[0:01] Are they ready? Aye, aye.

[0:06] All right, I'm calling this regular meeting of the Logo VISTA City Council to order at 5.30pm. And Lucy, please note we have all of our council members in attendance. We will convene into a closed executive session pursuant to a consultation legal counsel concerning all regular meetings, agenda items requiring confidential attorney client, at five. As needed, do we have

[0:33] items to discuss do we need to convene into it? Executive session.

[0:39] All right. The redissive solutions. Under government code section 551.071. The time is now 531pm.

[1:00] Be convened from executive session into open session and we will recess until 630. Oh, it's at 602 at the moment.

[1:09] We will recess until 6.30.

[1:14] All right,

[1:20] we reconvene from recess in the open session.

[1:25] We will take action at 6.30.

[1:33] Make note my time. We will take action on executive session items.

[1:37] In our executive session today, we didn't have any specific agenda items to discuss.

[1:43] Council did have a few legal questions regarding agenda item number 12.

[1:50] with the resolution regarding some of the legislative bills that are out there, so that was all we discussed in the executive session.

[2:01] So we will take action as deemed appropriate in City Council's discretion regarding cost-stations in the Council concerning all regular meeting agenda items.

[2:12] No action. No action. All right.

[2:17] We will kick off our open session with the

[2:21] pledge of allegiance to the U.S. and the Texas flag.

[2:30] The U.S. flag.

[2:31] A pledge of allegiance to the flag of United States of America and to the Republic for

[2:37] which it stands one nation under God in invisible with liberty and justice for all.

[2:43] Now the Texas flag, on the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas one state under the

[2:52] God.

[2:52] One and indivisible.

[2:55] Thank you.

[2:55] You may be seated.

[3:00] All right.

[3:00] We start with citizen comments and accordance with the open meetings act, council is prohibited

[3:05] from acting or discussing other than factual responses to specific questions.

[3:09] any items, not on the agenda and I have Russell Barnes that says general, is

[3:17] yours just for citizen comments or do you have an actual agenda item?

[3:23] You are

[3:23] recognized.

[3:27] My father was a research analyst and I was brought up even in

[3:31] facts and not here, say, or rubers. I tried it even in facts and I'm trying to

[3:37] throw in a little common sense. There's been a lot of talk around the last couple

[3:41] What about a per se, young, poetic one in the school?

[3:45] What about here to talk about that?

[3:47] I don't know the facts about it.

[3:49] But I am here to talk about school hoodies.

[3:52] I don't have the killer first of all.

[3:54] So I don't have a dog in this fight.

[3:56] But anyway, I'm here to say that I think we really

[4:00] ought to have an arm, a friendly arm, please,

[4:03] minute each one of our schools.

[4:04] And you might say, well, how can we afford that?

[4:07] And I would say, how can we not afford that?

[4:10] Let me explain why.

[4:12] First of all, the obvious benefit is not to have a school shooting.

[4:16] It's hard even that a policeman might traumatize the children, or a friend of mine's grandson

[4:23] was a tiny little mid-period when they had the shooting there.

[4:26] You're a lot more traumatized when your best friends lay there on the ground that's for

[4:30] shooting than you are just having a friendly policeman.

[4:34] The next benefit is I wouldn't treat our children to respect law and order.

[4:38] the police were their friends, not their enemies,

[4:42] and the benefit from the whole city is just

[4:44] allumerable because less crime, better children,

[4:48] et cetera.

[4:50] And finally, when you have a still shooting,

[4:53] a city never gets over this.

[4:55] This stigma never goes away.

[4:58] We dodged a, it made it a rumor,

[5:00] but we dodged a bullet, we had a warning.

[5:03] And we spent all this time and money in the city

[5:06] trying to promote it to out-of-town realtors so they can come here and buy and sell land and

[5:11] make money in other ways to attract people to the city. I would say if we try to make this a

[5:17] model city, people will wait in line to move here. And so, I don't want to spend any tax

[5:23] dollar direction or policeman, but at the same time, I don't want to repercussion of that. So, I think

[5:29] I'm hoping that you can all come up with a way to divert money from somebody's other things

[5:34] and consider the idea of having an armed officer.

[5:38] I want to have a proactive attitude,

[5:40] not a reactive attitude.

[5:43] Thank you.

[5:43] That's all folks.

[5:45] Thank you.

[5:50] All right, that is the only one I have signed up

[5:53] for the citizen comments.

[5:55] So we will move on to items of community interest.

[6:00] Presumably to Texas Government Code Section 551.0415,

[6:05] the City Council may report on any of the following

[6:07] items, expressions of thanks, gratitude and condolences, information regarding holiday schedules,

[6:14] recognition of individuals, reminders regarding city council events, reminders regarding community events,

[6:22] and health and safety announcements. And from my list, obviously number one is Logo Fest. It will be

[6:31] taking place this Saturday, Barcae Park from one until 730. Volunteerships are still available.

[6:41] Come out and have some fun listening to some awesome music from four different bands at the

[6:45] biggest festival on the North Shore. Cap Metro shuttle service will be available from the Logo Vista High

[6:52] school and from two bar K-park you can go to logofests.com for more details and

[7:01] volunteer shifts are still available. Logo Vista golf tournaments, logo Vista

[7:06] high school gold tournament is on May 2nd, Lions Club tournament is on May 5th.

[7:14] I believe there is a veterans tournament at some point too.

[7:19] This past weekend. Oh, we had that one already.

[7:22] The VTO is this past weekend. Okay, I'll miss that one.

[7:26] Lake Travis, 638 feet, we're 31 feet below normal, 43 feet below four, but we're still

[7:37] over a million gallons in holding acre feet.

[7:46] Okay, I guess.

[7:50] Let's see, Tuesday, April 25th from 9 to 10 a.m. we have a business round table and is that

[7:58] right here?

[7:59] Yes.

[8:00] Right here in this room, so business round table, Tuesday, April 25th 9 to 10.

[8:12] That is all that I have, health and safety, obviously everybody's aware we have storms rolling

[8:19] in again for the third council meeting in a row. If something happens, we do have designated

[8:29] areas that we can go to in the interior of the building to protect us. Hopefully, we won't

[8:37] experience that.

[8:40] Anybody else have anything? Yes.

[8:44] I have a couple of things. Thank you, Mayor. First is just a thank you to everyone

[8:51] one who was involved with setting up and putting on the egg drops.

[8:56] So big thank you to North Lake Church and to our Logovista ISD for hosting that event.

[9:03] We attended it was fabulous.

[9:05] I mean, really it was just absolutely wonderful.

[9:07] So just wanted to give a shout out to everybody who was involved in that.

[9:11] And then a reminder that tomorrow we have coffee with veterans happening here at the HOPE

[9:18] Center from 8 to 10 in the morning.

[9:20] I hope the center is right here next to the veterans park if you weren't aware of that.

[9:26] And they're going to have a guest speaker, Salvador Castillo, and they are encouraging

[9:31] veterans who have questions or claims documents or need assistance with filing claims or appeals

[9:39] to attend.

[9:40] They'll have someone on hand to help out with that and that's from 8 to 10.

[9:44] Lastly, I think this is the first city council meeting since I've been a city council member

[9:48] that I don't have a long list of log of ISD kudos to share usually it's you know the

[9:55] Valkyries and the chair team and football and baseball and everything else but we just

[10:00] will happen to have our superintendent the audience that's put you on on the spot here

[10:04] but I didn't happen to see anything from the booster's post that I hadn't already addressed

[10:09] in a previous meeting but is there any any big news from the ISC or kudos that you're aware

[10:14] from the last two weeks.

[10:15] Thanks, Paul.

[10:15] So, Paul.

[10:16] Let's see.

[10:17] Oh, yes, microphone.

[10:20] Yes, sir.

[10:20] Please.

[10:21] Thank you.

[10:25] There's a lot, right?

[10:26] A lot of stuff been going on this week.

[10:28] Let's see.

[10:29] As far as accomplishments, our tennis teams advanced to the regional meet.

[10:37] I don't know exactly the finishes, but we had two or three teams finished in a playback.

[10:43] So they ended up getting third.

[10:44] they were the way the playbacks work they ended up losing the key match to

[10:50] advance the state but by going up to 4a I thought our kids really represented

[10:54] themselves in the district really well getting up in a different classification

[10:58] is a challenge but we really did well at the district meet and then went to the

[11:03] regional meet and I think we had four different groups qualify with 3 I think

[11:07] getting third place. Our area meet was last night I have not had a chance to

[11:13] visit Coach Phillips that we had a lot of kids get out of the district and so

[11:18] they will advance to the area meet and then if they get in the top four then

[11:21] they'll advance to the regional meet in probably another week or two. Let's

[11:26] see I'm trying to think we had some kids qualify for Deca to the national

[11:33] invitation or the national meet in Florida they'll be leaving I believe here in

[11:38] in the next couple of days.

[11:39] Just now started with Deca.

[11:42] This is the first year we did that

[11:43] in our Dr. Webb, no relation to me that we know of,

[11:47] but she has really taken that program

[11:50] and a lot of those kids have really jumped into that

[11:52] and had a lot of success.

[11:54] Let's see, trying to think, what else?

[11:58] Our junior high tennis and golf teams have gotten started.

[12:02] Star Test has started this week

[12:05] And so that's as far as accomplishments and things. That's what's been going on. So appreciate it. Thank you.

[12:12] Maybe at the baseball season.

[12:15] Let's see, I think we've got about three, two or three games left.

[12:20] And we're going to maybe fighting for fourth place. Kind of hit a struggle in the middle of the season.

[12:27] You know, just didn't click. So softball season is over.

[12:32] and then our, let's see, we have two individuals now that I think about two individuals at the

[12:38] Boy's Regional Golf Tournament.

[12:42] We had one golfer that was in the mix. I have not heard

[12:45] the final results, but I think he was tied for, he was out of, he was tied for, I guess you

[12:52] could say fourth, but one stroke out of first. So he had three times for first and he was in fourth.

[12:57] I think one stroke going into today, but I haven't heard the final, but I'm sure no

[13:03] he says what I can give you.

[13:04] Thank you.

[13:05] Sorry about that.

[13:06] Could you have a spot there?

[13:10] And I just wanted to say thank you to those that came out and helped with the Lions blood

[13:14] drive that we had in this past Saturday.

[13:16] And then the mayor mentioned that we've got the tournament on May 5th for the fundraiser,

[13:21] and if anybody wants to sign up to either participate or sponsor, you can reach out to me.

[13:25] Thank you.

[13:33] We will go into our staff, I have one more, I'm sorry,

[13:40] this is coming from the governor.

[13:47] We have been recognized, the state of Texas governor to all who, to all to whom these

[13:54] present shall come, greetings, no ye that this official recognition is presented on the

[14:02] occasion of Logo Fest. Logo Vista, Texas April 22nd, 2023. As Governor of Texas, I am pleased to welcome

[14:10] everyone to the extraordinary Barcai Park on the shores of Lake Travis for Logo Fest. From live

[14:17] music and dancing to a wide variety of delicious, eats, and unmissable arts shopping experience.

[14:23] This family-friendly festival truly is a day of fun for all ages. I commend everyone who has made

[14:30] this celebration possible and encourage all attendees to take advantage of the many

[14:35] events and activities this festival has to offer.

[14:39] Celebrations like Logo Fest drink in our ties of friendship and community and make Texas

[14:43] the great state that it is.

[14:46] First lady Cecilia Abbott joins me in extending best wishes for a memorable celebration and

[14:52] testimony whereof I have signed my name and caused the seal of the state of Texas to be

[14:58] be affixed at the...

[15:01] All right. That's cool. Thank you, Governor Abbott. And we will read this again at the festival to welcome everybody. Thank you, sir. All right. Now we will go into our staff. And we use our report. So staff, what do you have for us? That's me. Thank you, Mayor and council. I have a couple of things. One is we just did winter averaging and our citywide average.

[15:29] went from 3,400 to 3,300 so people are going to see that noted on their utility bills.

[15:37] Public Works has finished up picking up the right-of-way brush that was the last round,

[15:43] so if it's out there, it's not from the storm.

[15:46] So you will need to get it to the green center.

[15:50] We're still working on a Radarm fence that is close to the soccer field at sunset park.

[15:56] They are starting to get that finished up and we had one of our employees actually go for their chemical application as certification.

[16:06] So that will come in handy. You've already talked about our golf tournaments. Give me a second. I'm rolling three.

[16:16] Street actually has started, they got all the brush that was at the location that is close to the police department.

[16:25] We had a contractor come out and chip that brush and it made Taylor and I extremely excited.

[16:31] There's nothing like watching it just get chewed up and go into a dumpster. It was lovely.

[16:35] So that area has been cleaned up and I thank everybody for helping with that and then we had the trash off this last weekend we had 297 residents that came and we filled all 17 dumpsters.

[16:50] Thank you for mentioning that because I forgot to recognize everybody during community interest so thank you to all the.

[16:58] I was out there for a little bit of Saturday morning working with one of the I think it was the water guys

[17:06] unloading metal out of people's vehicles. It was good. It was good to see everybody out there. I have one final one today

[17:15] is our Parks and Recreation Directors birthday. So Chris, Mom, please birthday is today. If you happen to see him in the next week or so, wish him a happy, belated birthday.

[17:31] Liaison reports.

[17:33] Anybody have any committees that have met in the last two weeks, sir?

[17:37] Coming.

[17:37] Okay.

[17:38] I actually had all three of mine that met this past week.

[17:42] EDAC met on April 11th.

[17:44] Oh, first of all, I want to say that I did my fair share to fill up the dumpster.

[17:47] Don't trash off.

[17:50] Okay.

[17:50] On April 11th, EDAC met and they were discussing a variety of things.

[17:54] They're continuing to work on their long range plan and coming to Council to report later in the summer.

[17:58] But one thing that dig did want me to pass along is that they think that it would be extremely

[18:04] beneficial for the city if they go through their budget process to budget money for grants

[18:09] and incentives so that when those opportunities come up, we are not scrambling for funds, matching

[18:14] funds for those things.

[18:15] So just something for us to think about when we go into the budget season this summer.

[18:21] KELVB had their meeting this past week.

[18:24] We talked about and actually made a visit to the vendor that's creating the letters, the backlit letters, for the wall, up there at 1431 in Lomance, and so Denise and Dan,

[18:36] Cationiner and myself. We all went out there to check it out. We learned way more about sign making that we ever wanted to know, but the bottom line is, is the letters and the refurbishment of the sailboat, that magical sailboat, should be up there on the wall sometime in the June to July timeframe, so just FYI.

[18:53] to everybody on that.

[18:59] And then the Library Advisory Board met on April 14th, and they are continuing their discussion

[19:03] about the Long Range Plan, recommendations they want to make about the Library Expansion,

[19:07] and the report to the Council that they're going to do this summer.

[19:10] And that's all they got.

[19:12] Awesome.

[19:15] Yeah, PRAC Committee met last week ago, Wednesday.

[19:22] They gave me a directive to ask City Council.

[19:27] If they could go out and start collecting volunteers and working on all of those properties they identified last year and start turning them into trails and pocket parks.

[19:39] And I suggested that they were the advisory committee and that they should pick a few that they want to do some work on and then come to us with a plan and a plan of action before just going out there with.

[19:54] with chainsaws and volunteers and they accepted that and so we should get something from them soon.

[20:06] Yeah, the golf course advisory committee met last week on the 12th in a special workshop to discuss their thoughts on the various proposed improvements to the golf course.

[20:21] they made a lot of progress. It's a huge scope that's involved. And so a good chunk of the discussion was trying to determine how to best organize their thoughts on approaching those proposals.

[20:37] They did ask advice from council in terms of when we would like to see their recommendations back.

[20:43] I discussed this with the city manager earlier this week, and it looked like the end of May would be a good timing for that, but the question was to counsel in particular so like your feedback on that I can pass along to the committee.

[21:01] and

[21:04] the may sounds good to me if that sounds good to staff.

[21:10] Great. I will share that. Oh.

[21:12] I can ask a clarifying question.

[21:14] At the last seat council meeting.

[21:18] I thought we had asked for their input on the proposed bond packages,

[21:25] which is on our agenda for today. Is that not what we asked for?

[21:28] No, no. The.

[21:30] Thank you back on.

[21:31] We did not ask for their assessment of the improvements to the public works project that

[21:40] involved the pawns and the sprinkler system.

[21:43] We did ask for their input on what might wind up on a GO package, which would include improvements

[21:50] to the grounds and the facilities and things like that.

[21:52] Because that's in our packet for today.

[21:55] Well, just the timing for we, we'll go on that.

[21:57] Correct.

[21:57] So did you all talk about that issue, the timing for when the golf course renovations should go on a geo?

[22:08] Their expectation is when they ask for when you needed the feedback.

[22:13] Their expectation is that that timeline would be dictated by a November 2023 geo package.

[22:23] now, of course, if that got delayed, then that would push out when you would need their feedback, but that was the assumption.

[22:37] Planning and zoning did me one week ago tonight.

[22:40] You may remember two weeks ago.

[22:46] I asked for your authorization.

[22:49] Well, I'll truck it up a bit.

[22:53] Got water. I asked for your authorization to help them get unstuck on some proposed changes to the comprehensive plan around density.

[23:03] And so I shared that with staff's help, they actually ended up passing a greatly simplified proposal, so they actually came to an agreement.

[23:14] It's not on tonight's agenda because it missed the window to be on the agenda.

[23:17] I presume it will be on for us in two weeks, but thankfully they were able to get past that.

[23:23] And this is something we'd ask them to do, so they accomplished that task and will see the results of their recommendation for the changes to the comprehensive plan.

[23:32] and it's a pretty simple change.

[23:36] May I on this end?

[23:38] We have not had a part of adjustment

[23:40] or a start skies meeting.

[23:42] And my youth have not met since the last one.

[23:46] So we won't move on into our discussion item set.

[23:53] First, I have discussion regarding proposed extension water

[23:56] and wastewater lines to property outside the city limits

[24:00] and possible annexation of a planted lot

[24:02] of approximately 5.393 acres of land located at 20100 Alfa Drive before this will be Mr.

[24:12] Wallace. Before I bring him up or recognize him, I just want to let you know that I put

[24:18] this on the agenda because he had lots of questions and I felt like the best way for him to

[24:24] get his answers was to come directly to Council instead of trying to hit each individual

[25:31] So just let

[25:39] everybody kind of review things. I guess I'll open up for questions. First

[25:43] I'm doing this so appreciate some lead.

[25:49] So let's know. So tell us what you're looking

[25:54] right so what I'm here today is just a submit a petition for annexation for a

[25:59] business that I'm starting on 20 100 alfalfa it's a climate controlled

[26:04] storage business we are already in the construction phase we're in the

[26:09] grading phase the plans and I've already been permitted from Travis County which

[26:16] was a five-year process believe it or not so here we are we're moving dirt the

[26:24] The fire marshal has asked that I have the availability fire extinguishers there or the

[26:31] excuse me, the fire hydrants, which would require me to be able to extend the current

[26:37] hydrant that's located on Ming and Alphalfa down into two front.

[26:42] You'll note on the survey there or the planned actual fire plan, the red dots are noted.

[26:50] the two additional red dots are noted, the new locations.

[26:56] The one further to the west would be the one currently on MING, which is just in front

[27:02] of Butler Boat Storage.

[27:05] So it's approximately 500 and change linear feet of line extension for water.

[27:14] And you know, obviously I'm going to have an office as well, so it would be nice to have

[27:19] have a flushing toilet and a sink for my employee to be able to take care of the business.

[27:27] I don't, when you do a petition, you know, it's, you guys are going to look at, you know,

[27:33] tax revenues and those revenues would obviously grow over time, you know, as expansion warranted.

[27:41] The flow or the impact of the water usage is very minimal.

[27:46] with one employee, it's probably 25 gallons a day for toilet flushes and water

[27:53] consumption.

[27:57] You know, you could talk about me maintaining the roads. I know

[28:01] there's a burden. I talked to Mr. Sullivan a little bit about, you know, the

[28:06] city concerned about burdens. Tax or police coverage, maintaining the roads, which

[28:13] they have never been maintained by Travis County. Those roads have always been maintained

[28:17] by out of pocket.

[28:21] And I assume they would probably remain that way. I don't know if

[28:26] Lago would be willing to forego that expense, but that's not an issue. We'd agree to maintain

[28:32] the roads as well. I can tell you we're not going to be able to annex that road.

[28:39] right yeah for us to consider it would have to be it would have to meet city standards

[28:44] sure we would consider so the rules yeah I understand yeah this is being a discussion you're

[28:53] looking for feedback from council yeah I mean my feedback is bring us an annexation annexation

[29:00] application and let staff do their diligence and make a recommendation to council so Roy you

[29:07] but there was a petition on that.

[29:10] Yeah, that's that's what I did with that's what I wrote that letter is an

[29:15] expedition as the letter. Okay. Yeah. I checked on that. I'm Roy and he said

[29:21] there was no annex application, just a petition letter. Okay. Yeah. That's okay.

[29:28] Good. Mr. Lawson, you and I had a conversation and you'd ask the question or

[29:33] I think you put forward that you thought that the extension of the line just

[29:37] for fire suppression, so for maybe that could be done administratively by staff.

[29:42] And I checked with Roy.

[29:43] He thought it needed to be approved by council, while we're in executive session.

[29:47] I asked the city attorney if he knew specifically if that were the case, if this was something

[29:51] that had to come to council, or if it could be done administratively, and he was a little

[29:55] uncertain.

[29:56] and so on.

[30:00] Figure that one out to determine if it needs to come back to council or if that can be done at the administrative staff level. So just FYI. Sure. Yeah. I've been working with Taylor already. And he had asked that I submit a drawing or a plan of the line extension along with a profile. And we've already got that executed. And he has a copy and he satisfied with the with the drawing. So, you know, if I could just one last comment and I'll be done. I would ask staff to really look into what's the most.

[30:29] to have been taged for the city is it annexing the property or is it simply extending water

[30:35] service water and sewer service to and somebody outside the city limits and you know what

[30:41] makes sense from a cost perspective so if y'all can look into that and let us know that

[30:46] if it does indeed need to come back to us that would be helpful.

[30:50] Mr. Wallace, I got a question.

[30:55] The water and the sewer stuff are you planning on doing a button of connecting to the sewer

[31:00] system or having a. Yeah, that ideally that would be wonderful. There is a sewer line and I don't

[31:06] know exactly where there is sewer already out in front. I don't know where it stops.

[31:12] They're ready. Okay. I assume the water lines are separate for fire suppression and

[31:19] usage. Is there a water line? No, sir. The water line stops at mean and alfalfa.

[31:29] So to be able to extend the line would also allow me to just tap a meter there as well.

[31:35] Yeah, okay, yes.

[31:40] And you're willing to do the extension of that line as well, and the sewer line?

[31:47] Yes, sir.

[31:53] One more thing that Mr. Lawless and I talked about was, you've already spent a lot of money developing these plans.

[31:59] You really don't want to have to modify these.

[32:02] And I think one of the questions we had was, if you were annexed into the city,

[32:05] what his buildings have to meet our code, and my guess is the answer is yes, and so that's

[32:10] something that probably needs to be factored into. Do we in X or do we simply extend services

[32:14] to somebody outside the limits? I'm assuming if we extend to somebody outside the limits,

[32:19] we don't have to worry about him meeting our code as far as his buildings are concerned. So

[32:23] again, just another thing for you guys staff to look into when making a determination about what

[32:28] makes the most sense. Yeah, I've referenced that. I remember for our conversation, I referenced that

[32:34] in the petition that I would be happy to meet with Mr. Jambore and let him take a look at the

[32:40] plans that have already been approved by Travis County and pretty stringent approval process there,

[32:45] but be happy to sit down with him and let him put his stamp of approval on the comes of that.

