City Council - Regular Meeting

call this regular meeting of the San Marcos City Council to order. Today is still Tuesday, September 1st of 2026. The time is 612. Apologies for the delay. Ms. Trevino, would you please call the roll?

Alrighty. This evening, our invocation is being given by a father, Christian Holly of St. Mark's Episcopal church. The floor is yours.

Thank you. Next on our agenda is pledges of allegiance to the United States and Texas. 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 We will now do our citizen comment. City Council will hear citizens' comments. at regular meetings, work sessions, and workshops. There is a process to sign up. If you are online, when it's almost your turn, there's gonna be a pop-up question on your screen and you must respond to that in order to speak and turn on your video when it's your turn to talk. Spe

Our next speaker is Henry Hoganson. Is Henry Hoganson here? Sam Young.

Circling back, did Ashley Wilson get here? Ashley Wilson was signed up to speak. Henry Hoganson? Okay, that concludes our citizen comment time period, and we are now to presentations. Item one.

Yes, ma'am. I have a few. When you say resident write-off, define resident for me, please, as gonna be defined here.

Okay, let me ask it differently. Are we saying it has to be a City of San Marcos corporate city limits resident? Yes, ma'am, and less. Not just a San Marcos address, because many, many people don't know if they live inside the corporate city limits or not. They know they have a San Marcos address.

And that's part of it. And then what about this agreement that we've got with shirts? We've got this agreement with them. So does that make them residents? And how much are they paying us?

So just because we have a contract, we're not gonna consider them residents? That is absolutely up to you, ma'am. Okay, and then my next question is, I'm just calling it travelers, because I don't think somebody who needs EMS services is scheduling that, they didn't plan to be in a car accident when they were traveling through San Marcos or whatever else might happen. So what are we talking about with travelers? Because if we're talking about a resident write-off, I'm trying to figure out who that is.

OK. So those are some of my questions. Apologies for not putting that on the message board so you had more of a notice. When do we define those?

Okay, another question is if something happens to me and I get a bill, what am I going to see on that bill?

So I won't see a bill until it's been run through whatever. All of your insurance, yes, ma'am. Because y'all are going to ask that. Hopefully I or someone can answer that question as to what insurance I have, et cetera.

So I'll see the gross bill. Yes, ma'am. I'll see whatever some agency has paid.

So that resident write-off is not going to be on the bill that I received? that's negotiable and a policy decision that we'll need to make. Okay, because I know some people, my dad, for example, is gonna pay what the bill says. And that would have been more than what would be required. But he wouldn't have asked. He would have said, you know, I use the service. This is what they tell me it's worth. And would have busted his butt to pay it. So that's what I'm concerned about is people who can have options that will pay part of that bill for them. How and when do they know that?

Okay. I'll see what others have to ask, but it sounds like there's still some stuff that we need to get figured out.

I just want to echo the mayor's questions and concerns about residency. I think I would like the write-off policy to reflect the city's broader approach to residency. We don't rely solely on driver's license, just understanding that there's barriers for some folks to get them. Some people don't even have driver's license. Yeah.

But it's not going to tell them, unless you know the address. Exactly. That's my concern, is any of those IDs would not. Did you have anything else?

No, I mean, I don't know if you're familiar with those conversations, but we've had them several times. Like when we were talking about what qualifies somebody to be like, or to proof of residency for like the, all the changes in like parks and stuff like that. Um, yeah, we've had those conversations at length.

But for the paid parking and for access to the parks, that wasn't costing us other than, I mean, we had to have people there anyway. In this particular case with EMS, that could well be costing us because what we're paying into the system is coming from our taxpayers' dollars. Correct. And those other folks are not paying into that system. So that's where I'm in a bit of a quandary as to how we're going to approach that.

Well, and Buda is an ESD, so there's funds coming from the emergency services district taxation. that goes into when you're an ESD. Okay.

No, that's a good question. I feel like that adds another layer of complexity for us to consider, especially because of the price part. But no, I was mostly just talking about multiple ways to verify residency.

Yeah, that's a whole nother valid issue to be concerned about.

Expand on the utility bill. There's a lot of people who have San Marcos utilities who are not in the city limits. So just having a utility bill can help prove and address it doesn't prove that you're in the corporate city limits.

I think somebody told me that it is on there, like it's out of city rate or something, so you could gain that information from there. But just because you've got a utility bill from San Marcos Utilities does not mean that you live in the corporate city limits.

You've got water. No, you don't. I don't either. Water, wastewater? Water? Only water, yeah.

But I guess like the, I mean, we have, there's ways for them to figure it out, right? Like regardless of what, I'm hoping that there'd be more than your driver's license for verification. But I mean, that GIS map is phenomenal where you just go and put somebody's address and it'll tell you. It's very helpful for like get out to vote and having people, because you're right, Mayor, a lot of people just don't know if they're actually part of our city limits or not.

Questions? And yeah, I think we had said probably yes to all of these. We just needed more info. And I'm not sure we're totally there yet. And then we've got the five questions from today in addition to. Ms. Rodriguez.

Yes, ma'am. We've touched on it quite a bit. And so I'm trying to understand for the sake of tonight, the purpose of tonight, one of the things that is listed on there is the approval of the resident write-off. And so... I think the definition of what defines a resident is very much germane, but I guess I'm trying to understand that should the council, its conversations are already going that way, want to address what that definition should fit, I'm guessing that we still have time. Help me understand what comes next.

So I have some comments on the rates, but I will, given that we're discussing residency right now, I guess, Chief, help me understand that scenario's happening currently. You have somebody may not have the acceptable form of ID, which I think you attested to as a driver's license.

Okay, so I'm thinking about a common scenario. Should council eventually decide the acceptable forms of ID Somebody could have an incident where they get taken to a hospital. And I guess, so they have time, from my understanding of what you just said, they have time afterwards to handle all this to find whatever acceptable ID. I don't have to have it on my person as well.

I just wanted, for the public watching, given the novelty of the issue, right, the municipally owned issue that's before us today, we're not denying care simply because somebody doesn't have the necessary document on their person. So thank you for the clarification. I guess so switching over to the fee schedule, I understand that we are to be approving the fee schedule as proposed. And so I was going sort of piece by piece and looking at the percentage increases from 2024 to now. And I do appreciate the column that gets into the difference via dollar amount. But when you look at the percentage

It's pay. Oh, there we go. Yeah, it's right under right comparison. Here we go.

Stuff is always different. Okay, so the BLS for the public. Let's see, what is that BLS disposable? What are we talking about? Because that and the oxygen, and I have heard the price of oxygen has increased substantially. But help me understand, because these two areas, you're looking at a 40% increase, if my math is correct, for the BLS, and then, I might be wrong. No, yes, 40% increase, and then a 37.5% increase in oxygen. I guess help me understand a little bit more about some of these rates. I wanna get comfortable with it. I've understood that doing so leads to better benefits, but just help me understand a little bit more.

I appreciate that. The lack of formality with all of the services, it is a bit intimidating, admittedly. So that helps. But you got at sort of the purpose for my question. So the explanation on bringing this up to market rate is beneficial for me. And you mentioned a 2% increase. And so when we talk about fee schedules, it's very routine for us to address fee schedules within a period of three years as to prevent shock. I guess I'm trying to understand the 2% increase. Is that a statutory cap? And that's established by the legislature, okay. And in terms of frequency of a potential increase, d

Perfect, because I just wasn't sure if a potential 2% increase was going to be proposed for the next fiscal year, given that there is not substantial data that I imagine would come from just a year of implementation.

And that's why I was concerned about people that are not City of San Marcos residents but they're here all the time. what can be done for them because they're not paying in, but then again, and that's somebody with that insurance. What do we do? So that was my concern there.

And I think to follow up, Mayor, I think it's a completely valid concern, and that's why I was sort of trying to understand process and procedure moving forward. At what point, you know, from the time, because I know we go live October 1, correct me if I'm wrong, From that time period, given that we have one meeting prior to that October one period, when we would revisit this to work through the definition of what a resident is, it sounds like to even potentially work through the geographic boundaries within that decision and then as well as acceptable forms of ID. So just trying to understand

Perfect, I appreciate that, because we've talked a lot about continuity of care, and most of that conversation has really been around the actual care that's performed by our EMSP personnel, right? But continuity of care also includes billing. And so given that we're going to be talking about potential considerations for people who may not be able to afford it, I guess my concern was mainly without some sort of check-in, these people being sort of the test cases and things not going the way we had anticipated in terms of being able to get access to those benefits. And so, yeah, six months for m

Okay, so for the item that I pulled from somewhere, direct staff to return to council after sufficient operating experience is available. We're setting that proposed at six months. Yes, ma'am.

We're saying yes. Yes to we'll check in and yes to the recommended six months, which is really, that was two questions.

And for the purpose of intent, mayor, just to, I really appreciated the financial viability discussion because not only are we considering financial viability for the purpose of general fund and city operations, but also for our residents and whether the rates are financially viable for them too. And so I appreciate the two prong approach.

Okay. So are we back to the other list? Yeah, that's okay. That's not the list that I've got, but we'll make, well, I'll just, um, so, um, council, where are we on adopting the EMS fee schedule as it was proposed? Mr. Scott says he's good with it. I'm going to go with it because I can't propose anything different. I don't know. I'm going to have to trust you guys to this is what you do. Mr. Gonzalez? Okay, I see here, yes, yes. Ms. Garza, you said yes?

Ms. Rodriguez? Yes, tentatively. I didn't know if Mr. Aguirre had something relevant to add to.

But the second reading is after October 1. Don't you need a fee schedule the day that you begin operating? Yes.

Down here at the bottom, it says include the approved EMS rights in the city's annual fee ordinance.

We need to get this done. I don't know when the routine fee schedule, uh, September 15th renewal. So we'd be seeing that anyway. Okay. Good to know.

Is the fee schedule a resolution or an ordinance? Cause if it's a resolution, that's one reading. Correct.

Yeah, we've got some things that, yeah, have fallen off the table. One that we didn't update for 20 years because it went in fee schedule, so... Actually, I can think of two that we've discovered this year.

Okay, so we've given direction that we're good with the EMS fee schedule. The next item I see is approve the resident write-off and financial assistance framework. That's what you talked about this evening?

Okay. So we will see that when we do this. So council, are y'all good with this, the city resident write-off?

