[3.A. Consider and take possible action on the minutes from the May 19, 2025 regular council meeting. (Staff contact: Monica Solko, Deputy City Secretary)]

GENERAL 3(A) IS TO CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 19, 2025, REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.

>> IS THERE A MOTION ON THE MINUTES?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND.

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

ALL IN FAVOR. ALL OPPOSED. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

NEXT ITEM IS SECTION 4, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

[4.A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the CAD Implementation Strategy. (Staff Contact: James Grommersch, Chief Technology Officer)]

4(A) IS TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE CAD IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS MORNING IS JAMES GROMMERSCH, CHIEF TECHNOLOGY OFFICER. MR. GROMMERSCH.

>> [INAUDIBLE] GOING TO PROVIDE GREAT COMPLIANCE.

AT THAT TIME, WE CONDUCTED AN RFP AND THEN SELECTED CENTRALSQUARE'S ENTERPRISE SOLUTION AS OUR PATH FORWARD.

SINCE THAT TIME, CENTRALSQUARE ACTUALLY GOT A NEW CEO, AND THEY'VE REVERSED THEIR DECISION ON THE OSSI PLATFORM AS IT WAS THE GO FORWARD SOLUTION FOR MEDIUM SIZED AGENCIES LIKE THE CITY OF BURLESON.

IT REALLY PROVIDED US WITH AN ADDITIONAL OPTION NOW FOR OUR CAD ENTERPRISE FUTURE AND SO WE REALLY LOOKED AT, IS THIS GOING TO BE SUPPORTED? THEY'VE INSURED US THAT IT'S GOING TO BE SUPPORTED FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

THEY'VE ACTUALLY INVESTED OVER $1,000,000 INTO FEATURE ENHANCEMENTS FOR IT, AND HAVE ACTUALLY STARTED PACKAGING THIS SOFTWARE TO BE HOSTED IN THE CLOUD AS WELL.

IT REALLY LOOKED AT A SCALABLE SOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON THAT WOULD MEET OUR NEEDS.

PART OF OUR AGILE AND CONTINUOUS MINDSET IMPROVEMENT, WE GO TO THE CENTRALSQUARE CONFERENCE, ENGAGE, AND WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH FIRST RESPONDERS GROUP AND REALLY LOOKING AT THE ALIGNMENT OF THIS WITH OUR EVOLVING NEEDS AND VENDOR CAPABILITIES AND SO SINCE WE'D ONLY REALLY COMPLETED A LIMITED AMOUNT OF THE CAD ENTERPRISE IMPLEMENTATION, WE SAW THIS AS AN IDEAL OPPORTUNITY TO POSSIBLY PIVOT TO A MORE EFFICIENT AND SCALABLE SOLUTION FOR THE CITY.

AN ITEM WITH CAD ENTERPRISE THAT WE DISCUSSED DURING THE SELECTION, IT WAS THE COMPLEXITY OF THAT SYSTEM.

IT'S REALLY MORE FOR A CONSORTIUM OR A LARGE SCALE AGENCY LIKE DALLAS OR FORT WORTH.

WE MET WITH OUR INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS, POLICE, FIRE AND DISPATCH, AND REALLY HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT WE HAVE WITH OSSI NOW, THAT THIS IS ACTUALLY A SOLUTION THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO USE GOING FORWARD.

WE REALLY HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AND REALLY FIGURED THAT WE COULD RESOLVE ALL THE DEFICIENCIES THAT WE HAD IN OSSI BY USING TECHNICIAN ON DEMAND HOURS SO REALLY WORKING DIRECTLY WITH CENTRALSQUARE, THEIR TECHNICIANS TO MEET THOSE DEFICIENCIES THAT WE HAVE.

ANOTHER ITEM THAT REALLY PLAYED INTO THE SOLUTION OF LOOKING AT OSSI IS THE DISSOLUTION OF THE MULTI-AGENCY CONSORTIUM THAT WE CURRENTLY ARE ON BACK IN 2021, WHEN WE WERE TOLD THAT OSSI WOULD NO LONGER BE THAT VIABLE PATH FORWARD.

CONSORTIUM AGENCIES LOOKED AT AND SELECTED SOMA GLOBAL AS THEY'RE PATH MOVING FORWARD.

OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COUNTY LAST WEEK IS THAT EVERYBODY WILL BE MOVING FORWARD TO SOMA IN THE NEXT TWO TO THREE WEEKS, THAT IT SHOULD BE COMPLETELY OFF OUR SYSTEM.

OUR PLAN HERE IS TO ACTUALLY SEND OUT A FOLLOW UP TO THEM, GET SOME IDD DEFINITE TIMES THAT THEY PLAN TO BE OFF, SO WE CAN PLAN THOSE FUTURE ENHANCEMENTS AND EVERYTHING WITH WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE.

REALLY WITH THAT DISSOLUTION OF THE CONSORTIUM, IT REALLY GAVE US THAT ABILITY TO MOVE FORWARD INDEPENDENTLY, AND LOOKING AT OSSI AS AN ABILITY FOR US TO FIX WHAT WE HAVE WITHOUT HAVING THOSE ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WE HAVE.

REALLY COMING DOWN, THERE WERE THREE OPTIONS HERE THAT WE LOOKED AT,

[00:05:02]

AT STAYING ON THE CAD ENTERPRISE COST, SO THAT IS A LOCALLY HOSTED ITEM.

THE LEARNING CURVE IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY HIGH ON THAT.

IT'S A COMPLETELY NEW SOFTWARE THAT CITY STAFF HAVE NOT UTILIZED.

TO GET TO THAT SAME LEVEL OF FAMILIARITY AS THEY HAVE TODAY WITH OSSI, WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT AN 18 TO 36 MONTH LEARNING CURVE AFTER THAT IMPLEMENTATION OF 18 TO 21 MONTHS AND SO SIGNIFICANTLY INEFFICIENT TIME AS THEY LEARN THE NEW SOFTWARE.

THERE'S ALSO CURRENTLY ROUGHLY $1,000,000 IMPLEMENTATION COST THAT'S THERE.

IT'S GOT HIGHER LICENSING FEES THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY PAY TODAY FOR OSSI AND THEN THERE'S THE ADDITIONAL HARDWARE REQUIREMENTS.

ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WAS A SHOCK TO THE CITY WAS HOW MUCH HARDWARE INFRASTRUCTURE WAS REQUIRED FOR CAD ENTERPRISE.

IT'S ACTUALLY ONE THIRD OF OUR TOTAL ENVIRONMENT TODAY.

RIGHT NOW, OUR CURRENT OSSI PLATFORM SITS ON SIX SERVERS, ENTERPRISE WAS OVER 40 SERVERS AND SO IT'S VERY HEAVY.

IT'S A LOT MORE MANAGEMENT ON THE IT FRONT.

AGAIN, THAT GOES BACK TO WHY IT WAS BETTER SUITED FOR LARGE SCALE ENTERPRISE AGENCIES.

NOW, OSSI HAS TWO FLAVORS.

THERE'S THE LOCALLY HOSTED, AND THEN THERE'S THE CLOUD HOSTED, WHICH IS GOING TO BE OUR RECOMMENDATION.

THE LOCALLY HOSTED, IT'S REALLY NO CHANGE.

IT'S SOME MIGRATIONS ONTO THE NEW INFRASTRUCTURE.

IT AVOIDS THAT MILLION DOLLAR IMPLEMENTATION.

THERE'S ABOUT A 60K SAVINGS AND REOCCURRING COST AND THEN IN THE FUTURE, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO RIGHT SIZE THE ENVIRONMENT AGAIN, SO WE'LL BE LOOKING AT OVER A HALF A MILLION DOLLAR IN SAVINGS ON HARDWARE, AND THEN ABOUT AN $80,000 IN MICROSOFT LICENSING IN THE FUTURE AND SO THAT'D BE ABOUT IN FISCAL YEAR '28, WE SHOULD SEE THAT SAVINGS THERE.

THAT ALLOWS US TO DROP OUR NODE.

THAT'S OUR VIRTUAL ENVIRONMENT, SO WE'LL DROP FROM 16 DOWN TO 12.

WE REDUCE THAT LOCAL FOOTPRINT, WE REDUCE THAT MICROSOFT LICENSING AND SO IT'S A FAMILIAR SYSTEM.

WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT TARGETED ENHANCEMENT.

THERE'LL BE A LOT LESS DISRUPTIONS TO STAFF AND SO IT ALLOW US TO GET UP AND FUNCTIONAL FASTER.

NOW, OSSI CLOUD, THAT'S CLOUD HOSTED SO THERE'S GOING TO BE MINIMAL TO NONE.

THERE'LL OBVIOUSLY BE SOME CHANGES BECAUSE IT IS A DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.

BUT FROM ALL THE LOOKS THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE BACKEND, SO TO THE END USER, THERE SHOULD BE MINIMAL LEARNING CURVE THERE.

AGAIN, WE GET TO AVOID THAT MILLION DOLLAR IMPLEMENTATION.

WE'LL STILL HAVE THAT SAVINGS OF $580,000 IN THE FUTURE AND THEN IT'S THAT SAME ANNUAL COST WITH THE CREDITS THAT WE'LL RECEIVE FROM WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR THE ENTERPRISE IMPLEMENTATION.

IT REALLY ELIMINATES THAT INFRASTRUCTURE BURDEN ON THE IT STAFF.

IT ALLOWS US TO RE-ALLOCATE THE IT RESOURCES TO WORKING ON OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE GOING ON IN THE CITY AND IT ALSO HELPS US UP WITH MAINTENANCE, DISASTER RECOVERY AND ALL THOSE ITEMS BECAUSE THAT'S NOW PUT ON CENTRALSQUARE AS THE VENDOR.

HIGH AVAILABILITY IS A HUGE POINT OF THIS.

WE DO NOT HAVE THAT CURRENTLY IN OUR ENVIRONMENT, NOR WOULD WE HAVE THAT FUNCTIONALITY WITH EITHER LOCALLY HOSTED OPTION.

WE ONLY GET THAT IN THE CLOUD, SO WE'D HAVE ONE DATA CENTER ROUGHLY AVAILABLE ON THE EAST COAST, ONE ON THE WEST COAST SO IF THERE'S ANY OUTAGE, WE WOULDN'T SEE THAT, OUR STAFF WOULD JUST AUTOMATICALLY TRANSITION OVER TO THAT FUNCTIONAL SERVER.

WE GET A 24/7 SECURITY OPERATION CENTER, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE MONITORING ALL THAT DATA, ALL THAT TRAFFIC, THAT TAKES THAT SECURITY BURDEN OFF OF IT AS WELL, AND THEN WE STILL GET THOSE LICENSING EFFICIENCIES BECAUSE WE'LL BE ABLE TO DROP DOWN THAT LICENSE COUNT IN THE FUTURE GOING ON.

OSSI CLOUD REALLY PRESENTS THE STRONGEST COMBINATION OF STABILITY, SCALABILITY, AND SUPPORT FOR OUR PUBLIC SAFETY NEEDS.

WE'LL ALSO BE ABLE TO IMPLEMENT CAD-TO-CAD FASTER.

THAT'S OUR CONNECTION TO OTHER CAD SERVICES.

IN THE ENTERPRISE SOLUTION, WE HAD TO WAIT FOR ENTERPRISE TO BE COMPLETE.

THEN WE WOULD START CAD-TO-CAD.

STAYING ON OSSI MEANS THAT WE COULD START CAD-TO-CAD TOMORROW, GET UP IN SIX MONTHS, AND SO IT'S JUST A LOT FASTER IMPLEMENTATION TO THAT.

THE WEB BASED ARCHITECTURE MEANS THAT WHEN WE REPLACE COMPUTERS, GET ANYBODY UP AND RUNNING, WE'RE REALLY JUST DIRECTING THEM TO A WEBSITE SO THAT TIME TO RECOVER FOR ANY COMPUTER REPLACEMENT OR ISSUE IS A LOT FASTER THAN IT WOULD BE LOCALLY HOSTING THAT OPTION THERE.

AGAIN, JUST THE BENEFITS OF THAT OSSI CLOUD IS THE HIGH AVAILABILITY AND RESILIENCY.

IT'S GOT BUILT IN DISASTER RECOVERY AND FAILOVER SOLUTIONS.

IT'S ALL MANAGED BY CENTRALSQUARE, AND WE GET ACCESS TO THEIR 24/7 SECURITY OPERATION CENTER.

IT'S REDUCED OPERATIONAL OVERHEAD.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DO PATCH MANAGEMENT, HOSTING OR ANY OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE ITEMS RELATED TO IT.

WE JUST HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THE USERS HAVE AN INTERNET CONNECTION, AND THEY'LL BE ABLE TO GET TO THE APPLICATION AND SO THAT ALLOWS IT TO REDIRECT OUR EFFORTS TO OTHER INITIATIVES.

IT'S GOT LONG TERM SCALABILITY SO AS NEW ITEMS OR FEATURES COME OUT, WE'RE ACTUALLY ABLE TO JUST SUBSCRIBE TO THOSE.

THEY TURN THOSE FEATURES ON, SO IT'S NO INSTALLATIONS ON OUR END, IT'S NONE OF THOSE ITEMS THERE.

THEN THAT CAD-TO-CAD WAS A BIG PIECE.

IT GETS US CONNECTED UP TO THE CLOUD AS A WHOLE AND THEN WHEN THE COUNTY DOES THEIR PORTION OF UNIFY, WE'LL STILL HAVE THAT CONNECTION LIKE WE DO TODAY.

USER CONTINUITY WAS A BIG ONE HERE.

ALL OF OUR USERS ARE GOING TO RETAIN THAT FAMILIAR OSSI INTERFACE AND WORKFLOW SO THERE'S REALLY NOT GOING TO BE THAT HUGE LEARNING CURVE.

WITH THOSE, THAT'S HOW WE LOOKED AT

[00:10:01]

THIS AS THE MOST STRATEGIC SOLUTION FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON.

WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH OUR CENTRALSQUARE REPS ON MAKING THAT REALLY A VIABLE PATH FORWARD FOR US.

THERE'S A HUGE INCENTIVE FOR CENTRALSQUARE RIGHT NOW TO GET MORE CLOUD USERS FOR US, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO SECURE THAT LICENSING THAT WE HAVE.

WE BASICALLY WILL BE ABLE TO UTILIZE $225,000 FROM OUR FIRST PAYMENT TO CENTRALSQUARE ON THE ENTERPRISE, THAT'LL BE A CREDIT BACK TO US, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO PLAN THAT, APPLY THAT TO OUR COST FOR THE OSSI CLOUD IMPLEMENTATION AND SO THE CREDIT FULLY OFFSETS THE ABOVE PRICE.

WHEN YOU COMPARE ENTERPRISE AND CLOUD TOGETHER, IT MAKES THAT WHAT WE'RE PAYING IN LINE WITH WHAT WE HAD ALREADY SET ASIDE FOR PAYING ON ENTERPRISE AS A SOLUTION.

LIKE I SAID, THOSE SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR CLOUD ARE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, BUT WITH THAT CREDIT, IT PUTS US IN LINE WITH THAT.

WE'LL SEE HIGHER COSTS FOR OSSI AS WE GO OUT PAST THAT YEAR 5.

THAT'S WHERE THOSE INCREASES WILL BE SEEN THERE.

BUT THIS STRATEGIC TIMING ALLOWS US TO MODERNIZE RESPONSIBLY AND PRESERVE OUR CONTINUITY OF SERVICE FOR THE CITY AND REALLY REDUCE THAT TECHNICAL DEBT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO ABSORB THAT FULL COST OF RE-IMPLEMENTATION SHOULD WE GO WITH OSSI CLOUD.

THE ARPA FUNDING THAT WAS UTILIZED FOR THIS, BASICALLY, WE WERE FUNDED WITH ARPA.

THAT MILLION DOLLAR OF THAT FUNDING COULD BE REALLOCATED TO OTHER CONTRACTS OR OBLIGATIONS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE ARPA PROJECTS SO THAT CAN BE OTHER TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENTS, PUBLIC SAFETY EQUIPMENT, PUBLIC SAFETY TECHNOLOGY, OR PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL COSTS.

IT'S THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAD HAD AT THE CMO LEVEL IS ANYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY USING GENERAL FUND ITEMS. THIS WOULD BE ANOTHER AVENUE FOR FUNDING THOSE INITIATIVES AND ALLOWING THAT GENERAL FUND MONEY TO STAY WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT.

OUR RECOMMENDATION HERE TODAY IS FOR COUNSEL TO ALLOW US TO CANCEL THE CENTRALSQUARE ENTERPRISE CONTRACT, THAT WILL ALLOW US TO REALLY FINE TUNE WHAT THE PAYMENTS AND EVERYTHING ARE GOING TO LOOK LIKE FOR THE FLAVOR OF OSSI THAT WE TAKE.

IF WE CANCEL TODAY, WE'LL AVOID THAT MILLION DOLLARS IN IMPLEMENTATION COSTS, WE'LL BE ABLE TO APPLY THAT $225,000 CREDIT TOWARDS THOSE CLOUD TRANSITION COSTS.

WE'LL GET BETTER RESILIENCY, SCALABILITY, AND FUTURE READINESS.

IT OFFLOADS THAT INFRASTRUCTURE, AND THEN IT ALLOWS US TO REALLY ALIGN WITH THE FACT THAT OSSI IS COMMITTED TO THIS AS GO FORWARD PRODUCT FOR MEDIUM SIZED AGENCIES.

IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE RECOMMENDATION, WE WILL CANCEL THE CAD ENTERPRISE CONTRACT.

WE'LL BE BRINGING FORWARD THE OSSI CONTRACT IN JUNE FOR COUNCIL'S APPROVAL.

RIGHT NOW, WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF CONDUCTING A DEEPER DIVE.

WE HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED ON THE 30TH WITH CENTRALSQUARE TO REVIEW THE OSSI DATA FLOW DIAGRAMS AND GET SOME OF THOSE TECHNICAL PIECES FLUSHED OUT AND ENSURE THAT IT'S THERE.

THEN ONCE WE GET THAT CONTRACT APPROVED, WE WOULD BE COMPLETED WITH THE OSSI IMPLEMENTATION BY OCTOBER, SO SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER THAN WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT WITH THE ENTERPRISE CONTRACT.

WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> ANYBODY?

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT AFTER GOING OVER THIS GOOD REPORT, JAMES, THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> I'M GOOD WITH OSSI CLOUD NUMBER 3.

I'M GOOD WITH CANCELING THE CAD ENTERPRISE CONTRACT.

WE'VE GOT ARPA FUNDS THAT HAVE TO BE SPENT BY 12/26 NOW.

I TALKED TO JAMES EARLIER.

HE'S GOT SOME GOOD IDEAS ON THAT.

THE SAVINGS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THE REBATE, $225,000 CREDIT REFUND.

THANK YOU FOR WORKING THAT OUT ALSO.

BUT I'M GOOD WITH CANCELING THE CAD ENTERPRISE CONTRACT.

>> EXCELLENT. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT.

JAMES, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

WORST CASE SCENARIO, THOUGH, THIS FLIPPED ON A DIME WHEN THEY GOT A NEW CEO, BUT IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN, AND ALL OF A SUDDEN, THEY GO, GUESS WHAT, WE'RE GOING TO CANCEL THE CLOUD AGAIN THOUGHT PROCESS.

>> WHAT WE HAVE PUT INTO THE CONTRACT IS THAT IT WILL BE SUPPORTED FOR THAT NEXT FIVE YEARS SO THAT'LL BE ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT WE'RE GETTING IN OUR CONTRACT FOR THAT GOING FORWARD.

IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN, WE HAVE THAT TO STAND ON.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION LONGEVITY ON THIS.

THIS IS PAST FIVE YEARS.

WHEN'S THE NEXT TIME YOU'RE GOING TO COME TO US AND SAY WE NEED TO UPGRADE.

>> IT'LL REALLY DEPEND ON WHAT THEIR ROADMAP LOOKS LIKE WITH THIS BEING A CLOUD HOSTED SOLUTION AND FOUR MEDIUM SIZED AGENCIES.

AS LONG AS NOBODY ELSE COMES OUT WITH SOMETHING CRAZY NEW THAT REALLY EXCITES OUR FIRST RESPONDER GROUP, WE SEE THIS AS THAT GO FORWARD PRODUCT FOR US FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE.

ONE OF THE THINGS WITH THE SELECTION OF ENTERPRISES.

ENTERPRISE DIDN'T REALLY PROVIDE US WITH ANYTHING NEW OR FLASHY.

[00:15:01]

IT WAS JUST WE HAD TO MAKE A DECISION BECAUSE THIS WAS GOING AWAY.

IT WAS THE BEST DECISION AT THE TIME.

HAD OSSI BEEN A VIABLE PRODUCT, WE WOULD NOT HAVE MADE A DECISION TO HAVE MOVED BECAUSE THERE WAS NOTHING NEW OUT OF ANY OF THE ITEMS THAT WE DEMOED THROUGH THE RFP PROCESS.

THAT WAS OUR BIG THING IS OF COURSE, OSSI WASN'T BROKE, IT WAS JUST GOING AWAY.

SO THE THINGS THAT WERE WRONG WITH THE CONSORTIUM LEAVING, NOW WE'RE ABLE TO REALLY MAKE OSSI FOR BURLESON WHERE BEFORE WE HAD TO MAKE IT FOR THE CONSORTIUM AND SO THERE WERE ITEMS AND THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO DO SPECIFICALLY THAT WE COULDN'T BECAUSE IT WOULD AFFECT THE CONSORTIUM MEMBERS.

NOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LEAVING, THIS REALLY GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE OSSI RS.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF THE AGENCIES, [INAUDIBLE] AND JOSHUA THAT ARE ALSO POSSIBLY LOOKING AT OSSI, AS WELL.

NOW THAT WE'RE TRACKING THAT THIS IS A VIABLE PRODUCT, IT'S GATHERING THAT, BUT IT GIVES EVERYBODY THAT FUNCTIONALITY THEY WANT, WHICH IS THEIR OWN ENVIRONMENT, SO THEIR CHANGES ARE FOR THEM AND TAKES THAT BURDEN OFF OF US AS SUPPORTING THEM OVERALL.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS.

THIS WAS GREATLY NEEDED.

>> ABSOLUTELY, SIR.

>> IS EVERYBODY ON BOARD WITH THIS? THANK YOU. GOT YOUR DIRECTION.

>> PERFECT. THANK YOU ALL. APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 4B,

[4.B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the budget calendar, tax rate, capital improvement program, and 5-year forecast for the General Fund, Water and Wastewater Fund, 4A Fund, 4B Fund (In combination with Golf and Park Performance Funds), and TIF2 Fund (Tax Increment Financing). (Staff Contact: Gloria Platt, Director of Finance)]

TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION, AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE BUDGET CALENDAR TAX RATE, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, AND FIVE-YEAR FORECAST FOR THE GENERAL FUND, THE WATER AND WASTEWATER FUND, 4A FUND, 4B, IN COMBINATION WITH GULF AND PARK PERFORMANCE FUNDS AND TIF2 FUND, TAX INCREMENT FINANCING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS MORNING IS GLORIA PLATT, DIRECTOR OF FINANCE. MS. PLATT.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM DOES HAVE SEVERAL PARTS.

AS WE SEE HERE, WE HAVE AN OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION.

AS MENTIONED, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE CALENDARS, THE TAX RATE AND BUDGET CALENDAR, THE DEBT ISSUANCE TIMELINE, WE'LL ALSO DISCUSS TAX RATE STRATEGIES, THE CIP UPDATE, AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH A FIVE-YEAR FORECAST OF THE MAJOR FUNDS, BEING THE GENERAL FUND, WATER AND WASTEWATER FUND, 4A AND 4B, AND THEN ALSO WITHIN 4B, THE PPF FUND OR PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND, THOSE DIVISIONS, AND THE GOLF FUND, AND THEN TIF2.

SOME TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION WITHIN THE PRESENTATION OR THE TAX RATE, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS UTILITY RATE STUDY UPDATE, AND THE OPERATING BUDGET FIVE-YEAR FORECAST.

PRESENTING ALONG WITH ME TODAY IS RANDY MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL ENGINEERING, AND SO HE WILL GO THROUGH THOSE CAPITAL UPDATES AS WELL.

WE DO WANT TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT, OF COURSE, THE CIP HAS BEEN SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL HAVE TALKED ABOUT EXTENSIVELY, AND AS WE RECOMMEND UPDATES, WHEN WE GET TO THE FIVE-YEAR FORECASTS OF THE FUNDS, OF COURSE, THESE ARE VERY PRELIMINARY.

WE'RE BEGINNING IN THE BEGINNING STAGES OF OUR BUDGETS, AND WE HAVE SOME ITEMS STILL THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS THROUGH THE SUMMER, AND WE WILL COME BACK TO YOU BASE SOMEWHAT OF YOUR GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION THAT WE RECEIVE TODAY, AND THEN ALSO AS WE RECEIVE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.

OF COURSE, ONE OF THOSE BIG ITEMS IS THE RE-APPRAISALS.

THEN WE ALSO WILL BE WORKING THROUGH OUR COST ALLOCATIONS, THE IT CONTRIBUTIONS, AND THEN SALARY SAVINGS, WE'LL BE WORKING THROUGH THAT AS WELL.

FIRST, WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT OUR BUDGET CALENDAR.

OF COURSE, TODAY, WE ARE MEETING WITH YOU ON THE ITEMS AS OUTLINED.

SOME OF THESE ARE THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS, AND THEN THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST OF THE MAJOR FUNDS AND CIP AND FEE SCHEDULES.

WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE DEBT SERVICE PLAN AND BUDGET SURVEY RESULTS AND TAX RATE AND CALENDAR.

NEXT, WE WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU ON JUNE 16TH.

WE WILL TALK FURTHER THERE ABOUT OUR DEBT ISSUANCE AND ASK YOU TO APPROVE OUR NOTICE OF INTENT.

THEN WE WILL ASK YOU ALSO TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION FOR THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE THE CALENDAR FOR THE ORDERLY ADOPTION OF THAT TAX RATE AND BUDGET.

WE'LL ALSO HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL ITEMS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY TAX CALENDAR AND ITEMS THAT, OF COURSE, SO WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH TAX LAW AS WE GO THROUGH THE PROCESS.

THEN WE WILL ALSO BRING, AT THAT TIME, THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST OF THE MINOR FUNDS.

WE CAN SPLIT THAT UP A LITTLE BIT.

THEN ALSO THE CALCULATION OF THOSE TAX RATES BY THE JOHNSON COUNTY TAX ASSESSOR.

ON JUNE 18TH, WE'LL HAVE A FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, AND THERE, CITY MANAGER WILL HAVE HIS RECOMMENDED SUPPLEMENTALS AND

[00:20:02]

SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS THAT WE CAN TALK THROUGH AND PROPOSE, AND REQUEST FEEDBACK AT THAT TIME, AND ADDITIONAL FEE SCHEDULE REVIEW.

THEN IN JULY 21ST, WE'LL BRING A LOT OF THOSE ITEMS BACK BEFORE COUNCIL IN ADDITION TO UPDATES TO THE COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT TOMMY WILL HAVE FOR THOSE AS WELL.

WE'LL ALSO BRING BEFORE YOU AT THAT TIME, A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO FINISH UP THE FISCAL YEAR 2025, ALONG WITH THE PROPOSED ERF VEHICLE REPLACEMENTS.

THEN, OF COURSE, JULY 25TH IS A BIG DATE.

THAT'S WHEN WE RECEIVE OUR CERTIFIED TAX ROLLS FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICTS, AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO GET THOSE NUMBERS WORKED OUT IN OUR BUDGET.

AUGUST 4TH, CITY MANAGER WILL SUBMIT A COPY OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

THAT'S A DATE THAT IS REQUIRED IN THE LAW WITHIN CERTAIN DAYS OF ADOPTING THE BUDGET.

ON AUGUST 4TH, WE WILL DO THAT ALONG WITH SUBMITTING THOSE TAX RATES THAT THE ASSESSOR WILL CALCULATE ON THE FORM THAT IS REQUIRED, AND WE WILL POST THOSE NOTICES.

WE'LL BRING BACK THAT INFORMATION BEFORE THE FINANCE COMMITTEE SO THAT WE CAN GO THROUGH THOSE TNT CALCULATIONS OF THE TAX RATES AND ALSO GO THROUGH THE CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED BUDGET PRESENTATION AT THAT TIME ON AUGUST 6TH.

ON AUGUST 11TH, WE HAVE A BUDGET WORK SESSION WHERE WE WILL TALK THROUGH WITH THE REST OF COUNCIL AS WELL AND BRING BACK THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

SOME OF THESE OTHERS ARE INTERNAL DEADLINES THAT WE WANT TO BE SURE THAT WE ARE VERIFYING AND WORKING THROUGH INTERNALLY ACCORDING TO THE LAW.

THEN ON AUGUST 18TH, WE'LL BRING BACK TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING.

ADDITIONALLY, ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, WE HAVE ON THE CALENDAR A SPECIAL MEETING IN THE EVENING.

THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FIRST READING OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET AND TAX RATE, ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT ARE RELATED.

THIS DATE IS NOT ON YOUR CURRENT CALENDAR, AND SO WE'RE ASKING COUNCIL FOR FEEDBACK.

BUT THIS WAS AS WE WORKED THROUGH WITH MATT RIBITZKI, THIS WAS RECOMMENDED BECAUSE OF THE DEADLINES IN THE TAX LAW AND THE NUMBER OF DAYS REQUIRED BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE DEADLINES.

WE WILL BE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK AND IF WE ARE ABLE TO ADD THAT DATE TO THE CALENDAR, AND THAT WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ADD IT, WE WON'T BE CHANGING ANY OTHER MEETING DATES.

THEN ON SEPTEMBER 15TH, THIS IS A SCHEDULED REGULAR MEETING FOR THAT SECOND READING OF THE ORDINANCES, ADOPTION OF THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE, AND RELATED ITEMS. OF COURSE, POSTING ALL OF THOSE ITEMS TO WEBSITE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS.

THIS TIME, WE DO WANT TO ASK FOR YOUR FEEDBACK ON ADDING THE SPECIAL MEETING THAT WOULD BE AN EVENING MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COMPLY WITH THOSE DEADLINES IN THE LAW. THANK YOU.

>> EVERYBODY GOOD?

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> WOW.

>> THE NEXT PART THAT WE'LL TALK THROUGH IS THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE AND CALENDAR.

THIS PORTION OF THE PRESENTATION, WE HAVE TALKED WITH THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS WELL, AND SO WE WILL INCLUDE THEIR RECOMMENDATION.

JUST SOME REMINDERS HERE.

THE ANNUAL BUDGET AND TAX RATE ARE FILLED WITH NUMEROUS NOTICE PERIODS AND DEADLINES THAT, OF COURSE, WE HAVE TO HAVE A CALENDAR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COMPLY WITH ALL OF THESE.

THEN IF A CITY COUNCIL OF A MUNICIPALITY WITH A CITY OVER 30,000 VOTES TO ADOPT A TAX RATE THAT EXCEEDS THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF 3.5%, THEN WE'RE REQUIRED TO CALL AN ELECTION AT THAT NOVEMBER UNIFORM ELECTION DATE.

THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE HAS NUMEROUS LEGAL REQUIREMENTS AND DEADLINES WHEN CALLING AN ELECTION DATE.

THE CALENDAR WHEN ADOPTING A TAX RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, AND THEN THE CALENDAR WHEN ADOPTING A TAX RATE THAT DOES EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE WILL LOOK VERY DIFFERENTLY.

ADOPTING A TAX RATE THAT DOES EXCEED REALLY PUSHES UP MANY OF OUR DEADLINES.

AS WE LOOK AT THIS NEXT SLIDE, WE CAN COMPARE.

YOU CAN SEE THAT IF WE WERE TRYING TO ADOPT A RATE THAT EXCEEDED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WE WOULD NEED TO FILE THE PROPOSED BUDGET ON JULY 19TH, AND THIS IS ACTUALLY BEFORE WE RECEIVE OUR CERTIFIED TAX ROLLS.

IT REALLY MAKES IT DIFFICULT.

[00:25:01]

THEN AS WELL, WE WOULD BE ADOPTING OUR BUDGET AND TAX RATE BY AUGUST 18TH.

NOW, ON THE RIGHT SIDE ARE THE DATES FOR IF WE ADOPT A CALENDAR FOR A TAX RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

THIS IS HOW WE DO HAVE THIS OUTLINED IN THE CALENDAR NOW.

THIS WAS A ITEM THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MAY 7TH, AND THEY RECOMMENDED TO ADOPT A RATE OR TO ASSUME THE CALENDAR THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

WE WILL ASK FOR YOUR FEEDBACK, AGAIN, AT THIS TIME TO HEAR ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS REGARDING ADOPTING A CALENDAR WITH A TAX RATE BELOW THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE. SORRY ABOUT THAT.

>> I THINK MY PROBLEM, AND I SAW A COUPLE OF OTHER FACES AT THE SAME TIME IS THAT HOW DO WE GO AND ASK FOR MORE FUNDS WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR TAX ROLLS LOOK LIKE?

>> WE WILL GO THROUGH, AND WE CAN PUT A PAUSE ON THIS DISCUSSION AS WE GO THROUGH THE NEXT PORTION BECAUSE I THINK IT EXPLAINS IT MAYBE A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND WE'LL PREPARE YOU A LITTLE BIT BETTER TO GIVE US THAT GUIDANCE.

>> GLORIA, IF YOU WOULD, THOUGH, TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHEN WE RECEIVE THE CERTIFIED ROLLS AS OPPOSED TO WHEN WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY FILE THE BUDGET.

>> WE RECEIVE THOSE CERTIFIED ROLLS ON JULY 25TH.

IF WE WERE TO ADOPT A RATE THAT EXCEEDED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, AND OF COURSE, WE'LL GET MORE INTO EXACTLY WHAT THOSE RATES ARE JUST AS REMINDERS.