[32:54] I have a good question. The letter that was just provided is all that the petition for annexation

[33:03] would need to include Mr. Jambore? I don't think he has a copy.

[33:07] Okay, but

[33:10] it

[33:14] would have to be like included in his development agreement, though, would it not?

[33:19] Yeah, that's really what that trade is in negotiation and development.

[33:22] Yeah,

[33:26] so I'm fine with staff negotiating a development agreement based upon the petition.

[33:34] And I think the considerations and concerns that Councillor Sullivan raised

[33:41] It would be addressed, and we can make a decision based on that.

[33:47] Yeah, and I think it would be beneficial for you to go forward with the process,

[33:56] because unless you submit applications, you're not going to get full answers.

[34:03] Staff just, we don't give out answers without somebody actually applying for something.

[34:09] So if you want to know your true cost of what it's going to cost for the one waste water lines,

[34:14] whether your plans meet city codes and stuff like that,

[34:18] the only way you're really going to know is to submit the application for the development agreement and sit with staff.

[34:24] And then you can see whether it's to your benefit to spend the money or not.

[34:33] And I think to everyone's point, I think, you know, effectively what I think, at least myself, and I think Council's looking at is, you know, effectively cost benefit analysis on behalf of the city consistent with some of the points Kevin raised, and that's what we're looking at is this a net win for the city annexing you.

[34:52] And so we need you to go through that process so we can get that feedback from staff and weigh that accordingly.

[35:00] So, is there an application, Mr. Joe Moore, how do you want to facilitate that?

[35:10] The petition is what's required by the State Statute for the whole purpose, for an annexation.

[35:17] It requires the City to respond with a proposed municipal services agreement.

[35:22] That's where Joe comes in.

[35:25] To address your concerns, Joe mentioned, and I think it's not the first time I've heard

[35:31] this, what you typically want to do is include a provision in there where he doesn't oppose

[35:37] annexation and then it becomes the option of the city going forward, which gives the public

[35:43] works department more time to do a more thorough analysis of the cost of services versus the

[35:49] benefit from the tax revenue.

[35:51] So if I'm understanding what you just said correctly, if I may, you're saying that if he

[35:57] He files the application with that caveat that you just worded.

[36:01] He wouldn't be able, could he withdraw his NXA?

[36:05] Could he withdraw it after?

[36:06] Well, no.

[36:07] The petition is simply requesting that you guys consider an annexation.

[36:12] What happens then is a development slash municipal services agreement.

[36:18] And that includes all the provisions to protect him, the CDU, decide what under what circumstances

[36:25] etc.

[36:25] Mr. Lawless, would you recommend that he hire a third-party professional for any part of this process?

[36:33] That's more of a Joseph question.

[36:34] He's the one that's going to be negotiating.

[36:36] Or would you be comfortable working with Mr. Lawless by himself?

[36:43] What I don't want is I don't want staff doing somebody else's job for him.

[36:48] Well, and Joe can't give him legal advice.

[36:50] Right.

[36:50] But you know, sometimes staff gets wrapped up in these applications and people are hiring proper third-party services

[36:58] To do good drawings and such

[37:00] That's the concern in terms in terms of going back to the permitting issue

[37:05] Typically what we would do in the good news is we're we're on real good relationships now with both LCRA and the county

[37:13] The most likely thing that is possible to have a difference in the code is to make sure that our stormwater detention requirements

[37:20] are the same as theirs that that would be the biggest issue we would look at we could determine

[37:26] that in advance but that even can be part of that annexation development agreement is you know

[37:33] let it stay in the county until the the gets a CO or is ready to get a CO and then you know

[37:40] you process the annexation there and that way you don't have the the worry about the duplicity of

[37:46] the permitting, was accepted as is, but having said that, we would make sure that there's

[37:51] dorm water detention requirements are up to ours, and if not, we would ask him to increase

[37:57] that detention.

[38:03] That's the only real special thing we have locally that we would want to check, but that's

[38:08] kind of a, it's not a real complicated thing, it's really the same ordinance everybody has

[38:14] everywhere. You know, you want your pre-development runoff impact to be the same as your post-development

[38:20] impact runoff. It's not rocket science. Thanks for many

[38:30] us. All right, unless you have some

[38:34] more questions for us. So, do I need to go start working with Roy and Joe? Is that what I need to

[38:40] start doing? Okay. All right. No, I'm good. Thank you for the direction. Thank you for the comments

[38:45] and thank you for your time, and I appreciate you.

[38:48] Good to see you.

[38:49] Thank you, Ms. Ross.

[38:52] All right, number four.

[38:55] Receiving update regarding the cap metro bill

[38:58] and I have done here crazy and shiny.

[39:02] I'm gonna let Shane give his first

[39:04] that way I think he and I are tag teaming a little.

[39:09] Thanks mayor, thanks council.

[39:11] Just wanna give you an update on the cap metro bill.

[39:13] We ran into like a little roadblock earlier this week, the representative believed that they were not having any luck getting a hold of the transportation committee.

[39:22] They had heard from somewhere else that there was concern that the chief of staff of that chairman of that committee's wife is on Austin City Council.

[39:30] So they thought maybe that's why I wasn't moving. Luckily I do know that chief of staff I went and talked to him.

[39:35] He said that wasn't true. He actually was not aware of our bill.

[39:38] they give a couple of suggestions and they pulled in his committee director to come talk to me as well.

[39:44] She said that there have been no one that had explicitly come and supported the bill yet.

[39:48] But she did have one very large entity that I know you can guess which one that is that came to oppose the bill.

[39:54] So she said that it would be very helpful if we had the council's resend resolution, which I believe you might have.

[40:02] But also to have a non council person to come and go and support the bill.

[40:06] So I have talked to Dale Mitchell who had previously worked on this bill a few years ago.

[40:12] He said that he would gladly put something in.

[40:14] I think that'll be helpful, and if you guys have anyone else, you think might be important that it would support it.

[40:20] I think we don't need to have a lot, you know, two or three, give the committee a nudge.

[40:24] They did say they don't fundamentally have any problems with the bill.

[40:27] I will say talking to them, they're very stuck on.

[40:31] They look at the election, they see the results of the election, they say that the people have spoken.

[40:35] There hasn't seemed to be support.

[40:37] I did explain, I don't think that we all had the opportunity to explain everything in the way that we had liked to, and that maybe swayed some of the vote.

[40:45] And obviously we know that there's some issues with the way that it's written and that's kind of why the bill exists.

[40:51] They did express to me that when we think future long-term, I think we're all pretty aware

[40:56] that the bill is most likely not going to pass, but for those that are watching, there's

[41:01] still value in getting through this process and every time you get an opportunity to stand

[41:05] up at a hearing and talk about it, you can sway some of those legislators.

[41:10] And then one thing we talked about, there's pieces of this bill that he thinks that others

[41:13] do agree with, you know, having to wait five years to have this election is pretty

[41:18] rare throughout the statute. He thinks that, you know, however, we tell that story that could

[41:22] resonate with some of these members also changing the calculations, you know, seeing how much this

[41:27] penalty has grown. They think that part, there's obviously some value to that. So they do believe,

[41:32] they can get us into a hearing as long as we have shown some support and maybe the last hearing of

[41:37] that committee. But we still have a slight chance that one of those members up there, here's a part

[41:42] of that really likes it and maybe we can ask them for an amendment, you know, it's a small chance,

[41:47] but there's still some life there that we can possibly save some of them.

[41:51] So can you give us advice on the hearing?

[41:57] So that's what I've been watching for.

[41:59] Looking forward to trying to find out when it's coming up for an hearing.

[42:03] But I've never seen it come up for the hearing.

[42:07] Yeah, so the it's up to the committee.

[42:09] They're the ones that will schedule it.

[42:11] Each committee runs it differently.

[42:13] This committee told me all they really need was representing

[42:15] Drock's office to kind of work it a little harder, actually go to the

[42:19] Go to Canalis and ask for it, and then they needed to see a

[42:23] Couple sides on both of it. So it looks like to them there was no interest in the bill to the committee director

[42:28] And that's why she didn't really put it forward to go out there, but I can't say

[42:33] There isn't any truth. At least I'm taking a first word. There's no truth to because it's why some city council that he wasn't here

[42:38] And he just didn't hear that about the bill

[42:41] Sorry

[42:42] I don't know what, thank you.

[42:46] I have a question.

[42:47] You said that you think there's little in no chance

[42:51] that the bill will pass.

[42:52] You've said, like, made a couple of comments after that,

[42:55] but can you speak a little bit more

[42:57] as to a little more to why you think that or feel that way?

[43:03] Yeah, I mean, part of right now is timing.

[43:05] There's only 39 days left in session.

[43:07] If your bill is in the house

[43:08] and it doesn't get out of the house over to the Senate

[43:10] it by, I think it's the first week of May, it's stretch going, can't go forward.

[43:14] So we're running out of time, there's a lot of bills ahead of it in calendars right

[43:18] now, which is the gatekeeper to get to the house floor.

[43:21] They're starting to back up.

[43:22] I think they're at five, six hundred bills, they're sitting in calendars, and it's not really

[43:25] where bills are supposed to die, but they do sometimes die there.

[43:28] So you're running out of time there, but in the overall picture, to the members, it's mostly

[43:33] a lot of these bills are pre-worked in the interim.

[43:36] So the session's about to end.

[43:38] And a lot of people will start working their bills immediately.

[43:40] So they feel like if they had known about this bill for an entire year,

[43:44] really worked on it and brought a lot of different parties together,

[43:48] then it would have already kind of skipped this part of this education part

[43:51] that a lot of the members are going to have to get over.

[43:53] And that would have been what kind of got it to move forward.

[44:02] So, and if this is not possible, you just say so.

[44:06] But I know sometimes there is interest on the part of legislators to tack things on to other bills, right?

[44:16] They very strategically do that.

[44:18] If they have some interest in getting something passed, they'll tack it on to something else that they know folks want to get passed.

[44:24] Is there any potential that this could happen with even if it's parts of the cat metro bill like the five year piece and

[44:33] re-figuring the NFO, you know, that kind of stuff, um, is there any potential that that might?

[44:40] The small occurs, you know, in theory, the way the statute is, it has to be germane, so for you

[44:45] to tag on part of your bill to another bill, it's pretty much got to have the same vote into it.

[44:49] And I ran a search, there weren't many other bills that have the same code that we're trying to amend,

[44:54] but there's some that are close. Trocks by herself has another bill that's something

[45:00] What related and I think you could possibly pull some and I've definitely seen history myself that somebody tags a bill onto another bill that's not your main and as long as nobody stands up and calls a point of order, it goes through and then it's up to the governor if he decides to read and veto it but there's always that opportunity and that's kind of what I'm hoping for if you get the hearing and there are members up there and it really resonates with one of them. Maybe they say, hey, I'll just slap it on to one of the Senate bills that are over here right now. Or is that something that you sometimes know?

[45:29] like, oh, I saw that you were interested in this. Would you be interested in tacking it onto this?

[45:35] Yeah, absolutely. All right, thank you. I wanted to kind of tag on to some of the mayor said,

[45:46] as far as expressing interest in this bill, you mentioned that Cap Metro, you was

[45:59] The medicines know to go express, you know, a support of it.

[46:03] On the Texas legislature online, they did a code search.

[46:07] So anything that touched their code, they get flags for it.

[46:10] So they saw it popped up and they immediately went out with their list of bills and they

[46:14] went either supported or opposed different bills.

[46:16] So as a public, you could do the same thing, but they have an entire paid staff that's all

[46:20] they're doing a searching for.

[46:21] But if you're very interested in this topic, you could go on the Texas legislature online,

[46:24] set up alerts, you could put in the transportation code and it would show you every bill that

[46:29] touches that part of the code.

[46:30] And so when they expressed opposition to,

[46:32] they just do, you know, send emails to,

[46:34] or did they literally walk down and have their people talk

[46:37] to senators and representatives?

[46:39] They walk down and they talk to the,

[46:41] to the representative and actually go straight

[46:42] to the committee staff too.

[46:44] Okay, okay.

[46:45] I think you did pick the right person, Dale Mitchell.

[46:47] I mean, he seemed to relish doing it before

[46:49] and my guess is he'd relish doing it again.

[46:51] So he would be a good person to go down there

[46:53] and walk and talk and shake hands and,

[46:55] and express his opinions about it.

[46:57] That's great.

[46:57] And he brought up a good point, too,

[46:59] that this bill went further before

[47:00] and it died in the mother's massacre.

[47:02] And his question was, I'm sure other people's question is,

[47:04] why didn't this one go as far as well?

[47:07] And so I'm against that the pre-work wasn't there,

[47:09] but also the members changed.

[47:10] The committee's a little different makeup,

[47:12] and there's other stuff going on.

[47:14] And so.

[47:14] Paul Workman had been on,

[47:16] as a lately, really longer than Helen.

[47:18] So he just had been there longer, probably more experience.

[47:22] His horse, what do you need to do?

[47:23] Yeah, and I'll say if you any of you have the opportunity to it's still helpful for each council member

[47:29] If you wanted to go and talk to represent a track player or talk to that committee director and say like obviously

[47:35] This is something we want to at least have a hearing on I think that's helpful. The mayor has done that

[47:41] Any more house

[47:45] Shane thank you

[47:47] You know, I've spoken with Ellen lobbied on it

[47:51] We've gotten this far

[47:52] our, she knows my position, I don't know that there's any value added me going down there.

[47:57] But would you please send, I haven't spoken to the committee staff, will you send all

[48:05] of us an email with the people that you'd recommend we as individual council members and

[48:11] city manager reach out to please?

[48:13] Yep, I'll do that.

[48:14] And, you know, also give us some deadlines, you need to do this by this date, you know,

[48:19] so we set our reminders and such.

[48:21] and you said you've, you've, you've, of course, Dale, and you were looking for one more person

[48:26] or one or two more people to actually go down there. I think one or two more. They don't have to

[48:30] necessarily go down there. I'll do the same thing. I'll give the contact information, even like a

[48:33] quick email that has the bill number and this will be helpful. Okay. Thanks. And then in long term,

[48:40] you know, I think that there's still things we can do. I think if the representative of the senator

[48:44] and the interim, what's the all of eating between y'all and the cat Metro? I mean, I don't think

[48:48] we kept metrics and just say no to it.

[48:50] Or if we think that the represent canals,

[48:52] who's the transportation chair, sitting with him

[48:54] and talking to him about it,

[48:56] he may have some thoughts on it.

[48:57] There's still work that we can do

[48:59] and maybe improve those relationships.

[49:01] Give us your guidance in that email.

[49:03] So we have kind of a template to follow, please.

[49:06] Well, do you?

[49:07] Yeah.

[49:08] Thank you.

[49:09] I'm sorry, last question, Mayor, if I may.

[49:11] This is actually kind of a response

[49:12] to the question you asked.

[49:14] I think on TLO online, we can also set it up, right?

[49:18] It's like if you want to know if this bill is going to committee to the mayor's question earlier,

[49:22] you can actually set up an alert for that specific bill and you'll get noticed when it goes to a committee.

[49:28] Yeah, TLO online.

[49:33] Thank you, Valios.

[49:35] Thank you.

[49:35] All right, thank you, sir.

[49:39] Mr. Mayor, it would have been possible to transition into agenda item number 12 while we've got shame here and I have that on my list.

[49:48] Yes.

[49:48] I'm just looking through here, just to double check.

[49:57] Yeah, I don't see any reason why not, too.

[50:00] So great, this time we're gonna move down agenda

[50:07] and we're gonna go to action item number 12.

[50:12] Discussion, consideration and possible action

[50:15] on resolution number 23-1994,

[50:19] a resolution of the City Council

[50:20] Also the City of Logovista, authorizing opposition to legislative changes relating to House Bill 866, 1489, 2127, 2266, 2970, 3921, and Senate Bill 175, 814, 1412, 1421, 1786, and 1787.

[50:46] But and all the information was in your packet.

[50:51] I do want to note here that when we did our resolution was it six weeks ago, that when

[51:03] we did that resolution that was authorizing Shane to speak on our behalf, it also included

[51:12] in opposition to House Bill 866 and a couple of other that were companion bills.

[51:23] But since we were looking at this, I didn't necessarily want to resubmit that resolution because it had the information about shame in there.

[51:36] So I added 866 into this one even though we have already done a resolution regarding 866.

[51:48] So council thoughts, questions on these bills?

[51:54] Yes.

[51:55] First, Mr. Mayor, let me, I want to acknowledge you for paying attention to those TML emails

[52:01] and identifying these items to bring the four council pardon me.

[52:08] And bringing these to our attention so that we can consider this resolution and

[52:14] make our city's position known to the state legislature.

[52:20] That we cared greatly about our quality of life out here in log of this step.

[52:25] So to that end, I think everyone has seen an email from Joseph, by now, regarding his

[52:35] input on some revised language that I had requested for Section 4 and Section 7 located

[52:43] on pages 70, 78 and 79 in the packet.

[52:48] I would like, I'm in favor of this resolution is drafted with the amended language as proposed by the City Attorney for Section 4 and Section 7.

[53:11] Anybody have an objection with that?

[53:17] At the moment anyway, we'll make a motion later, but yes sir.

[53:21] I was just going to say that we also discussed the option of adding some language about

[53:26] exempting cities that are under certain size and I think that would be a good addition

[53:31] to the resolution as well if people are amenable to that.

[53:35] So let's talk about that.

[53:36] What should that number be in that added language?

[53:40] Say, we saw 85,050, I've always gone with 50 but I like going high and then come down

[53:48] the 50.

[53:52] 85,000 might get the interest of some of those size communities as well.

[53:57] I think, if Shane can come up, I think that I recall you telling me about one of the pre-emption

[54:10] bill, there was some interest in carving out an exemption for cities of 85,000 and with

[54:18] But that being a number that we're hearing from them, maybe that should be our number

[54:23] that we go with since we've already, it's already come across.

[54:26] And then can you expound upon that 85,000 number in the preemption consideration?

[54:29] Yeah, and because you all had brought up the bills, I was looking into it.

[54:32] So SB 1787 and HB 3921, companion bills, Longbow is the lobby group that is working that

[54:39] bill.

[54:39] I thought it might have been the builders of the realtors because they supported it, but it

[54:43] is Longbow.

[54:44] And I called them and talked to them.

[54:45] and they said they are working with Senator Benton Court right now on the 85,000 exemptions.

[54:49] So I usually think 52, and then they said 85, and I'm like, well, that would be great, 85,000 better.

[54:54] So I think they are currently working on it, but your resolution will kind of help reaffirm that, I think.

[55:00] And most of these bills, it's Senator Benton Court that you're probably needing to work with.

[55:04] And so if you send it along, maybe send it to him.

[55:07] If Longbow's saying 85,000 and we put 85,000 in there, we're acknowledging what they're saying.

[55:13] and that's like, oh good, they'll go with that.

[55:16] So, you know, yeah, I'm fine with that, okay.

[55:20] I just threw up 50 earlier because I've known historically,

[55:23] like that state, for instance, the tax rollback thing,

[55:32] that was 50,000, so you know,

[55:35] we have certain exemptions if we're under 50,000.

[55:41] So, that's my recognition, I like Kevin's idea.

[55:43] Would you mind kind of filling us in on anything else that you think we would like to know hold on before we get too much into him?

[55:54] Sure.

[55:56] My question like on this exemption, this exemption for cities of certain size.

[56:03] Are we want that to apply to all of these or is it just specific ones?

[56:11] My personal preference would be all because they all have the opportunity to be able to

[56:15] be in pass, and if any of them are passed, it would be great to have that exemption in

[56:19] there.

[56:20] To Kevin's point, I think, you know, Benton Court, you know, he's not, he may not be paying

[56:25] attention to all these, but if you tag the 85,000 number to every single one of them, you

[56:29] know, you're kind of doing that shotgun effect and it'll resonate with the people that it matters

[56:33] most with, you know, if it sticks, it sticks.

[56:36] So no harm in tacking it on to everybody, all of them.

[56:40] Okay, so has anybody had thoughts on removing any of these off the list?

[56:46] I can tell you, when I've posted some of this information on social media,

[56:51] the accessory dwelling unit, there's been about 50-50 in the comments

[56:57] because there's a lot of people that are like, you know what'd be nice

[57:00] if I had in a garage apartment for my housekeeper

[57:03] keeper or my olderly relative or my child and there was some and I don't

[57:12] really know what to think of that one. I look at everything worst case

[57:16] scenarios. So we let people do that all the time now, you know,

[57:20] that's adrenaline. Yeah, I'm sorry. We do not prohibit that now.

[57:28] Well, what we limit is the size in relation to the primary residence in 50% okay, correct.

[57:37] So I knew we had accessory buildings.

[57:39] I've seen those come.

[57:40] We have accessories.

[57:42] The sale accessory building, which could be a dwelling unit is what you're seeing.

[57:46] And a lot of them are partially, a lot of them are combinations of both, partial dwelling

[57:50] unit, partial accessory building.

[57:52] So we limit to one.

[57:53] We limit size.

[57:54] We have actually limited to two extra so again if we're already allowing that

[58:00] Is this a bill that we want to oppose?

[58:03] Well, we're allowing the accessory buildings but not but the dwelling unit aspect of it would be new to our city, correct?

[58:10] Well, no, we don't restrict it now and this bill had prohibit us

[58:13] Restricting something we don't restrict, but if you wanted to say restrict it you can only have this or that or the other

[58:22] you know, in any way, you don't have to absolutely prohibit it. But, you know,

[58:27] by only concern that comes to mind, I don't know how valid a concern it is, but is, you know,

[58:33] if suddenly everybody's putting 800 square foot or up to 50 percent dwelling units, accessory

[58:40] buildings on their property, assuming there's room for it, given our setbacks and such,

[58:45] you're increasing that effectively adding new LUEs on burning our city water and sewer with

[58:51] new LUEs that weren't necessarily anticipated.

[58:55] That's the only concern that comes to mind.

[58:57] If people sawpically, I mean, we're talking about, you know, state mandated zoning restrictions

[59:02] and telling local governments how they need to administer zoning.

[59:07] And that's kind of offensive at its core.

[59:09] It is. It's federalists.

[59:11] And no, Joe and I, you should have heard us ran one day.

[59:17] So if we were going to pull something out, I would be OK with pulling this out.

[59:20] I'm not passionate about this one yeah well I mean we can we can leave it in here

[59:27] based on that fundamental fundamental thing but passing it is not going to

[59:34] change the way we right currently I'm sorry I'm not done hurt to leave it yeah yeah

[59:41] okay that's gonna be my comment that it doesn't hurt to leave it in yeah I would be

[59:46] opposed to removing anything from the resolution and the reason is because there's a bigger

[59:53] issue here that kind of envelops all of these items that we've got and that is who's going

[59:58] to dictate what our community is doing.

[1:00:00] What does the efficacy of home rule anymore if state laws keep getting passed like this, that prohibit our local community from building the necessary rules and restrictions we need to create a living environment that our community looks for? With your permission, this has been a very

[1:00:29] significant and heartfelt issue to me and I would like to make a statement to

[1:00:35] address that bigger issue if I may.

