Aug 10, 2026 City Council Special Meeting

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:03]

VERY. YEAH. RIGHT. 515 WE'RE GOING TO GET STARTED ON TIME FOR OUR SPECIAL CALLED MEETING

[1. CITIZENS' INPUT]

MARY GORDON, 1751 CRESCENT LANE, DUNCANVILLE, 75137. AND I'M HERE TO VOICE MY CONCERN ABOUT ITEM TWO A, WHICH IS DELIBERATE PUTTING ON THE NOVEMBER ELECTION BALLOT $50 MILLION FOR THE INCURSION OF DEBT FOR THE CITY. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S NECESSARY TO UNDERSTAND THAT EACH MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, HAS A FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT IS A FIDUCIARY? FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS A STRICT LEGAL AND ETHICAL OBLIGATION TO ACT SOLELY IN THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE PERSON OR ENTITY DOES NOT RESPECT. YOU'RE ACTING AS FIDUCIARIES FOR THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE. THE PERSON WHICH IS THE FIDUCIARY, MUST PUT THE CLIENT'S NEEDS ABOVE THEIR OWN PERSONAL GAIN. MANAGE PROPERTY OR MONEY WITH EXTREME CARE, AND AVOID ANY CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. THAT FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY IS THE PROPERTY TAXES THAT WE, EACH CITIZEN, PAY FOR THE SUPPORT OF THIS CITY.

EXTRAORDINARY DUE DILIGENCE IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THIS POSSIBILITY OF INCURSION OF $50 MILLION IN DEBT FOR POLICE OFFICERS. POLICE STATION. I WANT TO SAY, FIRST OF ALL, THAT THERE ARE ANCILLARY COSTS. THOSE ANCILLARY COSTS ARE NOT GOING TO APPEAR AS DEBT, BUT HAVE TO BE SUPPORTED BY SOME PROPERTY TAX INCURRED AS WELL. SO THE TRUE COST OF A NEW POLICE STATION IS CLOSER TO $60 MILLION, RATHER THAN JUST A $50 MILLION OF DEBT. AND FOR THOSE POLICE OFFICERS PRESENT, I WANT TO SAY THAT WE HAVE THE HIGHEST RESPECT FOR YOU FOR WHAT YOU DO AND PUTTING YOURSELF IN HARM'S WAY EVERY SINGLE DAY, AND TO VOTE ON THIS $50 MILLION IN DEBT IS NOT A VOTE FOR OR AGAINST OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT FOR WHAT'S NECESSARY FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITY, FOR THE TAXPAYERS OF THIS CITY, FOR THE INCURSION OF $50 MILLION IN DEBT. EXTRAORDINARY DUE DILIGENCE IS NECESSARY, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS YET BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXERCISE EXTRAORDINARY DUE DILIGENCE.

AND EXTRAORDINARY DUE DILIGENCE HAS NO DEADLINE ON IT. IT DOESN'T SAY WE HAVE TO DO THIS IN X NUMBER OF DAYS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, YOU HAVE IMPOSED UPON YOURSELF A CITY COUNCIL, A DEADLINE TO PUT THIS ON THE NOVEMBER BALLOT. I KNOW MY TWO MINUTES IS UP, BUT THE EXTREME UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE FOR THE INCURSION OF $50 MILLION IN DEBT FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY HAS NOT YET BEEN FULLY EXPLORED, IN MY OPINION. AND IF IT IS PUT ON THE BALLOT IN NOVEMBER, YOU BASICALLY HAVE 60 DAYS TO PREPARE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS FOR THE CITIZENS OF THIS CITY TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS $50 MILLION IS GOING TO BE PAID FOR, AND HOW YOU, AS EACH CITY CITIZEN, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER IS EXERCISING YOUR FIDUCIARY RESPONSIBILITY. IT'S VERY SERIOUS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. PATRICIA. PATRICIA. YOU FIRST.

YES. PATRICIA EBERT 115 SOUTH GREEN STONE. I DON'T DO FUSSING. NO FUSSING. THAT'S WHAT THE DOLLAR TREE CASHIER SAID TO A VERY LONG LINE OF US THIS AFTERNOON. SHE SAID TO A LOT OF US AS WE WERE STANDING IN THE LONG LINE. I DON'T WANT YOU COMING IN HERE FUSSING. AND SHE WAS USING HER HANDS. I DON'T WANT YOU LEAVING HERE FUSSING. I'M CHECKING YOU OUT AS FAST AS I CAN. AND RIGHT NOW I FEEL LIKE THAT DOLLAR TREE CASHIER. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET, I. NONE OF US WANT A DEFICIT IN THE BUDGET. NONE OF US WANT REDUCTIONS. THERE'S NOBODY IN THIS TOWN THAT WANTS REDUCTIONS. BUT THE ONE REDUCTION THAT IS VERY HARD FOR ME TO SWALLOW IS THE HALF $1 MILLION REDUCTION IN THE STREETS. OUR STREETS ARE BAD. WE KNOW THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T MAKE MANUFACTURE MONEY, BUT CAN WE BORROW OR TAKE $500,000 FROM THAT NEWLY DESCRIBED $7 MILLION EXCESS FUND BALANCE? AND I KNOW WE NEED MORE THAN HALF $1 MILLION.

SO I'M SUPPORTING THAT. WE DOUBLE DOWN ON THREE REVENUE STREAMS, NUMBER ONE, NAMING RIGHTS. I SEE HIM TALK TO ME ABOUT THAT BEFORE THE MEETING. DIDN'T KNOW I WAS GOING TO SPEAK ON IT ON COURTS COLLECTIONS. Y'ALL JUST HIRED A NEW CONSULTING GROUP TO COLLECT

[00:05:03]

WE'LL TAKE THE TRICKLES AND THEN STR SHORT TERM RENTALS. WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF THEM IN THE CITY. AND PLANNING HAS BEEN TALKING ABOUT THE SOFTWARE FOR MONTHS SO THAT IT WILL IDENTIFY AND NOTIFY THOSE STARS. SO WHAT'S THE STATUS ON THAT? THANK YOU. THAT'S IT. ALL RIGHT.

SO THAT COMPLETES OUR BUSINESS RELATIVE TO ITEM ONE. CITIZEN INPUT. YES ABSOLUTELY. SO I HAVE TO LEAVE SOMEWHERE AROUND 630. SO JUST SO YOU KNOW, I'M NOT TRYING TO ESCAPE. YOU HAVE A COMMITMENT AROUND 630. SURE. NOT A PROBLEM. WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO HOPEFULLY BE ON TIME. WE DO HAVE A, A HARD DEADLINE OF 7:00. YES. 655 BECAUSE THERE WAS ANOTHER MEETING THAT'S GOING TO TAKE PLACE IN HERE, UNRELATED, UNRELATED TO OUR BUSINESS. SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY OUR BEST TO KEEP THINGS MOVING IN A TIMELY MANNER, NOT TO SHORTEN ANY OF THE CONVERSATIONS. THEY'RE ALL REALLY IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS TODAY. SO WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE

[2.B. Follow up on the FY 2026-27 Proposed Budget as presented on August 6, 2026. The City Council may direct staff to make additions, deletions, or corrections to the proposed budget and projects per current and future goals.]

ABSOLUTELY. YOU'VE COME UP WITH THIS. OKAY. YES. SO AGAIN, WHAT'S IN THE ONE TIME PROJECT? OF COURSE. AND DANIELLE HIKE BIKE TRAIL THAT IS WITH THE CITY OF DESOTO. SO THE GRANT MATCH FOR TRAFFIC, ADA AND SIGNALS THAT WE'RE GETTING WITH TXDOT CIVICPLUS WEBSITE AND A COMMUNITY SURVEY, THOSE THINGS WERE ALREADY ASSUMED. SO WITH THE FEEDBACK FOR THE PRIORITIZATION, YOU YOU WENT AHEAD AND TOLD US THAT. LUCAS. COMPRESSION DEVICES. I APOLOGIZE IF I MISUNDERSTOOD THERE. I KNOW THOSE WERE APPROVED, BUT JUST WHERE WE'RE DOING IT RIGHT AWAY VERSUS JUST DOING IT. 27 WE GOT AN UPDATED QUOTE TODAY. $67,500 PERFECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. WE'LL MAKE THAT UPDATE WITH THE FEEDBACK THAT WE GOT. THE CENSUS, AGAIN, YOU DIDN'T WANT TO FURTHER DIP INTO FUND BALANCE, JUST KNOWING SOME OF OUR CHALLENGES COMING UP. SO THIS JUST UTILIZES THE REST OF THE FUNDING THAT WE'D ALREADY TRANSFERRED. AND YOU WANTED TO DO THE THINGS THAT WE GOT TO DO. SO THE GENERATOR AT THE FIRE STATION, COMPREHENSIVE FEE STUDY, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, THE TRAFFIC SMALL PORTION GOING TO TRAFFIC CIP AND THEN REMAINING THAT WE CAN GO TOWARDS FIRE STATION TWO UPDATES, WHICH THEY'RE STILL IN THE PROCESS OF THAT QUOTE. SO I WANTED THAT TO BE CLEAR. THIS CAME FROM Y'ALL'S FEEDBACK.

OKAY. THE UPDATES DON'T INCLUDE THE FOUNDATION WORK. IT DOES NOT. THIS IS JUST DOING SOME WORK WITHIN THE BUILDING ITSELF. WE HAVE TO DO FURTHER ANALYSIS ON THE FOUNDATION PIECE OF IT.

