Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCPA 2026-04-21 Minutes CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS 2025 CAPITAL PROGRAM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING MEETING MINUTES APRIL 21, 6:00 PM GRAND HALL AT NRH CENTRE 6000 HAWK AVE SUITE 200 NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TX 76180 The 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee met on Tuesday, April 21, 2026, at 6:00 pm in the Grand Hall at NRH Centre. The following members were present: Chair Tito Rodriguez, Vice Chair, Richard Davis, Mona Bailey, Suzy Compton, Patti Hourihan, Mike Kerby, David Newhouse, Sean Nutt, Kyle Pekurney, Adam Pope, John Schleeter, Steve Tate, Joe Tolbert, Marc Trevino, Gary Vieregger, Justin Welborn, Bill Witsett, Mark Wood The following member(s) were absent: Jane Birkes, Darlisa Diltz, Rodney Glenn, Brianne Goetz, Elouise Kennedy, Dave Lambson, Miles Maze, Julia Miller, Ann Perchard, Brad Pipes, Jason Roberts Staff present at the meeting were: Paulette Hartman, City Manager, Mary Peters, Communications Director, Boe Blankenship Director of Public Works, Cecilia Barham, Director of Library Services, Dakota Ford, Digital Content Producer, Sierra Clark, Video Production Intern, Jennipher Castellanos, Manager of Strategic Initiatives, Stan Tinney, Fire Chief CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order by Chair Tito Rodriguez at 6:00 p.m. IL APPROVE MINUTES FROM MARCH 31, 2026, MEETING A motion was made by Committee Member, Mike Kerby, seconded by Committee Member Mark Wood to approve the minutes of March 31, 2026, Capital Program Advisory Committee (CPAC) Meeting. The motion passed unanimously. III. REVIEW AND DISCUSS SURVEY RESULTS. City Manager Paulette Hartman opened the meeting with an overview of the topics to be discussed, then began a review of the survey results related to naming the Service Center project. She reported that the city issued 29 survey invitations and received 20 responses. Ms. Hartman summarized the results of Survey Question 1, which asked respondents to rank preferred words for the first part of the project name ("First Name"). The most frequently selected terms were"Central" and "City,"followed by"Operations," "Essential," and the remaining options. For Survey Question 2, which focused on the middle portion of the name("Middle Name"), "City Services" received the highest ranking. It was followed by "Field Operations," "Fleet & Maintenance Operations," and other listed choices. For Survey Question 3, asking respondents to rank preferred words for the final part of the name ("Last Name"), "Complex" and "Center" received the top rankings, followed by "Facility," "Base," "Depot," and the remaining options. Ms. Hartman then presented the results of the open-ended Survey Question 4, which asked participants to provide their preferred full project name. A slide displayed all suggested naming combinations in tabular form. She also reviewed the results of Survey Question 5, in which respondents were asked whether their chosen name sounded like a "must-have" facility for the city's future. Sixty-five percent of respondents agreed that the naming options carried the appropriate importance, indicating overall satisfaction with the word choices. Next, Ms. Hartman presented a slide showing the two finalist naming options: "Central City Services Complex," which emphasized a Community and Service theme, and "City Field Operations Center,"which reflected a more Operational and Functional focus. Both finalist names received at least 70 percent support across the survey categories. She noted that accompanying images on the slides, showing parks crews repairing a fence, street crews making repairs, and fleet maintenance working on a police vehicle, were intended as examples of visuals that could be used in future educational materials. Ms. Hartman also explained that "NRH" could be added as an identifier to the proposed titles. She presented two versions with this addition: "NRH Central City Services Complex" and "NRH City Field Operations Center." A subsequent slide included additional options following a more personalized naming convention: "NRH City Services Complex" and "NRH Field Operations Center." She invited committee members to share their thoughts on the suggestions and consider whether they preferred Theme A or Theme B. Following discussion, the committee reached a consensus in favor of the name "NRH City Services Complex." Members also requested that future educational materials include descriptive text clearly explaining the functions and services that will occur in the building to help voters better understand its purpose. . IV. REVIEW AND DISCUSS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUNDING AND COMPLETING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS. Ms. Hartman then