Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.

IT'S MARCH THIRD. WE ARE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM IN CITY HALL, HAS AUTHORIZED OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE. THIS MEETING WOULD BE CONVENED TO THE CLOSED SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING LEGAL ADVICE ON ANY AGENDA ITEM. THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO CONVENE OR ADJOURN. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS ON OUR WORK SESSION.

[3A. Provide update to City Council regarding the February 27th Public Utilities Commission Hearing and the February 28th meeting with the non-member customer cities and special utility districts of the North Texas Municipal Water District (30 minutes)]

WE WILL START WITH ITEM 3 A, PROVIDE UPDATES TO CITY COUNCIL RECORDING FEBRUARY 27TH PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE FEBRUARY 28TH MEETING AND THE SPECIAL DISTRICTS MEETING.

I WILL TAKE IT. >> I HAVE SOME BACK UP SLIDES IF WE NEED THEM.

>> BEING00. >> LOOT

OKAY. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO HIT SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTS.

>> GO AHEAD. >> SO, LET ME JUST SAY COUNCIL, YOU HAVE SEEN THESE SLIDES BEFORE. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT THE USAGE BY THE MEMBER CITIES AND THE CUSTOMER CITIES AND HOW FAST CUSTOMER CITIES ARE GROWING. THIS IS THE ONE CHART YOU HAVE SEEN IN OUR BUDGET PRETTY MUCH EVERY YEAR FOR THE PAST SIX YEARS OR SO.

WE NOW IN JUST YOU KNOW, BASICALLY 18 YEARS HAVE SPENT NEARLY $20 MILLION FOR WATER THAT WE DID NOT SELL. AND THE INTERESTING THING ABOUT THIS OBVIOUSLY, IS THAT DURING A DROUGHT, THE LESS WATER WE CAN SELL, THE BIGGER THAT COST IS FOR THE WATER WE DON'T SELL.

>> $2.7 MILLION. >> FOR YEAR JULY TO JUNE. >> AUGUST 1ST TO JULY 31ST, 2019, WE HAD TO RECOVER $2.7 MILLION FROM OUR CUSTOMER BASE THAT WE HAD TO PAY THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO SELL TO OUR CUSTOMERS.

THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT THAT. >> THAT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO LOOK AT THAT. THIS IS CAUSING OUR RESIDENTS, OUR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE WE HAVE TO SPREAD THAT OUT. SO IN THEORY, IF WE HAVE ONE CUSTOMER, WE WOULD HAVE TO CHARGE THAT ONE CUSTOMER $30 MILLION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE FOR A SYSTEM OF THIS SIZE. EVERY CUSTOMER HAS TO PAY FOR THIS COST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T LEAVE THAT ON THE TABLE. AS YOU GUYS KNOW, THERE WAS A FILING WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. THE FOUR BIGGER CITY, PLANO, RICHARDSON, MESQUITE FILED A MEASURE WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION. THEY HAVE SPENT A COUPLE YEARS NOW TRYING TO WORK IT OUT FOR THEMSELVES. WE INTERVENED SOME TIME IN LATE LAST FALL. YOU CAN SEE IN FEBRUARY, THE MAYOR WROTE A LETTER TO THE PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION WITH OUR CONCERNS, EXPRESSING THE FACT THAT THE NON-MEMBER CUSTOMER CITIES HAVE AN INTEREST IN THIS TOO. A VESTED INTEREST, ONE COSTING US MONEY. THE MAYOR DID TESTIFY ON THIS AND TAMMY, YOU WANT TO HIT THOSE

HIGHLIGHTS? >> SURE, I WOULD BE GLAD TO. BEFORE I GO THERE, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR YEARS. OBVIOUSLY IT'S BEEN A CONCERN OF CITY COUNCIL FOR AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED AND WAY BEFORE I WAS INVOLVED, AND YOU KNOW IT WAS BACK IN NOVEMBER, DECEMBER TIME FRAME WHERE WE REALLY, WHEN WE SAW THE STALLING OF THE ACTION BETWEEN THE MEMBER CITIES, WE THOUGHT ROWLETT COULD BRING A NEW AND FRESH PERSPECTIVE TO THIS.

AND THAT'S WHEN I STARTED TALKING TO BRIAN ABOUT THE CUSTOMER COALITION AND WE GOT THE COALITION TOGETHER AND THAT WAS THE TIME PERIOD WHEN IT WAS GOING, IT WAS VERY APPARENT THAT ANY RESOLUTION BETWEEN THE MEMBER CITIES WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE TRYING ONE MORE THE LAST TIME AND THIS ACTION WAS GOING TO HAVE TO GO TO THE PUC. SO, WHAT WAS SO, SO IMPORTANT FOR THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND THE RESIDENTS OF ROWLETT IS THAT WE'RE NOT LEFT BEHIND IN WHATEVER WAS GOING TO HAPPEN.

[00:05:05]

AND SO THAT'S WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION TO ASSERT OURSELVES INTO THE PROCESS.

