Mar 25, 2026 Special City Council

[CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL]

[00:00:06]

THE TIME IS 630 AND I'LL CALL THIS SPECIAL CALL MEETING THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER. MY INITIAL. WE HAVE EVERYBODY HERE. I DO HAVE MISS VAN NESS VIRTUALLY FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION. ACTUALLY, MY QUESTION TO THE COUNCIL IS FROM LEGAL COUNSEL. UNLESS YOU ALL HAVE A SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTIONS REGARDING THE CASEY BUILDING AGENDA ITEM. WE WON'T NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO DOES COUNCIL HAVE SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU'RE HOPING TO HAVE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION? OKAY. HEARING NONE, THEN WE WON'T BE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. AND WITH THAT, THEN LET'S PLEASE RISE AND WE'LL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. FIRST ITEM. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS ON NON AGENDA ITEMS? I DON'T HAVE ANY BEFORE ME. NOT HEARING ANY. THEN I WILL MOVE ON TO OUR FIRST ITEM

[III.1. Consideration and possible action regarding Resolution No. 26-2200; A Resolution by the City Council of the City of Lago Vista, Texas, accepting the Fiscal Year 2025 Audit as prepared by ABIP, PC.]

I'LL GET TO THAT HERE HERE IN A LITTLE BIT. THE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, THE GOVERNMENT WIDE AND FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS IS GOING TO BE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS WITHIN THE FOR THE CITY, THE NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A DESCRIPTION AS TO WHAT MAKES UP THOSE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.

SOME REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION, SUCH AS YOUR GENERAL FUND, BUDGETARY COMPARISON, YOUR HOTEL COMPARISON, AND SOME OF YOUR PENSION AND OPEB REQUIRED SCHEDULES. AND THEN ALSO YOUR OTHER SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION IS GOING TO BE YOUR BUDGETARY COMPARISONS FOR THE DEBT SERVICE FUND AND THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND. SO ON PAGE ONE OF THE FINANCIAL REPORT IS GOING TO BE THE INDEPENDENT AUDITOR'S REPORT. LIKE I SAID, THIS IS THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY BELONGS TO US WITHIN THIS REPORT. THE REST OF IT BELONGS TO YOU, OUR MANAGEMENT AND THE CITY ITSELF. AND IT LETS YOU KNOW THE AUDIT STANDARDS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW, THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED AUDITING STANDARDS, AS WELL AS THE GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS, BECAUSE YOU ARE IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT, YOU ALSO HAD A SINGLE AUDIT THIS YEAR. SO THAT ALSO TRIGGERS A GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS AUDIT TO BE PERFORMED. THE PURPOSE OF THE AUDIT WAS TO FORM AN INDEPENDENT OPINION ON WHETHER THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ARE PRESENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING PRINCIPLES, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT OUR AUDIT OPINION IS WHAT'S CALLED UNMODIFIED.

IT'S THE BEST OPINION YOU CAN GET. IT MEANS IT'S CLEAN. OPINION DOESN'T SOUND GREAT. IT JUST REALLY MEANS WE DIDN'T MODIFY ANYTHING WITHIN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THEY'RE PRESENTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GAAP. AND LIKE I SAID, THE MANAGEMENT DISCUSSION ANALYSIS, THIS IS WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THE REAL KIND OF CLIFF NOTES OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND HOW THE CITY PERFORM THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SOME BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS, YOUR SOME SOME NOTES ON YOUR CAPITAL ASSETS AND DEBT. AND THIS IS WHERE YOUR READERS CAN, CAN FIND OUT WHERE TO REACH MANAGEMENT. THE CITY GETTING INTO SOME OF THOSE FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ON PAGE 12 OR 13, GETTING INTO SOME OF THOSE GOVERNMENT WIDE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. THE CITY DID REPORT A COMBINED NET POSITION OF 102.7 MILLION AT SEPTEMBER 30TH OF 2025. OF THOSE, YOU HAVE TWO TWO SEPARATE TYPES OF OF

[00:05:03]

THERE WAS A TRANSFER OUT ABOUT 3.6, AND TRANSFERS IN ABOUT 420,000. FROM INTO THOSE, THE GOLF FUND AND THE AVIATION FUND ON THE FUND FINANCIALS. THIS IS MORE THE AREA THAT THAT MANAGEMENT MANAGES AND WHERE THEY HAVE A LOT MORE. THE BUDGETARY CONTROL. THIS IS GOING TO BE THE GENERAL FUND FUNDING DEBT SERVICE FUND, BUT KIND OF HIGHLIGHTING YOUR GENERAL FUND. THE FUND BALANCE AT THE END OF THE FISCAL YEAR WAS 16.5 MILLION. THIS WAS AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 3.3 MILLION FROM 2024. YOU DID HAVE AN UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE OF ABOUT 16.2. THAT IS APPROXIMATELY 1.3 YEARS OF OPERATING RESERVES. I THINK IT BREAKS OUT TO ABOUT 15 MONTHS WORTH OF OPERATING RESERVES. SO VERY, VERY HEALTHY FUND BALANCE.

IN UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE, YOUR TOTAL REVENUES WERE 11.8 MILLION. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12.3. AND LIKE I SAID, YOU DID HAVE A NET TRANSFER IN OF ABOUT 3.3 MILLION. HERE'S A LITTLE BRIEF CHART KIND OF WHAT MAKES UP THOSE GENERAL FUND REVENUES. THE MAJORITY OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE YOUR PROPERTY TAXES AT ABOUT 50% TO PROPERTY TAXES, ABOUT ABOUT 10% TO SALES TAX.

YOU DID HAVE ABOUT 12.8% IN CHARGES FOR SERVICES. SO THIS IS A NICE BREAKDOWN OF WHERE THOSE GENERAL FUND REVENUES WERE MADE UP OF. GETTING INTO THOSE GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES.

AGAIN, ANOTHER ANOTHER KIND OF BREAKDOWN OF WHERE THE WHERE THE FUNDS WERE SPENT, 33% TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT, 29% TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY WAS ABOUT 11% TO SOME CAPITAL OUTLAY AND ABOUT 10% TO SANITATION. THOSE ARE KIND OF YOUR, YOUR MAJORITY OF YOUR OF YOUR SPENDING IN THE GENERAL FUND. AND SOME OF YOUR OTHER MAJOR FUNDS THAT MAKE UP YOUR GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES.

THE HOTEL FUND DID HAVE A FUND BALANCE INCREASE OF ABOUT 117,000, GOT UP TO ABOUT 1.2 MILLION. AND ALL THAT IS RESTRICTED FOR TOURISM. WE'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT KIND OF THE RESTRICTED VERSUS THE UNASSIGNED FUND BALANCE, THE ARPA FUND, IT WAS CLOSED OUT DURING THE YEAR THROUGH SOME CAPITAL OUTLAY OF 1.4 MILLION. THAT WAS PAID FOR SOME RADIOS.

SO THE ARPA FUND HAS BEEN FULLY SPENT, CLOSED OUT. THOSE THOSE THOSE REVENUES HAVE BEEN RECOGNIZED. AND AND THAT IS ACTUALLY WHAT TRIGGERED THE SINGLE AUDIT FOR THIS YEAR. AND I'LL GET TO THAT LATER IN THE PRESENTATION. YOUR DEBT SERVICE FUND DID HAVE AN INCREASE OF ABOUT 45,000, AND I GOT UP TO 738,000. AND ALL OF THESE ARE CONSIDERED RESTRICTED FOR FUTURE DEBT SERVICE OBLIGATIONS. YOUR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND DID HAVE A DECREASE OF 5.6 MILLION.

OF THAT, THE CAPITAL OUTLAY WAS ABOUT 6.7 MILLION. BUT YOU DID HAVE SOME INVESTMENT EARNINGS OF ABOUT 1.1, WHICH GOT THAT FUND BALANCE UP TO 24.9 MILLION FOR THE YEAR. SO LIKE I SAID, YOU DID HAVE WE ALSO HAVE TWO TWO SEPARATE LETTERS THAT ARE IN HERE THAT ALSO BELONG TO US.

AND EARLIER WHEN I SAID THE AUDITOR'S REPORT, THE ONLY THING THAT BELONGS TO US, THERE'S TWO MORE LETTERS IN THERE. YOU DID, WE DID HAVE A ANOTHER AUDIT REPORT ISSUED IN HERE FOR INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING AND COMPLIANCE AND OTHER MATTERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT AUDITING STANDARDS. THIS IS WHERE WE TAKE A LOOK AT YOUR INTERNAL CONTROLS. AND WE WE HAVE AN OPINION ABOUT WHETHER THE INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE OPERATING EFFECTIVELY. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT THERE'S NO MATERIAL WEAKNESSES, NO SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCY IN 2024, BUT WE DID NOT NOTE ANY ANYTHING OF THE SAME NATURE OR ANYTHING THAT THAT WAS SIMILAR IN NATURE TO THAT. SO THAT IS A POSITIVE FOR THE CITY. YOU ALSO DID HAVE A ANOTHER REPORT ON THE COMPLIANCE FOR EACH MAJOR PROGRAM AND CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE REQUIRED BY THE UNIFORM AUDIT GUIDANCE. THIS IS KIND OF A LONG KIND OF TERM FOR SAYING YOU HAD A SINGLE AUDIT. YOU DID SPEND OVER $1 MILLION IN FEDERAL AWARDS. LIKE I SAID, YOU CLOSED OUT THOSE ARPA FUNDS. SO THAT DID THAT DID TRIGGER THAT SINGLE AUDIT MAJOR PROGRAM AUDITED, WHICH IS YOUR ONLY FEDERAL FUNDS WAS THE ARPA FUND.

