Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

I don't know I don't know. Last time I think we did it down here.

That's what I Good evening everyone. I'd like to call the meeting to order at 4:03 or excuse me, 5:03 p.m. according 6:03.

Whatever that I'm reading that clock, I promise.

6:03 p.m. on uh on April the 6th. Thank you. Uh the Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes comment on items relevant to the Planning and Zoning Commission not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. In accordance with the Texas Attorney General Opinion, any public comment that is made on an item that is not on the public agenda will only be heard by the commission. No formal action, discussion, deliberation, or comment will be made by the commission. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. Is there anyone present wishing to address the commission? All right. Uh on to discuss o only item 3A number 2026347 discussion regarding the unified development code amendments discuss and obtain direction on several policy choices that influence how the UDC implements the comprehensive plan. These topics reflect areas where multiple approaches are possible and where consultant and city staff have worked together to identify a preferred direction for consideration.

Take it away.

All right. Good evening everyone. Uh, thank you for having us this evening. My name is Erica Kaycraft and I'm the assistant project manager from Frieza Nichols and I am joined tonight by Chance Sparks who is the project manager and Evan Oshaskki who is one of our project planners working on this effort. So my presentation tonight will be pretty short. I'll start out with an overview of the project status. We'll look at the results from our first public engagement for this effort. We'll have some discussion on some focus topics and then any time left over at the end, we'll have time left um for Q&A or any other discussion items. We have a three-phase process and we are currently in phase two. Uh we met back in the fall with you all as the advisory committee for our first of three meetings. Um now we're in phase two, which is actually drafting the UDC. This is the longest part of the process. Um and we'll be wrapping up phase two here um at toward the end of the summer and once we move into phase three that will be the public review and refinement of the complete draft. Then for a more detailed look at that same schedule. So overall we have a 12-month schedule and we plan to wrap up in September of this year. The first arrow those are the advisory committee meetings. You can see this is the second of three again that we've had. We'll meet with you all again here in another couple of months. And then the second arrow is showing where we are in the drafting process. So we've completed the first draft of our four modules which are what what we call we've divided your current code up into basically four quarters of sections. We've been working through those one quarter at a time. So we've now completed the fourth quarter and we're moving into the complete draft stage.

Moving on to the public engagement. So, we conducted the first of two online public engagements in this effort earlier this year. We had an online survey that was available for about a month and it was a two-part survey. The first was for the community as a whole. So, we reached out and asked for preferences. This was generally related to housing and neighborhood types um primarily residential development, but there were other development types as well. And the second part of this effort was the development professionals survey where the city reached out to local um developers and builders to get feedback about what is the demand um other than just what what does the community want to see, what is their demand for here in Flugerville. Um you'll also have in your packet the it's called an engagement summary, but this is the full results from that uh virtual public engagement. number one. If you want to go through and see everything that folks had to say, you have that um here in your packet to take a closer look. But to summarize some of the key points here, the first part we're looking at the broad community survey which is um open to all the residents. There was support for uh single family development, cottage court formats, um large lot homes, but also support for alternative housing types like town houses, duplexes, um even higher intensity residential, but those were most appropriate around retail and um transit oriented development areas. Then in terms of development standards, uh the public talked about landscaping, open space, sidewalks, pedestrian amenities, um and parking placement as other elements that are important to them. Switching over to the development professionals takeaways. Um there was support for different types of single family development. Um especially the

smaller lot, multifamily, cottage courts as well. than for uh the retail and mixed use both at the neighborhood scale and regional scale. And there were some comments that flexibility in development is limited particularly related to the dimensional standards required by the current code and also parking requirements. So that was helpful to um have called out. Next, moving on to the the main part of our discussion today. These are the three discussion topics um that would be in the other document that you should have received a short memo that's about five pages and we have three topics that are listed out here. Um they're all focused on housing and I'd like to run through all three of them if that's all right with you and we'll come back through and then we'd like to hear from you all about your your thoughts and your answers to the questions that we had in here. So starting with the first one, topic one is related to some of the residential districts and this one's a two-part question. What you see here on the screen is from the diagnostic assessment report. So that was an effort that was done before we started here where another consultant looked at the city's code and made some recommendations and from that recommendation um they they recommended elimination of the single family estate or the SF district. Um that requires lots that are at least a half an acre. And the reason that that was recommended was because that's not currently zoned anywhere. it exists as an an established district in the UDC, but it's nowhere on the zoning map. So, it was recommended um just as a simplification uh measure primarily. And then the second part of this recommendation relates to the 2F or the duplex district. So, that district currently is the only district that allows duplex development and it also

requires a 10acre minimum for um anywhere that that district is applied. So what the diagnostic report recommended was instead of having this only this one district that allows duplexes to allow duplex development in other existing districts particularly single family districts. So um we can do that type of development in more locations. Um since in that case duplexes would be allowed in other locations there would no longer be a need for the 2F dedicated district. So that could be eliminated. Uh the report also recommended as an alternative to to that approach, eliminating the two family district, you could keep the two family district and broaden it to allow more residential types in that district. So our question that we have for you related to these two topics, um the first part about the SF SF um estate district is whether that's something that we want to keep as a tool, if that's still helpful. um we we can keep it included in the code as a tool in the toolbox in case you would like to use it. There is public support for those larger lots, but also we wanted to consider is there uh demand? Is there economic support? Are you likely to see more of these larger lots? And also the idea that you can always build a larger lot if you if you want to. We're establishing minimum lot sizes. So say you're in uh the SFS district and you want to plant larger lots, you can still do that. So considering the utility of keeping SFE and then the second part of the question related to the 2F district, um our our current approach right now is to maintain the 2F district that you have. um not allow duplexes in the single family districts with the idea that there are established neighborhoods. Um would there be public support for introducing duplexes into

developed single family neighborhoods or is it important to keep those in designated separate 2F neighborhoods and then we've also created a neighborhood flex residential district in addition that would allow that variety. So instead of the approach of merging some of these districts and allowing duplexes in more locations, we've proposed keeping the single family districts intact as well as keeping the 2F district but adding the additional NFR district that allows for more of the residential variety. The second question is related to the SFR district which is intended to be um a master planned community. Um it's intended to support a variety of single family lot sizes. So um single family housing does allow detached and attached single family. Um but the idea is that it would have different lot sizes. So, your your current code requires um the lot size varies based on how large the development is, but it's either 7,500 square feet or 6,200 square ft um for the entire subdivision, except for 10% of the lots have to be larger than 9,000 ft². So, what we've proposed is tweaking this a bit. So instead of having the 90% 10% split that you have right now, we've established what we've called standard lots, large lots, and small lots. So this mix would require uh more diversity in lot sizes rather than being able to have 90% of your lots are all the same size. This would allow up to half of your lots to be standard, a quarter to be small lots, and a quarter or more could be the large lots. One of the trade-offs that we proposed in here was that smaller lots would be allowed, but that they would have to be alley loaded. So, they would have a

garage and a driveway from the back rather than across the front yard. The question that we have for you here is does the city support this approach of requiring the lot diversity um within this type of development and also about having um the the smaller lots that use the alley loaded configuration. And then the third topic is related to detached condos and build to rent communities. Um so one of the changes that we have proposed here is um first of all giving a name to this use. Right now the current code addresses this largely through the multifamily standards which is a little bit confusing for for some folks and then also when you hear multif family development you don't necessarily picture the single family detached homes that come in a built- rent community. So our recommendation was to um establish a use name for these. We've called them single unit detached residential. Um but that would encompass both detached condos and build to rent. And our our current draft that we're working on, we would refer to another district. In this case, it would be the SFS standards, which would be a 9,000 foot minimum. Basically, the the build to rent or detached condo development would have to follow the standards that would apply to a typical SFS subdivision. uh we wouldn't be regulating the ownership structure, for example. Um we're trying to move away from the condo terminology and focus more on the development rather than the ownership. And this would help with having a a consistent development pattern consistent with what you would see in other parts of Flugerville. Um as part of this um set of standards, we've recommended um what you see here is item 5C, the alley loaded development option.

So if um an applicant decided to do alley loaded development, they could get a 20% reduction in the lot size and the setbacks as kind of an incentive to encourage the alley loaded configuration. So our question here is does uh does the committee agree with defining the build to rent detached condos in this way and by using the SFS standards for this type of development as well as allowing that optional alley loaded incentive for the 20% reduction for lot size um and subex and um just to wrap up the presentation and we'll go back for discussion for our next steps. We'll be continuing to work with city staff. We've been meeting with them um every week or two to to touch base and review drafts. So, we're going to continue that process as we move into the complete draft refinement.

We'll come back to you. We stay on here fall, but it's really summer um when we'll meet with you all the advisory committee again. We'll have another public engagement um survey outreach point and then several joint workshops and an open house. So, that is what is ahead for us. But for tonight's discussion, I wanted to go back to the first of these topics and hopefully hear from from you all what your thoughts are here. So I'll go to the question part of this. So our question for topic one, the first is about if we want to retain the single family estate district as an extra tool to have in our toolbox. um even though it may or may not get used but we would have it there as an option. And then the second part is whether we want to keep the the two family district um as its own standalone dedicated district versus allowing duplexes in the single family districts. Anything to add there? I guess at this point it's let's get the conversation rolling here for some feedback so we can make some key decisions this evening um and and and work through this uh draft as we march forward. So um throw the keys to y'all for

Thank you. Um yeah, so on the single family estate district uh from my recollection and actually I think Robert was present for years prior to me so I know this has come up over the years. Um, from my recollection, it was kept as a it was used as a as an incentive to build a premium product in Plutoville, meaning larger lot, larger home. Um, but that would that would mandate that the entire development is single family estate, right? Is that am I reading am I thinking about that correctly? So, if somebody wants to come in, they build in an SF zone, then whatever they build has to be to that standard.

Yes. So the I mean I look to the rest of the members here whether or not we think that that's uh realistic in the near term in the long term you know because I think the minimum is still 10 acres right for any residential development 10.1 so I'm looking 10 oh it's 10 acres for a duplex I think it's it's 10 acres to build a residential anything. Oh, gosh. Okay. Is that correct? It looks like the the smallest an SF district can be is a half acre. So, you could do a single lot. I might have to excuse myself in a moment.

Oh, but you're talking about like to build to build a whole community, they need 10,000 acres. Period. And no matter what they do, 10 10 acres. Just 10 10,000. Not 10,000. Sorry. 10 acres. Sorry. That's a huge That's a the 10 acres is for a uh an SF. That's a SF different district. Yeah. Okay. Okay. So, I guess you know, I'd leave it up to to you all what you think about a state as a zoning district. I think Yeah, I think short and long term it would be fine. I I don't think removing it is like I think leaving it is in my opinion.

I'd have to look at the map. Do we have a map of where any SFS are designated right now? Part of the problem. There is there is none. And the the the discussion previously was not even about bringing more SFS in. It's not like anybody was really looking to use that except for there was a conversation for for folks that were zoned agriculture and had been grandfathered in to use it as a way to prevent future people from dividing up their land into smaller lots.

