[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:07]
>> WELCOME TO THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
IT IS APRIL 2ND, 2024 AT 4:00 P.M. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MR. OLSON, DO I HAVE A QUORUM?
>> NO, MADAM MAYOR, YOU DO NOT.
>> OKAY. WE'LL ASK THEN, COUNSEL, DO YOU WISH TO WAIT A FEW MINUTES TO SEE IF WE DO HAVE A QUORUM SAY WITHIN 15 MINUTES?
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, IF YOU WOULD BE SO KIND.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR, WE'D APPRECIATE THAT.
>> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES TO HOPEFULLY ACQUIRE A QUORUM.
AT THIS TIME, 4:15 P.M. WE ARE RECONVENING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN ON APRIL 2ND, 2024.
MR. OLSON, I'LL NOW ASK YOU AGAIN, DO WE HAVE A SUPER QUORUM?
AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? THEN WE WILL PROCEED INTO OUR WORKSHOP ON THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
[1. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) CONSIDERATION OF PHASED APPROACH]
WHERE WE LEFT LAST TIME IS ACCORDING TO MY NOTES, CORRECT ME IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING DIFFERENT WAS ON PAGE 114.>> OKAY. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT WITH STREETS.
IS THAT WHERE EVERYBODY IS? GIVE JIM A MINUTE TO GET YOU.
AND I AM GOING TO ASK COUNSEL TO ALLOW US AS THIS IS A WORKSHOP TO RELAX PROTOCOL RULES JUST BECAUSE IT'S EASIER AND QUICKER.
OKAY, ON PAGE 10-14 I WOULD LIKE TO ASK AND THIS GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE DOCUMENT IS THAT WE BE CONSISTENT WITH USING EITHER BETSY OR USING PARK.
CORRECT? IS BETSY BETSY ACTUALLY PARK TURNS INTO BETSY AT THE CITY LIMITS, WHICH IS ABOUT AT THE BRIDGE.
SO ALL OF THIS AND I JUST THINK WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT ON THAT.
NEXT THING I HAVE IS IT TALKS ABOUT A JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS TO OBTAIN A WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND I WAS CURIOUS ON WHO DID YOU ANTICIPATE WOULD DO THIS?
>> I THINK STAFF IS WORKING ON THAT RIGHT NOW.
>> THAT'S BEEN BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER LUCAS AND COLLIN COUNTY, AS WE SPEAK.
THAT'S BEEN ONGOING SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE.
>> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFIED SO THERE'S NO CONFUSION LATER ON.
WELL, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IT.
NO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IT.
>> SO MADAM MAYOR, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, DO YOU RECOMMEND WE ADD STAFF TO THE BEGINNING OF THE WORD HERE WHERE WE SHOULD SAY STAFF COMPLETE JURISDICTION ANALYSIS OR IS IT OKAY TO LEAVE IT AS IS?
>> WHAT DO YOU THINK WOULD BE MOST CLEAR FOR OUR RESIDENTS?
>> ALSO IN LEWIS LANE, HERE IT SAYS RECONSTRUCT.
IS THAT DIFFERENT FROM THE CONTRACT WE JUST TOOK OUT FOR REPAIR?
>> I BELIEVE THE ANSWER IS YES.
THE REPAIR IS REALLY INTENDED TO KIND OF PATCH PARTICULAR AREAS THAT HAVE A POTHOLE VERSUS RECONSTRUCT IS INTENDED TO BE A MUCH MORE DEFINED SCOPE TO DO ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, A LARGE BULK OF THE ROAD.
>> CORRECT. THAT'S WHERE YOU COULD BE DOING SOMETHING WITH THE BASE.
AT THE VERY LEAST YOU'RE GOING TO BE PROBABLY GRINDING UP THE EXISTING ROAD STRUCTURE THERE, RELAYING THAT DOWN AND DOING A REMIX AND POSSIBLY EVEN A BARRIER IN BETWEEN.
[00:05:01]
>> YEAH. I THINK THAT WAS THE UNDERSTANDING, IT WAS THE FABRIC AND EVERYTHING WAS GOING TO BE PUT IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY JUST A CHIP SEALED ROAD IN CERTAIN AREAS AND WE'RE STILL WORKING OUT THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARY ON THAT.
>> YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THIS OR TRYING TO FROM A RESIDENTS VIEWPOINT AND THEY WILL WANT TO KNOW YOU AND I THINK RECONSTRUCT REBUILT.
>> YES. EARLIER WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF ROAD SURFACE CONSTRUCTIONS WERE NOT TO USE THE WORD CONSTRUCTION AGAIN, BUT TYPES OF REPAIR WERE AND RECONSTRUCT WAS DEFINED AS ONE WHERE THAT BARRIER COULD BE ON THERE.
THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES BUT I THINK I THINK IT IS REFERENCED EARLIER.
>> OKAY. I GUESS I JUST DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE ANY OF OUR RESIDENTS ON THAT.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
IS THE 2.5 MILLION I KNOW THAT'S THE QUESTION.
ON THE JURISDICTION OF THE ROAD.
RIGHT? SO WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR WHAT? IS THE 2.5 MILLION, ASSUMING THAT WE DID IT ALL AND OWNED IT ALL OR?
>> NO, THAT'S BASED UPON THE LATEST INFORMATION THAT WE HAD, WHICH HONESTLY DOES KEEP CHANGING AS TO WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE THAT IS THE NUMBER OF OUR PORTION OF IT OF THE ROAD.
>> YEAH, BUT AGAIN, THAT IS A VERY FLUID NUMBER BASED ON THIS JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS.
AND AS WE GET INTO THE FUTURE ITERATIONS OR FUTURE YEARS OF OUR PLAN, I WOULD ANTICIPATE THAT TO CONTINUE TO BE UPDATED.
>> YEAH, THOSE NUMBERS WOULD BE UPDATED ANNUALLY.
WELL, WE'D HAVE TO BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO GET YOUR ANIMAL COST ADJUSTMENTS WITH THAT OIL PRICES, AGGREGATE PRICES ARE GOING TO GO UP, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE AN ASPHALT ROAD.
SO THOSE NUMBERS WILL ALWAYS CHANGE AND FLUCTUATE DEPENDING ON THE MARKET CONDITIONS AT THAT TIME.
>> AND AGAIN, THIS IS A WORKING DOCUMENT.
AS THAT CHANGES, AS WE GET NEW INFORMATION ON THAT WE CAN UPDATE IT.
>> IS THE JURISDICTIONAL REFRESH MY MEMORY IS THAT PORTIONS OF THE ROAD OR LIKE HALF THE ROAD, 1.5 THE ROADS, THE OTHER?
YES. THERE'S ANNEXATIONS DONE BEFORE THE STATE LAW CHANGE, SO THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUE AT HAND AND THEN THE STATE LAW CHANGED, I WANT TO SAY 20 161-71-6176.
I THINK IT IS WHEN THAT THE LOSS CHANGED BEFORE THAT.
IF YOU TOOK A SECTION, YOU TOOK TO THE CENTER LINE OF THE ROADWAY AND THERE'S BEEN SOME ADJUSTMENTS IN THE STATE STATUTE SINCE THEN ON THAT.
SO THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THE ISSUES LIE AT THIS POINT, BUT WE'RE WORKING WITH COLLIN COUNTY AND WE'LL GUESS ON THAT.
>> SO I WOULD ASSUME THEN IF WE DO IT RECONSTRUCT, THEN THERE'S PARTS OF THE ROAD THAT HALF OF IT IS ONE JURISDICTION AND HALF IS THE OTHER, THAT WE REALLY COULDN'T GO IN AND RECONSTRUCT THE ROAD WITHOUT THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTION?
>> IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A MULTI JURISDICTIONAL AGREEMENT TO DO THOSE THINGS.
AND I THINK FROM MY UNDERSTANDING AND FROM GARY'S MEETINGS, THAT THAT IS AN OPTION FOR EVERYONE TO SPLIT THEIR COSTS FOR THAT, BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF ROADWAY THAT THEY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
>> OKAY. SO THEN WHILE YOU'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT OR TALKING WITH THEM ABOUT POTENTIALLY RECONSTRUCTING THE ROAD THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR AND WHAT TYPE OF ROAD RECONSTRUCTION THAT WOULD BE?
>> THOSE YEARS AND THOSE HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED AT THIS POINT.
IT'S JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES AT THIS POINT BASED ON THE STATUTE CHANGES BACK IN 2015, 2017.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ACTUAL STATUTE CHANGED YEAR.
>> WELL, THEN I WOULD JUST RECOMMEND GIVEN THE DIFFICULTY WE'VE HAD THUS FAR TRYING TO GET THE JURISDICTIONAL DOWN AND THE FACT THAT WE'VE GOT THIS SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, THAT SOMEHOW WE KIND OF WEAVE THAT IN AND SEE IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY KIND OF PUSH BACK.
THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT OR SAY ABSOLUTELY NOT.
SO WE CAN KIND OF DETERMINE WHETHER THIS REALLY IS GOING TO OCCUR THIS NEXT FISCAL YEAR OR NOT?
>> THAT'S OUR ULTIMATE GOAL IS TO FIGURE OUT WHAT TIME FRAME THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE.
UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE HAD ISSUES WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES.
THAT'S THE FIRST AND FOREMOST THING AND THEN WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THE TIMING OF WHAT THOSE REPAIRS WILL BE.
ONCE WE FIGURE OUT WHO OWNS WHAT AND WHAT THE FRONTAGE COSTS WILL BE BASED ON WHAT'S IN THEIR CITY LIMITS OR ETJ.
[00:10:05]
>> BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THIS NUMBER ON THE PAGE IS A COST REFLECTIVE OF A ESTIMATED COST TO DO A ESTIMATED LENGTH OF SQUARE FOOT OF ROAD.
AND THEN AFTER THE JURISDICTIONAL ANALYSIS IS COMPLETE AND THE PARTIES AGREE, THEN THAT COST WILL GET SPLIT IN.
HOWEVER, WHICH WAY THE PARTIES AGREE TO SPLIT IT.
THIS IS AN ACCURATE ESTIMATE OF THE COST TO DO THE JOB.
THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE AND HOW IS THAT COST GOING TO BE SPLIT.
THE 2.5 MILLION IS ONLY WHAT WE ESTIMATE TO BE OUR PORTION, NOT THE WHOLE THING IS HOW IT'S GOING TO BE SPLIT UP?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. HOWEVER, ONE THING IS TO POINT OUT, THIS LANE IS A COLLECTOR ROAD OR IT'S ON THE COUNTY THOROUGHFARE PLAN AS WELL.
I DO HOPE THAT WE CAN PURSUE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR COLLIN COUNTY TO HELP OUT IN SOME CAPACITY AS WELL.
>> THE ULTIMATE PLAN IS TO GET THOSE COUNTY FUNDS TO HELP OUT BECAUSE THEY DO A BOND BOND PROGRAM EVERY SO MANY YEARS.
THAT THEY USUALLY THEY ONLY USUALLY GO OFF OF WHAT'S ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLANS, SO THAT DOES HELP US OUT SINCE IT'S ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.
>> THEN ONE OTHER QUESTION THAT IS ACROSS ALL THE STREET AREAS, SOME OF THEM, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION WHETHER NEEDED OR NOT, BUT WE'VE BEEN TOLD IN A NUMBER OF PLACES THAT DRAINAGE IS ALWAYS AN ISSUE AND COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS WITHIN THE ROAD ITSELF AND MAYBE BE NEEDED OR MAY NOT BE NEEDED.
BUT WHATEVER THE CASE IS, YOU WENT THROUGH AND CAME UP WITH ALL THE NUMBERS ON THE STREETS.
WAS THERE ANYTHING PUT IN THERE FOR DRAINAGE OR IS ALL THE NUMBERS THAT WE SEE HERE EXCLUSIVE OF DRAINAGE WORK?
>> THESE NUMBERS ARE ALL EXCLUSIVE OF DRAINAGE.
