[0:00] I want to welcome everybody. Good evening to our guests, and this is a special
[0:04] meeting of the Sealy City Council that has been posted as prescribed by statute,
[0:09] and we will call this meeting to order as our custom to begin with prayer and
[0:13] pledges of allegiance, and we invite you to stand and join us.
[0:17] Councilman Curry, would you lead us in a prayer?
[0:19] Yes. Most gracious and almighty Father, we just thank you for this day, Lord.
[0:23] We thank you that we are gathered here for a special meeting to make the best
[0:27] decisions for the citizens of Sealy and for the future of this community.
[0:32] We ask that you would grant us blessings, wisdom, and knowledge as we continue into
[0:37] the agendas for tonight. In Jesus name we pray. Amen.
[0:43] Amen.
[0:43] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the
[0:47] Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[0:53] justice for all. I honor the Texas flag.
[0:57] I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible.
[1:02] Thank you. If our secretary will call the roll and certify quorum, please.
[1:08] Mayor Bielski present. Councilman Necker present. Councilman Noak present.
[1:15] Councilman Miller present. Councilwoman Curry present.
[1:19] Councilman Zavalac present. Councilman Virgil present. Mayor has held quorum.
[1:25] Thank you. As anybody that's followed us, we did invite the members
[1:31] and board of the ESD to join us in regards to the subject matter on district number
[1:36] two and sales tax. They have declined to participate.
[1:41] I think you got an email, Kimber, through their attorney and through a verbal
[1:45] conversation. So we feel like it's important that the public understand
[1:51] where we, as representatives of the taxpayers of the city of Sealy, are trying to
[1:57] educate everyone on our needs and how this will determine the future of Sealy,
[2:02] Texas, and the growth that we can do.
[2:04] And so at this time, as part of the business discussion and possible action
[2:08] regarding the interlocal agreement, utility billing, and lease with Austin County
[2:13] Emergency Service District number2-
[2:15] Mayor, you just want to note that there were no public comments this meeting.
[2:18] No public comments. I'm sorry. Yeah, I've just-
[2:20] Just for the record
[2:20] ... heads up and
[2:21] Okay.
[2:22] Yes. For the record, there was no one that signed up to speak on-
[2:25] Thank you
[2:25] ... the petition or public comments. So we will continue forward with this.
[2:30] We have been working on this for over a year, asking and trying to come up with the
[2:35] negotiations. Several council members have met individually, and we're here today
[2:39] to inform the public and try to get a greater understanding
[2:45] of the monumental need that this city has to get some of that sales tax or we
[2:51] quit growing. And I think our staff has prepared some information.
[2:55] We have binders, all of us have, that have been given this information in the past
[3:00] on how we could work with this, conversations with the comptroller.
[3:04] And Kimber, I'll let you do the lead. If you'd start, please.
[3:08] Well, actually, you covered my opening statement.
[3:10] Oh, shoot. Okay.
[3:11] So thank you. We can move forward with our EDC executive director's presentation
[3:16] prepared for you.
[3:26] Mayor, members of council, what I'm presenting tonight is information that you'd
[3:30] requested previously at a meeting on September 1st.
[3:34] At that time, we had not received a letter that was subsequently received on
[3:39] September 4th from the district, and so that information has been included in this.
[3:45] However, the other information is representative of the binder that you were
[3:51] given that, as the mayor touched on, goes back several months when this discussion
[3:57] first began. And tonight, I was just going to provide you with a factual overview
[4:02] of what information has been spoken about, what different
[4:08] proposals have been made, and where we stand today.
[4:11] And then after that, Mike Barrel will give you some information with regard to
[4:16] utilities and other matters concerning this.
[4:20] So to start off with, three things to know.
[4:23] The issue is about having fair revenue allocation between the two parties
[4:29] and service costs for the services that are provided by the two parties.
[4:34] ESD number 2 still provides emergency service response to us and to the larger
[4:40] district, which we'll show you in a moment.
[4:42] The city share would also be shared with us, the EDC, as it is with regards
[4:48] to other sales taxes collected by the city or within the city.
[4:52] And why this matters is that this affects, again, emergency service funding, city
[4:56] growth responsibilities that we have both today and as we grow and go grow into the
[5:02] future, and the economic development resources that help support Sealy's future in
[5:07] attracting not only development, but good development to help sustain
[5:13] us. Next. And one thing I wanted to point out, and city manager had provided this
[5:19] before, was an overview from the budget, and it was identified in the
[5:24] budget that for many years, the city has been working on
[5:30] a limited cushion of
[5:33] general fund reserves. And as you all know and have been working very diligently to
[5:38] improve upon, that situation has improved over the years.
[5:43] In 2021,
[5:45] we had roughly 11 days, operating days of reserves available.
[5:50] September 30th, 2024, we saw a great turnaround in the efforts that have been taken
[5:54] over the past few years, and that is to get us to 90 days, and the city's first
[5:59] achieved its 90-day futuristic goals.
[6:02] And that goal is not unique to Sealy, that being 90 days.
[6:06] That's a standard that's used throughout the business of cities.
[6:11] Since then, the position has strengthened.
[6:15] At one time, we had 80.5 employees. We now have 64.5.
[6:20] Again, we're lean and mean and have been able to reduce staffing
[6:26] by 16 positions, or approximately 20% of the workforce.
[6:30] Not to mention that the vacancy management that's taken place during the time in
[6:34] which we have vacancies, making sure that the money that is saved during that time
[6:38] is put back, and hence it's been able to drive the 90-day reserve, or help
[6:44] drive the 90-day reserve. And then the partnerships, grants, and other
[6:48] opportunities that we've been able to go out and get to help
[6:52] us with the cost of providing services and the
[6:58] infrastructure necessary for a growing city such as Sealy. And then also planning.
[7:04] We have our CIP that's been underway, and Mike will touch on that in a moment.
[7:09] The studies and the dollars that have been put forward for that, for emergencies,
[7:13] for engineering, with respect to the position of the grants, and when we have to
[7:18] have a lot of this information in place and ready to go when we go out for grants.
[7:22] Cash for appropriate one-time investments that we must maintain.
[7:27] And then those studies, again, help support that and help also convey the need to
[7:33] the public of what we need to provide the services necessary.
[7:38] And what this progress means is it creates opportunities for the city that we did
[7:43] not have before. Again, it was bootstrap back several years ago, and still, we're
[7:48] still in the process of getting better.
[7:51] But over the past several years, we've made great strides with respect to that.
[7:55] And again, that's kudos to you, the council, and for the staff to be able to really
[8:00] drive this management. And so this matters for growth because it creates the
[8:06] service and infrastructure and also the demands that are coming as a result of the
[8:11] growth that we see coming down I-10 heading west and we will have to deal with.
[8:18] And we want to make sure that we have enough unrestricted operating revenue to pay
[8:23] for all that's coming and all that we'll need to have that citizens have come to
[8:28] expect of us. And then the planning implication with this, the first step in
[8:33] planning is annexation consideration, and that's a large component of this,
[8:39] and recognizing that the city may not generate a critical component of general fund
[8:44] revenue needed to sustainably fund operations and services.
[8:49] And so we have to take advantage of sales tax, we have to take advantage of
[8:53] property tax for those general fund services that we provide.
[8:59] This is an outline of the boundary of the ESD 2.
[9:04] The red line represents the entire boundary of ESD 2,
[9:10] and the yellow is our current city limits.
[9:13] We'll work on getting a map, work with GIS to clear ETJ because that
[9:19] does impact this discussion, but we weren't able to get that for tonight, but we
[9:24] are working on doing that. But I wanted to give this just to provide a background
[9:28] for the scope and size of the district, and us relative
[9:34] to the size of that is quite small compared to the district itself.
[9:42] And then, just a short timeline that has first started with 2011,
[9:48] the Station 1 ground lease in Sealy.
[9:52] And then before 2020 in the affected areas, and the affected areas being those in
[9:57] the ETJ and the city EDC sales tax structure was applied before
[10:03] that time. Since 2020, there was an election in which the voters
[10:09] approved the ESD number 2 sales tax authority in the applicable district area, that
[10:14] we will speak to in a moment, and then Sealy annexed areas that still remained
[10:18] inside ESD number 2 for emergency services from '21 to '22.
[10:24] And then in '25, the city and ESD, as the mayor mentioned and the city manager,
[10:29] began discussions on interlocal agreement.
[10:32] Brings us to the present and a recent letter that the city received from the
[10:38] ESD number 2, with a proposal offering a 60/40 split with
[10:44] conditions. And, again, we'll speak to that in the upcoming slides.
[10:49] And today, again, council wanted and the district were to be here to talk about and
[10:54] provide to the public the background and the information and discussion necessary
[11:00] for any agreement and what that might mean.
[11:02] And so the bottom line, again, is the 2020 election changed what was going on prior
[11:07] to that in the revenue picture, and later the annexations created the need for a
[11:12] clear agreement, and it brings us to where we are tonight.
[11:16] And this is just
[11:18] a representation, because one of the things that we have been talking about is that
[11:23] we have growth that'll take place both inside the city of Sealy city limits and
[11:29] also in the ETJ of the city. And future voluntary annexation of properties, as you
[11:35] know, is one of the discussion points for this agreement.
[11:39] And if the voluntary annexation took place, then pay a sales tax to the ESD, not
[11:45] to the city, which the city would still have a cost for providing such service,
[11:50] police, and road infrastructure, given what we have today.
[11:54] And so the discussion is how can we make sure that those that are providing
[11:59] service, that being the city in this case,
[12:02] have the revenue coming forward from sales tax to adequately
[12:08] help pay for these types of improvements and services that are paid through our
[12:14] general fund revenues, sales tax being one of the largest.
[12:20] And then also touch on, as you all very well are familiar with, the 2020 water
[12:25] moratorium that took place, and the city was under a moratorium for two years due
[12:29] to the inability to serve the connections.
[12:32] Again, kudos to the city and to the council and management for
[12:38] getting their arms around that and coming out of that.
[12:43] They were able to invest to get the infrastructure in place, and just as Ryan
[12:48] Tinsley, our city engineer, had presented to you a few meetings back, we are in a
[12:54] good position at this point in time for future connections and being able to
[12:58] service those connections as needed.
