[I) Call Meeting to Order and Roll Call]
[00:00:05]
SORRY. WE ARE GOING TO CALL TO ORDER AND HAVE THE ROLL CALL FOR CHAIRS. NUMBER TWO, IF YOU WOULD CALL ROLL PLEASE. INGALSBE. HERE. COHEN. HERE. MITCHELL. HERE. HEIZER. HERE. RIZZO.
PRESENT. ZUNIGA. PRESENT. HARRIS. HERE. MCKINNEY. HERE. TOBIAS. HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
[II) Approval of Minutes]
ITEM NUMBER ONE IS APPROVAL OF THE TERS. NUMBER TWO, NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024. MEETING MINUTES.MISTER, I'D LIKE TO GO AND MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE TERS. NUMBER TWO MEETING FROM NOVEMBER 19TH, 2024. OKAY. SECOND. OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION OR COMMENTS REGARDING THESE MINUTES? IF NOT, ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY.
THANK YOU. OKAY. NEXT IS CITIZEN COMMENT PERIOD. IS THERE ANY CITIZENS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO
[2) Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the expenditure in an amount not to exceed $2,600,000 for relocation of overhead utilities on Kohlers Crossing between FM 2770 and FM 1626. ]
SPEAK OR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE'LL GO ON TO ITEM NUMBER TWO. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 2,600,000 FOR RELOCATION OF OVERHEAD UTILITIES ON KOHLERS CROSSING BETWEEN FM 2770 AND FM 1626. MISTER BARBARA. GOOD AFTERNOON, MADAM CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS. LEON BARBARA, CITY ENGINEER. WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY, OF COURSE, IS THE STATUS OF WHERE WE ARE WITH THE 60% OF THE DESIGN ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. IT'S THE COLORS ROUNDABOUT PROJECT. AS FAR AS DESIGN, WE'RE USING STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE SIGHT LINES TO DEFINE THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY TAKES. WE DO HAVE SOME REPLACEMENT. EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPING WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THESE REQUIREMENTS. ALL PEDESTRIAN RAMPS ARE AT GROUND LEVEL AND WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY SPEED TABLES ON THIS. WE WILL BE USING THE RFB. THOSE ARE THE RECTANGULAR. FLASHING. BLINKERS. I'VE ALWAYS FORGET THAT ACRONYM. I'M SORRY.RECTANGULAR RAPID FLASHING BLINKER BLINKERS. THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION IS TOTALING 0.32 ACRES. WE HAVE FOUR PARCELS, ONE AT EACH CORNER. AND WE DO HAVE ANOTHER PARCEL THAT EVERETT DRIVE THAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO ACQUIRE ALSO. BUT THIS IS AT THE CROMWELL INTERSECTION. SO THERE'S ONE PARTICULAR QUESTION THAT WE WANT TO ASK THE COMMISSION AT THIS POINT IN TIME, UTILITY RELOCATION. AS YOU KNOW, THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD WAS TO TAKE THIS THESE IMPROVEMENTS ALL THE WAY FROM 2770 UP TO 1626. POLES ONE, TWO AND THREE ARE WITHIN THAT LIMIT OF THE WORK THAT WE WANT TO DO IN CONVERSATIONS WITH PSC. THEY ARE SAYING IN ORDER TO PROPERLY DO THIS, THEY WANT TO ACTUALLY TAKE IT UP TO POLE NUMBER FOUR. AND AT POLE NUMBER FOUR THEY WOULD TAKE IT DOWN UNDERGROUND UNDERNEATH KOHLERS CROSSING. THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD WANT TO DO IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN. AND FOR US TO TAKE OUT POLES ONE, TWO AND THREE. THEY'RE ESTIMATED THE ESTIMATED COST THAT WE CAME UP WITH IS ABOUT A LITTLE OVER $1 MILLION. AND OBVIOUSLY, THIS WAS NOT IN OUR ORIGINAL SCOPE OF THE BUDGET. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THEY ARE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE ROUNDABOUT CONSTRUCTION AT CROMWELL. MOVING ON TO BENNER, SAME INFORMATION STOPPING SITE DISTANCE DEFINED THE PROPOSED RIGHT OF WAY. WE COORDINATED THE INTERSECTION LAYOUT WITH THE CITY'S WATER PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENTS THERE. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL MEETINGS ON THAT ALREADY. REPLACEMENT OF TREES AND LANDSCAPING WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THOSE REQUIREMENTS. AGAIN, THE PEDESTRIAN RAMPS ARE AT GROUND LEVEL AND WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ANY SPEED TABLES. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION IS AT 0.56 ACRES. WE DID REDUCE THE RIGHT OF WAY TAKE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, AND LIKELY ELIMINATES THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY ON THE PARCEL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. SO THAT DID HELP A LITTLE BIT.
