Aug 26, 2025 City Council Regular Meeting

>> THANK YOU FOR LOOKING OUTSIDE THE BOX TO SAVE US MONEY AND GET THE RESULTS THAT WE NEED.

>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.

>> CAN WE GET CLARITY ON MAYBE NOT TODAY, BUT IN A FUTURE MEETING, CAN WE GET CLARITY, ON WHAT THE ACTUAL PERCENTAGES ARE AND A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY WHEN WE TRIGGERED THE 75% RULE.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN DO THAT TODAY, OR WHERE ARE WE TRULY AT ON THOSE MILLION GALLONS PER DAY AT EACH LOCATION BECAUSE I KNOW ONCE WE HIT THE 75% RULE WITH THE TCEQ, THAT STARTS THAT.

WHERE ARE WE AT IN TERMS OF CAPACITY, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO APPROACH THE 90% RULE AND THEN THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE SOME OF THESE CONCERNS.

ARE WE THERE, ARE WE NOT THERE AND WHERE DO WE SEE THAT DATA?

>> IF IT'S OKAY WITH YOU AND THE REST OF COUNSEL, I'D LIKE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO OUR NEXT PRESENTATION.

WE DIDN'T REALLY PREPARE TO DO THAT FOR THIS ONE, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE THAT IN OUR NEXT PRESENTATION TO YOU.

>> TO ME, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL.

BUT JUST TO GIVE US CLARITY AND WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING, SO WE HAVE THAT DATA AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.

[00:40:04]

>> ABSOLUTELY. WE CAN DO THAT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COUNSEL?

>> I'VE GOT A FEW HERE.

CAN WE GO BACK TO WHERE THE CONCEPT CAME FROM FOR MAYBE ONE AND REROUTE, THE RIVER ROAD TREATMENT PLAN INTO A LIFT STATION?

>> JUST WHERE ALL THAT CONCEPT CAME FROM?

>> YES, SIR. WHERE WAS THAT DRIVEN FROM? WHY WAS THAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS? WHAT WERE THE POTENTIAL BENEFITS YOU GUYS WERE LOOKING AT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE CONSOLIDATION WOULD BE THE TYPICAL WAY FORWARD FOR THE ENGINEERING FIRM?

>> THAT WAS REALLY THE REASON WE WENT BACK AND STARTED LOOKING AT IT AGAIN.

I THINK FLOYD MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER A LITTLE BIT THAT BETTER THAN I CAN.

WE CAME ON BOARD LATE IN THE PROJECT, BUT I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A SEVERAL MEETINGS WHERE ALL OF THE OPTIONS WERE LAID OUT ON THE TABLE.

AGAIN, KEEP IN MIND, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT, AND FLOYD, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG IS THAT DURING THE PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, EVERY OPTION IS THROWN ON THE TABLE.

THOSE ARE ALL DISCUSSED IN A BIG MEETING, AND THERE WAS SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THEY FELT LIKE THE DIRECTION TO GO WITH A SINGLE PLANT WAS PROBABLY THE BEST ROUTE TO TAKE.

I CAN'T REALLY GO INTO THE REASONING BEHIND THAT, BUT MAYBE FLOYD CAN.

>> YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNSEL.

I'LL ADD ON TO WHAT DONNIE PUT INTO THAT.

WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS ORIGINALLY, WE HAD STARTED DOWN THE PATH OF THE HOLLYWOOD ROAD AND THEN THE RIVER ROAD LATER.

BUT AS YOU IDENTIFIED THOSE ROAD BLOCKS WITH RIVER ROAD, LANDLOCKED, OTHER ISSUES, ESPECIALLY WITH FUNDING A WASTEWATER PLANT NOW, AND THEN FIVE YEARS LATER, THAT WAS WHERE THAT CONCEPT EVOLVED FROM IS, IS IT REALLY SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS BUILD A PLANT, FIVE YEARS LATER, EXPAND ANOTHER PLANT WITH THIS COST, OR IS IT FEASIBLE TO DO ONE PLANT AND CHANGE HOW YOU FUNCTION WITH YOUR SYSTEM? THOSE CONCEPTS.

IT WAS AT THE TIME EVALUATING EVERY OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU'D HAVE WITHIN IT, AND BUILDING ONE PLANT AT A TIME DID HAVE SOME BENEFITS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS IF YOU WERE GOING TO BE IN CONSTRUCTION OF BOTH PLANTS AT THE SAME TIME.

OUT OF THAT CAME THE EVALUATION OF THE RIVER ROAD PLAN, THE DETAILED SUMMARY.

YOU HEARD EARLIER THAT SOME PROJECTS WERE DELAYED AT RIVER ROAD BECAUSE FIRST OFF, THEY WERE UNDER SCOPED, BUT THIS DETAILED EVALUATION OF THE ENTIRE PLANT WAS WHAT WAS NECESSARY TO KNOW WHERE YOU WERE AT AT RIVER ROAD.

EVERYTHING WAS UP IN THE AIR A LITTLE BIT UNKNOWN WITH RIVER ROAD.

WE HAD MORE KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT THE CHALLENGES WERE AT HOLLYWOOD ROAD, BUT WE HAD TO GET THIS EVALUATION, AND THAT'S WHAT EVOLVED INTO THE EVALUATION SO THAT WE GOT ONTO THE RIGHT SPOT.

DOES THAT HELP ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> ONE OTHER PIECE TO THAT IS WE WERE GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF 25 YEARS WORTH OF GROWTH.

THAT WAS DISCUSSED HEAVILY IN THOSE MEETINGS, SO THE DIRECTION THAT THE CONSULTANT WAS GIVEN WAS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO LOOK AT, THAT BIGGER PICTURE.

I THINK WHERE WE MADE THE PIVOT THE MOST WAS, "WELL, LET'S SCALE THAT BACK." I THINK WE'RE STILL GOING TO LAND AT THE SAME SPOT IN 25 YEARS. I DO.

I THINK YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING AND MAYBE NOT WITH A CENTRALIZED PLANT, BUT WITH WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO AS FAR AS EXPENDITURES, UPGRADES, IF WE CONTINUE TO GROW, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD ANOTHER MODULE INTO THAT PLANT.

PRETTY SOON, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A LARGER PLANT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, IF WE CONTINUE TO GROW.

THERE WAS A LOT OF IFS IN THERE.

THAT WAS WHAT CHALLENGED ME A LITTLE BIT, WAS THAT, WELL, I THINK WE CAN REALLY HONE IN ON 10-15 YEARS A LOT EASIER LOOKING AT GROWTH PROJECTIONS THAN WE CAN AT 25.

THAT'S WHERE THAT CAME FROM.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY DID ANYTHING WRONG IN THOSE MOVES.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING, IS LOOKING AT IT DEEPER, DIGGING INTO IT DEEPER, REVISITING EVERYTHING, TALKING ABOUT IT AGAIN SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THIS RIGHT.

>> WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE APPRECIATE IS THE WILLINGNESS TO PIVOT, AND THEN GO BACK.

LET'S LOOK AT THAT ORIGINAL CONCEPT.

MAYBE WE NEED TO LOOK AT OTHER IDEAS AND AVENUES FORWARD.

IT DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE LIKE, A PRETTY HEAVY WEIGHING BENEFIT THERE OTHER THAN YOU HAD SOME LANDLOCK ISSUES, AND MAYBE IF YOU WERE TRYING TO STRETCH 25-50 YEARS OF POTENTIAL, YOU NEED ONE BIG MASSIVE INDUSTRIAL PLANT.

>> THAT'S CORRECT.

>> DO YOU KNOW THE CURRENT CAPACITY ON HOLLYWOOD AND RIVER ROAD AVERAGE?

>> THE AVERAGES, I DON'T KNOW. DO YOU KNOW, FLOYD?

>> WELL TO ME, THAT'S TWO QUESTIONS.

THE CAPACITY IS 16 AND 12.

THE PERMITTED CAPACITY. BACK TO HIS QUESTION, WHAT ACTUALLY IS COMING IN THE PLANT EVERY DAY, I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME.

>> WE'LL GET THOSE FOR THAT NEXT PRESENTATION.

I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WERE GOING BACK TO MR. PRESCOTT'S QUESTION, TOO.

>> I THINK I HAD HEARD IT BACKWARDS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES AT 16 AT HOLLYWOOD AND 12 AT RIVER ROAD.

[00:45:02]

RIVER ROAD IS ACTUALLY THE LARGER PLANT, BUT IT RUNS LESS.

>> THERE'S SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS THAT GO INTO THAT.

WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT FLOW OF THESE PLANTS, YOU REALLY START THINKING ABOUT WHAT WE CAN TREAT, TO A CERTAIN AND I'M GOING TO STRUGGLE WITH THE WORDS OF THIS, BUT BASED ON SOME OF THE CONTRACTS THAT WE HAVE, WHICH ARE PRETTY STRINGENT AND THE EFFLUENT WATER THAT WE SEND TO EXCEL ENERGY HAS TO HAVE CERTAIN TREATMENT METHODS DONE TO THAT CERTAIN PRODUCT THAT COMES TO THEM.

BECAUSE OF THAT, IT DOES KNOCK THAT CAPACITY DOWN TO WHAT YOU'RE TREATING BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU'RE HAVING TO DO.

IT'S VERY COMPLEX, AND WE HAVE TO HAVE AN ENGINEER EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU ON HOW THAT WORKS.

>> I THINK THAT'S GOOD IF WE CAN GET THAT FEEDBACK.

I KNOW IT'S COUNSELMAN PRESCOTT'S REQUEST, AND CAN YOU ALSO BRING THE AFFLUENT POTENTIALS BACK? I THINK WHAT WE'D LIKE TO KNOW IS, DO WE PRODUCE FOUR MGD ON AVERAGE OF A FLUENT, BUT WE COULD PRODUCE EIGHT OR WHATEVER? WE'RE UNFAMILIAR, UNEDUCATED IN THE PROCESS OF REFINING THAT, AND WHAT ACTUALLY COMES OUT? YOU MAY PUT 12 IN, BUT DO YOU GET TWO OUT.

>> I WOULD LOVE TO ADD THAT TO THE PRESENTATION AS WELL.

>> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE REALLY HELPFUL.

ANY BIOFUEL VALUES AVAILABLE.

AT ONE POINT, WE WERE GETTING HIT UP ON EVERY COMPANY ACROSS THE NATION THAT WANTED TO COME IN, HAVE US OFFLOAD OUR WATER IN FRONT OF OUR PLANT.

LET THEM EXTRACT THE BIOFUELS OUT, PUT IT BACK IN LINE, AND THEN WE TREAT IT.

IT ALWAYS CAME WITH A HOOK THAT NEVER MATERIALIZED.

THEY COULD NEVER PRODUCE A PLAN, THEY COULD NEVER PRODUCE AN ESTIMATE.

BUT IF YOU HAD ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IS THERE ANYTHING WE COULD LOOK AT FOR THE VALUE OF THOSE BIOFUELS THAT WOULD INCREASE OUR AFFLUENT CAPACITY, MAYBE EVEN INCREASE OUR CAPACITY LONG TERM SO YOU MAY ONLY BE DESIGNING TO 10 YEARS, BUT WITH THAT PIECE IN THERE, WOULD IT STRETCH IT TO A 15-20 YEAR CAPACITY?

>> THAT WAS ALL PRE ME.

I'M GOING TO LET FLOYD ANSWER THAT ONE AS WELL.

>> MAYOR, THAT HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD OF ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT COMBINING THE PLANT.

WHEN YOU LOOKED AT THE ABILITY TO PRODUCE BIOFUELS AND THESE OTHER ALTERNATIVES AT A WASTEWATER PLANT, THERE'S A CAPACITY REQUIREMENT TO GET THERE.

BUILDING A 16 MILLION GALLON PLANT REALLY DOESN'T MAKE THAT ECONOMICALLY FEASIBLE FROM WHAT WE SAW ON THE DATA FROM SOME ENGINEERING FIRMS THAT YOU COULD BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THOSE ALTERNATIVE PRODUCTS.

BUT YOU GET TO 24-30 MILLION GALLON PLANT, AND THOSE COME INTO PLAY AND ARE SUCCESSFUL.

WHEN YOU LOOKED ACROSS THE NATION, WE LOOKED AT PLANTS, 30 MGD PLANTS CAN PRODUCE BIO FUELS SUCCESSFULLY, 12 MILLION GALLON PLANTS CAN.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE FACTORS THAT LOOKED AT THE COMBINED PLANT.

>> I THINK WHEN WE GET THOSE NUMBERS BACK, WE'LL KNOW BETTER.

DO WE HAVE 30 MGDS OF POTENTIAL FUEL THERE? ARE WE RUNNING LESS THAN THAT AND WE REALLY HAVE MORE TIME IN FRONT OF US BEFORE WE GET THERE? SURE. GO AHEAD.

>> WHEN WE LOOK AT THE SETTING UP LONG TERM CONTRACTS RIGHT NOW WITH FIRME FOR WASTEWATER, EXCEL.

ARE WE LOOKING AT PRICE RECOVERY ON THE COST OF THIS AT SAY $0.40 OR $0.60 PER 1,000 GALLONS, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

HAVE WE STARTED THAT IN OUR IN OUR COST?