>> A LOT OF WHAT'S WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER HAS BEEN DEVELOPED BY THE KING'S CROSSING IN THOSE AREAS, AND AS THOSE DEVELOPERS COME ON, THEY'LL HAVE TO DO THEIR ANALYSIS OF WHAT THE DRAINAGE NEEDS TO BE IN THOSE AREAS.
A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RESOLVED WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER.
REALLY, THE DRAINAGE ISSUES ARE LYING WITHIN THE ETJ AND LUCAS FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BUT WE'RE OPEN TO SEE WHAT THOSE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES ARE AT THAT TIME.
>> I DO THINK THE DRAINAGE ISSUE IS STILL A CRITICAL PIECE.
WE TALKED ABOUT THE DRAINAGE POLICY FOR DRAINAGE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH IT'S IRREGARDLESS OF WHO, WHOSE OWNERSHIP IT IS, THE CITY IN MY OPINION, NEEDS A POLICY AS TO WHAT EACH OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING, THE CONSEQUENCES.
BECAUSE IF THE OTHER PARTIES ARE NOT MAINTAINING THEIR PART OF A DEAL, THE CITY SHOULD NOT BE PUTTING IN NEW STREETS THAT ARE GOING TO GET RUINED BECAUSE THERE'S POOR DRAINAGE AROUND IT, IF THAT IS IN FACT THE SITUATION.
I DO THINK DRAINAGE POLICY IS STILL A BIG PIECE BEFORE A LOT OF THESE STREETS THAT HAVE DRAINAGE COME INTO PLAY.
LUKE MAY DISAGREE. I DON'T THINK DRAINAGE IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM ON LEWIS LANE.
>> THERE'S ONE SECTION THERE ON IT WOULD BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE S CURVE TO THE WEST.
THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF AN ISSUE THERE, BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, THE ISSUES THAT HAVE LIED WITHIN THAT AREA HAS BEEN A NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WATER LINE BREAK ON THAT LINE, THAT'S KEPT SOME WATER STANDING IN THAT AREA.
WE ARE WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPER OF KING'S CROSSING TO RESOLVE SOME ISSUES THAT SOME HIGH SPOTS, SOME WATER SPOTS SINCE THEY'RE STILL IN CHARGE OF THE HOA.
BUT AS FAR AS THAT GOES, EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE FIXED UPON DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE AREAS.
THERE APPEARS NOT TO BE ANY MAJOR ISSUES AT THIS POINT.
>> THEN IN LIGHT OF TRANSPARENCY, I THINK IT WOULD BE TWO OPTIONS.
ONE I THINK WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT SOME NUMBER IN THE STREET SECTION WHICH WOULD BE HARD TO COME UP WITH SOME BULK NUMBER THAT SAYS, OKAY, HERE'S LIKELY WHAT WE WOULD SPEND ON DRAINAGE BECAUSE WE'LL LIKELY SPEND SOME MONEY ON DRAINAGE ON ONE OR MORE OF THESE ROADS.
[00:15:01]
BUT COMING UP AGAIN WITH THAT NUMBER PROBABLY WOULD BE DIFFICULT.AGAIN, I WOULD PROBABLY HEAR TOWARDS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME, A FOOTNOTE OR SOMETHING, MAYBE ON THE STREET SECTION, SAYING THAT THIS IS EXCLUSIVE OF ANY DRAINAGE WORK THAT MIGHT BE REQUIRED.
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
ALSO TO ADDRESS SOMETHING THAT TERRY SAID.
THE CITY DOES HAVE A DRAINAGE PLAN POLICY.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT HAS BEEN UPDATED IN A WHILE.
AS ITS POLICY, IF SOME WONDERFUL COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD JUST LOVE TO TAKE THAT ON, THAT WOULD BE FANTASTIC.
>> ACTUALLY, I'M ATTACHING THE PLANO, I'M ACTUALLY SENDING AN EMAIL OUT NOW.
I MEANT TO DO THAT LAST TIME WE MET, BUT YEAH.
I'LL SEND THAT TO Y'ALL THE PLANO DRAINAGE MANUAL.
>> BUT I HAVEN'T GONE THROUGH THAT DOCUMENT YET.
>> THINGS GOT HECTIC LAST WEEK AND I MEANT TO DO THAT AND THAT FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS. I APOLOGIZE.
>> I DON'T EVEN KNOW THE LAST TIME I REMEMBER IT EVEN BEING LOOKED AT WAS AT A FACILITY MEETING AT WHICH JEFF HARRISON WAS AT.
I WOULD THINK IT MIGHT NEED A LITTLE UPDATE.
ANYTHING ELSE ON PAGE 10 AND 14? THEN MOVING TO 11 AND 15.
IT IS REALLY FOR LEGAL COUNSEL, WAKE UP.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING GREGORY LANE AT THIS TIME.
>> THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE CITY.
>> GREGORY LANE, IN THE ASPECT, AGAIN, FROM WHO OWNS GREGORY LANE OR NOT OR GREGORY LANE IN TERMS OF OTHER STUFF THAT MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE AREA OR?
>> ALSO, WHILE WE'RE ON THAT PAGE, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT WAGON WHEEL DIDN'T HAVE A COUGH AND I WENT BACK TO TAKE A LOOK AT AT MY REASONING AS TO WHAT WAS GOING ON THERE.
I THINK I MIXED UP WAGON WHEEL AND WINDMILL CREEK, BECAUSE WINDMILL CREEK IS ACTUALLY THE CONCRETE ROAD AND WAGON WHEEL IS AN ASPHALT ROAD, SO IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN, AND THINKING THAT LOOKING THROUGH THE STREET, THAT COULD HOLD TO THE END TILL WE GET TO THE NEXT PERIOD.
BUT THE WAGON WHEEL DOES HAVE SIGNIFICANT SO I PROPOSE THAT I ELIMINATE THE WINDMILL CREEK AND PUT IN WAGON WHEEL COST AT THE END IN THE SAME YEAR TO COME INTO THAT.
>> WE'RE JUST REMOVING WINDMILL CREEK COST AND JUST MOVING THAT UP TO WAGON WHEEL.
>> YES. NOW THAT COST WILL BE A LITTLE BIT HIGHER BECAUSE WAGON WHEEL IS A REMIX AND WINDMILL CREEK WAS JUST AN OVERLAY, SO THAT COST WILL BE HIGHER, BUT IT WILL CHANGE THAT.
>> THERE ARE YOU SUGGESTING TO DELETE THE LINE ITEM WINDMILL CREEK.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S LISTED ON THE SCHEDULE OF STREETS IN POOR OR LESS CONDITION, I THINK IT WOULD STILL BE ACCEPTABLE IN MY MIND, Y'ALL OKAY WITH THAT? TO ELIMINATE THEM? THE WAGON WINDMILL CREEK FROM THE LIST?
>> IT CAUSED IT TO BE THE PCI 50 BECAUSE YOU SAID YOU WENT IN IT AND HE DROVE IT AND YOU THOUGHT IT WOULD LAST TILL THE END.
>> WELL, I LOOKED BACK AT THE REPORTS AND IT INDICATES IT HAS A LOT OF SEALANT ON IT.
THERE'S A COUPLE OF PLACES THAT HAVE SIDE PIECES THAT ARE A LITTLE BIT WORN.
>> THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET THAT WITH JUST THE TRASH TRUCKS AND EVERYTHING COMING OUT DURING THOSE AREAS.
THOSE ARE AREAS THAT WE CAN DO PATCHING PATCHING QUARTER PANELS OR SOMETHING, WHATEVER.
[00:20:05]
>> THE OTHER THING ABOUT WINDMILL CREEK IS IT'S NOT A THOROUGH.
OTHER PEOPLE DON'T COME THROUGH WINDMILL CREEK, IT'S KIND OF YOU LIVE ON WINDMILL CREEK.
>> IT'S ONE OF THOSE ONES BACK BETWEEN TWO OTHER PEOPLE.
>> YEAH, IT'S IN BETWEEN TWO OTHERS AND SO IT'S NOT A WELL TRAVELED ROAD. YEAH.
>> REPAIRS MAY LAST A LITTLE BIT LONGER UNLESS THERE'S SOME FREEZE OR EXPANSION CHALLENGES THAT YOU HAVE THERE, YOU WOULD THINK IT WOULD LAST A LITTLE LONGER BECAUSE IT WON'T HAVE THE IMPACT LOADING OF SOME OF THE HEAVY EQUIPMENT?
>> CORRECT. LIKE YOU SAID, THE EXPANSION CONTRACTION, THAT'S REALLY WHAT AFFECTS THE CONCRETE ROADS AROUND HERE.
>> I GUESS WHILE WE'RE IN THAT AREA, THE NEXT LINE ITEM IS MOSS RIDGE.
SINCE WE'RE INCLUDING TO REPAIR SOME PANELS OF MOSS RIDGE DURING THIS YEAR'S MAINTENANCE EFFORTS, I'M GOING TO PROPOSE WE ELIMINATE MOSS RIDGE FROM THIS SEPARATE SCHEDULE, ASSUMING THAT THE REPAIRS WE'RE DOING THIS YEAR MIGHT HOLD IT OVER FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME, BUT OPEN TO SUGGEST OTHER IDEAS.
>> THAT'S THIS YEAR, IT'S '23-'24.
>> I THINK WE COULD PUSH SOME OF THOSE NUMBERS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT OUT TO THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
WE JUST LOOKED AT IMMEDIATE NEEDS AT THIS POINT THIS YEAR.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME MORE THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE DONE IN THERE.
>> THEY'LL BE DONE JUST THROUGH REPAIRS?
>> YEAH, THAT WOULD BE DONE THROUGH REPAIRS.
>> THROUGH OUR MAINTENANCE PROGRAM WE COULD PROBABLY HANDLE THEM.
>> I WON'T HAVE TO BE ON CIP HERE THEN, CORRECT?
>> YEAH. WE CAN JUST DO IT UNDER MAINTENANCE.
A LOT OF THOSE ISSUES THAT WE'VE HAD OVER IN THOSE AREAS ARE PANELS EXPLODING OR SOMETHING BECAUSE OF THE HEAT, HEAT BEING AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WE'VE HAD.
>> THERE'LL BE THINGS THAT COME UP THAT WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER BECAUSE OF THE WEATHER OR WHATEVER, AND WE WILL TAKE CARE OF THEM AS WE HAVE TO.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. IF IT WINDS UP BEING A HUGE CHALLENGE WHERE A NUMBER OF PANELS WOULD HAVE TO BE REPLACED, THEN WE'D HAVE TO THROW IT BACK ON HERE.
IF NOT, THEN WE'RE GOOD TO GO.
>> WE'LL ELIMINATE IT FROM THIS SECTION OF THE CIP BECAUSE IT'LL BE COVERED UNDER MAINTENANCE?
>> YEAH. ANYTHING ELSE ON PAGE 11,15?
>> ONE OTHER SUGGESTION I WAS GOING TO JUST MAKE IS THAT WE HAVE TWO ENTRIES FOR PECAN ORCHARD OCCURRING IN THE SAME YEAR, AND I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST THAT WE JUST COMBINE THOSE INTO TWO AND JUST SUGGEST IT EXTENDING FROM WHERE IT MEETS SYCAMORE TO WHERE IT MEETS HACKBERRY.
IT'S GOT TWO SECTIONS, BUT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT YOU'D PUT THAT AS ONE PROJECT.
>> YES. WE CAN EASILY DO THAT.
I SEPARATED IT BECAUSE AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THE INDIVIDUAL STREETS WHERE PEOPLE CAME THROUGH.
THERE'S ONE PART WHERE LOTS OF PEOPLE COME THROUGH AND ANOTHER PART THAT THEY DON'T.
BUT IF WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING IT AT THE SAME TIME, YES, I'D AGREE.
>> MOVING TO PAGE 12 OR 16, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU WANT TO LOOK AT.
JUST TO BE CLEAR ON THE FIRST THING, THE ANNUAL DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE.
BASED ON THE DRAINAGE MAINTENANCE ASSESSMENT, IS THAT STAFF THAT DOES THE ASSESSMENT? IS IT MR. BIRKHOFF? IS AMANDA GOING TO GET OUT THERE [INAUDIBLE]
>> HOW DID IT GET DONE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN 2021?