AND WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT IT WAS AN UNMODIFIED OPINION ON THE SINGLE AUDIT. NO INTERNAL CONTROLS, WEAKNESSES, NO NONCOMPLIANCE OR ANY QUESTION COSTS IDENTIFIED WITHIN THAT ARPA FUND. SO YOU SPENT A EXACTLY HOW THEY HOW THEY REQUIRE YOU TO. IS THERE ANY

[00:10:01]

THERE WAS ONE CHANGE. YOU DID HAVE A 101 WAS IMPLEMENTED IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THIS HAD TO DO WITH YOUR COMPENSATED ABSENCES AND DIDN'T CHANGE TOO MUCH FOR FOR FOR YOUR CITY.

SOME OF THE OTHER CITIES HAD A MUCH LARGER CHANGE, BUT IT DIDN'T CHANGE TOO MUCH FOR YOUR CITY. YOU KIND OF ALREADY CAPTURED MOST OF THOSE. THOSE COMPENSATED ABSENCES JUST INCLUDE SOME OF THOSE PAYROLL TAXES. SO THERE WAS A RESTATEMENT FOR THAT, BUT IT WAS IT WAS A MINOR RESTATEMENT. THIS IS WHERE WE LET YOU KNOW KIND OF YOUR ACCOUNTING ESTIMATES AND DISCLOSURES. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NEUTRAL, THEY'RE CONSISTENT. IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES THEN THIS IS WHERE WE LET YOU KNOW WITHIN THIS MANAGEMENT LETTER IF THERE'S ANY DIFFICULTIES IN PERFORMING THE AUDIT, ANY MATERIAL MISSTATEMENTS, ANY DISAGREEMENTS WITH MANAGEMENT. THIS IS WHERE WE LET YOU KNOW. WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT. AND THERE WAS NONE. NICOLE ON THE STAFF. THEY WERE THEY WERE GREAT TO WORK WITH. IT WAS IT WAS VERY SMOOTH AND IT WAS A KIND OF QUICK TURNAROUND. BUT THEY DID. THEY DID A GREAT JOB TO TO GET US, YOU KNOW, THROUGH THE AUDIT, WE HAVE GOTTEN ALL THE MANAGEMENT REPRESENTATIONS THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO GET, SAYING THAT THE MANAGEMENT AND THE CITY TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS A WHOLE. IF YOU WENT OUT, YOU GOT A THIRD PARTY OPINION FROM ANY INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT, YOU KNOW, A THIRD PARTY OPINION ABOUT ANY KIND OF ACCOUNTING TREATMENT OR ANYTHING WITHIN THE AUDIT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO TELL YOU THAT WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT THAT THAT DID NOT OCCUR DURING THE AUDIT, AND YOU WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PUBLIC FUNDS INVESTMENT ACT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, JUST. SORRY, WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I PUSHED THE BUTTON SO PEOPLE CAN HEAR. SO I REALLY JUST KIND OF WANT TO GO BACK TO THE INTERNAL CONTROL. I KNOW. SO I'M JUST GOING TO READ REAL QUICKLY, JUST OUT OF WHAT I HAD FROM THE PACKET. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT EXPRESS AN OPINION ON THE EFFECTIVENESS OF THE CITY'S INTERNAL CONTROL. GIVEN THESE LIMITATIONS. DURING OUR AUDIT, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY ANY DEFICIENCIES IN INTERNAL CONTROL THAT WE CONSIDER TO BE MATERIAL WEAKNESSES. GREAT NEWS. HOWEVER, MATERIAL WEAKNESSES MAY EXIST THAT HAVE NOT BEEN IDENTIFIED. SO I GET IT. YOU KNOW YOU ARE COVERING ALL YOUR BASES. WE DO HAVE SOME UPGRADES COMING UP IN REGARD TO ADAPTING OUR CHART OF ACCOUNTS SO THAT THEY'RE A LITTLE BIT BETTER AND MANAGEABLE AND MORE TRANSPARENT OVER THERE AT. ARE THERE SPECIFIC TIMES AND OR RECOMMENDATION THAT WE SHOULD LOOK AT, LOOKING AT ANY KIND OF PUTTING ANY IN LIKE A SCENARIO OR AN AUDIT IN REGARD TO INTERNAL CONTROLS? THANK YOU. ONE LAST STATEMENT, NICOLE.

YOU'RE DOING A FABULOUS JOB. WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS JUST MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT WE'VE COVERED ALL THE BASES IN REGARD TO, ESPECIALLY MORE BECAUSE WE'RE COMING UP TO A CRITICAL TIME IN TERMS OF UPGRADING, RIGHT? ALL THAT WE'VE GOT GOING ON AND DIDN'T WANT TO MISS THAT PARTICULAR POINT. THANK YOU. MISS. MARIA. OKAY. I DON'T KNOW

[00:15:03]

SO THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU. BUT IF I CAN WORK MY WAY THROUGH SOME OF THEM AND AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'LL HAVE THE ANSWER, NICOLE OR, OR SOMEBODY ELSE ON STAFF. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD WAS, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I SEE A COUPLE OF PLACES IN THE REPORT CALLED RIGHT TO USE LEASE. AND ON PAGE 11 OF THE OF THE REPORT PAGE, WHICH WOULD BE, I THINK, PAGE 21 OR SO IN THE PACKET, THERE IS A RIGHT TO USE LEASE PAYABLE. AND THE EXPLANATION THAT I THINK YOU HAD GIVEN ME BY BY MAIL WAS IT'S KIND OF AROUND THE POLICE VEHICLES AND, AND THE MOWERS THAT WE HAVE AT THE GOLF COURSE, THOSE KINDS OF THINGS, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A GREAT EXPLANATION FOR THE, THE PAYABLE. BUT ON PAGE 51 OF THE REPORT, THERE'S PROCEEDS FROM RIGHT TO USE LEASES. AND THAT'S A PRETTY BIG NUMBER. IT'S A LITTLE OVER HALF $1 MILLION.

AND I WAS STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WHERE A HALF MILLION DOLLARS OF PROCEEDS CAME FROM POLICE VEHICLES AND MOWERS. SO CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT? THAT WAS A GASB 87 CHANGE. THEY CHANGED THE WAY YOU HAVE TO RECORD THE LEASES. YOU HAVE TO PUT THE FULL AMOUNT ON TO CAPTURE THE FULL LIFE OF THE VEHICLES. IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE BRING ON THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE RIGHT TO USE LEASE VEHICLES, AND THE RIGHT TO USE LEASE PROCEEDS IS ESSENTIALLY HOW THE DEBT COMES ONTO THE ONTO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS. IF YOU AND IT'S IT'S ESSENTIALLY NET TO ZERO BECAUSE IT COMES ON IN ASSETS AND IT COMES ON IN PROCEEDS.

THAT'S THAT'S ESSENTIALLY RECORDING THEIR, THEM GIVING YOU THE VEHICLE FOR THE, FOR THE TERM OF USUALLY ABOUT 60 MONTHS, I BELIEVE THAT. SO THE RIGHT TO USE PROCEEDS COMES IN FOR THE DEBT. BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE 34 OF THE ACTUAL REPORT, OKAY, YOU'LL SEE THE RIGHT TO USE LEASE ASSETS ACTUALLY SHOW AN ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNT. OH YEAH. OKAY, I SEE, I SEE. SO THAT WAS JUST A, IT WAS A CHANGE, I BELIEVE IN 2021, 2021, 2022. SOMETIME SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE. THAT WAS, THAT WAS A PERFECT ANSWER. SO IT'S, IT'S A COUNTING, IT'S A STANDARD, RIGHT? BUT IT'S, THERE'S OFFSET IN THERE. SO THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER. THANK YOU. AND

[00:20:04]

ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THERE'S THERE'S THIS IS PAGE 22 OF THE REPORT, 32 OF THE PACKET. I BELIEVE THERE'S DUE FROM OTHER FUNDS INTO THE AVIATION FUND AND INTO THE GOLF COURSE FUND.

AND, AND WE, WE HAD BUDGETED A FAIRLY LARGE NUMBER TRANSFER INTO THE GOLF COURSE FUND AND INTO THE AVIATION FUND. AND I KNOW WHAT WE ACTUALLY TRANSFERRED IS SIGNIFICANTLY LESS THAN THAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THESE DO FROM OTHER FUNDS ARE THE REMAINDER OF WHAT WE BUDGETED. BUT WHAT WE DIDN'T TRANSFER OR IT'S SOMETHING ELSE. DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? I BELIEVE IT ALSO IS A AMOUNT FROM THE GENERAL FUND. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE FULL AMOUNT THAT YOU GUYS BUDGETED. AND THEN IT'S JUST THE EXCESS THAT STILL NEEDS TO GET MOVED. I'M SURE THE CITY STAFF CAN CAN GET THAT FOR YOU ON, BUT ON PAGE. ON PAGE 47, WITHIN THE NOTES, THERE IS A KIND OF BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THE RECEIVABLE FUND IS AND WHAT THE PAYABLE FUND IS FOR THE ACTUAL AMOUNTS, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EXACTLY, YOU KNOW, ONE TRANSACTION, IF IT'S THE REMAINDER OF THE BUDGETED, THAT ONE, I'D HAVE TO INVESTIGATE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. YEAH. AND PART OF MY CONFUSION IS THE MATH DOESN'T QUITE WORK OUT. SO WE HAD BUDGETED A CERTAIN AMOUNT. WE TRANSFERRED A CERTAIN AMOUNT. THESE NUMBERS SHOWN ARE NOT THE DIFFERENCE OF THOSE TWO. AND, AND THEN THE, THE BOTH OF THOSE HAD ACTUALLY HAD AN ACTUAL LOSS, WHICH WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED. BUT THIS IS MORE THAN THE REMAINDER OF THE ACTUAL LOSS. I'M JUST I THINK, AGAIN, IT MAY BE A STAFF THING TO TRY TO, TO SORT THIS OUT, BUT I BELIEVE I SUSPECT YOU'RE RIGHT THAT THIS IS JUST A TRANSFER FROM THE GENERAL FUND INTO THE AVIATION OR THE GOLF COURSE FUND. I JUST I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE ARE, AT THIS POINT, PLANNING TO TRANSFER THAT MONEY BETWEEN THE FUNDS, BECAUSE THE ACTUAL RESULTS WERE DIFFERENT THAN THE BUDGETED RESULTS. RIGHT? JUST THINKING ABOUT IT AS AS YOU'RE TALKING, IT COULD BE ALSO DUE TO THE POOLED CASH THAT I BELIEVE THE GENERAL FUND AND THE AVIATION FUND AND GOLF COURSE FUND DO HAVE A POOLED CASH SITUATION.

