[3.1. Discussion regarding the current East Gateway Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone #2 (TIRZ #2) goals, boundary, and acreage and recent TIRZ #2 Board direction to staff to explore potential expansion opportunities to increase the Zone by requesting City Council add more acreage, which is allowed per Chapter 311 of the Texas Tax Code. ]

SO ITEMS 3.1. THIS IS OUR TIER ZONE. THERE WE GO.

COME ON FORWARD, MR. BRASFIELD. WALK US INTO THIS ONE.

GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL DREW BRASFIELD, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AND IT'S MY PRIVILEGE TO BE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY TO DISCUSS THE EAST GATEWAY TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE NUMBER TWO, AND THE POTENTIAL EXPANSION THAT WE'VE BEEN RESEARCHING.

SO I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THIS ZONE AND TALK ABOUT WHERE IT STARTED.

AND IT STARTED IN NOVEMBER OF 2016 BY ORDINANCE SEVEN, SIX, TWO SEVEN, ESTABLISHED THE ZONE AT A TAX BASE OF JUST SHY OF 40 MILLION WITH 940 ACRES, AND IT WAS SET TO EXPIRE 30 YEARS LATER IN 2046.

[00:15:03]

IN 2020, THIS ZONE WAS REVISED BY ORDINANCE 7892.

INCREASED THE TAXES OR THE TAX BASE BY 1.4 MILLION AND ADDED 449 ACRES.

THE ORIGINAL GOALS FOR THIS ZONE WERE TO RELOCATE AND REDEVELOP THE BIG TECHS AND ADD NEW RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT VENUES, AN RV PARK, AUTO AND TRUCK OUTLETS, FULL AND LIMITED SERVICE HOTELS, RECREATION FACILITIES AND SOME NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

AND SO THIS IS A MAP OF HOW THE ZONE CURRENTLY STANDS AS AS IT IS TODAY.

IT'S BOUNDED ON THE NORTH SIDE BY EAST THIRD STREET.

THE EASTERN BOUNDARY IS LAKESIDE OR LOOP 335.

ON THE SOUTH SIDE AT ITS SOUTHERNMOST POINT IS SOUTHEAST 34TH AND THEN THE WESTERN BOUNDARY IS EASTERN STREET.

IRONICALLY. THE ZONE AGAIN TODAY IS 1389 ACRES.

52 ACRES OF THAT ZONE COMPRISE ABOUT 300 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AN RV PARK OR A COUPLE OF RV PARKS, ABOUT A DOZEN BUSINESSES IN A PRIVATE CEMETERY.

ALMOST THREE QUARTERS OF THIS ZONE IS MADE UP OF VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY.

THE 2025 TAX VALUE FOR THE ENTIRE ZONE IS IS 117 MILLION, WHICH IS 77.6 MILLION OVER ITS 2016 VALUE WHEN IT FIRST STARTED. SOME OF THE POSITIVES FOR THIS AREA INCLUDE THE BIG TEXAN STEAK RANCH, THE FEDEX FACILITY. XCEL ENERGY HAS A FACILITY OUT THERE, PLUS THERE LAY DOWN YARD.

THE PREMIER TRUCK GROUP FACILITY, A FEW HOTELS AND SEVERAL OTHER TRUCK SERVICE FACILITIES.

THE DOWNSIDE TO THIS ZONE AS IT STANDS TODAY IS THAT THERE ARE NUMEROUS VACANT TRACKS.

THERE'S CLOSED BUSINESSES, BLIGHTED CONDITIONS, VERY POOR DRAINAGE IN SEVERAL PARTS OF THIS ZONE, AND WE HAVE CONSIDERABLY UNDERSIZED OR LACKING INFRASTRUCTURE.

WITHIN THIS ZONE, AS FAR AS THE THE THE TIERS GOES.

WE'VE ONLY GOT FOUR CURRENT COMMITMENTS. THE HOME TWO SUITES HOTEL PROJECT IS RECEIVING 50% OF THEIR PROPERTY TAX BACK OVER TEN YEARS ESTIMATED TO PAY OUT A TOTAL OF 281,000 OVER THE COURSE OF THAT AGREEMENT, AND THERE'S EIGHT YEARS REMAINING ON IT.

THE PREMIER TRUCK GROUP ALSO RECEIVING A 50% PROPERTY TAX REBATE FOR TEN YEARS.

THE LIFE OF THAT AGREEMENT IS ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 1.08 MILLION.

AND THERE'S ALSO EIGHT YEARS REMAINING ON THAT.

THE TEUTON TOTEM AT EASTERN ALSO RECEIVING A 50% PROPERTY TAX FOR TEN YEARS, ESTIMATED TO BE WORTH 46,000.

AND THERE'S NINE YEARS LEFT ON THAT ONE. AND THEN THE TEUTON TOTEM AT LAKESIDE, THE BIG TRAVEL CENTER RECEIVED 90% OF THEIR PROPERTY TAXES REBATED FOR THE FIRST FIVE YEARS AND 50% OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS ESTIMATED TO BE WORTH 620,000.

AND THERE'S EIGHT YEARS REMAINING ON THAT. AND JUST THIS LAST YEAR, THE TEARS BOARD PAID OFF ABOUT $221,000 WORTH OF WATER AND SEWER EXTENSIONS. REIMBURSED TO THE CITY. SO NOW THAT WE'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE ARE, WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A POSSIBLE EXPANSION? WELL, IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS OF 2025, WE HAD SEVERAL PROJECTS INQUIRE ABOUT POTENTIAL INCENTIVES IN THIS AREA.

THOSE DEVELOPERS, THE PROJECTS THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN ABOUT 59.4 MILLION IN INVESTMENT. THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL REVENUE OF THOSE PROJECTS WAS PRELIMINARY ESTIMATES, PRELIMINARILY ESTIMATED TO BE ABOUT 52 MILLION.

SO THROUGH SOME CONVERSATIONS THAT WE HAD WITH YOU AS A COUNCIL INTERNALLY WITH MANAGEMENT WE DECIDED TO TAKE THIS IDEA TO THE TEARS BOARD AND THE TEARS BOARD. HEARD THAT DISCUSSION IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR.

AND THE DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD WAS TO EXAMINE SEVERAL DIFFERENT BOUNDARIES.

SO THIS MAP IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE AREA THAT WE HAVE STARTED RESEARCHING.

THE RED PART OF THIS MENU OR OF THIS MAP IS WHERE THE EXISTING ZONE CURRENTLY IS.

THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE COLORED KIND OF THAT TAN COLOR ARE PROPERTIES THAT ARE OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS HAVE PERFORMED AT $100,000 OR LESS.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE SEVERAL PARCELS OUT IN THIS AREA THAT HAVE LOST CONSIDERABLE VALUE.

ONE OF THE PROPERTIES HAS LOST CLOSE TO 400,000 IN VALUE.

[00:20:01]

THE BLUE HASH MARKED ARE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE PERFORMED AT 100,000 OR MORE.

AS FAR AS IMPROVEMENT TO THEIR TAX VALUE OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS.

AND SO SOME MORE OF THIS RESEARCH. ALL IN ALL, WE HAVE LOOKED AT 211 PARCELS IN TOTAL.

ACREAGE WISE, THAT WOULD BE CLOSE TO 2100 ACRES THAT WE HAVE EXAMINED.

THE 2018 VALUE OF THESE PARCELS BEING EXAMINED WAS JUST SHY OF 69 MILLION, AND THE 25 VALUE IS 116 MILLION.

SO AN EIGHT YEAR INCREASE OVERALL TO THE PARCELS BEING LOOKED AT WAS 47.8 MILLION.

THE THREE LARGEST PROJECTS THAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE AREA THAT WE HAVE BEEN EXAMINING INCLUDE THE UTILITY TRAILER OF TEXAS PROJECT, A ROAD RANGER TRAVEL CENTER, AND OF COURSE, BUCKY'S THE PARCELS AS THEY WERE GROUPED TOGETHER BY VALUE DIFFERENCE.

THOSE THAT WERE IN THE NEGATIVE UP TO, YOU KNOW, NO PERFORMANCE, THEY'VE REMAINED STAGNANT.

THERE WERE 38 PARCELS OR ABOUT 430 ACRES IN THE IN THE $1 TO $100,000 PERFORMANCE RANGE.

THERE'S 108 PARCELS OR ABOUT A THOUSAND ACRES, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.

WE'RE CERTAINLY NOT FINISHED WITH ALL OF OUR RESEARCH ON THIS, BUT AS IT STANDS TODAY, THIS IS THE THE GRAND TOTAL OF WHAT ALL WE HAVE LOOKED AT THUS FAR. SO IN CONCLUSION EACH PARCEL, EACH PARCEL WE WILL CONTINUE TO EXAMINE FOR ITS POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT.

BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THE POINT TO A TERROR ZONE IS TO CAPTURE THAT INCREMENTAL GROWTH AND BE ABLE TO REINVEST THAT BACK INTO THIS ZONE.

INFRASTRUCTURE EXTENSIONS COULD BE COULD BE REIMBURSED BY THE TEARS TO THE CITY OR A DEVELOPER THROUGH CASH GRANTS AND OR PROPERTY TAX REBATES TO HELP OFFSET THOSE, THOSE INITIAL COSTS. THE BENEFIT TO, TO AN EXPANSION WOULD ALSO AID IN THE PROJECTS WHERE WE'VE ALREADY HAD INTEREST EXPRESSED COULD HELP WITH POTENTIAL GROWTH WHERE IT'S CURRENTLY STAGNANT.

AND I WILL BE TAKING THIS IDEA, THE RESEARCH TO THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES TO GET THEIR FEEDBACK AS WELL.

AND SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TRY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRASFIELD. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN.

SIMPSON. THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO BACK TO TO THE MAP.

BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF SMALL. SO THE THE RED AREA, WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE NORTH SOUTH STREETS THAT BOUND THE CURRENT TIER ZONE ON THE EAST SIDE IT'S LAKESIDE. NORTH SIDE IS SOUTHEAST.

THIRD ON THE WEST SIDE IS ROUGHLY EASTERN. THERE'S A LITTLE PART THERE JUST NORTH OF I-40 IN EASTERN WHERE IT KIND OF JUTS OUT A LITTLE BIT.

AND THEN AT ITS SOUTHERNMOST POINT IS SOUTHEAST 34TH.

OKAY. AND THEN IF WE'RE NOW IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS, SO THIS AREA THAT'S A MIX OF SHADED BLUE AND THEN KIND OF THE TAN, THAT'S THE AREA THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. CORRECT.

BUT YOU ACTUALLY POTENTIALLY EXPANDING. AND THEN WHAT IS WHAT IS THE WESTERN OR THE EASTERNMOST STREET THAT THAT WE HAVE HERE ON THE PARCELS WE ARE EXAMINING, WE'VE GONE AS FAR EAST AS PARSLEY ROAD OR THE EAST CITY LIMITS.

SO THIS WOULD GO PAST WHERE BUCKY'S IS CORRECT INTO THAT AREA.

BUCKY'S IS BACK FURTHER TO THE WEST, THERE AT ATTERBURY OR AIRPORT BOULEVARD AND I-40.

AND SO BECAUSE USUALLY IN MANY CASES, WHEN YOU SEE BUCKY'S GO IN, IN OTHER AREAS, DEVELOPMENT SEEMS TO FOLLOW THERE.

OR ARE WE GETTING INQUIRIES ABOUT THAT? YES, SIR.

RIGHT NOW. BUT IT'S GOING TO TAKE AN INCENTIVE OF SOME SORT TO GET THEM THERE.

OR THEY'RE JUST ASKING ABOUT THIS OR ON SOME OF THE PROJECTS THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT IN ORDER TO MAKE PROJECTS VIABLE, THEY WOULD NEED SOME KIND OF AN INCENTIVE. THE PRIMARY CONCERN THAT WE'RE HEARING FROM THE SPECULATIVE DEVELOPERS IS THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE AND BEING ABLE TO EXTEND WATER AND SEWER MAINS IN THAT DIRECTION.

IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS, WE HAVE WATER RELATIVELY CLOSE, BUT DUE TO THE CONSTRUCTION COST, IT MAKES THEIR PROJECTS A LOT LESS FEASIBLE OR NOT FEASIBLE AT ALL.

AND SO THAT TENDS TO BE KIND OF THE MAIN QUESTION WE'RE WE'RE BEING ASKED IS, YOU KNOW, WHAT COULD THE CITY DO TO HELP EXTEND THAT INFRASTRUCTURE? AND SO, I MEAN, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE DOWNTOWN TAX INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE, WHICH WE HAD A PRESENTATION ON A COUPLE OF WEEKS, I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN, I GUESS, DOZENS OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA.

AND WE TALKED ABOUT THE INCREASE OF THE PROPERTY DOWNTOWN.

[00:25:05]

WHY HAVEN'T WE BEEN ABLE TO I MEAN, SO WE'VE HAD THIS FOR ABOUT TEN YEARS AND WE'VE HAD FOUR PROJECTS.

WHAT'S I MEAN, WHY, WHY, WHY IS THE ATTRACTION NOT OCCURRING IN THIS TEARS VERSUS THE DOWNTOWN TEARS? WELL, AGAIN, I THINK IT IS DUE TO A LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

DRAINAGE BEING ANOTHER PART OF THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF THESE PROPERTIES FLOOD JUST DUE TO THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THAT PARTICULAR AREA. AND SO THERE, THIS AREA TENDS TO BE PLAGUED WITH A LITTLE MORE PREVALENT ISSUES LIKE THAT THAT MAKE DEVELOPMENT A LOT MORE DIFFICULT. AND SO IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? I MEAN, IF WE EXPANDED THIS, I MEAN, DO WE THINK THIS IS GOING TO PUT IT OVER THE THE HUMP, IF YOU WILL, FOR DEVELOPMENT? OR ARE THERE OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE GOING TO, TO, TO TRY TO GET TRACTION IN THIS AREA TO GET THE GROWTH, I GUESS, THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR? WELL, YOU KNOW, I THINK IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORLD, A WORLD. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S THE HORSE TO WATER KIND OF SCENARIO, BUT AT THE SAME TIME TO YOU KNOW, EXTENDING THE, THE TIERS BOUNDARY IN THIS AREA JUST MAKES THAT TOOL AVAILABLE.

AND IT DOES MAKE IT WHERE CONVERSATIONS CAN GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD THAN MAYBE THEY, THEY WOULDN'T BE OTHERWISE. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE PROJECTS THAT HAVE JUST COME ONLINE RECENTLY, BUCKY'S AND, AND THE ROAD RANGERS, I GUESS THAT THAT VALUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED FOR THAT.

SO WE COULDN'T TAKE IT. I MEAN, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF MONEY IF WE HAD INCLUDED THE TIERS BEFORE THE BUCKY'S OR THE ROAD RANGER WOULD HAVE BEEN BUILT.

THAT WOULD HAVE GENERATED A LOT MORE THAT COULD HAVE HELPED THAT AREA. BUT I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S THAT'S NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME, I GUESS BECAUSE THE BASE WOULD ALREADY BE ESTABLISHED IF IT WAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEW BOUNDARY, THOUGH, WE COULD GET ANY GROWTH IF, SAY, BUCKY'S ADDS ANOTHER MILLION IN VALUE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS, THAT COULD GO TO THE ZONE VERSUS STAYING. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO JUST LOOKING AT THIS MAP, WHAT'S PROPOSED? WHY THE PATCHWORK? WELL, IT'S REALLY NOT PATCHWORK.

IT'S JUST IDENTIFYING WHAT THE VALUES, THE PERFORMANCE, THE THE PERFORMANCE OF THE VALUES OF EACH OF THOSE PARCELS.

BASICALLY THE BLUE IS PERFORMED AND THE TAN IS EITHER STAGNANT OR DECLINING.

SO THE TAN IS WHAT'S STAGNANT. SO WHAT'S PROPOSED THOUGH.

ARE WE SHOWING IS IT THAT WHOLE TAN AREA IS WHAT IS PROPOSED.

THAT'S WHAT'S ALL BEING CONSIDERED. IT'S NOT A FINAL RECOMMENDATION AT THIS POINT.

YES. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN ANALYZED. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FURTHER.

SO IN IN CLARIFYING BECAUSE I KNOW THE MAP, THE KEY IS SUPER SMALL FOR SOME PEOPLE TO SEE UP THERE.

SO THE ENTIRE AREA IS WHAT WE'RE CONSIDERING POSSIBLE ENLARGEMENT OF THAT TEAR ZONE.

SO THAT'S BLUE, RED AND THE TAN. THAT WOULD BE ONE LARGE TEARS TWO WITH AN EXPANSION.

ARE YOU CONSIDERING LENGTHENING THE TIME ON IT.

WHEN DOES THIS ONE RUN OUT. 2045 THIS ONE'S IN 2046.

AND NO WE HAVE NOT DISCUSSED EXTENDING THE THE TIME.

WE'VE JUST DISCUSSED EXPANDING THE BOUNDARY. SO SO NO EXTENSION ON TIME FRAME OR REALLY THE INCENTIVE STRUCTURE.

BUT THEN TO, TO KIND OF GO THROUGH IT. IT IS INTERESTING THAT NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE HEAR IT, WE AS COUNCIL STILL FORGET HOW THESE TEAR ZONES OPERATE.

AND I KNOW OUR CONSTITUENTS CONSTANTLY, YOU KNOW, KIND OF, I'D SAY REVERT BACK TO, TO NOT UNDERSTANDING EXACTLY HOW THE TEAR ZONES HOLD PROPERTY INCREASES. SO FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S A SET LIMIT THAT YOUR FLOOR.

SO ANY TAXABLE VALUE THAT WAS EXISTING IS STILL GOING TO THE CITY AT LARGE.

SO WE DIDN'T DRAW A BORDER AROUND, YOU KNOW, THIS TRAPEZOID AND PUT ALL THE MONIES THERE.

WE TOOK EVERYTHING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE AS A FOUNDATION.

AND THEN WE'RE BUILDING ON THAT WITH ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES, RIGHT? PROPERTY TAXES ONLY. DREW. YES, SIR. PROPERTY TAXES ONLY.

SALES TAXES NOT INCLUDED. CORRECT. OKAY. SO I WANT TO REMIND EVERYBODY AS YOU GUYS LISTEN, BECAUSE I DO KNOW THE MENTALITY IS A WINNERS AND LOSERS.

YOU'RE PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS. WELL OKAY.

SO WE CREATE A ZONE THAT'S GOT PLENTY OF LAND OUT THERE.

ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE A WINNER IN THIS ZONE, WE'RE HOPING YOU COME AND BE A WINNER.

RIGHT? WE ALSO DO THIS IN EMPOWERMENT ZONES. SO OTHER AREAS THAT ARE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS.

WE DO INCENTIVE STRUCTURES FOR SMALL BUSINESSES TO NOT JUST KIND OF YOUR EDC PIECES, BUT IT IS A LONG GAME.

[00:30:08]

YOU'RE PLAYING LONG BALL. SO YOUR BUDGET RIGHT NOW, THIS CURRENT YEAR, WILL PROBABLY BRING IN AROUND $65 MILLION IN PROPERTY TAXES.

YOUR SALES TAXES WILL REVENUE $90 MILLION. WE'RE ROUGHLY 10% OVER OUR REVENUE EXPECTATIONS FOR THE YEAR.

SO THESE ZONES ARE WORKING TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT THE ENTIRE CITY.

AND THOSE MONIES THAT ARE HELD WITHIN THOSE ZONES PRIMARILY CAN GO FOR THE ONE THING THAT WE STRUGGLE WITH.

YOU KNOW, YOU USED TO COULD PUT IN A SEWER LINE FOR ABOUT A HALF A MILLION A MILE.

NOW, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN NUMBERS UP TO $4 MILLION A MILE DEPENDING ON DEPTH.

AND THAT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE AS YOU SEE CONSTRUCTION CONTINUE TO GO BIG INDUSTRIAL CONSTRUCTION ALL ACROSS THE PANHANDLE.

WE HAVE LESS RESOURCES. SO IF THE CITY CAN GO AND PUT IN WATER AND SEWER TO THOSE PARCELS.

THEN YOU HAVE KIND OF A FAIR PLAYING FIELD FOR SOMEBODY, SAY IF THEY WANT TO BUILD A HOTEL OUT THERE, THEY WANT TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, A GAS REFUELING STATION, THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE, AN AMUSEMENT, WHATEVER IT IS AT THAT TIME. NOW THAT THAT POTENTIAL IS, IS NOT PICKING SOUTHWEST BECAUSE WATER AND SEWER IS ALREADY AVAILABLE AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE $4 MILLION THAT THEY CAN PUT INTO THE ADDITIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT THAT I THINK WE REMEMBER THE WAY TEARS WORKS.

SO WE'RE NOT TYING UP ANYTHING ON THE WAY OF RETAIL SALES, SALES TAX.

AND THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY THE WAY THAT WE SUPPORT THE MAJORITY OF WELL OVER HALF NOW.

YOU KNOW, IT USED TO BE UNDER HALF. BUT THEN WHEN YOU LOOK AT DEVELOPMENT AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO GET THAT FAR OUT THERE TO THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN THESE CAN BE VERY HELPFUL. I JUST WANTED TO PUSH BACK AS POLITELY AS I CAN ON LIKE ANY INCENTIVE IS A BAD INCENTIVE MENTALITY, RIGHT? THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT CITIES CAN WORK WITH DEVELOPERS BECAUSE CAPITALISM LOVES CAPITAL, AND THEY WILL PUT THEIR CAPITAL IN AREAS OF TOWN THAT ARE ALREADY SERVICED.

SO AS WE HAVE UNSERVICED PROPERTIES, WE WILL ALLOW THEM TO JUST STAY AND STAGNATE AT THE EXISTING PROPERTY TAX, WHICH WE'RE COLLECTING, RIGHT? OR WE CAN INCENTIVIZE AND WE CAN GET THAT PROPERTY TAX INCREASE BACK ON A LONG GAME 20 YEARS LATER, BUT WE'LL GET THE SALES TAX BACK ON THE FRONT END.

AND THEN WHAT COMES UP AROUND IT IS ADDITIONAL BUSINESSES WITH SEWER AND WATER MAIN EXTENSIONS, WHICH IS THE ONE THING THAT I THINK COULD BE THE MOST BENEFICIAL OVER HERE.

SO IN EXPANDING THE TIER ZONE, WE ALREADY HAVE IT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THERE COULD BE A CONVERSATION FOR DO WE WANT TIERS ZONES IN TOWN? DO WE WANT ANY KIND OF ECONOMIC STIMULUS. WE'RE PAST THAT BY A COUPLE DECADES AT THIS POINT.

AND SO I THINK WHAT I'M TALKING FOR IS MORE OR LESS STEWARDSHIP OF THAT EXISTING ZONE.

AND SO IT'LL COST ME NOTHING TO EXPAND THAT, BUT IT STANDS TO GAIN ME TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN POTENTIAL.

ESPECIALLY IF I LOOK 20 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. I WISH SOMEBODY HAD LOOKED MAYBE THAT FAR DOWN THE ROAD 20 YEARS AGO ON A FEW OTHER ITEMS WE'RE FACING.

RIGHT. SO IF, IF I CAN GAIN A LITTLE SUPPORT IN THAT, I THINK IT'S, IT'S GOOD TO HAVE THAT LONG TERM VISION.

SO THAT'S JUST MY SOAPBOX TODAY. I DREW I WISH I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU IN THERE SOMEWHERE.

I THINK I'M SUPPOSED TO ASK QUESTIONS. IT'S ALL GOOD.

SO I WOULD ECHO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK HOW, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY TAX IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE PRESSURED, I MEAN, THERE ARE GOALS NOW TO ABOLISH PROPERTY TAX IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

AND SO I THINK IT BEHOOVES US TO LOOK AT, OKAY, YES, THAT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT COULD GO AWAY.

SO WHAT ARE WE GOING TO USE TO REPLACE THAT? AND WHAT I SEE HERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO DEVELOP BUSINESSES ALONG THIS CORRIDOR.

AS YOU MENTIONED, THAT ARE GOING TO GENERATE ADDITIONAL SALES TAX CAN GENERATE ADDITIONAL HOT TAX WHICH WOULD BE FREE.

THE, THE, THE, THE SALES TAX IS GOING TO OUR GENERAL FUND.

AS YOU SEE, THE SALES TAX. I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE LATEST FIGURES AND WE'RE IN GOOD SHAPE.

I MEAN, AMARILLO IS THIRD IN THE STATE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX FROM YEAR OVER YEAR.

AND SO WE'RE DOING WELL AND THAT'S GREAT. BUT ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO SEE PROPERTY TAX CONTINUE TO SHRINK AND SHRINK AND BE PRESSURES BEING PUT ON THAT AT THE STATE LEVEL OF WHICH WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHEN IF WE DO THINGS TO INVEST, TO INCREASE OUR SALES TAX, LIKE ANYTHING ALONG I-40 OR OTHER AREAS WHERE WE'VE LOOKED AT THESE REINVESTMENT ZONES, I THINK IT'S GOT A POTENTIAL TO HELP US IN THE LONG TERM AND HELP US FUND GOVERNMENT LONGER THAN RELYING ON SO MUCH ON PROPERTY TAXES.

YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT, YOU HAD SOME JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR ME.

THE INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD NOT OCCUR UNTIL A VIABLE PROJECT.

[00:35:01]

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO AND PUT YOURSELF AT RISK AND SPECULATE LIKE WE DO SOMETIMES IN THE IN THE BUILDING INDUSTRY.

THIS THIS IS DRIVEN BY A PROJECT. SO YOU WOULD KNOW SIZING, YOU WOULD KNOW MAYBE THE WATER LOOP, YOU WOULD KNOW DEPTH, EVERYTHING. AND THEN WHEN YOU REALLY GET LIKE JEWETT ATTERBURY, SOME OF THOSE OTHER ONES, WHEN YOU START HEADING SOUTH DOWN THAT ROAD, YOUR, YOUR DEPTH IS, IS THE ISSUE TO GET EVERYTHING BACK UP TO I-40.

AND SO IT'S A CONSTANT STRUGGLE. THANK YOU. MR..

MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO ALSO ADD, I THINK THIS MAP HERE HIGHLIGHTS ONE OF THE FUNDAMENTAL ELEMENTS BEHIND WHY TEARS EXIST.

I MEAN, LOOK AT LOOK AT THIS THIS ZONE HERE, A LARGE PORTION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A TAN.

AND THOSE ARE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE CLEARLY OVER TIME HAVE STRUGGLED TO MAINTAIN VALUE, IF NOT DECREASED VALUE.

THAT'S NOT A BENEFIT TO US, AND TO OUR COMMUNITY, TO OUR ENTRYWAY ON THE EAST SIDE.

AND SO TEARS IS A IS A IS A TOOL WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO TURN THAT SHIP AROUND AND MAKE THESE PROPERTIES CONTRIBUTING PROPERTIES BACK TO OUR ECONOMY, FOR OUR COMMUNITY THROUGH VALUE, THROUGH BUSINESS, WHICH GOES TO SALES.

SO THIS IS A, THIS IS A TOOL THAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO STIMULATE GROWTH.

AND PARTICULARLY, AS I SAID ON ONE OF OUR ENTRY POINTS TO OUR COMMUNITY.

THANK YOU, MR. PATH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. BRASFIELD? MR. FREEMAN WAS GOING TO SAY, IF THERE'S ANY FEEDBACK OF.

IS THIS THE KIND OF THE RIGHT AREA TO BE LOOKING AT, OR SHOULD WE BE LOOKING SMALLER OR LARGER? ANY OF THAT KIND OF FEEDBACK WOULD BE HELPFUL AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE TEARS BOARD, BECAUSE JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE VACANT AIRPORT LAND, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THAT WILL BE IN COORDINATION WITH EDC AND THE AIRPORT.

SO IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO HAVE THE THE ZONE GO NORTH, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO JUMP OUT FIRST AND JUST SAY, I THINK WHAT YOU'VE GOT HIGHLIGHTED IS, IS THE FULL EXTENT OF EVERYTHING THAT MAKES GOOD SENSE ON PAPER IN THE FORM OF AN ROI.

I THINK AS YOU STRETCH FURTHER OUT FROM THERE, I THINK YOU COULD LOSE A LITTLE BIT OF YOUR MOMENTUM.

AND THEN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF, OF THAT, GOING INTO THE AIRPORT, I THINK WE HAVE OTHER MECHANISMS OUT THERE THAT ARE BENEFICIAL.

PERFECT. THANK YOU SIR. MR. BRASSFIELD, THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION. GENTLEMEN, THAT BRINGS US TO REQUEST FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.

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

DO I HAVE ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE NEXT MEETING? OKAY. WE WILL MOVE OUT OF SECTION THREE. WE'LL MOVE INTO PUBLIC COMMENT.

[4. Public Comment - The public will be permitted to offer public comment on agenda items and items related to City business. Citizens interested in commenting may sign up online at https://www.amarillo.gov/city-secretary/public-comment-registration-form/, by calling the City Secretary’s office at (806) 378-3014, or in person in Room 3500 of City Hall, 623 S. Johnson. Citizens should sign up at least 15 minutes prior to the scheduled meeting start time. ]

MISS JOHNNY, WOULD YOU MIND READING US INTO PUBLIC COMMENT? SURE, MAYOR. THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING IN TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

WE VALUE YOUR INPUT AND APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS.

EACH SPEAKER WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 2.5 MINUTES.

A SINGLE BEEP WILL SIGNAL 30S REMAINING. WHEN TIME IS UP, THE TIMER WILL BEEP CONTINUOUSLY.

PLEASE STAY WITHIN YOUR ALLOTTED TIME. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING TODAY, AND IF YOU WISH TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM WITH A HEARING, PLEASE DO SO EITHER DURING PUBLIC COMMENT OR DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, NOT BOTH.

TO ENSURE ACCURATE RECORDS, WE'LL BE USING BOTH PODIUMS TODAY.

WHEN YOUR NAME IS CALLED, PLEASE MAKE YOUR WAY TO THE PODIUM.

WHEN IT'S YOUR TURN, STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN AMARILLO CITY LIMITS BEFORE BEGINNING YOUR COMMENTS.

FOR TOPICS NOT ON TODAY'S AGENDA, THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT LIMITS HOW COUNCIL MAY RESPOND.

COUNCIL MAY PROVIDE FACTUAL STATEMENTS, ASK FOR THE ISSUE TO BE ADDED TO A FUTURE AGENDA, OR REFER YOU TO THE CITY MANAGER SO STAFF CAN VISIT WITH YOU ABOUT YOUR CONCERN.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK BUT HAVEN'T SIGNED UP YET, PLEASE COME SEE ME NOW TO FILL OUT A FORM SO WE CAN ADD YOU TO THE LIST.

AT THIS TIME. I WILL INVITE TOM SHERMAN AS OUR FIRST SPEAKER, AND OUR SECOND SPEAKER WILL BE GABBY MORALES.

SO AS MR. SCHERLEN MAKES HIS WAY UP. THANK YOU GUYS, EVERYBODY, FOR HONORING KIND OF OUR THREE MINUTE TIME LIMIT.

WE APPRECIATE THE RESPECT THAT'S SHOWN FOR EVERYBODY.

AND THEN IF I HAVE ANYBODY HERE WHO WANTS TO GIVE PUBLIC COMMENT, IF YOU HAVEN'T SIGNED UP, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING AROUND OVER HERE TO MISS JOHNNY, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET YOU DOWN FOR THE RECORD.

MR. SCHERLEN, HOW YOU DOING TODAY, SIR? DOING GREAT.

MAYOR. MAYOR STANLEY COUNCILMAN READ COUNCILMAN.

PRESCOTT. COUNCILMAN SIMPSON. THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING ME TO COME FORWARD TODAY TO SPEAK TO THE LEADERSHIP OF AMARILLO.

I'M HERE TO SPEAK ABOUT ITEM 6.2 TODAY, WHICH HAS TO DO WITH THE AUDIT.

AFTER OUR MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, I WOULD LIKE TO THANK ANDREW FREEMAN AND HIS STAFF FOR THE GREAT JOB THEY DID IDENTIFYING WHERE WE HAD $43 MILLION IN OPEN CIP PROJECTS.

BUT WITH THAT INFORMATION, IT REMINDED ME THAT TWO YEARS AGO, WHEN I WAS SITTING ON THAT COUNCIL, WE VOTED TO DO ROAD PROJECTS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE COULDN'T DO THE ROAD PROJECTS BECAUSE THE MONEY HASN'T ALL BEEN SPENT FROM A

[00:40:08]

2016 BOND ISSUE. THEN I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE STIMULATED SOMETHING WITH MR. FREEMAN AND HIS STAFF GOING TO FIND 43 MILLION MORE.

I THINK WE COME TO A POINT IN TIME THAT I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT OF ALL CIP PROJECTS.

IT SEEMS LIKE EVERY TIME WE GET IN THERE, WE FIND A LITTLE MONEY HERE AND A LITTLE MONEY THERE.

THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY WE HAVE A NEW CFO. IF I WAS THE CFO, I'D WANT A CLEAN SET OF BOOKS.

EVIDENTLY, WE FOUND ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR THIS AUDIT.

IT'S THERE. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS SPEND IT. MAKE A COMMITMENT TO HAVE A CLEAN SET OF BOOKS.

I MEAN, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LOT, BUT I THINK AS CITIZENS, THE CITIZENS WANT TO SEE WHERE OUR MONEY IS, WHERE IT'S GOING. AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM MR. FREEMAN'S REPORT IN 20, HE REPORTED BACK TO STUFF AS OLD AS 2012.

THERE'S NO REASON FOR THAT. IF I WAS RUNNING A BUSINESS, I'D HAVE BEEN FIRED ON THE SPOT FOR THAT.

I'M NOT ACCUSING ANYBODY OF ANY WRONGDOING AT ALL.

IN FACT, I DOUBT IF THERE IS ANY WRONGDOING. WHAT I THINK WE HAVE IS A PROBLEM, MAYBE OF COMMUNICATION, OF THE WAY WE HANDLE BUSINESS. BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT, YOU GUYS ARE THE FIDUCIARY PEOPLE FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO. IT IS YOUR JOB TO MAKE SURE OUR MONEY IS WHERE IT IS AND WHAT THEY SAY IT IS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK FOR YOU TO SERIOUSLY CONSIDER DOING A FORENSIC AUDIT ON CIP ITEMS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU ALL DO.

I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE SITTING UP THERE, SO HAVE A GOOD DAY, SIR.

UP NEXT IS GABBY MORALES, AND IF SHE'S NOT HERE, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAVE JAMES SCHANKE COME UP.

AND JASON RODEN TO THE EMPTY PODIUM.

JAMES AMARILLO. IT'S BEEN A BIT. YOU KNOW, I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH RIGHT QUICK SPEAKING ABOUT 6.2 AND THINGS SORT OF PIVOTING OFF OF WHAT TOM WAS TALKING ABOUT, MY PERSONAL HISTORY OF AMARILLO BUDGETS AND HOW I STARTED EXAMINING THEM BACK REALLY IN 2010 WHEN MCCARTHY WAS IN AND THEN MOVING ON INTO HARPOLE STARTED ATTENDING BUDGET MEETINGS. VERY LABORIOUS AND CONFUSING AND A LOT OF RUBBER STAMPING GOING ON AS THEY JUST PASSED MONEY THINGS.

AND I WAS SITTING HERE GOING, WHAT? COME TO FIND OUT, HARPO, THAT WAS ALL DONE BACK IN THAT LITTLE BOARDROOM MEETING.

NOBODY EVER ATTENDED. NOBODY EVER WATCHED. SO HARPO DID A THING, BROUGHT IT OUT IN FRONT WHERE PEOPLE COULD ATTEND, BUT NOBODY REALLY DOES. WE MOVED ON THERE AND THERE WAS STILL A LOT OF RUBBER STAMPING FROM 11 TO 15.

AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE HAD A NEW COUNCIL SHOW UP IN 15.

AND ONE OF THE KEY PLAYERS IN THAT WAS RANDY BURKETT.

HE STARTED ASKING BETTER QUESTIONS AND HAD MORE CONCERNS, AND THERE WAS STILL A LOT OF RUBBER STAMPING GOING ON THAT HE WOULD JUST SHAKE HIS HEAD AT. AND THERE WAS A LOT OF WHAT I CONSIDERED GOOD CONFLICT AMONGST COUNCIL.

AND STILL A LOT OF RUBBER STAMPING, BUT THEY CAME OUT THESE EXCUSES ABOUT GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING.

YOU CAN'T RUN THE CITY LIKE YOU RUN A BUSINESS.

I DISAGREE. YOU HAVE TO. THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN, WHILE I WAS WATCHING THROUGH THERE AND I ACTUALLY SAT WITH THE BOOK, AND I'M ASKING THE CFOS, AND WHY DO WE HAVE SO MUCH LARGE RESERVES IN THESE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS COUNTING UP, YOU KNOW, UPWARDS OF 30, $40 MILLION IN RESERVES JUST IN DEPARTMENTS.