>> GARY AND MR. BIRKHOFF LOOK AT THOSE ITEMS.
>> IF YOU PUT STAFF IS THAT OKAY?
>> CITY STAFF AND ENGINEERING.
>> YEAH. CITY STAFF AND THE ENGINEERING.
ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON 12?
>> I BELIEVE IN THE CURRENT YEAR, EARLIER IN THE DOCUMENT, WE ELIMINATED THE DUBLIN ROAD S CURVE BECAUSE WE SAID WE'RE
[00:25:05]
NOT AWARE OF AN ENGINEERING STUDY BEING DONE RIGHT NOW ON THAT S CURVE FOR DRAINAGE.I BELIEVE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WAS DOING THE WATER LINES FIRST AND THEN MOVING TO THE ROADWAY.
THAT WOULD HAVE TO LINE UP WITH WHATEVER THE ROADWAY HAD.
WHAT PAGE WAS THAT? DUBLIN ROAD SOUTH, DUBLIN ROAD NORTH.
DEPENDING ON WHERE THOSE PROJECTS WERE LYING AT, ONES AT 24, 25 WITH DUBLIN ROAD SOUTH AND THEN DUBLIN ROAD NORTH WAS 26, 27.
YOU NEED TO LINE THOSE UP WITH THOSE DATES.
>> THOUGH I DON'T KNOW THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO A DRAINAGE STUDY AT THAT S CURVE, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT HAS TO DO WITH THE ROAD UNLESS WE SAID IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH THE ROAD.
I KNOW IT'S COME UP IN DISCUSSION ABOUT IF THERE'S A DRAINAGE NEED THERE, BUT THERE'S NEVER BEEN, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, ANYONE SAID YES, LET'S GO AHEAD AND DO A DRAINAGE STUDY OR ONE WOULD BE NEEDED.
>> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED, THAT WE WOULD NEED TO FIX THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA, ESPECIALLY ON THE SOUTH SIDE AS WATER DOES STAND IN THAT AREA, DOES HOLD MOISTURE.
THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN BEFORE YOU WERE ON COUNCIL.
>> I KNOW THAT WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION AND I KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT GARY SAID THAT BECAUSE THE WATER DOES STAND ON THE SOUTH SIDE, RIGHT AT THE S CURVE.
BUT AT THAT POINT IN TIME, HE SAID ALSO PART OF THAT ROAD BASE, HE SAID, IS THAT REALLY IMPACTING THE ROAD BASE KNOWN AND HE SAID, HEY, PART OF ACTUALLY THE WHOLE WATER LINE, WAS THERE LEAKING FOR QUITE A WHILE AND THAT THAT [INAUDIBLE] IS WELL.
>> THAT WATER LINE HAS BEEN REPAIRED.
THE ISSUE IS THE MOISTURE THAT DURING THE SUMMERTIME AND SPRINGTIME THE TREES BRANCH OUT AND LEAF OUT, THAT THE SUNLIGHT IS JUST NOT GETTING IN THAT AREA TO DRY OUT THOSE AREAS, IT IS HOLDING A LOT OF MOISTURE IN THAT AREA.
WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS LOOK AT MAKING SURE WE CORRECT THOSE ISSUES IN THAT AREA IN THE SOUTH SIDE.
BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO ISSUES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT WINDOW.
THAT'S NORTH SOUTH. IT'LL BE THE EAST SIDE IS ALSO HOLDING A LITTLE BIT OF WATER ON THAT ROADWAY TOO.
WE WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THE DRAINAGE ISSUES WITHIN THAT AREA BECAUSE THERE IS SOME AREAS THERE THAT ARE HOLDING WATER PRETTY GOOD.
>> I THINK IT'S PRETTY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO AN ENGINEERING STUDY WHETHER IT'S GOING TO COST THIS MUCH, I DON'T KNOW.
BUT DUBLIN ROAD IS SUCH A CRITICAL ROAD WATCHING OR LOOKING AT SOME OF THE FLOODING THAT OCCURS ON THAT STREET WHEN THERE'S SIGNIFICANT RAINS AND THE DRAINAGE THAT COMES UNDERNEATH THAT ROAD, I THINK IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE TO NOT SPEND THE MONEY TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DRAINAGE IS APPROPRIATE BEFORE WE FIX THAT ROAD, AND MOST OF THAT IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR PRESCRIPTIVE EASEMENT, WHATEVER.
>> IT'S WITHIN SOME AREAS OF THE CITY.
THE ISSUE IS WHERE WE TAKE IT FROM THE S CURVES TO THE, WOULD BE THE WEST, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO COME DOWN AT PRIVATE ROADWAY IN THAT AREA AND THAT'S WHERE WE DO NOT HAVE EASEMENTS OR ANY RIGHT OF WAY AT.
>> YEAH. THAT'S BEEN THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE HAD THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN RESOLVED 100% AT THIS POINT.
WE'LL NEED TO LOOK AT THAT AND WHAT THE FALL IS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> I'D PROPOSE THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THAT PIECE FOR DRAINAGE AT THIS TIME.
NOW, YOU SUGGESTED ALSO THOUGH, THAT WE MOVE IT TO PERHAPS THE FOLLOWING YEAR.
I NOTICE IN THE CURRENT PROJECTS IT IS LISTED THERE.
ARE YOU PROPOSING WE TAKE IT OUT OF THE CURRENT YEAR PROJECTS AND PUT IT INTO THE FUTURE?
>> THAT'S OKAY WITH EVERYBODY ELSE?
>> JUST PUSH IT OUT ONE YEAR? [OVERLAPPING]
>> SOUTH DUBLIN IS '24-'25 SO IT WILL PUT IT IN THE SAME TIME.
>> THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY THE BEST.
[00:30:01]
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON PAGE 12 OR 16?
>> I WROTE A NOTE DOWN HERE ON THE WATER IMPACT FEES.
DID THEY COME PERIODICALLY BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY '23, '24.
BUT WOULD THEY GO EVERY TWO YEARS OR WHAT IS THE FREQUENCY OF THAT?
BUT I THINK COUNCIL HAS ASKED FOR US TO COME BACK LATER THIS YEAR ON THAT.
I WASN'T AT THAT MEETING BECAUSE I HAD COVID BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL HAD ASKED FOR US TO COME BACK LATER IN THIS YEAR.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE I WAS STILL WONDERING THERE.
I WASN'T SURE IF ANYTHING [INAUDIBLE].
>> JERRY WANTED US TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE PROJECTIONS THAT CAME OUT IN THAT STUDY AND SHE WANTED TO LOOK AT THEM AGAIN.
>> THAT WASN'T RELATED TO THE WATER IMPACT FEE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
>> THAT RELATES TO THE WATER RATES. [LAUGHTER]
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S GOOD. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
>> I DO HAVE A NOTE TO UPDATE THE NUMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN.
FOR THE ENGINEERING FEE, THAT'S THE SECOND LINE UNDER THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS TO REFLECT THE QUOTES THAT WE RECEIVED ON A RECENT COUNCIL INFORMATION FROM BIRKHOFF.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS ON THE MIDDLE OF PAGE 12, THE SECOND LINE ITEM THERE IS DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES ENGINEERING.
I WAS GOING TO PUT THAT DOWN AS 252K PER THE RECENT INFORMATION.
THE NEXT LINE ITEM WHERE WE SHOW DUBLIN ROAD SOUTH WATER LINES TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THOSE EXISTING WATER LINES, I WAS GOING TO UPDATE THAT NUMBER TO 1.040 BASED ON THE RECENT INFORMATION FROM MR. BIRKHOFF.
THEN THE THIRD CHANGE I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST IS THE DUBLIN ROAD NORTH WATER LINES TO CHANGE THAT TO 1.403, 1,000 PER MR. BIRKHOFF'S DATA.
EACH ONE OF THOSE WOULD REFLECT WHAT HE JUST PROVIDED TO US RECENTLY.
>> IF WE MOVE THE DUBLIN ROAD WATER LINES UP A YEAR, DOES THAT AFFECT OUR FEDERAL MONEY?
>> THE FEDERAL FUNDS HAVE TO BE A CONTRACT AWARDED BY THE END OF THIS YEAR.
WHAT I WOULD DO, I WOULD BE ON THE MORE CONSERVATIVE SIDE, JUST TO BE HONEST, AND LEAVE THE 1.2 BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET'S GOING TO DO, BUT ON THE DUBLIN ROAD NORTH MAYBE UP THAT NUMBER TO CLOSER WHAT JOHN HAS JUST SO WE HAVE A CUSHION.
I DON'T WANT TO UNDERESTIMATE AND THEN WE COME BACK AND SAY IT'S 1.6 LATER DOWN THE ROAD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
MAYBE UPDATE THE '25, '26 NUMBER FOR DUBLIN ROAD NORTH.
MAYBE UPDATE THAT NUMBER TO A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, MAYBE 1.7 JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME LEEWAY IN THERE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE COST INCREASES YEAR OVER YEAR.
1.6, YOU'RE LOOKING AT 1.8 MAYBE.
THERE IS SOME SECTIONS THAT DO NOT NEED TO BE REPLACED IN THAT AREA.
MAYBE 1.6, 1.7 IN THAT AREA FOR THAT SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE PUSHED OUT FURTHER.
>> COUNCILMEMBER LYNCH HAS BEEN USING THE PROJECTIONS WITH TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INFLATION AND INCREASED COST WHEN WE MOVE SOMETHING FROM ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT.
I WOULD MAYBE RECOMMEND THAT WE START WITH A 1.4 ESTIMATE FOR MR. BIRKHOFF AND THEN ADD THAT INFLATION OR ESTIMATED COST FACTOR THE SAME WAY SHE'S BEEN DOING FOR EVERY OTHER CHANGE SHE'S BEEN MAKING.
>> CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE THE BEST WAY.
>> WE'LL JUST DO IT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FUTURE YEAR.
>> YEAH. THAT'S BASED OFF OF THAT TIME, WHAT CONTRACTS ARE BEING LET IT AT FOR THAT, WHAT KIND OF PROJECTS ARE SIMILAR TO THAT.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT US TO LOSE FEDERAL MONEY BECAUSE WE DIDN'T GET IT DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR.
>> THE SOUTH PROJECT SHOULD WITH THE ENGINEERING AND THE COST OF THE PROJECT SHOULD COVER ALL THOSE FEDERAL FUNDS.
>> THOSE ARE STILL SLATED FOR THIS YEAR.
>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE.
>> YEAH. ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE ON PAGE 12, 16? COUNCIL, [INAUDIBLE]?
[00:35:01]
>> BOYD ARK WAS A LINE ITEM ENTRY FROM THE PREVIOUS WATER IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS REPORT.
>> WATER IMPACT FEE STUDY TOO.
>> YEAH, I THINK IT'S LOOPING IT TO THE BACKSIDE OF KINGS BRIDGE.
TO MAKE THAT LOOP BACK THERE, I'LL HAVE TO GET WITH JUST DOUBLE CHECK WITH GARY.
I'VE SLEPT SINCE THEN, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE THAT WAS WHAT THAT LOOPING IT TO THAT BACKSIDE OF KINGS BRIDGE, COMING DOWN BOYD ARCH.
WHAT WOULD BE BOYD ARC AT THAT TIME.
>> SHOULD WE TAKE WHAT'S IN THE WHAT'S IN THAT REPORT AND PUT IT.
>> I WOULD DO THAT FOR THIS TIME BEING, YES.
UNTIL WE DEFINITELY NEED TO SEE IF THERE'S ANOTHER AVENUE OF ROUTING THAT LINE.
>> WHEN WOULD THAT BE? IT WOULD IT BE A COUPLE OF YEARS OUT?
>> IT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY RIGHT NOW.
IT'S JUST SOMETHING WE'VE PLANNED IN THE FUTURE FOR THAT AREA SINCE THERE IS SOME OPEN LAND IN THAT AREA.
PUT IT FIVE YEARS OUT MAYBE, OR WHAT?
