City Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress. Recording in progress. Hello everyone. Greetings. Um it is 5:33 um on August 27th or 25. I am invite calling the regular city council meeting and city of Wood Creek to order and ask everyone to rise as you're able to sign and then we'll do the Thank you. I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag. I pledge to allegiance to the Texas one state under God. one gospel to call the role. Council member Russell Scott,

council member Lana Bley here, council member Christo Richardson, council member Hines here, Mayor Prom Chris Gmer here, and Mayor Jeff and we have a port.

Thank you. Our first order of business is a proclamation declaring September 2025 pride March month and I will read a short proclamation. Proclamation in support of Winterly Pride March September 20th 2025. Whereas the city of Wood Creek values diversity, inclusion, and the fundamental dignity of every individual regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, or identity. And whereas the annual Wimberly Pride March celebration to uplift and affirm the LGBTQ plus community, promote equality and foster unity throughout the region. And we're at the Wimberly Pride March 2025 theme, we the people. honors the shared humanity, resilience, and civic spirit of all members of our community, emphasizing that every person deserves equal respect, rights, and recognition. And whereas Wimberly Pride March provides a vital opportunity for people of all backgrounds come together in a spirit of celebration, love, education, and advocacy. And whereas the city of Wood Creek, Texas, recognizes that inclusivity makes our community stronger, more compassionate, and more just. Now therefore be proclaimed that I, Jeff Rasco, mayor of the city of Woodbury, Texas, do hereby proclaim September 25, 2025 as Wimberly Pride March month in the city of Woodri, Texas, and encourage all citizens to participate in the march, celebrate the contributions of the LGBTQ plus community, and reaffirm our collective commitment to justice, equality, and unity under the theme, we the people. Proclaim this 27th day of August, 2025. and witness where I appear unto set my hand and cause the seal of the city of Win. Good way to start something.

All right, come up to the next item of business is the consent agenda. Oh, public. I'm sorry, I turn page. Um public comments um from Kristen Weaver on Champion Court. Yeah. You want to wait for agenda for? Oh, that's okay. Wait. Okay. Put a big scar. I miss it. Um so now we'll go to consent agenda. Approval of city council meeting minutes from August 13, 2025. I move that we approve the city council meeting minutes from August 13, 2025.

I second. seconded by council member Bay. All in favor, please say I I very much and we will move on to the regular agenda. So, um number one on the regular agenda discussion and possible action on trees and parks board budget request of $10,000 for the fiscal year 2025 2026. Mayor, may I? Yeah, please. I move that council accepts the trees and parks recommendation that $10,000 be added to the trees and parks board budget line item for the city of Wood Creek budget for the fiscal year 202526. Second any question comments?

Yes. Um I me consultants I object to having a consultant hired by a committee and so they that wouldn't they wouldn't be hiring. They're they're re they're asking that council approve council and and staff to do the hire. They're not they're not they can't if I may. I'm sorry. I interrupted you. Go ahead. Okay. Well, just for clarification, so my motion was specifically only about putting $10,000 in the budget for next year. Had nothing to do with

anything. Yes. It was just setting their budget. They This is their justification for their budget. I took that recommendation and made the motion that we put it in our budget that they have $10,000 for trees and property. May I ask a question? Yes. What specifically are you objecting to? Which component of it? I'm not Okay. Is it the professional landscape support?

Well, actually I I'm not sorry. I'm not seeing what you saw would that they remove the 6,000 and instead access volunteer groups like Master Naturalists.

That's that's the reason they're asking for it. It's got the master naturalists that have been working on it said we can't do it anymore. We're we're spent. Um and it's their recommendations for the contractors that that we would go out and get bids on. So, um, so to your to your point about whether they can contract, no, they absolutely cannot contract. What they're doing is saying we have to take care of our natives, you know, sort of in a special way, not our our our land management company sort of ms the edges but doesn't know a native from a weed. Um, and to them they're all weeps. Um so so what they're asking for is for council to approve the first they have to go out for bid for pro proposals.

We would have to we would have to work on that but

yeah council council council would ask staff to put together RP get some bids you know make recommendations and then do that. Now trees and parts would be consulted on okay which areas you know which is specifically but if you have someone that already knows the natives that's their their thinking on I know because I'm lean to maybe we've had this discussion um and they have at least two potential contractors that they would recommend to the city to to talk to about about handling it and we we don't know what the number would I mean it could be under six. It could they could come back over six. But what the what the board did for their for their budget not having real number is saying okay well it's going to be probably $20 a month. Um we know probably $25 an hour is reasonable. There's 12 months and that's what 67

I don't I don't understand the concern about nepotism either. None of us are related to any I mean we would be nepotism not them and none of us are related to landscape people that I know of. No. Well, I was just somehow I envisioned the they were going to hire someone outside of the city. No, but we would have the hiring power. No, I I've had that I've had that conversation with all my all the committees still. No, no, you don't get to hire any. So the the process for securing any kind of professional services is governed by state law and we have to follow that.

Okay. So I just never seen it show up in uh budget. Also the other thing you explain um I was thinking well master naturalist help but um we're also talking about a whole city rather than a project.

It is then that makes more sense. Um, just to back it up a little, I'll recognize you, but just to back it up a little bit, it started in Augusta Park because um, Claire Palmer had the the butterfly garden there and Tatum who was at our last meeting was the Monarch and and Becky Denton and Palmer member of the park board um, was going across the street with volunteer and watering and Blair was coming down watering and it's just like we just and Linda Swedberg was coming down the street and and watering which Great. I mean, we need volunteers to pitch in, but they're not going in with weed eaters and um and doing all the, you know, all the, you know, specialized trimming and weeding and um and watering and things. That's that's that's the big thing is just that if somebody was to go by, you know, every well your Sean's been going up there and helped out,

but if somebody were to just go by there every week, you know, just sort of noted around, it would make it'll go a long way to keeping those natives happy and not being into their their time where they don't need so much care, right? But there but to your point, there was a question there. We we've had a discussion about work in the triangle park for instance. We had some discussion about uh a century garden sensory garden not century sensory garden um in cryop um and so we would need you know we asked for some support on it. Yes sir. Can we constrain our discussion about the motion?

No because the item back there has all of it. Yeah. So anyway, that's that's all I have to say. That satisfying. Yeah, we're good. Okay. So, um, any further discussion, questions? All right. All in favor, please raise hand. All right. Thank you. And we want to get that because now we're going to the budget at um I've got 5:43. muted. Just take a moment to recognize this tiny community.

A big smile, too. Thank you. Yeah, you're natural. And we want the for since we've got the proclamation path. Yes. I'm so sorry for the child sitting here. Thank you. Yeah. woman of privilege or do you want to We don't have that. Yeah, we don't have the one with the ribbons and everything on it, but this is this is it.

These are the actual words. Actually, I'm gonna come around. Do you want the blank wall behind you? And specifically, I would like to see how much space bomb. Oh, you ready? One, two, baby. Oh my goodness. [Laughter] Thank you all. and

um I call workshop and I'm just wondering if we had a courtesy to the weavers that's but the workshop could go on for a while maybe been four in the agenda any objection to that all right so let's let's go ahead and check out item number four out of budget workshop out of budget workshop Okay. I've got 5:45 and um and so we will come back to that. But um first you

I just wanted to speak I hope to see this accomplished there and they called this to make it safer get around in this kind incidents that Oh, we know. Yeah. I know. I would like to see the tree taking down the tree coming down but in that instance really needs to lay the tree down in front of our house but that does stop around.

Well hopefully we can finish the job. All right. Um so we'll go ahead and take up the item discussion possible action to direct staff again the RFP process for champion court turn around based on the freeland church engineering m I move that to direct staff to begin the RFP process champion turn around based on the church engineering I'll second it

um in front of you also which is Number four, um these are the specifications that the RFP would be graded from and this is from the city engineers. Just wanted to pump that up. And this isn't necessarily what the bid will be. Our our experience, I mean, I'm not I don't want to jinx that, but our experience has been that the bids from the contractor have come in well under the estimates from the engineers. much as I don't have this.

Can you refresh my memory on the the origin of this? Um,

yes. So, so, um, at the end of Champions Core up here, um, there have been at least couple of instances where because of the design of the culdeac there. There's a street tree, there was street tree in the middle of it. Um, and then there's no, it's a dead end with no place to turn around. And at least a couple of times now, emergency vehicles have been able to get in but not get out. But there's there's So what this does is it it takes out We've already removed the the tree, but it it smooths that out and then puts a um puts an area for for being able to turn around. And it also um it also takes in account, you know, some of the drainage. So if this is all done, you know, to make sure that it's not causing a a drainage problem, you know, downstream. So that's in a nutshell.

Yeah, that explain it. Okay. So that's that kind of all right. So um so the motion on the floor is to direct staff and begin the RFP process for champion turnaround based on the real engineering specifications. Uh favor, please specify by saying I. Virginia. I. All right. So, we'll get started on on that part of it. Anyway, thank you. All right. So, we'll go back. Um I now have 548. Thank you. Thank you.

And we'll go back into work again. 548. So, I'm going to turn this over to you. Okay. Administrator.

And you do have um you do have this in the um Oh, you know what? Two people should request. Okay. share.

Um, and then Carrie, yeah, if she'll get rid of the participant window, it will give us some more real estate up there. Just close that. Just close out participants. I've got them over here. Make sure I'll keep an eye out for Okay. Make sure the mic I'll take care of it. I've got it.

Okay. This I sent out to you all yesterday. So hopefully you had a chance to look at it. I know kind of typo that we got corrected. So thank you for that. When you're input many numbers, you know. Anyway, um you know, coming out of that last budget meeting, we had major concerns about our revenue, which um sent out correspondence for that, got all that figured out, resolved, and you know, what's proposed throughout the tabs is a balanced budget. So, um we know you'all want to go line by line item. Is there any thing that y'all saw came up in reviewing that discuss? So invented.

Okay. Sorry, Jim. I didn't catch this yesterday, but I did today. Okay.

I believe that um your interest income number is high by about 35,000. And I'll tell you why. based on our Texas class reports. Um the most recent one at July 31st is we have 1.9 million and we have a monthly earning interest earnings of 7,000. So that brings us to 84,000 a year. uh next year 10 40 50

previously our class budget uh numbers from the beginning could you back up so you just stated Texas class you have to that say again are you adding I think GRB into that no okay there's your difference this this includes GRB says yellow on your tax bill. And what um approximately what is in bank balance? Um you're talking about for interest. Yes, it's 14. I believe it's 14 if I remember correct. 12. Okay.

From TB. All right. So that's part of the not having the balance sheet to look at. That's all I look through. Okay. Okay. Moving along. Okay. If you look in the last agenda and you look at the Sorry, I'll just I'm sure you know how to find this, but on the top of this page at the the column right here, right, there's that interest income he's showing you. So, he p he posts these statements, these bank statements pretty regularly,

right? But when we had our last uh annual budget actual to date of 8,900. So I

wasn't being posted that response we had where I found one that 8,000 is way off part of it is balance and funding. If you go back and look at the actual statements and then also some of the other revenues permits weren't updated. So all that has been about three days since that last meeting straight you know dialing in the numbers hard. So I'm pretty confident unless there's a typo yesterday. Um

what was that typo? Is it in here? Yeah, it was actually up um on the uh expenses the second tab expense of general fund under the um administrative on the health side. Okay. 2000 missing a zero.

Yeah. The other thing have you considered that with our capital budget we're going to lower our account balances so we will have a a smaller bank balance from which she dropped this. Um yes if we spend the money because this is some of the capital some of the major capital expenditures should go on a lot of and so yes that would take into account some interest yes

because we're actually showing we're going to have more interest this year 45

by $11,000. Yeah. Which if the our bank balances are going down actually less more than 10 left $10,100, but they don't go down till we spend the money. And so if like if we don't execute all of the capital improvement projects if we then do you continue to draw or like this year most of the money we spent actually happened here at the end in this last like quarter or whatever. So we've drawn interest on all of that this whole time.

