Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good evening. I'd like to call the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Can you all hear us? Okay. In the uh audience in the room? Yep. Good. Nice. All right. We'll try to keep that up. All right. So, I'd like to call the meeting to order this evening. 7:00 p.m. Uh, up first, uh, citizen communication. The planning and zoning commission welcomes comment on items relevant to, uh, the commission not already scheduled on tonight's agenda. In accordance with the Texas Attorney General's opinion, any public comment that's 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 wishing to address the commission this evening? All right, seeing as none, we'll move on to item number three, which is our presentation from uh Gordon Haw. Uh item 3A, which is regarding flood plane management in the development process. I guess I have to speak up. Oh, and here's turn it off. Okay, very good. So I am the flood plane administrator for the city of Plugerville and which mean I'm also in the development engineering department. I'm the engineering manager for that department to review all new development that comes through the city that needs to be reviewed for approve uh for conformance with our codes and our regulations. And I'm here this evening to talk about flood planes. What is a flood plane? It is sometimes called the special flood hazard area. That's the word that FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, calls it. It's also referred to as a 100red-year flood plane, which in short

is a flood event that has a 1% chance of of occurring in any given year, which isn't to say that it it wouldn't happen just once a 100 years. You might have backto-back 100-year storms in the same year. It's kind of just rolling the dice. and does that 100red-year storm come up again or does it not? And some of these uh graphics on this slide depict some of the concepts uh involved in flood plane management. You have the normal stream channel that when a flood is not going on, when there's no rainfall occurring that the water is generally confined to that stream channel, but as the rainfall upstream increases and you have runoff and uh it expands outward and outward and the larger the rain event, then the more extensive the flood uh waters extend. Um, so a 100red-year event would extend outside of the floodway into the fringe areas and if it continued to rain after that, it would continue to spread so that you might have a hund a 500year flood or or beyond that event. And the federal emergency management agency is a arm of the federal government that that oversees flood planes and flood plane administration. and they use the different zones that are depicted on their maps to govern what inflood insurance rates uh a business or a home will pay. Often times people will approach the city and say, "Well, is my property in a flood plane?" And to determine that we use maps that are published by FEMA, which are called their flood insurance rate maps or their firm maps. And there's some depictions of some examples here. On the example on the left, you've got the area that is kind of ha well the shaded area is the 100red-year flood plane. The area that is hatched in the middle is where the higher flows and the

more quantity of the flow occurs. And then you have a different view of kind of the same area that just shows in blue what areas would be inundated. And flood development can definitely have a flood an impact on the flood plane. You kind of see in the upper example that before development you have no one encroaching on the flood plane and so the water is pretty much free to convey where it historically has been conveyed. Then you have people that come in and they want to reclaim some of that area and they want to build homes in that area. And if it's not done carefully or correctly, then you you have the example shown at the bottom occurring. They regraded on one side, brought in fill and built homes on that side, but it's pushed the flood waters to the other side. And so my job as flood plane administrators to make sure that new development does not cause that to happen. You can have areas that are reclaimed from the flood plane, but in order to do so, they would have to excavate in another area to make sure that the water can still convey through the area and that the water surface elevation does not rise. Why do communities regulate that flood plane? It's it's pretty obvious. We that uh we want to protect people and property. We want the city of Liverville to be a as safe as we can, a place to live and work and enjoy. And we want to ensure that federal flood insurance and disaster assistance is available and save tax dollars and res reduce the losses that occur during floods. So the city is very proactively involved in protecting and managing the flood plane. We start off by participating in FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program and their uh community

rating system or the CRS. That is not a mandatory. It's not mandatory that we uh participate in that program, but if we do, then our residents are eligible to receive flood plane insurance and to receive uh disaster mitigation funds. And the level to which we are proactive in doing flood plane management also depend or determines the discount rates that our residents receive for flood insurance. Also one of the other hats I wear is reviewing new developments that they oppose are they proposed. We review any development that comes in that is near or in a flood plane and we enforce our regulations. And some of the points we get with FEMA is by adopting standards that are higher than their minimum standards. And uh one example of that is we don't allow new homes or structures to be constructed in the 100red-year flood plane. So there may be some historic structures that are already in the flood plane, but as of now, we do not allow any new development to occur within the flood plane. We also require that the finished floor elevations of the home be at least 2 ft above the 100-year water surface elevation. So you uh you might say, "But wait a minute, I thought you said you don't let them build in the flood plane." We don't. But even when they're adjacent to the flood plane, we require that their finish floor elevation be at least 2 ft above that 100-year flood plane elevation as additional insurance because floods greater than the 100year can happen and do happen. We also have adopted higher rainfall standards. uh the existing FEMA flood plane maps that are shown for the city today like the examples I showed earlier in the

presentation use what we refer to as pre-NOA atlas 14 rainfall data with NOA being an acronym for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. They keep records of rainfall that occurs over time and they've noticed that the amount of rainfall that happens in extreme events is increasing. So what would have been considered a 100redyear storm uh 2030 years ago, it's different today. Uh for example, in influgerville, it now during a 100red-year event, it's essentially over 11 in of rain in a 24-hour period. So, we now use something beyond what the current firm maps show. We use Noah Atlas 14 rainfall data. Again, the 11 ines in a 24-hour period. And because we participate in FEMA's CRS program and we're proactive in our approach to floodplane management and regulation, all property owners in the city who purchase flood plane insurance, and you can purchase it whether you're in a flood plane or not, you will receive a 15 to 20% discount on floodplane insurance rates because of what the city does. Um, we currently have a 15% discount in place, but I just went through an in-person audit with with FEMA and presented information to them on what we're doing and some of the upgrades we made and it looks like our class is going to be upgraded and we're not now going to be at a 20% discount. I haven't received that word official, so I don't maybe I shouldn't mention it, but I think we're headed there. And our commitment is to continue to manage the floodplane and hopefully over time to see I think we've been participating in that program uh since 2006 starting at a class 9 and the lower

you know a class one is the best and we've gradually climbed 8 7 and we're headed towards a six and so that makes us one of the best performing cities in Texas. So, and our commitment is to continue to be proactive about flood plane management so that we keep the city a pleasant and safe place to live and work. And then I'll just end with a final slide of if you have more questions, you can go to this website address or always feel free to contact me. I take lots of citizen phone calls and calls from all sorts of directions. So, uh, but happy to be with you tonight and happy to take any questions you may have. I have a question. I have a question. So, you said is that you said you don't build we're not allowed to build in a 100-year flood plane new, but what if you are tearing down and building back up? Is that considered new? That there FEMA has rules on that. And one of the rules is kind of the 50% rule. If if your home is damaged in a flood and you need to restore your property, right? So, you're going to spend money on it. One of the evaluations that we have to get involved in is working with the insurance company and you do an estimate of what the value of the property. I as flood plane administrator work with their contractors and the insurance companies to determine what the value of their property is and what the value of the repairs they're proposing. If the repairs needed or the improvements desired either way uh equal less than 50% of the evaluation of the property, then they can proceed with those with proper permits. But if it exceeds a 50% value, they're required to come up to current regulations, which would mean in this case, they're already in the flood plane, so they could stay in the flood plane, but we would have them elevate the finished floor to 2 ft above the 100-year flood elevation, which would mean building on peers or some other means of elevation. Okay. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. I appreciate it. Oh, sorry. I have a question. Oh, yes. Sorry. I was just going to say thank you. Okay. Um, so I believe the the FEMA 100-year flood plane is adjusting um the new Atlas 14 rainfall. Is that correct? That is correct. Um, sorry I did not I can't it's really hard for me to hear a fan here as well. Um, what's the timeline of that being submitted to FEMA and approved communicated to community members? Very good question. Thank you. Um, so Texas Water Development Board has undertaken a comprehensive study of Willil Barker Creek. You'll know that we have two main creeks in the city. We have Gilin Creek and Willar Creek. So, Texas Water Development Board along with the city of Flville and Austin and some other municipalities conducted a detailed updated hydrarology and hydraulic study that includes the no Atlas flood uh rainfall values and they've completed that study. They've run it through FEMA. FEMA has basically done a technical review and approved it. So, it but FEMA's processes take a long time. It is now with FEMA to officially be adopted and to be mapped and our maps will be reissued. I've been told it's it's the Texas Water Development Board leading that process, not the city. And so they're the drivers, but I've been told it's going to be about another year and a half and those maps will be reissued for Will Barker. Now for Dillerland um no such comprehensive study has been done yet but I will back up and say that anybody that proposes any development in any part of Flugerville whether it be on Jilland or Wilbar is required on their own to update their local flood plane

map to the no Atlas 14 rainfall data. So I said earlier in this slide we we enforce no Atlas 14 rainfall data whether PEMA has adopted that yet or not. Okay. And is the 15 to 20% automatically applied to folks? So, so you don't have to put in an application or anything? No. No, you don't. It occurs just from the benefit of being in the city of Liverville and because of our participation in the CRS. Okay. And then just a note, I know Emily, we've been chatting before. Um, but when large developments happening and flood planes adjust and more houses are added to the flood plane, um, I think it'd be interesting knowing more details of how that's communicated out to folks that they're going to in an updated map revision being in the flood plane and and how that's communicated out um, you know, to community members. Sure. probably even prior to FEMA because then folks could interpret that their their home being the flood plane is not due to updated rain amounts but instead due to development. Um so it could lead to more questions. So it's just a suggestion. Uh so I think your question had several parts to it but I think the main part was how do how are people how and when are people notified and uh when so we have developments that are coming in and want to make adjustments to the flood plan. We have them do detailed hydrarology and hydraulic studies. They are also then required to file with FEMA so that those get updated in FEMA's maps. So kind of right now as we have new developments come in, we've got this development updated to no Atlas 14. So right now it's kind of peace meal. You have parts of our maps that are getting updated to no Atlas 14 and parts that are not that we want the Texas Water Development Board. Eventually all parts

of the city will be on the No Atlas 14. But as part of that process to file to FEMA to get the maps updated, anybody within a certain distance is required to be notified by the developer. And we try to be careful in the letters to to note, okay, you're now in the flood plane or the water surface elevations are increasing your area, but it's not because of anything development is doing. It's because we're making them update to No Atlas 14 rainfall data. So, as developers make adjustments to the flood plane, if they're if they're close to creeks, they then have to adopt something that won't be mapped for another year and a half, but because they're making a revision right now, they have to adopt the more conservative correct rainfall amount. Therefore, putting more people in the flood plan, it might not be due, it's not due to their project. In fact, one of our because they're having to adopt a map that hasn't been adopted citywide yet, but they have to adopt it earlier. Correct. Okay. Yes. Um, and as I mentioned, we do try to be real careful to say that it's not because of the project, it's because we're moving to a higher rainfall value. In fact, one of, again, I mentioned higher standards of development. One of our standard is that they're not allowed to they're allowed to increase water surface elevations because we're enforcing new rainfall on them, but they're not allowed because of their actions to cause an increase. We don't permit that. Yeah. And I just want I want you to maybe put a finer point on that too, right? That the new developments are required to basically mitigate any potential impact of their development to your point is like Yeah. They're not allowed to as part of their drainage plans. Correct. They're not allowed to make the flood lane move, right? We don't Okay. And you're an engineer and I'm not. Is that possible? Sorry. I have an in Well, I mean, we all have interests. Um, yeah. I'm specifically uh I know that there's a map revision coming out for the downtown east

