City Council - Regular Meeting

Good afternoon. I'd like to call to order this Pflugerville City Council work session on Tuesday, May 26, 2026 at 5.01 p.m. We'll move right into our regular agenda. Item 3A is to conduct a presentation on the Pflugerville Community Development Corporation FY26 second quarter financial report. Tracy.

Good evening. We're in council. We're clicking. Yes, so this is the second quarter of fiscal year 26. This was presented to the PCDC board on May 20th at their regular meeting. So just a high-level recap, total revenue is at 42%. Sales tax is at 49% of budget. We are tracking sales tax. Originally, we budgeted 3% year over year. And we are not tracking at 3%. Right now, our fiscal year over year is about 0.3. And if you ask the software AI projections, it's projecting that we may land at about 1%. So we are keeping that in mind as we move into the fiscal 27 budget process.

So if you don't mind me asking, is that enough of a difference that you'll think that you'll plan both for PCDC and the city to readjust our projections this year?

You won't change this year. Okay. I mean, the budget is set at 3%. It just means we won't need budget. But it'll definitely matter how we approach next year.

Got it. Thank you.

Interest income's at 25%. There is a payment in the fourth quarter, so that's not necessarily as behind as it looks. Okay. Other revenue is all received in quarter four. Tracking this is the same chart that y'all get in your reports as well. But as you can see the patterns the same but trending a little bit behind in fiscal 26 on the expense side 36% of the budget has been spent and Personnel is at 34%. Operating is at 26%. Development incentives is at 13%. Most of those are paid out in the fourth quarter, so the 13% doesn't scare anyone. Capital projects is at 29%, and debt payments is at 47%.

Do you have the information about what the capital project spending was? Because I think it was somewhere around $2 million in this last quarter. Do you have information about which project that was?

The projects that are moving forward are the Helios, Right In, Right Out, and the Impact Wave.

Okay, thank you.

Council, any other questions?

Given that the sales tax is dramatically below what we had anticipated, Obviously that's going to have an outsized impact on PCDC budget, but also it's going to have a dramatic impact on the city budget. What are we going to be doing in terms of reducing our planned expenditures to meet that reduction in income?

I think part of it is just monitoring both sides. So we're not exceeding expenditures and not meeting revenues. So it's a combination of the two. We have salary savings. There are savings on the expense side as well.

Okay. So we're just tightening our belt every place that we can find it.

Just monitoring to make sure that if we say we're going to be short a couple hundred thousand in revenue, I mean, we may be making it up in another revenue line. I know that there are other revenue lines that are going to exceed their budget.

And Tracy, do you have... For the city budget or for the PCDC budget? The city budget. So the PCDC budget is pretty much all sales tax.

Yeah, there's not a lot of other areas that can cover that. And it looks like they are underspent on their expenditures as well.

And what about property tax?

Are we going to be... David, this is an item on the PCDC quarterly report. Let's focus on that.

All right, we'll get back to that later. But thank you.

Jonathan, do you have a question?

Yeah, just a quick question. So, Tracy, do you have any reason to believe we will not be able to make up that deficit given what you've seen so far?

I believe we will be, sure. Yeah, okay. I will be surprised if we get to 3%.

What I saw in there was coming in 1% behind projections on the... sales tax revenue, right? Which is about $100,000, $120,000 for PCDC. I also saw that we were only at 34% of our personnel budget halfway through the year. I'm going to assume that there's some savings in there that make up the difference. All right. Counselor?

Yes. I wanted to make a comment. I think it's really good that you actually get to sit and look on both sides because they go together and we need to have this conversation about PCDC and where the city is as well. So I just wanted to thank you for your clarity. We need to know that when we sit here and say PCDC can pay for that and that and that. So thank you for that.

All right. Council, any other questions?

No, good job, good work. I think the mayor made the accurate point that there might be some built-in cost savings and what we're having for that. And everyone's on the same page regarding what we see the numbers would be.

Because I was going to ask for PCDC to pay for something else.

All right, Tracy, thank you so much. We're going to move on to item 3B. That's discussion regarding the five-year capital improvement plan for fiscal years 27 to 31 with emphasis on the projects and priorities to be considered for fiscal year 27. We've got Director Rector, Director O'Shea.

You didn't have to give her a computer, man.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. So before I get too into the weeds on this, I just want to remind you that two weeks ago, I gave you a lot of information. Since then, we have presented you with draft five of the CIP for next year, Capital Improvement Plan. I'm getting better with it.

I loved how you took the time to go ahead and do that.

That was good. Good job.

He picks it up quick. Yeah. I don't want to take up all the time here tonight. I know that last time we met, there was some conversation amongst the council about going and looking at what we had already put together and providing some direction and feedback. So I'm going to give you a very high-level overview this time. I'm going to try my best to stay out of the weeds on a lot of things. And as you come up with questions or things that you want to discuss, just feel free to jump in. I'm really hoping to get a lot of feedback from you guys tonight so we can know how to push this thing forward before we try to push it together with the final approval coming very soon. So first thing we have before you tonight is just a comparison. I thought it would be good to show you kind of what we had done in the FY26 capital improvement plan versus what we're proposing in the 27 capital improvement plan. So you can see that roughly the number of projects overall stayed about the same. We're proposing 80 this year. We did 75 When I say this year, I mean FY27. When I say last year, I mean FY26, even though we're still currently in FY26. 75 last year. The big change you can see there is actually there's a typo on the bottom of the total general fund on the left. That should be 55. We missed a five there. The big change is we've added a few projects in the general fund. for the most part the utility fund decreased. You can see funding wise we have decreased from last year to this year. And then as I told you last time, I generally did a close to 50% cut compared to what we were presented, what you guys were presented for FY27 requests last year versus FY27 requests this year. And so you can see there that that's close to a 57% reduction. I can break it down for you line by line if you'd like, but that's kind of where we are at. So I wasn't quite spot on, but I was pretty close. As we go through here, a couple things that I want to remind you. So we've tried to color code things and simplify things where we can. So when you see that blue text like you see there in the 2026 Geobond text that's on the slide, that is a project that we are recommending to the Bond Advisory Council for them to present to you guys very soon. for a potential 2026 bond election. If you see the double green dollar signs, that means we are fully funded on those projects, so we are not asking for anything additional. If you see the single dollar, the green dollar sign, that means that we will need additional funds at some future year. And as I told you last time, we have basically tried to set up the CIP project in alignment with what P&Z recommended, which is no additional debt outside of the 2026 bond election for projects. And we have basically delivered on that. So the 21, almost $22 million that you see there, those are future years of some other funding source. uh, everything that we've put into 2027 request, except for those 2026 recommended bond projects is already fully funded.

So just so I understand there, what you've got is 18 projects that we're going to, you want to get started with in 27 and you have the money to get them started, but in future years we will need the additional funding to get them finished. Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh, director, director, I just want to thank you. This is a, fantastic way to show this information and you may be getting to this later in your presentation but are there any particular individual projects that give you consternation about pushing out or do you feel pretty confident about your recommendations at this point?

Yeah, especially since you said almost. So it was like, okay.

I mean, just to be completely transparent with you, I was very uncomfortable having to come in this early and make big changes to your capital improvement program. As I expressed to the city management team, it's uncomfortable for me because from an engineering perspective, I can sit there and evaluate projects and say based on an engineering perspective and an engineering perspective alone, this is what makes sense. I've worked closely with Tracy on finance and I can say from a financial perspective, this makes sense. What I don't have the visibility on and the history and the time with you guys is the political perspective, right? Because that's another aspect that we have to take into consideration. And so do I have 100% confidence that what I'm giving you is exactly what you want? No, not at all. Do I have confidence that from an engineering and finance perspective, what I'm recommending is the best possible thing for us?

Yes, I do. I love the way you put that because the reality of the situation is this, is that y'all, I'm going to say this, I say it to y'all privately, I'm going to say it publicly, I'll continue to say it. Y'all do a phenomenal job of giving us the tools and resources necessary for us to make decisions. And then there's just some decisions, hard decisions we're going to have to make. I hear it from my left-hand side regularly, and to be fair, I understand what they're saying about specifically what kind of environment we're in right now with the current economy and everything else. At the same time, I'm dealing with a situation in the suburb south of us where a project was funded with a bond in 2006, was not fully funded, And we're hoping to see if we can get it executed, what, 20 years later? And so you don't want to have projects that are just hanging out on the vine where it's like, okay, if we're telling our citizens we're going to do something, do it.

So my question, Director Rector, is, you know, you talk about these are the right projects to do. These are the projects that make sense. Can you tell me, are these the projects that you can get done? That's been my question. My challenge over past years is that we put a lot in the plan and then we don't get it all done. Can we get all this done?

Facts. I believe so, Mayor. So let me quantify my statement there. When the city management team directed me to start trying to figure out what we can actually accomplish next year and to take a closer look at the CIP, one of the first conversations I had with our transportation team and our utilities team I didn't have the conversation with the parks team, but I figured Jeff had it covered, was how much can we actually do? Look at our staffing. Look at our workload. How much do we have in design? What stage of design is it? How much do you think we can actually get done? And then when they gave me that number, I said, okay, now how much would it push us? If we had to push ourselves hard, how much could we get done? The rationale there is that if I set the bar too low, then great. We delivered all of our projects, but we did two projects. If I set the bar too high, then we've set ourselves up for failure. So I wanted to be somewhere in the middle, but aggressively so, because that's just my nature is I'm a competitor and I want to be aggressive and I want to go get things done. I've said it before, like engineering is kind of my jam. And I like to get projects designed and I like to get projects built. That's why I became an engineer. And the idea that I get to build and change the face of a city in a rapid amount of time really excites me. It gets me going in the morning. And so I wanted to push the team. So, yes, do I think that we can achieve the vast majority of these projects? Yes, I do. Do I think we're going to – am I willing to sit here and guarantee and stake my career on we're going to deliver 100% of them?

