[00:00:02]
SO NOW CALL THIS SPECIAL WORK SESSION THE BAYTOWN CITY COUNCIL ORDER.
IT'S 4:03 PM WE ARE AT THE, UH, CITY OF BAYTOWN FIRE TRAINING FIELD.
UH, FIRST WE WILL HAVE OUR CITIZEN COMMENTS.
HAS ANYONE, UH, SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? UH, WE MOVE
[a. Discuss the City of Baytown Fiscal Year 2024-25 Proposed Budget.]
ON TO ITEM TWO A'S TO DISCUSS THE CITY BAYTOWN FISCAL YEAR 24 25.GOOD AFTERNOON, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
WE ARE HERE TODAY TO PLAY WITH THE FORMULA AGAIN.
YOU SAID WE WERE DEAD LAST TIME AND I APPRECIATE IT.
JOHN KENNY, CAN Y'ALL TELL US ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH OUR UTILITY RATES DO AHEAD JOHN
UM, TODAY WE HAVE A FAIRLY QUICK AGENDA, UM, TO DISCUSS SOME THINGS.
THE, WE ARE HERE, I BELIEVE FOR FOUR HOURS, UH, SCHEDULED FOR FOUR HOURS, BUT I DO NOT FEEL WE WILL COVER THAT ENTIRE FOR TAKE UP THAT ENTIRE TIME.
UH, WE FEEL THAT WE WILL HAVE SOME, UH, GOOD DISCUSSION WITH THESE THREE ITEMS. UM, AND THEN IF THERE'S TIME LEFT OVER, IT'LL BE FOR WHATEVER QUESTIONS THAT COUNSEL HAS AT THAT POINT THAT WE CAN BETTER ANSWER.
I DO NOT FORESEE HAVING A WEDNESDAY MEETING.
UH, WITH THAT SAID, SHOULD Y'ALL WANT A MEETING TOMORROW, WE WILL HAVE THAT MEETING.
IT IS ALREADY, IT IS ALREADY, UH, UH, POSTED SO WE CAN HAVE THAT, UH, SHOULD Y'ALL WANT THAT.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL DIVE INTO UTILITY RATES, CIP FUNDING AND FEES, AND A FEW OTHER BUDGET ITEMS. SO AS I'VE SAID, WE'VE SEEN THIS A FEW TIMES.
IT'S NOT NEW FOR YOU AT THIS POINT.
IT'S NOT NEW FOR THE CITIZENS.
UM, IT IS IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT IT DOES WORK ACROSS ALL FUNDS, UH, BECAUSE IT'S BASICALLY JUST A MATH PROBLEM.
AND, UH, IT'S ALSO DIFFERENT HERE ON THE, THE WATER SEWER FUND, UH, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT, ALL OF THE VARIABLES HAVE ACTUAL SET POLICIES IN PLACE.
AND THE BIGGEST CHANGE BETWEEN THE WATER SEWER FUND AND THE GENERAL FUND IS THAT ENDING FUND BALANCE IS, IS NOT ESTABLISHED, RIGHT? WE HAVE A WORKING POLICY THAT WE WORK WITH BETWEEN 60 AND 90 DAYS BECAUSE IT'S A PRETTY COMMON STANDARD.
UM, AND THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO REALLY FOCUS ON BECAUSE THAT WILL BE A PART OF THIS DISCUSSION POINT TODAY BECAUSE WE DO HAVE A HIGHER FUND BALANCE HERE AND WE CAN WORK WITH SOME PIECES WITH THAT.
COME ON THROUGH, COME ON THROUGH.
SO LIKE THE GENERAL FUND, THE, UH, WITH THIS FORMULA, THE POLICY ASPECTS ARE CAPTURED, UM, INTO REVENUE EXPENSES.
AND WITH THE WATER SEWER FUND, MUCH LIKE THE GENERAL FUND, THE, THE PRIMARY ONE IS GOING TO BE, UH, NUMBER TWO, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IS OUR RATE TO THE CUSTOMER.
AND THEN NUMBER THREE IS OTHER FEES AND UH, IS OTHER FEES THAT WE HAVE.
AND THEN NUMBER FOUR UP HERE IS OUR TRANSFERS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT OUR EXPENSES, WE HAVE OUR OPERATING EXPENSES AND FIVE AND OUR TRANSFERS, UH, WITH SIX.
OUR O AND M IS, UM, IS DIFFERENT THAN THE GENERAL FUND BECAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE COST HERE IS ACTUALLY OUR WATER, OUR SUPPLIES PORTION OF THE BUDGET.
AND WITH NUMBER, WHAT DO WE THINK NUMBER TWO IS, AT THIS POINT, WATERS ARE NUMBER ONE.
WHAT'S NUMBER TWO? LABOR PERSONNEL.
WHAT'S NUMBER THREE? FACILITY, FACILITY DEBT.
NUMBER THREE, THE HIGHEST EXPENSE THAT WE HAVE ON HERE IS DEBT.
AND THE INTERESTING PIECE THAT WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT THE FORMULA IS ACTUALLY DEBT WILL SOON BE HIGHER THAN PERSONNEL COST.
UH, AND THAT'S JUST WITH HOW IT'S DESIGNED.
SO WITH THE WATER SEWER FUND, IT'S A HEAVY INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, PIECE, RIGHT? AND IT REQUIRES A LOT OF, OF REPLACEMENT OF OUR SYSTEMS, ESPECIALLY WHEN AS AN ORGANIZATION, WE HAVEN'T HAD A FULL NECESSITY TO REPLACE ALL OF THE WATER SEWER.
WHEN YOU PUT ALL THAT IN THE GROUND AT ONE TIME, IT TAKES TIME BEFORE YOU HAVE TO REALLY START REPLACING IT.
AND IT'S JUST PART OF OUR CYCLE WHERE WE ARE HEAVY INTO THE REPLACING PIECE.
AND SO IT WILL SOON BE, UM, WHAT OUR NUMBER TWO EXPENSE IS.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL BUDGET WITH, WITH THIS, UM, IT'S PRETTY CUT AND DRY.
UH, FRANK IS GONNA DIVE INTO THE DETAILS WITH THIS, UH, HERE IN A MINUTE.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT OVERALL, YOU SEE THAT OUR REVENUE CONTINUES TO GO UP, UH, WHICH IS
[00:05:01]
DIFFERENT THAN A FEW IN THE PAST YEARS, BECAUSE IN 24 WE HAD A 6% RATE INCREASE, AND THIS BUDGET IS BUILT WITH A 6% RATE INCREASE ALREADY IN IT AS WELL.OKAY? AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU, YOU ARE SEEING A LITTLE BIT OF, UM, INCREASES EACH YEAR.
AND THE OPERATING REVENUE AT THE VERY TOP PIECE IS THE RATE PORTION.
UH, AND SO YOU CAN SEE A LITTLE BIT OF AN INCREASE ON THE OTHER REVENUE AS WELL, BUT THE MAJORITY OF OUR STUFF COMES FROM THE RATE PORTION OF THIS.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT YEAR, UH, QUICKLY, THE ENDING FUND BALANCE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THAT IS GOING, IT'S GETTING UP THERE AT THIS POINT.
WHAT'S DIFFERENT WITH THIS COMPARED TO THE GENERAL FUND IS THAT 14 MILLION ROUGHLY EQUATES, UM, TO 140 DAYS RIGHT NOW.
OKAY? AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO BE AWARE THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN AND THAT WE WILL BE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT HERE SHORTLY.
UM, BUT YOU SEE IT GOING UP IN YOUR, LIKE, WHY ARE WE PUTTING IN A RATE INCREASE IF WE HAVE THAT MUCH CAPITAL ON HAND? UM, AND WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO WITH THIS? SO WITH THAT, LET'S LOOK AT WHAT THE PERCENTAGE, THE PERCENTAGE CHANGES ARE.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PERCENTAGE CHANGES, YOU SEE A FEW AREAS OF DISCUSSION, UM, THAT REALLY JUMP OUT TO YOU.
MUCH LIKE ANYTHING THAT WE LOOK AT, PERSONNEL IS ALREADY GONNA HAVE AN INCREASE.
UH, THAT IS ONE OF THE LARGER INCREASES ON HERE.
UH, THE NEXT ONE THAT YOU HAVE IS OUR SUPPLIES.
THAT'S MOSTLY THE WATER COST, THE JUST THE COST OF GETTING THE WATER, OTHER PIECES THAT GO WITH THE, THE WATER, THE WATER SYSTEM.
AND WE ARE CONTINUING TO, CONTINUING TO SEE STEADY INCREASES WITH THE SUPPLY LINE.
UM, THE LAST TWO TALKING POINTS THAT I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, UH, ON HERE ARE THE, UH, CAPITAL OUTLAY AND THE TRANSFER OUT.
UM, THE CAPITAL OUTLAY, WE DO NOT FORESEE AS A LONG TERM KEEPING IT AT ZERO, RIGHT? IT'S NECESSARY.
THIS IS NOT, THIS IS NOT LARGE CAPITAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE CAPITAL PLAN.
UH, TAKING DEBT FOR THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE REPLACED THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, UH, THAT ARE TYPICALLY PAID FOR IN CASH EACH AND EVERY YEAR.
WE DO NOT SEE THIS STAYING AT ZERO GOING FORWARD.
THIS IS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE FOR THIS YEAR BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE.
THE TRANSFER OUTS, IT'S, UM, MOSTLY CASH GOING FROM THE WATER SEWER FUND TO THE WATER SEWER, CIP AT THIS POINT.
AND, UM, WE AS AN, WE AS STAFF UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A HEAVY DEBT BURDEN WITH THIS FUND.
UH, WE ARE DOING ALL THAT WE CAN TO PUSH MORE CASH INTO, UH, INTO THE WATER SEWER CFP, SO THAT IT CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THESE PROJECTS WITHOUT HAVING TO GO INTO SO MUCH DEBT BECAUSE WE, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
UM, AND YOU'RE GONNA SEE NUMBERS THAT JUST LOOK SCARY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS WITH THE WATER SEWER CFP, AND WE ARE DOING WHAT WE CAN TO CASH FUND A LITTLE BIT OF THIS THAT DOES EQUATE, IT RUNS IN PARALLEL WITH THE GENERAL FUND.
NOT TO GO OFF ON TOO MUCH OF A TANGENT, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT WHERE HOW WE NEED TO PREPARE THE GENERAL FUND TO OPERATE IN MUCH THE SAME MANNER.
UM, SO DRAWING DOWN THE BALANCE, THE, THE FUND BALANCE THAT WE HAD, THAT WAS 14 MILLION.
UH, YES, WE TOOK OUT FOUR TO 6 MILLION TO TRANSFER OUT.
UM, THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN THOUGH.
THAT'S PART OF US, UH, TRYING TO, UM, TO USE MORE CASH.
BUT YOU ALSO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY AS THE COUNCIL TO MAKE A POLICY DECISION HERE ON TRANSFERRING ALL OF THAT EXCESS FUND BALANCE DOWN TO 90 DAYS.
SO LET'S SAY THERE'S, THERE'S 14 MILLION IN THAT FUND, THAT ENDING FUND BALANCE, YOU CAN TRANSFER ALL OF THAT ADDITIONAL CASH INTO THE CAPITAL, UM, THE WATER SEWER CIP FUND SHOULD WE SO CHOOSE THAT WAY IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE 140 DAYS, UH, SITTING IN THE IN RESERVE, RIGHT? IT'S ALL A POLICY PIECE AND A PHILOSOPHY THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO THE CITIZENS, WHY WE HAVE SO MUCH CASH.
WE HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT TO OUR BOND RAIDERS WHILE WE HAVE SO MUCH CASH.
WE ALSO HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT WHY WE ARE MOVING THAT MUCH CASH FROM ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL DO NEED TO BE MORE FAMILIAR WITH BECAUSE THERE WILL JUST BE A LOT OF CASH MOVEMENT AS WE WORK THROUGH ADDRESSING THE INFRASTRUCTURE PIECE.
UM, PROBABLY OVER THE NEXT FIVE TO 10 YEARS WITH WATER SEWER SPECIFICALLY.
[00:10:02]
UM, IN ADDITION, PART OF THAT 8 MILLION OF THE TRANSFER OUT IS ACTUALLY GOING TO THE GENERAL FUND.SO YOU HAVE MONEY THAT GOES TO SUPPORT SOME OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME THAT ARE JUST GOING TO SUPPORT OTHER EXPENSES WITHIN THE GENERAL FUND.
AND I DON'T MEAN OTHER EXPENSES, JUST TO BE VAGUE.
UH, IT IT'S A PLETHORA OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT IS SUPPORTING INSIDE THE GENERAL FUND.
UM, AND IF YOU WOULD LIKE DETAILED LIST, WE CAN PROVIDE DETAILED LIST OF THINGS THAT IT IS SUPPORTING, BUT IT, IT IS ROUGHLY $3 MILLION THAT TRANSFERRED OUTTA THE WATER SEWER TO SUPPORT THE GENERAL FARM.
