All right, good evening. If I can ask, uh, the public to be seated. We
will go ahead and, uh, begin with our,
um, regular council meeting, um, which is delayed
one week, uh, as a result of the storm, but we will be begin
on january 23rd, 2024 at
5:30 pm we do have a
quorum of council present. In fact, um, I'm, we're, we're
all here. And, uh, so we look forward to tonight's meeting.
uh, at this time, I would invite, uh, mr. Paul cartwright,
a full church of christ to come and lead us in our invocation. Uh,
appreciate you and the work church christ does in our community. Um,
if you all would stand and, uh, we'll follow up with the pledges.
praise god. Thank you for today.
thank you for another,
the city council. Father, so much
rise. Thank father
for the opportunity.
thank you, paul. If you would join me in the pledge to the us flag
pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america,
and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under
god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all,
and the texas honor, the texas flag
of whether to texas, one state
under god. One .
you may be seated.
this time. We'll take citizens' comments. Uh, this is an opportunity
for citizens to speak to counsel relating to agenda and non-ag agenda items. Speakers
are advised that comments cannot be received on matters, which are subject of a public hearing. Once that hearing
has been closed, speakers are required to register in advance of must limit, but their
comments to three minutes, we would ask. So ask that you state your
name and address for the city secretary. Um, at this time,
I would invite mr. Don elder.
good evening mayor and mayor prote and
city council. It's pleasure for me to be here. Uh,
y'all did a great thing in, in this facility that you just
recently gotten into, and it's a, a, a big, uh, step,
but you, you made that step. We did it in katy, where
I was mayor, uh, about five years ago too. So,
uh, we were crowded, we were nearly cubicles,
and, uh, we decided we needed to get our people out there. And so
we did. I'm here just to thank you as a, as a, uh,
person, a consultant for purch, uh, pca
purchasing cooperative of america. We do all kinds of,
uh, purchase co-op, uh, contracts, and we do
'em in, in cities, schools, uh, counties,
uh, universities, colleges, 5 0 1
threes, private schools, charter schools, and even in
churches. So, uh, we just appreciate y'all joining
and, uh, if we can help you with anything, we'll be glad to do that. Uh,
I've been in this business for about 25 years, so, uh,
it's, uh, been very, uh, enlightening and you learn
a lot. So it's, uh, good to be here with you tonight.
and, uh, we thank you for letting me give you the opportunity
to speak. Thank you. Thank you, don. Appreciate it. Mm-hmm. .
mr. Mon ridge, I would like to speak on,
uh, the tree next to the beach.
can we hold till the item,
uh, that's at your discretion, mayor. Okay. We'll hold till the item, um,
uh, just confirming, it looks like mr. Clifford posted yes, and
then marked it out. Just make sure you don't wanna speak. Are we good? Okay.
um, moving on to ms. Ana erland.
good evening mayor. Um, wonderful council members and
the staff for doing such a good job with the city of re. That's all I wanna say.
thank you so much. I know your job can be thankless at times, but you represent
us well. Thank you. Thank you,
ms. K call.
good evening, uh, mayor and counsel. Uh, my name is kay collick. I live
at 27 7 0 2 rocky creek court, uh, in shore.
uh, I noticed on consent item k, there was nothing, uh, in the
online packet about that. And assuming it stays on the agenda
and y'all don't skip over it for whatever reason, I was just hoping when you get to that item,
uh, maybe you could share with those of us here a little bit about what
that item is about. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Gay.
alright. Um, before that is all who signed up
for, uh, citizens' comments. However, I do have a proclamation I'd
like to read, uh, and a presentation, uh, to follow
fort bend county district attorney's community awareness team, national human trafficking prevention
month proclamation, whereas human trafficking is a public health issue
and a crime that exploits the most vulnerable among us and weakness the
health and wellbeing of, of individuals, families, and communities across generations.
whereas human trafficking is the recruitment, transportation transfer, harboring
or receipt of people through force fraud or coercion to exploit
them for profit. Whereas an estimated 27.6 million people
are subjected subject to human
trafficking globally, including cases of human trafficking reported in every
us state and territory. Whereas human trafficking can happen to anyone,
but specific populations are disproportionately at risk, including people
affected by abuse, violence, poverty, unstable living conditions, social disconnection
or discrimination. Whereas people can be trafficked in person and
online in industries such as restaurants, domestic work, construction, agriculture,
and factories, and by strangers or someone they know, including employers, partners,
and family members. Whereas human trafficking can be prevented by building individual
community and social understanding and resil resilience,
redu reducing social inequities, and addressing the condition that contribute to exploitation.
whereas the fort bend county district attorney human trafficking community awareness
team has a mission to build awareness within the community on how they recognize,
report, and prevent human traffick. Whereas a successful
response to human trafficking requires a coordinated community-wide effort, whereas
people who have been, have experienced human trafficking have relevant perspectives
and expertise and will engage in the collaborate, collaborate with them to develop and
strengthen trafficking related service programs, whereas every individual
family, community, and organization contribute to enhancing human trafficking awareness,
prevention, and response. Therefore, I, aaron groff, as the mayor of
du hereby proclaim the month of january, 2024 as human trafficking prevention month
reaffirming our commitment to increase awareness, education and human trafficking, and make
resources available to assist individuals and communities impacted by human trafficking and
build diverse public-private partnerships to support a more comprehensive
response to prevent and respond to human trafficking. I want to encourage you
all to speak up anytime you see anything outta place. And I want to thank
ms. Ron kandal for her efforts and advocacy throughout our community.
mayor council members, thank you so much for the proclamation. I actually
chair the fort bend county district attorney's human trafficking team. Back in 2016,
there was a study that was done by the university of texas and it found that in
2016, in the state of texas alone, 79,000 children
were being sex trafficked. Of course, today, several years later,
we don't know where that number stands, but I can assure you that that number has not decreased.
so, what we find in national human trafficking awareness month, there's so many events
in january, I wanted to find a way to bring re remembrance to survivors
of sex trafficking february through december. So I have something for the city.
it is a blue bank. Blue is the color of national human trafficking awareness month,
and there is a qr code that is to the facebook group, our voice
in texas that talks about human trafficking, um, particularly in fort bend county
and the work that we're doing in the texas legislature to change those laws. Thank
you.
we will leave that there and display it in the lobbies for others to get, uh, information
and utilize that qr code. So thank you. Alright,
moving on with tonight's agenda. City manager's report briefings or updates may be
provided regarding city services, administrative personnel matters, real estate development, infrastructure,
events, regulations, community, and intergovernmental relation
issues, mr. Harper. Alright, thank you. Good evening, mayor counsel,
uh, to begin with and discussing the changes in various staff members. Uh,
we do have one of those here tonight. Uh, we have a new hire,
ms. Julie watts. Oh, I thought she came. I,
oh, I saw her in the lobby. Well, scratch that. Um, she, uh, julie
came to us, uh, from a long ways off. She comes from the city of simonton and, uh,
she's joined the finance department as a finance specialist too. We
do have a promotion. Um, ms. Cory gfa has been promoted, um,
to the accountant to position with the finance department. And then
we do have, uh, one resignation, a departure. Uh, jeremiah kirk has
resigned from the police department, and that was effective january 19th of this year.
moving on to project update, which again will be on the city manager report until
completion, uh, for the city of shore water plant number two.
uh, the pre-construction meeting occurred between city staff, the contractor and design
team on december 20th, 2023.
we then had a coordination meeting with the pecan ridge developer, the
elevated storage tank engineer and the
elevated storage tank contractor. The water plant design engineer and
water plant contractor was also held on december 20th, 2023.
just yesterday, we issued the construction notice to proceed on the project.
the contractor has begun issuing some mills for review by the design
engineer. Currently the construction project is 0% complete,
and to date, we have expended $0. We
are currently, uh, meeting monthly with the water plant contractor and the design team.
we're also holding monthly coordination meetings with the water plant contractor
design team, storage tank contractor and design team, and the macon
ridge developer. So while we're excited that that, uh, has begun, we're while
we're glad for rain, I will say now we've already been hit with a rain day yesterday
and today and probably tomorrow. So, uh, but anyways, we're excited that that's
kicked off and that's moving forward
for the bicentennial updates. Uh, uh, it's a great amount
of interdepartmental coordination that's going on and really pleased with, um,
uh, a**l guadalupe, our edc director for spearheading that
the event planning is moving, uh, along well. Vendor registrations have
been steadily increasing. We've had multiple new vendor, um,
signups just in the last week alone. Uh, the event will have a large family
friendly activity area. It'll be completely free of cost to the attendees, as well
as a wide range of food options available for purchase. And,
uh, one of the things that we're most proud about is that it will conclude
with a drone show featuring. And I know that the number will be shocking, but
200 separate drones in honor of the 200th
anniversary. So we're really, really excited and, and annel is working really hard and,
uh, they're having weekly meetings with various departments to be able to move that
along. So that's really gonna be a wonderful event. So again, I'm just keeping you all updated.
uh, march 23rd, saturday, uh, four to 8:00 pm is when
that will occur. So that concludes my report.
any questions or comments regarding those items? Those
items? City manager items? Uh, mr. Mayor, if I may, uh,
I believe the, there was an update on the, um, status
of the projects across the board that was, uh, shared with the council.
is there a way we can put that on the website as well if it's not already there? That
way the citizens can take benefit of that? Sure. That's not a problem. Thank you.
okay, moving on to item eight. Consent items. Items
listed under the consent agenda are considered routine, are generally enacted in one motion. The exception of this
rule is that a council member may request one or more items to be removed from the
consent agenda for a separate discussion. Uh, counsel, do you have any items
you wish to remove at this time? Item k, item
a. Okay. We have items
a and item k. Any additional items?
may I move? Counsel, approve consent items b through j.
second. Okay, we have a motion by
mr. Gavi, a second by mr. Kart to approve consent
items b through j. Any further
comments? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? There
is none. Items b through j
are approved. Item a consent and approval of minutes from the city council meeting
held on december 19th, 2023. Mr. Kar, mr.
mayor, uh, since I was not presented the meeting, I'd like to abstain. Okay.
may I make a motion? We approve consent item a second.
okay, we have a motion on mr. K, second on ms. Kates to approve consent.
item a. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There
is none, but there is one abstained. Mr. Decar.
item item k, consent and approval, us equal employment
opportunity commission negotiated settlement agreement. This has been a matter of
executive session multiple times. Uh, I will let
josh, uh, disclose what we can at this time. I'm just
coming up at this time to remind you that everything that we've discussed in executive session, because of the
negotiations, the negotiations that have been occurring with the eeoc have been confidential in nature
and need to remain confidential, na in nature until they
are approved, uh, uh, by the director of the eeoc. And so if we
have any legal questions regarding the settlement, uh, I'd be happy to meet with
you guys in executive session if, if you'd like to make a motion for that at this time.
so, um, byron, help me out with this one, but as we haven't received
anything, we don't actually know what is being approved and therefore couldn't
possibly approve and give consent. We actually sent it to you via email. Yeah, it's been, it's been
distributed, uh, before the first meeting. Okay.
last week. Last week. Oh, with the weather. Okay. Hold on. Yeah, if you
need to look at that real quick on january 11th.
okay. I'm good, mayor.