BUT THAT'S THE RATE THAT IF WE ARE TO EXCEED THAT RATE, WOULD REQUIRE CALLING AN ELECTION AT THE NOVEMBER ELECTION.

WE WOULD HAVE TO FILE THAT PROPOSED BUDGET BEFORE WE EVEN GET THOSE CERTIFIED NUMBERS THERE ON JULY 19TH, IN ORDER TO ADOPT OUR BUDGET BY AUGUST 18TH BECAUSE THE LAW DOES STATE THAT WE HAVE TO ADOPT THE BUDGET AND TAX RATE, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE 78 DAYS BEFORE THAT NOVEMBER ELECTION.

DOES THAT HELP? [LAUGHTER] AS WE GO IN TO TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT TAX RATE STRATEGIES, THIS DOES GIVE A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND ON THE RATES, AND WE CAN COME BACK TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK AS WELL THERE.

IN GENERAL, WITH THE TAX RATE, THE CITY HAS REDUCED THE TAX RATE OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS BY 7.73 CENTS, WHILE IN RECENT YEARS, EVEN UTILIZING THE 3.5% VOTER APPROVAL RATE AND USING THE UNUSED INCREMENT LAST YEAR.

THE CITY HAS IMPLEMENTED THE FIRST HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION IN RECENT YEARS TO EASE THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON HOMEOWNERS.

ASSESSED VALUES HAVE HISTORICALLY INCREASED EACH YEAR BY AN AVERAGE OF 9% OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS.

WE'LL GET INTO IT A LITTLE FURTHER, BUT AS THESE ASSESSED VALUES INCREASE, THAT DOES PUSH THAT NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE DOWN.

WE'LL TALK THROUGH THAT A LITTLE MORE DETAIL IN JUST A FEW MINUTES.

ALSO, TARRANT AND JOHNSON COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICTS HAVE MODIFIED THEIR REAPPRAISAL PLANS AND WILL NO LONGER APPRAISE PROPERTY VALUES ANNUALLY.

DUE TO THIS REAPPRAISAL PLAN, THIS WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE CITY SERVICES, RESIDENCES, AND BUSINESSES.

THE CITY HAS PROJECTED A DECREASE TO THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST OF APPROXIMATELY $15 MILLION.

THE PRELIMINARY VALUES WERE PROVIDED ON APRIL 30TH, 2025 AND CERTIFIED NUMBERS, AGAIN, ARE EXPECTED JULY 25TH, 2025.

WHEN WE FIRST TALKED ABOUT THIS, WE THOUGHT ONE GOOD THING ABOUT IT IS IT MIGHT BE EASY BECAUSE IF THEY WEREN'T GOING TO ASSESS NEW VALUES, THEN IT WOULD JUST BE NEW VALUES.

HOWEVER, AS YOU KNOW, WE RECEIVED LARGE PROJECTIONS OF PROTEST WITH THOSE PRELIMINARY VALUES.

THIS CHART DOES SPEAK FOR THE 10-YEAR ASSESSED GROWTH VALUE.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S AROUND 9% OVER THE LAST 10 YEARS OF THAT INCREASE.

THEN, AGAIN, WE HAVE ADJUSTED OUR PROJECTIONS.

PREVIOUSLY, WE PROJECTED AN ASSUMPTION OF 5.5% INCREASE EACH YEAR IN THAT GROWTH BEING CONSERVATIVE.

NOW, WE HAVE ADJUSTED THAT BASED ON THE CHART THAT YOU SEE, 2%, 1%, 4, 4, AND 2.

[00:30:02]

OF COURSE, WE WILL SEE MORE.

THIS IS OUR FIRST YEAR IN DEALING WITH THIS, AND AS WE WORK THROUGH IT, WE'LL HAVE MORE INFORMATION.

BUT IT DOES SHOW THE CHANGE IN THE REVENUE PROJECTIONS OVER TO THE RIGHT, AS MENTIONED APPROXIMATELY 15 MILLION OVER FIVE YEARS.

THIS CHART SHOWS THE TAX RATE HISTORY OVER THE 10 YEARS PERIOD, AS MENTIONED, AND THE DECREASE THAT BURLESON HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE TO THE CITIZENS.

HERE WE TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE TERMINOLOGY.

THIS WILL HELP YOU AS YOU THINK THROUGH THESE RATES AND WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR FEEDBACK TODAY.

JUST AS A REMINDER, WE SEE THIS ONCE A YEAR.

THE NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE IS THE TAX RATE THAT WOULD RAISE THE SAME AMOUNT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FOR THE CITY FROM THE SAME PROPERTIES AS THE PRECEDING YEAR.

THE FORMULA IS SHOWN THERE, LAST YEAR'S LEVY MINUS LOST PROPERTY VALUE DIVIDED BY CURRENT TOTAL VALUE MINUS NEW PROPERTY VALUE.

THE NEW PROPERTY VALUE IS TAKEN OUT OF THAT CALCULATION, AND THAT EQUALS THE NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE.

BASICALLY, WE'RE TRYING TO GET TO THE RATE THAT WILL PROVIDE THE SAME REVENUE AS THOSE SAME PROPERTIES IN THE PRIOR YEAR.

THE RELATIONSHIP HERE IS IF THE VALUES INCREASE, WHICH THIS HAS BEEN THE TREND IN THE LAST 10 YEARS OR POSSIBLY MORE.

BUT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, WE SEE THAT THIS PUSHES THE NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE DOWN.

THEN ACCORDINGLY, IF THOSE VALUES WERE TO DECREASE, THEN THIS WOULD PUSH THAT NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE UP, AND SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY INCREASE.

OF COURSE, IF THE VALUES ARE FLAT, THEN THAT NO REVENUE RATE WILL BE FLAT AS WELL.

THEN WE HAVE THE DEBT RATE, AND THE DEBT RATE IS REALLY THE VALUE THAT WE'LL PAY FOR OUR CURRENT DEBT MODEL.

IT'S CURRENT DEBT SERVICE MINUS ANY EXCESS COLLECTIONS DIVIDED BY THE CURRENT TOTAL VALUE AND TIMES THAT COLLECTION RATE COLLECTED, AND THAT EQUALS OUR CURRENT DEBT RATE.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, WE ADD THESE RATES TOGETHER, THAT NO-NEW-REVENUE RATE, AND WE CAN ADD TO THAT TO GET TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF 3.5%.

THEN WE ADD TO THAT THE CURRENT DEBT RATE AND ANY INCREMENT RATE FROM PRIOR YEARS IF WE DID NOT GO UP TO THAT FULL VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE RATES BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD ON THESE OTHER SLIDES?

>> THEN THIS IS A TAX RATE COMPARATIVE SLIDE.

THIS SHOWS THE OTHER CITIES IN OUR AREA.

AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE RIGHT UNDER FORT WORTH THERE.

BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT MANY OF THESE CITIES ARE IN THE SAME PREDICAMENT THAT WE ARE IN TARRANT COUNTY AND JOHNSON COUNTY WITH THIS REAPPRAISAL PLAN.

SOME HAVE STATED THAT THEY WILL POSSIBLY RAISE THE RATES.

OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW THAT FOR SURE UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY TAKE THAT ACTION.

BUT WE WANTED YOU TO SEE THIS COMPARISON.

IN TALKING THROUGH SOME ITEMS FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WE WANTED THE COUNCIL TO BE AWARE OF, CITY MANAGEMENT HAS DIRECTED STAFF AS WE WORK THROUGH THE BUDGETS TO PROPOSE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR BUDGET REDUCTIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE REAPPRAISAL PLAN.

CITY STAFF HAVE ALSO PRESENTED REVISIONS TO THE CIP IN RESPONSE TO THE REAPPRAISAL PLAN.

THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AND TO FUND THE CURRENT CIP, AN INCREASE TO THE CURRENT DEBT RATE WOULD BE REQUIRED OF AN ADDITIONAL 5.47 CENTS.

THE FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO PROCEED WITH THE CURRENT CIP PLAN AND TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS.

TO RESPOND TO FLAT EXISTING VALUES, THE COUNCIL RESERVES THE OPTION TO INCREASE THE TAX RATE UP TO 3.5% ABOVE THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THIS COULD RESULT IN AN INCREASE TO THE M&O RATE.

AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THAT RELATIONSHIP, IF THOSE VALUES WERE TO DECREASE, THAT WOULD PUSH THAT RATE UP TO ACCOMMODATE THE CITY IN COLLECTING THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR THE PRIOR YEAR.

>> GLORIA?

>> YES.

>> GO BACK TO YOUR TAX RATE CHART.

NOW, THE WRONG DIRECTION.

>> I'M SORRY.

>> I JUST WANT THE RATE BY CITY. THAT RIGHT THERE.

[00:35:05]

WE'RE DEALING WITH FEES.

IS THERE ANY WAY YOU CAN FIGURE OUT THESE TOWNS AND THE FEES THEY HAVE?

>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO LATER IN THE BUDGET PROCESS IS WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PROPOSED FEES AND OVERALL TOTAL INCREASES, WE'LL PRESENT THAT AS PART OF THE BUDGET.

WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO DISCUSS THOSE TODAY, BUT THAT IS PLANNED AS PART OF THE BUDGET PROCESS.

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND THE REVENUE STREAM, OTHER TOWNS HAVE DROPPED THEIR RATES, TOO, AND I'M WONDERING IF IT WAS A CAUSE OF THE FEES.

THAT'S THE INFORMATION I'D GO TO HAVE. YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> BASICALLY, IS IT SKEWED BECAUSE THEIR TAX RATE LOOKS LOWER, BUT ARE THEY CHARGING MORE FEES TO OFFSET? YEAH. IS IT A SKEWED NUMBER, THIS IS THE VARIABLE COMPARATIVE BASICALLY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER THINGS THEY'RE CHARGING.

WE DO WANT TO PAUSE FOR A FEW MINUTES AND TALK THROUGH ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT THE COUNCIL DOES HAVE ON ANY OF THESE ITEMS, AS WELL AS THE RECOMMENDATION TO AS MENTIONED BEFORE, TO ADOPT A CALENDAR, AS RECOMMENDED BY THE FINANCE COMMITTEE FOR A RATE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE.

>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, ONE THING THAT I WANT TO MAKE CLEAR, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH OPTIONS THAT WE PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE IN TERMS OF HOW WE COULD REVISE THE CIP TO STAY WITHIN THE CURRENT DEBT RATE.

THAT 5.47 CENTS THAT WE PROPOSED AS WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO FUND THE EXISTING CAPITAL PLAN TODAY IS BASED ON TODAY'S TAX RATE.

THAT NUMBER COULD CHANGE DEPENDING ON WHAT FINAL APPRAISALS COME BACK.

I WANT TO MAKE THAT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT'S ON TODAY'S RATE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS WE MAY ULTIMATELY HAVE TO CIRCLE BACK TO.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT A LOT OF THE STUFF IS TIED TOGETHER.

WE CAN CIRCLE BACK AT THE END AND ASK FOR FEEDBACK.

WE UNDERSTAND YOU MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE FEEDBACK ON THE HOMESTEAD COMPONENT OF THIS NOW.

>> YES. THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, THIS WAS TO GO INTO EFFECT FOR THIS NEXT YEAR, THIS INCREASE.

SO AS ONE OF THE STRATEGIES IT WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THE OPTION OF CHANGING THAT BEFORE THAT DEADLINE OF JULY 1ST TO EITHER KEEP IT FLAT OR EVEN REDUCE.

HOWEVER, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO CONTINUE AS PLANNED WITH THAT HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION PLAN.

>> I WOULD COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE ONCE WE'VE GIVEN IT, IT'D BE REALLY AGAINST US TO TAKE IT BACK.

>> WE ABSOLUTELY UNDERSTOOD.

WE WANT TO MAKE ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT COUNCIL IS FULLY AWARE OF ALL THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE AVAILABLE.

>> NOW WE CAN SWITCH TO THE CIP UPDATE, AS MENTIONED.

WE CAN TALK THROUGH SOME OF THE OPTIONS HERE.

RANDY MORRISON WITH CAPITAL ENGINEERING IS GOING TO PRESENT THIS PART.

>> GOOD MORNING, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL.

I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT CIP FIRST.

THIS FIRST SLIDE SHOWS THE CURRENT CIP THAT'S BEEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

THIS WAS LAST ADOPTED BY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.

THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL CIP.

BUT THIS ALSO INCLUDES SOME RECENT ADDITIONS.

THOSE ADDITIONS ARE AN INCREASE TO THE POLICE HEADQUARTER EXPANSION PROJECT BUDGET.

THAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL WITH RECOMMENDATIONS PROVIDED ON FEBRUARY 17TH BY COUNCIL OF 2025.

THEN ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2025, COUNCIL ALSO PROVIDED A RECOMMENDATION TO INCLUDE THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU SEE THERE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE CIP.

THIS IS THE CURRENT CIP AS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL WITH THOSE TWO ADDITIONAL ITEMS. ALSO, I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT WE DO PLAN ON BRINGING BACK THIS REVISED CIP WITH THOSE ADDITIONS, AS WELL AS ANY OTHER UPDATES THAT ARE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY ON JUNE 16TH, SO WE WILL PRESENT THIS REVISED CIP FOR AN ADDITIONAL ADOPTION.

THEN LAST, I WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS SLIDE,

[00:40:02]

YOU'LL NOTICE THE ASTERISK ON THE AMBULANCE ITEMS. THERE'S TWO LINE ITEMS THERE FOR THE NEW AMBULANCES.

THESE ARE SHOWN AS THEIR ACTUAL COSTS ON THE CIP, BUT WHEN COMPARING IT TO THE DEBT CAPACITY THAT WE HAVE, IT'S REALLY A THREE TO ONE BECAUSE OF THE SERVICE LIFE OF THE AMBULANCES, THEY DON'T HAVE A 20 YEAR DEBT SERVICE LIKE THE REST OF THE LINE ITEMS. AS PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, IT'S REALLY GOING TO TAKE A FIVE-AND-A-HALF CENT TAX OR AN ESTIMATED AT FIVE-AND-A-HALF CENT TAX INCREASE IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING OR CURRENT CIP WITH ALL OF THE PROJECTS.

THE NEXT FEW SLIDES, I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH WHAT THE CIP WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE MAINTAIN THE CURRENT TAX RATE.

YOU'LL NOTICE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RED MODIFICATIONS HERE ON THIS VERSION.

WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE PROJECTS AND ALL THE PROJECTS THAT WERE EITHER IN CONSTRUCTION OR SET TO GO TO BID OR LET WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.

WE LOOKED AT SHIFTING THOSE OTHER PROJECTS.

YOU'LL NOTICE A LOT OF THE GO BOND PROJECTS SHIFTED, MOST OF THEM TO BEYOND THE YEAR 2030 ON THIS PROPOSAL.

ESSENTIALLY, THE GO BOND PROGRAM WOULD EXTEND BEYOND 2030 AND MORE THAN LIKELY EVEN TO 2035 BEFORE WE'RE COMPLETE WITH THAT PROGRAM IN THIS SCENARIO.

ALSO, THIS RED LINE VERSION STILL MAINTAINS THE POLICE EXPANSION OR POLICE HEADQUARTER EXPANSION PROJECT INCREASES AND THE EQUIPMENT THAT WAS ADDED TO THE CIP.

LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT IS FOR HULEN, THE HULEN STREET WIDENING PROJECT, YOU'LL SEE THAT ONE STRUCK OUT ON THIS VERSION.

HULEN STREET WIDENING IS A 4A ELIGIBLE PROJECT.

IN THIS PROPOSAL, AS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE PROPOSE MOVING HULEN TO THE 4A SIDE OF THE CIP.

I'LL WALK THROUGH THAT WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE 4A ITEMS. THIS IS A CLEAN UP VERSION OF WHAT I JUST SHOWED WITH ALL THE CHANGES.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A MUCH SHORTER VERSION OF THE CIP.

THIS IS A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WERE MOVED TO BEYOND 2030 WITH THOSE REVISIONS.

YOU'LL NOTICE HERE, SEVERAL OF THE GO BOND PROJECTS MOVED TO BEYOND 2030 BEFORE WE CAN EVEN START THEM.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET REBUILD PROGRAM HAS 1.5 MILLION LEFT IN THE GO BOND COMMITMENT.

BUT THERE WAS ANOTHER FIVE MILLION DOLLARS THAT WAS IN THE CURRENT CIP THAT WAS REMOVED TO MEETING THE CURRENT TAX RATE.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, THIS IS REALLY THE EXISTING PROJECTS.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEW PROJECTS THAT HAVE ALREADY COME UP OR WILL COME UP IN THE FUTURE THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO FUND WITH MAINTAINING THE CURRENT TAX RATE.

AS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE ON MAY 7TH, IT WOULD REQUIRE AN ESTIMATED FIVE-A-HALF CENT TAX INCREASE, AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO MAINTAIN THE CIP FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND THEN ALSO KEEP HULEN AS A GO/CO BOND FUNDED PROJECT.

I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, THE REVISED CIP WITH AN INCREASED TAX RATE AND MAINTAINING THE CURRENT PROJECTS.

YOU'LL NOTICE THERE'S STILL SOME RED AND GREEN ON THIS RED LINE VERSION.

THERE'S SOME MODIFICATIONS, AND MOST OF THAT IS TO JUST FLATTEN OUT THE DEBT SERVICING TO MATCH THOSE PROJECTIONS WERE WITH THAT 5.5 CENT INCREASE.

YOU'LL NOTICE THE POLICE HEADQUARTER SHIFTS OUT SLIGHTLY, THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET REBUILD PROGRAM SHIFTS OUT TO 2029 FOR SOME OF THAT ALLOCATION.

THEN FIRE STATION 4 IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST SHIFT MOVING TO 2028 FOR DESIGN AND 2030 FOR CONSTRUCTION.

ALSO, WITH THIS REVISED VERSION, WE CONTINUED THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR ALLOCATION FOR ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT REHAB INTO 2030.

YOU'LL SEE THERE THE ONLY 2030 ALLOCATIONS ARE FOR FIRE STATION 4 AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD STREET REHAB PROJECT.

>> HEY, RANDY, CAN I ASK, HOW DO WE EXTEND THE POLICE EXPANSION PROJECT INTO '27? DO WE HOLD OFF ON SOME PORTIONS OF IT? ISN'T THAT GOING TO POTENTIALLY WORK AGAINST US AND INCREASE THE COST EVEN MORE?

[00:45:01]

>> THIS SHIFT WOULD NOT IMPACT THE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY.

CONSTRUCTION WOULD PROGRESS.

BUT DUE TO THE SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION, WE FEEL COMFORTABLE BEING ABLE TO ISSUE THE DEBT FOLLOWING THOSE EXPENSES AND WHEN CONSTRUCTION WOULD OCCUR BECAUSE IT IS A MULTI-YEAR PROJECT.

>> I UNDERSTOOD THAT, BUT I JUST LIKE IF WE'RE PUSHING, LIKE IF THAT WAS A DECISION ON US OR CONSTRUCTION, BUT THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT THE SCHEDULE ALLOWS FOR THAT.

>> ESSENTIALLY, WE'D BE OPERATING UNDER REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION SO IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE GUARANTEE MAXIMUM PRICE OR THE SCHEDULE OF CONSTRUCTION.

IT JUST LEVELS OUT HOW WE PAY IT.

>> THEN LAST THING, YOU'LL NOTICE HULEN IS BACK ON THIS VERSION OF THE CIP.

THEN HERE'S A CLEANED UP VERSION OF THAT PREVIOUS RED LINE VERSION.

YOU'LL SEE ALL THE PROJECTS STILL REMAINING.

THEN I'M GOING TO TURN IT BACK OVER TO GLORIA TO TALK THROUGH THE FIVE YEAR FORECAST.

>> HEY, RANDY. DO WE HAVE A VERSION IF WE WENT WITH 3.5? DO WE HAVE A VERSION OF WHAT WE WOULD DO IF WE HAD A 3.5 INCREASE?

>> MAYOR, THAT'S ON THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION COMPONENT, SO THE INS PORTIONS SEPARATE.

YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO LEVERAGE ESSENTIALLY ANY AMOUNT OF DEBT TO PAY FOR THE CAPITAL PLAN THAT YOU ELECT TO CHOOSE, SO YOU WOULDN'T BE BOUND BY A 3.5% INCREASE ON THIS PORTION OF YOUR TAX RATE.

>> BASICALLY, THE M&O WILL GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR NORMAL OPERATIONS, AND THAT'LL BE YOUR 3.5%.

THE INS PAYS OFF THE BONDS INTEREST IN SINKING ON THE BONDS, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'LL GET YOUR 5.4 CENTS OR TOTAL OUT TO 2470.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

WHEN YOU'RE TALKING CIPS, YOU'RE GENERALLY TALKING THE INS.

>> MAYOR, IF YOU WANTED TO ADD ADDITIONAL PROJECTS ON TOP OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY SHOWN YOU, THE COUNCIL STILL RESERVES THE RIGHT TO DO THAT, AND YOU WOULDN'T BE BOUND BY A 3.5% CAP.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THE TAX RATE TO WHATEVER RATE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THE PROJECTS THAT YOU ELECT TO INCLUDE.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

>> THE TOUCH INS PART OF THE TAX RATE SINCE.

WHAT'S THE HISTORY ON THAT?

>> I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK.

I KNOW WE'VE GONE DOWN ON THAT RATE.

I THINK IT DIP BACK UP AT A LITTLE.

I'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE ACTUAL HISTORY, BUT IT HAS GONE DOWN OVER TIME.

>> IT HAS.

>> IT MAY HAVE BEEN BROKEN UP ON THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE.

LET ME GO BACK. I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT THE ONLY WHERE IT IS BROKEN UP.

BUT IT HAS BEEN THE SAME AT LEAST THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I'M SORRY. IT HAS BEEN THE SAME FOR AT LEAST THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.

I THOUGHT MAYBE THIS SLIDE BROKE IT UP, BUT I'M SORRY IT DOES NOT.

>> WE'LL PROVIDE THAT TO YOU GUYS, THOUGH.

>> LET ME SEE. LET'S GET OVER TO THE BACK WHERE WE WERE.

THE FIVE YEAR FORECAST OF THE GENERAL FUND, AGAIN, COURSES PRELIMINARY BASED ON INFORMATION THAT WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

WE DO HAVE INCLUDED THE 2% ASSUMPTION FOR PROPERTY TAXES FOR NEXT YEAR, BASED ON THE REAPPRAISAL PLAN, UPDATED ASSUMPTIONS.

THE SALES TAX REVENUE, THE ASSUMPTION IS LEFT AT 3% THIS YEAR.

LAST MONTH, WE WERE TRENDING AT 4% INCREASE.

THIS MONTH, THE REPORT HAS NOT GONE OUT YET FOR FOR APRIL, BUT IT'S LOOKING AROUND 3%.

OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW HOW WE WILL FINISH THE YEAR AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

BUT NOW WE'VE LEFT THOSE ASSUMPTIONS AT A 3% INCREASE EACH YEAR.

THEN IN OTHER REVENUES, WE DID DECREASE IN A FEW AREAS FOR NEXT YEAR, AREAS OF DECLINING REVENUE TRENDS SUCH AS PERMITS HAVE BEEN LOWER.

ALSO FINES AND MUNICIPAL COURT HAVE REDUCED AS WELL.

WE HAVE MADE THOSE UPDATES IN NEXT YEAR SO THAT WE'RE CONSERVATIVE IN THOSE FIGURES.

ADDITIONALLY, IN EXPENDITURES, PERSONNEL, WE DID INCLUDE A 3% INCREASE TO PERSONNEL AND A 5% INCREASE TO BENEFITS.

THEN ON OTHER EXPENSES IN THE FUND, WE DID HAVE UTILITIES AND INSURANCE EACH WITH A 5% INCREASE.

[00:50:01]

WE HAVE RECEIVED OUR UPDATED RATES FROM TML, JUST VERY RECENTLY, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THOSE INCREASES WORKED THROUGH AS WELL.

ADDITIONALLY INCENTIVES.

THESE ARE BASED ON THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE FOR THOSE.

THEN, AS YOU'LL SEE THOSE CASH FUNDING PROJECTS, WE DID AWAY WITH THAT AND THE LAST YEAR FOR THAT WAS IN 23 24.

WE DO HAVE 1.5 MILLION, AS YOU'LL SEE ACROSS THE BOTTOM.

THAT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT WORKED THROUGH SOME OF THOSE AREAS WITH SALARY SAVINGS AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE HAVE NOT PUT INTO THE BUDGET YET.

YOU'LL SEE THAT THE CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE.

FOR 2026 RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE PROJECTED AT APPROXIMATELY HALF A MILLION DOLLARS, AND THEN THE YEARS GOING FORWARD, WE HAVE A DECREASE IN THAT NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE OF A LITTLE OVER A MILLION AND GOING FORWARD.

WE ARE STILL MEETING OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR FUND BALANCE, AS YOU CAN SEE DOWN THERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE.

>> THE MAYOR COUNCIL, A HANDFUL OF THINGS THAT I WANT TO DISCUSS HERE.

ONE, IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR BASE EXPENSES FOR '25 '26, YOU CAN SEE WE'RE REDUCING THOSE DOWN, THAT'S THROUGH THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH IN OUR LINE ITEM BUDGETING AS WE GO THROUGH AND HAVE THE DEPARTMENTS PRESENT THEIR BUDGETS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

THOSE ARE A MIX OF DEPARTMENTAL REDUCTIONS AS WELL AS REDUCTIONS IDENTIFIED BY MYSELF AND CMO.

THE RED LINE BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS TO GLORIA'S POINT, THERE ARE STILL SOME THINGS IN OUR FIVE YEAR FORECAST THAT I THINK THAT WILL WORK IN OUR FAVOR.

WE HAVEN'T INCLUDED OUR SALARY SAVINGS PROJECTIONS EVERY YEAR THAT'S ESSENTIALLY OUR ATTRITION RATE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE 100% PEOPLE WORKING ALL THE TIME.

HOWEVER, AS SHE'S ALSO ALLUDED, WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH INDIRECT COST ALLOCATIONS, WHICH COULD ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY CHANGE THIS FORECAST AS WELL AS OUR INTERNAL SERVICE FUND CONTRIBUTIONS TO ESF, ERF, IT.

SOME OF THOSE ITEMS WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH.

THE BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS REALLY ARE INTENDED TO BE ADDITIONAL CUTS THAT I ANTICIPATE WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE IN ORDER TO MEET THE FUND BALANCE OVER FIVE YEARS.

DEPARTMENTS HAVE ALSO SUBMITTED SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTION ITEMS THAT OVER THE COMING WEEKS, I'LL BE REVIEWING AND RECOMMENDING.

I WILL SAY, THE BUDGET CUTS THAT WE PRODUCE IN BASE EXPENDITURES, I DON'T THINK ARE INCREDIBLY IMPACTFUL FOR OVERALL SERVICE DELIVERY.

THE $1.5 MILLION ADJUSTMENTS WILL BE THOSE THAT ARE GOING TO BE MORE IMPACTFUL TO SERVICE DELIVERY, AND THOSE WILL BE ITEMS THAT YOU SEE AND THAT I RANK, AND YOU'LL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN AND UNDERSTAND.

BUT ANOTHER COMPONENT OF THIS THAT I THINK IS CRITICAL.

THIS INCLUDES NO SUPPLEMENTALS.

THIS INCLUDES NO ADDITIONAL PERSONNEL.

ANY ADDITIONAL AD, WHAT WOULD BE A DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR INCREASE IN REDUCTION OR SOME NEW REVENUE? IF FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AMBULANCE FOR PARAMEDICS.

THAT WOULD BE IF YOU FULLY STEPPED, THAT'D BE ABOUT $971,000.

IT'D BE $971,000 ON TOP OF THE 1.5 HERE. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> ADDITIONALLY, WE DID WANT TO DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO SOME OF THE REDUCTIONS THAT WERE MADE THAT TOMMY REFERRED TO BECAUSE THESE WERE EFFICIENCIES, BASICALLY AREAS THAT WE FOUND THAT WE COULD BE MORE EFFICIENT IN.

SOME OF THESE WE'VE TALKED THROUGH WITH COUNCIL IN THE PAST MEETINGS EVEN AS FAR BACK AS LAST BUDGET.

FOR EXAMPLE, THE CREDIT CARD FEES THAT WERE PASSED OFF TO THE CUSTOMER.

THAT WAS A DECISION THAT COUNCIL MADE LAST YEAR WITH THE BUDGET.

WE WEREN'T ABLE TO SEE WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THAT TIME EXACTLY WHAT EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE ON THE BUDGET, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THAT DURING THIS YEAR AS WE GO THROUGH THE YEAR.

THAT IS AN AREA THAT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND SAVINGS IN FOR NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET.

ADDITIONALLY, THE MANSFIELD JAIL CONTRACT HAS BEEN RENEGOTIATING OR THEY'RE WORKING ON THE RENEGOTIATION OF THAT, AND THAT WILL PROVIDE CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS AS WELL.

ALSO THERE WERE SOME AREAS WITH SOFTWARE.

AS WE WENT THROUGH WITH IT AND THE DEPARTMENTS, VARIOUS SOFTWARES TO MAKE SURE THERE WEREN'T REDUNDANCIES OR SOFTWARES PROVIDING THE SAME PURPOSE OR MAYBE ITEMS THAT WERE BEING BUDGETED IN BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AND PARTIALLY IN IT.

WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE SOME UPDATES THERE.

THEN THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS AS WELL.

AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH WITH COUNCIL WITH THE UPDATE OF THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS.

THEN THE CAD PROJECT,

[00:55:02]

AS JAMES TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THAT'S ANOTHER AREA WHERE WE ARE LOOKING AT SOME SAVINGS TO IMPLEMENT IN TO THE BUDGET.

>> ONE THING THAT I DO ALSO WANT TO ADD THAT WE SPOKE AT A HIGH LEVEL IN JAMES' PRESENTATION, NOT TODAY, BUT IN THE PAST, IS THAT JOHNSON COUNTY RADIO NETWORK IS ABOUT SEVEN MILLION DOLLARS WORTH OF IMPROVEMENTS THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INCREASE OUR CONTRIBUTION AS A RESULT FOR OUR PROPORTIONATE SHARE, ABOUT $250,000 A YEAR.

THOSE NUMBERS ARE REFLECTED IN OUR BASE EXPENDITURES NOW, AS WELL.

WHILE WE'VE BEEN MAKING REDUCTIONS, WE STILL SEE INCREASES THAT WE'RE HAVING TO ACCOMMODATE FOR.

BUT THAT IS REFLECTED IN THESE NUMBERS, AND I WANT TO BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT THAT.

>> THIS IS BASED ON THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

THESE ASSUMPTIONS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, [OVERLAPPING] THE 214-21-2442 US NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO THE M&O RATE?

>> CORRECT.

>> IF WE DID MAKE A CHANGE, IT WOULD REDUCE WHAT BE BENEFICIAL TO IT.

>> IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL NOW, TO YOUR POINT, IF WE GET NUMBERS THAT INDICATE THAT PROTESTS ARE GOING TO CHANGE OUR ASSUMPTIONS IN SOME WAY, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND MODIFY OUR REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS AS A RESULT.

WE HAVE NOT DONE THAT AT THIS TIME.

>> SORRY, I DIDN'T ASK THIS QUESTION, IT WAS MORE OF A CLARIFICATION FOR EVERYBODY, BUT THOSE GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS ARE BASED ON BASICALLY ZERO GROWTH FOR EXISTING HOMES IN THE ONE AND TWO ARE NEW CONSTRUCTION.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. WE'RE ANTICIPATING AN ADDITIONAL DECREASE IN NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN OUR ASSUMED REVENUES, DYLAN AND TONY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AND PREPARING THOSE ASSUMPTIONS.

THAT'S WHY YOU SEE A TWO AND THEN A ONE.

A FOUR POP BACK UP WHEN WE SEE THE RE-APPRAISALS HAPPEN AGAIN.

ANYTHING OVER THAT 10% INCREMENT WOULD ROLL INTO THE FOLLOWING YEAR, WHICH IS WHY YOU SEE ANOTHER FOUR AND THEN BACK DOWN TO TWO.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS HERE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? WE DO WITHIN THIS PRESENTATION, HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, AND THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE TALKED THROUGH A LITTLE BIT.

BUT JUST TO RECEIVE GUIDANCE AS WE CONTINUE THE BUDGET PROCESS.

HOW DOES COUNCIL FEEL HERE AS WE TALK ABOUT THE TAX RATE? DO WE WANT TO LOOK AT KEEPING IT RELATIVELY FLAT? IS THERE A GENERAL DESIRE TO INCREASE THIS TAX RATE TO MAINTAIN OR ENHANCE LEVELS OF SERVICE? ALSO, DOES THE COUNCIL PREFER THE BUDGET REDUCTIONS THAT MAY IMPACT SERVICE DELIVERY AS OPPOSED TO RAISING THE TAX RATE.

I'M GETTING FEEDBACK ON WHAT WOULD BE PREFERRED IN THIS AREA, WHETHER IT TO BE TO CUT SERVICE DELIVERY HERE, AS MENTIONED, OR POSSIBLY TO INCREASE THAT TAX RATE.

ADDITIONALLY, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE CIP, DOES COUNCIL PREFER FOR US TO PROCEED WITH A SCALED DOWN VERSION OF THE CIP OR EXPLORE A MIDDLE GROUND? THEN I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION THERE.

ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THESE ITEMS?

>> WELL, OVER THE PAST YEAR, THE CURRENT CIP HAS UNDERGONE A THOROUGH REVIEW BY MULTIPLE COMMITTEES, CITY STAFF, AND COUNCIL.

THE SELECTED PROJECTS THAT WERE ADDRESSED BY THE CITY ARE THE MOST CRITICAL NEEDS IN ENSURING THAT IT CONTINUED OPERATION, LONG TERM STABILITY.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN PULL OUT OF THE CIP.

