[00:00:10] >> IT'S 7:00. >> CALL THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR JANUARY 22, 2026, TO ORDER. ROLL CALL. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. MAYOR SNYDER IS HERE. INVOCATION WILL BE LED BY JOHN LATHAN OF GRACE BAPTIST CHURCH. >> ALMIGHTY GOD, MAKER OF HEN AND EARTH, WE PRAISE YOUR HOLY NAME BECAUSE YOU ARE GOOD AND YOU DO GOOD. WE ASK THAT YOU INSTRUCT US IN IN WISDOM THAT WE MIGHT OUR AFFAIRS BOTH INDIVIDUALLY AS A COMMUNITY AND THIS CITY COUNCIL MEETING WITH RIGHTEOUSNESS, JUSTICE, AND EQUITY. LORD, WE DO LIFT UP OUR CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND ALL OUR CITY STAFF, PRAY THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM WISDOM, THAT THEY WOULD BE NOT JUST GOOD PEOPLE BUT DOING GOOD THINGS AND DOING RIGHT THINGS IN YOUR EYES. WE PRAY FOR FAITHFUL LEADERS FOR OUR÷÷ NATION, OUR STATE, OUR CITY. WE PRAY FOR FAITHFUL CHURCHES. WE PRAY FOR FAITHFUL FAMILIES. AND LORD, FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT, OUR EMTS, FIREMEN, LORD, WE PRAY FOR SAFETY, ESPECIALLY OVER THE NEXT FEW DAYS WITH INCLEMENT WEATHER. WE PRAY YOU WOULD PROTECT THEM AND BLESS THEM. WE PRAY FOR OUR CITY WORKERS AND OTHERS WHO MAY HAVE TO GO OUT IN THE MIDST OF THE STORM THAT YOU WOULD GIVE THEM SAFETYSAFETY WELL. LIFT UP THIS MEETING TO YOU. WE PRAY THAT IT WOULD BE PEACEFUL, THAT THERE WOULD BE GOOD DECISIONS MADE. WE PRAY THAT THESE LEADERS WOULD BE FAITHFUL AND USING THE RESOURCE OF THIS CITY FOR GOOD PURPOSES AND TO THE BLESSING OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE ASK ALL IN JESUS' NAME. AMEN. >> AMEN. >> JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. [5.1. Conduct Oath of Office for newly appointed Councilmember Place 1 - Charles Warner. (Judge Lucas Wilson)] >> ALL RIGHT, FIRST UP, WE HAVE ITEM 5.1, CONDUCT OATH OF OFFICE FOR THE NEWLY APPOINTED COUNCILMEMBER PLACE 1, CHARLES WARNER. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE, MY NAME IS LUCAS WILSON. I'M THE PRESIDING JUDGE FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT AND I WILL ADMINISTERING THE OATH OF OFFICE TONIGHT. GOOD EVENING. CHEAT SHEET REAL QUICK. ALL RIGHT. WOULD YOU PLEASE PLACE YOUR LEFT HAND ON THE BIBLE, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND AND REPEAT AFTER ME. I, STATE YOUR NAME. >> I, CHARLES WARNER. >> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. >> DO SOLEMNLY SWEAR. >> THAT I WILL FAITHFULLY EXECUTE THE DUTIES OF THE OFFICE OF COUNCILMEMBER PLACE 1 FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO AND OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND WILL, TO THE BEST OF MY ABILITY, PRESERVE, PROTECT, AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION AND LAW OF THE UNITED STATES AND OF THIS THIS. SO HELP ME GOD. >> CHARLES, WELCOME TO THE DAIS. [7. PUBLIC COMMENT] >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE HAVE CITY MANAGER COMMENTS. >> NO. >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE HAVE PUBLIC COMMENT. WHEN I CALL YOUR NAME, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE LIGHT WILL START WITH GREEN. WHEN THERE'S 30 SECONDS LEFT, IT WILL GO TO YELLOW, AND WHEN IT'S RED, I HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF. UP FIRST. >> HELLO, EVERYBODY. I AM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER. MY HUSBAND AND I JUST OPENED A NEW RESTAURANT, DOING A SHAMELESS PLUG HERE, [00:05:02] RIGHT IN FRONT OF HOOKY CALLED BITES AND BASIL BUT I WANTED TO PUBLICLY THANK A COUPLE OF PEOPLE. THE CITY OF HUTTO HAS BEEN EXTREMELY WARM AND WELCOMING, AND WE HAVE HAD SUCH A GREAT APPEARANCE OPENING OUR SECOND BUSINESS HERE. BUT TO THAT, I ALSO WANT TO PUBLICLY THANK RYAN DODSON, WHO IS ONE OF OUR CITY INSPECTORS FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO. NAVIGATING THE PROCESS OF COMING INTO A NEW CITY AND ALL THE RULES AND, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE BUILT UP TO CODE, IT'S A VERY ARDUOUS AND COMPLICATED PROCESS, BUT RYAN MADE IT SO MUCH SIMPLER FOR US, ESPECIALLY SINCE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE MOM AND POP, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF RESOURCES. BUT HE THOROUGHLY AND PATIENTLY ANSWERED ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS, AND I JUST WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THANK HIM PUBLICLY. I MEAN, I THINK THAT HE DOESN'T GET ENOUGH, MAYBE, RECOGNITION FROM THE CITY. I KNOW CITY INSPECTORS GET A BAD RAP, BUT JUST KNOW THAT FROM A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, IT REALLY MEANS A LOT, AND THE IMPACT THAT HE AND THE CITY HAVE HAD TO SUPPORT US REALLY GOES A LONG WAY. AND HOPEFULLY, I MADE IT BEFORE I GET CUT OFF MY MIC. BUT THANK YOU AGAIN TO THE CITY OF HUTTO. IT'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS PLEASURE GETTING TO KNOW EVERYBODY. I'VE MET A COUPLE OF YOU AT THE RESTAURANT. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR EVERYONE'S SUPPORT. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> THANK YOU. >> NEXT, WE HAVE RUDY PEREZ. >> GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND CITY MANAGER, JAMES. HAPPY NEW YEAR TO HUTTO. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT CHIEF YARBOROUGH AND HIS POLICE DEPARTMENT ARE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB IN HUTTO, KEEPING IT SAFE WITH THEIR HARD WORK. ALSO, CONGRATULATIONS TO PLACE ONE, CHARLES WARNER. HOPE YOU DO A GOOD JOB SERVING THE CITIZENS OF HUTTO. AND PETER, YOU ONLY HAVE 91 DAYS LEFT OF MEETINGS AND COUNCIL, AND HUTTO IS JUST GOING TO GET BETTER AND BETTER, AND JAMES, I WANTED TO TELL YOU, I DRIVE AROUND TOWN, AND YOUR CITY GUYS THAT WORK THE STREETS STREETS DOING A FABULOUS JOB. THEY WORK HARD. AND YEAH, THEY'RE BUSY EVERY TIME I SEE THEM. SO, THANK YOU. Y'ALL HAVE A GOOD EVENING. >> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT, WE HAVE CLIFF KENDALL. >> EVENING, COUNCIL, MAYOR. WANTED TO COME AND SPEAK BOTH AS A RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF HUTTO BUT ALSO AS AA CONSULTANT. CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT, BUT SPECIFICALLY ON ITEM 14 THAT THE COUNCIL WITHHOLD ANY DECISION TONIGHT ON THE UDC TO FURTHER DISCUSSIONS THAT HAD TAKEN PLACEPLACE PRIOR PLANNING DIRECTOR, BUT TO CONTINUE TO FACILITATE CONVERSATIONS ON THE VARIOUS ELEMENTS WITHIN THE UDC ITSELF. APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. [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 HAVE ITEM .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. >> THE BOARDS AND COMMISSION MET ON MONDAY. THANK YOU, PETER, FOR ORGANIZING THOSE APPOINTMENTS. WE HAVE ONE OPENING IN PARKS AND ADVISORY BOARD. WE HAVE THREE VIABLE CANDIDATES. WE WERE ABLE TO SPEAK WITH ONE OF THEM THIS WEEK. WE WILL GET TO THE OTHER TWO NEXT WEEK -- EXCUSE ME, WELL, BEFORE THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A PERSON TO NOMINATE AT THAT TIME. BUT I HAVE NO OTHER. DAN OR PETER? [8.2. Consideration and possible action regarding recommendations or updates from City Council sub-committees (i.e. HISD, Public Safety, Co-Op).] >> ALL RIGHT. NEXT WE HAVE 8.2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS OR UPDATES FROM CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEES. WE CAN TAKE OFF THE CO- OP ONE, I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH THAT ONE. WE CAN TAKE OFF PUBLIC SAFETY. WE'RE DONE WITH THAT ONE FOR NOW. ISD, WE MEET TOMORROW. UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ANYBODY ELSE HAS. [9.1. Developer presentation of status of Prairie Winds Public Improvement District and request for issuance of Improvement Area No. 2 Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2026 (Greenrick Partners)] ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE INTO 9. 1, PRESENTATIONS. WE HAVE DEVELOPER PRESENTATION OF STATUS OF PRAIRIE WINDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER 2, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2026. >> I HAD A PRESENTATION. IS THERE A WAY TO CLICK ON TO THAT? OKAY, GOOD DEAL. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING. MY NAME IS AUSTIN, I'M WITH GREENBRICK PARTNERS. WE ARE THE MANAGING DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT CALLED PRAIRIE WINDS, WHICH IS A [00:10:01] BETWEEN US AND HERITAGE HOMES. I'M HERE TO GIVE YOU A BRIEF OVERVIEW AND UPDATE ON THE DEVELOPMENT ASPECT OF THIS PROJECT. AS WE PREPARE FOR AN UPCOMING BOND SALE LATER IN THE SPRING. PRAIRIE WINDS IS A RESIDENTIAL MASTER PLAN COMMUNITY, CONSISTS OF JUST UNDER 1,100 HOME SITES. WE WILL HAVE FOUR OR POSSIBLY MORE IMPROVEMENT AREAS IN THE COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEE FROM THE PID TO THE CITY IS $3,500 PER UNIT FOR A TOTAL OF JUST OVER $3.8 MILLION FOR THE PROJECT. TO DATE, $980,000 HAS BEENBEEN IN COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES WITH ANOTHER $670,000 COMING UPON THE SALE OF THE NEXT BOND FOR IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT. SOME OF THE AMENITIES ARE AN AMENITY CENTER, WITH A LARGE PAVILION, POOL, PLAYGROUNDS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND OPEN SPACE AND PARKS. THIS IS JUST A CONTEXT MAP TO REMIND EVERYBODY WHERE WE'RE LOCATED, JUST EAST OF THE MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND EVENTUALLY THE PROJECT WILL EXTEND ON THE NORTH END TO 1660 AND CONNECT THERE. THIS IS A ZOOMED IN VIEW. MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY SCHOOL IS ON THE LEFT. OUR MODEL HOMES FOR THE COMMUNITY ARE THERE IN THE DARKEST SHADED LOTS ON UNIVERSAL DRIVE. YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE AMENITY CENTER, WHICH IS RIGHT THERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, WHICH IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AS I MENTIONED, PHASES ONE AND TWO OF THE DEVELOPMENT ARE COMPLETE, WHICH THOSE TWO PHASES WERE WHAT COMPRISED IMPROVEMENT AREA ONE AS FAR AS THE PID IS CONCERNED. THEY TOTALED 280 LOTS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BUILDING INTO NOW WITH OUR HOME SALES AND HOME CONSTRUCTION. PHASE THREE OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND WE'LL WRAP UP DEVELOPMENT HERE IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS. IT'S ANOTHER ADDITIONAL 192 LOTS. HERE'S JUST AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE ONE. LOTS OF HOME CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THERE. BIG PARK IN THE MIDDLE WHERE WE'RE CURRENTLY INSTALLING A PLAYGROUND THERE. TO DATE, WELL, AS OF THE END OF DECEMBER, WE'D STARTED BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDERS, STARTED A TOTAL OF 44 HOMES IN THIS PHASE, AND THEN THIS IS DEVELOPMENT PHASE 2 WHERE OUR MODEL HOMES ARE AT, SO MAIN HIPPO IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN THERE AS IT COMES THROUGH AND WE'VE STARTED A TOTAL OF 73 HOMES IN THIS PHASE. THERE'S JUST AN AERIAL PHOTO OF DEVELOPMENT PHASE THREE COMING ALONG THERE. SLATED TO FINISH IN MARCH/APRIL. I JUST WANTED TO SHOW Y'ALL REALLY QUICKLY, WE'RE REALLY PROUD OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE. THIS IS OUR PRIMARY ENTRY FEATURE THAT WAS INSTALLED LAST YEAR. IT'S RIGHT THERE ON MAIN HIPPO IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE. AND THEN, HERE ARE JUST SOME RENDERINGS OF WHAT WE'RE BUILDING AT THE AMENITIES SITE RIGHT NOW. JUST AN OVERHEAD VIEW THERE. AND THEN FINALLY, JUST THAT RENDERING OF THE PLAYGROUND THAT'S GOING IN AT THE AMENITY SITE AS WELL. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE ON THE DEVELOPMENT SIDE. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. APPRECIATE Y'ALL HAVING ME. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> SURE. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? [9.2. Presentation of Plan of Finance for the issuance of the City of Hutto, Texas, Prairie Winds Public Improvement District, Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2026 (Improvement Area #2 Project). (Hilltop Securities)] >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU, SIR. NEXT WE HAVE 9.2, PRESENTATION OF PLAN OF FINANCE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, PRAIRIE WINDS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2026, IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER 2 PROJECT. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, CITIZENS OF HUTTO. JIM WITH HILLTOP SECURITIES, REPRESENTING YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. ON YOUR BEHALF, WE PREPARED A PLAN OF FINANCE TO ISSUE THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS. THIS PLAN OF FINANCE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OUR CONSTRAINTS AND COMMITMENTS, AND IT PROVIDES INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPER PROVIDED. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH TOO [00:15:01] MUCH OF THE BACKGROUND INFORMATION, BUT I'LL START BY SAYING THAT THE COUNCIL APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT CREATED A PID. IT LEVIED ASSESSMENTS AND WE ISSUED BONDS FOR PHASE ONE. NOW, THIS IS PHASE TWO. I MEAN, IMPROVEMENT AREA TWO, WHICH IS PHASE THREE OF THE BOND ISSUE, 193 LOTS. 192 LOTS. AND THE LOTS AS YOU SEE WILL GENERATE AN ESTIMATED BUILDOUT VALUE OF ABOUT $79 MILLION AND THE OUR CURRENT TAX RATE, ABOUT $306,000. THEY'LL DEPOSIT $672,000 FOR A PID FEE FOR THE CITY TO USE AS IT SEES FIT. THIS PROJECT IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. ASSESSMENT LEVY IS EQUAL TO A TAX OF 68. 79 CENTS. THIS SHOWS YOU THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT LEVY AND THE ASSESSMENT LIEN THAT EACH HOME WILL HAVE. THE LEVERAGE IS ALMOST THREE. THIS IS NOT A VERY LARGE LEVERAGE, HIGHLY LEVERAGED LOT, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THERE'S NO TOURIST COMMITMENT. SO, THEY'LL PAY FULL TAXES ON THEIR PROJECTS. THE SOURCE AND USES ARE HERE BASED ON ASSUMPTION OF A 6% COUPON RATE. IT WILL END UP TO JUST BEING UNDER $7 MILLION. THIS IS STRUCTURED UNDER OUR BEST PRACTICES. THERE WILL BE A FULLY FUNDED DEBT RESERVE FUND, AND EVENTUALLY, THEY'LL DEPOSIT PROJECT FUND OF ABOUT $5,590,000. THEY'LL CONTRIBUTE FROM THEIR OWN FUNDS UNDER $4 MILLION FOR $9.5 MILLION OF ELIGIBLE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, YOU'LL BE SEEING A SERIES OF ACTIONS. WE'RE COMING FORWARD WITH A PRELIMINARY SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN, CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS THAT PRELIMINARY SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN, WHICH IS TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS AND WE'LL BE PREPARING THE OFFERING DOCUMENT, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT. BUT IN SUMMARY, THIS IS A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROJECT. IT'S ONE OF THE EARLY PIDS THAT WERE DONE IN THE CITY. NO TOURS INVOLVED AND GREENBRICK HAS DONE OTHER SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS. WE ANTICIPATE A SUCCESSFUL ISSUANCE. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? [9.3. Developer Presentation of status of Cottonwood Public Improvement District and Request for Issuance of Improvement Area No. 3 Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2026 (Lennar Homes)] >> ALL RIGHT. THANKS, JIM. NEXT, DEVELOPER PRESENTATION OF STATUS OF COTTONWOOD PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND REQUEST FOR ISSUANCE OF IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER 3 SPECIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2026. >> GOOD EVENING, HONORABLE MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MY NAME IS KEN, I REPRESENT LENNAR HOMES WE HAVE BEEN IN THE COTTONWOOD COMMUNITY SINCE 2021. WE'LL BE COMING IN THE SPRING, EARLY SUMMER, FOR A BOND ISSUANCE, AND IT WILL BE OUR THIRD AND FINAL THAT WE HAVE FOR ASSESSMENT AREAS OUT HERE. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 132, DIRECTLY SOUTH OF 79. WE HAVE ALREADY HAD TWO ASSESSMENTS OUT HERE FOR SERVICE AREA ONE, WHICH COVERED 546 HOME SITES. THAT'S COMPLETELY SOLD OUT, ALL DEVELOPED, AND ALL RESIDENTS EXISTING. WE HAD A BOND ISSUE APPROVED IN FEBRUARY OF 20252025 ANOTHER 262 HOME SITES, COVERED TWO PHASES OUT THERE OR PHASES FIVE AND SIX IN THE PHASES COMMUNITY, AND THE LAST PHASE THAT WE'LL BE COMING FORWARD, YOU KNOW, HERE SPRING AND SUMMER, WILL BE PHASE 7, WHICH HAS 171 HOME SITES. SO, ALL TOTALED RIGHT NOW, WE'VE GOT 979 HOME SITES ON THE GROUND. OF WHICH, WE'VE SOLD 120 IN THE LATEST ROUND, WHICH SINCE MARCH, IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, WITH 546, WE HAVE OVER 665 RESIDENTS EXISTING OUT HERE TODAY. SO, JUST QUICK SLIDES, OVERVIEW, AERIALS THAT YOU CAN SEE HERE. SOME OF THE HOME DESIGNS. WE'VE MOVED INTO SECTIONS THAT HAVE LARGER HOME SITES NOW. 70- FOOT HOME SITES ON SOME OF THESE, AND WE HAVE THREE- CAR GARAGES GOING IN NOW. OUR AVERAGE ASP OUT HERE RIGHT NOW IS $425,000. SO, IT'S INCREASED IN VALUE AS IT'S GONE ALONG, SO WE APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED TWO AMENITY CENTERS OUT HERE. ONE HAS POOL, BASKETBALL COURTS, PLAYGROUNDS, HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS. THE OTHER ONE HAS A COUPLE PICKLEBALL COURTS, COVERED PICNIC AREAS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, AS WELL AS PLAYSCAPES. [00:20:05] SO LET ME GO BACK. ON THIS PARTICULAR MAP HERE, YOU CAN SEE PHASE ONE COVERED -- ASSESSMENT AREA NUMBER 1 COVERED FOUR SEPARATE PHASES. WE GOT THOSE ALL ON THE GROUND AND ISSUED THE BOND ISSUES FOR THOSE. ASSESSMENT AREA 2 IN THE PURPLE IS FIVE AND SIX, 262 HOME SITES, AS I SAID BEFORE. AND THEN, SERVICE AREA NUMBER 3 THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE YOU IS PHASE 7 , AND IT'S 171 HOME SITES. WE'RE ALSO WORKING WITH THE CITY OUT HERE TO PLACE AN ELEVATED STORAGE TANK. THAT WILL BE IN THE OPEN SPACE AREA JUST SOUTH OF THE RESIDENCES ON SERVICE AREA ASSESSMENT NUMBER 1 THERE. WE'VE ALSO DEEDED OVER TO THE CITY 20 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH WAS DOUBLE WHAT THE PID REQUIREMENTS HAD US DO, AND WE HAVE BEEN HAVING AN ASSESSMENT UP HERE, I BELIEVE, ABOUT $2,500 PER HOMESITE WHEN BONDS GET SOLD. AND WITH THAT, I CAN ADDRESS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANKS, KEN. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? I JUST WANT TO SAY, THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE. I KNOW WE WENT PRETTY GOOD, WE HAD A ROUGH PERIOD THERE. WE'VE GOT, LOOKS LIKE, EVERYTHING'S GOING GOOD. YOU GUYS ARE WORKING WITH US ON SOME OF OUR NEEDS AND HOPEFULLY WE'RE RECIPROCATING THAT. >> YES. >> I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS HANGING IN THERE WITH US AND CONTINUING TO BUILD A VERY QUALITY PROJECT. [9.4. Presentation of Plan of Finance for the issuance of the City of Hutto, Texas, Cottonwood Public Improvement District, Special Assessment Revenue Bonds, Series 2026 (Improvement Area #3). (Hilltop Securities)] >> VERY MUCH SO. APPRECIATE THE PARTNERSHIP. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ITEM 9.4, PRESENTATION OF PLAN OF FINANCE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, KROET PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ESSENTIAL ASSESSMENT REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 2026, IMPROVEMENT AREA NUMBER 3. >> JIM WITH HILLTOP FOR THE RECORD. THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION. THIS IS A LAST IMPROVEMENT AREA FOR THIS PROJECT. THE FINAL 171 LOTS THAT WE BUILT. UNIQUE ASPECTS OF THIS, AND IT'S BEEN CONSISTENT WITH ALL YOUR PROJECTS, IS EACH TIME THERE'S A PHASE IMPROVEMENT AREA DONE, WE SEE THE HOME PRICES ESCALATED UPWARD ON THE SAME LOT CATEGORIES. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ON THIS PROJECT, WHY THE VALUE OF THIS PID TO THE CITY. AT THIS ISSUANCE, AND THEY PAY THEIR $2,035 PER RESIDENTIAL LOT PID FEE, THE CITY WOULD HAVE COLLECTED JUST UNDER $2 MILLION OF PID FEES FROM THIS PROJECT, AND AT THEIR $362 MILLION BUILDOFF TAXABLE VALUE, IT WILL GENERATE ABOUT $1.4 MILLION ON ANNUAL AD VALOREM TAXES FOR THE CITY. THIS PROJECT IS ONE OF THE EARLIER PID PROJECTS HERE. IT HAS A MODERATE ASSESSMENT LEVY OF 44. 85 CENTS TAX EQUIVALENT RATE, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANT LEVERAGE. THE ASSESSMENT LIEN IS $22,000 FOR THE 50S AND $25,800 FOR THE 70S. THE BOND ISSUE IS BASED ON A COUPON RATE OF ABOUT 5. 6%, WOULD BE JUST UNDER $4 MILLION, AND AGAIN, USING THE BEST PRACTICE STRUCTURING FOR THIS, THERE WOULD BE A FULLY FUNDED DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND EQUAL TO ONE YEAR OF DEBT SERVICE. THEY'LL HAVE CAPITALIZED INTEREST AND THEN THEY'LL PAY THE COST OF ISSUANCE AND ULTIMATELY ABOUT $3,200,000 DEPOSIT INTO THE CONSTRUCTION FUND WITH THE ADDITION OF ABOUT $360,000 FROM THE DEVELOPER TO FUND THE ELIGIBLE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. VERY SIMILAR PROCESS ALONG SIMILAR TIME FRAME AS THE PREVIOUS PROJECT. THERE WILL BE THREE STEPS FROM TONIGHT. THE FIRST STEP WILL BE AT NEXT COUNCIL MEETING, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WILL BE A RESOLUTION CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. PRESENTED THE PRELIMINARY SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN. THAT WILL GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT THE NUMBERS I SUMMARIZED HERE. THEN, THERE WOULD BE THE NEXT ITEM WOULD BE THAT YOU'LL HAVE APPROVAL OF THE OFFERING DOCUMENT THAT WILL BE USED TO MARK IT TO THE BONDHOLDERS AND THE THIRD STEP WILL BE PRICING THE BONDS. AGAIN, THE THIRD AND FINAL DEBT ISSUANCE FOR THIS PROJECT, WE EXPECT A SUCCESSFUL ISSUANCE IN THE MARKETPLACE. IT'S BEEN A CREDITWORTHY PROJECT BASED ON OUR REVIEW. THIS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. WE'D RECOMMEND MOVING FORWARD. WITH THAT, I'D ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? WE MAY NOT BE HERE UNTIL MIDNIGHT TONIGHT. [9.5. Presentation and possible action on the December 2025 financial report (Alberta Barrett)] ALL RIGHT. THANKS, JIM. ALL RIGHT, NEXT, WE HAVE 9.5, PRESENTATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE DECEMBER 2025 FINANCIAL REPORT. [00:25:05] >> GOOD EVENING. ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR, FOR THE RECORD. SO, THIS IS TO PRESENT THE DECEMBER 2025 FINANCIALS. SO, STARTING WITH THE PAGE TWO OF YOUR PACKET, IS THETHE FUND. SO, AT THE BOTTOM, YOU CAN SEE OUR REVENUES FOR THE QUARTER WERE BUDGETED AT ABOUT $16,921,000. AS OF DECEMBER. EXCUSE ME. WE WERE AT ABOUT 20%, AT $716,716,600. NOT TOO ALARMED BY THAT JUST YET. WE PROBABLY PUT TOO MUCH IN THE FIRST QUARTER, BUT WE'LL GET MORE PROPERTY TAX REVENUES IN JANUARY AND FEBRUARY. SO, WE'RE AT 20% ON OUR REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES, WE'RE SITTING AT ABOUT 17%. SO, WE'RE HOLDING THOSE TO WHERE THEY SHOULD BE. LOOKING AT THE NEXT SLIDE, IT'S TAKING YOUR REVENUES AND BREAKING IT DOWN BY CATEGORY. SO, HERE, AGAIN, FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, THE MAJORITY OF YOUR REVENUES ARE 40% ARE FROM YOUR AD VALOREM TAXES OR PROPERTY TAXES, ABOUT $2.9 MILLION. 39% IS COMING FROM SALES TAX REVENUE, WHICH IS ABOUT $2. 