I move. Counsel, approve. Uh, consent item k, second. Okay, we
have motion on ms. Cro second by ms. Case to approve consent. Item k.
um, all in favor? A. Aye. Any opposed?
there is none. The motion carries. Um,
with that, as you heard, the attorneys, we can disclose more once the eoc approves.
so, okay. Uh, moving on to item, new
business item, a consideration and possible action to approve and adopt. Ordinance number 2024
dash 1448, an ordinance of the city of texas, ordering a general
election to be held on saturday, the fourth day of may, 2024.
city secretary, have any comments as our election administrator?
no, the only comment is just to let everyone know that we are accepting applications.
um, we began accepting him on january 17th, and we'll be
accepting them through friday, february 16th of 5:00 pm
and it's for mayor at large. Two,
two and three and three, yes. And how do people submit the application?
is it online or in person? Yes. So you can submit 'em online via email.
um, you can submit 'em in person or by mail.
uh, you just have to make sure that they are notarized and, uh, the
person that gives you the oath is allowed to give you those. Yeah. So for the
public who may be listening, just to make sure all of that is clear, um,
on the ballot is mayor at large district two
and district three positions. Um, some of us are, are term limited
out. And so those, those positions are being vacated. Um,
and, uh, but in order to apply, you can submit that online. You can
email them, you can mail them, you can come in person, but
all the forms do have to be notarized correctly. And the person
who administers the the oath has to be eligible
to administer that oath. So, um, just important reminder. So, but
you can come by at any time, uh, during business hours and, uh,
there's no fee. There is no fee. , may I move? Counsel? Approve
ordinance number 2024 dash 1448. I second. Second.
we have a motion by mr. Kavi, second by mr. Poole, uh, to
approve ordinance number 2024 dash 1448 in
ordinance to the city of ster, texas, ordering a general election to be held on saturday, the fourth
day of may, 2024. Any further comments or questions?
uh, mr. Mayor, I just wanted to add that, uh, city secretary
is, uh, one of the individuals that can note rise and, uh, give
you the oath. If you're filing applications, you don't have to go looking for somebody else. Yeah, correct.
both the city secretary and assistant city secretary. Alright,
any other comments or questions? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed?
there is none. The motion carries. Item b, consideration, possible action improvement amendment to the professional service
agreement 2022 dash oh oh two for the primrose
park project. Timothy,
good evening, mayor and counsel, the item before you tonight is to amend
the existing design contract for primrose park. The existing design
contract for primrose park is, uh, formally what we all know is phase two, which consists of
the ball fields, um, parking concession, and restroom
building. Um, and associated components for all of that area of the park.
phase three that, um, we have been working towards is for the
amphitheater, food truck, parking, additional parking area, um,
a completely different separate parking lot, um, and additional restrooms.
so what is before you tonight is to, um, the recommendation to approve
the design amendment for this contract to be able to move forward with the design of phase three.
and just a reminder, this was part of our,
um, approval of the budget to proceed with, um, fa
with the next phase of the project. Previously with the, uh, with the reason
that we're doing the amendment, because we signed this before we had amended that as part of this
sequence, correct? Correct.
mayor. And what's, what's the timeline for completion on this design? We anticipate,
um, about nine to 12 months for design for this phase. Um, some
of that timeline is dependent on, um, which style of amphitheater we go with,
if it has to be, um, you know, dif different architectural design components associated
with that. So this, uh,
budget amount, five 59,388
is only for phase three? Yes. Right. There's nothing from phase two that is being
done in these points. It's amending the entire contract. So
it would be okay, you know, a design contract ultimately if approved for phase two and
phase three. But the 559,000 or yes, 559,000
is for phase three, which brings the total contract to the 990,000.
okay. Alright, thank you. Thanks for the clarification. Certainly.
may I move counsel, approve and authorize the city manager to execute an amendment
to professional service agreement 2022 dash zero two with half
half incorporated for the design services in the amount of $559,388
for a total not to exceed of $990,088
for primrose park. Second. All right. We
have a motion by mr. I, second by mr. Poole, um, to approve
an amendment to the professional service agreement and authorize the city manager to execute,
um, the agreement number 20 20 22
dash zero two for the primroses project park project not
to exceed, um, 900 and sorry
$990,000 8,990
and $88. Sorry, I lost it in my, in my notes. There it is.
so 90 $990,088
for primrose park agreement with half incorporated.
any further questions or comments
being none? All in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none.
the motion carries. Moving on to item c, presentation and discussion
with the consideration of possible action regarding a park and recreational
general obligation bond. Um, I know we will have
a lot of history here, but, but I will say, um, this is,
uh, in response to combining
multiple phases of the project moving forward. Total cost coming in, there's, there's a whole
lot involved and so look forward to the presentation. So thanks,
heather. Thank you. Let me ask a question first. So the recommendation
is that it's around discussion regarding it will be,
will we be asked to approve something? Also, I think we'll be looking
for consensus, um, as to if we have
interest in moving forward. Okay. And if we do have interest, what
that bond package potentially might look like. Um, should we,
should we choose to go? So this is a discussion that's correct. That's okay. Okay. It's
not a final decision. Yeah, there were two different wordings here going on, so I wasn't sure.
okay. Thanks. Thank you. Um, good evening, mayor and council members.
my name is kimberly bo. I'm a resident of shore and also the co-chair of,
uh, sre parks and recreation commission. So today we're going to be discussing
with you, um, a recommendation for your consideration
if it moves forward. Hold on one second. Let's see here.
it's on.
thank you.
there we go. Just some easy technical issues there, but we're putting a
recommendation in front of you for your consideration. Um, and I wanna thank tiffany and
erin who are also gonna be presenting on, uh, behalf of the city. Um, today we're gonna be talking
a little bit about what that rec, uh, parks and recreation commission project priority ranking is
for your consideration. We're gonna talk through those proposed park bond projects,
um, the potential bond packages, impact to the tax rate, and then next
steps moving forward. So as you can see from some of these photos,
uh, the over the past three years as being chair of shore parks and recs, and now
also the co-chair, um, we've had a lot of awesome discussions about
what the future of shore could look like for our parks. Um, our council liaison,
um, council member pool can attest to each and every month us discussing all of
the parks that we do have and ideas for them. Um, I want
to let you know that I don't represent just myself today. I do represent the seven members that
are volunteers, but appointed to shore parks and recreation. And we're all in agreement
with this recommendation that I'm gonna put in forward, uh, to you today. Um,
we love our home. We love shore. And just like you, we are servant minded.
we wanna see recreational events that benefit the entire city. We wanna see parks
that benefit our entire community. Um, and we try our best to make recommendations and,
um, on behalf of the community as we move forward. So not in
an addition to just having fun, um, but we really do have the whole community in mind.
so, as you guys are aware, shore has grown, um, very crazy in the past few years.
for the past eight years that I've been a resident of shore. I've seen it quadruple in size.
and we know with that there are a lot of competing needs, all of which are important,
all are priorities, but all cost money. And so for us, our secret is no more.
we want to make sure that we're making some wise decisions on behalf of the community. And for
us, that comes in the form of parks. So, over the past few meetings
that we've had, especially this fall, the parks and recreation commission
did take, um, time to rank what our needs are. And we have ms. Ramona
ridge, who's also in the audience. She's the, the current chair of parks and rec. But we really
started to think about all these parks that we talk about each and every meeting. What are the priorities
and what would we like to come to you guys today with, um, in terms of a recommendation. So we
asked all seven members to rank, uh, what their priorities were for the
existing parks that we currently have. And primroses park was the number one priority of the parks
and recreation commission to make sure that we, um,
complete primrose park all phases to meet expectations and to make sure that we have
a budget that can help support that. The second ranking was irene stern
to investigate, to explore, um, how that could be renovated,
perhaps have some amenities that are added to that in line with the, um,
master plan that we have in place, um, and then also talk about land. The
third ranking was land, because we know more land is not gonna be created, but to secure
land for future parks that could potentially, um, be built there. Uh, the
fourth consideration was the, uh, five acre park. Again, this is
a concept that if we had land we could potentially build and then francis
mark park, uh, potentially turning that into a veteran's memorial. But these were the
five top priorities, um, from the shore parks and recreation commission
of what we'd like to see happen in our community. Um, but in order to complete these,
of course, we need the funds to move forward. So we represent the community, but
we'd really like to have the community's input and weigh in. And what the conversation
was at our meeting was to put potentially a bond out for consideration for
the community to vote on, for them to tell us what it is that they'd like to see, um, happening
here in shore. So it is my recommendation to y'all as
I stand here, to say that shore parks and recreation would like to see a bond put
out for consideration of, uh, voters here in the community. And
now I'm gonna go ahead and turn this over to tiffany who's gonna walk us through
what those projects look like and what, how those projects, um,
were estimated and what that would include.
thank you, kimberly. Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight I will be presenting
on the proposed park bond projects that the parks and recreation commission ranked.
as kimberly mentioned, the park priority is primrose park, and
to no surprise, was ranked number one with the commission. Phase two of primrose
park consists of four youth baseball fields, restrooms and concession
building, parking, and required detention. Historically, primrose phase
two budget has been based off of the regional park fund available funds.
this project is currently in design, but ultimately, there are not enough funds to
build primrose phase two. Staff and half the design
firm have worked diligently to find alternatives and
different methods to try to bring this phase into the construction budget.
ultimately, we want to build this part to be something that fulcher is proud of.
phase three will consist of an amphitheater, additional parking, food, truck
area, restrooms, walking trails, and a playground. The
estimated budget presented to you tonight of $19 million is
considering construction for all of primrose phase two and phase three with
no other funding sources designed for primrose is budgeted
within the current budget and not included in the proposed bond. Each
project shown has a proposed project contingency to assist in covering the
unknowns and the ever-changing inflation. We have been faced with
irene stern community center as a whole, ranked number two for
the parks commission. I have split irene stern into two different projects,
the recreation center and park improvements. This slide represents the
proposed recreation center consisting of opportunities such as a gymnasium,
a fitness room, walking track, and locker rooms. The master plan
projected this facility to be approximately 21,000 square feet.
the parks and pathways master plan is a document that helps guide the city in what the community
desires. With a project such as a recreation center, it would be beneficial to
complete a preliminary engineering report to better determine what indoor recreation
opportunities we want to provide and better to find the project cost.
additionally, this facility would need a significant number of staff to run the recreation center
as, as well as additional facility maintenance staff and increased operational
cost. Currently, some of public works maintenance staff are located
within the irene stern facility and would need to be relocated
should this project be approved, which increases the need for a public works
and parks operations and maintenance facility.
the second project for irene stern community center is the irene stern park
improvement project. This project consists of walking trails, a playground,
sports court, and a pavilion. This project would bring the needed
sports courts to our community, while also providing additional play areas for
our shore community.
the third ranked project is land acquisition, which would be, which
would provide the funding for the city to acquire additional land for future
projects.
the five acre park project was the fourth ranking project
with the understanding that it is conceptual, but demonstrates the desire
to provide more parks and recreation opportunities to our community.
this project supports the previous project, the need for additional
city-owned land in shore. The budget shown was
developed in the master plan based off of the conceptual plan shown, but
does not include detention. Staff would recommend the city purchase
land before proposing a conceptual park on a bond.
francis smart park was ranked number five by the commission and planned
for a plaza environment with a veteran's memorial if
approved. The budget presented tonight is contingent on the site being fully available to
construct staff believe that this project is a great addition to
our community, but the existing structure on site could impact
the project timeline and ultimately the project budget. With that,
I would like to ask our assistant city manager, zach, to provide an update regarding
the section house.
uh, quite simply, it's still there. Uh, there is an agreement
in place, uh, from anderson smith who's got the commercial attractive
land that's immediately east of sim street and on to 93
in our downtown area, that he would then move the section house to his property
and it'd be a focal point of his development. Uh,
we have reviewed those plans. We've approved his permits. Uh, he's included something called the
section house square. Uh, but he has not moved forward on the project yet citing
construction costs. So until he starts construction,
he cannot move the section house over according to him.
so that's kinda where we're right there, but there is, there is interest there and a plan.
thank you, zach.
this slide represents the project's in priority ranking from the parks and recreation commission.
also illustrating two different totals. The first, including the irene
stern recreation center and the second with irene stern park improvements.
the total for all projects shown with both projects at irene stern
would be approximately $56 million.
here we proposed a few different packages, one
package with the top three priority ranking projects. Eight. I'm sorry, can you, can
you just back up to the previous one? Certainly.
so the total is 51.
the, the total if you, if you consider both components of irene stern is
56 million. The total, if you, um,
if, if irene stern was only the recreation center would be 51.
if you did not consider the recreation center, but you did consider the irene
stern park improvements, then it would be the 37 8. Okay, I see
here we proposed a few different packages. One package with the top three
priority ranking projects, a separate package with francis smart,
and an additional package for the irene stern recreation center. These are example
packages and ultimately can be customized based off of the direction from council.
next, aaron will show the estimated tax impact for each project,
which will also allow counsel to consider different packages. Thank
you for the opportunity to present this to you tonight. At this time, I would like to
hand this to, um, over to aaron, our finance director.
good evening.
so the next slide goes over. What are general obligation bonds? General obligation
bonds are bonds that are voted on by the public through a bond election.
they're secured by property taxes and that we were required by law to levy
a tax rate to pay for those bonds.
the next slide goes over what our current property tax rate is for the fiscal year 2024.