SO THAT WAS YOU KNOW THE FORMATION, THE BEGINNING OF THE FORMATION OF THE CUSTOMER COALITION THAT WAS THE FORMAL LETTER TO PUC MAKING SURE THAT WE WERE ON RECORD THAT WE SUPPORTED THE FOUR-MEMBER CITY POSITION THAT WAS GETTING THE LEGISLATORS INVOLVED IN SUPPORT OF OUR POSITION. AND THAT WAS THE FORMATION OF A GRASS ROOTS EFFORT BY CITIZEN BRIAN CLARK WHO IS HERE. GOOD TO SEE YOU. SO, THE CULMINATION OF ALL OF

THAT WAS THE PUC'S HEARING ON THURSDAY OF LAST WEEK. >> THURSDAY.

>> AND SO, I WAS ABLE TO TESTIFY AT THAT HEARING. THAT TESTIMONY WAS NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR BECAUSE THE THREE PUC COMMISSIONERS HAD ALREADY MADE THEIR DETERMINATIONS, BUT, THE WORK WE DID PRIOR TO THAT INCLUDING THE GRASS ROOTS EFFORT I THINK HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND THAT WAS VERY EVIDENT WHEN BRIAN AND I WALKED INTO THE PUC HEARING, YOU KNOW 20ISH MINUTES BEFORE THE HEARING STARTED AND WERE TOLD ON NO UNCERTAIN TERMS THAT ROWLETT'S INVOLVEMENT COULD GET THIS WHERE IT NEEDED TO GO. THAT WAS A CONSISTENT MESSAGE BY THOSE FOUR CITIES, THE ADMINISTRATORS, LAWYERS, THE ELECTED OFFICIALS.

WE'LL NEVER KNOW IF THAT'S THE TRUTH OR NOT. DOESN'T MATTER.

BUT, YOU KNOW WE HAVE A DIFFERENT POSITION THAN THOSE MEMBER CITIES HAVE.

THOSE 13-MEMBER CITIES DETERMINE ALL THESE CONTRACT TERMS AND MONTHS THEMSELVES.

WE'RE THIS CUSTOMER CITY THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THIS GROUP THAT IS ALL BEING HARMED.

SO WE ADD A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE TO THAT. I THINK IT WAS HOPEFULLY WAS SIGNIFICANT. THE PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION RULED THAT WELL, IN REGARDS TO MY TESTIMONY, BASICALLY CENTERED ON THE TAKE OR PAY IS NOT A FAIR PRICING METHOD.

IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY HURT THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT. PERMANENT WATER CONSERVATION WERE NOT PUT IN PLACE IN 2015 DISINCENTIVIZES, IT'S A DIRECT CONTRADICTION TO THE CONTRACT.

WE'RE OBVIOUSLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE $0.05 UP CHARGE THAT CUSTOMER CITIES HAVE TO PAY THAT MEMBER CITIES DON'T HAVE TO PAY. WE HAVE NO REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND NO VIABLE PROCESS TO BECOME A MEMBER OF THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. SO THOSE POINTS WERE IN OUR COMMUNICATION TO THE PUC PRIOR TO THIS AND IN MY TESTIMONY. I HAD ABOUT A THREE MINUTE TESTIMONY AND THEY TOLD ME TO DO THE SHORT VERSION. I WAS ABLE TO PICK UP THE MAJOR POINTS AND TESTIFY. SO WHAT THE COMMISSION DETERMINED, DO YOU HAVE THAT

SLIDE? >> YES, I DO, MA'AM. >> SO IF YOU SEE THERE AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT, THE COMMISSIONERS DETERMINED THAT THE RATES IN AFFECT WERE ADVERSE TO THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST. CAN'T SAY THAT ANY STRONGER. SO THAT IS A HUGE, HUGE STATEMENT. AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THE HISTORY THAT THE PUC WILL EVER LOOK AT A RATE CASE FOR WATER PROVIDER IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.

>> WELL, THEY MADE THE COMMENT THAT IF THE MEMBER CITIES CAN'T DO IT BETWEEN THEMSELVES, THEY WOULD STEP IN AND DO IT. SO, THAT'S HUGE. SO, AND IT'S --

>> AND THEY ORDER A RATE COST OF SERVICE REVIEW IS THE WORDING. SO, I WILL LET DAVID GET INTO THE NEXT STEPS UNLESS YOU WANT TO, BRIAN. I DON'T WANT TO MISSTATE IT HOW IT GOES TO ADMINISTRATIVE AND ALL THAT. BUT, THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE PUC HAS RULED THAT THE RULES ARE ADVERSE TO THE PUBLIC'S INTEREST.

HUGE, HUGE STEP HERE AND THEY ORDERED A COST OF SERVICE HEARING.

WHAT IS ABSOLUTELY CRUCIAL FROM THIS POINT FORWARD IS THAT THAT COST OF SERVICE HEARING IS FAIR.

AND THAT THE CITIZENS OF ROWLETT ARE REPRESENTED IN THIS PROCESS. SO, THAT WOULD BE MY OVERALL

[00:10:07]

STATEMENTS. AM I MISSING ANYTHING BRIAN? >> I DON'T THINK SO, MAYOR.

IN TERMS OF THE NEXT STEP AND DAVID CAN GET INTO THAT. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RESIDENTS VOICE IS HEARD IN THIS, THERE'S ONLY ONE WAY WE CAN DO THAT.

