Feb 14, 2024 Special City Council Work Session

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:13]

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 14TH, 2004. 6:00 P.M. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED. IT IS A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO

[2. CITIZENS INPUT]

>> DAVE HOLT. THE WAY THAT THE CITY ALLOCATES THIS AFFECTS QUALITY OF LIFE. THERE ARE POORLY DESIGNED PROJECTS, PROJECTS WHICH CREATE UNWANTED CONGESTION, PROJECTS WHICH CREATE UNSAFE CONDITIONS. ALL OF THESE ARE INEFFICIENT USE OF CAPITAL. I ATTENDED A PARK ADVISORY MEETING FOR A WISH LIST OF THESE THAT WERE PRESENTED. AFTER THE MEETING, I ASKED STAFF FOR A COPY OF THE LIST. STAFF TOLD ME THAT THE LIST WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. I ASKED FOR THIS LIST THROUGH THE OPEN RECORD PROCESS. CITY COUNCIL TALKED WITH THE ATTORNEY. HERE IS THE OUTCOME. THE CITY ATTORNEY SAID THEY SHOULD BE SENDING YOU A COPY SOON. MY POINT IS, IT IS GREAT THAT WE HAVE A PUBLIC MEETING TONIGHT TO DISCUSS THESE CAPITAL PROJECTS, BUT THIS IS BUILT IN A PROCESS WITH THE RESIDENCE. THERE PROJECTS LISTED WHICH USE THE WATERFRONT. THESE ARE UNCOORDINATED WITH THE FLOW OF LAKES AND STREAMS. THE NATIONAL WATER TRAIL AND TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE TRAILS INVOLVE AND PULL TOGETHER THESE PROJECTS. THEY INCREASE THE ECONOMIC VITALITY OF THE REGION. NEIGHBORING CITIES HAVE USED THIS APPROACH. WHY AREN'T WE? THIS APPEARS TO BE A LIST OF THE SAME OLD PROJECTS LEFT OVER FROM THE OLD STAFF. MANY OF WHOM ARE NO LONGER HERE. WHY NOT PULL THESE OLD PROJECTS AND WAIT FOR PROJECTS DEVELOPED BY THE RESIDENTS? THERE WAS USUALLY A SIX-MONTH HONEYMOON OR GRACE PERIOD FOR PEOPLE TO GET READY. THESE HAVE FUNDING FROM A VARIETY OF SOURCES. THE FUNDING DOESN'T ALWAYS HAVE TO

[3A. Discussion of Debt Management Strategy Implementation and Ballot Propositions in support of the City’s Capital Improvement Program.]

VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S GET STARTED. OUR FIRST ITEM IS ON .3. THE DISCUSSION OF DEBT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY IMPLEMENTATION AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM.

>> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS.

>> WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT ALLOCATION. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THESE STRATEGIES. WE HAVE A MEETING ON THE 16TH.

WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE PROJECTS. WE HAVE SEEN THESE BEFORE. THERE ARE THE BALLOT PROPOSITIONS. IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY ONE, WE HAVE THREE PROPOSALS. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. OTHER PROJECTS WE IDENTIFIED WILL BE MOVING CAPITAL OVER INTO THE DEBT SUPPORTED BUDGET. THIS IS CHANGED . WE ARE MOVING TO ITEMS THAT ARE SMALLER AND LESS

[00:05:08]

WE TRIED TO MOVE THE SMALLER ITEMS , SOME OF THOSE MAINTENANCE ITEMS. IT WAS LEFT IN THE G.O. FUNDING.

THERE ARE CHANGES IN THIS AREA, AS WELL. THERE IS THE TOTAL.

YOU CAN SEE THIS IN YOUR PACKET. I'LL BE ABLE TO UPDATE THOSE NUMBERS. THE OBLIGATION IS 4.75. IT IS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS. IT WOULD BE JUST UNDER 30,000.

THAT USES UP THAT CAPACITY. WE HAVE 83 MILLION. IT COMES FROM THE TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES. WE HAVE 6.5 FROM COUNSEL REQUESTS. THE BOTTOM LINE IS WE ARE NOT USING SOME

OF THAT 80 MILLION. >> ALL RIGHT. A COUPLE OF

QUESTIONS. >> WE CAN GO BACK TO THAT.

>> CAN WE PAUSE THERE? >> I DON'T HAVE QUESTIONS ON THE BELLOLI WHICH AT THIS POINT. DO YOU HAVE THE LIST?

>> I HAD AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS MEANT SOMETHING ELSE THAN WHAT I THINK IS UNDERSTOOD HERE IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS ALLOCATION. WHAT IS IT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WITH THE CONTROL?

>> I STAND TO BE CORRECTED, BUT IT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WAS FOR THE STUDY OF MITIGATION EFFORTS. IF FUNDING REMAINED, POSSIBLY TAKING SOME MITIGATION STEPS. YOU WERE THERE , AS WELL. DID WE GET IT RIGHT?

>> IT IS A STUDY TO LOOK AT TARGETING THOSE .

>> THE CITY PARK AREAS. >> SO I GUESS I WAS MISUNDERSTOOD. I HAD THOUGHT THAT THE CIPTF ALLOCATED THIS TO A PROJECT. MY SUGGESTION IS THAT WE DON'T NEED TO STUDY EROSION CONTROL CITYWIDE. RATHER, THE ALLOCATION TO EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS, AND GETTING STUFF DONE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THE ONE .75 MILLION IS THE BEST USE. I THINK 500 K

OR 750, THAT COULD GO. >> IF I COULD ADD -- AND AGAIN, THIS IS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM CONVERSATIONS WE HAD IN THE TASK FORCE MEETINGS. THEY WANTED TO ALLOCATE THAT MUCH MONEY. WHATEVER IS LEFT, IT

[00:10:04]

WILL GO TOWARDS THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M ONLY SUGGESTING THAT WE CANNOT FUND A STUDY . WE CAN GET EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS DONE. WE KNOW WHERE THE ISSUES ARE FOR OUR CITY ASSETS AND CITY PARTS. WE KNOW THAT COMMUNITY PARK IS A MAJOR PARK. LAKESIDE PARK. WE DON'T NEED A STUDY TO NOTE THAT THERE IS EROSION CONTROL ISSUES. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THERE WOULD BE SOME DESIGN AS PART OF THESE PROJECTS INDIVIDUALLY. SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. WE FUND THE STUDY ON EROSION CONTROL. ALSO, TO CONSIDER REALLOCATING A PORTION OF IT.

