[2.C.Community Interest Items This is a standing item on the agenda of every regular meeting of the City Council. An “item of community interest” includes the following: -Expression of thanks, congratulations, or condolence; -Information regarding holiday schedules; -Honorary recognitions of city officials, employees, or other citizens; -Reminders about upcoming events sponsored by the city or other entity that is scheduled to be attended by city official or city employee; and -Announcements involving imminent public health and safety threats to the city. ]

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION TWO PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS.

2.A IS PROCLAMATIONS AND 2.B IS PRESENTATIONS.

AT THIS TIME, WE HAVE NONE THAT WILL MOVE US ON TO ITEM TWO C COMMUNITY INTEREST ITEMS. I'D LIKE TO THANK THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

WE WERE ABLE TO GO AND VISIT THEM AS THEY'RE DOING THEIR SHOOTING PROGRAM.

I WAS VERY, VERY IMPRESSED AND GLAD THAT WE COULD DO THAT, CHIEF.

IT WAS A GREAT EXPERIENCE FOR ME.

THIS SATURDAY, WE HAVE THE RIBBON CUTTING FOR THE BARTLETT SOCCER COMPLEX.

WE WILL FINALLY HAVE THAT BEAUTIFUL GREEN SPACE OPEN FOR SOCCER GAMES.

SO, COME OUT. I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO CUT THE RIBBON AT 8:30 AND WE WOULD LOVE TO SEE ALL THE FAMILIES AND KIDDOS OUT THERE WHO ARE, I'M SURE, EAGER TO START KICKING THE BALLS AND MAKING ALL THE GOALS.

I ALSO I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT BURLESON AT THE WOMEN IN MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT CONFERENCE LIKE TWO WEEKS AGO.

IT WAS A PHENOMENAL OPPORTUNITY.

THERE WERE ABOUT 100 REPRESENTATIVES FROM MUNICIPAL REPRESENTATIVES FROM ALL OVER THE NATION, AND IT WAS JUST SO COOL TO BE AMONGST OTHER WOMEN IN THIS FIELD AND TALK AND SHARE IDEAS. IT WAS A REALLY GREAT OPPORTUNITY.

I WAS VERY PROUD TO REPRESENT BURLESON THERE, AND I ALSO WANTED TO SAY THAT I VISITED MEALS ON WHEELS TODAY AND I HAD A TOUR OF THEIR NEW FACILITY.

THEY HAVE A DISTRIBUTION CENTER THAT OPENED ABOUT FIVE YEARS AGO AND THEY JUST OPENED A NEW ADMINISTRATION BUILDING AND IT IS PHENOMENAL.

BUT FOR ANYONE WHO MAY NOT BE AWARE, MEALS ON WHEELS OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COVERS, I BELIEVE FIVE COUNTIES, JOHNSON, HOOD, SOMERVILLE, BUT IN BURLESON, THEY SERVE ABOUT 100 OF OUR RESIDENTS AND THEY ARE SERVED DAILY MEALS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY BY A TREMENDOUS POOL OF VOLUNTEERS THAT CHECK IN AND GIVE THESE SENIOR CITIZENS AND HOMEBOUND INDIVIDUALS A WELLNESS CHECK AND TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE OKAY AND THAT THEY DON'T NEED ANY HEALTH OR ANY OTHER ISSUES.

AND SO, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANKS TO MEALS ON WHEELS, I THINK YOU'RE A PHENOMENAL ORGANIZATION, AND I'M SO GRATEFUL THAT YOU'RE HERE SERVING OUR COMMUNITY.

AND I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE ANYONE TO LOOK THEM UP.

IF YOU IF THAT'S A RESOURCE THAT YOU OR SOMEONE YOU KNOW COULD BENEFIT FROM.

WANT TO WELCOME RAZZOO'S TO BURLESON.

AND ALSO, WE HAD A BLAST WITH PASSING OUT ICE CREAM TREATS AND STUFF OF THAT NATURE ALL THROUGH THE PLACE, GOING OUT TO THE TO THE JOB SITES AND TO SOME OF THE STRIP CENTERS.

IT WAS A LOT OF FUN.

WE SORRY ABOUT THE DISRUPTION AT THE SPLASH PAD AND WE PULLED UP AND WE EMPTIED THE SPLASH PAD FOR ICE CREAM.

SO THAT WAS THAT WAS THAT WAS PRETTY COOL.

HATS OFF TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR DOING THAT AND GETTING IT DONE.

EVERY TIME YOU TURN AROUND, THE COMMUNITIES COME TOGETHER BECAUSE OF CITY HALL AND THE PEOPLE IN IT. SO, THANK YOU ALL A WHOLE LOT.

WE DID GOOD. ANYBODY ELSE?

[00:05:06]

OKAY. THAT'LL BRING US TO SECTION THREE REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

[3.A.Receive a report and hold a discussion regarding the 88th Texas Legislature, certain bills filed or enacted during the latest legislative session, and future legislative issues. (Presenter: Snapper Carr of Focused Advocacy) ]

THE FIRST ITEM THREE A IS TO RECEIVE A REPORT AND HOLD A DISCUSSION REGARDING THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE.

CERTAIN BILLS FILED AND ENACTED DURING THE LATEST LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND FUTURE LEGISLATIVE ISSUES.

THE STAFF. THE PRESENTER TODAY IS SNAPPER CARR OF FOCUSED ADVOCACY.

SNAPPER CARR, PARTNER AND GENERAL COUNSEL WITH FOLK'S ADVOCACY.

AND THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR HAVING US HERE TODAY AND LETTING US GIVE YOU A LITTLE UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE WITH REGARDS TO THE TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

TRY TO GET THAT A LITTLE CLOSER.

IS THAT BETTER? IS YOUR LIGHT ON YOUR MIC? OH, THE GREEN IS ON.

THINK IT'S JUST LET ME BEND DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

THERE YOU GO. WE'LL START OVER AGAIN.

MAYOR COUNCIL SNAPPER CARR WITH FOLKS TO ADVOCACY.

AND WITH ME TODAY IS OUR LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY COUNSEL, MS. LINLEY WALLACE HEARD.

AND WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO GIVE YOU ALL A QUICK OVERVIEW OF KIND OF WHAT HAS OCCURRED UP TO THIS POINT IN THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

AND I KNOW YOU ALL HAVE A FULL AGENDA, BUT I CAN PRETTY MUCH PICK ONE OF THESE TOPICS AND PROBABLY SPEND MORE TIME THAN WE WOULD CARE TO TO TALK ABOUT THE DETAILS OF SOME OF THOSE. SO, KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GIVE A PRETTY HIGH-LEVEL OVERVIEW OF SOME OF THESE TOPICS AND EVEN SOME THAT'S IN THE POWERPOINT OR MORE BACK UP FOR YOU ALL.

IT WOULD TAKE A PRETTY LONG TIME TO GO THROUGH EVERY BILL THAT WE HAVE LISTED.

BUT I WANTED TO ALSO THEN GIVE YOU ALL A LOOK TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE COMING UP IN NOVEMBER.

AND PRIOR TO THAT, WE'LL GET A THIRD SPECIAL SESSION THAT WE WILL BE A PART OF AS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS. AND THE GOVERNOR WAS EXPECTED TO CALL IN OCTOBER.

SO, WITH THAT, WE'LL DIVE RIGHT IN.

OUR WHOLE TEAM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WORKS ON Y'ALL'S ACCOUNT.

MY OTHER TWO PARTNERS, BRANDON AND CURTIS, CAN'T BE HERE TODAY, BUT THEY ALSO WORK AND HAVE A LONG HISTORY WITH THIS REGION AND WITH YOUR CITY.

BRANDON FORMERLY WORKED AT THE CITY OF FORT WORTH FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAS WORKED CLOSELY WITH THIS COUNTY AND REGION AND OTHER CITIES IN THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.

OF COURSE, ANY LEGISLATIVE UPDATE REALLY BEGINS AND ENDS A LOT WITH YOUR LOCAL DELEGATION AND WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED.

YOU ALL, OF COURSE, HAVE VERY SENIOR MEMBERS WITH YOUR MAIN MEMBERS OF YOUR DELEGATION HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS OR ELECTED OFFICIALS FOR A VERY LONG TIME. AND WE LIKE TO LIST THE VARIOUS COMMITTEES THAT THEY ARE ON BECAUSE THAT REALLY KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS FOR YOU, WHETHER THEY CHOOSE TO KIND OF HAVE OVERSIGHT OVER A PARTICULAR TOPIC WHEN THEY'RE NAMED A CHAIR OR A VICE CHAIR OF A PARTICULAR COMMITTEE, THAT REALLY PUTS THEM IN A LEADERSHIP ROLE AS IT RELATES TO SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.

AND SO THEREFORE, WE TRY TO HIGHLIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, LAND AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IS A VERY IMPORTANT COMMITTEE TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATEWIDE BEYOND JUST Y'ALL'S INTEREST.

BUT AS THE COLLECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND CITY AND MUNICIPAL INTEREST, THAT'S A PRIME EXAMPLE OF WHY WE HIGHLIGHT AND WHEN WE KIND OF TALK ABOUT KEY COMMITTEES THAT THEY HAVE, WE ALSO TRY TO SAY THAT MEANS WE GOT A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR EDUCATION WITH THOSE MEMBERS. AND I WILL NOTE AS WE SIT HERE AND WE'RE NOT IN A REGULAR OR SPECIAL SESSION, THE BEST TIME TO DO THAT IS WHEN WE'RE NOT IN A SPECIAL SESSION OR REGULAR SESSION.

AND SO THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR ACTION ITEMS KIND OF RECOMMENDING TO YOU AS WE GO FORWARD AS IT RELATES PARTICULARLY TO SENATOR KING AND CHAIRMAN BURNS.

I WANTED TO GIVE YOU ALL A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPDATE AS IT RELATES TO THE OVERALL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PACKAGE THAT WAS REALLY AT THE CENTER OF ALL OF THE STATEWIDE LEADERS' TOP AGENDAS, THE GOVERNOR, LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR AND THE SPEAKER LAYOUT.

AND WE'LL HAVE SLIDES ON THAT ON THEIR PRIMARY ITEMS THAT THEY WANTED.

AND OF COURSE, ALL OF THEM HAD AT THE TOP OF THEIR LIST, PROPERTY TAX RELIEF FROM OUR RECORD BUDGET SURPLUS.

AND SO, THEY ALL AGREED ON THE ON THE ISSUE, BUT THEY DID NOT AGREE ON HOW TO GET THERE.

AND THUS, WE HAD A COUPLE OF EXTRA SPECIAL SESSIONS AFTER THE REGULAR TO HAMMER OUT THOSE DETAILS, PRIMARILY BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE AND THEIR APPROACH AND IF RATIFIED, WHICH MOST PEOPLE, MYSELF INCLUDED, EXPECT THE VOTERS WILL RATIFY THIS PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PACKAGE IN NOVEMBER AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ELECTION.

IT'S PROPOSITION FOUR, BY THE WAY, WHICH THIS IS CONTAINED IN OVERALL.

THE MAIN HIGHLIGHTS, IF YOU WILL, OF THE PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PACKAGE, WHICH IS A

[00:10:07]

RECORD FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS.

A LITTLE OVER $18 BILLION IN TOTAL PROPERTY TAX RELIEF STATEWIDE THAT THE STATE WILL BE PAYING FOR.

AND IT'S PRIMARILY DEALS WITH SCHOOLS.

SO, WHAT I'M GOING TO BE TALKING TO YOU ABOUT HERE IS ISD TAXES, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE SOME COMPONENTS THAT OBVIOUSLY IMPACT ALL TAXING ENTITIES, INCLUDING CITIES.

SO, THE MAIN COMPONENT, TWO MAIN COMPONENTS.

FIRST IS A STATE PAID FOR BY DOWN OF THE NO TAX RATE FOR SCHOOLS OF 10.7 CENTS PER 100.

THAT IS PAID FOR OUT OF THAT STATE BUDGET, OUT OF THE SURPLUS.

THEY DIDN'T CREATE A NEW FUNDING SOURCE TO PAY FOR THAT LONG TERM, I WOULD NOTE.

SO THIS IS CONTINGENT ON THAT BUY DOWN IS SOMEWHAT CONTINGENT IN THE FUTURE ON WHAT OUR STATE BUDGET LOOKS LIKE, BUT TAKING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY, COMPRESSING THAT RATE FOR EVERY DISTRICT AND EVERY TAXPAYER IN THE STATE AS IT RELATES TO THE NO PROPERTY TAX RATE FOR SCHOOLS ALSO, AND THIS WAS A BIG PIECE AND A PART OF THE BIG DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE HOUSE AND THE SENATE APPROACH INITIALLY WAS THE INCLUSION OF BROAD EXPANSION OF THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION FROM 40,000 TO 100,000.

AGAIN, THAT'S PAID FOR BY THE STATE.

SO, IT'S NOT DISCRETIONARY TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

IT'S NOT SOMETHING THEY HAVE TO COME UP WITH THE MONEY FOR OR COVER THE COST OF THAT EXEMPTION. IT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL BE PUT IN PLACE.

THIS THIRD BULLET POINT THAT WE SEE HERE WAS PROBABLY THE MOST SURPRISING AND PROBABLY, IF I WOULD SAY THE LEAST VETTED OR DISCUSSED ASPECT OF THIS PLAN, THIS RELIEF PACKAGE, THE HOUSE HAD FOR SOME TIME WANTED AN EXPANSION OF THE CURRENT APPRAISAL LIMITATION THAT WE HAVE OUR 10% HOMESTEAD APPRAISAL LIMITATIONS THAT WE HAD.

THE HOUSE HAD BEEN LOOKING AT WAYS DURING THE REGULAR TO DO THAT.

THAT REQUIRES A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT SUPERMAJORITY TO GET DONE.

THEY COULDN'T GET THAT DONE.

HOWEVER, THEY INCLUDED, FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER AN APPRAISAL LIMITATION ON NON-HOMESTEADED PROPERTIES, ALL PROPERTIES, COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL, INDUSTRIAL, SECOND HOMES INVESTMENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNDER $5 MILLION IN VALUATION WILL NOW RECEIVE A 20% APPRAISAL CAP.

THEY LABELED IT A CIRCUIT BREAKER, BUT IT OPERATES EXACTLY LIKE OUR 10% HOMESTEAD CAP AND PUT THAT IN AS A THREE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM.

I BELIEVE THAT THREE-YEAR PILOT PROGRAM WAS PUT IN AT SOME LEVEL TO JUDGE THE IMPACT ON THE OVERALL STATE BUDGET.

IT'S PROBABLY UNLIKELY THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF REAL SIGNIFICANT FALL IN THAT CATEGORY FOR INDIVIDUAL TAXING DISTRICTS, BUT CUMULATIVELY, STATEWIDE, IT'S A PRETTY LARGE NUMBER THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT.

AND THEN THE LAST AND THIS ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, BY THE WAY, IF ENACTED, WILL BE APPLICABLE FOR THIS UPCOMING TAX YEAR.

SO, THE TAXPAYERS WILL SEE IT ON THIS NEXT BILL THAT THEY HAVE DUE.

AND CONTROLLERS ALREADY INDICATED THERE'S SOME NOTICES THAT THE TAXING DISTRICTS WILL BE PUTTING OR TAXING APPRAISAL DISTRICTS AND TAX OFFICES WILL PUT OUT THAT WILL SHOW THE VOTERS, TAXPAYERS, WHAT THAT POTENTIAL IS.

IF THIS IS ENACTED IN THAT CONSTITUTIONAL ELECTION IN NOVEMBER.

THE OTHER IS THE COUNTYWIDE FOR COUNTIES OVER 75,000 IN POPULATION STATEWIDE, THEY'VE ADDED THREE ELECTED COUNTYWIDE POSITIONS TO THE CAD BOARD.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN LONG TALKED ABOUT, EVERYTHING FROM THE CHIEF APPRAISER TO ENTIRETY OF THE BOARDS AND ARBS BEING ELECTED.

THIS, I THINK, WAS A BIT OF A COMPROMISE THAT THEY INCLUDED TO ADD THREE ADDITIONAL BOARD MEMBERS, BUT THAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN NOT THIS COMING TAX YEAR, BUT BUT THE FOLLOWING A LITTLE LONGER IMPLEMENTATION.

AND THEN THE LAST ALTHOUGH NOT A PROPERTY TAX RELIEF, THIS WAS ALSO PASSED IN THE SPECIAL IS A DOUBLING OF OUR BUSINESS FRANCHISE TAX, WHICH CURRENTLY EXEMPTS ALL BUSINESSES AT 1.235 MILLION AND DOUBLES THAT TO 2.47 MILLION.

SO ABOUT 67,000 SMALL BUSINESSES WERE IMMEDIATELY REMOVED FROM FROM BEING REQUIRED TO PAY THAT TAX.

AND THAT IS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF ADDITIONAL REFORMS THAT MAY EVEN COME UP AS EARLY AS IN THIS SPECIAL.

BUT THAT'S STILL IN THE EARLY STAGES OF BEING TALKED ABOUT.

WE'D LIKE TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT, TOO.

AND THE CITY MANAGER AND I WERE VISITING ABOUT THE FACT THAT PRIOR TO COUNCIL THAT THAT CITIES HAVE MORE ISSUES BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE THAN ANY OTHER ENTITY, ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY, ANY OTHER PRIVATE SECTOR ENTITY.

[00:15:02]

AND CANDIDLY, WITHOUT A CLOSE SECOND.

AND WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT OR LOOK OVER YOUR AGENDAS OR TALK WITH YOUR DEPARTMENTS AND ALL THE SERVICES AND ITEMS THAT THAT YOU ALL ARE INVOLVED IN AS A CITY ON BEHALF OF YOUR COMMUNITY AND CITIZENS, IT'S QUICK TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S REALLY NOT A COMMITTEE UP THERE, THAT WE DON'T ENGAGE WITH ON A REAL HEAVY BASIS, WHETHER THAT'S FROM PUBLIC SAFETY RELATED ISSUES TO ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO WORKFORCE TO PENSION ISSUES TO LAND USE GOING DOWN THE LIST.

CITIES HAVE A MAJOR STAY IN A NUMBER OF THESE POLICY AREAS.

AND SO ALMOST ABOUT A QUARTER OF ALL BILLS FILED IMPACT DIRECT CITY OPERATIONS.

AND SO, THIS SESSION WE HAD 8,344 BILLS, WHICH, BY THE WAY, WAS BY A FAR MARGIN A RECORD FOR NUMBER OF BILLS FILED.

THAT'S A VERY LARGE NUMBER.

I'VE BEEN DOING THIS LONG ENOUGH TO REMEMBER WHEN WE BROKE 4500 BILLS AND FILINGS, AND THAT SEEMED LIKE A LOT AT THE TIME.

AND WE'RE WELL PAST THAT NOW.

THAT 1800 BILLS ALSO DOESN'T EVEN GIVE YOU THE FULL FLAVOR OF WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU TAKE ONE OF THOSE THAT BEGINS MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH WE HAD 230 SOME ODD BILLS THAT THAT PASSED THAT DIRECTLY AFFECT CITIES, NOT ALL THOSE BAD, NOT ALL THOSE GOOD, BUT BUT THAT SOMEHOW IMPACT CITY OPERATIONS OF THAT 1800, THERE'S PROBABLY 3 TO 6 DIFFERENT VERSIONS THAT WOULD OR WOULD NOT IMPACT YOU ALL IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

AND SO AT TIMES, THERE MAY BE A BILL THAT HAS FILED YOU DIDN'T CARE ABOUT THAT THEN IMPACTS YOU ALL SEVERELY.

TAKE ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS AND IT MAY BE BACK TO NOT IMPACTING YOU, BUT IT'S WHY JUST BRING THAT UP TO SAY THAT THE SCOPE THAT WE ENCOUNTER AS LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND AS CITIES CAN BE OVERWHELMING AT TIMES.

JUST TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, JUST BECAUSE OF HOW MUCH Y'ALL ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MANAGING AND PROVIDING AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.

WE MENTIONED THE GOVERNOR'S PRIORITIES.

THIS IS A LOOK AT HIS HE DID VERY WELL ON ALL OF THESE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF SCHOOL CHOICE. AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, I WILL GET INTO IT A LITTLE MORE.

BUT WE EXPECT HE HAS INDICATED HE WILL CALL ANOTHER SPECIAL SESSION ON SCHOOL REFORM, SCHOOL CHOICE AND OTHER PUBLIC EDUCATION RELATED ITEMS COMING UP HERE IN THE FALL.

LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR. ALSO, PROPERTY TAX RELIEF.

LAW ENFORCEMENT, JUST LIKE AND CERTAINLY KIND OF HOLD OVER ISSUES RELATED TO ENFORCEMENT OF COVID MANDATES.

SB 28, ONE OF THE BETTER, I THINK, BILLS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS THAT PASS THAT THAT ESTABLISHES THE TEXAS WATER FUND, $1 BILLION PLUS GRANT WATER FUND THAT WILL BE VOTED ON IN NOVEMBER AS WELL.

SPEAKER PHELAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

HE HAD PRIORITIES OF PROPERTY TAX RELIEF TO EXPANSION OF BROADBAND FUNDING.

ALSO, AN ITEM THAT WE WILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IN NOVEMBER TO ESTABLISH AND MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE TEXAS BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT OFFICE.

AND NOW WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF FEDERAL MONEY, WITH OUR STATE MONEY, WE'RE LOOKING AT A FUND THAT'S GOING TO EXCEED $6 BILLION IN FUNDING GRANT OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALL TEXAS AREAS. AND SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE ON THE BROADBAND FRONT WERE TO ENSURE THAT URBAN AREAS ARE AREAS IN THE COUNTY THAT MAY BE CLOSE TO URBAN AREAS THAT ARE UNDERSERVED. ALSO GET AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THIS AS IT ORIGINALLY PASSED IN THE PRIOR SESSION, NOT THIS PAST SESSION.

IT REALLY LIMITED ITS AVAILABILITY TO AREAS LIKE BURLESON AND OTHER AREAS THAT HAD ANY LEVEL OF URBANIZATION.

BUT NOW WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT CATEGORIES THAT ALLOW FOR GREATER FUNDING THERE.

THE SPEAKER ALSO WAS VERY INVOLVED AND VERY INTERESTED IN SPEEDING UP THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AS A WAY TO TRY TO INCREASE HOUSING, STOCK AND AFFORDABILITY IN THIS HOUSE IN THE STATE. AND SO THE HOUSE HAD A NUMBER OF ITEMS, HB 14, WHICH ALLOWS FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEWS IF CITIES ARE UNABLE TO MEET CERTAIN SHOTCLOCK REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT PERMITS WAS PASSED.

AND THAT WAS A MAJOR ISSUE FOR THE SPEAKER.

I PUT THAT ON THERE TO SHOW KIND OF THE HIGHLIGHT BECAUSE WE HAD A GREAT DEAL OF ACTIVITY AS IT RELATES TO PERMIT AND FEE AUTHORITY.

I KNOW THAT YOU ALL HAVE SOME ITEMS TONIGHT AND OTHER ISSUES RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES. I MEAN, WE ALWAYS HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF BILLS, SO THIS ONE WAS EVEN A MUCH

[00:20:03]

HIGHER VOLUME THAN NORMAL SESSIONS.

WE MENTIONED THAT CITIES HAVE ALL THESE ISSUES THAT COME FORTH.

WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A SCOPE OF THE ISSUES THAT GOT REALLY CLOSE TO PASSING MANY OF THESE.

WE WERE HAPPY THAT DID NOT FEW OF THEM.

WE WISH THEY WOULD HAVE MADE IT ACROSS, BUT WE BRING IT UP BECAUSE OFTEN IT'S A GOOD INDICATOR OF, YOU KNOW, THAT WE AREN'T DONE WITH THESE TOPICS.

WE WILL BE BACK.

MANY OF THEM FAILED IN THE FINAL DAYS.

SOME OF THEM HAD AGREEMENTS THAT HAD WORKED OUT.

BUT AS WE LOOK THROUGH SOME OF THE ONES THAT THAT DID NOT PASS AND SOME OF THESE ARE PROPOSALS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR ALMOST EVERY YEAR OF MY 25 YEARS OF WORKING FOR CITIES BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE.

BUT. THE ISSUE THAT'S AT HAND NOW FOR THESE IS WHERE DO WE DRAW THAT LINE FOR LOCAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO MANDATE OR PREEMPT FROM THE STATE LEVEL? AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT.

BUT THE ONES THAT EVEN FAILED TO PASS HERE REALLY HAD THAT AT SOME LEVEL.

ONE BILL THAT GARNERED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION YOU'LL SEE THERE IN THE MIDDLE THAT I BELIEVE WILL BE BACK WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR AUTOMATIC CIVIL SERVICE FOR POPULATIONS OVER 10,000. THAT BILL ADVANCED THROUGH THE PROCESS CAME CLOSE TO PASSING ALSO DEBT USE, DEBT SERVICE AND ISSUANCE OF DEBT.

LARGE AND VERY IMPORTANT TOPIC.

I SUSPECT AS EARLY AS THIS SPECIAL SESSION, WE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS WE COULD HAVE ISSUES WITH WITH DEBT ISSUANCES AND OUR AUTHORITY AND TYPES OF TOOLS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO US THAT COULD COULD BE BACK AGAIN.

ALL THESE WERE ITEMS THAT THAT MADE IT A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL IN THE STATE PROCESS, BUT THEN ULTIMATELY DID NOT GET PASSED INTO LAW.

AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A GREAT NUMBER OF THOSE ISSUES THAT THAT WERE CONSIDERED PROBABLY THE SINGLE LARGEST ITEM THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED.

AND REALLY I MENTIONED THE ISSUE OF PREEMPTION IS AT THE HEART OF A LOT OF OUR POLICY DEBATES THAT WE'RE SEEING RIGHT NOW BETWEEN LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND THE STATE AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES, WHETHER THAT BE THE BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WHETHER THAT BE THE HOSPITALITY INDUSTRY OR ON DOWN THE LIST OF DIFFERENT TRADE ASSOCIATIONS AND INDUSTRIES THAT HAVE AN ISSUE.

SOME OF THOSE DISPUTES HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO THE CAPITAL AND NOT RESOLVED LOCALLY IN VARIOUS COMMUNITIES.

AND AT SOME LEVEL, WE'RE NOW GETTING INTO A DEBATE ABOUT WHERE THAT LINE FOR LOCAL DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY SHOULD END AND STATE KIND OF UNDER THE MANDATE OF UNIFORMITY, REGULATORY UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE STATE BEGINS.

AND IT OFTEN SOUNDS LIKE A NICE IDEA UNTIL YOU START THINKING ABOUT THE REALITIES OF EL PASO IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN BURLESON AND PANHANDLE IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN EAST TEXAS AND THOSE THINGS. AND SO, THAT'S WHERE WE SOMETIMES REALLY SEE THOSE TENSIONS SHOW UP.

THIS PARTICULAR BILL WAS FILED BY BY THE HOUSE CALENDARS CHAIRMAN, VERY INFLUENTIAL AND VERY RESPECTED MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE AND OF LEADERSHIP IN THE HOUSE AND IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND ALSO BY A CHAIRMAN AND MEMBER OF LEADERSHIP, BRANDON CREIGHTON, IN THE IN THE SENATE.

THE BILL ITSELF, REALLY, IF WE WERE TO BOIL IT DOWN, THERE'S A LOT THAT COULD BE SAID ABOUT HOUSE BILL 2127, BUT ITS INTENT IS TO REQUIRE FOR CITIES TO ILLUSTRATE THAT THEY HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY IN STATE LAW TO DO CERTAIN THINGS.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO REGULATE OR RESTRICT PARTICULARLY, I WOULD SAY IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS IMPOSING A RESTRICTION OR REGULATION AS IT RELATES TO A PRIVATE BUSINESS ENTITY, THEN THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWN.

NOW EVEN IN AREAS THAT WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY HAD TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY, BUT MAYBE NOT REAL EXPLICIT STATE LAW AS A HOME RULE AUTHORITY CITY.

ONE OF THE MAJOR THINGS THAT WE FOUGHT AND GOT IN THE HOUSE AND HELPED CRAFT WAS PREVIOUSLY AS FILED THE BILL.

A CLAIMANT WOULD JUST FILE SUIT AGAINST THE CITY IN THE FIRST THAT THE CITY WOULD LIKELY HEAR OF OF THE THE ISSUE AS IF A LAWSUIT WAS FILED, IF THEY WERE IN VIOLATION OF THIS STATE LAW. WE WE WORKED REAL CLOSELY WITH THE HOUSE STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE ONCE THIS GOT OVER AND HEARING TO GET THAT BOTTOM PIECE, WHICH IS AA3 MONTH OR 90 DAY RIGHT TO CURE OR NOTICE BEFORE A SUIT COULD BE FILED.

SO NOW IF SOMEONE HAS AN ISSUE AND BELIEVES THAT A CITY IS IN VIOLATION, OR THIS APPLIES TO COUNTIES, TOO, BUT MUCH MORE LIMITED, OF COURSE, IN ITS APPLICATION TO COUNTIES, THAT

[00:25:05]

THEY WOULD HAVE TO NOTIFY THE CITY AHEAD OF TIME AND YOU WOULD HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND CONSIDER IT BEFORE ACTION COULD BE TAKEN.

WE'RE OFTEN ASKED AND HAVE IN OUR PRESENTATIONS IS WHAT IS EXACTLY PREEMPTED? AND THE ANSWER IS VERY, VERY LITTLE ON DAY ONE, BECAUSE THIS BILL DID NOT SET OUT EXPRESS PREEMPTION.

IT REALLY SET FORTH A PROCESS, A JUDICIAL PROCESS FOR BRINGING A CLAIM AGAINST A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY.

IT ESTABLISHED STANDING.

IT WAIVED SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY FOR THESE CLAIMS AND SET THAT PROCESS FORWARD AND PUSH THIS TO THE COURTS, WHICH IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE RAISED WITH A NUMBER OF OTHER ENTITIES LIKE TML AND CITIES ACROSS THE STATE WITH.

THIS IS NOT SO MUCH THAT THE IDEA BEHIND TRYING TO GET UNIFORMITY WASN'T A NOBLE ONE AT TIMES, BUT THAT THIS WAS GOING TO THROW INTO QUESTION A GREAT DEAL OF ISSUES THAT HOME RULE CITIES IN PARTICULAR HAVE USED TO TO MANAGE IT GRANDFATHERED CERTAIN CLASSES OF ORDINANCES THAT THERE WAS A GREAT DEAL OF DISCUSSION ON AT GRANDFATHERED EXISTING PAYDAY LENDING ORDINANCES, BUT DOES NOT ALLOW FOR YOU TO MAKE AMENDMENT TO THAT IT GRANDFATHERED ORDINANCES DEALING WITH THE RETAIL SALE OF CATS AND DOGS AND THEN IMPOSE STATEWIDE REGULATIONS IN THAT REGARD, TOO.

AND ON DOWN THE LIST, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.

AT SOME OF THE KEY AREAS THAT IT EXPRESSLY TRIED TO SET ASIDE FOR CITIES.

THE BILL ITSELF IS STRUCTURED SO THAT THOSE CODES THAT YOU SEE THERE, THOSE ENTIRE STATUTORY CODES WHICH DEAL WITH A LARGE NUMBER OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT RELATED ITEMS, DEEM THAT THAT IN ESSENCE THE STATE OCCUPIES THE FIELD.

IF A SUBJECT MATTER IS DISCUSSED IN THOSE TOPICS AND IT DOESN'T EXPRESSLY GRANT EXPLICIT AUTHORITY FOR CITIES TO ENGAGE IN A REGULATION OUTSIDE OF WHAT THE STATE HAS SAID, AGAIN, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE USED TO HAVING STATUTES CRAFTED FOR HOME RULE CITIES IN THAT REGARD, SINCE IT'S THE REVERSE OF HOW THE LEGAL DOCTRINE OF HOME RULE AUTHORITY AND CHARTERS HAVE TYPICALLY WORKED THROUGH OUR STATE'S HISTORY.

PART OF THE FEAR OF THIS CONSTRUCT IS ALSO THAT THIS LEAVES A VERY EASY ADDITION TO ADD ANY OTHER CODES THAT MAY COME INTO QUESTION.

AND THERE WERE CERTAINLY OTHERS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY NOT.

ALL OF THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE FINAL BILL.

BUSINESS AND COMMERCE AND INSURANCE CODE, FOR EXAMPLE, WERE ADDED AS IT MOVED THROUGH THE PROCESS.

AND WE SUSPECT THAT IF THIS BILL STAYS AS IS, THAT WE WILL HAVE THAT DEBATE IN FUTURE SESSIONS ABOUT WHAT OTHER CODES MAY BE INCLUDED.

THIS BILL IS SET TO GO INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST.

SO RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER.

I THINK IT IS OF IMPORTANCE TO NOTE THAT THE CITY OF HOUSTON FILED A SUIT SEEKING DECLARATORY ACTION THAT HB 2127 IS UNENFORCEABLE AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

IT HAS TO BE FILED IN TRAVIS COUNTY IF YOU'RE SUING THE STATE FOR THAT SORT OF ACTION. THE STATE HAS FILED A MOTION TO DISMISS ON THE BASIS OF SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY AND LACK OF STANDING OF THE CITIES TO BRING THAT CHALLENGE.

I WOULD NOTE THAT A NUMBER OF CITIES ARE BEGINNING TO JOIN THAT THAT LAWSUIT AS INDIVIDUAL PARTICIPANTS.

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I WORK WITH THE CITY OF EL PASO.

THEY HAVE JOINED AND THE CITY OF SAN ANTONIO.

AND AS LATE AS FRIDAY, WE JUST HAD SEVERAL OTHER ARLINGTON, DENTON, PLANO.

I KNOW ALL ALSO JOINED.

I SUSPECT THAT OTHERS WILL BE AS WELL.

AND SOMETIME I SUSPECT IN LATE THIS MONTH OR EARLY SEPTEMBER, WE WILL HAVE A HEARING ON A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT RELATED TO THIS BILL.

SO ULTIMATELY, IT'S MY OPINION THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT WILL HAVE THE FINAL SAY AND WRITE THE FINAL CHAPTER, AT LEAST IN THIS VERSION OF HOUSE BILL 2127.

AND HOW QUICKLY THAT HAPPENS IS A BIT OF ANYBODY'S GUESS, BUT IT IS ONE THAT THAT THOSE ACTIONS ARE ALREADY UNDER MAYOR.

OKAY. SO, IT GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST.

IS THAT STILL GOING TO AFFECT WITH ALL THE LAWSUITS OUT THERE? BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF LARGE TOWNS THAT WANT DEFINITIONS ON THIS.

YES. AND WE'VE ALL WANTED A GREAT DEAL MORE CERTAINTY AND CLARITY AS IT RELATES TO 21, 27. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I THINK WE WILL TRY TO HIGHLIGHT THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE

[00:30:02]

CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES FOR THAT VERY THING.

IT IS AS OF RIGHT NOW, IT WILL GO INTO EFFECT ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.

THE INTENTION OF I KNOW OF THE THE LITIGATION THAT HAS BEEN FILED HAS REQUESTED AN INJUNCTION OF THAT AND SOUGHT TO TO GET A HEARING PRIOR TO THAT EFFECTIVE DATE.

THAT'S STILL UP IN THE AIR AS TO WHETHER OR NOT WE'LL BE ABLE TO ACHIEVE THAT GOAL.

BUT I WOULD NOTE, AGAIN, AS OF WHEN SEPTEMBER 1ST ROLLS AROUND AND IT BECOMES IF IT WERE TO TO BE IN EFFECT, IT DOESN'T EXPRESSLY PREEMPT ANYONE ON THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCES, BUT IT DOES THEN SUBJECT YOU TO BEING CHALLENGED THAT YOU'RE POTENTIALLY IN VIOLATION OF THIS LAW, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE ORDINANCE IS THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING.