WHEN WE REVISED THE DESIGN. NEXT INTERSECTION IS SANDERS. AGAIN, SAME INFORMATION THERE. STOPPING SITE DISTANCE CONTROLS. WE'LL BE REPLACING SOME TREES AND LANDSCAPING. AND AGAIN PEDESTRIAN RAMPS ARE GROUND LEVEL AND NO SPEED TABLES ARE PROPOSED. RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION. THERE'S FOUR PARCELS AND ONE AT EACH CORNER. THERE IS TOTALS ESTIMATED AT 0.43 ACRES. THIS IS THE OTHER REQUEST THAT WE HAVE TO THE COMMISSION TO HELP US WITH PROVIDING DIRECTION. THERE'S EIGHT POLLS. YOU SEE POLLS ONE THROUGH EIGHT. THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT, BUT THE ESTIMATED COST IS ABOUT 1.3 MILLION. TO LOWER THOSE POLLS AND LOWER THOSE UTILITIES. WE DO HAVE TWO POLLS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT AND ARE ESTIMATED COST FOR THAT IS ABOUT $300,000. SO WE'RE ASKING THE COMMISSION TO GIVE US SOME DIRECTION ON HOW WE SHOULD HANDLE THIS, OR WHAT SHOULD WE BUDGET AND WHAT WHAT'S THE SCOPE OF WORK GOING TO BE FOR THIS
[00:05:06]
PARTICULAR PROJECT? WE ALSO WANTED TO GIVE YOU A TIMELINE. THIS IS OUR LATEST TIMELINE THAT WE'VE GENERATED. WE'VE TRIED TO IT'S AN AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE TO SAY THE LEAST. BUT WE'RE EXPECTING THAT WE WOULD START CONSTRUCTION SOMETIME IN DECEMBER OF 2025. AND IT'S AGAIN, IT'S A VERY AGGRESSIVE SCHEDULE. BUT THIS THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO PROPOSE OR THIS IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO POINT OUT, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT NOTE AT THE UPPER RIGHT, IF WE DO DECIDE TO MOVE OVER PAST 1626, IT WILL DELAY THE PROJECT AT LEAST SEVERAL MONTHS, IF NOT LONGER. SO WE NEED DIRECTION ON WHAT COUNCIL WOULD LIKE. I MEAN, SORRY, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO DO AND ON AND CONTINUE OUR PROJECT AND WE HAVE SOME OPTIONS FOR YOU. OPTION ONE WE JUST TAKE IT FROM 2770 UP TO CROMWELL AND STOP THERE. WE DO NOT INCLUDE THOSE 3 TO 4 POLLS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THAT ARE THERE AT 1626. WE STILL HAVE IT STILL IN OUR BUDGET. SO THERE'S NO BUDGET IMPACT. AND IT WILL NOT DELAY THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE.OPTION TWO THIS IS DOING THE WHOLE THING FROM 2770 TO 1626. YOU'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT $2.6 MILLION. CONTINGENCY COULD BE USED, BUT IT'S NOT EXPECTED TO IMPACT THE BUDGET. WE HAD ABOUT A YEAR TO THE PROJECT AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION. OPTION THREE DO NOT AUTHORIZE EXPENDITURES AND LIMIT THE RELOCATION OF THE OVERHEAD LINES TO THE PROJECT LIMITS. WE WOULD STILL DO THE $300,000 PROJECT FOR THOSE TWO POLES ON THE WEST END THAT NEED TO BE REMOVED, SO WE'LL STILL DO THOSE. THAT'S ABOUT $300,000. SO THAT'S NOT A GREAT BUDGET IMPACT. AND THE PROJECT SCHEDULE WILL STILL STAY ON SCHEDULE. OPTION FOR ANY OTHER DIRECTIONS THAT YOU MAY GIVE US. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING OPTION ONE. LET'S TAKE IT FROM 2770 TO CROMWELL. AND WE NEED ABOUT 1.6 MILLION IN ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THAT. QUESTIONS? YES. YEAH. LEON. LOOK, HONESTLY, I THINK LAST WEEK SHOWED US THE IMPORTANCE OF BURYING OUR POLES. WE DEFINITELY HAD CENTER STREET SHUT DOWN FOR QUITE A BIT. SO I'M KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS BURYING EVERYTHING WHERE WE CAN, WHERE WE HAVE PROJECTS COMING FORWARD. SINCE THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S MOVING FORWARD. I MEAN, NOT BEING ABLE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS TIME, WHAT WOULD IT COST LATER TO DO SO? I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE EFFICIENT IF WE DID IT NOW AND SPENT THE LITTLE EXTRA, AND WE HAVE IT IN A CONTINGENCY, RIGHT? RIGHT. OR PUT IT PART OF THE OVERALL BUDGET FOR IT. FOR THE 1.6 WE DO FOR THE 2.6, I DON'T KNOW IF THE ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST, ADDITIONAL COST. IT COULD BE. RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE MORE THAN WE HAVE. BUT I THINK WHAT OUR PERSPECTIVE IS, IS WE KNOW THE UNDERGROUNDING OF UTILITY LINES IS VERY IMPORTANT. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE COUNCIL ON THIS BOARD MANY TIMES. WE CAN ALWAYS LOOK AT THAT AS A FUTURE PROJECT.