THAT'S TO LEGALLY INTERVENE. SO THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT. >> SO IS IT APPROPRIATE NOW TO ASK DAVID TO TALK ABOUT WHAT THE NEXT STEPS ARE? IS THAT OKAY?

>> SURE, ABSOLUTELY. >> WE HAVE THE OPTION IF WE WANT, WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO.

OBVIOUSLY THERE'S CLEARLY A NEED FOR US TO DO IT. WE NEED TO INTERVENE IN THE PUC'S PROCEEDINGS. THE COST OF SERVICE REVIEW IS A FAIRLY LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING PROCESS. IT'S LIKE A TRIAL WITH DISCOVERY AND MOTIONS AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF. BUT IT'S VERY DETAILED. IT WILL REQUIRE A BUNCH OF EXPERTS. A BUNCH OF TECHNICAL EXPERTS NOT JUST IN FINANCE BUT ENGINEERING.

IF WE PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDING, WHEN I THINK WE NEED TO DO, OUR PARTICIPATION NEEDS TO BE DONE BY FILING A PLEA AND INTERVENTION OR MOTION TO INTERVENE WHICH HAS TO BE DONE, THERE ARE SPECIFIC TIME FRAMES. WE HAVE A COUPLE MONTHS AT LEAST.

BUT THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HIRE WATER LAWYERS OR LAWYERS IN AUSTIN THAT ARE WELL VERSED IN STATE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING ADJUDICATIONS.

AND IF WE'RE LUCKY, WE CAN GET A COALITION TOGETHER THAT EVERYBODY CAN PITCH IN AND FOOT THE BILL JOINTLY. IT WOULDN'T BE ALL ON OUR SHOULDERS.

IT WOULD NOT BE CHEAP. THE INTEREST THAT THE FOUR CITIES THAT FILED THE PLEADINGS IN THE FIRST PLACE, OUR INTERESTS ARE PRETTY MUCH ALIGNED.

>> THEY ARE ALIGNED IN THE TAKE OR PAY BUT NOT ON THE UPTICK ON THE PRICING.

>> IF WE DON'T INTERVENE AND PARTICIPATE, WE HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL AND NO KNOWLEDGE OF WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THE THING IS FINALLY RESOLVED. THE RATE STRUCTURE COULD BE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY TO SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT TO NOT JUST US BUT THE OTHER CUSTOMER

CITIES. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN HEARING.

THERE ARE MEMBER CITY REPRESENTATIVES ON THE BOARD THAT ARE INTERESTED IN CREATING THE GAP OR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEMBER CITIES AND THE CUSTOMER CITIES.

AND SO, IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW I WAS SHARING WITH THE GROUP FRIDAY THAT JUST THAT NICKEL LAST YEAR IN 2019 COST THE GROUP $818,000. ALMOST A MILLION DOLLARS.

>> THE WHOLE CUSTOMER GROUP. >> JUST THE CUSTOMER CITIES ENTITIES.

AND IF IT WAS INCREASED TO $0.50 LIKE AND HAVE SUGGESTED, THAT COULD BE $8 MILLION.

SO, JUST TO SAY IT'S A HUGE DIFFERENCE. >> THEY'RE A MONOPOLY.

THEY HAVE EVERY INTEREST IN THE WORLD TO INCREASE IT. >> IF THEY INCREASE ON THE CUSTOMER CITIES, THEY REDUCE THEIR OWN REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MEMBERS.

>> MOST PEOPLE IN THE ROOM PROBABLY KNOW THIS AND THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING.

I WANT TO SAY THIS OUT LOUD. THE TAKE OR PAY PROVISION IS A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION THAT EVERY SINGLE MEMBER CITY AND CUSTOMER CITY IS SUBJECT TO. IT SETS A MINIMUM AMOUNT OF WATER USAGE YOU HAVE TO BUY PER YEAR BASED ON YOUR HIGHEST HISTORICAL USAGE AND NEVER RESET AND WILL NEVER RESET. UNLESS SOMEBODY INTERVENES AND CHANGES THIS PROVISION, WHICH IS WHAT WE HOPE IS GOING TO HAPPEN. IN ORDER, THAT'S A CONTRACT TERM.

IN ORDER TO CHANGE THAT CONTRACT TERM, IT IS A DECISION OF 13 MEMBER CITIES.

IT'S NOT A DECISION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPRESENTED THOSE 13 CITIES.

IT'S A DIVISION OF THE CITY CITIES. 13 CITY MANAGERS GO TO CITY COUNCILS AND SAY WILL YOU AGREE TO THE CONTRACT TERM AND 13 CITY COUNCILS HAVE TO PASS YES ON A 4-3, 5-2, OR 7-1 VOTE. WHEN CITIES BENEFIT FROM THIS PROVISION, THAT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. NOW, PEOPLE THAT HAVE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES OF THAT WOULD TALK ABOUT THIS IN A DIFFERENT WAY THAN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. CERTAINLY THERE IS A NEED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FUNDING OF THE CAPITAL STRUCTURE OF THE WATER DISTRICT.

WE JUST THINK IT NEEDS TO BE FAIR BETWEEN ALL CITIES. THE CURRENT $0.05 UPCHARGE IS

[00:15:04]

NOT IN THE CONTRACT. THAT IS A BOARD OF DIRECTORS DECISION.

