Sep 15, 2026 City Council Regular Meeting

[I) Call Meeting to Order, Roll Call, and Excuse Absences]

[00:00:10]

TODAY IS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH. IT IS BUDGET DAY. YAY. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR COMING. I AM IS THE TIME IS 7:00. I'M GOING TO CALL THIS REGULAR THIS REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. CAN I PLEASE GET A ROLL CALL? DORIS KALE HERE. YES. PRESENT. I'M HERE. MEDINA HERE.

ZAPATA HERE. HARRIS HERE. MCKINNEY. HERE. ALL RIGHT, THAT'S SEVEN. WE HAVE A QUORUM.

UP NEXT, WE HAVE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. I THOUGHT WE DID APPROVAL AND THEN THE PLEDGE.

BUT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THE PLEDGE. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. IF EVERYBODY CAN PLEASE STAND, WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. ALRIGHT, NOW WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. ALL RIGHT, NOW WE HAVE ITEM TWO

[II) Approval of Minutes]

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER. I MEAN, MAYOR PRO TEM TOBIAS AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. I. OPPOSED MOTION PASSES, SEVEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, WE HAVE CITIZENS COMMENTS. THE CITY. CAN I INTERRUPT FOR JUST A SECOND? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO EXCUSE DOCTOR HARRIS FROM THE LAST THURSDAY'S MEETING. ALL RIGHT. SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY TO EXCUSE COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS FROM LAST MEETING AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MAYOR PRO TEM TOBIAS. ALL IN FAVOR? SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES, SEVEN ZERO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

[III) Citizen Comment Period with City Council]

I'M WRITING A BOOK ABOUT THIS TOPIC. AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE, SOME OF THE GRAPHICS. OOPS SORRY. GO AHEAD. AND SO I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT BLOCKCHAIN AND PUBLIC FINANCE. BLOCKCHAIN AND PUBLIC FINANCE HAS A FUNDAMENTAL, YOU KNOW, AS A CITY, YOU HAVE A FUNDAMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT TAXPAYER DOLLARS, DELIVER ESSENTIAL SERVICES, AND MAKE SURE EVERY DOLLAR CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR. THE PROBLEM IS, IS MUNICIPAL FINANCE INFORMATION IS SCATTERED THROUGH ACROSS DEPARTMENTS, SYSTEMS, SPREADSHEETS. IT'S HARD TO KNOW WHERE ALL THOSE DOLLARS ARE. SOMETIMES WHEN LEADERSHIP ASKS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, IT CAN TAKE DAYS, WEEKS, AND MONTHS TO KIND OF RECTIFY THOSE LEDGERS. SO WHAT I DID IS I HAD REACHED OUT, I, I CREATED, I DID AN EVENT WHERE I MET THE MAYOR AND I MET, TALKED TO COURTNEY ABOUT THIS IDEA. AND THEY KIND OF ENCOURAGED ME, HEY, COME ON, LET'S, LET'S TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. SO WHAT I DID IS I MET WITH COURTNEY AND WE WENT THROUGH AND WE FOUND OVER 17 ISSUES THAT JUST WERE NOT TRANSPARENT. I'M GOING TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF THEM HERE. THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS ISSUES, MISSING LINE ITEM PURCHASES, RELOCATION OF FUND DISCREPANCIES. NO AMAZON. I CAN'T EVEN TALK. BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF HOLES IN A LOT OF THINGS THAT SHOULD BE VERY TRANSPARENT TO ALL OF YOU. AND SHE'S ON THE CITY COUNCIL, AND SHE COULDN'T EVEN GET TO THAT INFORMATION. BASICALLY, WHAT THERE IS A SOLUTION AND THE SOLUTION IS USING A BLOCKCHAIN FINANCIAL INFRASTRUCTURE THAT

[00:05:06]

THERE IS PROCUREMENT THROUGH TRANSPARENCY VERIFICATION. THINK OF BLOCKCHAIN AS A TRUSTED LAYER CONNECTING THE CITY'S FINANCIAL PROCESSES, INCLUDING BUDGETING, PROCUREMENT, PAYMENTS, GRANTS, REVENUE, AND CAPITAL PROJECTS. THE FOUR KEY BENEFITS OF THIS BLOCKCHAIN PUBLIC FINANCE IS STRONGER FINANCIAL CONTROLS, GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY, BETTER FINANCIAL VISIBILITY, AND A GREATER PUBLIC TRUST, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, YOUR WHOLE. SO IT COMES DOWN TO, WELL, WHO'S DOING THIS? WHERE IS WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE MARKETPLACE? WELL, RIGHT NOW QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS IS USING IT. THE WORLD BANK IS USING IT. AND THE EUROPEAN INVESTMENT BANK, THEY HAVE ALREADY DEMONSTRATED A SUCCESSFUL BLOCKCHAIN APPLICATIONS IN PUBLIC FINANCE. NOW IF YOU GO THROUGH THE THE THE BOOKLET I GAVE YOU, THERE IS A LOT OF OTHER ORGANIZATIONS. ESTONIA HAS BEEN USING IT OVER 20 YEARS. I MEAN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING NEW. IT'S JUST SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE IMPLICATED, IMPLEMENTED YOUR THREE YOUR I'M SORRY, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP A MINUTE AGO. WHAT'S THAT? YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE OVER A MINUTE AGO. YES. SORRY, THE BILL WASN'T VERY LOUD. NO, I'M SITTING CLOSE TO HIM. YOU CAN BARELY HEAR. IT'S. YEAH, IT'S PROBABLY THE MICROPHONE. OKAY, OKAY. BUT IF YOU WANT, WE'LL GO THROUGH THIS INFORMATION. AND IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING THAT'S ADDITIONAL, YOU CAN GIVE IT TO JENNIFER AND SHE CAN. I'M WORKING WITH LEADERS THAT ARE INVOLVED WITH FORTUNE 500 COMPANIES, AND THE PEOPLE WHO CREATED SOME OF THE FIRST ANTIVIRUS SOFTWARE. SO THESE ARE REALLY BRILLIANT PEOPLE THAT COULD DEFINITELY RECONCILE THE WHOLE ISSUES WITH STUFF. AND OUR PROJECTION IS WE COULD PROBABLY SAVE SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR WITH THIS SYSTEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU'VE EMAILED US. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE DOING SO. WHAT'S THAT? IS THAT YOU'VE EMAILED US. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO CONTINUE DOING SO. ENCOURAGE ME TO CONTINUE DOING SO. OH, YEAH. YES. YEAH. TAKE A LOOK AND ASK ME ANY QUESTIONS ANYTIME. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT WE HAVE EVELYN ANGELINA CHAPPA. I NEED TO LEARN IT. I KNOW MISS CHAPPA BY HEART. IT'S HER FIRST NAME. I NEVER CALL HER BY HER FIRST NAME. SHE'S. SHE'S MY BOSS. GOOD EVENING. I AM EVANGELINA CHAPA. THANK YOU ALL FOR ALLOWING THE CITIZENS TO HAVE A VOICE. I HOPE THAT THE DISCUSSION OF THE ROAD BOND MONEY, MONEY LAST WEEK IS WAS TO USE TO BE USED IN MILTON. LEHMAN WROTE THAT IT PASSES IN THE FUTURE. I BELIEVE THE SCHOOL KIDS WILL BENEFIT FROM FROM THIS DECISION, SO I'M HOPING YOU'LL DISCUSS IT AND PASS IT. ANOTHER THING IS THERE ARE PEOPLE THAT ARE USING THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE BIKE TRAIL AND ARE USING THE WORD REVITALIZE. THERE ARE ALSO INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE RUNNING FOR ELECTION AND USING REVITALIZE. I SUGGEST THEY READ THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON DOWNTOWN REVITALIZATION WITH THE WAY IT WAS DESIGNED, USING THE CONCRETE OR THE PATHWAY, THE 12FT OR 10FT. THAT'S JUST NOT THE WAY DOWNTOWN SHOULD BE REVITALIZED. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, I HAVE REBECCA CHAPA.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBERS. MY NAME IS REBECCA CHAPA. THE LAST FEW MONTHS HAVE BEEN A BRUTAL DECISION. DISCUSSION ABOUT THE EXPENDITURES OF THE 2022 ROAD BOND. I'M SORRY TO SAY THAT MY TEN YEAR OLD NIECE UNDERSTOOD SOMETHING THAT I THINK ALL OF US NEED TO UNDERSTAND. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE ENOUGH FUNDING TO COMPLETE EVERYTHING THAT WAS

[00:10:02]

MANY WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE ENTIRE VIBE COMPLETED, BUT WE NEED TO BE REALISTIC. THE TRAIL SYSTEM WAS NOT FULLY INCORPORATED INTO THE ORIGINAL ROADWAY PLANNING AND COST ESTIMATES, AND ADDING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS NOW COMES WITH ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, PROPERTY AND DRAINAGE COSTS. WHEN WE COMBINE THE ROADS, ROUNDABOUTS, UNDERGROUND UTILITIES, PROPERTY EASEMENTS, ACQUISITIONS AND A COMPLETED VIBE, WE ARE PUTTING EVEN MORE STRESS ON AN ALREADY LIMITED BUDGET. I ALSO BELIEVE WE NEED TO LOOK AT HOW WE HAVE USED THAT USE MONEY THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO US IN THE PAST. THE KINDER MORGAN FUNDS COULD HAVE BEEN PRESERVED AND USED MORE STRATEGICALLY. SORRY. STRATEGICALLY. PERHAPS WE COULD HAVE STARTED PORTIONS OF THE VIBE IN CERTAIN AREAS WITHOUT PUTTING ADDITIONAL PRESSURE.

PRESSURE ON THE ROAD BOND AND SPENDING APPROXIMATELY 5 MILLION ON DOWNTOWN PROPERTIES WAS NOT SOMETHING I BELIEVE NEEDED TO HAPPEN AT THIS TIME. THOSE PROPERTIES MAY BE EVENTUALLY BENEFIT, MAY EVENTUALLY BENEFIT THE CITY, BUT WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO FIND MONEY TO COMPLETE ESSENTIAL INFRASTRUCTURE, WE HAVE TO PRIORITIZE. WOULD IT BE NICE TO HAVE ALL AMENITIES NOW? ABSOLUTELY. BUT WANTING EVERYTHING NOW DOESN'T MEAN WE CAN AFFORD EVERYTHING NOW. WE NEED TO STICK TO THE BUDGET, FINISH THE PROJECTS WE CAN AFFORD, AND LOOK FOR GRANTS, STATES AND FEDERAL FUNDING THAT MAY OPT, AND OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO COMPLETE THE REMAINING PROJECTS IN THE FUTURE. THIS ISN'T ABOUT SAYING NO TO THE IMPROVEMENTS. IT'S ABOUT SAYING NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO HAPPEN AT ONCE. KYLE IS GROWING, AND EVENTUALLY SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS WILL COME, BUT LET'S MAKE SURE WE CAN AFFORD THEM WHEN THEY DO. LET'S FINISH WHAT WE STARTED. STAY WITHIN THE BUDGET, SEEK OUT SIDE FUNDING, AND PROTECT OUR TAXPAYERS FROM HAVING TO CONTINUALLY GO BACK AND FIND MORE MONEY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE DARYL CLARK.

GOOD EVENING. MAYOR. COUNCIL MEMBERS. I STAND HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY AND GOING BACK TO MY COMMENTS A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AS TO HOW COME THE CITY OF KYLE DOES NOT HAVE A DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE. MAKE A LONG STORY SHORT, GET A DRIVER, A DRIVER'S LICENSE OFFICE. OKAY.

IF WE GO BACK TO BE CAVE, HOW LONG DID IT TAKE BE CAVE TO FINALLY GET APPROVED FOR FUNDING TO GET THEIR OFFICE BUILT. BUT YET THE RESIDENTS OF KYLE GOT TO GO THIS WAY. THAT WAY TO SAN MARCOS FOR WHAT THEY NEED TO DO. AS FAR AS DRIVING PRIVILEGES. OKAY. KYLE, AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, I DO HISTORY. THE 12 FASTEST GROWING CITIES IN TEXAS. KYLE RANKS SEVENTH.

HOW LONG IS IT GOING TO TAKE FOR KYLE TO SEE THE KYLE? TO GET THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE BK GOT THEIRS. HOW LONG DID IT TAKE THEM TO GET THEIRS? SO I'M QUITE SURE SOMEBODY IN BK BOARD PANEL, THEY LISTENED TO THE PEOPLE. WHY ARE THE CITIZENS OF BK GOING THIS WAY? THAT WAY, THIS WAY, THAT WAY, THAT WAY. FOR SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RIGHT THERE IN THEIR OWN BACKYARD? THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING. COUNCIL HAD THE SAME THING.

ANOTHER THING, KYLE DOES NOT HAVE NO LAW OFFICES FOR SENIOR CITIZENS. WHEN THERE'S A TIME OF NEED, WHEN A SENIOR CITIZEN HAS A VALID PROBLEM AGAINST SAID PERSON, BUT YET CANNOT

[00:15:01]

OKAY. UP NEXT, I HAVE ROBERT HUNTER. GOOD EVENING. I'M SORRY. MY VOICE IS A LITTLE OUT. I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR PUTTING CLOSED CAPTIONING UP THERE BECAUSE I'M PROFOUNDLY DEAF. I WEAR HEARING AIDS, AND IT'S HARD TO READ LIPS FROM THE BACK OF SOMEBODY'S HEAD. SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR FLORES AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL. I'M ROBERT HUNTER. EXCUSE ME. AND I'M HERE AGAIN REGARDING KYLE VISTA PARK. FIRST, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE SOMETHING VERY POSITIVE. ON AUGUST 27TH, MAYOR PRO TEM TOBIAS MADE THE MOTION TO ESTABLISH KYLE VISTA PARK IMPROVEMENTS AS A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT AND DEDICATED $1,886,545.60 IN DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS FROM SIX CREEKS TO IT. MAYOR FLORES CARL SECONDED THE MOTION, AND THIS COUNCIL APPROVED IT UNANIMOUSLY. FOR RESIDENTS WHO HAVE WAITED MANY YEARS TO SEAL TO SEE KYLE VISTA ACTUALLY DEVELOPED AS A PARK. THANK YOU.

BUT TONIGHT, I NEED TO RAISE AN IMPORTANT UNFINISHED MATTER. ON AUGUST 18TH, THE COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED ON FIRST READING AN ORDINANCE REPEALING RESOLUTION 1909 AND DEDICATING KYLE VISTA PARK EXCLUSIVELY TO PARK AND RECREATION PURPOSES. THE ORDINANCE PRESENTED THAT NIGHT WAS UNNUMBERED AND UNSIGNED. IT CONTAINS SEPARATE LINES FOR PASSED AND APPROVED, AND FINALLY PASSED AND APPROVED. I HAVE NOW REVIEWED THE SEPTEMBER 1ST RECORDS AND THE ENTIRE SEPTEMBER 15TH AGENDA PACKET. I CANNOT FIND A SECOND AND FINAL READING OF THE KYLE VISTA ORDINANCE, AND TONIGHT'S AGENDA SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIES SEVERAL OTHER ORDINANCES AS SECOND READING, BUT KYLE VISTA ORDINANCE IS NOT AMONG THEM. SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL AND CITY ATTORNEY WHAT IS THE STATUS OF KYLE VISTA PARK ORDINANCE? HAS IT RECEIVED FINAL ADOPTION? IF NOT, WHEN WILL IT RETURN FOR A SECOND READING AND FINAL PASSAGE? AND BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK COUNCIL TO ADDRESS ONE REMAINING WEAKNESS IN THE ORDINANCE. THREE, SAYS KYLE VISTA IS DEDICATED EXCLUSIVELY FOR PARK AND RECREATION. THAT. EXACTLY. THAT'S EXACTLY THE PROTECTION RESIDENTS HAVE ASKED FOR. BUT SECTION FOUR CREATES THE EXCEPTION FOR INCIDENTAL GOVERNMENT USES, INCLUDING UTILITIES AND RIGHTS OF WAY NEEDED TO SERVE KYLE VISTA OR THE SURROUNDING AREA. THOSE LAST FOUR WORDS CONCERN ME. WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN HOW QUICKLY KYLE VISTA WENT FROM A PARK TO CONSIDERATION FOR A COUNTY COMPLEX AND AN ANIMAL FACILITY. I UNDERSTAND LEGITIMATE UTILITY EASEMENTS, BUT THE SURROUNDING AREA SHOULD NOT BECOME A LOOPHOLE ALLOWING INFRASTRUCTURE, PRINCIPALLY SERVING SOME FUTURE NON-PARK GOVERNMENTAL OR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT. BEFORE FINAL PASSAGE, I ASKED COUNCIL TO STRENGTHEN SECTION FOUR TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS EXCEPTION CANNOT AUTHORIZE GOVERNMENTAL BUILDINGS, OFFICES, ANIMAL FACILITIES, PARKING LOTS, OPERATIONAL FACILITIES OR OTHER NON PARK DEVELOPMENT AND THAT ANY PERMITTED INFRASTRUCTURE MUST REMAIN GENUINELY INCIDENTAL AND SUBJECT TO ALL 20 CHAPTER 26 REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE EXTRAORDINARILY CLOSE. COUNCIL HAS REMOVED THE COUNTY COMPLEX. IT REMOVED THE ANIMAL SHELTER. IT VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO PROTECT KYLE VISTA PARKLAND.

AND NOW, REMARKABLY, NEARLY 1.9 MILLION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED TO BEGIN IMPROVING IT. PLEASE FINISH THE LAST PIECE, STRENGTHEN THE ORDINANCE, PASS IT. FINALLY NUMBER IT, SIGN IT AND GIVE IT TO THE PEOPLE OF KYLE. A PERMANENT PROTECTION FOR KYLE VISTA PARK. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE KENNETH ROCHA. THANK YOU. CHAIR. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR COUNCIL AND KENNETH ROCHA. I'M HOMETOWN KYLE. I LIVE IN DISTRICT FOUR. WE'RE HERE SECOND READING. THAT

[00:20:06]

YET I'M VERY HAPPY OF STICKING TO GETTING TO OUR 25% RESERVE FUND IN A SINGLE BUDGET CYCLE.

WE'RE ACTUALLY AT 27.4%. SO WE STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CUSHION. AND I'M CONFIDENT THAT WITH THE APPROPRIATE STAFF AND THE LEADERSHIP THAT YOU GUYS HAVE ENCOURAGED. BUT ALSO IN OUR NEXT STEP, LOOKING FOR A NEW CITY MANAGER THAT WE CAN RETURN TO OUR GOLD STANDARD TONIGHT, ADDS A NEW ITEM. SO THE ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES THROUGH SAN MARCOS, I'D NOTE TONIGHT'S OWN MATERIAL, DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER ON THIS ONE. PRESENTATION SHOWS 169,000 ADDITIONAL FUNDS NEEDED. ANOTHER SHOWS 175,000 OFF TWO DIFFERENT ORIGINAL BUDGET BASELINES. SO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. NEITHER EXPLAINS WHAT DROVE A 57 TO 60% COST INCREASE.

I'D ASK COUNCIL TO GET THAT RECONCILED AND EXPLAINED BEFORE APPROVING IT TONIGHT, BUT I'LL BE BACK FOR THE OTHER HEARINGS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NEXT I HAVE DAVID MOSS.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

EVENING. MY NAME IS DAVID MOSS. I WANT TO START BY SAYING THANK YOU.