THAT MAY BE WHERE WE JUST KIND OF HAVEN'T MOVED THOSE FUNDS OVER TO THE AVIATION AND THE GOLF COURSE FUND. SO ON PAPER, IT IT OWES THOSE FUNDS OVER THERE, BUT IT'S ALL IT'S ALL POOLED CASH AMOUNT, NOT A CASH MOVEMENT. IT'S A PAPER, RIGHT? YEAH. ACCOUNTING EXERCISE. YES.

WHICH IS HAS THAT THE FACT THAT WE DO IT THAT WAY HAS ALWAYS BOTHERED ME TO BE HONEST. RIGHT.

AND I'VE BEEN I'VE BEEN WORKING THE CITY MANAGER ON, ON. HOPEFULLY WE'LL CLEAN THAT UP IN FUTURE BUDGETS. BUT OKAY, THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT. AND THEN YEAH, I THINK. I'M NOW DOWN TO MY ITEM NINE ON THE EMAIL THAT I SENT. AND THIS IS PAGE 34. AND I ASKED PAGE 34 OF THE REPORT 43 OF THE PACKET. PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTION AND PROGRESS ITEMS ARE IN THIS CAPITAL ASSETS SECTION. SO THERE'S CAPITAL ASSETS THAT HAS BALANCE

[00:25:06]

OKAY, THERE WAS A SECOND PROJECT IN THERE. I THINK I PUT IT IN THE EMAIL, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER IT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. DO YOU REMEMBER WHICH ONE? YOU ACTUALLY DID A LIST OF PROJECTS? YES, THERE WAS A GOLF COURSE, IRRIGATION. THERE WAS THE STREETS AND THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE, THE STREETS RESURFACING PROJECT. PROJECT. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT'S OUT OF THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND. AND THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR 6.7. THERE WAS ANOTHER 200,000 PAID OUT OF THE THE GENERAL FUND THAT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THAT CAPITAL PROJECT AND THE CONSTRUCTION IN PROGRESS. YES. SUNSET. OH YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. YOUR MICROPHONE WAS NOT ON, SO I REPEATED THE SUNSET DRIVE PARKWAY IS THE ONE THAT NICOLE REMINDED US. SO THOSE ARE JUST PROJECTS THAT HAVE STARTED WITHIN THE YEAR HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED. SO WE DON'T WANT TO START DEPRECIATING THEM, BUT WE DO WANT THEM WITHIN THE FIXED ASSET. MAKES SENSE. SO 6.7 MILLION ON STREETS WHICH CAME OUT OF THE CAPITAL FUND. YES. AND THEN THE THE OTHER 200,000 AND CHANGE WAS THE THE REMAINING COSTS OR THE COSTS THAT WE SPENT ON SUNSET PARK ENTRYWAY AND THE LITTLE BEGINNING STUFF ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM. YES. OKAY.

THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YES. MISS CHHABRIA, JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION. AND IT'S ACTUALLY A PIGGYBACK ONTO COUNCILOR PRINCE'S QUESTION ON PAGE 34, ON THE RIGHT TO LEASE OUR RIGHT TO USE LEASE ASSETS. YES. SO WHERE IT SAYS 502, WE'RE EXPECTING THAT TO BE LESS NEXT YEAR, BUT THE LEASE PAYMENTS WOULD PROBABLY JUST BE THE SAME. IT'S DEPRECIATION YEAR OVER YEAR. CORRECT. IT IS A STRAIGHT LINE DEPRECIATION. SO THERE IT WHEN THEY GO ON THE BOOKS THEY'RE THE SAME AMOUNT. BUT THEN THEY FLUCTUATE THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THE ACTUAL VEHICLES. THE DEPRECIATION WILL BE STRAIGHT LINE OVER THE 60 MONTHS OF THE ACTUAL TERM OF THE VEHICLES, THE DEPRECIATION, THE PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST. YOU'LL BE PAYING MORE INTEREST AT THE BEGINNING THAN YOU WILL AT THE, YOU KNOW, TOWARDS THE END. AND THEY THEY BOTH COME OFF AT 60 MONTHS. BUT YES, THEY THAT WILL BE REDUCED BY YOU ACTUALLY HAD SOME, A LITTLE BIT LOWER, SOME DEPRECIATION THROUGHOUT THE YEAR, ABOUT 33,000 BECAUSE I THINK THEY CAME ON SOMEWHERE AROUND NOVEMBER OR DECEMBER, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. SO YES, THAT THAT FIXED ASSET AMOUNT WILL BE DEPRECIATED AS WELL. YEAH. I JUST WONDERED IF IT WAS ACTUAL CASH VALUE OR IF IT WAS OVER THE LIFE OF THE LOAN, OVER THE LIFE OF THE LOAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM, THIS REALLY ISN'T QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT JUST SOME JUST GENERAL INFORMATION THAT I WANTED TO EXPRESS ON TO NICOLE AND CHARLES. I KNOW THERE IS ONE THAT'S IN THERE. I THERE WASN'T HERE. EXPENDITURES EXCEEDED FINAL BUDGET AND SANITATION DEBT SERVICE AND CAPITAL OUTLAY. I MEAN, IN THE END IT REALLY DIDN'T AFFECT OUR OVERALL STATUS. IT LOOKED LIKE IN THE BUDGET. BUT I DID HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE THREE IN TERMS OF THE DETAIL BEHIND IT. AND AGAIN, THAT MAY COME FROM YOU, NICOLE, BEING THAT THOSE DID EXCEED, I THINK I REMEMBER WE HAD SOME PAIRS AND OTHER THINGS THAT KIND OF AFFECTED THAT, BUT THE DETAIL IS NOT HERE. SO I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SEND THAT OVER BEFOREHAND. MY APOLOGIES. THE OTHER THAT I DID WANT TO BRING UP WAS THAT I NOTICED ON THE AUDIT, I GUESS IT WAS AROUND PAGE 88. WE HAD AN UPDATE THAT

[00:30:02]

DO LIKE A TEN YEAR ANALYSIS AND THEY'LL DO THE LEGWORK. OKAY. YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. OKAY.

WELL THANK YOU. I WANT TO GO TO IF THERE'S ANY CITIZEN COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP. IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? HEARING NONE, I'LL BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION OR MOTION. MR. BENNEFIELD. YES, SIR. ON PAGE 17, IT TALKS ABOUT INTEREST AND FEES. AND IN 2024, OUR INTEREST IN MANY THINGS WERE 849,000. YET IN 2025 IT WAS 2.6 MILLION. MOST OF THREE X INCREASE. CAN YOU LET US KNOW WHY OUR INTEREST IN BANK FEES INCREASED BY THREE FOLD OVER ONE YEAR? I. I BELIEVE THAT WAS FOR BECAUSE OF YOUR YOUR 2020 FOR YOUR SERIES 2024, YOU MADE A PAYMENT, BUT IT WAS ALMOST ALL INTEREST. ALMOST NONE OF IT WAS WAS PRINCIPAL. YOU DON'T SEE IT TOO OFTEN THAT YOUR ACTUAL PRINCIPAL IS LOWER THAN YOUR INTEREST. BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE 20, IT IS YOUR PRINCIPAL WAS ONE POINT, ALMOST 1.8 MILLION AND YOUR INTEREST WAS 2.7. I BELIEVE THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE SERIES 2024. THAT WAS THE FIRST PAYMENT PAID ON THE SERIES 2024. GOOD QUESTION. THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL JUST NOTE JUST IT'S NOT A DEFICIENCY IN THE AUDIT. I JUST THINK IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ON PAGE 15 AND 15, IT SHOWS THAT WE TRANSFERRED $3.6 MILLION OUT OF OUR UTILITY FUNDS. AND THE UTILITY FUNDS LOST 1.1 MILLION. I MEAN, THIS IS JUST ME SPEAKING TO COUNCIL IS I THINK WE OFTEN USE THE UTILITY FUND TO FUND A LOT OF THINGS, BUT THE UTILITY FUND SHOULD BE PROFITABLE. AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY THE BIGGEST RED FLAG IN THIS ENTIRE AUDIT IS THAT OUR UTILITY FUND LOST $1.1 MILLION. OKAY. YEAH. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, THOSE ARE MY CONTACT. ALSO, JEREMY BARBATO, HE'S THE ENGAGEMENT PARTNER. HE'S ACTUALLY AT ANOTHER MEETING TONIGHT. WE'VE HAD A SLEW OF THEM WITH EVERYBODY'S DEADLINES. AND SO THAT'S HIS EMAIL AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS OR, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN REACH OUT TO NICOLE, SHE CAN REACH OUT TO US.

