>> WELL, WELCOME EVERYONE OUT TO THE SACHSE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. [A. Meeting Opening] [00:00:03] TODAY IS MONDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2025. THE TIME IS GRANGER? >> 6:30 PM. >> WE ARE CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:30 PM. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM A2 INVOCATION AND PLEDGES OF ALLEGIANCE. I'VE ASKED MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS TO OFFER THE INVOCATION AND MR LINDSAY TO LEAD OUR PLEDGES, IF YOU WILL PLEASE RISE. >> PLEASE PRAY WITH ME. HERE, LORD, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO GATHER TONIGHT. AS WE PLAN THE CITY OF SACHSE'S FUTURE, PLEASE ALLOW US TO HEAR AND UNDERSTAND EACH PERSON'S ARGUMENTS AND THEIR OPINIONS AND TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT AS WE MAKE OUR DECISION TO PLAN FOR THE CITY. I ALWAYS ASK THAT YOU LOOK OVER ALL OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES AS THEY HELP KEEP THE CITY RUNNING EVERY DAY IN A GOOD MANNER. I ALWAYS ASK THAT YOU LOOK OUT FOR ALL MILITARY MEMBERS THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AND GIVE US THE COURAGE AND THE WISDOM TO PLAN FOR THE CITY THE BEST WE CAN, AMEN. >> PLEASE JOIN US IN THE US AND TEXAS PLEDGES THANK YOU, MAY BE SEATED. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA: ITEM B RECOGNITION. [B. Recognition] ITEM 1, PRESENT A PROCLAMATION DECLARING THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 3 THROUGH THE SEVENTH, 2025, AS MUNICIPAL COURT WEEK. AND I WOULD ASK COURT ADMINISTRATOR MISS DENNIS, A DEPUTY COURT CLERK, MISS MICHELLE RITA, TO JOIN ME. I ALWAYS HAVE TO MAKE SURE I GOT THE RIGHT SIDE, ESTER TELLS YOU THE SIDE OF GOING. SO, AS I MENTIONED IN THE CAPTION, WE WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND RECOGNIZE OUR MUNICIPAL COURT, MORE SPECIFICALLY, OUR WONDERFUL CLERKS, AND I HATE TO EVEN CALL YOU THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT'S YOUR OFFICIAL TITLE. BUT THEY ARE WAY MORE THAN JUST CLERKS, AND THEY RUN THE SHOW. AND IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO MUNICIPAL COURT, IF YOU HAVEN'T BEEN, I SHOULD SAY, DROP BY ONE SOMETIME. IT CAN BE INTERESTING, AND I'M SURE THEY CAN TELL YOU THAT. BUT THEY KEEP EVERYTHING GOING AND MAKE, QUITE FRANKLY, EVERYBODY'S JOB A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO HANDLE ALL OF THAT. AND SO WE JUST WANT TO TAKE A MOMENT AND PROCLAIM THE GREAT JOB Y'ALL DO WITH A PROCLAMATION IN REGARDS TO MUNICIPAL COURTS. SO WITH THAT, I WILL READ THE PROCLAMATION. WHEREAS MUNICIPAL COURTS PLAY A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN PRESERVING PUBLIC SAFETY AND PROMOTING QUALITY OF LIFE IN TEXAS, AND WHEREAS MORE PEOPLE COME INTO CONTACT WITH MUNICIPAL COURTS THAN ALL OTHER TEXAS COURTS COMBINED. THAT'S THE STAT THAT STANDS OUT. AND PUBLIC'S IMPRESSION OF THE TEXAS JUDICIAL SYSTEM IS LARGELY DEPENDENT UPON THE PUBLIC'S EXPERIENCE IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. AND WHEREAS STATE LAW AUTHORIZES A MUNICIPALITY TO EITHER APPOINT OR ELECT A MUNICIPAL JUDGE FOR A TERM OF OFFICE, THE SACHSE MUNICIPAL COURT IS A STATE COURT, AND ITS JUDGES ARE MEMBERS OF THE STATE JUDICIARY. AND WHEREAS THE PROCEDURES OF THE SACHSE MUNICIPAL COURT OPERATIONS ARE SET FORTH IN THE TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND OTHER LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, AND WHEREAS THE CITY OF SACHSE IS COMMITTED TO THE NOTION THAT OUR LEGAL SYSTEM IS BASED ON THE PRINCIPLE THAT AN INDEPENDENT, FAIR, AND COMPETENT JUDICIARY WILL INTERPRET AND APPLY THE LAWS THAT GOVERN US AND THAT JUDGES AND COURT PERSONNEL SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE LAW, AND ACT IN A MANNER THAT PROMOTES PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE INTEGRITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF THE JUDICIARY. AND WHEREAS SACHSE MUNICIPAL JUDGES ARE NOT POLICYMAKERS FOR THE CITY OF SACHSE, BUT ARE BOUND BY THE LAW AND THE CANONS OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, AND ARE REQUIRED TO MAKE DECISIONS INDEPENDENT OF THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY COUNCIL. CITY OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES. WHEREAS, THE CITY COUNCIL RECOGNIZES THAT THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE STATE OF TEXAS CONTAIN PROCEDURAL SAFEGUARDS IN CRIMINAL CASES FOR ALL DEFENDANTS, INCLUDING INDIGENT DEFENDANTS AND SUPPORTING THE SACHSE MUNICIPAL COURT IN COMPLYING WITH SUCH LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JEFF BICKERTFF, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SACHSE, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM THE WEEK OF NOVEMBER 3RD TO THE 7TH, 2025, AS MUNICIPAL COURT WEEK IN RECOGNITION OF THE FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUSTICE OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT OF SACHSE. CONGRATULATIONS [APPLAUSE]. NEXT ITEM [00:05:01] ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM C, PUBLIC COMMENT. [C. Public Comment] THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS COUNSEL REGARDING ANY TOPIC, NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA FOR ACTION, OR PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS REGARDING THE CONSENT AGENDA, OR ANY DISCUSSION-ONLY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA MAY BE ADDRESSED DURING THIS PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION. THE TIME LIMIT IS 3 MINUTES PER SPEAKER. A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD SHOULD BE PRESENTED TO THE STATE SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE MEETING. ACCORDING TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, COUNSEL IS PROHIBITED FROM DISCUSSING ANY ITEM NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA, BUT WILL TAKE COMMENTS UNDER ADVISEMENT. I DO HAVE ONE CARD? MARTY HOBOK. >> MARTY HOBOK, 5511, OAK RIDGE CIRCLES, SACHSE, TEXAS, TOP OF THE HILL. WHO WATCHES DELCUS? ACCORDING TO DELCUS, UNTIL SATURDAY, THERE WAS NO MEASURABLE RAIN IN OCTOBER. AND OCTOBER IS THE SECOND WETTEST MONTH OF THE YEAR. SO WHENEVER Y'ALL FEEL LIKE Y'ALL WANT TO TALK ABOUT BAILEY ROAD, AND YOU TALK ABOUT THAT, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN NOVEMBER. YOU'D BETTER HAVE MORE THAN IT RAINED BECAUSE IT HASN'T. SO I REALLY WANT TO KNOW, WHERE'S MY 500,000 THAT PROMISED TO ME IT'D BE EARLY, AND WHO'S GETTING HELD ACCOUNTABLE? FIFTY SQUARE MILES IS WHAT SOME OF Y'ALL LOOKED AT TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE NEEDED A SPANISH-INFLUENCED DAYCARE CENTER IN SACHSE. I GOT TO COMMEND YOU ON THAT. THAT IS OVER AND ABOVE WHAT'S NECESSARY CAUSE SACHSE'S ONLY 10 SQUARE MILES. SO IF YOU GOT TO GO TO RICHARDSON AND GARLAND AND WILEY AND EVERYTHING ELSE, JUST BE LIKE MR MILLSAP AND JUST SAY, YOU DON'T WANT A SPANISH-SPEAKING DAYCARE HERE IN SACHSE. MR MAYOR, YOU ARE THE PERFECT CITY EMPLOYEE. YOU DON'T LISTEN. YOU DON'T ANSWER QUESTIONS, AND YOU ONLY WANT TO HEAR YOURSELF TALK. BECAUSE I NEVER STOOD UP HERE AND ACCUSED JOLVAN ETHICS VIOLATION. I ACCUSED YOU OF JUST BEING A BAD MAYOR. IT'S A SIMPLE QUESTION. HOW MUCH MONEY WAS OVERCHARGED IN MR PRESTENBERG'S SLUSH FUND, AND YOU CAN'T ANSWER. ALL YOU'VE GOT TO DO IS TURN THE CORNER AND SAY, I GOT A QUARTER-MILLION-DOLLAR CITY MANAGER RIGHT HERE. WHAT'S THE NUMBER? NOW, BICKERSPAC'S SLUSH FUND IS GETTING BIGGER EVERY MONTH. SIMPLE QUESTION. WHAT AUDIT OR WHAT REPORT IS GOING TO TELL ME HOW MUCH ALL GAVE CWD IN A FIVE-YEAR PERIOD? IT'S GUARANTEED MONEY. YOU HAVE A SIX-MILLION-DOLLAR SUCKING BLOOD WOUND UP THE ROAD HERE. AND YOU CAN ANSWER SIMPLE QUESTIONS, AND YOU DANCE AROUND THE OTHER ONES. AND I'M OUT OF TIME. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH [NOISE]. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S ALL THE SPEAKER'S CARDS I HAVE. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA? SO NO, WE'LL MOVE ON. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, ITEM B, [D. Council/Staff Reports and Updates] COUNCIL AND STAFF REPORT AND UPDATES, ITEM 1, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS REGARDING SPECIAL EVENTS, CURRENT ACTIVITIES, AND LOCAL ACHIEVEMENTS. ANYONE ON THE COUNCIL LIKE TO ADDRESS THE AUDIENCE AT THIS TIME? I KNOW SOMEBODY WHO DOES. MR. PRESTENBERG. >> YES. TO LIGHTEN THE MOOD, I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT THE ANIMAL SHELTER. WE HAD A LOW-COST VACCINATION CLINIC AND WANTED TO GIVE A BIG THANK YOU TO EVERYONE WHO BROUGHT THEIR PETS OUT. IT WAS HOSTED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH ANIMAL ALLIES ON SATURDAY, OCTOBER 11, A TOTAL OF 58 ANIMAL VISITORS SHELTERED THAT DAY, 44 DOGS AND 14 CATS. THEY ALL RECEIVED VACCINATIONS, WITH ADDITIONAL TESTING PROVIDED FOR 12 DOGS AND SIX CATS. ANIMAL ALLIES ALSO MICRO-CHIPPED FOUR PETS, HELPING KEEP THEM SAFE AND CONNECTED TO THEIR FAMILIES. WE APPRECIATE OUR RESIDENTS' COMMITMENT TO RESPONSIBLE PET OWNERSHIP AND TO KEEPING BOTH THEIR PETS AND OUR COMMUNITY HEALTHY. WE HAVE TWO FEATURE PETS THAT ARE THE SAME, I BELIEVE THEY'RE THE SAME ONES. MR ROCKY AND MISS LUCY THEY CAME IN TOGETHER. PLEASE GO OUT THERE BECAUSE I WANT TO BRING UP A DIFFERENT ANIMAL NEXT MONTH. >> THIS IS A RECURRING THEME. >> YES. I TELL YOU WHAT. WE ALL NEED TO GET ONE, AND MAYBE I'LL TALK TO THE MISSES AND SEE IF WE CAN GET ONE. SO IF YOU'RE READY TO GIVE ROCKY OR LUCY THE SECOND CHANCE THEY DESERVE, CALL THE SACHSE ANIMAL SHELTER AT 972-675-9662. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR PRESTENBERG, MR MISA. [00:10:02] >> THE LIBRARY ACTIVITIES. THIS MONTH IS OPPOSE HALLOWEEN MONTH, AND WE'D LIKE FOR YOU TO ENJOY THE LIBRARY AND ITS FREE MONTHLY EVENT. TOO MANY THINGS ARE FREE IN THE CITY OF SACHSE ANYMORE. BUT ANYWAY, IT'S A MAKE AND MINGLE EVENT WHERE PARTICIPANTS CAN CREATE A CRAFT, CONNECT WITH FRIENDS, AND ENJOY LIGHT REFRESHMENTS. THIS MONTH'S PROJECT FEATURES DECAPAG PUMPKINS WITH BOTH SPOOKY AND FESTIVE DESIGNS. THIS IS FOR ADULTS 18 AND OLDER. THERE ARE NO REGISTRATION REQUIRED, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO RSVP ONLINE, SO THEY'LL HAVE AN IDEA HOW MANY SUPPLIES CAN BE AVAILABLE. ALSO, THERE'S A HALLOWEEN PARTY, HUNTED CARNIVAL, ON OCTOBER 30 AT 6:00 PM. CALLING ALL WITCHES, GHOSTS, AND GOBLINS, AND OTHERS. IT'S TIME FOR OUR SECOND ANNUAL HALLOWEEN BASH. THIS YEAR, THE LIBRARY WILL TRANSFORM INTO A FAMILY-FRIENDLY HAUNTED CARNIVAL. GUESTS ARE INVITED TO WEAR THEIR FAVORITE COSTUMES, ENJOY GAMES, CRAFTS, AND TREATS. BOTH INDOORS AND OUTDOORS, WEATHER PERMITTING, AND THIS EVENT IS FREE FOR ALL AGES. >> THANK YOU, MR MISA. MAYOR PRO TEM, FRANKS. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> HOLD ON. THERE YOU GO. >> AND JUST SAY, WE HAD OUR FOLLOWING EVENT OR HALLOWEEN EVENT THIS PAST WEEKEND, AND AS MENTIONED, WE HAD RAIN ON SATURDAY, THE ONLY DAY I THINK THIS MONTH WE HAD RAIN. AND I WANT TO JUST SAY THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE THAT CAME OUT FOR THE DRONE SHOW. THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THAT WASN'T CANCELED BECAUSE OF THE RAIN AND WET FIELDS AND GRASS AND MUD, AND ALL THAT GOOD STUFF. ALTHOUGH WE WERE STILL ABLE TO HAVE THE DRONE SHOW, I'D LIKE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO EXTEND A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO ALL THE PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF WHO SET THINGS UP, TORE THINGS DOWN, CLEANED THINGS UP WITHOUT HAVING A GREAT COMMUNITY EVENT. SO I APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME THEY PUT IN TRYING TO ADJUST FOR THE WEATHER. THE NEXT EVENT COMING UP IS THE THANKSGIVING FAMILY FOOD DRIVE, ON NOVEMBER 14, 7-9. THAT'S GOING TO BE AT THE MICHAEL J FLIX COMMUNITY CENTER. BRING OUT THE WHOLE FAMILY FOR AN EVENING OF YARD GAMES, COMMUNITY SPIRIT WHILE HELPING SUPPORT LOCAL FAMILIES THAT NEED HELP THIS HOLIDAY SEASON. WE'LL BE COLLECTING NON-PERISHABLE FOOD ITEMS, WITH DONATIONS GOING TO FIVE LOWE'S FOOD PANTRIES RIGHT HERE IN SACHSE, HELPING LOCAL FAMILIES OUT. TO PARTICIPATE, YOU CAN REGISTER ON THE WEBSITE @CITYOFSACHSE.COM. >> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYONE ELSE ON COUNSEL? MS. NASH. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. A COUPLE OF, SEVERAL EMPLOYEES, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND DO SOME CORE VALUES RECOGNITIONS. FIRST, FOR SERVICE AND EXCELLENCE, I'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE SERGEANT KAYLA CALLOWAY AND OFFICER EMILY WRIGHT FOR RECEIVING THE 2024 OUTSTANDING SERVICE AWARD FROM MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVING. THIS HONOR REFLECTS THEIR OUTSTANDING DEDICATION TO DWI ENFORCEMENT AND THEIR DAILY COMMITMENT TO PROTECTING THE LIVES OF OUR RESIDENTS. THEIR EFFORTS EXEMPLIFY THE CITY'S CORE VALUES OF SERVICE AND EXCELLENCE, DEMONSTRATING PROFESSIONALISM, COMPASSION, AND A STEADFAST FOCUS ON KEEPING SACHSE SAFE. THANK YOU TO KAYLA AND EMILY FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK ON THAT AND THE AWARD THAT THEY RECEIVED. CONGRATULATIONS. HUMILITY, IN BACKING UP WHAT MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS SAID ABOUT PARKS, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OUR PARKS AND RECREATION TEAMS FOR THE HUMILITY THEY DEMONSTRATED DURING THIS WEEKEND'S FOLLOWING EVENT. AFTER SPENDING MONTHS PREPARING FOR THAT CELEBRATION, THE TEAM WAS MET WITH HEAVY RAIN THAT CAUSED SIGNIFICANT MUD AND FLOODING AND FORCED THE CANCELLATION OF MOST OF OUR ACTIVITIES, BUT DESPITE THE DISAPPOINTMENT, THEY CONTINUED WORKING IN THOSE DIFFICULT CONDITIONS TO CLEAN UP THE PARK, ENSURE SAFETY FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED AND PIVOT THE PLANS, SO THE DRONE SHOW COULD STILL TAKE PLACE LATER THAT EVENING. THEIR PERSEVERANCE AND WILLINGNESS TO SERVE UNDER CHALLENGING CIRCUMSTANCES WITH SMILES, AS ALWAYS, TRULY REFLECT THE CITY'S CORE VALUE OF HUMILITY. THANK YOU TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF. >> YES, I WAS GOING TO SAY, I WAS ON MY WAY TO A BAND COMPETITION, AND I SAW JORDAN SITTING OUT THERE BEFORE IT STARTED RAINING. I THOUGHT SHE HAD A RAIN JACKET ON. SO THEY KNEW WHAT WAS COMING, BUT YES, THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB, AND I HAD A CHANCE TO SEE THE CEREMONY ON THE WAY BACK, AND IT WAS GREAT. AND SO I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT THE STAFF DID TO MAKE THAT EVENT THE BEST WE COULD UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SPEAKING OF PARKS, THE JK SACHSE PARK CUTTING CEREMONY IS GOING TO BE ON NOVEMBER 1, 9-9:30 AM. PLEASE JOIN US ON THAT DATE AS WE CELEBRATE THE COMPLETION OF JK SACHSE PARK. GOING TO HAVE A RIBBON-CUTTING CEREMONY. IT'S BEEN A LONG PROJECT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IN THIS PARK, BRANDW PLAYGROUND, GOING TO HAVE FREE DOUGHNUTS AND COFFEE FOR THE FIRST 500 GUESTS. SO COME ON OUT, NOVEMBER 1, SATURDAY, 9-930. OF COURSE, YOU CAN STAY AFTERWARDS AND ENJOY THE PARK, SO DON'T WORRY ABOUT THAT. [00:15:02] >> AS MISS WEAVER HAS DONE A GREAT JOB WITH THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK, THEIR PEANUT BUTTER DRIVERS OVER. THAT WAS IN SEPTEMBER, AND SO THEY HAVE TALLIED ALL THE RESULTS AND THEY'RE GOING TO LET US KNOW TOMORROW AT THEIR AWARD CEREMONY, HOW WE DID. BUT I CAN TELL YOU HOW WE DID, NOT COMPARED TO EVERYBODY ELSE, BUT HOW WE DID JUST OURSELF. OUR GOAL WAS TO COLLECT 250 POUNDS OF PEANUT BUTTER. WE COLLECTED 243. SO REALLY, REALLY CLOSE. BUT WE RAISED OVER $200 TO HELP FIGHT HUNGER ACROSS OUR REGION. THAT'S JUST A GREAT THANK YOU TO OUR RESIDENTS AND EVEN PEOPLE THAT PROBABLY DIDN'T LIVE HERE THAT DONATED. THAT IS MORE THAN 106. WE INCREASED OUR POUNDAGE MORE THAN 166, SO IT WAS FROM LAST YEAR. SO IT WAS REALLY, REALLY GOOD. LIKE I SAID, WE'LL KNOW OFFICIALLY TOMORROW AFTERNOON HOW WE DID COMPARED TO MY BUDDY AND LAVON. HOPEFULLY, WE BEAT HER. WE HAVE A LITTLE FRIENDLY BED ON IT. SO LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENS. I'LL REPORT BACK NEXT TIME. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY THAT PARTICIPATED IN NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. THAT'S ALWAYS A GREAT EVENT. THANKFULLY, THE WETTER COOPERATED FOR THAT. WE JUST HAD OUR HIGHEST NUMBER OF BLOCK PARTIES, I BELIEVE, EVER THAT WE REGISTERED. IT WAS A GREAT EVENT. WE ALL GOT TO GO OUT AND MEET DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. THAT WAS GREAT. AGAIN, A SPECIAL THANK YOU TO POLICE AND FIRE FOR ALL THAT YOU DO. IT WAS JUST A GREAT EVENT AND I ALWAYS LOOKED FORWARD TO THAT EVENT. AS I ALWAYS SAY, I'M SO GLAD THAT CHIEF DECIDED WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS IN OCTOBER INSTEAD OF AUGUST. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. ANOTHER QUICK NOTE. EARLY VOTING STARTED TODAY. YOU MAY THINK, HEY, WELL, WE'LL BE VOTING ON. EARLY VOTING STARTED TODAY. WE HAVE 17 STATE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS THAT'S ON THE BALLOT. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO OUT THERE AND VOTE. IF YOU DO LIVE IN GARLSTAY, THEY ALSO HAVE A PROPOSITION POSITION A ON THE BALLOT. SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO EDUCATE YOURSELF ON THAT AND COME OUT AND VOTE. WE HAVE EARLY VOTING UNTIL OCTOBER 31, I BELIEVE. NO, THE TUESDAY. WHO'S NOT IN, IS THAT RIGHT? IT IS? OKAY. ELECTION DAY IS NOVEMBER 4. I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. PLEASE EXERCISE YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE. ONE QUICK COMMENT, I DO WANT TO SAY, I WAS ABLE TO GIVE ONE OF OUR FOREIGN EXCHANGE STUDENTS THAT IS AT SAXE HIGH SCHOOL TOUR OF CITY HALL LAST WEEK, AND SHE WAS VERY IMPRESSED. SHE WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH THAT FIRE TRUCK COSTS. I SAID THAT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN IT IS IN GERMANY, SHE SAID. BUT SHE HAD A GREAT TIME AND I TOLD CHIEF THIS, I TOLD MS. NASH THIS. THE ONLY THING SHE ASKED IS THAT OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE A MOUNTED CAVALRY FOUR HORSES. SHE THOUGHT THAT'D BE VERY TEXAN THING TO DO. I SAID WE'D HAVE TO WORK ON THAT IN THE BUDGET. ANYWAY, THANK YOU TO ALL OF OUR CITY EMPLOYEES WHO HELP MAKE THAT TOUR A GREAT SUCCESS. WITH THAT, I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ELSE, SO WE WILL MOVE ON. [E. Consent Agenda] NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, IS ITEM C, CONSENT AGENDA, ITEM 1, APPROVE THE OCTOBER 6, 2025 MEETING MINUTES. ITEM 2 CANCELED THE NOVEMBER 3 AND DECEMBER 15, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS. ITEM 3 APPROVED THE 2026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE. ITEM 4 APPROVED A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SAXY, TEXAS, FINDING THAT ENCORE ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANIES, LLCS, APPLICATION TO CHANGE RATES WITHIN THE CITY SHOULD BE DENIED. FINDING THAT THE CITY'S REASONABLE RATE RATE EXPENSES SHALL BE REIMBURSED BY THE COMPANY. FINDING THAT THE MEETING AT WHICH THE RESOLUTION IS PASSED IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS REQUIRED BY LAW, REQUIRING NOTICE OF THIS RESOLUTION TO THE COMPANY AND LEGAL COUNSEL. ITEM 5 AUTHORIZED CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE A PROJECT FUNDING AGREEMENT WITH THE MUNICIPAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY ADJACENT TO JK SAX PARK. ANYONE ON COUNSEL, LIKE TO REMOVE ANYTHING OFF THE AGENDA. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. >> MAYOR LICK REMOVE ITEM E2 AND E3, PLEASE. >> E2 AND E3. THOSE ARE REMOVED. I'M SORRY, E2 AND E5. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? >> NO. E2 AND E3. >> I DO GET IT RIGHT. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? I ENTERTAIN MOTION. MS. HOWARTH. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 1, 04, AND 5 AS PRESENTED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY MS. HOWARTH TO APPROVE ITEMS 1, 4, AND 5. DO I HAVE A SECOND? MR. PRESTENBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PRESTENBERG. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HERE NONE, PLEASE CATCH YOU BACK. [00:20:38] MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL TAKE EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY. THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM 2, [2. Cancel the November 3 and December 15, 2025, Council meetings.] CANCELED THE NOVEMBER 3 AND DECEMBER 15, 2025, COUNCIL MEETINGS. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS, LET ME TURN TO YOU. >> I WILL CANCEL THE NOVEMBER 3 MEETING, SO LET'S JUST TELL EVERYBODY WHY WE'RE CANCELING ON NOVEMBER 3 MEETING. >> IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MAYOR, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH ITEMS THAT WE THOUGHT WERE READY YET THAT THEY COULD ALL BE CONSOLIDATED ON TO NOVEMBER 17, AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WERE CANCELING IT. YEAH. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM 2? OKAY. I ENTERTAIN MOTIONS. >> MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM E2 AS PRESENTED. >> HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO FRANKS E2, I'M ASSUMING YOU MEANT THAT. >> E2. >> AS PRESENTED, DO I HAVE A SECOND? MR. PRESTENBERG? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PRESTENBERG. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HERE YOU NOTE, PLEASE CATCH YOU BACK. MOTION CARRIES NAMES. NEXT ITEM IS ITEM E3, [3. Approve the 2026 City Council regular meeting schedule.] APPROVED THE 2026 CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULE, MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. >> JUST LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE, AND WE HAVE AN ACTIVE WEEK AT TIMES IN OCTOBER. TML IS REALLY LATE THIS YEAR, BUT USUALLY WE HAVE COUNCIL NATIONAL NIGHT, SOMETHING ELSE AND TML IN THE SAME WEEK. SO DO WE KNOW WHEN TML IS NEXT YEAR? >> YEAH. I BET MISS NATIONALS. MS. NASH? >> YES. ACTUALLY, I DO KNOW. NEXT YEAR, IT'S QUITE LATE. IT IS IN NOVEMBER. BUT IT'S IN THE WEEK IN BETWEEN THE NOVEMBER 2ND MEETING AND THE NOVEMBER 16 MEETING. IT'S IN BETWEEN. >> OKAY. >> SO IT'S THE WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY, FRIDAY. >> EVEN LATER NEXT YEAR. >> YES. SO WHAT THEY DID IS FOR THE YEARS DURING COVID, WHERE THOSE CITIES HAD THEIRS CANCELED. THEY GOT TO GO BACK IN THE ROTATION, BUT THEY HAD TO DELAY IT FOR EVERYBODY ELSE THAT ALREADY HAD. >> EVERYBODY GETS A MED. OKAY. >> BECAUSE THEY LOST IT THAT PARTICULAR YEAR, I THINK IT WAS 21, THEY GOT TO GO BACK IN THE ROTATION. >> SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE ARE CANCELING THE DECEMBER 21ST MEETING, OBVIOUSLY CHRISTMAS HOLIDAY. ARE WE COMFORTABLE HAVING THE NOVEMBER 16 AHEAD OF THANKSGIVING? I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY NOT. I'M JUST TRYING TO LOOK AHEAD AT CERTAIN THINGS. >> YEAH. I KNOW WHEN WE LOOKED AT THAT FOR THANKSGIVING WOULD BE THE WEEK AFTER THAT. SO WE FELT LIKE THERE'D BE ENOUGH BUFFER BETWEEN THAT AND THAT STILL HAVE THE MEETING. >> GOOD DEAL. THANKS. >> OKAY. >> OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. NONE. I'LL ENTERTAIN MOTIONS. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM E3 AS PRESENTED. >> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM E3 AS PRESENTED BY MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS HAVE A SECOND. MR. PRESTENBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. PRESTENBERG. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? >> PLEASE PRESTENBERG. MOTION CARRIE UNISON. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA ITEM F, [1. Consider a resolution approving the terms and conditions of Amendment #2 to the Advance Funding Agreement between the City of Sachse and the Texas Department of Transportation (executed on May 2, 2024), for Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) Improvement Project Off-System, CSJ #0918-47-240, known as Merritt Road/Woodbridge from south of Creek Crossing Lane to Pleasant Valley Road in the City of Sachse, and providing for an effective date.] ACTION ITEMS, ITEM 1, CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAXEY AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, EXECUTED ON MAY 2, 2024 FOR SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT, STBG PROGRAM AND CONGESTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY CMAQ, IMPROVEMENT PROJECT OFF SYSTEM, CSJ NUMBER 0918-4 7-240, KNOWN AS MERRITT ROAD WOODBRIDGE FROM THE SOUTH OF CREEK CROSSING LANE TO PLEASANT VALLEY ROAD IN THE CITY OF SAXE, AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MS. NASH. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I'M VERY EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO BRING THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT NUMBER 2 TO YOU WITH REGARD TO MERRITT ROAD. ACTUALLY, COREY AND I ARE GOING TO KIND OF TAG TEAM THIS PRESENTATION. HE'LL TALK TO YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BACKGROUND AND CERTAINLY OUR NEXT STEPS. [00:25:01] BUT I WILL GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE FUNDING AGREEMENT SPECIFICALLY AND HOW WE'LL FUND THE PROJECT MOVING FORWARD.. WITH THAT, I WILL LET COREY PULL THE PRESENTATION UP. LET ME DO THIS. >> THERE WE GO. >> WHO IS THERE. SO LET ME GUESS, IT'S NOT YOUR THING. ENGINEERING IS YOUR THING. >> WE GOT IT. >> HELLO, MR. DESPOT. >> COME HERE, COUNSEL. THANK YOU. YOU TO WANT TO GIVE THE BIG SPEECH, OR YOU WANT TO? >> SURE. ACTUALLY, I'LL GO AHEAD AND START. >> OKAY. MS. NASH. >> COREY, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND FLIP TO THE FIRST SLIDE. AS I SAID, BACKGROUND, TALK ABOUT THE FUNDING AGREEMENT AND SOME NEXT STEPS, BUT JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE PUBLIC SINCE THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR SOME TIME. I WANTED TO JUST GIVE A REMINDER AND A REFRESHER ON WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND WHERE WE'RE GOING NEXT. SO BACK IN 2018, WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH TXDOT FOR AND THE FIRST ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT FOR THE MERRITT ROAD PROJECT. SO REMINDER JUST THAT THIS AGREEMENT REALLY SET THE TERMS IN THE FUNDING PARTICIPATION FOR THIS PROJECT, THE ENGINEERING, THE PLAN DESIGN, THE SPECIFICATIONS, OUR RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION, UTILITY RELOCATIONS FOR THE WIDENING OF MERRITT FROM TWO LANES TO FOUR LANES. THAT FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL AFA WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 18 OF 2021, AND EXECUTED BY TXDOT IN MARCH OF 2022. SO THAT WAS OUR FIRST AMENDMENT. IF YOU LOOK HERE, WE ACTUALLY PREPARED A TIP OR A TRANSPORTATION IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT MODIFICATION, TIP MOD, TO THE COG IN NOVEMBER OF 2024, BEING ABLE TO REFLECT THE CHANGES OF OUR PROJECT. SO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SEVERAL KEY THINGS THAT WE HAD TO DO BECAUSE OF THIS MODIFICATION. AS YOU KNOW, WE HAD INCREASED AND RISING CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND DELAYS IN 2018, 2021, AND 2025. AS YOU ALSO RECALL, THE USDA DESIGN CHANGES THAT WERE SUBSTANTIAL AND WE HAD TO WORK WITH THEM FOR BASICALLY OVER 18 MONTHS. YOU INCLUDE IN THAT SOMETIME OF GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN PLUS THE ISSUES RELATIVE TO THERE WAS NOT A BOARD THAT GOVERNED OVER THE SOIL CONSERVATION DISTRICT, AND WE ENDED UP HAVING TO PULL IN SOME ASSISTANCE FROM THE DISTRICT DIRECTOR FROM LANCE GODIN'S OFFICE, WHO WAS ABLE TO HELP US BASICALLY GET THEM TOGETHER TO REVIEW THIS AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN. WELL, THAT WAS AN 18 MONTH PROCESS, AND YOU TACK ON TO THAT FINALLY RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION PAYMENTS THAT WE HAD OVER APPRAISED VALUES AND EXTENDED NEGOTIATION TIMELINES WITH, I THINK IT WAS 63 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES. THAT WAS ALSO SOMETHING THAT EXTENDED OUR TIMELINE ON THIS GREATLY. ALL OF THAT WENT INTO AN APPROVAL OF A TIP MODIFICATION THAT WAS RECEIVED IN MAY OF 2025. NOW WE HAVE THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT THAT TXDOT DID PROVIDE US IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, REFLECTING THESE REQUESTED FUNDING CHANGES. WE RECEIVED IT IN JUNE, BUT THERE WAS EXTENSIVE BACK AND FORTH ONCE WE RECEIVED [00:30:02] IT OF NUMBERS THAT WE DIDN'T THINK WERE CORRECT, AND TO GO BACK AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ENDED UP GETTING OUR FUNDING SPLIT OF 80% FEDERAL AND 20% LOCAL. THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THERE WERE SOME BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THAT THAT MAYBE THERE WAS A 70, 30 OR 65, 35, AND WE SAID, NO, THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS 80, 20. IT TOOK SEVERAL MONTHS OF GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THESE AGENCIES TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DID IN FACT REFLECT WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO REFLECT FOR US. >> JUST ONE THING ON THAT BEFORE THE USDA CHANGES, THAT WAS A MAJOR REDESIGN. WE HAD TO RAISE LOWER THE ROAD AND SUBSTANTIAL DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS AND CHANGES. AGAIN, ALL OF THE 18 MONTH REVIEW TIME, IT TOOK HALF ANOTHER SIX MONTHS TO COMPLETE THAT DESIGN. IT'S WITH A SUBSTANTIAL COST, SO THAT'S ALL PART OF THAT AS WELL. >> AS YOU KNOW, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD TO COME BACK WITH WHEN WE HAD TO MODIFY HALF AN ASSOCIATE'S ENGINEERING FEES BECAUSE THEY HAD TO DO SIGNIFICANT DESIGN CHANGES THAT