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.]

COMPLIMENTS. >> NEXT WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS.

I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS. SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM A1.

CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING POSSIBLE APPOINTMENT, REAPPOINTMENT, AND/OR REMOVAL TO CITY BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, TASKFORCES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS, LOCAL GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS, AND THE TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE BOARDS IN AREA GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS. WE HAVE NO UPDATES FROM THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT I JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYONE, ALL THE CITIZENS TO APPLY , WE HAVE SOME OPENINGS IN THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, AND ALSO TWO OPENINGS AND THREE ALTERNATES. WE HAVE HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, COMMISSION , AND AM I LEAVING ONE OUT? BUILDINGS AND STANDARDS. WE MAY HAVE ONE. BUT WE LIKE TO ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO GET INVOLVED, AS FAR AS UNDERSTANDING HOW THE CITY IS GOING, OBVIOUSLY HUTTO UNIVERSITY IS A GREAT INTRO, BUT IF YOU WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT MORE , THEN PLEASE APPLY ON THE

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

BOARDS AND COMMISSION WEBSITE ON THE CITY SITE. THANK YOU.

>>, ITEM 8.2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS AND/OR UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES.

I KNOW THAT OUR HISD ONE WAS POSTPONED, WE DID HAVE PUBLIC

SAFETY . ANYBODY WANT TO GO? >> YEAH, THE PUBLIC SAFETY SUBCOMMITTEE MET, WE MET WITH THE CONSULTANT WHO IS HELPING DESIGN THE PROPOSED JUSTICE CENTER. MEMBERS OF HUTTO PD WERE THERE, CITY COUNCIL, CITY STAFF, SO I THINK WE GOT A GOOD LOOK AT WAY POSSIBLE FLOOR PLAN WOULD BE. I THINK WE KIND OF DERAIL THE WHOLE THING BY LIKE HEY, THIS ROOM SHOULD GO HERE IN THIS ROOM SHOULD GO HERE, BUT I THINK WE GOT A GOOD FEEL FOR WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE AND WHAT THE FLOORSPACE WOULD BE, AND HOW MUCH SPACE WE REALLY NEED. I THINK THAT WAS SUPER HELPFUL FOR ME. BEING ABLE TO SEE A PICTURE RATHER THAN JUST A TABLE OF THE DIFFERENT SIZES, WE GOT A GOOD RELATIONSHIP THERE. SO I TAKE A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS, WE GAVE HOMEWORK TO THE CONSULTANT TO COME BACK WITH SOME OF THE PROPOSALS, MAYBE TO DO LIKE A TWO STORY VERSUS A ONE-STORY, TO SEE IF WE CAN SAVE SOME MONEY THERE. LOOKING TO SEE WHETHER WE CAN STILL GET THE COURT MOVED OVER IN PHASE ONE, OR IT HAS TO WAIT FOR PHASE TWO. WE ARE JUST LOOKING AT SOME WAYS THAT WE CAN MAKE IT MOST COST-EFFECTIVE FOR THE CITIZENS, AND GET THE PD WHAT THEY NEED. IS MY TAKEAWAYS.

>> PRETTY MUCH THE SAME THING. HE COVERED IT PRETTY WELL. ALL I WILL ADD IS WE HAVE, CITY MANAGER CAN CORRECTLY, WE HAVE ABOUT $29.5 MILLION THAT CAN BE USED TOWARDS THIS FROM A BONDING CAPACITY WITHOUT HAVING TO RAISE TAXES, AND RIGHT NOW WE ARE LOOKING AT MAYBE AROUND 50 MILLION BEFORE THERE WERE SOME CHANGES MADE. SO WE EXPECT THIS ITEM TO COME BEFORE THE VOTERS, I THINK WHAT WE ARE GOING TO RECOMMEND. IT WILL BE NEXT NOVEMBER, I THINK, SO A YEAR FROM NOW. BUT THERE'S MONEY NOW TO GO AHEAD AND START THE DESIGN, AND IF THE VOTERS VOTE NO EMMA WE WILL AT LEAST HAVE A DESIGN FOR THE TIME WHEN WE CAN COME UP WITH THE MONEY ON HER OWN. BUT UNTIL THAT POINT, WE DON'T WANT TO PUSH IT OUT ANYMORE. SO WE'LL KEEP MOVING FORWARD, I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE THE RECOMMENDATION.

>> JUST TO REITERATE, MAYOR, YOU ARE SAYING AROUND 50 MILLION IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR TOTAL COST?

>> SEEMED LIKE 50, 54, SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA.

>> NOW THERE'S DIFFERENT PHASES INVOLVED, AS WELL, DOES THAT 50-54 NUMBER, IS THAT THE IN PHASE ONE?

>> JUST PHASE ONE. >> THE PROBLEM IT SEEMS LIKE WE ARE HAVING IS THERE IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO CALL IT, AND EVIDENCE ASSET STORAGE ROOM, AND THAT IS LIKE $4.5 MILLION.

SO THEN , BASED ON WHAT THE POLICE FEEL LIKE THE BEST

[00:15:03]

PRACTICE IS FOR EVIDENCE STORAGE, AND SOME OF THOSE THINGS, WE CAN BUILD THAT . I THINK ONE OF OUR ITEMS, HOMEWORK WAS MAKE IT SMALLER, SOMEWHAT, AND HAVE MORE OF A CARPORT FOR CARS AND THINGS THAT ARE STORED THERE. BUT TO SEE, AND THE CONSULTANT KIND OF SEEMED LIKE ANYTHING WE REALLY DO WE ARE SAVING NICHOLS, NOT DOLLARS. SO THAT'S WHY THE TWO STORY, THE CONSULTANT SEEMS TO THINK THE ONE-STORY SPREADOUT IS ALMOST AS COST-EFFECTIVE AS GOING TWO STORIES. SO HE'S GOING TO COME BACK AND , I GUESS PROVE HIS POINT AND PROVE US WRONG, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE COME TO THE PUBLIC WITH A POTENTIAL TAX INCREASE, BUT THE PUBLIC HAS ALL THE INFORMATION AND THEY CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. AND WE ARE ABLE TO SHARE WE CAN. TO YOUR POINT, WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT LITERALLY DOWN TO HOW MANY TOILETS THEY HAVE IN THE PLACE, TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE

ALL THE INFORMATION. >> AND THIS IS STILL TARGETED FOR, ON THE COTTONWOOD DEVELOPMENT , AND THAT WOULD BE LAND , I GUESS PROVIDED BY , I'M A LITTLE RUSTY, FROM THE EDC. DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE ALL THE PARKING AND GROUNDS? OR IS

IT JUST THE BUILDING ITSELF? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

>> PATIENT IS A PICTURE THAT HAD THE PARKING LOT AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. IT SHOWED A PROPOSED LOCATION WITHIN THE COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES OF WHERE THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY GO. IT'S KIND OF ON THE NORTH SECTION THAT IS LESS DESIRABLE FOR

RETAIL. >> THE CITY MANAGER DID INCLUDE THE PARKING COST FOR THE ASPHALT AND CONCRETE OR. I THINK THEY

DID, THANK YOU. >> ARE WE LOOKING INTO ANY STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES TO HELP US OUT WITH THIS?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. >> I'M NOT CURRENTLY PURSUING

ANY. >> CAN WE MAKE THAT POINT, TO LOOK INTO ANY STATE OR FEDERAL FUNDING SOURCES, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT COTTONWOOD PROPERTIES, NOT DEVELOPED, IS THAT A USDA LOAN THAT WE CAN GET HER SOME SORT OF GRANT, USDA WISE? I DON'T KNOW, IS THERE ANYTHING GOING ON WITH DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OR HOMELAND SECURITY?

>> WE COULD PURSUE THOSE. >> GREAT.

[9.1. Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) Updates and Presentations (Matt Rector)]

>> THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. ALL RIGHT, NEXT WE HAVE ITEM 9.1, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, CIP UPDATES AND PRESENTATIONS.

>> MAYOR, I'M SORRY, WE DISCUSSED BEFOREHAND THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO DO THE FULL PRESENTATION TONIGHT, THAT THE PRESENTATION IS IN YOUR PACKETS. AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS OF STAFF, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT AND WE WILL GET BACK TO YOU WHEN WE HAVE A CHANCE. FOR THE PUBLIC BENEFIT, MATT RECTOR HAS OF HAVING TO PULL TRIPLE, QUADRUPLE DUTY BECAUSE OF THE VACANCIES WE HAVE. SO I TOLD HIM HE HAD THE NIGHT OFF.

>> I WILL SAY THE ONLY CIP PROJECT THAT IS ON EVERYBODY'S MIND, INNOVATION . AND IF I CORRECTLY, THE SIGNAL POLE SHOULD BE UP BY THIS MONTH, BLINKING BY JANUARY AND

OPERATIONAL BY FEBRUARY. >> YES, OPERATIONAL IN THE SENSE OF ACTUALLY CYCLING TRAFFIC. THE WAY THE NEW TRAFFIC LIGHTS WORK IS ONCE THE POLAR INSTALLED AND THE PROGRAMMING IS IN, THEY HAVE TO BE SET TO BLINKING FOR A SET AMOUNT OF TIME TO DRAW AWARENESS OF DRIVERS THAT THERE IS A NEW SIGNAL HERE THAT HAS NOT BEEN HERE BEFORE. AND ONCE THAT DESIGNATED TIME HAS PASSED, THEN IT WILL START CYCLING LIKE A TYPICAL TRAFFIC LIGHT. THAT IS USUALLY WHAT YOU WILL SEE, BLINKING RED ON THE CROSSROAD, AND BLINKING YELLOW ON THE THROUGH TRAFFIC. JUST TO RAISE AWARENESS THAT IT IS THERE. ANYWAY.

