Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order, Invocation, and Pledge of Allegiance.]

[00:03:13]

GOOD AFTERNOON AND THANK YOU FOR JOINING US. WE HAVE ESTABLISHED A QUORUM.

WE HAVE AN ITEM THAT WILL NOT BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT SO ANYBODY HERE TO TALK ABOUT ITEM 242,.

WE WILL ON JIMMY. AT THIS TIME WE WILL HAVE CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

[2021-239]

THE CITY COUNCIL WELCOMES CITIZENS TO COME AND TO SPEAK. YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK ON THAT TOPIC. IT IS NOT ON THE GENDER AND WE WILL NOT RESPOND BUT WE WILL

TAKE YOUR NOTES. WE HAVE ONE ITEM >> IS A LONG-TERM CITIZEN I'M CONCERNED ABOUT POLICE MINISTRATION AND I WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS THIS ANY OTHER POLICE WOULD BE THOROUGH IN THEIR DISCIPLINE. I'M CONFUSED AS TO HOW THIS IS A JUST DECISION FOR THOSE INVOLVED AND HOW THEY HAVE SUCH APPREHENSION ABOUT TAKING THE COMMANDERS DAUGHTER ENTERTAINMENT AND NOT PUBLICLY ADDRESS THIS ALONG WITH THE SERGEANT COMMANDER. HOW CAN THE PEOPLE TRUST IN THEIR LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN IT'S NOT TRANSPARENT. THE CONTRACTOR STILL HAS NO CONSEQUENCE.

>> MAN: THE CONSENT AGENDA AND MATTERS UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE

[CONSENT AGENDA]

[00:05:06]

ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL. IT WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION. IF THE DISCUSSION IS DESIRED THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED.

TO HAVE A MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION. >> I SECOND.

>> PLEASE NOTE. THE CONSENT AGENDA PASSES. >> PUBLIC HEARINGS?

[2021-243]

I OPEN ITEM 2,021 Ã243 TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACTIVE ORDINANCE TO AMEND AND RESTATE IN THE ENTIRETY URBAN VILLAGE FOR THE BLOCK 52 AND THE ORIGINAL TOWN.

THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 101 S. THIRD STREET. >> MAN: BACK IN 2,018 THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY REZONED FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 114.

THE ORIGINAL ZONING DISTRICT ON AT FOR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WELLINGS WAS REZONED FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICES WITH APPROXIMATELY 175 FT.B2 FOR A WALK UP ICE CREAM COUNTER WITH OUTDOOR SEATING. THIS PROBABLY HAS BEEN THERE A COUPLE OF OWNERS AND HAS BEEN REZONED. THEY STARTED TO DEVELOP AND REDID THE ENTIRE THING WITH IN ACCORDANCE TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THEY PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PARKING WITH THE STRUCTURE AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING AND SIGNAGE.

THEY STUCK TO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER IMPEACHMENT FOR ANY OF THOSE REASONS. WITHIN THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPED IN DISTRICT IT STATES THAT THERE ARE TWO OPTIONAL ON STREET PARKING STALLS ALONG THIRD STREET.

ONE IS OPTIONAL AND ARE REQUIRED. REQUIRED PARKING IS LOCATED IN ACCORDANCE WITH OUR STANDARDS. WHAT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO DO AS THEY CONTINUE TO DEVELOP IS TO INCREASE THE 765 FT.B2 COVER TO APPROXIMATELY 1150 FT.B2 TO ALLOW FOR SIX TOTAL PARKING SPACES GOING FROM TWO TO 6:00 FOR ON STREET PARKING. THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU HAVE IS IN REGARDS TO THAT ON STREET PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER.

HERE ARE SOME CURRENT ELEVATIONS FOR WHAT THAT STRUCTURE LOOKS LIKE OUT.

ORIGINALLY STRUCTURE WITH A LOT OF WORK NEEDING TO BE DONE. THEY MET THE REQUIREMENTS WITH FENCING SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING WITH PARKING AND BLA REGULATIONS.

THEY HAD TURNED THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. >> IS THAT FEW FROM THIRD STREET? THIS VIEW IS FROM THIRD STREET RIGHT HERE.

SO AS THIS ONE. THIS IS MORE TO THE SOUTH LOOKING OUT FROM THE REAR OF THE LOT. MAIN STREET IS RIGHT HERE ON THIS IMAGE.

WE'VE NOTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE DID RECEIVE A PETITION FROM PROPERTY OWNERS LOCATED CONCERNING THE PROPERTY THAT WE ARE IN FAVOR OF THE SUBJECT AND THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE HAVE NOT BEEN CONFIRMED ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNERS OR NOT.

STEPH DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS.

WE FEEL ABOUT THE INCREASE IN COVER STICKS WITH THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.

IT'S HAVING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING TO MITIGATE PARKING ON STREET DOWN THIRD STREET.

WE TRY TO HELP OFFSET THE TO OFFSET A POSSIBLE ISSUE THAT THEY MAY HAVE ON MAIN STREET.

THIS IS ONE OF THE ONLY PORTIONS OF MAINSTREET WHERE IT HAS AN EXISTING SHOULDER ON THE PROPERTY. IN THE NEXT CASE WHAT YOU WILL HEAR IS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ON STREET PARKING DEVELOPMENTS. THIS GOES PAST THE SHOULDER AND THE 40 FETUS TO THE SHOULDER.