>> WE ARE NOT SETTING UP WE HAVE NOT SET UP ANY EFFLUENT CONTRACTS WITH FIRME AT ALL, OR EVEN HAD DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THAT.

>> CAN WE DO THAT?

>> THAT WOULD BE UP TO FIRME, I BELIEVE.

>> ANY USER THIS WATER GETTING I MEAN, TO HELP US FACILITATE THIS BUILDOUT.

I MEAN, THERE'S A VIABLE I THINK COMMODITY THERE.

>>I THINK OUR APPROACH ON THAT WAS, EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE NOW IS ACCOUNTED FOR.

WITH WHAT GOES TO TANGLEWOOD, WHAT GOES TO EXCEL.

BUT WE KNOW IF WE SEE GROWTH FROM THIS, THERE COULD BE A POTENTIAL IN THE FUTURE, FOR SOME OTHER EFFLUENT TO BE SOLD IN THE CONTRACT TO SOME A COMPANY LIKE THAT THAT'S BUILDING A LARGE FACILITY.

I KNOW THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN IT, BUT WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF THAT.

WE JUST DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO OFFER THEM AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

>> I THINK WE'D BE OPEN TO THE DISCUSSION, THOUGH.

>> COUNSELMAN PRESCOTT, I'D LIKE SOME FEEDBACK ON YOUR END.

HERE'S ONE THING THAT I THINK COULD BE A GOOD IDEA.

>> THIS WILL BE THE LARGEST PROJECT WE'VE TAKEN ON, HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

IT SURE SEEMS LIKE A SUBCOMMITTEE MIGHT BE OF VALUE IN TO THE COMMUNITY, COMMUNICATING BACK AND FORTH TO THE COUNCIL.

WHAT I THINK I HEAR YOU SAYING IS YOU WANT TO ENGAGE WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS INDEPENDENTLY.

YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING A LOT OF FORWARD-FACING UPDATES HERE AT COUNCIL.

[00:50:05]

I THINK THAT'S GOOD. HOWEVER, I CAN'T HELP BUT THINK WE MIGHT HAVE A PRETTY GOOD ASSET IN COUNSELMAN PRESCOTT WITH WHAT HE DOES FOR A LIVING VERY WELL.

HE PROBABLY HAS AN INTEREST, I THINK IN THIS WHEN YOU FACTOR IN THE OTHER COMPONENTS FOR LONGEVITY OF THE CITY AND EVERYTHING.

IF WE WERE TO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER ON A COMMITTEE, WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE? THEN HERE'S THE OTHER THING, I LIKE KIMLY HOANG FINE, BUT I ALSO LIKE THE FACT THAT ENGINEERS ARE A LITTLE BIT PREDICTABLE.

THEY USUALLY ASK A FEW GOOD QUESTIONS, AND THEN THEY JUST TAKE OFF AND DESIGN IT, AND THEN THEY COME BACK WHEN IT'S 90% DONE.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO STOP THEM AT 30.

BUT THE PIVOT HERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW GOOD STAFF IS DOING.

WHAT CAN WE DO TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH YOU SO THAT WE DON'T BECOME ANOTHER MEETING YOU NEED TO MAKE? WE'RE COLLABORATING ON THOSE AS THAT'S GOING, AND THOSE ADDITIONAL GOOD IDEAS ARE COMING FROM MAYBE A COUPLE GOOD COMMUNITY MEMBERS AS WELL AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WORKING WITH STAFF.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE FOR YOU, MR. HOOPER? WELL, THAT'S AN INTERESTING QUESTION.

I KNOW THAT WE'RE IN IT SO MUCH, AND THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING.

WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE APPROACHED TO IT, BUT I WOULD HAVE TO PITCH THAT OVER TO MR. PATH AND GET HIS THOUGHTS ON THAT ON HOW THAT WOULD BE FORMED AND HOW THAT WOULD ACTUALLY FUNCTION WITH THAT GROUP.

LIKE I SAID, WE ARE MEETING DAY IN AND DAY OUT ABOUT THIS PROJECT, AND THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT ASPECTS TO IT, BUT I THINK WE COULD FIGURE OUT A WAY TO MAKE THAT WORK. NO DOUBT ABOUT IT.

I'M NOT OFFERING YOUR TIME, AND IT WOULD BE AN INVESTMENT.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT IT OUT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HADN'T HEARD THAT.

MAYBE YOU WOULD JUST BE LOOKING AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, HOW CAN I GET INVOLVED? HOW CAN I STAY UPDATED? WE COULD FORMALIZE THAT IN A SUBCOMMITTEE THAT MAKES IT EASIER TO BRING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL JUST YOUR FIRST TAKE AT THAT.

I MEAN, LIKE, ABSOLUTELY NOT.

I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT WASTEWATER.

IT WAS ALL A POLITICAL PLOY TO GET UP HERE, I WOULD LOVE TO BE PART OF ANY, THAT'D BE GREAT.

WE'RE GOING TO FREEZE THAT ON THE RECORD.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE, TOO THAT REGARDLESS OF HOW THAT MOVES, I STILL THINK WE NEED TO GIVE THE PUBLIC FREQUENT UPDATES AND COMMUNICATION ON WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS PROJECT, BECAUSE IT IS HUGE.

WE HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION, AND WE HAVE THE DATA, AND I THINK THE MORE WE PASS IT ALONG, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE.

WHETHER THAT'S WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH MR. PRESCOTT OR HOWEVER, WE DETERMINED TO DO THAT, I THINK IT'S JUST IMPORTANT TO KEEP DOING IT.

WE AGREE TOTALLY, AND THOSE FREQUENT UPDATES ARE GOING TO BE EVEN MORE WELL-RECEIVED.

WHEN THEY'RE COMING FROM STAFF WITH STAFFS' EXPERTISE ON IT, THEY'RE BALANCED WITH COUNSEL'S INVOLVEMENT.

YES, THAT'S WHAT IT IS, I WOULD JUST SAY SOME OF THE DAY-TO-DAY STUFF.

I THINK WE WOULD BE GOOD TO BE ARM'S LENGTH ON.

I'M NOT OFFERING NECESSARILY MYSELF.

I THINK IT WOULD BE HARD TO HAVE MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS TOGETHER IN COORDINATE SCHEDULES.

I THINK IF WE JUST HAD ONE, AND I WOULD NOMINATE MR. PRESCOTT, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S RIGHT IN HIS WHEELHOUSE.

LET ME THROW THIS OUT THERE, TOO.

WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS PROJECT, AS FAR AS THE INVOLVEMENT IS CONCERNED WITH DIFFERENT STAKEHOLDERS.

IN OTHER WORDS, RIGHT NOW, WE'RE WORKING INTERNALLY.

WE'RE WORKING WITH OUR CONSULTANT, WE'RE WORKING CLOSELY WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL.

IT'S A PRETTY SMALL GROUP NOW, BUT WE KNOW EVENTUALLY THAT BOND COUNCIL IS GOING TO BE COMING TO THOSE MEETINGS.

WE KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING OTHER STAKEHOLDERS TO IT.

I THINK AT THAT POINT IN TIME WILL BE A GREAT TIME TO INSERT A COUNCIL MEMBER OR WHATEVER WE WANT TO THAT BIGGER GROUP THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE LARGER CONVERSATIONS, INCLUDING LIKE OUR GRANT, FOLKS, THERE'S GOING TO BE MUCH LARGER MEETINGS WITH MUCH LARGER STAKEHOLDERS IN AND IT'S NOT DOWN IN THE WEEDS RIGHT NOW WITH THE PLANNING PORTIONS OF IT.

I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT NOW, EITHER.

I THINK THAT'D BE A GOOD INSERTION POINT AS WELL.

NOTHING WE'VE GOT TO DECIDE ON TODAY.

I WANT TO GET TO COUNCILMAN SIMPSON'S QUESTIONS.

BUT THEN, JUST AS A LOOK BACK, I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD, COUNSELMAN PRESCOTT WOULD LOVE TO SEE WHERE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU FIT THE BEST IN THAT AS WE WALK IT OUT.

A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

CITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, MUNICIPALITIES ARE DOING WASTEWATER TREATMENT.

WHY IS IT SO COMPLICATED? I MEAN, WHAT MAKES IT WHERE IT'S LIKE EACH INDIVIDUAL CITY HAS TO NOT REINVENT THE WILL, BUT FIGURE IT OUT? WHAT MAKES THIS SO COMPLICATED? WELL, TREATING WASTE IS A COMPLICATED PROCESS.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP, AND I'LL ANSWER IT THIS WAY.

WE WERE I WAS AT A CONFERENCE RECENTLY.

I MET WITH SOME FOLKS FROM GEORGIA THAT JUST HAD A SIMILAR PROJECT TO OURS, TALKING TO THEM ABOUT THEIR PROCESSES, AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HE MENTIONED TO ME EXACTLY THAT.

[00:55:01]

HE SAID, IT'S SO COMPLICATED TO GET THESE DESIGNED.

IT LOOKS LIKE A BUNCH OF CONCRETE BOXES THAT ARE OUT THERE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME WATER FLOWING THROUGH IT.

BUT THE PROCESS THAT TAKES PLACE TO GET THE GOOD BUGS TO FIGHT THE BAD BUGS, TO GET THE RIGHT NUTRIENTS IN THE WATER, AND ALL THOSE PROCESSES THAT TAKE PLACE ARE WHAT MAKES IT THE MOST COMPLICATED.

IT'S THE SCIENCE BEHIND IT, I THINK, MORE THAN ANYTHING THAT MAKES IT COMPLICATED AND EXPENSIVE AND THE EQUIPMENT IS NOT CHEAP AS WELL.

THAT'S A VERY CORROSIVE ENVIRONMENT JUST AN EXPENSIVE PROCESS.

IT'S INTERESTING THAT MR. FISHER BROUGHT UP TEXAS STADIUM, BECAUSE I BROUGHT THAT UP JUST RECENTLY IN A MEETING THAT I WAS AT.

I SAY, IT'S CRAZY THAT YOU CAN BUILD A FACILITY LIKE THAT AT THAT PRICE TAG LIKE, I THINK IT WAS 1.2 BILLION OR SOMETHING WHEN THEY BUILT THAT.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.

THE ONE THAT WAS IN GEORGIA, I THINK IT WAS CLOSE TO 2 BILLION WHEN THEY FINISHED IT OR BILLION AND A HALF, 2 BILLION SOMEWHERE AROUND IN THERE AND THEY STARTED IN 2021.

MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS, I DON'T ANTICIPATE THESE ARE GOING TO GET ANY CHEAPER TO BUILD AS TIME GOES ON. THEY'RE NOT? I KNOW IT'S A HEFTY PRICE TAG, BUT WHY NOT INVEST NOW AT LOOKING AT EXPANDING IT TO BE ABLE TO LAST LONGER, RATHER THAN TO BUILD IT NOW AND THEN BUILD ANOTHER ONE, 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THAT'S DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THE COST.

WELL, THE WAY WE'RE LOOKING AT DESIGNING THIS IS BEING ABLE TO OPERATE THE TWO PLANTS, YOU MAKE REHAB, YOU REHAB WHAT YOU CAN, YOU BUILD NEW WHERE YOU CAN ON THOSE TO MAKE THEM OPERABLE, AND THEN YOU BUILD YOUR NEW FACILITY WHERE IT'S EXPANDABLE.

IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN YOU NEED TO ADD ANOTHER TRAIN, JUST LIKE WE DID WITH THE EXISTING WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO IS YOU'RE GOING TO EXPAND AND ADD ANOTHER TRAIN TO IT SO THAT YOUR CAPACITY GOES UP.

BUT WE NEED TO HAVE THE GREEN SPACE TO DO THAT ON, WHICH WE HAVE AT HOLLYWOOD, AND WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPAND IN THE FUTURE, JUST NOT PUTTING THE BURDEN RIGHT NOW ON THE TAXPAYERS TODAY.

I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT I MEAN, AS LONG AS WE FEEL LIKE IT'S NOT I MEAN, IF YOU BUY YOUR HVAC UNIT AND YOU MIGHT BUY THE CHEAPER ONE, BUT YOU PROBABLY WOULD HAVE GOT A LONGER LASTING BUYING THE MORE EXPENSIVE ONE.

BUT AT THAT TIME, YOU SAID, HERE'S WHAT I WANT TO PAY.

I MEAN, IS JUST AS LONG AS IT'S NOT PENNY-WISE AND POUND-FOOLISH? YES, WE'RE BUILDING IT, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT, WOULD BE A BIGGER UPFRONT INVESTMENT OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, IT MIGHT BE LESS OF INVESTMENT TO THE RATE PAYERS LONGER TERM.

UNDERSTOOD, AND I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION WE'RE GOING.

IF YOU'VE GOT THE SPACE, YOU CAN EXPAND THESE PLANTS.

I'LL JUST SAY THAT. IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO ADD, FLOYD, I KNOW YOU,.

I WAS GOING TO ADD TO THAT, YOU TOUCHED ON IT.

ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF THIS SHORTER TIME FRAME IS THAT YOU CAN BUILD IT EXPANDABLE IN THAT TIME FRAME AT A REDUCED COST OVER NEW CONSTRUCTION.

YOU ACTUALLY BUILD SOME OF THE COMPONENTS NOW THAT ARE GOING TO BENEFIT THAT EXPANSION.

SO IT'S NOT A COMPLETE NEW PLANT AT THAT EXPANSION POINT.

YEAH AND YOU'RE ALSO RE-PURPOSING SOME OF THE UNITS THAT YOU HAVE THERE LIKE A CLARIFIER AT OUR EXISTING PLANT MAY NOT BE A CLARIFIER WHEN WE GET DONE WITH THIS.

IT MAY BE ANOTHER PROCESS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO USE FOR SLOG REMOVAL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

WE'RE PUTTING A NEW PURPOSE TO IT, WE'RE NOT BUILDING BRAND NEW CONSTRUCTION FOR THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS MOVING FORWARD AS WELL.

WE WOULDN'T BE BUILDING A PLANT THAT ONLY LASTS 15 YEARS.

THE COMPONENTS WE BUILD NOW WILL LAST YEARS BEYOND THAT.

INSTEAD OF BUILDING COMPONENTS WE DON'T NEED TODAY, HAVE THEM SIT FOR THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS, WE'LL DO THAT 10-15 YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN THE GROWTH HAS NOW CAUGHT UP WITH US, NEED TO EXPAND.

YOU'LL STILL NEED WHAT YOU BUILD NOW 15 YEARS FROM NOW.

WE JUST NOW, AT THAT POINT, YOU'LL HAVE THE GROWTH TO JUSTIFY THE EXPANSION BEYOND THAT.

THAT'S A GREAT WAY TO ANSWER THAT.

WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT CAPACITY FOR THE NEXT 10-15 YEARS.

AND IS IT GENERALLY A 30-YEAR BOND ON THE DEBT? THIRTY OR 40.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO EVALUATE.

THERE'S NOT AS MUCH OF A MARKET FOR A 40-PLUS-YEAR BOND.

WE MAY BE LOOKING AT 30-35, BUT WE'LL JUST SEE WHAT THE MARKET WILL ALLOW AT THAT POINT.

WE'RE STILL PURSUING THAT.

WE HAVE BEEN GETTING SOME FAVORABLE RESULTS BACK FROM TWDB FOR LOW-INTEREST LOANS, AND SO THEY HAVE, I WANT TO SAY IT'S THE 30 YEARS ON THEIRS, IS THAT RIGHT, FLOYD? THERE'S GOING TO BE MULTIPLE FINANCING OPTIONS WE'RE LOOKING HERE.

SOME TWBD, SOME JUST LOCAL BONDS, A LITTLE BIT OF A SMIDGEN OF GRANT FUNDING FROM THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

THERE'S GOING TO BE DIFFERENT ASPECTS THAT MAY TIME OUT DIFFERENTLY IN THE LONG RUN.

WHEN DO WE ANTICIPATE GETTING TO THE RATE STUDY OR TALKING ABOUT RATES AND WHEN AND ALL THAT? WE JUST HAD A CONVERSATION WITH CONSULTING HERE ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO.

I INTRODUCED SOME TO THE NEW TEAM THAT WE'VE GOT LEADING THIS.

I'M TRYING TO RECALL, I THINK THEY'RE HOPING TO HAVE SOME INFORMATION BACK TO LATE THIS YEAR, IS THAT RIGHT? I THINK IT'S IN THE FALL, MAYBE OCTOBER, NOVEMBER IS THE TIME FRAME.

[01:00:01]

I THINK THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENT. I THINK CHRIS TOLD ME CHRIS ECKERT, HE'S NEW GEN.

I THINK HE TOLD ME A LITTLE BEHIND ON THAT.

BUT I THINK WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE EITHER FALL OR EARLY WINTER.

THANK YOU. ONE LAST PIECE OF DATA I'D LIKE TO HAVE BROUGHT WHEN YOU COME BACK IS WHAT IS OUR EXPECTED GROWTH? WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME LARGE, NOT FIRME, BUT WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME LARGE COMMITMENTS TO BELL AND OTHER PRODUCE THEIR OWN BEEF AND DIFFERENT THINGS LIKE THAT, WHAT DO THOSE MILLION-GALLON-A-DAY POTENTIAL INCREASES LOOK LIKE ON PUSHING US TO THE 90%? IT WOULD BE NEAT TO SEE SOME PREDICTIVE ANALYTICS, OR IT WOULD BE VERY VALUABLE.

I THINK FOR US TO UNDERSTAND AND THE CITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE ALWAYS WANT GOOD JOBS.

WE WANT LARGE PLANTS, WE WANT THINGS TO COME IN.

BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IS THAT ANOTHER MILLION GALLONS A DAY? IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PLANTS, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS, WE HAVE TO TELL THOSE GUYS TO GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

HOW DO WE NAVIGATE THAT? I THINK THAT DATA WOULD BE VERY IMPORTANT TO THE CITIZENS.

YES, SIR, AND WE HAVE THAT DATA, AND WE HAD THAT FOR THE PRESENTATION FOR THE 25-YEAR LOOK, AND WE CAN EASILY GO BACK AND BRING THAT IN THE NEXT PRESENTATION TO SHOW YOU WHAT THAT IMMEDIATE GROWTH LOOKS LIKE AS FAR AS CAPACITY CONCERNS? THANK YOU.

BEFORE WE MOVE ON, MR. FEINGOLD'S REQUEST FOR THE MC PANEL.

DO WE KNOW, WAS THAT TAKEN CARE OF? WE PUT THAT PROJECT ON HOLD FOR THIS ASSESSMENT AS WE GOT INTO THIS.

WE ACTUALLY PUT ON A HOLD BEFORE THIS ASSESSMENT.

WE BUDGETED THAT PROJECT.

WHEN WE WENT TO GET PROCUREMENT FOR AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, WE INVITED ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS OUT TO LOOK, AND WE HAD BUDGETED A COUPLE OF MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE PROJECT AND IT WAS UNDER-SCOPED.

THEY SAID WE COULDN'T DO THE SCOPE THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT.

WE HAD TO REPLACE THE ELECTRICITY ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE SOURCE THROUGH EX.

WE HAD THE SAME EXPERIENCE OUT AT THE NORTHEAST 24TH.

IT WAS OVER A $10 MILLION PROJECT.

WE GOT INTO THIS TIME FRAME OF LOOKING AT THE PLANT AND EVALUATING IT.

WE WANTED IT IN THIS EVALUATION TO KNOW WHICH PRIORITY WE WERE GOING TO DO OUT AT RIVER ROAD, DO IT CORRECTLY, INSTEAD OF PIECEMEAL, SOMETHING THAT WASN'T GOING TO BE USABLE.

IT'S IN THIS ASSESSMENT, I'LL COME OUT OF THAT ASSESSMENT, AND THE PROJECTS WILL BE IDENTIFIED.

THE ELECTRIC PANELS THAT WERE THERE ARE STILL THERE.

THEY'RE STILL OPERATING, THEY HAVE THE CHALLENGES THAT HE DESCRIBED.

HOWEVER, WE DIDN'T WANT TO PUT THAT MONEY INTO SOMETHING THAT WE WEREN'T GOING TO BE ABLE TO SALVAGE AND USE.

BASED OFF THE ELECTRICAL ENGINEER'S ADVICE, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONS.

STAFF TAKES EXTRA CARE OF THAT AND IS EXTRA GOOD.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE WON'T BE A FAILURE, BUT THAT'S A DECISION THAT WAS MADE UNTIL WE GET THIS FINAL ASSESSMENT.

JUST TO CLARIFY THE ASSESSMENT, JUST SO I UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT IT IS.

THEY HAVE ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS THAT ARE OUT ON THE GROUND.

WE HAVE MECHANICAL ENGINEERS, WE DID PROCESS, ELECTRICAL, MECHANICAL, STRUCTURAL, EVERYTHING HAS ITS OWN CATEGORY, AND I KNOW THAT I'VE ALREADY SEEN THE ELECTRICAL ASSESSMENT, TOO.

THOSE THINGS ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSED ACROSS THE ENTIRE PLAN.

ANY SAFETY ISSUES OR JUST A POTENTIAL FAILURE BECAUSE OF AGE? I WOULD SAY POTENTIAL FAILURE FOR AGE.

ANY SAFETY ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OUT THERE, WE ADDRESS THOSE AS WE COME ACROSS THEM.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY LIFE SAFETY ISSUES OR OSHA ISSUES.

WE JUST HAVE OLD EQUIPMENT THAT CAN FAIL BASED ON HIGH VOLTAGE USAGE, UNDERSIZED EQUIPMENT, PROBABLY.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S UNDERSIZED.

I DON'T THINK IT'S AGE.

I JUST THINK IT'S AGE.

WELL, I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR ON THAT.

COUNSEL, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS.

WE APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, WE'LL HAND IT OVER ON ITEM 8C,

[8.C. Northease Interceptor project update]

MOVE RIGHT INTO NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR, FLOYD.

THIS OUGHT TO MOVE PRETTY GOOD THROUGH HERE BECAUSE I THINK YOU'LL HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL DATA THAT RELATES.

SURE. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THE NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR, THE PROJECT WAS AWARDED IN LATE 2023 ON THIS MAP.

I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT IT'S THE GREEN LINE, A LITTLE OVER 13 MILES OF INTERCEPTOR LINE.

THE WORD INTERCEPTOR MEANS THAT IT'S RELIEVING THE LOAD ON AN EXISTING SYSTEM.

IF YOU'LL RECALL, THIS PROJECT WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE 2013 MASTER STUDY AS MOST OF THE EAST SIDE OF AMARILLO WAS OVERLOADED WITH WASTEWATER IN THE COLLECTION SYSTEM.

WE HAD ADDRESSED THE NORTHWEST WITH THE NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR ABOUT 8-10 YEARS AGO.

WE ADDRESSED THE SOUTHWEST, IF YOU'LL REMEMBER WITH THE LINE, THAT FINISHED OUT IN ABOUT 2014.

STEP AT A TIME, WE'VE BEEN ADDRESSING OUT OF THE 2013 MASTER STUDY THE OVERLOADING OF THE COLLECTION SYSTEM.

[01:05:01]

THIS IS THAT PROJECT.

SJ LOUIS IS THE CONTRACTOR, AGAIN, IT WAS A $70 MILLION PROJECT.

>> JUST LIKE OTHER PROJECTS, IT'S SUBJECT TO INFLATION BEFORE WE AWARDED.

WE DIDN'T AWARD, AND THEN IT GO UP.

WE AWARDED THIS AMOUNT, AND IT'S ON BUDGET AND ON TIME.

THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE IS 72 MILLION.

THE TOTAL WORK PERFORMED AS A JUNE 30TH.

THIS WAS THE LAST PAYOUT OF 70 MILLION.

96.57% OF THE WORK WAS DONE, AND THAT INCLUDES MATERIALS ON HAND.

REMAINING VALUE OUT OF THE ENTIRE 72 MILLION IS 2,000,004 AND A LITTLE.

THE CONTRACT TIME, ORIGINAL CONTRACT TIME WAS 607 DAYS.

THERE'S 540 DAYS USED REMAINING 67 DAYS, 88.95% OF THE TIME.

THEY'RE REALLY EFFICIENT WITH THEIR TIME.

UNDERSTANDING THAT THOSE DAYS ARE ADJUSTABLE IN THE CONTRACT FOR WEATHER.

IT'S REALLY AMAZING WITH THIS WET WEATHER THIS YEAR THAT THIS HAS STAYED THIS CLOSE AND THEM ON TRACK.

AS THEY FINISH OUT THE PROJECT, YOU'LL SEE ADJUSTMENTS TO THOSE DAYS RELATED TO CONTRACT ABILITY AND OR POSSIBLE CHANGE ORDERS RELATED TO WHATEVER THE MANAGEMENT TEAM THE PROJECT MANAGERS BRING FORWARD.

IN THIS PICTURE, YOU SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING AS THEY'RE FINISHING UP THE BACKFILL.

IF YOU ALL DROVE OUT THERE, YOU REMEMBER THERE WAS A BIG MOUNDS OF SOIL.

THEY'RE IN THE PROCESS.

THESE ARE SOME OF THE MORE RECENT PICTURES, NOT AS OF LAST WEEK, BUT RECENT PICTURES THAT ARE IN THE FILE.

YOU CAN SEE THE MANHOLES AS A BUILD BACK AND FILL BACK AND COMPACT THAT.

THAT'S WHAT THE PRIMARY WORK IS STILL GOING ON.

THERE'S SOME PIPELINE CONNECTION STILL BEING DONE, AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER TESTING THINGS.

BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING FROM THE PROJECT MANAGERS, THEY'RE STARTING TO LOOK OUT THERE AND IDENTIFY WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO TRANSITION THAT LIFT STATION ONTO THAT PIPELINE, WHICH WILL BE THE DATE THAT IT'S BENEFICIAL USE TO THE CITY.

THIS IS ON SCHEDULE.

THERE'S BEEN A STRONG COORDINATION WITH ALL STAKEHOLDERS.

