[00:00:01]
IN YOUR DAYS, THE TIME IS 6 53. THIS WILL TAKE US
[A. CALL TO ORDER-MAYOR]
TO OUR REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.THE TIME IS 6 53. TODAY IS GOING TO BE MONDAY, AUGUST 24TH, 2026. AND I'LL DO A ROLL CALL. MS. GRAVES HERE, MS. TODD HERE. MR. JOHNSON HERE. MR. WASHINGTON IS NOT HERE. MR. MR. DEFFIBAUGH HERE. MR. LONG HERE. AND WE HAVE A QUORUM TO TAKE US TO OUR INVOCATION.
OUR MOST KIND AND GRACIOUS HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU FOR THE PRIVILEGE TO COME TO YOU.
YOU ARE THE GREAT AND MIGHTY GOD. FATHER, WE THANK YOU THAT YOU KNOW US LIKE A LARGE PRINT OPEN BOOK.
YOUR WORD SAYS THAT YOU KNOW WHAT WE THINK, BUT EVEN BEFORE WE THINK IT.
SO WE COME TO YOU ASKING FOR WISDOM. WE THANK YOU FOR OUR CITY, OUR CITY LEADERS.
THANK YOU FOR ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.
LORD, I ASK THAT YOU GIVE THE COUNCIL WISDOM.
LORD, AS THEY LEAD THIS CITY, WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE COME HERE, WHO HAVE MOVED HERE, FOR ALL THE STUDENTS BEGINNING SCHOOL.
OR WE ASK YOU TO WATCH OVER OUR STUDENTS, OUR ADMINISTRATION, OUR FACULTY.
WE THANK YOU, FATHER, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US. AND MAY, LORD, WE MAKE GOOD USE OF THE TIME THAT YOU'VE GIVEN TO US. BLESS THIS COUNCIL MEETING TONIGHT. LEAD AND GUIDE, WE ASK, IN THE PRECIOUS NAME OF JESUS, WE PRAY. AMEN.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG; I PLEDGE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE
[F. PUBLIC APPEARANCE]
ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR PUBLIC APPEARANCE. MS. STALIN.PUBLIC APPEARANCE. THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS SET ASIDE FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL ON ANY ITEMS OF BUSINESS THAT IS NOT FORMALLY SCHEDULED ON THE AGENDA AS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC SHOULD COMPLETE A PUBLIC MEETING APPEARANCE CARD PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY.
SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED UP TO FIVE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE CITY COUNCIL IS UNABLE TO RESPOND TO OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THIS PORTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO THE INQUIRY.
ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK SHALL ADDRESS THE COUNCIL DIRECTLY, NOT CITY STAFF OR OTHERWISE.
BE COURTEOUS, RESPECTFUL, AND CORDIAL, AND REFRAIN FROM MAKING PERSONAL DEMEANING, INSULTING, THREATENING, OR DISPARAGING REMARKS AS TO MAINTAIN DECORUM AND SUPPORT THE EFFICIENT AND ORDERLY FLOW OF THE MEETING. ALL RIGHT, FIRST SPEAKER WILL BE KEN SELIGMAN.
KEN SELIGMAN, ARCADIA FARMS, PRINCETON. FIRST I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE MEETING LAST WEEK, THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE TAX RATE DECISION.
SO WE HEAR A LOT ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WE'VE HEARD ABOUT TRANSPARENCY AND THAT MEETING WAS ANYTHING BUT TRANSPARENT. I HOPE YOU GUYS REALIZE THAT. I MEAN IT WAS PRETTY OBVIOUS FROM EVERYBODY SITTING OUT HERE THAT SEVERAL MEMBERS, MAYOR YOU CAME INTO THE MEETING AS SOON AS YOU OPENED UP THE HEARING, YOU ASKED FOR ITEM, I THINK IT WAS J, THE ITEM TO PUT THE TAX RATE CONSIDERATION TO THE BALLOT TO PULL IT FROM THE AGENDA.
THREE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL IMMEDIATELY AGREED WITH YOU WITHOUT QUESTION. MS. TODD, MR. WASHINGTON, MR. RUTLEDGE.
MR. LONG AND MR. DEFFIBAUGH WERE COMPLETELY SURPRISED.
YOU TALKED ABOUT BRINGING IT BACK IN TWO YEARS AND MAYBE WE CAN BRING IT BACK IN MAY.
YOU WERE ASKING QUESTIONS OF OUR ATTORNEY. SHE CLARIFIED THAT IT COULD ONLY BE BACK,
[00:05:01]
IT COULDN'T BE BROUGHT BACK IN A TAX ITEM, COULD NOT BE PUT BACK ON THE BALLOT UNTIL NEXT NOVEMBER 2027. SO THERE WERE STILL QUESTIONS. MR. DEFFIBAUGH WONDERED WHY WE WERE GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T ADDRESS ANY OF THE CURRENT NEEDS THAT HAVE BEEN PUT BEFORE THE CITY ON THE BUDGET, THE REQUESTED BUDGET. HE THEN WANTED TO DISCUSS IT, WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, TALKED ABOUT NEEDING LEGAL COUNSEL, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE DETERMINED OR PROVIDED BY LEGAL COUNSEL THAT COULDN'T HAVE BEEN DONE IN THAT MEETING. THERE WAS NO REASON TO GO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION BEHIND THAT DOOR IN SECRET.SO I'M SURE I'LL GET AN EXPLANATION SOMETIME, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S A PLAUSIBLE ONE.
AS FAR AS THE WASTEWATER AND DRAIN, THE WASTEWATER AND WATER PLAN THAT WE JUST SAW, THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON THERE.
WE'VE HEARD ABOUT DATA CENTERS AND THERE'S TWO ITEMS ON THERE ADDRESSING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE DATA CENTER THAT'S OUT TOWARDS FARMERSVILLE ACROSS THE BRIDGE.
ON PAGE 31 OF THE WASTEWATER, THERE'S TWO DOCUMENTS.
ON PAGE 31 OF THE WASTEWATER DOCUMENT, IT SHOWS THE LIST STATION IDENTIFIED. I MEAN, I'M SORRY, IT SHOWS THE DATA CENTER IDENTIFIED AND THEN RIGHT NEXT TO IT SHOWS THE LIST STATION.
AND THEN IN THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, ON PAGE 16, NUMBER 14, ITEM NUMBER 14 ON PAGE 16 SHOWS AN EIGHT-INCH WATER MAIN TO THE DATA CENTER.
SO WE'VE HEARD OVER AND OVER THERE'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK, MAYOR, YOU TOLD ME YOU WEREN'T SURE THAT IF IT WAS IN OUR CCN OR NOT THE LAST TIME I HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT IT. SO IT'S ON OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PLAN. SO I HEARD TONIGHT YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO BE ADDRESSING THAT. I HOPE THAT'LL BE CLARIFIED. IT WAS IDENTIFIED AS A SEVEN MILLION DOLLAR PROJECT DELIVERING 400,000 GALLONS A DAY TO THE DATA CENTER. AND I GUESS THAT'S ALL. WE'RE STILL HEARING FROM RESIDENTS THAT THERE'S TALK WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS WITH DEVELOPERS ABOUT A DATA CENTER. SO I REALLY HOPE THAT THAT'LL ALL BE CLARIFIED FOR SURE AT SOME POINT. THANK YOU. AND JUST A POINT OF FACT, AND CHIEF, IF YOU CAN VERIFY JUST A POINT OF FACT, WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S REQUESTING US TO SERVICE THIS DATA CENTER.
I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH ANOTHER WATER COMPANY FOR THEIR WATER. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S IN THE PLANS, BUT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, UNLESS SOMETHING'S CHANGED ON THE CITY SIDE. BUT WE'RE NOT PROVIDING ANY DATA CENTERS IN THE WATER.
IT'S IN THE PLAN. STAFF PUT THAT PLAN TOGETHER, BUT IT'S NOT. I UNDERSTAND. I HEARD ALL ABOUT THE PLAN TONIGHT. I UNDERSTAND. YEAH, BUT NOT. I MEAN, WE JUST RECENTLY CHANGED THE RULES ON THE DATA CENTER IN PLACES.
SO THAT STUFF WAS DONE BEFORE THAT. IT'S NOT IN THE CITY LIMIT EITHER.
IT'S IN ATJ. THANK YOU FOR ADDRESSING.
GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SAMBAL ZEB. I'M FROM ELIN SOUTHRIDGE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A FEW COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD MEETING THAT I ATTENDED LAST WEEK.
I WANTED TO JUST RECOGNIZE THE DIRECTOR AND OUR LIBRARY BOARD AND STAFF FOR DOING A REALLY GREAT JOB.
WHEN WE MOVED TO PRINCETON, WHEN I SAW THE LIBRARY, I THOUGHT THAT'S A TEENY TINY CUBE AND WHAT COULD BE GOING ON IN THERE.
BUT HAVING A BABY GIRL, THAT LIBRARY WAS ACTUALLY A LIFELINE. IT PROVIDES A SPACE WHERE A LOT OF FAMILIES HERE IN PRINCETON FEEL SAFE, GET TO MEET OTHER FAMILIES WITH YOUNG CHILDREN. SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK THE LIBRARY BOARD.
AND THERE WAS ONE COMMENT MADE BY ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.
IT WAS IN RELATION TO FUNDING FROM THE CITY AND HOPING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OR THAT THE CITY WOULD EVENTUALLY CARE A LITTLE BIT MORE. I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN HER MOUTH, BUT THAT WAS KIND OF THE IDEA
[00:10:01]
OF MAYBE GIVE SOME MORE THOUGHT TO THE LIBRARY. AND I THOUGHT THAT IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO SUGGEST THAT THE LIBRARY BOARD CONSIDER MOVING THEIR MEETINGS TO THE MUNICIPAL CENTER LIKE EVERY OTHER BOARD, BEING OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND. AND HONESTLY SPEAKING, HAVING THE MEETING IN THE LIBRARY ITSELF KIND OF DIMINISHES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COMMITTEE OR THE BOARD. I WOULD REALLY SUGGEST THAT THEY CONSIDER MOVING HERE. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHAT THE REASONING IS THAT THEY HAVE IT IN THE LIBRARY.I'M SURE THERE IS A GOOD REASON, BUT I REALLY WOULD PUSH THAT THEY CONSIDER RELOCATING HERE.
AND THANK YOU ALSO TO THE COUNCIL MEMBER CAROLYN DAVID GRAVES FOR PROVIDING HER PERSPECTIVE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. I THINK THAT THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE A LOT OF TIMES EVERYONE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND WHY CERTAIN BUDGETING ISSUES ARE THE WAY THEY ARE. SO I THINK THAT IT WAS GOOD THAT SHE WAS ABLE TO PROVIDE THAT FEEDBACK ON WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT THAT THE LIBRARY NOW HAS FEES FOR PATRONS WHO ARE NOT WITHIN PRINCETON CITY LIMITS.
THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAXINE ELLIS? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.
ONE OF THE ITEMS I DID WANT TO ADDRESS WAS THE APARTMENTS, BUT I SEE IT'S NO LONGER ON THE AGENDA. SO I'LL HOLD THAT ITEM FOR ANOTHER TIME.
I WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION ON THE ARCADIA FARMS PARK THAT WE CONTRACTED TO ALLOW THE CITY TO USE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU ALL HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR IT. ONE, ALL THEY MAINTAIN IS INSIDE THE FENCE, THE SOFTBALL FIELD. THE SOCCER FIELDS ARE NOT MAINTAINED.
WE PAY THE WATER BILL FOR THE SOFTBALL FIELD ACCORDING TO NUMBERS THAT WERE GIVEN AT THE PARKS AND RECREATION BOARD MEETING IS $25,000 A YEAR JUST TO MAINTAIN THAT GRASS INSIDE THE FENCE.
SO I DID SOME LITTLE MINOR CALCULATIONS BECAUSE THEY DO GET A PORTA POTTY. I THINK IT'S THERE TWO, THREE MONTHS, BUT I SAID FOUR MONTHS TO BE SAFE. I WENT WITH A VERY HIGH NUMBER OF $300 A MONTH.
THEN FOR A COUPLE OF MONTHS, THEY RENT SOME LIGHTS SO THAT THEY COULD HAVE NIGHT GAMES.
I ALSO WENT WITH A VERY HIGH NUMBER. I CALLED AND ACTUALLY GOT ACTUAL QUOTES, AND THAT WAS AT $1,100 A MONTH.
SO NOW WE'RE AT $5,600 OF THAT $25,000 A YEAR.
THAT LEAVES $19,400 OVER SEVEN MONTHS OF CUTTING GRASS, BECAUSE REMEMBER WE DON'T CUT DURING THE WINTER, RIGHT? SO THAT'S APPROXIMATELY $2,771.43 FOR JUST THE GRASS INSIDE THE FENCE TO BE CUT.
MY LAWN SERVICE THAT'S TAKING OVER, THE ARCADIA FARMS LAWN SERVICE, $2,500 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN THE CUTTING, THE CHEMICALS, AND THE IRRIGATION.
I'M JUST GIVING YOU GUYS ROUGH ESTIMATED NUMBERS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT COSTS $25,000 A YEAR TO MAINTAIN A T-BALL FIELD, NOT EVEN AN OFFICIAL BASEBALL-SIZED FIELD.
AND IF THE FIELD IS MOWED YEARLY, THAT'S STILL $1,616.67 A MONTH JUST TO MOW THE LAWN.
SO JUST NUMBERS. I HAVE COPIES OF MY NUMBERS IF ANYBODY'S INTERESTED.
NOW THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO BRING UP, IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY, I HAD THE PLEASURE OF SITTING IN ON THE EDC MEETING LAST WEEK AND SPEAKING AT IT, AS WELL AS SITTING IN ON THE CDC MEETING. BOTH MEETINGS ASKED ABOUT STAFFING. BOTH MEETINGS SAID, HEY, WE'D LIKE A JOINT MEETING WITH EACH OTHER.
[00:15:03]
FROM A RESIDENT LOOKING IN, IT WAS KIND OF PUSHED OFF.THIS HAS BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT FOR A WHILE NOW ABOUT NEEDING STAFFING. AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS WAS MADE THAT HERE WITHIN THE FACILITY, THERE IS NO DESKS TO PUT ANYBODY AT. SO THAT'S WHY NOT ABLE TO HIRE ANYBODY.
AND PLEASE FEEL FREE, THE CDC MEETING STARTS AT APPROXIMATELY 33 MINUTES INTO IT. 33 MINUTES AND 43 SECONDS TO BE EXACT.
BUT THERE ARE NO DESKS TO PUT A STAFF MEMBER AT.
BUT THERE WILL BE IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS WHEN THE PARKS BOARD MOVES.
IT WAS RECOMMENDED THAT BY THE BOARD TO START LOOKING FOR STAFF MEMBERS NOW BECAUSE IT TAKES A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
BUT AGAIN, NO DESK. SO NOT SURE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS STATED, AND MAYOR, PLEASE, I'LL NEED A COUPLE EXTRA SECONDS FOR THIS.
ALL OF US VOLUNTEER TO BE IN THESE POSITIONS. EVEN YOU GUYS, EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE ELECTED, YOU'RE STILL VOLUNTEERED. YOU DON'T GET PAID. I DON'T GET PAID.
SO THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK AT THE CDC ABOUT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF STAFFING NEEDED.
AND ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE, WHICH WAS VERY ALARMING TO SOMEONE THAT'S A VOLUNTEER, THE EXACT WORDING WAS, ULTIMATELY, I MAKE THE DECISION ON HIRING AND WHO TO HIRE AND WHAT'S NEEDED.
BUT I'LL LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. WHO SAID THAT? THAT WAS SAID AT 46 MINUTES AND 31 SECONDS INTO IT.
IT WAS ALSO STATED AT 49 MINUTES AND 51 SECONDS THAT THERE'S BEEN TALK OF A PUBLIC SAFETY DISTRICT AND POSSIBLY MONEY BEING TAKEN FROM THE CDC, EDC, EVEN ABOLISHING THOSE BOARDS.
SO THEY MAY NOT EVEN BE HERE IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO JUST VERY ALARMING AS SOMEONE THAT'S A VOLUNTEER AND YOU ASK ME TO ASSIST AND BE HERE.
YOU KNOW, OUR OWN CFO, YOU ALL KNOW, WE NEED COMMERCIAL.
WE NEED COMMERCIAL. WE NEED FEET ON THE GROUND GETTING THOSE COMMERCIALS SO WE CAN GET THAT SALES TAX REVENUE IN BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE RESIDENTS DON'T WANT TO RAISE THE RATES, WHICH I DON'T BLAME THEM. AND ON THE EDC MEETING, THERE WERE SOME ITEMS BEING BROUGHT IN EXECUTIVE AND IT WAS COMMENTED HOW THAT'S COMMERCIAL AND THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE IN.
ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL END OUR PUBLIC COMMENT.
[G. CONSENT AGENDA]
AND THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA. MS. FOWLER? CONSENT AGENDA. ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A COUNCIL MEMBER SO REQUESTS, IN WHICH EVENT THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED IN THE NORMAL SEQUENCE ON THE AGENDA. WE HAVE ITEMS G1 THROUGH G5.POINT OF INQUIRY. WHY ARE THE MINUTES FOR THE 17TH NOT ON OUR AGENDA FROM THE SPECIAL MEETING WE HELD LAST WEEK? THE MINUTES LISTED ARE FOR THE 10TH. YEAH, I THINK IT'LL BE ON THE FOLLOWING AGENDA. YES, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'LL BE ON THE FOLLOWING BECAUSE WE HAD TO GET THE AGENDA POSTED THE VERY NEXT DAY. ALL RIGHT, IS THERE ANYTHING? MR. JOHNSON? JUST READY TO MAKE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT. ALL RIGHT, I'M READY FOR THAT MOTION. ALL RIGHT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REMOVAL OF ITEM G4 AND G5. I'LL SECOND.
ALL RIGHT, MS. TODD IS SECOND.
I'M MISSING ONE MORE VOTE. ALL
[00:20:03]
RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 6-0.[H1. 2026-201 Presentation and recognition of officers receiving their Certificates of Merit. Presented by Police Chief James Waters.]
TO OUR CEREMONY ITEMS. H1, MS. FOWLER? CEREMONIAL ITEMS. WE HAVE H1 2026-201 PRESENTATION AND RECOGNITION OF OFFICERS RECEIVING THEIR CERTIFICATES OF MERIT PRESENTED BY CHIEF POLICE CHIEF JAMES LAUDERS.MAYOR, COUNCIL, JAMES LAUDERS, CHIEF POLICE FOR CITY OF PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT. IT'S ALWAYS A GREAT TIME WHENEVER WE GET TO COME UP HERE AND RECOGNIZE SOME OF OUR OFFICERS FOR SOME OF THE GREAT WORK THAT THEY'RE DOING.
TONIGHT, WE ARE RECOGNIZING FIVE OF THEM. SO THE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THERE WAS A FIREARM RELATED CALL FOR SERVICE.
OFFICERS RESPONDED TO A REPORT OF MULTIPLE GUNSHOTS BEING FIRED FROM A RESIDENCE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE RESIDENT.
THE OFFENDER EXITED THE HOME, DISCHARGED MULTIPLE ROUNDS INTO AN UNKNOWN DIRECTION, UNCERTAIN OF THE SOURCE OR INTENDED TARGET OF THE GUNFIRE.
OFFICERS IMMEDIATELY BROADCASTED THE ISSUES AND PROMPTING OTHER OFFICERS TO RESPOND WITHOUT HESITATION.
THROUGH EFFECTIVE COMMUNICATION, RAPID DEPLOYMENT, COORDINATED PERIMETER, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICER SUCCESSFULLY CONTAINED THE SITUATION, WORKED SEAMLESSLY WITH ASSISTING AGENCIES. THEIR PROFESSIONALISM, COMPOSURE, UNDER PRESSURE, AND TACTICAL RESPONSE LED TO THE SAFE SURRENDER AND ARREST OF THE OFFENDER WITHOUT INJURIES TO THE OFFICERS, CIVILIANS, OR DAMAGE TO PROPERTY. SO THE ALL OR THE ACTIONS OF SERGEANT BECK, SERGEANT RUMFIELD, OFFICERS GUNN, COELLA, AND BRUMMETT EXEMPLIFY EXCELLENCE IN POLICE WORK AND WARRANT RECOGNITION AND THROUGH THIS AWARD. SO THOSE OFFICERS AND SERGEANTS CAN PLEASE STEP FORWARD.
[H2. 2026-202 Presentation and recognition of the Summer Reading Program winners and prize donors. Presented by Library Director Glenda Puckett.]
YOU YOU YOU ALL RIGHT THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM H2 ITEM H2 2026-202 PRESENTATION AND RECOGNITION OF THE SUMMER READING PROGRAM WINNERS AND PRIZE DONORS PRESENTED BY LIBRARY DIRECTOR GLENDA PUCKETT GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL MY NAME IS GLENDA PUCKETT I'M THE LIBRARY DIRECTOR AT THE LOIS NELSON PUBLIC LIBRARY TONIGHT I COME BEFORE YOU BECAUSE WE'RE HERE TO RECOGNIZE OUR LIBRARY SUMMER READING PROGRAM WINNERS AND ALSO THE DONORS WHO DONATED GIFT CARDS THROUGHOUT FOR OUR RAFFLES AND THEN ALSO FOR PRIZES AT THE END SO FIRST LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ABOUT THE PROGRAM WE BEGAN THE SUMMER READING PROGRAM ON JUNE 1ST OF THIS YEAR AND IT ENDED ON JULY 31ST THIS YEAR WE HAD 279 PARTICIPANTS FROM PRESCHOOL AGE TO ADULTS THAT WHO ACTUALLY LOST 3524 HOURS OF READING TIME AND THAT IS REALLY SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WE ALL KNOW ABOUT THE SUMMER SLIDE THAT CHILDREN TYPICALLY HAVE DURING THE SUMMER BECAUSE THEY'RE AT HOME AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING THAT LITERACY COMPONENT AND SO OUR GOAL IS TO PARTNER WITH THE ISD IN A WAY THAT WE'RE SUPPORTING THEM BY PROVIDING THESE OPPORTUNITIES FOR STUDENTS TO STILL ACCESS LITERACY AND LEARNING OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITIES FROM THE LIBRARY DURING THIS TIME AS I SAID WE HAD FIVE WINNERS WE CHANGED OUR[00:25:02]
PROGRAM UP A LITTLE BIT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR THAT WE DID ONE GRAND PRIZE FOR EACH CATEGORY SO FOR OUR WINNERS THIS YEAR FOR OUR PRESCHOOL CATEGORY WE HAD A VARNISH AND I HOPE I DIDN'T DO THAT WRONG IF YOU'LL COME ON UP SO THEN FOR OUR ELEMENTARY WE HAD FAJITA PARAM AND I DON'T THINK FAJITA IS HERE TONIGHT AND THEN FOR MIDDLE SCHOOL WE HAVE ASB AND I'LL TELL YOU GUYS SOMETHING ASB EVERY YEAR I THINK I'M AWARDING HIM THIS AND SO NOW HE'S INFLUENCED HIS LITTLE BROTHER TO ALSO PARTICIPATE GOOD JOB GOOD JOB AND THEN WE HAVE OUR HIGH SCHOOL WINNER MONASTA PARAM SHE'S NOT HERE AS WELL AND OUR ADULT WINNER WAS SYTNEY FUCHS AND SHE IS A TEACHER FOR PISD SHE'S ALSO NOT HERE TONIGHT BUT WE ALSO HAVE OUR LIBRARY SOME OF OUR LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS HERE WE WANT TO ALSO GIVE A HAVE DR LOVELACE AND HIS WIFE COME ON UP TONYA THEY PROVIDED GIFT CARDS FOR OUR RAFFLES THIS SUMMER AND FOR THE PREVIOUS SUMMER SEVERAL SUMMERS SO THEY HAVE BEEN SUPPORTING US FOR SEVERAL YEARS CWD I DON'T SEE ROBERT HERE YET SO CWD WAS ANOTHER COMPANY THAT SPONSORED GIFT CARDS FOR THE LIBRARY WINNERS THIS YEAR SO I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY GREAT JOB AND I ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING FOR YOU GUYS AND HERE AND THERE WE GO ALL RIGHT IF YOU GOT ONE UP OH DR LOVELACE THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS YOU ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL TAKE US TO, I'M GOING TO MOVE EXECUTIVE TO THE END OF THE MEETING.AND THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM K, PUBLIC HEARINGS, MS. ALLEN.
ITEM K1, ORDINANCE 2026-08-24-02.
CONSIDER APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-08-24-02, LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE COST OF CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE PRINCETON-180 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, FIXING A CHARGE OF LIEN AGAINST ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN PHASE NUMBER ONE OF THE DISTRICT AND THE OWNERS PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER AND METHOD OF COLLECTION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS, MAKING A FINDING OF SPECIAL BENEFITS TO PROPERTY IN PHASE NUMBER ONE OF THE DISTRICT, APPROVING A SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN, PROVIDING A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
CAN WE PAUSE FOR A SECOND, KELLY? THE LIBRARY WANT TO GET ONE MORE PHOTO WITH CCWD JUST CAME.
WE WANT TO KIND OF RECAPTURE THAT PHOTO.
[00:30:14]
YEAH, SO YEAH, HE MISSED THE GATHERING. SO LET'S GET ONE DONE FOR HIM REAL QUICK.[K1. ORD-2026-08-24-02 Consider approving Ordinance No. 2026-08-24-02 levying assessments for the costs of certain improvements to be provided in the Princeton-180 Public Improvement District; fixing a charge and lien against all properties within Phase #1 of the district, and the owners thereof; providing for the manner and method of collection of such assessments; making a finding of special benefit to property in Phase #1 of the district; approving a service and assessment plan; providing a severability clause; and providing an effective date; and take appropriate action.]
ALL RIGHT, SORRY ABOUT THAT.ALL RIGHT, THIS WILL TAKE US BACK INTO K1 AND WE'RE READY FOR A PRESENTATION.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. JEFF GOEBBELS WITH MCCALL-PARKERS FOR THE CITY'S BOND COUNCIL.
MAYOR, QUICK QUESTION. I KNOW THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DID YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER THE PRESENTATION AND THEN DO Y'ALL WANT TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC HEARING OR HOW DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE THAT? TYPICALLY, I WOULD HAVE YOU PRESENT AND THEN DO THE PUBLIC HEARING AFTER.
YES, SIR, THAT WORKS. ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.
THE ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU IS CONSIDERATION OF LEVYING ASSESSMENTS FOR PRINCETON 180, ALSO KNOWN AS SERENITY. THIS IS YOUR NEWEST PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT IN THE CITY. THIS ONE WAS CREATED FEBRUARY LAST YEAR.
IT'S APPROXIMATELY 167 ACRES WITH A PROPOSAL OF ABOUT 700 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN LEVIED YET ON ANYTHING WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT. WE HAVE COMPLIED THE CITY SECRETARY'S PUBLISHED NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MAILED NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THIS DISTRICT. AND IF YOU ALL APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE TONIGHT, IT DOES FORMALLY LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS. WE DO NOT HAVE A BOND SALE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED.
PER THE DEVELOPERS TEAM, THEY ARE GETTING READY TO SELL HOMES. SO IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT, THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO BE LEVIED IN PLACE BEFORE THOSE HOMES BELONG TO THEIR END USERS.
SO THE ASSESSMENTS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN.
THESE ARE PREPARED AND UPDATED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR EACH IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT.
THESE ARE ON NCD FILES AND THESE ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE RECORDED IN THE REAL PROPERTY RECORDS.
THESE LEVY ASSESSMENTS ONLY ON PHASE ONE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH Y'ALL'S PRACTICES ON YOUR PRIOR IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS.
SO DEALING WITH ONLY PHASE ONE, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 60 ACRES WITH A PROPOSAL OF 213 SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. THESE ARE ALL 50-FOOT LOTS WITH A FINISH LOT VALUE OF 80,000. AN ESTIMATED COMPLETED HOME VALUE IS OF 375,000.
AND AGAIN, ASSUMING Y'ALL DO APPROVE THIS, WE WILL ENSURE IT GETS RECORDED IN REAL PROPERTY RECORDS WITHIN SEVEN DAYS. THIS IS A SNAPSHOT. LIKE I SAID, THE SAP CONTAINS A LOT OF INFORMATION AND A LOT OF DATA. IT IS THE GOVERNING DOCUMENT FOR ALL THESE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS, BUT I HAVE FOUND THAT MOST CITIES AND MOST HOMEOWNERS REALLY ONLY CARE ABOUT THIS INFORMATION.
I WAS SAYING THAT THERE'S A LOT IN THERE, WHICH IS HOW MANY HOMES, WHAT ARE THE LOT SIZES, WHAT IS THE COMPLETED LOT VALUE, AND WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED HOME VALUE, AND WHAT IS THE ASSESSMENT PER LOT. AND THAT IS THE INFORMATION SHOWN BEFORE YOU ON THE SCREEN.
I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, TYPICALLY WHEN WE LEVY THESE AND WE HAVE A BOND SALE THE SAME NIGHT, THESE ARE UPDATED TO REFLECT THE ACTUAL BOND SALE, MARKET INTEREST RATES, AND WHATNOT.
EVENTUALLY, I ASSUME THE DEVELOPERS WILL ASK Y'ALL TO APPROVE A BOND SALE FOR THIS, AND SO THESE ASSESSMENTS, ONCE THEY'RE FIXED, THEY CAN ONLY COME DOWN,
[00:35:01]
NOT UP, AND SO WE DON'T EVER INCREASE ASSESSMENTS FROM WHEN Y'ALL ADOPT THE INITIAL ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO ALSO ZACH WITH MUNICAT, THEY ARE YOUR PID ADMINISTRATOR. THEY PREPARED THE SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AFTER REVIEWING AND GATHERING INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM, SO ZACH IS ON HAND AS WELL IF Y'ALL HAVE ANY DETAILS ON THE PARTICULARS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS Y'ALL MIGHT HAVE.
IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I'LL OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS WILL OPEN UP A PUBLIC HEARING, AND I HAVE KEN SLIGMAN.
KEN SLIGMAN, ARCADIA FARMS. SO THIS DEVELOPMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN INITIATED. IT WAS CREATED AS PART OF A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, I'M ASSUMING. IT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE. THE LAST THAT WE HEARD WAS THE COUNCIL'S AND CITY'S POSITION ABOUT PIDS AFTER THE PLANNING RETREAT WAS THAT THE CITY HAD NO AVERSION TO CREATING MORE PIDS GOING FORWARD. THE REASON GIVEN WAS THAT OTHER DEVELOPERS SHOULD BE GIVEN THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES THAT THE PREVIOUS DEVELOPERS HAD, AND I JUST WANT TO VOICE MY OPINION, STRONG OPPOSITION TO THAT. WE HAVE ENOUGH BURDEN. WE'RE BEHIND ON INFRASTRUCTURE NOW, AND WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME PAYING FOR THE M&O TO UPKEEP WHAT WE HAVE AND STAFF AND TO BE ABLE TO BUDGET FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED, AND WE DON'T NEED TO BE USING ANY MORE OF OUR LENDING CAPACITY, OUR CREDIT CAPACITY, TO ENCOURAGE MORE BUILDING, TO BRING IN MORE, EXPEDITE THE RATE OF HOUSING.
IT'S NOT GOING TO HELP. I WANT TO JUST STRONGLY VOICE MY OPPOSITION TO ANY MORE PIDS BEING APPROVED. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. AND I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY ELSE WHO TURNED IN A SIGN TO FORM. SO AT THIS TIME, THE TIME IS 7 31, AND THIS WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. AT THIS TIME, COUNCIL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
YOU CAN ASK MORE QUESTIONS IF YOU NEED. SO I WANTED THE RESIDENTS TO HAVE THE PUBLIC SPEAKING BEFORE WE MAKE COMMENTS ON THIS. I DO HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE CLARIFICATION ON THAT. WHEN THIS PID WAS VOTED ON FEBRUARY 10TH OF 2025, WAS THE RESIDENT THERE THAT SPOKE OUT AGAINST, AND THEN IT PASSED ANYWAY 4 TO 2. YOU CAN GUESS WHO THE TWO NOBLES WERE FOR THIS NEWLY CREATED PID.
THE QUESTION THAT I HAVE HERE IS ON THE ORDINANCE CERTIFICATE.
IT SAYS THAT AUGUST 24TH MEETING IS VIA CONFERENCE CALL IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE REMOVE THAT BECAUSE THAT WOULDN'T BE FACTUAL. WE'RE ACTUALLY MEETING ON IT, NOT VIA CONFERENCE CALL.
YES, SIR. WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEANED UP. I'LL GRAB THOSE, AMBER, AND MAKE THAT.
ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE, JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, THE PID, THE DEBT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION, IF THERE WAS EVER A SITUATION FOR THESE PIDS, AND THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR, TO WHERE THE CITY COULDN'T COVER THE PAYMENT, HOW DOES THAT REIMBURSEMENT IMPACT THE CITY? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE WAS ANOTHER CITY TWO WEEKS AGO WHERE THIS QUESTION CAME UP.