THE AGAIN, THIS BILL IS LESS ABOUT A LIST OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T DO, AS IT IS ABOUT SETTING UP A CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO BRING THOSE CHALLENGES.

AND SO.

ONCE IT BECOMES EFFECTIVE, THERE REALLY ISN'T ANYTHING WE COULD POINT TO SAY, WELL, HERE'S ALL THE ORDINANCES THAT ARE THAT ARE NOW PREEMPTED, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, MAYOR.

SO, WE CONTINUE ON THIS BUSINESS.

YES, SIR. BASICALLY, IGNORE THIS UNTIL SOMETHING HAPPENS.

THAT PUT US IN KIND OF AN AWKWARD POSITION.

WELL, IT'S NOT THAT SO MUCH.

I WOULDN'T SAY THAT YOU'RE IGNORING IT.

IT IS VERY MUCH SET UP THAT THIS IS FOR SOMEONE TO BRING A CHALLENGE AND PUT YOU ON NOTICE THAT THAT YOU HAVE A VIOLATION.

AND SO, UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THAT YOU THAT THE CITY COUNCIL MANAGEMENT OR CITY ATTORNEY FELT WAS IN, YOU KNOW, CLEAR CONFLICT THAT YOU WANTED TO PROACTIVELY ADDRESS, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ACTIONS, PARTICULARLY, I WOULD SAY, WHILE THIS IS IN LITIGATION OVER ITS CONSTITUTIONALITY, WOULD BE MY I WOULD DEFER TO YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, BUT THAT THAT WOULD KIND OF BE MY COMMENT ON IT, THAT ON DAY ONE DOESN'T FORCE YOU IN OR DOES NOT HAVE A LIST OF THINGS, BUT IT DEFINITELY OPENS YOU UP FOR ANYONE THAT WANTED TO PUT YOU ON NOTICE UNDER THAT 90 DAY CLOCK THAT THAT THEY COULD.

ANOTHER VERY HIGH-PROFILE ITEM THAT HAS BEEN DEBATED IN THE LEGISLATURE NOW FOR SEVERAL SESSIONS, AND THAT IS KIND OF MANAGEMENT AND DEVELOPMENT PROCESSES IN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. IT'S KIND OF REALLY KICKED UP AFTER THE ANNEXATION LAW CHANGES AND THE VOTE TO BE ANNEXED REQUIREMENTS WENT INTO EFFECT.

WE PRETTY QUICKLY THEREAFTER BEGAN SAYING, WELL, WHAT'S THE FUTURE OF THE ETJ? HOW DOES THIS WORK NOW THAT THAT WE'VE CHANGED WITH REGARDS TO UNILATERAL AND VOLUNTARY ANNEXATION LAW? AND SO WE SAW 2038, WHICH WAS BY SENATOR PAUL BETTENCOURT, IT EFFECTIVELY ENDS OUR ETJ IN TEXAS IN THE MANNER THAT WE HAVE THOUGHT OF IT AND THAT WE CAN'T GROW THOSE ANNEXATIONS OVER TIME.

THEY ARE LIMITED NOW TO BASICALLY WHERE THEY ARE, EVEN WITH ANNEXATIONS THAT OCCUR.

SO THEY DON'T EXPAND IN THE MANNER THAT THEY FORMERLY DID.

THERE WERE SOME HARD FOUGHT EXCEPTIONS TO THIS THAT THAT PERSONALLY WAS VERY INVOLVED IN AND IN OUR FIRM, AND THAT WAS TO SEEK EXCLUSIONS FROM THIS LAW ON RELEASE OF ETJ AND RESTRICTIONS IN AREAS THAT WERE ALREADY A PART OF DESIGNATED INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AGREEMENTS OR THAT WERE SUBJECT TO A STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP OR SPA AGREEMENT OR ENTITIES THAT WERE LOCATED WITHIN FIVE MILES OF A MILITARY INSTALLATION, WHICH ALL OF THOSE INSTALLATIONS THAT HAVE IN PARTICULAR FLIGHT ISSUES LIKE OUR BASES IN FORT WORTH AND TARRANT COUNTY, SAN ANTONIO AND OTHER AREAS, WAS VERY IMPORTANT.

THE. BILL ITSELF ALSO, AS YOU WILL NOTE.

NOTED THAT DUE TO THIS JANUARY EXPANSION, THAT THAT'S WHERE WE STOP THE INCREASE, SO THAT AFTER JANUARY 1ST OF THIS THIS YEAR, THOSE ANNEXATIONS, YOU DO NOT GET THAT KIND OF GROWTH OF THE ETJ IF IT WERE TO HAVE BEEN A PART OF IT.

AND SO, THEY ROLL THAT BACK AT SOME LEVEL AGAIN.

SENATOR BETTENCOURT IS A MEMBER FROM HARRIS COUNTY, HOUSTON.

THEY'VE HAD ONGOING ISSUES AND I THINK THAT INFORMED HIS VIEW, POLICY VIEW ON A LOT OF

[00:35:06]

THESE TOPICS, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE THAT I THINK AS IT SETS OVER TIME, THE LEGISLATURE WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO REVISIT BECAUSE WE JUST HAVE SO MANY UNIQUE SITUATIONS AROUND THE STATE, WHETHER IT'S WITH WATER, WASTEWATER OR OTHER ISSUES THAT ULTIMATELY, THEY'LL WANT IT TO REVISIT IT.

AND ODDLY ENOUGH, I THINK WE WILL HAVE SUPPORT FROM SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT PUSHED THIS AT SOME LEVEL. AND THAT'S THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

WHEN WE SEE SOME OF THESE GO INTO EFFECT STATEWIDE SNAPPER THAT DOESN'T AFFECT EXISTING ETJS UNLESS THEY'RE RELEASED BY PETITION, THEY THE AREAS AS THEY ARE NOW REMAIN THE SAME. THEY REMAIN.

THAT'S EXACTLY CORRECT, COUNCILMAN.

THEY REMAIN, BUT WE CAN'T EXPAND OUR ETJ ANYWAY.

BUT IT ALLOWS SAY A PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT WANTS TO SPRING UP SOMEWHERE IN THE ETJ.

NOW WHAT KIND OF PROCEDURE DOES PETITION, OR ELECTION TAKE PLACE? DO THEY HAVE TO? CALL AN ELECTION WITHIN THAT AREA.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO YEAH, IT THEY CAN SO IF THEY'RE A PART OF AN EXISTING IF THEY'RE WITHIN THE EDGE NOW AND THEY WANT TO UTILIZE THIS ASPECT OF OF THE BILL, THEY IT'S A PRETTY, TO BE HONEST, SIMPLE PROCESS TO PETITION AND OR TO ESTABLISH THIS ELECTION.

AND IT COULD BE A SINGLE LANDOWNER THAT'S UNDERTAKING SOME OF THAT TO GET RELEASED.

SO, YOU'RE RIGHT IN THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT YOUR OTHER ITEMS, BUT IT DOES AFFECT EVERYBODY THAT'S IN THE ETJ TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS.

AND IT'S A PRETTY MUCH AT THE DISCRETION OF, OF THE LANDOWNERS, NOT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, TO BE ABLE TO SEEK TO GET THAT RELEASED.

IF A DEVELOPER WANTS TO BUILD SOMETHING IN THE COUNTY THAT'S IN OUR ETJ AND JUST SAYS I DON'T WANT TO BE PART OF YOUR ETJ, THEN HE CAN ONLY FOLLOW THE COUNTY GUIDELINES TO DO WHATEVER IT IS. CERTAINLY, HAVE TO FOLLOW ANY OF THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS SUBDIVISION REQUIRE PLATTING AND SO FORTH, THOSE THINGS THAT THE COUNTY MIGHT REQUIRE.

BUT IF THEY STARTED THAT PROCESS, THEY ABSOLUTELY COULD COULD SEEK TO GET RELEASED FROM THE CITY'S ETJ.

AND THAT HAS BEEN PART I MENTIONED THAT THIS REALLY FIRED UP AFTER THE ANNEXATION LAW CHANGES UNDER THE HEADING OF YOU CAN'T REALLY FORCIBLY ANNEX AN AREA ANYMORE WITHOUT CONSENT. AND SO, BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY OUGHT TO ULTIMATELY HAVE THAT SAME RIGHT TO KIND OF SELF-DETERMINATION AS IT RELATES TO BEING IN THE ETJ OR NOT.

AND THAT WAS WHAT SOME OF THE TESTIMONY, AT LEAST FROM THE BILL AUTHORS PUT FORWARD AND IN THEIR POLICY REASON BEHIND IT.

AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS ONE IT IT CHANGED SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANT LONG STANDING LAW THAT'S WORKED PRETTY WELL AROUND THE STATE.

AND WITH THE VARIETY OF ISSUES WE HAVE IN DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHIC AREAS IN THE STATE, I THINK IT'S ONE THAT THEY'LL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO TAKE A LITTLE DEEPER LOOK AT.

AS ONE MEMBER SAID WHEN IT WAS BEING DEBATED, WE OFTEN A MEMBER ON THE COMMITTEE SAID WE OFTEN DON'T THINK ABOUT THE SECOND, THIRD AND FOURTH IMPACTS OF THIS LEGISLATION VERY OFTEN. AND I THINK THAT'S WELL SAID FOR THIS ONE, THAT IT'S GOING TO HAVE SOME IMPACTS THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN CONTEMPLATED WHEN IT WAS ENACTED.

SO WHEN THERE'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S ON THE BORDERLINE OF TWO COUNTIES, CAN THE INDIVIDUAL SELECT WHICH COUNTY THEY WANT TO DEVELOP IN? THEY GET OUT OF THE EDGE.

I CAN. THEY SAY, WELL, WE WANT TO BE IN FORT WORTH OR WE WANT TO BE IN BURLESON.

DO THEY HAVE AN OPTION ON THAT? PICKING WHICH COUNTY OR WHICH ETJ? BECAUSE THEY CAN DO BOTH.

CITY. CITY. THEY CAN.

THEY. THEY CAN.

THERE IS SOME DISCRETION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S SET UP TO TO SEEK TO BE IN.

SO IT'S NOT TERRITORIAL ANYMORE.

IT'S CORRECT.

THE COULDN'T SPEAK TO THE COUNTIES TO BE REAL HONEST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY COULD CHOOSE A COUNTY JURISDICTION.

BUT THEY DO HAVE SOME LATITUDE BECAUSE THEY GET TO SOMEWHAT ENGAGE AND INITIATE THAT THAT RELEASE PROCESS.

THEY OBVIOUSLY COULD SEEK TO BE INCLUDED IN ANOTHER COUNTY'S.

ANOTHER TOPIC THAT HIS LAST COUPLE OF SESSIONS HAS BEEN KIND OF DEBATED SOME LEVEL, SOMETIMES REAL HEAVILY ABOUT CHICKENS IN URBAN AREAS AND ROOSTERS IN URBAN AREAS IN PARTICULAR. BUT HB 1750 WAS KIND OF THE OVERALL BILL AND THIS BILL

[00:40:05]

WIDELY SUPPORTED IN THE HOUSE IN PARTICULAR, BUT IT REALLY LOOKED AT THE ABILITY OF AG OPERATIONS TO COEXIST IN CITY AREAS OR IN AREAS WHERE THERE MIGHT BE RESTRICTIONS.

IT SOMEWHAT SHIFTS THE BURDEN TO THE CITY.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESTRICT A PRACTICE TO SHOW THAT IT WAS AGAINST THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE AND THAT THAT BASIS WAS WHAT WAS USED FOR THAT RESTRICTION.

OF COURSE, A LOT OF COMMUNITIES HAVE ORDINANCES DEALING WITH VARIOUS TYPES OF LIVESTOCK AND OTHER FARM AND AG OPERATIONS.

AND SO IT THERE'S A HEAVY REVIEW GOING ON NOW IN THOSE COMMUNITIES ABOUT THE IMPACT TO THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCES.

I WOULD NOTE THAT THE BILL ALSO SET UP A UNIQUE FEATURE IN THAT IT DELEGATED SOME AUTHORITY TO THE TEXAS A&M AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION OFFICES TO COME UP WITH A MANUAL THAT WILL BE PROMULGATED THAT BASICALLY ESTABLISHES BEST PRACTICES FOR URBAN TYPE FARMING AROUND THE STATE.

AND THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TO TO SOMEWHAT AND LESS REBUTTED TO BE A ACCEPTABLE IN ALL COMMUNITIES. SO, IF IT WAS IN THAT MANUAL, WAS IN CONTRADICTION TO A LOCAL ORDINANCE, THE MANUAL WOULD PREVAIL IN ALLOWING A CERTAIN ACTIVITY.

AND UNLESS THAT CITY COULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS SOME UNIQUE REASON THAT THEY NEEDED TO RESTRICT CERTAIN ACTIVITIES, I WOULD NOTE THAT THIS HAD A CORRESPONDING HJR, HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION, WHICH MEANS IT'LL BE A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AS WELL.

THAT CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

WE HAVE A LIST LATER IN THE PRESENTATION FOR YOU AS PROPOSITION ONE.

AND I'M A SEVENTH GENERATION TEXAN, SO I'M GOING TO GO ON A LIMB HERE AND SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO PASS BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT THAT WE ARE HAVING A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO FARMING, RANCHING, AGRICULTURE AND HORTICULTURAL PRODUCTION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. WHAT IT DOESN'T DO, THOUGH, AND WHAT AGAIN, I THINK WE SOMETIMES MISS IN THE DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS IS JUST HOW IT'S GOING TO AFFECT SO MANY DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE ORDINANCES RELATED TO ISSUES OF URBAN FARMING OR AG OPERATIONS.

YES, SIR. MAYOR SO YOU USED THE DESCRIPTION OF CHICKENS, BUT REALLY THIS IS EVERYTHING.

LIVESTOCK IN GENERAL.

YOU CAN HAVE A HOG FARM NEXT TO YOU IF YOU'RE NOT CAREFUL, IF IT WERE DEEMED.

AND WE. YES.

AND I'LL MAYOR, INTERESTING YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

WE'VE ALREADY IN SOME OF MY COUNCIL BRIEFINGS AROUND THE STATE, THEY'VE HAD PUBLIC INQUIRY ABOUT THE NUMBER OF HOGS THAT COULD BE KEPT IN THE CITY IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, WHEREAS THEY DO NOT ALLOW THEM CURRENTLY IN THAT COMMUNITY.

AND SO I DO THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME SOME UNIQUE DEBATES ABOUT THIS ONE THAT GOES AROUND AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT THAT MIGHT FIND THEMSELVES DEBATING ON THIS AS WELL.

BUT. A LOT OF COMMUNITIES ARE WATCHING CLOSELY.

AND I THINK TML IS GOING TO BE WORKING WITH TEXAS A&M EXTENSION OFFICE TO SINCE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OUT OF THEIR NORMAL FUNCTION TO BE LOOKING AT THOSE ITEMS LIKE THIS.

THIS ONE HAS GARNERED A GREAT DEAL OF ATTENTION.

AND I MENTIONED CHICKENS BECAUSE IN THE PREVIOUS SESSIONS WE HAD BILLS THAT ONLY DEALT WITH THE NUMBER OF CHICKENS THAT COULD BE MAINTAINED IN AN URBAN OR NEIGHBORHOOD SETTING. THERE WERE MULTIPLE BILLS.

AND SO THIS IS KIND OF THE LARGER AND THIS ALLOWS FOR OTHER, YOU KNOW, CROP PRODUCTION OR OTHER ACTIVITY TO NOT JUST LIVESTOCK.

NEXT ITEM. AND THIS ONE WAS A MAJOR BILL THAT THAT WE HAD A LOT TML AND THE BUILDERS IN PARTICULAR WORKED ON THIS ONE TRYING TO NEGOTIATE ASPECTS OF IT.

AND THERE'S SOME WHAT I WOULD SAY FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE, GOOD AND BAD IN THIS BILL.

BUT OVERALL, SOME OF THE GOOD IS THAT IT MADE CHANGES TO A LAW THAT WAS PASSED TWO SESSIONS AGO DEALING WITH SHOT CLOCK REQUIREMENTS AND SOME DEADLINES THAT WERE IMPOSED ON CITIES FOR PLAN REVIEW.

THAT THAT TURNED OUT TO BE RELATIVELY UNREALISTIC FOR FOR A LOT OF COMMUNITIES.

AND SO, THEY REMOVED THE 30 DAY SHOT CLOCK FROM FROM PLAN REVIEW.

AND ANOTHER ISSUE IS THAT THE BILL HAD PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED ALL TO GO TO THE P AND Z

[00:45:02]

AND DID NOT ALLOW FOR DELEGATION TO ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REVIEW ON ON PLATS AND OTHER ITEMS. AND SO WE MOVED THAT TO WHERE THAT CAN ONCE AGAIN BE HANDLED OUTSIDE OF A P AND Z MEETING AND IT CAN BE DELEGATED TO ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW.

UPDATED SEVERAL ITEMS. PROBABLY THE BIGGEST THING THAT IT DID, THOUGH, ALONG WITH HB 14, IS THAT IT ALLOWED FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW OF OF DOCUMENTS AND PERMITS.

IF YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT COMPLETED WITHIN 15 DAYS AS IT RELATES TO THE LIST OF ITEMS THAT ARE SUBJECT TO IT. AND SO THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS AND SOME WAYS TO EXTEND THOSE DEADLINES. BUT IN ESSENCE, THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME WILL ALLOW FOR THIRD PARTY REVIEW.

AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN THIRD PARTY REVIEW THAT A CITY HAS ENGAGED, LIKE MANY DO, TO HAVE EXTRA ASSISTANCE AND ENGINEERING HELP, FOR EXAMPLE, WORKING FOR THEM IN THEIR REVIEW PROCESSES. THIS MEANS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD ACTUALLY GO OUT TO A LIST OF APPROVED THIRD-PARTY REVIEWERS, PRIMARILY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS, AND THEY WOULD CERTIFY THAT THEY MEET ALL OF THE PARTICULAR CITY'S REQUIREMENTS OR GUIDELINES.

SO, THIS THOSE TWO BILLS WILL BE OF MAJOR INTEREST AS WE MOVE FORWARD.

AND I THINK THEY'LL GET HEAVILY REVIEWED OVER THE COURSE OF THE INTERIM, TOO.

2308 IS ANOTHER HOUSE BILL THAT IS PREEMPT ORDINANCES THAT PURPORT TO REGULATE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS.

I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT AGAIN, FOR SOME OF THOSE THAT.

IT WAS A VERY BIG TOPIC OF DISCUSSION.

CITY FINANCE.

WE HAD A LARGE NUMBER OF, AND WE ALWAYS DO THAT RELATE TO OUR FINANCES, EITHER PUT REQUIREMENTS OR ADDITIONAL THINGS.

ONE VERY GOOD BILL THAT ULTIMATELY WAS PASSED IS ONE THAT CITIES AROUND THE STATE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, AND WE WERE HAPPY TO BE A PART OF GETTING IT FINALIZED. IT ALLOWS NOW FOR CHAPTER 380 AGREEMENTS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, TO INCLUDE DIRECT TRANSFERS OF PUBLIC PROPERTY AS PART OF THAT.

SO, IF YOU HAD EXCESS OR SURPLUS PROPERTY PREVIOUSLY, YOU HAD TO INCLUDE POTENTIALLY GIVING A CASH FOR ACQUISITION OF LAND IN A 380 AGREEMENT.

THIS WILL ALLOW FOR UNDER THE CONDITIONS LAID OUT TO INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY IN THOSE AGREEMENTS AS WELL.

PUBLIC SAFETY.

THERE WERE OVER 60 PLUS DIRECT BILLS THAT AFFECTED PD OPERATIONS THAT WERE I THINK THE EXACT NUMBER WAS 63 THAT IMPACTED POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS IN SOME MANNER, WHETHER THAT BE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR ADDITIONAL TRAINING RELATED TO MENTAL HEALTH OR 911 DISPATCHERS OR ISSUES RELATED TO DISCLOSURE OF DIFFERENT ITEMS, BUT A LARGE NUMBER OF.

BILLS THAT MAKE SOME SORT OF OPERATIONAL CHANGE.

AS IT RELATES, I NOTE ONE BILL THAT HAS DID NOT GARNER AS MUCH ATTENTION DURING THE REGULAR SESSION, BUT HAS AT LEAST IN A FEW COMMUNITIES THAT ARE NOW HAVING TO AMEND THEIR ORDINANCES LOCALLY.

AND THAT'S HB 1819, YOU'LL SEE IT PREEMPTS OR PROHIBITS CITIES FROM IN ANY GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY FROM ACTING LOCAL JUVENILE CURFEWS.

AND SO THERE'S A LARGE NUMBER OF COMMUNITIES THAT STILL MAINTAIN THOSE.

THOSE WOULD BE PREEMPTED AS OF AS OF NOW.

IT WAS ACTUALLY IMMEDIATE EFFECT ON ON THAT BILL.

SO THAT PROCESS IS UNDERWAY.

MENTIONED ALWAYS HAVE A LOT.

WE HAD HB 1661, WHICH RAISED THE MAXIMUM HIRING AGE IN A CIVIL SERVICE TO 45 TO ADDRESS PRIMARILY WORKFORCE SHORTAGES AND A NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS AROUND THE STATE.

ALWAYS A LARGE NUMBER AS IT RELATES TO ELECTIONS AND OPEN GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS AS WELL. WE HAD HB 30 WAS PROBABLY THE MOST HIGH PROFILE CHANGE TO OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT THAT WAS IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE UVALDE SCHOOL SHOOTING TRAGEDY.

THAT ALLOWS FOR CERTAIN EVIDENCE TO BE RELEASED EVEN OUTSIDE OF A CONVICTION AND TO RELEASE AS IT RELATES THE DECEASED SUSPECT LOOPHOLE THAT THAT PREVENTED THAT.

THIS ALLOWED FOR FOR THAT INFORMATION TO BE RELEASED EVEN OUTSIDE OF CONVICTION AND NO LONGER AN OPEN CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION.

VERY GOVERNOR WORKED VERY CLOSELY TO GET THAT DONE THIS TIME, TOO.

ONE OTHER BILL, HB 3613 IF DEALT WITH SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTS AND COUNCILS HAVING TO RUN

[00:50:07]

AFTER REAPPORTIONMENT AND I KNOW THAT DOESN'T AFFECT YOU ALL, BUT IT'S ONE THAT'S GARNERED A LOT OF ATTENTION TO.

SB 1893.

NOW FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE STATE GOVERNMENT DOWN TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

EVERY LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT HAS SOME SORT OF OFFICIAL ORDER OR LAW CHANGE THAT PROHIBITS THE THE MAINTAINING OF TIKTOK APP ON ANY GOVERNMENTAL DEVICE.

THIS BILL DEALT WITH COUNTIES AND CITIES AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

BUT BUT LIKE I SAID, AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL, WE HAVE THOSE SAME RESTRICTIONS IN THE STATE HAD ALREADY THROUGH GOVERNOR EXECUTIVE ACTION LIMITED THOSE AT THE STATE LEVEL, TOO.

AND SO THAT BILL, OF COURSE, WENT INTO IMMEDIATE EFFECT AS WELL.

A LOT OF DISCUSSION.

THESE BILLS WERE SOME PURCHASING CHANGES THAT ARE ALWAYS CONSIDERED, AGAIN, ANOTHER VERY PROMINENT AREA.

HB 1817 THAT IS A LOCAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT.

THAT'S YOUR FORM 1295 HAS TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF YOUR CONTRACTING PROCESSES NOW, WHICH IT ALREADY WAS. BUT THIS WAS MAKING SOME CHANGE TO SOME OF THOSE.

I MENTIONED THE BROADBAND DEVELOPMENT FUND AND THEIR OFFICE.

AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE IF APPROVED, AND I SUSPECT IT WILL BE A VERY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIES TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR COMMUNITY PARTNERS.

WE WILL NEVER HAVE ANYWHERE NEAR THIS LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR FOR ADVANCED BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT AS WE DO RIGHT NOW.

TEXAS RECEIVED A LITTLE UNDER 3.5 BILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE BEAD ACT, WHICH MADE US THE LARGEST RECIPIENT STATE IN THE NATION, PRIMARILY ON THE LACK OF SERVICE IN FAR WEST TEXAS, THAT INCREASE THOSE NUMBERS.

BUT IT'S NOW OPENED UP FOR THE WHOLE STATE TO PARTICIPATE WITH.

AS WE ALL KNOW, THE GRID AND THE ELECTRIC SYSTEM HAS BEEN SOMETHING WE'VE PAID CLOSE ATTENTION TO.

THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE NEXT ROUND OF ELECTRIC GRID REFORMS, WHICH ARE AIMED AT INCREASING ELECTRIC GENERATION SUPPLY IN OUR PUC SUNSET BILL, HOUSE BILL 1500 THIS PAST SESSION. MOST OF THOSE ARE OBVIOUSLY STILL EVEN IN THE ONES THAT PASSED AFTER WINTER STORM URI OR IN KIND OF THEIR EMPHASIS OF OF TRYING TO PRODUCE CHANGES TO TO BUILD NEW GENERATION. BUT IT DID IMPLEMENT A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WE'RE SEEING THEM UTILIZE NOW IN MANAGING US THROUGH THIS THIS HEAT WAVE THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING STATEWIDE.

AND SO, ERCOT HAS ALREADY IMPLEMENTED A LARGE NUMBER OF CHANGES THERE.

I MENTIONED SB 28 AND THE TEXAS WATER FUND.

THAT FUND IS GOING TO BE SET UP TO WHERE HALF OF IT IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO CREATION OF NEW WATER SUPPLY.

AND THEN THE OTHER HALF OF THAT WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR COMMUNITIES THAT NEED TO APPLY FOR GRANTS FOR UPGRADING THEIR INFRASTRUCTURE, PARTICULARLY THOSE IF THEY HAVE LEAKY SYSTEMS OR TRADITIONALLY HAVE HAD A LOT OF ISSUES WITH BOIL WATER NOTICES AND THOSE THINGS. THIS SETS FORTH A PROCESS FOR THEM TO ACCESS SOME OF THAT MONEY AND THAT'S ADMINISTERED THROUGH THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

GOVERNOR VETOED 76 BILLS.

THAT WAS ONE SHY OF A RECORD.

MANY OF THESE BILLS OF THOSE 76, HE INCLUDED A STATEMENT IN HIS VETO MESSAGE THAT SAID THIS MAY BE WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION, BUT IT'S NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN PROPERTY TAX RELIEF. AND I'M GOING TO VETO IT NOW.

AND WE'LL CONSIDER IT IN A FUTURE SPECIAL SESSION THAT I INTEND TO CALL THAT FUTURE SPECIAL SESSION THAT HE INTENDS TO CALL US, ONE WE WERE REFERRING ABOUT IN OCTOBER.

SOME OF THESE ARE GOOD, SOME ARE BAD.

SENATE BILL 20 FROM A CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, 2035, FOR EXAMPLE, LIMITED THE USE OF CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AS A DEBT INSTRUMENT.

HOWEVER, WE IT ALL WORKED PRETTY HEAVILY TO GET THAT TO A PRETTY DECENT PLACE TO WHERE IT WASN'T CONSIDERED DETRIMENTAL ANYMORE.

ONCE THIS BILL GOES BACK ON, IT WAS VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR.

ONCE IT GOES ON TO THE CALL, IF HE INCLUDES IT, THAT WHOLE PROCESS STARTS OVER, EVEN IF IT'S FILED IN ITS FORM THAT PASSED.

WE START THAT PROCESS OVER AND THE DEBATE BEGINS.

THERE'S NO GUARANTEE WITH HOW IT WILL END UP AND NO GUARANTEE THAT THE BILL AUTHORS WANT TO KEEP IT THE SAME. AND SO, A LOT OF THESE TOPICS THAT WE HAVE HERE, YOU'LL SEE EXCEPTIONS TO THE BUILDING MATERIALS PREEMPTION.

IF WE GO DOWN THE LIST OF DANGEROUS DOGS, A LOT OF THESE THINGS AFFECT CITIES THAT VERY WELL COULD BE PUT BACK.

WE HAD HOUSE BILL 2956, WHICH WAS ONE OF OUR BILLS FOR ANOTHER CITY CLIENT THAT WAS VETOED, THAT ALLOWED FOR ACCESS ACROSS RAILROAD RIGHT.

[00:55:05]

OF WAYS TO BEING INCLUDED IN ANNEXATIONS.

AND SO WE EXPECT AGAIN, A LARGE NUMBER OF CITY RELATED ISSUES AFTER THEY GET STARTED WITH THAT OCTOBER SPECIAL SESSION TO COME BACK UP.

PRETTY ACTIVE.

THIS IS THE LIST OF THE 14 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED ON NOVEMBER THE 7TH.

NOTED FOR YOU ALREADY, PROP FOUR IS THAT PROPERTY TAX RELIEF PACKAGE THE RIGHT TO FARM? AND WE HAD IT THERE WITHIN CITY LIMITS BUT IT'S A STATEWIDE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT IS IS INCLUDED THERE AS PROP ONE AND THEN YOU'LL SEE A HOST OF OTHER ISSUES, THE BROADBAND, PROP EIGHT AND SO FORTH.

AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THOSE PARTICULAR ITEMS AS WELL.

I MENTIONED THAT.

CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT? WHEN YOU TOUCHED ON THE WATER FUND, THAT WOULDN'T BE ESTABLISHED UNLESS PROPOSITION SIX PASSED.

CORRECT. SO ENABLING STATUTE FOR THAT WAS SENATE BILL 28, AND IT SET UP THE FUND AND KIND OF THE PARAMETERS FOR IT.

AND SENATOR PERRY, WHO'S THE CHAIR OF THE WATER COMMITTEE AND IN THE SENATE, AND IT SETS OUT THOSE PARAMETERS.

AND HE ALSO WAS SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING THE STATE APPROPRIATION OF A LITTLE OVER $1 BILLION IN OUR.

AND SO THAT MONEY IS SET ASIDE FOR THIS AND EARMARKED FOR THAT FUND.

IF IT PASSES. IF IT PASSES.

IF IT'LL GO BACK TO GENERAL REVENUE VIA THE TREASURY.

DO WE THINK THIS. YOU MENTIONED COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE AGING INFRASTRUCTURE AND THINGS, BUT WHAT ABOUT POTENTIALLY ALLOWING FOR STUDIES FOR ALTERNATIVE WATER RESOURCES? FOR EXAMPLE, WE PURCHASE OUR WATER FROM FORT WORTH, BUT THAT'S IF SOMEWHERE DOWN THE LINE IN THE FUTURE, FORT WORTH SAID, WE CAN'T SELL YOU WATER ANYMORE.

WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO OUR CITIZENS.

WE'VE GROWN SO MUCH OR WHATEVER THE OUTCOME MAY BE.

WE HAVE DISCUSSED IN THE NEXT BUDGET AND FUTURE TO LOOK AT WHAT OTHER WATER SOURCES MIGHT WE HAVE. SO, IS THIS AN OPPORTUNITY POSSIBLY, IF IT PASSES, TO APPLY FOR SOME FUNDING TO HELP US WITH THAT STUDY? YES. THE HALF OF THE FUND WILL BE DEDICATED TOWARDS DEVELOPMENT OF NEW WATER SUPPLIES.

SO IF YOU WERE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE LOOKING TO AN ALTERNATIVE SOURCE, THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED NEW, THAT ALLOWS FOR EXPRESSLY IN THERE TO COVER FEASIBILITY AND PRE-DEVELOPMENT COSTS RELATED TO TO LOOKING AT THOSE ALTERNATIVES.

BUT THE IDEA PRIMARILY BEHIND IT.

AND SO YES, THE ANSWER IS YES, THAT IT COULD.

I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A GREAT DEAL OF REQUESTS TO IT.

WELL, A GREAT DEAL OF.

KIND OF FAVORITISM IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD.

BUT BUT THE INTENT OF IT IS TO HELP ADVANCE SOME OF THE WATER SUPPLY PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN IN THE STATE WATER PLAN FOR A LONG TIME WITHOUT A LOT OF ADVANCEMENT.

AND THE PRIMARY REASON YOU HEAR FOR FOR LACK OF ADVANCEMENT IS FUNDING, AND PARTICULARLY THOSE HARD DOLLARS ON EARLY FEASIBILITY AND OTHERS THAT ARE THAT ARE A LITTLE HARDER FOR THEM TO TO GET TO.

BUT IT WAS A MONUMENTAL EFFORT BY SENATOR PERRY AND OTHERS.

THE WATER SUPPLIERS IN THIS REGION ALL VERY MUCH TARRANT REGIONAL, FORT WORTH, EVERYBODY SUPPORTED THIS EFFORT.

NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WHOLE HOST OF THE NORTH TEXAS RELATED ENTITIES THAT THAT HELP SUPPORT THIS.

SO CERTAINLY A QUESTION FOR YOU.

SNAPPER BACK ON ONE OF YOUR LAND USE SLIDES.

YOU REFERRED TO HOUSE BILL 1707 THAT CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE TREATED LIKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS AS FAR AS LAND USE. DOES THAT GIVE THEM BASICALLY THE AUTHORITY TO PREEMPT ANY ZONING THAT A CITY HAS? BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW IS PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAN GO INTO ANY ZONING DISTRICT AT THEIR DISCRETION.

IT TREATS THEM JUST LIKE PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO GO AROUND LOCAL ZONING RESTRICTIONS OR TO HAVE EXCEPTIONS TO THEM, THEY WILL BE FUNCTIONALLY TREATED THE SAME AS AN ISD. SO, YES.

AND THAT HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN THAT DOES NOT GIVE YOU AN EXCEPTION TO TO HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE RELATED ASPECTS, BUILDING CODES AND THOSE OTHER ITEMS THAT THAT CITIES, I MEAN, ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING.

THE APPLICATION. THAT WAS A PRETTY GOOD SIZED CAMPUS THAT NEVER GOT BUILT, BUT WE HAD APPROVAL OVER THE ZONING.

IF THAT WERE TO COME FOR US TODAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT.

AND I GUESS IN THE WAKE OF THIS BILL.

[01:00:01]

BUT WOULD THAT ALSO GIVE US THE RIGHT TO CONTROL ACCESS TO DEAL WITH, YOU KNOW, SAY, TRAFFIC SITUATIONS AROUND THE SCHOOL? SO, THOSE ITEMS, I WOULD SAY THAT'S MORE DEEMED TOWARDS A POLICE POWER RELATED HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE MANAGEMENT.

YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME.

TOOLS IN YOUR TOOLBOX AS IT RELATES TO THAT AND THE DEVELOPMENT OTHER THAN ZONING? OTHER THAN JUST A STRAIGHT RESTRICTION SAYING WE CAN'T WE AREN'T ALLOWING SCHOOLS IN THIS PARTICULAR CLASSIFICATION.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR.

I WAS JUST GOING TO CLOSE WITH, YOU KNOW, AND WE TALKED ABOUT THAT NEED TO KIND OF OVER THE INTERIM EDUCATE SOME OF OUR ELECTED OFFICIALS AT THE STATE LEGISLATURE.

AND BY EDUCATE, IT'S REALLY JUST TO HAVE A DIALOG ABOUT THE REALITY I THINK OF SOME OF Y'ALL'S PROCESSES AND I LIKEN IT TO HAVING A SHOW AND TELL DAY WITH SOME OF THE KEY COMMITTEE LEADERSHIP AND THE KEY MEMBERS OF VARIOUS COMMITTEES ON ON THE ISSUES THAT THEY DEAL WITH.

AND I THINK THAT IT WILL PAY GREAT DIVIDENDS FOR US TO ATTEMPT TO DO THAT.