I HAVE ONE MORE COUNCIL MEMBER WHO'S VIRTUAL. SO MISS VAN NESS. YES, THANKS, MR. MAYOR. YES.

QUESTION FOR THE AUDITOR AND PERHAPS FOR CHARLES AND NICOLE AS WELL, BUT TYPICAL BEST PRACTICE IN THE PRIVATE SECTOR, NOT FOR PROFIT SECTOR, IS TO WORK WITH AN AUDIT FIRM OVER THREE TO UP TO FIVE YEARS. SO THE AUDITOR BECOMES OBVIOUSLY FAMILIAR WITH THE BOOKS AND RECORDS WITH THE STAFF. SO YOU GET SOME EFFICIENCIES THAT WAY. BUT ALSO IF THEY IDENTIFY ANY DEFICIENCIES IN AN AUDIT, THEY KNOW EXACTLY WHERE TO LOOK SUBSEQUENTLY TO MAKE SURE THE DEFICIENCIES WERE HANDLED. BUT THEN YOU WANT TO SWITCH WITHIN A 3 TO 5 YEAR TIME PERIOD TO ENSURE OBJECTIVITY AND INDEPENDENCE OF THE AUDIT. SO WITHIN THE MUNICIPAL WORLD, WHAT'S CONSIDERED BEST PRACTICE FOR THAT? A LOT OF TIMES IT'S A IT'S A CITY CHARTER, WHATEVER.

SOME OF THE CITY CHARTERS HAVE A MANDATORY SWITCH. WE HAVE SOME CLIENTS THAT THEY CAN SWITCH EVERY 3 TO 5 YEARS. AND WE HAVE SOME CLIENTS THAT WE'VE BEEN WITH FOR 15 TO 20 YEARS.

[00:35:02]

BUT YES, AND THAT'S HOW WE WOUND UP WITH THE NEW AUDITOR THIS YEAR IS IT WAS TIME FOR US TO GO OUT FOR RFQS AND MAKE THAT CHANGE. I WILL SAY ON THE CITY'S THAT WE'VE HAD FOR FOR LONG EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, THAT IS WHAT WE DO MOST TIMES. THAT'S WHAT THEY REQUEST, YOU KNOW, A NEW ENGAGEMENT PARTNER, A NEW TEAM TO BRING IN, YOU KNOW, SOME MAYBE SOME FRESHER EYES, BUT STILL HAVE THAT FAMILIARITY OF KIND OF UNDERSTANDING WHICH ROCKS WE NEED TO LOOK UNDER AND HOW TO EVALUATE ANY KIND OF DEFICIENCIES OR CONTROL SUGGESTIONS. GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN ONE MORE QUESTION. THIS IS PROBABLY FOR CHARLES AND NICOLE, BUT I HAD EXPRESSED A DESIRE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT OUR FINANCIAL COMPLIANCE AND CONTROLS. AND I THINK, CHARLES, YOU MENTIONED MAYBE YOU OR NICOLE OR BOTH COULD PRESENT TO US AT SOME POINT. NOW, I KNOW WE HAD TO GET THROUGH THE AUDIT AND NOW WE'RE COMING UP ON THE BUDGETING PROCESS. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY THERE TO PRESENT TO COUNCIL, SO WE CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND WHAT THOSE ACTUAL CONTROLS ARE. YES, WE'VE ACTUALLY ARE WORKING ON SOME TRAINING DATES. I JUST GOT TO GET Y'ALL'S SCHEDULES TO COMPLY WITH EVERYBODY ELSE'S SCHEDULES. OKAY. THANK YOU. MR. PRINCE. YEAH. FOLLOWING ON, MR. BENNEFIELD, TO YOUR TO YOUR COMMENTS, I THINK WHILE I AGREE THAT THE UTILITY FUND, WE NEED TO BE WISE IN HOW WE OPERATE IT, THE EXPENDITURES IN THE UTILITY FUND THIS YEAR INCLUDED A VERY LARGE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL EXPENSES, WHICH WERE NOT REALLY OPERATING EXPENSES. AND IT WAS A BUDGETING DECISION. I'M NOT SURE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT WAS BEHIND IT. IT'S NOT THE WAY I WOULD HAVE DONE IT, BUT THERE WAS A BUDGETING DECISION TO SPEND SOME OF THOSE CAPITAL OUTLAYS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE UTILITY FUND, RATHER THAN SPEND IT OUT OF THE CAPITAL FUND AND SHOW THE TRANSFER. SO I THINK THAT THAT THE THE OPERATING SITUATION WAS NOT AS BAD AS AS THE NUMBERS THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, FIRST GLANCE YOU WOULD SEE HERE. THAT BEING SAID, I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE POLICY THAT WE'VE HAD OF A FAIRLY LARGE TRANSFER FROM THE UTILITY FUND INTO THE GENERAL FUND, YOU KNOW, REVISITED EVERY YEAR TO MAKE SURE COME UP WITH THE RIGHT NUMBER. BUT THE BASIS FOR THE NUMBER HAS ROUGHLY BEEN THE RIGHTLY ATTRIBUTED DEBT EXPENSES ASSOCIATED WITH UTILITY FUND. SO IT'S NOT. AND I KNOW BEFORE I WAS ELECTED, I REALLY MISUNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WERE CITIZENS WHO THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE JUST USING THE UTILITY FUND TO SUBSIDIZE THE GOLF COURSE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMON MANTRAS I HEARD WHEN IN FACT, THE TRANSFER FROM THE UTILITY FUND IS TO PAY FOR BOND DEBT. THAT REALLY SHOULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE UTILITY FUND. CHARLES. YEAH, THAT'S THE COUNCIL MEMBER PRINCE COVERED.

WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THERE IS SOME DEALS IN THERE, AND YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A DIFFERENCE IN HOW IT IS ALL ACCOUNTED FOR IN THIS NEXT BUDGET DEAL IS WE'RE GOING TO ACTUALLY CALCULATE OUT, OUT OF THE INS HOW MUCH OF THAT PAYMENT IS ACTUALLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE UTILITY FUND. BECAUSE THE UTILITY FUND, I'M NOT LOOKING TO MAKE A PROFIT, BUT I AM LOOKING FOR THE UTILITY FUND TO AT LEAST AT MINIMUM BREAK EVEN BECAUSE WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY, BUT WE WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS TO LOSE MONEY EITHER. SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THOSE NUMBERS ARE MORE COHESIVE AND EASIER TO FOLLOW, BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I GET FROM THE CITIZENS ALL THE TIME IS, HOW DO YOU MAKE SENSE OF ALL OF THIS? SO WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO CLEAN IT UP TO WHERE THEY UNDERSTAND IT BETTER. MR. JABARI YEAH, I'LL AGREE. COUNCILOR BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT AND SORT OF COUNCILOR PRINCE, THE OPTICS IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, WITHOUT BEING ON COUNCIL, I WOULDN'T HAVE KNOWN THAT EITHER. SO I CAN IMAGINE THAT THE GENERAL PUBLIC, WHEN THEY SEE THESE FUNDS, THEY'RE LIKE, OH, WHAT'S THIS PAYING FOR NOW? AND WHY IS IT NOT BREAKING EVEN? BUT I ALSO WANTED TO PIGGYBACK ALSO ON COUNCIL PRINCE'S SUGGESTION OF THE POSTMORTEM. I THINK THAT'S INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'RE COMING INTO OUR NEW BUDGET CYCLE. WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS IN A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL. I'VE GOT A LOT MORE QUESTIONS AS WELL, CHARLES.

YEAH. ON THE BUDGET CALENDAR, YOU'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO SEE BECAUSE THAT BUDGET CALENDAR WILL KIND OF REMAIN THE SAME YEARLY. THERE'S ACTUALLY A DATE IN THERE FOR THE POSTMORTEM.

THAT'LL BE DONE IN PROBABLY DECEMBER OF EACH YEAR, BECAUSE BY DECEMBER WE HAVE THE BOOKS

[00:40:01]

NEXT WEEK WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING A LOT OF PLANNING SESSIONS AND STUFF TO GET SOME OF THIS WRAPPED UP. I'M OPEN TO A MOTION. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 26 DASH 2200 RESOLUTION BY THE CITY CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA, ACCEPTING FISCAL YEAR 2025 AUDIT AS PREPARED BY A B I P SLASH PC MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND THAT. I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCILOR PRINCE. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION? HEARING NONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED SAY NAY. IT IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON TO. THANK

[III.2. Discussion regarding the purchase of property located at 20624 FM 1431, Lago Vista, Texas, 78645, (Casey Building).]