[10.1. Conduct a public hearing and consider possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-347 authorizing and creating the Stromberg Public Improvement District within the City of Hutto pursuant to Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code. (Matt Rector)]

>> MOVING ON TO ITEM 10.1, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R 2025-347, AUTHORIZING AND CREATING THE STROMBERG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF HUTTO PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 372 ,

TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. >> MAYOR, LEFT THE CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE TO DO THE INTRODUCTION, THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING. THIS IS THE STROMBERG PROPERTY THAT COUNCIL RECENTLY APPROVED THE CHANGE TO THE PUD . THIS IS THE ONE THAT WILL NOW HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO 90% RESIDENTIAL AND 10% COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT SHOULD REMIND YOU. IT IS SOUTH OF 1660 AND NORTH OF THE HIGHWAY. THE PID REQUEST IS A TYPICAL PROCESS THAT WE GO

[00:20:06]

THROUGH, AND THE CITY HAS A PROCESS BY WHICH, AT A POLICY BY WHICH PID CAN BE APPROVED. IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT TO PROVE THAT THEY ARE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE POLICY, AND THE DEVELOPER IS HERE IN ORDER TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL WHY THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE MANAGING TO ABIDE BY THOSE RULES AND/OR EXCEED THEM. YOU DO HAVE THE STAFF COMMENTS THAT WERE SENT AROUND ON NOVEMBER 6TH , AS TO THE STAFF INTERPRETATION OF THEIR APPLICATION. SO I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT FOR THIS INTRODUCTION, AND IF YOU ALL CAN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING AND/OR HEAR

FROM THE DEVELOPER. >> BEFORE WE OPEN UP PUBLIC HEARING, THIS ITEM IS JUST TO CREATE THE BOUNDARY, RIGHT? NOT TO APPROVE, WE ARE NOT AGREEING OUR COMMUNITY BENEFITS, WE ARE JUST AGREEING TO WHAT THE BOUNDARY IS. OR AM I WRONG ON

THAT? >> THE STATE LAW ALLOWS YOU TO CREATE THE BOUNDARY OF OUR PID POLICY , IT REQUIRES THAT THEY NEED OR EXCEED OUR DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

>> IN ORDER TO GET THE BOUNDARY?

>> RIGHT >> ALL RIGHT, I GUESS OF THE DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME UP AND SPEAK, WE WILL DO THAT AND THEN WE WILL ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN.

>> WOULD YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN HAVE THEIR

COMMENTS IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> OKAY, WE WILL DO THAT. WE WILL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS 7:21. WE DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE

IT RIGHT NOW? >> NO, THIS IS ONE WHERE IF YOU DECIDE TO KEEP IT OPEN, YOU ADJOURN IT FROM TIME TO TIME

>> LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU ARE READY.

>> YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. >> MY NAME IS SETH MAREN, I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF WAY MAKER VENTURES FROM THE STROMBERG PROJECT. IF WE CAN RUN BACK TWO OR THREE SLIDES?

>> I DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF IT. >> I WILL GO BACK TO IT.

>> 24 THERE. >> NOW YOU CAN CONTROL IT.

>> AS JAMES MENTIONED, THIS PRODUCT HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF PNC AND COUNCIL A COUPLE OF TIMES. THE STROMBERG PROJECT IS, AT THIS POINT, A PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT. ALTHOUGH THERE IS SOME GREAT COMMERCIAL THAT IS AT THE FUTURE INTERSECTION OF WHAT WE ARE CALLING THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL, THAT NORTH-SOUTH ROAD, THE SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT IS AT THE EAST WILCO HIGHWAY, WHICH IS NEARING COMPLETION, AND THERE'S ALSO ABOUT SEVEN ACRES OF COMMERCIAL DOWN THERE, AS WELL.

AS PART OF THE ENTITLEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT, WE WORKED THROUGH A RELATIVELY EXTENSIVE PUD PROCESS FOR THE ZONING, WHICH MANY OF YOU SAW EITHER ON PNC OR COUNCIL . AS PART OF THAT PUD ZONING, WE WORKED EXTENSIVELY WITH STAFF TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND ASPECTS THAT WERE REQUIRED IN YOUR EDC FOR THE PROJECT. WITH THE INTENTION THAT THIS PROJECT WOULD HAVE A PID AT A FUTURE DATE. AND WE HAD SOME COMMENTS THAT CAME IN RELATIVELY LATE FROM THAT ON THE ENGINEERING ITEMS , THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO GO THREE FULL COMMENT PERIOD ON THAT. BUT I'M GOING TO RUN THROUGH THOSE VERY QUICKLY TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE THOSE ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND THE PLANS OVER THE LAST YEAR. THE FIRST ONE OF THOSE IS THE ROUNDABOUTS THAT YOU SEE AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL, AND ALSO AT CARL STERN AND THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. THOSE HAD BEEN A SUGGESTION BY STAFF AS AN IDEA OF A WAY TO FACILITATE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT THROUGH THE PROJECT. THAT CAN BE HANDLED AS EITHER A ROUNDABOUT, AS SUGGESTED BY STAFF, OR THAT COULD CERTAINLY BE A SIGNAL AT A FUTURE DATE IF THAT WAS OF INTEREST TO STAFF OR COUNCIL. IN TERMS OF SIDEWALKS, THERE HAD BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT EXPANDED SIDEWALKS, WHICH WE PROVIDED . THE CITY CODE WOULD'VE BEEN SIX FEET ON THE COLLECTOR ROADS, WE WENT WITH EIGHT FEET. WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED BUILDING A SIDEWALK DOWN THAT ARTERIAL, WITH THE INTENT OF PRIMARILY HAVING EXPANDED SIDEWALKS BE ON THE COLLECTOR ROAD THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT TO FACILITATE NEIGHBORHOOD MOVEMENT FROM RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THE COMMERCIAL . THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL IS A VERY STRAIGHT ROAD, JUST DUE TO THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINES. I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE A BIG MIXED-USE PATH ON SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A RELATIVELY SIGNIFICANT THOROUGHFARE , THAT IS THAT STRAIGHT. ALTHOUGH WE CAN CERTAINLY DISCUSS THAT IF THAT IS OF INTEREST TO COUNCIL . IN TERMS OF ENHANCEMENTS TO THE ENVIRONMENT, THIS IS AN AGRICULTURAL FIELD THAT IS CURRENTLY MOSTLY BEING GROWN AS CORN . THERE'S A CHANNEL THAT IS JUST A DIRT CHANNEL THAT RUNS

[00:25:03]

THROUGH THE PROJECT, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE COTTON BROOK DEVELOPMENT, WHICH FOLKS WHO WORK FOR ME ALSO DESIGN IN THE PAST, WE TOOK A VERY SIMILAR CHANNEL, UPGRADED THAT TO A NICELY LANDSCAPED CHANNEL THAT HAS GREATLY REDUCED EROSION IN THE AREA. I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO SAY THAT THIS PROJECT, AS IT ENHANCES THE DRAINAGE CHANNEL THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT, WILL ALSO GREATLY ENHANCE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION IN THE AREA. WE ARE ALSO BUILDING RETENTION PONDS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH END OF THE PROJECT THAT WILL MITIGATE EROSION AND RUNOFF IN THIS AREA. ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS IS EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS, AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED ON THIS PROJECT, A LOCATION HAS BEEN DESIGNATED FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, SHOULD THEY WANT TO ACQUIRE AN ELEMENTARY SITE.

PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT INDICATED THEY WERE NOT INTERESTED IN ACQUIRING THE SCHOOL SITE, BUT THAT IS STILL PART OF THE PUD, SHOULD THEY ELECT TO BUILD A SCHOOL IN THIS PROJECT. ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS WAS A REQUEST THAT THE DEVELOPMENT NOT DOUBLE DIP ON TIF REIMBURSEMENTS, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY OKAY WITH THE DEVELOPER. THE MAIN UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL WOULD BE FUNDED AS TIF IMPROVEMENTS AS A REIMBURSEMENT, AND THE REMAINDER OF THE SUBDIVISION ROADWAYS, NOT ALL OF THEM WOULD BE ABLE TO BE FUNDED BY THE PID, BUT SOME OF THE OTHER COLLECTORS AND ROADWAYS WOULD BE FUN TO THE PID. ANOTHER QUESTION WAS WASTEWATER CAPACITY FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS YOU ALL KNOW, YOU ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON A VERY LARGE-SCALE NEW WASTEWATER PLANT, WHICH SHOULD ALIGN EXTREMELY WELL WITH THE TIMING FOR THIS PROJECT. WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE SIGNIFICANT HOMES OR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REQUIRING WASTEWATER BEFORE THAT PLANT IS CONSTRUCTED. AND IN TERMS OF COMMUNITY BENEFITS, THAT HAS BEEN WELL ESTABLISHED , IN TERMS OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED TO BE ROUGHLY $2.7 MILLION. AND ALSO BRINGING SIGNIFICANT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, AS OPPOSED TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, WHICH ARE PRETTY COMMON . THIS ONE DOES HAVE INTERSPERSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS INTERESTING. THERE'S NOTHING CURRENTLY IN THIS PLAN THAT IS MORE THAN ABOUT A QUARTER MILE AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL, WHICH WOULD BE A BENEFIT FOR FOLKS THAT ARE OUT HERE BETWEEN EAST WILCO HIGHWAY AND 79. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE WITH REGARD TO SOMETHING STAFF MAY HAVE BROUGHT UP, OR ANYTHING ELSE REGARDING THE PROJECT OR PID. WE ALSO HAVE THE PFG HERE, WHO IS THE PID ADVISER FOR THIS PROJECT. IF YOU HAVE MORE SPECIFIC FINANCIAL QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

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

>> I GUESS THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. THE STAFF HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE

CITIES PID POLICY? >> IS THERE A QUESTION?

>> YEAH, THE QUESTION IS DOES STAFF HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT SATISFY THE CITIES PID POLICY?

CAN YOU ELABORATE? >> AGAIN. THE TABLE THAT THE CITY ENGINEER SHARED AROUND COUNCIL ON NOVEMBER 6TH MEMORIZE THOSE COMMENTS. IF YOU WANTED TO FOR THE RECORD.