IT'S A SIGNIFICANT PROJECT.

MINIMAL DELAYS DESPITE THE WEATHER CHALLENGES.

AGAIN, THE PROJECTS REALLY ON BUDGET AND ON TIME AT THIS POINT. QUESTIONS?

>> WHAT SIZE LINE IS IT, AGAIN?

>> WELL, IT RANGES IN VARIOUS SIZE.

>> IT'S 60, AND THEN DOWN TO 48.

THE LARGEST PORTION IS 60 AND THE SMALLER PORTION IS 48.

>> HOW MANY GALLONS A DAY WILL THAT LINE MOVE?

>> WELL, THAT'S BASED OFF THE ENGINEERING DESIGN.

A LINE OF ANY SIZE WITH MORE SLOPE WILL FLOW MORE.

BUT IT WILL TAKE THE CAPACITY.

IF YOU JUST DRAW A CIRCLE AROUND THAT GREEN LINE ABOUT 2-3 MILES OUT, THE ENGINEERS DESIGNED IT FOR THAT CAPACITY.

PLUS THE EXISTING CAPACITY.

HAS A SERVICE AREA, A BASIN, IF YOU WILL.

THEY DESIGNED THAT SLOPE AND SIZE BASED OFF THE CAPACITY, INCLUDING ALL OF THAT INDUSTRIAL PROJECTED GROWTH THAT WE ANTICIPATE.

THIS ONE WAS PROJECTED OUT OVER 50 YEARS FOR GROWTH IN INDUSTRY, BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT OUT IN THE INDUSTRY AREA.

THERE'S AN EXTRA CAPACITY IN THIS COMPARED TO WHAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY BUILD TO BECAUSE WE KNOW WE'RE SERVING AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.

THAT'S THE ECONOMIC GROWTH ENGINE THAT YOU'LL SEE IN THE FUTURE AVAILABLE WITH THAT PIPELINE.

>> I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT I CAN GET THOSE DESIGN NUMBERS TO YOU.

>> THAT'D BE BENEFICIAL. THANK YOU.

>> YES, SIR. I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD.

POTENTIALLY, IF YOU GOT 60 INCH LINE, 48 INCH LINE, LIKE, WE WERE DESIGNING TO, LIKE, MAYBE A 30 MGD WORTH OF TRANSFER, WE WOULD HAVE HAD SOME NUMBERS THAT WE PARAMETERED.

THE DIRECTION OF MY QUESTIONING IS, HOW MUCH OF THIS NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE GOT GOING ON IF YOU ARE TRYING TO MOVE WASTEWATER BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE TOWN.

>> IN THE PLANNING OF THE WASTEWATER PLANT, THIS PIPELINE DOES PROVIDE MORE CAPACITY TO THE RIVER ROAD PLANT THAN IT CURRENTLY HAS.

IT ANTICIPATES SOME INCREASED CAPACITY, WHETHER THAT WAS A LIFT STATION MOVING TO ANOTHER PLACE TO BE TREATED OR EXPANDING RIVER ROAD.

BUT THAT ALSO OPENS UP THAT GROWTH IN THE NORTH SIDE OF AMARILLO.

ONE OF THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES THAT WE'VE SEEN IS HOUSING IN THE NORTH AMARILLO AND THIS INDUSTRY GROWTH FOR GROWTH OF THE CITY ECONOMICALLY.

THOSE WERE FACTORS THAT WENT INTO THE SIZING OF THE PIPE.

[01:10:01]

YOU COMBINE THAT WITH THE SIZE OF THE NORTHWEST INTERCEPTOR, AND YES, IT EXCEEDS THE CAPACITY OF THE CURRENT PLAN.

BUT IN THE 2013 PLAN, IT ALSO IDENTIFIED THAT ONCE THESE WENT IN IN 2026 IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU WOULD START LOOKING AT THE TIMING OF THE EXPANSION OF THE RIVER ROAD PLAN.

THE WHOLE THING IS REALLY COORDINATED.

THEN IN THE FUTURE, WHEN YOU UPDATE THE PLANT, THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME NEED FOR ADDITIONAL CAPACITY AT SOMETIME IN THE FUTURE.

IT'S CYCLICAL. AS THE CITY GROWS, IT GOES BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN THE PLANT AND THE COLLECTION SYSTEM.

IF YOU JUST BUILT TO WHAT THE CAPACITY OF THE PLANT WAS, YOUR CITY WOULD BE LIMITED TO GROWTH.

>> I THINK I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER.

I WANTED TO SAY WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WOULD RELIEVE AN INCREASED CAPACITY OF ROUGHLY FIVE MGDS, JUST THE PIPE ITSELF.

I THOUGHT WE WERE LOOKING AT 16 MGDS OR WHATEVER THE CAPACITY WAS OUT THERE.

WE WERE FACTORING IN LIKE THIS NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOMEWHAT OF THAT 75% TRIGGER.

>> WELL, THE COMPONENT, THE PRISONS ON LIFT STATION 26 CURRENTLY PUMP ON A GRAVITY FLOW LINE, THEY PUMP UP THE LOOP TO THE WEST FROM THAT LIFT STATION AT THE PRISONS, AND THEY DISCHARGE THEIR GRAVITY FLOWS FROM THAT POINT TO HOLLYWOOD ROAD.

THAT WHOLE PIPELINE FROM THAT POINT OF DISCHARGE, ALL THE WAY TO THE NEW LIFT STATION 32 ON OSAGE IS OVERLOADED.

IT EXCEEDS CURRENT ENGINEERING CAPACITIES FOR THAT PIPELINE.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE MAJOR FACTORS FOR THIS PIPELINE NEEDING TO GO TIMELY, SUCH THAT YOU TAKE THAT MILLION GALLON, HALF A MILLION GALLONS A DAY FROM THE PRISONS.

IMMEDIATELY, IT GOES TO RIVER ROAD.

THAT SYSTEM NO LONGER IS OVERLOADED, BUT IT WILL ALSO GIVE YOU TIME BETWEEN THE 75% RULE AND THE 90% RULE AT HOLLYWOOD ROAD.

IT PUTS YOU CLOSER TO THE 75% RULE AT RIVER ROAD.

THOSE ARE ALL IN THE CONSIDERATIONS OF THIS EVALUATION AND DISCUSSION THAT'S GOING ON WITH THE PROJECT MANAGERS AT THIS POINT.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE REFERENCING IS THAT THERE WILL BE A LOAD REDUCTION FROM THE PRISONS TO HOLLYWOOD, IT WILL GO TO RIVER ROAD, AND THAT'LL GIVE YOU MORE TIME IN YOUR 90% ON HOLLYWOOD ROAD?

>> YES, SIR. I THOUGHT WE WERE RELIEVING SOME OF THE HOLLYWOOD ROAD MGDS BY NORTHEAST INTERCEPTOR TAKING THEM TO RIVER ROAD BECAUSE YOU HAD MORE CAPACITY RIVER ROADSIDE.

>> YES. THERE IS A COMPONENT OF THAT.

ONE OF THE FACTORS IN THE PIPELINE.

>> WHEN YOU BRING BACK THOSE RATINGS AND THAT DATA, I THINK IT'LL, PAINT A CLEAR PICTURE, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A MINUTE OR TWO SINCE WE WENT THROUGH IT.

COUNSEL, ANYTHING FURTHER FOR MR. HARTMAN.

>> FLORIDA IS ALWAYS, WE APPRECIATE YOU RECAP AND ALL THAT.

>> I GUESS MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION WOULD BE, WHEN DO YOU THINK WE WOULD HAVE THIS BACK ON FOR ANSWERING A FEW OF THESE QUESTIONS AND BRINGING BACK THAT DATA?

>> WE CAN DO IT AS SOON AS YOU WANT.

IT'LL TAKE ME PROBABLY AT LEAST LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT.

WE HAVE MAYBE THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.

>> IT'LL BE GREAT.

>> IF THAT'S APPROPRIATE. WE COULD DO THAT THEN.

>> MONTHS FROM NOW OR SO, GIVE YOU TIME.

>> I WOULD SAY, TOO, MEAN, I MIGHT WANT TO TIME IT AROUND, WE GET THAT ASSESSMENT BACK FROM RIVER ROAD AS WELL.

I MEAN, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE MORE CRITICAL COMPONENT TO HELP MAKE IT I'D SAY MORE MEANINGFUL CONVERSATION AS WELL.

WE MIGHT TAKE A LOOK AT THAT WHEN THAT SYSTEM COMES BACK AND THEN IF THE COUNCIL GIVE US SOME LEEWAY, WE MIGHT PUSH IT BACK A LITTLE BIT TILL WE GET THAT INFORMATION BACK AS WELL.

>> SIR. I THINK IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER BECAUSE YOU'RE EXPECTING THAT ASSESSMENT IN SEPTEMBER, ASSUMING IT WOULD GIVE YOU TIME TO UNDERSTAND THAT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> I'M GOING TO GIVE A GOOD LOOK AT IT OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS AND START DIVING INTO IT.

OCTOBER WOULD BE EVEN BETTER. GIVE US A LITTLE MORE TIME.

>> I LIKE IT. COUNSEL, ANYTHING FURTHER ON THIS. WE'LL MOVE ON.

>> JUST NICE BEING ON TIME AND AHEAD OF BUDGET. IT'S GOOD.

>> I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. THAT WRAPS UP ITEM 8C.

WE'LL MOVE INTO 8D.

[8.D. Proposed new Moderate Density-1 Zoning District ]

BRING MR. BRASFIELD UP HERE.

NO, THAT'S NOT, MR. BRASFIELD.

HOW ARE YOU DOING, MR. BALSON?

>> I'M DOING GOOD. HOW ARE YOU?

>> GOOD. YOU ARE HERE TO NOT TALK ABOUT ANY MASSIVE CHANGE TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCES.

YOU ARE ADDING SOMETHING TO AS AN ADDITIONAL OPTION FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

>> YES, SIR. WE'LL GET INTO ACTUALLY, MY FIRST COUPLE OF SLIDES IS PERFECT LEEWAY RIGHT INTO THAT.

AGAIN, GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.

I I'M PLEASED TO BRING THIS CODE ENHANCEMENT TO Y'ALL, ACTUALLY.

THIS IS A PROPOSED NEW MODERATE DENSITY 1 ZONING DISTRICT.

STRAIGHT OFF THE BAT HERE.

WHAT WE WANTED TO GET IN FRONT OF A IMMEDIATELY IS WHAT THIS CHANGE DOES AND DOES NOT DO.

OUR FIRST SLIDE HERE,

[01:15:02]

BASICALLY, WHAT THIS CHANGE DOES NOT DO.

IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANY EXISTING ZONING ON ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE CITY.

IT DOES NOT FORCE THE CHANGE OF ZONING ON ANY PROPERTIES.

THIS DOES NOT CHANGE ANY OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT APPLY TO ANY OF THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS.

IT ALSO DOES NOT ALLOW ANY NEW LAND USES TO BE PERMITTED IN ANY EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS, AND IT DOES NOT PROHIBIT ANY LAND USES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN ANY OF OUR EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS.

WHAT THIS PROPOSED CHANGE DOES DO.

IT DOES CREATE A DISTRICT THAT FILLS A GAP IN AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.

IT DOES CREATE AN OPTION FOR REZONING IN THE FUTURE.

IT DOES HELP PROTECT EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS WHILE HELPING REMOVE SOME BARRIERS TO INFILL.

IT ALSO HELPS TO CREATE A TRANSITION BETWEEN SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING AND APARTMENTS.

IT DOES CREATE A ZONING DISTRICT OPTION THAT ALLOWS FOR SMALLER SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AND AN SEP PROCESS FOR EVEN SMALLER.

IT DOES CREATE A POTENTIAL OPTION FOR PROPERTIES THAT WERE MADE NON CONFORMING DURING A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT THAT WAS DONE IN 2004, AND WE'LL GET MORE INTO THAT AS WE GO.

I DID WANT TO BRING HOW WE GOT HERE.

OUR FIRST LINE THERE.

WE'VE RECEIVED RECENT ZONING REQUESTS THAT WE'RE NOTICING THAT THERE'S SOME CONFLICTS BETWEEN OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS IN TERMS OF APARTMENTS.

THEN WE ALSO HAVE SEEN SOME PDS RECENTLY BEEN SUBMITTED FOR SMALLER LOT, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED DEVELOPMENTS, AND THIS BEING A TREND, WE DECIDED THIS IS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY.

ALSO, I DON'T KNOW.

SOME Y'ALL MAY REMEMBER BACK JUST OVER A YEAR AGO, WE HAD A REZONING THAT CAME TO Y'ALL.

IT WAS A R-1 TO A MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT THAT WAS ON SCOTTY DRIVE.

THAT HAD BARELY PASSED OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WENT BACK TO Y'ALL, AND IT GOT KICKED BACK TO OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

WHENEVER WE TOOK THAT BACK ON AUGUST 5TH, WE ACTUALLY WENT AHEAD AND HAD A DISCUSSION ITEM AS WELL ABOUT THIS POTENTIAL GAP THAT WE'RE SEEING WHENEVER THESE DO BECOME CONTROVERSIAL IN THESE REZONINGS.