Um, which honestly is not really a great public policy goal. um that it was just to keep their their property intact. Um so generally to to your point I don't I can't envision a time in which Flug Groupville would want to encourage large estate size um development. And if there was anybody who was interested in doing that, they're probably going to do that out past the ETJ where they can do whatever they want anyway. Um, so

well and to that point, right? So if we if we take a map and we go, okay, this particular area is going to be SF, then that would that would limit that because we would be the ones that set that map, right? And we have I'm sorry, we just one clarification. We do have one area that's SF. It's right here at K Lane. That older neighborhood when it was annexed, um, they were recently done SF, but they have acreage lots, but like two acre or bigger, right? But then also keep in mind they also have the ability I think two of those lots now have looked at replatting so that they can also then reduce their lot size. So um

right and I so I think from a from a intent standpoint if we haven't used the SF well if we have minimally used like I mean fewer than five properties fewer than 10 um out of all of the parals it doesn't make a lot of in my opinion it doesn't make a lot of sense to maintain it and then be responsible for designating that so that somebody would come in and and do that you know if if uh somebody buys 100 acres and they want to builds halfacre or 1acre lots under SFR. That would that's their prerogative, right? And even some of the developments and the newer stuff, you know, the way that they do the the roads, you end up with pies-shaped lots that are

point4 acres or some oddball, you know, non grid style. Correct. There are some not here in Flugerville, but there are some in Leander Ceda Park where in the subdivision they have 1acre lots. So if it was SFR, they could still do 1 acre lots. They just couldn't resubdivide that lot. Correct. Without a reasoning. Without a reasonzoning, which hardly anybody would do, but when you're in a subdivision like that. Okay. Just I know there's like three or four subdivisions like that where people are looking for a large lot but want to be in a community.

Sure. Uh but so do you think that we need to maintain it as a zoning? No. I mean, we don't, but I mean, if somebody has a single family estate lot, then yeah, I mean, we don't I guess we don't need it. We should probably keep it though in case there is something down the line that needs to come up. Well, I mean, I guess the question what we would keep it as a tool for incentivizing a certain type of development, right? So we keep it on the map and we then we take our map and as the P&Z we say okay this area is SF this area is SF this area is SF. Do we need to do that? Like do we need to actually map out um areas?

Okay, but no change. Okay. So then somebody could theoretically then on their own accord buy the piece of property designated SF themselves. Right. And that would become our only major SF designation. Mhm. That's what I'm thinking.

Right. And that turns into the the real the real distinction then is do we maintain it in the code such that it's it's already laid out all the specifications for what SF is in which case should a future person come to the zoning board the conversation will really be well why shouldn't we zone? We've we've already said this isn't a perfectly acceptable zoning district. They're wanting to comply with it. we'd have to have a reason that it's inappropriate for that land to zone it that way. Correct.

As opposed to if we don't keep it in the the code, it turns in more probably to a pud situation where somebody's going to be coming and saying, "Well, look, I really want to do these large acre lots and I don't want to conform to SFR. I want to do something slightly different." And then they would have to show the zoning board at the time why that's a good idea. I mean, and it it could also handle subdivision in CCNRs, right? That's where they can handle that. Just, you know, part of your covenants and restrictions. You can't subdivide your lot. So, that then that onus goes to the developer and whoever the future owners are, right? Which is what most of the subdivisions do. You can't change your lot, which is in the CCRs.

Yes. Correct. So, I guess back to you guys. Is there any benefit? I mean, you recommend uh eliminating SF as a district. We have a couple we have a we have a very very small amount of properties that are already designated SF. So do those get reszoned to SFR or they just stay SF until they get sold off. And our understanding is you don't have SF on your map at all. Yeah, I think there's one that could have been with an annexation. It may have just been zoned SF. I want to go back and double check. If anything, it's this street just south of us by the HT.

Yeah. So your typical process then is you take anything that already is zoned that and you do a conversion table where you say okay if it was zoned this way that district's going away it is merging into this resulting district. Um so in this case it would probably merge into the SFR district. Um, and generally speaking, when we look at stuff like this where it's a district you've had on the books for quite a while and it has not been used, becomes a pretty good question about the efficacy of actually having it. Um, and the point, you know, brought up about, you know, if somebody really wants to do this, you know, it can be a PUD route, but also it's not super likely you may see that, you know, ever here. there's kind of some market reality that happens here with with land value and things like that that that makes the math on that a little challenging. So, uh that's part of what what drives our interest and you know, let's let's go ahead and remove this. You know, you've got a relief vehicle available with a PUD to deal with it if it does come up, but it simplifies your code. um maybe avoid setting a artificial expectation either from for the public or for property owners that it's an automatic sort of thing if somebody wants to do it.

Okay. So, do we need to vote on whether or not we want to keep it or eliminate it? Uh I don't I don't think we need an official vote, but uh if you have general consensus, that would be helpful. Aggressive head nodding or something like that also works. All right. So, anybody have any strong opinions about keeping it? I mean, didn't we have the the the community come up and say they didn't want some of their neighbors to subdivide the property? Wasn't it like two months ago? And look, I mean, I think the challenge that we face is is uh accommodating the request of the landowner as opposed to accommodating the requests of the adjacent land owner.

Right? If a landowner comes to you and says, "Hey, I want to subdivide my property." Mhm. That's really a consideration for how we understand that land owner's request as opposed and and then this is a real example like this actually faced is is one one land owner owned enough to do a subdivision and then the other land owners around them had larger acreage and didn't feel that it was appropriate. But ultimately, even after that consideration, the land owner that making the request, we we could only really have a justifiable explanation or approval or denial based on what the request was and whether it was conforming, right?

Start down there at the far end. We'll just work back this way. Any other comments or anything? No. All right. Start down there. Keep her eliminate. Eliminate. All right. I'm okay with eliminating. All right. Discussion. Eliminate. All right. I'm on the fence, but yeah, I guess eliminate it, but Okay, eliminated. Thank you very much. I feel the same. All right. On to the next. Do I Oh, I'm so sorry. Apologize, too. Members of the members of the committee, go ahead. You guys jump in. Eliminate. Okay. Steve.

Okay. Thank you. an official vote for direction. Thank you very much. Um, all right. Next is the supporting maintaining a 2F district as uh and introducing the NFR district. There we go. Did I read that right? Yes. All right. Great. So then, uh, let's talk about that. Um, start I'll start the next one over. Go ahead. Any thoughts? Well, I'm I'm in support of uh maintaining the uh the two districts. Yeah. Okay.

The way I think about this is if not to not to go out of order, but I'm going to go out of order. I really I like the I like the topic number three about the build to rent and really the idea of let's identify that as a area and building uh an area to to rent is not really it's a kind of affordable housing but it's not really affordable housing because it's not what people are buying. It's trust funds and hedge funds buying properties and renting them. And so I like that it's you're setting some high standards and you're not discouraging it, but you're saying look, if you're gonna build a community that's built to rent, you need to meet some standards. I see this as the opposite of that, saying we want to encourage other types of housing to get houses into people's hands. And so I like the idea of permitting duplexes anywhere,

but I also like the idea of keeping a a more flexible uh zoning district that you can then incentivize that you can find and and I would say whether it's the 2F or the NFR or both where you can cut out as much requirements as possible to make it in an incentive for folks to build things that people can buy and what I don't know that the city attorneys would have to say if you can do but I would then want to restrict it to buy only like you can't rent this we're giving you an incentivized district to build stuff for people to buy homes and if you do that people can't rent there you got to buy

see that's and like that that as a as a note just to add some context right that's another conversation that's been happening for years here is that um we're trying to incentivize well home ownership, right? Because of the economic impact that it brings to the community, but also to the individual um and kind of accelerates that process. And so the idea is creating some sort of incentive structure that allows for a first-time home buyer or young family or missing middle and all that stuff, you know, the correct languages. So anyway, go ahead. No, I I so that was my biggest concern relative to eliminating that is building duplexes for rentals within this neighborhood is where I get anxiety if there's a way to carve that out which I'm not sure you can but to carve that out control that then open to

just um I did have that conversation with legal we can't carve that out and I don't think the city will be incentivizing residential how are cities able to eliminate short-term rentals if you can't stop rentals. I think a lot of that actually changed at the state law level as well.

Yeah, you've had some state law changes in the the short-term rental space, but short-term rentals exist in kind of like this weird in between world. They're they're not rental housing, but they're not they're also not lodging. They're kind of in this weird in between. So, the way that cities can regulate it has elements of both uh that show up in it. Um, so it's a little bit different animal, but generally speaking, like the second you go beyond a 30-day lease, you are clearly into rental rental uh types of spaces. Um, and that's where it gets a little bit a little bit fuzzier. What I would say is with the neighborhood flex residential and even keeping two family, it's about creating an environment that is maybe more likely to result in opportunities for for ownership where it's at least more of a possibility compared to maybe some of the other districts where it is less likely. Can't necessarily control who's going to be your buyer, but you've created the environment where that buyer can be, you know, random family X uh looking to purchase a home sort of thing. Can I ask a question? Um, I just want to make sure I'm understanding kind of like what the like discussion options are. So is the question like do we are the two different options like allowing duplexes in all single family districts and if we do not want to allow duplexes in all single family districts then the recommendation would be well we would maintain the 2F that would not allow duplexes but you would create a new one that then would allow duplexes within it.

Correct. You kind of got a few paths. You've got the the path of enabled duplex in all of your other districts. At that point, your 2F district becomes effectively obsolete. Okay? And it would go away in that circumstance. Option two is you keep that 2F district and you create this uh neighborhood flex residential district. So um in that is this kind of like options? I'm just curious, is it more of a reflection of the survey results or is this also a reflection of like the city's vision of Flugerville?

I would say it's it's also a reflection of the city's vision and then and the comprehensive plan to allow an um additional housing variety, different housing types in more areas. I think it be more of like the two different like not not the the concern of adding duplexes universally is that more of like a city related like the reason why we're looking at two options. I'm I'm assuming in my mind I think that I'm just having a preconception here that it was responses from the survey of folks not maybe wanting duplexes to be allowed universally or is that also in align with the comprehensive plan? if I can. Um I think there was also some conversation on the staff level that if we were to allow duplexes everywhere that there could be some um definite feelings. I don't know if we got too much on the survey about it, but I know that there was definitely some questions on um let's use Falcon Point for example. If something were to happen um could your neighbor then rebuild a duplex next to your home? What would be the mechanism? Because we would not be able to say no if we did that. So then we're like, well, do we want to then have a district that would open it up so that we'd be able to really realize the goals of the Aspire plan um and allows for some of the flexibility while still maintaining the

So would this and I'm sorry I'm asking a lot of questions instead of just giving my thoughts. Um would is there a poss because what I'm wondering is I mean an existing neighborhood is most likely not going to reszone to this NFR, right? So then this this is really then only an opportunity for additional housing types for any future development. Correct. Right. You I just don't love that. I mean I

I feel like and I get I get the desire to really promote people buying but I think there's an economic reality right now where there's a lot of people who cannot buy and affordability is really real. Um, and while I understand kind of like people's concerns about promoting renting options as a city, I I I mean I think we also have to talk about affordability in general. Um, and I don't know. I I think what's a huge kind of it's it's going to allow for more housing options in the future but not where we stand right now or the opportunity for more housing options with where we stand right now.

So let me ask you let me ask you a question like on that on that example. So, let's say a house burns down, right? And then and then they go, "Okay, well, I can take this lot and build two houses on it or duplex, then that SFR lot could theoretically be reszoned to 2F." Um, so the way I would look at it is if we were to permit the duplexes more broadly in single family districts, that would wouldn't even have to been reszone. Okay? It would just be allowed by right. And so then the so then so similar situation. So, if you have a lot that's big enough and somebody says, "Hey, I've got the space. I'm going to go ahead and build a build a build an addition, right, detached or whatever it is,

and rent that out as multif family." If we had more broad duplex approvals, is that something that's uh would that would that automatically go through or is that not considered a duplex? That would be considered duplex. I think we would deal with that more through our um accessory dwelling unit. Okay. So, that's not going away. The ADUs are not No, this is just talking about where do we want the duplexes? Do we want to allow them more broadly in all the single family districts or do we want to have the two family residential district and introduce a new or do we want to collapse those two?

