City Council - Regular Meeting

Since the last council meeting, but we're staying under that 6 million gallons on a regular basis as of now. And then Matt, do you want to speak on that construction? Sure.

So like we like to do, give you an update on the construction that's happening out there. This is down at the river pump station itself. So you can see they're doing the cathode protection. They're pulling the pipes so that we can replace some of the pumps. And then that last picture on the right there is them trying to fix the leaks that they have found in the 42 inch yard pipe. That's why we couldn't finish everything that we were trying to finish in the previous shutdown. This is moving upstream, and so this is what we call bid package three. This is them trying to finish the installation of the last few hundred feet of the 42-inch raw water line.

I'm sorry. Can we go back? Sure. You said there's leaks in the 42-inch. Yes. The new one. So in the actual pipes?

In the joints. So you can see there on the joints, like if you look at the picture on the right where he's trying to lower it to get everything just lined up perfectly and get that gasket to seal, they've had a lot of problems getting those mechanical joints to seal properly.

Where did they attribute that to? Because this is not Legos.

Um...

not really giving us a reason they're just saying it's leaking and they need to go back and rework i mean this is this is the purpose of the pressure test right that it's been undergoing right yes they run a pressure test they find gaps they go in and figure out where they didn't weld it enough or or whatnot correct or i guess where the gasket didn't seal but is this a normal process is this putting us behind schedule

On this particular bid package, we are not behind schedule. It's not ideal, but we are working through it. You will see on this bid package, this is the one that has 10 miles of 42-inch line. We have seven joints that we know of today that are leaking after we've done the pressure testing. So that is slowing us down. That's why we're not ready to... put the 42-inch pipe into operation yet. So yes, it is slowing us down, but on that particular bid package, we're not buying schedule, the second.

So what's our target now?

Our new target for having the 42-inch roll water line in service is the first part of August.

Now, to Doug's point, just so the communities understand we're aware of this, Is this the normal process and procedure as you're building that pipe is that you do the testing, you find where the points are, and then you go remediate those specific aspects, and then you move on to the next one, correct? Yes. Okay. That's just... We want to make sure everyone's aware.

We did have the additional complication factor of... a water issue. It takes a lot of water to fill up these sections of pipe. And so we purposely held them back from doing that until we thought that we were far enough along that we could start doing that. So now you'll see on the next one, the final bid package where part of the delay for them was it took them longer to fill up these sections of pipe and do the testing than they had estimated whenever we were running the numbers.

Better do it right than rush through it.

Yes.

Based on your experience, does this seem out of line or in line?

To have seven leaks in 10 miles of pipe, I'd say that's pretty average.

Okay.

Thank you. Then the last picture there on the right is the 30-inch existing raw water line pieces that we removed. This is the pieces that were removed. broken, the pipes themselves weren't broken. We actually now know 100% what happened. When the pump was activated, there was no thrust blocking in place. It created a water hammer. When the pipes pushed against nothing, they actually came disconnected and then when they tried to slam back together they didn't go back the way they were supposed to so if you think about you've got one end of a pipe inside the other end of the pipe when they blew apart and they tried to come back together they didn't line up okay that tells you how much pressure is going through those yes So this just kind of gives you an idea where that 30 inch segment is you see between the two orange lines that I've drawn there That's that's the outer edges of Boggy Creek And so all that 30 inch line basically under between those two lines has been removed We also found a segment in that little red circle right there that we previously didn't know about that was also part of that blown-apart section and And so we have removed all those broken pieces or all the disconnected pieces. We've started putting in all of the replacement pieces, and so that is in process.

When do we believe that will be back online?

So complicating factor here, and, right, it's a – a myriad of things that stack on top of each other. So originally we were thinking if that yard piping that I was talking about, the very first bid package was done during the shutdown, then we would just be able to turn a valve and be able to go back and forth between the 30 and the 42. The yard piping is not done. and this red circle complicates things another because just on the bottom edge of that red circle is where our 24 inch bypass line connects into that existing 30 inch raw water line so we cannot just turn on the 30 inch line we have to go in sequence get the 42 inch operational and then disconnect the 24 inch bypass then finish that red circle to connect the 30 inch so It'll be late August before the 30-inch is in August.

So the 42-inch is the goal? Yes. All right.

And then this is the final big package. I'm sorry.

That was a lot of information. On the 30-inch pipe where you said that the pressure kind of, they came apart, and when they came back together, they didn't quite line up. So does that mean that the pipes themselves didn't have a leak, or was that the joints?

So it was at the joint. So when the joint disconnected itself, it didn't go back properly. So then as we tried to pump, well, I mean, as we tried to continue pumping water, it just spilled out into the tunnel and then flowed out into the creek.

So had we known that originally, would we still need to have all the new pipes or would we have to just go and adjust the joints?

It's hard to say. Okay. The route we took was the safest course of action because we didn't know what was in there. And there was originally a conversation about just running the 24-inch through the 30-inch. But this question was raised early in that conversation about if these pipes came apart and they're not seated properly to each other and you hit the edge of one of those with that 24-inch, then what? Yeah. well, then we have to start over and figure something else out. And so that's why we didn't go that route. And this was the safest path that was also the least impact time-wise to us.

And probably more fiscally responsible, too.

Well, I mean, yeah, we didn't know what we didn't know, and so we could have pulled all this pipe out and it could have been destroyed, and then we would be right back where we are, except we would have been months behind where we are. Absolutely.

But we are... behind where we were anticipated to be, but only about a month. Is that right?

So let me just clarify. You had said the new target for the 42 inch is the first part of August and we have to do it sequencing. So that's going to be the first part of August. Then you have to remove the 24 inch bypass. The 42 inch will be on and working. And then you have to complete this additional repair in that red circle area.

Correct.

Okay. And so remove the bypass and complete the 30-inch new repair. Do you have an estimate on how long you think that will be?

The contractor is estimating that that will be done by the end of August. So a couple of weeks after the 42 inches flowing water, the 30 inch will be repaired and the 24 inch will be removed. Okay.

Thank you.

Sure. Okay, last bid package is what we call bid package four. This is the uppermost. You can see those guys working in that pit right next to the lake right there. You can also see the guy crawling through the pipe doing the deflection testing. And then this one is the furthest along. So you can see on the picture on the right, they're already restoring the concrete and trying to put the vegetation back. So this bid package is basically going to be ready to go this month, but unfortunately they're at the lake, and so we need the other two bid packages ready to flow the 42-inch to get to them. And then the last one, just showing you the status of the bypass. So that first picture, like always, is the very first picture we showed you when we first built it. And you can see this was on June 30th. So I haven't taken one after the rains today. But bypass is still holding on. It's still in place. So we're keeping an eye on it. And as long as it continues to hold up, we think we're going to make it. And then with that, I'll turn it back over to Shelby to talk about the plant.

All right, so just to kind of recap, part of the reason we're in the restrictions we are in is due to the treatment operational capabilities of meeting demand at the water plant. And part of that is the aging membranes. And as mentioned at the last council meeting, we were working on procurement of 320 membranes, which is a replacement of a full train of membranes. As of today, we got 200 modules delivered to the plant. So that's great. It was ahead of schedule. They actually had originally said next week. So we were happy to see that arrive. We're looking at the estimate they gave us for the remaining 120 was the week of July 27th. But again, these were a week ahead. So we'll hope for the same good news. We're still on track to... meet the capacity we need to go back to stage one restrictions by the end of July. However, our operations staff is doing what we can to see if we can push that date forward.

So what's the earliest reasonable expectation for that date? I get emails about this every day. When can I do my watering?

End of July is more than reasonable. I am hopeful for before that.

But my constituent who's going on vacation tomorrow and really wanted to turn on his automated sprinklers is out of luck.

unfortunately at this time we are so tomorrow we are starting the install of the 200 membranes again we have the remaining 120 it's also dependent on when we install those 200 membranes when we do those that testing of the membranes assuming it comes back good which it should how much just the 200 adds to capacity additionally annually we pull sorry to throw a sidebar here but We pull our strainers annually, and strainers catch large debris coming into the plant. Last Friday, we had an increase in zebra mussels coming in to the plant. The strainers are doing their job. They're capturing them, but we are declogging them every day right now.

That's an increase from normal, isn't it?

It is. However, we started dosing copper ion. We switched the chemical we use. It's a large die-off of zebra mussels, so it's doing its job, to be frank. But we are having to unclog those strainers frequently, and because of that, there is a restraint of how much flow is coming through those strainers to our membranes. We are working on a path forward, and I am very hopeful that within the week that's... Not an issue, but to be frank, I'm cautious to run the new membranes before we get through the bulk of those muscles and cause us more heartache than we need to.

Right. So we might be looking at going to the regular restrictions in a week. Yes. But we can count on being on the regular restrictions in two weeks.

Exactly.

Okay. Yes, sir. I can email my constituents and tell them that?

Yes, sir.

Okay. All right.

And then, I don't know if I want to speak on this, but this is just our ways of getting out the word to you. So again, when we can lift restrictions, we do not plan on delaying that at all. Whenever the time comes, the time comes. So these are some of the sources you can utilize to keep in the know and get the latest updates on the water supply.

Any questions? Thank you.

Thank you for being nimble in this time.

Thank you and super excited that the membranes arrived so early. Certainly looking forward to the installation of those. So yes, we certainly will have plenty of emails to send, David. All right, that brings us to item five on our agenda, reading of the consent agenda. Council members, do you have any items to pull from the consent agenda?

Go ahead.

Which one are you going to call?

5A. 5E. 5F. 5G. 5J. Anyone else? Anyone else? Okay. 5K. 5K?

All right, I heard A, E, F, G, J, and K. Any other items, council? Trista, would you mind reading the consent agenda for me?

Absolutely. 5B is ordinance on second reading with a caption reading, an ordinance of the city of Pflugerville approving the 2026 amended and restated service and assessment plan and annual service plan update for the Lakeside Meadows Public Improvement District in accordance with Chapter 372 Texas Local Government Code as amended. making various findings and provisions related to the subject and providing for an effective date 5c is ordinance on second reading with the caption reading and ordinance of the city of pflugerville texas authorizing the granting of an easement on city property for the purpose of providing electric services to the city's public work complex as generally located south of the intersection of weiss lane and jesse bulls road again items 5a 5e 5f 5g 5j and 5k have been pulled from the consent agenda all remaining items may be acted upon in a single motion

Move to approve the remaining items on the consent agenda. Second.