[13:01] However, you'll still see growth taking place, and water wells, groundwater, as we
[13:07] know, is very expensive to undertake and source tanks that take place as well as
[13:13] all the pipes and
[13:15] infrastructure it takes to deliver that water has to be paid for from somewhere.
[13:20] And one of the things that's in this discussion goes back to the original,
[13:26] back in 2011, or 2012 and forward, with respect to the purchase of water
[13:32] or the agreement for water, for the ESD to provide the service that they do.
[13:38] And that is one of the speaking points that you have in your packet tonight.
[13:45] Who's involved? And again, I think we touched on this pretty well, but the ESD and
[13:49] our different roles of ESD, city, and EDC.
[13:52] Again, they provide fire protection, emergency response, and services, in the
[13:57] district of which the city of Sealy is within.
[14:01] It receives dedicated ESD tax revenue, both in sales tax and in property tax.
[14:08] City of Sealy provides the municipal services.
[14:10] And again, that's the responsibilities for growth, utility, streets, drainage,
[14:16] general local government parks, and the like.
[14:19] And, so that's the role that the city plays.
[14:23] And then the EDC, we receive one-third of the city sales tax allocation under the
[14:28] current local split and use this for funds for economic development purposes.
[14:34] And again, the nexus of economic development in the city, in
[14:40] order to do good economic development,
[14:43] it is critically important to have the utilities in place and ready for service
[14:49] when opportunities come and arise, and so EDC plays a role in that.
[14:54] Again, this is not whether emergency services should exist.
[14:57] Everybody in this room agrees it has to.
[15:00] And,
[15:02] it's a question of how the revenue is divided when the city annexes overlap within
[15:06] the ESD and the service area that we showed you earlier.
[15:12] This is a breakdown. This came from our discussion, or the council's discussion one
[15:18] evening about giving a scenario of where we were at before 2020,
[15:24] where we were at after 2020 without the revenue sharing agreement in place, which
[15:29] is our current position, and then what it would look like.
[15:33] And at the time, we did not have the letter from the district, but since then we've
[15:38] gotten it. And so did a calculation on those three levels showing, again,
[15:44] before 2020 election, current situation, and then the ESD proposal, if it were to
[15:49] go through the share of the sales tax and how it would go out.
[15:54] And this is based on a million dollars of taxable sales in affected area.
[15:59] One thing that we can't do right now is we don't know what's going to develop
[16:02] where. And so
[16:07] I chose a million dollars of taxable sales to give you a benchmark to kind of show
[16:12] an illustration of how this would be divided.
[16:15] And as you can see, with the division of this, it
[16:21] represents the 60/40 split, 60 to the ESD on the last one,
[16:27] 40%, which would be divided between the
[16:31] city and the EDC respectively at one-third.
[16:35] Based on the current situations where I utilized was that of that
[16:41] 40% that the city and EDC would have, it would be split at a one-third,
[16:46] two-thirds of the sales tax collected.
[16:51] And so it gives you an idea of what that would look like on a million dollars
[16:55] sales.
[16:58] Next is where the situation currently stands, as we were just pointing out.
[17:02] What the ESD has proposed is a sales tax allocation mentioned at 60% to the
[17:08] ESD, 40% to the city side and a share to Point City and EDC.
[17:13] Allocation to three identified annexed areas and future annexations after agreement
[17:19] of execution, and that's critical in that with future annexations right now, we
[17:25] don't know what those would be, and we would have to analyze each of those when
[17:27] they come about in order to determine the economic impact and benefit or
[17:33] cost that would go along with those. That would be critical.
[17:37] And currently proposed at a term in perpetuity.
[17:42] And then important clarification, the 40% city share I mentioned a little bit
[17:46] earlier, the city and the EDC, it'll be a dual stream under which the current
[17:51] split, two-thirds will go to city and one-third to EDC.
[17:55] And again, there's the plain language as it relates to the information presented in
[18:00] the slide.
[18:02] Next
[18:04] What additional conditions are proposed from the ESD? Station one ground lease.
[18:09] Extend the current station ground lease for 50
[18:14] additional years, for a dollar per year, which
[18:18] the dollar per year has been in existence from the beginning, and this is a
[18:24] long-term property commitment by the city on land of the city's.
[18:28] Station utility language. Remove the ESD responsibility for certain past, current,
[18:33] and future utility fees that they are requesting, and monthly costs to be provided
[18:38] at city taxpayer expense. That is to be able to get the water necessary to
[18:44] perform the services that they do, both inside the city and outside at this point
[18:50] in time within station one. This
[18:56] shows who pays, again, certain utility-related costs to the city's taxpayers
[19:02] and not the ESD's use of the resources inside or outside differentiating between
[19:07] the two. That resource does go outside of the city as well.
[19:12] Station two infrastructure. The city would provide for water, sewer, gas,
[19:16] infrastructure connections to be constructed for ESD number 2 at city taxpayer
[19:20] expense. Again, this is at the request of the ESD and their proposal from September
[19:27] 4th, and this could create one-time capital infrastructure costs to the city
[19:31] taxpayers, for us to have to put that infrastructure in.
[19:34] Again, Mike will cover that, I believe, in some information following this about
[19:40] what that might look like and what the cost associated with that might be.
[19:45] Station two, which is a station that is projected.
[19:50] City would pay ongoing monthly utility costs for what they're requesting for ESD
[19:55] number 2 use at station two at city taxpayer expense again, and this could create
[20:01] ongoing operating costs to
[20:04] the taxpayers, both, again, servicing inside and outside the
[20:09] city within the ESD district, which we showed earlier is much larger than the
[20:14] current city limits.
[20:17] Future agreement could mean to the public.
[20:19] Again, a little bit repetitive, but an agreement could allow ESD number
[20:25] 2 to continue receiving most of the current sales tax stream while sharing a
[20:28] portion with Sealy, which we're not currently getting.
[20:35] Through due diligence, I think residents will want to know how public safety
[20:38] funding remains stable and that it remains stable because it is important to all of
[20:42] us, all of our lives, both inside the district, outside the district, and within
[20:47] the city and outside the city. City and utility costs.
[20:50] Some proposal terms could place infrastructure or utility costs on the city, as
[20:54] we've mentioned before. Residents may want to understand which costs are one time,
[21:00] which ones are ongoing, what are maintenance costs, and who ultimately would be
[21:06] paying for those, and it'd all be contingent on where
[21:12] the different developments would take place.
[21:14] And it would be something that would have to be looked at on a case-by-case basis
[21:18] based on the current proposal. Economic development resources.
[21:22] If Sealy receives a shared amount, one third again would go to EDC under the
[21:28] current local split, supporting economic development efforts to continue to
[21:33] increase the sales tax provisions and hopefully offset the
[21:39] property tax burden on residents.
[21:42] Key public takeaway at the end is the 60/40 agreement, and as we
[21:48] understand it at this point in time, on the 1.5% ESD allocation,
[21:54] and that just shows the breakdown on a 60/40
[21:59] split with a split between the city and EDC on the 40.
[22:06] What should citizens listen for as we move forward?
[22:10] What exact tax revenue is being shared?
[22:12] Citizens should be able to see the sources clearly and understand the issue
[22:18] about allocation transparency and not change from local tax ceiling,
[22:24] into the local tax ceiling, excuse me. City side share to be divided.
[22:30] Any public presentations should show the current Sealy split correctly and as just
[22:36] shown to you with regard to the city and EDC.
[22:40] Cost that the city would accept. An agreement may involve, again, we've talked
[22:45] about the lease of the property, the infrastructure, utility obligations, and
[22:49] additional revenue split that would have to be determined on each case
[22:55] as the annexations took place or came forward. How would services continue?
[23:01] Residents want confidence that, again, emergency service responses are great,
[23:05] municipal services continue to be great, and growth-related responsibilities remain
[23:09] supported with infrastructure in taking care of those needs as we grow.
[23:14] And again, the perpetual agreement can have long-term consequences,
[23:20] so terms should be understandable to the public.
[23:23] Again, transparency and in clear terms as to what the agreement would
[23:29] be and how it would go forward.
[23:34] Just in summary, again, 2020 ESD sales tax, the election changed the way
[23:40] local sales tax allocated. ESD 60/40 was where we were at today with
[23:46] the proposal.
[23:48] And again, conditions against property and infrastructure and utilities.
[23:53] And we also spoke to the split. Final takeaway from here,
[23:59] based on what we understood and presented tonight, was how to balance emergency
[24:04] services funding, city services responsibility as well, and local economic
[24:08] development. So there are three parties in this that are affected and the different
[24:12] levels of service that each provide, and any final agreement should be for the
[24:18] Sealy residents to understand where the money comes from, how it's divided, and
[24:23] what public obligations come with it
[24:27] when you have an agreement or reach an agreement.
[24:29] So again, it was a quick overview of the information.
[24:32] I hope I covered what you asked for, and I'll turn it over to Mike at this point.
[24:37] Thank you. I want to make a couple of comments, please.
[24:40] I took from their audited financial statements, and I've given this out before-
[24:44] Got you. Sorry. Leave it out there because I want to go back to something before
[24:48] ... And in 2021, the ESD sales tax revenue, 2021 was
[24:53] $121,911. In
[24:58] 2022, it was $319 and $273. This
[25:04] is their sales tax revenue from their audited financial statements.
[25:08] Okay.
[25:08] In 2023, it was $382,836. And as
[25:14] we continue to grow and people used online shopping, their sales tax was
[25:19] $461,183. That's an incredible amount of
[25:25] sales tax revenue that they received, and those were in annexed areas that we, as a
[25:31] city, were not able to recover anything for our taxpayers that basically are being
[25:36] double taxed. Okay, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[25:38] No, you're okay. I just wanted to stop them before they turned it off.
[25:41] Can you go back to the slide four please, the one that shows the table?
[25:48] So you had it highlighted here at the bottom, but I think it's important for the
[25:52] public to have kind of maybe a real-life explanation of what this total
[25:58] local is. So if you go into Walmart today, and you make a purchase, and you look at
[26:03] your receipt, you're going to see 8.25% sales tax.
[26:06] Okay, the state of Texas gets six and a quarter, they get 6.25 of that, and then
[26:11] they dictate that 2% of that is capped at local.