I think both options have pros and cons. I mean, it's it's really it's it's hard. Yeah. Another thing you can also consider with this is that even if you altered your zoning, there's a reality that most of your neighborhoods built in Flugerville have underlying CCRs, right? Yeah. That more often than not include a provision of this shall be used for single family detach, something else, so on so forth. They say it over like two pages, though. Um but the uh so there's a reality that even if you change this at the city level, what you've done is you you've removed a municipal barrier to it, but there still may exist a civil barrier that you don't have a a say in. So that's just something to be aware of as you're talking about this is that the

And so I guess the the question too is like let's let's say a nondevelopment neighborhood just a I mean old old Fugerville. Yeah. Right. Um, if we allow if we if if we keep the 2F or excuse me, if we increase if we add uh MFR NFR, then somebody could just show up tomorrow and it's a property owner. They could say, I want to put a duplex here and we don't have any recourse to restrict that other than whatever else might be there. But then the question is, do we really want to be in that in the restricted position? or do we want to let owners do as they please with their space?

So, does Yeah, I guess I have another question. So, neighborhood flex residential only as duplexes and these are attached, not detached. Is that is that the I think the NFR would only be introduced if we did not allow duplexes universally. NFR would say you can have regular homes, but you also have the option for having duplexes if you would like. Yeah. As as drafted, the NFR district is a broader district that in it would include duplexes. It also includes single family, it also includes townhouse. Okay, that's what I was going to ask. Yeah, it doesn't it just says duplexes, but you're talking also like modular type homes where there's a foundation, you put the house on the foundation, it's that is that what you're about too?

Not necessarily. So modular type housing is completely different. If it's if it's actually doesn't modular house, it's treated just like sight built. Um if it like single family building code. Uh the uh but the other what you're kind of talking about with that is you can have a scenario where you just you keep 2F. I think we're still planning to create the NFR regardless. It's whether you want to have duplexes allowed in all of your other districts and make 2F go away or not? No. Okay. Got it. Okay. That's the question. That's the question. The question that was way better for

for why we should do that. So, setting aside the the uh covenant restrictions that might be out there, if a neighborhood is exists right now, got a bunch of single family homes, one of them burns down and it's a large enough lot and they decide to build a duplex, that duplex is not a a is is not likely to be a company that's building a bunch of duplexes for a rental farm. Mhm. This is one duplex in a sea of a bunch of single family homes. And now we have two homes instead of one. Mhm.

And that's better that it's just better to have more homes in in our neighborhoods. And if they we can't stop folks from apparently renting now. And so what's the difference between one a hedge fund that owns a single family home and rents it and one that owns a duplex and rents it to two people? But is I don't think that really changes the dynamics much.

And so on average, I think you're just going to see slowly duplexes filtering into our old neighborhoods in in random circumstances where you just end up having more uh capacity, which I think is a good thing. So I don't think it's actually going to inspire a lot of change of problems. Um now you then may have some new neighborhoods that are going to take advantage and when they're designing a new build interspersed duplexes and single family homes. But again, I don't think that's a bad thing. That's just more capacity and more variety of homes.

Yeah. I mean, I would I I'm wondering from like the city's perspective, would they want like within the comprehensive plan, a lot of it is going to the idea of more flex, more options? So, I think we would really encourage any future developments to not be the traditional 2F, people are buying into a neighborhood knowing that there's different housing types. Um, and I I I like that point. I I as someone who's lived in duplexes my whole life and a single mom who, you know, I I'm not single mom. My mother was single um a single mom and that was an option for us to live in a neighborhood that had a nice school district but it was a little bit more affordable. I just I it doesn't change they you know the house is it looks like a house from the outside. It's not like it's anything that doesn't meet the aesthetic of a neighborhood. They have an HOA or something. They might not be able to do it anyways if that's against the aesthetic of the neighborhood. I personally think that it should be promoted promoted uh per permitted universally. That's my opinion. Yeah.

Is there like a percentage of switching neighborhood flex residential like 20 40 30 80%. Is there something? There could be. I mean this really is more just do we want to allow the duplexes everywhere? Do we want to retain these two? And then also just for the sake of time we've got 15 minutes left for this. I mean I think I would retain these two. Okay. Retain. How do you feel? Retain. Retain. Ex expand. Permit. Permit across. Permit across. Again, I like having the neighborhood the NFR and I think this would happen regardless. Sure. But so if the question is just have duplexes in 2F versus allow duplexes everywhere, I'm allow duplexes everywhere.

Okay. And yours is do not do not allow do not. And it sounded like I I want to keep the two family and neighborhood flex residential. So two and two, Mr. Chair. Two and two. We still have two more over there. More friends. Got to jump in to put you over here. I'm I'm actually for kind of the flexibility of having There is no typ. Yeah. I So expand. Yep. And then retain. So keep it. Oh man. Come on now. Well, they just want our opinion. They're not really it's not really a we can't go home until this is

one of the takeways we might take from this is y'all are pretty evenly split on this conversation. So what we may keep in the back of our mind is you the level of effort to tweak this one way or the other. It's not real real high. So we can kind of keep this as an options open and maybe it'll help you know we get down to the you know towards the end you can see it in greater context. Maybe this is also a topic that you know, hey, we're split on this. This punts to city council for a bigger conversation. And that's perfectly valid, too. Okay. Yeah.

All right. Uh, thank you very much. In the interest of time, uh, topic two, the key question is, does the city support the approach of allowing and requiring a mix of lot sizes within SFR to promote a broader range of housing options while maintaining single family neighborhood? What to do? So, we're just keeping it. So the instead of the percentage mix, the 9010 percentage mix, right? Now it's just a mix of lot sizes, right? It would be half the lots could be the standard lots, a quarter could be the small lots. So then I think that's great. A quarter could be the large lots as well rather than just 9010. Okay. Is there any big discussion on this? I'm pro on this one.

I'm all pro. Thumbs up. Thumbs up. All right. So, yep, that sounds like we're all in support of that. All right. And then item three, does the city support defining and regulating developments as unified development type using SFS standards with option alley load incentive? So, um it sounds like the mechanism it would incentivize this type of development specifically for alley load. That's for aesthetics, walkability, and I assume waste management, solid waste.

Yeah. Um largely the the walkability more pedestrian orientation. Whenever you look down the street, you see the sidewalks and street trees like you see in this picture rather than the front of a garage as you uh look down. Um, also just more pedestrian oriented, safer for folks to be on the street in the front yard where you don't have cars that are pulling into their driveway passing through. Um, so we included that reduction as an incentive to encourage alleys.

You say a reduction of 20% minimum lot area. So if it's a 7500t lot, you're dropping at 1500 ft. So the lot size is 6,000. But we're accommodate I mean we're assuming that the alleyways take up more developable land. SFS is uh 9,000 square feet. So it would go uh I think to 7200 with the 20%. Is there going to be like flexibility on like 20% detached garages 20% attached garages in the back? I know that math was completely off, but um is there any kind of rules on that because not everyone like it would be prettier if some of the

the garages were attached to the house versus not attached to the house. I've seen both obviously here in Flugerville. You mean in the alley loaded development option or the other? Um we don't have anything programmed in right now since you wouldn't be able to really see it from the street anyway, but that's something we could look at. Okay. It's just a nicer look instead of having every house look the same. Okay. Any big thoughts on this?

Yeah, I my I'm fine with this. I have like this. My only my only concern would just be to say that I wouldn't want this to be our only and main effort of reducing standards to incentivize bill. I don't want to incentivize rentals. I'm great to have them. It's good to but I I am very more hopeful in the NFR and the the incentivizing barriers to incentivize that kind of bill over this. But I still think it's just fine.

I like it as well. It gives gives some level of control towards development oriented communities. I'm fine with this one. No concerns. No concerns. Um, no, I'm good.

So, in this, so let make sure I understand this particular SFS. So, if some if today if somebody wants to somebody has 100 acres and they say, "Hey, I want to build um 100 or 300 single family detached just um then they can do that, but that would be under an SFR designation. Is that correct?" So if they wanted to build all these and then rent them out like like if if if I'm trying to ask here. So if someone wanted to come in and build a single family development that was 100% for rent designed and built for that purpose, what designation would they use to do that? Now

currently under your current code. Yeah. Um few options. Few options to do that. Yeah. I mean you could do you could do it in multi family. You could also so these would be single family detached this particular product single family detached build to rent. Mhm. We have a few of those right now. Are you eliminating those and consolidating it to one so because that seems very confusing. Am I? So we don't get into owner or rental in our types. So we have a lot of flexibility within our existing code right now. I see.

So we're not looking at is it built to rent. We have something in the code right now, but it's really teetering on the once you start. I think we have something in there called condo or something. And it's really tricky to actually be able to limit based on if it's a condo or not. And condos don't stop renting either. And so to get into the ownership, we can't do that. Yeah. Um, so this is really just more about do we want detached and build to rent and would you incentivize with smaller lots on that to allow some of those other detached condo and some of the build to rent developments that have popped up? Yeah. Okay. And are these ADUs? No. No, it's a very different that one is a totally different. Yeah.

Yeah. still making sure cuz this what's the difference between this and an at sorry I feel like it's a very basic question but um a secondary dwelling unit that would be um it's typically just secondary obviously to the um to the main house um and it doesn't have to be someone that you know you could have totally separate entrances sometimes you can see them loaded on top of um a separate garage there's a lot of different options but it's a secondary dwelling that's ancillary to your main dwelling And then this one is just by itself its own house. Okay. Okay. So, it sounds like we have no major objections to this. No, I agree.

And my other take away from that is several of you all mentioned wanting to push the incentives harder on the NFR because of the potential for owner opportunity and a little bit. I don't know. I'm kind of tossed on incentives right now. I'm happy with the zoning codes changes. Yeah. And the incentives would be more of lot size reduction, things like that. We're not ever going to be discussing any 380s or anything. Okay. Okay. So, yeah, when I when I use the word incentive, I just mean less regulation, not less less requirements. Yeah. 38. I like I let e economic go.

Okay. Anything further? I'm I was just curious whenever it comes to public engagement um related to UDC um like is there any thoughts or considerations of utilizing some of our existing like festivals or community gathering events to solicit feedback on Yes. Okay. Didn't you have um we will be having uh we will be staff you'll see us Can I talk? Um you will see staff at the um upcoming event on April 25th. Slice of the pizza. It's a pizza one, right? Slice roll. In my head, it's pizza. Also hungry. But

you will see. We'll be soliciting feedback and just letting people know that we're um we're redoing and so we'll be out at a booth there all day. I think we're taking shifts um and we'll end just before the main music act comes on. Sweet. Yeah. Awesome. We were working with staff to help with a design a board that'll be there. Um, so people will be able to add comments onto that board and QR to the website and things like that. So yeah, there should be multiple boards. Last time I went to one of those event, we couldn't get to the board. Oh, we'll be sharing this with a few, but it'll be front and center. Oh my god. It should be dispersed. Like there should be a few boards. I agree. Out and about. It was very hard to get to the last time. Okay. If there's nothing further, uh, join the meeting at 6:55. Thank you all. Thank you. Thank you. Um,

I'd like to call the meeting to order at 7:01. Yes. Mic check. It's on. Mic check. One, two. Can you hear me? Mic check.