Yes, only question would be, I know the last time we had this discussion, there were a multitude of options presented, some ranging from incredible write-offs to some not. Which one did we, because I'm personally for the most we can do. in terms of, am I misremembering that first one?

Okay. And let me just say, I have made a big deal out about this city resident. We're going to pick up whoever needs to be picked up and taken where they need to be taken. I just want to get that, lay that out there so nobody's going to go out there and say, she's only saying that we're going to, Do city residents know? I'm worried about payment and how we're getting the payment.

Well, we're going to have to decide that pretty darn quick.

Ms. Rodriguez, were you good with the resident write-off? Oh, yes, ma'am. Ms. Garza?

Yes, as long as you like to talk about the whole.

Maybe extending. Mr. Gonzalez, you good?

Okay. So the TASPN charity, y'all are good with that. We've already agreed that we want y'all to monitor. I've got monitor and report on my notes, which is actually that one and the next one, numbers would have been good. And we've already talked about the EMS rates, getting that in the annual fee schedule, which we will kick off at the beginning. So everybody's good with all of this? Because when we talked about this last time, we said we're good with all of this, we want to see the details.

If that would be a... You talked about resident rate.

Would that apply to all city employees across the board or would that have to be in meeting confer with?

Yeah. I thought we were yes on that. Cause why not? So are we good with that? Employees get resident rates.

That's aligned with, I think you had mentioned in the message board another city does that, or wasn't there something that touched on?

Thank you, Chief. Okay. So are we all good with all of this? We've talked about whatever finer tuning that we need, and we will see this again with the numbers, more numbers ready to roll. I feel like we are clear.

Well, let's go back. What is our territory? Is this territory outside the corporate city limits? If somebody calls and needs EMS out on Lime Kill Road, who's going? Yes, C9.

Okay. So we really do have the geofence because this is just for us and people who live outside of the corporate city limits but may still have San Marcos address. Someone else is going to take care of them. So it becomes less of a question.

if they have a heart attack at HEB because they don't have an HEB out there, then it will be us taking care of them.

Yeah, we might pick them up here. We just won't be picking up at their house.

And mayor, that's, that's why I was sort of, that's where I was. That's why I was going down that road. That's why I was sort of trying to get at what happened subsequent to this. I understand the six month for the purpose of a more cumulative review of what, what happened within that time period. But I feel that without a discussion prior to October one or immediately following. that question is still very much up in the air. Um, and not something that has really, uh, that we have had time to fully understand what currently is done and to, to define. And so I, I feel like it's incumbent on, on us to be able to have these discussions either before or immediately after October one.

The deal is that if someone has a San Marcos address, we talk about this being general fund. General fund is made up of property tax and sales tax. Yes, ma'am. And of course, property tax is a way bigger number, but yet the people who live in the surrounding areas, they are contributing a bit to our general fund.

But if they're here, and then of course the people, what I call the travelers, that's a whole other... So we need some definition.

So this is gonna sound like I'm making a joke and I really don't mean to, but I feel like we've had this conversation before. So my two cents is if you get into the river for free, then you get the resident discount for EMS.

But the difference there is we're not, Yeah, that's not costing us money for them to get in the river.

I mean, it is costing us money and staff and everything else at the river.

Could I request, because I know we have quite a bit, could I request, though, that to the point Ms. Rosales just made, perhaps we go and inquire of a good starting place and then schedule some sort of subsequent discussion either on the 15th or the meeting prior to October 1?

The thing is, New Braunfels doesn't... No, I'm saying after.

I should have said after October 1. Okay.

But New Braunfels doesn't approach residency with the type of conversations that we've had historically here. And so I think that's the difference. And asking how they handled it in New Braunfels, I don't think that they've, they're in a different situation. Like we've, us and like the ISD, for example, like our conceptualization of who's a resident and what benefits they receive and how we treat them is a little non-traditional, I guess.

We're generous in that if the kiddos come to school here, if a lot of the folks in the surrounding areas in Redwood, for example, they work here and so on and so forth. I guess, do y'all keep data or would it be easily or readily available data on who often receives EMS services? Is it mostly outsiders? Is it mostly...

give their driver's license, just to kind of... Oh, honestly, I don't care what New Braunfels does. I think we should follow what we do, like how we've approached it. But I get it. Maybe they have a similar approach. Maybe they're a little bit more open. My question on historic data, I mean like on data historically, like does the...

Yeah, do they capture that type of data? Because we're over here like, oh, if it's going to impact a general fund, if we're opening it to our broader conceptualization of residency, but it's also like...

That would be cool, because I'm just curious now, are the majority of the folks that got EMS service in this area, like in our city, were they, what did you call them? Travelers? Were they from San Marcos? Were they...

Yes, but something that we did with the parks and the parking, or at least with the parks, is resident remained city of San Marcos resident and then we added these other folks in and remember Ms. Case came up with this lovely slogan of local area participant. Now maybe participant isn't quite right but I don't want to expand the definition of resident. What I want to do is say residents and these other people in this group that will be covered in some form or fashion. So I want to be real careful how we use city resident.

And that's a great point, Ms. Reyes. I think that in order to see what even would be the burden of the and others, it'd be helpful to look at if there's historic trends, right? Is that even a... Right. And maybe they just drive extra safe and they've never had to call 911. Right.

City residents. What's local area participants on the other? And then travelers who have no association with San Marcos. And if they're on 35, maybe they weren't even planning to come here. They're just passing through it.

Can I request something? Can I request whenever, I mean, I'll let council decide when the date is appropriate, but it sounds like we're going to need at least three things coming back. and we can see if there's anything else. So it sounds like New Braunfels policy, what all entails in that, what the data to Ms. Garza's point about what the current process is. And then I think also for Ms. Rosales and her team, probably some documents and this might be more so from city management on how council has historically approached the conversation and definition of residency as well as how they've appr

We're going to need an item on the regular agenda in order to adopt.

We can have the conversation during work session. Yes, ma'am. We've done that a couple of times when we were in a time crunch.

Yes. One quick clarification. It's not where their cause originated from. Correct. Yes. Like what they're.

residency yes yes because i think the whole question on potential philosophies and potential who comes here and impact it might not be as substantial as we think it is i hear you but perhaps the philosophy that council has had may not have an impact so it sounds like there also might be a need for even a preliminary rate impact based on some of the changes that may be proposed should council widen the definition of what a resident could be. I don't even know if that's possible, but I think that gives us enough or more to have a discussion and decision made.

maybe put them first because depending on what we do, somebody is going to have to write something up for us to formally adopt. Good point. Let's, let's, let's give folks a few minutes. Okay. Are we through with this one?

Thank you for keeping us on the timeline. Mayor. Yes, ma'am.

Okay. We are now to our consent agenda. The following ordinances, resolutions, and other items number two through 12 may be acted upon by one motion. A separate action and discussion can happen if items are pulled. To probably no one's surprise, I'm going to pull item three. Anything else, anyone want to pull anything else?

Item 10. Okay, hold on. 11 by Ms. Garza. You said number 10, Mr. Gonzalez? Yes, ma'am. Okay, so those will be pulled. I would like to have a motion on 2, 4 through 9, and 12. Second. Okay, I'll make that motion. We'll give Ms. Garza the second. Ms. Trevino, are we push button voting?

Yes, let me start it, Mayor. Ms. Trevino, can you show me as a no on six and seven, please? Okay.

Okay, so for those of you watching, our normal way of operating is that for the items that are pulled, we're gonna set those aside because we are going to move on to our public hearings. When our public hearings are over, we will go back to those. Council? We've been here almost an hour and a half. Would we like to take a break before we start our public hearings? All right, we will take a break starting at 7.35. If you can be back at 7.45, it'd be great. We have returned from our break at 7.46. We are now to item 12, I'm sorry, 13. Ms. Trevino, would you read item 13, please?

Does this end your presentation? Yes, ma'am. Okay, then I'll start the public hearing. Okay. I will open the public hearing and ask if anyone wishes to speak far against or about this item. Now would be the time. Mr. Vigneault, did we have anybody signed up? No, okay. Anybody? Far against or about item 13, going once, twice. Second. Close the public hearing. Thank you. Ms. Rodriguez, did the second come from Mr. Gonzalez?

All right. We'll give you credit for that one. We had a good conversation about this last time. This is second reading. Does anybody have any questions this time? If not, we will vote, Mr. Pena. Thank you, Ms. Rodriguez. And thanks to the tourist board and the Main Street board.

This agenda item is the first public hearing on the budget for the city's fiscal year beginning October 1 of 2026 and ending on September 30th of 2027. There will be a second public hearing on September 15th, 2026 at the meeting beginning at 6 p.m. at the San Marcos City Hall 630 East Hopkins Street, San Marcos, Texas. The public is invited to attend the public hearing and make comments for or against items in the budget. The proposed budget has been on file in the city clerk's office and on the city's website since August 12th of 2026. Notice of this public hearing was published in the San Ma

Whoever's in the back room, if you could advance the slides manually for us.

The 5%, I know it applies to the police department. Is it including the 4.5 for fire? Or are we saying 5%? Altogether?

Yeah, and I think in the past we've asked whenever you put that percentage of you could put the actual dollar amount. Yeah, but all the slides. I think they've been able to put an estimate, yeah.

Okay. And in that case, I will open the public hearing and we didn't have anybody sign up in advance, but if there's someone here who would like to speak far against or about this item now would be the time. Going once, twice, three times.

I will close the public hearing. And I will give Ms. Rodriguez a motion and Mr. Mendoza the second. Council, this is not the first time that we have heard this. And so... No questions. Are we ready?

Thank you to everyone, including all the city staff. We're waiting to vote. Yeah, we're ready to go. Thanks to all, because I know there's some hard decisions and there's going to be things that won't happen.

All right. Now on to item 15, Ms. Trevino.

To comply with the law, I will need to read this following text now. The City Council will consider a vote on approval of the tax rate by ordinance on first reading tonight. On September 15th of 2026 at the 6 p.m. meeting at the San Marcos City Hall, 630 East Hopkins Street, San Marcos, Texas, the City Council will consider a final vote on approval of the tax rate by ordinance on second reading. Mr. Locke.

and I will open the public hearing. Public hearing is now open. On item 15, setting the tax rate, anybody wishing to speak for, against, or about this item, now's the time to step to the podium. Going once, twice, three times, I will close the public hearing. And I have a motion from Ms. Rodriguez, looking for a second.