COMPLETE ALL THE WORK THAT WE HAVE PLANNED AND LOOK AT DOING THOSE OTHER LINES AND UNDERGROUNDING AND POTENTIALLY GOING FURTHER DOWN COLLARS AT A LATER TIME, THAT THAT WOULD BE THAT'S HOW WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT. CERTAINLY THERE'S OTHER PERSPECTIVES, BUT THAT WOULD BE KIND OF HOW WE WOULD APPROACH THIS, ANOTHER PROJECT LATER ON. SO IT WOULDN'T IMPACT THE CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE FOR ALL OF THE OTHER ROUNDABOUTS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF PLANS FOR COLAS, INCLUDING THE OVERPASS OVER THE RAIL LINE, OTHER TWO OTHER ROUNDABOUTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT AS WELL THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THAT KIND OF PROJECT AT THAT TIME. YEAH, I GUESS FOR ME IT'S BECAUSE WE'RE ALREADY DIGGING IT UP. RIGHT? SO IF YOU'RE DIGGING IT UP, WHY DIG IT UP TWICE, I GUESS IS WHAT MY THING? BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO COST US TWICE AS MUCH. SO OUR I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE ALREADY DELAYED ON THE PROJECT. SO A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DELAY. HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT IT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO ASK OURSELVES AS A COMMISSION, IS DO WE WANT TO BE RIGHT ON THE SCHEDULE NOW THAT THEY'RE GIVING US IT'S ALREADY BEHIND SCHEDULE OR DO WE CONTINUE DOWN THIS ROUTE? I GUESS MY ISSUE IS THAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IT TWICE. SURE, I'D LOVE TO DIG IT UP ONCE AND NOT HAVE TO DO IT AGAIN, BECAUSE TO DIG IT UP AGAIN IS MORE EXPENSIVE. SO WE ACTUALLY SAVING MONEY BY PUSHING IT DOWN THE ROAD? OR IS IT MORE EFFICIENT TO DO IT NOW? COUNCIL MEMBER THIS IS FOOD FOR THOUGHT. 1626 AT ONE TIME, SAY ABOUT TEN YEARS AGO, THERE WAS CONSIDERATION TO PUT A ROUNDABOUT THERE. AND WE TALKED TO TEXT A LOT ABOUT THAT. AND I THINK THERE WAS A BIT OF PUSHBACK FROM, FROM THE CITIZENS ON THAT. SO TXDOT ENDED UP AT THAT POINT IN TIME WAS ALWAYS STOPS, IF YOU ALL REMEMBER THAT IT WAS ALWAYS STOPS. AND SO TEXT AT THE LAST MINUTE DECIDED JUST TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IT UP TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS. SO THERE MAY BE IN THE FUTURE PLANS THAT THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAYBE EVEN PUT A ROUNDABOUT THERE, OR MAYBE EVEN MORE SOMETHING THAT WOULD HANDLE MORE TRAFFIC, MAYBE AN OVERPASS ON 1626 GO THROUGH THAT INTERSECTION. SO IF WE START MOVING UTILITIES RIGHT NOW AND LOWER THEM, THEY COULD BE IN CONFLICT WITH THOSE PROJECTS IF THEY EVER COME ONLINE. BUT THAT'S THAT'S A FUTURE. BUT THAT WAS SOMETHING I JUST WANT TO PUT OUT THERE. SOUNDS GOOD. THANK
[00:10:04]
