City Council - Regular Meeting

FOR YOUR MOTIONS? I JUST HAPPEN TO HAVE YOUR MOTIONS.

in case they don't come.

Okay, good afternoon, everyone. I am going to call this meeting to order. We have a quorum here today. Council Member Waddell is unable to be with us today because of a doctor's appointment. So we will miss her, but we have four out of the five here, and that is a quorum. A three is quorum. So I will call this meeting to order, and we will have the invocation now. And I don't think we have... Oh, there, okay. Gene Glazer is going to give our invocation.

Wonderful. Will that be okay?

I am so glad you're here.

Father God, thank you so much for the beauty of green grass in July and all the wonderful rain that you've given to us and the blessing that is today and in the months ahead. Thank you so much for the opportunity to watch government in action and As you've instructed us in the Bible, government is instituted and ordained by you for the good of the people, and we pray that you'll continue to give our council wisdom and discernment as they work with the decisions that need to be made for this municipality. We thank you so much for the opportunity to live here and the great things that come with being a part of this community and area. We thank you so much for the many blessings that you've given to each of us that we may In every way, bring glory to you. Thank you also, Father, for the way that over the years, the council and the resort have been so supportive of our faith communities with the herds helping with the Catholic Church and the Interdenominational Church and the city's favor on what we're doing at Lake Church. That means a lot to all of us, and it just really is appreciated in our time. We thank you so much for your salvation through your son. Through the power of your son's name we pray, amen.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one and indivisible. Thank you, Reverend Glazer, for that wonderful invocation today. We are going to start out with some announcements. I want to remind everyone, as we typically do, that we have sign-up sheets in the event that you would like to speak today. And they are, I believe, back here in the back left-hand corner for you all. And if you are planning to give a presentation for the Legislative Advisory Committee or would like to speak on any matter today on the agenda or on a public hearing item, please sign up so that we may call on you at the appropriate time. And so that's our announcements today. The first thing we want to do is give some staff recognitions today. And we have, I believe, a new introduction of Ashley Gerard by our Departmental Developmental Services Coordinator. Mr. John Byram.

Mayor and Council, good afternoon. I'm happy to announce a new member to the Development Services staff. Ashley Gerard is our new Development Services Coordinator. Her background is within residential construction and development administration. She has worked through the various stages of development, whether it's starting a project through the It's a middle process and taking it all the way to completion. She and her husband Colton live in Burnet County with their four dogs, three cows, and two longhorns. So the city is very, very happy for her to join us. And there she is in the back standing up right now.

Welcome to the team. Welcome to the team. All right. Yes. Now get to work. Molly Jester has another new employee, David Hemmond.

Yes, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'd like to introduce David Hemmon. He's joining us. He's been here about maybe two weeks. He grew up in San Antone, moved to Odessa, and he is married to Melissa. He graduated from the University of Texas at Permian Basin with a bachelor's degree in accounting in 1997. Not saying anything about the age. He worked in public accounting for five years, and then he joined Ector County, and then Marble Falls ISD for the past 14 years. David has five kids, six grandchildren, and two cats in his free time. He enjoys hiking, biking, building puzzles, and photography. And please welcome me, welcome David to the finance department.

Welcome, David. And put some pictures up in that office like I told you to yesterday, would you please? It's bare in there. Okay, I think we have Jules is going to give us a new staff introduction of Levi Bailey.

Mayor, Council, the Information Technology Department is pleased to welcome Levi Bailey as the city's new Information Technology Technician. Levi brings several years of experience as an IT consultant, helping organizations solve technology challenges and implement practical solutions that improve efficiency, reliability, and security. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Mechanical Engineering from Texas A&M University, where he developed a strong analytical and systems-oriented approach to problem solving. A resident of Llano, Texas, Levi enjoys learning about emerging technologies and applying them to solve real-world business and operational challenges. Welcome, Levi.

All right. We're going to get, uh, chief Nelson to, uh, give us a swearing in of officer Jeremiah Baker.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council. Uh, my honor to, uh, swear in the new officer of Horseshoe Bay police department, Jeremiah Baker. He recently, uh, graduated from the central Texas police Academy, uh, He's married to his wife, Catherine. They're happy parents of six children, five of which are foster children. So extremely happy to have Ulster Baker join the Horseshoe Bay Police Department. And I'd like to ask his wife if she would like to pin the badge on Ulster Baker. All right.

That's why she's doing it.

Did you give him that fake pen, Paul? Oh, it's a new badge. All right.

One, two, three. One, two, three. What is your name? Katie. Mr. Mayor, council, I'd like to also recognize Lady Ava Rose. She was the one who sponsored Officer Baker. First time we've ever done this at the police department. So I do want to say thank you. Worked out great. And I'm looking forward to the future. Wonderful.

Thank you for that sponsor.

Wonderful.

Okay, this brings us now to the area of our meeting called public comment. And this is the time in which citizens can voice their opinion within three minutes. and on any matter that touches and concerns our community. If it is a matter in which an agenda item has been ascribed for a public hearing, we would ask that you not come up until the public hearing is open, but any other matter, you may have three minutes to speak. And what we're gonna do first of all is, Let me take the Hill Country 100 Club golf tournament. And I don't think I have a name on this. Craig Hayden, do you not know how to spell your name, sir? Come on up here. Dropped your package, sir. How you doing, Mr. Hayden?

I guess you are sweet. A couple of things have happened since I last was here. Unfortunately, we lost two members. One, we had a patrolman up in the north side of our deal. And he was shot and killed on his duty. We went by and did what we usually do with people. And we gave $30,000 to the widow and stuff. Likewise, I'm sure everybody here knows that we lost a first responder, our chief in Marble Falls area there. And so that was two things. The thing that I wanted to basically talk about that has come about shortly in the last couple of weeks or so The people that run the council, they came to us and said, we want to go back and we want to go to the 9-11 that we had before. 9-11 being obviously what I think everybody here knows wasn't. that represent and uh so we uh we agreed to do that and we're now in the in the throes of uh trying to work everything out and we'll have uh we'll have a golf tournament and uh in ramrock and uh we will have that uh this this year and uh everything you know is about in that deal so If you see somebody, you know that this is the change that we have flipped over. Other than that, unless you've got a question.

I don't accept to say thank you so much for all your years of service with the Hill Country 100. You've done an exceptional job and have touched numerous lives of families and first responders across this area. And we thank you so much for volunteering your time and effort and energy to that. Craig, we really do. We owe you a gratitude. Thank you. Okay, I think I have been able to identify most of the other speakers are going to either be our legislative advisory committee applicants or you're going to speak on a matter later on in the agenda. And I will call upon you at that point to enter into the discussion for the agenda. I am going to now open up that portion of our hearing, which is the presentations by applicants to the legislative advisory committee. I do want to remind everyone that we had this open for two weeks. Was it two weeks, Susie, I believe? Okay, two weeks. I expected to have about seven or eight applicants. I want to thank the community. We have had 19 people. who have been interested in this position. And the only problem with that is that every single one have been qualified. I can't go through any of them and say, throw this one out, they're no good. None of them. It's been incredible. I've been so pleased with the response. And the biggest problem we're going to have is picking people the seven out who are the most representative of a cross-section of our community because we want to get as many different angles as we can. We will give people an opportunity today who have applied to give a short rendition of who they are and why they would be appropriate for this committee and then next month we will have the same opportunity for those who did not have an opportunity or couldn't be here today to give a presentation and then the council will vote at that meeting next month on the seven who will be on the committee. I do want to say this that even if you aren't chosen to be on the seven that's on the committee, not to worry. Because my guess is that committee will want to use you in some form or fashion to help demonstrate what Horseshoe Bay is all about to the legislature who's making laws that concern our lives and our livelihoods. So don't think that you're not gonna be used. I think you will be used. And I just appreciate the outpouring of solicitation that we've had from the community. Thank you. We're going to open it up for some short presentations by the applicants who are here today. The first one I have on here is Rusty Stout. Rusty, where are you? There you are.

We're asking everyone to keep these to three minutes or so. Mayor, council, thank you. Rusty Stout. I've lived in Horseshoe Bay for 18 years. I've served on the Transportation Committee. I was the chair of the Builder Committee. I am a local builder, developer, and the items that this committee is going to be dealing with directly impact my livelihood, as the mayor suggested. I think it's vital that a builder is on this committee considering a lot of these things consider zoning and regulations that directly impact builders. I'm not saying I have to be the builder, but I think it's the committee should have at least one on the, on the committee. Um, I plan on living here, retiring here. We're raising a son here. I like to see it continue. Our zoning continued to stay the way it is. I don't, you know, Letting the state dictate what the city can do and allowing people just to run roughshod in here certainly hurts my business. I don't compete with big box builders. We call them another box. I can't say it here today. But... I have extensive experience with lobbying. I was past president of Hill Country Builder Association. I used to coordinate the rally days at the Capitol with that. Don't know how effective it was then. Also, I'm a licensed realtor and so I have I see the trends, I see the costs. I build here, develop here, so I know the costs associated with that, and I know the impacts this could have.

How long have you been here, Rusty?

18 years.

Okay. And you realize this is not a lobbying? No, I understand.

I'm just saying I have experience at the Capitol and stuff like that.

This is an advisory to the council, and any other qualifications that you?

I don't know. Probably.

You build a good house.

I'm a plain speaker.

How about that? A good structure.

I'll tell you the truth, straight. Thank you.

And I appreciate your coordination in this community. Any questions from the council for Mr. Stout?

Are there any other questions? relationships that you have with other networks? You mentioned several, Rusty, because I think a lot of it is engaging the community, so obviously the broader...

Certainly have a relationship as a past president with the Builders Association. I think they would certainly have some... A lot of the builders are... They build here. And so they would be stakeholders in this. Um, and I can tell you, most of them are custom builders and they don't want, they like zoning. They like things like that. Cause it, you know, keeps our comps where they should be. So, okay. Thanks.

Any others? Thank you. Rusty. Appreciate it very much. Uh, our next speaker on this, uh, matter will be Willie Reinders. And as Willie's approaching, if anybody else is on the list and didn't get a chance to sign up, just raise your hand when I get to that point and we can add you in.

Mayor and Council, I want to talk to you about the who, the what, the why, and the how. Okay? Okay. Who? I'm Willie Reinders. I live at 114 Delfino Place in Tuscan Village. The what? I'm seeking a position within the Legislative Advisory Committee. The why? Volunteering's my passion. Since moving to Horseshoe Bay, I have volunteered within the Board of Adjustment, the Land Use Development and Advisory Committee, and I'm currently sitting on planning and zoning. Prior roles in volunteering were, I lived, prior to moving, I'm a newbie to Horseshoe Bay. I've been only here five and a half years. Lived in the Highland Lakes for 25 years. I spent three years on PNC and Sunrise Beach. And for seven years, I was with Highland Lakes Habitat for Humanity.

Three of those years, I was president of that organization.

I ended my professional career in 2010, retiring as an officer of the Floor Corporation. And my career, which spanned 38 years, put me in a position where I was an officer in charge of global project management. for the energy sector of that business. And why I think that's important is that I've been able to leverage that 38 years into what I've been able to offer in retirement volunteering. And those particular skills are listening to clients and teams, doing. My personal involvement with what I consider needs to be done both for our clients and for our success. Leading. My leadership spanned the entire globe in my prior life. I've been to every continent except Antarctica. I've had... direct interaction in Korean, Italian, Spanish, Dutch, and Californian. I think that's a unique language. I've learned to really make sure to understand the needs, both internal and external. I've got a funny experience with regard to clients. I was sitting in my office in Houston and I got a call from a client in Johannesburg, South Africa. Says, your project is in deep trouble and I need to talk to you. I said, I'm here, let's talk. He goes, no, in my office tomorrow. So I literally got on a plane by way of Frankfurt, flew to Johannesburg for this man to hand me my ass for 15 minutes and tell me thank you very much for coming. So I understand the importance, because it turned everything around. The fact that I was willing to go through that agony completely changed things, even though we settled nothing in that 15 minutes. He just wanted to see me sweat, and it worked. The people side of what I've learned is that I've always considered it to be very important that I take time to groom my replacement. I'm never looking out just for me. There's someone going to step into these shoes. They're getting older, and I don't need to continue doing this forever. But I'd sure like to teach someone else how to do it. So I intend to use the how part. I intend to use my listening, doing, and leading skills to establish and maintain relationships with our legislature, state and county. I want to be part of the missing link that allows our city to better communicate our needs to the legislators and to bring the legislators' needs back to our city. So up and down the scale. And I look forward to your confidence in my ability to deliver that. So now I think I've given you the who, the what, the why, and the how. Do you have any questions?

Gwen. Just kidding.

The dance court's open tomorrow.