If I can mention real quick, Mr. Rodriguez, if I can make a motion with an amendment, see if you might jump on board with this.

No, we're just going to have a motion in a second and then we can talk about amendments. Okay. I'll second it to make, get this on the table. Okay.

And now Mr. Mendoza, I want to put my head on the chopping block here. Um, given all the restraints we've been seeing, um, the fact is we're not making it. We were lucky enough to have the city. and an amazing staff really pulled off to even us out. But I'm willing to go ahead and, um, make an amendment to make this a 67 cent adjustment instead of the 65. Was that a possibility?

I don't think we can't do that because we set the maximum.

No, no, we just, the previous item was setting the maximum.

No, we set the maximum last meeting. Yeah. You set the maximum tax rate at 65 15.

So I thought we were still able to make the adjustments.

No, we set the maximum rate. We could set it lower, but we cannot set it higher. We just adopted a budget based on the 65-15.

I thought I still had some time to make the adjustments.

Speaking of this, this is Council gave direction budget policy, maybe visioning. We did not want to have to raise the tax rate and staff has held to that. And that $4 million got cut down, so we're still at the same tax rate that we were last year. we're at the same tax rate and we're taking on EMS service. That's correct. And we're taking on EMS service and paying a couple of million dollars more than before. Um, we will have our vision workshop and well, we'll see when we adopt our calendar. Um, we'll do that in January. It's usually late January budget policy in February and, uh, council wi

You look like you're ready to say something. No, I'm just triggered. Um, I mean, I didn't hear the rationale, Mr. Mendoza, but for future discussions, I mean, in subsequent budget years, I think that's what I was trying to get at is there's been incredible sacrifices from our city. staff and the effect to operations is incredible. And so perhaps that philosophy that came from the motion you just made can carry on in the subsequent year. And thank you to staff, sorry to. Yes. Potentially trigger.

Yes. Yes. Again, thanks to all you, your staff, all city staff, everybody who's making do like many of us do. When our budget's tight at home, you make do with less. try to offer the same services. There's been a little bit less, but staff are doing their best so that our city residents don't see a lack of services that we're providing.

Um, this does, uh, require a vote of five council members, which is, um, one more than just our usual majority. Um, uh, like I said, we've been talking about this since January, February, so we've pretty much inspected and done everything that we can do. So are y'all ready to vote?

And Mayor, just because I don't feel some sense of security, Mr. Locke, you want to reiterate that should we not approve this with the required five, what happens?

Okay, so we've got tonight and we've got next time, so we're going to have to pass it twice. Okay, so are we ready? Mr. Vino has us set up to vote, so let's vote. Let's see where we go with this.

All right, so thank you, Mr. Locke. Item 16, Ms. Trevino.

Okay, then I will open the public hearing. I'm ending the rates for the electric utility. Anyone wishing to speak far against or about this item, now would be the time to step up to the podium. This is on electric rates. It's going once, twice, three times. I will close public hearing and entertain a motion.

Is there a second? I'll second it. Mr. Geary, it says what we'd like to bring back, but at this point, this is something important enough. I'm asking for a formal motion on this. Is that okay? Yes, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Any thoughts on this? And just to be clear, the motion was for the 1.3. Thank you. We saw in the CIP presentation at the work session the value of what these increases are, and Mr. Locke covered the detriment if we don't do the 1.3 and trying to keep up for the bond rating, et cetera.

Right, and you know Mayor, the last time we had this discussion I obviously expressed some hesitancy and wanting some more information on what the potential impacts would be should we decide something lower. And obviously the intent is always to take care of the taxpayer and to prevent these overly burdensome rates. And so I appreciate staff really helping me understand that despite those intentions being pure, reducing the rates, we're going to find it somewhere. And if that means that our debt and the cost of it increases, that also equally affects the taxpayer. And so I appreciate the discu

Okay. Council, I was glad to see the combined slide that it's less than $8 a month. everything if we pass the recommended rates. Yes, ma'am. So council, questions, concerns, thoughts? We have heard this presentation before. We've had conversation before. So we can vote.

Okay, and we are now on to item 17, Ms. Trevino.

I'll open the public hearing on the water, on the rates for water, wholesale water, reclaimed water, and wastewater treatment. If you wish to speak far against or about this item now would be the time going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing and I'm looking for a motion.

Motion by Mr. Mendoza, seconded by Ms. Rodriguez. Thank y'all. Any questions? We've seen this presentation before, we've talked about it. Ms. Trevino, we're ready to vote.

So we shall vote again with everyone present, or everyone who's possible to be present tonight voting.

I'm glad you were listening. On the same results as the previous. And it failed.

So that means that the rates will remain the same.

We don't have... We still don't have everyone here.

So, I mean, it failed. I mean, it didn't pass.

I was going to say, if it doesn't pass on first reading, it doesn't get to second.

I guess... I really don't want to do this, but... Yeah, I mean, if this is just the first reading... No, it's not.

If it doesn't pass now, it doesn't get to second.

Right, well, what I'm saying, like... I guess I can change my vote, I don't know.

Second. Just so we can get it to next week?

Yeah, I think I have a little bit more questions that I didn't get to talk to some folks until like 1 p.m. today, and I'm still sitting on some questions, but we'll continue the conversation. I just, I don't have an alternative, right? And so I can't, yeah. Not really.

It's not overwhelming either way. If the alternative that I was going to propose is that I'll make a motion to keep it the same and then that will get it passed first reading

Well, she has said she will change. Is Mr. Peselk able to join us?

He is, but that's depending on if we need to or not have him here.

Yeah, but I mean, even if I change y'all, y'all still prevailed. Y'all still have the no's, right?

Well, it would be the prevailing side, which would be the no's. And I'm on the providence. Cause it didn't pass.

Can I make a point of inquiry? Sure. Ms. Garza was your, was that a formal motion that I just seconded or was that not?

I was just, I'm trying to like figure out what's possible.

I just, I totally forgot about Josh not being here and I, I don't want to like kill something if he doesn't have the opportunity to contribute to the conversation, but I just don't know with everything he's had going on. I don't know if he has the capacity to.

Well, then he hasn't gotten on yet. If you're comfortable with that, that would, that would cut him a break.

The reason I was asking if it was a form of motion, because if, if it is, and the discussion is in fact open, uh, perhaps staff can have the time, uh, should counsel at least provide, you know, the vote sufficient. staff can have the time to potentially give additional scenarios versus an all-out denial so that members can really understand a more comprehensive understanding of potential impacts.

I thought that made a really good case. I did as well, but I don't.

And this is the one where we have the good bond rating. And we don't want to lose that, at least I don't.

Is there a micro? I can't. Sorry, I can't hear you.

Is it on? Matt, would you swing yours around for him, please?

So I get the argument about the bond rating, but fundamentally, I think when you're broke, the answer isn't to go borrow more money. So I'm not entirely concerned about our bond rating.

Remember, this is water wastewater. This isn't the general fund where we were broke.

All right. He's on Mr. We will entertain any questions you may have at this time, sir.

Well, I mean, I don't think anybody's like briefed him. Okay. Do I, what are the steps to that?

Do you want a motion to reconsider? I can motion to reconsider. She can do that. Okay. So, um, Ms. Garza has made a motion to reconsider. I'm looking for a second. Motion to reconsider made by Ms. Garza who did vote on the prevailing side. Seconded by Ms. Rodriguez voting on the prevailing side. It's not required for the second. And so I believe that is a, we need to go ahead and vote.

Yes, yes, this is, yes. Oops, we got to wait for the blanking.

We have all voted. This is just so that we can reconsider it so we could loop you into the convo, Josh.

So now we're back on the table with item 17.

I bet he read his packet over the weekend.

I don't need it. I know I stand on this. I've met with... Many constituents on this topic, but I am ready to vote on those three options.

Did you have any questions? Mr. Do you want to know what led to the or what was the result of the last vote or any rationale or anything like that? Are you good?

No, I've been keeping up with this. This was one of the singular items I was most interested in this week before I had what happened today. But I'm ready to talk in around it if anybody wants to talk with me about it. But I know where I stand on these rates.

Mr. Aguita, I'd be fine with a brief recess. And potentially there, I guess the reason I'm asking is there could be potential votes to just get this thing over with today.

I think we're ready, to be honest with you, Amanda.

Yeah, I'm trying not to take any more of Mr. Pesel's.

That's fine. That was one of my concerns, yes, ma'am.

I just wasn't aware. I know he said he's been briefed. I just wasn't clear on whether or not he saw the previous voting results.

I did see the previous voting results, and I am up to speed.

Okay. Do you want to recess, Mr. Peselt?

I'm fine. Thank you for offering. I appreciate that.

Okay. So we are back to voting on what we were voting on the first time, which does have these rate increases right here. Just so everybody's clear, we're voting on the staff recommendations.

Mayor, do we need to do a motion for approval since we came back for reconsideration?

Thank you. I was thinking we had it, but that was the reconsideration. Thank you. Okay.

Yeah, I am going to be approaching staff with some more questions, and I'll try to... not derail things too much for the next one. I know like we have our timeline and all the moves that we make right now impact what is even going to be presented to us and all of that. Um, do you have some hesitation, some concerns, the comment or the presentations from earlier? I feel like address a lot of the things that I wanted to know from last time. also being able to explain to some constituents why some projects take longer than others or why they feel like, you know, why should they pay more for somet

Another reason for us to vote again now. So anybody else got something they got to get off their chest, got to say, not say, we'll vote. No, hold on. We have our votes in, and once we have all of our votes in, then he can give his vote, and then we're good. So still, nobody knows what anybody's doing before they have to vote.

But we've got it going to the next one and that gives people, if they need more time, they're gonna get more time. So thank you all.

Mayor, if I may. Yes, sir. I think there's plenty more conversation to be had on this. This is not without my own concerns, you know, It's going to impact a lot of people in a lot of ways. So I respect every single council person up there and I look forward to having more conversation on this.

Yeah, ditto. I really wish some of our neighbors would feel comfortable coming and kind of sharing their perspective so that it's not just me trying to be that vessel and voice. But I guess that's something we can work on if there's some folks who have very specific concerns to have them come out. Or maybe even email. This is just like for the public. A lot of folks, when they have really compelling questions or questions or concerns, even them shooting an email or picking up the phone and calling city staff, I think historically staff has been super receptive to breaking down rationale, provi

Okay, so I believe we have concluded item 17. Ms. Trevino, preface to talk about item 18.