[26:15] So that means 2% is shared across the county and the city.
[26:19] The county takes a half a percent, and that's what we see there in the Austin
[26:23] County column. That's the .5. And then what's happening is that the
[26:28] ESD has now consumed the total remaining, which is the
[26:33] 1.5%. So if you go back now to the map that was on-
[26:41] At the beginning, yeah
[26:42] ... the second or third-
[26:43] Second page
[26:47] ... page. Okay, so now what's happening is everything that's outlined in red that
[26:50] is not yellow, ESD is consuming the total cap of
[26:55] 1.5% from that. If the Sealy were to
[27:02] grow
[27:04] inside of that red area, we will not be able to consume any additional sales tax
[27:09] from that because they have consumed all of it
[27:13] There's nothing left. We can't go above the 2%. We can't tax on top of it.
[27:18] Even if the city annexes it?
[27:20] That's what I mean. That's what I'm saying.
[27:22] So if that yellow portion grows inside that red portion, we're not getting any
[27:28] sales tax revenue from that as part of it, because they've consumed all 1.5% that
[27:34] remains.
[27:36] I know Mike is up next to speak, but I just want to make a clarification on the
[27:40] ESD, Emergency Services District, but in reality, this is only the
[27:46] fire department. This is not ambulance services-
[27:48] That's correct
[27:49] ... or medical services.
[27:50] That's correct.
[27:50] This is only the Sealy Fire Department.
[27:53] And many ESDs have dual purpose.
[27:55] Correct.
[27:55] For EMS and fire.
[27:57] Correct.
[27:58] And if I can add for clarification-
[27:59] That's excellent
[28:00] ... if I could clarify what you said a minute ago, Mayor.
[28:02] The subdivisions you're talking about are things that we annexed in already that
[28:07] are in the ESD 2 territory, and we're not eligible.
[28:12] So we already have some development that we've approved that are in these impacted
[28:16] areas. No one had the crystal ball in 2020 when we were voting, or whoever voted
[28:22] for it, I don't remember. But at that time, as a volunteer fire department, we knew
[28:28] we needed to pay firemen. We needed that because volunteers were going away, but
[28:32] never in my wildest dreams would I have figured it would grow to this proportion.
[28:37] So thank you for that.
[28:38] And Mayor, I'd like to just put on the record, this is a letter from Glenn Hagar on
[28:42] June 16th of 2022. We sent them our annexation maps to the Texas Comptroller.
[28:48] "Because this annexation overlaps part of Austin County Emergency Services District
[28:53] 2, the annexed area
[28:56] is now located in multiple taxing jurisdictions that impose a local sales and use
[29:01] tax. As a result, the combined local sales and use tax rate is 3.5%, which
[29:07] exceeds the 2% local cap. Consequently, the
[29:12] city sales tax rate will be reduced in the annexed area that overlaps
[29:18] Austin County Emergency Services District 2 in order to bring the total local rate
[29:23] to 2%."
[29:26] And that includes the 0.5% from the county?
[29:29] That is correct.
[29:32] Would you go back to slide four, please, sir?
[29:36] Oh, thank you. So just to... I'll get perspective.
[29:40] So I use my friend AI and just say, "Hey, how much does a Lowe's Home Depot
[29:45] generate annually by store?" So if we were to get a Home Depot, they generate $60
[29:50] to $75 million in revenue annually.
[29:56] So to put into perspective, that would be $900,000 annually in sales tax revenue.
[30:03] Okay. All that currently would go to the ESD if it was in our ETJ and they wanted
[30:08] to be annexed in.
[30:11] Zero currently goes to the City of Sealy.
[30:14] So yeah, I think we have to put that in perspective.
[30:16] Now, to me, what's outlined here is probably more like a 150-home
[30:22] residential area, annually, that we may see sales tax of about $10,000.
[30:26] So in the grand scheme of things, $15,000
[30:31] is not a whole lot, right?
[30:33] No.
[30:33] But when you talk about bringing in a big box store potentially that wants to be
[30:37] annexed into the community, that's where I think the city has a lot of its angst,
[30:42] right? Because again, we're being asked to serve, but we're not getting anything to
[30:46] be able to serve. We don't have a lot of the
[30:51] leverage to offer them incentives to move into our community, which people want
[30:56] growth in our community. But at the end of the day, this unfortunate situation,
[31:03] of course, I didn't sit in the House and the Senate legislature of Texas, but I
[31:08] don't think they consider the full impact when they pass this legislation,
[31:12] honestly.
[31:15] Robbie, did you want to add anything at this time?
[31:17] Yeah, I had something I'd like to say, but I was hoping to do it at the end.
[31:21] Well, I think if it's with these slides, it's good.
[31:24] If it's anything in relation to that, let's just talk as we go, and we can always
[31:28] come back and rehash it. It's up to you.
[31:30] Okay. No, I'll be
[31:34] good. So, my concern about the importance of the fire department, everyone knows we
[31:39] need that, right? This is what we kind of discussed a little bit earlier.
[31:42] My concern is the proposed agreement failure reflects the financial
[31:46] responsibilities that each party will carry and whether it will remain sustainable
[31:50] as Sealy grows. The proposal cannot be evaluated solely as a 60/40 revenue split.
[31:56] In addition to allocating 60% of the revenue to the ESD and 40% to the municipal
[32:00] side, the proposal would place additional property, infrastructure, and utility
[32:05] obligations on the city. In other words, the proposal would not only leave the city
[32:10] with a smaller portion of the revenue, it would increase the city's financial
[32:13] responsibilities. Those additional costs must be calculated and considered as part
[32:18] of the proposed allocation, as they will have a direct impact on our taxpayers.
[32:23] The city already has broad responsibilities, including police protection, streets,
[32:28] drainage, utilities, planning, permitting, administration, debt obligations, and
[32:32] the long-term maintenance and replacement of public infrastructure.
[32:36] These responsibilities increased as Sealy annexes property and experiences new
[32:42] residential and commercial development.
[32:45] The municipal side allocation is also not entirely available for ordinary
[32:51] city operations, as we discussed.
[32:53] It must account for the economic development tax approved by the Sealy voters in
[32:56] 1997.
[32:59] So in my opinion, it's really just a math issue, as some of the council
[33:05] members have pointed out. So to better understand an appropriate allocation, I've
[33:10] worked through a fiscal analysis involving more than 50,000 growth, development,
[33:15] and financial responsibility scenarios.
[33:18] With the different allocations and time horizons are included, the analysis
[33:23] produced millions of individual comparisons.
[33:26] The scenarios consider different development types, rates of growth, infrastructure
[33:31] demands, service responsibilities, developer participation, and both short and
[33:36] long-term financial effects. Obviously, this is not an exact science, and no model
[33:41] can predict every future development or expense.
[33:44] However, the results consistently indicate that the city's responsibilities are
[33:49] substantially greater than the 40% municipal side share offered by the ESD.
[33:55] Based on the extensive modeling, I believe a 90% municipal side and 10% ESD
[34:00] allocation is more of a reasonable starting point for negotiations
[34:06] based on the capital expenditures and liabilities of each party.
[34:11] I would also respectfully invite the Sealy Fire Department to prepare and present
[34:14] its own fiscal analysis. That analysis should identify its operating expenses,
[34:19] projected service demands, capital needs, available revenue, reserves, and
[34:23] anticipated costs associated with future growth so that taxpayers of Sealy can
[34:27] understand exactly what is at stake.
[34:29] Both entities have an obligation to taxpayers to support proposed percentages with
[34:34] transparent financial information.
[34:37] If the ESD analysis produces a different result, we should place the analysis side
[34:40] by side, compare the assumptions, and work towards a reasonable allocation
[34:44] supported by best available information.
[34:47] Getting the allocation wrong would not be good for either party, obviously.
[34:53] If the ESD receives too little, its ability to provide dependable emergency
[34:57] services could be affected. But if the city receives too little, it may be unable
[35:02] to afford the roads, utilities, and police protection, administration, and
[35:06] infrastructure needed to support new development and annexation.
[35:11] This could slow Sealy's growth. Slower growth would not affect only the city.
[35:15] It also would reduce the future sales tax base, property tax base, and development
[35:21] opportunities that help support ESD operations.
[35:25] A properly structured agreement should therefore be viewed as a shared investment
[35:29] in sustainable growth. As Sealy grows, it's possible both the city and the fire
[35:33] department benefit from a stronger tax base.
[35:36] If allocation makes growth financially impractical for the city, both parties may
[35:40] lose future revenue. The taxpayers supporting these entities are also frequently
[35:44] the same residents and businesses.
[35:46] This should not be treated as one public entity winning and another losing.
[35:51] The objective should be an allocation that allows both organizations to fulfill
[35:55] their responsibilities. At the end of the day, the Sealy Fire Department is not
[35:59] legally required to share its current revenue with the city.
[36:01] I recognize that and appreciate its willingness to negotiate.
[36:04] However, the council has a responsibility to evaluate the entire proposal of not
[36:09] only the revenue being offered, but also the additional expenses and long-term
[36:13] obligations being placed on the city and taxpayers both parties are responsible to.
[36:19] We want these discussions to continue to debate and believe there's an agreement
[36:22] possible, but it should be supported by transparent financial analysis, clearly
[36:26] defined responsibilities, and a structure that allows both the city and the fire
[36:30] department to benefit from Sealy's growth.
[36:35] Thank you. Councilman Berg, do you have anything you want to add at this point?
[36:38] I want to give everybody a chance to-- Based on Councilman-
[36:41] Yeah, I want to share some things, too.
[36:42] So just to pick up on a couple of the points that are made so the public
[36:46] understands. Normally, if a big box store comes to town and they request to be
[36:51] voluntarily annexed, then we would collect 100% of the sales tax.
[36:55] In the current situation, without an agreement, we would collect zero, as has been
[36:59] said. But we would still be providing,
[37:02] through interlocal agreements, policing services.
[37:07] If something happened there, the police would patrol.
[37:10] There would still be that kind of demand. Roads, Bill had the slide up.