BUT IT'S ALL THINGS RELATED TO WATER IS WATER, SEWER.
SO WE SAY ALL THAT, UH, TO GET BACK TO THE FORMULA AND, AND WHAT IS DRIVING OUR COST, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FORMULA, ANYTHING THAT'S IN EXPENSE CATEGORY, WE'RE GONNA NEED THAT TO BE OFFSET BY THE REVENUE PORTION.
AND, UH, THE REVENUE PORTION IS MOSTLY DRIVEN BY THE UTILITY RATE.
SO AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THE BIGGER PICTURE QUICKLY, UH, FRANK IS GOING TO, UH, TAKE A MINUTE TO DIVE INTO SOME OF THE DETAILS, UM, THAT WORK INTO ESTABLISHING THE POLICY DECISION WITH THE UTILITY RATES.
UM, SO AS, UH, JAY MENTIONED, THESE ARE THE COMPONENTS OF THE, UH, EXPENSES THAT WE SEE IN THE WATER AND SEWER FUND.
WE'VE GOT ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, UH, THE BILLING, THE COLLECTION, THAT'S UTILITY BILLING, UH, COSTS AND GENERAL OVERHEAD LIKE LEGAL, UH, IT, HR.
UM, THEN OUR O AND M COSTS ARE THE KIND OF RECURRING EXPENSES WE HAVE RELATED TO THE TREATMENT OF THE WATER DISTRIBUTION COLLECTION AND DISPO, UH, SAFE DISCHARGE OF IT.
AND THEN THE CAPITAL ITEMS ARE JUST THE LARGE MAJOR PROJECTS AND EQUIPMENT.
UM, I SHOWED THIS SLIDE DURING OUR SEWER CAP DISCUSSION.
IT'S JUST A REMINDER OF WHAT OUR CURRENT, UM, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RATE STRUCTURE IS LIKE.
UH, WHAT I MAINLY WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOUGH IS, UH, THE THINGS THAT ARE KIND OF DRIVING FUTURE COSTS AND THINGS THAT WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE MOVE FORWARD.
UH, FIRST ONE IS SYSTEM GROWTH.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS OUR SYSTEM GROWS, WE HAVE TO BUILD THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THAT.
UM, WE ARE EXPECTING ABOUT 7% GROWTH OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
SO, UH, WE JUST NEED TO BE ABLE TO PLAN FOR THAT WITHIN OUR SYSTEM EXPANSION.
AND, YOU KNOW, THAT REQUIRES INVESTMENT.
UH, THE NEXT ITEM IS THE SSO MANDATED IMPROVEMENT.
WE HAVE, UM, GIVEN A BRIEFING TO COUNSEL RECENTLY ABOUT THE SSO LITIGATION, IT, UM, WE'RE CONTINUE CONTINUING TO, UH, NEGOTIATE OUR CONSENT DECREE WITH THE EPA.
IT IS EXPECTED THAT WE'LL, UH, YOU KNOW, HAVE IMPROVEMENTS AND FINES THAT ARE GONNA BE IN THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, UH, OVER A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
SO, UH, WE JUST HAVE TO BE PREPARED FOR THOSE EXPENSES ONCE THEY START COMING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS THAT WE ARE STARTING NOW IS CALLED, UM, PART OF OUR EARLY ACTION PLAN, AND THAT IS TO SHOW THAT WE'RE, YOU KNOW, NEGOTIATING AND ACTING IN GOOD FAITH WITH THE EPA TO START SOME OF THESE LARGER PROJECTS RIGHT NOW WHILE WE'RE STILL NEGOTIATING.
AND YOU'LL SEE, UH, SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS ARE INCLUDED IN THE, IN THE NUMBERS THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE LATER.
UM, NEXT, GOING TO A COUPLE OF NEW REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, I MAY HAVE MENTIONED THESE A TIME OR TWO.
UH, FIRST ONE IS THE LEAD SERVICE LINE REQUIREMENT.
SO, UH, IN DECEMBER OF 2023, EPA, UH, PUBLISHED SOME PROPOSED LEAD AND COPPER RULE IMPROVEMENTS.
AND, UM, SO WHEN THAT'S FINALIZED, THAT WILL, YOU KNOW, REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF LEAD WITHIN OUR DRINKING WATER SYSTEM.
UH, SYSTEMS ARE CURRENTLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE IN, UH, INITIAL INVENTORY OF THEIR LEAD SERVICE LINES AND, UM, STAFF IS CURRENTLY WORKING ON THAT INVENTORY.
UM, WHEN, WHEN THE RULE IS FINALIZED, IT WILL, UH, REQUIRE A SYSTEM TO REPLACE THOSE, UH, SERVICE LINES THAT HAVE LEAD WITHIN THEM.
AND IT'S ALSO GOING TO REDUCE THE, UM, MAXIMUM LEVELS THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE WATER SYSTEM.
SO THAT MIGHT INCLUDE SOME ADDITIONAL TREATMENT THAT WE HAVE TO DO TO, UM, YOU KNOW, MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE LESS LEAD IN OUR SYSTEM.
I WANTED TO WORK, SO I DON'T, UH, I DON'T HAVE AN ESTIMATED COST RIGHT NOW.
[00:15:01]
UM, UNTIL WE FINISH DOING OUR INVENTORY, WE'RE NOT GONNA KNOW HOW MANY SERVICE LINES WE HAVE THAT HAVE LEAD, UH, IN THEM.SO I CAN'T REALLY ESTIMATE THE COST OF REPLACING THOSE UNTIL WE FINISH THE INVENTORY, BUT IT COULD BE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT.
FRANK, JUST AS THERE'S A, UM, LEAD ABATEMENT FOR HOMES, UM, THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE OF A HOME, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS FROM, FOR FEDERAL MONEY REGARDING LEAD ABATEMENT FROM THE LINES? UM, THERE'S CURRENTLY NOT.
I, I THINK THERE, THERE WILL BE IN THE FUTURE.
I'M, I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THE PFAS, UM, BUT THE FUNDING, EITHER GRANTS OR LOANS IS GENERALLY NOT GONNA COVER EVERYTHING THAT IS REQUIRED, RIGHT? BUT AT LEAST CURB A LITTLE BIT THERE OF SPENDING THERE, THERE, THERE ARE SOME STATE PROGRAMS THAT, UH, I THINK THEY ALL WILL OFFER SOME ASSISTANCE, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOTTA GO TO EVERY SYSTEM WITHIN THE STATE AND SO, RIGHT.
WOULD THIS QUALIFY UNDER THE WATER RESOURCES, UM, GRANTS FROM HGAC? UH, I'M, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.
SO, UM, THAT IS ABOUT LEAD SERVICE LINES.
THE, THE NEXT ONE I WAS GONNA TALK ABOUT IS, UH, PFAS AND PFAS IS AN ABBREVIATION FOR PER AND POLY, UM, RIGHT.
SO, UM, AND IT, IT IS NOT ONE CHEMICAL, IT'S A FAMILY OF CHEMICALS.
SO, UM, THESE ARE ALSO KNOWN AS THE FOREVER CHEMICALS DUE TO THEIR PERSISTENCE IN NATURE.
AND, UM, THEY CAN REMAIN IN HUMAN BODY FOR YEARS.
AND THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, EPA IS NOW, UH, LOOKING AT REGULATING THESE.
UM, SO, UH, THEY ARE PART OF MANY PRODUCTS THAT WE USE EVERY DAY.
AND, AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY'VE BEEN, BECOME PART OF OUR WATER AND SOIL, UH, THAT, THAT, THAT IS EVERYWHERE.
UM, THE EPA RECENTLY DEVELOPED SOME MAXIMUM CONTAMINANT LEVELS FOR THESE CHEMICALS.
AND MOST OF THE CONTAMINANT LEVELS WE DEAL WITH IN DRINKING WATER IS MEASURED IN PARTS PER MILLION.
UH, HOWEVER, THE, THE PFAS REGULATION MEASURES IN PARTS PER TRILLION.
SO IT IS A, UM, YOU KNOW, A REALLY INCREASED, UH, STANDARD THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH BOTH ON THE MEASUREMENT AND THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TREATMENT.
SO I, I RECENTLY HEARD A SCIENTIST SPEAK ABOUT PFAS AND THE SCALE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH, AND HE COMPARED MEASUREMENTS IN PARTS PER TRILLION TO FINDING FOUR COWBOY HATS WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
THAT'S THE KIND OF SCALE WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT AND
UM, BOWEL HAS TESTED FOR, UH, PFAS AND FOUND THAT OUR WATER EXCEEDED, UH, FOUR OF THE ADOPTED LIMITS.
I THINK THERE'S MAYBE 10 TO 12 ACTUAL LIMITS, BUT WE EXCEEDED THE PARAMETERS ON FOUR OF THOSE.
UM, SO WE WILL HAVE TO DEVELOP A PLAN TO, YOU KNOW, REMOVE THAT FROM OUR SYSTEM.
UM, PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS ARE REQUIRED TO MONITOR THE RESULTS FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND THEN TAKE ACTION TO REDUCE THE EXCEEDANCES BY 2029.
SO IT'S REALLY NOT THAT FAR OFF.
UM, REMOVING PIS FROM UH, WATER CAN BE EXPENSIVE.
UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT SOME SIMILAR, UH, SYSTEMS THAT HAD TO INSTALL THE, THESE, UH, SYSTEMS AND, UM, IS ESTIMATED THAT FIREWALL WOULD NEED TO SPEND BETWEEN 50 AND A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS JUST ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO TREAT THE PFAS.
AND THEN, UH, ABOUT FIVE TO $10 MILLION PER YEAR ON O AND M COSTS, ADDITIONAL O AND M COSTS BECAUSE THE FILTRATION SYSTEM REQUIRES, UM, FREQUENT, YOU KNOW, CHANGING.
SO THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE BIG NUMBERS.
UM, SO, UH, I'VE TALKED ABOUT SEVERAL FACTORS THAT'S GONNA DRIVE OUR COSTS IN THE FUTURE.
UH, I JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THEM SO WE CAN PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
CAN I ASK SOME QUESTIONS? YES, SIR.
SO ON THE PFAS, UM, I GUESS THE FIRST THING IS, I MEAN, WE'RE ABLE TO MEASURE TO THAT, TO THE PARTS PER TRILLION, I'M ASSUME, OR CLOSE TO IT.
I MEAN, WE ARE ABLE TO DETECT WHAT WE, WHAT WE NEED TO.
[00:20:01]
12, WHATEVER, RIGHT? WE, WE'VE HAD, UH, OUR WATER ANALYZED.SO IN, IN SOME WAYS I REMEMBER CONTACTING, I THINK YOU AND, AND THE C MANAGER AT THE TIME, I THINK IT WAS THREE YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS IN A CONFERENCE.
'CAUSE EVERYBODY THERE, THEY'RE MORE FROM THE NORTH AND NORTHEAST AND IT'S A BIG ISSUE FOR THEM.
AND SO I WAS ASKING, I DON'T WHAT PFAS IS, BUT EVERYBODY HERE WAS EXTREMELY CONCERNED.
SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE WHATEVER LIMITS ARE, ARE ESTABLISHED, IS THAT GONNA BE A FEDERAL LIMIT OR WILL THE STATE IT IT IS.
EARLIER THIS YEAR, I THINK APRIL OF THIS YEAR, THEY SET THE LIMITS.
UM, I DON'T THINK THE STATE WILL INCREASE THAT LIMIT.
I THINK THAT IS GOING TO BE THE LIMIT, BUT IT'S VERY STRICT.
WELL, AND, AND I DON'T, THE ONLY THING I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH, SO WHAT ARE THE, I GUESS YOU SAY IF THERE'S ILLNESSES OR SICKNESSES OR WHATEVER IT TAKES PLACE WITH, WITH PFAS CONTAMINATION, LET'S THIS SAY WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S THE RISK TO, UH, SO THE RISK TO HUMANS, I, I THINK IT CAUSES CANCER.
THERE'S, UM, PROBLEMS WITH, UH, IT CAUSES PROBLEMS WITH YOUR, UM, UH, METABOLISM AND, UM, I THINK SOME, MAYBE SOME KIDNEY FUNCTIONS.
I WOULD SAY THE BIGGEST RISK IS GONNA BE, UH, CANCER CAUSING TYPE TYPE DEALS.
BUT THEY, SO THE SCIENTISTS I HEARD SPEAK ABOUT THIS, THAT IT, EP IS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT STAYS WITHIN THE HUMAN BODY FOR YEARS.
IT, IT'S NOT STORED IN YOUR FAT TISSUE, IT'S STORED, I THINK IT GOES TO YOUR BRAIN AND SOME OF YOUR OTHER ORGANS RATHER THAN PROTEIN BASED JUST BEING FLUSHED PROTEIN BASED TISSUE.
SO I GUESS THE QUESTION THAT'S WHAT INDIVIDUALS, IF THEY SEE THEIR PHYSICIAN OR WHOEVER, ARE THEY ABLE TO BE TESTED FOR ANY TYPE OF PFAS SPECIFIC, I GUESS CONTAMINATION OR NOT THAT I'M NOT.