AND THEN TO FIND OUT, WE HAVE OVER $100 MILLION IN THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THAT'S BEST PRACTICES.

OKAY. WHAT? AND THEN WE START ARGUING ABOUT KEEPING A COUPLE OF PARKS OPEN, AND WE NEED 3 OR 4 OR $5 MILLION.

[00:45:04]

AND YOU CAN'T JUST GET IT FROM THAT GENERAL FUND RESERVE.

WHAT? YOU'RE CONFUSING ME. IT'S WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR OWN HOUSEHOLD.

THE RESERVES IN THE DEPARTMENTS ARE IN EXCESS OF THAT.

GOT THERE QUICK. OKAY, SO THEN WE HAVE THE ENTERPRISE OPERATIONS, WHICH HAD ABOUT $25 MILLION IN THEIR KEEP OUR CREDIT RATING.

YOU KNOW, WHAT'S EVERYBODY GOING TO STOP PAYING THEIR WATER BILL REAL QUICK.

AND SO NOW HERE WE ARE AGAIN AND FINDING UNUSED MONEY SITTING IN CIP $43 MILLION 30 MILLION PLUS FROM THE BOND. ON TOP OF THAT IT'S PROBABLY STILL SITTING PROBABLY MORE IN OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

WHAT'S UP WITH THAT? IT'S TIME TO SAY WHY. AND REGULAR AUDITS DON'T DO THE JOB.

PLEASE CONSIDER FORENSIC AND GET TO THE BOTTOM OF THIS.

THANK YOU, MR. SCHANKE. APPRECIATE YOU, SIR. UP NEXT, WE HAVE JASON RHODEN.

AND AFTER MR. RHODEN, WE ASK MR. WARREN TO COME TO THE PODIUM.

THANK YOU. MY NAME IS JASON RHODEN, AND I DO LIVE WITHIN AMARILLO.

AND I'M HERE TO SPEAK AGAINST 5.7, THE RENEWAL OF THE CLEARVIEW AI CONTRACT.

I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO BIOMETRIC DATA, THERE IS SPECIAL CONSIDERATION THAT NEEDS TO BE MADE ABOUT MAINTAINING THE PRIVACY OF THAT KIND OF INFORMATION. BECAUSE UNLIKE INFORMATION LIKE YOUR DRIVER'S LICENSE OR YOUR SOCIAL SECURITY, YOU CAN'T CHANGE YOUR BIOMETRIC DATA. AND SO IT REQUIRES SPECIAL CONSIDERATION TO KEEP SAFE.

I THINK IT IS A DANGEROUS MOVE TO ALLOW A PRIVATE COMPANY TO AMASS THE SCALE OF INFORMATION THAT THEY HAVE.

THEY'VE EXISTED. CLEARVIEW AI, THAT IS HAS EXISTED SINCE 2017.

IN THAT TIME, THEY'VE AMASSED 50 BILLION IMAGES, 50 BILLION.

THERE WAS A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT LAST YEAR WHERE CLEARVIEW SETTLED FOR $51 MILLION BECAUSE IT WAS REALIZED THAT THE SCOPE OF THE POTENTIAL VICTIMS WAS SO LARGE THAT IT WOULD QUALIFY.

ANYONE WHO HAS HAD A PICTURE POSTED ONLINE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A POTENTIAL VICTIM OF THAT SETTLEMENT.

THAT IS INFORMATION THAT IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER WHEN WE'RE ALLOWING A PRIVATE COMPANY TO COLLECT THIS INFORMATION AND WHEN WE'RE EMPOWERING THEM BY PUTTING OUR MONEY INTO THEM.

IF WE CAN'T TRUST THEM TO MANAGE THAT KIND OF BIOMETRIC DATA, WHICH AGAIN, WE CANNOT CHANGE.

WE HAVE TO KEEP THE BIOMETRICS ARE A CORE PART OF WHO WE ARE.

WE CANNOT ADJUST THOSE THINGS. ALLOWING THEM TO BE COLLECTED FRIVOLOUSLY BY A PRIVATE COMPANY OPENS US UP TO POTENTIAL HAZARD.

IT OPENS US UP TO POTENTIAL EXPLOITATION, POTENTIAL HARDSHIP, BECAUSE THIS PRIVATE COMPANY DOESN'T JUST PROVIDE SERVICE TO OUR STATE AGENTS, WHICH I THINK IS ONE OF THE USES OF IT, BUT IT ALSO PROVIDES IT TO PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS.

AND THAT KIND OF INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T BELONG IN THE HANDS OF A PRIVATE COMPANY.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE, AS CITIZENS HERE SHOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE THAT WE ARE PROTECTED FROM.

THAT ALSO GOES INTO THE ANALYSIS OF THE ACCURACY OF THESE NOT CLEARVIEW AI, BUT ANOTHER SIMILAR PROGRAM HAD ANNOUNCED THAT THEY HAD ACCURACY RATES IN THE 90%.

AND IT TURNED OUT THAT THEY WERE LATER FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MISLEADING IN THOSE PERCENTAGES.

IF WE CAN'T TRUST THEM TO HONESTLY HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH US ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE MODELS THAT THEY'RE USING, HOW CAN WE TRUST THE SAFETY OF OUR OWN CITIZENS? THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU SIR. AFTER MR. WARREN WILL HAVE KIM BENSON. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON COUNCIL.

THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR HAVING ME. AS YOU KNOW, MY NAME IS THOMAS WARREN.

I'M PROUD TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF POTTER COUNTY AS THEIR TAX ASSESSOR COLLECTOR.

AND I'M ALSO SERVING AS A MEMBER OF THE POTTER COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

AND THAT'S WHY I'M HERE TODAY. I WANTED TO SPEAK ON AGENDA ITEM 6.6, WHICH IS THE LETTER ABOUT CONTINUED COOPERATION ABOUT THE DISTRICT. I REVIEWED THE LETTER AND I ALSO, BECAUSE I ASSUME IT'S THE SAME LETTER THAT CANYON CONSIDERED A FEW DAYS AGO AND ALSO REVIEWED THE MEMO THAT WAS ATTACHED TO YOUR AGENDA TODAY.

THE MEMO SAYS, QUOTE, THE RECENT DISCUSSIONS BY THE POTTER COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS HAVE CENTERED AROUND PURSUING SEPARATION WITH THE RANDALL COUNTY APPRAISAL

[00:50:03]

DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS, END QUOTE. GENTLEMEN, THAT IS JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

NOBODY FROM POTTER COUNTY HAS TAKEN A POSITION, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THAT THEY WANT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT TO SPLIT.

NOBODY IN ANY OF OUR MEETINGS HAVE SAID THAT THEY WANT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT TO SPLIT.

THIS IS A DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THAT'S BEING PUSHED BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T WANT REFORM.

AND LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT REFORM IS THAT WE'RE PURSUING.

WHAT THAT REFORM IS, IS WE ARE TRYING TO UPDATE OUR INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW.

OUR ATTORNEYS AT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT TOLD US THAT AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, THE AGREEMENT IS NOT LAWFUL.

IT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEXAS LAW. ALL THIS PROCESS HAS DONE, ALL THIS PROCESS IS THAT WE'VE BEEN PURSUING, HAS BEEN HIRING ATTORNEYS TO RENEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT SO THAT WE CAN BRING IT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW AND CONTINUE OPERATING THE DISTRICT IN A WAY THAT WELL IS COMPLIANT WITH TEXAS LAW. THIS IS NOT ABOUT SPLITTING THE DISTRICT, AND I AM A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED THAT CITY STAFF PUT THIS ON HERE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SPLIT THE DISTRICT BECAUSE THAT'S JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE.

AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NOBODY FROM CITY STAFF REACHED OUT TO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OF POTTER COUNTY TO ASK IF WE WERE TRYING TO SPLIT THE DISTRICT.

NOR HAS ANYONE FROM CITY STAFF ATTENDED ANY OF OUR MEETINGS.

THIS IS JUST SIMPLY NOT TRUE. I DON'T BELIEVE WE ARE ON THE ROAD TO THE DISTRICT SPLITTING.

AND I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU, GENTLEMEN REJECT THIS LETTER TODAY.

THIS IS UNNECESSARY. AND ALL THIS IS, IS AN ATTEMPT BY INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE SUPPORTING RANDALL COUNTY'S POSITION OF NOT NEGOTIATING TO RECLAIM THE NARRATIVE AND DISTRACT FROM WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY TRYING TO DO HERE, WHICH IS SAVE OUR TAXING ENTITIES FROM MORE LIABILITY.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN. AFTER MISS BENSON WILL HAVE TANYA WINSTON.

GOOD AFTERNOON. KIM BENSON. I LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS.

THAT'S KIND OF A HARD ACT TO FOLLOW. I'M NOT GOING TO BE AS ARTICULATE AS AS MR. WARREN IS, BUT A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT MAYBE HOW THIS ALL CAME TO BEING A COUPLE OF US CITIZENS WENT TO THE PRATT MEETING.

THEY WERE GOING TO START TALKING ABOUT FILMING AND STREAMING THEIR MEETINGS.

AND YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT THAT. I WAS ON BOARD.

SO WE WENT AND HEARD THEY WERE SWEARING IN SOME OFFICERS THAT PARTICULAR MEETING IN JANUARY, AND THEY TALKED ABOUT HOW THEY VOTE. AND WE WERE LIKE, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT CAN'T BE RIGHT.

SO WE DUG AND GOT THE CONTRACT AND DUG INTO THAT CONTRACT.

THAT CONTRACT THAT THAT'S WHERE I'D LIKE TO ASK FOR A STATEMENT OF FACT.

HAVE ANY OF YOU READ THAT CONTRACT? YOU CAN TALK TO ME.

COME ON. HAVE YOU READ THE CONTRACT? HAVE. YOU'VE NOT READ THE CONTRACT.

CAN YOU PROCEED AND DO THIS JOINT LETTER TODAY? I MEAN, WHO'S INITIATING THIS? HAVE YOU GUYS INITIATING IT OR IS IT.

MR. PATH INITIATING THAT. HOPEFULLY MR. PATH IN HIS PRESENTATION IS GOING TO CLARIFY THAT.

I THINK LIKE MR. WARREN SAID, I MEAN, WE'RE THINKING THE SKY IS FALLING.

POTTER COUNTY HAS HIRED AN ATTORNEY. THEY'RE REVIEWING THE CONTRACT.

RANDALL COUNTY. PRATT. PRATT. BOARD IS MEETING TONIGHT.

WE'LL ATTEND THAT MEETING AND SEE WHAT THEY DECIDE TO DO.

THEY'VE NOT HIRED AN ATTORNEY YET. SO I THINK WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

I MEAN, HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS WILL LOOK AT THIS.

I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO OPPOSE, BUT DON'T TAKE A POSITION EITHER SIDE.

LET THE PEOPLE THAT YOU'VE PUT ON THIS BOARD, THREE OF THEM ARE ELECTED, BUT THE REST HAVE BEEN PUT ON BY THE TAXING ENTITIES.

TRUST THOSE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR THE CITIZENS.

SO JUST DON'T GET INTO THE MIX OF THIS. LET IT PLAY OUT.

THEN IF IT DOESN'T PLAY OUT LIKE YOU WANT IT TO, THEN THEN YOU CAN SPEAK YOUR PIECE.

BUT JUST THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU DISCUSS 6.6 TODAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MISS WINSTON, IF YOU'LL MAKE YOUR WAY UP TO THE PODIUM AFTER, MISS WINSTON WILL HAVE MIKE FISHER.

[00:55:10]

GOOD DAY. COUNCIL. HOW Y'ALL DOING? I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

I AM A CITIZEN OF AMARILLO, TEXAS POTTER, AND I STAY IN THE CITY LIMITS.

I FIRST, I WANT TO SAY THAT THE 2026 JUNETEENTH PARADE AND EVENTS WERE VERY WELL COORDINATED, AND IT WAS A SUCCESS, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING YOU THERE. COLE. WHERE WAS YOU AT? DID YOU COME TO THE PARADE? THE THEME WAS COMING TOGETHER. I DIDN'T THINK I SAW YOU THERE, I WAS LOOKING FOR YOU.

BUT I'M ALSO HERE TODAY. I NEED TO KNOW IF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES THE MAIN STREET US GRANT STILL EXIST? DO YOU EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT IS? YOU DON'T? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT. BUT I CAN HAVE STAFF GET YOU THAT INFORMATION, MA'AM.

OKAY. THE REASON THE CONCERN IS BECAUSE. THE AMARILLO NORTH SIDE ASSOCIATION ADVISORY BOARD HAD BEEN PUSHING FOR SOME DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMARILLO.

AND WHEN I WAS CAMPAIGNING, I ALSO PUSHED FOR THIS.

AND WHAT I DISCOVERED IS THAT ON THE EAST SIDE OF TOWN THE BARRIO, THEY HAVE RECEIVED THEIR COLONIAL LIGHTS TO BEAUTIFY THAT SIDE OF TOWN.

ALL THE WAY DOWN 10TH STREET. WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR THESE LIGHTS FOR YEARS ON THE NORTH SIDE, STARTING FROM THIRD STREET, GOING NORTH TO 24TH STREET, AND NOT YET.

WE HAVE RECEIVED THOSE LIGHTS AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT. AND WITH THE GRANT DOES THE GRANT IS RESPONSIBLE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE MONEY TO HELP PUT THOSE IN PROJECTION. SO THAT'S ANOTHER CONCERN THAT I HAVE.

AND THEN THE TRASH BETWEEN LIPSCOMB AND ON STREET IN THE NORTH HEIGHTS.

FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS, THERE'S A SEVERAL AREAS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TOWN BETWEEN ONG AND LIPSCOMB.

THERE'S A TRASH PILE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR YEARS.

AND I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHEN THE CITY TRASH CAN COMES THROUGH THERE.

WHILE THEY'RE NOT PICKING UP THAT TRASH OR NOT TAKING IT BACK TO THE, THE, THE, THE DEPARTMENT TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THAT TRASH IS THERE.

IT'S JUST PILES AND PILES OF TRASH THAT IS BEING OVERLOOKED.

OKAY. SO, MISS WINSTON, I KNOW WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS OVER THERE ON SOME THINGS.

LET ME GET YOU CONNECTED WITH STAFF ON THE TRASH ISSUE AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO.

AND THEN ON THE GRANT AS WELL, MR. PATH, IF YOU CAN LOOK INTO THE SPECIFICITY OF THAT AND LIKE WHAT'S AVAILABLE AND NOT.

TANYA, GOOD TO SEE YOU. AND WE APPRECIATE YOU SPEAKING HERE TODAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THEY'LL CONTACT YOU. AFTER MR. FISHER WILL HAVE MR. FORD NAMES. MIKE FISHER.

I LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS OF AMARILLO, SO THERE'S A LOT OF TALK ABOUT A FORENSIC AUDIT.

I HEARD SOMEBODY SAY LIMITED TO LIKE THE SIP THING.

I THINK WHEN YOU SAY LIMIT OR YOU SAY SCOPE. THAT THAT WOULD THAT TO ME TAKES IT OUTSIDE OF OF A FORENSIC AUDIT. TO ME, A FORENSIC AUDIT IS WHEN YOU JUST HAND SOMEBODY THE KEYS AND YOU SAY, LET'S SEE WHAT YOU FIND.

AND I THINK IT'S WELL DESERVED AND WARRANTED AND PAST OVERDUE, ESPECIALLY AFTER FINDING ALL THAT SIP MONEY.

I THINK COLE, IT TOOK YOU ABOUT 3 OR 4 YEARS TO FINALLY GET SOMEBODY TO ADMIT IT OR TO GET SOMEBODY TO SAY IT OUT LOUD THAT THERE'S AT LEAST 40, 50 MILLION SITTING THERE.

AND THEY HAD TO KNOW THE STAFF HAD TO KNOW SOMEBODY HAD TO KNOW SOMEBODY SITTING HERE, SOMEBODY OVER HERE HAD TO KNOW.

[01:00:02]

BUT I THINK IT WOULD HELP WITH THE, THE NEW CFO.

I THINK I THINK IT WOULD HELP WITH ANYBODY THAT'S SITTING HERE AT THIS BEHIND THE DICE TO TO HELP SET A BASELINE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON. AND, AND THAT WAY, IF THINGS COLLAPSE AT SOME POINT AND IT'S ON YOUR WATCH, IT DOESN'T ALL GET BLAMED ON YOU BECAUSE WE HAVE A, A FORENSIC AUDIT THAT IT'LL SHOW EVERYTHING.

AND WE, WE PROBABLY MY GUESS IS WE WOULDN'T BLAME ANY OF YOU GUYS, BUT I THINK AS IT SITS NOW, WE ALWAYS BLAME THE GUY THAT'S ON THE CLOCK WHEN IT HAPPENS.

AND I THINK THAT THAT FORENSIC AUDIT WILL WILL HELP WITH THAT.

I'M DOING MY OWN LITTLE AUDIT WITH PRAD SINCE THEY BROUGHT UP THIS LETTER THING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TRYING TO KEEP THINGS THE SAME WAY.

I THINK YOU OUGHT TO LOOK AT THAT, THAT LAND OUT THERE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH TEARS.

I DON'T KNOW ANYBODY THAT THEIR LAND VALUE HAS GONE DOWN, BUT YOU CAN TELL IT'S IT'S IT'S MANIPULATION.

I LOOKED AT SOME OF THE SOME OF THE PROPERTY.

IT'S ALWAYS ATTERBURY. IT ALWAYS THERE'S ALL.

THEY DID THIS WITH TEARS. THREE THE ON THE SOUTH PART OF TOWN AND I.

27 THEY KIND OF LET THAT PROPERTY VALUE SIT THERE.

DIDN'T CHANGE A DOLLAR FOR TEN YEARS. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN AFTER GOT INTO A TEAR ZONE, IT WENT UP BY A LOT LIKE DOUBLE OR TRIPLE THAT PROPERTY OUT THERE.

THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THIS THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THIS TEARS TO.

IT'S ALL THE WHO'S WHO ARE ARE A LOT OF IT IS ALREADY LOOKED AT IT WHILE WE WERE SITTING HERE.

SOME OF IT IS. AND THE PROPERTY THAT WENT DOWN IS VERY.

WHEN YOU GO DOWN FIRST, THEN YOU'RE SETTING THAT BASELINE LOWER.

SO THEN WHEN YOU BRING IT INTO TEARS, IT CAN POP AND THEN YOU CAN KEEP THAT MONEY IN THE TEARS THERE.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S GOING ON THAT THE VALUE OF THAT LAND DIDN'T GO DOWN.

SOMEBODY MANIPULATED THAT TO MAKE IT IN FAVOR OF TEARS.

BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF A FORENSIC AUDIT OF EVERYTHING, NOT JUST THE CIP STUFF.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. FISHER.

TWO MFS IN A ROW. HOW ABOUT THAT? MIKE FORD, MIKE FISHER, JUST FOR CLARITY.

AMARILLO MAYOR MIKE FORD. AMARILLO AMARILLO. MAYOR COUNCIL.

ONCE AGAIN SURPRISE. I ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. SEVERE SERIOUS STRUCTURAL VIOLATION OF CHAPTER 551.

THE PUBLIC'S RIGHT TO ADDRESS ITS OWN GOVERNMENT. TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM THREE DISCUSSION ITEM FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

CONSIDERATION BEFORE VOICE. I'VE HANDED EACH OF YOU THE TEXT OF 551007 AT THIS PODIUM AT LEAST SIX TIMES NOW.

THE QUESTION IS NO LONGER WHETHER YOU HAVE HEARD IT. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU EVER INTEND TO FOLLOW IT.

THE BODY YOU OVERSEE THE EDC. BUT ONE WEEK AGO, I'VE BEEN VERY CRITICAL OF THE EDC.

ITEM ONE ON THEIR AGENDA WAS CALLED TO ORDER.

ITEM TWO WAS PUBLIC COMMENT. THEY FOLLOW THE LAW.

THE SUBSIDIARY HAS IT RIGHT. THE PUBLIC PARENT BODY YOU WHO APPOINTS IT DOES NOT MAYOR STANLEY.

YOU RECENTLY SAID REGARDING PUBLIC COMMENT, IT'S NOT OUR OPPORTUNITY TO COME AND TRY AND CORRECT ANY PERSPECTIVE THAT YOU HAVE.

IT'S OUR OPPORTUNITY TO LISTEN TO YOU, END QUOTE.

THAT IS NOT WHAT THE LAW SAYS. THE STATUTE PLACES PUBLIC COMMENT BEFORE OR DURING DISCUSSION CONSIDERATION A CITIZEN'S RIGHT, NOT THE CHAIR'S PRIVILEGE. AND AS YOU AMPLY DEMONSTRATED DURING YOUR TEARS TO SOLILOQUY, DISCUSSION IS CONSIDERATION.

THE CITY ATTORNEY CERTIFIED TODAY'S AGENDA THAT IT COMPLIES WITH THE ACT.

THAT CERTIFICATION IS FALSE. HIS CERTIFICATION.

551144 C SHIELDS CLOSED SESSION VIOLATIONS ONLY.

THE. 551OOCOO7B VIOLATION IS YOURS TO OWN. SO STOP PLAYING FOOTSIE WITH CRIMINAL ACTS.

SECTION 551144 MAKES KNOWING VIOLATIONS LIKE AUTHORIZING WATER MOU IN CLOSED SESSION WITH NO PUBLIC NOTICE, DELIBERATION OR VOTE A CRIMINAL OFFENSE. EVERY ONE OF YOU SWORE AN OATH TO PRESERVE, PROTECT AND DEFEND THE LAWS OF THIS STATE.

YOUR SILENCE AND ACQUIESCENCE IS AN ABANDONMENT OF THAT OATH.

THE SAME CULTURE OF NONCOMPLIANCE REACHES INTO THE CITY MANAGERS ORGANIZATION.

TCEQ RULES WHOSE VIOLATIONS BURNED 52 HOMES. FINANCIAL REPORTING FAILURES THAT HIDE UNCOMMITTED CAPITAL EQUALING NEARLY ONE FIFTH OF THE BUDGET FOR THIS BODY. IT DOES NOT BEGIN WITH THE WITH THE FIRE.

IT BEGINS HERE. GENTLEMEN. SO I LEAVE EACH ONE OF YOU WITH A QUESTION.

YOU STAND HERE TONIGHT AT THREE PATHS OR TODAY AT THREE PATHS.

HONOR YOUR OATH AND BRING THIS COUNCIL INTO COMPLIANCE.

[01:05:04]

HIDE BEHIND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S FALSE CERTIFICATION, OR WAIT TO BE SUED AND LET A COURT OF THIS STATE TELL YOU IN A PUBLISHED OPINION WHAT YOUR OATH ALREADY REQUIRES. ONE OF THOSE PATHS HONOR YOU.

THE OTHER TWO DO NOT. CHOOSE WISELY. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. THAT IS EVERYBODY WHO HAS SIGNED UP. REALLY GOOD.

I APPRECIATE EVERYONE FOR SPEAKING HERE TODAY.

COUNCIL, DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY REMARKS HERE BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? OKAY. THANK YOU ALL FOR SPEAKING HERE TODAY AND HONORING EACH OTHER'S OPINIONS AND PERSPECTIVES.

AT THIS TIME, WE WILL CLOSE PUBLIC COMMENT MOVE INTO OUR CONSENT AGENDA.

[5. Consent Agenda - It is recommended that the following items be approved and that the City Manager be authorized to execute all documents necessary for each transaction. The following items may be acted upon by one motion. No separate discussion or action on any of the items is necessary unless desired by a Councilmember, in which event the item shall be considered in its normal sequence, after the items not requiring separate discussion have been acted upon by a single motion. ]

GENTLEMAN, IS THERE ANYTHING IN SECTION FIVE THAT YOU NEED REMOVED FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? YES, SIR. MAYOR, IF WE COULD REMOVE 5.12 FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO RESTATE THAT. 5.15.12 UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM REVIEW.

DO I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED.

AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE DISCUSSION ON 5.75.7.

OKAY. ANYTHING FURTHER? OKAY, GENTLEMEN, BEFORE YOU IS THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH REMOVAL OF 5.7 AND 5.12. I MOVE FOR APPROVAL WITH THOSE TWO ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

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

AYE AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT MOTION PASSES. LET'S TAKE UP 5.7 NOW.

[Items 5.7 - 5.12]

MR. PATH ON THIS ONE. YOU'D BE OKAY IF I CALL ON SOME OF OUR EXPERTS OUT THERE, OR DO YOU HAVE SOMEBODY YOU'D LIKE TO BRING FORWARD? IS A CHIEF OVER HERE TODAY? YEAH. AND CHADWICK, I SEE YOU BACK THERE, AND I WOULD LOVE TO TO INVITE YOU UP, IF YOU DON'T MIND COMING AS WELL. CHIEF, HOW YOU DOING TODAY, SIR? GOOD, GOOD. COUNCILMAN, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS ONE, WE'LL WE'LL JUMP INTO THE THE DISCUSSION AND YOU CAN ALREADY ASK ANY QUESTIONS.

PROBABLY A LITTLE STRANGE COMING FROM ME CONSIDERING THAT I'VE USED THESE THINGS BEFORE.

BUT I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS. OKAY. AS I, AS I LISTEN TO SOME OF THE PUBLIC COMMENT AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO AT LEAST DELVE INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT. AS FAR, AS FAR AS THE CONTRACT THAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW, THIS IS THE RENEWAL OF A FOURTH OF A ONE YEAR CONTRACT. YES, SIR.

WE'VE WE'VE HAD IT FOR SIX YEARS, BUT UNDER CONTRACT, THIS WILL BE YEAR FOUR.

RIGHT. AND SO WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT TWO MORE YEARS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS.

WE'D BE RENEWING IT A YEAR AT A TIME. YEAH WE DO.

YEAH. WE WE STARTED DOING ONE YEAR AT A TIME.

RIGHT. SO WITH WHAT YOU'RE GETTING WITH THIS, HOW, HOW DOES THE TECHNOLOGY CHANGE OR HAS IT CHANGED? I KNOW IT'S CHANGED, BUT HOW HAS IT CHANGED FROM WHERE WE GOT LAST YEAR TO WHAT WE WOULD BE GETTING THIS YEAR? ACTUALLY, THE GENTLEMAN PROBABLY HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE INCREASE OF OPEN SOURCE INTELLIGENCE.

SO HE'S NOT WRONG. IT'S ABOUT 60 BILLION IMAGES THAT ARE NOW AVAILABLE.

THEY'RE ALL OPEN SOURCE, MEANING THEY COME FROM SOCIAL MEDIA.

IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON RANDALL COUNTY MUGSHOTS AMARILLO MUG SHOTS, IT COMES FROM STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO, SO SO IT'S DATA THAT'S OUT THERE ALREADY.

NONE OF IT COMES FROM A CLOSED SOURCE. SO NOTHING FROM DMV, DPS, NONE OF THAT.

AND WHAT WE'RE COMPARING IT TO IS IF WE GET A YOU HAVE AN INVESTIGATION AND WE GET A VIDEO, WE'RE ABLE TO MAKE SOME SOME IDENTIFICATIONS USING THESE BIOMETRICS.

RIGHT. RIGHT. THAT IS FREELY OUT THERE ON THE, ON OPEN SOURCE MEDIA.

YES, SIR. THE LAWSUITS HE'S REFERRING TO ARE I MEAN, I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. THEY ALL COME OUT OF ILLINOIS. WE DON'T SHARE ANYTHING WITH ILLINOIS ANYMORE. NOT WITH LPR DATA. NONE OF OUR DATA IS SHARED WITH ILLINOIS ANYMORE.

THAT BIPA LAWSUIT THAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, 52 MILLION.

THAT WAS IN ILLINOIS, RIGHT? SETTLEMENT. OKAY.

AND OUR DATA WITHIN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. ARE WE SHARING ANY OF THAT DATA THROUGH TDCS? NO. NO. OKAY. SO IT ALL STAYS HERE? YES, SIR.

THE ONLY THE ONLY STUFF THAT WE SHARE IS WE HAVE SOME INTERNAL DATABASES THAT WE SHARE WITH POTTER COUNTY.

[01:10:01]

RANDALL COUNTY, TEXAS, DPS GUYS THAT WORK HERE IN AMARILLO.

NOTHING OUTSIDE OF POTTER RANDALL COUNTY. WE SHARE SOME OF POTTER COUNTY DA'S OFFICE, RANDALL COUNTY DA'S OFFICE.

BUT YEAH, AS FAR AS ANY OF OUR DATA OR IMAGES OR VIDEO, THEY DON'T LEAVE US.

AND IN FACT, WE DON'T STORE THEM AT ALL. WE HAVE 30 HAVE 30 DAY RETENTION ON LPR.

WE HAVE NO IMAGES FROM THIS CURRENT PLATFORM.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT GO ANYWHERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON COUNCIL. SO TO TO DOUBLE CHECK THERE'S NO UPLOAD GOING THE OTHER DIRECTION BECAUSE I THINK THE GENTLEMAN I HAD A LOT OF CONCERN ON THE SECURITY OF THE DATA THAT WE WERE GIVING TO CLEARVIEW.

AND SO THIS IS A THIS IS A BANK. THIS IS A FILE, A DATABASE THAT YOU'RE REACHING INTO WITH EXISTING IMAGES.

AND THOSE IMAGES HAVE CERTAIN IDENTIFICATIONS.

YES, SIR. HE'S NOT WRONG. I MEAN THEY DO HAVE THE CAPABILITY FOR US TO ADD TO THEIR DATABASE.

WE'VE CHOSEN NEVER TO DO THAT. SO OUR DATA SIMPLY SITS AS A COMPARISON TOOL.

AND THEN OUR DATA IS EXPUNGED OTHER THAN FOR AUDITING PURPOSES.

SO THE THE CAPABILITY IS THERE WITH THAT. BUT WE WE HAVE A POLICY NOT TO DO THAT.

AND SO THAT MAY BRING A LITTLE COMFORT TO KIND OF HOW WE'RE HANDLING THE DATA THAT WE'RE IN POSSESSION OF TO OUR PUBLIC.

AND THEN IN THE OPEN SOURCE PUBLIC REACH, RIGHT.

SO EVERYBODY WHO CAME UP AND SPOKE HERE TODAY, YOU'RE LIVE STREAMED ON YOUTUBE AND MAYBE ANOTHER PLATFORM.

AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S PUBLIC THAT, THAT'S AN OPEN SOURCE.

ANYBODY THAT GOES AND LOOKS INTO THAT PULLS THAT VIDEO COULD RETRIEVE ANY OF THAT BIOMETRIC DATA WITH YOU KNOW, THAT THAT SOFTWARE, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ILLINOIS'S.

YES, SIR. WITHOUT ILLINOIS. OKAY. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT JUST TO, TO SPEAK TO IT A LITTLE BIT THERE.

AND I, I REALLY APPRECIATE COUNCILMAN REED'S QUESTIONS.

I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER. I JUST, I KNOW IT'S HELPFUL TO HEAR IT A COUPLE TIMES.

CHIEF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? NO, SIR.

HE HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD. OKAY. YES, SIR. IF I COULD GET ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO THE POLICY WE HAVE IS THAT IS THAT A WRITTEN POLICY? OUR RETENTION POLICIES ARE THERE. WHEN WE ORIGINALLY WROTE ALL THE POLICIES, THERE WERE 60 DAYS.

I MEAN, I'M SORRY, SIX MONTHS. WE HAD 180 DAYS.

THE REASON WE DON'T DO THAT IS BECAUSE IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE FOR US TO DO IT. SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE 30 DAYS FOR LPR IMAGES.

AND THEN NO RETENTION IS NECESSARY ON THIS ONE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN. IF YOU'D LIKE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT POLICY, I'M SURE WE GET THAT TO YOU.

OKAY, CHIEF. MR. CHADWICK, THANK YOU GUYS. THANKS, MAYOR.

APPRECIATE YOU. THANK YOU. GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND MOVE INTO 5.12.

THEN WE'LL TAKE UP BOTH ITEMS. MR. PATH, WHO WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE COME UP AND ANSWER A FEW ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON 5.12.

I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO RICH GALEN.

IT'S BAD WHEN YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS GUY TURN YOUR MIC ON. FIVE.

THIS ITEM IS ACTUALLY THE INDEPENDENT AUDIT WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE AFTER THE INITIAL REVIEW OF THE UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM, IT IS AN OUTSIDE AGENCY THAT WILL WILL REVIEW OUR BILLING SYSTEM.

IN PARTICULAR LOOKING AT READS FROM EVERY CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL, IRRIGATION, BIG COMMERCIAL, AND THEN RUNNING THEM FROM THE READ ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE BILLING SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE ALSO NOT SEEING ANY TECHNICAL ISSUES.

SO THIS IS THE TECHNICAL REVIEW PIECE. AND SO WE'RE REVIEWING MULTIPLE SYSTEMS TO SEE HOW THEY'RE COMMUNICATING WITH EACH OTHER. WELL YES THEY'LL THEY'LL LOOK AT THE READ AS IT COMES OFF OF THE METER.

AND THEN THE PRIMARY FOCUS IS THE BILLING SYSTEM ITSELF TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT FROM READ TO BILL, THERE ARE NO TECHNICAL ISSUES AND THAT IT'S THAT WE'RE WE'RE DOING THE CALCULATION ACCORDING TO THE RATE PLAN, THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD BE DONE. IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DONE, WHAT WE DID IN OUR PROCESS, BUT IT'S AN OUTSIDE AGENCY. SO THE, WHERE ARE WE ON, ON? I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, JUST WE'RE LOOKING AT 85000 ON THIS, WHICH IS A PRETTY HEFTY INVESTMENT.

AND I UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEMS. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT DO WE NEED THEM TO DO THAT.

OUR CURRENT VENDOR, I MEAN, WHO'S THE, WHO'S THE VENDOR THAT WE PURCHASED? THE NEW BILLING SOFTWARE SYSTEM, WHO WAS THAT? THAT WAS IN QUESTA. AND QUESTA HAS DONE THIS PROCESS.

INTERNAL STAFF HAS DONE THIS PROCESS. THIS WAS INSURANCE FOR COUNCIL THAT THAT'S ALSO BEING REVIEWED BY AN OUTSIDE AGENCY.

THEY ARE NOT DOING ANYTHING NEW. THEY'RE DOING THE SAME PROCESS.

[01:15:05]

AND THEN WHERE ARE WE ON WHAT WE FOUND OUT SO FAR? I MEAN, I KNOW YOU GAVE US A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE PROBLEMS AND ISSUES ARE, BUT, BUT WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED SINCE ON, ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC? SINCE THE LAST TIME WE TALKED, IT'S BEEN THE SAME.

THERE'S BEEN NO MATERIAL CHANGE. WE HAVE FOUND OTHER ONE OFF ISSUES, BUT THE THEMES HAVE ALL BEEN THE SAME.

OKAY, WELL, I DON'T KNOW. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN ADDITIONAL MONEY.

I MEAN, I'M JUST TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND SPENDING AN ADDITIONAL $85,000 ON SOMETHING THAT WE JUST PAID A LOT OF MONEY.

I MEAN, IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST GOT A BRAND NEW SYSTEM. I MEAN, IS THERE ANOTHER WAY TO REVIEW THIS, OR IS THE ONLY WAY TO GO THROUGH THIS IS TO SPEND AN ADDITIONAL $85,000.

IF COUNCIL WANTS THIS AND ALSO VETTED THROUGH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY, BECAUSE THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT WE DID INTERNALLY.

THIS IS INSURANCE FOR THE COUNCIL TO ENSURE THAT ANOTHER SET OF EYES LOOKS AT AT AT THE SYSTEM THE SAME WAY THAT WE DID INTERNALLY AND, AND, AND GETS THE SAME RESULT. OKAY. MR. GAGNON, WHAT'S THE GROSS REVENUES OF WATER AND SEWER, SIR? OH, GOSH. WHAT? I'D HAVE TO ASK JENNIFER TO BE CERTAIN, BUT I THINK IT'S RIGHT AT WHAT, 100 MILLION? A HUNDRED MILLION A YEAR? YEAH. AND SO THESE ARE OUR WATER AND SEWER CUSTOMERS THAT WE'RE LOOKING OUT FOR.

IT IS AN ENTERPRISE. AND SO I DON'T LIKE THE STICKER SHOCK EITHER.

$85,000. CAN WE NOT, YOU KNOW, FIND A BETTER WAY FORWARD? LET'S NOT WASTE ANY MONEY. WE POTENTIALLY OFFENDED 55,000 OF OUR CUSTOMERS WITH SOME WATER BILLING ISSUES.

SOME WERE ERRORS, RIGHT? A LOT OF THEM WERE JUST OVERBILLING FOR LENGTH OF TIME AND DURATION WITH THIS ROLLOUT.

SO NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES WE'VE HAD STAFF AND LEADERS APOLOGIZE AND TRY TO MAKE IT RIGHT, I THINK BECAUSE OF THAT LEVEL OF AN ISSUE, IT REQUIRES AN OUTSIDE THIRD PARTY TO COME IN.