BEFORE THE SHOULDER BEGINS. THAT'S WHERE IT'S MEASURED AT. IF YOU GO AFTER THE SHOULDER IT'S AN APPROXIMATE 5 FEET TO THE ACTUAL MAINSTREET DISTANCE. STEPH DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL

[00:10:01]

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> YOUR POURING CONCRETE I'M

ASSUMING? >> IS CORRECT THIS IS CONCRETE.

>> AND MAKE EMOTIONS CLOSE TO PUBLIC A. >> WITH MOTION TO CLOSE A

PUBLIC HEARING. >> A SECOND IT. >> PLEASE VOTE.

>> IT IS CLOSED. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> I SECOND. >> AS PRESENTED IN SECOND. PLEASE NOTE.

>> THAT PASSES 7 TO 0. >> NOW AT THE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM 2021 Ã224.

[2021-244]

CONSIDERING ACTIVE HOMES WITH A HARMLESS AGREEMENT FOR THE USE OF 80 FOOT WIDE PUBLIC STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY ADJACENT TO THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPERTY ON LOT TWO.

BLOCK 52 IN THE ORIGINAL TOWN TO ALLOW FOR ON STREET PARKING. THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 101

S. THIRD STREET. >> MAN: THIS IS THE AMENDMENT WE JUST DISCUSSED.

THEY ARE REQUESTING THE AGREEMENT FOR THE ON STREET PARKING AND ONCE AGAIN IT SHOWS ONE A DISTANCE WOULD BE FROM THE INTERSECTION. IT'S THE BEGINNING OF THE SHOULDER AND THE GREENLINE IS SHOWING PAST THE SHOULDER WHICH IS 45 FEET FOR THE ANGLE PARKING. THEY WILL NOT BE GOING INTO THAT RAMP.

ACTUALLY INCREASE THE WIDTH TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. ONCE AGAIN STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE A NEW PACKET.

>> WITH A MOTION. >> WITH A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> I HAVE A SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM PASSES 7 TO 0. >> AT LEAST ONE QUESTION A.

>> WE CONTINUED THE POWER. >> OKAY, I'M WITH YOU NOW. WE ARE ON AGENDA ITEM 2021 Ã

[2021-245]

245. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH PERMIAN EXPRESS PARTNERS LLC FOR THE

RECONDITIONING OF AN EXISTING 16 FOOT DIAMETER PIPELINE. >> MAN: AS PART OF THE HAWKINS RUN ROAD EXTENSION PROJECT WE ACTUALLY CROSSING AN EXISTING 16 INCH GAS LINE THAT COMES ACROSS THE CITY PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE RESIGN AND THE DESIGN COMES DOWN THIS WEEK ACROSS THAT WAY. IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET PERMISSION AND A PERMIT FROM THE GAS COMPANY TO CROSS, THEY ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRING THE CITY TO PAY THE 64,000 TO $768.80 FOR THEM TO RECONDITION THEIR SEGMENT OF GAS PIPELINE WILL BE UNDER THE PAVEMENT.

THAT ESSENTIALLY INVOLVES DIGGING UP THE EXISTING FACILITY AND RECODING IT TO PROTECTIVE COATING AND THEN RE-COMPACTED AND LESS ON TOP OF THE FACILITY.

WE GET THE PERMIT FOR DOING THIS. THIS IS REALLY THE FIRST TIME THAT I CAN RECALL THAT WE'VE CROSSED A NUMBER OF GAS PIPELINES ACROSS THE CITY THIS

IS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE DONE ANY TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS. >> NOT THIS ONE IN PARTICULAR BUT JUST IN GENERAL. THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAD A BUDGET FOR AS PART OF THIS PROJECT HOWEVER WE DO HAVE FUNDS AVAILABLE THROUGH OUR IMPACT FEES.

AS PART OF THE OVERALL PROJECT NEEDED. ONE THING THAT THEY DID STRESS IS THAT THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT THE WEIGHT REASON THE AGREEMENT HAS SOME FLEXIBILITY TO GO UP.

THEY'VE GIVEN US ASSURANCE AND AN EMAIL THAT SHOWS THAT THE COST WILL NOT EXCEED THE $64,000. IF IT COMES IN UNLESS WE WILL GET REIMBURSED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE PAID AND WHAT IT ACTUALLY COST. WITH THAT I'LL BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS COUNCIL MAY HAVE. >> AND I AM A LITTLE LOST.

>> CIRCLING THE PROTECTIVE COATING AGAIN. WE TOOK A COUPLE STOPS AT IT AND IT CAME IN ABOUT SHARING THE COST. THE FACT THAT AGAIN THIS PIPELINE IS REALLY NOT THAT GOOD IN A CONDITION WHAT IS IT LIKE OUTSIDE OF THE PAVEMENT? THEY ARE SAYING IS THEY HAVE PLANS OVER TOWN TO DIG IT UP AND RECONDITION FOR WHAT THEY

[00:15:02]

PUT THE PAVEMENT ON TOP THEY CAN'T DO THAT SO THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO DO IT

AT THIS POINT. >> RECEIVING NEVER-ENDING OUR HISTORY TO REMEMBER PAYING FOR

THIS WHILE GOING OVER OTHERS FACILITIES. >> CORRECT.

WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE CROSSINGS WHETHER IT'S BEEN SUNOCO. IT'S THEIR PIPELINE BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU THAT THE PIPELINE IS NOW LOOKING AT AND REQUIRING DIFFERENT THINGS SO I KNOW ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE IT'S BEEN CROSSED IN A COUPLE AREAS AND ASKED TO COME IN AND ALMOST DO A CONCRETE BRIDGE STRUCTURE OVER THERE LINE. WE DID 14 STREET AND CROSSED IT WHICH IS JUST SOUTH. WE BEEN ABLE TO LOOK AT AND SAY IT'S IN GREAT CONDITION.