MR. MAYOR, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS, STUDIES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED, UM, THAT THEY HAVE BEEN, UH, CONDUCTED ON ANIMALS.
SO THERE IS NO DEFINITIVE CORRELATION.
BUT OF COURSE WE HAVE LITIGATION GOING ON RIGHT NOW AND, UH, THERE WILL BE MORE TESTING IN THE FUTURE.
BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE STUDIES ARE CORRELATED FROM OBSERVATIONS AND ANIMALS.
AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING THAT IS JUST, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN DRINKING BEIT ON WATER ALL MY LIFE AND MANY IN THE ROOM HAVE BEEN DRINKING BEIT ON WATER ALL THEIR LIFE.
I DON'T WANT OUR CITIZENS TO FEEL LIKE, UM, ALL OF A SUDDEN THAT THERE'S THIS CRISIS THAT THE WATER'S NOT SAFE.
AND SO THAT'S THE MAIN REASON OF MY QUESTIONING WOULD BE IF THIS EXISTED.
YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THINGS HAPPEN IN OUR WATER THAT'S NATURAL FLUORIDE'S ONE THING THAT HAPPENS HERE IN THIS AREA.
AND SO I WANT THE MESSAGE TO BE, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE THESE TRACES OF CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CONSIDER THEM, THAT, UM, THIS IS A DEVELOPING REG REGULATION, LET'S SAY.
AND THAT AS WE'D ALWAYS SAY, SEEK OBVIOUSLY YOUR PHYSICIAN'S TESTING WHATEVER, BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO FEEL LIKE THAT THE WATER IN BAYTOWN IS UNSAFE.
AND I WOULD ALSO SAY PIG BAG ON CRAIG'S COMMENTS, THAT THE LEVELS THAT THE EPA HAVE SET ARE EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH.
UM, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT PART TO PER TRILLION, THIS WAS A HUGE CHANGE FROM WHAT THEY HAD MEASURED BEFORE.
SO THEY ARE TRYING TO GET EXTREMELY SMALL, UM, LEVELS BEING COUNTED SO THAT WE CAN REMEDIATE IT IN THE FUTURE.
NOT, I DON'T WANT TO GET TOO FAR OFF ON THE PFOS WEEDS, BUT, UM, I MEAN, IS THIS, ARE THESE LIMITS PRETTY ACCEPTED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND MEDICAL GROUP OR DO YOU FORESEE LIKE THIS COULD CHANGE IF THERE'S A CHANGE IN UH, ADMINISTRATION? IN ADMINISTRATION? THAT I DON'T.
I MEAN, IT, IT, LIKE I SAY, IT'S RECENTLY BEEN ADOPTED BY THE EPA AND IEPA DOESN'T LIKE TO GO BACK ON ITSELF.
I WOULD IMAGINE I I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF THEY ROLLED IT BACK.
JUST KIND OF COMMENT ON, ON, ON THE MARES.
THERE'S, WE'RE ALSO SEEING PFOS IN WATER BOTTLES TOO.
SO IT'S NOT JUST, IT'S IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S IN A, LOT'S GONNA BE A WHOLE, IT'S GONNA BE A WHOLE CHANGE ON HOW WE DRINK WATER.
IT'S JUST, IT'S, IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEING RECOGNIZED IN SCIENCE, BUT IT IS GONNA BE SOMETHING TO CHANGE.
I MEAN, THERE, THEY'RE THERE TOO.
ALL OF YOUR NON-STICK SERVICES, IT'S IN MAKEUP, IT, IT IS EVERYWHERE.
[00:25:03]
THANK YOU FRANK.UM, SO, UH, GIVEN THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE GOING TO TRYING TO PREPARE FOR THINGS THAT ARE, UH, COMING IN THE FUTURE.
UH, WE'VE SUBMITTED A FY 25 BUDGET THAT INCLUDES, UH, 6% RATE INCREASE AND WE BROUGHT BACK THE 12,000 GALLON, UH, SEWER CAP.
UM, AND WITHIN THE BUDGET ALSO IS, IS SOME FUNDING TO DO, UH, RATE STUDIES FOR, UH, BOTH BWA AND THE CITY.
THE BWA HAS HAD A FIVE YEAR, UH, PLAN THAT THEY'VE BEEN FOLLOWING TO THIS IS THE LAST YEAR OF THAT PLAN.
SO, UH, THEY'RE GONNA UPDATE THAT AND THEN THE CITY WILL DO ONE AS WELL.
SO, UM, GONNA TURN IT BACK OVER TO JAY.
PLEASE DON'T GO ANYWHERE BECAUSE I'M SURE WE'RE GONNA HAVE QUESTIONS.
SO WITH THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS FRANK SAID, THE, THE BUDGET THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU IS BUILT WITH THE 6% RATE INCREASE IN THERE, UM, AND, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL SEWER CAP.
SO WE WON'T HAVE A SEPARATE VOTE TO DO THAT, JUST LIKE WE DID LAST YEAR.
WE BUILT IN, ONCE A BUDGET IS ADOPTED, THAT UH, PIECE WILL BE, UH, AS PART OF THE ADOPTED BUDGET.
WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT? MAKE FUNNY OF SCOTT? NOPE, I'M NOT.
UM, BUT, UH, THAT WILL BE BUILT INTO, TO WHAT THE BUDGET IS.
UH, BUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE THAT, LIKE WE, LET'S HAVE THAT DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW.
UM, AND I'LL START THERE BEFORE I GO INTO ANYTHING ELSE.
I, I MEAN, I'LL JUST START OFF, I KNOW WHEN WE, WHEN WE HAD AN INITIAL DISCUSSION TWO MONTHS AGO, I THINK TWO, MAYBE THREE MONTHS AGO ON RATE WITH WATER AND SEWER, UM, I THINK THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE CAME UP WITH A FEW IDEAS.
I THINK ONE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED, AND IT, AND I GUESS IS HOW IT'S HANDLED ON THE TIERS.
LIKE, I GUESS MY QUESTION WAS DOES IT JUST MAKE MORE SENSE TO HAVE A, YOU KNOW, FROM, YOU KNOW, A THOUSAND GALLONS TO 3000 IS X AMOUNT FEE FOR THO FOR THOSE FIRST 3000 GALLONS.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY IT GOES UP MAINLY AT WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A CONSERVATION TYPE SCALE.
OR DOES IT JUST MAKE MORE SENSE TO COME UP WITH A FIGURE TO SAY EVERY THOUSAND GALLONS, REGARDLESS IF IT'S, UH, YOUR FIRST THOUSAND OR YOUR 17TH THOUSAND GALLON USED, THE PRICE IS, YOU KNOW, $6 AND 53 CENTS.
YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST, SO BASICALLY HOW DO WE WANT TO HANDLE IT? IS IT BEST TO BE, TO HAVE THIS TIERED APPROACH? OR IS IT BEST TO JUST HAVE A FLAT COST? LIKE WHAT'S OUR COST? UM, OUR, OUR DIRECTION IN THE PAST WAS THAT, UH, COUNSEL WANTED TO SEE KIND OF A BREAK FOR THE 2000 GALLON AND OTHER USER.
AND THOSE ARE GONNA BE, YOU KNOW, YOUR, YOUR FAMILIES, UH, SMALL FAMILIES WITH, YOU KNOW, A SMALL YARD, UM, OR YOUR ELDER.
AND SO THE THOUGHT WAS KEEPING THEIR RATE FAIRLY LOW.
UM, THEN ONCE YOU GET TO THE HIGHER RATES, IT, IT, UH, IS HELPFUL TO HAVE CONSERVATION RATES BECAUSE, UM, THE PEAK DEMANDS, THE HIGH DEMAND OR THE HIGH USERS WILL DRIVE THE, THE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD.
SO, UM, THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND, AND, AND IT IS DRIVEN BY RESIDENTIAL USE BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL USERS USE A LOT OF WATER EARLY IN, IN THE MORNING AND THEN IN THE EVENING.
AND THOSE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSTANT THROUGHOUT THE DAY, THERE'S PEAKS AND THOSE PEAKS BEING WE HAVE TO BUILD INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THE PEAKS, NOT THE AVERAGE.
UM, SO THE HIGH DEMAND USERS ARE DRIVING THE PEAKS, WHICH DRIVE THE BIGGER INFRASTRUCTURE.
UH, THEN THERE'S ALSO THE, UH, ISSUE THAT, UH, BAYTOWN HAS TO NEGOTIATE FOR OUR WATER RIGHTS.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T OWN WATER RIGHTS OTHER THAN WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF HOUSTON WHO OWNS THE WATER RIGHTS.
AND SO, UH, WHENEVER THE, UM, THE USAGE GOES UP TO A CERTAIN AMOUNT, WE HAVE TO GO BACK AND NEGOTIATE TO GET MORE CAPACITY.
SO IT, IT HELPS THE CITY TO ENCOURAGE CONSERVATION SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK AND TRY TO GET, YOU KNOW, UH, ADDITIONAL CAPACITY.
IF THAT'S SOMETHING WHEN WE'RE DOING THE RATE STUDIES, THAT WE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS WE BUILD THOSE.
I MEAN, I THINK FOR, FOR FOR NOW I THINK, I MEAN I'M FINE WITH THIS.
IT'S JUST IF YOU KNOW ANYBODY ASKS LIKE, LOOK, YOU'RE, YOU'RE PAYING WHAT IT COSTS US TO PRODUCE IT AND DELIVER, RIGHT.
SO THAT THERE IS NO EXTRA OTHER THAN THE GROWTH THAT'S EXPECTED.
WE, WE DID COLLAPSE THE TIERS, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AGO, IF YOU REMEMBER.
WE, WE USED TO HAVE I THINK FOUR
[00:30:01]
TIERS AND NOW WE REDUCED IT DOWN TO THREE, UH, JUST BECAUSE IT MADE MORE SENSE.UM, YOU KNOW, AND, AND GIVEN THE GOALS OF COUNCIL, WE DIDN'T SEE THE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE STRUCTURE OF THE RATE SYSTEM.
UH, AND, AND I DON'T REALLY PLAN ON DOING THAT WITH NEXT YEAR'S RATE STUDY.
JUST, I MEAN, FOR, FOR OUR USE, IT IS JUST WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH REVENUE WE NEED AND GIVEN THIS RATE SYSTEM, HOW DO WE GET THAT REVENUE? 'CAUSE I MEAN, THAT WAS THE ONLY POINT I HAD, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
NO, THIS IS THE, WHEN THIS SAYS CURRENT AND YOU'RE PROPOSING SIX, 6%, BUT IS THAT 6% JUST ACROSS THE BOARD ON THIS STRUCTURE? BECAUSE I'D STILL LIKE TO SEE THAT LOWER TIER COME UP TO COST TO 6, 7, 9 OR WHATEVER IT 65.
I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT ITS, ITS SAVINGS FOR SENIORS AND, AND SMALL, BUT WE CONTINUE TO INCREASE THEIR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION.
WE DO HELP THEM IN OTHER WAYS.
UM, AND I JUST THINK, UH, I MEAN YOU HAVE A LOT OF OTHER USERS IN THAT, IN THAT TIER THAT ARE BEING SUBSIDIZED AND YOU ALSO HAVE OUTSIDE CITY USERS IN THAT TIER.
UM, AND SO WE'RE BASICALLY, I KNOW THEY HAVE THE 1.5 MULTIPLIER, BUT THAT BARELY PUTS 'EM ABOVE COST.
AND SO WE'RE TO SOME EXTENT SUBSIDIZING NON-RESIDENTS THAT JUST HAPPENED TO FALL IN THE, IN THE LOWEST TIER.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DO IT ALL AT ONCE, IT'D BE, I MEAN, MAYBE THAT'D BE A LARGE PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR THAT ONE TIER, BUT RIGHT.
UM, MAYBE WE PUT A PLAN WHEREVER THE NEXT TWO OR THREE YEARS WE CATCH THEM UP, MAYBE DO HAVE ONE BUDGET AND WE'LL HAVE THE NEXT, I GUESS.
WE, WE CAN LOOK AT BECAUSE IT, BECAUSE IT ALL OF US PAY THAT FOR THE FIRST 2000.
I MEAN, SO WE'RE REALLY NOT JUST BENEFITING SENIORS.
I MEAN, IN OUR FIRST 2000 WE, WE ALL BENEFIT, BUT, SO WE'RE ALL PAYING LESS THAN COST FOR THOSE FIRST 2000.
UM, AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD, WOULD HELP OUR REVENUES.
I MEAN, WE'RE NOT PUTTING A BURDEN ON PEOPLE.
IT'S, IT'S THE COST OF DELIVERING WATER TO 'EM OR JUST MAKING THE WATER.
FOUR OF Y'ALL THAT FEEL THAT WAY, I AM OKAY WITH THAT.
WELL, THE BALLER RATE TO THE CITY AT 3 44 FOR A THOUSAND IS, IS THAT THE COST PER A THOUSAND? THAT'S WHAT BY CHARGES DECISION.