[37:14] There's all kinds of things the city would provide, and as that map showed, the
[37:18] city is approximately 14,
[37:24] what is it, square miles in size. And the ESD documentation says they're
[37:30] 119 square miles. So today, that's a lot of rural area, but we're having a growth
[37:36] conversation. So as the city grows and grows, we will be the smaller piece of that,
[37:41] and they will be the larger territory.
[37:43] And yet you'll be having the city of Sealy provide the policing and some of the
[37:47] other stuff because the fire department doesn't provide that.
[37:50] So as we said, the allocation is very important as to Councilman Neckar's point.
[37:55] So you may say, well, they're offering you 40%.
[37:59] We haven't had a conversation yet about what they're asking for.
[38:02] Bill had it on the slide. But just to clarify, they want utilities.
[38:06] They want the infrastructure to the new station number two, which could mean
[38:11] hundreds of thousands of dollars to run infrastructure lines under the highway.
[38:16] And you'll have some of that once you-
[38:17] And I want to steal Mike's thunder. But I'm just getting to cost.
[38:20] There's a big cost associated. And so for us, if
[38:27] you're listening on the video or in public, you might say, "They're offering you
[38:31] 40%. What's the problem?" The problem is there's a perpetuity
[38:36] agreement for all of this stuff, and they use bulk water to provide for that entire
[38:42] 119 square miles. And so we're having to ask, should the city of Sealy, you saw the
[38:49] water tower and the groundwater storage tank.
[38:51] Should the City of Sealy, who currently provides water for those things, be
[38:55] providing the water for the entire emergency services district when they collect
[38:59] the property tax, which is allowed by the state, plus this new tax which is
[39:03] implemented? In 2011, we signed, the city, before any of us were here, signed a
[39:09] ground lease that said, "You can build a new fire station number one on city
[39:13] property." And the agreement called for them to pay for utilities, but the city's
[39:19] been really generous. The ground lease is for a dollar a year, which is a
[39:23] formality, and then the utilities are supposed to be paid, but the city has never
[39:28] sent them a bill up to this point. So the city's been really kind, even before this
[39:33] group and even now, to say, "You know what?
[39:35] We want to support emergency services, fire stations as much as we can." But we're
[39:39] in a spot now where if we're being good public servants and looking forward to
[39:45] growth, we have to have the conversation about should the taxpayers be stuck paying
[39:49] the bill as the growth happens if we're not collecting the tax.
[39:53] So,
[39:55] I just wanted to outline those points.
[39:57] That's correct. We'll continue this conversation.
[39:59] Councilman Curry, anything at this time?
[40:01] I have two more things. One is I have this sheet that said, "If Proposition A
[40:06] passes, what will it cost me?" And then it says on there, "The election will not
[40:11] affect sales tax rate within the city Sealy limits." Well, nobody knew the city
[40:17] limits-- I mean, nobody had the crystal ball five years ago to know the enormous
[40:22] number of people coming west. And that's not really the true story, because
[40:29] anybody that voted for this in good faith thought it would never, ever hurt the
[40:32] city taxpayers. And
[40:36] part of the deal is it has. And I think before we leave, I think it's important
[40:41] that people know these are some of the board members that I even appointed when I
[40:44] was county judge. Charles Byrne is their president.
[40:47] James Toman is their vice president.
[40:49] Lori Muhaki is an officer, Jeremy Waters and Daniel Atwood.
[40:54] I mean, those are the people that have been appointed to be the taxpayer advocate
[41:00] for the community. And they are a taxing authority.
[41:04] They do have open records meeting requirements.
[41:07] They should do more to make sure the public knows what's going on.
[41:11] I think Kimber indicated that there's property tax advertisement was in the paper
[41:18] one time, maybe. You saw that, and there was an increase to that, too, I think is
[41:23] what you had indicated.
[41:25] Correct.
[41:25] So, I mean, there's a lot of things going on, and we're not trying to be the bad
[41:29] guys. We want public safety. But to look out for the future of the city and
[41:35] the growth, as everyone has indicated, we're stuck.
[41:39] We want people to understand when they say, well-
[41:41] Make sure you talk loud enough for the video-
[41:43] Yes
[41:43] ... because sometimes the video doesn't pick it up.
[41:45] Don't they want the city to grow? And the answer is yes, but we want to do it
[41:49] fiscally responsibly-
[41:51] Correct
[41:51] ... to the extent we can.
[41:52] Okay. So let's go on to the next piece.
[41:55] Can I just mention one more thing?
[41:56] Sure.
[41:56] The other thing that I keep going back to, and it's really easy to get confused.
[42:01] So like when we're talking about a 60/40 split,
[42:07] you have to
[42:10] hone in on what the city would annex.
[42:13] So yes, we're talking about the entire outline of the
[42:19] district, but 40% would go to the city for what it annexed.
[42:24] So one of the questions I was going to propose tonight, if the board would've
[42:29] joined us, would've been, what does it cost to provide
[42:35] fire services to what we've annexed so far?
[42:38] Because I guarantee you, it's less than 60% of
[42:44] that cost today.
[42:48] And I would just like to also make a note with annexation.
[42:50] So one, as the annexation laws changed a few years ago, you can only annex pretty
[42:56] much generally by voluntary annexations, and they must be contiguous to the city
[43:00] limits. So we cannot go, if you pull that big map up, we cannot go annex way out to
[43:06] the further reaches of the ESD territory unless we've got contiguous property.
[43:12] So I want to make sure that the taxpayers or the public understands that, one, we
[43:17] can't just go unilaterally annex anymore. Generally.
[43:19] There's very, very few exceptions, which deal with like military and airports.
[43:24] Okay? And number two, it must be contiguous, which means touching the
[43:29] city limits for us to be able to annex.
[43:33] So we don't get to go reach all the way up to the top or the bottom unless there's
[43:38] a way to get there. And the clarifier is the 60/40 applies to things that the city
[43:43] would annex, not to the entire-
[43:45] Correct
[43:46] ... ESD two territory.
[43:47] That's correct. It would be only for a voluntary annexation into the city limits.
[43:53] And on the demands that they're asking for the city to
[44:00] pay for the water and the sewage and the gas and the police services, this would
[44:04] fall on the taxpayers, the citizens.
[44:07] We would be the ones absorbing the cost to extend our city services to
[44:13] these areas. So that would be an impact to each and every citizen of
[44:19] Sealy.
[44:22] If the city chose to annex, and if we chose not to annex, then we're back to the
[44:28] not growing. And this is causing us to not grow because we don't necessarily want
[44:32] to put that burden on the taxpayers.
[44:34] That's correct.
[44:35] Yeah. And just what I have
[44:39] given to me a couple months ago, at that time, $70,481
[44:45] was waived on utilities for just 2026, and this was two months old, so this was
[44:51] a June statement they've given to me.
[44:53] So it's significant amounts of money that each person that's paying property tax
[44:58] and living inside the city limits, and then when our water bill has to go up to
[45:03] meet the needs for that impact statement of the amounts of water that they use for
[45:07] bulk water, which is significant, and they're able to grow and get grants for water
[45:13] trucks and extra things that Councilman Neckar and I saw that day.
[45:18] We were at their meeting on the budget. I mean, they were buying lots of things.
[45:22] And yes, the time will come, but honestly, I think we're using a fire hose for a
[45:28] bucket right now because we haven't grown to that extent yet, and we can plan for
[45:33] the future.
[45:33] I asked the city manager for an updated number on that, just coincidentally to what
[45:37] you're talking about. The number you said, Kimber, and just correct if I'm wrong,
[45:41] as of March 2026, is $166,440 Yes, and
[45:47] Mike does have more information.
[45:49] Okay. All right. Are we ready to go? All right, Mike, you're on.
[45:55] We just want
[45:57] our viewing public to know this council is united in this effort to protect the
[46:02] taxpayer. We're all being very cognizant of public safety, but at the same
[46:08] time, protecting the public. Thank you.
[46:12] Staff was also asked to provide a summary of the city's predicted cost and
[46:16] potential financial impacts for utility infrastructure required of the ESD's
[46:19] proposal, received on September 4th.
[46:23] The city engineers provided a preliminary cost opinion for extending water, sewer,
[46:28] and gas infrastructure to serve ESD's number 2 proposed station on
[46:34] Farm Market 2187.
[46:37] The estimated infrastructure cost is approximately $674,000.
[46:42] In addition, water impact fee, $27,048.
[46:47] Sewer impact fee, $30,272.
[46:51] Start over. I'm sorry. You're reading faster than I can write.
[46:54] Okay.
[46:55] Go with the first one again.
[46:56] The estimated infrastructure cost is approximately $674,000.
[47:03] In addition, water impact fees would be $27,048
[47:09] for a two-inch water meter.
[47:12] Sewer impact fee, still based on a two-inch water meter, would be
[47:17] $30,272.
[47:20] That brings the current identified amount to approximately
[47:23] $731,320.
[47:29] Additionally, in consideration of ESD's condition for the city to remove any
[47:34] provision from the existing ground lease agreement requiring the district to be
[47:39] responsible for any prior, current, or future connection fees for monthly utility
[47:44] costs associated with gas, water, sanitary, sewer, drainage, and solid waste
[47:49] services.
[47:51] Finance Department staff reports that 2025 internal audit found the facility's
[47:57] metered utility consumption had been documented but had not been incorporated into
[48:03] the city's billing process since construction.
[48:07] A staff-supplied schedule now reports
[48:10] $166,440.82 in accrued
[48:15] gross service charges from fiscal year 2012 through March
[48:20] 2026.
[48:23] Since the city began metering bulk water usage at the ESD 2 station number 1
[48:29] facility, the
[48:31] projected annual utilities cost of all utilities, including three-inch
[48:37] bulk water, which serves the entire 117 square mile service area of the
[48:43] district, not just the 14 square miles of city limits,
[48:48] two-inch water line service, one-inch sprinkler line service, sewer,
[48:54] gas, solid waste, groundwater fee, drainage fee, smart
[49:00] meter fee. These total approximately $72,000 annually.
[49:07] This projection is based on the current consumption rate for the area served at the
[49:12] current fiscal year utility rates.
[49:15] The ESD has also requested the same provisions for future station number 2 on Farm
[49:21] Market 2187, which doubles the projected annual utility cost from $72,000
[49:28] to $144,000.
[49:31] These conditions would be in perpetuity.