AFTER THE DIRECTION FROM PNZ, THAT WE DO NEED A NEED TO TRY TO FIX THIS.

WE SET UP A SEPTEMBER 5TH.

IT WAS A DEVELOPER MORNING OUTREACH DISCUSSION.

WE DID INVITE OUR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ATTEND, AS WELL.

THERE WE DISCUSSED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, WHAT ALL DO WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT IN HERE? WHAT'S THE TRENDS IN THE MARKET? HOW DO WE GET NEW HOUSING TYPES? WHAT DO WE NEED TO PROVIDE TO CONTINUE GROWING OUR HOUSING MARKET HERE.

BETWEEN OCTOBER AND MARCH, WE TOOK THIS TO OUR INTERNAL DEPARTMENTS, OUR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE.

WE HAD INTERNAL DISCUSSIONS AND REVIEW FROM MARCH TO JUNE.

WE ACTUALLY HAD INTERNAL STAFF VETTING THIS THROUGH SOME OF OUR REZONING REQUESTS TO SEE IF THEY WOULD HAVE MET THIS NEW PROPOSAL.

WE DID TAKE THIS TO OUR PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION ON JULY 7TH OF THIS YEAR.

AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS TABLED.

THEY WANTED TO BASICALLY SEE US DO ANOTHER OUTREACH MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY TO GET EVEN MORE FEEDBACK ON IT.

DURING THIS TIME, STAFF ACTUALLY TOOK THAT TIME TO DO FURTHER ANALYSIS.

IT IS ALSO WHEN WE FOUND A POTENTIAL CONFLICT WITH SOME OF OUR ORDINANCES.

YOU'LL SEE WE HAVE AN SUP CHANGE THAT WAS ADDED AT THAT POINT.

WE DID HOLD A MEETING ON AUGUST 5TH OF THIS YEAR AS WELL.

THAT'S OUR STAKEHOLDER MEETING.

WE REACHED BACK OUT. WE ALSO DID A SURVEY.

WHENEVER WE SENT THESE OUT, THIS ACTUALLY WENT OUT TO OVER 1,000 STAKEHOLDERS THAT ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT, REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL COMMUNITY.

FROM THAT, WE BASICALLY ADD ALL POSITIVE COMMENTS BACK THAT SUPPORTED.

WE DID HAVE ONE CONCERN THAT THE SUP CONSIDERATION MIGHT BE A LITTLE VAGUE.

OUR PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION IS VERY GOOD AT DETERMINING THESE THINGS.

THEY DO THE SAME THING DURING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS ON DETERMINING HOW DO WE MITIGATE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT SOME OF THIS MIGHT CAUSE.

POTENTIAL FUTURE CONSIDERATIONS THAT THEY BROUGHT UP AS WELL IS TO DEFINE TRIPLEX AND QUADPLEX.

CURRENTLY, THESE ARE BOTH DEFINED UNDER OUR MULTI FAMILY DEFINITION, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES APARTMENTS.

ANOTHER ONE AS WELL, IS POTENTIAL FOR RRC TO BE APPLIED TO 1-4 UNIT HOUSING INSTEAD OF JUST 1-2.

THEN WE TOOK THIS BACK TO OUR PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION ON THE 18TH, AND WE DID RECEIVE A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.

THIS ITEM, WE'LL BE COMING TO Y'ALL AT Y'ALL'S NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON 9TH OF SEPTEMBER.

A LITTLE HISTORY TO COVER THAT NON CONFORMITY OF DUPLEXES.

IN 2004, ORDINANCE 6712 ACTUALLY CHANGED R-3.

[01:20:05]

AT THE TIME, THEY RECOGNIZED THAT THERE'S A TRENDS IN THE MARKET FOR SMALLER LOTS WITH HIGHER LOCK COVERAGES.

THEY ACTUALLY REMOVED DUPLEXES AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED FROM THE R-3 ZONING DISTRICT.

IT WAS LIKELY AN EFFORT TO HELP PROTECT THESE NEWLY BUILT R-3 DEVELOPMENTS.

>> BUT THE AMENDMENT DID ACTUALLY CREATE A LOT OF NON CONFORMING DUPLEXES ACROSS THE CITY.

IN FURTHER ANALYSIS OF THIS, MODERATE DENSITY WOULD ACTUALLY BE THE ONLY DISTRICT THE NEXT STEP UP DISTRICT THAT THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED, BUT THEN MODERATE DENSITY ALSO ALLOWS THE APARTMENTS, AND THAT'S WHERE WE KIND OF COME INTO THAT CONFLICT.

JUST A QUICK RECAP OF HOW OUR ZONING ORDINANCE WORKS HERE.

WE DO HAVE AN INCLUSIONARY EUCLIDEAN ZONING ORDINANCE.

BASICALLY, AS YOU GO UP ON THIS LIST, IT JUST ADDS MORE USES TO IT.

WE TYPICALLY DON'T THERE'S VERY FEW INSTANCES WHERE WE REMOVE USES AT ONE OF THOSE HIGHER ZONING DISTRICTS.

TAKING THIS INTO FURTHER ANALYSIS.

WE WANTED TO ANALYZE OUR USES AND OUR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR BASICALLY R1 THROUGH OUR MULTI FAMILY DISTRICTS THERE.

WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS DIFFERENT TABLES.

IT'S BASICALLY WRITTEN IN A DIFFERENT FORMAT THAT ALLOWS US TO ACTUALLY BETTER IDENTIFY WHERE CHANGES OCCUR AND WHERE THERE MIGHT BE A GAP, WHERE YOU SEE THAT THE BLACKED OUT FEELS, THAT IS BASICALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED.

WHERE THESE ARE HIGHLIGHTED.

THAT IS JUST SHOWING YOU WHERE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO DISTRICTS.

WE BASICALLY UTILIZE THAT INCLUDING SOME OF OUR CONDITIONAL STANDARDS.

THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE THESE ARE OUR LOT WIDTH CONDITIONAL STANDARDS.

A BASICALLY IS GRANDFATHERING THING IF THEY WERE THERE PRIOR TO THE PASSING THAT AMENDMENT.

B WAS OUR SETBACKS OR LOT WIDTHS ARE ACTUALLY MEASURED AT THE SETBACK, THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, BUT B ACTUALLY ESTABLISHES A MINIMUM AT THE STREET FRONTAGE.

C IS WHAT SETS THE MINIMUM FOR DUPLEXES, WHICH IS A 60 FOOT OR 30 FOOT EACH SIDE IF THEY ARE SUBDIVIDED FURTHER.. ACTUALLY, ITEM D THERE ACTUALLY IS WHERE WE ACTUALLY FILE THIS CONFLICT BETWEEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

BASICALLY, DOING A SUMMARY OF OUR ANALYSIS, WE CAME UP WITH THAT R3 DISTRICT, OF COURSE, SINGLE FAMILY DETACH ORIENTED, OR MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT STARTS ADDING IN EVERYTHING UP TO APARTMENTS.

THERE'S NOTHING IN BETWEEN HERE.

WE WE DID NOTICE DURING THE PROCESS.

THERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WE COULD LOOK AT WITH THIS NEW DISTRICT THAT COULD HELP SOME OF THESE INFILL PROJECTS WHERE WE HAVE SOME SMALLER LOTS TO FILL.

WE HAVE BASICALLY R3 STANDARDS THERE A 5,000 SQUARE FOOT AREA, 50 FOOT WIDTH AND 100 FOOT DEPTH AT 65% COVERAGE AND A 15 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, AND THAT'S BASICALLY APPLIED.

ONCE YOU HIT R THREE ALL THE WAY THROUGH ALL OF THE INTENSITY ZONING DISTRICTS, EXCEPT FOR OUR HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT THERE.

A HEAVY COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ACTUALLY HAS A 2000 SQUARE FOOT AREA, 20 FOOT WIDTH, 100 FOOT DEPTH, 65 FOOT MAX, AND NO FRONT YARD SETBACK.

THIS WAS AN AMENDMENT THAT WAS DONE IN 2001, AND BASICALLY STAFF WASN'T ABLE TO FIND IF THIS WAS PURPOSELY DONE REASON FOR THIS BECAUSE ALL OTHER DISTRICTS, THE 5,000 SQUARE FOOT IS ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STANDARDS.

THEN AGAIN, WE FOUND THAT CODE CONFLICT WITH 168 D. DOING THAT KIND OF QUANTITATIVE REVIEW, WE ACTUALLY WANTED TO DO A QUALITATIVE REVIEW AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE? STAFF ACTUALLY DID THESE RENDERINGS.

THIS IS SHOWING R1 DISTRICT, R2 DISTRICT, AND R3 DISTRICTS ON MAXIMUM BUILDABLE AREA OF A LOT.

ONE THING YOU MIGHT NOTICE THERE IN THAT R3 DISTRICT THAT RED COMPARED TO THE BLUE, THE 65% LOT COVERAGE IN R3 ACTUALLY ALLOWS YOU IF YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, IT ALLOWS A BUILDABLE AREA GREATER THAN YOU CAN ACTUALLY BUILD BECAUSE OF OUR SETBACKS.

WE DID TAKE ALL THOSE RENDERINGS.

WE ACTUALLY THREW IT TOGETHER INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD JUST TO SEE HOW THAT MIGHT FEEL.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FAR RIGHT SIDE THERE IS THE R1 AS YOU MOVE IN, THAT'S THE R. AS YOU MOVE FURTHER, ONCE YOU START SEEING THOSE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, THAT WOULD BE THAT MODERATE DENSITY POTENTIAL.

WE ALSO WANTED TO LOOK AT AREAS OF DUPLEXES,

[01:25:01]

HOW THEY INCORPORATE IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE DID SEE THAT IN THE AREAS WHERE SOME OF THESE NON CONFORMING ONES, THEY DO INCORPORATE WELL.

THIS IS AN AREA IN THE CITY THAT HAS SOME REAR LOADED DUPLEXES.

WE LOOKED AT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AS WELL, WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, IF YOU START LOOKING AT DIFFERENT LOT WIDTHS ON SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND WHETHER AND MOST ACTUAL SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HERE ARE REAR LOADED.

WE ALSO ONCE WE GOT INTO LOOKING AT REDUCED LOT WIDTHS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING.

IN THIS DISTRICT, WE LOOKED AT A LOT OF OTHER CITIES TO TRY TO FIND SOME NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE BUILT OUT WITH THESE LESSER LOT WIDTHS.

IN THIS INSTANCE, HERE'S A 40 FOOT LOT WIDTH THAT'S REAR LOADED BY AN ALLEY.

THIS IS A 40 FOOT LOT WITH THAT'S BASICALLY FRONT LOADED.

YOU CAN TELL THE DIFFERENCE HERE ONCE YOU START GETTING INTO FRONT LOADED RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF REAR LOADED ON HOW THAT INTERACTION IS WITH THE STREET.

THEN THIS IS AN INSTANCE WHERE WE FOUND A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS 35 WIDE LOTS THAT ARE FRONT LOADED.

WHAT WE NOTICED HERE IS THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF QUALITY CHANGE THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE 40 AND 35 TYPICALLY BETWEEN THESE TIMES.

THAT IS WHY YOU WILL SEE WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE.

BASICALLY, THE PROPOSED CHANGE HERE IS ACTUALLY TO RENAME OUR MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT TWO.

THIS IS SOLELY CLERICAL PURPOSES.

IT DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THAT CURRENT MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT.

WE WOULD LOOK AT DOING A NEW MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT 1.

THIS WOULD INTRODUCE R3 USES PLUS, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DUPLEX.

OUR STANDARDS WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THAT, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, 03,400 SQUARE FOOT AREA, 40 FOOT WIDTH, 85 FOOT DEPTH, 65% OF COVERAGE.

WE DO HAVE A CONDITIONAL PIECE TO THIS WHERE IT COULD BE REDUCED DOWN TO 35 FOOT WIDTH IF REAR LOADED BY ALLEY, AND THIS WAS DIRECTED BY RECENT PLAN DEVELOPMENT WE HAD AND THEN ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY.

A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, 02,500 SQUARE FOOT AREA MINIMUM FOR THE LOT, 25 FOOT WIDTH, 100 FOOT DEPTH, 65% MAX COVERAGE.

THIS ONE ALSO HAS A CONDITIONAL THAT IF YOU HAVE FOUR BASICALLY NO MORE THAN FOUR ATTACHED UNITS, YOU CAN GO DOWN TO THE 2000 SQUARE FOOT AND 20 FOOT WIDTH AS WELL.

THAT IS WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT MODERATE DENSITY DISTRICT.

WE ALSO WOULD LOOK AT REDIRECTING THAT 410168 D THROUGH AN SUP PROCESS.

BASICALLY, WHAT ENDED UP HAPPENING HERE IS 4410168 D ALLOWED FOR LOTS TO POTENTIALLY BE LESS THAN WHAT'S CALLED OUT IN OUR TABLES IF IT'S APPROVED BY P&Z DURING A PLATTING PROCESS.