THE CITY IS NOT ON THE HOOK FINANCIALLY, LEGALLY, IN ANY RESPECT WHATSOEVER ON THIS PID OR ANY OF YOUR PRIOR PIDS. IT SAYS SO ON THE OFFERING DOCUMENTS TO GO TO INVESTORS. THIS ISN'T AN OBLIGATION OF THE CITY, OF THE COUNTY, OF ANY OTHER JURISDICTION.
UNLIKE WHEN YOU ALL ISSUE BONDS OR CERTIFICATES FOR YOUR OWN PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, THESE ARE SECURED SOLELY BY THE ASSESSMENTS THAT ARE ATTACHED TO THE LAND AND THEN EACH PARCEL AS IT'S SUBDIVIDED.
IN NO RESPECT DOES PRINCETON, SALINA, ANY OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT USE IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS EVER COME OUT OF POCKET TO PAY ANYTHING IF THESE ARE GOING TO DEFAULT. THE DEFAULT RATE IS ZERO IN TEXAS ON THESE, BUT TO YOUR QUESTION, WHAT DOES
[00:40:02]
HAPPEN IF IT WOULD HAPPEN OR IF THESE WERE TO BECOME DISTRESSED? UNLIKE ALL OF YOUR OTHER, YOUR KIND OF PLAIN VANILLA BOND FINANCINGS BY THE CITY, THESE ARE ADMINISTERED BY A THIRD-PARTY TRUSTEE BANK, AND THAT TRUSTEE IS DIRECTED IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT IF THERE IS A DEFAULT THAT THEY FORECLOSE ON ANY DEFAULTED PROPERTIES.THE FORECLOSURE PROCEEDINGS ARE WHAT ARE USED TO REPAY THEM.
AGAIN, TEXAS HAS NOT BEEN IN THAT. WE KIND OF LEARNED OUR LESSON FROM FLORIDA WHEN THEY HAD THIS MODEL, AND SO OUR STATUTORY FRAMEWORK IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO THOSE. SO WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT. IF IT DOES HAPPEN, WE RUN INTO ANOTHER ECONOMIC RECESSION. I COULD CONCEIVABLY SEE IT HAPPENING, BUT AGAIN, IT HASN'T EVER HIT THE POCKETBOOK IN THE CITY. I TOO HAVE AN INQUIRY. MS. HUNT? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS GOES TO YOU OR TO KELLY.
SO THE VERBIAGE IN THIS AGREEMENT FOR THE PID STATES 50-FOOT PROPERTIES. HOWEVER, I COUNT IN THIS AREA SPECIFICALLY FIVE THAT ARE NOT, AND THEN THE PART THAT'S FADED OUT, SO FOR THE FUTURE PHASES, THREE ADDITIONAL ONES JUST FROM THIS ONE PAGE I'M LOOKING AT THAT DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE 50-FOOT LOTS, WHICH IS WRITTEN WITHIN THE AGREEMENT THAT ALL THESE LOTS WILL BE 50-FOOT. SO IT'S NOT MEETING THAT. I'M HAPPY TO SHOW YOU THE LOTS THAT ARE NOT 50-FOOT, AND THAT'S NOT 50-FOOT ON BOTH SIDES. THERE ARE SEVERAL THAT ARE JUST NOT 50-FOOT ON ONE SIDE AS WELL.
GOOD EVENING, MAY AND COUNCILMAN ZACH BARRETT, THE CITY'S PID ADMINISTRATOR.
COULD I SEE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT? I CAN COMPARE IT TO THIS.
SO FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THIS IS GENERALLY TYPICAL THAT HAPPENS.
THEY DON'T CUT EVERY LOT EXACTLY TO THAT 50-FEET IN THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS NOTHING ATYPICAL FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN. AS FAR AS ANY FURTHER INFORMATION ON EXACTLY WHY IT'S MAYBE A HALF FOOT OFF OR SOME OF THEM A COUPLE OF FEET OFF, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT WOULD LEAD TO THAT.
I MEAN, BECAUSE SOME OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES GO PAST THE 50-FEET, SO WE COULD HAVE MADE THEM BOTH 50-FEET. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE SOME CURIOUS MINDS ARE AT. AND SINCE THE AGREEMENT ONLY MENTIONS THE 50-FEET, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE HOUSES THAT DON'T MEET THAT CRITERIA ARE NOT WITHIN THIS PID, OR ARE THEY ALSO GOING TO BE WITHIN THIS PID? HOW DOES THAT WORK IF THEY'RE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED AND OUR PID IS VERY SPECIFIC ON THE LOT SIDE? MS. TODD AND SIR, I REMEMBER WE HAD A SIMILAR DISCUSSION, AND CHAI HAD GIVEN SOME RATIONALE AS TO WHY THIS MAY BE THE CASE.
SO I'M WONDERING IF MAYBE WE COULD JUST PROBABLY DEFER AND HAVE HER PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO US.
EXCEPT WE'RE MAKING A VOTE TONIGHT TO APPROVE THIS. SO IT'S PERTINENT INFORMATION.
SO THE PROPERTY ISN'T CURRENTLY SUBDIVIDED. SO IT'S A SINGLE PROPERTY OWNER, RIGHT? THESE HAVE NOT BEEN PLATTED AND CHOPPED UP IN THE PARTICULAR LOTS. AND SO WHEN THE ASSESSMENTS GET LEVIED, THEY GET LEVIED ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE 57.24 ACRES, WHATEVER IT IS, MAYBE.
AS THE DEVELOPER PLATS IT AND ARRANGES ITS LOT LINES, SO NOTHING'S EXCLUDED. IT'S THE ENTIRE LAND THAT'S IN THERE, AND AS THAT GETS SUBDIVIDED AND SUBDIVIDED AND SUBDIVIDED, THOSE ASSESSMENTS ARE THEN ALSO CHOPPED UP SO THAT IT LINES UP WITH EACH PARCEL. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, I GUESS, MS. TODD, THERE ISN'T ANY POTENTIAL FUTURE HOME THAT IS NOT EXCLUDED. IF YOU ALL PASS THIS ORDINANCE, ALL OF THAT LAND WITHIN THIS 57 ACRES, DOES THESE ASSESSMENTS ATTACH TO THAT LAND? SO THEN HOW DOES THAT WORK THEN? SO IF WE'RE SAYING LIKE EVERYTHING'S 50 FOOT, BUT SAY YOU'RE THE RESIDENT WHO PURCHASES THE HOME THAT'S
[00:45:02]
LIKE 30 SOMETHING FEET, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THE SAME COST EXPECTATIONS FOR THAT MUCH SMALLER LOT THAN THE 50? YOU DO NOT. AND THE SAP DOES HAVE A METHODOLOGY FOR THAT.NOW, I'M NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE DEVELOPMENT MATERIALS WHEN THEY COME TO SUBMIT THEIR PLAT, BUT I EXPECT AND YOU ALL DO A VERY GOOD JOB OF MAKING SURE THAT THEY BRING TO YOU AND BUILD WHAT THEY HAVE TOLD YOU THEY'RE GOING TO BRING TO YOU AND BUILD. BUT THERE ARE ANY TIME IF YOU HAVE ALL 50 FOOT LOTS, THEN THOSE HAVE THE SAME ASSESSMENT.
BUT THERE IS A METHODOLOGY IN THERE THAT IF SOME SHRINK OR GROW, THEN THEY HAVE TO ABSORB THEIR PRO RATA SHRINKAGE OR GROWTH.
THANK YOU. YOU CAN SAY YOUR NAME AND WE WILL TURN ON YOUR MIC. SORRY, IT SAYS ON.
THERE WE GO. HI, JOSH WITH CODES FOR DEVELOPERS COUNCIL FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
RECALL THAT WE DID A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WHERE WE CLARIFIED THE CONCEPT PLAN AS A DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO.
AND YOU GUYS POINTED OUT AN INACCURACY AND WHAT WAS PRESENTED BEFORE YOU GUYS VERSUS WHAT WAS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
SO WE DID HAVE OUR FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT ADDED THAT ADDITIONAL CONCEPT PLAN. YOU GUYS ALL APPROVED THAT. WE ARE DEVELOPING THIS PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THAT CONCEPT PLAN. SAP AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING DONE WITH THE PID IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WITH THAT FIRST AMENDMENT. SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.
I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS. I'M ALSO NOT AN ENGINEER.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU THE CALCULATIONS THAT GO INTO WHAT IS CONSIDERED A 50 FOOT LOT EXACTLY, BUT THAT IS ALL COVERED BY OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT.
THAT'S A FINAL PLAT WE VOTED ON, NOT A CONCEPT PLAN. THAT IS DEFINITELY A FINAL PLAT ON OUR AGENDA VOTED ON. JUNE 23RD, 2026, YOU ALL CAME TO US WITH A FINAL PLAT. THAT'S NOT A CONCEPT PLAN.
AND THE FINAL PLAT IS WHAT IS SHOWING A 30-SOMETHING FOOT LOT AND SUCH. YEAH, I SUPPOSE WHAT I'M SAYING TO CLARIFY IS THAT THAT SHOULD MATCH WHAT THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU GUYS ALSO APPROVED. SO THIS HAS BEEN THE CONTEMPLATED LAYOUT FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES THAT I UNDERSTAND.
AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. I COULDN'T SPEAK FOR HOW SHY EXPLAINED THAT TO YOU GUYS, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THERE'S NO ISSUE FROM OUR SIDE THAT WITH IT NOT BEING A 50-FOOT LOT AND TO KIND OF SECOND WHAT MR. GOLDBUSS SAID. THERE ARE MECHANISMS IN PLACE WITH THE SAP THAT IF THINGS DO SHRINK BEYOND A CERTAIN AMOUNT THEN THERE'S MANDATORY PAYMENTS THAT ARE DUE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
MR. RUTLEDGE? I JUST WANT TO SEE IF SOMEONE COULD POINT OUT TO ME. I KNOW COUNCILWOMAN TODD MENTIONED THAT IN THE ORDINANCE IT CALLS OUT THE 50-FOOT LOTS. I'M JUST I'M NOT SEEING WHERE IT SAYS THAT SPECIFICALLY. IT WAS IN THE SLIDE, BUT NOT IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.
YEAH, AND IT'S A PART OF THE PID THAT THEY'RE THE ASSESSMENT AND THE FEE. DOES THAT MATTER THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT ACTUALLY LISTED THAT WAY IN THE ORDINANCE? SO THESE SAPS GET UPDATED AND SO THERE'S A CONCEPT, THERE'S A DRAWING OF WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE.
IT SAYS 213, I THINK 50-FOOT LOTS. I THINK AND I DIDN'T SEE WHAT COUNCILMEMBER TODD, THERE MIGHT BE ONE SHOWING 39 CORRECT AND THE OTHER IS ALL BETWEEN 49 AND 53.
AGAIN, THE WAY THIS IS HANDLED IS WHEN THOSE ASSESSMENTS DO GET FINALIZED WHEN THOSE LOTS GET SOLD IS THOSE HAVE TO GET TRUED UP TO WHATEVER THE FRONTAGE IS.
BUT IF THERE'S A CONCERN WITH THE ACTUAL LOT VALUE SIZING BASED ON THAT, THAT'D BE A LINEAR QUESTION.
I GUESS FOR ME, MY LOGIC KIND OF COMES TO LIKE I THINK LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS, RIGHT? THE ORDINANCE IS ACTUALLY THE THING THAT WE'RE APPROVING, RIGHT? SO IF IT'S NOT ANY VERBIAGE LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE THAT CONTRADICTS OR AND I GET HER POINT, I COMPLETELY GET THAT POINT, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE IF THIS WAS APPROVED HOW THAT WOULD CAUSE AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY STATE THE LOT SIZE. SO I GET THAT SHE'S CONCERNED ABOUT SOME LOTS BEING 30 AND SOME BEING LARGER THAN THAT, BUT FROM WHAT WE'RE APPROVING HERE, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT, IT DOESN'T GET THAT SPECIFIC, IT DOESN'T GET THAT GRANULAR, SO IT DOESN'T, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD HAVE ANY RAMIFICATIONS TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS ORDINANCE. SURE, SURE.
AND YOU'RE CORRECT IN THAT THE ORDINANCE,
[00:50:01]
NOW THE SAP IS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE AND Y'ALL DO APPROVE THAT AND THAT GETS WHAT RECORDED. NOW THAT DOESN'T IDENTIFY BY MEETS AND BOUNDS OR WHATEVER EVERY SINGLE WATT SIZE BECAUSE IT'S NOT CARVED UP AND PLANTED IN THIS DOCUMENT.THE ASSESSMENT IS ATTACHED TO THE WHOLE, BUT I WILL SAY FOR ANY CITY, INCLUDING Y'ALL, WE TRY TO BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL THAT WHAT IS APPROVED IS THE ACTUAL REALITY AND SO WE, WHILE VARIANCES DO OCCUR, WE TRY TO AVOID THEM AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE AND SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE VERY SPECIFICS. I THINK OF THIS ONE LOT THAT THEY CAUGHT COUNCIL MEMBER TODD'S ATTENTION, BUT AGAIN, LAMAR HAS THEIR REPRESENTATIVES HERE AND IF THIS IS GOING TO HOLD IT UP, I WOULD SAY THAT'S, YOU KNOW.
THANK YOU. MR. MITTALONG? IF THIS IS IN REFERENCE TO LIKE THE PIE-SHAPED LOTS, THE LOT WIDTH IS DETERMINED AT THE BUILD LINE, SO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE UNDERSTANDING THAT TOO. NOT THE PIES. SO I THINK IT WAS COUNCIL MEMBER TODD, ONE LOT YOU SAW THE 39 FOOT.
SO ONE ON THE CURRENT, FROM THAT FINAL PLOT SPECIFICALLY, BUT IN THAT FINAL PLOT YOU SEE THE GREAT AREA OF THE NEXT AREA AND THERE ARE THREE IN THERE THAT ARE SMALLER AND JUST FROM THAT LITTLE SNAPSHOT THERE AND SO WE'RE GOING TO BE COMING BACK FOR THAT ONE AND SO WE'LL HAVE THOSE THREE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT, IF A RESIDENT IS GETTING THE SMALLER LOT, THEY'RE NOT EXPECTED TO BE PAYING THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT AS SOMEONE WHO IS GETTING THE EXPECTED LOT BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE FAIR AND EQUITABLE. 100% AND YOU'RE RIGHT AND THE LAW DOESN'T EVEN ALLOW US TO DO THAT. IT HAS TO BE EQUITABLE IN UNIFORM IS THE WORDS AND SO YOU'RE RIGHT, YOU CAN'T HAVE A 30-FOOT LOT OWNER PAYING THE SAME ASSESSMENT AS SOMEONE ON A 60-FOOT LOT AND SO I THINK, JUST MY QUICK SIDEBAR WITH ZACH, I THINK THERE'S THE ONE 39-FOOT LOT THAT YOU FOUND, BUT ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE GRAYED OUT IS GOING TO PERTAIN TO A FUTURE PHASES WHICH WE'RE NOT TOUCHING WITH THIS DOCUMENT TONIGHT. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE TOTAL ASSESSMENT IN THE SAP. IT MENTIONED HERE THE ANNUAL INSTALLMENT PER HOME WILL BE $1,505 AND I JUST WANTED TO KNOW IF THAT IS A FIXED OBLIGATION OR IF THAT COULD VARY DEPENDING ON CERTAIN COMPONENTS AND IF IT COULD INCREASE BASED ON THOSE COMPONENTS, JUST A LITTLE INFORMATION ON WHAT COMPONENTS COULD ACTUALLY INCREASE THAT. YES, SO IT WON'T GO UP. SO THE PLANS IN THE FUTURE ARE TO ISSUE BONDS AND THIS INITIAL REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT IS CONTEMPLATING A HIGHER THAN AVERAGE WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN BOND SALES INTEREST RATE.
SO WHENEVER THEY DO GO TO SALE BONDS, YOU'LL SEE THE ASSESSMENTS DECREASE MOST LIKELY BECAUSE OF THE LOWER INTEREST RATE, BUT THAT ASSESSMENT AMOUNT IN THIS DOCUMENT WILL NOT INCREASE AND SO THAT WILL JUST GET SPLIT FROM THERE ON TO THE BONDS. SO THIS IS THE CAPPED AMOUNT BASICALLY. THIS IS THE CEILING.
YES. OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT, THERE'S NO FURTHER QUESTIONS OR ENTERTAINING MOTION AT THIS TIME.
YARON, I HAD A QUESTION. IF YOU CAN GIVE ME, WELL, I KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR THIS WAS COMPLETED JULY 2024. I IMMEDIATELY DID NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET THAT DOCUMENT TO REVIEW IT, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING THE RAMIFICATIONS OF IF COUNCIL WERE TO COLLECTIVELY VOTE NO ON THIS ITEM TONIGHT, WHAT PREDICAMENT WOULD THAT PUT US IN? BECAUSE I KNOW WE'RE NOT VOTING ON A PID.