SO THAT'S AGAIN WHY WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR FURTHER FUND BALANCE RESOURCES AT THIS TIME OR ONE TIME USE. OKAY. SO IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE TIME PROJECTS. OH THANK YOU. WHAT WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN FIRE STATION TWO GENERATOR AND FIRE STATION TWO UPDATES? BECAUSE I THINK WE KIND OF HEARD OF THEM ALL AT THE SAME TIME. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW. SURE, I CAN ANSWER THAT AND HOW WE SPLIT THOSE OUT. SO THE GENERATOR, THE GENERATOR ITSELF REQUIRED OBVIOUSLY TO HAVE SOME KIND OF BACKUP RESOURCES IN THE EVENT THAT ELECTRICITY GOES DOWN THE GENERATOR THAT'S OVER THERE. I CAN'T QUOTE HOW OLD IT IS, BUT I KNOW IT'S GOT SOME ISSUES AND I KNOW THE FOUNDATION OF THE GENERATOR. WHAT IT SITS ON HAS ISSUES. SO THIS WOULD REPLACE THAT. AND IT WAS UP IN THE THE BUILDING MAINTENANCE FIVE YEAR

[00:10:03]

IT WAS COMMON PRACTICE MANY YEARS AGO TO ONLY PUT A PORTION OF THE FACILITY ON BACKUP GENERATOR. WE EXPERIENCE THAT HERE AT CITY HALL, WHICH IS WHY WE HAD TO REPLACE THAT. THIS WILL BE 100% ELECTRICAL LOAD ON GENERATOR POWER. OKAY. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SO. I WILL TAKE MY COMMENT. THE OTHER DAY WE SAID PUT MONEY FOR THE QUINT. YOU SAID PUT MONEY FOR LUCAS COMPRESSION DEVICES AT THE SAME TIME AND AT THE SAME TIME. THAT WAS A AND WE WE'LL WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT IMMEDIATELY. IF IF THAT'S COUNCIL'S CONSENSUS. AND WE LIKE I SAID, WHEN WE WERE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THIS, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T WE WERE GLAD WE GOT THAT CLARIFICATION AND WE'LL MOVE FORWARD WITH ASAP. YEAH. IF THAT'S CLEARANCES. I DID AN EXCELLENT JOB OF, OF SAYING WHY THIS WAS NEEDED AND HOW IT WAS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY, IF THAT'S COUNCIL FEES. AND I THINK WE EVEN HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE RECOVERY FEES AND YOU KNOW, HOW OTHER CITIES RACK AND STACK AND WHY IT WAS IMPORTANT TO MAKE SUCH AN INVESTMENT IN COMPARISON TO WHAT WE EXPECT OUR PARAMEDICS TO DO ON AN ENGINE. AND SO, YEAH, WE'LL DEFINITELY BRING AN ITEM FORWARD. IF COUNCIL'S GOOD WITH THAT, WE'LL BRING AN ITEM FORWARD TO PURCHASE IT AND MAKE THAT HAPPEN. THE NEXT THING WE WANTED TO CLARIFY AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT SALARY AND BENEFITS AND WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE BUDGET. SO WE TALKED ABOUT OUR MEDICAL INSURANCE RATE HAS INCREASED 14.6%. THAT IS NOT BEING PASSED ALONG EMPLOYEES.

THAT'S BEING ABSORBED BY THE CITY'S COST. WE ARE PROPOSING AN INCREASE TO THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL RETIREMENT SYSTEM, UPDATING THAT BENEFIT TO 100% UPDATED SERVICE CREDITS FOR EMPLOYEES. RIGHT NOW, THE PLAN'S AT 50. WE DID HAVE TO FREEZE AND NOT FUND SOME POSITIONS FOR FY 27 IN ORDER TO BALANCE OUR BUDGET, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS BUDGET DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY MERIT OR COLAS IN FY 27 FOR EMPLOYEES. BUT LET ME GIVE YOU A HISTORY. SO THIS YEAR, WE WERE ABLE TO GIVE UP TO 5% FOR POLICE FIRE IN GENERAL EMPLOYEES IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET, POLICE AND FIRE WILL CONTINUE TO RECEIVE THEIR STEP INCREASES. BUT AGAIN, THE COST OF TMRS TO UPDATE THAT BENEFIT TO 100%, WHICH PUTS US AT THE HIGHEST BENEFIT LEVEL FOR THAT COSTS US ABOUT 202,000. THE COST OF INSURANCE. IF THE CITY HAS TO ABSORB AND TAKE ON ABOUT 382,000. SO AGAIN, TRYING TO BALANCE AND MAKE THE CUTS AND REDUCTION JUST TO SEE HOW WE COULD FIT IT IN. THANK YOU. IT'S UNFORTUNATE THAT WE ARE IN A BUDGET YEAR WHERE WE'RE NOT CONTEMPLATING A MERIT INCREASE FOR EMPLOYEES OR COLA. YOU KNOW, HOWEVER WE STYLE IT IN THIS SITUATION. I RECOGNIZE THE IMPORTANCE AND THE NEED TO PUSH UP OUR CONTRIBUTION TO THE PENSION AS WELL AS DEFRAY COSTS FOR EMPLOYEE HEALTH BENEFITS.

AND BOTH HAVE NEEDS AT THE SAME TIME. AND I THINK WE FIND THAT EVERYWHERE. MY QUESTION IS, AND THIS IS JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, NOT NOT CRITICISM IS IF WE COULD SLOW DOWN THE INCREASE THAT WE'RE MAKING TO THE PENSION AS WE GO FORWARD, WHAT WOULD THAT DO IN TERMS OF HELPING US MEET OUR GOAL IN TERMS OF OUR DEFICIT FROM A BUDGET? I MEAN, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S ADVANTAGEOUS FOR US TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD TOWARDS THAT CONTRIBUTION. BUT HOW DO WE BALANCE THAT FROM A HUMAN CAPITAL PERSPECTIVE? I REALLY WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I AVOIDED IT THE OTHER DAY, BUT SINCE WE'RE GETTING UNDERSTANDING ON THE LAST NIGHT, I HAVE TO ASK. SO I WILL SAY TO GET US TO THE END GOAL, WHICH WE WOULD BE THERE FOR THE EMPLOYEE SIDE, BUT WE HAVE WORK TO DO ON THE RETIREE SIDE. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT'S LEFT IN TERMS OF THE BENEFIT BRINGING THAT UP. RIGHT. SO THE PLAN, OR AT LEAST THE STRATEGIC IMPLEMENTATION, IT'D BE ABOUT 500 000 A YEAR. OKAY. FOR THE NEXT, YOU KNOW, FIVE, SIX YEARS TO GET US TO THAT END GOAL. SO IN FY 20, FY 2033, SORRY, I CAN'T SPEAK WOULD BE THE LAST YEAR IF WE CONTINUE TO DO 500 000 A YEAR UNTIL WE GET THERE. SO THAT THAT'S HOW WE GET TO

[00:15:05]

OBVIOUSLY, WE'RE MEETING THE GOAL THIS YEAR FOR THE 100%, BUT I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT THAT'S MAYBE SOMETHING WE SHOULD BRING BACK TO YOU ALL AND HAVE A MORE. WHERE'S THE FLIP CHART? RIGHT HERE. OKAY, LET'S ADD THAT TO THAT. ALL RIGHT. I'M CURED. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON ON THIS? WELL, GOING BACK TO THAT IS THAT AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THIS, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS KIND OF ONCE YOU START TAKING A CERTAIN PATH, YOU HAVE TO CONTINUE ON THAT. RIGHT. AND IS THAT RIGHT? YOU KNOW, SO AGAIN, WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO GET TO THAT MAX BENEFIT ON THE EMPLOYEE SIDE, THAT'S AT 100%. AND WE WOULD MAINTAIN THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING TO FUND IT. AND I THINK OVER TIME, ONCE THE FUNDING GETS THERE, YOU KNOW, IT DOES DROP A LITTLE BIT JUST BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU START FUNDING IT. BUT YEAH, WE WOULD BE MAINTAINING THAT FROM HERE ON OUT WAS SOMETHING DISCOVERED AFTER THE LAST MEETING BECAUSE YOU COVERED THIS PRETTY EXTENSIVELY IN WE LEFT HERE WITH A DIFFERENT IMPRESSION THAN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US TODAY, BECAUSE I. WELL. I THOUGHT IT WAS ALL 100% FUNDED. IT WAS I WAS TAKING THIS IS 100% FUNDED. THE EMPLOYEE. YES, WE DID SAY THAT THE EMPLOYEE SIDE IS 100% FUNDED WITH THIS NEW 2627 BUDGET. BUT THE THE THE RETIREES ARE STILL AT THE 30% IT'S GOING TO TAKE. IS THAT THAT SLIDE WE SHOWED Y'ALL? IT'S GOING TO TAKE THOSE NEXT, YOU KNOW, 5 TO 6 YEARS TO GET TO THE 70%, WHICH IS THE THE TOP OUT. OKAY. YEAH. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I JUST, I THOUGHT YOU COVERED IT WELL, AND NOW IT SOUNDED LIKE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BUT I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? I GOT SOME SO THANK YOU FOR THE NOT BEING HERE LAST WEEK. EXCUSE ME SO I CAN SPEND TIME WITH MY FAMILY.

BUT I DID WATCH THE MEETING OVER A TWO DAY PERIOD. THAT WAS ANYWAY, SO YEAH, I SEE, SO THAT I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH TMRS, BUT OUR GOAL WAS TO GET TO 100%. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE 100% EVERY BUDGET YEAR. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY, GOOD. AND SO TO YOUR POINT. IF WE DON'T GET TO 100%, IF SOMEBODY IS THINKING ABOUT RETIRING AND THEY DON'T HAVE THE SERVICE CREDITS, THEN THEY DON'T GET THAT MONEY. THAT'S WHAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? SO IF WE SLOW IT DOWN AND MY, MY, AND MY AND MY CONVERSATION COLLEAGUE IS NOT TO SLOW IT DOWN. IT'S JUST TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION FRONT AND CENTER THAT NO, NO DIFFERENT THAN WE NEED TO MAINTAIN CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE, NO DIFFERENT THAN WE NEED TO MAKE INVESTMENT INTO THE FIRE SERVICE. IN TERMS OF A QUINT OR OTHER THINGS, WE HAVE TO HAVE THIS CLEAR IN FRONT OF MIND AS WE FUND IT, AS WE GO FORWARD. THAT'S WHY I SAID I JUST ADD IT TO THE FLIP CHART, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S JUST ANOTHER THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CONFRONT AND DEAL WITH AS WE GO FORWARD. AND SO I'M NOT AT ALL HERE TO SUGGEST TO SLOW DOWN BECAUSE I, I, AS A PUBLIC SERVANT, WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THERE FOR EVERYBODY ELSE. AND IT'S A FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION WE MAKE AS WE MOVE FORWARD. ONE THING YOU KNOW, I DON'T CARE. I'M SORRY, IS, IS A COLA, RIGHT. SO THE ICING ON THE CAKE IS TO GET TO THAT 70% GOAL OF KEEPING TRACK OF THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. THAT'S RIGHT. AND SO WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT OVER THE LONG TERM AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE A STRATEGY SO WE DON'T REPEAT WHAT OUR BROTHERS AND SISTERS HAVE DONE IN LARGER AND SMALLER MUNICIPALITIES. SO LET ME JUST BRING THIS CHART BACK UP AGAIN. THIS IS WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT LAST WEEK. SO AGAIN, OUR BUDGET RECOMMENDS THE 100%, WHICH WOULD KEEP RETIREES AT THE 30% WE'D BE

[00:20:05]

YEAH IT'S ON THE CHART. YES SIR. I NEVER PUT IT ON THERE. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANTED TO PUT THAT BACK UP. GO BACK. IT'S ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING. I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT MASTER FEES REALLY QUICK. THAT WAS AT THE END OF YOUR BOOK. BUT WE DIDN'T REALLY TALK ABOUT IT. I MEAN, THERE'S NOTHING NEW REALLY IN THE MASTER FEES THAT YOU DON'T REALLY ALREADY KNOW ABOUT. BUT AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT. SO WE WILL BE PROPOSING HEALTH FEES. THESE ARE NOT CHANGES THAT YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY HEARD ABOUT, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE THE FINAL ITERATION DOCUMENT THAT YOU SAW IN MAY WHEN YOU VOTED ON THAT REVISION.

