Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I'd like to call the meeting to order at 700 p.m. And um do we have any who's not here? No,

just Andrew. We just have one missing person today. It's Andrew and um the planning and uh citizens communication. The planning and zoning commission welcomes comment on items relevant to the planning and zoning commission not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. In accordance with the Texas Attorney General's opinion, any public comment that is made on an item that is not on the published agenda will only be heard by the commission. No formal action, discussion, deliberation, or comment will be made by the commission. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address the public for address for the public record. Is there anyone present wishing to address the commission? There's no one. So, we're going to go to the consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be a separate discussion of these items. If any commissioner desires to discuss an item on the consent agenda, it will be moved to the regular agenda for further consideration. Are there any items the commission wishes to remove from the consent agenda? It does not look like there are any. So, we're going to go to 3A, which is 2026-0488, approving the Planning and Zoning Commission minutes for the April 6th, 2026 work session meeting. I will accept a motion for accepting the April 6th meeting minutes.

I make the motion. Uh I believe we make a motion for both at the same time. Both at the same time. Okay. And approve the planning and zoning commission minutes for the April 6, 2026 meeting. So move. A second.

Okay. And public hearing. The commission welcomes comment on the following items. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. And looks like it's Kristen. Yes. And um we're going over 4A 20226-4067 to conduct a public hearing and consider an application to replplat Lakeside Meadows phase 1 right ofway an approximate 2.146 acre tract of land situated in the East Kirkland survey number seven abstract number 458 in Flugerville, Texas in order to correct right-of-way dedication to be known as the partial replat of Lakeside Meadows phase one. Good evening, chair and commission. So, tonight we have a reclat of a portion of Bellaton Boulevard as it connects into phase six and seven of the Lakeside Meadows plat. Um, the original plat was uh recorded in 2022. In 2024, the applicant came back and redid the um the loting for phase six and seven and of that they've redid um how it connects in for rideway. And so tonight, this replat is to adjust um how the rideway connections um along Valaton into phase six and seven here um are um accounted for. The plat meets local and state requirements and staff recommends approval. Is there anyone wishing to address the commission about this item?

And if not then we are request a motion for move to close public testimony. Second second. Okay. All those in favor? I. All those opposed. Okay. Move to approve item 4 A and then we're on to 4B 2026- We have to test. Oh, yeah. Sorry. All those in favor? Oh, motion. Go ahead. So, move a second. Okay. All those in favor. All those opposed?

No. Okay. Back to 4B 2026-468. conduct a public hearing and consider an application to replplat Lakeside Meadows phase four and five right away an approximate 1.44 acre tract of land situated in the East Kirkland survey number seven abstract number 458 in Flugville, Texas in order to correct right-of-way dedication to be known as partial replplat of Lakeside Meadows phase four and five. Um so we have the same situation here in phase four and five which is just south of uh six and seven. The um with the redoing of the loting for phase six and seven to change right away widths um along the north side of the lawn wing. Um and with that the replat is set to correct those um right away dedications. Um, it meets local and state requirements and city staff recommends approval.

Okay, thank you. Um, move to close. Sorry. Oh, is there anyone present wishing to address the commission about this item? Okay. Uh, nobody. So, um, request a motion. Move to close public testimony. Second. Thank you. Second. All those in favor. All those opposed? No. Oh, okay. And then move to approve item 4B. Second. All those in favor? I.

All those opposed? No. Okay. 4 C. Cleven. It will conduct 2026-484, conduct a public hearing, and consider an application to replplat lots 22 and 23, block A, Highland Park, North Phase A, section 1, and to add an additional approximate 1 acre parcel of land to establish lot 1, block A, Kingsington Lacy Boulevard, totaling 16.64 64 acres within the city of Flugerville, Texas. Generally located adjacent to and south of Kingsington Lacy Boulevard and east of Heatherwide Boulevard.

Good evening, chair and commissioners. Cleveland Rodriguez Plano one with the city. Uh the item before you is a proposed replplat and a final plat of these three lots to establish approximately 16.64 64 acres and create a lot known as lot one block A Kingston Lacy Boulevard within the city of Flugerville. Um this request involves three lots all owned by the city and currently zoned as agriculture. Two of the lots totaling approximately 15.64 64 acres containing contains an existing landscape and drainage easement along with a drainage uh detention pond on your screen. It would be lots two and three. The third lot which is over here on the screen lot number one um is an unplatted tract of land approximately 1 acre and it is a flag lot. The city has leased this singular 1 acre lot, a portion of this 1acre lot for commercial operations and this replat is necessary to facilitate that uh commercial operation and um platting that singular 1 acre unplatted lot would create a non-conforming situation. Um and also since it's a flag lot, flag lots more than 100 ft in length are not allowed as per the UDC. So all these three lots are being combined together to form a singular lot known as lot one block A Kingston Lacy Boulevard. Um this replat meets all local and state requirements and staff recommends approval.

Okay. Is there anyone present wishing to address the commission about this item? Okay. Request a motion. Move to close public testimony. Second. Okay. All in favor? I. All those opposed? No. Okay. And request a motion for second to approve the item. Move to approve item 4C. Second. All those in favor? I I. All those opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

4 C, which is 2026. Did I just read that one? No, I sure did. Sorry. Did I That was for Okay. And then 5A disc uh 2026-0292 discuss and consider the 5-year capital improvement plan for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. Matt Recctor and Jeff Good evening, commissioners.

Evening. Okay. Uh for the record, Matt Recctor, director of utilities and engineering. Last month you saw a draft presentation on the CIP. Uh tonight we are coming back to present the final draft. Uh next week at the city council meeting, we have a presentation to city council. Uh we also have a joint uh city council planning and zoning commission meeting where um we will effectively ask you to recommend the CIP to them. Uh so uh before I get too far into the actual projects, uh we wanted to go over the questions that we have received to date from the last time we presented. Um and so u I know there's a lot of words up there. I apologize for it. But I didn't know a better way to to do the question and answer thing. Uh, so why are there two design plans for the DR2402 and DR2603? Um, I wasn't sure what two designs were being referenced in the question. Uh, neither of the projects have been designed yet. They'll only be designed once and that is after the project is approved. These projects haven't in the drainage master plan. They have not actually started yet. Um, there was a comment about DR2402 being too far from DR243 to make sense. Uh, if you're trying to make a more meaningful impact and not cause random traffic congestion, uh, this is not logical. So, um, DR2402 is the most downstream in that particular drainage basin. This is on

the G9 creek. I'm sorry, where is DR at? Are we missing pages? Where is drainage? Uh drainage. So DR is drainage. Correct. Oh god. Almost page 23. Oh 177 and you're talking about DR 2402. Yeah. The drainage starts on page 25 of your 177 page. Oh, it's just the numbers are different. They're a

Yeah. Oh down there. Yeah. Drainage. Yeah. Okay. Got Yeah. I just couldn't find drainage. Okay. So um yes technically DR 2402 and 2403 are the most far farthest away on that particular drainage basin uh that is shown in the master plan. The reason why we did them this way, typically when you do drainage, fix drainage problems specifically along a creek, you work your way from downstream to upstream because otherwise you go fix the upstream and now you've created more of a problem downstream.

In this particular instance, that's why 2402 is is recommended for next year. 2403 was prioritized simply because of the number of homes and the school that is impacted by those repairs. So, normally we would have said, "Let's do 2402 and and work our way up Creek, but we said, hey, you've got all these homes and you've got an elementary school that's being impacted. Let's go ahead and address that and then go ahead and start downstream as well." That's that's why we chose to do it that way. Um,

okay. So, then can you flip back to the first one? The first question 242. Yep. 2402 and so the design plan. So in DR2402 I show 217599 twice. One in 2028, one in 2029, which equals to 435198. And you stated that there aren't two designs. Only one will be done. You're charging twice here. No. So So and and that's another question that'll come up later. Okay. Um because there's a question about why are we two doing backtoback years with drainage master plans. Mhm.