SO, THERE ARE 27 BOARD MEMBERS. NO. 25 BOARD MEMBERS.

12 OF THE CITIES HAVE TWO. AND ONE CITY HAS ONE. SO ALL THEY HAVE TO DO AT THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS LEVEL IS CHANGE THAT PRICING. SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO BE VERY, VERY CONCERNED ABOUT. THERE'S MANY PAGES OF DOCUMENTS OF FILINGS MADE BY VARIOUS CITIES AND GROUPS BY THIS WHOLE PUC HEARING. BUT THERE WAS SOME REALLY GOOD INFORMATION IN THERE ABOUT WHETHER THE $0.05 MAKES ANY CENTS.

AND ON THE FACE OF IT, THEY WERE ARGUING THAT IT MAKES NO SENSE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THE SAME RATE THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE SINCE WHAT THE 1970S. IT'S NEVER CHANGED AND SO I LIKEN IT TO THE IMPACT FEES WE HAVE. WHEN WE ESTABLISH THOSE FEES, WE HAVE TO HAVE A CAPITOL PROJECT PLAN AND ONLY COST RECOVER A PORTION UNDER STATE LAW AND WE CAN ONLY RECOVER THE COST JUST FOR THOSE PROJECTS. YOU CAN'T JUST DO IT FOR ANYTHING. THIS HAS NO RHYME OR REASON. IT MAY AT ONE TIME BUT CLEARLY

[2. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

DOESN'T TODAY. >> SO, I'M GOING TO PAUSE THERE. I AM GOING TO ASK US TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION HERE. BECAUSE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT LEGAL ADVICE FROM OUR CITY ATTORNEY IN REGARDS TO OUR NEXT STEPS. ARE YOU GOING TO BE COMFORTABLE

WITH THAT, DAVID? >> HANG ON. HANG ON GUYS.

I'M SORRY. BEFORE I DO THAT, IS THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT IN OPEN SESSION? I GUESS YOU CAN GO. WE WILL FORMALLY CONVENE THE

EXECUTIVE SESSION. TIME IS NOW 6:32. >> THANK YOU.

6:32. CLOSE ENOUGH. ALL RIGHT.

[3B. Update City Council on the impact to water and wastewater infrastructure from two proposed multi-family developments located in the City’s extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ). (30 minutes)]

WE HAVE COME OUT OF EXECUTIVE ACTION. NO FORMAL OKAY HAS BEEN TAKEN.

WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 3 B. THE IMPACT TO WATER, WASTEWATER FROM TWO DEVELOPMENTS LOCATED IN

THE CITY'S EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION. >> JEFF IS NOT IN HERE, WILL YOU

DO THIS, PAUL? >> HE ENGINEERED THIS ONE. >> HE'S COMING.

>> SO THERE'S A BUNCH OF KUDOS TO YOU. >> I DIDN'T DO IT FOR THAT.

>> IT'S MIKE'S FAULT THOUGH. IT WAS HIS FACEBOOK POST THAT STARTED IT.

>> HAD TO PUT THAT OUT THERE. >> SEE, FACEBOOK PAID OFF, BLAKE.

>> ALL RIGHT. WE'RE READY FOR YOU. >> STILL NOT GOING TO GET ME ON

FACEBOOK. >> AND ALSO KUDOS TO OUR MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER FOR THEIR

LEADERSHIP. >> JEFF, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE

>> WHAT'S HAPPENING? >> OKAY. SO, I GUESS WE SHOULD GET STARTED. SO, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT, THIS PRESENTATION IS TO BRIEF YOU ON THE IMPACTS OF THE WASTEWATER WITH REGARD TO MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN POSTED UP THERE. SO, AS YOU KNOW, THE ETJ IS UP IN THE NORTHEN END OF THE CITY.

IT'S BOUNDARY IS DEFINED BY THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON ELM GROVE ROAD.

EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH AND EAST OF THAT LINE IS IN ETJ. THIS IS ALL IN THE CITY.

SO THERE'S BEEN A PROPOSAL OF AN APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT'S NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ELM GROVE ROAD AND LIBERTY GROVE ROAD. THEY HAVE SHARED WITH US, IT'S ABOUT 250 UNITS.

ITS ACCESS WOULD BE ABOUT 600 PEOPLE ON ELM GROVE ROAD AT THE INTERSECTION OF LIBERTY GROVE ROAD AND ANOTHER PROPOSAL FOR RV PARK HAS BEEN COMMUNICATED WITH US.

AND, IT IS A LITTLE FURTHER UP THE ROAD. 1100 FEET FROM THE INTERSECTION.

[00:20:04]

IT'S 3.2 ACRES, THAT'S ONE PARCEL AND ONE TRACT. BASED ON 200 UNITS PER ACRE, AS A TYPICAL DENSITY FOR RV PARK, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT 64 UNITS. SO, THE EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE UP THERE NOW LET ME BACK UP PLEASE IF YOU -- SO THE CCN, THE CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR WASTEWATER ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T YET COVER THE ETJ, WE DO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE UP THERE. AND I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY WE'RE NOT REALLY DISCUSSING WATER INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE THE EAST FORK SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT OPERATES ITS CCN IN THAT AREA. SO THEY SERVE WATER TO THESE PROPERTIES.