LEAVE $1 MILLION THERE. WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS WHERE EROSION CONTROL IS NEEDED. I THINK $1 MILLION WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON EROSION CONTROL, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENHANCEMENT TO THE COMMUNITY CENTER FUNDING ALLOCATION FROM 500,000 TO POTENTIALLY 1 MILLION. IF THAT IS SOMETHING YOU ALL ARE AMENABLE TO. I CAN TAKE 500,000 OUT OF THAT AND BRING

IT UP TO 1 MILLION. >> I AGREE . I DON'T SEE THAT WE NEED TO SPEND THAT MUCH ON A STUDY . WHAT EXACTLY ARE THE RENOVATIONS WE ARE PROPOSING HERE? RENOVATIONS AND ENHANCEMENTS. RENOVATIONS I ASSUME ARE REPAIRS AND SUCH.

ENHANCEMENTS -- ARE WE ADDING SQUARE FOOTAGE? WHAT ARE WE

LOOKING AT? >> I DON'T THINK THIS INCLUDES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THAT WAS PROPOSED. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT $5 MILLION. PART OF THE CHALLENGE FOR YOU AND THE VOTERS IS THAT A LOT OF THIS IS NOT AS DETAILED AS MAYBE YOU WOULD WANT. WE DON'T HAVE A LAUNDRY LIST OF ALL THE THINGS THAT WE NEED DONE. IF YOU TOOK A TOUR THROUGH THE COMMUNITY CENTER, YOU KNOW THAT THERE IS A NEED TO UPGRADE IN CERTAIN AREAS. I WILL SAY THIS AD NAUSEAM. REMEMBER, WE ARE GOING TO COME BACK TO YOU BEFORE WE EFFECTUATE ANY OF THESE PROJECTS. YOU WILL SEE A LIST OF WHAT THESE THINGS ARE AND HAVE THE FINAL SAY ON THEM.

>> OF IT COMES BACK IN THE STAFF SUGGESTIONS THAT IT DOESN'T COST $1 MILLION, GREAT. WE CAN REALLOCATE THAT TO SOMEONE ELSE WHERE IT IS NEEDED. I MEAN, WE ALL ARE AROUND THE COMMUNITY CENTER OFTEN. DIFFERENT EVENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. WE SEE THE WEAR AND TEAR THAT BUILDING HAS. THE LACK OF MAINTENANCE IT HAS RECEIVED IN

THE PUBLIC AREAS. >> IN PARTICULAR, ONE THAT I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS THE HVAC SYSTEM. YOU KNOW. I JUST FELT LIKE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY NEEDS ATTENTION I GUESS WHEN I SAID ROWLETT COMMUNITY CENTER, I SHOULD'VE SAID NOT JUST THE CENTER, BUT ALSO , THE GROUNDS , AS WELL. SO I WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD. I SHOULD HAVE INCLUDED THE COMMUNITY CENTER TO BE MORE SPECIFIC. BUT I REALLY -- FOR ME, IT WAS THINGS LIKE ENERGY EFFICIENCY, HVAC, THAT KIND OF STUFF , THAT I THINK WE HAVE IMPROVEMENTS IN TECHNOLOGY

SINCE IT WAS BUILT. >> HE NEEDS CAMERAS. IT NEEDS NEW FLOOR, NEW PAINT, AND MORE.

>> I THINK THAT WOULD BE BETTER SPENT ON EROSION CONTROL.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK TO EROSION CONTROL AND CLARIFIED THAT. IT SHOULD BE HANDLED IN A SIMILAR WAY AS THE ASPHALT . WE ALLOCATE MONEY TO THE ON A SOMEWHAT REGULAR BASIS. BUT IT IS A POOL OF MONEY THAT IS EXHAUSTED AS THE NEED ARRIVES .

IF WE NEED TO ADDRESS EROSION CONTROL, THAT IS WHEN WE WOULD UTILIZE THAT FUND, SIMILAR TO HOW WE WOULD REHABILITATE A PORTION OF ROAD THAT MIGHT NEED REPAIR. THIS CITY HAS A BAD HABIT OF DOING PLANNING FOR A PROJECT IN AND FIGURING OUT HOW

[00:15:05]

IT IS CERTAINLY NOT GOING TO GO IN REVERSE. IT IS TIME TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS. I THINK THE WAY WE DO THAT IS BY DOING WHAT THE MAYOR HAS SUGGESTED, PUTTING ITS WORK

RIGHT AWAY. >> I WILL SAY THERE IS A FORECAST OF MONEY IN THE NEXT YEAR. SO WE ARE POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT THE LAKE LEVEL GOING DOWN AT ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. I WOULD WANT TO KEEP SOME MONEY FOR EROSION CONTROL

PROJECTS. >> YEAH.

>> SPRINGFIELD. >> AND THE CITY.CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THE CITY IS LIMITED IN AREAS WHERE WE CAN DO FOR EROSION CONTROL. WE ARE LIMITED TO CERTAIN AREAS.

>> I WOULD USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. I WOULD SAY IT IS CERTAINLY NOT ADVISABLE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE LIMITED, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBLIGATION. SO WHEN YOU OPEN THAT PANDORA'S BOX, SPOKE THE NEED IS ALMOST LIMITLESS.

>> YEAH. THERE IS A REASON FOR THAT. THEY HAVE NO EROSION CONTROL RESPONSIBILITIES OR OBLIGATIONS. YOU DON'T. TO TRY TO UNDERTAKE THAT IS GOING TO COST HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. I THINK THERE IS AN ASSUMPTION WHEN YOU LIVE ON AREAS SUCH AS CREEK BEDS AND RIVERFRONT AND THESE OTHER WATER AREAS, THERE IS PROBABLY THE EXPECTATION OF SOME DEGREE OF EROSION. SO I WOULD JUST SAY YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY LIMITED FROM PERFORMING EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, BUT YOU ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO DO SO.

>> I THINK YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON THE CITY.

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY EVEN COULD DO IT ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY. >> THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES.