Right. And and what again the 949 interest was here today as of last week. Right. So we've got another 6 weeks of interest added to that 94. So it actually should it will be more than 105. So trying to be conservative at 105. Okay. And that so you and I you and I discussed that um when you're saying actual we can't really be actual because we're not at the end of No, these are actual go ahead and and Okay.

Yeah. And comparatively that's that's the right number to have there comparative our budget to our options. Okay.

It's not an unreasonable talking point which are but I just it's just the I think the extra six weeks that we that haven't been included actually about six weeks. I mean this is all kind of a guessing game.

Yeah. And if you um if you look at our past history um we have underestimated our our interest income and part of that's market which is doing pretty well but it's partly because we had the bond which we had sitting in the bank account for a couple months. No, but we when we budgeted, we knew that the bond we budgeted according to Okay. So that was that wasn't new new news back then. So we we because of you know some just luck of the of the market and

so it's like it's it's we looked at it and feel you know pretty comfortable with with the number. We've been we've tried to be conservative on the on the revenue side and and um and realistic on the on the expense side. One of the key things that I'd like to point out is that this department worked really hard to update the 23 24 actuals that we've kind of been shooting in the dark waiting for fun view waiting for, you know, confirmation on this or that. But he went ahead and and dug in himself and produced more accurate numbers there. and they're not finalized because you know that's relies on the audit somewhat but um they are now um a a more accurate picture. So I don't know if anybody noticed that but that far left column is

in much better condition now

and in the future when I mean when when we get all the bugs worked out of fun view and we're able to get that this information from fun view that makes all the difference. I mean, these are big numbers because they came from actual bank statements, actual, you know, Texas class statements, you know, actual receipt. I mean, we, you know, put all put all the numbers together and did it from, you know, on cash visit from what we've actually done, which, you know, should have we should have been able to go into into funding past history and be able to pull numbers for years, you know, but for years and it just it's been very frustrating for everybody. I know. To recap, we also took up the Champions Court item out of order when it was approved. Okay.

And the Trees and Parks Board budget request was approved. And that's reflected in here already, isn't it? Because you kind of knew what they were going to ask for. Yeah, that's capital. Mhm. And were we Oh, we Yeah, we bumped the CRC back up. That was when cuz we kind of started cutting whatever. We thought the revenue was good for him. That's once we figured out the problem as all for input which I got. Thank you and pretty much put back everything that we cut. So Tim, if I may, I got a question on the on the permit side.

It just came to me as I was looking at this. Does this include um I guess part of it is in this year and part of it will be in the next fiscal year or maybe not, but um CYJ permitting on their expansions. Um the current under revenue now um that does include under commercial that includes everything they pulled so far. Um and based on our discussion we have them on their future there's nothing necessarily. Oh okay it's I'm sorry. I'm sorry forget I said that. So yeah. So but for

some of these numbers been in other places and I'm trying to get them where they actually should be. But commercial for next year most of their permitting have been contracted and paid right there may be and it may be exceed that what we have proposed but you know based on what they told us they're waiting on fundraising then they'll do the next one. So it could be it could be just based on some what they've done historically.

But that does explain that little blip of this year's commercial in the past permits have been from other places. So that's why we got we spent zero budgeted nothing last year for and so knowing that there's probably some stuff coming next year that 5,000 is really pretty conservative. I don't want to blow the budget and say, "Hope we didn't get what we thought we going to get." So, everything I'm going to try to be as conservative as possible. We appreciate that.

I want to ask what you want. Anything else on the revenue side? Everybody pleased with those numbers. You know, I I again, I'm just going to reiterate what everyone's been reiterating. I like how conservative they are. When I look at the past numbers and past actors, we keep stepping pretty much under them so that then when we get more, it's a win for the city. Well, we've all had a little experience in rolling up our sleeves and doing budgeting over the last couple years. We've I think we've all gotten better at it.

She needs a chair. Better next year, um Mike has been a big help. Thank you, Mike. Yes.

But u but you know, Jim was really well. I know he has because I've been here. Um and I go over there and look over his shoulder and go, "Oh, yeah. How about that?" And so he's been working really hard to get get the numbers right so that we're not sort of approving, you know, a an unknown we're approving a budget that we can be comfortable with, you know, going forward in this year, but we're basing it on numbers that we can't be sure of. Well, now we're better able to base it on numbers we can be sure of. That's that's very for sure. just kind of piggy back off what he was saying like if you look at the liquor license revenue that probably looks funny and that we we got more than we budgeted for but next year we're proposing less. That's because we've are now following the state on we're married. They have a two-year permit. So some of them won't need to be re renewed next fiscal year. They'll renew the next fiscal year. So that's why that would be so that we got a lot like

Tennessee size. Yeah. But like if you look at it, we budgeted 1,500. We actually got 2250. But next year I'm only showing 950. That's because of what's going to be due next year. The other two hold on to the next year. We have three total.

All right. Do we want to move down on the side? Any questions, comments, concerns on the

I just wanted to alert everyone. I I don't think we need to change anything tonight because the math is math of the United States. But uh green building initiatives, we kind of have talked about what is that? What do we plan to do with that? We sort of established that that would in theory be the rainwater collection incentive funds. It's a lot lower right now than council talked about. And the way we address that is if that final application and all of that is approved, we can do a budget amendment as needed. So that meaning like if we get a lot of applications for it and we're like, hey, we don't actually have enough funds to call cover all these applications, we can do a budget amendment. Um, so I'm not super stressed about that council directive at this point in time personally. Uh, and I just want everyone to know it's on my radar right now. So, it's it's we'll follow through.

Okay. And I'm going to ask you to refresh my brain. We discussed moving all the maintenancees. Yes. And that's what area care and maintenance expenses is are. We put it all under that. Yeah. Combine. Which one? I forgot. I thought we were changing it to the name of city maintenance. You have outdoor I changed it to outdoor maintenance just because it's where um line 525 5205. Okay. So yes. So that's why it's Oh, I see it there.

The number jumps up so high this year. It's combined of all the ones we've talked about. That makes sense because it's all outdoors. Yeah. Yeah. No more confusion there. you know, playground's separate from that, but all the other the law and the it's broken down under the tab. Yeah, we can go to the outdoor maintenance tab and it's all broken down there. This is a roll up of the expenses. Great.

Yeah, we need with all the dust. It's the filter's dirty. We only have one. So, we both got the others be Can you point me because my screen is itsybitsy? Um, the advisory boards again. Hope they're there. Sorry. Trees and parks basic figure marks on CRC back. What was your less and parts 10,000 just

Yep. was all dressed 50 by 54 and 50 by 53. So the 5551 and the 5552 is that's history. No, that's past history. There's nothing in this year's budget for that. So that's not that. They're still on. They have they have history going back, but going forward they don't exist. So that's further to play. Okay.

And two years they'll be gone unless we pull the boards back out. do not. Um I Yeah, I come through this budget. It's mathing the math or however she said it. Yeah. Well, Deborah helped me with that too. Just another set of audit. Make sure and of course

I checked every checked every formal loan. I think I missed one. You caught it. So, we tagged him that you had it in front of me and what I like about this budget in front of us here is it is actually all the things that council has put up for their wishes for the next year. Um, I haven't I mean, we Oh, there other people you want to talk. Sorry.

Oh, yes. Well, um on my favorite one, professional services, I did want to point out that our last column that says the difference that is actually the difference between a budgeted number and a budgeted number usually. So, usually we try to compare it to an actual number. actual what we spent. So the comparison section or column 2425 projected rather than sharing just generally in the county you would compare yesterday I'm willing to listen this this is

yeah together you know might be about so this is what's been presented I'm not willing to make any changes to It's formatted now, but moving forward I'm wide open for suggestions on what you all want to see. So, okay, that was kind of point. Normally, you show an actual tool budget, but there's no point changing this now, but maybe next year. We still have that number. Yeah,

I'm not understanding what you're saying in that it shows that we're under on our professional fees by 24,000, but that just means we're under what they budgeted under. It's on the projected. It's the projected. It's the proposed minus the projected. And in fact, interestingly enough, it looks like that formula might not be calculating correctly because it's actually $26,000 under projected versus the proposed. Well, it's that problem set up originally. It's comparing budget to budget, not actual to budget. Yeah.

Well, this in this case it's it's there's a couple others that you put across. cup. Yeah, I didn't check those formulas because those numbers weren't complete all the way through. So, I was more interested in the real somebody tell what professional services she's she's talking about the total professional services. I understand what's the 5101. So, professional service.

So, that looks like an estimated difference to me because it's not calculating even the actual number. I for the sum of I guess I should clarify the the formulas I checked are making sure everything's adding up going downwards. But not I wasn't looking at the differences because to me

I mean for one uh like they're not even there on the revenue, right? So that was to me kind of an incomplete section. I was mostly worried that the numbers we're basing our decisions on are accurate, not the comparison one. So there could be other errors in that far right column right now. Well, one of the things I was noticing earlier too because you know there's very errors in the far right column like like for instance on on litigation there's nothing in there for litigation and it's showing a $4,000 would come into that 24,000 which shouldn't be. I mean not that's that's a comparison to you know 23. So it sounds like the motion would just be to finalize that far right column. We'll go through those formulas and then

it's subtracting I F from I F on all of those. So it's just following it's not from top to bottom. In theory it should equal. Mhm. So, but to specifically address that one number, it's actually if we're lo using the projected in the proposed right now, the difference is negative 26 or sorry, it is an increase of 26,000 positive not positive show 24,000 in less

this year versus um You're comparing budgets. That's what you That's what that column supposed to be doing. It's budget to budget. I thought you were comparing. That's the way this was set up. And so sticking with it. I see. We can change it. I'm more than happy to make it through this. I don't want to just go back and compare them. Well, the last one showed this, but this show something. Okay. This that column is meant to show what the difference between this year last year. We went down,

but part of that was because the 8,000, didn't that include two things? Was was there 50,000 for redoing our subdivision plan? What What were the components of that 8,000 80,000 last year? We'll have to go back and pull the notes, but I think um our Oh, thank

well I think our contract services specifically career was a lot higher than what we actually used and that need is going down further we did caught into this. We also had the comp plan under there and we have not used nearly as much as we thought we were because we weren't from Texas State. They did all that proono where we just paid her a little sip. So yeah, I know that was there was multiple components but I don't have those notes with me from last year.

We did pay well the comp plan is in it capital budget but we did pay her 3,000 and then we proposed another 5,000. The comp plan was not in the capital budget. But isn't it in this year's capital budget? It is currently. Yes. Okay. Yeah. But we had it last year in spend. Have we Why are we going to send out the survey that not a relevant question? Well, right now we're talking about the budget so that it's not technically part of the agenda.

Okay. Um but comp plan went from overhead budget to tax budget for this year. It went from contract services, contract services which is sort of expense budgeting to capital budget or it should be I think because it's a capital asset with any land office. Is he trying to talk? Mike's the only one that's unmuted. I know. I heard a voice last. Mike, are you trying to talk?

Yeah, I'm on the call. What was the question? Oh, no. Nothing. I thought you were speaking, so we're pausing because it sounded like you were talking. Oh, I'm sorry. No, I may have just made noise. I apologize for that. Unacceptable. I cannot quit eating this meal. I'll need to move to an seat next. All right. Perfect. Other questions?