I've gotten to know Willie throughout the several years, and he is extremely involved with the community, and we thank you for your attitude, and you will be an asset. So thank you very much, Willie. You bet. Thank you. Okay, for price.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, council members. Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself. And I start off by saying I'm a relatively new member, a citizen of Horseshoe Bay. My wife Karen and I moved here in January of 2025, so we've only been here about a year and a half. And when we moved here, it was by choice. We have four children, three of which live in Central Texas nearby, and more importantly, three grandchildren that all live within an hour of Horseshoe Bay. So we purposely chose to live here because of the great community that it is, the things that this community offers. And we come from a very close-knit community up in the Panhandle, and we quickly realized that Horseshoe Bay is a lot like the close-knit community and the panhandle that we came from. Everybody knows one another. They like to help each other. They get involved in the community. That's evident by just the short bit of testimony you've heard today before the council. And so we've been very pleased to be here. When we moved in January 2025, the reason we were able to do that and chose to move here was because I concluded my seventh term in the Texas legislature as a representative for eight counties up in the Texas Panhandle. I represented eight counties up there for seven terms, 14 years. I was elected in 2010. and concluded my service to the state in January of 2025. During that time at the Texas Legislature, I sat on 17 different committees. I chaired or co-chaired six of them. I was the vice chair of the Sunset Advisory Commission and also chaired the Transition and Legislative Oversight Committee with what is now the outgoing Secretary of State Jane Nelson, who was a Senate member, so it was a bicameral committee. I chaired the calendars committee which oversaw all the bills that went to the House floor during 2019 and really enjoyed my service to the state and the community that I served up in the panhandle. Worked very closely throughout that time with My constituents, the mayors, the council members, city managers, police chiefs, fire departments, superintendents, everybody who had a constituency, and also during that time worked extensively with members of the legislature, obviously, statewide elected officials, most of whom are still there, and really saw that there is an association or a trade group for literally everything in the state of Texas. So you really get to understand the issues on a broad scale. I think what you're doing is a fantastic idea. I don't know if it's new, but I do know that it's needed. I think that you'll quickly realize, if you haven't already, that the decisions being made at the state capitol in Austin absolutely affect your day-to-day life and the operation of the city and municipalities all across the state. So I think that the insight that I've got could be valuable. I would like to offer that. And when I learned that from three different people within 48 hours that this was an opportunity, I jumped at the chance. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you have.

Anybody have any questions?

Yes? That's a fair question. It's a fair question. To be real candid, I have deep respect for the three individuals that reached out to me and said, your insight would be valuable to this process, and we want you to consider applying. So that's the real reason. I think that secondarily, though, I do appreciate how sensitive the issues are to cities with the nature of what's going on here recently at the state level.

so you know horseshoe bay is a very special place and it's got a unique lifestyle and character and you know i i can understand the desire to protect that anybody else and i think you answered it um this concept that we're putting together we believe it's influential but you'd be on the other side of this so is there as we go forward counsel or guidance you'd give us in terms of the shaping or or the approach in terms from a recipient's perspective. I think you could give us some view on that too, but it seems like this to you would be a valuable thing for the city to support.

I do. I think it would be valuable. I think there are certainly strategies and initiatives that you can take that would be ineffective. And I've seen a lot of that. But I also think there are ways that you can be very effective and productive and utilize the opportunities that you have and the time. You know, it's such a short window of time that the legislature is actually working and in session it's even shorter amount of time that it has to pass bills so to utilize that time really starting now in the interim before they go to work in january at the capitol is a critical period of time and then i think you know just using that that time that you have wisely will make all the difference awesome thank you so much thanks thank you appreciate it appreciate the opportunity for

I saw Reverend White come in. Did you want to speak today or are you going to speak in August? I'm not forcing you to. Okay. I saw you come in a little late. And is there anybody else? Can you raise your hand who would like to present their application to the council today? Okay. Reverend White.

Mr. Mayor, I try to quote you accurately when I can. City Council and the city staff, whichever one of you thought I might do this. Patricia and I have lived here in Horseshoe Bay for 20 years. Since 2005, I came to Horseshoe Bay to serve as one of the pastors at the church at Horseshoe Bay, which I did for 12 years. No one could tell me how moving away would improve our lives after we retired, so we stayed. When we moved here, we knew about Lake LBJ, we knew about the golf courses, and all of that was very attractive, but we did not understand about the three-legged stool, the balancing act of governance in Horseshoe Bay. I came to understand more over the years and much more in the Dottie Anderson Citizens Academy, which I attended in 2022. Perhaps I have learned even more as a writer and reporter for the Horseshoe Bay Beacon. What we discovered from the beginning was what I have termed the intensity of community that is Horseshoe Bay. That's why you have 19 people stepping forward for these responsibilities. If selected, this is what I would pledge to do. I will participate faithfully with the community and with the committee. I will study the issues involved and the persons involved in those issues, both our elected representatives and perhaps the unelected persons who seek to influence these issues. I will be, in a timely manner, reporting back to the community the issues, the personalities, and the impact those issues might have on our community. so that our citizens will be well informed and know how to respond. Even if not selected, I will probably do that anyway.

Questions for Johnny. I want to thank you for being my friend and for applying for this and just for your common sense, which we need in this community. Thank you.

And you're very fortunate that you are not always quoted off the record.

Saving grace.

No comment. Okay. As I mentioned before, we will finish up with these presentations in August, so whoever didn't have an opportunity to speak today will have a full opportunity to present their applications in August. That concludes 6A. Now we're going to go to 6B, which is Mr. Jeff Koska, I believe, our city manager, is going to talk to us about our Texas Police Chief Association comprehensive review.

Oh, with the clicker?

I'll go ahead and start anyway. Thank y'all for having me speak on this. As y'all know, we lost our police chief a while back and consistent with the council's authorizing the engagement of the Texas Police Chiefs Association to conduct an organizational assessment of the police department in connection with the police chiefly transition. The TPCA has completed and delivered the comprehensive review of staffing and operation for the Horseshoe Bay Police Department. This assessment was conducted during the spring of 2026 by Chief Martin Bickersfield and Chief Todd Hunter, part of the Texas Police Chiefs Association staff. and interviews with department personnel, city leadership, on-site field observation, and analysis of full-year criminal calls for service and workload data. The assessment found that Horseshoe Bay Police Department to be well-respected, professionally operated agency serving one of the safest communities in the state of Texas with experienced employees, strong community support, competitive compensation, and exceptionally low crime rates. The report contains 35 recommendations and notably recommendations no increase or reduction in the total number of sworn officers. Recommendations focus on reorganization of the supervision, consolidate and dispatch into a single computer aided dispatch workflow. correcting radio and technology deficiencies, strengthen evidence management, updating policies, and pursuing law enforcement accreditations. What I would like to say is that what they found out is there was no issues with the folks, the officers, or the staff that support the officers. What it really got down to is some technology issues and also communication, uh, there was a lack of communication and I would like to turn it over to chief Nelson to kind of go through some of those recommendations and, uh, give you a kind of report on that. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor and council. Thank you for this opportunity to talk. Um, on this first slide here, the employee survey had 24 responses and in law enforcement, you really don't see. officers really opening up and talking. So that told me a lot when I saw those 24 of them opened up and I was one of them. And so they, you know, really hit on the culture and the leadership, the equipment and the process. So we listened to them and we started working on it from day one. And I can say out of 35 of the recommendations, we recognized 32 right off the bat. And we're able to start working on them as soon as we could. And so, um, they came out, did the onslaught observation, um, and they started doing the workload analysis. So they had 35 recommendations. Uh, luckily we will not be losing any officers and. really the best thing that I like to say is it's the safest city in the state. Um, so definitely taking the pride and, and ethics and teamwork in the leadership, uh, transition is made very positive so far. Um, here's a graph of the, of property crimes in the light blue and violent crimes in the dark. Um, So you can see we definitely have property crimes. A lot of that is construction sites. So we've been working on that. We've changed the way we've been patrolling. We have them in two different districts, west and east, and we'll have one officer in each district, and the third officer is a rover back and forth, and they can go back up and officer in the west district while the officer in the east district would slide over And in case there's another call there, they can take it. So it helps in the response time also. Um, that's something that we started over a month ago. Um, and here's kind of the reorganization part of it. Um, obviously one chief, uh, one assistant chief, um, they're recommending no captain. Um, but we have a captain over criminal investigations and our goal. October would be a captain over patrol so we have one over patrol one over criminal investigations And then they answer to the assistant chief on the patrol side. You'll have four sergeants one each shift and Then on the criminal investigation side we have three investigators one of those investigators will be working on the evidence and Getting that cleaned up and all the years past that should have been destroyed a long time ago They're going through year by year and so we definitely still need the three investigators, but one would be doing evidence from this time on So that brings us 22 and Then there's the CAD system We are looking at the mapping. I've been working with Jules on this and we finally got through with Verizon and they're able to let Comm know that our IP addresses will not be changing when we take the computer out of the docking station and that's what the problem has been. And so once they get that worked on and Comm will be able to see us on the maps So for years they've seen us on the map since last November their server crashed and after that is when we got off the maps and no one could figure out what the problem was and we got that figured out and it should be fixed hopefully within the next few days. Portable radios, we had switched to a, what I would say a better radio, but at the time they only ordered eight radios and we have 16 patrol officers. And so we need to order eight more. And so that's on the list to do that. We need to work on and find the money, uh, to get that. They're, they're not cheap. They're in pretty close to $8,000 per radio. So I'm currently working on that issue now. Um, We just did a map for all the patrol officers of where they have what they call dead spots, talking on the portable radios or the in-car radios. And so we're going to be meeting with Marble Falls comm and bear comm with that map. And so they can go to each place and look to see what the problem is and try to get that fixed. And then in dispatch, they're asking us to do a recording of every phone call that's coming in. To be honest with you, that's not on the top of my list right now, and so that will be working in the future. I think the greatest operational need, getting new computers for every patrol officer, correct, every patrol unit, And they share those. The computers we have right now are about seven years old, eight years old. So if you all approve the upcoming budget, then we'll be able to get those radios on this next budget year. The interview room, I've talked to you all about the Axon camera system that will be in the interrogation rooms. Once again, that gets approved in the budget, then they'll be coming in and doing the installation there. The flex training, we're going to have at least three officers that will be going tomorrow falls calm and get trained more intensely into that so we can do the stats better and know what reports we can actually give y'all. Right now we're finding out that there's a lot of different ways in there that we could be doing to make it more understandable. And I would like to do some graphs and bring in the GIS mapping to where we can know where when an accident happens on the intersection, we can start collecting that data and we can know by the end of every month and in the year how many accidents we had at that intersection or whatever that was, then we could be changing our patrol tactics to that area if we need to be. So that's kind of the main priority on that part of it.

Just to make sure I'm clear, so those needs as well as the previous page for the radio connectivity are items, Jeff, you all are contemplating putting in our budget next year?

We've already done that for 2018-2017.

Okay. Yes, sir.

We're also working with this budget, too, on some of the cameras that need to be replaced immediately.

And I also support having somebody that's an IT professional do that and let you all focus on being police officers and someone else to...

This is going to be... The bid that we have is the same company that did our security here, and they'll be tied into the existing system. Oh, good.

So we have a tied-in maintenance system.

Good. On the evidence room... Like I said earlier, the investigator's gonna be working on that. He has been for about two months now. And so we're definitely jumped on that one as quick as we could. Deer management, we have three bids in now. And so we're gonna be going through that and we'll be adding that to the budget. i know one thing for sure is we're not going to have police officers out there trapping the the deer so we're all happy about that and getting the right trained individuals out there uh social media i mean i can't say enough about cindy um she's awesome and so we really enjoy working with her and she's done a really awesome job getting it out there um i don't really see us needing a separate social media page when we have her. And so we'll work together as a team and get the notices out, uh, the policies and the accreditation. Um, when I took over, we made a committee and they're going through the policy manual, um, per policy each and doing the changes that they feel like we need to do, um, in order to be accredited and our main goal at the end, is apply to get accredited in the future, but we need to work and get some of these kinks worked out, and then we'll be able to apply and start that process, which is, it'll take a little while, but there's no doubt we can do it. We've got the police department that can do it.

Question for you. The recommendation was we have three detectives, and the recommendation is to have two. Is that correct?

Yes, sir. And the third one would be for the evidence. So he'd still be an investigator. He would be on call. But his main priority right now for a good while will be doing the evidence room and handling that. So he would still be an investigator. Yes, sir.

And have we already begun the east and west division for patrol?

Has it already been done? Yes, it's in the process.

How's that working so far?

Going good. We're having the officers, we have citizen contact cards, and so between calls, traffic stop and stuff, they're able to talk to citizens, get their name, address, and then that will tell me that we're actually talking to the citizens, which is what we all want. So we're usually... We have anywhere from six to eight of those cards coming in a day now.

Are the officers enjoying dealing with the smaller sector, necessarily getting to know the homes and the businesses and the people in that smaller sector rather than the entire city patrolling? Yes, sir. I've had good feedback.

I haven't had anything negative about it at all. Great. Great. Mr. Koska.