Yes. project that's putting a large amount of those properties that are directly adjacent in the flood plane that were not previously in the flood plane. I was already in the flood. Not again. And specifically I was already in there but you are correct. I'm just curious like how does that get rolled out? How does the city ensure that the communication or the way it's interpreted is is that this development is the reason why these folks are now in the flood plane? um just on a community uh like optics. Yes. Uh it's a very timely question because we are right now working on the notification letter that will be sent out specifically on that project which has specific language in it to say it's not because of what the project is doing but it's because we have adopted a higher rainfall standard and that that notification letter uh is being prepared right now because we're just now getting ready to the point that we're going to file with FEMA and fe in the case of that project We filed first a tenative letter with FEMA called a conditional letter of map revision. In other words, FEMA, we're not asking you to revise the map right now, but we want you to look at our detailed study and give it your stamp of approval. And at the same time, we're sending that to FEMA to say, please look over our technical work, we're also notifying the residents saying, oh, by the way, we're sending this into FEMA. Yeah. And just a a suggestion of I don't know if it's possible. Um but a community member could ask, well, is there anything that this development could do to maybe make this impact? I understand that they're not adding to the situation. It's because there's a larger amount of rainfall from upstream to downstream. I think it could be interesting in those situations where developments are going in directly adjacent to a creek to show even if we increased our ponds to hold X amount, this is the impact we would have on the

flood. Like this is the most we could even pull back the flood plane. The reality is is that it's actually upstream larger amounts of rain that's causing the flood plane to be what it is to help with communications when there is a large amount of neighbors that will be or community members that'll be affected by these map revisions. Yes. And on that project downtown uh the downtown east project uh you've got the larger watershed where when it rains and it contributes flow and it it takes a while for all the flow from all the different areas to reach say that specific point downtown east. We actually did detailed uh drainage analysis that showed because it is so far down at the bottom. If you do detention and then start releasing the water, you made it worse because all the flow from the upper parts of the wershed have now had time to reach. Rather, it's better to just let the water go and be gone and not have it coincide with all the water that's coming down. If you were to actually build a detention basin, you make flooding worse at the downtown east development. And we have the report that shows that. Of course, it's a technical report. Might be difficult for citizens to understand, but the concepts are there and they're solid. Okay. Thank you. Thanks for my pretty detailed questions. I appreciate it. I appreciate it. Hey, bring them on. I I'm also a civil engineer and I worked in flood plane mapping for a handful of years. Oh, good. We could we could have a detailed discussion later. I had a quick question as well. Um, you mentioned that the Yeah, you mentioned that the the new hydraology studies are kind of coming out occasionally that update some of the flood maps and things like that. Um, do you know how much empirical data is used to update those? Are they measuring stream depths? Are they looking at uh what the actual rainfall events are and then what the flood planes are with the high water marks, etc. to be able to

see, okay, yeah, this was a this this is what we would have expected for a 50-y year, 100 year thousand-y year flood, and then this is what actually happened. One, uh, it's pretty standard when you do modeling, if you do have known historic events with known historic rainfall data to do a a dry run, you know, to run that storm through there and to see what kind of that you're getting similar flows to what uh the model predicts. Yeah. Is that something that we do at a city level or do we kind of rely on the state? No, we rely on the the consultants to do that. We're kind of in a technical advisor review. We rely on the hydraologists and the civil engineers and etc. But we then do a secondary review of their work. Okay. Thank you. Great. Anything else? I am not an engineer. I just want to say thank you that you are and that you're here and that you're doing all of this work so that we are safe. Um, appreciate it. You're welcome. Thank you. Yeah, that was great. Thank you. And commissioners, just for your awareness as well, the plan is to continue to do these types of uh learning sessions on other related topics going forward. So, yeah. Cool. All right. Thanks so much. Appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Moving on to the consent agenda. All matters listed under the consent agenda are considered routine by the commission and will be enacted by one motion. These items include preliminary and final plats where staff has found compliance with all minimum subdivision regulations. All items approved by consent are approved with any and all staff recommendations. There will not be separate discussion of these items. If any commissioner desires to discuss an item on the consent agenda, we can pull it and move it to the regular agenda for discussion. Uh are there any items uh any commissioner wants to remove the consent agenda this evening? All right, seeing as none, so we have 4 A, 4 B, and 4 C, which are all approving prior meeting minutes of the

planning and zoning commission. 4 D, which is approving a final plat. Uh 4 E is for the final plat for the Liso track 6A. Uh 4 F is a preliminary plan for North Point East. 4G is a final plat for North Point East as well. Uh so with that uh move to approve. Thank you. Second. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Hearing none. Motion approves. Thank you very much. All right. Up next we have a public hearing item 5A. And Yasmin. Is there a clicker? All right. Good evening, chair and commission. My name is Dr. Yasmin Turk and I'm the planning manager and I'm here to present a specific use permit for Stonehill Town Center tract 7. As shown, the subject property is located in the vacant parcel at 1501 Town Center Drive in the shopping center between Cowboys Fit and Home Depot. The applicant is requesting an SUP to allow for the commercial recreation and entertainment outdoor uh use within the urban center level 5 zoning district. Specifically, this SU pertains to outdoor batting cages. The request for the commercial recreation and entertainment outdoor use complies with all of the approved criteria of the SUP and it meets the intent of the comprehensive plan and the urban center level 5 zoning district.

The proposed use and layout of the commercial recreation entertainment outdoor project of this site follows UDC 3.8.6. Staff recommends approval with the conditions listed here. This outdoor entertainment space should be limited to batting cage use. It should be screened from public rightway. The height of all materials associated with the SUP will be less than the height of the principal structure. The batting cage will have the location depicted in the applicant's conceptual plan. and I'm happy to answer any questions. Uh, is there anyone in the public wishing to address the commission on this item this evening? All right, seeing as none, we'll uh open up for any discussion or questions. I'll also entertain a motion to close the public hearing. So moved. Second. All right. All in favor? I All right. No opposed. All right. Public hearing is closed. Is this part of the existing Cowboys Fit facility or is it like a new uh separate facility? It is a vacant parcel, but it is uh in that same tract that includes Cowboy Cowboys Fit. Uh if we go back to this map, you can see the location. It is where the star is between the Cowboys Fit and the Home Depot. So, it's in that track uh that same tract which is encircled in red. It's a vacant parcel, but it'll be a part of the same development. Okay. How how late are the lights going to be on? Um, that is something that we don't have information on at this point in the process. It'll that will be um something that that information will be provided by the applicant at a later time. Would this be the kind of facility where they could serve like food and alcohol like Top Golf or something where it's kind of entertainment based or Yes. So there is going to be a larger entertainment center that is indoors uh which is already permitted but it would

be uh the outdoor structure that requires the SUP to be filed to have that outdoor entertainment that's not a part of the um same classification that would be with the indoors. So this is specifically for the batting cages that would be outdoors. So the food and alcohol part is already permitted by right it's just the outdoor aspect that's SCP. Yes. Okay. All right. Any other questions, discussion? All right. I'll entertain a motion. I move to approve uh along with the um items recommended by staff including the height and the screening etc. Uh outdoor entertainment limited to batting cage screen from public right ofway. Height of all materials associated with the SUP less than the height of the principal structure. And the batting cage will have the location depicted in the applicant's conceptual plan. Second that. All right. All in favor? I I. Any opposed? All right. Motion passes. Thank you. All right. I am going to make a slight uh change to the agenda because we had uh a resident sign up wanting to speak on item 6B. So, I want to pull that up now so that we can give them a chance to to speak on that. So, we're just basically going to flip 6A and 6B. Uh so 6B is uh discussing considering application for a subdivision waiver uh for the UDC. Good evening chair and commission. My name is Cleveland Rodriguez, planner one with planning and development services. As mentioned, this item under consideration is the subdivision waiver for the Rigid Blackhawk phase 2 preliminary plan. Uh the request is to not connect to the street connect a street which is gate dancer lane that is stubbed into the subdivision boundary as is required by the udc. A little