WE GO BACK TO THE SAME QUESTION WE HAD LAST TIME.
WHAT DOES IT COST FOR A THOUSAND GALLONS FROM THE CITY? IS IT 3 44? SO 360? IT'S THREE 40 FOUR'S GOING.
THAT'S CHARGE, THAT'S JUST, WE STILL, THE CITY STILL HAS TO PAY HIS PERSONNEL TO GO OUT, MAINTAIN THE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM.
UH, I, I SENT THE, THE, UH, WHAT WAS IT, THE Q AND A THAT I SENT THAT COVERED THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE COST OF SEWER AND I I SUBMITTED THAT.
SO, UM, I KNOW THAT WAS, I THINK, UM, $6 AND 78 CENTS PER THOUSAND GALLONS OF SEWER AND $9 AND 31 CENTS PER BILL, PER PER THOUSAND GALLONS OF WATER USAGE PER THOUSAND GALLONS.
6 78 PER THOUSAND PLUS THE OVERHEAD COMPONENT WAS, UH, $9 AND 31 CENTS PER BILL.
SO LEMME LEMME THAT NOW THAT, THAT, THAT IS, SO YOU CAN SEE THE LOWER VOLUME, YOU ARE NOT COVERING THE COST.
AND REALLY IF YOU TAKE THAT COST TIMES, YOU KNOW, THE, THE AMOUNT THAT'S BILLED IT COMES OUT, UH, THE BILL IS LESS THAN THE COST, BUT AS YOU NOTED, WE ONLY TREAT 90% OR SO OF THE WATER THAT'S BUILT.
AND SO THAT, THAT'S HOW IT KIND OF BALANCES THAT.
SO, UM, THE, THE LEAST AMOUNT ANY CITIZEN WILL PAY FOR WATER IS 2000 GALLONS.
IF THEY USE ONE GALLON OF WATER OR 1000, THEY, IF THEY HAVE A METER AND THEY DON'T USE ANY WATER, THEY COULD HAVE A ZERO.
WELL, THEY COULD HAVE, YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND WE'VE HAD THE, WE HAVE THE, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
SO THEY CAN HAVE ZERO VOLUME, BUT THEY STILL GET THE, THE OVERHEAD.
CAN THEY GET ONE? I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING HOW, UM, WHAT'S THE, IN A SENSE OF RESOLUTION SO SOMEBODY CAN GET SOMEBODY IN THAT RANGE COULD BE BILLED FOR A THOUSAND GALLONS.
IT'S BY IT IT'S ROUNDED I THINK UP TO A THOUSAND, CORRECT.
RIGHT NOW, UNDER THE CURRENT RATE FOR WATER, THEY PAY 2 72 PER THOUSAND GALLONS UP TO 2000.
SO IF THEY USE 2000 GALLONS, IT'S LIKE SIX BUCKS.
MY, MY WHOLE ONLY QUESTION, AND, AND THAT GOES BACK WHERE I'M TRYING TO GET CLEAR IN MY MIND
[00:35:01]
IS WHAT DOES IT COST? BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA RAISE THAT 2 72 UP, WHAT WE'RE GONNA RAISE THAT TO? WELL, I'M NOT GONNA GIVE A CREDIT CARD BOX TO SAY RAISE IT TO NINE BUCKS.SO THE PROBLEM WAS COST COUNCIL MEMBER POWELL SAID, TAKE IT HALF, TAKE THE HALF OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 2 72.
AND THAT WAS NEW RATE THIS YEAR BECAUSE BIO APPROVED A 6% INCREASE.
SO, BUT HALF OF THAT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S UM, IF YOU TAKE HALF OF THAT DIFFERENCE, WE COULD DO THAT ONE YEAR THEN HALF THE NEXT YEAR.
THAT I THINK THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTOOD THE PROPOSAL.
BUT, BUT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE AN INCREASE IN 26.
SO YOU'RE GONNA SEE ANOTHER INCREASE IN 26 IN COST.
SO YOU'RE GETTING HALF, BUT THEN YOU'RE GONNA GET CATCH UP A LITTLE BIT, BUT YOU'LL STILL BE A DEFICIT IN 26.
I MEAN, I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR COUNSEL WOULD BE, AND THE REASON WHY I WAS ASKING CAN SOMEBODY I UNDERSTAND THEY CAN GET A ZERO.
I MEAN, JUST TO WAIT, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE MEASURING IN, IN 1000 GALLON INCREMENTS, MY QUESTION WAS CAN SOMEBODY GET A 1000 GALLON BILL? THE REASON WHY, IF IT'S 2000 GALLONS OR LESS, THAT I WOULD JUST MAKE IT A FLAT, I GUESS $7 AND 30 CENTS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION WAS, IS CAN WE, DO WE GO IN A THOUSAND GALLON PIGMENTS? DID YOU THAT? YEAH.
UM, YOU TOLD ME THEY CAN GET A, A 1000 GALLON.
ANYWAY, MY, MY THOUGHT WAS IF THE LEAST AMOUNT THEY'RE GONNA PAY FOR IS 2000 GALLONS, REGARDLESS THEY USE ONE GALLON OR 1500, THEN I WOULD JUST SAY MAKE IT $7 AND 30 CENTS OR WHATEVER COUNSEL WANTS TO RAISE TO, I GUESS MAKE IT A FLAT.
I MEAN, IT'D BE FLAT, BUT THAT'S ALL THAT THEY WERE DOING.
ONE I HAVE PER THOUSAND GALLONS.
I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR WHAT THAT PER THOUSAND GALLON, WELL, I GUESS IT, IF BOB WAS SAYING IT'S GONNA BE 365, IT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT, 90 SOMETHING CENTS DIFFERENCE.
AGAIN, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2 7 2 AND 365.
SO WITH THE 6%, RIGHT, AS FRANK HAS IT WRITTEN OUT RIGHT HERE, LIKE CURRENTLY, IF WE JUST WENT WITH 6% OKAY AND THEY USED 2000 GALLONS, LET'S, I DON'T WANT TO GO TO THE A THOUSAND.
IF THEY USED 2000 GALLONS, THEIR CURRENT BILL AS OF FY 24 WOULD BE 5 45 FOR THE 2000.
AND IN FY 25, IF YOU STICK WITH A 6%, IT'S 5 78.
SO IT, IT INCREASES BY, UM, WHAT, 30 CENTS, 33 CENTS PER FOR THAT, FOR THAT WATER PORTION OF THE BILL.
THE OVERALL BILL IS DIFFERENT.
WHAT I CALCULATED ON A 2000 GALLON USER, THE UTILITY, THE DIFFERENCE ON THE UTILITY WOULD BE $2 AND 8 CENTS TOTAL.
BUT THAT'S NOT BRINGING THEM UP TO NO, NO, THAT, THAT WAS, THAT WAS, THAT WAS JUST 6% ACROSS THE BOARD.
SO WE DIDN'T DO A CALCULATION FOR THAT ONE.
I MEAN THAT, I GUESS THAT'S, THAT'S SOME DIRECTION I GUESS COUNSEL NEEDS TO GIVE IS DO WE WANT TO AT LEAST, AT LEAST CHARGE COST OR AT LEAST THIS BUDGET YEAR, DO HALF OF COST THE DIFFERENCE, I GUESS IN THE NEXT YEAR? OR IS IT BETTER JUST TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE? WELL, CONSIDERING THAT COLLEAGUE INDICATED WE'RE GONNA HAVE ANOTHER INCREASE NEXT YEAR, SO WE'LL ALWAYS BE TRYING TO PLAY CATCH UP.
SO WE EITHER WE CATCH UP OR WE DON'T.
SO I MEAN, IF YOU'RE DO IT DO IT OVER THREE YEARS, YOU'RE GONNA GO 40% OVER THREE YEARS, THAT'LL GET YOU 1.2, WHICH GETS YOU CLOSE TO WHERE YOU'RE GONNA BE IN 27.
IF YOU GO 30% YOU DO IT, BREAK IT OUT OF THREE.
BUT BECAUSE YOU'D WANT DO A 55% INCREASE, BUT 2000, HOLD ON A SECOND.
THE MATH, SO OF 365, I MEAN THIS TECHNICALLY IT'S, IT'S A $4 INCREASE ON YOUR WATER BILL IF YOU JUST PUT IT ALL IN THERE.
WELL, ONLY IS THAT MUCH FOR THE 6,000 GALLON USER, IT'S $5 AND 32 CENTS INCREASE.
YEAH, IF YOU 365, YOU'RE TECHNICALLY RAISING $2.
SO EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT THE, WHAT THE INCREASE IS.
WELL, I WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THREE 19, SO 3 19, 3 19 WOULD BE OKAY, THIS YEAR'S, I GUESS YOU'D SAY 2000 GALLON RIGHT? OR LESS USER.
IS THAT TAKING IT TO JUST HALF, HALF INCREMENTAL? YEAH, THAT'S HALF OF THE DIFFERENCE.
[00:40:01]
I MEAN I, I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE, WE WANT TO, WE, WE ARE TRYING TO TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, THE LOW END USER CERTAINLY OUR, OUR OUR SENIORS.BUT ALSO THE REALITY WHY WE WERE HAVING TO DISCUSS A LOT OF THIS IS BECAUSE WE'VE SUBSIDIZED FOR SO LONG MM-HMM
SO I, I THINK THE MESSAGE HAS TO BE WE'RE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AT WHAT IT COSTS US TO PRODUCE IT AND DELIVER IT TO YOU.
HOW MUCH WELL, THAT'S A GOOD POINT MAYOR AND I DO WANT TO LIKE, BRING THIS INTO PLAY AS Y'ALL HEARD FRANK SAY TO THIS.
UM, IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT THESE BOTTOM THREE PIECES, NOT EVEN SYSTEM GROWTH, THE SSO LED SERVICE LINE AND PFAS OVER THE NEXT 10, 15 YEARS, WE CAN FORESEE MOST LIKELY 400 TO 800 MILLION IN COST? UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
I MEAN, WITH THAT IN MIND, WE NEED TO CATCH UP TO WHERE WE'RE AT LEAST AT COST.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO PUT OUT THERE IS LIKE FOUR TO 800 MILLION AND WE ARE CURRENTLY ONLY WORKING ON, WELL, MOSTLY A LITTLE BIT, NOT, NOT 400, 400 TO 800 MILLION.
SO THAT'S NEW, NEW INFRASTRUCTURE COSTS THAT WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO ADJUST.
I MEAN, AND I JUST WANT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE NOT VOTING, IT'S JUST, I THINK I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS, IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE $3 19TH CENTS RATE FOR 2000 OR LESS USERS AND WHY.
SO IF YOU'RE ASKING, EXPLAIN WHY.
BECAUSE THAT'S ENOUGH DIRECTION.
UM, GOING BACK, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE? SO, UM, POLICY, UH, THERE MAY BE OTHER QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, ARE THERE NO, DO Y'ALL WANT TO ADDRESS THE FUND BALANCE? DO Y'ALL WANT TO ADDRESS OTHER POLICY PIECES THAT GO WITHIN BUILDING THIS OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE STAFF TO WORK ON IN FY 25 TO BRING RECOMMENDATIONS MUCH LIKE WE DID WITH THE GENERAL FUND? UM, I FEEL THIS FUND WORKS FAIRLY WELL HOW IT IS.
UM, BUT IF Y'ALL HAVE DIFFERENT POLICY DIRECTION THAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CHAT ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT CIP? NO.
RIGHT NOW THE ONLY, THE ONLY COMMENT QUESTION I HAVE IS THE SAME AS THE FUND BALANCE FOR THE GENERAL FUND.
YOU KNOW, THE TARGET IS 60 TO NINE DAYS, YOU JUST SAID IT'S AT 140.
WHEN WE HAVE A PRETTY TIGHT CIP BUDGET THAT'S SPECIFICALLY FOR WATER AND SEWER, I'M MORE INCLINED TO DRAW THAT FUND BALANCE DOWN TO SAY 90 DAYS MM-HMM
TO GET THE TOP END AND PUT THAT MONEY BACK INTO CIP PROJECTS TO GET AHEAD OF SOME OF THIS.
HAVING THIS LARGE, YOU KNOW, FUND SITTING HERE, THAT AND, AND FRANK'S GROUP IN THE CIP WATER AND SEWER FUND ARE STRUGGLING TO, TO GET THINGS DONE.
UM, AT, AT, AT JUST, JUST YOU START LOOKING HAVE LARGE FUND BALANCES OR ENDING FUND BALANCES, THAT'S JUST MONEY THAT JUST SITS THERE AND THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE IN BUSINESS TO BE.
FRANK INDICATED, YOU KNOW, WE, WE NEED TO START LOOKING AT SOME HEAVY MAINTENANCE, BUT THERE'S A FEW MILLION BUCKS THAT HE, HE MIGHT BE, IT MIGHT OVERWHELM HIM TO GET THE PROJECTS DONE, BUT HE GETS HIM FUNDING TO, TO LOOK AT GETTING THOSE PROJECTS DONE.