[1:00:40] Thanks very much. The

[1:00:46] government closes to

[1:00:48] the people best serves the people. Thomas Jefferson said that. And with that as

[1:00:55] a foundation, home rule was established by our state but by the voters of this

[1:01:01] state by amendment to our state constitution in 1912. Its purpose was to give cities with

[1:01:08] over 5,000 inhabitants the power to adopt their own charter thereby giving them the power

[1:01:14] of self-government. A homeral city such as Lagovista can pass any regulations or laws that

[1:01:21] deemed necessary unless the state law specifically prohibits it.

[1:01:28] Over the past few years, a powerful contingent of state lawmakers have demonstrated their

[1:01:34] disagreement with Jefferson and the spirit of our state constitution.

[1:01:39] They have taken it upon themselves to severely restrict the ability of local citizens to control

[1:01:45] the living environments of their local communities.

[1:01:48] These state representatives and senators have demonstrated little or no concern about

[1:01:55] how dense our local population may be, no concern about how our community is designed

[1:02:03] to best serve the needs and wishes of our citizens, including consideration of the unique

[1:02:09] characteristics of our community, for example, our topography.

[1:02:14] No concern about what demands on our local services and infrastructure unwanted growth

[1:02:20] may require.

[1:02:22] However, they do want to limit how we can finance this forced excessive spending that is

[1:02:30] paid for by your local tax dollars.

[1:02:33] No consideration for measures designed to protect our citizens from unscrupulous and irresponsible

[1:02:41] business practices that may occur.

[1:02:44] No concern about our ability to join with other communities to speak with a common voice

[1:02:51] against excessive micromanagement of local matters by the state.

[1:02:57] Often these state mandated limitations on local authority are disguised as protection of individual

[1:03:06] landowner's rights.

[1:03:08] But when the thin veil of this disguise is removed, what we find is legislation designed

[1:03:16] to encourage the maximization of profits by developers and land speculators at the

[1:03:23] expense of communities to determine the nature of their local living environment.

[1:03:30] What Jefferson said is right, government closest to the people serves the people best.

[1:03:36] Your city officials are right here with you in Lagovista every day, day in, and day out.

[1:03:45] We are your neighbors and your friends.

[1:03:47] We see you at our local markets and restaurants and businesses.

[1:03:52] We attend church with you.

[1:03:54] Your public schools are our public schools.

[1:03:58] This is your council elected exclusively by the citizens of Lagovista.

[1:04:04] It meets every two weeks in public and invites your participation and advice.

[1:04:12] We provide you with a forum at our meetings to present your thoughts on any matter you

[1:04:17] desire to raise.

[1:04:20] Local government is by far the most responsive level of government to the will of the people.

[1:04:27] Matters may not always be resolved consistent with an individual citizen's position

[1:04:33] on a particular issue, but the voices of our community are always taken into consideration.

[1:04:41] Local government sensitivity to community opinion is far more robust than a state legislature

[1:04:49] that meets for five months every two years, conducts few if any local hearings on issues,

[1:04:57] and makes no meaningful effort to consider your opinion on matters that will greatly affect your everyday life in Logo Vista.

[1:05:07] It is for these reasons that I vigorously support this resolution tonight as drafted and I humbly ask that you and my fellow council members do the same. Thanks.

[1:05:21] all right here here all right I'm going to call 8 we're going to recess 734 can you get

[1:05:32] back in yeah all right we're reconvening at 742 we have a signal we're going to try I'm

[1:05:42] sorry we need to make sure that we're recording the spanking okay we're

[1:06:19] good all right yep I

[1:06:21] So

[1:06:25] we heard from Gage, is there anyone else who would like to comment?

[1:06:33] I agree, I just can't see you pulling anything off the leg.

[1:06:36] I'm bigger street support, Gage's comments.

[1:06:37] Yep, absolutely.

[1:06:39] Yep, well said, Gage.

[1:06:40] Yep, did okay.

[1:06:41] Very well said.

[1:06:42] Thanks.

[1:06:43] I think it's a great idea to post that social media somewhere.

[1:06:49] So from here, my only concern is if something else comes up.

[1:06:53] you know, like it was a shame pointed out, we're down to like 39 days. I don't know what

[1:07:01] else is out there. I've been trying to watch things that come across. You know, I don't

[1:07:07] know,

[1:07:10] you know, how do we proceed if something else comes up that we don't like? So, so we

[1:07:17] could consider adding that language at the end of your of the document that just says

[1:07:24] As we also oppose any bill that goes against these things, and that might encapsulate it there, since we may not have time to draw up additional resolutions for specific bills.

[1:07:39] I think we're going to have to

[1:07:39] do a couple of things.

[1:07:40] Okay.

[1:07:43] Then 85,000.

[1:07:46] Be the number.

[1:07:48] Yeah, we'll make that make that a

[1:07:49] new motion.

[1:07:51] All right.

[1:07:53] Shane, do you have anything you

[1:07:54] want to.

[1:07:55] I cut you off earlier, but.

[1:08:02] Intense to deliver this to the

[1:08:03] legislature.

[1:08:05] One thing to keep in mind here that

[1:08:06] is in terms of the long term

[1:08:07] relationship with our current

[1:08:09] representative.

[1:08:09] A number of these bills are she's

[1:08:11] a co-author on one of them.

[1:08:12] She's the house sponsor on it might be best to deliver this to her in person with the softer

[1:08:18] You know, this is how the city feels is why we feel this we understand that you've taken this position

[1:08:23] But let's work together if they're in the interim so that you understand where we're at on these types of bills going forward

[1:08:28] Because if you just blindly give it they should take a fence

[1:08:31] I don't know I'm just just thinking outside the box. I mean you guys do however you plan to do it

[1:08:35] But that was my true sense on it and then I think you kind of just alluded to the other thing

[1:08:39] as to say, you might not have time, but it's always good if you have a resolution to oppose

[1:08:44] bills, that you maybe have another resolution of bills that you do support.

[1:08:48] And I've always been told, in the capital, there's a balance of if you oppose something,

[1:08:51] you need to have things you support, and so your political capital is always being balanced

[1:08:55] out.

[1:08:56] There are a couple of great bills out there, SB28, that has a huge water infrastructure bill.

[1:09:01] It's going to create another fund in the Texas Water Development Board to help go out

[1:09:05] and find over 7 million acre feet of water a year for the state of Texas.

[1:09:10] I think that all across the board, everyone's really supporting that.

[1:09:13] It's a great bill.

[1:09:14] And then you could take a stab at, I don't know which one it is,

[1:09:17] but one of these property tax bills is good to pass.

[1:09:19] If you want to weigh in on the senator, the house's version,

[1:09:22] the house's lower the appraisal cap to 5%.

[1:09:25] The Senate's is raising the homestead to 75,000.

[1:09:29] I, you know, however, you guys feel about that.

[1:09:31] And then there's a, there's an economic development bill out there

[1:09:34] that you could support but just be something that if you want more ideas I could come with

[1:09:39] a bill list of things that it seems like we might support and if you have time to get another

[1:09:44] resolution out I think that always helps so that they don't feel like you're just attacking

[1:09:47] and you're also of supporting. So you don't you don't think we should attach gauges

[1:09:52] speech to? I actually do. I think you can make it an addendum to however you're delivering this

[1:09:58] and I can help. I think that'd be great. Also I can as we talked about TLO if any of these bills

[1:10:03] that are specifically on here. Have another hearing to go. I can let you know how to submit that as a written testimony because I think that was great testimony.

[1:10:11] Awesome. Yeah.

[1:10:13] So your email you had in a subsequent email you sent with a list of resolutions.

[1:10:19] One of them was that the 5% cap on property taxes.

[1:10:24] Future Regina item resolution on that would be great.

[1:10:27] The water one that Greg Abbott's actually behind the one you're speaking to.

[1:10:31] That would be a good one to have as a future agenda item. I think I forwarded that one to you in an email

[1:10:37] So the other was sorry SB7 the electric grid

[1:10:40] Then we just had a little power out there. That's another good one if you want to add as a support

[1:10:45] There's three Tracy's taking notes. So here's my I got it

[1:10:51] For me is procedural

[1:10:52] Because we're not going to have another council meeting till May 4th thing though. We need to happen tonight

[1:10:57] so can we just get

[1:11:00] If the Tracy, you have the names of those in the motion, we can also have a supporting resolution.

[1:11:07] Provide direction to draw up a resolution that supports certain mills.

[1:11:12] And I would put for the suggestion on the property tax and trying not to offend anyone to say we're in favor of the general idea of lowering property taxes and

[1:11:22] leave it up to the legislature to figure out the best way to go about doing it.

[1:11:25] instead of supporting either the 5% or the 70,000 exemption, just a suggestion.

[1:11:33] Okay.

[1:11:33] Is there any casino bills out there?

[1:11:35] There is.

[1:11:37] I can tell you that they are not going to survive the antenna governor as very against it.

[1:11:46] No, yeah.

[1:11:47] I mean, I've kind of looked at, I've been focused on, you know, the things that are affected

[1:11:53] in this negative week, and I have it all.

[1:11:56] I've come across some that I could support,

[1:11:59] but I don't know what they all remembered their numbers

[1:12:01] or their titles or anything.

[1:12:04] So for me to add stuff tonight, I just don't know.

[1:12:09] We've got three traces got up in the notes

[1:12:11] and we can just reference that promotion.

[1:12:13] And the electric grid is SB 983.

[1:12:18] I'm working on it.

[1:12:19] I'm working on it.

[1:12:20] And he said the very first one that you mentioned was that we don't have these bills to support of anything on the agenda, I think we're out of order.

[1:12:32] Joe, yeah, it's good.

[1:12:33] Yeah.

[1:12:34] It's a good point.

[1:12:36] Joe, you got ideas how we can get these in?

[1:12:42] So within the resolution, you've got a support of legislation that allows jurisdictions to do things that are opposed to what you're opposing.

[1:12:53] So that's the way opposing these bills by supporting contrary legislation, you could weasel it in I don't

[1:13:03] You can fit it in that was a derogatory term. I use that I apologize

[1:13:09] Okay, I get that I was wondering that but I

[1:13:12] Would you be okay with that rub? What's that would you feel comfortable with that?

[1:13:17] Well, I don't know I'm not particularly comfortable with writing another resolution while we're sitting here

[1:13:24] That's more my objection than anything else, but we can add it on to the end of this one.

[1:13:31] You do have some catch-all language at the end of this resolution, which supports legislation that gives you local control consistent with council members, hunts, comments.

[1:13:47] But if I might, Mayor, yes, I mean, looking at the agenda item, it's pretty specific that this resolution is about

[1:13:55] the ones that we're opposing. So to all of a sudden, as much as I would like to

[1:14:00] tonight, I don't know that we really should add the things that we want to

[1:14:04] support. Fair position. Okay.

[1:14:11] But it's a really good point that we're not going

[1:14:13] to meet again in a timely fashion to really send something that supports stuff to be

[1:14:17] honest with you. And that's shame.

[1:14:20] Yeah. I mean, it's a really good point,

[1:14:22] Shane, if we're going to poke him in the eye,

[1:14:25] what, you know, shake their hand and say thank you too.

[1:14:27] And it's a shame we didn't do that.

[1:14:29] I mean, it doesn't have to be in a resolution too,

[1:14:31] like we could still go forward.

[1:14:32] And you guys could submit a letter from the mayor,

[1:14:35] things like that.

[1:14:35] It's still pretty nice.

[1:14:37] Well, and I was going to say to your point,

[1:14:40] there's a separate from the resolution.

[1:14:43] There's a delivery method in plan, right?

[1:14:46] And so we already talked about attaching gauges memo

[1:14:49] as we delivered this.

[1:14:51] I think we could certainly have a little, you know, other city cover letter with it that says we

[1:14:57] appreciate efforts to do things at the state level around.

[1:15:00] The property tax reduction and water resources and some of the things we talked about here, really appreciate the good work that's going on in the legislature. This term, we do have concerns with small city impact things across a number of things and we wanted to call those to your attention. So I think a cover letter to that effect would be very useful in the dilemma. And you suggested, I didn't really hear a lot of feedback that might be best for us to deliver it specifically to Mr. Troxco's office.

[1:15:27] would it be best to just deliver it to her, or are there another one, two, or 12 other places where we should deliver it?

[1:15:37] I think multiple, I mean you're taking the time to draft it and pass it, so it might still make the most use of it.

[1:15:42] So I think any of the bill authors that these bills are, if you're good to go to them, whatever committee they're currently in, send it to that committee.

[1:15:48] I just think, so she's our representative, she just gets the courtesy of a face-to-face even Senator Campbell.

[1:15:54] Well, I think one of these bills Senator Campbell might be a co-author on it'll be great for her to

[1:15:58] What shame would you be willing to do that for us? I can't yeah, I mean I do think it is more impactful that one of you

[1:16:08] The mayor would do it too, but I would for sure I can make the first contact and do that

[1:16:12] I was gonna take a day off to say or good

[1:16:16] Good work. You can go down and do it. Just deliver it to a bunch of

[1:16:24] I'd be happy to join

[1:16:30] or get it together for you, the agenda, whatever.

[1:16:34] Cool.

[1:16:36] All right, thank you.

[1:16:39] So,

[1:16:42] here's what I'm looking for when we get ready to make a motion.

[1:16:47] One, the resolution, any additions, I think we have, you know, the exception for city

[1:16:57] size.

[1:16:58] I got a bunch of notes here.

[1:16:59] I don't know.

[1:16:59] All those taking notes as well.

[1:17:01] There was some.

[1:17:02] That's taking notes as well.

[1:17:02] But you have a knack for being able to recap things really well, Mr. Prince, and there was

[1:17:08] some other language that's all of them have brought forth attaching the city

[1:17:16] science. Yeah, we get the. In my notes, I've got the language from our city

[1:17:21] attorney. Yeah, the city small city size kind of writer across the board. We've

[1:17:26] got the delivery methodology. Yes, right, which includes attaching gauges memo,

[1:17:32] attaching a cover letter as I just talked about. Okay. But catch all language for

[1:17:35] or just in general opposing any other bills

[1:17:39] that would be contrary to.

[1:17:43] And I think since we're not going to be coming back again

[1:17:45] tonight, I would, if I make a motion in a minute,

[1:17:50] it would include authorizing certain people,

[1:17:55] probably the city manager and the mayor

[1:17:57] to choose the language of that cover letter

[1:18:01] without having to come back to us for final approval.

[1:18:03] Yeah, I

[1:18:06] think that covers what I was looking for.

[1:18:12] Any further discussion council?

[1:18:15] Hold on. Let's see. Let me go to my list here before we head chain.

[1:18:22] Rachel, are you with us?

[1:18:27] I see no, all right. There she is. Rachel, I have you signed up.

[1:18:31] Hey, can you guys hear me? Yes. Okay, perfect. So I'm really great conversation. I'm super excited that you guys are pushing this

[1:18:40] I'm engaged. I'm a little upset because our internet went out right in the middle of your speech and I was so like fired up and it was great. So totally support that.

[1:18:52] So just wanted to thank you guys for bringing these bills to the public's attention. I've seen it on social media. So specifically, thank you, Mr. Mayor, Mr. Robert, you've also spoke to it on social media.

[1:19:04] So just making people aware of what's going on engage actually something very similar to what I'm saying, which is I'm a firm believer that those who govern closest govern best so this is a complete overreach at the state level and I don't agree with what they're trying to pass.

[1:19:21] It's definitely going to impact everyone's quality of life in a small town like logo best up.

[1:19:26] So just let us know what support you need.

[1:19:29] I've already emailed our representatives, so keep fighting the good fight, guys.

[1:19:36] Thank you.

[1:19:37] Thank you.

[1:19:40] And Chess, Riker.

[1:19:45] Oh, he's online too.

[1:19:47] Chess, are you with us?

[1:19:50] Yeah, I'm sorry about that.

[1:19:51] I can't get out of here.

[1:19:54] We need your camera as well for the recording.

[1:20:03] Thank you.

[1:20:05] Good to see you guys.

[1:20:06] If I wanted to say a thanks as well for creating the resolution, not the addition of these,

[1:20:14] that in the house bill.

[1:20:15] Hold on just a second, Chaz.

[1:20:17] We can't hear him.

[1:20:19] Is that him or is that us?

[1:20:23] Is it possible Mr. Meredith to close these doors and would that make it quieter in here?

[1:20:28] We can try.

[1:20:30] I guess coming through.

[1:20:32] The rain's really loud.

[1:20:33] chance, you'll have to give it right on your mic with the background noise here, it's hard to hear you.

[1:20:42] I just wanted to say thanks, I'll keep it short and sweet.

[1:20:50] It creates a few guys talking in opposition of these house consent bills.

[1:20:56] Like Rachel was talking about, it's a pretty big overview of the reach at the state level.

[1:21:00] So, you know, we fully support this resolution to know how we can continue this foreign band

[1:21:08] together for the SCOG.

[1:21:09] You know, it's something that we're pretty passionate about, and, you know, like Rachel said,

[1:21:15] we've already contacted every data and such, so if there's anything else we can do, just

[1:21:20] let us know how to pitch in, because this is something that's really important, so thank

[1:21:25] you.

[1:21:28] Cool.

[1:21:29] Thank you.

[1:21:37] All right.

[1:21:38] I'll bring it back to council and any further discussion

[1:21:41] or if you'll already, I'll entertain a motion.

[1:21:44] Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we approve resolution 23-1994

[1:21:51] as written tonight with amendments to include the language that has been suggested

[1:21:56] by the city attorney and a note that he distributed.

[1:22:00] And that we also add language that would include exclusions from all bills

[1:22:06] for cities under the size of 85,000 population and then as the resolution is delivered, we would like the memo that Gage Hunt read to us earlier to be attached to that resolution and a supporting cover letter from the city be drafted which would include some language thanking the legislature for their good work on statewide issues such as

[1:22:35] addressing water supply, electric grid issues and property tax reduction and request that they

[1:22:45] acknowledge the need for small cities to maintain the ability to govern well close to the people.

[1:22:53] And that that cover letter we would give authorization to the mayor and the city manager to

[1:22:59] to come up with the final language.

[1:23:02] Second.

[1:23:06] All right, I have the motion in the second,

[1:23:07] any discussion on the motion?

[1:23:10] All right, all those in favor say aye.

[1:23:13] Aye.

[1:23:14] All those opposed, nay?

[1:23:16] Here you none.

[1:23:18] Resolution passes unanimous.

[1:23:19] All right, now we're going to seven.

[1:23:24] Action item seven, discussion, consideration,

[1:23:26] and possible action regarding a request

[1:23:29] from a lot of these independent school district

[1:23:31] for the city to review the permit fee price for the construction of the student activity center permit and reconsider the quoted fee price.

[1:23:45] Has everybody reviewed this one?

[1:23:59] So I was looking to it and

[1:24:05] I looked at the recommendation from staff.

[1:24:10] The recommendation from staff seemed reasonable to me.

[1:24:13] So, yeah, once upon a time we had even better methods, construction cost is a very accurate

[1:24:22] indication of how much effort is required, unfortunately when you rely on contractors

[1:24:29] who have to pay the permit fees, they have a tendency to underestimate what the real cost

[1:24:36] is.

[1:24:37] And so some cities have come up with elaborate methods where the staff does the estimation

[1:24:42] based on our SME and data and stuff like that.

[1:24:46] But then you start using abbreviated methods

[1:24:48] that you use average unit cost

[1:24:51] and you lose the complexity that's really reflected.

[1:24:56] I found this one in the city, Austin.

[1:24:59] It's not perfect.

[1:25:00] It took a long time.

[1:25:01] I didn't mind doing it for this one occasion, obviously.

[1:25:05] It seemed to be as fair as anything.

[1:25:09] Absent the accurate construction costs.

[1:25:11] And like I said, I'm not so sure any cities even use the actual construction cost anymore because it's not just, you know,

[1:25:18] in Texas where you have this problem, it's everywhere. It's kind of abandoned. You know, they keep

[1:25:23] sample inches of it, but like I said, it's, you don't get it from the contractor anymore. You generate the cost.

[1:25:34] Shilane.

[1:25:35] Thank you, Mayor. I have a couple of questions. The first one has to do with the calculation.

[1:25:42] I used the numbers that were provided in the cover page, the $0.85 per square foot, and

[1:25:51] multiply that by the square footage indicated.

[1:25:55] And I came up with a different number.

[1:25:57] Yeah, I came up with even adding the $600 to it.

[1:26:00] I came up with $44,1010 and $65, not $52,000, $7.52.

[1:26:06] Can you help me understand how that number was arrived?

[1:26:08] I didn't bring the bike down with me, but there are other components of that thing that are not part of that general fee.

[1:26:17] There's the electrical HVAC, how much the review fees, all that sort of thing.

[1:26:22] Okay, and would those need to be included in any sort of reduction if we do a reduction?

[1:26:28] No, they're included in what I gave you in the $10,000.

[1:26:32] Okay, and then the another question I have.

[1:26:33] not included in the 85 census. Okay. Another question I have in the on the first

[1:26:40] page of the cover page and to the financial impact, it's noted that the fee

[1:26:48] that the city charges includes a component to offset street repairs caused by

[1:26:53] construction equipment. My question is, wouldn't there still potentially need to be

[1:26:58] street repairs from construction equipment whether it's an open, it's an

[1:27:02] open well building or a closed building is going to require a lot of concrete right so right

[1:27:08] and and what basically what you do right now is you earmark two thirds of the permit fee and we

[1:27:15] would still do the same thing based on on what you did when when we increase that fee we earmarked

[1:27:24] that addition and I'm not sure it was that much more on commercial construction it was that much more

[1:27:30] on residential construction. I think the increase on commercial was much more minute if you will, but it's still there.

[1:27:40] So it's not an addition. You're saying that the amount that you're recommending would still include that those.

[1:27:47] The remarks in our fee now we would we would ask you to leave those your marks in there.

[1:27:52] Okay. And then I think my last two questions left. Are there any of these fees that are

[1:28:04] included in that total amount that really we don't have the authority to waive? Are there

[1:28:09] any that are like state mandated or anything like that that we we don't have as an

[1:28:13] municipality the authority to waive? The hardest thing to do apples to apples was the fact

[1:28:18] that you pay all of your inspection fees as you go in Austin, and in our case, they're

[1:28:25] all built into the permit fee.

[1:28:28] So guessing how many inspections are required and also some assumptions on my part, whereas

[1:28:37] I don't really know, so that's the part that was a little bit speculative on my part.

[1:28:42] The rest of it's pretty precise.

[1:28:43] So then the amount that you included, do you think it's enough to cover all of those inspections

[1:28:47] or is there some chance that we may need to say subject to additional fees that need to

[1:28:52] be occurred. A building this size and this simple doesn't have a lot in it. The exaggerated

[1:29:00] thing is compared to a hospital where it's full of stuff that we haven't spent. Not so much

[1:29:05] in this case. So we wouldn't need to say something like plus any unexpected incurred fees or something

[1:29:13] like that.

[1:29:14] We wouldn't need to say that.

[1:29:15] No, ma'am.

[1:29:16] Okay.

[1:29:16] We're good.

[1:29:17] And like I said, there was a little bit of speculation on my part, you know, using the

[1:29:22] Austin inspection methods, but.

[1:29:25] Okay.