I THINK YOU ALL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE WITH, LIKE I SAID, YOUR SENIOR DELEGATION WITH SENATOR KING AND CHAIRMAN BURNS IN PARTICULAR, AS IT RELATES TO THE SUBJECT MATTERS THAT THEY OVERSEE AND REALLY INVITE THEM, TRY TO LOOP THEM IN OVER THE INTERIM, THE ISSUE OF PREEMPTION IS ONE THAT WE'RE GOING TO DEBATE AGAIN.

AND IT DOESN'T JUST SHOW UP LIKE IN THAT BIG BILL IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

IT REALLY SHOWS UP IN ALL OF THESE DEBATES ABOUT WHAT IS BEST ABOUT, AGAIN, YOU ALL TRYING TO TO CRAFT A SOLUTION OR HAVING THE TOOLS FOR FOR YOUR PROFESSIONAL MANAGEMENT TEAMS TO HELP CRAFT SOLUTIONS TO TO MANAGE THINGS.

OR IS IT THAT MOST OF THESE DECISIONS ARE GOING TO BE CODIFIED AND MADE AND SETTLED IN AUSTIN EVERY TWO YEARS, AND THEN WE TRY TO PICK UP THE PIECES AND FIGURE OUT HOW THEY APPLY TO YOUR LOCAL SITUATION.

AND I'VE SEEN IT BOTH WAYS.

AND I THINK THAT WE'RE IN A PERIOD WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHAT OUR AUTHORITIES ARE IN CERTAIN AREAS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A LONG TIME.

AND THE PEOPLE THAT ULTIMATELY I THINK IN THAT UNCERTAINTY THAT WE NEED TO GET OUT OF AND HOW THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AFFECTS US IS THAT IT'S THE CITIZENS AND THE BUSINESSES OF YOUR COMMUNITIES THAT ARE ULTIMATELY GOING TO KIND OF BE CAUGHT IN THAT THAT TRAP OF NOT KNOWING WHERE TO GO IF WE DON'T GET THAT SETTLED IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND DEALT WITH TO WHERE WE KIND OF GET BACK MORE TO A PARTNERSHIP ROLE THAN BEING VIEWED AS IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER.

AND I THINK THERE'S SOME GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT TO OCCUR.

I'M OPTIMISTIC, OPTIMISTIC EVEN IN FACE OF SOME OF THESE TOUGHER THINGS THAT WE'VE HAD THAT WILL GET THAT OPPORTUNITY IN OVER THE COURSE OF THIS INTERIM.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND AGAIN, WE GREATLY APPRECIATE THE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY AND TO BE A PART OF Y'ALL'S TEAM WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME TYPE OF PRESENTATION.

WE COULD COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MYSELF TAKE THIS UP AND PRESENT IT TO LIKE ROTARY CLUBS AND STUFF OF THAT NATURE TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.

YOU HAD SOME DOWN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST WHERE YOU HAD LIKE SAN ANTONIO.

THOSE WON'T BE ON OUR BALLOT.

WILL THAT BE ON ALL OF THEM OR JUST PART JUST WHAT'S PERTINENT TO OUR AREA? CERTAINLY. CERTAINLY.

AND MAYOR, I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON WITH WITH THAT ROLE OF, YOU KNOW, PARTICULARLY NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE BUSINESSES IN YOUR COMMUNITIES COULD BE GREATLY IMPACTED.

A LOT OF TIME THESE PROPOSALS ARE PUT FORWARD BECAUSE SOME OTHER CITY IS DOING SOMETHING OR SOME OTHER REGION.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THOSE IMPACTS ARE FELT THE SAME AS AS Y'ALL DEAL WITH THEM.

SO ABSOLUTELY, WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO TO CRAFT SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD USE IN YOUR PUBLIC DISCOURSE WITH WITH FOLKS TO TRY TO MAYBE PUT A SPOTLIGHT ON COULD HELP OUT ON THIS.

BUT YOU NEED MORE THAN JUST VERBIAGE.

YOU NEED SOME VIDEOS OF A HOG NEXT DOOR TO LET THEM KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE UP AGAINST. WE SAY THAT SOME OF THIS STUFF KIND OF SCARES ME.

YES, SIR. THERE WAS A PROPOSAL AT ONE POINT THAT WOULD ALLOW OVER 100FT STRUCTURES TO BE BUILT WITHIN 50FT OF A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE.

YES. AND SO WE NEED SOMETHING THAT'S A TRUE I MADE A PICTURE OF THAT NEXT TO MY HOME AND IT DIDN'T LOOK TOO GOOD.

I DON'T WANT THE PEOPLE TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF SOME OF THESE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE. I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE DORMANT AND THEN FIND OUT WHAT WE SHOULD HAVE DONE MORE.

SO, IF YOU COULD HELP US OUT ON THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.

HAPPY TO AND WOULD APPRECIATE IT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS, WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC SPEAKER.

[01:05:01]

BRENDA GAMMON.

THAT'S VERY TRUE WHAT YOU SAID, CHRIS, ABOUT STAYING IN TOUCH WITH THE LEADERS AND STUFF.

CAN YOU PULL DOWN THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE? THEY BOTH DAVID AND DWAYNE ARE PLANNING ON MEETING WITH THE ROTARIES AND THE LIONS CLUBS AND ANY CLUBS THAT WANT TO, BUT IT'D BE GREAT IF SOMEONE COULD GO AROUND, AND THE COUNCIL COULD GO AROUND AND TALK ABOUT THESE.

YOU ALL KNOW I'M GOOD FRIENDS WITH DWAYNE AND DAVID AND PHIL NOW, WHICH IS GREAT.

THE QUESTIONS I HAD WAS THIS WAS WHAT EFFECT DO THEY HAVE IN THIS? BECAUSE CITIES CAN SAY THAT YOU CAN HAVE CHICKENS OR COWS OR WHATEVER IN YOUR ORDINANCES, WHICH I CAN'T BELIEVE IT'S ONE I'M NOT FOR.

BUT WHAT ABOUT IF HOAS HAVE REGULATIONS THAT COVERS IT? YES. THE.

HOUSE BILL 2127, WHICH IS THE MAIN PREEMPTION BILL.

WE SPOKE ABOUT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZED DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CODE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS.

AND SO HOA RULES AND REGULATIONS WOULD COVER THAT, IN ESSENCE.

YES, MA'AM. THAT'S GOOD.

WHICH BILL WAS IT? THE DEATH TAX. THE DEATH? WHAT WAS IT CALLED? THE DEATH.

THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY DOWN THERE THIS YEAR.

IT WAS. THAT WAS HB 2127, 2122 IS THE DEATH STAR.

THAT'S IT. THANK YOU.

THAT WAS THAT BILL. THAT WAS PRETTY INTERESTING.

OKAY. THAT WAS THE QUESTION I HAD.

I HAVE DWAYNE AND DAVID'S AND PHIL'S CELL PHONE NUMBERS.

AND I WOULD REALLY LOVE FOR YOU ALL TO CALL THEM.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF THEY'RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT.

THERE'S YOUR REP.

CALL THEM. TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK.

SAY, HEY, I HATE THAT OR DON'T LIKE THIS BECAUSE THEY HEARD FROM NOBODY WHILE HE WAS DOWN THERE ABOUT ANY OF THESE BILLS.

AND OF COURSE, I KNOW YOU ALL DON'T HAVE TIME TO SIT THERE AND WATCH IT LIKE I DO NOW THAT I'M RETIRED.

BUT IT'D BE GREAT IF HE COULD HEAR FROM YOU, EACH ONE OF YOU.

AND BILLY AND YOU KNOW ANYBODY, CHIEF? I MEAN. SORRY, CHIEF, BUT THEY WANT TO KNOW.

I TOLD DWAYNE A COUPLE OF THINGS.

I KIND OF WAS YELLING AT HIM.

I SAID, DID YOU KNOW THAT THIS BILL IS GOING TO DO THIS TO THE CITIES? AND HE GOES, NO, I NEVER HEAR FROM ANYBODY.

ANYBODY. NOW, CHRIS, I KNOW HE TALKS TO HIM SOME, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE YOU ALL HAVE A MEETING WITH DWAYNE AND DAVID AND PHIL, MAYBE.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT IDEA? I DON'T KNOW. I'M JUST THROWING OUT IDEAS FOR YOU GUYS BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TALKING TO THEM ABOUT THIS, AND THIS IS VERY COMPLICATED.

AND THEY HAVE NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER BEEN ON A CITY COUNCIL OR PLANNING AND ZONING.

I ASKED THEM, SO THEY DON'T KNOW.

LUCKILY, I'VE BEEN ON PLANNING AND ZONING, SO I KIND OF UNDERSTOOD SOME OF IT AND I EXPLAINED SOME OF IT. SO EACH ONE OF YOU.

I'M CHARGING EACH ONE OF YOU, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL AT LEAST ONE OF THEM AND LET ME KNOW IF YOU NEED THEIR NUMBER? CHRIS HAS THEM ALL, SO I DON'T.

YOU CAN GET IT FROM HIM OR YOU CAN GET IT FROM ME OR WHATEVER.

BUT I DON'T CARE WHETHER, LIKE I SAID, DEMOCRAT OR WHATEVER.

ONE MORE THING I WANT TO SAY.

SOME CITIES IN STATE DON'T EVEN HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING LIKE HOUSTON.

THEY DON'T HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING.

THERE'S NO ZONING.

YOU CAN BUILD A LIQUOR STORE NEXT TO A DAYCARE CENTER, NEXT TO A BROTHEL, NEXT TO IT, NOT REALLY, BUT NEXT TO A HOUSE.

NEXT TO A CHURCH, NEXT TO A YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO ZONING AT ALL.

SO, A LOT OF THIS DOESN'T IS REALLY THROWING THEM UP IN THE AIR.

LUCKILY, WE HAVE ZONING.

SO, I WANTED TO REMIND YOU ALL OF THAT.

A LOT OF GOOD HAPPENED OUT OF THIS SESSION.

LIKE, I LIKE THE ONE WHERE CHILDREN OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS CAN GO TO ANY SCHOOL.

I THINK THAT'S PRETTY NICE.

THE ONE WHERE THE INSURANCE, THE FRANCHISE TAX, THAT FRANCHISE TAX WAS ABOUT TO STRANGLE US. I'M NOT IN BUSINESS ANYMORE.

I RETIRED, BUT I COULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MUCH WE HAD TO PAY IN FRANCHISE TAX.

AND ANY OF YOU THAT HAVE A SMALL BUSINESS, I KNOW SEVERAL OF YOU DO YOU KNOW THOSE FRANCHISE TAXES WILL GET YOU THERE? LIKE INCOME TAX IS WHAT GETS YOU.

BUT ANYWAY, I HAVE A LIST OF MANY OF THEM AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THEM, I AM NOT AN EXPERT.

I'M NOT THE ONE TO ASK.

IT'S HIM OR IT'S DWAYNE OR DAVID OR PHIL.

SO THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.

I APPRECIATE ALL YOU DO.

AND CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? ONE MORE COMMENT ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

YOU ALL JUST THEY JUST DO AN AMAZING JOB GOING AROUND TOWN AND TAKING THE ICE CREAM.

AND THAT'S THE ANSWER.

PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR FROM Y'ALL GUYS AND SEE YOU GUYS AND TALK TO YOU GUYS.

I KNOW DAN'S HEARD ME SAY THAT 300 TIMES, HAVEN'T YOU, DAN? BUT THE CITIZENS NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU GUYS AND SEE YOU GUYS.

[01:10:04]

AND I THINK THAT WAS BRILLIANT.

SO I JUST WANTED TO COMPLIMENT.

SO THANK YOU ALL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

[3.B.Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding the Utility Customer Service Leak Adjustment Policy. (Staff Presenter: Jesse Elizondo, Director of Customer Service)]

OKAY, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 3.B TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS AFTERNOON IS JESSIE ELIZONDO, DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER SERVICE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE A PRESENTATION AND FACILITATED DISCUSSION WITH YOU ALL REGARDING THE POSSIBILITY OF MODIFYING OUR UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY.

SO, OUR LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY IN THE CITY IS OPEN TO BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS IN THE EVENT THAT THEY HAVE A LEAK IN THEIR WATER SYSTEM.

AND USUALLY THAT WILL RESULT IN A MUCH HIGHER THAN EXPECTED MONTHLY BILL OR SERIES OF BILLS. AND THE POLICY IS IN PLACE SO THAT THEY CAN GET SOME RELIEF WHENEVER THAT DOES HAPPEN TO THEM. NOW, WE HAD SOME COMMUNICATION BOTH INTERNALLY AND EXTERNALLY ON WHETHER WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND MODIFY THIS POLICY THAT WE HAVE.

AND SO STAFF TOOK A LOOK AT IT AND EVALUATED MANY DIFFERENT FACETS OF IT AND DETERMINED THAT, YES, WE SHOULD TAKE IT TO COUNCIL, GIVE YOU GUYS A GOOD PICTURE OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY WITH THE POLICY AND THEN KIND OF HAVE A DISCUSSION OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MODIFIED.

THE LAST TIME WE MODIFIED IT WAS IN 2015 AND WE'LL GET INTO KIND OF THE HISTORY OF IT.

HOWEVER, AS DIRECTOR OF CUSTOMER SERVICE, I DON'T GET TO STAND UP HERE IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY SINCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE, JUST TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A TREMENDOUS JOB OUR UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE TEAM DOES, NOT ONLY IN THEIR DAY TO DAY WORK, BUT ALSO HOW THEY REPRESENT THE CITY FROM A CUSTOMER SERVICE STANDPOINT.

THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS IN UCS ARE PART OF OUR LARGER CALL CENTER.

THAT ALSO INCLUDES 311 THAT TAKES CARE OF SERVICE REQUESTS ACROSS THE CITY, AND THEY'RE RUN BY OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE OPERATION MANAGER, BRANDI RENDON, WHO IS HERE WAY IN THE BACK. SO THAT GROUP, THEY DO A TREMENDOUS JOB, LIKE I SAID, NOT ONLY IN THEIR DAY-TO-DAY DUTIES, BUT ALSO FOR MANY OF OUR CUSTOMERS.

THEY ARE THE FACE OF THE CITY BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY INTERACT WITH THE CITY.

THEY COME IN TO PAY THEIR WATER BILL AND THAT'S FOR A LOT OF PEOPLE, THAT'S ALL THEY SEE FROM FROM THE CITY STAFF PERSPECTIVE.

SO A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T KNOW THIS, BUT THEY TAKE MORE THAN JUST THE UTILITY.

CUSTOMER SERVICE ALONE TAKES MORE THAN 20,000 PHONE CALLS PER YEAR, AND THEY HAVE MORE THAN 40,000 TOUCH POINTS PER YEAR.

THAT'S ANY INTERACTION WITH CUSTOMERS.

SO THAT'S EMAILS AND TALKING TO PEOPLE AND FACE TO FACE AT THE COUNTER.

THEY HAVE AN ABANDONED THAT GROUP HAS ABANDONED CALL RATIO OF 0.9 6%.

THAT MEANS THAT THEY'RE ANSWERING 99% OF CALLS THAT ARE COMING IN.

OF THOSE 20,000 PLUS CALLS, WHICH IS TREMENDOUS INDUSTRY STANDARD FOR A REGULAR CALL CENTER IS ANYTHING OVER 95% OF ANSWERING THOSE CALLS IS IS CONSIDERED VERY GOOD. SO AT 99%, THEY'RE DOING A WONDERFUL JOB.

AND THEIR SPEED TO ANSWER RATE IS LESS THAN SIX SECONDS.

THAT ESSENTIALLY MEANS THEY'RE ANSWERING IT ON THE FIRST RING.

AGAIN, FROM A CALL CENTER STANDPOINT, USUALLY UNDER 30S IS VERY GOOD.

SO WITH 99% CALLS ANSWERED ON THE FIRST RING, THAT'S TREMENDOUS.

ON TOP OF THAT, THEY HAVE A FIRST CALL RESOLUTION RATE OF 98%.

SO THAT MEANS THE CALLS THAT ARE COMING IN, THEY'RE ACTUALLY TAKING CARE OF THOSE CALLS WITHOUT HAVING TO TRANSFER THEM OR MOVE THEM TO A DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A MISNOMER BECAUSE FOR FOR THINGS LIKE 311, WHERE ANY CALL CAN COME IN ABOUT ANYTHING, MOST PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLING ARE UX DEPARTMENT NEED SOMETHING FROM THE UTILITIES. SO THEIR NUMBER IS GOING TO BE HIGHER.

FOR OUR LARGER CALL CENTER.

WE'RE LOOKING AT LIKE 80, 85% TO BE ABOVE FOR FIRST CALL RESOLUTION, BUT STILL 98% IS WONDERFUL. AND WHILE DOING THAT, THEY HAVE A COLLECTION RATE OF 99%.

SO THAT MEANS THAT EVERY THING THAT WE'RE BILLING OUT, THIS DEPARTMENT IS COLLECTING IN 99% JUST FOR UTILITIES ALONE.

USUALLY ANYTHING OVER 95% IS IS VERY GOOD.

SO AT 99%, THEY'RE COLLECTING THAT AND THEY'RE DOING THAT WITH A CUSTOMER SATISFACTION, A POSITIVE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING OF OVER 95%.

I WILL SAY THAT THE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING, THE WAY THAT WE SEND OUT SURVEYS AFTER WE INTERACT WITH CUSTOMERS OR HAVE A PHONE CALL THAT IS DOES INCLUDE OUR 311, IT'S WE DON'T SEPARATE THE TWO.

SO THAT IS THE GROUP INCLUDED.

BUT TO SAY THAT THEY HAVE A COLLECTION RATE OF 99% AND A POSITIVE FEEDBACK RATING OF 95 PLUS IS WONDERFUL, ESPECIALLY IF YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S NOT A DIVISION THAT'S JUST A FEEL GOOD, POSITIVE DIVISION.

THESE ARE PEOPLE THIS IS A DIVISION THAT IS ROUTINELY HAVING TO CUT PEOPLE'S WATER OFF FOR NONPAYMENT AND WORK WITH PEOPLE ON GETTING THEIR WATER TURNED BACK ON AND PAYMENT PLANS WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN HARD TIMES.

SO TO HAVE A COLLECTION RATE OF 99% AND THEN A VERY HIGH CUSTOMER SATISFACTION RATING MEANS THAT THEY ARE REALLY DOING A WONDERFUL JOB DAY TO DAY, AND ALSO REPRESENTING OUR THE CITY AND OUR CUSTOMERS VERY WELL.

AND WE APPRECIATE THEM ALL THE TIME INTERNALLY.

BUT IT'S NICE TO DO IT IN A PUBLIC SETTING AND ESPECIALLY IN FRONT OF COUNCIL.

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT TO THEM.

OKAY, LET'S GET INTO OUR LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY.

[01:15:01]

SO I JUST WANT TO SAY FROM THE OUTSET HERE, IT IS NOT MY INTENTION UP HERE TO SAY WHAT WE SHOULD DO OR WHAT WE SHOULDN'T DO.

WHAT I'M GOING TO TRY AND DO IS PAINT A PICTURE OF KIND OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN, WHERE WE ARE NOW, AND THEN TALK ABOUT KIND OF THIS BALANCE THAT CITIES HAVE TO STRIKE BETWEEN TAKING CARE OF OUR CUSTOMERS IN THE RIGHT WAY AND ALSO MAKING SURE THAT IT WORKS WITH THE CITY. AS FAR AS THE COLLECTION RATE THAT WE'RE BRINGING IN AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO YOU CAN SEE HERE THE LAST TIME THAT WE LOOKED AT THIS LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY AND CHANGED IT WAS IN 2015, WE WANTED TO LOOK AT APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS FOR THIS.

AND THAT'S WHAT THE TWO CHARTS ARE ON THE RIGHT.

HERE YOU HAVE THE RUN UP TO 2015 WHEN IT CHANGED.

DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM, THE NUMBER OF CREDITS IS HOW MANY TIMES THE ADJUSTMENT POLICY WAS USED THAT YEAR.

SO, 24, 28, 28 THAT WAS USED THAT MANY TIMES THAT YEAR.

AND THEN THE THE MONETARY NUMBER IS HOW MUCH WE GAVE OUT IN LEAK ADJUSTMENTS.

AND THEN WE HAVE THE RUN UP TO 2022 FROM 2018 AFTER THE 2015 CHANGEOVER.

SO BEFORE 2015, THE FREQUENCY THAT SOMEONE COULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE POLICY WAS ONE ADJUSTMENT FOR LIFE OF THE ACCOUNT.

SO IT WAS LIKE A ONE AND DONE. IF YOU USED IT, YOU USED IT AND IT WAS OVER WITH.

THIS WAS BEFORE THE CHANGE IN 2015.

IT WAS OPEN TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS BACK THEN, AND THE WAY THAT IT WAS CALCULATED WAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN IT IS NOW.

THE CUSTOMER WOULD PAY THE WHOLE LEAK, BUT THEY WOULD PAY IT AT A WHOLESALE RATE SO YOU YOU WOULDN'T GET ANYTHING FORGIVEN OTHER THAN IT WAS A DISCOUNTED RATE ON WHAT YOU WERE PAYING. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WITH THE CHANGE OVER AND LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT NUMBERS THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT APPLES TO APPLES.

SO WE RAN THINGS LIKE THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF ACCOUNTS BACK THEN FROM 2012 TO 2014, WE WERE AROUND 13,000 ACCOUNTS AND THE AVERAGE PER CREDIT WAS $175.

SO OBVIOUSLY SOME WERE LARGER, SOME WERE LOWER, BUT THE AVERAGE WAS $175.

THIS LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY WAS BROUGHT TO COUNCIL IN 2015 AND APPROVED.

AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE CHANGED IN 2015 WAS THE FREQUENCY.

SO NOW INSTEAD OF ONCE EVERY ONCE ONE AND DONE ONE IN THE LIFE OF THE ACCOUNT, YOU HAD ONE ADJUSTMENT EVERY TEN YEARS.

IT WAS STILL OPEN TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

AND THE WAY THAT WAS CALCULATED CHANGED TO IS MORE FORGIVING WAY OF CALCULATING IT.

SO WE WOULD DO A 12 MONTH RUNNING AVERAGE OF SOMEONE'S BILL OF SOMEONE'S USAGE AND ANYTHING OVER THAT USAGE, THE AMOUNT WOULD BE FORGIVEN.

SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE IT WASN'T PAID AT A WHOLESALE RATE, IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE FORGIVEN. YOU CAN SEE THE RESULT OF THAT IN THE THE ACTUAL ADJUSTMENT DOLLARS AND THE AMOUNT OF CREDITS THAT WERE GIVEN OUT.

RIGHT. SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE ACCOUNTS AFTER 2015, YOU'RE LOOKING AT AROUND 15, 16,000 ACCOUNTS.

SO THE CHANGE IN ACCOUNTS IS SOMETHING SOMEWHERE AROUND 15%.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE AVERAGE PER CREDIT AFTER THAT CHANGE, IT GOES UP QUITE A BIT.

IT'S MUCH MORE THAN 15%.

IT'S DOUBLE OR TRIPLE AND THE CREDITS AS WELL ARE BEING UTILIZED MORE.

NOW THERE THERE'S SOME GRAIN OF SALT HERE THAT I'LL GET INTO IN JUST A MINUTE.

BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT WE THE CITY GAVE OUT TREMENDOUS, MUCH NEEDED RELIEF IN WATER ADJUSTMENTS AND CREDITS WITH COVID 19 WHEN THAT HAPPENED AND WITH WINTER STORM URI WHEN THAT HAPPENED, THOSE NUMBERS HAVE BEEN TAKEN OUT OF THESE BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO LOOK JUST YEAR OVER YEAR APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE ANY EMERGENCY SITUATIONS BUILT INTO THESE NUMBERS HERE.

AND THEN ALSO, WE WERE TRYING TO THINK OF EVERY POSSIBLE WAY THAT IT COULD SKEW THE NUMBERS AND THE RATE.

THE WATER RATES DID CHANGE BETWEEN 2012 AND 2022.

BUT WHEN WE CALCULATED THOSE CHANGES, IT WASN'T SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO MOVE THE NEEDLE ON ANY OF THESE ON ANY OF THESE NUMBERS.

SOME THINGS TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE'RE GOING OVER THIS, SOME GRAIN OF SALT CONSIDERATIONS, EVEN AS 2022 WAS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT THAT WE GAVE OUT.

SO THAT 44,634, THAT WAS THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OF WATER CREDITS WE'VE GIVEN OUT.

IT'S STILL ONLY REPRESENTS 0.38% OF OUR WATER REVENUE.

SO EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS LIKE A REALLY HIGH NUMBER COMPARED TO THAT 2014 $6,000 AMOUNT, IT'S STILL LESS THAN HALF A PERCENT OF WATER REVENUE.

SO, JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND.

AND THEN OUR UX TEAM AVERAGES FOR LEAKS PER MONTH GENERALLY AND RARELY SEES REPEATS.

SO, WE RARELY SEE PEOPLE THAT ARE CALLING IN THAT SAY, I USED MINE ONCE IN TEN YEARS AND I NEED TO USE IT AGAIN.

HOWEVER, THE CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS ARE VERY GOOD AT EXPLAINING TO PEOPLE THAT YOU GET ONE PER TEN YEARS.

SO, WE DO SEE PEOPLE WHO GET A SMALLER THEY HAVE A SMALLER LEAK, AND THEY ASK ABOUT THE LEAK ADJUSTMENT POLICY.

AND ONCE THEY LEARN ABOUT IT, THEY SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M GOING TO PAY THIS SMALLER LEAK BECAUSE I EXPECT IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS, I MIGHT HAVE A MUCH LARGER LEAK.

SO, YOU KNOW, IF YOU AS YOU LOWER THE FREQUENCY, YOU WILL PROBABLY SEE MORE CREDITS THAT COME OUT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS THIS KIND OF BALANCE BETWEEN FREQUENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY AND THEN ALSO CALCULATIONS.

CURRENTLY, OUR UX TEAM DOES NOT OVERLY SCRUTINIZE THE ELIGIBILITY JUST THERE.

THERE ARE WE'LL TALK ABOUT IN JUST A SECOND THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS OF LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD A LEAK AND THAT THE DATES MATCH UP AND STUFF LIKE THAT. THIS IS NOT REALLY A LARGE ISSUE.

PEOPLE ARE VERY GOOD ABOUT SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE A LEAK ABOUT BRINGING IN INVOICES AND SHOWING THAT IT WAS REPAIRED.

WE VERY, VERY RARELY TURN AWAY SOMEBODY BASED ON ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEN WE ALWAYS, ALWAYS WORK WITH OUR CUSTOMERS AS FAR AS PAYMENT PLANS OR SETTING

[01:20:03]

UP PAYMENTS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN GET THEIR WATER ON AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THE MONEY IN A WAY THAT THEY CAN THAT THEY CAN PAY.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE POLICIES HERE.

BUT I JUST WANT TO LET COUNCIL KNOW AS WE TALK ABOUT MODIFYING IT, THERE IS REALLY IT'S OUR POLICY. AND SO, EVERY CITY HAS TO BALANCE WHAT'S BEST FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS AND WHAT'S BEST FOR THE, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THE USAGE THAT THEY'RE ALLOWING.

AND SO IT'S A BALANCE. IT'S A BALANCING ACT.

BUT YOU CAN CHANGE ANYTHING FROM FREQUENCY OF HOW MANY TIMES IT'S USED FROM THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ELIGIBILITY AND THE CALCULATIONS.

SO, WHAT IS OUR CURRENT ADJUSTMENT POLICY? IT IS OUR FREQUENCY IS ONCE EVERY TEN YEARS LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, THE REQUIREMENTS ARE PRETTY SIMPLE. YOU JUST HAVE TO SHOW THAT YOU HAD A LEAK AND THAT THE LEAK WAS REPAIRED. SO, USUALLY THAT'S IN THE FORM OF A PLUMBING INVOICE THAT SHOWS THAT THEY HAD A LEAK, AND IT WAS REPAIRED. BUT FOR THE DIY ERS, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN TAKE A PICTURE THAT THERE'S A LEAK THEY CAN SHOW WHEN THE CITY CAME OUT TO TURN THE WATER OFF TO SHOW THAT THEY REPAIRED IT, THEY CAN SHOW THAT THEY WENT AND BOUGHT TOOLS OR THE ITEMS THEY NEEDED TO FIX THE LEAK.

ANY OF THAT STUFF WILL WORK.

AND LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH WITH SCRUTINIZING THAT.

AND THEN THE DATES OF THIS IS KIND OF SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT THE DATES OF THE REPAIR HAVE TO COINCIDE WITH THE USAGE.

SO WE CAN GO BACK AS UTILITY CUSTOMER SERVICE AND LOOK AT THEIR USAGE SPIKE.

WE CAN LOOK AT THE THE BILL SPIKE, WE CAN GO DATALOG THE METER AND SHOW THE ACTUAL DAYS OF WHEN IT WAS RUNNING. SO, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE SAYS THEY HAD A LEAK IN JUNE, BUT YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T COINCIDE WITH THE METER LEAK, THEY MIGHT BE ELIGIBLE.

I HONESTLY, I DON'T KNOW IF WE'VE EVER USED THAT TO DENY ANYONE.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, IT'S OPEN FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USE.

AND THEN OUR CALCULATION IS PRETTY SIMPLE.

IT'S A 12 MONTH RUNNING AVERAGE, NOT INCLUDING THE MONTHS OF THE LEAK, OBVIOUSLY.

AND THEN ANYTHING OVER THAT AVERAGE IS FORGIVEN.

SO THAT'S OUR CURRENT POLICY.

WE DID A SORRY.

GO AHEAD. DO YOU KNOW HOW WE CAME ABOUT ONCE EVERY TEN YEAR, WHAT WAS MAGICAL ABOUT TEN YEARS? I'M NOT SURE WHAT WAS MAGICAL ABOUT TEN YEARS, BUT I DO I DID GO BACK AND WATCH THE COUNCIL MEETING AND THE PRESENTATION, AND THERE WAS..

BEFORE THAT IT WAS JUST ONCE IN THE ENTIRE LIFE OF THE POLICY.

SO IT WAS A MORE LIBERAL POLICY THAN WHAT WE ORIGINALLY HAD.

AND I DON'T REMEMBER US DOING A SURVEY LIKE LIKE JESSIE'S DONE OF SHOWING THAT EVERYBODY'S GOT 12 MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS.

WE JUST MADE THAT DECISION.

SO DAN'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

THERE WASN'T AS MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ACTUAL TEN YEARS, BUT THERE WAS A LARGE AMOUNT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT ONE AND DONE NOT BEING ENOUGH, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THAT THAT WAS THAT WAS PROBABLY TOO STRINGENT AS FAR AS WHEN PEOPLE COULD GET IT DONE. SO WE HAD SO WE LOOKED AT 12 DIFFERENT CITIES BASED ON OUR OUR BUDGET, NEIGHBORING COMPARABLE CITIES. THESE WERE THE CITIES WE GOT THAT THAT WE GOT ALL THE INFORMATION BACK FROM. AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT THAT WHEN IT COMES TO THE REQUIREMENTS AND CALCULATIONS, THERE ARE A LOT OF DIFFERENCES.

I MEAN, CITIES DO THEY KIND OF TAILOR IT TO WHATEVER WORKS FOR THEM.

BUT ONE THING THAT DOES STAND OUT AS YOU LOOK AT THIS IS THE FREQUENCY SIDE.

THERE IS WE ARE DEFINITELY AN OUTLIER FROM THE 1 IN 10 YEARS, IT LOOKS LIKE 12 MONTHS OR 24 MONTHS IS DEFINITELY KIND OF WHAT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF CITIES IS DOING.

SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS SLIDE DURING DISCUSSION.

SO WHAT STAFF WANTED TO DO, AS WE DISCUSSED, WAS WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE COUNCIL JUST START FROM SCRATCH AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GIVE YOU GUYS AT LEAST A JUMPING OFF POINT.

SO WE GIVE WE'RE GIVING A STAFF RECOMMENDATION BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE LOOKED AT AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE FOR THE DISCUSSION FOR COUNCIL.

WE THOUGHT ONCE IN 24 MONTHS WAS PROBABLY GOOD AS FAR AS BEING IN LINE WITH OTHER CITIES. BUT ALSO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT COMPARISON, JUST BETWEEN ONE IN THE LIFE OF THE ACCOUNT AND ONE EVERY TEN YEARS, YOU DO SEE A JUMP IN CREDITS AND YOU DO SEE A JUMP IN THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE GIVING OUT IN LEAK ADJUSTMENTS.

SO TO JUMP FROM TEN YEARS TO MAYBE 12 MONTHS, YOU KNOW, WE WERE A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT MIGHT BE A LARGE LEAP.

24 SEEMS IN LINE WITH COMPARABLE CITIES, BUT WE'RE STILL JUMPING QUITE A BIT FROM TEN ONE 1 IN 10 YEARS TO 24 MONTHS.

WE DO LIKE OUR OUR CURRENT REQUIREMENTS JUST AS THEY WORK REALLY WELL.

THE EVIDENCE OF THE REPAIR, LIKE I SAID, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF ISSUES WITH THAT.

PEOPLE ARE PRETTY GOOD ABOUT BRINGING THAT STUFF IN.

THE DATES COINCIDING MAKES SENSE AND KEEPING IT OPEN TO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL.

WE DID ADD JUST, YOU KNOW, AS A HELP, SOMETHING HELPFUL FOR STAFF THAT THEY MUST APPLY WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE REPAIR JUST BECAUSE WHEN WE GO BACK AND DATA LOG METERS AND WE GO BACK INTO PEOPLE'S ACCOUNTS AND LOOK, IT MAKES IT A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO SEE THOSE DIFFERENT DAYS AND STUFF.

IF IT'S NOT EIGHT MONTHS OR OVER A YEAR.

YOU KNOW, A YEAR AGO I HAD A LEAK AND I HAVE THE STUFF FOR IT.

AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE GO BACK AND DATA LOG THE METER FROM A YEAR AGO.

SO WE PUT THAT IN. I THINK THAT'S FAIR.

AND THEN THE CALCULATION WE DO LIKE THE RUNNING 12 MONTHS WITH THE FORGIVENESS OVER.

WE ADDED IN THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE BECAUSE THIS DOES COME UP QUITE A BIT, IF WE DON'T HAVE A RUNNING 12 MONTHS TO GO OFF OF, WE COULD USE AT LEAST A CITY AVERAGE THAT WAY.

WE'RE NOT DENYING PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE A FULL 12 MONTHS, BUT ALSO THAT THE ADJUSTMENTS WOULD COVER 50% OF THAT HIGH USAGE OVER.

SO JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IF YOU'RE RUNNING 12 MONTHS, YOU HAD A $500 OVER THAT, THE CITY WOULD COVER 250 AND THE THE CITIZEN WOULD COVER 250.

SO THAT NUMBER CAN BE PLAYED WITH THAT PERCENTAGE BASED ON, YOU KNOW, COUNCIL'S DESIRE. IT CAN BE 75%.

YOU CAN TAKE IT OUT COMPLETELY.

SOME OTHER THINGS WE REALLY LIKED FROM THE OTHER CITIES THAT WE LOOKED AT WAS POSSIBLY A

[01:25:04]

HARD CAP ON THE CREDIT AMOUNT.

SO YOU COULD TAKE THAT PERCENTAGE COMPLETELY OUT AND YOU COULD SAY, WE'LL FORGIVE EVERYTHING UP TO $500 OR UP TO $1,000.

IT'S JUST ANOTHER OPTION.

AND THEN YOU COULD ALSO SET THE REQUIRE THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENT TO USAGE.

SO SMALL LEAKS THAT DON'T RISE TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF USAGE WOULDN'T BE ELIGIBLE.

BUT ONCE YOU'RE OVER, YOU KNOW, TWO TIMES OVER YOUR 12 MONTH AVERAGE, THEN YOU'RE ELIGIBLE FOR A LEAK.

WE'VE ALSO SEEN SOME CITIES SAY THAT IT'S JUST FOR LEAKS INSIDE THE HOME AND THAT IRRIGATION LEAKS DON'T COUNT.

