[0:02] All right, good evening. If I can ask, uh, the public to be seated. We

[0:06] will go ahead and, uh, begin with our,

[0:10] um, regular council meeting, um, which is delayed

[0:14] one week, uh, as a result of the storm, but we will be begin

[0:19] on january 23rd, 2024 at

[0:23] 5:30 pm we do have a

[0:27] quorum of council present. In fact, um, I'm, we're, we're

[0:31] all here. And, uh, so we look forward to tonight's meeting.

[0:36] uh, at this time, I would invite, uh, mr. Paul cartwright,

[0:40] a full church of christ to come and lead us in our invocation. Uh,

[0:44] appreciate you and the work church christ does in our community. Um,

[0:48] if you all would stand and, uh, we'll follow up with the pledges.

[0:53] praise god. Thank you for today.

[0:58] thank you for another,

[1:21] the city council. Father, so much

[1:27] rise. Thank father

[1:32] for the opportunity.

[1:46] thank you, paul. If you would join me in the pledge to the us flag

[1:51] pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,

[1:56] and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under

[2:00] god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,

[2:05] and the texas honor, the texas flag

[2:09] of whether to texas, one state

[2:13] under god. One .

[2:17] you may be seated.

[2:22] this time. We'll take citizens' comments. Uh, this is an opportunity

[2:26] for citizens to speak to counsel relating to agenda and non-ag agenda items. Speakers

[2:30] are advised that comments cannot be received on matters, which are subject of a public hearing. Once that hearing

[2:34] has been closed, speakers are required to register in advance of must limit, but their

[2:39] comments to three minutes, we would ask. So ask that you state your

[2:43] name and address for the city secretary. Um, at this time,

[2:47] I would invite mr. Don elder.

[2:56] good evening mayor and mayor prote and

[3:00] city council. It's pleasure for me to be here. Uh,

[3:05] y'all did a great thing in, in this facility that you just

[3:09] recently gotten into, and it's a, a, a big, uh, step,

[3:13] but you, you made that step. We did it in katy, where

[3:17] I was mayor, uh, about five years ago too. So,

[3:22] uh, we were crowded, we were nearly cubicles,

[3:26] and, uh, we decided we needed to get our people out there. And so

[3:30] we did. I'm here just to thank you as a, as a, uh,

[3:34] person, a consultant for purch, uh, pca

[3:39] purchasing cooperative of america. We do all kinds of,

[3:43] uh, purchase co-op, uh, contracts, and we do

[3:47] 'em in, in cities, schools, uh, counties,

[3:52] uh, universities, colleges, 5 0 1

[3:56] threes, private schools, charter schools, and even in

[4:00] churches. So, uh, we just appreciate y'all joining

[4:05] and, uh, if we can help you with anything, we'll be glad to do that. Uh,

[4:09] I've been in this business for about 25 years, so, uh,

[4:14] it's, uh, been very, uh, enlightening and you learn

[4:19] a lot. So it's, uh, good to be here with you tonight.

[4:23] and, uh, we thank you for letting me give you the opportunity

[4:27] to speak. Thank you. Thank you, don. Appreciate it. Mm-hmm. .

[4:31] mr. Mon ridge, I would like to speak on,

[4:36] uh, the tree next to the beach.

[4:40] can we hold till the item,

[4:45] uh, that's at your discretion, mayor. Okay. We'll hold till the item, um,

[4:50] uh, just confirming, it looks like mr. Clifford posted yes, and

[4:55] then marked it out. Just make sure you don't wanna speak. Are we good? Okay.

[4:59] um, moving on to ms. Ana erland.

[5:11] good evening mayor. Um, wonderful council members and

[5:15] the staff for doing such a good job with the city of re. That's all I wanna say.

[5:19] thank you so much. I know your job can be thankless at times, but you represent

[5:24] us well. Thank you. Thank you,

[5:28] ms. K call.

[5:34] good evening, uh, mayor and counsel. Uh, my name is kay collick. I live

[5:38] at 27 7 0 2 rocky creek court, uh, in shore.

[5:43] uh, I noticed on consent item k, there was nothing, uh, in the

[5:47] online packet about that. And assuming it stays on the agenda

[5:51] and y'all don't skip over it for whatever reason, I was just hoping when you get to that item,

[5:56] uh, maybe you could share with those of us here a little bit about what

[6:00] that item is about. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Gay.

[6:05] alright. Um, before that is all who signed up

[6:10] for, uh, citizens' comments. However, I do have a proclamation I'd

[6:14] like to read, uh, and a presentation, uh, to follow

[6:18] fort bend county district attorney's community awareness team, national human trafficking prevention

[6:23] month proclamation, whereas human trafficking is a public health issue

[6:27] and a crime that exploits the most vulnerable among us and weakness the

[6:31] health and wellbeing of, of individuals, families, and communities across generations.

[6:36] whereas human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation transfer, harboring

[6:40] or receipt of people through force fraud or coercion to exploit

[6:44] them for profit. Whereas an estimated 27.6 million people

[6:49] are subjected subject to human

[6:53] trafficking globally, including cases of human trafficking reported in every

[6:57] us state and territory. Whereas human trafficking can happen to anyone,

[7:01] but specific populations are disproportionately at risk, including people

[7:06] affected by abuse, violence, poverty, unstable living conditions, social disconnection

[7:11] or discrimination. Whereas people can be trafficked in person and

[7:15] online in industries such as restaurants, domestic work, construction, agriculture,

[7:19] and factories, and by strangers or someone they know, including employers, partners,

[7:23] and family members. Whereas human trafficking can be prevented by building individual

[7:28] community and social understanding and resil resilience,

[7:32] redu reducing social inequities, and addressing the condition that contribute to exploitation.

[7:37] whereas the fort bend county district attorney human trafficking community awareness

[7:41] team has a mission to build awareness within the community on how they recognize,

[7:45] report, and prevent human traffick. Whereas a successful

[7:49] response to human trafficking requires a coordinated community-wide effort, whereas

[7:53] people who have been, have experienced human trafficking have relevant perspectives

[7:58] and expertise and will engage in the collaborate, collaborate with them to develop and

[8:02] strengthen trafficking related service programs, whereas every individual

[8:06] family, community, and organization contribute to enhancing human trafficking awareness,

[8:11] prevention, and response. Therefore, I, aaron groff, as the mayor of

[8:15] du hereby proclaim the month of january, 2024 as human trafficking prevention month

[8:20] reaffirming our commitment to increase awareness, education and human trafficking, and make

[8:24] resources available to assist individuals and communities impacted by human trafficking and

[8:28] build diverse public-private partnerships to support a more comprehensive

[8:33] response to prevent and respond to human trafficking. I want to encourage you

[8:37] all to speak up anytime you see anything outta place. And I want to thank

[8:41] ms. Ron kandal for her efforts and advocacy throughout our community.

[8:46] mayor council members, thank you so much for the proclamation. I actually

[8:50] chair the fort bend county district attorney's human trafficking team. Back in 2016,

[8:54] there was a study that was done by the university of texas and it found that in

[8:58] 2016, in the state of texas alone, 79,000 children

[9:02] were being sex trafficked. Of course, today, several years later,

[9:06] we don't know where that number stands, but I can assure you that that number has not decreased.

[9:11] so, what we find in national human trafficking awareness month, there's so many events

[9:15] in january, I wanted to find a way to bring re remembrance to survivors

[9:19] of sex trafficking february through december. So I have something for the city.

[9:24] it is a blue bank. Blue is the color of national human trafficking awareness month,

[9:29] and there is a qr code that is to the facebook group, our voice

[9:33] in texas that talks about human trafficking, um, particularly in fort bend county

[9:38] and the work that we're doing in the texas legislature to change those laws. Thank

[9:42] you.

[10:18] we will leave that there and display it in the lobbies for others to get, uh, information

[10:22] and utilize that qr code. So thank you. Alright,

[10:27] moving on with tonight's agenda. City manager's report briefings or updates may be

[10:31] provided regarding city services, administrative personnel matters, real estate development, infrastructure,

[10:35] events, regulations, community, and intergovernmental relation

[10:39] issues, mr. Harper. Alright, thank you. Good evening, mayor counsel,

[10:44] uh, to begin with and discussing the changes in various staff members. Uh,

[10:48] we do have one of those here tonight. Uh, we have a new hire,

[10:53] ms. Julie watts. Oh, I thought she came. I,

[10:57] oh, I saw her in the lobby. Well, scratch that. Um, she, uh, julie

[11:01] came to us, uh, from a long ways off. She comes from the city of simonton and, uh,

[11:05] she's joined the finance department as a finance specialist too. We

[11:09] do have a promotion. Um, ms. Cory gfa has been promoted, um,

[11:14] to the accountant to position with the finance department. And then

[11:18] we do have, uh, one resignation, a departure. Uh, jeremiah kirk has

[11:22] resigned from the police department, and that was effective january 19th of this year.

[11:28] moving on to project update, which again will be on the city manager report until

[11:32] completion, uh, for the city of shore water plant number two.

[11:37] uh, the pre-construction meeting occurred between city staff, the contractor and design

[11:41] team on december 20th, 2023.

[11:45] we then had a coordination meeting with the pecan ridge developer, the

[11:49] elevated storage tank engineer and the

[11:53] elevated storage tank contractor. The water plant design engineer and

[11:57] water plant contractor was also held on december 20th, 2023.

[12:04] just yesterday, we issued the construction notice to proceed on the project.

[12:08] the contractor has begun issuing some mills for review by the design

[12:12] engineer. Currently the construction project is 0% complete,

[12:16] and to date, we have expended $0. We

[12:20] are currently, uh, meeting monthly with the water plant contractor and the design team.

[12:26] we're also holding monthly coordination meetings with the water plant contractor

[12:30] design team, storage tank contractor and design team, and the macon

[12:34] ridge developer. So while we're excited that that, uh, has begun, we're while

[12:38] we're glad for rain, I will say now we've already been hit with a rain day yesterday

[12:43] and today and probably tomorrow. So, uh, but anyways, we're excited that that's

[12:47] kicked off and that's moving forward

[12:51] for the bicentennial updates. Uh, uh, it's a great amount

[12:55] of interdepartmental coordination that's going on and really pleased with, um,

[13:00] uh, a**l guadalupe, our edc director for spearheading that

[13:04] the event planning is moving, uh, along well. Vendor registrations have

[13:08] been steadily increasing. We've had multiple new vendor, um,

[13:13] signups just in the last week alone. Uh, the event will have a large family

[13:17] friendly activity area. It'll be completely free of cost to the attendees, as well

[13:21] as a wide range of food options available for purchase. And,

[13:25] uh, one of the things that we're most proud about is that it will conclude

[13:29] with a drone show featuring. And I know that the number will be shocking, but

[13:34] 200 separate drones in honor of the 200th

[13:38] anniversary. So we're really, really excited and, and annel is working really hard and,

[13:42] uh, they're having weekly meetings with various departments to be able to move that

[13:46] along. So that's really gonna be a wonderful event. So again, I'm just keeping you all updated.

[13:50] uh, march 23rd, saturday, uh, four to 8:00 pm is when

[13:54] that will occur. So that concludes my report.

[14:00] any questions or comments regarding those items? Those

[14:04] items? City manager items? Uh, mr. Mayor, if I may, uh,

[14:10] I believe the, there was an update on the, um, status

[14:14] of the projects across the board that was, uh, shared with the council.

[14:19] is there a way we can put that on the website as well if it's not already there? That

[14:23] way the citizens can take benefit of that? Sure. That's not a problem. Thank you.

[14:29] okay, moving on to item eight. Consent items. Items

[14:33] listed under the consent agenda are considered routine, are generally enacted in one motion. The exception of this

[14:37] rule is that a council member may request one or more items to be removed from the

[14:41] consent agenda for a separate discussion. Uh, counsel, do you have any items

[14:45] you wish to remove at this time? Item k, item

[14:50] a. Okay. We have items

[14:54] a and item k. Any additional items?

[14:59] may I move? Counsel, approve consent items b through j.

[15:03] second. Okay, we have a motion by

[15:07] mr. Gavi, a second by mr. Kart to approve consent

[15:11] items b through j. Any further

[15:15] comments? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? There

[15:19] is none. Items b through j

[15:24] are approved. Item a consent and approval of minutes from the city council meeting

[15:28] held on december 19th, 2023. Mr. Kar, mr.

[15:32] mayor, uh, since I was not presented the meeting, I'd like to abstain. Okay.

[15:39] may I make a motion? We approve consent item a second.

[15:44] okay, we have a motion on mr. K, second on ms. Kates to approve consent.

[15:48] item a. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There

[15:52] is none, but there is one abstained. Mr. Decar.

[15:56] item item k, consent and approval, us equal employment

[16:00] opportunity commission negotiated settlement agreement. This has been a matter of

[16:05] executive session multiple times. Uh, I will let

[16:09] josh, uh, disclose what we can at this time. I'm just

[16:13] coming up at this time to remind you that everything that we've discussed in executive session, because of the

[16:17] negotiations, the negotiations that have been occurring with the eeoc have been confidential in nature

[16:22] and need to remain confidential, na in nature until they

[16:26] are approved, uh, uh, by the director of the eeoc. And so if we

[16:30] have any legal questions regarding the settlement, uh, I'd be happy to meet with

[16:34] you guys in executive session if, if you'd like to make a motion for that at this time.

[16:39] so, um, byron, help me out with this one, but as we haven't received

[16:43] anything, we don't actually know what is being approved and therefore couldn't

[16:48] possibly approve and give consent. We actually sent it to you via email. Yeah, it's been, it's been

[16:52] distributed, uh, before the first meeting. Okay.

[16:56] last week. Last week. Oh, with the weather. Okay. Hold on. Yeah, if you

[17:00] need to look at that real quick on january 11th.

[17:10] okay. I'm good, mayor.

[17:15] I move. Counsel, approve. Uh, consent item k, second. Okay, we

[17:19] have motion on ms. Cro second by ms. Case to approve consent. Item k.

[17:23] um, all in favor? A. Aye. Any opposed?

[17:27] there is none. The motion carries. Um,

[17:32] with that, as you heard, the attorneys, we can disclose more once the eoc approves.

[17:37] so, okay. Uh, moving on to item, new

[17:41] business item, a consideration and possible action to approve and adopt. Ordinance number 2024

[17:46] dash 1448, an ordinance of the city of texas, ordering a general

[17:50] election to be held on saturday, the fourth day of may, 2024.

[17:56] city secretary, have any comments as our election administrator?

[18:01] no, the only comment is just to let everyone know that we are accepting applications.

[18:06] um, we began accepting him on january 17th, and we'll be

[18:10] accepting them through friday, february 16th of 5:00 pm

[18:15] and it's for mayor at large. Two,

[18:19] two and three and three, yes. And how do people submit the application?

[18:23] is it online or in person? Yes. So you can submit 'em online via email.

[18:27] um, you can submit 'em in person or by mail.

[18:31] uh, you just have to make sure that they are notarized and, uh, the

[18:36] person that gives you the oath is allowed to give you those. Yeah. So for the

[18:40] public who may be listening, just to make sure all of that is clear, um,

[18:44] on the ballot is mayor at large district two

[18:48] and district three positions. Um, some of us are, are term limited

[18:53] out. And so those, those positions are being vacated. Um,

[18:58] and, uh, but in order to apply, you can submit that online. You can

[19:02] email them, you can mail them, you can come in person, but

[19:06] all the forms do have to be notarized correctly. And the person

[19:10] who administers the the oath has to be eligible

[19:14] to administer that oath. So, um, just important reminder. So, but

[19:18] you can come by at any time, uh, during business hours and, uh,

[19:22] there's no fee. There is no fee. , may I move? Counsel? Approve

[19:27] ordinance number 2024 dash 1448. I second. Second.

[19:32] we have a motion by mr. Kavi, second by mr. Poole, uh, to

[19:36] approve ordinance number 2024 dash 1448 in

[19:41] ordinance to the city of ster, texas, ordering a general election to be held on saturday, the fourth

[19:45] day of may, 2024. Any further comments or questions?