OKAY. MAYOR, COUNCIL. YOU KNOW, WHEN I GOT HERE NINE MONTHS AGO, THERE WAS A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR CITY HALL BEING CONDUCTED. AND THEN RECENTLY A OFFER WAS MADE TO US TO PURCHASE THE CASEY PROFESSIONAL BUILDING, WHICH IS THE LARGE BUILDING ON 1431, WHICH HOUSES THE ISD FARMERS INSURANCE, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. THERE IS ONE SECTION OF IT THAT BELONGS TO EMILY DEICHMANN REAL ESTATE, WHICH THEY ACTUALLY OWN. THAT SECTION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS ABOUT 1400 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT 10% OF THE BUILDING'S OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE. BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS SET UP LIKE A CONDOMINIUM TYPE FACILITY. BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST WE'RE EVALUATING SOME OPTIONS OF PURCHASING THE BUILDING. WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BUILD A NEW FACILITY NEXT TO THE POLICE STATION. AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO SEE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO BUILD ADDITIONAL OFFICE SPACE AND REMODEL OUR CURRENT FACILITY. FIRST AND FOREMOST, THE CITY COUNCIL AND STAFF HAVE NOT MADE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON DECISIONS REGARDING THIS PROJECT. WE ARE ONLY IN A FEASIBILITY STUDY STAGE AT THIS POINT. THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL AUTHORIZED PARK HILL ARCHITECTS TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY STUDY IN 2024, AND DUE TO IT, LIKE A RECENT CITY HALL THEY JUST COMPLETED, THEY ESTIMATED A NEW CITY HALL WOULD COST ANYWHERE FROM 600 TO $650 SQUARE FOOT, BASED ON RECENT CITY HALL PROJECTS, AND THAT IS THAT PRICE INCLUDES YOUR PARKING LOT, ELEVATIONS, ALL OF THAT DIFFERENT TYPE STUFF. SO YES, THAT IS GOING TO BE A FAIRLY ACCURATE DEAL. THAT IS NOT BUILDING THE TAJ MAHAL. I THINK SOME ESTIMATES WERE THROWN OUT THERE OF THAT. WE COULD BUILD THIS FOR 150 TO $200 A SQUARE FOOT. WELL, BEING SOMEBODY THAT HAS COME OUT OF THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND BUILT HOUSES, I DON'T EVEN THINK I COULD BUILD A HOUSE FOR THAT. NOT ONE THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO LIVE IN, BUT PARK HILL, IN THEIR FEASIBILITY STUDY, ESTIMATES OUR STAFFING NEEDS WILL DOUBLE IN THE 15 YEARS. I DISAGREE WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK WE WILL DOUBLE BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO UTILIZE TECHNOLOGY MORE INSTEAD OF RELYING ON BODIES, BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY DOESN'T TAKE UP BENEFITS. IT'S CHEAPER IN THE LONG RUN. WHY THIS PROJECT MATTERS CURRENT FACILITY IS OUTDATED AND UNDERSIZED. I HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN OFFICE SPACES THAT MY MASTER CLOSET IS LARGER THAN THEIR OFFICE SPACE.

IT JUST IT'S JUST NOT GOOD BUSINESS TO KEEP SOMEBODY IN A LITTLE BITTY CONFINED SPACE TO

[00:45:03]

[00:50:01]

ALL HAVE AN AREA ON THAT BOTTOM FLOOR. I WOULD LOVE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING, BUT I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE WE WOULD GET ANYWHERE FROM 12 TO $15 MILLION TO BUILD IT. AND YOU KNOW, WE MAY BE ABLE TO BUILD IT. IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU CAN'T USE TODAY'S DOLLARS TEN YEARS DOWN THE ROAD WHEN WE WOULD ACTUALLY BUILD THIS FACILITY AND FOR THIS FACILITY WOULD GO, BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY'S GOING TO ASK THAT QUESTION. NO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE OUT THE SPOT BETWEEN HERE AND THE LIBRARY TO BUILD IT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT WOULD LOOK RIGHT HERE. IT WOULD ACTUALLY GO ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO THE POLICE STATION. SO WHEN YOU TURN ON TO WHAT IS THAT ROAD, MUNICIPAL WAY, MUNICIPAL COMPLEX WAY, MY VISION IS YOU WOULD TURN ON THAT ROAD AND WHAT WOULD BE RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU WOULD BE THE NEW CITY HALL. AND THEY ARE WORKING ON SOME EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS OF THAT BUILDING NOW. AND THEY ARE GOING TO EMULATE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. SO YOU COULD TELL IT'S TWO FACILITIES THAT GO TOGETHER. AND THEN THEY'RE ALSO WORKING ON SOME PLANS OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO DO SOME EXPANSIONS OVER AT THE LIBRARY AND STUFF. SO BECAUSE WE WOULD WANT THE LIBRARY TO MATCH CITY HALL AND THE POLICE STATION, IF THAT'S GOING TO BE ALL OF OUR FACILITIES, THE LONG, LONG RANGE PLANS I SEE FOR THIS FACILITY WOULD BE TO GUT THIS BUILDING, BECAUSE IT IS JUST A BIG METAL BUILDING AND MAKE THIS A COMMUNITY CENTER IN THE FUTURE. THAT'S THE SECOND FLOOR. THAT WOULD ALL BE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ON THAT SECOND FLOOR. SO AND YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ON, I'LL PUT THESE ON.

I'LL PUT THIS PRESENTATION ON THE DISCUSSION BOARD SO YOU CAN ACTUALLY PULL IT UP AND LOOK AT IT CLOSER. KEY FEATURES. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE EXPANDED COUNCIL CHAMBERS, A CENTRAL PUBLIC LOBBY, DEDICATED DEPARTMENT SPACES, IMPROVED WORKFLOW AND ACCESSIBILITY BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY IS BETTER ACCESS TO SERVICES, MORE SPACE FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS, IMPROVED EFFICIENCY, STRONGER CIVIC IDENTITY. NEXT STEPS. THIS IS WHAT THE LIST I CAME UP WITH. WE JUST CONTINUE DOING OUR RESEARCH ON THE CASEY BUILDING TO OBTAIN THE APPRAISAL. CONTINUE WORKING WITH PARK HILL ON THE DESIGN OF A NEW BUILDING WITH COST ESTIMATES, AND RECEIVE DATA ON REMODEL OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. CONTINUE PLANNING NOT ONLY WHEN IT COMES TO OFFICE SPACE, BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL OF OUR OTHER CITY CITY SERVICES SUCH AS OUR INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, WASTEWATER, SEWER PARKS, ALL OF THAT. WE'VE GOT A BIG NEED LIBRARY RUNNING OUT OF ROOM OVER THERE. THEY NEED SOME EXPANSION. SO WE'VE GOT LOTS OF THINGS THAT HAVE GOT TO BE DONE. THE CITY COUNCIL GETS TO PRIORITIZE THAT. THAT'S NOT MY JOB. MY JOB IS JUST TO TAKE OUT THE AND FOLLOW THE DIRECTION THAT THE COUNCIL WANTS US TO GO.

BUT THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I'LL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU. CHARLES. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHARLES BEFORE I GO TO CITIZENS? MISS CHARLES, I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME CONCERN EXPRESSED ABOUT PARKING, BUT I THINK MOST PEOPLE ARE THEY'RE ONLY LIKE DRIVING BY AND THEY'RE ONLY SEEING THAT FRONT SECTION OF THE PARKING LOT. BUT I DROVE AROUND THE BACK AND IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE EXTENSIVE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY ACTUAL PARKING SPACES THERE ARE AND HOW MANY HANDICAPPED SPACES THERE ARE? THE NUMBER OF HANDICAPPED? I CAN'T TELL YOU THOSE NUMBERS RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. I KNOW THE ADA COMPLIANCE THAT YOU GOT TO HAVE SO MANY ADA COMPLIANT SPACES WITH HOWEVER MANY PARKING SPACES OVERALL YOU HAVE. I DO KNOW THAT I WAS LOOKING AT THE PARKING AND IF WE JUST MOVED ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES OVER THERE FOR NOW, THERE'S MORE THAN ADEQUATE PARKING. NOW, IF YOU WOUND UP REMODELING THAT BUILDING TEN YEARS FROM NOW TO PUT ALL OF CITY HALL THERE, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF EXPANSION TO THE PARKING LOT THERE BETWEEN, WHAT IS IT, THE BANK AND THE BUILDING. AND THERE'S, I

[00:55:04]

[01:00:02]

BUT YOU YOU MUNICIPAL SPACE TO BE EFFECTIVE IS BASICALLY PLUS OR -200 SQUARE FOOT IN EMPLOYEE.

WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 150, A SQUARE FOOT PER EMPLOYEE. I THEN WAS ASKING MYSELF, WELL, WHAT'S THE TRIGGER THAT WE ARE ABSOLUTELY INEFFECTIVE AND THAT'S 90 SQUARE FOOT IN EMPLOYEE. AND SO I THINK REALLY, YOU KNOW, THIS EXERCISE IS THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY. I'M ALL ABOUT THAT LONG RANGE PLANNING, ESPECIALLY LIKE THE CIP OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, THE BENEFITS REALLY A, A LONG RANGE CITY HALL PLAN IS REALLY WHAT WE NEED TO BE LOOKING AT. AND I WAS LOOKING AT, IT LOOKS LIKE OUR CRITICAL TRIGGERS ARE GOING TO BE BETWEEN 5 AND 10 YEARS. YET OUR BONDING CAPACITY, IF WE NEEDED THAT OR TO GO TO AN ELECTION, WHICH IS A LOT ABOUT WHAT THE MAYOR LIKES, IS IT IF WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL MONIES THAT ARE OUTLAY, THAT IT DOES GO TO THE CITIZENS, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE WE LANDING? HOW DO HOW DO WE GET FROM HERE TO THERE? I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO JUST CASH OR BOND OUR WAY INTO A CITY HALL IN LESS THAN TEN YEARS. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. BASED ON THE FORECAST I DID WITH THE CIP AND CURRENT BONDS THAT WE HAVE AND OUR CURRENT CAPACITY THAT WAS GIVEN TO US BY OUR FINANCIAL ADVISOR.