I have a motion from David, a second from Kimberly.

Oh, am I not on the right page?

That one. Hold on. Next one. Okay. There you go.

Hold down. Pull down.

Did you vote?

Pull down. Oh, I didn't. You pulled way down. Yeah, we were on that.

I was on the wrong side. There we go.

All right. We made it through technology and we passed the key. I will not allow you with that Apple slander up here. We will move forward to item 6A to conduct a public hearing on the roadway impact fee audit results. Finance Director Waldron.

Yes, good evening, Mayor and Council. So the audit on the roadway impact fee is a new requirement under local government code 395. It is required before we can do a roadway impact fee study and increase existing fees. The audit covers November 2020 through July of 2025. This is basically the inception of when we started accepting roadway impact fees. So this is the duration of how long we've been collecting them. Out of everything that was audited, we had one finding before 10-23. The fees were not being held in the interest-bearing account, and that was rectified back in 2023. You got the report in your packet. If you have any questions for you, it was pretty straightforward.

I thought I had read that we didn't start roadway impact fees until 2022.

This is the period that was covered. Oh, okay.

I thought you said we started collecting them at the beginning of this period.

Yes, this was the time frame of the audit.

Okay. So I had a question on Exhibit B, which has a schedule of the CIP with the estimated cost in each service area. And I just wanted to know if there's a reason that the impact fees collected to date haven't been used for the eligible completed projects on that list?

So we have used them for some projects and even if you look at our CIP report we show which projects we are using these impact fees for.

Well the audit reports said there was only 263,000 of fees used and we have 17 million.

I think that, I know, last year we assigned roadway impact fees. I think some of those projects had not gotten past the other funding that they had in order to get to the funding for roadway impact fees, but we definitely have projects assigned to this funding stream going forward.

And will we be getting updates like this with, you know, a summary of what was collected, interest, and spent by service area going forward? This analysis only happens with an audit.

This was done for the audit.

Do we have the capability of reporting on how much money is being spent in each service area going forward?

We do track that information.

Okay, so we can get reports on this, of how much is spent per area? We can provide that, yes. Okay. And then I think my last question was, this was the first time I heard about us having an audit. When did, was this in the budget for this year and how did that decision come out?

So it was a new requirement that came out of the legislature last year. And so we had already started both of our studies for all of our impact fees when this all came about, which is why the studies were slowed down and delayed a little bit because we had to scramble and go find an auditor and produce these audits. It is paid out of the impact fee fund, so it's not a general fund cost or a water waste water cost.

And I thought I read somewhere that this has to, is it every three years or every five years or if we want to raise fees that we have to do it before the audit or is there a minimum amount?

It has to be done if we're looking to increase fees.

Okay, so only if there's a possibility that we would increase fees do we have to have an audit? It's not on a regular cadence?

I believe that's the case, yes. Thank you.

Council, any other questions? This is a public hearing. I invite anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item to come forward.

Move to close public hearing. Thanks.

I have a motion from Jonathan, a second from Cesar to close the public hearing. Motion passes unanimously. That takes us to item 6B, to conduct a public hearing on roadway impact fee updates to land use assumptions, capital improvement, and impact fee. Director Rector.

Good evening again, Mayor and Council. So, yes, we are here to do a public hearing on the roadway impact fee. One thing that I will point out right from the get-go, I do not represent Kimley Horn. They are our consultant. They put this together. I'm just presenting the information because of a scheduling conflict that we had. So you may remember at the last meeting in June, we gave kind of an update on this. And so this is actually a little more in-depth presentation. Whoa, I don't know what's happening. Okay. So again, we're going to talk about the land use plan, capital improvement plan, maximum fees. I am not touching anything, I promise you.

Oh, do they have auto-play on their slides?

There's a ghost in the machine. Every time I approach the dais, it changes slides. Okay, so this is going to be a fun one. Okay, that's fine.

We're good.

So just before the slide changes, the CIAC has recommended that you adopt the fees or that you accept the report. The land use assumptions were based on the comprehensive plan as well as the growth rates that were shown in the water and wastewater master plans from 2023 and also the CAMPO 2050 travel demand model. The reason why the 2023 water and wastewater master plans were used is because this was started in January of 25. The updates to the water and wastewater master plans were not started until later in 25, and they were not adopted until the end of 2025. I believe November, December is when we adopted those. And this went to the CIAC starting in February. So that's why you saw that they used the latest and best information that they had when they put this together.

And let's be clear, we don't come up with a formula, correct? With the... To calculate what a road impact fee would be?

No, that's dictated by a state law.

Okay, that's a statute.

But there are assumptions. Is the maximum dictated by state law?

The maximum is dictated by state law, yes. The city council has discretion to go...

The formula is dictated by state law. The adoption of the rate is dictated by us. So let's be clear about that.

Okay. But... Let me ask you about this because you talked about the water, wastewater permitting projected growth rate. And we know that we've been averaging about 1.2% over the first five years of the decade. What are we projecting forward?

What is in your water, wastewater master plan? I honestly don't know what was in your 2023 water and wastewater master plan to be able to answer what number was used here.

Okay. So if we're dealing with faulty baseline and bad projections, we will get bad numbers at the end of the day. Gigo. So...

Yeah, well, so I looked at this, and my recollection was we were projecting 8% growth in both the water and wastewater plans in 2023, which was just an update, and it wasn't a full plan. Then in our 2025 plans, our water estimated growth dropped down to 2%. and our wastewater state at 8%. But that's one source of information. But that's a pretty significant reduction in growth projections. So if we're using old data, then you know, I'm not sure that we're going to get the right numbers. And is it worth it to go back and get, I mean, so 2023 would be based on amounts, you know, or numbers and data up until 2022. So we've had three and a half years since then that we're not taking into account. When I backed into the math, it seems like these projections were at a 5%. But it's just when your water plan says over the next 10 years, you're going to have 5,000 new connections. And then this plan says we're going to have 16,000. It's three times the number that our other plans have just achieved.

To be clear, this is not a wastewater impact fee. It's not a water impact fee. It's a roadway impact fee. So can you help me understand how the water, wastewater... growth assumptions figure into the formula for establishing the roadway impact fee?

So they do not weigh into the formula itself. The reason that they come into play is that the growth projections that the consultant was using to look out 10 years into the future was based on the same growth projections that we have

I got you. But the growth projection, so in 10 years, they expect us to be at X. If we're not actually at X, if we're above or below, what does that do to our plan? Does that mean we've included projects that don't need to be built yet?

No.

Does it mean we haven't included projects that need to be built?

No.

Or does it adjust the timing for the cost of allocation of the projects?

So timing is not indicated by your growth patterns in these calculations. Okay. You have a CIP.

Hold on. The rate of growth does not affect your calculations individually? for what you're going to charge for growth? He said timing.

No, no, no, I didn't say that. He said timing. I said timing of your projects is not dictated in these calculations.

So timing of projects is not affected by the rate of growth.

No, because your mobility master plan has already assumed what projects you're going to do over the next five and ten years.

But those assumptions are based on how much we're going to grow. And if we're not growing at all, we don't need no new roads.

Am I wrong? You're going to tell, you're going to say we don't need new roads. I don't know that I would agree with that statement. I don't even know.

Do you need the same number of new roads if your growth percentage is 1% a year or 5% a year? Do you need the same number of lane miles?

Potentially. Depends on what type of projects you're doing. Because if you're... Here's the thing. Are you kidding me? No, sir, I'm not. If you are... If you have a slower residential growth rate, okay? that does not generate the same number of vehicle miles as if you did a bunch of commercial development. You don't have to have a tremendous growth rate to show commercial development. And if you look at the numbers, that could be five times as much vehicle miles on your roadways. So in that situation, you could grow zero in your population base, but you've grown in your commercial base And now you need more roads, even though your growth rate is flat.

Do we have an indication that that's actually happening? I'm sorry? Do we have an indication that that's actually happening and we're having enormous commercial growth in flugger roads?

Well, so we're only on the land use assumption slide here, and I imagine there's more slides that have.

more assumptions and more projects so can we can we get a little further forward and see if we answer some of these questions so so this is the land use projections uh here's what the numbers came out to be uh as far as how much they projected we would grow for between 2025 and 2035 you can see uh The numbers there, the majority of the growth is, I mean, it's kind of balanced between multifamily, single family, and then your employment, which is everything non-residential. Then you get into your CIP, which was already kind of approved before we started this process for what projects you were going to be doing between 2025 and 2035. This map is straight out of the mobility master plan. The city is broken into three service areas. So you have A, B, and C. As we are all aware, A and B are pretty far along. C has a lot of room to grow still. So this is one of the slides, and this confused me at first whenever I saw from the consultant, and so I had to ask them multiple times. So they're not actually suggesting that we do a 25% impact fee. The purpose of this slide is to kind of help guide the conversation that's going to happen at the end of this when we bring back the ordinance. And that is if you set, let's just say we wanted to recover 25% through our impact fees, then the rest of the funds have to come from some other source. You're going to go build your infrastructure. The red and the purple and the blue, you really can't do much with those. The conversation about impact fees, you're really looking at that green and yellow wedges of the pie. So if you... When we get there, when you see the maximum impact fee, we just have to keep in mind that if we reduce that number, then that delta that we've created has to come from somewhere else.

So explain again, what are impact fees for?

Impact fees are to cover the growth of your infrastructure, typically from development that should be borne by development, rather than putting the entire burden on the tax base to say, hey, we're going to pay for all this growth to come to our city.

How developers and, call it newcomers to town, pay their own way for infrastructure.

They pay for themselves. Correct. Partially. In theory, yes. Based on that trivia pursuit widget.

Let's – hold on a second. Let's go back to that.

So if we could, for a moment, David, you weren't here at the beginning of the work session, so I did want to let you know. So I passed out some gifts, and you may have had some personal stationery there. Yeah, I saw it. So I want to make sure that we operate as efficiently and effectively as we can. I would ask if you can potentially write down some of your questions on your newfound stationery, and let's try to consolidate so we can get through as – as expeditiously as possible and ensure that we give Matt the opportunity to answer the questions as he goes through the presentation because he may have these answers for you already. And if he hasn't, you'll have a list of those questions that haven't been answered yet. I would really appreciate it if we could try that a little bit. Matt, if you could. Yes, sir.