I think there's even more. that's coming out, the National Night Out initiative that he's taken. There's a lot of things that Chief Nelson is pushing to move us forwards. And going forwards, what we really need to do is kind of y'all have that report, y'all kind of read it, y'all kind of accept it in the sense that we're moving forwards. We have taken the information from this, And we were, uh, and also the, there was three or four of us that actually modified the police chief's job description to make sure that we had the things in that, um, to be included in from the recommendation report on how we, uh, need to fill that position, the right fit person. And they will also, two of those guys will be on our, uh, our committee for, uh, evaluation of the interviews. And, uh, so we're going to move forward to that, but what I need the, the, the council is kind of direct the city manager to develop a prior. implementation plan, which Paul has already kind of created that. I don't know if you've provided that to him yet, but that spreadsheet that we were working on. So we took these and we want some response and we want to give you those responses and then if y'all have feedback then we'll kind of go from there. But the main thing is to, as we sit right now, we've taken the report and taken the information with the report, made our changes that are moving forwards, but we also make sure that that was included in our future when we do fill the position that that police chief's got some direction to work from from here, and that just like with our, this reflects kind of what we've done in the past with the fire chiefs, where we really are the city's commitment to organizational excellence, and we do this to make sure that whoever gets in that position has a really good start moving forwards. So kind of asking for me to move forwards also with the posting tomorrow, And then we'll be out for about three weeks, and then we'll have our interviews, and then we'll select the one that we come through at the end.

And, Jeff, the part of the committee to determine the kind of review the applicants and applications is going to be the Texas Police Chief Association, correct? Yes.

That's exactly right. Yes, sir. Two of them.

And they have a wide variety of opportunity to know some of the applicants that will be applying as well. Yes, exactly. And they'll have some inside information for them.

They're a really good group. They know the rules. Their performance is what is the standard for the state for the most part. And they've been really good for us. They did a really good job on the support. They dug down deep. found out things that we needed to know, and we have a plan going forwards.

Jeff, do we have a recommendation from them in terms of the recruitment criteria?

Yes. Well, that was part of what we did in the job description. We went in and changed some things based on what we saw as far as strong communications. both within the department and within the community as well.

Yeah, if I could, I'd like to see that. And you touched on your summary of key findings. The most significant organizational theme identified was not staffing, funding, or workload. It was communication.

That's it.

And the recommendations we've seen are all good and valid and very supportive, but they don't deal with that. So we need to see what within the culture of the department, not just who we select as the leader, but the leaders. I don't know what they had recommendations on, how as a team we'd like to improve our communications.

Okay. Well, I think that was part of what they said in the radios to make sure, one, that we had the communication out there for that. but they did talk about micromanagement.

I'd like to see some thoughts on that in terms of, you know, as a leadership team, how do we create that kind of shared understanding?

Sure. And as a matter of fact, that one of the parts of there was to, for us, the leadership management to meet with the police department to defer some of those issues. And we met about three weeks ago and then last Friday a second time with all the staff. And we told them that we supported them. We asked them for questions and the issues that they had. And we got some feedback from them, both the first time and the second time.

Jeff, I think our city attorney wants to say something about this too.

I wanted you to finish your discussion, but we're not posted for action on this item.

Okay. Finish our discussion. Well, that's what we're doing. So finish your discussion.

Even though there's no action to be taken, you can accept the report for the record.

Okay. Okay.

I'd be interested in an action plan related to the communication improvement and whether that's identifying where the communications are not occurring or leadership training or whatever the action plan could look like because it seems to be the primary personnel It looks like the, you know, got some great recommendations, but I'd be interested in what we were going to do about communication.

Yeah, it's definitely, we put it in the job description, but it is also part of the plan that Paul's working on to make sure that there is inclusion of committees within the police department. on hiring and different things like that.

It's 35 recommendations, and it looks very complete, very thorough, and I know everybody's had an opportunity to review it, and I think we ought to, we're not going to take any action on it, but we're just going to tell you thank you for getting this. Yeah.

Yeah, I hear you. That's right. Yeah, and it's really odd that they have it. Of course, we also did the same thing with the utilities, and so we fixed a lot of the spots. The fire department has fixed their issue by putting a repeater on the truck. That's not really something feasible to do all the vehicles, but that's what the map is, and that's what we're doing. Thank you, sir. I appreciate it. 8,000 apiece.

Four to eight, yeah. Mostly eight. Yeah. Eight. Yes.

We're going to find it. Okay, we'll do that.

We need to move on now because we've accepted the report. Great report. Paul, thank you for your addition on that as well. And we're going to move now to our public hearing items. And our first public hearing is to consider the amendment of land use assumptions and the imposition, a consideration possible action concerning ordinance 2026-20, amending chapter 10 of article 1004 of our impact fees. I'm gonna open the public hearing at 3.55 p.m. and ask Ray Garcia to give us an assessment of this public hearing, please.

Good afternoon, Mayor, Council. Ray Garcia, Utilities Director. The purpose of this agenda item is to consider the recommendations of the Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Advisory Committee regarding the city's FY27 Water and Wastewater Impact Fee Program. The proposed ordinance would update the city's impact fee schedule based upon the most recent capital improvement planning, land use assumptions, and impact fee analysis prepared in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. Notice of the public hearing and advisory committee meetings was provided in accordance with Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The proposed ordinance has been reviewed by the city attorney and is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 395 of the Texas Local Government Code. The proposed amendments also update and reaffirm the city's water conservation impact fee credit program, which provides eligible developments with credits for incorporating approved water conservation measures and reduced projected water demand and defer future infrastructure capacity needs. Adoption of this ordinance would ensure the city's impact fee program remains legally compliant, financially sustainable, and equitable by allocating the cost of growth-related capital improvements to new development while recognizing conservation practices that reduce infrastructure demand. And with that, I'm going to introduce to you Grady Reid, who is going to give his presentation and the recommended proposal to Council of the Impact Fee Committee. Brady Reed is the HDR consultant in this. Brady. Good afternoon.

Mayor and Council. I'm going to go through this relatively quickly and that way there's time for questions at the end. Basically what I'm going to try to present to you is the impact fee application area, our land use plan that we have to develop as part of Chapter 395. The meat of this is that third bullet down, the water and wastewater capital improvement plan and cost allocations. We'll go over the impact fee calculations and then we'll conclude with the uh, CIA see their recommendations. Um, I will say just at the outset that it's been about three years since the city has updated their water and wastewater impact fees. And during this update, we really, uh, most of the assumptions remained the same. Um, the growth assumptions are very similar. We, we slightly lower the growth assumptions. Uh, the land use assumptions are relatively the same. We adjusted those a little bit based on, based on the changes in projected growth. Where most of the change is, is in updating the cost on the capital improvement projects. So in that interim three-year period, obviously costs of construction projects have gone up and those are projected to continue to increase. So that was most of the updating. We didn't make any really large-scale changes to the underlying assumptions. Um, so the first thing is just kind of clarifying what the way water and wastewater impact theory is, um, the area in blue is, is the area in which the impact fee would be, uh, applied for any new. Growth water or wastewater that connects to the city's system. Um, a change in the, which is included in the ordinance, I believe, uh, for the remaining area that's there kind of in red. is that previously impact fees have not been applied to what I would call kind of infill growth or growth within the city itself. And that is because when Horseshoe Bay was first created, there was a mud type structure and those property owners paid into a mud which contributed to the water and wastewater system at that time. The ordinance change would apply an impact fee to that area, but only if the density is increased. So if a single lot is split into two or that type of situation occurs. The water and wastewater land use, again, I'm not gonna spend much time on this because this really hasn't changed too much since we did this. This is just required as part of chapter 395. I always tell people that quite honestly, feed into the impact fee calculation itself, but it is something that we have to do and that we have to present. So this just shows kind of our best estimate of how the current acres within the city are utilized between residential, non-residential, undeveloped land, and then land that cannot be developed, whether it's water, roads, or drainage areas, and what that looks like in the future. The water and wastewater service area population There is a little bit difference between the two service areas just with the number of connections. So you're expected to increase over the next 10 years based on our assumptions population-wise about 70% on water and a little under 90% on wastewater. Okay. There's a lot on this slide, so I'm just gonna kinda walk through this as best I can, but this is kinda where we start the meat of calculating these water and wastewater impact fees. So we do this through what's called a cost allocation.

Sorry, interrupt. If you do wanna draw their attention, there's a laser pointer on it, and it'll show up on their individual screens.

Awesome. Thank you. So we go through a cost allocation process to do that. One of the things that we did update is the cost for the existing projects. So with impact fees, there's kind of two parts to that. There's obviously the new proposed projects, which is the bulk of the impact fee calculation, but there is also your existing assets. So through the impact fees, you can recoup cost for assets that you've already paid for or are paying for through debt service. So that's the top set of boxes, the existing projects or existing infrastructure. We worked with your city staff to go through and pull your asset listing that had a cost associated with each one of those assets. And so we bend those assets into different types, whether that was water supply, water treatment, pumping, ground storage, elevated storage, or water transmission. And so the project cost that you see there, these are basically out of your fixed assets model. We did add on the water supply cost, we do also include the reservation portion of your contract with LCRA by state statute. We can include that as a contract cost.

brady a question on this part of the chart the existing projects their percent utilization 2026 2035 is the 2035 projection based on lues or actual water volume it's the way that we are forecasting

or utilization for each one of these asset types is within our impact fee model, we are forecasting new LUEs. So we're forecasting growth in LUEs. And then we have a use factor. So we say that each LUE is going to use X number of gallons of ground storage or X number of gallons of elevated storage. So we know from your existing customer list how many LUEs you currently have. So that's the 2026% utilization. And then as we grow that over the next 10 years, that becomes your 2035 utilization. And we've tried to work with city staff to identify the current capacities of each one of those asset types.

But it's primarily based on LUE?

Yes, growth. Okay. So for your existing assets, We can only include the delta between their existing utilization and future utilization. So the three columns on the far right, the current development, the 10 year, and the beyond 2035, the current development is just the project cost times the percentage in the 2026 column. And then the 10 year, which is the column that we're most interested in, that is the project cost times the percent that's in the 2026 through 2035 column under percent utilization. The proposed project list, this is a list that again we work through with city staff. to go through this list and make sure that we still had the right projects. The projects changed, I believe, ever so slightly from the last impact fee update, but not much, mostly the same list of projects. The primary change was updating the project cost. For each one of these proposed projects, we also did work with city staff to go through and estimate what that how much that project capacity was going to be utilized by the time we got to 2035. And so that's in the percent utilization 2035 column for each one of these projects. And basically what we're doing is we're taking the project cost times that percent, which then goes into the 10-year column. Because according to state statute, we can't recoup 100% of the project cost. Eventually you would, as you kind of keep going and you update this every three to five years. But whenever we're planning for these impact fees, we can only include in each impact fee update the percent of that project that we expect to be utilized over the 10-year period, if that makes sense. So for example, the high Mesa water line, that has a project cost of $1.5 million. And working through city staff, it's estimated that that capacity would be 65% utilized at the end of the 10-year period. So to get this number over here, the 967,772 that we're including in the impact fee for that project, we're taking the 1.488 million times 65%, if that makes sense. And so then we add... We add those up, we add up the $13.4 million at the top and the $18.8 million at the bottom. So our total 10-year impact fee cost on the water utility is about $32.2 million. We then take that and divide that by the growth in LUEs, which we're assuming to be 4,332. Most of that growth is in that blue area of the map with a little bit of growth inside the city. And so then just doing the simple math, we get a cost per AU of $7,427. That $7,427, that's our starting point for the impact fee itself. That's what's called the weighted cost of capital. And so we'll pick up on that number again in just a moment. We went through the same process on the wastewater utility. Again, going back and looking at your existing assets, updating those costs based on your fixed assets model, looking through the percent utilizations, both current and projected for the wastewater assets, trying to roll those costs in to the impact fee. And so we'd be rolling about $8 million worth of existing asset cost into this impact fee update. Looking at the project list, and assigning percent utilizations to each one of those projects. And that basically boils down to about $12.6 million of new projects that we're rolling into the impact fee. Again, that's not the total project cost. The total project cost of new projects associated with growth is the $32.7 million, but we can only roll about $12.6 million of that into the impact fee. So the total 10-year cost that we're including in the impact fee for wastewater is about $20.7 million, $20.6, $20.7 million, 4,100 new LUEs projected over this 10-year period on the wastewater side to give us a way to cost a capital of $5,038 per LUE. So this is the... kind of the final calculation so chapter 395 says that once you come up with this weighted cost of capital so the $7,430 which is the $7,427 that's in the very bottom table there the good news is we do get to add $3 to that because you can roll the cost of this study in your impact fee so you will recoup the cost of this study over a 10 year period or so That gets added so that gives us a total capital cost of new service for water of 7,430. Chapter 395 basically then says you have to do either one of two things. You can go through and calculate a rate credit in which we go through a series of calculations and we try as best as we can to determine how much of these new projects new customers would pay for through their utility rates because every time I'm here I think I always say that impact fees help growth pay for itself, but they're not gonna pay for 100% of new growth. Those new projects, they do get paid for and funded through impact fees, but a portion of that cost also will end up in your utility rates. So we're trying to determine how much of that cost we think is gonna end up in the utility rates. And we want to make sure that we take that out so that your rate payers and customers are not paying for the same project twice.

Where's that taken out?