[1:29:26] Thank you.

[1:29:27] Last question.

[1:29:28] I guess my final question here is, you know, is there any danger that we could be setting

[1:29:32] some sort of a precedent?

[1:29:34] No, ma'am.

[1:29:34] As long as, you know, once again, you know, it's not just, you know, we have a, for example,

[1:29:41] a shell building, a commercial shell building, like a shopping center.

[1:29:46] We have a different fee structure to cover that because like this is just a shell and

[1:29:51] then when they put the tenants inside of it, that's when we get another fee.

[1:29:57] you know, if we have another simple building like this,

[1:30:00] We're not, we're not trying to generate revenue here. We're just trying to offset our calls. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We've already said the precedent with ESP1. Okay. Yeah. That was, that was even different. Yeah. It's processed the way the school is. It's much better than the way we're just looking for equity here. Yeah, I don't think I, I wasn't a council then. So I'm not aware of those details, but okay. All right. That's all the questions I have. Thank you. Sir. Thank you, Miss Ben.

[1:30:32] So, you covered much of the same questions I had about state statute, does the city can, the city can't wave impact fees, or we confirm that.

[1:30:41] As far as press, you know, one of the concerns I had is, is waving these fees, you know, and then we have to do it for, while this is 51,000, we do it for someone where it's 51,00, you know, on a smaller scale, but it's all open space.

[1:30:56] You know, do we have to do it for them too?

[1:31:00] But then, you know, the realization here,

[1:31:03] what's different about this is while we're reducing the fees,

[1:31:06] we're really not, this is taxpayer money.

[1:31:09] It's taxpayer money to the city.

[1:31:11] It's taxpayer money to the school district.

[1:31:13] It's really just moving it from one bucket to the other

[1:31:16] as far as taxpayer dollars are concerned.

[1:31:18] So I'm okay with this and I agree with the calculation

[1:31:22] and I'm in favor of approving this.

[1:31:27] I'm in favor of allowing the reduction that we're talking about.

[1:31:34] The methodology sounds fine, Roy is validated against what other municipalities of Louis

[1:31:41] City of Austin, what they charge for similar, so the only thing I would ask is that if this

[1:31:48] is the right methodology, then let's take the step to institutionalize it in our fee structure

[1:31:55] ordinance for anybody else that comes down the road with a similar building.

[1:32:00] Good point.

[1:32:02] I wish you with that.

[1:32:07] We're on the same page.

[1:32:08] What we would do is write an exclusion into the fee schedule that talks about large simple

[1:32:14] buildings and defer to this methodology for those, not for the typical little, you know,

[1:32:21] 2,000 square foot building.

[1:32:24] Yeah, and to reinforce that, I think, what you've done here is you've said, you didn't

[1:32:32] come here tonight, you didn't come here tonight saying this is a school district, we should

[1:32:36] give them a break.

[1:32:37] You said, this is a building where our normal process does not apply, a more reasonable

[1:32:42] process would result in a much lower fee, and so that reasonable process is something we

[1:32:47] we want to capture and then it would become an exercise for staff and an applicant to

[1:32:54] determine whether this simpler and the idea of a building process or an empty shell process

[1:33:01] is more applicable.

[1:33:02] And once again, the absolute most accurate and equitable way to do this is if we had absolutely

[1:33:09] reliable construction costs to base it all, that's not going to happen.

[1:33:15] So, in lieu of that, we'll be asking you to bring in a ordinance modification back then.

[1:33:21] Whoa.

[1:33:23] That was close.

[1:33:24] Yeah.

[1:33:24] That reinforcement.

[1:33:25] That's not the ordinance.

[1:33:27] I saw another one just when they go.

[1:33:28] I just saw a sanitary.

[1:33:33] I just got it.

[1:33:39] Are you checking on that, Mary?

[1:33:40] I'll just say I'm in favor of this as well.

[1:33:42] All right.

[1:33:42] Well, I would have bring that out.

[1:33:43] the applicant up? Okay. Point one miles, it says. I think we felt it. Here on back

[1:33:53] my neck. I have Casey Sledge here. He's a program manager who's helping us with the building.

[1:34:00] All right.

[1:34:03] Do you have anything you want? Oh, I just want to thank Roy for visiting

[1:34:09] with us and I know it does take work. Appreciate him kind of visiting with us and

[1:34:15] to agree in about, you know, could we reduce the fees? And, you know, it is a, it's not

[1:34:21] a lot in it. It's going to be a great facility, but there's not a lot of, there's no HVAC,

[1:34:27] not a lot of electricity. And it's just a simple shell. And I'll certainly, in that case,

[1:34:31] he had anything to it. He's more the expert than I am.

[1:34:34] So I think probably my question really is going to be the numbers that Roy has proposed.

[1:34:47] I have no problem with that. I mean, I think Roy was fair on the numbers, and certainly

[1:34:51] I will agree with that and be very thankful that the council changed that direction.

[1:34:59] Good evening, Mayor Councilor Casey Sledge with Sledge interesting. Just a good comment.

[1:35:03] This is a friendly request. Staff has been great with us. We've been working on the 2022

[1:35:08] to bond now for I guess over a year and everything's been really good.

[1:35:14] Roy and Taylor have been nothing but helpful and consistent and really guided us to this

[1:35:17] process and actually a lot of cities probably wouldn't consider this so we really appreciate

[1:35:22] this common sense approach.

[1:35:24] We do think it's right taxpayer to taxpayer anyway so no we applaud this and thank you city

[1:35:30] managers as well.

[1:35:32] Do you have any questions for the applicant?

[1:35:38] Thank you.

[1:35:38] So I'll bring you back to Council then and further discussion or I'll entertain a motion.

[1:35:45] Mr. Mayor.

[1:35:46] I'd like to make a motion to approve agenda item number seven.

[1:35:48] I'll second.

[1:35:52] All right.

[1:35:52] I got a motion in a second.

[1:35:55] Let me see.

[1:35:56] Let me make sure it's worded properly.

[1:35:59] I don't think a agenda item number seven is the proper wording.

[1:36:05] You may want to consider in your motion, including the recommendation from staff at the bottom

[1:36:12] on the page 20 of the packet.

[1:36:15] Yeah, let's see how we,

[1:36:20] again, you may mention the specific

[1:36:22] of the Justice of O'Malley, yeah.

[1:36:26] Prove in the request for Logovitz in the Pinnis School District

[1:36:29] for the permit fee price of, whenever the amount was $10,079.

[1:36:36] Yeah, there's a language in there that I think is really good that we should include,

[1:36:39] right, that waive the entirety that exceeds that number,

[1:36:45] of any required re-inspection fee caused by family inspections.

[1:36:49] I accept that amendment.

[1:36:54] I will accept that as well.

[1:36:56] Joe, are you happy with that?

[1:37:01] You could not.

[1:37:03] Oh, no way. Somebody's good.

[1:37:04] I guess they have to hear you.

[1:37:06] The audio is somewhat favorite.

[1:37:08] All right. So we have the motion and the second.

[1:37:11] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:37:14] All those in favor say aye.

[1:37:16] Aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay?

[1:37:20] Very none. The motion carries unanimous.

[1:37:22] Nice guys.

[1:37:23] Sorry, I can't be here into the storm.

[1:37:27] Stay dry out there.

[1:37:28] Yeah, dry chair.

[1:37:30] Thank you.

[1:37:33] Thank you.

[1:37:34] Thank you.

[1:37:45] Thank you.

[1:37:46] part of the consent agenda. So we will do the consent agenda at this time.

[1:37:52] All matters listed under consent agenda are to be considered routine by the City Council

[1:37:57] and will be enacted by one motion. There will not be separate discussion on these items.

[1:38:02] If discussion is desired, that item will be removed from the consent agenda and will be considered

[1:38:07] separately. We have number five, consider approval of the April 6, 2023 meeting minutes and

[1:38:13] number six consider approval of ordnance 23-04-20-01 and ordinance of the city council of the city of

[1:38:21] Lugleby still repealing ordinance number 22-09-01-01 one unless

[1:38:31] anybody needs something

[1:38:33] just an air I move and we approve the consent agenda is drafted all right second

[1:38:39] I have the motion and the second by councilor Sullivan any discussion on the motion

[1:38:45] All right, all those in favor say aye.

[1:38:48] Aye.

[1:38:49] All those pose nay.

[1:38:51] Hearing none, the considered agenda has approved unanimous.

[1:38:55] Yeah, we're on eight discussion consideration and possible action regarding an application to

[1:39:02] the city council for a variance and the maximum display area of resulting from the conversion

[1:39:07] of the base of an existing monument sign located at 6400 Lohman Ford Road, Lugvisa subdivision

[1:39:17] Section 2, Law 6A, into an additional multi-tenant display area, and for relief of the required

[1:39:25] minimum setback for that existing sign base.

[1:39:31] Roy, if I may ask you,

[1:39:36] there's been some –

[1:39:41] there's application and it had several

[1:39:44] parts to it.

[1:39:46] Can you clarify exactly which variance or what variances we're – well, the applicant originally

[1:39:52] applied just for the new display area. Okay. In the process of evaluating that application,

[1:40:01] we determined, and this happens commonly, finding out that the existing sign did not meet

[1:40:09] the required setback. We went back and did the research in the ordinance. It was a requirement

[1:40:15] at the time it was simply constructed in the wrong place.

[1:40:20] So the applicant was asked to amend his application to include that setback relief in his request.

[1:40:27] In the interim, you guys passed a new sign ordinance, which includes a provision that this

[1:40:34] sort of additional display area can be part of a master sign approval process recommended

[1:40:42] by your comprehensive plan, by the way, to allow multi-tenant places to have additional sign

[1:40:49] area to encourage that sort of multi-tenant development. As a result, and perhaps there was

[1:40:57] even maybe a little method behind their madness that it would be speculative on my part, the Building

[1:41:05] and Standard Commission which is required to give a recommendation recommended that you

[1:41:11] only approve the setback variance and knowing that the applicant could then apply under the

[1:41:18] new sign ordinance for the additional display area. Perhaps that was to allow the staff

[1:41:25] to deal with the unpermitted improvements that the applicant is now starting to address

[1:41:30] and we're glad that he's starting to address them and we have the expectation that that

[1:41:34] will be taken care of but he can now apply for that additional display area

[1:41:42] administratively. Okay that is still part of his request. You know he did not

[1:41:47] amend his application again so you know that's what's in front of you

[1:41:52] potentially that just know that that's not what the building and standards

[1:41:56] commission recommended they recommended the set back only. All right thank you.

[1:42:04] So just to clarify, I think I'm understanding that we have some options.

[1:42:10] We can either approve both the setback and the base, or we can approve just the setback,

[1:42:16] and then ask them to apply through the master sign program to address that, or deny both if that was our preference.

[1:42:27] And denying both would mean he's got to rebuild the sign.

[1:42:30] Right, got to move it.

[1:42:31] Okay, thank you for that.

[1:42:33] And then I have a question.

[1:42:35] I just want to make sure that from the pictures,

[1:42:38] it looks like the size of the base is not changing.

[1:42:42] He just wants to change the makeup of the base.

[1:42:44] Is that correct?

[1:42:45] Well, he wants to apply those new display here.

[1:42:48] But he's not making it any larger.

[1:42:51] No, okay.

[1:42:52] No, and that's part of the basis of the master sign program.

[1:42:55] the approval means you don't add to clutter. That's part of the criteria.

[1:43:01] Anything that adds clutter, we don't want.

[1:43:03] Okay. All right. That's the only question I have. Thank you.

[1:43:07] Next. Yes.

[1:43:08] So, this particular property, they have some current code violations going on.

[1:43:17] Yes. And have for dating back to when this gentleman didn't own it.

[1:43:21] Yeah, the previous owner.

[1:43:23] And you and I had conversation about it, the most recent one happened easter weekend and

[1:43:27] they had the trailer with the junk cars on it and the bulldozer and all that kind of stuff.

[1:43:35] So I would just make the comment that I don't think we should grant any kind of variance

[1:43:40] until they cleaned up all of their code violations.

[1:43:43] And I would almost say that we tell them they got to go code violation free for six months

[1:43:50] before they get the granted.

[1:43:51] And this particular property has had a history over the last few years, previous owner

[1:43:56] in this owner of continual violations, flaunting everything, not listening to city staff,

[1:44:02] and it's pretty irritating to be honest with you.

[1:44:04] So anyway, that's just my opinion.

[1:44:06] It was kind of a game.

[1:44:06] We would cite them.

[1:44:07] They would correct it.

[1:44:09] Then do it right over again.

[1:44:11] And run back.

[1:44:12] Pass at the risk.

[1:44:13] Yeah.

[1:44:14] The point you just made, Roy, about citing the repeat, the cycle repeats, that was with the

[1:44:19] prior owner.

[1:44:20] Yes. Well, it actually he didn't own the property with the tenant. Okay, but that is not

[1:44:25] known with the current owner. Correct. Correct. The current owner is contending with outstanding code

[1:44:31] violations that he inherited or has created inheritance. We have gone over with it. They're not really

[1:44:37] that owners to correct. Has he really pretty simple? Has he expressed a willingness to correct them?

[1:44:42] Yes. Okay. So I would I would say that I don't feel the same way Mr. Sullivan does. I feel like

[1:44:51] having a caveat in an approval that this person who inherited these code

[1:44:56] violations resolved them.

[1:45:00] It's sufficient for me. Well, and I like the building of Saran's recommendation, personally, and then the administrative can follow with Roy. And here's the nice part about your new sign ordinance. It gives us the prerogative to impose those reasonable conditions, which would include exactly what you just said. And we would.

[1:45:24] Yes, clarifying question, Mayor. Did this current owner own the property on Easter Sunday when these most recent issues occurred?

[1:45:30] Yes. Okay. So then then there have been issues. Right. And we have cautioned him that he needed to put up a

[1:45:37] self-fence. It was the the self-fence was delivered to the property a couple of days ago. It was actually standing up.

[1:45:44] I believe as of this morning, which based on this rainstorm is good. You know the real issue here is

[1:45:50] is it's erosion control. This thing drains into a creek that drains into the lake. We need to contain

[1:45:57] that aggregate and start planting something and where the bear souls are. It's not real owners.

[1:46:09] I'm more inclined to the sentiments of my colleague next door here.

[1:46:16] I just haven't seen a lot of good faith on the part of this property to honor our regulations.

[1:46:27] was the owner of the property aware of the setback requirement when they built the sign?

[1:46:35] Oh, this day's back to when it was originally the setback dates back to when it was constructed.

[1:46:40] And I hate to tell you, I made the only person that checks this stuff.

[1:46:45] But every sign variance we ever had, I've checked it, every one of them had been in the setback.

[1:46:52] So we have had to deal with that repeatedly.

[1:46:54] With respect to the setback, it just seems like a classic case of its easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission.

[1:47:02] Yeah, I don't know. I mean, I can tell where basically the property line is.

[1:47:09] You can look where the utilities are.

[1:47:12] You can look at certain telltale signs.

[1:47:15] I don't know why it's so complicated.

[1:47:19] I'm not going to be in favor of granting the variance.

[1:47:27] So when

[1:47:30] it was originally constructed, it was permitted.

[1:47:36] It was permitted.

[1:47:37] Right.

[1:47:38] Whoever built it and whoever looked at it did not do a very good job, as all I can tell

[1:47:43] you.

[1:47:44] So it's more on who's in this building as opposed to a little bit about it.

[1:47:52] They put this way. The site plans clearly show it way in the setbacks.

[1:48:01] There's probably

[1:48:02] more than one party that has no good reason to have missed this, but they did.

[1:48:10] For me,

[1:48:13] the location of it in the setback, you guys have heard me give this speech before.

[1:48:19] What we really care about about that setback is traffic safety. It's really that freaking

[1:48:25] driveway that's too near that sign that really gives us a heartburn if it and that was done

[1:48:31] without a permit if he removes that there's no more sight distance problem. Is that the

[1:48:37] cross-granted you mentioned? Yes. So as far as the location variance I don't I don't I don't

[1:48:44] have a problem with us considering you know approving that the location variance but I'm kind of

[1:48:53] in favor of the new process like the recommendation from committee going to an administrative approval

[1:49:02] on the other part and then y'all holding them accountable to doing everything before he gets

[1:49:10] that other.

[1:49:11] I suspect that's what they had in mind, but they didn't say so and I didn't ask.

[1:49:27] We've even talked about the guys to get temporary erosion control in place, and we'll be happy and let you go, but you've got to do that.

[1:49:38] I'm happy with staff holding them accountable before that portion is granted.

[1:49:52] When code violations came before, I always said that what we're really striving for

[1:50:01] is compliance, not necessarily punishing somebody, but to get everybody into compliance.

[1:50:09] In that respect, since the unauthorized driveways going to have to be removed, my thought

[1:50:21] is that the variance for the setback is okay, but they need to bring everything else

[1:50:39] and compliance, and I would give them a time limit, you know, 60 days, or, you know,

[1:50:47] you'll file a complaint every day, and I think that's one of the underused portions

[1:50:53] of the city ordinances is you can file a complaint against them every day, and I think it's up

[1:51:00] to, I don't know whether these are 500 bucks a day or 2 grand a day, but it can be pretty

[1:51:06] stuff and get them brought in a compliance within 60 days.

[1:51:10] And the compliance is not real expensive.

[1:51:12] I just didn't think they knew how.

[1:51:14] And it's not hard and it wouldn't take a long time.

[1:51:18] So I think that's probably the way I would look at going but give them a timeline and let

[1:51:26] them know that if they don't do it, you're going to slap them every day so that I'll be

[1:51:30] pleased.

[1:51:30] I've read some fairly long emails and quoted the ordinance showed them exactly what to

[1:51:35] do.

[1:51:35] So, I mean, you know, when you can get those fines, rack it up daily, it'll get there

[1:51:41] intense.

[1:51:41] Mr. Prinship, remember, he was part of that erosion control, or this one when we wrote

[1:51:44] it.

[1:51:45] So,

[1:51:47] Kevin, thank you.

[1:51:49] So, first thing I want to do is say that my previous comments were probably part of frustration

[1:51:54] with the previous comments.

[1:51:55] And so, I'm going to fall on and admit that, and my second comment is, I like what Rob

[1:52:00] just said, you know, given the 60 days to come in, I'm in favor of approving the setback

[1:52:05] variants and that their other variants is conditional upon coming in compliance with current

[1:52:11] with the code and that they have 60 days and if they don't do it within 60 days, boom,

[1:52:16] we start hitting them on a daily basis with the compliance.

[1:52:18] We use that leverage all the time, you know, it may not be the what we should be doing, but

[1:52:25] the goal is compliance.

[1:52:27] I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Durban's statements, it's not, we're not trying to punish anybody

[1:52:36] Yes. So quick follow up then. I'm assuming part of that 60 days to come and compliance

[1:52:41] would include the removal of that driveway. When a motion is made, do those need to be

[1:52:48] specifically named what those things that need to come and compliance are? Or do we just

[1:52:54] need to make a blanket statement of, you know, all currently pending or current violations

[1:53:00] need to be addressed. It was what building and standards suggested which is to simply approve

[1:53:07] the setback and make the staff do the master sign program and leave it to us to impose

[1:53:14] this condition. No, we don't have to. That covers it because we're going to do that.

[1:53:19] Okay. Thank you. We should have some direction. But you can go. Absolutely. That's totally

[1:53:26] appropriate and we did hear you. And I suspect the applicant has heard you as

[1:53:30] well. Look at his applicant. I don't see him. No, but he wrote several emails

[1:53:36] before the day and we'll certainly report to it. Okay, because I didn't see him

[1:53:40] online here. He's been in conversation with both me and the code enforcement

[1:53:45] official for last several days.

[1:53:49] I would just make the request that when the

[1:53:52] motions made that it have those conditions, we talked about the 60 days and you

[1:53:55] that. Right. Yeah. You just as

[1:53:58] direction as staff or however

[1:54:00] that needs to be. Yeah.

[1:54:03] Right.

[1:54:04] Right. What the driveway has to

[1:54:08] come out? What else would you be?

[1:54:10] What else would you be? I think he's

[1:54:11] actually already done that and

[1:54:12] planted some seed and what we do in

[1:54:14] the interim. There's some edging that

[1:54:16] I just want to make sure 60 days is

[1:54:18] is not. Oh, this is unreal is

[1:54:20] expected because. Oh, really? This is

[1:54:21] contractors and getting people out

[1:54:23] there can be. This is a couple of

[1:54:25] days worth of work. Okay. They need to

[1:54:27] edge, the perimeter of where the silt fence?

[1:54:30] Well, the silt fence is up.

[1:54:31] That's temporary erosion control.

[1:54:33] I don't know if it was up or just on site.

[1:54:36] They have to edge the area that includes the aggregate

[1:54:38] because it's too light and too small

[1:54:40] and would otherwise run off into the creek

[1:54:45] until the bare soles are taken care of.

[1:54:48] They need to maintain temporary erosion controls.

[1:54:51] That can be a silt fence that they maintain

[1:54:54] or you can get sea to mulch and put it up there

[1:54:56] and then remove it once the whatever vegetation

[1:55:00] they decide the plant takes.

[1:55:02] I'm a big fan of wildflowers,

[1:55:04] but we have a long way to start.

[1:55:06] I mean, the first thing you have to try is holy,

[1:55:08] six days is sufficient.

[1:55:09] Boy, enough time.

[1:55:11] OK.

[1:55:12] So yeah, I'm cool with that.

[1:55:14] On the setback, approving the setback only,

[1:55:18] and then leaving staff to administer accordingly

[1:55:21] with a stipulation of 60 days.

[1:55:26] All right.

[1:55:26] Okay, well,

[1:55:29] for that point, I'll entertain a motion.

[1:55:31] What you're doing, Kevin.

[1:55:32] Oh, I was sitting back there and you said it on the gas.

[1:55:36] Okay, hang on.

[1:55:50] Yeah, I'm used to it.

[1:55:51] You taking care of it.

[1:55:53] Sorry.

[1:55:56] I will make a motion that we approve this setback variance

[1:56:02] that's been requested.

[1:56:04] And that the other variance that was requested

[1:56:06] It will be dealt with by staff through the master sign ordinance, and that we also provide

[1:56:12] direction to staff that they need to indicate to the applicant that they have 60 days to resolve

[1:56:18] all code violations on their property, and that if they're not taken care of in that time

[1:56:24] period, that they'll begin to get notices on a daily basis for fines associated with those

[1:56:28] code violations.

[1:56:30] All

[1:56:32] right.

[1:56:33] I had the motion in a second.

[1:56:34] Councilor Prince, Fairport-Tem Prince, I should say, in any discussion on the motion.

[1:56:43] All those in favor say aye.

[1:56:45] Aye.

[1:56:45] All those opposed nay, nay, motion carried, six to one.

[1:56:54] We are now on number nine.

[1:56:57] The discussion, consideration, and I'll authorizing the City Manager to begin preparing documents

[1:57:03] needed for the issuance of certificate of obligation

[1:57:08] was related to a fluid disposal and waste water treatment.

[1:57:18] Taylor.

[1:57:21] Before he starts, they're about to make me the presenter

[1:57:24] so he has the screen.

[1:57:26] But if you will recall during strategic planning,

[1:57:29] we talked about what items would be going on the COs.