EARLIER THIS YEAR, YOU INVITED ME IN TO MEET WITH YOU AND THE PR DIRECTOR FROM FLOCK AND ANOTHER POLICE TECHNOLOGY COMPANY THAT WAS COMING IN, AND YOU ALLOWED ME TO ASK QUESTIONS AS A CONCERNED CITIZEN. AND I'D SAY THAT THAT WAS A REALLY RARE OPPORTUNITY. AND I'D SAY THAT THAT MADE ME FEEL WELCOMED. AND I SAID, IF I FOUND ANYTHING ALARMING IN ANY OF THE RESEARCH I WAS DOING, I WOULD BRING IT TO YOU. SO I'M BRINGING YOU SOMETHING TODAY AND I'M BRINGING IT IN IN HERE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT THE ONLY TOWN THAT'S IMPACTED BY THIS. SO STARTING, WE HAVE A LOCAL PUBLISHED POLICY THAT SAYS THAT THE RETENTION OF LICENSE PLATE DATA HERE IN TOWN IS NOT TO EXCEED 30 DAYS WITHOUT A DEFINED LAW ENFORCEMENT PURPOSE. WE ALSO HAVE IN THAT POLICY THAT IN ORDER TO ACCESS THAT DATA, ANY OTHER AGENCY MUST HAVE AN ACTIVE AGREEMENT WITH KPD. THE LOCAL RETENTION RULES SAY THAT YOU CAN KEEP THAT DATA AS LONG AS YOU NEED, BUT OUR POLICY SAYS 30 DAYS. LOCAL AGENCIES ALL FOLLOW THE SAME RETENTION SCHEDULE, BUT STATE AGENCIES SUBMIT THEIR OWN FOR APPROVAL AND PUBLICATION. THE STATE RETENTION OF ALPR DATA FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY REQUIRES A MINIMUM RETENTION PERIOD OF ONE YEAR. DPS BUILT AN EXCEPTION INTO THAT RETENTION POLICY THAT SAYS THEY ARE GOING TO RETAIN ANY DATA SHARED FROM EXTERNAL AGENCIES FOR ONE YEAR. I REACHED OUT TO DPS. THEY SENT ME THEIR ALPR POLICY FROM THEIR GENERAL MANUAL. IT SPECIFIES THE

[00:25:05]

TONIGHT, ITEM 17 REPRESENTS HOPE FOR THE REST OF ETJ. MOVING FROM THE CURRENT OUTSIDE CITY MULTIPLIER TO A 1.3 RATE STRUCTURE WOULD NOT SIMPLY BE AN ACCOUNTING CHANGE. IT WOULD PROVIDE MEANINGFUL RELIEF TO FAMILIES WHO HAVE BEEN CARRYING AN EXTRA ORDINARY BURDEN FOR FAR TOO LONG. MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT WOULD RESTORE CONFIDENCE THAT FAIRNESS MATTERS. THE RESIDENTS OF THE ETJ ARE NOT ASKING FOR SPECIAL TREATMENT. WE ARE ASKING FOR REASONABLE TREATMENT. WE'RE ASKING FOR A RATE STRUCTURE THAT REFLECTS THE REALITY OF WHAT FAMILIES CAN AFFORD, WHILE STILL SUPPORTING THE CITY WATER SYSTEM. I RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS COUNCIL TO SUPPORT ITEM 17 AND CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD A FAIR AND SUSTAINABLE SOLUTION

[00:30:06]

THIS IS A REASONABLE SOLUTION, A REASONABLE RESOLUTION, AND I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT GOT US HERE, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO THE BUILD OUT OF VISTA PARK FOR OUR NEIGHBORS. I ALSO WANT TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO APPROVE ITEM NINE. THE SETTLEMENT TERMS WORKED OUT BETWEEN CITY STAFF AND MYSELF WITH VICTOR ALLEN TO RESOLVE OUR APPEAL AT THE PUC. IT'S TAKEN REAL NEGOTIATION ON BOTH SIDES AND I'M GLAD TO SEE US. I'M GLAD TO SEE IT. REACH THE DAIS FOR YOUR VOTE. THESE ITEMS FIX SIX CREEKS, BUT THEY DO NOT FIX THE REST OF THE ETJ. THERE ARE OTHERS OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS THAT WILL CONTINUE PAYING DISCRIMINATORY HIGHER RATES THAT WE CHALLENGED AT THE PUC. I DON'T YET KNOW OF ANY REAL SETTLEMENT OR RELIEF. I AM ASKING THE COUNCIL TO KEEP WORKING TOWARDS A RESOLUTION FOR THOSE CUSTOMERS TOO. THAT IS WHY ITEM 17 MATTERS.

COUNCILMEMBER GOES ITEM WOULD CAP OUTSIDE CITY RATES TO NO MORE THAN 30% ABOVE INSIDE CITY RATES FOR EVERYONE ELSE IN THE ETJ. THAT IS A PERMANENT FIX FOR FOR THE WHOLE ETJ NOT JUST IT'S NOT A SETTLEMENT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH WITH EACH AREA. I ASK THE CITY COUNCIL TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TONIGHT ALONG WITH ITEMS EIGHT AND NINE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION.

THANK YOU. NEXT, I HAVE PAGE GIORDANO GIORDANO. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR. MY NAME IS PAGE GIORDANO. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO SHOW SUPPORT FOR COUNCIL. NOT NOT APPROPRIATING ANY FUNDS TOWARDS THE FLOCK CONTRACT, EFFECTIVELY CANCELING THE CONTRACT. THAT IS TO SAY, I AM VERY ANTI FLOCK. I DO NOT THINK THAT THEY BELONG IN OUR CITIES. OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES FROM AROUND CENTRAL TEXAS HAVE TAKEN THEIR CAMERAS DOWN, THE MOST EXAMPLE BEING PFLUGERVILLE COVERING THEIR CAMERAS BEFORE EVEN VOTING TO TAKE THEM DOWN. I'M GOING TO GO OVER A FEW REASONS WHY I DON'T LIKE THESE CAMERAS FOR. AND THERE ARE FEW. THE FIRST IS THAT KYLE IS NOT A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE. I'VE BEEN TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT FLOCK, AND THE CHIEF OF POLICE HIMSELF HAS SAID THAT KYLE IS A VERY SAFE PLACE TO LIVE, AND THAT IS SOMETHING TO BE PROUD OF. THAT IS NOT TO SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, BUT IT'S CURIOUS THAT I DRIVE FROM MY HOUSE ON THE EAST SIDE TO THE COMMUNITY GARDEN, AND I PASS BY SIX FLOCK CAMERAS, NOT EVEN GOING ON TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD. WHAT SECURITY ARE WE DOING BY WATCHING MY CAR SIX TIMES IN THE SPAN OF A FEW 20 MINUTES? WHAT IS THE CITIZENS OF KYLE DOING THAT'S SO DIFFERENT FROM THE REST OF CENTRAL TEXAS? I KNOW FROM PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THAT THE MAJORITY OF COUNCIL DOESN'T CARE ABOUT THE VALUE OF OUR DATA AND THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OF OUR DATA, SO I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE OTHER REASONS, WHICH IS MONEY. THE MAIN ARGUMENTS FOR WHY KYLE SHOULD CONTINUE TO EXPAND FLOCK PROGRAM IS BECAUSE WE WOULD BE REIMBURSED BY THE CPA PROGRAM, THE MOTOR VEHICLE CATALYTIC CONVERTER GRANT PROGRAM, AND IT HAS BEEN RECENTLY REVEALED THROUGH SOME QUESTIONING BY CM ZAPATA, THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ONE PENNY FROM THIS PROGRAM, EVEN THOUGH WE WE HAVE APPLIED FOR THIS GRANT AROUND ONLY, SAY THREE OR MORE TIMES.

APOLOGIES THAT INCORRECT. BEFORE, IT WAS ALL FINE AND DANDY BECAUSE TAXPAYERS WOULDN'T BE ON THE LINE. BUT NOW THAT WE KNOW THAT'S NOT TRUE, TAXPAYERS ARE NOW GOING TO BE MORE ON THE LINE FOR $400,000 TO KEEP THESE PROGRAMS GOING. IS IT SMART TO CONTINUE FUNDING THESE WHILE OUR GOVERNOR, WHO I DO NOT AGREE ON WITH MOST THINGS, HAS CALLED FOR A PAUSE ON FLOCK CAMERAS? IS IT? LAST THING I WILL SAY IS THAT THIS IS ELECTION SEASON HAPPENING, AND I HAVE PERSONALLY SEEN THAT THE OPINION ON FLOCK HAS CHANGED OVER THE PAST YEAR THAT I'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THESE CAMERAS. IN THE BEGINNING, MOST PEOPLE WERE FOR IT, DIDN'T SEE THE ISSUE, TRUSTED THE POLICE. AND WHILE I ALSO TRUST THE

[00:35:04]

OKAY. NEXT I HAVE STEPHANIE MACDONALD. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, I'D LIKE TO ASK YOU TO MOVE ITEM 17 TO THE TOP OF THE DISCUSSION AS WE CLOSE OUT OUR BUDGET MEETINGS AND FINALIZE THE 2627 BUDGET, I WOULD ASK THAT THE COUNCIL NOT AMEND THE BUDGET TO INCLUDE ANY FURTHER EXPENDITURES OTHER THAN ITEMS 15 AND 16 ON THE AGENDA. AND COUNCIL MEMBER GOSA, THANK YOU FOR PLACING ITEM 17 ON THE AGENDA. PLEASE DISREGARD COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA'S SUGGESTION TO FINISH THE ROADS BY GOING MILLIONS AND MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OVER OUR $294 MILLION 2022 ROAD BOND.

SHE IS NOT CONSIDERING THE FINAL IMPACT TO ALL TAXPAYERS OF KYLE. WE DON'T WANT TO GO BACK INTO THE DEEP HOLE WE'RE GETTING OUT OF. WE WANT THE CITY TO BE AFFORDABLE. WE DON'T WANT TO DO CO BONDS FOR ALL OF THESE ROADS. ULTIMATELY, IT'S THE ROADS, NOT THE FLUFF, NOT THE EXTRA. WE DON'T HAVE THE BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE. I MEAN, JUST ON CENTER STREET THERE'S A $19 MILLION SHORTFALL. PLEASE HEED INTERIM CITY MANAGER PERVEZ ADVICE TOWARD PUTTING OUR CITY IN A BETTER FISCAL STATE. AFTER THE YEARS LONG MISMANAGEMENT WE'VE SUFFERED.

AS FAR AS THE TRAILS ARE CONCERNED. AT THE LAST MEETING, A GENTLEMAN SPOKE ABOUT A TRAIL SYSTEM IN SOUTH CAROLINA. I GOT SOME INFORMATION ON THAT SYSTEM. IT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR CENTER STREET IN KYLE. HERE YOU WOULD WALK OUT OF A SMALL BUSINESS IN KYLE, SUCH AS THE PIE COMPANY, DIRECTLY ONTO A TRAIL WITH GOLF CARTS, SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BIKES, MOMS WITH STROLLERS, HANDICAPPED PEOPLE CREATING A POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS SITUATION.

REMOVING PARKING FROM CENTER STREET IS ALSO NOT A GOOD PLAN. WE WANT TO REVITALIZE DOWNTOWN.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PARKING AWAY IN TRAVELERS REST, THE TRAIL RUNS BEHIND THE BUSINESSES AND GENERALLY IN THE TRAIL SYSTEM, THERE'S A LOT MORE SPACE. OUR PROBLEM IS THAT WE HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY PLANNED THIS CITY, AND NOW WE'RE TRYING TO CRAM ITEMS IN FOR WHICH THERE IS NOT ROOM BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF PROPER PLANNING. WE'RE BEHIND IN INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S WHY WE NEED TO FOCUS ON ROADS AND SIDEWALKS. THOSE ARE BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS. THE TRAIL SYSTEM IS A RECREATIONAL ANEMONE. IT'S NOT A SIDEWALK. IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT A SIDEWALK. AT THE LAST MEETING, A WOMAN SPOKE ABOUT HAVING TO DRIVE TO AUSTIN WITH HER CHILDREN IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO RIDE THEIR BICYCLES, AND SHE LOOKED SURPRISED WHEN THE MAYOR SPOKE ABOUT ONE OF THE BICYCLE TRAILS IN KYLE. I HOPE SHE'S REACHED OUT TO THE PROPER SOURCES TO DISCOVER WHAT IS AVAILABLE IN KYLE AND TAKING CARE OF OUR RESIDENTS. PLEASE REMEMBER OUR CHILDREN AND ELDERLY WHO ARE WALKING IN THE STREETS TO GET AROUND IN SOME AREAS BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO SIDEWALKS. THESE DECISIONS CAN BE HARD, BUT YOU MUST CONSIDER HOW MANY OF YOUR RESIDENTS BENEFIT FROM YOUR DECISIONS. WE HAVE 60, 65000 PEOPLE. IT'S SO CLEAR THAT COMMON SENSE PREVAILS IN CHOOSING ROADS AND SIDEWALKS OVER TRAILS AT THIS TIME. THAT'S WHAT THE VOTERS FOR THE 2022 ROAD BOND WERE TOLD. WOULD WE BE BUILT? THAT WAS THE LANGUAGE ON OUR BALLOT STREETS, BRIDGES AND SIDEWALKS. THAT IS WHAT WE VOTED FOR IN 2022. THAT IS WHY COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA DOES NOT WANT AN OPINION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE. SHE KNOWS WHAT WOULD HAPPEN. MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, PLEASE DO WHAT YOU

[00:40:02]

UP NEXT IS SANDRA RANGEL. SORRY IF I SAID THAT WRONG. HI. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. SORRY, I'M A LITTLE NERVOUS. YOU'RE GOOD. I WOULD LIKE TO START BY SAYING MY PARENTS MOVED HERE 25 YEARS AGO. MANY FOLLOWED MY SIBLINGS. THERE'S EIGHT OF US, THEIR FAMILIES, AS WELL AS AUNTS, UNCLES, COUSINS AND THEIR FAMILIES. ALL HOME OWNERS HERE AND VERY HARD WORKING PEOPLE AND MYSELF REMAIN MYSELF REMAINING HERE WITH MY TWO CHILDREN AS WELL. IT HAS BEEN BY CHOICE. THEY COULD HAVE CHOSE ANY OTHER PLACE, BUT THEY CHOSE HERE BECAUSE IT SEEMED LIKE THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEIR FAMILY. THOUGH THINGS HAVE STARTED TO SEEM A LITTLE BIT UNSURE AS OF RECENTLY, WE REMAIN. NOT ONLY IS THIS ARTIFICIAL TECHNOLOGY HARMFUL TO OUR ENVIRONMENT, IT TAKES AWAY THE LITTLE BIT OF PRIVACY THAT WE STILL HAVE LEFT. LET ME ADD THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN FILES OUT THERE ON SOMEBODY'S DESK THAT WERE USED NOT TO MAKE ARRESTS, BUT TO BLACKMAIL, BUT THESE SAME PEOPLE WHO WON'T SERVE JUSTICE IN THAT AREA WANT TO PUSH FLOCK CAMERAS ONTO OUR COMMUNITIES. HALF $1 MILLION A YEAR, AND YET OUR ROADS STILL NEED WORK DONE. THE PARENTS, THE PARENTS OF OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN HAVE TO PAY EXTRA NOW JUST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THEIR KIDS IN SCHOOL, SPORTS, EVEN MAYBE HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN WHICH KIDS GET TO JOIN SAID SPORTS. I'M NOT HERE TO BASH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER THINGS THESE FUNDS CAN GET ALLOCATED TO. AND YOU'RE CHOOSING NEW TOYS FOR YOUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WHEN THEY'RE ALREADY DOING SUCH A GOOD JOB. AS IT IS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS THIS COUNTY HAS GONE DOWN FROM A SAFE PLACE WITH GREAT SCHOOLS AND EDUCATION, WHICH ORIGINALLY IS WHAT ATTRACTED MANY FAMILIES TO THIS AREA TO SLOWLY DECLINING IN THOSE AREAS, ESPECIALLY EDUCATION. I THINK THAT WE NEED TO COME TOGETHER AND THINK ABOUT WHAT REALLY IS BEST FOR OUR COMMUNITY, LIKE STARTING WITH OUR MOST VULNERABLE, OUR CHILDREN. I'M SURE YOU ALL HAVE HEARD THE SAYING, THE KIDS ARE THE FUTURE, AND I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. SO LET'S INVEST IN THEM. WE DON'T NEED ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. I'M SURE EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM GREW UP PERFECTLY FINE WITHOUT IT. I THINK THAT THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS ARE BECOMING NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. I THINK OUR HOME, THIS LAND GOD BLESSED US WITH, IS BEING NEGATIVELY, NEGATIVELY IMPACTED. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S ALL BAD, BUT EVERYTHING IN MODERATION. TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING WILL HARM YOU, US, ANYBODY. TODAY I WATCHED NBC LIVE WHERE ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD BLANCHE BASICALLY SAID ALL OF THIS ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TALK WAS TO INFLUENCE UPCOMING ELECTIONS. AS OF THE COMMUNITY DOESN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO BE CONCERNED, AS THERE IS ALREADY SO MANY PEOPLE ACROSS THE COUNTRY AFFECTED BY THIS. HE FINISHES HIS STATEMENT WITH, WE CAN'T LOSE THIS. WE CAN'T LOSE THE AI RACE TO CHINA. THIS IS ALL A RACE. I'M SURE YOU GUYS REMEMBER THE FAMOUS STORY OF THE TORTOISE AND THE RABBIT. DO YOU GUYS REMEMBER HOW THAT STORY ENDS? WHO DO YOU THINK WILL LOSE IN THE END? I END THIS WITH NOT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE ERASED. ALL I'M SAYING IS, KYLE, WE CAN DO BETTER. I SAY NO TO FLOCK AND THANK YOU AND GOD BLESS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

I DO NOT HAVE ANY MORE FORMS. IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? I GOT TWO MORE. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE TRACY SHARKEY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, MAYOR PRO TEM AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS TRACY SHARKEY, DISTRICT SIX. AND I JUST WANTED TO SHOW SOME LOVE FOR OUR FRIENDS AT SAN MARCOS ANIMAL REGIONAL REGIONAL ANIMAL SHELTER. AS EVERYONE KNOWS, WE ARE. WE DON'T HAVE A SHELTER OURSELVES YET, AND SO WE'RE STILL TAKING OUR ANIMALS OVER THERE, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE SAID THEY CAN'T ACCOMMODATE US ANYMORE. BUT I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE, IF THEY ARE LOOKING FOR AN ANIMAL TO ADOPT, THERE ARE HOURS. THERE ARE MONDAY, FRIDAY AND SUNDAY FROM 12 TO 5. DO YOU SAY THURSDAY AND SATURDAY FROM 12 TO 7? YOU

[00:45:03]

NEXT I HAVE DAVID BARRON. THANK YOU. SIX CREEKS RESIDENT. I WANTED TO THANK YOU GUYS FOR VOTING IN THE PROPOSAL TO END THE OVERCHARGES THAT WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING FOR OUR WATER. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT THE RESOLUTION THAT YOU CAME UP WITH IS AN EXCELLENT IDEA. IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET REFUNDED THAT OVERAGE IN THE BOND FOR OUR WATER BILL, PUTTING IT TO THE PARK THAT HAS BEEN KICKED DOWN THE ROAD FOR 20 YEARS MAKES ABSOLUTE POSITIVE SENSE.

AND I WOULD BE TERRIBLY APPALLED THAT IF ANYBODY VOTED AGAINST ANY OF THAT TONIGHT, THAT WOULD BE TOTAL. MORONIC. I, I, I ALSO WANTED TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT ONCE THESE PRICES COME DOWN, THE PEOPLE OF SIX CREEKS THAT HAD BEEN SPENDING THEIR MONEY IN THE TOWN OF KYLE WILL BE ABLE TO RESUME SPENDING THAT MONEY BACK INTO THE TOWN THAT THEY'RE NOT BEING OVERCHARGED, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE PROFITABILITY OF THE TOWN. KEEPING IT SHORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE NO MORE FORMS. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK BEFORE I CLOSE? CITIZENS COMMENTS. ARE YOU GOING TO GO ONCE. I'M SORRY, BUT YOU GO AHEAD. AND IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT FORM TO FILL OUT. ALL RIGHT. OH, OKAY. YEAH.

THERE'S ALSO A FORM THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS, BUT YOU'RE GOOD. YEAH. YOU CAN SPEAK FIRST AND THEN YOU CAN FILL IT OUT. IT'S ALL RIGHT. OKAY, GREAT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW WHO'S ON. OKAY, COOL. SORRY. I DIDN'T MEAN TO WASTE YOUR TIME. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO SAY HELLO.