So this is just breaking down and zooming into each of those service areas that I showed you previously. This is service area A. You can see the total cost of the CIP is $144 million. Of that, if we set to the maximum impact fee, we can only recover $93.2 million of that. In service area B, similar setup here. Total cost of the CIP is $112.3 million. If we set it to the max in this area, we can only recover 59.5%. And then finally, service area C, same setup. And so moving on. So when we ran all the numbers, we being the consultant, this is the number that they calculated out using the formulas that are dictated by state statute. So as you can see, the current max fee that we are charging in service areas A, B, and C is $1,590, $2,916, and $3,156, respectively. the new max fee that we could charge in each of those same service areas goes up pretty significantly in A and C and actually decreases in B. And most of that is because there's Like we already said, there's limitations. We also reached out to the financial consultant who was helping us with this and asked them, okay, so is there a way that we can kind of couch this conversation for city council to kind of help you guys think about what you want to do? that ties everything back to, right? Because if we don't charge that max, and I'm not, I'm not saying we have to do the max. I'm just giving you guys an idea. What does that do to, because in theory, if you don't do that, then the money has to come from the tax base. And so we asked them to run the numbers and they said that basically if you, uh, set the impact fees below the maximum recovery of the 16 million, Sorry, if the number that you choose recovers that amount less over 10 years, then the 20-year cost to the average homeowner using $2026 would be a $756 cost. That would add one penny to the INS rate. If we rounded it to $10 million, then you can see the numbers there.

Over the 10 years?

Yes.

When you say one penny, is that one penny per year or... one penny total over a tenth of a penny?

I believe this is per year.

That's per year. Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thank you.

So to kind of... Again, push the conversation forward. Staff decided that, you know, we thought, hey, let's just take a stab at where we think you guys might want to land and then, you know, like see if we can get anywhere close. And so this table here shows you what the current collection rates are. Currently, the process is set up between residential and non-residential. We charge two different rates. So we kind of kept that mentality in place. And you can see that we're recommending for residential, it goes up in A and C, but stays at the max in B. And then similar to what you had done the last time that we did this update, we took half of the max for non-residential in each of those service areas. With the exception of B, we just set it straight equal to the max.

We're not approving these rates tonight, though, right?

I just wanted to make sure that that was... Tonight is a public hearing.

Yes, this is just... This is a public hearing.

So I have a question on the math.

I'm sorry, Matt, were you finished with this?

So the only thing I really had left was just kind of giving you comparisons of where we're... recommending where we could be at the max and comparing that to the five cities that we're showing here. And so you can see that our recommendation, we tried to stay somewhat close to Round Rock and Georgetown. We're obviously above Hutto, Leander, and College Station on the single family. The industrial gets a little bit higher than Georgetown and we're pretty much higher than everybody else. General office, same thing. And shopping center, we're getting higher. I did also talk to our consultant and then you have sit down restaurant. One of the things that you are allowed to do is that you could set it by land use instead of just saying residential, non-residential, if that's something that the council desired. But like I said, staff was trying to keep it simple and just facilitate the conversation. So we just said, keep the same general pattern. Let's make a stab in the dark at where we think this might land. And then that way that gives city council kind of a launching pad to go have the conversations. And then that's it. We discussed all those things. And we're here on the public hearing. And then we will bring back the ordinance in August for you to have your first and second reading to adopt what the rate actually is.

Council questions.

I have a math question. Go ahead. Okay. Can we go back a few slides to where the math was?

Just tell me where to stop. The table?

Yeah. So... I tried to run some numbers and I sent questions in advance. So if you overstate your growth, but the projects to what you said are going to stay the same, that means there will be less to pay for the same. In actuality, these fees could be higher. And when I ran some modeling and used more like 2.5% growth versus the amount I calculated in here, it seemed to be around 5%. it greatly increased A and B. Not that I'm saying that we would want to increase, but I want to come from a place of the most accurate data that we have now, because this is what we're approving now. And I don't believe that we have the most accurate data in our growth projections, given large decrease in estimated growth that we have in a large portion of our area through our water master plan. I'm not sure if this study obtained information from the city about our occupancy and how our multifamily and our single family units have grown over the past five years. But that would give us more of an idea in the actual city limits what our growth is. But I don't think that we should be approving studies that have a growth that is not supported by updated plans that we did pay a lot of money to produce. So it may not change the ultimate, you know, what we decide, but I think we should know what the actual costs are going to be with a more aligned growth projection.

Director, I have a slightly different question. Okay. We did not have roadway impact fees prior to 2022. Is that right?

That's my understanding for you, yes, for Pflugerville.

And for the first two decades of this century, Pflugerville had very dramatic growth. It appears to have slowed. dramatically since we adopted roadway impact fees. Director, you will agree with me that the federal government imposes cigarette taxes, isn't that right?

I believe so. I'm not a smoker, but I believe so.

And they have very, very high cigarette taxes for the purpose of discouraging cigarette consumption. Is that correct? And isn't it also true that cigarette consumption has dropped dramatically over the last 30 years as the federal government has increased cigarette taxes. Isn't that true?

You've laid the predicate. Answer your own question. I can't. Don't have to make your point for you.

So if we increase roadway impact fees...

I know. It's going to discourage business.

Is that likely to increase or decrease development?

That's his argument. Okay. I think there's a lot of additional consideration there.

If you increase costs, all other things being equal, do you get more or less demand?

Let me ask this question first. Before we had roadway impact fees, we had traffic impact analysis that assessed fees to development. TI's. Are we seeing... Are these... higher or lower or about the same as those fees are under a TIA process?

It's hard for me to, there's a lot of things there.

A lot of factors in there. I'm just trying to understand because maybe they are. And David's comparison is apt. Maybe they're not. Maybe we just shifted this. Because my understanding is when we implemented roadway impact fees was that we were essentially... working to collect the same development impact without forcing the developer to go through a lengthy and expensive process so that the roadway impact fees actually optimize things both for us and the developer. Now, if that's not the case, then we need to revisit, but I'm trying to understand if that rationale still holds true.

Yeah, because specifically, to your point, we spoke about that because we'd have to get a third party, get invested on this, get involved. It was an elongated process for that. Yeah. I believe the mayor is right.

Even assuming that the fees are identical, if you raise the fees, do you get more or less development? So here's your problem. And then there's also a point on the Laffer curve where you have raised your taxes so much that you're actually collecting less revenue.

Can I ask the macro question?

Jonathan, yes.

I want to ask the macro question. Is this agenda item where we discuss our strategy going forward for impact fees? Because if that's the case, David, to your point, if we're having that conversation, it's a very different conversation with different inputs, in my opinion. If we're going to say, hey, we're just going with staff recommendation versus are we going to talk about, for example, what direct director mentioned, which is hey, do we want to incentivize restaurants, for example, or do we want to help out small businesses based on land use? If we're having that conversation, that's a totally different conversation than, hey, we have to set a max rate per state law. You know what I'm saying? Because that's an economic development conversation, not just a max. Exactly.

Roadway impact fees are an economic development tool, or they're an economic development barrier.

So here's part of the problem. and this is, we spoke about this a couple of days ago, is that it is very, I'm not gonna use the word simplistic. It's easily, yeah, yeah. But we have evidence, because we speak to other people in other cities, other Indies, and actually have gone on road trips to speak about this, specifically, where in fact, no. They have not been a barrier to that. And in fact, if the actual business, if development's going to come, the development's going to come. That was something that got reiterated to us numerous times when we took an economic development trip back in 2018 to DFW to have that discussion. So that's why when you say that, oh, wait a minute. Oh, yes. Well, if that's going to... I mean, you think intuitively, which is to be fair. I understand that. Intuitively saying, okay, if you raise it too much, folks aren't going to come. There's all... And that's why he was saying to you that there's all other different factors to get into it. Now, to be clear... You've heard me on PCDC, on here, et cetera, right there, have concerns about what the fees are themselves. So I'm not going to sit here and tell you that I haven't had concerns about that. But I think it's – I'm not going to say it's disingenuous. I'm going to say that – it's it's very it's too easily um to be discussed to say or simplicity to be discussed and say oh yes if you make it higher you make it higher you're just going to have that barrier for that because that's just not the case well it's one factor amongst many exactly the only counterpoint i'll make is for example if we want to lean into entrepreneurship and small businesses an extra hundred thousand dollars to open a small business restaurant

is a burden if that's the type of business that we want.

But that's a different discussion, right? That's what I'm asking.

They're setting impact values.

Hold on, hold on.

So this is a public hearing on the updates to the plan, the land use assumptions, and the capital improvements. So the question before us is... Do we agree with the land use assumptions? Do we agree with the capital improvements that are in there? Because, yes, we need to have that conversation about setting the fees. And I would certainly agree. I don't know that we use the fees, the roadway impact fee study as an economic development tool. I think we use other economic development tools to... So that we have more flexibility rather than saying, hey, go do whatever you want. It's like, if that's too high, come talk to us.

Well, that's what makes me nervous. If we are approving this recommendation without also having a conversation about the total cost of ownership, basically, right, of development.

Can you go back to the trivia pursuit widget?

It's very different if you're a chain person. company or a large industrial customer than it is a mid-market or a small business.

So to your point, this is the concern, right? Is that what tools, and this is a discussion we've had for years, right? What tools do we utilize to incentivize what we want? And how do we drive that to the market? Because I'm not necessarily going to say that everyone is going to come talk to us. I think the biggest thing we've learned about economic development is that it's the people that you'll never know. Because once they look at it, they're like, oh, wait, okay, I'm just not going to bother with that. But I will say that, again, based on other attributes that communities have, what's incentivizing them for that? What's going to be utilization as a holistic package with that? Additionally speaking, as we've heard from our citizens over and over again, listen, is this really paying for the growth? Are the folks coming in here, why do I have to burden for other folks coming in here? Which plays into your growth development. I'm not going to dissuade that.

It's about affordability also. And I think you're conflating, I'm sure unintentionally, commercial and residential development. The impacts are very different. And I agree with you and the mayor that these roadway impact fees make less of a difference on commercial development. But for affordability for new houses, for whether or not houses get built in the city of Pflugerville or 10 feet outside the city of Pflugerville, roadway impact fees make a difference. And from 2004, when I moved here, to 2020, when COVID happened, everything was going great guns in terms of number of houses, number of people moving to Lugarville. The census in 2000 was 15,000 people. It tripled in 10 years. And then it went up again from 49,000 to 65,000 in the next 10 years. That's slower growth, but still very impressive growth. Where are the new houses being built in Pflugerville? There's some new apartments, but you know, a lot of the new houses in Pflugerville are actually outside the Pflugerville city limits. On the other side of Lake Pflugerville, that's not in the city.