[1:57:33] There was also a presentation that was made to the council

[1:57:36] after that and then we have been able to do some further analysis of what our

[1:57:42] systems can and cannot do, so that we can come back to you with some additional

[1:57:47] information. Councillor Sullivan asked us to check on a different option and Taylor

[1:57:53] will give you some information in regards to that about just the filter at the

[1:57:57] treatment plant, but most of this, well all of this, we have either verified the

[1:58:03] costs, or we have verified with an engineer what things need to happen, so that we can meet the needs of our public in the future.

[1:58:11] And with that, I'll take over to see in the staff report.

[1:58:17] I've gone pawn 17 is leaking, and that needs immediate attention.

[1:58:21] And I've tasked prison nickels with providing a cost for a place as is instead of building a Cadillac, if you will.

[1:58:29] and that cost came back at roughly 1.1 million to just

[1:58:33] re-line that. And also, as part of our F-load disposal

[1:58:37] permit, we are entering into phase three of the permit,

[1:58:42] which is going to require the construction of a third pond.

[1:58:46] And that pond would be pond two, which would be a part of this

[1:58:50] because we'd have to build pond two first before we can take

[1:58:53] pond 17 off line to re-line it.

[1:58:57] And that cost is roughly $1.2 million, and these are a drab opinion probable cost from the engineers.

[1:59:08] And the total cost for the Eiffelone holding ponds roughly between $2.6 and $2.9 million,

[1:59:14] which includes engineering and construction management fees.

[1:59:19] So on this one, I'd request $3 million for a CO bond issuance for the Eiffelone ponds.

[1:59:27] Oh yes, I have questions, but I don't think you're done yet.

[1:59:30] Yeah.

[1:59:30] I know.

[1:59:32] No, go ahead.

[1:59:33] Well, just a clarifying.

[1:59:34] So I'm looking at the slide here in the packet with the numbers, but this 1.2 million

[1:59:43] for relining pond 17, 1.1 million to build pond 2, total estimated cost for effluent.

[1:59:49] Does that total include the 1.2 and the 1.1, or it's in addition to the 1.2 and the 1.2

[1:59:56] one. That is total. So okay.

[2:00:00] The total is at 2.3, just for the ponds themselves, and then you throw in the engineering instruction administration, 2.6 to 2.6. Correct. Thank you. So if we are taking questions, question on this slide. I think I heard you say that we can't do bullet number one without doing bullet number two, have to build ponds two before we can repair ponds 17. That's a must. Okay. Now I see under the second main bullet,

[2:00:29] it there. The third bullet, sub bullet under there, it says cost does not include reinstalling

[2:00:36] a transmission line that was previously abandoned. So is the cost of reinstalling that transmission

[2:00:43] line also in the 2.6 to 2.9 million? Or shouldn't it be if it isn't?

[2:00:48] We don't know yet where that line was abandoned. We're trying to find out where that is, why

[2:00:54] Why it was abandoned, I have no idea.

[2:00:58] Still, we need to know that before we put out a CO bond.

[2:01:02] Right.

[2:01:03] Well, I've tasked with finding out a location of that.

[2:01:07] Typically, when you abandoned a line, you just cut it and cap it, and it where it teed off, and call it a day.

[2:01:14] So, I've tasked half with trying to locate that.

[2:01:17] Okay, because that could change the cost.

[2:01:19] Right?

[2:01:19] Couldn't that drive the cost up, depending where that line was abandoned?

[2:01:22] Great.

[2:01:22] It could drive the cost of.

[2:01:24] So, do you think we'll have that information, because I guess maybe this is a question

[2:01:28] for Tracy before I continue with some of these questions.

[2:01:32] Is this giving permission to start drafting the documents needed for the CO bonds, but knowing

[2:01:40] that we're still pending final numbers, or are we talking tonight final numbers for you

[2:01:46] to draft these documents, because if we're talking final numbers tonight, I don't think

[2:01:49] we're there.

[2:01:51] Not necessarily final numbers, but I will say that this transmission line, even if it's not included in this cost, there is a very healthy fund balance in the utility.

[2:02:03] So not this one cost would not necessarily have to be on your seat.

[2:02:09] This one costs for that transmission line would probably fall within our regular utilities budget, and it would be funded out of that.

[2:02:16] that. Can I just to follow on to that? Is it fair, Tracy, to say the numbers we're looking

[2:02:22] at tonight are good faith estimates of what we will end up with on the bonds, but may

[2:02:28] change? Yes. Okay. We're asking, and most of these have been confirmed, that small item

[2:02:34] where the transition transmission line, but like I said, some of these costs can be covered

[2:02:41] because you have an extremely healthy balance.

[2:02:44] But some of the other numbers, and I know you haven't gotten there yet,

[2:02:48] so I don't want to jump ahead too far,

[2:02:50] because I have these same kinds of concerns when we get to the numbers

[2:02:54] for type one, type two, and expanding,

[2:02:58] where it almost seems like there's the same numbers we looked at in February.

[2:03:02] They almost seem like they're shots in the dark,

[2:03:04] because they all say draft numbers.

[2:03:07] numbers, none of them have been verified by freeze and nickels and we're still pending

[2:03:13] those numbers.

[2:03:14] So it almost seems like they're total guesses, you know, 20 to 24 million, so we're

[2:03:19] just going to split it in the middle and ask for 22.

[2:03:21] And I have some concern about that because what we said back in February was that we want

[2:03:27] to be really careful that the numbers we put out on a CO bond are as accurate as they can

[2:03:33] be.

[2:03:34] I mean, right, we can't guarantee they're going to be perfect, right?

[2:03:38] Because we don't want to put out a CEO bond that's too high, or too low, either of which

[2:03:44] are good for the community, right?

[2:03:45] If we put it out for too low, we have to ask for another CEO bond.

[2:03:47] If we put it out and it's too high, now we've got extra money in it, it just doesn't look

[2:03:50] like we've planned well to our citizens, and that's kind of my concern on some of these numbers.

[2:03:56] Is it almost seems like they're not solid estimates of what the cost may be?

[2:04:02] Can you shed some light on that?

[2:04:03] Yes. The calls that are provided were looked at by freezing nickels, and they are comfortable

[2:04:09] with these numbers based on what they've been seeing in the market currently.

[2:04:15] To really fine tune these numbers, I'd have to hire a geotech firm to come in, bore

[2:04:21] some wells, figure out what the subsurface looks like, and plan around that. So in lieu of doing

[2:04:30] that, they provided a fairly sound window of cost that you're going to be looking at

[2:04:35] for these improvements.

[2:04:36] Okay, so I think I'm hearing you say then that these are about as close to good estimates

[2:04:42] as we can be without hiring a firm to come in boreholes.

[2:04:48] Right, and the final cost estimate was really unknown until the engineer goes and designs

[2:04:54] of a facility.

[2:04:55] Okay.

[2:04:55] That's when you have a pretty good indicator down to, you know, the nearest $100, $200,000

[2:05:01] is to what it's going to actually cost.

[2:05:03] Okay.

[2:05:04] So you're comfortable that these are as good as we're going to get right now.

[2:05:08] Yes, ma'am.

[2:05:08] Okay.

[2:05:09] All right.

[2:05:09] That's helpful.

[2:05:10] Thank you.

[2:05:10] We have vetted these several times, not just between staff, but also with phrasing nickels

[2:05:16] because we had some questions on our own.

[2:05:19] But again, this is about as good as it gets without having those engineering designs,

[2:05:23] which is going to be a part of the cost anyway in most of the time that's part of the contingency

[2:05:28] to make sure that we can allow for some of those things. We did the unknowns that are going to

[2:05:32] happen when we start this process. Okay. Okay part of my question got answered but I wanted to come

[2:05:43] back to this because and I assume it's not in here because we already approved it was the irrigation

[2:05:51] of the water of the golf course, all of the pipes and sprinklers and all of that sort of stuff.

[2:05:57] But that's all part of the same CO bond, isn't it?

[2:06:00] That is correct.

[2:06:00] And yes, this is the only, there were several questions in regards to just the affluent and the ponds,

[2:06:05] and that's why we're bringing that back.

[2:06:07] And then you will see the irrigation included when we bring back the language for the CO.

[2:06:12] Okay, that's it.

[2:06:13] That's what I wanted to make real clear is that these numbers are in addition to that.

[2:06:18] That is correct.

[2:06:19] Not, not just the objective with building pontu and then getting the irrigation set up.

[2:06:26] So Sean can irrigate the golf course indefinitely from my system.

[2:06:31] Yeah, he's not having to rely on my staff to send water out to him.

[2:06:35] He can control himself.

[2:06:36] No, I get it.

[2:06:37] I think the building of pontu is a great idea and we need to do it.

[2:06:46] Okay, that's the only question I have for that.

[2:06:49] Yeah, and I was just going to ask a question about this area 2.2.

[2:06:53] So this transmission line, I mean, it's had water in it in the last 10 to 15 years.

[2:07:01] So it wasn't that long ago that it was in use.

[2:07:04] Are we saying that we just, we don't have any clue about that transmission line right now?

[2:07:11] We know there's some in the ground. We don't know how far it is. We don't know where it was cut and

[2:07:15] capped. Or if it was cut and capped, you could be at a clock as well. Because we did open up a

[2:07:20] shawnt open the valve to it and nothing came out. Okay. Okay. But bottom line is on two doesn't exist

[2:07:29] without the transmission line. We have to have that. Right. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[2:07:43] Moving on

[2:07:43] to start the design process for a plant upgrade.

[2:07:47] With that plant upgrade looks like whether it's 1.5 or 2MGD, that's still up in the air

[2:07:53] right now.

[2:07:54] I've had, we've installed a new meter and we're in the process of acquiring the data vetting

[2:08:01] it and calibrating the meter to make sure that information I'm getting is trustworthy.

[2:08:06] early. And we should have the calibration finalized this time next week. So I'll have better

[2:08:14] numbers at that point. What will those numbers indicate exactly? Those numbers will indicate

[2:08:22] how much flow we are receiving at the plant. And the reason I have instructed staff to install

[2:08:29] it there is the current effluent meter that we have at the plant was incorrectly placed.

[2:08:35] And it's not measuring the flow that's leaving the plant accurately.

[2:08:39] So with that, you'll be able to better determine what our wastewater capacity is right now?

[2:08:44] Correct.

[2:08:45] And you said you'll have those numbers probably next week, is that, is it then, therefore,

[2:08:49] say for us to assume that you can bring back some more reliable numbers regarding our wastewater

[2:08:55] capacity, perhaps by May?

[2:09:00] Yes, probably this time in May I would have a good month's worth of data that we can trend and just get a good monthly average flow.

[2:09:09] That's what we base it on and the calibration will be done this time next week and I can then trust the data I'm receiving.

[2:09:19] I think everybody on this council is extremely concerned about water waste water capacity.

[2:09:26] So getting that data from you as soon as possible would be appreciated and having that

[2:09:30] month to verify that with it in the new location and the new flow meters, it's accurate.

[2:09:37] The last update we got from you was from in October, which incorporated anticipated LUE allocations

[2:09:44] over a period of time.

[2:09:45] So looking forward to that.

[2:09:47] Thank you.

[2:09:47] Yep, y'all I have as soon as I get it.

[2:09:50] That's amazing.

[2:09:51] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:09:53] So I think I'm also hearing you say that once you have that good kind of trend data,

[2:10:00] we can better determine whether or not the upgrade needs to be 1.5 or 2 MGD, correct?

[2:10:06] At a minimum right now, you need a 1.5 or an upgrade to 1.5 MGD, and we just don't know if

[2:10:14] We need to bump it up to two years yet, but at a minimum, you need 1.5.

[2:10:18] What I don't see then on page 41 of the packet is a bullet that has, you have one bullet

[2:10:24] that says remain at type 2 treatment and upgrade capacity to 1.5 MGD, but I don't see that

[2:10:29] same bullet with a cost estimate for remain at type 2 treatment and upgrade capacity to 2

[2:10:34] MGD.

[2:10:35] But 1.5 is 8 to 10 million, do you have any kind of idea if that's the option, let's just

[2:10:41] say we ended up going with.

[2:10:42] And it was two MGD instead of 1.5. How much that would potentially add to the cost there?

[2:10:48] You're looking at just for the plan of rate itself between $17 and $20 a gallon.

[2:10:54] Which that equate to $17 and $20 million plus about 1.5 for engineering and construction

[2:11:01] administration fees.

[2:11:02] So instead of 8 to 10 million, you're saying 17 to 20 for that additional 0.5 MGD.

[2:11:09] That's huge.

[2:11:13] Yeah. Good question. I mean, those numbers are just got less. That's a lot of money. Yeah.

[2:11:20] For perspective, help me understand. Is this, you know, like construction costs, everything's

[2:11:25] high still. We're still while things are rolling over, we really haven't seen that flow cut.

[2:11:33] We haven't seen that materialize in all amongst all trades and businesses. Are these exceptionally

[2:11:40] High numbers consisted with the times or put another way what would this have cost ten years ago?

[2:11:47] Five years ago. Well, in my previous city, we did a plan upgrade going from 0.6 to 0.99

[2:11:56] and that cost was roughly 5.8, 6.2 million. Without doing the napkin math, do you recall,

[2:12:04] you cited a per gallon number a moment ago. Do you know what that was?

[2:12:10] and Taylor, when your city did that, when was that?

[2:12:14] That was 2020-2021.

[2:12:19] Okay, so not that long, who?

[2:12:20] Yeah, okay.

[2:12:21] So on a per gallon basis, we'll do $6 million.

[2:12:31] That was roughly a $30 per gallon.

[2:12:33] And what is this?

[2:12:35] What is the $17 to $20 gallon?

[2:12:39] So it went down?

[2:12:41] Volume.

[2:12:42] Right, right.

[2:12:42] But also that particular plant needed a really hefty upgrade.

[2:12:46] it was a very ancient system.

[2:12:50] Maybe wishful thinking perhaps,

[2:12:52] and I don't think it's gonna be consequential

[2:12:53] to this conversation this evening,

[2:12:55] but when I look at my macroeconomic indicators

[2:12:58] and I see talk of an impending recession,

[2:13:02] constantly in the Wall Street Journal

[2:13:03] and in other publications and my charts

[2:13:05] that I see on a daily basis,

[2:13:08] that's expected in here by the end of the year in Q4.

[2:13:14] The wishful thinking is that this could be cheaper

[2:13:16] at a later time, re-bidding in, when it comes time to actually do this, that's why I was

[2:13:24] asking about having a reference to the pens.

[2:13:29] And maybe the best option is to fund the engineering design for these upgrades and get a more

[2:13:36] fine-tune cause for any CO issuance later on.

[2:13:41] That's an option.

[2:13:42] I think the one one thing I would submit is that the one bit of optimism in this might be is that, you know, by the time we would get a bond to market is the, you know, with the Fed, the market is currently anticipating a 25 point basis cut in Q4 in anticipation of that recession to stimulate things is maybe our borrowing costs will be less by the time this comes to market.

[2:14:09] Thank you.

[2:14:13] The first bullet point first major bullet point here talks about that it's not recommended

[2:14:18] to install filters at 17 for type 1 treatment.

[2:14:23] Isn't that what we were going to do for to start watering the sunset mark with type 1?

[2:14:30] Yes, and then during the strategic planning, they all asked me to go back and look at possibly

[2:14:36] doing that upon 17, that way you're just spending the money once, but in order to do so it would

[2:14:42] create such a nightmares burden on staff as you more or less be filtering algae at this point.

[2:14:48] And you're spending more time and money cleaning the filters and it's not guaranteed

[2:14:54] to get to the level of treatment that TCQ requires. But we're still talking about doing the filter

[2:15:00] To water the park. Is that right? Where's that going out of the way? That's kind of gone out the way right now. It's not recommended upon 17. And I'd love to see type 1 treatment at the plant because as we increase capacity, we're going to run into issues with where we can dispose of. And with type 1, we have a lot more flexibility on where we can dispose of our, our treated effluent.

[2:15:30] That's W5 to 40 million, right?

[2:15:31] Thank you.

[2:15:34] So what

[2:15:39] you're recommending is doing the treatment type one treatment conversion

[2:15:45] whatever at the plant. Yes. And then wastewater will flow from there to the various holding

[2:15:50] ponds. Correct. And then it will be used to be sprayed either on the golf course, cedar

[2:15:53] breaks or if it's type one, it can be splated, sprayed at the park. Correct. So you've described

[2:16:00] the fact that you don't think filtration at the pond itself would be sufficient and you

[2:16:06] don't know that you get to where you need to be and it would be nightmarish for staff.

[2:16:11] So two thoughts.

[2:16:12] I mean, when you do the filtration at the plant, the water is good, and let's say you do

[2:16:17] it to type one, it's then going to flow to the ponds and what's to stop algae and other

[2:16:23] things forming on those ponds after the water is gone from the treatment plant out to the

[2:16:28] ponds.

[2:16:29] Well, there's going to be less of a nutrient load in that water for algae to eat on, plus

[2:16:35] we'll have bio boost installed at these facilities which keep the algae down.

[2:16:42] But bottom line is as we still could have the issue where things happen, well, hell, we

[2:16:48] talked about the other day.

[2:16:49] We saw dead deer floating on the top of the pond the other day.

[2:16:53] That's going to introduce some crap in there that probably shouldn't be there.

[2:16:55] So I guess my real point being I don't see how treatment at the treatment plan itself is going to help solve the problem when things can get introduced to those ponds

[2:17:06] Very easily held ducks coming down there and swimming there and they crap in there and deer die in there

[2:17:12] And so I guess my question I just don't understand how we can be effective at doing type one treatment at the plant

[2:17:21] and then just have to go out to the pond.

[2:17:24] It seems to me we should filter as it leaves the pond

[2:17:26] if we want true type one in our system.

[2:17:29] And I guess the follow up question would be,

[2:17:32] you talk about it being nightmarish

[2:17:33] and overwhelming for staff,

[2:17:35] but it's gonna be more than 13 to $18 million nightmarish,

[2:17:40] because that's what we're talking about,

[2:17:41] the cost associated with doing treatment to type one

[2:17:45] at the water treatment plan.

[2:17:46] Right. I understand where you're coming from, and my objective here is to send clean water

[2:17:54] to Sean, and it will still get filtered to some degree as it's leaving pond 17 because

[2:17:59] you're right. Stuff's still going to grow in it, animals are going to get in it, but

[2:18:06] a biological treatment process will ensure that it's done according to TCQ standards as

[2:18:13] opposed to trying to filter it as it's leaving the pawn, subjecting these filters to all

[2:18:19] those conditions that you were speaking of.

[2:18:21] That way, it can be cleaner, it's easier to maintain, it's done at the plant, and staff

[2:18:27] is always going to have their eyes on it to make sure that we're sitting out type 1.

[2:18:32] Yeah, I'm sorry, I just don't see spend in $13, $18 million to do the treatment, the conversion

[2:18:39] to type 1 at the plant.

[2:18:40] I just don't see the benefit, but that's just me at one opinion.

[2:18:45] Can I ask you to just talk through the process of treatment since, to me, like the process

[2:18:52] of treatment at the plant to get to type one, is a completely different process than what

[2:18:57] would be happening at the moment, is it correct, and can you describe it?

[2:19:00] It would be a biological, chemical process as opposed to a mechanical process.

[2:19:05] us. But obviously during design of all this, we will have value engineering done to figure

[2:19:15] out the most economical solution to get there. And just to follow my question, that biological

[2:19:21] chemical process would not be distributed out to the ponds at a cheaper rate than doing

[2:19:27] it centrally. The CCQ would feel more comfortable with it being done at the tree at one place.

[2:19:36] Yeah, exactly. Let them pay for it. That's what rough said.

[2:19:43] Thank you, Mayor. Actually, I wanted to point something out. So it's really not 13 to 18 million.

[2:19:50] 13 to 18 million is the cost to go to type to type one treatment without upgrading the facility.

[2:19:56] If we're because I'm hearing no matter what, we're going to have to upgrade.

[2:19:59] So in my opinion, selecting one of these options that doesn't include a capacity upgrade

[2:20:06] is really nonsensical.

[2:20:10] So really what we're talking about is if we want to upgrade and then go from type 2 to

[2:20:16] type 1 at the plant, it's really 35 to 40 million, not 13 to 18, is that correct?

[2:20:22] Right.

[2:20:22] If you're going to go to 2 million or 2 MGD, yeah, your cost is going to be 35 to 40 and

[2:20:28] This 35 to 40 is an estimate that I provided based on the numbers that freezing nickels had given me

[2:20:36] What's some no swag involved with it, but

[2:20:40] It's also going to include an additional pond and some contingencies as well because as we increase our treatment

[2:20:47] We have to have additional effluent storage capacity

[2:20:51] so even if we went with

[2:20:53] It's changing to type 1 at the plant and it was 1.5 instead of 2, we're still talking

[2:20:59] probably close to 30 million.

[2:21:03] What's going from type 2 to type 1 with an upgrade of 1.5, you're 20 to 24.

[2:21:09] Well, yeah, that's true.

[2:21:10] You kind of went in the middle of 22.

[2:21:13] So it's not 13 to 18 is my point.

[2:21:15] It's really 22.

[2:21:16] Ish.

[2:21:17] Right.

[2:21:18] And I only use that 13 to 18 because that was the only option where he isolated the type

[2:21:22] want to type two or type two type one conversion yeah and I reckon I hear a hundred percent right

[2:21:28] it's probably going to be more because we have to increase capacity yeah and and I just I just

[2:21:33] don't see the value of just keep doing type two and yeah we don't get to water the park but we say

[2:21:39] you know a shit ton of money yeah fun intended I mean I mean citizen money I mean we're it's

[2:21:46] It's bond money, but it's getting paid for somewhere, right?

[2:21:49] Right.

[2:21:50] And once we get up to $2 million, we're going to have issues putting out a lot of that water.

[2:21:56] There's only a few places we can put it out where it's not going to come in contact.

[2:22:02] My kids or folks are going around in it.

[2:22:05] Golf courses, one, two, three, two, three.

[2:22:08] With type one, you then open it up to your medians, your schools can water their grass with it.

[2:22:22] We're going to have an issue disposing of that, that at type 2 epsilon and if we upgraded

[2:22:26] to type 1, we'd have more flexibility.

[2:22:30] And another $20 million.

[2:22:31] Yeah.

[2:22:32] So, my question is, could we go with the option that was just expanding to the 1.5 and

[2:22:39] hold out an option of introducing a filter over it, seeder breaks so we could then use

[2:22:45] Is that water to water sunset port, for example, and expand our distribution that way?

[2:22:51] And hopefully the cost is significant less if all we're doing is putting a filter on

[2:22:54] Plan VII on Plan VII.

[2:22:55] So you're re-expawning.

[2:22:56] Excuse me.

[2:22:58] Right.

[2:23:01] I'll take a closer look at that one, because, like I said, as we increase either 1.5 or

[2:23:07] 2, we're going to have to expand and see the re-expawn.

[2:23:13] We might have to add an additional pawn on the golf or somewhere.

[2:23:17] And more or less, we're going to have to double the effort and storage we have now to

[2:23:21] accommodate 2MGD if that's the upgrade we're needing.

[2:23:26] That cost isn't in here though, it's right.

[2:23:30] Not at this point, no, because this is...

[2:23:34] I added this 2MGD upgrade to the slide at the last minute without having enough time to

[2:23:41] go through and get pond added, but just assume about 1 to 1.5 per pond, plus transmission

[2:23:47] lines to get there.

[2:23:48] 1 to 1.5 million?