No.

I'm fairly confident that I can deliver the majority of these projects with the team that we have in place.

Glad to hear that. I'm sorry, Kimberly, did you have a question?

No, I'm good, thank you.

All right, so what's next?

Hold on just a second, Director. I want to go back to that because we have had, as the Mayor alluded to, a number of years where we got less than 50% completion on the projects we were expecting to get. And I know that there's been some turnover in the engineering department. Do we have adequate staffing there? Do we need to make some changes? Do you have the personnel that you need to execute these projects? Or do we need to reduce the number of projects to match the number of personnel that you've got? Or the inverse.

So actually, and I don't want to... spoil things too much for you. I've actually suggested that we could look at reducing our overall staffing level based on what I think the future of the CIP holds in the engineering department. And so you'll see that whenever we get to the budget conversations. I believe that with the team we have and the vacancies we have, which we are trying to fill right now, we can deliver the projects that we've presented to you in the CIP.

Did you just say more with less?

That's what he said.

I want to make sure that I understand that. With the vacancies we have, you mean We're going to fill the vacancies we've got, or you're going to leave those positions vacant and you're still going to deliver more than 50%?

There are, in the utility department, there are two vacancies that we are trying to fill out of, I think it's four total that we have right now. We're trying to fill two of them. In the transportation department, we have one vacancy that we're trying to fill out of. Actually, we have three vacancies that we're trying to fill one of right now, I believe. that when I have that one field in transportation and those two fields in utilities, I can deliver this CIP.

What are we looking at in terms of timeline to fill those positions?

And get them up to speed. It's hard to say. Engineering is not an easy area to recruit on a regular basis, specifically in the municipal sector.

Oh, this council knows.

And so I would like to tell you that it would be quick and easy, but if I did that, I'd be lying. I do think that this particular economy makes it a little better because I happen to have a lot of contacts in the private sector and a lot of those firms are not being as aggressive right now with hiring more staff and plussing up. Some of them are actually potentially looking at doing some reductions. And so I think that's going to put us into a position where even though we tend to not compete as well on a regular basis with this particular economy, I think it's going to put us in a pretty decent position.

Are we talking about baby engineers fresh off the vine, or are we talking about people who have some private or public sector years under their belt? for these four positions you're talking about?

I know that in talking to some of my private sector peers, they are not hiring as many, as you put it, baby engineers right now. And so that's going to put a lot of the recent college graduates kind of in more of a little desperation mode because they don't want to be boomerangs. They want to be productive members of the engineering world. And so I think that's going to help us there. And then with the larger firms not looking to grow their teams at the higher level, I saw it on LinkedIn this weekend where they were talking about the unicorn in the engineering world, which is that 15 to 20 year engineer. And they're not really looking for that as aggressive right now where two years ago, um, benefited me because that's the way I am two years ago. I mean, it was open season on guys like me because there was nobody else out there. Um, now firms are like, we're, we're okay for the moment. And so we're not being as aggressive. So I think it puts us in a decent position to be able to, uh, have some real conversations with some potentially qualified engineers.

Okay. And, um, uh, I'm going to assume that you know a lot more about engineering recruiting than I do, but I just want to make sure that we're not just looking at engineers at Big Maroon and Big Orange, but we're looking at even people from other lesser states.

Yeah, like South Carolina and USC. So this is not from any of the Maroon or Orange or even Texas, so... Yes.

So, Director Rector, I appreciate you keeping your eye on the ball. I will try not to lock in my expectations until we see your final budget proposals and what you're asking for, but I appreciate you thinking through all of those scenarios.

Just a quick question. Since you're an engineer, I figure you can answer this quickly. When you build your capacity model, is that based on number of projects, project scope, or project value?

Typically, we look at number of projects more than anything. Number of projects. I mean, complexity always comes in, but that's why we generally have a ballpark. The average project manager can typically handle between six and eight projects, depending on complexity. A very green...

I don't need that much detail. I appreciate it, though. I'm glad to know that you've thought through it. The reason I ask is because I want to know if we look at these projects and we say, you know what, I don't want that one, but I do want this one. I need to understand that, have some confidence that, you would still believe that you could get them all done. If we prioritize some in and some out of your list, I want to make sure that we don't overburden the staff beyond what you've already aggressively defined. So thank you for that.

Matt, the, the, the only question I have regarding your numbers is that, um, how, one, how old those numbers are, um, and two, how likely we're going to have to revise them. I just got briefed on the fact that we are looking at, um, just like material costs, you know, have gotten the interest or the, the cost have gone up, um, what, three times the amount it has in the last seven years, in the last quarter, in the first quarter of this year. So, you know, one of the conversations we had years ago when we were talking about these roads and trying to explain to citizens, yeah, we had this out for this bond number, but then, well, okay, this is what came back with material costs. This is what happened with interest and everything else with that. How likely are these numbers going to be good numbers for what we're going to have to do?

So that's a broad spectrum because it all depends on the stage of the project. If it's in construction, numbers are locked. If we're in bidding or very close to bidding, we're not going to see a huge swing. If we are 30% design, those new numbers are going to impact us, but we're going to be getting... additional opinions of probable cause throughout the process. And so we will be able to update those numbers on the fly. But that's also part of my logic and why I said, let's get through design and then stop. And then we can reevaluate and say, okay, yes, we told you it was going to cost you $20 million to build this project, but really it's going to cost you $30 million. So how do we want to proceed?

Do we know which percentage of projects are at the starting blocks right now of these?

I couldn't give you a number. It's okay. I can come back and get that.

I imagine it's in the backup material. We can see which projects are in flight already.

I love that, in flight. Yeah, so it should be in the draft CIP, and you'll be able to see which ones. And also, we prioritize them in that first table in your CIP draft.

On page 18? Yeah.

Yes, so there should be a summary table for each transportation, drainage, water, all those. We try to prioritize them by status. If you're looking at the transportation ones in particular, we put all the 2020 bond projects first, and then we put the ones that are in construction, then the ones that are in bidding, then the ones that are in design, then the ones that were in studies, and then the ones that have not started.

That's awesome. Great work, bud.

All right.

So the next few slides, actually I think the majority of the rest of this presentation is very high level, just kind of touching through what we talked on last time. So it's got the project up there, the different phases that they're in, and you'll see here if it's not started, it says it's not started, but it's got what we think the 2027 budget is, again that double dollar sign, single dollar sign, and then when we think completion is on here. And so... Just working through this, you've got the downtown East City Hall Rec Center. You can see it's fully funded. We anticipate completion January 27th. I think that's final completion. And then the next one you see that it says half general fund. The half GF is half general fund. That's because half of the public work complex is coming out of your general fund and half of your utility fund. But it's fully funded, and we're anticipating completion in March 27. The library roof replacement, not started. It's fully funded, and we anticipate getting that all done next year, assuming that we get it approved in the CIP. your ADA transition plan. So we've got a placeholder budget of $300,000 in there. It's fully funded. One caveat on this one is as I've been digging more and more into this, and I apologize that I didn't have all this ready for you on draft one, but as I've been digging more and more into this, it looks like a lot of the big ticket items you guys have already finished in prior years. And so what we are talking about internally is looking at doing an update to the ADA master plan. And so this $300,000 It was just a placeholder in case something comes out of that that said, hey, we need to go do X that we didn't cover from the original master plan. Evidence processing, so that's right over here on the complex. Need to get that fixed up. We've got some building leaks and some other issues that we need to address. The justice court renovation, that's actually where we're sitting right now. And so this one is a high-level estimate. So when you talk about numbers changing and all that kind of stuff, we haven't done design on this yet. This number that we've got, it's a high-level estimate from the consultant who's doing our facilities master plan. So they're not even under contract for designing this for us. They just said, hey, based on this square footage, which is about 2,600, 2,700 square feet, this whole area that we're in, renovating it, We don't know all the details. I've been talking to Chief about what he needs in here and what that's going to look like, but this is a high-level estimate. It is fully funded, and that number could change. I would anticipate that as we get further into it, assuming it's approved and we get a detailed design, that we may actually see that number come down. We were fairly conservative in our estimating with that consultant to try to make sure that we were covered. We didn't want to

What's the funding source on the Justice Center renovation?

I believe that is general fund reserves. Let me double check. You've made a lot of repairs to the years to this building. I just got confirmation it is general fund reserves.

So we're talking about renovation of essentially this building? This room that we're dealing with here?

Yes, from the back there. All of that, that storage closet, all of this.

All the way back, including the offices in the back?

Everything on this side of the hallway.

Okay. All right. Now, I know that this has not been altered hardly at all since this building was built more than two decades ago. But This room doesn't get a whole lot of use.

It gets... No, this is the room that gets the most use. So you don't remember her giving the whole... She gave a presentation that's like three years ago. Like this is the room. This is one of the reasons why we're building our training room.

That's why we started building out for other places as well.

This is the busiest room by far.

So... I'm trying to see, is this a need or a want? Do we need to do this right now?

What are the renovation support? What does this turn into? Is this officer or detective offices? Is this a holding cell? What is this?

No, this would become, this area here, generally speaking, would become a full training area for the, mostly for the PD to use. that area back there would be I don't have it right in front of me so it would have a kitchen area basically to facilitate the training so that kind of thing so when people are in here training they would have a place to go eat up their food grab a drink those kind of things and I believe that there's some storage changes as well so that when they need to change out tables or that kind of thing depending on what they're training for in here then they've got room to store different types of furniture

So when you say training room, what exactly does training mean? I mean, like what kind of uses?