So what you're seeing in those tables is us projecting when the project will finish. And so then we don't always finish a project in one given year. So you're seeing that we are projecting that we're going to do half the project in one year and the other half of the design in the second year. That's why you see the total design is $435,000. And you see 217 in FY28 and 217 in FY29. Okay. Have any of the homes or or elementary school has there been any actual flooding in the in the last 10 years or is it just getting out of the flip plane?

Uh I am not aware of I haven't actually like requested the data from FEMA to be able to answer that question. Um, but in the master plan when they ran the models, it indicates that there's a potential for flooding of the of these properties. So that's that's why it's being prioritized higher. To my knowledge, what I know of standing here before you, I don't know of any flooding issues, but that doesn't mean that it hasn't happened. I just don't have the data. And it's in the 100redyear flood plane, correct? Both of these DR 24 the elementary and Emanuel road.

Yes, these are these are changes uh to the creek line the to the to the channel itself to improve drainage to get to reduce the flooding. And so there are this has almost it just changed. The school districts or some of the schools are being slotted for potential removal or however you want to say it. Is Caldwell Elementary one of those schools that city of Lville is thinking about closing? Closing. I don't know the answer to that, but that's a good question because then I don't think so. But

you don't think so? My memory ring of bell. They have been ringing a bell. Okay. in 2402. Um that's Emanuel Road and there there's also work in the same area that's after this that's on the road itself and then also on the hiking bike path. How does that and that's going to all happen after the flood mitigation in the schedule. Why isn't that all put together at the same time to reduce the impact and potentially lower the cost?

Um, that's an excellent question because there's there's a lot of examples throughout the plan where we're doing work one year, then going back to the same location a different year and doing more work. An example is on the north side of 45. One year we're laying the water line, the next year we're going in and laying the sewer line. And it seems like it would be much more costefficient to put both of those in together. And and this area is one of those examples.

Yes. Uh, so as I've been working through the CIP and as I've been getting more involved in in the engineering and construction projects, I'm finding several instances of this. So, one of the projects that's currently being designed for us, there is a uh a waterline project, a reclaimed waterline project, and a roadway project all along Weiss Lane.

Right. Um they were being looked at as three independent projects with three independent timelines. Um and I am working to resolve that right now and fix that and bring those all into alignment with as so they can be done as one cohesive project. Uh so yes there there are uh some issues with trying to create alignment in in some of these projects. Uh but also when it comes to and I'm not sure which road project you're talking about um right off the top of my head or which trail project for that matter um when it comes to trying to align some of these things we also have to look at the funding constraints. So, like when when we first started talking about drainage, uh we were trying to figure out how to prioritize the drainage projects because there's a lot of risks involved in drainage, but it's all um math and science and calculations. As far as we know, there's no like actual complaints about drainage. And so when we are running these numbers and when the engineer ran their numbers and ran their models and they said, "Oh, it's 200 homes impacted in a in a school or it's this much property or or what those are all the maps and models." And so trying to figure out how to prioritize those. We just went off the best data available. But then we have to look at how that impacts everything else because we have as as you see we have 177 pages in front of you right now. Well, I mean, but it's important to do that. I understand it may be difficult with the funding,

but we're talking about a lot of potential savings. And even in the drainage section, it states that it's intended to perform the drainage section with transportation at the same time. But yet, there's many cases that we're not doing that.

Do you know which road project you're you're referring to? Well, in this case, um, we're talking Emanuel Road, but I think there's also examples on Finning Lane, uh, 685 on 130 and Fluger Reform Lane. There's several different examples, not all related to drainage, but several examples where there's multiple projects, but they're happening at different times in the same vicinity. And it seems like we could probably, you know, bring a lot of those resources and timeline together. One is less of an impact on the citizens

because when you have construction, there's, you know, there's delays on that road or you have to go around different ways. And so just having that year after year. And a good example is the colored historical edition, right? We're doing roads, we're doing water, and we're doing sewer all at the same time. That's a positive example, but on many other cases, we're not doing that, right? Yeah. I I don't I don't have a good answer for you on why the we didn't But should we go find a good answer before we present this to the city council?

I mean, should we do our best on this?

So, so let me just say it this way. So, this is our best recommendation at this point. I think as as we get more traction and get so there's a lot of things happening right now um without getting too into the weeds we are changing the structural makeup of of the engineering teams in the city so that's going to bring more alignment and more cohesiveness to where now projects are talking to each other so that we can start trying to align a lot of this um and so while we're making all those changes this is the best recommendation that we've been able to come up with bas based on the funding available and based on what the current staff has been able to look at and in the overall picture. Um and so yes, in in in future years absolutely I would I my goal is to change the way we do this entirely and start bringing cohesive aligned um well thoughtout package type projects forward. um this year was unfortunately I I wasn't able to do that and so uh this is this is my best recommendation and and based on the calendar we have based on the charter of the city we're out of time so we we can't delay the presentation of this to city council. Can you refresh us because I I do think it makes a difference exactly what purpose this document serves and why it has to get passed and and what it means and what it doesn't mean in terms of the actual plan for spending and construction.

Sure. So the CIP, it's a five-year plan. Um but you're only actually approving one year worth of projects. understand that. So, uh, everything that you're approving 28, 29, 30 and beyond is just our best guess at what we need to do and when we need to do it. Um, there's a chance that next year when you see the CIP that 28, 29,30 would look different than they look today. And so, um, what we're really asking you to recommend to the city council is the projects that we need to go do next year.

And if they're not, if things are not on this plan, are they not eligible for funding or something like that? Or what give and take is there for if midway through, you know, we get to October and you realize, oh, we really want this other thing in 2027. What what option is there now? Um, so you're saying like if if we've approved the CIP, we've approved a budget, and then halfway through the year we figure out that we should have done a different project, right? Um, is it not possible because it's not on the CIP, or is it still possible?

I mean, we do periodically take budget amendments to the city council. So, I guess theoretically when we did a budget amendment, we could go to city council and suggest that they look at doing some other project and swapping it out, so to speak, with with one of the projects that they did approve. Um, that's always, I guess, a possibility. So, I guess if there were if there were changes, I think the the concern you're hearing is that we're we're not city planners and it's a lot of projects and a lot of money. And I think I'm just trying to understand how fixed this document is. And I I get the point you're making. You have to have it. You have to have a CIP,

right? Um but it's helpful to know if it looks different. If things need to change, there are ways to change them.

Yes, there there are. So, in an ideal situation, like we talked about last time, in an ideal situation, we would have come to you with drainage one week, um, streets, a different meeting, so on and so forth, and and had been able to go very into the weeds and talk through every project. And then uh and that's the way I've done it in other cities where I bring my best recommendation forward and then this body comes back and says well we think that respectfully we want to decline your recommendation and we want to rep prioritize everything and that's your prerogative because it's your CIP that you recommend to the city council and then they have the same prerogative where they can say well we respectfully disagree and we're going to change everything anyway. Um and I've seen that play out. So, in an ideal world, yes, there would have been a lot of changes. Unfortunately, this year, we're under a time crunch. We we're trying to put our best foot forward and and be as thoughtful and and proactive and planned out as we can be. Um there is some wiggle room for city council and and I know it's not much time. We we brought it to you last month and now we're asking you next week to come basically make a recommendation to city council. Uh, so if there are changes that you would like to make other than like redo the whole thing kind of situation. Um, that's that's the point of tonight is to kind of get to a point where we're and and you'll see as we go through this slideshow, we've already been making changes to the draft that that we had presented. And just for full transparency, we've already been making changes after this draft that you got for tonight. So, it's still in flux and we're doing our best to try to keep up and roll with the changes given the time crunch that we're in.

Anything else?

Can I recommend that we keep proceeding with the um like the different comments and um you know, so I think the point that everyone's making, you know, this is a yearly like annually updated document. Um I think there'll be probably certain questions and comments too that come up because it it is associated with the bond that's going to be um coming up this year. Um but noted if in the future we can make sure that we're prioritizing um looking at uh projects centered in specific areas so that maybe we just have one designer doing it. Um optimizing timeline and cost um noted from your side. So, if y'all can take that as a comment to consider, we appreciate it.