SO I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT THAT'S ACCOUNTED FOR. OF COURSE, WE TALKED ABOUT ALARM FEES FOR POLICE AND FIRE. THAT ORDINANCE WILL BE COMING WHEN WE DO ALL THE BUDGET ADOPTION ORDINANCES. SAME THING WITH THE FIRE INSURANCE BILLING. THAT'LL BE A PART OF AN ORDINANCE. AND THEN ALSO THE WATER SEWER. THOSE RATES ON THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ARE CHANGED TO MATCH THE ORDINANCE FOR THE FIFTH YEAR, FINAL YEAR OF THAT INCREASE. I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THOSE THINGS. WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE MASTER FEES, WHEN WE PRESENT THAT TO YOU IN SEPTEMBER. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP IN THE MEETING? YES.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, I DO WANT TO TOUCH ON A POINT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP TONIGHT ABOUT THE STREET REPAIR. SO I KNOW THAT THAT WAS 1 MILLION OR 1 MILLION AND A HALF BUDGET. YES, 1.7 IS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE BUDGET FOR STREET REPAIR. AND WE'RE CUTTING IT BY HALF. NOT BY HALF.

WE BROUGHT IT DOWN TO 1.3, 1.3. OKAY. SO IT WAS 1.5. WE'RE CUTTING IT DOWN TO 1.3. OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. PUBLIC WORKS. YES, MA'AM. SO DO WE HAVE ANY WHAT DID WE PROJECT TO REPAIR AS FAR AS STREETS FOR? WE DO WE HAVE A PLAN? YES, WE HAVE INTERNALLY WE HAVE LIST OF STREETS. AND WE GET THAT INFORMATION FROM OUR PCI THAT WE'VE DONE A FEW YEARS AGO. SO INTERNALLY WE HAVE A LIST OF STREETS THAT WE APPROACH. DEPENDING ON HOW BAD THE PCI IS, WE MIGHT DO A MILL AND OVERLAY A MICRO SURFACING. WE'LL DO CONCRETE PANEL REPLACEMENTS, CRACK SEALING, WHICH USUALLY HAPPENS SHORTLY RIGHT BEFORE MICRO SURFACING. I DON'T REMEMBER THE LANE MILES OR THE STREETS, BUT I CAN PROVIDE THAT TO THE COUNCIL IF YOU LIKE. BUT BUT WE INTERNALLY HAVE OUR DOCUMENTATION TO WHERE WE'RE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE THIS ALL COMES OUT OF OPERATIONAL FUNDS. SO CIP, IT'S USUALLY LARGER PROJECTS IN A MUCH MORE FORMAL RFP APPROACH. A LOT OF THIS INTERNALLY, WE ALREADY HAVE ESTABLISHED CONTRACTS. SO COULD YOU. YES, PROVIDE THAT TO THE COUNCIL. AND IF IN REVIEW OF THAT WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WE CAN PROVIDE, IS IT TOO LATE TO MAKE ANY SUGGESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS? WE CAN STILL DO IT IF IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MAYBE USE SOME MORE ONE TIME COSTS FROM THE FUND BALANCE, WE COULD DO THAT IF COUNCIL WANTS TO. WELL, LET'S PROVIDE TO COUNCIL CITY. I'M SORRY I WAS NOT MYSELF THIS TIME. I'M GOOD, I'M GOOD. IF YOU COULD. I KNOW I FELT IT PROVIDE TO THE COUNCIL THE PLAN FOR THE STREETS AND THEN IF THERE WAS ANYTHING MAJOR THAT WE WERE GOING TO PLAN TO ADDRESS THIS FISCAL YEAR. BUT DUE TO THE CUTS THAT IT'S IMPACTING, WE COULD DO THAT. YEAH, AND IT IS SOMETHING, IF YOU ALL WANTED TO, AS PART OF THE BUDGET AND DO ADDITIONAL ONE TIME FUNDS TOWARDS STREETS, WE CAN DO THAT, BUT WE'LL GET THAT INFORMATION TO YOU. AND JUST IF YOU ALL LET US KNOW YOUR FEEDBACK AND WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL GO FROM THERE. SO GENERALLY, WHAT YOU'LL SEE IS MORE CRACK SEALING AND MICRO SURFACING BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S CHEAPER CONSTRUCTION AND LESS MILL AND OVERLAY, WHICH IS WHEN STREETS START DETERIORATING FASTER AND FASTER. BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A PRESENTATION THAT SHE HAD PROVIDED TO US OF WHAT EACH ONE WOULD DO. HOW LONG DOES IT LAST AND THE IMPACT OF IT DOING JUST AN OVERLAY AND WHAT, HOW IT CONTINUES TO DETERIORATE. YES, MA'AM. YES. AND JUST MAKE IT WORSE AND WORSE SO THAT TO SHARE THAT TOO, PLEASE. YEAH, JUST A REAL QUICK QUESTION AND THEN I'LL GO ON TO JARED. MATT, DO YOU DO YOU DIFFERENTIATE OR DO YOU KEEP SEPARATE? DATA FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL STREETS VERSUS OUR MAIN ARTERY STREETS THAT YOU SEE RIDGE. THAT'S SO SO THE, THE INTEGRITY OF THE STREET IS ALL COLLECTED IN ON ONE PLATFORM. AND THEN THE

[00:25:02]

DEGRADATION. WHEN THIS COMES BACK, WILL WE BE ABLE TO SEE KIND OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OUR YOU KNOW, HOW DIFFERENT ROLES HAVE DIFFERENT FUNCTIONS? SO YOU HAVE AN ARTERY, YOU HAVE A, A COLLECTOR, YOU HAVE A, YOU KNOW, ALL THE DIFFERENT ROADS DO DIFFERENT THINGS. WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE THAT BY GRADE LEVEL. IT'LL SHOW YOU IT'LL HAVE A RATING. SO ALL STREETS ARE RATED THE SAME. BUT NOW A CONCRETE STREET MIGHT RANK HIGHER BECAUSE THOSE LAST LONGER. RIGHT. SO SO WE CAN PROVIDE INFORMATION ON. CITYWIDE MIGHT BE KIND OF AN UNDERTAKING, BUT WE COULD PROVIDE THE, THE STREETS THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH AND WHAT THOSE RATINGS ARE. AND THEN THEY'D ALSO SHOW IF THAT'S AN ASPHALT OR CONCRETE. SO YOU COULD OVERLAY THAT WITH YOUR PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE CURRENTLY. RIGHT, RIGHT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY, THAT WAS THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW. AND, AND I THINK THAT YOU HAVE PART A AND YOU HAVE PART B, RIGHT? YOU HAVE PART A IS WHERE PROJECTS ARE. AND THEN I THINK YOU HAVE PART B IS WHERE EXISTING NEEDS ACROSS THE CITY. AND I THINK WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE EXPERTISE THAT YOU ALL LEND TO PUBLIC WORKS, IS THAT'S AN UNDERTAKING. AND SO I THINK THAT AS WE LOOK AT THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE A CONSTANTLY EVOLVING THING THAT WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IN TERMS OF GETTING THAT FUNDING AND GETTING THAT DONE.

SO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO NOW AT THIS TIME, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE TAX RATE AND DO THE ROLL CALL VOTE. SO AGAIN, TO REMIND EVERYONE, THIS IS NOT A VOTE ON THE TAX RATE ITSELF, BUT IT'S JUST THE THE VOTE THAT'S REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR US TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TO MAKE THE PUBLICATIONS AND, AND ALL THAT. SO JUST QUICKLY, AGAIN, ON THE CALENDAR HERE. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE AUGUST 10TH, WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET, SPECIFICALLY ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, AND THEN THE TAX RATE ON THE 15TH. SO WHEN YOU VOTE, WE'LL SET THE DATE FOR THE 15TH. RIGHT. ARE WE ON ITEM C? YES. I'M SORRY. YES THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. SO WE ARE NOW THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL VOTE TO CONSIDER A MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026. THANK YOU.

YES. AND I BROUGHT THE HANDOUT IF YOU WANT TO HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU BECAUSE THIS IS THE MOTION AND YOU JUST NEED TO FILL IN WHOEVER WANTS TO FILL IT IN TO DO THE MOTION FOR THE RATE ITSELF. SO. THE CALCULATED TAX RATE WITH THE CHANGES IN PROPERTY VALUES AND CAME OUT TO 611659, WHICH IS A SLIGHT INCREASE FROM THE 26 TAX RATE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE THAT WAS CALCULATED. AND SO THAT IS THE RATE THAT THIS BUDGET IS BUILT ON BASED ON. SO THAT WOULD BE THE RATE THAT WE PROPOSE. AND SO. AGAIN THIS IS NOT A VOTE TO CONSIDER THE MAXIMUM AD VALOREM TAX RATE. BUT THIS IS A VOTE NOT TO ADOPT. THAT'LL BE DONE AT A LATER TIME. BUT IT'S REQUIRED BY TAX CODE 26.06 THAT WE HAVE THIS VOTE TODAY. SO. SO SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION MOTION TO APPROVE A MAXIMUM TAX RATE OF 0.611659 TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 2027, AND TO ESTABLISH A PUBLIC HEARING DATE FOR SEPTEMBER 15TH OF 2026. ON THE TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2026 2027. THIS VOTE AND RATE IS NOT TO ADOPT A PROPERTY TAX RATE, BUT IS A MAXIMUM RATE WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS STATE TEXAS TAX CODE. TO BE CONSIDERED. AN ACTUAL TAX RATE WILL BE ESTABLISHED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING AND VOTE. CITY COUNCIL STAFF IS INSTRUCTED TO SCHEDULE AND PUBLISH THE REQUIRED NOTICES UNDER THE TEXAS TAX. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT SECOND. SECOND BY MR. DAVIS ROLL CALL VOTE. SO WE'LL GO AROUND THE ROOM AT LARGE. REPRESENTATIVE GOODEN.