IN THIS INSTANCE, PLATTING PROCESSES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ADMINISTRATIVE AND CLERICAL IN NATURE BY STATE CODE, AND WE DON'T WANT TO INTRODUCE POTENTIAL DETERMINATIONS THAT HAVE TO OCCUR DURING THAT PROCESS.

THE SUP PROCESS WOULD HELP TAKE CARE OF THAT.

THEN BASICALLY, I DIDN'T HAVE ONE ON HERE, BUT ONE OF THE OTHER ONES, THE STREET FRONTAGES WHERE WE HAD AT THE STREET FRONTAGE IT NEEDED TO BE 40.

WE'RE LOOKING AT BASICALLY GOING DOWN TO 35, JUST IN CONJUNCTION WITH THAT.

>> QUESTIONS, COUNSEL.

>> YOU MENTIONED THAT PLANNING OF ZONING APPROVED.

WAS THERE ANY PART OF THIS THAT GOT MORE DISCUSSION OR WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE WERE HAVING PROBLEMS GETTING TO OR WAS THERE A PARTICULAR PART OF THIS THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION OR CONCERNED ABOUT?

>> I WOULD SAY THE GREATEST DISCUSSION WAS ACTUALLY THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOT WIDTHS.

HOW FAR IS TOO FAR? WHAT IS RIGHT FOR A POTENTIAL INFILL ZONING DISTRICT HERE? WHENEVER IT'S INTRODUCING NEW LOTS INTO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, WHEN DOES THAT QUALITY CHANGE HAPPEN WHEN WE GET INTO HOW LOW CAN WE GO BASICALLY ON THOSE LOT WIDTHS? BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THE USES AND STUFF, EVERYTHING WAS VERY MUCH SUPPORTED IN IT.

THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT ORIGINALLY KICKED OFF THE TABLE, I THINK AT THE FIRST JULY OF THIS YEAR, PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

AFTER THAT, THAT SUP CHANGE IS ACTUALLY IS A BENEFICIAL THING TO OUR CITY TO ACTUALLY BETTER CLARIFY THAT PIECE.

>> NOTHING FURTHER, COUNSEL?

>> THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION, SIR.

>> YES, SIR.

>> WE APPRECIATE THE INITIATIVE OVER THERE, AND I KNOW TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THOSE CODES.

[01:30:01]

IT'S ALWAYS NICE TO HAVE MORE OPTIONS THAT CAN FIT.

COUNSEL, WITH NO FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT, I THINK THE DIRECTION WOULD JUST BE TO BRING IT BACK WHEN IT'S READY.

WE ARE DONE WITH ITEM EIGHT, ANY REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS, COUNSEL?

[8.E. Request future agenda items and reports from City Manager.]

>> I'D LIKE TO JUST ADD ONE LAST THING, DONNIE, ON THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.

ALL MONIES THAT WE'VE RECEIVED FEDERAL AND STATE.

CAN WE GET AN UPDATE ON THAT WHEN YOU BRING THAT TO US BOTH FROM RONNIE JACKSON AND CAROLINE FAIRLEY? WHAT MONIES WE HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED IN HAND?

>> SHOULD BE EASY ENOUGH. WE CAN DO THAT.

>> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE OUT OF OUR DISCUSSION.

>> ANY OTHER REQUESTS?

>> NO.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO OUR NON CONSENT.

GOING TO HAVE MISS CARRIE ROBERTS COME UP HERE.

SHE'S GOING TO BE PRESENTING ON THE PIDS.

I WOULD ASK MISSES ROBERTS IF MAYBE YOU DO ONE PRESENTATION OR IF YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TO DO MULTIPLE DEPENDING ON THE PID ITSELF?

>> IT'S HOWEVER YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO.

YOU BREEZE THROUGH REALLY QUICKLY?

>> I THINK IF YOU CAN JUST GIVE AN OVERALL OF WHAT WE'RE DOING FOR THE PIDS AND WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

THEN IF COUNSEL HAS ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE, WE COULD ASK.

BUT THEN I REALLY THINK WE CAN JUST TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME FOR VOTING PURPOSES, BUT PROBABLY SAVE THE ADDITIONAL TIME OF DOING AN INDIVIDUAL PRESENTATION ON EACH.

>> SURE. IF I CAN ADD REAL QUICK BEFORE CARRIE STARTS, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, SHE'S GOT A SUMMARY PRESENTATION TO GO THROUGH, BUT THEN THE SLIDE FOR EACH SPECIFIC PID IS WITH THAT ITEM.

IT'LL BE ON THE SCREEN, SO YOU CAN SEE THE DETAILS ON EACH OF THOSE INDIVIDUAL PIDS AS YOU VOTE ON THEM.

>> YEAH, THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS CITY SECRETARY. YOU'RE UP.

[9.A. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8208 (Part 1 of 2)]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEN.

COUNCILMAN READ, IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU.

THIS IS THE 25-26 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FIVE-YEAR SERVICE PLAN AND ASSESSMENTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS ARE BECOMING MORE PREVALENT, AS WE ALL KNOW ACROSS THE AMARILLO AREA.

THE CITY CURRENTLY HAS 10 ACTIVE PIDS AND MORE COMING IN THE YEAR OF 2026.

PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE DESIGNATED GEOGRAPHIC AREA, WHERE PROPERTY OWNERS PAY SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS TO FUND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES WITHIN THAT AREA, AND WHICH THEY INCLUDE LANDSCAPING PARKS, PEDESTRIAN SIDEWALKS, MONUMENTS, SPECIALTY LIGHTING, AND FOUNTAINS.

THE LIST GOES ON AND ON.

THIS IS A AREA MAP WHERE THE PIDS ARE LOCATED WITHIN AMARILLO.

WE ARE MISSING TWO.

ESTANCIA IS UPPER NORTHWEST, GOING OFF TASCOSA ROAD, AND HOMESTEAD IS SANS AND 34TH.

STARTING OFF WITH THE GREENWAYS PID.

THE PID ADVISORY BOARD VOTED TO APPROVE THE 25-26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN ON JULY 2ND, AND IT DID INCREASE BY 5% ON THE ASSESSMENT RATES.

ASSESSMENT TOTALS IS $1,067,896.

EXPENSE TOTAL IS 1,031,552, WHICH THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT REVENUE IS ADEQUATE TO COVER MAINTENANCE COSTS.

>> COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS ON ANY OF THESE? YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO STOP AND ASK.

OTHERWISE, WE'RE JUST GOING TO LET MISS ROBERTS KEEP GOING.

>> REAL QUICK, DO YOU HAVE A HOMEOWNER'S GROUP BECOME A PID, OR DO YOU HAVE TO BE A PID WHEN YOU START DEVELOPMENT?

>> NO, IT CAN BECOME A PID.

>> HERITAGE HILLS, THE PID ADVISORY BOARD MET AND APPROVED THE BUDGET ON JUNE 17.

[9.B. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8209 (Part 1 of 2)]

THERE WAS NO CHANGE, NO INCREASE ON THE ASSESSMENT FEES, SO IT STILL REMAINS AT $0.08 PER SQUARE FOOT.

ASSESSMENT TOTAL IS $504,444, EXPENSE TOTAL IS $635 AND THE CURRENT ASSESSMENTS ARE ADEQUATE TO COVER MAINTENANCE COSTS.

>> LET ME STOP YOU.

>> YEAH.

>> I'LL SEE WE'RE PASSING OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

LET ME GO BACK THEN.

>> NO. I THINK WHAT YOU HAD ASKED IS THAT SHE PRESENTED ALL OF THEM, AND THEN YOU'LL GO BACK INTO PUBLIC HEARINGS AND EACH ONE OF THEM INDIVIDUALLY.

[01:35:02]

IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, CORRECT?

>> YEAH. BUT I GUESS I PROBABLY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE PRESENTATION EACH ONE THAT WAY STILL FRESH.

>> I'D HATE TO HAVE IF THERE WAS AN INCREASE AND SOMEBODY WAS I THINK I WAS JUST THINKING WE WERE PROBABLY ALL IN FAVOR OF EVERYTHING.

LET ME GO BACK TO ITEM NINE A.

[9.A. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8208 (Part 2 of 2)]

WE'LL REDO THIS. ITEM NINE A QUESTIONS, COUNSEL, ON ANYTHING HERE.

>> AT THIS TIME, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 9.A.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM, MR. FISHER, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

>> WELL, MINE COULD BE SHORT.

BUT LOOKING AT THAT NUMBER, THERE'S A MILLION DOLLARS IN THE FIRST ONE, THEN THERE'S 500,000 ON THE SECOND ONE.

I'M GUESSING IF THERE'S 10 OF THEM, THERE'S SOMEWHERE AROUND FIVE OR SIX MILLION.

IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE TAKING MONEY OFF THE BOOKS OFF THE BUDGET, AND WE'RE PASSING IT ON TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS.

WHERE'S THE SAVINGS COMING FROM ON THE BUDGET?

>> YEAH, SO EASY ANSWER.

WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THESE PIDS IS YOU COULD ALMOST CALL THEM EXTERNAL OR AMENITIES.

THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE LINE, THE TREES, THE VEGETATION, THE FLOWER BEDDING, YOU COULD EASILY SPEND A $500,000 HAVING LOCAL CONTRACTOR TAKE CARE OF ALL THOSE THINGS.

THOSE ARE THINGS THAT I'M SPECIFICALLY INSTRUCTED NOT TO SPEND YOUR TAXES ON ON THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.

THE MECHANISM THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD THEN NOMINATES SEVERAL PEOPLE.

THEY BECOME THEIR OWN BOARD.

THEN THEY HOLD A PUBLIC MEETING.

THEY HAVE EVERYBODY THAT'S A RESIDENT IN THAT THAT'S PAYING THAT DUE CAN COME AND TALK ABOUT IT.

THEY GIVE THEMSELVES AN ASSESSMENT OF EIGHT CENTS.

NOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD DOESN'T BECOME THE DILAPIDATION, BECAUSE WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS IS DEVELOPER COMES IN.

HE WANTS TO SELL HIS PRODUCT.

HE DOES A GREAT JOB FOR 5-10 YEARS.

WHEN HE'S GONE, NOBODY MAINTAINS THOSE FENCES AND THOSE DIFFERENT AMENITIES.

EVERYTHING FROM TENNIS COURTS TO JUST GOOD OLD FASHIONED TREES AND FLOWER BEDS.

>> THE CITY WASN'T TAKEN ON THAT EXPENSE BEFORE WE CREATED THE PIDS?

>> CITY DID NOT TAKE ON THAT EXPENSE.

IT RELIED ON THE HOMEOWNERS.

THEN WHEN YOU STARTED SEEING NICER DEVELOPMENTS, YOU SAW HOMEOWNERS THAT HAD COMMON AREAS.

WITHOUT THAT COMMON AREA, WE HAD TO ADOPT THAT LIKE A PARK.

REALLY, I THINK WHERE YOU PROBABLY SEE THIS IS, IS WHERE THAT ADJACENT PROPERTY GOES UP TO A STREET.

THERE'S 30 FEET, THAT NOBODY'S MAINTAINED.

THAT'S A VERY GOOD QUESTION AND GOOD CLARIFICATION.

>> WELL, I JUST GOT A COUPLE OF STATEMENT OF FACT QUESTIONS.

WHERE WAS THE NOTICE PUBLISHED FOR THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS THAT WE'RE HAVING TODAY?

>> GREAT. I THINK WE CAN PROBABLY ANSWER THAT.

>> YEAH. IN AMARILLO GLOBE NEWS.

>> I SEARCHED. I COULDN'T FIND IT.

BUT I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO FIND IT.

I COULDN'T FIND IT. WERE NOTICES SENT TO EACH INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS?

>> YES. THIS HERE, THESE HEARINGS?

>> YES.

>> MAN, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HERE TO TALK ABOUT THEM EXCEPT ME AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE ONE.

>> I KNOW. YOU DON'T EVEN LIVE THERE. THAT'S CRAZY.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE I'VE SAT THROUGH, BUT I'VE HAD A LOT OF PIT INVOLVEMENT THAT EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, YOU'VE GOT ONE THAT THEY HAD A PROBLEM, AND WE'VE REALLY IMPROVED, I THINK, MS. ROBERTSON IMPROVED A LOT OF HOW WE'RE HELPING TO OVERSEE IT.

YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY SAY WE'RE THE FISCAL AGENT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S RIGHT, MRS LAURA.

BUT WE HELPED TO MANAGE THESE PIDS JUST IN THE COLLECTIONS AND THE PAYOUTS.

BUT THEN REALLY, IT'S THEIR MONEY.

WE DON'T REALLY OVERSEE MUCH OF IT.

UNLESS I HAD AN OWNER HERE TO TELL ME, WE'RE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS, THEN FOR THE MOST PART, WE'RE PUSHING THEM FORWARD.

>> MR. FISHER, I BELIEVE THE ADVERTISEMENT WENT OUT FOR AMARILLO GLOBE NEWS ON AUGUST 12, SO YOU MIGHT CHECK ON THAT.

>> AUGUST 12.

>> YEAH.

>> GREAT EXAMPLE OF HOW WE PROBABLY NEED TO TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.