Sure. Thanks. Uh, so another comment we got on drainage was that 281, 253, and 2603 make more sense um because they were in the master plan back in 2022. Um, so the reason that these were not prioritized very highly is that these are all downtown projects that are intended to benefit current and future development or redevelopment. and we prioritized ones that were going to have a benefit on properties and schools rather than just facilitating growth and redevelopment.

So 2603 though it doesn't involve any flooding, it doesn't impact any residences, but it's $10.4 million. So why are we doing that one? That one is it's part of the master plan that was done. Um and you you can see that we prioritized it out into 2029. So we're not prioritizing it to be done next year or the year after. We're saying that we can push that one off for a couple of years and kind of let development happen. And um my goal, one of my goals is always to try to work with developers as they come in to try to get them to pay as much of this stuff as we can get them to pay for. But that's not reflective in the capital improvement plan, right? I mean, you know, we're we're I know it's not happening next year, so we're not spending the $10.4 million this year, but it's in the plan,

right? You know, but it doesn't affect impact any citizens. It doesn't have any flooding concerns, but we're still budgeting it for for a few years. For a few years. Yes. Yes. Um, and and that's one of the things that that I'll just take this second to point out that when when and I don't know how long any of you have been on this board, but when when we four months, so

well, you got to hear about it any time I um so actually you're you're a little ahead of me. Um but when we bring like the drainage master plan, the roadway master plan, all those types of plans to you guys for consideration like those are those are the ideally the kind of feedback that we would be getting uh to say hey why would we even consider this because right I mean we hire a consultant they come in and they tell us here's the things that you should do based on what your development is projected what we think the priorities are the feedback they get from staff And so, um, I I can't I wasn't here for the drainage master plan. And at some point, I'll get to stop saying I wasn't here for things. But, um, all I know is that when when we did sat down and did the evaluation, this, uh, 2603 project to me sounded like it was more for growth and redevelopment. and I've got projects in the master plan that are supposed to benefit people's property and and you know protect property and life and and things like that. And I said, "Well, this one can wait." And when we redo the drainage master plan, maybe this doesn't even make it on the list next time. I I don't I can't speak to that.

Okay.

Uh speaking of drainage master plan, so uh this is one that I had commented on earlier. was it said that it looks like we're doing it in 27 and 28. Again, that's just the way we do the funding so that we can show that it's not going to be done all at one time. A lot of times we don't even start these projects until several months into the year and most of these projects don't get done quickly and so they inevitably have to carry over from one year to another and so we show the funding that way so that we can actually budget and plan for it. Um, so a question we got was status of the 2020 bond projects and existing debt. So we will cover this in in in slides that are coming up. Uh, how is existing bond debt currently being managed? Uh, so we have the five-year forecast model to help assist with the updates to tax rates and utility rates based on the schedule. Is any portion of the new bond intended to pay down or refinance because it's debt? No, it is all for new projects. Uh will the bond strictly fund completion of projects that are still underway? The bond is intended to strictly fund completion of projects. So that is true. Uh tax impact will will approval of the new bond result in increase to the current tax rate or is it intent to keep the tax rate flat based on current estimates? There would be an increase to tax rates. Um and since there is an increase, the answer to the next one is it doesn't apply because it's not expected to stay flat. clear comparison of original cost estimates versus current projected costs for major projects. Um, we'd be here all night if I tried to break down everything that changed from old projects to new projects. So, we would need a better idea of which particular projects we want to see this on. Uh, updated projects on key transportation projects. Again, I could probably pull the group and get a different answer on what a key

transportation project is. Some people would say 685, some people would say Kelly Lane, some people would say PCON, some people would say Weiss. Um, so trying to get more information before we can answer that question. Uh, how are current and projected population growth trends being factored into the infrastructure planning? So when we go through the whole master plan effort that I was just talking about, one of the things that the consultants do is they look at all the growth uh that has been happening. They look at the developments that are currently being considered and then they project out into the future what they think the growth is based on demographics and a bunch of other things. That's all figured into those master plans which then feed the CIP which then bring comes back to you full circle.

I'm curious how many uh how often do we do the uh population planning demographer? How often do we do that? Every three years, five years. What's our cadence? Commissioner, I don't know that we've ever done a demographer here. We do have our own estimates that we work with and then of course we always bring those back to the um census and hopefully not the annual um target because those numbers are not statistically um correct for the most part. Um, but I do know that we are also looking at talking to the ISD's demographer despite that the ISD has a slightly larger boundary than we do of course with um some of our ETJ, but I do not believe that we've ever used a demographer. Okay.

Uh, project prioritization and connectivity. Why are projects being initiated rather than prioritizing completion and connectivity of existing corridors? So, one of the updates that we've made since the last time you saw this is we actually went through and figured out which projects we have full funding for and which projects we need additional funding for. And you will see in this version and in the next version where projects have been realigned so that we finish the projects that we have full funding for first rather than taking that money and putting it under starting other projects and then trying to add more debt to currently ongoing projects. So we are trying to to rep prioritize to make that make more sense. Um uh let's see 2904 2907 uh appears to be more aligned with improving connectivity to 685. Why is it not being extended further? And then 2907 why it follows the 685 how does this project man reduce congestion? So both of these are actually called relief routes. Uh the idea behind them uh in addition to being future quarters that we can use is the main focus is when we go do FM685, we're going to need ways to reroute that congestion. And so that's why these are called relief routes is that it gets some of that traffic off 685 when we're doing all that construction. Uh what's the projected traffic impacts on 2904 and 297? So I just I just kind of explained that one. We don't have a lot of traffic impacts on that right now. We're thinking that those are relief routes. So when we start put 685 under construction, some of those people can go to those other roads and we don't just have a huge log jam on on 685. Coordination and road extensions. Why does 2904 not extend to the toll road? Um again, relief route. We were focusing on

just trying to get 685 flow. We weren't focusing on all that stuff. There is a development over there uh that could potentially extend the road. We are adding a stub out so that it can connect in the future. But the purpose of the project was to provide relief temporarily. Uh why does the project not extend to the Texas med clinic area and across East Fin? Uh again, relief route. We were focusing on just trying to provide that relief, not not um project out into the future. uh multiple design phases. Yes, we have had multiple design phases on many projects and that is a very traditional method in specifically municipal government where you do a 30% 60% 90% 100% bid set and so we are looking at trying to streamline that and make it much more um timesensitive uh strategy in place to reduce design duration. Yes, we are looking at all of our options to reduce the design timelines and construction timelines, trying to find uh ways of moving things faster. So, as part of that, I'm just curious, are you all looking at um some of those more expedited contracting types like um construction manager at risk and maybe packaging more projects together to to get um like better involvement from larger general contractors and architects to speed up timelines? Like, is that the type of things that y'all are investigating? Minus

Yeah, we actually have our first two Semar projects in construction right now. That's the city hall and the uh sorry I guess we have three city hall public works building and the wastewater treatment. Okay, great.

Uh has the cons city considered performance-based benchmarks or accountability measures for design consultants to assure timelines? So I'm not sure that I can really answer that if the city has considered performance-based benchmarks. uh it is something that I have presented in other cities that I've been in and typically the city council is not too keen on giving bonus type payouts to uh consultants. Uh but as far as accountability measures, you're very limited in the state of Texas on what you can do to professional consultants. Uh as far as you know, you can't really do you could try you can't really put in liquidated damages. Most consulting firms won't even sign on to that kind of a contract. Um, and that's really the the limit to what you can do to anybody that you sign into a contract with. Uh, government agencies are not allowed to be punitive. You can only recoup your damages and you have to be able to prove up those damages. And so, um, that's that's where that is. Uh, okay. Any questions about the questions before I move on to the Okay, so uh talking about the 2020 bonds, uh and and you'll see it when we get to transportation that we rep prioritize some of these things. Uh we've updated our website. These are some snapshots from the updates. U so we have 21 total active projects on the 2020 bond propositions. two are in coordination 19 are active. uh total expenses. uh you can see there you know a total of 191.3 million uh projects by phase uh so you know we have of the 30 32 projects four have not started three have been cancelled nine are complete six are in construction one is doing utility relocates and nine are

in design um we've completed 28.1% and we are still working on the other 70 call it 72% and then the final piece And I think this was really the the crux of the question that was asked. How much remains? And so here you can kind of see of the money that was out there, we have spent 27 million. We have 74 million left over. Uh we have sold and encumbered about 40.5 million of the bond. We have sold an unencumbered, which means we've sold it, but we haven't actually like earmarked it yet, 61 million. So, I I'm hoping that those I know I went through those kind of quick. I'm hoping that those answer the question about where we are with the bond the 2020 bond projects.