[19:49] uh, mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add that, uh, city secretary

[19:53] is, uh, one of the individuals that can note rise and, uh, give

[19:57] you the oath. If you're filing applications, you don't have to go looking for somebody else. Yeah, correct.

[20:03] both the city secretary and assistant city secretary. Alright,

[20:08] any other comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?

[20:12] there is none. The motion carries. Item b, consideration, possible action improvement amendment to the professional service

[20:16] agreement 2022 dash oh oh two for the primrose

[20:20] park project. Timothy,

[20:25] good evening, mayor and counsel, the item before you tonight is to amend

[20:29] the existing design contract for primrose park. The existing design

[20:33] contract for primrose park is, uh, formally what we all know is phase two, which consists of

[20:37] the ball fields, um, parking concession, and restroom

[20:42] building. Um, and associated components for all of that area of the park.

[20:47] phase three that, um, we have been working towards is for the

[20:51] amphitheater, food truck, parking, additional parking area, um,

[20:55] a completely different separate parking lot, um, and additional restrooms.

[20:59] so what is before you tonight is to, um, the recommendation to approve

[21:03] the design amendment for this contract to be able to move forward with the design of phase three.

[21:09] and just a reminder, this was part of our,

[21:13] um, approval of the budget to proceed with, um, fa

[21:18] with the next phase of the project. Previously with the, uh, with the reason

[21:22] that we're doing the amendment, because we signed this before we had amended that as part of this

[21:26] sequence, correct? Correct.

[21:30] mayor. And what's, what's the timeline for completion on this design? We anticipate,

[21:35] um, about nine to 12 months for design for this phase. Um, some

[21:39] of that timeline is dependent on, um, which style of amphitheater we go with,

[21:43] if it has to be, um, you know, dif different architectural design components associated

[21:48] with that. So this, uh,

[21:52] budget amount, five 59,388

[21:56] is only for phase three? Yes. Right. There's nothing from phase two that is being

[22:01] done in these points. It's amending the entire contract. So

[22:05] it would be okay, you know, a design contract ultimately if approved for phase two and

[22:09] phase three. But the 559,000 or yes, 559,000

[22:13] is for phase three, which brings the total contract to the 990,000.

[22:18] okay. Alright, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Certainly.

[22:22] may I move counsel, approve and authorize the city manager to execute an amendment

[22:27] to professional service agreement 2022 dash zero two with half

[22:31] half incorporated for the design services in the amount of $559,388

[22:37] for a total not to exceed of $990,088

[22:42] for primrose park. Second. All right. We

[22:46] have a motion by mr. I, second by mr. Poole, um, to approve

[22:50] an amendment to the professional service agreement and authorize the city manager to execute,

[22:55] um, the agreement number 20 20 22

[23:00] dash zero two for the primroses project park project not

[23:04] to exceed, um, 900 and sorry

[23:08] $990,000 8,990

[23:13] and $88. Sorry, I lost it in my, in my notes. There it is.

[23:18] so 90 $990,088

[23:22] for primrose park agreement with half incorporated.

[23:27] any further questions or comments

[23:31] being none? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none.

[23:35] the motion carries. Moving on to item c, presentation and discussion

[23:39] with the consideration of possible action regarding a park and recreational

[23:43] general obligation bond. Um, I know we will have

[23:48] a lot of history here, but, but I will say, um, this is,

[23:53] uh, in response to combining

[23:57] multiple phases of the project moving forward. Total cost coming in, there's, there's a whole

[24:01] lot involved and so look forward to the presentation. So thanks,

[24:05] heather. Thank you. Let me ask a question first. So the recommendation

[24:10] is that it's around discussion regarding it will be,

[24:14] will we be asked to approve something? Also, I think we'll be looking

[24:18] for consensus, um, as to if we have

[24:22] interest in moving forward. Okay. And if we do have interest, what

[24:26] that bond package potentially might look like. Um, should we,

[24:30] should we choose to go? So this is a discussion that's correct. That's okay. Okay. It's

[24:34] not a final decision. Yeah, there were two different wordings here going on, so I wasn't sure.

[24:39] okay. Thanks. Thank you. Um, good evening, mayor and council members.

[24:43] my name is kimberly bo. I'm a resident of shore and also the co-chair of,

[24:47] uh, sre parks and recreation commission. So today we're going to be discussing

[24:51] with you, um, a recommendation for your consideration

[24:56] if it moves forward. Hold on one second. Let's see here.

[25:00] it's on.

[25:11] thank you.

[25:16] there we go. Just some easy technical issues there, but we're putting a

[25:20] recommendation in front of you for your consideration. Um, and I wanna thank tiffany and

[25:24] erin who are also gonna be presenting on, uh, behalf of the city. Um, today we're gonna be talking

[25:28] a little bit about what that rec, uh, parks and recreation commission project priority ranking is

[25:32] for your consideration. We're gonna talk through those proposed park bond projects,

[25:36] um, the potential bond packages, impact to the tax rate, and then next

[25:41] steps moving forward. So as you can see from some of these photos,

[25:45] uh, the over the past three years as being chair of shore parks and recs, and now

[25:49] also the co-chair, um, we've had a lot of awesome discussions about

[25:53] what the future of shore could look like for our parks. Um, our council liaison,

[25:58] um, council member pool can attest to each and every month us discussing all of

[26:02] the parks that we do have and ideas for them. Um, I want

[26:06] to let you know that I don't represent just myself today. I do represent the seven members that

[26:10] are volunteers, but appointed to shore parks and recreation. And we're all in agreement

[26:14] with this recommendation that I'm gonna put in forward, uh, to you today. Um,

[26:19] we love our home. We love shore. And just like you, we are servant minded.

[26:24] we wanna see recreational events that benefit the entire city. We wanna see parks

[26:28] that benefit our entire community. Um, and we try our best to make recommendations and,

[26:32] um, on behalf of the community as we move forward. So not in

[26:36] an addition to just having fun, um, but we really do have the whole community in mind.

[26:41] so, as you guys are aware, shore has grown, um, very crazy in the past few years.

[26:45] for the past eight years that I've been a resident of shore. I've seen it quadruple in size.

[26:49] and we know with that there are a lot of competing needs, all of which are important,

[26:54] all are priorities, but all cost money. And so for us, our secret is no more.

[26:58] we want to make sure that we're making some wise decisions on behalf of the community. And for

[27:02] us, that comes in the form of parks. So, over the past few meetings

[27:07] that we've had, especially this fall, the parks and recreation commission

[27:11] did take, um, time to rank what our needs are. And we have ms. Ramona

[27:16] ridge, who's also in the audience. She's the, the current chair of parks and rec. But we really

[27:20] started to think about all these parks that we talk about each and every meeting. What are the priorities

[27:24] and what would we like to come to you guys today with, um, in terms of a recommendation. So we

[27:28] asked all seven members to rank, uh, what their priorities were for the

[27:32] existing parks that we currently have. And primroses park was the number one priority of the parks

[27:36] and recreation commission to make sure that we, um,

[27:41] complete primrose park all phases to meet expectations and to make sure that we have

[27:45] a budget that can help support that. The second ranking was irene stern

[27:49] to investigate, to explore, um, how that could be renovated,

[27:53] perhaps have some amenities that are added to that in line with the, um,

[27:57] master plan that we have in place, um, and then also talk about land. The

[28:02] third ranking was land, because we know more land is not gonna be created, but to secure

[28:06] land for future parks that could potentially, um, be built there. Uh, the

[28:10] fourth consideration was the, uh, five acre park. Again, this is

[28:14] a concept that if we had land we could potentially build and then francis

[28:18] mark park, uh, potentially turning that into a veteran's memorial. But these were the

[28:22] five top priorities, um, from the shore parks and recreation commission

[28:26] of what we'd like to see happen in our community. Um, but in order to complete these,

[28:31] of course, we need the funds to move forward. So we represent the community, but

[28:35] we'd really like to have the community's input and weigh in. And what the conversation

[28:39] was at our meeting was to put potentially a bond out for consideration for

[28:43] the community to vote on, for them to tell us what it is that they'd like to see, um, happening

[28:47] here in shore. So it is my recommendation to y'all as

[28:51] I stand here, to say that shore parks and recreation would like to see a bond put

[28:56] out for consideration of, uh, voters here in the community. And

[29:00] now I'm gonna go ahead and turn this over to tiffany who's gonna walk us through

[29:04] what those projects look like and what, how those projects, um,

[29:08] were estimated and what that would include.

[29:24] thank you, kimberly. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight I will be presenting

[29:28] on the proposed park bond projects that the parks and recreation commission ranked.

[29:33] as kimberly mentioned, the park priority is primrose park, and

[29:37] to no surprise, was ranked number one with the commission. Phase two of primrose

[29:41] park consists of four youth baseball fields, restrooms and concession

[29:45] building, parking, and required detention. Historically, primrose phase

[29:49] two budget has been based off of the regional park fund available funds.

[29:54] this project is currently in design, but ultimately, there are not enough funds to

[29:59] build primrose phase two. Staff and half the design

[30:03] firm have worked diligently to find alternatives and

[30:07] different methods to try to bring this phase into the construction budget.

[30:12] ultimately, we want to build this part to be something that fulcher is proud of.

[30:17] phase three will consist of an amphitheater, additional parking, food, truck

[30:21] area, restrooms, walking trails, and a playground. The

[30:25] estimated budget presented to you tonight of $19 million is

[30:29] considering construction for all of primrose phase two and phase three with

[30:33] no other funding sources designed for primrose is budgeted

[30:37] within the current budget and not included in the proposed bond. Each

[30:42] project shown has a proposed project contingency to assist in covering the

[30:46] unknowns and the ever-changing inflation. We have been faced with

[30:53] irene stern community center as a whole, ranked number two for

[30:57] the parks commission. I have split irene stern into two different projects,

[31:01] the recreation center and park improvements. This slide represents the

[31:06] proposed recreation center consisting of opportunities such as a gymnasium,

[31:10] a fitness room, walking track, and locker rooms. The master plan

[31:14] projected this facility to be approximately 21,000 square feet.

[31:19] the parks and pathways master plan is a document that helps guide the city in what the community

[31:23] desires. With a project such as a recreation center, it would be beneficial to

[31:28] complete a preliminary engineering report to better determine what indoor recreation

[31:32] opportunities we want to provide and better to find the project cost.

[31:36] additionally, this facility would need a significant number of staff to run the recreation center

[31:41] as, as well as additional facility maintenance staff and increased operational

[31:46] cost. Currently, some of public works maintenance staff are located

[31:50] within the irene stern facility and would need to be relocated

[31:54] should this project be approved, which increases the need for a public works

[31:59] and parks operations and maintenance facility.

[32:07] the second project for irene stern community center is the irene stern park

[32:11] improvement project. This project consists of walking trails, a playground,

[32:15] sports court, and a pavilion. This project would bring the needed

[32:20] sports courts to our community, while also providing additional play areas for

[32:24] our shore community.

[32:29] the third ranked project is land acquisition, which would be, which

[32:33] would provide the funding for the city to acquire additional land for future

[32:37] projects.

[32:44] the five acre park project was the fourth ranking project

[32:48] with the understanding that it is conceptual, but demonstrates the desire

[32:52] to provide more parks and recreation opportunities to our community.

[32:56] this project supports the previous project, the need for additional

[33:00] city-owned land in shore. The budget shown was

[33:04] developed in the master plan based off of the conceptual plan shown, but

[33:09] does not include detention. Staff would recommend the city purchase

[33:13] land before proposing a conceptual park on a bond.

[33:21] francis smart park was ranked number five by the commission and planned

[33:25] for a plaza environment with a veteran's memorial if

[33:29] approved. The budget presented tonight is contingent on the site being fully available to

[33:33] construct staff believe that this project is a great addition to

[33:37] our community, but the existing structure on site could impact

[33:42] the project timeline and ultimately the project budget. With that,

[33:46] I would like to ask our assistant city manager, zach, to provide an update regarding

[33:51] the section house.

[33:56] uh, quite simply, it's still there. Uh, there is an agreement

[34:00] in place, uh, from anderson smith who's got the commercial attractive

[34:04] land that's immediately east of sim street and on to 93

[34:09] in our downtown area, that he would then move the section house to his property

[34:13] and it'd be a focal point of his development. Uh,

[34:17] we have reviewed those plans. We've approved his permits. Uh, he's included something called the

[34:21] section house square. Uh, but he has not moved forward on the project yet citing

[34:26] construction costs. So until he starts construction,

[34:30] he cannot move the section house over according to him.

[34:34] so that's kinda where we're right there, but there is, there is interest there and a plan.

[34:41] thank you, zach.

[34:45] this slide represents the project's in priority ranking from the parks and recreation commission.

[34:50] also illustrating two different totals. The first, including the irene

[34:54] stern recreation center and the second with irene stern park improvements.

[34:59] the total for all projects shown with both projects at irene stern

[35:03] would be approximately $56 million.

[35:11] here we proposed a few different packages, one

[35:15] package with the top three priority ranking projects. Eight. I'm sorry, can you, can

[35:19] you just back up to the previous one? Certainly.

[35:24] so the total is 51.

[35:28] the, the total if you, if you consider both components of irene stern is

[35:32] 56 million. The total, if you, um,

[35:37] if, if irene stern was only the recreation center would be 51.

[35:41] if you did not consider the recreation center, but you did consider the irene

[35:45] stern park improvements, then it would be the 37 8. Okay, I see

[35:53] here we proposed a few different packages. One package with the top three

[35:58] priority ranking projects, a separate package with francis smart,

[36:02] and an additional package for the irene stern recreation center. These are example

[36:06] packages and ultimately can be customized based off of the direction from council.

[36:11] next, aaron will show the estimated tax impact for each project,

[36:16] which will also allow counsel to consider different packages. Thank

[36:20] you for the opportunity to present this to you tonight. At this time, I would like to

[36:24] hand this to, um, over to aaron, our finance director.

[36:35] good evening.

[36:39] so the next slide goes over. What are general obligation bonds? General obligation

[36:44] bonds are bonds that are voted on by the public through a bond election.

[36:48] they're secured by property taxes and that we were required by law to levy

[36:52] a tax rate to pay for those bonds.

[36:57] the next slide goes over what our current property tax rate is for the fiscal year 2024.

[37:02] as you can see, our maintenance and operations tax rate is 0.1 2 7 1 7 4.

[37:07] our interest in sinking is 0.0 4 1 5 9 3 with our

[37:11] total adopted tax rate being 0.1 6 9 0 6 7.

[37:19] the next slide goes over tax rate impact by parker project. So what

[37:23] we did was we took the different bond packages and we spoke with our financial

[37:28] advisors. And you'll see the first column is the different projects.

[37:33] the second column is the estimated cost that tiffany just discussed with you,

[37:37] with the third column being the tax rate impact per the project

[37:41] with the, and the fourth column being the annual impact to a $400,000

[37:46] home. Once again, these are just estimates because the taxable values will change

[37:50] every year. And as you can see, the total

[37:54] for all those projects comes up to 0.0 8 8 6 8 1

[37:59] at a total estimated cost of $354 and 71 cents

[38:03] to a $400,000 home.

[38:07] the next slide, I'd like to go in and talk about the annual mud payments the city is obligated

[38:11] to make. The city currently has development agreements with different muds throughout the

[38:15] city. Each year, we are obligated to pay a portion

[38:20] of our property taxes that we receive in that particular mud back

[38:24] to the muds. The amount that we have to pay back is based on a tiered

[38:28] structure that is in each agreement. As you can see the on the slide,

[38:32] this is the tiered structure that is in each development agreement. It's based off of our

[38:36] total tax rate. Since our total tax rate right now is currently

[38:40] well below the 0.21999, we pay to the muds,

[38:45] the 0.0 6 2 5 1 0 of the assessed value in that particular

[38:49] mud. Every year of the property taxes the city receives,

[38:54] should the property taxes, our total property tax go above that,

[38:58] you will see the different tiers and the different percentages they go up based on our total

[39:02] property tax. The

[39:06] next slide just kind of goes into more detail about that first column is, once

[39:10] again, the different percentages based on your total tax rate. The tier,

[39:14] with the second column being the actual increase of the call, should

[39:19] the total tax rate go to that tier for that related percentage?