WE WILL BE SPENDING A LOT OF MONEY TO DO THAT WORK. IT IS A SECONDARY ISSUE. WE PROBABLY HAVE TO DO SOME WORK ON PRIVATE

PROPERTY. >> I WOULD LIKE TO CHIME IN ON THE EROSION CONTROL. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA. ONE THING WITH THESE STUDIES THAT WE SEE OVER AND OVER -- I WAS IN THE EROSION CONTROL INDUSTRY FOR A LONG TIME. MOST OF THESE VENDORS THAT SELL VARIOUS TYPES OF SYSTEMS , THEY HAVE ENGINEERS ON STAFF. THEY DESIGN THIS STUFF. THEY GO OUT THERE AND THEY CAN LOOK. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S EVERYTHING.

I'M SAYING, THERE IS A LOT OF RESOURCES THAT ARE OUT THERE THAT YOU CAN DO WELL IF YOU USE THIS. AGAIN, I DO AGREE. I SEE THE VALUE IN MOVING WHATEVER IT IS. I WOULD PROBABLY GO WITH THE 27.5. WITH THE UNDERSTNDING THAT

THIS . >> I'M TOTALLY OPEN TO THAT.

EROSION CONTROL BECOMES AN ONGOING ITEM. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE WE FIND WHAT SOME PEOPLE ARE FINDING RIGHT NOW WITH PANEL REPLACEMENT OF STUFF. AS OUR TEAMS GET BETTER AT DOING THIS STUFF, IT'S NOT THAT HARD. I MEAN, YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT TO DO AND HOW TO DO IT, BUT IT IS JUST NOT THAT COMPLICATED.

>> AND I LIKE THE POINT THAT YOU RAISED , WHICH IS, WE NEED TO SHIFT THE MINDSET TO BEING LIKE THIS. EROSION CONTROL HAPPENED. TO BEING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE AN ONGOING MAINTENANCE ISSUE FOR OUR CITY, ESPECIALLY LAKESIDE CITY AND HAVING PARKS ON LAKESIDE. AND HAVING A LOT OF PONDS IN OUR PARK. IT IS GOING TO BE IN ONGOING ISSUE. TO LOOK AT IT

[00:20:05]

TO GO A LONG WAY. I HOPE. >> THAT HAS TO BE THE CASE.

>> THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE COST AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT IS

INVOLVED. >> RIGHT. EXACTLY. OKAY.

>> DO YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PRESENTATION?

>> I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND MAKE THAT 1 MILLION.

BELOW IT IS .5. YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT ONE .25.

>> AND THE DESCRIPTION OF THE EROSION CONTROL.

>> THAT IS HOW I WOULD CHANGE IT.

>> SHOULD WE BE MORE SPECIFIC IN THAT? COMMUNITY CENTER, QUAIL HOUSE? IT DOES NEED ONGOING MAINTENANCE.

>> THERE ARE A LOT OF WAYS YOU COULD FREEZE THAT. WE WILL EXPLAIN IT TO THE PUBLIC. WE CAN'T LIST EVERYTHING. IF WE START LISTING THAT IN THE TITLE, WHAT ABOUT THIS ONE AND THIS ONE? WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CAPTURE IT ON THE RECORD.

SOMETHING THAT WILL BE A PRIORITY. WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE ASSETS. PARK ASSETS. COMMUNITY CENTER AND PARK ASSETS. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THERE. YOU DON'T SAY COMMUNITY CENTER AND COIL HOUSE GROUNDS. YOU DON'T LEAVE

SOMETHING OUT. >> OKAY. GOT IT.

>> I WANTED TO GO BACK INTO OUR DEBT STRATEGY. I THINK FROM THE LAST MEETING, THERE WASN'T A CLEAR STANDARD. I GOT LOST INTO THE WEEDS WITH THE CHANGES. OUR CAPACITY OF $80 MILLION IT IS BASED ON SHIFTING THE NOTE FOR THE FACILITIES FROM 20 TO 30 YEARS. AND SHIFTING OUR PRINCIPAL PAYMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT THE $80 MILLION OF IMS CAPACITY IS BASED ON VERY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES AND THE AVERAGE HOME APPRAISAL VALUE.

IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING , AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024, WE PROJECTED THE ENGINEER WILL HOME VALUE GROWTH TO BE 8%. IN FISCAL YEAR 2025 AND 2026, THAT WAS GOING

TO BE 2% . IS THAT CORRECT? >> WELL, YES. WE ARE GOING INTO FISCAL YEAR 2025. BUT THINK OF IT AS YOU HEAR ONE, TWO, AND

THREE. >> OKAY. SO THE $80 MILLION IS BASED ON PRETTY CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE OF THE HOME APPRAISAL VALUES. IN REALITY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE BEEN SEEING DOUBLE DIGIT HOME VALUE GROWTH IN OUR REGION FOR QUITE A WHILE. THERE ARE NO PREDICTIONS FROM ANY OF THE MARKETS INDICATING THAT THAT IS GOING TO SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGE GOING INTO THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. AND THERE IS NO INDICATION OF RECESSION. AT 2% GROWTH. IT IS A SIGNIFICANT HOUSING CRISIS, POTENTIALLY. I BRING THIS UP IN THAT, WE LEFT ABOUT $3 MILLION ON THE TABLE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEAVING IT THERE. I DON'T WANT TO SAY A SLUSH FUND. RATHER, THE

CUSHION. >> CONTINGENCY.

>> THERE WE GO. CONTINGENCY. >> IN REALITY, $80 MILLION IS THE MINIMUM. IN REALITY, THAT NUMBER COULD BE ANYWHERE

[00:25:01]

AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE BEEN WITHOUT COUNCIL APPROVAL. IT IS NOT JUST ONE ISSUANCE. WE DON'T GO IN AND ISSUE AN $80 MILLION NOTE THE NEXT DAY. IT WILL BE MULTIPLE ISSUANCES OVER APP OF TIME. I SUGGEST WE ADD BACK TO THE PROJECT LIST. WE SHOULD RESTORE THAT , AND THEN COME IF WE GET ON THE ROAD AND WE START TO SEE THINGS ARE CHANGING IN THE MARKET, AND THINGS ARE GOING WELL, WE DON'T HAVE TO ISSUE THOSE BONDS. THE LIKELIHOOD IS WE WILL BE ABLE TO BECAUSE HOME APPRAISAL VALUES WILL LIKELY GO UP MORE THAN 2%. THAT GIVES US EVEN MORE CAPACITY OVER $80 MILLION. THAT IS MY SUGGESTION. THAT IS THE LAST TIME I WILL BE ABLE TO ADVOCATE FOR THIS. BEFORE WE VOTE ON FRIDAY. I'M PUTTING THAT OUT THERE.