YES. DISTRICT FOUR REPRESENTATIVE JARED DAVIS YES. DISTRICT FIVE REPRESENTATIVE KYLE PENNEBAKER, DISTRICT ONE, VERACRUZ. DISTRICT THREE. JEREMY AND DISTRICT TWO FOUR.

[00:30:06]

[2.A. Deliberate and Consider adoption of an Ordinance calling a special election for the voters to consider authorization to issue General Obligation Bonds in an amount not to exceed Fifty Million Dollars ($50,000,000.00) for design and construction of a new public safety (Police) facility and/or renovation of the current City Hall/Police Station and related public purposes, to be held on the 3rd day of November 2026, in the City of Duncanville, Texas; and, making provisions for the conduct of the election and resolving other matters incident and related to such election.]

DELIBERATE. AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE CALLED CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR THE VOTERS TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50 MILLION FOR DESIGN. THERE'S MORE TO THAT, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT THERE TO OPEN THE. THIS DELIBERATION. OKAY. YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL. SO OBVIOUSLY THE ITEM IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO. THIS WOULD ACTUALLY CALL A BOND ELECTION FOR NOVEMBER 3RD, 2026 FOR A $50 MILLION PROPOSITION TO BUILD A NEW POLICE FACILITY. YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE GONE THROUGH SEVERAL, YOU KNOW, MEETINGS AND PRESENTATIONS ON IT. PLEASE KEEP IN MIND THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE, ONCE IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO GO FORWARD, WE WILL BRING BACK AT THE 18TH MEETING TO TO FINALIZE THE CONTRACT WITH DALLAS COUNTY ELECTIONS. IT IS A $58,655 FOR THAT, FOR THAT, FOR THE FOR THE ELECTION. KEEP IN MIND ALSO, WE DO HAVE OUTREACH MATERIALS AS WE BRIEFED Y'ALL LAST WEEK, WE HAVE A SCHEDULE OF DOING OPEN HOUSES HERE AT THE FACILITY. WE HAVE A WEBSITE. BUT AGAIN, THE CITY CAN ONLY DO EDUCATIONAL ONLY. WE CAN'T ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST A BOND PROGRAM. AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, NOW PRIVATE CITIZENS CAN DO THEIR OWN FOR OR AGAINST, YOU KNOW, EFFORTS. BUT AGAIN, OURS WILL BE PURELY EDUCATIONAL. AND LIKEWISE, COUNCIL, IF THE COUNCIL IS ADVISED THAT WE ALSO SHOULD NOT ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST AN ITEM LIKE THIS. I'M NOT SURE WHERE STAFF WAS GOING TO START, BUT I WANT TO ASK MR. HAGER, JUST TO A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, IN THE. THE TEXT SAID NOT TO EXCEED $50 MILLION FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW PUBLIC SAFETY POLICE FACILITY AND OR RENOVATION OF THE CURRENT CITY HALL, SLASH POLICE STATION AND RELATED PUBLIC PURPOSES. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WELL, THE SECOND TRYING TO DO IS MAKE IT AS BROAD AS POSSIBLE. YOU TALKED LAST TIME WHEN YOU WERE AT THE COUNCIL MEETING, THERE WAS IDEAS ABOUT RENOVATING THE SPACE, THE OLD POLICE SPACE. IF WE DID DO THE EXOSKELETON, DO THE PUNCH OUT OR BUILD A NEW BUILDING BUILDING, WE STILL HAVE TO CONVERT THE POLICE SPACE SOMEHOW. SO I WAS TRYING TO WRITE THE CAPTION AS BROADLY AS POSSIBLE. OUR BOND LAWYER TOLD ME TO STAY IN MY LANE. AND SO WHAT HE WROTE, YOUR BOND ORDINANCE IS TO JUST DEAL WITH THE NEW PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITY.

OKAY? AND ALL THE ATTENDANT ISSUES LIKE INFRASTRUCTURE. I MAY EVEN SAYS EQUIPPING. SO THAT TO ME MEANS F, F, AND E IF WE NEED IT, ALL THOSE THINGS TO DEAL WITH JUST THE POLICE FACILITY, ANY RENOVATION COST OR WHAT THE MAYOR HAS TERMED ANCILLARY COSTS ARE NOT COVERED BY THE BOND. SO IF YOU WERE TO ISSUE 50 AND FOR SOME GREAT REASON, WE ARE ABLE TO SKIN IT AT 45 MILLION, YOU COULD NOT TAKE THE $5 MILLION DIFFERENCE AND SPEND IT ON THIS BUILDING.

AND MR. DRANSFIELD DID ALSO INDICATE TO US THAT WOULD BE A SEPARATE BOND ISSUE. AND HE'S OUR BOND LAWYER, AND I SUGGEST WE FOLLOW HIS LEAD ON THAT. BUT WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO IS LET YOU HAVE AS BROAD A DISCUSSION AS POSSIBLE. BUT AFTER CONSULTATION WITH HIM, HE SAID THAT WOULD NEED TO BE A SEPARATE BOND. OKAY. SO DOES THAT MEAN WE NEED TO REMOVE THAT SECOND PART OF THE STATEMENT? JUST THE BOND ORDINANCE YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS WHAT MATTERS. OKAY. AND MY AND MY CAPTION THAT I WROTE, IT'S BROAD ENOUGH TO HANDLE THE BOND. HIS IS NARROWER. WE DO HAVE A COPY OF THE BOND ORDINANCE RIGHT HERE.

AND I CAN READ THAT PROPOSITION TO YOU. NOW IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO COUNCIL. BOND WOULD BE AND HOW IT WOULD APPEAR IN THE ORDINANCE AND HOW IT DOES APPEAR IN THE ORDINANCE, SHALL THE CITY COUNCIL, THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS, BE AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS OF THE CITY IN THE AMOUNT OF $50 MILLION FOR PERMANENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND PUBLIC PURPOSES? TO WIT, THE PLANNING, DESIGNING, CONSTRUCTING, RENOVATING,

[00:35:04]

WRITTEN BY BOND. THANK YOU MAYOR. I KNOW THE ONE QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED AND I DID COMMUNICATE TO COUNCIL, BUT JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT THE QUESTION WHAT IS THE TAX IMPLEMENTATION IMPLICATION? WE DID TALK TO OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR. OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR DOES RECOMMEND A 25 YEAR BOND ISSUANCE BECAUSE THAT'LL SAVE THE CITY MORE INTEREST VERSUS DOING 30 YEAR. BUT AS YOU KNOW, OUR TAX RATE WILL GROW ABOUT 2% NEXT YEAR. SO HE CALCULATED BASED OFF THAT, WHICH IS THE THE PROPER WAY TO DO IT. AND IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY A 6.2% INCREASE OVER THE TIME OF THE ISSUES OF THE DEBT. AND MR. JACKSON HERE, THAT CAN CATCH ME IF I MISS SOMETHING. BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE ASSUMPTION IS YOU WOULD ISSUE $30 MILLION IN BONDS. FIRST, START THE DESIGN, AND THEN THERE'D BE A SECOND $20 MILLION ISSUE. AND IN A COUPLE OF YEARS. AND MR. JACKSON HAS THE SPECIFIC YEARS IN MIND, BUT THAT'S WHAT THAT 6.2 CENT INCREASE IS BASED OFF THOSE ASSUMPTIONS. AND AGAIN, THAT'S JUST AN ESTIMATE AT THIS TIME. OBVIOUSLY, WHEN YOU CHANGE THE DEBT, YOU'LL SEE IT. SO DO YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND COMMENT ON THAT. OH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD ON. SO YES, IT WOULD BE A 30 MILLION ISSUE IN 2027 AND A 20,000,000 IN 2028. AND TO ECHO WHAT MR. ABERNATHY HAD ALREADY EXPLAINED, THE REASON FOR THE TAX RATE BEING AT THE 6.2 CENTS WAS BECAUSE OF THE GROWTH, THE ADJUSTMENT IN THE GROWTH RATE ESTIMATE THAT OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR MADE IN THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL, OUR ADVISOR TYPICALLY ASSUMES A 3% GROWTH RATE OVER THE FIRST TEN YEARS, AND THEN FLAT FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE ISSUING PERIOD. BECAUSE OUR LAST CERTIFIED ROLE WAS ONLY A 2% INCREASE OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR, WE ADJUSTED THE. THE GROWTH RATE TO BE 2% INSTEAD OF THE 3%. I KNOW AT ONE POINT IN MAYBE IT'S TOO LATE TO ASK, BUT AT ONE POINT WE HAD A SLIDE THAT SHOWED WHAT THAT REPRESENTED FOR A CERTAIN, I THINK, WHAT, $250,000 HOUSEHOLDS. DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION AVAILABLE? IT'S OKAY IF YOU DON'T KNOW. IT'S OKAY, IT'S OKAY. EVERYBODY REMEMBERS THAT THOUGH, RIGHT? ABOUT ABOUT WHAT THAT IMPACT WAS GOING TO BE TO CITIZENS IN. I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OF CATEGORIES OF HOME VALUES IN THERE. IT'S JUST BEFORE. SO IS THERE A SCENARIO IN WHICH WE DO THE $30 MILLION ISSUANCE FIRST AND THEN REALIZE MAYBE SOMEHOW REALIZE WE DON'T NEED 20 MILLION, MAYBE WE JUST NEED 15 OR 10 MILLION. IT'S THE MAXIMUM YOU COULD ISSUE LESS OVER THE LIFE OF THE BONDS IF THERE WAS NO NEED FOR THAT. OR YOU COULD USE THE DIFFERENCE FOR ANOTHER IDENTIFIED PUBLIC PURPOSE IN THE MOTION. I JUST READ TO YOU THE PROPOSITION. AS LONG AS YOU SPEND IT WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF THE PROPOSITION THAT'S APPROVED, THE BOND LAWYER IS COMFORTABLE. SOME OF THAT MONEY COULD BE USED AROUND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. LET ME JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE IT DOES SAY FOR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES, IN CONNECTION WITH SOMETHING. SO, I MEAN, IF WE NEEDED TO RESURFACE THE PARKING LOT, YOU COULD PROBABLY DO IT EVEN IF IT'S THE OLD PARKING LOT. IF IT'S NEXT TO THE CURRENT POLICE STATION. I THINK THE BOND LAWYER GENERALLY FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE COULD USE SOME OF THOSE BOND FUNDS TO REDO THE PARKING LOT. SO IT WAS ALL ONE SURFACE AND. I DON'T WANT TO MISLEAD YOU, BUT THAT'S WHY THOSE KIND OF THAT'S WHY IT'S WRITTEN AS BROADLY AS IT CAN BE. SO WE WOULD BE APPROVING AS A MAXIMUM ISSUANCE.

