GET PUT ON THE NAUGHTY LIST, AND I'M, I'M KIND OF OVERSIMPLIFYING , SOMEWHAT

[02:15:12]

MAKING FUN OF THE THING AND I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T BE, BUT WE GET PUT ON THE BAD LIST, AND SO THEN, THEORETICALLY, IF WE DON'T START MAKING PROGRESS, TXDOT THEN COMES BACK AND SAYS, ON BEHALF OF THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION, WE ARE NO LONGER GOING TO SHARE ANY MONEY WITH YOU WE'RE NO LONGER GOING TO GRANT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU ANY GRANTS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PARTNER WITH YOU ON ANYTHING. AND THEN THEY CAN ALSO TURN US OVER TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE COULD COME AFTER US FOR NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT I WAS GOING TO POINT OUT IS THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE'VE HAD A, AN ITEM, AND THE MONEY GETS, HAS BEEN GETTING REALLOCATED TO OTHER THINGS, BUT WE'VE HAD AN ITEM ON THE CIP THAT'S JUST LIKE, I THINK IT'S CIP 201 RE: FY . IT REOCCURS EVERY FISCAL YEAR.

IT'S $500,000, AND, I MEAN, I'LL JUST BE HONEST WITH YOU, THAT HAS KIND OF BEEN THE LOWEST PROJECT ON MY PRIORITY LIST BECAUSE OF ALL THE OTHER ONES THAT, THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO JUGGLE. AND SO THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE HAD IT ON THERE, I THINK WE REALLOCATED IT TO PUT INTO COST OVERRUNS FOR LAKESIDE AND SOME OTHER PROJECTS TO FINISH OUT SOME SIDEWALK PROJECTS. LAST YEAR WE REALLOCATED THE FUNDS FOR SOME OTHER ACQUISITIONS THAT WE DID . THIS YEAR, I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH IT. I WAS THINKING THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO A FIELD ENGINEERING PROGRAM WHERE WE COULD START TRYING TO FILL IN SOME OF THE GAPS, WHICH IS WHAT I HAD MISTAKENLY SENT YOU WHEN YOU ASKED ABOUT THE 11.1 QUESTION. WHAT, SO THE REASON I'M BRINGING ALL THAT UP IS, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT IF YOU GUYS WERE ON BOARD, YOU COULD LOOK AT, POTENTIALLY, USING THAT MONEY IN FUTURE YEARS TO FACILITATE THIS PROGRAM. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, AARON WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND CHANGE OUR TIMELINE AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, BUT THE MONEY MIGHT BE ALREADY IN THE CIP, AND EVERY YEAR, YOU GUYS ARE ALLOCATING THAT MONEY.

IT'S JUST, WE'RE NOT REALLY USING IT FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

WE'RE USING IT FOR OTHER THINGS TO COVER COST OVERRUNS AND OTHER ACQUISITIONS THAT WE WEREN'T PLANNING FOR AND THAT KIND OF

STUFF RIGHT NOW. >> YEAH, I, I COULD SEE THE $500,000 THIS YEAR, I COULD SEE 750 NEXT YEAR, AND ABOUT 10 MILLION. I MEAN, THIS IS $7 MILLION RIGHT NOW. THAT'S IF YOU DID IT TODAY, I WOULD IMAGINE. SO, OR OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS. BUT YOU'VE GOT, 175 MILES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU NOW, I'M ALMOST GUARANTEED THIS NUMBER IS AN EXPONENTIAL OF SOMETHING BIGGER. SO, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT, I'M NOT DIMINISHING THE, THE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS. I JUST KNOW THERE'S NOT, I WOULD, I WOULD GO ON THE RECORD AND SAY I DON'T THINK THERE'S ONE CITY THAT WOULD BE, HAVE ALL THEIR STUFF DONE. THE BIGGER THE CITY, THE HARDER THE ISSUE, BECAUSE EVERY TIME YOU CHECK IT TODAY, IT'S SETTLED NEXT YEAR AND YOU'VE GOT TO GO BACK, YOU ALMOST HAD TO, AND YOU'VE REALLY GOT TO HAVE SOMEONE WHOSE WHOLE JOB IS NOTHING BUT INSPECTION, RE-INSPECTING, MAKING SURE THAT ALL THE NEW CONSTRUCTION'S -- THAT WAY, BECAUSE I'LL TELL YOU NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHO OUR TAS PERSON HAS BEEN, BUT THERE'S PROBABLY, PROBABLY -- LICENSE WHEN YOU GUYS GO BACK AND START CHECKING ALL THE STUFF WE DID, AND THAT ALL THE, THE SINKING, AND THEN ALL THE SLOPES BEING WRONG, AND THAT'S JUST THE STUFF WE BUILT JUST IN THE LAST TWO OR THREE YEARS. NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE STUFF THAT WAS BUILT 30 YEARS AGO. AND I WOULD ALSO SAY, I THINK YOU CAN GET SUED ANYTIME BY ANYBODY, BECAUSE THE RULES ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED AS OF '95.

>> RIGHT. >> AND JUST BECAUSE EVERYBODY ELSE IS FOLLOWING THE RULES DOESN'T MEAN YOU GET A PASS.

BUT WHAT I HAD SEEN HIS, FOR THE TRAINING, WITH THE, WITH THE CONSENT DECREE THAT WAS HAD BEFORE A BIG COURT CASE IN ATLANTA, GEORGIA, IT WAS ALL ABOUT THE PLAN. IT WAS ALL ABOUT GOING FORWARD . AND THEN ADDRESSING COMPLAINTS SERIOUSLY.

LIKE THE BATHROOM THAT YOU SHOWED IN THIS BUILDING. THIS BUILDING'S ONLY FIVE YEARS OLD. SO HOW COULD YOU HAVE A BATHROOM THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE? I COULD SEE THE POLICE STATION HAVING A BULLETIN BOARD, BUT, I MEAN, THERE'S SO MANY THINGS WHEN YOU GUYS WALK AROUND THAT WHEN YOU REALLY IDENTIFY, IT'S, LIKE, 36 INCHES UP OR SOMETHING, RIGHT, FROM THE BOTTOM. I JUST DON'T, IT'S 36 OR 42, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER TO WHERE EVERYTHING HAS GOT TO BE, EVERY PAPER TOWEL, EVERY --

>> YEAH, IT DEPENDS ON THE ELEMENT, BUT YES, THERE'S,

THERE'S HEIGHT LIMITATIONS. >> ONCE YOU START THINKING ABOUT IT, YOU WALK AROUND, AND THE, THE TRAINING THAT I WAS GIVEN WAS, IF YOU TAKE, LIKE, A RESTAURANT THAT HAS A GREAT VIEW UP TOP, AND YOU HAVE YOUR, YOU HAVE YOUR HANDICAP SEATING AT THE BOTTOM AND YOU FALL IN LINE AT THE BOTTOM, YOU GOT ALL PERFECT, YOU'RE JUST RUMINATING AGAINST THE PERSON IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN ELEVATOR , BECAUSE OF YOUR RESTAURANT, IF IT'S THE VIEW THAT EVERYBODY'S GOING FOR, BUT YOU'RE SAYING, WELL, BECAUSE YOU'RE IN A WHEELCHAIR, WE GOT YOU A SPOT DOWN HERE, THAT'S STILL DIFFERENT THAN THE PREVIOUS 60S, TELLING PEOPLE WHAT YOU CAN BEWARE EVERYBODY ELSE'S. SO IF YOU HAVE THAT VIEW, EVERYBODY GETS TO HAVE THAT VIEW. AND THEN I LEARNED THAT'S WHY SOME OF THE HOTEL STOPPED WITH THEIR POOLS AND MADE THE PRIVATE CLUBS, BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS ABLE TO USE THE