Sorry, my my microphone is low. Hello. Uh good evening. I'd like to call today's uh planning and zoning meeting to order at 7:01. The Planning and Zoning Commission welcomes comment on items relevant to the Planning and Zoning Commission not already scheduled on tonight's agenda in accordance with the Texas Attorney General's opinion. Any public comment that is made on an item that is not on the published agenda will only be heard by the commission. No formal action, discussion, deliberation, or comment will be made by the commission. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. Is there anyone present wishing to address the commission? All right. Thank you. Uh uh item three, consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any commissioner desires to discuss an item on the consent agenda, it will be removed from the regular agenda for further consideration. Commissioners, are there any items that the commissioner wishes to remove from the consent agenda?

No. No.

All right. Hearing none, I'll read them. Item 3A, number 2026-0343, approve the planning and zoning commission minutes for the March 2nd, 2026 regular meeting. And item 3B, 2026-331, approving a preliminary plan for the Cameron Valley for Cameron Valley, a 76.68 68 acre tract located in the southeast corner of Stagger Lane and Cameron Road out of the Andrew Austin survey number 19, abstract number 38 and GB Simpleman and JB Bergen survey number 285, abstract number 2370 in Travis County, Texas P205-0000430. I'll accept the motion and a second to approve items 3A and 3B.

Motion to approve. A second. All those in favor signify by saying I. I I I Any opposed?

All right, that passes. Thank you. Uh agenda item four, public hearing. The commission welcomes comment on the following items. Each person providing public comment will be limited to three minutes and will be asked to state his or her name and address for the public record. Item 4 A number 2026-0357 to receive public comment and consider an ordinance amending the city of Flurville code of ordinances title 15 land usage chapter 153 planning by amending the future land use map in the historic colored edition subdivision from parks and open spaces to traditional neighborhood for the following Travis County property IDs number 980714 980715 all to be known as the Dixon locket Comprehensive Plan Amendment number CPA 2026-000060. Is there anyone present wishing to address the comm address the commission about this item?

That'd be you. Go ahead.

It's only my second time here. Uh good evening chair and commissioners. My name is Cleveland Rodriguez, planner one with the planning and development services department. The item before you is a proposed amendment to the future land use map within the comprehensive plan. The request seeks to change the land use designation of two parcels in the historic colored edition from parks and open spaces to traditional neighborhood. The subject properties are located along Taylor Avenue with uh between Russell Street to the east and Calwell Lane to the west. Originally platted as five lots in April 1910. As part of the color edition subdivision, the area was annexed into the city in 1995 and uh assigned the base zoning district of agriculture/open uh open. The applicants first met with city staff in 2022 to discuss constructing homes on the properties. Following a pre-application conference, staff advised that prop the properties would need to be replplatted. replplatting was completed and recorded in 2023. The applicants again contacted the city uh in August of 2025 to continue discussions on the development requirements. After further review, staff determined that the future land use map amendment would be necessary before the project could move forward. Under the current future land use map, each of the two parcels approximately.35 acres in size is designated as parks and open space which does not permit residential use. The applicants are seeking a change to the traditional neighborhood designation to allow for residential development. The properties are currently zoned agriculture as you can see on the screen to your left. Uh which in the unified development code identifies as a

district intended for agricultural use or as an interim zoning designation for underdeveloped land uh with future growth potential. If the future land use map amendment is approved, the applicants will subsequently request for a reasonzoning from agriculture which is the current zoning designation. You can see that on your right uh to single family suburban uh zoning district. The future land use uh categories. The Aspire 2040 comprehensive plan guides long-term land use growth and development. Parks and open space areas are intended to preserve natural spaces and provide recreational opportunities. The park locations are not shown on the future land use map as they can be located within uh all of the zoning districts but instead they are identified in the parks and open space master plan. The proposed designation traditional neighborhood supports primarily single family homes on individual lots with variable densities and uh a mix of housing types. It may also accommodate limited neighborhoods serving retail or office users. The historic colored edition is located within the central district of the 20 the 2040 Aspire plan. Aspirational actions for this district emphasize supporting locally owned businesses, walkability, contextsensitive design, and strengthening relationships between established neighborhoods. The district envisions a diverse range of housing and encourages aesthetic improvements to older commercial areas. The requested amendment aligns with these goals and continues to support the district's long-term vision. Yeah. Um as you can see on the screen, the approval criteria. Uh the amendment

will establish a land use designation consistent with the applicant's intended residential resoning and the unified development code. A capital improvement project is currently underway in the historic colored edition providing for a full roadway reconstruction, underground utilities, sidewalks, street lightings, uh and uh other aspects of that master plan. The neighborhood has always been intended for residential use and completion of the CIP will further support the residential development. And also another thing to note that this CIP project was part of the 2020 voter approved bond program. Um staff finds the that the proposed amendment aligns with and supports the goals of the Aspire of Flugville 2040 comprehensive plan and ensures consistency between the future land use map and applicants anticipated zoning resoning request. Based on this analysis, staff recommends approval of the future land use map amendment. Um, I'm here to answer any questions as well as the applicant is also here to uh answer if any any questions that you have.

Thank you. Any questions? All right, then I'll accept a motion to close public comment. Motion to close public comment. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor of closing public comment signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? All right. Thank you very much. Um, no additional comment or discussion. I'm ready for a motion. Yeah, me too. All right. I will accept a motion. Motion to approve. Second. All right. There we have a motion and a second to approve it as drafted with staff recommendations. Mr. Mr. Roing.

All right. All those in fa in favor of accepting the proposed change signify by saying I. I. Any opposed? You guys have it. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. So, now on to Here we go. So, sorry. Uh, discuss and consider. So, agenda item number five. Uh, items on the consent agenda may be pulled and move regular agenda. So, we have a I'm so sorry. I think we're on 5 A. Are we on 5 A now? Five. Yeah. All right. I'm so sorry. Nothing.

All right. Nothing was pulled. I apologize. Item number 5A. Uh, item number 2026-0356 FY2026 fee update. And I believe we have a staff report. Is that correct?

Um, so for the item in front of you, you have all of that information in your packet. You can see that the city of Flugerville. No, your regular packet should be attached as an attachment. Oh, the attachment. Oh, no. Sorry, it's not there. It was in the attachment in the packet, not that packet. That's for this next item. Apologies.

So, um you can see that where we are with fees is pretty much in line with where the other cities are as well. Um the only one that I would say if if there was any discussion and there was some internal discussion is that perhaps our PUD fees for the amendment should be slightly modified only because they are a little bit lower. It could go to something um more in line with what some of the other cities are doing. I believe that's usually 50% of the original PUB fee for the amendments. Uh it's in the commercial one. Uh right, you're doing commercial or Oh, there's permitting fees and then there's um the zoning fees are in there as well. Yeah, there. So, you can see the building permit fees. Building permit fees we're not looking at changing at this point.

Okay. We are in line. Sorry, we're opening them. Okay. No, I'm just having Wi-Fi issues. classic. Um, let's see. Goodness gracious. I don't think I had any when I was looking at this earlier. It was very hard to read it because it didn't fall flow on one page. Yeah, we have a lot of information. I had a little bit of

um So, I guess to clarify uh in terms of action we need to take, we need you're asking for an approval of the fee update. Is that correct? It's really just a saying yes, we see what the fees are and we're not going to make any changes unless you see anything that you think we should make changes on. The only the only thing that came up internally was looking at the PUT amendment, but even then, we're pretty much in line. It's just that when I see the PT amendments coming forward, um we're doing a little we're doing more than $1,000 worth of staff time and work. And so that's where it was like, well, we could go to 50%, but if you look at what other cities are doing, we're still pretty much in line. Okay. So, um, if you want to discuss, you can, but at this point, we can also just say that we're not changing fees for this upcoming fiscal year.

So, it would stay the same as last year. It would stay the same as last year, and then we'll revisit it the year. And do you have do you anticipate uh detrimental impacts if we keep it the same or change it? Okay. Okay. All right. Any thoughts or consideration or discussion? any no complaints or from from developers? No, I mean obviously they'd love the fear. That is a trick question. You know, any any particular thing y'all seen like, oh, we're not getting very many of these anymore and maybe that's for you.

Not really. I mean, we've definitely seen we have the eb and flow where we'll have some big platting years, then we have some really big permitting years just because the way that the development cycle goes, but I haven't really heard a whole bunch on our permitting or the zoning planning and zoning fees that we have in there. Um, as far as review fees, obviously we get feedback on impact fees and other things. Yeah, that's the um but that's not something that we're going to be discussing under our fees. Those are already set. With anyone else, yeah. Yep. Yeah. Yeah. Then I will accept a motion and a second to approve the FY26 fee update. I'll make a motion we accept the FY26 fee update. So moved and a second. A second.

We have a motion and a second to approve the FY2026 fee update. All those in favor signify by saying I. I. Any oppose? Say nay. The eyes have it. Thank you. Awesome. Thank you. All right. Item number 5B 2026-0290. discussion regarding the 5-year capital improvement plan for fiscal years 2027 through 2031. 45 seconds. Yeah.

Good evening, commissioners. Uh for the record, Matt Recctor. I am your director of utilities and engineering. Uh so what we're going to present to you tonight is the first draft of the five-year capital improvement plan. I'm going to refer to it here on out from the C as the CIP just to save us a few seconds. Um, you have packets in front of you. Uh, I'll reiterate these are draft. This is our first draft for the for this cycle. Uh, we are actively making edits on this document. Uh in addition, we are simultaneously having conversations about a potential bond election. And so as the eb and flow of that bond committee and projects come in and go out and get tweaked, that changes the CIP. And so we're we're going back and forth between the two and trying to coordinate all that. Um, and so this is just to kind of get you start understanding these projects and and what we're looking at and what we're proposing in the 5-year program. Um, we will come back to you a second time and and have a more in-depth conversation as as you've been able to digest it. Obviously, throwing a a bunch of pages right in front of you with a lot of numbers and projects is a lot to digest in a very short amount of time and we're hoping to not be here until the wee hours of the morning.

Uh so, uh we'll just kind of go through it with a highle overview and then you guys can ask the questions uh that may come up and if you don't have questions, that's okay. Um, like I said, we're going to come back to you a second time to try to get a finalized version in front of you and get get you guys in a good spot so that you're ready to make your recommendation to city council. Okay. So, today's only to like hear what's going on and then it's basically to present the draft, kind of give you guys an over overview of what we're thinking, where we're at, how we're progressing, uh, to start helping you digest some of this. Mhm.

Um, and then we'll come back to you and with a more finalized version and you'll have all you'll have had time to jot down all of your questions and and think about the projects that we're proposing and ask why we're proposing it in that year instead of a different year or whatever the questions may be. Okay. Thank you.

Uh, so I kind of touched on all this stuff. Um, we have tried to make sure that we are alignment with the uh, comprehensive plan as well as the council strategic plan. Um, we're going to give you a high level overview on funding sources. Uh, I don't want to go too ind depth. Some of this stuff you guys probably already know. Um, real quick definition of the capital improvement plan. It's the long-term plan for how we're going to do our capital improvements. We're going to how we're going to build our roads, how we're going to do our water lines, wastewater lines, reclaim water lines, our parks, our facilities. Um, it's it's a five-year look at what we think is coming. uh we are only adopting one year. So we're only adopting what we're going to do in 27. 28, 29, 30, and 31 are just kind of projections. They're just planning years.