Well, that's what I'm saying. This is a high level concept. You want to talk?

Sure. So we have 101 sworn officers. We hold quite a bit of training already in here. We do it through shifts oftentimes, but there's a lot of all hands on deck meetings. This is the hosting space for many of the other city, but really for ED, they don't have – this is their training room for a pretty large agency to not have a training room. So this is it.

But, I mean, what training is like –

Victim services? Victim services, police. Maybe I could have Chief list the required training of being a police officer.

It's a lot of training.

I was going to say, I've walked in here, and it's to the brim. So, Chief, late last week, I... I joined you for the award ceremony that was being conducted along with training at the public works facility, right? What was that class? What classes were being taught that day?

The classes that were taught at a public work facility were pursuit, driving, response, leading into response to resistance or aggression. The facilities would cover everything from effective force control techniques to combatants to de-escalation training. We would actually be putting mats down on the ground and officers would be rolling with control techniques, side mounts, how do they escape if someone mounts them. And then also putting classrooms back in section where we have desks and actual instruction time where we'd be working on policy development, walking officers through decision making on when it's okay to chase a vehicle and a suspect or not, or the application of force and the application of constitutional law in the field of experience.

Chief, thank you so much for that clarification.

Why do we need to do this in 2027 instead of 2028 or 2029? What's the urgency about this?

David, I'm going to hold you there for a minute because this is going to be a conversation about prioritization, but let's get through the presentation first. Then we can prioritize these among the groups. Can you keep going, Mr. Rector?

Moving on, we've got the Public Works Building 1 renovations, which that is the one, when you go to the Public Works Complex, that's the center building. That's the one that will be occupied by PAR staff once Public Works moves out of there. Then you have, and again, reminder, these are colored in blue, so these are projects that we are recommending for the 2026 bond council to potentially recommend to city council. So you have a new PAWS animal shelter and the downtown parking garage.

I'm sorry, what was the first one?

The public works building. Okay. That's to renovate the public works space that is currently occupied by streets, drainage, water, wastewater crews, so that parks can move in there when the public works team moves in.

And where's that location, bud?

That is in the center of the current public works complex at the current wastewater treatment plant.

And that's the design cost for that? Yeah. I'm showing $25,000 in 27 and then an additional $600,000 in 2028. Yeah, that's right. That's a plan. You've got that with $2 signed, so that $600,000 is already allocated? Yes, sir. All right. Thank you.

So because that building already has offices, I guess I'm trying to picture what needs to be revised in a building with offices. That's a good question. for parks to come in there? And then also, do we have space in the new Public Works building that they could also be there without any more renovation costs?

I'd have to get you the information that's We've been working on that for the last probably year with Park Hill to try to line out what our staff needs. There's a few more workspaces that would have to be added to that for our staff because that wasn't all encompassing for public works even. And then there's just some renovations to the building that need to occur. It's got some maintenance issues and things like that in the restrooms, locker rooms. Some dividers for those workspaces, additional training space. And I want to watch her later.

You said offices. I want to make sure. Maybe we should describe just very basic items that we take for granted because we've been talking about this for a year. They have not. So these aren't offices. These are maybe half cubes. This is just a shared space for field work.

Where is everyone currently?

So our staff only uses one or two shared computers in one of the training rooms in that building.

I was going to say, you're kind of split between multiple offices now.

Yeah, why don't you just be honest and say that it's a hodgepodge.

I mean, they've got stuff everywhere. And this is particular to the park operations team. The only person with an office is our park superintendent.

Jeff, the first time I went to your office, and I don't even know if you could call it an office because you're going in there and you have stacks of boxes for other materials that you're trying to navigate while trying to get in from there. I think part of the situation, the reason why we said share what's happening is that even when we talked about it years ago about what was happening with the old city hall, like, hey, listen, we were putting desks in the middle of closets. People need to hear that because oftentimes you hear what she said. It was a good question. It was like, wait a minute, what more office space do you need? But Serena was clear about, no, we need some shared space where we can actually put some butts in seats, for lack of a better term, for people to utilize and redress and work as a team.

I'm sorry, did you say where everyone is currently located? Did I miss that?

Our park ops team don't have spaces at all. Let's be very clear.

When they show up to work, it might be you meet in your truck. I mean, there's also what we call a barn, which is located by Gilliland Pool. If you go back there, the building's kind of cockeyed a little bit. So they meet in space that they can... We would love to give you a tour of it. It's not a place that we would...

I think, don't we have... We've been talking about having another, I want to say, swap day where we go do some work.

I've got so much planned.

The council. So that may be a good opportunity for us to roll out and do a ride-along with Park House.

Maybe that's a good way. The building that we're talking about, my recollection was there was... a lot of office space available. And are these positions that spend the majority of the time in the office, or are they in the field?

No, and that's why they're shared spaces. I mean, we've got supervisors who are doing a lot of office work, and they're using a training room computer right now that when there's a training happening, they cannot use it. So they're having to put things off to go into that space once that ends.

So would you say that the space is maybe not configured for what your team needs? No, it's not. As opposed to, like, yes, there are offices and conference rooms and things like that, but not necessarily for the size and scope that you all need. Is that a fair? Absolutely. Spot on. And I think if I recall seeing some of the materials, I think somewhere it mentioned as well that I think this actually makes you all whole for quite a while, if I'm not mistaken.

Yes. And that's partly why we're moving there. That gives us space to grow just like The public works facility is going to give them doors to grow.

This is your new home. Yeah.

And we've been looking a long time to find a place for you all to be together as opposed to the diaspora that you encompass right now.

The variety of locations you are. Thank you for that, Mr. Shea. Mr. Rector. Yeah. Where were we?

So one point of clarification to your point, Mayor, that you had made. So when you see the numbers on here for the 2027 budget, that is just 2027. That is not total project. So when you see, like on the Public Works building, when you see 25,000 in 2027, that's all we're asking for in 2027.

No, I understand that. I understand that. I also see the approximately 600,000 that is slated for 2028. You've got $2 signs on this, which I was led to believe means that the entire project is funded, even in the future. So we're good on that.

Gotcha. One last question on this. Is this something that you all think that you could actually accelerate and get done so that you can actually get folks moved in more quickly? Or do you? Do you think that this is a couple of years?

Do they have to move out to the new public works building?

Yeah, there's a predecessor task on that.

Domino.

I know some college kids. What is it called? College hunks? They got some moving trucks. Not an affiliate link is that, though?

So maybe at some point in time after we're at the end of all of these, I'd like to understand how we have money in the general fund reserve for all of the projects that are allocated towards there. Because when I looked at the number, it was fairly high, almost $8 million. So I wasn't aware that we had that much money in our reserve over our 25%. Or what reserve it is. I don't know what general fund reserve exactly means. So I'd like to know more about that at the end. Great question.

So then you have the public works complex for the utility fund, the SCADA network, and the other building at public works, which is building six, which is going to be renovated to be converted into our lab, which is currently in a trailer that we are renting.

So we'll save some money with that. Yes.

Will we? Because I heard that it costs more to move a portable than it does to dismantle it.

Well, we're renting it. You've been talking to the school district too much.

That's exactly where I got it from.

If we're renting it, then they get to come get it. Yeah.

We don't own it. There's a relocation cost for some of the trailers that we have out there, but there's also a monthly rent that we're paying out there. So converting this building into the lab and moving all the equipment out of the trailer and into that building would save us a month-over-month cost while there might be a cost to get the building off of our property. In the long term, it would still... be we'd be better off for us to use buildings that we have that we are no longer using is this the full amount or is this just I mean is there amounts in 2028 and beyond uh I believe that is just the first year I believe there's more funds in 2028 I'd have to go back and double check but um if I recall direct director as well I believe that I believe this is also an expansion of the lab correct in terms of what we can do in-house

Yeah, there is more space. So it's not necessarily just what we're doing today in a new building. It's also expanding what we're doing ourselves.

There are additional funds in 2028, and it is also covered by general fund reserves.

Okay, so this says $805,000. I'm sorry, what does? For 2708.

You're talking about the total cost?

Yeah, $90,000 for this year, but total $805,000.

And again, you've got your $2 signs there in green, so it's fully funded.

And that's key. That's a key. I don't know who came up with that idea. That's a really good indicator.

Yeah, I do appreciate that the general fund reserves and the funding source is documented on page 18. That's very handy as well.

We're trying to give you guys all the questions that I've heard from other city councils, in my experience, so that we're trying to answer the questions before you can come.

Are you tired of us complaining? Is that what you're saying, Matt? No. We've got them trained. Come on.

I welcome your feedback because I'm always looking for ways to improve. How dare you give us the answers before we ask for them?

What are we going to ask next?

Well, I kind of tell people all the time that the P.E. behind my name actually does not stand for psychic entity, although I try to do my best to.

Just know that the more questions you answer ahead of time, the harder we have to work to come up with questions.

Careful. Good point. Good point. I will not work quite as hard. So just a reminder, these are in green. So these are the 2020 bond projects. You can see they're all fully funded. They are all fully funded with actual 2020 bond funds. Awesome. So just wanted to point that out. I'm going to start trying to skip through a bunch of these to get us further along faster.

I want to back up a second. The historic colored addition infrastructure improvements were all funded in the 2020 bond fund. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. Which is great because we're pushing dirt out there like we're tomorrow.

That's a lot of dirt. It is. Well worth it.

Substantial progress.