>> I WOULD TOTALLY AGREE. I DIDN'T CHIME IN EARLIER IN THE CONVERSATION. I THINK WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY RIGHT NOW TO CHANGE THE LOOK OF ROWLETT WITH THAT CHANGE. NOT ONLY FROM THE APPEARANCE STANDPOINT BUT FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.

THAT WALKWAY IS DARK AT NIGHT. ALL OF US KNOW BECAUSE WE DRIVE HOME AFTER COUNCIL MEETINGS. MAYBE WE DON'T ALL TAKE THE PARKWAY BUT I DO. IT IS DARK. WHEN YOU GO OVER THAT SECTION OF THE LAKE, IT WILL MAKE A HUGE DIFFERENCE. THE TITLE OF THE ITEM LAST TIME WAS DECORATIVE LIGHTS. TO ME, THAT IS SECONDARY. IT IS ABOUT THE EFFECT IT WILL HAVE ON TRANSIT THROUGH THE CITY AS A WHOLE. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T SPEAK UP ENOUGH LAST TIME. IT WAS LIKE, NO. WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M HOPING BY THIS APPEAL, I CAN CHANGE SOME MINDS BECAUSE I DO THINK IT IS A MAJOR DEAL. AS THE MAYOR HAS SAID, THE EXCESS CAPACITY HERE, IT IS BASED ON SOME CONCERTED DISH CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATES. WHAT IS THE INTENT WITH THAT CAPACITY? THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE CLARITY ON FROM THE COUNCIL. WE LEAVE THE 3.5 MILLION ON THE TABLE.

WHAT IS IT TAKE TO RETAIN THAT CAPACITY? IF IT IS, WHY ARE WE DOING IT NOW? COSTS ARE NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE BUT UP. IF THE INTENT IS TO REPEAT THAT TO THE TAXPAYERS, WOULD BE INTERESTING -- INTERESTED TO KNOW WHAT THE IMPACT OF THAT COST SAVINGS WOULD BE TO THE AVERAGE RESIDENT OF A $300,000 HOME. WHAT IS THE .15 MILLION INCAPACITY EQUATING TO IN TERMS

OF THAT REDUCTION. >> RATE REDUCTION. YEAH.

>> THOUGHTS? >> I WILL SPEAK UP HERE. I WILL SAY THE PREVIOUS MEETING WHEN THIS CAME UP, I WAS NOT AGAINST IT. I DIDN'T EXPRESS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT. I WILL SAY THAT AS MUCH AS IT HAS GENERATED MORE APPEALS AND EMAILS FROM THE PUBLIC. MORE THAN ANYTHING I CAN REMEMBER.

THIS IS PRETTY ORGANIC. THIS IS NOT ORCHESTRATED. THIS MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. I DON'T DRIVE UP AND DOWN THERE VERY OFTEN.

IT CERTAINLY SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING THAT IS WANTED BY THE CITIZENS. I THINK WE NEED TO RESPECT THAT. TO JEFF'S POINT, WE HAVE TO STOP THINKING ABOUT PERSONAL

[00:30:08]

MAYBE YOU MAKE IT SAFER OR SOMETHING. ARE WE PUTTING A

LITTLE EMOTION INTO THIS? >> IN REALITY, THE $200 MILLION ISN'T GOING TO GO AWAY . THEY WILL BE THERE. THEY WILL GO UP IN PRICE OVER TIME. WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TODAY TO ACCOMPLISH SOMETHING PRETTY BIG FOR THE CITIZENS. THAT IS AN OPPORTUNITY WORTH CONSIDERING SERIOUSLY. SORRY. GO AHEAD.

>> SO MY POINT OF VIEW IS WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT THIS. THIS IS CONSERVATIVE GROWTH. IF WE HAVE SOME NATURAL EMERGENCY IN THE FUTURE, THERE IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE ENOUGH MONEY FOR US TO ISSUE MORE DEBT. OR AN ADDITIONAL BOND. I STILL FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO NOT BOND EVERY PENNY THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE. I JUST FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO -- AGAIN, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE DON'T KNOW. THAT IS HOW I FEEL.

>> WHAT I SAY TO THAT IS, WHEN WE PUT SOMETHING ON THE BALLOT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE ARE OBLIGATED TO BOND OUT THOSE ITEMS, TO BE ISSUING BONDS FOR THOSE ITEMS. WE HAVE PERMISSION TO DO SO WHEN WE ARE READY TO. WHEN WE GO TO ISSUE THOSE BONDS, IF WE HAVE DETERMINED THAT WE ARE IN A BIND MARKET AND SOMETHING DRAMATIC HAPPENS, THEN WE WILL HAVE TO RECONSIDER OUR CAPITAL STRATEGIES, AND WHAT ARE WE GOING TO FUND. BUT BY PLACING IT ON A LIST, WE ARE NOT OBLIGATED TO FUND THAT ITEM. IT JUST SAYS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY IS THERE. WHEN THE TIME COMES. THAT IS WHAT I SAY TO THAT. AND OF COURSE, WE HAVE GONE INTO THE MINIMUM.

THIS IS $8 MILLION. IT IS THE MINIMUM OF CAPACITY. IN REALITY, IT WILL BE MORE. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT OF VIEW.

>> IN REALITY, WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL BE. TO ME, THIS FEELS LIKE THE REAL ESTATE AGENT WHO TELLS YOU, YOU CAN AFFORD THIS MUCH HOUSE, AND, OH, BUT YOU ARE PROBABLY GOING TO BE GETTING PROMOTIONS AND RAISES, SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD MORE. THE TERM THAT THE CITY MANAGER USED WAS UNKNOWN. THIS WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A SLUSH FUND. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A CONTINGENCY FUND TO TAKE CARE OF THINGS. OF COURSE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT UNEXPECTED THINGS THERE ARE. ALSO, THOSE EMAILS FEEL LIKE AN ORGANIZED EFFORT, BUT OBVIOUSLY, THERE ARE PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT THE STREETLIGHTS. I DO RESPECT THAT. I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE WITH US MAKING THAT DECISION HERE WITH TWO COUNCILMEMBERS MISSING. TWO COUNCILMEMBERS THAT WERE CLOSE TO THIS. THEY WERE OPPOSED TO THIS. I COULD GO ALONG WITH PUTTING THIS ON THE BALLOT AS A SEPARATE ITEM SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD NOT BE HAVING TO SAY, OH, WELL, IF I VOTE FOR ALL THESE THINGS, THEN I HAVE TO VOTE FOR IT.