[39:24] and then what your total, our total, the total the city's total annual mud payments

[39:28] would be with that increase. And based off of our 2024

[39:32] budgeted amount of $1,577,000.

[39:41] with this slide, I did a little property tax rate analysis. I took our current total tax

[39:46] rate of 0.1 6 9 0 6 7 and took the

[39:50] current threshold that we're currently in of the 0.21999 with the

[39:54] difference being 0.0 5 1 2, 3 2, which shows the

[39:58] difference that we would we currently have before we go up to that next level of

[40:02] that tier that we would be required to pay the 7% or the 8% based on

[40:06] what our total tax rate is. And then below are just simply examples

[40:11] of possible combinations that would keep the city within that 0.0

[40:15] 5 1 2, 3 2.

[40:20] so I, I have a question, but I don't know when you yeah. To take questions. So, so

[40:24] a couple of notes. Mm-hmm. , um, first before we address those

[40:28] questions, when it comes to the, to the mud rate, I do wanna remind all of you, in case

[40:32] some of you weren't on counsel at the time, um,

[40:36] back prior to the renegotiated agreement, um,

[40:41] in 2018, in the end of 18, um, any

[40:45] tax rate over 10 cents went back to the muds. We renegotiated.

[40:50] and part of that negotiation was the mud director's

[40:54] understanding that at some point in time, the city would need the

[40:58] capacity to issue bonds without impacting that

[41:03] tax rate that's paid to the muds. So in other words, if

[41:07] we would've issued a 5 cent tax, um, for a

[41:11] bond package, we would've had to pay 5 cents to the muds.

[41:15] and so this renegotiated contract changed the terms

[41:21] to this tiered structure, uh, of payments.

[41:25] um, I don't think at the time any of us, um, saw

[41:29] what was coming from the state legislature. However, we did take that into account

[41:33] because we heard rumors of such, um, when negotiating these terms.

[41:37] and what I'm referring to is, um, our cap that

[41:41] we can't exceed on our, on our tax rate, um, each year. So

[41:45] all of those calculations did come into play as we renegotiated

[41:49] the terms. Uh, we'll remind the public and counsel that

[41:54] the tax rate that we pay back to the muds is only on the

[41:58] value within that mud. So we're not paying the total

[42:03] tax rate above, which is why, um, it's, it's, it's lower

[42:07] than the percentage that's actually paid back to the mud, um, as

[42:11] we see it to date. So just a couple of clarifying things there as it relates

[42:15] to the mud. Um, when, when staff sent this, we talked extensively

[42:19] about the importance of this, um, being a part of the equation because we

[42:23] do need to know, you do need to know that if you go above

[42:28] the, sorry, my 21.99, if you,

[42:32] if you go above that, um, then it does kick us to the next

[42:37] tier of payment. Um, but then we're still, we're splitting pennies

[42:41] is virtually what's happening as that increases. So, but, but I wanna,

[42:46] I wanna, as a taxpayer to the meds,

[42:50] I don't feel like, and I speak, I think for most everybody

[42:54] in my district, I don't know that this represents

[42:59] us. Well, and, and by that, what I'm guess I'm saying

[43:03] is everybody that is in a mud,

[43:08] which is all cross creek plus others, right? I pay $6,000

[43:13] a year to the mud, which is what other people that

[43:17] don't live in cross creek, they don't pay. So to, to the

[43:21] point of why we have these mud payments back to

[43:25] from the city, it's because people like myself

[43:29] have already paid that $6,000 and all it

[43:33] is, is paying the mud so that they can pay for my roads,

[43:38] my infrastructure that I live in, that, that kind of thing. So

[43:42] I don't, I think that we're not serving the med taxpayers

[43:47] well when we don't present that part of it. So if we

[43:51] print, if we present the meds, you need to be able to speak back to

[43:55] somebody like me that says, oh, and by the way, ms. Cage, you've already paid $6,000,

[44:01] which basically all we are doing is taking your money and paying it

[44:05] back to months. Yeah. And so, so that, that's my point. So yeah. And so to

[44:09] that point, what's, what's really happening? Um, and I can't,

[44:13] I think my rate was 85 cents, right?

[44:18] in reality it was 5 cents more. Okay? Yeah. Because,

[44:23] so, so what what's really happening is because of the city's payment

[44:27] back, it reduces that taxpayer in

[44:31] the mud's rate, but it's, it's not really a true

[44:35] reduction, um, because it's just the members that are within the

[44:39] mud. So, um, just kind of an important note to understand, uh,

[44:44] the taxpayers as a general are not paying that

[44:48] tax rate back to the mud. It's only on the tax, within the tax, the assessed

[44:52] value within those muds. So, so I didn't understand

[44:56] the reduction piece, but I think it's important to clarify

[45:00] why not. I mean, on this, the

[45:05] city takes revenue from the taxpayers.

[45:10] mm-hmm. , right? So I pay our tax rate, which is

[45:14] whatever 0.1 6, 1 6, and nine mm-hmm. , right? I pay that.

[45:18] and so does everyone else that lives in the city. Then the city

[45:24] has to take from that revenue and rebate

[45:28] back to certain muds, right? Mm-hmm, the

[45:33] percentage that you've shown here. So not only am I paying,

[45:38] I don't know what my bill was, it's somewhere between five and $7,000. But

[45:43] of the, that's for the mud. But of the money that

[45:47] I paid to the city for taxes, a percentage of that is rebated

[45:51] to the mud. Mm-hmm. . So the mud's giving my mud dollars to pay for the infrastructure

[45:56] for the mud that I live in. I understand the roads that I drive on, the infrastructure, the water,

[46:00] blah, blah, blah. Right? So it's important because this is going to impact

[46:05] right? Our ins. Yes. Right? So as we,

[46:10] as it stands, the way this is presented now, there would be no additional

[46:14] impact because we're under that rate. So we wouldn't go to the next level.

[46:18] but should we take into consideration and put out

[46:22] a bond proposal that moves us to the next tier. Now then the

[46:26] city's ins is impacted. Correct. So we, 'cause it's gonna go so

[46:30] that and the city's money right? Is what we use to pay

[46:35] for everything that the city is doing. Yes. So it's sort of a double-edged sword. Mm-hmm.

[46:39] . Right? And everyone should understand that. Uh, or we somehow

[46:43] we have to make it clear. And if we're going to put any bond referendum on the ballot,

[46:48] it needs to clearly show

[46:52] what people are right. Are agreeing to or not agreeing to. Mm-hmm. . Yeah. So currently anything

[46:56] over 5 cents, um, actually 5.12 cents,

[47:03] anything over that 5 cent would kick us into the next threshold

[47:07] on this year's current, um, tax rate. Now, I will note

[47:12] that for the past, well, since we signed the agreement, um,

[47:16] and the new state legislation went into, into effect, our rate

[47:20] has actually gone from, it was, I believe

[47:25] 18, 18 and a half cents. Mm-hmm. . So we've dropped to two

[47:29] full cents mm-hmm. From that time that this started. So

[47:33] I, I wouldn't imagine, um, next year giving new population,

[47:38] new rooftops, I would imagine that we're looking at another

[47:42] decrease in the overall tax rate again, um,

[47:46] with continued increasing cost of, of, of homes

[47:50] in the area. But you're right, anything above

[47:54] the 5 cents on the ballot would result in an

[47:59] increase, um, to that mud payment. And that was kind

[48:03] of the point of, to, to your point of yes, the city's paying

[48:07] it back, if the city wasn't paying it back, we would be paying a higher

[48:11] rate within those months anyway. So, but I would like to say,

[48:15] I mean, so I think that's all really important, and I think for a lot of people, even me, because you and I had

[48:19] a conversation, 'cause these numbers are just sort of flying by and no, there's no

[48:24] frame of reference necessarily, right? Mm-hmm. . So we're not all in

[48:28] finance, but, uh, I think it's important that as during these

[48:32] discussions, that we realize that we are part of

[48:36] a city shore, right? The city of re re first. And

[48:40] yes, we all have responsibilities and where we live

[48:45] and our houses and our muds and all these things, right? But it's really about

[48:49] what do we want for the city of sre as we have these discussions? Mm-hmm.

[48:53] , we're not going to decide anything tonight. Right? But, so that, for me,

[48:57] it's looking at the, you know, the bigger picture. Yes. And these have big numbers with

[49:02] them. I mean mm-hmm. It's serious. Yeah. And I, I think to that point,

[49:06] when I talk to residents, um, across the

[49:10] city, and it doesn't matter if it's bo arc or f run

[49:14] or polo ranch or cross creek, um, there's a general

[49:19] consensus for ball fields and, um, place for the city

[49:23] together, the amphitheater concept, those kinds of things. So I'm not surprised

[49:27] to see primrose rise to the top as the number

[49:31] one priority. However, I will say that I do think,

[49:36] um, those who live in master plan communities will

[49:40] struggle supporting a bond that has buying of small tracks

[49:44] of parkland, um, because there's pocket

[49:49] parks within those communities. So that's gonna be a larger

[49:53] ask when you're talking about taking the vote to the populace.

[49:57] so that's something to, to consider. Um, a

[50:02] additionally, I think when you talk about the importance of

[50:06] downtown and, uh, the livable center study and all the things that we worked

[50:11] on since, um, prior to even some of us being

[50:15] seated here, um, the francis smart park downtown, the,

[50:19] the veterans memorial, those kinds of things becomes a higher priority.

[50:24] um, I, I think rene stern, the improvements outside become

[50:28] very important, um, when you talk about the grand,

[50:32] um, plan, the regional plan of parks. But I do

[50:37] struggle a little bit with a community center that should be, that

[50:41] at least partially my opinion, is the responsibility of the ymca

[50:46] or of when we've got la fitness, we've got different

[50:50] community places to work out to play volleyball, to do those

[50:54] kinds of things. Now, if we wanted to, you know, we do have an

[50:58] mou currently with the ymca, and if we wanted to say, hey, here's the land to

[51:02] develop, and you guys go and staff and fund and do

[51:06] all of those kind of things, that, that might change the equation. Um,

[51:11] but that being said, that's just kind of where my, my opinion on what I

[51:15] think as I think about the populace and how these packages

[51:19] get rolled out, um, you know, we've gotta think about then

[51:23] there's a couple of things counsel to think about. We can put all of these

[51:27] separately on a bond referendum. Each one, each line item can be

[51:31] its own on a referendum. You can package them with multiple

[51:36] together. There's a whole lot of ways, um, that you could

[51:40] choose to do this, to take it to the public, um, for a vote.

[51:45] um, I will say one of the things that I think we are all becoming very

[51:49] familiar with is the fact that, um, increasing

[51:53] cost, not, not just for the city of re but across the board, when

[51:58] I talk to other, um, municipalities, we're seeing this rise

[52:02] in cost. Um, so in order to build the type of

[52:06] ball fields in the park and the experience that our residents have grown

[52:11] accustomed to, um, I I, I'm not sure

[52:15] relying solely on budgeted dollars is gonna be enough to give the public

[52:19] what they desire when it relates to primrose. So I, I guess those are my thoughts

[52:24] as y'all open for question. Well, I guess I have another question. So, I was

[52:28] a bit surprised to see this on the agenda, only because we just finished

[52:32] the budget and we actually moved, remind me, $3 million

[52:36] of general fund over to parks. Yes, ma'am. Yes. So we've already

[52:40] given it a buffer. And then I'm like, whoa, what is this coming

[52:44] just the next month? Mm-hmm. . So I was, I was caught off guard.

[52:49] okay. Um, I, whenever I look also

[52:53] at the numbers you run, and thank you for running those by the way. But for

[52:58] a home of $400,000, $354 a year,

[53:02] I think my total city tax, that's 50%.

[53:06] so I'm paying right now about $700 a year in city taxes.

[53:11] this would add that. And I, and I've talked to folks

[53:16] already about tax increases. There's not a lot of

[53:20] appetite. So I guess I, I know we need to move things forward. I guess I'm surprised.

[53:25] do we really need to go this far this year? Um,

[53:29] the, the people I've reached out to about probably 20 people

[53:34] they don't have an appetite for, but that's their vote, right? They don't

[53:38] have an appetite for this this year. So, okay. So

[53:42] a couple, couple comments and some questions. One, thank you for putting this

[53:46] together. Um, second, um, I'm fully supportive

[53:50] of a bond. I brought this up back in may. Mm-hmm. . 'cause I said we needed to do this if we're gonna move

[53:55] forward. 'cause even though nobody wants, uh, increased taxes, everybody else also

[53:59] keeps complaining that they want ball fields and everything else, and what pays for that.

[54:03] um, so that's a little bit of the comments there. I guess

[54:07] other thoughts and questions? Um, one,

[54:12] I I, I do want a little bit more clarification at the end on what

[54:16] is the six and a half million that we put in the budget for primrose park for phase two and

[54:20] three combining together, getting us versus what is in this entire 19

[54:24] that we didn't have before. So let's make sure we, we hit that up. I think that's very important.

[54:29] I'm curious as to the parking amount for primrose park whenever it's

[54:33] completed. Just 'cause like when we do have a community-wide event,

[54:37] what that would actually be, how many people we could actually have there for the

[54:42] tricentennial, uh, celebration, um, which would

[54:46] be great. Hopefully it doesn't take that long. Um, and then,

[54:50] you know, a couple other things to consider ongoing costs for all of these

[54:54] parks. What is it going to be? How many additional personnel are we gonna need? What is that

[54:58] run rate gonna be? What are the tax implications gonna be in order to support

[55:03] that? That's not from an ins uh, perspective. Um,

[55:07] I, I do, I do not think we should itemize this from a bond.

[55:11] I think it should be a parks and rec bond with things in general to be used from. I don't

[55:16] think all of these things should necessarily be done at the beginning. I think acquiring

[55:20] land and acquiring land now is one of the biggest things because if we don't do it now, there's not

[55:24] gonna be an available and it's gonna get more expensive. Um, I would propose

[55:28] that the dollar amount of the bond keep it below the amount

[55:32] that kicks over the higher mud payment amount. I think that's responsible

[55:37] there. And then the other thing that I think to keep in consideration here is

[55:41] also bond timing. How much of it now this year, we're seeing bond rates

[55:45] rising right now? Where do we feel like they're going to go? They're still traditionally

[55:50] low as compared to 30 years ago, but they're a lot higher than what they were

[55:54] three years ago. So I think that's important to get from a bond council. So I

[55:58] know there was a lot there, but I wanted to share all of that and so that you could take it in and just

[56:02] have some, some feedback from it. And then maybe if you can answer the question on the primrose,

[56:06] that would be helpful.

[56:11] primrose, currently there is, um,

[56:16] what was budgeted was 3.1 for fy 24, which

[56:20] technically was 3.1 for phase two for construction.

[56:24] and then with this budget phase three, the $3 million was allocated

[56:29] for phase three. So that, that left that total

[56:33] to 6.1 for this year for construction of phase two. And

[56:37] then design and construction of phase three.