When we look at that number today, uh how does it compare against the plan that we had forecasted? Are we on track or um I can't speak for all of the b all of the projects because I I honestly don't remember all the timelines that were originally included in them. Mhm. Uh I can tell you that a lot of your road projects are behind schedule. That's what it feels like. Okay.

Yeah. I mean just a a general note, I know I mean this is related to the CIP in some ways and the 2026 bond. Um but it it could be challenge over the next handful of months to um you know it's been 6 years and having encumbered $40 million of the 191 million um you know just noting that communication wise it could become very challenging. Well why do we need to take on more debt now? um can we just focus our resources on delivering the 2020 bond? So I would just

um you know make sure to discuss that internally and have really good understanding as to like you know what is unencumbered, why certain things need to be prioritized in 2026 bond and a and a pretty solid justification to go for a bond right now. just noting that challenge related to um how much of the 2020 bond has been completed at this point.

Uh so here's you a quick map showing the the road project from the 2020 bond. Um, basically just gives you a frame of reference of of where they all are and what is happening. I think we have a one coming up later. Uh, this is another change that we've made to the website showing kind of a rundown. Uh, so you can see these this is the prop A. So this is roads. First three are complete. Uh the bottom two are in construction and then you have the top two here. Uh which of these are the intersection improvements are complete. You have one two in design. Three in design sorry. And then one that has not yet started. It says it's in coordination with the county. The that should be changed is actually in coordination with text to talk about the SH130 at uh Gaddy School and 138. transportation projects. Uh you've got two in design, two in construction. Um other transportation projects, SH45, so we're still working through that process with Tex and uh trying to talk through that project. And then you have the Cameron Road which was uh TR 2007 and that one was removed from the capital improvement plan was transferred over to a developer. Then you have some design only projects. Two of those are complete and two of those are still in design. And then this was an effort to try to color code these so you can see which ones are completed and which ones are designed. Um Cindy helped me out. What color means what?

I don't see the key on there. Let me go ahead for a few slides and see. Green is complete. Yellowish is in construction. Purple is designed. Blue is not started. Red is canceled. Okay. So you can see got a lot of green on there which I'm assuming with the same key. So that's complete. Um okay we'll we'll update this map.

Okay. All right. Prop B. So same type of wheelchart here. Uh of the prop B. We have sold an encumbered 3.8 million. We've sold an unencumbered 38.4 million. We have 19.2 million uh remaining. And we have spent 23.1 roughly. And do you guys want to cover the park projects? You probably do it a lot better than I can.

Good evening, commissioners. Jeff, assistant parks and recck director. Um so yeah, there you see our projects from um 2020. We'll walk through each one. So the neighborhood parks uh that were part of the 2020 bond project. We've completed two. We completed Warger phase 2 um southern portion of Warger with the the new dog park, parking and trail extensions. Um was completed last year. Um Mard, which has several different names. We're now calling it Mkusen Park because that makes the most sense with its location. U was complete the first part of this year. Um, Kelly Lane Park's in progress. That's the park. We discussed our our first pickle ball courts in our system. Um, substantial completions later this month and then Punchouts um first part of June. So, that one is very very close to being complete. Um, and then y'all may remember if you you've been involved for a little bit, but we had a couple other parks, PCON um and Piccadilly. PCON was cancelled a couple years ago due to really it's just not feasible u with drainage issues to to construct that park. Um for for context, we had a 2014 um undeveloped parks plan. It's 2014. Um and largely when you do those parks, they're conceptual. They look at a they look at the the city as a whole and and and look at where you have undeveloped parks and say these might be good spaces, if they're areas that are underserved or things like that. they don't really get into um the the you know flood plane issues or or some of the other issues that might kind of rear their head when you get into engineering preliminary engineering. Um and so all of these parks were part of that undeveloped parks master plan. Um then PCON again canceled in 2022 because of the flood plane issues. Um that's not feasible to construct a park in that location. in Piccadilly though um is canceled because of the same reason. However, Piccadilly

uh park uh we are we're working with the public works folks to when we get to the point when they're doing drainage uh improvements in that area uh to build a trail connection uh basically from where Piccadilli is to Grand Avenue. So, further connecting the Gillan Creek trail corridor. So, um, that's not being funded this year or next year. And so, that is, uh, that's on hold until we get to that point. And to the to the earlier point, we will work in conjunction with the drainage team, um, to put those together. That way, it's all constructed at one time. You get some some cost savings there. Um, so, it's still a site that we will come back to. Uh, but the funding has been moved from that those two part those two parks. We also had trail improvements. Uh this says it's in progress. However, I will say the 1.6 million for trail improvements was spent pretty early on after 2020. Uh we're now we're still doing trail improvements year after year. Um they're funded by general fund now. And then on the 2026 bond, we'll we'll look to fund some of our future trail improvement projects. We did we had a lot of lowhanging fruit on our trail improvement projects. We have since uh this year is our first year to really get into I think I explained this at the last meeting some of our more complex projects that are going to require some additional engineering. It's not just simple uh trail connections um places where you might have bridges or you have to deal with utility easements, things like that. So, we're starting to get um into some of those complicated projects we had put off in the past. And then land acquisition. Um the funds were used for downtown east um and then also used uh put into the destination play project. Um since we're utilizing BS Park for destination play, we save money on land acquisition. So that money was moved into that that

uh project. 1849 park phase 2 is complete. That's our our two baseball field, softball field, and the vent lawn at 1849. Uh we are still waiting with the the water restrictions. U we we wanted to make sure that those fields are established. So we're still waiting to open those. We don't want to get um a bunch of folks on kids on those fields. Um and then we've got to come and do repairs to the turf within the first year of it opening with the lighter watering we've been doing. So hopefully that opens as soon as we possibly can. Really excited about that project. It's it's beautiful out there. And then Lake Flugerville phase 2 and destination play. Lake Fugerville phase two. We just had our design team um approved by city council. So we've got a kickoff for design of Lake Flutterville phase 2 on Wednesday. and destination play. We're in um scope and fee negotiations with the design team and we'll hopefully be taking that to council very soon.

Isn't the 1849 park um doesn't that water come from Mansville? It's Manville. We have a certain amount of water and so other city projects because it's it's not Flugerville water are utilizing that water as well. So we have lowered what we're doing so that that can be taken and used for other things. Uh, so it's being watered two days a week right now and for a new facility, we really need that watered five, okay, to be able to establish that turf. So, it's getting water. It's It's not going to deteriorate. It's not going to die. Um, it's not getting enough on it right now to to see that foot traffic. Okay.

Yeah. There you see the the map explaining status of those projects. I'd be happy to answer any questions. in here.

Oh, I got one more. Uh, so Prop C, the recreation center, that's obviously in progress. You can see it when you go down 685. Um, expected completion on that December 2026. Um, as a reminder, getting the second largest recreation center, municipal recreation center in Texas at 100, it's actually 139,000 square feet with 10,000 square feet of retail. Um, the four high school basketball courts, large fitness and cardio area, indoor aquat aquatics, indoor turf with a turf ramp up to the the weight room, the adventure track, um, recreation and event rooms that we'll be able to program in different ways, rent out in different ways. um a multi-gen lounge, an indoor play space for kids to get out of the get out of the elements when it's either too hot or too rainy, um a child watch area, and then the third floor, you can see the patio in that photo, is the 300 person event space with a teaching kitchen. So, with that being said, now I can answer any questions.