YES, SIR. YES. WE COULDN'T ISSUE OVERTIME. WE COULD ISSUE UNDER. WE COULD ISSUE UNDER.

YES. AND THE PLAN IS TO DO 30,000,001ST YEAR, THEN 20 MILLION, CORRECT. SECOND. YES,

[00:40:08]

SO YOU KNOW, MY BACKGROUND AND. AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WITH BIG DECISIONS LIKE THIS, THERE'S ALWAYS CALLS FOR AND AGAINST WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR ITEM IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS THE POLICE STATION. AND I KNOW WHAT I'M VOTING FOR TODAY IS TO GIVE THE PEOPLE A CHANCE TO VOTE WHETHER THEY WANT TO STOP. AND I ALSO KNOW THAT IF THIS DOES NOT PASS BY THAT TIME, WE SHOULD HAVE A NEW CITY MANAGER IN PLACE AND POSSIBLY A POLICE CHIEF THAT WE CAN INTEGRATE INTO THE SYSTEM AND HELP US, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. AND SO I'M I'M 100% FOR AT LEAST GIVE THEM A CHANCE. MR. DANIELS. THANK YOU. MR. I GUESS THIS QUESTION IS FOR MR. JACKSON ON THIS DEBT SERVICE RESCHEDULING, AM I I'M IT'S REAL SMALL, AND I DIDN'T THINK I WAS REAL YOUNG. I DON'T KNOW, YOU GIVE ME SOMETHING TO I I'VE NEVER SEEN THIS BEFORE.

LET ME STAY WITH WHAT I HAVE. IS IT TRUE THAT WE HAVE AN EXISTING DEBT SERVICE IN OR AROUND $1.4 MILLION? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT WOULD CONTINUE UNTIL 2039 WITH THE DEBT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. SO THE I MEAN, OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING I'M NOT HEARING, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST COMING OVER. SO THIS IS OUR CURRENT SHOW ME WHERE TO READ. OKAY, SO THIS IS SHOWING OUR CURRENT DEBT SERVICE AMOUNT, THE 1.4. AND THEN AS WE BRING ON THE 30 MILLION AND THEN THE 20 MILLION, THAT IS THE SERIES 2027 AND 2028, RESPECTIVELY, IN COLUMNS E AND F. SO THIS WOULD BE THE TOTAL DEBT SERVICE ONCE COMING DOWN THIS WAY. CORRECT. SO THIS WOULD BE THE THE AGGREGATE TOTAL DEBT SERVICE. SO TODAY WE HAVE 1.4 RIGHT. AND SO OH YEAH.

SO SO IN 2023 UNTIL 20 UNTIL 2053. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. YES SIR. I'M GOOD. THANK YOU.

IT DOESN'T COME DOWN. SO WE GO UP FROM 1.44.7. AND WE'RE BASICALLY AT 4.7 UNTIL WE CONCLUDE OUR DEBT SERVICE IN 2052, AT 20, IN 2053 AT ONE POINT AT 1.0, JUST OVER A MILLION. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. WHAT DISTINGUISHES BETWEEN THAT DEBT SERVICE AND THE DEBT SERVICE? THAT KIND OF KNOW THE ANSWER. BUT I'D RATHER HAVE YOU CLARIFY IT FOR ME THAT WE'VE TAKEN ON WITH THE WATER METERING SYSTEM. SO THIS. YEAH. SO THIS IS ONLY SHOWING THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS. SO BY BY LAW AND RULE. IN TERMS OF THE PRESENTATION, THIS IS ONLY FACTORING IN OUR EXISTING DEBT. OKAY. SO BECAUSE THE BONDS FOR THE ARMY ARE WERE CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. SO THAT AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE WOULD BE SEPARATE. OKAY. SO WATER, WATER REVENUE. OKAY. AND WAS IT WAS ALSO CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION FOR THE SERVICE CENTER RENOVATION. THAT FROM THE, FROM THE, FROM THE PREVIOUS BOND 2018. YES. NO, NO, NO, I MEAN MORE RECENTLY, DIDN'T WE. NO. OH YES SIR. YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE ONE WE JUST RECENTLY PASSED IN TERMS OF THE 51% LOAN FORGIVABLE. SO THAT THAT WASN'T FOR SERVICE CENTER RENOVATION.

THAT WAS FOR LEAD LINE SERVICE INVENTORY. OKAY. THAT BUT IT'S STILL WE'RE STILL IT'S STILL DEBT, BUT CORRECT. BUT THE SERVICE CENTER RENOVATIONS, HOW IS THAT PAID FOR? SO OKAY, YOU GO AHEAD. NO. SO THAT WAS DONE ON CERTIFICATES OF OBLIGATION. THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. YES.

AND JUST TO GET. SO THERE WAS MONEY THAT WAS ISSUED IN THE 2018 BOND PROGRAM FOR THE SERVICE CENTER TO GET IT STARTED. THAT MONEY WAS NEVER SPENT, AS WE RECOMMENDED TO YOU ALL AT THE BUDGET WORKSHOP IN MARCH. WE REALLY RECOMMEND GO AHEAD. AND WE'RE WORKING ON AN RFQ RIGHT NOW. GET A SCHEMATIC DESIGN, GET AN ACTUAL COST, WHAT THAT WOULD BE. AND THEN

[00:45:05]

IT ALMOST DOESN'T MATTER TO ME WHERE IT'S AT, EXCEPT IN THE IN THE WATER METERING SYSTEM.

WE'LL GET WE'LL GET REIMBURSED SOME PERCENTAGE OF THAT, RIGHT. SO YES, SO THE PLAN FROM THE ARMY TO SERVICE THAT DEBT WAS FROM THE WATER REVENUE. YES. OKAY. BUT THAT'S OVER. HOW MANY YEARS? THAT'S OVER 16. OKAY. YEAH. THAT WAS A 16 YEAR BOND. OKAY. SO I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS CLARITY BECAUSE BEFORE I INCURRED MORE DEBT, I WANT TO UNDERSTAND JUST HOW MUCH OUTSTANDING DEBT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. AND I KNOW IT'S IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT PLACES DEPENDING ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. BUT DEBT IS STILL DEBT, RIGHT? SO, AND, AND WE HAD THAT WE, WE DO HAVE HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS PART OF THIS ORDINANCE, THIS PRINTED ORDINANCE. MAYOR. SO THE VERY LAST SECTION IS THE VOTER INFORMATION DOCUMENT, EXHIBIT C.

AND SO THERE'S A SECTION THAT, YOU KNOW, AS OF THE DATE THAT IS ORDERED, THE PRINCIPAL OF ALL OUTSTANDING DEBT. AND SO THAT WOULD INCLUDE BOTH ON THE UTILITY SIDE AS WELL AS THE GENERAL SIDE. BUT THAT'S JUST OVER 28 MILLION. SO ACTUALLY THE EXACT NUMBER IS $28,015,000.

AND THAT'S JUST THE PRINCIPAL. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THERE'S AN INTEREST COMPONENT AS WELL.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. OKAY. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY I'M HAPPY TO SEE ALL OF THE GREAT INTEREST FROM THE PD REPRESENTED IN THE ROOM FROM THE OFFICERS, BUT IT SHOWS THAT YOU CARE. AND WE UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR A NEW FACILITY. I WILL SAY ALSO AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS CONVERSATION, WHEN IT STARTED MONTHS, ALMOST A YEAR OR SO AGO, I WAS AND I'M STILL IN FAVOR OF A NEW FACILITY. I WILL SAY I'M VOTING IN FAVOR TONIGHT TO CONTINUE THE CONVERSATION, EXPLORING, AND MAKE SURE WE HAVE VETTED AS MANY AVENUES AS WE POSSIBLY CAN, BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT A NOVEMBER ELECTION IS GOING TO COST US 58,000.

WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S GOING AROUND, GIVE OR TAKE, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY PEOPLE PARTICIPATE.

WE'RE NOT SURE IF IT'S GOING TO BE SUCCESSFUL. SO THAT'S 58,000. IN MAY, WE COULD GO FOR 76,000 ROUGHLY, GIVE OR TAKE, BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE AN ELECTION FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS NORMALLY HAPPENS AROUND MAY. SO IF WE SHOULD DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD, IT CAN BE PUT ON THERE. HERE ARE MY CONCERNS. I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THIS ALL WEEKEND BECAUSE I KNEW TODAY WAS COMING, AND I DON'T TAKE THIS LIGHTLY AT ALL. I HAVEN'T SEEN A STRATEGY OR A REAL PLAN OR REAL NUMBERS FOR ANCILLARY COSTS, LET ALONE WE WERE INFORMED OF A £0.03 FUNDING OPTION, WHICH IS PRIVATE PUBLIC PARTNERSHIP FUNDING. SOME. SOME PRIVATE ENTITIES COULD SPONSOR A ROOM OF THE NEW POLICE FACILITY, AND THAT WOULD HELP OFFSET THE COST. I DON'T RECALL ANY ADDITIONAL CONVERSATION AROUND THAT. WE LOST AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPLY FOR A GRANT TO HELP FUND THE PROJECT DUE TO WHATEVER CONCERNS THAT HAPPENED INTERNALLY, BUT WE DIDN'T EVER GET THE APPLICATION OUT THE GATE, AND IT WAS AWARE INTERNALLY, BUT WE WERE NEVER INFORMED THAT THAT OPTION EXISTED UNTIL IT WAS ALMOST TOO LATE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED TAX IMPLICATIONS AS IT RELATES TO AROUND 264,000 HOME VALUE, WHICH COMES OUT TO APPROXIMATELY FROM WHAT I WATCHED TODAY ON THE MARCH MEETING OF 110 TO $199 A YEAR, THAT'S AT THE $50 MILLION MARK. THAT'S JUST FOR THE $264,000 HOMES, WHICH WE KNOW WE HAVE SOME HOMES HERE WHO VALUE MORE THAN THAT, AND THAT WOULD BE A HIGHER TAX INCREASE FOR THEM.

THAT'S JUST FOR OUR PORTION THAT DOESN'T CONSIDER THE NEW BOND THAT'S PASSED FOR THE

[00:50:01]

SO WE ARE CURRENTLY IN THE PROCESS OF RECRUITING FOR OUR PERMANENT FULL TIME CITY MANAGER. IF LEADERSHIP CHANGES MIDSTREAM, ACCOUNTABILITY IS LOST. THE TAXPAYERS AND OUR OFFICERS BEAR THE RISK OF DELAYS AND COST OVERRUNS. WE HAVE SEEN THIS STORY BEFORE.