[02:20:02]

SWIMMING POOL, BUT THEN THE COST OF DOING THAT WITH A LIST, I MEAN, THIS GETS INTO, WE'RE GETTING -- IN TERMS OF OUR LIABILITIES. SO, YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE US SPENDING, YOU KNOW, RAMP UP TO $1 MILLION A YEAR AND JUST, INSTEAD OF HAVING 500,000, WHERE WE'RE REPLACING SIDEWALKS, WITH WHICH IT FROM REPLACING SIDEWALKS TO REPLACING SIDEWALKS THAT ARE NOT A.D.A.

COMPLIANT, WHICH IS KIND OF THE SAME THING, AND THEN ADDING MORE MONEY OVER THE YEARS TO WHERE EVENTUALLY, WE, AND EVER GET CAUGHT UP, BUT, THAT I KNOW OF, BUT WE'LL, I MEAN, WE'LL BE

MAKING PROGRESS. >> SO -- BUT GO AHEAD.

>> YEAH, I KIND OF DISAGREE. I MEAN, I THINK IF WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GET IT DONE IN THREE YEARS, IS THAT AN EXPECTATION, THEN WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. TXDOT UNDERSTAND BUDGET CYCLES. WE JUST WENT INTO OUR BUDGET. SO THEY UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T JUST PULL $2 MILLION OUT OF THIN AIR RIGHT NOW WITH THE SIZE OF OUR BUDGET. IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. SO I THINK WE SHOULD PLAN IT AS A CIP PROJECT EACH YEAR FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS.

WHAT WE SHOULD DO THIS YEAR IS PRIORITIZE THE BIGGEST SAFETY ISSUES AND LOOK FOR , NUMBER ONE, YOU SAY YOU'VE GOT THAT $500,000 AS A POTENTIAL STARTING POINT, BUT THE OTHER THING IS, SOME OF THESE ARE SMALL THINGS, RIGHT? WE SHOULDN'T NEED A BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MODIFY THEIR BULLETIN BOARD. NOW, THEIR BATHROOM, MAYBE THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY. THAT'S A LITTLE HARDER. AND THEN, LIKE, THERE WAS A CODE COMPLIANCE THING WITH VEGETATION ON THE SIDEWALK. THAT'S NOT A CITY FUNDING ISSUE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOT A DOLLAR AMOUNT TAGGED TO IT, BUT IT SHOULDN'T.

SO THERE'S THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO JUST DO WITHIN THE NORMAL OPERATIONS AND REPRIORITIZE SOME THINGS AND FIX AS MANY OF THE SAFETY, THE, THE HIGHER IMPACT SAFETY THINGS THIS YEAR AS WE CAN WITHOUT BUDGETING $2 MILLION FOR IT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S FEASIBLE OR NECESSARY. BUT THEN I THINK WE SHOULD, IF, IF WE NEED TO HAVE A PLAN TO MAINTAIN FUNDING IN THE FUTURE, THEN WE SHOULD HAVE A PLAN, AND IF IT'S A $2 MILLION CIP BUDGET EVERY YEAR FOR THREE YEARS, THEN THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

AND THAT'S JUST REALITY. >> HERE'S THE THING. I DON'T

THINK IT CAN BE CIP. >> WELL, IT DEPENDS. SOME OF IT

CAN, SOME OF IT CAN'T. >> SOME OF IT, BUT IF IT'S MAINTENANCE, YOU CAN'T USE BOND MONEY. AND THEN KEEP IN MIND THIS IS A VERY SMALL, THEY BARELY EVEN SCRATCHED THE SURFACE. THEY HAVE 175 MILES OF RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> SO THIS, JUST THE KIND OF CLARIFY, MAYOR. UP TO $7 MILLION, LITTLE OVER $4.9 MILLION IS PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.

SO CAN YOU GIVE ME AN ESTIMATE, NOT OFFICIAL, HOW MANY PUBLIC ROAD MILES THAT IS, FOR EXISTING THAT'S BEEN LOOKED AT?

>> SO, I MEAN, THAT'S ROUGHLY 6% OF YOUR NET WORTH. AND I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHETHER OR NOT EVERY SINGLE ROADWAY HAS SIDEWALKS ON BOTH SIDES, BECAUSE WE HEARD EARLIER THAT IT DOESN'T, SO IT'S MORE JUST THE SIDEWALKS CENTERLINE MILES.

>> IT'S, IT'S PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, SIDEWALKS, $3.1 MILLION, PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS, $1.8 MILLION. WHICH IS A LITTLE OVER $4.9 MILLION OF $7 MILLION. OF, WHAT, 6%. AND SO WE GOT ANOTHER 175 MILES. SO THIS NUMBER IS GOING TO DOUBLE EASILY. IT COULD TRIPLE OR QUADRUPLE. OVER FIVE, EIGHT YEARS, OR THREE -- YEARS, TYPE OF THING. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A SCOPE, AN UNDERSTANDING OF THIS. AND THEN, AND THEN IF, AND IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT, THAT IS SIDEWALK, I MEAN, AND THIS ISN'T THE QUESTION, THAT'S AN ANSWER, BUT FROM A BIDDING AND CONTRACTUAL STANDPOINT, DO WE WANT TO GO OUT WITH FIVE DIFFERENT BIDS, WITH FIVE DIFFERENT SIDEWALKS CONSTRUCTION DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION, OR DO WE WANT TO CONSOLIDATE SOME OF THIS TO GET SOME PRICE BREAK AND ALSO PULL IN, YOU KNOW, THE BETTER USE OF THE MONEY GETTING THESE THINGS DONE? I DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE -- UNLESS WE -- UNTIL WE UNDERSTAND THOSE FUTURE NEEDS, I DON'T WANT TO, I DON'T WANT TO DELAY OR POSTPONE THE CURRENT TWO POINT, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT $7 MILLION THAT'S EXISTING. BUT, I MEAN, I THINK WE NEED TO GET A BIGGER SCOPE OF THIS. SO, I MEAN, WHAT THIS LOOKS LIKE, TO BECOME AT LEAST GREATER THAN 50% COMPLIANT OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE ON COMPLIANT ON.