WERE OUTSIDE OF THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. >> YEAH. AGAIN, ALSO THE TIP MOD THAT WE SUBMITTED WAS ACTUALLY AFTER RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION WAS COMPLETED. AGAIN, THAT WAS ANOTHER MILLION DOLLAR OVER BUDGET DUE TO SOME OF THOSE INSTANCES ON THAT. AGAIN, THE TIP MOD THIS IN 2025 IS BASED ON CURRENT OPC 90% PLANS, AND THEN ALL THESE OTHER FACTORS. JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT. >> I WOULD JUST QUICKLY ADD ON THE USDA, THE 18 MONTH TIMELINE. I KNOW, PART OF THAT WAS TRYING TO EVEN GET THEIR BOARD TO MEET. >> CORRECT. >> YEAH. THAT'S ANOTHER IMPORTANT CAVEAT TO POINT OUT THAT WE HAD, I THINK THEY HAD TO COUPLE TO GET OUR BOARD JUST TO MEET. THAT DEFINITELY ADDED TO IT. >> YES. >> AGAIN, SO THE AFA THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022, THE ORIGINAL PROJECT ESTIMATE FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WAS $15.5 MILLION, 15.6 MILLION. THE NEW AFA NOW THAT WE HAVE THEIR PORTION IS RAISED TO $34.6 MILLION. IN THOSE THREE YEARS OF DESIGN AND DELAYS, THE PROJECT HAS GONE UP BY BASICALLY DOUBLED FOR THE FEDERAL PORTION OF THAT. AGAIN, THAT'S WHY IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THAT 80-20 SPLIT THAT WE GET 80% OF THEIR MONEY AS WELL. AGAIN, PROJECTS DOUBLED IN COSTS. THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART OF IT. AGAIN, ALSO, WE ARE DOING THE SPLIT WITH DALLAS COUNTY, THEY'RE GIVING US APPROXIMATELY $5.1 MILLION, ALONG WITH THE FEDERAL COMPONENT AND THE TEXT PORTION OF THAT. ONE THING THAT THE LAST BULLET POINT IS ANYTHING OVER THE PROJECT ESTIMATE IS THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSIBILITY. WE ARE ONLY GOING TO GET $34 MILLION OR THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS IS 34 MILLION. WE'RE ONLY GOING TO GET $26 MILLION FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THE REST OF IT WILL BE CITED DALLAS COUNTY, 5 MILLION, AND THEN OUR 6 MILLION, AND THEN ANYTHING OVER THAT, WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR. THAT'S WHY THAT 20 AGAIN IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> WANT TO WALK THE COUNCIL THROUGH THIS IN AS SIMPLIFIED A TERMS AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE IF ANYBODY DID READ THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT, IT'S NOT VERY CLEAR HOW THIS FUNDING IS ACTUALLY BROKEN OUT, AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING. I WORK WITH THE STAFF AND APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT BOTH BORN AND COREY SPENT ON TRYING TO BRING THIS DOWN TO A LEVEL OF FIFTH GRADER, IF YOU WILL, TO BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS WORKS. AS COREY POINTED OUT, THE PROJECT COSTS HAVE DOUBLED IN THE LAST THREE YEARS AND INCREASES IN THE CONSTRUCTION RELATED COSTS BASED ON THAT RECENT PROJECT ANALYSIS BY TEXTO AND THE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS. THESE CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES DO MATCH OUR ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE OF PROBABLE COST. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE BREAKDOWN, THE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION AS COREY POINTED OUT WAS A LITTLE OVER 26 MILLION. THE STATES PARTICIPATION IS A LITTLE OVER 1.4 MILLION. DALLAS COUNTY HAS STUCK WITH THEIR PARTICIPATION OF A LITTLE OVER 5.1, AND THE LOCAL PARTICIPATION 6.638 FOR TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE REALLY A 42,491,800, WHICH INCLUDES THE DESIGN RIGHT AWAY IN CONSTRUCTION. BECAUSE, AS YOU RECALL, PREVIOUSLY IN 2017, THE CITY TOLD COS TO PAY FOR THE ORIGINAL COSTS RELATIVE TO RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITION, PROJECT DESIGN AND ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE, AS WELL AS POTENTIAL UTILITY RELOCATION COSTS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ALL OF THESE NUMBERS ON TOP OF THE MONEY THAT WE HAVE ALREADY INVESTED, WE ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL $7 MILLION TO COVER ANY CONSTRUCTION COST DIFFERENCES. THIS, I BELIEVE, IN WORKING WITH COREY AND THE STAFF, AND EVEN IN OUR MEETING WITH TXDOT AS RECENTLY AS TODAY, THAT WE BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD COVER ANY CONSTRUCTION COST DIFFERENCES AS WE GET CLOSER TO LETTING THE PROJECT. BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE HERE IS THAT THE FINAL COST DELTA WOULD NOT BE DETERMINED UNTIL WE GET ACTUAL BID NUMBERS. THIS NUMBER COULD BE LOWER, IT COULD BE HIGHER, BUT WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT NUMBER. [00:35:02] WE'VE PUT IN A CONTINGENCY IN HERE TO BE ABLE TO COVER FOR THAT. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE QUESTION IS GOING TO COME NOW, WHICH IS, HOW DO WE COVER THAT $7 MILLION? WE'VE DONE AN ANALYSIS WITH JASON HUGHES, OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR, RELATIVE TO SEVERAL OF THE PROJECTS THAT THE COUNCIL HAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST YEAR, RELATIVE TO STRATEGIC PLANNING, WHETHER IT'S A 2027 BOND, DOING A CONSTRUCTION OF A BRAND NEW SERVICE CENTER AND BEING ABLE TO COVER THE COSTS FOR THIS PROJECT. WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO THOSE THREE THINGS AND KEEP OUR DEBT SERVICE RATE THE SAME THAT IT IS TODAY. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CLEAR AS YOU'RE GOING INTO THIS AND MAKING THIS DECISION TONIGHT TO APPROVE THE AFA. BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE IS THAT WE, AGAIN, WILL NOT KNOW WHAT EXACT DOLLAR AMOUNT WE WILL NEED UNTIL THIS PROJECT IS ACTUALLY BID. WE AGAIN, ARE PROPOSING A SALE OF TAX NOTES OR CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION AS A WAY TO BE ABLE TO COVER THOSE COSTS, AND WE'VE DONE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS TO BE ABLE TO, AGAIN, KEEP THE DEBT SERVICE RATE THE SAME. WITH DOING THE THREE THINGS THAT YOU ALL HAVE ASKED US TO LOOK AT, WHETHER IT IS THE SERVICE CENTER, THIS PROJECT, OR LOOKING AT A BOND IN 2027. I'M GOING TO LET COREY WALK YOU THROUGH THAT LAST SLIDE. WE JUST HAD A MEETING WITH TXDOT TODAY ABOUT THIS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE LATEST NEWS HOT OFF THE PRESS THAT HE CAN TALK ABOUT. >> WE HAD A REALLY GOOD MEETING WITH TXDOT TODAY. THEY'RE EXTREMELY HELPFUL OF GETTING US SOME POINTERS ON HOW TO NAVIGATE THE PROCESS. HALF AND STAFF WENT THROUGH THE PLANS, AND WE FEEL LIKE THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ARE MINOR IN NATURE. HALF HAS ALREADY DOCUMENTED ALL. I THINK WE WALKED THROUGH THE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAD WITH THEM. I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE PRETTY GOOD TO GET THE PLANS HERE. HOPEFULLY, BACK TO THEM. MAYBE BY THE END OF THE YEAR, THAT MAY BE A LITTLE BIT AGGRESSIVE, BUT I SAY COMMENTS. SOME OF THEM ARE SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES, BUT NOTHING THAT SEEMS OUT OF THE REALM OF WE CAN DO THAT. I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT BIG DEAL. BUT AGAIN, PART OF THIS FUNDING AGREEMENT TONIGHT IS TO APPROVE AND TO AGREE WITH THE MONEY AND THE FUNDS THAT ARE SET ASIDE FROM THE FEDS, DALLAS COUNTY, AND COG, ESTABLISHING OUR PORTION OF THAT. AGAIN, OVER THE NEXT FEW MONTHS, WE'LL COORDINATE WITH DALLAS COUNTY AND THE OTHER AGENCIES AND FINALIZE THEIR FUNDING AGREEMENTS FOR THEM. WE HAVE A PSA WITH DALLAS COUNTY THAT HAS TO GET APPROVED YET, SO THAT'LL BE COMING HERE SHORTLY. THAT ESTABLISHES THAT $5 MILLION OR THEIR COMPONENT OF THAT. AGAIN, I WORK WITH THROUGH TXDOT TO GET A LETTING DAY HOPEFULLY SOMETIME NEXT YEAR. THAT'S IT. >> WE HAVE ONE MORE SLIDE OR NOT. THANK YOU, MS. ESB. THANK YOU, MS. NASH. YES. GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> MAYOR AND COUNSEL, WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS TONIGHT IS THAT BY SIGNING THIS AFA AND MOVING FORWARD, YOU'RE NOT APPROVING THAT ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF FUNDS UNTIL THE PROJECT IS APPROVED THROUGH A BID PROCESS, AND IT COMES BACK TO YOU. THEN YOU CAN MAKE THE DETERMINATION, EXACTLY HOW YOU WANT TO FUND THE REST OF IT. BY SIGNING THIS ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT TONIGHT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WE'RE STILL WORKING WITH TXDOT, AND THESE OTHER AGENCIES ON MOVING THIS PROJECT FORWARD. BUT BY NO MEANS, ARE YOU DECIDING SPECIFICALLY ON HOW YOU'RE GOING TO FUND IT? I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO FUND IT WITHIN THE EXISTING TAX RATE. THAT ULTIMATELY THAT DECISION DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MADE UNTIL WE HAVE A LETTING DATE, AND WE ACTUALLY PUT THE PROJECT OUT TO BID. THIS WOULD BE IN 2020. >> THIS IS AGREEING TO THE TXDOT FUNDING PORTION AND THE FEDERAL PORTION OF THAT, AND THEN OUR COMPONENT OF THAT. BUT THAT'S TO SET THAT FRAMEWORK FOR THOSE THREE GROUPS. >> IN A VERY BASIC SENSE, IT ALLOWS A PROJECT TO GO FORWARD. >> IT BASICALLY RESERVE $26 MILLION FOR US FROM FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. >> BY PRESUMABLY AGREEING WITH THIS, PROVING TO YOU CORRECT. GUYS. THANK YOU, MS. NASH. THANK YOU, MR. NESBIT. QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL, MR. LINDSEY. >> IF YOU COULD GO BACK TO THE PRIOR SLIDE. JUST DOING THE MATH THERE. LET'S SEE, YOU'RE ON IT. NEXT ONE THERE. FUNDING. NEXT ONE, I GUESS. [OVERLAPPING] >> I JUST DO THE MATH THERE FOR THE FEDERAL STATE COUNTY AND LOCAL, THAT ADDS UP TO SOMEWHERE AROUND 39 MILLION. WHERE DOES THE 42 MILLION NUMBER COME FROM? >> THAT COMES FROM THE TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE THAT WE HAVE. [00:40:01] AGAIN, SO WE HAD TO PAY AN EXTRA MILLION DOLLAR FOR RIGHT OF WAY. WE ACTUALLY HAD TO PAY EXTRA DESIGN MONEY TO DO TO CORRECT THE USDA STUFF. AGAIN, THAT'S TOTAL PROJECT COST THAT WE HAVE. >> THAT IS IT. AGAIN, WITH THE AFA IF IF YOU LOOK AT THE AGREEMENT, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S ONLY PAYING 80%. ANYTHING ABOVE THAT 20% IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. AGAIN, THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE US HERE. I CAN EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT BETTER. >> THIS ALSO INCLUDES THE MONEY THAT WE'VE ALREADY PAID IN ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS OUT OF THE CO FROM 2017. THAT'S WHY IT'S SO DIFFICULT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE AFA. IT DOESN'T REALLY TELL YOU THE WHOLE STORY AND WHY WE DID THIS PRESENTATION TO LAY IT OUT DIFFERENTLY, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY TELL YOU ALL OF THE FUNDING THAT'S BEEN SPENT TO DATE BY THE LOCAL PARTICIPATION. >> LOCAL PARTICIPATION, THIS IS 6.6 MILLION FUTURE THAT'S EXPECTED. THEN WE SPENT THE REST OF THE DIFFERENCE ALREADY. >> YES. >> WE'VE GOTTEN REIMBURSED ALONG THE WAY FROM TXDOT AS WELL, THOUGH. >> CORRECT. WE'VE WE RECEIVED ABOUT $1.1 MILLION IN RIGHT AWAY FROM TXDOT. >> THE STATE PARTICIPATION OF THE 1.4 MILLION, IS THAT WHAT THEY'RE ANTICIPATING ON PAYING IN THE FUTURE? >> THAT'S WHAT THEY ANTICIPATE PAYING THEMSELVES TO DO THE PRO STATION BECAUSE THEY'RE ADMINISTERTING THE FEDERAL FUNDS, AND THEY HAVE TO DO THE DESIGN REVIEW AND STUFF, SO BASICALLY PAYING THEMSELVES BACK. 1.4 MILLION. WE'VE ALREADY PROCURED MONEY. THEY'VE ALREADY REIMBURSED FROM TXDOT FOR THE RIGHT AWAY ACQUISITIONS. >> THEY HAVE GIVEN US SOME BACK, YES. >> SUM BACK. >> IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY'VE GIVEN US BACK SO FAR IN THIS NUMBER FOR STATE PARTICIPATION OR>. >> IT'S IN THE TOTAL 42 MILLION, BECAUSE WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT THIS AFA, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS DOCUMENT, THEY'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT MOVING FORWARD AND NOT AFA ONE PREVIOUSLY. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT'S REALLY CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT IN THE LATEST AFA. THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO LAY IT OUT DIFFERENTLY HERE. IT'S A LITTLE WE TRIED TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR. >> THE TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE, THAT'S ACTUALLY JUST CONSTRUCTION COST. THAT'S NOT EVERYTHING THAT GOT US TO THIS POINT, I DESIGN EVERYTHING. WE'RE SAYING THAT TOTAL PROJECT ESTIMATE ITSELF IS THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT ON THE GROUND OF THE ACTUAL WORK THAT. >> IT'S EVERYTHING. IT'S DESIGN RIGHT AWAY IN CONSTRUCTION. >> IT DOES INCLUDE. >> ON THE AFA NUMBER 2, IT SAYS, $784,000 FOR RIGHT OF WAY. WELL, WE HAD $2.1 MILLION IN RIGHT OF WAY. THEY'RE ONLY PAYING FOR THAT 7.8 PORTION, WHICH WE'VE BEEN REIMBURSED WITH. EVERYTHING ELSE ABOVE THAT WE HAVE TO PAY FOR. THAT'S WHY THAT 4.2. THAT'S WHY SOME OF THESE NUMBERS DON'T MATCH BECAUSE THEY'RE ONLY COMING IN WITH THE 80-20% SPLIT, AND THEN ANYTHING ABOVE THAT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY. WE DON'T GET REIMBURSED FOR THAT. EVEN THOUGH THAT'S STILL PART OF THE PROJECT COST. >> IT'S MAKING A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE FROM THAT 2017 CO. BASICALLY THAT WAS AROUND 7 MILLION WAS ALLOCATED TO NO, I WAS ABOUT 4 MILLION. I GUESS THAT WAS ALLOCATED TO THE MERRITT ROAD REALIGNMENT SPECIFICALLY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> WE BASICALLY HAVE THAT MONEY SPENT. THEN WE'RE LOOKING AT $7 MILLION POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL. THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THE COSTS JUST KEEP GOING UP. WE FIGURE BY A TIME IT GETS OUT TO BID, THAT $7 MILLION WILL PROBABLY COVER WHATEVER THE OVERRUN IS? >> YES. >> WELL, IT'S DEFINITELY BE ON A LONG ROAD, SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE TAKE ANOTHER STEP HERE AND IT'S JOURNEY. >> A QUICK CLARIFICATION, MR. NESBIT. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE 80-20, BUT THAT'S WHY WE DON'T GET REIMBURSED FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE WE GO ABOVE THE THRESHOLD. CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> ON ANY PART OF IT. >> IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PROJECT COSTS, BUT CHANGE THE REIMBURSEMENT AMOUNTS. >> CORRECT. WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET. MR. PRESS. >> YES. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. MY PARENTS ALWAYS TOLD ME THERE WAS NO DUMB QUESTIONS, SO PLEASE REMEMBER THAT. FIRST OFF, GINA, CITY MANAGER, YOU HAD SAID SOMETHING ABOUT DALLAS COUNTY STUCK WITH 5.17. DOES THAT MEAN THEY DIDN'T CHANGE OR ALTER THEIRS AT ALL? IT'S 5.17 FROM 2018 AND 5.17, 2025? >> IT'S ACTUALLY INCREASED, BUT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO THE SAME THING THE FEDS WERE DOING IS GIVE MORE, NOT AS MUCH EXPONENTIALLY AS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS, BUT DALLAS COUNTY IS STILL DOING MORE PARTICIPATION THAN THEY WERE DOING BEFORE. >> JUST NOT THE SAME INCREMENT AS. >> CORRECT. >> SECOND, NOT BLAMING FAULT ON ANYTHING OTHER THAN BOARDS THAT MEETING, THINGS LIKE THAT, THERE'S NO MANNER OF BECAUSE THAT DELAYED US, [00:45:03] WHICH MADE OUR COSTS GO UP. ARE THERE ANY MANAS TO PROCEED TO SEE IF WE GET MORE MONEY BECAUSE OF THOSE TYPE OF THINGS DELAYS. >> US AND EVERYBODY ELSE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT SAME THING. THEY'RE TRYING TO DIVIDE THE MONEY OUT AMONGST ALL THESE PROJECTS THAT ARE SO BEHIND. HONESTLY, I'M THRILLED THAT THEY'RE STILL WILLING TO PARTICIPATE AT THE LEVEL THAT THEY ARE. I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE JUNE WITH THEM ABOUT THIS IS THERE WAS SOME DESIRE TO CHANGE THOSE PERCENTAGES, AND WE WERE REMINDING THEM THAT, NO, THIS IS WHAT WAS AGREED TO. IN ORDER FOR US TO MOVE THIS PROJECT FORWARD, IT HAS TO STAY THE 80-20 SPLIT. >> HERE'S WHERE THE REAL DUMB QUESTION OR CHALLENGING QUESTION COMES IN. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT WOODBRIDGE PARKWAY OR WHATNOT, THERE WAS A COLLIN COUNTY ASPECT OF IT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, PURSUE. WE DIDN'T GET CHOSEN, I THINK. WE KNOW THE AMOUNT OF COLLIN COUNTY RESIDENTS THAT USE THAT ROAD OR UTILIZE THAT ROAD. HAVE WE GONE TO ASK OR IS THERE ANY FUNDS THAT MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FROM THAT SAMPLEINT, OR. >> WE HAVE REQUESTED AND DID NOT RECEIVE FUNDING FOR THIS PROJECT FOR THAT. I THINK EVENTUALLY WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME FUNDING RELATIVE TO THE CONNECTION TO 78. WE'VE TALKED EXTENSIVELY WITH OUR COUNTY COMMISSIONER ABOUT THAT, BUT THEY HAVEN'T HAD ANY INTEREST IN MOVING FORWARD ON ANY OF THAT UNTIL THIS PROJECT STARTS LOOKING LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE TOWARDS A DATE. >> AS ALWAYS, I THINK WHEN YOU WERE UP SPEAKING TWO MONTHS AGO, IT WAS ALL ABOUT JUST MOVE FASTER. ALWAYS SQUEAKY WHEEL GETS DEGREASE, THINGS LIKE THAT. AS YOU SEE, THE LONGER WE WAIT, THE LONGER WE DELAY, THE MORE OUR COSTS ARE GOING TO BE, SO JUST KEEP AT IT. THANK YOU. >> MAYOR PRESTENBERG. >> I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE NICE? >> PLEASE. >> I DON'T WANT TO BE. IN 2018, THIS THING COST, ALLEGEDLY, LET'S SAY 16 MILLION. OUR 20% WAS 3.2 AT THE TIME. THEN THEY DOUBLED US IN 2021, AND NOW THEY'RE DOUBLING US AGAIN, ESSENTIALLY. >> HOW DID WHOEVER WROTE THIS CONTRACT, GET AWAY WITH 80% FEDERAL, 20% LOCAL. AND THE DALLAS COUNTY STATE ARE ALL PART OF FEDERAL. EXPLAIN THAT ONE TO ME. >> THOSE ARE FUNDING SOURCES. >> WHOEVER? >> YEAH. THOSE ARE FUNDING SOURCES ACTUALLY THAT COME THROUGH DIFFERENT BUCKETS WITHIN FEDERAL HIGHWAYS. WE FLIP TO MY DOCUMENT HERE REAL QUICK. IF YOU LOOK AT ATTACHMENT C OF THE ADVANCED FUNDING AGREEMENT, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS THERE'S DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF FUNDING THAT ARE CONSIDERED FEDERAL OR STATE OR LOCAL. DEPENDING ON WHICH, FUNDING SOURCE IT FLOWS THROUGH AND WHAT IT'S FOR. THAT'S WHY THEY LABEL THEM DIFFERENTLY. SOME OF THESE FUNDS, THEY WERE FLOOD MITIGATION FUNDS. COREY, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I CAN'T REMEMBER. I THINK IS THAT THE THE CATEGORY 7? >> IT'S CATEGORY 5. >> CORRECT. CATEGORY 5. AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE DECIDED TO DO OUR OWN CHART UP HERE INSTEAD OF LOOK AT THEIRS BECAUSE THEIRS CAN BE A LITTLE BIT MISLEADING IN TERMS OF WHERE THE MONEY IS ACTUALLY COMING FROM. >> THAT'S NOT A PURPOSE AT ALL. >> DOESN'T SHOW DALLAS COUNTY EITHER. >> RIGHT AND THEY DON'T SHOW DALLAS FUN. >> IT'S NOT ON PURPOSE AT ALL. >> RIGHT. [LAUGHTER] >> IT'S MY OPINION. IT'S ONE PERSON'S OPINION. THIS AGREEMENT IN 2018, WHEN WE WERE ALL EXCITED ABOUT GETTING A NEW MERRIT ROAD FOR 80 -20. HEY, THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND X. WE'RE GOING TO SPEND THIS LITTLE X. IT'S A GREAT DEAL. NOW THAT DEAL SUCKS BECAUSE EVERYONE'S COST TO STAY THE SAME EXCEPT FOR OURS. MORE OR LESS. >> THE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION WENT UP 12-26. >> STATE IN THE COUNTY, ISN'T IT? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> MORE OR LESS. WE ARE HOW MUCH INTO THIS NOW? GIVE ME A BOND PART. >> WELL, WE'VE ALREADY DONE A LITTLE OVER $4 MILLION. >> I WAS FIVE HOUR AND A HALF. >> OUR OPTION NOW IS TO DEDICATE $7 MILLION FROM SOMEWHERE BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A BOND, IN MY OPINION, A BOND OR AT THE EXPENSE OF OTHER PROJECTS. OR JUST THROW $4.5 MILLION DOWN THE DRAIN AND SAY, NEVER MIND. BECAUSE IF WE DON'T PUT OUR MONEY IN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. [00:50:01] >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PONY UP MORE MONEY. IT'S ALL UP TO US. THIS DEAL IS TERRIBLE TODAY FOR US. BUT DO YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T PUT THE TOOTHPASTE BAG IN THE TUBE. WHAT OTHER OPTION DO WE HAVE? THROW THE PROJECT AWAY AND WASTE ALL THE MONEY OR SAY, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL TAKE WHATEVER A CRAPPY DEAL YOU GIVE US. I HAVE A COUPLE OF MORE OBVIOUS QUESTIONS WITH OBVIOUS ANSWERS. IN 2018, WHEN THIS STARTED, WHAT WAS THE PROJECTED COMPLETION DATE? >> NO, I DON'T HAVE. >> TWENTY SIX OR 28? >> THEY DIDN'T GIVE US A PROJECTED DATE AT THAT TIME, BUT THE IDEA WAS AT THE TIME THAT HOPEFULLY THE PROJECT WOULD BE DONE WITHIN FIVE YEARS. >> YOU SAID I'M GOING TO CLARIFY QUESTION YOUR SENTENCE A MINUTE AGO. YOU SAID PART OF IT WAS BECAUSE OF GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN? I DON'T REMEMBER THAT. I REMEMBER COVID WORK FROM HOME. NOBODY GOT THEIR WORK DONE. THAT'S WHAT I REMEMBER. YOU CAN SAY YOUR OPINION. I'M GOING TO SAY MINE. BECAUSE IT WASN'T A SHUTDOWN. >> FOR WHAT? TWO MONTHS? A MONTH? YEAH. IT IT WASN'T EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME. THAT DELAYED THE PROJECT, NOT US. COME ON. GIVE ME THE ENVIRONMENTAL WAS NOT US. RIGHT AWAY? WE'LL TAKE SOME BLAME IN THAT. CAUSE THAT TOOK A LOT LONGER THAN IT SHOULD HAVE. BUT THIS PROJECT IS NOT GOING TO START PROBABLY BEFORE IT WAS PROJECTED TO END. >> BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION TODAY, WE FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT ABOUT NEXT YEAR. >> IF WE CAN [OVERLAPPING] TODAY IS AFTER IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED. WE'RE ON THE HOOK FOR COVERING A PROJECT THAT WE WERE NOT REALLY PART OF THE DELAY, AND THAT'S VERY FRUSTRATING FOR ME WITH NOT HAVING AN OPTION. SO I THINK I'VE SAID AS PG AS I COULD. I'M GOING TO STOP THERE. >> APPRECIATE THE PG VERSION. OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? MR. MOSA. >> I'M NOT GOING TO PROPOSE IT OR SUGGEST IT, BUT WE'RE SAYING THAT WE NEED TO APPROVE OR GIVE THE OKAY FOR SEVEN MORE MILLION DOLLAR SOME WAY, POTENTIALLY. >> POTENTIALLY. >> POTENTIALLY. NOW THEN, WHEN IT COMES TIME TO START THIS ANOTHER TWO OR THREE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, WHAT IF THAT 7 MILLION ISN'T ENOUGH? THEN WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO? MY QUESTION IS, CAN WE GO BACK AND SCALE SOME OF THIS DOWN, MAYBE NOT SIDEWALKS, MAYBE NOT SO ELABORATE LIGHTING, SOME THINGS THAT WE COULD POSSIBLY DO TO SCALE IT DOWN. IS THAT A POSSIBILITY? >> DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A POSSIBILITY. I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO REDO THE TIP MODE. YOU'D HAVE TO REDO ALL THE FUNDING AGREEMENTS BECAUSE WE WOULD BE REMOVING THINGS THAT THEY ALREADY APPROVED IN THE PROJECT. I GUESS THE ANSWER IS YES, WE COULD DO IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH LONGER THAT WOULD DELAY EVERYTHING. THAT'S ALL. >> THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M ASKING IS SINCE THE LIGHTING AND SIDEWALKS AND ALL THE OTHER AMENITIES THAT ARE NOT NORMALLY NEEDED TO DRIVE UP AND DOWN A STREET PER SE. IS TXDOT AND COUNTY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GOING TO REQUIRE US TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT, OR THEY'RE GOING TO LET US DO THAT IF WE NEEDED TO FOR BUDGET PURPOSES BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE US ANY MORE MONEY ANYWAY. >> NO. >> I CAN SAY THOSE ARE REQUIRED. THE SIDEWALKS ARE REQUIRED BY TXDOT. THEY WOULDN'T FUND THIS PROJECT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THE SIDEWALKS IN IT. THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PARE DOWN THAT ARE REQUIREMENTS FROM TXDOT AND THE FEDS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST TAKE OUT IF WE WANTED TO TAKE THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROJECT. THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY TO IS ON WE'RE COMING TO YOU NOW WITH THIS BECAUSE WE'RE SO CLOSE TO THE PROJECT LETTING. OTHERWISE, I WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN AS COMFORTABLE TO GIVE THIS NUMBER THAT I'M GIVING BECAUSE WE'RE NOW AT A 90% SET OF PLANS. WE FEEL CONFIDENT NOW WITH THE THOROUGH REVIEW THAT COREY DID LAST WEEK OF THE PLAN SET AND WHAT THE CHANGES ARE. WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT IN A TIMELINE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO DELIVER THIS BACK, AND THE PROJECT COULD BE LET IN 2026 TO BE ABLE TO BE CONFIDENT IN THAT NUMBER. I WASN'T COMFORTABLE IN GIVING YOU ALL AND AFA BACK IN JUNE THAT WE STILL HAD A 60% SET OF PLANS. [00:55:05] WE WANTED TO GET A LOT FURTHER ALONG, PLUS STILL DIDN'T HAVE AGREEMENT WHEN THEY WANTED TO MAKE SOME PERCENTAGE CHANGES RELATIVE TO THEIR PORTION AND OUR PORTION. I DO FEEL CONFIDENT NOW AS WE'RE CLOSER THAT WE'RE AT A VERY DIFFERENT JUNCTURE THAT I CAN BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THAT NUMBER THAT I'M TELLING YOU THAT IT'LL BE CLOSE ENOUGH WHEN IT'S TIME TO LET THE PROJECT SOMETIME NEXT YEAR. NOW, RIGHT NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WILL BE A CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE GOING TO HIT UP AGAINST, IF WE TALKED ABOUT WITH TXDOT TODAY IS THAT RELATIVE TO FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION DOING THE FINAL SIGN OFF ON THIS IS, WE'RE IN A GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN RIGHT NOW. PLANS ARE STACKING UP TO BE REVIEWED, AND THEY WERE VERY CLEAR WITH US THAT UNTIL THE SHUTDOWN ENDS, THESE ARE WORKERS THAT ARE NOT AT WORK RIGHT NOW AND NOT REVIEWING PLANS THAT ARE IN THE QUEUE. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT THING TO JUST MENTION THAT THEY BROUGHT UP TO US. >> TXDOT SAID IT'S AT LEAST 6-8 WEEKS ONCE THEY GET THE PLANS TO REVIEW THEM. THAT'S ASSUMING THAT THEY COULD START WHEN THEY GET THEM. WE DON'T EVEN KNOW WHEN THAT DATE'S GOING TO BE AND HOW MANY PEOPLE GET IN IN FRONT OF US IN THAT LINE. BUT EVEN IN A GOOD TIME LINE, IT'S TWO MONTHS, THREE MONTHS. >> BUT TO COUNCILMAN PRESTENBERG'S POINT, WE'RE PUSHING THROUGH AND MAKING SURE THOSE 90% PLANS GET APPROVED, AND WE MAKE ALL THE CHANGES, AND HALF AN ASSOCIATES IS ON TOP OF IT, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET OUR PART DONE AS FAST AS WE CAN. WHEN THE Q REOPENS, WE'RE READY TO BE THERE. >> MR. PRESTENBERG. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY, IF YOU WERE TO ASK ANYONE IN SAXON, WHAT THEIR NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS, IT'S THAT ROAD MERIT. WE'RE NOT CANCELING. WE'RE NOT DELAYING. I KNOW I HAVE ONE OAT, SO WHAT I'M JUST SAYING REDESIGNING IS PROBABLY NOT EVEN SOMETHING WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT. I JUST HIGHLY ENCOURAGE THAT WE GET CREATIVE WHEN TIME NEEDS BE TO FUND THIS AND MOVE ALONG. JUST ISIS WENT UP TO THE NEXT TIME WE GET IN THIS SITUATION, YOU KNOW, PUT A CLAUSE IN THERE IN CASE THERE'S A WHATEVER DELAY THERE MIGHT BE, YOU KNOW, BUT THAT'S WHY I LEAVE IT AT THIS POINT. MAYOR PRO AND FRANKS. >> ANOTHER THING. [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. [LAUGHTER] AS MR. MILLSAP SAID, ANY CHANGES TO THIS PROJECT ARE GOING TO LEAD TO DELAYS OF REDESIGN. ANY DELAYS ARE GOING TO OR LEAD TO MORE FUNDING OR MORE COST. NO ONE HAS CANCELED THIS PROJECT. NO ONE HAS DELAYED THIS PROJECT HERE. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. >> NOT HERE. >> MR. PRESTENBERG, KIND OF SAID HE DIDN'T WANT TO DELAY OR CANCEL THE PROJECT. I AGREE. WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. GINA, ONE LAST QUESTION. ALL THIS IS PROJECTED? >> YES. >> WHAT IF 7 MILLION, WHAT IF IT WAS 10 MILLION? I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW. WHAT IF IT'S THREE, THEN I'M STILL UPSET, BUT I'M NOT AS UPSET ABOUT SEVEN. >> RIGHT. >> BUT IF IT'S 10, I'M WAY MORE UPSET. >> TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. >> I DON'T HAVE A CONTINGENCY. >> AT THIS POINT, IN MY ESTIMATION, THE NUMBERS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT, 7 MILLION INCLUDES A CONTINGENCY, BECAUSE I ONLY WANT TO COME TO YOU ONCE. >> ASSUMING THAT THEY START WORKING AND GET OUR PLANS REVIEWED AND ALL THAT HAPPENS IN THE NEXT THREE MONTHS. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S AN ASSUMPTION, THOUGH. >> YES. >> MS. HOWARTH. >> A MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS, I GOT A PHILOSOPHICAL COMPLAINT. [LAUGHTER] LIKE I ALWAYS DO. IF WE HAD KNOWN HOW LONG THIS WAS GOING TO TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S MONEY, THE MATH PROBABLY WOULD HAVE BEEN IN OUR FAVOR IF WE HAD FUNDED IT OURSELVES. >> IT'S GOING TO COST US THE SAME AS IT. >> HOLD ON. >> THAT WHEN SAXBY BUILDS A ROAD THAT SAXBY PAYS FOR, WE GET THEM DONE, WE PASS A BOND, WE GET THEM DONE, BOOM A COUPLE OF YEARS, WHATEVER THE SCHEDULE IS. WE DON'T HAVE BIG DELAYS. WE DON'T HAVE WE STILL HAVE INFLATION, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THOSE THINGS, BUT WE KIND OF RAN INTO THIS WITH SAXBY ROAD OUT HERE ON FIFTH STREET, TOO, THAT WE DECIDED TO TAKE MONEY FROM DALLAS COUNTY, AND THE DELAYS FROM TAKING SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY ACTUALLY ATE UP THEIR CONTRIBUTION IN INCREASED COSTS. I HATE THAT THIS STARTED BEFORE I WAS ELECTED TO COUNCIL, AND WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT IT. I HATE THAT THESE NUMBERS ARE RIDICULOUS AND THAT THIS IS JUST COST INFLATION FROM DELAY. [01:00:02] I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING WE NECESSARILY COULD HAVE DONE ABOUT THAT OTHER THAN TO HAVE PAID FOR THE ENTIRE THING FROM DAY ONE OURSELVES, BUT WE DIDN'T I DON'T THINK WE COULD HAVE KNOWN THAT IT WOULD BE THIS BAD THAT SEVEN YEARS LATER, EIGHT YEARS LATER, WE'D BE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION ABOUT TRYING TO START THE CONSTRUCTION ON MERRITT ROAD. I DON'T THINK ANY OF US WOULD DISAGREE THAT THIS IS NECESSARY. THAT INTERSECTION AT MERRITT AND SAXBY ROAD IS ATROCIOUS AND DANGEROUS AND PROBABLY HAS NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED THIS ENTIRE TIME. FURTHER DELAY IS NOT IN ANYONE'S INTERESTS, BUT I HATE THIS, AND I THINK WE PROBABLY ALL DO, THAT THE EXPENSE IS IMMENSE BECAUSE WE FRANKLY GOT THE FEDS INVOLVED AND THAT THIS DELAY HAS BEEN THIS GREAT. IT IS VERY FRUSTRATING. >> YEAH, IF YOU GO BACK. [OVERLAPPING] >> PHILOSOPHICAL COMPLAINT. I DON'T EXPECT ANYONE HERE TO BE ABLE TO FIX IT. >> NO, I AGREE WITH YOU THERE. BACK IN 2018, NOBODY WAS WILLING TO PAY FOR THAT ROAD OURSELF. THE PARTNERSHIP THAT MS. NASH HAD HAD PUT TOGETHER, SINCE WE'RE TALKING PHILOSOPHICAL WAS GREAT. YOU HAD THE STATE, YOU HAD DEFENSE, YOU HAD DALLAS COUNTY, AND AS MR. PRESTENBERG ALLUDED TO, WE EVEN ASKED COLLIN COUNTY AT THE TIME, AND THEY DIDN'T TELL US NO RIGHT AWAY, BUT THEY ENDED UP TELL US KNOWING, EVENTUALLY. BUT THEY SAW THE NEED FOR THIS REGIONAL ROAD. HAVING SAID THAT, YES, I THINK ANYBODY THAT'S DEALT WITH THE GOVERNMENT AT ANY LENGTH OF TIME KNOWS THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY EFFICIENT IN ANY BUT THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO OFFER, AND QUITE FRANKLY, THEY'RE STILL WILLING TO OFFER, IS WE ALWAYS TRY TO DO EVERYTHING ON COUNCIL TO LESSEN THE FINANCIAL IMPACT OF OUR RESIDENTS. THIS CERTAINLY DID THAT, AT LEAST THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DID. COVID WAS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST THING THAT SLOWED EVERYTHING DOWN INITIALLY. THEN, AS MR. NESBIT MENTIONED, THE SOIL CONSERVATION LAKE, THE USDA. I MEAN, LIKE I SAID, WE HAD TO CONTACT OUR CONGRESSMAN TO EVEN GET THEM TO FIND ENOUGH PEOPLE TO MEET BECAUSE YOU COULDN'T EVEN GO FORWARD ANYTHING THAT TEXAS SAID, IF THE USDA DIDN'T SAY, YES, THEIR HANDS WERE TIGHT. YES, THERE'S A LOT OF PHILOSOPHICAL GNASHING OF TEETH, I GUESS, YOU COULD SAY, BUT IT'S STILL A PROJECT, THAT HELPED OFFSET THE COST FOR OUR RESIDENTS. WHILE IT HASN'T GONE EXACTLY LIKE WE THOUGHT, STILL THE BEST PASS FORWARD. >> MR. LINDSAY. >> NOT SURE I'VE HEARD A FULL ANSWER TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MILLSAP WAS ASKING ON THERE, SO LET ME JUST ASK YOU AGAIN IN A DIFFERENT WAY. WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT THE COSTS CONTINUE TO GO UP. WHEN THIS IS SENT OUT FOR BID AND THOSE BIDS COME BACK, WE KNOW WHAT THE COST WILL BE. THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONTRACT. ONCE WE DIAL IN, WHATEVER SHORTAGE THAT WE HAVE, THAT SHOULD BE THE FINAL BIT OF SPENDING ON OUR PART. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE A YEAR FROM THEN, THIS DIDN'T GET CONSIDERED, AND NOW WE NEED TO COME UP WITH MORE MONEY. >> WELL, THAT'S THE GOAL IS YOU BID A PROJECT AND YOU PUT EVERYTHING IN THE PROJECT, AND YOU PUT A CONTINGENCY IN, WHICH WE WERE TOLD TODAY THAT ANY CONTINGENCY THAT WE BUILD INTO THIS IS NOT REIMBURSABLE BY THE FEDS OR THE STATE. THAT'S MONEY THAT WE WOULD BE PUTTING IN ON TOP OF IT, HENCE THE $7 MILLION NUMBER THAT I'VE BUILT IN HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COME BACK. THIS BITE OF THE APPLE IS ONLY ONE TIME. >> WHENEVER IT GOES OUT FOR BID, THEY'RE MAKING A CONTRACT, THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY CAN DO THE JOB FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY. YOU'RE SAYING IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE A CONTRACTOR COULD COME BACK LATER AND SAY, WELL, YOU NEVER INCLUDED, THIS OVER HERE. >> SOMETIMES THERE'S JUST CONDITIONS THAT HAPPEN ONCE YOU GET OUT ON THE PROJECT AND YOU FIND SOMETHING THAT YOU DIDN'T ANTICIPATE OR THEY DIG SOMETHING UP AND FIND SOMETHING. THERE'S THERE'S CEMETERIES CAN HAPPEN. THERE'S THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN ON SOME OF THESE PROJECTS WHERE CHANGE ORDERS CAN OCCUR. WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING THAT IN TERMS OF A CONTINGENCY FOR THIS, AND SO THAT WE HAVE THAT LEVEL OF BUFFER. BUT AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S REIMBURSABLE BY THE FEDS OR THE STATE. THEY MADE THAT VERY CLEAR SEVERAL TIMES ON THE CALL TODAY. >> NOW, IF WE ACTUALLY SPEND THE MONEY, BUT WE'LL ALREADY PROBABLY BE AT THE CAP. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO JUST REIMBURSE US FOR SENDING MONEY ASIDE, JUST FOR THE WHAT IF. BUT IF WE WERE TO SPEND THAT MONEY OUT OF THAT CONTINGENCY AND WE WEREN'T ALREADY AT THE CAP, THEY WOULD I WOULD TAKE IT REIMBURSE IT. >> NO. THEY DO NOT REIMBURSE FOR CONTINGENCY. >> ANY POLICY NOT JUST MONEY SET ASIDE. IT WASN'T PART OF THE PLAN AND WASN'T KNOWN UP FRONT, THEN THERE. >> I UNDERSTAND. NOW THAT MAKES SENSE. [01:05:02] THEY CONSIDER THAT TOTALLY SEPARATE FROM THE AGREEMENT. >> THIS WAS THE SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY I RAN FOR COUNSEL ON HERE, SO, WE CAN LOOK AT THE PAST AND WHAT SO COULD HAVE BEEN DONE, BUT THE FACT IS IT WILL NEVER BE A CHEAPER MOMENT. TO BUILD THIS ROAD THAN WHAT WE HAVE, AND WE'RE IN IT, AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE. THERE IS NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTS ABOUT IT. I'M A GLIDING FOR PUNISHMENT IS WHAT PEOPLE TELL ME. I KNOW WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE MEMBER THAT IS AN EXPERT IN THIS AREA THAT'S WORKED WITH TXDOT, WHO IS A CITIZEN OF OUR FINE CITY HERE, THAT WOULD LOVE TO HAVE ANY OPINIONS OR CRITIQUES OR THINGS THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING FOR. I HOPE THE PUBLIC INPUT HERE COMES SOON. >> MAYOR ROSEN FRANKS. >> I WAS GOING TO STOP WHILE I WAS AHEAD, BUT I CHOSE NOT TO. YOU SAID PLAN REVIEW, 90%. THOSE, ASSUMING THERE'S NO CHANGES OR CORRECTIONS, LET'S SAY, BEST CASE SCENARIO, THREE MONTHS. THEN THE BID TIMELINE? >> WE HAVE TO GO SO THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS AND THAT'S WHAT WE WENT THROUGH TODAY ALSO. THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE US A CHECKLIST, WHICH WE HAVE. AGAIN, THE FIRST THING THAT WE HAVE TO DO IS GET RIGHT OF WAY CLEARANCE, WHICH MEANS ALL FRANCHISE UTILITIES HAVE TO HAVE TO HAVE RELOCATED THEIR FACILITIES. I THINK WE HAVE TWO COMPANIES LEFT TO DO THAT. LIKE ALL AMS UNCOR THEY'VE ALL RELOCATED THEIR FACILITIES. WE HAVE TWO MORE COMPANIES THAT ARE ACTIVELY WORKING THAT HAVE TO HAVE THAT DONE. ONCE THAT'S DONE, AND THE PLAN CHANGES ARE MADE, THEN WE CAN REQUEST AND THIS IS WHOLE LIST OF THINGS WE HAVE TO SUBMIT TO TEXT AND TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. ONCE THAT'S DONE, THEN THEY WILL ESTABLISH A DATE. BUT THERE'S SEVERAL THINGS THAT WE'RE STILL. >> MR. ENGINEER, GIVE ME A TIMELINE. >> I WOULD HOPE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS WITH DALLAS COUNTY IN OUR FRANCHISE MEETING, BUT I WOULD HOPE THAT WE COULD HAVE FRANCHISE DONE BY THE END OF THE YEAR. MAYBE IT MAY BE AGGRESSIVE, BUT IF ONCE WE COULD GET THAT, THEN WE GET THE PLANS REVIEWED FIRST OF THE YEAR. SUBMIT EVERYTHING TO TEXT FIRST QUARTER, AND THEN HOPEFULLY, I'M PUTTING IT ALL OUT HERE. MAYBE WE COULD START CONSTRUCTION IN THE FALL. BECAUSE THEY SAY THREE MONTHS AFTER THE ADVERTISE, A MINIMUM OF 21 DAYS ONCE YOU BID IT TWO MORE YEARS. >> JUST SAY TWO YEARS. THEY SAID FAT. >> AGAIN, THREE MONTHS AFTER WE BID IT. AFTER THEY LET IT, IT COULD GO TO CONSTRUCTION. >> YOU'RE SAYING ONE YEAR FROM NOW? NO TWO YEARS FROM NOW? >> I WOULD THINK SO. >> YOU WERE EXPLAINING THINGS. I HEARD TWO YEARS ON NOT ONE YEAR. >> NO ONE YEAR. >> ONE YEAR. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT HAVE TO HAPPEN. BUT THAT SEEMS REAL NO. >> THERE ARE. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL? >> THANK YOU, MR. NESBIT. THIS IS A ACTION ITEM. ANYBODY FINALE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE. COME ON DOWN, SIR. H. A. >> MARTY HOBOK, 55 11 OAK RIDGE CIRCLE, SAXE, TEXAS, TOP OF THE HILL. ME MAKE NO MISTAKE. TXDOT IS THE ORIGINAL 800 POUND GORILLA. BUT THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY ON THE TABLE HERE. ALSO MAKE NO MISTAKE. IF YOU GO FORWARD WITH THIS TODAY, YOU'RE IN FOR THE RIDE, BECAUSE IF YOU BACK OUT LATER, YOU WILL NEVER GET A DIE FROM THEM AGAIN CAUSE THEY REMEMBER. AND NO. WHEN YOU LET THE PROJECT, THAT'S NOT THE LAST PENNY. YOU BETTER HOPE YOUR PLANS ARE GOOD, BECAUSE IF YOU GO OUT THERE AND FIND AN INDIAN HEAD AND YOU SIT FOR THREE MONTHS, IT'S YOUR NICKEL. THEY DON'T CARE. BUT YOU DON'T YOU GOT TO HOPE FOR THE BEST. YOU'RE MAKING A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL, AND THAT'S $7 MILLION. IF YOU VOTE TODAY TO MOVE FORWARD, WHICH YOU SHOULD, YOU'RE IN FOR IT. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. YOU DON'T HAVE A CHANCE TO BACK OUT. OR YOU'RE GOING TO BE IN A WORLD OF HURT. YOU CROSS YOUR FINGERS, YOU SAY A PRAYER, AND YOU MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S ALL I GOT. >> THANK YOU, MR. TU. ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? WITH THAT, THERE'S OTHER QUESTIONS. WE CAN ENTERTAIN THOSE, IF NOT, WE CAN ENTERTAIN MOTIONS. MR. PRESTENBERG. >> NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. >> HOLD ON. THERE YOU GO. NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM F1 AS PRESENTED. >> MOTION BY MR. PRESTENBERG, TO APPROVE ITEM F1 AS PRESENTED. I HAVE A SECOND, MR. LINDSAY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. LINDSAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? [01:10:03] I WILL SAY THAT THIS WHOLE PROJECT, LIKE I SAID, HAS NOT BEEN IDEALLY WHAT WE WANT IT TO BE. HOWEVER, IT IS STILL A GOOD AGREEMENT IN MY OPINION BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING MONEY FROM OTHER PROJECTS OR EXCUSE ME, OTHER ENTITIES. THAT'S A GOOD THING BECAUSE THAT'S ONE LESS DOLLAR THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE TO PAY FOR. IT HADN'T GONE LIKE WE WANTED TO, BUT IT IS STILL A GOOD AGREEMENT IN MY OPINION. ANYBODY ELSE. WITH THAT, PLEASE CATCH YOU ABOUT. MOTION CARRIES NAMES. NEXT TIME ON [2. Consider approving the staff recommendation on credit card processing fee recovery for costs incurred by the City of Sachse.] THE AGENDA ITEM TWO CONSIDER APPROVING THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE RECOVERY FOR COST INCURRED BY THE CITY OF SAXON. MS. NASH. >> MAYOR AND COUNSEL, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF AN ITEM THAT WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR A COUPLE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS IN THE LAST FEW MONTHS WITH REGARD TO CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEES. I THINK THE STAFF HEARD YOU ALL LOUD AND CLEAR THAT YOU ARE INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD WITH SOME FEES THAT SHOULD BE PAID BY THE RESIDENTS THAT WANT TO USE THESE SERVICES. PRESENTATION HAS BEEN PREPARED TONIGHT BY DAVID BALDWIN TO BE ABLE TO SIMPLIFY AND WALK THROUGH BASICALLY THE FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM COUNSEL, WHICH I THINK WAS PRETTY CLEAR AND GIVE THAT PRESENTATION TONIGHT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH HOW YOU DESIRE TO HANDLE CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEES MOVING FORWARD. >> HELLO, MR. BODMIN. >> HELLO, MAYOR. COUNSEL. AS AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE'LL BE DISCUSSING TODAY, FIRST, I'LL PROVIDE A SUMMARY OF TRANSACTION FEES, BASICALLY AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT WE PROVIDED ON SEPTEMBER 15TH AT THE LAST PRESENTATION. FOLLOWING THAT WILL BE COUNSEL'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. >> USING UTILITY BILLING AS AN EXAMPLE FOR OUR TRANSACTIONS, BEING THAT THEY'RE THE LARGEST VOLUME OF TRANSACTIONS ACROSS THE CITY, 78% OF THOSE TRANSACTIONS ARE PAID BY CREDIT CARD. ON A CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION, WE'RE CHARGED THAT TRANSACTION IS CHARGED A 1.5-3.5% TRANSACTION FEE. THAT VARIES BY CARD. WE DON'T REALLY FIND OUT THE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE, THAT PERCENTAGE UNTIL LATER ON WHEN WE'RE BILLED, SAY A MONTH LATER. THOSE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEES FOR UTILITY BILLING ARE ABOUT $215,000 A YEAR FOR ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS, ABOUT $31,000 A YEAR. SEPARATE FROM THAT TRANSACTION FEE. FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF CHARGING A CREDIT CARD ON AN ONLINE PORTAL. THERE IS 98% OF OUR UTILITY BILLING CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS ARE ON THIS PORTAL. IF YOU ARE PAYING ONLINE VIA AN AUTO PAY, VIA A ONE TIME PAYMENT, IF YOU'RE DOING THE PHONE PAYMENT OR A TEXT TO PAY OPTION, ALL OF THOSE ARE PORTAL TRANSACTIONS AND ARE CHARGED A FEE. SACHSE CHARGED PER TRANSACTION ON THOSE CHARGES. IN UTILITY BILLING, IT'S $1.25 PER THESE ONLINE VOICE OR TEXT TRANSACTIONS. THOSE FEES ADD UP TO ABOUT $100,000 A YEAR. FOR THOSE FEES PRIOR TO COVID, THAT FEE WAS CHARGED DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER. BEGINNING WITH COVID, SINCE COVID, THAT FEE HAS BEEN CHARGED OR PAID BY UTILITY BILLING. SEPARATE FROM THAT IS THE SAME TYPE OF FEE FOR A MUNICIPAL COURT. THAT VARIES. IF THE TRANSACTION IS $100 OR LESS, IT'S $1 FEE. IF IT'S GREATER THAN $100, IT'S A $2.50 CENT DOLLAR FEE, THAT IS PER TRANSACTION, AND THAT FEE IS CHARGED DIRECTLY TO THE CUSTOMER. OVERALL FOR ALL OF THE UTILITY BILLING PAYMENTS, 75% OF THE PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH THIS PORTAL. I'LL TRY AND SUMMARIZE A TRANSACTION, GIVE A VISUAL AND MAKE IT SIMPLE. ON THE FAR LEFT OF THIS GRAPHIC IS THE CUSTOMER. ON THE FAR RIGHT IS SACHSE. IN BETWEEN THE CUSTOMER AND SACHSE ARE VARIOUS COSTS. THE FIRST PART OF THOSE COSTS ARE FIXED SERVICE FEES. THOSE ARE PAID BY SACHSE. THEY AVERAGE ABOUT $4,000 THAT CAN GO UP BECAUSE IT DEPENDS WHAT YOU WANT TO INCLUDE IN THOSE COSTS. SHOWN THERE IS OUR CHECK SCANNER, LEASE AGREEMENT THERE, BUT WE COULD ADD STAFF, BUILDING COSTS, ETC. WE SEE THOSE AS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR PROVIDING A SERVICE, AND SO THOSE ARE PAID BY THE CITY OF SACHSE. WHEN A RESIDENT PAYS FOR THIS TRANSACTION WITH A DEBIT OR A CREDIT CARD, [01:15:04] THERE IS THAT TRANSACTION FEE THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT THAT RANGES FROM 1.5%, 3.5%. THAT COST IS ABOUT $246,000 TO THE CITY. WE SEE THAT AS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS FOR THAT METHOD OF PAYMENT. NOW, FOR THE PORTAL FEES, THE NEXT COLUMN OVER, IT SHOWS A STRAIGHT LINE. IF A CUSTOMER COMES IN AND PAYS WITH A CREDIT OR DEBIT CARD DIRECTLY IN PERSON AT OUR PAYMENT WINDOW, OR IF THEY'RE PAYING, VIA ANOTHER METHODOLOGY ACH, THAT ELECTRONIC DEPOSIT, CASH, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THAT GOES STRAIGHT TO SAC, AND THERE'S NO OTHER CHARGES TO THE TRANSACTION. AS A MATTER OF CONVENIENCE FOR AUTOMATIC PAYMENTS, FOR THE VOICE PAY, FOR THE TEXT TO PAY. IF A CUSTOMER CHOOSES TO GO ON THE PORTAL TO MAKE THOSE TYPES OF PAYMENTS, THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL CHARGE. WE CALL THAT THE PORTAL FEE. THAT CHARGE AGAIN IS $1.25 WHEN THAT TRANSACTION IS WITH UTILITY BILLING. IT RANGES FROM $1 TO $2.50 WHEN IT'S WITH MUNICIPAL COURT. THOSE FEES FOR UTILITY BILLING, BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT SACHSE PAYS ARE JUST OVER $100,000 PER YEAR. WE SEE THAT AS A CONVENIENCE FEE BECAUSE THOSE PAYMENTS OR A PAYMENT WITH A CREDIT CARD COULD BE MADE IN PERSON AND NOT HAVE THAT FEE CHARGED TO EITHER OF THE PARTIES HERE. NEXT IS OUR POLICIES BY DEPARTMENT. WE'RE SHOWING THE DEPARTMENTS ON THE LEFT IN THAT FIRST COLUMN. THE TRANSACTION FEE, AGAIN, THAT DO THAT 1.5%-3.5% THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT, THAT TRANSACTION FEE IS IN THE MIDDLE. THAT PORTAL POLICY FEE THAT VARIES FROM $1- $2.50 IS ALL THE WAY ON THE RIGHT. SHOWING IN THAT DIFFERENT COLOR BLUE IS STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CHANGES. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING REGARDING THE TRANSACTION FEE, THAT AS WE DO FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE RECOVER A 3% TRANSACTION FEE ON TRANSACTIONS OVER $100 FOR ALL DEPARTMENTS EXCEPT UTILITY BILLING. WE SEE THAT AS A WAY TO RECOVER COSTS ON LARGE SINGLE TRANSACTION FEES. THEN OVER TO THE RIGHT, WE HAVE A POLICY RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS ON THE PORTAL FEE, AND WE RECOMMEND THAT WE GO BACK TO THE PRE COVID METHODOLOGY AND THAT THAT CONVENIENCE FEE BE PAID BY THE CUSTOMER. WE SEE THAT AS CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR PRACTICE. WE SEE THAT AS A COST OF CONVENIENCE THAT COULD BE SHIFTED TO THE CUSTOMER RECEIVING THE CONVENIENCE. THAT CUSTOMERS MAKING ALL OTHER FORMS OF PAYMENT WOULD NO LONGER SUBSIDIZE ONLINE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS. THE NEXT STEP, STAFF IS SEEKING COUNSEL'S FEEDBACK ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. IF APPROVED, THEN STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS CHANGE BE EFFECTIVE JANUARY FIRST. STAFF WILL INCREASE COMMUNICATION OF THE AUTOMATIC WITHDRAWAL OR ACH, THE DIRECT BANK ACCOUNT PAYMENT, WILL INCREASE THE COMMUNICATION ON THAT, AND THEN WE'LL ALSO PROVIDE A PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN. THANK YOU, MR. BABIN. QUESTIONS FROM COUNSEL. MS. HOWARTH. FOR UTILITY BILLING, WHERE MOST OF THESE FEES ARE BEING GENERATED, THE ONLY CHANGE IS CHARGING THAT $25 CONVENIENCE FEE TO THE CUSTOMER. IF THEY USE THE ONLINE PORTAL OR THE PAY BY PHONE OR ET CETERA. FOR UTILITY BILLING, THE ONLY RECOMMENDATION OR THE ONLY THING SHOWN HERE IS JUST THE PORTAL FEE CHANGE, CORRECT. SO THE OTHER 2.5 MILLION OR $250,000 IN FEES, 246, WHATEVER IT WAS, WE'LL STILL BE PAYING THE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEE. UNDER WHAT IS SUBMITTED HERE, THAT TRANSACTION FEE THAT WE DON'T FIND OUT TILL LATER THAT VARIES FROM 1.5 TO 3.5%, THAT IS NOT CONSIDERED AS BEING ABSORBED BY THE CUSTOMER. OKAY. THEN THE ONLY OTHER CHANGE IS ADDING THE 3% FEE IF IT'S OVER $1000 FOR MUNICIPAL COURT AND EVERYBODY ELSE, JUST LIKE TO MAKE A MATCH DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES? CORRECT. FOR EVERYBODY BUT UTILITY BILLING. EVERYBODY BUT UTILITY BILLING. WE'VE DECIDED THAT THAT 246,000 IS JUST SOMETHING WE NEED TO EAT. WE SEE IT AS A COST OF DOING BUSINESS. THAT'S UP TO US. OKAY. I'M THINKING. [01:20:02] WELL, YOU HAVE SOME TIME WE GOT A QUESTION. YOU GOT TIME TO THINK, MS. NASH. DAVID, CAN YOU FLIP BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT YOU HAD? OKAY. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE STAFF IS PROPOSING IS JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT WE DID PRE COVID. WE WERE ALREADY TAKING ON THE FIXED SERVICE FEES AND THE TRANSACTION FEES, SORT OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESSES WE'RE CALLING IT, AND RECOMMENDING GOING BACK WITH THAT $100,000 IN PORTAL FEES AS THE CONVENIENCE FEE. THAT WAS THE MODEL PRIOR TO COVID. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. YEAH. NO, IT'S GOOD CLARIFICATION. BUT IN THAT SAME VEIN, THE 246, EVEN THOUGH WE WERE, IF YOU WILL, EATING THAT, PRIOR TO COVID, THAT IS EVERYTHING'S ON THE TABLE TONIGHT FOR COUNSELS. OF COURSE,. HOW YOU WANTED IT. YEAH. ABSOLUTELY. JUST STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ABSOLUTELY. MR. LINDSAY, YEAH, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION, BRINGING BACK ALL THESE GREAT DETAILS. WE WORK AND MY PRIMARY INTEREST HERE IS ON THE UTILITY SITE. I THINK THE CHANGES FOR THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS ARE JUST IS EXACTLY IN LINE. I FULLY SUPPORT THEM. BUT JUST THINKING OF THE UTILITY FUND, IT'S AN ENTERPRISE FUND. WE WORK WITH A THIRD PARTY CONSULTANT. NEW GEN SOLUTIONS. WHAT WAS THAT? NEW GEN SOLUTIONS. YES. I THINK WE WERE HER LAST CASE BEFORE SHE RETIRED ON THERE, BUT SHE FACTORED IN ALL THESE DIFFERENT FEES. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE COST OF WATER DISTRIBUTION, THE COST OF ACQUIRING THE WATER, ALL OF THESE FEES. IN IT, WHENEVER WE GOT SOMETHING LABELED THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS, I TAKE IT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT SHE FACTORED IN TO COME UP WITH THE RATE PER GALLON TO CHARGE. IS THAT? SHE WOULD HAVE IDENTIFIED THE COST AND INCLUDED A RECOVERY. YEAH, FOR THE FUND. SO YES, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED. OKAY. THE CONVENIENCE FEE, THE ONE THAT WE DID A $100,000 ON WAS THAT CONSIDERED INTO THE WATER RATE FEE. IN OTHER WORDS, ARE PEOPLE ACTUALLY REALLY PAYING FOR THAT RIGHT NOW ALREADY IN A FEE? OR DID WE JUST USE SOME OF THE EXCESS FUNDS FEE, AND WE'VE JUST BEEN COVERING THEM THERE WITHOUT REALLY TRULY HAVING AN IMPACT TO THE WATER RATE FEE. OUR FUND BALANCE WAS UNSUSTAINABLE TO USE THAT TO BUY DOWN RATES LONG TERM, SO ALL COSTS IN THE UTILITY FUND WERE CONSIDERED AS, FOR FUTURE RATES. TRANSACTION FEES, PORTAL FEES, ALL OF THIS WAS INCLUDED IN THE ASSUMPTION FOR THE RATES. OKAY. IF WE REMOVE THIS $100,000 THEN OF A FEE, THEN WHENEVER WE DO THE WATER RATE STUDY, THEORETICALLY SURE EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO GO UP, THOUGH, BUT THEORETICALLY, IT'S NOT GOING TO GO UP QUITE AS MUCH BECAUSE THIS WOULD NO LONGER BE A FACTOR INTO THE WATER RATE FEE. ALL VARIABLES ISOLATED, ALL OTHER YEAH, THINGS AS THEY ARE THAN THIS ONE THING IN ISOLATION. CORRECT. THERE WOULD BE AN EXTRA THEORETICALLY $100,000 THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS FUND BALANCE OR RATES COULD BE REDUCED BY THAT AMOUNT. YES. OKAY. WHAT PERCENTAGE MAY BE ON THE OTHER ONE, THOUGH, BUT WHAT PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE ARE ATTRIBUTE TO THIS $100,000? 75%. BASICALLY, I MEAN, WE MAY BE ABLE TO LOWER THE WATER RATE. I MEAN, THERE'S NO HEIGHTEN IT. IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO GO UP. WE KNOW THAT THOUGH, BUT IT MAY NOT GO UP AS MUCH ON THERE THOUGH. BUT ESSENTIALLY, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE A SLIGHTLY LOWER WATER RATE, BUT THEN IT'S GOING TO BE MADE UP BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING THE FEES. THE NET EFFECT WHENEVER THIS IS DONE, SINCE THERE'S SUCH A HIGH PERCENTAGE, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE ALL WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE JUST SHIFTING THE MONEY FROM A WATER RATE FEE AND ALSO A SEWER FEE. I MEAN, THE OTHER FEES THAT WE PAY. BUT WE'RE JUST MOVING THAT OUT OF THAT BUCKET AND MOVING IT OVER TO A LINE ITEM ON THEIR BILL. AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEIR BILL IS GOING TO BE THE SAME. UNLESS IF WE SOMEHOW INCENTIVIZE THEM TO USE ACH OR SOME OTHER METHOD,. ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, YES. ONE THING IT DOES SAVE IS THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING BY CHECK THAT ARE PAYING THROUGH OTHER METHODS. RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE THEORETICALLY PAYING A LITTLE BIT IN THEIR RATES, THOUGH THEY'RE NOT RECEIVING THAT CONVENIENCE OF THE ONLINE PORTAL. THAT'S THE INTERESTING POINT THERE. RIGHT NOW, I MEAN, THE WAY THAT SLATED IS IF I WANTED TO GET OUT OF THIS DOLLAR 25 FEE ON THERE, I WOULD NEED TO NOT USE THE PORTAL AT ALL, AND I WOULD NEED TO JUST BRING A CANCEL CHECK TO THE UTILITY BILLING WINDOW AND BE ENROLLED THAT. IN ACH? CORRECT. THAT WOULD AVOID THE PORTAL FEE ALTOGETHER. AS WOULD CASH PAYMENTS, AS WOULD BRINGING IN A CHECK OR WORKING WITH YOUR BANK TO HAVE A CHECK DELIVERED, CORRECT? YEAH. IT SEEMS THE SAME EITHER WAY TO ME. [01:25:04] I THINK THIS IS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE MOST UNPOPULAR DECISIONS MOST PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN ACCUSTOMED TO USING CREDIT CARDS. I THINK PRETTY MUCH EVERYBODY KNOWS, YOU GO TO THE GROCERY STORE, YOU BUY SOMETHING. WE'RE NOW ALL PAYING COLLECTIVELY MORE FOR EVERYTHING BECAUSE CREDIT CARD FEES ARE JUST PART OF THE EQUATION. IT'S JUST TO ME, IT'S THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS ANYMORE. WE'RE AT SUCH A HIGH THRESHOLD ON THERE THAT WE'LL PASS THIS AT THE END OF THE DAY. PEOPLE WILL BE PAYING PRETTY MUCH EXACTLY WHAT THEY WOULD BE IF WE DIDN'T MAKE THIS CHANGE, AND THEY'LL HATE US FOR IT AT THE SAME TIME. IT'S A NO WIN SITUATION. I ON ONE HAND, I'M HAPPY I ORIGINALLY ASKED A QUESTION. ON THE OTHER HAND. I WISH I WOULD HAVE NEVER BROUGHT IT UP, SO, BUT I APPRECIATE ALL YOUR WORK AND EVERYTHING, BRINGING ALL THESE NUMBERS TOGETHER. THANKS. YES, DETAILED ANALYSIS. WE APPRECIATE THAT. MR. PRESTENBERG. YES. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION AS WELL. A FEW QUESTIONS. MUNICIPAL COURT, 3% FEE ONLY ON TRANSACTION OF $1,000 OR MORE IS WHAT YOU ARE RECOMMENDING. WHY NOT CHARGE THE 3% FEE ON ANY CREDIT CARD PAYMENT FOR ANY LEVY OR FINE OR WHATNOT THAT'S PAID FOR A MUNICIPAL COURT. MUNICIPAL COURT IS SHOWING FOR THE TRANSACTION FEE POLICY ON THAT SECOND ROW DOWN TO THAT CHARGE. WHY ARE WE LIMITING IT TO $1000 OR MORE AND NOT $500 OR $400? YOU BET. THAT POLICY WAS ADDED FOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN OCTOBER 2021. THIS IS JUST TAKING THE EXISTING POLICY AND SAYING, HOW ABOUT WE SPREAD IT ACROSS. IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED TO ADJUST THAT. I'D BE OPEN TO THAT JUST BEING ALL MUNICIPAL COURT PAYMENTS HAVE THE 3% FEE IF THEY CHOOSE TO PAY VIA CARD. AS FOR UTILITY BILLS, SO YOU CAN DO ONLINE BILL PAY CHECK. CASH, CHECK. YOU CAN PAY YOUR UTILITY BILL AT YOU CAN PAY IT AT KROGER AND WALMART, IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO. THERE'S PLENTY OF ALTERNATIVES WHERE YOU WOULD NOT RECEIVE A FEE. IS THAT FAIR? THAT'S FAIR. I UNDER THE MINDSET THAT I MEAN, I USE A DEBIT CARD AS WELL, AND SO I MEAN GOT TO FIGURE OUT BILL PAY OR I'M GOING TO HAVE TO JUST EAT THE 3% OR 2% OR WHATEVER IT IS. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN EXPENSE THAT WE SHOULD EAT AS A CITY. I MEAN, WE HAVE COSTS GOING UP EVERYWHERE. I KNOW THE CONVENIENCE IS THERE, BUT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS THERE'S A COST FOR THAT CONVENIENCE. I'D RATHER NOT HAVE 200 I GUESS YOU THINK THE MUNICIPAL FEES PLUS IT'S 350,000. AS WATER RATES ARE ONLY GOING TO GO UP, I HAVEN'T SEEN THEM GO DOWN YET, SO THAT JUST MEANS OUR AVERAGE BILL IS GOING TO GO, WHICH MEANS THE PERCENTAGE IS GOING TO JUST KEEP RISING. I'D BE CURIOUS IN 2018 WHEN WE WERE DECIDING THE ROAD OF WHAT THE FEE AMOUNT WAS AT THE TIME IS PROBABLY ABOUT 200,000 OR SO, AND JUST SOLELY, MATRICULATING UP. MY RECOMMENDATION IS FEES FOR ALL. MUNICIPAL COURT FOR EVERY TRANSACTION, AND THEN SAME WITH THE UTILITY BILLS. THANK YOU. BASICALLY, JUST A PASS THROUGH FOR EVERYTHING. YES. MAYOR PRO TEM FRANKS. YEAH, MR. LINDSAY SAID THAT EVERYONE'S GOING TO HATE US NO MATTER WHAT, AND I WANT TO TAKE THE OTHER APPROACH HERE BECAUSE THIS HAS MADE ME REALLY LOOK AT HOW I PAY MY BILLS ACROSS THE BOARD, AND I WAS PAYING ABOUT $50 IN FEES A MONTH BECAUSE I PUT EVERYTHING THROUGH WHATEVER PORTAL THEY HAD. BUT IF I USE MY BANK PORTAL, IT DIDN'T COST ME ANYTHING EXTRA. I'VE STARTED DOING ALL THAT WITH ALL MY BILLS. A LITTLE EDUCATIONAL MOMENT. TO BE CLEAR, YOUR $50 WAS NOT THROUGH CITY OF SACHSE. [LAUGHTER] NO. I'M TALKING ACROSS. ALL OF MY BILLS. YEAH, YOU BET. YOURS WAS JUST A PERCENTAGE. THE 1% THE TRANSACTION FEE PER CARD, DIFFERENT CARDS, DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES, HOW WOULD WE CAPTURE THAT? I MEAN, AM MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOUR BILL IS $53 UNTIL YOU PUT YOUR CARD INFORMATION IN, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHAT THAT FEE IS. WAIT A MINUTE. YOUR CARD ALSO HAS A 1.5% CLICK YES IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE TYPE THING, BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE AN EXTRA FEE AFTER THEY'VE ALREADY GOT THEIR BILL. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAPTURE THAT BEFOREHAND. THE CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION FEES, I CANNOT CAPTURE AT THE POINT OF THE TRANSACTION. IN FACT, IT'S NOT TILL MUCH LATER, AND IT'S IN AGGREGATE. EVEN WHEN I GET A LIST, CAN I IDENTIFY THAT ONE PERSON WITH THAT TRANSACTION AMOUNT? I CANNOT. WE DON'T KNOW THAT ALL MASTER CARDS GET 2.5%, [01:30:05] AND ALL VISAS GET 2%. CORRECT. DINERS CLUB, DISCOVER CARD, AMERICAN EXPRESS, EVERYBODY HAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT. WHAT CITIES HAVE DONE, THE ONES WHO CHOOSE TO CHARGE IS OFTEN THEY PICK A GENERAL PERCENT, SAY, BETWEEN 1.5 AND 3.5%, AND CHARGE THAT ON ALL TRANSACTIONS. ALL RIGHT. OR IS THERE A WAY TO APPLY IT TO THE NEXT BILL? NOT THAT I KNOW. I MEAN, I'M JUST THINKING THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO CAPTURE THAT INDEPENDENTLY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF THAT. THAT'S WHY IF COUNSEL CHOOSES TO MAKE ALL THE FEES PASS THROUGH, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO PICK A 2.5% ON CREDIT CARD FOR ANYTHING. ON SOME, WE WOULD BE OKAY. SOME WE WOULD STILL LOSE "WE'D STILL TO EAT SOME OF THAT MONEY" I'M ASSUMING. IF THE FEE IS HIGHER. SOMEBODY WOULD WIN. THAT PERSON WHO'S GETTING ALL THAT CASH BACK PER TRANSACTION. YEAH, THEY'D GET THE BETTER DEAL. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ISOLATE THAT LEVEL. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, YOU'D HAVE TO PICK A NUMBER. CORRECT. MS. HOWARTH. IN MY EXPERIENCE AS A RETAILER PAYING THESE FEES MYSELF. USUALLY THE HIGHER FEES ARE ON CARDS THAT GIVE THE CARD HOLDER MORE BENEFITS, LIKE YOU GET MILES OR HOTEL POINTS OR WHATEVER THAT'S USUALLY WHY THE FEES ARE MORE AND IF IT'S A PLAIN JAIN OLD CARD, THE FEES ARE LOWER. WE'RE NOT JUST EATING THE COST OF BUSINESS, WE'RE EATING THE COST OF BUSINESS AND AIRLINE MILES OR OR CASH BACK OR WHATEVER THE CARD IS THING. I WOULD RATHER SPEND THAT $250,000 A YEAR ON SOMETHING OF HIGHER BENEFIT TO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING TAXES. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE NECESSARILY PAYING YOUR PROPERTY TAX TO HAVE IT PAY FOR SOMEBODY'S CREDIT CARD FEE WHEN THEY COULD PAY THEIR BILL WITH THEIR ONLINE PAYMENT TRANSFER FROM THEIR BANK, AND IT'D BE FREE. I THINK THERE'S A COST TO CONVENIENCE THAT ISN'T NECESSARILY DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE ABSORBED BY THE TAXPAYER HERE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU'RE CHOOSING TO DO AND YOU HAVE OTHER ALTERNATIVES. MY GUT SAYS LIKE A 2.5% FEE ON ALL CREDIT CARD TRANSACTIONS. IF YOU CHOOSE TO USE A CREDIT CARD OR A DEBIT CARD, THEN YOU'RE GOING BECAUSE YOU WANT POINTS OR YOU WANT MILES OR IT'S CONVENIENT OR WHATEVER THE REASON IS THAT YOU PAY FOR THAT CONVENIENCE, JUST LIKE I HAVE TO PAY IF I CHOOSE TO PAY MY KIDS SCHOOL LUNCH ACCOUNT. WITH A CREDIT CARD, I HAVE A FEE THAT I HAVE TO PAY, FOR LOOKS IN POLICY. I WOULDN'T BE OPPOSED TO 3% BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO T 3% OVER $1000, OR I'M A LITTLE AGNOSTIC ABOUT THE NUMBER. 2.5 STICKS BECAUSE THAT'S WHICH ROUNDING, WE EVEN EVERYTHING OUT AND SHOULD EVENTUALLY SHOULD IN THEORY BE REVENUE NEUTRAL. I DON'T KNOW THAT'S THE CASE, BUT IN THEORY, THAT'S HOW THAT WOULD WORK, BUT THAT'S MY $0.02. NOT YOUR 2%, BUT $0.02. [BACKGROUND] >> MR. LINDSEY, BACK TO ME AGAIN. THAT'S A FALLACY IN THINKING, AT LEAST WHENEVER IT COMES TO THE UTILITY FUND. I ADMITTED THAT I HAD THIS FALLACY LAST TIME AT THE COUNCIL MEETING. BECAUSE PRIOR TO THAT, I SAID, OH, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD SAVE THE $250,000 IN THE UTILITY FUND, AND GO BE ABLE TO SPEND THAT SOMEWHERE ELSE. LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, ON MERRITT ROAD OR ONE OF OUR OTHER PROJECTS. FOR ONE, IT'S A UTILITY FUND, ALL THE MONEY HAS TO STAY THERE. AGAIN, WHENEVER IT'S A COST OF DOING BUSINESS, THAT COST OF DOING BUSINESS IS FACTORED INTO THE RATE. THERE IS NO ABSORBING OF ANY CREDIT CARD FEES. WE DON'T ABSORB ANYTHING. WE TAKE THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS, AND WE CHARGE THE ADEQUATE RATE TO COVER THAT. IT'S MEANT TO BE A NONPROFIT FUND. IT DOES ABSOLUTELY NO GOOD ON THE UTILITY FUND SIDE. THE OTHER FUNDS, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE, AND THAT'S WHY I SUPPORT MAKING THE CHANGES. BECAUSE OVER ON THE MUNICIPAL COURT SIDE. I MEAN, IF WE'RE NOT CHARGING A FEE RIGHT THERE AND WE'RE ABSORBING IT, THAT IS LESS IN THE BUDGET. THAT IS MONEY THAT WE COULD TAKE AND SPEND SOMEWHERE ELSE. UTILITY FUND, ANY SAVINGS THAT WE HAVE, GO DIRECTLY BACK TO THE CONSUMER. COUNCIL MEMBER FRANKS MADE A I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE PAYING $50 A MONTH. I'M TALKING CORE UTILITIES. I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT YOUR MACY'S CARD OR WHATEVER ELSE YOU MAY BE PAYING. I DON'T KNOW. MACY'S STILL EVEN EXIST, THOUGH, BUT ANYWAY, I'M TALKING ABOUT CORE UTILITIES. WHAT'S THE BREAD AND BUTTER? WHAT ARE THE PEOPLE, THE FAMILIES OUT THERE THAT ARE STRUGGLING? WHAT ARE THEIR CORE PAYMENTS THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO MAKE? IT'S GOING TO BE GAS. WE'VE GOT ATMLS, FOR EXAMPLE, ATMLS DOES NOT CHARGE A CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE. YOU CAN PICK YOUR ELECTRICAL PROVIDERS OFFHAND. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COOP DOES, THOUGH, BUT THE MAJORITY OF SAX, YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF RETAILERS. I'VE NEVER IN A RETAILER THAT'S CHARGED EXTRA FOR CREDIT CARD FEE. YOUR ELECTRICITY FOR THE MOST PART, UNLESS THERE'S JUST SOME PLAN OUT THERE THAT CHARGES A FEE. BUT AGAIN, CONSUMERS CAN SHOP AROUND, [01:35:01] FIND A PLAN THAT DOESN'T HAVE A FEE ON IT. WIRELESS IS ESSENTIAL SERVICE NOWADAYS. COMMUNICATION AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WIRELESS INTERNET SERVICES ON THERE. I KNOW AT&T DOES NOT CHARGE A CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE, SPECTRUM DOES NOT CHARGE A CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEE. ALL OF THOSE COMPANIES, THEY TAKE WHATEVER THE COST OF DOING BUSINESSES, AND THEY FACTOR THAT INTO WHAT THEY BILL YOU ON THERE. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE TRADING WHAT LINE ITEM THIS IS COMING FROM. PEOPLE ARE STILL GOING TO BE USED TO DOING BUSINESSES AWAY. I CAN'T IN MY OWN FINANCES. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING WHERE SOMEBODY'S PAYING $50 A MONTH ON THERE AND FEES. THE ONLY DISAPPOINTMENT I HAVE IS THAT I DIDN'T SWITCH MY CREDIT CARD POINTS TO ON MY WATER BILL A LONG TIME AGO, LIKE I DO FOR EVERY ONE OF MY OTHER BILLS THAT I CURRENTLY HAVE. I THINK THAT'S EVERYTHING. >> MR. PRESTENBERG, THAT'S OKAY. GOOD MISS HERMES. >> I WAS JUST GOING TO CLARIFY THAT I'D RATHER SPEND THAT $246,000 ON NEW SEWER LINES AND WATER LINES BECAUSE THAT COULD BE SPENT OR A NEW HYDRO EXCAVATOR THE NEXT TIME WE HAVE TO PAY FOR IT IN THE SEWER DEPARTMENT. THERE'S OTHER NONE OF THESE FEES ARE NECESSARY. WE ARE CHOOSING AS CUSTOMERS TO HAVE THE THINGS. BECAUSE OF THE WAY I CHOOSE TO PAY MY BILL, I CAN INFLICT A FEE OF $4.50 OR $10.50 ON THE CITY TO TAKE MY MONEY OR TO GIVE THEM MY MONEY. I'M JUST BASING THAT OFF MY GIGANTIC WATER BILL FROM LAST MONTH. IF IT WAS 1.5% OR 3.5%. THAT'S MY CHOICE. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD NECESSARILY BE. YOU KNOW, MR. MILLSAP'S FEE TO PAY BECAUSE I WANT TO PAY MY CARD THAT WAY. I WOULD RATHER HAVE THIS BE INDIVIDUAL CHOICE, AND IF YOU CHOOSE TO PAY THAT WAY, THEN YOU CAN COVER ALL THE COSTS INFLICTED ON THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY. >> MR. LINDSEY. >> I PROMISED THE LAST COMMENT HERE. WHAT WE'RE SAYING THERE IS THAT AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S THIS VOICE I HEAR OUT OF PUBLIC INPUT, THOUGH. BUT WE KNOW THAT WE CAN SAVE YOU MONEY, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND INSTEAD OF SAVING YOU THAT MONEY AND REDUCING YOUR RATE. WE'RE GOING TO INSTEAD GO SPEND THAT MONEY SOMEWHERE ELSE JUST BECAUSE WE CAN'T. THAT'S THE WAY THAT I TAKE THAT ON THERE. IT'S NOT OUR MONEY TO SPEND ON THERE. IF WE'RE NOT CHARGING THAT FEE ANYMORE, THEN THE WATER RATE SHOULD GO DOWN. WE SHOULDN'T JUST OH, NOW WE CAN GO SPEND IT OVER HERE. I'M HEARING A WHOLE NEW FUND DEVELOP THIS. >> MR. PRESTENBERG? >> YES. SORRY. WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR UTILITY PROJECTS, WE HAD A LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS, DIDN'T WE? THAT WERE, LIKE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS, AND WE CHOSE TO ONLY DO CERTAIN FEES A CERTAIN WAY SO THAT WE COULD SAVE OR HAVE A FUND TO SAVE THOSE THINGS. I DON'T THINK ANYONE'S SAYING NOT TO CHARGE FOLKS THAT WE CAN SPEND MONEY ELSEWHERE. JUST IF THAT MONEY IS GOING TO GET SPENT AND IT CAN ONLY GET SPENT IN UTILITY IN THE UTILITY FUND. THEN WHY NOT SPEND IT TOWARDS A PROJECT. OVER FOUR YEARS, YOU'RE GOING TO SAVE $1 MILLION. THAT'S REAL MONEY. I THINK THAT'S A LEGITIMATE CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, FOLKS HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OR THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO FIVE OR SIX DIFFERENT PLACES AND PAY THEIR BILL. ACTUALLY, THEY CAN GO TO THE BEACH AND PAY THEIR BILL WITH BILL PAY FOR FREE. I THINK WE'RE JUST ABOUT EDUCATION, GET THEM GOING, SO THANK YOU. >> JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, MR. BALDWIN. I KNOW MR. LINDSEY HAD TALKED ABOUT THE CONSULTANT AND WHAT THEY LOOK AT, ALL THE DATA. IS IT FAIR TO SAY THAT IF WE NO LONGER HAD ABSORBED THIS COST IN UTILITY FUND, THAT WOULD GO INTO THEIR CALCULATIONS OVERALL, CORRECT? CORRECT. THE RATE WOULD BE WHAT IT IS. TO BE SIMPLE TODAY, IF YOU HAD TWO SCENARIOS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEM, THEY'D HAVE ONE SCENARIO, THE RATE IS GOING TO BE THIS BECAUSE WE ABSORBED THIS COST, BUT THEN THEY COULD SAY, OKAY, WELL, HERE'S WHAT THE RATE WOULD BE IF WE DIDN'T ABSORB THIS COST. I MEAN, THE CONSULTANT IS ALWAYS GOING TO DO THAT. THEN ALSO TWO, THAT RIGHT NOW, AGAIN, GOING TO CREDIT CARD PROCESSING FEES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD YOU. THAT IS ONE WAY TO PAY. BUT LIKE I SAID, I CALL IT BILL PAY AT MY BANK, BUT BILL PAY ACH, OBVIOUSLY, GOOD OLD FASHIONED CASH CHECK PAPER CHECK. TO DON'T INCUR FEES IF YOU PAY THEM THAT WAY. AT LEAST SURELY THE WAY IT IS CORRECT? YES. STAFF DONE, RIGHT. >> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE MR MILLSAP. >> I HEARD A LOT OF DISCUSSION HERE TONIGHT, BUT BELIEVE ME, AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, IT DOES COST MONEY TO TAKE A CREDIT CARD. [01:40:02] IT TAKES TIME, IT TAKES CAPITAL. ANYTHING AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, ANYTHING YOU'RE PAYING FOR CREDIT CARD FEES BY THE CUSTOMER USING THEIR CREDIT CARD AND YOU'RE NOT RECOUP AND GRADING THAT COST THAT THE CREDIT CARD COMPANY IS COSTING YOU. THAT COMES OUT OF YOUR BOTTOM LINE, NET PROFIT. IT'S ALREADY BUILT INTO THE BILL ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. IN OUR CASE HERE, IT'S ALREADY BEEN BUILT IN OUR BILL. AND NOW, BACK BEFORE COVID, OBVIOUSLY, WE WERE CHARGING THIS AND WE WERE RECOUPING. IF WE GO AHEAD AND REESTABLISH A CREDIT CARD AMOUNT, WHATEVER WOULD BE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DEDUCT THAT HERE, THAT HAVING THE COST OF THE BILLING PER CUSTOMER. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO GET ANY PROFIT OUT OF IT. BENEFIT THERE. MAYBE IT WILL ALLOW US NOT TO RAISE OUR RATES IN THE FUTURE QUITE SO FAST, EVEN THOUGH THAT MAY ONLY WIND UP BEING A NICKEL OR A QUARTER A MONTH ON SOMEBODY'S BILL WHEN YOU'RE PRO RATE IT OUT. BUT I STILL THINK WE NEED TO RECUPERATE OUR COSTS TO DO ARE MEASURABLE DIRECT COST OF THIS TYPE. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD CONTROL OUR COST BY THE LOTS OF THINGS WE DO IN THE CITY THAT WE CAN'T CONTROL OUR FLOATING COST, AND WE HAVE TO ABSORB IT AS IT COMES, BUT THIS, WE DON'T HAVE TO ABSORB IT. BUT WHAT I SEE THE DISADVANTAGE OF IT BY DOING JUST A FEE IS IN OUR LINE OF BUSINESS, THE BANK WILL ALLOW US. OUR BANK WILL ALLOW US AS WE'RE PROCESSING AN INVOICE. WE PUNCH AND THEY'RE PAYING WITH CREDIT CARD, WE PUNCH A BUTTON, AND IT ADDS AN AUTOMATIC FEE TO THAT. YOU'RE PAYING BASED ON THE AMOUNT YOU USE. WHAT I'D HATE TO SEE IS THAT SOMEBODY'S PAYING A BILL OF 50 BUCKS, HAVING TO PAY A DOLLAR OR TWO DOLLARS FEE, AS OPPOSED TO SOMEBODY'S PAYING A BILL OF $800, STILL ONLY HAVING TO PAY A DOLLAR OR TWO DOLLARS FEE. BUT I DON'T SEE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD REASONABLY GO BACK AND DO THAT WITHOUT GOING BACK THROUGH OUR LOCAL BANK. DOING A LOT OF ACCOUNTING AND A LOT OF AUDITING, AND A LOT OF REDEVELOPING OUR PROGRAMS TO BE ABLE TO IF YOU'RE PAYING CREDIT, WE PUNCH A BUTTON. BUT THEN ALSO THAT THAT TAKES SOMEBODY TO PUNCH THAT BUTTON, SO THAT'S ANOTHER COST. YOU HAVEN'T REALLY SAVED ANYTHING BY DOING THAT. BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF GOING BACK TO WHAT WE HAD PRE COVID. >> JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, PRE COVID ON CREDIT CARDS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG MS. NASH, IS THAT WE WERE STILL ABSORBING THAT. BUT WE CAN GO. WE COULD CERTAINLY GO BEYOND THAT, BUT JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. >> RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. THAT THIRD COLUMN THERE WITH A $100,000. THAT IS PRE COVID, THE CUSTOMER WAS PAYING. THE CITY WAS TAKING ON THE FIXED SERVICE FEES AND THE TRANSACTION FEES. THE ONLY PIECE THERE THAT'S DIFFERENT THAT PRE COVID THAT THE CUSTOMER WAS PAYING WAS THOSE THAT PORTAL FEES OF ABOUT $100,000? >> I JUST WANT TO SPECIFICALLY FOR UTILITY BILLINGS JUST $25. >> YEAH. BUT WE CAN OBVIOUSLY MODIFY THAT EVEN MORE IF WE WANT. YES. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. PRESTENBERG. QUESTIONS? WE GOT A SPEAKER'S CARD. THANK YOU, MR. BALDWIN. MR. KEMPER. COME ON, DOWN. YOU GOT GEORGE ON YOUR CARD. I WAS GOING TO CALL YOU BUTCH. >> I WANT TO BE LEGAL. >> OKAY. >> BUTCH TELLS ME THAT YOU KNOW ME PERSONALLY. GEORGE SAYS, YOU DON'T KNOW ME. YOU MAY BE A BILL COLLECTOR, YOU MAY BE A SHERIFF OFFICER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> I'LL DEFINITELY REMEMBER THAT. >> BUTCH KEMPER, 7107, LONG MEADOW DRIVE HERE IN SACHSE. I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT ONE THING THAT I THINK YOU ALL ARE OVERLOOKING. THAT IS, NO MATTER HOW THE CREDIT CARD FEE IS PAID, AND WHETHER YOU COLLECT IT FROM THE CUSTOMER OR NOT, THE CUSTOMER IS STILL PAYING THE CREDIT CARD FEE, EVEN IN YOUR BUSINESS, HE'S PAYING THAT CREDIT CARD FEE FOR THE COST OF SERVICE. BUT ANOTHER THING I THINK THAT HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED, AND THAT IS, AND RUNNING A BUSINESS, IT COST MONEY TO COLLECT MONEY. TODAY, WHEN WE'RE DOING CREDIT CARDS, ELECTRONIC COLLECTION, THERE ARE SOME ISSUES THAT YOU DON'T SEE AS MUCH, AND THAT IS THE COST OF COLLECTING THAT MONEY AND TAKING IT TO THE BANK. I RAN A SMALL BUSINESS. WE HAD OVER $1 MILLION A YEAR INCOME. [01:45:01] EVERY DAY, MY WIFE WENT TO THE BANK, I WENT TO THE POST OFFICE AND OPENED UP AND PULLED ALL THESE BILLS OUT, WHICH HAD CHECKS IN THEM, CAME BACK AND CUT OPEN THE BILLS, WROTE THE CHECKS DOWN ON A RECEIPT, AND WE HAD TO CALCULATE THE PAYMENT IN AND ALL THAT STUFF. THAT WAS COSTING ME ONE FULL TIME EMPLOYEE AT MINIMUM, ALMOST TWO. WHEN YOU LOOK AT 3%, 4% ON $1 MILLION, THAT'S $40,000. THAT'S THE COST OF ONE EMPLOYEE. I THINK YOU'RE OVERLOOKING THAT. THERE'S NO SURCHARGES TO TAKE CHECKS, AND THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH BOUNCED CHECKS. IF THE CARDS DECLINED AT THE BEGINNING, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE ALL THOSE EXTRA CHARGES. BUT IT DOES COST TO HANDLE THAT CASH, AND YOU GOT TO CONSIDER THEFT AND MISTAKES AND BONDS AND ALL OF THAT. YOU GET YOUR MONEY FASTER WITH A CREDIT CARD. YOU GET IT CONSISTENTLY EVERY MONTH AT A TIME, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE BILLING PEOPLE. MY VOTE OR MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE JUST BE LIKE THE GROCERY STORE. WHATEVER THE BILL IS, TAKE IT. PAY IT. CUSTOMER IS GOING TO PAY IT ANYWAY, WHETHER YOU RAISE THE RATES. BECAUSE YOU'RE HAVING TO ABSORB IT OR WHETHER THE CUSTOMER IS PAYING IT BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT YOU'RE NOT DOING IT. YOU KNOW, TIMES ARE CHANGING, AND THESE CREDIT CARDS ARE COMING IN ALL SORTS OF PLACES. THERE'S EVEN COMPANIES NOW THAT YOU WALK IN AND GO DOWN TO TIFF'S COOKIES DOWN IN THE FIRE-WHEEL MALL. YOU GO TO BUY SOME COOKIES. PULLED OUT A $20 BILL. >> YOUR TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> YES, SIR. OKAY. YOU PULL OUT A $20 BILL, AND THEY'LL SAY, WE DON'T TAKE CASH. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. KEMPER. ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS SIDE. COME ON DOWN, SIR. >> MARTY HOBOK 5511 OAK RIDGE, CIRCLE, SACHSE, TEXAS, TOP OF THE HILL. I KNOW IT'S AN EASY FEAT, BUT MR. LINDSEY CONFUSED ME. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A QUESTION OF WATER RATES. IT'S A QUESTION THAT THERE IS $250,000 OUT THERE THAT THE CITY JUST SPENDS. IF THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY IS NOT ALREADY FIGURED INTO MY WATER RATE, SHAME ON YOU. BUT YOU SHOULDN'T BE EATING IT. WHETHER WHAT FUND IT GOES INTO. THIS GENTLEMAN HERE WITH THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT OUGHT TO BE ABLE TO COME UP HERE AND SAY, THE CITY OF SACHSE IS RECOVERING EVERYTHING WE CAN THAT WE THINK IS RIGHT. WE'RE BREAKING EVEN ON THIS. IF YOU CHANGE THE FEE TO RECOVER THIS $250,000, HE SHOULD BE ABLE TO COME UP HERE NEXT YEAR AND SAY, WE SAVE $250,000. WHERE YOU SPEND IT IS A TOTALLY DIFFERENT ARGUMENT, BUT YOU SAVE $250,000. >> JUST LIKE IF YOU WOULDN'T HAVE GONE TO TML THE LAST TWO YEARS, WE WOULD HAVE SAVED $30,000, AND THAT'S PEOPLE'S RAISES THAT'S BEING ABLE TO MAYBE PATCH A POTHOLE. IT'S REAL MONEY. THIS SHOULDN'T BE A WATER RATE ARGUMENT. IT SHOULD BE, HOW DO I SAVE MONEY AT CITY HALL? THAT'S IT. >> THANK, MR. HUBERT. MY APOLOGIES. YES. MS. JANEY DID SUBMIT A COMMENT CARD IN THE EMAIL, SHE'S NOT HERE TONIGHT. SO COUNCIL DOES HAVE A COPY OF THAT AND HER COMMENTS WILL BE NOTED FOR THE RECORD BY MS. GRANGER. WITH THAT, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, MOTIONS. DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE, MR. BALDWIN? NO. MR. PRESTENBERG. >> THERE'S NO FURTHER COMMENT. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR ITEM F2 TO STATE OR TO RECOMMEND ALL FEES BE PASSED THROUGH TO CUSTOMER WHEN PAYING FOR MUNICIPAL OR PAYING FOR UTILITY. >> HAVE A MOTION BY MR. PRESTENBERG TO MAKE ALL PROCESSING FEES PASSED THROUGH, [01:50:03] DO I HAVE A SECOND? MS. HOWARTH. >> CAN I GET CLARIFICATION ON THAT? >> WHAT'S SHE DO? A SECOND? >> A SECOND FOR DISCUSSION. >> SECOND BY MS. HOWARTH, FOR DISCUSSION. GO RIGHT AHEAD. >> I THINK WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT THAT PASS THROUGH RATE IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE IT VARIES. >> TO MY CREDIT CARD? >> YES. >> OH, YEAH. DO YOU WANT TO CLARIFY THE CREDIT CARD? 2.5, 3%? OH, I'M SORRY. MY BAD. THERE YOU GO. YES. >> YEAH. THANKS FOR THE QUESTION. BUT CLARIFICATION WOULD BE 2.5% FOR UTILITIES AND 3% FOR THE MUNICIPAL. PASSED THROUGH. >> THAT'S THE MOTION. MS. HOWARTH? >> SECOND. >> YOU STILL OKAY WITH THAT? >> YES. >> MS. NASH HAD A COMMENT. CLARIFICATION EXCUSE. >> CAN WE GET THE PRESENTATION PUT BACK UP REAL QUICK? THANK YOU. BECAUSE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I GET SOME CLARIFICATION ON THIS, PARTICULARLY THE SLIDE. SORRY. IT'S NOT ON MY SCREEN YET. THERE WE GO. ACTUALLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS CAN WE GO TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS WHAT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE? THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE MAKE CLARIFICATION ON. IF WE GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT YOU WANT TO DO 2.5% ON UTILITY BILLS AND 3% ON MUNICIPAL COURT. THAT'S REALLY JUST FOR THE TRANSACTION FEES. IS THAT ALL YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION ON, IS JUST ON THE TRANSACTION FEES, OR WHAT ABOUT THE PORTAL FEES? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND BECAUSE THOSE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DISTINCTIONS. >> YEAH, AS FAR AS PASS THROUGH. I THINK YOU WANTED EVERYTHING TO BE PASS THROUGH, RIGHT? >> YES. >> INCLUDING UTILITY BILL. IT'S WHAT MS. NASH IS ASKING, IS THAT CORRECT? >> BUT THE WAY THE UTILITY BILLING IS IS IT'S NOT A PERCENTAGE, IT'S A PER TRANSACTION COST. ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT ALL TO PERCENTAGE? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I MAKE THAT CLARIFICATION. >> WELL, IN MY OPINION, THE $1.25 WOULD GO AWAY, IT WOULD BE A 2.5% UTILITY BILL PAYMENT OR FEE, I GUESS, YOU'D SAY ON TOP. >> BASED ON THE TRANSACTION? >> YES. >> THEN 3% FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT? >> YES. >> OKAY. IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, DAVID, THERE ARE STILL OTHER FEES AND OTHER DEPARTMENTS, LIKE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS. AND SO WHAT WOULD THE FEE THEN BE PROPOSED FOR THOSE? ARE YOU PROPOSING ANY CHANGES? >> IN MY OPINION, THOSE TWO DEVELOPMENT AND ALL OTHER DEPARTMENTS WERE SO MINIMAL IN NATURE THAT IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THERE WOULD BE ANY CHANGES OR THAT WE WOULD ADOPT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> I WAS GOING TO SAY STAFF RECOMMENDATION. >> IS 3% ON ANYTHING OVER [INAUDIBLE]? >> THE DEVELOPMENT? YES. >> MS. HOWARTH. >> I'M SORRY MAYOR, I APOLOGIZE. I NEED ANOTHER CLARIFICATION. ON THAT PREVIOUS SLIDE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. THOSE PORTAL FEES, YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING DO THOSE ANYMORE AT ALL. ALL YOU'RE SAYING IS 2.5% ON UTILITY BILLING, 3% ON MUNICIPAL COURT, AND THEN ON OTHER DEPARTMENTS, AND MY APOLOGIES, DAVID, CAN YOU FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE, AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE THE 3% FEE ON EACH TRANSACTION ABOVE 1,000. >> YES. >> CORRECT ME, YOU WERE GOING WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THAT? >> YES. >> YEAH. I GOT YOU. >> AND NOTHING AND NOT HAVING THE PORTAL FEE? >> JUST LIKE IT SAYS RIGHT HERE. YES. >> I THINK COUNCIL CHRIS WANTS THE $1.25 PORTAL FEE PLUS 2.5% TRANSACTION. >> YES. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. DO I NEED TOTALLY [INAUDIBLE] >> FOR MS. GRANGER'S SANITY, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I CAN'T TELL YOU TO WITHDRAW IT, BUT YOU CAN WITHDRAW. IF YOU WITHDRAW YOUR MOTION, WE CAN START UP. IF YOU'RE WILLING TO DO THAT. >> I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY MOTION. >> THERE WE GO. BEFORE WE DO THAT, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> YEAH, MY COMMENT WAS MOTION WAS PASSED THROUGH FEES ON ALL THINGS AND THAT WAS NOT WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. THAT'S WHY I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. >> BUT HE WITHDREW IT. >> WELL, HE DID. >> YEAH. GOOD POINT OF CLARIFICATION. >> WELL, WE HAVE PORTAL FEES, AND WE HAVE TRANSACTION FEES, I'M JUST SAYING FEES. >> THE MIC IS YOURS. >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. THAT UTILITY BILLING FEES BE PASSED THROUGH AT THE RATE OF 2.5% FOR TRANSACTION FEES AND THE PORTAL FEE OF $1.25, [01:55:04] WHAT IS IT? I DON'T HAVE IT UP HERE. >> SLIP BACK TO THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. >> YES, $1 25 PER TRANSACTION WOULD BE PASSED THROUGH. THEN FOR THE MUNICIPAL COURT FEES WOULD BE 3% PER TRANSACTION FEE AND THE DOLLAR TO 250 TRANSACTION FEE AS WELL, AND THEN ALL OTHER FEES WOULD FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. IS THAT CLEAR? >> WE'RE ABOUT TO FIND OUT. >> MS. HOWARTH. >> THAT WAS BIP. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THAT A SECOND? >> IN ESSENCE. >> BEFORE WE COMMENT ANYMORE OR VOTE, MS. NASH, ARE YOU ARE YOU GOOD? ANYMORE QUESTION? >> NO, I UNDERSTAND. >> MS. GRANGER. >> I'M CLEAR. >> SHE'S GOT HER HAND UP SO. >> IT'S A LONG THING FOR HER TO TYPE IN. >> OH, IT'S JUST TYPING. DID YOU HAVE COMMENT BRETT FRANKS? >> I DO. >> GO AHEAD. >> QUESTION. DO WE NOT HAVE MANY UTILITY BILLING ACCOUNTS OVER $1,000? DO WE NOT HAVE ANY? >> WELL, ACCOUNTS, DEVELOPERS BUNDLE ACCOUNTS? >> YEAH. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY PAYMENTS DO WE HAVE OVER $1,000? >> SURE. >> MY WATER BILL FOR A SINGLE RESIDENCY HAS BEEN OVER $300 AT SOME POINT. >> WE PULLED SEPTEMBER TRANSACTIONS FOR THINGS THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE ONLINE PORTAL, AGAIN, THAT'S THE VOICE, THE TEXT, THE WEB PAYMENTS. THE AVERAGE PAYMENT IS $206.59 IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER. AS FAR AS OVER $1,000, 67 OUT OF 7,220 TRANSACTIONS WERE $1,000 OR GREATER. >> SO TELL ME THE LOGIC BEHIND NOT CHARGING A 3% FEE ON TRANSACTION FEES OVER $1,000 FOR UTILITY BILLING AND DOING THAT SO ON THE OTHER ALL OF THE DEPARTMENTS, BASICALLY. WHAT'S THE LOGIC THERE? >> IT'S COUNCIL'S PURVIEW, SO I DEFER TO WHATEVER COUNCIL SAYS. >> WELL, YOU'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> YOU'RE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION, SO WHAT'S THE LOGIC? >> MY INDIVIDUAL THOUGHT PROCESS AT THE TIME WAS THAT I'M AWARE OF DEVELOPERS WHO PAY FOR MULTIPLE LOTS, MULTIPLE HOMES AT ONE TIME, CHARGED INDIVIDUALLY. THOSE WOULDN'T PERHAPS BE ASSESSED A FEE BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T BE OVER 1,000, BUT HOW THEY'RE OFTEN PAID IN BUNCHES MIGHT BE OVER. >> INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES, WE HAVE LESS THAN A HANDFUL OVER $1,000? >> WE HAVE AN LESS THAN $1,000 WE HAVE MORE THAN 7,000. >> EXCUSE ME, MORE THAN A 1,000, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. >> NO. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET YOU DIRECTLY. >> IN SEPTEMBER, WE HAD 67 THAT WERE $1,000. >> OH, THOSE WERE NOT, THOSE WERE BUNDLED. YOU SAID INDIVIDUALLY. >> NO. I DIDN'T SPEAK TO THE QUANTITY THAT'S BUNDLED, THAT I'M NOT AWARE OF. >> OKAY. >> CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS? >> IS THAT OKAY? >> NO. >> I'M SORRY. MR. LINDSEY. >> YEAH. JUST CLARIFICATION. WHAT ARE WE VOTING FOR AGAIN? I AM STILL UNCLEAR. CAN WE JUST REPEAT WHAT CHANGES ARE BEING MADE? >> MS. GRANGER HAS IT. >> I HAVE THAT COUNCIL PRESTENBERG MADE A MOTION TO PASS THROUGH UTILITY BILLING FEES OF 2.5% FOR TRANSACTION FEE, AND PORTAL FEE OF, I'M SORRY, $1.25 PER TRANSACTION. ALL THAT WOULD BE PASSED THROUGH. COURT WOULD BE 3% PER TRANSACTION FEE, AND 1-$2.50 PER TRANSACTION FOR THE PORTAL FEES. ALL OTHERS TO FOLLOW STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. >> I DIDN'T HEAR THAT AT THE END EARLIER, SO I APPRECIATE THAT THE REST TO FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. THAT HELPS. >> A POINT OF CLARIFICATION BACK ON THAT OTHER SLIDE ONE MORE TIME ON THERE, WE'RE SAYING THAT THE FEE IS BETWEEN 1.5-3.5%, SOMETIMES WE DON'T KNOW UNTIL WE GET THE BILL. BUT FOR THOSE THE FEE WAS ONLY 1.5%, WE'D BE MAKING A PERCENTAGE OFF OF THEM ON THERE, SO I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WAS THE ACTUAL INTENT, OR WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IF WE'RE HEADED DOWN THAT ROAD, FOR THE PROVIDER THAT WE USE TO KNOW AT THE TIME OF THE TRANSACTION, IF THEY PICK, FOR EXAMPLE, VISA, IT WOULD BE THIS FEE OR THEY PICKED AMERICAN EXPRESS, AND THEY COULD JUST PASS ON THE ACTUAL COST AT THAT TIME ON THERE? WOULD SOMETHING LIKE THAT BE POSSIBLE WITH THE VENDOR? >> I DON'T KNOW OF THAT CAPABILITY AT ALL. [02:00:02] I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT CAPABILITY. >> WELL, ALONG THE SAME TOKEN THEN, WHAT IS THE COST GOING TO BE FOR US TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THIS? IF WE DO SAY FOR TRANSACTION FEE, WE WANT EVERYTHING TO BE 2.5% ON THE UTILITY BILLING PORTAL, IS THAT A CHANGE THAT A VENDOR CAN MAKE? >> WE WILL DISCUSS WITH THEM. I BELIEVE IT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN DO. WE HAVE THE TRANSACTION AMOUNT. RIGHT NOW, THE VENDOR CAN CHARGE A FIXED PORTAL FEE, SO I BELIEVE THAT IS AVAILABLE TO CHARGE A PERCENTAGE INSTEAD. >> IT COULD BE THAT THEY COME BACK TO US AND SAY, MAYBE, A $20,000 PROGRAMMING FEE OR SOMETHING TO REDO THE PORTAL. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE YOU PRESUMABLY DIRECTION TONIGHT TO SAY, WE WANT EVERYBODY TO BE CHARGED 2.5%, BUT WE'RE NOT SURE TOTALLY IF THAT CAN BE IMPLEMENTED BY OUR VENDOR AND WHAT THE COST WOULD BE TO IMPLEMENT THAT AT THIS TIME? >> I AM HAPPY TO TAKE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AND DO THE RESEARCH AND COME BACK, IF NECESSARY TO IDENTIFY ANY INCREMENTAL FEES OR OTHER ISSUES OR PROS AND CONS. >> BECAUSE YOU WON'T KNOW UNTIL WE MAKE A DECISION. >> WELL, WE'RE MAKING A DECISION. WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO SUFFER. THIS IS LIKE BEING IN ONE CASE WITH THE OTHER ONE, WE'RE FORCED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT JUST TO GO AHEAD AND BLINDLY JUMP IN. HERE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE CONTROL SO WE'RE MAKING A DIRECTIVE, WE'RE TELLING YOU GO CHARGE 2.5%. WE'LL FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET THAT MONEY LATER ON THERE. WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS THERE BUT PRESUMABLY OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO BE A COST SAVINGS. IT'S CHEAPER THAN WHATEVER IT TAKES TO IMPLEMENT IT. BUT IT'S JUST FEELS FUNNY TO ME TO VOTE ON SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE THE ANSWERS OF HOW TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT UP FRONT. >> MR. PRESTENBERG. WERE YOU WANTING TO TALK? >> WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE HAVE A BILL PAY. WE AUTOMATICALLY PUT $1.25 UTILITY FEE, YEAH, UTILITY BILL PER TRANSACTION, RIGHT? >> AS OF RIGHT NOW? >> AS OF RIGHT NOW. >> POST COVID, THE TRANSACTION HAPPENS AFTER THE FACT, THE CITY RECEIVES A BILL FOR $1.25 TIMES X NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS, AND WE PAY THAT BILL. >> OKAY. BUT PRE COVID, LET ME THINK ABOUT PRE COVID, I GO ONLINE, I'M PAYING WITH MY DEBIT CARD, IT HAS $100 FROM MY NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR FOR MY MONTHLY BILL, AND $1.25 WAS ADDED TO IT, RIGHT? >> PRE COVID, IF IT'S ANYTHING LIKE MUNICIPAL COURT IS TODAY, THEN WHEN YOU'RE ONLINE, IT SAYS, YOU'RE ABOUT TO BE CHARGED $100, BY THE WAY, YOU'RE ALSO ABOUT TO BE CHARGED THIS FEE FOR UTILITY BILLING, IT WOULD BE $1.25, THIS WILL APPEAR AS SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS, DO YOU WISH TO CONTINUE? >> YES. >> IN EFFECT, IT WOULD BE. >> IS THERE ANY WAY THAT IF THIS IS PASSED, IF THERE'S A FEE INVOLVED OF IMPLEMENTING THIS OF $30,000 OR WHATEVER, THAT WE COULD GET THAT TO COME BACK FOR DISCUSSION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, OR IS THAT GOOD GRIEF. >> IF YOU USE THE EXAMPLE OF 30,000, THAT'S WITHIN HER AUTHORITY TO DO. >> I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD. >> WELL, MAYBE NOT. MAYOR FRANK MILLSAP. >> YEAH. AS WE HAVE A MOTION SECOND AND CALL THE VOTE. >> YEAH. YOU CAN DO THAT AS WELL. WE'RE GOING TO CALL THE VOTE. MS. GRANGER, PLEASE LET US VOTE. MOTION CARRIES WITH MAYOR BRETT FRANKS VOTING NO AND MR. LINDSEY VOTING NO. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS ADJOURNMENT, THE TIME MS. GRANGER? >> 8:34 P.M. >> WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:34 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.