THERE'S JUST ALL KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU CAN DO.

IT DEPENDS ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT FITS YOUR CITY AND WHAT FITS WHAT FITS BEST TO TAKE CARE OF YOUR CUSTOMERS. AND THEN ALSO WHAT TAKES CARE OF THE CITY MONETARILY AS WELL.

SO I WILL TURN IT OVER TO COUNCIL FOR QUESTIONS AND DISCUSSIONS ON HOW THEY'D LIKE TO MODIFY IT. I'LL JUST SAY THAT TONIGHT WE'LL RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL AND TAKE ALL THOSE MODIFICATIONS AND IF IT CHANGES, WE'LL PUT IT IN AN ORDINANCE WHICH WILL COME BACK OVER TWO READINGS.

SO I WILL GET MY PEN READY AND YOU GUYS FEEL FREE TO ASK AS MANY QUESTIONS AS POSSIBLE AS YOU DISCUSS.

GO BACK ONE, GO BACK, ONE SLIDE.

WE COULD GO BACK TO THE COMPARISON SLIDE, TOO, IF YOU'D LIKE.

SO YOU'RE LIKING THE 12 MONTH AVERAGE? IT'S WORKING. WELL, YES.

WE HAVEN'T HAD WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY ISSUES WITH IT.

OF COURSE. I'M ASSUMING THE LEAKS BETWEEN THE METER AND THE RESIDENTS OR THE THE BUSINESS, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT, YES.

WHAT? THAT'S ALL UP TO $500.

I MEAN, WHY IS IT.

THAT'S A LOT OF WATER.

YEAH, WE THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME LEAKS THAT PUT OUT A LOT OF A LOT OF USAGE.

BUT THE REASON I USE THAT JUST AS AN EXAMPLE WAS BECAUSE OUR AVERAGE PER CREDIT WAS CREEPING RIGHT AROUND 500.

BUT IT CAN BE IT CAN BE ANYTHING.

OKAY. HURRY IT UP.

ANYBODY ELSE? SO WE'RE SURE WHEN SOMEONE CALLS IN THIS HAS THE CITY HAS HAD NO EFFECT ON IT WHATSOEVER.

IT IS MOST CERTAINLY THEIR SIDE.

IS THAT RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. I CAN JUST TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, I THINK I WAS BACK THERE WHEN WE MADE THAT DECISION ON TEN YEARS. AND IT'S AN ARBITRARY DECISION.

THERE WAS I DON'T THINK WE DID A LOT OF THOUGHT ABOUT IT.

AND I THINK IT'S WAY TOO LONG.

MYSELF, I MEAN, YOU SAY TEN YEARS.

A LOT OF BAD THINGS CAN HAPPEN MORE THAN ONCE.

SO I THINK WE SHOULD CONSIDER LOWERING, LOWERING THAT THAT JUST MY OPINION.

FOR A LOT OF OUR CUSTOMERS.

THE ONE AND DONE MIGHT AS WELL BE 1 IN 10 YEARS.

I DON'T LIKE THE MAYOR SAYING I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH 12 MONTHS.

I'M GOING TO TELL YOU, I WAS ONE OF THOSE FOLKS THAT GOT CAUGHT IN THAT.

AND THAT'S A PRETTY BAD SITUATION.

YOU CAN RUN A LOT OF MONEY QUICKLY.

SO I HAVE FEELINGS FOR FOLKS THAT IT HAPPENS TO.

THERE'S A THERE'S BEEN METERS OUT THERE THAT WERE THAT WERE DIGITIZED.

ARE WE PLANNING ON DOING ANY OF THAT KIND OF STUFF THAT WILL RECOGNIZE LEAKS? YES. SO WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF AN ARMY STUDY.

IF IF YOU I DON'T KNOW ALL THE DETAILS ON IT, BUT I'M LUCKILY ERIC'S HERE IF YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I DO KNOW THAT WE'RE IN THE MIDDLE OF LOOKING AT THE FEASIBILITY.

THERE'S A LOT OF ADVANTAGES OF TURNING THE WATER OFF AND ON REMOTELY AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT A AND GIVING OUT ALERTS TO PEOPLE WHO HAVE ABSOLUTELY CONSTANTLY RUNNING.

YEAH. SO I'M GLAD Y'ALL IS LOOKING AT THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE GOT HAVE ANYTHING ON THIS? Y'ALL GOOD WITH 12 MONTHS OR.

I LIKE THE IDEA THAT IT HAS TO NOT BE A VISIBLE LEAK, BUT MY INSTINCT TELLS ME THAT IS JUST GOING TO LEAD TO ALL KINDS OF ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS OR ISN'T A VISIBLE LEAK. AND I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT IF A HOMEOWNER REALIZES THAT THEY HAVE A TOILET THAT STICKS EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE AND THEY AREN'T CAREFUL ABOUT THAT AND IT GOES ON A WHILE AND THEY THEY CAN JUST SAY, OH, WELL, GEE, EVERY YEAR THAT HAPPENS, I CAN RUN IT TO THE CITY AND THEY'LL FORGIVE THE BILL.

YOU KNOW, I'M NOT ADVOCATING THE TEN YEARS, 24 MONTHS, THAT'S FINE.

I DON'T THINK I WANT TO GO ANY LESS PERIOD THAN THAT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE TO ABUSE THIS POLICY.

JUST TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE KINDNESS OF THE CITY.

I THINK WHAT YOU'VE WRITTEN UP HERE, YOUR RECOMMENDATION OR YOUR STARTING POINT IS PRETTY GOOD. YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT AND I'D SUPPORT IT AS YOU HAVE IT WRITTEN. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD GO ABOVE 24, 24, 24.

ALL RIGHT. 12.

WHERE ARE YOU STAYING? JUST THINK, IF YOU PROVE JESSIE, IF YOU PROVE THAT IT'S A IT'S A LEAK AND SEE THE WATER GOING UP, IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, AND THEY THEY HAVE PROOF.

THEY BRING IN A PLUMBER, THEY BRING IN WHATEVER I THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN HAPPEN ALL THE TIME. I HAD IT HAPPEN ON MY PROPERTY.

I DIDN'T CHARGE A DIME BECAUSE I IT'S MY PROBLEM.

BUT THERE WAS A WATER LEAK.

IT TOOK US FOREVER TO FIND IT.

I'VE BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.

[01:30:01]

I DIDN'T KNOW IT JUST WENT AHEAD AND PAID THE BILL.

NO BIG DEAL. BUT THAT CAN HAPPEN ANY TIME.

PARTICULARLY LIKE RIGHT NOW.

WE GOT A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH THE LAND GOING BERSERK ON US AND BREAKING PIPES, AND ERIC WILL ATTEST TO THAT.

I LIKE 12 MONTHS.

I DON'T LIKE THE 24.

IF IT HAPPENS, IT HAPPENS.

IF THEY CAN PROVE IT AND IF YOU CAN PROVE IT, IT'S RIGHT THERE.

I PERSONALLY THINK I LIKE 12 MONTHS AND CAP IT AT 500.

YOU KNOW, ANOTHER THING WE DON'T CONSIDER HERE IS THE FACT THAT THAT PLUMBER IS NOT REAL CHEAP EITHER.

I MEAN, YOU COULD HAVE EASILY HAVE A COUPLE THOUSAND DOLLARS JUST IN GETTING THE THING FIXED, LET ALONE WHAT YOU'VE LOST.

THAT'S A PRETTY GOOD HICKEY.

SO COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

YOU CAN LOWER THE FREQUENCY, BUT ALSO KEEP EITHER A CAP OR A PERCENTAGE OF WHAT THE CITY PAYS OUT AND KIND OF BALANCE OUT THAT EVEN IF YOU DID HAVE MORE CREDITS COMING IN PER YEAR, YOU WOULD STILL BALANCE OUT HOW MUCH YOU'RE PAYING OUT AS FAR AS WATER CREDITS.

SO WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.

I SEE THE ABUSE, I CAN SEE THE ABUSE, BUT IF YOU PROVE IT AND IF THEY PROVE IT WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT, I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE DECISION WHETHER IT'S THE CITY SIDE OR THE HOMEOWNER SIDE? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? SIDE? YEAH. YEAH. I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE HOMEOWNER SIDE.

I'M NOT SAYING THE CITY SIDE. THE HOMEOWNER SIDE.

I'M GOOD WITH THE 24.

I MEAN, THAT'S. WELL, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE BECAUSE I'M GOOD WITH 12.

JESSE. JESSE.

FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING A GOOD PRESENTATION TOGETHER.

YOU GAVE US EVERYTHING WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.

AND I.

I HATE TO GO AGAINST COACH HERE, BUT I LIKE THE 24 MONTH AND THE AVERAGE 45.

BRINGING IT UP TO 500 I THINK IS EXACTLY WHERE WE NEED TO BE AND AVERAGING OUT A 12 MONTH AND GOING TO CHARGING UP TO 500 ABOVE THAT AVERAGE.

I THINK THAT'S DEAD ON.

OKAY. SO SO GETTING RID OF THE PERCENTAGE USAGE AND JUST PUTTING A HARD CAP ON IT.

YEAH, PUTTING A HARD CAP, GO AHEAD AND USE THE PERCENTAGE.

BUT IF THAT PERCENTAGE GOES ABOVE UP TO THE CAP, THEN WE STOP AT THE CAP.

I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT.

I THINK I THINK THE WHOLE THE WHOLE STORY IS WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM A CUSTOMER OR A CUSTOMER, CITIZEN AND UTILITY CUSTOMER.

SO ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT IT AND I APPRECIATE YOU RESPONDING AND BRINGING IT TO OUR ATTENTION SO WE CAN HAVE THIS DISCUSSION TONIGHT.

I THINK IT'S TIME TO LOOK AT IT, BUT I WOULDN'T JUST WANT TO RIP THE BAND-AID OFF ALL AT ONCE. SO LIKE THE 24 MONTHS AND LET'S SET THE CAP, THAT WAY WE CAN KIND OF EASE INTO IT AND SEE, BECAUSE REALLY, THAT'S PROBABLY THE FIRST.

EMAIL. WE'VE HAD ABOUT THE TEN YEAR CAP IN A WHILE, SO THIS IS A GOOD START.

BUT I LIKE SETTING DOING THE 50% LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT SAID, WITH WITH THE HARD CAP, WHEN DOES THE CLOCK START? SO LET'S SAY THIS GETS APPROVED.

DO WE GO? SO IF SOMEBODY HAD AN ADJUSTMENT LAST YEAR, THEN THEY STILL HAVE TO WAIT ANOTHER YEAR.

WHEN DO WE START THE CLOCK? I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE AFTER WE PASS THE ORDINANCE AND IT'S ENACTED, THEN THAT WOULD START THE CLOCK FOR.

SO NOTHING RETRO.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING RETRO ON THIS, OKAY? NO, NO, NOTHING RETROACTIVE.

ALTHOUGH IT WOULD START THE CLOCK ON ON EVERYONE.

RIGHT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IF YOU USED YOUR TEN YEARS, NOW YOU'RE UP, IT WOULD BE A RESET ON ON EVERYBODY. OKAY.

AND THEN DOES IT TAKE THE DIGITAL METER? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING PROACTIVE TO SAY, HEY, WE'VE NOTICED YOUR BILLS SHOT UP AND IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN HOT AND NOTIFY THE CUSTOMER.

WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING AUTOMATIC.

NOW IF OUR BRANDY YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF OUR CUSTOMER SERVICE REPS ARE WHO ARE BILLING NOTICE SOMETHING ODD, WHICH IS USUALLY A LARGE LEAK WHERE THEIR BILL JUMPS, THEY WILL LOOK INTO IT AND NOTIFY THEM.

YES. OKAY. AND SOMETIMES THEY COME BACK AND JUST SAY, YES, WE KNOW WE USE A LOT OF WATER.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? FAIR ENOUGH.

I MEAN, WE'VE GOT SOME OLDER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ARE THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS PROBABLY STARTING TO BREAK DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

AND SO I CAN SEE THIS COMING UP A LITTLE MORE.

BUT I APPRECIATE THIS PRESENTATION AND YOUR WORK ON IT, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM IS WHERE LARRY IS. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. GOT WHAT YOU NEED, DON'T YOU? I THINK SO. AS JUST.

I'M FINE. COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON.

I'M ALWAYS OPINIONATED.

IF SOMEBODY KNOWS ME, I'M VERY OPINIONATED.

BUT I ALSO LIKE THIS COUNCIL AND I WILL.

WE WORK TOGETHER. SO 24 IS GREAT.

IT'S FINE. GREATLY APPRECIATE THE INFORMATION.

AND I TOO WANT TO ECHO WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PREVIOUSLY SAID IN THAT I THINK 24 IS A GOOD AT LEAST WE'RE KEEPING A PULSE ON IT.

THIS ARBITRARY TEN YEAR SEEMS REALLY FAR OUT AND GOSH FORBID YOU HAVE SOME OTHER DRASTIC THING HAPPEN. BUT I THINK IT ALSO GIVES SOME ACCOUNTABILITY.

24 ISN'T IT'S SHORT ENOUGH TURNAROUND, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP UP WITH THAT TOILET OR YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN SO MANY LIKE YOU SAID, THE HEAT IS BUSTING SPRINKLER SYSTEMS.

[01:35:01]

SO I'LL WALK THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SEE SOMEONE'S GOT A GEYSER IN THEIR FRONT YARD AND I KNOCK ON THEM LIKE, HEY, DID YOU KNOW, LIKE, NO, THINK JUST THE DRY GROUND IS PUSHING EVERYTHING TO ITS LIMITS.

SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO BE HYPER AWARE OF OUR WATER USE AND TRYING TO STAY ON TOP OF THAT.

BUT I'D BE REALLY INTERESTED TO TO SEE WHAT THE STUDY COMES BACK ON THOSE DIGITAL READERS AND TELLING PEOPLE LIKE, HEY, YOU'VE SPIKED.

IS THIS NORMAL FOR YOU? OR A CONSTANTLY RUNNING METER AND AN AUTOMATIC EMAIL THAT GOES OUT TO SOMEONE? IT COULD BE REALLY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU. WE ALSO, IN UX, TRY AND PAIR OUR GIVEAWAYS WITH EDUCATIONAL STUFF, SO WE GIVE OUT LEAK TABLETS TO PEOPLE AND STUFF LIKE THAT WITH THE UX ON IT.

SO SOMETIMES THAT SAVES THEM WHEN THEY HAVE A RUNNING TOILET OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

BUT GOOD, YOU ALL KIND OF GIVE US AN UPDATE ON UPDATE ON THE SMART METERS WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE. YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO IT NOW.

ERIC IF YOU DON'T WANT TO, BUT JUST LET US KNOW WHENEVER YOU'RE READY BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG SERVICE TO OUR CITIZENS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THAT INTO NEW CONSTRUCTION AND MAYBE CHANGE OUT IN A MAINTENANCE DEAL OR YOU PROBABLY ALREADY GOT THAT UNDER CONTROL, DON'T YOU? YEAH.

OKAY. AND THEN AS AS THIS GOES IN, WE'LL OBVIOUSLY MONITOR IT AND CHECK THOSE CREDITS AND SEE HOW MANY, HOW MUCH THEY'RE BEING USED AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

IT'LL BE WE'LL FOLLOW IT AND, YOU KNOW, REPORT BACK.

SO THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU, JEFF.

LISTEN, I WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE.

WHEN DID YOU START THIS JOB, DIRECTOR OF THIS? WHEN DID YOU START THIS? SO CLOSE TO TWO YEARS AGO.

NOW. YOU DID A GREAT JOB AND YOUR PEOPLE ARE SO YOUR PEOPLE STAY EXCITED.

AND I JUST REALLY I'M PROUD OF YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU A WHOLE LOT. CITIZENS.

REALLY APPRECIATE IT, TOO. SO THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. I'VE GOT ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR ERIC.

WHEN YOU DO THAT PRESENTATION, I KNOW A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS AND FRIENDS USE THAT FULLBACK INSULATION IN THEIR METERS NOW BECAUSE OF THE FREEZE AND BRING US SOME INFORMATION ON HOW THAT WILL AFFECT THE READINGS AND THE CONTROL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AT THIS TIME, IF WE COULD HAVE THE COUNCIL TAKE A SMALL BREAK AND RECONVENE AT 6:00.

MAYOR, IF THAT'S OKAY.

6:00 IT IS.

WE'RE. WE WAIT ON YOU.

WE'RE READY, AMANDA.

[3.C.Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding the Police Department and Public Safety Communication expansion project. (Staff Presenter: Eric Oscarson, Director of Public Works)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT'LL BRING US TO ITEM THREE C, RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION, AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS EXPANSION PROJECT.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS ERIC OSCARSSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

MR. OSCARSSON.

THANK YOU, AMANDA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I DREW THE SHORT STRAW TODAY AND I'M GOING TO BE PRESENTING THIS ITEM.

BEFORE WE GET DIVE INTO IT TOO MUCH, I JUST WANT TO SAY, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

AND WHEN I SAY WE, IT'S BEEN A GROUP OF PEOPLE.

SO THE INFORMATION YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TODAY, I MIGHT BE PRESENTING IT, BUT I DO HAVE A GREAT AMOUNT OF STAFF THAT ARE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF I CAN'T ANSWER THEM.

ERIC THOMPSON, I'M DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS OVER OUR CAPITAL GROUP, HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN EVERY MEETING.

OUR CONSULTANT, OUR ARCHITECT WITH BRINKLEY, SERGEANT, IS HERE TODAY.

THE POLICE STAFF, CHIEF CORDELL AND ALL OF HIS STAFF ARE HERE.

THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN EVERY STEP OF THE WAY.

AND PAUL BRADLEY WITH PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND HIS STAFF HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS THE ENTIRE WAY.

SO IT'S DEFINITELY BEEN A TEAM EFFORT TO GET TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY.

TODAY'S DISCUSSION, WE'RE GOING TO TALK VERY HIGH LEVEL.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK BIG BOX, RIGHT? WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF BUILDINGS.

YOU WON'T SEE A LOT OF INFORMATION SPECIFICALLY ABOUT INDIVIDUAL SQUARE FOOTAGES. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DIVE INTO 12 BY TEN OFFICE VERSUS A TEN BY TEN OFFICE.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE BIG DOLLARS, WHAT HOW MUCH SPACE WE CAN BUILD WITH THE DOLLARS THAT WE HAVE.

SO TODAY I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE EXISTING BUILDING.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT STUDIES WE'VE DONE.

WE'VE TALKED WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE BOND OPTIONS AND WHAT WAS SELECTED.

AND THEN WE'LL LOOK INTO SOME OPTIONS THAT BRINKLEY SERGEANTS PUT TOGETHER FOR US AND OBVIOUSLY HAVE AN OPEN DISCUSSION AND WE'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

SO HOW DID WE GET TO 1161 SOUTH WILTSHIRE? OUR CURRENT OUR CURRENT HOME FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND OUR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS. SO IN OCTOBER 2009, GSBS DID A STUDY AND THAT STUDY RECOMMENDED SQUARE FOOTAGE OF ABOUT 32,000FT² BACK IN 2009 AND A HOLDING FACILITY FOR TEN DETAINEES PLUS INEBRIATES IN NOVEMBER 2015.

THEY MOVED INTO THE CURRENT LOCATION WITH ONLY 24,000FT².

SO WE'RE UNDER 8000FT² TO BEGIN WITH.

THAT ORIGINAL PLAN DID NOT INCLUDE A HOLDING FACILITY, AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS WASN'T PLANNED ON MOVING AT THAT TIME.

AS WE KNOW, COMMUNICATIONS DID MOVE OVER TO THE LOCATION ON WILTSHIRE AND TO HOLD OUR OUR

[01:40:03]

DETAINEES. WE INITIATED A CONTRACT WITH MANSFIELD.

IN JULY OF 2021, WE COMPLETED A BRW STUDY TO LOOK AT A SPACE STUDY.

THEY ASSESSED THE CURRENT BUILDING.

THEY LOOKED AT OPTIONS FOR NEW ADDITIONS, A SUPPORT BUILDING, LOOKED AT ALL THE SPACE NEEDS, HELPED US PUT TOGETHER ESTIMATED COSTS FOR EVERYTHING, INCLUDING FFA ENGINEERING AND THE GAS LINE RELOCATION.

AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, THEY PROVIDED FOUR OPTIONS.

I'M GOING TO GO LOOK AT THESE OPTIONS REAL QUICK.

SO THESE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT WERE PRESENTED.

OPTION A, I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION HERE.

IT DID INCLUDE LIGHT RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING 24,000FT².

IT INCLUDED ABOUT 3500 FOR A MULTI-PURPOSE TRAINING SLASH COMMUNITY ROOM AND 3000FT² FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS GROUP TO BE RELOCATED TO THE NEW ADDITION.

ALL IN COSTS FOR THE TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT.

THAT'S THE NUMBER WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A LOT TODAY AS TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT.

THIS WAS 19 MILLION, BUT AN ALL IN COST OF JUST OVER 30 MILLION.

OPTION B, PARDON ME.

AGAIN, A LIGHT RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING 24,000FT².

THIS THIS OPTION DID INCLUDE AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT TRAINING CENTER.

AGAIN, RELOCATING OUR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS TO THE NEW BUILDING AT A SIZE OF 3000FT².

THIS OPTION CAME IN AT A TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT A LITTLE OVER 2021 MILLION AND AN ALL IN COST OF JUST OVER 33 MILLION.

OPTION C AGAIN, WAS AN 8000 SQUARE FOOT TRAINING CENTER.

AGAIN, RELOCATING THE COMMUNICATION CENTER.

AND THIS ONE ADDED A 4500 SQUARE FOOT SUPPORT BUILDING.

THAT WOULD BE AS A SEPARATE BUILDING TO THE MAIN BUILDING.

AGAIN, TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT OF ABOUT 23.2 MILLION.

ALL IN COSTS OF 36.4.

AND THEN OPTION D, THIS SAME THING FOR A LOT OF THESE.

HOWEVER, WE DID HAVE A FULL DEMO AND IN OUR REHAB OF THE EXISTING FACILITY RATHER THAN JUST A LIGHT RENOVATION.

THIS ADDED HOLDING AND PROCESSING OF 3000FT² AND THEN INCREASE THE SUPPORT BUILDING TO 8000FT². TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT ON THIS PROJECT SPECIFICALLY IS 33 MILLION AND IT WAS A TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST OF 52 MILLION.

BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2021, A BOND COMMITTEE WAS FORMED AND MET AND RECOMMENDED OPTION C, THAT WAS THE $36 MILLION PROJECT.

IN FEBRUARY, COUNCIL APPROVED THE BOND PROGRAM TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT IN MAY, AND THEN THE VOTERS APPROVED THE BOND PROGRAM FOR OPTION C AT A TOTAL COST OF $36.4 MILLION. FOLLOWING THE, THE ELECTION COUNCIL APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH MATRIX CONSULTING TO LOOK AT THE STAFFING AND SPACE NEEDS.

AND THEN IN JANUARY OF 2023, THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

THE MATRIX RECOMMENDATION DID CONFIRM VR SPACE NEEDS AND THEN THEY HAD A FEW ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN THEY RECOMMENDED A HOLDING AREA AND A SALLY PORT.

SO IN JANUARY 2023, CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A CONTRACT WITH BSW FOR ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $2.5 MILLION, AND THIS WAS BASED ON THE GEO GEO BOND FUNDED PROJECT.

SINCE MARCH, STAFF HAS BEEN MEETING BI WEEKLY WITH POLICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS STAFF.

WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING AND CONFIRMING THE PROGRAMING STUDIES FROM BRW MATRIX AND JUST VERIFYING ALL THE INFORMATION I WROTE HERE.

CREATE 15 CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS.

I APOLOGIZE, IT'S WELL OVER 20 NOW.

DENNY, WE'VE LOOKED AT OVER 20 DIFFERENT CONCEPTUAL LAYOUTS, SO WE'VE SPENT SOME TIME LOOKING AT A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

AND THEN BRINKLEY SERGEANT HELPED US ASSIST IN OUR CMAR SELECTION.

BYRNE CONSTRUCTION IS HERE.

BYRNE CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SELECTED AS OUR CMAR FOR THIS PROJECT AND WE'LL BE COMING FORWARD AT A LATER DATE TO BRING THEIR CONTRACT FOR BYRNE CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN LASTLY, TODAY WE'RE HERE TO PRESENT THE OPTIONS TO YOU OF WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED SO FAR. I WANT TO GO OVER A FEW NUMBERS REAL QUICK BEFORE WE DIVE INTO THE OPTIONS.

BRW THEIR ESTIMATES.

THIS IS FROM 2021.

WE'LL GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM.

THIS WAS THE OPTION THAT WAS SELECTED AND THEY HAD 50 SQUARE FOOT, $50 PER SQUARE FOOT COST FOR LIGHT RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR 1.2 MILLION.

AND IN THAT OPTION, THERE WAS NO DEMOLITION OF THAT BUILDING OR DEMOLITION OF THE INTERIOR OF THAT BUILDING TO DO FULL RENOVATION.

[01:45:02]

SO WE DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD NUMBER TO GO OFF OF.

THEIR NEW RECONSTRUCTION NUMBER WAS ABOUT $358 PER SQUARE FOOT FOR 12 MILLION.

AND THEN THE SUPPORT BUILDING.

SO THIS IS THE DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS WAS A LITTLE OVER 19 MILLION FOR A TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT OF 23.2 MILLION.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT OWNER'S COSTS OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION, THOSE ARE THINGS LIKE FFA, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT MATERIAL TESTING SURVEY. THOSE THINGS ARE OUTSIDE OF THE NORMAL CONSTRUCTION COSTS.

AND THEN WE ADDED A 25% ESCALATION THAT WAS BASED ON 2021 WAS THE YEAR THAT THAT WAS IDENTIFIED. AND OBVIOUSLY EVERY YEAR WE KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE IN COST FOR THIS PROJECT.

AND JUST SO THIS IS THE ESTIMATE THAT THE ENTIRE GEO BOND WAS BASED OFF OF.

WANT TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED.

SO THIS THIS SLIDE HAS BEEN ADDED AND WILL BE UPDATED, BUT THIS SLIDE WAS ADDED.

WE JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO OVER A FEW THINGS FOR YOU BASED ON THE BMW STUDY IN 2021, WE WANT TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE CHANGED.

SO LIGHT RENOVATION WAS IDENTIFIED AT $50 A SQUARE FOOT IN 2021 BASED ON TALKS WITH OUR CONSULTANT AND OUR AND THE BERN CONSTRUCTION, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $67 A SQUARE FOOT FOR LIGHT RENOVATION.

WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME SELECTIVE DEMOLITION WITHIN THE ACTUAL BUILDING TO CHANGE UP SPACES.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $291 A SQUARE FOOT.

NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS IDENTIFIED AT $358.

A SQUARE FOOT IS NOW $648 A SQUARE FOOT.

SO ALMOST DOUBLE THE COST FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION BUILDINGS.

THE ORIGINAL STUDY DIDN'T HAVE A COST FOR THE CONNECTOR.

SO YOU'LL SEE IN A LOT OF THESE, THERE'S A CONNECTION PIECE FROM THE OLD BUILDING TO THE NEW BUILDING THAT WASN'T IDENTIFIED.

THAT'S LOOKING AT ABOUT $481 A SQUARE FOOT.

THE SUPPORT BUILDING WE DO SEE, THAT'S THE GOOD NUMBER, RIGHT? SO WE WANT WE ANTICIPATE A 362.

WE WENT DOWN TO ABOUT $350 A SQUARE FOOT.

AND ONE OF THE BIGGEST NUMBERS YOU'LL SEE IS THE GAS LINE RELOCATION, ORIGINALLY BUDGETED 250,000. WE KNOW TODAY TO BE $1.2 MILLION TO RELOCATE THAT GAS LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING OR WHERE BUILDING COULD BE.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OPTIONS.

AGAIN, WE'VE LOOKED AT A MULTITUDE OF OPTIONS OVER 20 DIFFERENT DESIGN OPTIONS.

WE'VE LOOKED AT A LOT OF DIFFERENT LAYOUTS.

AND SO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BRING YOU KIND OF THE FIRST 4 OR 5.

I APOLOGIZE. SO OPTION ONE ON THIS.

I'LL GO THROUGH THIS WHOLE SHEET BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THESE SHEETS MULTIPLE TIMES. SO I JUST WANT EVERYBODY TO KIND OF GET A LAYOUT OF WHAT'S ON THESE SHEETS.

OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE THE EXISTING POLICE BUILDING HERE, EXISTING COURTS.

ANYTHING DOWN HERE WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, NEW PARKING, THINGS LIKE THAT.

ANYWHERE WE SEE THE YELLOW GAS LINE, THAT'S THE YELLOW LINE.

SORRY, THAT'S THE GAS LINE IN THIS CASE, YOU'LL SEE IT STAYING IN PLACE OVER HERE.

YOU'LL WE'LL SEE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AND THEN OBVIOUSLY DEPARTMENT LOCATIONS HERE.

SO IN THIS CASE, YOU'LL SEE WHAT BELONGS IN EACH BUILDING.

SO IN OPTION ONE, THE GAS LINE WOULD STAY IN PLACE TO DO THAT AND NOT MOVE THIS BUILDING FARTHER TO THE TO ITS TECHNICALLY EAST SOUTHEAST.

BUT ON THIS PART, THE SOUTH, WE HAVE TO KEEP THE BUILDING UP HERE TO DO THAT.

TO HAVE AN AREA LIKE THIS, WE HAD TO MOVE THE PLAZA OR THE ENTRANCE OF THIS BUILDING TO TO THE TO THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

SO IT'S OFF OF A SIDE STREET.

WE DON'T GET THAT ENTRANCE OFF THE MAIN ROAD.

SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH THIS OPTION IS THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME FUNCTIONALITY OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THIS LOCATION.

THIS IS GOING TO BE PROTECTIVE PARKING FOR THE COURT STAFF.

SO FOR IF SOMEBODY WHO COME TO THIS BUILDING, THEY'D HAVE TO DRIVE AROUND TO GO TO THE MAIN ENTRANCE HERE AND THEN ALSO WOULD POSSIBLY HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY TO THIS SIDE IF THEY HAD TO GO PICK UP PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE.

SO THERE'S POSSIBLY THREE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS THAT PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO.

WE GET ABOUT 20,800FT² OF NEW POLICE BUILDING ON TOP OF THE 24,000.

INCLUDED IN THIS NEW BUILDING IS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE AND LOCATION FOR OUR PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH. THEY'D HAVE A PRIVATE ENTRANCE.

THEY WOULD BE WITHIN A HARDENED SPACE WITHIN THIS BUILDING, AT THIS LOCATION.

YOU DO SEE WE'VE INCREASED THE ASSET BUILDINGS SIGNIFICANTLY.

IT WAS IDENTIFIED TO BE 4500FT².

THIS IS CLOSER TO 13,000FT².

THE REASON BEING IS DURING CONVERSATIONS, THERE'S DISCUSSIONS WITH POLICE STAFF ABOUT WHAT FUNCTIONS THEY COULD TAKE OUT OF THIS BUILDING BECAUSE THE COST OF THESE BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN IN THE MAIN BUILDING.

SO THINGS LIKE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE WOULD BE SHIFTED OUT, THE EXERCISE AREA WOULD BE SHIFTED OUT TO THESE AREAS, AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE THE GARAGE SPACE FOR SOME OTHER SUPPORT, SUPPORT VEHICLES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IN AN EFFORT TO TRY TO REDUCE THE COST OF THE NEW BUILDING, WE INCREASED THE SIZE OF THE ASSET BUILDINGS.

SO THIS IS OPTION ONE.

THIS SAVES US THE $1 MILLION IN OF MOVING THAT GAS LINE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION.

[01:50:01]

OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD NEED TO MOVE THAT GAS LINE.

THE WAY THIS WOULD BE SET UP IS WE'D NEED TO EXPAND THIS BUILDING OUT THIS WAY IN THE FUTURE. IF WE DECIDE TO GO WITH THIS OPTION, WE WOULD NEED TO PLAN ON THE EXTRA 1.2 MILLION TO MOVE THE GAS LINE HERE AND THEN EXPAND THIS AREA IN THE FUTURE.

BREAKDOWN OF THIS COST.

THE DIRECT CONSTRUCTION COSTS, THAT'S OVER A LITTLE.

$220 MILLION.

TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMITS 23.5.

AND YOU'LL SEE THE TOTAL PROJECT COST AT 28.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE PROJECTED BUDGET IS 35.6 MILLION.

SO JUST UNDER THE SIX $36.4 MILLION BUDGET.

SO IT'S WITHIN WITHIN THE BUDGET.

AND SO WE WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU AN OPTION THAT DIDN'T MOVE THE GAS LINE INITIALLY, UTILIZE THAT EXTRA, EXTRA FUNDING AVAILABLE TO PUT IT INTO THE BUILDINGS, KNOWING THAT WE'D HAVE TO MOVE THE GAS LINE IN THE FUTURE.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OPTION ONE BEFORE I MOVE ON TO OPTION TWO? PERFECT OPTION TWO.

SO OPTION TWO. WE WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OPTION THAT MOVED THE GAS LINE, BUT AGAIN, STAYED WITHIN THE $36.4 MILLION BUDGET.

SO WITH OPTION TWO, YOU SEE THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MOVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE NEW BUILDING BACK, WE WERE ABLE TO CREATE A PLAZA OFF OF 174.

SO NOW THE ENTRANCE STAYS HERE.

PEOPLE CAN ACCESS THIS BUILDING.

THEY'LL HAVE BE ABLE TO DRIVE IN, HAVE A GOOD ACCESS POINT TO THIS PLAZA AND INTO THIS MAIN BUILDING. IT ALLOWS FOR PUBLIC PARKING HERE, PUBLIC AND TRAINING, PARKING HERE.

AGAIN, IT'S A ONE STORY BUILDING.

BUT IF YOU'LL NOTICE, WE SEE A REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE NEW POLICE BUILDING BY A LITTLE OVER 700FT² AND THEN A REDUCTION OF THE ASSET BUILDING BY OVER 1800 SQUARE FEET.

THAT HELPS US KEEP THAT REDUCED, THAT COST FOR MOVING THE GAS LINE.

THIS ALLOWS, AGAIN, SAME THING.

PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH MOVES INTO THE NEW BUILDING THERE IN THE HARDENED SPACE.

THEY'LL HAVE A PRIVATE ENTRANCE OR A SEPARATE ENTRANCE, MOST LIKELY TIED WITH THE PUBLIC TRAINING. BUT AGAIN, THEY'LL HAVE A SEPARATE AREA HERE.

AND AGAIN, FUTURE EXPANSION TO MEET THE NEEDS WOULD PUSH US BACK AGAIN INTO SOME OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS.

THIS COSTS AGAIN BREAK DOWN.

WE SAW A REDUCTION IN SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE NEW BUILDING AS WELL AS THE SUPPORT BUILDING.

THOSE SAVINGS ALLOW US TO GET INTO BUDGET ABOUT 36.269.

SO JUST UNDER THE $36.4 MILLION BUDGET.

OPTION THREE. SO WHAT OPTION THREE DOES IS PRETTY MUCH PUTS US RIGHT BACK WHERE WE WERE WITH OPTION ONE WITH SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO OPTION THREE, RELOCATE TO THE GAS LINE INITIALLY GIVES US THAT FRONT FACING PLAZA COMING OFF OF 174, ALLOWS US TO PUT PUBLIC SAFETY DISPATCH INTO THE NEW BUILDING WITH THEIR OWN WITH THEIR OWN HARDENED SPACE AND ACCESS.

IT GETS US BACK TO THE 13,000FT² OF ASSET BUILDING AND EVIDENCE STORAGE AND ALLOWS US TO REALLY MAXIMIZE THE SPACE WE HAVE.