I just want a comment this category in the last 5 years the uh social services has increased 70%. Social service not social services professional services. Well, we could get more services. We could get some get some more volunteers to step onward. I think we get those number go down. And the last five years, what was the total five years ago? We had, you know, like five years ago, you know, Frank Wood was about part of the engineering is like full-time public works guy. So from

it went from 150,000 to the web. No, I'm just saying,000. I say five years ago, you know, we had we had more volunteers step forward to do things that, you know, we are now having to pay people to do. You know, our engineering budget was less because we had somebody that was a civil engineer that liked doing it and did volunteer. We had a part we had a a treasurer um handling you know a lot of the bookkeeping accounting stuff that was a volunteer didn't even live in Woodry um and it's just I'd also like busy

one of the big factors here um also Deborah and myself used to write the ordinances and and it's the end you handed that out well Not not it's more they're by choice. Yeah. It's like no we were if you'll remember we were sort of admonished that council members don't write ordinances.

I I mean one of the things that is always kind of tricky when you're talking about like long-term vision of uh expenses is the the cost of everything has gone up significantly in five years. you know, uh, pretty much all of our contracts, whether it be it or the audit or any of them have all increased um, by percentages. Some of them 20, some of them more. So, I mean, we're kind of leaving off that component. Uh, we did add accounting that is new. Um the watershed protection plan is the other new thing but other than that and the arborist we haven't really changed much to be completely honest like our we've actually brought our legal expenses down despite some of the claims out there. You know there was years where the legal expenses were over 100 grand. So um and that's like money spent not just budget right? So, I know it looks like a bigger number, but when you're talking about like actual things council has influenced, it's not that portion isn't all that significant. Some of this is just the way things go.

And also, the watershed protection plan that's a three three year and this is the last year. next year election that will

I know but I'm saying if you it's easy to be like this has increased 70% but what is that increase actually that increases the watershed protection plan at 20 grand that's you know now we have an actual arbitary so we're following our own laws and having a professional work on things we added a professional accountant um you know th those are actual things we chose to add law enforcement is something we have added the last four years and I I personally value those things. So that 70% increase isn't just we're willy-nilly stuff in the budget. It's these are things citizens are advocating for. These are things that we're in desperate need of. I mean, if we run out of water, none of our house values are going to be worth anything. Um, so I just kind of want to point that out to give a context for that increase. And in the same context that brought out the last time compared to other cities, our this we hire on more professional services than typical cities ourselves. I wonder what their staffing costs are though. Like we have three four staff members, right? Sean is full now.

Four staffing. Yeah. A couple person. No. No. Uh anyway, so we've got a staff of four in a similar size city. What is their, you know, their staffing cost? How many people, you know, where do they they might budget in different areas? You know, what we're putting in contract services. They might have a different line item somewhere else. I mean, we can't it's not like comparing, you know, ambrosia apples and honey crisp apples. When we um Yeah.

They're really good. And it's like, you know, I was I was got into a discussion with a former mayor um and and it was about about elections and it's just like, you know, it's like we you know, we we'd be just fine, you know, like with the people we've got, you know, we don't need to have Weberly have I mean, we're haven't had an election. Well, we're not we're not other cities. Well, we're not other cities, you know. We are we are who we are. And um and you know, we're pretty darn good at it. I think yeah, y'all could all should all pat yourselves on the back for the work that you've done in the last four years of of my administration. I think we have balanced the budget. We've come in under we have um been fiscally responsible and but we got the job done. Sometimes we have to, you know, pay for those services because because this is what it is. But you're right. I have talked to other other mayors and and look at their the population is about the same but their staff is twice as much um or twice as many people you know we we pretty good with less. So anyway are there other other need to anything else you want to talk about before we come out of the workshop?

Well you haven't finished the rest of the budget. just asked for other other comments. Anything else? And nobody's saying anything. So assume they said all you need to say. Well, budget. Yeah. Everyone needs to look at the capital project expenses because that entire page is new from last time.

Yeah. Uh I wanted to point out one note it says needs council review discussion and approval. Uh the comprehensive plan update council voted on a specific amount 20,000 is plugged in here. That is based on new information since the last discussion meaning we're hoping to get that GLO grant that's progressing but also you know it doesn't look like we're going to be paying for as extensive as of services as we initially thought. Um so that's you know just kind of out of transparency purposes an item that has kind of been adjusted and council needs to just you know if unless there's desender opposition that is a different you know possibly a different number than we originally discussed.

Okay. What line are we on exactly?

We're on the capital project expenses 2526. The comprehensive plan update has $20,000 allocated to it right now. That's that's um the top pedestrian bridge. Where does that number come? What it say? Okay. from a rough uh rough estimate from finger without set plants being that ballpark on it could be less if it was more narrow but um we have not their task order to del into it yet but

so they've just given us this is roughly based on what we think you're asking too much it's going to cost but they donating designs. So it's the bridge crossing concrete color but would we do a bridge before we have a sidewalk because I looked at that it it would be very awkward to put in a bridge and not have the walkways.

Isn't it right to do this the walkways first? The bridge discussed or proposed and is is an extension of the existing bridge to allow safe pedestrian traffic over the existing bridge that does not involve entering the driving lanes. Because right now you can't if there are two cars coming and any pedestrian or any cyclist on that bridge, you can't not all three bodies entities can be on the bridge at the same time. So it's a pretty serious safety hazard right now. And we talked about creating a safe pedestrian and cyclists back on that bridge to get people to the playground that are traveling from this area of Wood Creek. Right now, what they're doing is essentially trespassing on private property and walking in the creek as well as the bridge is not safe or you have children on bikes trying to share the bridge with vehicles.

So if it if it helped you visualize because I'm a visual person. So the entrance, so there's the main road bridge. The entrance would be just like a little curve off to come to the side of where the pedestrian bridge is and then curve back into the like in Wimberly. You know how there's the two guard rails and the pedestrian walkway or like something like that? It's a expansion of the bridge to create safe mobility for nonvehicular traffic. Yeah,

but it would be a good but it would be a good idea for the entrance to the to the pedestrian bridge if we can get this we can make it happen to have you know a little cut from the street so you got that idea so you got a sidewalk to the bridge just not all the way up but that would be with you we deal with plans we we've got a I mean we've got a long way to go before we see a pedestrian bridge we have to look for.

There's also erosion all over there. We have go bonds that can essentially cover it. Um the bridge itself has a lot of erosion occurring around it right now. There's also a pretty big drainage issue just a little bit up from it at Westwood. So we were talking about when we talked about using go bons like a a little bit bigger kind of improvement project there. Um

that is a that is an interesting idea because I've done it. I know that's been a big part of that. We're looking up at at at West Side or that's that area that floods or fills up with water all the time and how do we get it get it down if if like if you combine that that be well we also spoke with awesome the volume council and they said as long as that is attached to the bridge and is part of you know road it the god's getting covered. Yeah.

But I'm just Yeah. But it's just a thought of, hey, you know, we could sort of do some stuff that, you know, solves some of the drainage issue and gets us the bridge at the same time and helps the other stuff. That's that's pretty awesome. Yes, ma'am. When people uh voted for the bond to the go, I don't know that they had this kind of an expenditure in mind. It's a road improvement to increase safety. So, it's covered. It's fully covered. We already talked to the bon who talked to von cats.

Myself, Mayor Rasco, I believe Mr. Burton was here. I requested the meeting um just for an update personally. We talked about bringing them in with council again and they recommended we also bring our financial advisors in which I've advocated for. We're talking about scheduling, but yes, bond council specifically said if the pedestrian bridge is part of a road bridge, which it is, then bond money is reasonably in use there because it's expanding the roadway for safety. Yeah, we're we're to your point, Mona, I know I don't think when people were looking at passing the bond that they said, "Oh, yeah, we get veteran bridge, too." Um, but the fact is, I mean, on the bid payment lower, we ended up with with surplus funds that we can use for additional projects. And this is one of or could be one of

but um I've got an article from when we were offering bond and one of your statements was the project will also be a talking about the bond talking about roads. It will also be able to include extensive drainage work that will go hand in hand with the road work. Well, that's because we had that 425 for drinking that we would use in conjunction or could use in conjunction.

22 and about 23, 24, 25, and now 26 without anything that talks about um our drainage problems. True. We have we've had studies no we've had up there looking we've got we they gave us 10 different potential project for why don't we have one of those projects in our budget

because it's in process still remember the plans they're bringing back the top 10 they're bringing back a uh cost estimate with like actual plans and then we're supposed to select the top 350 50,000 is not in process. What? Yeah. No, they're in process for that, too. But then why didn't we put a bond I mean a drainage? We don't have the project to put in. We don't have a project for a pedestrian. Is there a project you're attempting to recommend right now? No. Okay. But by Okay.

Well, I'm saying the point of this discussion is for you to alter the budget with things you would like to add. So, if there is not a project that you're wishing to put onto this sheet, I'm a little confused about what the goal is. If if the goal is to degrade the pedestrian bridge and get it removed, I I don't think that that is a positive, you know, uh that is addressing child safety and uh and access to a a pretty significant public park we have. So also how many people would you assume would use this bridge? So also on the discussion I'm sorry to okay not answer that question.

Um

once we get the freelance her projects for drainage we know it's going to be very large. It's you know we probably couldn't even budget for it. It's going to be so large. But what we can do is go out for grants and that's what our our discussion had been about the whole process which is give us the you know the top 10 we narrow them down we find out what we can do find out what possible costs are and then we go out for grants for and it most likely won't happen in the next year unless there's some smaller house but I can see your point possibly adding under capital projects, but I don't know what specific

that's why because we haven't made any decisions on that. We've asked for a pedestrian bridge and there's there not like choices to it. We we you know, we we we've been holding on to that drainage money, what we call the ARPA fund. Yeah.

For a long time. Because when we go and look at a project and the engineer said, "Well, that'll be a million half dollars." We'll say, "We only have $400,000." Okay, well, let's look at something else or let's go here. Let's do that. We We could never find a project that that fit. So, and then we'd say, "Well, maybe if we did this and combined it, we could make it fit." We can't, as you know, use Go Bond money for drainage. Yes.

You know, we can't. But if a change pitch project goes under a road fix, you know, then we use the drainage money for under the road and the road fund money for over. So, so we have to be able to combine these things. But like like you said, I think that Brenton Lewis said when we're talking about fixing drainage issues throughout the city, I think it was Brenton Lewis that said, "You're looking at $15 million." You know, I'm like, really? you know, so he I mean the the 425,000 was just, you know, he just sneezes at that. It's not going to happen. So, we're gonna have to pick our we're gonna have to pick our battle.

Well, we were ch there was uh we have a list of potential projects. It just seems like we should pick one that we can afford. Maybe it's not the number one, but that we can Well, that is part of the project. That is part I'm sorry just

I mean that that is part of that is what we're asking Freland Turk to do with I mean they spend a lot of time and our money on studying drainage issues all over town and they come back to us with okay here's some things well maybe one of the things they come back with is hey you know you do this and it's going to have a pretty big impact and you can do it for you know $200,000 okay that's priority one but we don't have that information now. So right now we're just holding the money. We're trying to put down things in in potential expenses so that we have it earmarked. So we we got placeholders. We know these are things we might want to do, but it doesn't mean that they they're going to get done this year.