IT'S 8 FEET DEEP. THIS IS THE FIRST AND I CAN RECALL THAT WE'VE HAD TO COME IN AND DO ANYTHING. WE START LOOKING FOR FUTURE PROJECTS THAT WE KNOW CROSS GAS LINES PUTTING A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY AND THAT IN CASE WE DO HAVE TO DO THAT.

>> TO CYCLE ACROSS THE CONFERENCE CENTER? >> YES SIR.

>> GAS LINES ARE STARTING TO LOOK NOW WEATHER IS GOING TO BE SUNOCO.

THEY STARTED LOOKING AT THE CONDITIONS OF THEIR LINES AND ANYTIME SOMETHING PERMANENT IS PUTTING ON IT THEY'RE LOOKING TO SEE IF SOMETHING IS NECESSARY AND THEY WANT TO MAKE

SURE THAT THEY ARE PROTECTING THE PIPELINE. >> WHEN IS THE LAST TIME THE CITY DID THIS? I'M ASSUMING SOMETIME THIS YEAR.

>> THE LAST GAS LINE THAT WE CROSS THAT I COULD RECALL WHERE WAS A BRAND-NEW ROAD AND ON EXISTING ONE WAS WHEN WE DID SOUTH 14 STREET. I DO KNOW THAT A COUPLE OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT HAVE CROSSED INTO THIS AREA AND ABOUT TO COME INTO SOME PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENTS TO BE ABLE TO CROSS WITH A 14 STREET PROJECT.

>> WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE AND SAYING YES THEN? >> ACTUALLY A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY. LOOK AT WHAT'S THERE WITH HER EASEMENT RIGHTS AND WE WOULD

NOT GET THEIR AUTHORIZATIONS ACROSS. >> THE CURRENT WIDTH WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE. IS THE AREA LARGER THAN THE EASEMENT?

>> DO WE HAVE ANY COMPARISON AS TO THE COST THAT THEY PROVIDE? LIKE I SAID YOU HAVE AN EMAIL THAT SAYS WE GUARANTEE IT WILL GO OVER THIS.

IF I CAN MAKE THAT GUARANTEE I'M GONNA MAKE SURE THAT UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD IT EXCEED THAT. IF WITCHES ARBITRARILY HAVE BEEN UP TO IT AND SEE THAT IT

WAS IN TWO. >> AT AN APPROXIMATE AMOUNT. >> IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT OF ITS MORBID IT'S THE CITY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE WE HAVE A SEPARATE EMAIL THAT WE ASKED THEM TO CHANGE THAT. IN THE AGREEMENT IT SAYS IT CAN'T BE SO ACTUALLY EMAIL BACK FOR THE DISTRICT ENGINEERS SAYING IT WILL BE NOT BE MORE THAN A 64 SEVEN 6880.

>> AND I REALLY HAVE IT TO SAY WHETHER IT REASONABLE OR NOT. >> OF THE BLESSED WILL REIMBURSE YOU. IT CAN BE AT THEIR COST BUT THIS IS WHAT WE THINK THE COST WILL BE. APPARENTLY THEY DONE THIS MULTIPLE TIMES IN OTHER AREAS.

>> WHEN THEY RELOCATE OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS THERE ARE NOT AN EXISTING AREA.

THE KIND OF AT THE MERCY OF UTILITY. IF YOU WANT TO PROJECT

SOMETHING JUST KIND OF AT THE MERCY. >> ARE CHOICES TO PAY THE

CIRCLE FORTH. >> HAS THE EXPRESS PARTNERS COME TO US FOR ANY RELOCATION

[00:20:06]

OR ANY WORK RECENTLY? >> WE INQUIRED SO WE HAVE TO HAVE A COPY.

>> ONLY WHEN WE CAN COMPARE IT TO AND WE ENDED UP CHANGING WAS WHEN WE WERE DOING THE 1387 REALIGNMENT PROJECT AT WALNUT GROVE ROAD. CROSSING A MAGELLAN PIPELINE.

WE'RE EXECUTING THE ROAD DOWN AT THAT TIME. TO COME AND IT'S REALLY JUST LOOKING AT THE AREA THAT'S GOING ACROSS. THIS IS ROUGHLY A 90 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT'S ON AN ANGLE SO MAYBE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 90 AND 100 FEET. AGAIN I JUST DON'T KNOW IF IT'S REASONABLE OR NOT I DON'T HAVE THE EXPERIENCE ON IT. AT THIS POINT THIS IS WHAT THEY TOLD US THEY THINK WILL COST

THEM TO DO IT. >> YOU THINK WILL START GOING THIS WAY WITH THE PIPELINES?

>> THEY WILL PROTECT THEMSELVES. >> THIS IS NOT THE LAST ONE.

AGAIN WE SEEN IT IN OTHER AREAS ALREADY. THIS IS JUST THE FIRST ONE IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS THAT WE'VE CROSSED. THEY'VE INDICATED THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES THAT THEY HAVEN'T FOR THE GAS LINE WAS PUT HAVEN'T FOR THE GAS LINE WAS PUT IN.

>> E1 TAKE FUNDS FROM HERE? >> YES SIR. >> OUT THE FIRST OF A SERIOUS SIX SO WE HAVE A PRETTY GOOD SIZABLE DOWNSTAIRS AND WE CAN UTILIZE.