[56:41] currently we cannot build phase two

[56:45] for $6.1 million. And tonight we just approved 559,000

[56:50] that would come out of that $3 million that was earmarked for phase

[56:55] three. What we showed on the presentation

[56:59] tonight was the, was for just construction without contingency was

[57:03] $15 million for primrose. That's for phase two and phase three. But that does not

[57:07] take into consideration the 6.1 less the

[57:11] design contract that was just awarded tonight. And we showed that just in a way to

[57:15] be able to show kind of where we are with the need for primrose. And then

[57:19] of course, you know, I, if y'all want to see options of, okay, so what does that

[57:24] look like? Um, taking into consideration the 6 million. There's

[57:28] a, there's a lot of ways that it can go. I think because if we

[57:32] considered the bond for the may election, then primrose phase two

[57:36] is almost finished with design. As I mentioned. We've gone through a lot

[57:40] to try and figure out how to bring this into budget to, to somehow even

[57:45] close to, it was not an impo it was not possible for 3.1, but

[57:49] to try and somehow get us close to the $6 million. So we've

[57:53] spent a lot of time going through, exploring a lot of different avenues,

[57:57] um, looking at what we could potentially delay, um, how

[58:01] we could do that. But ultimately, like I said, we wanna build a park that

[58:05] we can all be proud of, not build a park that has no lights,

[58:10] um, has bare bones of a lot of things, right? Because

[58:16] after all this time, if we do that and then you can't even play during

[58:20] the spring because of the time change and all those things, then

[58:24] ultimately it's not really the most usable part for our community. So we,

[58:28] we explored a lot of avenues and the way of how do we, how do we,

[58:32] how do we make this happen? So ultimately tonight we showed you the 15 million

[58:37] for both. And then if, if we go

[58:41] forward with a may bond, if that was something that y'all were interested in, phase two

[58:46] is almost finished with design. So we could be, depending on if

[58:50] there was funding, you know, available, then we could be potentially looking at

[58:54] going out for bids and being able to soon start construction. But we have to

[58:58] have enough dollars for it. So if we, that would

[59:02] be before the may election, potentially could be before the may election

[59:07] if we, so I'll, I'll, I'll stop, I'll stop you there just for a second. Um,

[59:12] I, I appreciate all of that. Um, I'm still, again, supportive

[59:16] of bond 'cause I need, I think we need those funds to be there when we're ready.

[59:21] I think we have to have a separate review of the project in general because we just approved

[59:25] this back in october and we're now saying that not only the 3 million

[59:30] that we put in, but the additional 3 million on top of it isn't gonna

[59:34] pay for the two, phase two and phase three, where we both agreed, I've got serious

[59:38] concerns as a citizens, as a taxpayer to say, what you're gonna go

[59:42] and give me, you're gonna go and we're gonna give you more money and this is gonna

[59:46] keep going out. I mean, we grilled richard weatherly on our water projects.

[59:51] and honestly, like any further projects going forward, gonna

[59:55] have more scrutiny, I believe from this council. If we continue to run like

[59:59] this. Again, it separates it from the bond thing, but, and I, I

[1:00:03] do want, I do want citizens to know that just because we have

[1:00:07] it on a bond, and even if that gets passed, it still goes through us to approve the

[1:00:11] projects. The funds might be there and it might be available, but if we don't feel like it

[1:00:16] is ready or we're ready to take this on, like we're not gonna do it. That's

[1:00:20] at least what I wanna do. But, but I'm not even sure that I'm comfortable with the numbers that

[1:00:24] we've been presented because of just what you said that, that we had 3 million

[1:00:28] and it wasn't enough. We thought it was, so we put put in more and now we're coming

[1:00:32] back and saying, well, that's just bare bones that we don't have lights. And I'm going, I,

[1:00:36] I'm just, I think we need a little screeching halt here to revisit

[1:00:41] and get us back on a common page. And I have concerns

[1:00:45] of going with these bond dollars when we don't, I don't feel confident

[1:00:49] in the dollars, I don't feel confident against. So let, let me give a little bit of context

[1:00:54] to, 'cause I had this conversation as soon as, um,

[1:01:00] ramona called and said, hey, would you consider even hearing, uh, about

[1:01:04] a park bond? And I said, yeah, I think it's, it's important. So I called

[1:01:08] staff and said, all right, where are we? Where are we at? And they had already begun to have that

[1:01:12] conversation as well because it was mentioned at a, uh, parks committee,

[1:01:17] um, meeting. And so this, this dialogue began and it was one

[1:01:21] of the first questions I asked is, all right, where, where's this

[1:01:25] delta? Um, and it was the first question I asked tiffany, we're gonna have to

[1:01:29] explain the delta. And what I came to realize

[1:01:34] is the park that was discussed prior

[1:01:39] to any of us sitting here was

[1:01:43] more of an open space park that

[1:01:47] provided a place where kids could practice

[1:01:51] baseball, those kinds of things. Um, softball,

[1:01:56] whatever, little league. Um, but it was more of kind of that practice field

[1:02:00] concept, not the full on ball field

[1:02:04] concept. Then as this council began

[1:02:09] to have conversations a couple of years ago, it evolved into, at

[1:02:13] one point in time a field that even had movable fences so

[1:02:17] that you could either play soccer or play baseball because we didn't

[1:02:21] have, um, the soccer fields that we now have in tamron

[1:02:25] west that included no, no lights. It didn't include the

[1:02:30] kind of drainage that would be required to truly play little league. Um, didn't

[1:02:34] have that same kind of infill. Um, I remember distinctly because

[1:02:38] mr. Martin, um, raised concerns at that time that we

[1:02:42] weren't even building the appropriate fields. Right?

[1:02:47] and so I believe part of what's happened through that

[1:02:51] design process, even with half is this, the ball

[1:02:55] fields have evolved to a point of

[1:03:00] truly having little league, um,

[1:03:04] concepts. Now, we do have the concept drawings from two or three years ago,

[1:03:09] but that was that movable fence and it wasn't lighted and it, nor was it sprinkled.

[1:03:13] uh, nor were there sprinklers in those equations. So when

[1:03:18] you start ta talking about irrigation lighting, and I'm not trying to justify

[1:03:22] all of the increases, but I am saying that's where some of the increases

[1:03:26] have come is this has evolved, um, from

[1:03:31] practice fields to ball fields. But I agree 100%

[1:03:36] that should we go out to bond before we, before we get

[1:03:40] bond, we pro we need to drill down on some of these, some of

[1:03:44] these costs to ensure from a project management perspective that

[1:03:48] the 19 million is enough, or if it's too much,

[1:03:52] or if there's some engineering that needs to take place. I mean, and this is january.

[1:03:57] and so if why we got presented this

[1:04:01] so quickly, it feels like it was just kind of rushed through to me, right?

[1:04:05] is so that we can get it on the may ballot that that doesn't buy

[1:04:09] it for me. What buys it for me is to get

[1:04:13] it accurate. Something that I am comfortable in

[1:04:18] representing to my constituents, right? Not to just go rush something,

[1:04:22] just to have it on a bond election. And, and so I still need

[1:04:26] an answer as to the money that we put in and what we're gonna be able

[1:04:30] to produce this year. I'm not confident in that. So

[1:04:36] I, I mean, that's where I am is there's, there's no way I, I can't take this to

[1:04:40] my neighbors. I can't take this to anybody to go represent this right now. Yeah.

[1:04:44] I think the, I think the other part, uh, uh, I will comment on two of the

[1:04:48] pieces. One on the timing issue. Um, one, I don't think we're

[1:04:52] ready. I don't think we're ready for, for this may election.

[1:04:56] and there'd be a difference when you talk about deadlines, there'd be a difference if there was

[1:05:00] a, we always call it in business a compelling event. Is there a compelling

[1:05:04] event in june that we need to have those funds from a bonds?

[1:05:09] what are we gonna go do in june that we couldn't do, let's say in

[1:05:13] november of next year or this year by having it on election that year.

[1:05:17] right. So I think we've got a lot of work to do. I don't see a compelling event. Yes,

[1:05:21] it's always better to do it earlier. And I'm not saying take this out forever, but

[1:05:25] there's a lot of question here. And while I understand there might be some different

[1:05:30] value engineering or, or, uh, let's, let's call it all the

[1:05:35] fulcher bells and whistles as we like to have it, and we expect it out here, even

[1:05:39] though we don't like to pay for it. Um, I, I'm, I

[1:05:43] don't see how that comes into play when you budget $6 million

[1:05:47] that then turns into 15 plus additional couple million of contingency.

[1:05:52] I just don't see where nine plus million of additional

[1:05:56] add-ons come when you've already done the land. You've already done the

[1:06:00] field work. I mean, those are the bigger infrastructure pieces. I wanna see what those details are

[1:06:05] on that, on that delta yeah. Is half with us tonight,

[1:06:09] and I'm sure they've provided some of the, the numbers,

[1:06:14] um, the values. Yes. Um, could

[1:06:18] you all possibly speak as to, um, those

[1:06:22] and what, and, and I think to mr. K's point,

[1:06:26] um, we are nearing completion

[1:06:31] of design, uh, for phase two. What is the dollar

[1:06:35] value of phase two alone,

[1:06:40] or to get started prior to, uh, november,

[1:06:44] um, election? Certainly, and if I can just a moment on the,

[1:06:48] we, we, well, I understand the term rush. We did work

[1:06:52] fast, but I've spent a lot of time and spent a lot of diligent

[1:06:56] effort into going through these numbers. So I understand the, the differences

[1:07:01] here. Phase three was, um, in the may, cip

[1:07:05] was shown over $4 million. So three, the $3 million that was

[1:07:09] provided for phase three per the mac cip

[1:07:14] that was presented. Phase three was four point, roughly about $4.4 million.

[1:07:20] so it was, you know, that was for construction and design for what was projected.

[1:07:25] um, so any, any any of that

[1:07:29] deviation though, when we approved the budget was not called out to say,

[1:07:34] yes, if we moved over 3 million, that's fine, but it's not gonna get us everything

[1:07:38] we want. That that was what we did not get at that piece. We understand

[1:07:42] that it was 4 million at one point, and we budgeted an additional three, but it

[1:07:47] was not clear that it wasn't gonna have everything in it. Right. Now you're telling us

[1:07:51] that wouldn't even pay for phase two construction, let alone phase

[1:07:55] three, which we've approved an amendment here to get the design on phase

[1:07:59] three. Which begs the question, what design are

[1:08:03] we putting in phase three now that we just approved to be amended? Because it is,

[1:08:08] is it the small scope that was originally planned, or is it the scope based

[1:08:12] upon having a park bond that includes $19 million for the park

[1:08:16] to finish it? The scope didn't change based off of the bond, the scope. We

[1:08:20] worked through the scope and have been working through the scope for several months of trying

[1:08:24] to make all of this work. Um, so the scope is based off of the master plan

[1:08:28] of in the, the conceptual image that's shown in that agenda item,

[1:08:33] which has been available for three years now. Um, the,

[1:08:37] the addition is only to my knowledge from

[1:08:42] that conceptual plan. The only addition is sprinklers and lights. But

[1:08:46] deborah, so three years speak deborah? No, go ahead. Okay. The parks committee

[1:08:50] has been talking about this for four months. It's not like we're rushing into it.

[1:08:54] nothing's been rushed. It's been diligently gone through.

[1:08:58] okay. Just because they haven't brought it all to here each time. It

[1:09:02] has been diligently gone through for four months.

[1:09:06] I'm, I didn't say that this was rushed. I'm saying bringing it to bond in

[1:09:10] may is what I believe is rushed. I appreciate all their efforts. It's

[1:09:14] not checking all the boxes for me to feel comfortable with it. That's what I'm

[1:09:19] saying. I'm not saying this was rushed to this, it's just we're not there at

[1:09:23] this point. I just wanna make sure that that was brought forth. Yeah. What I'm interested in is,

[1:09:27] uh, I feel like there are a lot of moving targets that

[1:09:31] every time we come and visit this, that, you know,

[1:09:35] I, I only joined last may, so I I don't have a whole lot of history on this.

[1:09:40] um, so whatever the three and 3.1 million last

[1:09:44] year that we, um, signed to it,

[1:09:48] if that wasn't insufficient, why was not that

[1:09:52] estimated four months ago? I mean, it's only four months,

[1:09:57] right? So, and why was that not communicated that

[1:10:01] we could look at and say, okay, and, uh, mr. Knape didn't make this point.

[1:10:05] so instead of repeating, I would say, let's set a target.

[1:10:09] let's get an estimate, and let's say that this is what it's going to be instead

[1:10:14] of moving targets every few months, that that just does not show us in,

[1:10:18] you know, good faith despite of all the hard work that you guys have done. Yeah. And I

[1:10:22] think to that point, the truth is, um, phase two,

[1:10:27] um, came to council and went to design

[1:10:32] when, I mean, we're talking probably 2020

[1:10:37] that we sent this to design. So our,

[1:10:41] and maybe 21 is when half got it. Um, so

[1:10:45] we're, we're now three years removed

[1:10:50] from, from starting, starting design. So to that

[1:10:54] point there, there probably should have been some updates to the cip along the way.

[1:10:58] um, anyway, so I think back to the original question, potentially for

[1:11:02] half, um, what

[1:11:06] does the 6 million get?

[1:11:10] should we not, not, not go out for a bond

[1:11:15] package to be able to begin construction on this phase two? Or

[1:11:19] is it even, are we even in the ballpark we're

[1:11:23] to even get started? So, and I know the reason we moved monies, so just

[1:11:27] for everybody's clarity, the reason in october

[1:11:32] we combined was a belief that design costs for phase

[1:11:36] three would be reduced. Um, if we went

[1:11:40] ahead and included it on this on and began to work on design

[1:11:44] and construction costs would be significantly reduced,

[1:11:49] thus the 1.4 savings, because we were only

[1:11:53] mobilizing crews one time instead of multiple mobilizations.

[1:11:57] so that was the reason for the move of the monies and to proceed,

[1:12:01] um, with assurances at the time that that 6 million would, would come close

[1:12:06] to getting the job done. So,

[1:12:10] good evening, I'm casey collins with me is kristen leblanc. Uh,

[1:12:14] we've been running the project primrose for you. So to um,

[1:12:19] answer the, one of the big questions, uh, some of the costs that were

[1:12:23] initially prepared when the concept was first, uh,

[1:12:27] included in the parks master plan, um, that we've come to

[1:12:31] realize, uh, you know, being in a rural area for this project,

[1:12:36] some of the electrical infrastructure, we have single phase power. So as

[1:12:40] we're going through, we're adding the lighting for the, the park project as we talked about.

[1:12:45] um, you know, that's a $900,000 line item, just the electrical alone.

[1:12:50] uh, you know, it'd be more efficient for us to have three phase power, which we don't have.

[1:12:54] uh, it's not very close to the site, so it'd be very cost proative for

[1:12:58] us to even bring it to the site. Uh, some additional cost overruns.

[1:13:02] um, things that we had not considered, I mean, just the,

[1:13:07] the overall cost with inflation itself, um,

[1:13:11] brought the pro pro the budget way, uh, above what we thought.

[1:13:15] um, I would say we've skinned this every which way

[1:13:19] you possibly can look at it to try to get it within budget. With value engineering,

[1:13:24] uh, one of the things that we were considering at the very beginning was sports

[1:13:28] lighting for the fields. That's another million dollar ticket line item.

[1:13:32] so an original budget for phase three of

[1:13:36] 2.5 or 3 million. And you look at the electrical infrastructure, you

[1:13:40] look at sports field lighting at close to 2 million,

[1:13:44] that doesn't get you fields, that doesn't get your parking. And some of the other amenities

[1:13:48] that we're trying to include. So I'll add utilities to that.

[1:13:53] your only utilities to serve this site are on dixon.