AGAIN, THIS IS JUST SHOWN WHERE FUTURE EXPANSION WOULD GO.

AND AGAIN, THAT'S UP TO AS WE MOVE FORWARD THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE WOULD LOOK AT THAT.

AGAIN BREAK DOWN TO OPTION THREE.

OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW THAT THE COST IS GOING TO GO UP BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING THE GAS LINE AND DOING THE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

THAT TAKES OUR TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT TO 24.89 MILLION AND OUR TOTAL PROJECTED PROJECT BUDGET AT 37.249.

SO THIS IS APPROXIMATELY $850,000 OVER THE EXISTING GEO BOND BUDGET.

QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE BEFORE I MOVE ON TO OPTION FOUR.

PERFECT. OPTION FOUR.

THIS IS THE GAS LINE RELOCATED AND THIS IS WHAT THE FULL BUILD OUT AND I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THE FULL BUILD OUT INCLUDES.

SO THIS GETS US THIS IS THE FIRST LOOK AT HAVING A TWO STORY BUILDING.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE HAVE ENOUGH SPACE AND CAPACITY TO ACTUALLY WARRANT TO PUT A TWO STORY BUILDING IN.

THIS OPTION GIVES US A 28,000 SQUARE FOOT PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING.

CURRENTLY, THIS WOULD INCLUDE ABOUT 8600FT² FOR A FUTURE FIRE ADMIN UP ON THAT SECOND STORY. SO A SECOND STORY OF THE NEW BUILDING WOULD COMPLETE WOULD BE POLICE, ADMIN, FIRE ADMIN AND STAFF SUPPORT.

WE STILL GET THE 13,000 SQUARE FOOT IN THE ASSET BUILDING AND IN THE EVIDENCE STORAGE.

YOU'LL SEE THERE'S A SMALL SECTION NOTCHED OUT ABOUT A 55,800FT² FOR COMMUNICATIONS, AND THAT WOULD BE THE HARDENED SHELTER.

THAT WOULD BE A ONE STORY SECTION.

AND THEN THIS OPTION DOES INCLUDE THE SALLY PORT AND THE HOLDING CELLS.

AND THIS OPTION, AGAIN, WE WOULDN'T BE LOOKING TO DO ANY KIND OF FUTURE EXPANSION AT

[01:55:01]

THIS. THIS WOULD BE KIND OF AN ULTIMATE BUILD OUT OPTION.

AND SO YOU'LL SEE KIND OF WHERE ALL THOSE THINGS ARE LOCATED.

THIS OPTION WITH OPTION FOUR, IF WE WERE TO DO A FULL BUILD OUT, WE'RE LOOKING AT A TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST LIMIT OF ABOUT $36 MILLION WITH THE OWNER'S COSTS AND ESCALATION.

WE'RE LOOKING AT A PROJECT BUDGET OF APPROXIMATELY $56.3 MILLION.

WE DID WANT TO SHOW AN OPTION FOR A WHICH WHICH IDENTIFIES IF FIRE ADMIN WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THIS OPTION, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS 8600FT² WOULD BE REMOVED OFF.

WE'D ACTUALLY PROBABLY DROP TO PROBABLY A ONE STORY BUILDING BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TO WARRANT A TWO STORY BUILDING, BUT WE'D GET THE EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR POLICE, WE'D GET THE HOLDING CELLS, WE'D GET THE SALLY PORT AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

AND WE COME IN IN A BUDGET OF ABOUT $48.7 MILLION.

LASTLY, WE DID WANT TO SHOW YOU AN OPTION THAT WOULD WOULD PROVIDE A BRAND NEW BUILDING ON A BRAND NEW SITE.

OBVIOUSLY, THESE COSTS THAT I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU HERE IN A MINUTE DON'T INCLUDE PURCHASING OF PROPERTY, DOESN'T INCLUDE UTILITIES AND ALL THOSE THINGS GETTING TO THESE SITES. BUT WE DID WANT TO SHOW YOU WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE TODAY JUST SO YOU HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF IF WE STARTED FROM SCRATCH AT A NEW LOCATION, WHAT THAT WOULD INCLUDE AND THE BREAKDOWN OF THAT WOULD WOULD BE ABOUT $84.2 MILLION.

SO TONIGHT, WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH ALL OF YOU ABOUT A FEW ITEMS. FIRST ONE IS THE KIND OF THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THAT GAS LINE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE PROPERTY AND AND WANT TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSION WITH YOU TONIGHT IF YOU WANT TO MOVE IT TODAY OR DO YOU WANT TO KEEP IT WHERE IT'S AT AND WE'LL MOVE IT AT A FUTURE TIME. WE WANT TO LOOK AT DESIGN OPTIONS.

SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT WE'LL CALL SENSE OF ENTRY.

THAT'S THE BIG ARCHITECTURAL WORD THAT DENNY PROVIDED.

THE TERM THAT WE GET IF SENSE OF ENTRY.

DO YOU WANT THE ENTRY TO BE OFF OF 174 TO CREATE THAT PLAZA LOOK OR DO YOU WANT IT TO BE ON THE SIDE STREET, WHICH IS OPTION ONE? WHAT DO WE LOOK AT FOR FUTURE EXPANSION? DO WE BUILD OUT TODAY? DO WE LOOK AT FUTURE EXPANSION? THIS FIRE ADMIN GO ON THIS SITE, THIS FIRE AND STAY BY FIRE ONE AND THEN FUNDING.

IF THERE'S A REQUEST TO LOOK AT OPTIONS THAT A NEED ADDITIONAL FUNDING, WHAT IS THAT FUTURE ADDITIONAL FUNDING LOOK LIKE? AND WITH THAT.

I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND HOW? DISCUSS ANY OPTIONS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, YOU HAVE THOUGHTS YOU HAVE, AND TRY TO GET US MOVING FORWARD.

JUST SO YOU KNOW, ONCE WE HAVE THIS DISCUSSION AND GET SOME DIRECTION, THE PLAN IS TO BEGIN FULL DESIGN OF THESE BUILDINGS STARTING IN THE NEXT MONTH.

BY NEXT SPRING, WE'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD KIND OF A 30% DESIGN REVIEW FOR YOUR APPROVAL. WE'LL BRING BACK THE FULL CONTRACT.

WE'LL PROBABLY BE GETTING LOOKING AT DOING PURCHASING OF GENERATORS AND SWITCHGEAR JUST BECAUSE OF THE 18 TO 24 MONTH LEAD TIME ON THOSE THINGS.

IN SUMMER OF 2024, HOPEFULLY WE'LL REVIEW THE FINAL DESIGN CONCEPTS AND COMPONENTS.

AND THEN IN FALL OF NEXT YEAR, WE'LL BRING BACK THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE FROM BURN.

ANYBODY GOT ANYTHING? I'M KIND OF BLOWN AWAY ABOUT THE MONEY RIGHT NOW.

BUT YEAH, I'VE GOT A FEW SUGGESTIONS.

OPTION THREE WOULD FALL MORE IN LINE WITH WHAT THE COS ARE FOR.

YES. OPTION FOUR HAS THE BETTER OPTIONS, BUT IT'S ALWAYS GOING TO COST A LITTLE MORE FOR THOSE OPTIONS.

COULD YOU PUT THOSE TWO UP, ERIC? ONE OF THEM. ONE SUGGESTION I'D LIKE TO MAKE DURING THE DESIGN IS THE PARKING LOTS.

THE PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY COMMUNITY PARKING AND THE REAR STAFF PARKING.

IF WE WERE TO REDESIGN THOSE AT AN ANGLE.

MAKE THEM DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC.

THE ONE IN YELLOW HAS ONE ENTRANCE.

YOU CAN MAKE THAT DIRECTIONAL TRAFFIC.

YOU CAN REDUCE YOUR FOOTPRINT PER ROW BY 15 TO 18%.

AND IF YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A SALLY PORT IN THE REAR OF THIS ONE, YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THAT EXTRA BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE IT WITH THE SALLY PORT.

AND THAT MIGHT GIVE YOU THE EXTRA CAPACITY FOR THE POLICE CARS AND THEIR PERSONAL VEHICLES THAT WE NEED.

IT ALSO EASIER TO GET IN AND OUT OF SAFER AND TRAFFIC WILL FLOW A LITTLE BETTER.

AS FAR AS RELOCATING THE GAS LINE, I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO DO THAT.

AND I'VE TALKED WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS, FUNDING IT LATER ON LOOKING FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO PULL IT OUT OF THE POLICE FUND AND PUT IT ON A SEPARATE CO OR OTHER FUNDING AT HIS DISCRETION.

IF NOT, THEN IT'LL HAVE TO STAY WHERE IT'S AT.

BUT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE ALSO TO IMPROVE AND ENHANCE THE BUILDING.

THANK YOU, SIR. MAYOR COUNCIL.

[02:00:03]

I WOULD JUST GO BACK A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT DEBT CAPACITY AND WE TALKED ABOUT PRESERVING SOME OF THAT DEBT CAPACITY, THAT'S WHERE THE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THAT WOULD COME FROM.

IN THE EVENT THAT THE COUNCIL WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ISSUING ADDITIONAL COSTS BEYOND THE 36 MILLION THAT WAS ALLOCATED IN THE GEO POM PROGRAM.

A QUESTION FOR LARRY, WHY DO WE NEED TO MOVE THE GAS LINE? JUST FILL ME IN ON THAT.

SO THE GAS LINE, MAYOR, THE GAS LINE NEEDS TO BE RELOCATED.

SO CURRENTLY IT'S LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT SO THAT WHERE IT'S LOCATED TODAY OBVIOUSLY DOESN'T FUNCTION WELL WITH FUTURE CONSTRUCTION OR EXPANSION FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PUT WE CAN'T PUT A BUILDING OVER THE TOP OF THE GAS LINE.

SO FOR US TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE SPACE MOST EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY, MOVING THAT GAS LINE UP TOWARDS 174 ALLOWS US TO USE FULL REIGN OF THAT SITE FOR ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION WE WOULD NEED IN THE FUTURE.

OKAY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT IS YOU'RE SAYING FUTURE CONSTRUCTION.

ARE WE ADDING ON TO THE ONE STORY BUILDING? IF YEAH. SO I'LL GO BACK AND I APOLOGIZE.

I DIDN'T I DIDN'T ARTICULATE THIS AND I DIDN'T EVEN MENTION IT IS SO ALL OF THESE OPTIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE BESIDES FOUR BECAUSE THE BUILDINGS ARE SMALLER THAN WHAT WE ANTICIPATED. RIGHT. SO THE ORIGINAL $36 MILLION PROJECT WITH THE FUNDING WE HAD AVAILABLE WAS A 20 YEAR PLAN FOR PD AND FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS.

OPTIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE GET US ABOUT 5 TO 8 YEARS FROM THE FROM THE END OF CONSTRUCTION. OPTION FOUR GETS US CLOSER WITH ABOUT TEN YEARS FOR PD AND IT SHOULD BE CLOSER TO THAT 20 YEAR EXPECTED OPTION FOUR BECAUSE YOU GET OVER ALMOST 6000FT² FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, YOU GET THEM A LONGER TIME IN OPTION FOUR, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE UTILIZE THAT SPACE THAT WAS GOING TO FIRE ADMIN AND GIVE IT TO FIRE, YOU'RE YOU'RE BACK TO YOUR 20 YEARS. SO REMEMBER, WE WERE SITTING AT ABOUT 62,500FT², 69,000FT².

AND SO OBVIOUSLY THESE OPTIONS ARE REDUCING THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 5 TO 8 YEARS ON OPTIONS ONE THROUGH THREE.

OPTION FOUR GETS YOU CLOSER TO THAT FURTHER TIMELINE.

SO EXPANSION IS GOING TO BE NECESSARY IN THIS OPTION MAYOR, AND IN OPTIONS ONE, TWO AND THREE. THAT'S WHY WE SHOWED EXPANSION BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT BUILDING IT TO THE NEEDS OF THE 20 YEARS WHICH WE FIRST ANTICIPATED BECAUSE OF THE EXTRA COSTS.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE SHOWING EXPANSION OPTIONS IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE YOU ARE GOING TO NEED TO EXPAND THIS BUILDING TO HANDLE THE GROWTH OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OVER TIME. YOU KNOW, I JUST ADD TO THAT MAYOR, TOO, AND THAT OPTION ONE, WHERE WE HAVE THE PLAZA PARKING ON ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND REALLY THREE POINTS OF ENTRY, WE WANT TO TRY TO PLAN WITH THE END IN MIND.

AND SO FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULDN'T REALLY RECOMMEND IT.

WE WANT TO SHOW IT TO YOU BECAUSE IT WAS AN IN BUDGET OPTION, BUT IT OPTION TWO OR OPTION THREE FROM IN BUDGET STANDPOINT, JUST FROM A LAYOUT OF THE SITE WOULD BE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO WHAT ARE THE PROVISIONS THAT WE COULD DO BUILDING THIS BUILDING THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADD ON TO? DO WE PREPARE FOR THE NEXT ADD ON DURING THIS CONSTRUCTION? YES, SIR. SO IF WE WERE TO DESIGN, SAY, OPTION THREE AND WE WERE TO BUILD THIS INITIALLY KNOWING THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE FUTURE EXPANSION, WE BUILD THE BUILDING IN A WAY THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR EASY EASE OF EXPANSION.

SO WE WOULD PROGRAM THE SPACE ACCORDINGLY.

WE WOULD BUILD A BUILDING ACCORDINGLY.

AGAIN, WE WOULD NOT WE WOULDN'T PLAN TO BUILD UP.

WE'D PLAN TO BUILD OUT.

AND SO WE'D HAVE TO PLAN FOR THAT AS WE DESIGN IT IS OUT.

NOT AN OPTION.

IS IT TOO EXPENSIVE TO GO VERTICAL? SO WE CAN.

BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE SETTING THE BUILDING UP FOR VERTICAL EXPANSION, WHICH SO THAT'S A DIFFERENT COST ASSOCIATED WITH THEN JUST OBVIOUSLY EXPANDING OUT SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT AS WE MOVE FORWARD. IF THE OPTION IS TO GO WITH OPTION THREE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION, THE ARCHITECTS WITH OUR WITH BYRNE CONSTRUCTION, WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT THOSE COSTS WOULD BE TO SET UP A SECONDARY.

I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT YOU.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT WOULD BE MORE EXPENSIVE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, BUT IS IT STILL COST PROHIBITIVE TO GO VERTICAL? EVEN IF IT'S READY, I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO ONCE YOU JUST GET BACK TO US ON THAT, WE CAN LET YOU KNOW. BUT WE WOULD LOOK AT THOSE OPTIONS IF THE OPTION WERE TO GO WITH OPTION THREE FOR FUTURE EXPANSION, WE WOULD LOOK AT ALL THE THINGS THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY.

IF I COULD JUST PICK, I THINK I WOULD ADD TO THAT, THE STRUCTURAL STEEL COST WOULD CERTAINLY BE MORE.

AND THEN JUST FROM A FUTURE EXPANSION STANDPOINT OF A 24 OVER SEVEN OPERATION, BUILDING ON TOP WOULD BE MUCH MORE DISRUPTIVE TO THE STAFF THAN BUILDING BACK.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WHY WE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS TO RECOMMEND BUILDING BACK.

I ASK A SIMPLE QUESTION OF LARRY, AND I TOOK IT AWAY FROM HIM.

SO I'M SORRY. I UNDERSTAND.

I'M ENJOYING THE CONVERSATION.

I UNDERSTAND. CAN I JUST PIGGYBACK ON WHAT THE MAYOR SAID? BECAUSE I'VE GOT OTHER QUESTIONS, THOUGH.

BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT HEWGLEY DID, THEY BUILT A SIX STORY HOSPITAL, BUT THE TOP FLOOR

[02:05:01]

WAS A SHELL.

AND OF COURSE, IN LIKE THREE YEARS THEY HAD TO PUT IT TOGETHER.

BUT. IF WE WERE TO GO VERTICAL, I WOULD THINK MAYBE THAT WOULD BE THE OPTION IS TO HAVE TO SHELL THE TOP FLOOR.

THAT WAY IT'S ALREADY DONE. IT WOULDN'T BE AS MUCH DISRUPTION.

BUT IF IT'S COST PROHIBITIVE, THEN IT MAKES MORE SENSE TO GO OUT THEN.

AND WE WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THOSE OPTIONS IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE NEED TO GO. OKAY. GO AHEAD.

ANYBODY ELSE? THERE WAS AN OPTION FOR THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FIRE TO BE IN THIS BUILDING ALSO STAFF.

I'D RECOMMEND IN THE FUTURE THAT WE DO NOT DO THAT AND WE PUT THEM BY STATION ONE IF THAT'S WHERE THEY SO DESIRE TO BE.

BUT I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER OPPORTUNITY FOR BOTH DEPARTMENTS.

YES, SIR. WE PROVIDED THIS OPTION.

IT WAS A IT WAS BROUGHT UP AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ABOUT POSSIBLY CO-LOCATING THEM.

SO WE WANTED TO RESPOND TO COUNCIL AND PROVIDE THAT OPTION HERE.

SO IT'S HERE AGAIN, THAT SPACE FULL BUILD OUT OF THAT SPACE WITH THE TWO STORY BUILDING AT 28,000FT² IS 56 MILLION.

THIS IS THE CLOSEST OPTION WE HAVE TO THE EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT PD WAS IDENTIFIED WITH PD FOR THE 20 YEAR BUILD OUT.

IS THIS OPTION FULLY UTILIZED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT? AGAIN, WE COULD REMOVE 8000FT² AGAIN.

YOU'D PROBABLY DROP TO A ONE STORY BUILDING.

IT WOULD BE 20,000FT² JUST FOR PD.

AGAIN, WITH A 5800FT² FOR SEPARATE FOR THEM.

AND THAT OPTION IS THAT FOR A OPTION WHICH WHICH DROPS THE COST A LITTLE BIT BUT.

AGAIN, THIS OPTION GIVES US KIND OF THE BIGGEST FLEXIBILITY TO USE THE SPACE, HOWEVER NEEDED. COUNCIL MEMBER GOT TO THAT POINT WITH THE RENOVATIONS THAT WE'RE PERFORMING ON STATION ONE.

CHIEF FREEMAN FEELS CONFIDENT THAT WE'LL GET 8 TO 10 YEARS OUT OF THAT BUILDING.

SO I THINK FROM A MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, I WOULD AGREE WITH WITH YOUR SENTIMENT THAT FUTURE EXPANSION OF THAT SITE WOULD LIKELY BEST BE FIT FOR ALSBURY JUST ACROSS OF THE DRIVE APPROACH BASED ON THE TIMING OF THEIR OF THEIR NEEDS.

I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT.

I THINK WE'RE GIVING.

WE'RE GIVEN FIRE. WHAT THEY NEED NOW BY GOING FULL TILT ON STATION ONE TO DO BOTH SIDES. THAT GIVES US EIGHT YEARS THERE AND THEN WE CAN FOCUS ON A FIRE ADMIN BUILDING AND THEN MAXIMIZE THE SPACE FOR THE PD HERE.

I SAID I HAVE MORE, BUT I'M GOING TO.

I'LL WAIT. SO I APPRECIATE YOU ALL EXPLORING ALL THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

IN PARTICULAR, I KNOW I'VE BEEN ONE TO MENTION AND ASK ABOUT THE IDEA OF A PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, SO IT HELPS TO EXPLORE IT AND SEE IT ON PAPER.

MY QUESTION IS IN REGARD TO OPTION FOUR IS THE 5800 SQUARE FOOT FOR COMMUNICATIONS AND SHELTER, IT'S TOTAL THAT DEPARTMENT'S TOTAL BUILD OUT.

DO WE KNOW WHAT OUR COMMUNICATIONS IS GOING TO NEED? LIKE HAVE WE? WE HAVEN'T HAD A STUDY THAT SAYS HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING SPACE AND PEOPLE AND WHAT ALL WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THAT DEPARTMENT.

HAVE WE WE'VE NOT YOU KNOW, WHAT'S BEEN DONE IS A HANDFUL OF THINGS BRINKLEY SERGEANTS BENCHMARKED AGAINST YOU KNOW OTHER CITIES WHAT THEIR NUMBER OF CONSOLES TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE BUT YOU KNOW COMPARING CITIES TO CITIES IS NOT APPLES TO APPLES AND NO CALL VOLUME, LIKE EVERYTHING'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT.

AND WE'RE ABOUT TO SEE A COMPLETE DIFFERENT ANIMAL IN THE NEXT MONTH OR NEXT TWO MONTHS WHEN WE TAKE GO LIVE WITH OUR AMBULATORY SERVICE.

YEAH, I THINK WE'LL HAVE A BETTER READ.

YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY AFTER THAT, AT SOME POINT I, I THINK THAT A STUDY IS WOULD LIKELY BE NEEDED FOR LONG TERM PLANNING, WHICH WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THAT AMONG ALL DEPARTMENTS AND ALL OPERATIONS JUST FOR FUTURE PLANNING OF OPERATIONAL NEEDS.

BUT AGAIN, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OPTION WE GO OFF, WE'RE THINKING ABOUT FROM A STANDPOINT OF EXPANDING, WHERE DOES IT MAKE THE MOST SENSE AND WHERE DOES COMMUNICATIONS NEED TO BE LOCATED IN SUCH A WAY THAT THEY CAN BE EASILY EXPANDED BECAUSE IT'S NOT CHEAP TO MOVE THEM? NO, I CAN IMAGINE IF IT'S A HARDENED FACILITY, THAT'S THE DOLLAR.

SIGNS ADD UP QUICKLY, BUT I JUST DON'T.

ARE WE MAKING AN ARBITRARY NUMBER BY SAYING 5800? HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THAT'S THE NUMBER TO PLAN FOR? AND IF IT'S IN THESE OTHER IMAGES, WHAT IS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE LOOK LIKE WHEN IT'S INSIDE THE EXISTING INSIDE THE BIG BUILDING? SO AND THAT'S HOW I WANTED TO MENTION IT'S THOSE NUMBERS AREN'T SET SPECIFICALLY YET.

AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IS IS THERE'S FLEXIBILITY IN THE SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE. SO AS I'VE TALKED THROUGH IS WE'VE WE'VE LOOKED AT WE'VE HAD TO REDUCE SPACE COMPLETELY IN AN EFFORT TO MEET THE BUDGET.

SO EVERYBODY HAS DONE SOME KIND OF REDUCTION.

PD HAS SHIFTED SOME OF THEIR FUNCTIONS OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN BUILDING, MOVED THEM TO A SUPPORT BUILDING BECAUSE IT'S MORE COST EFFECTIVE TO DO SO.

[02:10:03]

AND SO PD HAS HAD TO REDUCE THE KIND OF THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE AS WELL.

AND SO WE HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO BUILD OUT EXACTLY EVERYTHING THAT PAUL AND HIS TEAM NEED. SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THOSE SPACES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT 4000FT² OF SPACE AGAIN, GIVE OR TAKE A COUPLE HUNDRED SQUARE FEET AS WE MOVE STUFF.

BUT THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOME SHARED SPACE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO GOING TO BUILD THE FLOOR OUT WHERE THE COUNCIL'S OUT AS BEST WE CAN DO THAT INITIALLY BECAUSE THAT'S HARD TO EXPAND ON.

THERE MAY HAVE TO BE SOME SHARED TRAINING SPACES, CONFERENCE ROOM SPACES ADJACENT TO WHERE THEY'RE AT AND THERE WOULD BE SHARED.

BUT THEN WHEN WE DO THE EXPANSION AGAIN, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT DESIGN OF THE NEW AREA AND THEN THE EXPANSION, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS WE'D EXPAND THAT AREA OUT AND THEN THOSE TRAINING ROOMS AND THOSE CONFERENCE ROOMS WOULD BECOME DEDICATED TO PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS. SO WE HAVE SOME GIVE AND TAKE THERE, RIGHT? SO THE 5800 SQUARE FOOT AND OPTION FOUR GETS US MORE TO TALKING ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY.

THAT GETS THEM THEIR OWN CONFERENCE ROOM, OWN TRAINING CENTER, GETS THEM THE FULL BUILD OUT OF ALL THOSE SPACES. SO THAT HITS MOST OF THEIR MARKS, BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS US FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OFF OF THAT SITE.

SO THAT'S IT'S SOMEWHAT OF WHERE I WAS.

I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT, IS IT KIND OF LIKE WHEN WE SPOKE WITH WHEN CHIEF FREEMAN SPOKE ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR THE REDESIGN OF STATION ONE, THE ADMINISTRATIVE SIDE, BUT FOR FUTURE USE, THAT CAN BECOME SOMETHING ELSE AND THEN THEY CAN GROW INTO A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FACILITY IF THAT WAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM.

AND SO THEY WERE KIND OF.

THIS IS YOUR SPOT. THIS YOUR SHOEHORNED IN TO WHAT IT IS.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY THAT WAS SPACE AWAY FROM PD.

AND SO WE I'M WONDERING HOW WE CAN HAVE WE LOOKED AT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE COURT BUILDING IS, BUT IS THAT AT ALL A POSSIBILITY FOR COMMUNICATIONS? SO COURT BUILDING, I THINK IS OVER 8000, 8000FT².

SO IT'S IT'S TOO BIG FOR THEM AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH THAT YOU CAN PUT.

THEY'LL NEVER GROW INTO THAT SPACE.

AND SO THAT BECOMES TOO BIG FOR THEM.

AND THEN TO MOVE THEM IS TO MOVE COMMUNICATIONS, RIGHT? SO WE HOUSE IT FUNCTIONALITIES AND THEN IT'S MOVING THEM, FEEDING THEM BACK.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME, SOME, SOME OF THAT.

THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT IF YOU MOVE COURT OUT, THEN YOU HAVE TO PUT COURT SOMEWHERE. SO WHERE DOES COURT SHARE THE BUILDING? SO WHERE DOES COURT GO NOW? YEAH. SO IF YOU GO HALF AND HALF WITH THE COURT BUILDING, THEN THEY'RE DOWN TO 4000FT².

WE CAME UP WITH 5800FT² BECAUSE IT REALLY GIVES ULTIMATE BUILD OUT FOR THEM.

WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD LONG TERM SPACE.

THAT'S WHY IT'S SHOWN HERE. NOW, DON'T GET HUNG UP ON 5800.

WE MIGHT COME BACK AND SAY IT NEEDS TO BE 5500, IT COULD BE 6000.

IT'S SOME OF THOSE THINGS WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT AS WE GET THROUGH BEGIN PROGRAMING.

WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT OFFICE SPACES AND CONFERENCE ROOM SPACES, THAT ALL GETS INTO THOSE DETAILS THAT WE START MOVING THROUGH HERE.

BUT DEFINITELY LONG TERM, IF YOU WANT TO BUILD IT ONCE AND NOT BUILD IT AGAIN, THIS OPTION HERE, ESPECIALLY FOR PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, GETS YOU WHAT YOU NEED.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY PD, IF YOU USE THAT 8600FT² THAT'S SET UP FOR THE FIRE ADMIN AND ACTUALLY JUST GIVE IT STRAIGHT TO PD PD FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO TOUCH THIS FACILITY FOR SOME TIME.

SO WE ARE STILL WITH OPTION, EVERY ONE OF THEM EXCEPT THINK EXCEPT ONE.

THERE WILL STILL BE TWO SEPARATE PUBLIC AREA ENTRANCES.

RIGHT. IF THEY COME JUST TO.

ASK QUESTIONS OR MEET WITH SOMEONE, THEY'RE GOING TO COME INTO THE PLAZA.

BUT IF THEY NEED TO PICK UP EVIDENCE, THEY'RE STILL COMING TO THAT SIDE.

YEAH, THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO THAT SIDE ENTRANCES BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE EVIDENCE WOULD BE LOCATED. AND SO OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD PUSH THEM OVER OVER THAT WAY TO PICK UP EVIDENCE. THE INTENT AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR CHIEF, THE INTENT, OBVIOUSLY, WE WOULD LET THEM KNOW WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO GO SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO TWO SPOTS.

SO IF WE REACHED OUT TO THEM TO PICK UP THEIR EVIDENCE, THEY WOULD ACTUALLY BE WE'D LET THEM KNOW TO COME IN OFF OF, YOU KNOW, OFF THE SIDE.

BUT THERE'S THAT POSSIBILITY.

BUT THE HOPE IS TO HAVE THAT NICE MAIN ENTRANCE RIGHT OFF THE FRONT.

WHEN YOU WHEN YOU PULL INTO THAT MAIN ENTRANCE THERE, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PLAZA AT THE NEW BUILDING.

YOU GET TO LOOK AND FEEL OF OF A NEW OF A NEW POLICE STATION.

AND WE JUST MOVED BETWEEN THE 13,000FT² AND THE 11 FROM OPTION TWO AND THREE TO FOR MONEY. YEAH.

SO WE REDUCED THE YEAH.

SO WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO KEEP WITHIN BUDGET, RIGHT.

SO WE HAD THAT EXTRA MILLION DOLLARS WE HAD TO ACCOUNT FOR BECAUSE OF MOVING THE GAS LINE. SO AN EFFORT TO STAY IN BUDGET, WE HAD TO REDUCE SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO WE LOST AGAIN ABOUT 1800 SQUARE FEET OF THE ASSET BUILDING AND 700FT² OF THE NEW BUILDING AND EFFORT TO TO SAVE THOSE DOLLARS.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY MOVING THE GAS LINE WITH THE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS, WE WERE ABLE TO PUT THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE DIRECTLY BACK INTO IT.

I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SO MUCH OF WHAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO KEEP FOR LENGTHS OF TIME IS NOT DICTATED LOCALLY BUT BY STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IF I'M NOT CORRECT. SO SO SOME I THINK IT'S WISE TO BUILD THAT OUT AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN

[02:15:06]

BECAUSE TIME AND TIME AGAIN THEIR SPACE IS FILLING UP AND LIKE THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OPTION BUT TO HOLD ON TO SOME OF THAT STUFF.

AND IN SOME CASES, I THINK BLOOD IS LIFE.

SO SO I THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT WE IF 11,000FT².

DOES THAT HAVE LIKE AN ANTICIPATED TIMELINE OF HOW LONG THAT WOULD LAST, Y'ALL? WHEN YOU SAY 11,000, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT WHAT PART OF THAT DO THEY THE ASSET BUILDING? IS IT THE WHOLE ASSET BUILDING? YEAH. WHEN YOU LOOK IF I REMEMBER THE BRW STUDY CORRECTLY, THEY HAD ABOUT 4500FT² FOR PA OR PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE.

MATRIX CAME BACK, LOOKED AT THAT AND SAID, YOU'RE 900 AND SOMETHING SQUARE FEET SHORT.

SO WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO GET TO IS THAT 20 YEAR NUMBER.

YOU'RE RIGHT.

SOME OF THESE THINGS WE KEEP FOREVER AND EVER.

AMEN. AND, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WE CAN TELL BETWEEN THE TWO STUDIES, THAT THAT WOULD GET US THE 20 YEAR PROJECTION.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S SO MANY FACTORS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON WHAT WHAT CRIME DOES AND HOW LONG YOU HAVE TO KEEP THAT.

IF YOU GET A HOMICIDE, YOU KEEP IT FOREVER, YOU KNOW, AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY THAT GOES, I GUESS. IS THIS WHERE WE'RE SAYING, LIKE, I NOTICED SOME THINGS SAY AIR CONDITIONED SPACE, NON AIR CONDITIONED SPACE? IS THAT WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT BUILDING? THAT'S IT'S COMBINATION.

AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, ANY OF IT, BUT IT'S A COMBINATION OF SPACE.

WE WILL HAVE THINGS LIKE AND AGAIN, WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE LITTLE BOXES IN YET, BUT THE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT MOVING OUT THERE WOULD BE LIKE THE STRATEGIC RESPONSE TEAM THAT HAS A LOT OF GEAR, A LOT OF EQUIPMENT, THE SWAT TEAM, SAME THING, MOVING THEM OUT OF THAT PATROL FUNCTION WHERE IT SAYS THE EXISTING BUILDING, IF WE MOVE THEM OUT OF THAT, WE'RE TRYING TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THAT BECAUSE PATROL NEEDS TO EXPAND THEIR FOOTPRINT SIGNIFICANTLY.

I THINK THEY NEED 7000 ROUGHLY, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT, SQUARE FEET FOR PATROL.

AND WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO BUY SPACE WITHIN THAT EXISTING BUILDING TO BE ABLE TO GROW THAT OUT TO THE ASSET, THE PROPERTY AND EVIDENCE IS ONE OF THE OTHER PIECES IN THERE, THE MAIN PIECE. AND THEN WE HAVE GOT BUILT IN, I THINK IT'S CONDITIONED SPACE.

CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, GINA OR DANNY, BUT CONDITIONED SPACE TO BE ABLE TO PARK THE THE ASSET VEHICLES IN THERE BECAUSE WE'RE BUYING A VERY EXPENSIVE VEHICLES.

WE NEED TO HAVE THOSE INSIDE.

SO THAT'S THE CONDITIONS BASED ON SOME OF THOSE, I WILL POINT OUT AND SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ON MOVING THE GAS LINE.

MAYOR, YOU ASK ABOUT THAT.

WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE PREVIOUS VERSIONS, ALL OF THE BLUE PARKING WAS SECURED SPACE AND IT STILL IS ON THIS, ALL OF THAT SECURED SPACE.

SO YOU HAVE PATROL.

IF SOMEBODY COME IN AND MAKE A REPORT AND WE GET A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT COME IN TO MAKE REPORTS, THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR PATROL.

IF THEY'RE COMING IN TO SEE A DETECTIVE, THEN THEY NEED TO KNOW THEY'VE GOT TO GO TO THE EXISTING BUILDING.

BUT IF THEY NEED TO GET A POLICE REPORT THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WRAP THEM AROUND TO THE NEW POLICE BUILDING. UNDER THIS OPTION, MOVING THE GAS LINE, WE CAN TAKE THEM RIGHT DOWN THAT BLUE ARROW LINE, PARK THEM IN THERE.

THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO CIRCLE THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR SOMEHOW AND GET BACK OVER TO THE ASSET BUILDING. IF THEY'RE PICKING UP EVIDENCE, IF THEY'RE ONLY PICKING UP EVIDENCE, THEN WE CAN TRY TO ROUTE THEM.

BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A LEARNING CURVE SPREADING THESE OUT SO THAT WE CAN SAVE THAT MONEY. I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR THE OWNER OF THE COURT BUILDING.

IS IS SHE HERE? SHE CAME. DOES 59 PARKING SPOTS FIT YOUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT? I WILL SAY THAT, YES, UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND BUILDING OUR COURT DOCKET TO BUILD TO FIT THAT.

YES. SO OUR BUILDING THERE IT IS.

THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR HOW MANY SPACES.

I BELIEVE I DID TALK TO BRW TO LOOK AT THAT ON THE ORDINANCE AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD LOOK THAT UP FOR ME TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THEY TOOK AWAY THOSE PUBLIC PARKING SPACES THAT THAT WOULD FILL THAT.

SO I AM CERTAIN THAT THEY DID THAT RESEARCH TO MAKE SURE.

SO THERE'S THE COURT BUILDING.

THE COURT ITSELF HAS A CAPACITY AND OUR ORDINANCE DICTATES IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SIT THAT MANY PEOPLE IN THE COURTROOM, THEN YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE PARKING SPACES.

MUCH LIKE HERE AT CITY HALL, WE HAVE PARKING SPACES REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THIS PUBLIC SPACE HOLDS SO MANY PEOPLE.

IT'S THE SAME WAY WITH THE COURT.

DO WE HAVE THAT LOCKED DOWN FOR SURE? YES, SIR. OKAY.

YOU CAN'T. SORRY, LARRY.

I'M SORRY. ONE OF MY OTHER STATEMENTS IS THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS.

IS IT A SELF CONTAINED PASS THE PRIMARY DOOR.