I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANNA PIGGYBACK BACK ON ON YOUR COMMENT, MIKE, WAS I KNOW IN TIMES WE GET, I'LL JUST SAY WE GET ANXIOUS TO DO SOME PROJECTS AND THEN WE GET BACKED UP, WE FUND IT, WE MAY ISSUE DEBT, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
AND THEN I'M NOT GONNA SAY MAYBE EVEN DESIGN GETS, GETS COMPLETED AND THEN WE'RE WAITING ON CONSTRUCTION AND IT JUST GETS BOTTLENECKED AND YOU GOT, WE HAVE TO HAVE CAPACITY CONTRACTORS HAVEN'T HAD THAT, THE CAPACITY TO DO ALL THAT.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T PUT OURSELF IN, IN THAT TO AT, TO BUILD MANAGE THAT.
SO LIKE FROM FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, UH, MR. LESTER, TO YOUR POINT, AND MAYOR TO YOUR POINT, WE WOULD TRANSFER THE MONEY OVER TO THE WATER SEWER CFP FUND.
IT WOULD NOT MEAN THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOCATED DIRECTLY TOWARDS ANY PROJECT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
WHAT IT DOES IS IT SHOWED, IT DOESN'T LOOK TO THE CITIZEN.
LIKE THERE'S 200 DAYS OF JUST MONEY SITTING IN THE WATER SEWER FUND FOR NO REASON.
IT'S BEING, IT'S BEING SAVED FOR, UH, FUTURE WATER SEWER PROJECTS THAT, THAT FRANK AND HIS TEAM HAVE TO ADDRESS.
UM, AND WHEN IT COMES TIME TO LOOK AT THE DEBT, WHICH WE'LL TALK ABOUT HERE SHORTLY, THERE'S CASH TO JUST GO DRAW DOWN OR THE CAPITAL OUTLAY.
WE CAN, WE CAN PULL FROM THERE IF NECESSARY AND WE CAN KEEP THAT STABLE IN THE WATER SEWER FUND AND JUST DRAW THAT DOWN.
BUT WE HAVE THE CASH AVAILABLE TO LOOK AT PROJECTS BECAUSE TO ME IT IS TOUGH TO SAY, WELL I'M GONNA RAISE RATES BY 6% BUT I DON'T WANT DO IT IS BUILDING UP MY RESERVE FUND.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE DAY TO DAY CITIZEN'S POCKET.
WHEREAS YOU GO
[00:45:01]
I KNOW THAT AND, AND THAT MORE TO THE POINT IS A LOT OF THE PROJECTS HE HAS THAT MAY TAKE A COUPLE OF YEARS OF TRANSFERRING THAT MONEY IN THERE TO HAVE ENOUGH MONEY TO PAY FOR A PROJECT.'CAUSE THEY, THEY, THEY LOSE A 30 INCH VALVE THAT'S SEVERAL HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS JUST FOR ONE VALVE.
SO IT'S NOT CHEAP AND IT TAKES TIME TO BUILD THAT UP.
BUT YOU KEEP LOOKING AT THAT HUGE FUND VALVE OUT THERE, IT MAKES IT TOUGH.
BUT, BUT WE'RE RAISING THE RACE AGAIN 'CAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO STOCK SOME MORE MONEY AWAY.
YOU, YOU'LL SEE SOME BIG NUMBERS ON THE CIP FOR WATER AND SEWER AND, AND THAT MONEY CAN GO TO REDUCING OUR DEBT, UH, OBLIGATION THAT WE REQUEST.
UM, ANOTHER POLICY PIECE IS, UM, DO YOU WANT TO SUBSIDIZE THE WATER SEWER FUND IN TIME? UM, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO, AND YOU DON'T, THAT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY LIKE, HEY YES, WE'RE DOING THAT TODAY AND, AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
IT'S UM, IT'S THE, JUST THE PHILOSOPHICAL IDEA OF IS THE WATER SEWER, DOES IT NEED TO SUSTAIN ITSELF OR DO YOU WANT THE GENERAL FUND TO IT IN, IN OTHER WAYS? BECAUSE WE ARE TALKING TO ALMOST A BILLION DOLLARS OVER THE NEXT 10 TO 15 YEARS THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE RATES TO HELP SUPPORT THAT, UM, I THINK THAT WE CAN TALK BIG RATES AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
I I, I GUESS I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT Y'ALL ARE THINKING OF AND HOW MUCH FROM THE GENERAL FUND Y'ALL WOULD WANT TO TRANSFER OVER.
UM, I MEAN MY HOPE IS THAT IT'S ALWAYS SUSTAINABLE BY ITSELF, WATER AND SEWER.
BUT HAVE Y'ALL GIVEN SOME THOUGHT AS TO HOW MUCH SUBSIDIZING YOU WANT TO DO? WE ARE WORKING RIGHT NOW THAT IT'S, THAT IT'S SELF-SUPPORTING.
WE ARE WORKING UNDER THAT ASSUMPTION THAT'S SELF-SUPPORTING.
UM, WE KNOW THAT THE AMOUNT THAT'S NECESSARY TO FULFILL THE INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS, IT'S GONNA BE A LOT.
AND WE HAVE TO START BALANCING.
UM, WHAT IS YOUR, THE CURRENT, THE CURRENT UTILITY BILL FOR FY 25 FOR, UM, A 6,000 GALLON USER IS GONNA BE ROUGHLY, IT'S CURRENTLY 1 22 AND 20 AND FY 25, IT'S GONNA BE 1 38.
UM, SO IT'S A CONSIDERABLE JUMP.
AND IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT DOING THAT, AND THAT'S THE MONTHLY CHARGE THAT INCLUDE THAT INCLUDES THE SANITATION.
BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO, IF YOU'RE GONNA KEEP DOWN THAT PATH, WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN FIVE YEARS? RIGHT.
AND IF IT LOOKS LIKE THAT, IF, IF WE'RE HAVING CONSIDERABLE JUMPS IN FIVE YEARS, DO WE NEED TO START PLANNING NOW? AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO LOOK AT WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR RATE STUDIES AND THE FOLLOW RATE STUDIES THAT AT LEAST HAVE THAT READY AS A DISCUSSION POINT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL? IF YOU, IF THAT'S NOT THE PHILOSOPHICAL DIRECTION, THEN WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT THAT INTO HOW WE ARE WORKING IN FY 25 TO PUT THAT TOGETHER.
I MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU, YOU KIND OF STATED YOU NEED ANYWHERE 400, $800 MILLION RIGHT.
JUST ON THOSE THREE ADDITIONAL THINGS.
NOT ON WHAT WE CURRENTLY I KNOW.
SO I MEAN YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING THAT'S AT LEAST 60 MILLION A YEAR JUST TO DO THAT IN 10 YEARS.
AND THEN THE ONLY THING I ASK WITH THAT IS REMEMBER THE FORMULA MM-HMM
AND THEN GO TO THE GENERAL FUND AND WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO ADDRESS THAT? AND THEN THOSE ARE BIG POLICY DECISIONS THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN FY 25.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO ACT LIKE IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY HERE THAT WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT.
NO, I THINK WE DO NEED TO PLAN FOR THE FUTURE AND NOT, AND NOT, WE, WE ALL SEE IT NOW.
WE'RE TRYING TO, WE KIND OF INHERITED SOME STUFF THAT WE'RE, WE'RE TRYING TO CORRECT THE SHIP AND I THINK WE NEED TO GET AHEAD OF THAT SO THAT OUR FUTURE GENERATIONS DON'T HAVE THIS ISSUE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? I'M GONNA AGREE THAT OKAY, BEFORE WE JUMP INTO CIP, DO Y'ALL NEED TO TAKE A SMALL BREAK OR DO Y'ALL WANNA JUMP RIGHT IN? UM, OKAY.
UM, THE GENERAL FUND IS QUITE SIMPLE THIS YEAR.
IT'S ONLY TWO ITEMS. IT'S FIRE STATION TWO AND IT'S THE EOC AND THAT'S EVERYTHING YOU SEE UP HERE IS GEARED TOWARDS DEBT.
EVERYTHING YOU SEE UP HERE IS GEARED TOWARDS DEBT, BUT THE ONLY ONE THAT'S BACKED BY PROPERTY TAX IS THE GENERAL FUND.
IF, UH, UH, ROUGHLY 10.8 MILLION, POSSIBLY UP TO 12.
UM, EVERYTHING ELSE IS THROUGH A DIFFERENT FUNDING SOURCE.
AND I, I WILL GET TO ALL THAT.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL PIECES IN YOUR PACKETS THAT YOU WILL SEE ARE COVERED BY CURRENT CASH THAT IS IN THE CIP FUND SO THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING TO GO TOWARDS DEBT OR A TRANSFER IN OTHER PROJECTS IN THE CIP FUND TO ADDRESS NECESSARY PROJECTS, WHICH DOES MEAN THAT PAST PROJECTS HAVE BEEN MOVED AROUND.
THOSE ARE ALL ADDRESSED WITH THE CIP COMMITTEE AND THE CIP, UH, UM, IF THEY HAVE A FINAL THING THEY WANNA PUT OUT THAT THEY, UH, BUDGET THE FINAL BUDGET PRESENTATION THAT OR HERE, THAT'S, THAT'S ON DOWN.
[00:50:01]
BELIEVE THE CIP COMMITTEE IS IN AGREEANCE WITH STAFF ON HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE TRANSFERS AT THIS POINT.UM, SO THERE'S NOT MUCH IN THE GENERAL FUND BEING BACKED BY PROPERTY, PROPERTY TAX AT THIS POINT.
THE STORM WATER FUND, I, I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THERE'S MONEY FOR THE STORMWATER TO DO THIS ENTIRE 10 MILLION.
UM, SO THAT MAY NOT COMPLETELY BE ISSUED ON TOP OF THAT.
THIS IS THE DANINA PROJECT, RIGHT? YES.
AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO, THERE'S ANOTHER PHASE OF, OF DANINA.
UM, SO HARRIS COUNTY IS LEADING THIS PROJECT AND THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS TO IT.
THERE'S THE UNDERGROUND STROLL WATER SYSTEM THAT GOES IN
UM, THAT CHANNEL HAS HOUSES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.
UH, SO THE ENGINEER IS HAVING SOME ISSUES DESIGNING THIS AND, AND MAINTAINING THE WATER SURFACE WITHIN THE EXISTING CHANNEL.
UH, BECAUSE THERE THE PIPE IS GONNA INCREASE THE FLOW TO THAT CHANNEL.
UM, THEY, THAT'S GONNA RAISE THE WATER LEVEL AND UM, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO TAKE OUT ALL THE HOUSES ALONG THE CHANNEL.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT GONNA BE A GOOD PLAN.
UM, SO THEY, THEY CAN EITHER DETAIN IT, UH, UPSTREAM OR PUT IN A PARALLEL SYSTEM.
THEY'RE JUST STRUGGLING WITH, WITH THESE ISSUES AND TRYING TO KEEP THAT WATER WITHIN THE CHAIN.
UH, THEY, THIS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME'S GONNA BE AND WE'LL HAVE TO, WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH HARRIS COUNTY ON TRYING TO DEVELOP AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION, BUT WE LET 'EM KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE THOSE HOUSES.
LET ME ASK AN ENGINEERING QUESTION THEN, FRANK, I I HEAR SOME PLACES THAT THEY DO THIS UNDER SURFACE BORING, RIGHT? IS THAT EVEN POSSIBLE BE, I MEAN, UN UNDERGROUND DETENTION? UN WELL NOT JUST DETENTION, BUT I MEAN THEY BASICALLY JUST BORE INSTEAD OF HAVING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, I SAY THE PIPES AND CULVERTS AND SO ON, THEY DO MORE BORING DETENTION.
SOUNDS GREAT, BUT I MEAN, IT GETS SOMEWHERE ELSE.
UM, SO THIS, THIS PIPE WILL BE A BOX CULVER.
IT'S GONNA BE A VERY LARGE BOX CULVER.
SO, UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE COST EFFECTIVE TO TRY TO WORK AND THE ROAD COULD USE, UH, REPLACEMENT ANYWAY.
SO IT GIVES US A GOOD REASON TO, YOU KNOW, REPLACE THAT ROADWAY.
BUT IT'S A VERY LARGE BOX SO IT WOULDN'T BE CONDUCIVE.
I'VE SEEN THAT DONE UP LIKE IN LOS ANGELES AND OTHER AREAS WHERE THEY PRETTY MUCH HAVE THE, THE LARGE BOX CULVERTS AND THEN THEY PUT A ROAD ON TOP.
SO DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, I MEAN IT WORKS FOR THEM 'CAUSE THEY BASICALLY HAVE FLASH FLOODS MORE THAN ANYTHING, BUT IT SEEMS TO WORK FOR THEM.
I JUST DIDN'T KNOW A BORING IF BECAUSE OF OUR, WE, WE DO BORING SEA LEVEL AND WE DO BORING IN SOME CASES.