THE PID IS ALREADY CREATED, RIGHT? SO WE'RE VOTING ON THE ITEM WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES WOULD BE IF IT DID FAIL TONIGHT. I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE A BETTER DISCUSSION TO HAVE IN CLOSED SESSION. THERE'S LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS KIND OF BEHIND THAT QUESTION. THAT WOULD JUST BE MY ONLY ADVICE.
IF YOU DON'T PASS THIS TONIGHT, THE DEVELOPER IS GOING TO ASK YOU TO RECONSIDER IT AT A FUTURE MEETING AND ADDRESS WHATEVER CONCERNS YOU MIGHT HAVE THAT MIGHT BE SLUNG ABOUT.
WHEN WE ENTER INTO THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, IT'S UNDERSTOOD AND THE AGREEMENT SPECIFIES THAT ALL PARTIES ARE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD IN GOOD FAITH. I AM ON THE SIDE OF THE CITY. I WORK WITH Y'ALL. I DO NOT WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS. BUT HAVING DONE I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF THESE IN MANY CITIES.
DEVELOPER WANTS TO COME TO A CITY. CITY SAYS WE WANT
[00:55:06]
YOUR DEVELOPMENT.AND SO IT DOESN'T WORK FOR EITHER SIDE, DEVELOPER OR CITY, TO SAY WE ACTUALLY DON'T LIKE YOU ANYMORE WHETHER THE CITY'S INCURRED A BUNCH OF COSTS TOWARDS THE PROJECT OR THE DEVELOPER'S INCURRED A BUNCH OF COSTS OF THE PROJECT. IF Y'ALL WERE ON THE LOSING SIDE OF THAT, YOU WOULD WANT TO BE MADE WHOLE AND IT'S THE SAME FOR THE DEVELOPERS. AND SO THAT'S WHY I SAY THIS.
THESE ARE VERY TRICKY AND THEY'RE VERY TOUCHY. AND IT'S AGAIN MY HEART SENTIMENT IS ALWAYS WITH MUNICIPALITIES AND SORRY BUT DEVELOPERS DO TEND TO IRRITATE ME AS WELL. BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THEIR POINT IF THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD AND INCUR COSTS AND BUY LAND AND ALL THAT THAT THEY THEY'RE NOT LEFT OUT GRADING AND DRAINAGE AND ALL THOSE IMPROVEMENTS. AND SO THEY I WILL SAY IN OTHER CITIES THEY'RE PREPARED TO GET MADE WHOLE.
BUT AGAIN IT'S ALWAYS WITHIN YOUR LEGISLATIVE DISCRETION.
NONE OF THESE AGREEMENTS EVER BIND Y'ALL OR SAY YOU MUST.
YOU HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE PROCESS AND YOU HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU.
AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS LIKE WHEN WE HAD WITH THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THIS THAT YOU NEED ANSWERS ON, IT IS WITHIN YOUR PREROGATIVE TO SAY WE WOULD LIKE THIS ADDRESSED. AND ASSUMING THESE DEVELOPERS DO THAT, THEN IN GOOD FAITH IT'S THE CITY'S NEXT STEP TO SAY YOU'VE ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS.
NOW WE AGREE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH YOU AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO WITH THAT IS THERE IS THERE CONCERN THAT YOU WOULD LIKE THIS TO BE BROUGHT BACK OR? I WAS GOING TO ALSO POINT OUT TO YOU THAT ALL OF THE LOTS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE 50-FOOT LOTS. PURSUE IT TO THE SAP TO THE LAST FOUR PAGES 91 THROUGH 94. ALL OF THE HOMES ARE LISTED AS 50-FOOT LOTS. AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? YES. OKAY. SO THIS GOES TO PUBLIC WORKS. JANUARY 1ST, 2026, NEW LAW OR LEGISLATION PASSED REGARDING REIMBURSEMENTS FOR SOME OF THOSE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE THE WATER AND WASTEWATER AND THOSE IMPACTS AND ALL OF THAT.
THESE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, THE PIDS HELP PAY FOR THOSE THINGS. SO ARE THEY ELIGIBLE FOR BOTH THEY'RE GETTING THE PID MONEY AND THEN THEY CAN TURN AROUND AND ASK US FOR REIMBURSEMENT IN ADDITION TO FOR THOSE IMPROVEMENTS OR IS IT ONE OR THE OTHER? GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. SO FOR RELATED TO THE REIMBURSEMENT PROCESS FOR PID WE WOULD HAVE TO CIRCLE THIS BACK WITH OUR FINANCE TEAM AND WE WILL MAKE SURE TO GET A DEFINITIVE ANSWER FOR YOU.
SO IT'S SENATE BILL 14 THAT PASSED. SO IT'S THE WATER UTILITIES AND THE CREDITS AGAINST FOR THOSE IMPACT FEES. SO RIGHT NOW WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT FOR SOME OF THOSE THINGS FOR WHEN THEY GO IN AND PUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.
BUT IF THEY'RE USING A PID TO PUT IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE THEY'RE NOT ACTUALLY REALLY PAYING FOR IT. THE RESIDENTS ARE THE ONES PAYING FOR IT.
SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THEY'RE ABLE TO DOUBLE DIP ON THAT AND USE THE PID AND GET THE MONEY FROM THE RESIDENTS FOR MAKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS AND THEN TURN AROUND AND TELL US HEY WE DID THIS WITH EXTRA ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS PAY US BACK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THAT'S WHAT THE LAW SAYS IF THEY MEET THOSE STANDARDS THEN WE HAVE TO PAY THEM BACK IF THEY ASK FOR IT. ASSUMING THAT MAYBE WE DID HOPEFULLY PUT TOGETHER OUR SCHEDULE ON THAT AND HOW THAT'S ASSESSED. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DOUBLE DIPPING OR WELL AND YOU KNOW THE LAST SESSION WAS VERY DEVELOPER FRIENDLY AND VERY NOT MUNICIPAL FRIENDLY.
SO NOT SPEAKING TO IMPACT FEES OR CREDITS ON IMPACT FEES. SO THESE DEVELOPMENTS ALWAYS HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT COMPONENT AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBERS THE PID NEVER FULLY SUPPORTS THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE.
IT DOESN'T. THE PID PAYS FOR SOME BUT ALMOST INVARIABLY 100 PERCENT OF THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM HAS TO BRING EQUITY INTO THE PROJECT TO MAKE IT BECAUSE IT CAN'T SUPPORT ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS.
SO YOU HAVE TWO COMPONENTS YOU HAVE A REIMBURSEMENT MEANING
[01:00:01]
WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO INCUR THESE COSTS AND YOU AGREE TO REIMBURSE US OVER TIME OR WE SELL BONDS AND SO EVERY CITY MAKES THAT DETERMINATION NOWADAYS WITH LOW RATES MOST CITIES PREFER TO ISSUE BONDS BECAUSE OF THE HEADACHE THAT COMES WITH THE DEVELOPER THEY'LL GET REIMBURSED THEIR COSTS UNDER THE AGREEMENTS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. NOW IF IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT THAT COULD TAKE 20 YEARS AS THESE ASSESSMENTS COME IN FROM THE HOMEOWNERS EVERY YEAR WHICH THEN THEY TURN AROUND AND THEY SELL THAT FOR PENNIES ON THE DOLLAR AS A REIMBURSEMENT OBLIGATION OR THE CITY ISSUES BONDS AND PAYS THEIR REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES UP FRONT WHICH IS TODAY THE MORE COMMON APPROACH. SO WHAT I'M HEARING IS THEY WILL BE ABLE TO DOUBLE DIP BECAUSE IT'S SAYING THAT QUALIFIED IMPROVEMENTS IS THE CREDIT SUPPLIES WHEN A BUILDER OR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTES OR DEDICATES FACILITY SYSTEMS OR PRODUCTS RESULTING IN MEASURABLE WATER REUSE CONSERVATION OR SAVINGS AND THE LAW IS INCENTIVIZING THAT PUBLIC INVESTMENT INTO THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO REDUCE THE LONG-TERM BURDEN.THEY WILL NEVER GET REIMBURSED OR PAID MORE THAN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMOUNT WHETHER IT'S REIMBURSABLE OR BOND PROCEEDS. OKAY SO IF THEY COME TO US ON THE CITY SIDE AND THEY'RE LIKE HEY WE DID THIS WE GET REIMBURSED THEY CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT ON THE PID SIDE AS WELL SO THEY IT'LL MAX OUT.
CORRECT IT MAXES OUT. SO THEN IT COULD BE BENEFICIAL TO OUR RESIDENTS THEN WHO ARE STUCK WITH THIS PID THEY MAY NOT HAVE TO PAY AS MUCH BACK IF THEY'VE GONE AND GOTTEN THAT REIMBURSEMENT.
THE THE ASSESSMENTS ARE SIZED BASED ON THE REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT SO THE DEVELOPER SAYS WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN 50 MILLION DOLLARS OF INFRASTRUCTURE CITY YOU AGREE TO PAY IT'S 15 MILLION THAT 15 MILLION IS THE REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT THAT'S WHAT THE ASSESSMENTS ARE TIED TO WHETHER THAT COMES REIMBURSED OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS 10 15 20 25 YEARS OR THROUGH A BOND ISSUE WHICH WIPES OUT THAT REIMBURSABLE AMOUNT.
SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GETTING IT SO IN ADDITION TO YOUR STUFF WITH THE PIDS THERE IS A NEW LAW OUTSIDE OF THE PID THAT REQUIRES US TO PROVIDE CREDITS WHEN THE DEVELOPER INSTALLS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS GREEN FRIENDLY SO ASIDE FROM THE PID THEY GO IN THEY GO GREEN FRIENDLY THEY PUT THIS STUFF IN THEY CAN GO TO PUBLIC WORKS AND BE LIKE HEY WE DID THIS AND WE ARE SUPPOSED TO HAVE A FEE STRUCTURE AND CREDIT SYSTEM IN PLACE ON OUR SIDE TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH WE'RE GIVING BACK FROM THAT SIDE. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE RIGHT IT WAS VERY DEVELOPER FRIENDLY AND THEY'VE NOW CREATED A WAY FOR A DEVELOPER TO HIT BOTH SIDES THEY CAN COME CASH IN HERE AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO GETTING THE PID OVER HERE. ALL RIGHT AT THIS TIME WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YOUR HONOR ESPECIALLY WITH THE LOOMING QUESTIONS WE STILL HAVE ABOUT THIS ONE I STILL HAVE QUESTIONS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE ATTORNEY. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS INTO THE SEPTEMBER 21ST MEETING.
ALL RIGHT WE HAVE A MOTION DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
SORRY I'D LIKE TO GIVE I GUESS MODIFY MY MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING.
YEAH WHO ABSTAINED? FOR THE RECORD I ABSTAINED BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE TO HEAR THE MOTION.
SO AND ABSTAIN ISN'T THAT CONSIDERED A NO VOTE? IT'S NOT A NO. OKAY I SHOULD MAKE SURE.
[G4. 2026-196 Consider a Non-Standard Water and Wastewater Service Agreement ("NSSA") between the City of Princeton, Texas (the "City"), and D.R. Horton – Texas, Ltd. (the "Developer") for the Silvertrails Development; and take appropriate action.]
ALL RIGHT THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA STARTING WITH THE ITEM THAT WAS PULLED FROM CONSENT WHICH WILL BE G4.ITEM G4 2026-196 CONSIDER A NON-STANDARD WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON TEXAS AND D.R. HORTON TEXAS LTD FOR THE SILVER TRAILS DEVELOPMENT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL SHARITA CUITO-DAME INTERIM ASSISTANT DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC WORKS.
I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS NSFA THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
ALL RIGHT HOW YOU DOING TONIGHT? GOOD HOW ARE YOU? CAN
[01:05:02]
I JUST BE BLUNT ACTUALLY IS THIS ARE WE DOING THIS FOR A DATA CENTER? DOES THIS IS THIS WATER INITIATIVE FOR A DATA CENTER AT ALL? IT WAS NOT PRESENTED THAT WAY WHEN NSFA WAS WRITTEN OUT AND EVEN PART OF THE DISCUSSIONS WITH PRE-CONSTRUCTION AND ALL THAT STUFF NOBODY DISCUSSED THE DATA CENTER CONCERNING THE CENTER.NO SIR. PERFECT OKAY I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
ALL RIGHT SO I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE FEE PROVISIONS IN THE AGREEMENT CORRECTLY.
I WAS READING IN THE SECTION FOUR IT HAS THE CURRENT WASTEWATER CONNECTION FEE AS 04,500 AND NINE FOUR THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED AND FIFTY NINE PER ESFC BUT THE AGREEMENT SAYS THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY RECALCULATING THE FEE AND ALLOWS THE REVISED FEE TO APPLY TO THIS DEVELOPMENT BUT IT ONLY SAYS THAT THE REVISED FEE CANNOT EXCEED THAT 08,000 ESFC. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IS THERE A REASON THE CITY IS CONTRACTUALLY LIMITING THE ABILITY TO ADJUST THE FEE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT SINCE IT PUTS US AT A FIVE YEAR TO WHERE WE CAN'T ADJUST IT.
DO WE KNOW WHY WE CAPPED IT OFF THAT WAY? I'M GOING TO DEFER TO LEGAL FOR THAT.
OKAY THOSE WERE THE AMOUNTS THAT WERE GIVEN TO ME BY PUBLIC WORKS.
SO THIS ISN'T TECHNICAL LIKE BORDER PLATE THIS IS LIKE AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WE PUT IT'S THIS IS NOT LIKE A STATE LAW STANDARD WE JUST SAID.
OKAY DO WE KNOW IF WE ARE LIKE IT'S RECEIVED ANYTHING IN EXCHANGE FOR THAT CAP LIKE FOR THAT IT'S A FIVE-YEAR LIMITATION ON THAT SO ARE WE LIKE MAKING SURE THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE MAINTENANCE THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS ABSORBED LIKE IS THAT FEE THAT WE'RE CAPPING OURSELVES AT DO WE KNOW IF WE PUT IN SOME CUSHION JUST IN CASE THE MAINTENANCE HAPPENS AFTER THE FIVE YEAR THAT WE'RE PROTECTED AND THE THE COST OF THAT REPAIR WON'T BE ON THE RESIDENTS TO COVER THOSE FEES OR IF MAYBE THERE'S AN OPTION TO REMOVE THE CAP DATE HERE SO THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE IS ALLOWED TO PAY FOR IT. IN FULL TRANSPARENCY I DON'T THINK THAT THERE WAS A CUSHION PUT IN HOWEVER PURPOSE OF BRINGING IT TO YOU ALL IS FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SOMETHING WE CAN REVISIT AND GO BACK IN CORRECT? OKAY YEAH WE CAN WE CAN ALWAYS RUN THESE NSSAS BACK THROUGH THE OTHER PARTY AS WELL IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO RECONSIDER IN THEM AS WELL.
OKAY SORRY I HAD A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THIS WAS A DATA CENTER ONE SO I WAS I WAS READY. MY NAME WOULDN'T BE ON IT BUT HERE WE ARE. SO YEAH THE AGREEMENT ALSO REQUIRES US THE CITY TO MAINTAIN THE WASTEWATER FACILITIES AND IT DOES QUOTE HERE IN GOOD REPAIR AND WORKING CONDITION AT ALL TIMES.
WHEN WE SAY WE CAN TAKE IT BACK TO RECALCULATE THE THE LIFE CYCLE AND OPERATING MAINTENANCE FOR THE WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY COST OUTSIDE OF THAT I JUST I WANT TO KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD LOOK INTO. OKAY WE ABSOLUTELY CAN.
ALL RIGHT YOU I'M GOOD TO GO? I CAN KEEP ON YOU GOT THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
ALL RIGHT SO IN THE PROVISION SECTION 25 AS I WAS READING THROUGH THERE AND THE AGREEMENT SAYS THAT NEITHER PARTY MAY ASSIGN ITS RIGHTS OR OBLIGATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE OTHER PARTY. SO INITIALLY IT LOOKS LIKE THE CITY WILL RETAIN THE ABILITY TO REVIEW AND THE CITY WILL RETAIN THE ABILITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE FUTURE ASSIGNMENT.
THIS IS THE PART WHERE I WAS LIKE HMM ALL RIGHT THE PLOT THICKENS BUT THEN THE VERY NEXT PROVISION CREATES AN EXCEPTION.