AND THEN I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WERE SOME OTHER BUDGETS, YOU KNOW, PROPOSALS THAT WERE MORE AFFORDABLE.

I JUST KNOW THIS ONE IS TIMELY AND, AND SO NOT A NORMAL SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES AND NOT JUSTIFYING THE COST, BUT AN ERROR IN $100 MILLION A YEAR COMPANY AS, AS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS, I THINK WE SPEND WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE SURE WE'RE RIGHT AND WE'RE WHOLE WITH OUR CUSTOMERS. WELL, AND I WILL SAY THAT IT'S ALSO NOT UNCOMMON PRACTICE EVEN IN PRIVATE SECTOR TO DO AN INTERNAL AUDIT AND THEN HAND THAT TO AN EXTERNAL AUDITOR TO VERIFY YOUR WORK.

SO IT'S THIS ISN'T OUT OF WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER NORMAL PRACTICE.

YEAH. WELL, AND I DON'T DENY THAT THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR THE INVESTMENT NOW.

IT'S JUST LIKE, BOY, IT SEEMS LIKE WE JUST PAID A WHOLE LOT OF MONEY FOR A WATER SYSTEM THAT OUT OF THE CHUTE SEEMS TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS WITH IT.

AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S. AND NOW WE GOT TO SPEND MORE MONEY TO FIGURE OUT THE PROBLEMS FROM THE SYSTEM THAT OCCURRED INITIALLY.

SO. ONE OTHER THING, JUST AS A MATTER OF RECORD, IT SAYS THIS IS THIS ITEM BUDGETED.

I MEAN, WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T KNOW THIS WAS COMING.

I JUST WANT IT SAYS IT WAS BUDGETED. I MEAN, THIS WE DIDN'T BUDGET FOR A UTILITY BILLING SYSTEM REVIEW, DID WE? NO, NO, THIS IS COMING OUT OF OUT OF FUNDS THAT, THAT THAT WERE PART OF THE SYSTEM, THE FUNDING FOR THE SYSTEM ITSELF, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

OKAY. SO SO WE, WE HAVE ADDITIONAL MONIES THAT WERE SET ASIDE THAT THAT WILL PAY FOR THIS.

RIGHT. BUT THIS, THIS PARTICULAR THING WAS NOT BUDGETED.

THIS SPECIFIC ITEM WAS NOT BUDGETED. OKAY. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON 512.

GENTLEMAN WILL TAKE UP 5.7. DO I HAVE A MOTION.

SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND ON FIVE.

SEVEN. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FOUR ZERO. VOTE. GENTLEMAN WILL TAKE UP 5.12.

SO MOVED. SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND ON 5.12.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE CRUISING ALONG HERE PRETTY GOOD.

I'D LIKE TO GET INTO OUR NON CONSENT AGENDA BEFORE WE TAKE A RECESS.

KEEP MOVING. I KNOW COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT LIKES LONGER MEETINGS, BUT LIKE WE'RE.

I'M. I'LL SLOW US DOWN LATER MAYBE. SO ITEM 6.1.

[6.1. Consideration of Ordinance No. 8249. This item is the second and final reading to consider an ordinance adopting budget amendments pertaining to the fiscal year 2024-2025 budget and providing an effective date. These are budget amendments to the previous Fiscal Year budget for the period from October 1, 2024 to September 30, 2025.]

MISS LOLA, CAN I GET YOU TO COME FORWARD ON THIS ONE? WE WE'VE GOT THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT TO DISCUSS.

[01:20:15]

YES, SIR. SO THIS IS THE SECOND AND FINAL READING TO CONSIDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 8249.

AND IT'S THE ORDINANCE ADOPTING BUDGET AMENDMENTS PERTAINING TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2024 2025 BUDGET AND PROVIDES AN EFFECTIVE DATE FOR THAT. THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD FROM OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 TO SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025. SINCE THE LAST MEETING, WE HAVE PROVIDED ADDITIONAL DETAILS TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET AMENDMENT, AND THE DETAILS COME FROM THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

INFORMATION SUCH AS LISTING OF DEPARTMENTS THAT WERE OVER BUDGET AND UNDER BUDGET WERE PROVIDED AS OF THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR.

WE ALSO PROVIDED INFORMATION ON DEPARTMENTAL COSTS AFTER EXCLUDING NON-CASH ITEMS. THEREFORE, ORDINANCE NUMBER 8249 IS READY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

THANK YOU, MISS LOLA. GENTLEMEN. ANY QUESTIONS? COUNCILMAN REED, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO. SO THE SUMMARIES WERE PROVIDED TO COUNCIL.

THEY WERE IN OUR PACKETS HERE ON OUR ON THE DAIS.

COUNCIL HAVE Y'ALL HAD TIME TO TO REVIEW ANY OF THOSE YET? MAYBE. MAYBE NOT. SO IF WE CAN, I'M GOING TO GO A LITTLE SLOW HERE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL TRACKING.

AND THEN WE'D LIKE TO GO BACK THROUGH AND JUST DOUBLE CHECK CONFIRM A COUPLE OF THESE NUMBERS.

SO LOLA, IF YOU CAN TELL ME YOU AND I HAVE HAD SOME, SOME GOOD CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT IS HARD COST.

AND SO ONE OF OUR MOST IMPORTANT DEPARTMENTS DEFINITELY CORE PRIORITIES IS OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND SO IN THE HARD COST OF LIKE, WE HAVE HARD COSTS AND THEN YOU HAVE WHAT YOU CALLED DEPRECIATION OR AMORTIZATION ITEMS, RIGHT? YES, SIR. CAN, CAN YOU GIVE US AN EXPLANATION OF WHAT LIKE A NON-CASH ITEM IS.

SO NON-CASH ITEMS, LIKE YOU MENTIONED, WE HAVE AMORTIZATION AND THESE ARE THESE COSTS ARE FOR LEASE COMPUTERS, AMORTIZATION OF LEASE COMPUTERS. THAT'S EXCLUDED BECAUSE THEY'RE NON BUDGETED COSTS FOR THE DEPARTMENT.

SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE CHECK NEVER WENT OUT OF THAT DEPARTMENT TO PAY FOR THE LEASE COMPUTER.

IT CAME FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE. IT'S IT'S THE WAY OUR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM, GATSBY, MANDATES US TO ACCOUNT FOR ITEMS SUCH AS AMORTIZATION OF COMPUTERS. SO YOU SPREAD OUT THE COST OVER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME, TYPICALLY THE LEASE TERM FOR THE PRODUCT. HOWEVER, THE CASH IS A DIFFERENT THING.

THEY ARE NON-CASH EXPENSE OR USE OR CONSUMPTION OF ITEMS. OKAY, SO IF I WAS JUST TO ASK LIKE, WHAT IS THE HARD COST? RIGHT? YOU AND I HAD DISCUSSED MAYBE THAT TERM AS A BETTER TERM FOR ME ON THE PRIVATE BUSINESS MINDSET.

WHAT IS THE HARD COST OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE TO RUN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR YEAR FY 2425? SO I HAVE PROVIDED THAT. AND WE HAVE 69,000 $269,235,049. THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS WE GAVE YOU THIS AFTERNOON.

OKAY. AND AND THIS IS WHERE GENTLEMEN, IF YOU GUYS CAN FOLLOW ALONG, I'VE BEEN DOING A DILIGENT REVIEW OF, OF THE AUDIT. SO THE ACT FOR AND TRYING TO FOLLOW ALONG ON THE, THE FINAL WHICH IS BEFORE YOU HERE FOR YOUR NEXT ITEM.

YOU KNOW, THE ACTUAL ITEM THERE SHOWED 72,000,978, NOT THE 69 MILLION.

AND SO THERE'S A DISCREPANCY THERE. AND SO IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE AUDITOR IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT NON CASH IS.

I BELIEVE THE AUDITOR YOU KNOW, TO, TO HAVE THAT IN THE COLUMN THAT SHOWS IT TO BE THE ACTUAL AMOUNT.

CAN YOU TELL ME MRS. OH IS DID WE SPEND 729 OR DID WE SPEND 69.

BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO AMEND THE BUDGET AGAIN.

WE ALREADY AMENDED THE BUDGET ONCE. SO WE HAD BUDGETED 66.1 MILLION BACK IN MARCH, WHICH IS SIX MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR, WE BROUGHT BACK A $240,000 ADJUSTMENT. THAT WAS PRIOR TO YOU GETTING HERE.

SO WE AMENDED THAT BUDGET. NOW WE'RE BEING ASKED TO AMEND THE BUDGET AGAIN, BUT IN DOING MY DUE DILIGENCE,

[01:25:02]

I'M SEEING TWO SEPARATE NUMBERS. SO I DON'T WANT TO AMEND THE BUDGET FOR 3.8 MILLION.

AND IT REALLY BE 6.6 MILLION THAT WE NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET.

SO, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS HERE THAT I DIDN'T FULLY UNDERSTAND IN JUST YOUR EXPLANATION.

SO IF WE GO TO IT'S, IT'S THE PAGE WHERE YOU'VE GIVEN ME THE BREAKDOWN.

POLICE PROTECTION WAS OVER BUDGET BY 6.6 MILLION.

MISS LOLA. YES, SIR. IT SAYS NON-CASH DEPRECIATION, AMORTIZATION DEDUCTION OF 1.8.

AND THEN A NON BUDGETED CAPITAL OUTLAY DEDUCTION OF 1.9.

SO IT BROUGHT THE AVERAGE DOWN TO 2.8. SO YOU'RE ONLY ASKING US TO AMEND THE BUDGET 2.8 MILLION.

YES SIR. OKAY. AND MY MY ISSUE THERE IS I, I DON'T HAVE THAT ON PAPER AS THE ACTUAL CASH.

RIGHT. YOU'VE GIVEN ME THE THE 69 MILLION, BUT THE AUDITOR HAS 72.9 MILLION.

SO WHICH NUMBER WOULD BE THE CORRECT ONE FOR HARD COST.

SO THEY ARE BOTH CORRECT NUMBERS. THE FIRST NUMBER $72 MILLION.

THOSE ARE GATSBY NUMBERS WHICH INCLUDE NON CASH AND CAPITAL ITEMS, BUT FOR BUDGET PURPOSES BECAUSE THE BUDGET IS BUILT BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS. COST ON A BUDGETARY BASIS, YOU DON'T NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET FOR THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURES THAT ARE GASB EXPENDITURES. SO BASICALLY, IF IF WE DIDN'T SPEND THE MONEY, EVEN THOUGH IT COMES IN THE FORM OF A GASB DEDUCTION, RIGHT, YOU CAN YOU CAN DEPRECIATE THIS, BUT, BUT IT REALLY DOESN'T AFFECT YOUR BALANCE IN THE HARD COST TOTAL OF RUNNING THE DEPARTMENT. YOU'RE SAYING THE DEPARTMENT TOTAL WAS 69 PLUS MILLION.

YES. WITHOUT THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY GASBY, LIKE I SAID, THOSE ARE COSTS PERTAINING TO AMORTIZATION OF LEASED COMPUTERS AND AND CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS. WHAT IS THE CAPITAL OUTLAY DEDUCTION? DOES THAT MEAN WE HAD 1.9 MILLION SOMEWHERE THAT WE DIDN'T SPEND.

SO YOU'RE ABLE TO DEDUCT IT. THOSE ARE FIXED ASSETS.

CIP COSTS THAT WERE BROUGHT BACK OVER TO THE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL EXPENDITURES.

AND THEY ARE NOT BUDGETED EXPENDITURES. THEY ARE BROUGHT IN AS PART OF THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS REPORTING IS CONCERNED. BUT THE COST THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS CONCERNED ABOUT ARE THE BUDGETED COST.

AND THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT THE BUDGET FOR. OKAY.

GO WITH ME INTO THE FUTURE. LIKE A MONTH AND A HALF.

WE'RE DOING BUDGET REVIEW AND BUDGET PREP. AND WHAT WOULD, WHAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF FOR THE BUDGET COMING FORWARD FOR A P D.

IS IT 72.9 MILLION OR IS IT 69 MILLION? IT WILL REALLY DEPEND ON THE REQUEST AND THE AVAILABLE REVENUES.

ONCE WE HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS, OKAY. IF IF WE WERE GOING TO DO EVERYTHING AGAIN, JUST RUN THE DEPARTMENT AGAIN THROUGH, YOU KNOW, AND WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO SPEND THIS CURRENT YEAR THEN? LIKE WHAT, WHAT ARE WE EXPECTING TO LAND? ARE WE ARE WE SPENDING 69 MILLION? ARE WE SPENDING 72.9 MILLION IN THE CURRENT YEAR? I DON'T I DON'T HAVE THOSE NUMBERS ON HAND. YEAH, EXPENDITURES WILL CHANGE.

OBVIOUSLY SALARIES WILL CHANGE FROM LAST YEAR BECAUSE THERE WERE SALARY INCREASES TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

SO YEAR OVER YEAR YOU SEE AN INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES.

HOWEVER, AS FAR AS THE BUDGETARY BASIS IS CONCERNED, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ONLY THE COST THAT PERTAIN TO THE DEPARTMENTS AND NOT THE CAPITAL COSTS.

OR GATSBY REQUIRED EXPENDITURES. OKAY. I THINK THE AUDIT READS DIFFERENTLY, BUT WHEN WE GET OUR AUDITOR, HE HE MAY COULD WEIGH IN TO WHAT THE HARD COST IS.

AND THEN, AND THEN IF THE ACTUAL HARD COST IS THE 72.9 MILLION, WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU STILL RECOMMEND WE ONLY AMEND THE BUDGET 2.887? YES, SIR, BECAUSE IT'S NOT NECESSARY TO AMEND TO THE FULL LEVEL, EVEN IF WE KNOW WE SPENT THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY, LIKE WE STILL WOULDN'T AMEND THE BUDGET THERE.

WE WOULD WE WOULD JUST RECOGNIZE THE 2.88 BECAUSE OF THE GASBY OR GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING PRACTICES THAT YOU CAN YOU CAN IMPLEMENT.

YES, SIR. FIRE PROTECTION, IF YOU GO WITH ME TO THAT ONE, WE AMENDED THE BUDGET ALREADY IN MARCH, 3.715. THAT WAS BEFORE YOU GOT HERE. OKAY. YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT OVERRUN FROM A $48 MILLION BUDGET.

WE ARE NOW COMING BACK HERE AND ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL 2.228 THAT IT WAS OVER BUDGET.

[01:30:02]

SO I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S THE CORRECT NUMBER THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD IN MARCH.

SO IT'S NOT ON TOP OF WHAT WE AMENDED IN MARCH.

I DON'T THAT'S A GREAT CLARIFICATION. SO, MR. FREEMAN, CAN YOU STATE THAT AGAIN SO WE MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HEARS THAT. I THINK INSTEAD OF WHAT WE MEANT IN MARCH.

I THINK THIS REPLACES THAT AMENDMENT FROM MARCH.

YES THIS IS CORRECT. THIS IS THE CORRECT EVERYTHING.

SO IT ACTUALLY CAME DOWN OVERALL. SO IN MARCH WE THOUGHT WE WERE OVER BUDGET IN FIRE 3.7.

RIGHT. NOW THAT WE'VE GOT OUR AUDIT BACK WE WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE OVER BUDGET 2.228 IS THAT CORRECT. I THINK IT'S THE. 1.8 AFTER YOU ADJUST THE THE NON-CASH ITEMS. OKAY. GIVE ME A SECOND HERE. I'M JUST COMPARING THAT TO THE AUDIT.

SO WELL ACTUALLY YOU HAVE IT ON THE OTHER PAGE.

SO ON THE, THE BACK PAGE THERE FIRE PROTECTION.

WHAT IS THE ACTUAL COST OF THE FIRE PROTECTION FOR THE YEAR.

MISS LOLA, HARD COST. SO. FIRE PROTECTION ON A BUDGETARY BASIS $54,485,148. THAT'S THE ACTUAL AMOUNT ON A BUDGETARY BASIS, SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM THE AMOUNT ON A GAAP BASIS, $54.5 MILLION.

SO MR. FREEMAN IS VERY HELPFUL IN THIS. HE'S TELLING ME THAT WE DIDN'T GO OVER BUDGET 3.7.

WE WENT OVER BUDGET 2.2. THEN IN READING THIS, YOU HAVE A NON-CASH DEPRECIATION DEDUCTION OF 440 405.

AND THEN YOU HAVE A CAPITAL OUTLAY DEDUCTION OF 385.

YES SIR. AND SO IT BRINGS THE AVERAGE DOWN TO 1.8.

YES SIR. OKAY. SO MY MY ACFR THOUGH MY MY AUDIT RECOGNIZES 54327 54 MILLION FROM A $48 MILLION BUDGET. SO I DON'T HAVE THE DIFFERENTIATION IN THIS WITHOUT THE PREVIOUS $3.7 MILLION AMENDMENT.

AND THEN THE NUMBER THAT WE GAVE TO THE AUDITOR, WE MAY HAVE TO ASK HIM, BUT I BELIEVE HE WORKED OFF OF THAT AMENDED BUDGET WITH THE 3.7 INCLUDED, SO HIS AQUIFER WOULD RECOGNIZE THE 3.7.

AND NOW WE WOULD BE AMENDING THAT BUDGET BELOW WHAT HE AUDITED THAT IS ALREADY INCLUDED.

THESE ARE ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS NEEDED BASED ON THE BUDGET.

NUMBERS FROM THE AQUIFER STILL SHOWS US BEING OVER.

SO IF WE AMEND IT BY THE AMOUNT GIVEN, IT WILL BRING US TO THE.

IF WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE MEETING THE BUDGET THAT WAY.

IF WE AMEND IT TO THE AMOUNT THAT IS SHOWN OVER HERE.

SO IN SIMPLE CONTRACTOR TERMS, TELL ME WE STARTED AT 48.

YOU ADDED 3.7. NOW YOU'RE ADDING 2.2. OR YOU'RE ADDING 1.8.

YOU'RE ADDING 1.8. OKAY. SO WE ARE ADDING THE 3.7.

DISREGARD WHAT I SAID. AND WE'RE ADDING THE 1.8.

YES SIR. SO WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST OVERRUN FOR THE HARD COST OF RUNNING THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

SO BECAUSE WE ARE MEN IN THE BUDGET, ONCE YOU'RE MAKING THE BUDGET, YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE ELIMINATING THE COST OVERRUN BECAUSE ON A PRESENTATION BASIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEPARTMENT IS WITHIN. HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL BUDGET YOU STARTED FROM VERSUS THE FINAL EXPENDITURES, THAT'S WHEN YOU KNOW THE ACTUAL COST OVERRUN FOR THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE YOU'RE CHANGING THE STARTING POINT BY AMENDING THE BUDGET.

RM COUNCIL Y'ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? SO. THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE EXHIBIT FROM EXHIBIT A BACK IN MARCH.

RIGHT. 6.1 WE VOTED ON THIS. SO WE MADE THESE FORMAL.

SO IT'S A LEGAL DOCUMENT RIGHT. SO WE PUT THESE MONIES IN THROUGH THE APPROPRIATIONS.

AUDITOR WORKED ON THEM. YOU'RE VERIFYING THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE INCLUDED LIKE IN THE TOTAL.

AND NOW YOU'RE ADDING THE ADDITIONAL MONIES HERE TO THESE MONIES.

SO WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL 1.839 TO THE 3.715 FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

YES, SIR. OKAY. AND WHAT IS THE WHAT'S THE EXPLANATION FOR THE THE ADDITIONAL 1.8 BECAUSE THE 3.7 WE HAD A BUNCH OF MANDATORY CALL BACK TIME, I BELIEVE. AND WE HAD SOME OTHER WILDLAND THINGS, BUT THEN THERE WERE SOME GRANT MONIES THAT WERE COMING IN THAT, THAT SUBSIDIZED SOME OF THAT ON THIS 1.8 MILLION.

WHAT ARE WE LOOKING AT? SURE. MOST OF THE DEPARTMENTS WERE OVER BUDGET FIRE DEPARTMENT INCLUDED DUE TO OVERTIME,

[01:35:08]

SALARY COSTS. SO SIMILAR REASONS. SO WE SPENT 69 MILLION IN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. YES, SIR. NOT 72.9. IF YOU EXCLUDE THE NON-CASH ITEMS AND CAPITAL OUTLAY COSTS. OKAY. AND THEN THE NUMBERS THAT WERE REPRESENTED TO THE AUDITOR TO CLA WHEN HE TOOK THOSE NUMBERS FOR THE 72.9 HE TOOK THOSE UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WOULD HAVE NON-CASH ITEMS INCLUDED IN THAT AMOUNT, BUT HE REPRESENTED IT IN THE ACTUALS. THEY SHOULD BE THERE.

THEY ARE CORRECT TO BE THERE. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF AMENDING THE BUDGET, YOU DON'T NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET FOR ITEMS THAT ARE UNBUDGETED FOR IN THE FIRST PLACE. THAT'S THE RATIONALE FOR EXCLUDING THOSE ITEMS. OKAY. SO IF WE GO DOWN TO STREETS HERE. STREETS AND TRAFFIC 20 MILLION WAS THE ORIGINAL BUDGET 20.495 ACTUALS OR 246.93. IF I HAD MY GLASSES ON. YES, SIR.

SO YOU'RE OVER BUDGET 4.8 OR 4.6, WHATEVER THAT NUMBER IS ACTUALLY 4.3 WHEN YOU WHEN YOU GET OVER THERE.

LESS YOUR NON-CASH ITEMS. YES. YES, SIR. AND THOSE WERE UNBUDGETED STREET IMPROVEMENTS OR THOSE WERE BUDGETED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR.

SO AGAIN, THE CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS THAT WEREN'T BUDGETED THAT AREN'T BUDGETED ITEMS. SO ONCE YOU HAVE ITEMS THAT AREN'T BUDGETED, THERE ISN'T A NEED TO AMEND THE BUDGET FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T PART OF THE BUDGET, BUT THERE'S AN EXPENDITURE TO APPROVE THOSE ITEMS. I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, FIRE DEPARTMENT.

THERE'S AN APPROVAL LIKE YOU RUN THE DEPARTMENT AND YOU BRING US THE COST AND OUR FINANCIAL POLICIES UPDATED, AND WE'LL GET BETTER NOTICES. BUT ON STREETS, THESE ARE PROJECTS THAT ARE AWARDED.

SO WERE THESE PROJECTS COMING BACK TO US AND WE WERE AWARDING THEM DURING THE YEAR AND MR. PATH, YOU MAY HAVE TO SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S NOT ANYTHING LOLA WAS A PART OF. I'D HAVE TO GET INFORMATION ABOUT THAT.

I DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY. SO WE, WE WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE APPROVE THE $4 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL PROJECTS BECAUSE STREETS IS PROJECTS.

RIGHT. A LARGE MAJORITY OF THAT, I THINK. YOU KNOW, MR. HOOPER, YOU CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THIS 8 TO $10 MILLION IS WHAT WE RUN THAT DEPARTMENT ON.

YES, SIR, I THINK SO. SO THE MAJORITY OF THESE 4.3 MILLION IN THIS LINE ITEM, YOU KNOW, BUDGET AMENDMENT, THESE WOULD BE CAPITAL PROJECTS. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THAT TOO.

WE'RE IN THE SAME, SAME BOAT, MR. PARTIZAN. WE NEED TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT THAT IS.

IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINE ITEM BUDGETS, WE DIDN'T SEE WHERE WE WERE OVER IN THAT. OKAY.

MISS LOLA, IF I GO DOWN THE PAGE TO TRANSFERS.

YES, SIR. OKAY. SO, GENTLEMEN, UP HERE, IF YOU IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG, YOU'VE GOT A COUPLE THINGS HERE.

YOU'VE GOT YOUR EXPECTED REVENUES THAT ARE ALL COMING IN.

WE EXPECTED TO REVENUE $247 MILLION. WE DID GREAT.

WE ACTUALLY REVENUE 266 MILLION FOR THE YEAR.

NOW YOU DIDN'T GET TO KEEP 6 MILLION OF THAT.

AND HERE'S WHY. AND MISS LOLA, YOU CAN PROBABLY CORRECT ME ON THIS, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT 6 MILLION OF THAT WAS INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES THAT WE DIDN'T PAY OURSELVES WITHIN THE THE TIME FRAME WE NEEDED TO.

IT WAS PAST 60 DAYS BY THE YEAR'S END. AND SO THAT $6 MILLION WILL ACTUALLY GO INTO FY 25.

26. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT, GENTLEMEN, SO YOU GOT 6 MILLION MORE TO WORK WITH THIS NEXT BUDGET SEASON.

IF YOU RUN A VALID BUDGET IN THE CURRENT YEAR, YOU JUST PUSH 6 MILLION OF REVENUE INTO YOUR CURRENT YEAR.

SO WE'RE DOING GOOD. SO WE ACTUALLY RAN 260 MILLION, NOT 266.

BUT I DON'T WANT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT WE JUST FOUND $6 MILLION RIGHT IN CURRENT YEAR.

THOSE WERE ACTUALLY MONIES THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON THIS. WE JUST DIDN'T BOOK THEM IN TIME.

NOT IN THAT WAY. THEY WEREN'T RECEIVED WITHIN THE TIME PERIOD REQUIRED TO BOOK THEM.

THAT'S A GOOD CLARIFICATION. THOSE DEPARTMENTS SERVICES DIDN'T DIDN'T PAY THE MONEY OUT IN TIME.

YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.

IF YOU GO DOWN TO OTHER FINANCING SOURCES, TRANSFERS FROM OTHER FUNDS, THAT MEANS OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE PAYING THE GENERAL FUND.

YES, SIR. OKAY. EXPECTATION WAS 14.3 MILLION AND THE ACTUALS WERE 6.898.

[01:40:02]

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. WHY THE SHORTAGE ON THAT? HOW COME WE DIDN'T TRANSFER THE MONEY IN LIKE WE BUDGETED? I'LL HAVE TO CHECK INTO THE DETAILS FOR THAT TO SEE WHY THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE.

OKAY. THEN WE WE APPROVED COUNCIL. YOU APPROVED $37.2 MILLION OF OUTGOING TO THESE OTHER DEPARTMENTS.

YOU ONLY SPENT 25.9. A GOOD MAJORITY OF THAT, LIKE 17.1 MILLION CIP.

IS THAT CORRECT, MISS LOLA? THOSE WERE CAPEX PROJECTS.

THE 17.1. YOU GAVE ME A BREAKDOWN ON THAT 25 MILLION.

OH, YES. WAS THAT SEWER AND WATER FOR THE $25 MILLION? YEAH. THE MAJORITY OF THAT WAS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION.

AND THEN MAYBE. WHAT ELSE WAS IT? NO, IT'S NOT SEWER AND WATER, I APOLOGIZE.

SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES. GENERAL CONSTRUCTION 12.5 MILLION.

WE HAVE ANOTHER BIG ITEM. 19. YOU KNOW IT'S NOT.

YEAH. THAT'S THE BIGGEST ITEM. THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION OPERATING TRANSFERS SEWER AND WATER $2.9 MILLION.

CIVIC CENTER 2.5 MILLION AND STREETS IMPROVEMENT 2.5 GOES DOWN THE LIST.

SO ARE THESE ACTUAL AMOUNTS. THESE ARE MONIES THAT GOT SPENT.

THESE AREN'T GASB ACCOUNTING PRACTICES WHERE WE JUST HAVE A DEDUCTION BECAUSE WE CAN DEDUCT IT.

THESE ARE ACTUAL TRANSFERS. OKAY, SO ACTUAL TRANSFERS, IF WE GO OVER TO THE NEXT PAGE SAYS MUNICIPAL GARAGE 11.895 MILLION.

OH I'M SORRY, THAT'S 11,000. NEVERMIND 11,000.

SO THESE ARE ALL ACTUALS. YES SIR. SO 25.9 MILLION TOTAL GOING OUT, IN ADDITION TO THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF TWO. 63 MILLION. YES, SIR.

OKAY. SO, GENTLEMEN, IF YOU'RE FOLLOWING ALONG AND YOU GET DOWN TO YOUR FUND BALANCE, WE EXPECTED TO START THE YEAR WITH 48.4 MILLION.

YOU STARTED THE YEAR WITH 69.6 MILLION. SO YOU PULLED, YOU KNOW, 21 PLUS MILLION DOLLARS INTO THE FUND BALANCE. DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT CAME FROM? MISS LOLA, IS THAT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T SPEND THE MONEY UP THERE ON WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD, WE WOULD PUT OUT? YOU MEAN THE CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE? YES, MA'AM. SO IT'S JUST A SUMMARY OF OUR ACTIVITIES.

OUR REVENUES AGAINST OUR EXPENDITURES WILL GIVE US THE CHANGE 2.8 MILLION.

SO LET ME LET ME SIMPLIFY THAT QUESTION BECAUSE I'LL GET US LOST.

WE RAN A BUDGET AND AND BACK IN SEPTEMBER, WE VOTED ON A BUDGET.

WE STRUGGLED BECAUSE WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO PAY OUR POLICE AND FIRE. AND WE HAD SOME BUILT IN KIND OF PROGRAM PROGRAMMATIC RAISES.

WE WERE ALSO TRYING TO PAY THE THE OTHER BOOTS ON THE GROUND IN THE ORGANIZATION.

AND WE ENDED UP WHERE WE WERE EVEN BELOW OUR RESERVES IN WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD START THE YEAR IN.

AND I WANT TO SAY IT WAS AROUND 51 MILLION WHEN WE RECOGNIZED LIKE A $52 MILLION MINIMUM RESERVE.

DID I WALK INTO THE YEAR WITH 69? MILLION, OR DID I WALK INTO THE YEAR WITH 47 MILLION? YOU GOT TWO NUMBERS THERE ON THE FUND BALANCE END OF THE YEAR.

SO END IS 47 AND BEGINNING IS 69 $9 MILLION AND WHICH WHICH ONE OF THOSE IS, IS WHAT I STARTED THE YEAR WITH JUST IN HAVING A CLEAN SET OF BOOKS, RIGHT? KNOWING I THOUGHT I WAS STARTING WITH 51 MILLION.

I MAY BE STARTING WITH 47, BUT THEN I'M SEEING THIS NUMBER OF 69, WHICH HAS SOME OTHER COSTS IN HERE THAT YOU'RE TELLING ME AREN'T HARD COSTS.

SO YOU STARTED THE YEAR WITH 69 AND YOU HAD A NET CHANGE OF 21 MILLION.

SO YOU ENDED THE YEAR WITH 47 MILLION. SO THEN WE STARTED FY 2526 WITH 47 MILLION IF THIS CURRENT YEAR. YES, SIR. OKAY. NOT THE 51 THAT WE HAD BUDGETED.

YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND TYPICALLY THAT WOULD BE AN ESTIMATE BASED ON OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE OF THE ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR, WHICH ENDS UP ALWAYS BEING DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS ESTIMATED.

OKAY. AND SO ON. THIS YOU'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE AMEND THE BUDGET THESE AMOUNTS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HARD CASH ITEMS. THERE'S THERE'S ITEMS THAT YOU'RE SAYING ARE DEPRECIATION AND DEDUCTIONS THAT WE CAN TAKE.

AND SO IF WE AMEND THE BUDGET PER YOUR RECOMMENDATION, THOSE ARE THE TOTALS THAT WERE NEEDED TO RUN THOSE DEPARTMENTS.

[01:45:02]

YES SIR. AS FAR AS ACTUAL EXPENDITURES ARE CONCERNED.

OKAY. WELL, I, I DEFINITELY THINK THE REMAINDER OF THAT CONVERSATION MAY NEED TO BE WITH THE AUDIT COMPANY TO VERIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, THOSE ADD UP. BUT THEN IN AMENDING THE BUDGET, I UNDERSTAND IT'S JUST A BUDGET AMENDMENT, BUT THOSE APPROPRIATIONS ARE IMPORTANT BECAUSE OF OUR AMENDED FINANCIAL POLICIES.

SO I WOULD HOPE WE DON'T HAVE TO DO THIS A THIRD TIME.

BUT YOU FEEL CONFIDENT THAT THOSE NUMBERS NOT NOT THESE NUMBERS, THE FIRST BUDGET AMENDMENT THAT WAS INCORRECT, BUT THESE NUMBERS PLUS THE FIRST BUDGET AMENDMENT COMBINED TOGETHER ARE THE CORRECT TOTALS.

YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS LOLA. GENTLEMEN, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR HER BEFORE WE MOVE ON? ITEM 6.1. OKAY. WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. SO MOVED. I HAVE A MOTION. SECOND AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR OF APPROVAL OF ITEM 6.1, SAY I.

I. ANY. ANYBODY AGAINST MOTION PASSES WITH A FOUR ZERO VOTE.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S TAKE A TEN MINUTE RECESS FOR 50.

BE BACK HERE AT FIVE. WE'LL JUMP INTO ITEM 6.2.

THANK YOU. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL OURSELVES BACK INTO SESSION.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR CONTINUING TO HANG OUT AND WAIT WITH US.

WE'RE INTO ITEM 6.2. MISS LOLA, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP, YOU CAN READ US INTO THAT ONE,

[6.2. Consider Acceptance of City of Amarillo Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. This item is to review and consider acceptance of the City of Amarillo Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2025, filed in accordance with Section 103.003, Texas Local Government Code. (Lola Ogunremi, Chief Financial Officer)]

AND AND THEN WE CAN HAND IT OVER TO OUR CLA FIRM.

ALL RIGHT. MRS O ITEM 6.2 WITH YOU. SURE. GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS THE ITEM TO CONSIDER ACCEPTING THE CITY OF AMARILLO ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

AND THIS ITEM REVIEWS AND CONSIDERS ACCEPTANCE OF THE CITY OF AMARILLO'S ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025, FILED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 103.003 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

SO TONIGHT WE HAVE OUR AUDITORS FROM CLA. WE HAVE MR. SCOTT AND MR. CHRIS KESSLER, WHO WILL BE LEADING THE AUDIT PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

THANK YOU MA'AM. MR. KIRSHNER, MR. KESSLER, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO COME UP TOGETHER, THAT'S GREAT.

THANK YOU. MAYOR STANLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS LOLA FOR THE INTRODUCTION.

I WAS HERE ON JUNE THE 9TH, THE DAY AFTER THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT WAS ACTUALLY ISSUED TO COUNCIL. YOU ALL HAD ONE DAY BASICALLY TO REVIEW IT, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WASN'T ENOUGH TIME TO GO THROUGH IT. 322 PAGE DOCUMENT. SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS SINCE THEN TO NOW, AFTER I POINT OUT SOME KEY ITEMS HERE, PLEASE ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. SOME OF THE KEY POINTS I BROUGHT UP ON THE JUNE 9TH MEETING IS THAT CLA HAS RENDERED AN UNMODIFIED OPINION OR A CLEAN OPINION THAT THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MATERIALLY CORRECT, AND JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT FACT.

AND A FEW OF THE OTHER KEY POINTS I BROUGHT OUT IN THE SHORT TIME FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING WAS ON PAGE 32 OF YOUR ACT FOR. AND THAT IS THE GENERAL FUND COLUMN, AND THAT DOES SHOW THAT FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30TH, THE GENERAL FUND HAD AN ENDING FUND BALANCE OF $47.8 MILLION. THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR FUND BALANCE WAS $69.6 MILLION, AND THERE WAS A CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE OF A -21.8 MILLION.

THAT WAS TOUCHED ON BY A MAYOR STANLEY IN THE PREVIOUS CONVERSATION.

[01:50:02]

I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT WHERE THAT IS IN YOUR FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

AND THAT ACTUALLY IS ALSO ON PAGE 159, WHERE THE BUDGET ACTUAL SCHEDULE IS ANOTHER KEY ITEM I WANT TO POINT OUT, WHICH IS DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT, IS THE WATER AND SEWER FUND. ON PAGE 36, THAT IS YOUR BASICALLY YOUR INCOME STATEMENT FOR THAT FUND.

A SHORTER TERM OF THAT. AND IN A PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, IT WAS BROUGHT UP, THERE'S APPROXIMATELY $100 MILLION IN REVENUE. AND THAT FIGURE I ACTUALLY WAS VERY ACCURATE.

THE TOTAL OPERATING REVENUES FOR THE WATER AND SEWER FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025 WAS 100.8 MILLION, AND THE WATER AND SEWER FUND FOR THE YEAR ACTUALLY HAD A CHANGE IN NET POSITION, OR COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS NET INCOME OF $5.4 MILLION FOR THE YEAR. AND THAT IS ON PAGE 37.

AND ANOTHER ITEM THAT WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY AND TODAY IN PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEMS WAS THE BUDGET TO ACTUAL. AND THAT IS ON PAGE 159 OF THIS DOCUMENT AND ON PAGE 159, THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS. THOSE. THE AMOUNTS IN THAT COLUMN ACTUALLY TIE UP TO PAGE 32 THAT I POINTED TO PERFORM DOLLAR FOR DOLLAR THERE.