>> IT DEPENDS ON HOW QUICK WE CAN GET RID OF THE MORATORIUM.
>> I'D PROBABLY PUT 4-5 YEARS OUT ON THAT.
>> WE COULD PUT IT MAYBE IN YEAR '26, '27.
>> '27, '28, AND THEN DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATED COST? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS.
IN THE PAST, WE HAVE ALWAYS PURCHASED A WATER TOWER FROM THE WATER TOWER STORE.
I DON'T GET ON. NEVER HAS EVEN OCCURRED TO US.
BECAUSE I REMEMBER WHEN WE TOOK OUR OLD ONE DOWN AND PUT THIS ONE UP, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WOULDN'T WE PURCHASE ONE AS OPPOSED TO BUILD ONE?
>> NO. THIS WOULD BE A SIMILAR ONE TO THE ONE BEHIND CITY HALL HERE, BEHIND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
IT WOULD BE A CONSTRUCTION OF A BRAND NEW WATER TOWER, ELEVATED STORAGE TANK.
EVEN THOUGH WE BOUGHT THAT ONE.
>> WE SHOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT THAT. THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTION.
WE MIGHT HAVE BOUGHT THE TANK ITSELF.
BUT THE BASE OF IT AND EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD BE CONSTRUCTION.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY WOULD DO THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY PUT IT TOGETHER.
BUT YEAH, YOU'D STILL HAVE TO CONTRACT THAT OUT.
YEAH. YOU SOUGHT TO CONTRACT THAT OUT AND BID THAT OUT FOR THIS PRICING.
>> BUT YEAH, THE PANELS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WOULD COME.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE THE CITY, SOMEWHERE ON ITS WEBSITE HAS THE WHOLE PROJECT TO WHERE WE TOOK THE OTHER ONE DOWN AND PUT THIS ONE UP.
IT'S INTERESTING, I'D LIKE TO SAY.
>> THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY ALREADY STUBBED OUT, READY TO GO ON A CITY OWNED PROPERTY, SO IT'S READY TO GO ONCE WE GET THE FUNDING FOR IT.
>> ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO IT?
>> WE WOULD ACTUALLY BE LEAVING IT, I SHOULD SAY, BUT I THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO GET IT FROM THE WATER TOWER TO THE PLACE IN THE CITY.
>> YEAH. IT'S ALREADY PLUMBED OUT.
>> YEAH. AS IT IS IS STICK IN THE WATER TOWER.
>> YEAH, AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS PAID FOR.
WE DO HAVE SOME MONEY IN THE PROPRIETARY FUND IN RESERVES THAT COULD BE USED TOWARDS THIS.
>> THOSE NUMBERS WILL ALL BE ADJUSTED, CORRECT, TERRY? ONCE THE RIGHT YEARS? YEAH.
>> YEAH. SHE'S GOT ALL THE FORMULAS LINKED, SO IF SHE MOVES IT, IT CALCULATES IT AND IT ALL GETS UPDATED.
I THINK THIS IS JUST BASICALLY EXPOUNDING UPON EACH ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT ARE IDENTIFIED ABOVE THE STATUS,
[00:40:02]
THE DEPARTMENT WHO'S GOING TO BE IN CHARGE OF IT, THE PROJECT SCOPE, THE BACKGROUND, SO IT JUST GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT'S LISTED ABOVE.FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL PAGES ON HERE.
>> IT'S PROBABLY JUST MADE UP IN THE TOP, THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, EACH ONE SAYS A FEASIBILITY STUDY.
WHY IS THAT NECESSARY AND WHAT DO WE EXPECT TO LEARN FROM IT?
>> I THINK THE FEASIBILITY STUDY WOULD BASICALLY TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE NEEDS ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
>> HAVEN'T YOU ALREADY DONE THAT?
DO YOU PREFER TO JUST TAKE OUT THE WORD FEASIBILITY AND JUST TALK ABOUT PLANNING?
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE TO GO AND SPEND SOME MONEY FOR A NEW STUDY AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY ACCOMPLISHED WHAT THAT WOULD DO.
>> THE QUESTION THAT I WOULD AND I'M NOT SURE HOW WE WORD IT, MAYBE FEASIBILITY ISN'T THE RIGHT WORD, BUT I THINK WHERE I'M GETTING CAUGHT IN MY MIND A LITTLE BIT OF TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, DEPENDING ON THE ROLLOUT AND WHAT THE BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT IS, IT COULD BE DIFFERENT.
IF WE WENT AND WE HAD A FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, WAS ONE BUILDING ALTOGETHER WITH EVERYTHING, THAT'S MAYBE ONE WAY YOU MIGHT LOOK AT IT.
IF WE DO IT IN PIECES, WOULD IT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT A DIFFERENT, MAYBE NOT THE FEASIBILITY, BUT THE ROLLOUT OF THE PLAN.
IN MY MIND, THAT'S WHY I HAVE A NOTE HERE, IS THAT HOW DO WE DIFFERENTIATE THAT SO THAT WE DON'T WANT TO SPEND A MUCH EXTRA MONEY ON IT.
HOWEVER, WE DON'T WANT TO JUST USE A ONE SIZE FITS ALL NECESSARILY PROJECT MANAGEMENT PROCESS FOR IT.
SOMEHOW IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA.
WHATEVER WORD WE WANT TO SMITH IN THERE TO COMPREHEND THAT FOR THE PLANNING AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF THE PROJECT PRACTICABILITY.
>> IT'S ON A FEASIBILITY STUDY.
THAT'S PART OF WHAT THE CIP ALL WE PUT AND I DON'T WANT TO BIND THE CITY INTO REDOING IT AGAIN BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DONE IT.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT THAT WE MAY NEED.
>. JUST A LITTLE A LITTLE MORE DELINEATION.
FEASIBILITY STUDY IS LIKE REAL BIG PICTURE WHERE OKAY. THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.
HOW MANY DO YOU HELP? BUT THEN WHEN YOU START DRILLING DOWN INTO IT, YOU MIGHT NEED ANOTHER WORD LIKE THAT YOU PUT IN THERE TO GET THE ACTUAL.
>> SURE. MAYBE A DIFFERENT WORD.
THE INITIATION OF A FEASIBILITY STUDY.
>> IT MIGHT BE THE PROJECT SCOPE, MAYBE THAT'S THE WORD, PLANNING AND PROJECT SCOPE, AND THE IDEA IS THAT YOU HAVE FLEXIBILITY TO DO IT HOW YOU WANT TO DO IT THEN.
>> IT'S THE INITIATION OF A STUDY.
WE DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY WHAT THE STUDY IS FOR BECAUSE AT THE TIME WE DO IT, WE WILL PROBABLY THEN DECIDE, WE NEED A STUDY ON DRAINAGE OR WE NEED A STUDY.
>> CAN WE PUT LIKE DUE DILIGENCE FOR THAT? I JUST DON'T KNOW.
IF WE LOOK AT THE FIRST SENTENCE THAT HAS THE WORD FEASIBILITY, IF WE JUST DELETE THAT WORD FEASIBILITY THERE, WHERE WE WERE IN THE PLANNING AND STUDY STAGES, IS THAT OKAY?
>> SAME THING ON THE SECOND, FEASIBILITY IN THE LAST SENTENCE.
MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, BUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY IMPLIES CERTAIN THINGS AND A CERTAIN COST.
WE'VE ALREADY DONE THOSE THINGS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO REINVENT THE WHEEL, BUT IF IT'S NECESSARY, THAT COULD BE ONE OF THE STUDIES THAT WE DO.
>> WE'LL JUST SAY THE INITIATION OF STUDIES ESPECIALLY WHERE PROJECTS MAY BE PARTIALLY SUPPORTED BY GRANT FUNDS.
>> ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS PAGE?
[00:45:03]
>> NO. MY ONLY POINT WOULD BE THAT THIS SECTION TO WHAT LUKE INDICATED, IT'S JUST A MORE MORE VERBIAGE INTO WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED AND IF THERE'S ALREADY BEEN DESCRIBED ABOUT BUILDING FACILITIES OR OTHER CAPITAL NEEDS, IT'S READY ON THE OTHER SHEETS.
IT SAYS WHETHER IT'S IN PROCESS AND PLANNING OR WHATEVER.
TO ME, YOU DON'T EVEN NEED THOSE TWO SENTENCES.
I WOULD JUST START WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECTS AND GET RID OF THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH.
>> ARE WE READY TO GO TO PAGE 1519?
>> JUST TO RESPOND TO COUNCIL MEMBER KIRCHO.
I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOME TYPE OF AN INTRODUCTION, SO I'D HATE TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING OFF, BUT WHAT IF WE ELIMINATED THAT FIRST SENTENCE TO HAVE THESE PROJECTS CAN HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPACT ON FUTURE CAPITAL NEEDS SO THEY SHOULD BE MONITORED AS PART OF THE CAPITAL PLANNING PROCESS.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE IDENTIFYING THESE.
BECAUSE THEY NEED TO BE MONITORED AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO IDENTIFY THAT THIS PROCESS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO HOW WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS.
I PERHAPS JUST ELIMINATE THAT FIRST SENTENCE.
THE CHANGES TO ELIMINATE THE WORD FEASIBILITY IN THAT LAST SENTENCE, WOULD THAT BE OKAY?
>> THIS SECTION IS NOT A COMPLETE REWORK OF WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
THESE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE THE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT YOU WANT MONITOR.
MAYBE WE JUST COME UP WITH SOMETHING SHORTER THAT TELL PEOPLE THAT'S WHAT IT IS.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF WORDS ARE SAY HERE'S WHAT WE DEEM TO BE THE MAJOR PROJECTS WHICH WE SHOULD BE CLOSELY MONITORED.
>> DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO SUGGEST?
>> I THINK TO COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH'S COMMENTARY, JUST TO RECAP IT'S REALLY JUST MEANT TO BE AN INTRODUCTORY PARAGRAPH FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND, WHERE ARE WE GOING NEXT INTO THE DOCUMENT.
JUST SET THE STAGE BEFORE WE START LAUNCHING INTO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROJECT.
IT MAY BE A LITTLE WORDY, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST REALLY JUST TO GUIDE THE READER TO WHERE ARE WE GOING NOW.
>> UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
BUT TO ME, THAT PARAGRAPH DOESN'T TELL ME WHY WE'RE GOING INTO THIS SECTION.
IT DOESN'T SAY THESE ARE THE MAJOR PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD BELIEVE WE NEED TO MORE CLOSELY MONITOR.
I DON'T GET THAT FROM THAT PARAGRAPH.
>> WHAT IF WE JUST SAID BELOW ARE THE MAJOR BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PLANNED?
>> YOU'RE SAYING THERE ARE SEVERAL SAY BELOW ARE TO FOLLOW.
>> JUST MAKE A SUGGESTION. JUST UNDER CAPITAL PROJECTS.
YOU GOT BUILDING IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS.
JUST PUT PLANNED BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, ELIMINATE THAT PARAGRAPH, MAYBE AND THEN YOU HAVE PROJECT 1.
>> CHANGE THE TITLE TO PLAN BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS, ELIMINATE THE PARAGRAPH, AND THEN GO FORWARD.
>> IF THAT'S WHAT COUNSEL WOULD.
>> I THINK IT'S STRAIGHTFORWARD ENOUGH WORK.
>> THAT GETS THAT GETS THE POINT ACROSS.
>> I THINK THAT HEADING FOR CITY GOVERNMENT FACILITIES NEEDS TO CHANGE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE HAVE IN THE OTHER. I'VE GOT THAT.
>> I THINK IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING.
IS THERE ANY UPDATE THAT WE NEED TO PUT IN THERE, THE FACT THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT THE PORTABLE PURCHASED AND HOW THAT ASSET IS GOING TO BE.
>> WE REFERRED TO THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> WE ADDED IT HERE UNDER BACKGROUND.
THE SECOND SENTENCE UNDER BACKGROUND.