>> THESE ARE GREAT COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS BUT WE HAVE A MOTION NOW.

>> OF A MOTION TO APPROVE AND A SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE THE ITEM PASSES

6 TO 1. WITH COUNCILMAN HARTMAN WITH THE DESCENDENT VOTE. >> THE NEXT ITEM IS 2021 Ã

[2021-246]

246. CONSIDER AN ACTIVE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE FOR THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND A BATTLE OF 644,000 $615.40.

IT IS TO FUND THE CHANGE ORDER NUMBER TWO TO THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AGREEMENT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF COMMUNITY PARK FEES TO TWEEN DEAN ELECTRIC INC. AND THE CITY OF CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. IT ADDS CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE VETERANS MEMORIAL COMMUNITY AND COMMUNITY PARK PHASE 2 AT THE COST OF $586,014 AND A 10% CONTINGENCY OF

$58,601.40. >> WOMAN: GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

I'M HAPPY TO BE HERE THIS EVENING TO TALK ABOUT THIS LONG-AWAITEDWHAT WE HAVE BEEN CALLING THE VETERANS MEMORIAL BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO CALL A VETERANS TRIBUTE.

AS YOU SAID THIS IS A CHANGE ORDER ON THE DEAN CONTRACT FOR COMMUNITY PARK PHASE 2 THAT IS ALREADY UNDER RUCTION. WE ARTY HAVE THE SERVICES OUT RE WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR IS WE WENT TO FORD BE AND WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH THE PARKS BOARD AND THE VETERANS COMMITTEE. WE SAT DOWN AND WHAT THE PROJECT LOOK LIKE AND EVERYTHING THAT WE COULD PUT IN HERE TO CONTAIN IT WILL HAVE A WALKWAY LINED WITH TREES AND

[00:25:05]

BENCHES. SIX MONOLITHS DEPICTING THE SIX MILITARY BRANCHES.

BLACK GRANITE FEEDING WALLS, FLAGPOLE AND MINING AND A NICE ENTRANCE AS YOU WALK UP TO IT IT BE TUCKED INTO THE SOUTHWEST SIDE OF PHASE 2 KIND OF RIGHT WHERE THE CURRENT ROAD DRIVES STRAIGHT INTO THE BACK. IT WILL BE SEATED IN A WILDFLOWER AREA.

AFTER MULTIPLE MEETINGS ON APRIL 22 AT THE END CDC FORD THEY APPROVED THE FUNDING FOR $644,615.40. IT IS TO CONSTRUCT THIS PROJECT.

I WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE ABOUT THAT. >> I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO

SEEING IT MYSELF. >> ARE WE GOING TO PUT EVERYBODY'S NAME FROM START TO FINISH ON THIS OR IS IT JUST THE POLE? I DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT. I KNOW WHAT IT WAS COMING BUT I DO NOTICE LOOK LIKE.

>> WE'RE LOOKING AT MULTIPLE THINGS. WE HAVE BEEN ON MULTIPLE WEBSITES AND LOOKING AT THE ELLIS COUNTY VETERANS AFFAIRS TO FIND PEOPLE'S NAMES FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. WE ARE GOING TO WORK WITH LORI ABOUT PUTTING OUT NOTIFICATION OF PEOPLE SENDING IN NAMES FOR PEOPLE THEY KNOW, THAT ARE IN THE AREA.

WE WILL TAKE PEOPLE FROM 1888 ON. AND SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SERVED IN SOME MANNER, LIVED IN MIDLOTHIAN AT SOME POINT IN OUR LIFETIME AND HAVE BEEN HONORABLY DISCHARGED. WE'RE PUTTING THEIR NAME AND BRANCH.

>> IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'LL BE VERY EXPENSIVE AND WILL CHANGE EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

THE THOUGHT ON THAT IS THIS COMMUNITY AND SEVERAL MEMBERS AGREE THAT THEY WILL RESEARCH BECAUSE WE HAD ELIZABETH ADMIN ASSISTANT WHO SPENT EIGHT HOURS ON IT ALREADY.

THAT'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO PUT OUT A CALL AND OUR THOUGHT IS EACH YEAR WE PUT OUT A CALL.

WE GATHER THE NAMES, THAT THEM AND MAKE SURE WE ARE GOOD WITH THAT AND THEN WE HAVE SOMEONE

COME IN AND ENGRAVE THE NEW NAMES. >> YOU HAVE AN ONGOING COST OF THE YEAR WITH 60 TO 80,000 PLUS YOU HAVE SOMEBODY FULL-TIME LOOKING FOR ANY.

>> WILL NOT HAVE A STAFF MEMBER LOOKING FOR NAMES. ARE GOING TO LOOK TO THE COMMUNITY. IT WILL ASSIST AND WE WILL ALSO LOOK TO THE COMMITTEE TO HELP US WITH THAT. TRY TO GET A LARGE NUMBER IN THE BEGINNING AND WE CONTINUOUSLY EACH YEAR PUT OUT CALLS TO GET PEOPLE TO BRING IT IN.

WE UNDERSTAND THAT CHALLENGE THE GROUP DISCUSSED IT AND WE WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD KNOWING

WHAT THAT CHALLENGE IS GOING TO BE. >> EVERYBODY THAT I'VE SEEN ON A MILITARY BASE PUT NAMES ON IT BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE WILL NEVER BE ON THERE BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT KNOWN TO HAVE DIED IN THAT. AND SO I AGREE WITH THE DESIGN PRINCIPLE.