So those are the values in that option A rate credit. That would be the rate credit that we would subtract out of the impact fee. So for water, we would subtract out $386 in total. The second option is to just take the capital cost of new service per OUE and cut that in half. never the most advantageous to the cities and that it always produces a lower impact fee than if you do the rate credit. But the state legislature at the time that impact fees were included. Um, they just wanted to basically have a fail safe measure. If you didn't want to do the rate credit option, uh, they basically assumed that this would suffice and make sure that no new customers are double paying for infrastructure. Um, so that gives us two options to choose from. We would, we would obviously recommend option a that you take the rate credit option, So doing that would produce a new water impact fee of $7,044 per OUE and then a new wastewater impact fee of $4,011 per OUE for a total of $11,056. Again, it is important to know that these are scaled by meter size. The current way that they are scaled is a three-quarter and a one inch meter are both considered one LUE. And then they're scaled from there based upon guidance from the American Water Works Association. So a larger meter size would pay a multiple of this fee if it's above a one inch meter. As part of this process and following the Chapter 395 process, a Capital Improvement Advisory Committee was created We had several meetings with them. Each meeting we tried to focus on a different aspect of this. So we did have one meeting with them and we just kind of walked them through the impact fee process. We did have one meeting with them in which we focused on land use a little bit and talked about that. Our longest meeting that we had with them was going through the capital improvement plan. And that was a very informative meeting for them and I think it was something that they actually enjoyed a little bit, and I don't say that a lot about my capital improvement advisory committees. Sometimes I don't think they necessarily enjoy those meetings, but they did enjoy finding out really how the city's water and wastewater system operates and how these new projects would be utilized by the city if growth occurs. At the end of the day, we did present a report to them. The committee did approve that report, and by approving that report, They did find that the land use appeared to was reasonable, that the CIP had been reasonably defined, that the maximum impact fee had been reasonably calculated and that new maximum allowable impact fee is $11,056 per OUE. This cut off the last line there but the CIAC also did recommend that council adopt the maximum impact fee, the $11,056 as the new effective impact fees. I will say that as council's discretion, this is the maximum allowable fee, but council can adopt an effective impact fee anywhere between zero up to $11,056. This is the last slide. This just kind of gives you a comparison of of impact fees, water and wastewater in the area. The current impact fees for the city are $6,546 per OUE, and again, not quite doubling that, which seems like a large increase, but I will say that what we've seen in some of these other cities, certainly these cities that are on the top, Pflugerville, Marble Falls, Leander, even Hutto to some degree, As they have been updating their impact fees, we've seen very large increases in some of these entities' impact fees. There was a time when I never thought that we would see an impact fee above $10,000 in Texas and we've kind of blown past that as just construction costs have continued to increase. Not only that, but for some of these other entities, they're having to go out and acquire new water supplies that are very costly as well. So the good or bad news, depending upon how you look at it, is you're not the highest and you're not the lowest. You're kind of in the middle of the pack. So with that, I'll stop. And then if there are any questions, I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

I think we probably will have some questions.

Before y'all start, we were talking to Dottie over here. The actual impact fee ordinance did not make it into the packet, and it has to be. So whatever y'all decide, I think we'll have to hold the hearing open.

You don't have to hold the hearing open. You can close the hearing. And I believe it's 60 days after you close the hearing that you can adopt the impact fee ordinance. So we thought that there wasn't going to be an increase in the fee until I saw the presentation. So we'll have to bring that back.

I've got a couple of questions, Brady. It's mostly related to, first of all, good report. And thank you for helping us. And I think there's a lot of good work that everybody put into this. I'm looking at your table three in your report, the LUE equivalent conversion factors. And you've got a five-eighths meter that's an LUE of one, a three-quarters meter that's an LUE of one, and a one-inch meter that's an LUE of one. What is the water flow difference between five-eighths, three-quarter, and one-inch meters?

Give me one second to get to...

He's looking at it. It's actually 30 days.

It's 30 days instead of 60 days.

You have to have a special meeting. It'd be a working meeting. August meeting is more than 30 days out. If you choose to hold it up or close it.

August meeting on the 18th?

25th.

Oh.

Yes, ma'am. Yeah, you'll have to have it between now and the 18th of August if you don't approve it or deny it.

If you'd like to close the public hearing, so you can probably just leave the public hearing open.

Okay. And then conclude in a special meeting between now and 30 days.

Okay.

That's right. It's okay. Thanks for catching it. And primarily what I'm after Brady is to understanding the, the volume implications of the different meters versus them all having the same scale.

Yeah. So this, the we're, we're basing that, um, the, I'm going to be honest and say the way that the way that they're scaled for y'all is, is different than the industry norm. Um, and I don't want to say that we're doing that because that's the way that it's always been done, but that's the way that we we've, It's been for Horseshoe Bay for, before I kind of picked up these impact fees. But to answer your question directly, we're basing, typically you would base those scaling factors on flow as referenced to the American Water Works Association. I believe it's their manual C700-C, It is a dated manual at this point, but it's kind of the best that we have, and it's the industry benchmark for how we scale impact fees. And it's a manual that kind of talks about different meter sizes and the continuous flow through those meters. And so what they say is that through a 5-inch meter, the flow is 20 gallons per minute, a 3-quarter inch is 30, and a 1-inch is 50. So... That's their flow calculations.

I think it would make sense to go with the industry standard if we're really trying to understand the impact of growth, not making 20, 30, and 50-gallon meters look the same because that's not going to give us the best view of the demand or the recovery opportunity. And we have a mix. It's heavier towards the 1-inch.

than than any of the others yeah what um i'm going to tell you what how i how i think the current scaling came about and then i'll give you an alternative for how it could be done based on industry standards so um my understanding and again this was back when my predecessor started started doing this um as the city operates kind of uh on the assumption that um An LUE is a 5-inch meter, although in reality that's not the case. And so we are scaling, those scaling factors are based on a 5-inch meter as the standard meter size for the city, but the standard meter size for the city is not a 5-inch meter. It's either a 3-quarter or a 1-inch meter or both. And it was determined that there's enough 3-quarter and 1-inch meters in the city system and that both of those are being used in a routine enough capacity that it was decided that we were gonna set those equal to one OUE because in reality, that is your base meter size. You can argue it's three quarter, you can argue it's one, or you can argue it's both. The industry standard way, if you were gonna calculate impact fees is that in your case, you have more three-quarter inch meters than you do one-inch meters. So you would set a three-quarter inch meter as your standard meter size and that would be one LUE.

I think your table says we have more one inch, but I'm tracking with you. Okay. I'm trying to get the... I apologize then. No, no, no problem.

I don't have the report open in front of me. That's fine. Whatever your standard meter size is, that's what you would set as your base size. and that would be one LUE.

I'm just trying to get it to reflect the usage as closely. If we're using 50 gallons per minute per meter versus 20, that's a significant different forecast of growth and recovery need or 30.

So if, for example, you set, you used a one-inch meter as your base meter size, that would be one LUE. And then a one and a half inch, the multiplier would be two instead of five. Right. So it would bring those other multipliers down.

That's just my suggestion is to as accurately as possible reflect the real water usage and treatment based on the meters we're using versus all three sizes are looked at as the same when you have a 20 to 50 gallon variance.

Yeah, Ruben, the part of this is that if you max out the meter, you lose accuracy and the maintenance of the meters goes away. And so you have to replace the meters a lot longer. So we do have a buffer in there. And the majority of the meters that we put out in the system for 20 odd years has been one inch.

I'm not saying what meter size we should use. We should forecast based on the volume of water.

And that's what I'm saying. I think with the meters, we take about 80% of the volume of a meter because we don't want to hit the maximum of the capacity of that. So we reduce that meter capacity down to ensure that they are longevity in the meter. Does that make sense?

So, is the three-quarter throttled also?

Yeah, same thing.

You guys can determine the meter you want. I just want the forecast to represent the volume of flow.

Right.

Is it the same as the three-quarter inch?

It could, yes. It depends on if you have a mobile home that has no irrigation, they don't use that capacity. But we can use a three-quarter inch because it doesn't meet, doesn't exceed 80, 90% of the capacity of that.

Maybe, let me ask it this way. What's the benefit of not using the standard approach? Why would we scale different flows the same?

Because that was kind of the standard, that was what the decision was when we put them into the first impact fee study that we did, is that we included the three-quarter inch, the 5-inch by three-quarter inch, which are mostly mobile home sections or condos, small condos that have irrigation systems, and most of the homes were one inch, and that was the decision by the council then. And it was based on the recommendation that basically was on the capacity of the meters, that we did not want to project out there that we needed three-quarter inch meters for houses that had irrigation system.

No, I'm just trying to understand the amount of water flow that we're treating and building capacity for.

A lot of that has to do with peak demand.

So do we use 30 gallons, 35, 40?

Yeah, that's probably the average is 30 gallons. Yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Yes, sir.

To all of us.

Yeah. Yes, sir.

So that's fine. But in this calculation, is an LUE 30 gallons consistently? That's what we want to know. If it's 20 or 50, then we're not getting the right numbers because the basis is wrong. So Brady, did you use 30 gallons? What did you use as an LUE equivalent? Let me... Because all of the basis of all of the math depends on this number.

I'll answer that question. And again, I apologize. I did not have the actual report.

Well, you didn't know we were going to ask you all that, so...

Dottie, we can't vote on this today anyway, correct?

Right. You can. Okay. You can continue the public hearing. Yeah.

Okay. Well, we're. At the public meeting. Okay. Within 30 days. I suggest somebody make that.

Except you didn't ask any member of the public to come up.

I don't think anybody signed up to speak for this. Yeah. Would anyone love to speak on this?

Or you've heard more than you want to hear already.

Willie raised his hand. Well, this will be a special meeting, though. That's a pretty good idea. Thank you. Thank you. And do we need to identify the areas that we would like to have addressed at the special meeting right now? Okay, we can do that later. Okay.

I am going to, as the presiding officer, one comment just real quick. Um, depending upon staff direction, if this, if we were to change the assumptions, including the scaling factors, that is going to change the maximum impact fee. That's my point. Sure. Sure. That would have to go back to the C the capital advisory improvement committee. They would have to re-approve the report, and then it would come back before you. You would have to re-notice for 30 days and then hold a second public hearing in the future to do that, is my understanding of how state statute would work. So it is something that we can certainly address, and we're not starting from scratch. It would be a relatively quick process.

Well, to do that, but then we've got to go back through the committee.

Yes, sir, but they would only have to meet one time. We would present them a new report that they would approve at the same meeting.

The report has to be attached to the ordinance. Okay.

If the engineer is telling us the numbers would be different, I think we need to get underneath what that is. That's what I'm saying. Before we go back to the Capital Improvement Committee, let's see what the number change is.

I don't think y'all can do that. I think if the number changes, it has to go to the Capitol Committee before it comes to y'all.

Yeah.

I don't want to go to the Capitol Committee.

I want to be able to see the number. Well, I'm going to make a decision right now to close this public hearing, and we will address all these matters ASAP. and get a new public hearing at our first opportunity. The time is 4.30 that we have closed this public hearing. Ruben, would you make that motion?

I'll attempt it. Thank you all for your patience. I know this is excruciating.

Figure out what an LUE is.

Yeah. So, and you guys help me here, what I'm looking for is that the scaling of the LUE represents actual water flow.

Yes, and Councilman, to answer your other question, when we're doing our forecast of demand, and keep in mind that this is not an engineering report. We're making some very gross assumptions when we're looking at your percent utilizations of existing assets.

If it changes the number, we should know what that is.

We do not base that on a per gallon per minute flow. We're basing it on 345 gallons per day per OUE is what we're using. How many? 345 gallons per day per OUE. That's for water supply For treatment, pumping, and transmission, we use a multiple of that to account for peak time flows.

I'm going to move that we direct staff to create a scale that's appropriate for the size meter and the water flow for an LUE.

And versus what the true flow is.

And I don't know how you do that. Because we can change some of the assumptions and come back to the same numbers.

The gallons per day likely won't change. That is probably an average system wide. It's the instant demand, which But the numbers are all based on this LUE.

And so if we can get that consistent with the flow, I think that it's the best number we're gonna have based on our projections. It's also state standard.

Okay, the motion's been made by Councilmember Fetchner. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Hosea. All in favor? Aye. All against? Okay. Staff, you've got your marching orders, and we will...

The second part of this, do you want to go ahead and...

Yeah, let's do it. Do we need a motion to call that special meeting?

We'll have to look at the new information.

We'll have time. Whatever you all choose.

So is the 18th at the end of the 30-day window? Because I'm not here. Wouldn't it be the 21st or the 20th? 20th? I could do that. I'm out of time.

That's the 21st.

Well, if 19th or 18th would work, I'm not here on the 18th.

Well, can we decide this later? Yeah, let's.

Make the motion to allow staff to post the special meeting within the 30 days.

Yeah, okay. That's fine.

Bring back this information so you can make a decision whether it has to go back to the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee or whether you can just pass. Okay.

Okay. Determine a meeting, a public meeting, within 30 days. Motion by Mr. Hosea. Second? Second. Second by Mr. Morgan. All in favor? Aye. All against? Okay, it passes. Thank you. That was fingernails on the chalkboard right there. Okay, we are going to move to public hearing 7B, which is discussion, consideration, possible action on ordinance number 2026-21 regarding a reclassification of zoning from R6 to C2. The time is 436, and I am opening this public hearing at that time. And Mr. Byram.