Well, I just want to go back to the principle of what this budget is. So when we go and tell taxpayers, these are our plans to spend money for next year. They must be clear and concrete plans. meaning we have collectively agreed that we'd like to pursue a pedestrian bridge. That was a council vote. So that's why that is on here. The reason why the projects that Freeland Turk is working under the master drainage plan are not on here right now is because council has not by vote selected any of them for expenditures. The reason council has not by vote elected any of them is because the study is not complete and the point in the process for freelant trick is right now is to bring us a selection to choose from. So without that selection present we can't just pop one on here by vote, right? Because then we would be preempting their entire effort and kind of cutting their work off at the knees because they're not done, right? We're paying them all this money to do all this really great work. They took in all this citizen information. They took in all this council information. So, for us to just cut all of that and just pick one out of a hat right now or even just pick what we think, that would be incredibly disrespectful and kind of undoing the whole point of that process. A B because we haven't by vote selected any of them, we can't just plug them in here because this is things that council by vote collectively has decided upon. When council talked about a pedestrian bridge, I thought we agreed to have a study. Not I haven't seen anything that justifies that kind of money. I think that's premature. Just like you were saying, uh the drainage numbers are premature,

right? One thing that they we've asked them to take a look at pedestrian bridge. They've asked us to sign a task order which is considerable amount of money. But before we do that, we're wanting to get an idea of what it may cost based on what we've told you. So they've come back and said it's going to be roughly what this number would be based on very preliminary ideas. So there's not a plan. The plan hasn't been approved to do it, but we need but we do need to approve the task order if we want it to go in further which that's part of the total as well. So there you're right there's no plan yet but it's but

but there's also people are going to pay for this the go bond for another 18 years and that seemed equitable when we had growth but something that is just so beneficial to such a small portion of the community I I don't think it's well supported I I don't mean to be a jerk here but how many people have to die on that bridge before a dead green bridge that is safe is is good.

We haven't had any deaths. Not what we mean. It's like, you know, we've all had to anybody that walks around this neighborhood has had to jump off a road. If you're on that bridge, there's no place to jump to. You're jumping on a creek. It's not a it's not a bad idea and it still needs fleshing pound. I know that this is, you know, that that you look at it, you know, from a very very practical perspective, but that you know, you you're not pushing a stroller down Brook Hollow trying to get your kid to the to the park with you know some so I was a jerk. I was I could only think of another word for jump jerk coming down Brook at 40 miles an hour,

you know, and and where do you go? What do you do? What do you do with that kid? You know, it's it's this is something that we could do. Our our our only thing that we're supposed to do as a city is provide for the self health and safety of our citizens. And this is one way that we do this. I don't think it's a bad idea to pursue. I mean, can we pull it off? I hope so, but there's no guarantees. We've got to get all the information first. What we're doing here is just sort of backfighting on budget issues. You know, this not we're not voting to spend any money yet on a pedestrian bridge or anything else. We don't even have the study for Turk yet, but it's like we said, we voted to do it. We voted that we wanted to do it and so we have to put something in here. So, we said, "Okay, well, it's a capital improvement, so we need to have it in there." So it's just like we're going through the process. Um and the process changes. This is not a budget that says we are going to actually spend this money like we are, you know, the salary budgeted up here. You know, it's like we're trying to do it and do it well and do it right. But but as ser to go off of your point, I think the main other consideration is um previous councils, previous mayors, um the podac grant, we got a new playground and it once installed we realized, oh, there's this other possible potential issue that children are now gravitating towards this very popular amenity of our city. So, we now have to address that element, which we couldn't do with the tote grant, but it's one of those often things like I wish we had all the foresight in the world to know that hey, let's if we put a playground here, we better deal with this traffic. Like that's not the process that happens, but we're trying to address it

currently. Okay. And I think I think Hines and haven't been yet. Okay.

Well, I was just going to say that I mean to because I'd like to solve the problem. So, if the concern is that we're not telling citizens that we're going to address drainage, you can just add another drainage master plan and then put the rest of the GO bond funds in it because we're not spending all of the GO bomb funds with these projects. Um the one so you can we can add that in there. Um, I will also say my second point was that um, I've actually had individuals that live on Brook Hollow message me about the dangers they're seeing on the bridge personally. And so that was part of the reason why I brought this up was citizen contact. And then I myself have been attempting to drive across the bridge in another car and there were three children trying to cross the bridge on bikes at the same time. So, it was just sort of this like moment of like, man, this is incredibly dangerous. Like, this is not a good way for people to be getting to and from this park at this point in time.

So, my point um when you brought up that people that voted for the bond were doing so to get their roads approved, I think that point would have more if we were if we were doing this bridge at the expense of the roads. if we were like, "No, we're not going to fully fix the roads and then we're going to use some of that money for this." But no, the the roads are fixed and it came in less, you know, it was less expensive than it was budgeted out to be. And so now we have extra money to use for I think a very valid improvement on our streets. So it's like this is just kind of like a happy bonus. Not like, oh, you voted for this and we're switching it now we're doing it for this. Like the roads are done and they look great. Okay. it turn. I do believe that we really have an obligation to finish the roads with what is a seal coat that will add about 35 years. It will bring our roads into a finished condition and that it's not maintenance. It's finalized.

We would have to get that we would have to get that cleared. Okay. But there are ways that we could could um use this to preserve our roads. You can see how gray they are. Just the nature of this curing process. Frankly, I I have thought that we could use go bond money, you know, as part of maintenance plan and then we're told no. So I mean if you can if if the if the bond council says oh yeah you can come back in 5 years and seal code that's not considered it has to be within two years and that's not considered maintenance and that's considered the same if if we can get that if they say that then that's news

it has not been proposed on any of the bids for the road improvements. So for us to just say, "Oh, it's it's not maintenance. It's the finish." We would actually have to probably have an issue statement from an engineer claiming that and we would have to get bond council's approval because if it was part of the road job, it would have been in the packages, right? I mean, well, because we were like we were going was assumed it would be part of the package and that we could have a maintenance on on the phone. Mr. Rule, sorry to speak out of turn, but Mr. Rule was wrong when he said that. I was in the meetings when he was implying that and he was wrong and he should not have been stating that. and I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the package. But if you want to dig into that 500page document and find it, then that's a different story and we could definitely bring that forward. Okay.

Um that would be the step, right? Is to prove that it was supposed to have been done and then we would actually have to seek through a not aqua gosh what is their name? Alpha say hey you guys didn't do this or did you right but also what was represented to the people and maybe that's what I didn't think of see if they were represented a bond that would include long-term copyrights anybody

I would I would I mean my my recollection is that the the committees that were you know most focused on the bond what we're going to do with the bond the contract itself yeah um you were involved So, you should have those notes and see what you can find and bring it back. I was trying to find the agenda where we cross the pedestrian bridge for the specific motion. Does anybody remember when that was?

I went through every meeting and all I found was authorizing study. you remember in the meeting that my recommen estimate and a like a initial plan which is the same steps we do with everything about how much is this going to cost we want to do it can you bring a plan back to us so we can see what this looks like and what they've done is they've come back with a task um task order to say that okay for 17 grand we will design that plan for you and come back with more complete information and then so because we had you know 17 grand and not sure what we're paying for you know I asked Jim to get with Freelance Turk and said well just give us I mean before we agree on on spending that much money to to study and come up with plan for it you know what's the end what's the end cost? I mean if it's a if it's a million dollar and a half pedestrian bridge $17,000 is not going to do it you know unless we've got other things. So this was this is something that says okay so before we before we get too deep into this you know let's make sure that you know we can it's something that's attainable you know so

and it's amazing and to be fair that's been the process with them every time we do the same thing we say hey we want to do this can you give us an idea what it's going to cost a rough plan they come back and they say oh we kind of got this plan but for us to give you a detailed plan you know you have to pay us for those services and you have to agree that you don't mind paying for those services at that point. So, uh there was a proposal about a camera for the part. Is there a way we could have a camera that we could kind of see what goes on frequent the area?

That's now inspection. No, that's okay. Is it under the probation? I think it's March 26. Let's look at the Let's look at it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But, uh, I think this the main point stands. We don't have specific plans related to the drainage yet to put in the capital improvements plan. So to satisfy council member Bailey's concerns, we can add an item that says drainage work with nothing cited and just plug in the rest of the go bond fund there. Um

why would how can we put go bond money into you can't really go the art where we move them? Well the art funds I mean they're already in our reserves. Yeah, they're in the reserves for drainage. um like you can't like that's what we were saying you can't really use the go bond funds for it but if we're altering existing roads so you would have to say something like alteration of existing roads to improve drainage right like improve road condition and the yeah I mean I don't even know how you would tackle that I don't know I'd want Bob council to give us okay yeah

yeah they're that's outside of this they're very good Okay. Then the very last item on that Western Moon Creek and they're showing go bond funds.

Yes, we um we've been we've been working with the owners of that property, those properties are our western end of Woodbury Drive to the Blowwater Crossing from Cypress Point out to our maintenance. Um because um we we definitely have a prescriptive easement. You know, we've been that road has been used as a public road for decades. Um the attorneys say, you know, take them to court and we win. We just don't want to take them to court, you know. So, we we've reached out to the owners um been either ghosted or um or there were some issues on on ownership and and it's like um there has we have we've made a little progress on being able to do that. So if if we in fact can get permission from the owners of those two little stretches of Wood Creek Drive for us to maintain them. We're not taking ownership of them. We're just being granted an easement for the purpose of maintenance for some period of time. Um then we can use our go and we will have every inch of Wood Creek roads paved and completed. Um you know and we can use the go money.

But that's a lot of money. I don't think it's going to I mean we don't know again got a bridge and it's got some if you fix that culvert. I mean if you go in there and Oh you mean all the way down from from arm maintenance which is basically the top of the hill. Yeah. Yeah.

Down across that culvert around the corner past Cypress Point Drive um to the low water crossing. You know, that stretch is what we're talking about. And if and if that cover is to be repaired, taken out, new culverts put in, new concrete. Um you know, just based on what we've been doing down there at Deerfield, that that piece of it alone is, you know, could be a couple hundred,000. I mean, not for as much as other, but you know, just based on I mean, Jim put that number together based on just what we've seen on this part. If we can just go in and hey, for now, let's just lay a layer of asphalt on there and call it a day and smooth out that road, which is like a war zone.

Well, they they've repaired they've repaired some of it. No, that happened. They threw some they threw some asphalt some holes and it's all washed out. If you do you have a dry Oh, yeah. It's terrible. Well, it used to be worse. I Oh, no. It It has been worse, but it's terrible. And all we want to do is to be able to smooth it out and and so so that bridge. Okay. Who? That's what's in this expense. Repair of that micro. You keep calling it a culvert, but it's a bridge. It crosses a culvert. Okay. Bridge, including culvert work. Yeah. Yeah. Yes. Who repairs it now? Nobody. Nobody.

Who owns it? It's jointly owned between Cypress Falls, the entity that owns the falls and the golf course and the golf course. So, we're not we'd only we would not only be taking one entity to court. If we had to, we'd be taking two. But with the prescriptive easement, I mean, it's just it's not like it's a a risky effort, if that makes sense, to go to court, but it's un neighborly. So,

well, I mean, and and I've been able to have conversations um with the owners of representative the owners of both just within the last couple weeks. um and they are now amendable to um signing off on on being able to do it. We don't have the paper in hand. I want a gene set. Um but I'm feeling more positive than I have in the last two years. I've been working on this. I guess the same argument with the other bridge. A lot of people don't ever use that. um still people don't we drive well compared to the number of people that

you know what they oppose it but I'm sorry council Bailey the reason that it is because it's a it's a it's the most heavily traveled road in our city it's terrible and there are people I know I'm I mean it is it is heavily used okay well then people would be in support of this absolutely you would have ten If so, if if we pull this off, they will have a tick or tape parade for us in Cypress Point. I think Valley will be like, "Oh, do the other side."

But I have a question. So, we have $800,000 in the bond and if we don't spend it, we're actually at risk of being penalized. Correct. Yeah. There's a pretty hefty penalty. So, I'm confused as to what you're proposing would be a better expenditure of those funds besides the possible maintenance items you discussed because we can argue all night long about how many people like this or that, you know, but I would like to find a solution. So, if there is not something else we should be spending those money on, that money on, then I don't see a problem with these two projects. I mean, we're we're actually kind of coming up against a wall to find things to spend the rest of the money on that would actually benefit the public that aren't madeup projects. Uh, bridge expansion for safety concerns, that's a legitimate project. refinishing the rest of Wood Creek Drive to address a collapsing bridge and and re repair all of the roads of Wood Creek as we promised. That's a legitimate project. So, if there is a different legitimate project that that $800,000 should be spent on, that's the conversation I would like to have right now. Well, I don't have the research in front of me, but um I would like to pursue the steel coat idea, and it is not a maintenance item. It's a it's a finish to our roads. It's probably $200,000. It's called preventative maintenance. Seal coating on asphalt is considered a crucial and routine form of preventative maintenance.