COUNCIL MEMBERS, THANKS AGAIN FOR ALLOWING THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK AT THESE MEETINGS. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OTHER MEMBERS HERE, I'M SORRY. OTHER CITIZENS HERE HAVE ALREADY SPOKE UP ABOUT WATER RATES AND FLOCKS, SO I WON'T GO INTO THAT TOO MUCH. BUT I WILL SAY THERE IS DATA THAT SAYS 71% OF ALL FLOCK LICENSE PLATE READS ARE ARE WRONG. THEY'RE JUST FAILURES. SO I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH THE COST OF THIS CONTRACT IS TODAY, TOMORROW, WHAT IT WAS LAST YEAR. BUT WHY ARE WE PAYING FOR A 71% FAILURE RATE FOR SURVEILLANCE EQUIPMENT? I THINK THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY TERRIBLE. I ALSO JUST WANT TO SAY, GIVEN THAT INFORMATION, THAT'S KIND OF MIND BOGGLING, THAT INSTEAD OF TRYING TO FIX THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND MAKE IT FAIR FOR EVERYBODY, FLOCK IS STILL BEING CONSIDERED TO BE USED WITHIN KYLE WHEN THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR THAT. SO YOU ALL HAVE THE POWER TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. WHY DON'T YOU GUYS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT? THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NOW THAT IT'S. I'M SORRY, IT'S ONLY ONE TIME, BUT. DIANA HARVELL.

MAYOR. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS DIANE HERMAN, AND I LIVE IN THE AMBERWOOD SUBDIVISION HERE IN KYLE. I COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO PLEASE URGE YOU TO MOVE FORWARD

[00:50:05]

PROPERTY TAX RATES SLIGHTLY REDUCED, NO INCREASES IN WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES, AND NO INCREASE IN DRAINAGE FEES. THIS IS A HUGE ACCOMPLISHMENT AND THE STAFF, AS WELL AS COUNCIL, NEED TO BE COMMENDED FOR IT. YOU GUYS GOT IT DONE. THE UNBELIEVABLE AMOUNT OF TRANSPARENCY THAT THE STAFF AND COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED TO THE CITIZENS DURING THIS PAINFUL TIME IS REALLY APPRECIATED. IN ADDITION, I ALSO WANT TO THANK FOR PUTTING THE FLOCK CAMERA ISSUE OUT TO THE VOTERS BEFORE THIS GOES TO THE POLLS IN MAY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE CITY PROVIDE RESIDENTS WITH ACTUAL FACTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DEBATE, NOT JUST TALKING POINTS ON THE SIDE. WE HAD CHIEF BARNETT AT THE LAST MEETING POINT OUT TO SPECIFIC CASES, INCLUDING THE STOLEN VEHICLE WITH A FIVE MONTH OLD BABY INSIDE AND OFFICERS LOCATED QUICKLY WITH THE HELP OF THE CAMERAS, AND HAS SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED NO FORMAL COMPLAINTS OF MISUSE. ON THE REMOVED SIDE, WE HAVE HAD COUNCIL MEMBER SABATA CITE DATA SHOWING THAT ROUGHLY 1.5 MILLION SEARCHES RUN ON KYLE'S FLOCK DATA IN UNDER THREE MONTHS. ONLY ABOUT 2888 WERE MADE BY KB KPD THEMSELVES. THE REST CAME FROM 3000 OUTSIDE AGENCIES ACROSS 40 STATES. SHE'S ALSO NOTED THAT CANCELING TWO OF THE THREE CONTRACTS WOULD SAVE THE CITY AROUND $381,000. SHE'S ARGUED CONTINUOUSLY TOWARD THINGS LIKE THAT. MONEY COULD BE USED FOR LIBRARY STAFFING, ROAD PROJECTS, AND THE COUNCIL HAS STRUGGLED TO WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS STRUGGLED TO FUND ELSEWHERE, SEVERAL OTHER CENTRAL CITIES LIBERTY HILL, BASTROP, BURNET AMONG THEM HAVE RECENTLY PULLED BACK FROM OR ENDED THEIR CONTRACTS OVER SIMILAR DATA ACCESS CONCERNS. WHAT I'VE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ANYWHERE FROM STAFF, FROM COUNCIL OR FROM ANY OF THE CITIES THAT HAVE DROPPED FLOCK IS A CONCRETE OUGHT TO GIVE TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND A PLAN FOR. IF THE CAMERAS ARE REMOVED. THAT'S THE PIECE THAT RESIDENTS NEED BEFORE MAY NOT JUST CAMERAS VERSUS NO CAMERAS. BUT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, REPLACES THEM? I RAISED THIS QUESTION DIRECTLY WITH COUNCIL MEMBERS AND GOT NO RESPONSE. RESIDENTS DESERVE AN ANSWER BEFORE THEY'RE THEY'RE ASKED TO VOTE. I ASK THE STAFF TO PUT TOGETHER A SHORT, NEUTRAL FACT SHEET. THE CRIME SOLVING CASES, THE OUTSIDE AGENCY ACCESS NUMBERS, THE COST AND STRAIGHTFORWARD ANSWERS OR ALTERNATIVES, AND GET IT IN FRONT OF THE VOTERS WELL AHEAD OF MAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S ALL THE FORMS I HAVE. IF ANYBODY ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T ALREADY SPOKEN, SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE. OKAY. COME ON. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. AND IF YOU GET A CHANCE TO FILL OUT A PAPER. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MELISSA LEDESMA. I MOVED BACK, I MOVED TO IRELAND IN 2011. I LOVE THE CITY. I MY CHILDREN GO TO SCHOOL HERE. I'M SO SORRY.

I'M NERVOUS. DON'T BE. MY CONCERN IS THE FLOCK CAMERAS. I DO ALL MY SHOPPING HERE IN KYLE.

I DO ALL MY MOVIES, PLAYING MY CHILDREN'S GAMES. THEY GO TO SCHOOL HERE IN KYLE. MY CONCERN IS THE FLOCK DRONE. I AM CURRENTLY BEING FOLLOWED BY IT. AS I STATED BEFORE, I LIVE IN UPLAND IN CALDWELL COUNTY. IT WILL CROSS OVER 21 AND IT WILL SIT ABOVE MY HOME FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS. I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS ON HOW TO GET HELP FOR THIS. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME REACHING OUT FOR THIS. COURTNEY, I MESSAGED YOU ON FACEBOOK. I THIS IS NEW TO ME. I DON'T KNOW WHO TO GO TO FOR HELP. I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS LIKE I SAID BEFORE. TO GO TO HEB TO PICK UP MY CHILDREN. I'M BEING FOLLOWED WHEN I GO HOME UNLOADING MY GROCERIES. IT'S OUT THERE. IT'S WATCHING ME. IT DRIVES MY DOGS NUTS. SOME NIGHTS THEY'LL SIT OUT THERE AND THEY'LL BARK AND BARK AND BARK AND THAT'S THEY HEAR IT, THEY SEE IT. I TRIED TAKING PICTURES OF IT. I FEEL

[00:55:06]

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. IS ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK BEFORE I CLOSE CITIZENS COMMENTS. SEEING NONE I'M GOING TO CLOSE CITIZENS COMMENTS.

SORRY. IF I COULD JUST ADD, MA'AM, IF YOU COULD MAKE SURE THAT YOU DO FILL OUT A FORM SO WE'LL HAVE YOUR INFORMATION AND THEN WE CAN TRY TO DO A FOLLOW UP. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

[IV) Agenda Order]

[3) Special Recognition of the Kyle Police Department Forensic Investigators as part of National Forensic Science Week, September 14-20, 2026.]

JUST A SMALL LIST OF THE THINGS THAT THEY DO. THEY TAKE THEY DO FORENSIC PHOTOGRAPHY AT CRIME SCENES. THEY DO FINGERPRINT ANALYSIS, COLLECTING TRACE EVIDENCE, BALLISTIC EXAMINATIONS, AND ALTERNATE LIGHT SOURCE PHOTOGRAPHY AND OTHER FORENSIC METHODS TO PROCESS MAJOR CRIME SCENES. SO THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THE FOLKS YOU SEE ON THE TV. THEY'RE THE ONES THAT YOU CALL OUT. THEY'RE THE EXPERTS. THEY HELP YOU PROCESS A SCENE TO COLLECT EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE LEFT BEHIND AFTER THE COMMISSION OF A CRIME. FOR SAMANTHA AND JENNA, THEY HAVE A COMBINED MORE THAN 22 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE SERVING THE KYLE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND MORE THAN 30 YEARS TOTAL, SERVING AS A PUBLIC SAFETY PROFESSIONAL. THEY HAVE FORENSIC ONE AND TWO CERTIFICATIONS, WHICH IS HIGHLY SOUGHT AFTER FOR PROFESSIONALS IN THEIR CAREER. THEY HAVE MAJOR CRIMES INVESTIGATOR CERTIFICATIONS. THEY'VE ATTENDED AND ACHIEVED ADVANCED TRAINING IN SKELETAL DEATH INVESTIGATIONS THROUGH THE TEXAS STATE BODY FARM. THEY ARE BOTH LICENSED TCOLE INSTRUCTORS, AND THEY HAVE A COMBINED MORE THAN 2200 HOURS OF TRAINING THAT IS CERTIFIED BY THE TEXAS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT DURING THIS WEEK. WE CERTAINLY WANT TO THANK MISS JENNA HICKS AND MISS SAMANTHA LUCAS FOR THEIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY. THEY ARE HERE WITH ME IN THE ROOM TONIGHT. I HOPE THEY'VE CAME UP WITH ME OR THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE. THEY'RE ON THIS SIDE, THEY'RE IN THE BACK.

WE'LL STAND UP. I THINK Y'ALL, I THINK THEY DESERVE A ROUND OF APPLAUSE FOR ALL THEIR WORK.

THESE YOUNG LADIES. I'LL END WITH THESE YOUNG LADIES DO A TREMENDOUS JOB FOR US AT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY ARE SERVING YOU, CITY COUNCIL AND YOUR COMMUNITY IN EXEMPLARY FASHION. AND WE'RE VERY PROUD OF THEM. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO CELEBRATE THEIR SERVICE AND THEIR PROFESSION THIS WEEK. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR TAKING TIME. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UP

[VI) Consent Agenda]

[8) Consider approval of a Resolution authorizing Amendment No. 2 to the Blanco River Ranch (Phase One Residential Area) De-annexation and Development Agreement with HM BRR Development, Inc. and HM 6 Creeks Development, Inc.]

[01:00:02]

GET RIGHT UP INTO IT. THERE YOU GO. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS OF THE AMENDMENT BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THEM FAIRLY RECENTLY ON AUGUST 18TH. BUT I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE. THIS AMENDMENT WAS DRAFTED AT THE DIRECTION OF CITY COUNCIL, WHO DIRECTED THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE THE AMENDMENT, AND THEN ON AUGUST 18TH DIRECTED ME TO BRING TO WORK WITH THEIR ATTORNEYS TO BRING BACK AN AMENDMENT. THE VERSION OF THE AMENDMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY ATTORNEYS FOR BOTH SIDES. AND WE ALSO DISCUSSED IT WITH JAY HANNA, THE DEVELOPER. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, I ONLY HAVE ONE REQUEST BECAUSE I BELIEVE THERE IS LIKE THE MAIN DOCUMENT THAT WAS NEGOTIATED AND IT HAD IT WAS I THINK IT WAS SIGNED BETWEEN JAY HANNA AND THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER. CAN WE HAVE I NEED TO HAVE THAT AS AN EXHIBIT TO THIS. CAN WE ADD THAT? YEAH, WE CAN ADD IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM EIGHT TO ALSO TO INCLUDE THE NEGOTIATED AND SIGNED AGREEMENT OR AS AN EXHIBIT. OKAY, OKAY. THAT'S A MOTION. SECOND. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE.

OPPOSED? NAY. OKAY. MOTION PASSES, 6 TO 1. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT,

[9) Consider approval of a Resolution: (1) accepting the Settlement Points and Term Sheet as negotiated by the Interim City Manager with Messrs. Larry Gawlik and Victor Aellen, the two named petitioners and residents of the 6 Creeks development in the rate appeal proceeding before the Texas Public Utility Commission Docket No. 58988, (2) to resolve and secure withdrawal of their appeal challenging the City's application of outside-City water and wastewater service rates, and (3) directing the City Attorney to prepare and bring forward for the City Council's consideration and approval at its September 24, 2026 meeting, an Agreement to memorialize and codify the terms and provisions set forth in the agreed upon Settlement Points & Term Sheet as attached to this agenda item.]

[01:05:02]

AND FINALLY, WE JOINTLY DEVELOPED SETTLEMENT TERMS AND EXECUTION OF A MUTUALLY AGREED UPON TERM SHEET, WHICH I WILL GO OVER WITH YOU IN A FEW MINUTES. SO THE RATE APPEAL SETTLEMENT PROCESS THAT WE FOLLOWED, I, I WOULD LIKE TO DIVIDE IT INTO TWO PARTS. PART ONE, THE DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME. THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE UNDERTOOK BETWEEN MYSELF AND THE TWO GENTLEMEN THAT FILED THE RATE APPEAL WITH PUC. TO TO REACH AN UNDERSTANDING AND TO ALIGN OUR TWO SIDES. THE WAY WE WERE DISAGREEING PRIOR TO THIS POINT, THE THIRD STEP, WE SAT DOWN AND NEGOTIATED THE TERMS THAT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO BOTH SIDES. AFTER THAT, WE DEVELOPED THAT TERM SHEET THAT I JUST TALKED ABOUT. THAT WAS PART ONE, PART TWO. WE AFTER WE DEVELOPED THE TERM SHEET, WE REQUESTED THE PETITIONERS TO SIGN OFF ON THOSE TERMS. I DID NOT WANT TO STAND BEFORE CITY COUNCIL WITHOUT THEM FULLY AGREEING TO EVERYTHING WE HAD PUT ON PAPER, AND THEY THEY DID, BECAUSE WE WORKED ON IT TOGETHER. STEP SIX IS WHERE WE ARE TODAY. I AM BRINGING THAT TERM SHEET THAT WE AGREED UPON THE. BOTH THE TWO SIDES, CITY OF KYLE AND THE PETITIONERS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

STEP SEVEN. AFTER TONIGHT, DEPENDING ON HOW Y'ALL VOTE, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL BRING BACK A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, A FORMAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT BOTH SIDES WILL WILL SIGN AND EXECUTE. AND FINALLY, THE LAST STEP BY SEPTEMBER 29TH THAT WE STAY ON THIS SCHEDULE, THEY WILL WITHDRAW THEIR RATE APPEAL. THAT IS, BEFORE PUC OR PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE PROCESS? BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE SETTLEMENT TERMS? IF NOT. SO, THESE ARE SUMMARY OF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS THAT WE AGREED UPON. ALL SETTLEMENT TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS ARE SUBJECT TO AND CONTINGENT UPON FINAL APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO THAT, AND WE AGREED ON THAT. IF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS. THIS WAS IMPORTANT TO THEM, AND I RESPECT THAT. IF THE SETTLEMENT TERMS AS AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT POINT AND TERM SHEET, ARE NOT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2026, THE SETTLEMENT POINTS AND TERM SHEET WILL BE WITHDRAWN, AND THEIR INTEREST HERE WAS NOT A THREAT, BUT MORE SO, THEY DIDN'T WANT THIS TO BE DRAGGED ON. THEY WANTED THIS TO BE EITHER RESOLVED OR IT GOES THROUGH THE PUC PROCESS. AND AND I RESPECTED THAT.

APPLICATION OF INSIDE CITY WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE RATES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE COMMENCING ON OCTOBER 1ST, 2026, MEANING THE WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICE THAT

[01:10:09]

THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RATE CHANGE IS OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. THE RATE CLASSIFICATION FOR THE CITY'S RETAIL, WATER AND WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS WITHIN THE SIX CREEK'S DEVELOPMENT WILL CHANGE FROM THE OUTSIDE CITY RATE CLASSIFICATION TO THE INSIDE CITY RATE CLASSIFICATION.

AND FINALLY, THE REVISED WATER AND WASTEWATER RATES FOR THE CITY'S RETAIL CUSTOMERS WITHIN SIX CREEK'S DEVELOPMENT WILL BECOME EFFECTIVE FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE CITY OF KYLE BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. THE RATE CHANGE WILL APPLY PROSPECTIVELY ONLY AND WILL NOT BE APPLIED RETROACTIVELY. THIS WAS A MAIN CONCERN OF THE CITY, AND THEY AGREED TO TO RESOLVE THAT ACCORDINGLY. THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE RATE CHANGE IS OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. BOTH SIDES AGREE THAT THERE WILL BE NO REBATES, REFUNDS, BILL CREDITS OR OTHER FORMS OF REIMBURSEMENT TO BE PROVIDED OR CLAIMED WITH RESPECT TO WATER AND WASTEWATER CHARGES FOR SERVICES RENDERED PRIOR TO OCTOBER 1ST, 2026. THE JOINT MOTION WE AGREED TO FOR

[01:15:12]

WE'RE ON A FAST TRACK BOTH FOR PUC AND TO GET THIS DONE BEFORE OCTOBER 1ST. SO IF COUNCIL AGREES TO. THE RATE CHANGES HAPPEN EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST. BUT WE GOT TO GET ALL THESE DOMINOES LINED UP PRIOR TO THAT. WITHDRAWAL OF THE RATE APPEAL BY THE PETITIONERS. SO THE SIX CREEKS PETITIONERS HAVE AGREED TO FILE A MOTION WITHIN THREE BUSINESS DAYS AFTER APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO WITHDRAW AS PETITIONERS IN THE RATE APPEAL BEFORE THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION, DOCKET NUMBER 58988, BASED ON THE PROVISIONS AGREED TO IN THE SETTLEMENT POINTS AND TERM SHEET AND SUBJECT TO ACCEPTANCE BY THE CITY COUNCIL THIS EVENING, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL PREPARE AND PRESENT THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 24TH. SO THIS 24TH IS A SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING SCHEDULED. WE'LL ADD IT TO THAT AGENDA TONIGHT. IS THE TERM SHEET APPROVAL FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN, BASED ON THESE TERMS THAT WE HAVE AGREED TO BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES, THE CITY ATTORNEY WILL INK A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND BRING BEFORE YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. OF COURSE, WE'LL REVIEW IT WITH OUR TWO PETITIONERS PRIOR TO THAT. SO EVERYTHING IN THE TERM SHEET BASICALLY WILL GET TRANSLATED INTO A LEGAL DOCUMENT REFERRED TO AS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. SO HERE ARE MY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING TO RESOLVE THE PENDING WATER AND WASTEWATER RATE DISPUTE INVOLVING THE TWO PETITIONERS FROM THE SIX CREEKS DEVELOPMENT, WHO FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION UNDER DOCKET NUMBER 58988. FOR CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ON TODAY'S AGENDA. ACCEPTING THE SETTLEMENT POINTS AND TERM SHEET NEGOTIATED BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES. THIS DOCUMENT, THE TERM SHEET IS ATTACHED TO THE AGENDA ITEM AND IT'S IN YOUR PACKET BEFORE YOU. AND TO DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND PRESENT A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE NEGOTIATED AND AGREED UPON TERMS FOR CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL AT ITS SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2026 COUNCIL MEETING. SO WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS NOW? SO TODAY, SEPTEMBER 15TH, I HAVE REVIEWED THE SETTLEMENT POINTS AND TERM SHEET NEGOTIATED WITH THE SIX PETITIONERS IN THE APPEAL CASE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION AND ACCEPTANCE, CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERS APPROVAL OF THE RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE SETTLEMENT TERMS NEGOTIATED SO FAR. AND THEN YOU AS CITY COUNCIL, IN YOUR MOTION, YOU DIRECT THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PREPARE AND BRING FORWARD A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE CITY COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL AT YOUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 24TH. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE THE TIMELINE. BASICALLY, AFTER

[01:20:04]

THIS WILL BE THE THREE BUSINESS DAYS, THE TWO SIX CREEKS PETITIONERS WILL FILE A MOTION WITH THE TEXAS PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR RATE APPEAL UNDER DOCKET NUMBER 58988. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE. WE ALSO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE ALSO HAVE THE PETITIONERS. IF Y'ALL NEED ANY LEGAL GUIDANCE OR. DIRECTION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY OR IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE PETITIONERS. COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA, DO WE KNOW OFF THE TOP OF OUR HEADS FOR THE WHOLE OCO RATE CLASS, WHAT PERCENTAGE SIX CREEKS MAKES UP? I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT OFF THE TOP. I'LL HAVE TO GET IT FROM OUR RATE CONSULTANTS. OKAY. YOU'D BE ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK TO US AT A FUTURE TIME. YES, I CAN EMAIL IT TO YOU TOMORROW. AND THEN I'M SURE I'VE ASKED THIS 5 OR 20 TIMES BEFORE, BUT PERSISTENCE IS KEY. JUST REITERATING THAT BY MAKING THESE CHANGES DOES NOT AFFECT IN ANY WAY OUR END CITY LIMIT RATES GOING UP FOR OUR WATER WASTEWATER CUSTOMERS FOR THIS CURRENT BUDGET. THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WILL BE NO CHANGE IN RATES FOR OUR OTHER INSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. AWESOME. THANK YOU. REPETITIVENESS IS KEY. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND YOUR WORK ON THIS VERY MUCH. CERTAINLY, COUNCILMEMBER. ANYBODY ELSE? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT A THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AT THE FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION APPROVAL AT OUR NEXT SCHEDULED MEETING. OKAY. SECOND, SO YOU'RE APPROVING AGENDA ITEM NINE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING? MOVING US ALONG? OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. OKAY. THAT'S AWESOME. ALL RIGHT. SO I DO HAVE A QUESTION IS, CAN WE HAVE THE RESOLUTION NEXT TIME? I WAS GOING THROUGH THE BACKUP AND I CAN ONLY DO SO MUCH AT OUR AGENDA SETTING. SO I DIDN'T KNOW WHY THERE WASN'T A RESOLUTION ATTACHED SO WE COULD REVIEW, I BELIEVE, THE CITY ATTORNEY, CITY ATTORNEY DIRECTION TO BRING IT TO US.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. JENNIFER HAS THE RESOLUTION PRINTED. IT JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT TO THE AGENDA. OKAY. FOR I'M NOT SURE WHAT REASON, BUT IT DID NOT MAKE IT ON THE AGENDA.

SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL, JUST TO CLARIFY, THERE ARE TWO PARTS TO YOUR ACTION THIS EVENING. THE FIRST PART IS TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREED UPON IN THE TERM SHEET. AND THE SECOND PART OF THAT MOTION IS GOING TO BE DIRECTING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING BACK A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR YOUR REVIEW AND APPROVAL ON SEPTEMBER 24TH, BASED ON THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AGREED TO. OKAY. SO WE'LL WE'LL HAVE BOTH NEXT TIME.

WE'LL HAVE THE RESOLUTION AND AN AGREEMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY AND A SECOND BY MYSELF. IS THERE ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS? NO. ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE AYE. OKAY. OPPOSED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NONE. NAY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NEXT. NEXT WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM 71716. WHERE ARE WE

[17) Consider and possible action to direct the Interim City Manager to bring forward the appropriate resolution and/or ordinance necessary to amend the City of Kyle’s outside-city water rates, establishing such rates at no more than thirty percent (30%) above the corresponding inside-city water rates. ]

[01:25:01]

I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT I AGREE TO. I AGREE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER TO BRING FORWARD AN APPROPRIATE RESOLUTION AND OR ORDINANCE, WITH ADDITIONAL MATERIALS SHOWING THE IMPACT TO OUR WATER SYSTEM NECESSARY TO AMEND THE CITY OF KYLE'S OUTSIDE CITY WATER RATES, ESTABLISHING SUCH RATES AT NO MORE THAN 30% ABOVE CORRESPONDING INSIDE CITY WATER RATES. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION.

CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION? YEAH, SORRY. I THINK WHAT I WANTED TO BRING UP WAS ACTUALLY, COULD WE LOOK AT THE CHARTER BECAUSE I THINK IT SAYS 1.2 TIMES MINIMUM. SO I THINK I WOULD RATHER SEE THAT VERSUS I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE 30% CAME FROM. BUT IF WE COULD ACTUALLY MODIFY THAT. SO THAT WAY IT DOES REFLECT WHAT'S IN THE CHARTER UNTIL WE ARE ABLE TO DO A DEEPER DIVE CHARTER THAT IS NOT IN THE CHARTER. OKAY. I THINK THERE'S AN ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A CHARTER. YEAH. IT WAS IN AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS CODIFIED IN THE CITY'S CODE. I WAS GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE BRING FORWARD THAT CODE AS PART OF THIS CONSIDERATION. IS IT 1.2 OR 1.35? IT WAS 1.2 IN THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS CODIFIED. THE MOST RECENT CHARGES BEFORE THIS INCREASE WAS 1.35. OKAY. AND I BELIEVE PART OF THAT ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE ORIGINAL 1.2 WAS CHANGED BY A GENERAL REPEALER IN A PREVIOUS BUDGET. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. COULD YOU WOULD YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN TO US WHAT THAT MEANS? SO BASICALLY THE BUDGET, WHENEVER WE GO THROUGH AND APPROVE IT, THERE'S A LITTLE STATEMENT IN THERE THAT'S KIND OF BOILERPLATE THAT SAYS THIS BASICALLY AFFECTS LIKE IT REPEALS ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT IT DOESN'T AGREE WITH. AND SO IT TAKES THE PRECEDENCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT RATE LOOKS LIKE IF WE DID THE 1.2. CAN WE BRING BACK THOSE OPTIONS. BRING THAT BACK. YEAH.

YEAH. LET'S BRING YES. THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO BRING IT BACK AS AN OPTION SO WE CAN COMPARE. DO YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR. I WILL AMEND MY MOTION ACCORDINGLY TO BRING BACK OPTIONS ON DIFFERENT RATE STRUCTURES ON A 1.3 RATE STRUCTURE AND A 1.2 RATE STRUCTURE. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO SECOND THAT AND THEN WE GET A VOTE ON THAT. ALL RIGHT.

THAT'S GOING TO BE. SO WE'RE RIGHT NOW WE'RE VOTING ON THE AMENDMENT. OKAY MAYOR, BEFORE YOU MAKE THE AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE MOTION, MAY I ASK FOR CLARIFICATION? IS THIS EFFECTIVE OCTOBER 1ST, 2026, OR THE FOLLOWING FISCAL YEAR? IT WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FOR THIS UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR. OKAY. OCTOBER 1ST, 2020. YES, SIR. OKAY. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. OPPOSED. THE AMENDMENT PASSES. AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON. NO. THAT'S JUST THE AMENDMENT. WE GOT TO MAKE ONE MORE VOTE. WE'RE ONE STEP CLOSER. WE GOT TO SEAL THE DEAL AS HE SAID. ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ONE IS GOING TO BE THE ORIGINAL THE MOTION MADE WITH THE AMENDMENT. SO ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. OPPOSED. OPPOSED TO BRING IT BACK. OKAY. PASSES SEVEN ZERO AND IT'S GOING TO.

SO THIS IS GOING TO COME BACK. RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. SO JUST TO BE JUST TO CLARIFY WE'RE GOING TO BRING INFORMATION BACK. OKAY. I JUST DON'T WANT TO DISAPPOINT. YEAH, WE GOT ONE. WE'RE THAT MUCH CLOSER. BLESS YOU GUYS. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU TO COUNCIL MEMBER GOZA. UP NEXT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WHAT IS THIS? YEP. AGENDA ITEM SIX.

[6) Consider approval of a Resolution regarding a request by Denecia Clark for exceptions from Chapter 41 (Subdivisions) of the City's Code of Ordinances related to minimum width at the front property line (Chapter 41, Article V, Sec. 136 (a)(2)), access requirements (Chapter 41, Article V, Sec. 136 (a)(3)), and lot depth to average width ratio (Chapter 41, Article V, Sec. 136 (c)), for the proposed final plat of a property located at approximately 1776 Satterwhite Road in the City of Kyle Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (VR-25-0011) The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval on 8/25/2026.  Public Hearing ]

[01:30:01]

LOT ONE COMPLIES WITH THIS CODE REQUIREMENT, BUT. HOWEVER, LOT TWO IS A FLAG SLASH KIND OF IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOT. SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT NARROWER AT THE FRONT WITH ONLY ABOUT 60FT OF FRONTAGE. ADDITIONALLY, LOT THREE DOESN'T HAVE ANY DIRECT ACCESS TO THAT TO THE STREET.

AND SO IT TAKES ITS ACCESS FROM LOT TWO, WHICH I WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT. THE SECOND EXCEPTION REQUEST. SO THIS IS A CODE PROVISION THAT REQUIRES ACCESS DIRECTLY TO A PUBLIC STREET, WHETHER THAT'S A LOCAL ROAD OR THOROUGHFARE, MAJOR STREET, FARM TO MARKET, ETC. AGAIN, LOT ONE MEETS THIS CODE REQUIREMENTS. LOT TWO ACTUALLY DOES HAVE DIRECT ACCESS AS WELL TO SATTERWHITE THROUGH THE SORT OF FLAGPOLE PORTION. AND AGAIN, LOT THREE DOES NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS AND INSTEAD REQUIRES A JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT TO ACCESS SATTERWHITE ROAD. THE THIRD EXCEPTION. THIS IS A BIT WORDY. I'M JUST GOING TO TRY TO BOIL IT DOWN. AND THIS IS ESSENTIALLY A CODE PROVISION THAT'S TRYING TO DISCOURAGE FLAG AN IRREGULARLY SHAPED LOTS. AND AS YOU HAVE SEEN THERE, THE LOTS IN QUESTION DO INCLUDE FLAG LOTS.

SO FOR THIS PARTICULAR EXCEPTION LOT ONE COMPLIES. BUT LOT TWO AND LOT THREE DO NOT COMPLY WITH THIS CODE PROVISION. AND THE CITY STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE REQUESTS. AND THIS UNDER THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS IN CHAPTER 41. ASIDE FROM THESE EXCEPTION REQUESTS, THE PROJECT MEETS THE APPLICABLE CITY CODE. AND SORRY FOR THE TYPO HERE, BUT THAT SHOULD SAY ON THE AUGUST 25TH, 2026 MEETING AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. AND THEY ALSO VOTED TO CONDITIONALLY APPROVE THE PLATS BASED, CONDITIONED UPON CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE EXCEPTION REQUEST. AND YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS AS PRESENTED, APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS AND DENY THE EXCEPTIONS, AND THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO RECOMMEND OPTION ONE TO APPROVE THE EXCEPTION REQUEST AS PRESENTED. AND I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WAS IS STILL HERE AS WELL IN THE AUDIENCE. OKAY. CAN WE HAVE YOU GO BACK TO THE MAPS? YES, MA'AM. TO THE PLOTS. I KNOW IT'S KIND OF HARD TO SEE ON HERE. THIS IS GOOD. OKAY, SO ONE, TWO, THREE. THERE'S THAT LONG NARROW STRIP. YES. SO LOT TWO STARTS ON THAT

[01:35:02]

THEY RELY ON THE JOINT ACCESS EASEMENT FOR LOT TO LOT TWO TO GET TO THE ROAD. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS COUNCILMEMBER HARRIS? HOW DOES THIS AFFECT IF WE PROVIDE UTILITIES IN THIS AREA OR BE REQUESTED TO IN THE FUTURE? HOW WOULD THIS AFFECT THE THE AVAILABILITY OF UTILITIES? SO THE CITY DOES NOT PROVIDE UTILITIES TO THESE LOTS? I FORGET WHO THE WATER UTILITY PROVIDER IS. I MIGHT HAVE THAT. OH, THEY'RE IN THE GOFORTH SIDE AND THEY'RE ON OSF FOR THEIR SEPTIC AND CENTERPOINT ENERGY. SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE ANY CURRENT PLANS TO BRING UTILITIES OUT TO THOSE LOTS. WILL THERE HAVE TO BE UTILITIES TO COME INTO THE LOT? SO HOW DOES THAT AFFECT. WELL, THEY'RE IN THE ETJ, MA'AM. SO THE CITY DOESN'T PROVIDE THE UTILITIES THERE. THEY DO HAVE EXISTING WATER UTILITIES. YEAH.

IF WE EVER ANNEX THEM, WE WILL HAVE SOME RESPONSIBILITY. AND I'M JUST CURIOUS HOW THE UTILITIES WILL BE PROVIDED. COUNCIL MEMBER THEY ARE SERVED WITH WATER THROUGH, GOFORTH SAID. SO A DIFFERENT WATER UTILITY PROVIDER. AND THEN ANGELA MENTIONED ON. SHE SAID OSSF. THAT MEANS ON SITE SEPTIC FACILITIES. SO IT WILL BE ON SITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS TO SERVE THOSE LOTS. SO. UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S NOT GETTING TO MY QUESTION. WELL, STATE LAW REQUIRES THAT LIKE WE CANNOT UNILATERALLY ANNEX ANY MORE. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK TO BE ANNEXED IN.

AND DURING THAT TIME, THAT'S WHEN THAT ISSUE WOULD BE ADDRESSED. WE I MEAN, THIS THIS IS JUST LIKE THE KIND OF REPLAT. SO I DON'T I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'D EVER WANT TO BE ANNEXED IN. BUT IN THE EVENT THEY DO, THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT TO THE COUNCIL AT THAT TIME. SO WHY ARE THEY EVEN BRINGING THIS TO US? BECAUSE THEY ARE IN OUR SUBDIVISION, SORRY, IN OUR ETJ. AND WE HAVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH HAYS COUNTY. SO ALL PLATS, ALL SUBDIVISIONS IN OUR ETJ MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY AND HAYS COUNTY. SO IT'S SIMPLY A FORMALIZATION SO WE CAN APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE THIS. AND MY QUESTION IS HOW ACCESSIBLE ARE THESE? SHOULD WE SHOULD THEY COME BECOME ANNEXED? THEY'RE BASICALLY THEY'RE NOT RIGHT.

THE LOT TWO AND THREE BASICALLY AREN'T SO SORRY. SO THESE PROPERTIES ARE IN THEIR CURRENT CONFIGURATION. SO ACCESSIBILITY AS FAR AS FRONTAGE GOES. NO THEY DO NOT HAVE EXACT EXACT FRONTAGE RIGHT OF WAY. BUT THEY ARE CURRENTLY ACCESSING THROUGH THESE EASEMENTS. SO THERE ARE FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING ON EACH OF THOSE TRACKS. AND THIS WAS KIND OF THE SUBDIVISION OF THE FAMILIES WISHES AND HOW IT WILL BE DIVIDED UP IN THE FUTURE. IF THE CITY WERE TO ANNEX US IN, SAY, THEIR SEPTICS WERE FAIL, WE WOULD EVALUATE THE NEAREST WAY TO GET THEM UTILITIES AT THAT POINT. GENERALLY THAT FRONTAGE THERE, I BELIEVE, IS 60FT RIGHT OF WAY AT THE FRONT.

SO THAT SHOULD OR I'M SORRY IF THAT FLAG IS ABOUT 60FT WIDE. SO THAT'S A TYPICAL RIGHT OF WAY FOR A CITY. IF WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND DO FUTURE DEVELOPMENT THERE, THERE'S ALSO OPPORTUNITIES THAT THOSE PROPERTIES COULD BE ACQUIRED BY AN ADJACENT TRACT. WHO'S LOOKING AT DOING SOME DEVELOPMENT. WE WOULD HANDLE THAT THROUGH THE NORMAL SUBDIVISION PROCESS. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. COUNCILMEMBER MCKINNEY. KIND OF AS A POINT OF PRINCIPLE, I TRY NOT TO TELL A PROPERTY OWNER WHAT THEY CAN AND CAN'T DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY UNLESS I'VE GOT A REALLY GOOD REASON. MY, MY ONLY CONCERN IS, IS THERE ANY PROTECTION IF THEY WERE TO EVER TRY TO SELL LOT THREE BY ITSELF, THAT THEY WOULD THAT WHOEVER BOUGHT THAT WOULD HAVE MAINTAINED ACCESS TO THE ROAD THERE? YES. SO I BELIEVE THERE'S A PLAN OUT THERE. THE COUNTY HAD SOME CONCERNS OVER THIS AS WELL. FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO UNLESS THEY'RE THEY'RE MEETING ALL FUTURE SUBDIVISION REGS, THEY CANNOT FURTHER SUBDIVIDE THIS. SO WE DID ADD AN ADDITIONAL PLAT NOTE FOR THAT. AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE USE. I BELIEVE THEY ACTUALLY ALSO ADDED A PLAT. NOTE THAT THIS CAN ALSO BE USED AS RESIDENTIAL AS WELL TO KIND OF COVER THEIR THEIR CONCERNS. OKAY, SO WHOEVER OWNS LOT TWO CAN'T JUST THROW A GATE ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY AND PREVENT LOT THREE FROM BEING ABLE TO GET TO THEIR PROPERTY. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IT ALL MAKES SENSE BECAUSE IF YOU'VE LIVED HERE

[01:40:02]

ALL RIGHT. YOU GUYS ARE GOOD TO GO. RESOLUTION. JUST ONE READING. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[7) Consider approval of a Resolution regarding a request by Albino and Olga Lopez for an exception from Chapter 41 (Subdivisions) of the City's Code of Ordinances related to minimum lot size for lots served by on-site septic (Chapter 41, Sec. 41-136(a)(1)), for the proposed replat of a property located at 706 Green Pastures Drive in the City of Kyle Extraterritorial Jurisdiction. (VR-26-0016) The Planning & Zoning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend approval on 8/25/2026. Public Hearing ]

HERE IS THE LOCATION. IT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. SO THE APPLICANTS ARE SEEKING THIS EXCEPTION TO SUBDIVIDE SUBDIVIDE THEIR EXISTING SINGLE LOT INTO TWO LOTS. AND BOTH LOTS WILL REMAIN WITHIN THE SAME FAMILY. AND THEY ARE PLANNING TO DO THIS SUBDIVISION SO THAT THEIR SON CAN HAVE HIS OWN HOME. ON ONE OF THE PROPOSED LOTS. AS I MENTIONED, IT IS IN THE ETJ NOT SUBJECT TO ANY OF OUR ZONING REGULATIONS. THE. THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ACTUALLY ORIGINALLY PLATTED AND APPROVED BACK IN 1972. SO IT IS A PREEXISTING SUBDIVISION AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS REMAINED IN THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION SINCE THE TIME OF THAT ORIGINAL PLATS. PER OUR CITY CODE REQUIREMENTS, LOTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A LITTLE OVER. IT SAYS OVER ONE ACRE IN SIZE. IF IT SERVES BY ON SITE SEPTIC. HOWEVER, WITH HAYS COUNTY AND TCU REGULATIONS, LOTS ARE ALLOWED THAT ARE SERVED BY. ON SITE SEWER CAN BE AS LITTLE AS ONE HALF ACRE IN SIZE IF THEY'RE ALSO SERVED BY A WATER UTILITY, AND THE EXISTING LOT IS A LITTLE OVER ONE ACRE, AND THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD BE 0.689 FOR EACH. THEY ARE SERVED BY A WATER UTILITY, TEXAS WATER UTILITIES, AND THEY HAVE OSF AND ELECTRICITY AS WELL THROUGH PEDERNALES. STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE ORIGINAL PLAT AND HAVE NOT FOUND ANY ISSUES OR RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD PREVENT THE PROPOSED REPLAT, AND WE'VE ALSO REVIEWED THE REPLAT UNDER SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS, WHICH ARE CHAPTER 41 OF OUR CODE. ASIDE FROM THIS EXCEPTION REQUEST, THE PROPOSED PLAT COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICABLE CODE. AND THEN IN.

ON AUGUST 25TH, 2026, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTED TO APPROVE THE REQUESTED EXCEPTION AS PRESENTED, AND THEY ALSO VOTED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED REPLAT CONDITIONED UPON CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED EXCEPTION. AND THIS IS WHAT THE PLAT LOOKS LIKE. AND THEN ON THE NEXT SLIDE, I HAVE IT KIND OF ZOOMED IN SO YOU CAN SEE THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. I'M. YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO APPROVE THE EXCEPTION REQUEST AS PRESENTED AND APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS OR CONDITIONS OR TO DENY THE EXCEPTION REQUEST. ALL RIGHT.

