6.A.The Prairie at Chisholm Trail (Case 23-149): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “PD" Planned Development for a single-family attached and townhome development with a commercial component located at 6401 CR 910Z. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Presenter: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended disapproval by unanimous vote)

[6.A.The Prairie at Chisholm Trail (Case 23-149): Hold a public hearing and consider approval of an ordinance for a zoning change request from “A”, Agricultural to “PD" Planned Development for a single-family attached and townhome development with a commercial component located at 6401 CR 910Z. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Presenter: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended disapproval by unanimous vote)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION SIX DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS.

SIX A IS THE PRAIRIE AT CHISHOLM TRAIL.

CASE 23-149 TONIGHT'S TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM A AGRICULTURAL TO PD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT WITH A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT LOCATED AT 6401 COUNTY ROAD 910Z.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST AND FINAL READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS TONY MCILWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

MR. MCILWAIN.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 6401 COUNTY ROAD 910 Z, AND BEFORE US TONIGHT WILL BE MR. MATT POWELL OPERATING AS THE APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT, AND ALSO MR. CHARLES COVEY, WHO IS THE INTERESTED DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT PARTNER FOR THE SITE.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR AGRICULTURAL USE, AND THE INTENT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TOWNHOME AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THREE LAND USE TYPES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.

THIS SLIDE DEALS WITH THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE OTHER GRAPHIC GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE ZONING THAT WE HAVE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

THAT AREA THAT YOU SEE IN GREEN TO THE RIGHT IS AGRICULTURAL ZONE TRACKS AND TO THE LEFT OF THE SCREEN THAT THE PINK COLOR THAT YOU HAVE IS THE COLOR DESIGNATION FOR CHISHOLM TRAIL.

I'LL PAUSE HERE, BECAUSE A LOT OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS INVOLVES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE CHISHOLM TRAIL CORRIDOR CONTEMPLATES LAND USES ALONG THE CORRIDOR, BEING PRIMARILY OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL NATURE, WITH THE PRIMARY USE BEING LARGE SCALE PROFESSIONAL CAMPUSES SUCH AS OFFICE PARKS OR MEDICAL CENTERS, AND IT DOES ALLOW COMPLIMENTARY LARGE SCALE RETAIL AS APPROPRIATE.

SO I WANTED TO JUST LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR PART OF WHAT THE DISCUSSION WILL BE WITH REGARD TO THIS REQUEST, WHICH IS FOR PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL WITH A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. THE SITE LAYOUT IS THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING STAFF FOR REVIEW. THE AREA THAT YOU SEE IN BLUE IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOUSING.

TOTAL OF 251 LOTS.

THE YELLOW. EXCUSE ME.

THE YELLOW IS FOR COMMERCIAL AND THE GREEN IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY TOWNHOME, WHICH IS A NEW ZONING BEING INTRODUCED AS PART OF THIS PLANT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL.

JUST BY WAY OF WHAT'S ALLOWED IN THE CODE, OUR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED REQUIRES A 2500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AS A MINIMUM, AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALSO AN ADDITIONAL TOWNHOME CONCEPT, WHICH IS A SMALLER LOT SIZE CONSISTING OF, I'M GOING TO REFER TO MY NOTES HERE, 1400 SQUARE FEET PER UNIT.

SO IN OUR REVIEW OF THIS APPLICATION, WE DID PROVIDE PUBLIC NOTICE TO ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT SITE.

WE'VE GOT THE NUMERATION ON THE MAP TO GIVE YOU SOME IDEA OF ALL THOSE INDIVIDUALS THAT WERE NOTICED AS A RESULT OF THE APPLICATION.

DURING THE DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE APPLICANT, MR. POWELL, DISCUSSED SOME DIFFICULTIES THAT HE AND HIS CLIENT FACE RELATED TO ACCESS THE CHALLENGES AND RESTRAINTS OF THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, THE CITY'S EXISTING SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE IN THE AREA, ANTICIPATED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, AND ALSO DISCUSSED WITH THE COMMISSION WHY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED PLANT DEVELOPMENT WEREN'T WEREN'T

[00:15:02]

CAPTURED IN THE DOCUMENT.

MR. COVEY PRESENTED ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED PRODUCTS AND DISCUSSED POTENTIAL TAX REVENUES THAT THE CITY COULD ANTICIPATE BASED ON THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY HAS AN APPLICATION, EXCUSE ME, A PRESENTATION THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE WITH YOU AT THE CONCLUSION OF MY PRESENTATION, AND IT WOULD DELVE INTO SOME MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE PRODUCT THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT DEVELOPING AT THE SITE. PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION WAS CENTERED ON CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD RELATING TO DENSITY, PROPOSED LOT SIZES, ACCESS TO THE SITE AND WHAT THEY DEEM TO BE NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE WERE SOME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, AS WELL AS THE AVAILABILITY OF CITY MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

DURING THE COURSE OF THAT DISCUSSION, THERE WASN'T A GREAT DEAL OF DETAIL RELATING TO THE STANDARDS, BECAUSE THE APPLICATION AS SUBMITTED IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND SO WE DIDN'T WANT THE COMMISSION GOING DOWN A PATH OF NEGOTIATING STANDARDS THAT WEREN'T ESSENTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PLAN.

A STAFF DID NOT SUPPORT THE APPLICATION AND RECOMMEND RECOMMENDED DISAPPROVAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND ALSO, THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU TONIGHT.

THE REASONING BEHIND OUR RECOMMENDATION IS SEVERAL.

WE HAVE THOSE LISTED, BUT THE PRIMARY THING, COUNCIL, IS THAT WHEN WE GET OUR ZONING APPLICATIONS, THE FIRST THING WE LOOK AT IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S THE CITY'S LONG RANGE VISION FOR DEVELOPMENT IN CERTAIN AREAS, AND WE REALIZED THIS WAS NOT THE CASE.

DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE, WE DID LOOK AT WHAT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT AND TRIED TO LOOK AT WAYS TO MITIGATE WHAT WE THOUGHT MIGHT BE SOME LAND USE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE SUBMITTED COMMERCIAL TRACK VERSUS SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES.

WE DO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE ARE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS, BUT WE ALSO DID NOT REQUIRE ANY DETAILED INFRASTRUCTURE PLANS BECAUSE THIS IS JUST A LAND USE DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

SO YOU'VE GOT ESSENTIALLY STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DISAPPROVAL, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WERE NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION AS WELL.

SO I WANT TO PAUSE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE AND THEN SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION PRIOR TO YOU OPENING UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.

TONY, I GOT A QUESTION, SIR.

YES, ONCE.

IF WE APPROVE THE THE SFA SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, THEN THAT OPENS THE LAND UP TO ANY PRIMARY USES ALLOWED BY OUR CODE, CORRECT? YES. SO THE WAY THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS WRITTEN IS THAT IT HAS A DEFAULT FOR SFA OF AS ALLOWED PER CODE.

SO THAT'S CORRECT, AND THE ONLY ARBITRARY ONE WOULD BE ANYTHING UNDER SUP.

YES. SO ANYTHING UNDER THE SUP WHICH IS NOT CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BASICALLY LISTS ONE NEW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT BEING THE TOWNHOME AND THOSE STANDARDS WERE ATTACHED, AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER STANDARDS REGARDING WHAT WE CALL THE LANDSCAPING MEWS, WHICH ARE THE GREEN SPACES THAT THEY HAVE BEHIND THE SOME OF THE LAND USES.

SO IN A NUTSHELL, MR. SCOTT, YOU'RE LOOKING AT SFA AS ALLOWED THE NEW TOWNHOME DISTRICT AS PROPOSED AND COMMERCIAL AS PROPOSED, WHICH IS OUR BASELINE COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

OKAY. SO UNDER OUR CODE PRIMARY USES ARE FOR EXAMPLE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINES, FIRE POLICE STATION.

SO AND I KNOW I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO MEMORIZE ALL THOSE, BUT THERE'S ABOUT 15 OF THEM.

SO ANY ONE OF THOSE WOULD BE OPEN TO BE DEVELOPED ON THAT SFA.

YES. THE ONLY CONSTRAINT WOULD BE SIZE CONSTRAINTS AND ABILITY TO PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE FOR SOME OF THOSE USES.

OKAY. THANK YOU TONY.

ANYBODY ELSE. WE'RE GOOD WITH THE PRESENTATION IF YOU WANT TO GO.

ALL RIGHT. MR. POWELL AND MR. COVEY. I GUESS I'LL DRIVE, BUT I'LL PULL UP YOUR PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. MATT POWELL 1108 SOUTH DOBSON.

MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE THIS EVENING.

WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE THAT WE BRING BEFORE

[00:20:04]

YOU. WE APPRECIATE STAFF AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND WHY WE DON'T HAVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT'S CONTRARY TO THE COMP PLAN.

THE QUESTION THAT WE BRING BEFORE YOU, ALTHOUGH WE WENT OBVIOUSLY WENT TO P AND Z, AND YOU SAW SOME OF THE COMMENTS FOR THAT IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE EXCHANGE.

WE UNDERSTAND IT'S CONTRARY TO THE COMP PLAN.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE SPECIFICS AND THE UNIQUENESS OF THE PROPERTY.

THE COMP PLAN IS ALWAYS A GOOD TOOL TO GIVE US DIRECTION MOVING FORWARD IN TERMS OF LAND USE AND HOW THE CITY DEVELOPS OUT IN THE PERIPHERAL.

THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY HAS SOME UNIQUE CHALLENGES TO IT.

SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO ASK COUNCIL, AND I WILL TOWARD THE END AFTER I POINT OUT SOME OF THESE, SOME OF THESE PARTICULARS ABOUT THE SITE, IS IS THIS A LAND USE ISSUE OR IS IT A DENSITY ISSUE? AND I KNOW THERE'S SOME CERTAIN THINGS WE CAN'T DISCUSS THIS EVENING, BUT WE WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH COUNCIL.

THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

CERTAINLY WE CAN NEGOTIATE THAT REGARDING STAFF, COUNCIL, WE HAVE SOME OTHER ITERATIONS OF DENSITY THAT WE HAD, BUT WE HAVE AN APPLICATION BEFORE YOU AND WE WERE TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A LAND USE ISSUE OR A DENSITY ISSUE THIS EVENING, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE FORWARD BASED ON SOME OF THOSE DIRECTION.

NEXT SLIDE. GO AHEAD.

NEXT SLIDE. KEEP GOING.

OKAY. SO THIS THIS PARTICULAR TRACT OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOT SOME FRONTAGE ALONG THE CORRIDOR BUT THERE'S RESTRICTED ACCESS ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

THIS ACCESS GAINED SITE THROUGH A BACKAGE ROAD THAT WAS CREATED AFTER THE TOLLWAY CAME THROUGH. AFTER THE RIGHT OF WAY TAKES.

THE ACCESS COMES OFF OF 917 ON 910Z.

THAT WAS CREATED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOLLWAY.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

AS STAFF HAD ALLUDED TO, WE HAVE A COMP PLAN, THE 2010 COMP PLAN'S THE CURRENT COMP PLAN, THE 2020 MID-POINT WHICH HAPPENED AND CREATES THIS PARTICULAR FLAVOR OF LAND USE.

THE CHISHOLM TRAIL CORRIDOR HAS ESSENTIALLY IT'S OFFICE CAMPUS MORE COMMERCIAL DRIVEN, AND THIS THE WAY THE SITE GAINS ACCESS AND SOME OF THE UTILITY CONSTRAINTS. IT DOESN'T IT'S NOT A DESTINATION LOCATION, AND IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP CERTAIN TYPES OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY.

IN OUR OPINION.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

IF YOU LOOK TOWARD THE MIDDLE LOWER SECTION WHERE COUNTY ROAD 910 CAME UP AND T-BONED INTO THE SITE, THAT WAS THE SITE ACCESS PRE TOLLWAY.

SO IT HAD IT HAD ACCESS OFF OF COUNTY ROAD 910 PRIOR TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOLLWAY, AND AS YOU CAN SEE OFF TO THE LEFT, COUNTY ROAD 910 Z WAS CREATED AS A TXDOT BACKAGE ROAD.

THE DOCUMENTS WERE DRAFTED IN 2008, AND IT WAS CONSTRUCTED AFTER THAT ON THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON.

WE HAVE A MINOR ARTERIAL 90 THAT LAYS ADJACENT TO THE WESTERLY PERIMETER, WHICH WOULD RUN ALONG COUNTY ROAD 911 AND T-BONE INTO 917.

OF COURSE, THAT'S ON THE MASTER THOROUGHFARE PLAN, AND IT PARTS OF IT ARE CONTAINED WITHIN THE EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY.

SO THE ACCESS ISSUES ARE.

COUNTY ROAD 910 WAS CLOSED.

910Z WAS CREATED.

WE HAVE CONTROLLED ACCESS ALONG THE TXDOT CORRIDOR, AND THEN THERE ARE SOME IMPLICATIONS OF SOME LEGISLATION THAT'S PASSED RECENTLY REGARDING THE TIER TWO OPT OUT AND SOME OF THE MTP REVISIONS THAT THE MUNICIPALITIES ARE ALLOWED TO TAKE ON MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME OF THE NEW LEGISLATION.

THE OTHER ISSUES THAT WE HAVE ARE THE SEWER IN TERMS OF CITY SEWER.

WE'RE ABOUT 15,000 LINEAR FEET AWAY, A COUPLE OF LIFT STATIONS AND BACK TOWARD THE SUMMIT TO THE NORTH.

THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED.

WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE] WATER.

THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE SEWER ACROSS THE STREET AT JOSHUA ELEMENTARY, BUT WE HAVE JURISDICTIONAL CONCERNS BETWEEN [INAUDIBLE] AND BURLESON, AND BURLESON WOULD BE SERVING SEWER AT THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION BASED ON THE CITY LIMITS.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO BASED ON THE.

MASTER WASTEWATER PLAN.

THE 2010 PLAN, BACK WHEN THE COMP PLAN WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED, SHOWS THIS AREA OF THE BLUE, WHERE NUMBER 13 IS RIGHT ABOVE THE 2020 CIP THAT WAS PROJECTED TO BE

[00:25:06]

CONSTRUCTED, OR AT LEAST IT WAS ON THE MASTER PLAN FOR 2020 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT. IF YOU LOOK TO THE TO THE RIGHT, THE 2015 PLAN SHOWS AN EXTENSION TO THAT.

OF COURSE, THE BLUE BECOMES 2025 AND THE GREEN WHICH RUNS ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT TRACT IS 2035.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THESE PLANNING DOCUMENTS SHIFT OVER TIME DEPENDING ON THE NEEDS OF THE CITY AND CERTAIN FUNDING.

THIS COULD POTENTIALLY THAT PARTICULAR LINE COULD POTENTIALLY SLIDE OUT TO 2040, 2045.

IT'S GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO SEWER THIS AREA WITHIN FOR ANY DEVELOPMENT, BUT ESPECIALLY A COMMERCIAL TYPE HIGH RISE MEDICAL CAMPUS WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR TRACT.

NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.

SO WHAT WE HAVE THIS IS THE CASE WE HAVE BEFORE YOU AS MENTIONED, WE HAVE MADE SOME OTHER REVISIONS TO THIS LAYOUT, AND WE DIDN'T PROVIDE IT TO STAFF BECAUSE WE WANTED TO BRING IT TO P AND Z AND COUNCIL TRY TO GET SOME DIRECTION AND FEEDBACK.

AS I MENTIONED, IF THIS IS A PARTICULAR LAND USE ISSUE, THEN AND WE NEED TO WE NEED TO KNOW SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD ACCORDINGLY.

IF IT'S A DENSITY ISSUE, WE WOULD CERTAINLY ASK THAT IF WE COULD GET A LITTLE BIT OF DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL SO WE COULD FALL BACK AND WORK WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S DESIRABLE FOR COUNCIL AND THE APPLICANT.

SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE, AND WE CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THERE'S LIMITATIONS TO WHAT CAN BE DISCUSSED REGARDING DIRECTION IN TERMS OF DENSITY AND LAYOUT BUT THIS IS A LAND USE CASE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO GET SOME FEEDBACK IN REGARDS TO WHETHER IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE OR A DENSITY ISSUE.

SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AT THIS POINT, I'LL LET MR. COVEY GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF RENDERINGS AND ANSWER ANY.

IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER OR YOU HAVE FOR ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. HI.

GOOD EVENING. CHARLES COVEY WITH LAND DEVELOPMENT.

IF YOU COULD GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

THIS JUST TALKS GENERALLY KIND OF ABOUT THE TAX REVENUE.

WE'RE VERY COLLABORATIVE IN OUR PROCESSES DEVELOPING WITH OTHER CITIES, AND IT'S ALWAYS BEEN AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO SOLVE PROBLEMS AND TO CREATE VALUE.

SO WE WANT TO CREATE VALUE IN THE COMMUNITIES THAT WE WORK IN, AND SO ONE OF THE WAYS THAT WE CAN CREATE VALUE IS BY BRINGING PROJECTS THAT ADD TAX DOLLARS, AND WE DEFINITELY WANT TO ADD WAY MORE TAX DOLLARS THAN WE WOULD WOULD POSSIBLY COST THE CITY.

SO THIS IS A SCENARIO JUST TO KIND OF JUST TO KIND OF CONCEPTUALIZE WHAT A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE MIGHT BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE CITY, AND SO YOU CAN JUST SEE THE NUMBERS, YOU KNOW, 50 MILLION OVER 30 YEARS IS NOT A NOT A SMALL NUMBER, AND SO WE THINK THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO ADD VALUE TO THE CITY.

PART OF THE PART OF THE CONCEPT HERE IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS, IS TO BRING A VERY PARK CENTRIC CONCEPT, AND IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT ON A, YOU KNOW, ON A PROJECT LAYOUT.

YOU DON'T SEE THE GREEN SPACE THERE.

SO THAT'S WHAT SOME OF THESE RENDERINGS WILL HELP TO DEMONSTRATE, AND THE REAL CENTRIC DEAL HERE IS TO HAVE GREEN SPACE AND ACCESSIBLE WALKING AREAS TO ANY OF THE RESIDENTS, AND SO WE WANTED TO REALLY REINVENT THE TOWNHOME CONCEPT.

WE'VE BEEN IN TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE STERILE AND NOT VERY ENJOYABLE, AND SO WE TOOK THE STREETS OUT OF THE FRONT AND ALL THE HOUSES FACE IN TO A GREEN SPACE.

THE ARCHITECTURAL TERM IS AMUSE, AND IT'S A REALLY COLLABORATIVE SPACE.

PEOPLE WALK AND THEY TALK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, AND THEY JUST KIND OF GET OUT IN THAT GREEN SPACE, AND CITIES HAVE BEEN REALLY ACCEPTING OF THIS AND HAVE LOVED IT.

NEXT ONE, AND WE'LL JUST GO QUICKLY THROUGH SOME OF THESE RENDERINGS JUST TO KIND OF, JUST TO GENERALLY DEMONSTRATE WHAT IT CAN L OOK LIKE.

NEXT ONE.

SO AS WE TALK ABOUT ADDING VALUE TO THE COMMUNITIES WE WORK WITH, A FEW WAYS WE DO THAT. DEFINITELY WANT TO ADD TAX DOLLARS.

WE WANT TO ADD SOMETHING THAT'S BEAUTIFUL, SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WANT TO COME TO YOUR COMMUNITY AND LIVE IN, AND WE ALSO WANT TO BE COLLABORATIVE IN THE PROCESS, AND THAT JUST GOES TO REITERATE WHAT MATT WAS SAYING, WE'D LOVE TO BE COLLABORATIVE WITH CITY STAFF AND BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR EVERYBODY AND THERE'S A FEW MORE SLIDES TO JUST SOME OF THE SINGLE FAMILY PRODUCT, AND KEEP IN MIND THAT THE COLORS HERE ARE JUST VERY SIMPLE, SIMPLE WHITES.

OF COURSE, WE CAN DO ANY KIND OF COLOR AND CHANGES AND DIFFERENT FACADES.

[INAUDIBLE] YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT UTILITIES?

[00:30:02]

SO ONE OF THE THINGS JUST TO RECAP.

SO THERE ARE SOME UTILITY ISSUES IN REGARDS TO SERVING THE SITE, BUT THIS IS A LAND USE CASE, AND AS MENTIONED, WE WOULD TO SEE IF THIS IS A PARTICULAR DENSITY ISSUE OR A LAND USE ISSUE. IF WE GET SOME DIRECTION, IF IT IS A DENSITY ISSUE, WE WOULD LOVE TO TABLE THIS OPTION AND GO BACK AND WORK WITH STAFF AND GAIN SOME PRODUCT THAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO SEE. FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE SOME SOME PROJECTS AROUND THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU MIGHT BE FAMILIAR WITH THERE DOWN THE STREET HERE AT HERITAGE, THERE'S SOME TOWNHOME PRODUCTS, SOME MULTIFAMILY THERE.

WE HAVE SOME SMALLER LOT PRODUCT OUT AT REVERIE OUT BY CANDLER.

THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO TYPE EXAMPLES OF SOMETHING WE WOULD SEE ON THE GROUND BASED ON THESE DENSITIES. SO IN TERMS OF LOT WIDTHS AND DENSITIES THOSE WOULD BE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. WE COULD BRING MORE FORWARD IF COUNCIL WOULD LIKE BUT IN TERMS OF JUST GETTING SOME DIRECTION, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR WE COULD WORK WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH SOME PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT'S NEGOTIATED, THAT'S DESIRABLE FOR BOTH THE APPLICANT AND THE CITY.

WE WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

THANK YOU. TONY, DO WE HAVE ANY HISTORY ON BACK WHEN THEY DID THE MASTER PLAN? WHAT THE REASONING BEHIND IT.

I MEAN, MOST OF THE PEOPLE UP HERE WASN'T AROUND WHEN THEY DID THE DISCUSSION ON THE MASTER PLAN, AND WHAT WAS THEIR THOUGHT BEHIND IT.

MAYBE DAN OR RONNIE COULD HELP US ON THAT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THE DENSITY PROBLEM WE HAVE.

I'M NOT REAL MAD AT SOME OF YOUR YOUR DRAWINGS LOOK LIKE MULTIFAMILY AND WE'RE DEFINITELY NOT FOR THAT.

THE SMALLER HOUSES IS AN ISSUE WITH US, BUT I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO KNOW HOW WE CAME TO THIS FACT AS FAR AS WHERE WE WHERE WE STAND ON IT NOW, HOW DID WE GET THERE? I'LL HAVE TO DEFER TO THOSE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, AVAILABLE AND PRESENT DURING THE DISCUSSION DURING THE MIDPOINT PLAN, BUT THE INTENT IS PRETTY CLEAR IN THAT THEY STAFF AND COUNCIL AT THE TIME HAD A VISION OF THIS CORRIDOR PROMOTING THOSE LAND USES THAT WOULD LEND THEMSELVES LESS TO A RESIDENTIAL NATURE AS OPPOSED TO YOUR MAJOR COMPLEXES, MEDICAL USES, OFFICE PARKS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE A LITTLE BIT 180 DEGREE DIFFERENT FROM THIS PROPOSAL.

SO THE CORRIDOR IN THE SENSE OF THE CORRIDOR ARE MEANT TO CAPTURE NON-RESIDENTIAL HIGHER.

CAPACITY BUILDINGS FOR BASICALLY.

THINGS OF A GENERAL RETAIL, LOW SCALE COMMERCIAL USE.

THOSE ARE COMPATIBLE ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE IN THE IN THE CHISHOLM TRAIL CORRIDOR PLAN.

MR. MAYOR, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCILMAN JOHNSON WERE WERE HERE DURING THE MIDPOINT UPDATE, BUT THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE MIDPOINT PLAN, AND I THINK THAT'S IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND IT'S GROWING DAY BY DAY, AND IF YOU ONLY GO A COUPLE OF EXITS, YOU LOOK AT JUST AN EXIT OR TWO MORE, AND THAT'S THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT I SEE JUST GROWING FURTHER SOUTH.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE LAND USES ALONG THE TRAIL CORRIDOR SHOULD BE PRIMARILY NONRESIDENTIAL, WITH THE PRIMARY USE BEING LARGE SCALE PROFESSIONAL CAMPUSES SUCH AS OFFICE PARKS OR MEDICAL CENTERS.

COMPLIMENTARY LARGE SCALE RETAIL WILL ALSO BE APPROPRIATE.

THIS AREA IS ENVISIONED TO DEVELOP IN A COORDINATED MANNER WITH BOTH VEHICULAR, VEHICULAR, AND PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY IN MIND.

I MEAN, THE SIMILAR TO 35.

IT'S A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE AND THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT TRAVEL IT, AND WE'RE HOPING THAT GROWS, AND I DON'T PERSONALLY, FOR ME, IT IS A LAND USE ISSUE.

I DON'T THINK THAT I DON'T THINK I THINK IT'S GOING TO ONLY GROW IN THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT IT SEES AND PEOPLE ARE GOING TO WANT PLACES TO SHOP, EAT AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WANT PEOPLE TO WORK ALONG IN BURLESON SO THAT THEY STAY HERE AND THEN THEY ENJOY ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO OFFER HERE.

SO I'M HESITANT TO TAKE UP MORE OF IT FOR RESIDENTIAL, IN PARTICULAR, SUCH HIGH DENSITY

[00:35:03]

RESIDENTIAL, WHEN THERE'S A BIG OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW, IT'S AN OPEN SLATE, AND ANOTHER DRAWBACK I SEE IS IF TRULY WE NEED TO BE DISCUSSING THE UTILITY ISSUES, WATERLINES, IF WE SEE THAT THIS ISN'T NECESSARILY ATTRACTIVE IN ITS CURRENT CONDITION FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, THEN I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A STEP BACK, AND LIKE YOU'RE SAYING, LARRY, LIKE WHAT? OR MAYOR ABOUT THE WHAT WAS THE DRIVING FORCE IN SAYING THIS IS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT SHOULD BE ALONG THERE INSTEAD OF STARTING TO APPROVE THINGS LEFT AND RIGHT AND THEN ENDING UP IN A CERTAIN PLACE, LET'S TAKE A STEP BACK AND SAY, OKAY, WHAT IS HERE? WHAT TRULY IS GOING TO WORK WITH THE UTILITIES AND THE SERVICES THAT ARE GOING TO SERVE THIS AREA, WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS NEEDED SO THAT WE'RE ADEQUATELY PLANNING AND NOT MAKING DECISIONS HASTILY, AND THEN GETTING TO A POINT THAT WE CAN'T STEP BACK FROM. I GUESS I'M A LITTLE BIT ON SPOT, HAVING BEEN HERE FOR THE DRAWING OF THESE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ALL THE WAY BACK TO 2010, AND BEFORE THERE EVEN WAS A CHISHOLM TRAIL PARKWAY TO CONSIDER.

AS MATT KNOWS AS WELL AS I DO, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS PART PLAN AND PART HOPE THAT YOU GET WHAT YOU WANT AND WHAT YOU ENVISION FOR THE FUTURE AND FROM MY POINT.

MATT, I KNOW YOU WANT AN ANSWER ABOUT WHETHER IT'S A LAND USE OR A DENSITY ISSUE.

FOR ME, IT'S A LAND USE ISSUE.

I WOULD RATHER NOT SEE US PUT HOUSING OF ANY KIND, RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF ANY KIND, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE RIGHT OF WAY OF THE PARKWAY.

BECAUSE AND I UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTY OF DEVELOPING THIS PARTICULAR SITE.

IT IS A TOUGH SITE.

YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SURROUNDED BY AGING RURAL RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DIFFICULT TO HAVE NEW ACCESS THROUGH.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF CHALLENGES.

YOU'RE NOT SERVED, OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU FIGURED OUT BY SEWER, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT FOR YOU, BUT UNDERSTANDING YOUR DIFFICULTY DOESN'T MAKE ME WANT TO SEE THIS PARTICULAR KIND OF DEVELOPMENT ANY MORE THAN NOT, BECAUSE EVEN IF IT WERE AN EASY SITE TO DEVELOP, AND AS FAR AS I MEAN, WE'RE GOING AGAINST A UNANIMOUS NEGATIVE VOTE FROM P AND Z, A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF, AND IT WOULD TAKE A GOLD PLATED SOLID GOLD PRODUCT OF SOME KIND OR ANOTHER TO GET ME TO WANT TO KNOCK OUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT TOOK SO MANY YEARS AND HOURS OF WORK TO DEVELOP AND A RECOMMENDATION OF REJECTION FROM THE TWO BODIES THAT WE DEPEND ON TO STUDY THESE THINGS AND COME UP WITH SOLUTIONS. SO MY SUGGESTION IS THAT YOU GUYS RETHINK WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT I DON'T THINK THIS PRODUCT IS GOING TO GET ME TO WANT TO GO AGAINST WHAT NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS AND VARIATIONS FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GO THROUGH IN AS CLOSE A VERSION OF WHAT WE WISH FOR THAT WE COULD GET.

ANYBODY ELSE? I CAN'T SPEAK FOR COUNCIL, BUT I WAS ON PLANNING AND ZONING DURING THIS TIME, AND SO IT'S A LAND USE FOR ME TOO, AND I'LL ECHO WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM SAID ABOUT IT'S GOT TO BE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.

I WANT TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 609.

IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YOU WANT TO. MR. MAYOR, WE CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE DILEMMA, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE BRING IT FORWARD. THE SITE DOES PRESENT SOME CHALLENGES.

THE ACCESS ISSUE, EVEN THE EVEN THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE 2020 MIDPOINT.

IT TALKS ABOUT ACCESS AND CONNECTIVITY, AND THIS SITE HAS NONE.

THE OTHER THING THAT'S HAPPENED WITH THIS PARTICULAR SITE WHEN WHEN THE MIDPOINT WAS DRAFTED, CERTAINLY WE HAVE THE NEW, YOU KNOW, THE HOOPER BUSINESS PARK AND LAKEWOOD EXTENSION IN THE SUMMIT.

THAT'S THE PRODUCT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO THAT'S REALLY THE POINT BLANK QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, THAT PARTICULAR SITE IS GOING TO DETRACT FROM THIS LOCATION AND WITH THE SEWER EXTENSION IN 2035, 2040, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR FOR

[00:40:02]

DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THIS AREA? MATT, WOULD YOU LIKE TO WITHDRAW NOW AND KIND OF REGROUP OR.

NO, MR. MAYOR, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO ASK FOR A VOTE.

OKAY, WELL, YOU GOT IT.

THANK YOU FOR ASKING, THOUGH.

YES, SIR. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? [INAUDIBLE] I THOUGHT I'D ALREADY CLOSED IT.

I WANT TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:10.

OKAY.

FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK MATT POWELL AND CHARLES COVEY FOR BRINGING THIS TO US.

WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT, AND IN THE FUTURE, THE DISCUSSIONS WILL BE MORE GENEROUS WHEN YOU BRING IT BACK IF THE VOTE GOES THAT DIRECTION.

I WATCHED THE P AND Z TAPE, I SAW WHAT HAPPENED, AND THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN HERE. I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF INTO THE WEEDS.

I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

I KNOW THIS IS ABOUT LAND USE.