as you can see, our maintenance and operations tax rate is 0.1 2 7 1 7 4.
our interest in sinking is 0.0 4 1 5 9 3 with our
total adopted tax rate being 0.1 6 9 0 6 7.
the next slide goes over tax rate impact by parker project. So what
we did was we took the different bond packages and we spoke with our financial
advisors. And you'll see the first column is the different projects.
the second column is the estimated cost that tiffany just discussed with you,
with the third column being the tax rate impact per the project
with the, and the fourth column being the annual impact to a $400,000
home. Once again, these are just estimates because the taxable values will change
every year. And as you can see, the total
for all those projects comes up to 0.0 8 8 6 8 1
at a total estimated cost of $354 and 71 cents
to a $400,000 home.
the next slide, I'd like to go in and talk about the annual mud payments the city is obligated
to make. The city currently has development agreements with different muds throughout the
city. Each year, we are obligated to pay a portion
of our property taxes that we receive in that particular mud back
to the muds. The amount that we have to pay back is based on a tiered
structure that is in each agreement. As you can see the on the slide,
this is the tiered structure that is in each development agreement. It's based off of our
total tax rate. Since our total tax rate right now is currently
well below the 0.21999, we pay to the muds,
the 0.0 6 2 5 1 0 of the assessed value in that particular
mud. Every year of the property taxes the city receives,
should the property taxes, our total property tax go above that,
you will see the different tiers and the different percentages they go up based on our total
property tax. The
next slide just kind of goes into more detail about that first column is, once
again, the different percentages based on your total tax rate. The tier,
with the second column being the actual increase of the call, should
the total tax rate go to that tier for that related percentage?
and then what your total, our total, the total the city's total annual mud payments
would be with that increase. And based off of our 2024
budgeted amount of $1,577,000.
with this slide, I did a little property tax rate analysis. I took our current total tax
rate of 0.1 6 9 0 6 7 and took the
current threshold that we're currently in of the 0.21999 with the
difference being 0.0 5 1 2, 3 2, which shows the
difference that we would we currently have before we go up to that next level of
that tier that we would be required to pay the 7% or the 8% based on
what our total tax rate is. And then below are just simply examples
of possible combinations that would keep the city within that 0.0
5 1 2, 3 2.
so I, I have a question, but I don't know when you yeah. To take questions. So, so
a couple of notes. Mm-hmm. , um, first before we address those
questions, when it comes to the, to the mud rate, I do wanna remind all of you, in case
some of you weren't on counsel at the time, um,
back prior to the renegotiated agreement, um,
in 2018, in the end of 18, um, any
tax rate over 10 cents went back to the muds. We renegotiated.
and part of that negotiation was the mud director's
understanding that at some point in time, the city would need the
capacity to issue bonds without impacting that
tax rate that's paid to the muds. So in other words, if
we would've issued a 5 cent tax, um, for a
bond package, we would've had to pay 5 cents to the muds.
and so this renegotiated contract changed the terms
to this tiered structure, uh, of payments.
um, I don't think at the time any of us, um, saw
what was coming from the state legislature. However, we did take that into account
because we heard rumors of such, um, when negotiating these terms.
and what I'm referring to is, um, our cap that
we can't exceed on our, on our tax rate, um, each year. So
all of those calculations did come into play as we renegotiated
the terms. Uh, we'll remind the public and counsel that
the tax rate that we pay back to the muds is only on the
value within that mud. So we're not paying the total
tax rate above, which is why, um, it's, it's, it's lower
than the percentage that's actually paid back to the mud, um, as
we see it to date. So just a couple of clarifying things there as it relates
to the mud. Um, when, when staff sent this, we talked extensively
about the importance of this, um, being a part of the equation because we
do need to know, you do need to know that if you go above
the, sorry, my 21.99, if you,
if you go above that, um, then it does kick us to the next
tier of payment. Um, but then we're still, we're splitting pennies
is virtually what's happening as that increases. So, but, but I wanna,
I wanna, as a taxpayer to the meds,
I don't feel like, and I speak, I think for most everybody
in my district, I don't know that this represents
us. Well, and, and by that, what I'm guess I'm saying
is everybody that is in a mud,
which is all cross creek plus others, right? I pay $6,000
a year to the mud, which is what other people that
don't live in cross creek, they don't pay. So to, to the
point of why we have these mud payments back to
from the city, it's because people like myself
have already paid that $6,000 and all it
is, is paying the mud so that they can pay for my roads,
my infrastructure that I live in, that, that kind of thing. So
I don't, I think that we're not serving the med taxpayers
well when we don't present that part of it. So if we
print, if we present the meds, you need to be able to speak back to
somebody like me that says, oh, and by the way, ms. Cage, you've already paid $6,000,
which basically all we are doing is taking your money and paying it
back to months. Yeah. And so, so that, that's my point. So yeah. And so to
that point, what's, what's really happening? Um, and I can't,
I think my rate was 85 cents, right?
in reality it was 5 cents more. Okay? Yeah. Because,
so, so what what's really happening is because of the city's payment
back, it reduces that taxpayer in
the mud's rate, but it's, it's not really a true
reduction, um, because it's just the members that are within the
mud. So, um, just kind of an important note to understand, uh,
the taxpayers as a general are not paying that
tax rate back to the mud. It's only on the tax, within the tax, the assessed
value within those muds. So, so I didn't understand
the reduction piece, but I think it's important to clarify
why not. I mean, on this, the
city takes revenue from the taxpayers.
mm-hmm. , right? So I pay our tax rate, which is
whatever 0.1 6, 1 6, and nine mm-hmm. , right? I pay that.
and so does everyone else that lives in the city. Then the city
has to take from that revenue and rebate
back to certain muds, right? Mm-hmm, the
percentage that you've shown here. So not only am I paying,
I don't know what my bill was, it's somewhere between five and $7,000. But
of the, that's for the mud. But of the money that
I paid to the city for taxes, a percentage of that is rebated
to the mud. Mm-hmm. . So the mud's giving my mud dollars to pay for the infrastructure
for the mud that I live in. I understand the roads that I drive on, the infrastructure, the water,
blah, blah, blah. Right? So it's important because this is going to impact
right? Our ins. Yes. Right? So as we,
as it stands, the way this is presented now, there would be no additional
impact because we're under that rate. So we wouldn't go to the next level.
but should we take into consideration and put out
a bond proposal that moves us to the next tier. Now then the
city's ins is impacted. Correct. So we, 'cause it's gonna go so
that and the city's money right? Is what we use to pay
for everything that the city is doing. Yes. So it's sort of a double-edged sword. Mm-hmm.
. Right? And everyone should understand that. Uh, or we somehow
we have to make it clear. And if we're going to put any bond referendum on the ballot,
it needs to clearly show
what people are right. Are agreeing to or not agreeing to. Mm-hmm. . Yeah. So currently anything
over 5 cents, um, actually 5.12 cents,
anything over that 5 cent would kick us into the next threshold
on this year's current, um, tax rate. Now, I will note
that for the past, well, since we signed the agreement, um,
and the new state legislation went into, into effect, our rate
has actually gone from, it was, I believe
18, 18 and a half cents. Mm-hmm. . So we've dropped to two
full cents mm-hmm. From that time that this started. So
I, I wouldn't imagine, um, next year giving new population,
new rooftops, I would imagine that we're looking at another
decrease in the overall tax rate again, um,
with continued increasing cost of, of, of homes
in the area. But you're right, anything above
the 5 cents on the ballot would result in an
increase, um, to that mud payment. And that was kind
of the point of, to, to your point of yes, the city's paying
it back, if the city wasn't paying it back, we would be paying a higher
rate within those months anyway. So, but I would like to say,
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
a conversation, 'cause these numbers are just sort of flying by and no, there's no
frame of reference necessarily, right? Mm-hmm. . So we're not all in
finance, but, uh, I think it's important that as during these
discussions, that we realize that we are part of
a city shore, right? The city of re re first. And
yes, we all have responsibilities and where we live
and our houses and our muds and all these things, right? But it's really about
what do we want for the city of sre as we have these discussions? Mm-hmm.
, we're not going to decide anything tonight. Right? But, so that, for me,
it's looking at the, you know, the bigger picture. Yes. And these have big numbers with
them. I mean mm-hmm. It's serious. Yeah. And I, I think to that point,
when I talk to residents, um, across the
city, and it doesn't matter if it's bo arc or f run
or polo ranch or cross creek, um, there's a general
consensus for ball fields and, um, place for the city
together, the amphitheater concept, those kinds of things. So I'm not surprised
to see primrose rise to the top as the number
one priority. However, I will say that I do think,
um, those who live in master plan communities will
struggle supporting a bond that has buying of small tracks
of parkland, um, because there's pocket
parks within those communities. So that's gonna be a larger
ask when you're talking about taking the vote to the populace.
so that's something to, to consider. Um, a
additionally, I think when you talk about the importance of
downtown and, uh, the livable center study and all the things that we worked
on since, um, prior to even some of us being
seated here, um, the francis smart park downtown, the,
the veterans memorial, those kinds of things becomes a higher priority.
um, I, I think rene stern, the improvements outside become
very important, um, when you talk about the grand,
um, plan, the regional plan of parks. But I do
struggle a little bit with a community center that should be, that
at least partially my opinion, is the responsibility of the ymca
or of when we've got la fitness, we've got different
community places to work out to play volleyball, to do those
kinds of things. Now, if we wanted to, you know, we do have an
mou currently with the ymca, and if we wanted to say, hey, here's the land to
develop, and you guys go and staff and fund and do
all of those kind of things, that, that might change the equation. Um,
but that being said, that's just kind of where my, my opinion on what I
think as I think about the populace and how these packages
get rolled out, um, you know, we've gotta think about then
there's a couple of things counsel to think about. We can put all of these
separately on a bond referendum. Each one, each line item can be
its own on a referendum. You can package them with multiple
together. There's a whole lot of ways, um, that you could
choose to do this, to take it to the public, um, for a vote.
um, I will say one of the things that I think we are all becoming very
familiar with is the fact that, um, increasing
cost, not, not just for the city of re but across the board, when
I talk to other, um, municipalities, we're seeing this rise
in cost. Um, so in order to build the type of
ball fields in the park and the experience that our residents have grown
accustomed to, um, I I, I'm not sure
relying solely on budgeted dollars is gonna be enough to give the public
what they desire when it relates to primrose. So I, I guess those are my thoughts
as y'all open for question. Well, I guess I have another question. So, I was
a bit surprised to see this on the agenda, only because we just finished
the budget and we actually moved, remind me, $3 million
of general fund over to parks. Yes, ma'am. Yes. So we've already
given it a buffer. And then I'm like, whoa, what is this coming
just the next month? Mm-hmm. . So I was, I was caught off guard.
okay. Um, I, whenever I look also
at the numbers you run, and thank you for running those by the way. But for
a home of $400,000, $354 a year,
I think my total city tax, that's 50%.
so I'm paying right now about $700 a year in city taxes.
this would add that. And I, and I've talked to folks
already about tax increases. There's not a lot of
appetite. So I guess I, I know we need to move things forward. I guess I'm surprised.
do we really need to go this far this year? Um,
the, the people I've reached out to about probably 20 people
they don't have an appetite for, but that's their vote, right? They don't
have an appetite for this this year. So, okay. So
a couple, couple comments and some questions. One, thank you for putting this
together. Um, second, um, I'm fully supportive
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
forward. 'cause even though nobody wants, uh, increased taxes, everybody else also
keeps complaining that they want ball fields and everything else, and what pays for that.
um, so that's a little bit of the comments there. I guess
other thoughts and questions? Um, one,
I I, I do want a little bit more clarification at the end on what
is the six and a half million that we put in the budget for primrose park for phase two and
three combining together, getting us versus what is in this entire 19
that we didn't have before. So let's make sure we, we hit that up. I think that's very important.
I'm curious as to the parking amount for primrose park whenever it's
completed. Just 'cause like when we do have a community-wide event,
what that would actually be, how many people we could actually have there for the
tricentennial, uh, celebration, um, which would
be great. Hopefully it doesn't take that long. Um, and then,
you know, a couple other things to consider ongoing costs for all of these
parks. What is it going to be? How many additional personnel are we gonna need? What is that
run rate gonna be? What are the tax implications gonna be in order to support
that? That's not from an ins uh, perspective. Um,
I, I do, I do not think we should itemize this from a bond.