[49:34] And note of a financial note that they also are requesting an additional 50-year
[49:39] addition to the ground lease that the city
[49:43] gave.
[49:45] And the existing ground lease is 30 with the automatic renewal for 30 if they opt.
[49:51] That's correct.
[49:51] So 60 to 50.
[49:52] It's already a 60-year potential lease, and they want another 50.
[49:55] Which total proposed-
[49:55] So it gives you some concern on are we literally selling them the land at that
[49:59] point? Is it de facto sale?
[50:04] Okay. Is there anything else?
[50:06] That's it.
[50:07] Okay. So I guess that kind of
[50:10] puts gasoline on the fire again, so to speak. Here we are.
[50:16] I don't know.
[50:19] What did you say, 14 square miles and then a hundred and something square...
[50:24] There's just no way.
[50:26] Do we want to talk here a little bit about the agreement just to-
[50:29] Well, that'll do, yes, I think so
[50:31] ... the interlocal, just to publicize that.
[50:33] I think those bullet points, yes. You have yours in front of you? Perfect. Okay.
[50:37] Let's do that.
[50:41] And I know we have not had a sit-down meeting with the board.
[50:45] I went to the meeting starting last November by myself.
[50:48] Councilman Curry went with me to one meeting, and Councilman Lerma went with me
[50:52] to... You went with me to two. Councilman Lerma went with me to one.
[50:57] Councilman Necker went with me to one, and we were just there to plead and make our
[51:01] statement under the public session.
[51:04] And tell them-
[51:05] And then they would go into executive session.
[51:07] We would never have a dialogue like we wanted to do today, and they're not here.
[51:13] And then I think individually, you met with their president of the board, and then
[51:17] I think Bobby even met with one of their board members.
[51:21] So we have tried to be reasonable.
[51:24] And just so the public understands, the reason we didn't all go is because if we
[51:28] have all of us show up, we have a quorum.
[51:31] So there's state rules about us not all show.
[51:34] Yeah. And that's why we're posting the agenda, and we're all here in together with
[51:39] the video and a public record. Perfect. Thank you. Okay.
[51:43] You're going to read the letter since it was attorney to attorney, would that be
[51:46] the easiest way? Or Councilman-
[51:48] It's-
[51:48] Mike, do you want to go through it? What do you want to do?
[51:50] We've really gone between Bill's and Mike's, we've gone through the substantive
[51:55] points of the letter. It's everything that,
[51:59] they say they will, the 60/40 split, but they want the utilities and,
[52:06] it says, I'm just going to read this part here, "The ground lease revision to
[52:10] utility provision Article 5, utilities of the ground lease agreement for station
[52:14] one shall be amended to remove any provision requiring the district to be
[52:18] responsible for any prior, current or future connection fees or monthly utility
[52:22] costs associated with gas, water, sanitary, sewer, drainage, and solid waste
[52:26] services." And again, they want that for station number two as well.
[52:30] There are no parameters, at least in this letter, that the bulk water would not go
[52:35] outside of that service station. And so I just want to make that clear.
[52:40] Now, whether they mean for it to not go outside the service, it doesn't say that.
[52:45] And so I just want the council to be aware that
[52:49] they could go technically fill up in perpetuity,
[52:55] but maybe that's not what they meant. That's not what they said.
[52:58] I don't know really what they meant, but that's what it says.
[53:02] Okay, Chris, go ahead.
[53:04] So the only thing that I keep coming back to is, I think on
[53:10] both sides, right? We're trying to get an agreement that adequately funds ESD, but
[53:15] also recognizes the city's cost serving, our cost serving in growing these
[53:20] particular areas.
[53:22] One of the things that bothers me,
[53:25] probably even more than the 60/40, is perpetuity.
[53:29] I think perpetuity already came to bite us once with the election that took place
[53:34] in 2020, and now we're stuck with
[53:37] what we voted for. So,
[53:41] I feel like at this point with this letter, we are so far from coming to
[53:47] something that both parties are going to agree to.
[53:51] But for me, I think it's, like I said, it's not even necessarily the 60/40, it's
[53:55] more so that we want to lock this all into perpetuity and not have a chance to
[53:59] renegotiate or reevaluate it as we do grow.
[54:02] So if I could add, that's a great point.
[54:05] The split we talked about originally with them, well, how would that work?
[54:11] Would they get all the money and then they would write us a check and they would
[54:14] have to figure out, you can't just do 40%.
[54:17] You can't do that.
[54:17] You have to do 40, right, I'm dreaming.
[54:19] You got to do 40% of the part that would be within future annexed areas.
[54:24] And so it becomes a complicated calculation, and so I believe the mayor and maybe
[54:28] it was one other talk to the Comptroller's office.
[54:32] Kimber and I, yes.
[54:32] Kimber.
[54:33] Yep.
[54:33] And,
[54:34] you all can take it from here if you want to, but they basically said, "We will do
[54:38] the split for you at the state level, but whatever you set up, you're not going to
[54:43] get to change it around." It becomes, am I quoting correctly, locked in and it's
[54:48] permanent. Whatever the split is, that's the way the split stays, right?
[54:52] And so it goes to your point about perpetuity.
[54:54] It might be nice to say, "You know what, why doesn't the city try a 20-year deal
[54:59] and see how that works?" And go from there.
[55:02] But according to what it sounds like they told us, wherever we agree to is-
[55:09] I think you could probably change it if all the parties agree.
[55:12] I do want to make a note, though-
[55:13] Well, I mean, I'm talking about the Comptroller's willingness to change the math.
[55:18] Am I misquoting, Kimberly?
[55:20] I don't believe that... I mean, I wasn't on the phone call with the Comptroller.
[55:24] But if, let's say, you do a 60-40 split, and in 10 years everybody seems come by,
[55:30] and they're like, "Let's do 90/10 for the city," I think they can do that.
[55:33] We would just let the Comptroller know.
[55:35] Yeah.
[55:36] I wanted to mention something for the public record.
[55:39] The city originally asked for an in perpetuity contract.
[55:43] However, that was not predicated on them asking for in
[55:49] perpetuity water, sewer, gas, solid waste, et cetera,
[55:55] nor was it predicated on
[55:58] them asking for the utility connection all the way to the new station.
[56:03] And so I don't want it to come back and say, "Well, you asked for that, we gave it
[56:08] to you." We did ask for that, however, it was not predicated on those other
[56:13] conditions.
[56:15] So I'm not an expert, but we do know that other cities, this is not an idea that
[56:19] this council cooked up, my understanding, and you correct me if I'm wrong because
[56:24] you're the attorney. The city of Hutto, Liberty Hill.
[56:29] We have some other ones that have implemented these types of things because this is
[56:34] an issue elsewhere within the state because of, as Councilman Miller said, the
[56:38] legislature set this up, probably was not realizing what all of that would mean.
[56:44] If you Google, I encourage go Google city of Hutto ESD.
[56:48] There was an article that came out on the 5th or pretty recent about them and their
[56:54] ESD and trying to come up with a renegotiated split, and they are fighting amongst
[56:59] themselves. I believe Hutto is going to try to start their own fire department, and
[57:03] so that just came out within the last few days. And so it's ongoing in that city.
[57:10] Mike Barrow came up with some other cities that were able to work out an amicable
[57:15] split.
[57:18] And those, Mike, I don't believe, had any sort of ties to infrastructure or
[57:22] utilities in perpetuity. It was just a split.
[57:26] And so this is a unique
[57:31] ask that they want in order to do this.
[57:35] Based on a very brief conversation with their attorney and their response,
[57:42] I don't really get the impression they're looking to negotiate really any further,
[57:46] but maybe they are.
[57:49] Can you read the end of the letter? Because we've approached them multiple times,
[57:52] and I think we had a repeated response that you sort of characterized as, "This
[57:58] is it. This is what we're offering."
[58:00] It just says that they've demonstrated willingness to work with us.
[58:07] But it kind of says that the city is agreeable to these terms, the district is
[58:12] prepared to move forward with finalizing the interlocal agreement and the related
[58:16] ground lease amendments and agreements.
[58:19] But it's not, "Hey, let's..."
[58:23] The council invited them
[58:26] to a public meeting tonight to sit down and talk, and they declined that multiple
[58:31] times, and so
[58:37] that's their response.
[58:41] Yeah, I think that was a response when we countered with
[58:46] alternate ideas, and they came back with the same as my point.
[58:50] Came back-
[58:50] They came back with it a little bit different than, I believe, the last one.
[58:54] It's come back so many times.
[58:57] It was a little more, I think, definite on they weren't looking to have anything
[59:03] built outside the city limits. We would be responsible for that.
[59:06] They clarified it was just going to be station number two, so that was a narrowing,
[59:11] which was helpful.
[59:13] But the in perpetuity of the water, that was all very similar to one of the
[59:19] prior.
[59:20] I do have the 5-28-26. Kimber's so great with her notes.
[59:26] I'm going to, Kimber, read your notes that I still have in my files.
[59:30] It says, "Mayor Mike and I had a meeting with Russell Gallagher, manager of the
[59:33] local government and transfer teams for the state Comptroller.
[59:37] Senate Bill 2965 pretty well gives them what they want.
[59:42] One and a half years ago, it would've been easier to negotiate an agreement for
[59:46] sales tax, but then the city would be responsible for using the sales tax to fire
[59:50] protection. However, the law has changed again.
[59:53] We are allowed to negotiate based on a strategic partnership agreement regarding
[59:57] sales tax revenue sharing of annexed areas." And then it goes on and says, "The
[1:00:02] annexed parcels would be identified as separate entity and sales tax would be split
[1:00:06] between the ESD and the city at the state level.
[1:00:10] And we at the city level then split with economic development.
[1:00:14] It would still all come to the city just like it does now." But that's a little
[1:00:18] misleading because that money would not...
[1:00:21] And the big deal is our money pays for our law enforcement.
[1:00:24] It's public safety at its very best, and we've got top-notch people here right now,
[1:00:30] and we don't want to lose the staff that Chief has hired, and we want them to have
[1:00:35] the vehicles they need. And to be in competition for who gets the most calls,
[1:00:41] how many are on our staff tonight? Captain Hudson, how many do you have people
[1:00:46] working tonight?