DOES IT HAVE RESTROOMS, BREAK ROOMS, EVERYTHING SELF CONTAINED? YES, SIR. DESIGNED THAT WAY IF WE GO WITH THE 3000 SQUARE.

[02:20:01]

YEAH. THE PUBLIC SAFETY. THE PUBLIC SAFETY AREA.

BECAUSE THEY'LL BE COMING INTO A HARDENED SPACE.

WE'LL HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE ITS OWN RESTROOMS IN THAT, BUT THEY'LL HAVE THEIR OWN BREAK ROOM RESTROOMS. THAT AREA IS ALL INCLUDED IN THAT, IN ALL THE OPTIONS, THE SHARED SPACE THAT THEY'D GET INTO WOULD BE CONFERENCE ROOMS, TRAINING ROOMS, THINGS LIKE THAT.

OKAY. AND AS FAR AS TRAINING TERMINALS, WILL THEY HAVE A REQUIREMENT MINIMUM ONE, TWO TRAINING TERMINALS? SO AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE DEPTHS OF THE NITTY GRITTY HERE.

AND SO WHEN WE START GETTING INTO SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE PLAN IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD THEM OUT. THE HOPE IS THERE'S SOME GIVE AND TAKE.

AGAIN, WHEN WE HAD TO LOOK AT FITTING THINGS IN THESE BOXES.

RIGHT, RIGHT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT WAS FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE NUMBER OF COUNCILS THEY NEED TO HAVE A SUPERVISORY COUNCIL AND A TRAINING COUNCIL IN THEIR SPACE THAT THEY COULD EXPAND AND WE COULD CREATE THE LAYOUT OF THAT FLOOR TO DO THAT WITH ONE TRAINING COUNCIL, ONE SUPERVISORY COUNCIL AND SIX REGULAR COUNCILS. AM I CORRECT ON THAT EIGHT TOTAL, STARTING WITH EIGHT TOTAL IN THAT ROOM? BUT TO DO THAT AND TO FIT WITHIN THE NEEDS, THERE'S GOING TO BE SHARED TRAINING AND CONFERENCE ROOM SPACE IN THE INITIAL BUILD OUT.

IF WE DIDN'T DO AN EXPANSION, AN OPTION FOR THEY GET ALL THAT IN THE FIRST SHOT.

OKAY. JUST KEEP IN MIND IF WE DON'T HAVE THE ROOM FOR IT, WE'VE GOT WHAT ARE WE GOING TO PUT IN TWO TERMINALS? THAT'S YOUR HEART AND BUNKER YOUR HARDENED FACILITY OFF JOHN JONES THAT THAT'S SO COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT THAT'S AN ADDITIONAL PROJECT THAT WE HAVE POTENTIAL CAPACITY TO FUND IN THE FUTURE.

RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT A FUNDED PROJECT.

HOWEVER, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT WE HAVE TO GET IT CONFIGURED FOR ITS BEFORE IT CAN BE, BUT ONCE THAT SITE IS CONFIGURED AND READY, I THINK THAT'S A VIABLE PROJECT WE WOULD BRING BACK TO THE FUTURE FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, TOMMY. YES, SIR.

AMEND ON THE PARKING IN THAT IF YOU HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH AN ADJACENT LANDOWNER, YOU CAN USE THEIR SPOTS TO GET THE IN THAT WHAT WE DID FOR ONE OF THE BUILDINGS OVER BY GINA'S PIZZA. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT LIKE A PARKING AGREEMENT, ESSENTIALLY, TONY, DO YOU DO YOU WANT TO BRIEFLY SPEAK TO THE REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH PARKING AGREEMENTS, HOW THEY WORK? WE DO HAVE.

THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER.

WE DO HAVE A PROVISION THAT ALLOWS FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT. NOW, PART OF WHAT WE DO IS LOOK AT THE CONCURRENT USES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE ISSUES WHERE PARKING BECOMES A PROBLEM DURING WHAT WE CONSIDER PEAK HOURS.

BUT THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY CONSIDER.

I'M JUST SAYING, IF 59 WASN'T ENOUGH, PEOPLE COULD PARK IN THE PUBLIC TRAINING COMMUNITY LOT OR THE POLICE PUBLIC PARKING.

I'M SURE THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER BEING THE CITY WOULD ALSO AGREE TO THAT.

YEAH, ALL THE SPACES.

SO ANYTHING IN THE GREEN YOU GOT THE GENERAL VISITOR AND GUEST PARKING, YOU HAVE POLICE PUBLIC PARKING ON THAT ENTRANCE AND KIND OF THE THE PINKISH COLOR, THAT'S ALL PUBLIC PARKING. SO YOU KNOW AS WELL AS I DO, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PARK WHERE THEY WANT TO PARK.

SO BETWEEN THE YELLOW LOT, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF I THINK TOTAL IT'S 142 PUBLIC PARKING SPOTS.

AND SO IF YOU GO OVER BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TODAY AND LOOK WHO PARKS IN FRONT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF JUST GENERAL PEOPLE COMING IN, OBVIOUSLY, WITH TRAINING THAT THAT CHIEF IS LOOKING TO PUT ON. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OF THOSE SPOTS GET USED, BUT YOU HAVE 142 SPOTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR EVERYBODY TO USE IN THAT AREA.

AND SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR COURT OPERATIONS AS WELL AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OPERATIONS.

I THINK I WOULD SAY THAT ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS, IS COLLABORATION AND CLEAR COMMUNICATION.

AND SO ROSE LOPEZ, OUR COURT ADMINISTRATOR, WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE IN CONTACT WITH THE PD, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOSTING BIG TRAINING SESSIONS AND BIG TRAINING FACILITIES AND BECOMING THIS HUB FOR TRAINING.

WHAT YOU WIND UP YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE AND BE MINDFUL OF IS THAT WE'RE NOT HOLDING COURT ON THE SAME TIME THAT THEY'RE SCHEDULING A TRAINING AND WE WE SCHEDULE OUR COURT OUT.

WE TRY TO DO IT A YEAR IN ADVANCE.

SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO CHANGE A LITTLE BIT HERE AND THERE.

VIRTUAL TRIALS ARE GOING TO GO AWAY.

THE STATE HAS ALREADY WARNED US THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW US TO DO THE VIRTUAL HEARINGS LIKE WE HAVE BEEN DOING.

WHEN COVID ALLOWED US TO DO THAT.

FOR SOME REASON, I GUESS IT'S NOT WORKING FOR ALL COURTS.

SO THAT WILL GO AWAY.

SO THAT WILL BECOME MORE AND MORE OF A PROBLEM FOR US THAT WE'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO IN PERSON. THE OTHER THING I WOULD LIKE TO SAY IS THAT THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE THERE. WE'RE OKAY IF WE NEEDED TO MOVE IN THE FUTURE OR GIVE THAT SPACE UP AND HAVE A DIFFERENT SPACE. IN FACT, FOR US, THE SEPARATION OF YOU GETTING A TICKET BY OUR NEIGHBOR AND THEN COMING ACROSS THE STREET AND HAVING TO PAY US, WE WOULD LIKE THAT PERCEPTION TO GO AWAY.

I MEAN, THAT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ALL RIGHT.

WE'RE ALL TURNING PEOPLE THROUGH, SO WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT EVER.

AND SO WE ARE OPEN TO MOVING IF WE NEEDED TO IN THE FUTURE, AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE SAME SPACE THAT WE HAVE NOW AND THE SAME FUNCTIONALITY AND OPERATIONS.

[02:25:03]

I'VE TOLD THIS TO ERIC, I SAID I JUST NEED A SQUARE BOX AND SOME PARKING SPACES, PLEASE.

SO. LET ME MAKE A POINT HERE.

EVERY TIME WE BUILD A NEW BUILDING, THE COST GOES UP.

OKAY. WHAT IF WE TOOK THE ASSET BUILDING AND EVIDENCE AND MAKE ONE STRUCTURE TO STORY DOWN THAT SIDE AND JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.

IN ONE FORMAT, YOU COULD PUT A SALLY PORT GOING THROUGH THE BUILDING.

YOU COULD FILL THAT WHOLE SIDE UP.

AND JUST TAKE A LOOK AT DOING THAT INSTEAD OF WHEN WE BUILT THE CHURCH.

THE FIRST BID WE GOT WAS $22 MILLION.

BUT THEY HAD FIVE DIFFERENT BUILDINGS LOOK GREAT.

I MEAN, IT REALLY, REALLY LOOKED GOOD.

WHEN WE CAME BACK AND BUILT ONE STRUCTURE, WE CAME IN AT 6.2.

AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND I AND CHIEF, I DO NOT WANT TO STEP ON YOUR TOES FOREVER IF THIS IS WHAT YOU LIKE.

I WANT TO SUPPORT YOU.

BUT WE CAN GET MUCH MORE EFFICIENT CONSTRUCTION BY BUILDING ONE SITE.

PUT YOUR EVIDENCE UP ON THE TOP FLOOR WHERE YOU DON'T NEED THE WINDOWS.

THAT'S EXPENSIVE.

BULLET PROOF ON THE SECOND STORY.

YOU KNOW IT'S EXPENSIVE WHEN WE REMODEL THAT PLACE.

BUT I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME IDEAS HERE THAT WE COULD GET THE PRICE DOWN AND POSSIBLY GET CLOSER TO OUR SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO ONE OF THE REASONS WE EXPANDED THAT ASSET BUILDING IS SO THAT ASSET BUILDING IS GOING TO BE A PRE-ENGINEERED PREFABRICATED BUILDING.

SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A MASONRY BUILDING.

THE REASON WE WERE LOOKING AT MOVING SO MUCH OVER INTO THAT ASSET BUILDING IS BECAUSE THE COST TO BUILD THAT BUILDING IS SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER, RIGHT? WE LOOKED AT THOSE NUMBERS.

YOU'RE LOOKING, YOU KNOW, AROUND $300 A SQUARE FOOT TO BUILD THAT BUILDING VERSUS THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING, WHICH IS OVER SIX, IS CLOSER TO $650 A SQUARE FOOT.

SO WE'VE LOOKED AT THOSE OPTIONS IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BIG, LARGE BUILDING, WE'RE MOVING MORE THINGS INTO THE ASSET BUILDING IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THOSE COSTS. THE CONSTRUCTION OF A PREFABRICATED METAL BUILDING WITH SOME MASONRY UPGRADES TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE FROM THE OUTSIDE IS A LOT CHEAPER THAN A FULL MASONRY BUILDING OR A WALL BUILDING THAT WE COULD BE BUILDING HERE AT THE PUBLIC AT THE NEW BUILDING.

SO WE'RE DOING OUR BEST TO SHIFT AS MUCH OF THAT COST FROM THE MAIN BUILDING ONTO A SEPARATE BUILDING IN AN EFFORT TO REDUCE THOSE COSTS AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

MAYBE A COMBINATION OF THE TWO, JUST TO SAY, I MEAN, THAT LAYOUT WOULD GIVE YOU MORE FOOTAGE. YEAH.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO THE BEST.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AN IDEA.

SQUARE FOOTAGE CAN GET MOVED HERE AND THERE.

I DO WANT TO BRING ONE THING UP THAT CHIEF MENTIONED AND I FAILED TO DO.

THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION HERE THAT COVERS THE MATRIX STUDY.

SO THAT LAST STUDY THAT WE CAME UP WITH, WITH THE EXTRA 4800FT² HOLDING CELLS IN SALLYPORT OPTION FOR THIS ONE IS THE ONLY ONE THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT WE HAVE TO SHOW TO YOU TODAY THAT ACTUALLY COVERS IN THAT HOLDING CELL AND THE SALLY PORT.

IT COULD BE LOOKED AT AT OTHER OPTIONS.

BUT UNDERSTAND OBVIOUSLY HOLDING CELLS, THE COST OF BUILDING HOLDING CELLS IS ACTUALLY CLOSER TO $1,000 A SQUARE FOOT.

SALLY PUT IT THE SAME WAY, JUST TO PUT IT OUT THERE.

BUT THIS OPTION DOES ALLOW US TO GET THE SALLY PORT AND RIGHT AWAY GET US THE HOLDING CELLS RIGHT AWAY AND GET ALL THE NEEDS FROM CHIEF AND HIS STAFF AND PAUL AND HIS STAFF IN THE FIRST SHOT. SO JUST WANTED TO THROW OUT THERE ABOUT THE SALLY PORT AND THE HOLDING CELLS. THIS IS THE OPTION THAT HAS THAT.

THAT OPTION FOR A WHERE IT SAYS NO FIRE.

THAT'S A ONE STORY BUILDING.

THEN INSTEAD OF A YEAH WE WOULD LOOK AT IT.

SO ONCE YOU SO RIGHT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DENSITY OF THE AREA.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH VOLUME TO BE ABLE TO GO VERTICAL.

RIGHT. AND SO IF YOU DROP OFF 8000, 8000, 600FT², WE'RE BACK DOWN TO 20,100FT², WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BACK IN THIS RANGE HERE, WHICH MAKES SENSE TO BE A ONE STORY BUILDING.

SO YOU'D HAVE A ONE STORY BUILDING HERE PLUS THE 5800FT² THAT WOULD BE FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND THEN BUT THAT BUT THE FULL ARRAY WOULD STILL GIVE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE CLOSER TO THE MATRIX STUDY. CLOSER.

YEAH. IT WOULDN'T BE EVERYTHING FOR IT GETS YOU CLOSER, BUT IT DOESN'T STILL GET YOU UP TO THAT 69,000, WHICH IS WHAT THE MATRIX STUDY RECOMMENDED, WHICH WAS THE EXTRA 4850.

I MEAN, WE'VE KIND OF I DON'T LIKE BAND-AIDS AND I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF WE'VE BEEN BAND-AID IN THIS THING FOR A WHILE.

AND GOING FROM THE OLD BUILDING NOW TO THE NEWER BUILDING AND DOING THIS, I MEAN, IF IF I HAD TO CHOOSE, I WOULD GO WITH OPTION FOR A AND IF WE RAISE THE DEBT RATE TO CENTS, IT FREES UP 10 MILLION IN CAPACITY THAT WE COULD FUND THIS WITH C, WE COULD MAKE UP THE COST WITH CEOS.

YES, SIR. AND I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO SEE GOING AHEAD AND MOVING FORWARD AND ISSUING A

[02:30:02]

CEO TO MOVE THAT GAS LINE NOW AND GET THAT DONE.

THAT WOULD BE THAT WOULD BE MY THOUGHT.

BUT I YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A GOOD PLAN FOR FIRE TO GET THEM WHERE THEY NEED TO BE.

AND NOW WE NEED A PLAN FOR PD TO GET THEM WHERE THEY NEED.

I WOULD LIKE A 20 YEAR BUILDING, HONESTLY.

AND IF IT COSTS US A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY NOW, THAT WOULD BE THE TIME TO DO IT NOW, IF WE COULD PHASE IT IN WHERE WE COULD GET THEM, YOU KNOW, THE NEW EVIDENCE ROOM AND EVERYTHING, AND THEN AND THEN STILL ADD THESE BUILDINGS OVER TIME TO KIND OF SPREAD THE COST OUT A LITTLE BIT. BUT I WANT TO COMMIT TO DOING IT.

THAT'S KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO DO IT IN FIVE YEARS OR SEVEN YEARS, AND THAT'S KIND OF KICKING THE CAN DOWN, BUT AT LEAST THAT'S WHERE I AM.

YEAH, I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THE EXACT SAME THING.

IS, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO.

I THINK THE RESPONSIBLE THING IS TO WE'VE BEEN SHOEHORNING AND TRYING TO PUT BAND-AIDS AND TRYING TO SQUEEZE IN THINGS WHEREVER THEY CAN GO.

AND THAT'S NOT THE BEST SOLUTION LONG TERM.

AND WE END UP SPENDING MORE MONEY BECAUSE WE JUST KEEP LET'S ADD ON, LET'S ADD ON OR FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S THE RESPONSIBLE THING TO DO.

SO IS THERE A WAY, LIKE WITH THIS ASSET EVIDENCE, IF THE NON AIR CONDITIONED, YOU KNOW, ARE THERE WAYS TO BE ABLE TO EXPAND THAT? BECAUSE WE DON'T NEED THE WE DON'T NEED A 20 YEAR BUILD OUT CURRENTLY FOR EVIDENCE OR FOR ASSET AND EVIDENCE OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE THAT THAT BALANCE ISN'T FOR ME TO DETERMINE.

BUT IS THAT AN OPTION? AND THEN GOING BACK TO COMMUNICATIONS AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T HAD A STUDY AND WE HAVEN'T HEARD FROM PAUL OR ASHLEY BACK THERE.

BUT I LIKE I DON'T KNOW CURRENTLY HOW MANY STATIONS THEY HAVE OR, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SAY THAT THEY THAT IT'S EASY FOR TWO DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS WITH COMPLETELY DIFFERENT NEEDS TO SHARE TRAINING SPACE WHEN THEY NEED A CONSOLE AND THEY NEED TO BE ABLE TO HAVE PRACTICE CALLS.

AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, I THINK THAT THEY'RE DOING THAT ON THE FLOOR NEXT TO SOMEBODY POTENTIALLY TAKING A LIFE SAVING PHONE CALL AND THEY'RE TRYING TO TRAIN SOMEBODY.

SO THAT'S A LOT GOING ON IN A VERY SMALL SPACE THAT'S ALREADY HIGH STRESS.

AND SO I DON'T I THINK SIMILAR TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL SAID OF I DON'T WANT TO SHOEHORN THINGS AND I DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO BAND-AID.

IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. BUT I THINK THAT THERE'S A RESPONSIBLE WAY THAT WE CAN DO IT.

AND I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH SEPARATING OUT THAT GAS LINE.

I MEAN, THAT OPTION ONE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO JUST BUILD AROUND IT, IT IT'S DISASTROUS.

WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO BE CONFUSING ENOUGH TO THIS COMMUNITY ON WHAT ENTRANCE DO I GO WHERE? AND WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT WORSE IN TRYING TO DANCE AROUND A GAS LINE.

I THINK IT WOULD JUST BE SMART TO WE KNOW IT'S INEVITABLE.

JUST MOVE IT BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COST MORE IF WE KEEP PROLONGING IT AS WELL.

CITY MANAGER. I SEE THAT WE HAVE 36,000 OR 36 MILLION IN BOND MONEY TO WORK WITH.

WE TEND TO BE LEANING TOWARDS OPTION FOUR, WHICH IS CONSIDERABLY MORE.

AND AT THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDING PLANNED FOR THAT MUCH, BUT I'M LEANING TOWARDS OPTION FOUR. ALSO, WHAT WOULD BE THE REPERCUSSIONS ON ANY DEADLINES IF WE WERE TO? AND I WANT TO KEEP THIS CONVERSATION GOING BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION THAT WE NEED.

WHAT WOULD BE THE CONSEQUENCES ON DEADLINES IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS FOR TWO WEEKS AND ALLOW COUNCIL TO ABSORB IT? BECAUSE THIS IS A LOT TO ABSORB FOR US TO INDEPENDENTLY GO FORWARD WITH THE INVESTIGATING THE FIVE YEAR CIP TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO PULL IN EXTRA FUNDING. WOULD THERE BE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT? NO. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS I NEVER WANT THE COUNCIL TO FEEL RUSHED AND, YOU KNOW, MAKING A DECISION. I DON'T THINK THAT WE CAN DELAY, YOU KNOW, IN PERPETUITY BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE BUSTING AT THE SEAMS AT PD.

BUT I THINK TWO WEEKS, IF THE COUNCIL NEEDS THAT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL TIME, I DON'T THINK STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE CONCERN WITH THAT.

I THINK WHAT I WOULD ADD TO THAT, TOO, IS THAT IN THE VEIN OF COUNCILMEMBER RUSSELL'S DISCUSSION ABOUT POTENTIAL INCREASE TO THE DEBT RATE, WE'RE REALLY WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT MONTHS LONG DESIGN ON THIS BUILDING.

MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY MONTHS.

AND SO WE WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION WHERE WE WOULD NEED TO BE ISSUING DEBT OR TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION UNTIL WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDGET PREPARATION FOR 24-25.

AT THAT TIME, WE CAN START MODIFYING OUR FORECAST AND THEN WE CAN REFLECT POTENTIAL INCREASE IN COSTS IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL, THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WENT TO MODIFY, WHAT THE DEBT RATE WOULD BE, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A PURPOSE TO INCREASE THE DEBT RATE WITH AN ASSUMED DOLLAR AMOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

SO WE COULD RECALCULATE THE DEBT RATE.

CAN WE GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE GAS LINE, THOUGH, OR DO YOU WANT TO WAIT ON THAT? THAT'S COUNCIL DIRECTION.

OR WE CAN BRING AN ITEM VERY QUICKLY BECAUSE WE FREED UP WHAT WE KICKED OUT 8 MILLION IN

[02:35:02]

CAPACITY. WE HAD WE HAD $8.9 MILLION IN CAPACITY.

WE CHANGED OUR CASH FUNDING CAPITAL MODEL, PULLED OUT 2.6 MILLION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR IT. AND WE WERE GOING TO BE ISSUING A PORTION OF THE THAT 8.9 IN CO CAPACITY. SO THE 8.9 IS REDUCED BY 2.6, BUT WE STILL HAVE ENOUGH TO MOVE THE GAS LINE AND STILL HAVE CAPACITY AND BREATHING ROOM.

OKAY. I MEAN, THAT'D BE MY THOUGHT.

I MEAN, WE CAN SINCE IT'S GOING TO TAKE TIME TO DESIGN AND STUFF, BUT LET'S JUST GET THAT THING MOVED AND THEN IT'S OUT OF OUR HAIR.

BUT PULL UP FOR A PULL UP FOR OPTION FOUR, PLEASE.

THERE YOU GO. SO NO ONE IS WORRIED ABOUT THE EXTRA MONEY AT THIS TIME BECAUSE IT'S A LOT.

OH, ABSOLUTELY.

THAT'S THE REASON I WOULD LIKE TO POSTPONE IT AND GO THROUGH THE FIVE YEAR CIP TO SEE IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO MOVE ANYTHING.

IF NOT, THEN OPTION THREE IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE THE OPTION.

WELL, CERTAINLY THINK THAT WE CERTAINLY NEED TO.

THAT'S $20 MILLION THAT WE CERTAINLY NEED TO LOOK AT TO SEE HOW WE ARE GOING TO FUND IT.

HEY, GUYS, I'M FOR YOU.

BUT IF THE MONEY'S NOT THERE.

TO ME. MAYBE THE ONLY ONE SITTING HERE WHO DOES.

BUT WE DO.

WE DO NEED TO HAVE A CONVERSATION, IS HOW WE'RE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT MONEY AND IF WE CAN DO IT, GREAT COUNCIL.

WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS THIS, IS THAT IF THERE'S A REQUEST FOR A TWO WEEK PAUSE, THAT GIVES MYSELF, MARTIN AND ERIC, TIME TO BRING AN ITEM BACK ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL FUND PORTION OF THE CIP.

THE COUNCIL COULD LOOK AT WHICH PROJECTS COULD POTENTIALLY SHIFT OUT OR MAY NO LONGER BE NEEDED OR A PRIORITY OF THE COUNCIL IN RELATION IN COMPARISON TO THE NEED FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. AND SO WE COULD IDENTIFY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, WHAT SHIFTS IN THE CIP WOULD GET YOU IN TERMS OF CAPACITY, AND THEN YOU COULD HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION IF YOU NEEDED MORE FUNDING, WHETHER THAT IS A DEBT RATE SCENARIO OR REDUCED SCOPE THAT GETS YOU MORE THAN 5 TO 8 YEARS, BUT LESS THAN 20 YEARS.

SO I THINK TWO WEEKS WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH TIME TO PREPARE THAT.

ALSO WORK WITH BRINKLEY SERGEANT, TO MAYBE REFINE WHAT A 20 YEAR BUILDING WOULD LOOK LIKE AND THEN GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

IS THAT IS THAT WHAT THE COUNCIL NEEDS? YEAH. I JUST HAD ONE MORE THING TO THROW INTO THE MIX SINCE WE'RE GOING TO THINK ABOUT IT A LITTLE BIT MORE. OBVIOUSLY WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT THE FUNDING AND I THINK BEFORE WE CAN MAKE THIS DECISION, I THINK WE'VE GAINED SOME GROUND TONIGHT.

I THINK WE ALL AGREED THAT TRY TO BUILD AROUND THE GAS LINE IS A BAD IDEA.

SO LET'S KICK THAT IDEA OFF THE TABLE AND SEE WHAT'S LEFT.

OPTION THREE KEEPS US PRETTY CLOSE TO BEING WITHIN THE VOTER APPROVED AMOUNT, CLOSE ENOUGH THAT WE COULD GET THERE.

OPTION FOUR IS A BIG JUMP.

IT'S $20 MILLION OVER THAT NUMBER.

THAT'S ALMOST TWO THIRDS OF THE PROJECT.

AGAIN, I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S NOT AN OPTION THREE SIMILAR TO WHAT ADAM WAS SUGGESTING OF BUILDING A SECOND STORY SHELL AND WITH THE WITH THE PLAN ON MAKING THAT SPACE USABLE SPACE AS A NEW ADDITION INSTEAD OF THE OPTION THREE FUTURE ADDITION OF A COMPONENT OF THE BUILDING ADDED ON AT THE SAME LEVEL TO THE SOUTH.

I KNOW IT'S GOT TO BE MORE EXPENSIVE TO DEMOLISH A PREVIOUSLY BUILT PARKING LOT, ADD A NEW FOUNDATION AND BUILD UP FROM THERE THAN IT WOULD BE JUST TO FINISH OUT A SHELL SPACE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY COMPLETELY BUILT, ROOFED, READY TO GO.

I'D LIKE TO CONSIDER HOW THAT FITS THE PLAN FOR THE MATRIX STUDY AND OTHER THINGS, HOW WE COULD UTILIZE THAT ADDITIONAL 8000 SQUARE FOOT OR WHATEVER IT IS THAT WE PICK UP BY THE SECOND FLOOR ADDITION.

SO IT WOULD BE LIKE A MODIFIED OPTION THREE BUT IF YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET AT TO SEE IF WE HAVE THAT OPTION AS WELL, WE CAN CERTAINLY LOOK AT WHITE BOXING PROVIDING AN OPTION.

I WOULD SAY ALL THESE OPTIONS REQUIRE SOME TIME COMMITMENT FROM BRINKLEY, SERGEANT.

SO WHAT I WOULD ASK IS SOME FLEXIBILITY FOR COUNCIL TO GIVE US BETWEEN 1 AND 2 COUNCIL MEETINGS TO TO BRING THIS BACK TO BETWEEN TWO AND FOUR WEEKS, JUST TO GIVE BRINKLEY SERGEANT SUFFICIENT TIME TO PUT IT TOGETHER, BECAUSE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT WE BRING YOU IS FULLY VETTED AND NOT RUSHED.

SO CAN WE NARROW IT DOWN TO JUST A YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT IT LOOKS LIKE ONE'S OFF THE TABLE TO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY THINKS ABOUT TWO, BUT IT REALLY IT'S LIKE THREE, MAYBE THE MODIFIED THREE AND FOUR A OR THE OR THE THREE OPTIONS.

AND SO JUST FOCUS ON THOSE THREE UNLESS YOU ALL ANYBODY ELSE NEEDS ANY OTHER STUFF.

[02:40:03]

HAVING THAT SPACE BACK THERE THE SHELL OF IT IS BUILT BECAUSE WE KNOW KNOW DEPARTMENTS CAN SHUFFLE AROUND OR COMMUNICATIONS COULD MOVE BACK THERE.

IS THAT AN OPTION TO BUILD OUT? NOT NECESSARILY JUST UP AND JUST EXPLORING THOSE THINGS? BECAUSE UNDERSTANDABLY, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT IF THE DOLLARS ARE THERE AND WHAT'S.

BUT I THINK A NUMBER OF US JUST DON'T WANT TO.

VISIT THIS NOW AND HAVE TO REVISIT IT IN 3 TO 5 YEARS BECAUSE.

WE NEED TO PLAN LONG TERM.

AND THE DOLLAR SIGNS OBVIOUSLY ARE GOING TO ONLY INCREASE.

SO WE WANT TO BE SMART ABOUT IF WE'RE GOING TO PUT THIS MUCH EFFORT INTO IT, LET'S DO IT RIGHT OR AS CLOSE TO RIGHT AS WE POSSIBLY CAN SO THAT WE AREN'T REVISITING THIS AND REVISITING THIS BECAUSE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO START SAYING, OKAY, I'M RAISING A FLAG, WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHY AREN'T WE ACCOUNTING FOR EVERYTHING THAT'S COMING IF WE KNOW IT'S COMING? UNDERSTOOD.

I THINK FOUR IS TOO EXPENSIVE.

IT'S 50. IT'S 20 MILLION.

WAY OVER THE FOUR A'S.

AT LEAST ONLY 12.

ONLY 12 MILLION.

BUT SURELY THERE'S SOMETHING BETWEEN THOSE TWO THAT WE CAN COME UP WITH AND GET THEM WHAT THEY NEED.

NO MORE BAND-AIDS.

IS THERE A POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING AN ASSET BUILDING ON TOP OF THE NEW POLICE? ONE STORY. AND THEN ADD ON LATER THAT THAT LOCATION LATER MAKE ONE BUILDING OUT OF WELL, THEY WERE GOING TO PARK VEHICLES AND STUFF THERE.

SO I DON'T THINK SO.

WE'RE IN THE ASSET BUILDING.

THE ASSET BUILDING IS ALSO A GARAGE.

SO LIKE THE NEW BEARCAT AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO BE STORED IN THAT BUILDING. AND SO AGAIN, THE REASON FOR PUTTING EVERYTHING OUT IN THAT BUILDING, THAT'S A PREFAB PRE-ENGINEERED BUILDING.

SO THE COST OF THAT, OBVIOUSLY WE PUT IT ON THE SECOND STORY.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO WANT THAT FACADE ON THE SECOND STORY, SO IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE BUILT TO THAT HIGHER STANDARD.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE CLOSER TO 650FT².

I DO WANT TO SAY ONE THING.

AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OPTION THREE AND WE'LL BRING ALL THESE OPTIONS BACK.

BUT I DO WANT TO SAY ONE THING IS YOU'LL NOTICE IN THIS COST, THERE'S $7 MILLION IN ESCALATION. THE WE'LL COME BACK AND 1 TO 2 MEETINGS, BUT THERE'S $7 MILLION IN ESCALATION AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT.

THE FASTER WE GET MOVING ON IT, IF WE GET THIS BUILDING GOING IN A YEAR, THAT'S $7 MILLION. I CAN LOOK AT BRINKLEY SERGEANT AND SAY WE'RE ONLY ANTICIPATING 2.5 MILLION, WHICH MEANS I CAN UTILIZE THAT $5 MILLION ON THE BUILDING SPACE.

SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T KNOW WHERE THIS THIS PROJECT WAS GOING TO BE IN THE FIVE YEAR GEO BOND.

WE'VE MOVED IT UP AS FAST AS WE COULD IN AN EFFORT TO SAVE THOSE ESCALATION COSTS.

WE KNOW THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS GONE UP.

WE'VE SHOWN THAT TO YOU TODAY, BUT THAT'S 7.5 MILLION.

AS WE MOVE FORWARD AND WE GET DIRECTION ON OVERALL DESIGN, THEY WILL BE TASKED WITH.

WE'LL BE WORKING WITH BYRNE CONSTRUCTION AND BRINKLEY SERGEANT AND WE'LL SAY, OKAY, WE THINK THAT ESCALATION COST IS NOW BEING NARROWED DOWN.

WE NOW CAN ADD THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO THIS OPTION HERE SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

THIS OPTION HERE, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING OUT THERE MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THAT SPACE AND MAKE IT LARGER TO BEGIN WITH.

WHEN WE START HERE, WE'LL HAVE A BETTER IDEA WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET INTO THE DETAILS OF FULL DESIGN.

WE START PROGRAMING.

WE REALLY START AND SEE WHAT THE CURRENT CONSTRUCTION ENVIRONMENT LOOKS LIKE IN A YEAR FROM NOW, BECAUSE A YEAR AGO WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO BE WHERE IT IS TODAY AND WE DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE A YEAR FROM NOW.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET'S GOING TO BEAR.

AND SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THOSE THINGS, IT'S REALLY GOING TO IMPACT IT.

BUT JUST I THINK THAT'S THE NUMBER THAT WE GET LOST ON SOMETIME IS THERE'S SO MUCH MONEY THAT'S TIED UP IN ESCALATION COSTS, ESPECIALLY IN HERE.

SO THIS IS OPTION THREE. SORRY, I WAS GOING UP WITH THE $7.4 MILLION ESCALATION.

WE CAN SHIFT THAT AND THAT MIGHT GET US SOME MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT MIGHT ALLOW US TO DO SOME DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT WE WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE MOVE FORWARD.

SO AGAIN, ONCE WE HAVE DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL, WE'LL BE TAKING A LOOK AT EVERY PENNY WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US AND HOW WE CAN PUT IT INTO SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR PD PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS AND GET THEM EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN GET FOR THEM.

I LIKE GOING VERTICAL ON THREE ON THE BUILDING I LIKE.

I'D LIKE TO HAVE AT LEAST A PRICE ON THAT TO GET THAT DONE IF WE COULD.

WELL, THIS IS WHY I BROUGHT UP THE DEBT RATE LAST MEETING IS WE'RE $0.02 LOWER THAN WE WERE FIVE YEARS AGO.

AND SO I THINK THERE'S SOME ROOM THERE, MAYBE JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT, AT LEAST IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET CONVERSATIONS.

SO. YOU HAVE DIRECTION YOU NEED A FINAL STATEMENT HERE FROM US? NO, I'M GOOD. I THINK BETWEEN TAKING A LOOK AT OPTIONS KIND OF OPTIONS, ONE'S OFF THE TABLE. IT'S REALLY KIND OF 2, 3, 4A JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THOSE.

NO, I'M GETTING SHAKING HEAD NO.

YOU WANT THREE AND FOUR WITH AN OPTION TO GO THREE.

THE MODIFIED. YEAH.

[02:45:01]

THREE AND A HALF 4A.

THREE, THREE 4A.

MAYOR PRO TEM IS OPTION THREE. THE OPTIONS WE WANT TO COME BACK WITH.

WE'LL LOOK AT SECOND STORY WHITE BOXING SOME SPACE FOR A SECOND STORY EXPANSION.

DENNY AND JEAN ARE HASTILY TAKING NOTES TO REMIND US ALL THIS WHEN WE GET BACK TOGETHER.

BUT WE'LL BRING BACK THOSE OPTIONS.

GIVE US A FEW. LIKE TOMMY SAID, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE VET ALL THAT OUT.

WE HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK AND LOOK AT CONSTRUCTION NUMBERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

BYRNE WILL BE INVOLVED IN THAT.

GIVE US A COUPLE OF MEETINGS.

NOW, I THINK MY BIG QUESTION TO YOU AND I'VE HEARD IT IS WE WANT TO MOVE THE GAS LINE IS THAT KIND OF THE GENERAL DIRECTION? ALL RIGHT, STAFF MOVING FORWARD, WE'LL INITIATE WE'VE REACHED OUT TO WILLIAMS. SO WILLIAMS OWNS THAT GAS LINE.

IT'S NOT ATMOS, IT'S A WILLIAMS PIPELINE.

WE'LL REACH OUT TO THEM AND START GETTING THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS PULLED TOGETHER AGAIN.

THAT MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF MEETINGS OUT AND WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

IF YOU REMEMBER THE CAPITAL BUDGET, WE HAD, I THINK A LITTLE OVER $3 MILLION IN THIS YEAR AND WE HAVE A LITTLE OVER $2.5 MILLION NEXT YEAR.