background about this uh particular subdivision. Uh the rigid blackhawk phase 2 is located in the flugville extr territorial jurisdiction as part of the lakeside mud 5. Uh it is located east of Hod Lane and east of the ridge at Blackhawk phase 1. Row lane is proposed to be extended further east um along the north boundary of this subdivision. Um this 250 acre subdivision is proposed to have 634 homes to be developed in six phases. The preliminary plan is current currently under final stages of review. Uh here we have the request. As you can see, gate dancer lane stubs into the subdivision boundary at uh lot 44. The code intends for the lane to continue into the subdivision uh thereby increasing connectivity and easy access for safety. The specific code in the UDC 15 uh.16.3.C. All streets that are stubbed out into the subject subdivision boundary shall be extended into the subdivision. Um the applicant has proposed to convert the intended public right of way into a public access easement uh with entry restricted to emergency vehicles by way of a fire access gate and a box. Uh and is uh as well as increased pedestrian connectivity. Um in increased local connections are important as they provide easier routes for travel within the immediate area and reduce dependency on our arterial system. Uh ro lane is a major arterial road uh when fully built out the number of vehicles on that particular road will also increase. While this does not impact rigid black hawk phase 2 uh particularly because there are multiple ingress and egress points uh they may

pose uh a significant challenge to roll in estates because there is one uh point of entry and uh if there any emergency occurs then uh that particular entry will get blocked. staff determines that there is no obstacle or special conditions that prevent the code from being met. Further add added vehicular connectivity is in the public interest and will allow us to remain equitable to the new subdivisions coming into the city. This connection will provide easy access routes to the subdivision and locations further east and south while providing enhanced access to the emergency services. Um, hence, uh, staff recommends denial of the waiver. Um, I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here as well to answer any questions. Thanks. Before we go into the conversation, I would like to go ahead and have that resident come forward if you don't mind. Uh, Beverly Torski, is it possible Mr. team before me and I'm following him up or I'm happy to go down. Uh I'm sorry I couldn't Oh, is there someone else first? Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. I didn't realize uh he was presenting. Okay. Yeah, that's fine. If not, I I go No, no, no. That's fine. Sorry. I didn't I didn't realize he was planning to speak. Sorry, I was hiding back here. No problem. Can I just click back and forth? Okay, great. Okay. Good evening. Uh my name is Matt Teeman. Uh commissioners, good to see you this evening. Um uh as Cleveland said, this is bridge 2 at Blackhawk. It's part of Lakeside MUD 5, which is part of a consent and development

agreement for DTJ MUD. Okay. One of the things that I think is important to uh discuss here is that because we're have a a development agreement in the ETJ uh we go through dual review Travis County and the city of Lugerville. Okay. So, a lot of times uh the city's ordinances and Travis County ordinances will conflict. Okay. But a lot of times, and there's no formal agreement between Flugerville and the county that they follow. So we go to one, then we go to the other, and we kind of go back and forth. A lot of times what happens is if there's a conflict on something, generally speaking, if it's a road or a drainage issue, uh the city will see to the county. And if it's a water wastewater building permit, parks thing, the the seeds to the city. Okay? And that's just kind of like the general way it's happened over the last 25 years. Okay. So, I'm kind of setting that stage for you. Um the uh EST do one thing that's not in here uh in kind of the overview is that ESD2 the fire service provider has cleared all their comments on a preliminary plan. So, they've said that, hey, we're okay with the emergencyon access uh box at the end of Gate Dancer. Um, also Travis County has cleared the comments as well, and they are awaiting Flugerville's approval in order to issue the variant. So, they basically said, "We're okay with it, but we don't want to proceed until Flugerville because you can get into a situation where they're not in sync and, you know, it creates issues." So I I think the variance is appropriate in this case. Um if you go to um this bullet, this is from the UDC, they're actually ABC. Okay. So in this case, uh condition C is the bottom and

it talks about an un undesirable condition and it's in your opinion that would be contrary to public interest. Okay. So the first thing is kind of go back here. The gate dancer is in blue. You can see it. So, Gay Dancer in that subdivision was platted in 1993. Uh, that road was probably built then and it's had I don't even think it's been repaved since 93. It's 20 ft wide. Uh, their acreage lots and there's no sidewalk. Okay. Additionally, um, at the end of Gate Dancer, it looks like a culde-sac is there, but if you actually get in the tax records, it has, uh, Gate Dancer stubbed out. So all these folks that are here from earlier estates bought their house under the assumption that that was a culde-sac and it's in fact not and they're finding out and there's no like usually at a a stub street you have like a barricade up you know you have a temporary turn on this barricade there's no barricades there's no indication that's a stub out. Okay so if there's no sidewalks if you if you make the stub out uh it's going to increase traffic it's going to you're going to have construction traffic. You're going to have uh big trucks coming down. and it's going to tear up the street. Additionally, you have more people walking and more traffic. There's no sidewalks. Now, you have a health and safety issue uh that you're creating by connecting the sub. And additionally, I think that these people, these folks that are here to speak can attest that they bought under the assumption that and they paid the price they paid assuming that that was a culde-sac. Okay. Yeah, I also think that this uh variance is reasonably appropriate uh to grant uh because like I mentioned ESD is clear the comments. The other thing that's kind of um interesting and unique about this situation is although we're following the Flugerville UDC, no matter what happens

tonight, Travis County is still maintaining both of these roads. So, and since Travis County has said that uh we're okay with this, I would ask since they're going to be the ones that are maintaining and that you would please follow in their lead in granting the variance. Um, and then last or not not last, but uh second to last, I I think it's economically inefficient quite frankly. Like if you look at the yellow road uh that's adjacent that's running north south or I'm sorry not yellow green road that's running north south that's a minor collector okay and that's connecting to row lane the residents of ridge can simply go to the green road go north and go to row lane they can come south if they go through the gate dancer like there's maybe 20 or 30 houses that are using gate dancer and then when that happens when you open that up, you're going to have a lot of construction traffic and it's going to wreck it. It's like I just ran some back the napkin numbers. I mean, it would take those people in Ridge and uh Roland Estates like 5 years of paying county taxes to repave that road. Like that's a steep price to pay for the connectivity and having to go back to Rorow Lane. Then I would also respectfully disagree that this increases connectivity. I mean, you can look at the map and see the ridge two residents have options to go north, south, east, and west. They have to take almost the same amount of turns and then the gate dancer folks would have to take the same amount of turns to get to another arterial. And furthermore, they don't want the connection, which I know isn't a good reason to not stub it out. But, uh, that would be I mean, that would I would say just I don't think that there's a public interest in this particular increase connectivity. So, I guess in summary,

PSD2 has approved it. Travis County has approved it. I don't think there's a a big increase in connectivity. I think it costs the taxpayers and you more money. Um, and I think that um, we can accomplish uh, a good subdivision with great emergency access uh, without having to grant this stub out or or ac I'm sorry, accomplish the stub out. And we're still going to do the emergency access. So if states is blocked, gate dancer is blocked, the fire truck can come through bridge 2 and get to gate dancer. That's not an issue. That that's it. It's a lot. If you have any questions, please please feel free to ask or we can uh chairman and we can let the residents talk and I'd be available. Yeah, let's go ahead and do that and then we can cover all any other questions or comments at Good evening. My name is Beverly Torski and I'm here tonight representing the Row Lane Estates HOA. Our small community is asking that you grant the variance that Travis County and ESD2 have provisionally granted. Correct. They have proved you there. Okay. A variance does not set precedence. It makes an exception for a unique problem or issue. The issue we need help with is excluding our street from possible overwhelming traffic that will occur if Gate Dancer Lane is connected to the planned ridge of Blackhawk that will soon surround us. Gate Dancer is a small, minimally improved country lane that does well with our local traffic and family use. It is narrow with an L- curve and does not have a shoulder or sidewalk and will not safely support anything other than the local use it has now. We also have no street lights and the possibility of more traffic is making us extremely

concerned. The notgate that is planned for emergency access is a wonderful compromise for gate dancer traffic to stay low and for emergency vehicles to have a backway into the new development in case another entrance is blocked. Our community has been in place for decades and while we know progress is going to happen around us, we would like to minimize its impact on the quiet life we have on our street at this time. Please grant this variance in conjunction with the county and the ESD. They saw the need for it and we are hoping that you do as well. Um I do have several families with me tonight. If anyone's here from Orlando states, could you just kind of wave or stand up and say hi? We did take time out to come here and speak and try to appeal to you guys. And some of our families have been there for decades. Some of us have only been there for, you know, a few years. One of us is building right now. um please think about it. We'd really appreciate it. Thank you. Have a great evening. Thank you for taking the time. All right, commissioners, comments, questions on the uh item. So, yeah, my my question is it sounds like the the county so the developer maintains it, the developer builds, excuse me, the county maintains it. In doing so, the road it's expanded into its width to accommodate two lanes. And then they're going to put a barrier emergency access only. So that to go where it says right. So right at the end there the only traffic can get through is emergency vehicles. So there'll be like a arm gate or some sort of Yes. Yes. something or other. It will be just an arm gate with a Nox box. again uh it will specifics will be decided in the future but it will be accessible to emergency services. Okay. And so I didn't catch the name of the small community on gate dancer but it sounds like they're supportive of that. Is that

you want the gate connected? You want do you want the connected? They want the weight. All right. We have 11, right? But so the the the the way it was presented was the road will be improved and then there'll be a road gate dancer is not uh okay what entity is responsible for maintaining gate dancer in its current Travis Travis County is responsible for for maintaining the existing gate dancer that's not the responsibility of this developer only the developer goes to that bold line that you see on the map there. So of course Travis County is supportive. They don't want to pay for repaving that road. So the arm is they're paying for the arm and they're paying for the Noxbox and only only emergency vehicles are going down that road. Yes. But it will also allow for pedestrian movement. Oh, pedestrian access. I mean, yeah. I don't you don't want Yeah. That that previous waiver with the is gone, right? We're not talking about anything but this one thing. We're not going to get rid of any of the pedestrian access or trails like we talked about before. Yeah. This is specifically just whether or not to have them follow the existing Okay. Flugerville rules where they complete the step out versus Honestly, I think it's a pretty good compromise, too. There's emergency access. I um Is there a way to get street lights on that street? I'm sorry. I couldn't. Is there a way to get street lights on that street? Sounds like it's a county thing on the existing gate dancer. Is that your question? Oh, yes. Sorry. Yes, that's my answer. That'll be a question for Travis County. That's Travis County. Okay. So, sidewalks, paving, and street lights. That's all the county. Yes, ma'am. And they don't want to do it clearly, right? Yeah. And will the will there be like some kind of pedestrian light, you know, a

street light at Gate Dancer? Just so within within this development, I think uh the developer will answer better. Uh will will there be uh any sort of street lights at the connection? Yeah. So generally that'll happen during the construction plan phase. I mean it's to be quite honest gen at like the corners there's usually a street light. Will will there be a street light set back kind of overlooking their culde-sac? I don't know. I mean that would be I mean they're honestly we're trying to be respectful to their community. We're surrounding them. So in that case, if that's their desire, maybe. But if they are not in favor of that, then you that would be kind of the way we would take it. So in an emergency, um, is is I don't I think I'm missing the part with right there. Okay. Um, so right now, Gate Dancer has one entry, one exit. Yes. So, in a reality where there's some kind of emergency that blocks the exit out of Gate Dancer, I'm assuming that emergency services would come out and open up that arm so folks could leave from from their side as well. Yeah. Like is this going to make it better both ways? Cuz that's kind of my question too. Like right now, does it only open for right now there's only and not for gig answer. So a roll lane is supposed to is going to be constructed as a major arterial which also increases the number of vehicles on this road. So with the entrance which is right closer to uh on on your left to gate dancer lane if something happens there in the future uh there is uh only one entry and uh exit point. So they will have so like if an accident happened or so they would have to go through the entire subdivision and wait at the uh gate lane open the box and get in.