>> THINK YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A SIDEWALK GROUP, BECAUSE I, I THINK YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO FIND OUT, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET IN THREE YEARS. WE'RE NEVER GOING TO COME CLOSE. AND I'M JUST TELLING YOU, IF IT WAS THAT EASY, EVERYBODY WOULD BE DOING IT. BY THE TIME THEY GET DONE AND YOU FIX THIS STUFF, THREE YEARS FROM NOW, STUFF THAT WAS COMPLIANT TODAY IS NOT GOING TO BE COMPLIANT, BECAUSE IT'S SETTLING , IT MOVED, IT SPREAD APART, THE GROUND. I MEAN, UNLESS YOU'RE BUILDING STUFF, WHICH WE'VE TALKED BEFORE ABOUT OUR -- UNLESS YOU'RE BUILDING IT IN A SPEC NOBODY DOES, BUT ONLY ONE PERSON I KNOW OF, AND EVEN THEN, IT MOVES, CONCRETE WITH CRACKED, CONCRETE WILL SEPARATE. AND SO YOU'RE TALKING, LIKE, A LIFETIME LEGACY OF CHASING PERFECTION. AGAIN, I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T MAKE A GREAT EFFORT TO TRY, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UP HERE

[02:25:03]

SHOULD LEAVE TONIGHT THINKING THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE IN FIVE YEARS BECAUSE WHEN THE TOTAL BILL COMES, IT IS GOING TO BE, TO DO THIS CORRECTLY, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A REGULAR OCCURRING MAINTENANCE CREW INSPECTION TYPE DEAL THAT, I MEAN, WE SHOULD'VE BEEN ON IT YEARS AGO, BUT WE, WE ALWAYS GET ATS COMPLIANT LETTER THAT WE'RE GOOD . WE GOT ONE TODAY, AND I BET IF WE WALK OUT THERE, THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S GOT A GAP THAT'S NOT GOING TO MEET REGULATIONS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RIP UP THE PAD OF CONCRETE AND, AND REPLACE IT

AND MOVE IT OVER A HALF INCH. >> WELL, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE TO KEEP FIXING THINGS. THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE SOMETHING YOU FILL.

BUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PLAN IS TO ADDRESS THE THINGS THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY TODAY. AND IT'S NOT THAT THREE YEARS FROM NOW, WE'LL NEVER HAVE A PROBLEM. IT'S NOT EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED NOW WILL FIX IN THREE YEARS, RIGHT?

>> BUT THAT'S THE $2.3 MILLION, $2.3 MILLION A YEAR FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS TO THEORETICALLY FIX THE SEVEN , SEVEN POINT --

>> SO, OKAY, SO HERE'S, HERE'S A QUESTION. WHAT, WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT TO INSPECT YOUR WHOLE CITY? WHERE DOES THAT COME

FROM? >> THE REQUIREMENT TO EXPECT THE

ENTIRE CITY? >> YEAH, YEAH.

>> I -- BUT YEAH, THAT, THAT COMES FROM THE TITLE TO REGULATIONS. SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, THOUGH, I THINK YOU HAVE VERY VALID POINTS ABOUT WHAT CAN YOU DO FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT WHILE YOU'RE ALSO STILL INSPECTING, AND WHAT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU CAN ACTUALLY GET DONE IN A PARTICULAR TIMEFRAME. AND SO THAT'S WHY, AT THE BEGINNING, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU CAN START MAKING THESE IMPLEMENTATION IMPROVEMENTS WHILE YOU'RE STILL DOING THE EVALUATION, OR YOU CAN WAIT UNTIL AFTER. AND SO IF, LOOKING AT COMPLETING THE EVALUATIONS, FIGURING OUT WHERE YOUR HIGH-PRIORITY AREAS ARE GOING TO BE MAKE MORE SENSE? LIKE, THAT IS DEFINITELY AN OPTION, AND WE'RE JUST HERE TO RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT YOU THINK MAKES THE MOST SENSE FOR THE CITY.

>> IT DOESN'T, I THINK WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP ON THE THREE YEARS. THE THREE YEARS WAS, LIKE, A PROPOSAL, BUT WE'RE NOT, THE REQUIREMENT IS, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, I MEAN, IF WE'RE BEING HONEST, THE REQUIREMENT BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE 100% COMPLIANT SINCE 1995. WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN TO WHERE IF THEY COME AND THEY MEET WITH JAMES, HE COULD SAY, LOOK, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THE STUFF, WE'RE HITTING THIS AREA, THIS IS OUR AREA HERE, WE'VE ALLOCATED FROM $500-$1 MILLION TO 1,000,000 1/2 WHERE WE'RE STACKING UP ALLOCATIONS. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO. BUT IT'S NOT A, I'M NOT SAYING THREE ISN'T GOOD, BUT I'M SAYING FIVE ISN'T BAD, 10 ISN'T BAD. IT'S, WE DON'T EVEN KNOW YET. WE'RE TALKING $7 MILLION, BUT YOU HIT 6% OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND I DON'T KNOW

WHAT -- >> THE AVERAGE PLANS ARE THREE TO FIVE YEARS, AND THEN THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO UPDATE IT AFTER THE PLAN ENDS. SO -- BUT THIS IS BASICALLY A MASTER PLAN THAT WE WOULD DO ON A RECURRING BASIS FROM HERE ON OUT.

>> YEAH. >> SO IT'S LIKE THE CIP PROJECT, WHERE, OR CIP PLAN, WHERE YOU PUT ALL THE PROJECTS ON YOUR FIVE AND YOU WORK WHAT YOU CAN THROUGH ONE THROUGH FOUR

AND THEN YOU GET -- >> I WOULD SAY IT'S LIKE THAT.

I WOULD SAY IT'S MORE LIKE OUR TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN OR A WATER MASTER PLAN OR OUR WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN WHERE WE SAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO OVER THE LIFE OF THIS PLAN, AND THEN EVERY THREE TO FIVE YEARS, DEPENDING ON IF YOU'RE DOING A THREE-YEAR PLAN OR A FIVE-YEAR PLAN, WE COME BACK AND WE REDO THIS PROCESS. BUT YOU'RE 100% RIGHT. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO FINISH THIS, BECAUSE THE MINUTE WE GET ALL THE SIDEWALKS FIXED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK WHERE WE STARTED AND COME BACK THROUGH AND DO THEM AGAIN. THAT'S JUST THE TYPE OF SOILS WE HAVE. AND CRACKS ARE GOING TO HAPPEN, AND SHIFTS ARE GOING TO OCCUR, AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TRIPPING HAZARDS, AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIX ALL THAT STUFF. THE, THE, I CALL THEM RUMBLE STRIPS. THEY'RE GOING TO, THEY'RE GOING TO GET WORN OUT, THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REPLACE THEM. I MEAN, IT'S A NEVER-ENDING THING, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, EVENTUALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A CREW THAT'S JUST FOCUSING ON TRYING

TO KEEP UP WITH SIDEWALKS. >> I KNOW IN, IN CITIES I'VE LIVED IN OUTSIDE OF THIS METRO AREA, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SIDEWALK. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE THAT SHIFTS SOME OF THE BURDEN TO EVERYBODY. RIGHT NOW, I KNOW WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR EVERYTHING THAT GOES WRONG, BUT I KNOW OTHER CITIES HAVE DONE OTHER THINGS.