AND WE'LL DO IT ON MANY PROJECTS, BUT, UH, THIS PROJECT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BOXES ARE.
I THINK MAYBE EIGHT BY 10 FEET.
SO WE DO HAVE SOME COMPLICATIONS WITH THE STORMWATER FUND.
UM, IF, IF WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT DOESN'T LOOK VIABLE, WE WILL NOT ISSUE THAT DEBT.
BUT WE DO NEED TO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT THAT IS ON THE, UH, IN THE HOPPER TO ISSUE DEBT FOR 10 MILLION WITH A STORMWATER FUND.
UH, BAWA HAS, UH, BACKWASH AND, UH, DECANT.
IS THAT WHAT IT'S, UH, BACKWASH AND DECANT? THAT, THAT'S REALLY, THAT'S WHAT THAT 3.6 IS ADDRESSING.
THEN THE WATER AND SEWER FUND, IT'S THE LARGEST ONE THAT WE HAVE WITH THE DEBT ISSUANCE.
UH, AND A MAJORITY OF THAT IS MADE UP OF LIFT STATIONS.
SO YOU HAVE, UH, MULTIPLE LIFT STATIONS, UM, ON I 10 AND TEXAS AVENUE THAT ROUGHLY MAKE UP 38 MILLION OF THIS.
THEN YOU HAVE WORK ON SHO LANDER WATER SEWER LINES, THAT'S ROUGHLY 6 MILLION.
AND THEN YOU HAVE WATER DISTRO AND PLANT ONE REHAB THAT MAKES UP ALMOST THE REST OF THE DELTA.
I THINK IT'S LIKE 20 MILLION BUCKS, UH, FROM THAT POINT THAT THAT GETS IT UP TO THE 73.
SO WITH HOW THAT IS LAID OUT, UM, THERE, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL CASH.
THIS IN FY 25 GOING TO THIS, THIS IS BUILT INTO WHAT WE HAVE ALREADY IN THE CFP FUND.
SO WE DO HAVE TO USE DEBT TO, TO ADDRESS, UM, EVERYTHING THAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT.
OUTSIDE OF THE FEW THINGS THAT WERE CHANGED AND PRESENTED TO, UH, THE CFP COMMITTEE.
SO WITH THAT, WE'LL GET INTO THE PHILOSOPHICAL PIECE ON HOW TO ISSUE DEBT ON THE CO OR GO WITH THE GENERAL FUND PIECE.
THE OTHER THREE ON HERE ARE REVENUE BONDS.
SO THEY WILL BE ISSUED THROUGH THEIR OWN ENTITY AS REVENUE BONDS.
UH, I BELIEVE THE STORMWATER MAY HAVE TO BE BACKED BY PROPERTY TAX, UH, JUST FOR SECURITY REASONS.
[00:55:01]
THE, THE OTHER TWO BOTTLE AND WATER SEWER ARE, ARE DOING OKAY.UM, AND I BELIEVE THAT WATER SEWER WILL ADD AN ADDITIONAL 4 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE IS THAT I THINK 4 MILLION IN DEBT SERVICE, UH, WITH THIS $73 MILLION ISSUANCE.
SO THAT 9 MILLION, IF WE GO BACK JUST ONE STEP TO THE WATERER FUND, THAT 9 MILLION THAT WE HAVE IN DEBT A YEAR WILL BE ROUGHLY AROUND 13 MILLION A YEAR, UM, WITH THIS ISSUANCE.
SO, UM, THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING IT GOES INTO THE NUMBER TWO CATEGORY.
SO, UM, AS WE MOVE FORWARD, THIS IS CURRENTLY, AS WE SEE IT TODAY FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS IN DEBT THROUGH OUR FUNDS.
IS THIS COMPLETE? NOT WHATSOEVER.
UM, PART OF WHAT FRANK'S TEAM HAS BEEN ASKING FOR, UH, FOR THE PAST FEW YEARS IS THE CIP PLANNER, UH, CLIFF AND HIS TEAM HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR A CFE PLANNER, UH, TO BETTER, BETTER LOOK AT OUR ASSETS, UH, TO SEE WHAT WE NEED TO REPLACE.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FUND THOSE, UH, FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
THEREFORE, WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES NECESSARY TO REALLY GO INTO AND PROPERLY PLAN.
YOU CAN SEE THAT'S WHY IT FALLS OFF PRETTY QUICK.
UH, OVER YEAR THREE AND FOUR, UH, 28 AND 29, UH, FOR, FOR DEBT PIECES.
THIS DOESN'T HAVE A DA, UH, BUILT INTO IT JUST YET.
WE CAN SEE THAT BEING ONE TO 2 MILLION ADDITIONAL A YEAR THAT HAS TO, TO GO INSIDE THE FACILITY PIECE.
AND UM, SO WHILE THIS IS A SNAPSHOT, IT IS A VERY QUICK SNAPSHOT OF WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW NEEDS TO BE REPLACED.
AND WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT, UM, IF YOU LOOK AT HOW IT'S ALL BROKEN DOWN, THESE, UH, FACILITIES, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION RIGHT HERE, THOSE ARE GONNA BE THE ONES BACKED BY THE GENERAL FUND.
OKAY? UH, BAWA DRAINAGE, WASTEWATER WATER, WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND WATER DISTRIBUTION, THOSE ARE ALL FUNDED BY THEIR DIFFERENT REVENUE BOND PORTIONS.
OKAY? AND, BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF THAT WE ARE GONNA BE STUCK AT ROUGHLY A HUNDRED PLUS MILLION A YEAR IN DEBT WITH ALL FUNDS, YOU KNOW, AT LEAST FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FOUR YEARS.
UM, AND SO IT IS PRETTY CONSIDERABLE FOR PEOPLE TO, TO TAKE IN, RIGHT? IT'S DIFFERENT THAN HOW WE'VE BEEN OPERATING IN THE PAST.
WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF CASH TO GO TOWARDS THESE THINGS.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IT STARTS CHANGING PHILOSOPHY AND HOW WE WANT TO LOOK AT IT.
SO I CAN GO BACK TO THE OTHER SIDE OR I CAN LOOK AT TEXT, WHICHEVER ONE'S EASIER FOR Y'ALL TO TALK ABOUT, BUT EITHER ONE OR, LET ME LOOK, BUT IT LOOKS ON YOUR FACES.
UM, SO IF WE DO GENERAL OBLIGATION, WE WILL SPEND ABOUT A YEAR WITH A CONSULTANT, PROBABLY A MILLION BUCKS, FAIR TO SAY, 800,000 TO A MILLION DOLLARS WITH A CONSULTANT TO DO A FIVE TO SIX YEAR PLAN FOR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND.
WE WOULD TRY, WE WOULD START TOMORROW, RIGHT? WE'VE ALREADY ACTUALLY HAVE SOME THINGS IN THE WORK, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE WORKING TOWARDS THAT.
UM, THAT WOULD NOT BE, THAT WE WOULD NOT TAKE A VOTE ON THAT UNTIL 26, UH, OR EXCUSE ME, UH, FY 26, NOVEMBER OF 2025, THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST VOTE ON THAT BOND.
SHOULD WE GO OUT FOR THAT? IT WOULD MOST LIKELY JUST BE FACILITIES, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION.
I WOULD ASK FOR A PHILOSOPHICAL DECISION THAT WATER, WASTEWATER, WASTEWATER, DR.
DRAINAGE AND BAWA ARE NOT PART OF THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BECAUSE WE CANNOT TAKE A CHANCE OF THOSE.
NOT PASSING LIKE THAT IS, IF ANYTHING, WITH THE GENERAL FUND PIECE, THAT'S GONNA BE, THAT'S GONNA BE FACILITIES, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION.
YES, WE CAN TAKE THOSE TO THE, TO THE, TO THE VOTERS, SEE WHAT THEY THINK.
BUT IF SOMETHING FAILS, WE TAKE A CONSIDERABLE CHANCE OF HAVING TO HAVE CASH ON HAND TO BE ABLE TO, TO ADDRESS WHAT'S ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY.
I'M GONNA PAUSE BEFORE I GO TO THE NEXT ONE AND SEE HOW Y'ALL FEEL ABOUT LIKE THAT DIRECTION.
OR DO WE WANT TO GO INTO GENERAL OBLIGATION OR STAY WITH COS I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATION, UM, TO KEEP AT LEAST THOSE IN, UM, IN THE CIP WASTEWATER, WASTEWATER,
UM, I CAN SEE THE, UM, IT CAN, I CAN SEE A VOTE IMPACTING THOSE PARTICULAR AREAS.
NOW, IN TERMS OF FACILITIES, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC NEEDS UNDER TRANSPORTATION? IS IT JUST LIKE, THIS IS
[01:00:01]
GARTH, THAT'S GONNA BE GARTH ROAD.AND, AND HOW I, HOW I KIND OF SEE THIS AND UM, I MEAN, JACOB ALLUDED TO A COMMENT THAT WE HAVE ALREADY INCREASED HOMESTEAD.
SO, WHICH IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE WANTING TO BRING UP THE 2000 GALLON USERS.
AND IN ORDER TO CASH FUND, WE NEED THAT IN THE GENERAL, GENERAL FUND.
AND SO, AND I MAY BE GETTING AHEAD OF MYSELF AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE GONNA BRING THIS UP, BUT WHEN I THINK ABOUT THAT, I THINK ABOUT OUR TAX RATE AND, AND US CONTINUING TO LOWER THE TAX RATE.
UM, ONE, WE'RE A GROWING COMMUNITY, WE'RE STILL GROWING.
YOU KNOW, UM, UH, WE NEED MONEY FOR THIS.
WHERE ARE WE GONNA GET THE CASH FOR THIS? UM, TWO, IT IMPACTS OUR PUBLIC SAFETY AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT THERE YET.
UM, IT IMPACTS OUR PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IF WE, IF WE LOWER OUR TAX RATE, AGAIN, EVEN THE HALF SENT, UM, IT TAKES AWAY OUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR CASH FUNDING AND THEN, UH, IMPACTS PUBLIC SAFETY IN REGARDS TO BEING A LITTLE BIT MORE PROACTIVE IN TERMS OF, UM, PARK CONTROLS AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
IT, IT WOULD BE MORE OF A REACTIVE SITUATION AND, UM, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'D BE WILLING TO FOREGO.
WE HAVE A SISTER CITY, GRANTED, WE'RE MUCH BIGGER.
UM, THEY HAVE MORE LAND AVAILABLE.
THEIR, UM, RATES, UH, TAX RATES ARE SO MUCH LOWER THAN OURS, BUT THEY JUST WENT THROUGH AN INCREASE RIGHT NOW, UM, IN OUR, IN OUR, UM, OUR NEIGHBOR.
AND, UM, I, I WOULD NOT WANT TO ONE DAY GO OUT AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE YOUR TAXES.
AND, AND I FEEL THAT THAT WOULD HAPPEN IS IF WE CONTINUE THAT TREND, UM, IF WE WANT TO FUND THESE PROJECTS, WE NEED TO HAVE THE CASH AND TO HAVE THE CASH, I FEEL WE NEED TO START REMAINING STEADY WITHIN OUR TAX RATES.
ANYBODY ELSE? I, I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS MADE THAT THERE CRITICAL COMPONENTS,
AND FOR WHATEVER REASONS THAT ONE OF THOSE IS VOTED DOWN, THAT THAT'S CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE.
RIGHT? WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
SO I, I AGREE WITH KEEPING THEM OUT OF THE GO SIDE OF IT.
NOW, AGAIN, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT, TRANSPORTATION COMES TO VOTE AND THE CITIZENS SAY, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DON'T WANT OUR FROZEN PROOF.
OKAY, THEN DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT GARTH ROAD AS WE GO FORWARD.
SO I, I CAN SEE KEEPING FACILITIES, PARKS, AND TRANSPORTATION IN, IN A GEO, UH, FOCUS.
I ALSO AGREE WITH, WE DID A PRESENTATION A MONTH OR SO AGO, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAT TALKED ABOUT THE DEBT RATIO OR TAX RATE AND DEBT RATIO TO REVENUE RATIO.
AND WE'VE KIND OF GOTTEN THAT BALANCED OUT NOW MM-HMM
AND IF WE CONTINUE TO LOWER THE TAX RATE, THAT IMPACTS OUR ABILITY FOR DEBT ISSUE.
SO WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT BALANCE.
SO I AGREE, YOU KNOW, THE HALF CENT REDUCTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS YEAR MAY, THAT MAY NOT BE WORTH DOING.
I THINK AS, AS A COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, WE'VE DONE WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GONNA DO FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND WE'VE REDUCED IT, I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT ALMOST, ALMOST 10 CENTS.
SO WE TAKE A PAUSE THIS YEAR AND COME BACK NEXT YEAR AND SAY, OKAY, NOW WE CAN DO ANOTHER HALF CENT OR WHATEVER.