THEREFORE, I SUGGEST, AND THIS IS MY OPINION, TO INCREASE THE INS RATE BY 5.4 CENTS, WHICH WILL BRING IT UP 20 470, INCREASE THE M&O RATE BY 3.5% ABOVE THE NNR, AND FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT WE PROMISED ON THE RATE HOMESTEAD, 5%.

THAT'S MY OPINION, LOOKING AT THE CIPS AND LOOKING FORWARD THROUGH THE PRESENTATION AT THIS POINT, IF YOU NEED THAT INFORMATION FOR A CALENDAR.

>> IT'S INCREDIBLY HELPFUL TO HEAR THAT FEEDBACK AS WE GO THROUGH AND HOW I WOULD PRESENT SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS AND OR INCREASES.

THAT FEEDBACK TODAY WILL HELP FORM FUTURE PRESENTATIONS AS WE PRESENT THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.

>> I'VE GOT TREMENDOUS CONFIDENCE IN OUR COMMITTEE,

[01:00:02]

SO I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH LARRY ON THIS.

>> I AGREE. AS COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT SAID, WE HAVE COMBED OVER THIS CIP NUMEROUS MEETINGS OVER THE LAST YEAR ALONE.

IT'S TO THE POINT OF CRITICAL ONLY.

THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT THERE'S JUST NO WAY OF PUSHING THEM OUT ANY FURTHER WHEN WE THINK ABOUT [INAUDIBLE] WIDENING AND INTERSECTIONS AND FIRE STATIONS.

THESE AREN'T THINGS THAT ARE FRIVOLOUS.

THEY'VE BEEN ON OUR RADAR.

WE'VE KNOWN THEY WERE COMING AND THEY'RE JUST TO THE POINT OF NOT BEING ABLE TO PUSH OUT ANY FURTHER.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN OPTION, BUT TO INCREASE OUR INS RATE TO COVER THESE AS TO THE CRITICAL STATUS.

I THINK THAT THAT'S JUST, WE'RE NOT I DON'T THINK OUR CITIZENS EXPECT THAT WE TAKE CARE OF THEM, THAT WE KEEP TRAFFIC MOVING, THAT WE PROVIDE PUBLIC SAFETY AT A CERTAIN LEVEL, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO DO OUR ABSOLUTE BEST TO KEEP THE STANDARD THAT WE HAVE SET FOR OURSELVES, AND WE KNOW, BASED ON MANY PRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE STILL BEHIND IN SOME OF THESE AREAS, THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD NOT DO THE STREET REBUILDS.

THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE ACCOMPLISHED THIS YEAR THUS FAR HAVE BEEN OVERWHELMINGLY APPRECIATED AND SUPPORTED, SO I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO STAY WITH THAT TREND.

IT'S NOT EASY.

THESE AREN'T DECISIONS THAT WE'RE TAKING LIGHTLY, BUT WE HAVE A JOB TO DO HERE IN SERVING OUR CITIZENS.

>> I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

WELL, WITH WHAT ALL OF YOU HAVE SAID.

WE'VE GONE THROUGH THIS AND GONE THROUGH THIS.

IT'S NOT BEEN TAKEN LIGHTLY.

NOBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT A TAX RATE INCREASE.

THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING WE WOKE UP AND SAID, LET'S JUST DO THIS.

BUT IN ORDER TO KEEP PROVIDING WHAT WE HAVE, THERE'S NO WAY AROUND NOT DOING IT.

>> IT'S NOT LIKE WITH ANY EXCESSIVE.

>> EXACTLY. WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE GREAT SERVICES THAT WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A SUPERIOR POLICE DEPARTMENT, A SUPERIOR FIRE DEPARTMENT, OUR MAINTENANCE AND SO ON.

THEIR TOP NOTCH, AND OUR CITIZENS HAVE COME TO EXPECT THAT AND APPRECIATE THAT.

THIS ISN'T THE FUN PART, BUT I THINK IT'S A NECESSITY.

>> I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD, IT'S EXTREMELY IMPORTANT ON THE COMMUNICATION SIDE WITH THE CITIZENS ABOUT WHY THINGS ARE THE WAY THEY ARE, AND WHAT PROJECTS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GOING FORWARD SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE GETTING THEIR MONEY'S WORTH.

>> YES. THEIR DOLLARS ARE AT WORK.

>> RIGHT.

>> DAN HAS MENTIONED THIS A NUMBER OF TIMES OVER THE YEARS THAT I'VE SERVED ALONGSIDE HIM OF, LIKE, FORT WORTH IS GOOD ABOUT PUTTING OUT THOSE GIANT SIGNS THAT SAY, THIS PROJECT IS TAKING PLACE WITH THESE FUNDS.

IT'S ALL ABOUT EDUCATION AND COMMUNICATION.

WE HAVE TO TELL CITIZENS WHAT THEY'RE GETTING FOR THEIR MONEY.

>> TRANSPARENCY.

>> UNLESS WE HAD THAT MEETING LAST WEEK AND WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL FEDERAL GRANTS AND THINGS, AND IF WE DO END UP GETTING SOME HELP ON THIS, THEN THINGS WILL FALL OFF THE CIP AND WE CAN START REDUCING THE I&S RATE BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING HELP IN OTHER AREAS.

>> OR MOVE UP PROJECTS THAT ARE EVEN FURTHER OUT THAT WE KNOW.

WE KNOW WE NEED TO GET TO CONTINUE MOVING TRAFFIC.

THERE ISN'T A SOUL IN THIS TOWN THAT LOVES TO SIT ON 174 AND ALL THE TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR THE LIGHT SIGNALS THAT ARE WOEFULLY UNDER SCALED LIKE HULEN AND 174.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT FEEDBACK.

CERTAINLY, HERE ON THE I&S SIDE, I KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT HAD MENTIONED M&O AS WELL, IS THAT THE GENERAL CONSENSUS FROM THE COUNCIL TO BEGIN PREPARING AS THOUGH THERE WOULD BE A 3.5% INCREASE ON THE M&O RATE?

>> YES.

>> AGAIN, I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE SERVICE LEVEL.

M&O IS HOW WE PAY FOR DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS.

I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT, AGAIN, THAT WE EDUCATE CITIZENS.

THAT M&O PIECE IS THE STAFF THAT IT TAKES TO MAKE ALL OF THESE JOBS COMPLETED AND THOROUGH.

WE HAVE TOP NOTCH STAFF, AND WE HAVE TO KEEP THINGS MOVING AND OUR CITIZENS EXPECT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUT ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT, THE M&O PIECE IS WHAT KEEPS OUR LIGHTS ON.

IT KEEPS THE SALARIES PAID.

I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY WAY WE COULD EXPLORE DOING LESS.

WE HAVE APPRECIATED AND RECOGNIZED THE CUTS THAT ARE BEING MADE, THE VACANCIES THAT IF THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF NOT FILLING,

[01:05:02]

WE'RE DOING EVERYTHING TO CONTAIN COST.

BUT THERE'S A CERTAIN ELEMENT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SERVICE LEVEL, AND WE STILL HAVE TO GET THINGS DONE IN THIS TOWN.

WE CAN'T JUST STOP.

>> THE ISSUE THAT I'VE GOT RIGHT NOW IS THE FACT THAT THIS DOESN'T EVEN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT OUR GROWTH.

WE NEED 18 MORE OFFICERS AND NOW WE HAVE OTHER CITIES TRYING TO TAKE THE ONES WE HAVE.

WE'VE GOT TO MAN THAT PAY ROLL AND GET MORE MONEY IF WE CAN BECAUSE IF WE JUST SET ON OUR HANDS, WE'RE JUST DIGGING OURSELF A DEEPER HOLE.

>> WHICH INEVITABLY COST US MORE MONEY.

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> YOU SAID 18 OFFICERS, WE NEED 23 FIREFIGHTERS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

WE'RE GROWING, AND OUR CITIZENS DESERVE AND EXPECT 911 TO ANSWER WHEN THEY CALL AND POLICE AND FIRE TO RESPOND, EMS, BUT NOT JUST THOSE, POTHOLES TO BE FILLED, AND WE'VE BEEN VERY FORTUNATE TO BE RESPONSIVE, AND WE WANT TO KEEP UP THAT RESPONSIVENESS, I THINK.

>> SOME WAY OR ANOTHER, WE HAVE TO GET OUT TO THE COMMUNITY AND EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON.

COMMUNICATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ISSUE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET THAT DONE.

ANYTIME Y'ALL GET A CHANCE TO TALK TO SOMEBODY, DO IT, Y'ALL ARE VERY CAPABLE OF DISCUSSING THIS, BUT ANYTIME WE GET A CHANCE TO GET AN AUDIENCE, WE NEED TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF IT.

MAYBE WE GET DIANNA ON THIS THING, SEE WHAT SHE HAS ON IDEAS.

>> WE GOT THAT, SIR.

>> WE'LL ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

THIS IS EXCELLENT FEEDBACK.

AS I SAID, AS WE'VE ALWAYS DONE IN THE PAST, WE'LL STILL PRESENT WAYS.

I'LL STILL PRESENT OPTIONS FOR SERVICE DELIVERY REDUCTIONS.

DO OUR SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTIONS, SO YOU SEE THEM, AND YOU CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION, AND THEN WHAT IT WOULD TAKE FOR A SUBSEQUENT REVENUE OFFSET TO EITHER NOT DO THOSE REDUCTIONS OR TO ENHANCE SERVICES BECAUSE WE'LL STILL PRESENT SUPPLEMENTAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE BUDGET AS WELL.

I DID HAVE THE DEPARTMENT SUBMIT THOSE.

I THINK IT'S CRITICAL TO DOCUMENT THEM.

I DON'T WANT TO HIDE THE NEEDS OF THE CITY FROM THE COUNCIL, SO WE'LL SHOW THAT TO YOU AS WELL.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE GOT THE FEEDBACK TOO, BUT THE HOMESTEAD WE PROMISED EVERYBODY LAST YEAR, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO THE FIVE, SO WE KEEP GOING WITH THE FIVE.

>> YES, SIR.

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS WOULD BE LIKE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE QUALITY OF STAFF THAT WE GOT RIGHT NOW, SO THANK YOU GUYS. APPRECIATE IT.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR FEEDBACK.

AS WE CONTINUE, WE WILL GO INTO THE WATER AND SEWER CIP UPDATE, AND RANDY, WE'LL PRESENT THIS AS WELL.

>> NOW I'M GOING TO WALK THROUGH THE WATER AND SEWER CIP PROPOSED UPDATES.

YOU'LL SEE HERE, THIS IS THE CURRENT CIP AS ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, THIS DOES INCLUDE 2024 ON HERE, EVEN THOUGH, WE'RE BEYOND 2024.

THAT IS APPLICABLE IN LATER SLIDES AS WE TALK THROUGH POTENTIAL RATE INCREASES OR WE LOOK AT THE RATES AND THE FORECAST.

BUT THIS INCLUDES ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDERWAY IN 2025.

WE ARE WORKING DILIGENTLY TO MOVE FORWARD A LOT OF THE LARGE PROJECTS, YOU'LL NOTICE INDUSTRIAL PUMP STATION EXPANSION.

THAT ONE'S GETTING READY TO GO OUT TO BID.

I'LL WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE UPDATES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR FY26.

YOU'LL NOTICE FOR THE WATER LINE AND SEWER LINE REHABS, THOSE ARE THE TOP LINE ON BOTH OF THE SECTIONS THERE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THOSE WITH A STANDARD ALLOCATION EVERY YEAR.

BECAUSE THESE PROJECTS TYPICALLY ARE MULTI YEAR PROJECTS, WE'LL DESIGN ONE YEAR, CONSTRUCT THE NEXT YEAR AND HAVING THAT CONSISTENT ALLOCATION WILL ALLOW US TO BE DESIGNING ONE PROJECT WHILE THE PREVIOUS PROJECT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION ALSO GIVES US THE ABILITY TO ADD MORE FUNDS TO BACK FILL IF PROJECTS NEEDED ADDITIONAL FUNDING TO BE ABLE TO COMPLETE THEM.

WE ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE A CONSISTENT ALLOCATION EVERY YEAR ON THOSE PROJECTS.

ALSO, YOU'LL NOTICE THE INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD PUMP STATION.

THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ALLOCATION IN 2026.

AS I MENTIONED, WE'RE GETTING READY TO GO OUT TO BID ON THAT PROJECT, AND THE CURRENT ENGINEERS ESTIMATE IS SLIGHTLY HIGHER ON THAT ONE.

[01:10:03]

SORRY. THAT CLICKING.

THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS THERE IN 2026, YOU'LL SEE FOR INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD PUMP STATION, THAT IS JUST TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO AWARD THAT CONTRACT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION.

SOME OTHER NOTABLE CHANGES, ON THE SEWER GROUPING AT THE BOTTOM.

YOU'LL SEE THE TRUNK RELIEF SEWER LINE.

THIS IS AN ESSENTIAL PROJECT FOR SEWER CAPACITY IN COORDINATION WITH FORT WORTH, AND WE HAVE LATEST ENGINEERS ESTIMATES.

THIS IS REALLY IN THE PRELIMINARY STAGES, SO WE JUST GOT OUR INITIAL ESTIMATES FROM THE ENGINEERING TEAM, AND SO JUST MAKING SURE WE HAVE THE FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR THAT PROJECT TO COVER THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS AS CURRENTLY ESTIMATED.

WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL PROJECTS THAT ARE ADDED TO THE SEWER CIP TOWARDS THE BOTTOM THERE.

A LOT OF THESE ARE SEWER CAPACITY INCREASING PROJECTS.

THEY'RE MASTER PLAN PROJECTS NECESSARY TO KEEP UP WITH FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, PRIMARILY ON THE WEST SIDE AND THIS WILL ALLOW US TO PLAN OUT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AND COORDINATE WITH THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS ARE IN PLACE WHEN THEY'RE NEEDED.

WE'RE PLACING THEM ON THE CIP TO FORECAST OUT THOSE.

THEN LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT ON THIS SLIDE IS THE SEWER VACUUM TRUCK TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE SEWER SECTION THERE.

THIS IS CURRENTLY ON THE CIP.

I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT, BUT THAT IS ANOTHER ONE OF THE CHANGES WITH COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OR RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE EQUIPMENT TO THE CIP.

THAT ONE WAS ADDED, AND IT WILL BE IN THE JUNE 16TH UPDATE THAT WE'RE BRINGING TO COUNCIL.

THEN THIS IS THE CLEANED UP VERSION OF THAT CIP I JUST SHOWED WITH ALL THE RED LINES.

THEN NOW I WILL TURN IT BACK OVER TO GLORIA TO TALK THROUGH THE RATE STUDY THAT CORRELATES WITH THAT PROPOSED CIP.

BEFORE THAT, THOUGH, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROJECTS OR CHANGES THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE WATER SEWER? THANK YOU.

>> LET'S TAKE A BREAK FOR 15 MINUTES AT MOST. WE'RE READY TO GO.

>> CONTINUING ON WITH THE WATER AND WASTEWATER DISCUSSION.

I DID WANT TO BRING OUT ON THE PRIOR SLIDES WITH THE CIP.

WE DID SHOW 2024 BECAUSE WITH THE INTENTION OR I'M SORRY, THE NOTICE OF INTENT FOR THE DEBT ISSUANCE THAT WE DO HAVE PLANNED HERE IN THE NEXT MONTH AND THOSE PROCEDURES WE HAD MADE THE DECISION TO ISSUE DEBT A YEAR BEHIND FOR WATER AND SEWER.

THE 2024 IS INCLUDED IN THAT ISSUANCE AND THEN EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE 2025.

I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE TO CLARIFY THAT.

WE WANTED TO TALK THROUGH THE WATER RATE STUDY.

LAST YEAR, WILL DAN WAS HERE PRESENTING FOR US.

THEY DID COMPLETE THE WATER RATE STUDY, AND THEY WERE ENGAGED FOR A LONG RANGE PLAN AND FORECASTED THIS OVER FIVE YEARS.

LAST YEAR, THE CITY IMPLEMENTED A 7% WATER RATE ADJUSTMENT OR I'M SORRY, AND A 5% WASTEWATER RATE ADJUSTMENT IN OCTOBER OF 2024.

THE PREVIOUS POLICY OF THE CITY HAD BEEN TO MINIMIZE THE RATE ADJUSTMENTS, AND WE WERE ACTUALLY DRAWING DOWN FUND BALANCE IN ORDER TO ACCOUNT FOR INCREASES IN OPERATING ACCOUNTS.

THIS WORKED FOR QUITE A WHILE, BUT AS THOSE ACCUMULATED, THE CITY DID INCREASE WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES LAST YEAR.

A COMBINATION OF SEVERAL FACTORS

[01:15:02]

IS RESULTING IN THE NEED TO CONTINUE THIS LONG RATE TERM PLAN.

OF COURSE, OPERATING EXPENSES CONTINUE TO INCREASE.

ONE OF THE MAIN DRIVERS THERE IS THE FORT WORTH CHARGES THAT ARE INCREASING EACH YEAR, AND THEN THE NEED TO FUND GROWING CAPITAL NEEDS IN DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE CITY'S CURRENT WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT THREE QUARTER METER, THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF OUR RESIDENTIAL RATES, AND IT IS MADE UP OF A MINIMUM CHARGE, SO THAT 17.15 IS THE MINIMUM CHARGE, AND THEN WE HAVE A VOLUMETRIC CHARGE THAT IS PER 1,000 GALLONS OF WATER USED.

THEN OVER ON THE RIGHT, WE HAVE OUR WASTEWATER RATE.

AGAIN, THE MINIMUM CHARGE STARTING THERE AT $20 AND 72 CENTS, AND THEN THE VOLUMETRIC RATE THAT IS APPLIED THERE PER 1,000 GALLONS OF 5.75.

THEN WE DO HAVE A WINTER AVERAGE THAT IS APPLIED FOR THE MONTHS OF JANUARY, FEBRUARY AND MARCH, WHERE WE LOOK AT THOSE AVERAGES FOR THAT CAP FOR THE REST OF THE YEAR.

REALLY, YOU CAN SEE THAT THOSE RATES INCREASE WITH THE SIZE OF THE METERS AND WITH THE VOLUME USED.

ONE REASON FOR THIS IS TO ATTEMPT TO TRY AND CONSERVE WATER, AND THEN ALSO WE CAN SEE THAT OUR LARGER USERS ARE PAYING HIGHER RATES.

THIS SLIDE IS A COMPARISON USING A 10,000 GALLON AVERAGE OF WATER USAGE AND 5,000 GALLONS IN WASTEWATER.

AS YOU CAN SEE THERE THE BILL FOR 10,000 GALLON ACCOUNT WOULD COME OUT TO BE IN BURLESON, A $119.02.

YOU CAN SEE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE SHOWN IN COMPARISON AND THESE ARE REALLY CITIES THAT ARE SURROUNDING AREAS, AND THESE GO ALL THE WAY UP TO $169.03 FOR A COMPARISON OF THE SAME BILL.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS REALLY TO LOOK STRICTLY AT FORT WORTH CUSTOMERS.

AS WE SEE THAT THERE'S SOME UNDER US, SOME ABOVE US, REALLY THIS SHOWS THAT WE ARE IN PROPORTION TO WHERE WE SHOULD BE AS WE ARE CHARGING THESE RATES.

BUT WE CAN SEE A COMPARISON OF THESE OTHER CITIES AS WELL.

THIS SLIDE IS SHOWING THE ACTUALS OF WHERE WE ARE AND THEN THE FORECAST FOR ACCOUNTS, INCREASING APPROXIMATELY 200 NEW ACCOUNTS EACH YEAR UP TO 2033.

CURRENTLY, WE ARE AT 16,130.

THEN THIS SLIDE IS TO SHOW CONSUMPTION.

OF COURSE, CONSUMPTION CAN VARY YEAR TO YEAR DEPENDING ON WEATHER AND OTHER VARIABLES.

TEXAS, WE LIKE OUR PLUSH GREEN LAWNS, IF WE'RE ABLE.

DEPENDING ON RAINFALL AND WEATHER, THIS CAN BE GREATLY AFFECTED, BUT OF COURSE, THE CONSUMPTION IS DRIVING THE REVENUE.

>> THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE PROJECTED CONSUMPTION UP TO YEAR 2033 WHERE WE EXPECT TO CONSUME OVER TWO BILLION GALLONS THERE.

SOME OF THE KEY ASSUMPTIONS AS WE WENT THROUGH AND UPDATED THIS FORECAST MODEL PROVIDED BY WILL DAN.

WE USED THE PERSONNEL AND OPERATING EXPENSES, AN INCREASE OF 3 - 4% EACH YEAR.

THEN THERE ARE OTHER COSTS IN THE OPERATING BUDGET, SUCH AS CHEMICALS, HEALTH INSURANCE.

WE TALKED ABOUT BENEFITS THAT WE ARE USING 5% A LITTLE EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION, AND THESE INCREASE AT HIGHER RATES.

THEN THE BIGGEST IMPACTS ON THE RATE PLAN ARE THOSE FORT WORTH WATER AND WASTEWATER CHARGES, AND THE DEBT REQUIRED TO FUND THESE GROWING CAPITAL NEEDS IN THE DISTRIBUTION AND COLLECTION SYSTEM.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS BOTH THE WATER RATE AND THE WASTE WATER RATE PER 1,000 GALLONS OVER THE HISTORY FROM 2006 TILL NOW, AND THEN FORECASTED THROUGH 2033.

THIS IS SHOWING A RATE THAT WE'RE PAYING FORT WORTH AND THAT

[01:20:01]

THE AVERAGE INCREASE HAS BEEN APPROXIMATELY A LITTLE UNDER 4%, AND SO WE'RE FORECASTING THAT OUT THROUGH 2033 AT 4% ON THE WATER SIDE.

ON THE WASTEWATER SIDE, THE AVERAGE INCREASE HAS BEEN 5.73%, AND SO WE'RE FORECASTING THAT OUT AROUND 5%.

THIS IS THE WATER-WASTEWATER CIP THAT YOU JUST LOOKED AT WITH RANDY, AND, OF COURSE, WE USE THIS AS WE ENTER OUR DATA FOR THE RATE MODEL, AS WE'RE LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS THAT ARE THE COST OF THE DEBT THAT WE WILL PAY AND HOW THAT AFFECTS THE RATES.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS BASICALLY YEAR BY YEAR, THAT AMOUNT OF DEBT THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED WITH THE CIP PLAN THROUGH 2030, AND, OF COURSE, THE BULK OF THAT IS BETWEEN 2026 AND 2028 FOR THOSE PROJECTS.

ON THIS SLIDE WE ARE SHOWING THE COST OF SERVICE BROKEN UP IN THOSE CATEGORIES AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, REALLY TO SHOW THAT THE BULK OF THAT COST OF SERVICE IS MOSTLY WITHIN THE FORT WORTH COSTS, AND THE DEBT SERVICE.

AS YOU SEE, THE FORT WORTH IS IN BLUE, THERE AT THE BOTTOM, AND THEN THE DEBT SERVICE IS IN PURPLE.

THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE RATES AND THE FORECAST OF THOSE RATES.

AS MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING INSTEAD OF A 7% INCREASE AS OUTLINED LAST YEAR WITH THE FORECAST, A 5%.

THAT'S WHAT'S IN THAT COLUMN THERE IN THAT EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 2025, IF COUNCIL DESIRES TO IMPLEMENT THIS.

THAT SHOWS THE ACTUAL RATES AS THEY WOULD INCREASE.

THEN THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE IMPACT, OR WHAT THOSE ACTUAL MONTHLY CHARGES WOULD BE.

YOU CAN SEE ON THE TOP IS THE 05,000 GALLONS AND IT'S SHOWING THAT THREE QUARTER INCH METER, WHICH IS THE MAJORITY OF RESIDENTIAL METERS.

IT SHOWS THAT IN 2025 IN OCTOBER, THAT THAT RATE CHANGE WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF $4.64.

YOU CAN SEE AS WE GO DOWN, EACH OF THOSE IS 5% INCREASE.

WE DO HAVE A NOTE HERE THAT THE DELAY OF BOND ISSUANCES.

WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT EARLIER ABOUT USING THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION AS A METHOD SO THAT WE CAN DELAY THESE COSTS, AND THIS HAS RESULTED IN A 3 - 4% PERCENT ANNUAL REDUCTION AND RATE ADJUSTMENTS.

JUST A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT, THE PLAN THAT BURLESON HAS BEEN ABLE TO UTILIZE, IN THE FIRST YEAR THE CITY ISSUES THAT REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTION.

THEN IN THE SECOND YEAR, THE CITY ISSUES THE DEBT, AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR IS WHEN WE BEGIN PAYING THOSE DEBT PAYMENTS, AND SO WE'RE ABLE TO DELAY THOSE COSTS.

THIS SLIDE IS REALLY OUR FIVE YEAR FORECAST.

IT'S WITHIN THE MODEL, SO WE ARE SHOWING IT HERE IN THE SAME PRESENTATION.

BUT THIS IS FOR THE WATER- WASTEWATER FUND, AND IT DOES HAVE THIS RATE INCREASE AS RECOMMENDED, BUILT IN FOR THE 2026 NUMBERS.

THEN THE OPERATING EXPENSES, AS OUTLINED BEFORE WITH THE INCREASES THAT WERE USED IN THE PRESENTATION, THE CAPITAL OUTLAYS THERE, I BELIEVE OUR METER COSTS THAT WE HAVE EACH YEAR.

THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE IS DEBT SERVICE THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, AND SO THOSE ARE EXISTING DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS, AND THEN THE FUTURE DEBT SERVICE IS THE COST OF THAT DEBT THAT WE WOULD ISSUE FOR THE FUTURE PROJECTS.

THEN WE HAVE OUR CONTINGENCIES AND TRANSFERS, WHICH BRINGS US TO OUR TOTAL COST OF SERVICE, AND THEN OUR BASICALLY NET REVENUES, AS WE SEE THOSE ARE POSITIVE YEARS '26 THROUGH '28.

WE DO SHOW A NEGATIVE NUMBER IN 2029.

THE GOAL HERE WAS TO GET AHEAD OF THESE COSTS.

IF WE DID NOT IMPLEMENT THE RATE INCREASE THIS YEAR, WE WOULD NOT SHOW THESE AS NET REVENUES AS SHOWN FOR THE YEARS '26 THROUGH '28, WHICH CAN OFFSET THIS 2029.

THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE BULK OF THOSE DEBT ISSUANCES IN THOSE YEARS.

THEN WE SHOW OUR ENDING FUND BALANCE THERE AND THE PERCENT OF EXPENDITURES.

[01:25:02]

THE GOAL IS TO START GRADUALLY ADJUSTING THE RATES AS WE KNOW THAT THESE PROJECTS ARE COMING ON, AND OTHER INCREASES IN THE CIP, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE FORT WORTH COST AS WELL.

FY 2026 RECOMMENDATIONS REPRESENTS THE CONTINUATION AND A SERIES OF ADJUSTMENTS REQUIRED TO FUND THE 138.7 MILLION DEBT OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, AND THE PROPOSED RATE INCREASE OF 5% IS BELOW THAT FORECAST OF 7% INCREASE THAT WAS FORECASTED DURING THE BUDGET LAST YEAR FOR 2026.

THE RATE PLAN WILL ENSURE CONTINUED FINANCIAL HEALTH OF THE UTILITY, AND OF COURSE, WE DO RECOMMEND REVIEWING THE RATES ANNUALLY BASED ON UPDATED BOND ISSUANCE ESTIMATES AND OTHER COSTS.

STAFF IS SEEKING DIRECTION BASED ON THE FUTURE OF THE WATER AND SEWER CIP AS RANDY PRESENTED JUST A LITTLE WHILE AGO, AND TO GET FEEDBACK ON MAINTAINING THE EXISTING CIP PLAN, AND PROCEEDING WITH THE PROPOSED WATER AND SEWER RATE INCREASES AT 5% OR MODIFYING THE CIP AND THE CORRESPONDING PROPOSED RATE STRUCTURE.

WE CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR APPRECIATE ANY FEEDBACK AT THIS TIME.

>> GLORIA, WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT FORT WORTH CHARGES US FOR TREATED WATER AND FOR ACCEPTING OUR EFFLUENT, DOES THAT FACTOR IN ALSO THE CAPITAL EXPENSES THAT WE HAVE TO PROVIDE TO GAIN SPACE IN FUTURE WATER LINES AND EXPANDING CAPACITY OF EXISTING ONES THAT FORT WORTH REQUIRES US TO PAY?

>> YES, IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE COSTS THAT WE PAID AT FORT WORTH FOR THEIR CAPITAL COSTS.

OF COURSE, WE HAVE RELATED COSTS ON OUR END AND OUR DISTRIBUTION LINES, BUT THOSE FEES DO COUNT FOR THEIR COSTS.

>> WE HAVE THAT FACTORED INTO THE RATE THAT WE'RE SHOWING ON THESE GRAPHICS?

>> YES, THOSE INCREASES ARE FACTORED IN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> THIS CIP WAS THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED LAST YEAR THAT MADE THE CHANGES ABOUT IMPLEMENTING ALL THESE UPGRADES AND DIFFERENT THINGS BECAUSE WE WERE GIVEN OPTIONS LAST YEAR AND WE CHOSE THE ONE THAT WAS GOING TO GET ALL THESE DIFFERENT [INAUDIBLE]

>> CORRECT. WHAT I WILL SAY IS OBVIOUSLY A BIG CHANGE BETWEEN THE TWO PLANS IS UNIDENTIFIED PROJECTS AS OPPOSED TO IDENTIFIED PROJECTS.

BUT IT'S CARRYING ON WITH THE SENTIMENT OF HEAVY CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN THE WATER AND SEWER CIP.

>> I'M GOOD JUST MAINTAINING WHAT WE HAVE AND CONTINUE WITH THE INCREASES, BUT AT LEAST IT'S LESS THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN.

>> FROM A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WE DO RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE CIP.

I WOULD RECOMMEND A CONSISTENT, STEADY, AND AN ANTICIPATABLE RATE INCREASE YEAR OVER YEAR THAT'S MODERATE IN NATURE.

YOU, OF COURSE, RESERVE THE RIGHT TO LOWER THE RATES, OR TO ZERO THEM OUT.

WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT THAT, WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A RATE INCREASE NEXT YEAR? OF COURSE, IT JUST PUSHES OUT FUTURE RATE INCREASES HIGHER.

FROM A MANAGEMENT STANDPOINT, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS JUST KEEP THE RATE INCREASES CONSISTENT AND PREDICTABLE.

>> WE HAVE A DUTY TO MAINTAIN THE QUALITY, AND WE CAN'T DO THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO IT.

I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DROP THE RATE, BUT THAT'S NOT REAL WORLD.

>> I WOULD AGREE.

I DON'T WANT TO DROP THE RATE BECAUSE WE SPENT THE LAST TWO YEARS CATCHING IT UP.

THIS NEEDS TO PASS ALONG THE INCREASES THAT ARE GIVEN TO US IS REALLY ALL THAT IS.

>> WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD.

>> ONE THING I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT IS THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTIONS.

WE'VE BEEN USING THAT A LOT.

I'M SURE WE'RE KEEPING A GOOD TRACK ON ALL THE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTIONS, BECAUSE THAT'LL AFFECT OUR NET ASSETS, ALONG WITH THE UNKNOWN PROPERTY TAX, COULD AFFECT THE RATE OF OUR NEXT BOND ISSUANCE, SO WE HAVE TO KEEP AN EYE AND MAKE SURE WE DON'T OVERDO THESE REIMBURSEMENT RESOLUTIONS WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE BUDGET PROCESS.

>> THE STRATEGY FOR OPERATING IN PRIOR YEAR IN ARREARS IS REALLY ONLY FOR WATER SEWER, SO IS THE ONLY FUND THAT WE'RE DOING THAT, AND IT REALLY WAS AN INTENTION TO TRY TO KEEP THE RATE, SET A REASONABLE NUMBER.

I THINK GLORIA ALLUDED TO THE FACT IF WE STOP THAT PRACTICE, THE NUMBERS THAT YOU SEE HERE WOULD INCREASE ABOUT 3 - 4% ON RATE INCREASES, SO THE RATE INCREASES WOULD GO FROM 5 - 7 TO 8 - 10.

BUT FOR THE OTHER COMPONENTS LIKE 4A, OR 4B, OR THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, WE'RE ISSUING DEBT IN THE YEAR THAT WE'RE FUNDING THE PROJECT.

[01:30:05]

>> AS FAR AS WATER AND SEWER, I KNOW A LOT OF CITIES GO BANKRUPT BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PRIORITIZE THEIR WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH EVENTUALLY RESULTS IN MASSIVE PROJECTS FUNDED BY MASSIVE DEBT THAT THEY CANNOT, WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO REPAY.

BURLESON'S LEADERS HAVE ALWAYS EMPHASIZED EACH YEAR THROUGH THEIR CIP A RESPONSIBLE PATH TO MAINTAIN OUR WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE.

THE RESPONSIBLE PATH WILL ALSO INCLUDE ANNUAL RATE INCREASES.

I APPRECIATE YOU-ALL STAYING ON TOP OF IT, NOT LIKE A LOT OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT I'VE BEEN IDENTIFYING.

I'M ALL FOR, LIKE THEY SAID, THE MODIFIED CIP WITH CORRESPONDING PROPOSED RATE INCREASES.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE.

NOW WE WILL MOVE TO THE 4A CIP, AND I'LL INVITE RANDY BACK UP TO PRESENT THAT.

>> THANK YOU, GLORIA. THE 4A, MUCH SMALLER TABLE HERE, BUT THIS IS THE CURRENT '25 THROUGH '29 4A CIP THAT'S CURRENTLY BEEN ADOPTED BY COUNCIL.

THIS WAS THE RED LINE VERSION THAT WAS PRESENTED.

YOU'LL NOTICE HERE THAT WE REMOVED A COUPLE OF PROJECTS, AND THE BIGGEST ADDITION WAS ADDING HULEN TO THIS TABLE HERE ON THE 4A SIDE, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY.