Good. Um, and I don't know just related to the downtown east project, and maybe this isn't the spot to say it. Um, so I apologize if so, but um, within the SIP right now, I think there's only one line item or one page that's for like the rec center, the city hall, the main street extension, and the parking garage. Um, I would recommend if possible that we have more detail related to the different aspects of that project. Um, and maybe this is something we can just circle back to. I don't know if we're going to come back to some of the SIP related items. And then I noticed that there was another parking garage. Is that the That's not the parking garage that's being constructed right now. That's a parking garage like a second parking garage that's within the SIP.

I'm sorry. It's in this world, but So yeah, there's um downtown parking garage FA2709 with spending 3.8 million in 2027 and then 21 million in 2028. I guess that's a future. That's not next year, but that's future. That's future. But that would be a second parking garage. It's not the ones being constructed currently. Correct.

Okay. Okay. So, that's not really a comment for for Jeff, but more of just for the SIP in general. Um, I don't know if it's possible to have a little bit more detail related to that. Um, but that's that's a lot of different infrastructure related items contained in one page. So, you're saying like change the way we did 2203? Is that the question? Yes. Or just a consideration. I there'll be a lot of comments and questions related to that in the future. And that's a large amount of the projected costs of 2026 in 2027.

So for clarification, that's for a future year, not this year. Well, there is one year there is 2026 that there's almost 149 million, right? But the future project is what you think there will be.

Oh. Oh, sorry. I was asking clarity. I was just asking clarity on the parking garage, the downtown parking garage. I was asking two questions and one sorry two comments in one. The FA2203, which is the oneline item. That's the city hall, the rec center main street, but I'm assuming that includes the current parking garage that's being built. Um I would just recommend um like maybe a little bit more breakout related to especially there's different funding sources related to them. You know we're noting the multi-generational rec center you know 2020 funding 2020 bond funding and then I was just asking a question on the downtown parking garage. That would be the the a the second parking garage but that would be 2027. Okay,

which is also FA2709. FA27 2709. Sorry, I just uh it came up. So that was one of my comments. Just going to the SIF really quick. Thank you.

Okay, so the changes some of the changes that we've made. So uh what you have in front of you is draft two. What you had seen last month was draft one. Um maps were updated. Obviously, we need to clean that up a little better. Uh general fund and utility fund detail pages are edited to correct pages of all the projects. Um we changed uh I always get in trouble with finance directors because I like to budget down to the to the penny if I can and finance directors don't like that especially when I'm talking about stuff that's five, six years out. And so, uh we changed everything to the full dollar. um nine projects. We've updated the descriptions and justifications um which actually includes 2709. Uh but we can go back and look at 2203 and look at making that a little more robust. And then we've updated pictures on four of the projects. We repprioritized the drainage projects and uh we reordered the transportation projects. So, we put the 2020 bond projects right at the top. We color coded them. We're screaming it out. These are the 2020 bond projects. So, we're going to put them right up there so everybody can see what's happening with them. And then the prioritization from there was projects that are in construction, projects that are in bidding, then projects that are in design, projects that are further out in like the study or per projects that we have not started yet. Uh so these we moved the 685 corridor projects out to future dates and then uh adjusted everything else around that. We uh shifted some cost and funding around by by doing this rep prioritization scene. This is what I was talking about earlier where we looked at how much money we have to fund certain projects so that we can fully fund those projects rather than I don't I don't know a better way to do

it. you're spreading your money out and then you're like, "Okay, now I got to go spread all this money out again in the future." We said, "All right, let's take all that money we have right now, focus it on these projects, get them done and off the books, and then we'll limit the future debt to projects that we either have barely started or that we haven't started at all kind of thing." Uh the other thing that we have done is uh we are recommending to the bond committee that we do not do a transportation bond this year and so we have removed 2703 which was the 2026 bond management. There will still be other projects in the bonds uh but right now we are recommending to that committee that we do not move forward with the transportation bond. And can you remind us um of the because you you had mentioned that the transportation part of the 2020 bond was one that was um kind of having schedule challenges. I I just a note um I think that that's a really important part of the communication related to a future bond is the um consideration and fact that we're not looking at a transportation bond and maybe even saying that that is in relation to um finishing those portions of it. I'm not sure how much exactly of the 72% is related transportation, but I do think that could be helpful when it comes to communicating the need for a 2026 bond. So, that's great. I'm I'm glad that that decision was made. Um, and then same thing, I kind of worked through all of the different breakdowns and rep prioritized projects and tried to figure out ways to best use available dollars, reallocating things, shifting things around, delaying some projects that uh were either focused on things that weren't in in my opinion as critical. Um, I'm trying to be cognizant of both the needs of our infrastructure. uh as well as the funding issues that

that we're we're going to be facing as we start trying to pay for, you know, a multi-billion dollar CIP.

Um, okay. So, that was to get to draft two, which is what you have in front of you. I already told you that we're already working on draft three. So, we've removed a couple other projects. Um, we've updated Emanual Road because we just put that one into construction. We council just awarded that construction contract at the last council meeting. Uh we've changed TR 2006 uh to spend some more of the money. Um we again shifted prioritization so we could put more money into projects that we're currently actively working on. Funding was updated on the FA2203 project and all these others. Um and so where does that put us? Okay. So, uh we are obviously presenting draft two to you guys tonight while we're working on draft three. Um we are requesting formal approval by by this body. Uh and we are asking that there be a joint meeting with city council next week to present your recommendations on the CIP to them. And then we will come back to city council again at the second meeting in May with a target of trying to get them to do a final acceptance of the CIP in June. So that that's all locked up and then we can use all that in the analysis for the budget that will hopefully be adopted by the uh first meeting in September. So we didn't go project by project. We wanted to keep it somewhat high level um because we've already presented all the projects we other than the shifts that we've made. Uh so with that I will stop and open it up to any questions, comments, concerns, suggestions, let you guys debate amongst yourselves which projects you want to do and which ones you don't want to do those kind of things.

Um I do have a question. So, how much from what you've removed from CIP1 to CIP2, how much of a savings do you think you got? Well, savings, I would say reduction reduction. I won't say savings. We haven't spent any money. This is for 20. Yeah. So, uh what we did I don't know if because the I mean the totals have changed, correct? Like so for the CIP transportation funding sources you're the total for 2020 seven for next year has changed correct because you've removed some.

So the number the total number of all those numbers would be different. So like this one's for transportation it's 958 million billion dollars seems like so much. Um wouldn't it be less? Wouldn't it have been more last month and now this month it's less? No, the the total amount uh basically is the same. Okay. All we did was reallocate dollars from project to project. Gotcha. So if we had let's and I'll just throw a generic example. So, if we had project X and it was 50% funded with current dollars and 50% funded with future dollars and then I had project Y that I thought was more important and we were further along,

then I would push project X out, take all the available dollars out of it, put that up here so that I have a fully funded project and then all of the cost of project X goes to some future dollars. Okay? So, the total amount stays the same. It's just how you balance that number between current currently available funds and future debt. Okay.

You mentioned that there's still work ongoing on the CIP. When's that work going to be finished? Um, ideally it would have been finished before we gave you draft one, but realistically I don't anticipate that it'll be done until we are uh presenting the final ver final final final version to city council in June because we'll take forward whatever you guys give us tonight. That'll add into uh draft four, I guess you want to call it, because we've already working we're already working on three. So we'll make changes again. And then whatever feedback we get from city council would go into the next draft. Um, excuse me. So I don't know if that

Well, so the CIP that's being presented to city council. When is that going to be ready? Uh, so our target is as soon as you guys give us your recommendations tonight that we finish that up by Thursday so that we can have it posted for city council on Tuesday. The next one will be I'm sorry.