YOU LEON. THAT INTERSECTION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AS A CONCERN FOR US MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ROUNDABOUTS THAT WE HAVE PLANNED IN THIS AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. WE HAVE TWO OTHERS ON KOHLER TO THE EAST OF THAT, AND WE HAVE THE OVERPASS OVER THE RAIL LINE AND OF COURSE, THE PROJECT UNDERNEATH 35. SO THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC PLANNED IN THE FUTURE. WE'VE DONE SOME MODELING THAT SHOWS THAT INTERSECTION AT COLAS AND 1626 WILL FAIL AND NOT HAVE ENOUGH BE TOO MUCH TRAFFIC FOR THE TRAFFIC CONTROL THAT'S THERE. SO I THINK LEON IS CORRECT. WE WILL NEED SOMETHING WHEN THAT IS HOW IT'S FUNDED. I CAN'T TELL YOU JUST RIGHT NOW, BUT I GUESS FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, THAT'S WHY WE WERE LOOKING AT LET'S MOVE FORWARD WITH WHAT WE KNOW WE CAN DO. WE BELIEVE THE PROJECT IS ON TRACK AND ON SCHEDULE. LET'S GET IT. LET'S KEEP IT MOVING. AND LOOK AT THIS A FUTURE PHASE. THAT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION. CERTAINLY THERE'S OTHER PERSPECTIVES, BUT WE WANTED TO JUST TALK ABOUT IT AND SEE WHERE YOU WERE. YEAH. IT'S OPTION ONE IS REALLY WHAT Y'ALL ARE RECOMMENDING. CAN YOU GO AHEAD AND PUT THAT RECOMMENDATION UP ONCE AGAIN? AND IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL MEMBER TIBBETTS? I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, COUNCIL MEMBER RIZZO, BUT WE ALSO GOT TO LOOK AT WE NEED TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH DISRUPTION OF SERVICE TO THE RESIDENTS. IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC BUDGET WE NEED TO STICK BY, THAT'S ONE THING WE GOT TO REALLY LOOK AT IS THE FINANCING. YOU KNOW, WE IT'S HARD TO SAY IF IT'S WE'RE GOING TO BE PAYING MORE DOWN THE ROAD, BUT BECAUSE EVERYTHING'S GOING TO GO UP OBVIOUSLY. BUT I THINK TAKING IT STEP BY STEP, AND IF THIS IS WHAT THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT WE DO, AND IF THERE'S OTHER POLLS THAT THAT DO NOT NEED TO COME DOWN AT THIS TIME, WE CAN WAIT TILL LATER. THAT'S THE WAY I LOOK AT IT. AGAIN, IT ANY KIND OF CONSTRUCTION WE DO, WHETHER IT'S A ROUNDABOUT OR WIDENING A ROAD, IT'S GOING TO IMPACT OUR RESIDENTS. WE'VE GOT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THAT LEVEL. I WANT TO MINIMIZE AS MUCH IMPACT AND TRAFFIC JAMS AND ROAD BLOCKAGES AND SERVICE. OF COURSE, THOSE POLLS ARE GOING TO NEED TO COME DOWN, SO PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE WITHOUT ELECTRICITY. AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I KNOW YOU PROBABLY WON'T BE ABLE TO ANSWER, BUT IF THEY DO, IF THEY BRING DOWN THESE TWO LINES, WHAT WOULD BE POSSIBLY FROM PECK'S PERSPECTIVE, THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT PEOPLE WOULD BE WITHOUT POWER AT CERTAIN TIMES OF THE DAY. I GUESS THAT'S HOW THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO IT. CORRECT. THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO SHUT IT ALL DOWN, AND THEN IT'S GOING TO TAKE A WEEK. IT'S GOING TO BE HAVE TO DO IT IN SPURTS. SO WE HAVE TO WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AS WELL. SO I'M I'M OKAY WITH THE OPTION ONE THAT BEING RECOMMENDED OKAY. MORE DISCUSSION. YES I HAVE A QUESTION THAT'S INDEPENDENT FROM THIS. SO IF YOU WANT TO RESPOND TO HIM I WAS I WAS JUST GOING TO MAKE THE MOTION TO OH YEAH. LET ME ASK A QUESTION