And you've got here both of your East Pflugerville Parkway are fully funded? Yes. They're both in construction. Again, we're back to green text. So you have these three projects, which are 685, Kelly Lane, and East Pecan. So a couple things to note. Kelly Lane is fully funded, but it was not just 2020 funds. It was also some contributions from others, as well as roadway impact fees. The 2106 East Pecan was funded through 2022. geo funds can you can you can you remind the public what roadway impact fees are yes so roadway impact fees are an amount that city council has approved to try to have developers contribute towards the capital improvements that the city needs to facilitate that growth so you're developers paying for the impact they have to the roadway yes sir so you're saying that we are holding people accountable to pay for the growth that's happening in the city To the extent allowed by law, yes.

Not entirely so, but sure. And to be clear, of course, companies don't pay taxes. Only end consumers pay taxes. So what is the approximate charge for an average lot in terms of the roadway impact fee? You do a subdivision. You do 200 lots. You have roadway impact fees for that. About how much does that increase the cost of the lot?

I don't know that answer off the top of my head. I'd have to go back and research it and see what our impact fees currently are for residential projects.

Okay. So it's not, we're not charging developers, we're charging new residents.

We're charging the developers writing the checks, but they're not the ones paying them. No, no, no. Objection. If they make the decision that they want to pass along those costs, that's on them. That's not on us.

They always do that. And to be clear, businesses never pay taxes. It's always in consumers that pay tax.

Thank you, Mr. Rector. What's next?

That's just always the way it works. So when we say we're charging a company a tax, what we're really saying is we're charging an end-user a tax. And we need to make sure that we don't... We are charging the... We're not putting wool over anybody's eyes.

We're charging the... People who are coming to town to offset the impact that they have on the facilities that need to be built to support them. Right.

We're not charging the people who are building 10 feet outside of town who are also having an impact on our roadways. That's a different fee.

That's a different fee. Mr. Rector. East Pecan Street.

Yes. So you'll see that East Pecan is green and is a 2020 bond project.

But it was 2020, it was just design, wasn't it?

Design, correct.

That's why it's only $1 sign.

So to get through construction, we will need to borrow additional funds in future years.

But the $1 sign means we are funded through 2027. We've already been doing work on this. Does this complete design?

This will complete design.

Thank you.

And then you have your last two bond projects, and you can see they're both fully funded, and that is 2020 bond funds. And I actually talked to our finance director before with this meeting today and confirmed that these 2020 bond projects, other than the two that I've mentioned that are being funded with other sources, will use up the last of the 2020 bond funds, and that's why we've had to supplement those other projects with some additional funding. So moving on, you've got the Derby Day project that's fully funded, Parkway Drive, Dynamic Speeds, Pflugerville Parkway, all those are fully funded. They're all in design.

Can we go back a second? I want to talk about Parkway Drive. Does that finish the Parkway Drive project completely, or are there still additional roadway lighting and drainage improvements that need to be made in that area? He pays a steady attention to that. That Parkway Drive is my pet project and has been for six years. It was Victor's pet project when he was first on council.

Let me go back and confirm before I answer that question.

Okay.

Okay. Sorry, I'm trying to give Jeff some time. So, I mean... Basically, you're seeing what I've been saying. Most of our projects, we've fully funded them. We've got the status up there as either not started, when we think they can be completed. This is generally in line. It was a high-level version of what I gave you last time. And really, like I said, I want to try to rush through a lot of this and just stop me if you have questions.

But just to confirm, the 2027 on these ones that have just the $1 sign, they're not fully funded. but the 2027 amount is fully funded.

Correct.

With existing debt.

Yes, and I have confirmed that with the finance director as well. So one of the things that P&Z said they wanted was us to do the CIP as presented with no additional debt except for whatever comes out in the 2026 bond election. That is what you have in front of you in draft five for the CIP. You would not need to take on any additional debt for water, wastewater, streets, drainage, parks, other than the 2026 bond election.

And, of course, the assumption being if a 2026 bond election, depending on the outcome, that would drive the outcome or the progress of any of those projects. Correct.

Uh, so, um, I'm just going to keep scrolling.

I did have another question. Um, on the ones that don't have fully funding, full funding, um, the activities that we're going to be doing this year, does that obligate us to borrow the new debt next year or is it finished finishing one phase? And then that decision can be made for next year's budget.

for the most part, I think we have them all set up. I need to go through and do a scan just to verify to where 2027 funds would get us to a stopping point before we would have to do any more money to continue on. And I've had that conversation with the finance director as well about not trying to start something that's with only half the money in the bank when we're not going to be able to finish it next year. And so that's what we've tried to accomplish here. And I think I'm 95% certain that that's what we've given you.

Thank you.

So unless you guys have specific questions, I'm just going to scroll through until I get to parks.

There you go.

Okay. You kind of cheaped out on that part. I'm Robin to Matt's Batman. So you'll see we have 14 projects. That 14 projects is actually what we have on the CIP total. We have 11 projects starting in 2027. So we'll go through those. Again, it's a reminder of the blue. are requested on the 2026 bond, so annual trail improvements. 2027, we have that 2.1 that's in line with the Mobility Master Plan and what we have prioritized after what we finish in FY26.

Do we have the trails identified that will add up to that 2.1?

Yes, we do have the trails identified. It's five trails. If I'm being honest, I would just tell you names. I'd have to get you a map so you can see the locations.

Because it's not in the... the document currently, if I recall correctly?

Yeah, that's probably correct, because we've got the trails identified all the way through FY33. Obviously, things can change. New gaps can open, and maybe we get development we weren't prepared for, and that becomes a priority. But we can create a map.

I was just interested in knowing which ones we were planning to work on next and having some visibility on that.

Does that help you make a decision on that item?

It helps me understand what we're planning to do.

We're planning to extend the trail system.

And just to highlight, these are, again, we're trying to get more specific. We used to have, I think, 1.2 million, something like that every year. We would try to fit in whatever trail projects we could. We plan that out to 2033 because sometimes it's going to be a little higher and sometimes it's going to be lower. We're just trying to figure out what the priority level is on some of those projects based on the mobility plan, based on the circumstances we're in at that given time. All of the projects that we have all the way through 2033 currently are in the MMP. So there's nothing new at this point.

Nothing new at this point.

That can always change. The Wells Point Park improvements, this is the second half of that. We're in design currently. This is lighting and renovating the bathroom and concession stand. The Gillen Creek Trail study, we kicked that off.

Jeff, when do we think we'll be done with the – because we're demoing the current bathroom infrastructure.

Yeah, so we're going to get lights done as soon as we possibly can because that's – Not that difficult. We've got to do some electrical upgrades. It's an old facility. But that's what design is focusing on right now. They're going to do a schematic design on the new bathroom and concession stand. We priced out some of those prefabricated facilities that you've seen in some of the other parks. The cost for a larger facility is going to be similar to what it would be if we designed it ourself and built it. Really? Yep. And a lot of those don't include concession windows. And so we're going to have to design that. So it's essentially going to be two phases at this point. It's going to be getting the lights out there and then finishing out design on the restroom concession area and reconfiguring that, honestly figuring out what the funding need is there.

So, citizens should expect for us to have no more of those diesel generators out there. Oh, yes.

We're doing our best to get those out of there.

But we will still have the 1980 bathrooms and concession stand out there. For a short time.

Yeah, our design team is working as quick as they can on that. No, no, no. It's okay.

We've got a plan. No, no, no. I want to make sure. That's perfectly okay. Because you just explained exactly what it is. We just want to make sure. The expectation is that folks come out there. Yes, sir. Cool.

And about the Wells Point Park, I know that the fields out there have taken a beating, and it's an unusually heavy beating because we haven't been able to water, thankfully. Actually, you know what? That's actually not been the case. They've been great. The fields with the natural watering are...

So I don't think this is necessarily relevant to the CIP.

Well, if we're having to redo the fields, it's relevant to the CIP.

That's not part of the CIP.

Redoing the fields is not part of it.

Thank you for that, Jeff. That's year two of that. We just kicked that off last week. So you'll probably see some future CIP items come from that master plan. Our 2020 GoBond project management, we've got two. We've completed eight of the ten projects. bond projects from 2020. So the two left are Destination Play Space and Lake Pflugerville Phase 2. So the 2020 Go Bond Program Management is for those two projects. Wells Point, looks like that's double. Lake Pflugerville Park Phase 2. Again, we just kicked off design. We just did a walkthrough with the design team last Friday. And so we'll be really getting really heavy into that. A lot of the preliminary engineering out there, environmental engineering, and hopefully starting construction as soon as we can in FY27.

Can you remind the citizens what that will be encompassed by?

So that is the northeast portion of the lake, the beach area. Expanding hardscapes there, adding some play value to that area. A boardwalk and... trailhead and parking on the northwest side of the lake. That's awesome.

And that is the beach extension, which helps explain why we did demo up here recently. Correct.

Yes, and so they're looking at beach expansion. Believe it or not, that beach was built by staff about 15 years ago, so they're probably going to do some...

It's held up great.

I mean, it looks like something from Dawson's Creek. We're cool.

Now, these aren't colored in blue, but some of this is 2020 Bond.

Oh, no, blue is 2026. Blue is proposed. Oh, there's nothing? I mean, Matt had it as green. Yeah, okay, green. I was like, okay, you didn't go with that color coding?

The only two we have left are those two projects with Kelly Lane finishing up right now. So Destination Play, we're still in design solicitation, 2027 budget. That is a 2026 bond project as well, the rest of Destination Play.

Now for the part that was under 2020 bond funds, is that phase one?

Yeah, so we're working with the design team right now to figure that out. So... $5 million, one isn't going as far as it would have in 2019, 2020. We know at this point we've gotten some preliminary OPCs. That's what is dictating the 2026 ask. And so they're going to do some conceptuals. They're doing some engineering, preliminary engineering on that site since some of it is in floodplain to try to figure out what that is going to look like if the 2026 bond were to not pass. And so... That's essentially what we're looking at it as right now. If you'll look in the CIP, you'll just see it as one project. But it's essentially phase one and phase two. Now, if that were to pass, I think with the timing, we could probably lump that in and start design and get the full breadth of the project going. Not really phase it out, but it's just going to depend.