Okay. And and they be able to like plan that to say if something happens here the fire department or whoever would know they have to go to that gate arm and open it for folks to be able to exit. Yes. From gate dancer out. Okay. So emergency will have to open the gate. They wouldn't be able to get out. I think it's reasonable. I was just going to state I don't have any more questions. I I think this is reasonable. Um I it's it's I feel like consistently we really encourage more connectability as a planning and zoning commission. Um, but I think this is a a reasonable from my perspective, a reasonable um compromise that that is a good solution for this area and and I do empathize with looking at the maps right now, not looking at what it is in the future, but looking at the aerial um I do empathize with the community and I think it's gracious of them to to give this as a um as an option. So, you said it well. I I just want to clarify what we're voting on, right? So, and apologize because not quite following along. So, there's the road as it stands today, right? That's that's what it is. The variance request is just the arm. Yeah. Has nothing to do with changing the road width or any additional things. Right. Correct. Yeah. Their their road would remain as is and they wouldn't basically have it as a as a true connection point to this development. There would just be an arm there for emergency services. That would be a NOX box that Right. Yeah. So that so that's the variance requested and then and then the city staff has recommended denying that request. So what's the what's the grounds for that? Yeah, the grounds is that uh we want multiple points of access within the city as stated by the UDC, but also going forward uh we feel that this may set a

precedent coming into other when when other subdivisions are coming into the city. Okay. So, so all right. So, that that's the root of it. So, I so back to the connectivity thing, right? One of the things that we've talked about for the last 5 years I've been here is trying to connect communities to each other, right? Because while we have in this instance land owners that have been there a long long time, the next land owner that comes along may if if this property is in the is it annex in the city right now? Is this city? No, this is all. No, it's still but we have a development agreement with them which is why they're calling city. So so you know I imagine a future land owner comes in and says well you know my property value would be significantly increased by having two lanes with a sidewalk on either side, right? Like that's that's that's what we're all striving for and achieving, right? Loop 20 years ago, right? Yeah. Yeah. We've been through that before, right? And so I think that I guess I guess for the city, what's the what's the what's the if can we put a time limit on the Knox box, right? say, you know, it's it's up for 10 years or 5 years or 2 years and once the sections 1 2 3 4 5 get reach a certain substantial completion, then that goes away and now it becomes a through street. So you want that confused what the the HOA doesn't want. They don't want a through street. They don't want a through street. Yeah. So the the gate and the knockbox are fine by them. They're Yeah, they're fine with the knock box. I was very confused. Wait. Yeah. Wait. So, okay, let me let me clear this up. So, uh a motion to approve what was just presented means that the stub will remain a stub and it will have the emergency access only, right? So, approval means it stays exactly the way it is today basically where it end no knocks. Well, they have they have to do that anyway for fire code. So, that's not really even approval. It's just a matter of whether or not we require them to connect the roads or

not. I thought approval meant that that blue line would be there, but there would be an arm. No. Okay. So, yes, approval. Approval is yes. That it's a regardless of what whether we approve or deny that that blue line looks like that. It's whether or not cars can drive through it. That's the question. Yes. With no improvement. And we I understand not wanting to set a precedent here because I don't want to because I'm I'm really big on connectivity and I like my pet peeve with the old neighborhoods in Flugerville is how you have to drive out of the neighborhood and go around and come back. And it does kind it does kind of blow my mind too. Like why would you not want more than one way out of your own neighborhood? because that's what I like about my neighborhood is I can get out on three or four different streets so I'm not stuck in traffic. And that said, we the city of Flugerville are not maintaining this street, right? And there is still going to be a stub put here. There's going to be an arm to discourage traffic and the connectivity is going to come from Rolling and Speedle and the two green streets. So, I do think given that this particular neighborhood has a no street light, no shoulder, no sidewalk road that we are not maintaining and improving. I mean, I think the infrastructure being there and having emergency access is going to improve safety for the people who currently live on gate dead and sir lane, frankly, cuz right now I wouldn't want to live there because I'd be scared like there are a lot because there's only one way in and out of your neighborhood right now and if something happens at Row Lane and Gate Dancer, you're kind of up a creek. No, there's more than one way in and out. I I think using using that same sorry using using that same logic though and they even said in in the presentation most of the folks in this

new development will use the the minor collectors for the neighborhood and and so I think they said it even themselves that this even if this is connected it's not likely to get much traffic because if you look on rower 15 houses in that corner where it would actually maybe save them some if we approve this what we're saying is we're going to deny the people who live in those four or five new houses from being able to take this other way. I mean, yes and no. But to your other point, it also now we just have a dead end between two neighborhoods for right for a problem that Travis County will eventually have to solve for. And then what's the timeline on uh annexing, right? Cuz I know doesn't it it take does it take uh 51% of residents to choose to be annexed like that? Like that's that's far from the future. But in the event that the gate dancer street gets annexed into the city right becomes city you know what annexation or whatever then then what happens the gate is in it gate dancer and it existing configuration the existing properties along gate dancer that requires the request of the property owners to come in right the mud is under a different through the agreement and is a much longer term um agreement through strategic partnership agreement agreement with with the developer. So, gate dancer at whatever point in time the property owners would like to request annexation is the point in time in which they could be annexed. And and if that happens at some point in the future, right, we got to imagine 100 years from now, then does the gate arm then get resolved and removed because now the city is responsible for that road. the city that the road has to be improved to meet the city standard at the time or does that gate does that does the arm the access arm stay effectively making this a gated well it would have community because it's it's it's it's only at one end right and so you don't have to go through the gate to access the community so it it's

as proposed it's for emergency access only and to really defide kind of the existing more rural nature of gate dancer. And so at some point in time, whether it's a year or a hundred from now, I think that's another conversation for that point in time between the city and Travis County at the point of annexation as to the improvements to the road that would need to be made. There's there's not curb and gutter there, sidewalks, street lights, things like that. Um, at that point in time, I imagine there could be a conversation with an HOA, should you approve the variance with the HOA at that time to say, "Hey, now that this roadway is improved and it's not the rural nature, we would revisit the variance request to eliminate the arm and have have the same kind of public conversation, but that would have to be initiated by them, property owners, course at some point." Yeah. So, so just make sure I understand this. The the request is being submitted by the developer to have this variance. The residents of Gate Dancer are supportive of the variance and the city has rejected it on the grounds of just connectivity and precedent. Connectivity and so so the city's goal is to make that a full connection without a Is that correct? Okay. Yes. And there's at no point in the future an opportunity for recourse to remove like the city until that area becomes annexed, the city doesn't have any recourse to change that and make it a fully connected street, right? This is this is the city's chance to do that. If if we're going to do it, if there's going to be connectivity, this is the this is the opportunity because the developer is beholden to the development agreement right now. Interested. Yeah. So, all right. So, now a question for commissioners, right? along with the the historical uh activities of this commission in connecting communities which ultimately have a positive impact

in and you know as broadly stated you know we the city also supports connectivity because it has a positive impact on transit and travel and and etc. Then why um what would we stop us like are there any objections here as to why we would compromise for a gate when we could have a a through street? I would argue that that is the standard that we've held everything else that's come in in the last several years as far as I'm can remember. What he's say it again say it again louder. Oh yeah, sorry about that. So yeah, I I would say that yeah, I I don't recall in the last few years the commission ever not requiring a stub to be connected to its neighbor. So this would be a true outlier. I think if this gets approved this evening, would this be the first? I think there was one at White off Weiss. I mean, I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I just don't recall anything in the last couple years at least. We didn't approve that one. Never mind. Yeah, we haven't. I think Commissioner Crane, this might be the first one. However, I can't I'm also trying to think of a similar circumstance in which that this would occur, right? You'd have this upgraded improved road connecting to such a road like that. That's I think where I'm hearing the challenge of the commission, right? I can't think of one that's a similar that goes from a 40 foot wide or whatever, you know, easement all the way through and then right up to a 20 foot. You have to funnel that down. Yeah. How far out are we from that part of Row Lane going to connect to Melbour? Um, can you repeat that? How how long is it going to be before that Rorow Lane extension happens? The developers working on Row Lane. Okay. I have a I have an answer for that. You have an answer for that? Uh we uh we