NO ONE PLANS A DEVELOPMENT 20 YEARS IN THE FUTURE EXCEPT TXDOT AND I KNOW THE ISSUES WITH THE LAND. YOU GOT ONE EGRESS, ONE INGRESS.

YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT IN A RESIDENTIAL WITH EMERGENCY VEHICLES.

SO WE SEE THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S GOT A GAS. WELL IT'S GOT FLOOD ZONES I BELIEVE THAT'S ROCKY CREEK RUNS THROUGH THE END OF IT ON THE NORTH END, WHICH RUNS ALL THE WAY TO LAKE BENBROOK.

THERE'S ONLY TWO SFA ZONINGS IN THE CITY OF BURLESON, AND I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE RESEARCHED THOSE.

ONE ON SUMMER CREST 12 ACRES.

IT'S SFA, IT'S MID-DENSITY DUPLEXES SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE WANTING TO BUILD HERE.

VERY NICE AREA.

THE SECOND SFA IS OFF OF 174 CLOSER TO JOSHUA, AND IT'S IN A RURAL AREA AND IT'S 18 ACRES, AND ON THAT SFA THERE IS A SEWAGE PUMPING STATION AND THAT'S PART OF WHAT'S ON SFA. WHEN I MENTIONED SFA A WHILE AGO, I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT IT COULD BE A WATER STORAGE STATION, A WATER PUMPING STATION OF COURSE.

OBVIOUSLY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED OUR SEWAGE PUMPING STATION.

SO IN MY MIND AND I THINK IN YOURS TOO, WE KNOW IT'S NOT GOING TO BE DEVELOPED WITH HOMES, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ATTACHING AN SFA ZONING TO THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY OPEN ENDED WITHOUT A GOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

SO I'M NOT GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT FOR WHAT COULD BE PUT ON THERE AFTER IT'S ZONED SFA UNTIL WE COME BACK WITH A BETTER PLAN.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OKAY. ARE WE READY? I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. THAT'S ALL I HAVE ON THAT.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I'LL MOVE TO DENY SIX A.

SECOND.

HAVE A MOTION BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY VICTORIA.

PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[6.B.Gina’s Pizza at 319 NW Renfro St. (Case 23-287): Consider approval of a resolution for variances to Chapter 63, Sign Regulations, relating to conformity, location and separation of a pole sign. (Staff Presenter: Tony McIlwain, Development Services Director) (No Planning and Zoning Commission action was required for this item.)]

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX B GINA'S PIZZA AT 319 NORTHWEST RENFRO STREET CASE 23-287.

TONIGHT'S TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION FOR VARIANCES TO CHAPTER 63.

THE SIGN REGULATIONS RELATED TO CONFORMITY, LOCATION AND SEPARATION OF A POLE SIGN.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS TONY MCILWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR, MR. MCILWAIN. THANK YOU, MISS CAMPOS.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS ITEM INVOLVES A RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR GINA'S PIZZA.

CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH MISS MORIARTY AND MR. [INAUDIBLE] WITH THE SIGN FOR THE PROPOSED GINA'S PIZZA.

THIS IS THE EXISTING SIGN THAT WAS PROVIDED TO STAFF, AND THE PROPOSED SIGN THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO, JUST BY WAY OF BACKGROUND.

THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A SIMPLE REPLACEMENT OF THE POLE SIGN CABINET TO MATCH THE REMODEL OF THE RESTAURANT.

SO THE WAY THAT OUR CODE IS WRITTEN IS THAT IF ANY MODIFICATION IS MADE TO A NONCONFORMING SIGN, THEN THE ENTIRE SIGN HAS TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE EXISTING CODE.

THAT'S WHAT ESSENTIALLY RENDER NO SIGN AT THIS LOCATION IF THAT WERE TO HAPPEN.

SO THE REQUEST IS THREE-FOLD WITH THE VARIANCE SUMMARY.

ONE IS TWOFOLD WITH THESE THESE PARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF THE CODE.

[00:45:05]

ONE IS TO HAVE A VARIANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR A STRUCTURAL CHANGE OR MODIFICATION TO HAVE THE NEW SIGN CABINET BE PLACED, AND THE OTHER ONE DEALS WITH THE 100 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE IN OUR CODE.

THEY WOULDN'T MEET THESE REQUIREMENTS JUST SIMPLY BY TRIGGERING THE NONCONFORMING CLAUSE IN THE CODE.

SO THESE ARE THE VARIANCES BASICALLY VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR MODIFICATION OF THE EXISTING SIGN CABINET VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING POLE SIGN TO MAINTAIN A 25 FOOT SEPARATION FROM ANOTHER POLE SIGN AS OPPOSED TO 100FT REQUIREMENT, AND THE VARIANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE EXISTING POLE SIGN TO REMAIN LOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE PERMITTED CORRIDORS.

SO THE APPLICANT JUSTIFICATION IS THAT THE NEW SIGN WILL MATCH WITH THE NEW REMODEL.

I THINK MOST OF YOU ARE AWARE THAT THE REMODEL IS OCCURRING FOR GINA'S PIZZA AND MATCH THE ESTHETIC OF THE RESTAURANT AND PROVIDE BETTER CUSTOMER VISIBILITY IN LIEU OF HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE SIGN THAT MEETS THE CODE.

THESE ARE YOUR CONSIDERATIONS FOR SIGN VARIANCES, SPECIAL CONDITIONS, STRICT INTERPRETATION OF THE CHAPTER, SPECIAL CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM THE ACTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

WHETHER OR NOT THE GRANT OF THE VARIANCE WILL MEET THE OBJECTIVES OF THE ORDINANCE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THE REQUEST IS THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ALLOW FOR A SPECIAL HARDSHIP, AND ALLOWING THE VARIANCE TO BE IN HARMONY WITH THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THIS CHAPTER. STAFF HAS NO OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST.

WE THINK IT IS VERY MINIMAL.

IT'S ESSENTIALLY JUST A REPLACEMENT OF THE SIGN CABINET.

I THINK I MENTIONED TO YOU ALL BEFORE, WE HAVE SIGNED A SIGN REWRITE ONGOING IN-HOUSE TO ADDRESS THESE TYPES OF ISSUES, BUT FOR THE TIME BEING, THESE VARIANCES ARE COMING TO YOU AS THEIR APPROVAL AUTHORITY.

SO STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE.

THIS ITEM DID NOT NEED TO GO TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THERE IS NO PUBLIC HEARING ASSOCIATED WITH IT.

I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE SIX B.

I'VE GOT A MOTION BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY VICTORIA.

PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUS.

OH, I'M SORRY, I DID HAVE A SPEAKER CARD.

I'M SORRY. DID THEY WANT TO SPEAK? RICK ROBERTSON. ROBERTSON.

NO. I FIGURED YOU WERE THE APPLICANT.

[7.A.Consider approval of a resolution declaring intention to reimburse an amount not to exceed $41,820,000 for Council approved capital projects with the FY23/24 budget and capital improvement plan. The resolution will give the City the ability to begin incurring capital expenditure costs of these projects with the intent of reimbursing the cost incurred with proceeds from bond debt to be issued at a future date and placing time restrictions on the issuance of tax-exempt obligations. (Staff Presenter: John Butkus, Finance Director)]

SORRY. THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION SEVEN.

GENERAL SEVEN A IS.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENT TO REIMBURSE AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $41,820,000 FOR COUNCIL APPROVED CAPITAL PROJECTS.

WITH THE FISCAL YEAR 2023-2024 BUDGET AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.

THIS RESOLUTION WILL GIVE THE CITY THE ABILITY TO BEGIN INCURRING CAPITAL EXPENDITURES COSTS FOR THOSE PROJECTS WITH THE INTENT OF REIMBURSING THE COST INCURRED, WITH PROCEEDS FROM THE BOND DEBT TO BE ISSUED AT A FUTURE DATE, AND PLACING TIME RESTRICTIONS ON THE ISSUANCE OF TAX EXEMPT OBLIGATIONS.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS JOHN BUTKUS, FINANCE DIRECTOR.

MISTER BUTKUS. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS EVENING, BRINGING FORTH REQUESTS FOR A REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION FOR FY 24 CAPITAL PROJECTS, AND JUST TO RECAP AGAIN, THIS RESOLUTION PROVIDES PROJECT FUNDING PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS, AND THE CITY DOES ANTICIPATE ISSUING BONDS AUGUST OF 2024, AND THE RESOLUTION IS NOT AN AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE BONDS.

THE USE OF THIS RESOLUTION IS APPLICABLE TO THE FY 2324 BUDGET THAT INCLUDED A FIVE YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023.

THE COUNCIL APPROVED A REVISED PARKS AND RECREATION CAPITAL PLAN FOR THIS YEAR ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2023.

WE ALSO HAD COUNCIL APPROVE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION FOR $1.8 MILLION FOR INTERNAL ENGINEERING, DEVELOPMENT AND PLANNING EXPENSES ON VARIOUS PROJECTS.

IT WAS APPROVED ON OCTOBER 2ND OF 23 AND THIS REQUESTED REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION SUPERSEDES THAT RESOLUTION.

THIS REQUEST IS FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT OF 41,820,000, AND IT WILL PROVIDE THE ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY REQUIRED FOR THE FY 2324 PROJECTS THAT INCLUDE STREETS, PARKS,

[00:50:03]

WATER, SEWER, A DETENTION POND, THE CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS AND A CAPITAL COST WILL BE FOR THE REIMBURSEMENT OF PROJECTS, EXPENSE OR ONES THAT INCUR OBLIGATIONS THROUGH AUGUST 31ST OF 2024, AT WHICH POINT WE WILL SELL THE BONDS.

JUST TO RECAP SOME OF THE PROJECTS AND CATEGORIES FOR FY 24, THE G.O.

BOND APPROVED PROJECTS TOTALED 15,167,000.

THE AMOUNT THAT WE WOULD NEED FOR THIS RESOLUTION IS 12,184,000.

AGAIN, THESE ARE FOR EXPENSES THAT WOULD BE INCURRED OR OBLIGATED THROUGH AUGUST OF 24.

WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT TOTALED 9.5 MILLION.

THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION IS FOR THE 11.6.

COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY HAD REQUESTED THE ADDITION OF THE POLICE EXPANSION GAS PIPELINE, WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE MOVED, AND ALSO THE OLD TOWN PARKING AND ELLISON STREET ENGINEERING.

WE ADDED THOSE TO THE RESOLUTION.

WATER PROJECTS TOTALED $7.9 MILLION, AND THE REQUEST IS FOR THE TOTAL OF THE $7.9 MILLION, AND AGAIN, WE ADDED THE DETAIL TO THE RIGHT OF THE SCHEDULE THAT SHOWS THE QUARTER OF THE [INAUDIBLE] AS WELL AS THE USE, WHETHER IT'S LAND, RIGHT OF WAY, DESIGN AND ENGINEERING OR CONSTRUCTION.

OUR SEWER PROJECTS TOTALED 19.1 MILLION, AND AGAIN, WE'VE BUILT IN 5.5 IN THE REQUEST.

THAT WILL BE BASICALLY FOR THE LAND RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE TRUNK RELIEF LINE, AND THE BULK OF THAT WILL COME LATER TIME.

FOUR B PROJECTS WHICH WERE DISCUSSED WITH THE FOUR B CORP EARLIER $9.7 MILLION OF PROJECTS. WE'VE GOT ALL THAT COVERED WITH THE RESOLUTION FROM 22, AND THAT LEFT A BALANCE OF $2.8 MILLION FOR THE THREE PROJECTS THAT WILL CARRY FORWARD FOR THIS YEAR THROUGH AUGUST, AND THE FOUR A PROJECTS AGAIN THAT WERE COVERED WITH FOUR A CORP.

EARLIER THIS EVENING.

29.5 MILLION IN THE PLAN, AND RIGHT NOW WE'VE GOT THE RETENTION POND AT AT HOOPER PARK. THAT'S PLANNED FOR, AGAIN, EXPENSES WOULD BE TOTALLY OBLIGATED BY AUGUST.

AGAIN, WITH THE BALANCE THAT WE HAVE FROM THE 22 RESOLUTION, WE JUST NEED THE 1.6 MILLION TO COVER THE TOTAL 6.5 OF THE PROJECT.

TOTAL PROJECTS OF 91.032 MILLION.

AGAIN, WE'RE REQUESTING 41.8 MILLION THIS EVENING.

AGAIN, THE INITIAL AMOUNT WAS APPROVED IN 2022, AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR THE BALANCE FOR THIS AGAIN, FOR COSTS THAT WILL BE INCURRED OR OBLIGATED THROUGH AUGUST OF THIS YEAR OF 2024, AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION.

APPROVAL WITH CHANGES OR DENY, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. ANYBODY.

IS THERE A MOTION? [INAUDIBLE] MOTION BY DAN AND A SECOND BY RONNIE.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES.

UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU.

[7.B.Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the Texas Coalition of Affordable Power to purchase electricity through a strategic hedging program on behalf of the city of Burleson beginning January 1, 2026. (Staff Presenter: Justin Scharnhorst, Assistant to the City Manager)]

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO SEVEN B.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TEXAS COALITION OF AFFORDABLE POWER TO PURCHASE ELECTRICITY THROUGH A STRATEGIC HEDGING PROGRAM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLESON BEGINNING JANUARY 1ST, 2026.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS JUSTIN SCHARNHORST, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU.

AMANDA. GOOD EVENING.

MAYOR. MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.

ITEM SEVEN B BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS TO TALK THROUGH THE CONTRACT.

THE CITY PROCURES ELECTRICITY THROUGH.

SO THE TEXAS COALITION OF AFFORDABLE POWER (TCAP) WAS FORMED UNDER CHAPTER 304 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. BASICALLY DEFINES WHAT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION CAN DO IN TERMS OF HOW IT PURCHASES ELECTRICITY.

THIS FUNCTION, ALSO UNDER THE GOVERNMENT CODE, IS EXEMPT FROM OUR COMPETITIVE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE HAVE OPTED TO UTILIZE T CAP THROUGH RESOLUTION SINCE THE MARKET WAS DEREGULATED. JUST KIND OF A LITTLE CONTEXT ON THIS.

THE CONTRACT THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS GOING TO SUPPORT 122 OF THE 147 ACTIVE METERS THAT THE CITY HAS IS ABOUT 77% OF THE CITY.

THE REST OF THOSE ARE MAINTAINED AND OPERATED BY THE UNITED COOPERATIVE SERVICES.

SO THIS IS A FIVE YEAR HISTORY.

ONE THING I DID WANT TO NOTE, IF YOU LOOK AT COLUMN FOUR TDSP, THAT'S THE TRANSMISSION

[00:55:04]

DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICE PROVIDER, WHICH FOR US IS ONCOR.

IT'S ALMOST 60% OF THE COST WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS CONTRACT.

SO THE TOTAL COST OF THAT ESSENTIALLY IS FIXED.

WHAT ONCOR WILL DO IS THEY WILL SET THEIR FEES.

THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADJUST THEIR FEES ANNUALLY.

THEY GO TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.

THE CITY IS A MEMBER OF A COMMITTEE THAT REVIEWS THOSE, MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO ACCEPT OR DENY, OFTENTIMES ARE DENIED.

A NEGOTIATED RATE IS PUT IN PLACE.

SO THOSE COSTS ARE KIND OF SUNK FOR US THAT ARE BASICALLY FIXED ON THE TDSP.

SO WE'RE FOCUSING JUST ON THE ENERGY CHARGES.

ENERGY CHARGES ARE APPLICABLE OF OUR CONSUMPTION.

APPLICABLE TAXES AND FEES ARE ROLLED INTO THAT NUMBER TO GET US A TOTAL COST OF THIS SHOWN HERE. SO THERE'S 160 MEMBERS THAT PARTICIPATE IN TCAP ACROSS THE STATE, PREDOMINANTLY IN NORTH TEXAS, AS WELL AS THE GULF COAST AND SOME CITIES OUT IN WEST TEXAS AS WELL. IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO CITIES, HOUSING AUTHORITIES, RIVER AUTHORITIES.

SOME MUD DISTRICTS PARTICIPATE IN T CAP AS WELL.

TCAP DOES THAT FOR US IN THIS INDUSTRY.

THEY HAVE OVER 200 YEARS OF COMBINED EXPERIENCE BETWEEN THEM AND THEIR STAFF, CONSULTANTS THAT MAKE UP T CAP.

ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS PROCESS IS THAT [INAUDIBLE], WHO THE CITY'S CONTRACT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THROUGH OUR RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER, PROVIDE QUARTERLY ENERGY AUDITS, AND THAT GIVES US KIND OF A COMPREHENSIVE VIEW OF CITY FACILITIES, THEIR CONSUMPTION, AND LETS US REALLY PAINT A PICTURE OF WHERE OUR MAIN USERS OF THIS CONTRACT ARE AND GIVES US A BASIS TO TRACK THAT.

SO SINCE 2010, TCAP HAS RETURNED OVER $73,000 IN SURPLUS FUNDS BACK TO THE CITY THROUGH THAT QUARTERLY AUDIT PROCESS.

THEY'RE A NONPROFIT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, HAVE OVER 160 PARTNERS IN THE STATE.

SO IN TERMS OF ENERGY OPTIONS, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY TWO OPTIONS THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH STRATEGIC HEDGING PROGRAM OR FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING.

SINCE THE BEGINNING T CAP IS ONLY OFFERED FIXED PRICE CONTRACTING UP UNTIL 2020.

THAT WAS WHEN THE SHP PROGRAM WAS DEVELOPED.

SOME OF THE BENEFITS FOR FIXED PRICE IS YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR BUDGET IS GOING TO BE EVERY YEAR. SO WHETHER YOU DO A THREE YEAR OR FIVE YEAR CONTRACT, YOU KNOW WHAT YOUR RATES ARE GOING TO BE, AND SO THERE'S BENEFIT TO THAT.

SOME OF THE DRAWBACKS ON THAT IS THAT YOU'RE BASICALLY BUYING FUTURES, AND SO YOU PAY A PREMIUM ON THE FRONT END OR YOU PAY A PREMIUM ON THE BACK END OF THOSE CONTRACTS.

I THINK THE END OF YEAR ONE AND THE BEGINNING OF YEARS THREE THROUGH FIVE, WHATEVER THE TERM OF THAT AGREEMENT WOULD BE.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE TWO DIFFERENT METHODS BETWEEN FIXED PRICE AND SHP, WE'RE KIND OF BALANCING A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

IT'S A VERY VOLATILE MARKET.

ONE THING THAT THE SHP PROGRAM DOES, IN THE EVENT THAT CITY COUNCIL OPTED TO PARTICIPATE IN THAT T CAP, WOULD GO INTO THE MARKETPLACE EVERY MONTH, THEY WOULD ISSUE RFPS EVERY 12 MONTHS, AND WE WOULD BUY OUR ELECTRICITY TWO YEARS IN ADVANCE, AND SO IN THEORY, WE'RE OPERATING IN THAT SWEET SPOT OF WHERE OUR FIXED PRICE CONTRACTS WOULD BE BY LEVERAGING THEM GOING INTO THE MARKETPLACE MORE FREQUENTLY IN THIS PROGRAM, THE CITY HAS THE OPTION TO SECURE A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT.

WE HAVE THE OPTION TO MOVE INTO A STRATEGIC HEDGING PROGRAM.

IF WE DID MOVE INTO THE HEDGING PROGRAM, WE HAVE THE OPTIONS TO GET OUT AT TWO DIFFERENT TIMES OF YEAR, AND THEN ALSO IN THE EVENT THAT MARKET BECOMES UNFAVORABLE, TCAP WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE MOVE OUT AND THEY WOULD HELP US MIGRATE INTO A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT AS WELL. SO SOME OF THE GOALS WITH SHP IS THAT WOULD REDUCE RISK IN A VERY, VERY VOLATILE MARKET. AS I MENTIONED, THEY WOULD GO INTO THE MARKETPLACE EVERY MONTH DIRECTLY INTO THE WHOLESALE MARKETPLACE.

USING T CAP AFFORDS US THE OPPORTUNITY TO BYPASS A BROKER, AS I MENTIONED, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'RE RAPIDLY RISING COSTS OR OTHER VARIABLES THAT CONTRIBUTED TO RATES MOVING NORTH, COSTING THE CITY MORE MONEY WOULD LOOK AT REEVALUATING THAT OF THE 160 MEMBERS IF WE DID MOVE IN. TO THE PROGRAM, WE WOULD BE THE 154TH WITHIN THE TCAP MEMBERSHIP SHARE. FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, IT SEEMS LIKE A LONG WAYS OUT, BUT THE CURRENT CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE THAT WE SIGNED IN OCTOBER 2022 IS SET TO EXPIRE DECEMBER 31ST 25. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT JANUARY 1ST, 26 CURRENTLY FOR A NEW CONTRACT.

TWO DIFFERENT METHODS TO DO THAT.

SO THE OPTION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS YOU HAVE MORE THAN A HANDFUL.

FIRST STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO MIGRATE THE CITY INTO A STRATEGIC HEDGING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZE TCAP TO DO THAT.

CITY COUNCIL HAS THE OPPORTUNITY, AS I MENTIONED, TO GO INTO A FIXED PRICE CONTRACT, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE DONE HISTORICALLY.

DENY THE RESOLUTION AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT THAT WOULD ALLOW T CAP TO NEGOTIATE ON THE CITY'S BEHALF.

WE COULD ALSO ISSUE A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION IN HOUSE.

WE WOULD BE GOING INTO THE MARKETPLACE SOLELY ON OUR OWN.

[01:00:03]

WE WOULDN'T BE LEVERAGING OTHER PEOPLE'S CONSUMPTION WHEN WE GO INTO THE MARKETPLACE BY DOING THAT, AND THEN LASTLY, THE CITY COULD CONTRACT WITH A BROKER.

A BROKER WOULD HELP PROCURE A CONTRACT, AND THEN WE WOULD SIGN A CONTRACT WITH A RETAIL ELECTRIC PROVIDER. THINK OF THE END GAME.

THERE'S FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT ALONG THE WAY, AND SO THOSE ARE THE FIVE OPTIONS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. I KNOW THAT WAS A LOT OF INFORMATION A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME.

AGAIN I DID WANT TO REITERATE THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT IS TO MIGRATE INTO THE HEDGING PROGRAM. TONIGHT'S ACTION.

IF WE DID DO THAT, IT WOULD AUTHORIZE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT THAT WOULD LET TCAP GO INTO THE MARKETPLACE FOR US, AND THEN WE WOULD SIGN A CONTRACT TO BE EFFECTIVE IN 2026.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS I CAN.

JUSTIN, I'M LOOKING AT SOME FIGURES HERE, AND FROM 2018 TO 2021.

PARDON ME, MY VOICE IS FIXING TO GO TCAP USING THE SHP, THE AVERAGE SAVINGS FOR THOSE THREE YEARS FOR THEIR CUSTOMERS, 160 THAT THEY HAD AT THE TIME THEY WERE USING IT.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW MANY, BUT THEY SAVED 32% OVER THE FIXED OPTION PRICE OR THE CONTRACT PRICE, AND FROM 21 TO 22, USING THE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAD THERE WHILE WE WERE UNDER CONTRACT PRICE.

GOING BACK TO THE SHP FIGURES THEY HAD FOR THAT YEAR, ON THE AVERAGE, WE WOULD HAVE SAVED 15.68% $29,000 ON THE ENERGY COST ALONE.

SO GOING FORWARD.

I'M THINKING SHP WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY SAVING MONEY FOR THE CITIZENS.

YES, SIR. ANYBODY ELSE.

I HAD CONCERNS GOING INTO THE MEETING TONIGHT AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IF YOU ALL REMEMBER, GRIDDY AND MY NEIGHBOR HAD IT RIGHT BEFORE THE WINTER STORM URI, AND THEY ACTUALLY CALLED AND TOLD HIM TO GET A FIXED PLAN NOW AND THEN, THE AVERAGE PER I THINK THEY DO IT BY MEGAWATT HOUR.

IT WENT FROM $20 TO 9000 AND, BUT I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME FALLBACKS IN HERE THAT PREVENT ANY, ANY KIND OF VARIABLE PLAN ALWAYS SCARES ME IN A ESPECIALLY IN AN ENERGY ENVIRONMENT, BUT JUST JUST SO I UNDERSTAND.

SO EVERY MONTH THEY GO, SO IF WE START IN 24 THEY'LL LOOK IN JANUARY AND IT'LL BE FOR JANUARY OF 26.

YES, AND COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT, I MEAN COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL I'M SORRY.

MARGARET SOMEREVE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF TCAP IS HERE.

I'M GOING TO REVERT TO HER ON THE TIMING OF WHEN THEY GO INTO THE MARKETPLACE.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU. MARGARET.

SUMMARY OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR COUNCILMAN.

JUST TO LET YOU KNOW, AFTER THE WINTER STORM, GRIDDY TYPE CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL. TCAP DOES NOT DO ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

THOSE ARE BUYING CONTRACTS ON THE SPOT MARKET.

T CAP DOES NOT DO ANY SPOT MARKET PRICING.

WHAT THIS SHP PROGRAM DOES IS WE GO OUT INTO THE WHOLESALE MARKET EVERY MONTH, AND WE BUY 1/12 OF OUR NEED FOR TWO YEARS PRIOR.

AT THE END OF THE 12 MONTHS, WE AVERAGE THE 12 MONTH RATES TOGETHER.

IT'S A FIXED PRICE FOR ONE YEAR.

THERE'S NO VARIABLE IN THAT, AND THEN THAT IS THE PRICE THAT GETS PRESENTED TO THE CITY.

THOSE PRICES ARE PRESENTED IN MARCH, SO IT'S PLENTY OF TIME BEFORE BUDGET SEASON STARTS AGAIN. IT'S TRYING TO FIND SAVINGS ON THE ENERGY PORTION, AND WE KNOW ONCOR PRICES ARE GOING UP AND UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN'T DO MUCH ABOUT THOSE.

PERFECT.

THANK YOU, AND THERE'S AN OPTION IN JUNE AND DECEMBER TO JUMP FROM THE SHP TO THE CONTRACT.

YES THERE IS.

UNFORTUNATELY WE'VE BEEN WATCHING THE RATES.

LIKE JUSTIN HAD SAID, WE HAVE 153 MEMBERS THAT STARTED THIS PROGRAM IN 2023, RIGHT? YEAH, 2023, AND THE PRICES HAVE NOT BEEN MORE FAVORABLE TO JUMP SHIP.

THEY HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY HIGH OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE'VE SEEN THE PRICE GO UP TO ALMOST $0.09, AND SO NO, WE HAVEN'T RECOMMENDED THAT ANYONE LEAVE IN THOSE TIME PERIODS, BUT WE WATCH IT.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS GETS UPDATED AT THEIR BOARD MEETINGS TO LOOK AT WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHAT THEY RECOMMEND FOR THE MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU MARGARET. ANYBODY ELSE?

[01:05:05]

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AS PRESENTED WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN AND A SECOND BY RONNIE.

I'M SORRY. PHIL. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU JUSTIN.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[7.C.Consider approval of a Reimbursement Agreement and an amendment to the permanent easement with Texas Midstream Gas Services L.L.C. for relocation of the existing 12” gas pipeline located on the south side of the Burleson Police Department complex in the amount of $1,197,000.00. (Staff Presenter : Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works & Engineering)]

THAT BRINGS US TO SEVEN C.

CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE PERMANENT EASEMENT WITH TEXAS MIDSTREAM GAS SERVICES, LLC FOR RELOCATION OF THE EXISTING 12 INCH GAS PIPELINE LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF BURLESON POLICE DEPARTMENT COMPLEX, IN THE AMOUNT OF 1,197,000.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ERIC THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING.

MR. THOMPSON. THANK YOU AND GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I FEEL LIKE THIS PROJECT IS PROBABLY ONE YOU'RE PROBABLY MOST FAMILIAR WITH, WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION THE LAST 10 OR 12 WEEKS ON THE PROJECT ITSELF, BUT THEN TO A LESSER EXTENT, THE GAS LINE RELOCATION.

SO IN ONE OF THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, YOU GAVE US DIRECTION ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE GAS LINE RELOCATION.

SO WE'RE REALLY HERE TONIGHT TO GET YOUR OFFICIAL APPROVAL ON AN AGREEMENT WITH THE GAS LINE OWNER SO THAT WE CAN GET THAT RELOCATION UNDERWAY.

SO AGAIN, AS YOU'RE ALREADY AWARE, THE 2022 BOND PROGRAM INCLUDED 36.4 MILLION FOR EXPANSION OF THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS BUILDING AND LIGHT RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING FACILITY, ALSO INCLUDING RELOCATION OF THE GAS LINE THAT BISECTS THE PROPERTY.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, IN AUGUST AND AGAIN IN OCTOBER, STAFF PRESENTED SOME INFORMATION AND SOME CONCEPTS.

YOU PROVIDED FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE TO PROCEED WITH RELOCATING THE GAS LINE.

SO SHOWN HERE IN BLUE ON THE IN THE AERIAL PHOTO AND THEN IN YELLOW.

WE'VE GIVEN THE APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE REALIGNED GAS LINE.

A LITTLE BIT ON SCHEDULE.

THE DESIGN OF THIS RELOCATION IS ALREADY COMPLETED.

CONSTRUCTION IS ANTICIPATED TO TAKE IN THE 6 TO 12 MONTH TIME FRAME.

THE COST 1.197 MILLION.

THAT'S THE ESTIMATED COST.

THE AGREEMENT THAT TEXAS MIDSTREAM HAS PROVIDED PROVIDES FOR UPFRONT REIMBURSEMENT TO THEM, OR WILL FRONT THE PAYMENT TO THEM.

THERE'LL BE MONTHLY SUBMITTAL OF DETAIL INFORMATION FROM THEM ABOUT ACTUAL COSTS ALONG THE WAY, AND THEN THEIR SAVINGS IN THE END.

THEY'LL BE A RETURN TO THE CITY.

THIS AGREEMENT ALSO WOULD INCLUDE A NEW 30 FOOT PERMANENT EASEMENT FOR THE NEW LOCATION OF THE GAS LINE. THE SLIDE GIVES YOU KIND OF OUR, OUR CURRENT IDEA OF THE OVERALL SCHEDULE FOR THE PROJECT. SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL THAT WE HIRED THE ARCHITECT IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR. FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS, 7 OR 8 MONTHS, WE'VE WORKED ON THE PROGRAMMING CONFORMATION, WHICH ALLOWED US TO GET TO THE POINT OF BRINGING YOU THE SEVERAL CONCEPTS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, AND IN OCTOBER, SINCE YOU SELECTED ONE, THE ARCHITECT IS VERY EAGER TO GET INTO REAL DESIGN I'LL CALL IT.

GAS LINE RELOCATION AGAIN IS ANTICIPATED TO TAKE 6 TO 12 MONTHS, SO THAT BEGINS SOMETIME IN DECEMBER. WE SHOULD BE FINISHED BY NOVEMBER OF NEXT YEAR.

