you you you you We all here. All right. Ta-da-da-da-da-da. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. We're going to call the meeting on Monday, September 9, 2024 to order at 2 p.m. And we are going to begin with a work session presentation of the water and waste water master plan and impact fee analysis this time I want to take a moment before we Get into this presentation. I've got a I've got a couple things to do. I want to introduce first of all I want to want to make an introduction to a staff member who's not new to Matt's field or to the water department, but is new to the position he's in today in Alex leaving and going to the city of Arlington. We have selected Adam Stark to fill in as Adams or as Alex's replacement as the assistant director of Public Works. You will be seeing more of him at council meetings and public events. But we do he has been with the city of Mansfield since a little before 2020 and was with the city of Arlington for about 15 years before that. So we didn't do a complete swap with Arlington, but we do welcome Adam to that role and thank you for. Welcome, Adam. Welcome. And next, we've been working on the water and wastewater master plan and impact fee update for this last year. We've gone through a lot of the process to get to where we're at today. So we wanna get this information in front of you. Have you see it? Have you give us feedback on the desire and wishes of council? We will talk to you about the Capital Improvement Program that informs that. And we had contracted with Freeze and Nichols. And today Andrew Franco will be doing the, will be doing the presentation. So I will turn it over to him to get it, get it started and be here to answer any questions afterwards. Welcome, Mr. Franco. Yes, good afternoon, Mayor Council. Thanks for having us today to talk about water wastewater impact fees. I'll just real briefly touch on the background of impact fees and we'll be spending the bulk of the time talking about the impact fee eligible capital improvement plan, the maximum allowable fee development, and then we'll do some utility benchmarking with some neighbors here around Mansfield and then talk about where we are in the process and where we're headed to next. So, impact fees from the basics perspective, what is it? It's a one-time charge that's assessed for new development, for costs that are related to a specific capital improvement program. Here, again, we're going to be talking just about water and sewer here. The impact fees themselves are a mechanism to help fund the infrastructure necessary to accommodate future projected growth. The tagline we always like to use for them, our growth is paying for growth. So we want new development to pay their fair share to tie into the water and sewer systems here in Mansfield. What can we pay for under the impact fee program? We can pay for the construction, the surveying engineering, lane acquisition and debt services associated with water and sewer improvements that generate additional capacity into your system. So we're talking about water supply, water treatment, water distribution lines and facilities on the water side. On the sewer side we have a collection lines facilities such as lift stations as well. So the process that we've been going through is, number one, is to develop our lane use assumptions. That's going to be looking at a 10-year forward facing look at growth and development in Mansfield, both on the residential and non-residential side. From there, we're going to develop how much water and sewers to be generated over the next 10 years as a product of new growth. And then we go to build what over the next 10 years as a product of new growth. And then we go to build what is the eligible capital improvement plan that's going to serve the new projected growth over the next 10 years. Once we've identified the plan, then we actually do the calculations themselves that's going to result in what is the study assessed, what is the maximum allowable fee that the city could assess. And then we go through and do more of our public process. We present to your CIAC, they make a recommendation and then we go with look at to set the new rate. Impact fees themselves are authorized and regulated by state law chapter 395. So we do follow the state prescribed methodology and process required to go through this exercise. So first off, we'll talk about the impact fee eligible capital improvement plan. So here, looking at the water side, just kind of a snapshot of one of the maps here. There's two different color projects. There are red projects and there are orange projects. Orange projects are projects that are currently they're actually built existing and in the ground and being used today they have excess capacity which we can still recoup and add into the overall impact fee program. The red projects are proposed to go in over the next 10 year time period. So how many projects do we have total 34. We have 14 existing projects for additional recruitment and then 20 proposed projects over the next 10 years. Just to hit a high level on some of these projects and what they are, we have a facilities or water away from the water plant and going out into the system. But you can also see areas that are still growing. There's a lot of growth in development to the south, to the west. What are the city infrastructure needs to make sure that we can serve those future customers and demands. Currently right now, the cities in the process of expanding, adding more treatment capacity at the butter of and plant, we want to make sure we're recouping that as we'll be using that excess capacity for serving additional growth and development. And then finally, doing growth-related studies such as updating your master plan and doing your impact fee updates. Those are costs that we can roll into the overall cost of your impact fee eligible capital improvement plan. So at the bottom there we have a total projects cost, $278 million. That is the total amount to build all those projects. And then when we step forward and we go through the analysis, You'll see how that number actually gets decreased. And you'll see what the final dollar amount comes to here in a few slides. On the sewer side, same process, same methodology. We have orange existing projects and red proposed projects. There's a total of 29 shown here, 12 existing, 17 proposed. In the next few years, we'll be looking at an expansion of the low branch lift station to accommodate growth in your low branch basin. That's kind of that blue polygon, kind of in the middle of the map there. We're doing some meter station improvements down in res branch. That's the yellow at the bottom of the map. Again, a lot of the growth and development coming into that area. More interceptors to make sure that we're conveying sewer from our city and then into the TRA collection system. And then finally, growth related studies again, total project cost $270 million. That's more of a coincidence. I was very surprised to see that the numbers came in like kind of right there next to each other. But again, you'll see what that looks like as the total proposed numbers towards the end of the study. Maximum allowable fee development. So this is the color boxes on the bottom kind of show. This is the process. So this is really the calculation that shows how we're going to arrive at the maximum allowable impact fee in the red box. Though blue box, impact fee eligible cost. So what is the portion of the total cost that we can attribute to 10 year growth? The orange box is a credit. State law says that we must allow for a credit in order to not to double charge or double count new growth in development in terms of what they're paying into the infrastructure cost. The blue box on the denominator of the equation, that's your growth in SFLEUE. So we're calling single-family living unit equivalents. That's really what the base unit size is going to be for, we're looking at maybe a single single family home here in the city of Mansfield. I guess impact fees in general, the costs are based on the size of meter that you have for your development. So in Mansfield, the base meter size is a three quarter inch meter. And as you have larger meters, you're gonna have a larger cost. The theory and the methodology behind that is basically if you have a larger meters, you're gonna have a larger cost. The theory and the methodology behind that is basically if you have a larger meter, you have the ability to take more water off the distribution system, you have the ability to produce more water into the sewer system. So that's why the costs are gonna be, they're gonna be different based on your meter size, which ultimately ties to what is your development or what is your need ultimately. Oh, getting into the numerator portion of our calculation. So not going to read this line by line, not expecting all of the read it by line by line, but I want to show you the cost and how we kind of get to these total numbers. So all the projects are listed there. The orange projects have a letter ID to them. The red projects have a number ID to them. And you can see there's a bunch of columns, there's percentages, there's costs. The bar that's gonna be highlighted in red, that's what our impact fee eligible cost is gonna be. I had mentioned the total cost, $278 million, that's the fourth from the right. You can see that's what the total cost looks like for building all of these projects. Now when we get to what is the impact fee eligible cost, all the percentages that are kind of in the middle of the table, those are, you can see there's the first column says existing customers. So portions of those orange projects that are already in the ground, they are serving existing customers. So we use our hydraulic models, we use some of our other analysis tools that say in 2024, Project A, 3642-inch waterline, is using 61% of its allocated capacity. Looking out into the 10-year time window, based on the amount of development and where it's occurring, we're projecting that project to be 72% allocated and utilized in 10-year window. So we have a 10-year growth, 10-year increase in capacity utilization of 11 percent. And if we go out past the 10-year timeframe, we have 28 percent left for further out than 10-year growth. And so all those percentages go into the total cost, the current development, the 10-year cost, and then the beyond 2034 costs on the right hand columns. So we have a, again, total cost that, fourth from the right, $278 million. The impact fee eligible cost to serve 10-year growth is going to be what's highlighted in that red box. It's $124,160,652. Same process, same methodology on the sewer side. We have again the $278 million total eligible or total cost. The total eligible cost is $121,579. So if you look at the top table, it shows you what is the capital cost of the project, what is the financing cost that we're able to include into the analysis, the total cost, the both $278 million. We take off our eligible cost percentage, We have the both $278 million. We take off our eligible cost percentage, $124 million versus $121 million. And then we provide that 50% credit that state law says that we need to do in order to avoid double counting or double charging our customers. So what that really is going to mean in our calculation is water is going to be $62 million, $62 million, $80,326. That's going to be our numerator and on the wastewater side, $60,500,790. So now we move to the growth and single-family living equivalents. So again, mentioned in Mansfield, we have a 3-quarter inch meter is our base size. You can see the safe maximum operating capacity is basically how much water can we pass through that meter based on AWWA standards. That's kind of our regulatory agency on the water side to make sure that we are not exceeding what the capacity of that meter can do. And so 25GPM for our 3.4-inch meter, as we get into those larger meter sizes, you can see how the safe, maximum operating capacity starts to increase. And so basically the ratio of the larger meters to the base meter, you can see how those numbers go up. And so when we get into actually calculating what a fee schedule is going to look like in Mansfield, you're going to have a base, you're going to have a base meter cost and then you're just going to use those factors to multiply it out to get to your two inch, three inch, four inch meter sizes for what that cost could look like. So the amount of growth that we've projected in the City of Mansfield over the 10 year window, we basically stripped it all the way down to looking at it from a meter perspective. You have in the City of Mansfield right now 25,221 existing meters for customers. And based on those factors, you can see if we take the meters times their ratio, that's how we calculate our single family living unit equivalents. So 30,345 is the existing time window. So moving that out to our 10-year projections, we're going to increase to 46,903 single family living unit equivalents. So that's a growth of 16,-family living unit equivalents. So that's a growth of 16,558 living unit equivalents. So we take all that upfront information and now we're actually going to do the, show you the numbers for what the maximum allowable fee can be here in Mansfield. So on the water side, we have our cost minus our credit, divided by our SF LUEs. So that leaves a maximum allowable impact fee of water to $3,749 on wastewater, $3,654 for a total maximum allowable impact fee for your base 3.4-inch meter at $7,403. So that's kind of what the results of the impact fee analysis and study does. Talked about we've been in front of the CIA a couple times and we've met with them at our last meeting. They did provide a recommendation and letter that was I believe sent to you all late last week. So I'll just go back real quick. So 37, 49 and 36, 54 for the water and wastewater. The recommendation that came from the CIA C was to, and you're, so currently in Mansfield, we charge $3,000 for the base meter size. CIEZ has recommended an increase from $3,000 to $3,500. So $500 increase. And then on the sewer side, currently charging 1,500, the recommendation was basically to double that to $3,000 per 3 1.25 meters. So that would be a total of $6,500. That is the recommendation of the CIAC Council. CIAC Committee, excuse me. So again, let's kind of compare what we're currently assessing, what we can assess and what the recommendation is. $4,500 is what you're currently assessing. The results of the study say you can charge up to $7,403 and then the CIC recommendation to counsel is $6,500. So this is kind of building that assessed fee schedule. Again, same three columns. You have your current assessed on the left, the maximum allowable from the results of the study in the middle and then the three columns on the right would be what the CIAC recommendation looks like. Wanted to highlight the top four rows, that's what that red box is, to really show you that the overwhelming majority of the meters in the things that are built, and when they pull a building permit here in Mansfield, it's going to be for three quarters, one and a half or two inch meters. That's where the majority of your development and construction is telling you. I believe there was only a couple of percent of all the meters in Mansfield are greater than the two inch meter. So those three, four, six, eight, they're there. They're ready if you need them, but this is not something that you're typically assessing at the moment. So that's kind of where that note is. Most of your single family users are going to pull a permit to build a 3-quarter or a single inch meter. And then when we get into construction, the 1-inch, 1-in-1-2-inch, those are really what you're going to see from the commercial or non-residential side. In addition, on the non-residential side, adding a three-quarter or single inch irrigation meter as well, that's part of your ordinance or building code, I believe. Utility benchmarking. So here's the chart that kind of shows Mansfield with some of your neighbors and some other kind of comparison cities. So we're looking at from the basis of a 3 1.4-inch meter, you know, where does Mansfield stand basically? On the kind of the blue and green hatched area towards the right. That is Mansfield, you're existing, $4,500. You can kind of see where you stand on this graph. As we bump a little bit over to the left, we have the $6,500, which is the CIAC recommendation. And then the next column over is the maximum allowable results of the study, $7,403. So we've got some other cities. You can see their total combined is it would be the dollar amount at the bottom of the chart. The dates at the top of the chart will be when they last adopted their fees. One thing that's kind of interesting or wanting to point out to that perspective, some of the communities that have recently adopted some of their fees, you could see how the ones who have adopted more recently are kind of follow on the left side of the chart. They're a little bit higher on the dollar amount. Some of the other cities on here that really aren't growing as much or kind of nearing some of their build out. Arlington's a great example there and they have much, they don't have much developable area remaining. So their fees tend to be on the little lower side. Grand Prairie, they actually have two fees. They have a north sector and a south sector. The dividing line there is the Dallas and Ellis County lines. So their north sector is pretty built out and developed. Their south sector is kind of an open board right now. They have a lot of needs, they have a lot of growth, so you can kind of see how that South sector number kind of shows up a lot further on the left than their northern sector of Grand Prairie. Barlison, they just updated theirs. Cedar Hill, Fort Words in the process of updating theirs right now. Who else? I think Mid I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, I think, our collection rate in terms of some of our neighbors. Just wanting to make sure that we're, what's right for Mansfield? Are we in a good spot? Are we too high too low? But want to provide that data to give you all the information to help make a decision going forward. So next steps, again, we're kind of near in the end of this process. We've presented with the CIC. We did adopt a resolution to set up public hearing for later this month. That public hearing is scheduled for September 23rd. I think that's two weeks from today. We'll be presenting at the public hearing for potential to update your rates and your ordinance for addressing new impact fees. Oh, with that, I'll be happy to take any comments or questions. All right, I'll start on my left, go ahead, Miss Short. So I noticed that we haven't done this since 19. What prompted us looking at the fees at this time? So by state law, you're required to update them every five years. So we did it in 19, we did it in 2014, we did it in 2009. It's just a five year cycle. That's what it was. You can do it less than five years, but that's the maximum length of time that you have to do it. Okay, do you happen to know what they were when we raised them the last time? So, y'all, Mansfield has been at 4,500 I believe for the last 10 plus years. Is that right Jeff? Yes, that's correct. Going back to the 2007 impact fee analysis and study had them had it at what it currently is today. So they've held at 4,500 since then. They, that wasn't, that was, that came out of council's recommendation. That wasn't always what the maximum allowable fee was. So that was always what the, what the fee coming through the process and out of out of Into the ordinance. So we haven't increased fees since since 2007 Okay, and the reason I'm asking is because I know on some of the fees when we've waited so long And then we raised them quite a bit and I know they're still that at a back that up It just you know to go double what we were on the wastewater and then we raised them quite a bit. And I know they're still data to back that up. It just, you know, to go double what we were on the wastewater, it seemed like an extreme jump. But since we haven't raised them since 2007, that makes more sense. Yeah, I think, again, there's going back and looking at some of the past impact fee analysis. Some of them weren't as high as, or the maximum allowable wasn't as high as what it is today out of this study. We adopted something less than that in the end, but I think the big driver to me when you consider wastewater costs and the cost to put in that infrastructure, you can see it on your water bill. Sewer costs have outdriven water costs and that really is the cost to deliver that service. It is increased at a much higher rate than water has. And I'll also say this not to say that there's been any subsidizing of one with the other, but we like to consider the two separate utilities, even though it comes on the same bill so that we can financially measure it appropriately and distribute those costs appropriately. Okay, thank you. So, I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. I would like to thank the staff for the opportunity to continue to do so. We, given thoughts or do other things, give thoughts to doing this more often to potentially have less of an impact on such a large potential jump every five years versus what we're looking at now. I mean, is there any systems that are in place that we could have to be a little more proactive going forward. I think obviously we can do it as often as frequently as Council would wish. We have to be under in the process of updating them at least every five years. So for us, I'll say it's a major undertaking to go through this. There's a lot of water modeling, there's a lot of sewer modeling, there's a lot of work that goes into this process. So even making it a year later, every couple years would be quite the undertaking. I guess that's sort of why I mean, understanding how I have to understand and assume how intensive this type of undertaking is. I guess that sort of transitions to my or my question and in that show is I mean, do we have our other programs or systems now that will not be not available five years ago that there's less intense or less commercial on a manual labor piece for lack of better terms that can make that helps this happen quicker and more efficiently towards not as quite of a burdensome of a task. Go ahead, Mrs. Mullensky. Mr. Newsom, I think one way to do this, it would be really simple, it wouldn't add any additional cost to doing further surveys, stuff like that, is to adopt a graduated adoption for this thing, right? If you know you're 14 years, it's the same thing. Same rate. Jeff. Yes, yes. 15 years is the same rate. It's time to do something about it. But I think you're all made some very valid points that doubling the sewer impact fee is pretty significant in a single year. Now what you could do is you could say, okay, we want to go, we want to go to X in year one, year two, go to this, year three, this, and have a more graduated increase. So it's not a shock to the system. But I can speak to this as well. It's a very labor intensive process, not just for the staff, for the consultants that go to that. So I think that might be a simple way to accomplish what you're asking Mr. Newsman. I'm not sure. All right. I guess that's sort of what I was trying to get to, or I mean, are there advancements that are in place now for the modeling to where it's more of a computer system program running versus manual calculations. I thought it was ever truly just somebody out the pencil and paper out there doing this, but that just makes it feasible or do anticipate there's advances in technology that will make this feasible to where we could actively look at it in addition to a phased approach as far as looking at increases or possible increases. I mean, we work with utilities that do theirs on three-year cycles. That's just a policy decision that they have made. And we've done the phased-in approaches as well. So those are all options that are available. And again, it's just kind of cities appetite to, you know, how often do we really want to be doing this. But I mean, for us to say from our perspective that if there's the will to do it more often, then we'd be happy to work that. Okay. All right. Go ahead, Mr. Brosh, and then Ms. Boundt himself. Okay. On your chart that you have up there right now, I'd see number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions. I have a number of questions.'t have a 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 basically they're base We wanted to show those utilities on there even though they don't have the 3 1 1 1 1 1 So it is applicable, but it's You know, we're trying to shoehorn more information in there even though their base meters actually don't equate to a three quarter inch. Yeah, I just couldn't couldn't see it down there to bottom. Okay, I follow what you saying. A little bit off off the off the scale here, I think, but had someone to ask me a week or so ago and Jeff, this might be a question for you. If you have a lot of residences have two meters, they have one for their irrigation and one for the house, for they'd be in charge for one impact fee or they'd be in charge too. So that depends on how it's actually serviced. So we charge impact fees based on meters. So if there's two meters, two taps for a property, then there's an impact fee assessed each one of those meters. We used, we did what was called bullhead branches off of single family houses where you'd have an irrigation meter and a residential or domestic meter and an irrigation meter off the same line. You know, they can be served by one meter, but we did that to offer a break on paying the sewer charges on both lines. So really, we only charged an impact fee for that lot when it was developed for the one meter that it needed. Now all commercial development requires a standalone irrigation and that is a second impact fee. It's a fee for the, for the, the me, both meters of domestic and the irrigation. So for the irrigation would be an impact fee for the water or for the water ensue for water only, water only. Okay. Okay. Thanks. All right. Water or for the water ensue for water only water only okay Okay, thanks all right all right miss bounds and then mr. Fiskess And Jeff just to clarify what council member brush it said is that for the irrigation For just the water did you say yes, man? That's correct all right And so on homes that are being built currently, and we can take my house, for example, when it was built, they have the bullhead type irrigation, don't they? That's connected to both the house and both to the sprinkler system. So, when the house was built, no, I think in your situation, it's connected to the domestic line. So the irrigation runs through the single water