Mr. Locke, we'd love to hear a presentation on this one.

Okay, then I will open another public hearing on the stormwater rate adjustment and ask anybody who wishes to speak far against or about, now would be the time to step forward and state your thoughts. far against or about on stormwater rates, going once, twice, three times. I will close the public hearing, but before I ask for a motion, Mr. Locke or Mr. Aguirre, which rate of those five scenarios is in this ordinance?

And the budget, but what is the item that we're voting on? Because somewhere I saw that it was the 86 cents. The next slide. Yeah. Yeah. This one, the next right there. Yeah. The 86 is that scenario five scenario five.

Okay, my question remains, on this item, which number, which scenario is it? Because if they weren't asking for a rate increase, we wouldn't have anything in front of us. To vote on, right?

Because I think that would be the starting point for a motion, and then you could- But what is in here right now in front of us if we don't make an amendment? I don't think there's- Zero. It stays the same. Right. Okay. And what is the recommended rate? Because I'm thinking it's scenario five, because that's what's in the, not this one, but the other one, the summary of all the utility, that one right there. But you said that the budget is built on no increase.

OK. But we haven't had an increase in three years. And you all will recall that I said this is one of the rates that our community understands. This is to take care of stormwater issues, hopefully prevent some flooding in certain areas of our town. And so I think most of us, according to my sheet, said, yeah, we would look at an increase. when we discussed it before. Of course, we all said we'd do an increase in water and electric also at the last meeting. So, council, I'm going to ask, six of us said we would consider an increase. So where do we want to do this? Because if we go back to the p

Can, so can you explain like for the viewers at home, when I show them things like this, the pushback I usually get is 86 cents. Like the, like, where are you getting that? Because why are our bills higher compared when they, when they see that little chart where it says like how much you paid last year and whatever. And it's difficult for me to explain it to them. I honestly, they just don't buy what the chart is saying. Does that make sense? So like, help me.

It's a flat fee. Actually, there's three rates. This is the middle one, but it's, it's not a, it's not based on consumption like electrical water is.

I have a question. Um, so I understand that we're talking about a residential rate payers. But remind me, Mr. Locke, when it comes to the stormwater fee, is this the one that also goes on the basis for commercial based on impervious cover? And so the 86 cents that we're talking about is not necessarily what would reflect for a commercial property, correct? Correct. It's going to be a lot more. So I guess, should council decide to entertain this enough to move it to a second reading vote, are we going to get similar to the way we had for electric and water, some comparisons in terms of impact on potential commercial changes?

That would be very helpful. We need to know how that effect is on the business community, because it's a lot higher. And what the increase is. you know, what it is now and then what that increase would be. Okay.

Oh, there we go. Somebody found it. Okay.

Commercial. But it's the, you've got to look at, this gets multiplied out by the amount of their impervious cover. And when we've talked about this in the past, what staff has done is they have taken a business that, Everybody knows Lowe's. You've got the building, and you've got the parking lot. What that turns into, and then something that's like a small restaurant. Right. That's a standalone, not part of a shopping center or something. And so staff have taken maybe three, maybe five examples that we can kind of look at and kind of get it in our brain what that actually is. Because this is t

Thank you. So if we could have that. if we can get this past and onto next reading, that would be very helpful to have. Okay.

So I guess second question mayor would be, is this similar to the way, um, the tax rate is handled where we sort of set a maximum and have the flexibility to go down on second reading or is this, we could, we could pick a figure now and it changes, it can change the following meeting.

That's why we have the flexibility. Right. OK, so right now, I don't think that we even have a motion, because I wanted people to know what their motion was going to be. And I think at this point, what we would want I did the public hearing, right? Yes.

I'm comfortable making a motion, Mayor. Oh, okay. If it's the appropriate time. Sure. So given that we've been talking about the utility, the second, the slide after this, if we could pull it up, given that we've sort of been looking at this calculation on the basis of the point, the 86 cents, um, I will make the motion at least for the purpose of this meeting. And we can talk about what that looks like, you know, subsequently, um, to adopt the 5.8% increase. And just for the public watching again, it's not to say that if there are further conversations with other rates that I'm not flexible with this, but just to see where it goes.

The motion was for scenario five. So this is that same 86 cents that we found in the utility bill comparison.

Go to the next slide, please. Yeah, and that's where we end up. Even with this 86 cents, we're still less than $8 a month.

Okay, I guess I understand that with the... what you just showed as where it's like that flat. For stormwater, it's that flat 86, I guess, right? But what is the, I guess, I'm just like trying to better understand some of the concerns of neighbors when they talk about, how this chart makes it seem like it's not that big of an increase, but they're gonna feel the increase because they don't fall within the average consumption. Because they have more kids or whatever, I don't know. Yeah, my electric rate anywhere near this.

Yes, I did. Thank you for keeping me straight, but I did second it.

Yeah. Because I hear a lot from folks who have large families or because, I mean, and I've talked about this before since 2020, there are still people who they never were able to recover post the flooding events or post one big post-COVID event. uh, disaster type of thing where they lost their job or, you know, their, the job that they worked like Walmart, you know, they, they stopped being 24 hours or whatever. And they, there's like, um, multi-generational or multifamilies, like not multifamilies in the sense of multiple, like several families living under one roof. And those are the folks t

On that, Mr. Locke, I think she brings up a good point. So I understand that the 86 cents is flat, not comparing the other rates that may fluctuate. So to her point, for subsequent discussions that we have, I get that this is the average, but is there a way to calculate for the fluctuation of how this may look for different people for the other rates that aren't a flat rate? Is that within our capabilities? Because she brings a good point.

I don't even know because it's like the people I think most impacted or the ones that have a lot of strong feelings and emotion about it are the ones who have higher consumption, but how do we even, even if you got like an average or whatever, like how do we know what their particular situation is? You know, I don't know.

I think we looked at, we were trying to find that, and I was thinking we looked at averages for neighborhoods.

Oh, oh, okay. Like geographic location, like can you isolate that? Yeah.

Councilwoman Rodriguez brought up a good point when we talk about aging infrastructure. That's why I have historically kind of pushed back or tried to voice concerns when there's like proposed increases on this because we had a lot of things in limbo for example we have some um overarching questions or we're just trying to clean up like what all our utility assistance program like our local like the one from the city and i know we we worked through that like we found out what where the um issues and barriers were there. And then we also have funded more utility assistance and we had some barri

Yeah, it would also be good if we had not just the R2 because the others aren't on here. And so we need that because some of the folks you're talking about may be at that lower, which is $0.57 additional. I don't know what it would be, but it would be good if we saw. All three of them. A holistic picture.

Yeah, but is it is that possible like the geographic location or neighborhood? Sorry, I like went on a tangent but when councilman councilwoman Rodriguez named the aging infrastructure one of the other things that we that I was like really pushing for was Kind of cleaning up or reducing barriers or even y'all staff brought in other programs to help people with their home rehabilitation so again like naming that Asian infrastructure is an issue, but the city has tried to Even address that and I appreciate that but it would be interesting to see it if geographically if the neighborhoods like you

That's how we were trying to get to the numbers that you're talking about. We did that once before. I don't know how, but yeah, it's not possible. And it may, maybe it wasn't everything, but maybe two or three main streets, maybe not the cross streets or whatever, but anyway. and different parts of town.

Yeah. Cause I know we, we might not be able to like solve this immediately or even this cycle or whatever. But what I have seen at least since I've been on since 2020 is we, we start a conversation and, So far the council has been, we just add on to that conversation and try to unpack it until we reach a better understanding Just like better options, does that make sense? So I'm not saying that that's gonna bring us any closure, but I think it's important to at least try to unpack that.

Actually, in exhibit A, we've got the small residential, typical, and large. So we're talking about the 1490, the R2. The smaller lot is $9.14. No, I'm sorry, it used to be. nine 67, but still it's like five bucks less. This is for the stormwater. So this is the attachment a, and I'm not even sure what this says that if we don't say something different, what we're even passing on this one, it has October one, 2025 yet rate October one, 2026, right? But there's a range.

But you can't pass the range for a rate.

We needed a little blank line here like we have sometimes so we could plug in those numbers. So at this point, I don't even know if we were to pass this right now, what we're passing. But you said to go with the 5.8. So that would affect this exhibit A, Mr. Aguirre? Okay.

And like I said, Mayor, it's not to say that the council wouldn't change their mind. They can change it next time. Right.

Okay. So... Okay. Anybody else, question, comment, concern?

So I just want to point out that I wish that we would have just had the gumption to increase the tax rate, because essentially that's what we're doing. We're robbing Peter to pay Paul, but we're robbing our more economically disadvantaged Peters to pay the collective, Paul, because, and I forgot what the dollar amount was monthly, $7 and something cents, that comes out to $94.92 a year on a typical household. Now, if that typical household has a taxable value of $150,000, that would be the equivalent of a 6.3 to 8% tax increase. But if that typical household has a taxable value of $400,000, it

But everybody in an apartment pays electric and water waste water. This isn't all single family homes.

And everybody in an apartment lives in an apartment owned by a landowner that will pass or... then they will pass the fees on to the residents. So whether they're paying it directly or not.

I just don't think you can look at property tax and utility rates I mean, that's apples and elephants.

I think, Mayor, this is where I sort of get frustrated because I have been saying this from the very beginning. And we are all now, everybody on this die is privy to the way the budget process works. And when you say that you don't want to raise taxes under the guise of saving taxpayer money, there are consequences to passing that dime over and over and over again. And that is why we were having the discussions that we're having. And so Mr. Gonzalez, I share the sentiment, just as I mentioned to Mr. Mendoza, but we were all afforded the opportunity to do that way earlier than now. And no one m

But also I voted to not raise the tax rate and I have consistently voted to not raise any of these utility rates either. So I've been consistent. And that's, that's my point is I'm saying if y'all want to raise rates or tax, if y'all want more money, y'all should just have the balls to raise the tax rate is what I'm saying.

But the, Property tax rate doesn't go into the utility funds. Those are run as separate businesses.

And what's funny is you're the one who raised the tax rate, so I commend you on that. I apologize for using the term balls, but yes, at least you had the gumption to actually... put your head out on the edge.

And what I want to know is why we didn't have this discussion months ago.