DESIGN OF THE ACTUAL FACILITY EXPANSION IS GOING TO SPAN INTO THE VERY BEGINNING OF 2025. SO GAS LINE WILL BE OUT OF THE WAY AND SHOULD NOT BE AN ISSUE OVERLAPPING WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE ACTUAL NEW FACILITY, WHICH WILL LIKELY START IN THE VERY EARLY 2025 TIME FRAME AND SPAN INTO 2026.

SO BEFORE YOU, WE HAVE TWO OPTIONS TO EITHER APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT SO THAT WE CAN GET THE GAS LINE OUT OF THE WAY AT 1.197 AND AGAIN, THIS IS FUNDED BY ADDITIONAL DEBT CAPACITY.

IT WAS INCLUDED IN THAT REFUNDING RESOLUTION THAT FINANCE PRESENTED JUST EARLIER IN THIS MEETING, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

ANYONE ERIC, ARE THEY ARE THEY GOING TO BORE THIS IN THE FRONT PORTION OF IT? OKAY. ACTUALLY, THE ONLY PORTION TO BE BORED WILL BE ARNOLD AVENUE COMING OUT OF THE

[01:10:07]

WILTSHIRE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING.

OKAY, SO THE PARKING LOT GET DISRUPTED A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN THE, THE OLD LINE, ARE THEY JUST GOING TO ABANDON AND JUST LEAVE IT IN THE GROUND ABANDONED, AND IF CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW FACILITY NEEDS TO REMOVE IT, THAT WILL BE JUST PART OF THAT CONSTRUCTION. OKAY.

I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE GOT A PLAN FOR THE DISRUPTION OF PD OR IS THAT YET TO COME? ABSOLUTELY. WE WOULDN'T.

WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY CAN GET IN AND OUT AND MAKE SURE PEOPLE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THE COURTS BUILDING.

OKAY YOU PUT ME IN MY PLACE.

[CHUCKLING] ANYBODY GOT A MOTION ON THIS? I WANTED TO ASK A MORE DETAILED QUESTION ON THE ABANDONMENT OF THE EXISTING LINE.

YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT IN PLACE INITIALLY? IT WILL BE LEFT IN PLACE INITIALLY.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN? WELL, AGAIN, WE HAVEN'T.

WE'RE BARELY GETTING INTO DESIGN OF THE ACTUAL BUILDING NOW.

SO WHETHER OR NOT THAT PIECE OF PIPE CAN STAY WHERE IT IS INACTIVE, YOU KNOW, CAPPED ON EITHER END, WE DON'T KNOW THAT JUST YET.

OKAY. WELL, THERE'S DIFFERENT WAYS TO ABANDON A PIPELINE WITHOUT GETTING TOO TECHNICAL. YOU CAN LEAVE IT HOLLOW AND EMPTY, OR YOU CAN FILL IT UP WITH SOMETHING IF THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT IN PLACE.

I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT THE ABANDONMENT DOESN'T LEAVE A HOLLOW STEEL PIPE TO RUST AND GIVE UP THROUGH THE YEARS. IT WON'T HAVE CATHODIC PROTECTION IF IT'S AN ABANDONED LINE, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A PRETTY QUICK PROCESS.

I GET YOUR POINT AND I'LL CONFIRM THAT DETAIL WITH TEXAS MIDSTREAM, BUT IT'S IN THE DESIGN THAT I DIDN'T BRING ALL THE DETAILS OF THAT WITH ME.

OKAY, BUT THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE THAT THEY FILL IT.

GOT IT.

THANKS, DAN. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? ALREADY MADE IT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MESSAGE.

I GOT A MOTION BY BILL AND A SECOND BY ADAM.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

[7.D.Consider approval of a minute order adopting the Mobility Plan, and Water & Wastewater Master Plan.(Staff Contact: Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works & Engineering)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SEVEN D.

THIS IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A MINUTE ORDER ADOPTING THE MOBILITY PLAN AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ERIC THOMPSON DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING.

APPARENTLY THERE'S A LONG AGENDA TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S, LIKE A THOUSAND FILES HERE. LET'S TRY THIS ONE.

SO THIS PHOTO PROBABLY WASN'T FROM LAST WEEK, PROBABLY IN THE 1970S, BUT AS YOU'RE ALL AWARE, WE'RE NOT POPULATION 11,000 ANYMORE.

SOME ESTIMATES, SOME CURRENT ESTIMATES SAY THAT WE EXCEED 50,000 NOW.

SO A LOT OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN BURLESON A LOT OF THIS OR THIS TOPIC WAS PRESENTED TO YOU BACK OCTOBER 2ND.

SO I WON'T BORE YOU WITH ALL THE DETAILS.

THE INTENT WOULD BE TO GIVE YOU KIND OF A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

OVERVIEW OF TWO SEPARATE BUT VERY IMPORTANT MASTER PLANS, ONE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER AND THEN THE OTHER FOR THE MOBILITY PLAN.

I THINK SOME OF THE EARLIER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT KIND OF UNDERSCORE THE IMPORTANCE OF PERIODICALLY UPDATING THESE PLANS, BECAUSE DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND MOMENTUM CHANGES FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND FROM AT DIFFERENT POINTS IN THE ECONOMIC CYCLE OVERALL. SO YOU'VE SEEN THIS SLIDE BEFORE, BUT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO MAXIMIZE LIMITED CAPITAL INVESTMENT DOLLARS.

SO WHERE POSSIBLE WE'D LIKE TO PLAN FOR THE GROWTH WHERE IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN SO THAT WE PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE BY THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS.

WHETHER IT'S ROADWAYS OR WATER OR WASTEWATER, ALL OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS VERY COSTLY, AND IT TAKES TIME TO DESIGN AND THEN EVEN MORE TIME TO CONSTRUCT.

SO IT BEHOOVES US TO TRY TO PLAN TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.

SO SPENDING A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE MOBILITY PLAN.

SO THE DRAFT MOBILITY PLAN SEEKS TO REPLACE THE 2015 MASTER MOBILITY PLAN.

THAT WAS THE LAST TIME COUNCIL ADOPTED SUCH A PLAN, AND IT AND IT PROVIDES A FRAMEWORK FOR ADDRESSING ALL TYPES OF TRANSPORTATION NEEDS.

SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES BICYCLES TRAILS BUT AND THEN ALSO ROADWAYS.

[01:15:05]

SO THIS SLIDE GIVES YOU AGAIN THE OVERVIEW OF THE MOBILITY PLAN DIVIDED INTO THESE SIX CHAPTERS, AND AGAIN, THE FULL DOCUMENT IN ITS HUNDREDS OF PAGES IS AVAILABLE ON THE IN YOUR MATERIALS AND AGAIN ALSO ONLINE ON THE CITY'S WEB PAGE.

SO AS IT RELATES TO THE THOROUGHFARES IN THE MOBILITY PLAN AND AS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED, THE DRAFT PLAN FOR ADOPTION IS THE RESULT OF MULTIPLE MODELING RUNS BY THE CONSULTANT.

SO THIS SLIDE KIND OF GIVES YOU THE FOUR MAIN ITERATIONS OF THE MODEL.

BASICALLY LOOKING AT DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT WOULD RESULT IN AN ACCEPTABLE TRYING TO FIND. ALMOST THE FEWEST ROADS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BUILD IN ORDER TO HAVE ACCEPTABLE CONGESTION, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, AND THAT'S ALL TIED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN AND LAND USE UPDATES AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS, POPULATION PROJECTIONS AS WELL.

THE. THIS SLIDE KIND OF GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF HOW HOW MANY PRETTY POORLY CONGESTED ROADS WE'D HAVE.

THOROUGHFARE ROADS, BASED ON THE CURRENT MCP, THE ONE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2015.

YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE ROUGHLY NINE SEGMENTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONGESTION AND TRAFFIC AT BUILDOUT, INDICATING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO ADD MORE THOROUGHFARES TO NOT HAVE THAT CONGESTION.

ALSO WAS PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED.

THERE ARE FIVE KIND OF KEY RECOMMENDED THOROUGHFARES TO BE ADDED, SO THEY'RE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, AND THEN THIS MAP IS KIND OF A GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION OF ROADWAY THOROUGHFARES BEING ADDED OR DELETED IN THE PROPOSED IN THE DRAFT 2022 MOBILITY PLAN. I MENTIONED BEFORE OR IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION THAT IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE MOBILITY PLAN DOESN'T ACTUALLY DESIGN ANY OF THESE NEW THOROUGHFARES OR EXACTLY WHERE THEY WILL BE, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE SOME GENERAL ALIGNMENT OPTIONS.

SO HERE ARE SEVEN DIFFERENT SEGMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED, AND THEN THIS FOLLOWING THIS SLIDE. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF HULEN FROM FM 731 JOHN JONES OVER TO I-35W AND FURTHER EAST.

SO YOU SEE IT'S KIND OF ONE OPTION UNTIL YOU GET TO 35 FROM THE WEST, BUT THEN AT 35, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS THAT ARE CONSIDERED.

AGAIN, THE FINAL ALIGNMENT WOULD BE DEVELOPED DURING A KIND OF A SCHEMATIC DESIGN CONTRACT THAT WOULD LIKELY BE FUNDED IN A FUTURE CIP PROGRAM.

THIS SLIDE PROVIDES THE RESULTING THOROUGHFARE PLAN THAT'S IN THE DRAFT MOBILITY PLAN.

SO THE DIFFERENT COLORS REPRESENTING DIFFERENT CLASSIFICATIONS OF ROADWAY FOLLOWING SLIDE GIVES YOU ONE OF SEVERAL EXAMPLES IN THE DOCUMENT OF ROADWAY CROSS SECTIONS. WE WERE SURE THIS TIME TO INCLUDE ONE THAT INCLUDED A CYCLIST, AND NOW IF MAYBE I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS ON MOBILITY OR WE'LL JUST GO RIGHT ON INTO WATER WASTEWATER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE AWARE OF THE COUNTY JUST HIRED FREESE NICHOLS TO DO A COUNTY MASTER PLAN.

SO YOU'RE AWARE OF THAT? WE'RE INVOLVED IN THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY, LET'S TALK WATER AND WASTEWATER.

NEXT, SEVERAL SLIDES WILL GIVE A HIGH LEVEL AND QUICK EXAMPLE REVIEW OF THE WATER WASTEWATER MASTER PLAN, PRESENTED IN GREATER DETAIL BACK ON OCTOBER 2ND, AND AGAIN THE FULL DOCUMENT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE AND YOUR MATERIAL.

HERE. THIS SLIDE GIVES YOU KIND OF SIX PRIMARY OBJECTIVES OF THE WATER COMPONENT OF

[01:20:03]

THE MASTER PLAN. SO AS YOU KNOW, INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS FOR WATER AND SEWER ARE TIME AND MONEY INTENSIVE TO DESIGN AND CONSTRUCT AND CONSTRUCT.

AS A RESULT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW WHAT IS NEEDED INFRASTRUCTURE WISE AND WHEN TO THE EXTENT WE CAN.

HERE THIS SLIDE AGAIN IS REALLY IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE WATER SERVICE AREA AND THE SEWER SERVICE AREA ARE NOT THE SAME POPULATION SERVED BY THE TWO DIFFERENT UTILITIES ARE FAIRLY SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT.

THE TABLES ABOVE SHOW THAT POPULATION SERVED FOR WATER AND SEWER TODAY ARE RELATIVELY CLOSE, 47,000 FOR WATER AND 50,000 FOR SEWER, BUT IF YOU LOOK A COUPLE OF ROWS DOWN IN THE TABLE AT THE TEN YEAR NUMBERS, WATER GROWS FROM 47,000 TO ABOUT 60, BUT SEWER GROWS FROM 50,000 UP TO ABOUT 77,000, AND IN THAT COLUMN OVER TO THE RIGHT NON RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE SERVED. THAT'S ANOTHER KEY DATA POINT BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE CONTRIBUTE TO HOW MUCH CAPACITY WE NEED TO HAVE IN THE GROUND BASICALLY, AND I'LL SAY AGAIN THAT LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS ARE KEY AS WELL AS POPULATION ESTIMATES.

SO WE GET THOSE FROM A NUMBER OF SOURCES, BUT PRIMARILY THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

THE MASTER PLAN INCLUDES ABOUT $80 MILLION IN FUTURE WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND OVER 126 MILLION ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE.

LATER WE'LL TALK ABOUT IMPACT FEES THAT ARE SORT OF TIED TO THIS AS WELL, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT THE IMPACT FEES ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE ARE GROWING MORE WHEN ON THE WATER SIDE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHRINKING A LITTLE BIT.

THAT'S FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH THIS DATA.

THIS SLIDE JUST GIVES A FEW OR A HANDFUL OF EXAMPLES OF SOME OF THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS.

YOU'VE GOT HULEN WIDENING IN THE BIG 16 INCH TRANSMISSION LINE THAT WILL BE PART OF THAT PROJECT. AS I MENTIONED, OF THE INDUSTRIAL PUMP STATION THAT'S BEING EXPANDED AND REHABBED. MORE CAPACITY AT THE HEWLAND PUMP STATION.

ADDITIONAL ELEVATED STORAGE PROJECTS.

THE VILLAGE CREEK PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR PROJECT THAT'S ACTUALLY UNDERWAY IN DESIGN AS WE SPEAK. YOU'LL HEAR MORE ABOUT THAT PROJECT IN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, AND THEN SHOULD THE [INAUDIBLE] RANCH DEVELOPMENT HAPPEN, THERE WILL BE PROJECTS THAT SUPPORT THAT AS WELL.

SO THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES THAT MAKE UP THE OVER OR ALMOST 200,000,000 IN IDENTIFIED CAPITAL PROJECTS.

SO I'LL SAY AGAIN THAT THE FULL MASTER PLAN DOCUMENT INCLUDES MUCH MORE DETAIL ON ALL OF THESE IDENTIFIED PROJECTS, AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM YOU.

YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SEWER GROWING AT A FASTER RATE THAN THE WATER.

IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE WESTERN GROWTH? [INAUDIBLE] MANAGING THE WATER, THAT'S PART OF IT.

IT'S POPULATION GROWTH, BUT THEN ALSO THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT REALLY ACROSS THE ENTIRE CITY, BUT THE WEST SIDE IS DEFINITELY A BIG COMPONENT OF THAT.

OKAY. CAN I MAKE A SLIGHT REQUEST? I KNOW WE STARTED THIS IN 2022, BUT SINCE WE HAVE ONE MONTH LEFT OF 2023, CAN WE CHANGE THE NAME TO 2023? I THINK THAT COULD BE ARRANGED.

OKAY, GREAT.

I NOTICED THERE WAS A BOND COMING UP OR IT'S ALREADY PASSED, I GUESS OVER A WATER PLANT OR SOMETHING. [INAUDIBLE] TEXAS WATER FUND.

IS THAT PART OF THE GROWTH THAT YOU'RE KIND OF COUNTING ON THERE? WELL, WE WILL DEFINITELY EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES TO, TO TRY AND GET SOME OF THAT FUNDING. OKAY.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I MOVE TO APPROVE WITH THE NAME CHANGE.

[01:25:08]

I GOT A MOTION BY ADAM.

A SECOND BY VICTORIA. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[7.E.Hold a Public Hearing and consider approval of an ordinance amending the Roadway Impact Fee Ordinance (CSO#1479-08-2020); 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. (First Reading) (Staff Presenter: Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works & Engineering)]

THAT BRINGS US TO SEVEN E.

EXCUSE ME. THAT'S TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE.

CSO 1479-08-2020 FINDING THAT THE MEETING IN WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT THE RECITALS ARE TRUE, CONTAINING A SEVERITY CLAUSE, A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL.

ON FIRST READING, THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ONCE AGAIN ERIC THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING. MR. THOMPSON, THANK YOU AGAIN.

OKAY.

IMPACT FEES.

SO I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ONE PRESENTATION THAT TALKS ROADWAY AND WATER WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.

SO SEVEN F IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE.

CSO 977-02-2019.

FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IS PASSED WAS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND THAT THE RECITALS ARE TRUE, CONTAINING A SEVERITY CLAUSE, A CUMULATIVE CLAUSE AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THIS ALSO IS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.

THANK YOU. SO IT TIES RIGHT IN WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEMS FOR THE MASTER PLANS.

VERY HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW.

AGAIN, THIS IS SOME INFORMATION THAT YOU HEARD BACK IN OCTOBER WHEN WE PRESENTED THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS OF WHAT THE FEES MIGHT WERE RECOMMENDED TO CHANGE TO.

SO WE'LL START WITH A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND INFORMATION AND THEN GET INTO THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND MORE.

MOST IMPORTANTLY, GET TO YOUR FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION AS WELL AS HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES WERE INITIALLY IMPLEMENTED IN 2005.

THEY'VE BEEN REVISED SIX TIMES BETWEEN 2010 AND 2019.

ROADWAY IMPACT FEES WERE INITIALLY IMPLEMENTED IN 2017.

SO THERE WAS A SLIGHT UPDATE IN 2019, I BELIEVE, AND THEN NOW WOULD BE THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL POTENTIAL UPDATE TO THOSE FEES.

SO WE'LL TRY TO TALK ABOUT BOTH WHERE POSSIBLE, BUT SOMETIMES I'LL HAVE TO TALK ABOUT ONE OR THE OTHER.

SO WE'LL START WITH THAT.

WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES ARE ONLY FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY AREA.

SO THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CITY LIMITS BUT OUR CCN AREA, AND THEN THOSE PROJECTS PROJECTS RECEIVING THESE FEES OR REVENUE FROM THESE FEES HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE WATER WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROGRAM, WHICH IS KIND OF A SUBSET OF THE OVERALL CITY'S WATER WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROGRAM.

THERE'S KIND OF SIX MAIN STEPS TO COME UP WITH WHAT IMPACT FEES WILL BE.

WE HAVE TO DETERMINE SERVICE AREAS.

SO ON THE WATER WASTEWATER SIDE.

IT'S KIND OF WHAT I JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE CCN FOR ROADWAY.

IT'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

STATE LAW GIVES SOME ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION ON HAVING STREET SEGMENTS THAT ARE NOT MORE THAN SIX MILES LONG.

SO WE END UP WITH FOUR SERVICE AREAS FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, AND AGAIN, ONLY THE ONLY PROJECTS WITHIN A GIVEN SERVICE AREA AND INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL IMPACT FEE CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE AREA CAN RECEIVE FUNDS FROM FEES COLLECTED IN THAT SERVICE AREA. SO BASICALLY, I COULDN'T TAKE FUNDS THAT WERE COLLECTED DOWN IN SOUTHEAST BURLESON IN AREA D AND APPLY THEM TO A PROJECT IN AREA B IN THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF TOWN. SO ONCE WE HAVE SERVICE AREAS IDENTIFIED, THEN WE GET INTO LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS. SO THIS IS WHERE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMES IN AND ALL THE GROWTH PROJECTIONS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS.

THERE'S A TON OF MATH THAT GOES INTO FIGURING OUT WHAT SERVICE UNITS ARE IN THEIR

[01:30:03]

RESPECTIVE AREAS.

THEN THERE'S GOT TO BE A CAPITAL PLAN TO SUPPORT THE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE RESPECTIVE AREA. MORE MATH, WHICH HELPS US DETERMINE WHAT THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE FEE IS, AND THEN.

KEY POLICY DECISIONS FOR COUNCIL COME INTO PLAY TO ACTUALLY ADOPT THE FEE THAT'S GOING TO BE CHARGED AND TO ESTABLISH THE EFFECTIVE DATES.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT IMPACT FEES CAN'T BE USED OR WHAT THEY CAN BE USED FOR.

THAT WOULD BE A RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENT ACQUISITION, AND ALL OF THESE THINGS, AGAIN, ARE FOR PROJECTS INCLUDED IN THE CAPITAL PROGRAM FOR THE IMPACT FEE, FOR THE RESPECTIVE IMPACT FEE, AND.

IN THE RESPECTIVE SERVICE AREAS.

SO DESIGN EXPENSES, SURVEY CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN IF WE'VE ISSUED DEBT TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OR FUND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, THE DEBT CAN ALSO BE.

CHARGE OR EXPENSE AGAINST THE IMPACT FEE.

WE CAN ALSO FUND THE EXPENSE OF THE CONSULTANTS THAT ACTUALLY DO ALL THE ANALYSIS THAT BY LAW, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO REFRESH EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO WE'RE RIGHT ON TIME TO GET THAT DONE.

NOW A FEW THINGS THAT WE CAN'T USE IMPACT FEES ON.

WE CAN'T USE THEM FOR MAINTENANCE.

WE CAN'T USE THEM FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ETJ.

WE CAN'T USE THEM FOR TRAFFIC CALMING OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS THAT DON'T INCREASE CAPACITY. IT HAS TO BE CAPACITY INCREASING.

ADDING LANES, BUILDING A NEW ROAD, THAT KIND OF THING ON THE ROADWAY SIDE, AND THEN ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.

STAFF TIME IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN EXPENSE TO THE IMPACT FEES WE WOULD HAVE TO WE CAN EXPENSE THE CONSULTANT.

AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PICTURES ON THE RIGHT, I'M GOING TO SAY THAT THE LOWER PICTURE IS.

MORE OF A MAINTENANCE PROJECT.

MAKING A REPAIR TO A LINE, SEWER LINE LOOKS LIKE NOT NOT EXPANDING.

ADDING A NEW TRUNK LINE, ADDING MORE CAPACITY TO THE SEWER SYSTEM.

THEN THE PICTURE ABOVE IS KIND OF MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD STREET THAT'S NOT BEING WIDENED, THAT'S NOT HAVING MORE LANES ADDED.

IT'S JUST BASICALLY REPAVING OR REBUILDING THE EXISTING STREETS.

SO NOT AN ELIGIBLE EXPENSE.

SO BACK IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR, CITY COUNCIL APPOINTED EIGHT MEMBERS TO A NEW AND EXPANDED ADVISORY COMMITTEE CALLED THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

THERE ARE NINE SEATS.

EARLIER THIS OR JUST A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO SEPTEMBER.

A NINTH MEMBER WAS APPOINTED.

THAT GROUP IS SET TO MEET NEXT IN WELL, AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.

THAT COMMITTEE IS TASKED WITH FILING SEMIANNUAL REPORTS ON BOTH IMPACT FEE PROGRAMS, AND THEN THEY ALSO REVIEW THE ANALYSIS OF THE CONSULTANTS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE STUDIES AT LEAST EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO THEY GET INVOLVED WITH LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS, THEY GET INVOLVED WITH LOOKING AT THE CAPITAL PROGRAMS AND THEN ALL THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE FEES, AND THEN VERY IMPORTANTLY, AFTER THEY'VE REVIEWED ALL OF THAT INFORMATION, THEY PROVIDE UPDATES OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL, AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE PRESENTED TO YOU ON OCTOBER 2ND.

A LITTLE GENERAL INFORMATION.

THIS WON'T BE A NEWSFLASH TO ANYONE.

EVERYTHING COSTS MORE THAN IT DID TEN YEARS AGO OR FIVE YEARS AGO.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION.

PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION IS NO DIFFERENT.

THIS IS AN INDEX FROM TXDOT ABOUT GENERAL HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION.

AND YOU CAN REALLY JUST FOLLOW THE SORT OF THE SHAPE OF THAT OF EITHER CURVE AS JUST ANOTHER DATA POINT THAT SHOWS IT ATTEMPTS TO QUANTIFY JUST HOW MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE THINGS ARE BECOMING. SO WE HAVE RECOMMENDED IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES, ONE FOR EACH PROGRAM, ONE ON THE WATER WASTEWATER AND THEN THE OTHER FOR ROADWAY.

ON THE ON BOTH PROGRAMS THERE ARE NEW FEES OR RECOMMENDED NEW FEES.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS FROM YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

AND THOSE WERE PRESENTED TO YOU OCTOBER 2ND.

SO, THE FEES THAT ARE IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE ARE THE SAME AS WHAT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE

[01:35:03]

AND FEEDBACK FROM YOU IS TO GET MORE GUIDANCE ON WHERE YOU'D LIKE THOSE NUMBERS TO BE IN THE FINAL.

THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY YOU ON DECEMBER 11TH.

SO, THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE ALSO WELL.

WE PROVIDED A NEW EFFECTIVE DATE.

THEIR EFFECTIVE DATE WAS ACTUALLY OCTOBER 1ST, BUT THERE WERE SOME SCHEDULING ISSUES WITH GETTING THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO YOU AND ON AN AGENDA.

THERE'S A LOT GOING ON OVER THE LATE SUMMER.

SO, WE'VE JUST PLACED JANUARY 1ST OF 24 IN HERE AS A STARTING POINT.

SO, IF YOU ARE IF YOU WERE TO SET NEW ADOPT A NEW ORDINANCE AT YOUR DECEMBER 11TH MEETING, PROJECTS PLATTED, AND YOU USE JANUARY 1ST OF 24 AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE, PROJECTS PLATTED AFTER JANUARY 1ST WOULD BE ASSESSED AT THE NEW RATES.

PROJECTS CURRENTLY PLATTED HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED BASED ON THE RATES IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THAT THEY WERE PLATTED.

AND THEN PROJECTS THAT WOULD REQUIRE A REPLAT AFTER JANUARY 1ST WOULD BE ASSESSED AT THE NEW RATES. ON THE ROADWAY SIDE.

THERE ARE A FEW RELATIVELY MINOR TEXT AMENDMENTS.

THE FIRST ONE DEALS WITH DEVELOPMENT OF A SHELL BUILDING OR A SPECULATIVE BUILDING IN A GENERAL RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

IT WOULD BE ASSESSED BASED ON STRIP RETAIL PLAZA AS ITS USE, AND THEN ONCE THE FINAL FINISH OUT WAS DETERMINED, IF NECESSARY, THE FEE WOULD BE ADJUSTED TO AT THE TIME OF THE BUILDING PERMIT. ANOTHER CHANGE WOULD BE FOR NEWLY ANNEXED AREAS.

THIS IS A CHANGE FROM THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OR CURRENT ORDINANCE SAYS IF TEN OR MORE ACRES ARE ANNEXED AND WE'LL GO THROUGH A PROCESS TO UPDATE THE PROGRAM, WE'RE RECOMMENDING THAT WE CHANGE THAT TO BE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ANNEXED AREA INTO THE CITY, THAT IT WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE ADDED TO THE NEAREST ADJACENT ROADWAY SERVICE AREA, AS LONG AS IT'S STILL REQUIRED, COMPLIES WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE STATE LAW.

AGAIN, THAT'S THAT SIX-MILE SEGMENT LENGTH.

AND ON THE WASTEWATER AND WATER SIDE.

THERE WEREN'T SIMILAR TEXT AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDED.

SO, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FEES.

THIS IS AN EXCERPT OUT OF THE ORDINANCE.

THE TABLE THAT PROVIDES THE FEES AND THE KIND OF THE MIDDLE OF THE TABLE AND THE RED OUTLINE. THOSE ARE THE CURRENT RATES.

AND THIS IS ROADWAY.

YOU'LL NOTICE THERE ARE DIFFERENT NUMBERS FOR RESIDENTIAL NONRESIDENTIAL AND INDUSTRIAL. AND THEN YOU'VE GOT THE FOUR SERVICE AREAS A THROUGH D.

SO, THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TO ADOPT THE CURRENT ORDINANCE.

THE DECISION WAS MADE TO HAVE THE FEE PER SERVICE UNIT, WHICH IS WHAT THESE NUMBERS REPRESENT, BE THE SAME NO MATTER WHICH SERVICE AREA YOU WERE DEALING WITH.

AND THEN THAT COUNCIL SET DIFFERENT RATES FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAND USE.

ON THE FAR RIGHT IN THE BLUE OUTLINE.

THAT YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE RATES PER SERVICE AREA AND BOUGHT BE THE SAME, REGARDLESS OF THE LAND USE TYPE.

THIS BASICALLY FOLLOWS THE ANALYSIS.

NOT ALL SERVICE AREAS WILL HAVE THE SAME NEEDS, OR WHICH IS WHY THE NUMBER FLUCTUATES.

BUT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED NUMBERS ARE THE MAXIMUM ASSESSABLE NUMBERS FOR EACH SERVICE AREA.

WHAT IS THE STAR ON LETTER C INDICATE UNDER SERVICE AREAS.

IS THAT SOMETHING DIFFERENT? IS IT? I SEE IT'S GOT THE HIGHEST INCREASE.

WELL, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT REPRESENTS.

I'LL HAVE SOMEBODY GET ME THAT NUMBER.

IT'S FOR OLD TOWN.

OH, RIGHT.

SO OLD TOWN BASICALLY HAD AN EXEMPTION FROM FEES.

SO OLD TOWN LIES WITHIN AREA C, BUT NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN OLD TOWN.

[01:40:03]

OLD TOWN'S PART OF AREA C IS.

IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE AREA THOUGH.

WELL, IT'S PART OF IT.

SO, WITHIN AREA C, IF YOU'RE ALSO IN OLD TOWN, THE CHART DOESN'T APPLY TO YOU.

YOU DON'T PAY CURRENTLY.

OKAY. SO, YOU SEE THAT THE NUMBERS IN THE RECOMMENDED COLUMN COLUMNS, THEY VARY FAIRLY WIDELY.

BUT AGAIN, THESE ARE NUMBERS.

THESE NUMBERS ARE PER SERVICE UNIT.

SO, I'LL TRY NOT TO OVER COMPLICATE THIS ANY MORE THAN I HAVE TO.

BUT THAT'S NOT EXACTLY THE NUMBER THAT YOU PAY.

THERE'S MORE MATH FOR ANOTHER NUMBER THAT YOU HAVE TO MULTIPLY THAT BY TO GET WHAT THE ACTUAL INVOICE WOULD BE FOR A DEVELOPER.

I GOT ANOTHER SLIDE COMING UP THAT I THINK WILL MAKE THAT A LITTLE CLEARER.

WE LOOKED AT A LITTLE BIT OF BENCHMARKING TO LOOK AT WHAT SOME OTHER CITIES IN THE AREA ARE ASSESSING FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

BURLESON IS ON THE FAR RIGHT IN BLUE IS THE CURRENT FEE.

AND THEN IN THAT SORT OF PEACH ORANGE COLOR AT THE TOP SHOWS WHAT THE NEW WOULD BE ITS CURRENT FEE.

19 WELL, BASICALLY $2,000.

FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

AND THIS IS AN AVERAGE OF THE FOUR SERVICE AREAS.

YOU'LL SEE. FORT WORTH.

THERE IS A LITTLE HIGHER.

KELLER IS NOT TOO FAR BEHIND.

MANSFIELD NOT TOO FAR BEHIND.

BUT DEVELOPMENT.

AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE TO THE YEARS UNDERNEATH THE CITIES? THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD POINT.

MY STATE LAW CITIES ARE SUPPOSED TO UPDATE THESE NUMBERS EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO, A NUMBER OF THESE CITIES ARE EITHER JUST RECENTLY UPDATED OR THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS RIGHT NOW. I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO WHAT'S GOING ON IN CEDAR HILL, BUT SOME OF THESE NUMBERS ARE LOWER, BUT THEY'RE ALSO OLDER.