Where is that from? AI Google.

Yeah, it's worth it. But it and we you again the whole point of the budget is to target things that council has collectively voted on and discussed and proposed as future projects. To say that we've done that with the seal work is not true because it was just brought up today and by all accounts it seems to be maintenance. I have a I have a book solution. I have the seal code. Don't address it. necessarily as bond money. Um we do the sil code and can't do it out of the bond and send a capital improvement you consider to re consider taking it out of reserves but it at least you got a placeholder there. I mean it is it is it seems to me like it was smart thing to do.

I don't think anybody is arguing that. It's that we're in the ninth hour of the budget. People have worked really hard on this.

It's being proposed tonight for the first time. and also once again preempts Freeland Turk's work who we as council have directed them to tell us as the professionals what to do for road maintenance. So we're actually waiting on that report from them as well. So if we want to add this number in and bump up the number of the capital funds reserves we're spending which is already at 273,000. we're dipping into our reserves for all of this. Then that is council Bailey, council member Bailey's prerogative and she can advocate to pull more money from reserves for seal coding. That's that's a reasonable solution, but it has nothing to do with the bond money at this point.

Well, I would advocate that. But before I even bet, are we at risk of bringing taking our our fund balance too low? No, we're not. Okay. We might be if you add another 200 or 400,000. Yes. 400 possibly.

Yes. For all the roads. Yeah. If you add another half a million dollars in capital fund reserve draw, you might be pushing us over the edge. the when bond counsel first came to talk to us and I I for I'm sorry in case you weren't bond council at that point in time what they said to us was that we recommend this spawn schedule knowing that you will need to perform road maintenance knowing that you will have like the other capital large capital improvement efforts right because we talked about drainage with them all this stuff They were like, "You're going to need to borrow more money in the future. We're recommending this schedule specifically because you have a dip here and you have a dip here where we have borrow potential back and that was what they recommended. That's what our financial advisors recommended at the time and that was the plan. knowing that, okay, we've got big drainage, we've got big maintenance efforts that have to come. We will likely have to ask the citizens, can we borrow more money for these things? Because we just don't have the income and there's not any amount of penny pinching or saving that's going to produce millions of dollars for us in the next five years.

Actually, I do remember that now because we're talking about, you know, all the things we do. They say, "No, let's let's write this be very specifically for, you know, new roof construction." Um, and leave all that other stuff out. I forgot about that.

Yeah. And then they were like, "And then we'll stairstepped your borrow like we'll do this schedule so that you have these two very clear time periods where you have borrow potential um built in your your tax rate." And because they base it on the capacity of our taxpayers like the taxpayers can only have a certain Um with this card three 350 plus 300 that's 650 plus safety enhancement second is another 60. Um, I think all that comes to about 770,000 which would get exhaust the bonds of the go there would be about $100,000 left.

Yeah. And that doesn't I don't think we accounted for interest. Does that go back into the just

Yeah. the bond. So the that is does not project interest acred in the meantime. That's why I would like to have some kind of a a consideration for a seal coat and then we could we at least would have a place folder and if not we'll just see what happens with these other large allocations because what you have here will eat up all the rest of the bond. We cannot use bond money for that and to put that in the agenda as that into the budget would be possibly misrepresenting it and not transparent and truthful because by all accounts that we've been able to find that is considered maintenance. You could put it under the capital funds reserve draw. That would be the only way that would be truthful and transparent. If it turns out you can use the go bond funds then that's a different story. But to be truthful in this it would have to go under capital funds draw.

Yes. So if you want a placeholder in here, then you put a placeholder in and then just keep doing the research. But but it would, you know, it is going to impact the top line, you know, on reserve draw down to put it up at over over 500,000. Well, you would be looking at 673,000 if we're estimating it's going to cost 400,000. 600. I'm sorry. I heard four. But what? 200,000 for all of the roads. Yes. Do seal code on all the roads. She said 200.

So put it in the put in 500,000 range down the reserve. So we would have a placeholder and like none of these may materialize. Some of them may and may not. If you look at our past history on capital project expenses, most of them do not. Yes. Except for this year because Mr. Burton is a rockstar project management. Y

um I look I don't think it's a bad plan. I would prefer to let Freelk give us their plan on these things. When can we expect that? I don't know, but we need to press them. We can. Yeah. I mean, I I'm I have no objection to that. It's just that we're starting to run up on the 11th and a half hour on getting a budget be approved.

Well, if we're talking about what comes out of the reserves, that could be a budget. It doesn't whether it's written here or hey council decided to yes let's do that and short agrees it doesn't change anything because we're only talking about the reserves. Can I ask Mr. Ba a question? He's off. Oh, we can get him back on.

No, no, it's fine. I what I would recommend at this time based on researching uh the budget process when we had all those training videos we were provided I learned a lot about what is and isn't a city budget and um many of them are actually kind of like this big of binders with a lot of prescriptive like qualitative information and so I would recommend in order to appease any public that is concerned about road maintenance that we add a verb like a a verbal note here that says um other anticipated projects funding and costs unclear at this time but that are in studying development process and you could write drainage widespread drainage you can write uh uh road maintenance plan right so that citizens know that we're working on these that they know that we anticipate planning budget things for them but without those things from the engineers in hand it's very hard to just put things in here, you know, because well, you know, the the sealed stuff aside, when we were talking about the drainage projects, we haven't collectively agreed on any one or three, right? So, that will be step one to putting it in there to identify individual things. The seal thing, right, that that is just now being proposed tonight. Sounds like we've got a lot of research to do on it. And we also already have our engineers in process with road maintenance. So I would I would like to table trying to allocate specific funds. I would recommend adding another chart in here that just makes those notes so that the public can see that.

Well, we have we have the previous 24 25 notes section in there that we could have a we could have a additional additional capital notes. Yes. Just right under are this just say other capital projects in progress in study and review. You could say drainage master plan, road maintenance plan, no clear costs or you know project scopes identified at this time. Pending engineer review but things that we think are important to do. We just they're just in the works. Yep. I think that will satisfy the people feel that these are important and they weren't addressed. So this way they don't.

That's fair. It's really hard to keep up with all the city business. I had to create a giant Excel sheet for it. I know. So, I'm not surprised public is not always up to date on where we're at and everything. Well, I wasn't up to date on the Western Wood Creek work either. That's been as Oh. Oh, okay. No, not the legal proceedings. I mean, you were on council when we when Mr. Fleming asked for a reimbursement on the money that they spent, right? You against that?

I I just meant, hey Jim, can you can we do something about this? You know, sort of, you know, set aside. So that's that's what's happened over the last couple. This has been going on for years.

Just for that number, you know, we've got positive information over the last couple weeks. That's why it's been added. That is my very crude guess based on what some of the things cost down there. So that's kind of a placeholder and I'll actually be walking the street without better. Now he he can give me a rough idea of the culver bridge section that'll need to go out for engineering design and that kind of thing. But based on his experience he'll give me it probably will cost something like this. Okay.

So, we'll add this. We'll add we'll add the another table for future. Is there move on? Is there anything on expenses? Any other expenses? Can I close the workshop? You like to close?

Just one question on capital project expenses 2425. It says uh drainage 35,000. Don't spend that. But we had authorized 70,000. Is that in so 45,000? We're under capital project expenses still from this year. Yes, I know we we um we actually had allocated. Sorry to interrupt. Yeah,

we had allocated in that the full full drainage planning and implementmentation amount of 424,811. Um, we have only spent $35,01 paying freelancer for the efforts to prep to use that money and that's this current

the notes there. Yeah, the notes there don't have the the previous approved budget. That's a call that maybe we should add. You can consult with Mike Ba about it. Uh what is there is the projected actual expenses because that's the relative comparison to what we've done and spending on our reserves, you know, and spending in the grants and the those kind of things. So, um that's why it's just the projected Okay, speaking of budget amendments, I guess the audit will clean. I don't know because that's the previous year. So, in this year, uh, we likely should have had an audit for the ADA stuff. We need to start getting better about that when we add on projects mid year, creating budgets each time. Capital approvements. Were there any question? Any other questions on expenses? I need clation.

I move that we close the workshop. I second um recess. out of reset and back in session. We're on item number three, discussing public action on the city and mayor safety enhancement plan phase two. Mayor, I move that we accept and approve the safety enhancement plan phase two with money to be spent out of the 2025 2026 budget. Correct? No. Or no.

Strike. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. I receive the end of that. with the projects now money to be spent on the go. I second.

Stefan, you're first.

Do I? Um, well, uh, council has directed freelancer to review all of these items. Um, and the only there are two additives on here that were not previously in front of council. So, I am obligated to point them out. If you'll notice, seven Wood Creek Drive install speed cushion and 90 Wood Creek Drive install speed cushions. Those two are additions from since the council vote. One of them in particular, number seven, was brought to us by petition by residents and then in looking at that in order to balance sort of the full scope of Wood Creek Drive, I offered up the positioning on 90 Wood Creek Drive at the tail end. I also want to bring council's awareness to this area. um having witnessed drag racing in this area at night on more than one occasion and I believe council member Richardson would actually could second that um we've people at night specifically like 900 p.m. on seem to use this stretch of road to race cars. And so they either race starting at the hill up to into Wood Creek or at times they'll race from the south side down. Um so it is an area that has significant speeding hazards um late at night. I've also witnessed somebody plow straight through a deer here. I don't have anything to add because we just thought

I just have a question about that. Go ahead.

Um, for this round of speed cushion installation, I'm still taking a conservative position of rolling them out slowly over time so that we don't end up in a position of oversaturation for our community and let time and its resulting feedback from professionals guide our future efforts regarding safety enhance enhancement. For that reason, at this time, I support moving forward with the Brook Hollow speed cushion to help protect the playground and the other logical speed at the midway point on Augusta Drive between the stop signs and Brook Hollow at Brook Hollow and the curve at the east end of that strip of road. This does not mean I oppose any future use of speed cushions installed in the city in the future. It's just that I think the prudent path forward is to not rush the installations and instead seek more professional guidance in our considerations as we get feedback from them. There may be other things that we can do as a city that will add to the effectiveness over overall for road safety in the city that we have yet to consider as part of the whole or larger plan. The things I'm thinking of specifically are perhaps the passive speed reduction measures such as street tree plantings or road striping um that we haven't taken up yet. There's also an interesting idea from the art community that would address the crosswalks and the golf cart paths that might also help reduce speeding. I support us moving forward with a comprehensive big picture review of what road safety measures we can take in the city. Sometimes you need to let things rest in order to get a true data results after new installations so that we can be thoughtful next step considerations. I do also would support the electric

speed monitoring sites. Do you ask me an amendment? I move that we remove the two additional speed cushions on the wood.

Second. I would be interested in u what council member Gummer said about pacing this out a little bit and also you know when we send out the survey for the residents there is a a question that specifically pertains to speed cushion. So I would really be interested in seeing that feedback. Um I mean that'll get the clearest picture about how many are in favor of um additional speed buffs. So, I would be on board for staggering it.