AND THE CITY DOESN'T. SO THE EXISTING WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE SERVES THE ENCLAVE UP HERE. THERE IS A 15-INCH MAIN THAT FLOWS INTO NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION TWO. THAT DISCHARGES A FORCED MANUAL ON LIBERTY GROVE TO A COMMON MAN HOLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF WATERS LANE AND LIBERTY GROVE ROAD.

AND THEN IT FLOWS BY GRAVITY THROUGH AN 18-INCH MAIN THAT WRAPS AROUND THE WATER'S EDGE COMMUNITY AND INTO THE NORTH SDE LIFT STATION NUMBER ONE. TO SAY THIS IS AN 18-INCH MAIN, IS A LITTLE BIT OF AN INACCURACY, THERE 400 FEET THAT'S ONLY 12 INCHES.

THAT'S, THAT HAS SOME IMPORTANCE TO SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE, THAT COULD BE MADE DUE TO SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENTS. ALSO IT SHOULD BE NOTED TOO, THIS COMMON MAN HOLE IS WHERE SOME OF WATER VIEW IS DRAINING. SO IT GETS INTO THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION THAT WAY.

IT DOES HAVE A MUCH LARGER DRAINAGE BASIN. SO THIS SLIDE JUST SIMPLY SHOWS WHERE THOSE TWO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE IN RELATION TO

THE INFRASTRUCTURE. >> CAN I STOP YOU THERE, JUST FOR THE PUBLIC'S PURPOSE.

>> DO YOU WANT ME TO GO BACK? >> YOU CAN. JUST ONE SLIDE.

SO THOSE TWO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS ARE OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU SAID THAT.

I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY CLEAR TO THE LISTENERS, WE DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY OR CONTROL OVER THE DEVELOPMENT OF ANYTHING IN ETJ. OTHER THAN PLATTING.

>> WE CAN'T CONTROL ZONING OR DECISIONMAKING. >> OTHER THAN WHAT?

>> PLATTING. >> BECAUSE OF THE ETJ AGAIN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WASTEWATER BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL THAT WE WOULD BE REQUESTED TO SERVICE

THAT. >> WHO IS IN CHARGE OF ZONING FOR THAT?

>> WHO IS JUST FOR THE PUBLIC? >> WHO IS IN CHARGE OF APPROVING?

>> THE COUNTY WOULD APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE ETJ. >> SO THAT'S DALLAS COUNTY

DECISION. JUST FOR THOSE LISTENING. >> OKAY.

SO AS YOU MAY RECALL, THE TRAILS OF COTTON WOOD CREEK IS A PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE NORTHERN TIP OF THE CITY. 238 ACRES.

THEY'RE PROPOSING 765 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD SOME OFF SITE WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS IN ORDER TO SERVE THIS COMMUNITY.

THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND ABOUT $2.1 MILLION TO BUILD THOSE OFF SITE IMPROVEMENTS.

THOSE WILL INCLUDE A NEW LINE THAT IS EXTENDED FROM WHERE THE ENCLAVE'S SERVICE LINE TERMINATES AND UPGRADE THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION NUMBER TWO WHICH SERVES THE ENCLAVE COMMUNITY AND THERE'S THE 400 FEET OF 12 INCHES THAT WILL NEED TO BE UPGRADED TO 18-INCH MAIN.

AND THEN FINALLY THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION NUMBER ONE LOCATED ON MCCLEARY ROAD.

THAT NEEDS TO BE UPGRADED AS WELL AND OF THE 2.1 MILLION, THE CITY WILL CONTRIBUTE

$1.1 MILLION IN THE FORM OF IMPACT FEE CREDITS. >> SO THE NORTH SIDE LIFT

[00:25:03]

STATION HAS TO BE IMPROVED FOR TRAILS OF COTTON WOOD? >> IT HAS TO BE IMPROVED FOR THE TRAILS OF COTTON WOOD TO HANDLE THEIR FLOWS. BUT IT ALSO DOES NOT, THEY WERE CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THAT STATION CURRENTLY THAT DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE TECQ RULES.

BY UPGRADING IT, IT WILL FIX THAT PROBLEM AS WELL. >> SO ARE YOU SAYING WE NEED TO

UPGRADE >> >> OKAY.

>> DO YOU KNOW ABOUT HOW MANY LIFT STATIONS IN CITY? >> NO.

I DO NOT. >> OKAY. SO ANOTHER TWIST TO THIS IS THERE IS ABOUT A 40, 41 ACRE TRACT OF BLOCK OF LAND THAT IS IN THE CITY THAT IS CURRENTLY HOUSING ABOUT 24 HOMES. THE DENSITY IS APPROXIMATELY SF 40.

AND WE KNOW THAT IF THE TRAILS DEVELOPS, THEY WILL EXTEND A WASTEWATER LINE FROM THE ENCLAVE UP TO THEIR PROPERTY. IT'S POSSIBLE THE CITY COULD INSTALL A WATER WATER LINE INTERCEPTS WHAT THE TRAILS BUILDS AND BUILDS A LINE UP STONE WALL AND UP VINSON TO HELP

SERVE THESE PROPERTIES AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE -- >> THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON SEWER.