REAL QUICK.GOING BACK TO THE POTENTIAL ROUNDABOUT AT KOHLER. AND 1626, HOW IF WE'RE SITTING HERE RIGHT NOW ACKNOWLEDGING TO OURSELVES THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A FUTURE NEED FOR US, HOW DO WE ENGAGE INSTEAD OF BEING REACTIVE AND WAITING FOR TXDOT TO MAKE IT A PRIORITY AND WHERE THEIR PRIORITIES AT THE WHOLE STATE, HOW DO WE MAKE THAT A PRIORITY FOR THEM? WELL, I THINK WE HAVE ENGAGED TXDOT ON THAT ISSUE. JUST TO THE I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE I GET ALL MY DIRECTIONS RIGHT, JUST TO THE NORTH OF THAT AT AVENUE A, CLOSE TO THE SPROUTS LOCATION, WE HAD A QUITE A BIT OF DISCUSSION WITH TXDOT ABOUT PUTTING A SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION THERE. THE CONCERN WAS THAT SIGNAL WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION AT 1626 AND KOHLER. SO WE ACTUALLY DID SOME TRAFFIC ANALYSIS AND TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES TO SEE IF THAT WOULD WORK, HOW IT WOULD WORK, AND WHAT WE ALL IDENTIFIED, AND I THINK TXDOT AGREED WITH US, IS THAT THAT INTERSECTION WILL HAVE TO CHANGE AT SOME POINT. THERE WERE SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT WERE IDENTIFIED, AND WE'RE STILL LOOKING AT WHICH ONE PROBABLY IS THE BEST ONE FOR IT PROBABLY WON'T BE JUST A ROUNDABOUT. IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE CREATIVE THAN THAT COULD BE THE OVERPASS THAT LEON MENTIONED. SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THOSE WORKING WITH TXDOT AND THEN TRYING TO SEE HOW ULTIMATELY THAT WOULD GET DONE AND HOW IT COULD BE FUNDED. BUT WE ARE ENGAGING WITH THEM TO WORK THROUGH THAT, AND IT'S REALLY KIND OF COME OUT OF SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE HAD IN THE AREA. HOPEFULLY THAT HELPS ANSWER THE QUESTION. OKAY, ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR TO ASK A QUESTION? DEBBIE LEON IS THE 1.6 MILLION BEING PROPOSED. THIS THIS, IS THIS AFFECTING? I GUESS ONLY THE PROS AND CONS IN IN CONFLICT. THIS THIS THIS MOVES ONLY THE PROS AND CONFLICT IS THAT IS THAT THE PROPOSAL? NO, SIR. IT'S FOR ALL OF THE POLLS AND CONFLICT. THE POLLS IN CONFLICT PLUS THE POLLS NOT IN CONFLICT. ONE THROUGH EIGHT PLUS ONE AND TWO. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR
[00:15:06]
THE AUTHORITY FOR THE EXPENDITURE AUTHORITY TO MOVE ALL OF THOSE POLLS. YEAH. SO I HAVE KIND OF HAVE TO KIND OF THINK ABOUT LIKE THE, THE STAYING WITHIN OUR CONSTRAINTS.BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT. AND WE'RE JUST WE JUST WANT TO MOVE THEM BECAUSE IT WOULD BE NEATER AND CLEANER IS THAT THERE'S NO ROUNDABOUT THAT'S GOING TO CONFLICT WITH THOSE.
RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. THE ROUNDABOUT THAT'S NOT A CONFLICT WITH THE ROUNDABOUT. THE ONES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT ARE NUMBER ONE AND TWO ON THE RIGHT. RIGHT. I THINK THE WAY WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT IT, COUNCIL MEMBER, IS A LOT OF ALL OF OUR OTHER ROAD BOND PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE.