ANY COUNCIL MEMBER, HARRIS IS TO APPROVE THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED. ANY QUESTIONS? I DO HAVE ONE. I MISSED IT SOMEHOW. I THINK YOU PROBABLY SAID SO. ARE EACH OF THE PROPERTIES GOING TO HAVE A SEPTIC? YES, MA'AM. THEY WILL. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I

[01:45:03]

YES. NO BETTER REASON TO APPROVE THAT. SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. OH NO. I'M GOING TO HEAR OR DO THE HEARING FIRST. OH OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO CLOSE IT. AND NOW I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM SEVEN SECOND. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARRIS.

ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION PASSES, SEVEN ZERO. ALL RIGHT. AND WE DID EIGHT AND NINE. NOW IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THE BUDGET AGENDA

[10) Conduct a public hearing to obtain comments on the City of Kyle's Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 totaling $437,639,029, as amended by the City Council in the total amount of $2,942,349 in increased operating and capital expenditures.  The amended proposed budget includes a proposed property tax rate of $0.5600 per $100/taxable valuation, a reduction of $0.0357 per $100 or 5.99%, no increase for water service rates, no increase for wastewater service rates, no increase for storm drainage fees, a 2.5% increase for solid waste services (trash collection), all other fees and charges for various city services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement plan expenditures, and the deletion of eleven (11.0) full-time equivalent positions for a net total of 460.0 proposed positions. (RELATED AGENDA ITEM 1 OF 5)]

[01:50:01]

THERE'S A TOTAL OF 460 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, 11 POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET, WITH A NET SAVINGS OF $1.9 MILLION, AND THESE ARE RECURRING ANNUAL SAVINGS. THE LIST OF THE POSITIONS THAT WERE ELIMINATED IS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT. A TOTAL OF 23 POSITIONS ARE FROZEN OR UNFUNDED IN NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET. SAME HERE. YOU HAVE A NET SAVINGS OF 2.3 MILLION IN RECURRING SAVINGS. THE LIST OF POSITIONS ARE ALSO INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET DOCUMENT. THE CIP, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM TOTALS $839 MILLION FOR THE FIVE YEAR PERIOD, AND NEXT FISCAL YEAR IS 288.5 MILLION. OF THAT, 45% ARE FOR TAX SUPPORTED PROJECTS. THESE ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, SIDEWALKS, ROADS, ROAD BOND PROGRAM, AND ANOTHER 55% IS FOR NON-TAX SUPPORTED CAPITAL PROJECTS. AND EXAMPLES OF THOSE ARE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, WASTEWATER TREATMENT, PLANT EXPANSION AND WASTEWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. A COMPLETE COPY OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR 2627, INCLUDING ALL ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS AND SCHEDULES, ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. WE ALSO HAVE A PRINTED COPY AVAILABLE AT CITY HALL AND AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION DURING BUSINESS HOURS. WITH THAT MAYOR, YOU CAN OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. THIS ITEM DOES HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IF ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK, PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. WE HAVE KENNETH ROCHA. GOOD EVENING AGAIN, MAYOR COUNCIL. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE RECONCILED TO THE AGENDA. SAYS THE TOTAL BUDGET IS 437,639. I'M SORRY, 437 MILLION. I MISSED A COMMA. $639,029, AS AMENDED BY THE COUNCIL, BUT I BELIEVE. THE AMOUNT IN ONE OF THE SLIDES WAS 419 MILLION. AND SO JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT THAT DIFFERENCE WAS, I'M SORRY IF I MISSED IT, BUT I ALSO WANTED TO, AGAIN, APPLAUD EACH OF YOU ALL AND THANK YOU, STAFF, FOR PUTTING US INTO THIS POSITION. BUT I'LL PUT IT PLAINLY ON A PATH FORWARD. ON OUR PATH FORWARD. PLEASE CONTINUE CONSERVATIVE FINANCIAL VALUES OVER EXCESSIVE SPENDING AND EXECUTE WHAT'S ALREADY FUNDED EFFICIENTLY FOR THE MOST RETURN ON OUR INVESTMENT DOLLARS, RATHER THAN GROWING DEBT AND PUTTING THE BURDEN BACK ONTO OUR CITIZENS. THE BASE BUDGET GIVES COUNCIL EXACTLY THAT OPPORTUNITY. A FOUNDATION DISCIPLINED ENOUGH THAT POLICY DECISIONS FROM HERE FORWARD CAN STAY HYPER FOCUSED ON THE SERVICES OUR COMMUNITY ACTUALLY NEEDS, WITHIN THE REAL BOUNDARIES OF STREAMLINED OPERATIONS AND MANAGEABLE DEBT, NOT BY ADDING NEW COMMITMENTS ON TOP OF AN ALREADY STRETCHED BASE. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR EVERYTHING AND SORRY IF I MISSED THAT NUMBER. ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK BEFORE I CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS? COME ON UP. PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE

[01:55:06]

SO IT IT'S NOT JUST THE PERSPECTIVE ON PUBLIC OPINION, ON PRIVACY. IT'S ALSO A MATTER OF WE AS A AS A CITY. AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS USED AS A TOOL TO BUILD A LARGER SYSTEM.

AND WE HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY CONTRIBUTING TO THE SYSTEM, NOT JUST IN IN DATA. AND THIS GOING BACK TO THIS RETENTION THING, IT THE PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE FOR GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT DPS WEAPONIZED THAT TO RETAIN CIVILIAN DATA FOR LONGER PERIODS. AND THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THAT RETENTION AND THE MVC PAY GRANTS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE RECRUITING WAS DONE FOR THIS PROGRAM. SO AS YOU GUYS GO INTO CONSIDERING WHETHER TO CONTINUE TO FUND THE SYSTEMS, YOU SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT OTHER STRINGS ARE COMING ATTACHED TO IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME UP AND SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. I'M GOING TO CLOSE CITIZENS COMMENTS. I DO WANT TO STATE THAT THIS IS A. THIS NUMBER ITEM TEN AND 11 ARE HEARINGS AND WE CAN DISCUSS HOW WE WANT TO ADJUST IF WE DO THE BUDGET AND ITEM. SO IF YOU IF US AS COUNCIL HAVE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION, WE CAN JUST WAIT HOPEFULLY UNTIL ITEM 12 SO WE CAN GET THE HEARINGS OUT OF THE WAY. SO THIS IS THE TIME FOR OUR RESIDENTS TO SPEAK. SO CLOSE THE HEARING. AND NOW

[11) Conduct a public hearing to obtain comments on the proposal to adopt the City of Kyle's ad valorem tax rate (property tax rate) at $0.5600 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation for Tax Year 2026 and Fiscal Year 2026-27. This is a $0.0357 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation or 5.99% reduction from the current adopted tax rate of $0.5957 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation.  (RELATED AGENDA ITEM 2 OF 5)]

[02:00:03]

THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, AS CALCULATED, IS 0.5650 PER $100 OF TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUATION AND THE PROPOSED TAX RATE THAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED ON FIRST READING AT THE LAST MEETING IS 0.5600 PER $100. SO NOW I'M GOING TO COMPARE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 5600 TO THE THREE TAX RATES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 0.5600 PER $100 FOR TAX. YEAR 26 IS A DECREASE OF 3.5 $0.07 PER $100, OR 6%, FROM THE CITY'S CURRENT ADOPTED TAX RATE OF 5957 PER $100. FOR THE CURRENT FISCAL YEAR THAT WE'RE IN. NOW. COMPARING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE, THE CITY'S PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATE OF 0.5600 PER $100 IS LOWER THAN THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF 0.0.6322 PER $100 FOR TAX YEAR 26. THIS IS A DECREASE OR REDUCTION OF 0.0722 PER $100, OR 11.42%, FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE FOR TAX YEAR 2026. THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 0.5600 PER $100 IS 0.0050 PER $100, LOWER THAN THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE OF 0.5650 FOR TAX YEAR 26. THIS IS A DECREASE OF 0.0050 PER $100, OR 0.9%, FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE FOR TAX YEAR 26. HERE'S A SIDE BY SIDE COMPARISON OF THE TAX RATES WE HAVE DISCUSSED SO FAR. SO THE WAY THIS TABLE IS SET UP ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU WILL SEE THE TWO COMPONENTS OF THE TAX RATE. MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS ARE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS RATE. AND THE INTEREST IN SINKING RATE ALSO REFERRED TO AS INS TAX RATE. THESE TWO COMPONENTS MAKE THE TAX RATE, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. SO THE COLUMN RIGHT AFTER THAT IS THE CURRENT ADOPTED TAX RATE FOR THE CITY. OUR CURRENT ADOPTED TAX RATE IS 5957. THE COLUMN AFTER THAT IS THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE CALCULATED FOR NEXT FISCAL YEAR IS 0.6322. AND THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE CALCULATED FOR NEXT YEAR IS 0.5650 PER $100. AND IF YOU RECALL, WE DISCUSSED TWO OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED PROPERTY TAX RATES SO FAR WITH COUNCIL. OPTION ONE WAS CONSIDERING A TAX RATE OF 0.5600, AND OPTION TWO WAS CONSIDERING A TAX RATE OF 0.5340. AND EACH ONE OF THESE FOUR TAX RATES IS

[02:05:07]

[02:10:05]

[12) (Second Reading) Consider approval of an Ordinance adopting the annual budget totaling $437,639,029, as amended by the City Council, for the ensuing fiscal year beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2027; appropriating revenue and expenditure amounts thereof for city funds, authorizing no rate increase for water service rates, no rate increase for wastewater service rates, no increase in storm drainage fees, a 2.5% increase in solid waste service charges, all other fees and charges for various city services as provided for in the fee schedule, capital improvement plan expenditures, elimination of eleven (11) full-time positions for a net total of 460.0 positions, and authorizing for the carryover of encumbrances, all associated schedules and documents; and repealing all Ordinances in conflict herewith; and providing for an effective date.  (RELATED AGENDA ITEM 3 OF 5 & ROLL CALL VOTE IS REQUESTED)  The City Council voted 7-0 to approve on first reading on 9/5/2026.]

[02:15:02]

SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 400 AND 19.9 AND THE 437 IS 17.7 MILLION, WHICH IS THE TRANSFER OUT AMOUNT. THE PROPOSED TAX RATE. AT THIS POINT BEFORE YOU VOTE ON THE SECOND READING RIGHT NOW, AS WE STAND, IT INCLUDES A 3.5 $0.07 REDUCTION IN THE TAX RATE OR A 6% REDUCTION. THE TAX RATE ADOPTED ON FIRST READING IS 0.5600 PER $100, AS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT ADOPTED TAX RATE OF 5957 PER $100. THE PROPOSED BUDGET DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY RATE INCREASE FOR WATER SERVICE FOR INSIDE OR OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. NO RATE INCREASE IS PROPOSED FOR WASTEWATER SERVICE FOR INSIDE OR OUTSIDE CITY CUSTOMERS. NO FEE INCREASE IN THE DRAINAGE FEE FOR OUR RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS. NO INCREASE IN OTHER RATES AND FEES OF THE CITY EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF ONE NEW FEE TO RECOVER THE COST OF INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT SAMPLING FOR OUR WATER UTILITIES DEPARTMENT, THERE IS A 2.5% RATE INCREASE INCLUDED FOR SOLID WASTE AND RECYCLING SERVICES, WHICH IS ALSO WE REFER TO AS OUR TRASH COLLECTION AND RECYCLING. AND THIS IS BASED ON A CONTRACT THAT THE CITY HAS ENTERED WITH TEXAS DISPOSAL SYSTEMS. AND THE RATE CHANGE WILL BE EFFECTIVE APRIL 1ST, 2027. THE RATE INCREASE FOR TRASH AND RECYCLING IS IS APPROXIMATELY $0.63 PER MONTH. AS I COVERED BEFORE, THERE ARE NO EMPLOYEE LAYOFFS OF FILLED POSITIONS OR ELIMINATED ELIMINATION OF FILLED POSITIONS, NO REDUCTION IN EMPLOYEE WAGES OR SALARIES.

THERE ARE 460 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT POSITIONS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. 11 POSITIONS HAVE BEEN ELIMINATED FROM THE YEAR BEFORE, WHICH GIVES US A RECURRING SAVINGS OF 1.9 MILLION. AND THERE ARE 23 OTHER POSITIONS THAT ARE FROZEN OR UNFUNDED IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THEY'RE NOT ELIMINATED. THEY'RE THEY'RE JUST SIMPLY UNFUNDED. AND THAT GIVES US ANOTHER $2.4 MILLION IN RECURRING SAVINGS. ALL OF THESE POSITIONS ARE LISTED IN THE BACKUP DOCUMENTS. THE FIVE YEAR CIP SPENDING PLAN TOTALS $839 MILLION, AND FOR NEXT YEAR IS APPROXIMATELY 288.5 MILLION. AND THIS INCLUDES BOTH TAX SUPPORTED AND NON-TAX SUPPORTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. SO LET'S GO OVER THE AMENDMENTS THAT COUNCIL HAS APPROVED SO FAR. ON AUGUST 27TH, THE CITY COUNCIL AMENDED THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER'S PROPOSED RECOMMENDED EXPENDITURES FOR THE OPERATING CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627 BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS FOR EXPENDITURES IN THE BUDGET AS FOLLOWS. FOR KYLE VISTA PARK, THE APPROPRIATE EXPENDITURE APPROPRIATIONS WERE INCREASED BY $1,000,886, $886,546. BUT THERE WAS ALSO A CORRESPONDING REVENUE TO OFFSET THAT EXPENDITURE. SO THE NET IMPACT OF THAT INCREASE IN EXPENDITURES WAS ZERO, BECAUSE THERE WAS A CORRESPONDING CORRESPONDING DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTION IN THE EXACT SAME AMOUNT. THEN THE OTHER AMENDMENTS INCLUDED, THERE WERE TWO PART TIME POSITIONS IN THE LIBRARY DEPARTMENT THAT MY PROPOSED BUDGET IDENTIFIED THOSE AS FROZEN FOR NEXT YEAR. COUNCIL DECIDED TO UNFUND THOSE POSITIONS FOR NEXT YEAR. SO THAT WAS A TOTAL OF $57,058. THE MORENO STREET DRAINAGE CIP.

THIS IS ON THE CIP SIDE AND IT'S FUNDED WITH DRAINAGE FEES. IT'S. YOU ALL INCREASE THE EXPENDITURES BY OR AMENDED THE BUDGET BY $600,000. SO THE TOTAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE APPROVED BY COUNCIL ON AUGUST 27TH TOTALED $2,543,604. THEN, ON SEPTEMBER 5TH, THE CITY

[02:20:07]

AND THAT AMENDMENT TOTALS $169,467. AND LET ME EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS ABOUT. SO ADDITIONAL FUNDS ARE NEEDED TO FUND NEXT YEAR'S BUDGET FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES THAT WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF COUNCIL, CITY OF KYLE THROUGH THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS ANIMAL SHELTER. FACILITY. IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE YELLOW TABLE AT THE BOTTOM, THE PROPOSED BUDGET.

WHEN WE DRAFTED THE BUDGET, IT HAD 299,336 IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THE ESTIMATED NUMBERS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS FOR NEXT YEAR IS $468,803. NOW, THESE ARE ESTIMATES. THE ACTUAL NUMBERS WILL DIFFER BECAUSE THEY'RE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ANIMALS WE WE TAKE TO THE SHELTER. SO THE NET DIFFERENCE IS 169,467. THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF AMENDMENT WE WILL NEED TONIGHT FOR COUNCIL TO APPROVE. BUT I'LL COME BACK TO THAT. AND I WILL ALSO RECONCILE IN THAT SAME DISCUSSION, WHAT MR. ROCHER REFERRED TO WAS 200,000 VERSUS 169. SO I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU WORK ON BUDGET PAST 2 A.M. SO THIS IS THE AMENDMENT AMOUNT THAT WE WILL ASK COUNCIL TO AMEND THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY.

THIS IS JUST A HIGHLIGHT OF THE TOTAL POLICE BUDGET, WHICH IS WITH THE AMENDMENTS SO FAR, NOT WITH THE ANIMAL SHELTER AMENDMENT, BUT UP THROUGH THE LEASED VEHICLES. THE TOTAL BUDGET FOR POLICE DEPARTMENT IS 22 MILLION 346 983, WHICH IS ABOUT 32% OF THE TOTAL GENERAL FUND BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR. SO NEXT STEPS FOR THE BUDGET PROCESS. TODAY IS SEPTEMBER 15TH. WE HAD THE FINAL PUBLIC HEARINGS, THE SECOND READING OF THE BUDGET ADOPTION ORDINANCE IS IS WE'RE GOING OVER RIGHT NOW, AND THE SECOND READING OF THE PROPERTY TAX RATE ORDINANCE WILL BE THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, AND THE ONE AFTER THAT IS A RATIFICATION ORDINANCE THAT WILL GO OVER. COMPLETE COPY OF THE CITY'S PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2627. AND ALL ASSOCIATED DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE. WE HAVE A PRINTED COPY AT CITY HALL AND AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY FOR PUBLIC INSPECTION, SO THIS IS THE SLIDE THAT MR. ROCHA WAS REFERRING TO. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BOTTOM. THIS SLIDE SAYS WE NEED $175,803. AND THE ONE I SHOWED YOU EARLIER WAS 169,000. SO WHAT HAPPENED HERE WAS IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED BUDGET, IT HAS A VERY EVEN NUMBER OF 293,000. I DID NOT HAVE THE AMOUNT HANDY. SO I JUST HAD A PLACEHOLDER NUMBER. BUT THE AMENDMENT. THIS IS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT 169,467 IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED FOR YOU ALL TO VOTE ON. AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED BUDGET AMOUNT, IT'S THE ACTUAL WHAT IS IN THE PROPOSED BUDGET DOCUMENT OF 290,000 299,336 VERSUS 293,000

[02:25:05]

BUT I FAILED TO DO WAS COME BACK AND FIX THIS SLIDE. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE AND ASK YOU ALL TO AMEND THE PROPOSED BUDGET BY 169,467. THE BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES THAT WE WILL BE UTILIZING FROM THE CITY OF SAN MARCOS. BEFORE Y'ALL GET INTO THE DISCUSSIONS. SO IF WE CAN GET THIS OUT OF THE WAY AND THEN WE'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS. SO IS THERE GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS THAT YOU WANT? YEAH. ONE WOULD BE FOR THE AMENDMENT TO ADD THIS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S PROPOSED BUDGET. AND THEN THE OVERALL CITY'S BUDGET. I MOVE THAT WE ADD $169,467 TO THE POLICE BUDGET FOR ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES. SECOND, OKAY. HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER MCKINNEY AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM TOBIAS. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? A QUICK QUESTION? I'M ASSUMING THAT ANIMAL SERVICES BEING PUT BACK UNDER THE PURVIEW OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. I WANT TO SAY LAST YEAR OR YEAR BEFORE IT HAD BEEN SEPARATED OUT. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN UNDER POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE DAY TO DAY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES. THE ONLY THING THAT THE FORMER CITY MANAGER HAD PULLED OUT WAS THE PLANNING FOR THE NEW FACILITY THAT WAS UNDER THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE. BUT THE DAY TO DAY OPERATIONS OF ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES HAS ALWAYS BEEN UNDER POLICE DEPARTMENT. OKAY. AND IT WILL CONTINUE NEXT YEAR AS WELL. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE AYE. OPPOSED THAT. MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. SO NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION FOR FOR ANY OTHER HOPEFULLY NO CHANGES.

BUT IF YOU WANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.

COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA. SO JUST ONE THING, JUST KIND OF A THOUGHT PROCESS FOR NEXT BUDGET, I GUESS. I'VE HAD RESIDENTS COME AND ASK ME DIFFERENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL THAT WERE UTILIZING LIKE P AND T. KENT SICK, LAGOS. LIKE WE BASICALLY HAVE DIFFERENT OUTSIDE COUNSEL FOR ALL KINDS OF THINGS. SO AS WE FINALIZE THE BUDGET, ONE THING THAT I THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE MINDFUL GOING FORWARD IN THE FUTURE IS AN OVERALL STRUCTURE FOR LEGAL SERVICES, BECAUSE WE HAVE OUR IN-HOUSE CITY ATTORNEY, WHILE WE'RE ALSO UTILIZING MULTIPLE OUTSIDE FIRMS. AND I RECOGNIZE THAT THERE'S SPECIALIZED OUTSIDE COUNSELS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.

BUT ONE THING THAT WE COULD EVALUATE GOING FORWARD IS A MODEL THAT KIND OF GIVES US A FULL SERVICE, MULTIPLE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM, A FULL SERVICE MUNICIPAL LAW FIRM.

SORRY IT'S LATE. WITH ATTORNEYS THAT SPECIALIZE IN MULTIPLE AREAS. THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF HAVING A CHERRY PICK OF DIFFERENT FIRMS THAT WE'RE ALL PICKING FROM KIND OF ONE FIRM THAT SERVICES OUR NEEDS IN FULL. AND AGAIN, IT'S NOT ANYTHING THAT I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE CHANGE TONIGHT, BUT SOMETHING TO THINK OF IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S NOT JUST ONE WAY OF DOING BUSINESS. AND THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO CONSIDER THAT IN THE FUTURE SO WE CAN SERVE OUR RESIDENTS AND, YOU KNOW, WATCH OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS. SPEAKING OF THAT, I KNOW HUTTO HAS AN OUTSIDE AND A CITY ATTORNEY. THEY USE THEIR CITY ATTORNEY TO DO THE WORK, AND THEN THEY SEND IT OUT FOR LIABILITY REASONS. WHEN I WHEN I SPOKE WITH THEM, I GUESS THERE COULD BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN WE HAVE AN IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY VERSUS A CONTRACTED ATTORNEY. AND THIS IS FOR FUTURE. SO THE LIABILITY CURRENTLY RIGHT NOW FALLS ON THE CITY. IF THERE'S SOME KIND OF ISSUE, SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE COUNTY HAD AN ISSUE WITH SPENDING ALL THAT MONEY FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER, AND WE COULD ESSENTIALLY, IF IT WAS LIKE A THIRD PARTY ATTORNEY, WE COULD USE, YOU KNOW, INSURANCE TO RECOUP OR REGAIN ANY LOSSES TO THE CITY. AND SO, AND I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT, OH, I WAS JUST TALKING TO COUNCILMEMBER GOZA ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THE CONTRACT FOR THE PIT PITS. NO, FOR THE BOND LANGUAGE AND SENDING IT BACK TO THE SAME ATTORNEY THAT LOOKED AT IT IS NOT SOMETHING I WANT TO DO.

JUST ON THE SIDE NOTE. SO ANYTIME WE HAVE AN OUTSIDE ATTORNEY DO THAT, I DO WANT TO ENSURE THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING THE SAME ATTORNEYS EYES ON THE SAME LANGUAGE, VERIFYING THAT

[02:30:03]

AND SO I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT. I WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE I SAID, YOU KNOW, IT HOLDS A LITTLE BIT MORE MERIT WHEN YOU GUYS CONTACT US DIRECTLY AND TELL US HOW YOU FEEL. I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ANYTHING NEGATIVE ABOUT THE, THE, THE MERIT OR THE LONGEVITY RAISES. BUT THERE ARE RESIDENTS THAT ARE NOT EVEN ON BOARD WITH THAT. AND I READ ONLINE TOO, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WERE APPRECIATIVE THAT WE DIDN'T GIVE RAISES, AND THAT'S NOT TO DEGRADE OUR STAFF. BUT A LOT OF THEM WERE SAYING, WE DON'T WE'RE NOT GETTING RAISES AT OUR JOB. YOU KNOW, WHY SHOULD WE HAVE TO PAY TO GIVE RAISES TO THE STAFF? AND SO THAT'S A THAT'S AN EXTREMELY DIFFICULT CONVERSATION TO HAVE SITTING IN OUR SEATS. I'M NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE, BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS WE HAVE TO BE AWARE AND CONSCIOUS OF THE TAXPAYERS. AND BEING GOOD STEWARDS MEANS LISTENING TO THEM. AND I'VE HAD TO DO THAT A LOT LATELY, EVEN WITH THINGS THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH. BUT I DO THINK THAT THEY WORK HARD AND I DO THINK THAT THEY DESERVE A RAISE. I ALSO THINK THAT WHEN I DON'T HAVE MONEY TO GO ON VACATION, I DON'T GET TO TAKE A TRIP. AND SO UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S WHERE WE SIT AS AS A COUNCIL AND AS A CITY COUNCIL. COUNCILMEMBER GOSA, I JUST KIND OF WANTED TO SPEAK TO THAT SAME IDEA. I KNOW WHEN I WORKED IN PUBLIC SERVICE, I WOULD GO YEARS WITHOUT RECEIVING A RAISE, AND IT DIDN'T MEAN I WAS LESS VALUED, BUT THE FUNDS JUST WERE NOT THERE. YOU KNOW, AS A CITY, WE HAVE A FINITE AMOUNT OF FUNDS BECAUSE IT'S WHAT WE CAN COLLECT FROM OUR RESIDENTS, WHAT WE COLLECT IN SALES TAX, AND TO JUST KEEP SAYING, OH, WELL, WE'VE GOT IT, WE'VE GOT IT, WE'VE GOT TO SPEND IT. I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT BEING NECESSARILY A GOOD STEWARD. I KNOW OUR EMPLOYEES ARE VERY VALUED. THEY WORK VERY HARD.

THEY DID HAVE SEVERAL YEARS IN A ROW WHERE THEY RECEIVED VERY HEALTHY RAISES. WE DO TRY TO PAY VERY WELL. WE HAD A 2025 WAGE SURVEY DONE, AND MANY OF OUR STAFF ARE WITHIN THE MID TIER TO HIGH TIER. AND SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO BE EXTREMELY PAINFUL TO GO A YEAR AND THEN ALLOW US TO REEVALUATE IN NEXT BUDGET. AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED TO A FEW STAFF AND HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE IN THIS AND WE'RE IN THIS TOGETHER. AND WE REALIZE LIKE, IT MAY JUST NOT BE IN THE CARDS THIS YEAR. AND SO I FELT LIKE THEY WERE BEING VERY ACCOMMODATING TO THAT. SO THAT'S JUST KIND OF MY $0.02 ON THAT. CAN I, MAY I SAY SOMETHING? OH, OKAY. YES. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. ZAPATA, YOU'VE BEEN WAITING. OH IF YOU SORRY, I KNOW THIS LAGS SO MY APOLOGIES ON THAT, BUT I THINK I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF A COUNTER VOICE TO THAT, IN THAT I'VE HAD RESIDENTS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY

[02:35:05]

IT WOULD NOT BE MERIT. IT WOULD BE AUTOMATIC 3% ADDED TO THEIR BASE WAGE. THE THE CITY MANAGER, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, DEPARTMENT HEADS, ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT HEADS WOULD NOT RECEIVE ONE. THAT WAS THE PROPOSAL THAT WE DISCUSSED. OKAY, WELL, I'M STILL OKAY WITH THAT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE WAY THINGS ARE AND THEN REEVALUATING IT NEXT YEAR, EVEN BEFORE THE BUDGET'S UP. IF WE HAVE EXCESS MONEY, I WOULDN'T I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THE STAFF IN THAT WAY. PRO TEM HAVE I ALSO THINK MAYOR PRO TEM WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. OKAY. HE'S LIKE I DID, YEAH, I WANTED TO TAKE IT A DIFFERENT A DIFFERENT STEP ON THIS. AND I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT MONEY. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL THE INCREASES. BUT WHAT I WANTED TO DO IN THIS FINAL BUDGET VOTE THAT WE'RE DOING, I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE ALL OF YOU. AND I WANT EVERYBODY TO UNDERSTAND, FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE WATCHING, AND YOU MAY NOT SEE IT, BUT THE TRUE HEROES OF THIS CITY IS BACK. THERE IS THE EMPLOYEES AND ALL OF YOU. AND WHEN I ALWAYS ASK FOR NAMES, IT'S NOT ONLY JUST FOR ACCOUNTABILITY, BUT ON THAT SENSE OF RECOGNITION. SO LIKE FROM CHRIS ARNOLD AND HIS GROUP AND HIS ASPHALT AVENGERS, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO. MIKE MURPHY, TIM STANFORD, GENTLEMEN, FOR THE HARD WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE THIS WHOLE YEAR, IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGING FOR ALL OF US, INCLUDING YOUR GROUP. I'M SURE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF YOUR STAFF THAT HAS PROBABLY PUT IN A DOUBLE THE HOURS, THE EXTRA

[02:40:05]

AND LEON, BARBARA, YOUR GROUP, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AS WELL. WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE, BUT YOU'RE PULLING THROUGH AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AND YOUR CONTINUED SERVICE ON THAT END TO JULIE, THE HUMAN RESOURCE IN YOUR AREA. I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF ISSUES THAT WE'VE YOU'VE HAD TO GO THROUGH CHALLENGES, ESPECIALLY FOR PAYROLL AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOU'RE YOU'VE DONE AN OUTSTANDING JOB. AND I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND TO CONTINUE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICE FOR OUR CITY. AND I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT, RAVI, AS WELL, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS AND IN YOUR GROUP FOR YOUR HARD WORK. I KNOW WE'RE THROWING A LOT OF THINGS AT YOU AS FAR AS REEVALUATING INTERSECTIONS AND SO FORTH. AND I KNOW WE CAN BE VERY DIFFICULT, BUT I RECOGNIZE YOU AND I RECOGNIZE YOUR TEAM, AND I THANK YOU ON THAT, ALLISON KELLY, FOR THE COMMUNICATIONS. MARCO, IN YOUR IT GROUP. I ALSO HAVE CHIEF BARNETT AND CHIEF HERNANDEZ FOR YOUR POLICE OFFICERS THAT ARE ON DUTY RIGHT NOW, AND THAT THE DEDICATION THAT YOU'VE DONE, AGAIN, IT'S BEEN A CHALLENGING YEAR. YOU'VE BEEN ASKED TO MAKE CUTS AS WELL, BUT YOUR TEAM HAS PULLED THROUGH. AND I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU ON THAT. CYNTHIA AND JENNIFER, FOR YOUR HARD WORK AS WELL. YOU NEED TO BE RECOGNIZED JUST AS MUCH. I KNOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RAISES. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OTHER THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT YOUR DAILY COMMITMENT, JENNIFER AND CYNTHIA, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU TO YOU AS WELL. WILL VICTORIA AND JASON, FOR YOUR HARD WORK THAT YOU DO FOR OUR CITY? FROM THE ECONOMIC STANDPOINT, I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME DOWNFALLS THIS YEAR AS WE'RE HAVING OUR MAYBE SOME OF THE THINGS ARE SLOWING DOWN, BUT I KNOW I HAVE FAITH IN OUR CITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND WE'RE GOING TO NEED YOU, ALL OF YOU, AND TO HOLLY AND TO ALEJANDRO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR FOR YOUR DEDICATION TO THE FINANCE OF GETTING US BACK ON TRACK. BENITO, CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR PROMOTION. I'M ALSO EXCITED TO KNOW THAT WE'LL BE GETTING SOMEBODY NEW FROM THE PARKS AS WELL. BUT MOST IMPORTANT, YOU TWO, AMBER AND JESSIE. WHAT WE WENT THROUGH THIS YEAR AND THE RESIGNATIONS AND THE PEOPLE LEAVING. AND FOR YOU TO TO STAND BEHIND THIS CITY AND NOT JUMP SHIP AND BELIEVE IN THE RESIDENTS, BELIEVE IN THE MISSION. BELIEVING IN THE GOLD STANDARD. YOU COULD HAVE LEFT TOO, BUT YOU DIDN'T. AS WE ALL KNOW, IT WAS BETWEEN YOU AND MOHIT AND WE HAD TO MAKE. I HAD TO MAKE THE DECISION. WHO CAN WE GET US BACK ON TRACK? FINANCIALLY, THAT'S ALL IT WAS.

BUT I WANT TO APPLAUD BOTH OF YOU FOR STICKING BY THE RESIDENTS, FOR STICKING BY YOUR GUNS AND NOT LEAVING, AND NOT WHEN THE WHEN OUR CITY WAS IN A CRISIS IN A WAY, OR GOING THROUGH ITS CHALLENGES, BOTH OF YOU STOOD UP AND YOU TOOK ON THE CHALLENGE AND YOU STAYED BEHIND AND YOU WORKED THROUGH IT. AND I'M VERY, VERY PROUD OF YOU. AND THANK YOU SO MUCH, AMBER, FOR YOUR SERVICE. I'VE KNOWN YOU FOR MANY YEARS, JESSE. THE SAME THING. AND LAST MOST.

MR. MOHIT, I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE, SIR. FROM THE TIME YOU CAME IN AND YOU ACCEPTED THE POSITION, YOU GOT A LOT OF CRITICISM, A LOT OF PEOPLE ONLINE, FORMER PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY SERVED UP HERE IN THE DAIS WAS IN TOTAL DISAGREEMENT. BUT YOU KNEW THE CHALLENGE. YOU'VE BEEN IN THIS SITUATION BEFORE. WE GAVE YOU THE TOOLS AND WE GAVE YOU THE THE STAFF THAT YOU NEEDED TO GET IT DONE. IT WAS HARD. I KNOW YOU HAD SLEEPLESS NIGHTS.

I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CRITICISM, CRITICISM THAT CAME YOUR WAY. BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU, SIR, FOR GETTING US BACK ON TRACK. AND LIKE I KEPT TELLING GOZA AND I KEPT TELLING

[02:45:02]

AND AS WE MOVE FORWARD, WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THE CITY OF KYLE AND OUR RESIDENTS THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO. WE'VE HAD A VERY CHALLENGING YEAR. WE'VE DONE IT. WE CAN DO THIS. WE CAN CONTINUE MOVING FORWARD. BUT WE GOT TO WORK TOGETHER. WE GOT TO BE TRANSPARENT. WE GOT TO HOLD OURSELVES ACCOUNTABLE LIKE I HAVE. I'VE MADE SOME BAD DECISIONS, BUT I HOLD MYSELF TO IT. AND SO AS WE MAKE THIS VOTE TO FINALIZE THIS BUDGET, I WANT TO THANK EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU ALL OUT THERE, THE CITY STAFF, EVERYBODY ON THE DAIS FOR THE MANY YEAR HOURS THAT YOU ALL PUT IN. AND I WANT TO THANK THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS OF KYLE FOR BEING PATIENT WITH US AND UNDERSTANDING AS WE GET THROUGH THIS FOR A BETTER KYLE TOMORROW. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HATE TO RUIN THE MUSHY GUSHY NESS OF IT ALL, BUT I DID HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION AT THE LAST SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING, I DID ASK A QUESTION ABOUT OUR AXON CONTRACT. I WAS WONDERING IF WE HAD AN UPDATE ON THAT. AS WE SAID, WE WOULD GET AN UPDATE AT TODAY'S MEETING. I THINK IT'S ESPECIALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE THE HAYS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT TODAY DECIDED NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR $4.5 MILLION, TEN YEAR CONTRACT, WHEREAS THE CITY OF KYLE ACTUALLY HAS A $7 MILLION, TEN YEAR CONTRACT. AND SO I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT LINE ITEMS WITHIN THAT THAT WE DO NOT NEED. IF THERE'S LIKE AN ITEMIZATION THAT WE CAN DO, SUCH AS LIKE THE VIRTUAL REALITY HEADSETS AND TRAINING AND THE AI ERA PLAN, WHICH COMES IN AT $2 MILLION. SO I WAS WONDERING IF WE GOT AN UPDATE ON THAT COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA. WE DIDN'T PREPARE ANYTHING FOR TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE POLICE CHIEF PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION. OKAY. I IT WAS SAID THAT HE WAS GOING TO BRING IT BACK. AND BECAUSE THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER OR NOT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO HAVE IT IN TIME, BUT THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD TRY. SO I JUST WONDER, WAS THERE ANY PROCESS OR MOVEMENT MADE BETWEEN THEN AND NOW? LET ME ASK THE CHIEF TO COME FORWARD, IF HE DOESN'T MIND. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL JEFF BARNETT, CHIEF OF POLICE, COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA AND ALL. SO I DID REACH OUT TO AXON. I MADE THE REQUEST IF THEY WOULD TRY TO SEPARATE OUT THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS OF OUR CONTRACT. THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD, IN FACT DO THAT, THAT THEY WOULD TRY TO PROVIDE THE BEST THEY COULD. THEY DID CAUTION US PRICES HAVE GONE UP SINCE WE NEGOTIATED THAT CONTRACT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOW ENTERING YEAR TWO. AND THEY SAID SO THEY DIDN'T NECESSARILY, ON THE ONSET, BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD SEE ANY COST OFFSET, BECAUSE THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO KEEP IN THE CONTRACT HAVE GONE UP IN PRICE, AND THINGS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO REMOVE MAY NOT OFFSET THE COST.

BUT I DID MAKE THAT ASK. I DID TELL THEM, PLEASE GET IT TO ME AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, AND I HAVE NOT YET RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION FROM THEM. BUT I DID MAKE THE ASK AS PROMISED, AND AS SOON AS I GET IT, I'LL BE SURE TO SHARE IT WITH THE CITY MANAGER SO COUNCIL CAN HAVE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU, I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR COUNCIL TO BE ABLE TO DECIDE WHAT SORTS OF TOOLS IT IS THAT WE WANT TO USE, AND TO PROBABLY GET SOME BETTER EXPLANATIONS BEHIND SOME OF THOSE DIFFERENT AI TOOLS THAT AXON IS PROVIDING CURRENTLY, OR MAYBE IN THE PIPELINE APP PROVIDING. I THINK IT JUST KIND OF BAFFLES ME THAT WE ARE SPENDING MORE MONEY ON THE CITY OF KYLE THROUGH THIS AXON CONTRACT THAN THE ENTIRETY OF HAYS COUNTY FOR THE SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT WAS EVEN CONSIDERING. AND THEY NOTED THAT. MAY I CLARIFY SOMETHING? AND I MAY HAVE MISHEARD. I WAS IN THE BACK OF THE ROOM AND I APOLOGIZE. WHAT NUMBER OF YEARS WAS THE CONTRACT FOR HAYS COUNTY? TEN, TEN YEARS. TEN YEARS. TEN YEARS. YEAH. AND I'M NOT SURE WHAT ALL THEY WERE GETTING IN THEIR CONTRACT. AND YOU'RE RIGHT. SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTRACT AND THE NUMBERS AND THE QUANTITIES AND WHATNOT. BUT WHENEVER I DO GET THE INFORMATION FROM AXON, I WILL MAKE CERTAIN THAT NOT ONLY DOES IT INCLUDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE COSTS PER INDIVIDUAL ITEM, IT WILL INCLUDE A VERY DESCRIPTIVE SECTION THAT WILL ALSO TELL YOU WHAT EACH OF THOSE COMPONENTS DO AND HOW THEY'RE OPERATED AND EVERYTHING, SO THAT YOU CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS. OKAY.