>> NO, JUST A GENERAL THING. >> YEAH, BASICALLY THE STAFF HAS TO EFFECTIVELY ADJUDICATE WHENEVER SOMEONE IS REQUESTING A PID. AND WE ARE ADJUDICATING AGAINST THE POLICIES OF THE COUNCIL IS ADOPTED. SO IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT PID 'S ARE JUST AUTOMATIC. IT SHOULD BE THAT THERE IS A HIGHER STANDARD, A HIGHER DEGREE OF WHATEVER HE MAY SAY, PUBLIC BENEFIT IS THE TERM WE USE , BROADLY SPEAKING. BUT THAT CAN BE A LOT OF THINGS.

TO BE A PARTICULAR NICHE BUILDING THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE, OR IT COULD BE GREEN SPACE THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE. IT COULD BE IMPROVED INFRASTRUCTURE AND TRANSPORTATION THAT WE DON'T HAVE. SO THE CITY ENGINEER, AND APPLYING HIS REVIEW OF THE POLICY WITH THEIR RESPONSE IN THE APPLICATION FELT THAT MOST OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY WERE INDICATING WERE OF BENEFIT WERE EITHER SOMETHING THAT THEY WOULD BE MEETING TO DO ANYWAY, OR DID NOT REALLY RISE TO THE LEVEL.

>> I KIND OF UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE STATUS OF GETTING THIS RESOLVED?

>> THE STATUS OF THE COUNCIL IS THE ADJUDICATOR. SO YOU'VE BEEN PRESENTED, RIGHT? WHY THE DEVELOPER FEELS, PARTING, HE'S

[00:30:06]

NOT DONE, BUT HE WILL FINISH PRESENTING WHY HE THINKS THAT THEY HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS, AND THEN YOU ALL HAVE THE COMMENTS FROM THE ENGINEER AS TO WHY HE DOESN'T THINK THEY DID IN CERTAIN AREAS. AND YOU ALL WILL DECIDE WHETHER THEY MET THE BURDEN OF PROOF TO JUSTIFY BEING ABLE TO RECEIVE A PID OR NOT.

>> SO I GUESS WE ARE OKAY WITH A VERBAL RESPONSE AS OPPOSED TO A

WRITTEN RESPONSE? >> YEAH, COMPLETELY. AND THAT'S THE OTHER THING, COUNCIL HAS THE DISCRETION. SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO ISSUE A PID. BUT YOU CAN ALSO ACCEPT THE PID EXACTLY THE WAY IT IS. OR YOU CAN SAY WE WILL ONLY ACCEPT IT IF YOU'D AGREE TO DO THESE THINGS. AND THEY HAVE TO DECIDE IF THEY ARE GOING TO AGREE TO THEM. SO YOU HAVE FULL DISCRETION, IF THERE'S ANYTHING MORE TECHNICAL THAN THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO ASK THE

WOMAN TO MY LEFT. >> THANK YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT, SO , I QUESTIONS FOR YOU. SORRY. ISD, YOU OFFERED THEM A SITE, THEY SAID WE ARE NOT INTERESTED RIGHT NOW? IS

THAT IN WRITING FOR THEM? >> WE HAVE AN EMAIL STATED.

>> IF YOU GET THE EMAIL, BECAUSE IT ALWAYS COMES UP THAT WE NEVER TALK TO YOU GUYS AND HAVE YOU GUYS DO THAT. I THINK WE NEED

RECORDS ON OUR SIDE. >> CERTAINLY.

>> I SAW ON THERE, AND YOU MENTIONED IT, TOO, TO OVERSIZE THE SIDEWALKS FROM 6 TO 8 FEET. PERSONALLY, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT. BECAUSE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK, I THINK OUR CODE IS FOUR. SO WE ARE TWO FEET ALREADY FROM WHAT OUR STANDARD CODE IS.

AND WE GO TO EIGHT, I SEE THAT IS MORE OF AN EXPENSE ON THE CITY FOR MAINTENANCE LONG-TERM. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND SEE THE SIDEWALKS ALONG THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE. THE REASON BEING, I GET THE POINT THAT 132 IS GOING TO BE THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE, BUT WE JUST DROPPED HALF $1 MILLION TO PUT SIDEWALKS UP AND SCHMIDT, WHICH IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE. THAT IS GOING TO CARRY 60 OR 70,000 CARS A DAY, AND THIS WILL NEVER BE THAT. SO WE ARE MAKING EVERYBODY , YOU GUYS ARE GETTING HELD TO THE SAME STANDARDS AS EVERYBODY. WE HAVE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT DON'T WANT TO PUT SIDEWALKS ON MAIN THOROUGHFARES, SO WE HAVE TO MAKE EVERYBODY PUT A SIDEWALK, EVEN THOUGH IT GOES NOWHERE, BECAUSE TODAY IT'S NOWHERE, TOMORROW THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH . WE HAVE AN INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX TITAN, WE MADE A TRAIL AROUND THE PARK AROUND THE RETENTION POND. SUGGEST SOMETHING I WOULD THINK ABOUT, MAYBE, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. SAVE THE MONEY INSTEAD OF HAVING EIGHT FOOT WIDE SIDEWALKS, SPEND THE MONEY OWNED SIDEWALKS THAT GO ALL THE WAY AROUND TO THE COLLECTOR ROADS.

>> MAYOR, I JUST WANT TO MENTION, WE MIGHT HAVE TO HAVE EIGHT FOOT FOR A.D.A. REQUIREMENTS. REMEMBER, WE ARE

AMENDING OUR A.D.A. PLAN. SO -- >> I'M HIGHLY CONFIDENT THAT

EIGHT-FOOT IS NOT FOR A.D.A. >> I THINK IT IS. I THINK YOU'D

BE SURPRISED. >> CAN I ASK CLARIFYING QUESTION? YOU ARE PLANNING TO PUT A SIDEWALK ON THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE, JUST NOT THE EXPANDED SIDEWALK?

>> I THINK. JUST TO CLARIFY IN TERMS OF MAIN THOROUGHFARE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT KIND OF THE MORE SQUIGGLY, S SHAPED ROAD IS THE MAIN COLLECTOR THOROUGHFARE TO THE SUBDIVISION, AND THE LARGER VERY STRAIGHT ROAD IS THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL. CAN YOU ALL

CLARIFY WHICH? >> YOU'D SAID THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THE EXPANDED ONE ON THE COLLECTOR? BUT YOU ARE STILL PUTTING A STANDARD ONE ON THE ARTERIAL?

>> THAT ROADWAY IS A MINOR ARTERIAL ON THE ROADWAY PLAN.

BUT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATED AS 136 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE COUNTIES ARTERIAL PLAN, BEFORE YOU ANNEX THIS TRACK. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW BIG THAT SIDEWALK IS GOING TO BE, AND IF IT IS A FEAT I CAN CERTAINLY TALK TO THE DEVELOPER ABOUT THAT. BUT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT A VERY STRAIGHT STREET. YOU WANT AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK ON THAT

ONE. >> FOR ME, AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THE SIDEWALKS HAVE TO BE EIGHT FEET, ONLY BECAUSE THE CITY OF AUSTIN, BIKING, WALKING, I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT COME THROUGH IN MY DAY JOB THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALKS TO BE A.D.A., ASSUMING THAT'S THE CASE, I WOULD WHATEVER OUR CODE SAYS TO BUILD, AND I WOULD PUT ALONG EVERY STREET , BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE MAKE EVERYBODY ELSE DO. IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT IN 1000 HOMES, I DON'T KNOW TODAY WHERE THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT TO, AND WE DON'T AND THEY ARE GOING TO WALK UP, SAY, 132. ALSO, THEY START DOING IT AND WE WILL GET COMPLAINTS THAT WHY DID YOU GUYS NOT PUT SIDEWALKS HERE? AND THEN WE ARE

[00:35:01]

GOING TO COME BACK IN THE CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO SAY I'VE GOT A FIX, IT IS HALF-MILLION DOLLARS. AND WE WILL GO YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU SHOULD'VE JUST BEEN THE PID PAY FOR IT. FOR ME, I WOULD LOOK BETTER MAKE SURE YOU HAVE SIDEWALKS ON THE ROADS, BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT WE ARE REQUIRING PEOPLE TO DO.

ESPECIALLY WITH IT BEING A NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THESE PEOPLE HAVE TO WALK SOMEWHERE TO THE SERVICES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY OR THE SOUTH. BUT THAT IS JUST A

COMMENT -- >> I THINK WE CAN AGREE TO THAT.

THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> I DO LIKE THE 2.7 MILLION FOR

THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE. >> ACTUALLY 7.9.

>> WILL I LIKE IT THREE TIMES AS MUCH AS I DID AT 2.7. SO, THAT, COUPLED WITH, IF I READ RIGHT, YOU DID NOT BRING IT UP, BUT IF I READ IT RIGHT, THE DEVELOPMENT IS DONATING THE LAND FOR THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 132 AND IMPROVING THE SECTION OF 132 TO TWO LANE CURRENT? DID I READ THAT RIGHT?

>> SO, 132 WILL HAVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AND TURN LANES, AND INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS. BUT IT IS NOT EXPANDING THAT ROADWAY. THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE A COUNTY PROJECT.

>> RIGHT, BUT YOU ARE BUILDING APARTMENTS IN FRONT OF YOUR

SITE. >> I WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED AS

PART OF THE OBJECT. >> WAS THERE ANOTHER ROAD YOU

GUYS ARE BUILDING? >> I THINK YOU MIGHT BE THINKING ABOUT THE CENTER ROAD, WHICH IS CARL STERN. THAT WOULD HAVE TO

BE BUILT. >> THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE MAINE HIPPO, AS AN EXAMPLE. THAT'S THE SAME ROADWAY.