>> AT THE END OF THE DAY, UNLESS YOU'VE HAD THAT PROPERTY OWNERS FIND SOMETHING THAT SAYS THEY'LL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, IT'S ULTIMATELY GOING TO FALL BACK ON THE CITY. WE'VE ALSO SEEN WHERE THAT HAS BACKFIRED, AS PEOPLE HAVE TRIED TO TAKE OUT THEIR SIDEWALK WHEN YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY DO THAT, AND THEY REPLACED IT WITH BUSHES, FOR EXAMPLE. OR WHAT WE BUILT IN COMPLIANCE. SO REALLY, IT'S TO YOUR BENEFIT TO NOT TRY TO HAVE THE PROPERTY OWNERS BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLIANCE.

>> I'M NOT SAYING BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE COMPLIANCE.

WHAT I'M SAYING IS, NEW NEIGHBORHOODS, STARTING NEXT YEAR, CAN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF IT. WERE WE COME

[02:30:01]

OUT AND WE DO A CODE VIOLATION BECAUSE IT'S OUT OF COMPLIANCE, THE A, THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS TO KEEP TRACK OF IT. I'M JUST SAYING, BECAUSE WHEN YOU GUYS COME BACK WITH THIS COST YOU COULD SPEND $3 MILLION OR $4 MILLION A YEAR, AS THE CITY GETS BIGGER AND BIGGER. WE'LL NEVER, YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE MORE OF A NEED, AND BEFORE LONG, YOU'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING BUT MAINTAINING THE ENTIRE SYSTEM. I MEAN, THINK OF BROWN ROCK, THE MONEY WOULD HAVE TO SPEND TO KEEP IT UP TODAY.

>> I DON'T SEE A PATH TO JUST MAKE PEOPLE BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THE CITY'S ALREADY BUILT.

>> I'M TALKING NEW NEIGHBORHOODS. TAKE THE FARMLAND THAT'S OUT THERE. THE, THE COTTONWOOD, IF WE DEVELOP COTTONWOOD, TO ME, THE POA WOULD BE THE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

MAINTENANCE OF THE SIDEWALKS. >> THE, THE ONE ASPECT THAT, THAT A PROPERTY OWNER COULD AND PROBABLY SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IS IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT THE SIDEWALK CAVED DUE TO ROOTS FROM

THEIR, THEIR TREES. >> YEAH, BUT THE TREES -- IT WAS THE TREES THAT WE HAVE THE CITY FORCED THEM TO PLANT THERE IN BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET, WHICH IS ANOTHER TERRIBLE IDEA, BUT. I'M, I'M JUST SAYING, THE CITIES ARE THE ONES THAT CAUSE THESE PROBLEMS A LOT OF TIMES, AND THEN , I MEAN, WE HAVE TO, IF WE REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THIS STUFF, WHY ARE WE PUTTING TREES IN BETWEEN SIDEWALKS AND STREETS THAT AFFECT SIDEWALKS AND STREETS 20 YEARS FROM NOW WHEN WE'RE ON

THE HOOK FOR -- >> I THINK THEY'RE LOOKING FOR POSSIBLE ACTION. DO YOU WANT THE PLAN TO BE FOR FIVE, THREE, THREE YEARS OR FIVE YEARS? IS THAT GOING TO BE PART OF YOUR MOTION? YOU COULD USE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES TO IMPROVE PARKS THAT ONE STRIP THAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT GOES FROM THE PARKING LOT UP TO THE PLAY AREA. YOU COULD --

>> YEAH, THAT DOESN'T -- >> THERE'S NOT ENOUGH DETAIL IN

THE LIST -- >> NO, BUT I MEAN, YOU COULD SAY, LOOK AT, BLAH, WHATEVER, IN THE PLAN.

>> I, I WOULD JUST ASK STAFF TO, TO COME BACK WITH THINGS THAT THEY VIEW AS HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECTS, AND ANY WAYS THAT THOSE COULD FIT IN EXISTING FUNDING SOURCES ON THE CURRENT YEAR, AND THEN TO COME BACK WITH TO BE A FIVE-YEAR PLAN.

>> THAT'S A GOOD -- >> -- SECTION --

>> SURE. >> COULD SOMEBODY REPEAT THE

MOTION? >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER -- CAN I PARAPHRASE IT BY SAYING IT'S TO DIRECT STAFF TO LOOK AT THE PROJECTS WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR WITH THE MONEY FOR THE HIGH-PRIORITY ITEMS AND TO COME BACK WITH A PLAN TO FIX THOSE THIS YEAR, BUT THEN TO DEVELOP A FIVE-YEAR PLAN ON WHAT'S OUTSIDE

OF THAT? >> YES, I AGREE.

>> CAN WE -- CAN WE ADD IN THERE WHAT A THREE-YEAR, BUT FOLLOWING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD LOOK LIKE? CAN THAT BE --

>> WE HAVE RIGHT HERE -- >> YEAH. SO THE RECOMMENDATION WAS A THREE-YEAR PLAN. CAN WE HAVE A, AN, CAN WE HAVE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO ADD IN WHAT EXACTLY SHE'S ASKING FOR?

WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE? >> SO YOU WANT TO PRESENT A THREE AND A FIVE-YEAR PLAN TO COUNCIL? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE

ASKING? >> CORRECT. CORRECT.

>> AND WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THEY HAVE RIGHT HERE? YOU WANT, LIKE, INDIVIDUAL PADS OF CONCRETE THROUGHOUT THE CITY? LIKE, HERE'S A THREE-YEAR PLAN. SO

WHAT, WHAT YOUR EXPECTATION? >> THAT'S NOT A PLAN. THAT'S

CONCEPTUAL. >> YEAH, SO YOU WANT, LIKE, THIS SECTION OF CONCRETE HERE, THE CENTER SECTION HERE? LIKE

SPECIFICS? >> MORE SPECIFIC THAN THIS . BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S GOING TO BE -- I MEAN, AT SOME POINT, WE NEED TO SEE A LIST OF EVERYTHING, BUT --

>> SO THAT'S MY HOPE, IS IN A THREE-YEAR -- YOU'VE IDENTIFIED, IN FRONT OF THIS ADDRESS, TWO PADS. IN FRONT OF THIS ADDRESS, ONE PAD AT THIS INTERSECTION AT THIS STRAIGHT, AND A LIST LIKE THAT, AND AND PRIORITIZED WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. TO ME, THAT'S, THAT'S A LOT OF WORK, BUT THAT'S WHAT I SEE AT THE PLAN TO WHERE THEN WE CAN GO BACK AND GO, OKAY, WELL, NOW WE HAVE AN IDENTIFICATION. BECAUSE IF WE JUST SAY WE'RE GOING TO THROW $1 MILLION AT SIDEWALKS, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS EXACTLY.