[00:50:01]
>> I HAD A QUESTION ON UNDER PROJECT SCOPE, IT SAYS, AFTER A DEFENSE IDENTIFYING THE FUNDS, I THINK YOU NEED TO IDENTIFY THE NEEDS FIRST? MAYBE I'M JUST BACKWARDS.
>> WELL, I THINK WITH YOUR POINT EARLIER, WHERE WE'VE DONE NEEDS ASSESSMENTS, I THINK THE NEEDS ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN DONE, SO DO YOU FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO DO A NEEDS ASSESSMENT AGAIN?
>> IT SAYS, AFTER IDENTIFYING THE FUNDS AVAILABLE THE IDENTIFIED NEEDS, I WOULD JUST TURN IT AROUND TO AFTER THE NEEDS ARE IDENTIFIED, THEN FUNDING WOULD BE.
MAYBE WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO SAY THAT.
>> I THINK YOU KNOW WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET.
>> I DO, AND THE PROJECT SCOPE IF WE CAN.
>> I'M JUST SAYING I THINK THE NEEDS NEED TO BE ESTABLISHED BEFORE YOU START LOOKING AT FUNDING.
>> MAYBE IT'S NOT AS MUCH AS THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE.
TO SOME EXTENT IS GOING TO DRIVE WHAT YOU CAN DO WHETHER YOU THINK YOU NEED MORE OR NOT.
THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE IT MAY HELP DIRECT YOUR PATH TO A LITTLE DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
THE BIG NEEDS PICTURE MIGHT SHOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE WILL HELP FINE-TUNE WHAT.
>> I'M SORRY, I NEED TO PUT THE MIC ON.
MAYOR PETTLE WAS TALKING ABOUT IS THAT MAYBE YOU SAY, AFTER IDENTIFYING THE NEEDS, OR AFTER THE IDENTIFIED NEEDS ARE REVIEWED, PRIORITIZE OPTIONS IDENTIFIED, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, THEN THE FUNDS WOULD BE REVIEWED TO SEE WHAT IS AVAILABLE, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
JUST I TURN THAT AROUND BUT BUT TO COUNCILMANS, TERRY'S OPTION HERE TO SAY THAT THE FUNDS WILL BE REVIEWED SO THAT WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT WHAT'S THERE AND NOT JUST SAYING THAT, OKAY, THIS IS A NUMBER WE GOT, SO THIS IS WHAT WE NEED.
>> I GUESS I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND I AGREE WITH YOU, AND THAT'S FINE.
WHAT I'M THINKING OF IS THINGS LIKE, OKAY, IF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPLODES TODAY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A NEW ONE.
>> WE GOT INSURANCE. THAT'S INSURED.
[LAUGHTER] I DO KNOW THAT ONE'S INSURED.
>> THAT ONE'S INSURED. WELL, YOU GET MY POINT, BECAUSE THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A FIRE STATION.
FUNDING IS A SECONDARY CONCERN.
YES, IT'S A CONCERN BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO FUND IT, BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE A FIRE STATION.
>> MAYOR PRO TEM'S RECOMMENDATION IS WISE BECAUSE IT DOES FIRST IDENTIFY THE NEEDS, BUT THEN IT ALSO SAYS, OKAY, WELL, THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THE NEEDS ARE, BUT HOW MUCH HAVE WE GOT AVAILABLE? HOW CAN WE SHIMMY TO GET THE TWO TO AGREE.
>> I THINK THAT'S GOOD. I LIKE IT.
>> DO NOT WAIT FOR ME [INAUDIBLE].
JUST KEEP GOING AND WE'LL ASK [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU, COUNCILMAN LYNCH.
>> ON FUNDING, I WOULD SAY THE PROJECT MAY INCLUDE, NOT WILL.
>> YEAH. THAT'S FINE. I LIKE THAT.
>> SORRY, WHICH LINE WAS THAT?
>> ON BACKGROUND AND THEN FUNDING.
>> I JUST PUT MAY RATHER THAN WILL.
>> THAT GOES TO WHAT WE WERE TALKING UP ABOVE EVEN MORE. I LIKE THAT.
>> THEN IN THE BUILDING AND IMPROVEMENT MAINTENANCE, A WATER TOWER ISN'T INCLUDED WHICH DOES HAVE A STORAGE IN THE BOTTOM.
THE STORAGE SHEDS ARE NOT INCLUDED.
IS THERE A REASON WE DIDN'T PUT THOSE IN?
>> I THINK THOSE ARE THE CURRENT FACILITIES,
[00:55:01]
NOT THE NEEDED FACILITIES.>> WE HAVE A STORAGE SHED CURRENTLY, SIR, AND WE HAVE A STORAGE UNDER THE CURRENT WATER TOWER.
>> SO WE'VE GOT THE WATER STORAGE FACILITY ON PARKER ROAD.
>> YEAH, WE FORGOT THAT ONE OUT HERE.
>> THOSE ARE EASY TO [INAUDIBLE].
>> I DIDN'T KNOW [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE MAY NOT HAVE ALL THE DETAILS ON THEM, BUT THESE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE VERY HELPFUL.
AS WE GO THROUGH THINGS REGULARLY, WE MAKE SURE WE'RE MAINTAINING THEM, KNOW WHEN WE NEED TO REPLACE AND HAVE MAJOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURES.
>> WELL, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD A REASON FOR NOT INCLUDING THEM. THAT WAS MY POINT.
>> NO, JUST DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT.
>> YOU JUST FORGOT THAT BUILDING THAT'S BELOW THAT.
>> WELL, WE GOT THE LITTLE STORAGE SHED AND THEN THE BIG WATER TOWER AND THE WHOLE BOTTOM OF THE WATER TOWER IS STORAGE.
IF YOU'VE BEEN UNDER THERE ONCE, YOU DON'T FORGET IT.
IF YOU HADN'T, YOU SHOULD GO UNDER IT AT LEAST ONCE.
>> THE CITY HALL ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT MIGHT BE MISSING THERE.
I THINK WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING ELSE.
>> IF YOU DON'T MIND I INCLUDE THE STORAGE SHED?
>> UNDERNEATH IT. THAT'S ALL PART OF IT.
>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE LITTLE STORAGE SHED FOR RECORDS.
>> PARKER CITY HALL. PARKER FIRE DEPARTMENT.
>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF THERE WAS A REASON [OVERLAPPING].
>> WE DON'T GO ON THAT ONE THAT OFTEN [OVERLAPPING].
>> THERE'S THE BLUE RECORD STORAGE SHED.
>> YOU'LL HELP US FIGURE OUT THIS TABLE. [INAUDIBLE].
>> YEAH. ONCE GREG GETS BACK IN, I CAN LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE RECORDS, AND GARY.
>> SEND ME AN EMAIL SO I REMEMBER, PLEASE.
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON PAGE 1519? OKAY. [NOISE]. MOVING TO 1620, END OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH.
PREVIOUS WORK ON THE STREET WAS REVIEWED.
I DON'T KNOW WHO THAT MIGHT BE.
>> THE SECOND PARAGRAPH THE LAST SENTENCE?
>> YEAH. THE VERY LAST WORDS ON THE LAST SENTENCE.
>> IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE COMMITTEE. YEAH.
>> WELL, IT WAS IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE TEAM IN ASSESSING.
>> I'M JUST SAYING IF I'M A CITIZEN, I DON'T KNOW WHO REVIEWED IT.
I MAY THINK WE WENT AND GOT CHARLIE FROM ACROSS THE STREET. 2.
>> SHOULD WE JUST SAY THE CIP?
>> ALSO WITHIN INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS, WE WERE TALKING EARLIER ABOUT THE TYPES OF RECONSTRUCTION.
SHOULD WE ADD A SHORT PARAGRAPH THAT JUST BULLETS THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF RECONSTRUCTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT ARE IN PARENTHESIS ON THE STREET SCHEDULE REMIX, OVERLAY, RECONSTRUCT?
>> I THINK THAT'S REALLY GOOD.
>> IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR PLACE WE'D LIKE TO ADD IT OR SHOULD WE JUST FIND A PLACE?
>> MAYBE JUST MOVE THE PROJECT DOWN TO THE NEXT PAGE I THINK SO GIVE YOURSELF A LITTLE BIT OF GAP THERE.
>> THE VARIOUS TYPES OF REPAIR ARE DEFINED AS SHOWN BELOW OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO THAT PEOPLE HAVE AS A REFERENCE.
>> YEAH, I THINK THAT'D BE VERY HELPFUL.
ON 2551, THIS IS A TXDOT PROJECT.
ACCORDING TO MR. MACHADO, THIS IS A TXDOT PROJECT.
>> WHEN YOU'RE REFERRING TO THAT AS FAR AS HOW IT'S SHOWN AS DEPARTMENT RESPONSIBLE IS PUBLIC WORKS?
>> NO. I'M LOOKING AT COLLIN COUNTY IS MANAGING THE PROJECT AND TXDOT HAS OVERSTATE OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
[01:00:05]
THAT WOULD BE CONFUSING TO ME.THIS IS A TXDOT PROJECT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT COLLIN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> WELL, I DID READ THAT FROM A COLLIN COUNTY REPORT.
>> COLLIN COUNTY IS THE ONE [OVERLAPPING].
>> ACTUALLY FROM AN AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH COLLIN COUNTY THAT SAYS THAT.
I'M TRYING TO FIND WHERE ARE YOU READING.
I'M GOING ABOUT WHAT GARY TOLD ME.
>> I THINK WE'LL HAVE A LOT OF CITIZENS THAT WILL BE LOOKING AT THIS PARTICULAR DEAL BECAUSE IT'S IN PROCESS RIGHT NOW.
>> PERHAPS WE JUST ELIMINATE THE FIRST PART OF THAT SENTENCE AND JUST SAY TXDOT HAS OVERSIGHT OF THE CONSTRUCTION.
>> DOES THAT WORK? OKAY. NOBODY ELSE WILL CARE.
>> WE KNOW. [LAUGHTER]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WANT TO MAKE REAL SURE THAT EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IF THEY THINK WE DO, THEY'RE GOING TO BE BACK HERE LIKE THEY WERE BEFORE SAYING WE DON'T LIKE [INAUDIBLE], WE DON'T LIKE YOUR DESIGN, AND IT'S NOT US.
WE FOUGHT THOSE BATTLES AND DON'T WANT TO REPEAT THEM.
>> BUT I DO LIKE THE FINAL SENTENCE THAT SAYS WHAT WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. SO IT DEFINES IT.
>> YES. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON? OKAY, 1721.
WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT GETTING BETSY TO BE SPECIFIC.
YOU HAVE WHICH WILL INCLUDE AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND ACQUIRING THE RIGHTS AWAY.
I WOULD CHANGE THAT TO WHICH MAY BECAUSE THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET ALL THOSE RIGHT AWAY.
>> LIKE I SAID, WE MAY INCLUDE OR POTENTIALLY INCLUDE.
>> THIS MAY INCLUDE AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND COULD.
>> MAY INCLUDE AN ENGINEERING STUDY AND ACQUIRING RIGHTS AWAY. MAY.
>> I LIKE JUST MAY. IT'S EASIER.
>> HOW DOES THAT READ THEN? WILL INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING STUDY AND MAY?
>> QUICK QUESTION ON THE WIDTH.
IT SAYS THE WIDTH OF THE STREET WILL BE INCREASED 22-24 FEET WHEREVER POSSIBLE.
I DON'T ENVISION A STREET THAT BASICALLY IS WIDER AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WIDER AND NARROWER.
>> IT JUST DEPENDS ON THE RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS WITHIN THAT AREA.
THERE ARE CERTAIN AREAS THERE THAT IT NECKS DOWN PRETTY GOOD.
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A VARIABLE ROADWAY PROBABLY IN THAT AREA WIDTH WISE.
IT'S GOING TO BE GRADUALLY DONE.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE BOOM, MISSING A FOOT, MISSING TWO FOOT.
IT'LL BE GRADUALLY DONE TO IDENTIFY THOSE AREAS.
IT'S NOT JUST GOING TO BE STOP RIGHT THEN AND THERE.
>> AGAIN, I'D SAY IT MAY BE INCREASED AND NOT WILL BE.