AND THEN I WOULD ALSO APPRECIATE AT THAT TIME IF WE COULD HAVE SOME OUTSIDE EXPERTS, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT AXON IS GOING TO HAVE THEIR MARKETING OR SALES PEOPLE TRY,

[02:50:01]

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO PREFACE THIS NEXT PART. AND CHIEF, YOU CAN STAY UP HERE IF YOU WANT. YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO, BUT I DO WANT TO PREFACE THIS NEXT PART BY SAYING THAT I APPRECIATE ALL THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT FLOCK, WHO HAVE SENT IN EMAILS ABOUT FLOCK, AND WHO CONTINUE TO REACH OUT AND MESSAGE EITHER COUNCIL OR MYSELF DIRECTLY TO LET US KNOW HOW MUCH YOU ARE AGAINST THE CITY CONTINUOUSLY SPENDING NEARLY HALF $1 MILLION A YEAR IN ORDER TO CONTINUE FUNDING FLOCK, ALPERS AND FLOCK AI DRONES, I HAVE CONSISTENTLY BROUGHT UP MOTIONS TO AMEND THE BUDGET IN ORDER TO CANCEL THE CONTRACTS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE WITH FLOCK, SO I'M GOING TO DO SO AGAIN BECAUSE, AS COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA STATED, REPETITIVENESS IS KEY. AND SO I DO WANT YOU TO KNOW AND RESIDENTS TO KNOW THAT COUNCIL MAY BE DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT WE WANT TO PUT THIS ON A BALLOT IN MAY. ONE. THAT VOTE HAS NOT FORMALLY HAPPENED YET. IT WAS DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE BROUGHT BACK TO US TO DECIDE IF THAT WE WANTED TO DO THAT, AND AT THE SAME TIME, WHAT GOES ON THE BALLOT IN MAY IS A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM, MEANING IT DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME WEIGHT THAT A RESIDENT LED REFERENDUM HAS. A NON-BINDING REFERENDUM IS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO JUST LIKE A CITY WIDE POLL, MEANING THE RESULTS OF THAT REFERENDUM ARE NOT SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL MUST ABIDE BY. IT IS GOING TO BE A POLL IN WHICH COUNCIL WILL BE ABLE TO SAY AND USE THAT AS A SORT OF SURVEY, AND THEN DECIDE WHAT TO DO AFTER THAT. SO I JUST WANT RESIDENTS TO BE AWARE THAT THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY A COMPROMISE. I THINK IT'S IT'S IT'S A MOVE IN ORDER TO PACIFY RESIDENTS. I DO WANT TO GO AHEAD WITH THAT, MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO CANCEL THE 2024 AND 2025 FLOCK CONTRACTS THROUGH NON APPROPRIATION, IN THE AMOUNT OF $381,000, AND TO DIRECT OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO BRING INFORMATION BACK ON HOW TO CANCEL THE 2023 FLOCK CONTRACT, IN WHICH THERE IS MINIMAL FINANCIAL LIABILITY. SO I HAVE THAT MOTION ON THE TABLE. OKAY, THERE'S A MOTION AND THERE'S NO SECOND. SO IT FAILS DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND. I DO WANT TO STATE THAT I HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM COMING FORWARD TO THE CITY OF TO, TO US, AND IT'S GOING TO AT LEAST GIVE US AN ANALYSIS OF THE AGREEMENTS.

BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO, WE DON'T REALLY KNOW. AND SO IN MY CONVERSATION, I'M NOT DONE. PLEASE DON'T INTERRUPT. THANK YOU. AND SO IN MY CONVERSATION WITH CITY MANAGER TODAY, WHEN I STATED EARLIER, HEY, I'M MAKING THESE DECISIONS THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY MYSELF SUPPORT, BUT I HEAR THE RESIDENTS, I SEE THEM. AND THIS IS NOT A A GAME OF COVER UP OR PULL UP FOR ME, NOTHING IS IS POLITICAL. THIS FOR I FEEL LIKE THIS REALLY SHOULD BE A RESIDENT DECISION. AND IN THE MEANTIME, COUNCIL CAN ONLY MAKE GOOD DECISIONS WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE. AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT FULL KNOWLEDGE. AND WHAT I NEED IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT DECISION IS SOME TYPE OF PRESENTATION FROM THE STAFF TO EXPLAIN OUR CONTRACTS, WHERE WE STAND, WHAT WE ARE SET TO LOSE, AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE BY THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND THEN I THINK ALL OF US CAN THEN HAVE THE CONVERSATION. THIS HAS NEVER BEEN DONE. IT'S NEVER BEEN PROPOSED THAT WE LOOK AT THESE AGREEMENTS. IT'S ALWAYS BEEN, LET'S JUST DO IT. LET'S JUST CUT IT OFF. LET'S JUST BE DONE. AND I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THOSE REPERCUSSIONS ARE. AND SO HOPEFULLY PEOPLE WILL UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, FOR ONE, EDUCATE OURSELVES ON THE REPERCUSSIONS. BECAUSE IF WE CANCEL SOMETHING AND STILL HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, THAT TO ME DOESN'T MAKE ANY FINANCIAL SENSE. AND FOR TWO, I'M GOING TO GIVE THIS TO THE PEOPLE BECAUSE THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO

[02:55:01]

THANK YOU. SO MOVING FORWARD, WE ARE GOING TO. IF THERE'S NO OTHER AMENDMENTS THAT WE. OKAY.

GO AHEAD. COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE CHIEF, CHIEF BARNETT. IT'S A QUICK ONE. I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION. IT'S ONE I THINK YOU'LL KNOW. COUNCIL MEMBER SABATA MENTIONED THE COMPARED THE BUDGETS FOR THE CAMERAS TO OUR SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT IS ACTUALLY SMALLER THAN THE CITY OF KYLE'S POLICE DEPARTMENT. OH, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE ACTION ITEM. HONESTLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY HAD IN THEIR CONTRACT.

I DON'T KNOW WHO THEY WERE TRYING TO OUTFIT WITH. WHAT WAS IT LIMITED TO? TASERS, THAT EXXON IS A BIG COMPANY AND DO A LOT OF STUFF. I JUST DON'T HAVE A CLUE WHAT WAS IN THE NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M ASKING. SMALLER IN TERMS OF NO. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE A NUMBER OF OFFICERS. I DON'T KNOW THEIR BUDGET, BUT I THINK THEY HAVE MORE OFFICERS THAN WE DO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. CAN WE HAVE A COMPARISON WHENEVER YOU BRING THAT BACK, JUST LIKE A COMPARISON OF THE TWO AGREEMENTS, BECAUSE YEAH, THERE'S A DISPARITY OF ALMOST HALF. SURE. THAT'S THAT'S A CAUSE FOR CONCERN. YEAH. SO YEAH, IF YOU COULD JUST BRING BACK WHAT THE COUNTY HAD VERSUS WHAT WE HAVE, AND THEN WE CAN JUST GO FROM THERE. YES, MA'AM.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER DISCUSSION, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO DO A MOTION. OKAY. EARLIER YOU AND I WERE TALKING AND WE MENTIONED MAYBE INQUIRING IF WE CAN PUT A PAUSE ON THOSE CONTRACTS, EITHER THE ONE FOR JUST THE CAMERAS AND OR THE, THE DRONES UNTIL WE GO TO BALLOT, WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE WERE INTERESTED IN EXPLORING? YES. SO ME AND COUNCILMEMBER GOSA, I CALLED HER AND JUST WAS LIKE, HEY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE A CONCERN WITH ALL THESE EMAILS AND THESE, YOU KNOW, THE RESIDENTS CONCERNS.

[03:00:03]

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S JUST MORE THAN NOT HAVING THE FLOCK ANYMORE. I THINK IT'S ALSO HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT OTHER THINGS? YOU KNOW, WE HEARD A RESIDENT COME UP AND SPEAK AND SAY, WHAT ARE WE GOING TO REPLACE IT WITH? SO THERE'S FOR ME, THERE'S JUST MORE THAN THE CONCERN OF FINANCES. IT'S WHAT IS THE THE REAL CONSEQUENCES LOOK LIKE? CAN WE PAUSE IT UNTIL MAY? WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? IS THERE GOING TO BE, I GUESS I CAN ASK AMY IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANY FINANCIAL DISCOURSE FOR THAT. I THINK PAUSING IT IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION THAN CANCELING IT, WHICH WAS THE QUESTION I LOOKED INTO BEFORE CANCELING IT. AS COUNCIL MEMBER ZAPATA MENTIONED, THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE CONTRACTS THAT DEAL WITH NON APPROPRIATION. ONE OF THEM EVEN HAS A TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE. I DON'T RECALL ANY OF THEM HAVING A PAUSE OPTION WHERE WE COULD SUSPEND IT AND NOT PAY, BUT WE COULD LOOK INTO THAT WHEN WE BRING THIS BACK. YEAH, I WOULD LIKE THAT. YES. I'VE LOOKED AT THE CONTRACTS THOROUGHLY FOR LIKE OVER A YEAR NOW, AND THERE IS NO OPTION TO PAUSE. I ALSO THINK THIS IS WHY I BELIEVE IT WAS A CITY OF PFLUGERVILLE ACTUALLY COVERED THEIR CAMERAS, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T ACTUALLY PAUSE THE CONTRACT. SO THE BEST THAT THEY COULD DO WAS TO COVER THE CAMERAS UNTIL THEY WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY BETTER DIVE DEEPER INTO THE ISSUE. OKAY, NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A CITY OF NEW BRAUNFELS STILL USES FLOCK LIKE I'M NOT. WE CAN GO BACK AND FORTH AND TALK ABOUT WHO AND WHAT AND WHERE. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I WANT TO BE OUR CITY OF KYLE. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE MY VOTES BASED OFF OF WHAT OTHER CITIES DO. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO TAKE A RESOURCE AWAY FROM OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT WITHOUT THAT INPUT COMING FROM THE RESIDENTS. BECAUSE I WAS JUST EXPLAINING TO YOU, SORRY, THERE'S A LAG HERE, SO I'M SORRY IF I CUT YOU OFF. OKAY. BUT I WAS JUST WANTING TO EXPLAIN WHY YOU CAN'T PAUSE THE CONTRACTS. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAUSE THE USE OF THE ALPR BECAUSE YOU CAN'T PAUSE THE CONTRACTS. YOU STILL HAVE TO PAY THEM UNLESS YOU DO IT THROUGH THE NON APPROPRIATION OR CANCEL THEM. OKAY. SO IF WE DECIDED TO DO THE THERE'S FOUR CONTRACTS, RIGHT? THREE ARE THERE. THERE ARE THREE. THERE WAS 1 IN 2023, 1 IN 2024 AND 1 IN 2025. OKAY.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH CANCELING TWO OF THEM. WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER ONE? SO THE THE ONES THAT WERE APPROVED IN 2024 AND 2025 BOTH CONTAINED OUR STANDARD NON APPROPRIATION PROVISION THAT SAYS THAT THE CONTRACT TERMINATES IF THERE'S NO IF FUNDING IS NOT APPROPRIATED FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR, THE 1 IN 2023 DID NOT HAVE THAT PROVISION. AND SO THAT ONE WOULD BE MORE COMPLICATED TO LOOK INTO TO TERMINATE. THE QUESTION THAT I WAS ASKED AT THAT TIME WAS SPECIFICALLY DEALING WITH THE THE GRANT FUNDING. THE 2023 CONTRACT IS NOT GRANT FUNDED. IT'S IT'S PAID BY THE CITY OF KYLE. SO WE CAN LOOK INTO OPTIONS, BUT IT IS MORE COMPLICATED ON THAT ONE THAN THE OTHER TWO. OKAY. AND YOU'LL BRING ALL THAT BACK. OKAY. SO AGAIN, SO THIS IS MY CONCERN IS LIKE, I KNOW YOU SAID WE'VE HAD PRESENTATIONS, BUT IF WE DON'T KNOW THE ANSWERS RIGHT NOW TODAY, THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE A KNOWLEDGEABLE VOTE EVEN BACK THEN. SO SEEING WHAT THE REPERCUSSIONS ARE IS GOING TO BE IMPORTANT FOR ME, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR IT EITHER WAY, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO REALLY HAVE TO TAKE A DEEP LOOK AT AND A DEEP DIVE INTO. AND SO I THINK THE BEST THAT WE CAN DO IS I HAVE MY AGENDA ITEM COMING ON THE FIRST, THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER, WHICH IS, I THINK OCTOBER 6TH. AND WE CAN HOPEFULLY DISCUSS IT THEN AT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN, MY ASK IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T THINK THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GO AGAINST THE RESIDENTS. THIS IS NOT A POLITICAL ISSUE FOR ME. OBVIOUSLY. IF IT WAS, I'D PROBABLY JUST SAY CANCEL IT ALL.

BUT YOU KNOW, THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT GO ALONG WITH IT. AND SO HOPEFULLY THAT COMES BACK AND WE CAN MAKE A KNOWLEDGEABLE VOTE AND THEN MOVE FORWARD THAT WAY.

ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. SO IF WE DO NOT OR IF WE APPROPRIATE TONIGHT THROUGH PASSING THE BUDGET, CAN WE THEN LATER REMOVE THAT APPROPRIATION AND IT STILL COUNTS TOWARDS THE CONTRACT CANCELLATION? I WOULD NOT BELIEVE WE COULD. THE SPECIFIC TERMINATION IS AS OF

[03:05:01]

WE'RE CRISSCROSSING TERMS AND TERMINOLOGIES. WHY DON'T YOU LET STAFF BRING BACK AN ANALYSIS OF THE THREE CONTRACTS, WHAT EACH CONTRACT CONTAINS, WHAT ARE THE SERVICES INCLUDED IN EACH CONTRACT? HOW MUCH DOES IT COST THE CITY? HOW ARE WE PAYING FOR IT AND HOW LONG DOES THAT CONTRACT EXTEND. AND WHAT PROVISIONS ARE IN THAT CONTRACT THAT WILL ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION WHETHER WE CAN TERMINATE, SUSPEND, PAUSE, WHATEVER THE QUESTIONS ARE. SO FOR EACH ONE OF THEM WE OUTLINE WHAT'S INCLUDED, WHAT SERVICES ARE INCLUDED. IT'S MORE THAN JUST CAMERAS. THERE ARE OTHER THINGS INCLUDED IN THOSE SO WE CAN OUTLINE THOSE FOR YOU. SO WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT TERMINATING A CONTRACT, YOU KNOW, WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT CONTRACT. OKAY. WELL, I'LL JUST INCLUDE THAT IN THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER. YOU CAN APPROVE THE BUDGET. THE BUDGET DOESN'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THE CONTRACT. WELL, I MEAN, IT DOES WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SPENDING NEARLY HALF $1 MILLION. YEAH, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND AMEND IT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS DO I HAVE TO READ ALL THIS FOR THE TAX? SO YEP. COUNCIL WILL NEED TO MAKE A MOTION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM TO APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE ON SECOND READING THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THE BUDGET HAS TO BE ADOPTED BY STATE LAW. YOU HAVE TO ADOPT THE BUDGET FIRST BEFORE YOU CAN VOTE ON THE TAX RATES. OKAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 12, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL, AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL. SO YEAH, I GOT A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER.

MEDINA. CAN I GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE? GOZA. YES. MCKINNEY. NO. FLORES. YES.

ZAPATA. NO. MEDINA. YES. HARRIS. NO. TOBIAS. YES, MA'AM. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE FOUR. SO THAT PASSES. THAT'S PASSES. YES. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM 13, A SECOND READING.

[13) (Second Reading) Consider approval of an Ordinance of the City of Kyle adopting the ad valorem tax rate (property tax rate) of $0.5600 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation for Tax Year 2026 or Fiscal Year 2026-27, which consists of a maintenance and operations (M&O) tax rate of $0.3687 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation and an interest and sinking (I&S) tax rate of $0.1913 per $100 of taxable assessed valuation, each of which is separately approved; providing for the levy of ad valorem taxes for use and support of the municipal government of the City of Kyle for the Fiscal Year 2026-27 beginning October 1, 2026 and ending September 30, 2026; providing for apportioning each tax levy for specific purposes; providing when ad valorem taxes shall become due and when same shall become delinquent if not paid. (RELATED AGENDA ITEM 4 OF 5 & ROLL CALL VOTE IS REQUESTED)  The City Council voted 6-1 to approve on first reading on 9/5/2026.]

[03:10:06]

IF COUNCIL WAS TO ADOPT TONIGHT WHAT WAS ADOPTED ON FIRST READING, IT WOULD BE 3.5 $0.07 LESS THAN THE ADOPTED TAX RATE FOR THIS CURRENT YEAR THAT WE'RE IN. WHEN YOU COMPARE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE. IT IS THE NO. NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AS CALCULATED AT 0.63.22 PER $100. WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT TO THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 0.5600, IT IS A DECREASE OF 0.0722 PER $100 OF TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUATION, OR 11.42% TAX RATE REDUCTION. WHEN YOU COMPARE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE TO THE VOTER APPROVAL, TAX RATE, VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE. IF YOU ALL RECALL FROM MY PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU ALL, THIS IS THE TAX RATE AT WHICH, IF YOU WERE TO EXCEED IT, WILL AUTOMATICALLY TRIGGER A REFERENDUM. VOTERS HAVE TO APPROVE THAT INCREASE THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 0.5600 PER $100 IS 0.0050 LOWER THAN THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, SO IT DOES NOT TRIGGER THE AUTOMATIC REFERENDUM. THE 0.5600 PROPOSED TAX RATE, WHEN COMPARED TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, IS 0.88% LOWER THAN THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE. SO HERE ARE THE COMPARISONS SIDE BY SIDE THAT WE WENT OVER EARLIER IN THE TAX HEARING. THE YELLOW COLUMN IS THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

THAT IS ADOPTED UNDER THE FIRST READING OF 0.5600. AND YOU CAN SEE THE TWO COMPONENTS RIGHT ABOVE IT. THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS AT 3687 AND INTEREST IN SINKING, WHICH IS FOR DEBT SERVICE, IS AT 19.13 CENTS, A TOTAL OF 0.5600. IF COUNCIL WAS TO ADOPT THE SAME TAX RATE ON

[03:15:10]

[03:20:05]

SO IF YOU LOOK AT LINE NUMBER ONE, THE THE TOTAL PROPOSED GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES IN MY PROPOSED BUDGET THAT I PRESENTED TO COUNCIL TOTALED $71,335,817. THAT SAME TOTAL EXPENDITURES FOR GENERAL FUND. AFTER AMENDMENTS WERE PROCESSED AND ADOPTED, NOT. TOTAL $71,000,961 AND $87. THAT'S A DIFFERENCE OF $625,270. AND IF YOU RECALL THE AMENDMENTS, THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE APPROVED SO FAR. THEN IF YOU LOOK AT LINE NUMBER TWO, A, THAT IS THE ESTIMATED ENDING FUND BALANCE IN THE GENERAL FUND. IF YOU LOOK UNDER THE ICM'S PROPOSED BUDGET, IT WAS 20 MILLION 369, NINE, 71, OR 28.6%. THE CHARTER REQUIRES 25%. WE WERE SLIGHTLY ABOVE OF THAT REQUIREMENT. SO I'M GOING TO GO UNDER WALK YOU THROUGH THE ICM COLUMN FIRST. SO THEN THE AMENDMENT COLUMN WILL MAKE. MORE MORE CLEAR. SO WE STARTED OUT THE TOTAL EXPENDITURES OF 71.335. THE FUND BALANCE ON LINE TWO A WAS 20,000,003 69971. THAT REPRESENTED 28.6%. CITY CHARTER REQUIRES 25% MINIMUM RESERVE.

IF YOU CALCULATE THE 25% ON THAT TOTAL EXPENDITURE LINE IN LINE ONE, THAT TOTALS 17,833,954. DEAD CENTER 25%. SO THE RED BAR AT THE BOTTOM IS THAT NUMBER WE'VE BEEN TALKING

[03:25:04]

THAT'S ONE QUESTION. IF YOU DON'T DO ANYTHING AND LET THE CUSHION DROP AND KEEP ALL THE AMENDMENTS, WHAT WOULD THAT TAX RATE BE? AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE TAX RATE TO GET TO BRING BACK OR RECOVER THAT $800,000? SO THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO. I'M GOING TO WALK YOU THROUGH NOW. SO IF THIS MAKES SENSE AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I CAN PROCEED. OR I CAN HELP EXPLAIN BECAUSE THIS IS THE MAIN CHART THAT EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING TO BE DRIVEN FROM.

OKAY, SO IF EVERYBODY'S ON BOARD, THIS NEXT SLIDE SHOULD LOOK VERY FAMILIAR TO YOU.