IT SAYS THE CITY ACKNOWLEDGED IN CONSENT TO THE DEVELOPER ASSIGNING THIS AGREEMENT TO A SUBSEQUENT LAND DEVELOPER A DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY OR THE DISTRICT AND AS I'M READING IT THE FUTURE ASSIGNMENT WOULD ONLY REQUIRE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CITY AND THE NEW PARTY AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. SO LEGALLY IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONCE WE APPROVE THIS AGREEMENT TONIGHT IF WE APPROVE IT TONIGHT WE ARE ALSO GIVEN OUR CONSENT TODAY TO A FUTURE ASSIGNMENT TO ANOTHER DEVELOPER OR THE DISTRICT WITHOUT ASSIGNMENT HAVING TO COME BACK TO THE CITY FOR APPROVAL. SO IT CAN BE REASSIGNED WITHOUT US KNOWING WHO IS BEING ASSIGNED TO. AND I UNDERSTAND THE AMBIGUOUS NATURE OF THE THE VERBIAGE SO I MEAN IT'S UP TO YOU WHAT YOU ALL WANT TO DO BUT I WOULD LIKE TO CLEAN THAT UP BECAUSE YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY
[01:10:01]
RIGHT YES SIR. OKAY WHERE ARE YOU READING SO I CAN KEEP UP WITH YOU. SORRY THAT WAS SECTION 25. OKAY. OKAY SORRY.AND I HAVE ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THE BREACH AND TERMINATION PORTION OF THIS CONTRACT. THE TERMINATION DOESN'T GIVE US THE IT BASICALLY STATES THAT THERE'S NOTHING THAT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO EVEN IF THEY DON'T DO WHAT'S REQUIRED AS FAR AS THE MAINTAIN MAINTENANCE IT DOESN'T GIVE US AN EXIT FOR THE TERMINATION.
WE ARE STILL RESPONSIBLE TO HONOR THE CONTRACT IN HERE SO THAT HAS A FOR ME IS A HUGE CONCERN.
UNDERSTANDABLY SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT KELLY AND I CAN COLLABORATE WITH AND WRITE AGAIN MORE CLEAR LANGUAGE TO SAY HEY IF YOU DON'T UPHOLD YOUR PORTION THEN WE ELIMINATE OUR PORTION. YEAH IT HAS A 60 DAY BREACH THE PARTY GIVES A NOTICE OF BREACH TO CURE AND I KNEW THAT WAS LIKE SOME LEGAL JARGON BUT YOU KNOW I COULDN'T FIND ANYWHERE IN HERE UNLESS I YOU KNOW MISREAD SOMEWHERE IN THE TERMINATION AGREEMENT IT WASN'T THAT LONG BUT I COULDN'T SEE ANYTHING WHERE IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE WE COULD THE CITY COULD TERMINATE OR EXIT THE AGREEMENT. AND FOR CLARITY YOU'RE ASKING IF OR YOU'RE WANTING US TO INCLUDE LANGUAGE IN THE EVENT THEY DON'T UPHOLD OR THE DEVELOPER DOESN'T UPHOLD THEIR PORTION OF THE AGREEMENT WHERE WE CAN TERMINATE.
ABSOLUTELY. OKAY JUST WANT TO BE WE CAN HAVE THAT NO PROBLEM.
PERFECT I LIKE IT YOU JUST LIKE YEAH WE CAN DO IT WE CAN DO IT.
WHAT YOU SAY WE DON'T LOVE IT.
ABSOLUTELY. ALL RIGHT MISS TODD. WELL BASED ON THE EARLIER PRESENTATION HOW IS THIS GOING TO IMPACT US WITH OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PROBLEM IN REGARDS TO OUR SEWER AND WASTEWATER ADDING ON ARE WE SURE THAT THE STANDARDS IN HERE ARE ADEQUATE FOR THE GROWTH PLANNING THAT'S GOING OVER THERE OR ARE ADJUSTMENTS NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT IT CAN TAKE THE CAPACITY BECAUSE AGAIN THIS IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS SO ONCE THIS IS DONE IT'S DONE AND WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO TOUCH IT SO WHATEVER WE DO WITH THESE IT NEEDS TO BE ON POINT FOR WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE GROWTH BECAUSE THIS IS THE ONE OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES. I ABSOLUTELY AGREE AND JUST TO PUT COUNCIL AND MAYOR'S MIND AT EASE AS YOU ALL KNOW WE DO HAVE A NEW NSSA PROCESSES INCLUDING PRE-DEVELOPMENT SO THERE'S A LOT OF CROSS COMMUNICATION AND INTERDEPARTMENTAL AND PART OF THAT IS US KNOWING HEY THIS IS THE STANDARD RIGHT AND NOW WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE YOU PLAN ON BUILDING OUT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE MAYBE THE MINIMUM IS EIGHT INCH WE NO LONGER ACCEPT THE MINIMUM IT'S IF YOU'RE PLANNING MORE FOR THIS WE NEED TO UPGRADE THIS CAPACITY SO THAT'S ALREADY ALREADY BEEN A PART OF THE CONVERSATIONS AND HOW WITH ENGINEERING AS WELL I MEAN WITH HAS OUR NEW DIRECTOR HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THIS AND LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON UM BECAUSE WE FINALLY HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S AN ENGINEER ON STAFF I KNOW SO UM HAVE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ON I COULD DO NEW SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE SURPRISE HERE'S EVERYTHING UM TO ACTUALLY READ THE AGREEMENT SEE WHAT IT IS SEE WHAT'S COMING IN HERE LOOK AT THE SIZE OF EVERYTHING ALSO TAKE INTO THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION TAKE ALL OF THAT INTO ACCOUNT HAVE YOU HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY LOOK AT THAT IN THE LIKE 30 SECONDS YOU'VE BEEN WORKING FOR THE CITY I'LL LET HIM ANSWER BUT WE DO HAVE A MEETING SCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY TO GO OVER ALL THESE THINGS YEAH SO EVENING COUNCIL AGAIN SO AS OF RIGHT NOW THE MORE NEWEST STANDARD OPERATING PROCESS FOR THE NSA WHICH SHE HAS BEEN LEADING WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE WITH THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT ONE WE ARE SERVING ALL NECESSARY AND TO KEEP THE OPERATIONS MOVING BUT TO THE COUNCIL'S POINT YES WE DO HAVE AN INTERNAL PLAN TO REVISIT SOME OF THE UPCOMING DEVELOPMENTS AND THE FUTURE NSA TO HAVE A MORE IN-DEPTH LOOK AND AS PART OF THE CITY STANDARD BECAUSE I KNOW THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES TONIGHT ONE OF THE UPCOMING EFFORTS THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU IN ONE OF THE UPCOMING FUTURE WORK SESSION IS WE HAVE STARTED THE PROCESS TO INTERNALLY REVIEW OUR CURRENT CONSTRUCTION DETAILS AS WELL AS GENERAL CONSTRUCTION MANUAL IT IS GOING TO BE A MULTI-DEPARTMENTAL
[01:15:02]
EFFORT IT'S NOT JUST PUBLIC WORKS WE ARE GOING TO WORK CLOSELY WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICE AS WELL BUT OUR TARGET IS WITHIN THE NEXT SIX MONTHS OUR CURRENT CITY STANDARD WOULD BE UPGRADED TO REFLECT THE MOST RECENT IN ST COX CONSTRUCTION STANDARD EITHER MEETING OR EXITING AND IN THE MEANTIME TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THE BEST AND HIGHEST QUALITY STANDARDS IN PLACE WHAT WE WOULD DO IS WITHIN THE NEXT FOUR TO SIX MONTH TIME FRAME THERE WOULD BE A TEMPORARY WORK SESSION ITEM AND A TEMPORARY RESOLUTION THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU FOR YOUR DECISION SO BY BECAUSE UPGRADING THE CITYWIDE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS IT IS GOING TO INVOLVE A CONSULTANT AND YOU KNOW FOR THEM TO REVIEW EVERY SINGLE SHEET BUT BY ADOPTING A TEMPORARY RESOLUTION AND REFERRING OUR CURRENT STANDARD TYING INTO THE NCD COG THAT WOULD GIVE STAFF THE OPPORTUNITY TO REFLECT THAT AND ENFORCE THE NCD COG BUT AGAIN THAT WOULD BE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF YOU WITHIN THE NEXT FEW MONTHS THANKS OKAY WITH THAT IN MIND I WOULDN'T WANT TO ASK THEM TO WAIT FOUR TO SIX MONTHS TO START THEIR BUILDING I UNDERSTAND LIKE THAT'S A THING A BIG ASK WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IF THIS HYPOTHETICALLY GOT TABLED THAT ON YOUR WEDNESDAY MEETING YOU MAKE SURE THAT YOU LOOK AT THESE AND THAT PERHAPS YOU CAN SCHEDULE A MEETING WITH THE DEVELOPERS THEIR ENGINEERS AND OF THE NSA NSA GROOMS WE'RE LOOKING AT WE KIND OF PRIORITIZE LOOKING AT THESE TWO SINCE THESE ARE THE TWO RIGHT NOW IN FRONT OF US AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO MEET IT BECAUSE IN ADDITION TO LIKE HOW IT CAN IMPACT THE CITY I DON'T WANT OUR DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND HALFWAY THROUGH THEIR BUILD THE CITY'S APPROVED OTHER THINGS AND NOW THEY'RE KIND OF DEALING WITH PROBLEMS BECAUSE THEY CAME IN WITH THIS EXPECTATION WE'VE IMPROVED IMPROVED OR APPROVED THINGS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND NOW WE'RE HAVING CONFLICT THAT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THEM IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR BUILD EITHER ESPECIALLY BEING OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND THE LIMITED ABILITY FOR US TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT SO I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ON ALL ENDS WE HAVE LOOKED AT IT AND MADE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE HAVING THEM PUT IN WILL MEET THE CAPACITY AND NEEDS OF THE HOMES THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL BECAUSE IF IT DOESN'T IT'S GOING TO LOOK POORLY ON THEM WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO SELL THESE HOMES TO RESIDENTS AND WE ALREADY HAVE RESIDENTS WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR BUILDERS AND STUFF LIKE THAT AND HOW THINGS ARE GOING WE WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT THEM IN THAT POSITION EITHER SO WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE HYPOTHETICALLY IF IT DID GOT GET TABLED THAT WE COULD MAKE SURE THAT WITH YOU NOW AT THE HELM MEET WITH THEM THEIR ENGINEERS AND JUST DOUBLE CHECK IT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S THERE UH WE CAN DO THAT ALL RIGHT ALL RIGHT MR RUTLEDGE QUESTION I GOT YOU ALL RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT MR RUTLEDGE I JUST I'M SORRY REAL QUICK SO THIS QUESTION IS FOR FOR YOU KELLY SO I'M READING THE VERBIAGE HERE AND IT SAYS THAT FACILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS THAT'S A AND B IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S APPLICABLE ORDINANCES RULES AND REGULATIONS IN EXISTENCE AS OF THE TIME THE CONSTRUCTION OF WATER FACILITIES COMMENCES AND THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF ANY OTHER AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION AND EXISTENCE AS OF THAT TIME THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE WATER FACILITIES COMMENCES SO THAT'S PART ONE THEN PART TWO IT SAYS ALSO APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE CITY'S ENGINEER WHICH APPROVAL SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLY WITHHELD DOES THAT VERB IS THERE KIND OF GIVE US SOME ROOM TO KIND OF WORK THROUGH BECAUSE I THINK I AGREE WITH MISS TAUNT COUNCILMAN TAUNT DOES THAT VERB IS GIVE US SOME ROOM FOR OUR OUR ENGINEER TO KIND OF PROVIDE THE ADEQUATE UH EXPECTATION AS FAR AS THE YOU KNOW REVIEW PROCESS AND THEN PROVIDE THE UPDATED REQUIREMENTS UH AND THAT AND POTENTIALLY NOT HOLD UP THE PROCESS UM UNTIL THEY COME BACK TO COUNCIL COMPLETELY WITH A NEW REFORMED YOU KNOW SET OF EXPECTATIONS FOR FOR CONSTRUCTION I GUESS LET ME CLARIFY UM YOU'RE YOU'RE JUST ASKING IF IF THAT LITTLE PARAGRAPH WILL IF YOU APPROVE THIS TONIGHT CAN HE HAVE CONTROL OVER THE PROJECT AND THE OUTCOME OF THE PROJECT WITH THE APPROVALS RIGHT AND THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF AND SETTING THE HIGHER APPROVALS THROUGHOUT CORRECT RIGHT SETTING THE HIGHER EXPECTATIONS I THINK COUNCILMAN TAW HAS A VERY POINT HERE YEAH YEAH SO I THINK THAT THAT WOULD PUT THE I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BUT IT PUT THE ONUS BACK ON ON THE ON HIM TO AND THIS TEAM TO BE ABLE TO KIND OF LOOK AT WHAT THOSE HIGHER LEVEL EXPECTATIONS ARE AND THEN BE ABLE TO ENSURE THAT THAT IS COMMUNICATED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION COMMENCES THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT HERE THANK YOU ALL RIGHT UH THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR OUR ATTORNEY ALSO BUT WITH THE CCN MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT[01:20:01]
WE'RE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE SERVICE WHETHER IT'S A WATER OR SEWER IN A CCN I THINK THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF OUR CCN I BELIEVE ARE YOU ARE YOU IN OUR IN OUR CCN OKAY WHAT NO I MEAN WE'VE FINISHED YET YEAH NO I KNOW I'M JUST I'M JUST I'M JUST ASKING SORRY OKAY THAT WE ARE LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DO THAT IT BUT ALSO IN THOSE SAME RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR THE CCN I BELIEVE THAT THE DEVELOPER HAS TO ADHERE TO OUR RULES OUR ORDINANCES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT FOR WHATEVER THEY DO SO THAT THAT MEANS WE HAVE FULL CONTROL WHERE YOU KNOW HOW THE PIPES ARE IN ALONG THE STREETS WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE VERIFY THAT AND MAKE SURE THAT'S THE WELL THIS AGREEMENT ALSO SAYS THAT THEY HAVE TO THE DEVELOPER HAS TO ADHERE TO OUR STANDARDS IT'S IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH THAT MR RUTLEDGE WAS JUST QUOTING FROM THAT MISS TIGER AGAIN SO WHAT HE READ IS AT THE TIME OF SO THIS MOMENT IN TIME FREEZES WHAT HAPPENS SO TODAY THESE STANDARDS FROZEN WE CANNOT GO BACK AND SAY HEY BY THE WAY YOU NEED TO DO MORE BECAUSE TODAY IT'S FROZEN AND IT WOULDN'T BE FAIR TO THEM TO COME BACK AND BE LIKE HEY YOU NEED TO DO THIS MUCH MORE AND IT'S GOING TO COST YOU HAVE TO INVEST MORE INTO IT THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THEIR FINANCING AND TALK TO THEIR BANKS AND STUFF LIKE THAT FOR ALL OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE SO ON ONE END IT'S NOT FAIR TO TO COME BACK LATER AND SAY WE MADE THIS AGREEMENT NOW PAY MORE OR DO MORE ON THE OTHER END IF WE FREEZE IT TODAY LIKE WE SIGN THIS WE AGREE TO THIS WE ARE NOT ABLE TO CHANGE IT THAT WHATEVER ORDINANCES WHATEVER EXPECTATIONS WHATEVER AGREEMENT IS MADE TODAY IS IT SO AS FAR AS THE BUILDING STANDARDS CORRECT RIGHT WHATEVER BUILDING STANDARDS ARE IN PLACE TODAY AND LET BUILDING STANDARDS BETWEEN NOW AND THE TIME YOU APPROVE THIS THEN THEY WILL BE THE SAME AND THAT IS DETERMINED ON THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDED AND IT IS ALSO VERY POSSIBLE THAT WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED NO CHANGE IS NEEDED MY ONLY QUESTION AND AND MY MY FEELING IS IT WOULD JUST BE BETTER BUSINESS OVERALL JUST TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY FOR OUR NEW DIRECTOR TO LOOK AT IT TALK WITH THEIR ENGINEERS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE NO SURPRISES LATER THAT THEY DON'T GO HALFWAY THROUGH THEIR BUILD AND SUDDENLY IT'S NOT WORKING AND THEY'RE HAVING PROBLEMS WITH BUYERS AND WE'RE ADDING HOUSES AND STUFF THE JUMBLED MESS THAT CAN COME FROM THAT WHEN WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THEM BEFORE WE GET STARTED I KNOW IT'S PUTTING IT PUSHING IT OUT BUT A WEEK OR TWO THE NEXT MEETING JUST HAVING THAT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK I THINK IS BENEFICIAL VERSUS THE POTENTIAL PROBLEMS IN THE LONG RUN AND I THINK I THINK WE'RE GONNA I MEAN I'M GONNA RECOMMEND TABLING THIS ITEM UH REGARDLESS BECAUSE THERE'S ITEMS THAT MR JOHNSON FROM THE BEGINNING HAVE POINTED OUT THAT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO CLEAN UP IN THIS AGREEMENT SO JUST JUST BASED ON THAT I THINK THAT THIS ITEM NEEDS TO BE TABLED UNTIL POTENTIALLY THE NEXT MEETING SIR JUST AS LONG AS WE'RE BEING VERY VERY MINDFUL OF I DON'T WANT THEM TO BE WAITING LIKE A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS FOR ALL THIS TO BE DONE LIKE IT'S EXPECTED TO BE LIKE LET'S GET THIS DONE AS FAST AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT AND COMING TO US FOR ALL THIS STUFF YEAH IF I COULD IF I COULD JUST SAY ONE THING UH DAVID BOOTH DR HORTON UH RALETT TEXAS WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS AGREEMENT FOR ABOUT A YEAR NOW AND WE'VE GONE THROUGH SEVEN REVIEWS BY THE CITY WE'VE ACTUALLY PAID KIMLEY HORN TO REVIEW THE AGREEMENT THE PLANS UM I MEAN IT'S IT'S BEEN SCRUBBED YOU KNOW FROM A TO Z WE'RE READY WE'RE OUT FOR BID RIGHT NOW WE'RE READY TO START THE PROJECT AS FAR AS THE 8 000 TYPICALLY THESE AGREEMENTS THEY THEY TIE DOWN THE FEE THAT'S IN EXISTENCE AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEMENT WE WERE TOLD THAT Y'ALL WERE IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING YOUR PLAN AND WE WERE TOLD WE GOT TO PUT THIS IN THERE THAT THE FEE COULD GO UP AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAY THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS GOING TO PROCEED SO WE AGREED TO THAT UM I THINK 8 000 UM I THINK 8 000 WAS A CONSERVATIVE NUMBER FOR THAT SO I MEAN I I FEEL LIKE WE'VE BEEN OVER BACKWARDS TRYING TO GET THIS AGREEMENT DONE AGAIN SEVEN REVIEWS UM CITY ATTORNEY REVIEWED IT KIMLEY HORN[01:25:03]