THE OTHER PROJECTS SHIFTED MAINLY BECAUSE OF ADJUSTMENTS IN THE SCHEDULE, OR TO FLATTEN OUT THE DEBT CAPACITY DUE TO THE FUND BALANCE ON 4A TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT HULEN.

THIS IS THE VERSION THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

THEN THE LAST THING I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE, ON LAKEWOOD DRIVE, THAT ONE WAS REDUCED BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO BE EXPLORING GRANT OPPORTUNITIES, AND SO THIS LOWER DOLLAR AMOUNT WOULD REPRESENT THE LOCAL MATCH THAT WOULD BE NEEDED ON THAT PROJECT.

THIS IS THE CLEANED UP VERSION OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE.

THEN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, FINANCE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION WAS TO KEEP HULEN FUNDED ON THE GENERAL FUND SIDE VERSUS MOVING IT TO 4A.

TODAY, PRESENTING THE REVISED VERSION BASED ON THAT FINANCE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, YOU'LL SEE THERE'S STILL A FEW MODIFICATIONS.

HULEN HAS BEEN REMOVED.

THERE ON THE BOTTOM YOU SEE THE OTHER PROJECT CHANGES.

THE ALSBURY BOULEVARD PROJECT, THAT'S PHASE 3.

THAT IS FROM HULEN TO LAKEWOOD.

THAT PROJECT SPREAD OUT A LITTLE BIT.

IT DIDN'T REDUCE IN COST, BUT WE SPREAD OUT THE FUNDING ON THAT ONE TO ALIGN WITH THE PROGRESSION OF THE PROJECT, SINCE WE ARE GOING TO BE PURSUING FEDERAL FUNDING ON THAT PROJECT AS WELL.

WE HAVE DESIGN AND RIGHT OF WAY TO GO THROUGH AND WORK WITH [INAUDIBLE] ON THAT, AND SO IT'S A LOGICAL PROGRESSION WITH THE SCHEDULE, SO FLATTENING OUT THAT DOLLAR AMOUNT MADE SENSE.

THEN I MENTIONED LAKEWOOD PREVIOUSLY.

THIS IS THE CLEANED UP VERSION OF THE 4A CIP.

IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? OTHERWISE, I'LL PASS IT BACK TO GLORIA TO TALK THROUGH THE FUND BALANCE FORECAST ON 4A. THANK YOU.

>> THERE WE GO. HERE'S OUR FIVE-YEAR FORECAST 4A.

AGAIN, THE ASSUMPTION FOR SALES TAX REVENUE THAT WAS USED IS THE 3% INCREASE EACH YEAR. EXCUSE ME.

THEN OTHER REVENUES THERE INCLUDE INTEREST REVENUES.

THEN WE GET TO EXPENDITURES AND THE PERSONNEL.

WE DID INCLUDE A 3% INCREASE IN THE PERSONNEL COSTS ALONG WITH A 5% INCREASE IN THE BENEFITS.

[01:35:01]

THEN OUR OTHER BASE EXPENSES.

OF COURSE, THE INCENTIVES THERE ARE BASED ON CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS.

YOU'LL NOTICE THERE THAT IN THE PROJECTED YEAR FOR 2026, THAT IS A VERY LARGE INCREASE IN INCENTIVES, WHICH REPRESENTS A STEPPED-UP OBLIGATION BASED ON MEETING THE NEEDS OR MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS IN THAT CONTRACT.

THEN THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS THERE.

THOSE DO REPRESENT BOTH THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS THAT WE CURRENTLY PAY, AS WELL AS THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THOSE PROJECTS IN THE CIP PLAN.

THEN AGAIN, WE HAVE OUR CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE.

AGAIN, IN 2026, WE DO HAVE IT SHOWN AS GOING NEGATIVE, OR I'M SORRY, THAT'S THE CHANGE, NOT THE ACTUAL FUND BALANCE.

DUE TO THAT INCREASE IN THOSE INCENTIVES, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT GREATLY DECREASES IN THE NEXT YEAR TO NEXT TO NOTHING AND FOLLOWS THROUGH.

OUR PERCENT OF FUND BALANCE THERE AT THE BOTTOM.

WE DO SHOW THAT WE CURRENTLY, AS WE HAVE THESE PRELIMINARY NUMBERS ARE SHOWING 39% OF EXPENDITURES FOR 2026, AND THEN CARRYING FORWARD, THAT INCREASES TO 105% THE FOLLOWING YEAR AS THOSE INCENTIVE AGREEMENTS FALL OFF.

I'LL BE HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK AS WE TALK THROUGH THIS FORECAST.

>> I UNDERSTAND ON THE SALES AND USE TAX GOING UP 3.5% ON THE AVERAGE PROJECTED EVERY YEAR, BUT ON THE OTHER REVENUE, WHAT CAUSED THE BIG DROP BETWEEN INTO YEAR '24, '25 PROJECTED '25, '26?

>> I BELIEVE THIS WAS A LAND SALE IN THE CURRENT YEAR THAT WE WOULD NOT HAVE IN NEXT YEAR AS WELL AS SOME INTEREST REVENUE DECREASES.

>> CAN YOU EXPOUND ON THAT JUST A LITTLE MORE?

>> SURE. ALEX, DO YOU WANT TO GET UP AND SPEAK TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE LAND SALE ITSELF?

>> THE SEVEN ACRES THAT WE SOLD TO K&P PLUMBING FOR $1.4 MILLION, AND THEN ALSO THE SEVEN-ACRE SITE THAT WE SOLD TO PARIS BAGUETTE THAT WE BOUGHT THE TEN ACRES AND HIGH POINT BUSINESS PARK AND THEN WE SOLD OFF THE SEVEN ACRES BACK TO PARIS BAGUETTE PART OF THEIR DEAL IS THOSE LAND SALE THE OTHER REVENUE.

PLUS, WE ALSO, YOU SEE THE CONTINUING REVENUE FOLLOWING SUIT OF MOVING FORWARD.

THAT'S THE BUILDING THAT WE OWN ON SOUTH BURLESON BOULEVARD, THAT F WAVE IS A TENANT, AND THAT IS THE RENTAL INCOME COMING IN FROM THAT.

>> SO THE PROJECTED WAS WITHOUT LAND SALES, BUT THINGS COULD HAPPEN.

>> YES, SIR.

>> AND THOSE COULD GO UP, 1 MILLION, 2 MILLION.

>> COULD. WE HAVE ONE PARCEL LEFT THAT WE OWN.

>> THANK YOU.

>> NO PROBLEM.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS SLIDE? WITH 4A, STAFF IS ALSO SEEKING DIRECTION ON THIS CIP PLAN.

WE DID HAVE FEEDBACK FROM THE FINANCE COMMITTEE AS ALREADY MENTIONED.

RANDY WENT THROUGH THAT AND HIS SLIDES.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK ON THIS WOULD BE WELCOMED.

>> I'M GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE COMMITTEE AGAIN.

>> AGREE.

>> SHIFT THE FULL PROJECT BACK TO.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. NOW WE CAN MOVE ALONG TO 4B, THE CIP UPDATE, AND I'LL INVITE RANDY BACK.

>> I WILL BE RANDY FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES THIS MORNING.

WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IN FRONT OF YOU ARE ALL OF OUR EXISTING CIP FOR 25-29.

THIS WAS WHAT WAS ADOPTED BACK IN NOVEMBER.

THIS IS WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO FINANCE COMMITTEE A FEW WEEKS AGO.

WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO SEE IS A LOT OF GREEN, WHICH ARE NEW ADDED PROJECTS, BUT SOME OF THOSE ARE NOT ACTUALLY NEW PROJECTS.

THEY'RE JUST TWEAKS IN THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST OF THEM.

FROM THAT MEETING, YOU WILL SEE THE FOLLOWING ADJUSTMENTS.

THIS IS WHAT THE FINAL ADOPTED WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND THEY DID REQUEST ONE TWEAK TO THIS, WHICH WAS AT THE VERY BOTTOM IN YEAR 2030, WE HAVE THE RUSSELL FARM WELCOME CENTER.

THEY JUST ASKED THAT WE DID SOME MORE RESEARCH AND DATA COLLECTION BEFORE WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT PROJECT.

IN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED.

THIS IS THE RED-LINE VERSION OF THAT AND THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THAT TO REMOVE

[01:40:06]

THE RUSSELL FARM WELCOME CENTER AS WELL AS MOVE THE INDOOR PLAY STRUCTURE AND THE AUDITORIUM AT THE BRICK INTO 2025.

THEN WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL PROJECT THAT WE'LL ACTUALLY BE REQUESTING TO MOVE INTO 2025 AS WELL.

THIS WAS THAT FINAL AND YOU SEE AT THE BOTTOM THAT THE WELCOME CENTER WAS REMOVED IN 2030.

THEN WHAT YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO SEE HERE IN THIS IS THE NATATORIUM PLAY STRUCTURE.

SINCE THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED OUR BIDS FOR THAT INDOOR PLACE STRUCTURE.

SO WE HAVE MOVED FROM THAT 350 ESTIMATE TO 443-67-4201, AND THEN WE HAVE ADDED A PROJECT RIGHT BELOW THAT THE RUSSELL FARM CHESAPEAKE BUILDING HVAC AND FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS.

THAT PROJECT INCLUDES TAKING OUT THE WINDOW UNITS, REPLACING THE WINDOWS, ADDING HVAC THROUGH THE WHOLE FACILITY, SHARING UP THOSE DOORS TO MAKE SURE THEY'RE SEALED PROPERLY.

REALISTICALLY, THAT IS OUR NUMBER ONE FACILITY THAT WE DO RENTALS AND PROGRAMS IN OUT AT THE FARM, AND SO WE'VE RECEIVED THAT ESTIMATE, AND WE ANTICIPATE TRYING TO GET THAT DONE SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, I BELIEVE, WE'RE WAITING FOR OUR CO-OP SCRUB OF THE QUOTES THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THROUGH FACILITIES, AND WE'D LIKE TO GET THAT PROJECT GOING RIGHT NOW, SO WE CAN GET THAT FACILITY CLIMATE CONTROLLED FOR THIS SUMMER.

THEN MOVING INTO THE PPF FORECAST.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE PROPOSED WAS THAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING THIS FORWARD EVERY YEAR AND THAT WE WOULD BREAK APART THE DIFFERENT OPERATIONS THAT ARE PART OF THE PARKS PERFORMANCE FUND.

THE FIRST FUND WE'RE LOOKING AT IS BRICK OPERATIONS.

A FORMER COUNSEL DIRECTION WAS TO ENSURE THAT WE STAYED ABOVE THAT 50%.

AS YOU CAN SEE, FOR 23, 24, WE'RE AT 62%, WE'RE ESTIMATING ENDING THIS FISCAL YEAR AT 59%, WHICH IS WELL ABOVE THAT 50% GOAL OF OURS.

BY NEXT YEAR, WE'RE LOOKING AT 65% AS WHAT WE ARE PROJECTING OUR SELF-SUSTAINING PERCENTAGE TO BE.

BEFORE I MOVE TO THE OTHER PPF OPERATIONS, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS?

>> ANYBODY?

>> WE'LL TAKE IT. FOR ATHLETIC FIELDS, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE SAME TREND.

TWENTY THREE, 24, WE WERE RIGHT AT 8%.

WE'RE ACTUALLY ESTIMATING ENDING THIS YEAR AT 25%, AND THAT IS IN LARGE PART DUE TO ACTIVELY PURSUING TOURNAMENTS INTERNALLY.

YOU CAN SEE A BIG RETURN ON THAT, AND WE ONLY HAVE THEM BOOKED THROUGH AUGUST RIGHT NOW.

PENDING FALL TOURNAMENTS, WHICH WILL ONLY BE AUGUST, SEPTEMBER FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR, WE'RE ANTICIPATING INCREASING THAT EVEN MORE NEXT YEAR.

THEN FOR RUSSELL FARM, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE MORE OF A STABLE SELF-SUSTAINING PERCENTAGE.

BUT AS YOU COULD SEE BACK IN THE CAPITAL PLAN, WE ARE PROJECTING DOING OUR MASTER PLAN OUT THERE TO REALLY DETERMINE WHAT THE FUTURE OF THE FARM IS, WHAT CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEED TO BE MADE, BUT REALLY ENSURING THAT WE HAVE A LONG-TERM VISION AND MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE SHARING THAT UP WITH WHAT PROJECTS NEED TO BE DONE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT VISION.

THEN THE FORECAST, I WILL TURN OVER TO GLORIA.

>> EXCUSE ME. AGAIN, THIS IS ALL OPERATIONS WITH THE PART PERFORMANCE FUND COMBINED, ALL OF THOSE THAT GING WENT THROUGH WITH YOU.

THEN HERE'S THE FIVE-YEAR AS PROJECTED OUT.

WE DO SEE THERE IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THE REVISED.

THE CHANGE THERE IS THAT THE TRANSFERS WERE MADE BASED ON THE BUDGET.

WE'RE CATCHING THAT UP OR I'M SORRY, THAT WAS FOR LAST YEAR, AND SO WE'RE CATCHING THAT UP BASICALLY IN 25 AND 26 SO THAT WE WILL BE BACK ON TRACK AGAIN.

SO THAT THIS IS NET ZERO AT THE BOTTOM THERE.

NO GEN ALREADY WENT THROUGH THIS EXTENSIVELY, IF YOU HAD ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE I GO FORWARD.

OKAY. THEN THE GOLF FIVE-YEAR FORECAST.

THESE ARE OUTLINED, THE REVENUES THERE AT THE TOP, THE 4B SUBSIDY, THE DEBT TRANSFER,

[01:45:04]

AND OPERATING REVENUES THERE OF THE GOLF COURSE.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PERSONNEL IS BROKEN OUT, THE PERSONNEL AND BENEFITS COSTS, ALONG WITH THE OTHER BASE EXPENSES.

THEN WE HAVE OUR CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE THERE AT THE BOTTOM AS WE SHOW THAT NETTING ZERO.

OVERALL, WE ARE SHOWING THE 4B, OF COURSE, INCLUDING THOSE SUBSIDIES AND AS WELL AS THE 4B OPERATING.

AGAIN, THE SALES TAX, WE DO HAVE WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF 3%, AS WELL AS OTHER REVENUES LISTED THERE.

WE DO HAVE THE SAME PERSONNEL AND BENEFITS ASSUMPTIONS IN THE 4B AS WELL, THE BASE EXPENSES.

THOSE ASSUMPTIONS WERE THE SAME AS OUTLINED IN OTHER FUNDS WITH THE INCREASES TO INSURANCE FOR PROPERTY AND LIABILITY AND UTILITIES.

THE DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS THERE ARE SHOWN FOR THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS AS WELL AS THE FUTURE PAYMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED IN THE CIP, AND THEN WE HAVE THOSE GOLF AND PPF TRANSFERS THERE AFTER THAT.

OUR CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE.

WE ARE SHOWING FOR THE END OF 25, THE YEAR-END ESTIMATE AT 842,279, AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 84.57% OF EXPENDITURE.

THEN IN 2026, WE DO SHOW A DRAW DOWN THERE, BUT WE ARE STILL STAYING WELL ABOVE THERE AT THE 54.29% CONTINUING OUT.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 4B?

>> I NOTICE WE DON'T SHOW THE SELF-SUSTAINING PERCENTAGE ON GOLF.

WHY? WE SHOWED IT ON THE BRICK, WE SHOWED IT ON RUSSELL FARM, SHOWED IT ON THE BALL FIELD, BUT NOT ON GOLF.

MAYBE NOT. MAYBE MY QUESTION IS NOT WHY.

THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS IT? [OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S WHAT THAT BOTTOM LINE IS.

>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T DRAW YOUR ATTENTION TO THERE.

>> MINE SAYS FUND BALANCE PERCENT OF EXPENDITURES.

>> IT MISLABELED THAT'S INTENDED TO BE THE PERCENT OF SUSTAINABILITY.

>> THE SAME NUMBER. IT'S JUST STATED DIFFERENTLY.

>> CORRECT. I'M SORRY.

>> I GOT YOU. THE FUND BALANCE PERCENTAGE WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT, BUT I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN NOW.

>> I'M SORRY. IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT GIVEN TO EMMA THIS YEAR, IT WAS SHOWING THAT THE GOLF WAS 96% SUSTAINABLE. IS THAT A GOOD NUMBER?

>> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, PREVIOUSLY, WE HAD I THINK, FORECASTED A 76%.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE 96%.

TOUCH BASE WITH YOU AFTERWARD, I THINK REVENUES WERE PROJECTED TO BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER.

I DO THINK THESE NUMBERS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

RIGHT NOW WHAT YOU SEE HERE ARE TWO THINGS THAT ARE GOING UP, THEY'RE LARGELY OUTSIDE OF JAMES AND JANE'S CONTROL THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS TO IT AND CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE EQUIPMENT SERVICE FUND.

I THINK THOSE MAY BE OVERSTATED BASED ON OUR ALLOCATION FOR IT, AND THOSE NUMBERS MAY BE COMING DOWN.

SO YOU MIGHT SEE A SLIGHT INCREASE.

>> GOLF INS IN SEPTEMBER, IS THAT THEIR LAST PAYMENT?

>> YES, SIR. NEXT YEAR, YOU SEE THAT DEBT SERVICE TRANSFER FOLLOWING OFF, AND THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THEIR BASE EXPENDITURES.

>> BUT WE ALSO SEE THE SUBSIDY TRANSFER KICK UP TO A NUMBER ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE COMBINED NUMBERS THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

>> CORRECT. THAT'S LARGELY DUE, AGAIN, IN PART TO SOME OF THOSE INDIRECT COSTS AND IT CONTRIBUTIONS GOING UP.

WE'RE STILL WORKING THROUGH THAT.

AGAIN, THOSE NUMBERS MAY COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THAT IS THOSE COSTS AND THERE'S ABOUT $85,000, I BELIEVE THAT WE'RE FORECASTING AN INCREASE IN PERSONNEL EXPENDITURES FROM CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.

>> I WOULD ALSO MENTION I GUESS MAYBE WHAT IMPACTED THE KAFIR THAT YOU LOOKED AT WAS THE FACT THAT IT SHOWED FOR THE GOLF FUND, THIS FUND BALANCE THAT SHOULD HAVE NETTED OUT FOR THE OVERALL 4B FUND.

AS DISTORTING THE CURRENT YEAR'S NUMBER, WHERE YOU SAID NEXT YEAR, THAT THE COMBINED NUMBER IS HIGHER.

THE TRANSFER IS ARTIFICIALLY LOWER SO WE CAN NET OUT THE FUND BALANCE NUMBER FOR THIS YEAR.

DURING THE AUDIT PROCESS, WE TRANSFER ANY FUND BALANCE FOR THE PPF OVER TO THE 4B SO THEY NET OUT.

[01:50:06]

THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE A FUND BALANCE THAT ROLL OVER.

THAT'S DISTORTING THE NUMBER THAT THE MAYOR PRO TEM COMBINED WHEN YOU ADDED.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUDGET IT WAS SET UP TO BE HIGHER OVER $1 MILLION.

IF YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE 26 NUMBER, THAT'S MORE IN LINE WHERE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, BUT WE'RE DRAWING IT DOWN BY THE $220,000. IS THAT CLEAR?

>> AS MAD. [LAUGHTER] YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PUT ME IN A DARK ROOM AND GIVE ME A LIGHT AND LET ME WORK MY WAY THROUGH ALL OF THIS.

I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT FOR THE MOMENT.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON 4B, OR WE CAN MOVE FORWARD? I'M SORRY?

>> LET'S CAN WE GO TO THE CIP THEN IF WE'RE READY TO TALK ABOUT AS A WHOLE.

THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT.

I'VE NOTICED THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE BATHROOMS ON HERE FOR OTHER PARKS.

I DON'T KNOW IF I'M NECESSARILY WANTING TO GO WITH HAVING BATHROOMS AT THE SMALLER PARKS, MAYBE JUST HAVE THE BIGGER PARKS HAVE THE RESTROOMS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE'S THOUGHT IS ON IT, BUT CLAUDIA IS A PRETTY SMALL PARK.

I WAS THINKING MAINLY OUR BIG PARKS, SHANNON CREEKS COME IN AND GET ONE THERE.

CENTENNIAL'S GOT ONE, BAILEY LAKE, WARREN COMMUNITY.

I THINK THERE MAY BE ANOTHER ONE THAT WE HAVE.

BUT JUST THOUGHTS ON THIS BECAUSE THE NATATORIUM INDOOR PLAY STRUCTURE THAT WAS A HIGH NUMBER, AND TAKING THOSE BATHROOMS OUT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THERE'S ISSUES WITH THOSE AS WELL.

I MEAN, THAT WOULD PAY FOR THAT INDOOR PLAY STRUCTURE.

ALSO, WE TALKED ABOUT THE FINANCE, LEAVING OUT THE RUSSELL FARM WELCOME CENTER UNTIL WE DO SOME MORE RESEARCH ON IT.

I DON'T KNOW THOUGHTS ON THE BATHROOMS FOR EVERYBODY.

>> WELL, IT'S NOT ONLY TO JUST PUTTING THE BATHROOM IN, BUT IT'S ALSO MAINTENANCE ON THESE THINGS.

THESE THINGS GET ABUSED.

ON THE PLAZA, THE NUMBERS THAT WE SAW ON THAT WAS DISTURBING.

BUT WE CAN CUT BACK ON SOME OF THE RESTROOMS, THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD THING. ANYBODY ELSE?

>> I BELIEVE THE MASTER PARKS MASTER PLAN SAID TO PUT THEM IN JUST TRAILHEADS, STARTING OUT.

>> THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ON THOSE RESTROOMS HAS REQUESTED THEM AT ANY PARK IN THE WAY THAT WE'VE PRIORITIZED IT AS ANY PARK WITH A PARKING LOT.

IF YOU WALKED UP TO IT, IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY USUALLY MEANS YOU'VE WALKED UP, SO YOU'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE HOUSE.

BUT IF WE HAVE A PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENT, IT HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED.

THE FORMER DIRECTION WAS TO ADD A RESTROOM TO THOSE PRIORITIZED PARKS EVERY OTHER YEAR.

THAT THOSE ARE THE FEW THAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THERE.

MISTLETOE HILL CURRENTLY HAS A PORTALET AT THAT LOCATION.

IT'S ONE OF OUR HIGHER-USE PARKS.

THAT WAS WHY THAT ONE WAS PRIORITIZED AS WELL AS CLAUDIUS PLAYGROUND.

WHEN WE REDID THAT PLAYGROUND, THAT WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT, WE RECEIVED SPECIFICALLY TO THAT PARK.

THAT'S WHY THOSE WERE PRIORITIZED THE WAY THAT THEY WERE.

BUT COUNCIL IS CORRECT, WE DO RECEIVE A LOT OF ADDITIONAL WORK MAINTAINING THOSE, NOT JUST FROM CLEANING THEM AND STOCKING THEM, BUT FROM GRAFFITI ABATEMENT, BROKEN DOORS, ET CETERA.

WE'RE OPEN TO ANYTHING.

I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT CONTEXT AS TO WHY THOSE WERE PRIORITIZED THE WAY THEY WERE.

>> I'M NOT SEEING ANYTHING UNTIL '26, SO LET'S JUST LEAVE IT ALONE FOR RIGHT NOW, IF WE NEED TO TAKE IT OFF, WE WILL LATER.

GOING TO DO THAT. WHAT DO YOU THINK, ADAM?

>> I DO THINK MISTLETOE NEEDS A RESTROOM.

IT IS A VERY HIGH USED PARK, AND WE'VE ALREADY HAD THE PORTALET.

I THINK THAT BY NOT DOING THAT ONE, I THINK THAT THAT'S MISLEADING TO CITIZENS.

IT'S AN AMENITY THAT THEY'RE COMING TO EXPECT.

I'M ON THE FENCE ON CLAUDIA'S, BUT THE GOOD THING IS IT'S OUT ALWAYS.

I KNOW IT WAS PART OF THE PUBLIC FEEDBACK. I DO REMEMBER THAT.

I TOO HESITATE ABOUT RESTROOMS BECAUSE OF THE VANDALISM AND THE UPKEEP.

I MEAN, BUT WHEN YOU HAVE LITTLES, YOU GOT TO USE THE POTTY.

I'M IN BOTH BUCKETS. I'M A MAMA, AND INEVITABLY WHEN WE GET TO THE PARK, THEY GOT TO GO.

BUT I ALSO THINK THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER, AS COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT POINTED OUT THE TRAILHEAD.

[01:55:03]

I MEAN, I'M OKAY ON WAITING ON THAT ONE.

I THINK LEAVING IT THERE AS A PLACEHOLDER.

IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT COMES UP, THAT'S A HIGHER PRIORITY, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN NOT FULFILL THE MISTLETOE HILL BATHROOM ADDITION WHEN WE ALREADY HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS SOMEWHAT SUPPLYING THAT AMENITY.

I WHILE IN CONVERSATIONS BEFORE, I'LL ADMIT, I WAS LIKE, MAYBE THE PORTA POTTIES ARE THE ANSWER FOR RIGHT NOW.

I THINK THERE'S EQUALLY AMOUNT OF DESTRUCTION THAT CAN HAPPEN TO THOSE.

I MEAN, SINCE IT'S NOT A PERMANENT STRUCTURE, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S AS EASY TO CLEAN UP AND MAINTAIN, BUT I AM VERY HAPPY TO HEAR ABOUT THE RUSSELL FARM MASTER PLAN.

I THINK THE MORE WE CAN REALLY DETERMINE WHAT WE SEE OUT THERE, WHERE WE'RE HEADING, THEN THAT WILL HELP US PLAN FOR THINGS LIKE A WELCOME CENTER.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THAT WILL BE IN OUR FUTURE PLANS, BUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING WHAT WE WANT THAT SPACE TO BE AND WHAT WE WANT IT TO ACCOMMODATE.

I MEAN, THE POSSIBILITIES ARE ENDLESS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, GIVEN THE HOW IT'S DONATED AND THAT THING.

I THINK THAT THERE'S CERTAIN LOOPHOLES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE WORKING THROUGH, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO EARMARK FUNDS THAT THEN JUST SIT THERE BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW THE MASTER PLAN FOR THE FACILITY.

I'M REALLY HAPPY ABOUT THAT.

CHESAPEAKE AIR CONDITIONING IS BEYOND NEEDED.

WE JUST HAD A STAFF EVENT OUT THERE, AND I THINK WE WERE FIGHTING OVER THE WINDOW UNIT.

[LAUGHTER] THOSE OF YOU THAT WERE IN THE SERVING LINE DIDN'T HAVE THAT BREEZE.

THAT'S SUCH A WELL-USED FACILITY, AND IT'S USED FOR A WIDE VARIETY OF CLASSES AND EVENTS, EVERYTHING FROM SANTA'S PANCAKE BREAKFAST TO ART AND THINGS.

I THINK THAT THAT'S APPROPRIATELY PLACED AS WELL.

>> DID THEY COMPROMISE ON THIS?

>> JEN, ON THE MISTLETOE HILL IN 27.

IS THAT THAT'S A REPLACEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE AND EVERYTHING?

>> IT'S THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS THE SHADE STRUCTURE BECAUSE THAT PLAYGROUND IS ONE THAT HAS THE FULL SHADE OVER IT.

THAT'S WHY IT'S AS HIGH AS IT IS.

IT'LL ALSO BE RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT AT GRADE, AND IT HAS FIVE BARS, SO WE'LL BE REPLACING ALL THE SURFACING AS WELL.

>> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE? I MEAN, I'LL AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON ABOUT THE BATHROOM, BUT CAN WE MOVE THE BATHROOM TO '27 AND JUST DO IT ALL AT ONCE?

>> THAT'S FINE.

>> NO, I WANT THE BATHROOMS IN '26 AND THE PARKS IN '27.

>> I'M SEEING. CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WE COMBINE THEM INTO THE SAME YEAR?

>> YEAH.

>> SINCE WE JUST DO IT ALL AT ONE TIME.

[BACKGROUND] I THINK, AND I LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, SINCE EVERYTHING ELSE IS IN '26 OR LATER, WELL, I THINK MISTLETOE HILL IS THE ONLY ONE, WASN'T IT?

>> THERE'S CLAUDIA'S IN 2030.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> THAT'S WAY OUT THERE, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING BECAUSE IT'S SO FAR OUT, WE GET TO TALK ABOUT IT LATER.

THEN JUST TO CLARIFY ON THAT CHESAPEAKE BUILDING, ALONG WITH THE HVAC, YOU SAID THEY'RE SHORING UP WHERE THE LEAKS ARE AND EVERYTHING.

>> IF THERE'S ANY AREAS THAT AIR IS ESCAPING OR ENTERING, WE'LL BE SHOWING THOSE UP AS WELL.

RIGHT NOW, ALL THAT IS THE CURRENT DOORS ARE LITERALLY JUST THOSE STORM DOORS.

THOSE WILL BE REPLACED. THE WINDOWS WILL BE REPLACED.

WE'RE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THE GARAGE DOOR AND HOW IT ROLLS UP, WHETHER WE DO A NEW BARN DOOR, WE DO A GARAGE ROLL UP, OR WE DO FRENCH DOORS.

THAT PART IS STILL TBD, BUT YES, MAKING SURE THAT THAT'S ALL SHOWED UP.

>> IS THERE SPRAY FOAM IN THERE RIGHT NOW?

>> THERE IS SOME ON THE ROOF.

THAT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE'RE DEFINING IN THE SCOPE AS WELL, IS HOW MUCH AND WHERE.

>> WE'RE GOOD.

>> THANK YOU.

>> HEY, JEN. LOOKING AT THE RUSSELL FARM, THE BATHROOM AT THE CHESAPEAKE BUILDING.

THE BATHROOM IN THE BARN IS, I KNOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE LIKE A BARN BATHROOM, AESTHETIC, LIKE AN OUTHOUSE.

BUT I DON'T THINK IT WOULD COST MUCH TO UPGRADE IT A LITTLE BIT.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY USED AS MUCH, IF NOT MORE THAN THE OTHER ONE.

COULD WE DO THAT AT THE SAME TIME IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE TOO MUCH FUNDS?

>> LET ME GET THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.

THE REASON THAT CHESAPEAKE WAS PRIORITIZED IS BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT DIVIDER.

RIGHT NOW, IF WE DIVIDE THAT ROOM, YOU HAVE NO ACCESS TO THE RESTROOM.

YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY LEAVE THE FACILITY AND GO TO THE BARN OR THE OFFICE.

THAT'S WHY THAT REQUEST WAS MADE AS IT WAS.

>> OKAY.

>> I AGREE, I'D LIKE TO SEE A QUOTE ON WHAT THAT RESTROOM UPGRADE WOULD LOOK LIKE BECAUSE IT IS WELL USED.

[02:00:08]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND FEEDBACK.

LET'S SEE.

YOU CAN MOVE INTO THE TIF CIP UPDATE FOR YEARS '25-'30.

REALLY, THERE IS NO CHANGE HERE.

WE HAVE THE PROJECTS ALREADY THAT WERE IN 2025, AND THAT IS ALL THAT WE ARE INCLUDING ON THE TIF.

THEN WE MOVE TO THE FIVE-YEAR FORECAST.

IN THE TIF ON THE PROPERTY TAXES, WE DO SHOW A LOWER ASSUMPTION THAN THE REGULAR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES BECAUSE OF THE AREA OF THE TIF BEING CONFINED.

WE ARE LEAVING THESE FLAT IN THE FIRST TWO YEARS AND THEN 1%, THE THIRD AND FOURTH YEAR, AND BACK TO ZERO, THE LAST.

THEN SAME ASSUMPTIONS WITH RELATED EXPENSES THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH ON OTHER FUNDS, AND OF COURSE, INCENTIVES THAT ARE BOUND BY CONTRACTS THERE THAT ARE LISTED.

THESE DECREASE IN FISCAL YEAR '26 FROM THE CURRENT YEAR AND THEN THE FUTURE YEARS AS WELL.

OF COURSE, UNLESS WE GET ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES IN LATER YEARS.

THEN AGAIN, THE DEBT SERVICE LISTED IS SHOWN FOR THE CURRENT DEBT SERVICE, AS WELL AS THE DEBT ISSUED FOR 2025 PROJECTS.

WE DO SHOW A YEAR-END ESTIMATE OF A NET DECREASE IN FUND BALANCE OF 216,000 WITH A ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 724,000, WHICH IS 45% OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE CURRENT YEAR, AND THEN THE PROJECTED NUMBERS FOR 2026.

THAT IS DECREASE OF 141,396, WITH AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF 583.388, WHICH WOULD BRING OUR FUND BALANCE OF EXPENDITURES TO 38.18%.

THEN THAT NEXT YEAR, WE HAVE SLIGHT INCREASES.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE TIF? JUST ADDITIONAL COMMENTS, STAFF ANTICIPATES THE REAPPRAISAL PLANS TO, OF COURSE, IMPACT THE TIF AS WELL, AND LIMITED OPPORTUNITY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS WALKING THROUGH THE TIMELINE OF THE DEBT ISSUANCE.

AGAIN, THIS IS RELATED TO THE 2024 WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS AND THE 2025, ALL OTHER FUNDS, CIP.

THE FIRST COUPLE OF ITEMS WE'VE ALREADY WORKED THROUGH WITH OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, HILLTOP, WHERE THEY'VE REQUESTED SOME INFORMATION AS THEY WORK THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND GET THAT FIRST DRAFT TO US THE FIRST WEEK OF JUNE.

THEN AS THEY PRESENT THAT TO US, WE'LL GO THROUGH IT AGAIN AND MAKE COMMENTS.

LOOK AT ANY CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE.

WE WILL BRING THAT BEFORE COUNCIL ON JUNE 16TH TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH THAT NOTICE OF INTENT TO ISSUE COS. THEN ON JUNE 19TH, WE'LL HAVE THE SECOND DRAFT OF THE OFFICIAL STATEMENT.

WE'LL HAVE THE FIRST AND SECOND NOTICE PUBLISHED.