[2:23:50] Yes, ma'am.

[2:23:50] Okay.

[2:23:51] So, instead of 8 to 10 million, well, if it was two MGDs and still you're saying instead

[2:23:59] of 22, we potentially 23, 24.

[2:24:02] Correct.

[2:24:03] Okay.

[2:24:06] I've got a kind of a fundamental confusion, Taylor, so my memory of the discussion we talked

[2:24:14] about, the critical need for putting fixing the irrigation on the golf course so that

[2:24:19] we had plenty of area for distribution of effluent type 2.

[2:24:26] But now what I'm hearing is that may not be enough area for us, and I thought the numbers

[2:24:34] we had looked at, that was more than enough. And so I'm confused now. Are we near at

[2:24:41] two million gallons per day? Are we near the limit or over the limit? I thought we were

[2:24:48] fine with type two. There were some benefits for type one if it wasn't ridiculous. But now I'm

[2:24:54] starting to hear maybe we're not fine with type two. So can you help? Unconfuse me?

[2:24:58] Yeah, type one gives you flexibility. Type two is limited to

[2:25:04] state of breaks behind offense and golf course irrigation.

[2:25:10] And we are planting somewhere between 750K a day to 900.

[2:25:17] That's where we are right now. And I just want to make sure that we put

[2:25:24] ourselves in the right spot to be able to dispose of that additional

[2:25:28] million gallons if that's the upgrade we need. Okay, let me ask my question in a different way. So

[2:25:33] Cedar breaks behind the fence plus the golf course. How much type two effluent could we disperse on

[2:25:39] that amount of land? At 1 million, 2 million, 10 million gallons per day? I haven't had that

[2:25:44] discussion with TCEQ yet, so I don't know the answer to that. So that's not an engineering question,

[2:25:48] that's a TCEQ approval question. Correct. Well, we're allowed by the permit. What are we permitted for now?

[2:25:58] We're permitted for 140 acres of all of our works, and then 60 acres, that's the right, without a volume.

[2:26:06] It's, I want to say, 3.45 acre feet per unit, and I forget what that unit is.

[2:26:14] I'll go back and look at the permit.

[2:26:15] So there's two questions, right?

[2:26:17] There's, if TCEQ gave us everything that we could do, how much could we distribute on that existing land of type 2 affluent?

[2:26:27] is that below 2 million gallons per day or above 2 million?

[2:26:31] I think that's a critical question for us to understand.

[2:26:33] It really is.

[2:26:34] We just haven't had a chance to get in front of TCQ yet to really get the netty-grady figure out.

[2:26:41] I'm trying to separate it out.

[2:26:42] There's an engineering question.

[2:26:45] And then there's the what will TCQ approve question?

[2:26:48] I think there are two separate questions.

[2:26:49] So, you could, if you said, if T.C. you let me do whatever I wanted to, then on the behind-of-the-fans portion of the park and the golf course, I could do X million gallons per day.

[2:27:03] That's a number I'd like to see. And then T.C., you could potentially lower that on us, but it's not going to go any higher than that.

[2:27:11] Right, so during the conversations I've had with the irrigation architects, the system they're redesigning or designing is going to be capable of pumping out 1.5 million a day.

[2:27:25] Just based on sheer volume just for the golf course just for the golf course.

[2:27:31] And do we know about the park side of that? How much more can be done up there?

[2:27:41] So you're right now we're at 60 acres and we can go a little bit more, so there is room for additional disposal up there.

[2:27:54] It feels to me like back in the envelope, we can distribute two million gallons per day type two effluent with the land that we have available to.

[2:28:04] biometrically it's not an issue, it's just going to be T.C.

[2:28:06] It can permit it.

[2:28:06] Well, because we could expand C to rigs further.

[2:28:08] That's right.

[2:28:09] Yeah, that's right.

[2:28:10] And we actually have the little right to use all another golf course, which technically,

[2:28:16] which we don't know much about.

[2:28:18] Others.

[2:28:19] Somebody would have to fix pipes probably.

[2:28:20] Yeah.

[2:28:21] The only thing we know about the pipes is what we've heard from Aaron's hairdresser.

[2:28:27] Yeah, that's right.

[2:28:30] So we probably ought to look into it and figure out what it'll take.

[2:28:35] If I may, so it's kind of sounding to me more and more like even though type one would

[2:28:42] be great, it's more of a want than it is a need.

[2:28:45] Sounds like we can actually accommodate what we need with type two if we expand Cedar

[2:28:50] Breaks and we redo the irrigation at the golf course, but it would be nice if we could

[2:28:57] have type one.

[2:28:58] But I think what I'm looking at is making sure that we're taking care of what we need.

[2:29:03] Right.

[2:29:04] And if it means another 15 million to get a want, I'm not there.

[2:29:09] I'm not there.

[2:29:10] That's why we're having a discussion, so I'll get you all's flavor for what, which I'm wearing.

[2:29:17] So if we just went for volume at this point, what kind of effect would it have on the price

[2:29:27] I guess to add it, the filters later at the plant.

[2:29:33] Yeah.

[2:29:33] I can certainly task engineers with designing it for a future phase to where any additional

[2:29:40] treatment process can be just installed relatively.

[2:29:47] I mean, I know with inflation and stuff that would go up, but I'm just wondering if it would

[2:29:53] be that much if we took that portion out now and saved it for later if it would be that

[2:30:00] What's different?

[2:30:03] Because I'm kind of with her, uh, rather get our volume taken care of first. And they'll look at. Treatment, and I can certainly ask the engineers to when they're designing it to, uh, to look at doing it, where you mean, all a cart later.

[2:30:19] I'm trying to figure out how you're going to determine whether we look to go to 1.5 or 2. Once you've got this new meter installed and you nailed down or we, you know, 750 a day or, you know, nine under whatever is if we're close to 750 or

[2:30:33] do you think 1.5 is going to be enough and if we're at 900 we're probably need to go to two.

[2:30:38] That's correct. Okay. Okay. And then that's something we'll know in the next month or so.

[2:30:42] Yes sir. And one final question I forget for Tracy. Are you trying to shoot to get

[2:30:46] the CEO in front of us for approval to move forward by the end of May? Is that what you're trying to do?

[2:30:52] Well that would have been really nice but the council during strategic planning said you wanted

[2:30:58] and something ready before May.

[2:31:00] And so we've been trying to nail down that,

[2:31:02] at least get some sort of agreement from you as a council

[2:31:05] so that we can go back and really refine these numbers.

[2:31:08] What I do not want to do is go back.

[2:31:10] I've had our financial advisor do a team trillion

[2:31:14] different versions of this.

[2:31:16] And I'm not in favor of going back to him

[2:31:18] until I get some solid decisions from you all.

[2:31:21] And then at that point, I will go back to Tom

[2:31:23] and ask him for those numbers.

[2:31:25] And so that he can work that will also

[2:31:28] have to be brought back to you. So, at this point, I don't see anything happening

[2:31:31] until mid-June. It's not later than that. And I'll just follow up by saying, you

[2:31:36] and I had a conversation, you had a fear with what the state legislature is doing

[2:31:39] is, you know, trying to get in by the end of May, just in case they pass up and

[2:31:42] it goes into effect almost immediately. If they, so legislations last day is

[2:31:48] May 29. Normally, what they will do is they will not put anything back into law

[2:31:53] until September. Right. What I cannot guarantee you, and as you know, this

[2:31:56] legislatures being pretty funny that they wouldn't retroact something.

[2:32:03] Now, they would hopefully already have a bond out there, but I don't know what that

[2:32:08] looks like.

[2:32:08] So, I mean, time is of the essence, and we're doing everything we can to get this moving

[2:32:13] forward.

[2:32:14] So, there's also clauses in there that they can add to make it take effect immediately, but

[2:32:22] But I think it has a pass by supermajority or something like that, but they can't make it

[2:32:27] go.

[2:32:27] I don't know about retroactive, but I know they make it start day one.

[2:32:32] So bottom line is even though you want to try and get something by the end of May, it's

[2:32:35] much more likely to be in the June timeframe before we kind of nail this down.

[2:32:39] Okay.

[2:32:39] Thank you.

[2:32:40] I did want to add something to Mr. Prince's question about the golf course and the capacity

[2:32:45] of how much water that we can put out per day.

[2:32:48] Yes, the system can put out 1.5 million gallons per day.

[2:32:52] But on days like this, when it's raining, we are going to have another lake.

[2:32:59] So to be able to put water somewhere else would benefit the actual golf course itself,

[2:33:06] because putting too much water can kill the golf course, as we've seen already.

[2:33:12] But the architect did assure me that we can put 500,000 gallons per day every day, no

[2:33:20] matter what in non-Golf areas.

[2:33:22] That's a guarantee.

[2:33:23] We can do that.

[2:33:24] But putting out 1.5 million gallons a day, it will absolutely just kill the golf course.

[2:33:30] Just wanted to add that.

[2:33:32] So we all know numbers.

[2:33:35] Thank you.

[2:33:36] So Taylor can you clarify the window that we're looking at here so when we're saying should be 1.5 million or should it be two are we talking about a 10 year plan or 20 year plan what's what's the numbers for that?

[2:33:52] So,

[2:33:56] if we are in fact on the high end of our Plan Capacity and we just went to 1.5 at

[2:34:03] the end of the construction of that Plan, we would have to be in the design phase of two

[2:34:09] unupgrade to two.

[2:34:11] So you're looking at two men a day upgrade, we'll get you more or less double the population

[2:34:21] we have now.

[2:34:21] So right now we have roughly 5400 connections that would get us another 5400 connections for a total of about 11,000.

[2:34:30] Okay, that's important because when we come back to the later agenda item on how much water we want to reserve with LCRA, we're talking about a 20 year plan.

[2:34:43] And so, but what we're talking about here for this wastewater plan is a upgrade to get

[2:34:53] us to maybe 10 years.

[2:34:55] If we assume, I think the same growth rates that we're talking about on other fronts.

[2:35:01] Right.

[2:35:01] I would think maybe a little longer than a 10-year plan for this.

[2:35:05] It's just a no one that development is coming and accounting for that would be one of the

[2:35:13] deciding factors.

[2:35:14] There's a lot of large developments that are wanting to come in that we need it this

[2:35:18] capacity for and if we just went to, you know, if we're on the high end right now and we

[2:35:22] just go to 1.5 and then get solid up like that and then there's no more room for infield

[2:35:27] development.

[2:35:29] Thanks for clarifying that and I think there's really a question for council more than

[2:35:32] it is for you, right?

[2:35:33] Do we want City staff to do in this upgrade to set us up for how long do we want this upgrade to set us up for?

[2:35:41] Do we want this to set us up for five years, 10 years or 20 years, right?

[2:35:45] And what I'm hearing is staff is kind of the numbers that are coming in front of us is kind of a 10-year plan.

[2:35:51] Give or take what happens with growth.

[2:35:53] Right.

[2:35:56] Yes, Councilmember.

[2:35:57] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:35:59] I have another question.

[2:36:00] So thinking about Cedar breaks,

[2:36:03] We know that we can increase the number of acres that we're using in Cedar breaks if

[2:36:07] we need to, right?

[2:36:08] Because it might require modifying our TCEQ permit, but we have the land.

[2:36:15] When you say it includes what's behind the fence.

[2:36:20] Are we talking what is, you know, past the fields that are there now, the ball fields that

[2:36:26] are there now, or are we also talking to land up along the side between where the

[2:36:31] current soccer field and to Sarah is is that would that also be include in

[2:36:38] potential land where we would spread affluent? No ma'am, so when I say behind

[2:36:42] defense it would be that black fence is immediately behind the ballfields.

[2:36:45] Okay, where they wanted to originally install the archery range. So if we have to

[2:36:51] expand our acreage it would only be in that area or would we also potentially need

[2:36:55] to eat up some of that acreage that's now between the soccer field and Tisera.

[2:37:05] You see where I'm going with the reason why I'm asking the questions.

[2:37:08] I don't have the answer for that question.

[2:37:10] Yeah, there's a lot of, they're getting a lot of the weeds that we haven't.

[2:37:13] These are a lot of the, this is the reason why there's such as a wide range of numbers.

[2:37:20] We've been tasked with planning something that usually takes six months to a year

[2:37:25] in a matter of just a few months.

[2:37:26] So that's why there's missing information.

[2:37:29] Okay, that's an important question I think before we approve what may be coming to us as a future agenda item.

[2:37:38] Yep.

[2:37:44] Did you get what you needed, Tracy?

[2:37:47] I'm actually saying here thinking, so I have a question for Taylor.

[2:37:51] Can we get that number without doing a design?

[2:37:58] because if we can't, then it doesn't make sense to do a CO anywhere in the near future

[2:38:04] because we're going to have to design it out to make sure that we can get to that number.

[2:38:08] Which number is it you're talking about? The whether or not we can use that acreage that you're

[2:38:12] talking about, which is the soccer fields and if we needed an additional until they build that out,

[2:38:20] I want to make sure that you know we understand what that looks like. Well, I think the important

[2:38:24] question is are we going to need it? And that I'm not sure I understand why that would take six

[2:38:30] months to get an answer to whether or not you think we might need that plan.

[2:38:34] Yes well the upgrade the size of Cedar Rex pond to accommodate the additional flow and when you

[2:38:40] upgrade the size and upgrade the disposal process so the answer is yes we're going to need it now

[2:38:47] how much we need I don't know or when and that was the the question that I'm kind of pondering

[2:38:54] on is that how much we're going to need, we won't know until they do the design is what

[2:38:59] I'm thinking.

[2:38:59] And I could be wrong, but that's normally what happens.

[2:39:03] Right.

[2:39:03] A lot of these questions get shook out during the design process.

[2:39:06] Exactly right.

[2:39:09] I was just going to suggest kind of reiterating what I think I'm hearing and seeing if y'all

[2:39:15] are hearing the same thing as me that what I'm hearing is we had significant sticker shock

[2:39:20] on the type two to type one so that is probably off the table unless staff comes back and

[2:39:25] tells us we're making a huge mistake and I'm not hearing that so that's one thing.

[2:39:32] The second thing is to me you know this one and a half versus two million we have a lot

[2:39:39] of growth coming and especially if we're taking this type conversion off the table I'd

[2:39:44] let's say, let's just go ahead and get the two million.

[2:39:47] And then, you know, go back and see as we get smarter,

[2:39:52] how far that carries us and what the growth looks like.

[2:39:55] We may have to, we or a future council may have to make

[2:39:57] some other decisions in five years, but I think that

[2:40:02] hopefully sets us up for a good 10 year run without having

[2:40:05] to go reinvest in a treatment plan.

[2:40:09] So those are kind of the two things that come out to me.

[2:40:15] And then there's a lot of detailed questions that will come out.

[2:40:17] But I think if we say we should get a CEO going to cover a two million gallon per day upgrade.

[2:40:24] And I'm not going to type conversion and get moving on this thing.

[2:40:29] I'm not going to type conversion, but do perhaps be type conversions ready.

[2:40:34] And I think we need to understand what the cost of being ready is.

[2:40:37] Yeah, sometimes that's it's full money investment right and some of the stuff that being

[2:40:42] ready with water treatment plant 3 is a good example right it didn't pan out the way it was supposed to pan out.

[2:40:48] I would just add to that that you know it seemed like whether it was that strategic planning or when our previous

[2:40:53] conversation about the irrigation system when we were comparing Cedar Brakes versus the irrigation

[2:40:58] system that we talked about the extra acreage of this there the 40 and so it would be good to it and I thought

[2:41:04] You had said something to the effect that a lot of the infrastructure is already there

[2:41:08] But it increases to the holding pond would be required and some other things that made the cost almost similar to a new

[2:41:13] Registration system with the golf course

[2:41:15] But it would be very interesting to find out the details about that other 40 acres because I believe we're

[2:41:20] entitled to a hundred full acres

[2:41:22] Reparmative for that but we're only using 60 is that other 40 behind the black fence and you know how close are we as far as being able to utilize that?

[2:41:31] I think that'd be important information to that.

[2:41:34] That's what I was trying to get at.

[2:41:35] Thank you.

[2:41:36] I would add this to Sean's concern

[2:41:40] about overwatering the golf course.

[2:41:43] We'd be building this capacity,

[2:41:45] but it's going to be probably 10 years before that actual demand

[2:41:49] is going to be running through the plan.

[2:41:52] Because we're nowhere near that today.

[2:41:54] Right.

[2:41:54] And we'll probably get a similar permit.

[2:41:56] Like our current effluent disposal permit

[2:41:59] where it's phased that way there's, you know, what pond needs to go where based on a given volume.

[2:42:06] But so

[2:42:10] if I understand correctly, you all want to see a two-man, a grade two,

[2:42:15] two-man without a conversion, but being type one ready, or least having plans available for

[2:42:21] type one conversion. And identify where those other 40 acres might be. Yeah, just one question that

[2:42:29] that Rob raised earlier I want to make sure it doesn't get lost in all of our discussion

[2:42:34] and that is although we may not need this in conjunction with building the plan for the

[2:42:39] CO bond, is it time that we start looking at what what costs may be involved in reutilizing

[2:42:49] distribution at the Highlands Golf Course?

[2:42:56] So Alex has reached out to us and we are sending

[2:43:00] effluent back to Highland Lakes. He's seated at the golf course and is asking for water.

[2:43:07] So we've been sending it his way. So his pipes work. Can we get an idea from him how

[2:43:15] how bad or folks are not working for pipes are working? Yeah, they're obviously working.

[2:43:20] We can certainly ask. Our jurisdiction ends as soon as it hits his tank. So

[2:43:25] So, we'll certainly ask him that question and see how his system is going to make him

[2:43:31] water.

[2:43:31] Right.

[2:43:32] Yeah.

[2:43:39] I think we have way more than we did before.

[2:43:42] Thank you, Dan.

[2:43:43] You all at least narrowed it down.

[2:43:44] We're not.

[2:43:47] Thank you.

[2:43:51] No action on that one.

[2:43:56] 10.

[2:43:58] Discussion, consideration, and possible action on approving the paving plan for a city street

[2:44:03] and authorizing staff to start preparing it for inclusion in a future proposed CEO issuance.

[2:44:14] Taylor again.

[2:44:17] I'll just stay there for the rest of the day.

[2:44:18] Right, yeah.

[2:44:19] It's tough.

[2:44:19] I'm sorry.

[2:44:20] You're making a lot of progress.

[2:44:22] Yeah, absolutely.

[2:44:24] During the strategic planning meeting, you all asked me to look at three and five year pavement

[2:44:28] plan to repay every road in the city that's either in fair, poor, very poor condition.

[2:44:36] and that's what I brought to you tonight.

[2:44:41] That total cost based on the business that we received for this past pavement plan

[2:44:46] or a pavement project came in roughly 10.7 million for all the roads.

[2:44:52] That's if we were to do it all in one tranche, but that's too much for us to handle.

[2:44:58] and there's a total of 200.

[2:45:00] There are 67 roads that require rehabilitation. And during a three-year period, this will be 89 roads per year, which would be manageable. The residents might complain during the course of construction, but we'll be happy afterwards.

[2:45:16] To account for something unknowns, base work, price increases and roads, I mean, may or may not have missed during the course of this initial assessment. It's recommended that we increase that value to 12.

[2:45:29] which would be able to get, you know, 267 rows in a period of three years with

[2:45:35] intention of it being under one contract, just in three-year tranches or, you know,

[2:45:40] one-year tranches. But please also keep in mind, this will be paid in rows that

[2:45:47] don't have utilities currently. So while we'll do our best to make sure that they

[2:45:54] don't cut up a new road, invariably it's going to happen. It's, you can't

[2:45:59] control every contractor in the city. And then the five year plan, you're looking at the

[2:46:09] same

[2:46:09] total number of roads, but an increase of cost of about 4% was applied to the original 12 million.

[2:46:17] So for a five year plan, you're looking at roughly 13 million, and that's 54 roads per year,

[2:46:23] which again is manageable.

[2:46:26] That sets it in a nutshell. Any questions?

[2:46:29] I don't see why we would even consider taking something slower and more expensive.

[2:46:35] I am with you, Mayor.

[2:46:37] That was fine.

[2:46:38] I'm going to start on the end there.

[2:46:40] I'll start on this one.

[2:46:41] Yes.

[2:46:41] I favor the three-year plan.

[2:46:43] Question.

[2:46:44] What happened this list?

[2:46:46] Would it not be subject to change?

[2:46:48] What happens if we annex something or there's a street that's dedicated to the city that needs attention?

[2:46:57] within the next three years, within this plan.

[2:46:59] Well, what was the process for swapping out a stream,

[2:47:03] for example?

[2:47:04] In any new road that's brought into the city,

[2:47:06] would have to be brought up to current standard.

[2:47:08] We wouldn't accept it if it weren't.

[2:47:12] Okay.

[2:47:13] Thanks.

[2:47:15] Julie?

[2:47:16] I was just gonna, first of all,

[2:47:20] echo what the mayor just said.

[2:47:22] I'm in favor of three years.

[2:47:24] I mean, this is a really hot topic for citizens, right?

[2:47:27] We hear about it all the time, so I'm in favor of three years for a million dollars less

[2:47:32] than five years and a million dollars more, but I would be remiss if I didn't thank you

[2:47:39] and your team because I'm sure amassing this list of streets was a not easy and b not quick.

[2:47:47] So I just wanted to acknowledge that I'm sure this took a fair amount of time and effort

[2:47:54] on the part of you and your staff.

[2:47:56] So I just wanted to say that I appreciate.

[2:47:57] That is a very comprehensive list of streets.

[2:48:01] So those are really my only comments on this one.

[2:48:04] Thank you.

[2:48:04] I'll pass it along.

[2:48:05] I really appreciate it because it was a lot of awesome.

[2:48:08] Sure.

[2:48:10] I just want to look you in the eye and say, are you okay

[2:48:13] with the three-year plan?

[2:48:14] Or would you be more comfortable if we said five-year

[2:48:19] and get it done and execute well?

[2:48:21] you know, because that's a man that's a lot of roads in three years.

[2:48:25] That is a lot of roads, a lot of small roads.

[2:48:28] So it's not going to be too terribly cumbersome.

[2:48:32] We would be able to get it done, and we'll make it happen.

[2:48:39] I'm comfortable with it.

[2:48:40] If I weren't comfortable with it, I'll let you all know.

[2:48:43] Good.

[2:48:44] And then a small fall into Mr. Roberts' comment.

[2:48:47] that there is an example that I know of,

[2:48:52] because of something else that I do of a road

[2:48:54] that I think should be on the list that's not.

[2:48:56] So is there a process that whether it's citizens

[2:49:00] or council members for you to handle changes

[2:49:06] that may become aware of over the next month or year?

[2:49:13] Yeah, so that's why I put in some additional funding

[2:49:18] in there is to accommodate or account for roads that we may have missed and just have a unit

[2:49:24] prized dead tab as an alternate that way we know how much roughly it costs for us to say,

[2:49:30] oh no, y'all go pay that one. Okay. Or depending upon the size of said road, we may just be able to

[2:49:37] simply do it in-house. Okay. That's good.

[2:49:44] How do you want to do it? I'm going to support you.

[2:49:46] But I do want to say that if you're going to redo a road, redo the whole road, I drive

[2:49:56] down Hancock every day, well, every day I come here, and the last time it got done,

[2:50:03] And they did everything except for the last, oh, maybe a hundred feet between, I guess,

[2:50:14] Harrison.