But this is also... subject to Emanuel Road being finished first, right? If I recall correctly.

Yes, we have time. There's also, I believe, a wastewater line that's going through Bowles Park as well. That would hinder construction at the very least.

But no construction on that is currently funded? Nope.

But, well, phase one, it could be funded for construction.

Potentially. And if... We may have to come back to the drawing board, depending on what happens, what were to happen in November. Because, again, $5 million with the amount of infrastructure, restrooms, additional parking, everything that you'd need, that's not going to get what a destination play space is.

Now, on the Lake Flugeril Park Phase 2, there's been some discussion about adding grills down there. I assume that that is not included in this cost. Is that correct?

That's not in this cost, yes.

Okay.

All right, Jeff, what else you got?

Our parks, recreation, and open space master plan update will kick off in 2027. That'll probably be a 12- to 18-month process, so that'll go into FY28. Reunion Park is part of the bond. We anticipate, depending on what happens again in the fall, getting into design on that in November or in FY27. And then you've got the 2026 Go Bond Program and Construction Management Services.

Matt, I had a question on Reunion Park. Do we have land identified in that area that we're planning to serve?

And what area would that be?

The historic color. Yeah, there you go. So we have land identified as part of the future land use map and Aspire comprehensive plan. That's going to be part of this early stage of the process is identifying.

Yeah, I don't believe that land is viable anymore.

Yeah, we're in the process of talking to the citizens who live over there about what makes sense.

We'll reevaluate that once we get into design. Great question.

Well, because my other question on that was, are we working with stakeholders?

Yes, absolutely. Yeah, we've talked with some of the folks in that area already, but once we get into that early phase of the project, mostly.

This design funding is contingent upon the 2026 bond okay and that's not designed that we do ahead of the bond that's we need to make sure we've got it then we start going through managing the stakeholders and finding the appropriate location correct and we've let a lot of folks over there know that this is um it's something that something that makes a lot of sense thinking about it yep yeah and what a contingent now i appreciate you all done a really good job

going in and out of the ways to make sure that you speak to the people who are stakeholders in the store color edition and get their feedback and ideas and not just putting your own out there. That's great.

And two more 2026 bond projects. One is parkland acquisition, which we did in the 2020 bond. We anticipate needing to do that again in 2020, starting in 2027.

And that's to keep our powder dry in case something pops up?

That's correct. Yeah, a reunion park, a lot of these trail segments now, I mentioned a few meetings ago that these are getting into more complex projects. A lot of them will need easements, potentially land purchases. And then other things like, you know, when we purchased 1849 Park, we weren't really prepared for that. Funds for that came from another project. We want to be ready for that sort of opportunity in the future. All right. Speaking of, 1849 Park Phase 3, another 2026 project that's finishing out the northern portion and the three additional baseball fields.

Yeah, which is great. And they're going to still be in the same area where we're designing the baseball fields right now, correct?

Yeah, we've got a concept that the design team on Phase 2 built out for us, which is a large 300-foot fence baseball field, a 200-foot fence baseball field, and a Miracle League field in the area just south of the current baseball field we just finished.

All right, what else you got, Jeff?

I believe that's it for me. Back to drainage. Dr. Rector.

Not a doctor. So I'll just point out here, the one that's fully funded is the drainage master plan updates. Talking with Scott, we thought it was a good time to go ahead and update that one. And then on reclaimed water, again, the reclaimed water line 1849, that is fully funded. It shows us on hold right now. That is one of the projects that we are coordinating with the Weiss Lane widening project. And then the reclaimed water master plan update is another fully funded project for us to start.

So it makes sense to kill two birds with one stone. We don't want to kill birds. Yeah. Something just occurred to me when I saw the drainage project over by Caldwell Elementary where my kids went to school.

We know now that the school district is going to be closing four elementary schools here next year. Have we looked at how that is going to affect both our opportunities and our needs for water drainage and for acquisition of properties? Is it possible that some of those... school properties that are being closed by the school district might be something that could be converted at least partially into municipal parks?

So if I recall correctly from what we've been informed as parents of the school board, they're looking at repurposing. So just because the school may be closed doesn't necessarily mean that the building itself may be closed.

We're not necessarily looking at redevelopment, but I'm assuming the answer to that question is no, we haven't considered the potential school closures in our CIP at this point. I imagine as that is an evolving situation and we see when that gets finalized, we will certainly need to revisit any improvement projects adjacent to those. All right. Mr. Rector, what else you got?

That is it. We are ready for any questions.

All right.

Well, Director, could I ask one question on the reclaimed water side? I think that the water line to 1849 Park is an amazing and worthwhile project. I think it's going to be important as you continue to move forward on that to call out the opportunity with other commercial businesses, because this is obviously a lot more expensive than us just continuing to buy potable water from Manville, I think is where it comes from now. So worthwhile project, but I think it's important to say that this is not just for 1849 Park, that we will in fact be able to offer that same water to other companies, which will make it a better return on our investment for building that water line in the future.

Thank you for that, Jonathan. Questions on these projects?

My first question is, can we get this presentation sent electronically after this? And then I did have that follow-up question about what general fund reserve means, where that $8 million is coming from.

So, Melody, I would refer you to page 18.

It just says GF Reserve, so...

So the total general fund reserve value for 2027 is slated at $7,751,473. Yeah. So that's the amount expected to come from general fund reserves. Your question is whether or not we have that much money in excess in reserves?

Yeah.

Do we have that much money in excess in reserves to support those projects?

I would have to defer that question to our finance director. Okay.

Yes, we wouldn't have used reserves as a funding source if we didn't have the funds. So, yes.

So, is that existing now, or is it planned to be existing?

I'm not projecting, like, to gain in reserves. It's what we have on hand now.

It's existing on hand. That's above and beyond the 25% minimum requirement.

Okay. Those are two different things. Okay. The 25% reserve is sitting in general fund. This is the general fund CIP fund.

Gotcha. All right. Okay, so that was my question. So this is general fund reserve in the CIP. It's CIP reserves.

Not the regular general fund.

It has nothing to do with general.

Okay. Okay, well. It was a little confusing.

Thank you. So how, is that interest income then from?

Some of it, yes.

Okay, and what would the other part be?

Past transfers from general fund reserves into CIP to be used for CIP. Those are, I believe, the two sources.

Okay. Thank you.

All right. Council, I did assign you homework last meeting. I asked you to come prepared with any reprioritizations that you may have. I'm going to ask on the drainage projects to start with. We've got three drainage projects slated for 2027, all three of them starting in 2027 and continuing forward. Any reprioritization on drainage projects?

Do you want to put them up, bud?

It is on page 33. If we need to.

I think Mayor with your comment earlier about Caldwell being potentially adjusted later. I don't have anything else. I'm sorry, what was that?

Caldwell being adjusted later given what's going on with the school district. Generally speaking, reevaluating projects based on any changes based on the school district's repurposing of facilities.

Because we haven't funded for 2020, 2027. We'll be cognizant of any changes. We're not bidding that tomorrow.

So, and just to clarify what you said earlier, this amount is just for a specific phase that does not obligate us to do the right, I mean, because this whole project, like for that one, for Caldwell, is $3.2 million, but this is just the initial phase for design or...

Yes, this gets the design...

All right. Any drain entry prioritization, anything to pull out or anything to accelerate?

Are we only talking about the funds for 2027 or the overall?

The overall CIP. There are 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 items on the drainage.

So I had additional questions or concerns about some of these storm drain districts that are meant to alleviate the need for future businesses or property owners from creating their own, their required detention on their own land, which would be at their cost, versus making a regional, which is listed here at the taxpayer cost. So my question is, how... Are we going to be having any impact fees or anything to pay for that? Because we are basically transferring the responsibility of the cost.

From the private to the public. We're not necessarily transferring it. So I assume we don't have the funding source listed for that, do we? Or is that funding source back on page 18?

So for the drainage projects, I believe everything is future debt.

Specifically the drainage district project.

Yeah, future debt was the funding source. It's future debt. And so part of the conversation when we started working on the CIP was a lot of these projects are about growth and development. And so there were two things that we considered. One is I believe in the current drainage master plan there was a recommendation to implement some sort of drainage fee. And council had decided not to move forward with that at that point. And so one of the things that we had thought about was maybe that's something that council wants to consider before we get to those growth and development projects on how developers contribute a drainage fee of some sort. The other thing was, since it is growth and development, In my experience, typically if there's any concern from the council that we don't want to use taxpayer dollars to fund all of this, then waiting a little bit until you kind of see how some of that growth and development is playing out and you have a developer coming in, then you start having those conversations about them providing a contribution of their fair share.

Yes. So thank you. It's just when you put something on the CIP, then you create an expectation that it's going to be done. even though obviously you can make those changes, but it does create that expectation. So does that apply to the, I think there was at least two, if not three, drainage projects that were regional?

Yes, I believe there are three of them.

Yeah, there's at least three of them. And then I don't recall specifically about the Heatherwild at Upper Gilliland and Hidden Lake Drive at Willbarger Creek. Because those ones are the high price tag.

Which ones were those, Melody?

DR-2602 and 2702. Okay, so that's slated for 2031 and beyond? Yes.

So we've got a while to make that decision.

Yeah, that's why I asked the question this year or on the CIP at all.

So your question is, yeah, because you said your concern is that if we do put some money into it, is this going to force us to have to go down that path as opposed to looking at any possible exit ramps?

Well, yeah, if we put it on the plan, then it gives the impression that we're going to do this. So I just want to, you know, and thank you for, I didn't remember what, No, I wasn't aware of what discussions have or have not occurred about that drainage fee, but definitely if we're doing something regional.