>> I AM SPOKEN . I CAN'T HELP THAT THE COUNCILMEMBERS ARE HERE. THEY WILL BE HERE FRIDAY. I SPOKE TO ONE OF THEM AND THEY INDICATED THAT THEY CHANGED THEIR MIND ON THEIR SUPPORT.

WHATEVER THAT IS WORTH. AGAIN, I WILL RESTATE IT. I'M NOT A REAL ESTATE AGENT, BUT , WHEN YOU LOOK AT TRENDS, YOU LOOK AT WHERE WE HAVE BEEN, WHERE WE ARE GOING, THERE IS NO INDICATION OF THE MARKET CRISIS HAPPENING IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS. $80 MILLION IS THE MINIMUM THAT WE ARE GOING TO SEE. IF WE ARE AT 2%, IF YOU BELIEVE IT IS GOING TO BE 2%, I

[00:35:07]

BUT I DON'T HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL. I THINK THAT THE $200 MILLION OF CAPITAL NEEDS IS NOT GOING TO DISAPPEAR AND HIDE IN THE CLOSET AND SHUT THE DOOR. IT WILL BE IN THERE. WE WILL STILL HAVE THOSE NEEDS, WHETHER WE PAY FOR THEM TODAY, TOMORROW, OR THE NEXT DAY. THE QUESTION IS, ARE WE GOING TO BE WILLING TO TAKE THE EXTRA STEP TO FUND THESE THINGS TODAY OR WAIT FOR ANOTHER TIME? THAT IS JUST THE WAY I SEE IT.

>> SO, CAN I ASK THE CHIEF A QUESTION?

>> BY ALL MEANS. >> CHIEF DAY, COULD YOU PLEASE WEIGH IN ON THE LIGHTS ON 66?

>> SURE. WE HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT SAFETY IN THE COMMUNITY AND HOW IMPORTANT THE LIGHTING IS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

PARTICULARLY IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT ALSO THERE.

I THINK WHEN THERE IS IMPROVED LIGHTING, PEOPLE FEEL SAFER. THERE IS LESS LIKELIHOOD THAT A CRIMINAL WILL BE ABLE TO OPERATE IN THE DARK IN OUR DISTRICT. I THINK IT IS ALWAYS A BENEFIT TO HAVE LIGHTING. IT CERTAINLY ISN'T GOING TO HURT. IT'S AN IMPORTANT FACTOR FOR OUR

COMMUNITY TO CONSIDER. >> THANKS.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR BOTH OF YOU, IF I MAY. SO BOTH OF YOU ALLUDED TO THE FACT THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO WITHHOLD THE THREE-POINT 15 UNUSED CAPACITY. IF I CAN GET YOU FORWARD ONE SIDE. I APPRECIATE IT. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, WHY STOP THERE? WHY WOULD WE NOT PULL BACK AND SAVE THE ADDITIONAL 6.5 BILLION AND COUNSEL REQUESTS. HOW FAR DO YOU TAKE THAT ARGUMENT IF WE SHOULD RECLAIM THAT OR HOLD ONTO THAT BECAUSE OF THE UNKNOWN OR UNCERTAINTY? AT WHAT POINT DO YOU DRAW THE LINE AND SAY, OKAY. THAT IS FOR ENOUGH. IS IT THE STREETLIGHTS IN PARTICULAR THAT ARE THE ISSUE? IF THAT IS THE ISSUE, RATHER ALLOCATE THAT THREE-POINT 15 INTO ANOTHER PROJECT OR ROADWAY PROJECT OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ADDRESS CAPITAL NEEDS. IF THE HANGUP IS ABOUT THAT ENDLESS ABOUT HOW MUCH TO ALLOCATE, THEN I WOULD OFFER THAT AS AN

ALTERNATIVE. >> AGAIN, IT IS A PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY. IT IS THE IDEA THAT I JUST DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE SAYING, I'M GOING TO BOND EVERY COMMUNITY THAT I CAN. IT IS A PERSONAL DECISION. IT WEIGHS HEAVILY ON ME, BUT CHIEF DENNINGS SAID, I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT. IT IS A PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY QUESTION, AND I THINK PEOPLE HAVE VOTED FOR US FOR OUR PERSONAL PAW -- PHILOSOPHIES AND HOW WE LOOK AT THINGS. I WILL ABSOLUTELY , AS WE ARE VOTING OUT THINKING, WILL WEIGH IT. I GOT THE EMAILS, AS WELL. I JUST FEEL LIKE IT IS IMPORTANT . IT IS JUST A LOT TO ME. IT IS A LOT TO DO THAT. I DON'T LIKE PAYING INTEREST.

I'M ONLY ONE VOTE. I WILL WEIGH MY OPTIONS AND CAST MY

VOTE ACCORDINGLY. >> I ONLY ASK BECAUSE I VALUE YOUR OPINION. THE PHILOSOPHY SAID OF IT IS WHEN I DON'T DO WELL. I'M MORE OF A DATA GUY. PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY IS

IMPORTANT. SO THANK YOU. >> WHEN YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ISSUE IT, LET'S SAY IT'S A 27 OR SOMETHING. DON'T WE HAVE THAT ABILITY? PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE WOULD THINK I'M CONSERVATIVE. THAT IS HOW I FEEL.

[00:40:03]

>> WE WERE DEPENDING ON THINGS THAT WE WERE GOING TO GET. IT WAS GOING TO COME ONLINE NOW. WE WERE GOING TO HAVE THAT.

YOU KNOW. IT JUST FEELS LIKE WE ARE DOING THAT AGAIN. WE ARE DEPENDING ON SOMETHING THAT IS BOUND TO HAPPEN. WHAT IF IT

DOESN'T? >> NOT TRYING TO ENGAGE IN THIS POLICY DISCUSSION AT ALL. BUT I'M ALSO YOUR RESOURCE.