Yeah, it is.

Some of it.

Some of it.

Meadowlark. Meadowlark is...

But a lot of it over there is not.

And a lot of the new development... Meadowlark is, to your point, Meadowlark is right next to another big subdivision that's out to the city. You look at Carmel, parts of Carmel... Two-thirds. Yeah, two-thirds of Carmel.

The new parts of Carmel, not going to be in the city.

But that was a decision we made.

So... The point is having these roadway impact fees affects affordability for young people who want to live in Pflugerville.

So let me paint that picture a little bit. So I've been messing around with this a little bit on my own time. So even if you look at the chart in here that shows in Sector C, a residential home is $30,000 worth of impact fees.

Can you fast forward to those vectors?

part one portion so people can see it right that's all this is still only showing one portion of the city's cut so to speak right this does not necessarily include all of your uh plan reviews your entire process to get to the point where you're even pouring concrete to the point where uh much less your inspection right all of those things so the city's cut If this says $20,000 or $30,000, add another $20,000 or $30,000, now you're talking about $60,000 on a home that you're trying to build that is coming to us. I'm not saying that's a bad thing. To your point, Rudy, the strategic or policy decision could be we want growth to pay for itself, even if that means housing is less affordable or some number of businesses don't come here because of it. Or we can say there are particular types of development, there's a particular type of growth that we want to try to come in, and this is just one factor. I'm completely agreeing with you on that as well, but it is a factor.

And that's the conversation we've got to have, because we've spoken for years quite literally about what we want and where do we want it, and how do we want it developed.

And the world is different in the last six years, too, though. I recognize you all have...

And that's part of the conversation.

There's only three of us on here that have only been here for max four years. Right. Yeah.

So we're not seeing on here our current rate. Correct? No, this isn't giving it because there was a rate, you know, that's $2,000 and now that's turned into $10,000. So those are very different numbers. I'd like to see more information about where is our current rate and what is this proposing to go to?

Oh, you know, I saw a current rate for the other entities.

I thought the last time that it included what Fugerville is charging now and then what the proposed is. And so I'm... I'm correct in saying that it's not there?

Correct. So the light green color is if you use the max, the dark green is the staff shot in the water.

The third one.

Yeah.

We might need a third bar on that in the future that has the current. So my main concern with the roadway impact fee update is It has less to do with the rates and the projects, but really the scope of the projects. Because the scope of the projects is based on our master transportation plan.

Yes.

Which includes a defined cross-section.

Yes.

And we've dramatically increased that. I say dramatically. We've increased that cross-section over the last little bit to have... At least two years. Different lane structures, additional walking... biking, and off-road trails. And I fear that we've over-engineered that to the point that our costs that feed into this formula inflate the cost because we are demanding a very excessive cross-section. So that's my concern when it comes to this. I think that's what feeds into the issue of affordability to me is over-engineering the roadway. That's a question, though, right?

Because it goes to what do you want your community to look like? It does.

And that's the hard part, right? To Jonathan's point, it is a policy discussion about what you want it to look like, to Rudy's point, but the question is... Well, the point is, this is where the rubber meets the road. This is where those policy decisions turn into real dollars.

Well, we need to make sure that all the assumptions that are being used there, whether it's that plan or the water plan or our actual growth, that that's reflected into the math because that drives our decision. Because what if the math changed it and said, oh, your fee is actually lower? Because I'm not sure... I haven't been convinced that going from a 5% growth rate to a 2.5% growth rate doesn't affect the projects and the timing of when you're going to add roads. I'm not sure I understand that logic.

I think of places like Burnett County that literally they took the time, both the commissioner's court as well as Burnett themselves and some of the cities out there, Leander and other folks, who are like, okay, this is what we're looking at. Let's build this now because it's going to cost a substantial amount of money based on what we got over there as well. And they were ahead of the game. How often do we hear, more often than not, that we're not ahead of the game, particularly when it comes to transit. But I'd rather, for our purposes, make sure that, hey, listen, we're building this as they come for that because it's going to be much cheaper than it is in the future. Now, to your point, that goes with timing. That goes with timing about what that looks like. But when it comes to road and infrastructure, I mean, that's the thing. We're talking about tools of what we're trying to invest and get people to come here. How often do we hear that? We're saying, okay, what does your infrastructure look like? You know, we're here for major businesses. One of the reasons why Amazon game here, because I saw what we're doing right there is because what are you, what were you doing with your infrastructure? What was your plan and looking for the other aspects? So it's tough because I mean, you're right. We're at it. I'm not going to say we're at a nadir, but we are at a point where it's like, okay, you know, you're seeing things flat across the board. So, and then you don't want to put that additional burden on your citizens at the same time. It's in these moments when you're trying to make decisions for that. And it goes back to what the mayor's point is, is that, and, and, He used the term over-engineered. Over-engineered. Over-engineered. What does that look like? What do you want that? What do you want this city to look like?

And this is where it meets the road. So I feel like a lot of this is turning dials that turn opposite or in tandem with each other. If our growth is slower, then fewer people are paying the impact fees. Fewer people are paying the impact fees. We have less money to spend on roads. We have fewer people here. So we need fewer roads. It's kind of one of those things where the growth to some degree takes care of itself in terms of the lane miles.

Except that we've already borrowed billions for water.

These are roadway impact fees, David.

The roadway impact fees affect whether or not we get more people to move to our town or they move 10 feet outside of our town.

How does it change the cost of our infrastructure?

They're not paying property taxes in Pflugerville if they're outside of Pflugerville.

But then are we subsidizing their costs upon other people in town?

We're having to pay the water debt, regardless of what happens.

So you'd like to subsidize the road debt in order to cover the water debt?

whether we have another person move to town or not, we have $2 billion in water debt.

And when that person moves to town, they have an impact on our roadways, which increases our infrastructure debt.

Yes. And if we could dial it up and down independently, that'd be great. But we can't. That's not how it works. A person comes to town or they don't come to town. And if they come to town, they help us with our water debt.

And they cost us in other ways.

Well, they're going to cost us anyway if they use the road.

Right, but the purpose of the roadway impact fee is so that they cover their cost when they come to town. If you'd prefer to subsidize them to incentivize them to cover other...

I'm looking at these numbers and I'm seeing numbers for flood oil that are grossly disproportionate to everybody else's numbers. The only one that we're close to is Round Rock. Brian is not on this list because Brian doesn't have a roadway impact fee.

Do they have a traffic impact analysis fee?

You know what they're doing? They are blowing and going. They are developing like nobody's business. If you put a tax on something, you get less of it. This is why the government taxes the heck out of alcohol. This is why the government taxes the heck out of cigarettes. Because they want people to consume less of it. Well, if we want people to develop less in Pflugerville, then we should raise the roadway impact fee to the absolute maximum.

I don't hear anyone advocating for that. This is a public hearing. I'm inviting anyone from the public who wishes to speak on the item. You can have three minutes. So as a reminder, this is conducting a public hearing on roadway impact fee updates to land use assumptions, capital improvement, and the impact fee.

Okay, it shows in Category B or Section B, we're going from $2,900 to $2,000. Why? Is development going to be so slow that we won't actually pick it up? Why not just keep it at 29 where it is? And if you get reserves, you've got reserves to fix potholes once they start popping up. And I could be totally wrong on that, but I don't get the reason why we're cutting it 900 bucks if the development in that section is acceptable.

I appreciate that, Wesley.

I did want to comment on the math that you were talking about, if there's reduced growth and there's reduced need. The thing is that in this actual formula, there's a cap in section A and section B, but not in section C. So when you adjust the growth down, section C doesn't really change, but because of the cap in A and B, it does have a change in the formula. So that's just, that's the difference. So sometimes it depends on whether you're capped or not in this formula for the math. Now, I'm not an expert in that formula, but that's why I would like the consultant to, you know, we look at some of these numbers and have a scenario where the growth projections are more in line. So that, because we can talk theoretically about what the math is going to do, but I like to see it pencil and paper. Right.

And I think especially if we're even sticking with the same. Yeah. methodology and the subsidy rate that we have now, which we basically are in this proposal, I still think we need to have that conversation. And so that's where I'm uncomfortable approving something that's basically has all the same assumptions baked in when we haven't had the policy discussions. We're doing some of that now, but I think there's substantially more to have. Mayor, to your point about the cross-sections, right? We have a lot of different levers we can pull, and I think we need to be clear with each other on which ones we want to take advantage of or not. Else we have to wait another year plus, multiple years, I think, to revise this again.

Setting the fees is only legally allowed every two years, four years?

I thought it said three.

I believe you can do it every three years. It's required every five years.

Well, evaluating it is required every five years, but we can't. I think we used to be able to move it around every year if we wanted to, but we can't do that anymore.

I think it's three years and then a mandatory use.

I think it's three minimum, right?

So as far as deadline and logistics, right? Can we take our time? Can we have these policy decisions? has to be approved before we can make changes. But we're not under a deadline to make changes. Like, is there a deadline? Like, we have to make changes in two months or something?

I believe your impact fees were actually originally adopted in 2020. They went into place in 2022. So I would need to get back and check the legality of are you required to do it in 2025 or are you required to do it in 2027?

Okay, so that's where the 2020 number came from in the audit.

Is there a shot clock post-audit? Because we have to perform the audit in order to amend the fees.

We had to do the audit.

Is there a shot clock between we completed the audit so we have three months to change things? It's a great question for later. Again, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone else from the public wishing to speak at this time?

Essentially, how long are the numbers good for?

When do we have to make a decision?

There's no decision on this.

No, I mean in the next month, in the next two months.

We have 120 days from this public hearing.

There we go. So we've got three months. And within 120 days we have to either raise or lower the rates. Or change the rates in some way that is maybe revenue neutral, but we... We have special exemptions for restaurants and extra charges for tire factories. We have to solicit feedback.

The other thing, sorry.

I'm not sure about the logic of having section or area A be the same as area C when area A is more infill. So I'm just throwing that out there as, you know, because the amount of taxes has an effect on where people, you know, the cost of building at a certain level. And where do we want to build out? Do we want to build out in area C or do we want to build out... I mean, obviously everywhere, but which one do we want to incentivize? So I want that to be part of our conversation.

So, Matt, I do have a question about the math here. Area B non-res staff recommended rate. In the existing adopted rates, the non-residential rate is half of the current max. I thought that was a statutory requirement. Was that a policy decision? Because... Does the non-res in Section B need to be half of what it's shown here, or can we charge the full amount for non-residential?