MOST OF THE NUMBERS POST PANDEMIC SEEM TO BE A LITTLE HIGHER, SO THAT PROBABLY MEANS THAT THOSE CITIES HAVE RECOGNIZED SOME OF THE INFLATION THAT EVERYBODY'S HAD TO EXPERIENCE THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS.

ERIC. YES.

WHEN WE TAKE IN THESE FEES, IS THERE A TIMELINE FOR HOW LONG WE CAN HOLD ON TO THEM OR THEY HAVE TO BE USED? YES, TEN YEARS.

AND WE HAVE NOT HAD A PROBLEM SPENDING WHAT COMES IN, AND DOES IT HAVE TO BE SPENT IN WHATEVER AREA IT'S COLLECTED? YES. SO, IF IT'S IN C, IT NEEDS TO BE SPENT IN C.

YES. THAT'S HOW THE ROADWAY FEES ARE SET UP, SPENT ON REPAIRS.

IT HAS TO BE SPENT ON NEW CAPACITY.

CORRECT. AND SO, YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY IN THE COFFER THAT HASN'T EVER BEEN USED? THAT'S MY FEAR IS IF WE JUMP UP.

ONE, ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THE STAFF THAT WE HAVE AND THE ADDITIONAL LOAD AND ACTUALLY LIKE IF WE'RE COLLECTING IT, USE IT.

AND IN THE EVENT THAT WE DIDN'T USE IT, CAN YOU AMEND IT TO SAY, CAN I GET AN EXTENSION, OR DOES IT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DEVELOPER? WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? VERY GOOD QUESTION.

I HAVE A SLIDE THAT I DIDN'T PUT IN HERE, BUT WE COLLECTED APPROXIMATELY $10 MILLION OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS. THAT'S BETWEEN WATER WASTEWATER AND ROADWAY.

AND EASILY THE ANNUAL CAPITAL PROGRAM IS 60 PLUS MILLION.

SO, THERE'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH IMPACT FEE REVENUE TO ACCOMPLISH ALL THAT WE NEED TO.

BUT IF WE START, IF WE A SMALL PORTION OF WHAT WE TRUE.

YES. BUT IF WE INCREASE OUR FEES, ARE WE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH? WOULD WE BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT? SURE, SURE. TO BE ABLE TO USE THE DOLLARS THAT WE'RE COLLECTING.

RIGHT. BUT WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A ZERO BALANCE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE WE HAVE PROJECTS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW THAT ARE GOING TO USE UP ALL OF WHAT'S THERE AND THEN SOME.

RIGHT. WE HAVE VERY FEW PROJECTS THAT ARE SOLELY IMPACT FEE FUNDED.

THERE'S ALMOST ALWAYS EITHER ADDITIONAL DEBT CAPACITY OR GEO BONDS IN SOME CASES THAT THAT

[01:45:02]

CONTRIBUTE TO COMPLETING THE FUNDING FOR ALL OF THESE PROJECTS.

COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON? I THINK WHAT I WOULD ADD IS THAT MOST LIKELY WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS, IS THAT THIS WOULD JUST OFFSET THE AMOUNT OF CO THAT WE WOULD BE ISSUING FOR A PROJECT.

AGAIN, THE RED BLOCK OR RED OUTLINE IS FOR THE CURRENT FEES THAT ARE SET BY THE CURRENT ORDINANCE. AND THEN THE TWO COLUMNS OVER TO THE RIGHT ARE FROM YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION. WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES ARE ASSESSED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY.

THEY'RE KIND OF BASED ON METER SIZE.

THAT VERY FIRST ROW, THE 5/8-INCH METER, IS WHAT A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME WOULD HAVE.

SO, WE BASICALLY USE THAT AS KIND OF THE THAT'S KIND OF THE NUMBER THAT WE USE TO TALK ABOUT THESE FEES.

SO CURRENTLY FOR WATER YOU PAY 2624 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.

I'LL JUST USE THAT. FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE YOU PAY 1312.

AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, YOUR WATER FEE WOULD ACTUALLY DECREASE A LITTLE BIT, GO DOWN TO 2492.

AND AGAIN, BACK FROM THE MASTER PLAN DISCUSSION A FEW MINUTES AGO WHERE YOU COULD ALMOST SAY THAT WE'RE SORT OF CATCHING UP ON THE NEEDS ON THE WATER SIDE, WHICH ALLOWS THAT NUMBER TO GO DOWN A LITTLE BIT ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE.

NOT THE SAME STORY.

IT'S GOING TO GO BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATION FROM 1312 UP TO 1731 ON THE WASTEWATER. A LITTLE BENCHMARKING AGAIN.

WE'VE GOT SEVERAL CITIES.

SAME STORY.

BURLESON. THIS TIME IN THE MIDDLE.

SO, OUR COMBINED WATER AND WASTEWATER FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, GOING FROM 3936 PER HOUSE UP TO 4223.

SO, THESE ARE ONLY BURLESON.

ASSESSED IMPACT FEES.

SO, ALL OF BURLESON HAS TO PAY IMPACT FEES FOR FORT WORTH AS WELL, AND ANY OF FORT WORTH'S WHOLESALE CUSTOMERS WOULD ALSO PAY THE PASS-THROUGH FEES.

SO, WHEN YOU INCLUDE BURLESON PLUS FORT WORTH PASS THROUGH, WE'RE NOW 60 TO 75.

AND THEN BASED ON THAT ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, UP SLIGHTLY TO 6300.

THOSE FORT WORTH FEES LAST CHANGED JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AND THEY'RE ON ABOUT A THREE-YEAR CYCLE. SO 2026, WE CAN PROBABLY EXPECT THAT FORT WORTH NUMBER TO CHANGE AGAIN. SO, IN SUMMARY, I TRIED TO PULL TOGETHER.

NOT ALL, BUT KIND OF THE MAJOR FEES THAT DEVELOPING A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME MIGHT INCUR. SO, WE'VE GOT ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, THE WATER IMPACT FEE, THE WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE, AND THEN JUST THE GENERAL BUILDING PERMIT FEE.

I KNOW THERE ARE SOME OTHER FEES THAT COME ALONG WITH THAT, BUT I THINK THESE ARE JUST THE MAJOR ONES. JUST FOR COMPARISON, CURRENT ASSESSED FEES VERSUS WHAT THE NEW WOULD BE BASED ON WHAT YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED.

CURRENTLY, ALL OF THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, REGARDLESS OF THE SERVICE AREA, ARE SET AT $408 PER SERVICE UNIT.

AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO MULTIPLY THAT BY ANOTHER NUMBER, WHICH IS LIKE 4.9, TO GET YOU TO RIGHT AT $2,000 FOR THE COST TO THE DEVELOPER.

YOUR ADVISORY COMMITTEE HAS RECOMMENDED THAT WE ACTUALLY CHARGE THE FEES BASED ON THE ANALYSIS FOR EACH AREA.

SO, IT'S NOT 2000 FOR EACH OF THE, OR IT'S NOT THE SAME NUMBER FOR EACH OF THE FOUR AREAS. THERE'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER.

FOR EACH, BUT THE AVERAGE OF THOSE FOUR IS $6,517 FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

JUST FOR THE ROADWAY PORTION.

ROADWAY IMPACT FEE PORTION.

THE WATER IMPACT FEE CURRENTLY 2624.

[01:50:01]

AND AGAIN, AS JUST WENT OVER IN PREVIOUS SLIDES.

THE RECOMMENDATION'S THAT WE GO UP TO 2492.

WASTEWATER CURRENTLY 1312.

ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION 1731.

THE BUILDING PERMIT.

IT'S $0.60 PER SQUARE FOOT.

UNDER ROOF. WE LOOKED AT SOME DATA THAT SHOWED THAT THE AVERAGE HOUSE IS JUST UNDER 3100FT². I THINK THAT WAS A FULL YEAR OF DATA THAT ENDED SOME TIME LAST YEAR.

SO BASED ON THAT RATE, THE BUILDING PERMIT WOULD BE $1852.

THAT FEE IS NOT CHANGING.

SO, IT'S THE SAME IN BOTH COLUMNS.

SO, FOR A TOTAL AGAIN USING THE AVERAGE OF THE FOUR AREAS IN THE CURRENT WILL BE 7788 FOR A SINGLE HOUSE.

AND THEN BASED ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, THAT WOULD CHANGE TO 12,592.

SO, A LITTLE UNDER A $5,000 INCREASE.

AND THAT'S LARGELY DRIVEN BY GROWTH AND INFLATION AND THINGS COSTING MORE.

HERE ON THAT SLIDE, JUST FOR CLARITY.

THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE FORT WORTH PASS THROUGH ON EITHER COLUMN.

THESE ARE STRICTLY THE BURLESON FEES.

ERIC. THE SERVICE AREA IS, THE ASSUMPTION IS THAT PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE IN THE CIP, PROJECTS WE HAVE IN THE ROADWAY, CIP FOR IMPACT FEES, WHICH IS A SUBSET OF THE OVERALL. IS THERE ANY OTHER ASSUMPTIONS IN THERE THAT WE DON'T HAVE IN THE CIP, LIKE FUTURE GROWTH BEYOND THE CIP? OH FOR SURE. I MEAN, WELL, RIGHT.

THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEE CIP, IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION GROWTH AND LIKE TEN YEARS.

YEAH, YEAH, IT'S A TEN YEAR LOOK AHEAD.

OKAY. I GUESS MY MY ONLY CONCERN I'M NOT REALLY WORRIED ABOUT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL OR THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER.

IT'S REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE MASSIVE INCREASE ON THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT WE KNOW IS GOING TO GET PASSED THROUGH TO THE NEW HOMEOWNER AND SEEING ON AVERAGE, 225% INCREASE. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE FIVE YEARS BEHIND.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK MAYBE AT LEAST JUST ON THIS, WE COULD EASE INTO IT.

AND I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY NEED TO GO UP, BUT IT JUST WHEN YOU PUT THE NUMBERS THERE AND YOU LOOK AND YOU THINK, MAN.

AND IT'S NOT THAT NOT ONLY ARE THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUYING THESE HOMES GOING TO BE BENEFITING FROM THE NEW ROADS, BUT WE'RE GOING TO BE BENEFITING FROM THE NEW ROADS, AND WE'VE ALREADY PAID OUR FEES.

SO THAT WOULD JUST BE MY COMMENT.

AND I'M SORRY FOR NOT BRINGING IT UP A MONTH AGO WHEN WE BROUGHT IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, YOU THINK ABOUT THINGS.

SO, THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY THING.

THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I THINK I MENTIONED OCTOBER THAT PART OF THE MATH REQUIRES THAT WE KIND OF DISCOUNT HALF OF THE COST OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ANYWAY, AND I WAS HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WITH A DEVELOPER EARLIER ABOUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOSE COST ESTIMATES THAT GO INTO THE FEES, THEY'RE NOT LIKE FULL, VERY DETAILED DESIGN COSTS.

THERE'S NO RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS, NO UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS.

SO I THINK THE STATE AND THEN BY PROCESS, I THINK WE TRY TO KIND OF ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THAT UNKNOWN. THE IMPACT FEE IS NOT INTENDED TO GENERATE THE FULL COST OF THE PROJECT. COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL? JUST FOR CLARITY TO, AND ERIC CAN SPEAK TO THIS PROBABLY BETTER THAN I CAN.

I KNOW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BECOMES CONFUSING, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE USE IT FROM A FIVE-YEAR PERSPECTIVE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CHAPTER 395 AND IMPACT FEES.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIC CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM THAT REALLY IS BASED ON THE MOBILITY PLAN AND THE WATER AND SEWER PLANS THAT YOU GUYS JUST ADOPTED.

AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ESSENTIALLY TEN YEARS' WORTH OF CAPACITY OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME, AND THEN A FIVE-YEAR SNAPSHOT.

SO, I JUST WANT TO BE I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE DON'T CONSTRUE IT AS THESE ARE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO ACCOMPLISH OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THIS IS BASED ON THE OVERALL MASTER PLANS.

I MEAN, I THINK I DON'T WANT TO WAIT FIVE YEARS TILL WE DO THE NEXT STUDY.

I MEAN, I GUESS WE'RE REQUIRED BY LAW TO DO FIVE, BUT THIS MIGHT BE SOMETHING YOU DO EVERY THREE OR.

BUT THE REQUIREMENTS AT LEAST EVERY FIVE.

BUT THERE'S NOTHING THAT WOULD PROHIBIT US FROM DOING IT EVERY THREE.

RIGHT. LIKE I SAID, MY ONLY CONCERN IS REALLY JUST.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY FLUFF, BUT, YOU KNOW,

[01:55:01]

YOU CAN THINK TEN YEARS IN THE FUTURE AND I'M GLAD THAT WE CAN DISCOUNT SOME OF THAT, BUT ALSO THAT A LOT OF OUR CIP PROJECTS AREN'T BASED, LIKE YOU SAID, THEY'RE NOT 100% FUNDED BY THESE FEES EITHER.

SO, AND I'M ASSUMING WHILE IT MAKES A NICE LITTLE CHUNK OF MONEY, IT'S NOT.

IF WE WERE TO ADJUST SOME OF THESE, YOU'RE REALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT US NECESSARILY. OR BECAUSE LIKE WHEN WE DID THE CIP THAT WE DID OUR WHOLE BUDGET ON THAT'S BASED ON THAT WAS BASED ON THE OLD FEES OR THE CURRENT FEES.

I MEAN, OR WAS IT BASED ON THESE FEES? SO, WHAT THAT IS BASED ON OR THE CODES THAT WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF DOLLARS WE HAVE IN OUR COFFERS.

AND THEN BASED ON THE ASSUMED AMOUNT OF REVENUE, WE THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO MAKE OFF OF IMPACT FEES.

IF YOU WERE TO INCREASE THESE FEES RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE ASSUMPTIONS BASED ON WHAT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO WITH THOSE FEES.

IN THE EVENT THAT YOU INCREASE THE FEES IN SOME CAPACITY, IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS WHERE WE'RE ISSUING CODES FOR CAPACITY DRIVEN PROJECTS, WE MAY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REASSESS THOSE, AND YOU MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL CAPACITY FOR DEBT SERVICE.

IF WE CAN FUND A PORTION OF THOSE PROJECTS WITH CASH.

OKAY. MAKES SENSE.

I'M SORRY. THE OCTOBER 2ND.

I'M KIND OF LIKE YOU. I WAS BASICALLY FAIRLY NEW AT THIS BECAUSE I KIND OF WENT RIGHT OVER MY HEAD AND SCARE THE HECK OUT OF ME.

I DON'T I THINK THAT'S WAY TOO MUCH.

I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO CATCH UP WITH MANSFIELD.

I THINK WE'RE FOR ANYTHING.

IF YOU GO BACK ANOTHER ONE, WE LOOK LIKE MIDLOTHIAN.

I REMEMBER THAT, THOSE DAYS IN MIDLOTHIAN, AND NOW WHAT THEY'VE GONE TO.

BUT I DON'T CARE ABOUT CATCHING UP WITH SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES.

IT'S JUST THE FACT THAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP BUILDERS FROM COMING IN HERE BUILDING.

IF WE GOT THAT MUCH IMPACT FEE, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO COME IN HERE.

I'M REAL CONCERNED ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

HECK WITH YOU. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD HERE.

THEY'LL GO DOWN JOSHUA OR SOMEPLACE WHERE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR IMPACT FEES ARE, BUT SOME PLACES NOT AS EXPENSIVE.

I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE LOOKING AT BURLESON 2022.

AND THAT ORANGE TAKES US TO THE TOP.

I DON'T, JUST NOT, I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AT ALL.

SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER ANDERSON, I DO TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

I WANT TO STRESS TO WHAT ERIC'S PRESENTING IS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE COMMITTEE.

AND SO THAT'S.

UNDERSTOOD. I THINK WHAT WE WOULD NEED DIRECTION FROM ON THE COUNCIL, IF THAT'S THE GENERAL SENTIMENT, IS HOW MUCH WOULD YOU WANT TO REDUCE THOSE FEES BY.

AND ARE WE TALKING JUST ROADWAY OR ARE WE TALKING WATER AND SEWER AS WELL? I THINK THAT'LL BE SOME OF THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED SO WE CAN GO BACK TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS.

I MEAN, I'M FINE WITH THE WATER AND THE WASTEWATER BECAUSE THEY KIND OF THEY DON'T QUITE CANCEL EACH OTHER OUT.

BUT YOU'RE GETTING A DECREASE IN THE IN THE WATER AND YOU'RE ADDING TO THE WASTEWATER.

SO, YOU'RE ABOUT 200 BUCKS MORE.

YOU KNOW, INCREASE.

BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO JUST ON THE SINGLE FAMILY, AT LEAST MAKE THEM ALL THE SAME. LIKE THEY ARE JUST ACROSS THE BOARD AND INCREASE THEM, LIKE GO TO 4000 ACROSS OR.

YOU KNOW, JUST DOUBLE THEM.

BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE NOT.

SO, ON THAT.

AND AGAIN, ERIC CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE A CALCULATION BASED ON A MULTIPLICATION BASED ON THE USE TYPE INTENSITY. RIGHT.

AND SO, THERE'S A MULTIPLICATION THAT'S DONE BASED ON THE INTENSITY OR NUMBER OF TRIPS.

RIGHT. AND SO, WHAT WE HAVE TO ADJUST IS BASED ON THAT.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING IT CAN'T BE WON THE WHOLE WAY DOWN? ERIC, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO HOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE EASIEST FOR YOU FROM A FROM THE MAX ALLOWED. YEAH.

SO HERE WE GO.

SO, I HAVEN'T, WE WANT QUALITY BUILDERS, AND WE WANT PEOPLE THAT COME TO THIS TOWN TO HAVE QUALITY HOMES.

AND THAT'S ONE THING THAT HAS BEEN LIKE A RESERVATION OF MINE, BECAUSE IF WE'RE, IF FEES ARE TOO LOW, THEN EQUALLY LIKE YOU'RE MENTIONING, THEN WE'RE APPEALING TO BUILDERS THAT JUST WANT TO SLAP THINGS TOGETHER AND WE WANT I'VE SAID THIS ON OTHER FRONTS AS WELL. WHEN PEOPLE MOVE TO BURLESON, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO BACK UP THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE HERE AND SAY, LIKE, IF YOU BUY A HOME HERE, IT'S GOING TO BE OF A QUALITY PRODUCT, A QUALITY BUILDER AND PEOPLE THAT CARE.

AND, AND THIS COUNCIL CARES ABOUT WHAT WE'RE HAVING PEOPLE BUILD HERE.

AND SO, I THINK I WANT US TO BE COMPETITIVE.

BUT AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL SAID, IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN INCH INTO SOME OF THESE, I DEFINITELY DON'T WANT TO BE AT SHOOT UP TO THE TOP FROM AT THE

[02:00:04]

JUST IN ONE FELL SWOOP.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT IF YOU'RE BUILDING HERE, WE EXPECT A GOOD PRODUCT SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE BUY HERE, THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING.

I THINK THE PURPOSE OF IMPACT FEES IS TO SEE THAT NEW DEMAND PAYS FOR NEW GROWTH OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEM, AND WE NEVER ATTEMPT TO COLLECT EVERYTHING.

SO, IF YOU CONSIDER THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE DEVELOPMENT GOING IN NEW AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO REQUIRE NEW ROADWAYS, LARGER LINES, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.

THEN THERE IS A DOLLAR FIGURE THAT WILL HAVE TO BE MET.

IF IT'S NOT MET BY IMPACT FEES, THEN IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE MET BY BOND MONEY THAT EVERYONE WILL HAVE TO PAY.

SO, THE PEOPLE LIVING IN THE AREAS, SUCH AS THE NORTHWEST PART OF TOWN, WHERE THERE WILL BE NO MORE NEW ROADS BECAUSE THE AREA IS ESSENTIALLY BUILT OUT, THEY WILL HAVE TO PAY A HIGHER PROPORTION OF THE NEED TO RUN NEW ROADWAYS OUT OR IMPROVE THE CAPACITY OF EXISTING ROADWAYS IN ORDER TO SERVE THOSE NEW AREAS.

I ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT IMPACT FEES WERE PROBABLY NEVER SET AS HIGH AS THEY SHOULD BE.

IF WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO ACHIEVE EQUITY BY HAVING THE PEOPLE THAT PUT THE DEMAND THERE, BE THE ONES THAT PAY A LARGER SHARE OF IT, RATHER THAN OLD PEOPLE, NOT OLD PEOPLE. OLD PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS A LONG TIME ARE NOW HAVING TO PAY FOR NEW ROADWAYS TO GO OUT AND SERVE AREAS THAT WERE LESS DEVELOPED WHEN THEY MOVED HERE.

AND ANOTHER POINT I'D MAKE.

WE'VE ADJUSTED THE ASSESSMENTS SIX TIMES ON WATER AND SEWER TO NOT 2000.

WE ACTUALLY DIDN'T HAVE A ROADWAY.

THE ROADWAY FEE WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2017 AND HAS NOT BEEN ADJUSTED.

MEANTIME, THE COST OF ROADWAY CONSTRUCTION HAS INCREASED 75%.

PROBABLY, BUT WE'RE STILL AT THE LEVELS THAT WE WERE.

AND IN MY OPINION, WHEN WE SET THOSE LEVELS BACK IN 17, THEY WERE ALREADY TOO LOW TO START OFF WITH BECAUSE A COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WAS ESSENTIALLY CONSIDERING THE SAME THINGS, WE'RE CONSIDERING NOW IS WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO HOME LOT PRICES? WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO BUILDING COST AND MIDLOTHIAN? I'M NOT SURE WHY THEIR WATER FEES ARE SO HIGH, BUT THEIR ROADWAY FEES ARE VERY LOW, AND IT COULD HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH HOW THEY FUND VARIOUS THINGS WITHIN THE CITY.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE COMBINATION OF THE RATES, WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP NOT BEING TOO FAR FROM THEM.

FOR THE COMBINED PACKAGE.

SO, THAT'S JUST A FEW OBSERVATIONS THAT I HAD.

I DON'T THINK TO GO TO THE PROPOSED RATES IS GOING TO PUT US AT ANY GREAT LEVEL OF COMPETITIVE DISADVANTAGE WITH SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, BECAUSE IN THE GROWTH AREAS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE GOING TO BE WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING FOR NEW GROWTH WITH COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE COMPARABLE RATES.

A LOT OF GOOD POINTS ABOUT THE BENCHMARKING.

I'M ALWAYS A LITTLE HESITANT TO SHOW THAT INFORMATION.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO KIND OF GIVE YOU A SENSE, BUT NO TWO CITIES WILL BE EXACTLY THE SAME.

THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT FUNDING STREAMS, REVENUE STREAMS OF HOW THEY PAY FOR THINGS, HOW THEY CHARGE FOR THINGS.

I THINK IN THE MANSFIELD EXAMPLE THERE, THERE'S A LOT OF FLOODPLAINS THAT MAKES THAT MAKES DEVELOPMENT A LITTLE MORE CHALLENGING.

I THINK THERE ARE ROADWAY FEES, JUST MORE THAN DOUBLE TO GET TO THE 4900 LEVEL THAT THEY'RE AT NOW. AND THAT JUST HAPPENED A COUPLE MONTHS BACK IN JUNE.

SO, NO TWO CITIES ARE AT THE SAME.

AND REALLY NO.

TWO, YOU CAN LOOK AT THE NUMBERS.

NO. TWO SERVICE AREAS EVEN WITHIN BURLESON ARE THE SAME, THAT UPPER NORTHWEST AREA.

IT'S GOT THE LOWEST ROADWAY FEES JUST BECAUSE LIKE MAYOR PRO TEM JUST MENTIONED, MOST OF THE ROADS ARE THERE, WHICH RESULTS IN A LOWER FEE PER SERVICE UNIT.

FURTHER SOUTHWEST IS A LOT OF POTENTIAL AND YOU SEE A MUCH HIGHER NUMBER FOR SERVICE AREA A, AND THE SAME FOR C TO A LESSER EXTENT IN D.

SO, THERE'S A METHOD TO THE TO THE TO THE NUMBERS.

WOULDN'T CALL IT MADNESS BUT WE CAN ONLY SET THE FEES.

WE CAN'T SET FEES HIGHER THAN THE MAXIMUM ACCESSIBLE.

SO, FOR THE EXAMPLE OF SEDIMENT SETTING THEM AT 2000 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER WAS.

IF THAT WERE, IF THAT WERE THE DIRECTION THE COUNCIL WANTED TO GO, WE PROBABLY HAVE TO LOOK AT AREA B SO THAT WE WOULDN'T VIOLATE THAT THAT REQUIREMENT OF STATE LAW.

[02:05:03]

THAT WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK SOMEONE MENTIONED WHAT WOULD BE EASIER FOR US.

WE'RE STAFF. IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT BEING EASY FOR US.

WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS YOU GIVE.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT'S A CHALLENGING BALANCING ACT.

EVERYTHING COSTS MORE.

THIS IS A REVENUE SOURCE THAT HELPS GET CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS IN PLACE.

AS I TALKED ABOUT WITH THE MASTER PLANS, YOU FAR PREFER TO HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE IN PLACE BEFORE THE NEED WAS THERE FOR IT.

OTHERWISE, YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE UPSET WITH CONGESTION AND NOT ENOUGH UTILITY SERVICE TO SERVE THEM. SO, WE'RE I AGREE WITH YOU.

THE WAY I SEE THIS, THE MAINTENANCE FEE FOR THESE ROADS IS GOING TO BE THE SAME REGARDLESS OF HOW YOU PAY FOR IT.

AND IF YOU DON'T CHARGE THE IMPACT FEES, THEN THE CITIZENS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT THROUGH PAYMENT.

BACK OF BONDS.

COST GOES.

AND WITH THAT COMES YOUR CONCERN ABOUT TAX RATE.

SO, TO KEEP IT ON A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD, I AGREE WITH THE ELEVATION OF IMPACT FEES TO KEEP THE CIP PROJECTS GOING.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE SOMETHING OFF THE TABLE TO PAY FOR THIS.

ERIC, WHAT FACTORS INFORM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE RATES IS THAT BASED ON EXISTING RATES ALLOWED TO INCREASE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, OR ARE THERE OTHER NUMBERS? NO, IT'S A BRAND-NEW ANALYSIS EVERY TIME THIS STUDY IS DONE.

SO, IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION.

PROJECTED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.

AND THEN.

I'VE GOT LIKE 15 VERSIONS OF THIS PRESENTATION, BUT NOT THE SLIDE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SHOW RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S A TON OF MATH, AND THEN THERE'S TRIP GENERATION RATES THAT COME OUT OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARD MANUAL.

THAT'S CALLED TRIP GENERATION.

SO. IT ALSO TAKES A LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS NEEDED IN THIS TEN-YEAR WINDOW IN THIS SERVICE AREA? WHAT ARE THE ROUGH VERY PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES OF THOSE.

AND AGAIN, THAT DON'T WON'T INCLUDE LIKE UTILITY LOCATION, RELOCATION COSTS, RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS, ANY OF THAT.

SO, ALL OF THOSE IS HOW WE COME UP WITH A NUMBER SPECIFIC NUMBER FOR EACH SERVICE AREA.

AND IT'S ONE NUMBER FOR THE SERVICE AREA.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL, NONRESIDENTIAL OR INDUSTRIAL, BECAUSE THE TRIP GENERATION MANUAL.

PART OF THAT WILL ASSIGN A FACTOR BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE BUILDING.

IF YOU'RE BUILDING A WAREHOUSE, YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT MULTIPLIER THAN IF YOU'RE BUILDING A SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE.

WE KIND OF PICK ON SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL JUST BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY WHAT MOST PEOPLE WOULD BE ABLE TO RELATE MORE TO.

SO, FOR THE EXAMPLE OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSE, THAT MULTIPLIER OUT OF THE MANUAL IS 4.61. IT USED TO BE 4.9.

SO, IN THE CURRENTLY WE WOULD MULTIPLY THE $408.

NO. YEAH $408 TIMES 4.9.

THAT GETS YOU THE $2,000 BASICALLY THAT I PUT ON THE OTHER SLIDE IN THE UPDATED ANALYSIS. THE MULTIPLIER FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME IS NOW 4.61.

SO, IT'S COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT.

THAT HELPS. BUT THE COST OF THE PROJECTS IS HIGHER.

SO, WE WOULD MULTIPLY THIS 1632 IN AREA A BY 4.61 INSTEAD OF 4.9 TO GET YOU 65. THAT'S $6,500 NUMBER.

AT SOME POINT YOU BRING IN A OUIJA BOARD OR ONE OF THOSE MAGIC EIGHT BALL THINGS.

IT'S A CALCULATOR. I'M LOST ALREADY, SO NEVER MIND.

I MEAN, MY QUESTION WAS, IS IT BASED ON ACCELERATION OF EXISTING CHARGES OR IS IT BASED ON A MODEL? AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THE SIMPLE VERSION? IT'S A MODEL OF THE MODEL.

YEAH. STARTING FROM GROUND ZERO, BLANK SHEET OF PAPER.

I WITHDRAW MY QUESTION, YOUR HONOR.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE ALL ON BOARD WITH RAISING THE FEES.

IT'S JUST HOW MUCH.

AND SO USING YOUR 4.61.

SO REALLY, WE WOULD ADJUST THESE.

SO JUST THESE NUMBERS.

AND THEN ONE WAY TO LOOK AT IT MIGHT BE WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THESE NUMBERS ON THE RIGHT.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO USE.

SO, IF YOU? SO, FOR EXAMPLE IF YOU ON THE LIKE ON THE ON A, IF YOU DID A THOUSAND, I'M JUST THROWING NUMBERS JUST BECAUSE IT'S EASY THOUSANDS NICE ROUND NUMBER THEN IT WOULD BE 4610 BECAUSE.

YES. OKAY.

SO, COUNCILMAN WHEN I WAS SPEAKING TO NOT ADJUSTING OR NOT RECOMMENDING TO ADJUST AT THE SINGLE-FAMILY CHART, IT'S JUST BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTFUL FOR ALL THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES COMMERCIAL, INDUSTRIAL, AND THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN MULTIPLIER. SO, YOU CAN DO IT HOW YOU WANT.

[02:10:03]

I MEAN, WE COULD ADJUST IT BASED AT THE SINGLE FAMILY, BUT WHAT ERIC'S GETTING AT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO IN THE IN THE BACKGROUND, ADJUST THESE NUMBERS.

AND I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT IS FOR ALL THE OTHER TYPES OF USES THAT ARE OUT THERE. SO, IF WE'RE GOING TO ADJUST, WE NEED TO ADJUST THIS SLIDE.

CORRECT. AND THAT WAS EASY.

AND TO ERIC'S POINT ABOUT WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THE MAXIMUM.

SO FOR B B'S AT THE MAX B'S AT THE MAX.

THOSE ARE ALL THE MAX, I GUESS.

CORRECT. BUT WHAT I'M SAYING THOUGH IS, IS THAT YOU COULDN'T SAY I WANT TO BE ACROSS THE BOARD, AND IT BE HIGHER THAN WHAT YOU COULD BE.

FAIR ENOUGH.