Matt, do you remember when we had that discussion?

He wasn't here.

Well, no, no, no.

He doesn't remember. Did you study that? Yeah. No, so that was two or three years ago.

When did we bring up the regional? I'm not expected to remember that either. I'm not expected to remember things that happened before you got here. Matt knows.

All right, so does anyone else have anything on here you want to raise or lower the priority on drainage?

Well, while we're looking at the storm drain improvements, we've got 2603, 2602, 2501, 2702, 2503, and 2801. Those all look like area drainage improvements, and those all look like those are going to come out of the general fund. Am I... Am I misreading this?

No, but I'm also looking at some of these things that are being funded. You're not even getting remotely near there until FY2032. But I get what you're saying.

It's one problem. You're right, it's multiple budget cycles, but it's one problem. So I want to know, are we going to commit to having these funded by... New businesses, new development, are we going to commit to funding those out of the general fund, which would be a combination, obviously, of new businesses, new development, and existing businesses and existing taxpayers.

David, can you remind me your point earlier, who pays taxes?

End users pay taxes.

Either existing people or new people who don't live here yet.

Which end users are we going to ask to pay for it? Are we going to ask... everybody to pay for it or are we going to ask only certain people to pay for it I mean

I think this conversation goes in concert with a conversation about a fee. But is it an important improvement that needs to be built? I think that we, again, it's been a couple of years since we've had this discussion, but I thought the rationale behind this was that we saw some serious concerns with the lack of detention ponds and some issues in pulling for these things. So we're like, let's look for an overall plan on And that's why I asked, I was like, does anyone remember when we had that idea? Because if we're looking at these fees, I mean, if we're looking at this, then let's look at the fees too as well in concert with it.

Yeah, I think we'll have to take that into consideration as well as what the roadmap for PCVC looks like as well, right, in terms of economic development. Yeah. If anything, on the railroad improvements, I wonder if we should even be waiting until 2030 because we have to close that road every once in a while already today. There's a big storm.

And that's to your point. And I got sworn, Jonathan, that was part of the conversation. We saw flooding in some of these areas and we're like, wait a minute. We need to do something about this now. And our private developers who apparently pass on everything to the citizens were not doing so.

Mm-hmm.

All right. So, Jonathan, you're potentially recommending raising the priority?

I wasn't actually asking for any change, just confirmation that we are comfortable holding off until 2030 plus to solve for our flooding on railroad. Well, that one I thought starts in 2028.

It starts, it completes in 2031.

Yeah, I was kind of playing around. I mean, I assume the $500,000 is probably design and some engineering maybe in that first year.

Probably two years of construction spread over three.

Probably.

So, Councilman Kaufman, do I understand your question that you are asking if it might not be prudent for us to put the Gilliland Creek... drainage improvements. I believe there are three separate Gilliland Creek improvements at the top of our priority list and bump the other drainage improvements down. Is that your question?

I'd say I don't have a really strong opinion on that other than knowing that our residents are already impacted by railroad flooding when we have more and more of these strong storms and shutting that down, specifically the bridge right there at railroad and Gilliland Creek. So I do wonder about You know, do we continue for the next few years, six years or so, five, six years? Do we continue to close that road with storms that happen every year or two? Or do we not wait? Again, I don't have a strong...

opinion but i think it's worth asking right is it is it something we continue to put up with versus do we bump it up and these are the decisions these are hard decisions that citizens are going to have to make and where they make more is that hey wait a minute we want to help you because we see the flooding that's happening here at the same time financially speaking to be fiscally responsible we don't have the funds right now what do you want to do

Well, and Gilliland Creeks is probably going to be under increased stress because of the downtown east development. I would expect that we would see increased runoff because we're putting impervious cover in a large piece of land adjacent to the creek that used to soak up some of the rain. So it strikes me as... at least a prudent question to ask whether we should prioritize that above the other drainage projects. Now all of these are upstream.

I think the first two, though, are related to homes and floodplain.

So typically when you are dealing with floodplain issues on a specific, like Gilliland Creek drainage shed, Typically what you want to do is you want to start downstream and work your way upstream because if you have a flooding issue upstream and you go fix that, then all you've done is move that flooding downstream. So then you're chasing the flood versus freeing up capacity at the downstream and working your way up so that when you're done, it's just a free flow. So what we did was we said, hey, if we're going to start on this creek, we should start at Emanuel Road because that's the furthest downstream that's in the current drainage master plan. However, when we looked at the impacts of these projects, the very first one, Caldwell Elementary, indicated in the master plan that it would free up capacity and impact 200 residential lots and an elementary school. So at the time, we didn't know about the closing. We said that should be priority one, even though it's at the far upstream end instead of being at the far downstream.

So just to clarify, Caldwell Elementary is not currently slated to close. But they are still reevaluating things over the next few months. So just wanted to.

I wanted to thank you for your rationale there. And that's just an example of how we put people first. So thank you for that.

So going to your point, which, one, you sound like, I don't know, you actually know what you're doing. as opposed to us up here just throwing shots on things.

I'm like, can you please not close the road? Exactly, right?

And then two, Mayor, I don't know if, yeah, I'd say my personal opinion is that we evaluate this as we do with, I think, what Melody brought up, Council Member Ryan, about a fee, but we keep things as they are, and then we have this discussion in the future.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, because I definitely see that we need to have a bigger conversation out for the 2028 and beyond about where we want to go on all of these.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

I think another good example, right, is the regional detention pond for Old Town downtown, right? Boy. If we're wanting to attract new businesses and it's going to be an exuberant cost for them to be able to participate, and they should participate in the cost, that's something that... we could potentially prioritize. That's a good point, but not necessarily this year, but something we should be considering.

All right.

And I'm putting a, I'm putting a teacher.

I'm wondering if that might be putting that on your calendar. Yeah.

Potentially. I, I haven't actually heard any reprioritization, so I feel like we're good on draining.

No, no.

All right. Facilities projects. If you're following along in your CIP, that's page 46. Any reprioritization there? It looks like we've got a few projects wrapping up. Uh, One kicking off contingent on a potential bond election in November. The library roof replacement, the evidence processing, this room. Any reprioritization?

I've walked in here numerous times through the years where this place is packed to the, I mean, literally. And I'm like, what's going on here? And you're like, no, we're just having a meeting. And, Serena, correct me if I'm wrong here, it's not just law enforcement that uses this room for meetings. Yeah, it's a variety of people. So this is one of the main meeting spaces that we have here, and it's not too much of a meeting space. So if we're able to actually repurpose this, you know, get things done and organize with it and have it utilized for that, I think that has to be one of our top priorities for that.

Yeah. I'm concerned about downtown parking garage as a top priority, given that we are going to be having a parking garage in downtown east. And I would like to have it actually open before we start spending money on another parking area. The other things was, you know, there was consultants that had talked about the market for, and so I'm not sure that it's there that this is like the next, you know, like one of the highest priorities. Um, and then I have concerns, uh, about, um, the expansions of a couple of the facilities with the justice center and the library. Um, because, um, thank you to staff for getting the maintenance and operations costs. My, my concern is that, um, We have not yet felt the additional cost for maintenance and operations with opening recreation center, city hall, public works. And the pressure that that's gonna put on our taxes for this next year and all of the future years, that I'm very concerned that we would have the money to operate those additional buildings without affecting our ability to take care of our existing staff.

That's a good point. Serena, one of the things I know we've talked about, and I know now we're getting to crunch time, right? But you said they were going to put in front of us about what we were thinking regarding how we're going to manage the Monarch and the MNO that was going to go in that. And if we're going to look at doing that with current staff, we're looking at outsourcing that. But there was a plan and ideas in place for that. Am I correct or wrong?

How about I bring something back to you and do a full presentation?

That sounds good. We've got a... COST RECOVERY MODEL ON THAT.

I DO WANT TO ECHO WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE OLD TOWN DOWNTOWN. I'M GOING TO KEEP ADDING THAT ADJECTIVE TO THE PARKING GARAGE THERE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE 3.7 MILLION IN 2027, WE COULD PROBABLY BULLDOZE THE EXISTING CITY HALL AND MAKE A SURFACE LOT FOR LESS MONEY THAN DESIGNING A PARKING STRUCTURE. AND SO I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO EVEN START ON DESIGN FOR A PARKING STRUCTURE.

Remind me, Mr. Rector, the Old Town Downtown parking garage, that's a potential bond project? Correct. Okay. So we'll be having conversations with the bond advisory committee on that one.

If I recall correctly, what was presented to the bond committee is surface parking and not a parking garage.

I was about to say, didn't we get that from the... You have an update, which I really appreciate, Serena. Look at you stroking your neck. Or rolling your eyes at us, one of the two.

That's for the land, so we can make that decision later.

I'm just saying we could rent a bulldozer. We'll let you drive it.

That's all I heard. My other concern, and I appreciate that Director Rector saved that five times fast, but the court renovation You said it was 2,600 to 2,700 square feet. When I do the math, that's a renovation cost of $811 a square foot, which seems really high. And so I'm just concerned about that cost. Not that I'm concerned about the priority, but it just seems a really high cost for... you know, for that amount of space.

But the problem has always been, and it's, we have said this for years, and, you know, we'll keep saying in front of the public, whenever a public entity is involved, they cut the price. It just is. It's just, it's always, it's always the case. And it's frustrating. It's the reason why, you know, Dave's not in line. Sometimes we have people who help us acquire land that we try until the last minute to let them know who we are when we acquire land because it's like oh well it's the government well i'm going to raise the money in the government well if you're raising the money in the government just like when your insurance rates you're raising your money on yourselves so so what i've uh what i've heard so far uh council member ryan you you mentioned concern with the cost on that but not the concern with the priority did i hear that correctly

Yeah, I mean, because it's whatever, number seven.