>> YEAH, AND THE OTHER ASPECT OF A PLAN WOULD BE, WHAT, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA FOR PRIORITIZING THE PROJECTS AND HOW YOU'RE

ATTACKING IT? >> IS THAT CRAZY TO GET TO THAT

[02:35:01]

LEVEL OF DETAIL? >> WELL, I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE DONE ALREADY WHAT YOU'VE SAID, WHERE WE'VE IDENTIFIED ALL THE BARRIERS. WE HAVE PROJECT REPORTS FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, SO YOU DO HAVE ALL OF THAT DATA. I WOULD OFFER IT'S PROBABLY IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO KEEP THE PLAN MORE ON THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY SIDE OF THINGS. SO ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, YOU HAVE GUIDELINES THAT STAFF WILL USE TO SELECT THE PROJECTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. IF YOU START TRYING TO GET VERY DETAILED AND SAY, IN YEAR ONE, WE'RE GOING TO DO X, Y, AND Z, YOU'RE DUE, WE'RE GOING TO DO X, Y, AND Z, THERE'S A GOOD CHANCE OF THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONSTANTLY CHANGE THINGS UP.

FOCUSING ON HOW YOU'RE GOING TO SELECT THINGS IS GOING TO BE MORE IMPORTANT ON WHAT EXACTLY YOU'RE GOING TO BE DOING OVER

THAT FIVE-YEAR PERIOD. >> LIKE A SIDEWALK OUTSIDE OF THREE INCHES, RISE AND FALL, A GAP BIGGER THAN AN INCH,

WHATEVER THOSE -- >> RIGHT, THE SEVERITY OF NONCOMPLIANCE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THOSE FACTORS.

>> TO WHERE THEN THEY CAN COME BACK NEXT YEAR ABOUT A TIME AND SAY, BASED ON WHAT YOU GUYS SAID, THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS GOING TO GET HIT -- BUT -- NO, THAT'S OKAY. OKAY, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. SO WE DON'T NEED A PLAN IN TERMS OF 111 GETTING THIS, ONE 13TH GETTING THIS, 115. IT'S, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A PLAN MORE OF THESE CRITERIA IS WHAT PRIORITIZES

PROJECTS. >> EXACTLY. AND THEN THAT GIVES YOU GUYS THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADAPT AND MAKE CHANGES AS, AS

THINGS MAY CHANGE OVER TIME. >> THAT'S A LOT EASIER.

>> SO THE PLAN IS HOW, NOT WHAT?

>> WE DO NEED THAT, WE DO NEED THAT TIMELINE IN THERE.

>> AND WAS THE MOTION FIVE YEARS? I HEARD FIVE. OKAY.

>> AND THEN THE WHAT COMES IN IN OUR BUDGET PROCESS.

>> YEAH. >> SO, SO FOR ME, I MEAN, I WANT US TO FOCUS ON WHATEVER IS GOING TO GET US IN THE GOOD GRACES OF TXDOT AND THE, AND THE FEDS, BECAUSE I DO NOT WANT TO THROW A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF MONEY AT SOMETHING TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE DOING IT, AND THEN THEN COME BACK SAYING, NO, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT TAKING MYSTERIOUS, SO NOW WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU A $10 MILLION GRANT OR WHATEVER, RIGHT? I, I JUST, I DON'T, I WANT US TO, TO DO WHATEVER WILL BRING US INTO COMPLIANCE. I MEAN, I, I GET THAT WE DON'T, WE, WE DIDN'T BUDGET FOR THIS.

I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WITH HOW WE BUDGETED THE LAST COUPLE YEARS, IS WE JUST BUDGETED TO THE BARE MINIMUM, AND WE DON'T PLAN FOR THIS. WE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T PLAN FOR THE UNPLANNED. IT'S, AND SO THAT MAKES IT REALLY DIFFICULT. AND SO I WANT US TO BE ABLE TO HAVE SOME KIND OF A PLAN THAT'S, THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT TO TXDOT THAT GETS US OFF THE RED LETTER LIST , AND THAT SAYS, YEAH, LOOKS LIKE YOU ARE MAKING, YOU ARE TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, YOU ARE MAKING PROGRESS, YOU'VE DONE WHAT WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO, YOU KNOW, ARE WE FIXING EVERYTHING IN THREE YEARS? NO.

BUT AT LEAST WE GOT A PATH FORWARD. AND IF THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH, THAT'S, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR. SO WHATEVER, IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING TONIGHT, IS GOING TO MEET THAT, THEN I'M, THAT'S WHAT I WANT.

>> AND I WOULD OFFER, TXDOT IS LOOKING FOR A GOOD FAITH EFFORT.

THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE FORMULA THAT SAYS WHAT THAT NUMBER IS.

IT JUST NEEDS TO BE REASONABLE FOR THE SIZE OF THE ENTITY, AND TAKING THE PAST 35 YEARS OF BUDGET INTO CONSIDERATION, WHAT WOULD THAT HAVE LOOKED LIKE IF THAT BUDGET HAD BEEN ALLOCATED?

>> OKAY. >> SO IS A GOOD FAITH EFFORT FIVE YEARS, OR SHOULD, AGAIN, SHOULD WE BE LOOKING AT WHAT COULD HAPPEN IN THAT THREE-YEAR PERIOD?

>> I THINK 03, FIVE, OR EVEN IF YOU EXTENDED IT LONGER WOULD SHOW A GOOD FAITH EFFORT, BECAUSE YOU ARE PUTTING ACTUAL, YOUR, YOU'RE ALLOCATING DOLLARS TOWARDS THAT BARRIER REMOVAL.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS A LIVING DOCUMENT, SO WHATEVER YOU SELECT, YOU CAN UPDATE, WHETHER IT BE IN THAT THREE-YEAR CYCLE

OR SOONER. >> WE CAN ALWAYS UPDATE THIS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, IF THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE POLICY.

>> SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THAT WE HAVE STAFF BRING BACK A THREE-YEAR TIMELINE, A FIVE-YEAR TIMELINE,

AND A SEVEN YEAR TIMELINE. >> YOU GUYS OKAY WITH THAT?

>> THAT'S FINE. >> I HAVE NO PROBLEM.

>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE

CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING?

>> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THORNTON?

>> AYE. TREND 25 >> AYE. 22

>> AYE. TREND 26 >> AYE. TREND 21

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

>> THANK YOU. >> A.D.A. IS GOING TO BE SO

[13.3. Consideration and possible action pertaining to the Wolfe Tract water discussion with Manville. (Matt Rector) Consideration and possible action pertaining to the presentation updates for the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. (Matt Rector) Discussion and possible action regarding development of a process for the HEDC to build road projects for the benefit of the City of Hutto. (City Council)]

EXCITED. ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 13.3, DISCUSSING POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCESS FOR THE HED SEAT TO BUILD ROAD PROJECTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY OF HUTTO .

AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN AS PRESENTED BY

THE CITY MANAGER. >> SECOND.

>> MAKE THAT KNOWING IT'S PRETTY GOOD. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET INTO IT, AND I ANTICIPATE SOME

[02:40:01]

AMENDMENTS COMING AS WE WORK THROUGH THE PROCESS , AND CITY, LEGAL, AND HEDC LEGAL ARE LOOKING AT IT GOING, HEY, WHAT'S, WE FORGOT THIS HERE , WHAT WAS IT, 72 PAGES?