And so um when when we adopt that, that's really what we're going to be trying to get you guys to hone in on is what we're doing in 27. Like I said, we tried to align it to the uh comprehensive plan as well as the council strategic plan. And so you'll see references throughout the document to those documents. um the the basis, you know, we're trying to think about how we're prioritizing our projects. We're trying to think about the growth that's coming. We're trying to think about the air problem areas within the city. We're trying to think about, you know, where do we have our pinch points for intersections? Where do we have struggles with water lines? But then we also have to think about where do we have to go back and try to fix some of the infrastructure that's been in the ground for a long time that maybe has has reached the end of its life. And so we have to look at you know should we start adjusting some of those things. So all of that kind of comes in and uh we take the comp plan we take all of our master plans we take the condition reports citizens requests look at growth and development throw it all together and lo and behold out comes the CIP. Um, and so that's kind of how we are trying to push this forward. Um, this is my first year in doing this in in Flugerville. And so, um, it's been a steep learning curve for me. So, just bear with me as we as we walk through all this. Um, I talked about the funding s Oh, I said we were going to talk about funding sources. So, you have certificates of obligations. So, that's a CO. Um, if you hear council talk about cos, that's what they're talking about. Uh, you have general obligations. So, the geos are the ones where we have to, that's when we go out for voter approval. Uh, COS, council doesn't necessarily have to get voter approval. They could just go incur debt. Geoss they do. Uh, we look at federal grants. We get impact fees. We have, uh, the tax incremental reinvestment zone, TUR. Um,

WIFIA, uh, that's a, uh, federal program that's a loan program basically that we are using to fund a lot of our water and wastewater reclaimed water projects. Uh, we try to go and work with Campo, uh, Texas Water Development Board, as well as partnering with Travis County, Williamson County, Texas, uh, anywhere that we can try to get extra money so that we're not footing the whole the whole bill for everything that we're promoting putting into this plant. Um, like I said, reclaimed water, water, wastewater facilities, drainage, transportation, parks, and uh, so we have seven reclaimed water projects in the CIP. Uh, and for that, I'm going to ask Jeff Dunworth to come up and talk you through some of the utility projects.

Thank you, Matt. Uh, for the record, I'm Jeff Donssworth, assistant utility director, city engineer. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to present our uh very robust CIP. Um see here is the first item in my presentation includes the uh reclaimed water uh CIP. It's a number of projects. This is a graph that's from our uh reuse report or sorry an exhibit from the reuse report. Simply illustrates the uh green areas we have within the city that would benefit from uh uh reuse water. said uh reuse water is a great uh one of the best methods to conserve our portable water. We have proposed in the CIP7 reclaimed water projects. Um there are different different numbers, different locations, most of them in the south souththeast corridor of the city. Um it's uh one of the big big uh projects of big water users within the city is 1849 Park. One of the projects includes a uh new reuse line from our central wastewater treatment plant to 1849 park. There's also an extension along uh Weiss Lane. We'd like to irrigate some of the uh schools industrial users uh parks including the uh Lake Flugerville Park area. Um, other include the uh reclaimed water master plan that just wants just to be environmentally sound, make sure we're using water in the right place. Um, number of funding sources as uh Matt mentioned, you'll see throughout uh most of these slides, water, wastewater, and the reuse. We're using the WIFFIA program through EPA. It's a water infrastructure finance and innovation act. It allows up to 49% of project funding to be approved. It's a uh a loan program as Matt mentioned and we team

that up with other state federal programs to uh minimize the uh cost to a rateayer. Um this is the uh master plan. So this is our current uh system there at central wastewater treatment plant. I said it's to ensure resiliency, mitigate portable water demand strains on our system. Uh the water CIP, we currently have the water treatment plant expansion underway. It's going to uh increase our capacity from 7.1 17.7 MGD to uh 30 MGD. Uh we have other projects that include our uh transmission facilities, booster pump stations, pipelines, etc. and said there's 17 water projects located throughout the city. Uh it's benefit that we uh must make sure that we're providing our citizens uh with sufficient water capacity uh flow and quality. Uh this is our water cip. It's rather rather vast. Um number of millions of dollars involved $258 million over the next uh five years. um water funding sources. Once again, you see uh WIFIA pop up. Um reserve funds are included, COS um as well as uh impact funds. Um some of our water projects in the near horizon include Clear Well One Rehabilitation. This will happen will occur once the water treatment plant expansion is completion. Oldtown South uh rehabilitation. This is a recapitalizing asset, extend the life of our system, provides resiliency, improves operation and it uh definitely uh benefits the disposition of our pipeline rehab guys. Um wastewater CIP uh we have projects

underway to uh increase our treatment capacity. Um we have uh opportunities or projects underway to expand our gravity system the inter large diameter interceptors. We also have updates to our uh existing infrastructure the downtown area older parts of the city. Uh these projects are spread throughout. Notice there's a number of interceptors, pump stations, and treatment facilities moving east. As we expand eastward, our C our vast CCN actually crosses 973 approaches uh HO Mayor, some of the other other communities to our far east. wastewater CIP a uh number of projects associated uh total $490 million over the next uh five years. Uh once again our funding see a big portion of that is covered through the uh EPA WIFFIA program. Um we have a number of future even the future with your program and TWWDB and that's sorry that's a Texas water development board state agency that uh provide is provided EPA funding through the clean water and drinking water SRF programs. Um some of the wastewater projects we have underway is the sunlight near way force main. This is the one from the U Carmel lift station crosses S crosses uh SH130 and comes along down along the uh to the wastewater treatment plant, central wastewater treatment plant. Uh we have other projects underway to rehab some of our infrastructure, aging infrastructure, central wastewater treatment plant. Um that was some of the uh projects and now we'll turn it over to facilities.

Okay. So, in the facilities uh CIP, you'll find that we have 12 projects. Uh obviously, they're kind of spread out throughout the city. Uh, we are going to get you guys some better maps for this stuff so that we're going to like color code them and and highlight some things so you can kind of line it up with the tables a little easier, make it a little easier to see, a little easier to follow. Uh, the big things that we're going to do in facilities in 2027, you can see we've already got, you know, the the city hall and the rec center in work. We've got the public works complex being constructed. Uh the big things that we're going to be pushing for as it stands today is the downtown parking garage. Uh we're looking at doing a roof replacement on the library. Uh we'll be starting an ADA transition plan later this year and then trying to finalize it next year. And then uh we're going to work on the evidence area of the the justice center and start working on the pause building. And that that's one of the ones that's in that bond, the geo bond that I had mentioned earlier on. Um and and so and then once everybody moves out of the current public works area and moves into the new public works building, then look at that building one renovation so that parks uh can can move in there and expand out a little bit. Uh and like like everything, we have a lot of different funding sources. Uh so you can see we've got four different current cos, one future CO, another future debt which is yet to be determined. And then you have the geo bond. Then we uh we're using some general fund. That's what the GF is, general fund reserves. And then you have some older geo bond monies out there that that we're using to make up that $49 million that we're projecting over the 5year CIP. Uh so there you see a picture of of the downtown east complex where that parking

garage is going to go. Uh you can see that is not the new pause shelter. That is the current pause shelter. showing you that we need a new shelter. And then uh just the list of the extra projects over there on the side. Public works building one, like I said, that's going to get expanded so that the uh park staff has a little more elbow room. Uh the evidence processing here at the justice center needs some some TLC. So, we're going to give it some TLC. Justice Center expansion, that's more of a a long-term thing. uh we're going to start looking at more of a feasibility type approach on that rather than just jumping in and and expanding that right away. Um and with that I will kick it over to Hassan for drainage. Uh I'm Hassan Raza, transportation engineering manager. I'm also relatively new here about 4 months. So I'll try to do my best to go over our program. So the first one is a drainage capital improvement program. We we're programming uh 10 drainage projects. Um these are currently not funded um pending uh possible grant future utility drainage uh general obligation bonds. The purpose of these drainage project is really to reduce the flood plane impact on nearby houses and structures. This just gives you a general idea where these projects will be located. Uh

most of these projects uh really are channel improvements. There's also a couple of uh detention basins uh and some u storm drain improvements. Uh one of the projects you will note DR2802 is a drainage master plan update. We we developed a plan in 2023 which needs to be updated now to because there are several new requirement. FEMA has new requirements and other things. So this plan needs to be updated. So the as I mentioned there's no funds currently for these drainage projects. Um so we're hoping that we'll have a future depth uh which would cover most of $68 million which we need for drainage projects. So these are just uh two projects and a plan update which we plan to do next year. Uh one is Caldwell Elementary at upper new Gilland channel improvements. The other one is Emanuel road peon park at upper gilland creek channel improvement. Uh and then the drainage master plan update. So let me uh is there any question on uh drainage plan? Thank so I'll go to uh transportation capital improvement program. Basically the emphasis of uh these projects are to uh enhance mobility uh provide safety for both our motorist as well as we building the sidewalks the shared use paths so that our pedestrian

and bicyclist they can use those facilities. Um and why we need these obviously as we all know Fugerville is growing rapidly. So with all these developments we need more projects just like we need more water lines and more sewer lines. Uh so there are total of 51 transportation projects um going all the way from 27 to 31. But we also have projects from 31 to 36. So these are uh some of the transportation projects. Some of them are underway. Some of them are planned. Uh just to give you an example of Kelly Lane project. We we're about to complete the design work on it. So hopefully we'll start construction on it. Um there's other project uh is a manual road which uh we expect to start construction in August. That road is not in a good condition and needs uh needs some work. uh the 685 corridor uh currently we don't have uh funding for that but uh this is one of the kind of star projects it will be done in uh six separate projects to cover all the way from 130 to wells branch parkway. So this is a listing of the projects. Uh the way uh these are kind of arranged is based on uh their status. So most of

these projects I can just quickly uh go over uh with you. First one is East Fugerville Parkway. Uh it goes from Colorado Sand to Vice Lane. This project should be awarded tomorrow at a council meeting. Uh it's about 500 uh uh days long project should be completed uh end of next year. Uh some of the other projects I go through is one is eastville parkway realignment. So that is kind of continuation from Weiss Lane on to Jessie B Road. Uh this project uh we started working uh last month. So this should be completed around June next year. Um so that will take us all the way from Colorado sand to Jessie Bold Road. Uh the payment maintenance program. We also have a program where we look at the roads based on the citizen requests or council members or whoever you know they come up and they say we need to you know fix these roads. So we have that ongoing uh program. Uh the other one I want to mention is the payment condition um index study. Uh the way the projects are selected, they're selected based on functional condition of the pavement and the structural condition. Uh we don't do any structural analysis here because it's a little bit expensive. But you can drive on look at the road and can tell looking at the distresses like cracking, potholes, raveling, bleeding, rutting. You can look at that and can determine whether this road needs something. So that's what payment condition index is

usually rated from 0 to 100. Higher the number better road it is. So the numbers are lower that mean we need to do something. So as we as we're looking at the capital improvement program we also need to look at preserving what we have already. So that's where the focus is for payment maintenance program. So Picadilli drive the TR2101 it's underway should be completed uh April next year. Uh historic colored edition you heard in a previous uh um presentation. It should be completed around July next year. U then we have these traffic signal improvement projects and some other safety projects. I want to mention about Emanuel road which I mentioned before. We should be starting construction in August this year and it should be completed uh towards the end of next year. So this is another listing of projects. As I said we have 51 projects. Uh 685 I already mentioned it will broken down into six projects. Right now we have only funding for right away and design work. Other one I want to mention is that um we are right now focusing on relief routes so that when 681 project would start that we want to make sure that that traffic has alternate routes where they can kind of use while the construction is ongoing. So th those projects are one is Asen Hut and Fanning Lane. Uh Fanning Lane is going to go from Pon Street all the way to East Plugerville Parkway and Austin Hutto and