BUT I DIFFERENTIATE THIS FROM SOME OF THE WAYS THT THIS ADMISSION OF BODY HAS OPERATED WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECULATIVE NATURE, HEDGING AGAINST FUTURE TAX BENEFIT FROM THE SAPPHIRE MAIN DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS DISTINCT IN THAT THIS IS PREDICATED ON VALUE GROWTH. HISTORICALLY, AS FAR AS I CAN TELL THE LAST 10 YEARS, IT IS A 10% AVERAGE EVERY YEAR. AND SO THIS IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS. I JUST WANT TO BE DISTINCT. WE ARE THE ONES GIVING YOU THIS CAPACITY NUMBER. WE COULD HAVE GIVEN YOU SOMETHING HIGHER AND FELT COMFORTABLE, BUT WE REALLY WANTED TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT LOOKED AT THE WORST-CASE SCENARIO. I'M NOT TRYING TO SWAY ANYONE. I WANT TO GIVE YOU FACTS. THE FACT IS, WE HAVE HAD, FOR THE LAST 7 TO 10 YEARS, AN AVERAGE GO -- GROWTH OF 7 TO 10%. EVEN IF WE DON'T HIT 8% AND WE GET THE LOW-END OF THE AVERAGE OF 7%, YOU HAVE A SMOOTHING EFFECT OVER THE YEARS. THIS ISN'T SPECULATIVE. POINT PREDICT IT ? ABSOLUTELY NOT. WHAT WAS DONE BEFORE WAS SPECULATIVE. IT WAS DONE IN A DIFFERENT WAY. BUT THIS IS BASED ON DATA AND A HYPER CONSERVATIVE ESTIMATE. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE REPRESENTING THAT ACCORDINGLY.

>> WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO DESIGNATE THE STREETLIGHTS ON 66 AS A SEPARATE PROPOSITION TO BE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENTLY

OF THE OTHERS? >> YOU COULD IF YOU WANTED TO.

YOU COULD IF YOU WANTED TO. >> YEAH.

>> ULTIMATELY, IT IS UP TO THE VOTERS TO DECIDE IF IT IS A

PRIORITY. >> ONE OF THE BIG COMPLAINTS THAT THE VOTERS HAD THAT M■Y CONSTITUENTS HAVE SAID TO ME IS THAT ON THESE BOND PROPOSITIONS, THERE ARE SO MANY THINGS TOGETHER. WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED. IT HAPPENED IN 2021. SO, LIKE I SAID, I CAN SUPPORT IT AS A SEPARATE VALUE PROPOSITION. THEN THEY CAN DECIDE ON THAT

ISSUE. >> I THINK THAT IS WHERE OUR NEXT CONVERSATION GOES. THAT TRANSITIONS US TO THE NEXT PART

OF IT. >> FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE, DID YOU HEAR WHAT YOU NEEDED TO HEAR?

>> NO. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY CLARITY. WHAT I NEED TO HEAR IS, ARE WE GOING TO GO FORWARD WITH THE PROPOSITION ? I HEARD SUGGESTIONS. I DIDN'T HEAR ANY CONSENSUS ON EITHER POSITION.

IT MAY BE WAITING FOR LATER, WHICH IS FINE, BUT AT THIS

OINT, I HAVEN'T HEARD. >> WE NEED AN ANSWER HERE.

WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE BALLOT LANGUAGE SOON. WHETHER WE ARE AMENABLE TO PLACING THE STREETLIGHTS BACK THERE. WE CAN

START FROM THERE. >> OR MAY BE THE MAYOR'S POINT IS THE QUESTION. WE NEED TO GET CLARITY ON THIS. THE CAPACITY QUESTION, TOO. THERE IS THE LIGHT QUESTION AND THE CAPACITY QUESTION. YOU SAID, HEY, IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THE LIGHTING IS A PROJECT, MAYBE WOULD SUPPORT A ROUTE. I DON'T FEEL THAT WE HAVE CLARITY FOR EITHER OF THOSE QUESTIONS YET.

I DON'T. >> I FEEL THAT THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF POSITIONS PUT FORTH. I DON'T FEEL THAT WE CAN BRING SOMETHING BACK IN THE NEXT MEETING. I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE THE CLARITY WE NEED FOR ANSWERS TO THOSE POSITIONS . THAT MAY BE COMING LATER IN THE MEETING.

>> WE ARE UTILIZING THE $3 MILLION. IF WE ARE UTILIZING THAT FUNDING, IT WILL BE THERE.

>> IF YOU USE THAT AS SOMETHING SEPARATE.

>> I DIDN'T SAY THAT. THAT IS THE NEXT CONVERSATION.

>> I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CAPACITY. I WANT TO PRESERVE

CAPACITY FOR THE FUTURE. >> I CAN SUPPORT IT IF IT IS A

SEPARATE BALLOT MEASURE. >> IT LOOKS LIKE THREE OF YOU

[00:45:01]

JUST FOR THE RECORD. THAT IS WHAT I JUST HEARD.

>> THAT IS WHAT YOU HEARD RIGHT NOW. WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT CONVERSATION, SPOKE WHAT WAS THE NUMBER?

>> THE 3 MILLION. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER POINTS

ON THIS ONE? >> LET ME UPDATE YOU ON THAT.

AGAIN, GOING BACK TO PROPOSITION A , THAT IS 4.7 ON THE PROPOSITION. FOR 12, IT IS 8.5.

>> THE CAPACITY HAS NOT CHANGED.

>> CORRECT. IT WOULD BE 8.5.

>> I'M ASKING YOU TO GIVE THAT NUMBER.

>> FOR THE STREETS, IT IS 38.

>> IN THIS CASE, THIS WOULD NOT CHANGE. IT IS FOR .7. THE LANGUAGE HERE IS FAIRLY BROAD. IT INCLUDES FIRE FACILITIES AND RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU COULD NARROW IT DOWN IF YOU WANTED TO. THIS GIVES US THE MOST FLEXIBILITY, SHOULD IT

REQUIRE THAT AMOUNT. >> CAN I PAUSE FOR ONE SECOND? WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT TONIGHT. IT SUGGESTED THAT SOME OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT HAPPENED WITH REGARDS TO THE PARK ITEMS WERE NOT A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO CLEAR UP THAT ALL FOUR COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE DONE IN THE PUBLIC . THEY'RE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT IS PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. I WOULD SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT THE CIPTF. THE CIPTF IS RECORDED AND UPLOADED TO YOUTUBE, AS WELL. ALL OF THOSE DISCUSSIONS WERE HAD. THOSE WERE NOT DONE IN OPEN SESSION. ALL THOSE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE ITEMS ORIGINATED FROM THE PARKS BOARD AND THROUGH THE CIPTF AND THEN TO THE COUNCIL.