AND THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS IN THIS COLUMN, THOSE REPRESENT ITS $263 MILLION. THOSE AMOUNTS ARE ACTUAL HARD COST OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025.

DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSE OF CERTAIN ITEMS. CAPITAL ASSETS. YOUR LEASES THAT ARE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER GATSBY STATEMENT 87.

YOUR SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS UNDER STATEMENT 96. THOSE ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THESE NUMBERS.

THOSE THAT DEPRECIATION AND AMORTIZATION EXPENSE ON THOSE TYPE ITEMS ARE IN THE GOVERNMENT WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, WHICH ARE ON A FULL ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING, WHERE THE GENERAL FUND IS ON THE MODIFIED ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING.

SO THOSE NON-CASH TYPE ITEMS ARE NOT REFLECTED IN HERE.

THERE IS. THERE WAS DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY ON CAPITAL OUTLAY AND SOME MOVEMENT OF CAPITAL OUTLAY BUDGET EXPENDITURES OR SO FORTH FROM ONE DEPARTMENT TO THE OTHER.

THE TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY EXPENDITURES FOR THE YEAR, I BELIEVE THAT IS REFLECTED ON PAGE 32. OF THIS DOCUMENT.

AND THAT IS JUST FOR THE GENERAL FUND. THE TOTAL CAPITAL OUTLAY WAS $7.8 MILLION.

AND I DID WANT TO POINT OUT ALSO THAT I THINK IS SIGNIFICANT FOR CITY COUNCIL TO HERE ON PAGE 159. IF YOU GO TO THE FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN, THAT'S THE VARIANCE WITH FINAL BUDGET POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE. AND THIS IS THE EXCESS DEFICIENCY OF REVENUES OVER UNDER EXPENDITURES VERY FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN THERE. AND THAT'S PRIOR TO TRANSFERS. THERE WAS A POSITIVE VARIANCE OF 1.473 MILLION APPROXIMATELY $1.5 MILLION. AND THEN THE TRANSFER ACTIVITY THAT WAS ALSO A POSITIVE VARIANCE

[01:55:04]

OF 3.8 MILLION. SO THE POSITIVE VARIANCE BETWEEN REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES AND LESS TRANSFERS OCCURRING THAN WERE BUDGETED WAS A POSITIVE $5.2 MILLION POSITIVE VARIANTS OVERALL, NOT BY INDIVIDUAL DEPARTMENTS, BUT JUST OVERALL. AND THOSE WERE SOME OF THE KEY ITEMS I WANTED TO POINT OUT IN THE ACT. FOR ONE THING, I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, AND I BELIEVE COUNCIL HAS BEEN PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION.

IT'S JUST A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS OF THE SINGLE AUDIT PORTION OF THE ENTIRE ENGAGEMENT OF THE CITY OF THE AMARILLO, WHICH INCLUDES YOUR FEDERAL AND STATE GRANT PROGRAMS. AND THERE WERE ACTUALLY NINE FINDINGS RELATED TO THE FEDERAL AND STATE GRANT PROGRAMS THAT ARE INCLUDED ON THE SUMMARY. ONE OF THOSE IS MORE SIGNIFICANT THAN THE OTHER EIGHT.

THAT IS THE CRUX OF THAT COMMENT THERE. AND THAT COMMENT WILL READ TO A MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE, WHICH WILL BE A QUALIFIED OPINION OVER THAT ONE MAJOR FEDERAL PROGRAM THAT WAS TESTED. THE OTHER ITEM THAT WAS OF SIGNIFICANCE WAS A FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDING. THERE WERE TWO SIGNIFICANT AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS THAT WERE RECORDED, AND I REFER TO AUDIT ADJUSTMENTS, NOT ADJUSTMENTS THAT MANAGEMENT FOUND PRIOR OR SUBSEQUENT TO CLOSING THE TRIAL BALANCE, AND THEN PROVIDED THOSE TO CLA AS YOUR AUDITORS TO ADD TO THE TRIAL BALANCE.

THESE WERE ACTUAL ADJUSTMENTS THAT WE FOUND AS AUDITORS.

MAYOR STANLEY HAD TOUCHED ON A PART OF ONE OF THOSE WHERE A RECEIVABLES THAT ARE NOT COLLECTED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR, THE REVENUE IS NOT RECOGNIZED.

THOSE ON THOSE AND IS SHOWN AS UNAVAILABLE REVENUE FOR WHICHEVER THE TYPE OF SERVICE THAT MAY BE.

SO IN TOTAL, BETWEEN THE GENERAL FUND AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS, THAT TOTAL WAS $9.8 MILLION.

THAT WILL BE RECOGNIZED AS REVENUE, ASSUMING IT'S RECEIVED IN FISCAL 2526.

AND. BUT THAT ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN MADE AND IS REFLECTED IN YOUR IN YOUR COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT.

IN THE OTHER ADJUSTMENT RELATED TO THE RECORDING OF LEASES RECEIVABLE IN THE GENERAL FUND, AND THAT ADJUSTMENT ACTUALLY HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN YOUR FINANCIALS.

THOSE LEASES RECEIVABLE WERE RECORDED IN YOUR GOVERNMENT WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

THEY WERE JUST NOT RECORDED IN THE GENERAL FUND.

SO DUE TO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF THOSE TWO ADJUSTMENTS, THEY WERE MATERIAL.

SO THEY WERE CATEGORIZED AS A MATERIAL WEAKNESS.

BUT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A FINANCIAL STATEMENT FINDING AND A MATERIAL WEAKNESS, IT DOES NOT CHANGE AT ALL THE UNMODIFIED OPINION OR CLEAN OPINION THAT YOU RECEIVED ON YOUR SET OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, BECAUSE THOSE CORRECTIONS WERE REFLECTED IN THIS DOCUMENT.

AND THOSE ARE SOME OF THE KEY HIGHLIGHTS I WANTED TO POINT OUT, AND I KNOW THE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS IS RELATIVELY

[02:00:03]

NEW IN THE FINAL REPORT WILL BE ISSUED HERE SHORTLY.

BUT THIS IS JUST KIND OF ADVANCE NOTICE THAT THE.

THESE WILL BE THE FINDINGS THAT THAT WILL BE IN THE ISSUED REPORT.

YOU KNOW WHAT'S FORTHCOMING. AND CURRENTLY, AS WE SPEAK, MANAGEMENT IS WORKING ON THEIR RESPONSES TO THOSE FINDINGS AS WELL AS THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN FOR THOSE TEN FINDINGS.

AND THOSE ARE THE KEY ITEMS I WANT TO POINT OUT IN THIS PRESENTATION.

BUT QUESTIONS MAYOR. STANLEY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS TIME, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN.

SIMPSON. HEY, GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

COUPLE COUPLE QUESTIONS JUST SO THAT I GET CLARITY ON THIS.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THIS IS A YOU CALLED IT AN UNMODIFIED OPINION.

YES. AND WHICH WHICH IS KIND OF USED THE WORD CLEAN AUDIT.

THAT'S CORRECT. TELL ME AGAIN EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANS IN THE UNMODIFIED OPINION MEANS WE HAVE NOT MODIFIED OR QUALIFIED OUR OPINION TO POINT OUT SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURES, POTENTIALLY FROM GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES OR OTHER ITEMS. THERE ARE NO MODIFICATIONS TO THIS REPORT. IT'S UNMODIFIED, BASICALLY UNCHANGED.

THAT IN OUR OPINION THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS ISSUED PRESENTED ARE MATERIALLY CORRECT. SO IT'S CONFIRMING THAT THE ACCOUNTING THAT WE DID IS ACCURATE AS YOU CHECKED IT, AS AN INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY. THAT IS CORRECT.

AND AGAIN, THE MATERIAL WEAKNESS THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A FINDING THOSE SIGNIFICANT ADJUSTMENTS ARE REFLECTED IN THIS DOCUMENT. SO THE CORRECTIONS WERE MADE TO CITY RECORDS TO REFLECT THOSE TO MATERIAL ITEMS. YEAH. AND THEN WHAT ARE THE OTHER OUTSIDE OF THAT? SO I GUESS A, A UNMODIFIED OPINION IS THE HIGHEST STANDARD THAT WE CAN RECEIVE.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S THE BEST OPINION YOU CAN RECEIVE.

AND WHAT FALLS, WHAT FALLS BELOW THAT? IN OTHER WORDS, WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN OUR OTHER OPTIONS? AND WHAT DID THOSE THOSE OTHER TERMS MEAN? I'D LOVE TO JUMP IN AND JUST WAY OF INTRODUCTION.

CHRIS KESSLER, I'M THE MANAGING PRINCIPAL OF OUR STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PRACTICE FOR CLA.

I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE. JUST LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF OPINION BEYOND UNMODIFIED, YOU WOULD HAVE A QUALIFIED OPINION, WHICH MEANS THERE IS SOMETHING WRONG IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS THAT WE ALL AGREE THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG AND IT'S NOT CORRECTED.

YOU COULD HAVE A DISCLAIMER OF OPINION WHERE WE ARE UNABLE TO EVEN DETERMINE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

AND SO WE WOULD BE DISCLAIMING AN OPINION. AND THEN THERE IS AN ADVERSE OPINION WHICH JUST SAYS WE KNOW THIS IS WRONG.

SO THEREFORE WE'RE NOT OPINING. SO THOSE THREE ARE ALL VERY BAD LEVELS OF AUDIT OPINION.

SO UNMODIFIED REALLY IS THE HIGHEST, CLEANEST LEVEL YOU CAN HAVE AND REPRESENTS ACCURATE FINANCIAL REPORTING.

OKAY. AND THEN AND AGAIN, I THINK I SAW THIS, BUT DID DID WE IDENTIFY MATERIAL WEAKNESSES, SOME DEFICIENCIES OR COMPLIANCE FINDINGS. AND IF SO, IS THAT IS THAT WHAT WE'RE GETTING STAFF TO RESPOND TO AT THIS POINT? YES. THAT IS WHAT THOSE ARE. AND SO FROM A FROM AN AUDIT PERSPECTIVE, WHAT WE ALWAYS WANT TO LOOK FOR IS THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN THAT MANAGEMENT'S GOING TO PUT TOGETHER, NOT JUST THE RESPONSE, BUT WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE GOING FORWARD TO RESOLVE THEM AND TO ADDRESS THEM.

AND THAT IS WHAT IS BEING WORKED ON RIGHT NOW.

TO FORMALIZE THAT, THERE IS A REQUIRED SUBMISSION DOCUMENT THAT HAS TO COME WITH THAT TO GO WITH THE REPORT FROM MANAGEMENT ITSELF.

THAT'S WHAT'S BEING COMPILED TO REALLY LAY OUT FOR THE GRANTING AGENCIES AS WELL AS FOR YOU ALL AS COUNCIL OF WHAT THAT CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN AND WHAT THAT TIMELINE LOOKS LIKE.

AND SO, BUT THOSE TYPES OF THINGS JUST MEAN THAT AS YOU LOOKED AT IT NOT THAT THERE'S ANY AGAIN, YOU'VE, YOU'VE AUDITED THE NUMBERS. YOU SAY THE NUMBERS ARE CORRECT, BUT THOSE THINGS WOULD ADDRESS MAYBE A LACK OF CHECK AND BALANCES OR A GAP IN THE APPROVAL PROCESS WHERE THINGS COULD HAPPEN.

CORRECT. THEY COVER TWO, TWO THINGS. IT'S INTERNAL CONTROLS, WHICH WOULD BE THOSE REVIEWS AND APPROVALS LIKE YOU LAID OUT.

BUT AS WELL WITHIN THE SINGLE AUDIT ON THE COMPLIANCE, IT COULD BE THAT THERE WAS A PARTICULAR GRANT RULE THAT WAS NOT FOLLOWED.

AND SO THEREFORE THAT BECOMES A COMPLIANCE ISSUE.

IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING WAS MISSPENT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTION COSTS OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. IT'S USUALLY WITH THESE GRANTS. THERE'S SO MUCH RED TAPE AND SO MANY RULES AND CHECKLISTS THAT COME WITH IT. THE. THOSE PROCESSES HAVE TO BE FOLLOWED TO THE T, AND THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT RESULTS IN A COMPLIANCE FINDING.

[02:05:08]

AND I THINK YOU KIND OF WENT OVER THESE, BUT I JUST HAD TO KIND OF GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF IT, A HIGH LEVEL. WHAT WERE THE BIGGEST FACTORS THAT KIND OF EITHER INCREASED OR DECREASED THE CITY'S FINANCIAL POSITION DURING DURING 2025 FY 25? WELL, THESE FINDINGS, IF YOU WILL, THOSE DID NOT HAVE ANY IMPACT ON OTHER THAN THE. REVERSING THE REVENUE RECOGNITION FOR ITEMS NOT COLLECTED WITHIN 60 DAYS. BUT AGAIN, THOSE WERE PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN YOUR ACT FOR.

AS FAR AS. HIGHLIGHTS, IF YOU WILL. IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR.

ONE. I TRIED TO POINT OUT THAT THE CHANGE IN THE FUND BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND, AS WELL AS THE WATER AND SEWER FUND, I THINK THOSE ARE THE SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT HIGHLIGHTS THAT WOULD SHOW HOW YOUR FUND BALANCE INCREASED OR DECREASED WITHIN THOSE TWO SIGNIFICANT ITEMS THERE.

OKAY. AND THEN WITH WHAT YOU'VE SEEN THIS YEAR, AS WE'RE LOOKING TO, THIS IS A MORE FORWARD LOOKING QUESTION, BUT ARE THERE ANY KIND OF I DON'T WANT TO USE THE RISK, BUT OBLIGATIONS OR THINGS THAT, THAT THE COUNCIL SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO, WHETHER IT'S DEBT SERVICE GROWTH PERSONNEL COST, OTHER TYPES OF INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENT THAT COME OUT OF THIS THAT YOU SEE IN THE AUDIT. ARE THERE THINGS THAT, AS A COUNCIL, WE SHOULD BE PAYING ATTENTION TO THAT, THAT THESE FINDINGS KIND OF SAY, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE ON OUR RADAR.

ONE THING THAT WOULD COME TO MY MIND, AND CHRIS, I KNOW YOU HAD SOMETHING IN MIND AS WELL, BUT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, MAYBE A BETTER COMMUNICATION OF WHERE ACTUAL EXPENDITURES ARE NOW, MAYBE IF THAT'S ON A MONTHLY BASIS, A QUARTERLY BASIS TO IDENTIFY THAT, OKAY, A BUDGET AMENDMENT MAY NEED TO BE FORTHCOMING, AS OPPOSED TO WAITING SEVERAL MONTHS AFTER THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR TO GET YOUR FINAL ACTUAL NUMBERS AND THEN MAKE BUDGET AMENDMENTS.

JUST SOMETHING THAT COMES TO MIND THAT MAY BE OF BENEFIT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS TO AMEND THE BUDGET, MAYBE ON A MORE TIMELY BASIS WITH MORE, I GUESS, REPORTING FROM THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO COUNCIL. AND WHAT I'LL ADD TO THAT, AND MAYBE EVEN PARTICULARLY AROUND THE FINDINGS, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST YOU ALL DO FROM A COUNCIL LEVEL IS HAVING SOME SORT OF REGULAR, REGULAR CHECK IN PERIOD WITH MANAGEMENT ON WHERE THE CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN IS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE KEY ON IT.

ANY FINDING THAT COMES THROUGH FROM A GRANT STANDPOINT OR FROM A COMPLIANCE STANDPOINT, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO MISSPENT DOLLARS OR THINGS ALONG THOSE LINES, THE REGULATORY AGENCIES ARE JUST GOING TO WAIT AND SEE IF THAT RESOLVES ITSELF IN THE NEXT YEAR.

THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S THE CASE. AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHERE YOU ALL NEED TO BE LOOKING AT THAT AND SAYING, HOW IS THIS BEING RESOLVED? ARE WE ON TRACK FOR OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION? WHAT IS OUR PROCESS AND WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO DIFFERENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS DONE? IF WE SAY IT'S GOING TO BE DONE BY SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026.

WHAT IS OUR PLAN OF ACTION AND WHAT IS OUR CHECK IN PERIOD TO MAKE SURE THAT IS IN FACT OCCURRING? SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THAT WE TYPICALLY RECOMMEND OUR CLIENTS DO WHEN THEY HAVE FINDINGS LIKE THAT, SO THAT THERE'S AN ACTIVE TRACKING AND RESOLUTION OF THOSE, THOSE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FROM AN OVERALL STANDPOINT WITH WHAT WE ARE SEEING FROM, I'LL JUST SAY FROM A BUDGETARY LEVEL AND REALLY WHAT WE'RE SEEING FROM A TREND BASIS, I MEAN, PERSONNEL COSTS ARE GOING UP, HEALTH CARE COSTS ARE GOING UP, GENERAL COSTS ARE GOING UP.

SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT YOUR RENEWAL AND REPLACEMENT TO YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE THAT YOU ALL ARE PUTTING THROUGH IN YOUR CAPITAL PLANNING, JUST MAKING SURE THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING THOSE SCENARIOS FOR WHAT YOU'RE DOING.

BECAUSE EVERYWHERE WE'RE GOING, REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE FISCAL YEAR END IS AND REGARDLESS OF WHERE THE GEOGRAPHY IS, WE ARE SEEING THAT BEING A REAL IMPACT ON OUR ON OUR CLIENTS.

AND ESPECIALLY, I THINK I THINK YOU MENTIONED IT, IF PROPERTY TAXES IS SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO GO AWAY AND THAT BECOMES A REVENUE SOURCE IMPACT, JUST THINKING OF THOSE THINGS AS YOU LOOK AT SOME OF YOUR YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE IS JUST CRITICAL RIGHT NOW.

YEAH. AND OKAY. MR.. SIMPSON. WANTING TO FURTHER EXPAND ON WHAT CHRIS WAS TALKING ABOUT, THE FINDINGS AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLANS

[02:10:05]

AS PART OF THE SINGLE AUDIT, WE ARE REQUIRED TO REPORT ON, ON THE STATUS OF PRIOR YEAR FINDINGS.

SO THAT IS GOING TO BE IN YOUR NEXT YEAR SINGLE AUDIT REPORT.

THE STATUS OF THE FINDINGS THAT WILL BE PART OF THE SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025 AUDIT.

SO THAT IS REQUIRED TO REPORT ON WHERE THOSE STAND.

SO WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING IS, AS A COUNCIL MAY BE SETTING UP SOMETHING WHERE WE'RE MONITORING MORE TIMELY OR ACTUAL REAL TIME SPENDING AND HOW WE'RE DOING TO THE BUDGET SO THAT WE CAN REACT ACCORDINGLY TO THAT. AND THEN ANOTHER THING THAT SHOULD BE ON OUR, I GUESS OUR AGENDA IS TO FOLLOW UP ONCE WE, BECAUSE I GUESS STAFF WILL REPLY BACK TO SOME OF YOUR FINDINGS AND YOU MAY SAY, WELL, WAIT A MINUTE, THAT'S NEW INFORMATION. THAT'S REALLY NOT A FINDING ANYMORE. OR YOU MAY SAY NO HERE, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO COME BACK TO US WITH RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE CHANGES THAT WE SHOULD IMPLEMENT, AND THAT COUNCIL SHOULD BE SETTING UP A REGULAR TIME TO FOLLOW UP ON THOSE SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THOSE SAME PROBLEMS A YEAR FROM NOW.

YEAH. AGREED. OKAY. AGREED. YES. AND THEN ONE OTHER THING.

I MEAN, WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS LATER. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, PARTICULARLY FROM A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE QUITE EXPENSIVE WATER RESOURCES, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A NEW PIPELINE TO PROVIDE WATER TO THE AREA.

HOW IS THE CITY, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE ABILITY TO ISSUE DEBT TO DO THESE TYPES OF PROJECTS, WHICH WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO? WHAT'S KIND OF OUR FINANCIAL WHEREWITHAL ON THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO, TO DO THAT AND HANDLE THESE NEEDS GOING FORWARD? WELL, JUST LOOKING AT THE WATER AND SEWER FUND.

THE. AND THIS AGAIN BEGINS ON PAGE 34, GOES THROUGH.

PAGE 37. YOUR NET POSITION AT THE END OF THE YEAR, JUST IN THE WATER AND SEWER FUND, WHICH IS KIND OF THE EQUIVALENT EQUIVALENT OF FUND BALANCE. IT'S $606 MILLION.

I KNOW A LARGE PIECE OF THAT IS TIED UP IN NET INVESTMENT CAPITAL ASSETS, BUT THE.

THE UNRESTRICTED AMOUNT OF THAT $606 MILLION, I JUST POINTED OUT ACTUALLY IS ON PAGE 35.

UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION IS 35 MILLION. SO EVEN THOUGH THAT'S A LARGE NUMBER TECHNICALLY HERE, YOUR NET POSITION IS $35 MILLION UNRESTRICTED THAT YOU COULD SPEND IN, WHICH KIND OF LEADS TO THE QUESTION. WELL, WITH THAT AMOUNT OF FUND, OUR NET POSITION AVAILABLE, WILL THERE NEED TO BE ADDITIONAL DEBT TO FUND THESE PROJECTS? OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I WAS REALLY EXCITED TO READ THIS BOOK. AND WHEN I OPENED UP LOOKING AT THE TABLE OF CONTENTS, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR WAS WHAT YOUR FINDINGS WERE JUST A DOCUMENT THAT SAID, HERE ARE OUR FINDINGS, SOMETHING PLAIN AND SIMPLE THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON WOULD UNDERSTAND WITHOUT HAVING TO READ IN DEPTH THE BOOK.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT IN THAT ACTUALLY IS THE SEPARATELY ISSUED DOCUMENT THAT IS FORTHCOMING, THE SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS. THAT'S WHERE ALL TEN OF THESE FINDINGS WILL BE.

IN ADDITION TO THE MANAGEMENT'S RESPONSES AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, SOME GOVERNMENTS INCLUDE WITHIN THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT AT THE VERY BACK END, THE SINGLE AUDIT SECTION.

A LOT DON'T. AND THIS YEAR, WHICH IS HOW IT'S BEEN DONE PREVIOUSLY AS WELL, YOU HAD ONE DOCUMENT FOR THE ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL REPORT, AND THEN A SEPARATELY ISSUED DOCUMENT RELATED TO THE SINGLE AUDIT.

SO THAT DOCUMENT IS COMING. IT'S JUST NOT INCLUDED IN THIS.

YES. ALL RIGHT. SO AND THEN I'M GOING TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON SOMETHING YOU SAID ABOUT THE TEN MATERIAL EXCEPTIONS.

HOW COME THE CIP FINDINGS AREN'T PART OF THOSE TEN.

WELL I WOULD CLA DID IN AUDITING CIP WE GOT A ROLL FORWARD OF THE

[02:15:05]

CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS BALANCES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ASSETS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PLACED INTO SERVICE YET AS OF THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR INTO THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN WE TEST ANY ADDITIONS TO, ON A SCOPE BASIS, NEW ADDITIONS TO PROJECTS.

AND THEN WE ALSO TEST RELEASE FROM C, I, P TO THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSET CATEGORIES TO BE PLACED IN SERVICE. AND THEN DEPRECIATION COMMENCES ON THOSE ASSETS.

AS FAR AS LOOKING AT CAPITAL PROJECTS, WHAT WAS APPROPRIATED FOR A PROJECT VERSUS WHAT WAS SPENT.

THAT IS NOT PART OF HOW WE AUDIT CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS.

SO I KNOW THERE HAD BEEN MENTION OF SEPARATE AUDITS OR FORENSIC AUDITS RELATED TO CIP, BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE COUNCIL AN OVERVIEW OF HOW WE GO ABOUT AUDITING THE CIP ACCOUNT ASSET BALANCES THAT ARE RECORDED IN HERE. THAT DOES NOT GO BACK IN TIME TO LOOK AT WHAT WAS APPROPRIATED FOR EACH OF THE PROJECTS VERSUS HOW MUCH ACTUALLY WAS SPENT ON THOSE PROJECTS TO WHERE, OKAY, WE DIDN'T SPEND THIS MUCH MONEY, CAN WE APPROPRIATE THAT TO A NEW PROJECT THAT IS NOT WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THIS FINANCIAL STATEMENT ON IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCILWOMAN PRESCOTT, YOU GOT ANYTHING? OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE. REALLY APPRECIATE YOU COMING BACK.

WELCOME TO AMARILLO. FOR THE FIRST TIME, SCOTT.

AND I'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE MULTIPLE TIMES. YES.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO KEEP THIS, LIKE AS SIMPLIFIED AS POSSIBLE SO I DON'T LOSE ANYBODY.

BUT LET'S GO BACK TO THE CIP AND JUST RESTATE WHAT YOU TOLD ME TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY HEARS IT.

AS AN EXAMPLE, IF COUNCIL APPROPRIATES A $10 MILLION PROJECT AND WE GO SPEND 5 MILLION ON THE PROJECT FOR WHATEVER REASON, SOMETIMES STAFF DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. YOU KNOW, MR. DANFORTH HAS SHOWED HIS VALUE TIME AFTER TIME, BRINGING THINGS IN UNDER BUDGET.

MAYBE WE COULDN'T GET A RIGHT OF WAY. MAYBE THE PROJECT STALLED, WHATEVER HAPPENED.

BUT THEN WHEN WE GIVE YOU THAT 5 MILLION, YOU ACCEPT THAT AMOUNT AND YOU CAPITALIZE THAT YOU DON'T AUDIT AND LOOK AT WAS IT BUDGETED OR APPROPRIATED AT TEN? AND WHERE'S THE REMAINING 5 MILLION THAT'S THERE? THAT'S CORRECT. THE $5 MILLION THAT IS RECORDED IN HERE, THAT'S WHAT WE AUDIT BECAUSE THAT IS AN ACTUAL ACTUAL MONEY SPENT. THAT ARE CAPITALIZED. AND ONCE THE PROJECT IS COMPLETE THEN THEY ARE MOVED TO THEIR RESPECTIVE LINE ITEM.

IF IT'S A STREETS, WATER AND SEWER, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, AND DEPRECIATION COMMENCES AT THAT POINT.

BUT IF 5 MILLION THAT WAS APPROPRIATED WASN'T SPENT, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CIP BALANCE. THIS IS JUST ASSET ONLY THAT'S REFLECTED IN YOUR SO THE 43 MILLION THAT'S NOW BEING RECOGNIZED IN AN ONGOING CIP STUDY AND REVIEW DOES ACCOUNT FOR SOME OF THAT.

LIKE THESE ARE WHERE THOSE MONIES ARE BUILDING UP OVER TIME.

AND SO WE, YOU'RE NOT GIVING US ANY ASSURANCE THAT ANY OF THOSE BUDGETED OR ALLOCATED MONIES, APPROPRIATED MONIES HAVE BEEN LOOKED AT. YOU DON'T LOOK AT THAT IN THIS SCOPE OF WORK.

NOW, THAT COULD BE AN ADDITIONAL SCOPE OF WORK LIKE WHAT YOU WERE, YOU KNOW, NOT RECOMMENDING, BUT REFERENCING. SO ON THE CIP I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE LIKE WE, WE AS, AS ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES CURRENTLY IN TODAY'S CLIMATE, WE OPERATE WITH BASICALLY ZERO PUBLIC TRUST.

AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. I THINK WE JUST HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO STRIVE TO GAIN AND REBUILD THAT PUBLIC TRUST, YOU KNOW, AND SO SOME OF WHAT I'M HEARING CALLS FOR FROM SOME INDIVIDUALS THAT SPOKE EARLIER IS, YOU KNOW, THE FORENSIC AUDIT WOULD HELP TO REBUILD THAT TRUST.

AND SO LIKE, IT'S IT'S GOOD TO LOOK AT THAT AS A POTENTIAL, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT BRINGS ABOUT A FURTHERANCE OF WHAT WE'VE ALREADY FOUND.

THAT'S PROVEN TO BE A GOOD PROBLEM. LIKE WE FOUND $43 MILLION SITTING THERE THAT THIS COUNCIL NEEDS TO APPROPRIATE SO FAR, ACCORDING TO THE THE, THE LOOK BACK. AND THERE ARE OTHER OPEN PROJECTS THAT WE NEED TO GO LOOK AT AND PULL THAT FORWARD.

[02:20:04]

AND THEN YOU SAID YOURSELF, YOU DON'T HAVE ANY FINDINGS OR ANYTHING.

NOTHING LEFT THE THE ORGANIZATION ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT.

AND WE DON'T HAVE A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING WAS, WAS FRAUDULENT RIGHT AT THIS TIME.

BUT WE DO HAVE EVERY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT. WE PROBABLY JUST CAN'T TRUST THAT THE MONEYS ARE WHAT THE MONEYS ARE JUST BECAUSE THAT'S THE NUMBER WE HAD.

I THINK ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, I'M STILL CONFUSED ON WHETHER IT'S 72.9 MILLION OR 69 MILLION FOR OUR COST TO RUN THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

RIGHT. AND SO VERIFICATION OR VERIFICATION IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPORTANT.

SO YOUR SINGLE AUDIT FINDINGS, TEN FINDINGS AND YOU'LL ISSUE THOSE AT A LATER DATE.

CORRECT. AND WE'RE SUPPOSED TO ACCEPT THAT AS FAR AS AN ADMINISTERIAL DUTY, RIGHT.

LIKE YOU'LL BRING THAT BACK AND WE'LL WE'LL VOTE TO ACCEPT THAT AS WELL.

YES. THAT IS A SEPARATELY ISSUED DOCUMENT THAT WOULD BE ISSUED AND PRESENTED TO YOU ALL. AND THE TARGET DATE ON THAT NOW IS ACTUALLY THE END OF THIS MONTH. SO THAT IS IN FINAL FORM IS FORTHCOMING SHORTLY.

OKAY. IF IF THERE'S AN ACTION ITEM FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE ACT FOR TODAY, THAT WOULD NOT INCLUDE THE SINGLE AUDIT BECAUSE THAT HAS NOT BEEN ISSUED YET.

I JUST BROUGHT UP THE FINDINGS. SO COUNCIL HAS ADVANCE NOTICE THAT, OKAY, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME FINDINGS.

SO WHEN THIS FINAL DOCUMENT IS ISSUED, YOU WON'T SAY, WELL, WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS.

YOU AT LEAST HAVE ADVANCE NOTICE. YOU KNOW, MANAGEMENT'S WORKING ON THE RESPONSES AND CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN, WHICH WILL BE PART OF THAT FINAL ISSUED DOCUMENT.

AND SCOTT, I THINK, I THINK THAT THE THE SIGNAL THAT'S OUR GRANT FUNDS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. FEDERAL AND STATE CDBG HOME PROGRAM AIRPORT.

THAT'S OUR GRANT PROGRAM. YEAH. THE DOCUMENT THAT'S FORTHCOMING NEAR THE END OF THE MONTH THAT WILL LIST OUT ALL OF YOUR FEDERAL GRANTS, AS WELL AS STATE GRANTS TO GET A CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURES OF FEDERAL AND STATE AWARDS.

AND THAT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S EXPENDITURES, NOT RECEIPTS OF EXPENDITURES OF THOSE FEDERAL AND STATE GRANT PROGRAMS. OKAY. IF I COULD, I'D LIKE TO GO TALK ABOUT SEWER AND WATER.

SO WILL YOU GO WITH ME TO PAGE 221 AND LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THAT RIGHT? SO OUR CHANGE IN OUR NET POSITION RIGHT THERE ON PAGE 221.

SO TOTAL REVENUES OF THE SEWER AND WATER ENTERPRISE.

AND I WANT TO I WANT TO CARVE THAT OUT BECAUSE THAT'S AN ENTERPRISE.

SO EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ON GOVERNMENT YOU KNOW, ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THAT GO WITH GENERAL FUND, THIS IS DIFFERENT. THIS IS ACTUALLY A BUSINESS.

AND SO IN THE WAY WE RUN THIS BUSINESS, WE, WE REVENUE 100.8 MILLION, CORRECT.

AND THEN OUR TOTAL EXPENDITURES. ROUGHLY 71 MILLION IS WHAT I'M COMING UP WITH.

AND WHERE I'M GETTING TO THAT IS IF YOU'RE LOOKING ON THAT PAGE, TOTAL OPERATING EXPENDITURES WERE 89.4.

CORRECT. BUT THEN THERE'S A DEPRECIATION OF 17.7 MILLION, WHICH IS A NON-CASH ITEM, NON-CASH ITEM.

WE'RE KIND OF USED TO HEARING THAT TERM HERE TODAY.

SO REALLY THAT'S JUST A DEDUCTION OFF OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT, LIKE IF YOU'RE RUNNING A BUSINESS AND YOU'RE ABLE TO TAKE A DEDUCTION FOR YOUR TAXES, IT WOULDN'T AFFECT THE BALANCE IN THE CHECKBOOK BECAUSE YOU HAD A TAX DEDUCTION.

SO THIS IS A DEPRECIATION ON ASSETS. BUT THEN WE, WE NET REVENUE NET PROFIT IN THAT SEWER AND WATER DEPARTMENT FOR THE YEAR 2425, ROUGHLY $29 MILLION IF YOU ADD BACK IN THE DEPRECIATION EXPENSE.

BUT. MAYOR. STANLEY. I DID WANT TO ADD SOMETHING TO IT DIDN'T AFFECT YOUR CHECKBOOK.

IT DID AFFECT YOUR CHECKBOOK WHEN YOU BOUGHT THEM.

THAT'S WHEN THE MONEY WAS EXPENDED. IT WASN'T SHOWN AS AN EXPENSE.

IT WAS CAPITALIZED. RIGHT. SO THAT INITIAL COST THEN IS BEING EXPENSED OVER THE LIFE OF THE ASSET.

SO IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THIS $17.7 MILLION DID NOT AFFECT YOUR CHECKBOOK.

BUT BACK WHEN THOSE ASSETS WERE PURCHASED, IT DID.

AND THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED OUT OF THE CIP PROGRAM THAT WE HAD APPROPRIATED, REMAINING MONIES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY EARNED IN THAT ENTERPRISE.

[02:25:06]

RIGHT. CIP FOR OUR PURPOSES, ASSETS, CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS.

I THINK THE CITY REFERS TO THAT AS YOUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, CORRECT? YEAH. SO FOR, FOR OUR CAPITAL PROGRAM. AND THEN WE WE HAD SOME INTEREST HERE.

CAN YOU TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE INTEREST THAT YOU AND I KNOW WE HAD AN ARBITRAGE PAYMENT? AND SO WHEN YOU SAY, WELL, YOU'RE YOUR TOTAL NET POSITION IS $606 MILLION, THAT THAT FACTORS IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS.

BUT THERE'S SEVERAL HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS THAT WE'VE BORROWED AND CASH THAT WE HAVE UNRESTRICTED.

THAT'S ALL SITTING IN OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO RIGHT NOW, EARNING INTEREST.

YES. OKAY. AND SO TELL ME, WHAT'S THE NET GAIN ON THE INTEREST AFTER THE THE PENALTY? WELL, THE INTEREST EARNINGS FOR AS YOU REFERRED TO THE PORTFOLIO FOR THE YEAR WAS $5.3 MILLION.

INTEREST AND FISCAL CHARGES THAT INCLUDED NOT ONLY INTEREST EXPENSE ON YOUR DEBT, BUT INCLUDED IN THERE ALSO IS AN ARBITRAGE EXPENSE TO WHERE THE INVESTMENT EARNINGS YOU'RE RECORDING. IF YOU'RE EARNING MORE ON THOSE AND SOME OF THOSE THAT PORTFOLIO REPRESENTED UNSPENT BOND PROCEEDS, AND YOU'RE EARNING MORE MONEY BY YOUR OWN INVESTMENTS THAN THE INTEREST RATE YOU'RE PAYING OUT RELATED TO THE DEBT, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO KEEP THOSE EXCESS EARNINGS IN.

THOSE ACTUALLY ARE REQUIRED TO BE PAID BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND SHORTLY AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR, I BELIEVE, WITHIN WATER AND SEWER, IT WAS APRIL OR MAY.

THERE WAS OF THE AMOUNT THAT WAS RECOGNIZED, 1.3 OR 4 MILLION HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID BACK, AND SOME OF THOSE ACTUALLY ARE LONGER TERM IN NATURE.

THEY'RE NOT DUE IMMEDIATELY, LIKE AT LEAST THE ONE OF THEM WAS.

BUT UNDER GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, WHEN YOU BECOME AWARE OF AN ARBITRAGE LIABILITY, YOU HAVE TO RECORD THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE LIABILITY AND RECOGNIZE THE EXPENSE RELATED TO THE EXCESS EARNINGS. SO EVEN WITH THE ARBITRAGE DEDUCTION AND THE REASON I'M DRIVING ON THIS IS BECAUSE WE WERE WE WERE UNDERSTANDING WHEN WE APPROVED THE BUDGET THAT WE HAD A SEWER AND WATER SHORTFALL. AND SO WE, WE STARTED THE, THE BUDGET YEAR WITH $7 MILLION IN THERE.

WHEN WE, WHEN WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE LIKE 22 MILLION.