Fanning they the current Fanning is kind of join that road. So So those are the relief routes. There's also um Fanning Lane extension to Wells Branch Parkway. That's another relief route. And the last one is Terrell Lane. Uh that as you know there's a lot of con congestion in the town center area. So we're looking at extending the terror lane to eastern uh I mean yeah the east flugerville parkway and also taking it to Fenning Lane. So we have a kind of a grant. Uh other project which is uh we we're hoping that will be added to 2026 bond is Melbour Lane. Uh we have some money for that. Uh this goes from Cameron Road uh all the way to Pleasanton Parkway. So and actually it goes beyond that. There is there are two bridges involved in that. So it's a 30% stage. So we're looking at that. Other one is lane. uh vice lane as you know it's four lane road coming it towards the uh picon street so but but where it meets the peon it's two lanes so we we are widening it to the four lane hopefully that project will be done if we have funding towards the end of next year so these are some other projects um which as you can see we don't have much money for them they Most of the money will be 28, 29, 30. Uh but they listed here. So you know you have a complete picture of what you know what projects in this program. These are some other projects. Again we won't have any funding for right up to

2029. The overall program is about 962 million. uh will take us from 2026 to 2036 10 years. The first five year capital program actually is uh where the most of the projects will be undertaken the way we have programmed them. It' be about $833 million for the first 5 years and then about $130 million for the following five years. So as um Matt mentioned before the money is going to come from different sources if the it if it comes uh some of the projects which were undertaking are you know are in design or in construction we have the money from the previous certificate of obligations or co- bonds but majority of the money we're looking at you know future go bonds These are just some of the projects want to mention. Um Fenning Lane extension to East Peon Street to Wells Branch Parkway. So this is one of the relief uh uh route. Um other other projects are as I mentioned there are six projects on 685 but it all depends on the money if you know if we get funding then we will kind of uh design and award these projects in phases. Uh I already mentioned about the payment condition index study. It has not been done previously. So we have this payment maintenance program which doesn't have really any uh kind of quantified data behind it. It's all somebody likes to have a project. So they they call call

us and we we put them on the plan. But we hope to make it more kind of an objective program where we do actual study go out and look at the projects and see what projects are needed and what you know what what we can defer and there there's again the objective of these projects is just to preserve what we have. Um just to give you an idea in the United States we needed about a trillion dollars to keep our you know infrastructure in a good condition. So it's building new projects is good good because we need more expansion but as we build more and more infrastructure we need to go back and keep preserving it. Uh just I want to mention about uh this 685 and Pon intersection is one of the heaviest uh congested intersection has a kind of a unique uh geometry to it uh and that really needs to be looked at and uh it is part of the 685 plan. uh we have money for that design u and a rightway. U one thing is we also also planning to extend that intersection to railroad uh avenue so that uh uh because that area is all integrated is part of downtown project as well. Okay. With that, uh, uh, before I go, are there any questions?

Question and I think we'll ask questions too at the end, but because you brought it up, um, the, um, 685 PCON intersection right now there are two separate projects, the, um, Fin Lane to Applewood and then Applewood to East Pan, but they're both the same costs. Is that is that one project technically that's being shown on two different pages?

Yeah, actually we're looking at the the whole corridor from Branch Parkway to 130 but there'll be six separate projects when we go actually to construction. So Fenning Lane intersection will be dealt under one project and then you know other intersection like East Flugerville and Applewood they all be kind of depending on where they fall. So we're going to start from one side which is you know based on the traffic study and all that. I don't know if I answered that question or not. So they're both noted in these two as 32,460,000.

Yes. Is it actually a $65 million project and has just been divided in half or is it counted twice? Yeah, it's a it's a 65 million. The total cost of the project is about $150 to $170 million starting from 130 to Wells Branch Parkway. So, Oh, okay. Okay. Yeah. So, Oh, that's hard to follow in here, I think. Okay, cool. Yeah, we'll we'll make it better and everything, but as Matt said, this is just a draft and we need to look at it and make it even better so it's easy easy to read. Okay, thank you. Any any other question? We'll have more.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, it's a lot of stuff.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Jeff Aay, assistant parks and recreation director. Um, as a quick aside, I just want to say um, just because of the word infrastructure, they reminded me of this, but um, this city has made some pretty massive investments and incredible investments in their parks and recck system over the last 5 to 10 years. Um, I think that shows in a lot of ways. I don't think we think of parks as infrastructure very often. We've talked a lot internally and I think with some of our community about the idea of social infrastructure and healthy infrastructure that these provide. Um and just as an aside because I think it's one fund and two important we just submitted an application for the national gold medal um for our department. They they award uh one per year in different classifications have four finalists. Um, the reason I bring that up is because the investments that this city has made is what I think makes us eligible and a great candidate for that. Um, and obviously the beneficiary of that as much as we want to win because we're that's what we do with our it's our life's work essentially is this industry. um this community benefits. If you you know to win a to win a gold medal or to be a finalist for a gold medal, you have to have made significant uh investments in in your system and this city has done that and so excited to talk to you about what we've got uh coming down the pipe. Um so we have 14 park projects projects um and some of these are continuations of um existing projects, future phases. you'll see uh we've got some large uh large scale things going into 2031 and and on uh past that year, but we'll talk about the the projects starting in 2027. So, you'll see uh you'll notice a lot of the funding for this is is future uh geo debt. Um so, several of these are are

going to be on the 2026 uh bond for citizens to vote uh later this year. And some of these are are general fund like this one. So, um, as crazy as it sounds, uh, I know this the city did a a incredible job before I got here um, with their parks and recreation parks recreation open space master plan uh, getting over 30,000 touch points. That seems like it wasn't that long ago, but we're coming up on 5 years uh, that that was adopted. And it's industry standard. It's also required uh by Texas Parks and Wildlife if we wanted to go out for grants for federal funding or for state funding to have an update every five years. And so we'll be starting our our master plan update next year even though it feels like we just completed the last one. Um I will say we have uh really achieved a lot of the goals that were set out. Um, and again, the CIP is a big part of that. But, uh, our deliverables have been pretty well, uh, checked off. And so, this is going to be really important for us going into the next 5 years after this plan's completed. So, we'll start that in 2027 and complete it in 2028. It'll be pretty robust again because we've completed a lot of those action items that it lined out. 1849 park phase three which is the the final plan for the old fluger property um that's currently only only ball fields. This is the northern portion of 1849. Um so the the project includes improved natural areas um interpretive education amphitheater destination playground a lot of nature. Um, and so the the 2014 master plan, I think it's 2014 or 2013 for 1849, uh, designated this site for a 2,000 seat amphitheater and some festival grounds, although we don't

think, uh, just with the way that the department and the city has changed. We're not we're not sure that that's the best use of this space. uh our our thoughts and we'll go into uh design with pretty extensive community engagement because that's such an old master plan that we're working off of. We have a lot of uh data to to use to say what we think the community wants. We will not just rely on that. So when we get into design on projects like this, especially when it's working off of an old master plan, we will re-engage the community to see it, you know, is that actually still what the community wants? Do we want to go in a different direction? Um, as it as it sits right now with what we've seen from our master plan, what we've seen in public engagement on other projects. We think that largely this was supposed to include a lot of natural areas, nature trails, things like that. Um, we think doubling down on that probably going to be a great a great effort for this property. So, you'll see that's Melbour Lane, future Melbour Lane that that bisects the northern part of this park. And to the east of it, what what we have in our mind is kind of think of state park, you know, state park amenities. We're the trail capital of Texas. Most of our trails, 99% or more of our trails are um 10-ft, you know, paved sidewalks. And so the idea of adding some nature trails and state park-like amenities um is something that was talked about in our master plan through public engagement, something that we are deficient on right now. Um and then across Mober Lane, it's pickle ball courts, tennis courts, dog park, some other amenities that um are needed. And again, as you as we get into to design on this project in 2027, the first thing will be public engagement to see where we are uh from the 2014 master plan. Is any of that is it any of it relevant at this point? That was so long ago. things have changed so drastically and maybe they did such a good job in 2014 that it

still does represent what the community wants in that area. Um, Reunion Park. Uh, so this is located in the the HCA, the historic colored edition. Um, this is identified in the Aspire uh 20 240 comp plan and the future land use map, though you just saw some of that get reworked, but there's there's space uh in the HCA for future parks and open space. And so, this park will celebrate the history of that area. Um, pay homage to the we've heard a ton of stories about reunions and community gatherings that happened uh in that site over the the course of generations. And so our hope is to provide a space so that that can continue. Uh most of that's privately owned now so that the city would u purchase land with land acquisition dollars and and build similar something similar to what you see here, a gathering space, a recreational space um and then something that tells the the story um of that community. I think I have a couple of slides hidden. Okay. Well, uh what what we also have on the 2026 uh bond is um trail improvements. Um obviously as Trail Capital of Texas, we want to make sure we're continuing to close trail gaps. Uh we're building trails where the Mobility Master Plan identified them. Um and so we've got funding for that. And then with any bond, uh we always want to have land acquisition dollars there. one for trails. Sometimes you've got to buy property to connect trail uh portions segments. Um and then with development we get uh sometimes we get parkland, sometimes we get fee and loo uh but we always get development dollars from new residential development. And uh there

are times when you've got money but you don't have land. And so, uh, part of having land acquisition in the in the bond will be if we've got a pot of money and we need to to purchase land to build parks, particularly community parks that will service um, newer residential developments, then we have that flexibility to do that. Those are two other projects you should have seen there, but I'll be happy to answer any questions you have. I don't think I have any. Thank you. So, well, I don't know about parks. Are we are we I was saving my questions for the end as an overall question. I should I address

I hope I'm not supposed to do this part, but I could try. I can I'll wait. Thanks.

Uh so I think we're getting close to wrapping up so you guys can ask your questions. As I've alluded to tonight, we're presenting you the draft. Uh we'll come back in about a month with a more finalized copy and you guys can grill us with all your questions, dig into the weeds and and we'll talk through everything. Uh we're doing things a little bit different this year. So not only is it my first year with Fugarville getting to do this, but they decided that they were going to change up the entire process anyway. So, uh, there will actually be three presentations with city council and we're trying to get them to adopt the CIP prior to the budget rather than with the budget. So, that's why it's a little bit of a change up this year. In prior years, they adopted everything out in one big packet. And so, we're trying to get them to adopt it first and then it gets added to the budget afterwards. I with that now I'll ask I'll we'll take any questions.