Oh, so we have to post for the May 12th meeting tomorrow. So, um, draft three will be what we present to city council next week. Draft four would be what we present to city council on the 26, which would include whatever you guys recommend tonight.

Maybe another way of asking the first question for the 2026 bond since you talked about removing transportation bond. What I can't remember what you said the 2026 bond was going to be if you remember great and but can you tell us what what are you asking for now in a 2026 bond

there? So there are so I believe three other categories of the 2026 bond there is parks facilities uh the pause the animal shelter and then the parking garage. Those are the three that are still being put forward for I mean we still have to get through the bond committee and all that kind of stuff, but those are the three that staff is now recommending to the bond committee for them to recommend to city council so we can put it forward for a vote.

And would that be the only new debt taken on to be paid for in 2027 or I'm not a bond person so I don't understand the debt. Is there Other than what you just said for the 2026 bond, do you have all of the money for the actual 2027 spending or would you have to go into debt in other ways?

No, we there would still be additional debt that we have to incur. Uh so there are still road projects, water projects, wastewater projects, reclaimed water projects that could potentially require I mean that will require additional debt. Uh so for the water, wastewater and reclaimed water, we've been using whiffy alones and so that that is already in process. We already know what we're going to be asking for from there. Uh one of the things that we've been trying to look at is projects that are outside of the 2026 bond election. How do we fund those? Which ones are going to get prioritized? Because it's a constant balancing act, right? because you have that assuming that it that they all get voted for that's a certain impact to our debt rate and so then we have other projects that we want to try to achieve. So talking to finance and it's they're constantly updating their numbers trying to look at of those other projects how many of them could we fund based on where we want the debt rate to be which ultimately affects the tax rate. So long way to answer. Yes, there would be additional debts that we could that we would be taking on. How how much of a how much how much what would what would be the impact if what we recommended to city council was approved the CIP but with the caveat of no new debt

like for 2027. take a pause and anything that requires you to have more debt, anything that requires an increase in tax rate, wait till 2028.

Um, I mean, the I've actually lived through this. Uh, so the ramifications from my perspective is really it's status quo. I just don't anything that's fully funded by future debt, we just don't start it. we we would just say, "Okay, we're pushing that out to start in 2028." Anything that is partially funded, we just get it to where we stop it based on existing dollars, which is part of that rep prioritization that I've already done is if I need to go borrow money for a, let's say, a road project to be able to fund construction and all the other things. I just said, "No, push it out. We'll stop a design. We'll put the plans on the shelf. we'll wait till we have the money and then we'll go back and pull them off the shelf and go do it. And so that's that's really it. It's a paperwork exercise for for me and my team to basically live with what city council decides. Um and I know that because I've done it in other cities where city we go through the whole process. We recommend and city council goes we're not raising the debt one penny. So figure out what projects you can do and that's all you get to do. And so then we change everything and we live within that that directive. And one of the downsides of that though is if you're in the middle of projects and you have to stop is it could be more costly to pick it back up later. So as another option if we were to say recom and this is all just I'm just theorizing.

If we were to recommend anything that you have spent money on in 2026 anything that has started great continue. But if it has not started as of 2027, don't start it until 2028. Is that a feasible recommendation that we could make?

Yes. Um and then the other thing that you could do if you're if you're concerned about debt rate and tax rate, which sounds like that's where this conversation is going, uh you could always say basically that whatever you've already started on, finish it out, but don't take in any more debt than X, right? because we don't want to raise. We're already doing a bond election. We know how much that's going to change the tax rate. Sorry, I don't actually talk this much. Um, and we don't want to raise the tax rate any more than one penny above that number, what whatever the number is that that you guys are going to recommend. And then they give us that directive and we just figure out with finance how much we can afford. Like in in a prior city that I worked in, they said, "We don't want to raise the tax rate at all. So tell us how much money we can borrow without affecting the tax rate by one penny." And so we did the numbers and we said, "You can do x number of millions of dollars a project and not change your tax rate by one penny." And they said, "That's how many you get to do. Now pick your projects."

Thank you. We just wanted everybody to know what our when we say recommendation to council, what what could that look like? What that?

So, have we really scrubbed through this and see what we really need to spend in 2027? And an example in it may not have a bearing, but like the library roof replacement is $350,000 next year, but in 2028 we start a library expansion. Are are we wasting some of that money on a roof replacement in one year and then the next year starting an expansion? I don't know plans, but are those the type of things we're thinking about? Also, like there's money being allocated to improve the city council ADA accessibility. That's this room, but we're moving over to the new building. So, is that something? Are we in compliance? Are we trying to improve? Do we need to go into compliance when we're going to be implementing the new city council chambers in the new building which I'm sure is ADA compliant you know so have we gone through that and then looking at what we're doing in 2027 2028 I mentioned one u like in on state road 45 we're putting a water line in 2027 and a sewer line in in 2028 can we move the 2027 one to 2028 and combine because I have a lot of concern with saying we're going to raise taxes when there seems to be a lot of room that we can save money that that's those are all very fair statements. Um I will say on the uh library roof and the expansion u again 2028 is not locked. It's just a plan. It's it's a guess. I'm I'm actually guessing that in order to do your library expansion, you're probably going to have to do

it's our library expansion. Yeah. Yeah. Uh in order to do the expansion, you're going to have to go out for some big bond uh consideration. And so should we know the answer to that before we spend $350,000?

Excuse me. I mean, it seems like it would be we're not talking a long period of time from now for 2028 when you're planning a capital project, right? Seems like we should be able to have that pretty much set and understand what we're going to do before we spend other money that we may have to un undo. I mean, that's what this is for, right? Yeah. That's why we have a fiveyear plan so we can coordinate these things, right? But it seems like there's some room for improvement and I understand the city staff put a lot of work in this. I understand that. I'm not negating that. Yeah. And I'm coming in after the fact with a bunch of questions. So I don't

they're all fair questions, but it just seems like we have an opportunity here and I'd much rather us pursue those opportunities before we raise taxes.

And that that's the I don't I don't have any ill feelings towards you asking the questions. Um I think it's 100% justified. That's why you guys are here is to push us and help us do better. Um I I welcome the questions because honestly I get into my engineer brain and I get into the like project specific things and I miss things. So, um, you know, like I said at the start, this was my best recommendation based on my three and a half months here.

And so, um, I am completely willing to push projects out, adjust them, however you guys think I need to do that so that you guys are comfortable recommending the CIP, however, whatever it ends up looking like, to city council. So if if the suggestion from this body is push the library out another couple years, well I think it's more than that. That's just an example. No, and and that's fair. But

what what I really recommend is I think that different departments need to sit down and look at where they're overlapping and and this is the best way and the most cost-effective way we can approach this and this is when we ought to do it based upon funds and you know so that you can get you can get water, you can get sewage, you can get roads, you can get trails all together in this one area and say this is how we need to approach it. Do we treat it as one project or is it a couple of different projects? Who's taking the lead on it? Those type of things. And then we can come up with probably a reduced cost.

Yeah. And and that's a very fair statement and that's like I said, that's something that we're working towards. Um we're not there yet. But this isn't the first year we've done this, right? No. No. You guys you guys have had CIPs for for many years. Yeah. Um, well, and that's but that's also a good point to be fair to staff. A lot of what y'all are doing in your engineer hat is finding a way to make all of this fit into a plan based on several different master plans and city budgets and former CIPs

that ostensively told you we want these things in 2027 and 2028 voting. And so certainly recognize y'all are trying to give us and city council what you think we told you to go do. And it's hard because having been here a number of years from our end, we we get this document and think, okay, this is what city staff wants to do, so we should let them. And then y'all look at it like, well, this is what we were told to do, so we better do it. and it can feed on itself. Yeah. Um so it y'all are doing what we're what we've told you to do. Yeah.