did have conversations with Williamson County and Travis County and uh I believe that section of RO Lane is uh under uh uh review right now. Under review. It's designed and it's under review for when they're going to do the construction. Uh yes, it's it's in preliminary uh it's in the preliminary stages, but it's going to be built in stages. Okay. Has funding been allocated to it? Am I Am I right? We're actually about to be done with our construction plans for O Lane and the funding is us. So yeah, it's been allocated as far as I know. Yeah, I think this is a really unique circumstance and I think my personal desire for personal and Aspire 2040 desire for connectivity. A lot of it is addressed by Row and Speedle. And then I think having the actual pavement on the ground between Gate Dancer and the neighborhood, having the infrastructure there so that if in the future there is they change their mind, they can get rid of the arm. But in in the meanwhile, we've got the arm there to discourage the traffic on the road that probably truly can't handle it. And I'm inclined to in this one case I I would I'm ready to make a motion. So, I'm not on that though. On that though, I feel like there should be a time component because cuz I can imagine 20 years from now the same commission having to deal with this people being stuck in the neighborhood and not going the challenges that we faced in prior issues that are similar connectivity, right? When people come in complain about you mentioned a loop, right? where property owners have become accustomed to uh an existence way of life, right? And then there's communities that are built up around it who who have the same right and access to travel on public roads,

right? And then there's a a small group that says, "Well, that's well that's our road." Well, no, it's it's now you're in the city. So is there a is there an opportunity to put a time component time bound component either actual years or upon annexation into the city the gate goes down. I would imagine the conversation would happen naturally upon annexation, right? You I mean there's a lot of assumptions that could be made and I imagine that that doesn't occur for another 30 plus years. So none of us around here. Maybe Cleveland. Um maybe Kristen or Kristen. Yeah. Um I'm sorry. I want to add on one more thing. So y'all you mentioned Row Loop. So Rorow Loop's restrictions uh expired the Rowan estates deed are it's deed restricted Rowland estates is to to no less than two acre lots and those are automatically rolling over. So the likelihood and it prohibits commercial also. So I think the likelihood of it of it rolling over into becoming commercial or something else like that I think is less likely than road loop. Uh and also yeah I don't think we're concerned about commercial. I think we're just concerned about residents being tired of not being able to drive there because there's an arm because 20 years from now people are still looking at a dead end there. Yeah. And and I think the the real the distinction I appreciate that thank you. The on the distinction issue you know that so what's it more than 10 acres you can develop multif family right? If you have associated more than 10 acres then or I'm sorry you can develop single family residential at 7,000t lots or greater if I remember correctly. And that was one of the challenges because we had an applicant come forward in that case where they had acquired multiple lots that had met the minimum threshold for single family residential development and they as an independent developer wanted to develop those lots and then start moving forward and that was what triggered a lot of it. Then through so that's just one instance but through the years of being on here on

this commission I've had the privilege of of this service the thing that we hear constantly constantly I mean of ste crossing right everywhere is oh well there's there's too much traffic I don't want I don't want my uh you know existence to be impacted by additional traffic right but but then the city is then solving to uh create roadways that serve serve a significant number of people as opposed to excluding or limiting roadway access because a small number of individuals who are impacted, right? That's not to be discounted. Uh don't want their their road changed in any way, but which is also respectable. But on the commission, you know, we have Aspire 2040. We have a team of of staff and team that are focused on uh making things connected. And so I think in this in this instance I think a gate arm is an appropriate compromise for the time being. But I do strongly feel that there should be some sort of timebound component that limits the the years or that upon uh annexation or upon substantial completion of you know 90% completion or 80% completion of the new development then the arm comes down and that roadway then becomes the access point an additional access point to have more connectivity. Right? that's that's just follows in line with with I don't know that there's a mechanism for us to do that cuz I think that'd be a probably a separate agreement I would imagine just thinking out loud yeah is potentially reconsideration of the variance at such time lakeside mud 5 is annexed it it it ti both requests are tied to the mud um at such point in time it will be at least 30 years until that occurs right and at that time the conditions for Gate Dancer may or may not be any different. Um, and when we're looking at annexation

of of a mud, we do evaluate infrastructure, utilities, those kinds of things. Um, and and we could I think a condition to reconsider the the connection at that point in time would be appropriate. Okay. So, yeah. So that would be when the bonds are uh when the bonds are paid off, development is completed, bonds are are done. Um we go through all of the utilities infrastructure um prior to annexation. Both are tied to this development. I I'd hate to put that on any to the west um on existing Gate Dancer Lane, but I think that could be appropriate. Yeah. I guess I just, you know, where I'm at right now is I can't in good conscious have two neighborhoods next to each other that can't visit each other, that can't be connected. I just I I think about the residents that are going to that are own property on both sides of that gate right now and 10 years from now and it's still a still a dead end. Um I I just Yeah, I can't get over that. Uh we have two neighborhoods that abut each other and I totally I'm empathetic to the homeowners here and I I get it and it's an unimproved street. Uh that's going to have to be addressed. That's a problem that I think um quite frankly I think the city of Flugerville needs to work more closely with Travis County on these types of situations. Um and uh and that's again it will have to be a separate conversation. Um but yeah, I just I I can't get over the fact that we're going to let I would like to just point of order that Travis County needs to work more closely with the city of Flugerville. Sure. Like it's not this it's not for lack of trying on the city side. We all uh we all coexist in uh in the same region. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So we have and right there too. We have like multiple multiple layers here, right? So we have the mud that is

in the development agreement. They're going to have bonds issued, right? So theoretically there's an end to that development at some point off in the future, right? So theoretically that's a time issue. And then we have the city of Flugerville's current uh stance, the staff stance, which is this does not promote connectivity according to the Aspire 2040 plan, which is the plan that we all worked hard on, right? And then we have the the developer and the residents who are supportive of the variance to add the gate. And so then the question is how do you how do you marry those uh either now like tonight or at some point in the future to accomplish the through goals of of all right and so I think I think if if you know there's a way to say well once the once let's say you know either at the first of the mud being uh annexed or at the request of the mud or or the development or whatever, then the gate arm issue would be readressed because you know just off the top of my head there's let's call it what was the what was the total number of count of sites of home sites? 634 634 homes compared to how many in the gate dancer street? Oh I believe 11 11 11 right and so then the question is well is there a is there an accessibility difference between 600 plus uh home you know property owners and 11 right? So where where where is the breakdown between accessibility that serves ultimately all right because while there's 11 on the gate dancer side and there's 600 plus on the on the development side at some point the road serves all 600 and 11 right and so I think I think the the gate if it if there's an opportunity to take it away great but if it if it's into perpetuity then yeah I wouldn't support a perpetual service gate Right. That's that's just

where that's where if I look back at the the way that we've historically discussed accessibility and mobility here in this commission, that's where the hang-up is. So, I mean, I would support the support the the variance request with the addition that once the development the at the first of completion and annexation of the mud in the development or at the request of the development once it reaches say 50%. then the issue can be brought back again and then readressed. That makes the most sense because I can't imagine to your point that we have two neighborhoods that if I live over in section six on Gate Dancer where the blue line is to go see my neighbor that's my backdoor neighbor, I have to drive all the way out and around. You could walk. I could walk. You could walk. What if I was able to move furniture? What if it was a train? Would a would a train a train would help, but I don't think it's going to be economically viable here. I I have a question. Has and apologies if this has already been answered, but has there been any type of study or analysis to determine exactly how much more traffic would be expected? I none that I'm aware of, but I believe each one of our subdivisions that come into the city require a TIA, traffic impact analysis, but I do not have the answers on what's on that report right now. Yeah. And then I guess a second question would be like if it was stubbed out and we found like just the roads couldn't handle the large amount of uh new traffic like would the city then come in and help? No, the county the city's not respons. That's kind of where I'm stuck is it's not a city maintained road. Okay. So so I guess in terms of of next steps, right? So if we approve the variance and the gate arm goes in, uh if if this

commission decides that we want a through street, no gate, is that also decided tonight or is that is that have to be denied and then they come back and try again? Um so that would have to be deni uh decided tonight whether we want uh the commission wants to give them a true street or just a pedestrian access with an emergency uh entrance. that would have to be decided tonight or the or the third option is no through. Correct. Or is that is it the through already happened? That's no problem. So my understanding is the the pavement part is going to happen. It's whether or not there's an arm there. I don't know if that's necessarily a given, right? Cuz fire wouldn't necessarily mandate that it be paved. Oh, really? Right. It could be. It's emergency access, so it has to support the weight of a firet truck. So there is a level of pavement required in order for it to be an emergency access. So there would be some sort of pavement between the two neighborhoods. So it's kind of even worse because then it's already paved and there's a gate. So right. So we're not So this isn't going to be dead in or stub. It's just is there going to be an arm or not? Cuz we're again we're not maintaining the county road, the county street that it connects to. So regardless of the quality of the street the developer puts in, it's still going to go into this county road that hasn't been maintained. Yeah. So Right. Yeah. So, I'm I do understand connectivity and I'm all for it except for it would be nice that not everything was so cookie cutter and the fact that they have two acre lots. They bought it in Flugerville cuz I like Flugerville so or hopefully love it and like we do. So, I'm totally pro the ARM and the Knoxbox because they bought those properties for their enjoyment, not for lot 45 and 43 to get to HB master. So, right. But that that puts them that puts

a that's a very high burden uh to to reach, right? Like you you have to that's just a very high burden to prove. Uh I think that so so the connection happens no matter what. Yes. Yes. The connection is there. the commission decides whether the gate comes across or not. Okay. Sorry, one last point. One last question for me. I think one last question. Um, so I know we have HOA and neighborhood representation. So obviously a majority at least of the property owners are supporting this variance. Are there any was there any vote or any um um community member that did that wanted this connectivity? Um or is it an unanimous HOA support letter? It it was uh it was a unan it was a a support letter from the HOA person. Okay. Yeah. Which could be majority or Yeah. So it was unanimous. Okay. I mean I'm ready to make a motion. I don't know if anyone uh I make a motion to approve the variance second there's discussion I I is there friendly amendment friendly amendment that uh there be a review at either the annexation and completion of the mud or 50% completion of the development at the request of the developer at the request of the developer. Correct. At the request of who? The develop. Well, like the the mud, I guess. I don't know. I don't know who's the who's the who's the principal. Is it the mud that's that's driving this? That's utilities. It depends on it depends on the moment in time, right? So, if you're at 50%, it's still in control of the developer. By the time it's built out and the debt is paid, it's likely to the mudboard.