Mayor, Council, good evening. For the record, John Byram, Development Services Director. Here is the aerial of the site that is in question. As you can see, it's right off of 2147, right across from Bay West, right next to Mitchell Creek. This Mitchell Creek is a private drive, and I will get back to that in a minute. Here is the current zoning. As you can see, the site is R6. The surrounding property uses, to the north, you have C2, which is that general commercial. To the east, again, C2, general commercial, and R4, which is multifamily residential. To the south, you have R6, so the apartment, townhome, and cottage zoning district, and R1, which is the single-family residential. And to the west, R6. Here is a map of the proposed zoning. So if the zoning is approved to be rezoned, it would be to C2. So here's a map of what that would look like. The applicant is requesting to rezone approximately five acres from R6 to C2 with the intent to build an office complex. The proposed concept plan shows two office buildings that total 24,000 square feet and includes a bank with a some drive-through lanes. Again, that's just a concept plan that could change, but those uses would be allowed within C2. The tract when the city was incorporated back in 2005 was originally zoned at C2, but in 2021, the site was rezoned to R6 with that specific requirement that apartments could not be built on the site. So you would just be looking at the town homes and cottages. I wanted to bring these maps up again to just show you. So on the left is the current zoning. The right is the proposed zoning. But if you look at the proposed zoning, that is what the city looked like in 2005. So it went from C2 to R6, and if the rezoning change is approved, it would go back to C2, which is, again, when the city was incorporated, what the original zoning was. Here is that concept plan. Again, just a concept plan. We're looking at the zoning tonight, but this gives you potential of what it could be. You can see the property right here. That's the property to the east, and that abuts Mitchell Creek. Again, that's a private drive, so they wouldn't be allowed access off of that drive. and they can't get it off of 2147, you're going to have the roundabout there. And then with the entrance over here, it would be too close. So what staff is looking at is we would be able to have the connectivity. So this is just a potential layout on the adjacent property. But as you can see, we would be able to have that connectivity work through. Just wanted to bring that to your attention, but again, we're looking at that larger property right now.

Yeah, go ahead.

Go back one more. Where would the roundabout...

It's not shown on this map.

Maybe showing... I believe that would still be the private drive. basically the owners as of right now wouldn't want to give access. They'd have to go through a shared agreement to have access. So we're just gonna be moving forward as there's no access, at least the way staff is looking at it. That's why it was important to find that connectivity through the other site and we would be able to do that. So again, R6, these are the uses that are allowed. Again, apartments was removed in the original motion back in 2021. And here are some proposed uses or allowed uses in the C2. So there are some options as to what they would be allowed with the C2 commercial zoning. And if the rezoning case is approved, of course, you'd be going from residential to commercial, so now you're looking at generating additional sales tax income. Staff did notice all the property owners within 200 feet as required by state law, although at the special call, we did not get any, but at the special planning and zoning commission meeting, we did have members of the community come out and speak. We did have the Siena Creek POA come out They were in support of the rezoning as long as the applicant was willing to agree to the site-specific zoning conditions. So in your packet, there is a document that lays out all those site-specific zoning conditions. You're looking at landscape buffers, setbacks, all that staff agrees to. It makes sense to protect the residential properties, and that's stuff that staff can look at once we get to site plan and whatnot. And then the owner, directly adjacent to the rezoning, did speak out in opposition. Here are some of the examples of some of the conditions that were laid out in those site-specific conditions. Again, looking along the residential boundary, you're looking at a 30-foot buffer for landscape, having 70 feet as a setback for the residential boundary, which as proposed, let me go back a few slides. Okay, so that property right there kind of in the middle to the left of the R1 was the owner that came out in opposition. And then on, you can tell, here on the concept plan, the drainage retention pond would be back here. So you can tell that the main structures are a good distance from the residential zonings. With that being said, staff did recommend approval to the Planning and Zoning Commission. However, the commission voted unanimously 4-0 recommend to the city council to deny the zoning request. We do have the applicant representative available here tonight. The owner of the property is unfortunately out of town and did request to see if we could push this item to the August meeting, just that way he's here to present to you. But of course, this is a public hearing.

Yeah, thanks, John. This is kind of a sticky wicket here because we have a recommendation by staff to approve this. We have a recommendation, unanimous by the way, of the P&Z to deny this thing. We have an adjacent property owner who is in opposition of this. And we have an adjacent property owner association president who is in support of this. So it's all over the board here. Um, and I, we have an applicant who is asking for a delay on this so that he can get back, I guess, into the country. I don't know where he is right now, um, to, to be allowed to present to the, um, to the city council in person. I understand that. I think it's only fair to make sure. It would only harm him to have a delay on this. It wouldn't harm anyone else. And so that's what I'm going to suggest. But at the same time, this is a public hearing, and we're going to allow everybody to speak who needs to speak to this matter. And we do have several from the audience, I know, who have signed up to speak. Some, I think, want to speak to this, but they've signed up under a different number. So can I just ask, I think Donna Thomas, you want to speak to this, right? Okay. And Becky Fetchner, you want to speak to this? And Billy Bennett, you've got 7B on this. Are you wanting to speak to this or something else? That's what I thought. So, uh, seven, I didn't, I didn't think so. That's going to be eight B. That's okay. And then Mason Callahan, seven C, but you want eight B also. Okay. Okay. All right. I'm going to fix these real quick. And why don't we, uh, why don't we take, um, Donna Thomas first and, uh, Can you approach the podium please, Ms. Thomas? And if you could state your address and your relation to the property in question.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. My name is Donna Thomas. I live at 213 Mitchell Creek Drive in Horseshoe Bay. It's adjacent to the retention pond, the proposed retention pond. I lived in Siena Creek for three years, and I actually attended the 2024 Citizens Academy, which was very helpful, very helpful. I'm opposed to moving this to commercial. I think it should remain R. And a couple points that he pointed out already, and I don't know, like he said, in 2021, it was a unanimous vote to convert it from C2 to R6 again, right? And then when Brady Meyer bought the property in 2024, He knew it was R6, right? And then in 2024, there was also a land and use development survey where the residents requested no more commercial land on 2147. It was their concern that there was already too much commercial development in the HSB corridor there on 2147. Willie made a really good point. If you let me, if you go with me as you're going down 2147 towards Llano and you turn on, I'm sorry, if you're going down 71 towards Llano and you turn right on 2147, you have the beautiful ranch on the left of you. And then on the right, you start seeing the commercial property. You see The new Odessa office building with no beautification to the corridor. Then you see the living facility that's there, right? So a bunch of commercial on your right-hand side, but on the left-hand side, it's all beautiful, like Horseshoe Bay is in the corridor, right? So if we have another commercial building, two more commercial buildings come in there, I fear that the HSB corridor might be impacted, right? So like I said, my property is right next to the planned retention pond. And it's my experience because when I lived in Austin, We lived on three acres, and next to us was seven acres. Someone came in, and we all had one and a half acre lots. Someone came in on seven acres, bought it, and put 28 homes on that seven acres and had a large retention pond, and it went right in front of my house. And so I have a lot of experience with how those retention ponds get serviced and how they don't get serviced, right? It was a nightmare to our community when that came in. So I see that there's a lot of planned trees and shrubs and all this for the retention pond, but it still impacts us. I'm also concerned that there may be a bunch of storm water, right? And where is that water going? Is it going into the creek, right? So that's my concern as well. I wanna protect Siena Creek, which actually flows into Pecan Creek later on. I also don't think there's really any value to our subdivision, Siena Creek, if the parcel is zoned commercial, right? It's zoned the way if it gets zone commercial, it may start to erode some of the value to our land just because of the stormwater and all the retention pond. I think it would be okay for the lots further down, but for me, it's going to be somewhat of an issue. So those are some of the reasons that I'm opposed to having the...

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I had one question for you, and that is, if it's zoned, if it continues to be zoned R6, are we still going to have that same stormwater issue and runoff issue with any development there under R6? that you would also have under the commercial? And that's gonna be our question.

Oh, that's a good question. I don't think it would be as bad because I don't think there would be as much parking because you can't put apartments there. It's gonna be cottages or town homes from what I understand.

Or condos. Or condos, yeah. Okay, any other questions? Thank you very much, Ms. Thomas. I appreciate it. You seem to be a magnet for retention ponds, by the way. That's terrible. Okay, we... Yeah, yeah. Okay, now we have Becky Fetchner who's going to speak to the same issue. Ms. Fetchner, can you approach... And can you state your address, please?

Mayor and City Council, thank you. Becky Fetchner, we reside at 705 Pecan Crossing, which is right off of Baywest Boulevard, and we back up to Pecan Creek. Um, I'm opposed to this rezoning change and agree with what the planning and zoning board unanimously voted for. When we moved to Horseshoe Bay or back to Horseshoe Bay, I should say it was because of the beauty of the hill country and the resort amenities within the community, as well as lack of commercial and concrete, which I. creates more traffic. I've noticed in the last five and a half years since we've been back, coming out of Bay West Boulevard, traffic has increased significantly. And the other thing I would add is last year, this city put out to the community the LUDAC survey, which I participated in, the second issue that was the highest for the community besides water, was traffic along 2147. I believe that Baywest Boulevard is one of the main arteries to this city and it's also the beginning of our corridor and having so much commercial there because we have commercial all along 2147 that's not been developed yet. I just don't believe that we need any more. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Metzner. Do we have anything else from staff or the applicant, actually? Yes. You're not the owner, but you're the applicant's representative.

Yes, sir.

How are you doing? Fine, thank you.

Can you state your name? My name is Nathan Fuller. I'm with Strait Grade Engineering. Good afternoon. I'm here, I'm a project engineer and representative of the property owner, Brady Meyer of MBM Land Cattle. I'm here regarding ordinance number 2026-21 and zoning change number 2026-05. The request is to rezone approximately 5.003 acres at 1101 West RM 2147 from R6 apartment, townhome, and cottage to C2 general commercial area. The owner's current concept is a relatively low intensity commercial development consisting of two buildings totaling approximately 24,000 square feet with bank and professional office uses. The concept is intended to show how the property could develop. It is not a final site plan, and approval today would not approve that specific layout. Any future development will still be subject to the city's full site plan, drainage, traffic, access, utility, landscaping, and engineering review. The question before you is whether C2 General Commercial is the appropriate zoning classification for this property. I would ask the council to consider three principle reasons why the answer is yes. First, C2 is consistent with the property's history, its location, and the city's long-range planning direction. This tract was originally zoned C2, general commercial. It was rezoned to R6 in 2021 to accommodate a specific residential development proposal with apartments expressly prohibited. that development did not move forward. The request before you would return the property to the commercial classification it originally carried. I respect the zoning decision made in 2021. We are not asking the council to disregard that discussion. We are asking the council to consider a new application through the same public process and based on the planning conditions before the city today. The 2021 decision may have been reasonable for the particular proposal presented at that time, but zoning should reflect the long-term suitability of the property. It should not permanently bind land to one development concept that was never constructed. This is also not commercial zoning being introduced into the interior of an area that has always been exclusively residential. The property fronts RM 2147, one of the city's principal transportation corridors. Commercial zoning already exists in the immediate area, including property to the north and east. The city's future land use planning materials identify this location for commercial use. The draft comprehensive plan 2040 currently under consideration also continues to support commercial use at this location. Approving the request would therefore align the property's zoning with its original classification, its corridor location, the surrounding zoning pattern, and the city's anticipated long-range land use plan. If Horseshoe Bay is going to preserve appropriate located land for future commercial development, this is the type of location where commercial zoning belongs. Second, commercial zoning creates an opportunity to strengthen and diversify the city's revenue base. Residential development is an important part of the city, but it generally does not generate sales tax revenue. C2 zoning creates an opportunity for new commercial investment and for local serving businesses that can generate recurring sales tax revenue. That revenue helps support the public services and infrastructure used by residents, businesses, and visitors. I do not want to overstate what one five-acre tract will produce or promise a particular tenant mix today. Zoning approval does not guarantee a specific business or a specific amount of revenue. The point is that commercial zoning preserves a revenue opportunity that the existing residential classification does not. These decisions matter collectively as Horseshoe Bay continues to grow. Preserving appropriate commercial locations along RM 2147 can broaden the city's revenue base and help prevent the cost of continued growth from falling too heavily on residential property owners. Third, the owner has responded to the concerns raised during this process with meaningful and enforceable protections. The ordinance includes an enhanced landscape buffer yard along the residential boundary. That screening will follow the same general landscape approach the city uses in the image corridor. With the landscaped landform trees and shrubs providing meaningful visual separation. The ordinance also establishes a 70-foot building setback along the Siena Creek side of the property, adjoining the existing seven-foot protective strip that creates substantial physical separation between any future commercial building and the neighboring residential lots. The conditions further establish a Pecan Creek protection area based on the floodplain identified in the City's own Pecan Creek Master Drainage Plan, together with an additional 25 feet of protection beyond the floodplain. The owner has also accepted the requested cross-access connection to the adjoining commercial property. The final location and design of that connection will be determined through the city's site plan and engineering review. Traffic has also been evaluated through a full traffic impact analysis prepared and sealed by a licensed professional traffic engineer. The study found that the proposed site access can operate acceptably and identified a westbound left turn lane on RM 2147, which the owner will construct. The owner will also comply with any additional access improvements required by TxDOT. The study did not stop at the property driveway. It also evaluated the Bay West Boulevard intersection and identified a single lane roundabout as the appropriate long-term public improvement. So to answer your question, we looked at that improvement occurring in the study. I mentioned that briefly because it demonstrates that the broader transportation network was evaluated. The existing delay at Bay West is a corridor growth issue, not a condition created solely by this five acre rezoning. These commitments are not informal promises and they do not depend on the final site plan matching the preliminary concept. They are written into the zoning ordinance and will remain enforceable as the property moves. through development review. The staff materials indicate that the Siena Creek Property Owners Association supports the request, provided that the site-specific buffering landscape protections are included. Those protections are included in this ordinance before you. I understand that the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial, and I respect that recommendation. At the same time, I ask the Council to consider that recommendation together with the complete record now before you. City staff recommends approval. The property was originally zoned C2. Commercial zoning already exists nearby. The property is located along the principal transportation corridor. The city's long-range planning materials support commercial use at this location. The classification creates an opportunity to broaden the city's revenue base. The traffic impacts have been studied. The owner has accepted cross-access and has agreed to substantial protections for the neighboring residential property and Pecan Creek. Those facts support approval. The council does not have to choose between commercial zoning and protection of the neighboring properties. The ordinance before you provides both. Approval today would not approve a final layout or excuse the property from any development requirements. The project will still have to comply with the city's drainage criteria, access requirements, traffic requirements, image corridor standards, landscaping requirements, utility requirements, and sound engineering practice. What approval would do is return the property to its original commercial classification, align the zoning with the city's long-range planning direction, preserve an opportunity for additional city revenue, and provide enforceable protections for the adjoining neighborhood and Pecan Creek. On behalf of Brady Meyer and MBM Land and Cattle, I respectfully ask the City Council to approve ordinance number 202621, and zoning change number 2026-05. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now, does your principal still desire to speak at the August meeting if, in fact, this council wants to continue this meeting until then? Yes. Okay.