>> I THINK ANYWHERE WHERE WE HAVE WILL, WE NEED TO BE VERY CAREFUL BECAUSE SOMEBODY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, YOU GUARANTEED THIS.
I DON'T WANT US TO BE IN THAT POSITION.
>> THIS IS JUST A SEMANTICS THING FROM JIM.
BUT IN THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OR ON THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH THERE, WHERE IT SAYS ABOUT THE WIDTH, THE CURRENT ROADWAY IS ABOUT, I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ABOUT.
I WOULD LIKE TO SAY APPROXIMATELY THERE.
>> TO THE FIRST PERSON THAT BRINGS US IN AN EXACT MEASUREMENT, WE WILL GIVE.
[01:05:03]
>> THERE IS A STREET THERE THOUGH.
IN THE NEXT ON FUNDING, DO WE NEED TO EXPLAIN AT THIS LOCATION AVAILABLE ARPA FUNDS? WE HAVE IT EXPLAINED IN ANOTHER PART OF THE REPORT.
>> THE ARPA FUNDS ARE ONLY FOR THE WATER LINE.
>> THIS IS REFERRING TO THE STREET MAINLY.
I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE MAIN MESSAGE OF THAT FUNDING PART.
WE COVER IT MORE IN DETAIL IN THE TABLES THAT WE'VE ALREADY READ, IF YOU'RE READING FROM THE BEGINNING TO THE END.
I WAS JUST SUGGESTING WE JUST REFER TO IT.
>> UNDER FUNDING, THE LAST LINE DOES SAY, AND THE WATER LINE WHICH WILL, AND MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE IT, WHICH MAY BE FUNDED USING AVAILABLE ARPA FUNDS. SEE THE LAST LINE OF THAT?
>> MY QUESTION IS, WOULD A RESIDENT UNDERSTAND WHAT ARPA FUNDS ARE? THAT'S MY ONLY THING. I THINK IT'S EXPLAINED OTHER WHERE.
I DON'T REMEMBER IF YOU DID OR NOT.
BUT IF IT'S USED PRIOR, THEN YOU CAN USE THE ACRONYM.
IF IT WASN'T, YOU GOT TO SPELL IT OUT THEN PUT THE ACRONYM IN PARENTHESIS.
>> IF WE COULD JUST CHECK THAT.
>> ESSENTIALLY, CHECK THAT WE'VE DEFINED ARPA PRIOR TO HERE.
>> IF IT'S ALREADY IN THERE AND USED, THEN I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT.
BUT IF IT'S NOT, WE MIGHT WANT TO SPELL IT OUT.
>> OR WE JUST PUT AMERICA RECOVERY.
>> BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO GO FAST HERE.
>> WHATEVER THAT IS. RESCUE PLAN.
>> IN THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, AND THE DRAINAGE STUDY IS COMPLETE.
DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHO DID THE DRAINAGE STUDY? DOES ANYBODY CARE ABOUT THAT? I GUESS IS MY REAL QUESTION.
>> WOULD YOU WANT TO SAY REPRESENTATIVE DRAINAGE STUDY IS COMPLETE?
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHO DID THE STUDY? DO WE NEED TO KNOW WHO DID IT OR IS IT FINE LIKE IT IS THAT WAY? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
>> I WAS SAYING REPRESENTATIVE JUST SAYING THAT MAYBE THAT WOULD MEAN IT WOULD BE THE DRAINAGE STUDY FOR THE AREA, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION.
>> I'M TRYING TO ANSWER QUESTIONS THAT RESIDENTS MAY HAVE AHEAD OF TIME AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NEEDED. IT'S JUST A QUESTION.
>> IS THERE ANOTHER WORD TO SAY NOT AUTHORIZED, BUT THE ACTUAL ONE THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY UTILIZING? YOU COULD USE A WORD, CITY'S VERIFIED OR VERIFIED DRAIN STUDY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
THAT WAY, IT LEAVES IT OPEN THAT IT DOESN'T SAY WHO, BUT IT DOES SAY THAT WE AGREED UPON IT.
>> I THINK AT THE VERY FIRST SOMEWHERE, THERE IS A DEAL THAT SAYS WHO THE STAFF MEMBERS WERE.
IT COULD BE THAT YOU PUT BIRKHOFF'S NAME, IF IT IS BIRKHOFF, OR PUT SOME DEAL IN TO SAY, ALL THE ENGINEERING STUDIES, OR MAYBE NOT ALL, THE ENGINEERING STUDIES AND OR DRAINAGE STUDIES WERE PERFORMED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF OUR CITY ENGINEER.
THAT WAY THAT ANSWERS IT ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
>> CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION ON THAT? IS THIS THE ONE THAT WE TALKED ABOUT DOING THE ENGINEERING FOR THE WATER LINES IN PHASES?
>> OF COURSE, ALL OF THIS IS A PLAN AND IT ALL COMES BEFORE COUNCIL TO AWARD ANY AGREEMENTS, BUT I'D BE CAUTIOUS IN NAMING THE ENGINEER.
>> IT'S JUST FINE THAT THE STUDY IS COMPLETE. THAT'S FINE.
>> NECESSARY DRAINAGE STUDY IS COMPLETE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THAT'S FINE. IT WAS JUST A QUESTION.
>> DRAINAGE IS CONSIDERED ADEQUATE FOR PURPOSES OF BUILDING A STREET.
>> WELL, I'M TRYING TO LOOK AT IT FROM A RESIDENT WHO IS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS POINT OF VIEW.
[01:10:01]
HOPEFULLY WE COVER AS MANY POTENTIAL QUESTIONS AS WE CAN.>> I KNOW WE CHANGE, ON THE WATER LINE FUNDING, FROM WILL TO MAY.
I WOULD SAY, AND THE WATER LINE IS PROJECTED TO BE FUNDED BECAUSE UP ABOVE WE BASICALLY SHOW THE MILLION TWO AND THEN ARPA FUNDS BEING USED AGAINST IT.
MAY MAY THROW OUT MORE QUESTIONS AS WELL BECAUSE WE ALREADY SAID IN THE SCHEDULE WE'RE GOING TO USE ARPA FUND.
SINCE WE'RE NOT POSITIVE WE WILL, I WOULD JUST SAY, PROJECTED TO.
>> JUST TO CLOSE ON THE TIMELINE WITH THE DRAINAGE STUDY BEING COMPLETE, HOW DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THOSE WORDS, IF WE CHANGE THEM?
>> PROBABLY A GOOD IDEA. THIS PROJECT IS COMPLETE.
>> THE NECESSARY DRAINAGE STUDY.
THAT WAY, YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING TO WHO'S DOING IT.
DOES THAT WORK? JUST A TIME CHECK.
WE'VE GOT ABOUT 30 MINUTES LEFT FOR OUR SESSION.
>> BEFORE WE HAVE TO CONVENE. IT'S 5:26.
>> ONE OF THE THINGS I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT, AND I DON'T PARTICULARLY NEED IT TO GO INTO THIS STUDY, BUT I'M GOING TO BRING IT UP TO COUNCIL AND I'M GOING TO BRING IT UP PRETTY QUICKLY, IS THE SAFETY ISSUES ON THE NORTH DUBLIN CURVE.
THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE HEAD-ON COLLISION.
WE STARTED WORKING ON THAT CURVE IN 2022 WHEN THE RESIDENTS FROM THAT AREA PRESENTED US WITH INFORMATION THAT THEY WANTED THAT FIXED.
WELL, AT THE SOUTH CURVE, THERE'S BEEN NO ACCIDENTS REPORTED, NO DAMAGES.
ON THE NORTH CURVE, THERE HAS BEEN THREE SINGLE VEHICLE ACCIDENTS , TWO VEHICLE ACCIDENTS.
THERE HAS BEEN FOUR PROPERTY DAMAGES.
THAT'S FENCE, MAILBOX, OR OTHER DAMAGES, AND IT JUST GOES ON.
WE'VE HAD ONE FAMILY, THEY'VE LOST THEIR MAILBOX I THINK SIX TIMES AND COUNTING.
>> WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT OPTION RIGHT NOW WITH THE STRIPING IN THAT AREA.
TO MAKE IT AN OPTICAL ILLUSION IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DOING AT THIS POINT.
WELL, IT'S AN INEXPENSIVE WAY OF MAKING THAT VISIBLE.
WE'VE PUT UP SOME OF THE FLASHING LIGHTS ON THE CURVE AREAS THERE.
THIS IS THE OTHER OPTION WE HAVE.
SOME OTHER CITIES AROUND HERE HAVE DONE THAT WITH THE STRIPING AND IT HAS ACTUALLY REDUCED AND MADE A GOOD IMPACT ON THOSE AREAS.
IT DOESN'T REALLY BELONG IN THE CIP, BUT I WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT.
>> COUNCIL IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS IDEA.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED ANY ADDITIONAL, I GUESS, AGENDA ITEMS TO GET THIS APPROVED.
>> IT WOULD FIT IN THE MAINTENANCE FRONT.
>> IT WOULD FIT WITHIN THE MAINTENANCE.
WE DO HAVE A STRIPING COMPANY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OVER 50,000, DEFINITELY.
YOU'RE LOOKING AT FIVE, SIX AT MOST PROBABLY.
>> NOT ALONG WITH THE STOP SIGNS.
IT WON'T MAKE THINGS PERFECT, BUT I THINK IT WILL CERTAINLY HELP WITH RESPECT TO THESE TYPES OF ACCIDENTS THAT CONTINUE TO OCCUR.
>> THE STOP SIGNS WILL BE ON THE SOUTH END THAT'S COMING UP.
>> THERE'S NO AGREEMENT ON THE SOUTH ON THE STOP SIGN.
>> BUT THAT WILL BE COMING TO COUNCIL.
THERE'S BEEN NO REQUEST FOR THE NORTH END.
>> CORRECT. BECAUSE THERE'S REALLY NOWHERE TO PUT THE STOP SIGN ON THE SOUTH END.
>> BUT YOU STILL COULD DO THE STRIPING BECAUSE, I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF ON THIS BIG TANGENT, BUT I REMEMBER TALKING TO THE CHIEF AT THE TIME AND I THINK EVERY ONE THAT WAS AN ACCIDENT OR A PROBLEM WAS A SPEEDING INCIDENT.
[01:15:01]
THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE DO, IS THEY GO BARRELING THROUGH THERE.THEY DON'T REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH A HARD LEFT TURN THERE.
>> SPEEDING OR THE ROAD IS REALLY SLICK BECAUSE IT HADN'T RAINED IN A WHILE.
>> BUT EITHER WAY, THEY'RE GOING TOO FAST.
WHAT HAPPENS IS WHEN THEY SEE IT, THEY MAKE AN ERRATIC DECISION.
>> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT LINES IN THERE AND MAYBE SOME REFLECTORS IN THAT AREA SO PEOPLE CAN FOLLOW THAT CURVE.
>> I THINK THAT'S DEFINITELY NEEDED AND WE AGREE IT SHOULD BE DONE.
>> [INAUDIBLE] AND THEY WEREN'T.
ANYWAY, I DON'T WANT TO TAKE A LOT OF OUR TIME.
>> ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON 18?
>> WE'LL UPDATE THIS SINCE THIS IS JUST NORTH AND SOUTH ARE MIRRORS OF EACH OTHER.
WE'LL UPDATE THE NORTH TO PICK UP THE CHANGES THAT WERE RECOMMENDED ON THE WORDING OF FUNDING AND THE MAY VERSUS WILL WILL BE FIXED.
>> THIS IS JUST A PARKER ISSUE AND IT MAY JUST BE A PETAL ISSUE.
I DON'T KNOW. AN ALTERNATIVE TO MURPHY ROAD.
THERE IS NO MURPHY ROAD IN PARKER.
PARK HOGGE IS THE PARKER ROAD, BUT IT'S ALL 2551.
I JUST WANT IT TO BE CLEAR. I'M SORRY.
FIRST PARAGRAPH, UNDER BACKGROUND, THIRD SENTENCE.
>> DO YOU SUGGEST WE ELIMINATE MURPHY ROAD?