I think it should be a parks and rec bond with things in general to be used from. I don't
think all of these things should necessarily be done at the beginning. I think acquiring
land and acquiring land now is one of the biggest things because if we don't do it now, there's not
gonna be an available and it's gonna get more expensive. Um, I would propose
that the dollar amount of the bond keep it below the amount
that kicks over the higher mud payment amount. I think that's responsible
there. And then the other thing that I think to keep in consideration here is
also bond timing. How much of it now this year, we're seeing bond rates
rising right now? Where do we feel like they're going to go? They're still traditionally
low as compared to 30 years ago, but they're a lot higher than what they were
three years ago. So I think that's important to get from a bond council. So I
know there was a lot there, but I wanted to share all of that and so that you could take it in and just
have some, some feedback from it. And then maybe if you can answer the question on the primrose,
that would be helpful.
primrose, currently there is, um,
what was budgeted was 3.1 for fy 24, which
technically was 3.1 for phase two for construction.
and then with this budget phase three, the $3 million was allocated
for phase three. So that, that left that total
to 6.1 for this year for construction of phase two. And
then design and construction of phase three.
currently we cannot build phase two
for $6.1 million. And tonight we just approved 559,000
that would come out of that $3 million that was earmarked for phase
three. What we showed on the presentation
tonight was the, was for just construction without contingency was
$15 million for primrose. That's for phase two and phase three. But that does not
take into consideration the 6.1 less the
design contract that was just awarded tonight. And we showed that just in a way to
be able to show kind of where we are with the need for primrose. And then
of course, you know, I, if y'all want to see options of, okay, so what does that
look like? Um, taking into consideration the 6 million. There's
a, there's a lot of ways that it can go. I think because if we
considered the bond for the may election, then primrose phase two
is almost finished with design. As I mentioned. We've gone through a lot
to try and figure out how to bring this into budget to, to somehow even
close to, it was not an impo it was not possible for 3.1, but
to try and somehow get us close to the $6 million. So we've
spent a lot of time going through, exploring a lot of different avenues,
um, looking at what we could potentially delay, um, how
we could do that. But ultimately, like I said, we wanna build a park that
we can all be proud of, not build a park that has no lights,
um, has bare bones of a lot of things, right? Because
after all this time, if we do that and then you can't even play during
the spring because of the time change and all those things, then
ultimately it's not really the most usable part for our community. So we,
we explored a lot of avenues and the way of how do we, how do we,
how do we make this happen? So ultimately tonight we showed you the 15 million
for both. And then if, if we go
forward with a may bond, if that was something that y'all were interested in, phase two
is almost finished with design. So we could be, depending on if
there was funding, you know, available, then we could be potentially looking at
going out for bids and being able to soon start construction. But we have to
have enough dollars for it. So if we, that would
be before the may election, potentially could be before the may election
if we, so I'll, I'll, I'll stop, I'll stop you there just for a second. Um,
I, I appreciate all of that. Um, I'm still, again, supportive
of bond 'cause I need, I think we need those funds to be there when we're ready.
I think we have to have a separate review of the project in general because we just approved
this back in october and we're now saying that not only the 3 million
that we put in, but the additional 3 million on top of it isn't gonna
pay for the two, phase two and phase three, where we both agreed, I've got serious
concerns as a citizens, as a taxpayer to say, what you're gonna go
and give me, you're gonna go and we're gonna give you more money and this is gonna
keep going out. I mean, we grilled richard weatherly on our water projects.
and honestly, like any further projects going forward, gonna
have more scrutiny, I believe from this council. If we continue to run like
this. Again, it separates it from the bond thing, but, and I, I
do want, I do want citizens to know that just because we have
it on a bond, and even if that gets passed, it still goes through us to approve the
projects. The funds might be there and it might be available, but if we don't feel like it
is ready or we're ready to take this on, like we're not gonna do it. That's
at least what I wanna do. But, but I'm not even sure that I'm comfortable with the numbers that
we've been presented because of just what you said that, that we had 3 million
and it wasn't enough. We thought it was, so we put put in more and now we're coming
back and saying, well, that's just bare bones that we don't have lights. And I'm going, I,
I'm just, I think we need a little screeching halt here to revisit
and get us back on a common page. And I have concerns
of going with these bond dollars when we don't, I don't feel confident
in the dollars, I don't feel confident against. So let, let me give a little bit of context
to, 'cause I had this conversation as soon as, um,
ramona called and said, hey, would you consider even hearing, uh, about
a park bond? And I said, yeah, I think it's, it's important. So I called
staff and said, all right, where are we? Where are we at? And they had already begun to have that
conversation as well because it was mentioned at a, uh, parks committee,
um, meeting. And so this, this dialogue began and it was one
of the first questions I asked is, all right, where, where's this
delta? Um, and it was the first question I asked tiffany, we're gonna have to
explain the delta. And what I came to realize
is the park that was discussed prior
to any of us sitting here was
more of an open space park that
provided a place where kids could practice
baseball, those kinds of things. Um, softball,
whatever, little league. Um, but it was more of kind of that practice field
concept, not the full on ball field
concept. Then as this council began
to have conversations a couple of years ago, it evolved into, at
one point in time a field that even had movable fences so
that you could either play soccer or play baseball because we didn't
have, um, the soccer fields that we now have in tamron
west that included no, no lights. It didn't include the
kind of drainage that would be required to truly play little league. Um, didn't
have that same kind of infill. Um, I remember distinctly because
mr. Martin, um, raised concerns at that time that we
weren't even building the appropriate fields. Right?
and so I believe part of what's happened through that
design process, even with half is this, the ball
fields have evolved to a point of
truly having little league, um,
concepts. Now, we do have the concept drawings from two or three years ago,
but that was that movable fence and it wasn't lighted and it, nor was it sprinkled.
uh, nor were there sprinklers in those equations. So when
you start ta talking about irrigation lighting, and I'm not trying to justify
all of the increases, but I am saying that's where some of the increases
have come is this has evolved, um, from
practice fields to ball fields. But I agree 100%
that should we go out to bond before we, before we get
bond, we pro we need to drill down on some of these, some of
these costs to ensure from a project management perspective that
the 19 million is enough, or if it's too much,
or if there's some engineering that needs to take place. I mean, and this is january.
and so if why we got presented this
so quickly, it feels like it was just kind of rushed through to me, right?
is so that we can get it on the may ballot that that doesn't buy
it for me. What buys it for me is to get
it accurate. Something that I am comfortable in
representing to my constituents, right? Not to just go rush something,
just to have it on a bond election. And, and so I still need
an answer as to the money that we put in and what we're gonna be able
to produce this year. I'm not confident in that. So
I, I mean, that's where I am is there's, there's no way I, I can't take this to
my neighbors. I can't take this to anybody to go represent this right now. Yeah.
I think the, I think the other part, uh, uh, I will comment on two of the
pieces. One on the timing issue. Um, one, I don't think we're
ready. I don't think we're ready for, for this may election.
and there'd be a difference when you talk about deadlines, there'd be a difference if there was
a, we always call it in business a compelling event. Is there a compelling
event in june that we need to have those funds from a bonds?
what are we gonna go do in june that we couldn't do, let's say in
november of next year or this year by having it on election that year.
right. So I think we've got a lot of work to do. I don't see a compelling event. Yes,
it's always better to do it earlier. And I'm not saying take this out forever, but
there's a lot of question here. And while I understand there might be some different
value engineering or, or, uh, let's, let's call it all the
fulcher bells and whistles as we like to have it, and we expect it out here, even
though we don't like to pay for it. Um, I, I'm, I
don't see how that comes into play when you budget $6 million
that then turns into 15 plus additional couple million of contingency.
I just don't see where nine plus million of additional
add-ons come when you've already done the land. You've already done the
field work. I mean, those are the bigger infrastructure pieces. I wanna see what those details are
on that, on that delta yeah. Is half with us tonight,
and I'm sure they've provided some of the, the numbers,
um, the values. Yes. Um, could
you all possibly speak as to, um, those
and what, and, and I think to mr. K's point,
um, we are nearing completion
of design, uh, for phase two. What is the dollar
value of phase two alone,
or to get started prior to, uh, november,
um, election? Certainly, and if I can just a moment on the,
we, we, well, I understand the term rush. We did work
fast, but I've spent a lot of time and spent a lot of diligent
effort into going through these numbers. So I understand the, the differences
here. Phase three was, um, in the may, cip
was shown over $4 million. So three, the $3 million that was
provided for phase three per the mac cip
that was presented. Phase three was four point, roughly about $4.4 million.
so it was, you know, that was for construction and design for what was projected.
um, so any, any any of that
deviation though, when we approved the budget was not called out to say,
yes, if we moved over 3 million, that's fine, but it's not gonna get us everything
we want. That that was what we did not get at that piece. We understand
that it was 4 million at one point, and we budgeted an additional three, but it
was not clear that it wasn't gonna have everything in it. Right. Now you're telling us
that wouldn't even pay for phase two construction, let alone phase
three, which we've approved an amendment here to get the design on phase
three. Which begs the question, what design are
we putting in phase three now that we just approved to be amended? Because it is,
is it the small scope that was originally planned, or is it the scope based
upon having a park bond that includes $19 million for the park
to finish it? The scope didn't change based off of the bond, the scope. We
worked through the scope and have been working through the scope for several months of trying
to make all of this work. Um, so the scope is based off of the master plan
of in the, the conceptual image that's shown in that agenda item,
which has been available for three years now. Um, the,
the addition is only to my knowledge from
that conceptual plan. The only addition is sprinklers and lights. But
deborah, so three years speak deborah? No, go ahead. Okay. The parks committee
has been talking about this for four months. It's not like we're rushing into it.
nothing's been rushed. It's been diligently gone through.
okay. Just because they haven't brought it all to here each time. It
has been diligently gone through for four months.
I'm, I didn't say that this was rushed. I'm saying bringing it to bond in
may is what I believe is rushed. I appreciate all their efforts. It's
not checking all the boxes for me to feel comfortable with it. That's what I'm
saying. I'm not saying this was rushed to this, it's just we're not there at
this point. I just wanna make sure that that was brought forth. Yeah. What I'm interested in is,
uh, I feel like there are a lot of moving targets that
every time we come and visit this, that, you know,
I, I only joined last may, so I I don't have a whole lot of history on this.
um, so whatever the three and 3.1 million last
year that we, um, signed to it,
if that wasn't insufficient, why was not that
estimated four months ago? I mean, it's only four months,
right? So, and why was that not communicated that
we could look at and say, okay, and, uh, mr. Knape didn't make this point.
so instead of repeating, I would say, let's set a target.
let's get an estimate, and let's say that this is what it's going to be instead
of moving targets every few months, that that just does not show us in,
you know, good faith despite of all the hard work that you guys have done. Yeah. And I
think to that point, the truth is, um, phase two,
um, came to council and went to design
when, I mean, we're talking probably 2020
that we sent this to design. So our,
and maybe 21 is when half got it. Um, so
we're, we're now three years removed
from, from starting, starting design. So to that
point there, there probably should have been some updates to the cip along the way.
um, anyway, so I think back to the original question, potentially for
half, um, what
does the 6 million get?
should we not, not, not go out for a bond
package to be able to begin construction on this phase two? Or
is it even, are we even in the ballpark we're
to even get started? So, and I know the reason we moved monies, so just
for everybody's clarity, the reason in october
we combined was a belief that design costs for phase
three would be reduced. Um, if we went
ahead and included it on this on and began to work on design
and construction costs would be significantly reduced,
thus the 1.4 savings, because we were only
mobilizing crews one time instead of multiple mobilizations.
so that was the reason for the move of the monies and to proceed,
um, with assurances at the time that that 6 million would, would come close
to getting the job done. So,
good evening, I'm casey collins with me is kristen leblanc. Uh,
we've been running the project primrose for you. So to um,
answer the, one of the big questions, uh, some of the costs that were
initially prepared when the concept was first, uh,
included in the parks master plan, um, that we've come to
realize, uh, you know, being in a rural area for this project,
some of the electrical infrastructure, we have single phase power. So as
we're going through, we're adding the lighting for the, the park project as we talked about.
um, you know, that's a $900,000 line item, just the electrical alone.
uh, you know, it'd be more efficient for us to have three phase power, which we don't have.