Right. And I would imagine that's one of those things where even if it goes forward on the CIP and we go get bids and they don't make sense, we don't do it.

But if we set a number at 2.2 million, that's an expectation.

I'm assuming we get that expectation from somewhere.

Yeah, I just think that expectation is high.

Just a reminder, this was a very high-level cost estimate from our facilities master plan consultant. We have not done any detailed design. It was just a ballpark. This is what we think it would cost to renovate. We need to vet this out with PD to understand exactly everything that we're putting in here. We know a kitchen. We know a training room. We know a storage space. We went high on purpose because there's so much unknown associated with the house. That's fair.

So to go on to another PD project for the evidence room, what square feet is that?

Do we know? Oh, the existing building over there?

The renovations related to that, I imagine that's a secure facility.

Yeah, I'm sure that's built into that too.

So I would recommend, I think, along with Councilwoman Ryan, that we move the downtown parking garage down on the list of items there and we move the evidence processing renovation up. My understanding is there currently are problems with water leaking into the evidence processing area and obviously processing evidence is a core police function. That strikes me as a need, not a want. So I would suggest we move that up in the priority list to make sure that our police officers have the equipment that they need to do their job to keep us all safe.

Mr. Rogers, if I may counter quickly, the downtown Old Town parking garage, The value reflected in 2027, as I understand it, is potential bond election for land acquisition. I would I would say let's leave that part in there. If you would prefer to move the construction, I assume that's slated for 2028 out further. I think that might make more sense. But I do believe that land acquisition is better to do sooner. It's not going to get cheaper. Before it gets more expensive. And that is relevant to, that would be contingent upon... Voters, whatever.

Does that make sense?

I don't see the downtown parking garage as more important than library roof, ADA, evidence processing, pause, and justice center court renovation.

Right. I know, for example, on the evidence processing, they've been... believe they've been asking for that for a few years now. So, I'm agreeing with you on that.

Reprioritizing it below those, but leaving the land acquisition contingent upon a bond election in 2027.

Well, that's up to the bond committee, I suppose. If we're building a downtown parking garage, why are we not building it where Kelton's is now? I mean, we've already owned that land. We're not doing anything with it. Then we don't have a a land acquisition cost at all. I don't think this is locking us in though, right?

Well, but yeah, I mean, it's putting it in 2027. And if we, if, if there was a bond, um, proposition to go to the voters, it would be in November. And then there's, you know, I don't know. I, even if that were to happen, I'm not sure I see that land closing in next fiscal year anyway.

And Go ahead. $3.75 million for land in downtown Pflugerville, that's a lot of land. That is one gigantic parking garage. Where's the need for that? Sounds like a want.

I think that's what we're relying on our conversation with the Bond Advisory Committee on. So at this point in time, I'm perfectly fine moving it down on the list but leaving it in 2027. Any other concerns? Can I get some nods?

I just get really concerned when he says things like this because it kind of creates a narrative. And so, you know, I am encouraging city manager over here to, like, stop that.

So we do put a lot more thought than what you can see on the page. The location, we would prefer it on the north side of Pecan because of difficulties of crossing Pecan and not able to put a crossing strip there based on TxDOT's rules.

Are you trying to say that for years you've been trying to put a walking strip? I'm just going to do it actually at this point. We'll see if they notice. I want to make sure everyone hears that. They've been trying for years to do something about it and have been not allowed to do so.

They catch me. The dollar amount, as it may seem shocking, we do use real numbers and we talk to brokers and To be frank, I think we short sell ourselves in Pflugerville to understand our worth. And our worth is, if you look at what's selling in downtown, the worth is there. It may be that expensive. It may be. Also, remember that this is a phased approach. It's land, then surface, then garage. So those out years don't worry me. That's probably fine. But holding money right now, we learned the hard way during COVID to not budget enough funds. And then we watched everything skyrocket. Maybe we're being a little conservative, but we are watching what properties are selling for in downtown. And they're not inexpensive.

And we've had this conversation when we're... I'm thinking of trust that she's going to get on me. Look at you smile. Speaking into the microphone now. We've had this conversation about 973 as well. Because we're saying, hey, listen, the land's not going to get cheaper anytime soon. And we've got to go ahead and be as aggressive as we can be while being fiscally responsible. If they're saying they've done the homework and this is what the cost is, I mean, I like that we're having an honest conversation about what the cost is. I agree that you're saying, well, wait a minute. Okay, if we're looking at this as a parking garage, well, it doesn't mean that we don't have an off-ramp, right? Like, we can have a conversation saying we acquired this land. It doesn't make sense to do this right now, but we have this piece of the property. Because I like the idea, because I think it's benefited us really well that we own the pieces on the chessboard. I really do think that's... It's bore out to fruition. Don't tell Serena that because I want to talk smack about that. And I like the idea of that. But I also understand what you're saying regarding like, dude, what are we looking for in a parking lot?

We don't have to approve the contract when it comes through either. Indeed. If you all find something... You have options.

Yeah, but if you put it on the list and it stays there, you're up here. Everyone says it's on the list. We must do it.

It's on the list. We're planning to do it.

It is a plan.

It's not a shall.

That's the feeling.

That's the pressure I feel.

We need to establish a plan for the future, no doubt. So any other facilities? That's a good point. Matt, do you feel like you got...

Yes.

good evaluation based on priority. We can put it down on the list but leave the numbers the same.

But I would like not $21 million in 2028.

I would also like to move the public works up.

The public works building one, we talked about that earlier. That seems to me fairly time sensitive and the parks guys are operating in a dubious environment. So if we can move that up on the priority list, I think that would be appropriate to do.

I mean, it's the last on the list, but it has funding identified.

Yeah, but it's still about where it lands on the list. We are allowed to change our minds.

Serena, just to be clear, just because it's listed like this doesn't mean that it's listed like this, right?

Well, it's listed like this for purpose.

We don't spend less energy or more based on the listing. Okay. To be funded, to be done.

That's cool.

Okay.

All right. Let me move along to parks. Okay. In your CIP, that's page 40, excuse me, 64. 64? 64.

All right.

Okay.

But Melody, what date is this? May 28th. I told you. I'm going to remember.

You're right. Sorry, I know the presentation wasn't in the same order as the packet. You've got to skip around a little bit more for us.

Sorry, what was the page number?

64. PDF page 75. Okay, because it's different, the page number and the... Oh, sorry, I'm looking specifically at the TFD packet. You're looking at the bottom of the page. No, I'm looking at... I'm not, actually. Page 58, if you're looking at the bottom of the page.

Page 58 of 180, page 75 in the PDF.

No.

Page 64 in my self. Page 75 of 675. Jonathan, any parks projects realignment?

No, I don't think so. You know, I think ultimately we should have a conversation about the resolution later this evening in Reunion Park and how those things come together in terms of the community's vision for the Historic Colored Edition, but otherwise... No, I think this all seems reasonable. I've already provided some feedback on making sure that we're delivering in Lake Fleurieu Park Phase 2 what the community needs versus what the master plan said several years ago.

And Jonathan, I'm glad you brought up about the resolution because part of my concerns about what we're going to talk about in the future as well is that if we want to do this right regarding an African-American corridor, we're going to have to get buy-in from the school district. They have all that land. behind the colored edition cemetery, that that's going to be critical. And I'm not trying to call them out, but this is the second time in about a year where we've taken funds to help something get done. And we've been looking at our school district partners to see, hey, wait a minute. Okay, we're doing our part right here. What are you doing to make sure that we're having a joint meeting here soon?

So that might be something we can ask to put on the agenda instead of all the PowerPoint presentations that we normally get. I'll add that to my list.

Mr. Mayor. I just like how the names are still changing. C's are still hammered on. I'm looking forward to my first opportunity to set up an agenda. I just love how the names have changed and he's still like, no. So I'm not hearing any reprioritization of parks projects? Well, let me put some forward.

I would suggest we move destination play space down. I would suggest that we drop the Old Town Park all the way to the bottom, based on the feedback we've gotten from the people in that neighborhood, and also the fact that we've got a... Which one, bud? I couldn't hear you.

Old Town Park.

Old Town Park all the way to the bottom, below the multi-sport athletic complex. Let me turn the mic on. And I assume the multi-sport athletic complex is voter bond dependent? No, it's not. That's not something that's going to happen anytime soon. I'd like to see if we could move the reunion park up. Maybe put that at or either slightly above or slightly below the destination play space. in terms of our priorities there. And I'm not sure if we want to have parkland acquisition that far down. I mean, it's sort of an opportunistic thing. If a bargain comes available on the market, we want to be able to do it right away. But at the same time, We don't want to commit to spending money if there's not a bargain to be had. So I'm not sure exactly how to address that in terms of priorities. I'd like to hear some feedback from other people about that.

I think it's the same idea that we were just talking about with the parking garage and other aspects. If you can keep your powder dry for an opportunity to happen. Because remember how we got 1849 in the first place. Yeah.

same way we got the Rudy not all of us have been here I don't remember either that was before my time you were involved 2013 2014 maybe it was very much like where we got the land where the PCDC and the hotels are it was an opportunity somebody put it on sale and we jumped on it

So to your point, David, I see that we've got a target budget there for TIP, for parkland acquisition. Obviously, any acquisition is going to have to come to us for approval. So I think that kind of fulfills your desire there. We can always say, yeah, that's too much.

We're going to pull the trigger now. We're going to pull the trigger later. It's, I guess, a question of... of the prioritization is how much do we want to have our people on the lookout for that, specifically as opposed to waiting for a deal to walk in the door.