>> THEY'RE CURRENTLY ON SEPTIC. >> AND IF THE CITY, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CITY WANTS TO

DO, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE A CIP PROJECT THAT WE WOULD UNDERTAKE. >> ANY ESTIMATES ON THE COST?

>> $400,000 TO $500,000 TO DO THAT. >> OR THAT COULD BE DONE

WHENEVER THE PLOT IS DEVELOPED. >> THAT WAS MY OTHER POINT. IT COULD BE DONE BY THE DEVELOPER IF THAT DEVELOPS. AND REDEVELOPED. RIGHT.

SO, WHAT DOES ALL THIS MEAN? WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS? IF THE TRAILS DEVELOPS, AND THAT RURAL BLOCK REMAINS WHAT IT IS CURRENT DENSITY OF SF 40, WE STAFF HAS LOOKED AT AND SOME CONSULTANTS HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT IT. WE KNOW THAT THE UPSIZE 400 FOOT OF 12 INCH THAT'S GOING TO BE UPSIZED TO 18 INCHES AND THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION NUMBER 1 UPGRADES, CAN ACCOMMODATE THOSE TWO MULTI-FAMILY PROJECTS. THE COST, WE KNOW THERE'S $2.1 MILLION THAT THE TRAILS IS GOING TO SPEND TO INSTALL THE WASTEWATER IMPROVEMENTS.

OF THAT, ABOUT $860,000 IS GOING TOWARDS THE UPGRADE OF NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION ONE AND THAT 400 FOOT OF 12 INCH. AND DOING SOME VERY ROUGH CALCULATIONS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE TWO PROPOSED MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS WOULD CONTRIBUTE ABOUT 10% OF THE BACKGROUND FLOWS, THE BASELINE FLOWS. SO 10% OF THE $860,000 IS $86,000.

THEY WOULD CONTRIBUTE $86,000 TO THE UPGRADES. >> WHERE DID WE GET THE 10%?

>> SO, IN STUDYING ALL THIS, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE'S A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FLOW TO THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION THAT'S COMING FROM THE TRAILS DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S COMING FROM THE ENCLAVE. WATER VIEW, COMING FROM WATER'S EDGE.

IF WE EXCLUDE THE TRAILS, BECAUSE THAT'S THE BASELINE, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S SOMEWHERE IN THE 40, FOUR THOUSAND, 4100 GALLONS A MINUTE.

IF THOSE ARE 400 GALLONS A MINUTE, THAT'S 10%. >> PORPORTIONALITY.

>> BASED ON THE BASELINE. IF I CAN DIGRESS, THERE'S ALSO A FLOW -- HAVEN'T YOU ALREADY?

[00:30:06]

HAVE TO HANDLE AND OUR SEWER CONSULTANT HAS LOOKED AT THAT, AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE APARTMENTS OR THE TWO MULTIFAMILIES TO THE STATION IN TERMS OF A PEAK FLOW, IS VERY MINIMAL BECAUSE THE DISTANCE FROM THE LIFT STATION NORTH SIDE ONE TO THE APARTMENTS IS SUCH A LONG WAY THAT BY THE TIME SOME OF THE OTHER CONTRIBUTING AREAS GET TO THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION, THOSE PEAKS HAVEN'T GOT THERE. THE CONTRIBUTION TO THE PEAK FLOW IS MINIMAL FROM THE APARTMENTS. WE KNOW THEY USE THE SYSTEM ON AN ALL-DAY LONG AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE LOOKING AT THE BASELINE FLOW.

>> SO THE 10% IS THE VERY LEAST OF WHAT WOULD NEED TO BE CONTRIBUTED --

>> BUT THE MULTIFAMILY? >> CORRECT. >> I WOULD SAY IT'S THE MOST.

>> THE >> I THINK SO. >> YEAH.

I WOULD SAY THE LEAST. >> LET ME GET SOME MORE OF THAT. >> WHAT WOULD A NORMAL IMPACT

FEE IF THOSE WERE IN THE CITY? >> I DON'T RECALL. MULTIFAMILY --

>> IT'S WASTEWATER, IT'S RESIDENTIAL. $2,000 A UNIT? I TAKE THAT BACK BECAUSE IT'S BASED ON THE METER SIZE. AND THEY COULD GET, IF THEY USE

A LARGE METER, IT COULD GET PRETTY COSTLY. >> THAT'S SOMETHING TO LOOK AT

TOO. >> BUT REGARDLESS. QUESTION JOE, AS FAR AS THE ETJ,

ISN'T THERE OTHER DEVELOPABLE ACRES WE'RE NOT EVEN TALKING TO? >> YES.

THAT COULD IMPACT ALL THIS? >> YES BUT THESE ARE THE TWO THAT HAVE ASKED TO BE CONNECTED

TO THE SEWER SYSTEM. >> I UNDERSTAND. THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE DISCUSSION IS TO PLAN WHAT POSSIBLY COULD BE GOING ON UP THERE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS PROPOSED UP THERE. SO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THESE TWO ARE THE CURRENT ONES IN THE ETJ BEING DISCUSSED, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S NOT GOING

TO BE MORE. >> RIGHT. AND BECAUSE THERE'S NO REAL ZONING PARAMETERS IN THE COUNTY, IT'S HARD TO DISCERN WHAT WE WOULD ANTICIPATE.