SO THIS HAS BEEN A GREAT CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING FOR IDEAS. NOW, SOME OF THAT, THERE WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS FLOATED OUT THERE IN REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, STAFF UTILIZATION.

COULD ARE THERE SOME OTHER WAYS TO OFFICE FROM HOME OR, OR DO OTHER KINDS OF THINGS, OR EVEN STAGGERING OF SHIFTS, ETC. LOOKING AT THAT LAYOUT THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, I THINK THAT IS STILL A CHALLENGE TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH. WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT A LOT.

I ACTUALLY DEVELOPED CREATIVELY. I'M GOING TO SAY USE. EVERYBODY SAYS USE CHAT TO BE ABLE TO PULL TOGETHER A DECISION MATRIX ABOUT HOW WE EVALUATE WHETHER WE'RE WE'RE BUYING, WHETHER WE'RE BUILDING, WHETHER WE'RE LEASING, WHETHER WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE US FIT WITHIN THESE WALLS. I DO HAVE TO TELL YOU, I'M ENCOURAGED. I KNOW EMILY AND CARL, Y'ALL ARE GREAT INNOVATORS AND HAVE GREAT SPATIAL ACUITY. SO JUST IN TERMS OF IDEAS, I WOULD LOVE, YOU KNOW, ANY IDEAS THAT Y'ALL MAY HAVE. SO AGAIN, I JUST, I REALLY JUST WANTED TO SAY WE'VE GOT TO GET A BRIDGE FROM HERE TO TEN YEARS OUT BASICALLY, BECAUSE WE ARE NOW GOING BACK TO GRANTS. I DID WANT TO SAY THIS BEFORE I. BE QUIET IS THAT WE DO HAVE WELL ALONG ITS WAY, GRANT PUT TOGETHER FOR A COMMUNITY CENTER THAT WOULD AID A FEW MORE OFFICES AND THINGS

[01:05:08]

WE'RE REAPPLYING. I KNOW, MAYOR, YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THAT WITH LIKE THE WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. EACH YEAR WE DO A LITTLE BIT BETTER ON OUR STORY. SO ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO SAY OFFICIALLY OUT THERE, WE ARE LOOKING FOR IDEAS BECAUSE BAR NONE, WE'VE GOT TO GET FROM NOW UNTIL TEN YEARS FROM NOW. THANK YOU. YEAH. THANKS, CHARLES. I THINK I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF LAYING OUT THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS THAT WE HAVE. I KNOW CITIZENS ARE CONCERNED THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE JUST STEAMROLLING AHEAD WITH, BUT I THINK YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING TONIGHT THAT AN OFFER WAS MADE TO YOU, AND YOU OWE IT TO EXPLORE THOSE OPTIONS.

WE HAD TWO OPTIONS ON THE TABLE FOR WHAT TO DO WITH THE CITY HALL. NOW YOU HAVE THREE, AND WE'RE HEARING INPUT FROM CITIZENS. I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIZENS THAT I HEAR FROM ARE NOT IN SUPPORT OF OF THIS PURCHASE AT THIS TIME, BUT I APPRECIATE THEIR INPUT AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT THEY'RE BRINGING FORWARD.

I THINK THAT THEY'RE VERY VALID AND THEY'RE GOOD. AND I THINK TO ECHO SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS, FOR ME, WATER INFRASTRUCTURE IS STILL THE NUMBER ONE PRIORITY FOR THE CITY. AND I LOOK FORWARD BEGINNING AGAIN HERE ON APRIL 2ND AT THAT COUNCIL MEETING, WE'LL HOPEFULLY BE GOING OVER SOME OF THE REVISIONS TO THE CIP. AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR A LOT MORE ABOUT OUR IMMEDIATE STEPS TOWARDS WATER INFRASTRUCTURE. BUT I THINK YOU DID A GOOD PRESENTATION, AND I GUESS I'D LIKE TO TURN BACK TO COUNCIL AND SAY, I CURRENTLY HAVE THIS ITEM ON THE AGENDA ON APRIL 2ND. DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP AN EYE ON THAT AGENDA? MR. MINNIFIELD, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, BUT I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE TO ASK BEFORE WE MOVE TOO MUCH FURTHER ON. YEAH, LET'S KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA. I MEAN, WE NEED TO KEEP EXPLORING OUR OPTIONS HERE AND AND DO THE DUE DILIGENCE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE MAKE A WISE DECISION, WHETHER IT'S TO, TO PURSUE THIS INVESTMENT OR TO, YOU KNOW, PASS IT BY. BUT EITHER WAY, WE SHOULD DO IT AS A WITH WITH DATA IN HAND. OKAY, I HEAR TWO. YES, I SEE MR. HALL. I AGREE WE SHOULD KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA. WE NEED A PLAN MOVING FORWARD. WE CLEARLY ARE AT CAPACITY HERE.

WE WILL BE GROWING. WE NEED TO KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING. AND NOW'S THE TIME TO IDENTIFY THAT PATH FORWARD. WE DO HAVE. AND SO I'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF CITIZENS. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WITH THEM AND SAY THAT A LOT OF INFORMATION IS BEING LOOKED AT RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF ESTIMATES, A LOT OF OF ANSWERS. AND UNTIL WE HAVE ALL OF THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, JUST ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND UNTIL WE CAN PRESENT THE FULL FINANCIALS AND FULL REASONS FOR WHATEVER PATH WE WE ARE RECOMMENDING MOVING FORWARD. SO YES, I AGREE. KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA. OKAY. I THINK I HAVE A CONSENSUS TO KEEP IT ON THE AGENDA. THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION IS SOUNDS LIKE I SHOULDN'T JUST LIMIT IT TO THE KC BUILDING THOUGH. THIS SHOULD BE A CITY HALL DISCUSSION. IS THAT SO? I'VE HAD NODS ON THAT. OKAY, MISS CHHABRIA, SO I WANT TO AGREE WITH MAYOR SAM ON THE PUSHBACK THAT I'VE BEEN HEARING AS WELL, BUT I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE RESIDENTS THAT THIS ISN'T AN EITHER OR THING. THE THE RESERVE THAT IS SET ASIDE FOR REAL ESTATE IS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WATER. SO THAT THESE ARE THINGS THAT CAN HAPPEN TOGETHER. ALSO, THE PUSHBACK THAT I'VE BEEN GETTING IS COMMUNITY CENTER, COMMUNITY CENTER, COMMUNITY CENTER. WELL, SHOULD THIS HAPPEN AND SHOULD WE GET THIS GRANT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD A BRAND NEW COMMUNITY CENTER. WE COULD USE THAT MONEY TO RENOVATE. SO THIS COULD TECHNICALLY STILL BE A COMMUNITY CENTER, AND WE COULD STILL HAVE OUR COMMUNITY FUNCTIONS THAT WE HAVE TWO, THREE TIMES A YEAR, KIDS FEST, YOU KNOW, CHRISTMAS TREE LIGHTING THAT ALL CAN HAPPEN STILL IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER. SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO PEOPLE THINK EVERYTHING HAS TO MOVE OVER TO CITY HALL WHEN REALLY THAT'S JUST AN ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING AND FUNCTIONS WHEN THIS IS REALLY THE COMMUNITY HUB WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, THE LIBRARY, THE COMMUNITY CENTER. SO I WANT PEOPLE TO KIND OF KEEP THAT IN MIND. AND YEAH, I'LL LOOK FORWARD TO KEEPING THE CONVERSATION GOING, ESPECIALLY AT THE NEXT COUPLE OF MEETINGS GOING FORWARD. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM,

[01:10:07]

THERE'S 37 IN THE BACK, TWO ARE FOR HANDICAP, AND THEN THERE'S 12 IN THE FRONT. MR. WEST, YOU INDICATED THE CASEY BUILDING IS 14,998FT■!S. WHEN YOU SUBTRACT MR. BEEKMAN'S SD AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE, WHAT IS THE REMAINING SQUARE FEET AVAILABLE? I WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO SOME CALCULATIONS ON THAT. I COULDN'T TELL YOU OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. OKAY, THANKS. I JUST CAN'T EVEN BEGIN TO BELIEVE WE CAN HAVE A LEGITIMATE DISCUSSION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT $3.5 MILLION IS A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF MONEY TO PAY FOR A BUILDING. WE HAVE NO IDEA HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE. YOU MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY THAT THE SD WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE MORE SPACE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT THEY HAVE TODAY.

CAN YOU INDICATE HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL SPACE THEY'RE LOOKING TO HAVE? I HAVE NOT HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THEM LATELY. LIKE I SAID, THAT'S YOU'RE GETTING INTO DETAILS THAT JUST WE HAVEN'T GOT THAT FAR DOWN THE PATH UNTIL I EVEN KNOW HOW MUCH THE BUILDING IS WORTH. I MEAN, I'M NOT GOING TO OVEREXTEND THE CITY AND SPEND MONEY ON STUDIES AND STUFF UNTIL WE KNOW WHAT DIRECTION WE ACTUALLY WANT TO GO IN, AND THAT WHETHER OR NOT THE SD WANTS MORE SPACE OR NOT, THAT IS JUST SECONDHAND INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US. AND I HAVE NOT HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH SD TEN PEOPLE OR CHIEF NORMAN. AND UNTIL I DID, I COULDN'T TELL YOU ANY OF THAT. DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH REMAINING TIME IS LEFT ON THEIR LEASE? THEIR LEASE? I WOULD HAVE TO GO PULL IT, BUT I THINK THEY'RE STILL WITHIN A 10 TO 15 YEAR LEASE WITH THE SD. YEAH, IF YOU'LL MAKE SURE YOU LOOK INTO THAT BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING, I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT WHEN WE TELL THE CITIZENS THAT WE'RE GOING TO RECOUP $21,000 A MONTH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LEASE OBLIGATIONS THAT WE HAVE ARE.