IT'S JUST THE NAMES AND HAVING ISSUES THAT BECAUSE I WANTED THE MEMORIAL TO BE DEDICATED TO DIFFERENT SERVICES. HE WAS A CONFEDERATE GENERAL AND THEY WANT TO TEAR IT APART.

>> WOULD YOU START WITH THE CITY IN 1888. WE HAVE THAT PROBLEM.

I THINK THIS IS CORRECT. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. FIRST OFF IT'S UP TO CITIZENS.

WE ALREADY HAVE AN INITIAL SET OF NAMES FROM THE COUNTY AND FROM OTHER ORGANIZATIONS.

>> THEY AGREE OR PROVE THAT THAT NAME IS QUALIFIED AND THEY WILL BE ADDED SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SORTED IN ANY PARTICULAR DAY. NAMES WILL BE ADDED EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS. I PLAN EVERYTHING THAT THEY'VE DONE.

[00:30:02]

I PLOPPED DESIGN. IT IS BEAUTIFUL. IT'S VERY REVERENT AND IT'S A GREAT DESIGN. I PUT THE APPROACH THAT YOU ARE GIVEN.

>> IN THE SAND WITH YOU HERE. IT'S A VERY GOOD POINT BECAUSE A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING IN THE COUNTRY. THE NAMES TO BECOME PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE IF SOMEONE DISAGREES WITH THE NAME THAT'S ON THAT OR IF A GROUP OF PEOPLE DISAGREE WITH THE NAME THAT'S ON THEIR WE GIVE THEM TO THE WEEDS JUSTIFYING IT AND THEN REMOVING IT AND ANALYZING.

WE COULD BE OPENING UP A SIGNIFICANT JOB. >> THERE ARE CHALLENGES THAT WITH THIS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE VIETNAM MEMORIAL THEY'VE BEEN ADDING NAMES TO THAT. THIS IS A WAR THAT WAS LONG SINCE OVER.

NAMES ARE STILL AT IT FOR A WHILE. I'VE NEVER HEARD OF ANYONE COMPLAINING ABOUT NAMES THAT ARE THERE. PEOPLE GO THERE TO DEFINE THINGS. IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MEMORIAL IT HAS AND LOOKS A LOT LIKE THE WORLD WAR II MEMORIAL IN WASHINGTON D.C.. I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE NOTE.> I DO THINK IT'S POSITIVE FOR THEIR TAKING ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S NAME OFF OF THINGS. IF ABRAHAM LINCOLN IS NOT SAFE EVERYBODY'S UP FOR GRABS AND I

THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER THAT. >> HOW MUCH SPACE DO WE HAVE? HOW MUCH WILL IT CURRENTLY TAKE

TO FILL UP THE CURRENT SPACE AND CAUSE MORE TO ADD TO IT? >> WE CAN PUT THOUSANDS OF

NAMES ON IT. >> WE HAVE HUNDREDS OF FEET TO GO TO THE SIDEWALLS.

WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS SO THESE ARE GREAT TOPICS BECAUSE WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION MULTIPLE TIMES. CONCERNED ABOUT PUTTING NAMES ON THEIR AND THE SHEER FACT OF MISSING SOMEONE OR SOMEONE SAYING I DON'T THINK THEIR NAMES SHOULD BE ON THERE BECAUSE THEY WEREN'T A GOOD PERSON. THESE THINGS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THE COMMITTEE ENDED UP WANTING TO MOVE FORWARD BECAUSE WHAT THEY REALLY FELT LIKE THE PEOPLE THAT CAME IN AND WANTED TO SEE THEIR FAMILY AND LOVED ONES UP THERE THAT THEY WANTED TO HAVE SOMETHING TO TOUCH. THEY WANTED TO HAVE THAT TACTILE FEEL THEIR NAMES AND SEE THEIR NAMES. WE HAD A DISCUSSION ABOUT QR CODES THAT WE PUT A QR CODE THAT YOU COULD LINK TO. THEY PUT THEIR OWN NAMES UP AND ADD THINGS TO IT.

WE WENT AROUND THE BOARD ONLINE AND THAT'S WHY IT CAME BACK TO. THEY WANTED IT ENGRAVED AND THEN THEY WANTED TO GO THROUGH MULTIPLE DISCUSSIONS OF WHAT THE INFORMATION WE PUT UP THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A DISCUSSION OF PUTTING RANK IN YEARS. THAT'S WHERE WE GOT INTO NOT KNOWING THIS AND THIS INFORMATION GETS REALLY HARD. FROM WHAT ELIZABETH HAD LOOKED THROUGH SOME OF THEM HAD NO DATES. THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BRANCH OR ANYTHING BUT WHAT WE ENDED UP WITH IS TO DO THE NAME AND THE BRANCH ONLY NEW YEAR'S.

WE JUST PUT THEIR BRANCH SO WERE NOT PUTTING RANK. THAT WAS THE DECISION ON THAT AND THAT IS DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE HAVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT.

SOME PEOPLE MAY OBJECT TO IT. >> IT'S THE QUALIFICATIONS. THERE.

IN THE NATIONAL CEMETERY WITH THE ADDITION OF LIVING IN THE AREA AND SOME PART OF YOUR

LIFE. >> AREA OR CITY. >> THE CITY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE EXTRA TERRITORY. IF YOU'VE LIVED IN WHAT IS CONSIDERED TO BE THE COMMUNITY OUTSIDE AND QUALIFICATION IT'S THE SAME THAT IS BURIED IN THE NATIONAL CEMETERY.