WHEN IT COMES TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE FIRE STATION LEADERSHIP WAS CHANGED. WE HAD A BOND THAT WAS APPROVED BUT ENDED UP COSTING US MORE MONEY, AND WE HAD TO MAKE UP THE DIFFERENCE FOR IT, AND IT DELAYED THE PROJECT FOR THE POLICE FACILITY TO FINALLY OPEN.

AND WE HAVE YET TO START ON THE SERVICE CENTER, WHICH WAS ALSO A PART OF THAT BOND. SO FOR ME, AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I FULLY SUPPORT THE STELLAR STAFF THAT WE HAVE. I DO, AND I DO UNDERSTAND THE RISK THAT'S INVOLVED YOUR RISK RETENTION, YOUR RISK RECRUITING. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE DO THIS, WE GO AS WELL INFORMED AS POSSIBLE, CONSIDERING ALL OF THE OPTIONS AND MAKING SURE OUR ECONOMY IS IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN SUSTAIN THIS AMOUNT OF DEBT, I WOULD ASK THAT WE CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR REVENUE SOURCES. WE HAVE A COMPETENT DC, DC TEAM, CONTINUE TO SUPPORT WHATEVER THEY NEED TO HELP, MOVING US IN A DIRECTION OF INCREASING OUR REVENUE SO THAT IT OFFSET THE COST AND THE BURDEN THAT'S GOING ON TO THE TAXPAYERS. BUT RIGHT NOW, FOR ME TO SAY, LET'S GO FOR 50 MILLION AS A COUNCIL MEMBER, I FEEL IT'S IRRESPONSIBLE. AND THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF MY REASONS, AND I'LL STOP. I'LL SAY ALSO NOT TO REPEAT ANY OF THE THINGS YOU'VE SAID, BUT I DO AGREE ON SOME OF THOSE. WHEN I MET WITH THE INTERIM CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT CHIEF TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER OPTION, I DID SO OUT OF GREAT CONCERN THAT I FELT LIKE IT WAS LACKING WAS WE HAD HAD WE'VE GOT TIME, WE'VE HAD TIME. WE HAVEN'T HAD TIME THAT WE'VE DEVOTED TO LOOKING AT ALL THOSE OPTIONS. AND THAT'S WHY I CAME UP WITH THAT. IT WAS A IT WAS A WILD HAIR. I MEAN, IT COULD HAVE GONE IN A POSITIVE WAY OR IT COULD HAVE NOT. AND AS IT TURNS OUT, IT WASN'T SOMETHING THAT PANNED OUT JUST A WEEK AGO OR SO WHEN I BROUGHT IT UP WITH THE GENTLEMAN HERE IN THE ROOM. BUT I DID THAT BECAUSE I WAS SO, SO TORN OVER THE LONG ROAD THAT WE'VE TAKEN TO GET HERE. THE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY IN THIS ROOM THAT WOULD SAY ANYTHING SHORT OF, WE KNOW WE NEED THIS. WE KNOW THEY NEED THIS. WE KNOW THEY DESERVE THIS. AND SO HOW CAN WE GET THE ANSWERS WE NEED SO THAT WE'RE COMFORTABLE TO FULFILL THE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO THE PUBLIC? I'VE LISTENED TO THE PASSION AND THE IN THE COMMENTS FROM THE POLICE SIDE ABOUT WHAT THEY WANT AND WHY THEY WANT IT. THE THING THAT WE HAVE THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO UNDERSTAND WHERE THESE OTHER COSTS ARE GOING TO BE COVERED, WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE INCURRED AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO COVER THOSE THINGS. THAT'S WHAT KEEPS ME UP AT NIGHT, IS HAVING TO PLAY THAT END OF IT, BECAUSE WE CAN ALL SAY A $50 MILLION BOND WOULD GO OUT AND LET THE PUBLIC TAKE A POKE AT IT AND SEE WHICH WAY THEY GO. IT'S STILL ISN'T GOING TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS. IT MIGHT BUY US A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT THOSE QUESTIONS ARE SO IMPORTANT TO ME, KNOWING THAT I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT, I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT FOR THE SAKE OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST. AND I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO REACH A POINT, AND I'M NOT BLAMING ANYBODY FOR NOT GETTING TO THAT POINT. I JUST HAVEN'T SEEN THAT. THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

WE HAVE A LINGERING QUESTION THAT CAME UP RECENTLY, AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT AND KIMLEY-HORN UNDERSTOOD. AND LET ME KNOW IF I'M GETTING OFF TRACK HERE. WELL, AS LONG AS IT'S ABOUT WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO ISSUE THIS DEBT OR NOT, OKAY, THAT'S ALL I CARE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S ANOTHER THING I WILL SAY THIS ONE WAS KEEPING ME UP AT NIGHT, BUT IT CERTAINLY WAS WORRYING ME. KIMLEY-HORN TOLD US IN ONE OF THE EARLIER MEETINGS THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF SOMETHING I BROUGHT UP, BUT THAT WAS A WATERSHED HEADING OFF OF THE PARK. THEY SAID THEY HAD WORKED ON, INCLUDING IT IN THE BOND COST TO BRING THE WATER UNDER THE BUILDING, BUT IT ENDED AT UNDER THE BUILDING. ON THE OUTLET SIDE, WE ALREADY KNOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FLOODING, SO WE KNOW THERE'S SOME

[00:55:01]

SO AFTER THE FACT WE SAID, OH, NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPEND ANOTHER, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, $10 MILLION ON ON PIPE REPLACEMENT OR DOING SOMETHING TO ACCEPT THAT WATER IN A WAY THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE ALREADY EXISTING PROBLEM WORSE. SO I WAS REALLY EXCITED TO HEAR THAT THEY WERE FINALLY GOING TO DO THAT SO THAT WE DON'T GET THAT SURPRISE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A SURPRISE WHEN WE GET IT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT A COST THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THEM. SO WE KNOW THE ANCILLARY COST PRICE AND BUT NOW WE DON'T KNOW THAT ONE. IF IT TURNS OUT THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIAL, WE GET STUCK WITH THAT. AND NOW WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO PAY FOR THAT. SO THESE ARE THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT HAVE JUST KEPT ME ON THE EDGE OF THINKING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. THERE'S MORE THINGS THAT ARE LESS CONSEQUENTIAL, BUT THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT THAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT. SO I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO RESERVE MY COMMENTS. I HAVE SOME MORE PROBABLY TOWARDS THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU MAYOR. THIS IS DEFINITELY BEEN A TOPIC THAT.

BEEN BATTED BACK AND FORTH TO TO YOUR POINT, MAYOR. PREVIOUSLY WE WE KIND OF WENT IN THIS THING ALMOST BLIND AND AND WE'RE GOING TO DEFINITELY. UNDERFUND WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET DONE. AND I WILL GIVE THE THE PREVIOUS CHIEF KUDOS FOR, FOR STEPPING UP SAYING, NO, THIS REALLY NEEDS TO BE LOOKED AT. I AGREE WITH THAT DECISION. LET'S DO THAT.

I'M. I SIT HERE AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN. RAN IT BACK AND FORTH. I PRAYED OVER IT. YOU NAME IT, I'VE DONE IT. AND I, LIKE YOU, DIDN'T AGREE. I THINK THERE'S STILL SOME THINGS THERE.

THERE'S SOME OTHER OPPORTUNITIES, THERE'S OTHER THINGS. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THINGS COMPLETELY HASHED OUT. BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THIS A PRIORITY. I DO THINK IT'S BEEN PAST DUE. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S PAST DUE IF THIS IS HAPPENING. AND SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS STILL ON THE LEADING AND YOU'VE GIVEN IT DOWN. I'M. I WOULD BE MORE INCLINED. TO THIS AS WELL AS LIKE, LET'S GET IT NARROWED DOWN, GET THE ANSWERS, GET IT FOR THE NEXT ELECTION. AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS ANY COMMENTS, BUT I WILL SAY THAT I THINK IT'S A TIMING THING RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK WHEN WE WERE TALKING WITH CHIEF WILCOTT EXPRESSED TO ME THAT ONE OF HIS CONCERNS DURING THAT DISCUSSION WAS EXPLAINING TO THE OFFICERS THAT APPEAR TO BE THAT BEING KICKED MCCAIN WAS GETTING KICKED DOWN THE ROAD. I DON'T THINK IN THIS IN THIS INSTANCE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. IT'S IT'S ABOUT PREPARATION AND. I THINK THERE'S STILL A LOT OF QUESTIONS OUT THERE. GO AHEAD.

THANK YOU. GREG. I I'M GOING TO START OUT A LOT LIKE MY MY COLLEAGUE, COUNCILMEMBER VERA CRUZ, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WORK EVERY DAY WITH PUBLIC SAFETY. AND I APPRECIATE WHAT THEY DO BECAUSE IF THEY DIDN'T DO IT, IT WOULDN'T BE DONE. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU CALL BRAVERY. I MEAN, JUST THAT'S WHAT IT IS. WHEN I LOOK AT THE DEBT SCHEDULE WE WOULD BE THROUGH

[01:00:02]

COUNCIL MEMBER GOODEN, BE IT RELATED TO COST, THE TIMING. I THINK WE DO GOOD TO GIVE OURSELVES THAT SPACE AND OPPORTUNITY TO FIGURE THAT OUT BEFORE WE GO TO VOTERS AND SAY, TRUST US, FOLLOW US. THIS IS THE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF DUNCANVILLE FOR OUR PUBLIC SAFETY IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO LIKE ALL OF US, I'VE GONE THROUGH STRUGGLE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THIS AND WHAT DECISION DO I COME TO? AND I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE SENTIMENT HERE THAT WE PROBABLY HAVEN'T DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE ON EVERY ASPECT OF THIS. THERE'S TOO MANY UNKNOWNS. AND PUTTING THIS TO THE VOTERS, I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE GIVING THEM THE FULL PICTURE. YOU KNOW, FOR MYSELF, I BROUGHT IT HOME BECAUSE I HAVE TO DO THAT SOMETIMES AND MAKE IT MORE PERSONAL. IF, IF I WERE MAKING THIS DEAL FOR MY FAMILY AND THIS IS OUR FAMILY WE'RE DOING THIS DEAL FOR, WOULD I DO IT RIGHT NOW WITH THESE UNKNOWNS AND I WOULDN'T, I WANT MORE, AND IF WE DON'T MOVE FORWARD TODAY AND IT GOES TO VOTE, WE'RE WE'RE DELAYING OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, ASSUMING THAT IT DOESN'T PASS AND WE'RE DELAYING OURSELVES TO KEEP THIS BALL ROLLING RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE NEED TO EXPLORE ALL THESE OTHER OPTIONS PUBLIC, PRIVATE, OTHER BUILDINGS, MAYBE EVERYTHING WHICH WE REALLY DIDN'T DIVE INTO. WE STARTED WITH AN UP AND OUT AND THEN LAUNCHED RIGHT INTO, OKAY, BRAND NEW BUILDING. THERE WAS NO IN BETWEEN, NO INVESTIGATION, NO EXPLORATION. WE HAD A BOND COMMITTEE. BUT THEN WHEN WE WENT THIS DIRECTION, WE DIDN'T GET AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT BUILT UP OF THE CITIZENS. AND I KNOW ALL OF US PROBABLY GOT SOME REALLY GOOD FEEDBACK FROM SOME CITIZEN SERVICE, WILL BE ON AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO HELP GET THIS THROUGH. SO I WILL BE TO CONTINUE WORKING ON THIS CONTINUED CONVERSATION. YEAH.