YEAH. IN SHORT, WE'VE SQUEEZED A LOT OF PAGES OF MATH EQUATIONS INTO THIS CHART.

OKAY, I LIKE IT.

ARE YOU DOING? I THINK SO.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING UP AT 741.

AND THIS IS FOR 7.E, THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES AND THEN 7.F, THE WATER AND WATER WASTE IMPACT FEES.

AND YES. AND THEN WE'LL DO A SEPARATE VOTE FOR EACH.

CORRECT. CORRECT.

BUT I DO HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS.

THE FIRST PERSON IS JUSTIN BOND.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.

I'M JUSTIN BOND, 236 EAST ELLISON WITH REDEVELOPMENT, I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THESE IMPACT FEES.

THEY ARE THEY DON'T, IT'S NOT REALLY A DEVELOPER IMPACT FEE SO MUCH AS IT IS A HOMEOWNER FEE.

AS SOMEONE THAT BUYS A HOUSE, THEY SEE IT FROM THE BUILDER.

WHEN THE BUILDER GOES TO PULL THE PERMIT, THEY PAY A FULL PERMIT PRICE.

FROM THE DEVELOPER SIDE, WE WORK WITH THE BUILDERS WHO LOOK AT US AND COMPARE US AND THEY AND THEY LOOK AT HOW THOSE DIFFERENT NUMBERS EQUATE INTO THEIR PRODUCT.

AND SO, OUR GROUP HAS WORKED A LOT TO DO.

THE CHISHOLM SUMMIT COMMUNITY ON THE WEST SIDE, PROUD MEMBERS OF AREA A, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP. AND SO, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT, WE HAVE PARTNERED WITH NOT JUST THE CITY, BUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GROUP AND OWNERSHIP OF PROPERTY OUT THERE, NEARLY A THOUSAND ACRES, AND THEN INSIDE THE DRAINAGE BASIN FOR THE SEWER ALMOST TWICE THAT.

SO, WHEN WE DID OUR STUDY, WE SAID THAT AS YOU PUT A DOLLAR TOWARDS SOMETHING OUT THERE, IT WAS $1.66 RETURN IN 20 YEARS.

EVERYTHING WE'VE DONE WITH YOU HAS SAID, LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH GROWTH ON THAT SIDE.

WE KNOW THAT FEE INCREASES ARE INEVITABLE.

THEY HAVE TO BE. IT'S A PRODUCT OF JUST WHAT WE DO.

BUT IF WE SEE A MODEL THAT SHOWS SOMETHING FOUR TIMES WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY, IT'S AT LEAST WORTH QUESTIONING FOR US.

WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE I THINK IT'S FUNNY YOU SAID MATH SO MANY TIMES BECAUSE I WROTE DOWN CHEMISTRY FORMULA, AND IT TOOK ME A COUPLE OF TIMES TO PASS CHEMISTRY.

AND SO, AS I GOT INTO THIS STUDY, YOU KNOW, YOU DO IT IS A IT'S BUILT TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS EQUITABLE IN ITS ANALYSIS OF WHY THIS FEE SHOULD MATTER.

IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DEFENSIBLE FOR YOU IF WHAT YOU LOOKED AT FOR GROWTH AND FOR DEVELOPMENT. BUT EACH COMMUNITY DOES HAVE DISCRETION ON WHAT YOU DO.

THERE'S A SERIES OF INPUTS AND THERE'S A SERIES OF OUTPUTS THAT COME FROM THAT.

YOU KNOW, ON THE INPUT SIDE, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE NUMBER OF ASSUMED NEW HOMES PER YEAR IN A TEN-YEAR PERIOD.

IT'S ALL THE ROADS THAT COULD BE REQUIRED ON AN OPTIMAL MODEL.

AND IT'S THE COST OF THOSE PROJECTS AS YOU ADD IT ALL TOGETHER.

I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE ALL THOSE INPUTS, BUT WITH EVERY ARGUMENT THERE'S AN EQUALLY ARGUABLE COUNTERPOINT.

AND NOBODY CARES ABOUT ALL MY COMMENTARY ON THE INPUT.

SO, I'M GOING TO WITHHOLD MY INPUT AND MY OPINION ON THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF OUR DISCUSSION. BUT ON THE OUTPUT SIDE, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE DO SEE A LOT WHEN WE LOOK AT THESE FEES.

AND SO, THE INCREASE RANGES FROM 62 TO 350% FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

THAT RIGHT NOW IS ABOUT $2,000 FOR A ROADWAY IMPACT BUT WOULD GO TO LIKE 7500 IN THE CHISHOLM SUMMIT AREA.

YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SIZE OF A CAPITAL PROJECT, IT PROBABLY FEELS LIKE A DROP IN A BUCKET.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A HOMEOWNER WHO'S SIGNING ON TO AN 8.5% INTEREST RATE, YOU KNOW, EVERY THOUSAND MATTERS, RIGHT? SO THAT'S TO US.

THAT IS PART OF THE CONSIDERATION.

SOME OTHER NUMBERS I THINK ARE WORTH LOOKING AT ARE AN AVERAGE LOT.

OKAY. SO, WHAT IT TAKES FOR US TO TAKE IT FROM RAW LAND TO TURN IT INTO A BUILDABLE LOT, CALL IT 55,000 OR SO ON THAT LOT.

SO THAT'S TO CONVERT THAT OVER.

WE LOOKED AT ONE SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT THE PRICE FOR THESE FEES.

WE'VE SEEN BUILDERS THAT HAVE RECENTLY JUST PAID JUST A LITTLE OVER 10,000.

SO, 10,655 IS ABOUT 19% COST OF THAT OF THAT LOT.

OKAY. AND THAT THAT INCLUDES, LIKE YOU SAID, THE PASS-THROUGH FEES, THERE'S VALIDATION

[02:15:02]

FEES, METER SETTING, ALL THAT GETS TO OVER 10,000.

SO, WITH A CHANGE LIKE THIS WHERE YOU PUT IN ANOTHER 5500 FOR ROADWAY IMPACT FEES, AND WHEN LIKE IN OUR AREA, WE'RE IN THE JOHNSON COUNTY SUD IMPROVEMENT AREA.

THEY'VE ADJUSTED THEIR IMPACT FEES UP AS WELL.

YOU PUT ALL THAT TOGETHER INSTEAD OF $10,000 PER HOUSE, WE'RE LOOKING AT CLOSER TO $20,000 PER HOUSE ON A PERMIT.

AND AS COMPARED TO THE DEVELOPABLE LOT PRICE, YOU START TO SEE WHERE, AS A BUILDER AND AS A HOME BUYER, THAT THAT MATH WOULD START TO KIND OF SCRATCH THE PAPER A LITTLE BIT. DOES AN INCREASE IN FEES HALT DEVELOPMENT IN BURLESON? NO, THAT'S REALLY UNLIKELY BECAUSE WE'RE IN A GREAT REGION AND THINGS ARE HAPPENING AND ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO HAPPEN.

DOES IT SLOW OR DOES IT MAKE PEOPLE LOOK AT DEALS A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY? AND MAYBE BECAUSE THESE EXURBAN AREAS LIKE GODLEY AND MELISSA, THAT'S WHAT'S HAPPENING NOW IS THEY'RE HAVING TO COMPARE.

YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T WE HAVE WE'RE HAVING TO BUY DOWN RATES IN OTHER PLACES.

BUILDERS ARE SAYING. AND SO, THEY'RE HAVING TO COMPARE.

THE CITY HAS TAKEN HUGE EFFORTS IN HELPING US WITH OUR GROWTH AND HAS A LOT OF PROJECTS WE WANT TO ENSURE ARE BUILT.

I THINK THE MAIN THING IS WE'RE JUST ENCOURAGING COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT TO A NEW HOME BUYER TO SHOULDER AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF FEES AT A TIME WHEN MOST ARE LOOKING TO CUT COSTS JUST TO GET TO THE CLOSING TABLE.

BUT IF A FEE CHANGE IS MADE, WE'D ASK FOR A MODERATE.

INCREASE AND A REEVALUATION AGAIN IN FIVE YEARS.

I APPRECIATE THE CHANCE TO SPEAK.

THANKS FOR ALL THAT COUNCIL AND CITY STAFF DOES FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

THANKS, GUYS. NEXT SPEAKER IS BILL JANISCH. BILL JANISCH 117 NORTHEAST CLINTON. DAN AND LARRY, YOU GUYS WERE SPOT ON.

I MEAN, IF I COULD PUT THOSE SAME WORDS OUT THERE.

BUT I WON'T GET THERE. BUT YOU GUYS ARE SPOT ON WITH EVERYTHING.

THAT, I HAVE TO SAY. I ATTENDED ALL THESE ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETINGS.

THE GUYS WERE IN THERE. I DON'T KNOW ALL THEIR BACKGROUNDS.

SOMEWHERE IN REAL ESTATE.

THEY WERE ALL VERY EDUCATED.

THEY ALL WERE ON THE ICE.

THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

I'D ASK ERIC A QUESTION OR A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

ONE OF THEM WAS, DO YOU EVER RUN OUT OF MONEY? YES. I MEAN, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT THERE'S NEVER ENOUGH MONEY.

AND WHEN YOU RUN OUT, I ASKED THEM, WHAT DO YOU DO? YOU JUST DO WITHOUT, OR YOU HAD TO PULL IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE.

TOMMY ALLUDED TO IT.

YOU'D HAVE TO REARRANGE THE CO BONDS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

PULL THE MONEY IN. IF I WANTED TO EAT LIKE A KING EVERY DAY, THE PAUPERS SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY FOR MY MEALS.

I QUIT PRETTY MUCH WHAT YOU SAID.

THEN EVERYBODY ELSE IS GOING TO BE PAYING THE ONES THAT HAVE BEEN SET THERE 50, 60 YEARS. HERE. THEY'RE ALL PAYING, AND IT SHOULDN'T BE THAT WAY.

FOR THE LONGEST PEOPLE HAVE BEEN GETTING BY BUILDING THESE NEW HOMES CHEAPER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE. A FEW PEOPLE MENTIONED THE OTHER CITIES WHERE WE'RE RANKED.

IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE JUMPING TO THE TOP OF THE SCALE, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING.

IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS, THEY MIGHT HAVE ALL VOTED ON THE SAME THING, AND WE MIGHT BE BACK AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCALE AGAIN.

I THINK IT'S VERY RESPONSIBLE TO GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE MAXIMUMS. NOW, LIKE I SAID, I'M NOT BUILDING A HOME.

IT'S NOT GOING TO AFFECT ME OTHER THAN THE MORE THAT WE PUT IT OFF OR IF WE CUT THE RATES DOWN. I'M GOING TO BE PAYING MORE AND I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO.

SOME THINGS I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DO, BUT I WANT YOU GUYS TO CONSIDER THAT WE'VE BEEN BEHIND THE CURVE ON THIS TOO LONG.

JUST LIKE YOU'LL HEAR ME ARGUE STORMWATER FOREVER.

WE'LL NEVER CATCH UP ON THAT.

I DON'T THINK EVER.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER.

BUT THEN EVERYBODY'S GOING TO BE GRIPING AGAIN ABOUT THAT IMPACT FEE DELAYING IT.

NOW WE'LL PUSH THESE TODAY'S PRICES.

THE INFLATION IS GOING TO THEY'LL BE UP NEXT YEAR.

THEY'LL BE UP THE YEAR AFTER.

SO, IF WE WAIT FIVE YEARS TO TRY AND CATCH UP, WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE THE SEWER, STORMWATER, SEWER MONEY BEHIND THE STREETS.

YOU GUYS NEED TO ACT ON THIS.

I THINK YOU NEED TO GO AHEAD AND GO WITH THE MAXWELL; I APPRECIATE IT.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING? MAYOR, I HAVE NO MORE SPEAKER CARDS.

YOU CAN CLOSE BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS.

I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AT 749.

ANYTHING ELSE? ERIC? NO, SIR.

NOT ON THIS ITEM.

ARE WE READY FOR A VOTE? ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR SO? TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE TAKING UP ITEM 7.E, WHICH IS THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES.

IS THERE A MOTION ON SEVEN EIGHT? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE CPC COMMITTEE AND APPROVE THE

[02:20:05]

ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ROADWAY IMPACT FEES TO THE LEVELS REQUESTED BY CPC.

I SECOND THE MOTION.

I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN. A SECOND BY LARRY.

PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 5 TO 2.

[7.F.Hold a Public Hearing and consider approval of an ordinance amending the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Ordinance (CSO#977-02-2019); 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. (First Reading) (Staff Presenter: Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works & Engineering)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO SEVEN F.

THOSE ARE THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEES.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER IMPACT FEE TO THE.

DO WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEVEN F? I THINK WE HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING JOINTLY.

WE OPEN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. TO THE RATES ESTABLISHED BY CPAC.

IS THERE A SECOND? I GOT A MOTION BY DAN.

A SECOND BY LARRY. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 6 TO 1.

[Items 7.G. & 7.H.]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEMS SEVEN G AND SEVEN H, WHICH WE'LL CALL FORWARD TOGETHER WITH ONE PRESENTATION. THIS IS TO CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CASTING VOTES FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

YES, SIR. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK.

WE'RE PROBABLY GOOD. OKAY.

I'M FINE. LET'S GO AGAIN.

THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS TIME I'LL CALL FORWARD.

ITEM 7.G AND 7.H TOGETHER.

7.G IS CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CASTING VOTES FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND SEVEN H IS CONSIDERED APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION CASTING VOTES FOR THE ELECTION OF MEMBERS TO THE TARRANT COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

THE STAFF PRESENTER FOR BOTH ITEMS IS ERIC OSCARSSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

THANK YOU, MS. CAMPOS.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU TODAY IS TWO ITEMS FOR THE BALLOT ALLOCATION FOR JOHNSON AND TARRANT COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICTS.

JUST A QUICK RECAP.

THE BOARD FOR BOTH DISTRICTS IS FIVE MEMBER BOARDS.

THEY'RE ELECTED BY THE TAXING AUTHORITY, WHICH WE ARE.

THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR HIRING THE CHIEF APPRAISER.

THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR GOVERNING THE DISTRICT, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET.

AND JUST A REMINDER, THEY DO NOT APPRAISE THE PROPERTIES.

THAT'S A RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHIEF APPRAISER.

THE TERM IS FOR TWO YEARS.

THAT ALIGNS WITH THE CALENDAR YEAR.

THEIR CURRENT YEAR TERMS EXPIRE AT THE END OF DECEMBER, AND THEIR NEW TERMS WILL RUN JANUARY 1ST THROUGH DECEMBER 31ST.

SO, EACH TAXING AUTHORITY IS ALLOCATED BOTH BASED ON THEIR SHARE OF THE LEVY.

SO, THE CITY OF BURLESON CAN CAST 373 VOTES FOR JOHNSON COUNTY AND SIX IN TARRANT.

WE CAN APPORTION THOSE IN ANY WAY AMONGST THE PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT.

THE BALLOTS WERE RECEIVED BY JOHNSON COUNTY ON THE 23RD, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IN TARRANT COUNTY ON THE 30TH.

WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPPLYING THE VOTES APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

BY DECEMBER 15TH, THE FIVE CANDIDATES THAT RECEIVED THE HIGHEST NUMBER OF VOTES WILL BE ELECTED TO THE BOARD.

AND JUST A REMINDER, THERE ARE 5000 TOTAL VOTES PER DISTRICT.

WE BROUGHT THIS ITEM TO YOU ON OCTOBER 2ND, AND THAT WAS OUR TIME TO NOMINATE CANDIDATES TO BE PLACED ON THE BALLOT.

AND THIS IS JUST A REMINDER THAT CITY COUNCIL NOMINATED GARY LOZADA TO THE TARRANT COUNTY BALLOT.

AND THEN FOR JOHNSON COUNTY COUNCIL NOMINATED DWAYNE GOLDING, PAUL JONES, AMY LINGO AND JOHN WOOD TO THE JOHNSON COUNTY BALLOT TODAY.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OR REQUIRING DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL FOR HOW THEY'D LIKE TO ALLOCATE THE VOTES FOR BOTH JOHNSON AND TARRANT COUNTY.

THESE VOTES WILL BE PROVIDED ON THE OFFICIAL BALLOT AND PROVIDED TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS. AND SO TONIGHT, CITY COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO ALLOCATE ANY PORTION OF THE VOTES TO THE CANDIDATE OR CANDIDATES THAT APPEAR ON THE BALLOTS YOU'VE RECEIVED IN THE PACKET.

SOME RESUMES FOR SOME PEOPLE, WE'VE ALSO PROVIDED SOME HARD COPIES.

AND SO, STAFF IS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FOR YOU FROM YOU THIS EVENING ON, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO APPORTION THOSE VOTES TO THE DIFFERENT DISTRICTS? I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND LET EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT MS. LINGO HAS ALREADY RECEIVED ENOUGH VOTES FROM GRANDVIEW AND JOHNSON COUNTY.

THE COMMISSIONERS COURT.

SO, SHE'S ON THE BOARD AT 828.

[02:25:01]

JOHN WOOD IS SETTING IT TO SAY 534.

SO, HE'S RIGHT ON THE EDGE.

I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND PUT JOHN WOOD.

AS PART OF OUR PEOPLE TO VOTE FOR IF WE COULD, AND ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OF WHO THEY WANT. MAYOR, THERE'S 828.

THE MAGIC NUMBER TO GET ON OR IS THAT JUST WHAT THEY.

OKAY, I BELIEVE THAT'S RIGHT.

MISTER HUNTLEY MAY KNOW.

MAY 34TH IS THE MAGIC NUMBER.

OKAY. MAYOR, I DO HAVE 28.

28 NOT INCLUDE GRANDVIEW BECAUSE THE GRANDVIEW GIVE HER SIX POINTS OR SOMETHING.

IS THAT THE CASE? BECAUSE I'M ALLOWED TO SPEAK SO GRAND.

YOU, SIR. SIR, IF YOU'LL COME TO THE AND STATE YOUR NAME UP THERE.

PLUS, I ALSO HAVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR SOMEONE WHO FILLED OUT A SPEAKER CARD TO SPEAK DURING THIS. OKAY, AS YOU ALL KNOW, YOU ALL WERE THE FIRST TO NOMINATE OUR PEOPLE.

THEN ALL THE REST OF THE ENTITIES FOLLOWED SUIT.

THIS MORNING, THE FIRST VOTE, WELL, THE FIRST VOTES GOING OUT WERE LAST WEEK, I BELIEVE WAS CITY OF GRANDVIEW.

THEY HAD 12 VOTES.

THEY DIVIDED THE 12 VOTES BETWEEN AMY LINGO AND JOHN WOOD.

AND THIS MORNING, UNANIMOUSLY, JOHNSON COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT GAVE ALL THE VOTES NEEDED. PUT AMY LINGO ON THE CARDBOARD.

THE LEFTOVER VOTES WERE GIVEN TO JOHN WOOD, AND THAT GAVE HIM 142 VOTES.

I WENT, WENT AND SPOKE TO I WENT AND SPOKE TO JOSHUA ISD BEFORE I GOT HERE.

THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO SIGN IN, DIDN'T THINK WE WERE GOING TO GET THE VOTES.

AND I JUST GOT A TEXT MESSAGE FROM ONE OF THE TRUSTEES, AND THEY GAVE ALL 394 OF THEIR VOTES TO JOHN WOODS.

THAT PUTS HIM AT 536.

IT WOULD BE NICE IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER GIVING JOHN 298 OF YOUR VOTES.

THAT WOULD PUT HIM ON THE CAD BOARD WITH 75 VOTES LEFT OVER FOR Y'ALL TO.

WE HAVE TWO MORE CANDIDATES AND I'M GOING TO BE OUT SPEAKING TOMORROW.

I MEAN CITY OF CLEBURNE TOMORROW.

I'M SEEING A REAL POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THREE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD.

NOW WITH YOUR HELP, YOU CAN MAKE HISTORY.

THAT'S IT.

I HAVE A SPEAKER CARD FOR DWAYNE GOLDING.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M DWAYNE GOULDING.

I LIVE AT 4837 WEST FM 916, HALFWAY BETWEEN RIO VISTA AND GOAT NECK.

THAT SHOULD PIN IT DOWN FOR YOU, RIGHT? IT'S. IT'S GOOD TO BE BACK IN BURLESON.

I LIVED HERE QUITE A FEW YEARS.

SERVED ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING WITH ADAM AND SOME OTHER FINE PEOPLE.

KIND OF CONSIDER THIS MY SECOND HOME NOW.

ANYWAY, THE.

I THINK YOU GOT A PACKET THAT SHOWS OUR BIOGRAPHIES.

I'M A NATIVE OF JOHNSON COUNTY, AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR VOTES FOR OUR GROUP, FOR THE BOARD. WE WILL BRING MORE TRANSPARENCY AND MORE BALANCE IF WE GET THREE PEOPLE ON THE BOARD. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, DWAYNE.

COULD I SUGGEST THAT WE DO THE 298 FOR JOHN HALL? JOHN WOOD? I'M SORRY.

AND GIVE THE BALANCE TO DWAYNE.

WOULD THAT BE POSSIBLE? I AGREE.

THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY MOTION.

THEN MAKE IT. WOULD YOU? DID I SAY THAT? AMY LINGO ALREADY HAD THE VOTE.

SHE DOES NOT NEED PERMISSION TO PUT HER OVER THE TOP THIS MORNING.

SO, ANY VOTE WE GAVE TO HER WOULD BE POINTLESS.

CORRECT? CORRECT. WE CAN PUT MR. WOOD OVER THE TOP TONIGHT.

YES. WITH OUR VOTE, WHAT'S THE MINIMUM NUMBER THAT WE NEED TO PUT HIM OVER THE TOP? 292. 98.

I'VE HEARD SOMETHING ABOUT 75 VOTES TO SPARE.

RIGHT. WITH WHAT WE'RE GRANTED TOTAL, WE HAVE 373.

OKAY, SO THAT NUMBER OF VOTES GETS HIM ON THE BOARD, AND THEN WE HAVE 75 MORE TO GO.

YES, SIR. OKAY, THEN I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR'S SUGGESTION TO GIVE THOSE TO DWAYNE GOLDING. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GRANT JOHN WOOD 298 OF OUR VOTES FOR THE JOHNSON COUNTY BOARD AND 75 FOR DWAYNE GOLDING.

SECOND. YOU GOT YOUR BUTTON.

[02:30:02]

THERE YOU GO. HIT IT QUICK.

I GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA AND A SECOND BY MCCLENDON DAN, I'M SORRY.

I DIDN'T MEAN TO GET SO FORMAL ON THAT.

CAN WE PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU, JOHN. MR. HUNTLEY, YOU BETTER CHECK DOUBLE CHECK THE MATH AND THEN MAKE SURE BEFORE WE ADJOURN TONIGHT IN CASE WE GOT TO.

THEY'VE GOT CLOBBERED TOMORROW NIGHT.

SO THAT MOVES US ON TO NOW VOTING FOR 7.H.

THE TARRANT COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW ANY OF THESE MEN.

YOU JUST HAVE SIX VOTES.

YES, MA'AM. LAST YEAR WE GAVE.

OR THE LAST TIME WE GAVE THEM ALL TO MR. LOZADA. WAS THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.

AND IN OCTOBER, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM COUNCIL WAS TO NOMINATE GARY LOZADA TO BE ON THE BALLOT. SO, CAN I GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO GIVE THEM ALL TO HIM? LET'S DO IT. ALL RIGHT.

I MOVE TO GIVE OUR SIX VOTES TO MR. LOZADA. OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION BY ADAM, A SECOND BY VICTORIA.

PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[8.A.Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding landscaping along Lakewood Drive. (Staff Presenter: Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works & Engineering)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION EIGHT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

EIGHT A RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING LANDSCAPING ALONG LAKEWOOD DRIVE.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS ERIC THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS AND ENGINEERING.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN.

JUST BE A LOT SHORTER THAN THE LAST PRESENTATION.

YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE LAKEWOOD AND CHISHOLM SUMMIT DEVELOPMENTS AND THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF TOWN.

LAKEWOOD DRIVE, CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN THIS AREA, IS FROM, OH, PROBABLY A COUPLE ABOUT OVER TWO MONTHS AGO, BUT IT WILL BE FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY WITH TEN-FOOT SHARED USE PATH ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROAD.

POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING OF THE PARKWAYS AND MEDIANS.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO GET FEEDBACK FROM YOU ON TONIGHT.

AND THEN ALSO STREET LIGHTING AND BURIAL OF THE ELECTRIC OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES THAT YOU HEARD ABOUT EARLIER.

SO, FOR A BUDGET INCLUDES 25 MILLION OVERALL FOR LAKEWOOD.

THAT'S 18 MILLION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LAKEWOOD DRIVE, WHICH INCLUDES A $3 MILLION CONTINGENCY, ANOTHER 3.5 MILLION FOR STREET LIGHTING AND BURIAL OF THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES, AND THEN 2.5 MILLION FOR LANDSCAPING.

SO TONIGHT, WE HAVE THREE GENERAL CONCEPTS.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOME GUIDANCE, DIRECTION FROM THE COUNCIL ON HOW INTENSIVE YOU'D LIKE THE LANDSCAPING ALONG LAKEWOOD.

SO AGAIN, OUR DEVELOPMENT IS THE DEVELOPER WHO IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IMPLEMENTING AND THEN BEING REIMBURSED BY THE CITY.

SO, THERE ARE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TEAM HAS PROVIDED THESE THREE CONCEPTS THAT WE'VE KIND OF LABELED A, B AND C.

A BEING BASICALLY JUST TURF IN THE MEDIAN AND PARKWAYS B HAVING A LITTLE BIT MORE VEGETATION AT ALMOST TWICE THE COST, AND THEN C MUCH MORE INTENSIVE AND WITH ALSO SOME ART AT THE ROUNDABOUT.

BUT WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.

SO, CONCEPT A AGAIN THIS IS THE MORE BASIC CONCEPT.

NO TREES, NO SHRUBS PROPOSED.

BUNCH OF SOD AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM, AND ESTIMATED TO COST A LITTLE OVER 500,000, AND THAT INCLUDES A 20% CONTINGENCY, AND THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING COSTS ARE ABOUT 60,000 A YEAR.

WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE IN A FEW SLIDES ABOUT TIMING.

SO, WE HAVE A STRATEGY IN MIND THAT WOULD KIND OF PUSH OUT WHEN CITY WOULD NEED TO BEGIN BUDGETING FOR MAINTENANCE.

SO, DEPENDING ON HOW FAR OUT WE CAN PUSH THAT, YOU KNOW THE ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS MAY GO UP.

FIVE OR MAYBE $10,000 FOR EACH OPTION.

SO, MOVING ON TO CONCEPT B.

[02:35:05]

SO HERE IN ADDITION TO THE TURF, YOU'VE GOT A BUNCH OF TREES, 323-INCH CALIPER TREES, 22 SLIGHTLY SMALLER ORNAMENTAL TREES, SOME MORE GROUND COVER AND OTHER PLANTINGS IN ADDITION TO THE SOD AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

ESTIMATED COST HERE IS ABOUT 920,000 FOR INSTALLATION, AGAIN INCLUDING THAT 20% CONTINGENCY AND THE ESTIMATED OPERATING COSTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ROUGHLY 80,000 A YEAR. CONCEPT C IS THE MOST INTENSE OF THE THREE, SO MUCH MORE DENSE LANDSCAPING IN THE PARKWAYS AND THE MEDIANS.

YOU'LL SEE AN ART FEATURE IN THE ROUNDABOUT.

SO, IF WE CHOOSE TO GO THIS ROUTE, THIS MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ENGAGE YOUR PUBLIC ART COMMITTEE TO KIND OF HELP FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT MIGHT BE.

IT'S 403-INCH CALIPER TREES, 200 ORNAMENTAL TREES.

A LOT OF SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER PLANTINGS, PLUS THE SOD AND THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM.

ESTIMATED INSTALLATION COST ON THIS 11.7 5 MILLION.

AND THEN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE COSTS WOULD BE ROUGHLY 110,000 A YEAR. THE SLIDE KIND OF SUMMARIZES THE THREE ON THEIR INSTALLATION COSTS.

AND AGAIN, WE'VE GOT A BUDGET OF 2.5 MILLION.

SO, EACH OF THE THREE OPTIONS PRESENTED ARE WELL WITHIN THAT.

AND THEN THESE NUMBERS ALSO INCLUDE THE 20% CONTINGENCY.

OTHER ELEMENTS THAT AREN'T INCLUDED THAT YOU MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER MIGHT BE BENCHES OR SEATING AND TRASH RECEPTACLES AT STRATEGIC LOCATIONS.

SO BASED ON YOUR FEEDBACK TONIGHT, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND REFINE THESE OPTIONS, THESE CONCEPTS, TO INCLUDE THOSE ELEMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE WHILE STAYING WITHIN THE EXISTING BUDGET.

THIS SLIDE JUST GIVES YOU THE MAINTENANCE COSTS.

AND IF WE HAD TO START MAINTAINING THESE TODAY, IT'D BE 60 TO 80 AND 110,000.

AND THAT'S WITH STAFF DOING THE MAINTENANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF LITTER.

I THINK THAT THAT'S INCLUDED AS A CONTRACTED ITEM, BUT ROUGHLY 62 TO 120,000 A YEAR, DEPENDING ON THE OPTION THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PROCEED WITH.

SO, LET'S TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT TIMING.

WE WOULD ANTICIPATE LANDSCAPING TO BE BID AS A SEPARATE CONSTRUCTION AND INSTALLATION CONTRACT. AND THAT WOULDN'T OCCUR UNTIL THE FALL OF THE FALL PLANNING SEASON OF 2024.

SO ROUGHLY ABOUT A YEAR FROM NOW, WE WOULD ANTICIPATE OR SUGGEST MAYBE A TWO-YEAR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, BUT NOT JUST A TYPICAL MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT.

WE WOULD PROBABLY ALSO WANT TO INCLUDE THE MOWING BE INCLUDED IN THAT TWO-YEAR AGREEMENT. SO THAT'S GOING TO INCREASE THE COST A LITTLE BIT.

BUT IT WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO NOT NEED TO BUDGET FOR THE MAINTENANCE UNTIL THE 2627 FISCAL YEAR. SO, WE WOULD BASICALLY BE ABLE TO PUSH OUT THIS NEW BUDGET LINE ITEM FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND THEN STRATEGIES CONSIDERED FOR HOW TO FUND THAT ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COULD INCLUDE THIS AS AN EXPENSE, OR IT COULD BE FUNDED BY THE GENERAL FUND IN THE OPERATING BUDGET.

SO OFF TO THE RIGHT KIND OF COMBINE THE INSTALLATION COSTS FOR EACH PLUS THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COSTS.

AND THAT'S IT IN A NUTSHELL.

WE'D LOVE TO HEAR YOUR FEEDBACK SO THAT WE CAN GO AND REFINE THE CONCEPT AND MOVE FORWARD. I'D LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING BETWEEN A AND B, MAYBE TREES IN THE ROUNDABOUT JUST SO PEOPLE WON'T BE DRIVING STRAIGHT THROUGH.

BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO SPEND THAT KIND OF MONEY RIGHT NOW.