LIKELY YOU KNOW IF WE WENT WITH THE MOST DENSE USE, WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTI-FAMILY STYLE

DEVELOPMENT OR MEDIUM DENSITY IN THE AREA. >> WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IF WE

DON'T LET THEM TIE INTO OUR SYSTEM? >> THE TRAILER PARK COULD GO TO SEPTIC. BUT -- OR THE APARTMENT. BUT THE APARTMENTS WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO GO TO SEPTIC AND THEY WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO BECOME AN OPERATOR, AND TREAT

THEIR OWN WASTEWATER AND DISCHARGE THROUGH THE LAKE. >> WHICH BECOMES A COST.

>> ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, GUYS, IS THAT THE CHARGE FOR STAFF WAS TO FIGURE OUT IF THE UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE IS SUFFICIENTLY SIZED AS PROPOSED FROM THE TAILS OF COTTONWOOD IF THE 41-ACRE BLOCK BECAME SINGLE, IF THE HIGHEST POSSIBLE DENSITY. IF SOMEBODY CAME IN AND SAID WE WANT TO PROPOSE A PROJECT THERE, WHAT WE DETERMINED, WITH OUR, WITH THE HELP OF OUR CONSULTANTS IS THE SECTION THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD, WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED I THINK AT 15, AN 18-INCH LINE IS BIG ENOUGH FOR ALL POSSIBILITIES. WE DID NOT TRY TO ANSWER IF THE

WHOLE ETJ -- >> I THAT'S NEW INFORMATION.

>> IT IS. >> SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS.

>> RIGHT. BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. THAT WAS THE CHARGE.

>> WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES IN THIS IS THAT DEVELOPMENT HAS TO EITHER CONTRIBUTE OR PAY FOR EVEN FUTURE UPGRADES THAT AREN'T EVEN CONSIDERED THIS TIME BECAUSE YOU NEVER REALLY BUILD FOR MAXIMUM DENSITY BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WOULD REALLY HAPPEN.

>> RIGHT. >> PARTICULARLY IN A WILD CARD LIKE THE ETJ.

>> VERY GOOD. >> SO I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IF THIS BLOCK DOES DEVELOP TO A HIGHER DENSITY, WHETHER THE CITY HAS COME IN PRIOR TO THAT AND BUILT THIS LINE OR NOT, THEY

[00:35:06]

WOULD DEFINITELY BE REQUIRED TO TAKE THIS 15 INCH NOW SERVING THE ENCLAVE AND UPSIZE TO 18

INCH. >> OKAY. IF THE TRAILS DID NOT DEVELOP, THEN THERE ARE STILL SOME THINGS THAT IMPACT WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TO DO.

AS WE SAID EARLIER, THE NORTH SIDE LIFT STATION DOESN'T COMPLY IN SOME REGARDS TO TCEQ OPERATING RULES AND SO IT SHOULD BE UPGRADED AND THAT IS ESTIMATED IN THE FACILITY AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH THE TRAILS TO BE ABOUT $537,000. IF THE CITY CAN UNDERTAKE THAT OURSELVES OR IF ONE OR TWO OF THE OTHER APARTMENTS WANTED TO COME IN, THEY WOULD BE MADE TO UPGRADE THAT AND THE CITY WOULD, YOU KNOW, REIMBURSE THEM FOR THE BULK OF IT, BUT THEY STILL HAVE A SMALL CONTRIBUTION TO, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR. AND DO I NEED TO --

>> WILL, I WAS GOING TO SAY, SO DEPENDING ON THE TIMELINE FOR ALL OF THIS, IF IT NEEDS TO BE A CIP, ARE YOU PROVIDING THIS INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY AND INVESTMENT ADVISORY REPORT TO

TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. >> THAT WOULD BE A PROJECT. SO THAT WOULD BE STAFF GENERATED

AND RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL. >> SO IT WOULDN'T BE ITS OWN PROJECT?

>> SO, THIS IS INFORMATIONAL. IS THERE ANY OTHER INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE TO SHARE?

>> NO. >> SO, COUNCIL, ANY, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

SO WE'RE NOT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED AT THIS TIME TO MAKE A DECISION ON ANY ETJ DEVELOPMENT TYING INTO OUR SYSTEM? THAT'S NOT A DECISION WE'RE

BEING ASKED TO MAKE. >> THERE'S NO, YES, CORRECT. >> AND ALL WE KNOW IS THAT THOSE

ARE POTENTIAL PROJECTS. NOTHING IS FORMALLY COME TO US. >> WE HAD CONVERSATION WITH THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE SPOKEN TO US. THEY HAVE TALKED TO OUR INFRASTRUCTURE TEAM TO UNDERSTAND OR DISCERN THE VIABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OF THEM

CONNECTING TO OUR SYSTEM. >> SO COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? >> I HAVE THOSE SAME

CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PROPOSED -- >> THAT IS A VERY NEW PROJECT.

THAT'S WHY WE JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT IT AND WHY WE -- >> THAT'S KIND OF LIKE THERE

COULD BE OTHER THERE. >> YEAH.