>> THE ROUNDABOUTS , WE JUST TO POLICY CHANGE ON, I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE THE LAST MONTH OR SO, TO WHERE TXDOT IS KIND OF PUSHING FOR US TO DO A CERTAIN ICE STUDY . BASED ON THAT, IT MAY COME OUT AS A ROUNDABOUT. SO I THINK STAFF IS JUST GOING TO MAKE YOU DO THE ICE STUDY, AND IF IT COMES OUT AS A ROUNDABOUT, WHICH I THINK THEY ARE, THAT IS TXDOT THING NOW. WILL PROBABLY WANT TO DO THAT JUST BECAUSE WE ARE NOW MAKING EVERYBODY DO THAT.

>> THAT'S FINE. WE ARE FINE WITH SIGNAL INTERSECTION, ROUNDABOUTS, WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE.

>> GOING TO THE CITY ENGINEER'S LETTER, I GUESS, IN A NUTSHELL, THERE'S BENEFITS TO DEVELOPMENT. AND I DON'T EVER LOOK AT THOSE AS COMMUNITY BENEFITS, BECAUSE THAT'S JUST LIKE NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFIT. BUT FROM A COMMUNITY BENEFIT, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT MONEY AT $8 MILLION. ONE OTHER TYPE OF THINGS ARE YOU GUYS DOING THAT WOULD BE MY NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TRACKS, WE MAY WANT TO COME DOWN THERE AND IF IT FROM ANOTHER, I KNOW THERE'S A DOG PARK, THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE OPEN EVERYBODY, RIGHT?

>> CERTAINLY. I THINK THE NORTH-SOUTH ARTERIAL IS THE OTHER SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT. IF YOU LIVE SOUTH OF 79, I THINK YOU'VE ALL SEEN THE TRAFFIC BACKING UP AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS, TRYING TO GET ACROSS THERE. THIS WOULD GIVE A VERY DIRECT ROUTE TO THE EAST WILCO HIGHWAY, DOWN A BRAND-NEW ARTERIAL ROAD THAT IS IN EXCESS OF EIGHT MILES LONG. WE'VE WORKED ON OUR FIRM, ANY PROJECT, THOUSANDS OF LOTS IN HUTTO, AND THIS IS THE LONGEST ARTERIAL WE'VE EVER BEEN PART OF IN A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY A FACTOR OF THREE.

>> SEE YOU ARE BUILDING A ROAD, THE NORTH-SOUTH ONE ON THE

RIGHT? >> RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, NOT 132. THAT'S THE ROAD YOU'RE BUILDING THAT YOU'VE GIVEN RIGHT-OF-WAY IN BUILDING?

>> YEAH, BETWEEN 68 AND 136 FEET OF RIGHT-OF-WAY, DEPENDING .

>> AND YOU ARE BUILDING 132? NO, YOU ARE BUILDING CARL STERN.

>> YEAH, THE NORTH-SOUTH, MATT RECTOR HAS BEEN CALLING AT THE MEGA SITE ARTERIAL. IT DOESN'T HAVE A NAME ON YOUR PLAN BUT THAT'S WHAT HE'S BEEN CALLING IT.

>> YEAH, IN THE FUTURE PART OF THAT IS TO TIE INTO A COUNTY

ROAD? TO THE NORTH? >> IF IT CONTINUED NORTH IT WOULD TIE INTO THE COLLECTOR THAT YOU GUYS BUILT EAST-WEST TO

THE MEGA SITE. >> FOR ME, SOME OF THE COMMUNITY BENEFITS I'M SEEING IS CASH FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED FOR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, AND YOU GUYS ARE BUILDING ROADS THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON OUR PLAN, OR ROADS THAT WE NEED. RIGHT NOW WE NEED TO FUND THEM THROUGH DEBT SALES, AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST TO PAY HIGHER TAXES, OR YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BUILD THEM AND CHARGE PEOPLE THERE PID FEE OR PID ASSESSMENT. FOR ME, IT MAY NOT BE THE TYPICAL BENEFIT OF YOU ARE BUILDING A 10 ACRE PARK, BUT WE HAVE PARKS, RIGHT NOW IT'S A MILLION-DOLLAR PARK THAT IS ALMOST DONE. BUT WE ALSO HAVE SIGNIFICANT ROADWAYS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET DONE. AND YOU GUYS ARE PUTTING IN TWO OF THEM. PLUS MONEY. SO I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH IT ALL, I AGREE WITH OTHER PARTS, OVERALL THOSE OF THE BIG PARTS THAT I SEE, WE ARE TALKING IN EXCESS OF 10 OR MORE MILLION DOLLARS THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THE PUBLIC BY THIS DEVELOPMENT.

>> YEAH, THOSE ROADS ARE BETWEEN FIVE AND $7 MILLION.

[00:40:01]

>> SO YOU ARE LOOKING AT 14 TO 15 MILLION TOTAL BENEFIT. AND THAT'S ON TOP OF THE TAX REVENUE. SO I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF AN ISSUE, I KNOW THE STAFF WANTS TO POSTPONE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING, I THINK TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE EVERYTHING IRONED OUT ON SIDEWALKS OR WHATEVER. BUT THAT'S ALL I HAD.

>> YEAH, I BASICALLY AGREE. I THINK THE BENEFIT OF THE ROAD, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS, BECAUSE THEY HAVE A PRORATED PORTION OF IT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, REGARDLESS. BUT THEY ARE OVERBUILDING IT BEYOND WHAT THEY WOULD NEED TO. SO THAT PART IS A

COMMUNITY BENEFIT, FOR SURE. >> I WAS GOING TO BE MY CLARIFICATION QUESTION. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS IF YOU DID NOT GET A PID, YOU WOULD BE BUILDING THE ROAD ANYWAY. THE BENEFIT IS THAT IT IS A WIDER ROAD AND YOU ARE DEDICATING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, WHICH IS SAVING THE CITY MONEY. IS THAT THE BENEFIT?

>> IT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, BUT THERE IS NO WAY THAT TI WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO BUILD A MINOR ARTERIAL FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD GENERALLY BE THE COLLECTOR ROAD YOU WOULD SEE THAT WE GET BUILT. YOU WOULD DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM THE ARTERIAL, BUT THE ARTERIAL WOULD BE BUILT.

SEE MAXI WOULD NOT EVEN BUILD IT AT ALL. GOT YOU.

>> YOU COULD BUILD JUST THE COLLECTOR IN EXCESS FROM 132 ALL THE WAY DOWN TO EAST WILCO HIGHWAY.

>> JUST FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, GENERALLY SPEAKING, WITHOUT ANY TYPE OF INJECTION OF SUPPORT FROM THE CITY FINANCIALLY, WITH THE DEVELOPERS TRADITIONALLY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR IS THEIR IMPACT AND WHAT IT GENERATES ON THE ROADWAY . GENERALLY THAT MEANS THE DEDICATION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY , MOST ARE WILLING TO DO ALL OF THAT. BUT THEY ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO IT. THEY ARE JUST OBLIGATE THEM TO DO THEIR PORTION OR SHARE. GENERALLY WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THEY WILL DONATE HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT IS NOT ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE PRODUCT, IT IS ON THE BOUNDARY. THEY WILL DEDICATE HALF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND SOMEHOW CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THAT FUTURE ROAD CONSTRUCTION, BUT THEY WILL NOT BUILD IT. IF THEY DO BUILD IT, THEY WILL BUILD SOME SMALLER VERSION. IF THEY ARE GOING AHEAD AND BUILDING THE FULL BUILDOUT OF THAT ROADWAY AND IT'S GOING TO THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT, THEN THAT IS ABOVE AND BEYOND , AND THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE

SUBJECT FOR AWARD OF THE PID . >> LIKE THE PID BONDS WOULD PAY

FOR IT? >> NO, THEY ARE AGREEING THAT THE PID BONDS WOULD NOT FUND EITHER THE ARTERIALS. THAT WOULD BE USED FOR COLLECTORS AND LOCAL ROADS ONLY.

>> WHICH I THINK WAS PART OF WHAT, WE'VE HAD THE ISSUE

BEFORE -- >> ABOUT DOUBLE DIPPING, YES.

>> PEOPLE SAY IT HAS COMMUNITY BENEFIT, BUT YOU ALSO GET REIMBURSED. THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT IS OF US TO BE OUT OF YOUR POCKET. THAT'S A BIG CHANGE, AND I THINK THAT WAS A CLARIFICATION THAT, GOING THROUGH THE EMAILS, MATT HAD A CONCERN AND YOU ALL CAME BACK AND SAID WE ARE OKAY. NOT DOING

THAT. >> AND THAT WAS AGREED IN THE PUD , TO BUILD HALF OF THE EAST-WEST ARTERIAL WHICH, AGAIN, NEEDS TO BE CONNECTED TO CARL STERN. ONCE IT IS IT WILL BE A GREAT BENEFIT. AND THEN HALF OF THE NORTH-SOUTH, AND DEDICATE ALL OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WHERE IT IS REQUIRED.

>> CITY MANAGER, TAKING THIS IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION, FROM THE COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ENGINEER, HAVE WE DONE ANY PROJECTED REVENUE FROM THE PID COMPARED TO LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COSTS THAT THE CITY WOULD ASSUME DOING THIS PID?