And I'm in favor of that, but just one point of clarification. I do have the city future land use map up in front of me that we are working on together. and that property is not in the plan to be commercial. So I'm not sure where that disconnect occurred, but it is not part of the future plan to zone that commercial. I'd be glad to put it on the screen if you'd like. That's fine. I just want to make sure in terms of the record, great argument, but it's not in our plan as commercial. It's still R6.

I mean, that's not what we were told by staff.

That's why I wanted to make sure we were clear on that fact. Excuse me one second. I'm going to grab my water very quick.

Sure. Anybody else have any questions?

Mayor, if I can real quick, just for clarification. So the existing future land use that we have is C2. The one that we're working on would be R6, just for clarification.

Say that again?

We have an existing future land use map.

Yeah.

That has it for commercial. Of course, with our comprehensive plan, we're working on the comprehensive plan, and a new future land use map. The new one is calling it for R6. Just to clarify.

Okay.

It's...

There we go. yeah it will all right so we know that for a fact they're still doing engineering on the roundabout are you familiar with that

It is my understanding that that's a possibility.

Yeah, I think the roundabout's a good question, but I don't know. We can go down.

I don't think it can take access from the roundabout. We'd have to check with TxDOT, but I think a single-lane roundabout, I don't think it can have... We'd have to confirm with TxDOT.

Well, I think it's premature to talk about that simply because... We're looking at the engineering that's being done currently at 2147 in Bay West, and until we have that, we won't know how far it encroaches in on this extra little sliver of property. I doubt very much we talked about that.

I think on the preliminary look, it was touching it, but it wasn't very much. No. Even on the other property, it's more on the other property, it moved out to where the... where the ATM is. So looking at that and determine that we don't really have a drawing of that yet. They're laying it out. But in a preliminary, it did touch it just on the corner.

But to Frank's point also, you know, what we're here today on, and I think it's probably going to be continued until August to hear from our owner, is whether the zoning should be changed at all, not where ingress and egress could occur because those will be fights for a later day. And what type of structure would be built, what type of business, how many parking, all of those things will be another battle that you'll have to fight. This is just simply what the zoning should be necessarily.

So then is the recommendation to keep the hearing open until August?

Until the owner can make a personal appearance. And I'm not going to rehash all this stuff at the August meeting. I want everybody to have an opportunity to talk about what they want to. If there's any new information, we can present it at the August meeting, but I don't want to rehash everything.

If we want to make comments, we should do it now.

Yeah, I think so.

Okay. I do have comments. Please do. So as referenced in 2024, the city council, some of whom are still here present, commissioned what was called the Land Use Development Advisory Committee in January of 16. Some of the committee goals were to preserve, conserve, and promote the unique qualities of the Horseshoe Bay community as determined by its citizens. Another goal, solicit and encourage public input from all stakeholders regarding land use, and development with the city's ETJ new residential development within city limits and overall planning for the future. Provide the city council and staff with a document that will act as a living blueprint for the development of the use of land in the city. And I have a copy of what that is. And in the responses of roughly over a thousand surveys and dozens and dozens of interviews, what we provided to city council as it relates to commercial on 2147, and this is right out of the document. Commercial development is generally not desired on FM 2147 with the exception of the city center concept as described in the survey. And here's how we describe that. Would you like to see a city center district around the new city hall on 2147 that would be a community gathering location? For example, farmers markets, entertainment, food service, neighborhood businesses and the like. That was the location and the type of commercial that the community told us they were interested in very strongly, and regularly we were told otherwise we're not really interested in any further commercial development. As was referenced before, the second highest concern was traffic volume behind water. So obviously this is our busiest intersection, I believe, in the city, which is why we're considering a roundabout. adding to additional commercial traffic is probably not what the community wants. So fundamentally, the community is not interested in commercial development on 2147, nor are they interested in increasing traffic flow in the most dense part of our intersection. Additionally, and I know this isn't the final plat, but when we asked people what types of development they would like mostly on 2147, office buildings scored in the Bottom third. So office buildings are not something people were interested in even on 71. So from my perspective, I feel city council owes a responsibility to respond to the residents' desires, which is why for me, I would not be able to support making this commercial. We have lastly, we can pull the map up later, we have a great number of lots on 2147. that are already zoned commercial around the Summit Rock area and the market area that have not been developed. So we already have the potential of a larger commercial footprint because it's already zoned that way. Adding to that footprint, to me, just does not seem to be in alignment with what the residents told us.

Anybody else?

Sandra, see where the planning and zoning voted unanimously to... deny? Could you just give us in 45 words or less, could you just let us know what their thoughts were?

You just heard them.

I did? Yes. At the Planning and Zoning Commission, they did have a long discussion about this. I think that most of the thoughts were, and of course we do have a recording if anyone would want to listen to the recording between now and the August meeting. But I think it had to do with the LUDAC and The future land use, the fact that council reviewed this in 2021 and determined the best use would be for a residential type project, but not apartments. And it was voted 5-0 as a unanimous vote from council. And now with the LUDEC survey coming out that reinforces that, I think that after the motion was made, the commissioners did not say why they were casting their votes. So you kind of have to listen to the meeting to get the gist of it. But that was my understanding. And like I said, well, first of all, we do have a commissioner here. Mr. Reinders is here. And also we have a recording of the meeting if anyone wants to listen to a recording.

Thank you. We also do have the PNC chair in the audience as well.

Right there, to the left, to the left, right there.

Yes, C2.

The church, yeah. The cattlemen's or whatever. Yeah.

So now this C2 block, which is currently R6, and we're talking about taking it back to C2, it doesn't make sense. I mean, unless somebody can tell me why somebody residentially, whatever we put, whatever we'll say R6 would be, that's kind of a bastard location. So to me,

pushing it out well the question also is

Why did the city zone that C2 to begin with?

Well, the fact that C2, I mean, it's not just C2.

You've got the other block right next to it.

So if that's already commercial, it appears to me that would go from Baywest Boulevard from the bank side all the way down to the Brixton is already. That's all commercial.

You're making my point. We've got more than we need already. So adding to it... I understand that, but what's going to go with that? Well, I think actually it's really not for us to determine that. You're in my opinion may not... Well, if you look at Siena Creek is there with commercial. Right. It could be symmetry to bring that R1, R6 all the way around. And now you've got residential with a little bit of commercial in the entryway. But so I... And you're next to a church. That's not exactly generally a high density. It's on periods. But it's also going to be very pretty and very nice. And it's not like your house is going to be up against another building. You're going to have quite a bit of space there.

I just think that this has to be looked at in totality and not just in pieces.

That I agree. I would love to have that discussion if we look at the rest of the map. I think that's some of what we need to do is understand the total context of what's occurring.

And it could be that the developer works with the community and cordons off part of the property so that it's a... A retention pond that is far enough away from the Thomas home to not, you know, they could work with them to not encroach on any problems that they may have. It might reduce the footprint of whatever they can put on that five acres slightly. I don't know. But again, that's down the road.

Where's the stone house on here, John? Down at R4-ish. Is that R4? R6, yes. Yeah, down. Oh, right here.

Okay. Well, we're going to move it. I want everybody to have an opportunity to discuss before we move it because I don't want to go through all this again at the next meeting. Anybody else have any questions for the applicant, the witnesses, or the staff? Do I have a motion to push this to the August meeting to allow the owner to present his in-person application?

Yes. I move to continue the public hearing until the August 25, 2026 meeting to allow the owner to be present.

Motion by Mr. Weatherby. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Mr. Fetchner. And any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Aye. against it passes unanimously we pass something unanimously guys okay we will not do anything with regard to closing this at this point so we will move now to business items and we're on 8a which is our property tax proposal Molly jester

I promise I won't take that long. All right. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. So we're going to talk about the proposed property tax rate. It assumes an M&O rate of .19525 to support the general fund and an INS rate of .0725 to contribute to the debt service fund for a total tax rate of .26775 Just note that this is based off of estimated property valuations from Llano County and Burnett. The certified property valuations are due at the end of the month, and last year it was August 7th. On the next page, you'll see a simplified table projecting the property tax rates. So as the property values increase, the M&O decreases, and in order to maintain the .26775 property tax, the INS rate must be increased through debt issuance. The table proposes keeping a constant tax rate by calculating the debt payment amount and an INS rate needed each year. Staff recommends that the council set the proposed rate at .26775 for the fiscal year 26-27. The rate will be published and will require a public hearing before the tax rate can officially be set in September.

And is that property tax rate greater than or less than this year's?

It's the .26775 is same.

Thank you. That's equal to? Five years?

Three or four years. We'll be on the next page.

Wonderful. Wonderful. Any questions for Molly? Anybody want a tax increase? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

I move to set the proposed property tax rate of .26775 for $100 of taxable valuation for the fiscal year of 26-27.

Mr. Morgan gives our motion. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Mr. Hosia. All in favor? Aye. All against? Thank you, Molly. You're already gone. Okay. This brings us now to numbers 8B, which is discussion and possible action to award contract for street seal coating project. Mr. Koska, is that you up there?

I don't think so. There, it's on. Okay, thank you, council. We've had some conversations about the bidding documents, and I will tell you, I request the council to consider rejecting all bids due to these comments, and it'll help us clarify some of those bidding documents to make sure there's better transparency in the bidding, and so move forwards with that. after we kind of rebid the project. I think it's the fairest and most transparent way of dealing with this.

Mayor and Council, I think we had people signed up to speak.

Yes, we do. And I was going to allow them to speak as well because we've got two things. So staff recommendation is to deny, yeah.

To reject all the bids and rebid them. And we'll make sure that we have better clarification in there to ensure... there's consistency better than what we have now.

Okay. All right. And we have two people who've signed up on this, Mason Callahan and Billy Bennett.

Next item.

8B? Okay. You're on 8C then.

Got you. Yes, sir. Okay. And first of all, just to answer his question, this has already been rebid, right? It went out the first time because of exactly what he's saying. The second time it went out, everything was perfect. I don't see any reason to re-bid this, but I did write a letter. I'd like to read it out to you guys to help the bidding process because I actually helped them, offered how easy it is to do a bid. All you need is square yardage, depth, and linear footage of the items. That's it. They sent it out. The bid was perfect.

Is that the email that you sent to the mayor and the city board?

No, sir. This was on the second bid. Okay. Uh, so the second bid ice is flawless. That's how every municipality does your bids. I think y'all did a fantastic job on it, but I want to just from an outside in, I want y'all to kind of see exactly what I ran into the bidding process. Um, uh, my, again, my name is Billy Bennett. I'm with Bennett paving and I appreciate the opportunity tonight, uh, to speak regarding the seal code bidding process and my concerns about fairness, transparency, and competition. I submit a bid for this seal coat project because I believe the city deserves competitive pricing and a procurement process that is fair and provides every qualified contractor an equal opportunity to compete. Unfortunately, my experience raised several concerns that I believe deserve everyone's attention. After the initial bid process, I was told by 10 foreign that alpha paving had been provided approximately, and this is the first bid, okay, the one that got rebid. Tim Foran had advised me that Alpha Paving had been provided approximately two hours to review the project site, taken out to the site, mark locations, told depths, everything, and discussed the site work. By comparison, I was given roughly maybe 10 minutes by Cody Layton. I was instructed to walk the streets, develop my own quantities and scope of work, which I have in email. So I spent four hours walking your streets, Coming up on my scope, no one advised me of any depth, wasted my entire day. And that's where you'll see, I'd kind of like to see if they could, the bids, I know you all have them, because I had called up here and they said they had the first bid dollar amounts for each. I'm not sure they're on a slide. Okay.