IT NEEDS TO BE DONE. BUT I'M OKAY WITH THAT.

BUT I DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH PEOPLE TAKING A SHORTCUT ON THE ROUNDABOUT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ERIC, WITH THE.

WE HAVE A PID IN IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.

RIGHT. THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.

WOULD THAT NOT BE THERE WILL BE WOULD THAT BE FACTORED IN MAINTENANCE OF THE

[02:40:03]

UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS LANDSCAPING WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS. SO, IT'S NOT A FACTOR.

IN OTHER WORDS, NOT TODAY.

THE SOURCES YOU LISTED ARE THE ONLY TWO LIKELY SOURCES OF MAINTENANCE.

PROBABLY THE MOST LIKELY.

THERE'S A WHOLE SERIES OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT IF YOU WANTED TO REVISE THAT PID TO INCLUDE THIS, BUT IT WAS NOT PLANNED TO INCORPORATE LANDSCAPING.

OKAY, I WONDER IF THIS.

I THINK WE MIGHT BE PAINTING THIS WITH TOO BROAD A BRUSH.

IT CROSSED MY MIND GOING OUT AND LOOKING THIS THING OVER THOROUGHLY.

WE HAVE DONE LITTLE TO NO LANDSCAPING.

WE'VE DONE FAIRLY DENSE LANDSCAPING ON ROADS OUT IN THE AREA.

ALSBURY BOULEVARD IS A CASE IN POINT.

WE DID WHAT WOULD PROBABLY PRETTY CLOSELY APPROACH THE OPTION, SEE THE DENSEST PLANTINGS AND STUFF.

BUT WE DIDN'T DO IT IN THE PARKWAYS BECAUSE THE ROADS NOT COMPLETE.

IT'S ONLY BUILT IN THE MIDDLE TWO LANES.

PRESUMABLY LATER ON WE'D LANDSCAPE THE REST OF IT.

SO, I THINK WE'VE SORT OF SHOWN THAT THAT'S A STANDARD THAT WE SET.

I ALSO WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT LAKEWOOD DRIVE, WHERE IT'S BEEN BUILT, FROM 174 GOING AWAY, AND THEY DID NOTHING THERE.

AND IT'S NOT A VERY APPEALING LOOK.

BUT ANOTHER THOUGHT I HAD WAS THE TWO MAIN, I LIKE THE IDEA OF PUTTING YOUR BEST FOOT FORWARD MOST OF THE TIME.

THE TWO MAIN AVENUES OF ACCESS INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE GOING TO BE 1902 AND 1016.

WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOMETHING REALLY REMARKABLE IN THERE, ESPECIALLY IN THE ROUNDABOUT AREA AND BETWEEN THE ROUNDABOUT AT 1016 AND THE JUNCTION OF 1902.

I THINK WE'RE IN THE MOST INTENSE PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK WE COULD REALLY SET THE STANDARD FOR WHAT THE REST OF THAT COULD BE MADE TO LOOK LIKE IF WE SPEND HEAVILY ON THAT AREA.

HOWEVER, GOING AWAY FROM THE 1016 ROUNDABOUT, DOWN 914 AND ON, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING IN THERE, IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT CONTEXT SENSITIVITY, YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST LOOKING AT A PATHWAY.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT A ROAD THROUGH A GENERALLY LIGHTLY DEVELOPED AREA.

THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO CHANGE A WHOLE LOT AS A RESULT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

SO, BETWEEN THERE AND EXISTING LAKEWOOD, I WOULD SEE THE NEED FOR OUR LANDSCAPING TO PERHAPS NOT BE SO INTENSE.

I WOULD KIND OF LIKE TO LOOK AT A HYBRID IDEA THAT WOULD LANDSCAPE HEAVILY BETWEEN THE 1902 JUNCTURE AND THE 1016 ROUNDABOUT, AND THEN LIGHTLY.

SO, I'D BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

I THINK I LIKE THE IDEA.

THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY DRAWBACK I HAVE WITH THE OPTION C IS THAT HEAVY TREE PLANTING IN THE MEDIAN IS GOING TO AFFECT THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE LIGHTING, THAT IF WE HAVE A LOT OF IF WE'RE GOING TO USE CENTER MEDIAN LIGHTING, WHICH ALL THE DETAILS THAT WE LOOKED AT HERE SHOW, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE SOMEWHAT LESS EFFECTIVE IF WE'VE GOT HEAVY TREE GROWTH OVER THE YEARS IN THE MEDIAN, THEY'RE GOING TO CREATE SHADOWING AND SO FORTH IN THE MEDIA.

AND SO, I WOULD TEND TO THINK A LITTLE I LIKE YOUR OPTION B DESIGN FOR THAT REASON BECAUSE I THINK IT HELPS TO ENHANCE THE ILLUMINATION WORK BETTER.

SO, I COULD SEE AN OPTION B BETWEEN 1902 AND 1016, AND THEN OPTION A TO THE SOUTH.

JUST GET IT PLANTED, PUT IN THE CONDUIT, BE PREPARED TO IRRIGATE IT.

AS THINGS DEVELOP AS THE AREA PICKS UP, WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK AND ADD FURTHER LANDSCAPING TO IT, PROVIDED WE PUT IN THE NECESSARY COMPONENTS THAT NEED TO BE PUT IN NOW SO THAT WE'RE NOT DIGGING UP PAVEMENT LATER TO PUT THEM IN.

SO, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE CAN DISCUSS IT OR DO AN ALL OR NONE.

I'LL GO FOR THAT. THIS THE REASON HE MAKES THE BIG BUCKS.

THAT'S GOOD I LIKE THAT.

ANYBODY ELSE? ERIC, I AGREE WITH DAN.

WHATEVER WE DO, I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THE.

ALL 174 OUT WHEN WE PUT IN ABOUT 6 OR $800,000 AND GOT TO DO IT AGAIN THE NEXT YEAR BECAUSE IT WAS PUT IN WRONG.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE ALWAYS HAD A PROBLEM WHEN YOU START SPENDING OH, MILLION, $200,000 FOR STUFF AND THEN PAYING $100,000 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN IT.

I DON'T I DON'T SEE THAT ON A ON A ROADWAY.

NOW, MAYBE OPTION B IS FINE.

I REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT EITHER.

THE ONLY THING IS WE, I THINK.

WE GET OUT THERE ON SOME OF THAT STUFF, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE REPLACING IT.

I MEAN, WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO, A YEAR AND A HALF.

OH, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE GOT SOME OF THEM THAT DIED.

[02:45:03]

WELL, CAN I GET ON THAT SUBJECT A LITTLE BIT? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE BOTH AROUND WHEN ALL THAT WAS TAKING PLACE.

I THINK THE FAILURE THERE WAS TXDOT'S BECAUSE THEY DID LANDSCAPE THE MEDIAN.

BUT BASICALLY, THE MEDIAN HAD BEEN UNDER PAVEMENT FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

IT HAD EXISTING BASE.

AND THE SOIL UNDERNEATH THE BASE WAS COMPACTED PRETTY DEEPLY.

AND AS I RECALL, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN JUST SORT OF PULLED THE PAVEMENT OFF, PUT IN SOME TOPSOIL, AND PLANTED PLANTS WITHOUT BREAKING UP THE HARDPAN BELOW.

THEY WERE LITERALLY PULLING CURB UP OUT OF THE MEDIAN WHERE THE PLANTS WERE.

THEY BURIED SOME OF THEIR STUFF IN THE MEDIAN.

WHEN WE REDID IT, WE WENT DEEPER, PUT IN TOPSOIL AND, YOU KNOW, MORE FRIABLE SOILS AND TURNED IT INTO SOMETHING. SO, OUR SECOND EFFORT WAS BETTER, BUT IT WAS JUST SORT OF A FAILURE IN THE INITIAL UNDERTAKING.

I KNOW WE HAD SOME BAD PLANT SPECIES CHOICES TOO.

I AGREE THE SECOND EFFORT WAS MUCH BETTER, AND IT ONLY COST US DOUBLE BECAUSE WE HONESTLY DON'T THINK WE WERE.

WE WEREN'T PAYING ATTENTION.

NOW, YES, I AGREE TXDOT WAS A PROBLEM, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE GONE OUT AND LOOKED AT IT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S WHAT DID THE JOB.

WE DID THE LANDSCAPING, SO THAT'S ON US.

I DON'T DISAGREE, ABSOLUTELY.

BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.

WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING MORE AT HOW WE WERE PREPARING THE LAND TO SUPPORT WHATEVER WE PUT OUT, THE PLANTS WE PUT OUT.

YEAH. AND THE PLANTS WHERE WE WANT THEM.

TWO, WE DON'T WANT TO REPLACE THEM.

THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IN A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF.

SO, WHATEVER WE PUT OUT THERE.

YOU'RE RIGHT. LET'S DO IT.

AT LEAST DO IT RIGHT SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD AGAIN.

BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THE AREA THE CENTRAL PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS ATTRACTIVE AS. I AGREE AS WE THINK IS APPROPRIATE.

I AGREE WITH THAT AT ALL. AND SOME OF THAT'S WHY WE INCLUDE THE TWO-YEAR MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING GETS ESTABLISHED AND THAT IT LASTS AT LEAST THAT TWO-YEAR PERIOD.

SO, WE'RE.

I WOULD BE.

YOU BRING THAT BACK TO US? REALLY? SURE.

ERIC, I AGREE WITH DAN ON THE DENSITY AROUND THE ROUNDABOUT.

WE NEED TO KEEP THE DENSITY DOWN SO THE CITIZENS CAN SEE WHAT'S COMING AROUND.

I LIKE THE LANDSCAPING IN THERE, BUT NOT AS DENSE.

AND ALSO, ARE WE HELD TO CHAPTER 86, THE CODE OF ORDINANCE LANDSCAPING TREES AND VEGETATION WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR OWN ROADS.

YES. CAN THE COUNCIL GIVE ITSELF A VARIANCE? THAT COULD PROBABLY BE ARRANGED IF FOUR OF YOU AGREE, I WOULD IMAGINE YOU COULD PROBABLY GIVE YOURSELF A VARIANCE.

SO, WHICH ONE OF THOSE THREE CONFORMS TO WHAT WE NEED TO DO? ALL OF THEM. ALL OF THEM.

ALL THE LANDSCAPING OPTIONS CONFORM WITH OUR DESIGN STANDARDS.

SO, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT DENSITY WITHIN MEDIANS, WE'LL HAVE VISIBILITY TRIANGLES.

SO, WHEN YOU HAVE LEFT TURNS, YOU'LL HAVE VEGETATION THAT DOESN'T GROW TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT. THE TREES WON'T BE IN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE.

SO IF YOU'RE MAKING A LEFT TURN YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC.

SO ALL THE DESIGN PLANS WILL BE THERE.

WITH REGARDS TO BRINGING IT BACK.

THIS IS A FOR A FUNDED ITEM.

SO JUST LIKE THE ROADWAY, WE BROUGHT TO YOU THE DESIGN OF THE ROADWAY FOR APPROVAL AND THEN THE DESIGN CONTRACT, THE SAME THING WILL HAPPEN.

YOU'LL HAVE THE LANDSCAPING DESIGN WILL GO TO FOR A FOR AND COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

AND THEN YOU'LL, YOU'LL AUTHORIZE THE CONTRACT.

SO YOU'LL SEE THE FULL DESIGN.

BUT ALL ALL THESE OPTIONS WILL ALL FIT AND CONFORM TO VISIBILITY TRIANGLES ALL THE STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE.

AND SO ALL THREE OPTIONS PROVIDE THAT.

SO HIGHER DENSITY THROUGH THE MAIN PART OF IT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN DO.

AND WE CAN SCALE IT BACK AS WE GET FARTHER AWAY.

IF YOU LIKE THE IDEA OF SOME KIND OF ART FEATURE AT THE ROUNDABOUT, BECAUSE THAT'S A MAIN THING, WE CAN INCLUDE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT WE CAN.

WE GIVE YOU THREE OPTIONS.

WHAT WE CAN MELD THOSE INTO, WHATEVER OPTION YOU WANT, GET YOUR FINAL FEEDBACK.

AND THAT'S SO WE'LL WORK WITH THE DESIGNERS TO DO THAT.

AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK ONCE WE HAVE A GOOD IDEA.

YES, WE MET KIND OF YOUR STANDARD.

YOU APPROVE THE DESIGN, THEN WE'LL PUT IT ON THE STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION.

LANDSCAPE DESIGN.

ROUNDING OUT.

WE HAVE A BUNCH OF STUFF HERE.

EACH LINE HAS A.

I'M GOING TO PULL THAT UP.

DO YOU HAVE THE ROUNDABOUT? CAN YOU PULL UP THE ONE DESIGN FEATURE AND HAS A ROUNDABOUT? WELL, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH SOMETHING CLOSE TO BE OR WHAT THE COUNCIL DECIDES ON.

THAT'S IT.

SO, IT'S PULLED BACK AWAY.

WE DON'T HAVE. SUNSET IS A MINI ROUNDABOUT, AND SO IT'S SET UP DIFFERENTLY.

AND IT WAS CONSTRAINED WITH THE KIND OF DESIGN THAT IT'S IN.

SO YEAH, WE HAVE WE HAVE PEDESTRIAN ISSUES AT THAT INTERSECTION.

ANYBODY ELSE. I'LL JUST AGREE WITH MAYOR PRO TEM MCCLENDON JUST BE AT SOME POINT.

[02:50:05]

AND I THINK IT DOES PAY SOME KIND OF HYBRID.

YEAH. MY ONLY REQUEST IS TEXAS FRIENDLY PLANTS, THINGS THAT CAN SURVIVE OUR HEAT AND DON'T NEED TO BE PLANTED.

I DON'T, WHAT I ALWAYS MIX UP ANNUAL AND PERENNIAL, BUT THE ONES THAT COME BACK BECAUSE I KNOW THAT, LIKE, MY BACKYARD IS FULL OF THEM AND I DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY WORK, THEY COME BACK ALL PRETTY AND COLORFUL AND THERE'S SUCH COOL VARIETIES.

WE REALLY WANT TO DO OUR HOMEWORK ON THAT, BUT AS LONG AS IT CAN SURVIVE TEXAS WEATHER FOR IT. I APPRECIATE IT.

[8.B.Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff feedback regarding a financial overview of the Parks Performance Fund. (Staff Presenter: Jen Basham, Director of Parks and Recreation)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO 8.B RECEIVE A REPORT.

HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF FEEDBACK REGARDING A FINANCIAL OVERVIEW OF THE PARK PERFORMANCE FUND.

STAFF PRESENTER. THIS EVENING IS JEN BASHAM, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION.

YEAH. IS THAT NOT WHAT YOU WANT IT? NO. YOU'RE OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS EVENING, I'M BRINGING FORWARD THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND.

WE BROKE THIS DOWN.

BEFORE WE EVEN GET STARTED, I DO WANT TO REMIND YOU, THIS IS A REPORTS AND DISCUSSION ITEM, SO I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A FINAL ANSWER THIS EVENING.

WE TOOK IT TO PARK BOARD LAST WEEK.

AND IT WAS IT WAS A VERY LENGTHY, HEALTHY DISCUSSION.

AND SO, I WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT HERE THIS EVENING AND GIVE YOU GUYS ALL THE FACTS AND THE NUMBERS, LET YOU SEE WHERE THEY ARE.

IF WE COME TO CONSENSUS TONIGHT, FANTASTIC.

IF WE DON'T, I'LL BRING IT BACK WITH WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

SO, TO GET STARTED, THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND WAS CREATED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES WITHIN PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

WHATEVER IS NOT MADE IN REVENUE IS SUBSIDIZED BY 4.B DOLLARS, AND THE GENERAL FUND DOES NOT SUBSIDIZE THESE OPERATIONS AT ALL.

I DO WANT TO BE SPECIFIC THAT GOLF IS NOT IN THIS.

SO, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THIS EVENING, GOLF IS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT.

SO, WE WERE ASKED TO REVIEW THE RECENT EXPENDITURES FROM THE LAST FEW YEARS AND RECOMMEND ANY FEE STRUCTURE CHANGES TO ASSIST WITH SOME COST RECOVERY GOALS MOVING FORWARD. SO, THE FIRST THING THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT BEFORE WE BREAK IT UP, BECAUSE THIS GOES ACROSS ALL THREE DIVISIONS OF THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND, IS A REIMBURSEMENT TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR INDIRECT COSTS.

SO HISTORICALLY THIS WAS BELOW ABOUT 250,000 OR LOWER.

AND IN 2023 THERE WAS AN INDIRECT COST ANALYSIS DONE THAT SUBSTANTIALLY RAISED THAT.

SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE BROKE IT DOWN BETWEEN THE BRICK ATHLETICS AND RUSSELL FARM.

BUT ANNUALLY THIS IS ABOUT $700,000.

THAT GOES BACK TO THE GENERAL FUND FROM THESE FUNDS.

ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS BEFORE WE START? I'LL STOP BY SECTION JUST BECAUSE IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION.

SO, WE'LL START WITH THE BRICK.

THESE ARE SOME OPERATIONAL CHANGES THAT HAVE SHIFTED OVER THE PAST FEW YEARS THAT DO IMPACT OUR SUBSIDY.

SO, OUR STAFFING INCREASE IN 2020.

THE ORGANIZATION WAS RESTRUCTURED AND THERE WAS A DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF RECREATION POSITION THAT WAS REPLACED AT THAT TIME.

AT THAT TIME, THERE WAS A CREATION OF TWO RECREATION MANAGERS THAT SPLIT RECREATION AT THE BRICK. SO, OPERATIONS AND SPECIAL EVENTS AND PROGRAMING INTO TWO RECREATION MANAGER ROLES. WHAT UNFORTUNATELY HAPPENED AS COLLATERAL OF THAT IS WE HAD NO MIDDLE LEADERSHIP AT THE BRICK.

AND SO, IN 2021, WE UPGRADED ONE OF OUR LEAD ROLES TO A RECREATION COORDINATOR.

AND THEN IN 2022, WE BROUGHT ON AN ASSISTANT RECREATION MANAGER THAT HANDLES AQUATICS, THE FRONT DESK, FITNESS FLOOR AND KIDS' ZONE AT THE BRICK, SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN 2021.

THAT, OF COURSE, IS YOU'LL SEE THIS WAS IN OCTOBER 2021.

AND WE'VE, OF COURSE, HAD MARKET AND MERIT SINCE THEN.

THAT INCREASE WAS $142,000, AND THAT WAS TO BRING ALL OF OUR STAFF SO THAT AT LEAST THEY START AT A $12 PER HOUR MINIMUM.

SO, WE'RE NOT BLOWING IT OUT OF THE WATER, BUT WE ARE AT LEAST ABLE TO RETAIN STAFF.

BUT THAT DOES DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR SUBSIDY.

THE SPLASH PAD ATTENDANT WAS SOMETHING WE DID WHEN WE STARTED THE SPLASH PAD LAST YEAR.

THERE WERE JUST SOME EDUCATIONAL COMPONENTS.

IT WAS A NEW AMENITY TO THE COMMUNITY.

PEOPLE WEREN'T QUITE SURE.

CAN YOU RUN? CAN YOU PLAY? CAN YOU SLIP? SO, WE HAD AN ATTENDANT OUT THERE FOR THE FIRST YEAR.

IT WASN'T AN EGREGIOUS COST TO US, BUT WE'VE SINCE SCALED THAT BACK BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY HAS REALLY LEARNED AND ARE EDUCATED ON HOW TO USE IT.

SO, IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY ANYMORE.

BUT ONE THAT WE HAVE KEPT IS OUR GYM ATTENDANT.

[02:55:01]

WE STARTED THIS IN SEPTEMBER OF 22.

THIS ATTENDANT IS THERE DURING OUR HIGH USAGE TIMES TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE ARE STAYING SAFE, FOLLOWING THE RULES, NOT EATING AND DRINKING AND SPITTING GUM ON THE COURTS.

REALLY, BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT OUR FACILITY IS LAID OUT, WE CAN'T KEEP PHYSICAL EYES IN THERE. AND SO, THIS IS A WAY FOR US TO STOP ANY SHENANIGANS BEFORE THEY ESCALATE AND TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE'S JUST HAVING A SAFE TIME.

THE OTHER ISSUE IS THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF EXTERNAL DOORS THERE, AND SO WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF ISSUES WITH PEOPLE BUSTING THOSE DOORS OPEN AND LETTING THEIR FRIENDS IN.

AND SO, THIS GYM ATTENDANT REALLY HELPS WITH THAT.

AND IT'S CUT DOWN DRAMATICALLY ON HOW MANY SEATS WE'VE HAD TO DO AND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'VE HAD TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE ON.

ANOTHER THING THAT WE STARTED WAS WE SWITCHED OVER TO SMART REC.

SO HISTORICALLY, WE REALLY HAD A VERY LOW CREDIT CARD USAGE AND PROCESSING FEE BECAUSE NOBODY WAS PURCHASING ANYTHING ONLINE.

IT WAS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS, BUT WITH SUCCESS COMES MORE MONEY.

SO, WE SWITCHED AND MADE THIS A MUCH SIMPLER PROCESS.

IF YOU WANTED TO REGISTER FOR A PROGRAM OR A MEMBERSHIP ONLINE, HOWEVER, THAT DID INCREASE. SO, YOU SEE, IN 21-22 WE WERE AT 54,000.

AND THEN EVEN HIGHER USAGE THIS YEAR AT 67,000.

AND THE LAST ONE WAS BRINGING THE SPLASH PAD ONLINE COST US ABOUT $30,000 A YEAR IN CHEMICALS AND MAINTENANCE.

JEN ON THE PROCESSING FEES.

IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE PASSING THOSE BACK THROUGH, DO YOU THINK ANYBODY WOULD HAVE ANY HEARTBURN? I MEAN, CAN YOU DO ACH OR DEBIT CARDS WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM? OKAY, YES YOU CAN. AND WE JUST HAVE A FLAT PERCENTAGE.

SO HOW MANY WE DO IS WHAT WE'RE CHARGED BACK.

SO, WE WOULD JUST TACK THAT ON AS A FEE.

IT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT TO TELL OUR PATRONS AHEAD OF TIME AS WE TRANSITION THAT ESPECIALLY FOR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS AND MONTHLY MEMBERSHIPS THAT ARE ON RECURRING BECAUSE IT WOULD CHANGE THEIR FEE.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER RUSSELL, TO THAT END, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JESSE ELIZONDO IS WORKING ON THIS YEAR IS LOOKING AT THAT VERY THING.

BUT ACROSS THE CITY, IN TERMS OF HOW MUCH WE'RE PAYING FOR CREDIT CARDS, WITH THE UTILITY BILLING TRANSITIONING TO MUNIS, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INCREASE ASSOCIATED WITH THAT FROM THE RATE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PAYING AND ABSORBING.

AND SO, IT COULD BE A FAIRLY COSTLY INCREASE.

AND SO, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER WHICH COULD BE PASSING THOSE FEES ON OR, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT ACH AS OPTIONS AS WELL, WHICH WE DO HAVE THAT. BUT SO, WE'LL BRING THAT TO YOU AT A LATER DATE.

BUT IT WON'T JUST BE ABOUT PARKS, IT WILL BE ACROSS THE CITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL.

SO, AS WE ALL KNOW, BASED ON OUR CIP THIS YEAR, OUR MAINTENANCE AND CAPITAL AT THE BRICK, WE'RE HITTING YEAR 13 OF OUR FACILITY BEING IN OPERATION.

WE'RE STARTING TO SEE SOME FAILURES.

WE TRIED TO GET AHEAD OF SOME.

SOME CAUGHT US OFF GUARD.

SO, THIS IS JUST A BREAKDOWN OF THE DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR.

REPAIRING OUR POOL UV, THE HVAC TOTAL.

THIS IS JUST FOR REPAIRS OUTSIDE OF THE CAPITAL ITEM THAT WE HAD TO SWITCH THE MOTHERBOARD, OUR DESERT AIR SYSTEM, WHICH IS THE DEHUMIDIFICATION SYSTEM IN THE POOL, AND THEN THE ADDITION OF THREE AIR CURTAINS.

THE LIST THAT YOU SEE IN THE BOX WHERE OUR SUPPLEMENTAL.

SO, THE THINGS THAT WE ANTICIPATED PLANNING FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR.

SO, CHANGING OUT THAT AC CONTROL SYSTEM, ADDING THE POOL SHADE STRUCTURES, RETROFITTING ALL OF OUR LIGHTING TO BE LED, ADDING LIGHTING TO OUR TRACK, REPLACING THE MEN'S LOCKERS. AND THEN WE DID ADD AN OFFICE SPACE FOR OUR ACCOUNTING TEAM.

AND WE REPLACED THE OUTDOOR POOL SAND FILTERS.

AND SO, TOTAL FOR THIS WAS A LITTLE OVER HALF $1 MILLION THIS YEAR, JUST IN MAINTENANCE OF THE FACILITY.

NOW WE'RE GOING TO SWITCH SIDES TO NOT SCARY EXPENDITURES, BUT HOW WE'RE DOING ON MEMBERSHIPS AND DAY PASSES.

SO JUST TO FULLY NOTE ON THIS, YOU'RE SEEING THESE NUMBERS AS THEY WERE SINCE 2017.

WE HAVE NOT HAD A FEE INCREASE OR CHANGED ANYTHING IN THAT TIME.

SO OUR RATES HAVE STAYED THE SAME.

THE WAY THAT WE DO BUSINESS HAS STAYED THE SAME, BUT OUR REVENUE HAS CLEARLY FLUCTUATED THROUGHOUT. SO, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THAT 2017 TO 2019 WAS ABOUT 1.3 WITH A LITTLE BIT OF FLUCTUATION, OF COURSE, 2020 HIT.

WE TOOK A DRASTIC HIT AND THEN IN 2021, WE THOUGHT WE SHOULD CHANGE OUR RECREATION SOFTWARE AND WE TOOK ANOTHER HIT.

BUT IN 2022 WAS OUR FIRST KIND OF YEAR THAT WE CLIMBED BACK OUT OF THAT.

AND IN 2023, WE ACTUALLY EXCEEDED THE PAST FIVE YEARS REVENUE.

AND SO, FOR US, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT DATA, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE HAVE MORE PEOPLE USING OUR FACILITY, MORE PEOPLE GETTING DAY PASSES, MORE PEOPLE DOING RENTALS. AND SO THAT'S IMPACTING.

WE'RE HAVING A POSITIVE IMPACT, BUT IT IS NOT KEEPING UP WITH THE COST OF US DOING BUSINESS AT THE BRICK.

AND SO, THIS IS FOR PROGRAMING.

SO, YOU'LL SEE ACTIVITY FEES AND INDOOR ATHLETIC LEAGUES.

SO OF COURSE, WE MOSTLY RUN ADULT ATHLETICS.

BUT OUR BIGGEST MAIN REVENUE SOURCE FOR THIS WOULD BE OUR CAMPS.

SO, OUR SUMMER BREAK CAMP WHICH IS 160 CAMPERS EVERY WEEK FOR 11 WEEKS.

WE ALSO HAVE GYMNASTICS AND TUMBLING.

[03:00:01]

AND WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS A LITTLE BIT OF ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES THAT WE WERE HOPING TO GET A LITTLE HIGHER THIS YEAR WAS WE LOST OUR GYMNASTICS INSTRUCTOR AND THAT WAS AN UNPLANNED LEAVE. AND SO WHEN THAT OCCURRED, WE LOST THAT PROGRAM FOR 5 OR 6 MONTHS BEFORE WE WERE ABLE TO FIND AND SOURCE A GOOD INSTRUCTOR TO REPLACE THAT PROGRAM AND START REBUILDING IT. BUT THAT WAS A REALLY HIGH GENERATING PROGRAM FOR US.

SO FOR COST RECOVERY, AS YOU CAN SEE, IN 2021 WE ONLY HIT 35.4% OF OUR COST RECOVERY, WHICH MEANS FOR BE SUBSIDIZED THE OPERATION AT 64% IN 2022.

WE STARTED TO CLIMB OUT OF THAT.

AND THEN IN 2023, WHEN WE'VE HAD ALL THESE CAPITAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL ITEMS, WE WENT A LITTLE BIT LOWER AND WE'RE ANTICIPATING GETTING HIGHER NEXT YEAR WITH A 3% REVENUE INCREASE. AND SO, BEFORE I GO THERE, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE TALK OPPORTUNITIES? ALL RIGHT.

SO, FOR PROGRAM REVENUE OPPORTUNITIES YOU SEE THE ACTUALS FOR 2022 AND 2023 AT THE TOP A LITTLE UNDER 300,000.

STAFF FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THE RECOMMENDED FEE INCREASE HERE.

IT'S ONE THAT WE DON'T FEEL IS GOING TO PROHIBIT ANYBODY FROM UTILIZING OUR PROGRAMS, WHICH IS OUR BIG GOAL. WE WANT THESE TO BE ACCESSIBLE PROGRAMS TO OUR COMMUNITY.

SO, A 25% INCREASE TO OUR OVERALL PROGRAMS WOULD BE 6 TO $8 PER PROGRAM, ABOUT TEN, ALMOST $11,000 A YEAR, AND THEN A 5% CAMP ENROLLMENT INCREASE, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A LITTLE OVER $11,000 A YEAR.

SO, AN ESTIMATED TOTAL OF ABOUT $22,500.

NOW SWITCH TO MEMBERSHIPS.

THIS FIRST BENCHMARK SCREEN THAT YOU'LL SEE IS FOR ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS.

WE HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS AN ORGANIZATION FOR HOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE A MEMBER, BUT THIS IS JUST FOR ANNUAL.

SO, IF THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE ARE AS IF I'M GOING TO PAY FOR A WHOLE YEAR UP FRONT, THIS IS WHAT THE COST WOULD BE, AND WE BREAK IT UP BY RESIDENT AND NONRESIDENT.

WHAT YOU'LL SEE THAT'S KIND OF DIFFERENT BETWEEN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES IS BASED ON WHAT THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR COUNCIL HAS DECIDED.

THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR LEVEL OF SERVICE BEING AND THEIR COST RECOVERY GOALS BEING. SO, GRAPEVINE IS A COMMUNITY THAT HIGHLY SAYS WE WANT ACCESS FOR EVERYONE.

GRAND PRAIRIE SITS SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE, AND WE ARE MOST ALIGNED WITH NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AND KELLER WITH WHERE WE LOOK AT OUR FEE STRUCTURES.

NOW, THERE'S 5 OR 10 OTHER ONES THAT WE COULD ADD THAT ARE NEWER FACILITIES, BUT THESE ARE PRETTY APPLES TO APPLES TO WHAT WE OFFER HERE AND WHAT OUR COMMUNITY DEMOGRAPHIC IS. SO, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE MORE CITIES, WE CAN ABSOLUTELY ADD THAT.

BUT WE FELT LIKE THIS. THIS GAVE YOU A GOOD WAY OF SEEING EXACTLY WHERE WE LIE.

AND DO WE EVER LOOK AT PRIVATE COMPANIES TO SEE HOW WE COMPARE? WE DO. SOMETIMES IT'S A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT MARKET TO TARGET FOR US.