uh, it's not very close to the site, so it'd be very cost proative for
us to even bring it to the site. Uh, some additional cost overruns.
um, things that we had not considered, I mean, just the,
the overall cost with inflation itself, um,
brought the pro pro the budget way, uh, above what we thought.
um, I would say we've skinned this every which way
you possibly can look at it to try to get it within budget. With value engineering,
uh, one of the things that we were considering at the very beginning was sports
lighting for the fields. That's another million dollar ticket line item.
so an original budget for phase three of
2.5 or 3 million. And you look at the electrical infrastructure, you
look at sports field lighting at close to 2 million,
that doesn't get you fields, that doesn't get your parking. And some of the other amenities
that we're trying to include. So I'll add utilities to that.
your only utilities to serve this site are on dixon.
and you're extending those all the way across that property and
down towards huggins. That's an exceptionally large
part of the cost. So if you take electrical improvements
for, can you scoot up to the mic so that people can hear, sorry. If you take the electrical improvements,
the field lighting the utilities, that's $3 million right
there. And that's, you're not, you're not building a field, you're not putting any parking in
nothing. So I get I guess,
go ahead. Oh, sorry, ,
I, I was just gonna say, you know, we had a really good
two or three years ago, and I just thought, I, I need to pull it back up because we did
have estimates in that, uh, parks master plan
and, and not a lot, we had some detail, we had enough
detail to give us numbers, but it feels like to me, just like we did our
water and wastewater master plan, we need to do, we need to have another
parks master plan to update and, and add
the new gyms or what, you know, whatever we want, and bring that back
because there's no picture. I think it, it's the nickel and dimming
and the surpr the surprises. And as you say, well, what you
want now is you gotta have utilities. So this is big enough dollars,
um, that I think that needs to happen so that we
can feel more confident in what we're doing. Certainly. But still, the question
hasn't been answered. What does $6.1 million
get us? If I can real quick answer that
and then we can answer the 6.1. So the master plan does provide
a cost estimate, and the cost estimate for from the master plan for
primrose was $7.5 million. But I can tell you through my
review based off of paths, cost estimate for phase two, and
then reviewing the cost estimates projected in the master plan for
all of the parts or all of the projects that we presented tonight. There's great discrepancies
in concrete. So from the last time that the master plan was updated,
I believe the concrete cost, um, was I, I need
to look at my notes, but I, I wanna say it was like $22 a square foot or something. Good point.
but, but my, but where I'm going is that was done two or
three years ago. We need to go back and redo that so that we're not
surprised so that we, we have an accurate picture vision of what
we're gonna get plus the dollars, just like we did. Yeah. We didn't
go use old water and wastewater manage. So let, let me pause there and say
that they have all of those numbers now, um, the updated
numbers from half, and I'm sure it could distribute, um,
those to counsel, correct? You've got the updated estimates. So we
have, it's how we got to the 19 million, well, the 19 million
assumes that, so it takes the cost estimate that we have for phase two,
the projected cost that was provided to us at one point for phase
three. And then it, I built in an inflation factor into it, as well
as our construction material testing that's required. So some of of those things are not calculated
into the master plan, but, but, but it's a much broader true
picture of what the cost of the project is today. We have
a, we have a much clearer cost projection. Um,
and that's what I'm saying, um, counsel probably needs to review
closely, is that updated cost? Yeah. And, and uh,
jack, I think this comment more for you just in general across the board, we are having this
across all departments, across all projects. So we should probably look at this.
we do not, we do not wanna be nitpicking line item by line item. We
don't want to, but every single project keeps coming up
with 50% overruns. I mean, like, we're all cringing when water
plant number two is gonna come up for an amendment to this council, because
we're like, really? So that's where the frustration comes. If
you can provide us with the deltas, this is what it was,
a this is what it is, b here's what the explanation is,
that would help us rather than c it. Because all we're seeing now
is, is we're seeing, hey, you say it was previously in the master plan,
7 million. If I add the current six plus
whatever we did on phase one plus the additional 19 that you're asking
now, we're talking more than 25 million total on a project that originally
was set out to be seven. Only point of correction is the 19 includes
the six. No. So you get to decide, you get to decide what you do with that
six I, that's the only thing not considered. The only
thing that's not considered is the 400,000. That's our 480, 490
that's already spent for design. Uh, I, let's get clarification, because
if it wasn't, if it wasn't the 19 million, then we wouldn't have to go out for as
much bond dollars because you'd subtract the six off of it. And that's not what's happening. So
the bond dollars is 12? No. So the, the, the right.
what are you planning to do? Six I I the
six, the, the total cost moving forward, not, not counting what we already
spent in land purchase. We already spent in phase
one and we already spent in design on phase two. Um,
the total, none of that is projected remaining cost. The total remaining cost for
the project minus the 500 for design in phase three is 19 million,
whatever the number is, not 25. That 19 million is with continue.
so you counsel will have a decision to make at some point in time what
to do with the 6 million, whether they apply that towards the purchase price
and you only bond at 13 million. Or
if you want to pull that back into the general fund,
you will have a decision to make. Because that was one of the conversations is
do you include the six that's already been budgeted or, and I said, put the
big numbers. So the council, we're not playing a game there, there's no, it,
it's, it's fully transparent. This is now the total cost of
the remaining project. So there is $6 million, well, 500 and
400, five 5,000,460 basically, um,
remaining dollars. Um, that council will have a decision
how they want to apply that, whether it's toward the bond to
reduce the, the bond cost or to absorb it back into
the general fund because it hasn't been spent or to the park
leave a balance in the parks fund. Yeah, I think the decision here
is not really for today to make, but in my opinion, what
was estimated three years ago, if it's not valid, then we have to
reduce our expectations or we have to be able to pay for it more.
and I don't think we are ready to do either. And that's why the stalemate is there.
I would additionally like to add, I I think we need
to look at some of the bids that are coming in.
I know they all look familiar. They all look around the same
ballpark. I'm highly worried of what, what I'm hearing as being a
ful tax, a re willingness to pay. And I would be very
concerned to see what other cities are paying for similar projects
because everybody thinks that, oh, this is re look at those
medium incomes and let's, let's tear those up. And I'm very concerned
if that's what's happening. We gotta start being pushing back because
somebody's gonna want to take the work at some point. Well, and, and to that, which
I did forget when I saw this, I went and printed the last county
bond projects and there's a ton. There's, I I,
I've got it in my bag, I could pull it out. I, but I wanna say it's $115 million
in fort bend county parks projects. And that
is not for county projects, that is for sugar lane. All these
small city projects are in there also. So to your point,
I don't quite understand that either. Why it or do we need to be more integrated?
do we need to be, uh, having more discussions with the
county? But, but that is the case, is this is putting a lot and we're already
paying county taxes too. So we actually did discuss,
um, before the county bond, and we did request some projects to be considered
in the bond. Um, but ultimately if we did that, they would be county owned
and they would no longer be city owned if they were to be considered.
the assistance finds that if they get a part to use, whether
the county does in the city doesn't matter. And, and
again, I, I'll pull it out, but I, I think it was in the neighborhood, $115 million.
it was big, big. Again, I'm gonna request
some sort of an input from, uh, the, uh, city staff here
as to the data analysis that we really need on these projects. Because
50% or a hundred percent increase is not something that we can just, uh,
shove under the carpet. Now we need to know why, what, and if
I'm, I'm willing to go even into nitty grittys of it. I'm still waiting for the freezer
nichols one for the water plant that was promised in november, special meeting,
and that hasn't been sent. So we need to have this information sent
to us. If the, uh, the contractors commit to it, the city staff
needs to follow and get that to us. Thank you. I'd like to go ahead
and answer mayor proton's question for the 6.1. You're getting parking
ball fields's, utilities and detention, no restroom. You
get pedestrian level lighting. No sports field lighting. I also wanna
mention, I believe, and correct me if I'm wrong, the 2019 parks
plan, the 7 million was for the entire, that's phase two and phase three.
phase one. So, um, I can just, just
as a clarification. Yes, sir. 'cause I think we're getting to that point on the council here. Is the parking,
um, gravel. Asphalt or concrete? Concrete. Okay.
thank you. And, uh, I think the question about parking spaces, we are tasked
with 40 spaces per field. Uh, so we're looking in the range of 160
spaces. Um, and to serve the, to serve the
ball field, that's to serve the ball phase phase two, not including phase three. Yeah, phase three we'll
have separate parking.
I do think that we're all somewhat in favor of having a bond for us to go
out to get something. Yeah, I think the question right now is
how much and what is, is wind and there is
a definite appetite to see additional details
for the primrose park. Um, cost e ex
escalation. Um, and, and we haven't even gotten to
the other projects, um, contained within.
um, I do think I, I will agree with mr. Avi's
assessment that acquiring parkland now is the time to do it.
um, because price is only gonna escalate and there's gonna be fewer properties. However,
at the same time, my concern is two and a half million dollars isn't,
it may not be enough, um, to acquire the kind of park land that we really
need to acquire. And so that becomes part of the equation. If you're only
able to acquire four or five acres, um, and we have pocket parks
scattered throughout all of the master plan communities, those,
that's gonna be a harder sell to the public. Um, that's again, one
of the reasons why I think it's better to do a parks and rec general bond as
opposed to specific projects. So it gives more flexibility as long as
again, it stays within a parks and rec use and doesn't
violate certain things. Yes. Like sporting events and things like that, that would be a violation. Yes.
so I think that's an a question for the attorneys. Um,
I know this, I know if we bond for primrose park sports fields,
I've gotta build sports fields, right? What I don't know is
what is the state appetite for a bond that is
in general in nature without specific named projects. I know
the school has a little bit of flexibility when it comes to new builds,
but they still have to build new builds, right? County county just did it. Um,
so, but the county park bond actually spelled out what
it could, what it could, but like, like it can't say where it's gonna
be because they haven't acquired the land yet. 'cause they need the money for when it comes to acquisition of
land, correct? Yeah. Well, I generally defer to bond counsel
for the nuances of the, the bond questions, but, uh, but I do know that there is some degree
of specificity that's required. Um, and the authorization
that I'm aware of from the state law is that it can be parks and recreation facilities, so long as
it's generally accessible to the public at large and in the city's parks
plan. So as long as there is acquisition of some acreage in the parks plan,
I think that meets the statutory minimum. Um, and then I would, um, I would expect
that bond council would let us know if we need to get more specific than that. So,
but what I'm hearing is, and I think mr correct me if
I'm wrong, your point would be, um, figure out
whatever the dollar value is up to 5 cents and we go out to bond for
that without naming specific projects. What I'm hearing you say is there would
have to be at least some limited amount of detail as to what those projects were
in order to meet the statutory requirements. That is my understanding, yes. And the, the
county did just that, right? There's, there's enough detail on this list here,
and it wasn't 115 million, it was $153 million. And
it's very, it's, it's detailed enough to where I know as a voter what I'm voting on.
um, so I, yeah, but I don't, I don't actually think they have
to be held completely to all of that. It's detail, but it's not.
so again, I, I just think, and we talked about this, we said we were gonna need to
talk to bond counsel, but I just, I wouldn't detail it for every, and I mean,
and we did have a call with bond counsel, correct, aaron, to get to some of these
numbers and what we're looking at yes. With our financial
advisors. Okay. Mm-hmm, . Okay, so we have x amount of dollars. We
know what we can get for those x amount of dollars we've agreed to design,
spend money for phase three, right? So we've got phase two, phase three, we've got
another whatever, 5.4 million. I can't really do the math based
on these conversations to move forward with getting through phase two,
which we talked about, gives us some of the things that we want. We, maybe we don't get to
play games at night. Has staff engaged
with the economic development director and discussed
going to the edc for funding?
and if not, I mean, why not? Uh,
logan? Uh, the answer is yes, uh, but I think
what has to be demonstrated is how does it support economic development?
uh, and that has to be made clear. I think some of the projects like, uh, francis
smart park, it's in downtown, it's right next to hare street that probably does,
uh, parkland acquisition. But clearly we see,
you know, the b they have the ability and a, some of those projects have the ability
to do things which are better, the lifestyles of the people who, the
citizens who live here. So I mean, that's, that's a, that's a avenue
for, for funding, right. Uh, which shouldn't be ignored because
there's self stacked dollars sitting there and not being used. So, um,
as well as, as well as tournaments and anything that is also going to the park
on weekends or use, that would actually bring more dollars from an economic
development. Yeah. But if I've, if I've heard the edcs correctly, it's proved
to me that it has an economic impact with data. Yeah.
so with the ball fields, should daily
also get done, right? There's a a should there then? Yes, it
has a great economic impact. Um, because
we could host tournaments, we could do some of those kinds of things, but relative to, and opposed
to other potential projects that they're getting asked to, to support
and participate in as well. Correct. We do have a meeting
with one of the edc boards. Um, I believe it's in two weeks
if my memory and the calendar in my brain works outright. Um, so
we do meet with one of the edc boards, um, to go
discuss any potential projects that they may be interested in funding.
well, I think as a member of the edc board, it's gonna be better
if you as staff, right, looking at the master plan
for the city and the direction you're getting from council to go to the edc.