THEN WE'LL HAVE OUR PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMENT THAT WILL BE DISTRIBUTED TO THE RATING AGENCIES AT THE END OF JUNE.

STAFF WILL HAVE RATING CALLS WITH THE RATING AGENCY AND FINANCIAL ADVISORS AS WE WORK THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

THEN WE'RE EXPECTING TO RECEIVE OUR UPDATED RATING ON JULY 25TH, AND THEN THAT WILL BE POSTED TO POTENTIAL PURCHASES ON JULY 28TH.

WE WILL BRING THAT BEFORE COUNCIL TO PASS AN ORDINANCE TO AUTHORIZE THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATES ON AUGUST 4TH, AND WITH CLOSING AND DELIVERY ON AUGUST 28TH.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE TIMETABLE FOR DEBT?

>> CHRISTINE, JUST A QUESTION.

WE'VE GOT AUGUST 4TH FOR PASSING THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN SORRY, FOR REMEMBERING THIS, BUT AT THE VERY BEGINNING, WE HAD IT LISTED AS AUGUST 18TH FOR PASSING THE ORDINANCE ON THE FIRST SLIDE.

[02:05:05]

>> AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PRESENTATION. I CAN'T GO THAT WAY.

WE WILL LOOK AT THAT AND UPDATE ON OUR CALENDAR IF THAT IS INCORRECT.

THIS IS PROVIDED BY HILLTOP SECURITIES.

>> IT JUST POPPED INTO MY HEAD. I'M SORRY.

>> NO. THANKS. WE APPRECIATE THAT. WE'LL CHECK THAT OUT.

BUT THIS TIMETABLE IS PROVIDED BY HILLTOP SECURITIES, AND SO THIS IS THE ONE THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY LIKE TO GO BY.

>> THAT'S A VERY GOOD CATCH.

WE RECENTLY CHANGED TO THIS SCHEDULE BECAUSE OF THE LEGISLATION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED AND IS WORKING ITS WAY THROUGH AUSTIN.

IF THEY CHANGED THE REQUIREMENT FOR COS AND SO FORTH, OUR BOND COUNCIL THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE ACTUALLY HAD AUTHORIZATION FROM THE COUNCIL AT THE FIRST MEETING IN AUGUST AND ACTUALLY RECEIVED THE PROCEEDS BEFORE THE END OF IT MONTH.

>> WE SHOULD PROBABLY JUST KEEP MOVING FORWARD WITH THAT.

I WOULD THINK, JUST IN CASE, BECAUSE THAT BILL IS HUNG UP, BUT THERE'S ALWAYS A SPECIAL SESSION.

>> WE WILL MAKE THE UPDATE TO OUR BUDGET CALENDAR ACCORDINGLY.

THANK YOU FOR CATCHING THAT. THAT IS THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION, UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE.

>> MCGLORY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DID WE GET THE DIRECTION ON THE VOTER APPROVAL THAT YOU MENTIONED EARLIER?

>> I BELIEVE THAT COUNCIL WANTED TO ECHO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION ON NOT GOING ABOVE THE VOTER APPROVAL, BUT UTILIZING UP TO THE 3.5%.

BUT IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION.

>> THANK YOU.

>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE MAYOR OR COUNCIL AS RELATES TO THIS PRESENTATION? I KNOW THIS WAS A LOT, 81 SLIDES.

I APPRECIATE THE CLEAR FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION.

I THINK QUESTION FROM ME, I KNOW THERE'S MULTIPLE ITERATIONS WE'VE SHOWN OF THE CFPS, AND WE TRY TO BE DELIBERATE IN TERMS OF STRIKE AND ADDITIONS.

IS THERE ANY CHANGES STYLISTICALLY, YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS WE PRESENT BUDGETARY INFORMATION? ARE YOU GOOD WITH THE FORMAT WE'VE PROVIDED? THANKS FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

>> THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH LUNCH.

I'M GOING TO EAT THROUGH LUNCH.

IF YOU WANT TO GET YOUR FOOD, LET'S GO AHEAD AND TAKE A BREAK, AND GET BACK, WE'LL GET STARTED AGAIN. WHO'S UP?

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THAT'S GOING TO BRING US TO ITEM 4C.

[4.C. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide direction regarding a stormwater utility and street maintenance fee. (Staff Contact: Justin Scharnhorst, Deputy Director of Public Works)]

RECEIVER REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION, AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING A STORMWATER UTILITY AND STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

SAYS ON HERE THAT THE STAFF PRESENTER IS JUSTIN SCHARNHORST, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, BUT I SEE THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, ERRICK THOMPSON, STANDING AT THE PODIUM FIRST. DO ROLL HERE?

>> TEAM EFFORT AROUND HERE.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I WANTED TO BY WAY OF A QUICK INTRODUCTION BECAUSE REALLY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR FRIENDS FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE BULK OF THE PRESENTATION, BUT, OF COURSE, STAFF WILL BE HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT NEED TO PARTICIPATE ON.

BUT YOU MIGHT RECALL BACK IN JANUARY, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE CONTRACT WITH FREESE AND NICHOLS TO EXPLORE TWO POTENTIAL FEE PROGRAMS ON OUR STREET MAINTENANCE.

FREESE AND NICHOLS AND CITY STAFF HAVE BEEN HARD AT WORK THE LAST FEW MONTHS DOING A BUNCH OF ANALYSIS AND PULLING TOGETHER THE OUTLINES OR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A FRAMEWORK OF WHAT THOSE TWO FEE STRUCTURES MIGHT LOOK LIKE, A LITTLE BIT OF A MAD DASH TO MAKE SURE WE CAN GET SOMETHING TO YOU BY NOW BECAUSE WE UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THIS COULD BE FOR THE BUDGET DELIBERATIONS THAT ARE UNDERWAY, SO THIS PAST WEEK, WE HAD A I THINK, A PRETTY LIVELY DISCUSSION AT THE INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.

I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THAT FEEDBACK AND GUIDANCE, AS A QUICK TURNAROUND, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO UPDATE THE PRESENTATION SLIGHTLY TO INCORPORATE THE CORE OF THAT FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE LAST WEDNESDAY.

YOU'LL SEE IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION THE INFORMATION PROVIDED LAST WEEK, AS WELL AS SOME NEW INFORMATION THAT ATTEMPTS TO AT LEAST GIVE US A PRELIMINARY LOOK AT WHAT THE GUIDANCE FROM THE COMMITTEE WOULD LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF AT LEAST THE STORMWATER FEE.

WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO TREY SHANKS FROM FREESE AND

[02:10:02]

NICHOLS TO WALK THROUGH THE PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU. GOOD MORNING, EVERYONE.

I'M GOING TO JUMP RIGHT IN ON THIS.

WE'VE GOT A FEW SLIDES TO GO THROUGH, BUT DON'T HESITATE TO ASK QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY IF YOU HAVE ANY.

WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT BOTH THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE AND THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE THAT WE'VE EVALUATED BOTH OF THEM.

BOTH HAVE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AGENDA, THE BASIS FOR THE FEE, THE SERVICE TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE REVENUES FROM THOSE FEES, SOME RATE STRUCTURE, AND THE SCENARIOS THAT WERE EVALUATED FOR CONSIDERATION, AND THEN WHAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE'S FEEDBACK WAS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

BIG PICTURE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STORM SYSTEM, STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, BE SEPARATE ABOUT THE ROAD NETWORK.

FIRST, ON THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE, ALL THESE SIDES WILL BE JUST THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE FOR A WHILE.

JUST A QUICK FRAME OF REFERENCE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT'S BOTH WHAT WE CALL THE GRAY INFRASTRUCTURE, YOUR PIPE SYSTEM, CULVERTS AND THE LIKE, BUT ALSO YOUR NATURAL SYSTEM, SWALES, CREEKS, PONDS, AND THE LIKE.

STORMWATER SYSTEM IS EVERYTHING THAT CONVEYS YOUR STORMWATER.

A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE IS A USER FEE THAT, IN TEXAS, IS SPECIFIC LAW AUTHORIZED BY STATE LAW.

YOU SEE THE CITATION THERE.

THAT MAP ON THE RIGHT SHOWS CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS.

ALL THE BLUE CITIES ARE CITIES WITH A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE.

AS YOU SEE, IT'S REALLY THE PREDOMINANT NUMBER OF CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS HAVE A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE, AND THAT'S REALLY THE CASE THROUGHOUT THE URBANIZED AREAS AROUND TEXAS.

IT'S A DEDICATED FUNDING MECHANISM THAT CITIES CAN USE TO PAY FOR STORMWATER SERVICES.

WHAT THE LAW SETS OUT IS THE ALLOWANCES FOR THE USE OF THE MONEY AND THE CONSTRAINTS FOR IT.

IT MUST BE LIMITED JUST TO STORMWATER-RELATED SERVICES, IT MUST BE BASED ON REASONABLE, EQUITABLE, AND NONDISCRIMINATORY APPROACHES.

TYPICALLY, YOU SEE IT AS A LINE ITEM ON YOUR MONTHLY UTILITY BILL.

I WON'T READ ALL OF THIS IN DETAIL, BUT AS FAR AS HOW THE STORMWATER FEE IS TYPICALLY DETERMINED.

IT'S BASED ON THE USE OF THE SYSTEM OR THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE SYSTEM, SO THAT'S TYPICALLY MEASURED IN IMPERVIOUS AREA OR THE HARD SURFACE THAT PREVENTS PRECIPITATION FROM SOAKING INTO THE GROUND.

THE STORMWATER UTILITY FEE IS LIKE OTHER UTILITY FEES, LIKE GAS, ELECTRIC, WATER, AND THE LIKE.

IT'S PAYING FOR A SPECIFIC SERVICE, IN THIS INSTANCE, THE STORM SYSTEM.

THERE'S A VARIETY OF REASONS THAT COMMUNITIES HAVE A STORMWATER UTILITY FEE.

A LOT OF TIMES IT'S DRIVEN BY COMPLIANCE-RELATED DRIVERS.

IT IS A WHOLE INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK THAT HAS ITS OWN OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS.

IT HAS NEEDS FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK.

IT'S A VERY COMMON APPROACH TO ADDRESS A VARIETY OF THOSE NEEDS.

JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICALLY OF AN EXAMPLE, A COUPLE OF SLIDES HERE.

ON THE LEFT, YOU SEE, A WATER METER IS HOW YOU'VE MEASURED HOW MUCH WATER IS BEING USED.

THE STORMWATER FEE IS THIS HARD SURFACE.

THINK OF ROOFTOP, PAVEMENT, AND THE LIKE THAT HAS THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF, BUT ARE IN VOLUME, VELOCITY, WATER QUALITY IMPACTS AS WELL.

WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE ACTUALLY DONE AN EVALUATION OF THE ENTIRE CITY OF BURLESON TO SEE WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA IN BURLESON.

SOME QUICK STATS HERE.

ON THE LEFT IS A PIE CHART SHOWING YOU THE BREAKDOWN OF THE PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTIES BY TYPE, RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL.

THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THINKING OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ABOUT 94% OF ALL THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ARE RESIDENTIAL.

ONLY 6% OF THE NUMBER OF PROPERTIES ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL.

THAT DOES INCLUDE MULTI-FAMILY IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL.

ON THE RIGHT, THOUGH, SHOWS THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

ABOUT 46% OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA IS RESIDENTIAL,

[02:15:05]

AND 54% IS NON-RESIDENTIAL.

WHILE NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 6% OF THE NUMBER OF PARCELS, IT'S MORE THAN HALF OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA.

THAT GETS TO THE SIZE OF PROPERTIES, THE SIZE OF BUILDINGS, A LOT OF PARKING AREA, AND THE LIKE.

THAT'S FACTORED IN, AND THAT GETS INTO THAT REASONABLE AND EQUITABLE APPROACH REQUIRED BY LAW, THAT YOU'LL SEE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT.

WE'VE DONE THE FULL ANALYSIS ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE CITY.

THERE'S A UNIT OF MEASURE THAT WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT, AS WE GO FORWARD, CALLED AN EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

THAT IS THE MEDIAN IMPERVIOUS AREA FOR A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN BURLESON.

IT'S 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF BLUE.

THAT'LL BE THE UNIT OF MEASURE FOR IMPERVIOUS AREA, BOTH FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL.

I WON'T PLAY WITH THIS TOO LONG, BUT WHEN I'M SAYING 3,500 SQUARE FEET, WHAT I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT IS THAT LIVING AREA.

IF YOU TAKE THIS, ASSUME THIS IS A ONE-STORY HOUSE HERE THAT I'VE GOT WITH GRAPHICS OVERLAYING IT.

WHEN FOLKS TALK ABOUT THEIR HOUSE, TYPICALLY, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LIVING AREA.

THIS WILL BE A 1,900 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, SAY, 1,890.

BUT FROM AN IMPERVIOUS AREA STANDPOINT, THE GARAGE ALSO MATTERS, THE COVERED PATIO, DRIVEWAY, SHED, WALKWAY, AND THE LIKE.

ALL OF THAT TOGETHER IS 3,500 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

NOW, IF THAT WAS A TWO-STORY HOUSE, YOU WOULDN'T DOUBLE COUNT.

YOU WOULDN'T COUNT ALL THAT LIVING AREA.

YOU'D ONLY COUNT THE FOOTPRINT PART OF THAT.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE DID WAS WE PARSED OUT, THERE'S A RANGE OF SIZES OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

WHEN WE SEE THESE SCENARIOS, WE'RE GOING TO SHOW A COUPLE OF OPTIONS FOR EACH.

ONE IS, IF YOU WERE TO CHARGE THE SAME RATE FOR ALL RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, FOR EVERY RESIDENTS, FLAT RATE APPROACH WOULD SHOW THEM ALL AS ONE ERU, WHETHER IT'S THAT GREEN ONE, THAT'S A SMALL HOUSE THAT'S LESS THAN 2,400 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERVIOUS AREA, OR THE MEDIUM ONE, THE BLUE ONE IN THE MIDDLE, THAT REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE, THAT'S 80% OF YOUR HOUSES ARE 2,400 AND 5,300 SQUARE FEET.

THEN YOU'VE GOT 10% OF YOUR PROPERTIES HAVE MORE THAN 5,300 SQUARE FEET.

THE FLAT RATE WOULD TREAT THEM ALL AS THE SAME.

IT WOULD HAVE THE SAME RATE PER MONTH.

THE TIERED RATE THAT WE'RE SHOWING IS BREAKING IT OUT BY THIS PERCENTAGE.

MOST OF YOUR PROPERTIES WOULD BE PAYING AT ONE ERU, EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT, BUT THE SMALLEST 10% WOULD BE PAYING 63% OF WHAT THE RATE WOULD BE, AND THE LARGEST WOULD BE PAYING 92% MORE.

NOW WHAT WE'RE NOT SHOWING IS TEARING OPTIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE THE RANGE IS SO GREAT.

WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IS ON A PER ERU BASIS, PER EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

BASICALLY, FOR EVERY 3,500 SQUARE FEET, THAT WOULD BE ONE ERU.

YOU LOOK AT THE EXAMPLE, SMALL BUSINESS ON THE LEFT, AN INSURANCE AGENCY, THAT'S ABOUT A LITTLE OVER 10,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT WOULD BE THREE ERU.

I PAY THREE TIMES THE RATE OF THE TYPICAL HOUSE.

THE MIDDLE ONE, WE PAY 10 TIMES THE RATE, 35,000 SQUARE FEET, SO IT HAS 10 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA.

THEN THAT LARGEST ONES, LIKE AN EXAMPLE GROCERY STORE, WE PAY 45 TIMES THE MONTHLY RATE OF AVERAGE RESIDENTS.

THAT GETS THAT EQUITABLE APPROACH REQUIRED BY LAW FOR IMPERVIOUS AREA.

YOU'LL SEE A NOTE THERE THAT REALLY PROBABLY CAN BE RESERVED FOR LATER FROM AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT, AS FAR AS BILLING OPTIONS, THERE'S APPROACHES FOR BILLING THAT, AS FAR AS HOW TO ASSESS THE FEE EQUITABLY TO THE RIGHT PROPERTY AND MINIMIZE THE CITY'S ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.

I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE COST OF SERVICE FOR STORMWATER, THAT IS THE BASIS FOR WHAT FEES WE'RE GOING TO SHOW IN THE SCENARIO.

ONE OF THE COST CONSIDERATIONS IS WE WORKED WITH THE CITY TO IDENTIFY EXISTING RECURRING EXPENSES THAT ARE STORMWATER-RELATED.

WE IDENTIFIED ABOUT $3.1 MILLION IN DRAINAGE-RELATED ACTIVITIES.

YOU CAN SEE IN THE SUB BULLETS, DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES THAT THAT ACCOUNTS FOR.

THAT'S IN YOUR EXISTING BUDGET ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, APPROXIMATELY $3.1 MILLION.

[02:20:03]

WE'LL FACTOR THAT IN THE SCENARIOS.

THEN ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS IS THE ADDITION OF A DEDICATED DRAINAGE CREW THAT WAS DISCUSSED.

THAT'D BE ONE ADDITIONAL CREW AND THE EQUIPMENT THAT WOULD GO WITH THAT.

THAT WOULD ALLOW A SHIFTING FROM A REACTIVE APPROACH TO DRAINAGE-RELATED ACTIVITIES TO MORE OF A PLAN PROACTIVE APPROACH TO PROVIDE THAT QUALITY OF SERVICE EXPECTATION FROM THE COMMUNITY.

>> TREY, BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, I DO WANT TO CIRCLE BACK MAYOR TO A QUESTION THAT YOU WOULD ASK REGARDING OTHER CITIES AND THEIR FEES, AND LIKE I SAID, WE WILL COME BACK AND TRY TO DO A COMPARISON OF HOW WE STACK.

BUT I DO THINK THIS IS RELEVANT WHEN WE SHOWED THE MAP EARLIER IN THE PRESENTATION IN TERMS OF PEER CITIES THAT CHARGE THIS FEE VERSUS THE OUTLIERS THAT DON'T.

WE DO FALL IN THAT OUTLIER CATEGORY.

OF THIS 3.1, OTHER CITIES MAY BE OFFSETTING THEIR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES THAT THEY'RE SPENDING ON STORMWATER BY ASSESSING THAT FEE.

WE'RE NOT IN LINE WITH OUR PEER CITIES IN REGARDS TO THIS FEE.

>> BUT THE ISSUE THAT I BRING UP, THOUGH, WE DON'T HAVE EXTRA FUNDS TO TAKE CARE OF WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO LOOK AT.

>> CORRECT. WE'LL GET TO THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION.

IF YOU WERE TO LEVERAGE A STORMWATER FEE TO OFFSET SOME OF THE EXPENDITURES WE PAY FOR IN GENERAL FUND, IT WOULD FREE MONEY UP FOR YOU TO EXPEND THEM ON OTHER THINGS.

>> AS YOU'RE AWARE, YOUR STORM SYSTEM, REALLY, LIKE ANY COMMUNITY, HAS ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.

THERE'S FLOODING ISSUES, CREEK EROSION ISSUES, THE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF CREATES HIGHER VELOCITIES THAT ARE ROAD CREEKS.

THERE'S WATER POLLUTION ISSUES THAT ALWAYS NEED TO BE MANAGED.

YOU'VE ACTUALLY GOT A PERMIT COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT AS WELL.

>> HERE'S AN EXAMPLE AT WARREN PARK OF SILK CLEANOUT, JUST SOME TYPICAL TYPE OF MAINTENANCE THAT'S NECESSARY TO MAKE SURE THAT THE CONVEYANCE CAN HAPPEN NOT CREATE MORE FLOODING PROBLEMS. THOSE ARE BEFORE AND AFTER THERE.

THEN ALSO HERE AT BROOKER CREEK, UNFORTUNATELY NAMED WEST OF JOHNSON AVENUE.

[INAUDIBLE] [LAUGHTER] IS IT FAIR ENOUGH? THAT VEGETATION, THIS CONCRETE LINE CHANNEL IS TYPICALLY THAT WAY BECAUSE YOU NEED THAT CONVEYANCE TO BE SMOOTH, SO YOU'RE NOT HAVING FLOODING ISSUES.

IF YOU'VE GOT THAT VEGETATION, THEN THAT'S SLOWING THINGS DOWN, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LOCALIZED FLOODING THERE.

>> WE'VE HAD SO MUCH RAIN THIS SPRING, AND IT HAS SHOWN AT WARREN PARK.

THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT WAS UP IN THE FLAT SPOTS.

THERE WERE SNAKES. THE KIDS WERE ENJOYING ALL THE THINGS THAT THEY GOT TO DISCOVER BECAUSE THE WATER BROUGHT IT UP ONTO LIKE, CLOSE TO THE PLAYGROUND SPACE.

BUT LOOK AT THAT VEGETATION, AND WE CAN'T MOVE THESE CREEKS.

THEN IT FLOODS STREETS.

IT'S DANGEROUS.

YOU DON'T KNOW HOW DEEP THINGS ARE.

THERE'S A LOT OF DOMINO EFFECT BY NOT HAVING THESE AREAS PROPERLY FUNCTIONING AS THEY SHOULD.

>> EXCELLENT POINT. THEN THAT GETS TO WHERE THAT ADDITIONAL CREW, ALLOWING FOR THAT PLAN MAINTENANCE WOULD PROVIDE FOR THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN THAT.

OVERALL, YOU SEE THE MAP ON THE RIGHT.

THE CITY HAS DONE A NUMBER OF STUDIES OVER THE YEARS BY DRAINAGE BASIN.

THERE'S MORE EVALUATIONS BEING PLANNED, BUT THERE'S 42 KNOWN PROBLEM AREAS CITYWIDE THAT INCLUDE CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LARGE DOLLAR AMOUNT ASSOCIATED WITH THOSE PROBLEMS. SO THERE'S SIGNIFICANT ISSUES THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO ADDRESS BOTH FROM A FLOODING AND EROSION STANDPOINT.

SO I'M GOING TO DO IS TAKE THAT INFORMATION A LITTLE BIT.

WE TALK ABOUT THE IMPERVIOUS AREA AS THE BASIS FOR THE FEE.

THAT'S HOW IT WOULD ALLOCATE COSTS ACROSS TO THE COMMUNITY EQUITABLY AND THAT COST OF SERVICE.

WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT SOME FEE SCENARIOS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE.

COUPLE OF CONSIDERATIONS HERE.

[02:25:01]

ONE IS STATE LAW SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZES COUNCIL TO EXEMPT CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTIES.

THE RATES YOU SEE AND THE REVENUE GENERATED DON'T INCLUDE THOSE EXEMPTIONS.

BUT WE'VE GOT INFORMATION FOR YOU ABLE TO SEE WHAT THOSE EXEMPTION EFFECTS WOULD BE.

THEN, AS WE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, WE'RE GOING TO SHOW FROM A RESIDENTIAL SIDE, BOTH A FLAT AND A TIERED STRUCTURE OPTION WITH THIS 10%, 80%, 10% TIERING.

NO THANKS. WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THREE SCENARIOS.

THE FIRST SCENARIO IS TO FULLY FUND YOUR CURRENT OPERATIONS.

THAT 3.1 MILLION THAT'S FUNDING THE FUND NOW.

SO NO CHANGE IN SERVICE, JUST MOVING THE FUNDING OVER.

THE SECOND SCENARIO IS MOVING THAT FUNDING OVER AND ADDING THE NEW DRAINAGE CREW.

THIRD SCENARIO IS THE FIRST ONE THAT IT'S REALLY JUST STRAIGHT CIP.

I TALK ABOUT BEFORE THERE'S 140 PLUS MILLION DOLLAR IDENTIFIED COST.

THIS IS REALLY TO ADDRESS JUST $25 MILLION THROUGH A DEBT SERVICE PROGRAM.

ABOUT 1.8 MILLION A YEAR OF FUNDING.

THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO THE COMMITTEE, AND THEN I'LL CLOSE UP WITH WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS.

THE FIRST ONE, AGAIN, THE 3.1 MILLION REVENUE GENERATED IN THE FIRST YEAR WOULD BE A MONTHLY RATE OF, IF YOU DID THE FLAT RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL, WOULD BE $6.80 PER MONTH.

FOR NONRESIDENTIAL IT WOULD BE $6.80 FOR EVERY ERU.

THAT MIDDLE PROPERTY THAT BUSINESS I SHOWED EARLIER, THEY HAD 10 ERU, THEY PAY $68 A MONTH.

IF YOU DID A TIER RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL, YOU SEE THAT SPLIT THERE.

THE MIDDLE PROPERTIES ARE STILL AT 680, NON-RESIDENTIAL IS STILL AT 680, BUT NOW THE SMALLEST PROPERTIES ARE AT 4.19, AND THE LARGEST PROPERTIES ARE AT $12.73.

THAT ALL, AS I MENTIONED, DOES NOT FACTOR IN EXEMPTIONS.

DOWN THAT BOTTOM LEFT TABLE, YOU SEE THE TYPES OF PROPERTIES THAT BY LAW, YOU'RE AUTHORIZED TO CHOOSE TO EXEMPT COUNCIL DECISION.

WHAT THE EFFECT WOULD BE IF YOU EXEMPTED EACH OF THOSE FROM AN ANNUAL REVENUE STANDPOINT, OR WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON RATES, IF YOU'RE GOING TO GENERATE THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE, YOU NEED TO RAISE THE RATES MORE THAN 680, SAY, CITY PROPERTY, ANOTHER $0.27 PER ERU.

COLLECTIVELY, YOU CAN SEE OVERALL TO ABOUT $100 A MONTH, IF YOU WERE TO EXEMPT ALL OF THEM.

THAT'S THE FIRST SCENARIO, THE NEXT TWO WILL BE SIMILAR FORMAT.

THIS IS THE SAME, BUT NOW ADDING THE NEW DRAINAGE CREW.

WE'VE GONE FROM $6.80 TO $7.90.

IT'S ABOUT $1.10 EFFECT A MONTH TO ADD THE DRAINAGE CREW.

THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WENT 4.19-4.85 FOR THAT SMALLEST AND 12.73-14.78.

THEN THE THIRD SCENARIO CONTEMPLATED NOT MOVING ANYTHING OVER AND NOT HAVING THE CREW JUST FOCUS ONLY ON CIP.

IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A MENU OF OPTIONS TYPE APPROACH.

WHAT THIS SHOWS IS ABOUT $3.97 A MONTH TO GENERATE $1.8 MILLION FOR $25 MILLION CIP.

FOR TIER RATE RESIDENTIAL, YOU SEE IT'S AS LOW AS 2.16 FOR THE SMALLEST 10% AND AS HIGH AS $7.40 FOR THE LARGEST 10%.

BUT MOST PROPERTIES WOULD BE AT THAT 3.97 FOR RESIDENTIAL.

LOTS OF DISCUSSION, AS ERIC NOTED, AND THERE'S SOME RECOMMENDATIONS THAT CAME OUT OF THE COMMITTEE.

I WANT TO TOUCH ON WHAT THOSE WERE.

ONE WAS TO PROVIDE A SERVICE LEVEL THAT ADDRESSED A PORTION OF THE EXISTING COSTS OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND TO HAVE A PORTION OF THAT TAKEN CARE OF BY THE STORM UTILITY FEE.

A GOAL OF ENHANCING THE O&M TO BE PROACTIVE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE DRAINAGE CREW, AND TARGETING A RATE,

[02:30:02]

A RESIDENTIAL PER ERU RATE OF ABOUT $8 A MONTH TO SEE WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

TIERED RATE STRUCTURE WAS THE RECOMMENDATION, SO THAT THREE-TIERED APPROACH.

NO EXEMPTIONS WERE RECOMMENDED.

THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT AN EMPHASIS ON MAKING SURE TO HAVE PROPER PUBLIC OUTREACH.

TOWN HALLS, PUBLIC INFORMATION CONTENT ALIKE, MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HAS FULL VISIBILITY AND OPPORTUNITY FOR INPUT ON THIS.

FROM THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, WE CREATED A NEW PRELIMINARY SCENARIO FROM LATE LAST WEEK FOR TODAY FOR YOU TO LOOK AT.

THIS IS AT $8 A MONTH FOR RESIDENTIAL.

I'M JUST GOING TO START WITH THE RATES, AND I'LL JUMP OVER ON THE LEFT TOP ABOUT WHAT IT PAYS FOR.

YOU SEE IT'S A LITTLE BIT LESS THAN $5, 4.91 FOR THE SMALLEST AND ALMOST 15 AT 14.95 FOR THE LARGEST 10%.

WHAT THIS WOULD PAY FOR IS ALMOST HALF OF THE EXISTING EXPENSES, 1.5 MILLION OF THE 3.1 WOULD MOVE FROM THE GENERAL FUND OVER THE STORY UTILITY.

PAY FOR THE NEW DRAINAGE CREW.

THAT GETS YOU THAT SHIFT TO A PROACTIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE FROM REACTIVE, AND TO FUND IN THE EQUIPMENT THAT IS NECESSARY ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR FUNDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS THAT $20 MILLION OR SO, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS.

AS WE NOTED BEFORE, YOU'VE GOT 140 PLUS MILLION.

THIS, GIVES YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE, THE FIRST CHUNK OUT OF THAT.

JUST SUMMARIZING WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, OVERALL RATES WISE.

THAT PURPLE SCENARIO IS THE NEW SCENARIO THAT WAS CREATED BASED OFF OF THE COMMITTEE FEEDBACK.

YOU CAN SEE HOW IT COMPARES TO THE OTHER SCENARIOS FROM A RATES STANDPOINT FOR RESIDENTIAL.

THEN FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, GETTING SPECIFIC TO THOSE PROPERTY EXAMPLES.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT'S NOT TIERED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, BUT THESE ARE JUST THREE EXAMPLE PROPERTIES.

IT WOULD BE ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN EACH OF THOSE.

YOU SEE THAT SMALL PROPERTY WOULD BE ABOUT $24 A MONTH.

THAT CAR WASH EXAMPLE IN THE MIDDLE WOULD BE ABOUT 80 BUCKS A MONTH, AND THEN THE GROCERY STORE EXAMPLE WOULD BE ABOUT $360 A MONTH.

THIS REALLY JUST SHOWS THAT EQUITABLE BASIS, THE IMPERVIOUS AREA RELATIVE TO THE REVENUE.

IT'S APPORTIONED THAT WAY.

THOSE EXEMPTIONS, IF YOU WERE EXEMPT CITY OR SCHOOL DISTRICT, OR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, AND THAT COMES OUT OF THAT IMPERVIOUS AREA BASIS, AND IT AFFECTS WHAT YOUR REVENUE IS OR YOUR RATES WOULD NEED TO BE.

WE DID SOME BENCHMARK COMPARISONS.

GO BACK TO THAT EARLIER MAP SHOWING THAT MOST CITIES IN NORTH TEXAS HAVE IT.

WE'VE LOOKED AT YOUR BENCHMARK CITIES.

ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT ALL THE BENCHMARK CITIES DO HAVE A FLAT RESIDENTIAL RATE, AND THAT THEY ALL HAVE A RATE.

ALL OF YOUR NORMAL BENCHMARK CITIES ALREADY HAVE A STORM UTILITY.

YOU CAN SEE WHERE THESE SCENARIOS FALL IN THE SPECTRUM, RELATIVE TO YOUR BENCHMARK CITIES.

SCENARIO 2 AND 4 NEAR THE TOP IN RELATIVE TO THIS.

I WILL SAY WITH THIS, WHAT THIS TAKES IS EACH CITY HAS ITS OWN STRUCTURE FOR HOW THEY DO THINGS, AND SO WE DO IS TAKE A TYPICAL HOUSE AND THAT REPRESENTS AN AVERAGE HOUSE IN BURLESON, AND IF YOU WERE TO STICK IT INTO EACH OF THESE CITES, WHAT WOULD THEIR RATE BE? THERE'S A VARIETY OF APPROACHES THAT EACH CITY TAKES.

WE TRY TO GET AS CLOSE TO AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON AS POSSIBLE.

OF THE 10 BENCHMARK CITIES THAT YOU HAVE, JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK STATS.

YOU DO RANK IN THE UPPER HALF RELATIVE TO YOUR AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN THAT YOU HAVE THE PERCENT OF YOUR CITY THAT'S IN FLOODPLAIN.

YOU'VE GOT MORE THAN AVERAGE STORMWATER FLOOD RELATED ISSUES TO DEAL WITH AND YOU'RE ABOUT MIDDLE OF THE PACK SAME WAY ON NUMBER OF STREAM MILES TO MANAGE, AS WELL.

THE FEEDBACK WE'RE LOOKING FOR TODAY IS REALLY THESE FOUR ITEMS. WE'LL PROBABLY START WITH THE 2, 3,

[02:35:03]

AND 4, THEN, TALK ON ONE.

BUT THOSE EXEMPTIONS. WELL, FIRST, QUESTION OVERALL IS, IS THIS SOMETHING YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH FUNDAMENTALLY?

>> I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION, AND MAYBE I JUST WANT TO HEAR YOU SAY IT.

THIS $8, WE'RE GOING TO CHARGE $8 A MONTH TO EVERY BURLESON RESIDENT? WHAT ARE THEY GETTING FOR THIS $8 A MONTH?

>> EXCELLENT. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE.

FOR $8 A MONTH, PART OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THE NEW DRAINAGE CREW.

THEY'RE GOING TO SEE A SHIFT FROM REACTIVE MAINTENANCE TO PLANNED MAINTENANCE, SO YOU CAN GET AHEAD OF PROBLEMS AS OPPOSED TO WAITING UNTIL THEY OCCUR AND THEN FIXING THEM.

YOU'RE GOING TO SEE OF ALL THOSE CAPITAL NEEDS, THOSE FLOODING NEEDS AND EROSION ISSUES ACROSS THE CITY, YOU'RE GOING TO SEE THE FIRST DENT TAKEN IN ADDRESSING THOSE ACROSS THE CITY.

THAT MAP I'VE SHOWN EARLIER, YOU'VE GOT DOTS ALL OVER THE CITY.