8 MILLION. JUST SHY OF THAT. AND PERMITS AND LICENSES TOTAL A LITTLE OVER A MILLION FOR ABOUT 14%. THIS IS FURTHER BACK IN YOUR PACKET, LIKE PAGE 34. BUT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT IT HERE SINCE IT'S RELATED TO YOUR GENERAL FUND REVENUES. FOR SALES TAX, THIS IS AA COMPARING HISTORICALLY, THE GRAY BAR AT THE TOP IS OUR BUDGET FOR THIS YEAR. THE RED IS WHERE WE'RE ATAT TO DATE, AND WE'RE FALLING A LITTLE BIT BEHIND FROM OUR BUDGET. WE'RE ABOUT 3% LESS THAN WHERE WE SHOULD BE. AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THE ITEMS WE'LL MONITOR. FEBRUARY WILL BE THE LARGE PAYMENT. IF THOSE FALL SHORT, THEN WE'LL INCLUDE THAT IN AN AMENDMENT AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST. BUT IT'S TRACKING JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOVE WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR AT THIS TIME. SO, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AT ABOUT 22% OF BUDGETED REVENUES, AND WE SHOULD BE SITTING CLOSER TO 25%. SO, AGAIN, NOT TOO FAR OFF, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH THAT. THE NEXT PORTION IS THE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES. SO, FOR HERE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, WAS ABOUT $5.9 MILLION, ALMOST 6. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE EXPENDITURES LIE WITHIN YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. THAT TOTAL IS ABOUT -- ALMOST $2.2 MILLION OR 37%. THAT'S THE LARGEST ONE OUT OF ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL CATEGORIES. OKAY. SO, MOVING ON TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. LET ME BACK UP ONE. SO, ONE OTHER THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS ON REVENUES, FOR THIS YEAR, WE BUDGETED THAT WE WOULD HAVE A SETTLEMENTSETTLE MENT 650- ISH THOUSAND. WE DID RECEIVE THAT. WE RECEIVED IT AND BOOKED IT TO LAST YEAR, '25, SO WE WILL COME BACK WITH AMENDMENT IN MARCH TO LOWER THAT REVENUE AND REMOVE IT BECAUSE WE ALREADY RECEIVED THE MONEY. SO, WE WILL MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT IN MARCH. SO, NOW, MOVING TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. AGAIN, I DIDN'T INCLUDE ALL THE FUNDS, BUT I JUST INCLUDE THE ONES THAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE OF RELEVANCE OR IMPORTANCE TO THE COUNCIL. FOR HERE, WE'VE BUDGETED REVENUED FOR THE FIRST QUARTER. WE'RE AT $126,881,200 WITH THE MAJORITY OF THAT BEING SALES TAX. HERE, WE RECEIVED $920,625 OR 25% OF THE BUDGET. SO, IT'S ON TRACK FOR WHAT WE BUDGETED. EXPENDITURES, WE BUDGETED, AND YEAR-TO-DATE, FOR THE FIRST TIME QUARTER, WE HAVE HOST OF THAT BEING THE INTEREST PAYMENTS ON ITS DEBT. OKAY. MOST ALL OF THE OTHER FUNDS, I DID NOT INCLUDE IN THE SLIDE. I DID WANT TO INCLUDE -- TALK ABOUT THAT ONE. THE UTILITY FUND HERE, THE REVENUES FOR THATTHAT IS [00:30:14] $36,730,200 FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, WE'RE AT 21% OF THE REVENUES BUDGETED. SO, DOING FAIRLY WELL THERE. EXPENSES, WE BUDGETED $40,265,864. FOR THE FIRST QUARTER, WE'RE AT 7%, SO MOST OF THOSE EXPENDITURES WILL COME LATER IN THE YEAR. BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW. WHAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THERE IS WE DID AN AMENDMENT LAST MONTH FOR ABOUT $460,000 FOR BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY REFUND. WE WILL REFLECT THAT IN YOUR NEXT MONTH'S FINANCIALS. THE NEXT SLIDE HERE JUST TAKES THE REVENUES AS TO WHAT THE MAJOR SOURCE OF THOSE REVENUES ARE, AND THAT'S YOUR CHARGES FOR SERVICE, MAINLY. YOUR UTILITY -- YOUR BILLS FOR WATER AND WASTE WATER. THAT'S THE BULK OF THOSE. AND THEY RANGE ABOUT 90% OF YOUR TOTAL REVENUES. FOR EXPENDITURES, HERE AGAIN, AS I SAID, WE'RE HOLDING THOSE TIGHT. UTILITY OPERATIONS FUNDS MOST OF THAT EXPENSE, AND THAT'S AT ABOUT 82% OR $2.1 MILLION. MOVING TO CASH AND WHAT WE HAVE INVESTED. SO, HERE, WE HAVE ABOUT $130 MILLION THAT IS REMAINING, AND SO HERE IT SHOWS YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT MAKES UP THAT. WHAT'S UNRESTRICTED IS ALMOST $20 MILLION OR 15%. YOUR TOTAL RESTRICTED IS ABOUT $47 MILLION OR 36%. THOSE WOULD BE LIKE YOUR PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDS, YOUR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT FUND, COMMUNITY BENEFIT FEES, THOSE ARE RESTRICTED FOR A PURPOSE. BUT THEY ARE NOT YOUR CO AND GOS, WHICH IS OVER IN THE GRAY, WHICH IS AT 49%, ALMOST 50%. THAT'S WHAT'S REMAINING FROM THE COS AND GOS BEFORE TONIGHT'S ISSUANCE. OKAY, SO, THAT'S MAINLY MOST ALLALL YOUR NORMAL FINANCIALS. WHAT WE HAVE INCLUDED FOR TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS TO TALK ABOUT THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND AND THE UTILITY FUND. SO, I APOLOGIZE FOR BEING SO SMALL, BUT IT'S A LOT OF DATA DATA YOUR LONG- RANGE PLAN, BUT I'LL TRY TO GO OVER AS MUCH AS I CAN. SO, YOU CAN SEE, AT THE TOP, IT'S BY YEARS. WE HAVE THE '23 AND '24 ACTUALS. IT SHOWS THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER, THE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS AND THE GROWTH RATE. AND SO, LOOKING AT THE MIDDLE SECTION IS THE BUDGET FOR '25, SO WHAT OUR ORIGINAL BUDGET WAS, WE HAD BUDGETED 8% INCREASE IN ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH WATER AND WASTEWATER. WE CAME BACK WITH AN AMENDMENT, AND WE REDUCED THAT TO 3.5% FOR WATER AND 3.8% FOR WASTEWATER. AND THEN, THAT THIRD COLUMN WITHIN THAT BOX SHOWS OUR ACTUAL FOR '25. WE ACTUALLY HIT 4% ON WATER AND 4.2% ON WASTEWATER, SO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE AMENDED THE BUDGET TO. IN THE ORANGE, IN THAT BOX, IS WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR THIS YEAR. SO, FOR THIS YEAR, WE BUDGETED A 5.4% INCREASE IN ACCOUNTS FOR BOTH WATER AND WASTEWATER. AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO MONITOR THOSE, AND AS WE NEED TO, AGAIN, WE'LL COME BACK AND AMEND THOSE AND ADJUST THEM EITHER UP OR DOWN. AND THEN, YOU CAN SEE FOR YOUR LONG- RANGE, OUT THROUGH '32, THAT WE'VE EXCEPT IT KEPT IT AT ABOUT 5.4 OR 6%. THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE EARLIER, I WOULD SAY, AROUND '20-ISH, SOMEWHERE IN THERE, AN ENGINEERING FIRM HAD DONE A STUDY, AND THEY HAD THE INCREASES IN GROWTH RATE QUITE HIGHER. IT WAS ANYWHERE FROM, YOU KNOW, 12 TO 15%, 9% IN SOME CASES. BUT WE'RE SCALING THAT BACK DOWN TO WHAT IS A LITTLE BIT MORE REALISTIC TO WHAT WE'RE SEEING TODAY, AND WHAT IT HAS BEEN IN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS. I WILL SAY, BACK IN '20 AND '21, THOSE GROWTH RATES WERE A LOT HIGHER THAN WHAT THAN SEEING TODAY. BUT BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE KEEPING THAT GROWTH RATE TO ABOUT 5.4% TO 6%. [00:35:03] SO, GOING DOWN TO THE NEXT SECTION, AGAIN, THIS IS THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND. SO, YOUR REVENUES HERE ARE GENERATED FROM WATER IMPACT FEES AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES AND INTEREST EARNED. SO, IT'S, FOR THIS BUDGET YEAR, WE'RE AT ABOUT $10.7 MILLION IS WHAT WE HAVE BUDGETED. WE HAVE EXPENSES, WHICH IS, IN THIS CASE, WE'RE TRANSFERRING $5.5 MILLION FROM IMPACT FEES TO THE UTILITY FUND, AND I WILL EXPLAIN THAT EFFECT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE UTILITY FUND. WE'RE ALSO TRANSFERRING ABOUT ANOTHER $5.4 MILLION FOR DEBT PAYMENTS ON EXISTING DEBT TO THE UTILITY FUND TO OFFSET THOSE OPERATING COSTS. ANOTHER CHANGE THAT -- OR EXPENSE THAT WE HAVE WITHIN THIS FUND IS THE DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT EXPENSE, AND SO FOR THIS YEAR, WE HAVE IT ANTICIPATED EXPENSE OF ABOUT $6.7 MILLION. THAT WILL JUST DEPEND ON HOW FAR ALONG THAT DEVELOPER IS AND WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE FOR US IN THIS YEAR. I KNOW THAT WE HAD BUDGETED SOME LAST YEAR, AND WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T SPEND IT, SO THAT WILL JUST HAVE TO BE MONITORED AS TO HOW THOSE DEVELOPERS PROGRESS. SO, GOING BACK, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OUT YEARS, '27 THROUGH '32, YOU CANCAN THAT THE TRANSFER TO THE UTILITY FUND FOR THE INTEREST PAYMENTS IN '27, AND WE HAVE IT BUDGETED AT ABOUT $6.5 MILLION, THEN $4 MILLION IN '28, $1.5 MILLION IN '29. NOTHING IN '30 AND THEN ABOUT $2 MILLION IN '31. AND THEN, AGAIN, WE HAVE THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS BASED ON WHAT THE ACTUALS ARE FOR THE EXISTING DEBT, AND THEN WE HAVE SOME PROJECTIONS THAT WE HAVE THERE KIND OF IN THE COLORS. THE '26 IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE DOING THIS EVENING. THE '27, WE HAVE ANTICIPATED TO BORROW ABOUT ANOTHER $29.1 MILLION. IN '28, ANOTHER 8.4, AND IN '29, 34.3, AND SO THOSE COLORS OUT THERE RELATE TO THE PARTICULAR ISSUANCE AND WHAT THOSE ESTIMATED PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS WILL BE FOR THAT ISSUANCE BASED ON WHAT WE'RE SEEING OUR RATES AT RIGHT NOW. SO, THE NEXT POINT THAT I WANTWANT TO YOUR ATTENTION TO, AND IT'S NOT UP HERE ON THE SLIDE, BUT ON YOUR SHEET, YOU CAN SEE THAT IN '29, OUR FUND BALANCE THAT WE HAD FOR THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND DROPPED TO JUST A LITTLE OVER $6 MILLION. AND RIGHT NOW, IT'S SITTING AT ABOUT 28, ALMOST $29 MILLION, SO IT'S GOING TO TAKE SEVERE HITS FOR THESE NEXT FEW YEARS. AND DRAW IT DOWN TO THAT. AND THEN, EVENTUALLY, IT'LL START GAINING AGAIN. SO, LET ME GO TO THE NEXT SHEET. >> BEFORE WE GO THERE, WITH CAN WE SPEND SOME TIME JUST ON THIS BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR AHEAD? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE? >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND RIGHT. I MEAN, THE IMPACT FEE FUND IS REALLY, REALLY HEALTHY NOW, ALMOST $30 MILLION, AND YOU SAID IT WILL GO DOWN TO $6 MILLION, BUT ISN'T THAT THE PURPOSE OF THIS FUND, IS TO HELP OFFSET SO WE DON'T HAVE TO CHARGE THE RATE PAYERS MORE? IT'S LIKE HELPING THE DEVELOPERS ACTUALLY PAY FOR WHAT THEY NEED TO, BECAUSE THIS IS DEVELOPER MONEY, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. SO, THAT'S THE MAIN PURPOSE IS FOR DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENT. AND THEN, IT'S -- IT CAN BE USED LIKE WE HAD SET IT UP FOR ORIGINALLY FOR TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS ON ANY DEBTS THAT'S ISSUED. OKAY. AND IT CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT TO, I THINK, AROUND YEAR 2038. BASED ON THIS SCENARIO RIGHT HERE, BASED ON OUR GROWTH RATE. USING IT BASED ON THE PARTICIPATION FOR DEVELOPERS AND THEN DEBT AND THIS INTEREST PAYMENTS THAT WE'RE PULLING. IT WILL STAY A POSITIVE BALANCE TO ABOUT 2038, ABOUT THEN BY THEN, WE NEED TO COME UP WITH -- IF THINGS DON'T CHANGE, THEN WE NEED TO TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE AND MAYBE, AT THAT POINT, IT DOESN'T PAY ANY PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS AND THE UTILITY FUND SHOULD BE ABLE TO PICK THOSE UP. AND I CAN SHOW YOU THAT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. >> ALBERTA, THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. I KNOW WE TALKED OR MAYBE THROUGH EMAIL ON THIS. SO, THIS KIND OF -- THIS WHOLE THING KIND OF ALARMED ME. AND I'M ALWAYS A PESSIMISTIC GUY TO FINANCES. RATHER HAVE THE MONEY AND THEN BE ABLE TO SPEND IT THAN NOT. THE ONE THING I WOULD LIKE US TO DO IS MAYBE LOOK AT -- I KNOW WE JUST TALKED ABOUT A WORK SESSION, THE NEXT ONE BEING ABOUT THE COMMUNITY, BUT JAMES, I THINK WE NEED A WORK SESSION ON THIS TO DIVE IN. SOME OF THE THINGS I HAVE CONCERNS WITH. [00:40:01] BACK WHEN WE FIRST -- I DON'T THINK YOU WERE HERE WHEN WE DID THIS THE FIRST TIME, WERE YOU? THIS SPREADSHEET? >> YEAH, WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE FIRST TIME, BUT I DID THIS -- THE FEBRUARY AFTER I FIRST CAME IN JANUARY. CONSULTANT'S NUMBERS. >> RIGHT. I SHOWED YOU WHAT THEIR NUMBERS WERE AND THEN -- YEAH. BUT I WAS NOT HERE WHEN THE CONSULTANTS DID IT. >> RIGHT. BACK THEN, I WAS -- YOU PROBABLY REMEMBER, I WAS ARGUING GROWTH RATE'S WAY TOO HIGH, AND I STILL KIND OF GOT THE SAME ISSUE. I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER HEARD THE ANSWER. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, OUR WATER CCN, IT GROWS OUT. YOU CAN'T GROW IT FOREVER. AND SO, WHEN DOES IT STOP GROWING? AND TO ME, THE MORE FULL THAT WE BUILD IT OUT, THE LESS THE GROWTH RATE IS. AND SO, WHEN I SEE THE WATER CCN BEING REALLY SMALL AND THE WASTEWATER CCN BEING VERY BIG AND THEY'RE BOTH GROWING AT THE SAME RATE, I THINK WE HAVE TO SPEND MORE TIME WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO UNDERSTAND, OKAY, FOR 2027, WHO'S ACTUALLY PERMITTING RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT SOMEWHERE IN THE DEVELOPMENT CYCLE, WE CAN GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT 2027 IS GOING TO BE. I CAN SEE FROM 2028 ON, IT'S A LITTLE CLOUDY, BUT WHEN WE JUST 5.4% FOR WASTEWATER, MY FEAR IS, YEAH, WE HAVE A BALANCE IN '29 OF $6 MILLION FOR IMPACT FEES. BUT IF YOU GO BACK TO '25, WE BUDGETED $6 MILLION FOR WATER IMPACT FEES THAT CAME IN AT $3÷÷ MILLION. THERE'S $3 MILLION RIGHT THERE THAT, IN ONE YEAR, WE DIDN'T HIT. SO, IF OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS, WE'RE OFF BY A COUPLE MILLION IN ANY OF THESE, NOW WE'RE ACTUALLY NEGATIVE, AND NOW WE ARE BACK TO RAISING RATES. AND SO, I WANT TO MAKE SURE GROWTH RATES ARE VERY ACCURATE, AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN GROW WATER 6% FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS -- NOT THAT YOU SAID 20 YEARS, BUT AT SOME POINT, YOU GUYS GOT TO SAY, HEY, YOU CAN'T GROW BECAUSE IT'S BUILT OUT. AND SO, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT, A CONVERSATION ON THAT. AND THEN, PEOPLE ALWAYS WONDER WHAT CAUSED THE WATER RATES TO GO UP. MY OPINION IS IT'S SHOWN IN -- WHERE WAS THAT AT? I WAS TALKING TO DAN ABOUT THIS. WHERE'D WE FIND THAT, DAN? IS THAT THE NEXT PAGE? >> IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN? >> IT MIGHT BE THE NEXT ONE. SO, I'LL WAIT ON THAT ONE. BUT I LIKE THIS OVERVIEW. I JUST THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT AS WE TRY TO FIGURE OUT, BECAUSE WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT THE 2027, 2028, 2029, I'M HOPING AT SOME POINT THE EDC HAS TAKEN OVER FOR THE -- WHENEVER WE FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH THE CITY, THE RATE PAYERS, PAID FOR ANOTHER CORPORATION'S LAND, WHEN THAT STARTS TO GET REIMBURSED, I HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO CHARGE RATE PAYERS FOR ADDITIONAL. I HOPE WE'RE GETTING AND COME BACK. >> OKAY. READY? ALL RIGHT. SO, THIS IS THE SECOND PIECE OF IT, WHICH IS THE UTILITY FUND. WHAT I WAS INSTRUCTING OR SAYING EARLIER, THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST PAYMENTS THAT WE'RE TRANSFERRING OUT SHOW UP AS TRANSFERS IN KIND OF MIDDLE OF THE PAGE, WHICH REFLECTS THE, FOR THIS NEXT YEAR. SO, FOR JUST WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING FOR OUR FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF THIS YEAR TO BE A LITTLE OVER $15 MILLION AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER OF '26. THAT DOES INCLUDE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE RECHARGE IN EFFECT THIS YEAR, NOT AT A FULL YEAR. I BELIEVE IT STARTED IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH. SO, WE HAVE IT FOR A PORTION OF THIS YEAR. NEXT YEAR, IN '27, WE'LL SEE THE EFFECTS OF IT FOR A FULL YEAR. SO, WHAT I SHOW YOU HERE IS IN '27, AT THE TOP, IN THE BLUE, THERE WOULD BE NO RATE INCREASE IN '27. SO, FOLLOWING THAT DOWN, WE WOULD HAVE THE $6.5 MILLION TRANSFER IN FROM UTILITY IMPACT FEES FOR INTEREST PAYMENTS, ANOTHER 5. 6 RELATIVE TO THE DEBT PAYMENTS. RECHARGE WOULD HIT, PROBABLY, AT ABOUT 11.2. AND WE WOULD USE ABOUT $3 MILLION OF OUR FUND BALANCE BRINGING IT DOWN TO $11,952,000 IN '27. IN '28, I PLUGGED IN A 5% INCREASE. AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE ABOUT $4 MILLION FROM UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND. WE WOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF ROOM TO TAKE MORE FROM THERE, AND I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE. AND THEN YOUR DEBT PAYMENTS ARE ABOUT $9. 1 MILLION. HERE, WE WOULD JUST [00:45:03] BREAK EVEN WITH THE 5% RATE INCREASE. AND OUR FUND BALANCE WOULD BE $11.8 MILLION. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS THAT GO INTO THIS.INTO ONE, WE KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT. ORIGINALLY, IT WAS GOING TO BE WITH EBCOR. WELL, THAT'S NOT EXACTLY WHO WE'RE GOING TO BE WITH, BUT BASED ON WHAT OUR GROWTH IS, IF IT CONTINUES AT THE 4 TO 5% THAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW, THAT PURCHASE WON'T NEED TO HAPPEN UNTIL, LIKE, '31 OR '32. SO, YOU CAN SEE OUT HERE IN THE GREEN, I PUT THAT CONTRACT EXPENSE, THAT ADDITIONAL WATER PURCHASE THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IS GOING TO HIT ABOUT ANOTHER $6 MILLION, SO THAT WILL BRING THAT EXPENSE UP TO TOTAL ABOUT $17 MILLION. AND WHAT I HAVE INCLUDED IN YOUR '31 IS, OKAY, SO, NO INCREASE IN '27, ABOUT A 5% INCREASE IN '28. NO INCREASE IN '29 OR '30. AND THEN A 3% IN '31. AND THEN NONE FURTHER OUT. IN ADDITION, OUR OPERATING COSTS FOR PERSONNEL, SUPPLIES, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE, ALL THOSE OPERATING EXPENSES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE HELD VERY, VERY CLOSE, VERY TIGHT. NO INCREASES, NO NEW EMPLOYEES IN THE UTILITY FUND. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HOLD OUR EXPENSES TO HELP KEEP OUR FUND BALANCE AND NOT RAISE YOUR RATES. IF WE WERE TO DO NO RATE INCREASE IN '28, THAT MEANS THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND WOULD PROBABLY BE HIT WITH ABOUT ANOTHER 5, ALMOST $6 MILLION, AND THAT PRETTY MUCH PUTS US TO ZERO IN THE UTILITY IMPACT FEE FUND. SO, THERE'S JUST SEVERAL VARIABLES. I MEAN, WE WILL KNOW BEFORE '28 WHETHER IT'S 5% OR 3% OR 0. IT WILL JUST DEPEND ON WHAT OUR GROWTH FACTOR IS. WHEN WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DO THAT SECOND WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT, HOW MANY DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION AGREEMENTS WE HAVE, SO ALL THAT WILL PLAY IN EFFECT AS TO WHAT THE EFFECT WILL BE ON THE UTILITY FUND. BUT THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO SHOW YOU HERE. >> QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? >> THIS IS WHERE, WHEN I SAW THE BOND EXPENSE, IN '23, WE WERE LIKE $6.7 MILLION AND WITHIN TWO AND A HALF, THREE YEARS, WE HAD A 4X INCREASE TO $24.5 MILLION, AND BY 2028, SO, IN SIX YEARS, WE GO FROM $6.7 MILLION TO ALMOST 31 OR $32 MILLION AND I'M LIKE, THAT, TO ME, IS WHY THE RATES ARE CRAZY. AND NOT TO REHAGGLE THE DEBATE OF EXPANSION, BUT AS I SEE THE RATES COME DOWN AND THE USAGE COME DOWN, YOU KNOW, BACK, THIS THING WE WERE SOLD BY THE ENGINEERING FIRM IS THAT IF WE DON'T EXPAND, LIKE, BIG-TIME TODAY, BY THE TIME YOUYOU DO YOUR EXPANSION, YOU'RE OF CAPACITY, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN. AND NOW, WHAT I SEE OUT OF THIS IS A BIG- TIME LEVELING OFOF RATES, PRIMARILY BECAUSE WE BUILT SO MUCH CAPACITY INTO THE THE THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS TO USE UP THE WASTEWATER, AND IT MAY BE TEN YEARS FROM NOW INSTEAD OF FOUR. BUT TO ME, THAT'S A BIG CAUSE THERE, AND THEN THE CONCERNING THING, REALLY, FOR ME IS, IT'S NOT ON HERE, BUT G IS YOUR FUND BALANCE REQUIREMENT. AND WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, WE'RE AT, LIKE, $8.5 MILLION, AND THEN, NEXT YEAR, IT DROPS TO 5, AND THEN IN '26-'27 -- SORRY, THOSE ARE THE EXCESSES. THE EXCESS DROPS TO $324,000. SO, LITERALLY, IN 2028, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IN FUNDFUND AND OUR EXCESS GOES FROM MILLIONS TO $324,000 TO $180,000 AND SO WE'RE RUNNING SO TIGHT THAT, AGAIN, THIS IS WHERE I THINK THE EDC -- WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE EDC TO REFUND SOME OF THE 50 OR 60, WHATEVER IT COMES OUT, MILLION DOLLARS TO WHERE WE'RE NOT HAVING TO INCREASE RATES TO COVER THIS BARE BONES, AND I THINK THE DEVELOPERS CAN ONLY TAKE SO MUCH MORE BEFORE THAT DRIES UP, BECAUSE THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND I WERE TALKING TODAY. WHY ARE IMPACT FEES DOWN? IS IT BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT IS DOWN? WHY IS DEVELOPMENT DOWN HERE? IS IT THE ECONOMY? WE JACKED UP OUR IMPACT FEES, AND ECONOMICS WILL TELL YOUYOU MORE YOU RAISE THEM, THE LESS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SWEET SPOT IS, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN RAISE THEM MUCH MORE. EVERY TIME YOU RAISE THEM UP, IF [00:50:01] YOU LOSE DEVELOPMENT, YOU COME OUT NEGATIVE. SO, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT UP UNTIL 2030, WE GOT TO REALLY SCRUTINIZE EVERYTHING WE'RE DOING, COST- WISE, BECAUSE UNLESS WE'RE TALKING MORE AND MORE RATE INCREASES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO THREAD THE NEEDLE TO MAKE SURE WE CAN MAKE -- I MEAN, IT'S JUST UNBELIEVABLE. WE WERE AT 6. 7 A YEAR IN BOND EXPENSE AND NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT $11 MILLION A YEAR, AND OUR CITY HAS NOT -- I MEAN, IT MAYBE WENT UP, I DON'T KNOW, 50, 60%, BUT IT DIDN'T GO UP 400%. WE'VE GOT SOME CHALLENGES, IN MY MIND, COMING. AND AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOU PUTTING ALL THE EFFORT INTO THIS, BECAUSE I THINK THIS REALLY, REALLY PAINTS A PICTURE OF WHY I THINK WE HAVE THE BIG WATER EMPHASIS HERE THIS YEAR TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT JUST WILLY- NILLY DOING STUFF. >> YEAH. I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY FOCUS, AS THE MEGA SITE DEVELOPS, ESPECIALLY, THAT IT'S EASY TO SEE LOTS OF REVENUE COMING IN AND START TO THINK OF NEW WAYS WE CAN SPEND THAT, AND WE HAVE OLD WAYS WE ALREADY SPENT THAT, AND WE NEED TO PAY THOSE BACK AND PREVENT THIS FROM BEING A CRISIS IN THE CITY IN THREE TO FIVE YEARS IF THE NUMBERS GO THE WRONG WAY. EVEN IF THEY DON'T GO THE WRONG WAY, WE CAN MAKE THEM BETTER. >> MM-HMM. YEAH, BECAUSE IF YOU'RE $180,000 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR FUND BALANCE, WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE, THAT MEANS ALBERTA'S PROJECTIONS HAVE TO BE SO SPOT- ON BECAUSE $180,000 COULD BE A HICCUP. THAT COULD BE ONE PERSON NOT PAYING THEIR WATER, ONE INDUSTRIAL PERSON, AND THE NEXT THING YOU KNOW, WE'RE NEGATIVE AND WE'RE MOVING -- I GUESS YOU MOVE GENERAL FUND MONEY OVER? WHEN YOUR UTILITY FUND GOES NEGATIVE? >> NO. >> JUST -- YOU JUST DON'T PAY THE BRAZOS RIVER AUTHORITY? >> THAT'S THE RESERVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THE RESERVE. BUT IF IT GOES BELOW RESERVE, THEN WE WOULD PUT THINGS -- WE WOULD STOP SPENDING AND FORCE IT TO WHERE THE RESERVE WOULD COME BACK UP TO WHERE IT NEEDED TO BE >> WE'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU WITH AN AMENDMENT TO BRING THAT BACK IN LINE. >> RIGHT. >> YEAH. >> WHEN I SEE A PROJECTION, $180,000, THIS CITY'S NEVER OPERATED WITHIN $180,000, SO THAT'S SO TIGHT, TO YOUR POINT, WE HAVE TO START NICKEL AND DIMING TODAY. OTHERWISE, IN FIVE YEARS, WE'RE RAISING RATES OR YOU'RE COMING BACK TO US AND I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MORE YOU CAN CUT BECAUSE YOU STILL NEED SOMEBODY TO WORK THERE, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE UNLESS THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE. IF I UNDERSTAND THIS, YOU WANT IT BACK ON THE NEXT WORKSHOP? >> NOT THE NEXT, BUT DOES ANYBODY SEE A BENEFIT IN REALLY DIGGING INTO THIS AND MAKING SURE WE UNDERSTAND? >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YEAH, I THINK SO. >> OKAY. I THINK I HAVE YOUR QUESTIONS. >> ONE OF THE MEETINGS IN FEBRUARY. I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE I THINK IT'S÷÷ URGENT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SPECIAL MEETING. >> FEBRUARY OR MARCH, SOMEWHERE IN THAT TIME FRAME OKAY? >> THAT WOULD BE PERFECT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS A LOT. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, [14.2. Discussion and possible action on whether to allow the use of City Hall as a polling location. (City Council)] I'M GOING TO TRY TO MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE AGENDA HERE. FIRST, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ITEM 14.2 UP NEXT. THAT'S ABOUT THE POLLING SITES. WE'LL DO THAT ONE NEXT. ITEM 14.2, DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON WHETHER TO ALLOW THE USE OF CITY HALL AS A POLLING LOCATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER. MY NAME IS BRIDGET ESCOBEDO, I AM THE ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR FOR WILLIAMSON COUNTY. I COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO ASK US TO ALLOW US TO USE YOUR FACILITY AS A POLLING LOCATION. WE HAVE PARTNERED IN THE YEAR 2025, AND WE HAD A VERY POSITIVE EXPERIENCE. YOUR CITY SECRETARY IS AMAZING. SHE'S VERY EASY TO WORK WITH. SHE WORKS VERY WELL WITH MY STAFF. SO, WE HAD ELECTIONS HERE IN MAY, AND FOR THE RUNOFF, AND IN NOVEMBER, AND WE HAD A LOT OF VERY POSITIVE FEEDBACK. THE CONSTITUENTS, THE VOTERS IN THIS AREA, LOVE THIS BUILDING. YOU HAVE A VERY BEAUTIFUL BUILDING. IT'S ADA COMPLIANT, AND IT TICKS ALL OF OUR BOXES. SO, IF YOU CAN APPROVE US TO ALLOW US TO CONTINUE USING THIS BUILDING, WE WOULD REALLY APPRECIATE IT. WE COME -- I COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE THE WILCO HUTTO ANNEX IS IN FLUX RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT GUARANTEED TO BE USED SO I'M ASKING TO USE THIS BUILDING WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER FACILITY IN THIS AREA TO ACCOMMODATE VOTERS. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. QUESTIONS FROM ANYBODY? [00:55:03] I THINK THIS IS FROM OUR DAY ONE AGENDA. >> YEAH. WE'RE A LITTLE LATE. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IS THIS JUST FOR THE ELECTION DAY? OR WOULD IT ALSO BE FOR PRIMARY AND ELECTION DAY AND/OR WOULD IT INCLUDE THE EARLY VOTING AS WELL? >> IT WOULD BE EARLY VOTING AND ELECTION DAY. >> I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I MEAN, ELECTION DAY, FOR EITHER PRIMARY, OR REGULAR ELECTION DAY, WHETHER NOVEMBER OR MAY. HAVING EARLY VOTING HERE, I BELIEVE, DISRUPTS CITY ACTIVITIES, SERVICES, AND ALSO AVAILABILITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO USE THIS PHYSICAL FACILITY. I THINK WE DO HAVE COURT ON TUESDAYS, BUT I THINK THAT'S BEEN -- I THINK THAT'S BEEN DEALT WITH, EITHER VIRTUAL OR WHATEVER. BUT I MEAN, DOING ONE DAY, ONE-OFF TYPE OF THING, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ON A SATURDAY, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO ACCOMMODATING THAT. BUT DOING TEN DAYS AND THEN IF THERE'S A RUNOFF, YOU GOT ANOTHER, 20 DAYS NOW. WITH THE PRIMARY AND ELECTION, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 20 TO 40 DAYS OF CITY -- OF THE CITY HALL BEING, YOU KNOW, BEING -- IT'S TRANSACTIONS WITH THE CITIZENS, AND IT'S DAILY OPERATIONS BY STAFF, AND PEOPLE INTERACTING. I THINK IT'S A PROBLEM. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A SHOW STOPPER, BUT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT. >> I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THE VOTERS IN THIS COMMUNITY THAT THEY WERE HERE IN THE BUILDING, AND THEY WERE ABLE TO DO SOME CITY BUSINESS AND THEN THEY WERE ALSO ABLE TO VOTE. SO, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF POSITIVE FEEDBACK, AND I CAN COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. I COME TO YOU, HAT IN HAND, BECAUSE THERE ARE NO OTHER VIABLE OPTIONS HERE IN THE CITY OF HUTTO. MY TEAM AND I, WE HAVE SEARCHED HIGH AND LOW. WE CANNOT FIND ANOTHER BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE VOTING. AND SO, MY CONCERN IS IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS FACILITY, WE DON'T HAVE VOTING IN THE CITY OF HUTTO. >> THAT KIND OF LEADS TO MY SECOND QUESTION. LAST MAY, WE WERE TOLD THAT THE WILCO ANNEX WAS NOT AVAILABLE DUE TO MAINTENANCE OR FACILITIES OR UPGRADING, WHATEVER. BUT I WENT OVER THERE SEVERAL TIMES AND THERE WAS NOTHING GOING ON IN THAT PLACE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON NOW. YOU SAY IT'S IN FLUX. I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT WORDS YOU USED. I'VE ALWAYS HEARD IT MIGHT BE FOR SALE. SO, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY, WHEN LAST MAY, THE WILCO ANNEX WAS UNAVAILABLE OR IN FLUX, BUT IT WAS AVAILABLE. AND NOW, WE'RE TOLD -- I'M TOLD AGAIN THAT IT'S IN FLUX, AND IT'S NOT AVAILABLE. BUT IT WASN'T THAT WAY LAST MAY. WHY IS IT GOING TO BE ANY DIFFERENT THIS YEAR? >> SORRY, EXCUSE ME. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S CURRENTLY FOR SALE, AND SO IT COULD BE AVAILABLE TODAY BUT NOT AVAILABLE TOMORROW. AND SO, WE DON'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THAT PROMISE TO THE VOTERS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT LOCATION AND WE'RE NOT ABLE TO HAVE IT, CANCEL AT THE LAST MINUTE. >> ABSOLUTELY. IF IT IS FOR SALE AND IT IS BEING LISTED -- YOU DIDN'T SHARE THAT WITH US AT FIRST. IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN WILCO ANNEX IS OUT OF THE QUESTION. I UNDERSTAND. >> JAMES, HAVE YOU BEEN OFFERED ANY INFORMATION ON THAT BUILDING FOR SALE THAT'S INSIDE THE CITY LIMITS? >> THE COMMISSION -- THE COMMISSIONER DID REACH OUT AND SAY IT WOULD BE BEING LISTED FOR SALE IF WE WERE INTERESTED, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE -- >> IT'S NOT LISTED NOW? >> I DON'T -- WELL, THAT WAS A LITTLE WHILE AGO. THEY MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY LISTED IT. I JUST DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. >> OKAY. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE -- EITHER WE LOOK AT. I SHARE THE COUNCILMEMBER'S CONCERNS. IN THE PAST, IT'S BEEN HELD AT ST. PATRICK'S CHURCH. I JUST TEXTED ANOTHER CHURCH, AND THEY THINK THEY COULD DO IT, BUT THEY WERE NEVER ASKED. AND THEN, IT'S, AGAIN, I WON'T REHASH WHAT HE SAID ABOUT THE COUNTY. IT USED TO BE THE COMMISSIONER'S OFFICE, THE SIGNAGE STILL SAYS THE COMMISSIONER OFFICE IS THERE, AND SO IF YOU GUYS ARE SELLING IT, YOU'RE NOT IN CHARGE OF SIGNS. WE NEED TO START TAKING SIGNS DOWN AND LET EVERYBODY KNOW IT'S NOT BEING USED. BUT THE PROBLEMS I HAVE IN THIS BUILDING -- AND I'LL GIVE YOU AN ACTUAL THING THAT HAPPENED, AND I THINK SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THE DAIS WERE NOT ON THE DAIS AT THE TIME, BUT THEY ARE NOW. I'M DRESSED LIKE THIS. I WALK IN TO MEET SOMEBODY. I MEET FOR 45 MINUTES, LET'S SAY. I GO BACK OUT, AND I'M CAMPAIGNING OUT THE LINE AND AN ELECTION PERSON COMES OUT AND SAYS, WE GOT A COMPLAINT THAT YOU MAY BE ELECTIONEERING INSIDE THE BUILDING. AND YOU KNOW WHO THE COMPLAINT WAS? IT WAS A CITY EMPLOYEE. RIGHT THEN, I WAS LIKE, IT'S [01:00:01] DISRUPTIVE, BECAUSE CITY EMPLOYEES SHOULD BE PAYING CALLS, SENDING EMAILS, REVIEWING PLANS. INSTEAD, SOMEBODY'S WALKING AROUND, THAT GUY'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE, YOU CAN'T TELL THAT HE'S RUNNING FOR OFFICE BY SITTING IN HERE, BUT I'M TOLD, REALLY, DURING ELECTION TIME, I CAN'T COME TO CITY HALL. WELL, WHERE AM I SUPPOSED TO MEET PEOPLE? WE CAN'T MEET AT CITY HALL BECAUSE I'M ON THE BALLOT. BUT I'M NOT ELECTIONEERING, NOT WEARING ANYTHING, NOT BREAKING ANY ELECTION LAWS. AND TO ME, IT'S NOT THE PUBLIC THAT'S COMPLAINING. IT'S OUR OWN STAFF. AND SO, THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT BECOMES DISRUPTIVE, AND WE ALREADY, I MEAN, SOME PEOPLE WORK HERE EVERY DAY. SOME PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING. I THINK WE NEED TO BE FOCUSED ON CITY BUSINESS HERE, AND IT'S TERRIBLE WE BUILT THIS GIANT MONOTROS STEEL AND MONSTROSITY OF A BUILDING WITH NO MEDIAN SPACE, AND I GET THAT, BUT I REALLY THINK THAT ST. PATRICK HAS A NEW LEADER. I'M ALMOST POSITIVE. UNLESS YOU GUYS HAD PROBLEMS THERE WITH SECURITY OR SOMETHING, THEY WOULD BE OPEN. I DO KNOW THE OTHER CHURCH, HAPPY TO SHARE THE INFORMATION, THEY WOULD BE OPEN. AND I DO SHARE HIS CONCERNS, IFIF THE DAY OF, IT'S A CRITICAL THING, MAYBE IT'S A NOVEMBER ELECTION AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE LINES EVERYWHERE, I GET IT. BUT I THINK THE NOVEMBER ELECTION -- WAS THAT HELD AT THE COUNTY? WASN'T THERE A LINE WRAPPED AROUND THE BUILDING IN NOVEMBER? >> YES, YES. >> IN MAY, WE CAN'T USE IT. >> BUT NOVEMBER, WE CAN. >> BUT NOVEMBER, WE CAN. AND CERTAIN PEOPLE ARE ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER BUT NOT -- AGAIN, THIS ISN'T YOU. THESE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT I SHARE WITH THE CITY MANAGER. LIKE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. BUT -- AND WE DON'T KNOW EACH OTHER. I'M VERY DISTRUSTFUL OF GOVERNMENT, AND I DON'T CONSIDER MYSELF A VERY GOOD ELECTED PERSON BECAUSE MOST ELECTED PEOPLE IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY DO NOT LIKE ME, PRIMARILY BECAUSE I WONDER ABOUT THESE THINGS. WHEN SOMETHING'S NOT AVAILABLE BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO HAVE REMODELING WORK DONE, ONLY THEN SEE WHEN PEOPLE IN POWER NEED VOTERS, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT'S ISN'T YOU. THIS IS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ABOVE YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD LIKE US TO HOPEFULLYHOPEFULLY COUNCIL SAYS, LEST WORK WITH YOU, TRY TO FIND YOU A COUPLE CHURCHES THAT ARE BIG, ST. PATRICK HAS AMPLE PARKING. I THINK THEY ALLOW FOR ADA AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT HAVE DISABILITIES THERE. AND IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, THEN I HAVE NO PROBLEM DOING IT HERE, IF WE REALLY HAVE TRIED THE OTHER PLACES, LESS DISRUPTIVE. BUT I THINK YOU GUYS DO A GREAT JOB. I LOVE SEEING THE LADIES AND THE GUYS HERE. I ALWAYS WISH THE TURNOUT WAS HIGHER THAN 8% BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THE TURNOUT ON FACEBOOK IS, LIKE, 95%. AND AT THE POLLS, IT'S 8%. BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. >> I MIGHT ADD THAT -- AND THIS MAY BE AGAINST AN ELECTION LAW, I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY ANYTHING THAT'S WRONG. JUST MY IGNORANCE OR WHATEVER. I WOULD BE OPEN TO A COMPROMISE WHERE THE ACTUAL ELECTION DAY, ON SATURDAY, THAT DOESN'T DISRUPT THE CITY, BE THERE. BECAUSE PEOPLE MAY NOT REALIZE THAT, ON EARLY VOTING, YOU CAN VOTE AT ANY PRECINCT IN THE COUNTY. WHEREAS ON ELECTION DAY, YOU HAVE TO VOTE IN YOUR PRECINCT, WHICH HERE IS 420. >> SO, FOR CLARITY, ST. PATRICK ONLY ALLOWS US ACCESS ON ELECTION DAY. IF THEY HAVE NEW LEADERSHIP, WE COULD DEFINITELY REACH BACK OUT AND ASK FOR EARLY VOTING. >> I KNOW SOME PEOPLE IN THE CONGREGATION, AND WE COULD SAY, CAN YOU HELP US OUT? >> I WELCOME THE HELP. AND SO, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR. MY ROLE AS ELECTIONS ADMINISTRATOR IS ALWAYS TO ADVOCATE FOR ACCESS. AND SO, I DEEPLY CARE ABOUT YOUR CITIZENS, AS YOU DO. WE'RE ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS HERE. THAT'S WHY I'M COMING HUMBLY TO ASK YOU BECAUSE I'M AFRAID IF WE DON'T HAVE THE COUNTY BUILDING OR IF WE DON'T GET ST. ST. PATRICK'S, WE WON'T HAVE A POLLING LOCATION. I THINK THAT'S MY ROLE IS TO ADVOCATE FOR ACCESS FOR THE VOTERS. >> WHAT'S YOUR DEADLINE ON SECURING A LOCATION? >> I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION. IS IT ALLOWABLE TO HAVE A POLLING SITE THAT'S OPEN ONLY ON ELECTION DAY AND NOT EARLY VOTING? >> YES, SIR, IT IS ALLOWABLE. >> I'M OPEN TO THAT COMPROMISE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SORRY. >> SO, THE DEADLINE IS PAST. WE'RE NEEDING THIS POLLING LOCATION FOR THE PRIMARY ELECTION, AND SO AS YOU KNOW, IT'S QUICKLY APPROACHING. EARLY VOTING STARTS IN THE MIDDLE OF FEBRUARY. WE DON'T HAVE A LOCATION HERE IN HUTTO AT ALL. AND SO, WE NEED TO GET ONE, SECURE ONE, VERY RAPIDLY, SO THAT WE CAN GET THE LOCATIONS APPROVED IN COURT AND OUT TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. >> SO, WHAT IF WE MAKE A MOTION AND PASS THAT BARRING -- I ONLY KNOW TWO CHURCHES BIG ENOUGH TO DO THIS, OKAY? BARRING THAT BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK, THEY CAN OR CAN'T, THAT WE ALLOW IT TO BE HERE? I MEAN, DOES THAT PUT YOU IN SUCH A BIND? OR THAT THE COUNTY -- WE GO UNDER CONTRACT WITH THE COUNTY AND, I MEAN, THE BUILDING'S IN DISREPAIR. IT'S NOT IN THE BEST SHAPE, SO I WANT A FORTUNE. BUT BARRING ONE OF THOSE [01:05:01] THREE OPTIONS HAPPENING EXTREMELY QUICKLY, REALLY, LIKE BY NEXT WEEK, DOES THAT PUT YOU IN A SUPER BIG BIND? >> YOU KNOW, OF COURSE, THE SOONER, THE BETTER. BUT I'LL BE WILLINGWILLING TO WITH ANYONE, YES. >> SO MOVED. >> WE'LL MAKE THAT MOTION THAT WE -- I DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT, JAMES. >> I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. >> WE'LL WORK WITH THE ELECTIONS -- I'M SORRY, WHAT'S YOUR DEPARTMENT? >> ELECTIONS DEPARTMENT. >> SO, BASICALLY, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, THE COUNCIL IS MOVING TO ALLOW THE USE OF CITY HALL FOR BOTH EARLY VOTING AND THE DAY-OF VOTING BUT ONLY AFTER EXHAUSTING THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE IT LOCATED AT ONE OF THE TWO CHURCH LOCATIONS OR FOR US TO NEGOTIATE SOME SORT OF A DEAL ON THE ANNEX. >> ALL WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK. >> RIGHT. >> I DON'T WANT OUR ELECTIONS TO BE MOVED BECAUSE WE SCREWED AROUND UP HERE. >> I SAW KELLY IN THE BACKGROUND. >> I MAY TEXT THE COMMISSION NOW. WE GOT OTHER BUSINESS ON THE EDC WE COULD HANDLE MAYBE. >> AND YOU SAID YOU'D SECOND THAT? >> SURE. >> OKAY. >> I AGREE TO THE ELECTION DAY BUT I'M NOT IN AGREEMENT FOR EARLY VOTING. IT'S GOING TO BE 40 DAYS. IT COULD BE 40 DAYS. >> BELIEVE ME, I KNOW. THAT'S THE OTHER THING. WE HAVE PNZ HERE, ALL THESE OTHER PUBLIC MEETINGS AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO OTHER PARTS. >> FOR 40 DAYS. >> IT'S LIKE THEY OWN THE BUILDING, THE PEOPLE DO, AND WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. WE'RE GOING TO TRY HARD OVER THE NEXT WEEK. >> I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> DID YOU WANT TO PUT A DEADLINE ON THAT FOR CITY STAFF, A SPECIFIC DATE? YOU SAY NEXT WEEK, BUT ARE YOU SAYING -- WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? FRIDAY THE 30TH OR WHATEVER THAT FRIDAY IS? >> YEAH. FRIDAY, JANUARY 30. >> ALL RIGHT. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. MAYOR SNYDER. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? BRIDGET. OKAY, THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU, BRIDGET. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> YOU DID GOOD. WE'RE ALWAYS JUST BEING LIKE THAT UP HERE. [10.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-013 approving the Annexation and Development Agreement for Endeavor Hutto Retail by and between the City of Hutto and Cerco Development, Inc. for the purpose of annexing and zoning correlating parcels and developing a commercial development and all relevant improvements. (Sara Cervantes)] >> SOME MORE THAN OTHERS. >> ALL RIGHT, NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 10.1. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2026-013, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ENDEAVOR HUTTO RETAIL BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRELATING PARCELS AND DEVELOPING A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ALL RELEVANT IMPROVEMENTS. I TAKE IT SARA IS NOT HERE? >> I BELIEVE SARA IS SICK. >> I'M SO SORRY. I KNEW AMANDA WAS COMING UP. >> JAMES IS WORKING ON BUYING THAT BUILDING. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS DOING. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. >> THERE ARE PASTORS THAT I KNEW. SO, MY APOLOGIES. YEAH. SARA IS OUT SICK. SO, WE WISH HER A QUICK RECOVERY. BUT TONIGHT, AMANDA IS HERE TO PRESENT ON THE ITEM. ITEMS 10.1, 2, AND 3 ARE ALL RELATED. 10.1 IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. 10. 2 IS THE MASTER SERVICE AGREEMENT. 10.3 IS THE ANNEXATION. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS ALL OF THE REQUIRED FORMS, THE FLURRY OF 1295S THAT WERE REQUIRED FOR THE DIFFERENT ENTITIES, HAVE ALL ORDER, AND WE'RE EFFECTIVELY READY TO RECEIVE THIS AND TO, YOU KNOW, ANNOUNCE TO THE PUBLIC THAT IT IS BEING DONE. AMANDA? >> YOU'RE UP. >> OH, PERFECT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS AMANDA BROWN WITH HG BROWN CONSULTING. REQUESTING AN APPROVAL OF ANNEXATION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE SITE IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 130 AND 79. HERE'S A LOCATION MAP TO SHOW YOU WHERE WE ARE IN THE WORLD. IT'S BOUND BY INNOVATION, 79 AND 130, AND IT'S BIFURCATED BY THE CONNECTER ROAD AS WELL. SO, IT'S TWO TRACTS TOTALING AROUND 13 ACRES. THE EXISTING ZONING IS THAT THERE IS NO NONE. THIS SITE IS CURRENTLY IN THE ETJ. SO, A PART OF THE AGENDA ITEMS TONIGHT INCLUDE AN ANECK NEXATION INTO THE FULL PURPOSE CITY OF HUTTO. THE FUTURE LAND USE [01:10:02] MAP DESIGNATES THIS SITE AS COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, WHICH CALLS FOR SHOPPING CENTERS, RETAIL, THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IN FRONT OF YOU THIS EVENING. AND I'M GOING TO HAND IT OVER TO ADAM ZIMMEL TO GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE HOPEFUL DEVELOPER. >> ARE YOU BRINGING IN A KIA HERE TOO? >> WE'RE SITING SOME PAST PROJECTS HERE. >> JUST GET THAT STARTED. >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT COMMENT. ADAM ZIMMEL, ENDEAVOR REAL ESTATE GROUP. WE'VE BEEN FOCUSED ON THIS SITE SINCE SEPTEMBER. WE WANT TO SHOW YOU THE LATEST, WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON, IN ADDITION TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ANNEXATION AND ZONING. TO TAKE A STEP BACK, SPEAKING OF ENDEAVOR'S HISTORY, JUST FOR CONTEXT, AND I KNOW I HAVE TOUCHED ON THIS BEFORE, BUT ESTABLISHED IN 1999, RETAIL IS WHERE WE REALLY CUT OUR TEETH. IT'S STILL A VERY PRIMARY PORTION OF OUR BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT TODAY. AND SO, WE WANTED TO JUST GIVE A FEW OTHER PROJECTS WE'VE COMPLETED IN THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY AREA. OBVIOUSLY, BACK IN THE MID- 2000S, WE STARTED HANSON'S CORNER WITH HOME DEPOT, SOME SUPPLEMENTARY RETAIL AND THEN THE LAST COUPLE YEARS WE'VE FINISHED OUT ON A LOT OF THE PADS THAT ARE THERE. WE LOVE THE REPEAT BUSINESS IN THE COMMUNITIES WE'RE DEVELOPING IN. THAT WAS OUR FIRST IN HUTTO. 1890 RANCH IN CEDAR PARK, SUPER TARGET. WE DEVELOPED THAT IN MID- 2000S, PURCHASED IT BACK IN 2020, AND STILL OWN IT TODAY. AS MIKE MENTIONED, IKEA AT UNIVERSITY OAKS, THAT IS A SINGLE UNIT UP IN WILLIAMSON COUNTY, AND I ANTICIPATE IT WILL REMAIN THAT WAY. BUT DEVELOP THAT AND THEN JUST A NOD TO ANOTHER SPROUTS DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW. SO, HERE'S THE LATEST AND GREATEST. THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH AS AMANDA MENTIONED. IT'S ABOUT 14 ACRES, NORTHEAST CORNER OF 79 AND 130. WHAT MAKES THIS PROJECT A LITTLE UNIQUE, TYPICALLY RETAIL LOVES TO BE FRONT AND CENTER, ACCESSIBILITY, VISIBILITY'S VERY IMPORTANT. TWO ARTERIALS IS TYPICALLY WHAT WE DEVELOP AROUND. SOMETHING THAT MAKES THIS SITE UNIQUE IS WE'VE GOT THREE ARTERIALS AND WE'VE WE LOVE INNOVATION. IT'S A CITY ROAD. IT BRINGS ACCESS BACK TO THE NEW QUEST LOWE'S DEVELOPMENT AND ED SCHMIDT. THAT'S ONE OF THE CHALLENGES. WHERE'S THE FRONT DOOR? HOW DO WE GET PEOPLE IN AND OUT? SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN CONTINUING TO WORK ON. SPROUTS, AS YOU KNOW, HAS BEEN OUR LEAD ANCHOR HERE. WE HAVE A SIGNED LEASE IN PLACE WITH THEM. AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THIS SITE PLAN IS WE HAVE SOME PADS RUNNING HIGHWAY 130, SH 130, AND THEN THREE SHOP BUILDINGS SHOWN, AND WHEN WE'RE BACK IN THIS ROOM IN SEPTEMBER, OBVIOUSLY, WE HEARD WHAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT, NOT JUST A DAILY DRIVER BUT ALSO SITDOWN DESTINATION- TYPE DINING AND THAT'S BEEN AN AREA THAT'S A REAL FOCUS FOR US AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL HAVE SOME ANNOUNCEMENTS TOWARDS THAT END AS WE CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT THIS IS THE LATEST CONCEPT PLAN IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE WORKING WITH TODAY. THIS IS SPROUTS' ACTUAL RENDERING WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH AND WORKING THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WITH THE CITY HERE, AND TALKING THROUGH, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE CHALLENGES, AGAIN, WHEN YOU WORK WITH THESE ANCHORS IS THEY'VE GOT A PROTOTYPE AND THEY DON'T ALWAYS DEVIATE A WHOLE LOT FROM THOSE PROTOTYPES. AND SO, WE MADE THE EFFORT TO ADD MORE GLAZING AS AN EXAMPLE. FOR WHAT YOU SEE HERE. AND THEN, HOW WE INTEGRATE SOME OF THE DESIGN ASPECTS WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE RETAIL AND THE ANCHOR IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. AND SO, YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THAT, MAYBE NOT REAL FINE- TUNED FROM THESE ZOOMED- OUT IMAGES, BUT SPROUTS MADE SOME CONCESSIONS FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, AND OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, A COHESIVE PROJECT IS WHAT WE WANT IT TO FEEL LIKE AS PEOPLE COME INTO THE SHOPPING CENTER AND WE THINK IT'LL HELP WITH CROSS-SHOPPING. SO, THE THREE MULTITENANT BUILDINGS, I MENTIONED, IN TOTAL, WE'LL HAVE BETWEEN 20, 25 TENANTS AT THIS PROJECT. IT WILL BE YOUR DAILY DRIVER WITH THE GROCER. IT'LL BE RETAIL SERVICES. AND THEN, FOOD AND BEVERAGE WILL BE A BIG FOCUS FOR US. AND IS A BIG FOCUS FOR US. THE COMMENT ABOUT EXTENSIVE GLAZING, WE THINK MORE GLASS COMMUNICATES FOR THE RETAILER, FOR THE CUSTOMER, IT'S MORE INVITING. THEY SEE MORE AND ULTIMATELY, WE WANT TO PROVIDE AN EXPERIENCE WHERE OUR TENANTS CAN BE SUCCESSFUL. [01:15:03] YOU'LL SEE DIFFERENT MATERIAL TYPES THAT WE'RE USING HERE, EVERYTHING FROM STUCCO TO STONE. YOU SEE THE WOOD. AND ROCK. AND SO, SOME TYPE OF VARIED EXPERIENCE WITH A LOT OF GLAZING, WE THINK, ELEVATES THE EXPERIENCE. WE'RE USING AN ARCHITECT WE'VE USED ON A HALF DOZEN PROJECTS IN CENTRAL TEXAS. AND THEN, I'LL NOTE THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT, BETWEEN THE ANCHORS AND THE MULTITENANT BUILDINGS, AGAIN, GOING BACK TO BEING COHESIVE IS THE GOAL OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO. ALL OF THIS IS COVERED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH OVER THE LAST COUPLE MONTHS. SO, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU, SIR. QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL? >> THIS MAY BE OUTSIDE THIS PRESENTATION. WHAT'S THE SCHEDULE FOR DOING THAT INTERSECTION WITH THE 79 AND FRONTAGE ROAD? >> THAT'S OUTSIDE. >> THAT'S OUTSIDE? SORRY. >> ALL GOOD. >> I NEED SOMEONE TO REIN ME IN. >> I APPRECIATE YOUR ELEVATIONS. YOU'VE ONLY BEEN WORKING ON THIS SINCE AUGUST, JULY. YOU'VE GOT ELEVATIONS. WE HAD STUFF WE WERE WORKING ON FOR TWO YEARS, WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A SITE PLAN, AND YOU'VE GOT TO WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE PICKED OUR CITY COUNCIL VEHICLES AND PUT THEM IN THERE AND GOT IT ALL DONE. I THINK THAT ADDS A LOT TO A PROJECT. TO SEE A PICTURE. >> SURE. >> BACKED UP BY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. >> YEAH, AND I'LL MENTION, YOU KNOW, TO THAT POINT, AS WE'VEWE'VE OBVIOUSLY BEEN MONEY ON THE DESIGN AND WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTANTS, AND SO OUR GOAL IS, OBVIOUSLY, JUMPING FROM HERE TO CLOSE LATE SUMMER, AND THEN OUR GOAL WOULD BE TO DELIVER EARLY SO THAT SPROUTS CAN OPEN BEFORE THE END OF '27. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO PASS RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-013 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? SECONDED BY POR TERFIELD. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. COUNCILMEMBER KING. [10.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-014 the Municipal Services Agreement by and between the City of Hutto and Cerco Development, lnc facilitating the provision of municipal services by the City of Hutto to the Property. (Sara Cervantes)] >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE ITEM 10.2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-014, THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO AND CERCO DEVELOPMENT, INC. , FACILITATING THE PROVISION OF MUNICIPAL SERVICES BY THE CITY OF HUTTO TO THE PROPERTY. >> HELLO ONCE AGAIN. SARA -- I'M JUST KIND OF KIDDING WITH YOU GUYS. SO, 10.2 IS EFFECTIVELY THE MUNICIPAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT'S NECESSARY FOR ANNEXATION. IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED BY BOTH SIDES. SO, IT'S READY FOR ACTION. AND THEN, THAT WOULD LEAD YOU TO 10.3, WHICH WOULD BE THE ACTUAL ANNEXATION. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY DISCUSSION? MOTIONS FROM THE COUNCIL? >> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-026-014 AS PRESENTED >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. ANY DISCUSS ON THE MOTION? PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. MAYOR SNYDER. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. COUNCILMEMBER [10.3. Conduct a public hearing and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2026-002 related to the annexation of a 10.83 acre and 3.17 acre tract of land located near the northeast corner of the State Highway 130 and State Highway 79 intersection and related action. (Sara Cervantes)] WARNER. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT ITEM, 10.3, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2026-002 RELATED TO THE ANNEXATION OF A 10.83-ACRE AND 3.17-ACRE TRACT OF LAND LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 130 AND STATE HIGHWAY 79 INTERSECTION AND RELATED ACTION. OPEN THE HEARING AT 8:20. ANYBODY THAT WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS ANNEXATION, COME FORWARD. SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:20, AND WE'LL OPEN THE ITEM UP FOR ACTION BY COUNCIL. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KING. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? >> JUST HAD A QUESTION. SO, THESE WILL BE ANNEXED AS B-2. WHAT ARE THE TYPES OF RETAIL THAT WOULD TYPICALLY GO IN AA B-2, AND DO WE KNOW WHAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED? >> IT'S THE GENERAL COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION. IT'S WHAT'S DESIGNATED FOR [01:20:01] THE OTHER RETAIL -- MAJOR RETAIL, LOWE'S, HOME DEPOT, SO FORTH. >> SO, I MEAN, IT KIND OF TALKS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, HAIR AND NAIL SALONS, TAX PREP SERVICES, RESTAURANTS, THAT KIND OF STUFF WOULD BE IN THERE? >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. COOL. >> PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. [10.4. Continue a public hearing and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-015 (originally submitted as R-2025-347) authorizing and creating the Stromberg Public Improvement District within the City of Hutto pursuant to Chapter 372, Texas Local Government Code. (Sara Cervantes)] >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT WE HAVE 10.4, CONTINUE A PUBLIC HEARING AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-015, ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED AS R-2025-347, AUTHORIZING AND CREATING THE STROMBERG PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY OF HUTTO PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 372, TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO COME UP AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AT 8:22? SEEING NO ONE, WHAT'S THE PROPER WORD? WE'LL ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO, WE HAD TALKED TO THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM ABOUT ADJOURNING -- FINAL ADJOURNMENT OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO GIVE US TIME TO WORK ON THE PID FINANCE AGREEMENT BEFORE CREATING THE PID, SO IF COUNCIL WANTS TO, THEY CAN HAVE A MOTION FOR FINAL ADJOURNMENT, AND THEN THE NEXT ACTION ON THIS ITEM WILL BE BROUGHT BACK WITH THE PID FINANCE AGREEMENT AND THE RESOLUTION TO CREATE THE PID. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 8:22. AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR FINAL ADJOURNMENT. OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THAT THE PROPER TERMINOLOGY? >> YES. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY MAYOR PROPRO THORNTON. ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, NORMALLY, WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND THEN WE GO INTO THIS PROCESS. THIS ONE GOT A LITTLE BACKWARDS, SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HELPS LEAD THE PID FINANCING. WE'RE GOING TO DO THE PID FINANCING AND ALL THAT TOGETHER AT ONCE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AND THEY HAVE THREE MONTHS TO COMPLETE THAT BEFORE WE START THE PROCESS ALL OVER. >> CORRECT. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION FOR FINAL ADJOURNMENT? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. [11. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS] >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT, WE HAVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS 11. 1 THROUGH 11.17. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM 11.1, 2, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. >> OH MY GOSH. SAY THAT AGAIN? >> SO, YEAH, TWO? >> 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. >> ANY OTHERS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE PULLED? >> THAT KIND OF COVERS IT. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 11. 3 THROUGH 11.9, 11.11, AND 11.17 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> PORTERFIELD, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. COUNCILMEMBER KING. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. ALL RIGHT, ITEMS 11. 1 AND 11.2. IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO TABLE THOSE UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 5TH MEETING. >> WHAT'S THE REASON? FOR TABLING? >> I CAN READ THEM -- I CAN GIVE A READ IN. [11.1. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-016 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment No. 3 with Freese and Nichols, Inc. for additional Design services in the amount of $501,280 for the CR 199 Reconstruction project (CIP T19-2024). (Patricia Davis)] LET'S DO THAT. WE GOT 11.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2026- 16, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS, INC., FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $501,280 FOR THE CR 199 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CIP T19-2024. I WAS HOPING FOR A LOT MORE INFORMATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS ROAD EVER TOUCHES A RAILROAD OR THE TXDOT ROAD BUT THE MAJORITY OF THE COST IS ASSOCIATED WITH COORDINATING WITH TXDOT AND THE RAILROAD. BUT I THINK HNTB IS THE ONE THAT'S HANDLING 1660 AND FRONT STREET AND 79, AND WE ALREADY PAID THEM EXTRA [01:25:03] MONEY TO DO ALL THE COORDINATING. SO, MY MIND, THEY'RE GOING TO STEP OUT A ROAD, AND FREESE AND NICHOLS IS GOING TO DO A ROAD THAT TIES INTO IT SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE PAYING TWO PEOPLE TO COORDINATE WITH THE RAILROAD TO THE TUNE OF HALF A MILLION DOLLARS. >> WOULD YOU LIKE FOR US TO ANSWER THAT HERE? OR DO YOU NOT WANT US TO? >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE INFORMATION FROM HNTB ALSO. WHATEVER YOU GUYS SAY, I'M GOING TO GO, WHAT ABOUT, WE PAID HNTB. I DON'T MIND SOME DISCUSSION. IN MY MIND, I'M GOING, LIKE, THIS IS $500,000 TO TO PAY TO HELP US COORDINATE WITH TWO ENTITIES WHERE THE ROAD DOESN'T TOUCH THEM. BUT I'M HAPPY TO -- IF YOU GUYS ARE READY TO DISCUSS IT TONIGHT, I'M HAPPY TO. >> DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE ON THE TABLE? >> TO - - YES. >> NO, WE DIDN'T DO ONE. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. FOR THE RECORD, PATRICIA DAVIS, INTERIM CITY ENGINEER. THE COUNTY ROAD 199199 AT THE INTERSECTION OF 79 AND FRONT STREET HAS GONE THROUGH SEVERAL, AS YOU STATED, ITERATIONS AND DESIGN CHANGES. SO, HNTB WAS RETAINED BY CITY OF HUTTO, PROBABLY, EARLY 2019, AND THE PROJECT HAS MORPHED AND THE ITERATION OF HAVING A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE INTERSECTION WITH 79 AND FRONT STREET WENT THROUGH MULTIPLE RENDITIONS, AND WHEN WE BROUGHT THE COUNTY ROAD 199 PROJECT IN 2024, WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS AS THE PRIME CONSULTANT AND OTHER SUB- CONSULTANTS, AT THE TIME, FREESE AND NICHOLS PROCEEDED WITH THEIR DESIGN, AND THE HNTB TEAM, WE DID AFA WITH THE TXDOT AND THE PROJECT WENT THROUGH AN ITERATION. TXDOT ADDED THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT THE TIME THAT THE FREESE AND NICHOLS TEAM COMPLETED THEIR 90% PLAN. AND SO, AT THAT TIME, THE PROJECT WAS PIVOTED. TXDOT BROUGHT ON A SUBCONSULTANT TO DESIGN A TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT FRONT STREET. THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WAS ADDED TO THE HNTB CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, BUT THE AFA AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH TXDOT, UPRR AND TXDOT WOULD NOT ALLOW THAT WE WOULD ADD THE IMPROVEMENTS OF THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, HEAD MODIFICATION, ALL THE INTERSECTION RESTRIPING OF THE INTERSECTION, AND PAVEMENT MARKINGS AND THE RIGHT TURN LANE WESTBOUND ON COUNTY ROAD 199 ON TO THE NORTHBOUND SOUTH OF 17 -- OF 79 FOR 1660 TO THAT CONTRACT. SO, AT THE TIME, WITH THE 90% PLANS, WE HAD TO REMOVE OUR INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AND THE PROJECT STARTS JUST EAST OF THE 79/1660 FRONT STREETSTREET WE HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION TO ADD THE SIGNAL HEADHEAD AND ALL IMPROVEMENTS SEPARATE. TXDOT IS REQUIRING THAT WE HAVE AN AFA WITH THEM IN ADDITION, THE MODIFICATIONS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, WE HAVE TO GO INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, BECAUSE THE TURN LANE THAT WE'RE ADDING, EASTBOUND -- NO, WESTBOUND, WILL CAUSE US TO BE WITHIN UPRR'S CONSTRUCTION RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM. AND THAT WILL GENERATE COST FOR OUR DESIGN CONSULTANT TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT. >> SO, THE EXHIBIT IN THE PACKET IS NOT CORRECT, THEN? >> THE EXHIBIT IS CORRECT, BUT THAT LAYOUT CAME FROM A COLLABORATION MEETING BETWEEN CITY OF HUTTO, HNTB, LJA AT THE TIME, TXDOT, UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD, AND FREESE AND NICHOLS. >> IT'S TITLED CR 199 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT. AND IT'S 199 AND THEN IT TURNS NORTH, AND IT DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT TURNS WEST. SO, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW, 700 OR A THOUSAND FEET AWAY -- >> IT'S BECAUSE THETHE SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE DESIGNED BY LJA AS THE SUB CONSULTANT THAT TXDOT HIRED FOR THE FRONT STREET, THE [01:30:01] SIGNAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION WILL BE THE FIRST COMPONENT OF THE HNTB 1660 AND 79 DESIGN PLANS. THE SIGNAL WILL GO IN FIRST, AND THEN THEY'LL MAKE ALL THE OTHER IMPROVEMENTS, AND THEN COUNTY ROAD 199, WE WERE GOING TO COME IN AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION, RESTRIPE AND REPAVE THE INTERSECTION TO PUT THE RIGHT TURN LANE IN. >> IT'S REALLY NOT 199 RECONSTRUCTION COSTS. WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING IS, DUE TO TXDOT OR WHOEVER, IT'S ACTUALLY ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE HAVE CHANGES BUT IT'S NOT PART OF THAT AGREEMENT, SO WE'RE BASICALLY PIGGYBACKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ON TO THIS AGREEMENT IN A MANNER TO GET IT DONE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> IS THAT A THIRD AGREEMENT? >> NO, SAME ONE, BUT HERE'S MY ISSUE, AND THIS IS PETTY. BUT I'VE BEEN CALLED WORSE. WHEN I GO INTO THE AIR, IT KIND OF MAKES IT LIKE THIS IS BECAUSE OF CITY COUNCIL. BECAUSE IT SAYS, DURING THE INITIAL PROJECT, ORIGINALLY 2024, THE DESIGN CONTRACTS WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS HAD SHOWN 100% PLANS, SPECS, COSTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THEN AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, DURING BUDGET DISCUSSIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025, CITY COUNCIL DETERMINED TO DELAY CONSTRUCTION SINCE CR 199 HAVEN'T OVERLAID THE PRIOR YEAR IN 2023. IT GOES ON, DUE TO DELAYS WITH TYPICALLY NORMAL ISSUES, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, AND THEN THERE'S FOUR PAGES OF ISSUES. TO ME, THE CITY COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS. I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT'S IN THERE. IF ANYTHING, THE CITY COUNCIL, HAD WE SAID, PROCEED, IN 2023 AND GET IT DONE, WE'D BE IN 2026 BEATING JAMES UP, GOING, THIS THUNG'S BEEN FUNDED AND WE CAN'T GET IT DESIGNED. WHEN ARE WE GOING TO GET THIS THING UNDER CONSTRUCTION? INSTEAD, WE TOOK THE STEP OF, AS I REMEMBER, HIT 1660 AND 79 FIRST, FOCUS ON THAT, AND THEN DO THIS. BUT LITTLE THINGS LIKE THAT, WHEN I FIRST WAS READING THAT, I WAS LIKE, THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH US. THIS HAS GOT TO DO WITH ENGINEERS, AND I GET THERE'S NOT A COORDINATOR, BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE MAKING MONEY, IT'S -- AND I THINK YOU'RE AN ENGINEER THAT'S HERE, AND I'M NOT SAYING THIS NECESSARILY TOTO YOU, BUT THE ONLY PEOPLE MAKING MONEY ON THIS IS THE ENGINEERS, BECAUSE MY GOD, FOR A RIGHT TURN LANE, SIGNAL HEAD, AND SOME -- AND SOME PAINT AND CONVERSATION WITH PEOPLE WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO, I'VE BEEN ON COUNCIL SIX YEARS. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON DESIGNING THIS INTERSECTION FOR SIX YEARS. WE COULD HAVE BUILT IT THREE TIMES AND ALL WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS GET THE STUFF IN. I TOLD JAMES, I HATE CHANGE ORDERS. I HATE SCOPE CHANGE. I GET IT. WE WANTED A SECOND LIGHT, TXDOT SAID NO, WE DESIGNED IT AND TXDOT SAID, ON SECOND THOUGHT, WE WANT YOU TO HAVE IT B. WE SPENT A HALF MILLION DOLLARS AROUND HERE LIKE IT'S NOTHING AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHAT OUR TOTAL ENGINEERING ISIS WHEN ALL DONE WITH THIS. BUT I DAMN NEAR WOULD SAY IT COST MORE THAN A CONSTRUCTION. BUT AGAIN, THAT'S NOT YOU. YOU'VE BEEN HERE A YEAR, AND YOU DIDN'T CAUSE THIS. ANYWAY. THAT DOES HELP A LOT. WE GOT TO FIGURE SOMETHING OUT TO WHERE WE'RE NOT -- NOW WE GOT ENGINEERS ENGINEERING OTHER PEOPLE'S PROJECTS BECAUSE IT'S SOME KIND OF SCOPE CHANGE. AND THEN I'M SURE THAT'S GOING TO -- THEY'RE PROBABLY CHARGING US EXTRA MONEY BECAUSE THEY GOT TO GET CAUGHT UP ON WHAT THEY DID, AND I'VE NEVER MET TWO ENGINEERS THAT AGREE WITH WHAT EACH OTHER DID. ONE ENGINEER IS LIKE, I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE IT THAT WAY, BUT BECAUSE THEY DID, WEWE TO DO THIS. ALL IT'S DOING IS CHURNING UP BILLS AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET A ROAD HERE. >> SO, POINT OF CLARIFICATION. THE REFERENCE FOR COUNCIL'S DECISION TO NOT PROCEED WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE COUNTY ROAD 199 PROJECT, THAT WAS JUST TO TRY TO REFERENCE THAT BECAUSE WE HAD ALREADY MADE IMPROVEMENTS ON COUNTY ROAD 199, IT WASN'T FEASIBLE FOR US TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DESIGN IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT WE WERE STILL COORDINATING UTILITY RELOCATIONS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITIONS AT THE SAME TIME. >> OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY, THE PUBLIC IS EXTREMELY SENSITIVE, AND THEY'RE HUNTING FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT'S SLOWING ROAD PROJECTS DOWN, AND I KEEP SAYING, MAN, WE'RE VOTING FOR EVERYTHING WE CAN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO. I ALWAYS GET NERVOUS WHEN THE PUBLIC SEES THAT WE VOTED TO, MAYBE, MAKE SOMETHING GET BACKED UP. I DON'T WANT ANYBODY MISCONSTRUING THAT. SEVEN OF -- SIX. THAT SIX OF US SCREWED THIS UP. >> AT THE SAME TIME, THE PROPOSAL IS AN APPROXIMATION OF THE COST AND EXPENSES THAT THE ENGINEERING CONSULTANT DETERMINED. BUT WHEN WE HAVE THOSE SPECIFIC MEETINGS WITH TXDOT, AS THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TEAM, WE WILL DO OUR VERY BEST IN OUR EFFORTS TO RESERVE FUNDS WHERE NECESSARY AND NOT SPEND THOSE FUNDS IF [01:35:01] THOSE PARTICULAR MEETINGS OR AGREEMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY. RIGHT NOW, THAT'S JUST THE PROPOSAL OF THE TIME THAT THOSE MEETINGS AND COLLABORATION WITH THE TXDOT TEAM AND THE COLLABORATIVE RESUBMITTAL PLANS TO REVIEW THE COST PROPOSED ON THAT. >> >> ANYBODY HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD ON THAT ONE? ALL RIGHT, IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, WE'LL ENTERTAIN ACTION ON THIS ITEM. >> YOU GUYS GOING TO MAKE ME MAKE THE MOTION ON IT TOO? >> YEAH. I'M NOT GOING TO DO THAT. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT 11.1 AS STATED. >> SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER -- YEAH. MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. SEE WHAT $500,000 DOES TO ME? GETS ME ALL TWISTED. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. [11.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-017 authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment No. 3 with Cobb Fendley and Associates, Inc. in the amount of $21,530 for Utility Coordination Services on the County Road (CR) 199 Reconstruction project (CIP Tl 9-2024). (Patricia Davis)] COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. 11.2. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-017 AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT NUMBER 3 WITH COBB FENDLY AND ASSOCIATES IN THE AMOUNT OF $21,530 FOR UTILITY COORDINATION SERVICES ON COUNTY ROAD 199 RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, CIP CIP CIP CIP T19-2024. AFTER EVERYTHING WE JUST SAID, WHAT DOES UTILITIES HAVE TO DO WITH THIS? WHY DO THEY NEED MORE MONEY TO DO WHAT THEY WERE ALREADY SCOPED TO DO? >> COUNCIL, FOR THE RECORD, PATRICIA DAVIS, INTERIM CITY ENGINEER. THIS AGENDA ITEM IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE DIFFERENT. IN YOUR PACKET, YOU HAVE A DESCRIPTION THAT THE PROJECT IN THE COORDINATION WITH THE HNTB TEAM AND THE DESIGN FOR THE INTERSECTION OF 1660 SOUTH AND 79 AND WITH THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE SURVEY, AND THE SURVEY DISCREPANCY IS CAUSING ADDITIONAL UTILITY COORDINATION AT THE INTERSECTION, AND THE SURVEY TEAM THAT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT DISCREPANCY IS AGREEING TO PAY FOR THESE FEES FOR THE COBB FENDLEY TEAM TO RESURVEY THE AREA. OR FOR THE UTILITY COORDINATION IN THE AREA THAT WE NEED. >> SO, THEY'RE AGREEING TO DO THAT, WHY ARE WE -- WHY DO WE HAVE THE ITEM? SHOULDN'T THAT BE TAKEN BETWEEN THOSE TWO GUYS? >> IT CANNOT BE DONE THAT WAY BECAUSE THE COBB FENDLEY TEAM HAS A DIRECT CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF HUTTO AND THERE'S NO WAY TO EXCHANGE THOSE FUNDS FOR THEM TO PERFORM THAT WORK ON OUR BEHALF. AND THEY'LL PROVIDE A CHECK WHEN WE MAKEMAKE REQUEST. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE LETTER OF COMMITMENT FROM THE SURVEY TEAM. >> SO, WE'RE TO BE REIMBURSED ONCE THIS IS COMPLETED? >> NO, WE'RE GOING TO REQUEST A CHECK BASED ON YOUR DECISION TONIGHT. >> WHICH IS REIMBURSEMENT, RIGHT? IF WE AGREE TO SPEND $21,000 AND CHANGE, ONE OF YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO GO BACK AND ASK THE SURVEYOR FOR $21,000 AND CHANGE. >> IT'S NOT REIMBURSEMENT IN THE TRUE SENSE. IT'S A, WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THE MONEY UNTIL WE WE THE MONEY. THAT'S WHAT SHE'S SAYING. SO, IT IS A NET WASH. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CUT THE CHECK TO COBB FENDLEY UNTIL WE GET THE MONEY FROM THE OTHER -- >> BUT, NET NET, ZERO COST TO THE ZERO. >> NET ZERO. >> OKAY. >> SO, FOR THE -- >> FOR THE FISCAL NOTE, IT SHOULD HAVE SAID THAT. >> THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HELPFUL. >> AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A YEAR, 2026, I'M JUST IN A BAD MOOD, BUT I FEEL LIKE EVERY CHANGE ORDER, WANT TO START KNOWING, EITHER, WE'RE SCOPING THE WORK WRONG, THE CONTRACTOR, CONSULTANT, WASN'T PAYING ATTENTION TO THE REQUEST, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, EVERY TIME WE HAVE AN INCREASE, I THINK THE CONSULTANT OR CONTRACTOR NEEDS TO COME UP AND -- BECAUSE THEY'RE MAKING ALL THE MONEY. WE'RE SPENDING IT ALL. AT SOME POINT, ONE OF THEM NEEDS TO LEAVE A PROJECT AND SAY, WE SCREWED THAT UP, AND WE LOST [01:40:02] MONEY. AGAIN T AGAIN, IT'S NOT YOU. IT'S ALWAYS SOMEONE SAYING, WE NEED ANOTHER $100,000, AND THIS IS A GOOD MOVE THAT YOU GUYS, WE'VE CAUGHT IT, YOU GUYS GOT THE SURVEYOR TO SAY, WE'LL PAY IT, OUR BAD. AND THEN THAT'S BETTER. BECAUSE I'M READY TO SUE SOMEBODY FOR NOT DOING THEIR JOB AT THIS POINT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2026-017 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KING. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. MAYOR SNYDER. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. >> I'M GLAD YOU ASKED ME ABOUT THAT BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE POSTPONED THOSE. WE MADE PROGRESS. [11.10. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-025 to approve amendments to the Policy and Procedure for managing Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Projects assigned to the Hutto Economic Development Corporation (HEDC). (Cheney Gamboa, Patricia Davis, Alberta Barrett)] I DO GOT TO MAKE SURE ONE OF THESE WAS SUPPOSED TO GET PULLED. ITEM 11.10. CONSIDERATION AND -- WAS THAT ONE OF THEM? >> YES. >> I WAS ASKED TO NOT DO THAT ONE? >> NO. >> YOU ASKED FOR IT. >> IT WAS PULLED. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, 11.10, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-025 TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS TO THE POLICY AND PROCEDURE FOR MANAGING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN PROJECTS ASSIGNED TO THE HUTTO ECONOMICECONOMIC CORPORATION. IT'S NOT READY, THIS IS MORE FOR AN UPDATE, RIGHT? YOU GUYS ARE STILL WAITING ON AN ATTORNEY? DID I READ THAT WRONG? >> THE HEDC LEGAL, AS OF THE POSTING OF THE AGENDA, HAD NOT RESPONDED. BUT YES. >> I'D LIKE TO -- IF THERE'S NO OBJECTION, I'D LIKE TO TABLE THIS. WHEN'S OUR NEXT EDC MEETING? >> FEBRUARY 9. >> SO, IF HE'S NOT RESPONDING, WE MAY HAVE TO TALK ABOUT GETTING -- FINDING SOMEONE WHO, I GUESS, CAN RESPOND. FEBRUARY 9TH. SO, HOW ABOUT WE TABLE THIS TO -- LET ME ASK YOU THIS. DOES IT HURT IF WE TABLE THIS? WE'VE ALREADY GOT STUFF IN MOTION. SO, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHO'S PAYING EVERYBODY BACK AND HOW IT'S WORKING. >> I DON'T SEE THAT IT'S AN ISSUE. >> OKAY. SO -- >> I CAN GET THE CALENDAR. I GET TO SAY THOSE THINGS AND ATTORNEYS HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE IT WORK. >> I'M OKAY WITH THAT. SO, I MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL FEBRUARY 19TH. >> SECOND. >> YOU SAID 19TH? >> I THINK THAT'S OUR NEXT COUNCIL÷÷ MEETING. >> OH, COUNCIL MEETING. >> AFTER THE EDC. >> EDC IS THE 9TH. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE TABLING OF THIS ITEM UNTIL THE 19TH? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. COUNCILMEMBER KING. MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. [11.12. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-027 authorizing an Interlocal Agreement (ILA) for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Atlas 14 Models with Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) survey data from Williamson County. (Patricia Davis)] COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. NEXT WE HAVE 11.12, ON RESOLUTION R-2026-027 AUTHORIZING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION, NO, NOAA, ATLAS 14 MODELS WITH LIGHT DETECTION AND RANGING SURVEY DATA FROM WILLIAMSON COUNTY. GREAT. IF I REMEMBER, THE FISCAL NOTE, YOU GUYS SAID BOND FUNDS. AND THAT'S WHERE I HAD THE PROBLEM. AND I WAS LIKE, WELL, WE HAD -- WE HAVE HAD SOME POSITIONS COME AND GO, AND WE HAVEN'T FILLED SOME POSITIONS ON TIME, AND I KNOW WE TWEAKED SOME STUFF BEFORE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE $130,000 COMING FROM SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN USING BOND FUNDS. >> FROM THE INTEREST FROM BOND FUNDS. >> THE INTEREST FROM BOND FUNDS. BECAUSE WE CAN USE THAT INTEREST ON -- >> WE'LL FUND IT SOME OTHER WAY. >> IF -- IF WE GET THE VOTES FOR THAT. THEY MAY SAY, JUST USE THE INTEREST. SO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED WITH THE FUNDING COMING FROM EXISTING. WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THAT? EXISTING DEPARTMENT? >> FUND BALANCE FROM GENERAL FUND BALANCE. >> GENERAL FUND BALANCE. >> SECOND. >> AND I WOULD JUST SAY THIS. IF IT COMES BACK AND YOU GUYS HAVE GONE THROUGH AND YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, CUT IT ALL, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH WHATEVER'S LEFT OVER. I JUST WANT TO CUT EVERYTHING ELSE FIRST AND THEN GO TO INTEREST. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> WHO WAS THE SECOND? >> PORTERFIELD. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON. MAYOR PRO TEM TORN THON. COUNCILMEMBER KING. COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. COUNCIL WARNER. [01:45:01] MAYOR SNYDER. COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. [Items 11.13 & 11.14] I'D LIKE TO READ 13 AND 14 TOGETHER BECAUSE I THINK YOU CAN'T REPEAL ONE WITHOUT DOING THE OTHER ONE. WE HAVE ITEM 11.13, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON IN ORDINANCE O-2026-003 TO REPEAL AND REPLACE SECTIONS 1.106. 031, 1.06.32, 33 AND 34 OF THE CITY OF HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING INCENTIVE PROGRAMS FOR THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT. 11.14. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER R-2026-028 TO APPROVE AND ADOPT A POLICY AND PROCEDURE IN SUPPORT OF SECTION 1.06.31, 32, 33, AND 34 IN THE CITY OF HUTTO CODE OF ORDINANCES REGARDING AN INCENTIVE PROGRAM FOR PROPERTIES AND BUSINESSES LOCATED ININ HUTTO'S DISTRICT. THIS IS BASED ON CONVERSATIONS AND MESSAGE BOARD. AND I THINK IT'S A GOOD START. I THINK IT'S TOO VAGUE. BECAUSE YOU CAN TELL ME IF I'M READING THIS WRONG. THE WAY I'M READING IT, WE HAVE VERY GENERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO MEET AND THEN IT'S MORE OF A ADMINISTRATIVE DETERMINE IF IT MEETS OR NOT. IS THAT SAFE TO SAY? >> WHAT STAFF TRIED TO DO WAS GIVE SOME EFFICIENCY AND FLEXIBILITY BETWEEN THE ORDINANCE AND THE POLICIES. SO, EFFECTIVELY, WE MADE THE ORDINANCE ITSELF VERY GENERAL, JUST THE EXISTENCE OF THESE POLICIES AND PROGRAMS FOR DOWNTOWN, AND THEN IN THE POLICIES THEMSELVES, IT CAPTURES ALL OF THE VARIOUSVARIOUS PROCEDURES, EVALUATIONS, THE AUTHORIZING DOCUMENT, WHICH IS A CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENT, THE APPLICATION FORM, THINGS LIKE THAT. THAT WAY, COUNCIL CAN ADJUST ANY OF THOSE POLICIES OR ANY COMPONENT THEREOF WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE ANOTHER CHANGE TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. SO, THE ORDINANCE IS INTENDED TO BE PRETTY GENERAL, AND THEN THE SPECIFICS COME IN IN THE CORRESPONDING POLICY AND PROCEDURES. >> AND THOSE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES ARE PART OF THIS, RIGHT? >> YES. >> OKAY, YEAH, AND I THINK -- YEAH. SO, THAT'S THE PART I THINK WE NEED SOMETHING. BECAUSE THE WAY I READ IT, ANYBODY CAN COME IN WITH ANYTHING, AND IF STAFF'S OKAY WITH IT, THEN IT'S GOING TO SHOW UP ON OUR RADAR TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE. AND I THINK THE CONSENSUS WITH THE PEOPLE IN DOWNTOWN IS THEY WANT SPECIFIC CHANGES, AND I THINK IF THE COUNCIL -- AND THIS IS WHY I GUESS WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IT. IF THE COUNCIL IS READY TO SPEND HALF A MILLION DOLLARS ON A BUILDING BUT STRUCTURALLY, IT'S STILL NOT SOUND, IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO? OR DO WE WANT TO HAVE REQUIREMENTS IN LIKE IT'S GOT TO PASS, YOU KNOW, A BUILDING STRUCTURAL TEST? THERE'S SOME THINGS IT'S GOT TO DO. BECAUSE THERE'S, LIKE, THREE BUILDINGS OVER THERE LEAKING WATER RIGHT NOW. I MEAN LIKE, THERE'S ISSUES. BUT EVERYBODY KEEPS SLAPPING UP, LIKE I THINK THERE'S A BUILDING ON THE CORNER, THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING TO THE OUTSIDE, BUT THE LAST WORK THEY DID ONLY LASTED A FEW YEARS. SO, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING FROM US. IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THAT KIND OF MONEY IN, ARE WE WANTING TO HAVE SOME REAL TEETH WHERE IN ORDER FOR US TO PONY UP BIG-TIME MONEY, YOU HAVE TO MAKE BIG- TIME CHANGES? OR ARE WE LOOKING AT JUST PUTTING BIG- TIME MONEY UP AND SOMEONE JUST DOING SOMETHING? AND THAT BEING GOOD ENOUGH? >> IF I UNDERSTAND THE MAYOR, I KIND OF AGREE. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND EDC DIRECTOR SAYING WE DON'T WANT TO HARD WIRE A BUNCH OF STUFF IN THE ORDINANCEORDINANCE THAT TO GET CHANGED ALL THE TIME, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE CONSTRAINTS, WHETHER IT'S REQUIREMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS, THAT WOULD GIVE US BETTER -- GIVE CURRENT COUNCIL AND FUTURE COUNCIL AND EDC DIRECTION ON WHAT THOSE POLICIES ARE GOING TO LOOK÷÷LOOK LIKE. I'D HATE TO GO IN AND, IF IT'S SO WIDE OPEN IN THE ORDINANCE, THAT A COUNCIL NEXT YEAR, WHATEVER THE MAKE- UP IS, THAT IS -- DOES SOMETHING REALLY KIND OF DIFFERENT THAN WHAT I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE IS. OBVIOUSLY, NOT LOSE THE UNDERSTANDING, WHAT'S THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE? DO WE WANT TO INVEST IN SOMETHING THAT MAY NOT BE A GOOD INVESTMENT? DO WE WANT TO HAVE A WIDE- OPEN SCOPE OF WHAT GOES ON DOWN THERE AND THEN MAYBE THINGS, OR DO WE WANT TO NARROW THE SCOPE? I'M NOT TRYING TO SAY WHAT THOSE ANSWERS ARE RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S JUST A PHILOSOPHY THAT I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE GUARDRAILS ON THE ORDINANCE AND HOWEVER THAT LOOKS LIKE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE NOW. AND THAT WAY, WE GET BETTER DIRECTION NOW AND IN THE [01:50:02] FUTURE OF WHAT THOSE POLICIES WILL LOOK LIKE. >> WHAT I'M THINKING IS WE TABLE IT AND MEET WITH -- I MEAN, MEET WITH SOME OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS OR REALLY NOT THE BUSINESS OWNERS. HONESTLY, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THEM. IT'S THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS. MEET WITH THEM AND GO, IF YOU'RE WANTING SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT FROM THE CITY INTO YOUR PROPERTY, BECAUSE IT WILL NOT INCREASE TAX REVENUE, SO IT'S, TO ME, IT'S A GIFT. THEN, I THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO HAVE THE -- HAVE THE DISCUSSION UP HERE AND ALSO WITH THEM, LIKE, IF YOU WANT A SIGNIFICANT GIFT FROM US, THE TAXPAYERS, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT IN. IT CAN'T BE, YOU PUT 200 GRAND IN AND GET 150 BACK AND MOVED A DENTIST IN THERE OR SOMETHING. THAT DOESN'T BENEFIT ANYBODY AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S, TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'RE LOOKING FOR -- >> WE'RE LOOKING FOR SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT ON THEIR PART, WHICH IS WHY OUR SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT ON OUR PART NEEDS TO BE VALUABLE. BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE STRUCTURAL, WE HAVE SOME BUILDINGS DOWN THERE THAT JUST HAVE PAINT OVER MDF AND THEN IT JUST GOES BAD. OR THEY JUST PUT SOME SPRAY FOAM BEHIND IT AND CALL IT GOOD. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR -- WELL, DON'T TAKE THIS THE WRONG WAY, DOWNTOWN. WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR LIPSTICK ON A PIG. WE'RE LOOKING FOR A BIG SHINY SHOW HOG. >> WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO -- THE REASON I'M THIS WAY IS I DON'T WANT TO PUT THE ONUS ON STAFF TO GO -- IT'S ALMOST LIKE IT'S SO BROAD THAT LET'S SAY YOU BRING US FIVE PROJECTS AND WE SHOOT THEM ALL DOWN, YOU'RE GOING TO GET FRUSTRATED AND GO, WHAT DO YOU WANT? I'M BRINGING YOU EVERYTHING. AND WE'RE LIKE, NO. WE'LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT. TO ME, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, LIKE, PREDEFINE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT THEN YOU CAN GO TO A BUILDING OWNER AND SAY, THEY'RE READY TO PONY UP REAL MONEY, BUT TO DO THAT, I MEAN, I HATE TO USE THE ONE BUILDING, I DON'T REMEMBER THE NUMBER AS THE EXAMPLE, BUT THEY TORE THE THING DOWN TO THE DIRT, FIXED A LEVELING ISSUE, FIXED A FLOODING ISSUE, PUT A NEW SLAP IN, STEEL, THAT THING WILL STAND A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW. BUT IT WAS LEANING. AND IT WAS BASICALLY THEY HAD TO DO IT. WELL, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR IS ALSO LEANING ON TO THE ONE THEY JUST BUILT. AND SO, TO ME, WHY PUT A SINGLE DOLLAR INTO THAT BUILDING UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO DO IT RIGHT? BUT THEN I THINK WE'RE GOING TO A COUNCIL, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE READY, AND THE PUBLIC, IF YOU WANT A DOWNTOWN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND SIGNIFICANT MONEY TO WHERE A HUNDRED YEARS FROM NOW, THEY'LL FORGET WHO WE ARE BUT THEY'LL GO, MAN, THESE BUILDINGS -- YOU KNOW THOSE METAL PLATES WHEN YOU WALK IN THE DOOR? THOSE ARE FROM THE 1800S. SOMEONE DID THAT RIGHT. IF YOU BUILT THAT TODAY, THAT WOULD GET WORN THROUGH AND THEY WOULD BE REPLACING THEM IN TEN YEARS. BUT THE STUFF THEY DID BACK THEN, THAT'S JUST AMAZING HOW LONG THEY LASTED. >> SO, IF I MAY, JUST TO CLARIFY SOME OF THE DIRECTION I'M HEARING, IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS REQUIRING AN INITIAL INSPECTION OF THE STRUCTURE WOULD BE HELPFUL. THAT WAY, WE HAVE A BASELINE OF NOT PUTTING LIPSTICK ON A PIG. THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO PAINT THE WALLS WHEN THE WALLS ARE CRUMBLING BEHIND THEM OR THE FRAMING IS CRUMBLING. SO, IS THAT SOMETHING GOOD? AM I ON THE RIGHT TRACK? >> PLUMBING'S GOT TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE. >> ELECTRICAL PROBABLY. >> DON'T EVEN CARE HOW MUCH IT COSTS. WE'RE READY TO HELP YOU DO THIS. >> IT'S LIKE AN AUDIT. >> OKAY. >> AS OPPOSED TO INSPECTION. YOU WERE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING, WEREN'T YOU? AND I GET IT. SOME PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE TURNED OFF BY THAT AND THAT'S OKAY BECAUSE I'LL BE HONEST, I DON'T WANT TO HELP SOMEONE WHO'S NOT THINKING LONG-TERM. I WANT THE NEXT GENERATION OF PEOPLE TO BE OWNING THE PROPERTY AND GO, I'M GOING TO STICK MY LIFE SAVINGS INTO THIS AND I'M NOT HERE TO FLIP IT. I'M HERE TO OWN IT, AND I'M GOING TO BE HERE UNTIL I DIE, AND THEN TO ME, THAT WARRANTS, I THINK, THE TAXPAYERS WILL THEN BE GOING, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? IF THEY'RE WILLING TO MAKE THAT COMMITMENT, BECAUSE THIS STUFF'S NOT PROFITABLE THE WAY WE'RE MAKING THEM DO IT. THEN I THINK THAT WE CAN SIT THERE AND SAY, WE'LL JOIN IN WITH YOU. OTHERWISE, SOME OF THE COUNCIL MAY NOT KNOW THIS. WE'RE LOOKING AT, ON THE EDC SIDE, POTENTIALLY REBUILDING THE EAST SIDE OF E STREET, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO GO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY BUILDING THAT AND THEN THETHE WEST IS CRUMBLING. I'D RATHER IT BE LIKE -- >> YEAH. AND THEN, THE OTHER THING I'M HEARING IS SOME KIND OF MINIMUM INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT? I THINK THAT'LL HELP, TO YOUR POINT, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE SERIOUS AND REALLY WANTING TO MAKE THE LONG- TERM COMMITMENT AND PONY UP THE FUNDS AND TIME TO DO IT. IF WE HAVE A MINIMUM INVESTMENT REQUIREMENT, LIKE A HURDLE EFFECTIVELY, FOR MAYBE THE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. >> IT COULD BE A DOLLAR -- >> MAYBE LOOK A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN AN INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> BE IT AN ACTUAL DOLLAR OR A PERCENTAGE. >> YEAH. >> LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, AND I'M GETTING PICKY, BUT WHEN WE SAY ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS, ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS MAY INCLUDE BUT NOT LIMITED TO EXTERIOR FACADE [01:55:02] IMPROVEMENTS. WHAT IS THAT? TO ME, IT'S GOT TO BE -- YOU'RE BASICALLY REBUILDING THE EXACT SAME THINGS ON THOSE BUILDINGS, BUT YOU'RE DOING IT WITH MATERIALS THAT, IN A WAY, WE'RE PICKING THAT ARE GOING TO LAST A WHILE. AND THEN, STRUCTURAL REHABILITATION, STABILIZATION, THAT'S WHERE THE REPORTING CANCAN IN. CODE COMPLIANCE, IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THEN YOU JUST GOT TO MEET WHATEVER THE LATEST, 2024, AND IF I WAS THEM, I'D HURRY UP AND DO IT NOW BECAUSE IT ONLY GETS WORSE. AND THEN, YEAH, THINGS LIKE THAT, TO WHERE THEY LITERALLY HAVE TO SIT THERE AND, LIKE, SWEAT ABOUT IT AND MAYBE THEY GET OUT AND SELL THE BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S A BAD THING FOR SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE JUST LETTING THEM ROT THERE. >> YEAH. AND THEN, SOME OF THE CONCERNS, TOO, ARE CAPTURED IN THE APPLICATION. SO, THE MATERIALS THAT ARE ELIGIBLE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR ANY OF THE FACADE IMPROVEMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE PROVIDED AS WELL IN THE APPLICATION. THAT'S WHERE I TRIED TO CAPTURE THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE MESSAGE BOARD AS WELL. >> YEAH, THAT'S, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WOOD OR ALUMINUM, CLAD WOOD WINDOWS WITH TRUE OR SIM ULATED DIVIDING LIGHTS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT THEY PROBABLY DO. FINISHES AND DETAILS. ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING FIXTURES WITH HISTORICAL STYLING. TO ME, I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CARES WHAT'S INSIDE THE BUILDING. IT'S OUTSIDE, IT MAY NOT BE -- THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE IT OUT. AND ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS, I FORGET HOW MANY THOUSANDS THEY SPENT ON A DOOR BUT THEY JUST DON'T MAKE 10- FOOT DOORS AT LOWE'S ANYMORE SO THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT. AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE, AS A COUNCIL, HAVE TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION THAT WE'RE GOING TO HELP PAY FOR THAT STUFF, BECAUSE THAT TEN- FOOT DOOR DOESN'T INCREASE RENTS. IT DOESN'T INCREASE RETURN. BUT WE'RE THE ONES THAT WANT THE LIKE A DOWNTOWN. >> BUT IS THAT RETURN ON VALUE OR -- RETURN ON EXPERIENCE. IF YOU HAVE A HISTORICAL- LOOKING DOWNTOWN, AND OBVIOUSLY, WE WANT TO -- YOU KNOW, WE HAVE PEOPLE WHO SERVE ON OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMITTEE, COMMISSION, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IMPORTANT TO THEM. YEAH, TO YOUR POINT, THE INSIDE, IT COULD ALL BE BRAND-NEW. BUT THE OUTSIDE IS BUILT WITH -- BUILT AND LOOKS LIKE MATERIALS LIKE IT WAS FROM WHENEVER, 19, 18-WHATEVER. >> ASSUME THE -- THAT ORDINANCE WOULD -- OR THAT POLICY WOULD INCORPORATE WHAT HBC KIND OF REQUIREMENTS -- >> THAT'S CAPTURED IN THE APPLICATION AS PART OF THE PROCESS, THAT THERE'S A VARIETY OF CHECKS IN THERE THAT NEED TO AND RECEIVED, LIKE CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS, AS APPLICABLE, AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, THOSE WERE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD FEEDBACK FROM. THIS BODY AS WELL AS SOME OF THE DHBA COMMENTS AND PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS AS WELL. THOSE ARE CAPTURED AS WELL. >> THANK YOU. >> SO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THESE TWO ITEMS UNTIL FEBRUARY 19TH. >> SECOND. >> WITH THE INTENT THAT -- THAT GIVES US TIME TO INDIVIDUALLY, WE CAN MEET WITH AND GET FEEDBACK FROM THE HBA. WE CAN ALSO GIVE YOU SOME SPECIFICS. AND I THINK THIS IS A TERRIFICALLY GREAT START BECAUSE THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S A WILLY- NILLY THING. BUT I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE DONE OVER THE TOP, YOU GOT THE APPLICATION OUT, AND A LOT OF THE STUFF IN. >> SO, JUST TO CLARIFY, IS COUNCIL PLANNING TO MEET WITH DHBA AND PROPERTY OWNERS? OR WOULD YOU LIKE STAFF, COMBINATION? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M EXECUTING -- >> I WOULD SAY A COMBINATION. IN YOUR REGULAR CONVERSATIONS, BECAUSE YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING TO -- SOME OF US ARE GOING TO GO TALK. >> YEAH. >> AND THEN WE CAN ALL KIND OF COME BACK ON THE MESSAGE BOARD AND FINISH IT UP. >> AND THAT'S FOR BOTH ITEMS 13 AND 14? IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.13 >> HEARING ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, CALL A BOAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. I WAS ASKED POLL 11.15 FOR NOW, IF IT'S OKAY WE WILL SKIP THAT UNTIL THE VERY END OF THE MEETING. >> NO, AFTER WE DO THE ORDINANCES FOR THE BONDS -- >> RIGHT, AFTER ITEM 13. >> AS PART OF 13? >> BEFORE 13, AFTER 12, AFTER 12 AND BEFORE 13. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> WE WILL DO 11.15, NO OBJECTIONS, AFTER 12 AND 13? >> YEAH. [11.16. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-030 to approve a Professional Services Agreement between the City of Hutto and the Hutto Economic Development Corporation. (Cheney Gamboa)] >> OKAY. >> OKAY, THEN, THAT BRINGS US TO [02:00:05] 11.15, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2026-029 APPROVING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT OF PUBLIC FUNDS FOR THE HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. I MIGHT -- I THINK I MAY BE PULLED THAT ONE, IN A RUSH TO PULL A BUNCH. >> OH, GOOD. >> I DIDN'T SEE MY NOTE FOR SOME REASON. >> SO, THIS IS THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF HUTTO -- THAT'S 12 BUCKS. BUT, ARE THERE ANY CHANGES FROM YEAR TO YEAR? OR -- I'M JUST CURIOUS. I MEAN -- >> DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, EDC LEGAL CONFIRMED IT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AGREEMENT THE CITY AND EDC HAD BEFORE, IT IS NOW JUST MADE EVERGREEN, SO EITHER BODY CAN TERMINATE OR MAKE CHANGES, AS NEEDED OR WANTED, BUT IT JUST MAKES IT AN EVERGREEN ANNUAL RENEWAL, AUTOMATICALLY. >> THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE A LEGAL ON, WE OUGHT TO LEGALIZE IT. >> NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. >> THE OTHER AGREEMENT WAS MORE SPECIFIC ON REIMBURSING THE CITY FOR THE ACTUAL COST OF THE SERVICES. THIS ONE CHANGES THE COST OF THE SERVICES TO A DOLLAR A MONTH. >> YES. >> $12. >> HERE IS WHERE I THINK WE GOT A LITTLE SIDEWAYS, THE OTHER AGREEMENT EXPIRED. >> CORRECT. >> SO, THE LACK OF HAVING AN AGREEMENT IS A PROBLEM ACCORDING TO THAT ATTORNEY AND BY DOING THIS, IT BRINGS US BACK INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE REIMBURSEMENT RULES OF THE STATE. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT, SORRY FOR ACCIDENTALLY PULLING THAT ONE. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER KING, ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? ALL RIGHT, HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? [12.1. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2026-004 authorizing the issuance of the City of Hutto, Texas Combination Tax and Waterworks and Sewer System (Limited Pledge) Revenue Certificates of Obligation, Series 2026; levying an ad valorem tax and pledging certain surplus revenues in support of the certificates; approving an official statement, a paying agent/registrar agreement and other agreements relating to the sale and issuance of the certificates; and ordaining other matters relating to the issuance of the certificates. (Alberta Barrett)] >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 5-0 POINT BRINGS US TO 12.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON O-2026-004 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, NATION TOXIN WATERWORKS AND SEWER SYSTEM LIMITED PLEDGE REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, SERIES 2026, LEVYING AN AD FOR LAUREN TAX AND PLEDGING CERTAIN SURPLUS REVENUES IN SUPPORT OF THE CERTIFICATES, APPROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A PAYING AGENT/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES OR AND ORDAINING OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATES. >> MAYOR, CAN YOU READ 12.2? THE PRESENTATIONS ARE TOGETHER. >> YES, MA'AM. ITEM 12.2, CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2026-005 AUTHORIZING THE ISSUE -- ISSUANCE OF CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS GENERAL ALLEGATION BONDS, 2026, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY AND AN AD VALOREM TAX IN SUPPORT OF THE BONDS, AWARDING THE SALE OF THE BONDS, APPROVING AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT, A PAYING AGENT/REGISTRAR AGREEMENT AND OTHER AGREEMENTS RELATING TO THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ALBERTA BARRETT, FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY. SO, TONIGHT, ON THE COS, THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, JUST A REMINDER, THIS WAS FOR THE WASTEWATER PROJECTS, WASTEWATER 10, WHICH IS SOUTHEAST LOOP WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR, WHICH IS ABOUT -- WELL, $24,907,609. WASTEWATER 11, WHICH IS THE BRUSHY CREEK INTERCEPTOR, $42,676,535. AND AVERY LAKE INTERCEPTOR PHASE ONE AND TWO, ONE BEING $8945, AND PHASE TWO AT $9,000,630. SO, THAT IS THE $7,000,559 $404. FOR $5 MILLION TO FUND THE DESIGN OF THE NEW JUSTICE CENTER, AND THAT WAS A BOND FROM 2018. >> OKAY, SO, THAT WILL FINISH ALL OF THE 2018 APPROVED FUNDING THAT IS AUTHORIZED, SO ONCE WE ISSUE THAT, THERE WILL BE NO MORE OF THE 2018, THEY WILL ALL BE GONE. SO, TONIGHT, WITH US -- WELL, TO BACK UP -- SO, THIS MORNING, WE HAD THE FINAL COMPETITIVE BIDS OPENED ON THE SALE OF THIS DEBT. SO, TONIGHT, [02:05:04] TO TALK ABOUT IT, WE HAVE OUR FINANCIAL ADVISER, JIM, WITH TALK, TO GO THROUGH THAT AND OF COURSE, BART FOWLER IS HERE AS OUR BOND COUNSEL, AND HE IS WITH MCCALL PARKERS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR HIM, AS WELL. SO, I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JIM. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, ALBERTA. GIEMSA BONUS WITH SECURITY ADVISER. THIS MORNING, WE RECEIVED BIDS FOR THE TWO ISSUES AT ORDINANCE 12.1 AND 12.2. WHAT THEY INVOLVE IS FUNDING $72,559,000 FOR UTILITY FUNDED INFRASTRUCTURE AND $5 MILLION FOR COMMUNITY PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEMS. THE PLAN WAS TO APPLY TO THE BOND AT HER COMPANIES AND RECEIVE COMPETITIVE BIDS. AND IT HAS BEEN A REALLY OUTSTANDING PROCESS. THIRST -- FIRST THING WE DID WAS GO TO OUR S&P RATINGS AND WE ARE PLEASED TO SAY WE WERE CONFIRMED AT AA MINUS BY S&P. THEY INDICATED IN THEIR REPORT, AND I ATTACHED IT AS AN DEPENDENCE TO THIS PRESENTATION, WE HAD THE DOUBLE MINUS STABLE OUTLOOK REFLECTS OUR GROWING AND DIVERSE ECONOMY. THE COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND POLICIES THAT THE CITY HAS. POSITIVE FINANCES FROM OUR GENERAL FUND, EXPECTED FOR '25 AUDIT AND BUDGETED FOR 2026 RESULTING IN HEALTHY FUND BALANCE RESERVES, SO THAT WAS A GOOD OUTCOME BASED ON THE MILD DEBT WE HAVE ISSUED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE ADDED TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT WE GET OUT OF THE COMPETITIVE SALE PROCESS, THERE IS A SYSTEM CALLED PURITY, PURITY IS THE WAY COMPETITIVE BOND SALES ARE DONE IN THE UNITED STATES. WE SUBMIT ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS, AND PURITY ACTUALLY INITIALLY SENDS AN EMAIL OUT TO EVERYONE IN OUR INDUSTRY, THEY INITIALLY CONTACT AND SEND EMAILS OUT TO 1865 INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE. OF THAT, WE CAN TRACK WHO LOOKS AT OUR DOCUMENTS, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD 250 INDIVIDUAL TAKE A LOOK AT OUR DOCUMENTS, AND THEY ACTUALLY VIEWED THEM ABOUT 360 TIMES. NOW, WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE? 100 VIEWS BY BROKER-DEALERS AND BROKER-DEALERS ARE UNDERWRITERS THAT BID ON OUR BONDS AND 159 VIEWS FROM BUYSIDE, THOSE ARE INVESTMENT FUNDS. SO, WE REALLY GOT GOOD DISTRIBUTION OF THAT PROCESS. AS A RESULT, WE HAVE ONE OF THE MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPETITIVE BOND SALES WE HAVE HAD IN SOME TIME. WE RECEIVED EIGHT BIDS AT OUR GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, THESE ARE THE WHO'S WHO OF THE REGIONAL UNDERWRITERS AND NATIONAL UNDERWRITERS THAT WE HAVE. AND THEN, WE RECEIVED 13 BIDS ON OUR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. AND THE IMPORTANT THINGS ABOUT THIS IS NOT JUST HOW MANY BIDS WE HAD, BUT HOW COMPETITIVE. I'M JUST GOING TO ILLUSTRATE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT ARE IMPORTANT. WHEN I TALKED TO ALBERTO, WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT METHOD OF SALE, WE GOT MARKETED BY UNDERWRITERS TO NEGOTIATE WITH THEM, AND IT MAKES SENSE. BUT, WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS SALE, WE HAVE A HIGH CREDIT RATING. EARLIER IN THE YEAR, IT WAS A QUIET TIME, AND WE NOTICED THAT IN THE FIRST TWO WEEKS OF THIS MONTH WE HAVE SEEN $1.5 BILLION ACTUALLY FLOW INTO MONEY MARKET MUTUAL FUNDS, A LOT OF MONEY AVAILABLE AND INTEREST RATES ACTUALLY START DROPPING. SINCE THE FIRST OF THE YEAR, THEY HAVE ACTUALLY DROPPED 15 BASIS POINTS, SO THERE IS TREMENDOUS DEMAND AND LIQUIDITY IN THE MARKETPLACE. IT IS APPARENT BY THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND, BUT YOU LOOK AT THESE BIDS -- I WILL START BY SAYING, GO BACK TO CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, AND YOU LOOK AT THE SPREAD BETWEEN WINNING AND THE SECOND BID, JUST ONE HUNDREDTH OF A BASIS POINT, REALLY TIGHT. ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, SOMEBODY BOUGHT THROUGH THE MARKET. YOU CAN SEE THAT BE OKAY CAME THROUGH AND THEY ARE EIGHT BASIS POINTS LOWER. EIGHT BASIS POINTS IS A BIG DISPARITY WHEN WE ARE BIDDING ON THESE BONDS. THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT WANT THESE BONDS, WE HAD GOOD BIDS. BUT, AGAIN, WHAT DO THE BIDS MEAN? WE HAD A PLAN WITH FINANCE AND THIS ACTUALLY SHOWS THE FINAL TRANSACTIONS WE HAVE DONE. WE SOLD 70 MILLION APPROXIMATE OF OBLIGATION. THEY WERE PRICED AT A PREMIUM, WE RECEIVED $3,000,991,000 PREMIUM, RESULTING IN TOTAL PROCEEDS OF 74,036,156 AFTER PAYING THE COST OF ISSUANCE, UNDERWRITERS DISCOUNT ON THAT, WILL FUND OUR 772 BOND FUND. SO, WE ARE SELLING LAST BONDS THEN PROJECT FUNDS BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING A [02:10:03] PREMIUM. THIS COULD HAVE A 25 YEAR AMORTIZATION AND ALL OF THE INCLUDED COSTS CAME OUT TO 4.17%. OUR PLAN OF FINANCE WE PRESENTED IN THE FALL TO YOU ACTUALLY INDICATED A 4.92% ALL IN INTEREST COST, ABOUT 75 BASIS POINTS CHEAPER THAN THAT, ABOUT 75 BASIS POINTS CAN MAKE THIS BIG OF A DIFFERENCE. OUR PLAN AT FINANCE INDICATED $130.4 MILLION OF PRINCIPLED INTEREST, WE ACTUALLY CAME IN AT $120.4 MILLION. WE ARE APPROXIMATELY $10,070,000 LESS THAN WAS INDICATED IN THE PLAN OF FINANCE. THE MARKET HAS BEEN FAVORABLE. NOW, WHEN WE DID A PLAN OF FINANCE, FULL DISCLOSURE, WE ACTUALLY BUFFETED BY 25 BASIS POINTS AND THE OTHER 50 BASIS POINTS, ABOUT 50 BASIS POINTS OF ACTUAL MARKET MOVEMENT FROM THE DATE WE RAN THAT PLAN OF FINANCE TO TODAY, AND THE OTHER WAS A GOOD RATING AND THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT FORWARD WITH. SO, WELL PRICED. ON THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WE ACTUALLY HAD $4,715,000, WE WILL RECEIVE A PREMIUM OF $400,000. SO, AT CLOSING, WE WILL RECEIVE $5,131,000 TO FUND A $5 MILLION PROJECT FUND. EXACT AMOUNT OF OUR AUTHORIZATION, PAY THE COST OF ISSUANCE, AND IN THIS CASE, INTERESTINGLY, WE WERE QUALIFIED BY ALL FOUR AA BOND INSURERS. THEY ACTUALLY PROVIDED BIDS TO THE MARKETPLACE AND THE WAY THIS WORKS IS, WE LOOK AT -- ACTUALLY, IT IS THE BIDDERS OPTION, IF THEY CHOOSE TO BUY INSURANCE AND WHO THEY BUY INSURANCE FOR. THE WINNING BIDDER PURCHASES INSURANCE, IT'S INCLUDED IN THE COST, AND OF THE COSTS, IT STILL HAVE THE LOWEST PRINCIPLE. SO, THIS TRANSACTION, ENDED UP WITH AN ALL INCLUSIVE COST OF 3.9%, OUR BUDGET WAS 4.9%, WE ACTUALLY SAVED ABOUT $749,000 IN PRINCIPAL INTEREST, ABOUT 10% OF THE PRINCIPAL INTEREST OF THE WHOLE TRANSACTION. THE REASON INTEREST WAS THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS VERSUS CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION, THERE IS A 20 YEAR AMORTIZATION, AND YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE SMALL POWER MOUNTS ON THE INDIVIDUAL MATURITIES, REGIONAL, MOSTLY FOCUSED ON REGIONAL, INVESTMENT BASED, BECAUSE IT IS KIND OF RETAIL TRANSACTIONS THEY BUY, SO $70 MILLION TRANSACTION, SOME OF THE SUPER REGIONALS BELONG TO WALL STREET FIRMS BECAUSE IT WENT TO INSTITUTIONAL AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION AND INSURANCE DOESN'T MATTER TO THEM. SO, IN SUMMARY, IF YOU PASS THE ORDINANCES TONIGHT, THESE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO YOUR BOND COUNSEL, HE HAS FINALIZED THE DOCUMENTS, AND HE WILL SUBMIT THEM TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, ATTORNEY GENERAL WILL REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS AFTER APPROVAL. WE ARE TARGETING A CLOSING ON THE 18TH OF FEBRUARY. IN SUMMARY, WE HOPE TO HAVE OUR BOND RATING CONFIRMED, VERY POSITIVE, ALL FOUR INSURANCE FIRMS ACTUALLY APPROVED US. WE GOT GOOD INTEREST WHEN WE ACTUALLY PUBLISH OUR DOCUMENTS, AND 13 BIDS, IT'S THE MOST I HAVE SEEN IN A COUPLE OF YEARS, EIGHT BIDS IS A LOT ON THE TRANSACTION. THEY WERE COMPETITIVE, THEY WERE BETTER THAN WE ANTICIPATED, SO AS YOUR FINANCIAL ADVISER, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ALBERTA AND HER FINANCE TEAM, BOTH FOR HELPING US GATHER INFORMATION, JAMES AND ALBERTA DURING THE DISCUSSION THAT MADE IT SUCCESSFUL, AND WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I'M VERY PLEASED TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU TODAY. >> THANK YOU. QUESTION OR DISCUSSIONS FROM COUNSEL? >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION -- WELL, THERE IS A SPECIAL WAY WE HAVE TO DO THIS, RIGHT? FOR THOSE BONDS, WE CAN'T TO SAY, "MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE," BLAH, BLAH, BLAH -- IS THERE A -- >> NO. >> FOR THE RECORD, WE SERVE THE CITY AS BOND COUNCIL AND NO, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC LANGUAGE YOU NEED TO USE FOR THE MOTION. TYPICALLY, YOU SAY A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE DRAFT, IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET HAS A LOT OF BLANKS IN IT AND THOSE PLANS RELATE TO THE PRICES AND INFORMATION THAT JIM JUST WENT OVER FOR YOU ALL, SO, IT DID NOT HAVE TIME TO GET IN YOUR PACKET AS A REPLACEMENT, SO A SIMPLE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WOULD BE ENOUGH. >> YEAH, THEY HAVE TO BE SEPARATE. >> SO, MOTION TO APPROVE O-2026-004 AS PRESENTED? >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS PRINT >> IF THIS PASSES, IS THIS A VOTE FOR BONDS? >> WELL, YOU VOTED FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER, NOT ROADS. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? GREAT. HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. [02:15:05] >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. [12.2. Consideration and possible action on Ordinance No. O-2026-005 authorizing the issuance of City of Hutto, Texas General Obligation Bonds, Series 2026; authorizing the levy of an ad valorem tax in support of the bonds; awarding the sale of the bonds; approving an official statement, a paying agent/registrar agreement and other agreements relating to the sale and issuance of the bonds, and ordaining other matters relating to the issuance of the bonds. (Alberta Barrett)] >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 7-0. NOW, 12.2. ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION ON THAT ONE? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE ORDINANCE NUMBER O-2026-005 AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> MOTIONED BY COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD. ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. [Items 11.15 & 13.1] >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> ITEM PASSES, 7-0. WE ARE COMING A LONG WAY, NORMALLY WE ARE TRYING TO MOVE STUFF UP SO WE CAN GET PAST MIDNIGHT, HERE. SO, NOW, WE HAVE TO DO 11.15. CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION R-2026-029 APPROVING AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GRANT. OF PUBLIC FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $9,938,000 APPROVING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE HUTTO ECONOMIC CORPORATION, HEDC AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY AGREEMENTS RELATED THERETO, APPROVING THE RELATED EXPENDITURES OF THE HEDC FOR THE SOLE USE TO FUND THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRUSHY CREEK WASTEWATER INTERCEPTOR PROJECT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION R-2026-029 AS PRESENTED? >> SECOND.. >> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER KING, ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> NÉE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES, 6-1. NOW, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 13.2, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON R-2026-031 TO ADOPT -- WAIT, WE ARE NOT DOING THAT ONE? >> WAIT, I THINK YOU SKIPPED ONE. >> IT WAS -- >> HEY, MAYOR. >> WE DID 11.15. 11.13 IS THE SAME THING, EXCEPT THE CITY WOULD BE BIDDING THE PROJECT. SO, 11.13, IS NO ACTION. >> OH, OKAY, THIS IS IF THE OTHER ONE DIDN'T PASS? >> CORRECT. COUNCIL WANTED THE CITY TO DO THE PROJECT AND NOT THE EDC. >> OH, I SEE. >> WE DON'T HAVE TO VOTE IT DOWN? IT'S JUST NO ACTION? >> YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE NO ACTION. >> OH, I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, THAT [13.2. Consideration and possible action on Resolution No. R-2026-032 to adopt the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan. (Patricia Davis)] MAKES SENSE. >> 13.2, WELCOME BACK. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. PATRICIA DAVIS, INTERIM CITY ENGINEER. THIS A.D.A. SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN PRESENTATION IS A FOLLOW-UP TO THE PRIOR PRESENTATION OF THE INITIAL RESULTS. THIS IS THE FINAL VERSION. IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY OUR LEGAL TEAM. IT IS THE COMPILATION OF OUR TRANSITION PLAN WITH ACTIONABLE ITEMS. THIS A.D.A. TRANSITION PLAN IS JUST THE FIRST DRAFT OF OUR EVALUATION OF COMPONENTS TO TRY TO MEET THE A.D.A. GUIDELINES, AND WE HAVE AARON URICH WITH KIMBERLY HORN. SHE WILL GO THROUGH THOSE SLIDES AND PRESENT THOSE FINAL RESULTS. >> GOOD TO SEE EVERYONE AGAIN. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE. AARON URICH WITH KIMLEY HORN AND AS MS. DAVIS MENTIONED, THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION. SO, WE WANT TO RECAP WHAT THE REQUESTS WERE FROM COUNCIL, AND WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES, JUST A REFRESH OF WHAT WE PRESENTED LAST TIME, AND THEN WE WILL REFRESH THE [02:20:02] IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULES THAT COUNCIL HAD REQUESTED AND THEN ALSO GO OVER THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR COUNCIL AT THE END. SO, THE PREVIOUS REQUESTS THAT WE RECEIVED WERE TO DEVELOP A THREE, FIVE, AND SEVEN YEAR IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION, TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE NEEDED TO GO INTO THE TRANSITION PLAN. THE ASK WAS TO INCORPORATE ANNUAL SIDEWALK/CIP BUDGET, WHICH IS CURRENTLY $500,000 PER YEAR. AND THEN, INCREASE THAT FROM THAT $500,000 TO THAT $750,000, AND THEN TO $1 MILLION IN YEAR TWO, AND THEN INCREASE TO $1.5 MILLION IN YEAR THREE AND BEYOND. SO, AS WE GO THROUGH THE IMPLANTATION SCHEDULES, WE DID INCORPORATE ALL OF THESE REQUESTS FROM COUNCIL, AND THERE ARE GOING TO BE THOSE THREE OPTIONS, AND THAT IS WHAT WE WANT YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER FOR INCORPORATION TO THE FINAL PLAN. SO, JUST A REFRESH, THIS IS NOTHING NEW. IT'S JUST A REMINDER ABOUT THE BUILDING, PARK, AND TRAIL IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY BECAUSE WE WILL SHOW THIS IN YEAR THREE AS EVERYTHING GETTING COMPLETED, BUT YOU MIGHT WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT GETS DONE FIRST, BECAUSE IT ISN'T EVERYTHING ALTOGETHER. SO, LOOKING AT EXISTING COMPLAINTS THAT MIGHT BE OUT THERE, PUBLIC INPUT, THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE PRIORITIES, MAKING SURE THAT SOMEONE CAN PARK AND GET FROM THE PARKING TO THE BUILDINGS. SEVERITY OF NONCOMPLIANCE, BASED ON ALL THE EVALUATIONS WE DID, WHERE ARE YOUR BIGGEST AREAS OF RISK? AND THEN, IF THERE IS A PROGRAM, SERVICE, OR ACTIVITY USED AT ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS, PARKS, OR TRAILS, THAT IS GOING TO INCREASE THE RISK, SO WE WANT TO GET THOSE COMPLETED, FIRST. AND THEN, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE IS AVAILABLE FUNDING, WE HAVE ALREADY PROGRAMMED FOR THESE IMPROVEMENTS, LIKE GRANTS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THOSE GET USED, AS WELL. AND THEN, PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY IMPLEMENTATION, VERY SIMILAR. SOME OF THE UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS HERE WOULD BE THE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR GENERATORS. IF YOU RECALL, THE EVALUATIONS THAT WE DID FOR PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY TO BEGIN WITH, WERE BASED ON PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS, JUST SO WE COULD SELECT WHAT GOT EVALUATED FIRST. BUT, OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WOULD BE THE PEDESTRIAN VEHICLE VOLUMES, AGE OF THE FACILITY, IF IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS OLDER, IT MIGHT HAVE MORE ISSUES, MIGHT NEED TO BE REPLACED BEFORE SOMETHING THAT IS NEWER. AND THEN, IF THERE IS A MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY VERSUS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT -- AND I WILL TOUCH ON THAT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES -- AND THEN, JUST LIKE WITH THE BUILDINGS, PARKS, AND TRAILS, IF THERE IS AVAILABLE FUNDING, MAKING SURE TO UTILIZE THAT. SO, THE FIRST SCHEDULE FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE THREE-YEAR, AND WE ARE ASSUMING THAT FISCAL YEAR '27 WILL BE THE FIRST YEAR WHERE THERE IS NO BUDGET CHANGES NEEDED TO ALREADY APPROVED BUDGETS. BUT, YOU CAN SEE THAT FOR BUILDINGS AND TRAILS IN THAT FIRST YEAR, EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE INCLUDED THAT WE PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, THAT TOTAL BUDGET FOR THAT. IT IS ALSO GOING TO INCLUDE THAT INITIAL FIRST $500,000 FOR SIDEWALK CORRIDORS, AND THEN IN YEAR TWO, IT WOULD BE ALL OF THE PARKS. AND THEN, FOLLOWING THAT UP WITH $1 MILLION WORTH OF SIDEWALK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS. AND THEN, YEAR THREE, IT'S THE REMAINDER OF THOSE PARKS, AND THEN THAT $1.5 MILLION WORTH OF SIDEWALK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENTS. WE DID PULL OUT THE SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES, SO THIS IS ONLY LOOKING AT CIP BUDGET, AND THAT WAS ROUGHLY $1 MILLION, WHEN WE HAD PRESENTED IT PREVIOUSLY, IN THAT $7 MILLION TOTAL, THAT WAS -- THE MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES WERE INCLUDED. SO, ONE THING I WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE NEED TO COMPLETE THE TRANSITION PLAN BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAY EVALUATIONS THAT HAD REMAIN UNTOUCHED, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER ACTIVITIES LISTED OUT ON THIS SLIDE. THE REASON WHY I BRING THIS UP IS THAT IN THE FIVE YEAR SCHEDULE, I JUST HAD RECAPPED THE $7 MILLION THAT WE PRESENTED THE FIRST TIME, FOR EVERYTHING THAT HAS BEEN EVALUATED, TO DATE. SO, THAT LAST LINE ITEM YOU SEE FOR FISCAL YEAR FIVE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED, YET. SO, THERE IS A NEED TO IDENTIFY BARRIERS, ONCE YOU GET DOWN TO YEAR FIVE, BUT YEARS ONE THROUGH THREE ARE IDENTICAL, AND THEN WE ARE MAINTAINING THAT $1.5 MILLION OF CIP FUNDS FOR YEARS FOUR AND FIVE. AND THEN, YEAR SEVEN, AGAIN, YEARS ONE THROUGH FIVE ARE THE SAME AS THEY WERE, PREVIOUSLY. AND THEN, WE ARE JUST ADDING ON ANOTHER $1.5 MILLION FOR YEARS SIX AND SEVEN. SO, THE CONSIDERATIONS FOR COUNCIL IS, SELECTING WHICH IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE YOU PREFER. RIGHT NOW, YOU WILL SEE ALL THREE OF THEM IN THE TRANSITION PLAN DRAFT THAT WE [02:25:04] PRESENTED. ONCE COUNCIL MAKES A DECISION, WE WILL KEEP THE ONE THAT IS TO REMAIN IN THERE, AND THAT WILL REMAIN THE REVISED, FINAL VERSION. ONCE THAT IS DONE, AND AS PART OF THIS ASCOT TONIGHT, WE WOULD LIKE THE APPROVAL AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE A.D.A. SELF-EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN, KNOWING THAT CHANGE WILL BE MADE. I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM. >> JUST A CLARIFICATION, JUST TO REVIEW, THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT-OF-WAY REVIEW -- WE HAVE 175 MILES TOTAL, APPROXIMATELY, AND LAST TIME I REMEMBER, WAS IT 16 MILES THAT HAD BEEN DONE, SO FAR? >> I THINK IT WAS DONE. >> 12 MILES, SO ABOUT 8%. OKAY. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER THOMPSON IS NOT HERE ANYMORE, AND I THINK HE IS THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP, LET'S HAVE A THREE, FIVE, AND SEVEN. I GUESS, IN MY MIND, I WAS THINKING IF WE HAD A SEVEN YEAR PLAN, IT WOULD BE LESS COSTS EACH YEAR, AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE JUST KEPT THE SAME THREE-YEAR PLAN, WE JUST ADDED, LIKE, A PLACEHOLDER FOR $1.5 MILLION HERE. FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, OR FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, IS THAT ABOUT RIGHT? >> YES, AND I BELIEVE THE BUDGET ON THAT WAS ALREADY ALLOCATED FOR THE SIDEWALK CIP IMPROVEMENT, SO TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THOSE FUNDS THAT ARE ALREADY ALLOCATED, BUT WITH THE INTENT OF INCREASING THE DOLLAR AMOUNT, BECAUSE THIS NEEDS TO BE COMPLETED. >> WELL, I GUESS I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO DO ANYTHING MORE THAN THREE-YEAR, BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T KNOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO OUTSIDE OF THREE YEARS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> AND COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS AND I WENT ON A PRETTY LONG MARCH THROUGH SAN ANTONIO, AND I WAS SHOWING HIM, I SAID, LOOK, I THINK EVERY CITY HAS GOT ISSUES, BECAUSE -- I WAS LIKE, I DON'T THINK -- THERE WAS, LIKE, ONE PATH THAT WAS MAYBE A.D.A. COMPLIANT. THE REST OF IT, IT WAS, LIKE, MAILBOXES IN THE MIDDLE OF SIDEWALKS, TELEPHONE POLES IN THE MIDDLE OF SIDEWALKS, THERE ARE SIDEWALKS THAT DON'T EXIST WHERE YOU ARE WALKING ON DIRT. IT'S JUST CRAZY. SO, I THINK ANYTHING WE DO, YOU KIND OF ALLUDED TO THAT, THE BIGGEST THING IS, WE JUST NEED A PLAN, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE. AND AS LONG AS WE ARE ADDRESSING COMPLAINTS, AND FOCUS AREAS, THIS IS NOTHING WE ARE GOING TO GET COMPLETED IN THE NEXT FIVE, 10, WHATEVER YEARS. IT IS, LIKE, AN ONGOING, FOREVER -- EITHER TAKE A NEW STEP AND MAKE AN A.D.A., OR REPAIR AN OLD STEP THAT IS NOW OUT OF COMPLIANCE, IS THAT SAFETY SAY? >> YES, IT WILL BE A LIVING DOCUMENT BUT YOU DO WANT TO PLAN AND YOU DO WANT TO WORK TOWARD IMPLEMENTATION. >> YEAH, I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR ABOUT THE THREE-YEAR PLAN. MAYBE THIS IS JUST AS CITY MANAGER, BUT TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, $5.1 MILLION IN THREE YEARS, WHERE ARE WE GOING TO GET THIS MONEY FROM? >> CITY MANAGER, FOR THE RECORD. IT'S AN IMPORTANT QUESTION TO ASK AND I'M GLAD Y'ALL DID ASK IT, BECAUSE IN THE PAST, IT HAS BEEN EASY FOR COUNCIL, NOT NECESSARILY THIS COUNCIL, BUT FOR COUNCIL'S TO JUST SAY, "YEAH, WE WANT TO DO THIS, FORGET ABOUT THE EXPENSE." AND THEN -- >> AND LET ME CLARIFY, I AM FOR THIS, IT'S JUST THE MONEY. YEAH. WE HAVE REALLY MADE THE BUDGET VERY LEAN. I KNOW THERE'S SOME SEMANTICS AND THINGS PEOPLE WOULD DEBATE AND ARGUE ABOUT. >> I AGREE. >> SO I AM ANTICIPATING ROUGHLY ABOUT $500,000 OF NEW MONEY THIS YEAR FOR EVERYTHING THAT THE CITY NEEDS. SO, IF WE GIVE $500,000 OR A MILLION DOLLARS TO THIS, I'M CUTTING $500,000 FROM OUR EXISTING BUDGET, OR WE'RE SERIOUSLY TALKING ABOUT RAISING TAXES. THAT'S BASICALLY -- OR FINDING ANOTHER FUNDING SOURCE. THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION TOO. >> WELL, I GUESS HERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION. YOU CAN ALWAYS UNDERPROMISE AND OVERDELIVER. IT'S TOUGH TO, YOU KNOW, OVERPROMISE AND OVERDELIVER. MAYBE I JUST SAID THAT THE SAME WAY TWICE IT HAVE OVERPROMISE AND UNDERDELIVER. >> YOU GUYS OT IT. TO ME, IF WE PASS A PLAN THAT'S FOCUSED ON COMPLAINTS FIRST, WHICH IS A NO- BRAINER, [02:30:03] AND THEN WE FOCUS ON -- START SPENDING OUR MONEY ON THE THINGS THAT THE DOJ OR WHOEVER IT IS IS FOCUSING ON, THEN TO ME, IF WE JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO DO, SAY, HALF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR IN SIDEWALKS AND CORRIDORS, EACH YEAR, AS IT COMES UP, WE CAN ALSO ALWAYS ADD MORE. BUT IF WE SET IT UP FOR $1.5 MILLION, TO ME, IT'S GOING TO BE VERY TOUGH TO COME BACK AND GO, WELL, THAT'S THE FIRST THING WE'RE GOING TO CUT. NO, WE'RE GOING TO CUT EVERYTHING ELSE BECAUSE YOU GUYS MADE US PROMISE, AND TO ME -- I DON'T KNOW -- I GUESS, TO ME, I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT CHANGING, THE WAY WE'RE DOING THINGS, OTHER THAN WE HAVE A PLAN AND WE'RE MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE MONEY AS NOW. I THINK WHEN WE SPENT HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, IT WENT TO ONE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SPENT A HALF MILLION DOLLARS ON SIDEWALKS THERE AND I REMEMBER ASKING, WHY'D WE PICK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD? DID WE ASSESS THE ENTIRE CITY, AND THAT CAME OUT TO BE THE ONE? WE DIDN'T REALLY HAVE AN ANSWER. SO, WHAT I HOPE OUT OF THIS IS WE JUST GOT MORE SPECIFIC ON WHAT WE DID, THAT WOULD BE BETTER. AND WE COULD ALSO THROW MONEY FROM, LIKE, PID MONEY AND THINGS, NEW CONSTRUCTION, WE CAN THROW THAT. WE JUST HAD A MILLION DOLLARS, MAYBE, COMING. SO, FOR ME, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PLAN TO WHERE IT'S, IT'S WHAT YOU'VE GOT HERE ON THE THREE-YEAR PLAN, BUT THE SIDEWALK AND CORRIDORS IS HALF A MILLION A YEAR. WE'D ADOPT THE REST OF THE PLAN, AND EACH YEAR, WE'RE LOOKING AT HOW TO TAKE OTHER MONEY AND PUT IT TOWARDS SIDEWALKS. AND I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARILY -- I'M NOT SAYING I'M NOT FOR THE ADA. EVERYBODY'S WANTING MORE SIDEWALKS IN THE CITY ANYWAY. SO, IT'S A PRIORITY OF OUR CITY TO PUT SIDEWALKS IN. IT'S JUST MAKING A COMMITMENT AND A PLAN AND KNOWING WE CAN ALWAYS OVERFUND IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WORKS. BUT IS THAT -- >> I THINK IT'S A GOOD PLAN, GIVEN THAT EVERY THREE YEARS IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR WHEN YOU WOULD UPDATE YOUR SELF- EVALUATION AND TRANSITION PLAN. SO, I WOULD SAY, PUT THIS IN THERE, AND THEN MAKE THE COMMITMENT THAT YOU ARE GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT $500,000 A YEAR EVEN BEYOND THIS SCHEDULE, AND THEN AT YEAR THREE, REVISIT TO SEE IF IT IS FEASIBLE TO INCREASE THAT FUNDING BASED ON THE ITEMS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT. BUT PUTTING THIS IN THERE TO AT LEAST KNOCK OUT THE BUILDING TRAILS AND PARKS OVER THE FIRST THREE YEARS, AND THEN TACKLING THE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, EVEN IF IT'S AT $500,000 A YEAR, I THINK WOULD BE A GOOD STARTING POINT AND REVISIT. >> I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. >> SECOND. >> SO, REMIND ME WHERE, CITY MANAGER, THE 652, THE 713 IN YEARS ONE, TWO, AND THREE, WHERE IS THAT COMING FROM? >> IT'S NOT. >> BUT IF IN TH PASSES, WE REALLY ONLY HAVE $500,000 A YEAR BUDGETED, BUT LIKE, IN '27, SO, WE HAVE GOT $500,000 BUDGETED BUT WE'RE APPROVING TO ALSO BUDGET $652,000, WHICH WE CURRENTLY DON'T HAVE. >> I THOUGHT THAT -- I THOUGHT THAT THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT IT WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE $500,000 A FOR THREE YEARS. NOT WHAT THIS TABLE SAYS. >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I -- >> THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. >> JUST ON -- IT'S BUILDINGS AND TRAILS, WHICH YOU HAVE HERE. PARKS, WHICH YOU HAVE. AND SIDEWALKS AND CORRIDORS AT $500,000 A YEAR. >> YEAH, SO -- >> SO, TOTAL, $1.5 MILLION. >> ON SIDEWALKS AND CORRIDOR. >> LEAVING THE 652 IN FISCAL YEAR '27? >> THE BUILDINGS, TRAIL AND PARKS, THOSE DOLLARS -- I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT -- >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE SOME PID MONEY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO USE SOME PARKS IMPROVEMENT MONEY. >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. AS FAR AS ALTERNATIVE OR OTHER FUNDING SOURCES, I THINK YOU STATED THIS IN THE LAST MEETING. THERE ARE MANY CITIES IN TEXAS THAT HAVE THIS ISSUE. I MEAN, NOT THAT -- NOT TO MINIMIZE IT. I'M FOR THE ADA PLAN AND THE UPGRADE. BUT IS THERE ANY ALTERNATIVE SOURCES THAT OTHER -- THAT THE STATE CAN EITHER PROVIDE OR REFERENCE TO, WHETHER IT BE FEDERAL GRANTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT HAVE BEEN USED THAT TXDOT OR THE STATE OF TEXAS CAN SHARE WITH US SO THAT WE CAN LOOK AT THESE ALTERNATIVE FUNDS? NOT TO VICE PRESIDENT- ADVOCATE FOR US, BUT OTHER SOURCES OTHER CITIES HAVE HAD IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. >> THERE ARE GRANTS AVAILABLE, AND WE DID REFERENCE THOSE IN THE PLAN, ALSO, UNDER THE FUNDING SECTION. SO, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT IS -- WHAT WE RECOMMEND THE CITY LOOK INTO FOR ALTERNATE SOURCES. >> THANK YOU. >> MAKE A NOTE. >> YES, SIR. >> SO, FOR CLARITY, THEN, WHAT WE -- IF THIS VOTE PASSES, WHAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING IS THIS TABLE WITH [02:35:01] THE TOTAL ADJUSTED DOWN TO 3.578? WE'RE TAKING $1.5 MILLION OUT? RIGHT? WE'RE TAKING $1 MILLION OUT OF FY 29 AND $500,000 OUT OF FY 28? >> UH-HUH. >> OKAY. BUT AGAIN, WE STILL DON'T KNOW WHERE THE 652 AND THE 713 COME FROM. THAT HAS TO BE FIGURED OUT. >> YEP. >> BUT WE'RE MAKING A COMMITMENT TO SAYING WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. >> WHAT DO I SAY? THAT'S WHY YOU GET PAID THE BIG BUCKS. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WHERE'S THAT EASY BUTTON? >> WE CUT IT OUT OF THE BUDGET. >> TOUCHE. >> WHERE'S THAT "RAISE TAXES" BUTT SNN BUTTON? >> GONE TOO. CAN'T GET THAT ONE. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, I'VE BEEN ASKED -- [14.1. Consideration and possible action on the Revised Draft of the Unified Development Code (UDC) and Engineering Design Manual (EDM) (Mayor Snyder)] THE DEVELOPER WANTED TO TABLE 13.3. SO, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 14.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REVISED DRAFT OF THE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE, UDC, AND ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAL, EDM. OUTSIDE OF MYSELF, EVAN, JIM, HAS ANYBODY HAD A CHANCE TO READ EVERY PAGE OF ALL THE RED LINES? >> I HAVE NOT READ EVERY PAGE. >> I HAVE NOT READ EVERY PAGE EITHER. >> IT'S A LOT TO READ. >> I DID NOT GET TO READ THE TOTAL OF WHAT THE THING THAT WE SENT YOU ALL AND WHAT WAS SENT BACK BUT I KNOW THERE'S A COUPLE KEY THINGS THAT I WOULDN'T CALL DISAGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES BUT SOMETHING STAFF WAS MORE WANTING AND THE SUBCOMMITTEE WAS PUSHING AGAINST. SO, WHEN I WAS THINKING IS, WE GOT IT ON HERE. WE START SHARING IT WITH THE PUBLIC. WE HAD A PUBLIC COMMENT, I BELIEVE, ABOUT IT. BUT A COUPLE OF THE KEY ISSUES I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS AND FIND OUT WHAT CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTION IS FOR STAFF, ONE IS TREES. DO WE WANT TREES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET? THAT'S ONE THAT'S GONE BACK AND FORTH. DO WE WANT REAR ENTRY GARAGES? WHAT DO YOU CALL THOSE? >> REAR ENTRY GARAGES? ALLEY-LOADED? >> AND THEN, THERE'S, LIKE, 25 PAGES OF LOT SIZE DETERMINATIONS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT IS GETTING OUT OF THE LOT SIZE DETERMINATIONS SINCE BIGGER CITIES DON'T GET TO DETERMINE BUT FOR US TO DO MINIMUM SIDE SETBACKS AS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, I THINK A LOT OF THEM ARE FIVE FEET, SO YOU HAVE YOUR AIR- CONDITIONERS OFFSET SO THAT YOU CAN MOW. OTHERWISE, THEY BUMP INTO EACH OTHER. AND THEN, I THINK THOSE ARE THE BIG THREE THAT WE CAME ACROSS THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING ONE THING, AND STAFF WAS RECOMMENDING ANOTHER, AND SO I THINK IF WE DO THOSE, THAT WOULD HELP YOU GUYS OUT. AND THEN, MAYBE BRING THIS BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING. SO, WE WERE LATE AND ONLY GAVE, MAYBE, EVERYBODY, WHAT, A WEEK? >> IF THAT MUCH. AND YOU KNOW, NOT TO THROW THEM UNDER THE BUS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT WE DO HAVE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR THAT'S ONLY BEEN HERE LIKE A COUPLE DAYS. SO RK YOU KNOW, I'M SURE HE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH YOU GUYS ON THIS. >> HE MAY WANT TO QUIT AFTER HE SEES WHAT WE CUT. >> HE'S AGAINST THE WALL. >> WE CUT OUT 47 PAGES. >> WELL, JUST GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, ONEONE OF THE WE PUSHED AND THE COUNCIL HAS NOT ADOPTED THIS YET, BUT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE COMMITTEE, IS THAT ANY PART OF THE CODE THAT SAID IT WAS ANY KIND OF GRAY AREA, LIKE, HERE'S A REFRESHER FOR CHARLES, WE HAD A CODE THAT, SAY, FOR INSTANCE, A DETENTION POND COULD BE UP TO 25% INSIDE A SETBACK. LIKE A LANDSCAPE SETBACK, I THINK IT WAS, AND SO WE DETERMINED, WE DON'T THINK THERE SHOULD BE ANY. EITHER BUILD IT WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO, BUT IT CAN'T GO IN A SETBACK BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE DEVELOPMENT WORLD, PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF WILL HEAR 25%, AND THEN WE GO TO STAFF AND PUSH FOR 35%. AND SO, YOU GET IN THIS TWO OF THREE- MONTH BATTLE BACK AND FORTH, AND STAFF SAYS, WE CAN DO 35% IF YOU DO THIS OVER HERE. SO WE WANT TO GET OUT ALL THE NEGOTIATING AND MAKE IT AS BLACK AND WHITE AS WE CAN. WE WANTED A LOT OF -- WHAT'S THAT WORDING? WE WANTED THE -- WE WANTED DISCRETION FROM STAFF. A LOT OF IT TAKEN OUT SO THAT WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A LOT OF HIGH- POWERED SALARIES THAT ARE DEBATING WITH DEVELOPERS, MINIMAL STUFF. >> IT SAID, GO BACK TO A WAIVER OR ADJUSTMENT BY SOME [02:40:04] KEYKEY OF PLANNING OR DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING WHERE EITHER STAFF WILL DO IT OR JUST MAKE IT -- OR PUT IT -- A CONCRETE DESCRIPTION IN THERE. >> WE JUST TRIED TO MAKE IT VERY -- HERE'S HOW IT IS, AND THEN THEY CAN DECIDE THEY WANT TO DO IT AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DO IT THAT WAY, YOU GOT TO GO TO THE COUNCIL, AND WE MAY SAY, LOOK, WE GAVE YOU -- WE CUT OUT 50 PAGES OF OUR DEVELOPMENT CODE. WE DON'T -- I THINK ALL WE CARE ABOUT IS THE SIZE OF THE PARKING SPOT. WE NO LONGER CARE ABOUT HOW MANY YOU HAVE, WE DON'T CARE IF IT'S MOTORCYCLE OR PATHS OF TRAVEL FOR PEDESTRIANS. WE'RE LEAVING IT ALL UP TO DEVELOPERS TO DESIGN A PROJECT THE WAY IT WORKS FOR THEM, BUT THE MEMO REQUIREMENTS WE'RE PUSHING FOR, STREETSCAPING, SOME ARCHITECTURAL, GIVING YOU THE ABILITY TO BUILD WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BUILD FOR YOUR PROTOTYPE, BUT WHEN WE GET TO THE MINIMAL THINGS WE'RE ASKING FOR, WE'RE SAYING, NO MORE VARIANCES. WE'RE JUST -- OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, TAKE IT LIKE IT IS, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. AND SO, NOT EVERYBODY WILL BE HAPPY, BUT -- DOES THAT SUM UP, I THINK, KIND OF OVERALL? >> TOOK 47 PAGES OUT. >> 47. WE WOULD HAVE CUT MORE, BUT AFTER GOING THROUGH IT FOR THE THIRD TIME, WE WERE KIND OF LIKE, WE MADE PROGRESS, WE'LL COME BACK IN A YEAR OR TWO AND TRY TO CUT ANOTHER 47 OUT. SO, FOR THOSE NOT ON THE COMMITTEE, ANYTHING THAT -- THIS IS KIND OF, TO ME, THIS IS THE BIBLE OF DEVELOPMENT. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN THAT YOU LIKE, DISLIKE, WITH ALL THE VARIANCES AND ALL THE THINGS WE'VE HAD COME UP THAT WE TRIED TO USE -- WE TRIED TO USE REASONING FOR EVERY, LIKE, AN EXAMPLE FOR EVERYTHING WE TRIED TO CUT. OR MODIFY. >> THEY HAVE PASSED RESOLUTION FOR THE JOINT MEETING. >> JUST TO CLARIFY. THOSE PAGES FROM, I GUESS, FROM 1199 TO -- WHAT WAS IT? 2000 TO 218, THERE'S THREE DOCUMENTS THERE. THE FINAL UDC. THEN THERE'S THE RED- LINED UDC AND THEN THERE'S THE ENGINEERING DESIGN MANUAL. EVEN I, GOING THROUGH IT, I -- SCANNING THROUGH THERE, I GET CRISS CROSSED OF WHATWHAT I WAS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT. I CAN PUT THAT IN THE MESSAGE BOARD, WHAT THOSE PAGES ARE. >> SIR, WHAT ARE YOU ASKING FOR? >> JUST INPUT. THE THREE OF US GAVE INPUT. DON'T MIND DOING IT THE WAY THREE PEOPLE WANT, BUT IT'S BETTER IF SEVEN PEOPLE -- >> I LIKE JIM'S SUGGESTION. LET'S START PUTTING STUFF IN THE MESSAGE BOARD AND COMMUNICATING THAT WAY ABOUT IT. >> WE'LL HAVE TO GO FAIRLY, LIKE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REALLY GET ON THIS, BECAUSE -- >> WE NEED TO MOVE QUICK. >> I THINK WE HAD A WEEK ALREADY, BUT HERE'S AN EXAMPLE. FOR DIRECTION WITH STAFF, DOES ANYBODY HAVE A DESIRE -- I THINK WE SAID WE DON'T WANT TREES BETWEEN SIDEWALK AND STREET. IS THAT RIGHT? IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TREES? >> I AGREE WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THAT. I THINK OUR ADA PLAN WILL BALLOON IF WE DO THAT. >> OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT REAR ENTRY GARAGES? I KNOW BROOKLYN'S IS THAT WAY. DURANGO FARMS. OUR ISSUES WERE SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE SEEN IS THE DRIVEWAYS ARE SO SHORT, LIKE A FORD EXPLORER BARELY FITS IN. >> I THINK THE BIG CONCERN WAS THAT WE WERE BUILDING ALLEYWAY THAT THE CITY HAD TO MAINTAIN. >> THAT'S ANOTHER ONE. THERE'S AN ALLEYWAY. >> THEN YOU'VE GOT A STREET IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND EVERY SINGLE HOUSE. >> I'VE HAD COMPLAINTS ABOUT BROOKLYN'S. PEOPLE SAY THERE'S NOT ENOUGH STREET PARKING. IT'S NARROW. WELL, IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE PARKED ON. IT'S MEANT FOR YOU TO PARK IN THE BACK, BUT EVERYBODY'S PARKING OUT FRONT. AND SO, JAMES AND I TALKED. IT WOULD LIMIT SOME POTENTIAL LOTS AND NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT WE TOOK THE POSITION OF, IT'S JUST NOT OUR PROBLEM. >> WELL, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ALLEYS, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE. >> ANYBODY, REAR ENTRY? >> I'M DEFINITELY ON THE SIDE OF ALLEYS, AND I EXPRESSED THAT TO THE COMMITTEE. I THINK THEY'RE AN IMPORTANT THING TO HAVE IN YOUR PORTFOLIO FOR DESIGN REASONS THAT ARE BEYOND THE COMPLAINTS THAT Y'ALL ARE FIELDING. PARTICULARLY WHEN THEY'RE DONE WELL. SO, IF YOU -- RIGHT. IF YOU ATTACK THAT PROBLEM THE SAME WAY THAT YOU HAVE ATTACKED THE OTHERS, WHICH IS, OKAY, WELL, THE ISSUE IS, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE DRIVEWAYS ARE LONG ENOUGH, THEN YOU FIX IT, IN MY MIND, THAT WAY. IF YOUR ISSUE IS, WE DON'T WANT THE PUBLIC PUBLIC HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE ALLEYS, THEN YOU ATTACK THAT PROBLEM AND SAY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ALLEY LOAD OF PRODUCT, THEN THE POA HAS TO MAINTAIN THE ALLEYS. TO ME, THAT'S THE WAY YOU WOULD FIX THAT, RATHER THAN JUST STRIPPING IT OUT AND SAYING IT'S NOT AVAILABLE AT ALL. >> I THINK THE ENGINEERING MANUAL IS GOING TO [02:45:02] TAKE CARE OF THE DRIVEWAY LENGTHS. LET'S SAY THE ALLEYWAYS ARE PUBLIC AND EVERYBODY'S SUPPOSED TO PARK IN THE BACK. THE TRASH IS IN THE BACK. AND 20 YEARS FROM NOW, THE CITY HAS TO REBUILD THAT ROAD BECAUSE OVER TIME, IT SUNK. SO, HOW DOES THE CITY GET IN AND GET -- WELL, I'LL SAY THAT AND THEN I'M GOING TO ANSWER WHAT I THINK WOULD HAPPEN. HOW DOES THE CITY GET IN, REBUILD ALL THAT? AND WHERE DOES EVERYBODY GO? AND MY ANSWER TO THAT IS, PROBABLY LIKE WHEN WE -- WHAT DO YOU CALL IT? WE RESURFACE THE ASPHALT ROADS. WE PUT A NOTICE ON THE DOOR AND SAY, YOU'RE NOT PARKING HERE FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. >> THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, I'M SURE. >> THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, IT'S PEOPLE PARKING THREE BLOCKS AWAY. THAT'S ONE THING WHEN IT'S A TWO MORE DAY RESURFACE, BUT IF YOU HAVE TO REBUILD AN ALLEYWAY IN 20 YEARS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU TELL PEOPLE IT'S GOING TO BE SIX MONTHS BEFORE YOU CAN DO THIS. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK --? I MEAN -- WHENEVER I'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST, GENERALLY , THE ALLEYS ARE NARROWER, SO USUALLY, WHAT YOU DO IS YOU, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST PART, YOU COME IN, YOU DO THE EXCAVATION WHERE YOU COME OUT AND TEAR OUT ALL THE ASPHALT AND THEN THEY GENERALLY PUT DOWN ROAD BASE SO PEOPLE STILL COME IN AND OUT. BUT DURING THAT TIME THAT THEY'RE WORKING, THAT'S WHEN YOU CAN'T BE BACK THERE. AND THEN AT THE END OF EACH WORKDAY, UNTIL THEY GET TO A RIGHT BEFORE THEY'RE ABOUT TO LAY ASPHALT, THEY WILL OPEN IT UP AND LET PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS BECAUSE THE GARAGE AND METERS AND ALL THAT STUFF ARE IN THE BACK. SO, IT'S DEFINITELY DONE, AND IT'S WORKED AROUND. IT'S NOT AN ULTIMATE INCONVENIENCE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS AN INCONVENIENCE. BUT THAT WOULD BE TRUE IF THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE WAS THE ONLY WAY TO GET TO THE HOUSE AND WE HAD TO REBUILD THAT. IT WOULD BE THE EXACT SAME ISSUE. >> BUT IT'S WIDE ENOUGH FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC, SO THEORETICALLY, YOU COULD HAVE ONE LANE IN CONSTRUCTION AND ONE LANE OPEN. >> BUT THAT DOESN'T HELP THE -- I HAVE TO PARK THREE BLOCKS DOWN THE ROAD IN ORDER TO GET TO MY HOUSE, YOU KNOW? >> THAT'S TRUE. >> IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM, I'M SAYING. >> SO, IF WE PASS -- IF WE ULTIMATELY PASS THIS WITHOUT THAT OPTION IN THERE, A PERSON COULD COME UP WITH A PUD, AND WE COULD ALLOW IT THROUGH THAT WAY, RIGHT? >> IT DEPENDS. >> IF WE SAW A PLAN THAT JUST -- >> THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN YOUR UDC SPEAKING SPECIFICALLY TO SOMETHING AND YOUR UDC PROHIBITING IT. SO, IF YOUR UDC PROHIBITS IT, THEN I THINK YOU'RE IN AN ISSUE OF NOT REALLY BEING IN A PLACE TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW IT IN A PUD. IF YOUR UDC JUST DOESN'T SPEAK TO IT, I.E. , IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT IT AT ALL, THEN I THINK YOU'RE OKAY. IF YOU COME INTO YOUR UDC AND SAY, ABSOLUTELY NEVER, EVER, EVER WILL WE ALLOW THIS, THEN YOU OUGHT NOT TO BE IN YOUR PLAN SAYING, WELL, IT'S OKAY. >> DIDN'T WE JUST -- WASN'T OUR RED LINE JUST TO REMOVE IT AND NOT SPEAK ABOUT IT? WE DIDN'T SAY WE DON'T ALLOW IT. WE JUST REMOVED IT SO THEN, IF THAT'S WHAT WE DID, THEN WE WOULD STILL BE OKAY IN THAT SITUATION, RIGHT? >> I WOULD THINK SO. I WOULD THINK SO. >> DOES THAT MEAN -- SO, THAT MEANS THEY'D HAVE TO COME TO US WITH SOME SORT OF PUD TO GET IT BECAUSE IT'S NOT IN THERE? >> THAT WOULD BE ACCURATE. >> I'M ALL FOR STRIKING IT OUT OF THERE TO WHERE PEOPLE HAVE THE OPTION TO COME IN AND CONVINCE US THAT THIS PROJECT IS WORTHY. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, ALL I HEAR ABOUT IS, MY STREETS ARE NARROW AND I'M LIKE, YOU'RE PARKING ON THE WRONG SIDE. AND -- >> WELL, A LOT OF TIMES -- >> WE SHOWED YOU PICTURES OF ALL THE TRUCKS ARE PARKED SIDEWAYS, WHICH I THINK WE CAN FIX IN THE ENGINEERING MANUAL. >> THAT, YOU CAN FIX. AND I HAVE SEEN THAT PROBLEM TOO IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD I LIVED IN BACK IN COLLEGE. SOME OF THE HOMES ENDED UP BEING TOO SMALL FOR THE LOT THEY WERE ON, SO THEY JUST HAD A TINY LITTLE DRIVEWAY. AND THE BUILDER'S RESPONSE WAS, WELL, PEOPLE SHOULD PARK IN THEIR GARAGES. BUT I COULD LITERALLY NOT FIT MY VEHICLE INTO MY GARAGE BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY WAS FIVE FEET AT AN ANGLE LIKE THIS. WHENEVER I TRIED TO MOUNT THAT, THE TOP OF MY VEHICLE WAS HITTING THE -- WOULD HIT THE TOP OF THE GARAGE. SO, I COULDN'T EVEN FIT MY VEHICLE IN THERE, EVEN IF I TRIED. SO, THAT'S THE SORT OF STUFF YOU CERTAINLY WANT TO ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE THAT YOU FIX. BUT WHEN THEY'RE DONE RIGHT, THEY'RE A MASSIVE IMPROVEMENT TO COMMUNITY OVERALL. >> ALL RIGHT, THEN, SIDESTEP BACK. SO, THERE'S, LIKE, HOW TO DO A 40-FOOT LOT. DEPENDING ON THE ZONING YOU'RE IN, YOU CAN HAVE A TEN- FOOT SETBACK ON THE SIDES. AND -- OR A FIVE-FOOT SETBACK, AND I THINK WE WERE KIND OF DEBATING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN A SEVEN-AND-A-HALF-FOOT SETBACK AND A TEN. THE COMPLAINT I HEARD FROM SOME DEVELOPERS WERE, IF YOU DO THAT, WE CAN'T HAVE 40- FOOT LOTS ANYMORE. AND I KIND OF SAID, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT ALL. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT A BIG PROPONENT OF 40- FOOT LOTS AND MAYBE YOU HAVE TO GO VERTICAL AND HAVE THREE STORIES LIKE YOU WOULD IN SAN FRANCISCO OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD. INSTEAD OF HAVING 20 DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOT SIZES, DEPENDING ON YOUR ZONING, WE WOULD JUST SAY, JUST KEEP THE SIDES ENOUGH [02:50:03] APART TO WHERE YOU'RE NOT HEARING, LIKE, A FIGHT NEXT DOOR IN A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE THROUGH YOUR WINDOWS. BUT FAR ENOUGH AWAY TO WHERE -- CLOSE ENOUGH TO WHERE THEY CAN STILL -- >> YOUR HVAC'S NOT ONE AND A HALF FEET OFF OF YOUR FENCE. >> YEAH. >> WELL, I CAN TELL YOU, PERSONALLY, THE HOUSE THAT I LIVE IN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WHERE THE HVAC IS SET UP AGAINST THE HOUSE, AND THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THAT I HAVE, THE FENCE, I CAN'T EVEN GET A WEED WHACKER BACK THERE. I HAVE TO ANGLE THE WEED WHACKER. IT'S RIDICULOUS. AND GOING DOWN THE -- MY SIDE YARD, I HAVE TO BACK OUT. I CAN'T TURN THAT LAWN MOWER AROUND. >> AND IF YOU GO INTO A FIVE- FOOT PUE ON THE SIDE, YOU DON'T HAVE A YARD ON THE SIDE OF YOUR HOUSE. WHAT YOU HAVE IS GRASS YOU MAINTAIN THAT SOMEONE ELSE IS PUTTING FIBER IN OR -- >> WELL, AND WHAT COUNCILMEMBER KING IS DESCRIBING ISIS -- IS WHERE THE MARKET MENTALITY BREAKS DOWN. IT'S THE, IF YOU TAKE THE LAISSEZ-FAIRE, LETS THEM BUILD, AND THE THAT IS CORRECT WILL DETERMINE WHAT PEOPLE WILL BUY, YOU BOUGHT THE HOUSE. YOU BOUGHT IT. AND NOW YOU'RE LIKE, THIS REALLY SUCKS. >> GUILTY AS CHARGED. >> YEAH. BUT WE'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF SEEING ALL THE "THIS REALLY SUCKS" STUFF ENOUGH. THAT'S WHERE A LOT OF THESE RULES ORIGINATE FROM. NOW, DO THEY GET OUT OF CONTROL OVER TIME, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF? PROBABLY. BUT THOSE SORTS OF THINGS, SO, WATER SETBACKS ON THE SIDES MAKES TOTAL SENSE. BUT THEN YOU GET PUSHBACK FROM THE DEVELOPERS BECAUSE NOW THEY CAN'T HAVE THEIR SMALL LOTS AND FIT AS MUCH DENSITY IN. IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT -- WELL, DEVELOPERS ARE STARTING TO COME FORWARD WITH, WE'RE NOT GOING TO PROVIDE GARAGES. WE'RE GOING TO DO A HOUSE WITH NO GARAGE AT ALL. IF YOU SAY A TWO- CAR GARAGE IS 20 FEET -- I KNOW Y'ALL PUT 24, BUT SAY IT'S 20 FEET. THEN, YOU'RE ON TEN- FOOT ON EITHER SIDE OF THAT SETBACK, YOU'RE AT 40 FEET LOT WIDTH. SO, THAT'S WHY THEY CAN'T DO IT. THEY CAN'T DO IT FOR THAT REASON. >> THEY REALLY DON'T BUILD GARAGES NOW TO PUT CARS IN UNLESS YOU DRIVE LIKE A F IR ESTA OR MINI-COOPER. >> THEY ARE NOT BUILDING GARAGES FOR VEHICLES. >> I CAN SEE THEM GOING, WHY DO YOU EVEN PUT A GARAGE DOOR ON? YOU CAN'T PARK IN IT. THAT'S WHY IN THE MANUAL, WE DON'T CARE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE OR THE ARTICULATIONS, WHATEVER THAT VARIANCE IS, ABOUT THE GARAGE DOOR AS IT COMPARES TO THE FRONT DOOR. WE'RE LIKE, HEY, WHO CARES? BUT YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO PARK AN F- 150 IN THE GARAGE. AND YOU GOT TO BE ABLE TO PARK IT ON A DRIVEWAY BECAUSE AT SOMESOME POINT, MAY BE DOING ROADWORK OR SOMETHING, AND WE NEED YOU TO HAVE THE VEHICLE OFF THE STREET AND EVERYBODY'S SAYING, HOW THE HELL DO I DO THAT IF IT DOESN'T FIT ANYWHERE WITHOUT ME BLOCKING THE SIDEWALK AND I GET A TICKET? >> TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR, I DRIVE A FORD RANGER. I CAN BARELY, BARELY GET THAT INTO THE GARAGE. THAT'S RIDICULOUS. >> YEAH, THAT'S A RANGER. >> EXACTLY. >> ALL RIGHT, SO, I GUESS LOOKS LIKE EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THE SIDEWALKS AND THE TREES AND THAT. WE'RE OKAY JUST STRIKING THE REAR ENTRY, SIDE SETBACKS, DO WE WANT SEVEN AND A HALF OR TEN FOOT? ARE WE OKAY WITH THE PROPOSAL OF DOING AWAY -- I THINK BIGGER CITIES CAN'T DETERMINE LOT SIZES ANYWAY. AND SO, WE'RE KIND OF SAYING, IF WE JUST DO THE SETBACKS, I GUESS, IN A WAY, THAT WILL DETERMINE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ALL THAT. THE DEPTH IS GOING TO BE CONTROLLED BY THE DRIVEWAY AND THE BUILDING. >> YEAH. I GUESS WHAT I WAS JUST -- WHAT I WAS THINKING IS THAT I WOULD THINK STRUCTURALLY, YOU WOULD STILL BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION WITH PNZ TOO, AND YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT BACK PUT THAT OUT THERE. >> AT LEAST WE CAN TELL THEM HOW WE FEEL. >> SURE. >> SO, SEVEN AND A HALF OR TEN? OR KEEP IT AT FIVE? FOR SIDE SETBACK? >> TRYING TO HELP YOU WITH YOUR 10:00 -- >> WE GOT FIVE MINUTES TO FIGURE THIS OUT. >> DEFINITELY MORE THAN FIVE. >> I MEAN, JUST ON THIS ISSUE, NOT THE WHOLE UDC. >> YEAH, ON THAT ISSUE. SETBACKS. I THOUGHT YOU WERE ASKING HOW BIG OF A SETBACK. >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT FIVE MINUTES. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FIVE FEET. >> NOT MINUTES. >> WE ALL OKAY AT SEVEN AND A HALF FEET? AND WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE IT A MONTH FROM NOW, RIGHT? IF WE ADOPTED THIS, HYPOTHETICALLY, YOU CAN CHANGE IT ANY TIME. >> WELL, IT'S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET ACROSS THE BOARD FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL? BECAUSE GENERALLY, YOU DO HAVE ZERO LOT LAWN OPTIONS TOO. OR JUST ONE SPECIFIC CATEGORY? >> WE'RE TALKING ALL THE WAY. EVEN APARTMENT BUILDINGS. [02:55:03] I MEAN, THEY'RE BUILDING SOME OF THEM SO CLOSE THAT -- >> SHAKE HANDS. >> YEAH. AND MY FEAR IS WE DON'T HAVE FIRES -- I REMEMBER TALKING TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, AND A LOT OF THE CALLS GO TO TAYLOR BECAUSE THEY'RE OLDER BUILDINGS, AND OURS ARE NEW, BUT A THE SOME POINT, WHEN WE START HAVING ISSUES, I FEEL LIKE THE HOUSES ARE BUILT SO CLOSE TOGETHER, IF I'M A DEVELOPER, IT'S NOT MY PROBLEM, THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM. YOU'RE THE FIRE AND THE FIRE BUSINESS, BUT I THINK IT'S UP TO US TO GO, WE NEED TO HAVE SPACE OR SOMETHING TO WHERE YOU'RE NOT -- >> THAT'S THE ORIGIN OF SIDE SETBACKS. THE ORIGIN OF SIDE SETBACKS IS SO THE FIRE APPARATUS ORIGINALLY, I GUESS, WAGONS, COULD FIT IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS AND THE FIRE COULD BE FOUGHT. THAT'S WHERE THEY CAME FROM. >> AND IT WON'T JUMP BUILDING TO BUILDING EITHER. >> YEAH, BUT THE PREDOMINANT REASON WAS FOR FIRE APPARATUS ACCESS. >> THEY CAN MAKE ITS BACK THERE. >> MODERN TIMES, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF RISK HAS BEEN REDUCED THROUGH THE MATERIALS THAT WE USE, THROUGH THE TYPE OF FIREFIGHTING THAT WE HAVE, THAT SORT OF STUFF. THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE MORE AND MORE. BUT ARGUABLY, BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF THE BUILDING CODE STUFF TOO, IF YOU HAVE ZERO LOT LINES, YOU END UP WITH A FIRE- RATED WALL BETWEEN THOSE TWO BUILDINGS AND THAT'S HOW YOU ADDRESS THE FIRE CODE. SO, THE PERSON THAT'S IN THE OTHER BUILDING DOESN'T NECESSARILY PUT YOU AT RISK OF NEEDING -- >> YOU FEEL THE HEAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT, THOUGH. >> WELL, YOU WILL -- THE PLACE WILL BURN EVENTUALLY, BUT IF YOU HAVE A BARRIER, FIRE- RATED WALLS OF AN HOUR, HOUR AND A HALF, WHATEVER THE CODE REQUIRES. >> AT LEAST ON RESIDENTIAL. SEVEN AND A HALF, IS THAT A GOOD NUMBER? >> I WOULD OPT TO -- I WOULD OPT FOR TEN, BUT ONE OF ME, SIX OF YOU. >> OKAY. ONE OTHER ONE THAT CAME UP RECENTLY. STARTED WITH THE FOOD TRAILER TALK. RIGHT NOW, WHEN YOU HAVE A FOOD TRAILER, THAT'S A UDC ITEM, NOT AN ORDINANCE. IF YOU HAVE A FOOD TRAILER THAT'S PARKED MORE THAN TWO HOURS IN THE CITY, YOU HAVE TO THEN GET NOTICES FROM SOMEONE IN THE÷÷THE AREA. TELL ME IF I GOT THIS WRONG. SOMEONE IN THE AREA, YOU HAVE TO GET NOTICE FROM, A SIGNED, NOTARIZED STATEMENT SAYING THAT YOU CAN USE THEIR BATHROOM FOR PUBLIC USE. OR YOU GOT TO PUT A JOHNNY ON THE SPOT ON THE PROPERTY. >> KIND OF LIKELIKE GIN. >> EXCEPT FOR THE GIN -- IF YOU PARK A FOOD TRUCK, THE PROBLEM WE WERE TALK -- THAT'S PRETTY MUCH WHAT IT IS. >> IN ORDER TO HAVE A FOOD TRUCK LOT OR A FOOD TRUCK OPERATION, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SANITATION, AND PART OF SANITATION -- >> IT SAYS ACCESS TO BATHROOMS. >> WELL, RIGHT. SO, YOU HAVE -- BUT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SANITATION. SO, ONE OF THE OPTIONS OF PROVIDING IT IS SAYING, HEY, BRICK AND MORTAR, WILL YOU GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO ALLOW MY CUSTOMERS TO COME IN AND USE YOUR RESTROOM AND WASH THEIR HANDS? AND IF THE ANSWER IS NO, THEN THE ALTERNATIVE IS TO EITHER BUILD OR -- BUILD YOUR OWN RESTROOM ON SITE, WHICH MOST PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO DO, OR HAVE PORTA-POTTIES ON SITE THAT ARE SERVICED REGULARLY. >> AND SO, OKAY, WITH THAT, WHAT WE FOUND IS THE NEW CODE, AS PRESENTED TO US, THAT'S ALL BEEN STRICKEN OUT OF THERE. THE OLD CODE REQUIRES IT, THE NEW CODE DOESN'T. >> BUT YOU'RE SAYING IN THE UDC, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THE REQUIREMENT IS GONE-GONE. I JUST DON'T KNOW. >> IT IS. >> WELL, BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. >> I CAN TELL YOU, IN THE UDC, IT'S NOT MENTIONED. >> WHAT THE CONSULTANT GAVE US, THERE IS NOTHING THERE AT WUL. >> AND WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT. >> THE CONSULTANT DID, BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE -- >> I'M NOT 100% SURE THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD HAVE BELONGED ANYWAY. >> I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE DISCUSSION WE HAD ON THIS, BUT DIDN'T WE SAY SOMETHING -- IT WAS REQUIRED BY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, NOT BY US. >> WE DIDN'T KNOW. WHAT WE WERE KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS IS, WE DON'T CARE. IT'S UP TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. IF THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT SAYS YOU CAN GET A HEALTH PERMIT BASED ON YOUR THING, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS. I TELL THESE GUYS, WHEN I'M OUT DOING MY RUNNING AROUND IN THE CITY, DOING MY THING, I HAVE TO USE THE RESTROOM, I DON'T NECESSARILY SHOP AT THE LOWE'S THAT I GO INTO. I GO IN, AND I SEE IF THEY GOT SOME DISCOUNTED STUFF THAT'S BEEN÷÷BEEN UP BY PEOPLE, USE THE RESTROOM, AND HIT THE ROAD. AND SO, WE IMAGINE THAT IF SOMEONE CAME BY TO GET A SANDWICH AND GO, OH MY GOD, I GOT TO USE THE RESTROOM, OR DO THEY GET A SANDWICH AND GO? SOME PEOPLE HANG AROUND, T DOES THAT MEAN THEY HAVE TO GET PERMISSION TOTO INTO THE HALL [03:00:02] OF FAME OR ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES? I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PATROL OR POLICE THAT. IF A FOOD TRUCK GOES TO LOWE'S PARKING LOT AND IS PARKED THERE FOR TWO HOURS, BY CODE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A BATHROOM THERE OR SOMETHING NOTARIZED BY LOWE'S. BUT LIKE THE CITY MANAGER SAID, THAT'S ONLY AN ISSUE FOR THE CITY IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS. SO, THEN, IT'S REALLY NOT -- I DON'T THINK IT'S ENFORCEABLE UNLESS IT'S A PARK LIKE WE HAVE THE TWO DOWNTOWN, AND THEN YOU CAN ENFORCE IT BECAUSE YOU CAN SAY, I NEED TO SEE YOUR NOTICES, BUT ALL THE FOOD TRUCKS WE HAVE PARKING HERE FOR TWO HOURS AT A TIME -- >> WELL, YOU KNOW, I JUST -- I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S ONLY AN ISSUE IF SOMEONE COMPLAINS. I THINK WHEN WE WERE TALKING, WHAT I WAS SAYING IS YOU ASKED ME, HOW DO WE EVEN MONITOR THAT? AND IT'S LIKE, WELL, I DON'T HAVE STAFF RUNNING AROUND LOOKING FOR TWO-HOUR FOOD TRUCKS. SO, GENERALLY, IT WOULD COME IN THROUGH A COMPLAINT. BUT IF IT'S -- IT'S OUR ISSUE WHENEVER SOMETHING IS NONCOMPLIANT. THAT'S WHAT IT IS. IF IT'S NOT IN OUR RULES, THEN WE WON'T ENFORCE IT. >> WE JUST CAN'T -- WE CAN'T TELL IF IT'S NONCOMPLIANT BECAUSE I DON'T -- I WOULD IMAGINE THE PERMITTING IS DONE THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND THERE'S A GUY SELLING FISH STICKS. HE SAID HE'S COMING, IT WAS A BIG DEAL, BUT THEN IT WAS NEW YEAR'S EVE, I THINK, SO YOU DON'T KNOW -- I'M GOING, IS THIS GUY PERMITTED? DID HE FILL OUT THE PAPERWORK? WHERE'S HIS NOTARIZED STATEMENT AT? I DON'T WANT TO HIT YOU WITH THAT. I'M LIKE, I REALLY DON'T CARE BECAUSE IF WILCO SAYS THEY GOT RUNNING WATER AND THEY CAN DO WHAT THEY GOT TO DO, THEN WHY -- >> IT'S NOT REALLY FOR THOSE FOLKS. BECAUSE THOSE FOLKS GENERALLY ARE NOT PERMITTED. THEY'RE NOT HEALTH CODED. THEY'RE NOT ANYTHING. THEY'RE DRIVING IN THE PARKING LOT AND SELLING FISH STICKS OUT OF THEIR TRUCK UNTIL THEY GET CAUGHT AND IN TROUBLE AND RUN OFF. IT'S THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OPERATING REGULARLY, SO, LIKE IF THE FOOD TRUCK SET UP IN FRONT OF LOWE'S AND WAS THERE ALL THE TIME, THAT'S THE ONES THAT ARE ACTUALLY PERMITTED AND HAVE GONE THROUGH PROCESSES. SO, I WOULD NOT ADVISE YOU TO BE BUYING FROM THE MOBILE FOOD TRUCK THAT'S PARKED IN LOWE'S, THINKING THAT IT'S PASSED HEALTH CODE INSPECTIONS. >> HOW DO WE KNOW? >> YOU DON'T. YOU COULD ASK FOR THEY THEIR HEALTH INSPECTION. >> I DON'T WANT TWO HOURS OF COMMENT. I GOT ON TO A GUY SELLING FISH. >> WE HAVE A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR ORDINANCE, SO IF THEY'RE DOING THAT, THEY SHOULD BE REGISTERED WITH US. IF THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT COMPLIANT. >> SO, ON THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE, DOES ANYBODY SEE A REASON TO CONTINUE WITH THAT PROCESS? OR ARE WE OKAY TO JUST LEAVE IT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT? >> I THINK LEAVE IT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. >> LEAVE IT TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU CAN THINK OF, ALL THE EXAMPLES THAT WE FOUND SOME INTERESTING STUFF? REMEMBER THE CHICKEN SMOKE BARBECUE PLACE? ACTUALLY, WE DEBATED THAT FOR AN HOUR AND CODE, THEY COULDN'T EVEN DO IT. IN CODE, YOU CAN'T HAVE FUMES OR NOXIOUS ODORS LEAVE YOUR PROPERTY AND GO TO ADJACENT PROPERTY. THAT'S WHEN WE STARTED THINKING THE CODE GOT SO COMPLEX, MOST OF THE STUFF WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH IS IN CODE SOMEWHERE. WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW IT WAS IN THERE SO WE ENDED UP DEBATING IT. CAN YOU THINK OF ANYTHING THAT'S COME UP BESIDES -- I KNOW WE HAVE PARKING LOT, SIDEWALKS. WE HAVE WHATEVER THAT GARAGE ISSUE IS WITH THE FRONT DOOR, WHERE IT'S TWO FEET OFF AND PEOPLE WANTED IT FOUR. WHATEVER IT WAS. WE'VE HAD THAT ISSUE. >> OH YEAH. >> SEEMS LIKE WE ALWAYS GRANT THE VARIANCES, SO WHAT WE TRY TO DO IS JUST TAKE IT OUT OF THE CODE. >> ALL RIGHT, THEN, SO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE BRING BACK -- BRING THIS BACK -- WE'RE LOADING UP THE 19TH , BUT WE'LL BRING BACK THE UDC FOR FINAL APPROVAL ON FEBRUARY 19TH . AND THAT WE DIRECT STAFF, AS PART OF THE FINALIZATION, THAT WE TAKE OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR TREES BETWEEN THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET. WE STRIKE THE LANGUAGE ABOUT REAR- ENTRY GARAGE. WE SET SIDEBACKS ON RESIDENTIAL AT SEVEN AND A HALF FEET, AND WE TAKE OUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR FOOD TRAILERS TO HAVE REQUIREMENTS OF HAVING PUBLIC RESTROOMS OR NOTERIZATION. >> I SENT A MEMO OUT ABOUT THE PROCESS THAT YOU NEED TO USE TO ADOPT THE FINAL UDC, AND IF YOU RECALL, WHEN WE PRESENTED THE PRIOR UDC, WE PASSED AN ORDINANCE SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING -- A JOINT MEETING BETWEEN PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE CITY COUNCIL, WHICH REQUIRES NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND A 15-DAY. SO, WE'LL BRING THAT ORDINANCE ON FEBRUARY 55TH. AND WE'LL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHEN WE PUBLISH IT IN THE NEWSPAPER IN 15 DAYS, SO I'M THINKING IT'S PROBABLY [03:05:02] GOING TO BE THE FIRST MEETING IN MARCH. >> BRING IT BACK ON FEBRUARY 19TH. THAT WAY, WE'RE READY TO GO. WE MAY NOT PASS IT, BUT AT LEAST AS A COUNCIL, WE'RE OKAY WITH THE DOCUMENT AT THAT POINT. >> OKAY, WE'LL DO THE ORDINANCE ON THE SAME DAY? >> THAT WAY, YOU GUYS CAN START ALL THE NOTIFICATIONS. I DON'T WANT US DEBATING IT IN THE MIDDLE OF NOTIFICATION. >> OKAY. >> SECOND. >> SO, IT'S THE PROPOSED UDC IS COMING BACK ON THE 9TH BUT WE ADOPT IT? >> A JOINT MEETING. >> WE'RE NOT ADOPTING ON THE 19TH. >> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR SIDE FINALIZED. >> FINAL VERSION. >> GOT YOU. ? I AND THEN THIS WAY, STAFF CAN START LOOKING AT IT. WE'LL STILL HAVE TIME TO GET COMMENT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HIS NAME IS, BUT WE'LL GET COMMENTS FROM HIM AND ALSO BARRING SOME MAJOR DISCREPANCY÷÷ THAT STAFF DOESN'T LIKE, YOU GUYS CAN START COMMUNICATING TO THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT THESE ARE POTENTIAL CHANGES COMING UP, AND WE'RE MOVING AS FAST AS WE CAN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, PLEASE CALL THE VOTE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. WOO-HOO. SEVEN MINUTES LATE. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYTHING IN EXECUTIVE SESSION WE CAN TAKE OUT OR DON'T NEED? >> YES, 15.1-C, STROMBERG, WE ALREADY APPROVED THE AGREEMENT. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. [15. EXECUTIVE SESSION] IT'S KIND OF LATE. WE'LL GO BACK TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE HAVE ITEM 15.1, RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY TO DELIBERATE AND SEEK LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE ALLOCATION OF SALES TAX REVENUE BETWEEN THE WILLIAMSON COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER 3 AND THE CITY OF HUTTO, TEXAS, POSSIBLE LITIGATION WITH MIDWAY DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC, RETAINING WALL FOOTER FOUNDATION BURDITT CONSULTANTS, LLC, DESIGN ROARS. 15.2, RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE PERTAINING TO SECTION 551.071, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY AND DELIBERATIONS PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 551.072, REAL APPROPRIATE, 551.087, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS, RELATED TO PENDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BEING CONSIDERED BY THE HUTTO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OR THE CITY OF HUTTO, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO PROJECT CORE, PROJECT COTTONWOOD, PROJECT SEQUEL, PROJECT AIR, PROJECT SKY BOX, PROJECT HEARTBEAT, PROJECT SHINE AND PROJECT SPROUTS. 15.3. PURSUANT TO ATTORNEY GENERAL CONSULTATION AND REAL ESTATE, TO DELIBERATE AND SEEK LEGAL ADVICE REGARDING THE ACQUISITION OF WATER÷÷WATER WASTEWATER EASEMENTS RELATING TO LOT 1, BLOCK A OF THE HANSON'S CORNER >> WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. NEXT ITEM WE HAVE, [16. ACTION RELATIVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION] 16.1, CONSIDERATION AND POSSIBLE ACTION RELATED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ABOVE. LET'S SEE HERE. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE DEMAND LETTER TO BURDETT AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN. >> SECOND. >> DAN GOT IT. PRO TEM. >> MOTION BY MAYOR SNYDER, SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON. CALL THE VOTE. >> SORRY, TRYING TO DETERMINE WHICH ITEM THAT WAS. >> 15.1.D. >> THANK YOU. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER WARNER. >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0, AND I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO START THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS FOR THE HOME DEPOT WATER/WASTEWATER EASEMENTS AT HANSON'S CORNER. >> SECOND. >> ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? >> MAYOR, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT MOTION? >> THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO START THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCESS FOR THE HOME DEPOT AT THE HANSON'S CORNER. WILL THAT WORK? >> YEP. >> ALL RIGHT. [03:10:01] PLEASE CALL VOTE. >> COUNCILMEMBER KING? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS? >> AYE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM THORNTON? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER PORTERFIELD? >> AYE. >> MAYOR SNYDER? >> AYE. >> COUNCILMEMBER GORDON? >> AYE. >> MOTION PASSES 7-0. ANY OTHER ACTION ITEMS THAT I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN? [17. CITY COUNCIL COMMENTS] >> THE BURDETT DEMAND LETTER? >> WE DID THAT ONE. >> ITEM 17.1, GENERAL COMMENTS FROM CITY COUNCIL? >> I HAVE ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO READ. AS PART OF SCHOOL BOARD APPRECIATION MONTH, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE A GROUP OF LEADERS WHOSE WORK SHAPES THE FUTURE OF HUTTO EVERY SINGLE DAY. THE HUTTO ISD BOARD OF TRUSTEES. AS A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, ALMOST SEVEN, AND AS A HUTTO RESIDENT OF OVER 25 YEARS, I HAVE SEEN FIRSTHAND HOW THEIR DECISIONS INFLUENCE NOT ONLY OUR SCHOOLS BUT THE GROWTH, VITALITY, AND LONG- TERM SUCCESSSUCCESS OF ENTIRE COMMUNITY. HUTTO IS STILL EXPERIENCING REMARKABLE GROWTH, WITH THE POPULATION INCREASES BY APPROXIMATELY 52% SINCE 2020. FAMILIES CONTINUE TO CHOOSE HUTTO AS THEIR HOME BECAUSE OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUR COMMUNITY PROVIDES. THAT GROWTH IS FELT ESPECIALLY IN OUR SCHOOLS, AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS MET THAT CHALLENGE WITH FORESIGHT AND DEDICATION. UNDER THEIR LEADERSHIP, HUTTO ISD HAS TAKEN STEPS TO ENSURE THAT EVERY STUDENT HAS ACCESS TO THE FACILITIES AND PROGRAMS THEY NEED TO THRIVE. THANKS TO THE VOTER 2023 BOND,BOND, IS WELL UNDER WAY TO TRANSFORM THE NINTH GRADE CENTER INTO A FULL HIGH SCHOOL. WHEN COMPLETED, IT WILL SERVE 2,400 STUDENTS AND HELP THE DISTRICT KEEP PACE WITH OUR RAPIDLY GROWING POPULATION. THIS PAST YEAR, THE DISTRICT ALSO OPENED LEE MARTINEZ ELEMENTARY, A MODERN, INNOVATIVE CAMPUS BUILT FOR 800 STUDENTS. IT STANDS AS A SYMBOL OF THE DISTRICT'S COMMITMENT TO PREPARING OUR CHILDREN FOR THE FUTURE. THE 2023 BOND ALSO INCLUDES FUNDING FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. DISTRICTWIDE TECHNOLOGY UPGRADES AND A NEW ACADEMIC CENTER FOR ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. THESE INVESTMENTS ENSURE THAT EVERY STUDENT, NO MATTER THEIR CAMPUS, HAS ACCESS TO HIGH-QUALITY LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS. I BELIEVE STRONG SCHOOLS MAKE A STRONG COMMUNITY. THE WORK OF THE HUTTO ISD BOARD SUPPORTS OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ENHANCES OUR NEIGHBORHOODS AND HELPS DEFINE THE CHARACTER OF HUTTO. IT WAS THE HUTTO ISD THAT ADOPTED THE HIPPO AS THEIR MASCOT OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO AND THE CITY HAS FOLLOWED THEIR LEAD BY EMBRACING WHAT HAS BECOME A SYMBOL OF OUR COMMUNITY. HUTTO ISD'S LEADERSHIP ENSURES AS OUR CITY GROWS, OUR VALUES, COMMUNITY, OPPORTUNITY AND EXCELLENCE WILL GROW WITH IT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE, YOUR LONG HOURS AND THOUGHTFUL STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC RESOURCES AND FOR YOUR UNWAVERING COMMITMENT TO THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES OF HUTTO. YOUR LEADERSHIP IS ESSENTIAL TO THE SUCCESS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND TONIGHT, I PROUDLY HONOR YOU, HAPPY SCHOOL BOARD APPRECIATION MONTH, AND THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING YOU DO FOR HIPPO NATION AND FOR THE CITY OF HUTTO. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CHARLES, WELCOME. SORRY WE'RE GETTING YOU HOME EARLY. >> IT'S ALL RIGHT. >> IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A LATE NIGHT. >> TIME FOR DINNER. >> YEAH. ALL RIGHT. NEXT, WE HAVE 17.2. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE ABLE TO, IF THERE'S AN ITEM THAT'S ON YOUR MIND, YOU WANT TO SEE ON A FUTURE AGENDA, YOU CAN EITHER EMAIL THE CITY MANAGER OR SAY IT HERE. AND THEN WE FIGURE OUT HOW TO PUT IT ON THERE. >> I'VE GOT ONE. >> GO AHEAD. >> I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT WE ADD A RECURRING AGENDA ITEM TO OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS WHERE STAFF GIVES US UPDATES ON CURRENT PROJECTS TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT WITH EACH PROJECT, TO SEE IF WE'RE ON SCHEDULE, AND IF THERE ARE ANY DELAYS. THIS WAY, WE CAN STAY ON TOP OF THINGS AND MAKE SURE PROJECTS GET FINISHED ON TIME. >> ALL RIGHT. >> IS THAT DIFFERENT THAN THE CIP ONE THAT WE GET MONTHLY? LIKE, WHAT -- YOU'RE LOOKING FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN CIP? >> WELL, WHAT I FIND IS WHEN WE'RE DISCUSSING PROJECTS, MOST OF THE TIME, THEY'RE IN DELAY. AND SO, WE'RE WONDERING, WHY IS IT IN DELAY? WHY DOES THIS KEEP HAPPENING? WHY DOES THIS KEEP RECURRING? SOMEHOW -- OKAY. LET ME JUST BE -- >> JUST -- NOT TO INTERRUPT YOU. CAN'T WE TALK ABOUT THAT -- >> OKAY. >> WE GOT TO HAVE IT POSTED. >> OKAY. YOU HAD ONE? >> YEAH. CITY MANAGER, HELP ME WITH THIS. I THINK IT WAS MS. MORIARTY THAT TALKED ABOUT -- I WAS LOOKING FOR SHIRTS FOR THE -- AND I THINK IN AN EMAIL TO HER -- SORRY I DON'T HAVE IT IN [03:15:03] FRONT OF ME -- THIS MAY NEED TO BE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW FOR DOLLARS AND A CATALOG REVIEW. >> YOU SAID THE EMAIL WAS YOU CAN BUY IT, HERE'S WHAT THEY PROPOSE? >> UH-HUH. >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY BUDGETED FOR IT. >> WE NEED TO PUT IT ON THE AGENDA ITEM. >> IF YOU WANT TO SEE THE PAPERWORK. OTHERWISE, YOU CAN -- >> OKAY. OKAY. >> SO, YOU WANT AN AGENDA ITEM? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> I DIDN'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. I FORGOT. >> I'VE GOT ONE. IT'S A BUDGET ITEM. AND JAMES, I DON'T REMEMBER THE OTHER FIRM, BUT I'D LIKE US, FEBRUARY 19TH, I HOPE THAT DOESN'T BECOME A BIG MEETING, BUT -- BECAUSE FEBRUARY 5TH, I'M SURE, IS BIG. FEBRUARY 19TH, FOR US TO HAVE ON THE AGENDA TO DISCUSS AN RFP FOR THE -- THAT MOBILITY DEAL. GO OUT FOR RIDESHARE -- I FORGOT WHAT THEY CALL THAT. >> OH, YEAH. I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> BUT SPECIFICALLY, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO -- WE MAKE SURE THAT, LIKE, UBER'S NOTIFIED AND THEN I FORGOT THE COMPANY. IT'S ZIP SOMETHING THAT ROUND ROCK IS DOING. BUT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT A GOOD GRASP OF WHAT -- GEORGETOWN IS DOING ONE. >> PFLUGERVILLE IS DOING IT WITH THIS COMPANY. FETCH A RIDE. >> TO BRING THAT UP, FEBRUARY 19TH, SO WE CAN DECIDE, DO WE WANT TO PROCEED? DO WE WANT TO DO AN RFP AND GET THAT GOING SO WE CAN EITHER FREE UP THE MONEY OR SPEND IT? >> SO, I'LL JUST GET WITH YOU AND FIGURE OUT MORE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO HAVE THEM COME AND GIVE PRESENTATIONS OR IF YOU WANT US TO HAVE A DRAFT RFP. BUT EITHER WAY, IT'LL BE DETERMINED BY WHAT YOUR -- WHAT YOUR LANGUAGE IS. >> AND THEN, JUST A HEADS UP, THERE'S STILL A THING ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE INTERIM CITY COUNCIL MEMBER APPLICATION. IT'S STILL ON THERE. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> I FIXED IT DURING THE MEETING. >> ACM SAID IT GOT FIXED DURING THE MEETING. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT, WE'RE AT 11:15. WE'LL ADJOURN. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.