Yeah, I think that's right. So, uh at completion of the mud or so at annexation of the mud or 50% completion of the development, the gate arm is to be reviewed. So, really quick so I can understand that amendment cuz then I would choose anyone could choose to motion with the amendment or is that amendment to my motion? So, I have to accept that motion. Sorry, I think there has to be a vote for that to take place. So, we as a group have to vote to add that to the Yes, we want the variance, but you No, we're not voting on the variance yet. We're voting on whether or not include the amendment. Well, you can we can just let the previous motion die and just start a new motion that includes that if you want it. It's fine either. It's been a hot minute since I did a true parliamentary um meeting and I've seen it go two different ways. A vote on the friendly amendment and if that dies then the motion there's a vote to that's what I'm used to. The amendment in my motion. Yeah, that was consecutive. Just the amendment first then. Okay. Okay. So, do you want to vote? Oh, sorry. So, so for so I can understand what that amendment is. The 50% complete I I'm just going to regurgitate what I think I just heard because I'm very unfamiliar with muds. I mean, I've seen I'm so sorry. I know it's been a long meeting, y'all. I'm sorry. And it's very hot. So, um, the reason why you're saying 50% completion of the development is because at that point it the owner ship switches from the developer to the mud. So, the so the mud the mud uh is a district that's designed for uh utility infrastructure to be created and and and installed. Okay. Without the city having to take the the debt, right? So, the debt is issued by the mud cuz they're not in the city yet. Cuz they're not in the city yet. So then once so once the mud so that's the mud is the underground right once the mud is 100% complete and the debt's paid off then traditionally

once those are paid off then the city automatically absorbs the ownership of those debt debted utilities right uh so that's the mud that's below ground developer is above ground builders are taller than that right the houses right but once it reaches 50% then theoretically 50% sold right 50% complete. They should be out of and that means there should no there should be 300ish homes homes in that neighborhood. So there's theoretically 300* 1.68 or whatever the IRS how many people live in a house or 2.8 or whatever it is. That many people living in there that theoretically would be better served with an additional access through this. Okay. So yours is a a completion related to amount of people within the area, not the annexation portion of this. It's it's like two separate. I think this is more complicated than we're going to be able to get into and there's too many to Can you Can you rephrase your amendment not to include percent completion? Can it just be upon Can it just be upon upon annexation? Well, I mean, so so the reason that the 50% is that trigger would be issued by the developer who still has the remaining development sites to do, right? And the reason that they're the one that they're the ones that own the land that hasn't been sold yet, the lots that haven't been sold yet, but they've already sold 300 or so lots to other people. But the likelihood that the the HOA and the the entities will be able to get together and make the decision. It's lower compared to dealing with a developer who has already provided home sites for theoretically 300. Is there attorney here tonight? Cuz I don't think this could be binding anyway. I I think the the problem with that though is now you're just talking about removing the gate in a couple of years. I don't know what the buildout time frame is. You know what I'm saying? So it it buys the current property owners maybe a couple of years of longer than that of nothing. Might be longer than that, but either way, you know what I'm saying? So in that in that case, why

would we just delay that? What I'm attempting to solve is the Aspire 2040 plant which is committed, you know, connectivity. Yeah. but also providing the time for the developer to put in their infrastructure and you know I mean it's still a cornfield so it's not it's not even ready for that stuff yet so that's years away before the first site is developed. Mhm. Right. But then but then once there's a sufficient number of people residing in the development at a certain point those people will be served better served by more connectivity right and so and it'd be better if frogs had wings and didn't bump their butts when they hopped but we don't have this level of control on a waiver request. Yeah, I I mean I I get the trying to thread the needle feels like in the end the goal is still to have connectivity. It's just a matter of well to your point it's not going to happen in the next few years anyway, right? But if there's a time that section gets built out if there's a gate that gets put in and there's no mechanism for it to be removed, right? Then there's a gate there theoretically forever. Yeah. Right. which which does not align with right Aspire 20 240 nor the work that we've done here for years right and so I think that's that's where I'm trying to manage that is is that you know I recognize that that so then maybe that your amendment would have to be the connectivity does not have to be opened until 50% completion well no what I was suggesting was just a review otherwise well yeah see I wouldn't it wouldn't come back Right. More than like I I I wouldn't want to place that back, right? Well, at some point, right, there we we hope at some point that it's 50% sold or it's been occupied long enough that all the bonds are paid off. That's the

ultimate that's the ultimate hope, right? Is that it's fully developed, there's people living. But if we're waiting for that, then that's, you know, 35 years from now. We're the planning and zoning commission. So, I just want to remind us all that what we have the ability to do is make a recommendation to the city council on whether to approve or deny the waiver. That's what we can do. Just for clarification, this waiver stops here. Oh, it stops here. So, we aren't making a recommendation to council. We get to make the decision to appeal your determination to city council, but on subdivision waiverss. Okay. Finality. That's helpful. Sorry about that. Override basically. Yeah. So, so do we have the authority to put any future future requirements on it to be reviewed again? Not had that question come up before. It just didn't. So, just kind of this is a first gate. Yeah, it's first gate. So, when I think about it, I think gate gate. I think just about a about our ability to to know that that and remember that that's there. And and when I when you look at 50% sold or those kind of things, those aren't things the city sees, right? We see completion, we see annexation requests, th those are permitted applications that come through the review process. I think if you that was the path you wanted to go down, it would I would say add it to the annexation of the mud versus a 50% completion or sold because though that doesn't go through any city process for us to even know or for it to be triggered. Now, that's not to say that the developer won't raise that, but all but all that's a it's a big development. Is it is it all of Lakeside Mud 5? Are we thinking of sections one through six? And so there's just a lot of variables I think with that particular. So I think that's fair and and I I would be happy to strike the 50% component but I think there there needs to be a mechanism for the gate to be removed whether it's 5 years from now

or 45 years from now because what we don't want is a situation where and by the so in that case then it would be an automatic removal the moment the annex make the amendment be for annexation have it be revisited countyexation of the development and the mud then the gate comes down it come it comes back to or whatever we have the authority to do. I guess is is it is it worthwhile to do that though for practical purposes is what they're going to be these neighborhoods are going to be disconnected for the next 40 years. Like does that actually does that amendment actually give us anything looking that far in the future when this is all fully the pavement's going into the ground. It'll be there for in the future. There's 11 houses that we're connecting. If Row Lane weren't going in, I'd feel very differently. But row lane is going in and so the connectivity that you need to get in and out of the neighborhood of 600 is going to be there and the ability of emergency services to get in and out of gate dancer is going to be better than it is today. I also don't know are is anybody still debating or do we all know how we want to vote? Oh no. Okay. We've got a lot to go through for the rest of tonight. So what was your amendment? So we're going to vote for I'll strike the 50% component. So my amendment would be upon annexation of the mud the gate is removed. Okay, I accept that amendment. That's a way better one than five years only certain condition or it's it's only it's only valid as long as the mud is in existence because once the once the bonds are paid off the mud theoretically is there any way to come back later on say 10 years the residents are like gosh they want to do this there's just not enough varian the residents can come at any time. Oh, okay. So, yeah. But then do you really need the safe hold of the amendment? Yeah. Well, because I mean like the issue that we ran into historically with other things is things that happened 35 years ago.

Yes. And then it comes to to this group and we're like, wait a minute, none of us were here for that. Why is that the way? Why is that the case? So, I I think that Okay. The annexation. I get it. I get it. Yeah. Yeah. So I think I think once so I happily amend you know my my amendments my friendly amendments to state that once the once the mud is fully annexed and the gate is is removed and that becomes a fully pass through street. Can I just accept the amendment and make that my motion? Sweet. Just like speed it up along. Okay. So my motion is to approve the variance with um the the mud amendment. Okay. Annexation amendment. And this person who seconded, I'm sorry, Amanda seconds. Thank you. All right. Uh, all in favor? I. Any opposed? Chair votes no as well. Can I'm sorry because of the sound. Was this chair and vice chair? Yeah. Chair and vice chair voted nay. Everybody else said yay. Yay. With my amendment with from the amendment attached. With the amendment attached. And just on a side note, I just want to say thank you. This was one of the first times that there's been like a like a little bit more of a healthy discussion and I just want to say thank you everyone for your expertise and how you approach these discussions. Um I I really appreciate it. That was really great. Yeah. I love frank and open discussion. It's it's nice. Yeah. Not for everybody, but it's nice. I know not for everybody everyone else, but it was good for us to feel good about. Thank you. Motion carries. Uh let's go to item. Thank you guys for your time. Item six. Uh 6A. Really appreciate it. All right. All right. Up next we have item 6A. Is Brandon here? Oh. All right. To discuss and consider approving the updated water

and wastewater master plants. Let me get us on the right spot on the slide. Got to figure out if I'm sorry y'all. Oh, we at the bottom. All right. Sorry, y'all. Got it. All right. Sorry, y'all. Okay. Uh, good evening, commissioners. Uh, for the record, my name is, uh, Brandon Pritchette. I'm the utility director for the city. Uh, so to give you all a little bit of history before I introduce Mo to do the the bulk of this lifting that I'm not uh not here for, but I'll happily help. Um, so a little bit of history on our water and wastewater master plans. Uh, as y'all are probably aware, y'all seen us every year with updates to our water wastewater master plan. So, every year we've come back to y'all with updates uh that are generally updating costs because the world and construction has been a little crazy for the past 5 years as I'm sure you're all aware. Uh so, we've had to update our costs every year to make sure we stay in line and everybody's up to date on what those costs are for some of our water and wastewater capital plans. Uh the the two plans that y'all are seeing uh this evening are five-year updates. So the last update that we had for the water and wastewater master plan that looks at modeling forecasting was completed in 2019 and adopted in 2020. Uh so these are full updates not just looking at cost and kind of where we're seeing growth over the a year but are more a 5-year update. Uh so with that said a little bit of history. I'm going to turn it over to Mo who's going to do the bulk of this presentation. We've got a ton of people here with a lot of expertise that can answer any technical questions you may have and we're Jeff and I are both here as well for questions you may have. So with that, I'm going to turn it over to Mo. Thank you.