THEY ALL HAVE AN UNDERGROUNDING COMPONENT OF THE ELECTRICAL LINES. AND AS WE WERE TOUCHING THIS ROADWAY, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE'VE HAD WITH THIS BOARD WERE TO LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING SIMILAR, WHEN IF YOU TOUCH IT AND YOU MOVE SOME OF THESE, THAT WILL BE IN CONFLICT, LET'S GO AHEAD AND UNDERGROUND THEM AT THE SAME TIME, PERHAPS BACK TO COUNCIL MEMBER RIZZO'S COMMENT AS WELL. AND THE REASON WHY IS WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING I'M SORRY. I MEAN, YEAH, I THINK THAT THE POLLS HELP WITH LIGHTING, RIGHT. BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE STREET LIGHTS ON THOSE POLLS. SO NOW YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE IT EVEN DARKER BY NOT HAVING THE LIGHTS ON THOSE POLLS. WE'RE IMPROVING THE. EXACTLY. THERE'LL BE A LIGHTING ELEMENT TO THIS. OKAY. LIGHTING IS INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT. YEAH, BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF LIKE WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE ROAD BOND IS DESIGNED TO TRY TO TRY TO TOUCH AS MUCH UNDERGROUND AS POSSIBLE. AND WE COULD GO OVER BUDGET ON ALL OF THAT TO SO. SO WHY WAS THERE WHY WAS THERE NO OPTION ONLY TO DO THE POLLS AND CONFLICT? I BELIEVE THAT'S OPTION NUMBER THREE. COUNCIL MEMBER OKAY. BUT WE DO BELIEVE THAT WITH THE 1.6 EXPENDITURE THAT WE WOULD BE WITHIN BUDGET, WE HAVE CONTINGENCY FUNDING THAT WE WOULD APPLY TO MOVE THOSE POLLS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE CONFLICT. SO OPTION THREE IS LIMITING ONLY THE TWO THAT DO NEED TO BE MOVED. RIGHT. THAT IS CORRECT FOR THE 300,000 OKAY.
OKAY. THAT'S THAT'S MY QUESTION. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO AND EXACTLY. JUST LIKE COUNCILMAN TOBIA SAYS, LIMITING THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS. THAT'S WHY I FIGURED LET'S DO IT NOW THAN DO IT LATER. BECAUSE IF YOU WAIT TILL LATER, YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOW CLOSING DOWN THE ROAD TWICE INSTEAD OF ONCE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE COST SAVINGS FOR US? LET'S DO IT ONE TIME. LET'S GET IT OVER WITH. AND THEN. BUT IF THERE'S AREAS THAT WE'RE GOING TO TOUCH LATER, THEN LET'S AVOID THOSE. BUT I THINK I'M GOOD WITH OPTION ONE. SO GO TO OPTION ONE REAL QUICK. COMMISSIONER I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE OPTION ONE AS WRITTEN. OKAY. SECOND OKAY. THERE'S A MOTION AND A COUPLE OF SECONDS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I JUST HAVE ONE COMMENT. ARE THERE ANY BESIDES PC POLLS? WHAT OTHER COMMUNICATIONS ARE GOING TO BE ON THOSE POLLS THAT MIGHT BE AFFECTED? ARE WE LOOKING AT FRONTIER? ARE WE LOOKING AT SPECTRUM? ARE WE LOOKING AT JUST NOT JUST PC? BECAUSE THOSE POLLS GET USED, UTILIZED BY EVERYBODY, INCLUDING PHONE LINES, WHICH I WAS WORKING ON THAT TODAY WITH A, WITH A, WITH A I BELIEVE THERE'S FRONTIER ON ONE OF THE POLLS, BUT THEY'RE ALL GOING TO GO UNDERGROUND IN ADDITION TO PC. OKAY. SO THOSE POLLS THAT ARE IN QUESTION, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMUNICATION OUTLETS JUST ON THAT END OR I'M JUST I'M JUST THINKING IT'S AN ELECTRICAL POLE. IS IT JUST THE ELECTRICAL WIRES? BUT OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF THEM.
BESIDES THE THREE PHASE POLLS. SO JOANNA GARCIA FOR THE CITY PROJECT MANAGER ON THIS PROJECT.