[1:00:47] We have three tonight.
[1:00:48] Three. Do you know how many are at the fire station?
[1:00:51] If they're all there, they're seven. Seven on and seven off.
[1:00:54] And you have three, and you look at that call volume you give us, holy smokes.
[1:01:01] Yeah, there's no napping at your place, and no cooking no barbecue, I know that.
[1:01:05] And that's the things we have got to understand for our taxpayers.
[1:01:10] It's really, really a big deal. And how we fix it, I don't know.
[1:01:15] But I support law enforcement. We got drug trafficking.
[1:01:18] We got crazy stuff going on in town, and our force is working so hard, and our
[1:01:24] people need to know where their money's going.
[1:01:27] And if we're paying for this bulk water and all of these ancillary utilities to
[1:01:32] serve, what? How far out? I'm not good at mileage.
[1:01:37] 30 miles out or 40 miles out? How far does that district go?
[1:01:40] Good question.
[1:01:42] And those new subdivisions that are coming in on 1094, they're going to be part of
[1:01:46] this. And who do you think's going to end up showing up quicker?
[1:01:49] Because county probably has two or three on tonight to cover the whole county, and
[1:01:54] that's it. So who's quicker? It's going to be our officer.
[1:01:57] And I would just add, you bring up law enforcement.
[1:02:00] In order to stay competitive and make sure we employ a good police department,
[1:02:05] we've had Senate Bill 22, which the legislature also passed, which put more money
[1:02:09] into the county's pocket, rural sheriff's departments, to be more competitive,
[1:02:15] which means we've had to spend more on law enforcement in order to keep good
[1:02:20] resources.
[1:02:21] But I don't bet they have more than two or three on to cover the whole area.
[1:02:25] They might have a supervisor sitting somewhere available on a serious call.
[1:02:30] But
[1:02:33] I hate to say it, but I'm all about public safety for both.
[1:02:36] But who's got the greater urgent need every day 24/7?
[1:02:42] Now, how do we go on with this agenda to move on?
[1:02:45] Because the business item, if we're ready to talk about it, is the interlocal
[1:02:49] agreement, the utility billing, and the lease with the Austin County Emergency
[1:02:54] Service District number 2.
[1:02:56] This is the hard part where we all get our head against the wall again.
[1:02:59] So what are we going to do?
[1:03:03] I will open it up and like I said, again, I think we're really far off from coming
[1:03:07] to an agreement, and I think
[1:03:11] we are at least responsible for
[1:03:15] at least starting to charge utilities.
[1:03:18] But we've already made that determination, right? We've already voted on that.
[1:03:22] We voted on it once, and then we delayed it because he was going to see how far
[1:03:25] back we could go.
[1:03:26] Yeah, but we've already decided.
[1:03:28] But we need to do that again officially.
[1:03:30] For clarification, if you all do want, how far back and what you want me to
[1:03:37] ask for
[1:03:41] on utility only.
[1:03:44] But personally, I think that the main thing is to start charging, to start getting
[1:03:50] that utility process going and start charging for the usage.
[1:03:54] How many do we start the bulk water?
[1:03:58] Maybe we start from when we have the bulk water.
[1:04:00] Go back to the meter of the bulk water.
[1:04:02] The meter of the bulk water. I think that's a reasonable
[1:04:08] I'm going back 15 years that we didn't build them,
[1:04:13] which I think you probably could vis-a-vis the contract.
[1:04:16] 2025.
[1:04:17] 2025? But the bulk water is where the numbers really, I believe, started popping up
[1:04:22] is when we put the meter on the bulk water station.
[1:04:25] And so we could certainly send them an invoice for that.
[1:04:28] For this fiscal year, so that was-
[1:04:30] So I'd say whenever y'all started to do that bulk water meter on.
[1:04:33] And it wouldn't be just for water, it'd be for all the utilities that are provided.
[1:04:37] And that would be a certain, because that's when you started seeing the uptick in
[1:04:42] the costs. And you're not saying, "Oh, hey, we're going, yeah, here."
[1:04:48] I think it kind of stays in the line of us being, we're trying to be as reasonable
[1:04:53] as possible in negotiating through this.
[1:04:57] That's a good point.
[1:04:58] Just to confirm, that was all within those utility funds, right?
[1:05:01] They can't be used for things like police service.
[1:05:04] They're all in the-
[1:05:05] That's right
[1:05:05] ... the water-
[1:05:06] That's right.
[1:05:06] That's right
[1:05:07] ... gas funds.
[1:05:08] Enterprise funds.
[1:05:10] Yeah, enterprise funds. Right.
[1:05:11] Where the sales tax dollar really helps us provide the-
[1:05:14] Yeah
[1:05:15] ... the emergency services that we provide.
[1:05:16] So I think that's something very important that people need to understand.
[1:05:19] And I know at a recent meeting, we were asked by Assistant City Manager Barrow to
[1:05:25] provide direction about what projects approach the city, give him some direction,
[1:05:30] give the staff some direction on what to entertain so that they don't lead
[1:05:35] developers on. And so it may or may not be proper to do any
[1:05:40] action tonight, but if we're saying that it limits us, then I think,
[1:05:46] in my opinion, I would want staff to prioritize things to happen inside the
[1:05:51] existing city limits and to prioritize things that generate high sales tax revenue
[1:05:56] instead of things that don't. Because we have a limited land-locked area to grow
[1:06:01] within the boundaries that are here and take advantage of that.
[1:06:05] So to me, that would be direction to give them, if not tonight, after something was
[1:06:10] worked out, so that we could. But...
[1:06:14] Mike, we have about three developers that are just sitting there with their arms
[1:06:18] crossed, waiting to see if we work out anything with the ESD.
[1:06:22] And to get those rooftops gives us nothing but financial burden.
[1:06:29] A little property tax, but remember, the legislature has put on a homeowner, the
[1:06:34] property tax is constrained, so there's very minimal money in that.
[1:06:40] Mathematically, yeah.
[1:06:41] Mathematically. It goes back to-
[1:06:42] No exit. I mean, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
[1:06:45] So I don't know. I don't know what's the right thing to do.
[1:06:48] I just know
[1:06:50] we have a responsibility to the taxpayers.
[1:06:52] We do.
[1:06:52] And we have a responsibility to let them know these people meet on the second
[1:06:58] Wednesday of every month at the fire station, and if they have concerns, they need
[1:07:01] to call these board members.
[1:07:04] And I would say the conversations that I had, which with Kimbra and
[1:07:10] Charlie Burr and Mike, and then I'm trying to think who else was on that meeting
[1:07:14] with us, but-
[1:07:17] Was Kenny there?
[1:07:18] And Kenny was there.
[1:07:19] The chief, yeah.
[1:07:20] And so
[1:07:22] I don't know how to say this. I think the fire department is focused
[1:07:28] more on the rooftops, whereas that's great for the city as well.
[1:07:34] But I think the city is more concerned with
[1:07:39] big box.
[1:07:41] Mm-hmm.
[1:07:42] And the potential that provides us.
[1:07:46] I assume if you live in Sealy, you probably can't imagine driving to San Antonio to
[1:07:51] do your daily shopping. You probably go out to Katy or Houston.
[1:07:55] That's the closest area. And it's growing. Brookshire's growing.
[1:08:00] People said Brookshire was not going to be a bedroom community.
[1:08:02] Well, it's turning into a bedroom community.
[1:08:04] It's getting all this
[1:08:06] wall of warehousing. It's coming to Sealy, guys. It is coming.
[1:08:11] Like it or not, it is coming. And with that follows Target, Lowe's,
[1:08:18] HEBs, and all these other things that if those want to be annexed, we are going
[1:08:24] to get $0 from that.
[1:08:27] And so I think that's really what I'm concerned with most is that loss of revenue.
[1:08:33] As we can see, $1 million doesn't, or as we saw, a million dollars doesn't really
[1:08:37] generate... $1 million of sales tax or revenue doesn't generate that much in sales
[1:08:42] tax, and that's primarily from a residential, just rooftop.
[1:08:47] To me, we should be concerned more with the business growth that's coming this way,
[1:08:53] and that's what I am most concerned with.
[1:08:55] So, and again, I think it's differences in perspective. I'm not a fireman.
[1:09:00] I'm not on the ESD. I don't know, and maybe it's not, but in the conversation that
[1:09:05] I had with him, it felt like that was the difference of perspective was houses
[1:09:09] versus commercial space.
[1:09:12] So short term versus long term. I'm thinking long term.
[1:09:17] We can't think short term in these situations.
[1:09:19] We have to think about 10, 15, 20 years down the road.
[1:09:23] If we don't make a good decision today,
[1:09:26] one person's going to be flush with cash in their pockets, with shiny new toys that
[1:09:31] they're running around on the streets of Austin County, and we're going to be left
[1:09:35] holding the bag to be able to support our community, and that's not a good
[1:09:38] situation for the taxpayers of Sealy.
[1:09:42] The blessing I love is our young people are coming back to Sealy.
[1:09:46] The next generation is coming back. Y'all came back. My kids came back.
[1:09:50] Y'all came back. Y'all could've gone anywhere, and we're wanting your children to
[1:09:54] come back when they graduate from college and school.
[1:09:57] And if we don't have a healthy, safe community, you think those kids are going to
[1:10:00] come back to Sealy? They're going to find other places to raise their families
[1:10:04] where the city is sustainable, and we won't be a sustainable city.
[1:10:08] So it's our legacy to leave what we can, and I hope we can do it right.
[1:10:14] I think we should counter. I think we should go back to whether it's
[1:10:19] we get the 60 or we get the 80, or we get the 90.
[1:10:22] I'm like, "Okay, Councilman Miller, speak it up.
[1:10:26] What do you want to counter at?"
[1:10:27] Well, I'll just say real quick before you do,
[1:10:31] at 80/20,
[1:10:34] all the concessions that are being asked for, I'd really be willing to entertain
[1:10:37] some of those. But at a 60/40, 60 to the ESD, 40 to the city, doesn't make
[1:10:43] sense. Just economically, financially, it does not make sense.
[1:10:48] So we have to come to a better term than what's being provided.
[1:10:55] Yeah, and I think a big portion of that, like I mentioned, is the expenses.