Hey y'all. Um first time here, so don't cut me up too much, but um uh I'm Mo. I'm a project engineer in the utility engineering department. I work with Brandon and Jeff. Um, and I'm here to talk to you all a little bit more about our water and wastewater master plans. Little title slide. So, I'm first going to start with the water master plan overview. Up on the screen, we have kind of an overall view of the city and our water infrastructure as it stands today. We have all of the different pressure zones and different colors. And the water master plan serves as a strategic framework for guiding the expansion, optimization, and long-term management of the city's water treatment and distribution systems. So on the outline of the map, you can kind of see in the red dashed line is the city's water CCN, the certificate of convenience and necessity, and the pressure planes. And for these studies, we are analyzing um three key horizons, 2030, 2035, and ultimate buildout for the city's water infrastructure. So, the first thing we started with was kind of analyzing the existing conditions of the system and built a model based on what we already have in the ground and influ. And from there, we worked on moving towards the future and what that development was going to look like. Um, our consultants used the Aspire 2040 plan to build their projections for the future and what everything was going to look like and the needs of the city looking forward. Uh, we coordinated with the planning department in addition with the future land use map to make sure that we were capturing all of the future development in the city including things that are coming up in the near future. The anticipated need was also calculated

using historical billing data and was split by customer type. So you can see on the right hand side we have different average daily and max daily flows depending on the um property classification. Single family apartment and commercial were the three main categories that we looked into. And then there was different designations used on the future land use map. So, we had different units per acre for each of the different categories to try to determine what the needs were going to be in the future and what the flows were that we're going to look at for each of the different areas. Um, it was projected that 30% of future development would occur between 2030 and 2035 with the remaining 70% projected to occur post 2035 to buildout. So this is kind of a graph showing our connection count over time. We can see that we've gone up pretty steeply in the past couple of years, like 2015 to 2020, and kind of returned back to that steady climb after that. Um 2025 we had around 16,000 connections and in 2030 we're projecting closer to 18,000. The 2030 uh number includes existing connections plus around 1,900 single family residential units, 10 planned apartment complexes, and 23 commercial developments. And the 2035 projection includes an additional around 3200 single family residential units. The estimations of connection count for the new apartment complexes and other commercial developments were not made because we do not have any data on those just yet, but for the ones that are happening in the near future, we have some information on.

And then so for complete buildout, the maximum daily demand is projected to be around 27.1 million gallons per day, MGD. So each of these average day demands that you see on the right side are in million gallons per day. Um the existing demands were calculated using the average of 22 and 23 data. Um we actually went and talked to the utility billing department and got information from them on how much water customers are using based on um development type and area. Can I ask a real quick question on that? Uh was any of did you all take into account our uh weather over those years by chance? Do we know if they're similar enough? I can't remember off the top of my head, right? If it's a heavy drought year versus a normal drought year. Yeah. So, I think that we I can't remember. I have notes in here somewhere about I think 2023 was used for the dry weather, but I think that that where comes into play for the wastewater calculations. Sure. But they our garber team can tell you more at the end. Sure, no worries. Thank you. They can get into the weeds with the technical stuff. Oh, and then so on here, the black dotted lines are the exponential best fit of the historical average daily and max day demand. The demands are projected to increase at approximately the same rate as they have for the past 20 years through 2035. And then with the development of the model for the system, they were able to kind of implement new pieces of infrastructure or projects to kind of see what we need to do in the future. And that leads us to the water cip projects that were developed as part of this water master plan. There's a lot of development as you can see along the SH130 corridor where there's going to be a lot more commercial development and

growth coming into the city. And then we also have a big pump station project on SH45 to help provide water tube developments up there as well. There are also other projects um such as rehab of existing infrastructure and just making sure that we're able to meet capacity needs in those areas. So here's our wonderful giant list of CIP projects that we have going on right now. the ones that are projected for 2030 and then the 2035 and beyond projects. Um, I'm sure y'all are familiar with a lot of the ones on the 2025 project side. We have a capital subtotal of around 55 million for the 2025 horizon. So, that goes from 2025 to 2029. And then for 2030, we have around 47 million and that would include that SH45 pump station and a couple of other projects. And then we have a 2035 total horizon of 81 million. So I do have a question on this. Uh I'm curious if any of these models or projections for full buildout includes completion of infill. So we still have what is it 30% of the land of Flugerville, right? is still, you know, west of 130 and could presumably hopefully uh be developed and redeveloped. Are there any projections built into these models to account for um not just the aging infrastructure but potential upgrades in commercial areas and in infill parts of town? So, so mostly everything here it is looking at most infill. So just keep in mind city limits doesn't match and jive with water CCM. Um so but

on the outside of the west side of town in Windermir most of the city limits is generally our water CCM. Um so all of these areas are considering infill within that service area because the infill the SH130 corridor or I say the corridor west and east of SH130 where it's kind of vacant right now. Um that infill would happen there. So it accounts for that infill and the land use is according to the same land use that's already been adopted by this board. Okay. So the land use would would match exactly what the Aspire 2040 plan calls for. And now if that changes obviously we have to be able to pivot with it. Got it. Okay. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Yeah. The Aspire 2040 lane use map is what the studies were based on. Okay. And then now we're going to move on to the wastewater master plan. Let me catch up in the notes. I'm guessing we'll have like discussion after the full presentation. Yeah, at the end we have a slide for questions and they are much more in the weeds on all the details. So whatever technical questions you'll have, we got you. You did a great job. Okay, so moving on to the wastewater master plan. Uh this is just kind of a general overview of the wastewater CCN in the city of Flugerville. We have the um four main basins, the central willer, Cottonwood West, and Cottonwood East basins. Obviously, the wastewater CCN is a lot larger than the water CCN as you'all saw from the previous slides. So there's a lot more going on on the wastewater side. Um this map shows the future development projections. It is colorcoded based on the um on the horizon that it's associated

with. So for red is 2025 to 2030 future identified plan developments. The blue is for future identified plan developments from 2030 to 2035. and then undeveloped and not planned areas 2035 to build out and that's in green. So the land use types were also taken from the Aspire 2040 future land use map to um interpret what we needed to do for this and growth projections were developed to estimate the future wastewater connection counts. The wastewater flow projections for 2025, 2030 and 2035 and buildout were calculated using historical flow data and flow meter data. So I will skip to the next slide and SPV projected a design flow of around 250 gallons per connection per day. So on this chart, I know it's got a lot of data on it, but we used the land use to kind of assume the number of connections and then the total flows that would come from each of those connections. So you can see the average day flow demand on the second to right column. And you can see as time goes on, there's more growth going on in like the further um west basins as the city moves more not west, further east basins as the city grows more towards the east in the undeveloped areas. And then moving on to the CIP projects, the entire system was also modeled for the wastewater. They included gravity mains, force mains, lift stations, and other wastewater items. The model

included current conditions and then also projected the future flows. The city's design criteria was applied to evaluate the system performance and identify capacity issues and system constraints, which is what they use to develop the future CIP projects. And then we have this huge list of future wastewater CIP projects. They are colorcoded based on the horizon. So everything in yellow is the ongoing projects that we're currently working on. Everything in kind of like the light red is the 2025 to 2030. And then moving to the next slide, blue is 2030 to 2035 and green is 2035 to build out, which also corresponds back to that first map. So you can kind of look and see where each of these are happening. And then so for as far as timeline goes, we are meeting with y'all here today. And our goal is to go to the August 26th first reading at city council and then go for the second reading at city council September 9th, 2025. So now I will summon everyone for questions. Y'all want to come up? Thank you. Thank you. Um but yeah, we're but yeah, we're all here happy happy to answer any questions y'all may have. Um a big change that I did want to note is the 20 2019 2020 water wastewater master plans were um we would say they're fairly conservative um in the fact that fairly conservative in flows and also there was a monument before uh that there was a lot of outpacing of growth

for water that we would have a lot of extra water service area that we are not planning to take over. So you'll note a very large decrease in kind of our water demand. We're not planning to take over the we're not we're not looking to take over the water world uh and serve everybody with water. Um so there was a big push uh before with having to, you know, possibly take over some of these areas that are currently served by other water entities. We're not looking to do that. And some of these we're saying stay within our CCN, take these as oneoffs. Don't plan to take over the world with our water service area. Right? So um so there's a liability to that that we don't obviously want to plan to take over. So, uh, but yes, we're all here to answer questions. We have Garver, STV, myself, Mo, Jeff. We've got a whole group of people here to answer any questions y'all may have. The usage uh usage benchmarking for the water master planet, if I'm reading it correctly, we're assuming quite a bit higher usage than the surrounding cities have shown in their plans. Is that am I reading that correctly? Ours per capita and somebody from Garber can tell me if I'm wrong. I thought ours was lower. Ours is lower than our surrounding. Maybe I'm misreading. I was in table 23. It looked like our average uh usage per connection was in like the 200s and the other cities were in the mid 100s. Thought it was our GPCD I thought was like 80 86. 86. I think you're maybe looking at peak. Maybe peak day usage or maybe maybe per capita versus per connection. Yeah, capita per per capita per or per connection. But you guys can confirm that our our projections are in line with similar usage from they're more correct and they follow more with like what we're seeing for water conservation and what we're pushing out there for water conservation. We're not just saying everybody water all day. Um