AND SO WE HAD, WE HAD A SHORTFALL. NO, I'M SORRY, WE THOUGHT WE HAD 36 MILLION IS WHAT IS WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUR NET STARTING POSITION.

WE ENDED UP RECOGNIZING SEVEN. SO WE HAD LIKE THIS $29 MILLION SHORTFALL, AND IT TIED IT BACK TO SOME WATER RIGHTS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, I THINK, ELIMINATED AT THIS POINT AS A POTENTIAL.

BUT JUST NOW THAT WE HAVE THE AQUIFER, NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THE AUDITED NUMBERS, WHAT DID WE FINISH THE YEAR AT? IF YOU TAKE THE DEPRECIATION OUT, LIKE EVEN THOUGH WE PAID FOR THE OTHER EXPENDITURES, HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE IN THAT ACCOUNT AT THE END OF THE YEAR? WELL. IF YOU LOOKED AT IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MONEY BEING CASH OR INVESTMENTS.

THAT ACTUALLY WHAT PAGE ARE YOU TAKING ME TO THERE? SCOTT. IT IS THE PREVIOUS PAGE FROM WHERE YOU WERE.

PAGE 220. AND THAT WILL SHOW YOU THE ACTUAL CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENT BALANCES AND INVESTMENT BALANCES FOR WATER AND SEWER FUND AS A WHOLE.

AND THEN AGAIN, ONE THING THAT I HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IS THE NET POSITION.

THE UNRESTRICTED UNRESTRICTED NET POSITION IS $35 MILLION.

OKAY. THAT ACTUALLY DOES NOT DIRECTLY CORRELATE TO CASH OR CASH IN INVESTMENTS.

SO THIS NUMBER OF 107.1 MILLION YOU KNOW, HAS SOME PREPAID EXPENSES IN THERE THAT COULD BE THROWING THAT OFF.

BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, IT CONTEMPLATES THE ADDITIONAL MONIES COMING FROM OTHER FUNDS.

[02:30:02]

AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE INTEREST THAT YOU'VE GOTTEN, ALL OF THAT.

IS THAT A, IS, IS THAT A NET POSITION AT THE END OF THE YEAR FOR THIS ENTERPRISE 107? IF YOU FACTOR THOSE THOSE MONIES IN 107.1 MILLION.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT IS THE ASSETS THAT ARE ON THE THE ASSETS THAT ARE ON THE STATEMENT OF NET POSITION IS THAT IS THAT REPRESENTATIVE OF REALLY WHAT'S THEIR LIQUID? WHAT I WOULD SAY, YES, THOSE ARE YOUR ASSETS, BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE ALREADY EITHER COMMITTED OR OFFSET BY LIABILITIES THAT YOU ALSO HAVE ON THE BOOKS. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE REAL NET POSITION IS REALLY AT THE BOTTOM THERE THAT UNRESTRICTED OF 35 MILLION.

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SAY TO REALLY LOOK AT YOUR FINANCIAL HEALTH AND YOUR FINANCIAL. I WANT TO SAY LIQUIDITY BECAUSE THAT'S A LITTLE COMPLICATED, BUT THAT THAT IS YOUR HEALTH.

IS THAT $35 MILLION AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE GOING UP YEAR TO YEAR, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT RESTRICTED FOR DEBT OR TIED UP IN YOUR CAPITAL ASSETS ALREADY.

THAT'S GREAT. CHRIS. SO EITHER WAY, YOU CUT IT, EVEN IF YOU HAVE A DEPRECIATION ITEM OR YOU HAD, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER WAYS TO LOOK AT IT BECAUSE YOU COULD LOOK AT IT A COUPLE DIFFERENT WAYS. WE DID NOT HAVE A NET SHORTFALL OUT OF THE ENTERPRISE.

NO MONIES WERE WERE DEDUCTED OR SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED OUT OF THAT.

LIKE THIS A HEALTHY ENTERPRISE. IT RAN A NET PROFIT.

AND EVEN IF WE JUST AGREE 35 MILLION IS THE CASH ON HAND.

THERE IN THAT ENTERPRISE AT THE END OF FY 2425.

AGREED. OKAY, GREAT. THAT'S GREAT. SO COUNCIL YOU GUYS HAVE ANYTHING? I'M GOING TO JUMP INTO ANOTHER ONE. IF IF YOU GOT ANYTHING ON SEWER AND WATER.

ALL GOOD. MAYOR, JUST REAL QUICK, JUST A SEPARATE TOPIC REAL QUICK, JUST FOR PEOPLE'S AWARENESS.

WE'RE OKAY HERE, BUT THERE'S A TORNADO WARNING ABOUT A MILE WEST OF US, SO WE'RE OKAY.

IT'S HEADING SOUTH. AND BUT IN CASE ANYONE'S GETTING, GETTING, LOOKING AT THAT, WE DO APPEAR TO BE OKAY RIGHT HERE, BUT WE ARE MONITORING THAT ACTIVELY. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.

IF YOU DON'T MIND INTERRUPT, IF YOU GET ANY OTHER UPDATES THAT WE NEED TO MAKE ANYBODY AWARE OF.

YOU ARE IN ONE OF THE SAFEST BUILDINGS DOWNTOWN.

IT'S IT'S NOT AN OLD BOMB SHELTER, BUT IT WAS BUILT LIKE ONE.

OKAY, SO ON PAGE 159, WE HAVE ALL OF THOSE ACTUALS THAT WE RAN THROUGH.

YES. I KNOW YOUR SEWER AND WATER. YOU HELPED ME WITH THE CIP COMPONENTS OR COMMITMENTS YOU HELPED ME WITH.

THERE'S ON PAGE 136, THERE'S A REMEDIATION FOR THE HILLSIDE SUIT.

SO THERE WAS A, THERE WAS AN OLD MISSION CLAY FAILURE OVER THERE AND SO ON PAGE 136, IF I COULD GET AN UNDERSTANDING WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, MR. KIRSHNER, IS RECOGNIZED REVENUES.

DO WE HAVE ANY RECOGNIZED REVENUES IN THIS FISCAL YEAR THAT CAME IN FROM THE PROCEEDS FROM THE LAWSUIT? I WOULD HAVE TO SCAN THROUGH THIS NOTE. WE HAD SEVERAL DEDUCTIONS THROUGHOUT THE YEARS. AND THEN I KNOW WE MORE OR LESS CLEANED UP SOMEBODY ELSE'S MESS.

AND THEN I BELIEVE WE WE, YOU KNOW, WERE GIVEN A 6 MILLION PLUS SETTLEMENT AND AN 11 MILLION PLUS SETTLEMENT.

MY MY QUESTION IS JUST THAT 17 MILLION. DOES IT SHOW UP HERE ON ANY OF MY REVENUES THAT YOU'VE SEEN IN FY 2425? BECAUSE IF NOT, I'M I'M CURIOUS IF IT COMES IN IN THIS THIS CURRENT YEAR AS AN INCOME OR REVENUE.

AND I HAVEN'T SEEN IT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S AUDIT EITHER.

WELL, JUST REFERRING TO THE PAGE 136. YES. STANLEY VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH THERE, IT SAID, AND THIS IS PART OF THE WAY DOWN THE THIRD ROW IN THERE. DURING 2022, THE CITY RECOVERED $25,000 IN MONETARY DAMAGES, AND DURING 2023, THE CITY RECOVERED $5 MILLION. SO I THINK THAT'S APPROXIMATELY THE $17 MILLION YOU WERE REFERRING TO, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THIS NOTE, WERE RECEIVED IN 2022 AND 2023 AND NOT IN THE FISCAL YEAR THAT CLA JUST AUDITED. SO IN THOSE MONIES THAT ARE RECEIVED, HOW WOULD THEY HAVE BEEN RECEIVED? WHERE WHERE WOULD THEY HAVE COME INTO? BECAUSE I JUST COULDN'T FIND THEM LOOKING BACK.

THAT'S WHY I THOUGHT MAYBE WE RECEIVED THEM LATE.

AND YOU KNOW HOW YOU YOU HAD TO PUSH THE SIX PLUS MILLION FORWARD INTO THE THE FUTURE YEAR.

I WAS JUST TRYING TO CONFIRM. FY 2425. WHERE WOULD THOSE MONIES COME IN TO THE ORGANIZATION? I MEAN, IT'S A SEWER AND WATER ISSUE. THE EXPENDITURES WENT OUT OF THAT DEPARTMENT.

[02:35:04]

SHOULD THEY HAVE COME BACK INTO THAT DEPARTMENT? WELL, THESE ACCORDING TO THESE DATES IN HERE, 2022, 2023, THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN RECOVERIES OR A SOURCE OF REVENUE, IF YOU WILL.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN PART OF YOUR CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE IN EACH OF THOSE FISCAL YEARS.

AND THOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN CASH RECEIVED, ADDED TO YOUR BALANCES AND SPENT.

HOWEVER, CITY COUNCIL DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO SPEND THE RECEIPT OF THOSE FUNDS.

OKAY. WELL, THEN WE'LL WE'LL DIG BACK THROUGH 22 AND 23 AGAIN.

WE'VE GOT MISS LOLA KIND OF UP AND RUNNING. MAYBE SHE CAN HELP ME FIND THOSE.

I DON'T SEE THEM ON ANY RECOGNIZED REVENUES THAT WERE THAT WERE GIVEN IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS ACT FOR.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I'M LOOKING IN THE RIGHT SPOT.

SO. BUT AS FAR AS THIS ACT FOR YOU DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE MONIES RECOGNIZED HERE.

SO THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO PUT THOSE ITEMS IN, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THE DATES THAT ARE DISCLOSED HERE.

THEY WOULD NOT HAVE CAME IN AS A SOURCE OF FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025.

OKAY. I, I SEVERELY AND SINCERELY APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME AND YOUR WORK.

AND SO THANK YOU FOR ALL THE TIME THAT YOU'VE INVESTED IN IT.

I DEFINITELY CAN SEE WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US AND NOT TO ANY ONE PERSON'S FAULT, BUT THEN GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTING IS COMPLEX. THESE ARE HARD TO FOLLOW, NOT TO MENTION THEIR TWO YEARS AGO NOW AND WE'RE TRYING TO TALK ABOUT NEXT YEAR.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S A GREAT DEAL OF CONFUSION IN THE EFFORT OF REBUILDING TRUST.

I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING IF COUNCIL HAS AN APPETITE FOR A FORENSIC AUDIT THAT WOULD SCOPE THE CIP PROJECTS.

THE SEWER AND WATER AND THE ARPA MONIES. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD PLACE TO START.

AND I THINK THAT WE THAT'S A BROAD SCOPE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M ASKING FOR.

IF, IF CLA WOULD BE ABLE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.

NOT TODAY, BUT IF I, IF I HAD ANY COUNCIL SUPPORT FOR THAT TO PUSH THAT FORWARD WITH THE EXISTING FINDINGS THAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE CLEANUP THE CIP PROJECTS THAT MR. FREEMAN, YOU KNOW, HAS RECOGNIZED.

AND THEN WE'RE RUNNING A INCREDIBLY LARGE ORGANIZATION, LIKE WE'RE RUNNING A $570 MILLION ORGANIZATION.

AND I AM NOT AN AUDITOR, NOR AM I AN ACCOUNTANT, NOR DID I ATTEND COLLEGE FOR MORE THAN LIKE SIX MINUTES.

SO LIKE, I'M NOT THE QUALIFIED GUY FOR YOU TO TAKE MY WORD FOR IT, BUT I UNDERSTAND WELL ENOUGH THAT, YOU KNOW, WE NEEDED TO HAVE A BUDGET AMENDMENT TO, TO FALL IN LINE WITH OUR FINANCIAL POLICY.

AND THEN AN ENTERPRISE HERE IS VERY HEALTHY. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE A SHORTFALL IN THE SEWER AND WATER DEPARTMENT.

AND SO IN MOVING ALL THIS FORWARD, WE'VE GOT TO COME TOGETHER.

I THINK IN THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS TURN ALL THE LIGHTS ON AND GET A QUALIFIED EXPERT.

I'M A FAN OF YOUR WORK AND JUST APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE SO FAR.

SO GENTLEMEN, ANY I SEE SOME MIKES LIT UP. I'LL START WITH MR. PRESCOTT. I WOULD, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT WE GET A PRICE POINT ON WHAT AN AUDIT WOULD LOOK LIKE.

I DON'T LIKE JUST OPENING UP THE CHECKBOOK AND NOT HAVING A POINT.

YOU KNOW, WE DEFINITELY WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE THE AUDIT WOULD ENTAIL BECAUSE THAT IS A VERY SPECIFIC TASK AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LOT OF TIME. SO I WOULD WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE PRICE POINT WAS GOING TO BE ON THAT SERVICE.

WHAT I WILL TELL YOU IS THAT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU APPROACH ANY SORT OF FORENSIC AUDIT ENGAGEMENT, YOU WANT TO BE VERY DILIGENT UPFRONT ON WHAT THAT SCOPE LOOKS LIKE.

AND OBVIOUSLY THAT FEEDS THE COST INTO IT. BUT THAT'LL BE THE THAT'LL BE THE CRITICAL PART FOR EVERYBODY TO WORK THROUGH HERE AT THE CITY IS TO SAY, WHAT ARE THE AREAS, WHAT ARE THE DEPARTMENTS? WHAT ARE THE YEARS? WHAT ARE THE TRANSACTIONS? DO YOU WANT A SAMPLE? DO YOU WANT THE WHOLE THING? THOSE ARE ALL THE, THE COMPONENTS THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT. THANK YOU.

SO I GUESS I WOULD I WOULD SAY WE WE WOULD NEED TO DETERMINE AN APPETITE FOR THAT AND THE HEALTH OF MOVING FORWARD WITH A PROJECT LIKE THAT.

AND THEN I WOULD GLADLY, YOU KNOW, TAKE COUNCIL'S INDEPENDENT INPUT OF, OF WHAT THAT SCOPE COULD COVER.

ALSO WEIGH THAT WITH STAFF OF WHAT STAFF FEELS LIKE IS TIME WELL SPENT.

AND THEN PUSH THAT OVER TO YOU GUYS FOR AN EXPERT OPINION OF WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN, IN MONETARY COSTS? AND THEN TIME FRAME. AND THEN MAYBE WE DO HAVE TO NARROW THE SCOPE IF, IF IT'S TOO BROAD.

BUT FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION THAT I'VE HEARD.

[02:40:02]

MAY BE THE BEST WAY FORWARD FROM HERE. COUNCILMAN.

SIMPSON. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE'VE BEEN DOWN THE FORENSIC AUDIT.

I THINK WE WENT DOWN THAT ROAD ONCE BEFORE WITH THE, THE, THE BOND MONEY ON THE, THE STREETS.

AND THE GOOD NEWS WAS THAT CAME BACK AND THEY SAID THERE'S NO, THERE'S NOTHING, IN FACT, WE CAN'T EVEN SPEND THE MONEY THAT YOU HAD ALLOCATED FOR IT.

SO I DO THINK WE NEED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT THAT.

BUT I DO HAVE ONE ONE POINT BACK TO THIS AUDIT THAT I JUST WANT TO BRING UP BEFORE WE GO.

IT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THERE WERE NEW DEADLINES PUT IN PLACE THIS YEAR THAT THE STATE HAS ASKED US TO MEET ON COMPLETING THIS. IT LOOKS LIKE MAYBE, HOPEFULLY WE FOLLOW THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, BUT MAYBE NOT THE LETTER OF THE LAW BECAUSE WE DID NOT GET THE FINAL AUDIT IN TIME FOR THIS. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, AND THIS WOULD BE.

AND WE DON'T NEED TO SPEND. BUT JUST A MINUTE OR TWO. WHAT WHAT HAVE WE LEARNED THIS YEAR SO THAT WE DON'T FIND OURSELVES IN THIS POSITION NEXT YEAR? I'LL TAKE THAT. SCOTT. YEAH, WE LEARNED A LOT THROUGHOUT THE AUDIT PROCESS.

COMING INTO AN AUDIT IN THE FIRST YEAR ALWAYS TAKES A LOT OF TIME.

GOING THROUGH AN ERP TRANSITION TAKES A LOT OF TIME, GIVES A LOT OF SURPRISES.

BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS, IS THAT WE'VE BUILT OUR ROADMAP, WE'VE WORKED OUR WAY THROUGH THAT.

WE KNOW WHERE THOSE CHALLENGES ARE AND WE'VE WORKED THROUGH THEM.

SO ALL OF THAT IS REALLY BEHIND US. AND WHAT I WOULD SAY, WHAT, WHAT I CAN COMMIT THAT CLA WILL DO DIFFERENTLY TO MAKE SURE THAT WE SMOOTH ANY REMAINING BUMPS OUT ALONG THE WAY ON THE TIMELINE IS, IS JUST CHANGING COMMUNICATION, MORE COMMUNICATION ALONG THE WAY SO THAT EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD THE AUDITS. A PARTNERSHIP, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S US AND THE CITY WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS TO REACH THAT CONCLUSION.

AND EVERYBODY DESERVES TO BE IN THE LOOP ON WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AND WHY THAT'S TAKING ANY ADDITIONAL TIME THAN IT IS.

SO NOT TO SAY THAT WE DON'T WANT ANY OF THOSE THINGS TO HAPPEN AGAIN, BUT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ADDRESS THEM EARLY IN THE PROCESS SO THAT EVERYBODY CAN REMEDIATE THEM AS THEY ARE OCCURRING AS OPPOSED TO, WELL, WE'RE AT THE DEADLINE AND NOW WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET THIS THING OUT THE DOOR. THAT'S THE KEY IS JUST EARLY COMMUNICATION. OKAY. WELL, GOOD. BECAUSE I JUST KNOW KIND OF WHAT HAPPENED. AND THEN BECAUSE I'VE HEARD A VARIETY OF THINGS THAT WE GOT STARTED LATE AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

BUT THEN WE DID COME TO A POINT WHERE, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WE WERE TOLD WE, YOU GUYS WOULD BE READY WITH THE AUDIT.

AND THEN WE WEREN'T. AND THEN WE CAME UP WITH ANOTHER DATE THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU'D BE READY WITH THE AUDIT.

AND SO THAT WAS WHAT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GET THAT WORKED OUT BECAUSE I FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR STAFF WAS DOING EVERYTHING ON OUR END THAT WE SHOULD.

AND I THOUGHT WE WERE SO BUT THAT WAS, I THINK WHAT WAS THE CONFUSING PART IS WE THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO GET COMPLETED AND IT KEPT GETTING MOVED DOWN THE ROAD.

AND THAT'S WHAT I'LL SAY, THAT THE COMMUNICATION COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER ON OUR SIDE TO TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THAT AND COMMUNICATE THAT.

BUT TO BE HONEST, IN YEAR ONE, WE'RE ALSO OVER ENTHUSIASTIC AND WANTING TO OVER PERFORM AND WANTING TO DELIVER.

AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT. BUT THEN WHEN WE GET INTO IT AND REALIZE, OH, THERE'S MORE WE GOT TO DIG THROUGH. AND THAT'S WHERE THAT'S WHERE GOING FORWARD, WE WILL BE BETTER ON THAT COMMUNICATION IS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT BEING MORE REALISTIC. YEAH, AND I LIKED OPTIMISM. BUT WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS SAYING, YOU BETTER GET THIS DONE OR WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO, WE'RE GOING TO PUNISH YOU, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN, THAN JUST THE NORMAL YEARS THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE PAST. AGREED. I APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. YEAH. COUNCILMAN REED, YOU HAD SOMETHING.

YEAH. AND WE'LL JUST GO BACK TO THE FORENSIC AUDIT.

YOU KNOW, I'VE I'VE THOUGHT FOR THE LAST PROBABLY THREE, FOUR MONTHS THAT THAT WOULD BE A GREAT IDEA.

ONE THE MAIN THING PUSHING THAT IS WE, WE HAVE A NEW CFO.

I KNOW IF I WAS COMING INTO AN ORGANIZATION THAT HAS OVER $500 MILLION YEARLY BUDGET, I'D WANT TO KNOW THAT ALL MY BOOKS ARE CLEAN AND THAT I WAS MOVING FORWARD WITH WITH A GOOD OPERATION. AND I DON'T THINK A FORENSIC AUDIT IS SAYING THAT ANYBODY'S DONE ANYTHING WRONG OR THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR ANYTHING ILLEGAL.

IT'S JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE TRANSPARENT AND THAT EVERYTHING IS IS WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE.

BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU ON THE SCOPE BECAUSE YOU GET SCOPE CREEP IN ANYTHING.

WHAT YOU THOUGHT STARTED HERE COULD END UP HERE AND YOU STILL DON'T PROVE ANYTHING.

AND SO YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING.

I APPRECIATE THAT THAT THOUGHT INTO IT. ANYTHING FURTHER COUNSEL? OKAY. AND I, I KNOW JUST BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE STANDING HERE, JUST HUMAN NATURE IS TO KIND OF BE PRESUMPTUOUS AND ASK HOW MUCH SHOULD THAT COST OR WHATEVER. SO I DON'T WANT TO PRESUME THAT LIKE IT WOULD BE ONE FIRM OVER ANOTHER.

I MEAN, WE PUT IT UP LIKE ANY OTHER OPPORTUNITY.

SO REALLY APPRECIATE THE DISCUSSION. GENTLEMEN, YOU'VE GOT ITEM 6.2 IN FRONT OF YOU FOR CONSIDERATION.

YOU DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FURTHER, DO YOU? NO, I DO NOT.

OKAY. APPRECIATE YOU GUYS. I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE CITY OF AMARILLO ANNUAL COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL

[02:45:06]

REPORT AS PRESENTED. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 6.2.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? PLEASE SAY NAY. NAY. VOTE IS A TIE. 2 TO 2. HERE.

CAN WE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THAT? SURE. TAKE OFF WITH THAT, MR. REED. WELL, MY ISSUE WITH THIS AND I AND MAYBE I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.

WE'RE WE'RE ACCEPTING A REPORT THAT DOESN'T HAVE FINDINGS IN IT.

AND THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING THE PROBLEM WITH IT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW I TRUST WHAT'S IN HERE WITH WHAT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING'S IN ORDER AND THAT WE'RE HEALTHY, BUT I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE THAT IN THAT SAYS IT IN IN ENGLISH.

PLAIN ENGLISH. WE HAVE A HEALTHY ORGANIZATION.

HERE ARE THE FINDINGS THAT WE HAD, WHETHER THERE WERE ANYTHING NEGATIVE.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.

NOW ON THE LEGAL END, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT BY NOT ACCEPTING IT, ARE WE CAUSING OURSELVES PROBLEMS? I THINK THE MINISTERIAL QUESTION WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO KNOW FROM THE LEGAL PERSPECTIVE.

IS THIS JUST A MINISTERIAL DUTY. BUT IT'S BEING PUT HERE AS AS A VOTE.

RIGHT. AND SO WHAT HAPPENS IN THIS SITUATION, MR. MCWILLIAMS TYPICALLY THE ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER FROM AN EXTERNAL AUDIT IS MINISTERIAL.

OKAY? IT IS BECAUSE IT'S AN EXTERNAL AUDIT. IT JUST IS WHAT IT IS.

AND YOU'RE JUST ACCEPTING IT FOR WHAT IT IS. GOOD, BAD, UGLY.

DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE. IT'S JUST WHAT IT IS. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T ASK FOR CLARIFICATION ABOUT IT LATER ON. THAT'S ALL YOU'RE DOING. THE STATUTE WAS MEANT TO MAKE SURE THAT CITIES GOT AN ANNUAL AUDIT.

THE EXTERNAL AUDIT HAS PERFORMED THAT HE'S GIVEN YOU THIS UNMODIFIED OPINION.

IT'S THERE FOR YOUR ACCEPTANCE TONIGHT. THAT'S ALL IT IS.

SO THAT'S TYPICALLY THE WAY IT IS AROUND THE STATE.

LET ME LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. I GO TO COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT. MINISTERIALLY PER THE CHARTER, WE HAD A CONVERSATION BACK IN MARCH, RIGHT WHEN WE ASKED YOU TO PROVIDE A DRAFT.

I BELIEVE OUR DUTY WAS LIMITED AND ALL THE WAY UP TO THE POINT WHERE ALL WE NEEDED TO DO WAS FILE IT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY, AND WHICH WE DID. NOW, IT WASN'T THE FINAL. NOW WE HAVE A FINAL THAT HAS ANOTHER SINGLE AUDIT COMING BEHIND IT.

WE DON'T HAVE THAT YET. I, I QUESTION THE THE ROLE OF ACTING AS LIKE THE PRESIDING OFFICER VOTING ON AN ITEM THAT'S ALREADY PLACED ON THE CITY SECRETARY'S DESK PER OUR CHARTER.

SO I THINK WE WROTE A LETTER TO THE AG'S OFFICE STATING THAT THAT LIKE WE'VE DONE WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO BY THE TIME WE HAD IT AND WE HAD SOME EXTRACURRICULAR EVENTS.

SO TELL ME SPECIFICALLY IN YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THE LAW.

WHAT MORE ARE WE REQUIRED TO DO OTHER THAN PUT IT IN THE IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S HANDS? WELL, THE STATE LAW DOESN'T SPEAK TO ANY KIND OF COUNCIL ACTION AT ALL.

IT'S COMPLETELY SILENT. IT JUST REQUIRES THE CITY SECRETARY BE FILED IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE BY A CERTAIN DATE.

THAT DATE BEING 180 DAYS AFTER THE BEGINNING OF THE OF THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.

OKAY. HOWEVER, OUR ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES THAT THE CITY COUNCIL WILL TAKE IT UP AND APPROVE IT.

SO IT'S IT'S IT'S OUR ORDINANCE THAT YOU'RE EFFECTUATING TONIGHT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

IT DOES. COUNCILMAN PRESCOTT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE MORE TIME.

WE HEARD THAT IT WAS AN UNMODIFIED OPINION. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND AN UNMODIFIED OPINION FROM AUDITOR STATES CLEARLY THAT EVERYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE.

CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THERE ARE NO FINDINGS OF.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. NO. WHAT AN UNMODIFIED OPINION STATES IS THAT IN OUR OPINION, THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS PRESENTED ARE MATERIALLY CORRECT.

IT DOES NOT MENTION ANY FINDINGS. FINDINGS WOULD BE FORTHCOMING IN THE SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS.

OUR UNMODIFIED OPINION IS STATING THAT, IN OUR OPINION, THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE MATERIALLY CORRECT.

SO HOW CAN YOU CHANGE THE LANGUAGE OF THAT? I MEAN, THAT'S ABOUT AS CLEAR AS IT COMES, RIGHT? YES. THE UNMODIFIED OPINION WILL NOT BE CHANGED AT ALL.

WE'VE ALREADY ISSUED THAT. YOU WILL HAVE A SEPARATE COMPLIANCE REPORTS.

BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE UNMODIFIED OPINION. THAT IS CORRECT.

CORRECT. OKAY. SO FROM AN AUDIT STANDPOINT WE HAVE A CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH WITH AN UNMODIFIED OPINION.

[02:50:02]

CORRECT? OKAY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. I MEAN, IF WE'RE GOING TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, I DON'T SEE ANY ADDITIONAL. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE A MODIFIED OR THERE WOULD BE NOTES CLEARLY IDENTIFYING IF THERE WERE ACTIVITIES THAT WERE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS AUDIT TO CONTINUE.

RIGHT. THIS AUDIT TO BE FAVORABLE. THE SINGLE AUDIT REPORTS WILL NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE OPINION. CLA IS ALREADY RENDERED ON THESE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES, SIR. TIM DOES THAT MAKE SENSE.

I MEAN I MEAN THIS IS AS GOOD AS IT GETS, RIGHT? THERE'S TWO SEPARATE THINGS HAPPENING HERE. THERE'S A SINGLE AUDIT AND THEN THERE'S FINANCIALS FOR THE CITY. YOU GOT THE FINANCIALS IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY. THE SINGLE AUDIT IS A SEPARATE THING. SO THIS IS FOR OUR GRANTS. IT'S ALL PART OF THE AUDIT PROCESS. BUT BUT IT'S IT'S IT'S FOR IT'S NOT THE FINANCIALS.

AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE FINANCIALS. YOU'LL GET THE YOU'LL GET THE SINGLE AUDIT WHEN THAT'S READY TO GO.

SO THAT'S STILL COMING. WELL, I WANT TO GO BACK TO MR. MCWILLIAMS. SO THE ORDINANCE FINDS THAT THE COUNCIL SHALL ACCEPT THE AUDIT WHEN COMPLETED.

SO WE DON'T PUT IT UP FOR A VOTE IF WE FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE.

THE ORDINANCE ALREADY TOLD US OUR VOTE IS YES.

THE THE CHARTER AND THE ORDINANCE AREN'T PARTICULARLY THE SAME.

OKAY. YOUR CHARTER, WHICH IS YOUR CONSTITUTION, SAYS YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ANNUAL AUDIT AND IT'S GOING TO BE BROUGHT TO YOU AND IT'S GOING TO BE FILED. THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT YOU WILL APPROVE IT.

WELL, HOW DO WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE IN PLACE THAT TELLS ME WHAT MY VOTE SHALL BE.

AND THEN WHY ASK FOR THE VOTE? LIKE, WHY NOT JUST ALLOW IT TO PASS FORWARD? IT DOESN'T. IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT.

IT JUST SAYS YOU HAVE TO APPROVE IT. SO IF YOU DON'T WANT TO APPROVE IT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

AND THEN THE THOUGHT HERE IS THIS IS A THIRD PARTY INDEPENDENT AUDITOR WHO IS AUDITED.

AND SO OBVIOUSLY, NONE OF US HERE ARE ARE AUDITORS OR CPAS.

AND SO, SO IT'S THEY'VE DONE THEIR WORK. WE TRUST THAT THEY'VE DONE THE RIGHT JOB.

AND SO YOU JUST, YOU, YOU ARE APPROVING ACCEPTANCE, THE RECEIPT OF THE AUDIT.

I'VE RECEIVED IT, I, NOT I, I DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND WHY THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE WAS WRITTEN THE WAY IT WAS, BUT BECAUSE WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, AUDITOR, YOU'RE WRONG NECESSARILY.

RIGHT. SO BUT I GUESS INASMUCH AS LIKE, WE'RE NOT ACCOUNTANTS AND IT'S THEIR WORK, IT'S A STANDALONE PIECE.

SO I'M NOT REJECTING THEIR WORK. I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB AND A FINE JOB.

AND THEY'VE, THEY'VE PERFORMED AND WE HAVE IT.

IT'S FILED AS A DRAFT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY.

AND SO I'M BEING ASKED TO APPROVE IN THE EYES OF THE PUBLIC, THE AUDIT.

WHAT I'M STATING IS, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS I SHOULDN'T VOTE AGAINST IT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT AND IT'S NOT MY WORK, I SHOULDN'T VOTE FOR IT BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND IT.

AND IT'S NOT MY WORK. IT'S NOT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE WORK.

I THINK THEY'VE DONE A FINE JOB. MY QUESTION IS THE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE CHARTER.

LIKE WE FULFILLED OUR CHARTER REQUIREMENT. WE FILED THE THE DRAFT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY.

NOW WE'VE RECEIVED THE AUDIT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ACTION WE'RE REQUIRED TO TAKE.

AND THAT'S THAT'S WHY I VOTED. WE NEED TO FILE THE FINAL AUDIT BECAUSE THE DRAFT AUDIT IS NOT IS NOT ENOUGH FOR OUR EXTERNAL ENTITIES.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE WHERE THE CLEARINGHOUSES COMES TO BE COMES TO THE I MOVE, I MOVE THAT WE FILE THE AUDIT PRESENTED HERE TODAY IN THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE IF WE WANT TO. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO FIRST? IF IF THAT WOULD BE THE THE WAY BECAUSE WE WE IT'S DEAD.

WELL, NO, I'M SORRY. IT'S 2 TO 2. SO WHAT'S WHAT IS STILL ON THE TABLE RIGHT NOW WITH THIS.

THE VOTE FAILED BECAUSE IT WAS 2 TO 2. IT MUST BE AFFIRMATIVE.

SO THREE VOTES TONIGHT. YOU TAKE NO ACTION ON IT.

THEN FURTHER TONIGHT WE WE COULDN'T FILE IT. YOU COULD TAKE I MEAN YOU YOU'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT.

SO AND YOU'VE HAD MORE DISCUSSION. YOU PERHAPS ONE OF YOU CHANGED YOUR MIND AND SO NOW YOU'VE HAD FURTHER DISCUSSION.

SO YOU GUYS CAN DO A DIFFERENT MOTION OR SOMETHING.

I APPRECIATE THE COACHING. I MOVE THAT WE FILE THE AUDIT FROM CLA IN ITS FINAL DRAFT WITH THE CITY SECRETARY'S OFFICE.

AND I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS ONE. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES WITH A FOUR ZERO VOTE.

THANK YOU GENTLEMEN. THANK YOU GUYS. REALLY APPRECIATE Y'ALL.

THANK YOU, MISS LOLA. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING.

ITEM 6.3 PUBLIC HEARING. ONLY ONE OF THE DAY.

[6.3. Public Hearing and Consideration of Ordinance No. 8250. This item is a public hearing and the first reading of an ordinance considering the vacation of the 20-foot-wide public alley located within Block 143, Plemons’s Addition, an addition to the City of Amarillo, in Section 170, Block 2, A.B.& M. Survey, Potter County, Texas. (VICINITY: SE 10th Ave. & S. Buchanan St.; APPLICANT/S: Geospatial Data, Inc. for Rillo Investments, LLC) (Brady Kendrick, Senior Planner) ]

MR. BRADY KENDRICK, OUR FAVORITE PRESENTER. YOU'RE UP.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 8250.

THIS IS A ALLEY VACATION LOCATED IN BLOCK 143 OF PLEMONS EDITION.

[02:55:01]

THIS IS IN POTTER COUNTY, TEXAS, HERE IN DOWNTOWN, IN THE VICINITY OF SOUTHEAST 10TH AVENUE AND SOUTH BUCHANAN STREET.

APPLICANT IS GEOSPATIAL DATA, INC. FOR WILLOW RILLO INVESTMENTS, LLC, AND THIS IS THE SITE THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A POTENTIAL HOTEL IN THE NEAR FUTURE, SO THEY ARE NEEDING TO VACATE THE ALLEY TO CREATE A SINGULAR LOT, ULTIMATELY FOR THAT SITE.

IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY DEPARTMENTS AND LOCAL UTILITY COMPANIES, AND THERE ARE THE UTILITIES LOCATED IN THAT ALLEY.

HOWEVER, THE DEVELOPER WAS AGREEABLE TO PROVIDING AN EASEMENT TO THE CITY AT NO COST SO THAT THOSE UTILITIES CAN REMAIN IN PLACE.

WITH THAT, NO FAIR MARKET VALUE PAYMENT IS REQUIRED AND NO OBJECTIONS WERE EXPRESSED OR COMMUNICATED ON THE REQUEST.

WE DID SEND PUBLIC NOTICE AS REQUIRED AND ONLY HAVE RECEIVED A GENERAL INQUIRY AS OF THE MEETING TODAY.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THIS WITH A FIVE ZERO VOTE.

MR. KENDRICK, THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR BRADY AT THIS TIME? I'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 6.3. DO I HAVE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM RECOGNIZING NO ONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND REQUEST A MOTION.

I MOVE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NUMBER 8250 AS PRESENTED.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES WITH A FOUR ZERO VOTE.

THANK YOU, MR. KENDRICK. MR. BALDWIN, ITEM 6.4 WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

[6.4. Consideration of Resolution No. 06-23-26-1. This item is the first reading to consider a Resolution and associated Application Affidavit and Certificate of Secretary supporting the Water Supply Infrastructure Grant application from Texas Water Development Board. (Cody Balzen, Director of Planning) ]

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 6.4 IS CONSIDERATION OF RESOLUTION 06-23-26-1. THIS ITEM CONSIDERS RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AN APPLICATION TO THE TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD'S WATER SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE GRANT FOR A WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT LOCATED IN EAST AMARILLO.

THE PROJECT WE'RE APPLYING THIS, THIS RESOLUTION IS ACTUALLY MANDATORY FOR US TO BE ABLE TO APPLY FOR THIS GRANT.

THE PROJECT WE'RE APPLYING FOR IS WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.

THIS INCLUDES NEW WATER MAINS AND INFRASTRUCTURE.

THIS INCLUDES EIGHT INCH, 12 INCH AND 20 INCH MAINS, MOSTLY 20 INCH MAINS.

THIS WILL ENHANCE SYSTEM RELIABILITY AND PROVIDE INFRASTRUCTURE NECESSARY FOR FUTURE GROWTH OF THE CITY.

THE RESOLUTION IS WRITTEN AS A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF 34 MILLION.

THE CURRENT ESTIMATE ON THE PROJECT IS 14.7 MILLION.