So the statutory requirement is that you cannot go above the max. There's no non-res. The council's policy that you guys set back in 2020 and went into effect in 2022 was that you were going to do residential at the rate shown in the blue there, and then the non-res was half of the max.

Half of the max. And your recommendation is go to the full max for non-residential in Area B. Yeah, the reason we didn't recommend doing half in B was because that would be $1,000. That's the extra money for potholes. Gotcha. Again, this is a public hearing. I don't see anyone else from the public wishing to speak. I think we've spoken enough for the public.

Director, thank you for your patience and your insight. I appreciate the questions.

Yes, absolutely. I appreciate the vibrant discussion. Do I have a motion to close the public hearing?

Second.

I have a motion from Cesar and a second from Jonathan. Motion passes unanimously. I'm going to skip back real quick to Item 5B on my agenda. If you bear with me, item 5B is a mayor's proclamation declaring July 16, 2026 as public fall risk education and awareness day in the city of Foodville.

That's not 5B.

He's going back to 4B. He's going back to 4B.

He's got it. 4B.

Thank you, Krista. Alright. You're welcome to come up here and join me if you would. I've got a little something to read and then we'll get a picture at the flag. Would you like to say any words? Alright.

I'll turn it over to you after this.

Ladies and gentlemen, fall related injuries represent a significant public health concern, often impacting individual independence and quality of life. Education regarding gait biometrics, excuse me, biomechanics, plays a vital role in identifying personal risks and empowering residents with tools to maintain their mobility. Echo Step plans to partner with senior homes, assisted living facilities, and rehabilitation centers within Pflugerville to pilot its fall risk screening app and provide on-site assessments. So I proclaim July 16, 2026 as Public Fall Risk Education and Awareness Day in the city of Pflugerville. Shariah Nagamanavar is here to accept the proclamation. Did I get close on the name? Shariah. That's the part I messed up. All right. Would you like to say some words?

Thank you.

Good evening, mayor, council members, and everyone in attendance. My name is Aditi Trivedi.

And my name is Sriyanaga Manavar.

We are part of a student-led organization, EcoSTEP. We want to sincerely thank the city of Pflugerville for proclaiming EcoSTEP Senior Fall Prevention Awareness Day. It is an honor to have our mission recognized by the city.

Falls are one of the leading causes of injury among older adults, and alarmingly, every 20 minutes an older adult in the U.S. dies from a fall. Yet so many of these tragedies can be prevented through education, awareness, and simple safety measures. That's why we started Eco-STEP, to help seniors stay safe, independent, and active by encouraging communities to prioritize fall prevention.

As students, we never imagined that an idea rooted in serving our community would grow into something recognized at the city level. This proclamation reminds us that anyone, regardless of age, can create meaningful change. It also highlights the importance of proactive fall risk education, which is central to EcoSteps' mission. Through outreach, advocacy, and the app we are developing alongside an ASU professor featuring a digitalized CDC questionnaire and a simple gait stability walking test, we aim to give seniors and caregivers accessible tools to better understand and reduce fall risk. Our goal is to make fall prevention a priority in every community, beginning with the communities we are fortunate to serve.

Thank you again to the City of Pflugerville, the Mayor, Council Members for your support and for helping elevate awareness around this important issue. Your recognition strengthens our commitment to continue serving older adults and building a safer, healthier community. Thank you.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

All right. Let me double check where I am. Item 6C. We will move to Item 6C. This is to discuss and consider action approving the petitions received and validated for the potential creation of a tourism public improvement district as authorized by Chapter 372 of the Texas Local Government Code. We have Carla.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. We're back this evening to continue the process of establishing the Tourism Public Improvement District, or TPID. I'm pleased to share that we have received and validated petitions from eligible hotels in support in creating the district. I would like to recognize our GM from the Courtyard by Marriott, Daniel Spalda, is here in support. And I would also like... to introduce Scott Joslove once again, president and CEO of the Texas Hotel and Lodging Association, who has helped guide us through this process. This first item, council's consideration to approve petitions received, and now I'll turn it over to Scott.

I'm actually here as a resource witness. I can answer any questions you have.

Mayor, would you entertain a motion? Yeah, I was going to say, I think we've flagged them down enough last time.

I would certainly entertain a motion.

Move to approve item 6C.

Second. We've got a motion in a few seconds. I'll let you choose, Trista. Now we get the scouts. I've got a whole bunch of questions for you.

Now we grill the duck. Now, you've done a great job answering every concern.

Yeah, you did a really good job. All right. I imagine you're not going too far because item 6D is to conduct a public hearing and consider approval of a resolution to authorize the creation of a tourism public improvement district.

Yes.

This being a public hearing, I invite anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item to come forward now.

Move to close the public hearing.

Second. A motion and a second to close the public hearing.

No, I'm waiting for you to vote.

There it goes. And that passes unanimously to close the public hearing.

There is also a resolution on this item. What were you going to say?

There's a resolution. A motion to approve the resolution from Cesar and a second from Rudy.

Okay.

Motion passes unanimously. Appreciate that. And still not going too far. That brings us to item 6E, to conduct a public hearing and consider approving an ordinance on first reading with the caption reading, an ordinance of the City of Pflugerville, excuse me, an ordinance of the City Council of the City of Pflugerville, Texas, accepting and approving the Tourism Public Improvement District final service plan for the district, assessment rate and assessment role, appropriating $361,000 in revenue to the district for the fiscal year 2027, and to include in fiscal year 2027 the new Tourism Public Improvement District Special Revenue Fund, providing other matters related to the subject. Anything to discuss on this? Again, this is a public hearing. I invite anyone from the public wishing to speak on this item to come forward.

Move to close the public hearing. Second.

I don't know. I'm going to give folks another moment. They're making their beeline up here. No one's running. All right. I'll call the vote. Motion to approve 60 as presented.

Second.

I have a motion and a second to approve the ordinance.

There we go.

Motion passes unanimously. I don't know why my head is so big on the screen right now. But I can tell you everything is green. Yeah, it says 7-0 there.

That's all we needed you for. Any comments?

There's no impact fee, I would like to note. Well, we appreciate you being here tonight, and we're looking forward to the impact that the Tourism Public Improvement District can make.

We look forward to working with you. Thank you so much, everyone. Thank you. Hey, Kim, these next ones will be quick, too.

Well, I don't know. I've got a stack of paper here.

Is this H or K?

All right, so the next item we have is item 7A, to discuss and consider action regarding appointment to the equity board. We have, I believe, one vacancy. We have one applicant, but I've got a stack of papers I have to read first. Now, fortunately, I think most of these folks have signed up to register their support, but do not wish to speak. So I will read your names into the record. Not wishing to speak, but registering support. Ruthie Koksom. The Reverend Richard Koksom. Urcha Dunbar-Crespo. Catherine L. Lewis. Jacqueline Freeman. Rita King, June Rivers, Tony Hanson, Tony Henton, Cynthia Harden, and Lily Milliner. It didn't mark that she didn't want to speak, so she's welcome to come forward or just register her support.

She got so excited.

She's got a paper, too. She's got some comments. Don't remind us.

I'm trying not to, but you redeemed yourself in the last five minutes. I'm Lily Milliner. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, Council folks. I am excited and just passionate about the fact that Dr. Nadine McElroy, who has been on the Career Education Program, committee with St. Mary's Baptist Missionary Church. And she's a minister there. She has been a leader in the community, not only in the seniors, but the elementary school. We're talking about a Renaissance woman. We're talking about somebody that is working with young people as young as four and as old as 100. And we are excited about her wanting to take her precious time, because time is the most valuable thing we have, in order to be a candidate for the Equity Advisory Board. So we want to truly support her. She is passionate. She cares about everyone in this community. She's lived here a long time, and we love her.

Everyone should have a hype master like you.

Thank you, Ms. Milner. At this point in time, I'll call the Reverend Dr. Nadine Hendricks McElroy to the podium.

The Reverend Doctor.

The Reverend Doctor. You earned those titles, right?

I earned those titles. Yes, I did. I have spent a lot of time in school.

I'm going to ask you, why do you want to serve on the Equity Commission?

Because I think there's the need to... Most people think about equality first, but you have to have equity because everybody don't read the same way. That's right. They can't see the same way. They're not as tall. And I'll give you an example. You see two men looking over a fence at a ball game, enjoying it. And then you go around. One is six feet tall, but the other one is on crates. So we have to accommodate them. Everyone's needs. It's not just about everyone being equal. It's about meeting the needs of the people that can't do it the way we do it.

Being where they are.

There you go, Rudy.

All right. Council, do we have any other questions?

I do. I ask this of everyone. What do you see as the challenges over the next two years that you would like to see addressed?

That I would like to see addressed. I would like for every person, red, white, black, blue or green, to have all of their needs met. I know that's probably an impossibility, but for us as leaders to try and meet that need.

Thank you.

All right. Council, any other questions?

No, I would like to make a motion if no further questions to approve Reverend Dr. Nadine. Second.

I have a motion from Kimberly, a second from Rudy. Now we can have a discussion. Tough questions now. We'd like to unanimously welcome you to the Equity Commission.

Thank you.

All right. All right.

All right. She says she needs some music. We all need some walk-off music. You know we all need that. The next item on our agenda is item 7B. This is to discuss and consider action regarding appointments to the Board of Adjustments. We have one applicant, Jesse Plaza, who is not able to be in attendance due to a family obligation. Do we have anyone who needs to speak in regards to the Board of Adjustments?

I believe we... Jesse Plaza?

Did we have an application? We got an application.

Yeah, they emailed it.

I wonder, we had discussed before that if people were not present, that we pause. How do we feel about that? Are we not doing that?

We have a project that we really need somebody today.

We need to be able to establish a quorum on the Board of Adjustments. What does the Board of Adjustments do again?

No one wants it, really. Let's go ahead and give it.

I'm happy that a volunteer stepped up. It just needs love. Okay, sorry. It just needs love.

Let me turn my mic on. All right, do I have a... Yes, I was second. I've got a motion from Jonathan and a second from Kimberly.

Second. Okay.

Thanks, David. That means he's a yes, maybe. And that is also unanimous. All right.

I'll give those who wish the opportunity to escape.

The next item we have on the agenda is to discuss and consider action to approve the appointment of the communications director, Assistant City Manager Toledo.