And can you... Maybe hold this to three minutes or so.

Okay, I'll give him a lot longer. That's okay, but I'll keep going. Okay. I also encountered an issue regarding the contractor qualifications. I was formed that I could, I had to be Sealmaster certified in order to submit a bid. When I contacted Sealmaster directly, they informed me and I have in a letter that they do not offer a contractor certified program which kept us from bidding two years ago. I was not even allowed to enter the bid opening until I presented the letter from Sealmaster confirming that no such certification exists. Even then, Tim Poren stated that he needed to call who he identified as the mayor before allowing me to participate. I believe qualification requirements should be accurate, clearly defined, and applied consistently to every bidder. After the original bid was canceled, The project was rebid. The evaluation criteria was then substantially changed. I confirmed by email with purchasing coordinator Robert Isaac that the evaluation criteria not included on the original solicitation was added, only on the second bid. The revised evaluation allocated 40% to experience and references, which nobody called any of our references that we'd put. I had confirmed that. 20% to the cost, 10% to responsiveness, and 30% to approach of staffing. As a result, only 20% of the evaluation was based on price, which we were substantially less in price, while 80% was based on subjective scoring criteria. I recognize that experience and qualifications are important. However, changing the evaluation criteria after the first bid was canceled raises legitimate concerns about why those changes were made and whether they could affect how proposals are evaluated. Given that Alpha has performed much of the city's paving work in recent years, I am concerned that these changes can make it easier to favor the incumbent contractor rather than ensuring an objective and competitive evaluation. Over the past three to four years, I reviewed the payment records of the city and found that Alpha Paving is the only paving contractor that y'all have paid. several payments in the amount of $9,500 I've done a request of all the checks and everything When I spoke with the purchasing coordinator Robert Isaac, I was told that projects over $5,000 require three competitive bids I later asked project public works director Tim foreign how the city solicits bid for pothole pairs because I would like to the opportunity to be a part of that competitive bid and My understanding from that conversation was that they just call Alpha and they have them do the work. If that is the city's practice, it raises concerns about whether other qualified contractors are consistently being given the opportunity to compete. I also shared the pricing comparison showing that competitive bidding can result in substantial savings for the taxpayers. The purpose of competitive bidding is not simply to satisfy a legal requirement. It is to ensure that the city receives the best value on maintaining public trust and the procurement process. My purpose here is not to criticize any particular contractor. If Alpha Paving submits the best proposal through a fair and competitive business process, then they deserve to earn the work. My concern is whether every qualified contractor is given the same opportunity to compete whether the city's procurement practices provide the transparency and competition that taxpayers expect. I respectfully ask the council to review the circumstances surrounding the rebidding of this seal coat project, including why the evaluation criteria were changed after the first solicitation, whether the bidders were provided equal access to the project information, and whether the procurement process was administered fairly and consistently. The second bid, in my opinion, was flawless. I think y'all did a fantastic job on it. They reached out to me. I offered them the square yardages. I asked the questions for With the linear feedage, there's nothing, there's no reason to re-bid this. I think it needs to go to the responsible bidder. And I can tell you're going to cut me off now.

I appreciate your comments. Part of the reason that we do need to re-bid this is because your bid stated at one point a two-inch asphalt depth instead of a three-inch asphalt depth. No, sir.

Well, that's what I want to, I'm glad you came and thank you for sharing with us. And we do want fair, transparent opportunities. This is page 11, at least of what we were provided, I believe.

And is it the first bid or the second bid?

Well, I'm assuming it's the second. And it may just be a typo, but what it says is three-inch asphalt repairs, saw cut, excavate, and haul off damaged asphalt. Apply SS1 tack and pave, which I have no idea what that is, back two inches of tech stock. And so there seems to be a discrepancy between the three inch and the two inch backfill.

Okay, if it's on there, obviously it's a discrepancy. You're going to put back three inches.

Okay, so does that change the... That would not change a bidding process at all. Okay. Well, that's, that's just, we, we probably just need that rectified to say that.

Again, a lot of things y'all overlook. It's, it's at your discretion to overlook. Obviously, you're not going to take out two inches and put back, you know, take out three inches, put back two.

I think, I don't know if we need to rebit it, but we'd want the contract amended accordingly.

Yeah. My, my, my whole thing was, uh, you have a great team, you know, and, and I just wanted the help and I offer my help, you know, it's, Bidding is very easy. We do a lot of municipality bids, and you don't need engineers. You all take very good care of your roads. I mean, it's fantastic. It's a great product. We're actually applying the Sealmaster product. We have a half-million-dollar contract with the city of Georgetown that we're doing now. But you have a good team. It's just streamlining it. I told them I'd be happy, and I know Manny's helped out as well, just putting together projects. It's very easy. Square yards, how deep you want to go, and how many linear feet of the grouting you want to do.

I think that may be one reason Mr. Koska wanted to re-bid. If you're... willing to amend it, that it's the same price for the three inch.

So I think that's just one of the potentials where we're not, cause we had to, we had to put our own form together. Uh, but I'll look at it.

We wanted to make sure we had apples and apples on this thing.

Correct.

We do have a right, by the way, a statutory right to rebid everything.

Well, sure. The first one y'all I like, they had me bid it at my discretion. I bid it at like, I think six inches. And then they had actually had the correct depth because they took the time to take them out and show them everything. But I'd be happy to review that. But you also have the discretion to just have us amend that.

The other, and you mentioned the Sealmaster Liquid Road, there's not a certification. That's fair.

But again, that's why we weren't able to bid it.

Yeah, but it looks like we got past that. It sounds like, or no.

No. I mean, I believe we have. Yes, sir.

My concern is have you done this type of work before?

Yes, we do. We work with Sealmaster. Yes, sir. And with Sealmaster, we actually have someone stay out there with us on the project. That's part of with Sealmaster and the contract. Whenever you sign, they bring out the tanks. Someone's out there with you on the project making sure that the job's done properly.

From the manufacturer?

Yes, sir. They're supposed to on every job.

I mean, if they haven't been doing on yours, then this is, this is part of what we want to provide us in this. Yes, it is. Because we do need, and Mr. Bennett's right on some issues and some issues. He's not the two inches that he could be disqualified right now. We're not trying to disqualify. We're trying to make sure that the specifications are exactly apples and apples.

I'm fine. Not going through the whole bidding process. Jeff, if he's willing to amend the contract to our specification, It's three inches. I don't know if it was a typo or a mistake or an oversight. I don't know. But I think the other thing, Mr. Bennett, we... Go ahead, Jeff.

To be fair, we want to be consistent to both contractors.

Well, we are, you know, we can do that if we want to. And what we need to do is accept the lowest, most responsible bidder on each project.

Absolutely.

And so.

If we rebid, Mr. Bennett, would you be opposed to having a performance bond for your work?

No, I don't mind at all. OK. Most of them do. It just wasn't required on this.

So if we do re-bid, I would suggest we... That's what I'm saying.

I would like to see that just to make sure. I mean, we triple check everything on there. So I don't think we asked you for that.

It wasn't required. I mean, it wasn't on our RFP.

No. Talking about the pavement. The paper. Oh, the pavement bond. I would want to confirm.

The pavement gap.

Pavement.

Oh, OK. No, no, the... I would like a performance bond as well. Performance bond. The piece of paper you're saying that shows 2-inch and 3-inch, I would want to confirm that. Yes, I... Yeah.

If I... Okay. Any other questions? No other questions? Then I will entertain a motion.

And the same access to the job site. He said he only had about 10 minutes or whatever. I didn't have as much time. Equitable.

Yep.

Yep. And it's real easy. You just have to, all you have to, like this, this is a good format. Everything's easy. I even asked questions, Robert was very, like, you know when they say hey we want to grab everything so when i went and walked everything that's why the original bid i was three hundred thousand dollars higher because i went two inches deeper on the asphalt because it was hey uh you know but but again yeah like this like regardless of what y'all decide to do i mean obviously it says three inch repair right you know if if it's a typo and you think it's that's what y'all want to re-bid

Again, you know, it just... Yeah, and because we don't have a history with you, we didn't know whether that was accurate or inaccurate. We didn't know.

We do all the paving for... We've paved a lot out here in Horseshoe Bay.

Well, one question I had for council, and that is, if we put this out for another bid, are we preventing a third or fourth or fifth bidder to enter the fray at this point? Yes. Why? You can't?

No.

That's what I thought. Okay. Okay. But I want to make sure all the information is exactly the same.

Yes.

Depth, performance and payment bonds.

Staff will provide a sheet. We'll provide this sheet that's there with the description, the quantities, et cetera. They'll just input their costs.

Okay, it's my understanding that Mr. Hosia has presented a motion to rebid this matter and to deny this.

Mayor and council, before you make a motion to rebid, you have to include in your motion to reject all of the bids.

Or I'd be happy to just correct on this, however y'all want to do it.

And direct staff to re-bid consistent with council's discussion.

So I would like to add because they were going to award this to Alpha Paving, even though we were $140,000 difference, didn't call any of our references, which we have fantastic references. We do a lot of your paving in the city. We do a lot for Nelson Lewis. We've done a lot for Aaron Concrete. Like we've paved your streets out here. It's, I would be curious as to why the recommendation, right? is what I want to know. And again, you have other problems. Whenever I see all these checks for $9,500, that tells me every time you come out for repair, you're only having one person do it. And by your own city guidelines, you have to get three competitive bids, which I've reached out. Hey, I'm happy to give you a bid. I can give you a bid for this in two minutes.

I promise you this. we will review our procedures.

Yeah.

And they're not right. And that's, that's already started. Okay. Uh, it started three or four weeks ago. Tell you the truth. So, uh, thank you for, you know, pointing some of your peculiarities out. And we do have a motion on the floor right now from Mr. Hosea to, uh, reject these bids, uh, and to instruct our staff to re-bid these with the appropriate changes. It's going to be the lowest, most responsible bidder.

It's defined by the city.

Okay, do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Mr. Weatherby. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. All against? The ayes have it. Thank you. Thank you. We'll get on that. Thank you very much. Okay, we're going to move now to business item 8C, which is discussion and possible action regarding phase seven of the road reconstruction project. It says Aaron Concrete here.

He gets to speak.

No, it's not quite the same, but no.

Well, there's still an open hearing.

Well, yeah. Let's hear from staff right now. We're passing this one.

A little bit of this from memory. Mayor, council, good afternoon. So this agenda item is discussion of possible action of the Phase 7 road construction project. The previous item was seal coating. This is for actual new construction, curbing, et cetera, asphalt. And I apologize, I don't have the staff report in front of me. As you can see, we solicited for bids. We received three qualified bids. And we have the engineer that designed the... Go ahead. Oh.

Yep.

Here he is. You destroyed our quorum.

Thank you. Yeah. Okay. Do you want me to pause for Larry?

We've got a quorum now.

Okay. Sounds good. Okay. I'll talk loud.

I talk loud enough, Larry can probably hear me.

So we received three qualified bids. Staff reviewed the bids. Also the engineer, Willis Engineering, with Principal Tony Plumlee, designed and solicited designed the specs for it, solicited the bids, et cetera. So we received three bids, they're in your packet. Packed saddle was the lowest bid, followed by air and concrete, and then gauging Cade, from memory, gauging Cade LLC. And packed saddle, in the opinion of the engineer, was the lowest qualified bid. Staff did an evaluation, and they were recommending, they were recommending air and concrete. So that is the discrepancy on the staff recommendation versus the engineer. We do have the engineer here if you want to talk to him. Also, public comment, I think we have a representative from PACSATL, and I'm available, obviously, too, if you have questions.

Let's hear from PACSATL representative. State your name, please, sir.

My name is Mason Callahan. I'm with Pax Federal Management. For the sake of not being redundant, we have a lot of the same complaints that Billy Bennett does. We didn't have any of our references called. We didn't have anyone reach out to us. You know, 30% of the bid is for approach and staffing. No one called us about our approach or our staffing. Tony Plumlee stated in his letter of recommendation that he did call on references and that our reviews were good. And we feel it's a little bitter. It should come to us. Okay.

Okay. Mr. Plumlee, you want to add anything? You don't have to.

Not really.

Okay. All right. Yes, we've seen your letter. Thank you very much. Okay, do we have any questions of the applicant or of the staff? Excuse me.

Well, I guess... based on the report and the confidence of our engineer, you know, one of the concerns we might have is if, you know, what would be the quality, but there is a performance bond here to cover the quality. Y'all are a large company. You do a lot of work. It would seem to me that you are the lowest qualified bid based on that.

To provide? No, the bid was very clear.

We had a performance bond on this one, too.