>> NO, THAT'S NOT GENERALLY IN OUR CALCULUS. THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T START THAT, BUT WE DON'T GENERALLY DO WHAT IS THE COST OF LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE FOR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ANY OF

THE PROJECTS. >> CAN THAT BE SOMETHING WE ADD THIS? TAKING INTO ACCOUNT WHAT HE SAYING ABOUT ADDING ROADS, WATER LINES, WASTEWATER LINES AND DRAINAGE, PERHAPS THAT IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD CONSIDER , WHAT IS THAT PROJECTED REVENUE COMPARED TO THE MAINTENANCE COSTS THAT WE WOULD ASSUME FROM

SOMETHING LIKE THIS. >> YEAH, I THINK WE GOT TO THE POINT AS AN ORGANIZATION WHERE WE HAVE TO START DOING THOSE

PROJECTIONS. >> IF I MAY, RICK ROSENBERG WITH THE PFG. THE $7.9 MILLION WE PRESENTED AS A COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE, $2.7 MILLION REPRESENTS THE ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAXES PROJECTED TO BE GENERATED BY THE PROJECT. NORTH OF OVER $10 MILLION A YEAR AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. ONE OF THE CONCERNS RAISED BY STAFF WAS YOU ARE NOT REALLY MEETING THE NEED OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. MY ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT THE $10.8 MILLION COVERS BOTH INCREMENTAL OPERATING EXPENSES AND DOLLARS

[00:45:01]

TO COVER CAPITAL COSTS TO SUPPORT DEBT SERVICE. SO IT GENERATES SIGNIFICANT BENEFIT. IN TERMS OF THE MEANS OF DIFFERENT IMPROVEMENTS, I DO WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THIS PRODUCT WILL BE UTILIZING A JONAH SED WATER. THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTENANCE. IT WILL NOT BE A CITY RESPONSE ABILITY. WE ARE NOT PUTTING ANY STRESS ON THE CITY'S WATER

SYSTEM BY THIS PROJECT. >> JUST ON THE WATER.

>> JUST ON THE WATER. >> THAT'S GOOD, WITH THE WATER IN THE WASTEWATER. BUT ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT IS NOTED WITH THE ROADS AND THE DRAINAGE, AS WELL. UNDERSTANDING WHAT THAT POTENTIAL COST WOULD BE WOULD BE HELPFUL IN EVALUATING SOMETHING

LIKE THIS. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> I THINK THE PART THAT IS RELEVANT THERE IS IS THERE A COST ABOVE WITH A STANDARD NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE? THEY CANNOT DO A PID, DAUGHTER NEIGHBORHOOD, AND HAVE THE EXACT SAME INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE WASTEWATER. THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE. IF THEY ARE UPSIZING THINGS, SAYING IT'S A BENEFIT BUT IT'S GOING TO COST US MORE MAINTENANCE, THAT IS WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO THE SKIN TO CONSIDER THAT. BUT THE BASELINE INFRA STRUCTURE, IT IS THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT. SO IT'S NOT

REALLY A FACTOR FOR ME. >> I WOULD ALSO ADD THAT THE USE OF THE PID DOES NOT INVOLVE THE CITY INJECTING ANY OF ITS FINANCIAL DEBT CAPACITY OR FUNDS INTO THE PROJECT. THAT'S AN OBLIGATION THAT THE DEVELOPER IS TAKING ON. SO, YES, THE CITY IS FACILITATING CREATION OF THE PID, BUT THEY ARE NOT TAKING ANY

COST OR RISK IN DOING SO. >> SO, JAMES, IF THIS IS APPROVED TONIGHT, STAFF STILL HAS TO WORK OUT THE SIZE OF THE SIDEWALK, WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO. WE ARE NOT --

>> THAT'S TRUE. >> IF THE COUNCIL WERE TO APPROVE THE PID TONIGHT, THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE TO NEGOTIATE THE PID FINANCIAL AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD FINE-TUNE SOME OF THESE ISSUES. SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP CAME UP TO US LATE, SO WE DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE REPORT.

BUT WE WANTED TO KEEP MOVING THE PROCESS FORWARD.

>> ONE OF THE ISSUES WE TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT THE PID IS NOT GOING TO INCLUDE THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES .

>> IS NOT. >> SO THE EXHIBIT TO THE RESOLUTION DOESN'T HAVE THE UPDATED , IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY LEGAL ON THE EXHIBIT FOR THE RESOLUTION.

>> THE COMMERCIAL PARCELS COULD BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PID. IT IS NOT THE INTENT TO ASSESS THIS COMMERCIAL PARCELS.

WE DON'T TO CHANGE THE EXHIBIT. >> BUT MY POINT WAS THE RESOLUTION THAT THEY ARE GOING TO CONSIDER, WE DID NOT PUT THE LEGAL TO IT. BECAUSE I THOUGHT THERE WAS AN OUTSTANDING ISSUE AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE GOING TO CHANGE THE BOUNDARIES

TO EXCLUDE THE COMMERCIAL. >> THAT IS NEWS TO US.

>> IF ANYTHING, OUR RESOLUTION DOES NOT HAVE THE LEGAL

DESCRIPTION ATTACHED TO IT. >> OKAY, SO YOU HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION THAT IS NOT READY TO

BE APPROVED. >> YEAH , NO.

>> WHY IS IT ON THE AGENDA? >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

TABLE. >> WHAT YOU DO, YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, A JOURNEY TO NEXT TIME, WE WILL GET THE INFORMATION ON THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION, BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING WAS, AND I MISS SOME OF THE PID CALLS THAT WE HAD, I THOUGHT THE COMMERCIAL WAS GOING TO BE TAKEN OUT WHEN THE BOUNDARY WAS GOING TO BE CHANGED, SO THAT WAS INCOMPLETE.

>> DO WE HAVE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION?

>> NO. WE DON'T HAVE A COMPLETE RESOLUTION HERE.

>> YEAH, THE PID HAS A LEGAL DESCRIPTION. YOU HAVE A THE CITY HAS HAD THAT FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.

>> BUT I THINK WE WERE UNDERSTANDING THAT NO COMMERCIAL WAS GOING TO BE IN IT, AND MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THE LEGAL WAS

GOING TO EXCLUDE THOSE. >> NO, IT DOES NOT MAKE A

DIFFERENCE. >> IT DOES TO ME. BECAUSE I CAN'T APPROVE A RESOLUTION IF I DON'T KNOW WHAT --

>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS YOU HAVE THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE PID AS PER THE PETITION. WHETHER IT IS THE INTENT NOT TO ASSESS THE COMMERCIALS, IT CAN STILL BE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE

PID. >> HARB, ARE YOU HERE? CAN YOU COME UP AND ADDRESS WHETHER WE CAN APPROVE THE RESOLUTION

WITHOUT LEGAL? >> SURE, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE RECORD, A SERVICE BOND COUNSELOR TO THE CITY. NOT THE DEVELOPER, I WORK FOR THE CITY AND WORK FOR ALL OF YOU. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WHAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PID, AND THEY ARE DETERMINING NOW THAT 10% OF THE COMMERCIAL, HOW TO ADDRESS THAT. I THINK, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS THAT YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE

[00:50:01]

PAYING FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE THE ASSESSMENT ON THEM, SO EVEN IF THEY WERE IN THE BOUNDARIES IN THE DISTRICT THEMSELVES, IF THEY WERE HAVING THE ASSESSMENT ON THEM, THAT HAPPENS FROM TIME TO TIME, WE DO SEE THAT. TWO BICKLEY ATTIC IS DONE SO THE DEVELOPER CAN MARKET THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES WITHOUT AN ASSESSMENT ON THEM, SO THE DEVELOPER IS ESSENTIALLY PREPAYING THE ASSESSMENT BY PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEMSELVES AND NOT MAKING A PART OF THE ASSESSMENT I WILL SAY, EVEN THOUGH IT IS COMMON, WE SEE THAT QUITE A BIT IN SOME PID'S, IF THERE'S ANY DISCOMFORT, ANYTHING YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS NO HARM IN TABLING THIS A MEETING OR TWO SO YOU CAN GET THAT COMFORT. I WOULD NOT RUSH YOU TO CONSIDER PUTTING THE PRESSURE ON THE CITY COUNCIL OR NOT. RICK WOULD NOT WANT ME TO SAY THAT, BUT A WAY TO FEEL COUNTABLE KNOWING THAT I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANY HARM IN WAITING TO MAKE SURE YOU GET ALL

YOUR QUESTIONS ANSWERED. >> WITH ITEMS ON THE AGENDA --

>> SAY THAT AGAIN? >> HERE'S ALL WE WANT. WITH THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA READY TO BE UP TO DO OR NOT APPROVED? IF IT'S NOT RATED BE APPROVED, 100%, THEN IT MAKES ME WONDER WHY THEY DIDN'T EVEN MAKE IT ON THE AGENDA? BECAUSE NOW I FEEL LIKE MY TIME IS BEING WASTED. AND I'M UP HERE WASTING MY TIME, AND I HAVE TO GO BACK, AND WE HAVE TO DO THIS ALL OVER AGAIN. WHEN I WOULD RATHER JUST HAVE, NOT YOU, BUT I DON'T MIND TABLING TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE RIGHT. BUT I AM LIKE MAN.

>> UNDERSTOOD. >> IT'S WIRE MEETINGS GO UNTIL 2:00 IN THE MORNING BECAUSE IT TAKES US 15 MEETINGS.

>> SO THE PID ACT ALLOWS YOU TO ADJOURN THE HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME, AND WE HAVE DONE THAT. MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO ADJOURN IT TO THE NEXT MEETING, SO WE CAN ATTACH LEGAL TO IT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO MAKE CLEAR IN THE RESOLUTION THAT THE COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE NOT GOING TO BE ASSESSED, THAT WAS ONE QUESTION I HAVE NOW. SO I WOULD LIKE TO JUST GO OVER THIS WITH BART. IF THAT'S THE CORRECT LEGAL THAT IS ATTACHED TO THE PETITION, WE CAN CERTAINLY ATTACH THE RESOLUTION. WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT , AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL THAT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PID IS NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE ASSESSMENT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE REALLY

SAID THAT IN THE RESOLUTION. >> COUNSELOR THOMPSON, ARE YOU OKAY WITH THE CHANGE IN YOUR MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM, WHAT YOU

SAY, FROM TIME TO TIME? >> ADJOURN TO THE NEXT , ADJOURN TO THE DECEMBER 18 CITY COUNCIL. YOU DON'T CLOSE THIS, YOU ADJOURN IT TO , FROM MEETING TO MEETING, UNTIL FINAL ADJOURNMENT WHEN YOU CREATE THE PID AND PASS THE RESOLUTION.