And that's all I'm saying. I want to have empathy. Arguably, the hardest thing we do as elected officials is address the budget and address rates. That is the hardest thing. And I don't think any of us approach this as if it's easy. The scenarios that Ms. Garza is talking about, I have lived, my mother lived. These are not easy decisions. But inaction has consequences. And so that's all I'm trying to say is we are so late in the game. And when it comes to budget, we, we tend to have these conversations so late in the game about, oh, well, what if this, and what if that we it's the same process

I mean, there is a way to raise our maximum tax rate. It would just kick the can down the road one more meeting. But either way, I don't want to raise taxes, the tax rate either.

I'm not convinced that an increase in the tax rate is a solution either. No, it's not. I mean, it could kind of, but.

Yeah, we had discussion. on June 25th at our special meeting. We had this whole thing, and most of you are going, yes, I'm good with increasing it. I'm good with increasing it, including the two of you who are now voting against it. So let me just say, next time. I have always expressed my concerns on the increases

And help me understand so that I can explain it to my neighbors. Does that make sense? But I understand we're making strides in so many other fronts to be considerate of those scenarios that I brought up. I just felt compelled to name those scenarios again, because those were the latest conversations that I've had earlier today. Yeah, I'm just trying to figure it out like everybody else.

Right. And Mr. Scott has something he wants to say. I was simply making the point that we've had other opportunities to discuss this And all this depth of discussion, I just wish we had done sooner when I ran around the table and most of you had said, yep, I'm good, I'm good. Some of you said, I want to look at it a little further. That's fine. But I wish all this had done, this discussion had been done before. It's just gone.

This basically comes down to our final vote, though. Our second, almost a final vote. Almost. we don't, you know, you get pigeonholed and told, you know, we should do this, we should do this. And the staff can't find any able ways to bring the prices down or any workarounds. So this is our only time that we can say no.

Right. But I mean, some of us move at the rate of the conversations we have with our neighbors and For better or worse, that's just the reality of the situation. I tried to explain my understanding of this. I mean, I got, when we get the presentation, like what, Thursday, Friday, I mean, I just have like a weekend to try to go and, one, understand it myself, and then two, have like digestible information to talk to the layperson. So I think it's important to name that, like it is a, Hefty charge.

I was getting ready to ask for something, but I think it's maybe on here because I was doing the 10 million because it was 1.2. Is this future one-time capital project amount? Is that where, if we go with scenario five, we would have $24 million to do storm. We could fund a $24 million bond.

Yeah, just yes. But that's $24 million worth of stormwater projects that we could do that's going to address flooding. Am I correct, Mr. Battalion?

Yes. This addresses flooding? OK. OK. So let's go ahead. Let's vote on this one. And let's see where we need to go.

Anybody have anything else? I guess you're still going to give us all the information that I asked, but not just on stormwater on the whole bill.

We'll have that for second reading, and then we'll figure it out then. That will be the final time.

This is stormwater, but it's at the 86 cents for the middle of the road, the middle fee schedule. Yes, ma'am. Yes, thank you. It's always good to know right before you vote which way you're going. Let's see, Mr. Mendoza, if you will choose, and then we'll ask Mr. Peselk for his vote.

Okay. Council, we've still got a public hearing to go. Then we've got to go back to the items that we pulled. Fortunately, non-consent's pretty short. So we're going to take a five-minute break. It is 935. Try to be back by 940, 942, 43. I think we're on item 19. Yes. All right.

Okay, I will now open the public hearing. This is item 39, municipal solid waste programs. You saw this is garbage pickup, hazardous waste, et cetera. And so, anyone wishing to speak for, against, or about item 19, now would be the time. Item 19, going once, twice, three times. Motion to approve 1%. Closed. Motion by Ms. Rodriguez. Is that the amount that's on the list? I believe that's the staff recommended. Recommended amount of $0.31.

OK. Thank you, Mr. Peselk. Mr. Gary, this is what's in the packet, correct? And the resolution that we're expected to vote on? Okay, thank you. Conversation on this one. Anybody? And this is a flat fee?

Right, okay. You know what would be really good on this utility bill comparison is if there was something to flag flat fee and things that are based on usage. You can kind of get it over here from typical rate payer, but I think it's really good to know what's a flat rate and what isn't. So... This is one that this is the smallest rate increase that has been proposed to us. So, anybody else? Conversation? Yes, no? It's 31 cents. That's what I read it to be, so if it isn't somebody tell me now, and I'm looking at the basic single-family residential. Okay. Mr. Vigneault, those of us with push bu

Okay, and that concludes our public hearings. And we are now back to the items that were pulled from the consent agenda, which are three, 10, and 11. And we will start with item three, Ms. Trevino.

Okay. Thank you. I will second it. And Mr. Reynosa.

Okay. This is a conversation that Mr. Pentali and I have had a couple of times because I was still trying to get my head wrapped around all the finer points, is exactly when does this affect a builder? As in, the date is set by the recorded plat, but I don't think that people record a plat one day and start getting meters. I mean, maybe they do, but there's a lot of work to be done. There's site work, there's all those kinds of things. So if you could let us know a little bit about how the process actually works.

And we've got people doing large subdivisions and we've got people doing infill, two or three, four lots like Mr. Shaw. I'm sure you recall when he came in and fortunately his plat, everything was completed. in time, but my concern, I have lots of concerns, but one of my huge concerns is people that are already in the pipeline, and y'all have prepared a nice list of kind of who's in what stage, because if someone's already got a lot of money into a subdivision, and engineering costs and watershed protection costs, all those things, that cost money to get to a certain level. And then we come in

Well, if they haven't submitted an application yet, then hopefully they haven't gotten too far, um, other than acquiring land, which is huge. Um, but it's not going to come as a big surprise there at the end. They'll, they'll know what what's coming. So, um, Council, I'm asking if anybody is interested in delaying the effective date by a couple or three months just to let some of these in the pipeline get through. And then we choose either to go in partially or when we're going to do the full amount. The problem I'm having with that is the fact that we just Had this long conversation about uti

So So council I'm I would be willing to postpone the implementation date till maybe the first of December and just to let some get through and then we can figure out what we want to do. I've got a spreadsheet with some options, but if we don't want to consider them, I'm not even going to ask it to be put on the screen. Mr. Mendoza, where are you?

I'm willing to postpone until at least December. Yes, ma'am.

That's fine. December 1st is fine. Okay.

Mr. Gonzalez? Yeah, I'm fine. Would you say that louder and directly into your microphone, please, sir? Because when I go back and watch these meetings, I can't always hear you because you have a soft voice.

I plan on voting no on this, so I'm willing to postpone it indefinitely, but until December is fine with me.

I'm sorry, you're saying you're planning to vote no on this?

Either way, so postpone it as long as you want because postponing it indefinitely would actually be my option. But yes, to answer your question, yes, I'm willing to postpone it.

And so you're okay putting this burden on the backs of the rate payers of these future projects?

If that's the way you want to phrase it, yes. I don't have the energy to argue with you tonight.

That's not just my opinion. That's the fact. Right.

So that I only have to make one motion, which to amend, which may or may not pass. So, yeah, I know that's not really the way you're supposed to do it, but I think it'll ultimately faster. Right now, the motion would implement it on 10 one.

Correct. I'm just saying like the informal, I'm not used to that in parliamentary procedure. Normally, that's done through opening it up, so I guess I'm just trying to understand. We're having a discussion. That's a great way to phrase it, Mayor, but I guess I'm just used to a different way to address something like that. We're having a discussion.

It's Jane's meeting. We're just living in it. Whatever you think is going to expedite the conversation, I'm okay with. I've learned to just be like, sometimes things aren't consistent and I'm not, I'm just gonna roll with it, you know? It's fine with me. My answer to your question, though, I think you're trying to gauge the vibe, is no.

I'd like to answer too. Go ahead. You know, Mayor, we just spent like two hours talking about rates and how they're gonna impact our people. And I don't think once there was consideration on postponement, citing how those potential rate increases were going to affect our people. We approached it, many of us, because it is a difficult conversation. And so I just wonder if the very people we are intending to push this back for are in this room right now. And that gives me pause because there are many people that I imagine for our rate increases that would have probably liked to be able to bend t

That's fine. Yeah, I'm just like, Unexpected increases, like join the club, roll with it, we roll with it, like as a city.

There's a lot of unexpected increases nationally and a lot of different ways that are hitting a lot of people pretty hard, so I get that.

Ah, yes. I had a chance to say something, this is awesome. Yeah, this is a, it's a, it's a difficult one when we're talking about increasing things, essentially 5x. And I think either way we look at it, we're affecting people, you know, and you know, the easiest way to look at that is just looking at If you're trying to build a house or you're taking into consideration sales tax, you're taking into account the impact fees that you would get off project. My overarching concern is just the market in general. It's not anyone builder per se. But... this is the market. It is very real. And I also u

OK, I should have prefaced that with I do plan to vote for the maximum so that we've got the most options for recovering what we need. And Ms. Rodriguez, I can tell you that the folks that I'm more concerned about are the folks like Mr. Shaw, that said this was going to make the difference between four houses and two.

I want to be clear. I was interested in having a larger discussion about the item before us. But again, the parliamentary rules I'm familiar with do not allow a straw poll the way we're doing. And that's why it's bothersome to me. It feels as if it is a violation of parliamentary procedure to be doing this informal straw poll That's what I'm saying. I would love to talk about the overall issue if you had a potential proposal, but there's been no motion made.

We have discussions all the time about what people might want to do. So I'm not buying into that one.

Yes, but you're asking for a potential for a postponement. That is a typical motion. It's different when we're kind of gauging general direction on an item, but we're talking about something that is affecting the actual effective date of an item. That is a substantive change.

And that's why I'm saying I'm a bit bothered that I would, but I think we're burning a lot of time on something petty that we just need to go ahead and decide what we're going to do with this. So procedure, well, I haven't made the motion yet. I'm waiting for conversation from the rest of you. Somebody else want to say something or we just want to vote.

I'd be interested in... I'm going max rate no matter what. I think we need that. But I would like to postpone at least till the beginning of the year. And we need to workshop this some more and just talk about it. It's just going to have such a large effect. It's going to. And unfortunately, we're sitting on six years of... no action to council member Rodriguez's point earlier where we kind of keep kicking stuff down the road. So I don't plan on kicking this down the road. I just plan on, I want to talk to everybody who is in that atmosphere and make sure we have, we're working off good advice

So I would, I would motion. for the max rate, and I would motion to not roll the rate till the first of the year.