WHAT IS THE MONTHLY PAYMENT THAT THE SD PAYS ON THEIR LEASE? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME. I DO HAVE IT IN MY OFFICE, AND I CAN I'LL MAKE SURE I HAVE YOU THAT INFORMATION AT THE NEXT MEETING. I APPRECIATE THAT. WHAT DOES THE CHAMBER PAY PER MONTH AND WHAT IS THEIR REMAINING LEASE? AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I THINK THE CHAMBER'S MONTHLY LEASE IS SOMEWHERE AROUND $7,000. BUT I COULD BE WRONG WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE ACTUAL LEASE IN FRONT OF ME, I COULDN'T TELL YOU. I MEAN, THAT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THE APPRAISER IS ACTUALLY LOOKING AT, IS THEY ARE TAKING ALL OF THE CURRENT LEASES INTO ACCOUNT, AND THE SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE OF WHAT THE PROJECTED INCOME COULD BE. THAT IS ALL PART OF THE APPRAISAL PROCESS. NO COMMENT HERE. NO, NO, I'M NOT LOOKING FOR A COMMENT FROM YOU.

ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS THAT I'VE HEARD IS THAT THEY JUST DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA SHOULD BE A LANDLORD TO OTHER BUSINESSES HERE IN IN THE CITY. I THINK IT'S A DISCUSSION POINT THAT WE SHOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE. HOW DO YOU PLAN ON HANDLING ANY EXISTING TENANTS IN THE BUILDING THAT ARE UNDER LEASE? I WAS I HAVE BEEN REACHED OUT TO THAT. IF WE PURCHASE THE BUILDING, THE INDIVIDUALS THAT CURRENTLY MANAGE THAT DO THE LEASE MANAGEMENT THERE, WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY AND MANAGE LEASES. SO THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE TO GET INTO THE LEASE BUSINESS OR LANDLORD BUSINESS. JUST SO I CAN UNDERSTAND, YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE GOING TO REMAIN IN THEIR EXISTING LEASES. THE EXISTING LEASES WOULD REMAIN IN EFFECT, BUT I HAVE A MANAGEMENT COMPANY THAT HAS REACHED OUT TO ME THAT SAID THAT IF WE BUY THE BUILDING, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ACTUALLY MANAGE LEASES. NOW, THEY WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE OR HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CITY AND CONTINUE TO MANAGE THOSE LEASES. PERFECT. SO I GUESS I GUESS ANOTHER PART OF THAT EQUATION THEN IS WHAT'S THE MONTHLY PAYMENT EACH OF THOSE TENANTS ARE PAYING? WHAT ARE THEIR LEASE TERMS AND WHAT'S THE TOTAL COMBINED SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT THOSE TENANTS ARE OCCUPYING OF THE BUILDING? I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW IF THE BUILDING IS 15,000FT■S. WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE CITY TO EVEN BE ABLE TO BE USED. WE HAVE TO TAKE SD, WE HAVE TO TAKE EMILY DIEKMANN. WE HAVE TO TAKE THESE OTHER TENANTS, SUBTRACT IT OUT AND SEE, OKAY, WE'RE PAYING 3.5 MILLION, BUT WE'RE ONLY GETTING 7000FT■!S OF SPACE. I JUST WANT THAT THOSE NUMBERS TO BE CLARIFIED. AGAIN, AS I STATED, I DO NOT HAVE THAT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HAVE THAT FOR YOU AT THE NEXT MEETING. LIKE I SAID, I DID NOT PUT THAT MUCH DETAIL INTO IT UNTIL I HAVE SOME MORE INFORMATION BETWEEN PARK HILL,

[01:15:05]

I CAN'T ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HAVE NOT WENT OVER THERE AND DONE A PHYSICAL INSPECTION OF WHAT IS NEEDED, WHAT IS NOT NEEDED. LIKE I SAID, WE'RE WAITING ON THINGS. YOU WANTED TO KNOW HOW MUCH THE CHAMBER SPENDS EACH MONTH. THEY SPEND $2,085.

TRAVIS COUNTY ISD NUMBER ONE IS $4,673 A MONTH. OKAY, HOLD ON. ISD, SUITE TEN IS $5,715. SO THE HINES CORPORATION IS $1,100. MICHELLE HILLMAN IS $2,200. LEADING EDGE CONNECTIONS IS $2,600. YOU HAVE A VACANT SPOT. THERE'S TWO THREE OFFICES THAT ARE VACANT RIGHT NOW. FARMERS INSURANCE IS $2,600. THERE'S LOTS OF INFORMATION. WE HAVE THE INFORMATION YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT THAT IS NOT QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED OF ME PRIOR TO TONIGHT. SO I DID NOT COME IN WITH THAT INFORMATION. I CAME IN TO. I WAS ASKED TO PUT A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION TOGETHER OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, AND THAT IS WHAT I DID. MR. RUSSELL, I'M NOT BEING CRITICAL.

I'M JUST ASKING QUESTIONS THAT I ASKED AT THE LAST MEETING SO THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND. YOU MENTIONED EARLIER, SURPRISINGLY, THAT IF PARKING WAS AN ISSUE, THAT CITIZENS COULD JUST PARK ALONG BRONCHO. HOWEVER, I REMEMBER A RATHER ROBUST DISCUSSION WHEN THE BEER MARKET WAS TRYING TO GET PERMITS FOR US. THE THE BREWERY. I APOLOGIZE WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO GET PERMITS AND APPROVALS FOR THE FARMERS MARKET. THE BIG ISSUE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IN THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA HAD WAS THAT THEY WOULD ABSOLUTELY NOT ALLOW PARKING ALONG. BRONCHO, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE DISCREPANCY IN THAT OPINION? MR. MINNIFIELD I WAS NOT HERE FOR THOSE CONVERSATIONS. THAT WAS DONE AT A PRIOR TIME, PRIOR TO MY DEAL, SO I CANNOT ANSWER ANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT YOU DO SUPPORT PARKING ALONG BRONCO? I DID NOT SAY I SUPPORTED IT. I SAID IT COULD BE AN OPTION AS LONG AS EMERGENCY VEHICLES WOULD STILL HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO TRAVEL, AND CITIZENS WOULD STILL HAVE TO BE ENOUGH ROOM TO TRAVEL THROUGH THERE WITHOUT IMPEDING TRAFFIC. OKAY, WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT NEXT TIME. WHAT'S THE TOTAL TAX REVENUE THAT THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA WILL LOSE FROM THE CASEY BUILDING BY BEING THE OWNER OF THE FACILITY? I HAVE NOT DONE THE CALCULATIONS ON THAT YET, AS I JUST GOT PRELIMINARY VALUES THIS AFTERNOON. IT WILL TAKE SOME TIME TO GET ALL OF THAT DONE BECAUSE EVEN THOUGH AS A CITY OWNS THE FACILITY, WHAT WE ARE RENTING OUT, WE WOULD STILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING PROPERTY TAXES ON. YES, WE WOULD BE PAYING TAXES BACK TO OURSELVES, BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE IT TAX EXEMPT. HOWEVER, THIS ONE IS KIND OF A TRICKY SITUATION BECAUSE WHAT THE CITY OCCUPIES AND IT'S BEING A CONDOMINIUM TYPE FACILITY, WE WOULD NOT PAY TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY OF THE VALUE THAT ACTUALLY BELONGS TO THE CITY AND BEING OCCUPIED BY CITY

[01:20:03]

WHEN WE RESOLVE NUMBER ONE, THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT TWO, THREE, 4 OR 5. THAT'S ALL MY COMMENTS. MR. MAYOR, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT. STAFF HAS NOT MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON GOING INTO DEBT, PURCHASING THE NEW CITY HALL OR ANYTHING. WHEN I ARRIVED HERE TEN MONTHS AGO, I WAS PRESENTED WITH A FEASIBILITY STUDY OF A NEW CITY HALL. SO A NEW CITY HALL HAS BEEN THE FURTHEST THING FROM MY MIND AND STAFF'S MIND. WE'VE BEEN MAKING DO WITH WHAT WE GOT, AND WE CAN CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND NOT ISSUE ANY DEBT. BUT SITTING HERE TRYING TO MAKE IT PORTRAY THAT I'M PUSHING FOR A NEW CITY HALL IS FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH. THE CITY. I AM DOING WHAT I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO DO BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHO DIRECTED YOU TO DO THIS? CITY COUNCIL ASKED ME TO LOOK INTO THIS. I'M LOOKING INTO IT. WHO? WHO BROUGHT THE DEAL FORWARD? THE CITY COUNCIL. WHICH MEMBER? THE CITY COUNCIL. I FOLLOW THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL AS A WHOLE, NOT JUST 1 OR 2 INDIVIDUALS. IT TAKES ALL SEVEN OF YOU TO GIVE ME DIRECTION.