REVIEWED IT WE PAID KIMLEY HORN THE BILLS THAT Y'ALL SENT US TO REVIEW IT SO AGAIN WE'RE READY TO GO AND IF HE GOT HIRED LIKE YESTERDAY UM HE'S WELCOME TO REVIEW IT BUT AGAIN WE'RE READY READY TO GO AND FOR CLARIFICATION THIS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT UM IF REFONT WAS TO FIND SOMETHING THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO AMEND WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND AMEND THAT BUT THEY WOULD HAVE TO AGREE TO COME BACK AND AMEND IT THOUGH CORRECT JOSH LUKE WITH JVI AS WELL UM THIS AGREEMENT IS TO CLARIFY A FEW ITEMS WE ARE EXISTINGLY WITHIN YOUR CCM THE OBLIGATIONS THAT ARE POINTED OUT ARE LEGITIMATE UM WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THAT WE ARE CONNECTING ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOWN TO THE SOUTH AT THE SAME TIME THIS DOES NOT APPROVE CONSTRUCTION PLANS THIS IS AN AGREEMENT TO SERVE WATER AND SEWER TO RESIDENTS WITHIN YOUR CCM THAT YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO SERVE AGAIN NOT APPROVING CONSTRUCTION PLANS LINE SIZING DIFFERENT ITEMS RELATED TO THAT CAN BE MODIFIED AND INCLUDED IN THAT SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS AT THE TIME OF THAT APPROVAL THIS IS JUST AN AGREEMENT TO SERVE WHAT IS OBLIGATED TO BE SERVED BASED ON YOUR CURRENT CCN BOUNDARY CAN I ASK A QUESTION WITH BEING OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS DO WE GET ANY SAY OVER THOSE CONSTRUCTION PLANS I CAN ANSWER THAT THE ANSWER IS YES IT IS YOUR CCM WE ARE REQUIRED TO MEET YOUR ORDINANCES AND WE ARE PREPARING TO DO SO WITH A SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS THAT ARE NOT APPROVED AT THIS TIME THIS IS AN AGREEMENT TO SERVE SO WHAT YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO SERVE OKAY SO IF IT COMES BACK AND YOU'RE NEEDING TO BE PUTTING IN BIGGER FIGHTS WHEN YOU'RE EXPECTING YOU ARE AWARE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT THAT IN YOUR CONSULTING ENGINEER GAVE US THE PIPE SIZES FOR OUR CONNECTION TO OUR CONNECTION POINT DOWN SOUTH OF OUR PROPERTY YEAH AND AND IT IS IT IS A PROVISION THAT THAT UM COUNCIL MEMBER JUST POINTED OUT THAT IS THAT IT HAS TO STILL BE APPROVED BY OUR CITY ENGINEERS UM SO THERE THERE IS STILL ANOTHER REVIEW PROCESS THAT WHAT WILL HAPPEN THIS IS JUST THE FIRST STEP THIS IS NOT YOU'RE NOT APPROVING A PLAT YOU'RE NOT APPROVING LOT SIZES YOU'RE NOT APPROVING ANY OF THESE ITEMS THIS IS AN APPROVAL TO SERVE WATER AND SEWER TO PEOPLE THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO SERVE WATER AND SEWER ON BASED ON YOUR CCN LIMITS NOTHING MORE THANK YOU FOR LENDING CLARITY TO THE PROCESS MUCH APPRECIATED ALL RIGHT AT THIS TIME I HAVE TO TAKE ANY MOTION UM I'D MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM G4 AS SUBMITTED I SECOND UH MR DEFFIBAUGH MARK SECOND I MOTION PASSES FOUR TWO THIS WOULD TAKE US TO ITEM G5 ITEM G5 2026 DASH[G5. 2026-197 Consider a Non-Standard Wastewater Service Agreement ("NSSA") between the City of Princeton, Texas (the "City"), and D.R. Horton – Texas, Ltd. (the "Developer") for the Acorn South Development Phase 2; and take appropriate action.]
197 CONSIDER A NON-STANDARD WASTEWATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON TEXAS AND DR HORTON TEXAS LTD FOR THE ACORN SOUTH DEVELOPMENT PHASE TWO AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION MAYOR AND COUNCIL STILL HERE AND THIS IS CONCERNING UM THE ACORN SOUTH EDITION WITH LENNARD I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ALONG WITH UM TODD HENSLEY WHO WAS THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT UH MR JOHN JOHNSON YOU CAN ASK THAT ONE UM THANK YOU AGAIN FOR TONIGHT UM THIS ONE PRETTY MUCH THE DEVELOPING AGREEMENT WAS KIND OF COPY PASTE SAME CONCERNS I HAD ON THE PREVIOUS ONE I HAD ON THIS ONE AS WELL AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO BECAUSE OF IT'S IN OUR CCN BUT THERE'S ALSO TERMINOLOGY IN THESE CONTRACTS THAT CAN BE AS STATED BY THE OUR LEGAL ATTORNEY CAN AND SHOULD BE ADJUSTED AT TIMES AND I THINK WHENEVER THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO IMPROVE OUR PROTECTIONS FOR THE CITY I THINK THAT WE SHOULD JUMP ON THOSE OPPORTUNITIES REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO DO FOR THE CCN SO THE ONE OF THE THINGS IT'S NOT SO MUCH AS A QUESTION IS UM I NOTICED THAT IN THE IDENTIFICATION SECTION OR PAGE NINE IT SAYS THAT THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE WASTEWATER IN WATER[01:30:01]
FACILITIES AND UH IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS JUST FOR THE WASTEWATER NOT BOTH BUT IT HAS IT BOTH LISTED IN THERE YES SIR THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN AMEND IT'S ONLY FOR WASTEWATER AND IF I'M ALLOWED I JUST ALSO WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY TAKEN NOTE OF THAT SO WHAT WE USE WITH THE CITY IS AN NSA TEMPLATE AS WE WERE CREATING THE NEW STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES SO SINCE YOU HAVE SAID THAT I'LL ABSOLUTELY BE COLLABORATING WITH KELLY AS WELL AS REFAT TO ADJUST THAT AND ADD THAT LANGUAGE AND BECAUSE I ABSOLUTELY AGREE WITH YOU MY PLEASURE CAN WE CAN WE CONDITIONALLY LET'S JUST SAY WE THIS GETS APPROVED CAN WE CONDITION IMPROVE WITH THE LANGUAGE CHANGE AND THE NSA OKAY SORRY YES AND THEN I CAN CHANGE THE LANGUAGE AND GET GET THAT TO HER TOMORROW ALL RIGHT MISS MISS TOT CAN WE EVEN VOTE ON THIS WHEN IT WAS IMPROPERLY NOTICED ON THE AGENDA BECAUSE IT CALLS IT UH DR HORTON AGAIN FOR THIS AND IT'S LINAR I NOTICED THAT TOO I DON'T KNOW WHY GREENICK WHO DIDN'T SIGN IT IT HAS IT IN HERE BUT THE ACTUAL NOTICE SAYS IT'S DR HORTON THE ATTACHMENT SAYS LINAR BUT THE NOTICE IS FOR DR HORTON WE WOULD ACTUALLY NEED TO RE-NOTICE THAT YES I DON'T THINK WE CAN TAKE ACTION ON THIS ITEM SORRY I MOTION TO TABLE G5 TO THE NEXT MEETING SO WE CAN HAVE IT CORRECTLY NOTICED WE HAVE A MOTION THAT WE HAVE A SECOND I'LL SAY ALL RIGHT MR RUTLEDGE SECOND HEY UM LET'S LET'S NOT PLEASE I I'M MISSING THREE VOTES ONE MORE ALL RIGHT MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO WHAT WHAT WAS THE DATE TO THE TABLE THE VERY NEXT MEETING ALL RIGHT THIS WILL TAKE US TO[L1. ORD-2026-08-24 Consider Ordinance No. 2026-08-24 authorizing the removal of the Texas Municipal Retirement System (TMRS) Statutory Maximum Contribution Rate Limit, also referred to by TMRS as the “Stat Max,” effective September 1, 2026; and take appropriate action.]
OUR REGULAR AGENDA WHICH WE'LL START WITH ITEM L1 ITEM L1 ORDINANCE 2026-08-24 CONSIDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 2026-08-24 AUTHORIZING THE REMOVAL OF THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM STATUTORY MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTION RATE LIMIT ALSO REFERRED TO BY TMRS AS A SAT MAX EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1 2026 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION YOU PLEASE PLEASE OKAY THANK YOU GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL THANK YOU I'M HERE BEFORE YOU TO REMOVE THE STAT MAX RATE ON OUR CURRENT TMRS WHICH IS OUR RETIREMENT SYSTEM FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON SO JUST SOME HISTORY BEHIND IT UM THIS IS TO EVALUATE WHETHER WE REMOVE THAT STACK THAT STAFF MAX ARE PICK ANOTHER UM RETIREMENT PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON AND OUR EMPLOYEES WE WERE NOTIFIED IN JULY PER THE MEMO THAT NEXT YEAR'S CONTRIBUTION FOR CITY FUNDING WILL GO UP TO 14.09 PERCENT WE CURRENTLY HAVE A STAT MAX OF 13.5 THIS STAT MAX IS INTERFERING WITH THE CITY'S CONTRIBUTION TO DO A TWO DOLLAR TO ONE DOLLAR MATCH WITH THE CITY'S TMRS RATE AND I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH SOME BACKGROUND UM TO THIS AS WELL CURRENTLY WE HAVE 24 EMPLOYEES ELIGIBLE FOR RETIREMENT WE HAVE 39 EMPLOYEES WHO HAVE RETIRED FROM THE CITY SINCE THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE WHICH WAS DECEMBER 1983 THE LAST AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN HAPPENED IN 2002 AND THAT WAS TO CHANGE THE RETIREMENT SERVICE RATE FROM 25 YEARS TO 20 YEARS THIS AGAIN IS TO REMOVE THAT 13.5 STAT MAX ALLOWING THE CITY[01:35:03]
TO CONTRIBUTE 14.09 PERCENT WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY EQUIVALENT TO 185,940 BASED ON THE CURRENT SALARIES THAT WE HAVE BUDGETED FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 UM I WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU AS WELL AS THE PUBLIC SOME TERMS THAT AFFECT THESE CONTRIBUTIONS THE ONES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED ACTUALLY DRIVE THE COST OF ARE THE PERCENTAGE OF THE TMRS SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW WHEN WE GO THROUGH DIFFERENT OPTIONS IS CHANGING THAT COLA COST OF LIVING WHICH BASICALLY PROVIDES RETIREES A COST OF LIVING INCREASE ALSO THE RECREATIONAL COST OF LIVING INCREASE ALSO THE RETROACTIVE COLA WHICH IS BASICALLY THAT INFLATION SOMETIMES COLAS IF YOU GET PROBABLY A TWO OR THREE PERCENT EVERY YEAR IT DOES NOT KEEP UP WITH THE INFLATION THAT WE EXPERIENCE SO THAT ALLOWS RETIREES TO ALSO HAVE ENOUGH INFLATION ADJUSTMENT AS WELL AS A COLA INCREASE AND THEN LAST THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFIT THAT JUST ALLOWS A LUMP SUM PAYMENT TO BENEFICIARIES WHEN RETIREES PASS AWAY SO I WANTED TO PROVIDE SOME OPTIONS TO YOU THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO REMOVE THE STAT MAX BUT IF YOU WANT TO EXPLORE LOOK AT OTHER OPTIONS THESE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY THAT TMRS HAS TO OFFER AS YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THESE OPTIONS STILL REQUIRE US TO REMOVE THAT STAT MAX THE ONES THAT DON'T REMOVE A LOT OF THE BENEFITS OF RETIREMENT SUCH AS THE COLA THE RETROACTIVE COLA AND EVEN THE SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFITS SO I'LL JUST TAKE A MOMENT TO SIT ON THIS SLIDE FOR A LITTLE BIT BEFORE I MOVE FORWARD GOING INTO THE NEXT SLIDE AND THEN I'LL GO BACK IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS I JUST WANT TO REMIND YOU GUYS THAT THIS IS MORE THAN JUST RETIREMENT THIS IS ALSO A RETENTION TOOL I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WE WANT TO RECRUIT PEOPLE WHO HAVE MUNICIPAL EXPERIENCE SO ON AND SO FORTH SO THIS IS MORE THAN JUST RETIREMENT A LOT OF PEOPLE ACTUALLY LEAVE JOBS OR COME BACK TO THE MUNICIPAL SECTOR BECAUSE OF THE TMRS CONTRIBUTIONS BECAUSE IT IS A VERY COMPETITIVE RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY SO AGAIN OUR CURRENT PLAN EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTE SEVEN PERCENT WHICH IS A TWO-TO-ONE MATCH WITH THE CITY YOU CAN RETIRE AT 20 YEARS OF SERVICE OR 60 YEARS OLD AS LONG AS YOU'RE VESTED FOR FIVE YEARS WE ALSO HAVE AN UPDATED SERVICE CREDIT YOU CAN TRANSFER YOUR CREDITS MEANING THAT IF YOU COME FROM ANOTHER CITY AND YOU BEGIN TO WORK FOR THIS CITY WE WILL RECOGNIZE THOSE YEARS OF SERVICES THAT YOU HAD IN MUNICIPALITIES WHERE YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO TMRS AND WITH THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I WILL GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT HAD THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS SO JUST THOUGHT HYPOTHETICALLY IF A SITUATION WERE TO COME UP LIKE BECAUSE I KNOW WITH THE BENEFITS COME LIKE YOUR LEAVE BALANCE AND WHATNOT AND ONLY A CERTAIN AMOUNT ROLL OVER SO HYPOTHETICALLY IF WE CONSIDERED INCREASING THAT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DISCUSS HERE TODAY ON WITH THIS OR CAN THAT IS THAT A SEPARATE CONVERSATION IT IS A SEPARATE CONVERSATION I DO WANT TO ADD LET'S JUST SAY SOMEONE DOES LEAVE THE CITY AND THEIR BENEFITS ARE PAID OUT SUCH AS VACATION THAT IS SUBJECTED TO TMRS AS WELL SO THE CITY WILL HAVE TO DO A TWO-TO-ONE MATCH ON THE VACATION BENEFITS THAT ARE PAID OUT TO CITY EMPLOYEES WHEN THEY RETIRE IS THAT A CONCERN LIKE A TODAY CONCERN OR A LATER WHEN THEY RETIRE CONCERN IN THE IMMEDIATE LIKE WHEN WE'RE PUTTING THE MONEY AWAY ARE WE ACCOUNTING FOR IT NOW SO SAY WE ALLOWED SOME STAFF MEMBERS TO TAKE IT BECAUSE WITH RAISES AND WHATNOT THINGS IF WE ALTERED IT AND WE'RE LIKE THIS EMPLOYEE GETS ADDITIONAL DAYS[01:40:01]