SO BESIDES THE PC POLL, THERE'S A WHAT WE CALL A SHORT POLL. THEY'VE BEEN CUT BY PC AND COMMUNICATION LINES ARE ON IT. THERE'S ONE COMMUNICATION LINE WITH ABOUT FOUR OVERHEAD COMMUNICATION COMPANIES THAT WILL BE IN CONFLICT. WE'LL HAVE TO RELOCATE THOSE COMMUNICATION LINES TO GO UNDER, YOU KNOW, FOR PROBABLY THE SAME DISTANCE AS THE OVERHEAD PC LINES. OKAY. SO WITH THAT 1.6 B, IT COVERS ALL COMBINED TOGETHER. SO IF THE PC AND THE COMMUNICATION LINES ARE IN CONFLICT BECAUSE OF THE ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, THEN THE IF THE OTHER FACILITIES OR ENTITIES ARE
[00:20:01]
IN OUR RIGHT OF WAY, NOT ON AN EASEMENT, THEY HAD TO MOVE ON THEIR OWN EXPENSE BECAUSE THEY WERE IN CONFLICT WITH OUR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. IF THEY'RE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH OUR ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, THEN THE CITY HAS TO PAY FOR THE RELOCATIONS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS. SO AT THAT LOCATION, THE ONES THAT ARE IN CONFLICT HAVE TO MOVE ON THEIR OWN EXPENSE TO BE OUT OF CONFLICT WITH THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS, WHICH IS A STORM DRAIN, ILLUMINATION ROAD PAVEMENT. OKAY, THAT THAT BRINGS UP, YOU KNOW, OTHER PARTS TO THIS SCENARIO, BECAUSE IF WE START BRINGING THE POLES DOWN, THEN IT COULD BE OTHER COMPANIES SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE, WE WERE NOT APPROVED OF THIS, AND WE'LL BE PICKING UP THE TAB FOR THAT, WHICH MEANS IT WILL INCREASE ON THAT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COVERED. IF WE GO WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION AND WE GO WITH THIS VOTE, THAT WILL BE OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. I JUST WANT ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD WAS WHEN WE CREATED NUMBER TWO, THE ORIGINAL MAP, WE PUT IT OVER THE ENTIRE PLUM CREEK NORTH LENNAR DEVELOPMENT PROJECT AND THEY ACTUALLY OPPOSED IT. SO THEY CAME UP, THEY WROTE A LETTER. THEY SENT A LETTER. THEY SAID, WE DON'T WANT TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS STIRS. THIS STIRS EXISTS FOR THE BRICK AND MORTAR DISTRICT SENT THE LETTER AND CAME IN. BUT WE TALKED TO THEM MORE ABOUT IT. AND THEIR NUMBER ONE REASON FOR CONCERN WAS THAT THEY THOUGHT ALL THE MONEY THAT THE TERS WOULD SPEND FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS WOULD BE TO THE EAST OF THEM. IT WOULD BE TO THE BRICK AND MORTAR DISTRICT AND INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. AND THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW IS THIS PLAN THAT YOU HAVE GOING TO IMPACT LENNAR AND THIS SUBDIVISION? AND THIS WAS THE PROJECT RIGHT HERE. THESE POLES THAT WERE UP THAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO THEM, BECAUSE IT REALLY IMPROVES THE ESTHETIC OF THE PLUM CREEK NORTH SUBDIVISION. SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT COME FORWARD. I HAVE A PICTURE OF IT BECAUSE THEY'RE ADDING POLES AND THEN YOU ADD POLES. ONCE YOU THE WAY STATE LAW WORKS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT ONCE THE POLE IS UP, NEW FIBER OPTIC LINES CAN GET LAID AND THEY DON'T HAVE TO ASK OUR PERMISSION. SO IT'S JUST MORE. AND LIKE DOWNTOWN, YOU REMEMBER HOW MANY LINE AFTER LINE AFTER LINE WAS ADDED. BUT ONCE THEY'RE UNDERGROUND THAT THAT CHANGES THE DYNAMICS THERE QUITE A BIT. SO IT DOES HAVE A BIG IMPACT. SO FOR ME, I'M EXCITED TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT'S EVEN THOUGH THAT MAYBE NOT A LOT OF US WERE THERE WHEN THIS WAS CREATED, THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT ENDED UP ALLOWING FOR LENNAR, WHICH HAS CREATED IMMENSE CASH FLOW VALUE TO THE TERS, THAT SUBDIVISION. IT'S NOT I MEAN, IT'S THIS THIS ALMOST THE SIZE OF A CITY GOING UP OUT THERE, BUT THERE THIS WOULD THIS WOULD BENEFIT THEM. AND I THINK THAT'S AT LEAST WORTH NOTING. THAT'S GREAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION QUESTIONS. IS THERE A MOTION? WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION A SECOND OKAY THERE IT IS OKAY.SORRY ABOUT THAT OKAY. IF THERE IS NO OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. I GUESS THAT COMES TO THE CONCLUSION OF THIS TERS NUMBER TWO BOARD. IS THERE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SECOND. SECOND.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.