'cause if you look at, you know, there's what we want to do with the city and the plan and
all these sorts of things that need to be done. There is, uh,
funding and so forth that you have there. Then there's the edc that can
have projects, but the edcs aren't necessarily just going
to come up with projects, right. Unless they're, they're, they're triggered
by something. So I don't want to have that big discussion. I just ask
a question, right. So there, uh, there are certainly,
there's certainly things that the edc can do to help. And,
and yes, sir. And I will tell you that historically we have done that. And
so we actually do have the discussions with the edc in-house staff
first before we take projects to the edc board to discuss. And
we have done that in the past. And the e eds awards have elected to
support parks in some respects. In the past, the most
previous, um, project list that we took to them was without a parks
component, because that was the discussion that was held internally
and it was presented towards, uh, to focus on the
livable center study and what we could get from that. And that's how the harris street
project was chosen. So, but it, like, uh, tiffany
said in a couple of weeks we do have another meeting with the edc staff
along with one of the board members to discuss those potential projects going
forward as well.
alright. Yeah. So coming back to the question about
the county's involvement in this, have we explored that avenue at all, or?
yes. So I would like to note that primrose park, part of that land was donated
to the city to build ball fields. So I would have to defer to
byron legally if that is something that even could be, um, because that
land was donated. And I did talk to the commissioner briefly as well,
um, as he pursued projects.
um, for the commissioner, the priority in our community was,
was roads and mobility. Um, you know,
uh, a little insight as to how
the commissioner's, commissioner's work
is they try to get to,
not exact dollars per precinct, but they try to
get close. And so in areas where there
wasn't as many mobility projects, you'll actually see more parks projects.
and even some of those projects weren't cities. Um, they were muds.
um, there's a, there's a number of projects within that. We can't get into the merits and
the details of all of that. If you want to have a discussion about commissioners court that
works, we can talk about it another time. I'd love to. Well, I, I don't, but I,
I think it's worthy. I mean, I'm sitting here, freedom park, freedom park trails, harlan
road, park daily, park precinct, one dog park, jones creek. Some of
this is even maintenance to reduce sidewalks and that kind of thing. Yeah. So,
I mean, the list goes on and on, and I don't believe shore got near
what all the other cities around got. So if we have a need, we need to start working
with the county also because we're all paying tax dollars to the county
and it's going for, you know, these things. Yeah, I think,
I think it's, uh, I think it's a valid point, but I also think it's on our
citizens as well to reach out to their county commissioners and then stress the importance
of it, because it's a difference being a city in the county versus
the actual citizens that are paying the tax to those counties. So, yeah. And a and
a lot of those projects are within the unincorporated parts,
even though they say sugar land, it's a sugar land address, it's unincorporated. There
are some city projects, there are some mud projects. Um,
most of the city projects are, are smaller cities. Um,
but they're, nonetheless they're there. So that, that being said, what
I hear from council is a consensus that we want to entertain the idea
of a park spot. Um, we need some additional information,
especially as it relates to primrose before a decision can be made.
um, I think there's probably value in all of
the projects. Um, my question for counsel is,
do you have thoughts or opinions related to projects outside of primrose
that you want to discuss at this time?
yeah, I'm not sure even I'm ready yet to say that we are ready
for the barn quote yet. No, no, no. I'm not saying we're ready to the bond. I'm saying we have an
appetite to consider a bond package. There's no, yeah, there's
no, hey, we're voting for a bond package in may. That's not where we're
at. Okay. Um, but there's the appetite to continue the discussion, get more information,
drill down into the numbers. Um, my question is, is
there, we've heard a lot of conversation around primrose, um,
we've expressed that there's probably some interest on acquiring
some land if that's, you know, we gotta figure out what the value
of that is. Um, are there, do what
I could support most of the projects except for the large stern. Okay. So the
rec center, um, the only other thing I would say on the land
is if we do acquire more land, are we, I mean, are we even being steward good stewards of
the land we currently have? So we have, we already
have park land that we're currently unable to move forward on.
so it worries me that we would, I mean, I know that it's gonna be cheapest now
to go get it, but if we can't move forward on the projects that of the land we
already have, it's, it's, it's a hard, I think the, I think the other, I think the
one aspect of that is, and I mean we've seen cases like this, like
city of houston is going back and reclaiming areas and they're doing trails
and things like that. It's like they didn't have the foresight to go ahead
and plan for it. And I think that's what we want to do, or at least
I would propose that we would do is get ahead of it. So even if we're not
ready, and even though we are progressing on one park and then
others, um, if we don't do it, they could all be homes,
businesses, and all be done and then we have no place for it. Yeah. And I don't
disagree. I'm just saying that it, it's a harder sell when
we can't, when we already have parks that we can't put forward. Yeah. We can't develop.
I, I would, uh, at least my only comment on the irene stern, the
outside stuff, the trails and fields, I, I think that is
fine. I think it gives it a good space. The rec center thing, I,
I think that's, especially if you had to put that on a specific bond
item, I don't think that one would pass even if it was included. So I would stay away.
I, I guess for me, I wanna see an updated master plan. It sounds like you
already have numbers and you've thought through the details, but
what is it that we're buying? And that should be more detailed with
primrose park. So we know we have a lot more side
on primrose park. We know what our money's gonna pay for. But
I just feel like that, that we need that new vision along
with whatever numbers we can, can put to it. Um,
I'm kind of with you. Why buy land if we, we, we already have the edcs have
land from the old city hall. I don't know where it's going, but we
have land, so buy, buy more land
and it, it won't have lights. We have ball fields. But
I wanna see an update in matt parks and rec master plan
and put whatever you think in it and let us, let us look at that.
yeah, I concur with the, uh, updated master, um, master plan for parks and
recs. Um, I do think we should still be looking for, at least looking
for land to acquire that may be fit into our, um, master
plan for the city as it all. Um, I am supportive
of smart park because it is downtown. It does provide some
economic development. It also, um, I like the idea of the veterans
memorial as well with the scouts. And it's a smaller gathering space, but it's also
a remembrance area that will be more of the heart of downtown. 'cause we don't
have that heart right now in downtown with city hall not being there.
um, but yeah, I would definitely not be for
rec center. I think we need to reach out to ymca lifetime if you want
that, bring it to the city. But otherwise, I agree with what everybody has said about
primrose. We need line items. Yeah. So, uh, clarifying erin
has something to say. I think, do you have something we just wanted to make sure we got through our
last slide to no dates. If we were to have a may 4th election, you have to,
the council has to call for the election by the 16th of february, march 5th
is the last day to give notice of election to the county clerk with the election being may 4th.
okay. With that, with that being said, um, I think
staff you kind of heard, um, the feedback. I do want
to clarify something. Um, are
we asking for an update to the master plan? Are we a asking
for an update to the numbers? Because the master plan itself is conceptual
in nature. What I think what I'm hearing is we actually want an
update to the numbers that are related to,
um, the projects within the master plan and the cip
specifically for these parks projects.
um, so the drill down, um, for lack of better
terms on numbers and expenses, um,
whether they're actual as phase two should be
getting very close to true estimates
or projected and even a, that differentiation of what's projected
versus actual. I think there, there a little bit more there, especially when we're adding in
things that weren't there. Like oh, I agree. I I agree. But what I'm
saying is I don't think there's anything that's discussed that's not part
of the conceptual plan, but they may not have numbers to them. Right. And so what
we're saying is we need to drill down on the numbers
for these projects that are already contained within the master plan.
I would agree with that. In addition, I have one thing to say is, uh, let's
look at the original scope. Let's look at what we can do with
the existing points that we have, what it would take, and then look at the additional
options that we want to add to that. Yeah, so the, the,
the original scope was the four ball fields without lights, without sprinklers, without
any utilities. Um, so that was the original scope. And
even the original scope didn't have, um, the ball courts. Those
were added to the 2020. I think master
plan is when those got, now we conceptually talked about, well it would nice be
nice to have some ballparks. It'd be nice to have some parking. Um, we did
add the, the little bit of parking and in phase one for,
uh, the walking trail that exists there. But it's, it's right, we did, but
we had some pictures even from a conceptual perspective. And I don't know if
those pictures have changed. I know we discussed this colleagues shaking her head.
we discussed parking because we like mm-hmm, , where's everybody gonna park? And if we're gonna use
these for events. So I don't think it would take much to update the co conceptional
com. You're, you're raising your eyebrows out there. I
can speak to that if you want. Yeah, if you, if you could. But all right. So, uh, can
you flip back to, you wanna talk about the actual phase two, phase three?
well, well, so whenever we had the master plan in
2020, we had pictures yes. Of primrose park
and it had parking and ball field. It's very similar to what's actually shown
there. You're right. And then we had details that yes. Kind of summed it up. Correct. And
if there's been any changes to the pictures, let's change that and,
and, and they're already changed. And then add the detail. Yes, there have been changes.
uh, I think the changes are better. Uh, in the original concept, we
had just one continuous long entry road, had no parking, loading that
road. So that's just a cost of a road. So we came back in and we added,
we curved the road a little bit to calm down the, uh, drive speeds.
uh, halfway through the project, we were asked to make the ball fields 200 feet.
all four of 'em were 200 feet in the concept. Two of the fields are now 2 25
for competition to meet little league. Uh, little league. Yeah. I think the mayor hit the nail on the
head that those are concepts, they're conceptual estimates.
they didn't take into a fat, uh, into account what we talked about with the, uh, electrical
infrastructure. And so yeah, we've, we've really kind of tried to
optimize the plan as much as we can to make it buildable.
the other was just a concept. I mean, it's, yeah, I appreciate that detail that
you just provided and now the difference between conceptual and you once you
get into the details of plan to the paper. Yeah. Um, I, I
go back to the same thing I said earlier. You know, as much as possible, I
don't think we, I'm in favor of adding more taxes to the citizens.
we, if we can stay in our budget and can accomplish what we initially started,
whatever difference we might want that once you give us the details,
we can look at what can and what cannot be added and then,
uh, we can decide if it's worth going for it or not. Yes, sir. I appreciate that detail.
yes, sir. Yeah, and, and you know, as someone that does provide some of those concepts and
some of those magnitude of costs, we don't get a survey. We're doing everything based on an
aerial, a site visit. And that's very much what we kind of backed into. So
thank you time. Just one other point that I think we probably need
to give some direction on here, mayor, is not only
where we're at and how we feel about it, but also about
whether or not we think that this is realistic. 'cause what I don't want to happen is I don't
want staff going back thinking, hey, we've got a, we've got a pump
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
not, we're not ready for that. I don't want them working all of that to do that. So
I think we need a consensus of do we want to have this in
may or do we want to push it further out? 'cause we're not ready because I, I don't want
them to be overburdened. Or if I, if I may, one thing you could do
is if you wanna pump the brakes on primrose because there's, it's a much larger
park, which the amphitheater not really quite settled yet. You could do the other
projects or some combination of other projects instead. I think the point, it's not about
the specific project 'cause we actually, again, depending on what we would define
in the bond and what we have to define, that makes it complex.