reviewed the project recommendations. She noted that the city will not receive updated property tax values until April 30. She recapped the projects that the committee is recommending moving forward for General Obligation Bond funding: Fire Stations 2 and 3 at $26.3 million, Streets Reconstruction at $84.26 million, the Service Center (renamed NRH City Services Complex) at $24.7 million, and the Library Expansion at$10.71 million. She stated that these items would be included in the General Obligation bond package. Ms. Hartman also clarified that while the streets project list presented in previous meetings included 55 streets, the final number could be up to 50 streets depending on inflation and available funding. V. REVIEW AND DISCUSS TIMING OF BOND ELECTION RECOMMENDATIONS AND PROPOSED BALLOT LANGUAGE. Ms. Hartman proceeded to review each of the recommended General Obligation (GO) Propositions. She began with the proposed rebuilding of Fire Stations 2 and 3 and presented the sample ballot language. Committee members asked why the required tax increase wording must be included. Ms. Hartman explained that this wording is mandated by state law for local government entities. She noted that terms such as right of way and trails are included because, during project construction, the city may need to acquire property or complete related improvements. Including this language provides flexibility to use bond funds if needed. She then reviewed the sample language for Proposition B related to Street Improvements. Following that, she discussed Proposition C for the NRH City Services Complex and explained that the term "offices"appears in the sample language to allow for the possibility of temporary office space during construction. Ms. Hartman next presented the sample language for Proposition D for the Library Expansion. She noted that the proposed expansion area includes the community room and the entire adjacent section of the library. One committee member recommended ensuring that additional chairs and furniture be included as part of the project. Ms. Hartman also clarified that the book sorter is not part of this GO project because it is categorized as a Non-GO project to be funded through alternative sources. She reviewed several projects that the committee chose not to advance as GO bond projects. These included the Library Circulation Room Expansion, the Separation of Adult and Children's Collections, and the Library Elevators. She stated that the city will still work to identify funding for these items. Staff will finalize the Non-GO project recommendations and draft proposition language for the May meeting. Ms. Hartman noted that the city's bond counsel will review all proposition language and may add terminology they believe is necessary. Any additions made by bond counsel will be clearly identified. Bond counsel will complete their review before the committee presents the projects to the City Council. VI. REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE NEXT STEPS, PLANNING FOR CITY COUNCIL PRESENTATION AND FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE. Ms. Hartman reviewed the next steps in the process. She stated that Chair Tito Rodriguez and Vice Chair Richard Davis would likely be the individuals presenting the committee's recommendations to the City Council, given their roles as chair and vice chair. She reminded the committee that the May 11 meeting was rescheduled due to a conflict with canvassing the election. She explained that the available dates for presenting to the City Council are May 26 and June 22. One committee member suggested presenting on June 22; however, it was determined that the committee could decide at the May 5 meeting whether they are ready to present sooner or prefer the later date. Chair Rodriguez then asked if there were additional questions. A committee member asked whether they could begin discussing details related to their advocacy efforts. Ms. Hartman responded that staff cannot be present for discussions related to advocacy, but she encouraged members to begin planning their meeting to coordinate those efforts independently. VII. PUBLIC COMMENTS An opportunity for citizens to address the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee on matters which are scheduled on this agenda for consideration by the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee but not scheduled as a public hearing. To address the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee during public comments, .a Public Meeting Appearance Card must be completed and presented to the recording secretary prior to the start of the 2025 Capital Program Advisory Committee meeting. There were no requests to speak. X. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:41 p.m. APPR VE • v' L Tito Rodri uez, Chair Ce41,6/4"..-. Jennipher Castellanos, Secretary