You know, that's up for discussion, whatever we think is best. Well, I think council needs a motion.

If you're making a motion, we have to have a date.

Correct. Just so we have some more time to work it.

But Mr. Purcell, you said you have more time to work it. Is your intention of working it talking about either phasing it in steps or what exactly are we going to work it where essentially the max rate is going to be the max rate on January 1st?

Yeah, that's what I'd be interested in to see what council... I just don't think we've had enough conversation on it. Y'all, this is a big hit. This is not.

I agree with you, but my concern is we're agreeing to a max rate effective January 1st with the hopes that we figure out how to implement it by December 31st. But if we don't, then January 1 would just hit with the max rate. I would be more interested in postponing the entire item until we figure out all these things. And then pass that.

We need to hear from Mr. Gary right now.

Yeah, say that last thing, the last couple of sentences again, please.

And I did want to say yay us on the audit that we scored so well that we planned and then we do what we say we were going to do, so that was great. Okay. Ms. Garza and then Mr. Scott.

I guess I'm just trying to understand, like, I don't know who asked this, but, like, how do we know – like who's in line or who's in the queue or whatever, because what is gonna stop a bunch of people from just submitting a bunch of stuff just to avoid the increase? I feel like we need to workshop this a little bit more. It's giving... Yeah, it's making me very uncomfortable, to be honest.

It's giving that we're doing it backwards, honestly, but...

I said it's giving that we're doing it backwards. We're essentially accepting... doomsday and then saying, hopefully we could avoid doomsday before doomsday. But if we don't, then we're agreeing that January 1st is doomsday because if we don't figure out how to, I just don't think we need a workshop or figure anything out.

I think we just need to approve it. Yeah. Viacom deals. We don't even know what the impact is, like what the scope of the, of the, how do we know who's in line or these alleged, all these projects that are just going to like suffer.

It sets the fee, but they don't have to pay it until they need that water meter, correct? Okay. Yeah, I thought that would be good. I'm not crazy about the January 1st date, and the reason I'm not is because I don't want pressure on our staff the last two weeks of December to try to be pushing stuff through. and other folks, I'd rather see it the first of December or the first of February. So I'm not good with the January 1st for various reasons. Yes, sir.

You know, people making a run on the store in the last three or four months of years, not exactly how that works. These processes are three to six months, eight month year processes. to get through this. And what I'm saying and talking to builders in the area, and this is coming from everybody, this is gonna have a major effect on our city. That's all I'm saying. And I'm not saying the first is the best date or December, but I think it warrants more conversation. I'm talking to builders right now that are 20, 30, 40% down, And I know that they've got to sustain these markets, but what I'm sayi

Okay, you're saying that that warrants more conversation. It's my understanding, Mr. Pantaleon, Mr. Reynosa, that we have to set that effective date. today. It's not like we're pushing the decision forward and then we can talk about it. We have to make this decision today. We can make the effective date in the future, but we have to choose it today. or the process starts over like you were talking about. So that's what I had to get my head wrapped around, that I'm asking a question, I'm getting an answer, I'm asking a question, I'm getting an answer, and I'm going, no, no, no, we've got to con

Can you repeat that, the numbers that you said earlier? I think I miswrote them down, of like the folks in the process and all of that.

Mr. Reynoso, I have a question for you. Do we know how many houses have been built to date this year?

I thought the HCEDP had put out some numbers as well. On the homes document? Mm-hmm. I don't think. I remember correct of the document. We've only built 650-some-odd homes here today. from what I remember reading their report on their projections, you know, or excuse me, in our projections, they were based off of 1700 per year build out. I guess my point is, you know, we're at roughly a third of the housing build out in a single year year, and we're doing a five X increase to builders who turn around and sell homes that produce sales tax for the city. I'm not arguing the rate, I'm just saying

I'm just trying to figure. So Mr. President, I have a quick question about your motion. So again, is your intention that between now and whatever date we settle on, that we discuss some sort of rollout fee, whether that's a multi-year, staggered increase, or is your intention that whatever date that we agree on, this max rate takes effect?

Yeah, you know, if I said January 1 being the max rate, and that's what I did, well, that's when it would go into effect. I mean, but the idea on that was to get with stakeholders here in this town and just see if there's a way that we can soften the blow a little bit. If there's not, there isn't. I mean, I agree with that.

By soften the blow, what? What are you recommending?

Yeah, like rollout, three-month, six-month rollout. I know that doesn't necessarily make all the sense in the world because we're going to have to tack these up on the back end or, you know, nobody, they all... why do you don't let it hit the utility rate payer conclusion?

Your motion was for January 1st. So we can talk about three or six or whatever, but we've got to have a hard number and you gave me January 1st. So Mr. Scott has something to say.

That's right. But that was my intention behind that was so we could talk about that. Give us some time to talk about it.

It's not to give us time to talk about it. You're not buying us time to change anything later. We're setting this tonight.

I'm going to have to pull my motion if you can't make a decisive time.

You didn't have a motion. You had a second. I'm sorry. I second. All right. Oh, no. We do not have a motion to amend on the floor right now.

Yeah, I don't want Shane to pull his vote, so I'll make it January 1st.

Well, January 1st is what you had. That's what he seconded, and he has now pulled his second.

That would be amending an amendment, and I always say don't do that.

Okay. I have a question about the motion, though. Josh, with what the mayor just explained, that you're really not buying time, we're voting, or we're setting the... Right. Like, does that change your approach to this?

In my head, and I could be wrong, and I'm more than willing to be wrong, was that we would have an option to workshop it. I mean, we're saying a hard date on January 1st, but couldn't we always reset a date down the road after we talked about it? All right, well then I'll just stick to my January 1st date and it is what it is.

But I don't know if like, yeah, what you're hoping to accomplish is not possible is my understanding that the mayor is saying.

At this point, I think all I'm doing is buying some time for our local stakeholders to get their house in order realistically.

So, but how does that mean that it's everybody up until today? Because again, like if more people are, you know, getting into the process up until January, then at what point are we just, you know, like what's just like, okay. And then in January, we're going to need a little bit more time for the other people to, you know what I mean?

Right. And, but we're still going to be in the same situation where we're going to have a report of, we have X amounts that are getting there. We have X amounts that are probably not going to make it until January. And then we're going to have X amount, you know, like, and this is true.

Yeah, so is the intention to help the people who are already in the process get their stuff in order? Like Mr. Shaw the other day. Yes, or are we unintentionally just kicking the can and now there's going to be more people? Does that make sense? I don't know.

It's possible that more people will come in, apply, they'll be in under the old rates, but they would have to get their plat finished. By whatever date we end up with as the effective date, correct? Correct. So if somebody comes in tomorrow and it's a significant project, what are the chances that that's going to be approved by January 1st?

So basically unlikely. So for the people coming in now to apply, if we put this effective date anywhere in this next three months, they're probably not going to get under the wire. And the people who haven't come in yet, that's not the people I'm worried about so much. It's the people that are almost to the finish line, like Mr. Shaw the other day. Those are the ones I'm concerned about. So anyway, Mr. Mendoza?

And we're talking about the January 1st.

Yes, ma'am. Is it possible, whether it's January 1st or whatever it is, that we can go ahead and today say, let's go ahead. Again, we all agree we have to get to that percentage that we have to get to. Can we do... In order to make things flow and get things done here without postponing, could we do, like Mr. Gonzalez said, a step program here? Let's do 50% or 60% today, requirement to be fulfilled. We can do a reevaluation and we see how the results are.

We can't do a reevaluation. I mean, we can do it, but we can't change it.

Let's initiate the go date, December 1st, and then the following year. We implement the other 40%.

We would have to do that motion and decide it today. I think he's going to wait a year to make that decision.

I want to make sure we have to do that tonight. We're going to do today. 50%, 60%, whatever we can come up with as a decision, then the remaining will be implemented next year.

In December, let's just charge a certain amount now to satisfy some fees.

Okay. To prove that we are doing something. So what you're talking about is similar to what Mr. Paselka is talking about. But instead of keeping the same rate, get halfway to the rate. Yes, ma'am. Choose whatever is January 1st or whatever. Let's just get something. And then it goes full force after that. Yes, ma'am.

Can I ask a question? Damn, it's just crazy we don't apply the same energy to our neighbor's utility bills. That's wild, ma'am. I understand. I understand.

So can I ask a question? You bet. So I understand that we're talking about the postponement of the date, but I would argue that what I'm about to ask is germane because it could impact my decision. Mr. Ray, no, sir. And this, I don't know if this is a question for you or Mr. Condor. Yeah. Let me know. Pass it. Whoever, um, for every project that is done, So this whole phased approach, it's, I think, what I'm hearing under the guise of saving potential homeowners, future homeowners money, saving developers money. But should those homes go, they're going to require and put some sort of strain on

Right. And we've already said that sprawl is what quite costly to rate payers currently. Am I correct?

Okay. So there is impact, right? Okay. I just wanted to make very clear that all of this is really, um, a frustrating conversation because it is quite literally just a circle and there is still impact. Any new growth is costing people money. It's costing us as a city money and services. It's costing rate payers should the infrastructure need to be upgraded. It is costing somebody something. And I just cannot sit here and let it be phrased as if it's saving money for somebody. Our people are still impacted. Our city is still impacted. It's not a no impact conversation. I just want to get that o

and yeah and I understand I get that that conversation was to help you choose how you want to vote on mr. Purcell it's motion anything else that anybody's got going right now make sure it's geared towards that motion otherwise I'll hear what you have to say after we've disposed of that motion well so

I guess similarly to my colleague, I feel like it's germane because it will help me decide how to vote on that. But to Ms. Rodriguez's point, but I know when I originally said that I'm going to vote against this regardless, it's because of the fact that when we discuss credits and rebates, it was, we raised the rates effective October one and then we talk about credits and rebates in January. I am not comfortable. raising rates without having that conversation about credits and rebates already built into it, because I don't want to raise the rates. Now we don't agree on credits and rebates in

And if I may respond, I hear that. I'll be honest that when I suggested that, I was ready to do action there and then, because to your point, It feels sequential. I get that. But the issue though, is, is the conversation around credits and rebates has to be approached, not in a first or second reading discussion. That is a haphazard way to approach policy because we also have to understand how credits and rebates impact general fund. And so I hear you while that might have been desirable and preferable. Yes. but this is still something that we very much can do, and I believe you were one of th

I wish that all of this had come to us for discussion way sooner. It's too late this time. But I think next time, pulling counsel in, saying, hey, I know we appointed a committee, but we didn't have this depth of discussion about what the effects were going to be. Of course, I think at that point, nobody knew that the number was going to come in that high either. And that's part of the deal. But I think if we had known, had a clue way early on, then we could have been talking about that. We wouldn't be at the point at which we are now. So I would highly recommend that, first of all, well, I'll

Okay, so we had three yeses, is that correct? Okay, Mr. Mendoza, would you like to make your motions to amend?