WE'LL PIVOT HERE TO STEEL DONNIE'S WORD.

ON ITEM 9.A, DO I HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO OFFER COMMENT AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON 9.A.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8208 AS PRESENTED.

ITEM 9.B, I BELIEVE WE'VE SEEN THE PRESENTATION.

[9.B. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8209 (Part 2 of 2)]

I WILL NOW OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 9.B.

DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8209 AS PRESENTED.

[01:40:04]

ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> MOTION IN A SECOND.

>> THANK YOU. PINNACLE, THE ADVISORY BOARD MET ON JUNE 5 AND APPROVED THE BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

ITEM 9.C, MS. ROBERTS.

[9.C. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8210]

THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENT RATE.

IT STILL REMAINS AT 10 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT.

THE TOTAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT IS $122,594.

TOTAL EXPENSES NOW THEY DID REQUEST A BOND ISSUANCE OF ONE MILLION DOLLARS WITH A DEBT SERVICE OF 79,958.

NOW, LAURA, IS THAT AN ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE?

>> YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

THEIR FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN AND BUDGET REFLECTS THE ABILITY FOR THEM TO PAY THAT ANNUALLY.

>> THE EXPENSE TOTAL DID SHOOT UP OBVIOUSLY WITH THE MILLION DOLLAR BOND ISSUANCE TO $1,192,413?

>> VERY GOOD. ANY QUESTIONS ON 9.C? AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 9.C? SEEING NO ONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8210 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM 9.D, MA'AM.

[9.D. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8211 ]

>> POINT WEST IS OUR BUSINESS PARK AREA, AND THEY MET ON JUNE 10 AND APPROVED THE 25, 26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

BETWEEN ON THE ASSESSMENTS, THE TOTAL COSTS ARE DIVIDED BETWEEN PROPERTY OWNERS ACCORDING TO PERCENTAGE OF PROPERTY OWNED WITHIN THAT PID.

ASSESSMENT TOTALS DID NOT CHANGE.

IT'S STILL AT 52,000, AND EXPENSE TOTAL IS $86,502.

>> VERY GOOD. AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 9.D.

DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK? SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK FOR A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8211 AS PRESENTED.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM 9.E, MA'AM.

[9.E. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8212]

>> THIS IS QUAIL CREEK. IT'S ONE OF OUR SMALLER PITS, AND THERE WAS A REVISION TO THIS ORDINANCE, AND COUNSEL, Y'ALL SHOULD HAVE THE REVISED VERSION IN FRONT OF YOU, I BELIEVE.

THE ADVISORY BOARD MET ON JUNE 10 AND APPROVED THE 25, 26 BUDGET.

THEY DID INCREASE THEIR ASSESSMENT FROM 400-450.

THAT'S A $50 RAISE.

ASSESSMENT TOTALS 13,050.

EXPENSE TOTALS IS JUST THE 12,882.

>> AT THIS TIME, I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 9.E.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NO ONE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, I WANT TO ASK FOR A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8212 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND FROM PLACE 1. ALL IN FAVOR?

>> TOWN SQUARE. THE ADVISORY BOARD MET JUNE 24 AND APPROVED THE 25, 26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

ITEM 9.F.

[9.F. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8213]

THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ASSESSMENTS.

THEY STILL REMAIN AT 11 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT PER LOT.

ASSESSMENT TOTAL WAS 236,816.

EXPENSE TOTAL IS 950,554, AND DUE TO THAT INCREASE, IT'S DUE TO A NEW IMPROVEMENT THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON CURRENTLY.

>> REAL GOOD. DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM 9.F, GENTLEMEN? WOULD OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 9.F? SEEING NO ONE, WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WOULD ASK FOR MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8213 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND FROM PLACE 1.

>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM 9.G.

[9.G. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8214]

>> THIS IS TUTBURY, ANOTHER ONE OF OUR SMALLER PIDS.

THE BOARD MET JUNE 11 AND APPROVED THE 25,26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

THE ASSESSMENTS ARE REMAINING THE SAME AT 1,200 PER LOT.

ASSESSMENT TOTAL IS 28,800 WITH AN EXPENSE TOTAL OF 33,517.

[01:45:03]

>> VERY GOOD. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 9.G.

DO I HAVE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.

SEEING NO ONE WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8214 AS PRESENTED.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BE QUICK. WE'VE ESTABLISHED LEST WE'LL MAKE THE MOTION.

>> EXACTLY.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND, ALL IN FAVOR PLEASE SAY AYE.

>> ANY OPPOSED? ITEM 9.H.

>> CAN I PLEASE GET WHO GOT THAT SECOND?

>> PLACE ONE. SORRY.

>> HERE AGAIN, THIS IS THE VINEYARDS PID, AND THERE WAS A REVISION TO THE ORDINANCE, AND YOU'LL SHOULD HAVE THE REVISED VERSION IN FRONT OF YOU.

>> ITEM 9.H MS. ROBERTS.

[9.H. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8215 ]

VINEYARDS, THE PID ADVISORY BOARD MET AUGUST 12 AND APPROVED THE 25, 26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

THEY DID INCREASE THEIR ASSESSMENT RATE FROM $75-250 PER LOT ASSESSMENT TOTAL OF 79,750.

ON THE EXPENSES, THEY DID REQUEST A BOND ISSUANCE OF 500,000 WITH A ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE OF 44,916, THAT'S BRINGING THE EXPENSE TOTAL UP TO $588,721.

>> WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8215.

>> I SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR. PLEASE SAY AYE.

MOVING ALONG TO ITEM 9.I.

[9.I. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE NO. 8216]

>> THIS IS THE LAST ONE, COLONIES.

THE PID ADVISORY BOARD MET ON JUNE 4 AND APPROVED THE 25,26 BUDGET AND FIVE YEAR SERVICE PLAN.

ASSESSMENTS DID INCREASE FROM 14 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT TO 15 CENTS PER SQUARE FOOT PER LOT.

ASSESSMENT TOTALS ARE 1,531,235.

EXPENSES, THEY DID REQUEST A BOND ISSUANCE OF A MILLION, AND THE DEBT SERVICE FOR THAT IS $721,046.

THIS BRINGS THE EXPENSE TOTAL UP TO 2,525,399.

>> IF COULD ADD A CLARIFICATION ON THAT.

THEY HAVE MULTIPLE DEBT SERVICE I'M SORRY, MULTIPLE BONDS OUTSTANDING ALREADY.

IT'S THE ONE NEW DEBT ISSUANCE PLUS THE MULTIPLE THAT ARE OUTSTANDING TO COME TO THAT TOTAL ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE.

>> THANK YOU, LAURA.

>> THERE YOU GO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE COLONIES PID? AT THIS TIME, WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE ANYONE? YES, SIR, PLEASE COME FORWARD.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME.

>> HI, MY NAME IS LEE MACCAMMON.

I LIVE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE CITY AMARILLO, AND I LIVE IN THE COLONIES.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE.

I COME WOEFULLY UNPREPARED.

WE LEARNED ABOUT MOST OF WHAT WAS HAPPENING IN THE COLONIES JUST YESTERDAY.

WE'VE SPOKEN TO MULTIPLE NEIGHBORS.

THEY DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT'S GOING ON.

WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE PRIOR TO THE ADVISORY BOARD MEETING, SO WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING.

BUT THIS MILLION DOLLAR BOND IS TO BUILD A PARK OFF OF WESLEY ROAD NEXT TO THE NAZARENE CHURCH.

THIS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FOR OVER A YEAR AT THE HOA MEETINGS, MULTIPLE OTHER COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, AND NOBODY IS IN FAVOR OF IT AT ALL.

NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN A FIVE MAN BOARD IS GOING TO ENCUMBER US WITH ANOTHER ONE MILLION DOLLAR BOND.

OUR ANNUAL EXPENSES NOW JUST BARELY SLIGHTLY EXCEED THE COST OF DEBT SERVICE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT I WOULD ASK THAT THE COUNCIL CONSIDER TABLING THIS UNTIL WE CAN GET TOGETHER AS A COMMUNITY, TALK TO OUR ADVISORY BOARD.

WE'VE ALREADY TALKED TO MS. ROBERTS.

SHE'S GOING TO ASSIST US WITH ENHANCED COMMUNICATIONS MOVING FORWARD SO THESE TYPES OF THINGS CAN'T HAPPEN AGAIN.

BUT YOU WOULD BE DOING A GREAT DISSERVICE TO THE CITIZENS IN THE COLONIES TO CONTINUE TO RAISE OUR FEES, RAISE OUR DEBT SERVICE.

I'M VERY PROUD TO SAY I LIVE IN AMARILLO.

I'M VERY PROUD TO SAY WE LIVE IN A VERY RED AREA OF THE COUNTRY, AND JUST ADDING DEBT GOES TO WHAT YOU SAID, MR. MAYOR EARLIER ABOUT THE WATER BILLS.

WE CANNOT JUST CONTINUE WITHOUT REAL REPRESENTATION IN OUR COMMUNITY TO CONTINUE TO RAISE THE DEBT SERVICE INSIDE A PID.

PID'S GREAT, TAKING CARE OF IT, IT'S GREEN.

[01:50:03]

COLONY IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST BEAUTIFUL AREAS IN THIS CITY.

WE'RE VERY HONORED AND PROUD TO LIVE THERE.

BUT THIS IS BEYOND THE PALE, A MILLION DOLLARS TO BUILD A PARK THAT A WE DON'T NEED, AND B NOBODY WANTS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MS. ROBERTS, CAN WE GET A RECOMMENDATION FROM YOU, PERHAPS ON THIS?

>> CAN I JUMP IN REAL QUICK?

>> YES MA'AM.

>> THANK YOU. I DID WANT TO MENTION TO COUNSEL THAT THIS IS APPROVING A BUDGET, WHICH IS POTENTIALLY A PLAN.

>> COUNSEL WOULD STILL HAVE TO DO A SEPARATE ACTION TO ISSUE DEBT ON BEHALF OF THAT PID BOARD.

IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COUNSEL, I'M LOOKING AT BRIAN, I THINK COUNSEL CAN IF THEY DECIDE TO REDUCE, THEY COULD MAKE A CHANGE TO THE BUDGET AT THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH THE ADVISORY BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED IT.

HOWEVER, IF COUNSEL DECIDED TO KEEP THE BUDGET AS IS, WE COULD BRING BACK A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE ADVISORY BOARD ON WHETHER TO MOVE FORWARD OR NOT WITH THE ACTUAL DEBT ISSUANCE.

IF FOR SOME REASON, THE ADVISORY BOARD COMES BACK AND SAYS, WE DO NOT WANT TO ISSUE THE DEBT AFTER ALL, THEN WE WOULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION TO COUNSEL.

WE WOULD NOT BRING FORWARD THE DEBT ISSUANCE.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

THOSE ARE JUST SOME OPTIONS THAT I THINK COUNSEL COULD THINK ABOUT.

UNLESS CARRIE HAS SOMETHING ELSE SHE WANTS TO ADD TO THAT.

>> MISS CARRIE, CAN YOU OR MISS LAURA GIVE US SOME PARAMETERS IN TIME? DOES THIS FALL IN LINE WITH OUR BUDGET THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY OCTOBER 1?

>> YES.

>> THE MAIN CONCERN THAT I HAVE HERE IS COMMUNICATION, NOTICE, UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS GOING ON.

TELL ME THE STEPS ONCE AGAIN, AND THE DEBT WOULDN'T BE ISSUED FOR A WHILE, BUT JUST APPROVING THE BUDGET WITH THE INCREASED ASSESSMENT JUST NEEDS TO BE DONE BY MRS. STORES.

ARE WE TRYING TO DO THAT BY SEPTEMBER 16, OR WILL WE HAVE ALL THE WAY TILL THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER TO PASS IT?

>> WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE T A SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER TO PASS IT.

IF THERE WAS IF COUNSEL WANTED TO WAIT ON FIRST AND SECOND READING.

NOW, THE NOTICE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TODAY, AND THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN SENT OUT.

DON'T KNOW THAT, I GUESS YOU COULD DO AN OPTIONAL PUBLIC HEARING AT A FUTURE MEETING, BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE A NOTICE OUT ON IT.

BRIAN, PLEASE JUMP IN.

[OVERLAPPING]

>> YOU DID.

>> I GUESS THEY COULD POTENTIALLY INVITE PEOPLE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON IT AT A FUTURE MEETING, BUT IT WOULDN'T BE THE FORMAL PUBLIC.

>> THIS IS A NEW ONE FOR US.

I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'VE RUN ACROSS ANYONE ON THESE PIDS THAT WAS NOT IN FAVOR.

EVERY NOW AND AGAIN, WE HAD ONE OR TWO THAT JUST DIDN'T KNOW, BUT NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST.

I WOULD BE TRACKING TOWARDS MORE LIKE A MOTION TO REFER IT BACK TO THE BOARD, ASKING THEM TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PUBLIC TO BRING FORWARD THE DATA, LET THEM BE HERE TO REPRESENT THEMSELVES.

I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE COLONIES.

BOARD. I FEEL LIKE THAT'D BE VERY UNFAIR TO TAKE ACTION ON IT EITHER WAY.