>> SO I WILL ADJOURN THIS ITEM TO OUR DECEMBER 18TH MEETING, OR I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS ITEM TO OUR DECEMBER 18TH MEETING SO THAT WAY OUR LEGAL TEAM CAN GET WITH BART AND TEAM TO CLEAR UP ANY SORT OF LAST-MINUTE DETAILS. I KNOW THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WANT, BUT JUST FOR OUR BACKING , LET'S GO ABOUT THAT.

>> WE WON'T HAVE A LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE COMMERCIAL

PARCELS BY DECEMBER 18TH. >> NO, WHAT I THINK WE ARE GOING TO SAY IN THE RESOLUTION IS ANY COMMERCIAL. THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT GOING TO BE ON ANY COMMERCIAL WITHIN THE PID.

>> THAT COULD'VE BEEN AMENDED TONIGHT.

>> THAT'S SOMETHING I NEED TO DISCUSS WITH BART. I DON'T NEED

YOUR OPINION ON IT. >> I WILL MAKE A SECOND. GUYS, I'M SORRY, WE ARE GOING TO WORK THE STUFF, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS TO WHERE THIS IS NOT THE FIRST JOB TO HAVE COMMERCIAL IN

IT. >> ONE LAST COMMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT, TO ADDRESS YOUR EARLIER POINT. YOU'VE DONE THIS WHERE YOU OPEN THE HEARING, THE HEARING IS REQUIRED TONIGHT.

CONSIDERATION OF THE ACTUAL CREATION IS WHAT HAS COME OFTEN TIMES IN YOUR CASE, BEEN POSTPONED. JUST MAKE IT CLEAR, YOU APPROVED A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO TO CALL THE HEARING FOR TONIGHT. THE HEARING WAS OPENED, THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE TONIGHT.

CREATING THE PID IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE DONE, AS YOUR CITY ATTORNEY MENTIONED, AT THE NEXT MEETING OR IN THE FUTURE.

>> I JUST HAD TO SAY AT MULTIPLE MEETINGS, ONE OF THESE DAYS I WANT IS, I HAVE A BET WITH THE CITY MANAGER THE BY THE END OF THIS YEAR THE MEETINGS ARE DONE BY 10:00, NEXT YEAR DONE BY 9:00. BUT IF WE HAVE THE SAME ITEMS MEETING AFTER MEETING, WE ARE NOT GOING TO HIT THAT GOAL.

>> SURE, UNDERSTOOD. >> MOTION BY COUNSELOR THOMPSON, SECOND BY MYSELF, TO ADJOURN THIS ITEM UNTIL 12:18. ANY

DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> I TO QUESTION, NOT REALLY RELATED TO THE MOTION. BUT I DID NOT GET A CHANCE TO ASK BEFORE THE MOTION WAS MADE. I DON'T KNOW IF RICK OR SETH, WHICH ONE OF YOU THIS WOULD BE FOR. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE BENEFITS TO THE PID AMMA AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST BENEFITS IS THE MONEY COMING IN THE PID FEE. WHICH REALLY DOES NOT BENEFIT THE CITIZENS, BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO USE IT ELSEWHERE. WE DON'T HAVE TO USE IT HERE. SO THESE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO BE PAYING AN EQUIVALENT CITY TAX RATE OF ALMOST THREE TIMES WHAT I PAY BECAUSE I DON'T LIVE IN A PID. SO YOU GOT THE CITY TAX AND THEN YOU HAVE THE PID ASSESSMENT FEE, WHICH IS ALMOST DOUBLE WHAT THE CITY TAX IS. SO MY QUESTION IS WHAT WHAT'S GOING, WHAT IS THE BENEFIT GOING TO BE FOR CITIZENS WHO LIVE HERE , LIKE WHY WOULD I BUY A HOUSE HERE VERSUS OUTSIDE OF THIS PID? WHAT'S GOING TO BE

[00:55:02]

MY MOTIVATION AND MY BENEFIT TO PAY THAT EXTRA PID ASSESSMENT

FEE? >> A REMINDER THAT THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE IS NOT PAID FOR THROUGH THE PID AT ALL. THAT IS PAID BY THE DEVELOPER OUT OF THEIR OWN RESOURCES.

>> SURE. BUT WE WOULD NOT BE GETTING THAT UNLESS WE CREATED

THE PID. >> THE REALITY IS THAT THE HOMES IN THE COMMUNITY, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THAT NUMBER HERE, THERE WOULD BE , WE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE, THAT THE USE OF THE PID ALLOWS THE COST TO BE OFFLOADED, TO BE FINANCED OVER 30 YEARS. THEREFORE THE LOT COST CAN BE LESS IN THE HOME PRICE CAN BE LIST. THEY WOULD SAVE MONEY ON THE COST OF THEIR HOME.

WE FOUND THAT IN PRIOR EXAMPLES. THE HOME COULD BE, LET'S SAY THAT PROJECTED LOT PRICES, EXCUSE ME.

>> SO THE ARGUMENT IS THEY ARE PAYING MORE IN THE PID ASSESSMENT FEE OVER THE 30 YEAR PERIOD, BUT THEY ARE PAYING FOR

A HOME THAT IS LESS UP FRONT? >> THE LOT PRICES ARE $100-$120,000. THAT CAN BE THREE, $400,000 HIGHER HOME PRICES. AND OBVIOUSLY THE AMOUNT OF THE PID EQUIVALENT THE , EQUIVALENT TAX RATE HAS TO BE MARKETABLE. AGAINST THE COMPETITIVE PROJECTS IN TOWN, MANY OF WHICH ARE PID PROJECTS,

OUR PROJECTS. >> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE COMPARING IT WITH OTHER PID'S. WHY WOULD SOMEBODY MOVE

THIS PID VERSUS ANOTHER PID? >> TYPICALLY MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES OF THIS NATURE HAVE BETTER AMENITIES, BETTER

COMMUNITY. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.

WHAT BETTER AMENITIES THAT THEY HAVE THAT I DON'T HAVE?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ALL THE DESIGN YET, BUT I KNOW IT'S DOG PARKS, TRAILS, AMENITIES CENTERS, WHICH WILL BE PRIVATELY

FINANCED. >> BUT HIGHER QUALITY THAN THEY WOULD BE? THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM AT?

>> THE NORMAL SUBDIVISION THAT HAS JUST HOMES.

>> HOW BIG ARE THE LOT SIZES? OKAY.

>> 45-60 FEET. >> WITH SOME TOWNHOMES, AS WELL.

>> I THINK THE COUNCILMEMBER BRINGS UP A GOOD POINT, AND I MAY BE LOOKING AT THIS HARSHLY, IF WHATEVER THE PID BONDS ARE, LET'S SAY $20 MILLION. IF THEY COME OUT AND ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE DONE, AND NO ONE BUYS A SINGLE HOME HERE, THE DEVELOPER HAS TO KEEP PAYING THE MONEY. IF AT SOME POINT THE DEVELOPER GOES BANKRUPT, THE CITY WILL TAKE POSSESSION OF THE

LAND FROM THE BONDHOLDERS? >> WELL, THE BONDHOLDERS WILL EITHER ASK THE CITY TO FORECLOSE ON THEIR BEHALF, OR THEY WILL PROBABLY WORK TOWARDS MAYBE THE DEVELOPER , THE LENDER, AS WELL, THE LENDER WILL CONTINUE. THE CITY WILL NOT TAKE ON THE

OBLIGATION OF WOMEN. >> THE COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR TYPICALLY FORECLOSES ON THESE PROPERTIES, AND BECAUSE IT WILL BE SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX, CITY TAX, OTHER TAXES , THE CITY WILL

NOT BE RESPONSIBLE. >> WHERE I WAS TRYING TO GO TO, AND I DID A TERRIBLE JOB. IT IS NOT RECOURSE TO THE CITY. SO WHEN THE BONDS ARE SOLD, I GUESS IT SOUNDS TOUGH, BUT WE GET 7.9 MILLION. AND WE ARE BUILDING ROADS WITH IT. AND IF THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T BUILD A GOOD ENOUGH NEIGHBORHOOD OR THEY TRY TO MARKET IT THE WRONG WAY, TO WHERE THE LOTS ARE NOT AS CHEAP AS THEY SHOULD BE, THEN TO ME THAT IS ON THE DEVELOPER AND THE PEOPLE WHO BOUGHT PID BONDS, THAT'S A RISK THEY TAKE.

>> AGREED. AND WE ARE NORTH OF OVER $4 BILLION IN PID BONDS IN THE LAST 14 YEARS. NOT ONE DEFAULT IN THAT TIME PERIOD. NOT

ANY CITY. >> ONE IN GALVESTON, DIDN'T

YOU? >> IT DID NOT DEFAULT. THE BANK MADE PAYMENTS FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN BROUGHT IT INTO

DEVELOPER. >> SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS. DISCUSSION ON THE ADJOURNMENT? ALL RIGHT, PLEASE

CALL ABOUT. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? COUNCIL MENDER KING? COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPOSN?

[10.2. 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)]

COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? MAYOR SNYDER?

>> NEXT UP, ITEM 10.2, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER CAPITOLS EURO 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 SH 130 TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE. TIRZ FOUR CREATING A BOARD OF DIRECTORS ESTABLISHING A TAX INCREMENT FUND , TIF, FOR THE ZONE .

>> THAT WAS A MOUTHFUL. GOOD EVENING, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC ELEMENT. THIS IS THE SECOND OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS ITEM. IT CHANGES SINCE THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, FEEDBACK FROM COUNCIL REGARDING THE MAP, THE BOUNDARIES FOR THIS PROPOSED ZONE. SO THOSE ARE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET. SO, LET ME CLICK

[01:00:04]

THROUGH HERE. THIS REPRESENTS THE COMPILATION OF THE MAP WITH COUNCILS FEEDBACK FROM THE MEETING ON THE 20TH OF NOVEMBER, WHERE THE FIRST HEARING OCCURRED. AND THEN WE DID HAVE A BREAKDOWN , IT ZOOMS IN, FOR EVERYONE'S VIEWING PLEASURE.