[1:10:59] And so we look at all the expenses the city has, not only just Sealy, but any city
[1:11:04] in general, compared to what a fire department has.
[1:11:09] And based on every different type of development, it doesn't really matter what it
[1:11:13] is, the city has majority of the expenses, and whatever that number is, in
[1:11:19] my calculations, it's about 90% of the expenses.
[1:11:22] And so if we're getting less than 90%, then we are taking a hit that our
[1:11:28] taxpayers are going to have to pay for out of their own.
[1:11:31] So I think it sounds like we're probably willing to do that, but again, that's a
[1:11:36] clear, "Hey, let's everyone cover your expenses," which mathematically and
[1:11:43] as a whole should matter for... It's what everybody should want.
[1:11:47] No one's trying to pad their pockets here. We can't.
[1:11:51] The city or the fire department. So,
[1:11:54] yeah.
[1:11:55] That 90/10 split, I'm just curious, did that factor in what the city would
[1:12:01] get from property tax-
[1:12:02] Yes
[1:12:02] ... from those communities as well?
[1:12:04] Yes.
[1:12:07] So to your point and Councilman Miller's point, for the public, just a reminder,
[1:12:13] if this had not been put in place, if this vote had not happened, when we annexed,
[1:12:18] we would've gotten 100% of the sales tax.
[1:12:21] The county also would've taken their-
[1:12:23] Right, but we would've gotten 100% of what we normally get-
[1:12:27] I see
[1:12:27] ... for the rest of the territory, yes.
[1:12:29] And so,
[1:12:31] I agree that we have to focus on things that are more tax generating because we are
[1:12:36] land-locked in this scenario, and the residential growth can come on the
[1:12:42] outside of the city limits anyway because that's ideal in my mind, because then
[1:12:48] you're not paying city tax and a MUD.
[1:12:50] It's actually a good idea that within the city, we try to have the industrial and
[1:12:55] the commercial or whatever, the sales tax, the big box, and outside, good for the
[1:13:01] homeowners to not pay double tax and to not be in the city limits.
[1:13:06] So it's win-win to me if we prioritize things like you were talking about.
[1:13:18] I mean, I don't know what the answer is, but it's not going to be very easy for us
[1:13:21] to try to negotiate when we can't even get the other party in the same room.
[1:13:27] And come back with a counteroffer or something.
[1:13:30] Well, I had a thought. I'll just put it out there.
[1:13:33] We talked about billing from the bulk water date, which I think is very reasonable.
[1:13:38] And
[1:13:41] then you just take a break
[1:13:44] from them, and we see where you are in a year.
[1:13:49] I don't know.
[1:13:50] Which been since last November.
[1:13:51] I think we go back and offer them something because...
[1:13:54] And they might--
[1:13:56] Maybe somebody's going to watch this video, and maybe someone will go talk to some
[1:14:00] of these people. That's all we can help but pray for.
[1:14:02] And we post it on our website and everywhere as we can post it.
[1:14:07] That's all we can hope for, is that we educate the public.
[1:14:09] No one's here from the media, from the newspaper.
[1:14:11] We can do a press release together, and hopefully, all of us get together and try
[1:14:16] to put something together. The public deserves to understand.
[1:14:20] We have Austin County EMS, which is another taxing district separated.
[1:14:24] Councilman Decker brought that up.
[1:14:25] And then we have fire, which is another taxing district, and then we have-- And we
[1:14:29] charge the school district, and we charge the county for water and sewer and all
[1:14:34] their services. They don't get anything free. So what makes this group special?
[1:14:39] And tax audit, right, Mike? Yeah.
[1:14:40] But that's because they were volunteers for so long, and everybody had their heart
[1:14:45] on their sleeve, and they wanted-- It's a volunteer, and we wanted our volunteers
[1:14:49] to be appreciated and wanted, and there's no volunteers anymore.
[1:14:53] I think they have one volunteer on that staff.
[1:14:56] Yeah. To Councilman Burch's point, we do collect more property tax, but
[1:15:02] even at a,
[1:15:05] my calculation, 2,000 homes residents, even supplying the ESD with a new fire
[1:15:11] station, new engine company trucks, new additional firefighters to meet the need of
[1:15:17] that many people,
[1:15:20] their percentage of the cost is 13%. Ours is 87%.
[1:15:25] Do you hear that? 13% versus 87%.
[1:15:32] Are we able to take multiple motions on this agenda item?
[1:15:35] Like-
[1:15:36] Like taking the bullet points of the letter?
[1:15:37] Well, I just mean,
[1:15:41] it sounds like there's consensus that we want to at least start charging for bulk
[1:15:45] water and maybe back charge. So maybe that's one motion.
[1:15:47] So let's start with that.
[1:15:49] And then we can start talking about-
[1:15:50] Sure. That would be easy. That would be a nice way to do it, and then we're clear.
[1:15:56] And then just so I'm clear, are we wanting to back charge to that date for all
[1:16:01] utilities, or are we just looking at bulk water?
[1:16:04] I think that might be reasonable for all utilities.
[1:16:07] Yeah. Mm-hmm.
[1:16:08] Because what was the date of the bulk water? It was 2025. We have that date.
[1:16:12] Yes. I don't have the exact month, but I know it started in 2025.
[1:16:17] The ground lease said that they would pay for all the utilities as part of that
[1:16:20] deal, right?
[1:16:21] Correct.
[1:16:22] So I'll go ahead and remake my motion that I made at the meeting prior- ...
[1:16:27] to go ahead and charge for a back bill to the bulk meter date per the terms
[1:16:33] of our contract with the ESD.
[1:16:36] I second.
[1:16:38] We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[1:16:41] Aye.
[1:16:41] Aye.
[1:16:42] Any opposed? Motion carries.
[1:16:45] And does that also-- So I know we did after back charging, but does that also then
[1:16:50] start charging for all utilities as of today?
[1:16:53] Yes. And we'll start that, yes.
[1:16:55] Okay. I don't think we need a motion for that.
[1:16:57] That's-
[1:16:57] I think that is-
[1:16:58] ... obviously-
[1:16:58] Per the contract.
[1:16:59] Yeah. Per the terms.
[1:16:59] That was a good point, yes.
[1:17:01] Thank you.
[1:17:01] Terms of the contract. Good point.
[1:17:01] So we're forfeiting X amount of dollars.
[1:17:03] Right.
[1:17:04] I wouldn't say we're forfeiting.
[1:17:08] We have a contract with them. There may be a way at some point if we need to
[1:17:12] legally look back.
[1:17:14] And we have a lease.
[1:17:15] And we have a lease.
[1:17:16] That's our property.
[1:17:17] But for now, we're going to go ahead and start with that.
[1:17:19] Okay.
[1:17:22] Anything else on this?
[1:17:23] Now onto the,
[1:17:25] want to entertain renegotiating or-
[1:17:27] Right.
[1:17:33] I think since we started the process of back billing, I think we just need to just
[1:17:38] sit down and be still for a minute and see what happens before we take some
[1:17:42] additional steps.
[1:17:44] Yeah. That's kind of been my thought, too.
[1:17:46] Yeah.
[1:17:48] Like Councilman Miller said, the biggest concern to me is in the future for
[1:17:54] high-impact retail, box stores, things like that, that would really contribute to
[1:17:59] the sales tax revenue of the city. We don't currently have that
[1:18:03] staring at us in the face right at this moment.
[1:18:07] So I don't want to waste staff's time going back and forth and negotiating when
[1:18:13] we know what's going to probably happen.
[1:18:16] So
[1:18:17] in my point of view, we'll start the billing procedures as per the contract,
[1:18:23] and we'll just kind of play it day by day, and if something pops up, some
[1:18:29] development pops up, then we can take a new look at it, whether or not we want to
[1:18:36] annex that project or, and at that point in time, the consideration
[1:18:42] to the ESD. Maybe that will open up negotiations
[1:18:47] at that time. So I think that's probably, in my mind, that's the best idea, is to
[1:18:53] just go ahead and start what we already voted on, start charging the
[1:18:59] utilities, and we just have to take a breath.
[1:19:03] And I think tonight was good. Staff did a great job of presenting all the
[1:19:08] information.
[1:19:10] So that's all out there now. And we're still open. We're still amenable.
[1:19:16] We want to do what's best for the city, what's best for the citizens, what's best
[1:19:21] for the ESD, too. We don't
[1:19:26] want to hurt their side at all either.
[1:19:30] We just want the best for the city going forward, and I think if we
[1:19:36] just take a breath, we can still accomplish that.
[1:19:40] The state legislation is potentially looking at, I know they've mentioned
[1:19:45] something, one of the representatives mentioned something to me that maybe some of
[1:19:49] these laws may change, and this may all be a moot point in next year or so.
[1:19:53] Tim, you have said that-
[1:19:55] Oh, does Peter want to say something?
[1:19:56] You have said that your other cities have had success testifying at the
[1:20:01] legislature.
[1:20:03] Right. On pending bills. Bills that were pending.
[1:20:06] Oh, on pending bills.
[1:20:07] Yeah. So if the legislature has something about an ADU or lot size, I've had
[1:20:13] representatives, so council members go and speak on behalf or against those bills.
[1:20:19] I don't want to put you on the spot, but is there something pending related to this
[1:20:22] where the city can share our viewpoints, someone from the city or the council, I
[1:20:27] don't know how it works,
[1:20:29] who they sent, but can go out there and share our experience for just
[1:20:35] to let them know so that they can explore possible solutions, if not this time
[1:20:40] around?
[1:20:40] We can certainly talk to your legislators.
[1:20:43] To my knowledge, Senator's been really good about a bunch of us GML pre-file bills.
[1:20:48] I have not seen anything on ESDs, but I have, and I think there's others in here
[1:20:52] that have talked to our senator.
[1:20:54] The senator is very concerned about the agreements, not only obviously for us in
[1:20:59] her district, but all across the state, because the other senators are looking at
[1:21:02] this as well, and it's a major issue. And so she is very concerned.
[1:21:05] She's told me directly that, so
[1:21:07] I don't think it's over.
[1:21:10] Would we want at this time, I think we've heard several people say this, I don't
[1:21:14] hear any disagreement, but staff has asked for direction.