Yes, ma'am. I'd like to make an amendment accepting the full percentage that we're looking for in the long run, but I'd like to go ahead and make an immediate push for, gosh, that's kind of sitting here. I'm not sure if we go 50 or 60, but let's go 60% the first year today, and then we'll implement the other 40% this exact same day next year.

So the existing right now plus the 60% that we would need starting from day one, October the 1st.

No, that was a clarification that I was going to ask for, so... And you're talking about implement that when you say now we really mean 10-1? Yes, ma'am. Okay. 10-1 of 26 and then go to the full on... 9-1 or 10-1 of next year?

If it makes a difference, I guess 10-1 when the new budget's hitting.

10-1 of 27. So basically we're giving people a 40% break for almost a year.

Yes, ma'am. Okay. And I'll throw this out there. The reason why I'm bringing this up here is I appreciate Kissentry. Don't get me wrong. You guys have been good for the community. But I'm also thinking about those, and I really hate to throw the name out there, but like small companies like Barboza Construction that do two or three houses a year. And it's just them being hired to do these things. So we're waiting for the person to buy the land, a much longer process. And these individuals are the ones who are going to hurt the most. That's kind of my concern there. So that's the reason why if

So you're talking about like I was, the little guys.

Yeah, we need a second. Go ahead. No, I'm not giving a second.

I'm sorry. Oh, I've got something written down here that was not a second. Was there a second to this one?

OK, so I'll continue with the question I had. I just wanted to make sure.

I didn't see anything submitted on the message board. do you have what the figures are, what this translates to in actual dollar amounts? I mean, this is, again, I hear you on the smaller construction, as a person with family in construction, hear you, feel it. But I just feel like without an actual depiction on impact of what you're proposing, it feels haphazard without that. I'm just, do you have more information that we could see, that the public could see, so I can make a comprehensive decision?

No, because we're going on percentages here. So we're looking at the 296, right?

Well, we'd also have to be predicting the future.

Well, that's, I think it's a very general, we can set into percentages instead of going for the dollar amount, because that puts us in a little corner. But percentages, like we're getting the 296 right now. I don't see what the big deal is about going to 60 or 40. I mean, that kind of gives you a good rough number, right?

Well, and it's like my follow-up question would also be you're citing a smaller construction company. Are they in the field? First phase, the second phase, the third phase.

So like you have these other construction companies that build, like I said, one or two houses a year. They're not these large corporations that build like Kenea or, you know, there are places that first you buy the property, then you contact this custom builder. You say, hey, listen, I just bought this four or five acres out here on Mill Street. I need to have this done. And this is a property that has no connections, and they're building a home, a custom home. That's what I'm referring to. And it's not just, like I said, there are several in this town that work like that.

Right. I guess what I'm trying to ask, though, Matthew, to better understand your intent is if these smaller companies that you're talking about, where in your motion and in your proposal it's speaking to them specifically and not the big developers that you first cited? Like, I'm just not seeing that. Sure.

Well, if I'm going to sit here and start dictating what's going to be these smaller guys, I mean, isn't that kind of just discriminating against everybody else?

Well, I'm purely asking because you're citing for the intent of your motion. So to understand the intent of your motion, I'm trying to ask how you're fulfilling that via your motion and where that's reflected in the policy itself.

Actually, I guess it's quite easy. 60% is a lot less than 100%. So it would be better for these individuals to pay and pass it on to the homeowners that 60% impact fee that we're increasing instead of the 100% that they're going to have to deal with within the next three, four, five months or a year.

Oh, yeah. So it's not tailored specifically to the small builders. You're saying it's in general. It's for all in your motion in your, I guess, in rationale you provided and really focused on the small builders. Right. Which I, I agree that I can understand that. I'm just not seeing that particular focus being reflected in your motion. Because it's all inclusive, it sounds like.

It is, but it's the same thing. So I guess the reason for me wanting to go this route is for that. Now, if there are benefits for somebody else, fine, great. But my reason for wanting to do this is for what I explained. It's very easy.

I think that's going to make it where it's $6,485 now. going to $25,680, which is 4x, not 5x, that if you take the difference and 60% of the difference and add that to the current, I think it's $18,002. $18. Yeah. And I'm not going to be able to support that because that's leaving too much on the table for a year. It's a 40. Yeah. Okay. So anything else on Mr. Mendoza's?

It has 60% and delaying the full for a year.

We don't even know what we just voted on.

Oh, this is not making sense from what people said they wanted to do. Okay.

It's like haphazard playground math. That's wild.

That's, that's crazy. I'm killing myself doing this.

Okay. So this is an amendment. So if we had another amendment that was different, but, and it was in conflict and it passed too, then what do we do? Or would that just not be in order?

I motion to set an effective date at November one, 2026.

And, and that is at adopting the max and the effective day of November 1st, which was the original motion that we opened the discussion.

The original motion was October one. So I think that's a little bit problematic because we, and that's what I'm trying to, and that's why I'm bringing up the motion because to mayor's point, The entire discussion, the first motion was to accept as is, which was the October 1 effective date. That motion that we just passed is in direct conflict. So... Well, it's amending.

So at this point, we vote on the motion as amended. If that fails, then we're back at the original motion with no amendments. Then we can vote on that, or we could amend it again, and then vote on the new motion.

No, we've already voted on the amendment. It passed.

Well, that's what I'm saying. So now we vote on the motion as amended. If that fails, we still have the opportunity to vote on the motion without amendments. And at that point, you could bring another amendment.

Right. Say those last two sentences again.

And this is why I was trying to just kind of circulate to see what the appetite was. Because like right now, I could go half for like two months, and then we go full throttle. I can look at something like that. Ms. Rodriguez is looking at just delaying it and give people another month to get through the process. That's another option. So that's why I was kind of just trying to do this in conversation to see what people might be amenable to before we start having motions that men fail and demand fail.

Can Matthew, you repeat the motion that you made so that I can just like, yes. What was it?

Effective October 1st. I wanted to do 60% of the proposed percentages.

So we're going to have the current fee, then we're going to add that 60% to it, which is 60% of the proposed and then October 1st, 2027 we implement the other 40%. So we're breaking this off into phases.

So October 1st, 2026, We implement 60% of the delta. October 1st, 2027, we implement the additional 40% of the delta. To finish everything off. So we still end up with the same request.

The base is this right now. The difference is this $19,195. And when you take 60% of that, it's $11,517. And you get that and that together, you get the $18,000.

I just wish we could have that up there.

And that's why I asked if something as critical as this was submitted ahead. This is for anything on the list. And it could be new things.

And this is for a year. Full implementation wouldn't happen for another year. And that's why I voted against it is because it's way too long.

Full implementation wouldn't happen for a year?

So 60% of implementation would... happen effective immediately almost, 29 days from now. Full implementation would happen in a year. And yes, that does benefit the big developers, which is not what I want, but at this point- Then why did you vote for it? Because the small developers are at least gonna get a 40% discount for the next 365 days. So, I mean, or we just kill the whole thing now. The original proposal was to kick the can down the road for four months. RESTARTING TAKES THREE MONTHS, SO WE JUST VOTE NO ON THE ENTIRE THING, WE GO BACK TO SQUARE ONE, WE FIGURE OUT WHAT OUR EXEMPTIONS AN

But I thought it was an option. Didn't you say that was an option? Because we haven't voted on the main one.

We can't do all the credits and things like Ms. Rodriguez and all of us agreed to afterwards. I'm sorry, afterwards. But we can't get them done in time now just because it takes a lot of thought and study and all that stuff. If we had the extra three months...

we could have been working on those and we could have been, which essentially by voting this entire thing down now, and it takes three months to redo it.

We have the extra three months, but we don't have staff a question. You bet. We are also paying, should we decide to vote this down this hypothetical scenario, we will restart this process all over again, which costs us money in consulting fees. Am I correct? Cost us money in staff time. Am I correct? So delaying this decision costs us more money.

Not doing it right the first time is now costing us money.

Yes, I agree. You're absolutely right. Lorenzo, look, it's the same discussion we had during the budget. Again, I hear you. I understand that the ideal circumstances would have been, we knew about it, we came up with the potential policy for rates and credits, or rebates and credits, I hear you. But this is the cards we are currently dealt with. And this notion that, oh, let's just vote it down, as if that doesn't also cost us money, That is the frustrating part.

Right, we're paying for our mistakes. I completely agree. We should have never made the mistakes, but these are the cards we've been dealt, and we've made a mistake, and now we need to fix our mistakes and do it right.

Mr. Gonzalez, I constantly ask you to be able to let me just finish. It's like I told you, I hear you, but this is the scenario. We have to make a decision. And my decision is to fix things and not patch them. Mr. Gonzalez, let her finish. These are, look. You vote this down, we are costing us more money. We are costing the taxpayers more money. That is the scenario. That is what I'm trying to tell you right now. We have to legally restart the process over again. That is what it is. I hear you. But we're not saving people money by voting it down if that's the basis of your decision. That's all

Are you done? You moved your microphone, so I'm assuming you're finished. I can speak now. I agree that... we would now have to start the process all over again, and it costs us money. But these are the cards that we are dealt, to use your term, and we didn't do it right the first time, so to do it right the second time is going to cost us money. I wish it didn't. I wish we did it right the first time, but we didn't. These are the cards we are dealt.

It's the situation we're in. This is all because y'all are so petty.

Right now, what we have is we have the document as provided to us, which had the maximum. And what passed was Mr. Mendoza's motion that we are going to postpone the maximum for a year And in the interim, what we're going to do is we're going to take what the fee is now, we're going to add 60% of the increase, and that will be our fee for the next year. Am I correct? Yes. Okay. Yes. And I, yeah, I don't like it because it's implementing, it's way too long to implement the full fee.

Well, I mean, we'll talk about that. What would you be comfortable with? to push that further along. Would eight months be...