>> JUST PUT HOGGE AND JUST DO 2551.
>> JUST 2551 BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT IS.
>> SINCE IT WAS PARENTHETIC, I THOUGHT IT COULD GO IN AS HOGGE.
I THINK WE HAVE EXHAUSTED LEWIS LANE BECAUSE ALL OF THAT IS PRETTY MUCH COVERED UNDER WHERE WE WERE EARLIER TODAY.
>> I JUST HAD ONE TYPO ON PAGE 23 THERE.
>> THE STREET IS THE RESPONSIBILITY.
1, 2, 3, FOURTH PARAGRAPH, FOURTH WORD.
>> JUST NEEDS AN R. I'M AMAZED THAT YOU HAVE DONE ALL THIS WITH A FEW TYPOS.
IS THE TIMELINE STILL THE SAME ON LEWIS?
>> I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WE DID EARLIER TODAY, IF THAT AFFECTED IT.
I GOT CONFUSED. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING ON GRAY.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING ON GRAY? MOSS RIDGE?
>> YES. I SUGGEST WE DELETE THAT PIECE BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN IT OFF THE EARLIER.
>> IS EVERYBODY AGREEABLE WITH THAT? WHEN YOU SAY IMPLANTING IN ITS PROPOSED, AT THIS POINT, SHOULD THAT BE APPROVED?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT REMOVING BECAUSE WE REMOVED IT FROM UP TOP, THE MOSS RIDGE SECTION.
>> I THOUGHT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT GRAY. I'M SORRY.
>> THEY REMOVED THE MOSS RIDGE UP TOP, SO THAT WOULD BE GONE OUT OF THAT SECTION.
>> I'M WITH YOU. IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER WATER AND SEWER SYSTEMS, SEVERAL PROJECTS ARE PROJECTS IN THE PLANNING STAGE FOR THE FUTURE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A GOOD THING TO NAME SOME, NAME ALL. WHAT DO PEOPLE THINK?
>> CAN WE JUST REMOVE FOR THE FUTURE JUST IN THE PLANNING STAGE? IS THAT OKAY?
[01:20:02]
IS THERE GOING TO BE PEOPLE THAT WILL COME UP TO YOU AND SAY, HEY, JIM, WHAT HAVE WE GOT IN THE PLANNING STAGE? WATER TOWER.WATER IMPACT FEE, SHOULDN'T THAT BE DONE? PLEASE LET US HAVE SOMETHING.
>> I SEE. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'VE GOT THE SECTION THERE THAT SAYS IT'S APPROVED AND IN PROGRESS, BUT IT'S COMPLETE.
>> BUT COUNCIL ALSO ASKED US TO COME BACK WITHIN SIX MONTHS ON THE WATER IMPACT FEE.
ARE WE GOING TO LEAVE THAT OPEN OR CLOSE IT OUT OR HOW WOULD COUNCIL LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THAT?
>> BUT THE WATER IMPACT FEE STUDY IS DONE.
>> THE STUDY IS DONE. HOW ABOUT WE IDENTIFY COMPLETE AND I CAN PUT THE DATE WITH THE REQUEST?
>> I THINK COUNCIL WANTED TO ADD THE FUTURE COST GROWTH INTO THOSE ITEMS TO IDENTIFY WITHIN THE IMPACT FEE, IS WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ON THAT.
>> I JUST THOUGHT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD ONE THING IN HERE THAT WE COULD SHOW COMPLETED.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ON THAT. EVEN THOUGH WE'RE SHOWING IS COMPLETE, UNDER PROJECT SCOPE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THE PARK HOGGE STUFF AND JUST SAY CONTRACTED WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER.
APART FROM THAT, I HAD A HARD TIME READING THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH AND SUGGESTED THAT WE SAY SOMETHING LIKE CITY CONTRACTED WITH OUR CITY ENGINEER TO ASSIST CITY STAFF IN PROVIDING THE 2023 33 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS.
THEN SAY SOMETHING LIKE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN INCORPORATED FROM THAT STUDY THE WATER IMPACT FEE AND ANY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDED.
SINCE WE HAVE A WATER IMPACT FEE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN, IT GETS VERY CONFUSING ON WHICH CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BECAUSE IN ORDER TO ADOPT THE WATER IMPACT FEES, WE HAD TO DO A WATER CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
THAT IS ALL UNDER THE STATUTE. WE HAVE THAT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CONFLICTING IN ANY WAY BETWEEN THAT CIP AND THIS CIP. JUST A THOUGHT.
>> BECAUSE I THINK WE BROKE IT OUT HERE UNDER THE WATER AND SEWER SYSTEM PROJECTS.
MAYBE CHANGE THE DEPARTMENT TO WATER DEPARTMENT INSTEAD OF PUBLIC WORKS, OR UTILITY DEPARTMENT, SOMETHING DOWN THAT LINE.
>> WE CAN ALSO CUT THAT INTO TWO SENTENCES SO IT'S NOT SUCH A LONG RUN ON SENTENCE TO MAKE IT EASIER TO READ.
>> YOU WANT TO CUT THE THING WE'VE COMPLETED? [LAUGHTER].
>> ON THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS THE DELIVERY POINT 2 IMPROVED IN PROGRESS, I WANT US TO BE VERY CLEAR ON THIS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD OUR RESIDENTS INTO THINKING THIS IS A DONE DEAL BECAUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE STILL WORKING ON GET IT.
AMY, YOU MAY NEED TO GUIDE US HERE.
>> I THINK WHAT THEY'RE GETTING AT IS THAT COUNCIL'S APPROVED IT. IT'S BUILT.
>> IT WAS BUILT TWO YEARS AGO AND WE'VE DONE THAT.
>> WE'RE JUST IN PROGRESS OF DOING THAT CONNECTION POINT.
>> FINISHING THE CONSTRUCTION.
>> THAT LAST BIT OF CONSTRUCTION TO THE CONNECTION POINT.
>> WELL, IF WE CAN GET [OVERLAPPING].
>> NOW, ONE THING [OVERLAPPING].
>> COUNCIL MEMBER NOE AND I, TRY TO BE A LITTLE MORE NICE, TALKED ABOUT EARLIER TODAY IS IN THE DETAILED SCHEDULES, THE SCHEDULES BY YEAR AND THE CURRENT YEAR, WE TOOK OUT THE DOLLAR NUMBER THAT IS IN THE BUDGET UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S REALLY JUST A BUDGETED NUMBER AND ISN'T A CONTRACTED NUMBER.
WE TOOK THAT OUT AND PUT A TBD ON IT.
THERE'S NO NUMBERS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT.
I KNOW WE'VE YOU'VE MENTIONED THAT EARLIER.
WE THOUGHT THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD WAY.
>> I'M JUST THINKING THAT WE SHOULD INSERT SOMETHING THAT INDICATES WE HAVE TO
[01:25:03]
HAVE A NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT CONTRACT AMENDMENT.>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY AT THE END.
IT MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE NORTH TEXAS DELIVERY POINT WHICH REQUIRES AN AUGMENTED WATER CONTRACT APPROVED.
>> WE PROBABLY PUT THAT UNDER BACKGROUND.
>> I WAS GOING TO PUT IT UNDER TIMELINE.
>> THAT'S FINE. WHATEVER YOU WANT TO DO BUT SOMEHOW THAT NEEDS TO BE IN THERE.
>> AS SOON AS NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER.
>> I THINK TIMELINE IS PROBABLY THE BETTER PLACE.
THEN THE OTHER THING I TALKED TO AMANDA ABOUT JUST NOW WAS CHANGING DEPARTMENT TO WATER UTILITY JUST SO WE'RE CONSISTENT.
>> IF I JUST PUT UNDER TIMELINE CONTINGENT UPON OR?
>> TIMELINE AS SOON AS THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT WILL ALLOW BECAUSE IT'S NOT UP TO US. IT'S UP TO THEM.
>> CONTINGENT UPON NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT.
I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER TODD FECHT HAS JOINED US. THANK YOU.
>> I'D JUST LIKE TO PUT THIS ONE TO [OVERLAPPING], THE ELEVATED WATER TOWER JUST PUT WATER UTILITY UNDER DEPARTMENT.
WE CAN DO THAT THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT, I GUESS, ON THAT ISSUE.
>> I BELIEVE UNDER PROJECT SCOPE, THE LAST SENTENCE, PERFORM A STUDY TO DETERMINE.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, WE'VE HAD TWO OR THREE STUDIES DONE TO DETERMINE THAT MR. BIRKHOFF IS ALWAYS DOING THAT TO LET US KNOW EXACTLY WHEN OR GIVES US AN UPDATE.
I WOULD SAY IS TO UPDATE THE STUDY BECAUSE BACK TO 2012, HE HAS BEEN TELLING US ABOUT THIS AND WHEN WE NEEDS.
>> MAYBE WE JUST ELIMINATE THAT SENTENCE.
THE PROJECT IS TO CONSTRUCT THE SECONDARY WATER TOWER.
WE'LL DO IT WHEN IT'S NECESSARY.
>> THAT'S THE HIGH POINT OVER THERE.
THERE'S EVERYTHING'S I RAN TO IT, SO IT'S JUST AVAILABILITY AND WHEN NEEDS TO GO IN.
>> UNDER BACKGROUND, THERE'S AN EXTRA T AFTER 33.
[BACKGROUND] I'M MOVING TO PAGE 23, UNLESS SOMEONE HAS ANYTHING ON 22.
ON THE CHART, DO WE NEED TO SHOW WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DOING THESE THINGS? WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR UPDATING OR CAN WE JUST LEAVE IT? THIS IS MY QUESTION.
>> I WOULD RECOMMEND LEAVING IT WITHOUT WHO EXACTLY HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT.
IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING ON IT, BUT TO BE THAT SPECIFIC IN THIS REPORT, I DON'T THINK ADDS MUCH TO IT.
IDEALLY, I'D LOVE TO EVENTUALLY SEE LINKS TO ALL OF THE ACTUAL REPORTS SO PEOPLE CAN SEE THE REPORT AND THEN THEY'LL BE HAPPY.
>> I JUST DON'T WANT ANY CONFUSION LATER ON DOWN THE LINE OVER WHO AND I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO DO IT.
>> WE'LL JUST LOOK AT LUKE. [LAUGHTER].
>> I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT A CATEGORY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WHAT THAT EXACTLY MEANS.
>> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
>> COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT'S JUST ALL-ENCOMPASSING TERMINOLOGY NOW FOR PLANNING AND BUILDING IS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK ON THE WEBSITE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE
[01:30:02]
TOWARDS IS MORE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHERE IT'S PLANNING, PERMITS, AND DEVELOPMENT-WISE.>> SO THAT WOULD BE EXPLAINED ON THE WEBSITE WHAT THAT MEANS?
>> IT'S GOING TO HAVE BOXES BELOW COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL HAVE EACH ONE OF THOSE AREAS.
>> BUT WOULD IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO CALL IT CITY VISION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT OR CITIES [OVERLAPPING]?
>> TYPICALLY, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT HANDLES THE COMPREHENSIVE.
THAT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT PLAN REVIEWS.
THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT FALLS IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL THOSE ITEMS, SO IT WOULD BE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT MIGHT BE WHAT IT IS, BUT I WOULDN'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS.
YOU MIGHT KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS BECAUSE NOW MAYBE THE CITIES ARE USING THAT TERM OR SOMETHING [OVERLAPPING] OF THAT NATURE.
IF I LOOK AT IT HERE, I WOULD SAY WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT?
>> IT'S ABOUT 2000S WHEN PLANNING AND ZONING OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, EVERYTHING, MAYBE EVEN A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THAT, WENT TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S JUST A NEW TERMINOLOGY THAT STARTED BACK IN THE LATE 90S, EARLY 2000S, SO JUST TO IDENTIFY THAT AREA A LITTLE BIT EASIER.
>> WHY DON'T WE PUT IN PARENTHESES JUST CITY VISION BEHIND THAT SO PEOPLE CAN CONNECT TO THE CURRENT LANGUAGE TO WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS TRYING TO GET AT? THIS IS THE VISION OF THE CITY, BUT I THINK IT'S THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF OUR COMMUNITY.