ANY COMMENTS? YES. AS FAR AS MAKING THIS A PRIORITY, IT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN DOING OUR WORK PLANS. IT'S BEEN NUMBER ONE OR NUMBER TWO. SO IT HAS BEEN A PRIORITY. AND I I'M ACTUALLY KIND OF IN A STATE OF BEING DISTURBED BECAUSE A LOT OF INFORMATION IS COMING OUT HERE LATELY. THE INFORMATION THAT WE SHOULD HAVE HAD FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE CONVERSATIONS. AND I'LL JUST GO ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT IS, CAN WE BUILD UP OR BUILD OUT ON THIS BUILDING OVER HERE? AND WE WERE TOLD NO. WE PROCEEDED FOR MONTHS UNDER THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE COULDN'T DO THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, ONE, IT'S HARD TO BE CONFIDENT ABOUT THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE RECEIVING, BUT THAT'S BEEN DISTURBING. HOW HOW BOUND ARE WE, BOB? YOU CHANGE.

OKAY. YEAH. SORRY, BOB. THAT'S. BARBARA. SO WHEN WHENEVER IS ISSUED FOR THIS PROJECT, HOW, HOW BOUND WOULD WE BE TO THE CURRENT DESIGN AND LOCATION AND ALL OF THAT? WHAT WE'LL DO. SO YOU'RE ASKING IF Y'ALL WERE TO PASS IT AS IS HOW BOUND CITIZENS WERE TO. WELL, EXCUSE ME, IF THE CITIZENS WERE TO APPROVE, HOW BOUND WOULD YOU ALL BE TO THE CURRENT PLAN? YES.

[01:05:07]

GO BACK TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE ORDINANCE, BOUND TO WHAT THEY VOTE ON BECAUSE, WELL, THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT IT'S FOR DESIGN PLANNING THIS LOCATION. SO. RIGHT. AND ACQUISITION, ACQUISITION OF LAND. SO THE ORDINANCE APPEARS TO BE WE'RE JUST APPROVING THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FUNDING FOR IT. BUT THE LOCATION, THE DESIGN, THE ARCHITECT, ALL THESE THINGS, NONE OF THESE THINGS ARE IT WOULD BE OPEN ENDED, OPEN ENDED, NO DIFFERENT THAN WHEN THE BOND COMMITTEE IN 2018 SAID, WE'RE GOING TO USE IT FOR STREETS. AND THEY PICKED BETWEEN CEDAR RIDGE AND WHEATLAND AND STUFF, AND THE PRIORITY CHANGED, AND NOW IT'S OKAY. SO IF THE VOTERS GO AHEAD, I SEE YOU'RE ITCHING. SO I WAS JUST JUMPING IN. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT WAS THE SPIRIT OF THE BOND COUNCIL'S INTENTION OF HOW IT WAS WORDED. SO COUNCIL WOULD HAVE THAT THAT FLEXIBILITY. SO JUST TALKING ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND TALK ABOUT THE LOCATION. IF COUNCIL WANTS TO GET MORE SPECIFIC AND HAVE A EDIT THAT IS WITHIN YOUR PURVIEW. BUT IN TERMS OF HOW WE STRUCTURED BY THE BOND COUNCIL, MR. COMBS, IT WAS DONE IN SUCH A WAY TO ALLOW THAT FLEXIBILITY.

AND I GUESS I'M REFERRING TO THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, WHICH APPEARS TO BE OPEN, ENDED UP IN A GOOD WAY. SO THE TWO TIMES. OKAY, BECAUSE I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE CURRENT LOCATION AND THE FACT THAT IT APPEARS TO BE THAT WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN REALIZE WE HAVE OPTIONS THAT WE DIDN'T THINK WE HAD BEFORE. BUT IF WE'RE NOT BOUND TO THE CURRENT DESIGN OR LOCATION OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. SO THERE'S TWO PARTS OF EDUCATION ON THIS. THERE'S THE. ONE DISCUSSION WE'VE GOTTEN COMPLETELY AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT. SO I THINK THE PUBLIC NEEDS TO BE, WHENEVER THAT IS ISSUED, WHENEVER IT'S APPROVED LEADING UP TO THAT ELECTION, THAT THEY NEED TO BE EDUCATED NOT ONLY ON THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS AND THE TAX IMPLICATIONS, BUT IN ALL FAIRNESS, THEY NEED TO BE EDUCATED ON THE NEEDS OF THE DEPARTMENT, AND THAT THEY NEED TO BE ALLOWED TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE WILLING TO TAKE ON THAT DEBT. THAT'S THAT'S THE CHOICE THEY HAVE TO MAKE. AND I'M NOT A PRIEST, AND IT'S NOT MY POSITION TO. MAKE DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE OR TO INTERPRET THE LAW FOR PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN MAKE THOSE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES. AS FAR AS THE FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS. EVERY MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT THAT WE'VE DELAYED AND WHICH NEW FIRE STATION, EVERY MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT THAT WE'VE DELAYED, THE COSTS HAVE GONE UP, SOMETIMES FAR BEYOND WHAT WE EVER COULD HAVE IMAGINED. AND IN THE CASE OF THE FIRE STATION, THAT WAS A DELAY OF MAYBE A YEAR OR TWO, AND WE WERE SPENDING SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS MORE. OKAY. SO EVERY SINGLE MAJOR, MAJOR CAPITAL PROJECT WE DELAYED, IT'S COSTING US MORE. AND SO I JUST, AGAIN, JUST FOR US TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT IN THIS PROJECT AS WELL, BECAUSE THE COST THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT, AND WE DIDN'T JUST START TALKING ABOUT THIS A YEAR, A YEAR AGO, IT'S BEEN SEVERAL YEARS. MR. GORDON WAS ON, WAS SITTING IN THAT CHAIR WHEN WE FIRST STARTED HAVING THESE CONVERSATIONS. SO THE LONGER THAT WE'VE PUSHED THIS DOWN THE LINE, IT WILL COST US MORE. AND I THINK THAT THE PUBLIC ALSO NEEDS TO BE AWARE OF THE POTENTIAL TAX IMPLICATIONS OF DELAYING A PROJECT, BECAUSE IS IT GOING TO COST US MORE NOW, OR IS IT GOING TO COST US MORE IN THREE, FOUR, FIVE YEARS, WHENEVER THAT IS? AND I DON'T KNOW, I'M NOT A FORTUNE TELLER, SO I COULDN'T SAY. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY COULD SAY. BUT HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, AND LOOKING AT THE TRAJECTORY AND THE TRENDS, WE'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT IT COSTING THE CITIZENS MORE AND THAT THE TAX IMPLICATIONS WILL BE GREATER IF WE APPROACH IN A YEAR OR TWO YEARS OR WHENEVER THAT HAPPENS. SO AGAIN, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. AND AGAIN, JUST TO ECHO WHAT MR. CRUZ SAID, I THINK I THINK THE CITIZENS SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DECISION FOR THEMSELVES. MR. DAVIS. THANK YOU. RICK. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS FOR THE CFO. IF I WANT TO ASK US TO DIRECT OUR ATTENTION TO EXHIBIT C OF THE ORDINANCE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M FOLLOWING THE NUMBERS. WE. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS TO ISSUE A

[01:10:06]

SO WITH THAT, WITH THAT $93 MILLION NUMBER IS, IS WHAT THE TOTAL PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST WOULD BE ON THIS DEBT OFFERING OF THE $50 MILLION. SO SO WHAT WE'RE REALLY ASKING, SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MY COLLEAGUE, MR. KUNTZ, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING THE VOTERS TO APPROVE AND ALL THOSE COSTS, WE'RE REALLY ASKING FOR 93 MILLION, RIGHT? WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE, CORRECT? YES. WITHOUT EVERYTHING WE NEED AT THIS MOMENT, THE WAY WE READ THIS, I'M I'M JUST I'M NOT ASKING FOR AN OPINION. WE WE WE. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE PAID OUT.

OKAY. IT'S JUST LIKE A, JUST LIKE WHEN YOU BUY A HOUSE AND THE MORTGAGE IS CORRECT, THIS IS WHAT YOUR TOTAL. AND THAT HAS TO BE DISCLOSED TO THE VOTERS AS WELL. CORRECT. RIGHT.

AND SO WHEN WE WHEN WE WHEN WE TALK, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD THE TRUTH.

ALMOST $100 MILLION NUMBER IN VIEW BECAUSE TODAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 50. AND WE HAVE SOME RESERVATION AND SOME HESITATION ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED. AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GOING TO VOTERS, WE HAVE THESE OTHER QUESTIONS. BUT THE THE FINAL BILL IS ALMOST 100 MILLION. YES, SIR. CORRECT. THANK YOU. MR. JACKSON, CAN I JUST ADD THAT IN THE PD ESTIMATE, THE FFE IS INCLUDED IN THAT IN THE ESTIMATE THAT WE GOT FROM KIMLEY-HORN AEG THAT DOES INCLUDE F, F AND E FOR THE PD FACILITY, BUT NOT FOR THE ANCILLARY. YEAH, I GOT IT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE. YEAH. NO I'M GOOD. YEAH. I WAS WITH US, BUT I JUST WANTED TO GET THE TOTAL TOTAL NUMBER. YEAH. THAT'S WHY I, THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO CLARIFY ALL OF THIS WAS SPECIFIC BECAUSE IT IS, IT IS A. YEAH, YEAH. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DID INCLUDE THAT. YEAH.