>> 77. >> 77.

>> LOSE COUNT. >> THE ONE THAT WROTE IT.

>> YES. >> LOSE COUNT. MY FINGERS WERE

CRAMPING. >> ANY DISCUSSION QUESTIONS?

>> YEAH. SO HAS LEGAL VETTED THIS? HAS LEGAL LOOKED IT OVER? HEDC LEGAL? HAVE THEY LOOKED AT IT?

>> I SENT IT TO THE EDC LEGAL TO TO SAY, HEY, TAKE A GLANCE AT THIS AND TELL ME IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN HERE THAT, YOU KNOW, IS COME UP WOULD MAKE IT ILLEGAL. BUT I BASTED OFF THE STATE LAW, OFF OF CITY RULES AND PURCHASING POLICIES, SO I'M PRETTY SURE THAT IT'S MOSTLY -- SO --

>> OKAY. WELL, I CAN'T VOTE FOR IT JUST BY THAT ALONE. IF, IF LEGAL HASN'T LOOKED AT IT. I MEAN, I, I REALLY AM, I'M SHOCKED THAT, THAT WE WANT TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT HAD, THAT LEGAL HASN'T LOOKED AT, AND JUST, I, IT'S JUST 180 DEGREES FROM, FROM HOW WE RUN THINGS IN, IN THE PAST. PERSONAL OPINION, I

JUST, THAT'S JUST ME. >> NO, I RESPECT THAT.

>> I'M NOT SAYING THAT ANYBODY WHO VOTE YES FOR THIS IS A HORRIBLE PERSON, BUT FOR ME, I JUST, I AM REALLY UNCOMFORTABLE PASSING, PASSING A PROCESS AND THE POLICY THAT, THAT HASN'T

BEEN INVENTED YET, SO I, I -- >> TO THAT POINT, CITY MANAGER HAS, HAS COUNTY LEGAL LOOKED OVER SOMETHING LIKE THIS?

>> NO, I WOULDN'T NORMALLY SHARE THIS WITH THE COUNTY

ANYWAY. >> I MEAN, IS IT, ARE WE, IS THIS GOING THROUGH, LIKE, DO WE HAVE ANY STATE PURCHASING LAWS THAT WOULD PROHIBIT SOMETHING LIKE THIS FROM HAPPENING?

>> NO. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I, I , IN, IN THE DISCUSSIONS THAT LED UP TO THIS, WE MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THE, THAT THE HEDC IS NOT A LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SO THEREFORE IT DOES NOT HAVE PURCHASING LAWS THAT APPLY TO IT LIKE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT DOES.

I TOOK THE CONCERNS THAT WERE SHARED AMONGST COUNCIL AND STAFF INTO CONSIDERATION ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE POLICY. SO I, I FEEL LIKE IT IS, IT IS ROBUST, IT IS VERY CLEAR . IT POINTS TO WHO NEEDS TO DO WHAT. BUT BECAUSE OF THE TIMELINE THAT I WAS WORKING IN, I DON'T WANT IT TO APPEAR THAT I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, SHIRKING MY DUTIES AND NOT RUNNING THIS THROUGH, YOU KNOW, REVIEWS AND WHAT NOT. BUT I WAS, I WAS DIRECTED TO HAVE THIS BACK ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. I DRAFTED IT A WEEK AGO BECAUSE THE, BECAUSE THE MEETING BEFORE THAT WAS , LIKE, WHEN IT WAS DECIDED THAT THIS WOULD BE ON THIS MEETING. SO, YOU KNOW, I EFFECTIVELY HAD, LIKE, THREE DAYS TO DRAFT A SEVEN PAGE DOCUMENT, SO, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

>> NO, AND I APPRECIATE THAT. IT'S JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, NOT GETTING A MEMO FROM OUR LEGAL ABOUT, HEY, WHAT'S THE LEGALITIES HERE, AND NOT SEEING ANYTHING COMING FROM HEDC'S LEGAL AS WELL, THAT RAISES SOME MAJOR CONCERNS, SO I WOULD AT LEAST APPRECIATE, YOU KNOW, LEGAL HAVING ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO REVIEW SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE WE APPROVE IT.

>> YEAH, I, I PUT IN MY ALR FOR THAT VERY THING. ONE, THAT I HAVEN'T ASKED STAFF TO REVIEW IT EITHER. THIS IS ME UNDERSTANDING THE PROCESS AS BEST AS I CAN, AND TO A CERTAIN DEGREE, SOME OF THOSE THINGS ARE NOT GOING TO BE RIGHT, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE TWEAKED AND ADJUSTED ANYWAY. AND THEN I ALSO SAID THAT I HAD NOT HAD LEGAL REVIEW IT YET. BUT IF COUNCIL WERE OF THE OPINION THAT THEY WANTED TO ADOPT IT, THEY COULD, AND THEN WE COULD JUST HANDLE THE CHANGES THROUGH, THROUGH VERSION CONTROL, SO -- AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY, OR YOU COULD DELAY TAKING ACTION AND THAT WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE AMENDMENT, GET THE LEGAL REVIEWS, AND IT WILL COME BACK.

BUT THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO TAKE AT LEAST ANOTHER MEETING OR

TWO, I GUESS. >> SO I'LL MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE MOTION THAT WE HOLD OFF, OR WE POSTPONE THIS VOTE UNTIL STAFF IS, OR STAFF AND LEGAL, AS WELL AS HEDC LEGAL, HAS HAD THE AMOUNT OF TIME, APPROPRIATE AMOUNT OF TIME TO REVIEW THIS,

THIS. >> AND THAT THE AN AMENDMENT, OR IS THAT CHANGING TOO MUCH FOR IT TO -- IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S THE OPPOSITE MOTION. I WASN'T SURE IF THAT'S ALLOWED.

>> IS NOT ALLOWED? >> WHO MADE THE MOTION TO BEGIN WITH? THERE WAS A DEMOTION, WAS THERE?

>> IN ORDER TO DISCUSS IT, WE HAVE TO HAVE A MOTION.

>> IS A MOTION TO ACCEPT, AN AMENDMENT TO NOT ACCEPT.

>> THE AMENDMENT IS JUST TO ACCEPT IT, BUT HAVE HEDC --

>> NO, NO, HIS, HIS, HIS AMENDMENT IS TO POSTPONE IT.

>> NOT ACCEPT. IS THAT CORRECT, BRIAN? IS THAT CORRECT, BRIAN,

[02:45:06]

TO NOT ACCEPT? >> IT'S, IT'S TO POSTPONE UNTIL LEGAL AND STAFF HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT.