[1:13:58] and you're extending those all the way across that property and

[1:14:02] down towards huggins. That's an exceptionally large

[1:14:07] part of the cost. So if you take electrical improvements

[1:14:12] for, can you scoot up to the mic so that people can hear, sorry. If you take the electrical improvements,

[1:14:16] the field lighting the utilities, that's $3 million right

[1:14:20] there. And that's, you're not, you're not building a field, you're not putting any parking in

[1:14:25] nothing. So I get I guess,

[1:14:29] go ahead. Oh, sorry, ,

[1:14:34] I, I was just gonna say, you know, we had a really good

[1:14:38] two or three years ago, and I just thought, I, I need to pull it back up because we did

[1:14:42] have estimates in that, uh, parks master plan

[1:14:47] and, and not a lot, we had some detail, we had enough

[1:14:51] detail to give us numbers, but it feels like to me, just like we did our

[1:14:55] water and wastewater master plan, we need to do, we need to have another

[1:15:00] parks master plan to update and, and add

[1:15:04] the new gyms or what, you know, whatever we want, and bring that back

[1:15:08] because there's no picture. I think it, it's the nickel and dimming

[1:15:13] and the surpr the surprises. And as you say, well, what you

[1:15:17] want now is you gotta have utilities. So this is big enough dollars,

[1:15:21] um, that I think that needs to happen so that we

[1:15:25] can feel more confident in what we're doing. Certainly. But still, the question

[1:15:29] hasn't been answered. What does $6.1 million

[1:15:33] get us? If I can real quick answer that

[1:15:38] and then we can answer the 6.1. So the master plan does provide

[1:15:42] a cost estimate, and the cost estimate for from the master plan for

[1:15:46] primrose was $7.5 million. But I can tell you through my

[1:15:50] review based off of paths, cost estimate for phase two, and

[1:15:55] then reviewing the cost estimates projected in the master plan for

[1:15:59] all of the parts or all of the projects that we presented tonight. There's great discrepancies

[1:16:04] in concrete. So from the last time that the master plan was updated,

[1:16:08] I believe the concrete cost, um, was I, I need

[1:16:12] to look at my notes, but I, I wanna say it was like $22 a square foot or something. Good point.

[1:16:16] but, but my, but where I'm going is that was done two or

[1:16:20] three years ago. We need to go back and redo that so that we're not

[1:16:24] surprised so that we, we have an accurate picture vision of what

[1:16:28] we're gonna get plus the dollars, just like we did. Yeah. We didn't

[1:16:33] go use old water and wastewater manage. So let, let me pause there and say

[1:16:37] that they have all of those numbers now, um, the updated

[1:16:41] numbers from half, and I'm sure it could distribute, um,

[1:16:45] those to counsel, correct? You've got the updated estimates. So we

[1:16:49] have, it's how we got to the 19 million, well, the 19 million

[1:16:53] assumes that, so it takes the cost estimate that we have for phase two,

[1:16:58] the projected cost that was provided to us at one point for phase

[1:17:02] three. And then it, I built in an inflation factor into it, as well

[1:17:06] as our construction material testing that's required. So some of of those things are not calculated

[1:17:10] into the master plan, but, but, but it's a much broader true

[1:17:15] picture of what the cost of the project is today. We have

[1:17:19] a, we have a much clearer cost projection. Um,

[1:17:23] and that's what I'm saying, um, counsel probably needs to review

[1:17:27] closely, is that updated cost? Yeah. And, and uh,

[1:17:32] jack, I think this comment more for you just in general across the board, we are having this

[1:17:36] across all departments, across all projects. So we should probably look at this.

[1:17:41] we do not, we do not wanna be nitpicking line item by line item. We

[1:17:45] don't want to, but every single project keeps coming up

[1:17:49] with 50% overruns. I mean, like, we're all cringing when water

[1:17:53] plant number two is gonna come up for an amendment to this council, because

[1:17:58] we're like, really? So that's where the frustration comes. If

[1:18:02] you can provide us with the deltas, this is what it was,

[1:18:07] a this is what it is, b here's what the explanation is,

[1:18:11] that would help us rather than c it. Because all we're seeing now

[1:18:15] is, is we're seeing, hey, you say it was previously in the master plan,

[1:18:19] 7 million. If I add the current six plus

[1:18:23] whatever we did on phase one plus the additional 19 that you're asking

[1:18:27] now, we're talking more than 25 million total on a project that originally

[1:18:31] was set out to be seven. Only point of correction is the 19 includes

[1:18:36] the six. No. So you get to decide, you get to decide what you do with that

[1:18:40] six I, that's the only thing not considered. The only

[1:18:44] thing that's not considered is the 400,000. That's our 480, 490

[1:18:50] that's already spent for design. Uh, I, let's get clarification, because

[1:18:54] if it wasn't, if it wasn't the 19 million, then we wouldn't have to go out for as

[1:18:58] much bond dollars because you'd subtract the six off of it. And that's not what's happening. So

[1:19:02] the bond dollars is 12? No. So the, the, the right.

[1:19:07] what are you planning to do? Six I I the

[1:19:11] six, the, the total cost moving forward, not, not counting what we already

[1:19:15] spent in land purchase. We already spent in phase

[1:19:19] one and we already spent in design on phase two. Um,

[1:19:23] the total, none of that is projected remaining cost. The total remaining cost for

[1:19:28] the project minus the 500 for design in phase three is 19 million,

[1:19:33] whatever the number is, not 25. That 19 million is with continue.

[1:19:37] so you counsel will have a decision to make at some point in time what

[1:19:41] to do with the 6 million, whether they apply that towards the purchase price

[1:19:45] and you only bond at 13 million. Or

[1:19:49] if you want to pull that back into the general fund,

[1:19:54] you will have a decision to make. Because that was one of the conversations is

[1:19:58] do you include the six that's already been budgeted or, and I said, put the

[1:20:02] big numbers. So the council, we're not playing a game there, there's no, it,

[1:20:06] it's, it's fully transparent. This is now the total cost of

[1:20:10] the remaining project. So there is $6 million, well, 500 and

[1:20:15] 400, five 5,000,460 basically, um,

[1:20:19] remaining dollars. Um, that council will have a decision

[1:20:24] how they want to apply that, whether it's toward the bond to

[1:20:28] reduce the, the bond cost or to absorb it back into

[1:20:32] the general fund because it hasn't been spent or to the park

[1:20:36] leave a balance in the parks fund. Yeah, I think the decision here

[1:20:40] is not really for today to make, but in my opinion, what

[1:20:45] was estimated three years ago, if it's not valid, then we have to

[1:20:49] reduce our expectations or we have to be able to pay for it more.

[1:20:53] and I don't think we are ready to do either. And that's why the stalemate is there.

[1:20:59] I would additionally like to add, I I think we need

[1:21:03] to look at some of the bids that are coming in.

[1:21:07] I know they all look familiar. They all look around the same

[1:21:12] ballpark. I'm highly worried of what, what I'm hearing as being a

[1:21:16] ful tax, a re willingness to pay. And I would be very

[1:21:20] concerned to see what other cities are paying for similar projects

[1:21:25] because everybody thinks that, oh, this is re look at those

[1:21:29] medium incomes and let's, let's tear those up. And I'm very concerned

[1:21:33] if that's what's happening. We gotta start being pushing back because

[1:21:38] somebody's gonna want to take the work at some point. Well, and, and to that, which

[1:21:42] I did forget when I saw this, I went and printed the last county

[1:21:46] bond projects and there's a ton. There's, I I,

[1:21:51] I've got it in my bag, I could pull it out. I, but I wanna say it's $115 million

[1:21:56] in fort bend county parks projects. And that

[1:22:00] is not for county projects, that is for sugar lane. All these

[1:22:05] small city projects are in there also. So to your point,

[1:22:09] I don't quite understand that either. Why it or do we need to be more integrated?

[1:22:14] do we need to be, uh, having more discussions with the

[1:22:18] county? But, but that is the case, is this is putting a lot and we're already

[1:22:22] paying county taxes too. So we actually did discuss,

[1:22:26] um, before the county bond, and we did request some projects to be considered

[1:22:30] in the bond. Um, but ultimately if we did that, they would be county owned

[1:22:35] and they would no longer be city owned if they were to be considered.

[1:22:40] the assistance finds that if they get a part to use, whether

[1:22:44] the county does in the city doesn't matter. And, and

[1:22:48] again, I, I'll pull it out, but I, I think it was in the neighborhood, $115 million.

[1:22:52] it was big, big. Again, I'm gonna request

[1:22:57] some sort of an input from, uh, the, uh, city staff here

[1:23:01] as to the data analysis that we really need on these projects. Because

[1:23:05] 50% or a hundred percent increase is not something that we can just, uh,

[1:23:10] shove under the carpet. Now we need to know why, what, and if

[1:23:14] I'm, I'm willing to go even into nitty grittys of it. I'm still waiting for the freezer

[1:23:18] nichols one for the water plant that was promised in november, special meeting,

[1:23:22] and that hasn't been sent. So we need to have this information sent

[1:23:26] to us. If the, uh, the contractors commit to it, the city staff

[1:23:30] needs to follow and get that to us. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead

[1:23:34] and answer mayor proton's question for the 6.1. You're getting parking

[1:23:39] ball fields's, utilities and detention, no restroom. You

[1:23:44] get pedestrian level lighting. No sports field lighting. I also wanna

[1:23:48] mention, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, the 2019 parks

[1:23:52] plan, the 7 million was for the entire, that's phase two and phase three.

[1:23:56] phase one. So, um, I can just, just

[1:24:00] as a clarification. Yes, sir. 'cause I think we're getting to that point on the council here. Is the parking,

[1:24:05] um, gravel. Asphalt or concrete? Concrete. Okay.

[1:24:09] thank you. And, uh, I think the question about parking spaces, we are tasked

[1:24:13] with 40 spaces per field. Uh, so we're looking in the range of 160

[1:24:18] spaces. Um, and to serve the, to serve the

[1:24:22] ball field, that's to serve the ball phase phase two, not including phase three. Yeah, phase three we'll

[1:24:26] have separate parking.

[1:24:30] I do think that we're all somewhat in favor of having a bond for us to go

[1:24:34] out to get something. Yeah, I think the question right now is

[1:24:39] how much and what is, is wind and there is

[1:24:43] a definite appetite to see additional details

[1:24:47] for the primrose park. Um, cost e ex

[1:24:51] escalation. Um, and, and we haven't even gotten to

[1:24:55] the other projects, um, contained within.

[1:25:00] um, I do think I, I will agree with mr. Avi's

[1:25:04] assessment that acquiring parkland now is the time to do it.

[1:25:09] um, because price is only gonna escalate and there's gonna be fewer properties. However,

[1:25:13] at the same time, my concern is two and a half million dollars isn't,

[1:25:18] it may not be enough, um, to acquire the kind of park land that we really

[1:25:22] need to acquire. And so that becomes part of the equation. If you're only

[1:25:26] able to acquire four or five acres, um, and we have pocket parks

[1:25:31] scattered throughout all of the master plan communities, those,

[1:25:35] that's gonna be a harder sell to the public. Um, that's again, one

[1:25:39] of the reasons why I think it's better to do a parks and rec general bond as

[1:25:43] opposed to specific projects. So it gives more flexibility as long as

[1:25:47] again, it stays within a parks and rec use and doesn't

[1:25:52] violate certain things. Yes. Like sporting events and things like that, that would be a violation. Yes.

[1:25:56] so I think that's an a question for the attorneys. Um,

[1:26:00] I know this, I know if we bond for primrose park sports fields,

[1:26:05] I've gotta build sports fields, right? What I don't know is

[1:26:09] what is the state appetite for a bond that is

[1:26:14] in general in nature without specific named projects. I know

[1:26:18] the school has a little bit of flexibility when it comes to new builds,

[1:26:22] but they still have to build new builds, right? County county just did it. Um,

[1:26:26] so, but the county park bond actually spelled out what

[1:26:30] it could, what it could, but like, like it can't say where it's gonna

[1:26:35] be because they haven't acquired the land yet. 'cause they need the money for when it comes to acquisition of

[1:26:39] land, correct? Yeah. Well, I generally defer to bond counsel

[1:26:43] for the nuances of the, the bond questions, but, uh, but I do know that there is some degree

[1:26:47] of specificity that's required. Um, and the authorization

[1:26:51] that I'm aware of from the state law is that it can be parks and recreation facilities, so long as

[1:26:55] it's generally accessible to the public at large and in the city's parks

[1:27:00] plan. So as long as there is acquisition of some acreage in the parks plan,

[1:27:04] I think that meets the statutory minimum. Um, and then I would, um, I would expect

[1:27:08] that bond council would let us know if we need to get more specific than that. So,

[1:27:12] but what I'm hearing is, and I think mr correct me if

[1:27:16] I'm wrong, your point would be, um, figure out

[1:27:21] whatever the dollar value is up to 5 cents and we go out to bond for

[1:27:25] that without naming specific projects. What I'm hearing you say is there would

[1:27:29] have to be at least some limited amount of detail as to what those projects were

[1:27:33] in order to meet the statutory requirements. That is my understanding, yes. And the, the

[1:27:37] county did just that, right? There's, there's enough detail on this list here,

[1:27:41] and it wasn't 115 million, it was $153 million. And

[1:27:46] it's very, it's, it's detailed enough to where I know as a voter what I'm voting on.

[1:27:50] um, so I, yeah, but I don't, I don't actually think they have

[1:27:54] to be held completely to all of that. It's detail, but it's not.

[1:27:59] so again, I, I just think, and we talked about this, we said we were gonna need to

[1:28:03] talk to bond counsel, but I just, I wouldn't detail it for every, and I mean,

[1:28:07] and we did have a call with bond counsel, correct, aaron, to get to some of these

[1:28:11] numbers and what we're looking at yes. With our financial

[1:28:16] advisors. Okay. Mm-hmm, . Okay, so we have x amount of dollars. We

[1:28:20] know what we can get for those x amount of dollars we've agreed to design,

[1:28:24] spend money for phase three, right? So we've got phase two, phase three, we've got

[1:28:28] another whatever, 5.4 million. I can't really do the math based

[1:28:32] on these conversations to move forward with getting through phase two,

[1:28:36] which we talked about, gives us some of the things that we want. We, maybe we don't get to

[1:28:40] play games at night. Has staff engaged

[1:28:45] with the economic development director and discussed

[1:28:51] going to the edc for funding?

[1:29:00] and if not, I mean, why not? Uh,

[1:29:04] logan? Uh, the answer is yes, uh, but I think

[1:29:08] what has to be demonstrated is how does it support economic development?

[1:29:13] uh, and that has to be made clear. I think some of the projects like, uh, francis

[1:29:17] smart park, it's in downtown, it's right next to hare street that probably does,

[1:29:23] uh, parkland acquisition. But clearly we see,

[1:29:27] you know, the b they have the ability and a, some of those projects have the ability

[1:29:31] to do things which are better, the lifestyles of the people who, the

[1:29:36] citizens who live here. So I mean, that's, that's a, that's a avenue

[1:29:40] for, for funding, right. Uh, which shouldn't be ignored because

[1:29:44] there's self stacked dollars sitting there and not being used. So, um,

[1:29:48] as well as, as well as tournaments and anything that is also going to the park

[1:29:52] on weekends or use, that would actually bring more dollars from an economic

[1:29:57] development. Yeah. But if I've, if I've heard the edcs correctly, it's proved

[1:30:01] to me that it has an economic impact with data. Yeah.

[1:30:05] so with the ball fields, should daily

[1:30:09] also get done, right? There's a a should there then? Yes, it

[1:30:13] has a great economic impact. Um, because

[1:30:17] we could host tournaments, we could do some of those kinds of things, but relative to, and opposed

[1:30:21] to other potential projects that they're getting asked to, to support

[1:30:26] and participate in as well. Correct. We do have a meeting

[1:30:30] with one of the edc boards. Um, I believe it's in two weeks

[1:30:34] if my memory and the calendar in my brain works outright. Um, so

[1:30:38] we do meet with one of the edc boards, um, to go

[1:30:42] discuss any potential projects that they may be interested in funding.

[1:30:47] well, I think as a member of the edc board, it's gonna be better

[1:30:51] if you as staff, right, looking at the master plan

[1:30:56] for the city and the direction you're getting from council to go to the edc.