YOU'LL SEE A REPRESENT FIX OF THAT OVERALL.

THEN THEY WON'T SEE IT DIRECTLY.

BUT INDIRECTLY, YOU'LL SEE THAT, WELL, THERE'S $1.5 MILLION THAT'S BEING BURDENED BY THE GENERAL FUND NOW THAT WILL BE RELIEVED, AND OTHER ISSUES IN THE CITY WILL BE ABLE TO BE ADDRESSED WITH THAT 1.5 MILLION THEY CURRENTLY ARE.

>> TO BE CLEAR, TOO, THIS DISCUSSION CAME UP AT COMMITTEE.

YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO OFFSET ANY OF THE EXISTING GENERAL FUND COST.

IF YOU WANT TO JUST FOCUS ON THE NEW AND MAKE THAT ALL CAPITAL, OR YOU WANT TO MAKE IT CAPITAL AND AN ADDITIONAL CREW, YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN DO THAT.

THERE'S THE OPTION TO PICK UP SOME OF WHAT WE ALREADY PAY TODAY IN THE GENERAL FUND.

ANOTHER CONVERSATION THAT CAME UP WAS WITH REGARD TO OUR STREET AND DRAINAGE CREW TODAY.

THAT'S A SHARED CREW THAT PRIMARILY FOCUSES ON STREET MAINTENANCE, AND THEY ADDRESS THINGS AS THEY COME UP.

THEY'RE VERY REACTIVE IN NATURE BECAUSE STREETS IS A LOT OF TIME WHERE THEY'RE SPENDING THEIR TIME.

THIS WOULD BE A SEPARATE CREW DEDICATED TO PROACTIVE WORK.

>> GOING BACK TO IT, THIS $8, THOUGH, IT'S GOING TO SHOW ON THEIR MONTHLY BILL.

>> IT WOULD BE A LINE ITEM ON THEIR MONTHLY.

>> IT'LL BE ON THEM. WE'RE NOT GOING TO SHOW THAT, HEY, YOU'RE NOT PAYING THE 1.4 MILLION.

IT'S GOING TO BE $8 A MONTH IS GOING TO GO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD DRAINAGE.

>> OR WHATEVER THE COUNCIL SHOULD [OVERLAPPING].

>> WHATEVER SHOULD COME UP.

>> BECAUSE THAT WAS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT YOU'RE NOT BOUND TO $8.

>> I GOT YOU.

>> I GOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE EXEMPTIONS.

OTHER THAN THE RELIGIOUS INSTITUTES, THE CITIES, AND SO FORTH, WHAT OTHER EXEMPTIONS, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE LIKE IN PROPERTY TAX, WE HAVE DISABILITY EXEMPTIONS? WE HAVE OVER 65 HOMESTEAD.

WOULD ANY OF THOSE CALCULATE INTO AN EXEMPTION FOR THIS?

>> NO, SIR?

>> NO?

>> NO. THE EXEMPTIONS SHOWN WERE ALLOWED BY STATE LAW, BUT IT'S COMMONLY ASKED, BUT, LIKE SENIOR CITIZENS AND THERE'S NOT A SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATION FOR THAT.

THAT'S REALLY ONE OF THE COMMON REASONS TO THAT TEARING OF THE RATE STRUCTURE AS TO ACCOMMODATE AN EQUITABLE WAY.

>> WELL, THE APPEARANCE, I'LL GET INTO THAT IN A MINUTE, THOUGH.

NEVER MIND. I GOT A STATEMENT TO READ. THANK YOU.

>> CAN WE GO BACK TWO SLIDES JUST TO DO THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE CITIES? I DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE STORMWATER SINCE WE DON'T HAVE IT.

I GUESS MY THOUGHT IS, I'D LIKE TO GET THE COMMITTEE'S THOUGHTS ON IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT IT.

NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO BE THE TOP OF EVERYBODY AND TO NOT DO THE FLAT RATE ACROSS THE BOARD, THAT WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING.

I AGREE WITH NO EXEMPTIONS BECAUSE EVERYBODY AFFECTS THE STORMWATER.

BUT MAYBE IF WE WERE TO START THIS, START IT IN THE MIDDLE, OR LIKE AROUND WHERE SCENARIO 1 IS, JUST THOUGHTS.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. IT'S NOT JUST THE STORM DRAINAGE.

IT'S BEING PROACTIVE.

WHEN WE SAW THE PICTURE OF BROOKER CREEK, HOW MANY MOSQUITOES ARE IN THAT? THIS IS MORE ABOUT INSECT CONTROL AND GETTING AHEAD OF STUFF.

INSTEAD OF SITTING THERE OR WATCHING IT IN FRONT OF OUR EYES DETERIORATE TO A POINT.

NOW WE'RE LOOKING AT A CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT.

THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE MANAGED.

I'M FINE WITH WHAT ADAM IS TALKING ABOUT.

[02:40:01]

>> ADAM, I'M NOT SURE THAT YOU GOT THE ANSWER YOU WERE SEEKING FOR YOUR QUESTION, BUT AS FAR AS THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS ABOUT THE TIERED STRUCTURE, IT HAD MORE TO DO WITH BEING ABLE TO POSITION OURSELVES WHERE WE CAN ACCEPT AND EVALUATE COMMENTS FROM CITIZENS THAT IF WE AVERAGE ALL THE HOME SIZES AND ALL THE COMMUNITY, THEN I'M AN EMPTY NEST COUPLE LIVING IN A SMALLER HOUSE OR I'M A YOUNG COUPLE TRYING TO WORK MY WAY UP, I'M LIVING IN A SMALL PLACE, WHY SHOULD I HAVE TO PAY THE SAME RATE THAT SOMEBODY PAYS WITH A SPRAWLING HUGE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME? I'M SYMPATHETIC TO, I'M NOT GOING TO CALL THIS A TAX, BUT ANY FEE THAT'S ADDED TO WHAT PEOPLE HAVE TO PAY FOR GOVERNMENT, IN MY MIND, SHOULD BE KEYED AS CLOSELY AS POSSIBLE TO THE AMOUNT OF IMPACT THAT THAT PARTICULAR PERSON HAS ON THE PROBLEM.

THAT'S ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO, IN MY MIND, USE THE TIER STRUCTURE.

IT'S DIFFICULT TO LOOK AT THIS.

IT'S NOT PURELY A WATER ENTERPRISE TYPE THING, AND IT'S NOT PURELY A PROPERTY TAX TYPE THING.

IT'S WHAT PROBLEM DO WE HAVE AND WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO IT.

I DON'T RECOMMEND EXEMPTING CHURCHES, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.

BUT CHURCHES HAVE BIG BUILDINGS AND HUGE PARKING LOTS.

THEY ACTUALLY ARE THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THE PROBLEM, AND YOU CAN SAY, WELL, THEIR REVENUE SOURCE IS THE SAME PEOPLE AS THEY'RE PAYING THE FEES FOR THEIR OWN HOMES.

IN LARGE PART, THAT'S TRUE.

THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO IT BECAUSE I KNOW THEY HAVE AN AWFUL LOT OF BUDGETARY ISSUES NOWADAYS, BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT ATTEND SCHOOLS AREN'T BURLESON RESIDENTS, BUT YET ALL THE WATER IS OUR WATER TO HANDLE BECAUSE IT'S WITHIN OUR CITY LIMITS.

TRYING TO EQUATE THE USER OF SERVICE WITH THE COST OF THE SERVICE IS ALWAYS A TRICK.

BUT I THINK THE WAY WE'VE APPROACHED IT TRIES TO ACHIEVE THAT.

AS FAR AS JUSTIFICATION OF THE FEE IN GENERAL, I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE JUSTIFIED THIS FEE AND INSTITUTED THIS FEE YEARS AGO.

IT'S COME TO THE COUNCIL TWICE IN THE PAST, AND THE COUNCIL REFUSED TO TAKE ACTION ON IT.

NOW WE'RE ONE OF THE FEW COMMUNITIES AROUND HERE THAT BASICALLY MAKE UP THE EXPENSES THAT THIS REVENUE STREAM WOULD HAVE PROVIDED JUST OUT OF STRAIGHT UP PROPERTY TAXES.

WELL, THAT'S NOT RIGHT. ALL IN ALL, THAT'S MY REASONS FOR THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE MADE.

>> THAT'S GOOD. LIKE I SAID, WE NEED TO DO IT.

I'M FINE NOW AFTER THE EXPLANATION.

THANK YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM, MCCLENDON, ABOUT THE TIERED, AND IT REALLY IS JUST THE QUESTION OF WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT.

BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WE WANT TO BE PROACTIVE, BUT WE NEED SOMETHING.

JUST REALLY THE QUESTION, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PIERS, AND NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THE TOP.

>> THERE'S ALSO THE AESTHETICS OF THE CITY.

SOME OF THESE AREAS LOOK REALLY BAD.

I BELIEVE THE COMMITTEE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT A HYBRID BETWEEN OPTION 2 AND 3.

>> WAS THAT THE CASE ON THAT?

>> WHERE WE USE PART OF THE MONEY FOR CIP? POSSIBLY A BOND PACKAGE FOR THE BIGGER PROGRAM.

>> SORRY, THERE WAS A QUESTION YOU BROUGHT UP, MAYOR, ABOUT WHAT FEES THESE OTHER CITIES ARE CHARGING WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT RAISING THE DEBT RATE.

YOU'VE GOT YOUR ANSWER ON SOME OF THIS RIGHT HERE.

NOW WE'RE STILL GOING TO BE AT THE TOP.

TO GO ON TOP OF THE DEBT RATE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IT'S A LITTLE HESITANT ON.

>> I'M JUST LOOKING AT ANY REVENUE HERE.

[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW.

>> I THINK THAT WITH THIS, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IF WE HAVE THAT EIGHT DOLLARS, THAT STAYS WITHIN THE CITY OF BURLESON, IT'S NOT GOING TO COUNTY.

IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE.

THAT WILL BE EIGHT DOLLARS THAT WILL BE SPENT ON OUR COMMUNITY.

>> THESE WILL BE OUR IMPROVEMENTS.

>> THAT'S LIKE WASTE WATER THAT STAYS IN HOUSE.

>> WITHIN YOUR CCN WASTE WATER THOUGH, MAY NOT BE IN YOUR CORPORATE LIMITS.

>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I GUESS SORTING DOWN TO THE RIGHT MORE THAN ANYTHING.

>> TWO SECONDS.

>> YOUR CCN DOESN'T NECESSARILY FOLLOW YOUR CITY LIMITS.

YOU CAN HAVE AREAS OUTSIDE OF YOUR CITY LIMITS THAT ARE IN YOUR WATER AND SEWER SERVICE AREA.

>> GOT YOU.

>> DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> YES. THANK YOU.

>> I STRUGGLE A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE'RE TALKING FEE OR TAX,

[02:45:04]

WHICH WOULD BE THE BEST.

IS A FEE REALLY A TAX, TRYING TO JUSTIFY IT AND TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE COST.

IF I WAS TALKING TO A CITIZEN FACE TO FACE TODAY, HOW WOULD I EXPLAIN IT TO HIM? I HAD TO SIT DOWN AND LOOK AT THIS ONE VERY CAREFUL AND WRITE A LOT OF PROS AND CONS TO SEE WHICH WAY I WOULD LEAN ON THIS. IT WAS PRETTY EVEN.

I WROTE IT OUT IN A SHORT SUMMARY HERE SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND HOW I MADE MY DECISION.

DAN GETS COMFORTABLE. HE'S BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE.

>> LARRY, EVERY TIME YOU TALK, I LEARN SOMETHING. LAY IT ON, MAN.

>> THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS DILIGENTLY MAINTAINED LOCAL DITCHES AND COVERTS TO MANAGE STORM-WATER RUNOFF IN BURLESON.

THE CITY HAS BEEN CARING FOR DITCHES SINCE 1912.

YET THERE'S NEVER BEEN A COMPREHENSIVE MULTI-JURISDICTIONAL PLAN TO EFFECTIVELY DIRECT STORM-WATER THROUGH BURLESON AND DOWNSTREAM.

I KNOW WE'VE HAD A LOT OF FEMA COME OUT A LOT OF TIMES AND HAS DONE SMALL PLANS.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEM OR IF WE JUST RECEIVED THE PLANS, IF WE COULD FOLLOW THROUGH ON THEM.

THE CONCEPT IS SIMPLE, WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

ENVISION A DITCH IN FRONT OF A HOUSE WITH A THREE FOOT DAM OF SILK, BLOCKING THE UPSTREAM WATER FROM FLOWING DOWNSTREAM.

REMOVING A SHOVEL FULL OF SILK FROM THE UPSTREAM IN MAY PROVIDE TEMPORARY RELIEF.

BUT IT INADVERTENTLY CAUSES THE NEWLY CREATED SPACE TO FLOOD.

REPEATING THIS PROCESS ONLY ENLARGES THE FLOOD ZONE, AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.

A CIVIL ENGINEER WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE MOST EFFECTIVE APPROACH IS TO START AT THE DOWNSTREAM END ENSURING A CLEAR WATER FLOW PATHWAY WHEN THE LAST SHOVEL FULL OF SILT IS REMOVED.

THAT'S A SIMPLE WAY TO PUT OUR PROBLEM INTO PERSPECTIVE.

BURLESON'S LOCAL STORM-WATER DITCHES ARE WELL MAINTAINED ALLOWING WATER TO FLOW SMOOTHLY OUT OF COMMUNITIES.

HOWEVER, DOWNSTREAM CONSTRAINTS LIMITS HOW MUCH STORM-WATER OUR CREEKS CAN PROMPTLY DISCHARGE.

THIS IS NOT JUST A LOCAL ISSUE.

IT REQUIRES A MULTI- JURISDICTIONAL APPROACH.

ORGANIZATIONS LIKE COG, FEMA, AND CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND ALL EFFECTIVE LOCAL TAXING ENTITIES MUST COLLABORATE TO DEVELOP A COMPREHENSIVE STORM-WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.

WHILE THE CITY IS EXCELLENT AT CLEANING ITS DITCHES.

DOING SO WITHOUT ADDRESSING DOWNSTREAM FLOW IS LIKE REMOVING SILK FROM THE WRONG END OF THE DAM, CAUSING UPSTREAM WATER TO BUILD UP FASTER, THEN IT CAN BE RELEASED.

ADDITIONALLY, RECENT JOHNSON COUNTY CAD BOARD DECISIONS HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECTED BURLESON CITIZENS.

WITHOUT PRIOR NOTICE, THESE ACTIONS HAVE DISRUPTED THE CITY'S ABILITY TO FINANCE GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT BASED ON THE COMMUNITY'S NEEDS.

IMPLEMENTING A STORM-WATER RUNOFF FEE, EFFECTIVELY, CIRCUMVENTS THE SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET PROCESS, WHERE RESOURCES WOULD TYPICALLY BE ALLOCATED FOR ADDITIONAL STAFF AND EQUIPMENT.

GIVEN THE FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS STEMMING FROM THE JOHNSON COUNTY CAD'S DECISIONS, WE WILL FACE LIMITATIONS ON THE SUPPLEMENTS GRANTED.

A STORM-WATER RUNOFF FEE WILL BE NECESSARY AS A SHORT TERM SOLUTION, THE PROPOSED FEE WOULD ESTABLISH A DEDICATED FUND, SO IT WOULD BE IN A DEDICATED FUND.

THAT'S BY LAW, I BELIEVE.

I AGREE WITH THE I&D COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION OF 3.7 MILLION TO 4.1 MILLION ANNUALLY INCORPORATING A TIERED STRUCTURE WHERE THE MIDDLE RESIDENTIAL 80% PAYS $8 MONTHLY ERU ADDITIONALLY.

I REQUEST THAT THE CITY STAFF DOCUMENT AND PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL A PLAN OUTLINING THE LOCATIONS TO BE MANAGED, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE PRESENTED TO US, BUT AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR, WE NEED TO SEE THE RESULTS OF THE FUND.

THE FEE CAN BE MORE EQUITABLE THAN PROPERTY TAX, IN SOME WAYS, AS IT'S BASED ON THE PROPERTY'S IMPACT ON STORM-WATER SYSTEMS, LIKE THE AMOUNT OF PAVED SURFACE, RATHER THAN ON PROPERTY VALUE.

CHARGING A FEE SPECIFICALLY ALLOCATES FUNDS FOR STORM-WATER RUNOFF MANAGEMENT, WHERE RELIANCE ON PROPERTY TAXES DO NOT.

PROPERTY TAX FUNDS COULD BE USED ALMOST ANYWHERE WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.

WE MUST MAKE EVERY EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT CITIZENS WITH EXEMPTIONS MAINTAIN THE EXEMPTIONS WHEN CALCULATING AND CHARGING THE STORM-WATER.

NOW, I WROTE THAT DOWN BEFORE I FOUND OUT WITH MY QUESTION WHILE AGO THAT WE CAN'T ROLL OVER THE EXEMPTIONS. WE CAN'T DO THAT.

OUR EFFORTS TO CLEAR DITCHES MUST CONTINUE, AND OUR STAFF AND EMPLOYEES DESERVE RECOGNITION FOR THEIR COMMITMENT TO MAINTAINING THE CITY'S LOCAL DRAINAGE SYSTEMS. HOWEVER, THE NEXT STEP SHOULD INVOLVE A STRATEGIC PLAN WITH OTHERS TO MANAGE DOWNSTREAM ACCESS.

ADDING ANOTHER FEE TODAY TO PURCHASE MORE EQUIPMENT AND FTES WOULD BE LIKE REMOVING THE SECOND SHOVEL OF SILK FROM THE WRONG END OF THE DAM WITHOUT A DOWNSTREAM PLAN.

AS I CONCLUDE, WE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE STORM-WATER RUNOFF FEE SHOULD BE TEMPORARY UNTIL JOHNSON COUNTY CAD MEETS PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THE I&D COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S A LONG WAY TO SAY IT.

[02:50:03]

[LAUGHTER]

>> BASICALLY, YOU'RE SAYING DOWNSTREAM IS THE COUNTY.

I'VE SEEN THAT. I'VE SEEN STUFF PILED UP IN THE CREEKS.

>> [BACKGROUND] WHAT I'M SAYING IS IT WOULD BE COUNTY.

WE'RE RECEIVING THE WATER FROM JOHNSON COUNTY, BUT IT'S TARRANT COUNTY THAT RESTRICTS US.

TARRANT COUNTY, FORT WORTH, EVERMAN, WHERE THE CREEKS RUN GOING TOWARDS LAKE ARLINGTON, BUT WE NEED TO GET WITH WHOEVER WE CAN, OUR REPRESENTATIONS OR THE CITY AND CREATE A PLAN TO GET RID OF THIS WATER BECAUSE WE CAN CLEAN OUT EVERY DITCH AND REBUILD EVERY DITCH IN THE CITY OF BURLESON.

THE WATER IS STILL GOING TO SIT HERE.

>> THE PROBLEM WE GOT, AND I BROUGHT THIS UP IN THE COMMITTEE MEETING IS ON STRIP ANNEX RENFRO.

I WAS WORKING WITH COMMISSIONER WHITE AND WE WAS GOING INTO AN AREA.

RIGHT OFF WHERE ANNEXATION END, THAT'S PRIVATELY OWNED.

THAT'S NOT THE COUNTY.

THAT'S THE PROBLEM THEY GOT IS THE PROPERTY OWNERS DON'T CLEAN THE CREEK UP.

I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.

I'M JUST GIVING YOU THAT INFORMATION THAT IT'S NOT AS EASY.

>> I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THE LAWS, BUT SHOULDN'T THE CORPS OF ENGINEER OR THERE'S SOME DEPARTMENT THAT DOES HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THOSE CREEKS THROUGH PRIVATE PROPERTY.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> NOT KNOWING THE SPECIFICS OF IT, BUT I'LL JUST SAY TYPICALLY, THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS WOULDN'T GET INTO DOING CHANNEL MAINTENANCE, AND CLEARING THAT OUT.

THEY'D LET IT STAY IN THE CONDITION IT'S IN AS FAR AS WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO EXPEND THEIR FUNDS.

YOUR POINT I WILL SAY OVERALL, THE CLASSIC LINE IS STORM-WATER DOESN'T FOLLOW JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES.

YOUR OVERALL POINT IS SPOT ON, AND THERE'S NOW A STATEWIDE FLOOD PLANNING EFFORT GOING ON FOR THAT EXACT REASON.

THERE'S DIFFERENT REGIONS ACROSS THE STATE, AND THE STATE IS LEADING THAT OVERALL.

I THINK BURLESON IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED, WITH THAT.

YOU'RE THINKING THE RIGHT WAY FOR SURE.

>> DIRECTION WE NEED TO PICK IS HOW DO WE WANT TO DO THIS, WHICH I THINK WE NEED TO.

WE'RE REALLY DOWN TO THE BOTTOM LINE OF WHICH PAYMENT PROGRAM DO WE WANT TO GO WITH.

I LIKE THE IDEA OF OPTION 2 AND 3, WHERE WE CAN ACCESS SOME OF THIS FOR A CPI TO GET SOME OF THE LARGER PROJECTS DONE AND PAY FOR IT THROUGH PAYMENT.

ANY OTHER VERSIONS HERE?

>> COULD WE MAKE OUR NEXT PAYMENTS WITH FEE MONEY?

>> [OVERLAPPING] YES, SIR. YOU CAN.

THAT'S 20-25 MILLION CAPACITY ASSUMED, I THINK, AN ANNUAL $1.8 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE.

>> I LIKE THE EIGHT DOLLARS FEE WITH IT BEING SPECIFICALLY USED FOR THIS AND THIS ONLY.

>> IT WOULD DEFINITELY BE USED FOR THAT.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO TRY TO GET OUR HEAD WRAPPED AROUND IS, I THINK I GENERALLY HEAR A MAX OF EIGHT DOLLARS FEE.

UNDERSTANDING IF THE COUNCIL'S ON BOARD WITH THE COMMITTEE'S FOCUS ON NEW AND THEN ANY RESIDUAL OFFSETTING EXISTING GENERAL FUND COSTS BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE GOT FROM THE COMMITTEE WAS, IF WE'RE GOING TO IMPLEMENT A NEW FEE, THERE'S AN OBLIGATION TO DO MORE THAN WHAT WE DO TODAY, AND THEN ANYTHING ADDITIONAL, TRY TO OFFSET AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

UNDERSTANDING THAT PRIORITY IS CRITICAL FOR US.

>> AS FAR AS THE OBLIGATION, IF WE DO PUT ON THE THREE FTES AND THE NEW EQUIPMENT.

I KNOW JUSTIN'S DOING A GOOD JOB OF KEEPING A CREW AND EQUIPMENT WORKING ON THESE DITCHES.

IF HE DOESN'T MAINTAIN THAT CREW ALSO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ANYWHERE BEYOND WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.

>> YES, SIR.

>> I'M ON THE COMMITTEE, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY VOTE FOR IT.

I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT UP TO THE FOUR OTHER MEMBERS.

HOW DO YOU ALL FEEL ABOUT THIS?

>> I AGREE, WE ABSOLUTELY NEED THE FEE.

I'M IN FAVOR OF THE TIER FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE, AS MAYOR PRO TEM MENTIONED, EXPLAINING IT TO CITIZENS AND UNDERSTANDING

[02:55:02]

THAT EVERYBODY'S RUNOFF AND CONTRIBUTION TO THIS SYSTEM ISN'T THE SAME, AND I DON'T BELIEVE SOMEBODY IN A 1,500 SQUARE FOOT HOME SHOULD BE AT THE SAME LEVEL AS A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME, PLUS ALL THE ADDITIONAL THINGS.

I'M COMPLETELY AMAZED THAT FREESE AND NICHOLS WAS ABLE TO CONSIDER ALL THE ADDITIONAL LIKE THE STORAGE UNITS, THE COVERED PARKING.

THERE'S SO MANY OTHER PIECES THAT I JUST WASN'T PICTURING, AND WE HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY IN BURLESON, AND SO THE FACT THAT WE TOOK ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION TO THOROUGHLY THINK OUT AN APPROPRIATE AS BALANCED AS WE COULD FEE STRUCTURE, I APPRECIATE THOSE EFFORTS.

I AGREE WITH COUNCILMEMBER RUSSELL ON IT'S REALLY A HARD BILL TO SWALLOW TO COME OUT WHEN WE HAVEN'T HAD THIS FEE AND COME OUT ON THE HIGHEST END OF IT.

I RECOGNIZE WE HAVE WORK TO DO, AND I GUESS I'M STILL NOT UNDERSTANDING WHEN I'M LOOKING AT THIS CHART, SCENARIO 1, EXISTING; SCENARIO 2, EXISTING PLUS NEW.

I GUESS IF I'M REITERATING WHAT YOU JUST SAID, TOMMY, WE'RE IMPLEMENTING POTENTIALLY A NEW FEE, SO CITIZENS WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY'RE GETTING WITH THAT, NOT NECESSARILY BEING RETROACTIVE, BUT FORWARD.

FORWARD MOVING, HOW DO WE SHOW WHAT THEY'RE GETTING FOR THESE DOLLARS? AS THE MAYOR SAID, UP TO THIS POINT, IT HAS BEEN REACTIVE.

WE WAIT UNTIL SOMETHING IS BEYOND CLEANING OUT AND NOW IT'S ON OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, SO MAYBE WE'LL GET TO FIX THAT SILT ISSUE.

I KNOW THIS PROJECT, WHAT IS THE STREET THAT FLOODS ALL THE TIME NEXT TO OLD TOWN OVER HERE ON THE SIDE OF FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH?

>> THE TRENT IN THE WATER?

>> YES, THAT'S A BIG EXAMPLE OF THIS BUILT UP AND BUILT UP, AND FINALLY, IT BECAME A CAPITAL PROJECT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT MAINTAINED WELL ENOUGH, AND SO THE DOLLAR SIGN SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BECAUSE IT BECOMES A CAPITAL PROJECT.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BALANCES OF NOT GOING TO THE HIGHEST END, BUT I AM ABSOLUTELY IN FAVOR OF HAVING A DEDICATED CREW.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'RE JUST REACTIVE.

WE'RE NOT STAYING AHEAD OF THE GAME, AND SO THEREFORE, IT BECOMES A TAKE THIS CREW OFF OF THAT PROJECT THAT THEY'RE WORKING ON AND HURRY UP AND CLEAN THIS UP BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PASS DOBSON OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, BECAUSE WE CAN'T ANTICIPATE THE HEAVY RAIN THAT HAS BEEN FALLING.

THEN ON THE OTHER END, THE HEAVY DROUGHT THAT WE'LL END UP GETTING.

>> WHEN WE TALK ABOUT FUNDING, THE WAY WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT NOW, ARE WE GETTING PERSONNEL AND THEIR OWN EQUIPMENT JUST FOR THAT? IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN REDUCE THE START UP SOME WAY OR ANOTHER BY POSSIBLY SHARING USE OF EQUIPMENT, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE? POSSIBLY DO THAT AND GET THE RATE DOWN FOR A START UP BECAUSE DAN BROUGHT IT UP THAT $7, $8 IS THE LIMIT OF WHAT WE CAN GO TO BEFORE PEOPLE REALLY START GETTING PUT OUT WITH US.

$8 IS A LOT OF MONEY AT ONE-TIME, YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> WELL, A HANDFUL OF THINGS TO UNPACK.

I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND ADDING THE CREW WITHOUT THE DEDICATED EQUIPMENT BECAUSE THEY'LL NEED IT TO BE PRODUCTIVE AND WORK INDEPENDENTLY.

HOWEVER, IF YOU WANT TO REDUCE THE FEE, YOU CAN EITHER REDUCE HOW MUCH OF THE EXISTING GENERAL FUND COST THAT YOU'RE OFFSETTING OR YOU COULD REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL WORK THAT YOU PLAN TO DO.

COUNCILMEMBER JOHNSON, TO YOUR POINT, THAT SCENARIO 1 WAS JUST ABOUT CAPTURING, FROM A MATH PERSPECTIVE, WHAT DO WE DO TODAY THAT'S STORMWATER ELIGIBLE? NO ADDITIONAL IS ALL THE THINGS WE DO, STREET SWEEPING, MS4, ALL THE WORK THAT KRISTEN DOES BUT IT GETS INTO PLAN REVIEW AND OTHER COMPONENTS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY THEY ARE ATTRIBUTABLE TO STORMWATER, BUT THEY WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE SUPER CLEAR TO THE AVERAGE PERSON.

IT'S JUST CAPTURING THE COST THAT WE HAVE TODAY.

SCENARIO 2 CAPTURES ALL OF THAT PLUS ADDS ACCRUED.

SCENARIO 3 IS SIMPLY THE CAPITAL ASPECT.

IT'S NOT ANY EXISTING.

IT'S JUST DOING NEW CAPITAL PROJECTS, NOT NEW MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION, NOR IS IT TAKING ANY EXISTING EXPENDITURES TODAY.

DOES THAT CLEAR THAT UP A LITTLE BIT?

>> THANK YOU.

>> I JUST DON'T WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS WITH JUSTIN AND ERIC.

[03:00:03]

I DON'T WANT TO TIE THEIR HANDS BY HAVING PEOPLE SHARE EQUIPMENT.

GET EACH ONE OF THEIR EQUIPMENT.

I'VE HAD THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND DID THAT ONE TIME WITH SOME ATHLETE TEAMS SHARE EQUIPMENT.

WELL, LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, IT WEARS OUT TWICE AS FAST.

SOME OF THEM DOESN'T LAST VERY LONG.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TURN AROUND AND BUY NEW EQUIPMENT EXTREMELY FAST.

THEN SIMPLY JUST TAKING SOMEBODY OFF OF THE JOB TO DO STREET MAINTENANCE TODAY, YOU'RE DOING THIS, CLEANING THE DITCHES, YOU'RE DOING THIS WITH STREET MAINTENANCE.

GIVE THEM WHAT THEY NEED SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY EXCUSES.

GIVE THEM THE EQUIPMENT, GIVE THEM THE MONEY, GIVE THEM THE TOOLS, AND GO FROM THERE.

IT NEEDS TO BE DONE.

WE'RE ABOUT 10 YEARS BEHIND THE SCALE.

SO WHAT IF WE'RE THE TOP DOGS IN THE STATE? I KNOW THE $8 IS TOUGH, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BITE THE BULLET.

SOMEBODY SHOULD HAVE BITE THE BULLET AND BIT IT ABOUT 20 YEARS AGO, BECAUSE THESE STORM DRAINS RIGHT NOW ARE NOT GOOD.

YOU DRIVE AROUND THE CITY, AND THEY'RE PITIFUL.

I'VE GOT ONE BEHIND MY HOUSE OVER THERE ON A BRAND NEW SECTION.

IT'S A DEAD GUM FULL OF WEEDS AFTER THAT RAIN LAST NIGHT. IT'S AMAZING.

IT NEEDS TO BE CLEANED OUT A LONG TIME AGO.

BUT DON'T HAVE THE MANPOWER TO DO IT, DON'T HAVE THE EQUIPMENT TO DO IT.

GET OFF THE HORSE, LET'S GO. THAT'S MY OPINION.

>> WHEN YOU HAVE A CRITICAL PROJECT THAT'S OVER A LONG TERM, YEAR AFTER YEAR AFTER YEAR, AND YOU HAVE TO ANSWER TO SHAREHOLDERS, AND THE PROJECT IS GOING TO INCLUDE NEW CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE, REFURBISHING, YOU WANT TO HIT IT HARD RIGHT OFF THE BAT TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION OF WHAT YOU'VE DONE SO YOU CAN TELL THE SHAREHOLDERS AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE.

BY HITTING IT WITH THE $8 FEE AND GETTING THE DEDICATED FUND, DEDICATED EQUIPMENT, YOU CAN GO OUT THERE IN THE FIRST YEAR AND MAKE A VISIBLE IMPROVEMENT PLUS AN ENGINEERING IMPROVEMENT, SO AT THE END OF THE YEAR, YOU CAN GO TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AND SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE DONE AS A TEAM.

BUT THE ADVANTAGE TO THIS IS THAT IT HAS TO BE REEVALUATED, THE FEE DOES EVERY YEAR.

AT THE END OF THE YEAR, IF THE CITIZENS DETERMINED THAT WE DIDN'T DO WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO, THE FEE CAN BE ADJUSTED DOWN TO THE RATE THAT THEY'D BE MORE ACCEPTABLE TO THEM AND WE'D CONTINUE WITH A LOWER RATE.

BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HIT IT HARD AT FIRST TO JUSTIFY THE FEE.

IF WE GO IN WITH A SMALL FEE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WE NEED TO DO TO JUSTIFY THE FEE OVERALL, MUCH LESS THE COST OF IT.

I'M GOOD WITH THE $8 TIER FOR THE FIRST YEAR, AND IT'S A FEE THAT MAY GO AWAY IF THE CAD BOARD READJUST LATER ON, AND WE START GOING BACK TO MORE NORMAL OPERATIONS.

>> I HAD A QUESTION, REALLY, I GUESS FOR ERIC.

AS FAR AS THE CAPITAL THINGS, WE'D ALSO BE ABLE TO DO STORM DRAINS AS FAR WHERE SUMMERCREST FLOODS WHEN WE GET THE DEVELOPMENT ONLINE, BECAUSE I KNOW WE'VE HAD REALLY BIG RAINS IN THAT TRAFFIC CIRCLE THAT'S RIGHT THERE.

A CAR GOT STUCK IN IT BECAUSE THE WATER WAS SO DEEP.

WE'D BE ABLE TO IMPROVE OUR STORM DRAINS IN THE EXISTING STREETS?

>> ABSOLUTELY. THE REVENUE HERE WOULD BE USED FOR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

AS I MENTIONED TO THE COMMITTEE LAST WEEK, THERE ARE ZERO DEDICATED DRAINAGE DOLLARS ANYWHERE AT THE CITY RIGHT NOW.

SO ANYTHING THAT WE COULD DO ALONG THOSE LINES THROUGH THIS FEE I THINK WOULD BE A BIG HELP.