WHEN WE LOOK AT IT, ESPECIALLY LIKE AS WE AS WE SEE NEW FITNESS FACILITIES POTENTIALLY COMING TO TOWN, WE LOOK AT IT.

BUT THEIR INCENTIVES AND THE WAY THAT THEY OFFER IT VARY.

THEIR MONTH-TO-MONTH SUBSCRIPTIONS CHANGE THE WAY THEY DO THEIR LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SO, WE SAY YOUTH RESIDENT, YOU COME INTO THE BUILDING, IT'S $235 FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, BUT IF YOU WENT TO THAT FACILITY, YOU'D MAYBE PAY A MONTHLY FEE AND THEN YOU MAY PAY A FEE FOR GROUP FITNESS CLASSES, AND THEN YOU MAY PAY A FEE FOR A SAUNA, AND THEN YOU MAY PAY A FEE FOR THIS. AND SO, IT'S DIFFICULT FOR ME TO GIVE YOU AN APPLES TO APPLES, BUT WE KEEP WATCH ON THAT. SO, THE FACILITIES THAT WE KNOW ARE COMING TO TOWN, WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE WITHIN MARKET FOR THEM, BUT WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY TRYING TO UNDERCUT THEM.

WE'RE JUST TRYING TO STAY AT MARKET.

AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO TRY TO UNDERCUT THEM.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT CROSSES MY MIND THAT THEY DON'T OPERATE ON 50% COST RECOVERY.

SO ABSOLUTELY.

AND DIFFERENT FACILITY MAKEUP, JUST WITH THE WAY WE DO PROGRAMING, WITH THE WAY WE HAVE COURTS, OUR KIDS ZONE THE WAY THAT WE HAVE ATTENDANCE.

WHEN WE HAVE RENTALS, THE POOL IS INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE INDOOR, OUTDOOR AND SPLASH PAD. THAT'S A REALLY HEFTY PERCENTAGE OF OUR COST, AND THAT'S ANOTHER REASON IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO GIVE YOU AN APPLES TO APPLES.

BUT WE CAN ALWAYS PROVIDE THOSE NUMBERS IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE THEM.

JEN, WHEN YOU'RE BENCHMARKING THESE OTHER CITIES, I KNOW YOU'RE MATCHING COMMODITIES AND OTHER STRUCTURES, BUT ARE YOU ALSO LOOKING INTO HOW THEY'RE MATCHED WITH 4.B? YES. SO, KELLER, NORTH RICHLAND HILLS AND I BELIEVE GRAPEVINE ARE THEIR 4.B.

THEY SAY HALF CENT SALES TAX.

I'M NOT SURE ON GRAND PRAIRIE.

I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT.

I WANT TO SAY THEY BONDED THOSE PROJECTS.

BUT I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT ONE.

OKAY. SO, THEY'RE PRETTY MUCH OUR APPLES TO APPLES THEN.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU. AND SO, FOR MONTHLY DRAFT MEMBERSHIPS, THIS IS THE SAME MAKEUP.

[03:05:01]

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE NOT THE HIGHEST.

WE'RE NOT THE LOWEST. WE'RE SOMEWHERE IN THE MIDDLE.

WE TRY TO STAY AT 50TH PERCENTILE.

BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, BECAUSE EVERY COMMUNITY HAS THEIR OWN DECISION ON WHERE THEY WANT THIS TO SIT, IT'S BEEN VERY DIFFERENT.

GRAND PRAIRIE, THEIR NEWEST FACILITY, OPENED AFTER THE PANDEMIC, AND THEY HAVE NOT HIT THEIR SUBSIDY ONCE SINCE.

THEIR SUBSIDY GOAL HAS NEVER BEEN MET SINCE THEY OPENED THEIR FACILITIES.

THEY'VE REDUCED THEIR LEVEL OF SERVICE IN MULTIPLE AREAS, AND THEY'RE JUST GETTING TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO START GETTING TO THAT 50, 60, 70% COST RECOVERY.

SO, THEY'VE BEEN OPERATING IN A DEFICIT FAR UNDER WHAT THEIR PROJECTIONS WERE, JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD INTO SOMETHING NEW.

AND SO, YOU'LL SEE THAT THEIR FEES ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE AFFORDABLE THAN OURS CURRENTLY. AND SO, THESE ARE DAY PASS BENCHMARK RESULTS.

THEY'RE ALL OVER THE BOARD DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU GO.

BUT WITHIN RANGE AS YOU CAN SEE BETWEEN 8 AND $12 FOR EVERYBODY.

WE'RE $8 ACROSS THE BOARD.

AND THEN YOU CAN GET A FAMILY OR A FAMILY NONRESIDENT DAY PASS WHICH IS FOUR PEOPLE FOR $20, WHICH IS A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE.

THAT'S A GREAT COST SAVINGS IF YOU'RE BRINGING YOUR WHOLE FAMILY OUT.

AND SO, THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR MEMBERSHIP REVENUE.

SO, THIS IS OF COURSE OUR BIGGEST PROFIT CENTER AT THE BRICK FOR 2023.

THIS IS $1.4 MILLION.

OUR AVERAGE REVENUE PER MONTH IS A LITTLE OVER $100,000.

AND THAT DOES INCLUDE MONTHLY DRAFTS AND DAY PASSES.

AND SO, WE'VE PRESENTED, AND WE'LL PRESENT ALL OF THESE IN THE SAME JUST FOR CONSENSUS OF MENTAL FORTITUDE AT 5%, 10% AND 15% INCREASES.

AND THEN FOR DAY PASSES, WE'RE LOOKING AT IMPLEMENTING A $2 INCREASE FOR INDIVIDUAL, WHICH IS ABOUT 80% OF THE SALES THAT WE DO ARE INDIVIDUALS.

AND THEN A $5 INCREASE FOR FAMILY.

AND SO, THIS WOULD BE WHAT YOU WOULD SEE.

SO, OUR CURRENT RATE IS IN THAT LEFT HAND COLUMN.

AND THEN YOU SEE WHAT THE INCREASE PERCENTAGES ARE ACROSS THOSE DIFFERENT MEMBERSHIP TYPES.

I WOULD JUST SAY, IF WE CAN ROUND IT, MAKE IT EASY, WE WOULD ROUND, AND THAT WAS PARK BOARD'S QUESTION AS WELL.

I WOULD. YEAH, I WAS LOOKING AT THE CURRENT ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP AND THE CURRENT MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP AND THE DIFFERENCE, JUST FOR EXAMPLE, ADULT RESIDENT, IT'S $90.

SO WE PROBABLY COULD WE COULD LOOK AT ADJUSTING THAT TO WHERE IT'S LIKE IF YOU PAY UP FRONT, YOU GET YOU BASICALLY PAY FOR TEN MONTHS, WHICH WOULD BE $70 INSTEAD OF NOW YOU GET BASICALLY MORE THAN TEN.

YOU'RE ALMOST GETTING LIKE NINE MONTHS.

YEAH. OR YOU'RE GETTING THREE MONTHS FREE.

SO WE COULD ALSO LOOK AT DOING THAT WHERE YOU GET MAYBE TWO MONTHS FREE.

ABSOLUTELY, AND ONE OF THE PARK BOARD REQUESTS, WHICH MEANS WE NEED TO DO A BETTER JOB OF SHOWCASING THIS, WAS WOULD WE BE ABLE, BEFORE IMPLEMENTING A NEW FEE STRUCTURE TO GIVE AN INCENTIVE TO BUY IN EARLY? AND WE DO THAT EVERY JANUARY.

WE DO A MEMBERSHIP DRIVE AND A CUSTOMER APPRECIATION, AND SO WE DO OFFER EITHER A MONTH FREE OR A PERCENT OFF IF PEOPLE WANT TO SIGN UP DURING THAT MONTH, AND SO WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO OFFER THAT AS AN OPTION MOVING FORWARD.

SO THIS WOULD BE WHAT A MONTHLY MEMBERSHIP WOULD LOOK LIKE, AND AGAIN, WE WOULD ROUND UP OR DOWN BASED ON WHERE WE'RE AT IN THE DOLLAR, AT THE FIVE, TEN AND 15%.

SO FOR DAY PASSES RIGHT NOW, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AS THE NEW NON RESIDENTIAL RATE.

SO SOMETHING THAT WE RECEIVE CONSISTENT FEEDBACK ON IS WE DO RESIDENT NON RESIDENT ON EVERYTHING, BUT WE DON'T DO RESIDENT NON RESIDENT ON DAY PASS USERS, AND DAY PASS USERS ARE REALLY WHAT MAKE THE SUMMER A BEAR AT THE BRICK JUST BECAUSE OF OUR AQUATIC FACILITIES. IT'S A GREAT THING FOR YOUR WHOLE FAMILY TO BE ABLE TO COME OUT FOR.

YOU CAN BRING THE WHOLE FAMILY FOR 20 BUCKS FOR THE DAY, AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE REALLY WANTED TO TARGET THAT.

SO FOR INDIVIDUAL, IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT, WE WOULD KEEP IT AT EIGHT.

IF YOU'RE A NON RESIDENT IT WOULD BE TEN.

IF YOU'RE A FAMILY AND YOUR RESIDENT WOULD BE 20.

IF YOU'RE A NON RESIDENT AND BE 25, AND THEN IF YOU HAVE A GROUP OF 15 OR MORE, WHICH WE DO HAVE PEOPLE THAT DO THAT, DAYCARES AND STUFF LIKE THAT, THAT THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO RUN A ROOM OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT OR HAVE A PARTY.

THEY JUST WANT TO COME AND TAKE THEIR KIDDOS TO SWIM.

THEY USE THIS RATE.

SO WE WOULD SAY IF IT'S A NON RESIDENT FACILITY THAT WE WOULD CHARGE $40, AND SO FOR RENTAL REVENUE, THIS IS A CONSIDERABLE $176,000 A YEAR, AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT THOSE INCREASES WOULD BE AT FIVE, TEN AND 15%, AND SO BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS, WE PUT THIS IN A TABLE.

SO IF YOU'RE A RESIDENT RIGHT NOW YOU CAN RENT A MEETING ROOM.

YOU CAN RENT BOTH MEETING ROOMS AS RESIDENT OR NON RESIDENT, AND THEN OF COURSE YOU CAN

[03:10:03]

RENT THE GYMNASIUM, HALF COURT, FULL COURT BOTH COURTS RESIDENT NON RESIDENT.

SO WE HAVE A LOT OF FEES AND OPTIONS.

SO PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF THIS IS THE WAY TO DIGEST THIS, AND THEN ACROSS ALL OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF RENTALS THAT YOU CAN DO THERE IS A $50 DEPOSIT THAT IS REFUNDABLE.

JEN, DO YOU MIND GOING BACK TO THE GROUP OF 15 PLUS? SO RIGHT NOW IT'S $6 EACH.

I THINK THAT'S A TYPO.

OKAY, I WAS THINKING WE MAY WANT TO MAKE THAT 100.

YEAH BUT WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK.

YEAH I'M GOING TO CLARIFY ON THAT ONE BECAUSE WE WERE DOING $6 EACH.

I WANT TO SAY IT WAS JUST GOING TO BE THE $2 INCREASE.

SO IT WOULD BE $8 EACH FOR GROUPS OF 15 OR MORE.

OKAY. COOL.

SO THIS WOULD BE YOUR RENTAL OPTIONS.

IT'S. YEAH. EVEN AT THE 15% INCREASE, WE ARE STILL BELOW MARKET FOR MOST PRIVATE RENTALS IN THE AREA.

THE SECOND WOULD BE IF YOU'RE DOING A POOL PARTY SO YOU CAN RENT MEETING ROOM A OR B OR THE COURT AND STILL ENJOY THE POOL, BUT POOL PARTIES ARE A SPECIFIC THING.

YOU GET A DIFFERENT PACKAGE.

THE WAY WE DECORATE IS DIFFERENT, SO YOU CAN DO POOL PARTY.

THAT ROOM IS ALSO DIVISIBLE BY TWO, SO YOU CAN DO A OR B, YOU CAN DO BOTH, OR YOU CAN DO THE SUNDECK AT THE INDOOR POOL.

IT'S ON THE OUTSIDE, AND THEN YOU CAN ALSO DO PRIVATE POOL PARTIES.

SO WE HAVE A FEE STRUCTURE FOR THAT.

SO IF YOU WANT TO RENT THE FACILITY AFTER HOURS FOR A POOL PARTY, YOU'LL SEE THE RATES FOR THOSE AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS IF WE JUST DID THE PROPOSED MEMBERSHIP PRICES ONLY, YOU WOULD SEE THAT AT THE HIGHEST.

IF WE DID 15%, OUR COST RECOVERY WOULD GO UP ABOUT 3% AND OUR SUBSIDY DECREASE WOULD BE ABOUT THAT AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT SUBSTANTIAL.

IF WE DID JUST RENTALS, YOU'LL SEE THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE AT ALL.

SO IF YOU COMBINE THE TWO.

IT GETS YOU ALMOST 4% ACROSS.

IF YOU DO 15% ABOUT 1.5 TO 2% IF YOU DO 10%, AND IT LEAVES YOU AT ABOUT 0.2% HIGHER IF YOU ONLY DO A 5% INCREASE.

SO BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE FARM, I HAVE A SLIDE AT THE END THAT WILL SHOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ACROSS THE BOARD, AND THEN AS WELL AS PARK BOARD'S FEEDBACK FROM LAST WEEK.

SO WE CAN GO BY SECTION OR WE CAN WAIT UNTIL THE END.

WE ALWAYS ANTICIPATE THAT'S A THAT'S AN OPTION.

ONE THING THAT WE KNOW ABOUT THE BRICK THAT WILL HOLD TRUE AS OUR COMMUNITY GROWS IS WE'RE AT ABOUT CAPACITY FOR THE FACILITY.

SO 50,000 IS THE BENCHMARK FOR A REC FACILITY.

SO WHEN YOU HIT 50,000 PEOPLE, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE DURING PEAK TIMES BUSTING AT THE SEAMS. SO WE ANTICIPATE THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR SOME MEMBERSHIP LOSS, BUT WE ALSO ANTICIPATE GIVING THE BUILDING A LITTLE BIT OF BREATHING ROOM MAY BE ABLE TO BRING IN NEW MEMBERS WHO DON'T COME TO OUR FACILITY NOW BECAUSE THEY THINK IT'S TOO BUSY.

ON THE POOL PARTY.

IS THAT? I'M SORRY.

I'M ASKING SO MANY QUESTIONS, BUT WE JUST HAD A TRAMPOLINE PARTY, SO I KNOW, BUT IS IT UP TO TEN PEOPLE? AND THEN WE CHARGE EXTRA AFTER? OR HOW DOES THAT IS THAT.

YES, THERE IS A FEE.

SO WE YOU CAN SEE ON THE 0 TO 50 IF YOU'RE DOING PRIVATE PARTIES, AND THAT'S JUST BECAUSE WE BASE IT ON HOW MANY GUARDS WE HAVE TO BRING IN.

IF YOU'RE DOING AN INDOOR, WE JUST MAKE YOU SIGN IN HOW MANY KIDDOS YOU'RE BRINGING, AND THEN IF YOU'RE OVER THE ROOM CAPACITY, WHICH IF IT'S FOR A POOL PARTY, THERE'S ONLY 15 ON EACH SIDE. THAT'S WHEN WE KNOW YOU'VE EXCEEDED THAT.

OKAY. IN GENERAL, I'M GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR THE HIGHEST RATE INCREASE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER JUST SIMPLY BECAUSE OUR COST RECOVERY IS SO LOW ALREADY.

IT'S DROPPED 20% BELOW WHAT IT WAS PRE-COVID.

OUR COSTS HAVE CONTINUED TO INCREASE, AND I KNOW OUR PROGRAM HAS EXPANDED SOMEWHAT, AND WE'VE CHANGED SOME DUTIES AND ADDED SOME STUFF, BUT WE'RE STILL PERFORMING EVEN AT THE MAXIMUM RATE INCREASE BELOW WHERE I'D LIKE FOR US TO BE, CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVEN'T ADJUSTED THOSE RATES IN SEVEN YEARS.

I THINK WE'RE BEHIND.

I THINK IT'S ABSOLUTELY AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO BE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION.

WE WERE GOING TO HAVE IT LAST YEAR, AND AT THE TIME THERE WAS JUST SO MUCH CONVERSATION AROUND INFLATION AND THE ECONOMY THAT WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO BRING THAT FORWARD, BUT AT THIS TIME, WE FEEL LIKE THINGS ARE MAYBE ABOUT AS STABLE AS THEY'RE GOING TO GET, AND SO WE NEED TO HAVE THIS CONVERSATION.

SURE. JEN, HERE'S EXCUSE ME.

[03:15:01]

I MAY NOT BE ABLE TO FINISH, BUT HERE'S THE WAY I SEE THIS, AND I THINK YOU'RE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

THE BRICK BOND PACKAGE WAS BROUGHT TO THE CITIZENS IN 2007 FOR 18,700,000, AS DAN MENTIONED THE OTHER DAY, AND PASSED.

SO IN MY OPINION, THAT THE CITIZENS WANTED THE BRICK AND THEY WANTED TO TAKE CARE OF IT OR THEY WOULDN'T HAVE WANTED TO BUILD IT.

SO I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE FOR THAT REASON.

SPENDING FOUR B MONEY ON THE BRICK.

HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE SUBSIDY NEEDS SOME RELIEF AND THE BRICK SHOULD BE LESS THAN 50% RELIANT ON THE ON THE FIVE B OR FOUR B SUBSIDY, AND THAT WE NEED TO WORK TOGETHER TO MAINTAIN IT BELOW 50.

SO WHEN SETTING THESE RATES, I THINK ONE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS TO SET THE PERCENTAGE YOU WANT THE FOUR B A GOAL FOR THE FOUR B, WHETHER IT BE 50%, 49% AND YOU ALREADY KNOW YOUR MAINTENANCE COSTS, YOUR GENERAL COSTS AND ALL THAT FROM THE YEAR OVER YEAR EXPENSES. SO BASED ON THAT, YOU CAN SET YOUR FEES TO GET THE SUBSIDY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, AND I THINK WITH THE RATE INCREASE I'VE LOOKED AT THEM.

I THINK YOU'RE SPOT ON.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE FARM.

SO THE FARM JUST BACKGROUND ON THE FARM.

WHEN THE FARM WAS DEEDED TO US, IT WAS IT WAS DEEDED TO US AS AN EDUCATIONAL AND ART FACILITY. IT WAS NEVER DEEDED TO THE CITY TO BE A PROFIT CENTER.

THAT BEING SAID, IT IS PART OF THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND BECAUSE IT DOES GENERATE REVENUE AND IT IS SUBSIDIZED BY FORBES.

SO IT'S NEVER A GENERAL FUND OPERATION, BUT IT WAS JUST NEVER CREATED FOR THAT, AND SO THAT'S PART OF OUR MASTER PLAN THIS YEAR, IS TO HAVE THAT STRATEGIC DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES THE FARM WANT TO BE WHEN IT GROWS UP AND WHERE DOES IT WANT TO SIT.

SO WHAT STAFF IS REALLY RECOMMENDING FOR THIS IS THE SAME FEE STRUCTURE THAT WE WOULD DO ACROSS PROGRAMS AND CAMPS, WHICH WOULD BE A 25% OVERALL INCREASE, WHICH WOULD ONLY BE ABOUT A $2,000 INCREASE PER YEAR, BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT WE MADE $19,000 THIS YEAR, THAT'S A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE AND THEN MOST OF OUR EVENTS RIGHT NOW ARE EITHER FREE TO THE COMMUNITY OR WE CHARGE NOMINAL FOR SUPPLIES.

IF YOU'RE COMING TO A CANNING CLASS, YOU PAY FOR CANNING SUPPLIES, ETCETERA, AND SO LOOKING AT CHARGING A FEE JUST TO COME THROUGH THE GATE PARK BOARD DID NOT SUPPORT THAT, NOR DID THEY SUPPORT THE OVERALL PROGRAMMING INCREASE.

THEY JUST DIDN'T REALLY FEEL LIKE IT WAS A DROP IN THE BUCKET, AND THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT MET THE MISSION OF THE FARM, BUT WHAT THEY DID LOOK AT WAS FEE BASED FIELD TRIP OFFERINGS. SO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE REALLY STARTED GENERATING REVENUE ON THIS YEAR.

WE STARTED CHARGING $5 FOR ONE.

SCHOOL DISTRICTS WANT TO COME OUT TO THE FARM, AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE WHOLE SCHOOL IS PAYING FOR.

THEY'RE COVERING OR THEY'RE THEY'RE PASSING THAT FEE THROUGH TO THEIR KIDDOS THAT WE BELIEVE COULD BECOME MORE THAN THAT $1,250 A YEAR, BUT IF ALL OF THESE FEES WERE SUPPORTED, IT WOULD GENERATE $3,500 A YEAR, AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE THIS IS OUR RENTAL FEES. SO WE RENT THE CHESAPEAKE.

WE RENT CHESAPEAKE AFTER HOURS.

SO IF YOU WANTED TO DO A WEDDING AND YOU WANTED TO HAVE EVERYONE OUT THERE, BUT YOU WANTED THE REST OF THE FARM CLOSED, WE DO THAT FOR ALL OF OUR ROOMS, THE HAY BARN, THE BAKER BUILDING.

THOSE ARE OUR THREE SPACES THAT WE RENT.

WE NEVER RENT OUT THE FULL FARM, BUT IF YOU'RE RENTING IT AFTER HOURS, YOU'RE GETTING THE FULL FARM, LIKE THE HOUSE AND THE OTHER FACILITIES WILL BE CLOSED, BUT YOU WOULD STILL HAVE ALL THE OPEN SPACE.

SO YOU CAN SEE OUR CURRENT RATES THERE, AND THEN WHAT THOSE INCREASES WOULD BE AT FIVE, TEN AND 15%, AND IF WE DID THAT BASED ON REVENUES WE WOULD ANTICIPATE GENERATING IF WE DID IT AT THE LOWEST $1,000 A YEAR AND AT THE HIGHEST $3,000 A YEAR.

SO IT'S ACTUALLY NOT AS BAD AS IT SOUNDS.

SO THE THING ABOUT THE FARM IS THAT IT'S NOT INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE TO OPERATE.

WE HAVE ONE FULL TIME STAFF AND TWO PART TIME STAFF OUT THERE THAT DO THAT.

OUR PARKS GUYS HAVE THIS ON THEIR CONTRACT AND MAINTENANCE.

SO THEY DO ALL OF THE MAINTENANCE FOR THE FACILITIES AND THEN FACILITIES ACTUALLY DOES THE FACILITY MAINTENANCE ON THIS SITE.

SO OVERALL IT'S REALLY GOOD.

THE CHALLENGE I KNOW THAT WE NEED TO PREPARE FOR IN COMING YEARS IS THAT IT'S A VERY OLD FACILITY. A LOT OF THE DIFFERENT ASSETS ARE AGING OR BECOMING TO A POINT WHERE WE WILL WE WOULD HAVE TO SHUT IT DOWN UNTIL WE REOPENED IT.

THAT'S A CHALLENGING PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THIS WAS DEEDED TO US.

WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OH GOSH, THIS IS FALLING DOWN.

WE GOT TO REPLACE IT.

WE TAKE IT TO THE BORING ART COMMITTEE OR THE BORING COMMITTEE.

WE TAKE IT TO THE BOREN FAMILY, AND THEY HAVE TO AUTHORIZE ANY CHANGES TO ANY FACILITY THAT WE MAKE OUT THERE. IF WE BRING A NEW PROGRAM OUT THERE, ALL OF THAT GOES THROUGH THAT BEFORE WE CAN CHANGE ANYTHING OUT THERE.

[03:20:02]

THEY DON'T SET OUR FEE STRUCTURE, BUT THEY DO CHANGE ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE.

SO IF WE WANTED TO HAVE HORSES AND THE FARM DIDN'T HISTORICALLY HAVE HORSES, THEN THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY, NO, YOU CAN'T BRING THAT HERE, AND IT WOULD BE THE SAME FOR US PROPOSING ANY NEW PROGRAM OUT THERE IF THOSE TWO PEOPLE DID NOT SUPPORT IT.

OUR CONTRACT SAYS WE CANNOT HAVE THOSE OUT THERE, SO IT SITS AT ABOUT 15% COST RECOVERY RIGHT NOW. THAT BEING SAID, THE BUDGET FOR THE WHOLE THING IS $250,000 A YEAR.

ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO ATHLETICS.

WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE HERE IS THAT SIMILAR BECAUSE THEY WERE BUILT AROUND THE SAME TIME. CHISENHALL WAS BUILT VERY SIMILARLY TO THE BRICK AROUND THE SAME TIME, BUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS THIS IS FOR ALL OF ATHLETICS.

SO THIS INCLUDES BARTLETT.

THIS INCLUDES HIDDEN CREEK SOFTBALL COMPLEX.

THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE FACT THAT OUR ATHLETICS TEAM, AND THE DISC GOLF COURSE AND ALL THE PROPERTY BEHIND THE TINKER TRAIL.

THAT'S THE SAME SEVEN MAN CREW.

SO YOU'LL SEE THAT IN HERE, BUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE ON THE TOP IS WHAT IT COSTS US A YEAR TO MAINTAIN THAT SITE AND THEN WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE BOTTOM IS WE STAY PRETTY FLAT IN OUR REVENUES.

THE BIG INCREASE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE BETWEEN 2021 AND 2022 WAS THE MARKET RATE.

WAGE INCREASES THE SAME AS THE BRICK, AN INCREASE IN OUR COST FOR JANITORIAL, FERTILIZER AND FIELD MARKING MATERIALS, AND THEN WE HAD WE WERE NOTIFIED IN 2021 OF A WATER METER ISSUE WITH THE GROUNDWATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND WE WERE BEING CHARGED HEFTILY UNDER WHAT WE WERE CONSUMING, AND SO WHEN THEY RIGHTSIZED THAT, WE CORRECTED IT, BUT IT DID IMPACT OUR EXPENDITURES, AND SO RIGHT NOW, IN 2020, OF COURSE, WHEN WE WEREN'T DOING ANY LEAGUE PLAY OR TOURNAMENTS, IT WAS REALLY, REALLY LOW. WE'VE CLIMBED BACK OUT OF THAT IN 2022.

WE HAD A BETTER YEAR AND THEN IN 2023, WITH THE RENOVATIONS TO FIELDS, ETCETERA, IT DID DROP A LITTLE BIT, AND THEN THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT PART OF PARK'S PERFORMANCE FUND, BUT WE WANTED TO JUST SHOW ANY REVENUE STREAM THAT DOES COME INTO PARK'S. THIS IS A GENERAL FUND OPERATION.

WE DO RENT PAVILIONS.

WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY OF THEM, AND EVEN IF WE RENTED THEM ALL DAY LONG, OUR CURRENT RATE DOES NOT ACCRUE A LOT OF MONEY.

SO WE JUST WANT TO BE VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT, BUT BECAUSE WE MAKE MONEY HERE, WE DID WANT TO PROVIDE THAT RATE FOR YOU GUYS.

SO IF YOU ARE A RESIDENT RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN RENT A PAVILION FOR $10 AN HOUR IF YOU'RE A NON RESIDENT FOR 15 AND IF YOU INCREASE THAT YOU CAN SEE THE RATES THERE.

I GUESS WE'RE HOPING ON THE ATHLETIC FIELDS TO PICK UP SOME INCREASE REVENUE ONCE THE TURF STARTS. ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK THAT AS THE TURF MOVES, AS I'LL BE HONEST, I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE WILL ALWAYS FACE IS THE QUANTITY OF LEAGUE PLAY THAT WE HAVE THERE.

IT HAMSTRINGS OUR ABILITY TO DO PRIVATE, WHICH THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT CHISENHALL WAS BUILT FOR. WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT AS A NEGATIVE.

WE FULLY SUPPORT LEAGUE PLAY AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT, BUT IT WILL ALWAYS BE A BALANCE THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DECIDE. WHERE DO WE ALIGN AS AN ORGANIZATION WITH LEAGUE PLAY AND WITH PRIVATE AND WHAT WE CAN BRING IN? JEN, THIS QUESTION MAY DEFER TO TOMMY ABOUT THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND VERSUS GENERAL FUND ON THE PAVILIONS.

I CAN SPEAK TO THAT. I THINK THE QUESTION IS TODAY, WHY DOES THIS REVENUE GO TO THE GENERAL FUND AND NOT THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND? AND SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF REVENUE, JEN, IT'S $8,000 A YEAR, 8 TO $10,000 A YEAR, BUT WITH THAT SAID, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THIS IS THAT THIS IS AN OPERATION THAT SPLIT ACROSS BOTH THE GENERAL FUND AND FOUR B, SO WE'VE GOT STAFF AND FOR PARK MAINTENANCE THAT IS IN THE GENERAL FUND.

SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT REVENUE GENERALLY WE DON'T TAKE A REVENUE AND SAY OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO EARMARK IT FOR X.

NOW OF COURSE THERE'S EXCEPTIONS, AND I CAN POINT TO WHERE WE DO THAT ALL THE TIME.

RIGHT, BUT FOR BUILDING INSPECTION WOULD BE A GOOD EXAMPLE.

NOW THAT'S A FULLY GENERAL FUNDED OPERATION, BUT WITH THE REVENUE THAT THEY BRING IN, WE DON'T SAY THIS IS THE REVENUE FOR FOR BUILDING INSPECTION.

IT'S GENERAL FUND REVENUE THAT HELPS OFFSET THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENERAL FUND.

IN THIS CASE, THAT'S HOW WE'RE TREATING THIS REVENUE.

IF THE COUNCIL DIRECTED ME TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT AND THEY SAID WE WANTED TO EARMARK THIS REVENUE, WE CERTAINLY COULD.

IT'S NOT IN LINE WITH GENERALLY HOW WE DO THINGS WHEN WE HAVE THINGS THAT ARE FUNDED THROUGH BOTH A SPECIAL REVENUE AND THE GENERAL FUND, AGAIN, AND IT'S AN INSIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MONEY IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS, BUT IF YOU ASK ME, I WOULD

[03:25:04]

MAINTAIN, BECAUSE IT'S SPLIT, THAT IT JUST MAKES SENSE FOR THAT REVENUE TO CONTINUE TO GO TO THE GENERAL FUND.

HOWEVER, IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, I WOULD CERTAINLY BE OPEN TO CHANGING THAT PHILOSOPHY.

THANK YOU, TOMMY. ALL RIGHT.

SO THIS IS OH IT'S 9000, 8 AND 10,000.

SO IF WE DID A $5 INCREASE PER HOUR IT WOULD ONLY GET US TO 13,800, BUT THAT IS A 47% INCREASE IN REVENUES IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT BY PERCENTAGE AND THEN FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS IN 23 WE HAD JUST UNDER $20,000, AND YOU CAN SEE THE INCREASES IF WE DID FIVE, 10 OR 15% THERE, AND THAT WOULD HELP US GET AT LEAST BACK ABOVE THAT 10% CONSISTENTLY.

IF WE DID THE 15% OR 10%.