[1:31:00] 'cause if you look at, you know, there's what we want to do with the city and the plan and

[1:31:04] all these sorts of things that need to be done. There is, uh,

[1:31:08] funding and so forth that you have there. Then there's the edc that can

[1:31:12] have projects, but the edcs aren't necessarily just going

[1:31:17] to come up with projects, right. Unless they're, they're, they're triggered

[1:31:21] by something. So I don't want to have that big discussion. I just ask

[1:31:25] a question, right. So there, uh, there are certainly,

[1:31:29] there's certainly things that the edc can do to help. And,

[1:31:34] and yes, sir. And I will tell you that historically we have done that. And

[1:31:38] so we actually do have the discussions with the edc in-house staff

[1:31:42] first before we take projects to the edc board to discuss. And

[1:31:46] we have done that in the past. And the e eds awards have elected to

[1:31:50] support parks in some respects. In the past, the most

[1:31:55] previous, um, project list that we took to them was without a parks

[1:31:59] component, because that was the discussion that was held internally

[1:32:03] and it was presented towards, uh, to focus on the

[1:32:07] livable center study and what we could get from that. And that's how the harris street

[1:32:11] project was chosen. So, but it, like, uh, tiffany

[1:32:15] said in a couple of weeks we do have another meeting with the edc staff

[1:32:20] along with one of the board members to discuss those potential projects going

[1:32:24] forward as well.

[1:32:30] alright. Yeah. So coming back to the question about

[1:32:34] the county's involvement in this, have we explored that avenue at all, or?

[1:32:38] yes. So I would like to note that primrose park, part of that land was donated

[1:32:42] to the city to build ball fields. So I would have to defer to

[1:32:47] byron legally if that is something that even could be, um, because that

[1:32:51] land was donated. And I did talk to the commissioner briefly as well,

[1:32:55] um, as he pursued projects.

[1:32:59] um, for the commissioner, the priority in our community was,

[1:33:04] was roads and mobility. Um, you know,

[1:33:08] uh, a little insight as to how

[1:33:12] the commissioner's, commissioner's work

[1:33:17] is they try to get to,

[1:33:21] not exact dollars per precinct, but they try to

[1:33:25] get close. And so in areas where there

[1:33:29] wasn't as many mobility projects, you'll actually see more parks projects.

[1:33:34] and even some of those projects weren't cities. Um, they were muds.

[1:33:38] um, there's a, there's a number of projects within that. We can't get into the merits and

[1:33:42] the details of all of that. If you want to have a discussion about commissioners court that

[1:33:47] works, we can talk about it another time. I'd love to. Well, I, I don't, but I,

[1:33:51] I think it's worthy. I mean, I'm sitting here, freedom park, freedom park trails, harlan

[1:33:55] road, park daily, park precinct, one dog park, jones creek. Some of

[1:33:59] this is even maintenance to reduce sidewalks and that kind of thing. Yeah. So,

[1:34:03] I mean, the list goes on and on, and I don't believe shore got near

[1:34:08] what all the other cities around got. So if we have a need, we need to start working

[1:34:12] with the county also because we're all paying tax dollars to the county

[1:34:16] and it's going for, you know, these things. Yeah, I think,

[1:34:20] I think it's, uh, I think it's a valid point, but I also think it's on our

[1:34:24] citizens as well to reach out to their county commissioners and then stress the importance

[1:34:28] of it, because it's a difference being a city in the county versus

[1:34:32] the actual citizens that are paying the tax to those counties. So, yeah. And a and

[1:34:36] a lot of those projects are within the unincorporated parts,

[1:34:41] even though they say sugar land, it's a sugar land address, it's unincorporated. There

[1:34:45] are some city projects, there are some mud projects. Um,

[1:34:49] most of the city projects are, are smaller cities. Um,

[1:34:53] but they're, nonetheless they're there. So that, that being said, what

[1:34:58] I hear from council is a consensus that we want to entertain the idea

[1:35:02] of a park spot. Um, we need some additional information,

[1:35:06] especially as it relates to primrose before a decision can be made.

[1:35:10] um, I think there's probably value in all of

[1:35:15] the projects. Um, my question for counsel is,

[1:35:19] do you have thoughts or opinions related to projects outside of primrose

[1:35:24] that you want to discuss at this time?

[1:35:29] yeah, I'm not sure even I'm ready yet to say that we are ready

[1:35:33] for the barn quote yet. No, no, no. I'm not saying we're ready to the bond. I'm saying we have an

[1:35:37] appetite to consider a bond package. There's no, yeah, there's

[1:35:41] no, hey, we're voting for a bond package in may. That's not where we're

[1:35:45] at. Okay. Um, but there's the appetite to continue the discussion, get more information,

[1:35:50] drill down into the numbers. Um, my question is, is

[1:35:54] there, we've heard a lot of conversation around primrose, um,

[1:35:58] we've expressed that there's probably some interest on acquiring

[1:36:03] some land if that's, you know, we gotta figure out what the value

[1:36:07] of that is. Um, are there, do what

[1:36:11] I could support most of the projects except for the large stern. Okay. So the

[1:36:16] rec center, um, the only other thing I would say on the land

[1:36:20] is if we do acquire more land, are we, I mean, are we even being steward good stewards of

[1:36:24] the land we currently have? So we have, we already

[1:36:28] have park land that we're currently unable to move forward on.

[1:36:32] so it worries me that we would, I mean, I know that it's gonna be cheapest now

[1:36:38] to go get it, but if we can't move forward on the projects that of the land we

[1:36:42] already have, it's, it's, it's a hard, I think the, I think the other, I think the

[1:36:46] one aspect of that is, and I mean we've seen cases like this, like

[1:36:50] city of houston is going back and reclaiming areas and they're doing trails

[1:36:54] and things like that. It's like they didn't have the foresight to go ahead

[1:36:59] and plan for it. And I think that's what we want to do, or at least

[1:37:03] I would propose that we would do is get ahead of it. So even if we're not

[1:37:07] ready, and even though we are progressing on one park and then

[1:37:11] others, um, if we don't do it, they could all be homes,

[1:37:15] businesses, and all be done and then we have no place for it. Yeah. And I don't

[1:37:20] disagree. I'm just saying that it, it's a harder sell when

[1:37:24] we can't, when we already have parks that we can't put forward. Yeah. We can't develop.

[1:37:28] I, I would, uh, at least my only comment on the irene stern, the

[1:37:33] outside stuff, the trails and fields, I, I think that is

[1:37:37] fine. I think it gives it a good space. The rec center thing, I,

[1:37:41] I think that's, especially if you had to put that on a specific bond

[1:37:45] item, I don't think that one would pass even if it was included. So I would stay away.

[1:37:50] I, I guess for me, I wanna see an updated master plan. It sounds like you

[1:37:54] already have numbers and you've thought through the details, but

[1:37:59] what is it that we're buying? And that should be more detailed with

[1:38:03] primrose park. So we know we have a lot more side

[1:38:07] on primrose park. We know what our money's gonna pay for. But

[1:38:12] I just feel like that, that we need that new vision along

[1:38:16] with whatever numbers we can, can put to it. Um,

[1:38:21] I'm kind of with you. Why buy land if we, we, we already have the edcs have

[1:38:25] land from the old city hall. I don't know where it's going, but we

[1:38:29] have land, so buy, buy more land

[1:38:33] and it, it won't have lights. We have ball fields. But

[1:38:38] I wanna see an update in matt parks and rec master plan

[1:38:42] and put whatever you think in it and let us, let us look at that.

[1:38:47] yeah, I concur with the, uh, updated master, um, master plan for parks and

[1:38:51] recs. Um, I do think we should still be looking for, at least looking

[1:38:55] for land to acquire that may be fit into our, um, master

[1:38:59] plan for the city as it all. Um, I am supportive

[1:39:04] of smart park because it is downtown. It does provide some

[1:39:08] economic development. It also, um, I like the idea of the veterans

[1:39:12] memorial as well with the scouts. And it's a smaller gathering space, but it's also

[1:39:16] a remembrance area that will be more of the heart of downtown. 'cause we don't

[1:39:20] have that heart right now in downtown with city hall not being there.

[1:39:25] um, but yeah, I would definitely not be for

[1:39:29] rec center. I think we need to reach out to ymca lifetime if you want

[1:39:33] that, bring it to the city. But otherwise, I agree with what everybody has said about

[1:39:37] primrose. We need line items. Yeah. So, uh, clarifying erin

[1:39:41] has something to say. I think, do you have something we just wanted to make sure we got through our

[1:39:45] last slide to no dates. If we were to have a may 4th election, you have to,

[1:39:50] the council has to call for the election by the 16th of february, march 5th

[1:39:54] is the last day to give notice of election to the county clerk with the election being may 4th.

[1:39:58] okay. With that, with that being said, um, I think

[1:40:02] staff you kind of heard, um, the feedback. I do want

[1:40:06] to clarify something. Um, are

[1:40:11] we asking for an update to the master plan? Are we a asking

[1:40:15] for an update to the numbers? Because the master plan itself is conceptual

[1:40:20] in nature. What I think what I'm hearing is we actually want an

[1:40:24] update to the numbers that are related to,

[1:40:29] um, the projects within the master plan and the cip

[1:40:33] specifically for these parks projects.

[1:40:37] um, so the drill down, um, for lack of better

[1:40:41] terms on numbers and expenses, um,

[1:40:45] whether they're actual as phase two should be

[1:40:49] getting very close to true estimates

[1:40:53] or projected and even a, that differentiation of what's projected

[1:40:57] versus actual. I think there, there a little bit more there, especially when we're adding in

[1:41:01] things that weren't there. Like oh, I agree. I I agree. But what I'm

[1:41:05] saying is I don't think there's anything that's discussed that's not part

[1:41:09] of the conceptual plan, but they may not have numbers to them. Right. And so what

[1:41:14] we're saying is we need to drill down on the numbers

[1:41:18] for these projects that are already contained within the master plan.

[1:41:22] I would agree with that. In addition, I have one thing to say is, uh, let's

[1:41:27] look at the original scope. Let's look at what we can do with

[1:41:31] the existing points that we have, what it would take, and then look at the additional

[1:41:35] options that we want to add to that. Yeah, so the, the,

[1:41:39] the original scope was the four ball fields without lights, without sprinklers, without

[1:41:43] any utilities. Um, so that was the original scope. And

[1:41:47] even the original scope didn't have, um, the ball courts. Those

[1:41:52] were added to the 2020. I think master

[1:41:56] plan is when those got, now we conceptually talked about, well it would nice be

[1:42:00] nice to have some ballparks. It'd be nice to have some parking. Um, we did

[1:42:04] add the, the little bit of parking and in phase one for,

[1:42:09] uh, the walking trail that exists there. But it's, it's right, we did, but

[1:42:13] we had some pictures even from a conceptual perspective. And I don't know if

[1:42:17] those pictures have changed. I know we discussed this colleagues shaking her head.

[1:42:21] we discussed parking because we like mm-hmm, , where's everybody gonna park? And if we're gonna use

[1:42:25] these for events. So I don't think it would take much to update the co conceptional

[1:42:30] com. You're, you're raising your eyebrows out there. I

[1:42:34] can speak to that if you want. Yeah, if you, if you could. But all right. So, uh, can

[1:42:38] you flip back to, you wanna talk about the actual phase two, phase three?

[1:42:43] well, well, so whenever we had the master plan in

[1:42:47] 2020, we had pictures yes. Of primrose park

[1:42:51] and it had parking and ball field. It's very similar to what's actually shown

[1:42:55] there. You're right. And then we had details that yes. Kind of summed it up. Correct. And

[1:42:59] if there's been any changes to the pictures, let's change that and,

[1:43:04] and, and they're already changed. And then add the detail. Yes, there have been changes.

[1:43:08] uh, I think the changes are better. Uh, in the original concept, we

[1:43:12] had just one continuous long entry road, had no parking, loading that

[1:43:16] road. So that's just a cost of a road. So we came back in and we added,

[1:43:21] we curved the road a little bit to calm down the, uh, drive speeds.

[1:43:25] uh, halfway through the project, we were asked to make the ball fields 200 feet.

[1:43:29] all four of 'em were 200 feet in the concept. Two of the fields are now 2 25

[1:43:33] for competition to meet little league. Uh, little league. Yeah. I think the mayor hit the nail on the

[1:43:37] head that those are concepts, they're conceptual estimates.

[1:43:41] they didn't take into a fat, uh, into account what we talked about with the, uh, electrical

[1:43:45] infrastructure. And so yeah, we've, we've really kind of tried to

[1:43:49] optimize the plan as much as we can to make it buildable.

[1:43:54] the other was just a concept. I mean, it's, yeah, I appreciate that detail that

[1:43:58] you just provided and now the difference between conceptual and you once you

[1:44:02] get into the details of plan to the paper. Yeah. Um, I, I

[1:44:06] go back to the same thing I said earlier. You know, as much as possible, I

[1:44:10] don't think we, I'm in favor of adding more taxes to the citizens.

[1:44:15] we, if we can stay in our budget and can accomplish what we initially started,

[1:44:20] whatever difference we might want that once you give us the details,

[1:44:24] we can look at what can and what cannot be added and then,

[1:44:28] uh, we can decide if it's worth going for it or not. Yes, sir. I appreciate that detail.

[1:44:33] yes, sir. Yeah, and, and you know, as someone that does provide some of those concepts and

[1:44:37] some of those magnitude of costs, we don't get a survey. We're doing everything based on an

[1:44:41] aerial, a site visit. And that's very much what we kind of backed into. So

[1:44:46] thank you time. Just one other point that I think we probably need

[1:44:50] to give some direction on here, mayor, is not only

[1:44:54] where we're at and how we feel about it, but also about

[1:44:58] whether or not we think that this is realistic. 'cause what I don't want to happen is I don't

[1:45:02] want staff going back thinking, hey, we've got a, we've got a pump

[1:45:07] for the fourth and the 16th and we've gotta do all this work and we've gotta get all this out. And we're like, no, we're

[1:45:11] not, we're not ready for that. I don't want them working all of that to do that. So

[1:45:15] I think we need a consensus of do we want to have this in

[1:45:19] may or do we want to push it further out? 'cause we're not ready because I, I don't want

[1:45:23] them to be overburdened. Or if I, if I may, one thing you could do

[1:45:27] is if you wanna pump the brakes on primrose because there's, it's a much larger

[1:45:31] park, which the amphitheater not really quite settled yet. You could do the other

[1:45:35] projects or some combination of other projects instead. I think the point, it's not about

[1:45:40] the specific project 'cause we actually, again, depending on what we would define

[1:45:44] in the bond and what we have to define, that makes it complex.

[1:45:48] I think the more concerning piece is talking about it with

[1:45:52] the citizens of the city and about where we're at and understanding what's getting forests and

[1:45:56] all the questions that we've been brought up that they're gonna peg us with, that we need to get answered to

[1:46:01] and to kind of work through that to make sure we're being good stewards of

[1:46:05] their tax dollars. That's the concern. Yeah. So, and I think there, the,

[1:46:09] here's the biggest issue, uh, the way I see it. Um,

[1:46:14] not only did parks and rec note that primrose is the

[1:46:18] priority, we've been telling people that

[1:46:22] primrose is gonna be done. And in fact, at one time

[1:46:26] there was a projection that we were gonna be playing ball this spring.

[1:46:31] so the, the problem is, and, and this is, I'll just say my

[1:46:35] complete frustration on primrose is there's been zero accountability

[1:46:40] on primrose. And somebody needs to step up

[1:46:44] and own the fact that we have delayed this design,

[1:46:48] that we have delayed this project, and that

[1:46:52] we're even having this conversation today because it's two years old.

[1:46:56] um, that's the problem with

[1:47:01] primrose itself. We can't do anything

[1:47:06] anywhere else until we get primrose done because we've been

[1:47:10] promising primrose since 2017 when the land was

[1:47:14] purchased. I understand. So that's, that's the problem

[1:47:18] is, and that's why so much of the discussion is centered on primrose.