I think the more concerning piece is talking about it with
the citizens of the city and about where we're at and understanding what's getting forests and
all the questions that we've been brought up that they're gonna peg us with, that we need to get answered to
and to kind of work through that to make sure we're being good stewards of
their tax dollars. That's the concern. Yeah. So, and I think there, the,
here's the biggest issue, uh, the way I see it. Um,
not only did parks and rec note that primrose is the
priority, we've been telling people that
primrose is gonna be done. And in fact, at one time
there was a projection that we were gonna be playing ball this spring.
so the, the problem is, and, and this is, I'll just say my
complete frustration on primrose is there's been zero accountability
on primrose. And somebody needs to step up
and own the fact that we have delayed this design,
that we have delayed this project, and that
we're even having this conversation today because it's two years old.
um, that's the problem with
primrose itself. We can't do anything
anywhere else until we get primrose done because we've been
promising primrose since 2017 when the land was
purchased. I understand. So that's, that's the problem
is, and that's why so much of the discussion is centered on primrose.
because primrose has continued to
be delayed. The cost has continued to escalate. And so
we found ourselves in a position where the only way to really do primrose
the way that the public, the residents of fulcher want
primrose, is to figure out how do we get this on a bond package
now. So my recommendation, take it for what it's worth
as a lame duck mayor, um, is
you gotta move on primrose. We've gotta do everything we
can to start moving dirt to use the $6 million that have been allocated. If
we're not gonna go to bond in the end of february. I mean, if
we're not gonna vote for a bond by february 16th, we've got to get
moving with that phase two. And that means if we come back with a bond package
in november, the november package includes the escalation of
cost and the other projects for that
to happen. But if we think that we're close to being wrapping up design and
being able to go to construction and start moving dirt in may, let's move dirt
in may. If counsel gets satisfied
with the numbers and is comfortable issuing a
bond, um, by may, great,
but then it's gotta go to the public. And, and in my opinion,
when it goes to the public, primrose is an e primrose is the easiest
of them to sell because it is the one that is
been so long in the waiting and there's the gr greatest desire for,
right? There will be pockets of the community
who want the other projects. And so we gotta figure out, okay, what
is really taken to the public within that 5 cent range
and is there an appetite for additional projects? So that's my opinion
as it is in the struggle with saying, well, let's go ahead and throw the other projects
on the bond that doesn't work because we can't keep kicking
primrose down the field. We gotta move on primrose and, and
that, so phase two designs complete
almost, almost, almost. So 90%, 95%.
so we cannot postpone construction
on phase two while we spend a year on phase three design. Either.
I mean, we cannot just say, okay, now we're gonna go design phase three for a year
and not do anything that, that's not gonna work either.
right. And if I may, the mayor
put it much more eloquently than I ever could. However, what I was going to say is, parks and
recs number one priority is primrose and we owe it to the community.
those that donated land and, and us talking to the community about it for so long to deliver
on that, we just wanna ensure that it's done to meet expectations and done the right way. So
what you all need to support what that direction is, um,
is great. But I just wanna say as the, the mayor said, we on parks and rec would love
to see primrose accomplished and accomplished effectively, efficiently, and quickly
so that we can deliver community. So almost what I'm hearing is
that primrose now, instead of three phases is
four phases. There's the, let's get two done,
get the built the fields built, get the deal, and then be ready to
be able to install the electrical and the lights and the, you
know, and we may escalate cost, but, and that's, and again,
it still goes back to the concern 'cause we bundled them together and now we're basically
saying, in order for us to make progress, because we also don't have the full
funds for it, we actually need to go back and separate them apart. So now I'm kind
of like, well the, the additional 550,000 we just
approved, I'm kind of like, man, do we really wanna be doing that right now? We should be using
all those funds to do all the construction on phase two so that, so what
if they don't, can't play ball at night? At least they can play ball in a field
at some point soon to where people can start seeing progress. That's, that's the type of
area that I'm at in, in frustration. And also also the, one of the
reasons why is like, I don't believe we're ready for a bond and therefore I wouldn't be
pushing, focusing on a, a bond referendum for the fourth or the 16th.
I have a question for the developer there. The design engineers, yeah, mr
half. Uh, if we were to build wall fields and
everything right now at the $6 million
when we go through to run electric through there, are we gonna have to tear 'em all up again?
no, sir. The current design, uh, accounts for conduit for future sports
wheel lighting. Okay. Because the sports wheel lighting was a big ticket number. So that's
in the 6 million. Yes sir. The conduit. Okay. Thank
all right. Consensus to move forward. Uh, I, I
don't believe you can
at least get the primrose detail out to counsel, I think is what I'm hearing,
um, and continue to drill down on the numbers, uh, to update,
um, within the plan. So yeah, just don't burn the midnight oil at this
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
to meet a february 4th deadline. So, or february,
uh, mr. Kbi did bring a good point up about the, uh, extra
phase three design dollars that we just allocated to, um,
in the earlier approval. Is that something that we need to relook? Is there
a possibility we can, uh, counsel may advise?
yeah. So, um, to take up something that our action has already been taken
on, uh, there would need to be a motion to reconsider, which would need to pass by a super majority
and then it could be discussed and acted on again.
'cause I do see a, a reasonable effort here that if we are not gonna
be able to, um, use them anytime soon, just having
the design ready instead we could use them for a better purpose
of, uh, phase two completion. I think
the counter potentially,
the, the counter argument would be that if we are trying to go
to bond in november, uh, with a nine month
or even 12 month design time, um,
a november bond issuance, if we're not able
to expend the $500,000 prior to that,
um, now you're talking about not being able to spend those funds for another
year. So you're getting involved and let's, let's also be clear, we
always get surprises at the end of design phase on what the intended
construction costs are. So we probably need to proceed forward through design. Yeah, I I
I think you're, I understand the point I, there there's
a risk. No, I don't mind. I just wanted to make sure that we're not missing an opportunity of
completing phase two because, uh, just the lighting is gonna be 900,556,000
right here. That might get us further along.
okay. .
all right. So, uh, with that being said, discussion is complete
on the general obligation bond. Um, counsel,
I thank you, tiffany. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you tiffany. Um,
mr. Igar, you could always bring that motion to reconsider item b should
you choose item d consideration possible action of approved resolution number 2024
dash six 10 exhibits a and b related to the nomination of candidate service director of
the board of directors for the north fort bend water authority director precinct number
seven. Um, as you may recall, ms. Hollingsworth has served as
our representative for a number of years now since leaving council.
um, there are requirements that you either had to have
been a mud director or served
on city council or as mayor of fulcher in order to be
eligible to serve on this board. I believe ms. Hollingsworth has expressed
interest to continue in that function. Um, but
we are five or six votes out of 28,
I believe, for that position or something similar. So chair? Yep. You, you,
you've summed it up very well, mayor. Thank you. Uh, the, the only thing that I would add
is that, uh, it is a recommendation for a nomination.
so that does have to go through the voting process within the precinct.
so, um, so the resolution that you have before, you will
name a, a candidate for nomination to the board of directors for the north fort
bend water authority. Uh, so your recommendation is to
approve that resolution, naming the candidate, and then also authorize
the mayor to execute and the city secretary to attest to the exhibit a,
which is the certification of the resolution, nominating the candidate.
and then item three would be to direct staff to complete exhibit
b, which is the 2023 poage report, which
is their a report for the annual pump for the year. That they will have to have
to determine what those numbers are for voting.
byron, do we need three motions on this or can be one summed up together?
uh, it can begin as one motion and it could be separated if need be after that.
excellent. Mayor, I move counsel, approve resolution 2024
dash six 10 nominating ms. Hollingsworth,
I didn't catch her first name. Dana. Dana hollingsworth, uh, for the board
of directors of the north for bend water authority as
well as authorize the mayor to execute and the city secretary to attest to
exhibit a certification and resolution nominating candidate for the board of directors
of north fort bend water authority and directing staff to
complete exhibit b 2023 poage report. Second.
okay, we have a motion and a second to approve resolution number
2024 dash six 10. Any further questions or comments?
all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none. The motion carries
item e consideration and possible action to approve to authorize the execution
of permit transfer application of an application for a-t-p-d-e-s
permit. Major amendment for the cross creek ranch wastewater treatment plant
wq 0 0 1 4 7 5 0 0 1. Okay. I
will briefly summarize to give a little bit of background, um, the cross
creek ranch wastewater treatment plant is currently at a 2.0 million
gallon a day capacity with a 0.5 that is currently being decom
being decommissioned. So the, um, there was a, a permanent
expansion for that, that was also, that was done through the municipal utility
district because they are actually the co-owner of the permit right at the moment.
so to make this, the expansion of the, of the cross creek plant, based
on our current cip approval to expand, uh, another
1 million gallon a day, that takes another amendment to the permit. But
this particular process also renews the permit. So the permit does expire
in february of this year. Um, excuse me. So
the, the actual application now has a couple of components to
it. So first component is to change the ownership
to a, to the city only and take the mud off. We already have that
signed document from the mud to do that. Uh, and then the second part
of that is to make the major amendment to the permit, which would actually renew the permit
as well. So this will take this, the plant after the decommissioning
to a 3.0 mgd plant. And so that's what the entire
packet is all about. But for tonight, uh, we are asking for,
uh, you all to authorize the mayor to execute those pages in the document
that are necessary to, uh, complete the application and submit it.
uh, the application I will just for full disclosure, the application in the
packet is not what is currently going to be submitted. 'cause there has been some
updates to the packet already. Uh, one of those is the exhibit that outlines
the service area. So we've made those final amendments
today, so it's ready to go and it's, and it is accurate. So, and the other
part of that was some main minor stuff, uh, related to addressing of
the city since we moved city hall and some things like that. But
otherwise, the technical components are accurate as shown in the, in the
application. Mayor, move counsel authorized the mayor to sign
the applications in the appropriate places to complete the permit transfer application in the
t-p-d-e-s major amendment application for the cross creek ranch wastewater
treatment plan. Second. Okay, we have a motion on ms. Can I second by ms.
kates, uh, to authorize the mayor to execute the permit
transfer application, uh, an application for tbds permit, major
amendment. Any further questions or comments?
all in favor? Aye. Aye. Any opposed? There is none. The motion carries.
item f discussion regarding a true preservation ordinance.
so this has been put on, um, counsel for discussion, um, with myself and
council member poole, um, who second it. And at this time, I would like to
invite ms. Ramona ridge or mr. And mr. John mccann if
you would like to speak on this item, if that's permissible. Mayor, yes, please.
just quickly, I'd like to say we should have done this 10 years ago or
15 years ago. The destruction of our old,
um, trees that make re beautiful
and are, are being torn down constantly. And
it's so sad and it's, it's not a matter of small trees, it's a matter of
big, the, the
patriarch trees, for lack of a better word. I hear people move out
here all the time because of its beauty and it's being destroyed and
turned into strip centers. And I find that incredibly
sad and, um, irresponsible on our part of
saving the god-given beauty of full sure. And replacing
it with concrete and strip centers, which they will be there, but, you know, keep
the tree in front of the strip center, keep the tree in the parking lot. There's no reason
except breed on, on the part of a lot of developers
to rip them down. And it's part of what gives character
our character, uh, to ful. Sure. And the charm.
jd. I'm jd mccann.
um, I know 10 or fell 12, 15
years ago, we tried to pass a tree ordinance and it just
got totally outta hand. I mean,
downtown district got in it. They wanted to put
so many parking spots, so many trees. That's
not what we were trying to accomplish. We were trying to accomplish saving
these trees that have been here for 200 years.
uh, sarah came down and looked at what
happened at the fred bra property at the end of the change line. Uh,
that was complete destruction of every tree
where the houses were gonna be built. Some of these trees have to have been
150 years old. Um,
I've got some of the largest live oak trees on james lane because
I trim 'em. Y'all have a ballpark
that we planted trees on. In 1986,
they were in three gallon containers and they were about knee high, maybe
waist high. Today, those trees have never ever been
trimmed. And the more you trim 'em, the bigger they get and
the quicker they get. All those trees were planted
basically in the same year. Um,
and getting back to the trees that got torn down.
these were native pecan trees and they only grow along river
beds and creek beds. They don't draw on the prairie.
they grow down in the river bottoms where the clay is.
and I, I know a developer has
the right to go in and buy a piece of land
and clear it completely, but, but I don't think it was right.
doug kanaka did it over here at fhi run on francis smart's
property. Those were some of the trees that were grown along
bessie's creek to the south of her property.
anyway, um, another instance
is right there at
huggins road where three or two huge
water oaks were taken down so y'all could straighten out so the city could straighten
out the road right there. My father planted those water
oaks when I was a child, and those water oaks were
probably 60 feet tall, 60 foot calipers.