BUT THE, THE CONSTANT REDUCTION, I THINK WE HAVE TO START BEING MORE ATTENTIVE TO WHAT THE IMPACT IS, UH, FURTHER DOWN THE LINE BECAUSE I ALSO DON'T WANT TO IMPACT PUBLIC SAFETY, WHETHER IT'S POLICE, FIRE, I ALSO DON'T WANT TO IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE REGULAR STAFF ISSUES THAT WE HAVE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO BELIEVE, BUT WE'RE STILL A GROWING COMMUNITY, SO WE JUST HAVE TO BE WARY.
IT'S GOTTEN OUT, WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.
SO WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND WARY ABOUT WHERE WE, WHERE WE CUT AND WHERE WE, UH, TRIM BACK.
SO, BUT I AGREE WITH THE GEO ISSUE OF KEEPING THOSE OUT OF THE GEO.
KEEPING THOSE OUT OF THE GEO, UM, REVENUE BONDS FOR THOSE, UM, I, I AGREE WITH THE DIRECTION THERE GEO FOR THOSE THREE.
UM, AND I AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS ON TAX RATE AS WELL.
UM, KEEPING IT LEVEL OR TO THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WHICHEVER LOWER OF THOSE TWO? BOTH.
[01:05:01]
I'M THE SAME.UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HAVE A HUGE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE, UH, PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE TO ADDRESS AND WE CAN'T RISK IT ON A GENERAL, GENERAL OBLIGATION.
SO, UM, YEAH, I I I'M AGREE WITH MY COLLEAGUES.
SO I MEAN, WHAT I'M HEARING IS, IS BASICALLY ALTHOUGH THERE WAS A TAX RATE REDUCTION PROPOSED, IT, IT APPEARS, THERE WAS CERTAINLY A CONSENSUS THAT WE MAY JUST WANNA HOLD STEADY.
AND SO
THE, THE REASON WHY IT WAS NEEDED TO MAKE SOME TAX CUTS THE PAST FEW, I THINK FIVE YEARS BY BUDGETS, UM, WAS THAT WE WERE NOWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF OTHER CITIES THAT SIMILAR SERVICES AND SO ON.
UM, NOW WHEN I LOOK AT IT, SIMILAR CITIES, WE ARE PRETTY MUCH WITHIN ABSENT 1 CENT FROM THEM.
EVERY CITY'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO BE THAT, THAT NUMBER ONE WITH, WITH THE HIGHEST RATE.
SO I COULD, I COULD GO AND, AND AT LEAST TAKE A, UH, I GUESS YOU'D SAY HOLD IN A SENSE, UH, LET SOME OTHER THINGS COME INTO FOCUS.
THERE IS A HUGE, OBVIOUSLY INFRASTRUCTURE NEED.
UM, AND SO WITH THAT, I GUESS YOU'RE HEARING A CONSENSUS TO HOLD STEADY ON THE TAX RATE.
UM, WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO DO IN FUTURE YEARS, AND THIS IS MY PHILOSOPHY, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD LIKE COUNSEL TO DO WOULD BE INSTEAD OF GOING DIRECTLY TO THE TAX RATE, 'CAUSE IT'S, THAT'S EASY TO DO, IS TO CONTINUE TO FIRST OR CONTINUE TO, UM, LOOK AT INCREASING THE TAX EXEMPTION, UH, FOR 65 AND PLUS.
AND, AND SO, UH, THAT IS HELPING OUR SENIORS ONLY, UH, OUR SENIORS AND DISABLED.
AND THAT'S WHERE I WOULD LIKE MONEY TO BE FOCUSED FIRST TO TRY TO DO THAT.
I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES YOU, WE'LL SAY YOU PAID MANY, MANY DECADES OF TAXES IN BAYTOWN AND SO I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SAY YOU THAT YOU'VE DONE YOUR DUTY AND THANK YOU, BUT WE WANT TO TRY TO ALLEVIATE THAT TAX BURDEN FROM OUR MOST, LIKE I SHOULD SAY FIXED REVENUE CITIZENS 65 PLUS.
SO THE SECOND PORTION OF THIS IS MUCH LIKE WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE WATER AND SEWER FUND, UM, THAT, UM, CASH IS A NECESSITY AT THIS POINT AND, UM, I WILL BE LOOKING TO COUNSEL TO BE OKAY WITH STAFF DEVELOPING A POLICY ON, UM, IF WE GO OVER, LIKE WE'RE BUILDING OUR RESERVES BACK UP AND WE WANT TO SHOOT TO 75 AT THIS, AT THIS POINT TO STAY STEADY AT 75.
UM, THAT ONCE WE GET OVER 75, ANY FUND BALANCE THAT'S, UH, OVER AND ABOVE 75 GOES TO THE CIP AND NOT ALL OF IT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ABSORB GROWTH, RIGHT? WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT GROWTH AND PERSONNEL, WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT GROWTH JUST IN, IN SERVICES.
UM, BUT A PORTION OF THAT WILL GO TOWARDS TO, TO THE GENERAL FUND, CIP, UM, BECAUSE WHAT WE DON'T NEED, WE NEED THE WHY, RIGHT? LIKE FOR FUTURE FUTURE COUNCILS, THEY NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE ARE DOING THIS AND WHY THAT POLICY IS IMPORTANT.
AND THAT GOES, THAT TRICKLES DOWN TO THE STAFF TOO, RIGHT? BECAUSE WHEN THE STAFF SEES LIKE, HEY LOOK, WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 10 MILLION, UH, WE CAN GET BIGGER PAY RAISES OR THAT WE CAN GET, UH, MORE, YOU KNOW, SHINY OBJECTS, NO, A LOT OF THAT EXTRA MONEY IS GONNA GO DIRECTLY TOWARDS REDUCING WHAT OUR DEBT OBLIGATION IS.
AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, FOR THINGS THAT DON'T PASS UP HERE, NOT EVERYTHING'S GONNA PASS.
THE GENERAL OBLIGATION IS, IS IS DETAILED OUT AND, UM, NOT, I WOULD ASSUME THAT NOT EVERYTHING PASSES AND THAT'S OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT THE CITIZENS, UM, ARE SAYING.
UM, THERE WILL BE THINGS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE HARD DISCUSSIONS ON.
LET'S SAY THAT THEY SAY, NO, WE AREN'T GONNA GIVE YOU ANY MONEY TO PUT A NEW AC IN CITY HALL.
I'VE BEEN GOING TO THE, YOU KNOW, I USED THAT CITY HALL IN 1980.
THEY DON'T NEED TO REPAIR IT ANYMORE THAN WHAT IT WAS IN 1980.
WELL, OKAY, COOL, BUT NOW IT'S 92 DEGREES IN THE BUILDING, RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE CASH ON HAND TO ADDRESS.
AND I'M JUST USING AN EXTREME EXAMPLE THAT, AND THAT'S ONLY MAYBE A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS OR WHATEVER, BUT IT'S MORE THAN THAT.
DON'T USE THAT WORD AS A SO, UM, WE JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE CASH PIECE THAT
[01:10:01]
GOES INTO PLAY WITH GOING TO GENERAL OBLIGATION THAT WE NEED TO HAVE MORE ON HAND AND WE NEED TO HAVE A WORKING POLICY WHERE ANYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND IS NOT NECESSARILY GOING TO BRIGHTEN SHINY OBJECTS, BUT TO PAYING FOR REPLACEMENT DOWN THE LINE.UM, IN TERMS OF FACILITIES, UH, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD THE STORM AND WE HAD SEVERAL OF OUR, UM, BUILDINGS THAT LOST POWER.
UM, SO DID ARE, DO WE HAVE ENOUGH NOW TO ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES OR ARE THOSE GONNA BE IN THE FACILITIES GEO OR WHERE ARE WE WITH THAT? SO WORK GOT A GENERATOR? YES, THAT'S FINE AWAY.
UM, THE DAMAGES FROM THE STORM ARE GONNA BE COVERED.
UH, WE'RE, WE'RE APPLYING FOR FEMALE REIMBURSEMENT FOR THAT.
SO, UM, THAT WOULD BE COVERED INSURANCE MAYBE TOO? YES.
ARE THERE, ARE THERE OTHER QUESTIONS WITH DEBT CASH? LEMME, I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL.
SO KIND OF WITH THE CIP MIKE'S, THE CHAIR OF THAT WITH KIND OF THAT FIVE YEAR ROLLING PLAN MM-HMM
I MEAN I, I LIKE HOW THE, I GUESS THE PAST TWO YEARS SEEM TO BE GOING WELL AND JACOB, DO YOU, YOU'RE THE FINANCE CHAIR.
DO Y'ALL STILL LIKE THAT KIND OF THAT FIVE YEAR OUTLOOK, LOOKING AT THE FINANCE, MAKING SURE THAT POLICIES AND PRACTICES ON THE FINANCE SIDE IS IN LINE WITH OBVIOUSLY ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES WITH WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.
SO MAKE SURE YOU ALL LIKE THAT.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S WORKED WELL.
IT, IT'S WORKING PRETTY WELL WITH CIP MM-HMM
UM, THE CIP IT, IT REALLY GOT DOWN TO, AGAIN, THE REDUCTIONS IN, IN THE HARD LINE CHANGE OF VELOCITY AS FAR AS THE, THE CAPITAL MENT PROJECTS FROM THE GENERAL FUND WAS, IT WAS RELATIVELY SIMPLE 'CAUSE IT WAS PRETTY SET.
I MEAN, THERE WAS ALREADY, WE'RE ALREADY OBLIGATED FOR A GOOD CHUNK AND THAT JUST LEFT A SMALL PIECE LEFT OVER.
SO IT'S PRETTY SIMPLE AS WE GO FORWARD.
AGAIN, AS WE SCRUTINIZE THE FUTURE PROJECTS TO ADD TO THOSE OR SOMETHING COMES OFF, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO PAY A LITTLE BIT CLOSER ATTENTION TO WHERE WE GO WITH THAT.
UM, SO, BUT YEAH, I THINK IT'S WORKING PRETTY WELL.
WELL, I'M HESITANT TO SAY THIS NEXT PIECE, BUT AS A REMINDER, YOU HAVE THE DETAILED LIST OF CFU PROJECTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WHY WE DIDN'T OPEN IT UP? WELL, I WOULD JUST SAY FROM YOUR LAST POINT, THE POLICY ABOUT WHAT CASH WE NEED TO COME ON HAND.
I THINK ANOTHER THING WE'LL NEED TO KEEP IN MIND FOR THAT POLICY WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE IS SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, A, A GEO MAY, WE MAY EXECUTE 'EM OVER FIVE YEARS, BUT THINGS WILL COME UP IN THOSE YEARS WHERE THE COUNTY WILL WANT TO MATCH OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WE'LL HAVE TO NEED CASH FOR THAT KIND OF, WE'LL HAVE TO DECIDE LIKE HOW MUCH WE WANT TO HOLD BACK FOR THAT.
MAYBE LOOK AT HISTORICALLY HOW MANY PROJECTS WE'VE GOT MATCHES ON AND HOW, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT OF EACH OF THOSE IN ESTABLISHED A NUMBER, YOU KNOW, AS A PART OF THAT CASH, WHAT WE WANT TO WITHHOLD.
WE LET YOU SPEAK FOR US ON, UM, ON THE DISC GOLF.
ARE WE FULLY FUNDED ON THAT OR WHAT, WHAT ELSE DO WE STILL NEED FOR THE DISC GOLF? IT IT IS FUNDED.
THAT, THAT'S ONE WE GOT A GRANT, UH MM-HMM
BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IN CHAMBERS COUNTY.
I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE FAMILY WHERE IT'S AT NOW.
THAT'S PART OF, UM, WE DID GET A CHAMBERS COUNTY, UM, CDBG GRANT.
WE'RE GONNA ROTATE, UH, A COUPLE BLOCKS OF THAT.
AND WE GOT LIKE THREE LIFT STATIONS AND D**E STAPLES AND CEDAR.
UM, SO ALL WE NEEDED WAS, UH, JUST MONEY FOR THE TESTING AND THAT WAS ONE OF THOSE RARE HUNDRED PERCENT RANK.
I'LL TELL YOU THAT, UH, UH, MR. LUSTER AND MR. FRANCO AND MRS. GRAHAM HAD DONE A HECK OF A JOB WITH
[01:15:01]
THE CIP STUFF ON, UM, WHICH STAFF AND FRANK AND BRANTON, UH, CLIFF AND STERLING AND EVERYBODY ELSE WITH ALL THE INFRASTRUCTURE PIECES HAVE REALLY DOVE IN DEEP ON WHAT THE PROJECTS ARE GOING THROUGH.UM, A LARGE LIST SHOWING HOW THE ASSETS, UM, ARE BROKEN DOWN AND, AND, UH, NEED TO BE REPAIRED.
AND THEY'VE BEEN DOING THAT FOR CLOSE TO A YEAR AT THIS POINT NOW.
SO IT'S BEEN PRETTY INFORMATIVE APPROACH WITH THE CIP COMMITTEE AND, UM, I FEEL THEY'VE PROBABLY BEEN OVERWHELMED WITH INFORMATION.