SO BETWEEN THOSE TWO, ERRICK THOMPSON AND THE CAPITAL TEAM WILL KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT THE FUNDING SOURCES LOOK LIKE FOR THOSE THINGS.

BUT WHATEVER WE DO, HOPEFULLY IT'LL BE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE'LL FIND THE FUNDING SOURCE AND WE'LL TALK WITH WITH THE CITY MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE ABOUT WHAT THAT EXTRA MILLION DOLLARS COMES FROM TO HELP MOVE THAT LINE.

BUT WE'LL GET THAT MOVING NOW.

SO WE'LL GET THAT KICKED OFF AND GET THAT LINE MOVED.

THAT LINE IS PLANNED TO GO INTO THE FRONT, SO IT'LL MOST LIKELY GO NEAR THE TXDOT RIGHT OF WAY THERE, JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT IN AN EASEMENT.

SO WE'LL HAVE TO DEDICATE AN EASEMENT TO THAT TO THEM FOR THAT.

BUT IT'LL GO UP THERE TOWARDS AND THEY'LL DIRECTIONAL BORE UNDERNEATH THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AND THEY'LL GO THROUGH THAT AREA WHICH WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE ALL THE SPACE IN THE BACK, WHICH IS REALLY WHAT WE WANT IS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE ALL THE SPACE AVAILABLE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.

SO 3, 3A, 4A AND MOVE THE GAS LINE.

YES, SIR. WILL THE GAS LINE HORSESHOE AROUND OUR PROPERTY? WILL IT GO DOWN THE ROAD AND BACK DOWN THE OTHER ROAD? RIGHT YEP. DOES THAT 1.2 MILLION COVER THE COST OF REPAIRING THE ROADS BACK TO STANDARD ? SO THEY WON'T WE WON'T TOUCH THE ROADWAY.

SO THE GAS LINE THE GAS PIPELINE CURRENTLY COMES IN RIGHT THROUGH HERE.

THEY'LL 90 IT IN THE PARKWAY.

SO THEY'LL BE IN THE GRASS AREA.

THEY'LL COME UP THIS WAY AND THEY'LL DIRECTIONAL BORE UP HERE AGAIN, DIRECTIONAL BORE HERE AND THEN DIRECTIONAL BORE BACK DOWN TO LINE IT UP.

SO IT WON'T IMPACT THE ROAD.

IT WON'T TOUCH THE ROAD. THEY'LL HAVE I'M SURE THEY'LL HAVE SOME SOME PITS AND STUFF LIKE THAT THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON AND THEY MIGHT IMPACT THE ROADWAY A LITTLE BIT.

BUT THAT 1.2 MILLION IS FULL CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN THE EXPANSION OF 174, THAT WON'T AFFECT THIS AT ALL.

NO EXPANSION TO 174, AS YOU KNOW, STARTS AT THIS INTERSECTION.

WE'RE EXPANDING TO THE INSIDE, NOT TO THE OUTSIDE.

INSIDE OKAY. SO WE'RE TAKING AWAY THE MEDIAN, NOT THE NOT THE RIGHT OF WAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD.

BILL JANISCH.

THIS WILL BE INTERESTING. ALL RIGHT.

BILL JANISCH, 117 NORTHEAST CLINTON.

I REALLY LIKE THE PRODUCTIVITY YOU GUYS ARE DOING.

I LIKE THE DRAWINGS AND ALL.

PERSONALLY, I LIKE THE FOUR AND I LIKE THAT ADAM HAD MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT THE SHELL ON TOP.

IF YOU DO NOT DO A 20 YEAR BUILDING, I'VE HEARD WE'RE GOING TO BE AT 50% MORE CITIZENS IN THE NEXT 12 YEARS OR SO, 10 OR 15 YEARS AN 8 YEAR BUILD OUT.

WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT ADDING ON TO THEN 55, 60 MILLION MORE IN EIGHT YEARS? SO, I MEAN, YOU MAY BE OUT MONEY.

LIKE I SAID, THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS CAN CONSIDER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WAY THAT YOU CAN ALSO WITH THESE OTHER ONES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR THREE, THREE A, FOUR A IF YOU CAN ALSO THROW IN NUMBERS WHAT IT MIGHT COST IN TEN YEARS.

THAT WAY IT GIVES THEM BECAUSE FOUR MAY END UP BEING THE WAY YOU GUYS WANT TO GO.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MONEY WOULD COME FROM, BUT IT MAY BE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL THAT BRING US ON TO NUMBER.

SECTION 4 CHANGES TO THE POSTED AGENDA 4A IS ITEMS TO BE CONTINUED OR WITHDRAWN AND 4B ARE ITEMS TO BE WITHDRAWN FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE DISCUSSION BY THE CITY COUNCIL STAFF OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE AND ITEMS TO BE ADDED TO THE CONSENT AGENDA, WHICH WILL REQUIRE AN OFFICIAL VOTE BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

ARE THERE ANY CHANGES OR COMMENTS FOR 4A OR FOR 4B ANYBODY? MADAM. ANYBODY? NO. OKAY.

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION FIVE CITIZENS APPEARANCE.

[5.CITIZENS APPEARANCE]

EACH PERSON IN ATTENDANCE WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON AN ITEM NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA SHALL SPEAK DURING THE SESSION.

A SPEAKER CARD MUST BE FILLED OUT AND TURNED INTO THE CITY SECRETARY PRIOR TO ADDRESSING

[02:50:01]

THE CITY COUNCIL, AND EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES.

EACH PERSON IN ATTENDANCE WHO DESIRES TO SPEAK TO THE CITY COUNCIL ON AN ITEM POSTED ON THE AGENDA SHALL SPEAK WHEN THAT ITEM IS CALLED FORWARD FOR DISCUSSION.

AT THIS TIME, I DO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR CITIZENS APPEARANCE.

DALE DEXHEIMER.

GOOD EVENING. DALE DEXHEIMER 720 CAROL LANE BURLESON.

MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, CITY STAFF, EVERYBODY ELSE HERE.

THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY.

I'M GOING TO TAKE MY THREE MINUTES HERE AND TALK ABOUT FOUNDERS DAY IN BURLESON, TEXAS.

FOUNDERS DAY IS CELEBRATED THE SECOND SATURDAY OF OCTOBER EVERY YEAR.

CONJUNCTION BURLESON HERITAGE FOUNDATION AND THE CITY.

WE CELEBRATE THE FOUNDING OF BURLESON IN 1881, WHEN THE RAILROAD CAME DOWN AND BOUGHT PROPERTY FROM MR. RENFRO AND STARTED THE CITY OF BURLESON.

FOUNDERS DAY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME FUN.

WE WILL HAVE GUNFIGHTERS, CAR SHOW, FOOD TRUCKS, WE HAVE KIDS ACTIVITIES, PETTING ZOOS. ET CETERA.

THERE WILL BE KIDS ON THE STAGE.

I THINK YOU ALL HAVE A COPY OF THIS.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT AMANDA JUST PASSED OUT.

THIS IS LAST YEAR'S PICTURE, AND MS. JOHNSON SHOULD BE IN HERE.

BUT ALL THESE KIDS ON THE BOTTOM ROW, THEY WERE AMANDA'S CHARGE AND WE JUST INCORPORATED THEM IN THE PICTURE.

BUT NUMBER ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT.

COME OUT ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER THE 14TH, 9:00 IN THE MORNING TILL 4:00 IN THE AFTERNOON.

COME ON OUT. HAVE A LITTLE FUN.

NUMBER TWO, I WOULD LIKE YOU ALL TO PARTICIPATE.

NOW, OUR FINE MAYOR HAS ALREADY COMMITTED AND HE WILL BE THERE ON SATURDAY THE 14TH.

AND I'M ASKING EVERYBODY ELSE ON COUNCIL.

I PUT OUT AN EMAIL OUT A COUPLE, THREE WEEKS AGO ASKING YOU TO CONSIDER PARTICIPATING.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE REAL FANCY.

YOU CAN RENT SOME DUDS OR YOU CAN GO TO RACHEL'S HOPE HARVEST HOUSE, ANY OF THOSE PLACES. IT'S AMAZING WHAT YOU CAN PICK UP.

I TOLD THE MAYOR IF HE HAD AN OLD PAIR OF BIB OVERALLS AND A SHIRT WITHOUT A COLLAR.

I'M SURE HE'S GOT THE BOOTS.

HE'S A WEST TEXAS DIRT FARMER.

I'M SURE HE'S GOT THE BOOTS TO GO ALONG WITH IT.

SO NUMBER ONE, COME OUT AND SUPPORT US.

NUMBER TWO, REALLY LIKE TO SEE YOU ALL COME DOWN THERE AND JOIN THE PARTY.

WE'LL HAVE SOME FUN.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT 350 OR $500 A SQUARE FOOT.

YOU'RE JUST GOING TO COME OUT AND WE'RE ALL GOING TO SMILE A LITTLE BIT AND SHAKE SOME HANDS AND HAVE A GOOD TIME.

SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

COME SEE US.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA? THAT'LL MOVE US ON. SORRY, SIR.

THAT'LL MOVE US ON TO SECTION 6 CONSENT AGENDA.

[6.CONSENT AGENDA]

ALL ITEMS LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED IN ONE MOTION.

THERE'S NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. APPROVAL OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AUTHORIZES THE CITY MANAGER TO IMPLEMENT EACH ITEM IN ACCORDANCE WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

TONIGHT FOR CITY COUNCIL, THE CONSENT AGENDA IS 6A THROUGH 6E.

IS THERE A MOTION? I SECOND.

I GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA, SECOND BY DAN.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[Items 7A & 7B]

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 7, GENERAL.

AND I WILL CALL FORWARD 7 A AND 7 B TOGETHER AT ONE TIME FOR ONE PRESENTATION.

HOWEVER, AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION WE WILL NEED TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS ON THESE ITEMS. SEVEN A IS CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF

[02:55:03]

THE CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2023 NOT TO EXCEED $9,447,547 INCLUDING ISSUANCE COSTS.

THIS IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST AND FINAL READING AND 7 B CONSIDER AND TAKE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR THE SALE AND ISSUANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS COMBINATION TAX AND REVENUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2023 NOT TO EXCEED $32,941,551, INCLUDING ISSUANCE COSTS.

THIS IS ALSO BEFORE COUNCIL ON FIRST AND FINAL READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS MARTIN AVILA, FINANCE DIRECTOR.

MR. AVILA, YOU'RE UP.

THANK YOU, AMANDA. MAYOR AND COUNCIL THIS ITEM TODAY KIND OF BRINGS TO A CLOSE SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AS WE STARTED WITH OUR REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION BACK IN OCTOBER.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE CIP PLANS.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE FOR, FOR THIS YEAR GOING IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE WERE GOING TO ISSUE IN BONDS DURING THOSE DISCUSSIONS AS WELL.

WE'VE ALSO CAME BACK AND DID A NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS.

SO NOW WE COME TO THIS POINT IN REGARDS TO GETTING THE APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACTUAL BOND SALE OF BOTH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION BONDS.

SO AGAIN, AS AMANDA WROTE OUT IN REGARDS TO THE BOND SALE, THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, WHICH ARE TIED TO THE 2022 VOTERS GEO BOND PROGRAM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED APPROXIMATELY $9.4 MILLION THAT WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE NOW.

AGAIN, IT IS IT INCLUDES THE THE ISSUE COST IS ALSO INCLUDING PREMIUMS. AND SO IN REGARDS TO THE I DO HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE IN ATTENDANCE TODAY.

WE HAVE MARTY [INAUDIBLE] FROM OF AND I WENT BLANK HILLTOP SECURITIES AND WE ALSO HAVE CLARK KIMBALL FROM BOND COUNSEL AND HE IS FROM MCCALL PARKHURST AND HORTON.

AND SO AGAIN, ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE BOND PROCESS, AS IT RELATES TO THE STRUCTURE OF THE BOND SALE, THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ASSIST US AND PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION THERE YOU KNOW TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THE GEO BOND.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS.

AND AGAIN, THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION IS OVER $32 MILLION DOLLARS.

AND AGAIN, THAT $32 MILLION IS BROKEN OUT BETWEEN IN TAX SUPPORTED DEBT AND SELF SUPPORTED DEBT FROM 4A, 4B TIF2 AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER.

THE BOND SALE IS ALSO ALIGNED WITH THE THE CIP PLAN THAT WAS INTRODUCED DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

AND AGAIN KIND OF GOING BACK IN REGARDS TO THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION WAS APPROVED ON AUGUST 3RD, 2022.

AND THEN THE NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS WAS APPROVED ON JUNE 20TH, 2023.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS A KEY FACTOR IN REGARDS TO ISSUING BONDS IS THE CITY'S CREDIT RATING. AND SO RIGHT NOW, I'VE USED THIS THIS PARTICULAR SLIDE IN THE PAST KIND OF SHOWS EXACTLY WHERE THE CITY IS RIGHT NOW AS IT RELATES TO THE CREDIT RATINGS.

AND RIGHT NOW, MOODY HAS A DOUBLE A TWO, AND S&P HAS A DOUBLE A.

LAST YEAR WAS THE YEAR THAT MOODY'S WAS ABLE TO UPGRADE US.

I'M GLAD THEY DID. I THINK THAT THAT WAS A LONG IT WAS LONG OVERDUE IN REGARDS TO THAT.

BUT AGAIN, I'VE RECEIVED QUESTIONS IN THE PAST WHEN I SHOW THIS AND WE TALKED ABOUT, WELL, WHY AREN'T WE DOUBLE A ONE? WHY AREN'T WE NOT TRIPLE A? AND AGAIN, THERE'S SO MANY FACTORS THAT RELATE TO THE RATING THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW IS WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

WE ARE IT'S A VERY POSITIVE BOND RATING.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE NOTES IN THE BOTTOM, NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE, NOT THAT MANY ENTITIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS HAVE THAT.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT PUTS US IN A COUNTRY, IT PUTS US IN THE TOP 4.8% AND IT PUTS US IN TEXAS AT 6.6%.

AND AGAIN, THAT IS IN ESSENCE, I WANT TO KIND OF BRING THAT UP AND SHOW THAT, IN ESSENCE, THE CITY OF BURLESON DOES HAVE A STRONG BOND RATING THAT WE RECEIVE.

AND AGAIN, THERE WAS NO CHANGE THIS YEAR.

THEY KEPT IT WHERE IT WAS AT AND KIND OF GIVES YOU A HISTORICAL VIEW OF WHERE WE'VE BEEN OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS.

AND AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF AND THE REASON FOR THE RATINGS.

[03:00:01]

CURRENTLY WE CONTINUE TO GROW AND OUR TAX BASE, WE STILL HAVE WE HAVE GOOD FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT POLICIES.

WE HAVE STABLE FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, HEALTHY FINANCIAL POSITION PLANNING FOR FUTURE GROWTH. AND AGAIN, WE THE CITY'S LIABILITIES FOR THE PENSION IS MANAGEABLE.

ALL OF THOSE FACTORS ARE POSITIVE FACTORS THAT WE HAVE.

AND AS WE CONTINUE TO GROW, WE WILL ALWAYS LOOK AT THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT BOND RATING CHANGING. BUT IT'S MORE OF AN EVOLVEMENT VERSUS TRYING TO FORCE US TO GO INTO THAT ROUTE. IT'S MORE SO IS HOW WE GROW OVER TIME WITH THE CITY OF BURLESON.

AND AGAIN, I HAVE PUT THIS SLIDE BECAUSE SOME OF THE SLIDES PREVIOUSLY WERE JUST PRELIMINARY NUMBERS.

AND SO AGAIN, TODAY ON THE BOND SALE, IT HAPPENED EARLY THIS MORNING.

AND AGAIN, HILLTOP FINANCIAL SECURITIES HELPED US PREPARE THE BOND SALE TO THE BIDS AND KIND OF HELP US TO KIND OF TALLY ALL OF THAT INFORMATION.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, AS REGARDS TO THE FINAL NUMBERS ON THE GEO BOND, WE ARE ISSUING AT PAR $9,030,000 AND INCLUDES A PREMIUM OF $462,000.

AND AGAIN, THAT IS USED AS AS THE SOURCES AND THE USES.

WHAT THAT IS, IS THAT $9.28 MILLION DOLLARS GOES TO THE ACTUAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS TO FUND THE PROJECTS.

AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE SOME ISSUANCE COSTS.

THAT'S PART OF THE THE BOND ISSUANCE AS WELL.

SO YOU SEE THE COMBINATION BETWEEN THE SOURCES AND HOW THE THE USES ARE BEING BEING APPLIED. AND NEXT TO THAT, IT SHOWS THE AMORTIZATION SCHEDULE OF THE GEO BONDS.

AND AGAIN, IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THAT BOND ISSUE, ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO MENTION IS THE TRUE INTEREST COST IS ABOUT 4.2%.

IT WAS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER THAN WHAT WE HAD PROJECTED.

WE WERE PROJECTING 4%.

THE MARKET CONTINUES TO GO UP AND DOWN WITH THE FED RATES INCREASING ANOTHER 0.25 BASIS POINTS. IT JUST CONTINUES TO BE A A FACTOR THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW.

AGAIN, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID IN MY PROJECTIONS IS I KIND OF INCREASED A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE ISSUANCE COSTS.

AND SO OVERALL, THE AMORTIZATION THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE TO THE AMORTIZATION THAT I USE IN MY PROJECTIONS.

ACTUALLY, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS, BUT IT'S PRETTY CLOSE.

SO THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS AS IT RELATES TO OUR PROJECTIONS.

AND SO RIGHT NOW, THESE AMORTIZATION ARE PRETTY MUCH IN LINE TO WHAT WE HAVE PROJECTED IN OUR DEBT SERVICE.

DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE GEO BONDS? THE 2023 CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BOND SALE.

AGAIN, THIS ONE HAD SEVERAL PARTS TO IT.

IT HAD SELF SUPPORTING DEBT FOR A VERY SMALL DOLLAR AMOUNT OF ABOUT $375,000.

AND WHAT THAT'S BEING USED FOR IS THE ACTUAL STUDY FOR FIRE STATION ONE, IF I RECALL.

AGAIN, IT ALSO HAS 4B, 4A SUPPORTED WATER AND WASTEWATER SUPPORTED TIF2 SUPPORTED.

ALL OF THESE AMOUNTS WERE WERE PRESENTED DURING THE CIP PLANS WERE PRESENTED AS PART OF THE TIF PRESENTATION AS WELL.

AND AGAIN, IT SHOWS THE THE BOND PROCEEDS OF THE SOURCES AND IT ALSO SHOWS THE USES AS WELL. AND AGAIN, THAT PARTICULAR TRUE INTEREST COST IS ABOUT 4.2% IN REGARDS TO THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATIONS.

AND AGAIN.

WHAT THIS DOES IS THAT THIS SHOWS THE AMORTIZATION OF THE ENTIRE CERTIFICATE BONDS FOR SERIES 2023.

BUT WHAT I WANTED TO ADD AS WELL IS I WANTED TO ADD A BREAKDOWN AS IT RELATES TO THE DIFFERENT SUPPORTED DEBT.

THE TAX SUPPORTED DEBT, ALONG WITH THE 4A, 4B WATER AND WASTEWATER AND TIF SUPPORTED.

AND THESE AMORTIZATIONS ARE PRETTY MUCH PRETTY CLOSE TO WHAT WE HAD PROJECTED IN OUR FIVE YEAR PROJECTIONS AND WHAT I HAD PROJECTED FOR 2023 AS THE BOND ISSUANCE.

SO THERE'S IT WAS REALLY CLOSE.

I ACTUALLY WAS IMPRESSED.

BUT AGAIN, YOU PROJECT YOU DON'T KNOW, YOU KIND OF GO BACK AND FORTH.

BUT IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY MUCH IN LINE TO WHAT I HAD PROJECTED.

AGAIN, WHAT THESE PROJECTS, WHAT THIS BOND SALE IS DOING, BOTH FOR THE GEO AND THE CO, THESE ARE THE PROJECTS THAT IT'S SUPPORTING.

WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THESE IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS.

IN THE BOTTOM, I DO SHOW 4A AS PART OF THE LAKEWOOD DRIVE $15 MILLION DOLLARS AND THE TIF2 SUPPORTED PROJECT FOR THE LOT PURCHASE OF $450,000.

AND AGAIN, THE ITEM HERE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS APPROVE OR DENY THE ORDINANCE FOR THE

[03:05:04]

SALE OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AND ALSO FOR THE SALE OF THE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION BONDS.

YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY? IS THERE A MOTION ON? DID ALL OF THEM GET ISSUED AT A PREMIUM OR THEY WILL GET ISSUED AT A PREMIUM? YES. OKAY. YES.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT THE IF WE ISSUED THESE TWO YEARS AGO, THEY'D BE REALLY GOOD COUPONS, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS REFINE THEM IN TEN YEARS.

SO THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT.

ANYBODY ELSE? THAT'S IT.

IS THERE A MOTION ON 7A? I'M GOING TO MOVE TO APPROVE SEVEN A.

I'LL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN A SECOND BY ADAM.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

IS THERE A MOTION ON 7B? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND, THE MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND 7B. GOT A MOTION BY RONNIE AND A SECOND BY.

OH, ME. THERE YOU GO.

DAN, PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 7C.

[7.C.Consider an ordinance approving the 2023-24 annual Service and Assessment Plan (SAP) update for the Parks at Panchasarp Farms Public Improvement District No. JC-1 and directing the City Secretary to file this ordinance with the County Clerk. (First Reading) (Staff Presenter: Tony McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE 2023-24 ANNUAL SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN UPDATE FOR THE PARKS OF PAINTER SHARP FARM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER JC-1 AND DIRECTING THE CITY SECRETARY TO FILE THIS ORDINANCE WITH THE COUNTY CLERK.

THIS IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS TONY MCILWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

MR. MCELWAIN, YOU'RE UP.

YES, THANK YOU, AMANDA.

COUNCIL. I HAVE WITH ME TONIGHT OUR PID ADMINISTRATOR MUNICAB.

THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY MR. JOSHUA RENT AND MISS ALEXIS MONTALVO.

I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE TO YOU THE PANSCHASARP FARMS DEVELOPMENT AND THEN TURN THE PRESENTATION OVER TO MUNICAB TO GIVE YOU A BREAKDOWN OF SOME OF THE FINANCIAL DATA WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENTS.

BY WAY OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IS A VEHICLE CREATED BY PROPERTY OWNERS WISHING TO BENEFIT FROM PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

THESE ARE VEHICLES THAT CANNOT BE FORCED UPON PROPERTY OWNERS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE TO PETITION THE CITY FOR, WHICH IS WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 2018 WITH MR. PANSCHASARP [INAUDIBLE] FOR THIS PROJECT.

THE ENABLING LEGISLATION FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ARE CONTAINED IN CHAPTER 372 OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THEY ALLOW SOME OF THE AMENITIES THAT YOU SEE BULLET TASKED BELOW LANDSCAPING, FOUNTAIN SIGNS, LIGHTING ALL THE WAY DOWN TO WATER, SEWER AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS.

THE PARKS THAT PANSCHASARP FARMS CONSIST OF WILL CONSIST OF 659 LOTS, A MULTIFAMILY LOT COMMERCIAL SITE, SCHOOL SITE AND CONTAIN 25 ACRES OF PARKS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT WAS CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL WITH RESOLUTION CSO 981-02-2019 ON FEBRUARY 4TH, 2019. TO FINANCE THESE IMPROVEMENTS.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TURN OVER THE PRESENTATION TO MR. JOSHUA RENT TO RUN THROUGH THE REMAINDER OF THE SLIDES AND THEN ENTERTAINING THE QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

NO. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

JOSH R[INAUDIBLE] HAPPY TO BE HERE THIS EVENING WITH YOU ALL TO DISCUSS THIS REPORT.

AS TONY MENTIONED, THIS ANNUAL REPORT, THIS IS THE FOURTH ANNUAL UPDATE FOR THIS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

AND THERE ARE FEW COMPONENTS THAT ARE EVALUATED AS PART OF THAT ANNUAL UPDATE EACH YEAR. ONE IS TO EVALUATE THE COSTS OF THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES TO THOSE ESTIMATED COSTS FROM LAST YEAR'S REPORT.

THE SECOND COMPONENT IS TO EVALUATE THE ANNUAL BUDGET, WHICH CONSISTS OF THE DEBT OBLIGATION FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS THAT CURRENTLY EXIST FOR THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

ALSO, WE EVALUATE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY CHANGES TO THE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY.

SO JUST KIND OF GENERALLY YOU CAN SEE AN OVERVIEW HERE OF WHEN THE INITIAL SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN WAS INITIALLY CREATED AND THAT IDENTIFIED THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE GOING TO BE FINANCED THROUGH THE PID, WHICH FOR THE PANSCHASARP FARMS PID CONSISTS OF THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND IDENTIFIES THE COST OF THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND ANY DEBT THAT'S

[03:10:04]

INCURRED RELATED TO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

IT ALSO SETS THE MANNER OF HOW THOSE ASSESSMENTS WHICH GO TO REIMBURSE EXCUSE ME, GO TO REPAY THOSE ASSESSMENTS ARE ASSESSED AND ALLOCATED TO EACH PROPERTY.

THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THIS SLIDE.

ALSO, THIS TOOK EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER 1ST OF 2021 WITH HOUSE BILL 1543, WHICH REQUIRED IT FORMALIZE SOME ADDITIONAL NOTICE REQUIREMENTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND PURCHASERS IN A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

SO AS PART OF THIS REPORT, I BELIEVE IT'S APPENDIX F, WE HAVE THAT NOTICE WHICH IS INCLUDED AS PART OF THAT REPORT THAT ALSO ONCE APPROVED, WOULD BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK. THIS JUST GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BRIEF HISTORICAL OVERVIEW.

AS I MENTIONED, THIS IS OUR FOURTH ANNUAL UPDATE FOR THIS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

I WOULD WANT TO GO TO THE KIND OF THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE SLIDE.

BEGINNING IN 2022.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK BACKGROUND ON KIND OF THE TIMING OF THIS REPORT, BECAUSE YOU'LL TYPICALLY SEE IT IN AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER EACH YEAR, AND THAT'S MAINLY DUE TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW WITH THE JOHNSON COUNTY TAX OFFICE.

THEY DO A FANTASTIC JOB IN ASSISTING AS THESE ANNUAL AMOUNTS THAT GET APPROVED GO ONTO PROPERTY OWNERS PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT, AND THEY REQUEST AS PART OF THAT INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT THAT THOSE AMOUNTS THAT ARE APPROVED EACH YEAR ARE TO THEIR OFFICE BY SEPTEMBER 10TH.

SO WE'RE JUST THAT'S THE MAIN GOVERNING REASON FOR THE TIMING OF THE REPORT EACH YEAR. AS WE GO THROUGH SOME ADDITIONAL SLIDES THERE'S A COUPLE ITEMS THAT I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF DEFINE QUICKLY.

YOU'LL SEE A NUMBER OF LOTS, AND THAT REFERS TO THE BUILDING PERMITS THAT HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE CITY FOR HOME CONSTRUCTION.

THAT IS ONE OF THE TRIGGER MECHANISMS WHICH WOULD SIGNAL THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS TO BEGIN PAYING ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS IN THEIR 30 YEAR REPAYMENT TERM FOR THOSE ASSESSMENTS BEGINS AND EQUIVALENT UNIT, THAT IS SIMPLY JUST A RATIO THAT IS ESTABLISHED.

TYPICALLY, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THE LARGEST LOT SIZE IN THAT PID IS A 70 FOOT LOT WITH AT THE TIME AN ESTIMATED HOME VALUE OF $340,000.

AND EACH OF THE OTHER SUBSEQUENT LOT TYPES ARE ALLOCATED BASED ON THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO THAT HIGHEST LOT VALUE.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE 60 FOOT LOT, WHICH WOULD BE LOT TYPE 2 THAT ESTIMATED HOME VALUE, WHICH THOSE VALUES ARE INITIALLY PROVIDED BY THE DEVELOPER AND REVIEWED BY OURSELVES AND STAFF AS PART OF THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN.

AND WHEN THOSE ASSESSMENTS ARE LEVIED, YOU CAN SEE HOW THOSE ARE ALLOCATED.

THEN THAT GETS IS HOW THE ANNUAL BUDGET IS ALLOCATED TO PROPERTY OWNERS FOR ANNUAL BILLING. HOW RECENT ARE THESE VALUATIONS? SO THE MOST RECENT WOULD HAVE BEEN WHEN PHASE TWO WAS LEVIED, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS MARCH OF 2022.

SO AS YOU SAW IN THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, THERE ARE MULTI PHASES.

SO IF THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THOSE VALUES AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THE RATIO BETWEEN EACH LOT SIZE.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF AND WHEN A FUTURE PHASE WAS CONSIDERED FOR ADDITIONAL LEVY, THOSE COULD BE REVIEWED AND EVALUATED AND UPDATED AT THAT TIME.

THANK YOU. SO HERE ARE THREE ANNUAL INSTALLMENT CONDITIONS THAT WOULD TRIGGER ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS TO BEGIN FROM THE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE MOST COMMON WOULD BE CONDITION ONE, WHICH IS AN ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.

CONDITION TWO WOULD BE ALL PARCELS WITHIN A PARTICULAR PHASE.

IF THERE WERE PHASE BONDS TO BE ISSUED, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY CONTEMPLATED AT THIS TIME. BUT IF THAT WERE IF BONDS WERE TO BE ISSUED, THEY'D ALL BE TRIGGERED AT THAT POINT IN TIME. AND THEN THE THIRD IS ESSENTIALLY THE TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY OF THAT LEVY. SO YOU CAN SEE THE SUMMARY HERE.

WITHIN PHASE ONE, ALL 98 LOTS HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED FOR COLLECTION.

YOU CAN SEE THE FIRST TWO COLLECTION PERIODS.

THOSE WERE TRIGGERED BASED ON BUILDING PERMITS ISSUED AND THE REMAINING TWO LOTS WERE TRIGGERED BASED ON THE TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY.

WITH THIS TABLE, THE ANNUAL PROJECTED COSTS THAT REPRESENTS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE ALLOCATED TO THOSE 98 PROPERTY OWNERS AND 98 PARCELS.

[03:15:02]

AND THEN IN THE 2024 LINE, THE $57,000 NUMBER THAT REPRESENTS THE ANNUAL BUDGET THAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE APPROVED FOR PHASE ONE, THAT WOULD BE REPAID FROM THE 98 PROPERTY OWNERS INDEPENDENT OF ANY PROPERTY OWNER THAT HAS PREPAID THEIR ASSESSMENT.

AND JUST TO TOUCH REAL QUICK ON THAT, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR, PROPERTY OWNER WITHIN A PID CAN PREPAY THEIR ASSESSMENT IN FULL AT ANY TIME AND THEN THEY WOULD NO LONGER BE BILLED FOR THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST COMPONENTS, THEY WOULD HAVE SATISFIED THEIR OBLIGATION. THERE IS A MAINTENANCE EXPENSE OR MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT COMPONENT AS PART OF THIS PID, BECAUSE THE INTENT IS THAT ONCE THOSE PARK IMPROVEMENTS ARE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED BY THE CITY, THERE'S A PORTION IT'S APPROXIMATELY $230 BALLPARK, PER LOT THAT'S PAID ANNUALLY. THAT GOES TOWARDS ONGOING MAINTENANCE EXPENSES RELATED TO MAINTAINING THOSE PARK IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAVE THE SAME TABLE HERE FOR PHASE TWO.

YOU CAN SEE THEIR ALLOCATED COSTS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS IS APPROXIMATELY $482,000.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, THERE ARE, I BELIEVE, 77 LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED FOR COLLECTION FOR ROUGHLY THE $41,000 AMOUNT.

THERE ARE A TOTAL OF 130 LOTS CONTEMPLATED FOR PHASE TWO.

SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT THOSE REMAINING 53 LOTS WOULD BE TRIGGERED FOR COLLECTION DUE TO THAT TWO YEAR ANNIVERSARY NEXT YEAR.

IF THERE'S NOT, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT A BUILDING PERMIT HAS BEEN ISSUED.

AND I GUESS JUST TO GIVE YOU KIND OF A QUICK GLANCE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN TO THOSE RESPECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS? THOSE ANNUAL INSTALLMENTS THIS YEAR ARE ROUGHLY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON A 60 FOOT LOT, WHICH IS THE LARGER OF THE TWO LOT SIZES, IS ROUGHLY ABOUT $640 ON THEIR PROPERTY TAX STATEMENT. AND FOR THE 55 FOOT LOT, SLIGHTLY SMALLER LOT IS AROUND $590 OR SO. WITH THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS WELL.

DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE FOR THE PROJECTS THAT THESE RESIDENTS ARE PAYING TOWARD WHEN WE THINK ENOUGH WILL BE PAID IN TO TRIGGER A CERTAIN PROJECT BEING COMPLETED? AND THEN WHEN THE NEXT ONE GOES IN? JUST SO I WOULD ANTICIPATE IF YOU'RE MAKING THESE PAYMENTS, YOU WANT TO KNOW WHAT YOUR RETURN, WHAT ARE YOU GETTING FOR THAT? SURE. SO FOR THE PARK IMPROVEMENTS THEY'RE ALLOCATED ACROSS EACH PHASE.

SO THE COSTS, WHICH I BELIEVE FOR THE TOTAL REIMBURSEMENT IS APPROXIMATELY $2.9 MILLION.

SO THOSE ARE ALLOCATED BASED ON THE E USE THAT HAVE BEEN TRIGGERED.

SO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS FOR THOSE ARE OCCURRING.

WE EVALUATE THAT OVER THE TOTAL TIME FRAME FOR ALL PHASES AND THEN THOSE COSTS GET ALLOCATED BASED ON WHEN THOSE PHASES ARE MOVING FORWARD WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF, TONY, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING ADDITIONAL TO ADD TO THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE.

SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS SHOWS ON YOUR AGENDA.

IT'LL BE LISTED AS A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM AT THE NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THIS SAP.

CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER, TRACKING THE STATUS OF THE IMPROVEMENTS IN PHASE ONE, AND WE'RE GOING TO EMBARK ON DOING THE SAME THING IN PHASE TWO. SO WE JUST HAD A CALL WITH HIM, THE DEVELOPER AND MUNICAB TODAY JUST TO ASSESS WHERE WE ARE AND JUST THE TIMING OF CERTAIN OUTSTANDING HARDSCAPE ITEMS IN SOME OF THE PARK AREAS.

AS YOU MIGHT WELL IMAGINE, THE HEAT HAS TAKEN A TOLL ON SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING.

SO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IS WORKING WITH MY DEPARTMENT TO GO IN AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COUNTING EVERY BUSH, EVERY SHRUB, EVERY TREE THAT WAS DEPICTED IN THE PID.

SO IT'S IT'S ONGOING.

WE'RE HOPING TO WRAP THAT EFFORT UP SOMETIME IN LATE SEPTEMBER TO ALLOW FOR SOME OF THE THINGS TO TAKE ROOT WITH REGARD TO IRRIGATION AND SOME OF THE PLANTINGS.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TAKE A MOTION? IS THERE A MOTION FOR THIS? AND THIS IS THE FIRST OF TWO READINGS.

I'M SORRY. SO WE'LL TAKE THE MOTION AT THE NEXT MEETING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

YEAH. WE STILL NEED A MOTION ON THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I'LL SECOND.

[03:20:01]

IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE? MOVE TO APPROVE 7C ON FIRST READING.

I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN A SECOND BY ADAM.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

MR. MAYOR [INAUDIBLE] CITY SECRETARY AGAIN.

HOW ABOUT THAT? [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. EXCUSE ME.