CIP PROJECT 521795 BUDGETED IN MARCH OF 22. THIS IS FOR THE ENGINEERING ASPECTS OF THE OF THE PROJECT THAT WAS IN THE AMOUNT OF 1.2 MILLION. THAT IS A THE NEXT PIECE THERE IS KIND OF THE REASON FOR THIS.

SO SYSTEMS THAT SERVE A POPULATION OVER 150,000 COULD NOT USE THIS GRANT FOR PLANNING AND DESIGN COSTS.

SO THE PROJECT WHENEVER WE APPLY MUST BE READY TO PROCEED TO CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME WE SUBMIT IT.

THIS IS 100% GRANT WITH NO LOCAL MATCH REQUIRED.

AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. VERY GOOD SIR.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR MISTER BALSAM? OKAY, I THINK WE UNDERSTAND IT.

THANK YOU. WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON SIX FOR.

I MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 062326-1 AS PRESENTED.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM 6.5. MR.

[6.5. Consider Approval - Memorandum of Understanding between City of Amarillo and Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA). The City of Amarillo, along with ten other CRMWA member cities, is being asked to authorize the Mayor to executive a non binding Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Canadian River Municipal Water Authority (CRMWA) regarding the development of CRMWA II; a proposed second groundwater pipeline running approximately 70 miles from Roberts County, Texas to member cities. (Grayson Path, City Manager)]

CITY MANAGER. YES. TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS A IS A NON-BINDING MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN US AND THE CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION.

WE HAVE MR. DREW SATTERWHITE HERE WITH US TONIGHT TO GIVE YOU A PRESENTATION.

AND SO JUST REAL QUICKLY HERE THE I THINK YOU ARE ALL AWARE MR. SATTERWHITE VISITED US HERE A FEW MONTHS AGO TO TALK ABOUT CRIMINAL TWO. AND THIS IS A PROJECT THAT WILL BE A APPROXIMATELY 70 MILE LONG PIPELINE UNDERGROUND PIPELINE FOR ONE OF OUR WELL FIELDS TO RECONNECT AMARILLO IN THE CITY SOUTH OF US.

AND THIS IS PART OF OUR, OUR, OUR, OUR ONGOING WATER EXPANSION NEEDS FOR OUR REGION.

SO I'M JUST GOING TO STOP THERE AND LET DREW TAKE IT FROM THERE. SO GOOD DEAL.

THANK YOU FOR THE INTRODUCTION, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE TODAY. I'M JUST GOING TO PROVIDE A, AN OVERVIEW OF KIND OF THE HISTORY OF CRIME WALL SPECIFICALLY OUR WATER SUPPLY AND INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT ALSO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT CRIME WALL TOO, AND WHAT THAT DOES FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND ALL OF OUR MEMBER CITIES, IN ADDITION TO THE MOU IN PARTICULAR FEEL FREE TO INTERRUPT AT ANY GIVEN TIME.

I'M GOING TO BE THROWING A LOT OF INFORMATION AT YOU GUYS. SO IF YOU WANT TO STOP AT ANY POINT AND TALK, LET'S DO THAT. I'M GOING TO REFER TO CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY AS CRIME WALL FROM HERE ON OUT.

SO SO THE CANADIAN RIVER PROJECT THIS WAS REALLY WHAT SPURRED THE CREATION OF CRIME WALL.

[03:00:06]

AND THE IDEA WAS TO DAM UP LAKE MEREDITH AND PROVIDE WATER TO OUR 11 MEMBER CITIES.

THAT PROJECT DID INCLUDE BOTH THE DAM AS WELL AS 322 MILES OF OF AQUEDUCT SYSTEM.

THAT THAT AQUEDUCT RANGES IN DIAMETER FROM 8 INCH OR 8FT, INTERNAL DIAMETER DOWN TO 18IN WHEN YOU GET TO THE FURTHER EXTREMITIES OF OUR SYSTEM.

LOTS OF PUMP STATIONS ALSO INVOLVED THERE. SO I'M SHOWING YOU THIS PICTURE ONE BECAUSE I, I LIKE IT AND THINK IT'S COOL, BUT ALSO BECAUSE I JUST WANTED YOU GUYS TO UNDERSTAND THE OR PROVIDE A PERSPECTIVE, I GUESS YOU SHOULD SAY ON THE TYPES OF PIPE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

THESE ARE NOT COMMON. THIS WAS THIS PHOTO WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN DURING THE 60S.

AND THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR POT THAT THEY WERE CONSTRUCTING UP HERE IN THE REGION TO, TO INSTALL.

SO WHAT THIS IS RIGHT HERE, I'M KIND OF THAT, THAT PREVIOUS PICTURE THAT SHOWED OUR OVERALL SYSTEM.

I'M ZOOMING IN TO THE NORTHERN EXTENTS OF OUR SYSTEM.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE ONLY AMARILLO BORGER AND PAMPA INCLUDED HERE.

BUT CRIMINAL IN THE MID 90S BEGAN PURCHASING GROUNDWATER OUT PRIMARILY IN ROBERTS COUNTY AND THE PRIMARY DRIVER OF THAT WAS WATER QUALITY. LAKE MEREDITH HAS CONTINUED TO GET SALTIER AND SALTIER.

AND THE IDEA WAS, IS WE NEEDED GROUNDWATER TO BLEND WITH LAKE MEREDITH TO ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE SALT CONCENTRATIONS COMING.

THOSE ARE NOT IT'S NOT A HEALTH BASED CONCERN WHATSOEVER. IT'S A TASTE AND ESTHETIC ISSUE.

SO WE CONTINUED TO PURCHASE GROUNDWATER RIGHTS OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADES.

BUT WHAT YOU'LL SEE THERE ON YOUR SCREEN IS THAT PHASE ONE AND TWO THAT WAS LARGELY DONE IN 2001, CAME ONLINE IN 2001. AND THAT ALSO INCLUDED THAT 54 INCH GROUNDWATER LINE THAT YOU SEE THERE HEADING THERE SOUTH OF BORGER AND TIES INTO OUR MAIN AQUEDUCT BETWEEN THE DAM AND AMARILLO. AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY RIGHT NOW HOW THE THE GROUNDWATER MAKES IT INTO THE SYSTEM AND ULTIMATELY TO AMARILLO SOUTH PHASE THREE THERE. SO IT JUST SO HAPPENS THAT IN 2001, WHEN THIS PROJECT CAME ONLINE, AGAIN, THE PRIMARY DRIVER WAS WATER QUALITY. THERE WAS OBVIOUSLY A WATER SUPPLY COMPONENT OF IT AS WELL, BUT I DON'T THINK ANYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT THAT YEAR WAS GOING TO BE THE BEGINNING OF A 20 PLUS YEAR MEGA DROUGHT THAT WE'RE JUST NOW KIND OF STARTING TO COME OUT OF HERE.

SO PHASE THREE WAS DONE IN 2010, RIGHT WHEN WE WERE IN THE GRIPS OF A.

AND THAT WAS AMONGST THE WORST TIMES THAT WE'VE EXPERIENCED AT LAKE MEREDITH.

AND WHAT THAT ESSENTIALLY DID WAS DOUBLED THE CAPACITY OF OUR WELL FIELD.

IT ALSO ADDED THAT 54 INCH LINE BETWEEN PHASE THREE AND PHASE ONE TO ULTIMATELY GET THAT WATER INTO THE SYSTEM.

AND WITH PHASE THREE IN PLACE, WE NOW HAVE WELL CAPACITY IN EXCESS OF WHAT THAT 54 INCH GROUNDWATER LINE WILL CARRY.

SO RIGHT NOW, THAT 54 INCH GROUNDWATER LINE, THAT'S OUR BOTTLENECK AND CAPACITY FOR SUPPLYING TO THE CITIES.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE, THIS IS A CRIME WALL AS A WHOLE.

NOT AMARILLO SPECIFIC, BUT THIS IS JUST A GRAPH SHOWING OUR OUR WATER SUPPLY OVER THE YEARS.

AND YOU'LL SEE THAT LIGHT BLUE THERE. THAT IS WHAT THE CITIES ARE SUPPLYING INDEPENDENTLY OF CRIME WALL.

THE DARK BLUE THERE. STARTING IN 1968. THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WE BEGAN DELIVERING WATER.

SO YOU CAN SEE THERE WE WERE 100% SURFACE WATER SUPPLIER UP UNTIL 2001 WHEN THE WELL FIELD CAME ONLINE.

AND THEN YOU SEE THERE THAT OVER TO THE RIGHT, THE WALL WELLS, THAT'S OUR GROUNDWATER THAT STARTED IN 2001.

AND YOU CAN SEE THAT RATIO OF, OF, WELL, WATER TO LAKE WATER CONTINUE TO INCREASE UP UNTIL THE POINT OF 2012 AND 13, WHEN WE WERE 100% RELIANT UPON GROUNDWATER. NOT A SITUATION I THINK ANYBODY ENVISIONED US BEING IN CERTAINLY THAT QUICKLY.

WE DID RECOVER, HAVE RECOVERED A LITTLE BIT. YOU'LL, YOU'LL NOTICE THERE THAT WE'VE BEEN AVERAGING ABOUT 15,000 ACRE FEET IN THE LAST DECADE OR SO, BUT THAT'S A FAR CRY FROM WHERE WE WERE IN THE 90S, WHEN WE WERE PUMPING OVER 70,000 ACRE FEET OUT OF THE LAKE PRETTY RELIABLY.

WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS WATER LEVELS. THE DAM WAS COMPLETED IN 65, STARTED IMPOUNDING WATER.

WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY START DELIVERING UNTIL 68.

BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THE JUST THE TREND OF WATER LEVELS IN LAKE MEREDITH OVER TIME.

WE REACHED A HIGH THERE IN 1973, HELD RELATIVELY STEADY UP UNTIL ABOUT 2001.

YOU CAN SEE THERE WHERE WE JUST DROPPED OFF AND WE GOT DOWN TO THE A DIRE SITUATION THERE IN 12 AND 13 WHEN WE HAD 26 FOOT OF WATER IN THE LAKE AND IT WAS TOO SALTY TO PUMP OUT. BUT ONE THING I DO WANT YOU TO NOTICE THERE IS THAT IN 2001, YOU'LL SEE THE 389 PARTS PER MILLION, THE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS. AND THEN YOU SEE TODAY WE'RE BACK AT THAT SAME LEVEL.

AND THOSE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS HAVE DOUBLED SINCE THAT TIME.

AND SO THAT'S JUST INDICATIVE OF A TREND IN THE WRONG DIRECTION OF CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS IN THE LAKE.

WE UP IN THIS PART OF THE WORLD, WE EVAPORATE A LOT.

AND EVAPORATION TAKES ALL OF THE WATER AND LEAVES BEHIND THE SALT.

[03:05:02]

AND THE ONLY WAY WE GET RID OF THAT SALT IS TO PUMP IT OR RELEASE IT.

AND THUS FAR, SINCE 1965, WE'VE NEVER HAD A RELEASE FROM LAKE MEREDITH.

SO PUMPING IS HOW WE GET RID OF THAT. THIS IS JUST MAYBE FOR SOME DRAMATIC EFFECT HERE, BUT FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT ARE FAMILIAR WITH LAKE MEREDITH, I'M LOOKING OVER HARBOR BAY HERE, LOOKING NORTH, AND JUST SHOWS YOU HOW FAST THE SITUATION OUT THERE CAN CHANGE, JUST AS A MATTER OF 12 YEARS. SO CRIM LAW TWO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING THERE.

THIS IS THE SAME MAP I SHOWED YOU EARLIER, BUT WITH THE RED LINE, WHICH IS MEANT TO REPRESENT CRIM WAR TWO.

THIS IS APPROXIMATELY 70 MILES OF 72 INCH PIPELINE.

IT WILL INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL WELLS TWO PUMP STATIONS.

BUT WHAT THIS IS DOING HERE IS, IS IT GETS THAT GROUNDWATER DIRECTLY TO WHAT WE CALL OUR AMARILLO REGULATING RESERVOIR, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF TOWN.

OUR ORIGINAL LAKE WATER SYSTEM THERE FROM THE DAM TO AMARILLO, IT'S 72 TO 78 INCH DIAMETER PIPELINE.

THERE'S FOUR PUMP STATIONS THAT LIFT THAT WATER 800FT OVER THE COURSE OF ABOUT 35 MILES FROM THERE AT GRAVITY FLOWS ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LUBBOCK.

WE DON'T HAVE TO PUMP ANY MORE. ACTUALLY, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO LAMESA FROM THE AMARILLO REGULATING RESERVOIR.

BUT BECAUSE THOSE THAT SEGMENT OF PIPELINE IS UNDER THE INFLUENCE OF THOSE PUMP STATIONS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S EVERY TIME A PUMP STARTS AND STOPS, THERE'S SURGE, IT'S OPERATING UNDER HIGHER PRESSURE.

THAT PIPELINE IS ALSO IT'S PRESTRESSED NON CYLINDER PIPE.

AND I KNOW THAT'S A LOT. BUT BASICALLY, YOU KNOW THE NEW TYPES OF CONCRETE PIPE THAT YOU'RE BUYING.

THEY HAVE A CONCRETE CYLINDER IN THEM. THAT'S A LOT EASIER TO WORK ON.

YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO WELD TO THESE PRESTRESSED.

IT'S BASICALLY REAL THIN WIRE WRAPPED AT 125,000 PSI SPIRAL AROUND WHEN YOU START HAVING CORROSION.

IT'S BEEN IN THE GROUND FOR 60 YEARS. YOU JUST LOSE THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY OF THAT PIPE.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THIS PIPE, DUE TO THE PRESTRESSED NATURE OF IT, TYPICALLY DOESN'T LEAK.

IT BLOWS OUT. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING CHUNKS OF CONCRETE HUNDREDS OF FEET AWAY FROM WHERE THIS HAPPENED.

AND BECAUSE THE ARTERIAL NATURE OF OUR SYSTEM, WE HAVE ONE ARTERY GOING TO EVERY CITY.

THAT'S NOT GOOD. YOU KNOW THIS PIPE. I'LL SHOW YOU A PHOTO HERE IN A SECOND.

BUT, I MEAN, IF WE'RE AT AN OPEN COUNTRY, EVERYTHING'S GOING WELL.

JUST. EVERYTHING'S GOING OUR WAY. THIS IS A TEN DAY REPAIR TO REPLACE A SEGMENT OF PIPE.

WE'VE GOT TWO DAYS TO DE-WATER THE PIPE. WE'VE GOT TWO DAYS TO REFILL THE PIPE.

AND THEN IN BETWEEN THAT PERIOD, YOU'VE GOT TO GET IN AND PULL A 40,000 POUND JOINT OF PIPE OUT OF THE GROUND AND GET A NEW ONE BACK IN.

THIS IS THIS PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS PICTURE IS 72 OR 78 INCH, BUT IT JUST SHOWS OUR GUYS OUT WORKING ON A LEAK.

AND THAT PIPE GOING IN IS ACTUALLY. SO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IS WE HAVE THEIR 22 FOOT SEGMENTS.

YOU HAVE TO GO IN AND YOU HAVE TO JACKHAMMER CONCRETE SAW AND GET A GAP IN THE PIPE SO YOU CAN PULL IT APART AND GET IT OUT.

THE PIPE IS TOO HEAVY FOR OUR TRACK HOSE. ONCE YOU DIG DOWN TO IT TO, TO LIFT IT OUT OF THE GROUND.

SO WE HAVE TO GET A CRANE ON SITE TO PULL THESE SEGMENTS OF PIPE OUT.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE A CRANE TO DROP THESE TWO, WHAT WE CALL MAKEUP PIECES IN THE MIDDLE.

SEAL THEM UP AND THEN YOU HAVE TO WELD THAT INTERIOR.

ALL THAT TO SAY IS IT'S A IT'S A PROCESS WHEN WE DO HAVE A LEAK.

SO WHAT IS CRIME LAW TO DO FOR US? I MEAN, THESE ARE IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER HERE.

BUT BUT ONE THING IT DOES IS IT ESSENTIALLY ELIMINATES THE DROUGHT RISK FROM A SUPPLY STANDPOINT.

WE ARE NO LONGER NOT TO SAY WE WON'T CONTINUE TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE OUR USE OF LAKE MEREDITH, BUT WE ARE. IF LAKE MEREDITH GOES AWAY, WE STILL HAVE A WATER SUPPLY THAT FITS YOUR NEEDS HERE.

SO THAT LAKE MEREDITH IS JUST AS WE AS I SHOWED YOU ON THAT GRAPH EARLIER.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE THE USABILITY OF IT IS JUST CONTINUING TO DECLINE BECAUSE OF THE CHLORIDES.

WE ALSO HAD A YIELD STUDY COMPLETED HERE RECENTLY BY AN ENGINEERING FIRM THAT BASICALLY CONFIRMED WHAT WE ALREADY KNEW, THAT YOU BETTER PREPARE FOR YEARS WITHOUT WATER IN THE LAKE.

SO IT ELIMINATES THE DROUGHT RISK FROM A SUPPLY STANDPOINT, BUT ALSO THE INFRASTRUCTURE REDUNDANCY THAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT RIGHT NOW.

I MEAN, AGAIN, WE HAVE ONE ARTERY GOING TO EVERY CITY.

WHAT THIS WOULD DO IS IT BYPASSES 25 MILES OF THAT 1968 PRESSURE PIPE.

AND JUST ONE MORE THING ON THAT PIPE THAT WAS BUILT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL OF OTHER ENTITIES IN THE COUNTRY THAT I'M AWARE OF THAT HAVE THAT TYPE OF PIPE, AND THERE'S A REASON FOR IT. THERE'S A REASON THEY'VE THEY'VE SWITCHED PIPE TYPES, BUT IT ALSO BYPASSES 48 MILES OF OUR 2001 GROUNDWATER LINE.

NOW THAT I WOULD STILL CONSIDER THAT NEW PIPE IN INFRASTRUCTURE TERMS. IT'S A IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PIPE, BETTER TYPE OF PIPE.

AND AGAIN, IT'S CATHODICALLY PROTECTED, WHICH YOU CAN'T DO WITH THE OTHER TYPE OF PIPE. SO IT'S I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT 48 MILES.

BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IS THAT 25 MILES OF PIPE BETWEEN WHERE THAT GROUNDWATER HITS AND THE AMARILLO REGULATING RESERVOIR, 100% OF THE WATER THAT WE PROVIDE TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO, WHICH IS NOT 100% OF YOUR WATER, GOES THROUGH THOSE SEGMENTS OF PIPE. ANOTHER THING THAT IT'LL DO IS IT'LL ALLOW US TO TO GET OUR CAPACITY BACK UP TO ITS DESIGN CAPACITY RIGHT NOW,

[03:10:05]

WHERE THE LEG SET, WE'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE 90 MILLION GALLONS A DAY TOTAL TO ALL OF OUR CITIES.

DURING A PEAK DAY IN THE SUMMER, THAT NUMBER BOUNCES AROUND DEPENDING ON LAKE LEVELS, WATER QUALITY, BUT IS GENERALLY TRENDING DOWN. AND DURING THE 2012 AND 13 YEARS, THAT NUMBER WAS 65 MILLION GALLONS A DAY, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL WE COULD PUT THROUGH THE GROUNDWATER PIPELINE. BUT WITH KRONWALL TWO ONLINE, WE'D BE ABLE TO TO FILL OUR SYSTEM WITH 112 MGD AND NOT ONLY ADD CAPACITY, BUT BUT MAKE WHAT YOU HAVE RIGHT NOW SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RELIABLE WITH THIS NEW PIPELINE. ANOTHER I GUESS, SIDE BENEFIT IS THAT WE WOULD WE WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE MORE LAKE MEREDITH WATER BECAUSE BECAUSE IF WE HAVE MORE GROUNDWATER TO USE, WE HAVE. WE WERE ABLE TO BLEND MORE AND ULTIMATELY USE MORE LAKE MEREDITH WATER, WHICH IS A GOOD THING FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.

ONE, BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE MORE WATER WE TAKE OUT OF THE LAKE? THE LONGER WE ARE PROLONGING OUR ABILITY TO USE THAT WATER.

AND ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE CONSIDER LAKE MEREDITH TO BE A RENEWABLE SUPPLY.

SO FROM A RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S RENEWABLE.

AND AS YOU ALL KNOW, THE GROUNDWATER IN OUR REGION, WE ARE PRODUCING IT.

THIS ISN'T A CRIME ISSUE OR AN AMARILLO. THIS IS JUST THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING WHERE IT'S BEING USED A LOT FASTER THAN IT'S BEING RECHARGED.

SO WE TRY TO USE AS MUCH LAKE MEREDITH WATER AS WE POSSIBLY CAN.

SO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS ON CRIMEA TWO.

THIS STARTED IN THE CONCEPT WAS INTRODUCED TO THE BOARD IN 2012, THE YEAR THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY LAKE WATER.

2013, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUTHORIZED A ROUTE STUDY FOR CRIMINAL.

TWO WHAT IS THE BEST, MOST EFFICIENT PATH TO GET THAT WATER FROM ROBERTS COUNTY TO THE AMARILLO REGULATING RESERVOIR AND PARK HILL? WHO'S IN THE AUDIENCE, I BELIEVE, AND FREESE AND NICHOLS, THEY DID THAT STUDY FOR US IN 2014 WE HAD A MEMBER.

I SAY WE I WASN'T HERE AT THE TIME, BUT WE HAVE GOOD DOCUMENTATION FROM THAT MEETING. WE HAD A MEETING WITH ALL OF OUR MEMBER CITIES, AND EVERY CITY IN THAT ROOM SAID THAT WE WANTED THE LATEST DATE THAT THEY WANTED CONSTRUCTION TO START WAS 2025 OR SOONER, AND THAT RANGE FROM RIGHT NOW TO BY 2025.

THAT WAS THE RANGE OF ANSWERS THAT WE RECEIVED.

OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU SAW IN THAT GRAPH EARLIER, WE 2014, WE WERE BEGINNING TO CLIMB OUT OF THE DROUGHT.

AND THAT'S SOMEWHAT EASED THE THE NEED, THE IMMEDIATE NEED, I SHOULD SAY, TO, TO BOLSTER OUR WATER SUPPLY.

IN 2015, WE HAD MULTIPLE FAILURES ON OUR 72 AND 78 INCH LINE BETWEEN THE DAM AND AMARILLO.

LUCKILY, THOSE MOSTLY OCCURRED DURING THE. THE WINTER.

IT WAS ACTUALLY THE EVE OF NEW YEAR'S EVE, AND SO DEMAND WAS REALLY LOW AND I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY JUST TERRIBLE CONSEQUENCES INVOLVED WITH THAT FROM THE CITY SUPPLIES PERSPECTIVE. BUT I DO THINK THAT THAT ALSO BROUGHT.

I MEAN, IT JUST BROUGHT THE NEED TO THE FOREFRONT OF INFRASTRUCTURE REDUNDANCY.

YOU KNOW, UNLIKE A CITY, AND I'M NOT SAYING CITY SYSTEMS ARE EASY, BUT WE CAN'T VALVE OFF AND BYPASS.

IT'S WHEN THAT WHEN WE'RE OUT, WE'RE OUT. 2016, THE BOARD AUTHORIZED RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION.

AND AS WE SIT HERE TODAY, I BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUR, MAYBE FIVE.

I BELIEVE IT'S ONLY FOUR THOUGH PARCELS REMAINING.

SO THAT 70 MILES OF RIGHT OF WAY IS WELL OVER 90% ACQUIRED AT THIS POINT.

I GOT HERE IN OCTOBER, NOVEMBER OF 2022, AND RELATIVELY SOON AFTER I GOT HERE, THE BOARD DIRECTED ME.

WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHEN WE'RE GOING TO START THIS PROJECT. WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY PUSHING THE START OF THE PROJECT, BUT THE UNCERTAINTY FOR OUR MEMBER CITIES WAS MAKING IT DIFFICULT FOR ALL THE CITIES TO PLAN THEIR WATER SUPPLIES BECAUSE WE WERE HOT AND HEAVY.

WE'RE ABOUT TO GO AND NOW WE'RE JUST NOT SURE.

AND YOU HAVE 11 DIFFERENT CITIES WITH 11 DIFFERENT NEEDS.

AND THEY SAID, WE'VE GOT TO GET A DATE DECIDED.

AND SO THAT THAT PROCESS KIND OF BEGAN. WE HAD AT LEAST TWO MEETINGS WITH EVERY MEMBER CITY JUST IN PERSON DIRECTLY.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE BOARD MEETINGS OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME FOCUSED ON CRIME, WAR TWO, AND JUST LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING IN GENERAL.

SO YEAH, LET'S SEE HERE SOME OF THE CHALLENGES HERE INVOLVED IN THIS.

AND SO WE HAVE TO MAKE THESE DECISIONS SO FAR IN ADVANCE WITH THESE LARGE PROJECTS LIKE THIS.

IT'S AN EIGHT YEAR IF IF EVERY CITY SAID, WE'LL GO RIGHT NOW, LET'S GO DO THIS.

BUT WE WANT TO DO IT IN A CONVENTIONAL DESIGN BID BUILD MANNER.

WE'RE NOT PAYING EXTRA TO EXPEDITE CONSTRUCTION.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EIGHT YEARS FOUR YEARS OF CONSTRUCTION, TWO YEARS OF DESIGN.

AND THEN ALL THE EFFORTS WITH 11 CITIES INVOLVED DEBT ISSUANCES AND PLANNING, AND ALL OF THAT STUFF WOULD PRECEDE THAT.

AND SO I GUESS THE REALLY, YOU KNOW, A DROUGHT CAN SET IN A HECK OF A LOT QUICKER THAN WE COULD HAVE A PROJECT ONLINE.

[03:15:01]

ANOTHER THING IS THAT THE COSTS ARE CONTINUING TO INCREASE.

AND I'VE HEARD THAT HERE TODAY. I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH HOW THE COSTS FOR HEAVY CIVIL TYPE INFRASTRUCTURE HAVE JUST SKYROCKETED IN THE LAST DECADE.

WHEN WE BEGAN TALKING ABOUT THIS IN 2014, OUR FIRST COST ESTIMATE WAS $340 MILLION, AND THAT'S NOW AT $1.1 BILLION IN 2025.

SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY CREATED A CHALLENGE AND UNWELCOME CHALLENGE.

BUT ANOTHER THING HERE IS THAT THE CITIES ALL HAVE TO AGREE ON TIMING.

UNLIKE A TRADITIONAL WATER SUPPLIER, YOU KNOW, OUR BOARD DOESN'T DECIDE, HEY, WE NEED MORE WATER.

WE'RE GOING TO GO ISSUE DEBT FOR THIS PROJECT, AND WE'RE GOING TO RAISE THE RATES AND MOVE ON DOWN THE ROAD.

THE WAY WE OPERATE IS OUR BOARD HAS TO APPROVE IT.

YES, BUT WE HAVE TO GO TO 11 DIFFERENT CITY COUNCILS AND EVERYBODY HAS TO AGREE THAT, HEY, THIS IS THE RIGHT PATH FORWARD. SO THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A CHALLENGE.

SO IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR, WE HOSTED A, WHAT WE CALLED A MEMBER CITY ROUNDTABLE.

AND THIS THIS FOLLOWED TWO VERY LONG MEETINGS DISCUSSING LONG RANGE WATER SUPPLY PLANNING AND KRONWALL.

TWO AND WHAT WE HAD ASKED THAT THIS MEETING IS A REPRESENTATIVE OR REPRESENTATIVES FROM EACH MEMBER CITY TO GET UP AND TALK IN FRONT OF JUST THE WHOLE GROUP AND TALK ABOUT YOUR NEEDS. WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL TIMING FOR YOUR CITY? WHAT COULD YOU LIVE WITH? WHAT OTHER PROJECTS DO YOU HAVE THAT ARE THAT MIGHT IMPACT YOUR DECISIONS? AND WHAT ARE YOUR CHALLENGES THAT YOUR CITY AND THE I, I THINK IT WAS A HEALTHY PROCESS.

ULTIMATELY AT THE END OF THE MEETING, THERE WAS A UNANIMOUS DECISION BY OUR BOARD.

17 BOARD MEMBERS. THAT. 2034 WE'D LIKE TO START CONSTRUCTION THAT COINCIDES WITH THE DEBT ISSUANCE IN THE SAME YEAR.

THAT WOULD MEAN ON LINE DATE OF 2038. THEY ALSO APPROVED THE BUDGET RAMP UP CONCEPT, WHICH I WILL TALK ABOUT ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT THAT WOULD DO IS IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANT BUDGET INCREASE, OBVIOUSLY WITH A PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE.

BUT IT IT WOULD EASE US IN TO THE 2034 DEBT ISSUANCE, BUT IT WOULD, ONE, PROVIDE CASH SO THAT WE COULD PAY CASH FOR DESIGN, WHICH IS IN THE TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS VERSUS FINANCING THAT FOR 20, 30 YEARS.

AND IT WOULD ALSO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR US TO ADDRESS SEVERAL CIP ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.

I HESITATED TO EVEN SAY THAT WORD. YOU KNOW, HONESTLY, BUT BUT WE DO HAVE A LOT OF CIP NEEDS.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A HEALTHY CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE THIS PROJECTS ONLINE, ONCE THAT DEBT SERVICE IS THERE, THE APPETITE FROM SOME OR MANY OF THE CITIES FOR ADDRESSING ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE MAY NOT BE THERE.

IT'S GOING TO BE SOME STICKER SHOCK OBVIOUSLY WHEN THAT, THAT POINT COMES. AND SO WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO AGGRESSIVELY ADDRESS A LOT OF THESE ISSUES. YOU KNOW, THIS PIPELINE SYSTEM WILL BE 100 YEARS OLD BY THE TIME OR CLOSE TO 100 YEARS OLD BY THE TIME THIS GETS PAID OFF.

AND SO WE STILL RELY ON A LOT OF THIS. EVEN THOUGH THIS NEW SEGMENT, KREM TWO, PROVIDES A LOT OF REDUNDANCY.

WE'RE STILL HEAVILY RELIANT UPON THE THE OLDER PIPE, ESPECIALLY SOUTH OF AMARILLO.

SO THERE'S THAT. AND THEN THEY ALSO APPROVED THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING, MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING CONCEPT, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA TODAY.

I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE MORE. THEY DIDN'T ACTUALLY APPROVE THE MOU AT THAT BOARD MEETING, BUT THEY APPROVED THE CONCEPT. AND WE CAME BACK TO OUR NEXT BOARD MEETING WITH A A DOCUMENT FOR THEM TO REVIEW AND ULTIMATELY APPROVE.

SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS A SMALL BUDGET FORECAST.

NOW THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S NECESSARILY SET IN STONE.

THIS IS THIS IS HANDLED ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, ANNUAL BASIS BY OUR OUR BOARD OF DIRECTORS.

BUT SO OUR BUDGET I KNOW THIS IS A LOT TO LOOK AT HERE, BUT WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY THREE COMPONENTS OF OUR BUDGET.

WE HAVE OUR OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, WHICH IS STAFFING AND JUST ALL EXPENSES RELATED TO OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE.

WE HAVE THE PEC, WHICH IS PUMPING ENERGY AND CHEMICALS LARGELY.

THAT'S ELECTRICITY REALLY OUT OF OUR CONTROL FOR THE MOST PART.

AND THEN YOU HAVE DEBT SERVICE THAT'S OUT OF OUR CONTROL AT THE MOMENT.

THE ONLY TIME WE HAVE CONTROL OF THAT IS WHEN WE ACTUALLY ISSUE THE DEBT, BUT WE'RE OBLIGATED AT THIS POINT. BUT YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THAT THAT DEBT SERVICE TAPERS OFF. AND IN 20, 30, 31, THAT'S THE LAST YEAR OF DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR CRIMINAL INFRASTRUCTURE AS IT STANDS NOW.

AND THEN YOU'LL SEE THERE THAT THAT RED RAMP UP.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT BASICALLY TAKING, I HATE TO USE THE WORD BABY STEP, BUT TAKING STEPS TO SAY THAT TAKING STEPS, CONDITIONING TO GET TO THAT $1.2 BILLION DEBT ISSUANCE IN 3334.

AND AT ONE POINT, I KNOW I SAID 1.11 EARLIER.

WE'RE FACTORING IN THAT THE COSTS AREN'T DONE INFLATING.

AND WE I THINK WE PUT IN THERE A 3% OR WHAT WAS IT WE PUT IN THERE? INFLATION, I BELIEVE IT WAS 3.5% INFLATION. I'M NOT SURE IF WE SAY IT ON HERE, BUT ANYWAY BUT WHAT THAT WILL DO AGAIN,

[03:20:04]

IT PROVIDES US FUNDING SO THAT WE CAN BEGIN ADDRESSING SOME OF THESE CIP ISSUES THAT WE CONSIDER TO BE CRITICAL.

IT ALSO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS, CONDITIONS THE CITY'S TO AN EXTENT BY ALSO ACCOMPLISHING SOME MUCH NEEDED PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE AND THEN ALSO ALLOWS US TO PAY FOR DESIGN WITH CASH VERSUS TWO SEPARATE DEBT ISSUANCES FOR THAT PROCESS.

SO THE MOU, AGAIN, I'VE ALREADY KIND OF TALKED.

I MEAN, A LOT OF THIS, WHAT I'VE SAID IS ACTUALLY IN THE MOU, IT'S A IT'S A IT'S A HANDSHAKE AMONG THE CITIES THAT, HEY, WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOME PLANNING HERE. WE'VE GOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GROUP WANTS TO DO SO WE CAN ALL PLAN EFFECTIVELY.

AND THAT WAS KIND OF THE IDEA. WE WANTED TO MEMORIALIZE THE PLAN, THE TIMING AND THE RAMP UP.

AGAIN, NON BINDING. WE CAN'T COMMIT A FUTURE COUNCIL TO ISSUE DEBT.

BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF TOLD A STORY IN THERE.

WE TRIED TO TELL A STORY SO THAT FUTURE COMMUNITY LEADERS, AS THEY COME AND GO BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN THE PROJECT STARTS, THEY CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS OF HOW THIS CAME ABOUT.

AND JUST REALLY THE WHOLE PROCESS OF HOW WE GOT HERE.

BUT BACK TO THE ALLOWING CITIES TO PLAN AND OPERATE MORE EFFECTIVELY.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST, IT BECAME CLEAR TO US THAT OUR CITIES WERE REALLY NEEDING TO KNOW A DATE ON, YOU KNOW, I NEED TO KNOW IF I NEED TO GO START PLANNING MY NEXT WELL FIELD TO GET ME BY UNTIL THIS PROJECT STARTS.

OR IF I HAVE, I NEED TO PLAN MY OTHER CAPITAL PROJECTS AROUND THIS DEBT ISSUANCE.

I MEAN, THEY NEED TO KNOW THIS AND THEIR RATE SETTING AND JUST TO RUN AN EFFICIENT OPERATION.

AND SO THAT WAS REALLY THE THE PRECIPICE OF GETTING ALL THIS PUT TOGETHER.

THAT'S ALL THAT I. I HAD, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS. COUNCIL FOR MR. SATTERWHITE.

JUST JUST REALLY TWO QUESTIONS. AND THESE ARE KIND OF HIGH LEVEL.

BUT BUT IF IF WE DON'T DO CRIME, WHAT WHAT HAPPENS? YOU JUST YOU'RE ACCEPTING A LEVEL OF RISK. I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S, WE CAN'T THERE'S NOT ENOUGH MONEY IN THE WORLD TO MAKE ANYTHING 100% RELIABLE. BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACCEPTING A LEVEL OF RISK FOR DROUGHT AND YOU'RE ACCEPTING A LEVEL OF RISK FOR THAT INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S DELIVERING YOU THE 55 OR SO PERCENT OF THE WATER THAT WE'RE DELIVERING RIGHT NOW. I MEAN, IT'S THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS.

AND YOU'RE ALSO GOING TO LIKELY HAVE TO GO DO ANOTHER PROJECT ON YOUR OWN TO MAKE UP FOR YOUR INCREASED WATER DEMANDS THAT ARE COMING AS WELL.

I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN. SO THE CITIES GAINED THE EFFICIENCY OF WORKING TOGETHER TO BE ABLE TO.

THERE'S SOME ECONOMIES OF SCALE TO DO THIS. AND THEN.

BUT THEN ALSO, I GUESS THE OTHER THING WOULD JUST YOU'RE SUSCEPTIBLE TO DROUGHT.

BUT I GUESS IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO GROW THE REGION, THERE WILL CONTINUE TO BE INCREASED WATER DEMAND.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE MET THAT OUR CURRENT INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, TO MEET LONGER TERM DROUGHT OR NO DROUGHT, POTENTIALLY.

CORRECT. I MEAN, I GUESS MY THOUGHT WOULD IMMEDIATE THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO GO OUT AND DO A PROJECT ON YOUR OWN TO BEEF UP YOUR WATER SUPPLY AND TO, TO ACTUALLY GET MORE SUPPLY TO MEET SOME OF THE PROJECTED DEMAND THAT YOU GUYS ARE SEEING.