I DO HAVE SOME CITIZENS HERE.

BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME, THERE'S A LACK OF COMMUNICATION, BUT I CAN'T VERIFY ANY OF THAT.

I THINK IN TRYING TO LEAD THE MEETING, ALL I'M TRYING TO DO IS MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO HAND IT BACK TO MISS ROBERTS, YOU WOULD HAVE WHAT YOU WOULD NEED IN A MOTION TO REFER IT BACK TO THE BOARD.

THAT WOULD BE FORMAL.

THEN THE BOARD WOULD HAVE TO TAKE ACTION TO BRING IT BACK.

NOW, IF I DID THAT, I WOULD NEED MR. MC WILLIAMS TO LET ME KNOW, THAT DOESN'T AFFECT A PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE, DOES IT, SIR?

>> I THINK YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH THAT BY JUST TABLING IT.

TABLEING IT WITH A DIRECTION BACK TO STAFF TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD.

THAT WAY, THIS IS STILL ON YOUR TABLE.

BUT DOES IT START OVER A WHOLE NEW PROCESS THAT WE DON'T HAVE TIME FOR.

>> REAL GOOD. COUNSEL WOULD TAKE DIRECTION FROM YOU GUYS ON WHETHER YOU'RE COMFORTABLE TO TABLE OR IF ANYBODY WANTS TO MOVE IT FORWARD,.

>> NO, I THINK THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE THING TO DO IS TO TABLE IT.

>> I'LL ABSTAIN. I'M GOING TO ABSTAIN FROM THIS.

> YOU LIVE THERE?

>> CORRECT.

>> WE HAVE ONE ABSTAINING WITH A POTENTIAL CONFLICT.

OTHER DIRECTION TABLE?

>> I'M TABLEING.

>> GREAT. MS. ROBERTS, WILL TABLE THIS, AND THEN IF YOU WANT TO BRING IT BACK EARLIER THAN THAT, DON'T FEEL LIKE YOU GOT TO WAIT TIL THE VERY END, BUT WE'LL TAKE ACTION ON IT ONCE WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE COMMUNITY INPUT.

>> MAYOR, IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE, YOU CAN OR YOU CAN TAKE NO ACTION.

RIGHT NOW, YOU'VE ESSENTIALLY TAKEN NO ACTION.

NO MOTION. NO SECOND AND NO VOTE.

>>I APPRECIATE THE COACHING ON THAT.

I WOULD ASK FOR A MOTION ON THIS SINCE IT'S SOMETHING THAT AFFECTS THE BUDGET.

[01:55:04]

>> I'D MOVE TO TABLE ORDINANCE NUMBER 8216.

WE CRUISED ALL THE WAY THROUGH.

THANK YOU. MR. ATTORNEY.

WE'RE DOWN TO ITEM 9J.

[9.J. CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 08-26-25-2]

MR. BRASFIELD, IS THIS YOU THIS TIME.

>> YES, SIR. IT'S ME THIS TIME.

GOOD AFTERNOON, COUNSEL, DREW BRASFIELD INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

MY ITEM IS A FIRST AND REQUESTED FINAL READING OF A RESOLUTION NOMINATING BSA HOSPITAL, LLC AS A QUALIFIED BUSINESS AND ENTERPRISE PROJECT TO THE TEXAS ENERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM.

THE TEXAS ENERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM IS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO PARTNER WITH THE STATE TO ENCOURAGE JOB CREATION, AND RETENTION AND CAPITAL INVESTMENT, AND IT'S CODIFIED IN 2303 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

IN ORDER FOR US TO PARTICIPATE, THE CITY MUST APPROVE AN ORDINANCE THAT AUTHORIZES PARTICIPATION AND ESTABLISHES LOCAL INCENTIVES THAT MAY BE OFFERED AND NOMINATES A QUALIFIED BUSINESS.

AMAR'S ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS PASSED BACK IN 2006 FOR A BELL TEXTRON PROJECT AND MOST RECENTLY IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WHEN THIS COUNSEL NOMINATED BENNY KEITH.

IN SUBSEQUENT REQUESTS FOR THESE NOMINATIONS, BECAUSE WE HAVE AN ACTIVE ORDINANCE, THEY CAN BE DONE BY RESOLUTION.

THE CITY IS ABLE TO NOMINATE UP TO SIX PROJECTS PER BIENNIUM OR EVERY TWO YEARS, AND THE STATE TYPICALLY AWARDS AROUND 12 QUARTERLY ROUND, BUT NO MORE THAN 105 STATEWIDE PER BIENNIUM.

TODAY'S REQUEST BY BSA IS FOR ENTERPRISE PROJECT STATUS.

AS YOU KNOW, BSA HOSPITAL OPERATES A FULL SERVICE 445 BED HOSPITAL HERE IN AMAR WITH AROUND 2,400 EMPLOYEES.

OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THEY PLAN TO INVEST AROUND 25 MILLION TO RENOVATE THEIR FACILITY WITH UPDATED PATIENT BEDS, MATTRESSES, AND MONITORING SYSTEMS, AS WELL AS REMODELING OF THE ICU AND THE ELECTROPHYSIOLOGY LAB.

THEY ARE PLANNING TO ADD 10 NEW EMPLOYEES WITH THIS PROJECT AND RETAINING 490 THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE UNDER PREVIOUS ENTERPRISE PROJECTS.

IN SUMMARY, TODAY'S REQUEST IS A NOMINATION RESOLUTION ONLY.

THERE ARE NO CITY FUNDS BEING REQUESTED WITH THIS.

ANY FUNDING THEY RECEIVE WOULD COME FROM THE STATE AND THERE IS NO IMPACT TO OUR LOCAL SALES TAX.

BECAUSE THIS RESOLUTION ALSO DOES NOT TAKE ANY LEGISLATIVE ACTION, WE'RE REQUESTING A SECTION 7 WAIVER FOR IT TO BE THE FIRST AND FINAL READING ON THIS.

THE RESOLUTION WOULD MAKE BSA ELIGIBLE FOR THE STATE 6.25% SALES TAX REFUND WITH CAPS, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE LITTLE RUBRIC THERE BECAUSE THEY'RE BETWEEN THAT 5 MILLION AND 150 MILLION.

MAXIMUM NUMBER OF 500 JOBS, THEIR MAXIMUM POTENTIAL REFUND WOULD BE 1.25 MILLION OR ABOUT $2,500 PER JOB.

AS PROPOSED, THIS PROJECT DOES MEET ALL THE CRITERIA FOR THE FIVE-YEAR ENTERPRISE PROJECT CONSIDERATION.

WE DO HAVE MS. NELSON IN THE ROOM WITH BSA, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY PROJECT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, AND I WILL BE GLAD TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY OF YOU HAVE ON THE ENTERPRISE ZONE.

>> REALLY GOOD. MS. NELSON, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE WITH US.

COUNSEL, YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRASFIELD? WE REQUEST THE MOTION ON ITEM 9J, I BELIEVE.

>> I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 08-26-25-2 AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION AND A SECOND ON THAT ITEM.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR.

AND THIS IS STORES TAX RATE.

LAST AND FINAL, ITEM 9K,

[9.K. DISCUSS AND CONSIDER PROPOSED TAX RATE]

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNSEL.

I'M HERE TO START OUR FIRST FORMAL ACTION RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 2025 PROPERTY TAX RATE, WHICH WILL SUPPORT THE 2025, 2026 BUDGET.

AS WE HAVE ALL BEEN DISCUSSING THIS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL WEEKS.

TODAY'S ACTION IS ONLY TO VOTE ON THE RATE THAT

[02:00:05]

YOU ALL WILL NOT GO OVER IN THE UPCOMING VOTES IN SEPTEMBER.

THIS IS SETTING THE CEILING.

YOU CAN APPROVE UP TO THAT AMOUNT OR ANYTHING BELOW IT.

LET ME WALK YOU THROUGH JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS.

WE ARE GOVERNED BY STATE LAW IN THIS TEXAS TAX CODE SECTION 26.

THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES MADE TO IT BACK IN 2019 THROUGH SENATE BILL 2.

RIGHT NOW, THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE THAT CAN BE APPROVED WITHOUT GOING TO AN ELECTION FOR THE CITIZENS APPROVAL IS KNOWN AS THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

WHAT THAT ALLOWS IS FOR ESSENTIALLY 3.5% GROWTH IN THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATING SIDE OF THE TAX RATE.

IT ALSO ALLOWS THE INTEREST AND SINKING SIDE, THAT PIECE THAT'S SUPPORTING OUTSTANDING DEBT TO FLUCTUATE AS NEEDED UP AND DOWN BASED ON OUTSTANDING DEBT.

IT REQUIRES, AS I MENTIONED, A MANDATORY ELECTION, IF COUNSEL WERE TO APPROVE ANYTHING ABOVE THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

WE ARE ACTUALLY PAST THAT DEADLINE, THOUGH, AND SO COUNSEL CANNOT APPROVE ANYTHING ABOVE THAT RATE.

THE LAST DATE TO CALL AN ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER WAS ON AUGUST 18.

WE ARE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NOTICE TO OUR PROPERTY OWNERS AND TO HOLD ONE PUBLIC HEARING RELATED TO THAT.

WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT COUNSEL VOTE ON TODAY IS THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

I WANTED TO SHOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CURRENT YEAR'S TAX RATE THAT'S IN PLACE IS $38.723.

THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, THE MAXIMUM STATE ALLOWED TAX RATE WITHOUT GOING TO AN ELECTION IS $43.07 FOR 2025.

WE HAVE A LOT OF INFORMATION POSTED ABOUT THIS OUT ON AMARILLO.GOV, AND THERE'S ALSO INFORMATION THAT'S PROVIDED THROUGH THE COUNTIES AS WELL ON HOW TO CALCULATE PROPERTY TAXES.

WHAT THIS WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR OUR PROPERTY TAX OWNERS ON A RESIDENTIAL HOME THAT IS, LET'S SAY, $100,000 IN VALUE.

IF IT WAS $100,000 IN VALUE LAST YEAR AND THIS YEAR, THEY WOULD BE SEEING ABOUT A $4 PER MONTH INCREASE RELATED TO THE CITY'S PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX BILL GOING FROM THE CURRENT RATE TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE OF $43.07 ON AN AVERAGE HOME VALUE, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, AND IT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT BOTH POTTER AND RANDALL COUNTY RESIDENTIAL HOMES THAT HAVE THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.

THAT AMOUNT WAS $216,481 LAST YEAR, AND THAT AVERAGE VALUE HAS RISEN TO THE $226,460 IN THE NEW YEAR.

THE APPRAISED VALUES HAVE GONE UP OVERALL.

ON AN AVERAGE HOME VALUE, THEY WOULD SEE AN $11 PER MONTH INCREASE IF COUNSEL WAS TO GO FROM THE CURRENT YEAR TAX RATE TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

TODAY, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO COUNSEL IS TO APPROVE THAT NOT TO EXCEED TAX RATE OF THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE OF THE $43.07.

THEN WE WOULD BRING BACK THE FIRST READING WHERE YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE VOTING ON THE ACTUAL TAX RATE ON SEPTEMBER 9 AT 3:00 PM. HERE AT CITY HALL.

THEN WE WOULD BRING IT BACK AGAIN ON SEPTEMBER 16 AT 3:00 PM.

HERE AT CITY HALL, AND WE WOULD HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.

ON THAT TAX RATE, AND WE WOULD HAVE COUNSEL DO THE SECOND AND FINAL READING ON THAT TAX RATE, AND YOU'RE REQUIRED TO TAKE A RECORD VOTE AND TO RATIFY THE TAX RATE AT THAT MEETING.

THERE'S A FEW MORE VOTES THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE PLACE.

WITH THIS, WE WILL BE POSTING NOTICE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND IN THE NEWSPAPER.

WE'RE ANTICIPATING POSTING THIS NOTICE RELATED TO THE PROPERTY TAX RATE, AND WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS, WE'RE ANTICIPATING PUBLISHING THAT IN THE NEWSPAPER ON SEPTEMBER 4.

THAT'LL BE COMING UP REALLY SOON, AND THAT WILL ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO COME OUT ON SEPTEMBER 16 TO VOICE THEIR OPINIONS ABOUT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE.

ARE THERE QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER ON THIS?

>> WE'VE HAD HOW MANY DAYS? WE DO FOUR DAYS OF BUDGET?

>> WE HAVE 3, 4, 5 I BELIEVE?

>> WE DID FIVE DAYS OF BUDGET WORKSHOP.

>> YES.

>> IT WAS GOOD. WE ENJOYED IT.

>> IT'S ALL CULMINATED INTO THIS WONDERFUL MOTION FOR ITEM 9K.

NO QUESTIONS, GENTLEMEN. ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[02:05:06]

>> ALSO MOVED.

>> MOTION IN A SECOND. I'LL CHECK WITH MR. CITY ATTORNEY.

DO YOU NEED ANYTHING STATED FOR THE ACTUAL TAX RATE ALL GOOD? PERFECT. ALL IN FAVOR OF ITEM 9K. PLEASE SAY AYE.