>> A LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS FOR AN RV PARK. SO IT'S LIKELY WE WILL --

>> THE MAIN PURPOSE OF TONIGHT WAS TO REPORT BACK TO YOU WHAT COUNCIL HAD ASKED TO ENSURE THAT THAT LINE THAT WAS GOING TO BE BUILT BY TRAILS OF COTTONWOOD IS SUFFICIENT IF THEY WERE OTHER DEVELOPMENT. OR ROWLETT CITY DEVELOPMENT. 18 INCHES, WOULD BE ENOUGH TO DO THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WOULD STILL BE DOWNSTREAM COSTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE.

>> COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE WHAT NEED? >> ALL RIGHT.

[3C. Discuss the formation of a City Council Government Affairs Committee and receive public input. (15 minutes)]

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE ARE GOING TO MOVE TO 3 C, I THINK WE CAN DO IT QUICKLY.

DISCUSS THE FORMATION OF A CITY COUNCIL GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AND RECEIVE PUBLIC INPUT. WE TALKED WHEN WE WERE DOING FORMATION, I THOUGHT YOU WERE

SIGNALLING ME. >> NO, I WAS SCRATCHING MY HEAD. >> THAT'S HOW YOU SIGNAL.

SO, WE HAD TALKED WHEN WE WERE DOING COMMITTEES WE WERE GOING TO FORM A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE. IT'S TIME. THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS JUST AROUND THE CORNER. I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE TO FORM A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS COMMITTEE.

>> AGREED. >> WHAT WE HAVE DONE HISTORICALLY IS HAVE THREE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL ON THE COMMITTEE. ON THOSE COMMITTEES.

ANY CONCERN OR DISCUSSION ON THAT? >> I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE JUST KIDDING OR SERIOUS, BUT I REMEMBER WHITNEY'S NAME BEING BANTERED ABOUT VERY

[00:40:02]

>> NO WAY. >> NO WAY. >> I AM FINE WITH THAT.

>> I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WHITNEY LEADS THE CHARGE ON THIS. >> I'M FINE WITH IT.

>> I WOULD ASK WHO ELSE IN THIS GROUP WANTS TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT?

>> I AM GOING TO HAVE A NEW BOARD OF MY OWN. SO WE HAVE TWO VOLUNTEERS HERE.

>> YEAH, I WILL DO IT TOO. >> IF YOU NEED THE MAYOR TO TESTIFY, GET ME INVOLVED AND DO WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE STUFF IF THAT HAPPENS?

>> ONLY IF THEY BRING YOU IN WHILE THEY'RE MEETING. >> SO, DO YOU THINK THAT --

>> JUST HAVE BROWNIE LEAVE THE ROOM. I JUST DON'T WANT TO MESS --

>> YEAH. BECAUSE BRINGING YOU IN WOULD BE A QUORUM.

SO YOU SHOULD -- >> THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE SITUATIONS WHERE THE MAYOR

NEEDED. >> NOT ALWAYS. >> THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS LOOKING LIKE YOU WILL HAVE TO BE THERE. SO ONE OF YOU HAVE TO STEP DOWN BEFORE YOU'RE EVEN APPOINTED.

TIME. >> DID YOU SCRATCH YOUR HEAD AGAIN?

>> WE TALKED ABOUT IT. SO IT'S WHITNEY ME AND WHOM? IS WHOM THE RIGHT WORD?

BLAKE OUR BROWNIE? >> THOSE WERE THE TWO. >> MARTHA AND BLAKE.

>> BROWNIE -- >> NO. BROWNIE SAID TOO.

>> I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. DRAW NUMBERS. >> I DON'T CARE.

NOT ME. >> WE CAN DO ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS.

>> THE OTHER THING IF YOU WANTED TO HAVE FOUR MEMBERS AND YOU DIDN'T WANT TO WHITTLE IT DOWN,

JUST PLAN IN ADVANCE MORE SO WE COULD POST IT. >> POST MEETINGS.

>> SOMETIMES THAT'S A PROBLEM. >> IT IS. SO, WE NEED TO, I DON'T THINK THIS IS A MAYOR'S DECISION Y'ALL. WE HAVEN'T DICTATED THAT IN THE

PAST AND I DON'T WANT TO START THIS PROCESS NOW. >> I WILL BACK OUT.

>> YOU'RE GOING TO BACK OUT. >> THEY CAN FIGHT OVER IT. ARM WRESTLE SAYS MARTHA.

>> LAST TIME YOU DREW NUMBERS, YOU DREW NUMBER ONE. >> I ALL DRAW NUMBER ONE.

>> ME TOO. OKAY. WE WILL TAKE THIS OFFLINE AND DRAW NUMBERS. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A REQUEST TO TESTIFY IN FRONT OF A COMMITTEE OF AGS IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. WHITNEY I ASK YOU TO CALL A MEETING TO START DOING THAT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE PUBLIC INPUT ON THIS?

GOOD IDEA. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PUBLIC INPUT BRIAN.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO DECIDE BETWEEN THE TWO LATER.

THAT IS ALL FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. DOES ANYBODY WANT ANYTHING

[4. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS]

PULLED? WELL, I'M PULLING 7 B SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO PULL.

ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO INTO THE REGULAR SESSION.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.