WE'VE GONE OVER THIS SEVERAL TIMES. THIS WAS TAX RATE OF OPTION NUMBER ONE. THE TAX RATE THAT I BROUGHT FORWARD WAS 0.5600. AND AT THAT TIME, WHEN I EXPLAINED HOW I CAME UP WITH 5600, THE TAX RATE OF 5600, I JUST DIDN'T PULL A NUMBER TO BE JUST SLIGHTLY UNDER VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE. THIS TAX RATE WAS TRYING TO SOLVE AT THAT TIME. IF YOU ALL RECALL, YOU ALL WERE DISCUSSING PAY RAISE INCREASES. AT THAT POINT. WE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS GOING TO BE 3%, 4%, 5%. SO I TOOK AN AVERAGE OF WHAT, A GENERAL WAGE INCREASE WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST.

AND AT WHAT TAX RATE WOULD I NEED TO RECOVER THAT AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR A GENERAL WAGE INCREASE FOR ALL, ALL EMPLOYEES. SO AT 5600 TAX RATE OF 0.5600. AND THE SECOND COLUMN HIGHLIGHTED UNDER OPTION NUMBER ONE AND ALL OF THE SLIDES I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU THEY'RE GOING TO LOOK IDENTICAL WITH DIFFERENT NUMBERS. AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THOSE AT TAX RATE OF 5600. IF YOU GO TO THE RIGHT OF THE BLUE BAR, THE IDEA WAS TO RECOVER ENOUGH TAX REVENUE TO PAY FOR THAT PAY INCREASE THAT THE COUNCIL MAY CONSIDER. SO THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS 33,000,005, 92, 97. THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET.

BEFORE ANY AMENDMENTS. AND AT 5600, WE ESTIMATED THAT THE TOTAL TAX REVENUE WOULD BE 35 MILLION TO 83, OR AN INCREASE OF ALMOST $1.7 MILLION. SO THAT WOULD HAVE RECOVERED ENOUGH TO

[03:30:07]

SO NOT GIVING RAISES IS NOT RELATED TO THE GENERAL FUND DEFICIT IN ANY WAY. WE STILL

[03:35:01]

YEAH. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY THOUGHT WE WOULD. I WHY ARE WE NOT GIVING RAISES. I THINK WE'RE NOT GOING INTO RESERVE AND WE VALUE OUR EMPLOYEES. I REALIZE IT'S NOT QUITE ENOUGH FOR ALL OF THE EMPLOYEES, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY ENOUGH FOR OUR GENERAL WORKERS. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT. I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA DIDN'T WANT THE RATE THAT HIGH, AND I'M SECOND GUESSING WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE A RATE THAT HIGH AS WELL. THAT RATE IS LOWER THAN WHAT IT IS NOW, AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT WENT UP 27% LAST YEAR. WELL, IT'S LOWER. IT'S STILL UP LIKE 22% FROM THE YEAR BEFORE TO DO, INCLUDING ROAD BONDS, WATER. WE'VE JUST THERE'S A LOT IN THAT BUDGET. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN JUST KEEP CUTTING AND DO THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK, AND THAT YOU CANNOT KEEP CUTTING THE STAFF OR LOSING THE STAFF AND DO THE SAME AMOUNT OF WORK. AND TO SAY THAT, WELL, THEY DON'T MIND NOT GETTING RAISES, I THINK IS IS NOT TRUE. WE MAY BE TALKING TO DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS, BUT, YOU KNOW, GIVING A RAISE CERTAINLY ACKNOWLEDGES THEIR HARD WORK. YEAH. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY I DIDN'T SAY THEY DIDN'T MIND. I, I THINK I SAID THEY UNDERSTOOD. AND I ALSO THINK THAT THE RESIDENTS UNDERSTOOD THAT THE TAXPAYERS UNDERSTOOD AS WELL. AND I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE LOOK AT THEIR TAX RATES, IF THEY WANT THEIR ROADS TO BE PAVED AND THEY WANT WATER TO COME HERE AND THE THE WATER SYSTEM TO BE MONITORED LIKE IT IS, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE WE STILL HAVE ISSUES. AND IT'S THOSE BASELINE EMPLOYEES THAT ARE TAKING CARE OF THAT. WE'RE GIVING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE UNDER CONTRACT, THEIR RAISES. RIGHT. AND I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, THAT'S NOT A CONTRACT THAT WE NEGOTIATED. THAT WAS NOT A CONTRACT THAT OUR CURRENT CITY INTERIM CITY MANAGER WAS WAS THERE TO DISCUSS SEPARATE CONTRACT. THEY DO. THAT'S CIVIL SERVICE. I'M NOT GOING TO COMPARE THE TWO RAISES, BUT THE REST OF THE STAFF ARE NOT EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE THE MONEY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. WE UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT THAT'S THAT'S WHAT A MEET AND CONFER IS ALL ABOUT. I'M SAYING I DON'T THINK IT'S FAIR TO OUR EXISTING STAFF WHEN WE HAVE THE MONEY TO NOT GIVE THEM RAISES. AND YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT CERTAIN STAFF, RIGHT? NOT ALL OF THEM. YEAH. THE NOT THE LIKE INNER MANAGERS, HE WAS SAYING THE ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF WOULD NOT UNDER THIS. RECEIVE THE 3% RAISES. RIGHT. NO, I'M JUST SAYING I THINK, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, I THINK THEY WE CAN'T AFFORD TO DEPLETE OUR EXTRA. BUT WITH THAT SAID, I THINK OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF HAVE HAVE WORKED JUST AS HARD AS OUR REGULAR STAFF. AND IF YOU'RE OKAY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T NEED A RAISE AND MAYBE YOU SHOULD BE OKAY WITH THE FACT THAT WE'RE SAYING WE CAN'T AFFORD TO RAISE ANYWHERE ELSE.

THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALARIES OF OUR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND OUR OUR LINE WORKERS. BIG DIFFERENCE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? COUNCIL MEMBER, MEDINA COUNCIL MEMBER GARZA. I WAS GOING TO SAY, IF WE'RE GOING TO USE THAT CUSHION FOR THAT, THEN THAT MEANS IF WE NEED TO UNFREEZE A POSITION, THEN WE NO LONGER HAVE CUSHION FUNDS FOR THAT. SO I LIKE OPTION NUMBER THREE, WHERE IT PUTS US BACK AT LEAST WHERE WE WERE PROJECTED TO BE BEFORE OUR AMENDMENTS. IT STILL PRODUCES A LOWER TAX RATE THAN WE INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT. BUT I LIKE KEEPING THAT CUSHION IN THERE IN CASE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO GO OVER BUDGET ON SOMETHING. WE ALWAYS HAVE AMENDMENTS AND THINGS COST MORE THAN THEY DO. SO IF WE START DEPLETING THAT FURTHER BY GIVING RAISES, YOU KNOW, I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT HAVING FLEXIBILITY FOR THIS BUDGET YEAR. WELL, AND THE RESERVE FUND DOES NOT HAVE TO BE BROUGHT BACK UP TO THE 25% IN THE SAME YEAR. COUNCILMEMBER MEDINA SO, YOU KNOW, FUNNY THAT YOU PRESENTED THE ADDITIONAL OPTION TODAY BECAUSE AFTER THE LAST MEETING, DISCUSSING HOW THE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR THE THE LOWER RATE, THE FIVE THREE, FOUR ZERO, I'D GONE HOME AND I'D SAT THERE AND TRIED TO DO MATH. AND OF COURSE,

[03:40:01]

SO ALTHOUGH I WOULD STILL LOVE THE 5340, I COULD BE COMFORTABLE WITH THE 54, 60 OR 70. I AGREE, I LIKE THE 5460. I THINK IT GIVES OUR TAXPAYERS AN ADDITIONAL BREAK. BUT I ALSO THINK IT'S THE REALITY IS WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO UP. AND SO I DON'T WANT TO GO UP A LOT.

YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I DON'T WANT IT TO BE TOO MUCH OF A SHELL SHOCK LIKE IT WAS LAST YEAR. AND IT IS SOMETHING YOU ALL NEED TO BE AWARE OF. AND I'VE COVERED THIS BEFORE.

PROPERTY TAX RATES WILL GO UP NEXT YEAR BECAUSE THIS FALL WE'RE GOING TO START WORKING ON ISSUING DEBT BY SPRING. THAT'S GOING TO BE FOR ROAD BONDS, THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT, PLANT EXPANSION. ALL OF THE WATER INFRASTRUCTURE, PLUS ALL THE SIDEWALKS. IT'S GOING TO BE CLOSE TO $100 MILLION THAT WE WILL ISSUE NEXT SPRING. OKAY. ANY OTHER CONVERSATIONS? COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY. DID I MISS THE PRESENTATION WHERE THE CUSHION WOULD BE WITH OUR CURRENT AMENDMENTS AT THE $0.56 AT THE 56. JUST SINCE THAT WAS THE NUMBER WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, IT'S 1.7. YEAH, 1.75 FOR. PERHAPS YOU CAN REPHRASE THE QUESTION FOR ME. MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. SO WE'VE GOT 1.7 IS WHAT OUR CUSHION IS AT THE 56. BUT AT 0.5460 WE'RE AT TWO AND A HALF. HOW'S IS MY NOT WORKING. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH TAX RATE. THIS TABLE SIMPLY SHOWS YOU THE MATHEMATICAL CALCULATION OF FUND BALANCE AND THE AMENDMENTS, THE IMPACT OF THE AMENDMENTS. SO IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT THE ICM COLUMN, THE CUSHION WAS $2.5 MILLION BECAUSE AT THAT POINT WE HAD NOT DISCUSSED TAX RATES. IT WAS JUST THE PROPOSED BUDGET, AS IT STOOD AS I PRESENTED, HAD A $2.5 MILLION CUSHION. THAT SAME CUSHION, AFTER ALL THE AMENDMENTS, GENERAL FUND AMENDMENTS ONLY REDUCES THE CUSHION DOWN TO 1.7, WHICH IS A REDUCTION OF ALMOST $800,000. SO NOW WHEN YOU OVERLAY THAT WITH TAX RATE, RIGHT. SO HERE'S OPTION ONE AT 5600 TAX RATE, IT WILL GENERATE 1.7 MILLION. SO NOW THIS TAX RATE HAS AT THIS TAX RATE, IT MUST ABSORB THE $800,000 THAT WE JUST ADDED. RIGHT. AND ANY PAY INCREASES THAT COUNCIL MAY WANT TO CONSIDER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION. COUNCIL MEMBER. I JUST I FEEL LIKE. IF WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT AT THE 54.6 CENTS, WE'LL STILL END UP WITH A CUSHION OF TWO AND A HALF. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHERE THE CUSHION WOULD BE IF WE KEPT IT AT THE 56 THAT WE'D BEEN TALKING ABOUT UP TILL TODAY, IT'D BE 3.4 MILLION, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING ANOTHER ALMOST 1.7 TO IT. IF YOU DON'T DO THE PAY INCREASES. YES. CORRECT. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT'S NOT A LARGE NUMBER OF CUSHION.

[03:45:08]

MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WE RECEIVED OUR SALES TAX NUMBERS FOR A MONTH OF SEPTEMBER THIS JUST THIS WEEK. SO THE TOTAL SALES TAX COLLECTIONS FOR THIS YEAR. WE FINISHED ALL 12 MONTHS.

SEPTEMBER IT'S 1.3 MILLION BELOW BUDGET. AND IF THAT TREND CONTINUES NEXT YEAR IT'S GOING TO BE TIED. I MEAN WORST CASE SCENARIO IT DOESN'T RIGHT. IT DOESN'T TREND BUT IT'S STILL NOT WHERE WE WELL WE ADJUSTED THE PROPOSED BUDGET FOR NEXT YEAR TO ACCOMMODATE SOME OF THAT SLOWDOWN. I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. I MEAN THE 2.51.7 NONE OF THAT IS A LOT WHEN WE HAVE A LOT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE. THE POINT THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BOWSER BRINGS UP IS IF WE DO WANT TO UNFREEZE ANY OF THESE POSITIONS, IF WE DO GET A, YOU KNOW, IN A POSITION WHERE WE WE NEED SOMETHING, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN FUND THAT, BUT WE CANNOT HAVE A LOWER TAX RATE THAN WHAT. MR. MOHIT IS SUGGESTING. YEAH. THE FIVE FOUR, SIX ZERO. YEAH. THAT IS, WE'LL HAVE MORE MONEY AT A LOWER TAX RATE. I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WORKS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S SAYING THAT. BUT IF WE'RE IF WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO SAY, LET'S I WANT TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE ALL PRETTY CONFIDENT ON HOW WE WANT TO PROCEED. SO CAN I SAY SOMETHING? YES. SORRY, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO SPEAK ON THIS JUST YET. I THINK I APPRECIATE THE THIRD OPTION BEING BROUGHT TO US, BECAUSE I WAS KIND OF WONDERING, LIKE, IS THERE ANY POTENTIAL BETWEEN THE OPTIONS THAT WERE BEING PRESENTED? BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE VERY DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE TWO. SO I APPRECIATE THE THIRD OPTION BEING PRESENTED TO US. I THINK I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE ARE MOVING FORWARD, THAT WE CONTINUE TO BE IN A FINANCIALLY STABLE PLACE, AND I KNOW THAT WE WANT TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO OUR RESIDENTS, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THEY ARE FEELING THE CRUNCH AND A LOT OF OTHER AREAS. SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE, LIKE YOU ALL, WE ALL FEEL IT TOO. I THINK THE PART THAT I GET NERVOUS ABOUT IS. THE FACT THAT ONCE WE START ISSUING THAT DEBT NEXT SPRING, THE TAX RATE WILL HAVE TO INCREASE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE UNDERSTAND JUST YET HOW MUCH WE'LL HAVE TO INCREASE, BUT IF THE SALES TAX KEEPS ON DECLINING, WHICH I FEEL LIKE IT MIGHT, BECAUSE THAT'S KIND OF BEEN LIKE THE HISTORICAL. STATS SO FAR. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A SHOCK IN US HAVE WHEN WHENEVER WE DO HAVE TO INCREASE THESE RATES, YOU KNOW, IN, IN INSTEAD OF, OF TRYING TO KEEP IT SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT. AND EVEN AT THAT POINT, FIVE, SIX, WE'RE ABLE TO GIVE SOME SORT OF RELIEF, WHICH I THINK IS BETTER THAN NOTHING WITHOUT CREATING TOO MUCH OF A STICKER SHOCK COME NEXT BUDGET. SO I THINK I'M REALLY WORRIED ABOUT THAT PART. AND THEN I ALSO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT. TAXES ARE ALSO WHAT KEEP YOUR CITY FUNCTIONING FOR YOU. I THINK PEOPLE HAVE A PROBLEM WHEN THEY PAY HIGH TAXES AND THEY DON'T SEE ANY DELIVERY ON IT. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE ABLE TO START DELIVERING THE SERVICES AND INFRASTRUCTURE THAT RESIDENTS NEED, THEY ARE LESS LIKELY TO FEEL THAT OR FEEL THAT THEIR TAXES AREN'T GOING TOWARDS SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MATERIALIZE FOR THEM. SO I THINK THAT IF WE ARE, IF IT IS POSSIBLE FOR US TO CONTINUE ON IN THIS PROCESS AND KEEP IN MIND ABOUT HOW DO WE ACTUALLY GET RESIDENTS, THE MATERIAL CHANGES THAT THEY WANT TO SEE,

[03:50:05]

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR THE 5460 SECOND. WELL, I THINK I HAVE TO DO A WHOLE BUNCH OF STUFF THOUGH. OKAY. I THINK THE 560 IS MORE RESPONSIBLE. YEAH I AGREE. ALL RIGHT. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE CITY'S AD VALOREM TAX RATE OF 0.5460 PER $100 OF TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUATION FOR TAX YEAR 2026 OR FISCAL YEAR 2026 TO 2027, WHICH CONSISTS OF A MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS TAX RATE OF 0.3547 PER $100 OF TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUATION AND AN INTEREST IN SINKING TAX RATE OF 0.1913 PER $100 OF TAXABLE ASSESSED VALUATION, EACH OF WHICH IS SEPARATELY APPROVED. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. I GOT A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MEDINA. CAN I GET A ROLL CALL VOTE, PLEASE. TOBIAS. YES, MA'AM. MEDINA. YES.

YES. HARRIS. NO. MCKINNEY. YES. FLORES. KEEL. YES. ZAPATA. YES. GARZA. YES. OKAY. IT IS OH 6 TO 1. MOTION PASSES. ALL RIGHT. UP NEXT, WE HAVE AGENDA ITEM 14. CONSIDER AN APPROVAL OF AN

[14) (Second Reading) Consider approval of an Ordinance ratifying the ad valorem tax revenues (property taxes) reflected in the budget for Fiscal Year 2026-27 which will raise slightly more revenue from ad valorem taxes (property taxes) than in the prior Fiscal Year 2025-26. (RELATED AGENDA ITEM 5 OF 5 & ROLL CALL VOTE IS REQUESTED) The City Council voted 6-1 to approve on first reading on 9/5/2026.]

GOT A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY. CAN I GET A ROLL CALL? VOTE, PLEASE. MCKINNEY. YES. ZAPATA. YES. TOBIAS. YES, MA'AM. GOSA. YES. HARRIS. YES. FLORES.

[03:55:14]

CONGRATULATIONS. WE HAVE A BUDGET. YOU HAVE A BUDGET AND A TAX RATE. THAT WAS ANYTHING BUT FUN. ALL RIGHT. NOW, THE NEXT COUPLE ARE JUST GOING TO BE THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED AND TALKED ABOUT. THAT'S CORRECT. BUT IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS NOW'S A GOOD TIME

[15) (First Reading) Consider approval of an ordinance (Budget Amendment #5) amending the City’s approved budget for FY 2025-2026 by increasing total appropriations in an amount not to exceed $52,000 from the City’s General Fund balance for services related to investigation action into the City’s road bond program, pursuant to the City Council’s September 1, 2026 approval of an amendment to the engagement letter with TXLAW, P.C., dba PNT Law Firm.  ]

IT PROVIDES THE BUDGET AUTHORITY NECESSARY TO FUND THE COUNCIL APPROVED INCREASE FOR CONTINUED SERVICES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER FIVE. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE. WE HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 15. SECOND.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER MCKINNEY. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE.

AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES SEVEN ZERO. NEXT. AND FINALLY WE HAVE. OH, THIS IS

[16) (First Reading) Consider approval of an Ordinance (Budget Amendment #6) amending the City’s approved budget for FY 2025-2026 by increasing total appropriations in an amount not to exceed $100,000 from the City's Water Utility Fund balance and the City's Wastewater Utilities Fund balance for legal services related to PUC Docket No. 58988, pursuant to the City Council’s September 1, 2026 approval of an amendment to the engagement letter with Lloyd Gosselink Rochelle & Townsend, P.C, for a total contract amount not to exceed $300,000.00. ]

ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S AIM FOR IT AGAIN. CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE BUDGET AMENDMENT SIX AMENDING THE CITY'S APPROVED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026 BY INCREASING TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 100,000 FROM THE CITY'S WATER UTILITY FUND BALANCE AND THE CITY'S WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND BALANCE FOR LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO PUC DOCKET NUMBER 58988. PURSUANT TO THE CITY COUNCIL, SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER WITH LLOYD GOSSELINK ROCHELLE AND TOWNSEND COMMA, P.C. FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $300,000. ITEM PRESENT A HOLLY HOLT TORRES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. MAYOR. COUNCIL. MAYOR. PRO TEM FOR THE RECORD BUDGET.

AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX APPROPRIATES AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $100,000 FROM THE WATER UTILITY FUND BALANCE AND THE WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND BALANCE FOR CONTINUED LEGAL SERVICES RELATED TO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBER 58988. FOR CONTEXT, ON SEPTEMBER 1ST,

[04:00:07]

ACTUAL COST MAY BE LESS, BUT WILL NOT EXCEED THIS AMOUNT WITHOUT FURTHER APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL. AGAIN, THIS AMENDMENT DOES NOT SEEK ADDITIONAL CONTRACTUAL AUTHORIZATION BEYOND WHAT COUNCIL APPROVED ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2026. RATHER, IT ESTABLISHES THE BUDGET AUTHORITY NECESSARY TO FUND THE COUNCIL APPROVED INCREASE FOR THESE CONTINUED LEGAL SERVICES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER SIX.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 16. I HAVE A MOTION BY MYSELF AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER GOZA. ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES SEV

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.