[1:47:23] because primrose has continued to

[1:47:28] be delayed. The cost has continued to escalate. And so

[1:47:32] we found ourselves in a position where the only way to really do primrose

[1:47:36] the way that the public, the residents of fulcher want

[1:47:40] primrose, is to figure out how do we get this on a bond package

[1:47:44] now. So my recommendation, take it for what it's worth

[1:47:49] as a lame duck mayor, um, is

[1:47:53] you gotta move on primrose. We've gotta do everything we

[1:47:57] can to start moving dirt to use the $6 million that have been allocated. If

[1:48:01] we're not gonna go to bond in the end of february. I mean, if

[1:48:05] we're not gonna vote for a bond by february 16th, we've got to get

[1:48:09] moving with that phase two. And that means if we come back with a bond package

[1:48:14] in november, the november package includes the escalation of

[1:48:18] cost and the other projects for that

[1:48:22] to happen. But if we think that we're close to being wrapping up design and

[1:48:26] being able to go to construction and start moving dirt in may, let's move dirt

[1:48:30] in may. If counsel gets satisfied

[1:48:35] with the numbers and is comfortable issuing a

[1:48:39] bond, um, by may, great,

[1:48:43] but then it's gotta go to the public. And, and in my opinion,

[1:48:48] when it goes to the public, primrose is an e primrose is the easiest

[1:48:53] of them to sell because it is the one that is

[1:48:58] been so long in the waiting and there's the gr greatest desire for,

[1:49:02] right? There will be pockets of the community

[1:49:06] who want the other projects. And so we gotta figure out, okay, what

[1:49:10] is really taken to the public within that 5 cent range

[1:49:15] and is there an appetite for additional projects? So that's my opinion

[1:49:20] as it is in the struggle with saying, well, let's go ahead and throw the other projects

[1:49:24] on the bond that doesn't work because we can't keep kicking

[1:49:28] primrose down the field. We gotta move on primrose and, and

[1:49:32] that, so phase two designs complete

[1:49:37] almost, almost, almost. So 90%, 95%.

[1:49:43] so we cannot postpone construction

[1:49:47] on phase two while we spend a year on phase three design. Either.

[1:49:52] I mean, we cannot just say, okay, now we're gonna go design phase three for a year

[1:49:57] and not do anything that, that's not gonna work either.

[1:50:01] right. And if I may, the mayor

[1:50:05] put it much more eloquently than I ever could. However, what I was going to say is, parks and

[1:50:09] recs number one priority is primrose and we owe it to the community.

[1:50:13] those that donated land and, and us talking to the community about it for so long to deliver

[1:50:18] on that, we just wanna ensure that it's done to meet expectations and done the right way. So

[1:50:22] what you all need to support what that direction is, um,

[1:50:26] is great. But I just wanna say as the, the mayor said, we on parks and rec would love

[1:50:30] to see primrose accomplished and accomplished effectively, efficiently, and quickly

[1:50:35] so that we can deliver community. So almost what I'm hearing is

[1:50:39] that primrose now, instead of three phases is

[1:50:43] four phases. There's the, let's get two done,

[1:50:48] get the built the fields built, get the deal, and then be ready to

[1:50:52] be able to install the electrical and the lights and the, you

[1:50:56] know, and we may escalate cost, but, and that's, and again,

[1:51:00] it still goes back to the concern 'cause we bundled them together and now we're basically

[1:51:05] saying, in order for us to make progress, because we also don't have the full

[1:51:09] funds for it, we actually need to go back and separate them apart. So now I'm kind

[1:51:13] of like, well the, the additional 550,000 we just

[1:51:17] approved, I'm kind of like, man, do we really wanna be doing that right now? We should be using

[1:51:21] all those funds to do all the construction on phase two so that, so what

[1:51:26] if they don't, can't play ball at night? At least they can play ball in a field

[1:51:30] at some point soon to where people can start seeing progress. That's, that's the type of

[1:51:34] area that I'm at in, in frustration. And also also the, one of the

[1:51:39] reasons why is like, I don't believe we're ready for a bond and therefore I wouldn't be

[1:51:43] pushing, focusing on a, a bond referendum for the fourth or the 16th.

[1:51:47] I have a question for the developer there. The design engineers, yeah, mr

[1:51:51] half. Uh, if we were to build wall fields and

[1:51:55] everything right now at the $6 million

[1:51:59] when we go through to run electric through there, are we gonna have to tear 'em all up again?

[1:52:03] no, sir. The current design, uh, accounts for conduit for future sports

[1:52:08] wheel lighting. Okay. Because the sports wheel lighting was a big ticket number. So that's

[1:52:12] in the 6 million. Yes sir. The conduit. Okay. Thank

[1:52:17] all right. Consensus to move forward. Uh, I, I

[1:52:21] don't believe you can

[1:52:25] at least get the primrose detail out to counsel, I think is what I'm hearing,

[1:52:30] um, and continue to drill down on the numbers, uh, to update,

[1:52:34] um, within the plan. So yeah, just don't burn the midnight oil at this

[1:52:38] point. I don't think we're gonna hit the february deadline anyway. Yeah, I was gonna say, I don't think the pressure is on

[1:52:43] to meet a february 4th deadline. So, or february,

[1:52:48] uh, mr. Kbi did bring a good point up about the, uh, extra

[1:52:52] phase three design dollars that we just allocated to, um,

[1:52:58] in the earlier approval. Is that something that we need to relook? Is there

[1:53:02] a possibility we can, uh, counsel may advise?

[1:53:07] yeah. So, um, to take up something that our action has already been taken

[1:53:11] on, uh, there would need to be a motion to reconsider, which would need to pass by a super majority

[1:53:16] and then it could be discussed and acted on again.

[1:53:21] 'cause I do see a, a reasonable effort here that if we are not gonna

[1:53:25] be able to, um, use them anytime soon, just having

[1:53:30] the design ready instead we could use them for a better purpose

[1:53:34] of, uh, phase two completion. I think

[1:53:38] the counter potentially,

[1:53:42] the, the counter argument would be that if we are trying to go

[1:53:46] to bond in november, uh, with a nine month

[1:53:52] or even 12 month design time, um,

[1:53:56] a november bond issuance, if we're not able

[1:54:00] to expend the $500,000 prior to that,

[1:54:04] um, now you're talking about not being able to spend those funds for another

[1:54:09] year. So you're getting involved and let's, let's also be clear, we

[1:54:13] always get surprises at the end of design phase on what the intended

[1:54:17] construction costs are. So we probably need to proceed forward through design. Yeah, I I

[1:54:22] I think you're, I understand the point I, there there's

[1:54:26] a risk. No, I don't mind. I just wanted to make sure that we're not missing an opportunity of

[1:54:30] completing phase two because, uh, just the lighting is gonna be 900,556,000

[1:54:35] right here. That might get us further along.

[1:54:41] okay. .

[1:54:45] all right. So, uh, with that being said, discussion is complete

[1:54:49] on the general obligation bond. Um, counsel,

[1:54:54] I thank you, tiffany. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you tiffany. Um,

[1:54:58] mr. Igar, you could always bring that motion to reconsider item b should

[1:55:02] you choose item d consideration possible action of approved resolution number 2024

[1:55:08] dash six 10 exhibits a and b related to the nomination of candidate service director of

[1:55:12] the board of directors for the north fort bend water authority director precinct number

[1:55:16] seven. Um, as you may recall, ms. Hollingsworth has served as

[1:55:20] our representative for a number of years now since leaving council.

[1:55:24] um, there are requirements that you either had to have

[1:55:28] been a mud director or served

[1:55:33] on city council or as mayor of fulcher in order to be

[1:55:37] eligible to serve on this board. I believe ms. Hollingsworth has expressed

[1:55:42] interest to continue in that function. Um, but

[1:55:46] we are five or six votes out of 28,

[1:55:50] I believe, for that position or something similar. So chair? Yep. You, you,

[1:55:55] you've summed it up very well, mayor. Thank you. Uh, the, the only thing that I would add

[1:55:59] is that, uh, it is a recommendation for a nomination.

[1:56:03] so that does have to go through the voting process within the precinct.

[1:56:07] so, um, so the resolution that you have before, you will

[1:56:11] name a, a candidate for nomination to the board of directors for the north fort

[1:56:16] bend water authority. Uh, so your recommendation is to

[1:56:20] approve that resolution, naming the candidate, and then also authorize

[1:56:24] the mayor to execute and the city secretary to attest to the exhibit a,

[1:56:28] which is the certification of the resolution, nominating the candidate.

[1:56:33] and then item three would be to direct staff to complete exhibit

[1:56:37] b, which is the 2023 poage report, which

[1:56:41] is their a report for the annual pump for the year. That they will have to have

[1:56:45] to determine what those numbers are for voting.

[1:56:50] byron, do we need three motions on this or can be one summed up together?

[1:56:55] uh, it can begin as one motion and it could be separated if need be after that.

[1:56:59] excellent. Mayor, I move counsel, approve resolution 2024

[1:57:04] dash six 10 nominating ms. Hollingsworth,

[1:57:08] I didn't catch her first name. Dana. Dana hollingsworth, uh, for the board

[1:57:12] of directors of the north for bend water authority as

[1:57:16] well as authorize the mayor to execute and the city secretary to attest to

[1:57:20] exhibit a certification and resolution nominating candidate for the board of directors

[1:57:24] of north fort bend water authority and directing staff to

[1:57:29] complete exhibit b 2023 poage report. Second.

[1:57:34] okay, we have a motion and a second to approve resolution number

[1:57:39] 2024 dash six 10. Any further questions or comments?

[1:57:44] all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none. The motion carries

[1:57:50] item e consideration and possible action to approve to authorize the execution

[1:57:55] of permit transfer application of an application for a-t-p-d-e-s

[1:57:59] permit. Major amendment for the cross creek ranch wastewater treatment plant

[1:58:04] wq 0 0 1 4 7 5 0 0 1. Okay. I

[1:58:08] will briefly summarize to give a little bit of background, um, the cross

[1:58:12] creek ranch wastewater treatment plant is currently at a 2.0 million

[1:58:17] gallon a day capacity with a 0.5 that is currently being decom

[1:58:22] being decommissioned. So the, um, there was a, a permanent

[1:58:26] expansion for that, that was also, that was done through the municipal utility

[1:58:30] district because they are actually the co-owner of the permit right at the moment.

[1:58:34] so to make this, the expansion of the, of the cross creek plant, based

[1:58:39] on our current cip approval to expand, uh, another

[1:58:44] 1 million gallon a day, that takes another amendment to the permit. But

[1:58:48] this particular process also renews the permit. So the permit does expire

[1:58:52] in february of this year. Um, excuse me. So

[1:58:56] the, the actual application now has a couple of components to

[1:59:00] it. So first component is to change the ownership

[1:59:04] to a, to the city only and take the mud off. We already have that

[1:59:08] signed document from the mud to do that. Uh, and then the second part

[1:59:13] of that is to make the major amendment to the permit, which would actually renew the permit

[1:59:17] as well. So this will take this, the plant after the decommissioning

[1:59:21] to a 3.0 mgd plant. And so that's what the entire

[1:59:25] packet is all about. But for tonight, uh, we are asking for,

[1:59:30] uh, you all to authorize the mayor to execute those pages in the document

[1:59:34] that are necessary to, uh, complete the application and submit it.

[1:59:39] uh, the application I will just for full disclosure, the application in the

[1:59:43] packet is not what is currently going to be submitted. 'cause there has been some

[1:59:47] updates to the packet already. Uh, one of those is the exhibit that outlines

[1:59:51] the service area. So we've made those final amendments

[1:59:55] today, so it's ready to go and it's, and it is accurate. So, and the other

[2:00:00] part of that was some main minor stuff, uh, related to addressing of

[2:00:04] the city since we moved city hall and some things like that. But

[2:00:08] otherwise, the technical components are accurate as shown in the, in the

[2:00:12] application. Mayor, move counsel authorized the mayor to sign

[2:00:16] the applications in the appropriate places to complete the permit transfer application in the

[2:00:20] t-p-d-e-s major amendment application for the cross creek ranch wastewater

[2:00:25] treatment plan. Second. Okay, we have a motion on ms. Can I second by ms.

[2:00:29] kates, uh, to authorize the mayor to execute the permit

[2:00:33] transfer application, uh, an application for tbds permit, major

[2:00:37] amendment. Any further questions or comments?

[2:00:41] all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none. The motion carries.

[2:00:46] item f discussion regarding a true preservation ordinance.

[2:00:51] so this has been put on, um, counsel for discussion, um, with myself and

[2:00:55] council member poole, um, who second it. And at this time, I would like to

[2:00:59] invite ms. Ramona ridge or mr. And mr. John mccann if

[2:01:04] you would like to speak on this item, if that's permissible. Mayor, yes, please.

[2:01:09] just quickly, I'd like to say we should have done this 10 years ago or

[2:01:13] 15 years ago. The destruction of our old,

[2:01:17] um, trees that make re beautiful

[2:01:22] and are, are being torn down constantly. And

[2:01:26] it's so sad and it's, it's not a matter of small trees, it's a matter of

[2:01:31] big, the, the

[2:01:35] patriarch trees, for lack of a better word. I hear people move out

[2:01:39] here all the time because of its beauty and it's being destroyed and

[2:01:43] turned into strip centers. And I find that incredibly

[2:01:47] sad and, um, irresponsible on our part of

[2:01:51] saving the god-given beauty of full sure. And replacing

[2:01:56] it with concrete and strip centers, which they will be there, but, you know, keep

[2:02:00] the tree in front of the strip center, keep the tree in the parking lot. There's no reason

[2:02:05] except breed on, on the part of a lot of developers

[2:02:09] to rip them down. And it's part of what gives character

[2:02:13] our character, uh, to ful. Sure. And the charm.

[2:02:19] jd. I'm jd mccann.

[2:02:24] um, I know 10 or fell 12, 15

[2:02:28] years ago, we tried to pass a tree ordinance and it just

[2:02:32] got totally outta hand. I mean,

[2:02:37] downtown district got in it. They wanted to put

[2:02:41] so many parking spots, so many trees. That's

[2:02:45] not what we were trying to accomplish. We were trying to accomplish saving

[2:02:49] these trees that have been here for 200 years.

[2:02:55] uh, sarah came down and looked at what

[2:02:59] happened at the fred bra property at the end of the change line. Uh,

[2:03:04] that was complete destruction of every tree

[2:03:08] where the houses were gonna be built. Some of these trees have to have been

[2:03:12] 150 years old. Um,

[2:03:18] I've got some of the largest live oak trees on james lane because

[2:03:22] I trim 'em. Y'all have a ballpark

[2:03:27] that we planted trees on. In 1986,

[2:03:31] they were in three gallon containers and they were about knee high, maybe

[2:03:35] waist high. Today, those trees have never ever been

[2:03:40] trimmed. And the more you trim 'em, the bigger they get and

[2:03:44] the quicker they get. All those trees were planted

[2:03:48] basically in the same year. Um,

[2:03:53] and getting back to the trees that got torn down.

[2:03:57] these were native pecan trees and they only grow along river

[2:04:02] beds and creek beds. They don't draw on the prairie.

[2:04:07] they grow down in the river bottoms where the clay is.

[2:04:12] and I, I know a developer has

[2:04:16] the right to go in and buy a piece of land

[2:04:20] and clear it completely, but, but I don't think it was right.

[2:04:25] doug kanaka did it over here at fhi run on francis smart's

[2:04:29] property. Those were some of the trees that were grown along

[2:04:33] bessie's creek to the south of her property.

[2:04:38] anyway, um, another instance

[2:04:43] is right there at

[2:04:47] huggins road where three or two huge

[2:04:51] water oaks were taken down so y'all could straighten out so the city could straighten

[2:04:55] out the road right there. My father planted those water

[2:04:59] oaks when I was a child, and those water oaks were

[2:05:03] probably 60 feet tall, 60 foot calipers.

[2:05:07] I mean, they were huge. And

[2:05:12] there again, they're some more destructive, you know, that's

[2:05:16] happened. And it, it was totally unnecessary just to straighten a little

[2:05:20] curve out in a road that's been there the entire time that road's been there.

[2:05:25] it, it's not fair to the tree. It's not fair to the

[2:05:29] wildlife that lives in these trees. Uh,

[2:05:35] I take trees personally because I have dealt with them so much.

[2:05:40] uh, I'm vice president of our fisher cemetery committee.

[2:05:45] I just had to go in there and take down about, well, I didn't, but we

[2:05:49] voted to have some trees taken down. It did not make it through

[2:05:53] the drought 'cause we didn't want 'em to fall on the headstones.