ALL RIGHT, SO NOW WE'LL GET INTO RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO JUST TO SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING THAT WE SAID WE DID NOT PUT A RECOMMENDATION FOR MEMBERSHIPS ON THIS PAGE JUST BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SEE WHAT LATITUDE THE BOARD AND COUNCIL WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, BUT WE DO HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ALL THE OTHER AREAS. SO FOR PROGRAM FEES, THAT WOULD BE 25% ON OVERALL PROGRAMS. THAT'S ADULT LEAGUES, SPORTIES FOR SHORTIES, EVERYTHING THAT WE RUN A FEE ACROSS, IT'S 5% FOR CAMP. WE WOULD RECOMMEND A 10% INCREASE FOR OUR RENTALS.

WE WOULD ADD THAT NONRESIDENT RATE FOR DAY PASSES.

WE DID RECOMMEND THE 25% INCREASE IN PROGRAM FEES AND A $5 FEE BASED SPECIAL EVENT, OR FOR FIELD TRIPS, AND I DID FAIL TO MENTION THE FARM ALSO DOES LIKE SPECIALTY THINGS WHERE THEY CHARGE A NEUTRAL RATE, WHICH JUST MEANS COST NEUTRAL PROGRAMING.

SO THINGS LIKE THEY'VE STARTED THAT ARE DATE NIGHT EVENTS, THEY LOOK EXACTLY HOW MANY, WHAT THEIR MINIMUM REGISTRATION IS FOR THEIR BREAK EVEN POINT, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY CHARGE, AND THEN IF THEY MAKE OVER THAT, GREAT, BUT IF THEY DON'T THEY'RE ALWAYS GOING TO BREAK EVEN, BUT THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN LOOK AT MOVING FORWARD THAT WOULD GENERATE MORE REVENUE BASED ON HOW WE SET THOSE FEES UP AND TYPICALLY WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A COST RECOVERY MODEL, THAT'S WHAT WE DO.

THE MORE NICHE A PROGRAM IS, AND THE MORE SPECIFIED IS THAT USER GROUP TENDS TO PAY A LITTLE BIT MORE TO OFFSET SOMETHING THAT BENEFITS THE MASSES.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING A PARK PAVILION FEE INCREASE TO $5 WHETHER YOU'RE RESIDENT OR NON RESIDENT, AND PARK BOARD HAD A LOT OF GREAT FEEDBACK.

I'M I'M SUMMARIZING A TWO HOUR CONVERSATION, SO THERE WAS A LOT MORE TO IT THAN WHAT I'M SAYING HERE, AND I APOLOGIZE IF I MISCONSTRUE ANY OF IT, BUT THEY SUPPORTED THE PROGRAM FEE INCREASE.

THEY SUPPORTED THE RENTAL FEE INCREASE.

THEY SUPPORTED THE NON RESIDENT DAY PASS FOR RUSSELL FARM.

THEY DID NOT SUPPORT AN INCREASE TO THOSE FEES BECAUSE THEY FELT IT WENT AGAINST THE MISSION, BUT THEY DID SUPPORT THE RENTAL FEE INCREASE BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THAT WAS NOT AN EDUCATIONAL OR ART COMPONENT.

THAT WAS WEDDINGS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO THEY DID SUPPORT THAT FEE INCREASE.

THEY DID SUPPORT THE PARK PAVILION INCREASE, AND REGARDING MEMBERSHIP FEES, THERE WAS AN OVERALL CONSENSUS THAT THEY SUPPORTED INCREASING THE FEES.

NOW THAT PERCENTAGE VARIED BASED ON BOARD MEMBER, AND SO THEY JUST THE ONE THING THEY DID HAVE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT FOR WAS KEEPING THE YOUTH MEMBERSHIP FEE AT ITS CURRENT RATE, SO THAT WE DIDN'T SAY, HEY, SORRY, YOU'RE YOUNGER AND WE KNOW YOU BARELY HAVE ANY MONEY, BUT WE'D LIKE TO INCREASE YOUR FEES AND SO THEY FELT LIKE WE DIDN'T WANT TO LOSE OUR YOUTH THAT WERE HOPEFULLY GOING TO GROW UP THROUGH OUR SYSTEM.

SO THEY DIDN'T SUPPORT INCREASING THAT FEE, BUT THEY UNDERSTOOD THE NEED TO INCREASE THE FEES IN THE OTHER AREAS.

MAYOR COUNCIL. I THINK THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD, AND COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT ALLUDED TO THIS, BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT JEN AND I TALKED ABOUT IN PREPARING THIS PRESENTATION WAS SIMPLY TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM YOU ALL ON WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO BE FROM A COST RECOVERY STANDPOINT IN THESE VARIOUS AREAS.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US TO UNDERSTAND, AND IT MAY NOT BE SOMETHING THAT WE GET TO, DEPENDING ON WHAT LEVEL YOU WANT TO BE AT FROM A SUBSIDY PERSPECTIVE THAT WE CAN GET TO IN ONE YEAR, BUT IT CAN BE SOMETHING THAT WE WORK TOWARD, BUT A GOAL IN MIND WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WE'RE THINKING ABOUT COST AND WHERE TO PLACE THOSE COSTS, AND ALSO TO WHAT THOSE FEES NEED TO BE YEAR OVER YEAR, AND SO ANY FEEDBACK THAT YOU CAN HAVE WITH REGARDS TO THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US.

WELL, LIKE I SAID BEFORE, MY GOAL WOULD BE TO KEEP THE SUBSIDY BELOW 50% FOR THE FIRST YEAR OF THIS NEW GOAL SETTING AT 49%, NEXT YEAR, 48 NEXT YEAR, 47.5.

SO WHATEVER YOU CAN AFFORD AND SET YOUR RATES BASED ON THAT.

NOW, IF YOU CAN MAKE IT WITH ALL THESE RATES YOU HAVE HERE AND NOT RAISE THE MEMBERSHIP FEES, THEN THAT'S FINE.

THAT WOULD I WOULD LEAVE THAT UP TO YOU.

OKAY, BUT ANOTHER ISSUE WE'VE GOT TO THINK ABOUT IS NOT ALL EVENTS ARE SUPPORTED BY FEES

[03:30:08]

AT THE BRICK. THEY'RE SUPPORTED BY FOUR B FOR EXAMPLE, THE SPLASH PAD.

IT'S FREE BUT IT'S MAINTAINED OUT OF THE BRICK.

SO THERE IS A COST TO IT TO YOU.

SO THAT'S MY OPINION THAT I TRUST YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

AS LONG AS WE HAVE A GOAL FOR THE FOUR B AND COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT, TO THAT END, IS THAT JUST FOR CLARITY, IS THAT A 50% SUBSIDY ACROSS ALL PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND OR SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BRICK? JUST FOR THE BRICK, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE REST OF THE FUND.

YEAH. THE FARM, THE ATHLETICS NOT CONSIDERING THEM.

I'M JUST CONSIDERING THE BRICK.

UNDERSTOOD. LET ME JUST SAY THIS THAT HISTORICALLY, THE BRICK WAS AT ONE TIME ABLE TO OPERATE ON ABOUT A 30% SUBSIDY.

IT IS POSSIBLE, AND MAYOR PRO TEM MCCLENDON TO THAT EFFECT.

WE ALWAYS HAVE IN EVERY ORGANIZATION THAT WE BENCHMARKED, THEY ALL WERE SITTING THERE.

70, 80 KELLER POINT USED TO OPERATE AT 92%.

I DON'T FULLY TRUST THAT BECAUSE THEY ALSO DIDN'T INCLUDE THEIR DEBT IN THAT FIGURE, BUT THEY WERE OPERATING AT 92% COST RECOVERY BECAUSE THAT WAS WHAT THEY PROMISED THEIR CITIZENS WHEN THEY BUILT IT.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THIS.

IT'S GOING TO BE BASED ON THE FEE STRUCTURE.

THEY'RE ALL OPERATING AT THAT 40, 50, 60% NOW.

SO NOT NOT THAT'S AN EXCUSE, BUT WE'RE ALL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET BACK UP THERE BECAUSE EVERYONE'S HAD TO START PAYING LIFEGUARDS HIGHER RATES.

THEY'RE HAVING TO PAY THEIR FRONT DESK STAFF HIGHER RATES, AND SO THEY'RE TRYING TO BALANCE THAT WITH THE OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THEIR FACILITIES, AND SO WE HAVE THAT ON A REGIONAL LEVEL AS A CONVERSATION ALL THE TIME.

HOW DO WE GET ABOVE THIS AND HOW DO WE NOT PRICE OUR COMMUNITY OUT OF OUR FACILITY? I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT CLEARLY OUR COSTS HAVE INCREASED AND OUR REVENUES, BASED ON THE RATES THAT WE CHARGE BEING UNCHANGED FOR THE PAST SEVEN YEARS, HAVE NOT KEPT UP WITH THE EXPENSES.

SO ABSOLUTELY.

YEAH, COVID THREW A WRECKING BALL THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS, AND NOW WE'RE STILL TRYING TO PUT THE PIECES BACK TOGETHER AND FIGURE OUT WHERE WE ARE, AND THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE, BUT AT ONE TIME WE MAINTAINED COMPETITIVE RATES.

I DON'T KNOW ALL THE ANSWERS, BUT MY HOPE WOULD BE AND MY GOAL WOULD BE THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON PUSHING THAT SUBSIDY NUMBER DOWN FURTHER, FURTHER, FURTHER DOWN.

ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THE FIRST YEAR BEING AT 50%? I'M NOT. I DON'T EXPECT A MIRACLE.

IT'S BETTER THAN IT WAS AT 50% AND YES, BUT LONG TERM I WANT TO SEE THAT RATE CONTINUE TO GO DOWN, AND YES, SIR, UNTIL WE CAN GET BACK TO THE RANGE WHERE WE WERE, AND IF THAT MEANS FEES ARE HIGHER, THEN.

THESE NEED TO BE HIGHER.

SO THE ONLY OTHER OPTION IS TO REDUCE COST, AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING THAT.

WE NEVER INTENDED ANY OF THESE THINGS.

GOLF COURSE BRICK OUR SWIMMING POOLS.

THIS WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A BREAK EVEN DEAL WHEN IT WAS BUILT.

WE KNEW IT WASN'T GOING TO BREAK EVEN.

SO IF YOU SAY 50%, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.

OKAY, BUT WE I DO WANT US TO BE PRACTICAL IN THAT WE SAY IT'S NEVER GOING TO PAY FOR ITSELF. WE LOVE IT TOO, BUT IT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THE GOLF COURSE IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF IT.

WE CAN GET CLOSE, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO PAY FOR ITSELF, BUT WE HAVE TWO GREAT FACILITIES TO OFFER AND ALL OF THE THINGS THAT GO WITH THESE FACILITIES, AND I THINK THAT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.

AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN CLOSE WITH MONEY, BUT THIS IS A THING RIGHT HERE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE USE, A LOT OF CHILDREN, A LOT OF ADULTS BRING THEIR CHILDREN.

SO IF WE WANT TO SAY 50%, OKAY, NO PROBLEM, BUT LET'S DON'T GET TOO FAR OVER TO WHERE PEOPLE JUST FLAT CAN'T AFFORD TO USE THE FACILITY.

I TOTALLY AGREE. I MEAN, EACH CITY, ACCORDING TO THE RATE CHARGES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT APPARENTLY SETS A TONE FOR WHAT PORTION OF THIS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE ALL CITIZENS, WHETHER THEY'RE USERS OR NOT, SHOULD PAY.

OR REALLY MORE ACCURATELY, WHAT PORTION OF SALES TAX MONEY YOU KEEP KEEP FORGETTING THAT A LOT OF THIS MONEY IS COMING FROM SALES TAX, WHICH IS PAID BY CITIZENS AND NON-CITIZENS. IT'S JUST WHOEVER HAPPENS TO SHOP HERE.

IT'S A LITTLE DIFFICULT LOOKING AT A PARK AMENITY A POCKET PARK PAYS ABSOLUTELY

[03:35:01]

NOTHING, AND WE PAY FULL EXPENSES AND TRY TO KEEP THEM MAINTAINED AT A HIGH LEVEL OF SERVICE AND ALL THIS KIND OF THING, EVEN THOUGH THEY DON'T PAY ANYTHING, BUT THAT'S WHAT PARKS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.

GOLF IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BECAUSE EVERYBODY EXPECTS TO PAY TO PLAY GOLF.

AND IT'S A MATTER OF FINDING THE RIGHT LEVEL THAT WE'RE WILLING TO SAY, OKAY, WE HAVE AN AVAILABLE POOL OF TAX FUNDS THAT WE CAN THROW AT THIS.

WHAT'S OUR COMFORT ZONE? SAME HERE. LARRY'S COMFORT ZONE IS AROUND 50%.

MINE'S A LITTLE LESS, BUT WE ALL HAVE TO REACH A DECISION.

I THINK IT'S A POLICY DECISION TO DO WHAT LARRY'S DESCRIBING AND JUST SET A THRESHOLD WHERE WE WANT TO BE AND GET THERE BY WHATEVER MEANS POSSIBLE USE WHATEVER MARKETING STRATEGIES TO SET THE RATE WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE, USE WHATEVER EFFICIENCY GAINS AND WHATEVER WE CAN TO KEEP THE EXPENSES DOWN WHERE THEY NEED TO BE.

THE POLICY MATTERS WHERE WE WHERE WE PUT THE FLOOR.

I ADVOCATE FOR A LESS SUBSIDY.

LARRY IS ABOUT COMFORTABLE.

SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE AROUND 50%.

I DON'T KNOW WHERE EVERYBODY ELSE IS, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO FIND OUR TONE AND SET IT.

I'M ALWAYS GOING TO ADVOCATE FOR WHAT I ADVOCATE FOR BECAUSE I KNOW WE DID IT BEFORE, AND I SEE NO REASON WHY WE COULDN'T DO IT NOW, BUT IF IT'S NOT THE COUNCIL'S WILL, IT'S BASICALLY SAYING WE'RE GOING TO SPEND MORE TAX DOLLARS TO PROVIDE THIS AMENITY FOR THE CITY THAN WE DID IN THE PAST, AND IF THAT'S THIS COUNCIL'S DECISION, FINE. WELL, AND I WILL SAY 50% IS AN ARBITRARY NUMBER.

I JUST THREW THAT OUT THERE.

WHATEVER, AS YOU SAY WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IS FINE, BUT AS LONG AS WE TAKE THE OTHER THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION.

YEAH. WHAT ARE THE OTHER OPTIONS THAT WE RAISE FEES TO MAKE UP THAT DIFFERENCE? I YOU'VE MADE A GOOD POINT IN THAT THESE ARE I THINK OF THESE ESSENTIALLY AS PARK AMENITIES. ONE IS INDOOR, ONE INCLUDES WATER.

I MEAN, THEY'RE AMENITIES TO THIS COMMUNITY, AND IT'S A BIG PIECE OF WHY PEOPLE LIVE HERE BECAUSE THERE'S THINGS TO DO THAT THEY CAN THAT IS AFFORDABLE, THAT THEY CAN ENJOY AS A FAMILY, AND IT DOESN'T.

EXTREMELY HINDER BEING ABLE TO TAKE ALL THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX OF YOUR CHILDREN AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE.

I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, BUT I ALSO DON'T WANT TO PRICE FAMILIES OUT OF USING THESE FACILITIES. AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, THE TAXPAYERS VOTED.

I WAS ONE OF THEM IN FAVOR OF PUTTING THESE FACILITIES IN PLACE SO THAT WE COULD ENJOY THEM AS A COMMUNITY, AND WHILE I BELIEVE WE NEED TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND HAVE COMPETITIVE RATES, I DON'T WANT ESPECIALLY LOOKING, I THINK WHAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED, A LOT OF THESE ARE VERY COMPARABLE, AND I THINK ABOUT WHAT I HAVE PAID OVER THE YEARS FOR FITNESS.

ACTIVITIES AND THINGS.

ONE OF MY GYM MEMBERSHIPS USED TO BE LIKE ALMOST $200 A MONTH, AND THAT WAS TO TAKE A SPECIFIC CLASS.

IT WASN'T EVEN TO HAVE ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT TYPES OF THINGS, BUT MY FAMILY ENJOYS THE BRICK AND I KNOW OF SO MANY OTHERS, AND THAT SPLASH PAD, I MEAN, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL AMENITY TO THE BRICK, BUT IT DOESN'T BRING ANY REVENUE IN, AND SO WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THESE LITTLE NUANCES THAT ARE A LITTLE OUTSIDE OF IT'S TAKING MONEY FROM THE SAME POT, BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY AN ADDITIONAL AMENITY, AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE RIGHT PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT THESE ARE TRULY HERE FOR. I THINK WE SHOULD BE COMPETITIVE.

I THINK IT IS NOT ABSURD TO SAY IF A DAYCARE GROUP OR A GROUP IS COMING TO ENJOY OUR FACILITIES, THAT THEY PAY.

I THINK FORTY'S KIND OF LOW.

I THINK 50 IS SOME OF THESE I CAN GIVE OR TAKE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO PRICE OUR FAMILIES OUT OF ENJOYING THESE, AND UNDERSTANDABLY IT COMES WITH A COST, AND THE OTHER SIDE IS WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN COSTS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY PEOPLE BETTER TO KEEP THEM THERE, AND WE'VE HEARD TIME AND TIME AGAIN FROM ALL OVER THIS COMMUNITY HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO KEEP GOOD EMPLOYEES, HOW DIFFICULT IT IS.

SOMETIMES YOU JUST WANT SOMEBODY THAT BREATHES TO STAND BE A PART OF WHATEVER IT IS. YOU SEE THE POOR KFC SIGN, IT'S LIKE, WE'LL TAKE ANYBODY, JUST PLEASE COME, AND SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ALSO ARE ADEQUATELY STAFFING SO THAT THESE THINGS STAY RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND SAFELY.

I LOVE THAT WE ADD, I REMEMBER THE ISSUES THAT WE WERE HAVING AT THE BRICK, AND SO IT WAS KIND OF BECAME IMPORTANT TO HAVE SOMEBODY HAVING PATROLLING AND LOOKING AROUND, AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS FUN THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THOSE, BUT IN ORDER TO KEEP EVERYTHING RUNNING SMOOTHLY AND KEEP ALL OF OUR STUFF AS IN A CONDITION THAT LENGTHENS ITS TIME, ALL OF THESE THINGS PLAY INTO IT, AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE I'M COMFORTABLE WITH. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT CONTRIBUTE, UNDERSTANDABLY, BECAUSE THAT

[03:40:06]

ALLOWS MONEY TO BE FREED UP FOR OTHER THINGS, AND I THINK A LOT OF LIKE YOU'VE MENTIONED, A LOT OF THE INCREASES THAT YOU HAVE RECOMMENDED.

I SUPPORT PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT THE PARKS BOARD, THOSE ARE OUR RESIDENTS, THOSE ARE TAXPAYERS, THOSE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THESE FACILITIES, TOO, AND SO I THINK THAT THEY HAD GOOD RECOMMENDATIONS.

I AGREE ON THEIR ASSESSMENT OF THE FARM.

THAT'S IT'S AN EDUCATIONAL UNIQUE TO BURLESON PLACE.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY THERE.

MAYBE WE NEED TO DIVE DEEPER INTO WHAT WE HAVEN'T VISITED THE AGREEMENT, AND AS MRS. BOREN IS AGING, WHAT OTHER OPPORTUNITIES MAY LIE THAT MIGHT GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY THERE BECAUSE IT'S TRULY A MAJOR ASSET THAT WE HAVE, BUT IT COSTS MONEY TO RUN IT, BUT THERE'S IT'S UNIQUE TO US, AND I REALLY THINK I'M REALLY PROUD OF THE STUFF THAT WE DO OUT THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW, I'M KIND OF IN BETWEEN, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PARKS BOARD AND THE THOUGHT THAT THEY DOVE INTO ALL OF THESE, AND I AGREE PRETTY MUCH WITH EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE RECOMMENDED.

HERE'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, CHRIS.

WE'RE GOING TO DRAW THAT HALF CENT SALES TAX EVERY YEAR, AND IT'S GOING TO BE A FIXED PRICE NO MATTER WHERE WE SPEND IT.

IT'S GOING TO BE THAT SAME PRICE THAT YEAR.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE BECAUSE WE SPENT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.

IF. WE SPEND IT MORE OF IT ON THE BRICK.

WE SPEND LESS ON PARKS.

THE BRICK IS A SPECIFIC TARGET.

THE PARKS IS A CITY CITIZEN TARGET.

I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE SPENDING IF WE CAN MORE FOR BE MONEY ON CITY PARKS.

MAYBE RENOVATING THREE IN A YEAR INSTEAD OF TWO IN A YEAR, AND HITTING THE TOTAL CITIZEN TARGET INSTEAD OF HITTING A SPECIFIC TARGET FOR THE BRICK.

SO WHEN I SET A GOAL.

I LIKE TO SIT IN LONG TERM AND SHORT TERM GOAL.

MY LONG TERM WOULD BE LIKE DAN SAYS, LET'S GET IT BACK TO 30 IF WE CAN.

LET'S BUILD MORE PARKS.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF BIG PARKS WE WANT TO BUILD.

WE JUST CAN'T.

TO GET THERE, WE HAVE TO START SOMEWHERE.

KNOCKING IT DOWN TO 50% IS A VERY SMALL MOVEMENT, BUT IF YOU CAN MAKE THAT 50% THE FIRST YEAR YOU'RE WINNING, YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL.

NOW YOU'RE READY TO GO TO 48.

YOU'RE READY TO GO TO 46, BUT IF YOU SET IT AT 46 OR 48 ON THE FIRST RUN AND YOU DON'T REACH IT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO FEEL LIKE YOU FAILED AND YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD PLAN.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO SPEND MORE FOUR B MONEY ON THE TOTAL CITIZEN PROJECTS THEN TARGETED, FOR EXAMPLE, GOLF, BRICK AND SO FORTH.

JEN, YOUR ESTIMATES, DO THEY INCLUDE THE DEBT SERVICE? YES, SIR. SO THE BRICK BOND WE'VE GOT, WHAT, 7 OR 8 YEARS LEFT ON THE MAIN BONDS? THERE WERE 20 YEAR BONDS.

I'LL HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU; I PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.

NO, I THINK THEY'RE 20 YEARS. SO FOUR YEARS BECAUSE THEY STARTED IN 2007.

I KNOW THAT WE ADDED MORE DEBT TO TAKE CARE OF SOME SOME OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT'S GOING TO FALL OFF AND THAT PERCENTAGES GO UP BECAUSE I REMEMBER SEEING THE GOLF AND GOLF'S AT ABOUT 50, 53%, AND IN THREE YEARS WHEN THAT DEBT PAYS OFF, IT SHOOTS UP TO 75.

SO I THINK SETTING THE GOAL AT 50, I THINK WE GIVE IT A FEW YEARS AND YOU KNOW, EVERY YEAR WE CAN LOOK AT IT. EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE.

WHEN THAT DEBT PAYS OFF, IT'LL SHOOT WAY UP.

ASSUMING WE DON'T NEED TO ADD LIKE TWO MORE BASKETBALL COURTS OR SOMETHING, BUT WE JUST HAVE TO REMEMBER A LOT OF THIS INCLUDES THAT DEBT SERVICE.

SO THAT WILL ROLL OFF HOPEFULLY OVER TIME.

SO AND JUST TO GO BACK FOR CLARITY, PERSPECTIVE STANDPOINT I DON'T YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO GIVE ME A SPECIFIC NUMBER TONIGHT.

IT WAS MORE JUST GENERAL DIRECTION FOR JEN AND I TO GO OFF OF.

SO YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO COME TO CONSENSUS THAT IT'S GOT TO BE 50.

I THINK WHAT I HEAR LOUD AND CLEAR IS THAT SMALL INCREMENTAL GOALS OF MOVING FORWARD, BUT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SUBSIDY CONTINUE TO GO DOWN.

I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT WE NEED.

I THINK THE OTHER DIRECTION IS SIMPLY, ARE YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE PARK BOARD'S FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF THE FEES? AND THEN THAT GIVES US KIND OF OUR FIRST YEAR LOOK, AND THEN WE CAN CONTINUALLY ASSESS THOSE FEES AGAINST OUR MARKET PEER CITIES, AND IF WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS OR IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES FOR COST SAVINGS, THEN WE CAN ADJUST BASED ON THAT KIND OF GENERAL TRAJECTORY OF WHERE THE SUBSIDY NEEDS TO BE.

THE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE IF YOU WANTED TO IMPLEMENT THIS FEE SCHEDULE.

SO OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO START THIS IN JANUARY, BUT WE NEED TO CAMPAIGN THAT TO OUR

[03:45:03]

MEMBERS SO THAT THEY'RE FULLY INFORMED ON THAT.

IT ALSO MEANS I NEED TO BRING AN UPDATED FEE SCHEDULE BACK TO THE COUNCIL, AND SO BASED ON THE TIMING RIGHT NOW, BEING ABLE TO GET THIS TO THE FEE SCHEDULE IN DECEMBER THAT YOU'D SEE AT DECEMBER 11TH AS PART OF THE FEE SCHEDULE AMENDMENT, AND THEN STARTING THAT DAY, WE WOULD GIVE PROBABLY AT LEAST A MONTH OF NOTICE TO OUR MEMBERS THAT THESE FEE INCREASES ARE COMING JANUARY SO THAT THEY'RE PREPARED FOR THEM.

JEN, IT WOULD TAKE TWO READINGS ON THE FEE ORDINANCE, SO WE'D HAVE TO.

SO IT MAY NOT COME TILL FEBRUARY.

YEAH, IT'S OKAY IF IT COMES IN MARCH I MEAN GET IT RIGHT.

SO I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK TO PARK BOARD WITH IF YOU DO OR [INAUDIBLE] PARK BOARD, THEY ACTUALLY JUST HAD SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THEY WANTED BREAKDOWNS ON. THEY WANTED TO SEE DAY PASS NUMBERS IN MORE DEPTH AND SOME OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT.

I THINK THEY WERE IN CONSENSUS WITH THIS, BUT YES, TYPICALLY OUR PARK BOARD MEETINGS FALL DIRECTLY BEFORE A COUNCIL MEETING, AND SO THEY WOULD SEE THE FINAL FEE SCHEDULE THAT WE WOULD BE PRESENTING RIGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL WOULD.

SOMETIMES THAT GETS HAIRY, LIKE IN THIS CASE WHERE THEY DIDN'T HAVE A FULL CONSENSUS.

SO I CAN BRING A CONSENSUS TO COUNCIL, JUST DIRECT FEEDBACK, AND SO IF THEY WERE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS IN SUPPORT OF, I WOULD JUST BRING WHATEVER THAT FEEDBACK WAS. I MEAN, I'M FINE IF EVERYBODY'S FINE TO DO FEBRUARY 1ST AND THEN YOU GET TWO READINGS IN JANUARY BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE TWO MEETINGS.

THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU PLENTY OF TIME TO NOTICE AND WHATEVER.

OKAY, AND THEN WE WOULD STILL RUN OUR JANUARY MEMBERSHIP DRIVE.

SO YEAH. OKAY.

I THINK COUNCILMAN RUSSELL, THAT'S TOTALLY FINE.

ANOTHER OPTION WOULD BE IS JUST WHENEVER WE BRING IT BACK FORWARD FOR THE COUNCIL, THERE'S JUST A 60 DAY EFFECTIVE DATE THEREAFTER.

SO WHATEVER DATE THAT IS, WE JUST SO WE'RE GIVING THE APPROPRIATE LEAD TIME, AND THEN YOU'RE NOT STUCK WITH THE DATE SPECIFIC IF SOMETHING WERE TO CHANGE.

THE ONLY THING WE WOULD CAVEAT WITH THAT IS WE START REGISTRATION FOR SOME OF OUR SUMMER PROGRAMS IN MARCH. SO WE WOULD WANT THOSE FEE SCHEDULES AUTHORIZED PRIOR TO THAT SO WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE REGISTERING AT TWO DIFFERENT RATES BY MARCH 1ST.

YES, SIR. THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT WILL BRING

[8.C.Receive a report, hold a discussion and provide staff direction regarding an update to the city’s zoning ordinance. (Staff Presenter: Tony McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

US TO ITEM EIGHT C RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING AN UPDATE TO THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS TONY MCILWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

MR. MCILWAIN.

MAYOR, COUNCIL, AS TONY IS PULLING UP HIS PRESENTATION, I JUST WANT TO SPEAK A LITTLE TO THIS TO PROVIDE SOME CLARITY GENERALLY WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON TO SEE SOMETHING GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING BEFORE IT GOES TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IN THIS CASE, THIS IS A DIRECTION FOR ME, AND SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS IS A 30,000 FOOT OVERVIEW, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE DIRECTIONALLY THAT WE'RE MOVING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION WITH THE GENERAL THOUGHTS AND CONSENSUS FROM THE COUNCIL.

FROM THERE, WE WOULD START SOLICITING FEEDBACK FROM OUR PARTNERS AND THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, AND THEN WE WOULD GO FORWARD WITH A MEETING FOR P AND Z, WHERE WE WOULD BE GETTING INTO VERY SPECIFIC AND INTRICATE DETAIL ABOUT WHAT THE ORDINANCE ACTUALLY IS. THEY WOULD SEE AN ACTUAL COPY OF SAID ORDINANCE, AND WE WOULD GO THROUGH THAT DETAIL, AND THEN WE WOULD PROVIDE FEEDBACK FROM P AND Z TO THE COUNCIL.

SO JUST FOR CLARITY THERE, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE P AND Z, BUT WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING DOWN A PATH THAT THE COUNCIL IS NOT COMFORTABLE GOING DOWN. THANK YOU, MR. CITY MANAGER.

COUNCIL, AS MR. LUDWICK JUST SPOKE TO, THIS IS A 30,000 FOOT VIEW OF WHAT STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON.

FOR SOME OF YOU THAT HAVE BEEN ON THE COUNCIL, SOME OF THIS WILL BE FAMILIAR.

WE DID A PRESENTATION REGARDING OUR EFFORTS SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, BUT THOUGHT IT'D BE PRUDENT TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU TO GET FURTHER DIRECTION JUST BY WAY OF THE PURPOSE OF ZONING. AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, HAVING UNDERTAKEN AN ACTION TONIGHT, ZONING IS ESSENTIALLY THE CLASSIFICATION OF DIFFERENT LAND USES INTO CATEGORIES, AND HERE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, ZONING MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GOALS OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO PROMOTE THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, MORALS AND GENERAL WELFARE OF THE CITY, AND THEN AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT PRESERVING AND PROTECTING SPECIAL PLACES OF HISTORICAL, CULTURAL, ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPORTANCE.

SO WHAT CONSTITUTES A ZONING CHANGE? WHEREAS THE ACTION YOU UNDERTOOK TONIGHT, WHERE SOMEONE MAKES A REQUEST TO HAVE THE ALLOWABLE LAND USES ON THEIR PROPERTY TRANSITIONED TO ANOTHER GROUP OF LAND USES, AND WE CALL THAT ESSENTIALLY A ZONING CHANGE.

THEY CAN APPLY FOR A CHANGE TO THEIR LOCAL JURISDICTION.