>> WAS HIS JOB TITLE OF THE PERSON VETTING THIS TO MAKE SURE?

>> WILL BE CONSTITUTED HERE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. >> IS THE COMMITTEE.

THE STAFF WILL WORK WITH THE COMMITTEE BUT IT IS A COMMITTEE.

[00:35:09]

>> UP INTO THE TWO MEETINGS AND AT NO POINT DID I SEE ANYBODY ADDRESS THEM TALKING AROUND THE SPACE. THE DESIGN IS NOT A STRAIGHT LINE.

IT'S AN AGGRESSIVE MOVE. >> ARE TOTALLY CHANGING THE DESIGN OF THIS MATTER AND MEMORIAL. WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO AS FAR AS IF WE HAVE TO AND WE WILLFULLY INCLUDE EVERY NAME ALIVE AND DECEASED THAT WAS SERVED.

>> YOU HAVE TO BE A VETERAN FIRST. THAT MEANS YOU SERVE AND YOU

ARE NOW. >> WE DISCUSSED THE FACT THAT WE COULD RUN OUT OF SPACE AT

SOME TIME BUT IT WILL BE YEARS AND YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. >> WE DON'T KNOW HOW MEANINGS WE CURRENTLY HAVE VERSUS HOW MANY NAMES CAN GO ON THE MEMORIAL.

NONE OF ANSWERS THAT QUESTION. >> YOU DO APPROXIMATION OF THE OTHER PLACES ONLY HAD 11 PEOPLE

FROM MIDLOTHIAN THAT ARE LISTED IN ELLIS COUNTY AT THIS POINT. >> THAT WAS WORLD WAR I.

>> ARE TALKING ABOUT A FEW HUNDRED. >> WE'RE LOOKING AT A FEW HUNDRED AND WE CAN FIT THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE ON THERE. YES IT DOES HAVE A FINITE SPAN THAT WE CAN FIT ON THERE. WE WILL PUT AS MANY NAMES AND FROM THERE I WOULD BE IN

ADDITION IF AT THAT POINT THE COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE ON. >> I JUST HAVE CONCERNS THAT THERE IS NO CONCRETE LEADERSHIP TAKING A ROLE. I'VE BEEN TO TWO OF THE

MEETINGS. >> TO MAKE A STATEMENT ABOUT A PERSON'S QUALIFICATION.

>> UP INTO TWO MEETINGS AND IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S NO CLEAR-CUT PATH TO GET THE GOALS THAT WE WANT. IF WE'RE THROWING MONEY AT THIS WHICH I'M FOR THE MEMORIAL BUT WE NEED SOME CLEAR LEADERSHIP WITH WHO WILL BE IN CHARGE OF IT AND WHO'S GONNA TAKE CARE OF IT. WHO'S GONNA PAY FOR THE VETTING.

THERE'S NO NAMES BEING ADDED TO ANY OF THIS. >> THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WILL

MANAGE THAT AS IT IS LOCATED IN THE PARK. >> THIS IS SINCE BEFORE I

STARTED HERE. >> GROUPS HAVE COME AND GONE AND UP AND FORM BUT NEVER NOTIFY ONE TIME TO SHOW UP TO MEETING. THERE IS DYSFUNCTION IN THIS.

>> THAT IS INCORRECT ACTUALLY. > HAVE JOINED THIS COMMITTEE IN 2017 AS A MEMBER AND I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMITTEE SINCE 2017. WE SERVED AS A COUNCIL LIAISON SINCE 2018. THERE HAS BEEN MEETING AFTER MEETING FOR YOU AND AFTER YOU.

>> THINK YOU JUST AND YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT TO THIS. >> NO SIR.

>> WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSIONS AFTER THIS. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE TO

HAVE A SECOND? >> I WILL SECOND. >> WE HAVE A DISCUSSION?

>> ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO SAY OR ASK MRS. THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT NAMES, I'M ASSUMING THAT THESE ARE GRANITE WALLS AND I'M ASSUMING THE BRANCH LOGOS ARE GOING TO BE PUT ON TOP. THERE ARE SIX MONOLITHS. THERE'S ONE FOR EACH FORCE OF

THE SURFACE. >> THE BRANCHES WILL BE ON THE MONOLITH AND THE NAMES WILL BE

ON THE WALL. >> I GUESS WHERE I WAS HEADED WITH THIS WAS WE CAN STILL GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE FUNDS TO BUILD IT AND KEEP DEBATING ABOUT NAMES LATER.

>> UNLESS THE NAMES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE I DON'T KNOW.HAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING

TO ASK EARLIER. >> THE NAMES ARE INCLUDED IN THE PRICE AT A CERTAIN POINT SO BECAUSE THEY WILL BE THE NAMES THAT WE GET NOW WILL BE ENGRAVED BEFORE IT'S EVEN SET.

THEN AFTER THAT SOMEONE WILL COME OUT AND ENGRAVE IT ON SITE.

>> UNLESS THE FUNDING IS CONTINGENT ON TAKING THE NAMES OFF.

>> I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO FAIL OVER A DEBATE ABOUT WHETHER NAMES SHOULD BE ON OUR OFF. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE FUNDS TO CONSTRUCT AND HAVE A

[00:40:02]

DEBATE ABOUT NAMES AND THE MANAGING OF THE MEMORIAL LEADER?

>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT I DON'T THINK 4B WAS INVOLVED WITH THE NAME DISCUSSION.