I mean for those of you who were here for the 6:00 meeting when they presented the uh impact fees. So they went through the land use assumptions and the CIP that were in the water master plan that was just approved in 2025, the wastewater master plan that was just approved in 2025. And in those plans, they laid out groups of projects that should happen in 2025, should happen in 2026, so on and so forth for the 10 years of the of the of the master plan, even though we update them every five years. And so, yes, effectively, we're trying to live within that, but we're also trying to play that balancing game that we think you guys are going to be okay with, right? Because I'm looking at the parks guys, they don't always get along with engineers. I mean, we get along great, but they don't always like, right? I mean, sometimes I just say, "Hey, I need to put a road right through your park." And then they look at me and say, "No, you can't do that." Or sometimes I need to put a water line right through a pavilion. And so, we're we're constantly balancing and shifting and and trying to figure all that out. And yes, a lot of it is we are looking at our crystal ball trying to figure out what the various bodies want, right? Because those guys, they answer to a body. They they have the parks board. Parks board wants very specific things. Then we have to come to to you guys and you guys want very specific things and then we have to take it to city council and they want so we're all trying to read our crystal ball and understand what we think you're telling us to do and then we come forward and maybe we got it right, maybe we didn't. So that's why I'm like questions are justified. I'm good to go with whatever direction you guys give. I just I just need the direction.

You mentioned earlier that we were out of time. I don't know the schedules or the timeline. What What does that actually mean?

So, the the city charter requires that the planning and zoning commission present a CIP recommendation to the city council 120 days before the start of the new fiscal year. So, if you back that out, October 1st is the start of the new fiscal year. you back it out to 120 days. That means by June 3rd, if I did the math right, you have to present your CIP recommendation to city council. Now, when we put the schedule together, we said that we were going to do it in May. So, we were going to have ourselves number one, we don't have a meeting, we only have the two meetings, May 12th and May 26 before the June 3rd dead deadline.

So, that's why I'm saying we're kind of out of time. Um, and that's why we're throwing all these random drafts at you as quick as we can because we're we're filling that pinch and we're trying to make all the pivots that we think you're going to want us to make. You know, I'm doing a lot of cleanup stuff, trying to find those inconsistencies, trying to find where I can put projects together and combine things. And so, I'm trying to give you the best information that I can on the fly. But that's what I meant by we're basically out of time. Fair enough. And there's some great recommendations that came out, but it feels like the runway is short. I'm just trying to figure out is there opportunity to to bring some of this in, but if the runway's just fixed and there's no one to move it, then it is what it is. I'm trying to figure out what that looks like. And and that's where I for to whatever extent my experience has beneficial I would recommend that we give highlevel recommendations things like

are we okay with more debt or are we not are we okay with increased tax rate or not because that is a policy perspective that we as a commission can give share the same I don't I'm not sure why library roof I'm not sure why we need the pause building I don't know that so I would hate I hesitate to give specific project recommendations because I don't know that we have the knowledge and I would hate to kick kick a project off your list that is actually very important or to elevate a project that is not important. So that's for what it's worth my advice to the group. Agree.

Well, first I I'd like to say sorry I have like the same thing you have going on. Um, a huge thank you. Uh, I know we I think we've mentioned this multiple times, but this is a huge effort for everyone within the city. Um, along with preparing for a bond, along with everything that's been going on with, um, you know, water. Uh, so really appreciate it. I know that y'all are juggling a lot of different things right now. I agree. I think that like our recommendation should be probably more on a general side, you know. Um, I I don't know. I think some of my first imp my I guess my questions are specific but I feel like they they kind of lead to like a general idea as well like the justice center expansion is a future CO debt that would be in 2027 when CO debt is that property tax impact but does not go to voters.

Right. So things like that I find really concerning. Um I think that if we know we're wanting to do a project within the next fiscal year um and we know that that is a priority as like a city and we it will be an impact to property tax. I I personally think that that should go to voters as a as an option within this upcoming bond if it's anticipated to start next fiscal year. Um so like a general statement. So noting that project there might be other projects related to that as well. um like a highle comment that that I would have if other commissioners would agree with it is that if we are prioritizing in the next fiscal year funding related to projects that do have property tax impact that should be included as a proposition in the 2026 pond program

like for example but I don't know what Sorry.

Oh, so no, it was just pointed out that some of the costs that you see like in 2027, uh, for example, the justice center is design so that we can start getting out in front of the design. The some of the concern. So, let me just back up and tell you part of the conversation that we've had as staff on why we decided to not push forward with the the road projects that we were recommending in the 2026 bond election. on top of the the obvious thing of we're behind pro on the 2020 projects was that we didn't feel as a group that we had adequate design to be able to tell the voters exactly what they were getting and how much it was going to cost them. So we said let's slow it down. Let's actually go through and start designing some of these projects. And once we've got some projects on the shelf then we can consider coming back to the voters and say look we've got all these projects ready. here's the OPC, the opinion of probable cost. This is what you're going to get. This is how much we think it's going to cost. Then we can show you in black and white exactly what you're voting for. And so some of these projects, that's that's the thought is start doing some of the design, some of the feasibility, some of those kind of things on on expanding say the justice center so that when we go to the voters in 2028 for a 2029 construction, then we would start doing um we would we would have better information. And I I know that you're seeing that there's also some construction costs in there. But here's here's the other thing that you have to consider when when city council vacates this area, right? They they no longer need this conference room. They no longer need this setup. So the police chief came to us and said, "I need to do something with this space because that's the whole point of you guys vacating it is I need to be able to use this." And so we've allocated some money in there so that he can be using this space rather than it just being set up for a conference which he doesn't need anymore. And so that's that's the things

that you're seeing on the justice center. And probably we need to do a better job of kind of explaining that and quantifying that in the in the text so that it's a little clearer what we're actually proposing. Um but that I don't know if that helps with your specific question or not.

Okay. Yeah. I mean I think probably why it got flagged as a higher concern is because it was $24 million in future CO debt. um instead of seeing maybe that um 2.3 million in future CO and then 2029 and on being in future GEO debt. Um so that's why I read it as it was fully going to be funded by CO. Oh yeah, that that's another thing that we're working on is not trying to say future go for future CO, future whatever because we don't know. Mhm.

Right. So, I'm having those conversations where I'm suggesting that we just say future debt and then that way council can make the decision, do we want to do CO, do we want to go, what are we going to do, how are we going to fund this stuff? Um, and then of course the legislature always weighs into that too because they keep having conversations about are we going to continue to allow cities to do CO or are we going to require all things be done through geo elections. So there's there's a lot of stuff to to weigh into that that particular uh aspect of this process. Okay.

Okay. So, um I'd like to start at the end and then go this way on how you would like to proceed with um like some of your opinions and then see how everybody else's opinions match with that, I guess. Um,

sure. I like I said, my main concern is that we not increase taxes, which you've kind of you've addressed that also. And um that there is methods to save cost in this. And so if we if we come to the city council with a recommendation that that we can adopt it but no increase in taxes and I think that would give city staff time to look at this and see where those cost savings are for 2027 and see how things can be related and that way when it comes to the budget in September, you know, we got something more formalized for 2020. 27 that doesn't impact taxes because my main concern is when I see potential waste but we're saying we're going to increase taxes at the same time and if we can if we can stop that I'd be much more comfortable.

Okay. Can I ask a clarifying question? Um, so whenever you're referencing no um increase to property taxes, but they've noted that the 2026 bond that they're currently working on is anticipated to increase property tax, but it would go to voters to vote. Is your recommendation that like holistically this CIP should not be related to any type of property tax increase at all or not anything in addition to what they're anticipating with the 2026 bond? I mean, that's what I would like to see is no taxes at all. Okay. But I'm not familiar enough with the 2026 bonds to make that an absolute statement.

Okay. Thank you. I I think I feel similarly. I think it is important to to continue and finish all projects that are started. I I do think you can absolutely get into a situation where you've wasted a lot of time and money and if staff is pursuing things they need to get those projects finished. Can can I just clarify that we're not talking about projects that have been designed but projects that are under construction or what do you what do you mean by started? I'd probably I'd probably draw the line at if they've spent money in 2026.