[2:05:57] so we had to take down about six trees and

[2:06:01] uh, most of 'em were dead anyway, just to

[2:06:06] the east of the cemetery. There's a church going in again.

[2:06:10] three of our lova live oak trees were destroyed.

[2:06:15] and those trees have never been trimmed.

[2:06:19] if you trim 'em, they will grow up and their branches will

[2:06:23] get bigger. If you don't trim 'em, they're gonna become a bush

[2:06:28] and they'll just sit there. They don't grow.

[2:06:34] I mean, talk to any tree person, they'll tell you, you know, you need to trim these trees.

[2:06:39] so y'all think about what you're doing with primrose park.

[2:06:43] 'cause there's probably 18 trees there that we planted on that property.

[2:06:49] uh, I don't know if y'all will take a tree ordinance

[2:06:53] into consideration. The city of rockport has 'em because

[2:06:58] the wind blows their trees and they won't let you cut a tree down

[2:07:02] in the city of rockport without a permit. Uh,

[2:07:06] there's other cities that have, you know, permits,

[2:07:11] you know, to be able before you can destroy a tree. So

[2:07:15] anyway, I'm just asking y'all to please take these trees into consideration.

[2:07:20] it's sad what has happened to the fred bray property. And the developer

[2:07:24] will go back in and they will bring a spade truck in and plant a tree.

[2:07:29] it'll take 60 years for that tree to get as big as

[2:07:34] those pecan trees were. Thank you. Thanks

[2:07:38] john. Thank you. So you can see on the, I've put some pictures up

[2:07:42] here that I went out. This is the brace track. Um, after it's been cleared, it's

[2:07:46] land. So I went out there. Jesus, if you just do the next one over, you'll see another angle of it. This

[2:07:50] is those large pecan trees that were a clear cut. And as, uh, mr. Mccann also

[2:07:55] referenced, um, previously fulcher run was also clear cut of the majority of

[2:07:59] the pecan trees. There were some that were kept in the, um, drainage

[2:08:03] areas, which was appreciable. What I would like to consider, um, as a

[2:08:07] bit of a discussion here, is part of that tree trimming, which is mr. Mccann also,

[2:08:12] um, mention. And, um, ms. Barron, you also did say, are we being proper stewards

[2:08:16] of our parkland today? We're not, if we're not maintaining those large trees

[2:08:20] to encourage their growth, but I think for sure we wanna have, um, that

[2:08:24] character of country. And yes, I do agree we are coastal prairie

[2:08:28] by our environment and our bio climate. However, these larger

[2:08:32] trees that are a hundred year old plus should be preserved as long as obviously

[2:08:36] they are healthy and not, um, at risk to public, um,

[2:08:41] destruction. Their other, um, tree of note that you may or not be aware of

[2:08:45] in the city of re is on shady lane. They have a large tree in the

[2:08:49] middle of the road with either roads going either side of it, and that's

[2:08:53] a, that's a character. And I've seen it in a number of places in other cities as well. So

[2:08:57] while you may want to automatically cut down a tree to make a road

[2:09:02] straight, there are other options as well with public safety, obviously, number one. But at the same time,

[2:09:06] we wanna maintain some of the character that we do have of our city. We

[2:09:10] don't want to, you know, nickel and dime people. We want. It's one of those big ones. We're not trying to

[2:09:14] replace it with drunk trees, which we do have in our ordinance, which every council member has in front of

[2:09:18] you today. Um, but just is this something that we would like to revisit?

[2:09:22] I think yes, especially when it comes to maintaining our current trees.

[2:09:27] and then also maybe we do need to revisit the clear cutting, direct clear cutting

[2:09:31] as these new developers come, developments come in. We don't have very

[2:09:35] many, very much land in the city limits today to protect.

[2:09:41] so I, I know that in the creation of the

[2:09:45] cdo, we tried to take up tree preservations

[2:09:49] to, to an extent, um, within the cdo though.

[2:09:53] um, and that's why I was just reminding myself what the, the notes on that are. There's,

[2:09:58] there's a couple places you can easily look within the cdo to find those tree

[2:10:02] preservation sections. Um, but within that,

[2:10:07] really the requirements that we currently have simply

[2:10:12] incentivize the landowner for keeping those large

[2:10:16] trees. Um, that's the, there's an incentive

[2:10:20] there to do it, but there's no requirement to preserve. So, yeah.

[2:10:25] um, I would just like to say as a fellow tree lover and amateur

[2:10:29] arborist, I love this. I think it's important. I definitely

[2:10:34] see trimming of trees as just seeing full growth on them. Um,

[2:10:38] I I do think, um, as I think we all just got this

[2:10:42] today, if I'm not wrong, so it wasn't in our packet, um, I definitely

[2:10:47] would like some time to review it in detail. I was already looking at a couple things

[2:10:51] in here, which I, I think we would need to make a little bit clearer,

[2:10:55] um, specifically from a penalty perspective. 'cause what are you gonna have

[2:10:59] an ordinance if you don't have a penalty and it means anything? Um, I think we have to

[2:11:03] be specific on the class of the misdemeanor, uh, to be clear.

[2:11:07] um, and then also the actual fine itself I think would need

[2:11:11] to be addressed. And the fine needs to be

[2:11:16] substantial enough where it is actual a deterrent. Um, I don't think

[2:11:20] a developer or somebody coming in if they had a fine for $50 for

[2:11:24] removing 150 year old tree is gonna even care about that.

[2:11:28] so I think that would be something that we need to put into consideration, uh, for

[2:11:32] it. But I definitely 100% support, uh, an ordinance. Yeah. And

[2:11:36] I would note that our, that our cdo does say you cannot remove

[2:11:41] a tree unless it's part of a permit, um, as far as that

[2:11:45] clear cut or any of those kinds of things. So it is, it is con there,

[2:11:49] there is the means, um, within the ceo to support,

[2:11:53] uh, to enforce such an ordinance. I would put forth, maybe

[2:11:58] we could consider a tree registry for the significant trees.

[2:12:02] the city of houston has one of these. And so citizens developers

[2:12:08] can input on an online

[2:12:12] form that signifies how how big the

[2:12:16] tree is, et cetera, gives, um, measurement,

[2:12:20] how you measure trees, et cetera. So now they have, yeah, I looked at, city of

[2:12:24] houston's is about six pages right now, so we're talking pretty significant

[2:12:28] trees. I don't think this would be every tree. You know, not every homeowner's

[2:12:33] gonna have to go out and measure their trees. These are like the really significant ones that we're really trying

[2:12:37] to preserve a hundred old growth trees.

[2:12:47] so I was just asking, um, to put the big tree on there we go along with john next to it.

[2:12:52] thanks.

[2:12:57] I think I just need time to look at this. And I think as I,

[2:13:01] I am supportive of pre preservation. I do think

[2:13:05] that it can also, if you don't think it through

[2:13:09] it can have some other things come back, which maybe

[2:13:13] are not, uh, good. I, I remember 2015, I remember several,

[2:13:18] several, um, I even,

[2:13:22] I had a personal situation with a house, but I'm, I'm not going to gonna bring that one

[2:13:26] up, but I just think that there's some things, if we don't think through, for example, primrose

[2:13:31] park, do we have any trees there that, that we will be putting

[2:13:35] a ball field over. So, so see, I think that if it,

[2:13:40] once we do this, we really need to be thoughtful about it and

[2:13:44] not, uh, and make sure it works and not

[2:13:48] be overly burdensome. So yeah, I think that would, I think a registry would help

[2:13:52] in that circumstance. Agree. So you would know the significant trees. And then

[2:13:56] if a developer or whatever, you know, development comes,

[2:14:00] then we have a list that we can look to and we can take them one at

[2:14:04] a time to consider. Right. Whether we do wanna remove it or not. Yeah. Yeah.

[2:14:09] so city testimony, cis yes.

[2:14:13] so I, uh, took a look at, uh, some cities in the

[2:14:17] state of texas right. That have, uh, a preservation landscape

[2:14:22] ordinance, uh, participating. So there's quite a few.

[2:14:26] addison austin, brian burleson, cedar hill college station, so forth, corpus

[2:14:31] christi, port, you know, and san antonio. And then I went in and started looking at

[2:14:35] san antonio and their ordinance must be like, I don't know,

[2:14:39] I'm guessing 20 something pages. So, uh, it's extensive,

[2:14:43] right? I mean, it's significant. So to your point about being

[2:14:48] thoughtful and considerate about how we go forward, I think it's a great

[2:14:52] idea. Um, but there are, I think there are a few things

[2:14:57] that you want to try and achieve, but not everything that you could possibly throw

[2:15:01] under there. Like, uh, like, uh, the city of san antonio has, for

[2:15:05] example, but, uh, it could be, uh, burdensome,

[2:15:10] right? And, uh, I mean, it will be somewhat burdensome and it will

[2:15:14] cost, uh, additional money, uh, for employees

[2:15:18] to oversee the, the, the preservation, whatever

[2:15:22] stipulations are in there, the permitting, the so forth and so on. So

[2:15:26] we just need to be cognizant of how big of a deal it's right. And, uh,

[2:15:31] I don't know how we go about maybe putting a group of people together

[2:15:35] to consider drafting the key components

[2:15:39] of an ordinance or how, how do we go about that? 'cause I mean, as a

[2:15:43] council, we can't sit here and do that, right?

[2:15:50] yeah. So I'm hearing there's an appetite, um, to consider a tree ordinance.

[2:15:54] um, we've got some work to do to make sure that we get to what the ramifications

[2:15:58] of that are. Um, and, um,

[2:16:04] so we will, uh, begin to address how do we, how do we move forward? We

[2:16:08] do have a draft from the 2015 ordinance. At least we have a

[2:16:12] place to begin from, so, okay. Any other

[2:16:16] comments? Uh, yes. Specificity request. Are you requesting staff to start

[2:16:21] preparing something? This is some kind of a baseline or, um, let's, let's have some,

[2:16:25] let's have some conversations with, um, maybe let's, let's,

[2:16:30] let's let sarah take lead since she brought this first of all, and work

[2:16:34] with staff to figure out how to move forward. Let, let's walk through

[2:16:38] moving forward, um, versus just here. Go do it. Um,

[2:16:43] I, I think there's gonna be, need to be some research, um, as to what

[2:16:47] kind of penalties can be enforced. Um, if the state

[2:16:51] has any preemption in this, um, I can, I can tell

[2:16:55] you a hundred percent. If, if the bill that's being

[2:17:00] challenged currently, um, passes, then a tree ordinance will not matter.

[2:17:04] um, because the state is going to preempt that ordinance immensely.

[2:17:09] so we need to see, we need to do some, well, there does, there will have to be some legal work

[2:17:13] on the preemption. What can we do as far as enforcement goes?

[2:17:17] um, there's, there is the reality that,

[2:17:22] um, whether we like it or not, one

[2:17:26] of those trees may get removed at some point in time. So, okay, what's the,

[2:17:30] what's the compensation for that removal of that tree?

[2:17:34] um, all of the, there, there's a whole lot that goes into

[2:17:39] preserving that tree. And so, uh, I don't want to just say,

[2:17:43] here, go do it. I want to say, let's figure out a path forward.

[2:17:48] um, and if counsel's amenable, maybe, um, for liaison

[2:17:53] from counsel, sarah b. Point on that since you brought it to

[2:17:57] our attention at this time. And do you have cycles throughout

[2:18:02] cycles? Availability, yeah.

[2:18:07] bandwidth, resources, resource. So

[2:18:11] legal, we may have to outsource.

[2:18:16] so we do have that contract where we can, if it, so how will the rest of counsel

[2:18:20] will we just wait for them to come back? Yeah. Can we provide any input? You can provide input to

[2:18:25] sarah and to sarah. Okay. Then we'll go, we'll go from that point. Everybody's don't,

[2:18:29] don't we have, uh, uh, aren't we gonna have an issue there if we're providing

[2:18:33] input on an issue outside of yeah. We can't do it outside of well, that's my point.

[2:18:38] give it directly even though she, even though she's give it directly to jack, send send any input

[2:18:42] directly to city manager. Correct. So,

[2:18:46] and then in a council meeting, she'll update us as needed.

[2:18:53] okay. Discussion, uh, item g discussion regarding city council

[2:18:57] redistricting. Um, this shouldn't surprise us.

[2:19:02] immense growth within the city. Um,

[2:19:06] the districts are gonna get out. We knew this coming in districts, were gonna get outta whack

[2:19:10] pretty quick. So in light of time tonight, I just wanna ask one, maybe byron

[2:19:14] can answer this. There are stipulations about redistricting that we can't even

[2:19:18] go redistrict until we have a census or something like that. What are, what are

[2:19:23] the so, um, yeah, the limitation, well, you

[2:19:27] can, you can redistrict any time you'd like, you just have to do it properly. Uh, it's easiest

[2:19:31] to do properly when you rely on the census figures. Um, but if you

[2:19:35] choose to redistrict any other time, uh, besides the census, you have to have

[2:19:39] similar reliable data so that, um, you're, you're sticking within the boundaries

[2:19:43] of the, um, the voting rights act, which essentially just to paraphrase it as one person, one

[2:19:47] vote. So you have to draw your districts in a way that doesn't disenfranchise the voting power

[2:19:51] of any particular person that is on one side or the other of a boundary line.

[2:19:55] so we would have to hire a consulting group to come in to help us draw those boundaries. And

[2:19:59] so it would be costly to the city to do so. I, I mean, I'm just trying

[2:20:04] to, to, to put this out there to avoid I I'm just saying

[2:20:08] we, we've no, no, I'm, I agree. I agree that we're having a lot of growth.

[2:20:13] I just don't know that right now we have the facts.

[2:20:17] uh, but I'm not sure when, as we see these developments come

[2:20:22] in maybe a year. I think the, I think the other point is, is that in the request

[2:20:26] from council member pool, if we could leave by eight, eight o'clock, I would say that

[2:20:30] none of this is happening for the upcoming election. We have further time to discuss this and

[2:20:34] talk about it. And so I think we should table this for another meeting. You

[2:20:38] can make that motion, uh, to table should you choose. I will make

[2:20:42] one comment, only one comment. When we

[2:20:47] did the calculations for the current

[2:20:51] districting, we knew that we were probably gonna have to revisit this, uh, 2000,

[2:20:55] 20, 25 ish, right? Yes. Um, and we put these as

[2:21:00] the two smallest districts were where all were one

[2:21:05] and five, knowing that five was nearing

[2:21:09] completion of build out by its current boundaries. Um,

[2:21:14] and then one which is we knew was gonna be

[2:21:18] the largest district when we did that. So that being said,

[2:21:22] um, if you would like to make that motion, I'd like to make a motion to table this discussion

[2:21:27] for the next general meeting. Regular meeting. Okay. So we have a motion

[2:21:31] on the table, um, by mr. Gavi, a second by ms. Johnson to

[2:21:35] I'm not ms. Johnson. Ms. Kates to table. Um,

[2:21:39] this until the next regular scheduled meeting.

[2:21:44] so the february the third, tuesday in february.

[2:21:48] any further questions or comments? All in favor? Aye.

[2:21:52] any opposed? There is none. The motion carries. Um,

[2:21:57] moving on to, uh, item

[2:22:01] 10, consideration, possible accident relating to any absences. Are there any

[2:22:05] absences we need to address? You'll be back for

[2:22:09] the regular. Anything else?

[2:22:13] no. Okay. With that, I'll take one last motion. May I make a motion? We

[2:22:17] adjourn? Okay. We have a motion on mr. Second by mr. Pool to adjourn at 7:52 pm

[2:22:22] on tuesday, january 23rd.

[2:22:27] uh, any all in 7 52?

[2:22:31] I already said the time. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?

[2:22:36] there is none. Uh, we stand adjourned. 7:52 pm on

[2:22:40] tuesday, january 23rd. Thank you all. Have a great evening.

Jan 23, 2024 City Council Meetings

Agenda

Transcript