>> I CAN'T SAY I KNOW THE ORIGIN OF THE PROJECTS INITIALLY. I WASN'T HERE. I DON'T KNOW. BUT I GOT HERE IN JUNE. THOSE PROJECTS WERE BEING DISCUSSED IN A MEETING AT THE CIPTF. THERE WERE NUMEROUS MEETINGS OF THE CIPTF SINCE

THEN. >> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE ARE CLEAR THAT ALWAYS DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THESE TOPICS ARE HAPPENING HERE. THERE IS NOT SOME SOME VERSION OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO HIDE WITH TOPICS OR PROJECTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. CIPTF HAS BEEN AT WORK FOR A LONG TIME. BEFORE YOU ARRIVED. AND THAT WAS IN JUNE. CIPTF HAS BEEN AT THIS FOR ALMOST A YEAR NOW. I JUST THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT TO

STATE. >> THANK YOU FOR SAYING THAT.

DISRUPTING YOUR FLOW OF THINGS. FEEL FREE TO START OVER.

>> COUNSEL, TO HAVE QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS ON THE PROPOSITION THAT THEY PROPOSED? AND BY THE WAY, I WILL SUGGEST A SHIFT OF THE ORDER OF PROPOSITIONS.

>> THIS IS FOR IMPROVING TRAILS. THE TRAIL PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO BE SUPPORTED HERE. IT WOULD REMOVE LANGUAGE

THERE. >> WE HAVE A LOT OF PROPERTY

THERE. >> AS FAR AS I CAN SEE, OUR PROJECTS DO NOT INCLUDE THE NATURE TRAIL. I THINK IF YOU

[00:50:02]

TRAILS IN THAT LANGUAGE. >> I THINK IT IS MORE ACCURATE.

IT IS MORE ACCURATE. >> I WANT TO MAKE THOSE

CHANGES. >> DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS

ABOUT THIS? >> THERE IS TRANSPORTATION. IT INCLUDES STREETS, SIDEWALKS, THE REVERSE. THESE ARE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO ON THE STREET.

>> THIS ONE IS 38 MILLION FLAT.

>> TO FOLLOW THE PRESIDENT OF HOW PREVIOUS BONDS HAVE BEEN ORDERED, USUALLY, PROP EIGHT WOULD BE THE PROPOSITION. YOU KNOW, WE CAN KEEP IT AS IS. THIS IS THE WAY IT HAS BEEN PRESENTED. I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.

>> I DON'T MIND COME EITHER WAY. IT IS SO SMALL.

>> I DID NOT HAVE TIME TO GO BACK AND RESEARCH. DO YOU GUYS KNOW WHETHER THIS HAS ANY EFFECT ON THE PASSAGE OF IT?

MULTIPLE BOND ISSUES. >> IT IS WAS A STRONG ISSUE. I HAVEN'T REALLY LOOKED AT IT FOR THIS.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT SHOULD BE WHAT HE SAID.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PREFERENCE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. UNLESS THERE IS SOME EFFECT THAT WE KNOW OF ON THE ACTUAL PASSAGE

OF IT. >> SO THIS MIGHT BE PREMATURE IN THE PROCESS. ONE OF THE CRITICISMS I HEAR ALL THE TIMES -- TIME IS ABOUT THIS. YOU HAVE TO WRITE THEM IN A CERTAIN WAY. I GUESS WHAT THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU PRESENT SOME OF THE SPECIFIC THINGS? IS THAT PART OF THE BOND PRESENTATION PACKAGE? PEOPLE WANT TO SEE IT.

>> WE HAVE EXCITING THINGS ON HERE. I DON'T WANT THAT TO GET CAUGHT UP THERE IN THAT LANGUAGE.

>> TYPICALLY, THE LANGUAGE -- YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LEARN A BUNCH ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO FROM IT. THAT IS A PART OF THE PACKAGE. WE HAVE A COUPLE OF TOWN HALLS OR WE WILL DISCUSS MAILERS, TOO. HAS MORE DETAILED INFORMATION FOR PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE

TRYING TO DO. >> AND THE WEBSITE COMING UP.

>> WELCOME ANOTHER YOU SAID WE WOULD, THAT IS IT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO INTO DETAIL, BUT WE MAY AS WELL MENTION THAT.

THERE IT IS. NEXT STEPS. >> MY BAD.

>> SO GOING BACK TO THE TRANSPORTATION PIECE, THAT IS THE ONLY PART OF THE COMMUNICATIONS PLAN. WE DEVELOPED ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT WERE LISTED. THERE ARE PROBABLY A COUPLE MORE FOR US TO GET OUT THE INFORMATION. IN A RELATIVELY SHORT TIMEFRAME. THAT WILL BE ABOUT WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND WHAT IS BEING SUPPORTED BY THIS PROPOSITION. THAT WILL BE PART OF IT.

>> WILL, NOT A SEPARATE PROPOSITION.

>> I'M SORRY. >> HE ASKED YOU ABOUT COMMENTS

ON THE TRANSPORTATION PART. >> THAT IS WHAT I SAID IT.

>> GOTCHA. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO MAKE EVERYONE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONFIDENT WITH

THAT ADDITION. >> THAT WOULD MAKE ME MORE

COMFORTABLE. >> I WOULD FEEL BETTER ABOUT DOING THAT AND HAVING IT BE A SEPARATE ITEM ON THE BOUT. -- BALLOT. TYPICALLY, YOU DON'T WANT TO SEPARATE THINGS BECAUSE

[00:55:02]

SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> THIS IS A MAJOR THIRD. SO THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR IMPACTS SO MANY PEOPLE. THAT IT WILL NOT BE BIASED ONE DIRECTION OR ANOTHER. THIS IMPACTS THEIR OWN IN THE CITY. IT IS THE MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH HER COMMUNITY. I DON'T SEE THAT NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THIS PROPOSITION BY ITSELF. I COULD BE COMPLETELY OFF-BASE WITH THAT. BUT I THINK IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IS IMPORTANT.