[2:50:15] And it just stops about a hundred feet before the end of the row.

[2:50:20] And one of the reasons it was picked is to be done is that it was a through row.

[2:50:25] And then on, y'all just did Henry, right?

[2:50:31] And you did everything except the last 100 feet.

[2:50:37] I don't know why you do it, but if you got to rehabilitate a bunch of old roads now,

[2:50:43] you're going to have to go back and rehabilitate that last 100 feet.

[2:50:47] And if you go down Hancock, you could see there's the potholes and stuff in the park

[2:50:55] that wasn't done or are big, you know, you gotta swerve around a minute though, give it a

[2:51:00] car pretty good job. I just want to say as if we're gonna do them, do them all the way to the end

[2:51:05] because, you know, all the people that are complaining, they're about complaining about the

[2:51:11] potholes in those last little hundred feet, you know, just as much as if there was potholes

[2:51:17] along the whole thing. So I don't know what the deal is, but that makes me crazy.

[2:51:24] And on that one, I have a reason for that.

[2:51:27] I was simply following the previous year's plan

[2:51:30] to get it complete with the cat metro funding.

[2:51:34] That's why I was done that way.

[2:51:35] Just trying to complete the plan.

[2:51:37] Which one, Henry?

[2:51:38] Yes, sir.

[2:51:41] Okay, so that means you ran out of money right there?

[2:51:44] No, sir, I was just merely following the plan

[2:51:45] that had already been initiated.

[2:51:48] You know, the six roads that were taken off

[2:51:50] from the original bid, we wanted to get those complete

[2:51:53] as per that plan.

[2:51:54] And that was council direction stop 100 feet before no just the six streets

[2:52:00] So he was going off of that plan, which you said you wanted those six streets we came to count

[2:52:07] I'm pretty sure I know where that plane came from, so and I get it. It's not I'm good. No, not mad at you. I know

[2:52:15] The other one was done right before you got here the handcock

[2:52:19] And in that plan it said

[2:52:22] road from year to there. That was unfortunate that it didn't say all the way to the end.

[2:52:27] So first of all, thank you and your staff. Definitely appreciate this. This is one of the biggest

[2:52:31] things with citizens. So getting this done quick will be awesome. And if we can do it three

[2:52:36] years and you're comfortable with it, that's definitely what I would like to do. The one

[2:52:40] question I had was surrounding the roads that are on this list. So I'm kind of familiar with

[2:52:47] that area over by the airport, I used to go hike on the roads over there simply because

[2:52:52] there were no streets, there was no traffic and a lot of heels to go up and down.

[2:52:56] It was great for a walk.

[2:52:58] But there are no houses on there, there are no utilities on them, and the vegetation has

[2:53:03] grown into the street.

[2:53:05] And some of those are listed on here.

[2:53:08] And so I'm just questioning whether or not we want to do those streets during this time,

[2:53:13] And simply because, again, no houses, no utilities, it seems like if we do them, we're

[2:53:20] just going to be tearing them up, as stuff gets developed over in that direction.

[2:53:24] And if we can save a little time and save a little money at this point, it might be a

[2:53:27] good thing.

[2:53:28] And I guess my last concern is, do we need to have all the people who own those lots

[2:53:34] over there trim back their trees out of the right away so that we can actually do the work

[2:53:40] over there, because I'm assuming the road companies, they're not going to be responsible

[2:53:44] for removing trees out of the right-of-way, are they?

[2:53:46] No, that would be my staff, because that's going to be a big ticket expense if we have

[2:53:53] that in the contract as a unit cost.

[2:53:56] I'm just going to warn you that a bunch of, there's probably easily 30 to 40 streets on

[2:54:00] either side of the airport over there, where there are roads that are, there's not a single

[2:54:03] house, no utilities and vegetation growing into the street.

[2:54:07] And I just question do we do we really need to do those streets right now probably not there's probably one or two

[2:54:16] Just didn't be nice because they're they're dealing with some rain issues having Kalichi Washington their their garage

[2:54:23] Yeah, so those would be ones that we look at those are just completely undeveloped

[2:54:27] We we throw out I just simply task staff with getting me and a list of all the streets

[2:54:32] Yeah, and then in the list and then great them poor very poor

[2:54:37] fair or good. Yeah, I just think we could easily get down to somewhere in the 240 range

[2:54:42] as far as the number of strengths from where we are if you throw some of those out,

[2:54:50] okay?

[2:54:51] Yeah, I wanted to like the rest of my colleagues here. I want to applaud the work that you and your

[2:54:58] staff have put together put into this project tailor. I know it was extremely detailed and

[2:55:06] and but much appreciated on this end.

[2:55:09] Just a question for my benefit that you may have answered

[2:55:14] in a previous meeting, but what is the projected

[2:55:18] typical life expectancy for these roads

[2:55:21] once they're rehabilitated like this?

[2:55:24] If they're done right, and you keep up

[2:55:27] with maintenance, crack sealing, those sorts of maintenance

[2:55:31] items, it should be 15 to 20 years.

[2:55:33] Some will last longer, some will go bad earlier depending on base issues or if there was

[2:55:40] a water leak underneath the road creating a base failure but on average you're looking

[2:55:46] at 15 to 20 year life cycle for these roads.

[2:55:49] Okay, that's great and just one additional question is striping included in these costs.

[2:56:02] I can't remember if I included striping or not.

[2:56:05] it should be included because I did it based on the total cost and then the total

[2:56:11] square yards. So that cost should be included in this estimate. Okay,

[2:56:20] two questions. Will this

[2:56:23] address some of the persistent issues that we have with certain roads like MacArthur,

[2:56:31] where it hits comes down that hill and hits Bagi. There's an underground. I've been told there's

[2:56:43] like a spring.

[2:56:47] Something on there that keeps washing out everything. Well, this fix that so that

[2:56:53] McArthur doesn't buckle two weeks after we publish, pay the solution to fixing that one is going to

[2:57:03] be one dig it up, cut down the base, figure out what's causing the failure. Is it a leaking

[2:57:09] sewer leaking water, natural spring head, and get a drainage, you know, a fresh drain

[2:57:14] if you will, install there to get that water out of the road, and then put cement stabilized

[2:57:21] base or sometime black base on top of that, and then two inches of asphalt on top of that,

[2:57:27] and that'll create a pretty good structure in Lohman at 1431. Something's got to be done

[2:57:36] with that as well because the trucks slow something. I don't think there's a well

[2:57:46] something popping up underneath that one a similar problem. It's a concrete or something. Something

[2:57:54] this not going to buckle because we're going to have heavy trucks still driving on so then

[2:58:04] my second question I was looking, this list here,

[2:58:11] seems like it has a lot of streets,

[2:58:15] poor and all the way to very good, does this include, does this all the streets in this

[2:58:25] in the city.

[2:58:28] I think these are just the roads left to be done from that old

[2:58:33] old plan from the old spreadsheet. Right, the old plan.

[2:58:40] Results, that's good

[2:58:41] because I don't see my street on here.

[2:58:48] If you all see roads that are on there that

[2:58:52] you know are bad that are not included and this just too many email and I'll

[2:58:56] in there. Um, it's, as we're doing this, they're getting pulled off to do different tasks

[2:59:01] and then having to go back and it's, it's easy to forget and mess. I'm not saying my

[2:59:06] spare. I just had to see it on there. All

[2:59:13] right.

[2:59:19] Did they look any other questions? And it's

[2:59:22] comfortable with that feed. I'll entertain a motion. Following up on your comment that you specifically

[2:59:29] mentioned two problematic locations, which I think are not, yeah, I just looked at MacArthur's

[2:59:34] not on this list at all, so I don't know if there are some other problematic locations

[2:59:39] like McCartor at Boggy and the Loman 1431 where we should have some money in here to

[2:59:47] cover that work as well, or whether you would prefer to handle the situation separately

[2:59:52] through the budget CIP process process.

[2:59:55] I'd rather do that one separately, because we still have some money left over from Cat

[2:59:59] that nature.

[3:00:00] Fair amount. We can utilize for that work and not have to spend bond money on it. With those two particular items, be something that you do in house, or would you have an outside firm take care of those? I have an outside firm coming to take care of that. So I'll have the equipment to mill up that base and install more superior base. But let them have that liability. Right. Point the finger, point the blame. Yeah, given

[3:00:28] that you have the money, that's something you could take care of even before we go out for these.

[3:00:32] C.O. Bond's potentially correct.

[3:00:35] Thank you.

[3:00:37] All right.

[3:00:38] Well, if we're done, I'll entertain a motion.

[3:00:41] I would move mayor that we authorize the city manager to prepare a bond package to cover

[3:00:51] the streets that were listed in the document tonight with a couple of comments that

[3:01:02] That staff would have the flexibility to remove some streets that may not need to be on there because a lack of building or infrastructure.

[3:01:12] And that staff would also have the flexibility to do some ads of streets that may have been missed that get brought to their attention by citizens.

[3:01:20] Second.

[3:01:23] Would you mind amending to say that we want to focus on the three-year plan?

[3:01:27] Yes, of course, and accomplishing this in three years would be the objective.

[3:01:35] All right, I have a motion in a second. Any discussion on the motion?

[3:01:41] All those in favor say aye. Aye. All those opposed, nay?

[3:01:46] You're none, motion carried unanimous. Thank you all.

[3:01:49] Thank you. All right, were we at 11?

[3:01:53] Good. The

[3:01:56] discussion, consideration of possible action regarding a future election

[3:02:01] for a GEO bond to renovate the log with east of golf course from Sean.

[3:02:09] Before Sean starts, there's a reason why I have asked, but this back on the Council's agenda.

[3:02:16] During strategic planning, my notes and several other staff members had that we would not

[3:02:23] be doing a GO bond until November of 2024. After several conversations, as one is down

[3:02:31] there shaking its head, there is a belief that there was a discussion that we would be

[3:02:36] doing one GO on this year. Now, going back to my notes, the conversation was that we were

[3:02:44] going to have propositions on November 2024, but we wanted to address the safety issues

[3:02:49] out at the golf course, and if that is the case, I want to make sure I have a consensus

[3:02:55] from the council that you would like to do a Geobond, which would include not the irrigation

[3:03:02] because the Geo is more of the master plan that Sean has been working with.

[3:03:08] On this year, the November bond election, which would mean that you would have a bond

[3:03:13] this year in November, and you would have a Geobond next year in November.

[3:03:18] For my past experience, just say it for me, thank you.

[3:03:28] Most bonds have a better chance of getting citizen approval when you have more propositions

[3:03:36] than just one.

[3:03:38] That is only because there is one focus, and sometimes psychology plays a part and they

[3:03:43] rationalize which one they would like to see if there are taxpayer dollars being spent.

[3:03:47] It also is not good practice to go out for a geobahn two years in a row.

[3:03:52] It's not illegal.

[3:03:53] It doesn't mean that you can't, it's just not good practice.

[3:03:56] Most people actually try, municipalities actually try to wait anywhere from 10 to 15

[3:04:01] years before you go back out for a geobahn and put something on the election.

[3:04:06] But that is y'all's decision to make, my job is to inform you.

[3:04:09] And Sean has been working with the Master Architects for quite some time as y'all know.

[3:04:18] But what we really need is, what is your pleasure on this year and next year?

[3:04:23] Because I want to meet the needs and I serve at the direction of the council.

[3:04:28] All right, and before you start speaking, I want to hear from Sean.

[3:04:33] I want to know what the health and safety issues are.

[3:04:36] I mean, I know we've touched on before, but I mean, are they something that we need to address this year or can they go with a deal with everything else next year?

[3:04:54] Well, it's one of the biggest issues is the gas carts underneath the clubhouse.

[3:05:02] That's the biggest issue as we all know, Avery Ranch, you were there, Mr. Mayor, that

[3:05:10] can happen at any time.

[3:05:11] We have no idea, I mean, we can't predict that future.

[3:05:15] That is probably my biggest concern, electric or electricity-wise in the building it's really

[3:05:24] not up to code, so that could contribute to that problem we can have as well.

[3:05:30] So there's other safety issues as the drive range and pickleball court, to me I feel

[3:05:40] that's a big because I've witnessed it, almost fully physical confrontations between

[3:05:46] the two.

[3:05:48] That was the other one as far as that.

[3:05:53] I can't really.

[3:05:54] Gas tank at the maintenance barn.

[3:05:56] the gas tank at my maintenance barn is not up to stuff.

[3:06:02] That is going to have to get

[3:06:04] replaced for sure. What about the parking lot? Did you think that that was a safety issue

[3:06:08] or no?

[3:06:11] Definitely a safety issue. Yes, not another hazard, so to speak, but it is a safety

[3:06:17] issue. I mean, there's you can possibly trip from all the cracks and roots and broken

[3:06:23] concurbs and all the other stuff. So that is, yes, I agree with you. That is a safe issue.

[3:06:29] But main concerns is the golf carts underneath the clubhouse, my gas pump, and actually

[3:06:38] a fuel trailer sitting right outside the clubhouse is not good as well. But the electrical and

[3:06:46] And the building is out of date and not up to code.

[3:06:50] So I've spoken to Mr. Hunt previously a little bit about reaching out to Yamaha or something

[3:06:58] about converting and seeing what it would cost the city to change from gas cars to electric

[3:07:06] cars.

[3:07:07] We are reaching out to them.

[3:07:09] I haven't heard a response from a bit yet, but I am working on our Amanda and I are working

[3:07:14] You know, on that both, if we were to switch,

[3:07:18] the electricity in the whole building

[3:07:20] should be already done enough to code.

[3:07:23] So we can put it like your golf carts underneath.

[3:07:26] That would solve a cardboard problem.

[3:07:28] And then the gas behind the clubhouse,

[3:07:31] that would help that as well.

[3:07:34] So we're looking at other options for that.

[3:07:37] That's pretty much the safety issues of the golf course.

[3:07:42] And with the gas golf carts, as we all know, we can't govern coming down hills with the

[3:07:49] electric you can.

[3:07:51] So, that's also a plus.

[3:07:53] So, what do you do about the health and safety issues when the citizens vote no?

[3:07:57] What I'm sorry?

[3:07:59] What do you do about the safety issues, health and safety issues on the citizens vote no?

[3:08:05] Let me address that.

[3:08:06] Go ahead.

[3:08:07] If that were the case, then you as a council would need to make some decisions when we started

[3:08:12] talking about the budget and the CIP projects. You could do those in a phased attempt, you know,

[3:08:17] like what is the biggest priority, what we can afford in that budget year, but I would definitely

[3:08:24] say that those would need to go into the CIP, because these are items that, you know, we can ignore,

[3:08:32] but some one day may just be something that bites us in the behind if we're not taking care of those

[3:08:38] things.

[3:08:43] Yeah, as I want to make sure that I'm on solid ground here as liaison to the golf

[3:08:50] course advisory committee, is it okay for me to share the discussions that I've witnessed

[3:08:58] in the committee as opposed to the committee telling me that I need to share something with

[3:09:05] I want to give you a flavor for what the discussions were like in that workshop that we had with regard to what we just the mayor's just been talking about.

[3:09:27] One with respect to the safety specifically of the cart barn issue.

[3:09:35] the committee fully understands that that's really a question more about our sensitivity

[3:09:44] on city liability that's out there as opposed to a golf course operational issue. There's

[3:09:52] an understanding we've got a hazard there related to a city asset and we need to make a

[3:09:57] decision on that, they are not expecting that to be in the scope of the other improvements

[3:10:04] that they're talking about, that we'll deal with that as a one-off, if you will.

[3:10:11] The second question that we've been talking about is timing on when the golf course improvements

[3:10:19] would go out for a geo. The what was driving the committee's desire for an immediate solution on

[3:10:31] that is the current condition of the Greens, which is everybody on the committee understands that

[3:10:40] is by far and away the biggest efficiency on the golf course. We have to get the Greens in condition

[3:10:47] to drive more play.

[3:10:52] So from a business standpoint, they're saying that's something we need

[3:10:57] to deal with immediately.

[3:11:00] And that's why, if possible, they would like to handle that

[3:11:03] as an November 23 bond issue, or as an November 24.

[3:11:08] Now, having said that, they understand that there are a couple

[3:11:12] of other issues that are in the way of that.

[3:11:14] But one is, can we execute enough of the PONT program to be able to support God's course

[3:11:25] watering for them to start rebuilding the greens for next season?

[3:11:35] If we can't, if we can't get the PONS rebuilt and the system ready to go to do the watering

[3:11:42] In time to plant the greens for the growing season, early next year, then there's no reason

[3:11:49] to have to have an November 23 bond.

[3:11:53] The other piece that they are sensitive to is tracing exactly what you were talking

[3:11:58] about.

[3:11:59] That if this comes across as just a one-off item on a bond election, the chances of success

[3:12:08] are not very good.

[3:12:09] and so they would lean on our judgment of when the best timing would be for a bond election to

[3:12:18] encourage public support. So I hope that helps you understand where the golf course committee is.

[3:12:27] Definitely. Thank you, Gage, because one of the questions I had was to ask whether the GCC was on that.

[3:12:35] I think my questions really are more around timing, right?

[3:12:40] So if the city decides to wait until November of 2024,

[3:12:48] from what I understand of what is in our packet now

[3:12:51] and what was previously presented,

[3:12:54] that means that, a, you have to, first of all,

[3:12:58] has to go to the vote, right?

[3:12:59] And if it passes, vote, then you have to call the bonds,

[3:13:04] you know by the time they actually start any sort of work on the golf course

[3:13:09] and it's a two-year process from what I'm seeing in here any any of the three are

[3:13:13] two years you're looking at 20 probably early 2026 that means it wouldn't be

[3:13:22] finished until early 2028 it's five years from now so I think my big question is

[3:13:29] around, are they really okay with a five-year, like realistically, this probably wouldn't

[3:13:36] be complete until five years from now, but it's not on a bond election until 24 and it's

[3:13:42] approved. I mean, that's, like I said, it's five years out. Well, we even have a golf course

[3:13:48] at that point in five years' time, in the current condition that it's in.

[3:13:51] Probably not. So, I think that's an important thing to consider in my opinion on the timing

[3:13:58] of when we call the bond unless the city is interested in conversations about selling

[3:14:03] or leasing before then because 2020 is a long time and given the current condition,

[3:14:10] I don't think it's going to make it that long.

[3:14:13] And I think that was the conversation we had at this strategic planning.

[3:14:18] Not only do we not want it to drag out too long, but we also want to coordinate the remodel if there

[3:14:23] is one with the irrigation update.

[3:14:26] And so if it waits till 26, 27, 28, we're not going to wait that long for the irrigation

[3:14:32] because we have the need of dispersive effluent, which means we're going to disturb the ecosystem

[3:14:37] there of the business for the entire five year period.

[3:14:41] And that's the reason why it's important to me to find out in 23, do the citizens want

[3:14:46] to do the update or not so that we can then coordinate that work with the irrigation system

[3:14:50] update?

[3:14:51] I think what I'm hearing from you, Councillor Sullivan, is you would prefer November 23, I'm leaning toward there as well.

[3:15:00] Just because I don't think our golf course will survive, waiting until 28 for this to be completed. That is exactly what I'm saying. And I would add to this, I was out, I played at every ranch yesterday. And, you know, for the longest time, everybody said all the different golf courses said, our business has gone through the root because of the pandemic. We even had it on golf course reports until recently when I said, I think we can take that out. They're still going and blowing. I mean, we were out there in the afternoon. And when I left at 630, there were still a ton of people out there,

[3:15:29] on that golf course. So the bottom line is people are still going to golf courses as long

[3:15:33] as they're in good condition. And I think we could be in that same boat. And the longer

[3:15:37] we wait, the worse it's going to be trying to track that. And we're more money, we're

[3:15:41] going to have to dump in it from the general fund. We're just going to grow in the business

[3:15:45] if we elongate the time.

[3:15:49] I've told my head in with 2023, frankly, but I'm not really

[3:15:55] in favor of packaging it with other items next year. I'd like to see the golf by itself

[3:16:01] in 2023. Even if it were next year to have to be by itself, it can't be put on a proposition

[3:16:08] with anything else. I think I'm sorry. I think 2023 and I understand the urgency that I think

[3:16:23] the issue I have is the package is going to be ready in 2023 to put before the voters.

[3:16:34] We've learned from the Metro stuff that we've got to be ready to promote.

[3:16:44] And whatever it is that you're asking for has got to be pitched effectively to the voters.

[3:16:53] Otherwise, it's just won't go anywhere.

[3:16:56] I mean, it's, it's, you know, whether it makes sense or not, and I understand the urgency.

[3:17:05] My concern is, is the golf course staff committees and us ready to put that bond out there so it

[3:17:21] of a change,

[3:17:24] whether I want to see it pass or not, I would like a bond that we put out

[3:17:33] to be something that's viable, that the voters really will look at and have a choice

[3:17:41] where they're not getting half the information and stuff like that.

[3:17:46] That's my concern.

[3:17:47] We'll have the time to get it together.

[3:17:51] Working with the GCAC, we've had a lot of conversations about this, and we're trying

[3:17:58] to develop some, I mean, we have the master plan now, but what we're trying to do is,

[3:18:05] we're trying to figure out what we think the citizens would vote for, whether it just be

[3:18:11] green's just be the green's complex is adding teas that makes you know we're

[3:18:18] trying to come up with different scenarios that we we think that the public

[3:18:22] might be interested in just to bring revenue back to the city I mean this is

[3:18:28] the only entity that actually brings revenue to the city I mean as far as

[3:18:34] airports, parks and all that stuff it really doesn't the golf course could

[3:18:39] But on page 55 of the packet, bottom of it, $1,801,020.

[3:18:52] That's not the toll.

[3:18:55] It's on the next page.

[3:18:55] Yeah.

[3:18:56] Total measured sum of price for fine grading and lump sum price for.

[3:19:00] That's the only half of it.

[3:19:02] You have to go down.

[3:19:04] That's the total.

[3:19:05] It's highlighted in yellow.

[3:19:07] Plus what's underneath it?

[3:19:14] The least expensive option is three points, something million of these options.

[3:19:20] Correct.

[3:19:21] Correct.

[3:19:21] I mean, like I said, we're trying to work through maybe even different options.

[3:19:25] Right.

[3:19:27] I'd like to see an option for just really getting fixed in the greens themselves.

[3:19:33] And that's what we're, you know, you couple that with the CO on the irrigation and.

[3:19:38] Yeah.

[3:19:38] And that's what we're working on right now.

[3:19:40] We're trying to actually reach out to the architect to see if we can get with the GCAC

[3:19:46] and have a little sit down with the architects.

[3:19:49] and come up with what could be the minimum we can do to make an impact to start bringing revenue to this government.

[3:19:57] And that's what we're looking at.

[3:19:58] George, when does your committee meet again?

[3:20:03] The big again.

[3:20:05] Next week.

[3:20:07] 25th.

[3:20:08] Yes.

[3:20:09] Okay.

[3:20:12] If, you know, one thing that concerns me about forcing the decision right now on the November

[3:20:20] number 23 bond is a question that we don't have answered is, and this is one of the things

[3:20:27] the golf course committee is working on, is will the irrigation system be in place to

[3:20:36] support that future improvement work, which primarily the Greens? Will we have that finished?

[3:20:45] And we don't have the answer to that right now.