Yeah, I won't go into overdetailed. I know that one about transportation was detailed. Um but I was just curious where like as a city do we communicate just the progress of bonds in general? Like almost like a for this bond this is what was promised. These are the projects that have been delivered. these are the ones that are pending. Um, and I asked that question too knowing that we're going into a bond election in 2026 uh this year and um not trying to go with my pet uh you know my pet you know expertise. I work in bonds uh with school districts, but you know, if we really want to kind of promote and give the public an understanding of what have they funded so far, especially since there's been some pretty major investments, I think it would be helpful. I I think it was a discussion we kind of had last year, too, kind of like it's hard to follow, you know, when it comes to bonds, what has been approved, what has been completed, what is remaining. and that helps tell a story of like why we need more funding now and and it highlights the successful delivery of previous bonds. Um, so I'm just curious is there I don't know if this is the place like this specific document, but I do think it needs to be connected in some way to this document, but I don't know if the city has currently like annual documents that show pond progress.

We have we have multiple tools. Uh but one of the things that we are doing this year and specifically because we are going out for another bond election is there will be a presentation coming uh very soon to the public to city council to talk about all the projects that were voted for in the 2020 bond. What is the current status? How many have been completed? How much money has been spent to date? How many how many of them are scheduled for completion? When are they scheduled for completion? How much money remains in that? basically hitting on all those all the points that you're you're referring to. Okay. So, like a presentation to them, but it probably wouldn't be like a document that would be publicly accessible on the

um I I imagine that we would make the presentation publicly accessible once we present it. Um I don't know if we're going to set up a standalone website or anything like that. I that's not my area, but yeah. Um that that's kind of where we're going to to try to facilitate those conversations. And then in general we uh sorry I don't know it was very weird. Um, and then in general, we're also going to do the same thing with just like non geos, but like talk about, hey, here's all the projects that you funded for utilities that weren't on a geo election, but the

just where we're at, what we're doing, where we're trying to take things, how much money we spent, when we're going to have these projects done, that kind of thing. So hearing what you're saying, adding on to that, um looking at the total CIP, uh 36% is future debt, uh 24% is future general obligation debt. That's a pretty substantial amount of future debt that we're anticipating. And so

based on uh her comments, I would echo that entirely like and and I know the city does a really great job of of advertising itself, but I would I would and our success and the things that are going on, but um to go back to the public and our rateayers and say, "Hey, we're going to do this again and here's why." I think it's it is behooves us as a community to really um demonstrate like a public information office. I don't know if we have a PIO like PI office that that handles all that, but I mean just spend all your time telling everybody how great we've been at accomplishing our goals because we have been very successful. There's been a lot of really great things to to rely on, but the messaging before the election needs to also include, hey guys, we we've done a really great job. We made lots of progress, but it needs to be like like pe the public needs to have time to absorb

process comprehends and so that when we go to them and say hey we're we want to do these other

51 500 things whatever many things that it's not so much of a well what have what have you been doing for me the last time we voted on this. Um and and the only reason I mentioned that is, you know, um I've got I'm involved in my community and and my friends ask me because they know I'm involved here, like what's going on? And um you know, the just the general conversations are, I can't believe we have such high taxes in Flurville. Why does it cost so much to live here? And it's a really easy conversation to have for me because I can say, well, these are all things that we could have done 40 years ago, 30 years ago, 20 years ago, etc. Um, and now we're we're, you know, a phrase that came to me in a meeting a couple weeks ago was it's really hard to get ahead when you're just trying to get even. And so we're still very much trying to get even so we can get ahead. And so I think that um we could do a really really great job in beginning to message that and be begin to message the expectations that yes we we recognize that there is a cost of living associated with being influ but here's what is great and then here's where the future will look like. So that be my recommendation.

And then commissioners, also remember that we do also have the um CIP dashboard online. So it'll give you kind of the more day-to-day updates. Obviously not dayto-day, but um more rapid updates that'll be incorporated in with what they're doing. Wonderful. Thank you. I might take it a little further even than Andrew and I'll be I'll be the the pessimist of the group. Mhm. I'd start looking at this list and deciding what can we put off. Yeah. Because Yeah.

I I love all this stuff. I wish we could do all this stuff, but we're looking at some pretty serious economic indicators across the country that things are not great right now. And hopefully it's all fine. And maybe by November, you know, I don't I'm I'm bad at predicting. I'm not an economics person. I'm have no idea. Hopefully by November everything's looking great, but you know there's not zero chance that we're going to have invaded Greenland by then, right? So, who knows what's going to happen. And so, I just I think it could be a year I don't know if you have to do a bond on 2026. I don't know how those works. I don't I'm not an economics guy, but it is worth a conversation and I'm sure you've already had, but if you haven't of maybe this isn't the year to go out for a bond because I don't know that the voters are going to be particularly set up for y'all to succeed and I've seen school board bonds fail and it sucks because they put a lot of work into it and they need those schools but it the voters said no, we're strapped. So I would hate for us to do all this work and get set up and then the bond failed. U so I just wonder could just one year just sort of like hey we we get it. We're going to we've got here's everything we're already doing and there I'm not saying stop stuff we've already got in the works and spent money on but just like if it just knock anything we haven't started knocked over just six month or a year like would that help?

I don't know but that's just my feedback. Yeah. And it's I mean typically especially I'm just going to make a quick note. We don't need to get into it. But um if that's not a decision that the the city makes often what um leads to it is is a larger amount of voters. So it's a midterm election. So often midterms and presidential elections are the most beneficial for a city or school or anyone to vote for a bond because of the amount of voters that come out. So I feel like if they didn't go this year wouldn't be a question of next year. will be a question of 2028 during the presidential election. Um, but if the midterms are full of angry voters, yeah, are are they the wrong voters?

Well, maybe not. Maybe it's still better.

Yeah. I mean, I I do agree. I think we should obviously keep going with the bonds and put that on the um agenda for November. But I also is there a way to break down or break the subjects up? So, you know, let's talk roads, transportation, excuse me. Let's talk transportation. Then next time we all meet, talk about parks. The next time we all meet water and wastewater because there's a lot to digest in this. So, if we get today, then you guys get to revamp it. We see you guys, you know, March 4, I mean May 4th, then we have to say yes or no, which I don't think gives me enough time. So, is there any way to like have yet another meeting before we say yes? I think it's

that's just my opinion's there's a lot to Yeah. And then if we're supposed to go champion for the community, I don't know how I can say yes to everything or say yes to two things. Well, so the the to clarify, so the the five-year capital improvement plan, we're we're going to ultimately vote on whether this goes to city council. Correct. The way the charter reads is you guys will make a recommendation to city council on what you think the CIP should look like.

Okay. And so does that um for clarity for everybody, does that give us the opportunity to line item things and say, you know, if I'm looking at 50 park projects, actually I'm not going to pick on parks. Let's pick on Let's pick on wastewater. Uh,

so if we say, look, you know, this one wastewater project of the 50 that are in here, we don't think this one makes the most sense uh because it's not developed or nothing, we don't have anything on the books yet. Nobody's interested in that. Would we have the opportunity as the commission to strike individual items should we so choose? Uh, so I'm I'm going to be careful how I say that because I don't want to frustrate anybody out there. But, uh, the way I've done this in in prior cities is as as a city engineer, I bring forward my recommendation to the CIP and then I talk to the planning and zoning commission and they make their suggestions and then typically they would ask me as an engineer, is there a problem with the suggestion? And so like with just using your example with wastewater in particular, there's typically an order that you want to do a wastewater project. So if you say, "Hey, we're going to move this project, but then there's a project that you were getting ready to start that needed that one," then there needs to be some clarification because you guys may not see all the things that Jeff is seeing when he's looking at the wastewater system in its entirety. Uh but yes, I would say that there's definitely a possibility to have those conversations to say, "Well, we think we should push this one back." and then have Jeff come up and say, "Well, if you push that one, then you've got all these dominoes that are stacked up that you have to move all those as well, so that you get the bigger picture kind of thing."

Which is why I kind of think it's good to have like three meetings before we bless or not bless something. Because if we're going to line item something, as an example, not doing that, but line item something and then Jeff comes up and tells us the real reason, well, shouldn't we like have a moment? not just one moment but like think about it and then come back to the next planning and zone I mean PNC meeting. So this was not my schedule. This is the budget. No, I know it's not your schedule. And so blaming you. So I think the date we have to look at is that July 14th date of the final acceptance for city council. Mhm.

Um Ashley and I have worked together in other cities and she and I have she and I actually have done exactly what you were suggesting because we didn't like having meetings with PNZ until 2:00 so we could talk through every project, right? Um and we we've literally done that. And so we broke it up and we said, "Hey, we're going to bring we're going to sit you guys down one evening and we're going to talk through parks. We're going to sit you down one evening and we're going to talk through facilities." Right? The The bright side is there's no two 2 am meetings. The downside is it's a lot more time on your guys's side. Typically those are special called P&Z meetings to get everybody together that many times.

And so um I guess to answer your question with a question is it would be I mean up to you guys if you want to have a bunch more of extra meetings in between now and and the time. It's a lot for Oh, sorry. So, it's a lot for um us to ask me the taxpayer to like be cool with this huge number. I'm just going to say it's a huge number. I need my glasses. Um but I mean that's a lot. I that's just really a lot. And again, economics aren't really it's not an exciting year for anybody anyhow.

Well, I also think I mean for your consideration I think before we decide on additional meetings, right? Well, I'm not saying it was 8 million meetings because because I think the last time we did this, we also had multiple meetings and talked about unique like different projects. Um, you know, I think it might it might make sense for us to each individual review and at our next our next regularly scheduled meeting decide whether or not we really need to right schedule something because you know there's there's um there's challenges that come with a small group of people deciding on what's going to happen with 1.581 billion, right? Like that's a that's a big responsibility. And so our city staff and all of our stakeholders like they do the hard work, right? It's up to us to review it. I

agree. And um and so I think that I think that when we start thinking bigger picture, right, it's really it's really hard to go like, okay, well, we don't want to use uh the general obligation bonds from 2023, which is $84 million to fund whatever the whatever the thing is. Like I think I think our really our biggest challenge is identifying the projects that um serve the city in the long term, right? And it'd be really hard to say that none of these meet that. They all do. They all do. And so I think that comes down to messaging because you need the voters's approval to go do these things. You know, the the part that I think I can think about this constantly is,

you know, when somebody says, "Well, why are things so expensive?" I don't. But we also have to assume that they'll be more expensive tomorrow. Yeah. and the day after and the month and the year and etc. And so, um, where where we're really trying to, you know, we're trying to get back to my comment earlier. We're trying to get even. We're still behind. And so, does getting even take longer? Yeah, it might because if the voters choose to, right, they might say no. They might say no. Right. And that's that's not necessarily um our concern as a commission. Our concern is to put the issue to the voters. Correct. Yeah.