AND THEN SO IF WE SAY, OKAY, GOING FORWARD, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S CRUCIAL ABOUT THE TIMING OF THIS THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IN THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING? AND I MEAN, WHAT WHAT IS THE YOU KNOW, WHY IS THIS TIMING THE BEST? WHAT WHAT HAPPENS IF IF IT GETS KICKED DOWN THE ROAD? FURTHER, WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES IF WE DON'T COME TOGETHER RIGHT NOW TO AGREE TO THIS? THE TIMING. WELL, REALLY WHAT IT BOILED DOWN TO IS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING TO ALL OF OUR CITIES AND SOME SAY WE WANT IT YESTERDAY AND SOME SAY WE WANT IT NOW AND SOME SAY WE WANT IT TOMORROW.

AND THE KIND OF THE BAND THAT WE ENDED UP WITH WAS A AN EIGHT YEAR BAND FROM 2034 TO 2042 FOR AN ONLINE DATE OF THE PROJECT IN 2034 WOULD HAVE MEANT STARTING IT NOW SO THAT WE CAN HAVE IT ONLINE BY 2034.

AND I THINK JUST, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE COMMUNITY, THE CITY STAFF LEADERS THAT WERE SITTING IN THE ROOM, THAT ULTIMATE NEGOTIATION WAS THAT WE'LL KIND OF SPLIT IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT WORKED PRETTY WELL FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

MAYBE IT WAS TOO LATE FOR SOME AND TOO EARLY FOR SOME, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS KIND OF RIGHT IN THE BALLPARK FOR WHAT AMARILLO AMARILLO WAS PROJECTING. THERE NEEDS TO BE THERE WAS SOME GOOD ROBUST CONVERSATION THAT HAPPENED BACK IN JANUARY.

SO EVERY COMMUNITY WAS ASKED TO COME AND BRING A PRESENTATION ABOUT THEIR FUTURE GROWTH NEEDS OR THEIR WATER NEEDS.

AND SO ALL OF THE MEMBER CITIES LUBBOCK, PLAINVIEW, AMARILLO, BORGER, PAMPA, ALL THE CITIES, EACH ONE OF THEM DO THE SAME THING. WE ALL TRY TO FORECAST OUR GROWTH. WE ALL WANT TO GROW.

WE WANT. SO WE FORECAST ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

WE FORECAST INDUSTRY, HOMES AND SO FORTH. SO WE COMBINED ALL OF OUR NOTES AND, AND, AND SO, AND IT KIND OF CAME DOWN TO LIKE, LIKE DREW SAID, SOME CITIES ARE MORE LIKE 2040, SOME ARE 2030.

THANKFULLY, BECAUSE OF OUR FOREFATHERS HERE, WE HAVE OPTIONS.

AND SO WE, WE ARE ABLE TO WORK WITH. WE. IT'D BE BETTER IF WE MOVE SOONER.

BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE ARE ALSO ONE OF.

11 AND SO WE WANT TO WORK WITH EVERYBODY. AND SO WE HAVE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US THAT WE CAN IMPLEMENT BETWEEN NOW AND.

THIS ACTUALLY GOES. BUT WE ALSO DON'T WANT TO JUST EXHAUST ALL OF OUR PERSONAL OPTIONS.

[03:25:04]

THE CITY WE HAVE OPTIONS ONLY WE HAVE ACCESS TO.

BUT THEN WE ALSO HAVE BOUGHT INTO OPTIONS THAT THE COMMUNITY 11 OF US HAVE BOUGHT INTO.

PART OF OUR GOAL AS STAFF IS WE'D LIKE TO TRY TO TAP INTO THAT.

THE COMMUNITY RESOURCE 11 CITIES BEFORE WE DRAIN OUR OWN RESERVES THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE TO US.

AND. AND SO AGAIN, THANKS TO OUR FOREFATHERS BEFORE US, WE HAVE OPTIONS, BUT I'D RATHER NOT USE THOSE UPFRONT.

AND WHEN I HAVE OPTIONS FOR THE CREMA OPTION TO UTILIZE THAT FIRST.

AND SO DONNY DOES THAT. YEAH, THAT'S VERY ACCURATE.

AND THE DECISION THAT WE HAD TO MAKE AND WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE OTHER MEMBER CITIES WAS THE FACT THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS NOW AS FAR AS OUR WELL FIELDS ARE CONCERNED AND HOW THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO GO. AND WE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH COLONEL ABOUT THAT AS WELL. LUBBOCK, I THINK, WAS IN THE SAME BOAT THAT WE'RE IN. THEY HAVE TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS NOW.

EITHER WAY. SO IT'S BETTER FOR US TO DO THIS NOW THAN IT WOULD BE.

THEN THE OTHER THING I'LL THROW IN THERE, AND HE MENTIONED THIS, AND I WAS INVOLVED WITH COLONEL BACK THEN AS WELL, WHEN, WHEN ALL THE DECISIONS WERE HAPPENING IN 2013 AND 2014. EVERYBODY WANTED TO DO IT RIGHT NOW.

AND THEN AS SOON AS WE STARTED TO SEE THAT, THAT US BEING SCARED WENT AWAY WE STOPPED THINKING ABOUT IT FOR A WHILE.

WE CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE BECAUSE EVERYBODY HAS TO MAKE SOME DECISIONS.

THANK YOU. I'LL JUST ADD REAL QUICK, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ALSO HAVE OUR REPRESENTATIVE JOHN JOHNNY MIZE AND ROY, YOU'RE WITH US. SO IN CASE YOU WANT IN CASE YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF YOUR YOUR BOARD REPRESENTATIVES, THEY'RE HERE WITH US TODAY. SO. COUNCILMAN COUPLE QUESTIONS.

DREW. WHAT IS THE COST TO AMARILLO IN TODAY'S DOLLARS? IF IT WERE TO BE DONE TODAY, IT WOULD BE ABOUT $450 MILLION THAT THE CITY OF AMARILLO WOULD WOULD NEED.

YES. OKAY. THAT WOULD BE OUR CONTRIBUTION. I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE PRICES WILL BE IN 2034 WHEN WE GO OUT FOR BIDS, BUT I HOPE THEY'RE CLOSE. HOW MUCH? WHAT PERCENTAGE OF WATER DO WE GET FROM KREM CREMA ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS? MY UNDERSTANDING, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT DAY TO DAY, BUT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S APPROXIMATELY 55%.

BUT I'M HAPPY TO BE CORRECTED. AND I DON'T KNOW.

I MEAN, THAT VARIES WITH A LOT OF CITIES. YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES THEY LEAN ON US A LOT HARDER DURING PEAK DAYS.

AND IT JUST DEPENDS CITY BY CITY. DONNIE, A QUESTION FOR YOU.

WHAT IS THE JUST A REALLY ROUGH BALLPARK FIGURE OF WHAT WOULD IT COST TO TIE INTO THE ROBERTS COUNTY ASSETS THAT WE HAVE? OH, GOSH. IT WOULD BE WE WOULD BASICALLY BE FOOTING THE BILL FOR WHAT CRIME WAR TWO IS WANTING TO DO, BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE TO BUILD A PIPELINE. THE OTHER THING WITH THAT, THE ROBERTS COUNTY WATER RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE, WE CAN'T USE THEM UNTIL 2060.

SO THERE'S SOME OTHER WATER, WATER RIGHTS WE HAVE UP THERE THAT WOULDN'T PRODUCE VERY MUCH EITHER SO THAT WE COULD USE NOW IT'S IN A DIFFERENT COUNTY.

BUT YEAH, THAT'S THE PIPELINE. I MEAN, YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT EXACTLY THE SAME COST, MAYBE A SMALLER PIPELINE, BUT YOU'RE STILL WE WOULD HAVE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITIONS, ALL KINDS OF STUFF THAT WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO COME INTO PLAY WITH THAT.

SO IT'D BE A VERY EXPENSIVE MOVE. DREW, ONE MORE QUESTION FOR YOU.

WITH THE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATIONS INCREASING AT LAKE MEREDITH, WHEN DO WE SEE A WHEN IS THE FORECASTED SATURATION OF THE CHLORIDES IN MEREDITH WITHOUT ANY WITH CURRENT METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS.

WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE WHEN THAT IS NOT A VIABLE SOURCE ANYMORE? I DON'T IF I HAD A I DON'T HAVE THAT CRYSTAL BALL TO TELL YOU FOR SURE ON WHEN THAT WOULD BE.

ALL I CAN TELL YOU IS THAT IT'S TRENDING IN THE WRONG DIRECTION VERY QUICKLY.

YOU KNOW, ABSENT OF SOME JUST WONDERFUL RAINFALL THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO OVERFLOW AND SPILL AND RELEASE WATER DOWNSTREAM AND FRESHEN EVERYTHING UP.

IT'S JUST IT IT GOES FAST. I MEAN, WE CAN CLIMB 100, 200 PARTS PER MILLION OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR.

I MEAN, IT'S CRAZY HOW FAST THOSE CONCENTRATIONS CHANGE FROM YEAR TO YEAR BASIS OR CAN CHANGE.

WHAT HAS THERE BEEN ANY RESEARCH OR STUDIES ON AN ADDITIONAL RESERVOIR? NOT ON A I MEAN, THE CANADIAN RIVER IS IS TAPPED OUT.

I MEAN, THEY I THINK I MEAN TO ME THIS THE RESERVOIR WAS OVER DESIGNED.

I MEAN, IF IT'S NEVER FILLED AND SPILLED TO ME, THEY WERE EXPECTING A LOT MORE WATER THAN THAN WAS ACTUALLY THERE.

SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY GOOD OPTIONS IN THE CANADIAN RIVER BASIN FOR SURE.

WE HAVE LOOKED INTO REVERSE OSMOSIS ON THE WATER THAT WE HAVE THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO REMOVE THE SALT.

BUT THOSE ARE THE PRICE TAG ON THOSE IS FAIRLY LARGE.

AND KIND OF WHAT WE DETERMINED IS THAT WASN'T, THAT WOULD KIND OF SHORE UP TO AN EXTENT WHAT WE HAVE NOW AS FAR AS RELIABLE SUPPLY, BUT IT WOULDN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE FOR INCREASED DEMANDS LIKE THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND LUBBOCK ARE GOING TO GOING TO NEED.

AND ALSO, I MEAN, YOU'RE YOU GO AND BUILD THIS $400 MILLION ROW PLANT AND YOU'RE STILL PAYING DEBT ON IT.

[03:30:03]

AND WE HIT A DROUGHT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY WATER TO PUT THROUGH IT.

YEAH, WE TRIED TO WE HAD THIS ROW PLANT, NO WATER, BUT NOW WE NEED TO GO DO CRIME WALL TO.

AND IT JUST IT JUST DIDN'T MOVE THE NEEDLE WITH THE MEMBER CITIES AND UNDERSTANDABLY SO.

THANK YOU. YES, SIR. LET ME GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID.

THE WATER WE HAVE IN ROBERTS COUNTY, WE DON'T HAVE.

WE CAN'T AFFECT THE RIGHTS ON THAT TILL 2060.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND SOME OF IT. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER COUNTY THAT WE HAVE SOME WATER RIGHTS IN AS WELL. BUT YEAH, THERE'S A I THINK IT WAS 2060 IS THE YEAR ON THAT.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF WATER RIGHTS IN ROBERTS COUNTY.

RIGHT. ESPECIALLY COMPARED TO WHAT CREAM HAS.

YEAH. WE WE HAVE 456,000 SURFACE ACRES OF GROUNDWATER RIGHTS.

AND OBVIOUSLY ON BEHALF OF OUR MEMBER CITIES, NOT OURS, BUT THE LARGEST GROUNDWATER RIGHTS OWNERS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD THE COUNTRY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU VERIFY ANY OF THAT. WE HAVE A LOT, AND I BELIEVE YOU GUYS ARE MAYBE THREE, NUMBER THREE, AND THAT'S INDEPENDENT OF WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE THROUGH CREAM WALL. SO IT'S AMAZING TO ME THAT HOW, YOU KNOW, WATER SECURE THIS REGION IS OVER THE NEXT 100 PLUS YEARS, GIVEN THE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL THAT WE GET HERE AND THE WATER RIGHTS THAT WE HAVE IN POTTER AND CARSON COUNTY ARE THE ONES THAT WE WOULD BE TARGETING IF WE HAD IF IT WASN'T FOR CRIME, WAR TWO, THAT'S WHAT WE'D BE LOOKING AT. IS DEVELOPING OUR POTTER COUNTY WELL FIELD RIGHT NOW.

DOES DOES LUBBOCK PULL ANY WATER OUT OR OUT OF BUFFALO LAKE DOWN THERE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT THEY ARE THERE ACTIVELY.

I MEAN, THEY'RE THEY'RE TRYING TO GET WHAT THEY'RE CALLING LAKE SEVEN OFF THE GROUND. AND THAT'S IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF WHAT IS IT, BUFFALO SPRINGS? IS THAT WHAT YOU CALLED IT? YEAH. IMMEDIATELY UPSTREAM OF THAT. AND THERE IT'LL BE AN INDIRECT REUSE PROJECT WHERE THEY'LL GET WATER RIGHTS CREDITS COMING OUT OF THEIR WASTEWATER PLANT AND FROM THEIR LAKE DRAINAGE SYSTEM.

AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE PUSHING HARD AND HEAVY FOR THAT AS WE SPEAK.

SO I'VE GOT TO ASSUME WHEN THE AGREEMENTS WERE MADE YEARS BACK THE TOWNS THAT ARE CONNECTED TO THIS REALIZED THEY HAD LIMITED WATER SUPPLY. YES THEY DO. AND IT BLOWS MY MIND TO THINK BACK IN THE 1950S, SITTING IN LAMESA, 200 MILES FROM, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO GO DAM UP THE CANADIAN RIVER AND RUN A PIPE.

AND WHAT ARE YOU. I MEAN, IT JUST BLOWS MY MIND, THE FORESIGHT.

BUT BUT YES, AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES THAT THAT WISH THEY WOULD HAVE GOT IN WHEN DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME.

BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE UP AGAINST RIGHT NOW IS INFRASTRUCTURE LIMITATIONS.

LIKE, YEAH, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF SUPPLY OUT THERE, BUT YOU HEAR HOW EXPENSIVE THESE PIPES ARE TO GET THAT TO WHERE IT'S NEEDED. AND THAT PIPE FROM HERE TO LUBBOCK AND ALL THE I MEAN, EVERY ONE OF OUR PIPES IS ALLOCATED TO SOMEBODY.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY THE LIMITATION. HAVE ANY OTHER TOWNS APPROACH TO BE PART OF THIS? WE IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR US TO GET REQUESTS. HEY, WE'D LIKE SOME WATER.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS THE LIMITING FACTOR.

I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WE HAVE THE WATER OUT IN ROBERTS COUNTY, BUT THE, THE SEMANTICS OF GETTING THAT FROM THERE TO WHERE THEY NEED IT IS, YOU KNOW, MAKES IT UNFEASIBLE. SO WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ADDING ADDITIONAL LINES FEEDING OUT TO OTHER CITIES.

IT'S STILL GOING TO JUST REMAIN THE THE 11 CITIES AND THE TWO CITIES AND NINE TOWNS THAT ARE IN IT.

YES, SIR. THAT'S NOT TO I MEAN, THAT HASN'T REALLY BEEN DISCUSSED AT THE BOARD LEVEL, BUT THUS FAR, I MEAN, IT'S JUST THERE'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT FEASIBLE.

AND BY DOING THIS, I MEAN THIS CRIME WAR TWO LINE THAT'S JUST COMING TO AMARILLO.

WE'RE NOT DOING ANY NEW LINES DOWN TO TO LUBBOCK AND LA MESA.

CORRECT. CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO AMARILLO AND BORGER AND PAMPA, I MEAN, JUST GIVEN PROXIMITY IT'S REALLY ENHANCES YOUR RELIABILITY AND IT DOES FOR EVERYBODY AGAIN, THAT THAT SEGMENT BETWEEN THE DAM AND AMARILLO IS OUR, THE SEGMENT WE ARE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT. BUT TO MAKE IT CLEAR, IN CASE ANYONE MISUNDERSTAND, THE ENTIRE 1.2 IS NOT ALL AMARILLO. SO IT'S TO GET IT FROM THE OIL FIELDS TO AMARILLO BENEFITS ALL.

I GUESS NINE OF THE CITIES PAMPA. BORGER. ARE THEY PART OF THIS TOO, OR ARE THEY. YES. OKAY. SO ALL ALL 11 CITIES ARE PART OF THIS.

SO EACH ONE HAS A SHARE OF THAT PORTION. SO IT'S NOT ALL AMARILLO 1.2.

WE HAVE A SHARE OF THAT JUST IN CASE ANYONE WAS.

QUESTION WAS WONDERING THAT SO. MR. SATTERWHITE, ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE YOU.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. GOOD PRESENTATION. I THINK WE DEFINITELY UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS ARE WORKING ON.

SO I APPRECIATE YOU HAVING ME. YEAH. GLAD TO WALK ALONGSIDE YOU ON IT AND MOVE IT FORWARD.

GOOD DEAL. SO GENTLEMEN, ITEM 6.5 IS BEFORE YOU HERE TODAY.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF AMARILLO AND CANADIAN RIVER MUNICIPAL WATER AUTHORITY, AS STATED AT 6.5, ITEM 6.5 HAS A MOTION AND A SECOND FROM PLACE FOR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION?

[03:35:07]

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES WITH A FOUR ZERO VOTE. OKAY, MR.

[6.6. Consider and Take Appropriate Action to Request that the Combined Board of the Potter-Randall Appraisal District Continue the Current Level of Intergovernmental Cooperation. (Grayson Path, City Manager)]

CITY MANAGER, OVER TO YOU ON ITEM 6.6. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR.

SO THIS A LITTLE HISTORY AND CONTEXT BEHIND THIS ONE HERE.

ABOUT TWO MONTHS OR SO AGO, COUNCIL MEMBER SIMPSON BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION SOME SOME NEWS ARTICLES ABOUT SOME RECENT RECENT DISCUSSION AT THE PRATT BOARD POTTER RANDALL COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT. AND SO I REVIEWED THOSE, THOSE ARTICLES, AND THERE HAD BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ACCORDING TO ARTICLES ABOUT ABOUT POSSIBLE IMPLEMENTATION OF SECTION 12 OF THEIR AGREEMENT.

CONSIDERATION OF POSSIBLE DISSOLUTION BECAUSE THEY'VE THEY'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT THE THE, THE ABILITY OF POTTER COUNTY HAS, ACCORDING TO ACCORDING TO THIS CONTRACT.

AND SO A LITTLE HISTORY HERE BACK BACK IN THE 70S OR SO THE STATE PASSED LEGISLATION THAT SAID ALL INDIVIDUAL ENTITIES, SCHOOLS, COUNTIES, CITIES COULD NO LONGER DO THEIR OWN APPRAISAL WORK.

THEY NEEDED A CENTRALIZED COUNTY DISTRICT TO DO THAT.

AND SO PART OF THAT PART OF THAT LANGUAGE, IT ALLOWED COUNTIES TO, TO CONTRACT WITH OTHERS.

AND SO POTTER RANDALL WAS THE ONLY ONE AT THE TIME AND STILL IS TODAY TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE WORK WE WORK WELL TOGETHER. WE HAVE A LOT IN COMMON.

LET'S PARTNER TOGETHER. SO AT THE TIME, POTTER COUNTY WAS THE LEAD ENTITY AND PART OF THAT CONTRACT.

AND SO, SO RANDALL CONTRACTED WITH POTTER TO PROVIDE THE APPRAISAL SERVICE.

AND AT THE TIME THEY SET UP THE DISTRICT IN RANDALL COUNTY, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE THEY BOUGHT THEIR OFFICES AND SO FORTH.

THOSE ARE ALL DECISIONS MADE BACK IN THE 70S AND 80S.

THEN IN THE 80S CAME ALONG AND LEGISLATION CHANGED AND SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU HAVE TO MAKE SURE YOUR APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS YOUR OFFICE IN THE COUNTY THAT THAT'S CONTRACTING WITH IT.

WELL, POTTER WAS THE LEAD. RANDALL WAS CONTRACTED WITH POTTER, BUT THE OFFICE WAS IN RANDALL, SO THE DECISIONS WERE MADE BACK IN THE LATE 80S OR SO TO SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING TO FLOP ROLES.

RANDALL WILL NOW BE THE WILL NOW BE THE PRIMARY CONTRACT HOLDER.

AND POTTER WILL BE THE CONTRACT, THE CONTRACT ENDED WITH RANDALL SO THAT I GUESS THEY TRIED TO AVOID HAVING TO BUY PROPERTY AND HAVING TO MOVE THE OFFICE, I GUESS. AND SO. SO WITH THAT, THE RANDALL COUNTY PART OF THE CONTRACT IS THE PRIMARY IS THE LEAD ENTITY IN POTTER IS CONTRACTED WITH AND PROVIDE THAT SERVICE.

SO WITH THIS THAT'S A LITTLE HISTORY THERE. SO HAVING, HAVING HEARD ABOUT THE ARTICLES AND HAVING READ THOSE I REACHED OUT TO MY COUNTERPART, THE CHIEF APPRAISER, JEFFREY DAGLEY, THAT'S WHO I WOULD TYPICALLY CONTACT WITH AND SPEAK WITH.

I REACHED OUT TO HIM AND HE AND HIS ASSISTANT MET WITH MYSELF AND ALSO DOCTOR CONNER FROM AMARILLO COLLEGE.

AND WE, WE JUST ASKED HIM SOME DIRECT QUESTIONS. AND SO WE ASKED QUESTIONS. HE PROVIDED ANSWERS.

AND AND THERE WAS FROM, FROM THAT INFORMATION AND I THINK TALKING WITH EACH OF YOU INDIVIDUALLY, THERE WAS ENOUGH CONCERN THAT WE THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, GIVEN SOME OF THE DISCUSSION GOING ON, GIVEN THAT BOTH ENTITIES HAVE DECIDED TO KIND OF SEPARATE, HAVE STARTED MEETING SEPARATELY.

RANDALL ONE POTTER AND ONE, THERE IS CONVERSATION ABOUT HAVING LEGAL COUNSEL BETWEEN BOTH BOARDS AND.

GIVEN. THERE HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSION ACCORDING TO. ARTICLES AND MR. DAILY THAT THAT SEPARATION COULD BE AN OPTION THERE.

IT NATURALLY WARRANTS ON MY BEHALF AS CITY MANAGER A.

I SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS AND SO SEE WHAT COULD THE CONSEQUENCES BE FROM THIS? WHAT COULD THE COST BE TO OUR TAXPAYERS? SHOULD THEY SEPARATE. NOT SAYING THEY WILL, THEY WOULD, BUT IF THEY WERE, WHAT COULD THAT BE? AND SO MR. DALEY GAVE US SOME SOME CONCERNING NUMBERS ABOUT WHAT THAT COULD LOOK LIKE TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES SERVING THE CITY OF AMARILLO, BECAUSE WE ARE CROSSING BOTH BORDERS. SO WITH THIS WE, I REACHED OUT TO AMARILLO ISD CANYON ISD CITY OF CANYON RANDALL COUNTY, POTTER COUNTY, AMARILLO COLLEGE.

AND WE HAD A JOINT MEETING VIRTUAL MEETING HERE A FEW WEEKS AGO.

AND, AND SO WE ALSO INVOLVED OUR LEGAL COUNSEL BECAUSE WE, BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT LEGISLATION, WE KNEW THAT LAW WAS IN PLACE, THAT KIND OF GOVERNED HOW, HOW THE LOGISTICS WORK AND HOW WHAT SAY WE HAVE IN THAT.

SO WE TASKED OUR LEGAL TEAMS WITH RESEARCHING THAT.

NOW, TYPICALLY IN MOST SITUATIONS IF A, IF A APPRAISAL DISTRICT WERE TO, WERE TO MAKE A MOTION AND APPROVE SOMETHING IN MOST SITUATIONS, THE MEMBER ENTITIES LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, HERE WOULD BE CITY AMARILLO POTTER COUNTY.

WE HAVE THE ABILITY IN SOME SITUATIONS TO VETO THAT. WE DON'T HAVE THAT ABILITY.

SINCE OUR POPULATIONS EXCEED 75,000, BOTH COUNTIES, WE DO NOT HAVE VETO ABILITY FOR OUR LOCAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT.

SO THERE IS NO REACTIONARY OPTION AVAILABLE TO US.

SO WITH THAT, OUR OUR, THE EXECUTIVES OF ALL OF OUR ENTITIES SAY, YOU KNOW, WELL WITH THAT, THAT THAT PERHAPS WARRANTS AT LEAST A LETTER, SAY, HEY, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS, THERE ARE VALID CONCERNS. THEY SHOULD BE WORKED OUT.

THEY SHOULD BE DISCUSSED. POTTER COUNTY, RANDALL COUNTY SHOULD DISCUSS THESE THINGS AND MAKE SURE THAT BOTH ENTITIES ARE SATISFIED WITH THEIR AGREEMENT. BUT WE JUST ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO PLEASE GIVEN DISCUSSION HAVE GIVEN YOU ARE.

[03:40:04]

YOU ARE MEETING SEPARATELY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 37 YEARS.

YOU ARE OBTAINING, IF NOT HAVING OBTAINED LEGAL COUNSEL FOR EACH OTHER AND GIVEN.

THERE HAS BEEN DISCUSSION ACCORDING. ACCORDING TO MY INFORMATION, I HAVE, THAT SEPARATION WAS AN OPTION BEING CONSIDERED.

IF THIS WARRANTS AT LEAST A LETTER. NOW, I AM ENCOURAGED TONIGHT TO HEAR FROM ONE OF THE NINE MEMBERS OF POTTER COUNTY THAT THAT HE IS NOT CONSIDERING SEPARATION.

THAT'S GOOD TO HEAR. HE'S ONE OF. NINE AND SO I SO TO ME, THE LETTER WE HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, WHICH CAN BE AMENDED, COULD BE EDITED, IS JUST SIMPLY SAYING, HEY, WE RECOGNIZE THERE ARE VALID CONCERNS.

POTTER SHOULD POTTER HAS POTTER HAS SOME THINGS THEY PROBABLY SHOULD WORK OUT WITH RANDALL.

PLEASE WORK THEM OUT. IF WE CAN HELP WORK THEM OUT, WE'D LOVE TO DO THAT WITH YOU. IF WE CAN HELP FACILITATE THAT, WE'D BE HAPPY TO.

EITHER US OR THE COLLEGE OR POTTER COUNTY. WE ARE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

WE JUST ENCOURAGE YOU ALL AS OUR REPRESENTATIVES, JUST LIKE TAXPAYERS, SPEAK TO OUR COUNSEL.

WE WE SPEAK TO THE PRIDE. THERE ARE REPRESENTATIVES.

WE ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO JUST PLEASE DON'T PURSUE SEPARATION.

IF THAT WERE TO BE AN OPTION THERE, BUT INSTEAD WORK THESE THINGS OUT. IF WE CAN HELP, PLEASE DO SO.

AND IT'S JUST A MORE OF A FRIENDLY LETTER. BUT AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A REACTIONARY OPTION.

TO ME IT WOULD. I'D BE A LITTLE DERELICT IF I DIDN'T PRESENT TO YOU AN OPTION.

THAT'S THAT'S PREVENTATIVE. AND SO GIVEN WHAT I'VE LEARNED, GIVEN, GIVEN WHAT WE'VE SEEN AND GIVEN THE POTENTIAL THAT COULD HAPPEN, IS SEEM PRUDENT THAT I BRING THIS TO YOU TONIGHT AS AN OPTION TO JUST ENCOURAGE OUR REPRESENTATIVES TO SAY, HEY, LET'S WORK THIS THING THROUGH TOGETHER. AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A REACTIONARY OPTION AVAILABLE TO US, SO THAT BEFORE WE DENY IS A LETTER I ALL, ALL, ALL THE OTHER ENTITIES THAT I MENTIONED ARE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERING IT.

I KNOW CITY OF CANAAN DID PASS IT LAST WEEK. I DO NOT KNOW THE OTHER ENTITIES ARE GOING TO OR GOING TO NOT.

THAT'S UP TO THEM. BUT MY RECOMMENDATION IS, IS THAT WE DO PURSUE THE LETTER OR AN AMENDED VERSION THEREOF, AND I'M OPEN TO OPEN TO RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COUNCIL, BUT I THINK I FULFILLED MY DUTY.

MY DUTY WAS TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AS A CITY MANAGER, GIVEN THERE ARE POTENTIAL HIGH COSTS THAT COULD COME FROM ONE SCENARIO OF THIS.

AND SO I JUST WANT TO BRING THIS FOR YOU TONIGHT.

QUESTIONS. COUNCIL. SO SO WHAT ARE THOSE COSTS LOOK LIKE? IN OTHER WORDS, SO RIGHT NOW THEY'RE SHARING RESOURCES.

IF IF THEY WERE TO SEPARATE. WHAT DO THOSE ADDITIONAL COSTS LOOK LIKE? I'M RELYING UPON WHAT MR. DALEY GAVE ME. SO WE'VE NOT VERIFIED THIS.

BUT SOME OF THIS IS COMMON SENSE. OBVIOUSLY YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TWO APPRAISERS, TWO ASSISTANT APPRAISERS, TWO OFFICES, TWO SETS OF SOFTWARE, TWO. THERE'S LOTS OF DOUBLING UP OF THINGS YOU HAVE TO THEN DO.

THE ESTIMATED COST HE GAVE US FOR ANY OF OUR SIZE WAS OVER 300 000 PLUS.

FOR THAT, WE WOULD BE TAKING ON BY HAVING TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES SERVICING US.

THE SCHOOLS OBVIOUSLY HAVE A LARGER SHARE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A HIGHER TAX BASE, AND SO THEY'RE MORE THAN 300,000 CLOSER TO 400,000.

SO. SO WITH THIS THOSE ARE JUST THE JUST THE IMMEDIATE ROUGH COST.

AGAIN, WE WOULD HAVE TO HE WAS BASING IT OFF OF OFF OF A A SIMILAR SIZED COUNTIES AND CITIES OUT THERE THAT HE COULD FIND.

I MEAN WE DON'T EXACTLY KNOW. AGAIN, WE'D RATHER NOT FIND OUT.

AND SO WE JUST KNOW THAT HAVING TWO ENTITIES WOULD INCREASE OUR COSTS.

SO WOULD THERE BE. BUT BUT IF RANDALL REMAINS, IF RANDALL IS SEPARATE FROM POTTER AND THEY'RE BOTH CONDUCTING THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT APPRAISALS, WOULD WOULD THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WE'RE PAYING, I GUESS, RANDALL, I MEAN, WOULD GO DOWN.

WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY MORE APPRAISAL WORK DONE THEN THAN WE, THAN THAN WE ARE NOW.

YEAH. IT WOULD BE A NET CHANGE ACROSS TWO ENTITIES.

AND SO YEAH, WE WOULD SEE A DECREASE IN RANDALL TO, TO A CERTAIN RESPECT.

AND THEN YOU SEE AN INCREASE IN POTTER. NOW THE, THE NET INCREASE IS WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.

HAVING TWO APPRAISERS, TWO ASSISTANT FRASER'S TWO OFFICES, TWO SOFTWARES, TWO EVERYTHING.

AND SO WOULD THAT NOT THEN BE A REDUCTION OF STAFF IN RANDALL COUNTY? SO WE ASKED THAT QUESTION TO HIM. YES, THERE WOULD BE A POSSIBLE REDUCTION ON THEIR STAFF. IT'D BE A FOR THE FRONTLINE STAFF.

BUT SOME. BUT AGAIN, HE WAS HE WAS TRYING TO TAKE THAT ALL INTO ACCOUNT WHEN HE ESTIMATED THAT.

AND ARE THERE MINIMUM STAFFING REQUIREMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN APPRAISAL.

DOES THE STATE HAVE LAWS THAT SAY, IF YOU HAVE AN APPRAISAL DISTRICT, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THIS MANY EMPLOYEES OR HOW THAT'S SET UP? I MEAN, ARE THEY DICTATED ON THAT? I DIDN'T ASK THAT PARTICULAR QUESTION.

THE THE ANSWER I GOT WAS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE AN APPRAISAL AND ASSISTANT APPRAISER.

BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT MINIMUM STAFFING. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

OKAY. WELL, I THINK IN MY MIND, THE REPRESENTATION CONCERNS RAISED BY PROPER BY POTTER COUNTY DESERVE TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY.

ABSOLUTELY. IF MEMBERS FEEL THAT THEY. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE WEIGHING IN ON THAT, THAT PART. CORRECT. THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THAT THEY NEED TO TO WORK OUT.

YES, I WOULD YOU KNOW, I THINK THE ISSUE THAT I WOULD WANT TO WEIGH IN ON IS THAT THE HOPE THAT A SOLUTION CAN BE FOUND THAT IMPROVES THE

[03:45:07]

REPRESENTATION WITHOUT CREATING ADDITIONAL BURDEN TO TAXPAYERS.

CORRECT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE THING.

AND I THINK WHAT I HEAR YOU SAYING, THAT'S THE CONCERN.

IF IF YOU KNOW, IF I MEAN, AND WE DON'T KNOW, WE'RE LOOKING AT VARIOUS SCENARIOS, BUT I THINK AS AS FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITIES, I THINK OUR ENCOURAGEMENT WOULD BE IF WE WORK THIS OUT, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, WORK IT OUT. BUT IF YOU CAN DO IT WHERE IT'S NOT AN ADDITIONAL THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CUT, OR $300,000 OR 200,000 OR 400,000, WHATEVER IT IS TO FIND ELSEWHERE, WE'D APPRECIATE THAT HELP IN BEING ABLE TO, TO DO THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT THE PUBLIC JUST NEEDS TO KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO WIND UP BEING ACCURATE, THAT THAT MONEY IS GOING TO BE THERE, THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS DOES SEPARATE, IT'S GOING TO IT'S GOING TO GO TO THE TAXPAYERS.

YEAH. IF WE CAN'T RESOLVE THIS. YEAH. NO. YEAH.

WE'RE NOT DIVING INTO INTO THE CONCERNS. I MEAN, WE WANT THEM TO WORK THOSE OUT.

THE MOST WE'VE OFFERED IS HEY IN REGARDS TO THE CURRENT CONCERNS, IF YOU IF YOU NEED A FACILITATOR, WE CAN HELP WITH THAT. EITHER US OR THE COLLEGE OR SOMEBODY CAN DO THAT.

BUT OTHERWISE WE'VE NOT OPINED ON, ON, ON WHETHER POTTER SHOULD SHOULD HAVE THIS SAY OR THAT SAY.

THAT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE. COUNCILMAN GRAYSON, THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS TO OUR ATTENTION.

AT WHAT LEVEL DO WE WHAT WOULD WE SEE? I MEAN, WOULD THERE BE $300,000? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE HEARING? ADDITIONAL DOLLARS THAT WOULD THE CITY WOULD HAVE OR.

I MEAN, WE WOULD JUST WE'RE THINKING THAT THERE'D BE ADDITIONAL COST. YES.

THESE ARE THE ROUGH ESTIMATES THAT ARE PROVIDED.

AND AND YES, WE'D BE LOOKING AT AN ADDITIONAL OVERALL NET COST TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO OF THAT NUMBER.

YES. AGAIN, WE'D HAVE TO WE'D HAVE TO DIVE DEEPER INTO THAT.

AND BUT THAT THAT'S THE THAT'S THE IDEA GIVEN TO US.

OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. WARREN, I KNOW YOU CAN WEIGH IN ON THIS.

HANG ON ONE SECOND. WE'LL GET TO COUNCILMAN REED, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO YOU ON THAT. SO WE WE APPOINT MEMBERS TO THE PRIDE BOARD.

RIGHT. IT IS A IT IS A VOTING PROCESS. EACH MEMBER CITY HAS A NUMBER OF NUMBER OF NUMBER OF VOTES THAT GOES TOWARDS THE MEMBERS.

WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A AMARILLO REPRESENTATIVE ON THERE.

IT'S. THE ENTITIES HAVE A NUMBER OF VOTES BASED OFF THEIR VALUATION SIZES.

AND NOW WITH RECENT LEGISLATION CHANGES, THREE OF THE NINE MEMBERS ARE ELECTED AT LARGE BY THE CITIZENS.

OKAY. SO IN A WAY, WE'RE KIND OF REVERSED HERE.

WE'RE WE'RE THE CUSTOMER, RIGHT? AS THE CITY, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WHERE THE CUSTOMERS AND THEY ARE THE GOVERNING BODY. AND SO MY, MY, MY THOUGHT IS I DON'T MIND APPROACHING THEM, BUT WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST GO TO ONE OF THEIR MEETINGS TO EXPRESS WHAT OUR CONCERNS ARE? AND INSTEAD OF PUTTING SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT GETS THINGS STIRRED UP THAT MAY NOT NEED TO BE STIRRED UP.

I APPRECIATE WHAT MR. WARREN HAD TO SAY AS HE CAME UP HERE.