LIKE CAN ROLL OVER ADDITIONAL DAYS THEY DIDN'T USE THIS YEAR WOULD WE THEN NEED TO BE IMMEDIATELY PUTTING IN FOR THAT ANTICIPATION FOR DOWN THE ROAD OR IS IT JUST SOMETHING WE CONSIDER AND LOOK AT SO WE DON'T RESERVE IT CURRENTLY ALL THESE PERCENTAGES ARE SET UP BY TMRS AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS LOOKING AT THE LIABILITY SO THEY'RE TRYING TO ESTIMATE HOW MUCH WOULD RETIREMENT BENEFITS BE FOR AN EMPLOYEE IF THEY RETIRED LET'S JUST SAY IN 10 AND 20 YEARS AT THE CURRENT RATE CONSIDERING THE INCREASES THAT THEY'RE RECEIVING NOW SO FROM OUR SIDE I DON'T KNOW FROM A FINANCE ASPECT I WOULDN'T SEE US BASICALLY RETAINING THE LIABILITY OF THE WHAT IFS WHEN IT COMES TO VACATION BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE TYPICALLY PAY NOW OKAY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE AND SEE IF LIKE IF THIS IS SOMETHING THAT COULD BE I'VE HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH YOU AND THEN DISCUSS THAT WITH YOU UM SO I CAN THAT'S A LATER THING OKAY THIS IS SIMILAR TO THE TEXAS DISTRICT COUNTY RETIREMENT SYSTEM I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT I AM I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE RETIRED UNDER AND IT'S A VERY GOOD PLAN AND SOME OF THIS SOME OF THESE THESE OPTIONS BECAUSE EACH YEAR THE EMPLOYEES WOULD GET A A STATUS SHEET SO TO SPEAK THAT TELL WHERE THEY'RE AT AND IF THEY GET A CERTAIN RAISE THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD BE THEIR BENEFITS WOULD BE AND IT GOES THROUGH AND AND YOU CAN LOOK AT IT TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE I KNOW THAT WHENEVER I RETIRED IF YOU HAD AT LEAST A 30 YEAR SERVICE AT AGE 60 YOU GET BACK 100 OF WHAT YOU WHAT'S YOUR RETIREMENT AND WHAT YOUR SALARY IS I MEAN IT'D BE JUST LIKE YOUR SALARY AND BUT ALSO THAT HAS THE BENEFITS THAT IF YOU IF YOU DECIDE WELL I JUST WANT THIS AMOUNT YOUR SPOUSE WOULDN'T GET ANYTHING IF YOU WITH EITHER ONE PASSED AWAY AND IT YOU ALTHOUGH YOU GET A HIGHER AMOUNT BUT IF YOU DIE IT'S IT ENDS YOU KNOW I TOOK THE OPTION THAT THAT I HAD A CERTAIN AMOUNT IT WASN'T AS MUCH BUT IF EITHER ONE OF US PASSED AWAY THE THE SPOUSE WOULD GET MY MY WIFE WOULD HAVE PASSED AWAY MY WIFE WOULD HAVE GOT 100 PERCENT OF THE RETIREMENT UNTIL SHE PASSED AWAY NOW IF YOU ADD SOME BENEFICIARIES TO IT MORE OF THEM IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT YOU GET IN FACT AM I EXPLAINING THAT PRETTY CLOSE YEAH AND SO IT'S REALLY GOOD THE COUNTY WE GOT AT THE TIME I THINK THEY'VE REDUCED WE HAD TWO AND A HALF TO ONE IS WHAT THEY PAID ONE OF OURS WAS WHICH WAS GREAT YOU KNOW AND I'M GLAD THEY CHANGED IT AFTER I RETIRED BUT ANYWAY BUT IT'S A IT'S A VERY GOOD PROGRAM YOU KNOW FOR COUNTY AND THE BEST PART ABOUT IT BEING A GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT IS THAT IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH SOCIAL SECURITY YOU KNOW LOTS OF TIMES IF YOU HAVE A JOB OR YOU HAVE ANOTHER RETIREMENT IT REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF SOCIAL SECURITY YOU GET THIS DOES NOT BECAUSE OF THE GOVERNMENT RETIREMENT AND LOTS OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT SO IT'S A IT'S A GREAT BENEFIT AND THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION IS THIS A IS THIS A SITUATION OF I SEE THE SLIDE THAT YOU HAVE UP HERE HAS PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2027 AND THERE'S FIVE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS IS THIS YOU KNOW WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE IS THERE CAN WE KEEP IT AS AS IT CURRENTLY IS BECAUSE I KNOW THERE IN YOUR WORKSHEET THERE'S A WHAT IS THIS THE 2027 PLAN PROVISION COST IMPACT HAS THE CURRENT BREAKDOWN SO IS THIS SITUATION SAYING THAT THERE'S A NEED FOR US TO HAVE TO CHANGE SOMETHING OR CAN WE KEEP IT IN AS IT IS CURRENTLY WE CAN KEEP IT AS IT IS SO BY KEEPING THE RETIREMENT PLAN AS IT IS WE WILL HAVE THAT 14.9 PERCENT SORRY 14.09 PERCENT CITY CONTRIBUTION WHICH WILL RESULT IN THAT APPROXIMATE 185 000 TO THE CITY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET IF YOU GUYS DECIDE YOU DO NOT WANT TO REMOVE THE STAT MAX WHICH IS THAT THRESHOLD THAT'S PREVENTING US FROM ADOPTING THIS MOVING INTO 2027 WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT ANOTHER PLAN TO KEEP US UNDER THAT 13.5 EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION GOT YOU SO KEEPING IT KEEPING IT AS IT SITS IS WE HAVE TO RAISE THAT PERCENTAGE TO THAT 14.09 WITH THE CURRENT[01:45:01]
PLAN THAT WE HAVE OR WE CAN OKAY SO OPTION ONE IS THE SAVINGS OF 52 000 OPTION TWO IS THE SAVINGS OF 289 000 UM WHAT IS WHAT IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION I'M JUST I'M JUST CURIOUS MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO KEEP THE CURRENT PLAN AS IS REMOVING THE STAT MAX FOR FISCAL YEAR 2027 THIS WILL TAKE INTO EFFECT JANUARY 1ST HOWEVER THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN UM IF WE APPROVE THIS NOW IT GOES INTO EFFECT SEPTEMBER 1ST ON TMRS'S BOOKS BUT THE RATE INCREASE WILL NOT HAPPEN UNTIL JANUARY 1ST OF 2027 SO I'M SORRY I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THIS SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THE TMRS 2027 PLAN PROVISION COST IMPACT AND I SEE THIS COLUMN THAT HAS CURRENT HAS TOTAL CONTRIBUTION RATE OF 1310 UH PERCENTAGE THEN PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2027 IS THE 14.09 IT'S A DIFFERENT ATTACHMENT YEAH IT'S UM LET ME SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT IT'S TITLE ON THE AGENDA EXHIBIT D LET ME GO BACK AND SEE IF IT'LL AUSTIN PACKAGE YEAH I BELIEVE IT IS EXHIBIT B YES YEP SO THAT FIRST COLUMN UM TOTAL CONTRIBUTION RATE IS 1310 AND THEN THE NEXT COLUMN SHOWS THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2027 HAS A CONTRIBUTION RATE OF 1409 SO WE'RE SAYING WE ARE WE DO NOT HAVE THE OPTION TO RETAIN AT THE 1310 SO THIS IS THE CURRENT PLAN WHAT'S HAPPENING IS YOU CAN SEE UNDERNEATH THE TOTAL CONTRIBUTION RATE YOU HAVE THAT UNFUNDED THE CORRAL LIABILITY AND SO BASICALLY TMRS IS ASSESSING IT AND SAYING UM IF YOU GUYS WANT TO KEEP UP WHAT'S EXPECTED OF THE CITY WHEN YOU DO HAVE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE CURRENTLY CONTRIBUTING TO RETIRE YOU NEED TO INCREASE THAT AMOUNT THAT AMOUNT TO 14.9 I'M SORRY 14.09 PERCENT OKAY AND IF YOU CAN SEE THAT DRIVE LIKE SOME OF THE CHANGES ARE UM THE NORMAL COST RATE WHICH IS UM BASICALLY WHAT THEY ASSESS WHAT THE CURRENT RETIREE BENEFITS WILL BE FOR OUR CURRENT ACTIVE EMPLOYEES YOU CAN SEE THAT PRIOR SERVICE CREDIT THAT'S BASICALLY THE GAP BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THE FUNDED RATIO THE GOAL IS 100 BUT WE ARE NOT AT 100 BUT WE PAY THAT OVER TIME YOU SAID THE FUNDED RATIO GOAL IS 100 YES AND WE'RE CURRENTLY NOT AT 100 BUT THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2027 COLUMN HAS THAT FUNDED RATIO AT 88.40 YES IF WE INCREASE THE RATE TO 14.9 BUT AGAIN THIS IS PAID OVER TIME SO WE MAY SEE SOME CHANGES WITHIN TMRS MOVING FORWARD WHICH WE HAVE IN THE PAST OUR RATES HAVE ACTUALLY GONE UP IN THE PAST BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A STAT MAX WE HAVE TO COME BEFORE COUNCIL TO REMOVE THAT STAT MAX NOW MY COMMITMENT TO COUNCIL IS THAT EVERY YEAR I WILL COME BEFORE YOU EVEN IF THERE IS NOT A STAT MAX SO YOU ARE AWARE OF WHAT TMRS IS DOING WITH OUR BENEFITS AND YOU GUYS CAN ASSESS IT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE INCREASE OR IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE THE PLAN YEAH MR JOHN JOHNSON WHICH ONE OF THE OPTIONS ARE DO YOU KNOW IF WHICH ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS ARE IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE VOTING ON IT WOULD BE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR 2027 NO I'M SAYING LIKE IS THE OPTION THAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING ALREADY OKAY IT'S ALREADY WIRED INTO OUR SO SHE'S ALREADY KELLY'S ALREADY CRUNCHED THE NUMBERS IN TERMS OF WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE SO THE OPTION THAT'S BEING RECOMMENDED WE'RE WE KNOW THAT WE'RE OKAY IN TERMS OF GOING WITH THAT NUMBER YEAH OKAY I HAD A FOLLOW-UP I WANTED TO ASK TOO THAT AS FAR AS BENCHMARKING IS HOW OFTEN DO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THESE TO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAYING COMPETITIVE BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD MECHANISM IN TERMS OF RECRUITING AND MAKING SURE WE RETAIN TALENT IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE JUST LOOK AT ANNUALLY YOU KNOW EVERY OTHER YEAR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT SO TMRS DOES LOOK AT IT ANNUALLY AND THEY DO PROVIDE US WITH BACKUP DOCUMENTATION AND ANTICIPATED INCREASES ALONG WITH REASONING WHY AGAIN THIS HAS NOT GONE BEFORE[01:50:02]
COUNCIL BECAUSE WE HAD THE STAT MAX AND WE NEVER REACHED THAT THRESHOLD BUT MOVING FORWARD I WILL PRESENT THIS DURING BUDGET TO COUNCIL AS WELL SO YOU CAN SEE THE INCREASES AND THE IMPACT IT HAS FINANCIALLY ON THE CITY ALL RIGHT THANK YOU DID YOU WANT TO SAY SOMETHING ON THE OTHER SIDE SORRY I ALSO JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT REFLECTS THE PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS AS WELL AS THE LIABILITY SO THAT'S DETAILED OUT IN THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT TMRS RUNS AN ACTUARIAL REPORT SO THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE RUNNING THESE NUMBERS TO SEE WHAT IS OUR FUTURE OBLIGATION COSTS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT ALWAYS GOING TO BE 100 FUNDED THAT'S VERY RARE TO BE 100 FUNDED BUT THESE ARE GOOD BENCHMARKS THAT THEY ALWAYS RUN THROUGH THEIR ACTUARIALS IT'S LIKE A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY AND YOU RUN THOSE ACTUARIAL NUMBERS BASED ON YOUR YOU KNOW HOW LONG YOU'LL LIVE THERE'S SO MANY FACTORS THAT GO INTO THESE NUMBERS THEY'RE A LOT SMARTER THAN ME BUT WE GET THESE NUMBERS WE ALSO WANT TO BRING THAT TO YOU BUT I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE IT IS IN THE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT AS WELL ALL RIGHT MISS TODD SO AND I KNOW THAT THE TAX INCREASE THAT JUST PASSED DOESN'T GO INTO THE GENERAL FUND I KNOW THAT IS DESIGNATED HOWEVER I CAN SEE THAT SOME RESIDENTS MAY LOOK AT THE SITUATION IS HERE WE ARE RAISING THE BENEFITS PACKETS AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE ARE ALSO RAISING THEIR TAXES AND THERE ARE ALSO A LOT OF QUESTIONS RIGHT NOW WITH THE TRANSPARENCY AND THE FINANCES AND STUFF SO I CAN SEE WHERE THERE'S DELICATENESS TO IT AND I WISH THAT THERE WAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO OUTLINE THAT MORE THOROUGHLY WITH THE PEOPLE SO THAT THERE CAN BE AN UNDERSTANDING OF HOW ALL OF THIS IS WORKING BECAUSE WHILE THE COST OF LIVING OBVIOUSLY GOES UP AND WE LOOK AT THAT WITH RETIREMENT THE COST OF LIVING FOR OUR RESIDENTS IS GOING UP SO ARE THEIR TAXES NOT THE BEST SEAT TO BE IN WHEN WE WANT TO TAKE CARE OF OUR STAFF BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO CONSIDER IMPACTS ON OUR RESIDENTS AT THE EXACT SAME TIME IS THERE NO MIDDLE GROUND OPTION AVAILABLE BECAUSE I SEE LIKE SOME OF THESE ARE LIKE CUTTING BENEFITS LIKE HARDCORE AND THEN THIS IS RAISING COSTS IS THERE NOT A BETTER MIDDLE GROUND BETWEEN THOSE TWO SO I ASKED TMRS FOR DIFFERENT OPTIONS JUST IN CASE BECAUSE I DO UNDERSTAND THE CURRENT STATE AND OUR FINANCIALS WITHIN THE CITY SO THEY GAVE US THE OPTIONS THAT WE ARE ABLE TO ADOPT AGAIN AS YOU CAN SEE THEM DOWN BELOW I DID WANT TO CALCULATE THAT IMPACT THE FINANCIAL IMPACT FOR YOU GUYS SO YOU ARE AWARE SOME OF THESE OPTIONS DO ACTUALLY SAVE THE CITY MONEY BUT AGAIN YOU WILL BE CUTTING THE COST OF LIVING AND YOU WILL BE AFFECTING PEOPLE'S RETIREMENTS MOVING FORWARD AND I KNOW JUST WITH THE CITY LET'S JUST SAY WE DID GO WITH ANOTHER OPTION REMOVING COLA OR RETROACTIVE COLA THAT COULD AFFECT OUR RETENTION AS WELL SOMEONE CAN WORK FOR THE CITY AND THEN WHEN IT COMES TIME TO RETIRE OR CLOSE TO RETIRE THEY'LL GO TO ANOTHER CITY THAT DOES OFFER THIS RETIREMENT SO THAT THEY ARE ABLE TO RECEIVE RETROACTIVE COLA SUPPLEMENTAL DEATH BENEFITS SO ON AND SO FORTH SO I DO UNDERSTAND IT I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THERE ISN'T ROOM TO MODIFY IT COME NEXT YEAR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO PRESENT YOU WITH ALL THE OPTIONS JUST BECAUSE I KNOW THAT YOU GUYS HAVE A HARD DECISION TO MAKE AND WHAT'S AT HAND SO THESE WOULD BE THE OPTIONS THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO CHANGE AGAIN SOME OF THEM WILL REQUIRE THAT WE REMOVE THAT STAT MAX SUCH AS OPTION FOUR IF YOU CAN SEE THE CONTRIBUTION IS 13.99 WHICH MEANS THAT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO REMOVE THAT STAT MAX IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT OPTION AND YOU CAN REMOVE THE STAT MAX AND STILL CHOOSE ANOTHER OPTION THAT'S AN THAT'S AN OPTION AS WELL YEAH OKAY UH NOW DOES THIS[01:55:04]
INCLUDE RAISES OR COLA RAISES FOR RETIREES CURRENT RETIREES YES THAT'S WHAT THE COLA AND I APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE I WANT TO TELL YOU AS A FORMER COUNTY EMPLOYEE THAT'S SPENT 32 YEARS WITH THE COUNTY I'VE GOTTEN TWO RAISES SINCE 2011 WHICH IS NOT GOOD YOU KNOW BUT I MEAN THE COST OF LIVING GOES UP TO ME UP FOR ME JUST LIKE ANYONE ELSE AND IT GOES UP TO THESE RETIREES TOO AND OUR EMPLOYEES IT GOES UP IT DOESN'T MAKE YOU KNOW UH AND I WOULD LIKE TO I WOULD UH SUBMIT ALSO THAT MANY OF THESE RETIREES ARE HOMEOWNERS PROPERTY OWNERS AND MANY PAY PROPERTY TAXES ALSO SO IT'S IT IT'S A IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NECESSARY IT'S A IT'S A NECESSARY BENEFIT AND UH IF YOU WANT TO RETAIN IN PEOPLE AND RETAIN EMPLOYEES YOU HAVE TO HAVE GOOD BENEFITS AND THIS IS ONE OF THE WAYS TO DO IT ALL RIGHT THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION AT THE TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION YEAH I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM UM L1 UH ORDINANCE 202026-08-24 WITH UH STAFF RECOMMENDATION I SECOND ALL RIGHT MR. RUTLEDGE SECOND BASICALLY ALL[L2. 2026-195 Consider not entering into another year long Facility Usage Agreement with Arcadia Farms HOA; and take appropriate action.]