And uh I also would like to wait until we get feedback from citizens because I have a lot of groups from Brook Hollow and they really are not much in favor of additional speed bumps cushions. in particular the one that's proposed uh tech stock usually asks that it's further than 50 ft from an intersection and um those those cushions there are quite clustered free freelancer reviewed everything meets the basic standards then that's proposed here

all right so is the plan to strike the I'm asking a clarifying question. Yes. Is the plan to restrike these entirely or is the intention to bump them to a safety enhancement phase three plan but future consideration. So the council my intention is future consideration even though I didn't state it in the I was thinking of just striking it from this. So would you

I move to amend my amendment that these two speed cushions additional speed cushions on Wood Creek Drive get brought into a future safety enhancement right and can we add the petition from the neighbor who's going to bring to us a request for yet another speed position here on champion it's not on the agenda right now but if that is preferred It's a fair comment that you know that there are requests for more. I am going to say by the way that you know um the Brook Hollow group has been against every speed cushion from the beginning. So I expect them to be against all speed cushions.

I spoke. Yes. Um

the um the the response that I've been getting from citizens and from law enforcement is that it's the best thing we've ever done and please give me one. Um, so the what we've been doing is working. I mean, we've seen it on our street. The traffic is down. It seemingly has slowed down. I would like to get data from our radar science, you know, to to test that. Um, and I'm not suggesting that we rush into it, but, you know, we have had citizen requests for these. Um, and I think that they should be addressed. So if we decide not to do like the Wood Creek, especially the Wood Creek on on this end that was petitioned um that we need to come back to them and say that that you know for cost and other considerations we're rolling these out. Um but

I think that's what the the additional amendment if I will state how I personally feel because I haven't clipped to it yet. Um, prior to that petition, I did not agree with more with pre drive speed cushions for all of the reasons counseled me because we have firmly stood on that concept of listening to citizens and taking their considerations into mind, which is why we asked Freland to go ahead and review is it even possible because that was my big concern. like council member Bailey. I thought I think this is too close to Ranch Road wealth. When it turned out it wasn't too close and it was doable, I said, "Okay, well, I guess it's worth bringing to council and considering." And I said, "And if we're putting one over there, we should really look at the other end of Wood Creek Drive because we have a lot of issues over there that I know about." And um so that's where these two came from. Um, I would be hesitant to say no to them tonight because we would be ignoring a citizen petition, which I don't feel comfortable with. Um, over the cost of 10 grand, right? It's different if a citizen petition is wanting us to spend half a million dollars, but this one is asking for 10 grand. So, it seems reasonable to me reasonable to me. I do feel appeased by the amendment of the amendment stating that we do intend to put these into a future package for review and vote, right? But that and this package, especially considering they weren't originally part of the council motion, right? It's reasonable for them to be bumped and postpart. That's how I build first sign without that amendment to the amendment. I believe I would have to be a name vote

to really be.

So I do want to point that out again and thank you for pointing that out and address it which is when we asked Turk to bring us back this particular study. Those two were not a part of that and that's what council voted on at that time. So in my brain it's kind of following what council was doing at that time. I appreciate that they were put in, but I also see them as like next steps because I do I don't want us just going out and putting a whole bunch everywhere and then suddenly we have lots of citizens having the opposite reaction that they have right now which is h there's too many because then then you're installing something for $10,000 that we have to remove and becomes a wasteful. So, I appreciate you bringing more power out.

Um, and there have been a lot of additions to Ro. If I make a right and go out and get out to Well, I have six extra stops. But if I make a left and go out the meadow, I'll have the same. I have one extra stop. So, you may just be pushing traffic. in other directions because there is a lot of stoppage on bro hall.

Yeah. So, council member Hans did actually bring that up in the last issue and I again saw that as phase three, you know, address recolor because just the reason that got on there at all was the idea of people utilizing that as a cut through road and we realized, okay, that's a a valid stop. Also, it's a very long straight road. Yeah, Burke Meadow has a passive speed reduction right now, which is why it's always kind of set at phase three or like a later phase. In the initial plan, it was a phase three, I believe, around three looking at things over there. Um, I mean, we're going to be redirecting traffic no matter what we do. Uh, I don't know that that's a bad thing, right? If we have some of our residents traveling the less traveled roads so that the highly traveled roads are less intense. I a negative I just don't understand that argument I guess is what I'm saying.

Well, you got the choice or bird. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Why is that you if you go for I do it all the time. Yes. But why is that a bad thing? I guess is it's not no redirect redirecting traffic flow so it's spread out no address cities can't be a bad thing I know so that's why I was confused what the comment from council member Bailey was seeking to achieve her address well she it's a consideration for people like broke meadow you're giving more tr I'm sorry I Yeah.

And then Brook side too.

Well, I said amendment to the amendment to take one clarify. There was question at 31 column. So whether or not it would fit based on where I look, there's a perfect spot for it. So it doesn't affect negatively affect. Okay.

Oh, actually I'm going to ask another question. So you were probably talking with the city. The Brook Hollow stop signs and then the eastern curve with that long strip. The placement seems to be much closer to the stop signs than it does to the curve. I was curious, is there a reasoning to that? The slope would be my guess.

Talk to talking to them. The locations are approximate. They didn't come out and go, "Okay, hold the spot." So there's room for sliding. And then we also need to look at sign placement too to help make sure we're not putting signs left. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So okay. And then just a reminder that Champion Circle is getting would be getting radar songs. So for any potential petitions that we think may become We haven't got those.

So, the amendment to the amendment is to the the two additional Wood Creek speed cushions. Um to move those to safety enhancement number three, phase three. The phase three. I said future safety plan. Yep. Same thing. So all in favor of the amendment to the amendment please read as I

all oppose I all right and so the amendment was to move the two additional speed cushions on Wood Creek from phase two and so with it would All in favor, please see by hand say I.

All right. So the original So just to be clear that motion due to the amendment actually becomes remove from phase 2 and place on a future safety plan 3. Right? So that's that full motion that we just voted up, correct? So that's that's the motion. So the original motion was to um accept the city engineers safety enhancement plan phase two and to fund it from the 2526 from the bill

with the removal of these two. with the pursuit as all in favor please say I raise you say I can I ask a question that actually kind of relates back to the budget does this not remove that from the capital improvement plan for next year anyway should probably strike that for the final um what what isation for completion probably would be. Okay. I just wanted to make sure we were planning. Yeah, because he's got the order of all signings.

So, my original motion when I was trying to say 2526 budget, that was actually right. I should have left it that way. The eyeballs. I just looking at you. Oh, one of you all did. What did I mess up? Okay, just to clarify for staff, we're adding the two cushions and that's everything else except for the two Wood Creek Drive ones is good. And then we need that inner phase three.

So in theory by this motion we've actually in instated a phase three plan the beginnings of Yes. Yeah. So add that to your spreadsheet. That sounds like a put down. You can add that to your spreadsheet. No, actually that it's actually will be in there. The daughter. Yeah. So that's all.

So it's there for that portion of it. All right. So, we'll move to item number five, discussion on possible action to approve purchase of a city hall backup generator not to exceed $23,000 from the capital improvements budget. May I? Yes, sir. I move to approve purchase of a city hall backup generator from the company Song not to exceed $23,000 coming from the capital improvement budget. Second.

Just a moment. Um you'll see in the packet that this is part of the CAC from the longer jail. We're finally getting around to it getting the bids. Um song bird is part of the by board program. Um obviously this particular agenda has been very interesting is that it's been very safety focused, emergency preparedness focus. Um, I like that they've kind of bundled that just it just happened to be how it worked out. It's for my program on September 7. It's not my backup point of this. So,

yes, it's not the culmination of years and months of work or anything. It's just No. All right. Any further discussion? Um, okay. So, all in favor of approving the purchase of a city hall backup generator from Songberg not to exceed $23,000 from the capital improvements budget. Please raise. I get started on that. Item number six, discuss possible action to direct staff to research and gain estimated cost for installing security cameras for city parks.

I move that we direct staff to research and gain estimated cost for installing security cameras for city parks. Second,

I hope everyone remembers our last meeting. I know some time has passed and it was rather long then too, but essentially in conversation we realized specifically was talking about the bathroom that it might be relevant to have some uh cameras formally installed on the parks. And I don't know if yall saw but I it stole from my driveway over the weekend. So this item is now even more resident important. Um, so I I really do think this is a good idea. One of the concerns, um, a long time ago, five years ago, when they were talking about putting in a playground, council members at that time expressed concerns about vandalism. So, this is a way to sort of appease that public concern of, wow, we've invested a lot of money. What are we doing to protect it?

Well, you put game cameras up there and then they didn't replace batteries. So, well, the problem with the game cameras, you know, if we're if we're talking about what you're what I recommend you look for, I do not support game camera. Oh, no, no, no. I'm not suggesting that at all.

I understand. I'm just saying that they were previously utilized. I believe a a member of the parks board did that, maybe even on their own. The problem with the game cameras and why I don't support it is because it very much appears as if it's a private resident spying on people, which is what I immediately assumed when I saw them. I was like, "What weirdo put gang cameras up here, right?" Turns out it was the parks board member and they were doing it because they were worried about things being vandalized because the gazebo had already been vandalized. So, I want things that look professional, look city installed, look Um

legend. Thank you. Sorry. All right. Further discussion. All in favor of directing staff researching bucks for installing security cameras for city courts. Please sign up by saying I'm ready to come tonight.

Number seven, discuss and possible action to accept planning and zoning recommendation to authorize planning and zoning commission to consult with city engineers to clarify questions on the varied bill of meadows from the appropriate budgets. That was mine. Um, so this I move that council entertains the planning and zoning recommendation to authorize planning and zoning commission to consult with city engineers and attorneys to clarifying questions on the variance request for five villa meadows. Second.

Um, city admin, I have a couple questions I'd like to ask quickly. Um, what is the fee that is paid for the city for variance requests? It's about $500. And what is that fee expected to cover? Um, staff coverage. Um, any potentially bailouts for um public hearings and that type thing, incurred expenses that help out. Um, would you be willing to answer any questions that PMZ might have regarding the variance request at their next meeting? Yes. Great. And what was the request for the variance when it was submitted? What date was that? I believe it was May 8th.

Thank you. On May 11th, council considered the variance and sent it to PNZ to receive their recommendation. Our building code has a specific deadline attached to it when it comes to variances. So for that reason, I make the following amendment. I amen that PNZ considers and makes their recommendation to council regarding this variance at their September 3rd meeting which the city administrator will make themselves available at to answer any questions DNZ may have which will then allow council to make their decision about this variance request at their September 10th meeting and that any required notices are made using the dates of September 3rd for PNZ and Sep September 10th for council board of adjustments.

Second. Thank you. Um, this amendment helps move us towards being more in compliant with the standard requirements and the deadline in our code when it comes to building code. May I ask that you send an instruction to the secretary directly? Should it pass? It will. Mayor Heads on.

All right. So, the amendment is that PNZ considers and makes recommendations council regarding the variance of September 3rd meeting which the city administrator will make themselves available to at to answer any questions PNC might have. spent allows council to make their decision about the during aggressive September 10th meeting and any required notices are made using those dates of September 3rd and September 10th council forward. All in favor?

Thank you. Can I ask a question about the impact on that amendment in addition to the formal motion that's made which allows them to consult with engineers and attorneys? Are we intending for them to be present at that date as well? No, because my motion didn't include it doesn't undo the main motion though. It's an amendment. No, my main motion doesn't include it. Says it entertains the concept. Okay. Can you restate the main motion? Yeah. So, my main motion is okay.

I move that council entertains the planning and zoning recommendation to authorize the planning and zoning commission to consult with city engineers and attorneys to clarify questions on the veter request for the five villa meadows. Sam, are you there? is right now. Uh, this is my first time hear me. Please. Yes. This is my

This is my first time hearing the word entertains in a main motion. And the amendment states that we're asking the city administrator to be present at this specific meeting and that we have all these dates outlining that things have to happen by per our code which is fine but in the main motion as stated it says we will entertain having the attorney and the engineers as consultants and I'm a little confused as to how to move forward with that main motion at this time. Um because if we were to vote right now, we're still just entertaining it, which to me approves it. But it sounds very much like the intention of Mayor Prom Gummer was to strike that approval. And uh I'm not sure. I don't know how else to say that.