I TRUST HIM IN SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT THE DIRECTION THAT THEY ANY OF THEM WANT TO GO.

BECAUSE I THINK THEY'VE ALREADY LAID OUT WHAT THEIR WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE AS FAR AS COSTS AND DUPLICATION OF EFFORTS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

I WOULD, I WOULD JUST THINK THAT THAT GOING IN PERSON AND VOICING THOSE THINGS AS OPPOSED TO PUTTING IT IN A, IN A FORMAL LETTER BECAUSE THAT CAN BE TAKEN THE WRONG WAY.

SO, AND THAT'S, THAT'S MY CONCERN WITH THIS. YEAH.

I REALLY THINK THE ISSUES THAT THAT POTTER AND RANDALL COUNTY ARE HAVING? ARE THERE ISSUES? THEY'RE NOT OURS AND IT'S OUR COST.

BUT YES, THAT'S RIGHT. BUT I THINK TRYING TO PUT A DOG IN THEIR FIGHT MAY BE THE WRONG THING TO DO AT THIS POINT.

YEAH. SO I DID LOOK AT THE OPTION OF TRYING TO ATTEND A MEETING AT THE TIME WHEN MISS MR. DAILY NO MEETINGS WERE SET. AND SO THERE WAS NOT ONE ON THE BOOKS TO ATTEND.

BUT BASED OFF THE INFORMATION HE GAVE US AND BASED OFF OF TALKING WITH THE OTHER ENTITIES, WE FELT THAT. AND GIVEN WE LEARNED THAT THERE IS NO RETROACTIVE OPTION AVAILABLE TO US AGAIN, GIVEN. GIVEN WHAT I LEARNED THAT THEY WERE MEETING SEPARATELY FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 37 YEARS, GIVEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT HAVING BOTH LEGALLY, BOTH HAVING THEIR OWN LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES THERE, AND GIVEN I HAD NO RETROACTIVE OPTION AVAILABLE TO ME, AND GIVEN I DID NOT HAVE A MEETING THAT I KNEW COMING UP THAT I COULD ATTEND TO ME, THE NEXT OPTION WAS TO DO THIS.

THANK YOU. MR. PATH. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING TO THIS.

I THINK YOU YOU'VE DEFINITELY CLARIFIED YOUR POINT. THERE'S TWO THINGS I'M HEARING. ONE COST INCREASE AND A CONCERN.

SO A LOT OF THIS, I THINK IS DRIVEN ON THE PREMISE OF WE'RE GOING TO BE BILLED MORE AS THE CUSTOMER.

[03:50:06]

SO I WANT TO DIG INTO THAT HERE IN A MINUTE, BUT THEN TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IS WHAT I'M BEING ASKED TO DO, CONSIDER AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT ACTION WE WOULD TAKE.

SO AS THE CUSTOMER, YOU KNOW, IF IF WE VOTED TO APPROVE THIS LETTER, WHAT IS THAT ENDORSEMENT THEN THAT GOES OUT, THAT SPEAKS TO, TO THAT ENTITY. LIKE WE, WE ACKNOWLEDGE IN THE LETTER THAT WE DON'T HAVE AN ACTION.

SO YOU'RE SAYING IF THEY DO WHAT THEY CAN DO WITHOUT US WEIGHING IN, WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT BEFORE OR AFTER EITHER ONE.

SO LIKE THE THE LETTER IS AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A LACK OF AUTHORITY, YOU KNOW, BUT BUT WE WANT TO STILL COMMUNICATE OUR DESIRE.

YES. IT'S AN ENCOURAGEMENT TO WORK THINGS THROUGH TOGETHER.

IT'S ENCOURAGEMENT FOR BOTH RANDALL AND POTTER TO, TO, TO, TO, TO RECOGNIZE THE ISSUES, WORK THEM THROUGH, AND THEN MAKE MAKE WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS THEY NEED TO.

BUT AGAIN, PART OF THE LETTER IS WE ENCOURAGE YOU ALL JUST TO AVOID A SEPARATION OPTION.

OKAY. WELL, LET ME LET ME JUMP INTO MR. WARREN, WOULD YOU MIND COMING UP HERE? BECAUSE I KNOW AS THE TAX ASSESSOR AND A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD, YOU'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES.

SO IF YOU WOULD LAY OUT FOR US THE POTENTIAL CONSEQUENCES AS A CUSTOMER.

SURE. SO I'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS QUITE A BIT BECAUSE AS I'VE SAID, POTTER COUNTY IS NOT TRYING TO SEPARATE AND I WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. THE SECTION 12 PIECE THAT MR. PATH IS TALKING ABOUT HERE ISN'T THE DISCUSSION THAT WAS HAD IN THAT MEETING WAS NOT ABOUT SEPARATING THE DISTRICT.

NO ONE HAS TAKEN THE POSITION THAT THE DISTRICT SHOULD BE SEPARATED.

THE SECTION 12 DISCUSSION CAME ABOUT BECAUSE RANDALL COUNTY, AT THEIR MEETING, SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACT.

SO WHAT DO YOU DO EXACTLY? WHEN YOU HAVE ONE PARTY, YOU HAVE TWO PARTIES TO A CONTRACT.

THE CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL. THE ATTORNEYS TELL YOU THE CONTRACT IS ILLEGAL.

SO WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN YOU HAVE ONE PARTY TO THE CONTRACT? WHO REFUSES TO COME TO THE NEGOTIATING TABLE, AND THE OTHER PARTY KNOWS THAT THE CONTRACT HAS TO BE AMENDED? YOU'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO GET THEM TO THE TABLE.

AND SO WE DISCUSSED EXERCISING SECTION 12 TO SET A HARD DEADLINE TO GET THEM TO THE TABLE MIGHT BE WHAT WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IF THEY REFUSED TO NEGOTIATE.

NOW THEY'RE HAVING THEIR MEETING TONIGHT. THEY WERE HAVING THEIR MEETING TONIGHT.

MR. PATH. AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

HOPEFULLY RANDALL COUNTY, YOU KNOW, COMES TO THEIR SENSES AND DECIDES TO NEGOTIATE WITH US.

BUT IF NOT, YOU KNOW, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE LOOKED AT AS FAR AS GETTING THEM THE TABLE, BUT THAT STILL ISN'T, THAT STILL ISN'T A GOAL OF SPLITTING.

NO ONE'S TRYING TO DO THAT. BUT LET ME, LET ME ADDRESS THE COST.

SO I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHERE THE 300,000 TO THE CITY NUMBER IS COMING FROM.

BECAUSE I'VE TAKEN A LOOK AT THIS. SO POPULATIONS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO US THE FIVE COUNTIES THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY HIGHER THAN US, FIVE THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY LOWER THAN US. I BELIEVE THE AVERAGE BUDGET FOR THOSE DISTRICTS IS ABOUT 2.8 MILLION.

WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT A FEW NIGHTS AGO PRIDE'S BUDGET RIGHT NOW, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I THINK IS AROUND 5.4 MILLION. SO, YOU KNOW, SAY 2.8 TIMES TWO.

THAT MIGHT BE SLIGHTLY HIGHER. YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THAT, A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND.

PROBABLY. BUT THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE A FEW HUNDRED THOUSAND TO THE CITY.

I DON'T EVEN THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE THOUGH, BECAUSE HOPEFULLY RANDALL COUNTY DECIDES TO NEGOTIATE. BUT RANDALL COUNTY REALLY STARTED THIS WHOLE MESS. AND SO I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THAT FOR YOU, SIR.

SO I'M CURIOUS HOW WE PAY. LIKE IF WE, IF WE HAD TO PAY TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES, ARE WE NOT, ARE WE NOT BASE PAID ON A RATE FOR, FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

WHAT'S THE PAY CONNECTED TO. OH NO, YOU YOU ABSOLUTELY ARE.

SO IT IS A PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE LEVY. SO YOU WOULD BE ASSUMING OKAY, SAYING THAT THE CITY'S RATE IS GOING TO GO UP WITH ONE ENTITY VERSUS DOWN WITH THE OTHER.

THAT ASSUMES THAT ALL OF THE TAX LEVIES STAY THE SAME.

TAX LEVIES AREN'T GOING TO STAY THE SAME, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU GUYS MIGHT VOTE FOR A LOWER TAX RATE THIS YEAR, AND POTTER COUNTY MIGHT VOTE FOR A HIGHER ONE OR A ISD VOTES FOR A HIGHER ONE.

AND SO THAT'S ASSUMING THAT ALL THE LEVEES WOULD STAY THE SAME.

BUT I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT THAT'S A MATTER OF LAW ON HOW WE PAY.

AND SO LIKE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AS A CUSTOMER, I FEEL LIKE MY RATES ARE FIXED.

AND SO WHETHER I HAVE ONE ENTITY THAT'S CHARGING ME FOR THE TOTAL LEVY, OR I HAVE TWO ENTITIES CHARGING ME FOR THE TOTAL LEVY, I THINK THEY HAVE AN INTERNAL PROBLEM OF HOW THEY BALANCE THEIR BUDGET.

[03:55:02]

THAT'S YOUR ISSUE, RIGHT? BUT FOR ME, AS A PAYER, I DON'T I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND EITHER I HAVE A PREMISE OF A POTENTIAL COST INCREASE OR I DON'T. SO SO WHAT COULD WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY COST US MORE HERE ON THE CITY SIDE, IF THERE WAS ANY INCREASE, IT WOULD BE PERCENTAGE BASED AND IT WOULD BE, I THINK, VERY MINIMAL.

BUT AGAIN, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SPLITTING.

I MEAN, THAT'S NOT EVEN A DISCUSSION THAT'S BEING HAD, BUT JUST WORST CASE SCENARIO.

AND SO RIGHT NOW THE GOAL IS FOR YOU GUYS TO AMEND YOUR EXISTING CONTRACT? YES. TO COME INTO ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT BOTH PARTIES CAN CAN AGREE TO IS A FAIRNESS FOR REPRESENTATION.

YES. AND THEN IN YOUR OPINION, NO COST INCREASE BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON A RATE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S THE LEVY I THINK. I WOULDN'T FORESEE A COST INCREASE BECAUSE HERE'S THE OTHER PART OF THIS.

SO RANDALL COUNTY'S DISTRICT WOULD HAVE TO BUY OUT POTTER COUNTY'S DISTRICT.

AND RIGHT NOW I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THE POTTER COUNTY SHARE.

SO RANDALL COUNTY'S DISTRICT WOULD HAVE TO BUY OUT POTTER COUNTY'S DISTRICT FROM THE ASSETS.

PRATT WORKS WITH A OPERATING SURPLUS. AND SO YOU'D HAVE TO GET THOSE NUMBERS FROM MR. DAGLI AS FAR AS WHAT WHAT THOSE NUMBERS WOULD LOOK LIKE.

BUT BASICALLY FROM WHAT OUR DISCUSSION WAS IN THE BOARD MEETING, IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN BECAUSE OF THAT, WHAT WOULD THEN OCCUR WOULD RANDALL COUNTY WOULD DO THE BUYOUT, POTTER WOULD HAVE TO GO SET UP A NEW DISTRICT.

NOW, THAT SOUNDS KIND OF SCARY, BUT I WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR ABOUT SOMETHING.

SO IT SAYS THAT WE CAN CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER COUNTY FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES JUST BECAUSE POTTER RANDALL IS NOT A DISTRICT ANYMORE. IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN'T, YOU KNOW, CONTRACT WITH CARSON COUNTY OR CONTRACT WITH MOORE COUNTY OR, YOU KNOW, EVEN LUBBOCK COUNTY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO IF IT WENT A ROUTE LIKE THAT, WHICH SETTING UP A BRAND NEW DISTRICT TO DO APPRAISALS, I WOULD IMAGINE THE FIRST FEW YEARS, THAT PROBABLY IS THE MOST LIKELY ROUTE. I DON'T THINK THERE WOULD BE ANY COST INCREASE.

IN FACT, IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MUCH, MUCH, MUCH LESS THAN YOU'RE PAYING RIGHT NOW. BECAUSE REMEMBER, YOU'RE PAYING A PERCENTAGE BASED OFF OF A $5.4 MILLION BUDGET.

AND SO IT WOULD BE QUITE A BIT LOWER IF IT WENT THAT WAY.

OKAY. MR. PATH. YES. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST ALSO REMIND YOU THAT THAT THIS LETTER IS WRITTEN AS MUCH TO RANDALL COUNTY AS TO POTTER.

WE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE CONCERNS POTTER HAS.

AND SO OUR ENCOURAGEMENT HERE IS FOR RANDALL.

IF THERE IS, THERE IS IF THERE HAS BEEN SOME HESITANCY FROM RANDALL TO NEGOTIATE, THIS LETTER IS ENCOURAGING HIM TO DO THAT.

SO WE'RE ENCOURAGING THEM TO TO WORK WITH POTTER COUNTY.

AND SO AND AND THEN ALSO TO. PART OF OUR CONCERN IS GIVEN.

SECTION 12 WAS DISCUSSED AS BEING THE REMEDY TO GIVE TO THE TABLE.

THAT IS A SIX MONTH NOTICE OF TERMINATION. AND SO PART OF THE CONCERNS WOULD BE THAT, OKAY, IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT, DO THEY GO WITH ANOTHER COUNTY WHO'S OBVIOUSLY WE'RE NOT A PART OF? WE DON'T WE'RE NOT WE DON'T OPERATE IN CARSON OR THE OTHER COUNTIES. AND THEN ALSO, TOO, IF THAT WERE NOT TO WORK OUT, DO THEY STAND UP AND IS THERE ENOUGH TIME TO STAND ONE UP? AND SO AGAIN, THIS LETTER HERE IS JUST TO ENCOURAGE RANDALL COUNTY AS MUCH AS POTTER.

HEY, LET'S LET'S WORK THIS THING THROUGH. THERE ARE CONCERNS THAT POTTER NEEDS TO WORK OUT.

AND SO LET'S WORK THIS STUFF THROUGH. AND MR. BATH, I WILL SAY, I THINK YOU ARE TOTALLY SINCERE, SO I'M NOT DOUBTING YOUR SINCERITY AT ALL.

ALL I WOULD SAY IS THE MEMO WAS DIRECTED TO POTTER COUNTY.

AND BECAUSE THE MEMO SAID POTTER COUNTY. POTTER COUNTY IS NOT TRYING TO SPLIT, AND I THINK I'VE ADDRESSED THAT FOR YOU GENTLEMEN, BUT I. I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE ON THE PRECIPICE OF HAVING SOME KIND OF HUGE BUDGETARY IMPACT TO THE CITY OF AMARILLO, BECAUSE I JUST DON'T THINK THAT'S THE WAY THINGS ARE GOING. AND A SPLIT, I THINK, IS INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY BECAUSE NOBODY'S ADVOCATING FOR THAT.

BUT IF SOMETHING LIKE THAT WERE TO HAPPEN, IF DOOMSDAY CAME TRUE, I DON'T ACTUALLY KNOW THAT THE CITY OF AMARILLO WOULD SEE A COST INCREASE BECAUSE IT REALLY IS JUST SPECULATION. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO EVEN IF IF IF IT DOESN'T COME ACROSS AS A POTTER, I COULD BE HAPPY TO TO EDIT THE LETTER, TO SPEAK MORE TOWARDS RANDALL.

AND SO AGAIN, I, I WROTE IT AS SPEAKING TO BOTH ENTITIES TOGETHER.

I SEE BOTH 18 MEMBERS AS MY REPRESENTATIVES. AND SO I WAS WRITING IT FOR ALL MEMBERS.

AND SO. BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO AMEND THIS TO A DEGREE TO SAY JUST KIND OF EMPHASIZING MORE THE.

RANDALL, PLEASE, LET'S WORK THROUGH THIS KIND OF A THING.

SO YEAH, SO, SO HAS THE SO I GUESS THERE'S BEEN TWO MEETINGS INVOLVING JUST THE POTTER.

HOW MANY MEETINGS HAS POTTER BY ITSELF HAD? TWO.

AND AT THAT MEETINGS, THE OPTION OF THE, THE OPTION OF THE SEPARATION CLAUSE HAS BEEN OFFICIALLY RULED OUT AS AN OPTION.

WELL, THERE'S, THERE IS NOT A SEPARATION CLAUSE OR YOU TALK ABOUT THE TERMINATION OF THE CONTRACT. YES.

YEAH. NO, THAT I MEAN, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING YOU'RE SAYING IT'S, IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THAT'S NOT THE INTENT. YEAH. BUT I'M JUST I'M WONDERING, I MEAN, HAS THAT BEEN YOUR ONE MEMBER OF THE NINE?

[04:00:05]

SO I MEAN, YOU SPEAK FOR YOURSELF. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE.

YOU DON'T SEE THIS SEPARATION AS. BUT THE OTHER EIGHT COULD HAVE VARYING OPINIONS.

HERE'S WHAT I WOULD SAY. YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO GET TO THAT, THERE'S NINE MEMBERS.

AND SO IT'S JUST IT'S JUST LIKE COUNCIL MATH. YOU GOT TO GET FIVE, RIGHT, TO AGREE TO THAT CLAUSE.

I DID NOT HEAR A SINGLE MEMBER OF THE BOARD SAY, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO.

RIGHT NOW WE WANT TO EXERCISE THIS CLAUSE AND GET OUT OF IT.

NO ONE SAID THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF MEMBERS.

AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I MEAN, I EXPRESSED SUPPORT FOR USING THIS AS LEVERAGE TO GET RANDALL COUNTY THE TABLE IF THEY WOULDN'T NEGOTIATE.

HOPEFULLY THEY WILL NEGOTIATE WITH US. BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THERE'S NOT A CONSENSUS.

IT DOESN'T EVEN SOUND LIKE IT WOULD BE CLOSE AS FAR AS HAVING A MAJORITY OF THE BOARD SAYING THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO EXERCISE THAT.

BUT IT'S BUT WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL YOU TILL THE NINE OF YOU MEET AND GET TOGETHER AND VOTE.

WELL, YES, BUT I THINK THAT'S INCREDIBLY UNLIKELY.

OKAY. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT IT'S STILL AN OPTION.

IT I MEAN, ANYTHING'S AN OPTION, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

YEAH. AND THEN BUT AND THEN THERE'S STILL AN OPTION ON THE TABLE.

WE DON'T KNOW THE COST. BUT THERE COULD BE AN OPTION THAT THE THE COST COULD GO UP.

WELL I MEAN IT COULD GO UP, BUT I COULD GO OUTSIDE AND GET STRUCK BY LIGHTNING TONIGHT.

YOU KNOW, WE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND LIKE I SAID, THERE ARE WAYS IF THERE WAS A SPLIT, WHICH AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A SPLIT.

BUT IF THERE WAS TO BE A SPLIT I THINK THAT THERE ARE WAYS WHERE YOU ACTUALLY WOULD SEE AN OVERALL REDUCTION TO THE COST FOR THE CITY OF AMARILLO.

SO, SO WITH THAT AS A POSSIBILITY, US, US STILL SAYING AS A, AS A BODY, WE HOPE THAT YOU COULD WORK THIS OUT.

SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COST TO THE TAXPAYER THAT WOULD THAT WOULD THAT BE OFFENSIVE TO, TO ASK FOR THAT OR I MEAN, AGAIN, AND SITTING IN OUR SEAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE WE'RE TALKING TO SOMEONE WHO RUNS AN ORGANIZATION WHO I WOULD GUESS IS USING A LITTLE BIT OF HIS EXPERIENCE IN RUNNING AN ORGANIZATION LIKE THIS TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

BUT JUST AS WE SIT HERE REPRESENTING THE TAXPAYERS OF US TO SAY, HEY, GUYS, IF THERE'S ANY WAY THAT WE WANT YOU TO RESOLVE THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS A VALID POINT THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP.

BUT IF YOU CAN DO THAT IN A WAY WHERE IT MITIGATES THE THE IMPACT ON THE TAXPAYERS IS THAT IS THAT A REQUEST THAT WOULD BE LOOKED UPON UNFAVORABLY? I MEAN, IF WE SAID THAT THAT'S FOR COUNCIL TO DECIDE.

I WOULD SAY THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT MY BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS, AND I TOUCHED ON IT IN THE ARTICLE THAT I HAD IN THE GLOBE NEWS THIS PAST WEEK WAS THE FACT THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE IS A DOOMSDAY SCENARIO THAT'S BEING PUSHED BASED ON MISINFORMATION.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, IF IT'S THE CHIEF APPRAISER, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S JUST PEOPLE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE WORRIED ABOUT IT, THAT POTTER COUNTY IS OUT THERE TRYING TO SPLIT THE DISTRICT AND CREATE THIS MASSIVE COST FOR THE ENTITIES.

AND IT'S JUST NOT TRUE. AND THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING, I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS WANT TO SAY, HEY, JUST GET IT WORKED OUT, THAT'S ONE THING. IF YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, POTTER COUNTY, YOU KNOW, ACT LIKE ADULTS, THAT'S ANOTHER WELL, MISINFORMATION.

WELCOME TO OUR WORLD. SURE. I MEAN, I HEARD SOMETHING NOW, THIS WASN'T MISINFORMATION.

I HEARD SOMEONE SAY YESTERDAY THAT THE VALUE OF SEPARATING THE DISTRICT OUT WOULD BE THAT POTTER'S PROPERTY IS UNDER APPRAISED, AND POTTER COUNTY WOULD GET A WHOLE LOT MORE MONEY IF YOU WOULD GET SEPARATED OUT.

AND I MEAN THAT THAT'S THERE IS ALL TYPES OF INFORMATION GOING OUT AND IT'S HARD TO SEPARATE OUT.

THAT'S WHY WE WENT TO THE SOURCE OF SOMEONE WHO OPERATES THAT TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT WOULD THIS, WHAT COULD THIS LOOK LIKE? AND, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW THE POLITICAL DYNAMICS THAT ARE GOING ON THERE.

OUR JOB IS JUST TO LOOK OUT FOR OUR TAXPAYERS.

SURE. NO. AND I UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I GOT POTTER COUNTY TAXPAYERS TOO.

AND WE WE COLLECT FOR THEM. AND I THINK I'VE TOLD YOU GUYS THIS, I MEAN, EVERY, EVERY TAX SEASON, I HAVE TAXPAYERS IN MY OFFICE WHO ARE UPSET AND, YOU KNOW, WORRIED BECAUSE THEY CAN'T PAY THEIR TAXES.

AND SO I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'D LIKE TO ALSO, JUST AS A PROFESSIONAL COURTESY, MR. DALEY, HE DID NOT DIRECT ANY OF THIS. HE DIDN'T HE DID NOT ASK TO DO THIS.

I MEAN, I ASKED VERY DIRECT QUESTIONS. HE PROVIDED ANSWERS.

I MEAN, HE AS A REPRESENTATIVE, HE CAME. HE COULDN'T HE COULDN'T NOT MEET WITH ME.

SO I SAID, CAN WE MEET? AND SO HE DID. SO I LOOK FOR THE BOARD TO KNOW THAT MR. DALEY DID NOT ASK OR DIRECT OR ANYTHING LIKE THIS.

THIS IS STRICTLY STRICTLY MYSELF TALKING TO OTHER, OTHER LEADERS.

AND SO I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT. THAT'S FINE. YEAH.

THANK YOU, MR. WARREN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

I'LL WEIGH IN. JUST BRIEFLY, I THINK GOOD LEADERSHIP HERE SPEAKS TO THE POTENTIALS WHICH WE'VE COVERED AT A BETTER LEVEL HERE.

I THINK THAT THE PERSONAL SIDE OF THIS IS IMPORTANT IN MANAGING A POTENTIAL.

I DON'T LIKE THE LETTER BEING JUST SENT WITH A VOTE BEHIND IT.

I THINK IT WOULD BE BETTER SERVED TO TAKE NO ACTION ON THIS LETTER FORM AND PURSUE ONE ON ONE CONVERSATIONS AND FURTHER TRY TO ASSIST THE, I'D SAY THE RECONCILIATION OR WHATEVER NEEDS TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE OTHER PARTY.

[04:05:03]

ABSOLUTELY. YES. THAT'S DEFINITELY AN OPTION. AGAIN. I'VE. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HURT MY FEELINGS IF YOU DON'T DO THE LETTER. I JUST THIS IS IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT. AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU AS, AS, AS COUNCIL MEMBERS TO TALK TO YOUR BOARD REPRESENTATIVES.

I SPOKE TO MY COUNTERPART. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK TO YOUR COUNTERPARTS. AND SO I THINK WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION IS A GOOD, ROBUST CONVERSATION. AGAIN, I'M I PRESENT THIS TO YOU AS AN OPTION.

WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. WE'VE HEARD SOME GOOD INPUT. IT'S NOW PUBLIC.

BE AWARE. AND SO WE CAN WE THAT'S PROBABLY GOOD ENOUGH RIGHT THERE.

SO COUNCIL IT'S IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS. IF YOU GUYS DO FEEL LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING BETTER HERE AND TAKING ACTION ON THIS ITEM, OR IF IF YOU GUYS ARE IN LINE WITH THAT TO TAKE NO ACTION, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM.

I THINK YOU HIT ON A POINT THERE RIGHT AT THE END.

JUST HAVING THIS PUBLIC DISCUSSION HAS PUT THIS OUT ON THE TABLE FOR PEOPLE TO SEE, AND THAT MAY JUST BE ENOUGH.

I'M, I'M, I'M NOT REAL. KEEN ON THE LETTER MYSELF.

I THINK THERE'S OTHER WAYS TO DO IT. BUT YOU MAY YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT.

COUNCILMAN. I THINK THAT THE BOARDS AND THE APPOINTED MEMBERS OF THESE BOARDS SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION, AND IF THEY COME OFF THE RAILS, THEY COME OFF THE RAILS.

IF IT GOES THE WAY WE WANT IT TO, WHICHEVER WAY THAT IS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE REALLY WASTING OUR TIME ON THIS.

UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. RIGHT NOW, BASED ON THAT, I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT.

THE COUNCIL WILL TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM 6.6. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING HERE. I I'M GOING TO SEE IF WE CAN PUSH US THROUGH SIX, 789 1011.

NOPE. JUST TEN QUICKLY. OTHERWISE WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A RECESS.

SO LET'S START WITH ITEM SIX SEVEN AND SEE WHAT WE CAN DO THERE WITH MISS JOHNNY.

[6.7. Consider Appointment - Beautification and Public Arts Advisory Board Member. This item considers the appointment of an individual to fill a current vacancy for the Beautification and Public Arts Advisory Board. (Jonni Glick, Assistant City Secretary) ]

GOOD EVENING. I JUST BROUGHT FORWARD A AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION AND PUBLIC ARTS ADVISORY BOARD.

WE HAVE A VACANCY DUE TO ACTUALLY ATTENDANCE.

WE REACHED OUT TO THE MEMBER THAT WAS NOT ATTENDING VERY WELL AND HE CHOSE TO RESIGN.

AND SO WE ASK THAT YOU APPOINT A MEMBER OF THE BEAUTIFICATION AND PUBLIC ARTS ADVISORY BOARD.

OKAY. SO WE'VE GOT A VACANCY. IN THE PAST WE HAVE HAD A LIST.

DO WE HAVE A LIST HERE? IT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET.

OKAY. IN THE BACK OF THE PACKET. YES, SIR. COUNCIL.

ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A NOMINATION? WELL, BEFORE WE DO THAT, I KNOW MR. KASHUBA IS HERE. DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON.

SO LET ME FIND IT. IT'S IT'S GOT A BUNCH OF BEAUTIFICATION RIGHT NOW FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION BOARD.

THERE'S ONLY TWO APPLICANTS THAT WE HAD. WE WOULD RECOMMEND KATIE PAUL FOR THAT POSITION.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. KASHUBA. WHO'S THE OTHER ONE? MR.. KASHUBA? MR. WOMACK. BUT WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT, A LOT OF HIS APPLICATIONS WERE MORE FOR THE HOSPITAL BOARD AND THE PUBLIC HEALTH BOARD AS OPPOSED TO BEAUTIFICATION. OKAY. COUNCIL.

YOU GOT TWO APPLICANTS HERE STILL VIABLE? BOTH WILLING TO SERVE KATIE, PAUL, AND THEN MR. WOMACK. ANY DISCUSSION ON EITHER OF THOSE? NO. I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPOINT KATIE PAUL TO THE BEAUTIFICATION AND PUBLIC ARTS ADVISORY BOARD.

SECOND. MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 6.7 FOR KATIE.

PAUL. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. ITEM SIX EIGHT. BACK OVER TO YOU, MISS GLICK.

[6.8. Consider Appointment - Parks and Recreation Board. This item considers the appointment of an individual to fill a current vacancy on the Parks and Recreation Board. (Jonni Glick, Assistant City Secretary)]

IS THE VACANCY FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD.

SAME THING. WE FOUND THAT A MEMBER HADN'T BEEN ABLE TO ATTEND, AND HE CHOSE TO RESIGN.

AND WE BROUGHT FORTH YOU. WE BROUGHT YOU THREE APPLICANTS WHO WERE WILLING TO CONTINUE OR.

I'M SORRY, WE'RE WILLING TO. WHY CAN I NOT SAY THAT? WILLING TO SERVE. SO WE DO HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER SITTING ON THAT.

MR. REED. YOU'RE FAMILIAR. DO YOU DO YOU HAVE ANYONE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE IF WE DO.

NOT ALREADY. NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. ANY ONE OF THOSE NOMINATIONS? OKAY. MR. KASHUBA, YOU MIND COMING BACK UP? WHO ARE THE THREE? AND DO YOU HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, SIR? SO THE THREE APPLICANTS ARE SHARON DELGADO.

LARRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS LAST NAME.

AND SUSAN MILLER THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE SUSAN MILLER, WHO'S AN ACTIVE USER OF THE WARFORD ACTIVITY CENTER.

AND YOU'VE CONTACTED ALL THREE. THEY'RE ALL WILLING TO SERVE.

[04:10:01]

YES. OKAY. COUNCIL, I WOULD NOMINATE SHARON DELGADO TO TO SERVE THEIR ON PARKS AND REC.

WE'LL LEAVE IT OUT THERE FOR JUST A MINUTE. IF WE GET A SECOND. IF NOT, WE'LL ASK FOR ANOTHER NOMINATION.

DO I HEAR ANOTHER NOMINATION? ONCE AGAIN, SHARON DELGADO, WHAT WAS THE THE OTHER TWO MR. KASHUBA. WE CAN HEAR YOU. I'LL REPEAT THEM. SUSAN MILLER AND THE LARRY.

LARRY GOWAN, GUION, AND SUSAN MILLER. OKAY. I NOMINATE SUSAN MILLER.

MOTION FOR SUSAN MILLER. DO I HEAR A SECOND? AM I? MY HESITANCY IS I MISSED SHARON DELGADO'S AS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS WHEN I WAS REVIEWING THEM.

SO OKAY, THAT'S MY HESITANCY RIGHT NOW. WELL, WE'LL LET IT SIT.

IF WE DON'T GET A SECOND, WE'LL GO BACK FOR ANOTHER ONE.

OKAY. WOULD REQUEST ANOTHER NOMINATION. MAYOR.

WHAT IF. I MEAN, WOULD IT BE THE WORST THING IF WE JUST MAYBE GAVE IT TWO MORE WEEKS AND MAYBE WE COULD LOOK AT IT AND THEN COME BACK IN TWO WEEKS? IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO LOOK MORE AT THE APPLICANTS OR SOMEBODY ELSE HAS.

WE DEFINITELY WE DEFINITELY COULD DO THAT. LET ME ASK HERE, MR. REED, DO YOU HAVE A DIRECTION YOU CAN LEAD ON HERE, OR DO YOU FEEL LIKE YOU NEED TWO WEEKS? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT JUST SO I CAN REVIEW THE OTHER APPLICATION.

OKAY. REALLY GOOD. SO MISS GLICK, WHEN'S THEIR NEXT MEETING? THE PARKS MEETING. I'M LOOKING TO KASHUBA. THEY'VE GOT THEY'VE GOT A QUORUM EVERY TIME THEY'RE NOT IN JEOPARDY.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST THE ONE VACANCY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.

OUR NEXT MEETING IS JULY 8TH. OKAY. SO WE'LL BE RIGHT AFTER THAT.

SO THAT SHOULD GIVE YOU A GOOD TIME. PLUS YOU CAN KIND OF GO BACK AND COMPARE NOTES.

OKAY. SO WE'LL TAKE NO ACTION ON ITEM 6.8. ITEM 6.9.

[6.9. Consider Award - Construction Service Contract for Water Main Extensions at N Western St & W Hasting Ave. This item considers the award of approximately 13,740 LF of new 12-inch water main along N. Western Street and W. Hastings Avenue.]

MR. DANFORTH, I THINK WE KEEP YOU LAST EVERY TIME BECAUSE WE LIKE YOU.

WE JUST ENJOY SPENDING TIME WITH YOU. NEXT AGENDA.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE MOVE WHATEVER DANFORTH ITEM HE HAS TO THE THE FRONT OF THE NON CONSENT.

RIGHT. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. I THOUGHT YOU KEPT ME JUST BECAUSE I WAS GOOD LOOKING.

SO THAT TOO. ALRIGHT. ITEM SIX NINE, SIR. ALRIGHT.

SIX. NINE IS THE WATER LINE EXTENSION ON HASTINGS AND WESTERN STREET.

THIS IS AN EXPANSION OF OUR WATER SYSTEM TO PROVIDE SERVICE THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST.

IT ALSO ENHANCES OUR FIRE SECURITY IN THAT AREA THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST.

AND IT ALLOWS US TO WORK ON BALANCING THE SYSTEM ON THE NORTH SIDE OF AMARILLO, BOTH FOR CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS, ONGOING AND FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED IN THE FUTURE.

SO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS BASICALLY A CONSTRUCTION PROJECT OR WARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT.

WE HAVE PROVIDED THESE THE UPDATES ON THIS AND PREVIOUS PRESENTATIONS TO COUNCIL.

SO YOU'VE SEEN IT BEFORE. IT'S BEEN IN THE WEEKLY UPDATES WITH THE CITY MANAGER.

SO I THINK EVERYTHING'S PRETTY, PRETTY MUCH CURRENT AS FAR AS IN FRONT OF YOU.

YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND REVIEW ANYTHING, BUT WE WOULD PAUSE HERE AND SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS WATER LINE LOOP QUESTIONS. COUNCIL. OKAY. YOU HAVE A A WARD IN FRONT OF YOU.

I MOVE THAT WE CONSIDER THE AWARD OF THE CONSTRUCTION SERVICE CONTRACT FOR WATER MAIN EXTENSION AT NORTHWESTERN STREET IN WEST HASTING AVENUE.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. MR. DANFORTH, CAN WE DO ONE MORE WITH YOU? WE CAN I'VE GOT ABOUT 100 SLIDES ON A POWERPOINT, IF YOU'D LIKE IT.

YEAH. LET'S LET'S TITLE ALL THOSE, THEN I'LL MOVE QUICKER THEN.

YEAH. BASICALLY, THIS IS SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WE JUST COVERED.

THIS IS THE MILL AND OVERLY MILL AND OVERLAY PROJECT.

IT'S PHASE TWO OF THE BOND PROJECT THAT WAS APPROVED.

WE'RE LOOKING AT SEVERAL ARTERIAL STREETS THAT WILL BE DOING MILL AND OVERLAY ON.

AND THIS WILL SATISFY THE $12 MILLION BOND PROJECT THAT YOU GUYS APPROVED.

SO THIS KEEPS US RIGHT ON SCHEDULE AS MR. HOOPER REPRESENTED.

THE GOAL WAS ULTIMATELY TO GET US TO WHERE WE'RE DOING THESE PROJECTS IN THE SUMMERTIME DURING THE PAVING SEASON INSTEAD OF AWARDING THEM IN THE FALL.

YEAH. VERY THANKFUL. GRATEFUL FOR THE CONTINUED PURSUING OF THIS AND JUST CONTINUING TO BRING IT FORWARD AND MOVE IT IN A GREAT WAY.

[04:15:10]

I THINK IT'S REALLY GOOD. AND THEN THE COST, I KNOW I REVIEWED THE SUB BIDS.

WE'VE GOT REALLY GOOD CONTRACTORS OUT THERE DOING GREAT WORK ALL ACROSS THE CITY.

THIS ONE IS THE LOWEST BIDDER. YEP. ON THIS PARTICULAR.

SO I JUST ENCOURAGE ALL OF THOSE CONTRACTORS TO KEEP TURNING IN BIDS WITH US AS WE CONTINUE TO TURN OUT.

GOOD WORK. GENTLEMEN, ITEM 6.10. I'D MOVE THAT.

[6.10. Consider Award - FY 26/27 Street Maintenance Mill & Overlay Contract. This item considers the award of a construction contract for the annual Street Maintenance project.]

WE AWARD THE STREET MAINTENANCE MILL AND OVERLAY CONTRACT TO JAY LEE MILLIGAN AS PRESENTED.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES. CAN I GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. WE'RE ADJOURNED. THANK YOU GUYS.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

Jun 23, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item