>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UP TO THE MAKER OF THE MOTION AND THE

SECOND TO ACCEPT THAT. >> WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IS CAN YOU EVEN MAKE AN AMENDMENT LIKE THAT, BECAUSE IT'S --

>> SO AS I SAID IN MY AMENDMENT -- BUT NEVERMIND.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. NOT, NOT TO, TO QUESTION CITY LEGAL OR EDC LEGAL, BUT WE DO HAVE A, A CONTRACT LEGAL DEPARTMENT. THINK CHAPMAN IS THE NAME. IS THERE ANY VALUE OF HAVING THEM LOOK AT THIS, NOT TO REWRITE, NOT TO, TO MAKE WHOLESALE CHANGES, BUT AS THE SCOPE SEEM APPROPRIATE TYPE OF REVIEW?

>> YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO. THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN.

HE'S ACTUALLY -- >> QUESTION IS, IS WHAT LEGAL PERSON DO YOU WANT TO HAVE REDO IT? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE THE PERSON THAT'S HELPING WITH ALL THE CONTRACTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT DO THE LEGAL REVIEW, AND THEN HEDC LEGAL AND -- LEGAL WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AT WHAT THEY THE

>> WELL, WELL, LET ME, LET ME CLARIFY WHAT I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING, I'M, I'M, I'M NOT GETTING DISPARAGING ABOUT ANYONE, ANY LEGAL TEAM. IT'S JUST, RIGHT NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT EDC LEGAL HAS BEEN PROMPTED WITH SOME, SOME REQUEST. I THOUGHT THAT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, CITY LEGAL WOULD ALSO REVIEW THIS. MY, MY QUESTION IS, TO COUNCIL AND STAFF'S INPUT, INCLUDING LEGAL, IS THAT IS THERE ANY VALUE FROM HAVING OUR CONTRACT ATTORNEY GROUP, CHAPMAN AND ASSOCIATES, I THINK, HAVING TO NOT, NOT TO REVIEW IT FROM A LEGAL DOTTING I, CROSSON T TYPE OF THING, BUT IS THE SCOPE APPROPRIATE? IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE'VE LEFT OUT OR INCLUDED THAT MAY CAUSE ISSUES?

>> YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE, I THINK THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO. AND I THINK THE IDEA WAS THAT THE CITY LEGAL WOULD LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE IT DIDN'T VIOLATE MUNICIPAL LAW. THE EDC WOULD LOOK AT IT TO MAKE SURE HE DIDN'T VIOLATE WHATEVER THE CHAPTER FOR EDC'S IS. AND WHEN I CAME TO THE PROCESS, THAT WOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER. AND SO WHEN, WHEN I READ IT, IT'S, I THINK YOU PUT IT AFTER THE, PARTLY AFTER THE AUSTIN ONE.

>> YEAH, I, I DEFINITELY USE THAT AS A MODEL FOR SURE.

>> SO I READ THROUGH IT. WHAT I SEE IS --

>> WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE DOING A CONTRACT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER HERE IN A MONTH. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP A POLICY AND HAVE EVERYBODY LOOK AT IT AT SOME POINT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE AMENDED, BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT, WE STILL AMEND, WE'VE AMENDED OUR POLICY PROBABLY THREE TIMES AT OUR COUNSEL PROTOCOLS ON THE THEY GET AMENDED TWICE A YEAR. AND SO, BUT AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO ACCEPT A STARTING POINT TO GET PROJECTS GOING, AND THEN TO GO BACK AND, AND HIM AND THEN AS, AS THINGS HAVE COME UP. BUT --

>> SO LET ME, LET ME ASK A QUESTION THAT MIGHT HELP SOME PEOPLE, MAYBE. MAYBE NOT. TO THE CITY MANAGER, IF CITY LEGAL TELLS YOU THAT A PROVISION IN THIS DOES NOT , IS, IS NOT PERMITTED, ARE YOU GOING TO STILL IMPLEMENT THAT PROVISION,

OR ARE YOU GOING TO -- >> NO.

>> STOPPED, AND THEN TELL US WE NEED TO UPDATE THE POLICY?

>> RIGHT. IT'S A POLICY. IT'S NOT --

>> YEAH, WE'RE NOT PASSING A LAW, WE'RE JUST PASSING -- NO DIFFERENT THAN WE SAY, HEY, YOU CAN SPEND UP TO $50,000, BUT THAT IF YOU COME BACK AND YOU BLOW $10,000 ON SOMETHING THAT WE THINK'S DUMB , BECAUSE WE GAVE YOU THE POWER TO DO $50,000, WE CAN STILL COME BACK AND QUESTION YOU ON THE $10,000.

SO WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE QUESTIONING THE CONTRACTS, WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE APPROVING THE CONTRACTS, IT'S STILL ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO, THE POLICIES, I READ IT AS, WHO ON YOUR TEAM IS DOING WHAT IN WHAT ROLE? AND SO, FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE STATE LAW PROHIBITS MATT RECTOR FROM LOOKING AT A CONTRACT AND APPROVING IT. WE STILL ARE GOING TO LOOK AT IT. THE EDC'S STILL GOING TO LOOK AT IT. WE STILL HAVE -- LOCAL BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS. THIS IS JUST, LIKE, STEP ONE OF HOW YOU ARE GOING TO IMPLEMENT ALL THIS STUFF.

>> RIGHT. JUSTLY, THE AGENDA ITEM, DISCUSSION, POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A PROCESS FOR THE HEDC. SO WITH

THE DEVELOPING OF A PROCESS . >> AND WE'RE PASSING A PROCESS.

WE'RE APPROVING A PROCESS. WE'RE NOT -- IT'S, IT'S NO LONGER UNDERDEVELOPMENT. HE'S WRITTEN IT. THE VOTE IS TO PROVE THAT IS WHAT I'M HEARING. UNLESS I'VE MISUNDERSTOOD THE

MOTION. >> NO, THAT'S, YEAH, THAT'S THE MOTION TO APPROVE. IT'S HOW HE'S GOING TO DIRECT HIS PEOPLE

[02:50:01]

TO IMPLEMENT ROAD STUFF, BUT WE STILL HAVE TO APPROVE. TO ME, THIS IS ONLY STEP ONE OF PROBABLY 10.

>> THIS IS THE, SO THIS IS THE FIRST STEP OF THE PROCESS.

>> YEAH, THE POLICY OF IT, YEAH.

>> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> WHO WAS THE SECOND ON THE ORIGINAL MOTION?

>> THORNTON. >> THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER

MORRIS? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. MOTION PASSES 4-3. NEXT

[13.4. Discussion and possible action on terminating the Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Hutto, Texas and the Hutto Independent School District dated January 25, 2024. (Mayor Snyder) ]

WE HAVE ITEM 13.4 , DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON TERMINATING THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS AND THE HUTTO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT DATED JANUARY 25TH, 2024. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION THAT WE TERMINATE THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT.

>> SECOND. >> I HAD TWO QUESTIONS ON THIS.

I READ THROUGH A COPY OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT I FOUND. I THOUGHT THAT THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT INCLUDED A LOT MORE THAN DEVELOPMENT STUFF, LIKE THE SHARING OF FACILITIES AND THAT. IS THAT IN THE INTERLOCAL, OR IS THAT, LIKE, A

SEPARATE DOCUMENT? >> SEPARATE.