[3:20:47] Correct. No. And that I'm just being honest, that is my biggest concern. If we don't have

[3:20:54] the irrigation, the renovation is mute. I mean, you cannot grow grass with the system that we

[3:21:01] have now. It's just impossible. But to address that, let's say, for example, we post the CO irrigation

[3:21:09] systems in there. The geo goes out on this November and it passes. And for whatever reason, we're not

[3:21:15] able to get the irrigation system started in a timely fashion to start the renovation in early

[3:21:20] part of 24. You just wait until at least you'll have the money and you can start at early 25

[3:21:26] and then the next time in early 26, the vote will be done. You don't have to do the renovation

[3:21:30] without the irrigation system. It's exactly what I was going to say. Thank you, Constable Sullivan.

[3:21:35] Let me ask a question. If we all understand that the really immediate

[3:21:42] work on the golf course? Is the Greens? Just the Greens?

[3:21:51] Is it out of the question to include that small part of the improvements on the golf course in the CEO package?

[3:22:00] I don't think Lee Lee can. It's not a health or safety. It doesn't meet the CEO bond requirements.

[3:22:08] And we had that set up on the console.

[3:22:10] Okay.

[3:22:11] Explicitly.

[3:22:12] Yep.

[3:22:16] I do think we're overestimating how long, even if we wait for a November 24 bond,

[3:22:23] how long it's going to take to start to make a difference at the golf course.

[3:22:29] the expectation is that if we have an November 24 bond approval that we would be

[3:22:39] locked and loaded to start the work almost immediately in the spring for the

[3:22:44] growing season in 25 depending on irrigation.

[3:22:49] Yeah, I mean, if we get the irrigation approved this year, we should at least be able

[3:22:55] the start on the first nine by the beginning of 25. Oh yeah. And that was the second piece

[3:23:04] I was going to mention is that remember we're doing this in phases. And so we are going

[3:23:09] to have an open golf course with brand new greens ready to go during the year of 26.

[3:23:20] So we're three years out, not five years out, or at least there's going to be some significant improvement on the golf course.

[3:23:29] I just think we're premature right now calling for an November 23 bond election.

[3:23:40] Can I ask it just a general question?

[3:23:43] So, let's say it did go to a vote, regardless of which November, if it happens in a November,

[3:23:54] after citizens approve it, then how long is the process realistically before you have money

[3:24:04] in hand to begin any of the work?

[3:24:07] You're suggesting it's two months, I would disagree with that.

[3:24:13] It would be at the earliest potentially April or May that we would even have funds available

[3:24:19] to do it.

[3:24:20] Isn't that beyond when you said it would have to wait.

[3:24:23] So we would have to wait because you put it on in 23, so if we don't have it, we can't

[3:24:28] Then we could meet the 26 deadline.

[3:24:30] But if you wait until 24, I'm sorry, you're not going to start in spring of 25.

[3:24:34] It's too late.

[3:24:36] And the other point I would make is that I was actually very pleasantly surprised with the

[3:24:41] work that they architected. I mean, he broke it down. It's a fairly fine detail with

[3:24:45] the cost of estimates. And so it seems to me that it really shouldn't be that difficult.

[3:24:50] If the decisions made that we really just want to focus on the greens and the green, green

[3:24:54] complexes, for example, to pull out of what he put together that information along with

[3:24:59] the safety issues, put that on a geo for this November and let the citizens decide.

[3:25:05] Absolutely.

[3:25:06] Is it much of the work in the packet already?

[3:25:08] most of the work is in the packet already but to have this meeting that we're

[3:25:13] scheduled only for early May is what we decided that's going to give us real

[3:25:19] answers to bring back and for us to discuss as far as GCAC and then we can narrow

[3:25:27] it down to what do we think that should happen and what could happen

[3:25:40] so I want to

[3:25:44] make sure I understand this. We're looking at a November 2023 geo that geo would have

[3:25:51] whatever GCAC comes back as a recommendation that they see that the citizens would be

[3:25:58] willing to vote on and the safety issues which means now we're going to have to really

[3:26:04] bust it to get these safety issues get a cost to those we have to call the election in

[3:26:10] August. So no matter what, we need to have that. And then we do that. There needs to be a very

[3:26:16] concentrated effort on them. I'm on call it marketing, not persuasion, but really educating

[3:26:22] the public as to what it is that we were wanting to get a change. So. Yes. All right. That's what I

[3:26:31] needed. I want to clarify something. It sounded like part of what you just said was that GCAC is going

[3:26:38] to tell us what's on this bottom.

[3:26:39] Well, they're going to make a recommendation.

[3:26:42] Yeah, they're going to make a recommendation.

[3:26:43] But what I was hearing in the discussion

[3:26:46] was we are leaning towards an option 4, which

[3:26:52] is a green's only option, which is cheaper

[3:26:54] than any of the three options that are on here

[3:26:56] and focusing on that and getting that going in November.

[3:27:02] Now, it may be that the size of many convinces us,

[3:27:06] that's a bad decision.

[3:27:07] And after their feedback we could change it, but that was kind of the direction I was hearing.

[3:27:11] Part of what the GCAC is planning on coming back with is a stair step of scopes to be included

[3:27:24] in the bond based on properties. So they'll start with, here's a baseline, here's what we absolutely

[3:27:33] we have to do. Here are several things that are not quite at that level of importance,

[3:27:38] but we think that there are good changes that will be made out here with that type of

[3:27:45] feedback. And then it will be up to us to decide what we include in the package.

[3:27:50] I don't know. I mean, I would almost rather than just these are citizens, right? And they're

[3:27:57] going to say, what are my neighbors going to vote for? I kind of like them to come back

[3:28:03] I can say, while we love to get all this stuff,

[3:28:06] we're afraid that won't get approved.

[3:28:08] And so here's what we think.

[3:28:10] Jay, they will include that in their consideration.

[3:28:12] Correct.

[3:28:13] Absolutely.

[3:28:14] So basically we're looking at,

[3:28:16] you keep saying it greens only package,

[3:28:18] but it's a greens only plus the safety issues.

[3:28:22] Yes, greens and safety issues.

[3:28:24] And I would encourage the GCA members

[3:28:28] to get out and talk to their non-Golfing neighbors.

[3:28:33] That's how you're going to have to convince.

[3:28:35] And I do want to add again that in terms of the safety issues, no matter what happens

[3:28:43] on all the other golf course issues, one way or another we're going to have to address

[3:28:48] the safety and address it immediately because of the city liability.

[3:28:55] We hope we can get the citizens to vote for a GO, but if they don't, we still got to figure

[3:28:59] out the way they can.

[3:29:00] Yeah, yeah, yeah, I agree, I agree.

[3:29:05] Good. Yes, thank you. Thank you for your patience, too.

[3:29:13] Are we all 13? Thanks so much.

[3:29:17] Wake up, Tyler.

[3:29:21] Are you ready for a motion of 13?

[3:29:24] Discussion, concentration, post-waction, authorizing the city manager to enter into an agreement

[3:29:28] with LCRA for the purchase of raw or untreated water.

[3:29:33] Do we have a choice, a brawl or a untreatable thing?

[3:29:40] Well, there's a one in the same.

[3:29:42] It's one in the same.

[3:29:43] Oh, okay.

[3:29:48] You're in last meeting.

[3:29:49] You all asked me to go back and kind of give projections as to where I think we're going to need to be.

[3:29:57] You all asked me what my comfort level was.

[3:30:00] 5,000-acre fee. And during the course of my conversations with LCRA, they recommended a longer contract than 10 years. So at 20 years, that's the projections that I provided you. I'll open it up for questions. You just answered my question on the 10 year.

[3:30:22] In the water contract, we'll print it out on this one page of the super long document

[3:30:31] because it turns out contracts, it's just for industrial contracts, minimum of five

[3:30:37] years and maximum of 40 years.

[3:30:40] But you're saying the people you're talking to suggest or prefer or they're really twisting

[3:30:47] I'm not quite sure why are they coming down

[3:30:50] with 20 years and is that the best thing for us

[3:30:53] or it's the best thing for them?

[3:30:54] That's gonna be the best thing for us

[3:30:56] because if we were to continue

[3:30:58] projecting out our population over the course of 30,

[3:31:00] 40 years from the contract,

[3:31:03] then that reservation rate gets larger and larger

[3:31:06] whereas at a 20 year, it's less.

[3:31:10] What about 10, or five?

[3:31:12] Because they say it could be in the document

[3:31:13] it says it could be a minimum of five.

[3:31:15] right now there's a total of 35,000 acre fee available in Lake Travis. And there are several

[3:31:23] large customers in Austin area looking to gobble up what's left. And LCRAA said they are

[3:31:32] once they get that which they get ours and they get theirs there's no more available. And at this

[3:31:40] At this point, they're going to build, I believe, our buckle reservoir, which will then increase capacity like Travis by 15,000 at the feet.

[3:31:52] And their projection is somewhere between 2025, 2025, 26 timeframe is when it should be completed.

[3:31:58] And actually, I think answered another question that I had reading between the lines there.

[3:32:03] this M.O.Q. as they call it in there, the reservation quantity. They're not over selling

[3:32:10] the lake, they're M.O.Q.s from all the entities don't add up to more water than they have.

[3:32:16] I don't answer that one.

[3:32:18] We hope not.

[3:32:20] Well, I mean, one will hope not.

[3:32:22] I mean, from what you were just saying, it sounded like they're saying when it's gone, it's gone.

[3:32:26] That's how I heard that comment as well.

[3:32:28] And that's how I receive the common promotion.

[3:32:31] They're making a lot of extra money by selling these M.O.Qs, and I would be pretty surprised

[3:32:37] if they're not over committed, but, you know, I can't tell.

[3:32:41] I actually did try to find online, you know, what's the M.O.Q for Austin, especially since

[3:32:47] they're the vast majority user, I couldn't find that information anywhere.

[3:32:51] I don't know if elsewhere I would share that with us, it'd be interesting.

[3:32:56] In the last meeting when we talked about this, Mr. Roberts said, I know that you will spend

[3:33:01] your, you know, spreadsheet time, and so I was going to do it anyway, but they really

[3:33:06] spurred me to go on.

[3:33:09] So if you only look at the increase in cost because of the reservation, it's pretty concerning

[3:33:17] and that's where I was coming from in the last meeting, however, the portion of our cost

[3:33:22] for citizens that is what we pay to LCRA for the raw water is actually pretty small and so if I

[3:33:30] did the math right I was looking at the total from the last from the budget for this year the water

[3:33:36] services revenue is about five and a half million dollars and we're paying LCRA 220 thousand dollars

[3:33:44] that's what's in our budget for this year so we're actually 4% of what we're charging the citizens

[3:33:50] is what we're paying to L-C-R-A.

[3:33:52] So that's the majority of our citizens' cost

[3:33:54] is not money going to L-C-R-A.

[3:33:58] Now, when we move to this new model

[3:34:00] where they make a paper of water and pay for the reservation,

[3:34:05] even one of the things I thought was interesting

[3:34:07] is even if we only use the same amount of water

[3:34:10] as we're using right now, our cost to L-C-R-A go up

[3:34:14] with this new charging line.

[3:34:15] We've been getting a great deal, so our costs go up.

[3:34:17] And so when I looked at, I just said, I'll restate it.

[3:34:22] If I did the numbers right, 4% of the dollars that are citizens that are having to pay for

[3:34:28] water is going all the way through to RCL, Elcerity, today.

[3:34:32] With the new model and the new reservation that you proposed, that actually goes from 4%

[3:34:37] to 10%.

[3:34:38] So it's a pretty significant increase, and we've been trying to figure out how we can reduce

[3:34:44] sort of water rates for citizens, not increase our water rates for citizens.

[3:34:49] And so that increase on the LCR-A front is significant enough that we're going to have

[3:34:54] to do some real hard work at trying to be efficient elsewhere.

[3:34:59] And so I would say the difference between whether it's a 5500 acre fee reservation, which is

[3:35:09] what you had suggested or whether it's something smaller like 4,500 is actually a pretty small

[3:35:15] number in the overall budget perspective.

[3:35:19] And so I've kind of moved to where I'm comfortable with being a little more conservative and

[3:35:23] reserving more, which is where most of all of you guys were last time.

[3:35:26] I would simply say that the task for staff will request, for me at least, I think probably

[3:35:35] from the rest of council would be, let's be even more aggressive about trying to find other

[3:35:40] places to be efficient because this is headed in the wrong direction from our citizens perspective.

[3:35:44] Fiscal Conservancy, got it?

[3:35:49] Mayor?

[3:35:51] Yes, sir.

[3:35:52] So, much like Mr. Prince, I had to do my spreadsheet, too.

[3:35:57] First of all, I wanted to ask some questions.

[3:36:00] And I think you've kind of sort of answered them.

[3:36:02] Do we have any clue about the other municipalities that pull from like Travis and

[3:36:06] and what they currently have observed and are they going through this same process and do we know if some of them are looking like us to potentially give some back? Do we have any info on that at all?

[3:36:18] No, sir, I did not.

[3:36:19] Okay, fair enough.

[3:36:23] What I did was, I made some assumptions and you can agree or disagree, but it was something I just started out with.

[3:36:32] We have about 11,000 people today, okay?

[3:36:37] If you add up all the existing platted lots in old logo,

[3:36:40] the approved developments, the total is probably

[3:36:42] about 11,500 new homes that could be built in Lagovissa.

[3:36:47] With the national average of 2.5 people per household,

[3:36:50] that yields another 28,753 residents in new homes

[3:36:53] and total of about 39,753 when full build out.

[3:36:57] And that tricks pretty closely to the 5% model

[3:37:00] that Taylor had in the packet.

[3:37:03] If you adjust those numbers to reflect something,

[3:37:05] I think that's maybe a little bit closer to reality.

[3:37:08] The number of new home shrinks to about 9266,

[3:37:11] and there's lots and old logo that aren't going to get developed

[3:37:15] because people are holding multiple odds,

[3:37:17] or the topography, that kind of thing.

[3:37:19] Some of the developments that we have out there are not likely

[3:37:21] to fully develop.

[3:37:22] To Sarah is estimated 2000,

[3:37:25] but they've already built 300 homes, for example.

[3:37:27] So you make some adjustments for that.

[3:37:29] and all of a sudden you drop to that 92-66, so that goes by 23-165. You add in today's population,

[3:37:42] that's 34-165 instead of the 39,000. So about 5,000 less is what I'm getting at. And I think that's

[3:37:51] more realistic about what we're going to see in the next 20 years potentially. So if you take a look at

[3:37:59] Taylor's spreadsheet in the packet, and you look at that number of 34,000 people, that

[3:38:05] equates to about using 4,300 acre feet of water, okay.

[3:38:09] So in the 20 years, next 20 years, it's not likely that we're going to need any more

[3:38:13] than about 4,300 acre feet.

[3:38:16] And quite frankly, I think it might be a good thing for us to plan on using 4,500, for example,

[3:38:23] if you want to round up a little bit to say, hey, when we get to that point, we just can't

[3:38:27] building anymore? Can't grow anymore? And, you know, we're, you know, it's going to

[3:38:31] stop development to a certain degree, which I think a lot of our people, I mean, when

[3:38:34] you think about it, you're talking about more than tripling our population, going to 34,000

[3:38:39] from what we are today.

[3:38:41] Yeah, exactly, exactly. So, I guess all I would say is that if we make a reservation of 4,500

[3:38:48] acre feet, a reservation cost would be about 348,750, that would represent $155,000 savings

[3:38:55] each year over the 6500 acre fee and you're talking about saving $3 million over 20 years.

[3:39:02] So I would just suggest maybe we think pretty hard about maybe reserving just 4,500 instead

[3:39:08] of the 5,500 because that represents a tripling of population in 20 years and quite frankly

[3:39:13] I can't, I don't see that happening.

[3:39:15] I mean think about it, in the last 10 years we went from 6,600 to 8,900 and you're telling

[3:39:24] me we're going to go from you know 11,000 today or you know 8800 back in in 2020 to 39,000 I'm sorry

[3:39:32] I just don't see that um so I think to me planning for a 34,000 over the next 20 years

[3:39:38] pretty prudent to be honest with you and it'll save us some jack and I think to your

[3:39:43] I think to your point Kevin if uh you know if we if we do max that out I don't think the citizens

[3:39:49] are going to mind if yeah exactly yeah and again poke holes in it do whatever that was just kind

[3:39:59] of the thought process I went through I would like to see just if you don't mind I'd like to see

[3:40:03] those the numbers I had a number in my head total build-out population 43,000 you came up with 39,000

[3:40:09] I'd just like to see that if you don't mind yeah my concern would be what happens in 20 years

[3:40:18] and we get down there and we need more capacity but it's our other cities have

[3:40:23] bought it up because we did. Doesn't that equal moratorium? If there's no more water

[3:40:29] by I mean that's out of our control it seems.

[3:40:34] And is that a bad thing? I don't

[3:40:36] I think most of our current residents would say that's not a bad thing. Don't disagree

[3:40:41] with that. Even if we had to go at 5,000 let's say at 4,500 you know put your panties

[3:40:48] in a lot. Even if we had to go at 5,000, you know, I wonder what that savings would look

[3:40:54] like. But I'm kind of with you. I don't see, you know, once we get 30,000, you know, I

[3:41:04] don't see a moratorium on building as a necessarily a horrible thing. Likely, none of us are going

[3:41:10] to be sitting up here then. Maybe Paul will be, but, you know, but I just don't see that

[3:41:17] as a horrible thing.

[3:41:20] Something I would be curious about is you see this legislation out there

[3:41:25] that has, there's things in there that, where they can, the state can court order us to do stuff.

[3:41:35] Then they're going to have to make, like, Travis a constant feel like, I mean, what's the solution?

[3:41:39] Yeah, that would be my question.

[3:41:42] Let them figure it out. Yeah, that never happens. Just like David and we just don't build.

[3:41:48] We won't be the only community in that problem, though, in the predicament.

[3:41:52] Valley, Valley, question.

[3:41:54] If we can't resell it to another community, then I think Kevin's numbers are pretty close.

[3:42:05] Yes, Kate?

[3:42:06] Yeah, just a question.

[3:42:08] It is potential growth in the ETJ and consideration of what we need to be building into this.

[3:42:17] you know, back to an old subject we had earlier, there were proposals in the state legislature

[3:42:24] this session that said that we would have to provide full city services to residents

[3:42:30] in the ETA.

[3:42:32] So, do we need to build that into our model?

[3:42:39] So, reading through the document here, there's a process that they have in these contracts.

[3:42:44] If you water, then you've allocated, or if you use more water, then you've been allocated,

[3:42:49] right?

[3:42:50] And so, in this scenario where the state tells us we have to provide water to ETJ and

[3:43:00] LCRA tells it, sorry, we don't have water to give you, you know, it's a problem that's

[3:43:10] beyond our ability to solve.

[3:43:12] Well, what would happen is you would be forced to release them from the ETJ.

[3:43:17] I've seen those bills in that.

[3:43:19] And I thought the bill was automatic disanication if you weren't providing full services by

[3:43:25] December 21st, 2023.

[3:43:26] Right.

[3:43:27] That's one bill, but there's another one regarding the ETAJ, and there are others like restricting

[3:43:31] the size of the ETAJ.

[3:43:32] But yeah.

[3:43:33] Okay.

[3:43:33] And so, not at the end of the world, from my perspective, some of the ETAJs get released.

[3:43:38] I want to be clear, when I, two weeks ago, I was up on mine said that this was bad fiscal

[3:43:43] policy to reserve this water.

[3:43:45] When I looked at the numbers, the numbers are small enough that I didn't think that's a basis for the decision.

[3:43:51] But I actually agree with your assertions, Devin, that the growth numbers that, you know, if we're at the 5500 level,

[3:43:59] that's planning for a growth that is really problematic for other things.

[3:44:04] And my bigger concern, you know, trying to stay within the scope of this, is not actually a water.

[3:44:10] It's the roads.

[3:44:13] So I actually am okay with us saying let's be more conservative and say 4,500 and if that means we have to start limiting LUEs and being more aggressive on development agreements.

[3:44:29] That's not a terrible thing, not at all.

[3:44:31] Well, the question of resale, I don't recall hearing the resolution on what our options

[3:44:39] are with reselling the water.

[3:44:42] It's an option.

[3:44:43] It's a cumbersome process and LCRA is going to get their fingers in and review and approve

[3:44:48] any resale agreement that you have.

[3:44:50] Okay.

[3:44:51] Thanks for reminding me.

[3:44:53] Along those lines, you recommended that we not get in the business of reselling water

[3:45:00] Or the city, or is it really more because we don't want to have to dawdle with LCRA on that stuff? Or both? Both. Okay, figuring out who's responsible for getting it to what point?

[3:45:14] There's a lot of contractual obligations that could interest the future and then down with LCRA and this just could just make it a mess.

[3:45:25] Yeah, it's 20 years down the road.

[3:45:29] I'm sure none of us will still be on council.

[3:45:31] Thank you for arguing. Shoot me if I am. I'm already here 13 so yeah. That was

[3:45:39] committee but still 13. I'm not gonna lie it. I think you think still here. I said

[3:45:47] I thought it would be called anyway. Well, I just want to point something out. It's when it comes to

[3:45:56] city cities or businesses and if you cease to grow you will the city will die. And everybody's like,

[3:46:04] oh, hey, we don't have water or Bortorium. And this is great. This is love it. Well, you get to

[3:46:10] the point in your city is not growing. And you're not keeping up with the inflation and all that.

[3:46:17] City will die. You know, I've heard that. But I think back to like, where I grew up in San Antonio,

[3:46:22] You know, there's there's all kinds of old neighborhoods out in the Heights, Castle Hills, Hollywood

[3:46:27] Park, and they're thriving little towns, and they've maxed out all their lots that are

[3:46:33] developed. And I think Paul made the real point, which is there's a lot of other concerns

[3:46:38] if we get to that size. And that's my, you know, that's a big part of the reason why I think

[3:46:43] this is a good thought process to go through. Yeah. I'm just throwing it out there. Yeah.

[3:46:50] And none of us will be here won't be our problem, but we've at least planned for 20 years. That's pretty good

[3:47:04] What we're just refreshed from what were we looking at last month?

[3:47:14] 65 is what you brought in two weeks ago, but in this packet you backed it down to recommend 55

[3:47:20] five hundred. Correct. And 40 to the number Kevin just threw out which I

[3:47:26] hear some head nods on as another hundred, another thousand below that 4500.

[3:47:34] 500.

[3:47:37] Are you panicking with that?

[3:47:39] Is he also, is he also decision?

[3:47:41] Chandler's probably thinking he also won't be here in 20 years.

[3:47:47] All right. Well, that's all the discussion. I entertain a motion.

[3:47:50] and my screen went dark.

[3:47:53] The

[3:47:56] motion that we approve staff to move forward

[3:47:59] with signing the agreement with the LCRA

[3:48:00] and reserving 4,500 acre feet on an annual basis.

[3:48:04] Just a second, then.

[3:48:06] Do we have to state the number of years?

[3:48:09] 20 years.

[3:48:10] I'm good with 20 years.

[3:48:11] All right, what's that been?

[3:48:13] All right, I have the motion and the second.

[3:48:16] Any discussion on the motion?

[3:48:20] All those in favor say aye.

[3:48:21] All right, all those pose nay nay

[3:48:25] Most you carry six to one I

[3:48:32] will call this meeting adjourn at 10 25 p.m

Apr 20, 2023 City Council

Agenda

Transcript