And let them make the decision. So, and I I've never gone through um because this is my second year on planning and zoning. I've never gone through a SIP on a year where there is a bond. So, a you know, a bond gets has to be called and formalized with details by June. Isn't that correct? So, if we're looking at this schedule, June is right. But yes, you around June usually. Um

and so like in future drafts of this, will there be because I know I know y'all are kind of thinking through how you're going to package the bond, but you know, you're a handful of months. I mean, you're probably getting to some final drafts or, you know, I'm just curious. Is there going to be like a little bit more clarity added into here of what is or if or could we just all assume? This is pretty it, right? that that that if it if it is noted as a funding source of um I forget sorry what the category was called future debt

geo debt right right that that category means that it's being planned on being in the 2026 bond program uh so I think we're actually trying to clean a lot of that up to to where you'll see you know Cindy correct me if I'm wrong I I think we're working with finance to clean a lot of this up so that you will see the projects that have funding for a GO 2026. Okay. So, there will still be there there will always be a future debt item and always a future geo debt item because

because you might just be planning for a design for something. So, in the future geo debt for a project, let's say it's a, you know, $50 million project, and you might in the 2026 bond program say, well, we want $3 million for design and and we're going to do that towards the tail end, and then we would go for another funding source for the construction, for example. But in a in a a SIP, if the construction is anticipated to be in the next 5 years, it's shown, but it might not be funded by the bond program in in full, right? And so, so that's why you'll always see those two, but we are trying to clean all this stuff up right now so that there is a GO206 line item so that you'll be able to see

how much, okay, of that $960 million is in that 2026 GO election. Okay. And I think that could be helpful for just discussions just for us in general for the future like community members to kind of see a little bit more, you know, um cuz yeah, it is a little bit of a of a shock when we hear this. And we don't Yeah, we don't need to have multiple meetings this time around. But can we There's no way this was done Tuesday last week. This This is like a project possibly. I mean, you guys are great. You guys are great. And I'm sure you probably did that, but maybe we could get it sooner so we could review it.

Well, and like I think this is another consideration. This kind of goes back to just my rough memory, right? Is is off the top of my head, I know we have about $2 billion worth of bonds from say 2018ish to about present. And I know that about a billion is water and wastewater five about $500 million each. And then I know that about 120 parks because then that's that's what I recall. I don't remember what order they occurred in. I don't remember which bonds were voted on in which year and that kind of thing. Um but I think that probably builds into the messaging, right? Because, you know, as as engaged members of our city, we want a functioning environment, right? Um, and you know, I want I want a functioning HVAC system at my house, right? And if it goes out and there's a cost and you're like, well, you know, what do I want more? Do I want HVAC in my house or do I want to try and save it for next year and go through the winter? That kind of thing. And those are those are real considerations that individuals make. But when you scale them up to a billion dollars,

the this this it's lost, right? because we can't conceptualize the size, physical size of a billion dollars, but then how do we take that imaginary number that I have in my head and then translate into miles of roads and new parks and all that stuff. And so I think you know if if the ask of the planning and zoning commission is to uh review and champion this and be supportive which I believe we all are right just in our function um then I think the voters should be given the same level of consideration in in helping helping a normal person that has no experience like we we benefit from

to to like oh just a white paper one page this is what we did this is what we're going for this is why it's important please vote please vote Please vote. This is important, right? And I know everybody does a great job at that, but I think it's a big part of the messaging about success and and future goals. Definitely. Yeah. And I would tell you as a it's my first year on the END committee and this a lot to digest the first time. Wow. So the clearly the messing is is just critical given where we are and the anxiety that our neighbors and so forth are hearing and so forth. This is going to be huge to just get that out there. Overcommunicate like crazy. I'm assuming that there's priority built into all the various numbers that we talked about tonight. There a lot of zero unfunded. Not sure yet.

Yeah. Which I'm assuming this priorities big. It wasn't obvious to me where the priorities are. How you communicate that to where it's actionable, but I think that is going to be so huge this time. That's a big number. Yeah. It will shelf shock a lot. It shock me looking like why I can't digest this that quick. And so just something to just reiterate again. I think it's going to be huge to both communicate that have fun in order and help us to to help you. Thank you.

Agreed. Um and then and and y'all this is a draft but one thing I enjoyed about the last year one um was by project it showed kind of like how the projects aligned with those overarching goals as a city. Um I forget what those were called. But it was like the little um icons. Yeah. At the top of the page. Yeah. In the last sip that I that was really nice to know like which how the project is aligning with

um I forget what it was called. My brain's starting to disintegrate. Um but I think that could be helpful in the in if we could refer back to the one from last year and and how that was on the project specific pages. So last year we were working out of Excel spreadsheets, so we had a whole lot more flexibility in what we did. This year we have a program called Clear Gov, which is a lot less flexible. It's a It's a software program that pulls all this together, makes beautiful little doughnut charts and all, but it doesn't allow us to put like things on the pages. So,

oh, even the project specific pages. It No, we have no basically what you see is what you have on that page. So, so there's the description, the Well, thank you. So just just as a um as a kind of a as a note, right? So if I'm looking at the the future debt the funding sources, right? So the total is 1.581, but then the future debt general obligation is 384, right? So my guess, correct me if I'm wrong, is that if it would go to a bond, the vote is going to be on the 384. It's the whole

It's not the whole amount. No, the the current number that we're anticipating for the November election is $200 million. Okay. Okay. So, if I So, $200 million over a fiveyear period, right? Over a one-year period, right? It's $200 million for a fiveyear bond. It's I'm sorry, five year project cycle. It's $200 million for the projects that are in the bond package. um whether those are projects are done over five years or three years or it's really gonna vary the bond package. Yeah.

So the reason I ask is I I I did 1.5 billion divided by 100,000 people over five years and that works out to about $3,000 a year just on average if we assume 100,000 people in Flutterville. But if if that number comes down to $200 million divided by 100,000 people over a fiveyear period, then the rough math is about $400 per rate per year over the cycle of that. That may not be useful messaging, but it also might be really useful messaging because if someone says, "I got to vote for a billion dollars worth of stuff." Say, "Well, no, no, I'm so sorry. The rateayer, you should anticipate about this. This is this is what it costs to live in Flurville. This is what you get for only $400 a year." Yeah.

Uh so just I don't know how to package that. I'm not the guy for that. But but I think I think it's an important conceptualization, right? Because because that that number of like, oh, I pay 1.93% on my home taxes or 3.019 or whatever the number is is also something that somebody has to literally sit down and manually calculate. So um anyway, just a consideration. Well, I just want to mention because y'all have mentioned it's not one point. I don't think, unless I'm reading it wrong, it's not 1.58. That's for the general funds. It's 2.4 billion total if you had the utility funds. I'm looking at page 22. So, I don't know what you're looking at.

I think for future, they were saying they're looking for a bond of $200 million. Right. Right. So, just the bond is 200. But in terms of the entire CIP Oh, yeah. total package. Yeah. If it were all spent, which it won't. I mean, that's you have a 10-year plan and it lasts a few years. Sure. But it is for that sticker price issue. The entire CIP put together is like 2.4 billion over 10 years. That's a it's a big sticker if I'm adding correctly.

So, what you want us to do tonight is what? Uh basically I want you to get get you comfortable with this packet so that you guys can go and start trying to digest it and jotting down your questions, concerns. Okay. Why are we doing this project now? And then we can answer that. Should we should can we push it out five years then we can answer that. Um those kind of things. So like general comments to be considered in future drafts. Y

um okay. So that could be knowing that we're not able to really like add items to pages that could be a little bit more challenging. But um within project specific pages, there's there isn't any anticipated costs related to maintenance like future costs related to a project. Is that within a different area or is that something that we could add or we'll expect to be added to the SIP? is like for example the you know uh if we use like like downtown east I mean it could really really be any but like you know those buildings they have immediate capital cost

um but then they'll also have cap they'll have costs related to maintenance maintenance of the systems you know just uh general operational costs and I guess some of that's probably slightly different budgets but I mean is it because it's completely separate budget maintenance of these or is it that it's inside bit different. Well, it's really going to kind of depend. Um, but generally we do try to account for maintenance and operation after the project comes online.

So, if you're seeing projects that, you know, the construct, the design, feasibility, design, planning, all that stuff goes through the entire 5year CIP, you're not going to see operation and maintenance until year six or beyond whenever that construction is finished. That's typically the way we do this. And then the other thing is is if we're financing everything through debt, we're not going to add the maintenance and operation to a debt item. It would be like through a future general fund type allocation. If you're in the general fund, if you're in the utility fund, then it's so so we do try to account for it. Uh I don't know how clear it is in those specific pages that you're looking at. Okay. Okay.

I know in the last year we had it because we had a different format. We had a different we had a different software. Uh we had Excel and we could do whatever we wanted with it. And in like the year after because we had what was it 11 by 17 sheets and so in the years after the CIP you could see the on&m costs that were allocated to every year and then that was a separate line item underneath that was accounted for. Yeah.

Yeah. cuz I mean if I was a citizen I mean I would be curious you know okay well you you're especially for for facilities you know I mean everything requires maintenance but for facilities you know you're quantifying well this investment to get a you know um rec center and and all of that is you know x amount of dollars but technically that project will cost you know more money over time than what is shown in the SIP right

um and then making sure those funds are being considered when we're looking at available budget related general funds I think is important. Um so I I would still like to leave it as a comment and a consideration to somehow add or clarify where those costs are located to make sure they're being um considered when we're talking about available budgets within general funds and you know not not within the bond conversation but just in in general.

Yeah. And then a slightly more detailed question I'm just curious about. Um the main street extension is a pretty large transportation project going from railroad to the downtown east. Is that cost in the transportation area or is that within the downtown east? That was a recent ad. Yeah. So Oh, it is in the downtown project. Okay. Mobility. So it is a transportation project but it's within that mobility. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that. Thank you. Any other questions?

Just a a thank you. Sorry. Oh. I want to say thank you too. This is really really awesome and a huge amount of effort and our city is growing and you know changing quite a bit in the past you know 5 years and we'll continue 5 10 years and we'll continue and it's a lot of effort on your side to think through all this and and everything. So really appreciate it and we want to be champions. So that's why we're interested in, you know, hearing more information and and if there was a reality that we did want to have like a workshop, like if we get to the next meeting and we realize that it would be helpful to have a work session, is that something that we can make a decision on at the next PNC meeting? I believe so.

Okay. So we can we can ask for that. Okay. Thank you. All right. Great. So this evening you need a approval for the draft. Is that correct? I think it's just for you guys to receive the receive it. We're just supposed to say thank you. Thanks. All right. Wonderful. Discussions are weird. You did. You did great. Everybody to the city. This is the first sip that you've uh sold to us. Good job.

Wonderful. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you, city staff. I echo the thanks from other commissioners. It's uh quite an amount of work and this is the second time I've seen it and I'm in awe for a second time. So, thank you. Um all right, our last item is item number six 6A. Uh item number 2026 0371 discussion regarding the unified development code amendments with the unified development code advisory council and we had a work session earlier um and therefore we have no additional items on that. Okay, it is 8 it is 8:28 and I adjourn the meeting.

Oh wait oh hold on I don't adjourn the meeting. So, um, just for clarification, I was just informed that the charter not only says that we have to present the recommendation to city council, but it has to be presented to city council by May 12th. So, if we're going to do the special workshop, then it has to be sometime between now and May 12th. We will need to send out a some

Yeah, we'll need to do that because we have to I know we looked at it originally to see if we could do another day on a Monday this month. It was going to get a little bit tricky because of posting deadlines, the way state law changed, we have to have at least five business days to have the agenda posted. So being that we're already on the sixth that would from next week um so it gets into it would probably be that following the but we also allow to like send you emails and kind of discussion points. Yes. Not as a group. Don't include just one I can send it to. Yeah, if you want to and

so we could send additional questions on this draft and to the point that that was made um when we would anticipate an updated draft would it be right before the next five days before? Five days before. Okay. Okay. question copy of this. There's an electronic copy that was sent to you guys. Oh, it's okay. It was a link. There were a few meeting um things that came out because we had the CIP and then the EBC work session and then this you'll get it's pretty large. You should have gotten that. Let us know if you would attachment on the agenda itself. Uh yes, that's where I found it. Yeah.

So, if you click on the agenda, it'll take you to the attachment. All right. Anything else? All right. The meeting is adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you.