I THINK THAT WAS JUST THE SUBCOMMITTEE. >> THERE WAS A COMMITTEE AND

SOME OF 4B WAS THERE. >> IS NOT THE SPECIFICS. >> LIKE I SAID I WOULD REALLY

FOR THIS TO FAIL OVER THAT. >> I'M FOR IT. >> I'M FOR THE NAMES BUT I WILL NOT HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING THE NAME OFF THE WALL AND PUT ON THE WALL.

I'M JUST SAYING. I DON'T THINK ANYONE HERE SHOULD EITHER.

>> I AGREE WITH THAT AND THAT'S FAIR. >> I'M SICK OF THE STATUTES BEING TAKEN DOWN. I WON'T DEAL WITH IT. IT'S A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

>> WERE NOT IMPROVING ANYTHING TO TAKE THINGS OFF. ONLY PUTTING NAMES ON.

>> IS MY POINT. IT'S BEEN SINCE 2017 THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING THESE MEETINGS AND KNOWING COMES UP WITH A SOLUTION. THAT SOLUTION NEEDS TO COME UP

AND BE THERE SOON. >> WHEN WE APPROVE TONIGHT CHRIS, WHAT IS SET FOR AND IS THERE ROOM IN THE FUTURE TO STILL BE DECIDED? WE WILL HAVE THAT COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE IS GOING TO DECIDE WHAT NAMES GO ON THE WALL AND NO WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED TAKE NAMES OFF THE WALL. WHAT IS SET NOW WITH THIS RESOLUTION AND WHAT IS STILL TO

BE DETERMINED? >> IS A CHANGE TO THE CONTRACT.

>> BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK AT SOME POINT AND ASK FOR PERMISSION?

>> AFTER YOU GET THIS MONEY TO BUILD A MEMORIAL. >> WE'RE GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BUILDING IT SO WE CAN GET IT DONE WHILE THE PARK IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.

>> WILL SAVE THAT FUNDING BY NOT HAVING TO RE-MOBILIZE ANOTHER COMPANY LATER ON.

>> AND WE PUT THE NAMES ON THAT YOU HAVE FOR A CUT OFF DATE.

>> YES JULY 4TH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. WHERE TO SEND OUT PUBLICATIONS TO CONTACT CITIZENS TO SAY PLEASE SEND THE NAMES. I ALREADY HAVE PEOPLE SENDING ME NAMES AND EMAILING ME RIGHT NOW. WE'RE GONNA PUT THAT OUT AND TAKE THE NAMES THAT WE HAVE AND GO THROUGH EVERYTHING. CONTINUE ON.

I HAVE TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE WHO HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME TODAY.

I ALREADY HAVE MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE GOING OUT TO GET THROUGH THAT.

WE ARE WORKING WITH THE LESION AND GETTING NAMES SO WE ARE GOING THROUGH THE ACTUAL

LOGISTICS FOR VETERANS AFFAIRS. >> KEVIN I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

IS THERE ANY LANGUAGE THAT WE COULD PUT IN THIS TO MAKE SURE THAT WERE NOT PULLING NAMES OFF

LATER? >> I GET IT BUT IF WE PUT THE MONEY FORWARD ON THE TALK ABOUT

IT AGAIN. >> WITH THIS COUNSEL AND ASK IS WHAT'S CONTAINED.

NEW TYPE OF LANGUAGE IS GONNA LEAVE THIS. >> THE SHORT ANSWER IS NOW.

>> I'M JUST GUESSING THAT IT'S 2021 SO WHEN WILL THIS BE DONE? >> WE'RE HOPING FOR VETERAN'S

DAY THIS YEAR. >> ARE PROBABLY ABOUT A WEEK TO ACCEPT THAT THIS IS UP.

SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WHERE THEIR NAME IS OR WHO IS NEXT TO THEM AND SOMETHING TO GOOGLE SEARCH ON SOMEBODY AND FIGURE OUT THAT THEY'VE NEVER LIVED HERE.

>> THAT THE PROBLEM. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT HOW WE GET IT FIXED OR

[00:45:04]

REMOVED. HOW DARE YOU PUT ME NEXT TO THIS PERSON OR HOW DEAR MY

GRANDDAD OR MY SISTER. >> I THINK WERE GOING TO NEED TO KNOW THAT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME AT US A LOT SOONER THAN 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.

>> WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD. THAT'S THE POINT. >> YOU ARE CORRECT ABOUT MOVING FORWARD AND I'M WITH EVERYBODY HERE. I THINK WE WANT THE MEMORIAL..

I THINK THAT'S MY PERSONAL OPINION. THE ONLY THING WE'RE ARGUING OVER IS THE NAMES. SO KEVIN WHEN WE CONSTITUTE THIS COMMITTEE THE COUNCIL HAVE

TO DO SOMETHING. >> I TAKE IT THAT YOU DON'T WANT THE NAMES ON THE WALL.

>> MY QUESTION IS THIS GOING TO BE A COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO MANAGE THIS.

THAT'S GOING TO BE COMMITTEE THAT'S GOING TO BE CONSTITUTED BY THE COUNCIL IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IT CAN BE. >> THE THING THAT WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT IS IT BRINGS FORTH A LIST OF NAMES APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY ARE PART OF THE PROCESS.

WORKING HAVE TO BRING FUNDING FOR THE BEST. >> LET ME SUGGEST SOMETHING.