IT'S, I DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
WANTED TO GIVE A, UH, QUICK UPDATES ON FEES, AQUATICS AND THE GOLF COURSE.
UM, AND, UH, I I FEEL IT WOULD BE RELATIVELY QUICK, QUICK, UH, I'LL TURN THE FIRST PORTION OVER TO THERESA TO DISCUSS THE CREDIT CARD FEES.
UM, I'M JUST PROVIDING A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE CREDIT CARD FEES WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, IN THE FY 25 BUDGET.
UM, RIGHT NOW, UM, FOR 23, THE CITY PAID 424,000 IN CREDIT CARD FEES IN 2024.
CURRENTLY WE'VE ALREADY PAID 643,000.
UM, OUR ESTIMATED RECOVERY, UM, IN USING A PERCENTAGE FEE FOR THE PROCESSING FEE WOULD BE EITHER THE 2% AT 300,000, 3% AT 450004% AT 601.
AND THAT IS ABOUT THE 300,000 THOUSAND IS ABOUT 47% OF OUR COSTS.
UM, THE 450,000 IS ABOUT 70% OF OUR COSTS.
UM, SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, UM, BUT THE FIRST ROLLOUT 2% AT 300,000.
UM, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE PERCENTAGE WOULD BE A FAIR, UM, CHARGE FOR THIS PROCESS BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE TRANSACTION AMOUNT.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE A CHARGE OF $25, IT WOULD BE 50 CENTS.
UM, IF THERE WAS A CHARGE OF $92, IT WOULD BE AROUND $1 84 CENTS.
AND THEN WHAT OUR PLAN WOULD BE IS EVERY YEAR WE WOULD BRING THIS BACK DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS AND BASE THAT DATA BASE THIS RATE BASED ON PRIOR YEAR DATA OF WHAT WE'RE, UM, BEING CHARGED CURRENTLY.
UM, THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CLOSED SAYS THAT WE CANNOT GO OVER 5%, SO WE WOULD NEVER BE ABLE TO GO, UM, BEYOND THAT.
AND SO I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.
I JUST WANT, UM, I KNOW WE HAD A, A WORK SESSION A WHILE BACK.
I KNOW YOU DIDN'T WANNA START THIS UNTIL THE NEXT BUDGET, BUT WHAT I, I THINK THERE WAS SOME DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL WAS, WHAT WAS IT THAT WE WANTED TO DO? I CAN'T REMEMBER.
WE WANTED TO DO A DIS A FLAT FEE OR DIS A PERCENTAGE, BUT SHE GAVE THINK IT WAS LIKE TWO POINT A HALF OR 3% WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT SOMEWHERE LIKE THAT.
IT, IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
IT WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN TWO.
IS THIS SPECIFICALLY ON WATER? THIS IS ON ALL ANY CREDIT CARDS.
ANYTHING THAT WE, THAT I DON'T REMEMBER.
SO, I MEAN BASICALLY WE, WE'VE BEEN SUBSIDIZING IT AND SHE'S RIGHT.
I I DON'T EVEN THINK WE CAN GO TO COST.
'CAUSE IN SOME CASES 5% IT'S A 4%, 4% PERCENT.
THE 4% WITH COVER GET, GET US CLOSE, BUT IT WON'T GET US PERCENT LIKE 90%, 90, 98, 94, 90 4%.
SO THAT'S WHEN PEOPLE USE A CREDIT CARD.
SO IF, IF I AM ON AUTODRAFT FOR MY WATER BILL, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL FEE.
SO THAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO SIGN UP FOR A CH.
YOU'RE GIVEN 'EM, AND I THINK YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT IF THEY WENT TO, YOU HAD SAID THAT IF WE WENT TO, UH, SMART BILLING INSTEAD OF THE PAPERLESS WENT TO PAPERLESS BILLING, THAT THERE WOULD BE A DIS THAT WE WOULD OFFER A DISCOUNT TO COVER THAT, HEY, WE WANNA RE WELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE COVERING A COST, BUT YOU'RE ALSO SAVING US A COST OVER HERE.
SO WE'LL GIVE YOU A SLIGHT BREAK.
I DISCUSS, I REMEMBER A LONG TIME AGO WHEN WE FIRST WENT TO KIND OF THE NEW BILLING, IF YOU WANNA CALL IT THAT, AND IT, I THINK OUR COST WAS LIKE A MONTH PER USER WAS LIKE $2, YOU KNOW, TO BILL IT STUFF, IT MAIL IT.
AND SO I'D RATHER PASS THAT ON TO CITIZENS OR PASS THE COST ON FOR, FOR BEING ON AN AUTODRAFT.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAD SAID.
IF THEY WENT TO I, I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT THAT WAS MY THOUGHT.
I'D RATHER PAY OR LET OUR CITIZENS IN A SENSE SAVE SOME MONEY, UH, THAN
[01:20:01]
PAY A CONTRACTOR TO MAIL SOMETHING OUT.YEAH, BECAUSE YOU WERE, WE WERE KIND OF DISCUSSED THAT YES, WE WANT TO, THERE, THERE'S A COST THAT NEEDS TO BE COVERED AND WE DON'T WANT YOU, WE UNDERSTAND THAT PEOPLE WOULD SAY, OH, WELL YOU'RE WANTING TO RAISE MY MONEY, BUT AT THE SAME TIME WE'LL GIVE YOU AN OPTION TO LOWER YOUR BILL TOO.
SO THE, THE COST FOR UH, MAILING OUT THE BILLS IS ONLY 51 CENTS PER BILL.
SHE ALREADY HAD THE CROSS FORCE, WHICH WOULD BE THE 2%.
SO THE 20, IT SAYS 25 REGISTRATION FEE.
WHAT IS THAT? WHAT IT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.
SO LIKE IF SOMEONE HAD A CHARGE WITH $25, THAT'S THE CHARGE.
WHAT I'M KIND OF HEARING IS 4%, BUT WELL, RIGHT NOW, I MEAN THERE'S PRETTY MUCH A FEE EVERYWHERE MM-HMM
SO I WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE 4%.
ALRIGHT, THE LAST TWO THINGS THAT, UH, THAT WE HAVE TO COVER ARE GONNA BE THE AQUATICS, UH, DEPARTMENT AND THE GOLF COURSE.
SO, UH, CLIFF AND TRACY HAVE DONE ONE HECK OF A JOB THEY BROUGHT TO COUNCIL, UH, ABOUT THE CONSULTANT, UH, COMING IN TO ASSESS THE, UH, THE PIRATES BAY.
AND, UH, BOY THEY HIT THE GROUND RUNNING.
AND, UM, ON TOP OF THAT, CLIFF HAS BEEN BEATING ME DOWN FOR TWO YEARS TO GET FOOD AND BEVERAGE, UH, OUT THERE.
AND WE, WE TOOK ON THAT ADDITIONAL, UH, WE TOOK THAT CHANCE AND WE HAD MORE PEOPLE COME IN AND, AND LOOK AT, UH, FOOD AND BEVERAGE AND EVERYTHING THAT THEY HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT HAS BEEN SUCCESSFUL.
THIS, I'M, I'M NOT HERE TO TALK ABOUT DETAILS OF ALL THAT YET.
UM, UH, BUT I WANTED TO GIVE Y'ALL AN UPDATE THAT THE CONSULTANT HAS BEEN BRINGING GOOD RESULTS, UH, TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.
UM, WE WILL HAVE A, UH, A SUMMARY PRESENTED TO COUNCIL IN, IN THE NEAR FUTURE, UH, WHENEVER THAT'S READY.
THE IMPORTANT THING TO NOTE WITH THE AQUATICS IS IT WILL BE BUDGETED AS A, AT A DEFICIT FOR FY 25 BECAUSE OF HOW IT OPERATES, RIGHT? LIKE WE COULDN'T GET THE CONSULTANT IN MAKE THE CHANGES AND AUTOMATICALLY IMP IMPLEMENT THOSE FOR FY 25 BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA IMPLEMENT THEM AT FY 25.
AND SO WE HAVE TO BUDGET FOR WHAT WE CURRENTLY KNOW, NOT JUST GUESSING THAT WE'RE GONNA SAVE MONEY, RIGHT? AND SO THE AQUATICS FUND IS BUDGETED WITH THE DEFICIT.
UM, THAT DOES IMPACT THE GENERAL FUND 'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO TRANSFER THE MONEY OVER THERE, UH, TO SHOW THAT YOU'RE COVERING IT.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE FEEL THAT THE, UH, UH, THE REPORTS THAT, UH, CLIFF AND TRACY HAVE RECEIVED, THAT WE FEEL THAT WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REALLY REDUCE WHAT THAT OVERALL PIECE IS.
UH, THE OTHER POSITIVE THING THAT WE SEE HERE IS THAT THEY, UH, UH, THEY HAVE DONE, UH, A VERY GOOD JOB REDUCING THE COST FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL.
SO WE'VE HAD A PRETTY WET SUMMER AND SO THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN AS, AS HIGH.
UM, SO THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO IMPLEMENT A FEW PIECES, UH, WHILE SAVING, WHILE SAVING MONEY, UH, AND STILL BE ABLE TO GET GOOD RESULTS ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO IMPLEMENT IT FOR THE FY 25 SUMMER AT THIS POINT.
SO I JUST WANNA GIVE THEM A SHOUT OUT AND, BUT ALSO LET Y'ALL KNOW THAT THAT IS STILL IN THE WORKS AND IT WON'T BE IMPLEMENTED UNTIL FY 25.
WELL, ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS THAT I HEARD, WHAT FROM THE, UM, CONSULTANT IS THAT IN TIME OUR AQUATICS SHOULD PAY FOR ITSELF.
THAT'S THE HOPE, RIGHT? SO I REMAIN HOPEFUL.
ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE THERE,
UM, THE, THE, THE IMPORTANT THING HERE WITH THE GOLF COURSE IS THAT WE HAVE, UH, I KNOW Y'ALL RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS.
I'VE RECEIVED SOME QUESTIONS AND WE WANTED TO TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO LET UH, EVERYBODY KNOW THAT THERE, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN FY 25 GOING TO THE GOLF COURSE.
OKAY? THE MONEY THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED TO ADDRESS THE GOLF COURSE, UH, BRAND AND HIS TEAM HAVE, UH, WORK TO, UH, FIND CONSIDERABLE SAVINGS AND, UH, THAT WHOLE TRANSITION POINT, UH, THE RFQ, WE HAVE RECEIVED MONEY FOR THE RFQ THAT WILL, THOSE WILL BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER SOON ON THE NEXT STEPS WITH THE GOLF COURSE.
UH, BUT THE, THE IMPORTANT TALKING POINT HERE IS THAT NO ADDITIONAL MONEY WAS USED FROM THE GENERAL FUND TO SUPPORT THE GOLF COURSE IN FY 25.
IT'S THE WAY THEY'VE SET IT UP.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT OR, OKAY.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT RIGHT NOW? OKAY.
WITH THAT MAYOR AND COUNSEL, I DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING ELSE.
[01:25:01]
FINAL BUDGET TO Y'ALL AT AUGUST 22ND, UM, OR THE 22ND, RIGHT? MM-HMMAND, UH, WE WILL NOT BE LOOKING TO ADOPT IT AT THAT POINT.
WE WILL GO OVER A FEW POLICY VARIABLES, WHICH INCLUDE THE TAX RATE WE DID HEAR YOU TODAY.
UM, IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT WITH THE BUDGET, UH, THE FLOOR IS YOURS AND THEN WE CAN DETERMINE IF WE NEED TO MEET TOMORROW OR NOT.
ON THIS, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS I GUESS FROM THE BUDGET ITSELF, IF YOU WANT, WITH STAFF ON ITEM OR ITEM BASIS? I THINK WE MET A, IN A SENSE, I THINK WE PROVIDE A LOT OF GOOD DIRECTION ON SOME TOUGH CHOICES, BUT I THINK WE, I THINK I APPRECIATE STAFF GIVING US, I WOULD, I FEEL GOOD INFORMATION IN ORDER TO MAKE A GOOD OUTCOME, GOOD DECISION.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GONNA NEED A MEETING TOMORROW.
YEAH, I MEAN WE COULD ALWAYS, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA HAVE A PUB, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA HAVE HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING UH, NEXT THURSDAY ON THE BUDGET, RIGHT? CORRECT.
WE CAN ALWAYS OBVIOUSLY TALK ABOUT THINGS THERE IF THERE'S ANYTHING IS ALREADY POSTED.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE, I MEAN WE CAN ALWAYS, IF WE HAVE SOMETHING SPECIFIC, I THINK WE GAVE THEM A LOT TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS ON MM-HMM
AND LET'S, LET'S KIND LOOK AT WHERE WE'RE AT THERE.
THEN I WOULD SUGGEST IF WE HAVE OTHER MEETINGS THAT WOULD BE IN THE WORK SESSION, MAYBE FOR A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING.
WILL BE THAT BEING THAT WE HAVE ADDRESSED OUR COURT CONCESSION ITEM, THIS MEETING'S ALL ADJOURNED.