So the difference between the seal coating and the road construction as well is the road construction has engineered drawings and specifications. So those are prepared by Willis Engineering, and they review those. So this one's pretty straightforward as far as the solicitation.

That's what I'm saying. If the engineer says this is high quality, we have a performance bond to back that up. and you're the lowest bid, that seems to make sense. Any other questions?

Mr. Koska, do you have something?

The only thing that I see as an issue is on the item itself, it's referenced in Aaron Engineering, which shouldn't be there. So that's a little bit of an issue that we have posted that Aaron Engineering, Aaron Concrete, I'm sorry, Aaron Concrete, is the on the agenda itself and yeah which in the staff report says the same thing so that's that's a somewhat of an issue I don't know what's that well I'm going to have to ask my

legal counsel then does... You have a posting problem saying if you want to award to a different bidder on this project based on the engineer's recommendation, the process would be to reject all the bids and re-bid it because you have said in your agenda item who you're going to award it to and then you've also said in your staff report.

Okay. I don't see any I don't see any way around that.

I don't understand how that impacts the numbers. Why would it be re-bid? Wouldn't it just be pushed to the next meeting?

Two changes by your state legislature to the Open Meetings Act. So when you have something as specific... ...

Do you have a motion for us?

Based on the criteria.

We want the lowest, most responsible bidder on it. Is that your motion?

Yes.

Motion by Mr. Hosia. Second. Second by Mr. Fetchner. Any discussion? I'm sorry for the delay. Let's vote. All in favor, aye. Aye. All against? Okay. The bids are rejected.

Let me ask you a real quick question on projects like you're doing the road reconstruction project. Do you have a time limit on, like, I mean, could they just, like, take forever to do it? Or is there a time limit, like, 180 days or whatever? I mean, that's in the contract. In the bid document?

It's not in the contract, but one of the things that's real important is that you have to do this in the heat of the summer. So we do start this, and that's, you know, time's ticking on us. But, yeah, that has to be...

Yeah, what's the soonest we can re-bid this?

Robert, do you know what's the minimum time we have to advertise for RFP? OK. So we, it would depend on when we post it. We'd have to post it. It's got to be posted for 14 days and then they bid. So we'd have to check. It depends on publication. There's a chance we could bring this at the August meeting.

OK. Yeah, tomorrow.

Yeah, exactly. Can we repost? Well, if we can get the criteria right. I think we missed the publication deadline this week. I think we could post it next week though.

Just get the criteria.

I include that in my motion that we post this.

Well, I don't know if you can, but we will do that regardless. Yes, sir.

Yeah. OK. These guys have waited long enough on this. Agreed. OK. Let's move to... 8D. Ray Garcia, discussion and possible action regarding drought contingency.

Mayor, council, in March 2025, LCRA moved to stage one, from stage one to stage two of its drought response plan. Following significant inflows from rainfall, LCRA notified water customers in July 2025 that conditions supported returning from stage two back to stage one spring twenty six rainfall has substantially improved water storage conditions as of july tenth the combined storage of lake buchanan and travis are approximately uh... one million eight hundred fifteen thousand forty three acre feet i've attached uh... and giving you guys a copy of the latest uh... today's twenty uh... first uh... combined storage so uh... because this was obviously from July 10th, and statewide drought conditions have also improved significantly as reflected in the U.S. Drought Monitor. Currently, LCRA has not implemented any irrigation restrictions. Staff believes it is prudent to maintain Stage 1 of the city's drought contingency plan until LCRA directs a change in drought response. At this time, staff recommends continuing to promote water conservation through public education, outreach, and assistance provided by the city water conservation inspector. Those ongoing efforts help reinforce efficient water use practices and maintain public awareness of the long-term impacts of drought. Staff recommends that the city council maintain stage one of the city's drought contingency plan in alignment with LCRA guidance. until our CRA directs a change in drought stage. Staff will provide an update to council in August or sooner if combined storage of the Highland Lakes falls below 1.1 million acre feet requiring consideration of a change in the city's drought stage. No, we are in stage one.

Stage one.

We're current stage. Yeah. Two days a week watery. So we're voting to make no change. So is there a stage zero? I mean, would you ever come...

I think that's what you're asking, Frank. Yes, sir.

It's in Minnesota. Okay.

Any other questions for Ray?

I'll entertain a motion. I move to remain in stage one of LCRA drought contingency plan until LCRA drought contingency plan directs drought contingency stage change.

Motion by Mayor Pro Tem. Second by Mr. Hosia. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All against? Motion passes. Thank you, Ray. Rick Williams, I believe, has our next one on contract services agreement with Spa Glass.

I'll make a motion. We approve. All right. Good evening, it would appear, Mayor and Council. This item, I'm requesting permission to amend the services agreement with Spa Glass. That is the contractor we selected to an open bid RFP process. to do the remodel of the old city hall or old town center project. So if you recall correctly, they gave us a time and material bid initially, so an hourly labor cost. At the time, they put a placeholder of $80,000 in for some phase one work that was there with an understanding that inspections, et cetera. Going forward, they would evaluate the roofing system, the AC system, drainage, and all these things. And they would come back with a, Proposal it's an estimate because again they did a time labor bid an estimate to complete the project. They have completed that Up until the point where the actual deadline were had to submit this it looked like we were going to come in under budget Because the AC system graded out to where only one unit had to be replaced which was ahead of my estimates however during the remodel the fire alarm panel was damaged and also has to be replaced. So there is a placeholder for that in here as well. And so that takes us, this proposal that I'm requesting from you all, takes us essentially to the budgeted amount. They have an estimate of $365,000. I've asked that council authorize me to include a $20,000 contingency as a precaution, although the contractor assures me it will not go over that. And I have a pretty good track record of keeping projects below that, but in the interest of transparency we can't stand good news can we we had to undo it i'm a pessimist it's hard but but essentially to complete the full remodel of the building that includes phase one now which was the old utility building and uh admin offices section all the way over to finance of the old city secretary's office that was phase one this also includes phase two which is the development services section replacing that white tpo rubber roof which has been replaced before and needs to just be taken out and some repairs, et cetera, and an AC unit.

Questions for Mr. Williams? No. Okay. Do I have a motion by anyone?

I move to approve the city manager to enter into a contract with Spa Glass and associate vendors to complete the city hall annex project as presented by staff for an amount not to exceed $385,000.

Mr. Weatherby makes our motion. How about a second? Second. Second by Mr. Fetchner. Any discussion? Who's in favor?

Aye.

All against? And it passes. Mr. Koska.

I'll try to make this relatively fast. Last year, we denied a magistrate contract that the county was, Llano County was asking us to be part of, which would require our municipal judge to be in a rotation with the JPs to do the magistration at the jail in Llano County. It's not his, one, he lives in Lago Vista and so he could not do that and nor is it something that he needed to do for a lot of the state crimes over the municipal and it's not in his contract. And so he really kind of pushed back on that. We did talk to the county judge back in November and he was in agreement that we didn't need to sign the magistrate agreement. We have an email to that point. We received a phone call by the sheriff to the police chief saying that there was some issues with the magistration of our application. prisoner that came in from the Horseshoe Bay on a DWI charge, which is more than a, it's a state charge, not a municipal charge. And so there was some pushback, and so we had some discussions about bringing this contract back and changing it and allowing the Llano County JP for our area in District 1 to do the magistration for all of the city of Horseshoe Bay. And so that would include the municipal, which is only class C, which is really usually just drunk and disorderly. Somebody just needs to spend the night in jail and sober up. That's usually maybe one to three times a year, could be up to six as we've had in the past. So there's really not a lot of these. And so we agreed that the JP would be, a good choice for this. And so, um, we were waiting for a contract. Um, I think Mayor Jones had talked to the, to the mayor, I mean, to the county judge and we were supposed to receive something. Um, in the meantime, I had, uh, marked up the original contract, took out all the things that were, uh, important to that. That's what's attached. Um, and I have sent that to him. And as of today, I still have no contract from them back. Uh, so, uh, we really, uh, In this situation, I don't know we could take any action on that, but I'm waiting for that contract to come in so we can take action on it, which may be if we have a meeting in August, I'll have that and be able to bring it to us. But right now, that's where we stand. So do you understand what I'm looking for? We're looking for the contract, and if the contract is allowing us to allow the JP number one, which is Sam Silver, to take those on. The fees or the fines would go to her for that service. And then one thing I did put in the contract is that there was a comment that she made that we would be responsible for everything that came out of Horseshoe Bay, all state felonies, basically anything overseas. And I dispute that. That's not the way it goes. That is the county's responsibility. So these are things, yeah, the counties, so if there's not a stay overnight, that should not be part of what's charged to us. So I'm putting that in the document as well. So we're still negotiating through that. Unfortunately, they did not respond back with a contract at this point in time, so we really can't.

It's with the county attorney right now. Yes, that's exactly right. Okay, any questions for Jeff? No, this is not a public... There's no action, yeah. Yeah, there's no action, I guess. We're going to take something up in executive session as well, I think.

Yeah, well, we don't really have to have executive session. I've really kind of said everything we need to say.

Okay, all right, good. All right. Sounds good. So do we make a motion on this or not? No, we don't have the contract. Okay, all right. Nice job, Jeff. Okay, Tim, I think you're up. Discussion and possible action regarding emergency prayers through our sinkhole.

Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. So when I brought this, when we discovered the sinkhole, we were going to put it back as was. So when I originally talked to the Mayor and Jeff, We were going to use the 48-inch galvanized pipe once again. Well, it was brought to our attention by our engineer as well that that now did not meet the new city drainage criteria. So we had Tony from Willis Engineering redesign that whole thing, so the cost went up significantly. We as a group decided that there was no sense in putting this back together insufficient for a rain event. With that said, like I say, Tony re-engineered it, and the price did go up significantly. How much? I want to say about $250,000. So we've gone from what to what? Approximately when we first talked about it very quickly, it was $225,000 to $230,000. Then it went up to $500,000. $559,000. $559,000, yeah.

No, we don't.

I don't think so. No, it would have been a very black eye on the city had we put something back that was insufficient and had we had a... We didn't realize, or apparently back when it was designed in 69-70, the NOAA rain forecast, that chart changes.

And now we're going in with two or three... Three, right, Tony?

Three 48-inch RCP. Three 48-inch. Concrete pipe, or concrete... instead of RCP so we won't have to worry about the pipe rusting out ever again. So we're looking at, well, again, we had significant delays with the rain last night and getting material and, and, but I will say that, uh, the contractor did show up daily. We have two pumps set up out there. So the only way, the only place the water had to go was up and that would have been into houses. So we have two big pumps set up that they monitored. the entire rain event, and they kept the lake from rising when we shipped it across. So we're looking at approximately a month to get it complete.

Are those pumps gonna stay out there?

The pumps are still out there.

We got... Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

Yeah, we got the delivery of... I would say that's a safe bet. Now, again, we have Bertha coming in the end of this week, so that, again, is an unknown that we may be delayed a few days. Weather permitting. But I'd say the end of August. It never rains here. I would say the end of August is very safe.

We can put a timeline out, too, that talks to it. That way it's not on you specifically. Publish this because I'm tired.

Well, Cindy, actually, they're going to do a story on it. We're going to get some pictures tomorrow when there's more activity, and we're going to get them updated. I'm sorry?

Provide her a schedule and she can post it. Yeah. That way you're not on the hook telling people something.

Well, now that we have all the material there, it should go a lot better.

Any other questions for Tim?

No.

Right approach.

Okay. How about a motion from anyone?

I don't know. I kind of like the sinkhole. No. I move to approve the emergency road and utility repair as presented.

Motion by Mr. Morgan. Second? I will second that. By Mr. Hosea. All in favor? Aye. All against? Sinkhole's going to get taken care of. Yes, sir.

Good.

Thank you. All right. We're going to move now to our consent agenda. And is there anybody up here who wants to take something off the consent agenda and prolong this meeting any longer than it needs to be? No.

Make a motion.

Okay. Any motion?

I move that we approve the consent agenda as presented with the correction of Scribner's error to, I think that's what you're calling that as of June. Am I reading the wrong one? No. June 2026 workshop meeting minutes.

Okay. Okay. Motion by Mr. Fetchner. Second? Second. Second by Mr. Weatherby. All in favor? Aye. All against? And consent agenda is passed. Our monthly reports. Jeff, what you got for us, if anything?

Well, how about nothing? I was going to show you all a video we did on impact fees, but The reality is we really just, we still have to go into executive session to talk about it.

That's new info that we can do on the special hearing. Exactly. I don't want to go over the same, but I do want new info if we have it. Great. Okay. No other information. Then we now will go into executive session. And under Section 551.071, we're going to obtain some legal advice with our city attorney concerning pending our contemplated litigation or settlement offers regarding Joseph Thompson Jr. versus the Board of Adjustment. And we don't need to do the interlocal agreement, I don't think, anymore.

Would you say it's 551.071 of the Texas Government Code?

Oh, I'm sorry, 551.071 of the Texas Government Code. We're doing this with regard to, in connection with. So the time now is 6.09 and we will go into executive session. Okay, we're reconvening out of, no action was taken in executive session and unless there's an objection, I'm going to adjourn this meeting. Meeting is adjourned. Yay! Look there. Where's... Where's...