Good evening, mayor and council. It's an honor tonight to introduce you to Rachel Reynolds as our appointment for communications director. Rachel has worked for 14 years for the city of Keller, coming to the city of Keller as our first communications professional and serving as the communications and public engagement manager for the city. She has extensive experience in print journalism as well, including a role as editor and interim general manager for the community impact newspaper. She serves as the vice president of communications on the board of the Texas Association of Municipal Information Officers and holds her certified public communicator. She studied journalism at the University of North Texas, and I'm proud to introduce you to our final candidate for communications director, Ms. Rachel Reynolds.

Welcome, Ms. Reynolds.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Would you like to tell us anything about yourself?

Tara did a fantastic job. I'll just add that I was born and raised in what I have been told is Pflugerville's largest suburb, which is the city of Austin. So in addition to loving communicating with the public and loving working in public service, this is an exciting opportunity for me to come back to Central Texas.

So how did you enjoy yourself? Because my question to you was about Keller. I grew up in Trophy Club. Oh. So that's why I was like, Keller, Texas. Well, Roanoke, babes. That's Roanoke.

We do have a row of them in Keller, though. I refer to it as the chicken strip. We have like four in a mile.

So what skill sets, what did you learn from? I mean, and if people... As you know well aware, Keller was about as podunk as all get out, and then the fast growth came to it as well, not too similar from here. What skill sets do you believe that you had from there that you can go ahead and translate over here, utilization with our community?

I think public engagement and public input are critical. In Keller, our focus has always been not only on meeting people where they are and accessing that public engagement where people already are, But then making sure that we close the loop and use what we hear to make decisions. I never want to put a survey out into the field, for example, unless I know how we're going to use those results so that we can show people we asked you what you wanted and now we're delivering on what you wanted. And Keller continues to grow slowly. We're actually close to build out. But surprisingly, perhaps, It's made things like development conversations even more aggressive because people are concerned about that last maybe 10% of growth and what that's going to look like and how that's going to set us up for long-term sustainability.

I have a question. First of all, nice to meet you. If you've been here, you've heard lots of conversation around transparency. And as our communications director there are lots of things And so what what is transparency for you at this particular level mean?

for our citizens I'm the type that wants to give the whole story as quickly as possible I think that people aren't always going to agree with the decisions that staff makes or that council members make but we can serve them by ensuring that they understand how that decision is was come to. I have never once lied to a resident in Keller. I would never once lie to a resident in Pflugerville. So to me, transparency and being very just forthright with information when we know something might upset the public and things like that, I just think it's critical. I think that is what helps establish trust within the community. And that trust is foundational to everything that we do.

Thank you so much. That's so important. And then finally, my question would be, what are you going to do to make it fun, though?

I actually told Terry I was very excited to start to get to use PF puns. We use a lot of humor in Keller. I'm still going to have to get my bearings on what kind of humor your residents like, what kind of humor your department heads are comfortable with. I do have one in Keller that is like absolutely no fun or funny content for his department. But we love to have some fun.

Merry Christmas to that person, too.

We love to have some fun in our communication. I think it's really important actually for community building. A lot of what we do can be boring or can be confusing to residents. And so clear communication helps with that. But I think some of the more fun content that you've probably see cities put out just adds to the vibe of the community and it embraces that sense of community that the city has. And that is really important. It also, just on the technical side, helps improve following and things like that so that when we are getting out the more serious messaging, more people are getting to see it.

I'm glad to hear that. What's your approach to... I'm sorry. Go ahead. David. What's your approach to crisis management?

I was just in training for it last week. I actually bizarrely enjoy it. For me, it's 24-7 communication. When we had Winter Storm Yuri in 2021, I slept for 10 hours across four days because what was most important to us was making sure that residents were served. And the way that I can make sure residents are served is to make sure that they understand exactly what's going on, exactly what we are doing to fix problems, and when they can expect those results.

So what channels do you prioritize in that communication?

For us, it's heavily social media. Our residents are heavily engaged online, but we had to employ some unique options during that storm in particular. For one thing, our senior population, of course, is not as online as we would like. And so with that, we used our senior center staff to actually individually call residents. residents throughout the storm to make sure that their needs were being met. We also worked with our local media website. We have mass notification systems in Keller as well, as I'm sure you do. So we were using every avenue that we could to make sure we were communicating.

There are some old-fashioned methods of communication that you haven't mentioned there. They're also electronic in nature. How do you expect to deal with radio and television?

Um, for us, it's just relying on partners. So, um, radio and TV in the DFW area, um, thankfully they, they come to us on a lot of that. Um, but they also know where to find that information from us. And so they get our mass notification stuff. Um, they're signed up for our newsletters and things like that. And when we have crisis going on, we're using things like our weekly newsletter, uh, base to also communicate on a more regular basis, just because it's such a large group of our population.

Thank you. I have one quick question. Do you have a stance on how aggressively we should add filters to pictures of our lake?

That's a great question.

I have a question. What do you see as the unique opportunities and challenges that Pflugerville is going to face over the next year related to communications?

I think you guys have a lot going on. And so for residents, even ones who are interested in government and are trying to keep up, there's a lot of information. So I think it's going to be... We're going to have to have a big focus on clarity of information. We're going to be needing to time information well so that people are getting it in time to help contribute to the conversations. And I think you also are going to have... Probably a lot of change happening with, you know, you've got all these new department heads coming in. You have a new city manager. So the way of doing things may change. The way that you guys process information and make decisions may change. And so I think also helping people understand when something like a policy has adjusted can be extremely helpful. Thank you. Sure.

Council, any other questions for the candidate? All right. This is a... Hold on, I turned my page. This is considering action to approve the appointment.

Motion to approve.

Second.

We got a couple of seconds. And don't think I didn't notice you're wearing mean green collars, by the way.

Also Pflugerville green. Also Keller. I'm already covered.

That's right. Blue and green are Pflugerville collars.

And that, again, passes unanimously. Welcome aboard. We're glad to have you.

Thank you. I look forward to working with all of you.

All right. Moving on to Item 7D, this is to discuss and consider action to approve the appointment of Emily Barone as Deputy City Manager. We have to have a discussion.

Is she presenting herself?

All right.

Happy to sit back down.

I've got James's name now. Are you going to introduce her? No.

I can't say enough about Emily. She's been here since I've been here, so seven years working together, and I'm excited to be able to bring her on this new position. I can't imagine trying to do this job without her. She's just been instrumental in so many large projects. She's such a heavy hitter. She's respected across the state, and so I'm really thrilled for this opportunity to keep her on.

Well, she's worn so many different hats and excelled in so many different manners and cleaned up so many different messes and educated so many different council members, including myself. I can't see a better person to be a deputy city manager. May I entertain a motion? Oh, she's got a question.

Let me say, while I share your very high regard for Emily, having known her for I don't know, half of forever. I reiterate my concern about not going through a search process for the very top echelon positions in the city, whether it's police chief or city manager or deputy city manager. I believe that the city and the citizens are well served by doing an extensive search that exposes the city council and the city management to a wide variety of people. And just as I said when we appointed James, he may very well be the best of all possible candidates. Emily may very well be the best of all possible candidates. I certainly have high regard for her and expect her to do an excellent job. I do feel, however, we are not doing our job by not looking at the other possibilities. I intend to vote for Emily with that caveat.

So Emily, it's great to see you here and we've worked together for a long time when I was just a citizen and I have very high regard for all of your qualifications and your diligence and everything you bring to the table. I do share the same concerns about not having an external search for the two highest administrative positions in the city. An external recruitment isn't a reflection on the qualifications of our employees. It's about ensuring we consider the broadest range of experience, leadership styles, and ideas before making a decision that will shape the organization. And I also believe an open recruitment process strengthens public confidence and brings valuable diversity of thought and professional experience to the leadership team. So those are just my feedback, but I do believe, I do have confidence in you.

Thank you so much.

Any other comments?

Move to approve.

I have a motion from David, a second from Kimberly. And that's unanimous.

Thank you. Thank you so much. I appreciate the opportunity. And it's been a pleasure these last 14 years working with the community and this fantastic team. I can't imagine working anywhere else. And it's a pleasure to be in this new role serving all of you. Thank you very much.

We're so excited to have you, Deputy City Manager. Thank you. The next item on our agenda is item 7E, presentation regarding the 2025-2026 Charter Review Commission report. We have Charter Review Commission Chair Jim McDonald here to present.

The Honorable. The Right Honorable.

Greetings. Greetings. So I know you all will be happy to hear that when Trista sent me the notes to just go over the few items that we amended, I said, no, let's go over all of them again to make sure that they're inclusive in one meeting for anyone that wants to review them. So the ones I'm going to touch on briefly just as a refresher for you all, hopefully we'll avoid a lot of comment and discussion around those items. I got to do it myself? Oh, the forward button. I got to open up my laptop here, too, just in case. Oh, she was very smart and left it all hidden. Okay. Just the ones we're talking about here? Yes. So, amen... Yes. Perfect. So these are the amendments that contained no changes after our deliberation on the follow-up meeting from our joint meeting. Amendment 1, of course, is just making consistent capitalization for things like city manager. The example, of course, is if you talk about your dad, that's a proper noun. If you talk about dads, that's not a proper noun. It's not capitalized. So there are things that are being gone through and being capitalized. Amendment 2 clarifies the meaning of policies inside of Section 1.02. Amendment 3 swaps out some language using the more common word, disannex, and then also removes unnecessary reference, duplicate reference to state law. Amendment 4 states that Council shall adopt protections regarding use of artificial intelligence. We talked about this last time and basically just asking Council to create a board for oversight and recommendations and keeping abreast of all the things. Amendment 5 authorizes council members to receive $500 per month and the mayor to receive $750 per month. And I will point out that in the follow-up meeting, I specifically called this out and gave everyone an opportunity to retract this amendment. And there was a lot of additional discussion around this. And basically, the committee as a whole, even those that disagreed with this particular item, agreed that it's what the body asked for, it's what the citizens asked for, and that it should move forward to have a vote. We also discussed adjusting the amount, and the committee was firm in the values that they put on that. Amendment 6, a council-requested agenda item is to be placed on agenda within 60 days. This just sets a... Timeline to if something is requested it doesn't float out there and ether not that that has ever happened, but this just provides a strategic guideline there Amendment 7 removes a section to comply with state law amendment 8 removes redundant references to state law and clarifies the types of boards with which the council meets and includes reference to council requested items and Amendment 9, again, removes some unnecessary language. 12 removes requirement that the municipal court judge must reside within the city. Again, it's noted that our current municipal judge also is a municipal judge for another municipality, which can't have dual residency. So this seems like an opportunity to be able to bring in expertise if and when we need a new municipal judge. Amendment 13, again, unnecessary reference to state laws. 14, you remember our discussion about indelible pencil and other types of markings for referendums and decrees. such. Amendment 15 lowers the percentage of qualified voters needed to cause an initiative I think from 15 to 10 percent in recognition that our city is growing and increasing in size and is geographically distributed, so it's harder and harder to get to that threshold. Amendment 16 increases the deadline when a supplementary petition can be filed. That means that if for some reason the signatures on a petition are found not to be valid, instead of having two weeks, you get four weeks to correct that. Amendment 19 adds a section requiring reporting on capital projects. Amendment 20 corrects the name of the Texas Public Information Act and removes unnecessary reference to state law. The ones we changed. Going to Amendment 10. Removes redundant language regarding council's submitted item. Removes requirement that ordinances must be adopted at two council meetings unless council by majority vote requires an additional reading. We've seen some of this language already to have things adopted and this helps us to expedite that. Not in every case, but in cases where necessary or in cases where there's not a requirement for additional deliberation. Let's see what we got. Amendment. Any discussion on that? Thoughts? I want to make sure I don't go too quickly.