>> THAT'S, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN THIS? OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS, CAN WE UNILATERALLY TERMINATE? LIKE, WHAT'S THE -- I COULDN'T FIND A TERMINATION POLICY WHEN I WAS READING IT. SO, LIKE, HOW DOES THAT WORK? IF WE VOTE TO TERMINATE, THE ISD DOESN'T AGREE, DO THEY, LIKE -- IS IT ONE OF THOSE WHERE WE CAN JUST GIVE THEM NOTICE, AND THEN WITHIN 60 DAYS -- I WASN'T QUITE SURE WHAT THE AFFECT OF

THIS VOTE WOULD BE. >> WELL, THERE IS NO TERMINATION PROVISION. I THINK YOU WOULD, IF YOU VOTE TO TERMINATE, YOU WOULD SEND NOTICE TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT YOUR VOTING TO TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT, AND MAYBE JUST DO A LETTER AGREEMENT THAT THEY AGREED TO THE TERMINATION.

>> OKAY. AND IF THEY DON'T AGREE, THEN IT WOULD JUST BE, WE

HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT LEGALLY? >> THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK AND SAY WHY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TERMINATE CERTAIN PROVISIONS .

>> OKAY. GOTCHA. THANK YOU. >> YEAH, AND IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY -- I'D LOVE THEM TO COME BACK AND SAY THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO TERMINATE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD THING TO HAVE, BUT I'M TIRED OF ARGUING WITH THE ISD. I'M TIRED OF THE, IN MY MIND, THERE ARE CERTAIN PROVISIONS THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO MEET, AND THEY DON'T, AND THEN, IN THEIR MIND, THEY'RE TIRED OF THE CITY NOT FOLLOWING PROVISIONS, AND SO WE HAVE A DOCUMENT, NOBODY AGREES TO, ANYBODY'S FOLLOWING, AND SO SOMETIMES I THINK WE DID IT WITH OUR COUNCILMEMBER PROTOCOLS, REMEMBER WHEN WE TERMINATED THOSE?

>> YEAH, AND IT WAS, IT WAS SIMILAR. IT WAS FRUSTRATION.

THERE WAS A LOT OF FRUSTRATION. AND SO I MADE THE MOTION TO DO

IT. >> AND WHAT HAPPENED THAT GOT EVERYBODY TO COME BACK AROUND AND GO, OKAY, LET'S --

>> NO, I WOULD NOT AGREE WITH THAT, BUT --

>> WE CAME BACK, COME BACK AND PASS PROTOCOLS?

>> MAYBE -- >> WE DID, AFTER I REWROTE THEM.

>> MAYBE YOU SHOULD ADD TERMINATE AND SO THAT THE H ISD CAN FOLLOW UDC AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPER AS APPLIED TO THE SCHOOL. BECAUSE THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS YOU CAN'T MAKE A SCHOOL

DO, BUT. >> WELL, AND THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE PART OF IT, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST MY INTENT. WITHOUT INTERLOCAL, I PERSONALLY FEEL THE INTERLOCAL GIVES THE ISD MORE THAN WHAT THE LAW ALLOWS THEM TO HAVE. BUT MAYBE I'M WRONG. AND SO WHETHER I'M WRONG OR RIGHT, THE BEST THING TO DO IS, IS INSTEAD OF HAVING ALL THIS GRAY AREA IN MY MIND IS, WE TERMINATE IT, THEY PUT THEIR THINGS THROUGH THE CITY AS THEY NORMALLY WOULD, THE CITY WOULD TREAT THEM LIKE THEY WOULD ANYBODY ELSE, AND THEY WOULD ALREADY MAKE THEM COME BACK FOR VARIANCES ON EVERYTHING THAT THEY DO, WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK ON THAT. BUT THEN WE COULD REALLY DIFFERENTIATE THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHO PICKED A SCHOOL SITE, WHO DIDN'T. I JUST, IT JUST, TO ME, IT'S JUST NOT WORKING. AND I THINK NOT SPEAKING FOR ANYBODY ON THE SCHOOL BOARD SPECIFICALLY, BUT I THINK, I THINK THEY'RE ON THERE IS JUST TONIGHT. AS A MATTER OF FACT. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE SUPPORT TO CONTINUE WITH IT EITHER. I THINK IT'S --

>> I BELIEVE IT'S ON THERE AGAIN.

>> IS ON THEIR AGENDA. YEAH. YEAH.

>> WELL, HAVE A DISCUSSION. >> WELL, DISCUSSION BASED ON, DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD IN OUR, IN OUR MEETINGS, AND THEN

INDIVIDUALLY. >> WELL, MAYBE JUST, THEN, INCLUDE IN YOUR MOTION AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SEND NOTICE OF THE TERMINATION TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT

PRESIDENT. >> YEAH, THAT'S FINE. OR

[02:55:02]

SUPERINTENDENT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION?

>> I THINK THE -- IS SOMETHING THAT HAS STOOD IN THIS TOWN FOR A LONG TIME, PREDATES ME, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFIT THAT COMES FROM, YOU KNOW, WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I'M NOT SURE, YOU KNOW, OTHER PEOPLE MIGHT ESCAPE RELATIONSHIPS, BUT I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE A MAJOR BLOW TO THIS TOWN, AND SO I WON'T BE VOTING FOR THIS, BUT I HOPE WE CAN FIND SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS MOVING FORWARD, WORKING HAND-IN-HAND WITH THE ISD.

>> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? >> NAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE.

[13.5. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-339 affirming City Council's commitment to maintaining or lowering residential water and wastewater rates.(Mayor Snyder & Councilmember King)]

>> MOTION PASSES 4-3 . NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 13.5, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-339 AFFIRMING CITY COUNCIL'S COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING OR LOWERING RESIDENTIAL WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2025-339 AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION?

>> YEAH, I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION. SO IN THE RESOLUTION SECTION 2 UNDER THE NOW THEREFORE'S, I JUST WANTED TO READ IT. IT SAYS THAT THE, NOW THEREFORE THAT THE CITY OF HUTTO, I'M SORRY, THE HUTTO CITY COUNCIL HEREBY DIRECTS THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE AND PRESENT POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS, OPERATIONAL DECISIONS, AND BUDGETARY ITEMS IN A MANNER THAT PRIORITIZES MAINTAINING OR LOWERING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES FOR THE HUTTO RESIDENTS. FOR EACH RECOMMENDATION BROUGHT BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL, STAFF WILL COMMUNICATE THE ANTICIPATED IMPACT, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, ON CURRENT AND FUTURE WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES. SO I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER, FOR MY UNDERSTANDING, REALLY, THE ONLY CHANGE HERE IS JUST MORE COMMUNICATION TO, KIND OF GIVING US MORE BACKGROUND AS TO YOUR DECISIONS THAT YOU'RE MAKING ALREADY ? IT DIDN'T STRIKE ME THAT, THAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO ANYTHING VASTLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE DOING TODAY, BUT THAT YOU'RE JUST HELPING US UNDERSTAND KIND OF THE, SEE BEHIND THE CURTAIN AND SEE HOW YOU'RE MAKING SIMILAR DECISIONS, IS THAT