[1:21:17] So I don't know, maybe I'll make a motion, and I'm not sure how it needs to be
[1:21:22] structured. We can modify it if you don't like it, but a motion to direct the staff
[1:21:27] to prioritize
[1:21:31] big box retail, sales tax generating, commercial type development
[1:21:37] for the existing city limits area.
[1:21:43] That was a motion.
[1:21:45] That's your motion. Do we have a second?
[1:21:47] Mm-hmm.
[1:21:48] I mean, and that could be as simple as a 380 agreement.
[1:21:51] It could be as simple as a tax abatement agreement that-
[1:21:53] Yeah
[1:21:53] ... they'd have to obviously bring everything, all of those back to the council.
[1:21:56] I'm just saying staff has asked for direction on what do they tell developers when
[1:22:00] they come to the door? Should we be bothering spending our time pursuing CELE or
[1:22:04] not? And so if we let our interest be known, it's not shutting anything down.
[1:22:09] It's just-
[1:22:11] Well, we have developers that are waiting on kind of this agreement, too, right?
[1:22:13] Right.
[1:22:13] So we need to figure out-
[1:22:14] Yeah. He's got two or three he's got to call-
[1:22:16] We need to figure out-
[1:22:18] ... to say, "They didn't work with us." I mean
[1:22:23] Would you please repeat that question?
[1:22:26] We have two or three developments that are currently in discussions, right?
[1:22:31] Yes.
[1:22:31] And so,
[1:22:33] they were waiting on this agreement and the outcome of it, right?
[1:22:35] Right.
[1:22:36] And so we've got to figure out what
[1:22:39] is the feedback we give them at this point.
[1:22:41] Yes, that's what Mike needs.
[1:22:44] And we just had a motion that was basically saying...
[1:22:48] Can you repeat what you just said?
[1:22:50] That's right.
[1:22:51] It was commercial and not residential.
[1:22:53] Off the top of my head, it was commercial, not residential, high revenue,
[1:22:59] retail sales tax generating.
[1:23:02] Right.
[1:23:02] I know Sandra's like, "What is all of that for the log?" But...
[1:23:07] We don't have a second on that either, and I think someone's asking if we need it.
[1:23:11] So-
[1:23:11] Do we need that, or is direction just guidance?
[1:23:14] Yeah.
[1:23:14] Do we need a motion?
[1:23:15] I mean, I'm not that disagree with what you said.
[1:23:17] I feel like that's more a priority.
[1:23:21] Kind of a policy mind.
[1:23:22] Yeah. And I agree. I think that until we have an agreement, we should prioritize,
[1:23:27] and maybe even planning-wise, maybe even come up with new ways to develop
[1:23:32] those high impact commercial or retail inside the city
[1:23:38] limits. But I don't know as a specific motion.
[1:23:42] Yeah.
[1:23:43] I'm just-
[1:23:43] Let rooftops come first, though, right?
[1:23:45] So that's kind of a chicken before the egg as well, right?
[1:23:49] So if we delay more rooftops, we're delaying potentially more big box stores, which
[1:23:54] then we're delaying the growth of city, which is what we talked about.
[1:23:57] I feel like we're going in circles now, because if we're saying that rooftops
[1:24:01] without the sales tax is financially not feasible, then-
[1:24:07] That's where we go to if this city is as a-
[1:24:10] But I think those rooftops in the
[1:24:14] new one on 1094, that's going to be a gazillion houses.
[1:24:17] I think the rooftops just out of the city limits will still shop and eat and town.
[1:24:22] It's still coming this way. If we can put the-
[1:24:26] If we generate enough of those-
[1:24:28] Yes
[1:24:29] ... that traffic, we will get those big box.
[1:24:32] We'll get the HEB and a few other things.
[1:24:34] I guess, in terms of direction, do we need to do something with the motion?
[1:24:41] Well, I want to make a comment on it before-
[1:24:43] We haven't been second yet, so we can still-
[1:24:45] Yeah, I want to make a comment on that, which is my thought is this is direction so
[1:24:50] that the staff has it, and so that the EDC can say, "Council has
[1:24:56] said this is the way they want to go." So I wouldn't have to have it, but I think
[1:25:00] it's just direction.
[1:25:00] That's exactly what we need, because Mike is dealing with three developments, we've
[1:25:04] been dealing with for almost a year, that we have been putting off, bringing back
[1:25:08] to council, telling them that we're pending negotiations for an ILA with the ESD,
[1:25:13] Interlocal Agreement with the ESD.
[1:25:16] So I think what you need is a definite yes or no directive from the council as
[1:25:22] to whether or not to move forward with those-
[1:25:25] Are those coming from the-
[1:25:26] ... annexations
[1:25:27] And these are developments that want to be annexed. They're not in the city limits.
[1:25:32] I said some residential.
[1:25:33] And that's the catch.
[1:25:33] They're all being annexed.
[1:25:35] We've already installed our water meters and all our stuff, and for no financial
[1:25:40] gain.
[1:25:40] Well, Emma, I'm trying to picture, I know you want direction.
[1:25:44] This is really just more about an ESD issue, not a complete and utter development
[1:25:48] issue.
[1:25:48] Well, and I hesitated to bring it up as a motion-
[1:25:52] They need direction
[1:25:53] ... but I thought under what other meaning topic would it fall?
[1:25:57] Like, you know what I'm saying?
[1:25:58] It's a result-
[1:25:59] It's directly tied to this, yeah. If we can meet tonight and-
[1:26:03] It is, and I agree. That's why I want to give you all enough leeway, but I don't
[1:26:07] also want it to turn into a whole development workshop.
[1:26:10] Right.
[1:26:10] Yeah. We're not... I mean,
[1:26:14] typically when I make a decision on developments or potential developments, I like
[1:26:19] to look at each one individually.
[1:26:20] Individually.
[1:26:22] So it's pretty difficult to make a-
[1:26:24] So I think there's a difference between what I was proposing and maybe what we're
[1:26:29] talking about, which was I'm saying, as a general matter, give staff
[1:26:35] direction to prioritize the things that I listed earlier.
[1:26:38] Okay.
[1:26:39] Not to say we can't have the other stuff, but that if someone comes knocking at the
[1:26:44] door and says, "Hey, we're looking to do a development.
[1:26:46] Is your council going to play with us, or are they really not interested?"
[1:26:51] They voted to prioritize because we had this issue with the ESD, and so we're
[1:26:55] trying to put the right stuff within the existing stadiums, because once that space
[1:26:59] runs out, it's gone.
[1:27:02] So
[1:27:05] should
[1:27:06] we request an agenda item at our next meeting to give direction on development?
[1:27:11] I feel like that would be-
[1:27:12] But your illustrious city manager just asked me, and that might be a little bit
[1:27:16] better, have a little more robust conversation and a little more-
[1:27:20] During my comments, I'll actually request that, if that's okay.
[1:27:23] Sure. So Edward, do you want to rescind your motion?
[1:27:28] Sure, if I need to. There wasn't a second, but I mean-
[1:27:30] Okay.
[1:27:31] That's where I was. Yeah.
[1:27:33] Okay. Not because we had no second.
[1:27:34] I do have a question.
[1:27:35] Yes, sir.
[1:27:36] Do we need to make a motion to officially reject this Interlocal?
[1:27:40] I don't know if you... That's up to the council. I don't think you need...
[1:27:45] I think a no response is a response.
[1:27:48] I think they're going to watch this, and they're going to know that you're
[1:27:50] certainly open to continue to dialogue with them.
[1:27:52] But at this time, you're not accepting this.
[1:27:55] I don't know if you have to
[1:27:58] necessarily reject it. We're going to send the utility bill out, and then we're
[1:28:01] going to tell them.
[1:28:01] Well, since it was lawyer to lawyer kind of way-
[1:28:03] I'm saying like-
[1:28:04] ... handled, that's up to you. I think you should call the attorney.
[1:28:07] We should instruct you to call the attorney and tell him what's going on.
[1:28:10] I don't understand.
[1:28:11] Send her a letter. I know. Another letter.
[1:28:15] Do we want to make a motion for the press release?
[1:28:19] Mayor-
[1:28:19] Yes
[1:28:19] ... and the city manager can do that as well-
[1:28:21] Yes
[1:28:21] ... under their purview.
[1:28:22] Yes, thank you.
[1:28:22] Unless you want to have a formal motion. You have the authority.
[1:28:26] You and the city manager, you have that right here.
[1:28:28] Let's go that way.
[1:28:29] Unless you want it to be on the record to do a press release.
[1:28:31] I think it'd be good for it to be on the record.
[1:28:32] That way everybody, they're going to say, "Why'd they say that?"
[1:28:37] Get up and tell these, "Oh no, leave me out of that one."
[1:28:41] I'll make a motion that the mayor works with city staff to publish a press
[1:28:46] release regarding all the details with the ESD.
[1:28:52] Heard.
[1:28:52] I second. Motion and a second. Further discussions? I'll call for the vote.
[1:28:58] All those in favor, please say aye.
[1:29:00] Aye.
[1:29:00] Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you very much.
[1:29:04] I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn.
[1:29:07] Hold on. Don't we want to do the reports and announcements?
[1:29:10] Oh, did I miss those?
[1:29:11] Let's do number two.
[1:29:12] Okay.
[1:29:12] Reports and announcements. Councilman Bergus.
[1:29:14] Oh, okay.
[1:29:15] Seth.
[1:29:16] That's fine.
[1:29:16] Curry.
[1:29:18] I'd like to request a future agenda item to talk about direction for staff of
[1:29:22] development within the community, which would include not only within our city
[1:29:26] limits but also potentially if we were able to entice a box store,
[1:29:32] right, into the ETJ to continue conversations around
[1:29:38] Interlocal Agreement.
[1:29:39] That's great.
[1:29:42] Thank you.
[1:29:43] I didn't see that coming.
[1:29:45] I think Seth-
[1:29:45] I don't know.
[1:29:46] Okay. We'll handle that motion. Somebody started to make a motion to adjourn.
[1:29:50] I did.
[1:29:50] Edwards.
[1:29:51] Second.
[1:29:51] Okay. All those in favor, please say aye.
[1:29:53] Aye.
[1:29:54] Thank you very much. Meeting is adjourned.
[1:29:56] Have a great evening