I WANTED TO TOUCH BRIEFLY ON THE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT.

OUR INTENTION, OR AT LEAST MY INTENTION, I'LL COMMIT TO YOU IS NOT TO HAVE A BUNCH OF EXTRA EQUIPMENT THAT JUST SITS AROUND.

THE INTENT WOULD BE TO JUST BUY THE STUFF THAT WE ABSOLUTELY NEED.

THERE ARE ABOUT 11 MILES OF CHANNELS THAT NEED TO BE MAINTAINED.

HAVING THIS DEDICATED CREW I THINK ALLOWS US TO ACTUALLY PUT THEM ON A SCHEDULE SO THAT ON EVERY 2, 3 YEAR, WHATEVER THAT CYCLE IS, WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH THOSE TO HOPEFULLY NOT HAVE THEM BE AS OVERGROWN AS SOME OF THEM ARE TODAY.

WELL, THOSE RESOURCES AREN'T HERE RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S WHY THE ADDITIONAL CREW WAS EVEN DISCUSSED IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> YOU COULD KEEP A THREE-PERSON CREW BUSY AT PINCHER FARMS JUST IN THAT LOCATION, MUCH LESS THE REST OF THE CITY.

>> I THINK WE COULD KEEP A CREW BUSY. YES, SIR.

>> OKAY.

>> I GOT ONE QUESTION HERE.

WE IMPLEMENT THIS, AND WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE REPERCUSSIONS. WHAT'S THE START UP?

[03:05:05]

WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO GET THE EQUIPMENT, GET THE PEOPLE, AND START SHOWING WORK FROM THE TIME THEY GET THEIR FIRST BILL TO THE TIME WE START SEEING SOMETHING HAPPEN?

>> ERIC CAN SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE A LITTLE BIT BETTER THAN I CAN, BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

IT'S GOING TO BE MANY MONTHS JUST IN CONTINUED ANALYSIS, AND OUTREACH, THE ADOPTION OF THE FEES, AND THEN SETTING UP OUR BILLING SCHEDULE TO EVEN BE ABLE TO DO THIS.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAPPEN IMMEDIATE.

ERIC, YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THE TIMELINE?

>> BRIEFLY, I'LL SAY THAT OUR FRIENDS AT FREESE AND NICHOLS, WE'RE PREPARED TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS YOU'RE READY TO MOVE, AS QUICK AS WE CAN GET THE PUBLIC OUTREACH WRAPPED UP AND AN ORDINANCE PULLED TOGETHER.

SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS TO FINE TUNE WHAT THE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN WOULD LOOK LIKE.

HE MIGHT PUNCH ME, BUT WE THINK WE COULD BE READY FOR AN ORDINANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION LATER THIS CALENDAR YEAR FOR SURE WITH ACTUAL BILLING BY THE FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR.

IT WOULDN'T BE A FULL YEAR FEE.

I WOULDN'T THINK IT'D BE VERY REALISTIC TO SAY THAT WE COULD GET THIS ALL IN PLACE BY OCTOBER, BUT FIRST, SECOND QUARTER OF FISCAL '26, FOR SURE.

>> TO THAT END, I THINK ERIC'S ALREADY ALLUDED TO THE FACT WE DON'T DO A LOT OF DEDICATED STUFF TODAY.

WHEN WE TALK ABOUT CAPITAL, WE MOST LIKELY HAVE TO DESIGN A CAPITAL PROJECT BEFORE WE COULD CONSTRUCT IT UNLESS THERE'S SOME EXISTING PLANS FROM SOME OF THE ANALYSIS THAT WE'VE DONE THAT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A DESIGN READY.

>> ON THE OPERATION SIDE, AS SOON AS THE FUNDING IS IN PLACE, I'M SURE WE'VE GOT PLENTY OF WORK THAT STAFF COULD GO OUT AND ADDRESS SOME OF THE STUDIES.

WE'VE EVEN GOT OLDER STUDIES, AS COUNCILMEMBER SCOTT MENTIONED, PREVIOUS STUDIES THAT WE'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE THINGS THAT WERE RECOMMENDED IN THOSE STUDIES, IN SOME CASES UPDATE THE STUDIES TO HAVE BETTER INFORMATION, BUT, IDEALLY, WE'D LOVE TO BE VERY PROACTIVE AND WORK FROM THE DOWNSTREAM AND BACK UP TO GET THROUGH THE ENTIRE CITY.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE WANT TO BE VERY SENSITIVE TO MAKING SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE TANGIBLE RESULTS ON AN ONGOING BASIS.

WE DON'T WANT TO JUST WAIT FOR CAPITAL FUNDS TO BUILD UP SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY AWARD A BIG PROJECT, BUT WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE DAY-TO-DAY ACTIVITIES AND OPERATIONS THAT PEOPLE SEE.

>> COMMENTS ALONG THAT LINE ON THE SIDE OF THE TRUCK, PUT THE WORD STORMWATER.

WHEREVER THE CREW GOES, IF THEY'RE SLASHING TREES OUT OF A CHANNEL, PUT A SIGN UP BY THE ROAD, YOUR STORMWATER FUNDS AT WORK, IT'LL GET NOTICED.

SAME WAY WE DO WITH THE BOND PROGRAM JOBS THAT VICTORIA ALLUDED TO A WHILE AGO.

SIDE COMMENT TO ADAM ABOUT THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE ROUNDABOUT IS.

IF BURLESON WERE A BATHTUB, THAT'S WHERE THE STOPPER WOULD BE.

ALL THE WATER IN THE AREA RUNS RIGHT DOWN TO THERE, AND THAT WAS A BIG CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PROBABLY IN THE EARLY 2000S OR MAYBE LATE 1990S, THAT WE PUT A HUGE STORM DRAIN IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY PARENTHETICALLY THAT ROUNDABOUT CIRCLE HAS TO BE SO SMALL BECAUSE YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO PUSH ALL THAT INTERSECTION, AND THE COST WOULD HAVE BEEN ASTRONOMICAL, A LITTLE SIDE NOTE.

>> COMMENTS WELL TAKEN, SIR.

OUTREACH IS GOING TO BE A HUGE COMPONENT OF THIS.

I THINK YOUR SUGGESTIONS ABOUT SIGNAGE ON THE TRUCKS AND THINGS OF THAT IS EXCELLENT.

WE CAN ABSOLUTELY DO THAT.

MAYOR, I THINK ERIC AND I WENT A ROUNDABOUT WAY OF ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.

THE SHORT ANSWER IS THIS.

>> WHAT WAS THE QUESTION?

>> WELL, IT WAS, HOW QUICKLY CAN WE SEE STUFF? THE CAPITAL PROJECTS ARE GOING TO TAKE LONGER, AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN ONE SPECIFIC AREA.

AS SOON AS WE HAVE THE FEE, WE CAN HIRE THE STAFF, AND THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE YOUR INITIAL IMPROVEMENT.

>> IF WE DO THE HIGH ROAD BETWEEN 2-3, IS THAT GOING TO DIMINISH THE MONEY AVAILABLE TO GET THE CREWS AND THE EQUIPMENT?

>> NO, SIR.

>> NOW I HAVE A TECHNICAL QUESTION.

I THINK YOU'VE GOT THE VOTES TO GET THE EIGHT.

BUT CAN WE GO TO SLIDE 28 AND 29? THIS IS MY NUMBERS HEAD.

IN THE MIDDLE, I KNOW THERE'S A SLIDE THAT SAYS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE IAS OF 3,500 IS THE AVERAGE.

[03:10:02]

BUT ON THE RESIDENTIAL, WE'RE GOING ON A RANGE OF 2,400-5,300, AND THEN ANYTHING ABOVE 5,300 IS CONSIDERED LARGE.

BUT THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE AT THE COMMERCIAL, WE'RE BASING IT ON 3,500.

>> YOU WANT TO GO?

>> I'LL TRY AND IF I SCREW IT UP.

WELL, ACTUALLY, ALL THE NUMBERS ARE BASED ON THE EQUIVALENT RESIDENTIAL UNIT.

>> OF THE 3,500.

>> WE DO THAT SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AT THE SAME TIME WITH A COMMON BASIS, BASICALLY.

THE 2,400-5,300 IMPERVIOUS AREA ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, WELL, YEAH, THAT'S THAT 80%.

WHEN WE WERE TALKING TIERS, THE 10% OF THE SMALLEST, THE 80% OF THE MIDDLE, AND THE 10% ON THE LARGEST PROPERTIES.

THE 80% PORTION WOULD BE PAYING THE ONE ERU FEE.

THE 10%, THE SMALLER HOUSES, WOULD HAVE PAID THE 0.63 ERU FEE, A LITTLE LESS THAN $8.

THEN THE LARGEST 10% WOULD HAVE PAID THE 14 SOMETHING OR THE 1.92 ERU.

ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, IT'S STRICTLY BY ERU.

HOWEVER MUCH IMPERVIOUS AREA YOUR INDIVIDUAL COMMERCIAL NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS, IT'S THAT TIMES THE DOLLARS.

>> THE EXAMPLE THAT WAS GIVEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE, THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE 310 OR 45.

YOU COULD HAVE 47 OR WHATEVER JUST DEPEND ON THAT?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THAT'S IT.

>> WHAT IS THE HYBRID BETWEEN 2-3 THAT I HEAR WAS TALKING ABOUT? I DON'T SEE THAT ON HERE.

>> THAT'S WHAT THE PURPLE AREA REPRESENTS. IT'S A COMBINATION.

>> IT'S CALLED SCENARIO 4.

>> IT'S A COMBINATION OF MAYBE SOME EXISTING EXPENSES, THE NEW CREW, AND A CAPITAL COMPONENT, STAYING UNDER THE $8 A MONTH PER ERU.

>> IF THE NEW SCENARIO POST-I&D COMMITTEE FEEDBACK IS THE HYBRID, THEN I'M FOR THE HYBRID.

>> JUST TO FINALIZE SECTION.

WE'RE ALL OKAY WITH THE EIGHT DOLLAR FEE? THAT'S OUT OF THE WAY.

>> NO. BUT YOU GOT YOUR FOUR, SO YOU'RE GOOD.

NOW, JUST ONE QUICK THING.

GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE YOU WERE STILL ON ERIC ABOUT THE HYBRID OR SCENARIO 4.

INSTEAD OF TAKING 3.7 OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, WE'LL TAKE 1.5 OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO STILL CRUNCH THEM, BUT SOMEWHERE AROUND 1.5.

>> WE'RE STILL TAKING A CHUNK OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND.

>> CORRECT.

>> PUT IT IN BROADER STANDARD.

>> WELL, AND TO THAT POINT, AND IT MAY BE A CONVERSATION BETTER HAD AS AFTER WE GO THROUGH THE STREET MAINTENANCE COMPONENT OF THIS PRESENTATION, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY BE VERY CLEAR AS WE PREPARE THE BUDGET.

THIS FEE WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO WHAT THE COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED ME TO DO ON THE I&S RATE.

WHAT YOU'VE DIRECTED ME TO DO ON WATER AND WASTEWATER INCREASES AND WHAT YOU'VE DIRECTED ME TO DO TO THE M&O COMPONENT.

I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT THAT EACH ONE OF THESE THINGS IS AN INCREASE.

WE WILL CARRY THAT BACK AND AGAIN, WE'LL SHOW THAT TO YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT SERVICES YOU COULD ADD OR WHAT SERVICE YOU WOULD HAVE TO REDUCE.

BUT I WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT, THAT EACH ONE OF THESE IS A SEPARATE COMPONENT THAT WE'LL HAVE TO CALCULATE TO LET YOU KNOW THE TOTAL IMPACT.

>> HOW WILL WE DEDICATE THAT 1.5 MILLION JUST TO STORMWATER RUNOFF OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND?

>> GO AHEAD.

>> I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF WE DIDN'T PUT IT IN A SEPARATE FEE, JUST THE SAME WAY WE DID THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE THIS YEAR.

>> LIKE A SEPARATE FUND IS WHAT ERIC'S TALKING ABOUT.

WELL, IT'S NOT GOING TO ULTIMATELY PAY FOR ITSELF.

I THINK THAT'S A BUDGETARY QUESTION.

I NEED TO GET WITH HARLAN AND FINANCE BUT WE'LL BE TRANSPARENT ABOUT WHAT THE REVENUE IS PAYING FOR.

>> I LIKE THE IDEA OF THE SUBSIDY, BECAUSE THEN YOU CAN SHOW THAT IT'S COMING FROM THE GENERAL FUND, AND THAT IT'S FOR THE STORMWATER FEE TO PLUG THAT FUND, IF IT'S ALLOWABLE.

>> THAT BECOMES A LOT MORE CLEAR ONCE WE GET FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD ABOUT IT, WHAT PORTIONS OF PUBLIC WORKS OR CODE COMPLIANCE OR WHATEVER THE PARKS, WHOEVER ARE WE FUNDING?

[03:15:03]

>> YEAH, THERE'S COMPONENTS OF THIS THAT ARE PARTIAL COSTS SO THAT WE NEED TO PARSE OUR WAY THROUGH THAT.

I DON'T WANT TO OVERCOMMIT ON THE BEST WAY TO DO THE ACCOUNTING ASPECT OF THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT SUFFICE TO SAY WE'LL BE CLEAR, AND WE WILL CLEARLY ARTICULATE WHAT WE'RE PAYING FOR AND WHAT THE RESIDENTS GET.

>> [INAUDIBLE]

>> I THINK THE ONE THING THAT WE MAY NEED TO GET GENERAL CONSENSUS ON IS EXEMPTIONS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EXEMPTIONS FULLY HERE.

>> I THOUGHT WE COULDN'T DO THAT.

>> I AGREE WITH NO EXEMPTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. YOU GUYS ALL AGREE WITH OR FOUR OF YOU AGREE WITH TIERED APPROACH FOR THE FEES?

>> I'M FINE WITH TIERED APPROACH.

I JUST DON'T LIKE THE EIGHT DOLLARS, BUT I'M FINE WITH EVERYTHING ELSE.

>> UNDERSTOOD.

>> WE GOT IT.

>> WE GOT WHAT WE NEED FOR HALF THE PRESENTATION.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE CAN NOW START TO THE LONG ONE. I'M KIDDING.

[LAUGHTER] WE'LL DO THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

THIS IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE QUICKER.

COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC SO THIS IS THE SAME CONCEPT.

A DEDICATED FEE FOR MAINTENANCE OF YOUR STREETS.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE WATER EXAMPLE.

WE JUST TALKED ABOUT STORMWATER AND PURPOSE AREA.

THE BASIS FOR A STREET FEE, THE IMPACT TO THE ROAD NETWORK BY THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED BY DIFFERENT TYPES OF PROPERTIES, THEIR LAND USE.

WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT AS THE UNIT BASIS MEASURE.

IN TEXAS, STREET MAINTENANCE FEES ARE BECOMING MUCH MORE COMMON.

THERE'S A LITTLE MAP ON THE RIGHT.

YOU SEE A NUMBER OF CITIES, THERE'S ACTUALLY MORE THAN THAT NOW TO HAVE THAT, BUT IT'S A DEDICATED FEE JUST TO PAY FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD NETWORK.

YOU'LL SEE IT SOMETIMES CALLED THE TRANSPORTATION USER FEE, A ROAD USER FEE, TRANSPORTATION USER FEE, AND IT'S ALL GETTING TOWARDS THE SAME THING.

THE BASIS TYPICALLY IS BASED OFF OF VEHICLE TRIPS OR MILES TRAVEL.

TYPICALLY, ALSO SEEN ON THE UTILITY BILL.

THINK OF THIS AS AN EXTENSION OF THE EARLIER PAVEMENT ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT YOU'VE BEEN DOING WITH JANE LEE, LAST YEAR ABOUT AN ASSET MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR WHAT'S OUR OPTIMIZED APPROACH TO TAKE CARE OF OUR ROADS AND CONSISTENT DEDICATED FUNDING FOR THAT.

WE'LL LOOK AT A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS FOR THIS.

ONE IS, YOU'RE CURRENTLY FUNDING THE SERVICES AT $2.8 MILLION A YEAR FROM THE GENERAL FUND.

YOU'VE GOT A DEDICATED 2.8 CURRENTLY IN THE GENERAL FUND.

THAT SCENARIO 1, THAT'S JUST A MOVING OVER OF EXISTING SERVICES.

SCENARIO 2, IS FUNDING THOSE EXISTING SERVICES PLUS AN ADDITIONAL THREE MILLION DOLLARS FOR A TOTAL OF $5.8 MILLION OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES.

THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR AN INCREASED ABILITY TO MAINTAIN AND IMPROVE THE ROAD NETWORK OVERALL.

WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT TWO TYPES OF BILLING STRUCTURES IN THESE SCENARIOS.

ON THE STORMWATER FEE, WE HAD TIERS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL.

ON THIS ONE, WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT ALL RESIDENTIAL IS A FLAT RATE, AND THAT EITHER PER UNIT BASIS OR TIERED BASIS FOR THE NON RESIDENTIAL SIDE OF THINGS.

NOTE THAT THE TIER SHOWN IN HERE IS AN ARBITRARY TIERING SET UP.

THERE'S NOTHING TO SAY IT'S GOT TO BE THIS NUMBER OF TIERS OR THE BREAK POINTS OF THE TIERS.

WELL, JUST STATED ALL THAT.

SO THE FLAT RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL, WE'RE GOING TO DO EITHER THE PER UNIT BASIS, SO IT'S DIFFERENT FOR EVERY SINGLE NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR THEY'RE IN ONE OF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF TIERS.

WE'RE GOING TO SHOW 10 TIERS.

THERE'S TOO MUCH OF A RANGE OF USE OF AN IMPACT OF THE SYSTEM FOR THE NON RESIDENTIAL FOR IT TO BE EQUITABLY A FLAT RATE.

[03:20:03]

THAT WOULD BE THE TOP LEFT TABLE SHOWS WHAT THE RATE WOULD BE.

EACH RESIDENCE WOULD BE $3.83 A MONTH.

EACH APARTMENT UNIT WOULD BE TWO DOLLARS A MONTH.

AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE A GAS STATION AND 26 BUCKS A MONTH, A GROCERY STORE, $530 A MONTH, BUT IT'D BE DIFFERENT FOR EVERY SINGLE PROPERTY BASED OFF THE TYPE OF PROPERTY, THE LAND USE, AND THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.

THAT'S BASED OFF OF INDUSTRY PUBLISHED INFORMATION FROM THE INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS.

THE BOTTOM LEFT TABLE GETS TO A TIERING EXAMPLE AND YOU SEE THE TIER STRUCTURE SHOWN ON THE RIGHT FOR NON RESIDENTIAL.

BUT THE SMALLEST TIER WOULD BE ABOUT $4 A MONTH.

THAT LARGEST TIER, WHICH IS 10% OF THE PROPERTIES STILL WOULD BE ABOUT $900 A MONTH.

YOU SEE A RANGE IN THERE.

THIS TIER STRUCTURE IS REALLY JUST UP AT 10% OF YOUR PROPERTIES IN EACH TIER.

WHAT WOULD BE COMMON TO DO IF YOU DECIDED YOU WANTED TO FURTHER EVALUATE THIS IS TO REFINE THOSE BREAK POINTS TO SOMETHING THAT FITS YOU BEST.

BUT I GUESS, JUST TO EMPHASIZE, THIS IS JUST EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE, JUST CHANGING THE FUNDING MECHANISM, IS WHAT WE'RE GETTING AT.

INSTEAD OF FUNDING OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND, FUNDING TO THE STREET FEE YOUR EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE.

SCENARIO 2 IS MOVING THAT EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE, BUT ALSO THE ADDITIONAL THREE MILLION DOLLARS TO ENHANCE THE LEVEL OF MAINTENANCE THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING ON THE ROAD TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF THE ROAD NETWORK OVERALL.

NOW, YOU SEE IT AT $7.92.

WE'RE AT $3.83 FOR EXISTING AND 7.92 WITH THAT ADDITIONAL THREE MILLION DOLLARS SO $4.12 FOR APARTMENTS.

YOU SEE THE SAME THING, THE UNIT BASIS, YOU SEE A SMALL EXAMPLE, $55, THE LARGE EXAMPLE, GROCERY STORE, YOU SEE $1,100 IN THAT TIERED STRUCTURE, YOU SEE AS MUCH AS $18 LOW AS ABOUT $8.54 AND ARRANGE EVERYWHERE IN BETWEEN.

ONE OF THE THINGS I'D NORMALLY RECOMMEND IS PROBABLY A REFINEMENT OF THE TIERING BREAKS AS YOU GET THE INCREMENTAL BREAKS BETWEEN, SAY TIERS, 7, 8 AND 9 ARE STEADY AND THEN THERE'S A BIG JUMP BETWEEN 9 AND 10.

I WILL PUT TOO MUCH INTO THE TIER 10 RATE BY ITSELF.

I THINK THERE'S REFINEMENT THERE THAT IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, YOU'D FIND SOMETHING THAT FITS MORE APPROPRIATELY.

THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMITTEE WAS TO TABLE THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE FOR NOW AND CONSIDER IT AT A LATER DATE AND RECOGNIZING THE COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION TO INCREASE THE I&S RATE, NOT RECOMMENDING TO PURSUE BOTH THE STORM UTILITY AND THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE AT THE SAME TIME IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE I&S RATE INCREASE.

DIRECTION IS UP FOR YOU.

DO YOU WANT ME TO CONTINUE OR TABLE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMMITTEE.

>> I LIKE THE LAST STATEMENT.

IF WE'RE GOING TO DO STORMWATER FEES, LET'S NOT IMPLEMENT THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEES.

>> ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

>> I THINK IT WOULD BE A WHOLE LOT ALL AT ONCE.

>> YEAH, IT'S A BIG CHUNK, AND I APPRECIATE THE RECOMMENDATION BY THE COMMITTEE AND AGREE WITH IT.

I THINK WE'RE BITING OFF QUITE A BIT WITH CONSIDERING INCREASING THE I&S RATE AND THE STORMWATER UTILITY.

>> YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE STORMWATER IS MORE OF A PRIORITY THAN THE ROADS? THAT'S JUST A QUESTION.

>> WE'VE GOT OTHER FUNDING FOR THE ROADS.

IT WAS A CITIZEN SURVEY ON BUDGET PRIORITIES, AND IT REVEALED THAT 65% OF THE RESPONDENTS, AND THIS IS THIS YEAR, IDENTIFIED STREETS AS THEIR TOP CONCERN.

THE STRONG PUBLIC RESPONSE HIGHLIGHTS THE URGENT NEED FOR GREATER ROAD MAINTENANCE AND RECONSTRUCTION INVESTMENTS, AN ISSUE THAT WILL DIRECTLY AFFECT ALL BURLESON RESIDENTS.

IN MY OPINION, TO ADDRESS THIS NEED, I WOULD SUPPORT THE 2630 PROPOSED CIP GENERAL GOVERNMENT, WHICH INCLUDES AN I&S TAX INCREASE, UP ON 0.547 OR $5.47 TO FUND THE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT REHABILITATION AND AN ANNUAL BOND PURCHASE OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS.

THAT'S HOW I JUSTIFY THE I&S INCREASE IS FOR STREET REPAIR.

[03:25:01]

>> I JUST ASK A QUESTION.

>> IN LIEU OF A FEE.

>> GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY, COUNCILMAN.

>> THAT WAS IT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I WOULD RATHER GO WITH THE CIP WITH THE I&S INCREASE INSTEAD OF A FEE AND WE CAN EVALUATE THE FEE LATER ON.

>> A FEW THINGS, I WOULD SAY IS THAT IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT YOU ALL JUST GAVE US, YOU ARE, IN ESSENCE, FREEING UP $1.5 MILLION IN GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES TODAY.

HOW THE COUNCIL CHOOSES TO REAPPROPRIATE THOSE FUNDS A COMPONENT THAT COULD BE ON STREET MAINTENANCE.

NOW, WE SHOWED YOU IN EARLIER PRESENTATION, WE ARE ANTICIPATING BEING SHORT $1.5 MILLION TO BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE.

EVEN IF I MAKE THOSE AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE STILL NOT ACCOUNTING FOR FUTURE GROWTH IN TERMS OF ALL THE AREAS THAT WE NEED TO GROW.

WE TALK A LOT ABOUT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND, OF COURSE, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE TOP OF MY PRIORITY.

BUT AS THE CITY'S GROWN, CODE ENFORCEMENT WOULD BE AN EXCELLENT EXAMPLE.

AS WE'VE GROWN, WE'VE NOT ADDED CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS FOR YEARS AND YEARS.

FUNCTIONALLY, WE'RE REALLY DOING LESS CODE ENFORCEMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE MORE AREA.

I THINK I CAN POINT TO OPERATION AFTER OPERATION, AFTER OPERATION, WHERE THAT'S GOING ON.

I THINK IT'S JUST GOING TO ULTIMATELY BE WHERE DOES THE COUNCIL WANT TO PRIORITIZE ADDITIONAL DOLLARS?

>> COMMITTEE WENT THROUGH THE SAME SCENARIO YOU DID, EXCEPT WE WERE GIVEN ONE PRESENTATION AND THEN THE NEXT ONE AND THEN THERE WAS A THIRD ONE, AND WE'RE LIKE, PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO GO FOR THAT.

WE'RE ON THE SAME, I'M JUST ASKING YOU A QUESTION HAVE YOU.

>> WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WHICH ONE DO WE THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT THE STREETS?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

>> OR ARE WE LOOKING AT A STREET MAINTENANCE COST, OR ARE WE GOING TO PUT THE STORM WATER UP THERE AND IMPLEMENT THAT?

>> I'M NOT SAYING WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT THROUGH BOTH.

BUT WE GOT POTHOLES RIGHT NOW.

IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THAT, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT CITIZENS CAN ACTUALLY SEE GETTING FIXED, WHERE WHEN WE GET OFF TO THE SIDE AND WE'RE CLEANING OUT A DRAINAGE THING UNLESS IT'S ON WILTSHIRE OR WARREN PARK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THEY MIGHT NOT SEE THAT.

IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHICH ONE IS THE MOST VISIBLE TO THE CITIZENS, IT MIGHT BE THE ROAD.

IF WE'VE GOT ANOTHER PLAN FOR THAT, I WANT THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THEIR MINDS UP.

I DON'T WANT JUST TO LEAN STRICTLY ON THE COMMITTEE BECAUSE BOTH OF THEM ARE IMPORTANT.

>> DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING HERE? I COMMITTEE I AGREE WITH WHAT THE COMMITTEE WENT THROUGH.

>> I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT THE COMMITTEE DID AND I'D ALSO APPRECIATE FREEZING NICHOLS DOING BECAUSE WE AGREED TO GO AHEAD AND STUDY BOTH BECAUSE WE GOT A DEAL ON THE STUDY.

YOU REMEMBER IT'S ALWAYS A NUMBER GAME.

IN THE WHOLE TIME IN THE BACK OF MY MIND, I WAS PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE FOR STORMWATER ANYWAY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ONE, AND WE'VE ALWAYS NEEDED ONE.

BUT THEY ARE BOTH IMPORTANT.

BUT TO ME, I WOULD PRIORITIZE THE STORMWATER FIRST.

BUT NOW THAT WE'VE DONE THE LEG WORK ON THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, WE CAN ALWAYS HAVE IT IN OUR BACK POCKET OF HOW TO BUILD IT LATER ON.

BUT RIGHT NOW, I AGREE WITH Y'ALL'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> I UNDERSTAND WHAT TOMMY SAID ABOUT THE GENERAL FUND PULLING 1.5 MILLION OUT FROM MY DECISION EARLIER.

IF THAT'S GOING TO BE THE MAKER BREAK ON THE CIP OF WHETHER WE CAN DO THE ONE MILLION DOLLAR A YEAR FOR STREET MAINTENANCE IN LOWER THE FEE, THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO REDISCUSS THAT.

>> I WANT TO SPEAK FOR MYSELF AS A MEMBER OF THE I&D COMMITTEE, THAT THE THINKING IS NOT TERRIBLY COMPLEX HERE.

BASICALLY, LOOKING AT THIS BIG PICTURE, EVEN WITH INCREASING THE INS RATE TO KEEP THE CIP PROGRAM GOING AND EVEN WITH IMPLEMENTING A STORMWATER FEE THAT ALLOWS US TO ALLOCATE FUNDS FROM WITHIN O&M.

EVEN WITH IT, WE ARE STILL UNDERSPENDING BY SOME MEASURE, THE AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BE SPENDING ON STREET MAINTENANCE, ACTIVITIES, IN GENERAL, CAPITAL, AND ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IN ORDER TO KEEP OUR OVERALL PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX AT THE LEVEL IT IS, LET ALONE IMPROVE IT.

THE WORD TABLE HERE IN MY MIND, IS THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO GO AWAY.

IT'S JUST THAT THE TIMING OF TRYING TO IMPLEMENT TO NEW FEES, ONE OF WHICH IS MUCH MORE EASILY SUPPORTABLE BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY ALL THE WAY AROUND US ON THE MAP.

EVERY OTHER CITY HAS ONE.

EVERY OTHER CITY DOES NOT HAVE A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

FORT WORTH HAS RECENTLY TRIED TO PASS ONE AND DID NOT.

[03:30:03]

IT WOULD BE MUCH LESS POLITICALLY DEFENSIBLE.

IN OUR POSITION, PEOPLE'S PERCEPTIONS OF WHAT WE DO IS EVERYTHING.

IF THEY THINK WE'RE TRYING TO GET INTO THEIR POCKET, THEY LOOK AT IT ONE WAY.

IF THEY THINK WE'RE JUST TRYING TO BE RESPONSIBLE AND SPEND WHAT WE NEED TO SPEND, THEY'LL LOOK AT THAT A DIFFERENT WAY.

FOR NOW, I THINK THE BEST APPROACH IS JUST WHAT THIS THREE-BULLET POINT SCREEN SAYS, LET'S HOLD OFF ON THIS.

REALIZE THAT WE DID JUST INCREASE IN A COUPLE OF WAYS OUR STREET SPENDING.

LET'S HAVE A LITTLE MORE EXPERIENCE WITH OUR ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WE JUST RECENTLY AUGMENTED, LEARN MORE ABOUT WHERE WE ARE, AND FINE-TUNE THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE NEED TO BE SPENDING AND HOW WE WANT TO SPEND IT IN ORDER TO IMPROVE THE PCI RATING CITYWIDE.

THEN LET'S LOOK AT IT AGAIN.

>> EXCELLENT. WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> NOT YET. I'D LIKE TO REVISIT WHAT TOMMY SAID A WHILE AGO.

HE BROUGHT UP A GREAT POINT THAT I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT.

IF WE GO AND WE HAVEN'T SIGNED A RESOLUTION, SO WE CAN GO BACK ON THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FEE.

IF WE PULL THE 1.5 MILLION OUT, WHICH IS WHAT WE SAID WE'RE GOING TO DO OUT OF A GENERAL FUND, 1.51 MILLION, THEN THAT'S GOING TO SEVERELY AFFECT OUR ABILITY TO BOND ONE MILLION DOLLARS FOR STREET MAINTENANCE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> NO, SIR. NOT EXACTLY.

I'LL GO BACK AND TRY TO RESTATE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO INDICATE.

WHAT I WAS GETTING AT IS THAT IF WE SPENT $3.1 MILLION A DAY IN EXISTING EXPENDITURES ASSOCIATED WITH STORMWATER, IF YOU GUYS IMPLEMENT THIS FEE AS YOU'VE CURRENTLY PROPOSED AT THE $8 AND DO A TIERED APPROACH THAT'S A HYBRID, RIGHT NOW, ROUGH CALCULATION, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCOUNT FOR ABOUT $1.5 MILLION OF THAT 3.1.

THAT 1.5, THE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO REAPPROPRIATE THAT MONEY.

IF YOU WANTED TO USE IT FOR ADDITIONAL STREET MAINTENANCE, YOU COULD DO THAT.

DOES THAT CLEAR UP?

>> THAT CLEARS IT UP. THAT'S THE DIRECTION I WAS THINKING EARLIER.

>> CORRECT.

>> I'M COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE CHOSE ON THE STORMWATER RUNOFF, AND I'M COMFORTABLE WITH PUTTING THE STREET MAINTENANCE ON THE CIP.

>> TO THAT END, WHAT I THINK MAYBE WHERE I SAID SOMETHING CONFUSING IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR FIVE-YEAR PROJECTIONS, I SHOWED A $1.5 MILLION ANNUALLY BUDGETARY ADJUSTMENT.

ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT WE'RE FORECASTING TO BE $1.5 MILLION SHORT.

I'M GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE $1.5 MILLION WORTH OF CUTS.

NOW, AGAIN, PRELIMINARY BEFORE WE ACCOUNT FOR SALARY SAVINGS AND ALL OF OUR IT CONTRIBUTIONS, AND OTHER INDIRECT COSTS.

WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THE BUDGET PROCESS, BUT THAT'S I'M JUST SAYING THAT DON'T THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT 1.5 FREE MONEY BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE ADJUSTMENTS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE.

>> THAT 1.5 MILLION WE SAVED ON THE NEW SCENARIO COULD COVER THE COST OF THAT 1.5 DEFICIT.

>> CORRECT. OR YOU COULD TELL ME TO FIND ADDITIONAL SUPPLEMENTAL REDUCTION SO YOU COULD PUT MORE MONEY ON STREET MAINTENANCE OR WHEREVER YOUR PRIORITY ULTIMATELY LANDS.

I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IN TERMS OF BEING BETTER ALIGNED WITH YOUR PEER CITIES, THE STORMWATER FEE, YOU'RE MUCH MORE ALIGNED, YOU'RE THE OUTLIER IN THE SENSE THAT YOU'RE THE ONE NOT DOING IT.

ON THE STREET MAINTENANCE FEE, YOU WOULD BE MORE OF THE CUTTING EDGE OF ONE OF THE CITIES ADOPTING IT.