[7.D.Consider approval of a sixty-two month contract through a cooperative purchasing agreement with BuyBoard for the purchase of Axon Enterprise Incorporated in-car camera, body-worn camera, and Taser services and products in the amount of $2,268,274.10 (Staff Presenter: Tim Mabry, Lieutenant)]

THAT'LL BRING US TO 7D.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A 62 MONTH CONTRACT THROUGH A COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT WITH BUY BOARD FOR THE PURCHASE OF AXON ENTERPRISE, INC., IN-CAR CAMERA, BODY WORN CAMERA AND TASER SERVICES AND PRODUCTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $2,268,274.10 . MAKE SURE WE GET THAT $0.10 IN THERE.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS TIM MAYBERRY, A BURLESON POLICE DEPARTMENT LIEUTENANT.

MR. MAYBERRY, WE'RE EXCITED TO HEAR ABOUT THIS 62 MONTH CONTRACT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH COUNCIL, MAYOR.

TIM MAYBERRY, LIEUTENANT WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO TODAY WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT AXON.

I KNOW WE HAVEN'T GONE TO BUDGET YET AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT WHY AND ALL THAT TYPE OF STUFF. BUT AS WE'VE DISCUSSED THROUGH THE JULY 24TH, THE AUGUST 15TH AND THEN THE PD'S JULY 6TH, WE'RE HAVING ISSUES WITH OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.

AND SO WE STARTED LOOKING AT NEW OPTIONS ABOUT A YEAR AGO AND WE KEPT GETTING BACK TO AXON. AND SO LOOKING AT WHAT THEY HAVE, THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS THAT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. SO THE BODY 4 THAT'S THE BODY CAM.

SO WHENEVER YOU SEE BODY, IT MEANS BODY CAM .

FLEET THREE, WHICH IS THE IN-CAR SYSTEM, HAS AUTOMATIC LICENSE PLATE READERS ELONGATED RETENTION PERIODS AND LIVE STREAMING.

SO IF THERE'S A PURSUIT, WE CAN LIVE STREAM THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING.

AND THEN TASER TEN ENHANCES OFFICER SAFETY AND DE-ESCALATION CAPABILITIES.

ALSO, IF YOU ACTIVATE THE TASER, IF YOU FORGET TO ACTIVATE YOUR BODY CAM, IT TURNS ON. SO THERE'S A LOT OF BENEFITS WITHIN THAT.

AND THOSE ARE JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS.

THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCES WITHIN THIS TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT'S A GREAT IMPROVEMENT FROM WHAT WE HAVE. SO WHY NOW? I KNOW WE HAVEN'T GONE TO BUDGET, BUT IT'S BEEN PRESENTED TWICE NOW.

BUT TALKING WITH AXON, IT'S BEEN VERY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE A LEADER AND THERE'S A LOT OF ORDERS THAT ARE COMING IN TO AXON.

AND SO ESSENTIALLY IF WE GO INTO CONTRACT TODAY, IT ALLOWS US TO GET INTO THE QUEUE.

OKAY. BUT THROUGH THE BUY BOARD CONTRACT, WE DON'T OWE ANYTHING UNTIL DELIVERY, WHICH IS WELL AFTER OCTOBER 1ST.

AND ALSO, IF WE DON'T ALLOCATE THOSE FUNDS, WE CAN GET OUT OF THE CONTRACT.

AND SO IT'S VERY CLEAR WITHIN THAT.

I'VE MET WITH MATT AND JUSTIN AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THOSE.

AND SO THAT'S THE WHY NOW.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT THE ELEMENTS WITHIN THIS.

I KNOW IT SAYS 62 MONTHS, SO THAT'S THE LONGEST CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE.

AND I'LL DISCUSS THAT WHEN WE GET TO IT.

SO FLEET THREE, 60 MONTHS, SO FIVE YEARS, THERE IS NO ESCALATION AND PRICING YEAR OVER YEAR IS THE SAME PRICE EVERY YEAR TO TOMMY'S DISBELIEF.

BUT HERE WE ARE SO THEY ANTICIPATE THAT IT'S GOING TO BE DELIVERED AND IMPLEMENTED AND WE'RE GOOD TO GO IN ABOUT EIGHT MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SIGN.

OKAY. SO IT'S $139,869.84 EVERY YEAR.

TOTAL COST FOR THE TERM OF THE CONTRACT IS JUST SHY OF 700,000 AND IT INCLUDES THE EQUIPMENT ON SITE INSTALLATION, UNLIMITED STORAGE, WHICH IS HUGE FOR US BECAUSE WE'RE RUNNING OUT OF STORAGE, WARRANTY AND SERVICE.

SO IF IT GOES DOWN, THEY WILL HELP TROUBLESHOOT IT.

IF WE CAN'T FIND A SOLUTION, THEY WILL SEND SOMEBODY OUT TO HELP US WITH THAT.

OKAY. CURRENTLY WE'VE HAD CARS HAVE BEEN DOWN FOR SEVERAL MONTHS BECAUSE THE IN-CAR CAMERA IS DOWN. SO THIS PROVIDES US A SOLUTION THAT THAT IS EXPEDIENT.

SO IT'S ON A FIVE YEAR REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE.

SO WHICH IS ALSO THE REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE FOR THE VEHICLE.

SO EVERYTHING FITS IN REAL NICELY.

ALL RIGHT. BODY FOUR 62 MONTHS.

SO WHY THE EXTRA TWO MONTHS ON THIS ONE? IT IS SO THEY CAN START GETTING THEM TO US AND START TRAINING US ON THESE THINGS.

SO THEY DON'T WANT TO START THE TERM, IF YOU WILL, UNTIL IT'S IMPLEMENTED.

SO THE FIRST PIECE THAT WE ACTUALLY NEED FOR ANYTHING TASER RELATED OR AXON RELATED IS THE BODY CAM. SO EACH BODY CAM PROVIDES A USER INTO THE SYSTEM.

OKAY? AND SO WITHOUT THE BODY CAM, YOU CAN'T HAVE THE IN-CAR.

RIGHT. WITHOUT THAT, YOU CAN'T HAVE THE THINGS THAT TASER TEN DOES.

SO TWO MONTHS EXTRA, IT ALLOWS FOR ONBOARDING, TRAINING, IMPLEMENTATION.

SOMEBODY COMES TO US, THEY TRAIN US ON THOSE THINGS.

WE GET THEM IMPLEMENTED. OFF WE GO.

4 TO 8 WEEKS AFTER OCTOBER.

ONE IS THE ANTICIPATED IF WE SIGN A CONTRACT TODAY, EACH YEAR IS JUST SHY OF A QUARTER MIL AND OVERALL IT'S $1.2 MILLION FOR THE TERM.

[03:25:01]

THIS DOES INCLUDE A REPLACEMENT AT 30 MONTHS.

SO EVERY TWO AND A HALF YEARS WE'RE GETTING NEW BODY CAMS, ONSITE TRAINING, REDACTION PROGRAMING. SO RIGHT NOW, CURRENT SYSTEM FOR EVERY ONE MINUTE OF VIDEO, IT TAKES ABOUT SIX MINUTES TO REDACT IT.

WITH THIS, THEY ANTICIPATE IT TO BE ABOUT THREE AND A HALF, FOUR MINUTES.

AND SO THAT'S IF YOU KNOW HOW MANY OPEN RECORDS REQUESTS WE HAVE, THAT'S HUGE FOR US.

CHARGING STATIONS, DOCKING STATIONS, EVIDENCE.COM LICENSES, COMMUNITY REQUEST LICENSE. SO IF YOU NEED A VIDEO, WE CAN GIVE YOU ACCESS TO THAT THROUGH OPEN RECORDS.

I MEAN, THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENTS WITHIN THIS THAT ARE GREAT AND ALSO UNLIMITED STORAGE, WARRANTY AND SERVICE.

SO BODY CAM GOES DOWN, WE PULL ONE OFF THE SHELF.

WE OVERNIGHT THAT ONE, THEY SEND US A NEW ONE, PLAIN AND SIMPLE CURRENT PROVIDER.

WE TROUBLESHOOT FOR THREE, FOUR MONTHS AND THEN FINALLY GET A NEW ONE.

SO THAT WILL HELP US OUT AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. TASER 10, 60 MONTH TERM ESTIMATED TO BE HERE ABOUT FEBRUARY OF 2024.

THIS IS THE CHEAPEST OPTION EVERY YEAR.

SO $66,000 AND SOME CHANGE EACH YEAR FOR $303,476 INCLUDES EQUIPMENT TRAINING, TRAINING CARTRIDGES, TRAIN THE TRAINER, ANNUAL CARTRIDGE REPLACEMENT, DOCKING STATIONS, WARRANTY, EXTRA BATTERIES, YOU NAME IT.

RIGHT. SO IT'S COMING THROUGH WITH ALL THE STUFF.

AND THIS ALSO HAS A FIVE YEAR REPLACEMENT.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE? NOPE. OKAY.

LIEUTENANT MAYBURRY, HOW MANY HOW MANY SHOTS ARE IN THE TASER? THERE ARE TEN PROBES IN THAT.

OKAY. IN THAT TASER.

SO IT CAN INCAPACITATE, I BELIEVE, SEVEN PEOPLE.

HEAVEN FORBID WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO DO THAT.

RIGHT. BUT RIGHT NOW, YOU JUST HAVE TWO.

RIGHT. RIGHT. SO IF YOU'RE COMING AT ME, THAT'S MY EXPENSE.

AND THEN IF YOUR BUDDIES COME IN, I'VE GOT TO FIGURE IT OUT.

AND SO THIS PROVIDES US OPPORTUNITIES.

AWESOME. SO, OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO ANNUAL TOTAL IS $453,654.82 FOR A FIVE YEAR TOTAL OF $2.268 274 AND $0.10 FOR AMANDA'S BENEFIT THERE.

ALL RIGHT. SO TIMELINE, IF WE APPROVE TODAY, BODY 4 WILL BE HERE IN NOVEMBER.

DECEMBER OF THIS YEAR.

FLEET THREE WE DELIVERED INSTALLED IMPLEMENTED APRIL TIME FRAME.

TASER TEN WILL BE DELIVERED, TRAINING PROVIDED AND IMPLEMENTED APPROXIMATELY FEBRUARY. OKAY.

IF WE DECIDE TO WAIT UNTIL OCTOBER, SO BUDGET'S APPROVED.

WE'RE IN THE NEW NEW YEAR.

BODY 4 WILL BE FEBRUARY, MARCH OF 24.

FLEET THREE WILL BE JUNE, AND THEN TASER TEN BE MAY.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S NO EXPENSE UP FRONT.

WE CAN GET OUT OF THIS CONTRACT, BUT IT GETS US IN THE QUEUE TODAY.

SO OUR OPTIONS ARE TO APPROVE IT TODAY, DELAY IT UNTIL OCTOBER, OR JUST DENY IT.

WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL TODAY.

AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

ANYBODY. IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE? I'LL SECOND. I GOT A MOTION BY LARRY.

A SECOND BY ADAM. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

GOOD JOB, TIM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL.

[7.E.Consider approval of an ordinance repealing in its entirety Article III “Amusements” of Chapter 14 “Businesses” of the Code of Ordinances, City of Burleson, Texas, setting forth rules and regulations for amusement centers and requiring certain amusement centers to obtain a permit for coin-operated machines. (First Reading) (Staff Presenter: Tony McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO 7E.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY ARTICLE THREE AMUSEMENTS OF CHAPTER 14 BUSINESSES OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS SETTING FORTH RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR AMUSEMENT CENTERS AND REQUIRING CERTAIN AMUSEMENT CENTERS TO OBTAIN A PERMIT FOR COIN OPERATED MACHINES.

THIS IS BEFORE YOU ON FIRST READING.

WE WILL NEED A VOTE FOR FIRST READING ON THIS ORDINANCE.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS TONY MCILWAIN, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

MCILWAIN, I'M HAPPY TO SEE YOU UP HERE AGAIN.

YES, THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM INVOLVES ESSENTIALLY TOOK ROOT IN THE CONVERSATION THAT CITY STAFF HAD AMONGST EACH OTHER WITH THE CHIEF OF POLICE, MS. CAMPOS, MYSELF AND THE CITY MANAGER REGARDING SOME OF THE ANTIQUATED TEXT AND REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE IN SOME OF OUR BUSINESS REGULATIONS, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS CASE, CHAPTER 14 AMUSEMENTS.

WE'VE GOT TEXT THAT SPEAKS BACK TO, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE AMUSEMENTS, AS YOU WOULD THINK OF ARCADES AND VIDEO GAMES OF THAT NATURE, HAD TAKEN ROOT IN THE CITY, PROBABLY BACK IN I THINK THE FIRST ORDINANCE WAS 1977.

AND THERE'S NOT BEEN MUCH, BY THE WAY, OF TEXT UPDATES SINCE THEN.

I HAVE A PROVISION RIGHT THERE ON THE FIRST SLIDE THAT REQUIRES LICENSING TO HAPPEN

[03:30:01]

THROUGH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND WITH REPLACEMENTS, RENEWALS AND SUCH BEING FIRST APPROVED BY THE CHIEF OF POLICE AND FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY SECRETARY.

MOST USES THAT COME IN THROUGH CITY GOVERNMENT NOW ARE HANDLED THROUGH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WITH REGARD TO ZONING, COMPLIANCE, LAND USE, COMPATIBILITY AND THEN FINALLY ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

SO WHAT WE'RE ATTEMPTING TO DO WITH THIS TEXT AMENDMENT IS TO RIGHTSIZE EXPECTATIONS OF BUSINESS OWNERS AND EXPERIENCES WHEN YOU COME INTO THE CITY.

DELETING ARTICLE THREE WILL REMOVE UNNECESSARY INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITY SECRETARY AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE FROM THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS.

STAFF REACHED A DETERMINATION THAT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE REVIEW AUTHORITY FOR AMUSEMENT LAND USE APPLICATIONS.

WHAT WE DO IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IS ENGAGE IN A STANDARDIZED PROCESS OF APPLICATION REVIEW, PERMIT ISSUANCE, SUBSEQUENT INSPECTION SERVICES, AND THEN AN ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR AN AMUSEMENT USE.

THOSE REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO AMUSEMENTS WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE IN APPENDIX B ZONING OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

AS WE HAVE DEFINITIONS, PERMISSIBLE LAND USES AND ZONING DISTRICTS ALREADY PRESENT THAT WE USE TO EVALUATE AND APPROVE THESE APPLICATIONS.

IN THE EVENT THAT THERE ARE ANY COMPLAINTS ABOUT ANY AMUSEMENT LAND USE ACTIVITY STAFF WOULD DO WHAT WE NORMALLY DO, WHICH IS TO COORDINATE A RESPONSE THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT OR CODE COMPLIANCE IF APPLICABLE.

WITH THE DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE, YOUR OPTIONS ARE AS PRESENTED.

YOU CAN APPROVE IT IN ITS ENTIRETY, APPROVE THE ORDINANCE WITH THE REVISIONS OR DENY THE ORDINANCE. EXCUSE ME AS OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AS PROVIDED, AND THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE WHAT WE THINK IS THE UNNECESSARY INVOLVEMENT OF THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE AND THE POLICE CHIEF FROM THIS REVIEW PROCESS.

AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION FOR RONNIE, THE SECOND BY VICTORIA.

PLEASE VOTE. PASS UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, TONY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, FOR THAT VOTE.

I REALLY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT.

I REALLY WANTED YOU TO APPROVE ANY.

IF SOMEBODY OPENS UP A VIDEO ARCADE IN TOWN, THEY REALLY SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

I THINK REALLY WHEN YOU READ IT, IT REALLY KIND OF WAS GEARED MORE TOWARDS LIKE POOL HALLS. [LAUGHTER] THAT'S HOW OLD THE ORDINANCE WAS.

READING THE OLD ORDINANCE WAS LIKE A TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE.

IT ABSOLUTELY WAS.

WOULDN'T LET YOUTH IN THERE BETWEEN CERTAIN HOURS.

YEAH. PONG GAME GOING.

DONKEY KONG. DONKEY KONG.

[LAUGHTER] THAT BRINGS US ON TO WHICH I'M SURE IS JUST AS EXCITING IS 7 F CONSIDER

[7.F.Consider approval of a resolution amending Resolution CSO#5077-04-2023 by adopting an amended emergency medical and ambulance services billing policy. (Staff Presenter: K.T. Freeman, Fire Chief) ]

APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION CSO 5077-04-2023 BY ADOPTING AN AMENDED EMERGENCY MEDICAL AND AMBULANCE SERVICES BILLING POLICY, THE STAFF PRESENTER IS THE VERY EXCITING KT FREEMAN, FIRE CHIEF.

THANK YOU, AMANDA.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING.

KT FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF, I KNOW IT'S LATE.

WE HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION TONIGHT AND ACTUALLY ASSISTANT CHIEF DAVIS IS GOING TO PRESENT IT. BUT WE ALSO HAVE RACHEL WILLIAMS HERE REPRESENTED FROM EMERGICON.

SHE, AS YOU RECALL, HELPED PRESENT SOME INFORMATION TO US WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT OUR BILLING POLICY, WHICH WAS ADOPTED BACK IN APRIL OF LAST YEAR.

SO THIS IS MORE INFORMATIVE.

BUT WE DO HAVE AN ACTION ITEM FOR YOU TO CONSIDER APPROVAL, TO AMEND A RESOLUTION, AND IT ALL CENTERS AROUND A SENATE BILL THAT WAS PASSED THAT GOES INTO EFFECT AS SENATE BILL 2476 THAT GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST.

SO WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO CASEY.

I'M GOING TO BE HERE TO ANSWER ANY KIND OF QUESTIONS IF WE HAVE ANY KIND OF GRANULAR QUESTIONS JUST LIKE IN THE PAST ABOUT OUR BILLING POLICY, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK.

AND THEN IF WE HAVE TO DEFER TO RACHEL, SHE'LL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE SOME FEEDBACK.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, CHIEF.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL CASEY DAVIS, ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.

AND I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF AND GET THROUGH THIS QUICKLY FOR YOU.

SO WHAT IS TEXAS SENATE BILL 2476? WE'RE GOING TO GO WALK THROUGH THAT BRIEFLY.

AND ESSENTIALLY, IT'S BASICALLY LEGISLATION TRYING TO ALLEVIATE THE WAY EMS BILLING HAS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH BALANCED BILLING HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE.

[03:35:02]

THE LEGISLATION HAS WORKED THROUGH THIS WITH THE HOSPITALS AND THEY'VE WORKED THROUGH THIS WITH EMS HELICOPTERS, AND NOW THEY'VE MOVED ON TO GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THIS IS THIS IS COMING FROM.

SO IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED THAT WE'RE AT THIS STAGE NOW.

WE'LL WALK THROUGH THE TIMELINE, THE IMPLICATIONS FOR OUR AMBULANCE BILLING POLICY AND THE FEE SCHEDULE AND THEN SOME KEY GOALS THAT WERE SET OUT BY THIS BILL.

SO WHAT IS TEXAS SENATE BILL? SO AGAIN, IT REQUIRES MUNICIPAL GROUND AMBULANCE SERVICES TO CREATE AND MAINTAIN BILLING RATES, WHICH WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE DONE.

WE RECENTLY DID THAT.

THIS PROVIDES STANDARD BILLING RATES OF SERVICE THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE ABLE TO SEE.

IT PROVIDES TRANSPARENCY IF THERE'S ANY DISCOUNTED RATES FOR CERTAIN GROUPS, THINGS LIKE THAT. OF COURSE, ALWAYS MEDICARE AND MEDICAID WILL HAVE SPECIAL RATES THAT ARE SET BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THEN PROVIDE POLICIES AS IT RELATES TO BALANCE BILLING.

AND JUST REAL BRIEFLY, ON BALANCE BILLING, BASICALLY BALANCE BILLING IS WHAT IS LEFT OVER BETWEEN WHAT THE INSURANCE PAID AND WHAT THE BILL IS.

AND WHAT THIS BILL REALLY DOES IS IT IT MAKES THE INSURANCE COMPANIES HAVE TO PAY THE BILL MORE COMMENSURATE WITH WHAT THE PRICE OF BUSINESS IS, WHEREAS IN THE PAST, EMS AGENCIES HAVE HAD TO DO BALANCE BILLING TO BE ABLE TO RECOVER THEIR COSTS FOR SERVICES AND BECAUSE THINK ABOUT MOST CITIES AND SMALL AMBULANCE SERVICES, THEY DON'T HAVE A BIG GROUP OF PEOPLE [INAUDIBLE] AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO EVERYTHING ESSENTIALLY IS OUT OF NETWORK FOR AMBULANCE SERVICES AND THIS IS REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO REPAIR THAT.

SO THIS WAS INTRODUCED IN MARCH OF 23 AND PASSED IN MAY, MAY 2ND BY THE SENATE, THEN PASSED IN THE HOUSE MAY 19TH, SIGNED INTO LAW JUNE 18TH, AND THEN WILL BE EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST.

BUT THE PROVISION OF BALANCED BILLING WON'T ACTUALLY TAKE EFFECT UNTIL JANUARY 1ST.

SO WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS FOR US? WE CONSULTED WITH EMERGICON WHENEVER WE FOUND OUT ABOUT THE CHANGE.

AND THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT FROM THEM WAS THAT THE FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH SENATE BILL 2476, OTHER THAN WE NEEDED TO MAKE A SMALL LANGUAGE CHANGE IN OUR RECENT RESOLUTION.

MODIFYING THE CITY'S CURRENT FEE STRUCTURE IS NOT RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME BY A EMERGICON OR STAFF.

THE CITY'S FEE SCHEDULE IS DESIGNED EFFECTUALLY TO CAPTURE THE REVENUES FROM COMMERCIAL INSURANCE. LIKE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

TEXAS EMS ALLIANCE, WHICH WAS A BIG PART OF THIS.

THEY'RE A GROUP THAT SPEAKS ON BEHALF OF EMS ORGANIZATIONS ALL OVER THE STATE.

THEY PREDICT ONLY ABOUT 20% OF PATIENTS TRANSPORTED WILL BE AFFECTED BY SENATE BILL 2476. SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR IMPACT ON REVENUES IN THE LARGE SCALE OF THINGS.

AN IMPORTANT INTENT OF SENATE BILL 2476, LIKE I SAID, IS TO PLACE MORE PRESSURE ON THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY AMBULANCE PROVIDERS, YOU KNOW, THE LEVEL TO RECOUP THOSE COSTS.

AND THEN SENATE BILL 2476 PROHIBITS THE BALANCE BILLING OF PATIENTS FOR OUT-OF-NETWORK SERVICES.

BACKGROUND AMBULANCES LIKE WE HAVE DISCUSSED.

SO WHAT ARE THE KEY PURPOSE OF THIS? HERE, AGAIN, IS TO HELP PROTECT CONSUMERS FROM SURPRISE MEDICAL BILLS.

YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TRANSPORTED BY AN AMBULANCE.

I KNOW WE'VE EXPERIENCED IN MY OWN FAMILY.

YOU THINK YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY IS GOING TO PAY THIS, THEY PAY THIS, AND THEN YOU GET ANOTHER BILL FROM THE AMBULANCE SERVICE SAYING, HEY, YOU OWE US MORE MONEY.

AND SO THAT IS ONE THING ABOUT THIS, THAT THIS WILL THIS WILL STOP THAT.

AGAIN, PLACES MORE OF THAT PRESSURE ON THE INSURANCE COMPANY.

AND I THINK IT GIVES THE INSURANCE COMPANY MORE OF A CONSISTENT FEE SCHEDULE ACROSS THE STATE. THOSE WILL BE PUBLISHED.

YOU'LL BE THEY'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT.

THEY'LL KNOW WHAT'S EXPECTED AND ANTICIPATED FOR REGIONAL AREAS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

THERE WAS A VERY MUCH A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT BETWEEN THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND THE AMBULANCE SERVICES AND THE LOBBYING GROUPS TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THIS SENATE BILL.

IT'LL HELP MITIGATE AMBULANCE PROVIDERS FROM BILLING EXORBITANT RATES AS WELL.

CONSUMERS WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO COMPARE PRICES AFTER THEY RECEIVE A BILL IF THEY DO BELIEVE IT'S AN EXORBITANT RATE.

AND THEN IT COMMUNICATES THE THE LACK OF RATES SET BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ENTITY HEALTH PLANS. SO IF YOU DIDN'T SET A RATE, BASICALLY, THEN THEY COULD EXPECT TO PAY 325% OF THE MEDICARE RATE.

SO YES, SO WHICHEVER ONE IS THE LESSER OF THE TWO.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS COUNCIL APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AMENDING AMENDING OUR PREVIOUS RESOLUTION BY ADOPTING THIS.

AND REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED WAS WE CHANGED SOME LANGUAGE SAYING THAT WE'LL BALANCE BILL WHERE LAW OR THE FEDERAL AND STATE LAW ALLOWS BUT NOTHING OTHER THAN OF

[03:40:06]

SUBSTANCE CHANGE THAT.

AND AGAIN, MS. WILLIAMS IS HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY.

CASEY I FEEL LIKE I COULD LEARN MANDARIN CHINESE EASIER THAN I COULD LEARN HOW TO DECIPHER INSURANCE POLICIES AND MEDICAL BILLING.

BUT BALANCE BILLING, AS I UNDERSTAND, IS WHERE THE PROVIDER BILLS THE PATIENT FOR A GREATER AMOUNT THAN HIS INSURANCE POLICY PAYS.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YES.

BUT THAT WOULDN'T APPLY TO BILLING FOR DEDUCTIBLES THAT THE INSURANCE COMPANY WOULD APPLY OR FOR MEETING.

I GUESS DEDUCTIBLE AMOUNTS.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.

IN OTHER WORDS, IF A CLAIM IS FILED AND THE INSURANCE PROVIDER SENDS OUR INSURANCE COMPANY SENDS A PROVIDER A NOTICE SAYING, WELL, WE'VE APPLIED IT, BUT THE PATIENT HAS A DEDUCTIBLE OF $3,000 A YEAR.

SO ARE WE STILL ABLE TO BILL TO THE PROVIDER, TO THE IT'S GETTING LATE. SORRY. I GET TONGUE TIED.

OH, THAT'S ALL RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. CAN WE BILL THAT? IS THAT CONSIDERED BALANCE BILLING OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT ANIMAL? NO, SIR. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S BALANCE BILLING.

AND MS. WILLIAMS IS HERE.

BUT YEAH, ESSENTIALLY WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD THE PATIENT BECAUSE THEY HADN'T MET THEIR DEDUCTIBLE YET AND WE WOULD BILL BASED ON OUR FEE SCHEDULE.

WE HAVE AGREED RATES LIKE A PPO WOULD HAVE WHERE WE AGREE TO BILL A CERTAIN PROVIDER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY. SO TRADITIONALLY EMS SERVICES, ESPECIALLY MUNICIPALITIES AND SMALLER EMS AGENCIES, DON'T HAVE THOSE SET RATES WITH YOUR TYPICAL INSURANCE COMPANIES LIKE A BIG HOSPITAL SYSTEM WOULD.

SO THAT'S WHERE OUT-OF-NETWORK BILLING AND BALANCE BILLING FOR EMS HAS BEEN AN ISSUE FOR A LONG TIME. AND SO THIS IS THE STATE LEGISLATURE'S ATTEMPT TO SAY, OKAY, THIS IS WHAT THEIR FEES ARE SET AT, THIS IS WHAT WE EXPECT THE INSURANCE COMPANIES TO PAY.

AND SO IT CLARIFIES ALL OF THAT AND CLEANS UP A LOT OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUES WITH OUT-OF-NETWORK AND BALANCE BILLING AND ESSENTIALLY THOSE THINGS.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHEN I MASTER MANDARIN CHINESE.

YES, SIR. [LAUGHTER] ANYBODY ELSE? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THIS.

I'VE TAKEN A TRIP IN AN AMBULANCE FROM FORT WORTH WITH MEDSTAR OVER TO DALLAS.

WE PAY A FEE EVERY YEAR FOR THAT SERVICE.

$100. $75 OR $100? YES, SIR. NEVER GOING TO CHARGE ANOTHER DIME.

SO THE WAY THOSE PROGRAMS WORK IS THAT THEY BASICALLY ESSENTIALLY SAY THAT IF YOU'RE A PART OF THAT PROGRAM, NUMBER ONE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE INSURANCE.

SO YOU COULDN'T BE A PERSON THAT DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE OR YOU WERE ON MEDICARE OR MEDICAID. AND ESSENTIALLY, WHENEVER YOU PAY THAT SUBSCRIPTION FEE, IF YOU WILL, THEY'RE SAYING WE WON'T BALANCE BILL YOU, WE'LL JUST TAKE WE'LL ACCEPT WHATEVER YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY PAYS.

AND SO THAT'S THE WAY EMS WAS TRYING TO WORK AROUND THIS FOR MANY YEARS WAS OFFERING A SUBSCRIPTION SO THAT YOU, THE CUSTOMER WOULDN'T BE YOU KNOW ONE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF ADVOCATING ON YOUR BEHALF AND ARGUING BETWEEN THE INSURANCE COMPANY AND THE EMS PROVIDER AND ALL OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

BUT THAT'S EXACTLY HOW THOSE SUBSCRIPTION PLANS HAD WORKED IN THE PAST.

AND A COUPLE OF OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE ARE NEW FOLLOWING THAT IN-DEPTH CONVERSATION ABOUT OUR PROPOSED FEE SCHEDULE AND US PASSING THAT.

BUT WE DID TALK ABOUT A SUBSCRIPTION PLAN AND IT WAS RECOMMENDED LIKE A YEAR INTO OUR SERVICE. AND I DON'T REMEMBER.

I UNDERSTOOD AND HEARD THAT LOUD AND CLEAR, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO ABOUT SIX MONTHS IN POSSIBLY GET AN UPDATE ON WHAT DOES OUR RETURN RATE LOOK LIKE.

WHAT ARE THOSE PERCENTAGES ARE WE GETTING OR HOW ARE PEOPLE BEING RECEPTIVE TO THIS NEW SERVICE NOW THAT IT'S PROVIDED BY US, NOW THAT THEY RECEIVE A SEPARATE BILL THAT SAYS CITY OF BURLESON? AND ALSO THAT WAY WE CAN EVALUATE IS IT TIME TO CONSIDER THAT SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE? BECAUSE AS HE JUST LEANED IN AND SAID, BUT I PAY THIS.

AND SO I THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE AN ELEMENT OF OUR POPULATION THAT SAYS, BUT I'VE ALWAYS JUST PAID MEDSTAR THIS.

AND I GOT TAKEN WHEREVER I NEEDED TO GO, DEPENDING ON WHAT KIND OF SERVICE I WAS IN DESPERATE NEED OF BECAUSE NO ONE'S CALLING FOR AN AMBULANCE FOR A GOOD TIME.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING AN EYE ON WHAT THOSE NUMBERS LOOK LIKE AND WHAT IS HOW WHAT'S THE PERCENTAGE OF HOW MUCH WE'RE BALANCE BILLING AND ARE THOSE GET WHAT'S THAT RETURN RATE? I THINK ALL OF THAT WILL BE REALLY IMPORTANT SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUOUSLY EVALUATE THIS FOR OUR CITIZENS SO THAT WE'RE MAKING THE BEST DECISIONS FOR THEIR BEST INTEREST.

I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO DO THAT AS WELL AND FOR US TO BRING THAT BEFORE COUNCIL WHENEVER YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE SOME DATA, WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT OUR BILLING RATES LOOK LIKE AND THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

AND THIS WILL GIVE TIME FOR THIS BILL TO GO INTO EFFECT FOR A LITTLE BIT, SEE HOW THE

[03:45:04]

BILLING STUFF'S GOING TO SHAKE OUT TO SEE DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO DO A SUBSCRIPTION PLAN? WILL THERE BE BENEFITS TO THE CITIZENS IN THAT SITUATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT? I THINK THAT BE A GOOD TIMING TO COME BACK AND LOOK AT THAT.

YEAH. ANYBODY ELSE? OH, I JUST WANTED TO CONTEXT FOR THIS.

ABSOLUTELY. WE HAVE SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS WHO OFFER SUBSCRIPTION PROGRAMS. ONE OF THE SO THIS HAS BEEN AS THE DEATH STAR BILL WAS CALLED WITH THE PREEMPTIVE BILL. THIS IS THE NO SURPRISE BILLING BILL FOR GROUND EMS AND SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, JUST LIKE YOU PAY $75 AND YOU GET TAKEN WITH NO EXTRA COST TO YOU PERSONALLY IF YOU HAVE MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR COMMERCIAL INSURANCE, THAT'S WHAT THE SENATE BILL DOES. SO WHEN WE SO BASICALLY IT WILL BE HAPPENING FOR ALL CITIZENS ACROSS THE STATE, WHETHER THEY'RE IN A SUBSCRIPTION PLAN OR NOT.

SO I THINK ABSOLUTELY CAN LOOK AT IT, CAN OFFER THAT, BUT KNOW THAT THE EXPERIENCE OF I HAD AN EMERGENCY, I GOT TRANSFERRED BY THE TRANSPORTED BY THE CITY OF BURLESON.

I HAVE MEDICARE, MEDICAID OR INSURANCE.

AND I GET NO EXTRA COST TO ME, WHICH IS WHAT A SUBSCRIPTION PLAN DOES WITH THE MONTHLY FEE WILL NOW BE LAW.

SO BUT ABSOLUTELY.

I'M HAPPY TO INTRODUCE YOU TO OTHER CITIES WHO ARE RUNNING SUBSCRIPTION PLANS.

DEPENDING ON YOUR GOALS FOR THE SUBSCRIPTION PLAN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE HITTING WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. BUT THE PROTECTION THAT YOU MENTIONED, COUNCIL MEMBER WILL GO INTO EFFECT BY LAW JANUARY 1ST.

ANYBODY ELSE. IS THERE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE CHANGES AS PRESENTED.

GOT A MOTION BY ADAM.

A SECOND BY RONNIE. PLEASE VOTE.

OKAY. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. GOOD JOB, CASEY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[7.G.Consider approval of an ordinance amending Ordinance CSO#3069-09-2022 the City’s Fee Schedule by adding fees associated with the engineering review and inspection of private development; finding that the meeting at which this ordinance is passed was open to the public and that the recitals are true; containing a severability clause, cumulative clause, and effective date. (Final Reading) (Staff Presenter: Errick Thompson, Deputy Public Works Director) (Part 1 of 2)]

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 7G.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE CSO 3069-09-2022, THE CITY'S FEE SCHEDULE BY ADDING FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW AND INSPECTION OF PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FINAL READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ERRICK THOMPSON, DEPUTY PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR.

MR. THOMPSON, YOU'RE THE LAST ONE ON THE LIST.

MAKE IT BIG. I'LL TRY.

THANK YOU, AMANDA.

SO GIVEN THAT THIS IS ON FINAL READING, I'LL SKIP SOME OF THE BACKGROUND UNLESS THERE'S A REALLY STRONG.

OKAY, SO KEEPING WITH THE THEME OF THE LAST PRESENTATION, THIS IS THE RESULT OF ANOTHER BILL PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE THIS PAST SESSION.

I'LL ONLY HIT ABOUT FOUR MORE OF THESE SLIDES.

HOUSE BILL 3492 BASICALLY CHANGES THE WAY THAT WE HAVE TO CALCULATE THE FEES THAT WE CHARGE FOR ENGINEERING PLAN REVIEW AND CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION.

THESE CHANGES TAKE EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST, SO WE ALL CITIES AND COUNTIES CAN EITHER ADOPT A NEW FEE STRUCTURE THAT IS EFFECTIVE BY SEPTEMBER 1ST OR NOT HAVE A LEGAL FEE IF IT'S STILL VALUE BASED AS WE CURRENTLY DETERMINE THE FEES.

I'LL SKIP OVER A LITTLE BIT TO TWO WEEKS AGO ON FIRST READING, I MENTIONED THAT WE HAD A DEVELOPERS ROUNDTABLE MEETING SCHEDULED ON AUGUST 17TH.