How about this? I move to amend that the city administrator replaces these city engineers and attorneys. You still you still have your main motion that says we entertain blah blah blah. So you have to that's why okay I mean why I was seeking his console was how do we undo that? Do you just strike all of the main motion and then we we don't have a main do we strike entertain but then it says we're doing it. So then do we strike all of that?

Yeah. So, you're getting into legislative intent and and trying to find the right words to capture what you're wanting to accomplish. Um, I mean it sounds to me, you know, when I hear the word entertains, it sounds like supplement or or or uh in addition to um but you know, you could maybe say um as a as a priority, have the city administrator answer the questions and then um without necessarily having to attend in person, have the city attorney attorney and engineers available to address questions as consultants. Um otherwise I mean that can be done by submission of questions via email that can be done by telephone conference. There's more than one way to supplement that consultation. I don't know if that is sufficient enough to to kind of capture what you're trying to do.

Yeah, that's not my goal. My goal is not to have the city engineers or the attorneys answer the questions, just to have our city administrator at the meeting answer the question. So substitute maybe would be the correct. I move to amend the main motion to substitute the consultation with the city engineers and attorneys with the city administrator. Can you strike entertain? You have to strike that word

and strike entertain and Yeah, I think I think that helps clear it up. So, she spoke there. Thank you, S, for your help. I couldn't figure out how to fix that main motion because you basically undo all of it. So, yeah, requires some word smithing. So, you know, that's that's a good question. And you know, because you don't want a vague legislative intent. You want you want some specificity. So that's good. Well, especially because this is going to cost money, right?

Exactly. Yes. Well, what I mean, and I know I know Mr. Miller's on the line. I mean, he's he's on the call and this was as a result of the PNZ meeting. Um, where they were they were they were really going to have some budget allocated. so that they could work with, you know, they get some direct consult with the with legal and with engineers if necessary. And then in the meantime, um, Mr. Miller and Mr. Burton were able to talk through things and get answers that they needed and move on. So, um, so the request was to strike the whole agenda all together. Okay, that was

Yeah, to strike it all together. Um and then we said no you know in order to sort of clean up the timeline to keep it on the agenda discussed so it would be clean up timeline. So you were in support of this change. Yes. Little background on what PNZ or whatever was being considered was site development which is also concept plans and all that. That's not what this is. This is a permit permitting issue. The site's already been developed. the the neighborhood. It's for a particular vibe and he wants to change wants to be able to do certain things under a building permit, not a site development plan or concept.

And you all you all were able to confirm that through thorough review and you don't feel that there are any issues that would warrant legal or engineering review because site plan never applies to a single lot being developed. Say that again. No, not vi not vi understanding in the way the the code says variance or permit. That's what Mr. Gmer came up research. This is this is a building permit variance, not a developmental. So there's no site development deferring. No, no,

the site's been developed when it's turned into lot when the lot was cleared or it was leveled like well the site was developed when they took that big plot of land and turned it into 18 homes or 18 lots or that's the site development what the concept that would require for site development. So any other we don't require site development plans to be done when we issue a permit for a new house. that's already done. So your lot's already been developed is included in the development of that site, your particular. So it's all

and and by being a by being a a variance to a permanent a permit, it also changes the rules of information going out to residents and and off into other things. So I like your and Mr. Miller is on board with this change as well, I believe. So ask you if you'd like to bring it up. The reason why I'm asking so many questions is because the gentleman for which this permit is forward has been

kind of sent through many hoops and and hoping not because I want to assist him in developing his lot but I am hoping for the sake of the city's professional reputation that this is the end whether it ends in a yes or a no or whatever and that it's done properly. And so that's why I was hesitant to remove legal consideration or even the engineers because I don't want another oopsie. Aha, we were supposed to have done it this way, right? And I'm not placing faults or trying to criticize any of us. I'm just trying to make sure that when we get to that next meeting that all of the ducks are in the row. Yes.

All right. So, um the amendment was to amend the motion so that the city administrator um the planning I mean replace the city engineers and attorneys I'm clarifying questions of PNC and the strike entertain from the original motion. All in favor, please say I.

I. And so the original motive then is to um accept the planning and zoning recommendations and authorize the city administrator instead of the planning instead of the city engineers and attorneys clarify the questions on bearing with me. Was it as amended? As amended. Yes. All in favor replace

I item number seven. Um item item number eight, discussing possible action to accept a trees and parks recommendation to replace trees removed from the street island on Rubeno Drive at Shady Grove with a suitable tree at a cost not to exceed $2,000 from the tree fund. May I?

I move that council accepts the trees and parks recommendation and the city moves to replace the trees removed from the street island on Brook Meadow Drive and Shady Grove with a suitable tree at a cost not to exceed $2,000 coming from the tree fund which is set aside for such purposes. Second. Is everybody familiar with that spot?

Yeah. Um, gotta be honest. I would like to just put this out there that we might need to revisit the previous item. I just pulled up our site development codes. It directly contradicts what we just said. But I'll put that aside. We'll talk about this item, but the history on this. Why is it why would we place? Um there were there was an oak mont that was in that tree island. Um oak oak m I mean a group of oak trees. Okay.

That were um diseased. Um the the previous tree board, you know, tried to do something about it. I mean, they finally had to just take them all out and it's kind of a scruffy little um patch of patch of dirt now. And as part of the sort of the concept of of tree planting and and replanting in the city, the tree board said this would be a good um a good sort of sort of place to to take it up. It was a nice little nice little group of trees and so we don't think that we're going to put, you know, six more oak trees in there, but

they're very together.

Yeah. But but a a singular um and we said appropriate is pretty I mean Jacob is chair of the committee and he had several recommendations. So look at the cost and not the tree. The cost is going to be to dig out all those old roots and everything and make it suitable for planting but to to restore that that tree island to its original um use which is beauty and traffic home. So that's that's the whole buff. All right. So all in favor of accepting the tree and parks recommendation to replace trees removed from the street island on Brook Meadow and Shady Grove suitable tree and cost say $2,000 from the tree plan. Um please signify by saying I

oppose. Thank you. What is the appropriate language to bring back an item stand? Do I need a formal? Yeah. I move for a reconsideration of uh seven. I second.

Forgive me. Um, when I looked at this item, I was under the full impression that site development come first. And in listening to y'all, I was just, you know, trusting and my thought was like, you need to be sure. Um, and so I don't know, Mr. Springer, are you able to review any of this in advance or no? the the concerns about what site is site development first or this or that no no

of our code. So I just want to uh I want to point out a couple things if every if you would like to pull up our code chapter 154 site development if you'd like to pull up and follow with me chapter 154.004 prohibition no development shall be undertaken on any land track parcel or lot within the city limits. Moving down, what is the definition of development? The constructing of buildings. Moving down to the applicable act applicability. This is maybe where any question could be formed. But again, given that definition and the purpose of this chapter, if we look at number one, it says site development plan review and approval shall be required for all specified residential projects. That's where we get a little confusing. I don't see a definition for what a specified residential project is or how we define that versus others. But if you go with those first two statements, what is the definition of development says one is required for all development? It seems to imply that you have to have this. And then if you look at exemptions under scope B, residential buildings are not exempted. It doesn't mention whether or not this was a previous subdivision or any of that. So again, I just want to make sure we do this right. And maybe we're the only people that are actually like account we're only accountable to ourselves in this or something, but I just I don't I don't personally interpret this the same way as everyone else. And I'm fully prepared to be wrong. Well, if if it helps, you know, let me just say that to the extent, you know, on this specific scenario and development, if there are legal issues, you know, I I don't think

you need a motion to authorize seeking input from consultants like the engineers and the city attorney. it. You know, we would need to review those a little bit closer on the facts and then compare it to the city code and also state law. You know, the city administrator can submit questions on behalf of PNZ or even the presiding officer. you know, if if u if he's a representative of the city and we're working for the city as an organization, we can certainly assist with the review and and make sure that it's done properly. Um so I I mean I hope that helps. I think you know in the first instance if if those questions can be addressed with the city administrator at the meeting that's fine and then I can look at availability either virtually or in person to be at the meeting if if necessary

again forgive me if I do not understand terminologies or development or any of that but is my understanding that site development in particular relates to the alteration iction of the land itself and building permits relate to the construction of a building. And so in this case, if this individual what they're proposing does not alter the land in any way, meaning there's no erosion control needed, no sloping, no cutting, which I don't see is possible if you're installing a driveway or slab, there's no um I don't know moving of land of any kind, then then maybe they would be exempt from a site plan. But that is my understanding of the differences between these two areas of code. Would you feel that as a relevant interpretation?

Yes.

So I think that would be the crux as we look at this gentleman's plans and establish he's not doing any cutting. He doesn't have to have any kind of erosion control. He's not uh t I mean it even talks about how you're tying into the the ride of way. um the post construction restoration plan, all of that is established in the site plan specifically. So, I would be concerned about like he's not planning to remove any brush. He's not planning to remove any additional trees or alter any trees anywhere. He's not going to impact the water zones. Um like all of this seems kind of relevant and I'm worried about skipping over it in his plans. You're sure? Yeah.

Yeah. The way we conducted our business when it's a new home construction, it's we don't require them to issue a there's a site plan. Yes, that's what I want to build. But the we've gone under the assumption it's developmental and part of that the cost for that is much more because we do have to require engineering when there's also a concept plan that must be filled out which costs more money. though a variance doesn't address those issues and when we do a just a regular if this if he wasn't asking for a variance we were not we're not going to ask him to do the development plan or concept plan we're just going to follow the permitting application the guidelines of that to me the variance is just asking to move the site

does the development permit process address erosion control water impact cutting post construction uh like reveation all of that. To me the the an example of that is the five acres of Brook Meadow that is a developmental plan with the concept plan because we have to take into consideration now that you're adding roads and and drainage and all that kind of that's a subdivision. I yeah it is that's right that is I mean that's part of

I hear you I'm just reading our code directly so whether or not we've been interpretating the code correctly is a different discussion I am concerned that we haven't been interpretating it interpreting it correctly Ben because a building permit that I can see does not address those things and actually requires the site plan which is what that so there's a two the reason why I know so much about this is because I actually presented to council a code update about four years ago combining these two parts of our code because I felt like they should be one because you can't do a building permit without your site plan but so much of the process is identical but you've we have been forced forcing people to proceed in two legs instead of in one leg. And so that's why this caught my attention tonight when it looks like we're just eliminating a leg because we've interpreted it differently, but that's very specifically not what our code says. So I don't I all I can do is give you my experience. I've built in 30 different cities around this area. Not one of them requires a site development or concept plan to get a building permit for already. I don't exist.

It even says it in the building. I'm not arguing what you're saying.