I mean, they were huge. And
there again, they're some more destructive, you know, that's
happened. And it, it was totally unnecessary just to straighten a little
curve out in a road that's been there the entire time that road's been there.
it, it's not fair to the tree. It's not fair to the
wildlife that lives in these trees. Uh,
I take trees personally because I have dealt with them so much.
uh, I'm vice president of our fisher cemetery committee.
I just had to go in there and take down about, well, I didn't, but we
voted to have some trees taken down. It did not make it through
the drought 'cause we didn't want 'em to fall on the headstones.
so we had to take down about six trees and
uh, most of 'em were dead anyway, just to
the east of the cemetery. There's a church going in again.
three of our lova live oak trees were destroyed.
and those trees have never been trimmed.
if you trim 'em, they will grow up and their branches will
get bigger. If you don't trim 'em, they're gonna become a bush
and they'll just sit there. They don't grow.
I mean, talk to any tree person, they'll tell you, you know, you need to trim these trees.
so y'all think about what you're doing with primrose park.
'cause there's probably 18 trees there that we planted on that property.
uh, I don't know if y'all will take a tree ordinance
into consideration. The city of rockport has 'em because
the wind blows their trees and they won't let you cut a tree down
in the city of rockport without a permit. Uh,
there's other cities that have, you know, permits,
you know, to be able before you can destroy a tree. So
anyway, I'm just asking y'all to please take these trees into consideration.
it's sad what has happened to the fred bray property. And the developer
will go back in and they will bring a spade truck in and plant a tree.
it'll take 60 years for that tree to get as big as
those pecan trees were. Thank you. Thanks
john. Thank you. So you can see on the, I've put some pictures up
here that I went out. This is the brace track. Um, after it's been cleared, it's
land. So I went out there. Jesus, if you just do the next one over, you'll see another angle of it. This
is those large pecan trees that were a clear cut. And as, uh, mr. Mccann also
referenced, um, previously fulcher run was also clear cut of the majority of
the pecan trees. There were some that were kept in the, um, drainage
areas, which was appreciable. What I would like to consider, um, as a
bit of a discussion here, is part of that tree trimming, which is mr. Mccann also,
um, mention. And, um, ms. Barron, you also did say, are we being proper stewards
of our parkland today? We're not, if we're not maintaining those large trees
to encourage their growth, but I think for sure we wanna have, um, that
character of country. And yes, I do agree we are coastal prairie
by our environment and our bio climate. However, these larger
trees that are a hundred year old plus should be preserved as long as obviously
they are healthy and not, um, at risk to public, um,
destruction. Their other, um, tree of note that you may or not be aware of
in the city of re is on shady lane. They have a large tree in the
middle of the road with either roads going either side of it, and that's
a, that's a character. And I've seen it in a number of places in other cities as well. So
while you may want to automatically cut down a tree to make a road
straight, there are other options as well with public safety, obviously, number one. But at the same time,
we wanna maintain some of the character that we do have of our city. We
don't want to, you know, nickel and dime people. We want. It's one of those big ones. We're not trying to
replace it with drunk trees, which we do have in our ordinance, which every council member has in front of
you today. Um, but just is this something that we would like to revisit?
I think yes, especially when it comes to maintaining our current trees.
and then also maybe we do need to revisit the clear cutting, direct clear cutting
as these new developers come, developments come in. We don't have very
many, very much land in the city limits today to protect.
so I, I know that in the creation of the
cdo, we tried to take up tree preservations
to, to an extent, um, within the cdo though.
um, and that's why I was just reminding myself what the, the notes on that are. There's,
there's a couple places you can easily look within the cdo to find those tree
preservation sections. Um, but within that,
really the requirements that we currently have simply
incentivize the landowner for keeping those large
trees. Um, that's the, there's an incentive
there to do it, but there's no requirement to preserve. So, yeah.
um, I would just like to say as a fellow tree lover and amateur
arborist, I love this. I think it's important. I definitely
see trimming of trees as just seeing full growth on them. Um,
I I do think, um, as I think we all just got this
today, if I'm not wrong, so it wasn't in our packet, um, I definitely
would like some time to review it in detail. I was already looking at a couple things
in here, which I, I think we would need to make a little bit clearer,
um, specifically from a penalty perspective. 'cause what are you gonna have
an ordinance if you don't have a penalty and it means anything? Um, I think we have to
be specific on the class of the misdemeanor, uh, to be clear.
um, and then also the actual fine itself I think would need
to be addressed. And the fine needs to be
substantial enough where it is actual a deterrent. Um, I don't think
a developer or somebody coming in if they had a fine for $50 for
removing 150 year old tree is gonna even care about that.
so I think that would be something that we need to put into consideration, uh, for
it. But I definitely 100% support, uh, an ordinance. Yeah. And
I would note that our, that our cdo does say you cannot remove
a tree unless it's part of a permit, um, as far as that
clear cut or any of those kinds of things. So it is, it is con there,
there is the means, um, within the ceo to support,
uh, to enforce such an ordinance. I would put forth, maybe
we could consider a tree registry for the significant trees.
the city of houston has one of these. And so citizens developers
can input on an online
form that signifies how how big the
tree is, et cetera, gives, um, measurement,
how you measure trees, et cetera. So now they have, yeah, I looked at, city of
houston's is about six pages right now, so we're talking pretty significant
trees. I don't think this would be every tree. You know, not every homeowner's
gonna have to go out and measure their trees. These are like the really significant ones that we're really trying
to preserve a hundred old growth trees.
so I was just asking, um, to put the big tree on there we go along with john next to it.
thanks.
I think I just need time to look at this. And I think as I,
I am supportive of pre preservation. I do think
that it can also, if you don't think it through
it can have some other things come back, which maybe
are not, uh, good. I, I remember 2015, I remember several,
several, um, I even,
I had a personal situation with a house, but I'm, I'm not going to gonna bring that one
up, but I just think that there's some things, if we don't think through, for example, primrose
park, do we have any trees there that, that we will be putting
a ball field over. So, so see, I think that if it,
once we do this, we really need to be thoughtful about it and
not, uh, and make sure it works and not
be overly burdensome. So yeah, I think that would, I think a registry would help
in that circumstance. Agree. So you would know the significant trees. And then
if a developer or whatever, you know, development comes,
then we have a list that we can look to and we can take them one at
a time to consider. Right. Whether we do wanna remove it or not. Yeah. Yeah.
so city testimony, cis yes.
so I, uh, took a look at, uh, some cities in the
state of texas right. That have, uh, a preservation landscape
ordinance, uh, participating. So there's quite a few.
addison austin, brian burleson, cedar hill college station, so forth, corpus
christi, port, you know, and san antonio. And then I went in and started looking at
san antonio and their ordinance must be like, I don't know,
I'm guessing 20 something pages. So, uh, it's extensive,
right? I mean, it's significant. So to your point about being
thoughtful and considerate about how we go forward, I think it's a great
idea. Um, but there are, I think there are a few things
that you want to try and achieve, but not everything that you could possibly throw
under there. Like, uh, like, uh, the city of san antonio has, for
example, but, uh, it could be, uh, burdensome,
right? And, uh, I mean, it will be somewhat burdensome and it will
cost, uh, additional money, uh, for employees
to oversee the, the, the preservation, whatever
stipulations are in there, the permitting, the so forth and so on. So
we just need to be cognizant of how big of a deal it's right. And, uh,
I don't know how we go about maybe putting a group of people together
to consider drafting the key components
of an ordinance or how, how do we go about that? 'cause I mean, as a
council, we can't sit here and do that, right?
yeah. So I'm hearing there's an appetite, um, to consider a tree ordinance.
um, we've got some work to do to make sure that we get to what the ramifications
of that are. Um, and, um,
so we will, uh, begin to address how do we, how do we move forward? We
do have a draft from the 2015 ordinance. At least we have a
place to begin from, so, okay. Any other
comments? Uh, yes. Specificity request. Are you requesting staff to start
preparing something? This is some kind of a baseline or, um, let's, let's have some,
let's have some conversations with, um, maybe let's, let's,
let's let sarah take lead since she brought this first of all, and work
with staff to figure out how to move forward. Let, let's walk through
moving forward, um, versus just here. Go do it. Um,
I, I think there's gonna be, need to be some research, um, as to what
kind of penalties can be enforced. Um, if the state
has any preemption in this, um, I can, I can tell
you a hundred percent. If, if the bill that's being
challenged currently, um, passes, then a tree ordinance will not matter.
um, because the state is going to preempt that ordinance immensely.
so we need to see, we need to do some, well, there does, there will have to be some legal work
on the preemption. What can we do as far as enforcement goes?
um, there's, there is the reality that,
um, whether we like it or not, one
of those trees may get removed at some point in time. So, okay, what's the,
what's the compensation for that removal of that tree?
um, all of the, there, there's a whole lot that goes into
preserving that tree. And so, uh, I don't want to just say,
here, go do it. I want to say, let's figure out a path forward.
um, and if counsel's amenable, maybe, um, for liaison
from counsel, sarah b. Point on that since you brought it to
our attention at this time. And do you have cycles throughout
cycles? Availability, yeah.
bandwidth, resources, resource. So
legal, we may have to outsource.
so we do have that contract where we can, if it, so how will the rest of counsel
will we just wait for them to come back? Yeah. Can we provide any input? You can provide input to
sarah and to sarah. Okay. Then we'll go, we'll go from that point. Everybody's don't,
don't we have, uh, uh, aren't we gonna have an issue there if we're providing
input on an issue outside of yeah. We can't do it outside of well, that's my point.
give it directly even though she, even though she's give it directly to jack, send send any input
directly to city manager. Correct. So,
and then in a council meeting, she'll update us as needed.
okay. Discussion, uh, item g discussion regarding city council
redistricting. Um, this shouldn't surprise us.
immense growth within the city. Um,
the districts are gonna get out. We knew this coming in districts, were gonna get outta whack
pretty quick. So in light of time tonight, I just wanna ask one, maybe byron
can answer this. There are stipulations about redistricting that we can't even
go redistrict until we have a census or something like that. What are, what are
the so, um, yeah, the limitation, well, you
can, you can redistrict any time you'd like, you just have to do it properly. Uh, it's easiest
to do properly when you rely on the census figures. Um, but if you
choose to redistrict any other time, uh, besides the census, you have to have
similar reliable data so that, um, you're, you're sticking within the boundaries
of the, um, the voting rights act, which essentially just to paraphrase it as one person, one
vote. So you have to draw your districts in a way that doesn't disenfranchise the voting power
of any particular person that is on one side or the other of a boundary line.
so we would have to hire a consulting group to come in to help us draw those boundaries. And
so it would be costly to the city to do so. I, I mean, I'm just trying
to, to, to put this out there to avoid I I'm just saying
we, we've no, no, I'm, I agree. I agree that we're having a lot of growth.
I just don't know that right now we have the facts.
uh, but I'm not sure when, as we see these developments come
in maybe a year. I think the, I think the other point is, is that in the request
from council member pool, if we could leave by eight, eight o'clock, I would say that
none of this is happening for the upcoming election. We have further time to discuss this and
talk about it. And so I think we should table this for another meeting. You
can make that motion, uh, to table should you choose. I will make
one comment, only one comment. When we
did the calculations for the current
districting, we knew that we were probably gonna have to revisit this, uh, 2000,
20, 25 ish, right? Yes. Um, and we put these as
the two smallest districts were where all were one
and five, knowing that five was nearing
completion of build out by its current boundaries. Um,
and then one which is we knew was gonna be
the largest district when we did that. So that being said,
um, if you would like to make that motion, I'd like to make a motion to table this discussion
for the next general meeting. Regular meeting. Okay. So we have a motion
on the table, um, by mr. Gavi, a second by ms. Johnson to
I'm not ms. Johnson. Ms. Kates to table. Um,
this until the next regular scheduled meeting.
so the february the third, tuesday in february.
any further questions or comments? All in favor? Aye.
any opposed? There is none. The motion carries. Um,
moving on to, uh, item
10, consideration, possible accident relating to any absences. Are there any
absences we need to address? You'll be back for
the regular. Anything else?
no. Okay. With that, I'll take one last motion. May I make a motion? We
adjourn? Okay. We have a motion on mr. Second by mr. Pool to adjourn at 7:52 pm
on tuesday, january 23rd.
uh, any all in 7 52?
I already said the time. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed?
there is none. Uh, we stand adjourned. 7:52 pm on
tuesday, january 23rd. Thank you all. Have a great evening.