So here's my question to you, Mr. Gary. We have the main motion as amended. So now that's what's before us. Can we not amend that motion? Even though it's different from what he had, we could do one which... uh, Ms. Rodriguez was to go full fee, implement November 1st. Was that your motion? You're at two men, ma'am. I think it was. And if I may explain, I think Mr has some pause.

So I could make a motion. to implement the max, same as what you were doing, on 11-1, and if that passes, that's basically undone his motion.

But I think my understanding was that the motion I was trying to make is invalid because of the component, the phased component that he added. That's what I'm trying to determine. So my question, Sam, or Mr. Aguirre, is should we just take the actual vote that's proposed before us, should it fail and we want to propose the November 1st effective day full, that is still valid. It doesn't kill the entire thing.

Because that's what I'm ready to vote on. Here's what I would understand. Cause once it fails, it's gone. How do we bring it back? We don't do that with other things that fail. Thought that we have a whole lot.

No, the whole motion has failed because we, with amendment passed. His amendment passed. That is now the motion in front of us. Right?

Its main motion is amended. Okay. If it passed, would we be doing anything else? Would we need any other amendments? If it passes, we're good, right?

Does that include me in adjusting my amendment? Or since we already voted on it, it's stuck. I'm sorry. So because we voted on it, we're stuck on the time frame. I gave, or do I have the ability to, if you're on the, it belongs, it belongs to the floor.

Yeah, but I brought the thing back. Yeah, but didn't I bring back whenever I voted and then it was like, just kidding, let's bring Josh in?

Yeah, that's exactly what I was about to say.

We weren't strict Robert's rules. We were doing what this body thought was the right thing to do.

Right, but I'm just trying to, like Matthew asked if he could amend it. I was just offering that as a... because didn't we just do that? Okay.

Here's what I would rather do. I would rather keep amending what we have than to fail it and then bring it and then say, Oh yeah, just kidding. And then what do we start over with, with the proposal as presented by staff? Isn't that what Matthew's trying to do?

And then we say, Oh yeah, let's just keep working on it.

It's literally what we did earlier twice.

Yeah. But we had special circumstances. We're trying to get everybody to vote.

But it's also, I mean, we're doing it in public. It's not like we're doing this in the cover of the night. Like people can see. Okay.

But so I would know that it's actually a true amendment.

But I'm not trying to go back to the original motion.

Mayor, would you be more comfortable with us pushing this back six or seven months? So the full year, would it make it easier if we end up saying, you know, six or seven months from now?

It's, it's the, it's the one year implementation that I just can't.

So mayor, I had a similar question. Would you be more comfortable if instead of doing 60% year one and then it's staying that way for a whole year and then 100%, increasing it by 10% every quarter so that we still get to 100% in a year, but we're at 70%, then 80%, then 90%. So essentially 70% month four, 80% month seven. I'm not giving that to staff.

No, but if we were at the 60% till February 2nd, I mean, February 1st, March 1st, I could consider that. I can't do the year.

Would you consider May 1st? Can we just vote on this and then if it dies, do what we've been saying? I'm trying to find a medium ground here to move forward. I mean, honestly, I feel like there's four votes to move forward with. but four people just voted on it. Yes, sir.

But I just, I mean, I want to ensure that we were all okay.

I mean, we're not gonna be all be happy with this, but when Matthew, I think Mr. Gonzalez is right.

Stop folding a winning hand. Yeah. You have the four votes.

I don't think he's doing that. I think that he is his, he's shifting after like very thoughtful conversation. I don't think that he's,

In that case, he could vote no, and then we can then discuss something else.

That's why I'm trying to find some kind of medium ground here. We're supposed to be up here doing this.

But, okay, in order for him to do that, he would have to, like, vote to... Or make an... We're still sitting on it.

I'm the one that made the first amendment.

But he's not amending his amendment. He's amending... the document as amended. His amendment's already passed. It's done. It's not an amendment anymore. It's another amendment. It's melded into the document. That's why I'm saying I don't know why we can't go after that document, make changes to that, even if it's undoing what he did.

But can't we, like we just did with the Josh thing, like he just says if you're on the prevailing side, like can we talk about it again?

If it ultimately fails and the prevailing side was it losing, so then you can reconsider it.

I just don't feel comfortable that literally every other attempt at a motion to amend was to appease the mayor. No disrespect to the mayor, but it's mayor, would you be comfortable with this? Literally is how, and I did it myself too, but like literally every attempt to amend this has been. to try to get going with your support.

I think that there's a lot of times when it appears that that's the case with Amanda, people directing it, like, would you be okay to the mayor, Amanda? But that's also because they're largely the ones who post like thoughtful and like staff answered questions on the message board. So like it just follows that we would be like exchanging with the people who engage the most. Like I don't, does that make sense? That's just my perspective.

I'm going to make a motion to amend that effective 10-1 of 26 that we implement the new fee, but at half of what the fee is. So it's going to be half that $25,000. It'd be half water, half waste water. And that lasts until February 28th, and we go to full fees on March 1st of 27. That's my motion. We'll see if I get a second.

Did you say you would second that, Mr. Scott? Okay. It's starting 10-1. You take what the fee was going to be, but you have it. and then on three one of 27, we go full fee.

And then three one full. Three one full. So we're gonna start with adopting full, but we're gonna give October, November, December, November, December, January, February, we're gonna give five months of half, and then we go to full.

I'll restate it. It's going to be to April 1st. Oh, I hate to say that, but yeah, April fool's day. It goes up.

Are you okay with that on your second, Mr. Scott?

Just didn't think that was a good idea, but can we do March 31st? We could say it's effective through March 31st, but then it'd be April 1st it goes up. So anyway. So that's what we've got. That's what's on the table now. Except any comments on this particular item? If not, whenever you're ready to vote. We will vote.

May I ask, you had initially proposed, I believe, February 1st, correct? It's just delayed implementation. Right. Would you consider February 1st?

Yeah. And I think, quite frankly, Mayor, that's a big compromise. I mean, I was ready to do November 1st, and I know you briefly mentioned that. And I get, you know, Mr. Mendoza's talking about six months.

I'm going to say that it's going to go. Let me restate this. I'm going to say that it changes to full on St. Patrick's Day, March 17th. Does that work for you? Since that's my sister's birthday, fine.

Fine. Since we're all just doing weird math, then yeah, I guess. It's just so hard. You guys, oh my goodness. It's because y'all don't like each other.

If there's a second, first thing, Patrick, is that you can, we just vote on it instead of like, y'all need to go to therapy.

Um, let's, let's, no, let's go ahead and we'll vote on, we'll vote on this one, which is effective 10, one of 26. It's 50% of the fee. 50% of water, 50% of wastewater, and that we go to full fees on March 17th of 27th. He already seconded it, but I appreciate that, Ms. Rodriguez. If there's no more conversation on this, let's vote and see where we go here.

Okay, so that amendment has passed. Quick question.

Based on what's on the screen, how much do you pay if you come in on 317? Well, no, because one says it ends on 317.

On 317, it's the 20, 25, 680. That's the full fee.

So then that one should be 316. All right, cool.

Yeah, well, I had something else to begin with, and Mr. Meagle's fixing it to what we just agreed on. Okay, so now we have a motion as amended, which is basically what we just talked about, and let's vote on the main motion as amended.

of the increase is effective 10, one. Tell St. Patrick's day. I was going to go three 15 and split the month, but I thought, let's just go with, you know, St. Patrick's day. And then the second, the, the full rate will be effective then three 18, three, no three 17. I said full, full rate goes in at three 17, 20, 27. Okay.

And this concludes this portion of our program, correct? Okay, that concludes Item 3. So we still have items 10 and 11 that were pulled from consent, and then everything after the public hearing. So we will go on to item 10. Do y'all need a break before we continue on?

Let's take a breathe-in break. But y'all, let's make it short. Okay, sports fans, I believe we are on item 10. Is that correct, Mrs. Trevino?

Looking for a motion. Motion to approve. Motion by Mr. Mendoza, seconded by, I'll second it, Chief Standridge. You're here for questions?

Okay. I mean, was there anything you wanted to say prior to that?

Okay, so, and somehow my question got missed on the message board. So, who has been doing this testing? Who were we going to before?

So what are we doing different that's going to make it faster?

I'm sorry. I'm lost. You said it used to take 150 days, and now it's going to take 30 days. So what's changing?

Oh, you can pay extra to get in the Disneyland line.

Because I kept trying to figure out who are we changing from and to. So this was not made clear in the thing. So what? So it's Austin. Where did DPS come into the picture?

And that's, that's when it took longer. Okay.

Right. So, okay, I have a quick question on that note. Thank you for walking us through this. This is something I noticed when I was looking at the Axon agenda item. Once upon a time on the, like, legislature, whenever you, we were just contemplating anything in the bottom where it said history, those, like, past conversations or, like, the relevant, history that you just gave was listed, but I have like, I think, I'm in this conversation for another time, but that we used to have that and we don't anymore is my point. Um, and I tried to look up just using like keywords, um, just on the same w

I think that'd be fantastic. That's not where I would store it, but some way that we can get back to other things. I've been begging for a central repository of things that we've approved so we can go back. We kinda sorta got it with SharePoint, it's getting built, but It hasn't been loaded with old stuff.

Yes, and I can send you guys screenshots of what I saw in the past, just so you could, yeah.

Yes, but now we do need to get back to that.

And may I say thank you to whoever figured out to get this expedited thing going, so thank you.

Um, yeah. Chiefs. I saw the agreement. Um, I understand the rationale. I guess I'm just trying to understand. So you said it exceeded the a hundred thousand dollar threshold, which is why it's before us today. Did they give it a reason why? Like the reason for, is this costing us more money is what I'm asking.

So the term I see is October one, 2026 through September 30th, 2029. And then previously, are they always in those three year intervals? You said we've been doing this, so I guess it's the same price as the previous three years is what I'm asking?

Um, I think there was like a discrepancy that I saw between what the resolution says and the resolution says 130,000, eight 77.19.

and I'm finding 121,182.59 in the ARP. Is that what you're talking about? Uh-huh. Yeah.

Well, yeah, and also Exhibit B, the last page of attachment, the third attachment, that also has another amount.

Yeah, because in Article 1, under the actual agreement itself, it's reflected the 121. is reflected. Um, and in article two, yeah, there's a whole bunch of different amounts in there. It's just, yeah. To Ms. Garza's point, it's not included in the, in the actual, um, resolution.