MORE AND MORE CITIES ARE LOOKING AT IT.

BUT RIGHT NOW, STORMWATER IS LEGITIMIZED, CODIFIED FEE THAT IS RECOGNIZED BY THE STATE.

IF YOU WOULD BE BETTER OFF, AND THIS IS MY OPINION, OF COURSE, ULTIMATELY, POLICY, WHAT YOU GUYS WANT TO DO, I DON'T MEAN YOU'RE LEAVING MONEY ON THE TABLE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S FEES AND IT COSTS MONEY, BUT YOU'D BE BETTER OFF JUST INCREASING YOUR STORMWATER FEE AND USING THAT ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT YOU'RE OFFSETTING THE GENERAL FUND TO PUT MORE MONEY INTO STREET MAINTENANCE THAN YOU WOULD BE TO ADOPT A STREET MAINTENANCE FEE.

JUST FROM A LOGISTICAL STANDPOINT, AN IMPLEMENTATION STANDPOINT, A PR STANDPOINT OF EXPLAINING IT TO THE RESIDENTS.

IT'D BE MUCH EASIER TO DO THAT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> I AGREE.

>> I KNOW THAT THESE ARE COMPLICATED PRESENTATIONS, SO I APPRECIATE IT.

>> DID YOU GET YOUR DIRECTION?

>> TOMMY, ON THE DEBT PART IS THAT WHAT YEAR BONDS ARE THOSE 15,20?

>> FOR THIS, I BELIEVE WE FORECAST THE 20-YEAR BOND ON YOUR BONDS.

>> ARE WE GOOD?

>> WE'RE GOOD. I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK AND DIRECTION.

[03:35:07]

>> WHEN'S EVERYBODY GOING TO GET TO EAT? [LAUGHTER]

>> ANYBODY WANT TO GET WALK AROUND A LITTLE BIT OR KEEP GOING?

>> MAYOR, IF YOU COULD TAKE A SMALL BREAK?

>> THAT IS WHAT I ASKED.

>> JUST A 10 MINUTES.

>> WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A BREAK.

[4.D. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction on the City Manager’s recommendation for vehicle and equipment purchases using the Equipment Replacement Fund for FY 2026. (Staff Contact: Errick Thompson, Director of Public Works)]

>> RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION, AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PURCHASES, USING THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026.

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ERRICK THOMPSON, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON AGAIN. THIS WILL DEFINITELY BE SHORTER THAN THE LAST TOPIC.

BUT WE WANTED TO SPEND SOME TIME TO REVIEW NEXT FISCAL YEARS, EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOU.

IN TERMS OF A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND, PRETTY MUCH SINCE JANUARY.

WE'VE BEEN HARD AT TRYING TO PULL TOGETHER WHAT THIS RECOMMENDATION IN TODAY'S PRESENTATION IS.

YOU PROBABLY RECALL BACK IN FEBRUARY, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN OFFICIAL EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND POLICY.

SHORTLY AFTER THAT, THERE WAS A STAFF COMMITTEE THAT'S OUTLINED IN THE POLICY, PULLED TOGETHER, THAT COMMITTEE BEGAN TO MEET TO TALK ABOUT THE CRITERIA AND THE ROLES OF THE MEMBERS.

THEN ROLL OUT THE PROCESS FOR HOW WE WOULD SOLICIT REQUESTS FROM DEPARTMENTS FOR EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT AND FY26.

IN APRIL, WE PROVIDED SOME PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE FROM THAT PROCESS.

LATER, APRIL, WE WORK AGAIN TO REFINE THAT LIST TO WORK SOME OF THE KINKS OUT.

AGAIN, THIS WAS A BRAND NEW POLICY ESTABLISHED BACK IN FEBRUARY.

OVER TIME, WE ANTICIPATE THAT THERE WILL BE FROM TIME TO TIME A FEW TWEAKS TO THE PROCESS.

MAY 7, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HEARD THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THEY RECOMMENDED MOVING FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSED REPLACEMENTS.

ALONG WITH A COUPLE OF OTHER ITEMS THAT THEY WANTED A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT I'LL DISCUSS IN THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.

A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW OF THE POLICY.

IT'S REALLY ABOUT TRYING TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE STABLE FUNDING IN PLACE TO REALLY PROJECT WHAT THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT NEEDS WILL BE FROM A FUNDING STANDPOINT.

WE WANT TO STABILIZE THE ANNUAL BUDGETING PROCESS AND SPREAD THE COSTS OVER TIME.

A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE POLICY OR IN THIS FIRST ONE IS IT'S NUANCED, BUT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT ALL THE VEHICLES ARE REALLY OWNED BY THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUNDS, NOT NECESSARILY TO THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS, BUT THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO DEPARTMENTS.

THEN THROUGH THE BUDGETING PROCESS, DEPARTMENTS CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS FUTURE REPLACEMENTS.

ALSO, AT THE END OF LIFE, WHEN WE SURPLUS OR AUCTION OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF UNITS, ANY REVENUE THAT COMES BACK FROM ANY OF THOSE ACTIVITIES WOULD ALSO BE RETURNED TO THE RESPECTIVE REPLACEMENT FUND.

THERE ARE TWO FUNDS, ONE FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT, AND THEN THE OTHER FOR PROPRIETARY OR ENTERPRISE FUNDS.

WE ACTUALLY ACCOUNT FOR THE FUNDING SEPARATELY IN THOSE TWO FUNDS.

A LITTLE BIT ABOUT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

DEPARTMENTS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAKING REQUESTS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.

THEN THE INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER ACTUALLY REVIEWS THOSE REQUESTS AND THEN RANKS THEM.

THE PURCHASING DIVISIONS INVOLVE THE FINANCE DIRECTOR AS WELL, AND THEN ULTIMATELY COMES BACK TO THE CITY MANAGER ONTO THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, AND THEN TO YOUR FULL COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

AGAIN, THIS WAS OUR FIRST TIME THIS YEAR, BUT LISTED ON THIS SLIDE ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE INTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.

I WON'T READ THOSE TO YOU, BUT BASICALLY, EVERY DEPARTMENT THAT OPERATES OR HAS ASSIGNED THE VEHICLE FROM EITHER OF THE ERFS HAS A SEAT ON THE COMMITTEE.

THEN FINANCE AND PURCHASING ARE ALSO ON THE COMMITTEE.

THE POLICY OUTLINES REPLACEMENT CRITERIA, BUT I WANT TO STRESS THAT THESE ARE NOT ABSOLUTE CRITERIA OF WHEN VEHICLES OR ASSETS WILL BE REPLACED,

[03:40:05]

BUT I LIKE TO SAY THAT THEY'RE THE BEGINNING STARTING POINT OF WHEN THE DISCUSSION MIGHT START TO HAPPEN.

BUT IF WE HAD A SPECIAL CASE, EITHER A VEHICLE THAT WAS TURNED OUT TO BE A LEMON OR WE WERE JUST HAVING MORE ISSUES WITH, THE POLICY WOULDN'T PRECLUDE US FROM BEING ABLE TO REQUEST THAT VEHICLE BE REPLACED EARLIER THAN THE PUBLISHED CRITERIA MIGHT SUGGEST.

IN OUR PROCESS THIS YEAR, 30 DIFFERENT REQUEST FORMS WERE RECEIVED AND RANKED.

THIS COMMITTEE MET MULTIPLE TIMES TO REVIEW THOSE FORMS, TO ASK QUESTIONS, GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE USER DEPARTMENTS ABOUT THE ITEMS BEING REQUESTED.

THIS GRAPHIC REALLY JUST SHOWS YOU THE OVERALL PROCESS.

FROM KICK-OFF THROUGH FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OVER ON THE FAR RIGHT SIDE, I'LL MENTION FOR A SECOND HERE THAT THERE WAS AN EXTRA EFFORT MADE TO TRY AND MAKE SURE WE HADN'T MISSED ANY ITEMS THAT MAYBE A DEPARTMENT WANTED TO REPLACE.

IT WAS ALMOST IN A FINAL CALL IF A DEPARTMENT HAD ANYTHING ELSE THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO REQUEST.

A FEW OTHER FACTORS TO CONSIDER.

AGAIN, THE CRITERIA, THEY'RE NOT ABSOLUTE.

WELL, PRIMARILY, THEY'RE FOR FINANCIAL PLANNING PURPOSES AND DEPRECIATION, THAT THING.

BUT WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TAKING A LOOK AT OPERATIONAL IMPACTS OF THE VARIOUS UNITS.

IN SOME CASES, WE HAVE PARTS AVAILABILITY ISSUES OR OBSOLESCENCE.

THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF WHAT IS THE ONGOING MAINTENANCE OF A VEHICLE OR AN ASSET VERSUS ITS REPLACEMENT COST AND WHAT MIGHT WE RECOVER FROM A RESALE PERSPECTIVE.

YOU'VE HEARD A LOT IN THE LAST FEW YEARS, AT LEAST, WELL, REALLY SINCE THE PANDEMIC ABOUT LEAD TIMES FOR SOME OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT WE NEED HERE AT THE CITY.

MANUFACTURING LEAD TIMES ARE ALSO ANOTHER MAJOR CONSIDERATION IN SOME CASES, ESPECIALLY WITH PUBLIC SAFETY-RELATED EQUIPMENT.

I CAN EASILY BE 12-18 MONTHS OR LONGER, SOMETIMES SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER, JUST DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF VEHICLE.

ANOTHER MAJOR CONSIDERATION OR FACTOR THAT WE CONSIDER IS PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE.

IN SOME CASES, YOU'LL SEE LATER UNITS THAT ARE ON THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED ITEMS FOR REPLACEMENT THAT MAY NOT HAVE HIT THEIR AGE OR THEIR MILEAGE OR HOUR METER USAGE THRESHOLDS.

BUT THOSE ARE ALL SPECIAL CASES IF THEY'RE ON THE LIST OF RECOMMENDED ITEMS. PREVENTIVE MAINTENANCE HAPPENS FOR ALL VEHICLES AT LEAST ANNUALLY, INCLUDING A MULTIPLY INSPECTIONS AT EACH OIL CHANGE.

BUT THEN HIGHER PROFILE UNITS THAT ARE IN I'LL CALL THEM MORE PROBABLY SEVERE DUTY OR VERY HEAVY DUTY, USAGE LIKE PATROL VEHICLES FOR POLICE AND THE AMBULANCES ON FIRE, AND WELL, ALMOST BASICALLY ALL OF THE FIRE EQUIPMENT, RECEIVE PM ON A MUCH MORE FREQUENT BASIS, CONSISTENT WITH OR EXCEEDING MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS.

GENERALLY DRIVEN BY HOURS OF USE AS OPPOSED TO SOME MILEAGE BASIS.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT WARRANTY COVERAGE.

THIS TABLE GIVES YOU A VERY HIGH LEVEL.

HERE'S TYPICALLY WHAT THE BUMPER-TO-BUMPER, FROM THE MANUFACTURER WARRANTY, COVERS.

HERE'S WHAT THE POWER TRAIN, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT WARRANTY FROM THE MANUFACTURER TYPICALLY COVERS.

THEN OFF TO THE RIGHT IS EXTENDED WARRANTY.

TYPICALLY PURCHASED A SECONDARY MARKET.

TO SIMPLIFY BUMPER-TO-BUMPER MIGHT BE SOMETHING LIKE THREE YEARS OR 36,000 MILES.

THAT'S FAIRLY COMMON FOR A PASSENGER VEHICLE.

BUT THEN THE POWER TRAIN MIGHT BE FIVE YEARS OR 100,000 MILES, AND THAT WOULD COVER THINGS LIKE THE ENGINE ITSELF, TRANSMISSION, MAJOR SYSTEMS.

[03:45:01]

EXTENDED WARRANTY COULD COVER ALL OF THOSE ITEMS, BUT AT A COST, AND IT WOULD REALLY OVERLAP WITH THE TWO CATEGORIES TO THE LEFT, THE BUMPER-TO-BUMPER AND THE POWER TRAIN.

IDEALLY FROM A FLEET MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, WE WOULD WANT TO USE UP THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTIES FIRST BEFORE ENGAGING IN AN EXTENDED WARRANTY.

THAT'S BASICALLY SO THAT WE DON'T PAY A PREMIUM FOR AN EXTENDED WARRANTY ON SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY COVERED BY ONE OF THE TWO WARRANTIES FROM THE MANUFACTURER.

>> REALLY COVERED THIS ALREADY.

I'LL JUST FOCUS ON THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AS IT RETAINED AS IT RELATES TO EXTENDED WARRANTIES.

BASICALLY, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE LOOK AT EXTENDED WARRANTIES ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, VEHICLE BY VEHICLE REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW THE VEHICLE IS BEING USED.

WE WOULD AGAIN, NOT WANT TO ENTERTAIN THOSE UNTIL WE'RE PROBABLY IN THE LAST SIX MONTHS OF THE MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE THAT OVERLAP THAT I MENTIONED.

EVERY VEHICLE USE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.

WE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A GOOD FINGER ON THE PULSE OF WHAT THE USAGE LOOKS LIKE, WHAT THE MAINTENANCE HISTORY IS, WHAT ISSUES WE HAVE WITH THAT VEHICLE.

IN SOME CASES, THIS EXTENDED WARRANTY COULD COST A FEW THOUSAND DOLLARS.

I THINK $4,500 WAS A QUOTE THAT WE GOT FOR A SUV THAT WE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT IN A MINUTE.

THAT'S ALMOST 10,000 OR 10% PREMIUM TO THE COST OF THE VEHICLE.

BUT IF IT'S A VEHICLE THAT HAS VERY FEW NUMBER OF DRIVERS THAT OPERATE IT, THAT'S WELL MAINTAINED, THAT'S NOT CAUSING US ANY PROBLEM, WELL, THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE A PREMIUM THAT DIDN'T REALLY PAY FOR ITSELF IN THAT CASE.

WE THINK WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO IDENTIFY A LIMITED NUMBER OF CASES WHERE WE MIGHT PILOT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY TO SEE WHAT WE MIGHT WANT TO DO ON A BROADER SCALE IN THE FUTURE.

>> ERIC?

>> YES.

>> ON THE EXTENDED WARRANTIES, AND I LIKE YOURS RECOMMENDATION, BUT ARE WE BOUND BY THE BUY BOARD THINGS, OR IF WE'RE GOING TO WAIT TILL THE END OF THE ORIGINAL COVERAGE, SINCE IT'LL BE WELL UNDER TOMMY'S AUTHORITY, WE CAN SHOP THAT EXTENDED WARRANTY TO ANYBODY?

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE WOULDN'T BE BOUND BY BOARD OR ANY COOPERATIVES.

WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO BUY THE WARRANTY THROUGH THEM.

>> TROUGH THE DEALER OR WHOEVER?

>> YEAH.

>> THROUGH THAT PARTICULAR DEALER.

>> WE'D BE LOOKING FOR THE BEST VALUE WE COULD FIND BASED ON.

>> GOOD. BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WHOLESALE PEOPLE OUT THERE.

THEY'RE VOLUME BASED.

>> I NEVER HAVE BOUGHT AN EXTENDED WARRANTY AND I NEVER WILL.

THEIR INSURANCE POLICIES AND THE MORE OF THEM YOU BUY, THE BETTER OFF THE ODDS ARE THAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GAIN ANYTHING FROM IT ANYWAY.

I THINK THE PURPOSE OF AN EXTENDED WARRANTY IS USUALLY DIRECTED TOWARD PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING PAYCHECK TO PAYCHECK AND HAVE TO PAY A LITTLE BIT EVERY MONTH SO THEY DON'T GET HIT WITH A $10,000 REPAIR BILL ON A MODERN CAR THAT THEY SIMPLY CAN'T AFFORD TO PAY BECAUSE MODERN CAR REPAIRS ARE JUST GETTING STUPID.

BUT IT'S AN ACTUARIAL THING, AND IF YOU'VE GOT A BIG ENOUGH FLEET, AND DON'T PAY THE PREMIUMS, PROBABLY SOONER OR LATER, YOU'VE PAID ABOUT WHAT THAT UNEXPECTED COST OF WHATEVER REPAIR THAT THAT WARRANTY MIGHT COVER WOULD PROBABLY BE.

THAT'S MY OPINION ON EXTENDED WARRANTIES IN GENERAL.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> ERIC, I DON'T THINK WE EVER FINISHED OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT THIS, BUT INDIVIDUALS WHEN THEY PURCHASE EXTENDED WARRANTIES, IF THEY SELL THE VEHICLE PRIOR TO THE USEFUL LIFE OF THAT WARRANTY, IS THERE A REBATE COMPONENT TO THAT THAT YOU COULD SPEAK TO?

>> ACTUALLY, IT VARIES BY THE POLICY.

USUALLY, YOU CAN EITHER TRANSFER IT SOMETIMES WITH A FEE, BUT USUALLY IT'S TRANSFERABLE AND IN SOME CASES, YOU CAN GET A KIND OF A REBATE FOR THE PORTION THAT YOU HAVEN'T USED.

>> I DO LIKE THAT THE POWER TRAIN, AT LEAST ON OUR VEHICLES GOES ALL THE WAY TO 100, BECAUSE I KNOW A LOT OF THEM, IT'S 50 OR 60.

GOING TO 100, YOU'RE KIND OF GETTING YOUR EXTENDED WARRANTY THERE.

I WOULD SAY, I WOULDN'T GO 10,000 MILES BETWEEN OIL CHANGES THOUGH ON THESE THINGS.

OIL'S CHEAP AND ENGINES ARE NOT.

>> YEAH, I CAN REMEMBER DRIVING AROUND

[03:50:01]

WITH A COUPLE OF QUARTS OF EXTRA OIL JUST IN THE TRUNK BACK IN THE DAY.

>> JUST IN CASE. [LAUGHTER]

>> THE OIL WE BUY TODAY AND THAT STUFF THAT WE USE, BACK THEN IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.

THAT'S WHY MANUFACTURERS ARE NOW SAYING PROBABLY AT LEAST FIVE OR 7,500 MILES.

I THINK I SEE A MANUFACTURER THAT SAYS LESS THAN 5,000 ANYMORE.

>> BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAD A PRESENTATION QUITE A WHILE BACK WHERE WE WERE GETTING RID OF VEHICLES BEFORE THEY WERE TOTALLY USED UP, WHERE THERE WAS STILL SOME VALUE IN THEM BEFORE WE GOT RID OF THEM.

ARE WE NOT CONSIDERING THAT ANYMORE?

>> NO, WE ARE.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, HERE IS JUST TRYING TO PRICE THE MARKET ON WHAT THE RESALE WOULD BE VERSUS REPLACEMENT AND WHAT THE MAINTENANCE COSTS ARE.

WE'RE STILL TRYING TO UTILIZE THAT STRATEGY WHEN WE SELL, WHAT WE SELL, AND WHAT WE KEEP.

>> THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AGAIN, I MENTIONED, THERE ARE TWO FUNDS.

THE GENERAL GOVERNMENTAL FUND, SO THAT INCLUDES DEPARTMENTS LIKE PUBLIC WORKS, SOME PARTS OF PARKS, POLICE, FIRE, CODE, THOSE TYPES OF DEPARTMENTS.

THEN PROPRIETARY, WHICH WILL BE THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS, WATER, GOLF, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

ON THE GOVERNMENTAL FUND, THE FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ARE THESE THREE ITEMS HERE.

THE FIRST IS, IT'S A LOT OF TEXTS THERE, BUT IT'S BASICALLY AN OLD BOOM MOWER THAT'S VERY MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR INTENSIVE.

IT'S ACTUALLY A FOREIGN MANUFACTURER, SO PARTS ARE EXTREMELY HARD TO SOURCE AND BECOMING MORE SO.

IT WASN'T NECESSARILY DESIGNED FOR HOW IT WAS USED, SO PUBLIC WORKS IN THIS CASE IS ACTUALLY REQUESTING TO BASICALLY REPLACE IT WITH AN ACTUAL TRACTOR WITH BOOM MOWING ATTACHMENTS TO GET THAT JOB DONE.

PRELIMINARY COST THERE IS JUST UNDER 190,000 BASED ON THE CRITERIA IN THE POLICY.

THE REPLACEMENT AGE THRESHOLD IS 15 YEARS.

THIS ONE IS 12 YEARS OLD, SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT EARLY, BUT AGAIN, BECAUSE OF THE HARD TO GET PARTS AND SOME OF THE OPERATIONAL CHALLENGES WITH IT, WE THINK IT'S FAR MORE BENEFICIAL TO REPLACE IT EARLY.

IF WE RENTED ONE, WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $12-15,000 A MONTH.

IT JUST MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO GO AHEAD AND REPLACE IT WITH WHAT'S REALLY NEEDED TO GET THAT JOB DONE.

SECOND ITEM ON THE LIST IS A RUBBER TIRE ASPHALT ROLLER.

AGAIN, THIS IS A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT APPARENTLY WAS PURCHASED 23 PLUS YEARS AGO.

BY CRITERIA, 15 YEARS IS WHEN WE WOULD LOOK TO REPLACE THAT PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.

IN ADDITION, PUBLIC WORKS NO LONGER PERFORMS THESE LARGE SCALE ASPHALT PAVING OPERATIONS AS APPARENTLY HAPPENED 20 YEARS AGO.

IT'S REALLY AN UNDER UTILIZED PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.

INSTEAD OF REPLACING IT WITH THE SAME THING, WE ACTUALLY ARE ASKING TO BY A KIND OF A MEDIUM DUTY DUMP TRUCK THAT WOULD BE USED, THAT'S MORE IN LINE AT SCALE FOR THE SMALLER TYPES OF ASPHALT PATCHING OPERATION THAT WE ACTUALLY CONDUCT.

>> ERIC?

>> YES, SIR.

>> WHAT HAPPENED TO THE LAY DOWN MACHINE? WE BOUGHT A LAY DOWN MACHINE FOR PUBLIC WORKS.

I KNOW TIME GETS AWAY. IT COULD HAVE BEEN TEN YEARS AGO.

IT HADN'T BEEN ALL THAT LONG BACK.

>> THE LAYDOWN MACHINE IS ACTUALLY IN PREPARATION FOR AUCTION, BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE DON'T PERFORM FULL SCALE STREET PAVING ANYMORE.

>> THEY WERE KILLING IT AT FIRST. WHAT HAPPENED? THEY JUST DECIDED THAT THE CONTRACTORS COULD DO IT FOR LESS COST OR WHAT?

>> COMBINATION OF STAFFING AND EXPERTISE AND ECONOMIES OF SCALE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW MUCH WE'RE DOING, HOW MUCH WE'RE FUNDED TO DO IT, WHAT PRICING ARE WE GETTING FROM CONTRACTORS TO DO THE SAME WORK? FROM A NUMBER OF PERSPECTIVES, IT MADE SENSE TO NOT HAVE IT SIT THERE FOR 10 MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR AND NOT REALLY BE USED WHEN WE'RE DOING SOME MILLON OVERLAY.

I TRY NOT TO DIGRESS TOO FAR, BUT WE'RE DOING SOME MILLON OVERLAY CURRENTLY THAT YOU JUST APPROVED A CONTRACT FOR LAST MONTH.

[03:55:04]

BUT THAT'S REALLY THE FIRST MILLION OVERLAY FUNDING THAT THE CITY HAS HAD IN A NUMBER OF YEARS.

>> YEAH.

>> WE'LL BASICALLY AUCTION THAT PAVER OFF, AND HOPEFULLY PROCEEDS FROM THAT WILL HELP SUPPLY SOMETHING THAT'S MUCH MORE BENEFICIAL AND USEFUL TO THE DEPARTMENT ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

THE THIRD ITEMS, POLICE DEPARTMENT.

THIS WAS A COMPACT SUV USED BY INVESTIGATORS.

BY CRITERIA, THE REPLACEMENT AGE THRESHOLD IS ABOUT EIGHT YEARS.

THIS ONE IS ABOUT 13-YEARS-OLD, SO IT'S WELL BEYOND.

IT'S ALSO BEEN EXTREMELY MAINTENANCE INTENSIVE.

UNLESS THEY'VE REALLY IMPROVED THE JEEP COMPASS, WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T ENTERTAIN PURCHASING ANOTHER.

BUT IN TALKING TO THE CUSTOMER DEPARTMENT, POLICE, THEY'VE REQUESTED A CHEVROLET TRAVERSE INSTEAD, SO MUCH LARGER SUV, THEY CAN CARRY MORE PEOPLE AND MORE EVIDENCE, MORE FILES, THAT KIND OF THING, TO HELP GET THE JOB DONE.

WHILE THAT ITEM IS 13 YEARS OLD, IT ONLY HAS A LITTLE OVER 50,000 MILES ON IT.

AGAIN, SPEAKING TO THE MAINTENANCE ISSUES THAT IT HAS HAD FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS.

RUNNING TOTAL THERE ON THE GOVERNMENT SIDE IS ABOUT $362,700.

>> ERIC, BEFORE YOU MOVE AWAY, WILL YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO THE CONVERSATION THE FINANCE COMMITTEE HAD ABOUT POTENTIALLY UPGRADING THE TRAVERSE AND FEEDBACK FROM THE CUSTOMER DEPARTMENT?

>> I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, BUT I HEARD ABOUT IT.

SO THERE WAS A REQUEST TO LOOK AT A HIGHER TRIM LEVEL BASICALLY FOR THE TRAVERSE, ONE THAT WOULD PROVIDE A BETTER RIDE, LARGER WHEELS.

UM, AND WE WENT BACK TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO GET THEIR INPUT ON THAT GOT PRICING FOR THE BASE MODEL, THE MID LEVEL, AND THE LARGER WHEEL VERSION WITH ALL WHEEL DRIVE.

THE POLICE CHIEF WAS SATISFIED THAT THE BASE MODEL WOULD BE SUFFICIENT FOR THEIR NEEDS.

I THINK THE HIGHER TRIM LEVEL WAS ABOUT A $15,000 PREMIUM, SO HE FELT LIKE THE BASE MODEL WAS FINE FOR THEIR NEEDS.

NOW MOVING TO THE OTHER FUND, THE PROPRIETARY FUND, AND THERE I THINK MORE ITEMS ON THIS LIST, TOTAL OF 11.

I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH ONE UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE, BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THESE ARE GOING TO BE EITHER AT THE GOLF COURSE OR PREDOMINANTLY IN THE WATER UTILITY.

I'LL TALK ABOUT THE GOLF ITEM FIRST SINCE IT'S I THINK THE ONLY GOLF ITEM.

THERE'S A SPRAYER ITEM 2.

IT'S ABOUT $25,000 IS THE ESTIMATED COSTS, AND I SAY THESE ARE ESTIMATED COSTS BECAUSE WE'RE STILL REFINING AND REVIEWING QUOTES FROM VARIOUS DEALERS ON THESE ITEMS. BUT THIS SPRAYER IS USED TO SPRAY FUNGICIDES, HERBICIDES AND FERTILIZER ON THE PLAYING SURFACES.

INITIALLY, THE PARKS DEPARTMENT REQUESTED ONE WITH GPS CONTROL AND SOME OTHER OPTIONS.

WE HAD CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER THAT WAS COULD BE FUNDED BY THE REPLACEMENT FUND OR NOT.

WAS IT A ADD ON? WAS IT AN ENHANCEMENT? BASICALLY, SHOULD IT BE A SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST OR NOT? SO SPRAYER UNIT INCLUDED HERE, BUT WE'RE ALSO CONTINUING TO WORK ON PRICING FOR WHAT WOULD IT BE TO RETROFIT THE BASE SPRAYER TO ADD THE GPS TECHNOLOGY TO HELP MAKE THE GOLF COURSE THAT MUCH MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE WHEN IT COMES TO NOT PUTTING DOWN TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE AND REDUCING OVERSPRAY THAT KIND OF THING.

SO THAT'S A $25,000 UNIT ROUGHLY.

THE CURRENT SPRAYER IS OVER TWICE WHAT THE REPLACEMENT CRITERIA WOULD BE.

THIS WAS THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE GOLF COURSE WHEN IT COMES TO EQUIPMENT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TRUCKS IN THE WATER AND SEWER DIVISION OF PUBLIC WORKS.

[04:00:06]

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF MOWERS FOR THE GOLF COURSE AS WELL.

THIS IS ONE OF THE CASES WHERE THE AGE IS ACTUALLY YOUNGER THAN WHAT THE REPLACEMENT CRITERIA INDICATES, BUT THESE MOWERS ARE HAVING A HARD TIME KEEPING UP WITH WHAT THEY'RE NEEDED TO DO AT THE GOLF COURSE.

SO I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT WE WON'T BE PURCHASING THIS 72 INCH SAG MORE FOR THAT PURPOSE.

BUT AGAIN, THAT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS BEING FINALIZED AS WE GET THE QUOTES TOGETHER TO GET THEM SOMETHING THAT HOPEFULLY WILL BE MORE ROBUST TO MEET THE BUSINESS NEED AT THE GOLF COURSE.

THERE ARE SOME OTHER TRUCKS WITHIN WATER AND SEWER IN PUBLIC WORKS THAT ARE WE'RE ACTUALLY DOWNSIZING.

SOME CASES, WE'VE NOTICED THAT THERE MIGHT BE A THREE QUARTER TO PICKUP TRUCK THAT'S REALLY SUPERVISOR'S TRUCK OR THAT'S REALLY NOT TOWING OR CARRYING ANYTHING THAT REALLY WOULD SAY THAT THERE'S A BUSINESS NEED FOR A TRUCK THAT SIZE, SO WHERE POSSIBLE, WE'RE TRYING TO SIZE THOSE TO EITHER HALF TON OR EVEN COMPACT WHERE IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S REALLY A MATTER OF JUST TRYING TO MATCH BUSINESS NEEDS WITH WHAT THE ACTUAL UNIT IS.

THEN THE BOTTOM OF THE PROPRIETARY FUND LIST, MORE TRUCKS, ANOTHER TRUCK AT PUBLIC WORKS, TOBACCO FOR THE WATER UTILITY, AND THEN A GATOR AT THE GOLF COURSE.

AL FOR THE PROPRIETARY FUND, ST OVER $550,000 IN EQUIPMENT.

THIS SLIDE GIVES YOU AN OVERVIEW OF WHERE THE TWO FUNDS ARE.

ON THE GOVERNMENTAL SIDE, WE'RE RECOMMENDING 362 THAN IN EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENTS.

THE CURRENT ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE PROJECTED AT 930 FOR THAT FUND IS A LITTLE OVER 6 MILLION.

IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE IN A PRETTY GOOD FINANCIAL POSITION TO MAKE THESE PURCHASES.

ON THE PROPRIETARY SIDE, THE RECOMMENDATIONS TOTAL AGAIN, LOW 558,000.

THE PROJECTED CURRENT ESTIMATED FUND BALANCE AT 9:30 OF THIS YEAR WOULD BE 2.2 MILLION.

SO AGAIN, RELATIVELY HEALTHY POSITION TO MAKE THESE PURCHASES AND STILL HAVE A STABLE FUND FOR FUTURE YEARS.

SO STAFFS CONTINUE TO WORK ON THE PRICING WITH ALL THE RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENTS, AND WE'LL PREPARE AGENDA ITEMS FOR THOSE ITEMS THAT REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR MOST LIKELY JULY, BUT AS SOON AS THEY'RE READY, WE'LL BRING THOSE FORWARD.

>> FINANCE COMMITTEE SUPPORTED ALL THE RECOMMENDED VEHICLES.

THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT COOPERATIVE PURCHASING VERSUS PUTTING BIDS OUT FOR ALL THESE.

IN THE END, I THINK THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR PROCEEDING WITH THE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING METHOD.

WE'LL ALWAYS CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR WAYS OR OPPORTUNITIES WHERE IT MAKES SENSE TO PUT OUT A SINGLE BID OR A SPECIFIC BID FOR THE CITY.

WE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMING THAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ACTUALLY PUT A BID TOGETHER AND BID ALL THESE ITEMS OUT BASICALLY AN ADDITIONAL 12-14 WEEKS ON AN EXPEDITED SCHEDULE TO GET SOMETHING BACK TO COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY.

>> YOU GOT YOUR DIRECTION?

>> WELL, BARRING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, THESE ARE THE ONES THAT WE'LL BRING BACK.

>> ANYBODY GOT ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING? I SAW A THUMBS UP.

>> WE HAVE OUR DIRECTION.

>> SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU.

>> WE'RE GOOD.

>> THANK YOU.

[4.E. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) and the New Non-Retroactive Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA). (Staff Contact: Cheryl Marthiljohni, Director of Human Resources)]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM 4E, RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, TMRS, AND THE NEW NON RETROACTIVE COST OF LIVING ADJUSTMENT, COLA.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS AFTERNOON, NOW WE'VE CHANGED INTO AFTERNOON, IS CHERYL MARTHILJOHNI,

[04:05:03]

DIRECTOR OF HUMAN RESOURCES. CHERYL?

>> THANK YOU. DID EVERYBODY HEAR SHORTEST PRESENTATION THIS AFTERNOON? I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE BEFORE WE GET STARTED THAT ANTHONY MILLS, WHO IS THE TMRS DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION SERVICES IS GOING TO BE HELPING ME PRESENT THIS AFTERNOON.

BUT I WOULD ALSO BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T RECOGNIZE MARYANN EMMA, WHO IS SITTING IN THE BACK.

SHE IS ALSO WITH TMRS, REGIONAL EDUCATION MANAGER, AND SHE IS THE PERSON THAT WE GO TO DAY TO DAY TO HELP US WITH ANY RETIREE QUESTIONS OR TMRS EDUCATION.

THANK YOU BOTH FOR BEING HERE THIS AFTERNOON.

GETTING STARTED, I WANTED TO AT LEAST GIVE AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM IS.

WE AFFECTIONATELY CALL IT AS TMRS. IT IS THE CITY'S MANDATORY RETIREMENT PLAN FOR OUR EMPLOYEES.

EMPLOYEES BECOME A TMRS MEMBER AS SOON AS THEY BEGIN WORKING IN A POSITION WITH THE TMRS CITY.