THAT WAY YOU CAN SEE ALL THE PARCEL I.D. NUMBERS, SO IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TONIGHT, THAT'S EASY TO SEE AND EASY FOR STAFF TO WRITE DOWN AND MAKE THOSE CHANGES IF NECESSARY. BUT WE FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THIS REFLECTS WHAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO CHANGE. AT THE LAST HEARING, YOU GUYS DID APPOINT A BOARD, SO THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN CARE OF AS WELL. THIS IS REALLY JUST TO APPROVE THE BOUNDARIES AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE I WAS THE ONLY CHANGE MADE AT THE LAST

HEARING. >> I NOTICED WHEN I WAS LOOKING FOR THE MINUTES FOR THE ITEM THAT WE WILL BE APPROVING UNDER CONSENT, THEY DIDN'T, THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE NOT LISTED THERE.

DID SOMEBODY WRITE THOSE DOWN? DID YOU WRITE THEM DOWN?

>> I DID. I CAN TRY TO GO OFF OF MEMORY, I BELIEVE --

>> NO, THEY ARE ON, WHAT PAGES THAT, 58 OF YOUR PACKET.

>> OH, I WAS LOOKING AT THE MINUTES.

>> SO THE ORDINANCE IS IN THERE WITH THE NAMES.

>> OKAY, IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. AWESOME, THANK YOU. PERFECT,

THANK YOU. >> YEAH, THERE THEY ARE. SECTION 4 IN THE ORDINANCE, FOR YOUR REFERENCE.

>> NOW THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> YES PLEASE.

>> WE WILL MOVE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:02 P.M. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THE WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK REGARDING TIRZ NUMBER FOUR? ALL RIGHT, WE ARE CLOSING HEARING AT 8:02. OPEN ITEM UP FOR QUESTIONS OR DIRECTION.

>> CHENEY, WHAT SPECIFIC PROJECTS ARE ANTICIPATED TO BE FUNDED BY TIRZ NUMBER FOUR? DO WE HAVE THAT LISTED OUT?

>> WE DO. COUNCIL WAS ALSO PROVIDED THE UPDATED PRELIMINARY PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN THAT HAS THAT UPDATED MAP IN THERE, AS WELL. I DON'T BELIEVE ANY OF THE PROJECTS CHANGED FROM THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING OR THOSE DOCUMENTS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROJECT PLAN IMPROVEMENTS, IT'S VERY GENERAL. IN THE PRELIMINARY PLAN, THAT WAS INTENTIONAL, SO WE CAN MEET THE REQUIREMENTS TO GET THIS TIRZ ESTABLISHED IN THE CURRENT CALENDAR YEAR, TO LOCK IN THE BASE YEAR AND BASE VALUE. THE PLAN MOVING FORWARD IN PHASE TWO OF DEVELOPING THE TIRZ AND THE CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTS IS TO FINALIZE THE PROJECT AND FINANCING PLAN. SO WE WILL FINE-TUNE WHAT SPECIFIC PROJECTS IN COLLABORATION WITH OUR DEPARTMENT HEADS AND PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING , AND PARKS TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD GRASP OF WHAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE BEING ELIGIBLE PROJECTS WITHIN THAT ZONE.

>> SO THE PROJECTS WERE , BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT THE EMAIL, WITH THE PRELIM TIRZ PLAN.

>> YEAH, IT'S ON PAGE 70 OF YOUR PACKET, I BELIEVE, OR PAGE FIVE OF THE FINANCING PLAN. AS I SAID, THEY ARE PRETTY GENERAL.

IT TALKS ABOUT PARKS AND STREETSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS, INFRA STRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT, WHICH INCLUDES WATER, WASTEWATER, STORMWATER, ROADWAY AND STREET INTERSECTIONS, PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS, ET CETERA. YOU CAN ALSO LEVERAGE GRANT FUNDING THROUGH THE TIRZ .

AND YOU CAN ALSO FUND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AS WELL.

THOSE ARE ALL ALLOWABLE EXPENSES UNDER THE TIRZ CODE .

>> SO , HOW CONFIDENT ARE WE THAT THESE THINGS WILL HAPPEN .

DO WE HAVE ANY PROJECTIONS THAT ARE , YOU KNOW, NOT THAT WE ARE SOLID ON THE PROJECTIONS, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY PROJECTIONS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS ACTUALLY BEING FUNDED?

>> YEAH, IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE 73, YOU WILL SEE THE FINANCIAL FORECAST SUMMARY. THAT GIVES YOU THE ESTIMATED TAXABLE VALUE, AS WELL AS THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE TIRZ . YOU WILL SEE OVER TIME WHAT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT COMES DUE, SO THOSE WOULD BE THE

[01:05:01]

AVAILABLE FUNDS TO DIRECTLY PAY FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ZONE, OR IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE ZONE. BUT HAVE A POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE ZONE, AS WELL. THAT'S ALLOWED. THAT GIVES YOU ALL THE PROJECTIONS THAT WERE RUN. AND WE CAN UPDATE THAT, OBVIOUSLY TAX RATES CHANGE, VALUES CHANGE, THIS IS JUST A PROJECTION. SO WE DO REVISIT THAT ANNUALLY TO MAKE THOSE UPDATES, SO THERE IS A MORE ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF THE FUNDS THAT ARE AVAILABLE OR PROJECTED BE AVAILABLE OVERTIME

. >> OKAY, YEAH, I'M JUST A LITTLE HESITANT ON TYING DOWN FUNDS TO A SPECIFIC AREA , WHEN THERE IS SO MUCH NEED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY . SO THANK YOU FOR EXPLAINING THAT, THAT IS STILL JUST A RESERVATION OF MINE IN

CREATING SOMETHING LIKE THIS. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE CAPITAL ZERO 2025-050 .

>> SECOND. >> HAVE WE HEARD BACK FROM THE COUNTY OF ANY RENEWED INTEREST IN PARTICIPATING IN THIS TIRZ?

>> WE HAVE NOT. TYPICALLY THEY WANT TO SEE THE CITY'S COMMITMENT FIRST, SO ONCE THE TIRZ IS CREATED IN THE CITY HAS COMMITTED THEIR PERCENTAGE ALLOCATION, THEN THE DOORS OPENED FOR APPROACHING THE COUNTY WITH A REQUEST TO

PARTICIPATE, AS WELL. >> FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, THEY HAVE NOT OUT RIGHT SAID NO . IT IS MORE OF HEY, LET'S SEE HOW SERIOUS YOU ARE, LET'S SEE WHAT YOUR COMMITMENT LEVEL IS, AND LET'S TALK AGAIN KIND OF RESPONSE.

>> YEAH, I THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR DISCUSSION. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANY DETAILS HAVE BEEN SHARED WITH THEM. I THINK IT IS STILL LET'S TALK ABOUT IT. LET'S EXPLORE IT FURTHER. SO WE WILL BE SCHEDULING THAT PRESENTATION. WE WILL FIRST MEET WITH OUR PRECINCT COMMISSIONER, OF COURSE, AND THEN UNDER HIS ADVISEMENT AND SUPPORT, TAKE THAT TO THE COURT

>> FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, ONE OF THE BIG POTENTIAL THINGS HERE IS FINISHING OFF THOSE DISCONNECTED FEEDER ROADS ALONG SH 130, TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO GET THROUGH . FROM WHAT I REMEMBER, IF WE DO THAT, AND WE DON'T CONNECT TO SH 130, THERE'S A POTENTIAL WE WOULD HAVE TO PAY SOME KIND OF A LOST REVENUE FEE TO THE TOLL

AUTHORITY. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I'VE HEARD THAT, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT MY AREA OF EXPERTISE, BUT I HAVE HEARD THAT. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO CIRCLE BACK WITH A CONFIRMED

ANSWER FROM TXDOT ON THAT. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> THANK YOU. >> CHENEY, YOU SAID OUR PRECINCT COMMISSIONER HASN'T BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS?

>> IS AWARE OF THE TIRZ. BUT AS FAR AS THE DETAILS, SUCH AS THE DRAFT FINANCING AND PROJECT PLAN, HE HAS NOT MADE AWARE OF

THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL ON THAT. >> OKAY, WOULD YOU SAY WE PROBABLY NEED TO FLESH OUT SOME OF THOSE THINGS, ABOUT WHAT ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS WE WERE GOING TO MAKE, AND HOW THAT FITS WITH THE COUNTY'S PLANS AND WOULD HELP THEM TO ACHIEVE THINGS IN ORDER TO SELL THEM ON THIS. WE JUST WANT THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL AGAIN. THAT'S A WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS.

>> YES, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD STRATEGY MOVING FORWARD.

>> YEAH, SO I MET WITH THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER, AND THE COUNTY ENGINEER , PROBABLY THREE MONTHS AGO. TWO THINGS CAME UP .

ONE, THE COUNTY HAS ONLY DONE THREE TIRZ AT ALL . THEY ARE NOT AS COUNTABLE DOING THIS AS WE HAVE, OR OTHER CITIES. THE SECOND IS EXACTLY WHAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAID. AND WHAT COUNCILMEMBER GORDON SAID, TOO. THEY WANT TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU PLAN ON DOING, HOW IT BENEFITS THE COUNTY, BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT JUST GOING TO GIVE COUNTY DOLLARS AWAY TO A CITY TO GO OUT AND BUILD STUFF THAT DOESN'T HELP THE COUNTY. SO, I THINK BY SHOWING THEM THE CONDUCTIVITY ON 130, AND HOW THAT , WE ALREADY HAVE GROWTH COMING, HOW THAT IMPROVES THE GROWTH EVEN MORE, I CAN SEE THEM BEING MORE INTERESTED IN THAT.

SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S A SLAMDUNK, JUST BECAUSE OF THIS, BUT MY PITCH TO THE COMMISSIONER WAS TYPICALLY YOU GUYS SELL BONDS, RAISE OUR TAXES, AND BUILD ROADS. HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR, WITHOUT THIS IT'S GOING TO LIMIT THE GROWTH ON 130. THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH THAT CAN GO ON 130 WITHOUT FEEDER ROADS. SO THE GROWTH WOULD BE PAYING FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE. IT'S ALMOST GROWTH PAYING FOR GROWTH. THE COUNTY DOES NOT HAVE TO BOND OUT MONEY, AND THE COUNTY , IF THEY GIVE 50%, THAT IS 50% MORE THAN THEY CAN KEEP THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE IN 2025. SO I KNOW THE IMPROVEMENTS I'M HOPING WE HAVE IN THIS , THE ROUGHLY $30 MILLION WASTEWATER LINE ON THE WEST SIDE OF 130 , THAT WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS. WE CAN RAISE EVERYBODY'S WATER BILLS TO PAY FOR IT, OR WE CAN WORK WITH

[01:10:02]

DEVELOPERS TO PUT PART OF IT IN AND THE TIRZ TO REIMBURSE THEM.

OR FOR THE CURRENT RATEPAYERS TO PAY FOR IT AND BE REIMBURSED IN THE FUTURE, SO TO ME THERE IS A BIG BENEFIT OF ALL THIS BUSINESS COMING IN . WHILE THE MONEY, A PORTION IS STUCK IN THIS DISTRICT, THERE'S 30 MILLION THERE. THEN YOU HAVE NORTH OF WIMMER, WE HAVE A DEVELOPER WHO IS BUILDING THE NORTHBOUND SIDE OF 134 DRUG. SOMEONE STILL HAS TO BUILD THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE .

THE DISTRICT COULD HELP PAY FOR THAT. OR WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES TO PAY FOR THAT. AND THEN FELT ON 130, SORRY, SOUTHBOUND WIMMER, THE FRONTAGE ROAD ON 130, IT DEADENS. TO CONNECT THAT, SOMEONE HAS TO PAY FOR THAT.

WITHOUT A TIRZ DISTRICT, THE ONLY ONE I KNOW HOW TO PAY FOR HIS OTHER DEVELOPER, OR TO RAISE PEOPLE'S TAXES. THEN YOU HAVE NORTHBOUND OF WIMMER, THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE, I'M SORRY, THE NORTHBOUND LANE FROM 79 TO WIMMER. THAT HAS TO BE BUILT.

AND IN THE BIG-MONEY THING, THAT I THINK LONG-TERM IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT HAS TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY TO BUILD A GIANT BRIDGE OVER BRUSHY CREEK. I'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE COUNTY BEFORE, THAT WILL NEVER BE ON THE PLAN BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.

WHAT I ENVISION IS ONCE EVERYTHING ELSE IS BUILT, THE DISTRICT CAN THEN PUT THE MONEY TOWARDS THIS . AND ONCE THAT BRIDGE IS BUILT, YOU HAVE CONDUCTIVITY ALONG ALL OF 130.

WHICH SHOULD DRAMATICALLY HELP TRAFFIC ON 79, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IF YOU LIVE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CITY, YOU'D HAVE TO EXIT 79 IN THE NAVIGATE UP. WE ARE OUTBUILDING TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF ROADS, WHEN THE ANSWER MAY BE WHAT EVERY OTHER CITY HAS, WHICH IS THAT WE KIND OF GOT THE SHORT END OF THE STICK. IN MY MIND, BY HAVING A GREAT HIGHWAY PUT IN WITH NO FRONTAGE ROAD. SO THIS IS A WAY, I THINK, FOR A TOYOTA, THE SPROUTS DEVELOPMENT, AND WHATEVER INDUSTRIAL ALL THE WAY DOWN , I THINK IT'S A GREAT WAY FOR ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT TO PAY FOR ITSELF. THAT'S REALLY WHY MADE THE MOTION, ANYTHING I CAN DO TO GET DEVELOPMENT DONE, ROADS DONE, AND IT NOT COST OUR EXISTING PEOPLE MORE MONEY, I TEND TO FAVOR. PLEASE CALL THE

VOTE. >> WHO WAS THE SECOND?

>> IS THIS ON APPROVING THE ORDINANCE? SO, IN YOUR PACKET, WE DID NOT ATTACH THE BOUNDARY MAP BECAUSE WE WERE NOT SURE THAT COUNCIL WAS GOING TO IMPROVE THESE BOUNDARIES. SO IF YOUR MOTION, WOULD YOU SAY THAT FOR THE EXHIBIT FOR THE MAP THAT IT WOULD BE THE ONE THAT WAS PRESENTED TONIGHT . COULD YOU PUT THAT BACKUP? IT'S RIGHT THERE.

>> ORDINANCE WITH THE BOUNDARY MAP IS PRESENTED.

>> AND ALSO WHAT IS THE SECOND THING THAT NEEDS? IT'S THE

PARCEL . >> THE PARCEL I.D.

>> YEAH, EXHIBIT A IS GOING TO BE THE MAP, AND EXHIBIT B SAYS THE BOUNDARY MAP . EXHIBIT A IS THE BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION. THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION THAT THE COUNTY HAS. WE JUST LIST THE LOTS. THAT'S IN THE TIRZ PLAN.

>> PERFECT. >> I MEAN, AND THE PRODUCT AND FINANCING PLAN, THAT IS BEEN UPDATED WITH THE MAP AND ALSO THE PROPERTIES LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THERE. SO WE WILL PUT THAT IN THERE. IF YOU WILL SAY BEFORE THE MAYOR SIGNS THE ORDINANCE, THAT THOSE EXHIBIT A BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION AND EXHIBIT B BOUNDARY PATH HAVE TO BE ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT

THE MAYOR IS SIGNING. >> BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION, AND

BOUNDARY WHAT? >> MAP .

>> OKAY, THE MAYOR PRO TEM SAYS HE'S OKAY WITH THAT.

>> OKAY. WITH ALL OF THE PROBLEM IS. IT'S A PART OF THE PACKET BUT IT'S NOT IN THE ACTUAL REPORTS.

>> WELCOME WE CAN PUT IT IN THERE, BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU ARE GOING TO AGREE WITH IT. HE STILL HAD ANOTHER MEETING

TO CHANGE IT. >> ANY DISCUSSION? WE ARE ADDING ON OF THE MOTION. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR SNYDER? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPOSN?

>> NAY . >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? COUNCIL MEMBER GORDON? COUNCIL MEMBER

[11. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

MORRIS? COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> MOTION PASSES 6-1. NEXT WE

[01:15:04]

HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS I LIVE IN , THERE'S ONLY THREE ON CONSENT. CITY MANAGER? WE HAVE ITEMS 1-3, THE CITY WISH TO HAVE PULLED, OTHERWISE WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER

THOMPSON. WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KING. ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE,

PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? MAYOR PRO TEM THORTON? COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? MAYOR SNYDER? COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD?

COUNCILMEMBER KING ? >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT WE

[12.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2025-055 amending the Hutto City Code to clarify the powers and duties of the Parks Advisory Board regarding review and recommendations of parkland dedications. (Legal)]

HAVE AN 11.2, I'M SORRY, NEXT WE HAVE ADAM 12.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ORDINANCE ZERO 2025 MINUS 055. CLARIFYING THE POWERS AND DUTIES OF PARKS ADVISORY BOARD REGARDING REVIEW.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION? I MADE THE MOTION BECAUSE I DID NOT HARDLY SEE ANY CHANGES THAT WERE

MATERIAL. >> JUST ADDED, WHEN THEY ARE REVIEWING THE PARK PLAN, THAT AT ANY STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT THE PARKS DIRECTOR CAN TAKE THAT TO THE PARKS BOARD FOR REVIEW.

>> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE.

>> MAYOR PRO TEM THORTON? COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON? MAYOR SNYDER? COUNCILMEMBER KING? COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD?

[13.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2025-350 for the City of Hutto completing a nomination ballot for the board of Texas Coalition for Affordable Power (TCAP). (Kate Moriarty)]

>> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. ITEM 13.1, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R 2025-350 FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO, COMPLETING A NOMINATION BALLOT FOR THE BOARD OF TEXAS COALITION

FOR AFFORDABLE POWER, TCAP. >> EVENING, KATIE MORIARTY. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME THIS ITEM IS BROUGHT TO YOU. IT WAS BROUGHT THIS TIME LAST YEAR. HAVE AN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PROCESS AND LET YOU ALL PROVIDE ANY NOMINATIONS IF YOU WOULD

LIKE TO. >> WILL OPEN UP FOR A MOTION FOR

A LIST OF NAMES. >> CLARIFICATION, ON PAGE 255 OF THE PACKET, IT SAYS VOTE FOR EIGHT, AND THERE ARE NINE NAMES.

AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SECOND --

>> I THINK THAT'S HER 25 . >> YES, APOLOGIES.

>> HAS ALL THE SAME THING. I SAID THAT'S EASY, WE JUST HAVE

TO VOTE TO NOT TO. >> I THINK WHILE YOU ARE THINKING, KATE HAD AN ADDITIONAL POINT OF CLARIFICATION ON THIS

PROCESS. >> YES, SO NOT VOTING IS AN OPTION. IF YOU HOLISTICALLY WOULD PREFER THAT THIS NOT COME TO COUNCIL, THAT IS AN OPTION . THIS IS REALLY ONLY OUR SECOND ELECTION CYCLE WITH THE TCAP BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SO --

>> OKAY, MOTION FOR THIS TO NOT COME BACK TO US?

>> SECOND. >> AND WHAT ARE WE GIVING UP IF WE DON'T VOTE? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK OUR VOTE IS A HUGE

INFLUENCE ANYWAY, IS IT? >> NOT MY UNDERSTANDING.