NOT ONE OF YOU. NOT TWO OF YOU. IT TAKES A MAJORITY OF YOU TO BE ABLE TO GIVE ME DIRECTION. I AM FOLLOWING THAT DIRECTION. THANK YOU SIR. WELL, I GUESS I KIND OF GO BACK AGAIN TO I WANT THIS COUNCIL TO BE PURPOSEFUL WITH WHAT IT DOES. AND I DON'T SENSE THAT THERE'S A CONSENSUS TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. SO I'M ASKING AGAIN, DO I REALLY NEED TO PUT THIS ON THE APRIL 2ND AGENDA WHEN YOUR QUESTIONS LEAD, I DON'T THINK THAT YOU HAVE AN INTEREST TO GO FORWARD. I'VE STATED I DON'T HAVE AN INTEREST TO GO FORWARD. DO WE REALLY WANT TO TAKE UP COUNCIL TIME ON APRIL 2ND TO CONSIDER THIS CONVERSATION WHEN WE HAVE OTHER BIG PROJECTS COMING FORWARD? MR. MAYOR? YES, MISS MENDEZ, I WOULD JUST COMMENT. I THINK THERE'S PERHAPS A CONSENSUS ON THE FACT THAT WE NEED TO WORK STRATEGICALLY ON THIS. I THINK MAYOR PRO TEM OWEN MADE SOME GREAT POINTS. IT'S, YOU KNOW, LET'S LET'S PLAN. I THINK SOME OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SOME OF THE OTHER WORK CHARLES HAS ALREADY INITIATED IS HEADING US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT AND LOOK OUT FIVE YEARS, TEN YEARS. SO I THINK THIS ALMOST BECOMES A PROJECT OR MAYBE EVEN RISES TO THE LEVEL OF SUBCOMMITTEE AT SOME POINT. BUT I WOULD LIKE US TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS WITH THE PLANNING AND STRATEGIZING AND SOME OF THE POSSIBILITIES AROUND FUNDING THE TOWN HALL AND KEEPING THIS MUNICIPAL TOWN CENTER INTACT, KEEPING THAT VISION INTACT. BUT I, I DON'T HAVE ANY APPETITE FOR THE KC BUILDING ACQUISITION.

I CAN TELL YOU THAT RIGHT NOW. SO I'M, I'M IF OTHER PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE DATA

[01:25:02]

BUT I THINK IT'S TIME TO ACTUALLY MOVE FORWARD ALMOST AS A PROJECT ON THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY BE SOMEWHAT OF A SLOW, SLOW INITIATION, SLOW BURN TO BEGIN WITH. JUST MY $0.02.

THANK YOU, MISS ZAVALA. I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT IF IT DOESN'T COME BACK APRIL 2ND, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY PROBABLY GIVE CHARLES SOME TIME TO GET SOME OF THESE FIGURES TAKEN CARE OF. AND ALSO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED THAT COUNCILOR BENEFIELD HAS. I DON'T THINK IT'S A SITUATION THAT NEEDS TO BE DROPPED, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE READY BY NEXT WEEK OR WEEK AFTER NEXT. SO I'M HAPPY TO SEE IT COME BACK EVEN ON THE BEGINNING OF MAY AGENDA, ONCE WE HAVE SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND WE'VE GOTTEN SOME INFORMATION BACK FROM PARK HILL, AND I THINK THAT THAT'S A GOOD, GOOD TIME FRAME. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. DO WE KNOW WHERE WE ARE IN THE PARK HILL ANALYSIS? IS THERE SOMETHING WE'RE EXPECTING FROM THEM IN THE COMING MONTHS? WHEN I TALKED TO CHRIS CASEY EARLIER TODAY, HE SAID THEY SHOULD BE FINISHED UP WITH THEIR PORTION OF THE PROJECT IN ABOUT SIX WEEKS. SO. MR. HALL, I, I DON'T SEE ANY POINT IN IT COMING BACK ON OUR AGENDA UNTIL WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED THAT WE NEED ANSWERED. SO YEAH, IT SEEMS LIKE APRIL THE 2ND IS A LITTLE EARLY FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. MAYOR PRO TEM. I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PLANNING. MY. WHAT SPARKED THIS WAS THE BRIDGE AND UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CANNOT BUILD AGAIN, CASH OUTLAY, BONDING. I DON'T CARE WHAT IT IS FOR TEN YEARS. WHAT IS THE OPPORTUNITY LOST IF WE GET TO THAT 90 A SQUARE FOOT AND WE HAVE NO OTHER OPTIONS RIGHT NOW? I DO HAVE AN INTEREST IN LEARNING WHAT THE APPRAISAL IS. I MEAN, WHAT NOT SO MUCH AS BUYING THE CASEY BUILDING, BUT WHAT WE COULD GET CURRENTLY THAT'S ALREADY BUILT, WHICH IS FEW AND FAR BETWEEN VERSUS WAITING VERSUS LEASING VERSUS. SO WHETHER OR NOT I GET THAT THERE IS NOT A APPETITE FOR DISCUSSING THE. CASEY BUILDING UP ON THE NEXT MEETING, I AGREE, MAYOR, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW OR AT LEAST HAVE THE OPTION FOR THAT INFORMATION TO COME FORWARD POTENTIALLY. CHARLES.

YOU CAN SHARE THAT. BUT AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE IT FOR THE LARGER DISCUSSION GOING ON LATER IN APRIL POTENTIALLY. I'M JUST KIND OF THROWING THAT OUT THERE BECAUSE WE GET DOWN THE ROAD AND WE'RE AT, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY 100 A SQUARE FOOT PER PERSON, AND WE'VE DONE ALL THE THINGS THAT WE CAN DO IN TERMS OF STAFF STAGGERING, HELPING OUR OUR EMPLOYEES TO BE MORE EFFICIENT THROUGH BETTER TOOLS, ETC. AND WE REACH THAT WALL IS WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL IT. IT'S GOOD TO KNOW, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY REVISITING WHAT IS AVAILABLE THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING THAT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, ANOTHER BRIDGING SITUATION. AND I THINK THIS JUST GIVES US THAT INFORMATION THAT BEGINS TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS. I MEAN, COUNCILOR BENEFIELD HAD A LONG LIST OF QUESTIONS THAT HE HAD. SO IT'S JUST A MATTER OF DEVELOPING THAT DECISION MAKING MATRIX AND TO PULL IN THAT INFORMATION. SO THANK YOU. MISS CHABRIA. I WANT TO NOTE THAT MAY 7TH, WHICH WOULD BE THE THE FIRST CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE MORE THAN SIX WEEKS FROM TODAY. SO IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THE PARK HILL SIX WEEKS, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, IF WE PUT IT ON THE AGENDA, THAT WOULD GIVE US TIME TO GET THE INFORMATION BACK FOR CHARLES. MR. PRINCE, MY TWO COMMENTS. ONE IS. WE HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS IN THE CITY FOR MANY YEARS. AND, YOU KNOW, THE LONGER WE PUT THIS OFF, THE

[01:30:04]

SECOND IS TOO SOON, BUT I AM IN FAVOR OF US STILL STRATEGICALLY LOOKING AT ALL OPTIONS, INCLUDING THE CASEY BUILDING AND, YOU KNOW, DOING THE DETAILED WORK TO TO, TO MAKE A SMART DECISION ON ON WHAT WE DO HERE. MR. BENNEFIELD YEAH, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH MR. PRINCE THERE. I THINK IT'S A DISCUSSION THAT HAS TO BE HAD WITH THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE TODAY. I AM A NO, BUT I AM STILL KEEPING MY MIND VERY OPEN. I MEAN, WHEN I GET THE NUMBERS AND I GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND I GET THE PAYMENTS AND I GET THE INFORMATION SO I CAN LOOK AT THIS COMPLETELY, SO I CAN THEN COMMUNICATE TO THE CITIZENS SAYING, HEY, THIS IS THE REAL DEAL. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT. THEN I WOULD BE MUCH MORE INCLINED TO BE ABLE TO RENDER THEIR VOICE THROUGH A VOTE. BUT AS IT IS TODAY. SO I'M PREPARED TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WHEN WHENEVER MR. WEST FEELS LIKE HE'S READY AND PREPARED TO HAVE THE DISCUSSION. OKAY, IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS ITEM? CHARLES? MAYOR, I WILL SAY THAT ONE OF THE CONVERSATIONS I DID HAVE WITH PARK HILL TODAY IS IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT OFFICE SPACE HAD BEEN LOOKED AT UP HERE NEXT TO THE PO, AND THAT WAS A QUESTION THAT I ASKED MR. CASEY TO CHRIS CASEY, NOT THE CASEY BUILDING, BUT OUR PARK HILL, AS I SAID, IS THAT WOULD THAT BE AN OPTION? AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE KIND OF PREPARING ME SOMETHING OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE IF WE BUILT A SMALLER OFFICE BUILDING UP HERE, AND THEN COULD REEVALUATE THIS BUILDING AND STUFF, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YEAH, BUILDING A NICE TWO STORY BUILDING WOULD BE NICE, BUT IT COMES WITH A COST. AND WE NEED TO BE VERY FRUGAL, IN MY OPINION. MR. HALL, I JUST JUST ONE MORE COMMENT AND I AGREE WITH COUNCILOR PRINCE THAT IT REALLY WOULD BE IRRESPONSIBLE OF US TO SIMPLY SAY, OH, WELL, WE DON'T MAKE ANY DECISIONS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUT THIS DOWN THE ROAD. AND IT MAY BE A TO THE POINT WHERE WHEN IT BECOMES A CRISIS FOR SOME OTHER FUTURE CITY COUNCIL AND THERE'S LITTLE TO NO OPTIONS LEFT, THAT OR ANYWHERE NEAR FEASIBLE. SO, SO I DO THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT ALL OF OUR OPTIONS AND DECIDE NOW HOW WE HOW BEST TO PROCEED SO THAT WE DON'T ARRIVE AT THAT CRISIS POINT IN THE FUTURE. OKAY. IF THERE ARE NO OTHER COMMENTS, I HAVE NOTHING ELSE ON OUR AGENDA

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.