WITHIN THE BIGGER PROPOSITION -- PEOPLE CAN GO ONLINE AND DO

THAT. >> IF WE PASS FOR AN ORDINANCE WITH BOND COLLECTION, IT IS NOT GOING TO BE A RESOUNDING YES. IT IS PART OF THE BOND PASSAGE. GOING BACK TO MY ORIGINAL PACKAGE, IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES, THEN WE ARE COMFORTABLE ABOUT THE PACKAGES. THAT IS PROBABLY THE WAY TO GO.

SAYING, WE ARE LETTING YOU DECIDE ON WHETHER YOU WANT TO SPEND THIS MONEY ON THIS.

>> IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES TO GET US TO LEVERAGE OUR CAPACITY, THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS. I WOULD PREFER IT NOT TO BE THAT WAY. IT IS NOT A CONTROVERSIAL ITEM. BY IT BEING WITHIN THE TRANSPORTATION PROPOSITION, MY COMMENTS WOULD INDICATE THAT THEY ARE NOT GOING TO FILL THE ITEMS JUST BECAUSE STREETLIGHTS ARE THERE.

>> WHAT YOU DO IS UP TO YOU. REMEMBER THIS. THREE-POINT ONE 5 MILLION. IF THAT PASSES, GREAT. BUT IF THERE IS ANY SURPLUS, WE CANNOT USE IT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. THAT IS THE ONLY EVENT YOU GET WHEN COMBINING IT WITH THAT STUFF.

IF YOU HAVE IDENTIFIED THIS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THAT PROPOSITION, YOU ARE ABLE TO DO THAT. HERE, IF YOU SEPARATE IT, IF THE PROJECT COMES IN AT 2.15, THERE IT IS. THAT IS SOMETHING ADDITIONAL FREE TO THINK ABOUT. I'M JUST SAYING.

I WANT TO GIVE INFORMATION. >> WHAT HAPPENS IF WE ALLOCATED ONE .15 AND IT PASSES? WHAT IF THERE'S

FUNDING LEFT OVER? >> NOTHING.

>> YOU COULD REBATE IT BACK. HE IS SAYING IF WE GET THE ESTIMATE YOU REBATE IT BACK. YOU REFUNDED BACK.

>> THANK YOU. THAT IS YOUR CHOICE.

SEPARATE ITEM. IF THAT IS WHAT IT TAKES, SURE.

>> THAT IS THE BOOK I'M IN. >> IF IT IS IMPORTANT TO YOU,

THEN FINE. >> I RESPECT THAT.

>> WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE STREET?

>> I THINK WE NEED TO BE MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT. IT IS NOT JUST FOR ANY THOROUGHFARE. IT IS FOR PARKWAY 66. I FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE IN WHAT YOU'RE ALLOCATING HERE. WE WILL DEVELOP THE LANGUAGE AND SEE IT TOMORROW.

>> I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT HOW DOES THE POINT YOU MADE.

RESTRICTING OURSELVES TO THIS. >> MR. BAUER WAS GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY THERE. HE WAS GIVING YOU LANGUAGE THAT

[01:00:04]

OR DO YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS ONLY 466? THAT OPENS IT UP A LITTLE BIT. IT SHOULD BE CLEAR THAT THIS

IS WHAT IT IS FUNDING. >> I SHOULD'VE ASKED THE COUNCIL TO GIVE SOME ADVICE. IT WAS FOR A MAJOR

THOROUGHFARE. >> AND YOU CAN WRITE IT IN A WAY THAT CLEARLY CALLS OUT 66 AND GIVES THE FLEXIBILITY.

>> I DIDN'T WANT ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL THINKING WE WERE TRYING TO PULL A FAST ONE. THAT IS WHY I HAD TO PULL IT

BACK. >> YOU MENTIONED THREE AND THEN

THREE-POINT 15. >> THAT IS THE MENTOR.

>> IT IS SHOWING 3.15. IS THAT 3.15?

>> THAT MAKES IT 28.15. >> 3.15 WILL BE PROPOSITION C.

>> AND DID HEAR ABOUT THE CHANGE OF THE ORDER IS.

>> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON TONIGHT. WE ARE SAYING, THESE ARE THE WAYS WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. ON FRIDAY NIGHT, WE WILL CAST OUR VOTE THAT SAYS

THIS AND THAT. >> THE ORDER WE HAVE GIVEN YOU IS GOING TO CHANGE BASED ON YOUR INSTRUCTIONS. WE ARE GOING TO AT THE PROPOSITION. IT WILL HAVE THE LANGUAGE THAT HE TALKED ABOUT. THE ALLOCATION WILL CHANGE A LITTLE BIT. YOU WILL SEE THE OFFICIAL BALLOT LANGUAGE AFFECTING THESE THINGS , AND I PRESUME WE DO THE ORDINANCE HERE CALLING FOR THE

ELECTION. >> THAT IS WHEN WE ARE GOING TO OFFICIALLY CALL THE ELECTIONS.

>> YES MA'AM. >> I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON

THAT. >> I'M GOOD.

>> TO BE CLEAR, THE 16TH IS THE LAST DAY THAT WE CAN CALL THAT.

THAT IS THE DEADLINE. >> THAT'S WHY I HAD TESTED

TODAY. >> FRIDAY IS THE DAY TO DO IT.

>> WE WILL GET THE POLICE TO COME TO YOUR HOUSE AND GET YOU.

>> COMPEL YOUR PRESENCE. >> OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE?

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE EXCITING. BY THE WAY, MAY THE FOURTH. THAT IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY.

>> THAT IS A GIFT THAT WILL KEEP ON GIVING. MAY THE FOURTH

BE WITH YOU. >> IT IS A BIG OPPORTUNITY THERE.

>> DID THAT FULFILL YOUR PUBLIC EDUCATION DISCUSSION? WE FIGURE IT OUT FOR YOU.

[4. DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS FOR FEBRUARY 16, 2024 SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING.]

>> WE WILL BE LOOKING FORWARD TO FUTURE UPDATES ON WHAT THE

CAMPAIGN HAS. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ANYTHING ELSE AFTER THIS? >> IS THAT IT?

>> ALL RIGHT. COUNSEL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? WELL, IN THAT CASE, GO AHEAD AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE AGENDA ITEMS FOR FRIDAY. I DON'T THINK THERE IS ANYTHING THERE.

MEETING. >> I KNOW.

>> WHAT AGENDA ITEM. >> DO YOU WISH TO PUT THAT

THERE? >> YOU CAN'T EVEN SAY THAT.

>> IN THAT

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.