NO, NO, NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL. BUT I JUST KNOW WE HAVE SOME OTHER NEEDS. YES, YES. NO YOU'RE RIGHT. AND THEN WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FINAL BILL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. AND I JUST WANT TO I'M I'M NOT ARGUING FOR ON OR AGAINST. I'M JUST TRYING TO COUNT ONE PLUS ONE MOST TIMES IS TWO. AND SO THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. I WANT TO GO BACK AND REVISIT SOME OF MR. COMMENTS. I DO I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU ON SOME OF YOUR ASSESSMENTS. HOWEVER, WHEN WE STARTED OUT THE MEETING, WE TALKED ABOUT. ABOUT REALLY PREPARATION. ARE WE PREPARED? AND SOMEONE MADE THE STATEMENT THAT WE CAN'T GET THIS WRONG. AND IF YOU'RE NOT PREPARED, YOU DON'T HAVE IF YOU DON'T FEEL THAT YOU HAVE THE INFORMATION SO THAT YOU CAN MAKE A SOUND DECISION. I DON'T LOOK AT IT AS BEING REACHING OUT IN NOVEMBER AND JUST GIVING PEOPLE THE RIGHT TO DECIDE ON THEIR OWN. WHAT ARE THEY DECIDING ON IF WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION? AND THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE REALLY I STRUGGLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HOW DO WE EDUCATE THEM WHEN WE DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION? NOW THE EDUCATION WILL BE WORKED ON OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW, ALTHOUGH WE'LL BE KEPT UP TO DATE. BUT IT'S LIKE YOU'RE LEARNING ON THE FLY TO GET TO THIS DEADLINE THAT YOU HAVE TO MEET. AND SO WE WON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION ALL AT ONE TIME. SO MAKES A QUESTION. WHAT WOULD IT HAVE TAKEN? AND AGAIN, THIS SOUNDS LIKE DIRECTING BLAME.

AND IT'S NOT THIS IS THIS IS ME. I'M AS BIG A PART OF THIS QUESTION AS ANYBODY ELSE. BUT WHY DON'T WE HAVE THOSE ANSWERS? ARE WE SITTING HERE TALKING ABOUT QUESTIONS THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANSWERS TO? SO I DON'T FEEL GOOD KNOWING THAT ABOUT GOING TO THE PUBLIC AND ASKING THEM TO MAKE THE DECISION TO MAKE MY JOB EASIER. ALL RIGHT. BECAUSE IF THEY SUPPORT IT, WE

[01:15:04]

I'LL GO WITH EITHER ONE. I MEAN, I WANT, I WANT, I WANT THEM TO HAVE THIS PLACE. I'M LOOKING AT CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD ABOUT ABOUT OUR TRI CITY EFFORTS. AND THROUGH A, A PROPOSED BUILDING IN A PUBLIC SAFETY BUILDING IN DESOTO. AND I'VE TALKED TO THE MAYOR ABOUT THIS, THAT IT IS OPEN FOR USE. SO MAYBE WE DON'T NEED WE CERTAINLY NEED SOMETHING LARGER AND BETTER THAN WHAT'S IN THERE RIGHT NOW. SO THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THAT ROOM HAS TO BE GREATLY IMPROVED TO ACCOMMODATE MORE PEOPLE MORE COMFORTABLY THAN WHAT THEY HAVE. BUT TO HAVE TO HAVE ANY KIND OF A PUBLIC MEETING ROOM THAT WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WE GOT A STRONG RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR PARTNER CITIES, AND THAT OFFER THAT WILL STAND FOR ANY OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNITIES AROUND THEM. TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT FACILITY IS A WAY TO REDUCE SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE NEEDED. AND WE DON'T WANT TO GO ANY SMALLER THAN WHAT'S PROJECTED RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK IT IS 40,000FT■!S. I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. THAT'S THREE TIMES WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND THAT THAT SHOULD SUFFICE. SO WE BUILD FROM THERE. WE HAVE MORE CONVERSATIONS, WE GET MORE INFORMATION, AND WE FEEL MORE CONFIDENT THAT WHEN WE'RE WHEN WE ARE PART OF THE SALES TEAM, YOU KNOW, PITCHING THIS TO THE PUBLIC AS TO WHAT THE FACTS ARE. WE'RE BETTER INFORMED AND WE'RE BETTER. WHILE WE CAN'T ADVOCATE, WE CAN CERTAINLY INFORM. AND RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO TO INFORM IN A MANNER THAT I THINK WOULD BE THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PUBLIC. AND THAT'S THAT'S A STRUGGLE THAT I HAVE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I IN IN A MATTER OF APPROPRIATENESS, I WANT TO REACH OUT TO. CHIEF WILCOTT AND ASK IF HE HAS ANY COMMENTS OR OBSERVATIONS THAT HE'D LIKE TO MAKE TO. I'LL JUST SAY I RESPECT EVERYONE'S DECISION. OPINION. LITTLE DISAPPOINTED IN WHAT I'M HEARING. I DON'T HAVE A GOOD POKER FACE, SO I'M PRETTY SURE IT'S THROWING IN MY FACE AT THIS POINT FOR MY GUYS. I THINK THAT A LOT OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED. I JUST STOPPED RIGHT THERE AT THIS POINT. IS THERE A MOTION THAT WE CAN READ? YES. MAKE A MOTION BASED ON WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA. MAKE MAKE A MOTION AS TO THE ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED THAT BE READ OUT LOUD.

NO IT DOESN'T. AND A YES VOTE WOULD WOULD CALL THE ELECTION A NO VOTE. RIGHT. IT'S DONE HERE.

FOR NOW. FOR NOW. BUT YEAH, THE CONVERSATION ABSOLUTELY CONTINUED. WELL, MAY I I'D LIKE TO MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM. I'LL SECOND. DO WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, TO APPROVE. THE THE ORDINANCE THAT IS PROPOSED ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? IS THERE AN ORDINANCE NUMBER.

ITEM TWO A ALL RIGHT. TWO A. MAKE A MOTION OUT OF MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE. YEAH. JUST READ IT TO THE RECORD. SO I JUST READ IT. THE MOTION CALLED FOR A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR VOTERS TO CONSIDER. AUTHORIZATION IS THE ISSUE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS AMOUNT

[01:20:03]

NO. MR. DAVIS HAS BEEN. NO, NO, NO. MR. PENNEBAKER OR YES FOR COUNCILMAN VERACRUZ? YES. FOR.

YES, SIR. MR. COATS? NO. WE HAVE A NO FROM MR. MCBURNETT, AND I KNOW FROM THE MAYOR. I HOPE GOING FORWARD THE MOTION FAILS. BUT I HOPE GOING FORWARD THAT WE CAN COLLECTIVELY. FOCUS AND STRATEGIZE IN A WAY WE HAVE NOT DONE OR FAILED TO DO, TO WHERE WE CAN GET THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED. HE DID TELL US IN ADVANCE THAT HE WAS HAVING TO LEAVE EARLY. WE'RE GOING TO. YES, YOU ALL TAKE AN ACTION ON B AND C, WE BRIEFED ON B AND THE ROLL CALL VOTE FOR THE C SO THERE'S NO FURTHER, FURTHER ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. NO, BUT I WANT I WANT TO COMPLETE MY THOUGHTS THAT WE WE WE'RE NOW WE HAVE A NEW OBLIGATION. A NEW OBLIGATION IS TO DO EVERYTHING ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE'VE DONE TO THIS POINT, TO CONTRIBUTE TO MOVING THIS THING FORWARD. SO THAT WE CAN. FIND A WAY TO BUILD THIS POLICE STATION STANDALONE OR THE EXISTING. BUT WE'VE GOT TO WORK ON THAT. WE'VE GOT TO COME UP WITH A. WE'VE GOT TO WORK HAND IN HAND WITH OUR CONSULTANTS, WITH OUR TEAM MEMBERS THAT ARE WORKING ON THIS, BUT IT WILL MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE SOME SERIOUS WORKSHOPS. WE CAN'T DO THIS IN A REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. SO I HOPE THAT YOU'RE ALL WILLING TO PUT THAT EFFORT IN BECAUSE THIS IS A IT'S NOT A GOOD DAY THAT WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS, BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS A BAD DAY EITHER. AND BY COMMITTING OURSELVES TO GETTING THERE, IT WILL. IT'LL HAPPEN. I BELIEVE.

I BELIEVE IT WILL HAPPEN. THANK YOU ALL THAT WE COMPLETED OUR BUSINESS FOR THIS EVENING, SO WE WILL STAND IN ADJOURNMENT AT 630. EXCUSE ME. I JUST WANT TO. YES, SIR. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT, LIKE, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DO YOU NEED FROM US TO DO? I THINK IF I COULD ADD CHIEF WILCOX, THE REASON WHY HE'S ASKING, WE'RE ASKING THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU MADE A GREAT POINT THAT YOU WANT US TO WORK TOGETHER. SO WE KEEP HEARING, KEEP GOING, AND WE WE'RE WILLING TO DO THAT AND GET YOU WHAT YOU NEED. BUT I THINK WE'VE ALL WE'VE EXPERIENCED SOME CHALLENGES WHERE THAT DOESN'T TRANSLATE INTO SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU NEED SO THAT IT'S NOT MISCONSTRUED ON THIS SIDE, BECAUSE WE COULD THINK THAT WE'RE BRINGING YOU WHAT YOU NEED AND THEN YOU NOT GET THAT. OR IN A WAY, WELL, HERE'S WHERE I THINK THAT A LOT OF THAT CAN BE RESOLVED. AND THIS IS NOBODY'S FAULT THAT THIS HASN'T HAPPENED, BUT THAT WE, WE, WE SIT WE DON'T WANT TO GO BEYOND THE AGENDA. BUT WHAT I RECOMMEND IS IF Y'ALL WANT LIKE AN UPCOMING AGENDA ITEM AT A MEETING, WE CAN MAYBE PLAY SOMETHING. AND SO WE CAN CONTINUE A DISCUSSION THAT WAY DOESN'T WORK THERE. AND WE'LL TALK MORE WHEN THE LAWYERS ARE GONE. YEAH. JUST JUST NOT RIGHT NOW. I WISH I WAS TRYING TO SEE WHERE THIS WAS GOING. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GO. YES. YEAH. BUT YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU TALKING TO ME? I'M GOING TO GET IT BACK FROM IT. I NEED MORE INFORMATION. ALL RIGHT, HERE WE GO. THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBER.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.