I DO THINK THE TERMINOLOGY IS IMPORTANT TO GET TO USE.
>> UNDER FINANCING THE CIP FUNDED THROUGH THE GENERAL FUND REVENUES, PROPRIETARY FUND, AND OTHER RESOURCES BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT IT LABELED DOWN HERE BUT NOT UP HERE.
I WOULD SUGGEST UNDER LOCAL SALES TAX, IT SAYS THESE REVENUES ARE DIRECTLY REPORTED, I WOULD PUT APPLIED.
THEY'RE MORE THAN JUST REPORTED.
>> IT SHOULD BE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND, NOT THE STREET.
>> IT'S DIRECTLY ASSIGNED TO THE STREET MAINTENANCE FUND.
>> STREET MAINTENANCE, THAT'S WHERE WE CAN USE THOSE.
>> ONE OF THE TOUGH PIECES ABOUT SAYING STREET MAINTENANCE THERE IS WE IDENTIFY STREET MAINTENANCE AS THE REPAIRS THAT ARE BEING DONE ON A STREET ANNUALLY VERSUS SOME OF THE STREET REPAIRS THAT WE'RE DOING THAT INCLUDES AN OVERLAY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CAN BE USED OR THESE FUNDS CAN ALSO BE USED FOR THAT.
>> CORRECT. IT'S MAINTENANCE OF THOSE-
>> WHEN THE VOTE TOOK PLACE, IT WAS THE STREETS THAT THE CITY HAD PARKER ON ITS BOOKS AT THAT TIME.
I THINK IT'S EVERY FOUR OR FIVE YEARS IN HERE, YOU HAVE TO RE-UP THAT TIMES.
SO THEN THAT ENCOMPASSES THOSE NEW STREETS THAT CAME UNDER THAT SAME TIME PERIOD, SO THAT'S WHY THEY MAYBE PICKED THAT.
>> ON PAGE 24, UNDER THE BONDS, I WOULD ADD A WORD, DEBT INSTRUMENTS AUTHORIZED BY A POSITIVE VOTE AMONG REGISTERED VOTERS.
IF THEY VOTE AGAINST IT, IT'S NOT GOING TO FUND ANYTHING.
I WOULD PUT A POSITIVE IN VOTE COS AND GOS JUST TO BE CLEAR.
[01:35:03]
BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT SOMEONE TO THINK THAT IF THEY VOTED IT DOWN, WE'RE STILL GOING TO GO FORWARD.THEY CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THE SPECIFIED PURPOSE WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TRANSFERS RIGHT NOW?
BECAUSE IF WE'VE AUTHORIZED IT IN THE BUDGET, THAT'S ONE COUNCIL APPROVAL BECAUSE THE COUNCIL APPROVES THE BUDGET.
IF WE BRING IT BACK, THAT'S A SUBSEQUENT COUNCIL APPROVAL.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT NEEDS TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AGAIN.
>> RIGHT. DO YOU THINK THE WORDING IS NOT SUFFICIENT HERE?
>> I WOULD JUST PUT WITHOUT SUBSEQUENT TO INDICATE THAT IT HAS TO COME BACK.
IT'S NOT THE FIRST TIME IT COMES BACK.
ON UTILITY FUND, I WOULD TAKE OUT THE WORD SUPPORTED IN THE FIRST SENTENCE.
THIS FUND WAS FROM, YOU DON'T NEED THE WORD SUPPORTED.
NEXT, A SENTENCE DOWN IS FUTURE ADDITIONS TO THIS FUND MAY COME.
UNDER THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT, I'D PUT THE FIRST PARAGRAPH AND THE SECOND PARAGRAPH TOGETHER.
I DON'T THINK YOU NEED A SEPARATION BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
>> I'LL JUST PULL THAT SEPTEMBER UP THERE RIGHT UNDERNEATH THAT.
>> RIGHT. THEN UNDER COUNTY FUNDS, THE CITY HAS AN AGREEMENT TO RECEIVE FUNDS.
I HOPE IT'S MORE THAN JUST A COMMITMENT.
>> UNDER COUNTY FUNDS, THE CITY HAS AN AGREEMENT.
WELL, THEY CAN MAKE A COMMITMENT, BUT THEY MAY NOT FOLLOW THROUGH ON IT.
>> I THINK COUNCIL APPROVED, PRETTY SURE, A RESOLUTION WITH THE COUNTY ON THAT ONE.
THE CAPITAL PLAN IS A MEANS AND PROGRAM, I DON'T THINK IS NECESSARY.
IT SAYS, ARE BEST ACCOMPLISHED, THAT'S A JUDGMENT.
WHO MADE THAT JUDGMENT? ARE WE IN AGREEMENT ON?
>> YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE WORDING?
>> MAYBE WE CONSIDER TAKING THAT PARAGRAPH OUT.
>> MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH.
>> OR MAY BE MORE PROMPTLY ACCOMPLISHED BECAUSE REALLY, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS IF YOU'RE GOING FOR A LONG-TERM DEBT, YOU WANT THE MONEY TO BE ABLE TO DO IT SOONER, SO YOU MIGHT SAY-
>> YEAH. WELL, I WAS GOING TO SAY, JUST MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED, BUT MORE PROMPTLY.
>> MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED THROUGH.
>> THE NEXT PARAGRAPH HAS THE CAPITAL PLAN AND PROGRAM.
I DON'T THINK YOU NEED AND PROGRAM.
RIGHT HERE. ON THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, THE SENTENCE THAT STARTS WITH, WE BELIEVE.
WHO IS WE? I'M GOING TO GIVE GRIEF EVERY TIME WE SHOWS UP.
>> YEAH. SOMETHING LIKE, IT IS A BEST PRACTICE.
>> IT'S A BEST PRACTICE IS SOME KIND OF INDUSTRY, IS AN INDUSTRY GUIDELINE REALLY.
>> WELL, AS A RESIDENT I WOULD BE CURIOUS WHO'S WE?
>> I DON'T KNOW OF A GOOD WORD, BUT THE CIP TEAM.
[01:40:01]
>> DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT PUBLICATION HAD THAT GUIDELINE.
I KNOW WE READ IT IN A PUBLICATION OF SOME SORT.
>> ACTUALLY, WE WERE PLAYING WITH THIS TERMINOLOGY EARLIER TODAY AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY ANSWER THEN EITHER.
>> IS IT BASICALLY SAYING THAT A HEALTHY CITY BUDGET.
>> A HEALTHY CITY BUDGET WOULD BE DEFINED HAVING AN ANNUAL SERVICE DEBT THAT SHOULD RANGE.
>> I THINK THE GFOA [INAUDIBLE].
>> LAST SENTENCE ON THE PAGE, ANOTHER CONSIDERATION TO BE MADE WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING DEBT.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY,.
>> HOW ABOUT ANOTHER FACTOR WHEN CONSIDERING ADDING DEBT.
>> IT GETS ALL THAT CONSIDERING STUFF OUT OF THERE.
JUST ANOTHER FACTOR WHEN CONSIDERING.
>> THAT'S TOO MANY CONSIDERATIONS IN ONE.
ON PAGE 27, PROJECTED CASH NEEDS.
I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT SALES TAX BECAUSE GRANT TOLD ME THAT'S FALLING LIKE A ROCK AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL BE.
WE DON'T KNOW, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PUT IT IN THERE WITH.
>> I THINK YOU COULD LEAVE IT THERE AND ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST THAT BASED ON WHAT YOU HAVE.
>> I ABSOLUTELY AGREE. THAT'S THE BEST DATA THAT WE HAVE FOR NOW WHERE IT'S LUKE TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THE STOCKS ARE GOING TO BE NEXT YEAR. YOU DON'T KNOW.
>> SHOULD WE ADD A FOOTNOTE THERE?
>> LIKE AN ASTERISK, WOULD LIKE IT MORE.
>> I THINK THAT'D PROBABLY BE THE BEST, THE ASTERISK.
JUST JUST SAY THAT VALUES ARE BASED ON THE LATEST ANNUAL AVERAGE OR SOMETHING.
>> DOES THIS INCLUDE WHAT WE HAVE IN RESERVES?
>> THIS SCHEDULE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AT THE CIP FUND ACTIVITY, YOU SEE IT HAS BEGINNING CIP FUNDS.
THAT'S WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN THE RESERVE FUND FOR ALL OF THOSE CIP FUNDS.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN ALL OF THE RESERVES OR JUST FOR THE CIP?
>> JUST THE SPECIFIC CIP FUND.
>> WHAT ARE OTHER RECEIPTS? I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT OTHER RECEIPTS ARE.
>> GRANT HAS THOSE. YOU NOTICE THEY'RE JUST IN THE CURRENT YEAR AND THEY'RE NOT COMING FORWARD.
THERE WERE A COUPLE OF SPECIFIC ITEMS THAT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING TO GET SOME REVENUES BACK WHEN THEY SELL CERTAIN OF THE ITEMS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRADE OR WHATEVER.
>> SELL A FIRE TRUCK OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT?
>> WE DIDN'T PROJECT THAT INTO THE FUTURE.
WE DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS ONGOING.
>> IT COULD BE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD NEWS THING.
>> RECAP OF ASSUMPTIONS. WHAT ASSUMPTIONS?
>> THEY ARE LISTED ON APPENDIX B.
>> WELL, THAT'S HOW I READ IT, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT.
>> YES, AND THEY ARE ON APPENDIX B.
>> OUR RECOMMENDATION WAS TO HAVE STAFF AND YOURSELF, AND GRANT AND GARY REVIEW THESE TO SEE IF YOU WOULD LIKE SPECIFIC CHANGES AND ASSESS THEM IN TERMS OF HOW THEY ALIGN TO THE BUDGET CYCLE, IF THAT WAS THE ACCEPTABLE.
[01:45:01]
>> I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING.
>> I GUESS THAT WENT OVER MY HEAD.
>> I DON'T MIND. I'M LOOKING AT TIME.
OBVIOUSLY, WE CAN'T DO THAT ONE MINUTE.
>> COULD LUKE PROPOSE ANY EDITS AND JUST SEND IT TO ALL OF COUNSEL AND WE WOULD JUST RECEIVE ONE WAY COMMUNICATION ON.
>> YOURSELF, THE MAYOR, MYSELF, AND GRANT WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO SIT DOWN AND GO OVER THAT AND THEN WE CAN MAKE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> THAT'S FINE WITH ME. WE CAN DO THAT AND THEN ATTACH THEM TO THE FINAL.
>> OTHER THING IS IN ONE OF THE APPENDIX.
PROJECTED GROWTH, IT'S ALL ZERO.
THIS IS SHOWING, IF THE CITY STAYS AS IT IS AND WE DON'T HAVE MORE PROPERTIES COMING IN, THE HOME VALUES STAY THE SAME OR WE ADJUST THE TAX RATES TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.
>> I THINK THAT'S REALLY CONSERVATIVE HOW THAT'S BEING HANDLED BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET'S GOING TO DICTATE YEAR OVER YEAR.
WE COULD HAVE A RECESSION STARTING TOMORROW AND THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT NEXT YEAR'S HOME PRICES.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO HANDLE THAT.
THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT RELYING ON FUTURE MONIES.
>> REALLY THE ONLY THING IN HERE IS THAT WE'RE ADJUSTING EXPENSES FOR INFLATION BECAUSE WHETHER WE HAVE NEW PROPERTIES OR NOT, INFLATION IS GOING TO COME AND IT'S GOING TO HIT OUR EXPENSES AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
THE OTHER THING IS, WE INCLUDED OTHER REVENUES.
THERE'S NOT A LOT OF OTHER REVENUES, BUT THE OTHER REVENUES THAT ARE NOT COMING FROM THE TAXPAYER.
IT MAKES SENSE THAT OUR NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE STARTS DECREASING AFTER THE FIRST YEAR BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GETTING MORE FUNDS.
>> AT THIS TIME, BECAUSE WE ARE PAST SIX O'CLOCK I MUST ADJOURN THIS MEETING.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.