APPARENTLY I GUESS WE DON'T. THIS POINT WE DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN ADOPTED PROCEDURE REGARDING PUTTING THE NAME. IN OTHER CITIES WHERE YOU HAVE NAMING OPPORTUNITIES FOR THINGS LIKE THAT TYPICALLY THERE IS A POLICY THAT IS ADOPTED THAT GOES THROUGH AN APPLICATION VETTING PROCESS WITH PARKS AND COMMITTEES. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF THE VOTE IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT ITSELF WITHOUT ANY THE ESTABLISHED WRITTEN PROCEDURES AND PROCESS TO BE ADOPTED. WE HAVE THAT PROCEDURE COUNSEL.

THE INFORMATION THAT IS REQUIRED I'LL GET YOU OVER THE HUMP AT LEAST FOR TONIGHT KNOWING THAT THE NAMING OPPORTUNITIES ARE THERE. IT SOUNDS LIKE AGAIN WHEN I'M HEARING IS THE NAMING OPPORTUNITIES TO BE GENERAL CONSENSUS AND THAT'S OKAY BUT IT'S THE HOW-TO THAT SEEMS TO BE THE LACK OF A POLICY. THAT'S JUST MY SUGGESTION.> SO WAYNE I THINK THAT IT'S YOUR MOTION WOULD YOU LIKE TO REWORD IT?

>> I LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE NAMES WILL BE PEOPLE

INTERPRETED WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. >> PEOPLE TAKE THE BEST OF THE

CIRCLE INDIVIDUALS. >> I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN OUR PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF THAT WE

CAN THROUGH THAT. THIS IS NOT A TAX. >> WE APPROVE THE FUNDING FOR THIS IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEN I GUESS DIRECT STAFF TO COME BACK?

[00:50:15]

>> WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMITTEE ABOUT PUTTING TOGETHER A POLICY THAT WILL BE FOLLOWED. WE KNOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO CALL IN.

THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN AND BE PUT TOGETHER.

THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT TOMORROW SO THERE'S TIME TO HAVE MORE MEETINGS AND PUT THAT TOGETHER AND WE CAN BRING IT BACK TO COUNSEL. WE LET YOU SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE AS IT STANDS HE HAS A MOTION WITHOUT THE PROCEDURES AND AT.

>> THE RESOLUTION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PUTTING NAMES. IT'S THE DESIGN THAT SHOWS

NAMES IN THE PUZZLE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. >> IT STATES THAT THAT'S PART

OF IT. >> IS THERE A LIMIT TO THIS EMOTION?

>> IT PROVIDES FUNDING EVEN THOUGH THE CONTRACT SAYS THIS INCLUDES NAMES BUT IT DOESN'T SPECIFY HOW GETTING THE NAMES. THE ACTUAL EXECUTION IS SUBJECT TO BE DISCUSSED.

>> AND TECHNICALLY WE CAN. >> CAN WE HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION? THIS IS JUST A CHANGE ORDER. IN THE DESIGN ITSELF THAT WE PRICED OUT IT HAS ENGRAVING AND NOT. AS THEY CREATE EACH PIECE OF WALL THEY WILL GO AHEAD AND ENGRAVE WHILE IT'S AT THE SHOP BECAUSE IT'S MUCH LESS EXPENSIVE AND EASIER TO DO.

THAT CAN BE HAULED OFF AND WE CAN FIGURE OUT WHAT COUNCIL WANTS US TO DO TO MOVE FORWARD.

> DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> IT'S REGARDING THIS ISSUE. >> THE CONSTANT DESIRE TO DO

THAT. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE LEGAL QUESTION IS THAT YOU'RE

RELATING TO. >> AT 6:53 PM WE'RE GOING TO CONVENE TO THE EXECUTIVE

SESSION FOR THE LEGAL ISSUE REGULAR TIPS TO THE VETERANS. >> THE TIME IS 7:03 PM. COUNCIL I SUGGEST THAT WE MAKE A MOTION AS IS.

AFTER WE VOTE ON THAT WE CAN GET STAFF DIRECTION AS FAR AS GOING FORWARD AS WE LIKE.

I BELIEVE THAT WE CAN DO THAT SO WITH THAT I CALL THE VOTE WAYNE HAS VOTED AND MADE A

MOTION THAT WE APPROVED AS PRESENTED >> SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

IT PASSES 7 TO 0. NOW, IF I UNDERSTAND COUNSEL CORRECTLY WE WANT THE NAME AND POLICY TO BE BROUGHT BACK TO COUNSEL AND NOT TO HAVE ANY ABSENCE ON NAMING THE TRIBUTE UNTIL COUNSEL HAS

[00:55:04]

AGREED. IS THAT A FAIR SUNDAY COUNSEL? THANK YOU EVERYONE.

[2021-247]

>> AGENDA ITEM 2021 Ã247. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROVE A BID AWARD TODAY CONSTRUCTION FOR THEM MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT IN THE BID AMOUNT OF $156,300 PLUS $39,075

IN CONTINGENCY FOR A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $195,395. >> GOOD EVENING COUNSEL.

WE ARE COMING FORWARD TONIGHT STRUGGLING WITH TWO DIFFERENT POLICIES.ER OUR BYLAWS WE ARE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE CITIES PROCUREMENT POLICY. WE ARE ALSO PER STATE LAW TO SEEK COUNSEL'S APPROVAL FOR EXPENDITURES. THE PROJECT THAT IS BEFORE US IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK.

WE COMPLETED THE LIFT STATION IMPROVEMENT EXCEPT THOSE COMPONENTS THAT COULD GO BACK.

WE WANTED TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAD A TENANT WHO IS READY TO MOVE IN.

ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE? >> EMOTION.WE'VE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SECOND?

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.