meter. There have been homes that are built where we offer a service to come in and install a bullhead that would put a second meter in there that would allow you to get a bill. You would get a bill with both the irrigation service and a domestic service. The irrigation service would not charge water on that line or on that on that meter. But they're all built standard with one service, one connection in 95% or actually it's probably closer to 99% of single family in Mansfield has one meter. The irrigation is just tied off of that, off of the backside of that service lane going to the house. And the average home is a 3.4 meter? Yes. Or is it a 1 inch? It's 3.4 inch. So there are some cities that offer a 5.8 inch meter that's a smaller orifice meter that allows less volume through it. One of the, with irrigation systems, you have a higher instantaneous flow and contained flow. We went to a 3-quarter inch meter to make sure that we were able to capture that higher volume through that through the meter. So we've decided, this is quite a few years back, 10, 12 years back. I can't remember for sure, but to go to a 3.25 inch and not offer a 5.8s anymore, just so that we could meet the demand of what we saw, single family, residential use here in Mansfield. And so what would we be looking at? So educate me a little bit here on a $6,500. What are we looking at as far as per homeowner? Is that the cost per homeowner over the next 10 years? Yes, so it's the $6,500. It's a one time upfront charge. You don't get charged it again. So you're assessed your impact fee when you basically file your final plat and your fee is collected or at the time you pull your building permit. So that's how the process works once you get one time charged after they pay that and there's nothing else associated with this program. All right, thank you. Be clear. Again, and for the listeners, we're talking about new construction. Okay. All right, Mr. Faskett, yes, thank you. This chart's helpful to look at single family units. I'd be very interested in seeing a comparison for the three, six, the larger, theors, we give a direction to staff. Let's talk through the recommendations again that we have in front of us. And each person should have this in front of us from $3,000 per unit to $3,500 from 1500 per unit to 3000. And of course the total of 6500 to give a clear direction. Is there any pushback concerning what these suggestions are? Let me hear from in that regard. So that we can give them clear direction as to where they like to go. I pulled the group. I'll start on my far left. You're good, ma'am. You're good, sir. I'm all right, you're all good. It's going to want to see those comparisons for the larger entities. All right. So for the most part, go for it. OK, so we will get the comparisons to benchmark against meters up to six in. Up to six because it didn't look like we had any aids at this time. Right, that's great. We will absolutely do that and then we'll have as part of the ordinance recommendation then because the next meeting will be the ordinance. That's correct. We'll come back with the fees as they've been presented today from the CIA. All right. Not a problem. Thank you very much. Thank you also. So we appreciate it. All right. We will then move to item three, recess into executive session. Council will now retire to executive session, pursuant to section 551.071. 551.072.551.074 section 551.071 551.072 551.074 551.087 to discuss the items as outlined in the agenda. The council will now recess into executive session at 237 PM. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Almost. You're watching the clock tick down. It's coming. and Good evening ladies and gentlemen we're going to reconvene into our regular business session at 6 p.m. on the dock. We're going to have our invocation by Reverend Julian Hopday, a first United Methodist church, and we'll have our pledge of allegiance by Mr. Brent Newsom, and our Texas pledge by Ms. Julie Short. And then we'll have presentations after that. Ladies and gentlemen, as we... Sorry, it's Jim Hempton. Jim Hempton, okay, all right. Jim, well, Julian is in the room, so he can... All right. I'm going by my script, ladies and gentlemen. All right, Jim, coming up, Jim, and I'll finish. Did we scare you, Julian? Did we scare you? Okay. All right, as we stand, ladies and gentlemen, for our prayer and pledges, I'm just asking the men, if you would remove your hats if you have any. Thank you. Jim is on you, buddy. All right, brother. If you would please pray with me. Gracious and heavenly Father, we invite you into this space and thank you in advance for your hand on this body who unselfishly served the city. Father, we lift up this community of Mansfield and fully trust where you're taking us. We pray for our first responders and educators that you would build a hedge of protection, both physically and spiritually around them. We give thanks for their tireless efforts to put others before themselves. Help us to assume that posture of servitude, not to make our city the biggest in stature, but one that would be our city the biggest in stature, but one that would be known for the biggest heart. Father, we give thanks that you have gone before us and for your Son Jesus, and it's in His name we pray. Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and the children of the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honourable Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state, under God, one in indivisible. All right. Thank you. Jim, talk to us a little bit about the exciting things taking place in Creekwood. And, oh, my dry house. I was going on at Creekwood. No, we just opened up our new campus, a little bit west of town. Been open about a month now. And some of y'all have been there to see the new property. And we're just to invite everybody out. There's 108 acres of property with a 10 acre lake and we want it to be a community property, not just a creek with church property. So we invite everybody out there just if you just wanna come out one day and take a walk in the morning by the lake, we invite you out or if you wanna come to church, we certainly have you there too. All right, thank you. Thank you, sir. We appreciate it. Council, let's go down. We've got some presidents that volunteer service awards to pass out. Thank you, ma'am. Right. All right. So we are excited to recognize some of our faith-based and civic community partners who have earned the President's Volunteer Service Award for our serve in 2023. This is an award issued by the President of the United States in which Mansfield is a certified issuing city. We will begin by recognizing Creekwood Church. So if you all would come at this time and I'll talk a little bit about the great work they've done, let's give them a round of applause. All right, y'all come right on up, right on up here. A Creekwood Church has earned the gold PVSA for over 840 hours of service Creekwood Church has been a steadfast partner to our city, consistently supporting our community through initiatives like the Feed the Kids Food Delivery Program, as well as numerous mowing and construction projects for local residents just to name a few and we appreciate the great work that they do. Thank you all so very much. All right, first method is, first method is in the house. All right, come on up and let's take a picture. Thank you, thank you, thank you, good to see you all. So first Methodist Mansfield has earned a Lifetime Service Award. This means that a group served at least 4,000 hours. However, both of our next recipients have volunteers who have served more than that in a single year. Now, with close to 8,000 hours, notable hours, service hours from first methodists come through their involvement in several food delivery programs, the hands of Christ construction team, their youth during July, a mission week, and the included group, which assists with education packets and completing litter cleanups. Let's give them a big round of applause. All right. Okay, everyone, I'd like to overhear big smiles 321, let's do one more 321. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. Thank you. All right. We got one more. Good, good, good. All right, we got one more. All right, last but not least tonight, we recognize the Mansfield Mission Center. Mansfield Mission, come on down. The Mansfield Mission Center, they have earned a Lifetime Service Award as well with over 22,000 service hours in 2023 alone. Mansfield Mission Center volunteers serve in a variety of ways throughout the community through their thrift store, food market, community garden, and the lend-and-nix clinic. Adjust the name of FU. And again, we want to give them a big round of applause. Great work that you did. Applause. Thank you. We'll put some together. Way of one, three, two, one. One, four, three, two, one. One, one, three, two, one. All right. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. All right. And that is it, ladies and gentlemen. All right. Thank you all. All right. Mr. Darrell Perez, do you have a presentation that you'd like to make, sir? All right. Come on down. Darrell Perez, I live in the city of Mansfield. All right, but I got I got to make sure everybody knows. Yes, sir. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry for his remarkable service and leadership over the past 10 years as the chief of police of the Mansfield Police Department. Chief Aaron's journey with Mansfield began in 1989 and since then he's dedicated himself to protecting and enhancing the safety of our growing community. In 2014 he assumed his current position. This year became our longest serving police chief in Mansfield's history, taking on a role that required not only leadership but a deep commitment to adapting to the needs of a rapidly expanding city. Under his guidance, Mansfield's seen many advancements in law enforcement. He helped establish the Tri-County Auto-Burgleery and theft prevention task force. Constructed a state of the art 53,000 square foot police headquarters, and led critical efforts to fight the trafficking of fentanyl, a danger impacting community's nationwide. His leadership has made man's field a safer place earning us recognition as the safest and most affordable small city in Texas and fourth in the nation. And just last year we were honored by the National Night Out program for our community's strong relationship with law enforcement. This resolution not only celebrates Chief Aaron's impressive milestone, but also acknowledges the dedication and integrity he brings to his role. His commitment goes far beyond professional duty. Chief Aaron embodies the highest standards we expect from those who wear the badge. On behalf of the Texas State Representative, David Cook, House District 96. I want to congratulate Tracey Aaron on his 10 years of service, his Chief of Police, and extend our serious best wishes for continued success. Thank you, Chief Aaron, for all you have done for Mansfield. All right. That deserves a standing of those. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. I'm going to go to the next slide. Thank you, sir. All right. The deal. All right. We move to item 9 at this time. It's our citizens' comment. Citizens wishing to address the Council on non-public hearing, agenda items and items on the agenda you may do so at this time due to regulations of the Texas Open Meeting. Zach, please do not expect a response from the council as we're not able to do so. This will be your only opportunity to speak unless you are speaking on a scheduled public hearing item after the close of the citizens comments portion of the meeting. Only comments related to public hearings will be heard. All comments are limited to five minutes. Do we have any cards, ma'am? Okay, we have one card. All right, Mr. Gary Cardnelli, will you please come at this time, sir? The state's your name and your address. And you have five minutes. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Gary Cardnelli, city of Mans Mansfield five velvet court Mansfield, Texas Appreciate you letting me speak tonight mayor. Yes, sir Mayor council members on a personal note I am saddened to be standing before you denied again I love this city and the city of Mansfield has been good to myself as well as my family On August 12th during citizen comments I stood before you with questions of concerns regarding the excessive amount of taxpayer money being spent and additional debt being created. Those concerns were not about spending money on essentials but major projects that you selected and future debt obligation at the expense of the taxpayers without voter approval. I realize it because it was presented under citizen comments that you were not able to respond, which is understandable. Since that date, I've had numerous calls asking, what explanation did the city provide to questions asked? My answer unfortunately has been none. The only response or comment that has been made mentioned by the city that we have heard about is a continuing justification of hiring an ex-council member that it was not a violation of city charter. City Charter is pretty written in pretty plain English and doesn't require a law degree to read the short paragraph concerning the rules and understand that we believe that his hiring did not follow the rules. It reminds me of an old Hall of Fame football coach saying are you going to believe me or you're lying eyes? It has a appearance that this was a favor granted to an individual who was not qualified even for a position that didn't exist at the taxpayers expense. In those calls I received several comments were made about the excessive spending of the new city hall with a mode around it, the cost of a soccer field and moving a fire station, although we realize the soccer field is more than a soccer field. It's a soccer field entertainment center. They weren't questions, but comments, which I'm not going to repeat tonight. The biggest concern I asked was, why did the city initiate a landswap with the MISD that would require a new city hall without voter approval? Was an independent certified appraisal done to establish these values? Why didn't they just add to the existing city hall and additional land that was initially bought for this purpose. Why is it good enough for the school district to add on and expand on the existing site? Why can't the city do the same? I had no answers. Like them, we are still waiting for a response to those questions. The public has arrived to question major decisions that have been made without their knowledge or approval. We believe that the mayor as our elected leader should answer these questions in an open form with the public from the heart not a political draft created by an attorney or delivered by a staff member. We have created a website to provide information and answers concerning these decisions. The website address is mancefieldwatch.com. It is not a website of personal opinions, but a website of questions and decisions that have been made. The viewers can then judge for themselves concerning transparency and financial accountability. Remember, again, this is not your money to spend it will. It's our money. Taxpayer money. And we have every right to ask for accountability and approval. We ask once again, please involve the voters in these major choices that you continue to make at taxpayers expense. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Do we have any more, ma'am?' expense. Thank you, Mayor. Thank you, sir. Do we have any more, Mayor? All right. Thank you very much. All right. We're moving now to Council announcements. Miss Short. All right. Mr. Brosh. Mayor, I know that tonight we have some more work to do that we'll be talking about on the budget. Yes, sir. And just to comment, I'd like to make responsive to a person I heard earlier on staff here. I'm so excited to know that we continue to excel in our bond ratings and that we continue to excel in the city on just the beautiful side. I have not less than a dozen people a week that will tell me what a wonderful city we have and how they wish they could be here. And people are still coming and I appreciate that. And I just love the fact that we're going to be able to approve a budget tonight that is beyond my expectations. Yes, sir. Thank you, sir. All right, Mr. Fresquez. No announcements. Okay. None for me, sir. As soon as all right, Ms. Frescares, no announcements. Okay. None for me, sir. Sir News, all right, Ms. Bounds. Mayor, I would just like to make a comment that I want to continue to invite any citizen as I have in the past to meet with me and visit with me about their concerns that they may have towards the budget or any other concerns that they may have towards the budget or any other concerns that they may have. And they can so desire to decline as they have previously. But I do encourage you, if you do have questions or concerns to do reach out to us, we're all available. And we will be happy to answer all of the questions I myself answered all 13 of them. So reach out to us we would love to hear from you. Thank you. Thank you ma'am and ditto. There is something though that I think that I would like for all of us to internalize. In a few days, we will with heavy hearts be reminded of what took place on 9,11, 2,977 victims, victims. The day that we should not ever forget of the brave men and women who ran into those buildings to rescue individuals who lives were lost, but prayerfully they would not ever be forgotten. I understand that that day is also Patriots Day. All Americans should be proud of heroes like that. We have the opportunity to recognize our police chief, the men and women who serve our country. They deserve our respect, our honor, and our appreciation. 9-11. Let us never forget. Thank you. All right. This time, we move to item 11. Approval of subcommittee minutes. I'm 24-618-0. These are minutes. Approval of the August 26, 2024, tax increment, reinvestment zone number one, board meeting minutes. Our chair is Councilman Brosh. Mayor, the board. Yes, sir. A little over a week ago and we had a discussion and needed to have action regarding the addition of 380 powers to the TERS number one project and finance plan. And motion was made and seconded by the board members and the motion did carry for us to approve that 380 plan for the Thursday 1. And we also had discussion and recommendation regarding a tertiary embersome agreement with Leon Capitol. And that was it. We adjourned at 156 just before the 2PM meeting two weeks ago. All right. Thank you, sir. I am ready to receive a motion. Motion to approve. Thank you, Ms. Bounds. There's second. I'll second. Thank you, sir. Mr. Brosh. All right. Please cash evokes. There are no questions. All right, motion carries. 3, 0. Thank you very much. All right, we move 3-0. Thank you very much. All right, we move, item 24-6186. These are minutes. Proof of the amended August 12, 2024, local transportation issues, subcommittee meeting minutes. And Mr. Norris, our chair, he is absent tonight, but we do have Ms. Bounds and Mr. Frascas who are present at this time. Mayor. Yes, ma'am. I'd like to make a motion to approve. Thank you, ma'am. Second. Thank you, sir. All right. You all may cash your votes. And the item carries 2, 0. Thank you. I don't 24 dash 6196 these are minutes approval of the amended August 12, 2024 housing market growth strategy subcommittee meeting minutes and Councilwoman short is our chair miss short. I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you ma'am. Second. Thank you, sir All right, please cast your votes And then item carries three zero. Thank you very much. All right staff comments. Mrs. Smolensky are there any staff comments, sir They're just one we have the monthly financial report for the period ending July 31st, 2024 made available to you. If you have any questions, Brian Rebels here to answer any that you might have. All right, thank you. Councilor, are there any questions for Mr. Rip? All right, hearing none, saying none. Item 13, is there any action to take pursuant to executive session? All right, hearing now and saying now, we move now to our consent agenda. All matters that are listed under the consent agenda have been previously discussed, require a little or no deliberation and are considered to be routine by the council. If discussion is desired, then an item will be removed from the consent agenda and considered separately. Otherwise approval of the consent agenda authorizes the city manager to implement each item in accordance with staff's recommendation. Council, are there any items you would like removed? Mayor. Yes, ma'am. I have one. All right. 24-6173. All right. Are there any others? Mayor, I have one. All right 24-6117. I'd like to call to poll and table that one indefinitely. All right. Mighty five. All right. Are there any others? If there are no others, we'll go ahead and receive a motion for the other consent agenda items. Their motion. Move to approve. Thank you, sir. Second. Thank you, ma'am. Bounce. All right. Questions? Hearing none, please catch votes. All right. That item carries 6-0. Thank you very much. All right, item 24-6117. Go ahead, Mr. Rescuez, if you'd make that motion again, sir. Yes, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to pull and table this resolution indefinitely. All right, there's been- thank you, ma'am. A motion and a second. Any questions, statements? Hearing none, please cash vote. Item carries 6, 0, and item 24 dash 6, 1, 7, 3. That's a resolution of the City Council of City of Mansfield. Texas calling, certain outstanding obligations for redemption and deficience, authorizing the deposit of funds with paying agent, restrawer and resolving other matters related Mr. Lestina. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Yes sir. Happy to present this item tonight. This is a continuation of what was started several years ago of the early redemption of debt. That simply means that we're paying off debt early. Thus saving approximately $1.25 million in interest over the period of remaining that's on these particular notes that we would pay off early. So the history of this now brings us to once this is paid off in February. That will be an amount of $15.1 million of principle that was paid off early with the savings of $2.9 million of interest that we saved from paying off debt early. And with that mayor, I'll turn it back over to you. All right, thank you very much. Miss Bounds, would you like to make statement regarding what you heard? I think all of us could. Can't you get any? Well, no, he answered my questions. I wanted to know how much total had been paid off since 2021 and he answered almost 2.9 million. Yes, ma'am. Might have fine. All right, thank you very much. Thank you for the great work that the group does. We appreciate you, sir. All right, is there a motion? Just one quick. Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Troy. And I think, you know, I think it needs to go, I can't say this enough. I mean, since 2021 to this year, that's 15.1 million. That's 15 million paid off early. This isn't refinance debt saving interest. This is actually truly paying off debt early, like going out and paying your mortgage off in 10 years instead of 30. So I think that's really, really impressive. And when you look at it in conjunction with, we'll get some more details later. But as we continue to lower the tax rate and increase the homestead exemption, so technically reducing revenue, but still being able to go out and pay off debt early. I think that's extremely impressive from a staff's perspective that you're able to work that hard and that diligently to make that type of positive accomplishments for our citizens. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Wong-Bock. Since we're on that subject of the 15 million. Yes, ma'am. It is my understanding that that is prepaying debt and previous to 2021 that had never been done before. Am I correct? As far as I know, yes ma'am, I have researched that and I couldn't find any instances of that, worked with Hilltop and formerly First Southwest. They are the same company. They've been the city's financial advisor for numerous years, inquired of them as well and could not find any instances of prepaying debt that are plenty of instances of refinancing debt to councilmember Newsom's point of just lowering the interest rate and thus saving some money, but this is truly paying off debt as if you would pay off your house early and saving tons of interest. So we're looking at about 17.9 million then. That's been saved to the taxpayers since then. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Call for a motion. Motion to approve. Thank you, Mr. Bounds. Second. Second, Mr. Friskaz That you, sir. All right. Please scan your votes. All right. That item carries 6-0. Thank you all very much. We move now to our public hearing and first and final readings. I'm 24-6174. It's an ordinance of public hearing and first and final reading on an ordinance of the city of Mansfield, Texas adopting the budget for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024 and ending September 30, 2025 in accordance with the charter of the city of Mansfield and making appropriations for each fund and department, Mr. Lestina. Thank you Mayor again Mayor and Council. Good evening. This will be the presentation for the agenda item that you just read. Yes sir. After our finish I will turn the floor back over to you to open the public hearing. Yes sir. We are also doing in this presentation the second agenda item that is under the public hearing with the reauthorization of the building permit fees, excuse me, and we'll get to that in the slide presentation. Here we are on the calendar. This is the same calendar that we've presented through our this process starting back in June. At the work sessions when we talked about the budget, you can see we're on the final day here. And because of the tax rate, the way the tax rate fell this year, there will not need to be a public hearing on the tax rate because we're both below the voter approval and the new revenue rate. So state law allows us just to have a public meeting about that. That will be one of the final agenda items this evening. So we move forward. We've seen this last couple of meetings, but just wanted to again emphasize the outstanding work that some of the staff over here behind me to my left are seated. Some of the outstanding work that they do, we've received for the budget presentation award, the Stingest Budget Presentation Award for 38 years. We've also received for 37 years the annual comprehensive financial report and that's just the timing issue. We anticipate to receive the 38th award there as well. We'll be tied up and also have another clean audit which will be starting here in about a month or so. Next slide is our current