I know... No, keep it rolling.

All right. Amendment 11 removes unnecessary reference to state law. The and it authorizes the mayor to excuse the city manager from attending a meeting Previously that was a council vote. I don't know that we've ever had a council vote to do that And so this is just kind of codifying what is already common practice Amendment 17 This was an idea in terms of trying to clean up the overall charter, moving the... There's multiple sections in there that referenced the Texas Open Meetings Act. And rather than having those all around, as we were going through updating the language there, we realized that we could move Section 807 to 1115, where we have similar requirements of... of complying with a bunch of other state laws and keep it in one place to simplify the charter. I'm loving this. Amendment 18, add requirements governing how the city's annual budget is developed. And it removed the detailed budget list, budget points. And so this specifically refers to, I believe, Article 9. So there's language in there that says that the city shall conform to the GFOA, which is the Government Finance Officers Association, and the guidelines that are presented there. And we had lots of discussions in the Charter Review Committee about policy versus strategic direction that the charter is supposed to affect. And so a lot of these bullet points were rather... specific in terms of policy driven items as opposed to what we think of cleaning this up and just pointing at an overall overarching document to provide that guidance. And so there's a lot of red lines in this section. Amendment 21, we went back through and looked at how the public participates in meetings. We remembered that in COVID, we had a lot of Zoom calls or electronic meetings where... where people couldn't always attend and so we're adding a section in here to allow specifically to allow written comments to be submitted not to be read not even in their entirety or not even be read for three minutes because that that can be problematic too because I can read real slow or read real fast And so the point here is that written comments will be included into the minutes of the meeting, so that they'll be there. They'll be included in the packet, so presumably council would read them and have awareness of them. And then item 1105B would be allow the remote participation for the public, understanding that public comment is one way, right? When people come up and address the council in public comment, Typically, especially in the beginning of it, if it's not on a specific item, council doesn't join them and deliberate with the public comment. It's just making their voices heard. And so we feel like that's not an undue requirement to ask for the city to provide to the citizenry.

So, Jim, for the, I guess it's 1105A, any comments? What we do for the state bar is that we allow people to send in written comments on any agenda item. I want to say the deadline is 72 hours. Do you guys have anything in mind specifically about that?

Again, we were just kind of... putting in the framework to make this possible. We would rely on the governance and knowledge of council, especially opportunities like that, or even at the state, you can provide public comments or a green card or a red card. There's all different types of ways that this could be affected within policy, and we look forward to seeing if this is passed, what council comes up with. guys are making this too easy.

I did have a question on Amendment 18.

On which one, I'm sorry?

Amendment 18. 18. Sorry. In that amendment, it referred to the requirements of an outside agency, but when I inquired with the city attorney, those requirements from the outside agency weren't available or provided. So I just wonder how will the public know what is being referred to and going to be included as the criteria for the budget.

Are you referring to the GFOA? Correct. That's publicly available. A couple of people on the committee had read and reviewed it and provided some feedback and insight in terms of the structure that it provides for budget building and budget auditing.

So can that information be provided?

In terms of?

Which pages, which sections from that website would would apply so that the public will know what's included in there?

The committee didn't specify any sort of specificity in terms of which sections of that document would be germane. That's left up to council to affect this policy.

Cool. And that's not a change recommended, is it?

I don't see that as underlined, so I think that was already in the document. We're just removing all the pieces beneath that. The step-by-step.

Actually, it is an addition, and I identified that with the city attorney. He acknowledged it and emailed us about it, but it has not been corrected in this version that we were given.

I apologize. Yeah, I know that the title of that section had been changed from content to development, and section B had been labeled content. And that addition is missing, but yes. And thank you for that, because I remember us talking about it and adding that and not seeing it underlined was like, wait, what, was it already there? Yeah. So yes, that is an addition. I want to, before, there's no other questions?

Any other questions on the recommendations from the Charter Review Commission?

So, hearing none, I just want to state that that the CRC, the Charter Review Commission, spent a lot of time reviewing these. We received numerous recommendations from multiple council members, and each one of those was taken, dissected, discussed, sometimes discussed a second time, and we spent a lot of time to that effect. Even in supporting that, we haven't published the minutes yet for our last meeting, but Mr. Newsome made public comment at the beginning of the meeting and discussed the amount of time that Commission spent reviewing the charter and the comments from the joint meeting. He also stated that... What am I looking for? Sorry, I lost my place. stated that he was not against reviewing items for policy versus charter amendment and that the commission put a lot of thought into the report. I don't think it's necessary for council, and this is just my opinion outside of the CRE, but I don't think it's necessary for the council to rehash or re-deliberate any of the work that the CRC did. Y'all chose us, picked 17. We lost one member early on for personal reasons, but 16 of the people of Pflugerville that y'all picked had honest, open discussions and came to agreement on these things. And I know that as the chair of that committee, I ask that you respect the work that the CRC did and move forward with that. I know there's another item to discuss, amendments that you all may add, and I hope that they are unique and disparate from the ones that we've already recommended. Thank you.

Okay, so you're just saying you hope that we're not adding ones that contradict what's on there.

So Jim, the one question I have for you, and it may be more for counsel, is when I see some of these amendments listed, consistent capitalization, correcting the name of a government document, and then updating or removing references to redundant state law. Can we not wrap all that up into one amendment instead of having 21 of these? I feel like there's an opportunity for consolidation.

Yeah, and that's probably more a city or an assistant city attorney question. I know that five years ago we went through this process and we – neutralized or made the document gender neutral. And there were multiple places that referred to the city secretary as she and the city manager as he. And all those, even though they were in multiple parts, multiple articles were changed with one vote. And it depends on, I think, And the city attorney can answer this question a lot better than I can. It depends on the de minimis nature of the changes. If it's punctuation, then maybe they can be aggregated. You see what I did there? You smack talk.

If only we had a city attorney sitting back there who actually does charge for a living.

But yes, that would be, in my opinion, in terms of presenting this to the public, that would be ideal to have an omnibus amendment that took care of multiple small things that were basically just housekeeping items.

But at this point, you've presented these amendments to us by charter. We're required to place these amendments on a ballot. So it feels like it's maybe a little too late for that, but I was hoping there was a de minimis nature to some of these amendments.

Can we ask the attorney? Again, if all amendments are included into an aggregate amendment, it still may be possible.

And I think the quick answer is the amendments are not necessarily the propositions on the ballot.

Okay.

This is a breakdown of every amendment.

These are the amendments, not the propositions. I like that, but maybe... I mean, you're the attorney who assisted with the Charter Review Commission.

You're standing back there, sir. I'm happy to answer any questions. This is my call of friends. I know. Okay.

We should be able to move. Go, yeah.

So, yeah, Council, Charlie's there. Yes, Mayor, all of those proposed changes. So here's what the law says. The law says, well, you've got two that you have to deal with here. Charter provision that says that the proposed amendments that are brought forward by the Charter Commission are required to be placed on the ballot. Ultimately, it's the council's choice how those go on the ballot, as long as they are on the ballot. State law says that charter amendments have to be placed and matter of subject matter, by subject matter, and I have always, over the last, I don't know, 20-some years of doing this, placed those types of charter amendments where they're more technical, non-substantive in nature, we're revising names, we're taking out redundant provisions of the charter under one subject heading, which will probably read something like, shall the city charter be amended to revise the charter, provide for the following provisions, non-substantive technical amendments, capitalization changes, changes in names, things like that. So that would be one ballot item. Even though there may be nine or ten of those proposed amendments, it will all be wrapped up into one, proposed to you, one ballot item. One failed swoop. Great.

Great answer. Thank you.

I'll be here in case something else comes up. All right.

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. McDonald, thank you for the presentation.

And again, thank you to all the members of council and for the mayor for picking such a diverse committee. I think we turned out some good work.

And thank you and the entire commission for everything you did. I know this was a lot of work, and it took a lot of personal time from y'all's lives, so thank you, and thank you, everybody, for it.

We did have perfect attendance from two members. Oh, wow. One of them is sitting right here.

Unlike the other ones here.

Yay.

All right, Council, that brings us to Item 7F. This is to discuss and consider action regarding adding charter amendment propositions to the November 3, 2026 special election ballot. I believe this is for council to discuss and consider. You should have a handout of some proposals from a variety of council members. Who wants to go first? I'll just ask whoever has them. We've got to go by one by one. Well, it's okay. Council place one. Charlie, you may want to sit up here. We'll go numerical order.

Before we do that, I'm just going to give it a try.

Okay.

I would like to request that we approve it as is and trust what we appointed our people to do. I'm just going to sit with that.

No, so she's... So, Trista, for my edification, this is to place their items in these items, or just for these council...

This is only for any additional council items for charter events.

Since the other items already automatically go on. Okay. Yeah, the items they presented are automatic, so it would be for council items, so I'm going to assume that fails for lack of a second. And, Kaufman...