I know our code's ridiculous. That's why I tried to change it four years ago and a lawyer at the time told me I was an idiot essentially. So, I disagreed with him and that's why we're applying for the glow grant. But even in our building regulations, it says no site plan required by the city shall be approved unless it shows all improvements reasonably necessary to prevent erosion from occurring after completion of development. No permit permanent certificate of occupancy shall be issued unless the improvement shown on the site plan have been installed, constructed or created. You know, so even if we look at what is the definition of a site then? Where does that I mean, we've we've got code problems and they're once again biting us tonight. And I just want to make sure that when this gentleman comes for the third, fourth, fifth, seventh time or whatever it is to our city, we have no more ahas. And whether or not we interpret the coder one way or another, it doesn't change what the code actually says. And we have to follow our vote. I mean, we can't make exceptions because we don't agree with it, right? I mean, that's

I question the definitions of site plan for a specific purpose of so many of it. So, if we can, we could probably take this probably been a long discussion. So I knew as part of this reconsideration of item seven to can I give you the definitions of site devel I mean sorry to interrupt your motion but under site development a site development plan is a detailed line drawings and accompanying text clearly describing the development. This gentleman is likely to produce that already, but it's got to it's supposedly supposed to go through all of this. And this is where you find all the variances because what I'm concerned is is has he even addressed all of his variances yet, right? If he plans to cut down a tree, if he plans to impact water flow, those are, you know, things we have to address. And so that's the definition of site development plan under site development. Then if you go up to the definition of a site plan under the building thing, it says a plan showing the use of the land to include locations of buildings, drives, sidewalks, parking facilities to be constructed, drainage, erosion control, and utilities. He's got to have all that. And we're supposed to approve the site development plan first. Tim's the builder

and he knows how processes work and I worked in construction. It sounds like we're making it far too. Nobody disagrees that our code has problems. Yeah, it's from 2006. Yeah. What I'm saying is, is the is this gentleman gonna get here and not have done all of these things that he is supposed to have done and then we approve bad plans or we say, you know what, oops, we found a bunch of stuff you haven't addressed and you're supposed to fix this. go again and this guy is going to potentially sue us because he will have a case at that point

to Easter for previous comment. I think it cost something back. But um to me, he's he to ask him to spend all of the money that's required for a a a plan for a site for a permit. We're asking him to spend all that money for something that he may not get to. He's only asking to move the the sideline to the building line's track and then the one car and the one driveway. That's that's that's doesn't meet the permitting requirement. So that's what he's asking for. Can I do this? and then I can finish the spending the money to develop the plans because you know the permit process says you have to show the height of the of the building and all that kind of stuff building will want to spend all the money required to get there that's thousands of dollars

just to have me know I can get to it because it'll last so I hear you 100% but we have to follow our code whatever the code says is actually what we have to do regardless of whether we agree with it. And so it says variances under site development. Um all variance requested for a product must be must be identified during the site development plan approval process.

Not to go around but doesn't need a site development. I mean not it's a site plan showing where things are going to go on the building and if there's areas that um because we asking for a tree survey for anything over how many inches it's not so many in come with a permit um it's to me there's there's confusion on what's next so site development is different than a site me. I hear you. That's not what our code says.

Somewhere in our code says we follow the IRC 2015 building codes, but you're going to code from 2006. So word, but now we're all jacked up process adopted follow through procedures.

Yes, sir. I move to strike all consideration and motions being previously on item seven so that we may further investigate his I'll second for discussion purposes I'm not trying to prevent this guy from doing what he needs to do but we can't just ignore our code because we disagree with it or because things were done a certain way previously and you know I respect you and respect your opinion on this topic. And if I had my way, this code would have been updated three years ago, but it's not. And we know there's problems everywhere, but exempting this gentleman from the steps outlined in our code is a vote that council has to make. and you have to formally say we're going to exempt him from the site development application process and plan and we're going to move straight to addressing all variances through the b building permit process. And my concern about doing that is have we addressed erosion control? Have we addressed cutting? Have we addressed water flow? Have we

was all of that part of the original site development plan that formed that subdivision? I mean, did that have to go in? Was there a site development plan that said, "Okay, we want to have all these garden homes in this area and here's how they're going to be laid out." I mean, can I answer that question? We would h we would have to historically go back and research all of that and ensure that this gentleman's plans do not change any of that. I think that's what Jim's been saying all along is this is a subset of that.

But that is different. That's a subdivision plan. And in sub sorry in subdivision site development you don't always develop all the lots. You don't always clear all the lots. You could do five at a time. And each time you come in for those five is a new site development plan for the next five where you address all of these compon I mean that is the process as outlined in our code is a site development plan first and then once you get all of that done you go into your building permit process and the site development plan is required as part of the building permit process

and to verify what you were referring to the old site development plan so our code has expiration dates on things like the concept plans, the building permits, the site development plan. They all have expiration dates and they're one years and two years. So, they would have long expired by So, I mean, y'all perceive how you legally feel responsible. I am very concerned that parts of this are not being addressed. And I've never seen complete plans from this gentleman either. I think

so. How can you approve variances without seeing what his complete plan is? He wants to develop a plan based off variances as you. That's not what the code says though. The code says you have to have your full sight development plan to request variances. I can understand and I respectfully disagree with it, but um we're now going to ask the children be treated differently than every other building else. So we've never asked anyone to address erosion control ever in cutting.

Not on that existing law. We've we've had people question like there's a if it has a known flooding issue, it's like, "All right, you're gonna have to give me your your blood fl your drainage design." But on like that particular one, we've never asked for a an erosion control drainage study on a flat lot. What? I'm deeply concerned because my neighbor's house is now flooding post new construction right next to them regularly, like flooding the entire house since that other house was built. And this might explain why.

Well, that would be a question. I I wasn't there back then. But if it's if there's a drastic change from lot to lots, then yes, that's we're going to ask for that. But 99% of all is pretty flat or not. It's not all pretty low. Well, he he built a driveway that ramps up six feet and it has a sixft drop straight into their house. Like a ramp straight. I mean, I will not argue this anymore. I'm deeply concerned about what I'm hear tonight. I'll just say that. I thought we were operating based on our code. This

should we be talking about I mean we I mean is is an ordinance that obviously needs some serious review. You were reviewing it four years ago and had had the recommendations. I mean it's like we obviously need to fix this fix that part of the code. Then the motion would be to ignore the code. The motion to be would be to exempt this house from a site development process. So we can't on anything on this agenda. we can't make that up. I don't know. I'm sorry to complicate it, but in the future, I I would um appreciate if we followed code regardless of what

I think we all follow the code. I don't think that's I don't think that's a question at all whether we should follow the code. But, you know, if if if the code is broken, how can we how can we work with our legal counsel to review? How can we work with the the developer who just, you know, wants to put a house on the lot? Can I can I amend the motion that's on the table right now? Not I would like to strike the concept of striking all other motions and instead ask

instead ask for um legal review in the meantime. and Stan specifically what I'm asking for is sort of like a written statement on you your interpretation of the proceedings here and then potentially a recommendation for council in regards to is the vote to shred requiring portions of this an acknowledgement that we feel the code is redundant or that you feel that there are possible legal consequences or ramic ramifications in striking that process.

Okay. And if uh possible, I'd like to see the application in this particular case so that I can kind of look at the facts and um make sure that um what we're advising as far as the presumptive rule on the proper procedure um is followed. Thank you. Absolutely.

Okay. of the amendment is to strike language that as for the striking considerations and motions and as for legal review on the merits of this in the meantime. Yes. All in favor.

Can I ask a question? Um, will this delay this permit then for what length of time? That is not the goal based on the motion is that legal review will happen before the PNZ meeting so that everybody is able to make informed and educated decisions and should legal review turn up some issues or not have a a a resource other than delay them that I mean would that help? Yeah. But we've been practicing this procedure for as long as we remember. I don't believe so. But I don't I mean would know potentially Brenton

I just got the last six years of my experience here. Yeah that's a bill. Do we have to go back and change if we've been

just trying to understand this motion I'll need the varian. Okay. So, um the amendment again, all in favor, please say I. I oppose. And I and I realize time is of the essence. So, we will uh put this with a deadline of um by the by Friday of this week. Great. Thank you. Thank you, Sam. Sorry about that. Oh, it's that's fine. You know, it's it's helpful to get clarifications. So,

and feel free to make recommendations on our code while you're at it, but right, this doesn't make any sense. Yeah. So, so the main motion of the reconsideration then is to strike all consideration and motions made previously on item number seven and move to explore this issue further further as amended as amended to strike all of that and send. So all in favor please signify by saying I raise your hand. Hi. Hi. All right. Press. So, we did eight.

Okay. Back at nine. So, nine is excuse me, discussion about it and request a recommendation from the trees and parks committee on the topic of the city of Woodbridge creating a dog. Mayor M. Yes, sir. I move that council request a recommendation from the trees and parks committee on the topic of the city of Wood Creek creating a dog park. I second. Thank you. Second. Pretty straightforward. Yes. So, we're just asking trees and parks to look into it. Yeah. Come back to us with a This is actually old business. It is. But

the the group we initially sent the topic to, which was parks, it was no longer in existence. So send it to trade.

All right. All in favor, please signify by raising your hand say I. I. I. Thank you. And um city secretary, would you make sure that as you're looking at agenda item, we make sure that it's on their agenda makes it way down there. Um item number 10 discussing possible action adopting resolution number 25-08-27-01 rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings.

I move that council adopts resolution number 25-08-27-01 rules of procedure for the conduct of its seconded by May. Yes. So, I brought um this resolution forward. We're just there's one single edit on it and it is changing the start time of our meetings from 5:30 p.m. um and changing it to 6:00 p.m. Um, as many of you know, I have a new role at work and I feel like we cannot make it here in time by uh by 5:30. So, I'm just requesting that we push it out till 6 and that way be

Yes, sir. Um, I also like this rule because multiple or this time change because there's always been this discussion of what is a time that citizens have the ability to sit and share in our meetings. Um, so moving from 5:30 to 6 also gives those people who like yourself will like be working in Austin or in other cities. It gives our citizens the time to also be able to come to us. Yes, sir.

I just thank you for the honesty, but um changing from one time that people are used to to another. We used to be at 6:00 and it was around change at time. So, we were at 6:30 4:30. So, It doesn't seem I appreciate that you have a job. You can't make it here, but we're already Anyway, I I just don't know that we can change the rules uh based on what invention

call vote. Got a second vote. All in favor of adopting resolutions 25-08-27-01 rules of procedure for the conduct of its meetings, please and say I. Ime number 11. Before we move on to 11, can we take another 10 minute break? Yes, the last one item could be. Okay, we take five minute five minutes. at 8:32. Be back at 8:37.

Recording in progress.

All right, I have 8:39 coming out of recess and current going into executive session pursuant to Texas government code section 551.072. 072 real property and Texas government code section 551.074 personnel matters and um that we do intend to go into executive session to deliberate real property to review expansion of city owned properties generally as well as legal financing options. So, um, it is page 40 and we will we going into executive session.

We need stand on the Zoom. We need stand on the Zoom and I'm going to put James in the waiting room. Session 97. All right, it's 9:17. We're coming out of executive session. Mayor, may I please? Mayor, I approve I move that we approve the amended contract for Mr. Jim Burton to meet state code as presented.

I got a motion as to approve the amended contract um for Mr. Burton per se code. May I add an amendment and authorize Mayor Rasco to execute? Second. The amendment to authorize Mayor Rasco to execute. Again, Hines Rumor. All in favor of the amendment to authorize the mayor to execute contract. Please raise say I. I.

All right. Moving on to the main motion is to approve the amended contract for Mr. burden for state statutes. Um, and authorize the mayor to enter the cop. All in favor, please say I. I. May. I. Yes. Item that we authorize staff to pursue a tax note for the purpose of purchasing real property that we consult with our financial advisors at the next possible meeting for this purpose. Sorry.

That that real estate contract have a minimum of 90 that we authorize the pursuant of a real estate contract offer on real property with a minimum of 90 days contingency and a contingency for the issuance of the tax note. A second secretary would like very quickly additional amendment better than sir. Mhm. With the total amount not to exceed 560,000.

Second. All right. So the motion the amendment is to um amend the main motion to state that the total um initial note NTE NTE not to exceed 560,00 please recognize I I opposed I stayain That's okay. So, it's either

it's no. Okay. All right. So, um the main motion is to authorize staff to um authorize and consult with our financial advisors to at the next possible meeting. at the next possible meeting and relief contract offer with a 90day contingency for the tax note as amended not to help. Yeah,

it's been there would be two contingencies. One would be the 90 days and the other would be the issuance of the text. But that can be I got what I saying. Okay. So all in favor of the motion as amended please say I. Bye.

All right. Want to ask just please tell everybody to go to the website and sign up for volunteer appreciation event. Sign up for this web notifications. Just push that. Thank you. And enter. I second. 69. station 5 9 I've got