bond ratings. And as we've talked about, just received an upgrade from Moody's, most recently in our parks facility, development corporation from A2 to A1. They also confirmed the other ratings and maintained the ratings. As you can see, they're on the screen So as we move into the budget highlights Here's what has happened we've increased you guys approved the 2% increase to the homestead exemption on 624 so that that would be effective with the appraisal districts on July the first. We are reducing the tax rate from 6.59293 to 645. So that's 2.4 cents below the no-new revenue tax rate and 5.5 cents below the voter approval rate. There are 25 positions citywide within the budget. This is a fiscally responsible and balanced budget. We'll get to the capital here in just a minute. It's $5.8 million city wide, and they're $74.2 million of infrastructure improvement. That's roadways and water and sewer as well. We'll get to that here in just a little bit as well as we talk about that. And we're maintaining the city's debris So new positions took a little Little grief over this particular slide So we're gonna go to the next slide and show what the detail is of those 20 positions if you remember a couple meetings ago This was only 19 We up that one more we added a day porter. We talked about that when we approved, or what was in here tonight was the contract that is part of this budget for citywide custodian services and several of our buildings. And so there are the positions, not going to read those. You can read those for yourself. We've seen those, but again, it's just one increase from what we were showing just a couple meetings ago. Here is the capital. We'll also show a very detailed list of what the capital is. On that previous slide, we showed the fire truck and the ambulance. You can see those totals there. We will issue short-term financing for that. Very one to two years or still working with our financial advisor to time that out. We'll be talking about those debt issuances at the next meeting on September the 23rd. But the ambulance and the engine, the engine quint and the ambulance will be the short-term financing. The rest will be paid from cash. So the fees that we talked about during the budget session are listed on the screen. You can, you remember, we talked about each of these particular fees. There's some changing of the ambulance fees to be more in line with our neighboring cities and be more consistent. The parks and rec, the only things that really changed there were pickle wall rates, some other small fees, the trash and recycling fees are going up slightly as part of the contract with Frontier. Our health inspections, rental inspections and animal control all had minimal increases in them in various line items of various fees That was a total of about $29,000 total and that would be anticipated if if all those things happen but That was the adjustment there the planning amendment fee That was the one change in our building permitting fees that were changing. That's a $250 fee for a refiling of a PD. So if a developer needs to refile a PD, it's a $250 charge. The engineering development fees, those are more aligned with the state legislature, has made some changes there. And so those are more aligned with actual cost versus estimated cost. And then the water sewer passed through from TRA and CRWD. What was not amended are the roadway impact fees. You all saw a presentation earlier this evening from freezing Nichols regarding the water sewer impact fees and then the parkland dedication and development fees. None of those were amended at this current time. So what is the reauthorization of the building permit fees? As you can see on your screen, House Bill 1922 requires the city's governing body to reauthorize building permit fees every 10 years or they become abolished. So the building permit fees described as any fee charged as a condition to construct, renovate or remodel a structure within the city. So we are to reauthorize, we're holding the public hearing, we're doing that now. We'll reauthorize those fees by a vote of the governing body, and all those fees are found in the master fee schedule. Earlier in under the consent agenda, the master fee schedule was there, it included the building permitting fees. As part of the master fee schedule, there. It included the building permitting fees as part of the master fee schedule. And you can see the table of contents there, all the various fees that I just described on the previous slide. With that, let's move into the budget. So the state law requires us to have some required statements. And this will be the required statement in this year's budget cover. This budget will raise less revenue from property taxes than last year's budget buying amount of negative $374,271, which is a 0.6% decrease from last year's budget. The property tax revenue to be raised from new property and that's new construction as we've talked about several times. New construction added to the tax roll this year $3,271,229. So that is the required statement that we'll be showing in our budget document. We'll go through each of the various funds. Here is the Mansell Economic Development Corporation with a balanced budget of $19,459,299. We have the Park's Facility Development Corporation, which has a balanced budget of $13,360,000, $383. Again, both of those funds are funded from the half-cent sales tax, one that was passed by the voters in 1992 and the other one in 1997. Water sewer utility fund from the Water and Super Service sales on the main revenues there. We see we have a balanced budget of 50,283,000. Nice round number, we always like those. The environmental service is fun or the drainage fund which provides the runoff solutions throughout the city. Has a balanced budget of 2,872,523. Finally, the hotel Motel Tax Revenue, which is collected from hotel stays within our city, $1,500,1 million, $5,000 as a balanced budget. Again, a nice round number. Let's move on to the general fund. So this is our general fund this year. We have the property taxes as the largest component of the general fund with a balanced budget. We'll get to expenditures here in just a minute showing you the breakdown here with the balance budget of 900, I'm sorry, 99 million, $778,080. Mr. Newsom, Councilmember Newsom, you asked us about the percentage. This is the budgeted percentage of each of these over the course of time since about night since 2019. Since 2020, that percentage has decreased about 7%, 6% to 7% in there a little bit of the property tax equivalent of the pie Moving on to expenditures. There's the expenditures again a balanced budget of little over almost a hundred million dollars I apologize So I have a question okay Moving on to the debt service. Again here just highlighting what you guys just passed a little bit ago. There's that $5 million of prepayment that will occur in February of 2025. And then we have the general obligation debt. So that was the debt that the voters approved a couple of years ago with regards to the parks and trail system. So what sits in this principal balance is $5.2 million of trails that that tax increase was not passed along to the voters. I'm just highlighting that point there. As part of the budget process, we've been showing you guys these numbers. This is our capital improvement program. So for FY 25 you can see there's almost $34 million in various projects throughout the city and those are listed here with some of their funding sources as well. Some of those are participation projects with Tarrant County. There are the projects for FY26, 27, 28, and 29. Same for the utility construction. These are the water and wastewater projects that are being proposed for FY25 at $17,719,900 dollars. Again, a five year progression of those particular projects. And we heard about some of these projects earlier this evening when we heard about the water and wastewater impact fees that the study that Prisen Nichols did for us. These many of these are in that particular calculation. And then the CIP for our parks construction. Again, this is for just FY25. We'll show the projects in the future as we work out. And those are the projects there in the future with those particular dollar amounts. And then finally, the Building construction fund. So this as you can see has several projects on it, the completion of the PDHQ headquarters, the Fire Station 1 relocation, City Hall, the multipurpose sports venue, animal control service center expansion, which that contract was approved at the prior meeting. Giro Commons, canals at the reserve, the Southwest Community Park, Sports Park, which was part of the consent agenda earlier, and then the veterans memorial as well. And then our drainage construction projects as well. Just highlighting there that the Watson Branch drainage improvement, that grant was initially denied. We are going back to the state to see if there's any extra funding there for that particular project. But we've been talking about that one as well, so continuing to work on getting grant funding for that particular project. And this is what your proposed ordinance looks like. We took off all the fancy language and just kept the numbers on here. But this is the proposed ordinance that you will be voting on here in just a little bit. So 522,378,257 dollars. And that is the total of all those numbers on the left. With that, I will turn it back over to you, Mayor, to open the public hearing with for any questions. All right, thank you, sir. I'll start on my right, councilor Danne, questions from Mr. Lestina. Go ahead, Mr. Nusin. Real quick, maybe, I know this is a little bit different, but maybe go over the, some of the state regulations around the meetings or post agenda items for the budget. I know when you were going over that, there were a few little frowns in the audience that didn't quite capture it. So maybe just cover, you know, under what circumstances we actually have to go through a public hearing versus just reading the information throughout in a meeting. Yes, sir. We'll go back to that very first slide if I may. Oh, one too many. So what the state law tells us is that, regardless of the particular tax rate, we need to have a public hearing on the budget and so we notice that and the appropriate you can see there in the August column we publish the notice for the public hearing on the budget and the building permit fees which we talked about as well on August the 30th so not only do we publish those on the website, we publish them in the newspaper as well. And then because the tax rate, which is further down in the agenda, because the tax rate was below both of the voter approval rate and the no-new revenue rate, that form is calculated on what's called the Truth in Taxation Form. Wendy Burgess's Office as Tax Assessor Collector. She and her staff perform that particular calculation for the city. We contract with them to perform that calculation. It's a very long form. That form is also posted on the city's website for everyone to see. But because the tax rate is below both of those two calculated rates we are not required per state law to hold a public hearing regarding the tax rate. We are holding a public meeting which this was posted in the appropriate time for the public hearing public meeting notices. I apologize. Hope that answers the question. Yes. Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. Okay On my left. Oh, yeah, Councilwoman short Troy, do you mind talking about our reserve fund? I know that's not mentioned in the budget But I think it's something that our citizens would like to know about So our reserve fund Today where we feel like we're going to end up. We're still still got a month ago. Still have the auditors to come in and verify all the hard work that again, staff over here is doing. We feel like we're going to land in the 34 to 34 and a half percent range of a reserve. So that's approximately about $33, $32 to $33 million. Somewhere in there has a reserve. The internal policy is that we have a reserve of 25% as a minimum. We've grown that reserve over the last several years, probably the last four to five years. We've grown that reserve from somewhere in the neighborhood of 26 to 27 now to 34. Our high was over 35%. Sales tax slowed down on us a little bit this year. Otherwise, I think we would have continued being in that 35% range, but we're just a tick below the 35% range. So we'll end up in that 34% range but we're just a tick below the 35% range. So we'll end up in that 34% range and I hope to bring that to you a little bit closer probably in late October and November as the auditors get here and we kind of start to finalize everything. Okay, thank you. It's I just want to say it's sort of like we would have four months of if no money came in whatsoever. We would still be able to run the city without a problem. Yes, and that is the purpose of the reserve, is to have those not necessarily rainy day, but yes, if something ceased, we would still have cash in the bank to be able to pay employees, pay contracts, pay all those things that we do on a daily basis. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Miss Short. And again, to your point, that's going up and I down, am I right? Yes, sir, it has continued to go up. Thank you. All right, are there others? Oh, I just want to at least point out, and I don't know, Troy knows this, but I mean, the reserve can't be dismissed as far as not being important. I mean it's good to have a cash but I remember it wasn't too long ago, maybe five years ago we were always questioning the rating agencies what needs to take place for us to bump up and bump up and continue to basically improve our credit scores and one of the things that they've always been happy with the city of meaning that we're keeping that 25% reserve. But to get to that 32 to 35% range is what they said that they needed to see. And we've also, I'm conversely seen that happen as we've started to maintain a higher fund, a reserve balance that those credit scores or credit ratings have increased. So ultimately that translates to cheaper interest or cheaper dollars when we do go borrow. So just multiple facets of ways to save be physically responsible with the dollars we are interested with. Yes. So yes, thank you, Councilman Renussum. So these ratings up here are equivalent to an individual's credit score. So yeah, the higher the credit score, typically the lower interest rate that you can get, whether it's a house, a car or whatever. But yeah, that's what these equate to. And to your point, it was several years ago that the city did receive. You can see that triple A there in the standards and pours, standards and pours in the general funds. Since we're kind of talking about the general fund. But all of those ratings over the last several years have continued to tick up and we still have those meetings with the rating agencies and we'll again, contact those via Zoom or they'll come here and meet with us for those particular things as we talk about the issuance of debt in the future. All right. of things as we talk about the issuance of debt in the future. Right. So Mr. Lestin in regard to the great work that your staff does based upon this particular slide. In recent years, have our bond ratings gone down or they've gone up? They've continued to go up. We talked about on the slide after this, there's the increase in from moodies for the parts of development corporation which would land in this sales tax and revenue bond column is where the parks corporation is down there in moodies. So before they were a AA with the EDC also being a AA, AA2, I apologize and now they've recently increased to a AA1 just within the last month and a half or so. Okay, so yes. She's numerous increases throughout the last several years. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bowne. And I'd like to make one more statement. From the years 2016 to 2020, the average percentage of debt service to budget ratio the average was about 26% is that correct? Yes ma'am. Since the years 2021 through 2025 budget the average percentage of debt service to budget ratio is down to 20% at this moment. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Are there any other questions, statements? Lodding and applauding the way work gets you all continued to do. Thank you. I got a lot of help over there. Three of them are here. Without a doubt. Without a doubt. I just think it's good to get the right message out. Thank you. I got a lot of help over there. Three of them are here. Oh, but without a doubt. Without a doubt. Just think it's good to get the right message out. Thank you. All right. Thank you, sir. All right. I'll move to open the public hearing. I don't mean that. I'll open the public hearing at 6.51 p.m. Do we have any cards, ma'am? Yes, ma'am. One speaker and three no one. Okay, thank you very much. We have three non-speakers that are one is opposed to the budget. Ms. Cardonelli, we have non-speaker, opposed, Tammy Miller. We have non-speaker opposed to Houston Mitchell. And thank you, ma'am. And we have speaker. Mr. Michael Aiman comes at this time. Chief Aiman, if you would just state your name as well as your address. And you have five minutes, sir. Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good evening, sir. I hope I can get through this. I came back from Costa Rica and I brought something with me. I'm not sure what it was. My name is Mike Laman. I live at 1202 Fair Haven Drive here in Mansfield. I'm here to oppose the passage of the budget as it's currently set up. The funding for a chief sustainability officer, either as a full-time employee or as a contractor for six or seven months, to allow the city to hire the same person until he can get the eligibility and be hired as a full-time employee, city employee, I-Popes. If this position is allowed to remain in the budget, I believe it violates at least in spirit section 3.08 prohibitions of our current city charter. As when I was on council for 10 years plus, the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. I think it's the first one. whether it is legal or not, but the second more importantly is a smell test. I don't believe there's any way possible that this passes a smell test. I believe our current staff can handle these responsibilities and properly managed and given direction from the City Manager's office. I suggest that taking the funds a lot of this position, which is an excess of 220,000, and dividing it equally between the prior department and the police department. If at some future date the city decides this position is needed and the person currently in the position obtains the educational requirements needed and job skill experience to become a viable candidate. I would encourage that person to apply for the position at that time. That's all I have. Thank you, Chief. Do we have any others, ma'am? All right. All right, I will close the public hearing at 6.54 PM. And I'm called for a motion. Move to approve. Thank you, Miss Short. Second. Thank you, Mr. Newsom. Statements, questions at this time, hearing not. Please cast your votes. And the motion carries 6-0. Thank you all very much. All right, we move now to item 24, dash 6-1-8-1. It's an ordinance, public hearing first, then final reading, on an ordinance of the city of Mansfield, Texas, reauthorizing all building permit fees charged as a condition to construct renovate a remodel a structure in accordance with section 214 done 908 of the Texas local government code providing a severability clause, providing for the repeal of all ordinances in conflict, providing for publication and providing an effective date Mr. Listina. Thank you, Mayor. Yes, sir. Again, this is an ordinance reauthorizing all the building permit fees. As we saw in the previous presentation, House Bill 1922. Yes, sir. Established that as a condition, every this has to occur within a 10 year period, or over every 10 years. And without that, the building permit fees would be abolished. As I stated in the previous presentation, kind of those things just here for questions. Should your council have any questions? All right. Councilman, any questions? Yes, ma'am, ma'am. Is short. There aren't any new fees added, correct? There was one new fee. There was the $250 for the refiling of APD. I'm sorry, Matt. Yeah. So again, answer that in the mic. It was for the land use plan amendment. Yeah, thank you. I was saying it incorrectly. You're fine And I just had another question about the annual fee that's due on some of the permits. Do we send out reminders about those? Not only do we send out reminders, but I can with the gas wells and those particular things we actually send out in voices. Okay. Yes. All right, thank you. Yes. All right. Thank you, Ms. Short. Any other Ms. Brosh? Have a word, sir? Sure, if I could have a little, just a little bit of clarification on that $250 for a re. I am stating it wrong. Let me state it correctly. It is for a plan amendment on a plan development. Is that correct, Matt? That's correct, yes, Troy. Here we go. I was saying it incorrectly. Okay. It's an amendment to a previously filed PD. Okay, and this might be a question for Matt or someone, but what constitutes an amendment versus there being an out of chance? I can answer that. It would cause a change to our future land use plan that was adopted just recently. So it would necessitate public hearings and a significant amount of staff time, then we'd have to update the maps as well. So that's why we thought the $250 was appropriate for the amount of staff time involved in making that amendment. I understand. Thank you, sir. Sir. All right, on my right. All right, hearing none, well, I will open the public hearing at 6.58 pm. Do we have any cars, ma'am? All right, then, I will close the public hearing at 6.58 p.m. Do we have any cars, ma'am? All right then, I will close the public hearing at 6.58. And I will call for a motion. Move to approve. Thank you, Mr. Ross. Second. Thank you, Miss Shore. All right. Call questions, hearing none,-please cash evoke. All right, that item carries 6-0. Thank you very much. Moving to item 24-6-170, it's a resolution public hearing. On a resolution approving the fiscal year 2024, 2025 services and assessment plan for the South Point public improvement district pit providing a severability clause and providing an effective date. Mr. Lestina. Just staying up here the rest of the night again. Yes sir. I'd like to call Julian Hobby up as well Mayor but I think he's already left so I guess I'll have to take care. Just kidding. So what we have before you tonight is the resolution of proving the fiscal year 2425 services and assessment plan, fancy word for budget for the South Point and public improvement district in your packet. You have the five year budget that is in there for the public improvement district at South Point. The 2025 budget is a balanced budget at $939,329. We also have Miss Dana Black here from the management company, neighborhood services management. Should you have any particular questions about those particular budget line items? But with that, I will turn it back over to you, Mayor, for the public area. All right, on my left. All right, go ahead, Ms. Short. I was looking at the increase over the years, and is that because they continue to finish out more phases of the project? Yes. Okay. Yeah. If you'll recall that very southern tip, which we'll call section 9 or phase 9 is not, has not yet even broken ground yet. I believe that the developer has been here and presented some plans about that particular area. Haven't broken ground and then many of the infill lots are still available out there as well. So yeah, that will continue and will continue to look at those over time because those are an additional fee to the homeowners as well as to the multi-family complexes that are within that boundary that you see on your screen. Okay, thank you. Yes. All right. All right. Thank you, ma'am. Okay, thank you. Yes. All right. All right, thank you, ma'am. Well, they any up? All right. Hearing none then, I will open the public hearing at 7.01 PM. Do we have any cards, ma'am? All right, I will close the public hearing at 7.01 PM and call for a motion. Motion to approve. Thank you, Ms. Bounds. Thank you, Ms. Short. All right, questions hearing none, please cash a vote. And it carries 6.0. Thank you all very much. All right, moving to item 17, item 24, dash 6107, ordinance public Hearing and First Reading on an ordinance, approving a change of zoning from the single family, 1222 single family residential district, 2PD plan development district, 4 commercial and single family residential uses on approximately 10.574 acres described as block one. Lots one and two are of the RW, Robert's Edition, Tarrant County, Texas located at 650 and 700, North Holland Road, 1020 Ventures, LLC, developer, Zonikage number 23, dash 019, Mr. Rodriguez. All right, thank you, Mayor and Council. Arty Wheaton, Rodriguez, the Planning Department here at the City of Mansfield. Council, you may or may not recall, but this case did end up on your agenda just a couple of weeks ago. Staff at the time in working with the developer had asked them to provide us with some more time so that we could pull together a much different style plan. A plan that I think will address some of the concerns that we've heard on this case and will hopefully also make sure that we are creating appropriate transitions between different styles of development to the existing development that exists. But orienting everybody to the site, you can see here the property is just south of Grand Meadows Parkway with Holland Road on the western edge as well as Holland Road Extension on the eastern edge of the property. Those two roads do intersect down at the southern edge. The existing zoning as stated earlier is SF1222, which is a large lot single family. Looking at the land use, I've zoomed out just a little bit more so you can see the overall context of what is shown within the future land use plan. You can see the property there is about a tin and a half acre site outlined in red. But it's part of the mixed use local land use designation for the overall area. So you can see that there's 360 to the west there, broad to the north. Just really trying to show the context of the overall site. The future land use plan does call for load, medium-scale development. It asks that that development be walkable, that that development use reduced front yard front and side setbacks as well as implement pauses or other civic spaces within the overall development. We've provided a couple of site images to show you what the site looks like today. specific spaces within the overall development. We've provided a couple of site images to show you what the site looks like today. You can see this is from the southern