Okay. that it started whether it's design or not. So I would probably defer to staff to decide. There are going to be some projects I feel like when you've designed it, if you stop at that point, the cost increases, you have to redesign and you rebid and I don't want to waste that time, right?

Um, but generally I think having the the touch point be no don't take on more debt that increases the tax rate. And I'm I am somewhat ambivalent as to the bond issue. If if if we want to say no no no increased tax rate unless voters approve a bond that makes some sense. So if the voters say yes, we want this bond, well then I don't know that it's our place to say no. So that's kind of where I'm leaning. Okay. Yeah. I mean firstly echo the the thought process

that we're having. Obviously, anything we can do to minimize tax rate increases, whatever that looks like. I'm just not smart enough to line item it is the right thing to do, especially given where we are in the current times. I think I heard during the conversation that was potential, you know, bond one year and then follow on another bond. That would just be a very hard pill, I think, for the voters to swallow. So, anything we can do to minimize it, I won't say zero it because I just don't know enough to to make that statement, but I think to minimize it to to whatever extreme we can, would be the right direction. And I think that would be something council should consider as well. We're just in some very uncertain times right now. I like the fact that we stop the transportation bond and we'll double down on getting things done that's already started. Started as a function of for this design. Clearly, it's already in motion. Let's get that done. That's expedited if we can. Uh I know that will go a long way into winning over our voters as well because a lot of frustration is that it's not done.

And uh that's why I asked the question. So that's kind of where I'm uh leaning chair to minimize the tax increases. Okay. Double down what you're doing with the transportation. Get those projects done. Let's get the voters confidence back up to where we can start asking for more as we go forward. Thank you. Yeah, I same I would echo what we've already talked about and then also I know earlier just talking about maybe pulling together projects and breaking down silos where there's that's possible.

Thank you. I'm not going to be long-winded. I promise. Um, I'll try not to be, but um, I do I think that we're in an a challenging time and I can imagine a lot of folks in the city can feel that too where there's a lot of things that the city needs that have been um, not done or prioritized or funded for a very long time. Um, and unfortunately, you know, that's why a lot of things are getting done, you know, now. Um, so I'm very supportive of the things that city staff recommends. Um there's a lot of work that goes into master planning. There's a lot of community feedback. Um being a part of the parks and uh parks and wreck commission showed me what how much work goes into that master plan alone. Um so I really appreciate the priorities and and where costs are being allocated because I know they are backed with logic and and feedback from the community. Um but I do think that if there is there are projects that are currently unfunded. So whether it's like started or not I for me it's really is it is it have a fund a set funding source that has already been approved and allocated for so even if it hasn't started if it's funded it's funded. Um, I think that those should continue as they are and anything that is unfunded should go to election for voters to have a chance to give feedback on property tax increases. So, anything related to future CO debt that would not go to voters, but would have an impact on uh property taxes because it would increase the debt beyond what our property tax can currently handle. I would not recommend that we continue with those projects and instead um consider those within the

bond as props for folks to give feedback on. And I highly recommend that the 2026 bond program has u props for people to have choice on what they would like to approve and move forward with. Yeah, I'm in I actually am in agreement with that as well because I believe the city the the folks of the city should make the rules or at least have a input on it. So I do agree with that. Um I think we should finish the projects that we have on the table. Um, and I'm not sure about design like starting the ones that are in design. If they haven't been to uh an engineer and architect right now and they're lot allotted to go to an engineer or architect right now and in almost design phase, I don't think we should do those at all until we finish our current projects. And then I say from a developer standpoint, oh my gosh, if we don't start some of these projects, we're going to be late way behind. So um so I am in a quandry but I do understand and I I don't want my taxes to go up. It it's hard to live in this world. So I think everything should not everybody votes but it'd be nice for voters to understand that it's important to go and a prop is a proposition. So that be nice to go out and vote for a proposition and understand where your money is going instead of talking about it which I love Reddit talking about it on Reddit. Um, so, um, I'm all for halting, stopping at the moment and just doing the projects that we have at hand. So, and not increasing tax rate.

Okay. Just just to clarify because I I want to make sure you get the right direction. You had said that there I think there's a difference between not increasing the tax rate and not taking on any debt whatsoever. Yes. It sounded like there is some delta where for projects that you've already got approved or a funding source you can you could take on additional debt but it will not raise taxes. Yes. Is that correct? Yes. Okay. And so I think are Yes. We're okay with that. Yeah. Yeah. just not extra debt, not more debt. And we need to finish the we need to finish the projects we have.

I mean, that's just we have so much money left over from 2020 that we haven't used. So, um, yeah, that's where I'm at. When we take this to council, to what level of granular detail is it plan just like this or Yes, they they're getting this Well, not this book. They're getting You're right. The next version. Yes. They basically have the same information we have in terms of uh hopefully they got more time to look at it and digest

it. Yeah. And and previously last year, you know, we essentially sit in the front and we're like they open it up for us to say, "Hey, what are like we we summarize our feedback. What are some of the things that we thought? What are some of the things that we considered?" Um and then after that they they start the presentation and then they're able to give feedback at the you know. So, we're if you come, you're even able if we wanted to go down the line and they could give direct feedback related to to what your specific thoughts were. Okay. At the city council meeting,

do you want um I'm sorry. Do you want our feedback before it gets to council or I mean, you have it now, but I mean, do you want it in writing or anything? I believe that we typically do have a letter that is coming from Well,

good evening. I don't think I've met all of you. Emily Barone, assistant city manager. Um, what we would ask is a recommendation from the planning and zoning commission. So, overall, what would you say as a whole um to to the city council? You can certainly during that why it's posted as a joint meeting is to have conversation between you all and city council is really beneficial. And I think hearing you all tonight has been helpful.

So, while sitting in the audience, I took a note and I'll throw it out there for you because I think this is what I heard overall. Please feel free to adjust it because I know it's a really challenging um topic. There's a lot into it. Matt, Jeff, Shane, our entire CIP team has put a lot of effort into it and we've been going through a lot of pieces and apologize for all of the transitions. And so I think what I heard from you all as a recommendation would be to recommend approval of the CIP with a focus on completing current projects while not issuing additional debt unless the project is already underway to the gap that Matt talked about or considered through a 2026 bond program.

High level kind of encompasses it. You can get into the details with council as you see, but overall as a CIP as a whole, that's what I heard listening to you all this evening. So, should we make a do we make a motion here tonight? Okay. Yeah. Can Can you make the motion? I'm just kidding. Wait, give me your phone and I'll make the motion with your phone. Yeah. Um before we adjourn and before we accept a motion, I do want to say because I I if library and pause is listening, we were not picking on you. You just happened to be the ones that were right there. So yeah.

Yeah, I agree. Well, and I and I just want to note too, sorry. um like related to library expansion, justice center expansion, pause expansion. It's a lot of expansion and and it's to the point that I I was trying to be articulate about but it's late and I'm very pregnant as well. My brain is floating away. Um but yeah, you know, we're um we recognize that there are expansions because there hasn't been these projects have not been prioritized in the in the past. So, um, yeah, we we're not questioning at all the need or the value. Um, correct, correct. Mostly I was trying to say the library is very valued and pause is very valued, but those are two of I like

and you can show your your value and your thoughts on the value by being a voter. Yes, exactly. And I vote all the time. Okay. Okay. So, um, yes. So, I'd like to make a motion on on the interpretation of our uh request to the council first. Um, so I'll make a motion. I'm going to try to repeat that.

Yes. um that we uh I make a motion to approve the CIP um with a focus on and a consideration of focusing on the um projects that are already underway, currently funded um and not adding any new debt to projects that are not started that would increase property tax rate and um anything that would to be included in the 2026 bond. Are we approving the CIP or we're recommendation? Okay. Yeah. Second. All in favor?

I I All the post any posted? No. Okay. Um, so yeah, the motion passes and I adjourn the meeting at 8:42 p.m. I just say Matt, good job, by the way. I know you did a lot.