RIGHT MOTION PASSES 60 THANK YOU THANK YOU SO TAKE US TO ITEM L2 UH 2026-195 CONSIDER NOT ENTERING INTO ANOTHER YEAR LONG FACILITY USAGE AGREEMENT WITH ARCADIA FARMS HOA AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION GOOD EVENING MAYOR COUNCIL CHASE BRYAN DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION UH WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A FACILITY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON AND ARCADIA FARMS HOA WHAT THIS IS GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND HISTORY UM WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAME UM I'M GOING TO SAY BACK IN I BELIEVE 2017 UM IT WAS REALLY MORE SO OF A HANDSHAKE DEAL BUT UH BETWEEN THE DEVELOPER UM AND CITY LEADERSHIP AT THAT TIME UM AT THE TIME OF THE NEEDS THE CITY OF PRINCETON WAS IN NEEDS OF ATHLETIC FIELD USAGE SO LINAR DECIDED TO BUILD ATHLETIC FIELDS TO SUFFICE FOR SOME OF THE DATES THAT WE HAD THERE'S REALLY NOTHING WRITTEN IN STONE SO LAST OCTOBER IT WAS ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED AND SOLIDIFIED FOR A TRUE FACILITY USE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PRINCETON AND ARCADIA FARMS HOA FOR USE OF THE ATHLETIC FIELDS IN LIEU OF THE CITY OF PRINCETON MAINTAINS AND OPERATES UM WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS THE OPERATIONAL EXPENSES UM ROUGHLY 21,000 245 79 ANNUAL EXPENSE I KNOW THERE WAS SOME MENTION EARLIER UM IN REGARDS TO SOME OF THE COSTS I WILL ACTUALLY SAY THOSE COSTS ARE PRETTY ACCURATE IN TERMS OF LIGHT TOWER USES FOR A MONTH HOWEVER I WILL ALSO NOTE THAT WE HAVE MULTIPLE LIGHT TOWERS ON SITE NOT JUST ONE WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE T BALL FIELD FOR INSTANCE YOU HAVE TO HAVE TWO OR THREE LIGHT TOWERS COVERING THE ENTIRE FIELD NOT JUST ONE SO THAT 1100 A MONTH WELL WHEN YOU HAVE THAT TIMES THREE LIGHT TOWERS THAT'S WHERE YOU COME UP WITH THIS TOTAL COST PLUS YOU HAVE THE FALL AND IN THE SPRING SEASONS NOT JUST ONE OF THE OTHER RESTROOM FACILITIES 1046 MAINTENANCE AND PERSONNEL 8320 AND THEN TOTAL OPERATIONS WITH SPORTS EQUIPMENT FUEL UM SOME OF OUR EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE ON THE EQUIPMENT GAS BURN BLOWERS AERATOR CEDARS THE CITY OF PRINCETON DOES MAINTAIN BOTH THE T BALL FIELD AND THE SOCCER FIELD AND WE HAVE MODE MAINTAINS SEEDED FERTILIZER PESTICIDE HERBICIDES FULL[02:00:01]
MAINTENANCE ON BOTH THE T BALL THE T BALL AND THE SOCCER FIELD JUST TO THE EAST OF THE T BALL FIELD AT ARCADIA FARMS SO IT'S NOT JUST ONE FIELD IT'S ACTUALLY BOTH AND IT IS WRITTEN IN THE AGREEMENT FOR BOTH FIELDS IT DOES SPECIFICALLY STATE ATHLETIC FIELDS NOT ONE OVER THE OTHER TAKING A LOOK AT THIS SO WE HAVE MOVED TO YOU KNOW WHEN WE HAD ENTERED IN THIS AGREEMENT WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE ON A SHORT-TERM BASIS NOT NECESSARILY A LONG-TERM BASIS WHEN YOU TAKE A LOOK IF YOU CAN SEE IN THE THE PHOTO COLWELL PARK PHASE TWO IS EXPECTED TO OPEN IN SEPTEMBER AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE AS TWO MULTI-PURPOSE ARTIFICIAL TURF FIELDS IT'S ACTUALLY BROKEN DOWN INTO ROUGHLY SIX TO AS MANY AS 12 FIELDS CAN BE PLAYED FOR SOCCER AND YOU KNOW ON THESE TWO FACILITIES THAT YOU SEE THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PARKS BOARD IT WAS VOTED 6-0 IN FAVOR OF ENDING THE AGREEMENT ON AUGUST 4TH AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE YOUR HONOR I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOU KNOW THE HOA THERE ARCADIA WANTS US OUT OF THERE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT YEAH I DON'T THINK THEY NECESSARILY SAID THAT PER SE IT WAS UM JUST THAT WE'RE GOING TO TERMINATE THE CONTRACT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS INFORMED BUT UM IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME UM IS THERE NOT ANY OR IS THERE ANY BENEFIT FOR THE CITY TO CONSIDER MAINTAINING A CONTRACT WITH THEM UM CONSIDERING NEEDS THAT WE HAVE FOR FIELDS THROUGHOUT THE CITY I KNOW WE'RE CONSTRUCTING WHOLE BUNCH BUT ALSO WE RAISED THE TAX MONEY FOR THE DEBT TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE DOING THE PARKS WE HAVE LAND AVAILABLE RIGHT NOW IT DOESN'T NEED BOND MONEY UM TO UTILIZE IS THERE NO BENEFIT TO CONTINUING A CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO HELP BALANCE OUT AS WE'RE TRYING TO NAVIGATE THROUGH THE FINANCIAL NEEDS OF THE CITY AND WHAT WE'RE THE INFRASTRUCTURE STUFF WE'RE TRYING TO BRING WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT WE JUST RAISE THEIR TAXES AND SO WHAT COUNCIL WILL SEE COMING UP IN ONE OF THE FUTURE AGENDAS IS THE THE AMENDMENT FOR EXECUTING A CONTRACT FOR GTLC PUSHING FORWARD WITH THE THAT SPORTS COMPLEX HOWEVER I CAN ALSO NOTE THEIR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN PLACE WITH OTHER DEVELOPERS THAT ARE OBLIGATED TO BUILD ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT THE CITY OWNS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS OWNED AND OPERATED BY HOA IT'S CITY OWNED PARK AND ONE OF THOSE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH WINDMORE WE'VE BEEN IN CONTACT BACK AND FORTH TO CONSTRUCT ADDITIONAL SPACES RECREATIONAL YOUTH SPORTS SPACES FROM THAT FACILITY THAT THE CITY WILL OWN AND OPERATE PLUS WITH COLWELL PARK AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE UM THE NEED FOR THE ADDITIONAL EXPENSE IS DEPLETING WE'RE LOOKING AS WE'RE CONTINUING TO GROW AND WE UNDERSTAND THE FINANCIAL SITUATION MOVING MORE SO INTO ARTIFICIAL TURF ACROSS THE BOARD REALLY IS LOWERS COST ON A MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION STANDPOINT UM OVERALL FOR THE PARK SIDE SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION UM AND THIS CAME UP IT JUST CAME TO MIND I'VE BEEN ASKED MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT EVEN AN ADULT SOFTBALL IS THAT NOT AN AREA WHERE THEY CAN I KNOW THAT THEY'RE NOT USING OUR CURRENT SOFTBALL THOUGH DO WE HAVE PLANS TO BRING ADULT SOFTBALL TO OUR CURRENT PARKS OR IF WE STILL ARE NOT LOOKING AT ADDING THE ADULT OUTSIDE OF IT SO MR MAYOR THAT MAY BE OFF THE AGENDA ITEM WELL I'M SAYING THAT CAN BE USED FOR[02:05:02]
ADULT SOFTBALL BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING YEAH OKAY YEAH ARCADIA FARMS YEAH BUT USING ADULT SOFTBALL AT ARCADIA YEAH OKAY SO TO GIVE PERSPECTIVE ON THE SIZE OF THIS FIELD WHEN I KEEP SAYING THAT THE T-BALL FIELD THE ACTUAL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUGHLY 125 TO 130 FEET FROM HOME PLATE TO THE OUTFIELD FENCES AT ARCADIA FARMS A TRUE T-BALL FIELD IS ACTUALLY DESIGNED FOR 150 FEET SO TO GIVE YOU KIND OF PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT THAT SIZE LOOKS LIKE THE INFIELD OF A STANDARDIZED HIGH SCHOOL BASEBALL FIELD JUST THE INFIELD IS 165 TO 172 FEET SO IT'S THIS ENTIRE FIELD AT ARCADIA FARMS WHICH WAS SUFFICE FOR SOFTBALL OR FOR T-BALL IS SMALLER THAN A HIGH SCHOOL INFIELD BASEBALL FIELD WHEN WE'RE TALKING ADULT SOFTBALL THEY ACTUALLY NEED TO PLAY ON A FULL-SIZE FIELD JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE HITTING THE BALL 300 TO 350 FEET AND THAT WOULD FALL INTO NEIGHBORING AND HOMES AND AND SO FORTH MR JOHNSON I'M IN FAVOR OF YOU KNOW US EXTENDING THE AGREEMENT FOR THAT FIELD AND I ONLY SAY THAT BECAUSE IT WE'RE USING PUBLIC FUNDS TO UPKEEP IT AND BUT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC IT'S NOT A PUBLIC PARK OR PUBLIC LOCATION THAT WE CAN USE FOR THAT AND IT WAS I BELIEVE THAT WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WE WENT INTO IN THE INTERIM WHILE THESE OTHER PARKS ARE BEING USED AND I WOULD ASSUME IF I'M COACHING A TEAM I'M WILL WANT MY TEAM TO PLAY ON THE NEW GOOD FIELDS I WOULD WANT TO BE SENT OVER THERE I MEAN JUST SPEAKING FROM EXPERIENCE UH IN THAT REGARD SO I JUST UH YOU KNOW I WE APPRECIATE ARCADIA HOA FOR LENDING US THE FIELD OR ENTERING AGREEMENT IN A TIME TO HELP THE CITY OUT IN UH YOU KNOW WE'RE IN A POSITION GETTING THEIR NEW FIELDS READY BUT I JUST I DON'T THINK IT MAKES ANY SENSE TO CONTINUE THE AGREEMENT WHEN THE NEW FIELDS ARE READY TO GO AND THESE ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC LOCATION SO I WOULDN'T I WOULDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE TO USE PUBLIC FUNDS FOR A PRIVATE LOCATION MR RUTLEDGE I WOULD HAVE TO EXCUSE ME I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE ON TOP OF THE FACT THAT OUR WORKS BOARD HAS VOTED AND I YOU KNOW I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE TALK ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO RETENTION IS ALSO THE RETENTION OF OUR BOARDS AND I THINK THEY'VE DONE THE DUE DEAL JUST TO THINK THIS THROUGH AND IF THEY VOTED NOT TO UH TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE UH AGREEMENT I WOULD LIKE TO THE COUNCIL TO SUPPORT THEM UNLESS THERE'S SOME GLARING OBVIOUS REASON NOT TO DO SO ALL RIGHT NO MORE QUESTIONS I CONTAIN EMOTION MAYOR I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR US TO APPROVE ITEM UH L2 2026-195 UH CONSIDER NOT ENTERING INTO ANOTHER YEAR LONG FACILITY USAGE AGREEMENT WITH ARCADIA FARMS HOA AND TAKE UM AS STATED YES SECOND ALL RIGHT MR JOHNSON SECOND I'M BUSH[I. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
PASSES 6-0 AND AT THIS TIME THE TIME IS 9:02 AND THIS WILL TAKE US INTO THE SESSION LIKE THE SESSION ON THE TERM OF CHAPTER 551 OF TEXT OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ENTER INTO A CLOSED SESSION OR EXACTLY SUCH TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING SECTION 551.071 UH CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING AND CONTEMPLATED UH LITIGATION THIS WOULD BE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE INQUIRY REGARDING BUDGET EXPENDITURES AND UH SICILY LAGUNA SIR LOC VERSUS UH CITY OF PRINCETON AND THEN UNDER CHAPTER 551.071 UH THE DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATION THIS WOULD BE FOR PROJECT RED ALL[J. ACTION PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]
RIGHT THE TIME IS 10:09 AND THIS WOULD TAKE US OUT OF EXECUTIVE AND AT THIS TIME I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE INCENTIVES AS DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION REGARDING PROJECT RIDGE RED SECOND ALL RIGHT MR JOHNSON SECOND I'LL SECOND OH MR JOHNSON READY SECOND ALL RIGHT[L3. 2026-200 Consider approving a request for items to be placed on a future agenda and NOT for discussion of these requests.]
MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO AND THIS WOULD TAKE US TO UM ITEM L3 2026-200 CONSIDER APPROVING A REQUEST FOR ITEMS TO BE PLACED ON THE FUTURE AGENDA AND NOT FOR DISCUSSION OF THESE REQUESTS IS THERE ANY ITEMS ALL RIGHT LET'S TAKE THE ITEM IN[02:10:01]
REPORT AGENDA NEXT QUESTION NO I DID I'M SORRY SO I WAS OKAY LET'S GO APOLOGIZE EXCUSE ME MR RUTLEDGE ONE SECOND I WAS TRYING TO GET MY I HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE THAN A FEW UM SO I WANTED TO UM HAVE ADDED UH FOR US TO BRING BACK INTO THE DISCUSSION AT LEAST AS A PLACEHOLDER UH THE CITY MANAGER ROLE AND WHERE THAT UPDATES REGARDING THAT AND I KNOW THAT SOME COUNCIL MEETINGS MAY NOT HAVE ANY UPDATES BUT LET'S AT LEAST KIND OF MY POINT IS MY RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE A PLACEHOLDER FOR IT SO WHEN THERE ARE UPDATES WE CAN DISCUSS IT AS NEEDED UM I ALSO WANTED TO ASK FOR UPDATES REGARDING UM DEPENDING APPLICATIONS FOR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS YOU'RE BROUGHT BACK UP YOU'RE STARTING FOR UH UPDATES HERE SO UM CITY MANAGER UPDATES FROM BOARDS COMMISSIONS UM AND I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NEXT COUNCIL MEETING I HAVE MY ONE NOTE WITH ALL MY AGENDA ITEMS AND NOW I'M GETTING AN UPDATE ON MY YOU CAN EMAIL THEM TOO YEAH I'LL DO IT UH MISS TY DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD YES I HAVE I WOULD LIKE TO PUT ON THE FUTURE AGENDA TO BRING BACK THE EASTRIDGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND MAINTENANCE BOND FOR REVIEW UM AS WELL AS TO REVIEW THE COMMITTEE FOR PUBLIC INFORMATION THERE'S SUPPOSED TO BE A COMMITTEE ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCES FOR THE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES OF OUR PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS AND UM A PROCESS I GUESS OF INFORMATION GETTING UH WHEN WE PURGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN UPDATE ON HOW THAT'S[M. REPORT AGENDA]
GOING DO WE HAVE THE COMMITTEE AND WHO ARE THE MEMBERS OKAY ALL RIGHT SO TAKE US TO ITEM M REPORT AGENDA NEXT SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 8 2026 AT 6 30 P.M NEXT SPECIAL PARKS ADVISORY BOARD MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 9 2026 AT 6:30 P.M NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING WILL BE MONDAY SEPTEMBER 14, 2026 AT 6:30 P.M NEXT REGULAR EDC MEETING WILL BE TUESDAY SEPTEMBER 15 2026 AT 6 P.M NEXT REGULAR CDC MEETING WILL BE WEDNESDAY SEPTEMBER 16 2026 AT 6 P.M NEXT REGULAR LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD MEETING WILL BE THURSDAY OCTOBER 15 2026 AT 6 30 P.M AND AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN UH MR MAYOR I'D LIKE TO MAKE A CORRECTION TO THE LIBRARY ADVISORY BOARD IT WILL BE THE 22ND UM YEAH YEAH ALL RIGHT THANK YOU THANK YOU ALL RIGHT AND AT THIS TIME I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN I MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN SECOND ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE THE TIME IS 10:13* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.