Sure. Yeah, so I had a couple of things that I wanted to bring up. One was we received a recommendation from the CRC recommending that we establish a technology data and surveillance advisory committee. And so I would like to propose that we include that in the charter, which was part of the original scope of things. So that is one. I'll kind of go through the list and we can discuss if you want. The other one that I wanted to bring up was non-voting advisory participation by ETJ residents. It's something that I think would be really valuable and something that our not-quite-residents have been asking for for a while. So it would formalize their ability to participate. And then beyond that, those are my two, I'd say, substantive pieces. I had a list of a few others. For example, there are still gendered language in the charter. I think it's been attempted before, but there are several additional references. So we may want to... I don't know if we can use the previously approved charter amendment to make that update again. Okay, city secretary is shaking her head, yes. And then there's also... I wanted to mention, and again, this is not a huge deal, but a cleanup item was the library board is the only one that actually sets its own separate rules that are not even different from other commissions. So for example, it says currently city council should appoint a library board consisting of seven regular members to serve two-year terms and one alternate member to serve a one-year term, which is just inconsistent with their other commissions. that do not specify that. Everything else uses a centralized or standardized approach for terms and an alternate handling. And then the other thing I wanted to mention as well is I would love to see us start to do some modernization of some of these pieces. So some of the areas where we're, of course, required by state law to post something at City Hall, of course. But I would like to see us consider adding into the charter that we also post things electronically and make things available electronically. So there's several areas in that. Again, I'm mindful of having 20-plus amendments on the ballot, but I'd be remiss if I didn't mention some of those sort of technicalities that I think would be nice to, especially if they could be bundled up, I think would be fantastic. But again, those first two were my really substantive

Can I ask, can council's cleanup items be bundled in with the CRC's amendment of bundled items? It has to be distinct.

Yeah, I would, based on the way the charter's drafted, I would hate to cloud the issue by putting a council amendment bundled in with an amendment by the commission.

I mean, that would be a potential for a poison pill, right? Yes. So even if it's just the gendered language...

Yeah.

So we'd have to have two propositions for general cleanup? Yes.

I would recommend that anything that council decides that they want to do, even if it could potentially be bundled with another charter amendment that commission has requested, that it be done separately.

It'd be misleading.

So I'll go back to my couple of substantive ones and happy to discuss further. So the first one was on... establishing a resident advisory commission for technology data protection and surveillance. If there's any questions or commentary, I think it's a good step in the direction of transparency. Again, it's not proposing oversight, but this would be a group of people who would be able to meet and certainly review and talk about potential changes to make recommendations at council. A few other ideas I included in the proposal was basically making recommendations. It's also, I'm imagining it's similar to the equity commission where council could give this commission or committee, whatever you want to call it, tasks to go and engage with the community. on and do research hand in hand with staff.

You're explaining too much. Simply put, we're not going back. The reality is that at some point we're going to need this because this technology is only going to proliferate and we need more eyes on this.

Let's talk about that Rudy. I agree with you. We need more eyes and I agree that technology is moving at a breakneck pace. With all due respect, I see this as an attack on Flock.

It doesn't really have anything to do with...

It doesn't say Flock in there, but I see it as an attack on Flock. Is that the reason this is in here? I mean, with all due respect, and just be honest with me, is this why this is in here?

No, not at all. It is a larger umbrella of data privacy, cybersecurity... any of these emerging and advanced technologies.

And we've been getting a lot of emails about this, and it's all surrounding flock.

Well, this was a recommendation by the CRC.

No, this is Jonathan's recommendation.

No.

The CRC did recommend it. They did recommend it.

They recommended to council.

The entire CRC. Mr. McDonald, how did this vote go on this recommendation?

On the proposed recommendations, not the amendments? Yeah, part B.

So just... Looking at Amendment 4, and the language of Amendment 4 says, the title is Artificial Intelligence Protection, but specifically the language says, City Council shall adopt protections governing the collection, use, retention, and oversight of data, facial recognition, and surveillance technologies. Establish transparent approval processes for such technologies. Require responsible AI framework ensuring this information is used. locally for a legitimate basis established by law.

I think that's overarching. So, Jim, what you listed was Amendment 4?

As opposed to... As the CRC's presented it.

So in addition to the amendments, there's at the very bottom of the list the proposed recommendations. Recommendation 4... is that council create a technology and surveillance citizen advisory oversight board. That's the one we're talking about. So the question is those recommendations which did not rise to the level of amendments. I assume they did not have enough support to be an amendment, but they're like, hey, maybe council should do something about that, but we shouldn't put it in the charter. Do you know what the... What the basis for that was.

There were some that felt that this Amendment 4 didn't go far enough. And so they opened up. We agreed to open it up to a recommendation on that. But this amendment seems to, unless Council Member Kaufman can differentiate it, it seems to cover the concerns that he enumerated.

I think the difference that in my read of it is that what I'm proposing is that we actually have a resident committee to help. So correct me if I'm wrong, the way I'm reading the amendment that the CRC approved is that it's basically saying, hey, council, you need to pass an ordinance that has rules in it. A policy and procedures.

Yes. Which could include a policy including a board.

It could or it could not. I have a hard time imagining that would be a standing committee. I don't see that meeting monthly.

I don't think it needs to be. I don't think it would have to be monthly either. And by ordinance, we could set up just like we do every other committee and commission. But, I mean, to Council Member Rattayer's point, this isn't going away. You know, three years from now, it's not going to be AI. It's going to be something else, right? And so I I do think that having a standing committee that we're able to pull in resident engagement and have folks participate in that.

But do we need it in the charter? I don't know. Honestly, I don't know. But that's the thing is that I don't know if it's policy anymore given just where we are. Now, I do have a question, though, regarding this.

Oh.

He snuck away. Well, this isn't his item anymore.

I had a question.

I was going to say objective knowledge. I wanted to question you. Ask them. Proposed recommendations. What's the threshold? You only gave us six. What was the threshold number to make it to the proposed recommendations list?

Majority vote.

It was still a majority vote, but it was a vote on making a recommendation that the council do something outside of the charter as opposed to in the charter.

So there was enough concern, if you will, to make a recommendation that y'all fix it as opposed to... Let me ask you this, and then you're going to see where I'm going.

You did this last time, too. What did you think about the boards and commission section, in particular the Parks and Recreation Commission?

I don't recall that we discussed that specifically.

No, because Parks and Rec was removed from the chart a few years ago. It is still a thing, but it is established by ordinance. So I feel like this is something that we could establish by ordinance.

I was going to say, I'd be more than happy to back you on having this committee, just not in the chart. I don't think it's appropriate.

What is the... No, no, no, because it wasn't, you're right.

So Charlie, we had that discussion years ago. Why did we, why were some in, yeah, why were some placed, some of our committees, commissions placed in one place as compared to the other? Because he's right, the mayor's right, we cleaned it up.

Yeah, I don't... I can't recall the discussion we may have had years ago. I don't recall what I had for dinner last week, if I'm being honest. But it's a legitimate discussion with respect to what rises to the level of the necessity of a charter, which is more of a foundational, how do we structure our government document, right? As opposed to, what should we do as a governing body by ordinance or policy? in a way that creates flexibility to change it if necessary. Because remember, the charter can only be amended once every two years. No, it's every two years. Sometimes it's two and a half years depending on when that second year falls and when the election day is. But it is a legitimate policy discussion about whether something should rise to the level of a charter amendment. which is, again, more of a foundational how should our government operate document as opposed to a policy decision that should be made on the ground by council with the flexibility of being able to make changes to that policy document based on differences in councils, based on differences in citizen input, and those types of things, which you can't do once it's... And to your point, when you said what you said, I had to think about it because...

I don't know. Maybe another way to put it is this. A lot of people aren't trying to tackle this issue. And I mean, a lot of people, I mean, a lot of people at our state level and at the federal government level. And so it's, it's come and coming on us at a local level to fix this because we've got to develop the policies. And so that's why I'm like, you know, how do we operate as a city? Well, we've got to get a better handle on eyes on this. It's not going to be, I mean, just like we said about the equity commission, they're not, they don't meet every month. Now they're meeting every month because we got things coming up over here with that, but the same thing wouldn't happen here. But, I think this says something about our city, about, hey, we're thinking about this and trying to get this implemented. I also understand, like you said, if we're already going to have an amendment on the charter amendment anyway, and that can just be something that comes as a subset from that. But I just think about, is it foundational now? I think it's gotten to that point where it's foundational.

I think, and Jonathan, to answer your question, what is the reluctance? I think we don't know what it needs to be yet uh and and i look at something like our equity commission where we established it by ordinance and then a few years later we said oh well we need to we need to modify it we need to change it uh and we and we did if it's in the charter we don't have that option so i think it's appropriate i i would definitely support establishing such a committee by ordinance and figuring out how to make it work right. And if in five years and two years we say, hey, we figured it out and we need it in charter, we can put it in charter or we can keep it in ordinance and have a little more authority to amend it as technology changes.

I do agree. Policy does need to change as Council Member Harris stated. But I think we can make that decision on our own here or council canon. That's fine. I'll back you in there.

Was that consensus for an ordinance so that when it comes back, we all remember what we said today?

We know you'll remember. I think we have the general agreement that we want some kind of ordinance about this. Exactly what that form will take, we don't know yet.

I'm fine with that. The only thing I'll clarify just in terms of what I proposed here was really was creating the commission in the charter, but similar to how our other commissions are set up, the actual bits and pieces would still be an importance. I just want, again, fine with our agreement here, just wanted to point that out.

So, maybe I'll move on to the next one. Yeah, what was it? I was going to ask, I do love your number two, non-voting. Rudy and I have been talking about this for years. Man, this is, I just smile. But I'm almost certain we were told throughout the years that State law says we can't do that.

Charlie, can you convey again what the standard is for ETJ? We were talking about the ETJ discussion. I did not talk to Jonathan about this beforehand at all, but about having a non-voting member on our commissions from the ETJ.

a non-voting member. I mean, I think that you could do that with your locally, like if you're locally created boards and commissions, where you have to be careful is statutorily created boards and commissions and if there's anything, for example, economic development corporations, the statute's very clear about who can be on and where they can be located and those types of things. Or a board of adjustments. Yeah.

Planning and zoning, I believe. Give us a list. Any other board? could we could reappoint regardless? Parks and Rec?

Sure, absolutely. You could do that.

Equity?

Yes. And those are all established by ordinance locally?

I guess library board, which is established in charter.

And again, unless you've got some sort of provision in the charter that's currently in the charter, who has to be on that board?

When I talked to Mike about it, our charter does say explicitly that only people within the city limits can serve on boards and commissions. So that's my understanding from Mike was that that is what would happen.