Well, I think it's the same thing we ask PCDC, right? Like, I mean, we you always want to be, you know, on the book.

Well, you know, CDC is proactive by nature. I don't know that Parks is necessarily proactive about acquiring new land.

Mr. Shea, how do you feel about that? You're always looking for land or are you waiting for it to come to you?

I think that's pretty broad, and I'm not going to put our assistant director on the spot. I mean, I had an email two weeks ago where people, you wouldn't believe how many realtors call us to say, hey, you want to buy this land because we're an easy target. And so we're always looking at locations. That is not something that we go lightly. We may not be making offers, but we're always on the lookout and having those conversations very regularly. To say that we're not proactive is not true.

I'm not saying they're not proactive. I think by nature and I don't know how far up the level of things to do today do we want to put it do we want it to be number one We want it to be number 10. Right now it's number 8. It is number 10.

Is that where we want it? We still, from what I heard previously, need an update to our undeveloped parkland.

Yes, we do.

So I would want us to have a good idea of what we already own before moving up priorities to purchase something. And I'm not really clear as to what projects we are trying to purchase this land for because the majority of our park projects we already have land except for the athletics.

Hold on, hold on. Jeff, to that point, the park land acquisition identified in the CIP is related to the bond advisory commission, correct? Correct. Okay.

Yes, and specifically those first couple years are related to Reunion Park and the trails.

All right. David, I'm going to disagree with you on the destination play space since I believe that is some existing geo bond that's going into that. I don't see a good reason to push that down when voters have already approved it.

I was just talking about, I think you're misunderstanding me, Mr. Mayor. I'm talking about moving Reunion Park up to or either one above or one below destination play space.

The first thing you said was to move destination play space down.

And you said based on what people have said, and I will disagree with that because people have been waiting quite some time. And I know I'm biased, but I'm happy to be biased about it. They were promised a destination by a developer who was selling them a snake oil. Is that the one we're still keeping from building? And now the people have been asking and asking and asking and there's an entire community waiting for this to happen. I can't read it.

Yeah, well, the conversation was there's possibly two different phases of destination play space and definitely... Phase 1, I believe, should be high on the list because it was already approved by the voters in 2020, and we've been waiting patiently for that. But the other thing is I am going to reiterate my concern about maintenance and operations costs because a couple of years from now, based on the timing of the CIP, we are adding almost $1 million a year to operation costs for some of these projects. I think we have to not only consider what it costs to build them, but what it costs to operate them and what pressure that puts on the other services that we provide.

No, that's a very good point. Are there items you would recommend we move out of 2027 based on your concern?

Well, a number of them are based on the bond. So there is waiting to see what would happen with that. But the most expensive one on that list is the 1849 Park Phase 3. And I guess I'm concerned about Phase 3, that it has... only three baseball fields. And I felt like and I know there might be some limitations, but, you know, I want to have some more information on that, like why we can't build more of the sports aspect. than parking and concessions and restrooms. And it's a large dollar amount, and I think it's not delivering as much for the youth sports or adult sports community based on that price tag. So that's my concern about phase three, that we're not getting more for our money in terms of sports.

So Jeff, to the question of paying for your buck, how many fields do we have currently that we just built out there?

We have three.

Okay, so then we're looking at a 100% increase to make it six. What's the full-scale idea of what we can actually build out there if we need to?

We've been having conversations about this because of the future Melville Lane extension going right through the park. There's actually very little... buildable space up in the north portion of the park because of that floodplain. Especially, I think, this is their world, but when they made adjustments to the floodplain maps, that area expanded out a little bit. So even what we had in the 2014 master plan for Atlas 14, that's a word I've heard. It's a little bit smaller than it was even then. So there's some space on the northeast side that we The master plan lines out for pickleball courts, tennis courts, things like that. You could build very small athletic facilities there, but again, you're backing right into development at this point. It wasn't that way when that master plan was built. We have found in the parks and rec space, you don't always want lighted fields that close, backing up to someone's property. No doubt.

Based on that concern, does anyone else want to reprioritize that particular park project?

I have no problems moving up Reunion Park, but I also think that, what? Caesar said about destination play space. I mean, that is something that we did. We did probably explicitly promise. Now the location can like, again, the location could change, but I mean, we're not talking about location right now.

We're talking about what the voters have said.

They want that, right?

Yeah. I should add on 1849 park 5 million developing athletic facilities in the Northern portion is difficult. Developing even destination type play spaces is not, that's absolutely what we can do. We can make a state park like atmosphere in that space. Right. add single track nature trails, things like that. That's what the plan is for 1849.

And I trust that you'll maximize the land that is usable without exorbitantly bringing a bunch of fill.

Wait, you're trying to tell me they have a plan and know what they're doing? I do trust them to be experts.

I will say, yeah, the creek trail, the creek that runs through there is an incredible opportunity for those hiking trails. There's some great relief out there. It's going to be pretty... pretty impressive. Melody?

Well, you know what? As I was thinking and talking about this, this, because phase two has been completed, it's not on here about what that's going to add to the annual maintenance, which we have to consider on top of this. So it's not that I don't think that these plans are great. I just... I'm concerned about our ability to afford them.

Sorry, I missed that. Was that Lake Pflugerel Phase 2 that you're referring to? No, 1849. Phase 2 with the first three. Phase 2 or Phase 3? The ones that are just opening now.

No, Phase 2 just finished with the baseball fields. But we don't know because I'm just wondering if $750,000 a year to operate Phase 3, what's the cost? Phase 2, you mean? No.

Oh, I see what you're saying. It should be noted, most of that, 90% of that is athletic field maintenance.

And there is a cost recovery component to that. And we just went over what our model is regarding fees. There is a cost recovery model. It's not all bottom line costs.

I should say, too, for cost recovery, the difference between a three-field complex and a six-field complex is pretty great in terms of what organizations might be looking at to bring out-of-town teams. If they're not going to a three-field complex, they will go to a six-field complex.

It's funny you mention that. I know that... I don't know if they want me to name the city. There's a city south of us that is explicitly building... Yeah, I can say Champions Field. That's what they're calling it. And explicitly for pony... and other baseball leagues because they're saying there's not enough baseball fields available, and the expectation is to attract those teams, those travel teams, and get those dollars in. That leads to cost recovery.

regardless it does cost money to operate them and so i don't know all the ins and outs of that dollar amount but um we have to be concerned about not only building but operating and what may or may not be cut or not added because of that

I think we learned our lesson from 1849 Park. We did not have M&O in mind when we acquired it and what we were implementing. I feel like we've done that consistently since then. It may not be reflected in here, correct me if I'm wrong, Jeff, but we have ideas about that. what the M&O will be applicable to make sure that we're actually offering this at the correct level. No, absolutely.

And especially since we just built some fields, we know what those costs are. And again, one of those three fields we would be building is a Miracle League field. At least that's in the concept, which is not turf. So there's some maintenance, but you can play t-ball on it. younger kids on it, but it's like the rubber surfacing for wheelchairs.

It's a great concept, especially with our all abilities plan. Council, I'm going to take us real quick to page 75 of 180 to our transportation projects and ask if there is any reprioritization to be had on our transportation projects.

Page 92 if you're in the packet.

Yeah, page 92 in the packet. Page 81 if you're in the single document. Page 75 of 180 if you're looking at the bottom. That's going to be your transportation. I'm glad you're navigating traffic. Matt, would you take us to transportation on the slide just real quick? I don't remember if it's forward or back. It's back.

So I do want to echo some of the sentiments, Director Rector, of prioritizing all of the 2020 road projects that are still open at the front as well as... Adjusting it to the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendations about no new debt, and let's focus on finishing what we've already funded. I do have a question on pavement maintenance program because in the version that I looked, it still talks about what 2026 plans are, and so I wanted some insight on what are the other neighborhoods or streets that we're considering next year for this money, which I think is... Is it 5 million or where am I?

6.2.

Well, this is 5 million for 2027.

Oh, 5 million for 2027, yeah.

And am I misremembering that I think that we're doing a study towards the beginning of the year on which roads or...

Correct. It's a different project. So TR2704 in your packet, it's on page 76 of 180. I don't know what all the other page numbers are. I get you. Is to do an updated pavement condition index. All of the roads that we've been trying to do rehab and just extend the life on are based on an old PCI or pavement condition index.

How long ago was that one, bud? More than a decade? No, no.

I believe it was in 2010.

Three or four years ago.

It's not super.

I see you've got a PCI study there in what year was it? They're in 27 and then again in 30. So the idea is do we need to be doing that every three years?

Every three to five years I would recommend you do it unless you want to try to take it all in-house which then requires additional equipment and some training for staff, those kind of things. But Yeah, because even though you can try to approximate how your streets are going to start aging and failing, you can't really anticipate everything under the ground. And so that's part of the problem that we're having now as we try to line up the 2026 version is that the contractors that we've been using, we say, hey, we're just going to do a slurry seal. And they come in and say, no, this is a full depth rebuild. And so the PCI study, as best we can use it, is helping us, but it's not giving us the greatest and latest updated information. So that's why we're recommending we do that again early in 27. And then we would prioritize the roads based around that study, with the exception that I'm pretty sure that we're still going to try to do a mill and overlay of the older parts of Pflugerville Parkway. just because that one has been called out for a while to have it milled and overlaid.

So the only concern I have here is TR, I think it was 2407. Let me find that again. 2407, which was the steeds crossing right turn lane. That being not slated until 28, beginning in 28, continuing through 2830. That feels like something that we should be doing sooner. The traffic up there has gotten dramatically worse. Any chance we could accelerate that one?

What was that? 2407 FM 685.

So we approved funds to be spent this year. We're not spending them and we're moving them to 2028. Can you talk about that, Matt?