yeah, when the water got more expensive that they can Yeah. The 219 was for a single family connection. So that's more than one person. More than one person. So average family of 2.8 per per connection. Not okay. You know, per person. Ah, that must be where I was expecting that. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I would I would say that um if we're talking about doing infill and we're talking about future development, I would imagine less water usage than we've had historically. And especially as water is getting more expensive, people are going to find ways to to cut back. So, I just want to make sure we're not we're not really over projecting and and trying to build out all this infrastructure that we may not need for longer durations, but and and correct. Right. We don't we don't want to we don't want to project out, hey, we're going to need 75 million gallons per day. We're only going to need 30, right? And so, I think that's we're trying to kind of recalibrate ourselves from the 2019 2019 2020 and kind of recalibrate ourselves like what we're seeing that we we're not taking over the water world to serve everybody water all the time. So, okay. Do you have any uh related to the former plans of taking over the water world? Uh do do you have any and I'm not going to hold you to a specific number, but do you know how much of an impact that had in the in the plan? I would imagine it's pretty substantial. Um I mean it really did project our water treatment plant to expand all the way up to 75 million gallons per day. Okay. So So that's not a I didn't pull that number out of nowhere. Um right. So you know and also waste water too, right? So um so yeah I mean I wouldn't say that it it of course you know informs your decisions over 5 years right so instead of redoing you know full-on plans so it informs your decisions but it also um you know impacts a little bit but it also we still have to serve certain developments that come in along that area regardless. I had one other related question then I'll turn it over again. Uh actually not related at all uh but uh I I wanted to

ask uh whether or not this has been been uh overlaid with our contracts or commitments to with on on actual water sourcing from LC those commitments. Um so we know what we're so we're currently a little bit of history with all the info. So our LCA contract is 24,000 acre feet per year. Um so 24,000 acre feet per year. We've looked at it from a uh standpoint. I believe our peak our max buildout would be 20ish,000 acre feet per year. Don't quote me on the full number on that. I I believe it's mentioned in the master plan. If not, I know we looked at it independently. So, it's looked at from our raw water supply contracts. Um, as well as kind of what our wholesale current wholesale contracts are. Uh, so we currently have two wholesale contracts, water supply contracts, uh, that will expire. One's in 10 years. We just renewed it. And the other one is in 2038, uh, June or January 2038. Gotcha. Are there opportunities? See, now you just opened up for even more questions. Uh are are are there opportunities for additional wholesale uh agreements you think or uh I don't sure we have to stay within our river basin, right? So uh we have to stay within our river basin. So I can't go to Round Rock hypothetically, right? Like if I go to Williamson County, I can't sell that water up there without some weird reds. That's fun. Um so um it depends on who needs water and how they and how the the state plays out from like a water politics point of view, right? If it becomes more and more treacherous to import water from like East Texas, it may be more advantageous to keep it within the river basin, which may mean our wholesale contracts get expanded accordingly. Got um so it there's a lot of factors in play from water wars across the state. So it kind of depends. Um as it currently stands, uh it would depend on who our immediate east, south, and west neighbors are, how needy they are for water.

Yeah. So, um, possibly. Cool. Thank you. So, I'm going to ask a question about something I don't fully understand, so be patient with me. Um, I know we hear it a lot in Flugerville about how expensive our water is. An assumption I would have, and this is me speaking fully from assumptions because it's I do not understand how rates are calculated. Um it's it's related to infrastructure a portion of it like paying for infrastructure in the future. So to the questions that I think some of the other folks have been asking related to how those rates are calculated conservative you know numbers possibly like is with the reality of the rates influgerville and the impact that it's having on affordability withinflugerville um has there been any reevaluation of you know some of the the rate calculations that's obviously guiding the way the capital improvement plan is turning out with certain investors. ments for future development that could be possibly projecting something more conservative than reality. So I think that to I don't who remember who asked the question about looking at adjacent cities to see like you know how how our projections kind of align with those. Is it too conservative? Um so yeah I just didn't know if you had any thoughts you could share related to that. Absolutely. I always have an opinion good or bad or ugly. Uh so um so we evaluate uh rates, water, wastewater rates every year. So we go through we evaluate how much debt we've taken on, how much our capital projects have like progressed, how much we've spent, um whether we've got it through WHIFIA program, the TWWD pro program, however we're getting that funding. Um so we'll project it out 5 years, but then every year we're coming back and re-evaluating what have we spent, what have we not spent. Um but as it looks at capital and rates, water wastewater is looking at three projects. I mean, just to be

blunt, there's a lot of capital in the future that we have, but in the grand scheme, they are minuscule in comparison to the three projects we're doing right now that are actively in construction. We got the water treatment plant expansion that's currently ongoing, the the Wilberger wastewater treatment plant that's currently under construction, and the raw water pipeline that's currently under construction. Those three projects drive $500 million just in capital cost just with those three in construction. So, we look at rates every year. Uh, and but we're also looking at how we're spending that money and we're spending that debt, what bids have come in at compared to what our estimates are. Um, and then how we're funding those, whether we're doing it low lower interest loans. Um, but it also the the rate is driven by how much debt we're issuing and the biggest driver of that debt are those three projects that are currently ongoing. So, as you know, that that debt service ramps up, as those projects, you know, come online, the construction is finishing. Um, but as these other projects in the future kind of come online, there is a smaller and smaller impact compared to those three, right? So, if I have three projects of $500 million, and I'd have to go back a few slides, but if you have 5 years of $80 million total, the net impact on a rate is obviously much smaller in comparison to a uh $500 million. And then if you're as your connections grow over time, that rate becomes small that rate increase becomes smaller and smaller. Does that answer your question or explain it or did I did I do okay in that explanation? Yeah. No, no, I think that was a great explanation and you know, I mean, being on plan, we're we're here to kind of learn learn more, you know, like ask questions that we know. I mean, we all know those questions are being asked in the community pretty often. It's a pretty hot topic. Um, and it it directly impacts, you know, affordability within Flugerville. So, I was just wanting to take this opportunity maybe to learn a little bit more about that. And um I look forward

to Flugerville providing more and more thoughts and ideas to to hopefully reduce that rate over time because it is significantly higher than um any of the surrounding areas. But I understand we are making and needing to make investments that those surrounding areas aren't having to make right now. So I appreciate that. If I can add on to that too, it's also important to know because we we live in this world, right? All day. So we like know everybody's business. Um so um so like it's important to note like so Georgetown has like $ 1.95 billion 5year CIP in water and wastewater. Uh Round Rock's last capital projects that they did and fully funded themselves was in early 2000s, right? So like large capital that we're doing right now. So you look at the it's hard to compare surrounding cities when you look at kind of what their growth is. So Cedar Park is they're kind of encapsulated. There's no buildout in their water race wastewater. Leander's got this really big CIP, but they're lucky enough to where they're in a river basin to share costs, whereas we can't share costs in the same way because our neighbors are Mambit water corporation, Windmir, Texas Water Utilities, and the city of Austin. So, uh, there's not as much wiggle room to share the same way that like Leander does, but also other cities had invested super early in a whole lot of very expensive capital and were able to get out way ahead of it, which makes it really popular now, but probably 20 years ago, it wasn't as popular. Um, similar to what we're doing right now. Um, so it's it's fun to kind of see how I say fun. It's like interesting to see how other cities are funding it. And then also we also see the future for like other cities that are spending or are about to invest a whole lot of money into water and wastewater as well in our surrounding area that haven't had that rate impact yet. So thank you and thanks for giving us a list. I know it's a late meeting so I appreciate the the I'm always happy to talk about this. This is like my like passion in life. So

love it. Do you have any others Joe and I? Um, so I don't have questions. I have one super nitpicky thing I feel silly bringing up, but I had to Google um, MGD. I think it's million gallons a day. Correct. So, uh, double check your Thank you for the table of acronyms on the first or second page. It was super helpful. Do another run through before you take it to council to make sure you caught them all because MGD wasn't in there. That was a super technical document and I was a liberal arts major and thank you for the amount of work that you guys put into the summary pages because I was able to kind of get the big picture and then and then you did it was so very um took me back to grad school for policy though because it was very like and here's our method and design and here's the summary and our abstract and then you have then you get into the meat of it. So, I really appreciated that I was able to follow it even though I'm not in any any stretch of the imagination an engineer and I'm glad we have two engineers here. Um, but very obviously a lot of work went into it and I've been on the council or on the commission for a long time. I appreciate your enthusiasm and how you explain water to us and my husband was actually like wondering something about Flugerville water and I was like, "Oh, I know the answer to that and you should totally watch the planning and zoning when the water comes." Thank you all for your work. Thank you. Check your acronyms. And and just a followup, I didn't I had but it came to me. Um it the the document is very um technical and I agree it it's really nice even though I have an engineering background. It it's not in like wastewater design. So um I found the summary pages to be very helpful as well. And just a a thought or suggestion I would want to offer is you know to my question on utility someone

who read the document and is in these meetings I I had questions. So, it I think it'd be really um strategic and smart for maybe there'd be something that that that goes to like that that can be referenced by folks within Flugville that have that same question that I have and then maybe can link to certain portions of the master plan to just just something to help because even as I like I've been curious about the subject, even as I've looked at like community impact, it's more of about just the rates in general and not really talking about um what you just did, which was a really quick lesson, but it gave me a different level of understanding as to why maybe it isn't appropriate to compare to other surrounding areas or what are some of the challenges and restrictions. I would highly recommend um that there is a resource like that for community members cuz if there is one, I wasn't able to find it um when I've looked for it. So, thank you. Possibly a video of him. Just saying. We'll have to condense it down and we'll head I know it's a little scary to make something that like because people can nitpick at it, you know, when it is a contentious subject, but I feel like sometimes they're not being not being able to find the information just leads to people filling in the gaps with their own narrative more than just giving folks the info and the way of connecting the dots and then just letting them nitpick that as they're going to, which they will they'll do it with or without the info, honestly. So I I I would I think it would be very very helpful to um have something that provides a little bit more clarity. We can do that. Absolutely. Thank you. Thank you. Really awesome document. Yeah. Uh so yeah, we can entertain a motion to uh recommend that this moves forward to council. Motion to approve. Second. All right. All in favor? I. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries.

Thank you. Appreciate all the hard work team. And that concludes this evening's meeting. We are adjourned at 8:56.