edge of the property. Holland Road is just on the left-hand side of that image there. Holland Road Extension on the south would continue on the eastern edge of the property. This is Holland Road Extension. You can see that the existing residential on the eastern side of Holland exists today. The empty lot to the left is where the site would be. I'm gonna start just by showing the current site plan. This is the site plan that was included within the packet for tonight. I'm gonna get into some details on this site plan, this is the site plan that was included within the packet for tonight. I'm going to get into some details on this site plan later, but I wanted to start by showing where the developer has gone and then go back where the developer started. Real quick to put into context, the developer came in in 2023 with a much smaller site. I think it was 2.9 acres just under three acres. They came in with a site, a site plan that looked like this. At the time, they were coming in just looking to do a commercial development on a small portion of the overall 10 and a half acres that we're looking at today. This site plan brought commercial to the area. There's commercial that is existing just to the north. This would have brought additional commercial to the overall neighborhood. At the time, this case was denied by City Council because we believed that there was a way to look at this site holistically and create a land use development plan that addressed some of the overall concerns and needs of the development. And here are some of those concerns that came out during that hearing. Council asked that as the development comes back and starts moving forward, the development provide or improve an inner parcel connectivity. And really what that means is making sure that the development on one side of, and I didn't point it out, but there's a gas easement that goes through the development on one side of the gas easement that we create connections over to the development on the western edge. Also that we improve walkability that we provide residential in a adjacency to the commercial. Again with SF 1222 on the site today we were wanting to make sure that we created a land use plan that created a horizontal mix use development on this site. And this has just been a theme of development as we move forward. There were screening walls that bordered the edge of the property with that commercial development. And I believe as we've seen developments that really address connectivity and really address walkability, those walls end up becoming impediments to the overall development and overall sort of horizontal mix use. So there are plenty of places for us to show the developer, but we've showed the developer commercial that is adjacent to single family and how that commercial starts doing things like integrating civic spaces, integrating places for people to meet. And I believe that as you start to see again from that first 2.9 acre site to the developer's first try at this with a July site plan that came through PNZ and also ended up in your agenda a few weeks ago, you can see now that we've created a horizontal mix use where you have commercial on the western edge of the gas pipeline that runs through the middle and you can see that those two lines that show the gas pipeline. You have commercial on the western edge and At the time the developer came in with row houses. I think there was some concern about the intensity of development. There are 45 row houses shown within this development here. So the developer came back, came through PNZ, their case moved forward. As that case moved forward, we then started talking about that overall intensity. And the developers come with the site plan that they have today. The site plan that's in front of Council today moves away from the row houses on the eastern edge and has detached single family. These are detached single family and smaller lots. Those lots are all 40 feet and width though. I believe they average 40 foot and width and about 95 feet deep. We now have 30, we have 32 single family home shown in this, 33 actually because there's a larger single family home here but I should state that there are 32 smaller lot single family homes, one larger lot and then what you have on the western edge is about 2,800 square feet of commercial. If I go back to that first commercial site plan, there was about 17,000 square foot of commercial there. So we're looking at an increase as well as bringing that residential again. I think meeting a lot of those points that the developer was asked to move towards. I do want to state that staff within the PD standards has asked the developer provide a phasing plan that does require that 10,000 square feet of the commercial space be constructed prior to any of the small lot development. I think that's something we're wanting to do to make sure that as we are approving more intense residential units, that we are making sure that the commercial that needs to be in those areas is also constructed. So again, the developer has agreed to construct 10,000 square feet of commercial prior to moving forward with the smaller lots. I think the developer has done a really good job. I think one of the things we need to remember is the development does share an edge with Holland. And so the image or the elevation that's in the middle there, which is the lower elevation. That's actually the Holland Road elevation. The elevation on the north would be that elevation that is there in the center of the development. The developers provided some renders of how the civic space in the center, as well as the commercial that surrounds it. If you walked from the neighborhood, you would walk into this specific space into the commercial development that it is being proposed today. Since we've worked a lot with the developer, right? Going from a Ro House development to a detached single family home development, I wanna state a couple of facts that I think are important for the Council to know. And that is that the development team has not been able to provide elevations for their single family homes, but they've worked with staff to create development standards that I believe create a very predictable development. And what they're showing here is the fact that they are going to create six unique elevations for the development. There are standards that within the PD that describe what a unique elevation is, but then they're also trying to make sure that they spread those units out. So if you would see the blue unit or it looks a little purple on everybody's screen, but the purple unit at the top, because there are six unique elevations, the developer has agreed to not place those any closer, so there will be five unique elevations prior to getting to another purple one. Again, we're wanting to make sure that we're creating architectural diversity as we move forward as well, so that's one way that we've worked with the developer on doing that. Now, staff has shown the developer different examples of development within Mansfield. This is Colby Crossing. And one thing that I should point out with Colby Crossing is this is all 40-foot lot development as well. The developer has seen these elevations. They believe that they could deliver similar product styles. And with that, that gets me through the overall summary of this case. And that is that this zoning change is consistent with the Mansfield 2040 plan. It's also consistent with the mayor and council's strategic priorities. There is a phasing plan that does require 10,000 square feet of commercial be built prior to any of the small lot development. Residential intensity has been adjusted to better meet existing residential context. And these slides maybe go over a little bit in too much detail what was said at PNZ, but I want to make sure I point out some of those things because the developer has included all of these in the PD standards. PD standards that they have in front of you. One, the Planning and Zoning Commission did ask them to work with staff to lower the dwelling units that will be built, that they address hours of operation of businesses, that they provide corner market standards that place perishable goods as a, I believe it's 35% of the overall floor area of the any market they would come in the area. They were asked to make sure that they provide the floor area of detached single family, also that they create visual interest and variety with the architectural standards and provided a homeowners association. Again, all of these items were guidance provided by the Planning and Zoning Commission that the developer has placed within their PD standards. As a recommendation, here's that recommendation about the 35% of the total retail sales display for perishable goods in a corner market. The Planning and Zoning Commission did work to limit the use of an urgent care within the development, provided hours of operation for specific uses. At the time, when we were looking at row houses, the Planning and Zoning Commission asked that the single family residences be a minimum of 2200 square feet. The development in front of us today has units at 2400 square feet. And there is a homeowners association in place on this property to maintain those public areas. With that, staff does recommend approval as currently presented. The developer is here or the development team is here. There are any questions I don't believe they have a presentation, but I've told them I can provide them with the slides that we have. If there are any things they need to reference, but thank you. All right. Thank you. All right, on my right are there any questions for Mr. Rodriguez, the developer. Go ahead Ms. Bond. I have a couple questions for you, Arty. On the preliminary construction plans, exhibit A, legal description. Will this match the PD regulations because it doesn't match at this moment? It shows them still as being row homes and or town homes. And then it also shows it at 2,000 square foot and not the 2,400 square foot. So will this match up to that? I apologize. In error, we did include an older site plan. The only site plan that will be approved with this case will be the detached single family site plan. So I apologize if there was an error there. OK. I'd like to see that next go around. Okay. So that I can look at it. And then on page 324 of the PD standards on lot standards, I'm assuming this is pertaining to residential. Can I get the reference one more time so I could make sure I'm thinking about it. Page 3224. And it is development standards A, lot standards. Is that pertaining to residential? That's pertaining to the entire development. So the lot standards there, does say that there will be no minimum lot widths, though the site plan does show 40 foot lots. That's what the developer would have to adhere to. Meaning that the city isn't placing a minimum lot standard, the developer has placed that minimum lot standard on themselves. So it wouldn't have to be contained in here. What's into the regular to the PD standards? It wouldn't have to be placed in here about the lot minimums. We would look at both their site plan as well as the standards that are in place and the site plan would control. All right. All right. That's all I have at this second. All right. Thank you, ma'am. On my left. You all okay? Go ahead, Mr. Brot. Artie, I think I just heard you say that the PNZ board had recommended minimum 2200 square foot. And they had said they would, or you said they had a minimum 2400. Yes sir. Well, I'm missing something because I'm reading on the chart, on one of the, one of the, one of the inclusions we have, down as low as 1,648 square feet. So what am I missing out on? I apologize, I'm gonna pull up what we have. It's on page one of seven of one of the top of the exhibit. Yeah. Well, I hope you have good eyes. I'm having to blow it up on my iPad. What's your page was that again? Can you? Yes, page one. What you have there is the overall lot square footages, and that says 3812. Okay, that is, I think that's page two I believe already. Yeah, oh am I looking at an older version? Yeah, I think that's what he's wanting to correct. Am I right on it? Yes, and I have. It's showing the lot size at like 3800 and the house size as I gathered the page before it's showing 1648 for the lowest. Again, I do apologize for any confusion. The site plan that you have here is the final site plan that we are moving forward with. As you can see here, we have lots that are 3,800 square feet. Those are the 40 by 95, generally. Some of the lots are a little bit deeper. And it could be because there was an older site plan considered in the past that this is a site plan that's still within your exhibit sheet and I'll make sure that that's deleted out. Still in our pack. But this one here is the final site plan. That's the one that you have on the screen to right now. On the screen that I have trouble. Peech 2. Yeah. That's the same as what I said. Yeah, but we have it. Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Well, we have in our packet is different. Yeah. So I have that. So then that means, okay, so if we're at, say, 4 square foot lots in our houses, I guess, your lots or the lots are 30 hundred square feet. The homes will be 2,400 square foot minimum. Got you. And they are agreeing that they should be minimum 40 foot wide lots, 40 foot wide lots, yes sir. Okay. That's all for right now. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Brock. All right, team. On my right. Senator Mugueh. As long as this gets cleaned up by the next one. That will be a little bit easier for us to digest. All right. 9.5. All right. I will open the public hearing at 7.21 p.m. Do we have any cards, ma'am? All right. Then I will close the public hearing at 7.22 p.m. and I will call for a motion. Move to approve. Thank you, Miss Short. Is there a second? Second. Thank you, Mr. Raskiz. All right. And Mayor, one comment, I'm sorry. Go right here. Go right here. I would like to say I would not be able to approve this if we can't get some elevations by next reading. That's fair. That's fair. That's fair points, sir. All right. I want motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council. Motion carries. Thank you very much. Thank you, Council. All right. We're at item 24-618, item 18, actually, public hearing continuation second and final reading on the 24-6158. It's an ordinance public hearing continuation second and final reading. Under the ordinance, approving a change of zoning from PD plan development district to S south of Mansfield form based development district. On approximately 9.48 acres in the W Howard survey abstract number 690 city of Mansfield, Texas county, on property address at 620 South Cannon Drive and 400 North Miller Road, the on-campaign group applicant zoning case number 24-002. Mayor and council thank you again. This being the second hearing I do have a presentation if the council would like to go through that but I'll yield to the council to see if that's something that we should move forward with as stated this is the second hearing on this case. Yes. Thank you very much. Councilor Yabba, design. Left, right, left, left, everybody good? All right. Thank you. We're good. Thank you. I appreciate it. So I will continue then the public hearing at 724 PM. Do we have any cards, ma'am? All righty then. I will close the public hearing at 724 PM and call for a motion. Motion to it, please. Thank you, Ms. Bounds. Second. Thank you, Mr. Bross. Question, statements. Hearing none, please, cash. Boat. And item carries 6-0. All right, we move to new business. Item 24, dash 6175. It's an ordinance of the City of Mansfield, Texas, appro the tax rate, levying the Advalorem taxes for the fiscal year 2025, tax year 2024, at a rate of 0.645000 per 100 dollars assessed valuation on all taxable property within the corporate limits of the city as of January 1st, 2024 to provide revenues for the payment of current expenditures and to provide an interest and sinking fall on all outstanding deaths of the city and providing for due and delinquent dates together with penalties and interests Mr. Lestina. Thank you, Mayor. I promise this is the last time I'm coming up here tonight. All right. I think, maybe I don't know. So before I get into my presentation, just to expound a little bit on what Councilmember Newsom asks about the requirements for how we go through these processes. State law also states that we present the budget first, the balanced budget. You all approve the budget and then we come and approve the tax rate. As we talked about, the Truth and Taxation Form that is provided by the Terrier County Assessor Collectors Tax Office, it's posted on the city's website. There are the definitions of no new revenue rate and the voter approval rate. This year's in the calculation the no new revenue rate was 0.668844. The voter approval rate was 0.700254 and as you have already stated in the ordinance, the city's proposed tax rate is 0.645 cents. So again, we're proposing a tax rate that does not exceed the no-new revenue rate. This means that we're not proposing to increase property taxes at this time. So state law tells us that we can just have a public meeting instead in lieu of a public hearing. There will be a required statement again in our budget book, and this is specifically on the MNO rate. The MNO rate is the maintenance and operations tax rate that services the general fund. So police fire, building services, all of our other internal kind of organization functions. The MNO rate, because it's just kind of the way the calculation works, is actually raising more dollars to the MNO side, $343,129. So what is happening because we lowered the tax rate, we're lowering it slightly on the, or what will decrease, is the revenue that goes to our INS fund, which is our interest and sinking fund. That is the fund that we used to pay our debt. But as we've talked about saving considerable dollars over the years with prepayment of debt and some of the refundings is allowing us to do that. And so again, for transparency purposes, putting all of that out there. Here's the history. Kind of talked about this a little bit. Just highlight the total tax rate and then the homestead exemption. The increase to 16% for this next tax year. And then the tax rate there, seeing a decrease from the 71 cents back in 2019. Down to the 64.5 cents that is being proposed today. Again, the maintenance operations, just the breakdown between the two, a decrease of about 1.4 cents over the prior year. And with that, I will turn it back over to you, Mayor, for any questions or comments. And as you can see down there, that is where our property tax information is located on the city's website. All right. sounds good. I'm sure we've got words, no we. Go ahead, Miss Shorty. Yes, come on now. Well, I think I said everything last time, but I'm just very excited that the plan is working. Yes, ma'am. That we are diversifying our tax base and helping to take the burden off of our homeowners and know that we're with this plan will continue to be able to do that in the future as well. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. All right. Anybody else, Mr. Brosh? Just don't know where to start and stop. That's why you are right. Be smart to stay quiet, but I just have to, I will say that I've been on this council for many, many years now. And I've seen nothing but good, even from day one. We had some tough years and we've had some not tough years. And I'm going to tell you the last four years have been we came out of COVID and we did find during COVID but coming out of it has been incredible. We're more solid than we've ever been and I think we must be in the top 2% within the state of our stability. And it's because of the staff and that it's obviously the council that helps, but we have a management staff that is, I wouldn't put anyone up against them because they would lose if I did. So you guys do a great job. Everyone does. Thank you, sir a great job. Everyone does. Thank you. Thank you, sir. All right, on my right. Mr. Friskaz. I'll just go ahead and I probably should follow Larry's wise words are just staying quiet. But I have to say as a businessman, I really think the decisions that were that are being made to lower the tax rate increase the homestead pay down the bond rate. I mean, there's just so much that it's being done well by the staff and the teams. So just Kudos, this is a big help for not just the homeowners, but the citizens of Mansfield as a whole. Thank you. Mr. Newsom. I just, I mean, I've said it before, but I mean, thank you all for everybody from staff level, for all the hard work you do, and I know all the departments have, you know, each and every department has their own budgets that they have to work diligently on to help meet the ultimate goals of the city. And you know, it's not always easy. I mean, because everybody has some needs that ultimately don't get met potentially. But it really shows a lot that we have a uniformed approach as far as moving forward to making sure that not only we're providing the services at a level that our citizens expect, but we're able to do so in a really solid financial position. So that says a lot of really great things about the hard work that, you know, from the city manager's staff on down to all the different, you know, individual unique departments with the side of the city about what they do to help council achieve a goal. So it's really, really appreciated. I know there's a lot of, you know, potential at times, negative words that come, that come your way, come, staff's way as far as choices that they make, but no from a least my perspective, staff's way as far as choices that they make, but no from a least my perspective, not I really appreciate all the work and diligence that goes into what you do. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Ms. Bounds. Well, Ditto on the plan is working. We have diversified a lot. And then I'm going to be ready to make a motion when we get ready for that. It sounds good. The other day, a lady asked me about teams. What do you mean? You say that all the time. Together, everyone achieves more. Thank you all for being an outstanding team. People you work with, thank you, Mrs. Mollinsky for the team that you put together and Kudos to our council as well. Thank you for working together. So thank you all. Thank you so much. Working together. So thank you all. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Together, everyone achieves more. All right. Call for a motion. Mayor. Ma'am. I want to move to approve an adopt a tax rate of 0.645 cents for the city of Mansville, said rate being less than the no new revenue rate and less than the voter approval rate. There is second. Second. Thank you, sir. All right, Mr. Newsom. Cash evokes. And that item carries 6-0 and we have us a budget. Good job. Thank you all very much. All right. I'm 24-6187. And now we're going to run the gambit of our different commissions and boards and all of that. So board appointments for the Mansfield Park Facilities Development Corporation. Call for a motion. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to reappoint Jessica in a Joseon Rau Nara to your term. A point, Melinda and Nappenberger to a full time director position for a two year term. A point, Lawrence Hood as an alternate for an unexpired two year term ending 930, 2025, and a point, Scott Bowman as president. Thank you very much, sir. Second. Thank you, ma'am. All right, motion in a second. All right, cash evokes. And then item carry 6-0. Next up, item 24-6188, board appointment. Mansfield, economic development corporation. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to prove reappointment of William Vivoney and Kent Knight for another two year term, also to appoint Lance Walker to a two year term and appoint Todd Simmons as President. Thank you very much. Second. Thank you, sir. All right, Mr. Newsom. All right, Cassie votes. All right, Gary 6-0. 24-6189,89 planning and zoning commission. Mayor. Mayor. I'd like to reappoint Michael Maynard and Jennifer Thompson to a two-year term, a point Dave Gotton and Hamilton Walker to a two-year term, and a point Michael Maynard is chair. All right. Motion is there. Second. Mr. Broms. Okay. All right, motion is there a second? Mr. Broms, okay. Thank you, sir. All right, cash evokes. Item carry 6-0. All right, next up is the zoning board of adjustments. Mayor, I'd like to reappoint Patrick Jones to a two-year term. A point cat Watten and David Jones as full-time members for a two-year term, and appoint Stacey Penny and Timothy Greenway as alternates for a two-year term. Thank you, ma'am. Second? Is there a second? I believe that was Mr. Frescaz? Okay. All right, can I ask you votes? All right, we need one more. All right. I'm carried 6-0. Thank you very much. All right. I'm 24-dance-6191. Historic Landmark Commission. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to re-appoint Bob Cleanson-Dorf. Tom Leach, David Littlefield, and Mark Walker to a two year term with a future appointment of a youth commissioner representative. Thank you, ma'am. Second. All right, I believe this is Ms. Fresquez. All right, cast evokes. Item carry 6-0, historic preservation, item 24-dance 6 6192, historic preservation advisory board. Mayor, it's like to re-appoint Annette Hemel and Linda Letti to a two-year term in a point Eric Walraven and Matthew Raleigh to a two-year term. Thank you, sir. Second. Thank you, Miss Short. All right, cash evokes. I don't care if it's 6 0. Alrighty then. Moving right along. Item 24 day 6193 library advisory board. I would like to reappoint Danielle Crutchfield and Lee Ann Ospern to a two-year term and appoint Camaria Chisholm to a two-year term. Second. Thank you, ma'am. All right, please catch the votes. Item carry 6-0. Item 24, down to 6-194. Keep man's field beautiful commission. Yes, Mayor. I'd like to make a motion to a reappoint Christine DeWolf, D. Shameless, and Jeffrey Wilborn for a two-year term. Thank you. Second. Thank you, ma'am. Please cast your vote. I am carries 6-0. I'm 24, Dan 61955 construction code board of adjustments and appeals. Mayor. Mayor. I'd like to re-appoint Robert Morris and Rick Rhodes to a two-year term. A point, Michelle Dennis to an at-large member to a two-year term. And a point, Cassandra Reddingerer as an alternate to a two year term Second all right is the time Mr. Brosh. All right. Happy day. All right, please cash votes Adam Carey six zero and There we go that was Mr. Newsom. I think Mr. Brosh beat him Oh both of them. Okay, I think. Mr. Brosh, beat him. It's all- Oh, both of them, okay. Happy day. All right, casual votes. All right, and that carries six zero, and we are adjourned at 739 p.m. You all have a good one, see you later. Good meeting, thank you all so very much.