Jul 12, 2022 City Council

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

[00:00:07]

>> MAYOR: GOOD EVENING, IT IS 6 P.M., JULY 12TH.

I CALL THIS SESSION OF THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL TO OR ORDER. MR. DAN TALBER FROM THE CHOSEN

WILL LEADS IN OUR INVOCATION. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR RENO.

HEAVENLY FATHER, WE THANK YOU, WE LOVE YOU, WE PRAISE YOU.

YOUR MERCIES ARE NEW EVERY MORNING, LORD RIGHT NOW WE LIFT UP THE CITY LEADERS OF MIDLOTHIAN, CITIZENS AND RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN BEFORE YOU, LORD, AND PRAY THAT YOU GIVE ALL OF US WISDOM IN THE MIND OF CHRIST AND, LORD, AS THESE LEADERS OF OUR CITY, LORD, HELP SPEAK TO THEM ON ALL THE DECISIONS THEY MAKE TONIGHT, GUIDE AND LEAD ALL OF US, IN YOUR GLORY WE PRAY, IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD AND ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

>> MAYOR: ON A SIDE NOTE, I WELCOME AND CONGRATULATION MAURICE OSBORN WITH HIS NEW APPOINTMENT WITH OUR STATE REP.

BRIAN HARRISON, FIRST DAY ON THE JOB, I BELIEVE.

[2022-272]

THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA.

YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES, GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP. STEVE HAMM.

>> MR. MAYOR, AND COUNCILMEN, CITY MANAGER, STEVE HAMM, I MOVED INTO MY RESIDENCE 17 YEARS AGO AT WEST ALABAMA, LOVED THE TOWRCHTOWN, STILL LOVE IT NOW. WE HAVE HAD A RECENT SITUATION THAT I UNDERSTAND, I'M TOLD THAT BECAUSE OF VACATION TIME, THERE WERE THREE ENTITIES INVOLVED IN THIS TRIANGLE.

THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, ATMUS GAS AND ML HOT BLIND.

AND IF I CAN CIRCULATE JUST O ONE -- THIS IS A PHOTOGRAPH I CAPTURED WHILE MY NEIGHBOR ACROSS THE STREET ARE FROM ME, 515 WEST ALABAMA. WHILE SHE WAS AT WORK, THIS ML PIPELINE COMPANY, WITHOUT ANY NOTICE WHATSOEVER, THAT'S NOT THE EASE MANY. THAT'S HER PROPERTY.

THEY SET UP A CAN CANOPY. THEY TOOK HER WORK TRUCK AND LITERALLY TOOK OVER HER DRIVEWAY.

THEY WERE THERE SIX HOURS DIGGING A HOLE IN HER YARD AND THEN WHEN SHE CAME HOME, SHE CAME OVER AND SAID, WHAT IS THIS? WHO DID THIS? AND I THINK THAT'S INEXCUSABLE. I THINK THE CITIZENS OF MIDLOTHIAN, ESPECIALLY THE HOMEOWNERS, NEED TO BE AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING, WHEN IT IS HAPPENING TO THEIR PROPERTY.

NOW, AMY GONZALEZ, I'M TOLD, SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH VINY. A LONG-TIME FIELD SUPERVISOR FOR ATLAS. WHATEVER HE UNDERSTOOD ABOUT OUR FRUSTRATIONS, HE CAME TO MY HOUSE AND SPENT 30 MINUTES THE OTHER MORNING. PROFESSIONAL FROM DAY ONE.

AND I ASK VINY, SAID, VINY, ARE YOU DISAPPOINTING IN THE FACT THAT THERE ARE 12-FEET DEEP HOLES DUG INTO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY ARE NOT COVERED.

THAT'S NOT A SAFE THING FOR OUR CHILDREN.

AND AS YOU SEE, THEY USED THAT ORANGE WHAT I CALL RUBBER BANDS, BASICALLY A MESS, THAT'S NOT GOING TO STOP A CAR, WOULDN'T STOP A CHILD. LIKE I TOLD VINY, DURING THE

[00:05:03]

IT IS DEEP ENOUGH AT THAT RESIDENCE WHERE WE COULD HAVE LOST A LITTLE CHILD DOWN IN THERE.

SO, AGAIN, NOTHING HAS HAPPENED. I DID TALK TO VINY WITH MY CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. HE WAS ASKING ME IF I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE A BETTER SCENARIO IF THEY WERE COVERED.

THAT WOULD BE A GREAT START. STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY NONE OF THE CITIZENS INVOLVED WERE AWARE AND WE DID HAVE TWO PEOPLE FROM THE CITY COME OUT AND THEY SAID THE CITY WASN'T EVEN AWARE THAT THAT WAS HAPPENING. SO THERE'S ONE THING THAT, AGAIN, HOPEFULLY WE CAN LEARN FROM THIS, DO BETTER FROM THIS, AND THAT IS THERE ARE NO TIMELINES ON THIS PROJECT AT ALL. I CAN'T FIND ANYBODY THAT GIVES ME A TIMELINE. SO WE HAVE ALL THESE HOLES, PEOPLE CHALLENGED. PEOPLE UPSET.

AND WE CAN'T GET AN ANSWER AS FAR AS TIMELINE.

SO IN MY PAST EXPERIENCE WORKING ON A CITY COUNCIL, WE DIDN'T APPROVE ANYTHING UNTIL WE HAD THE GAME PLAN AND A TIMELINE.

AND ATLAS CAN HONES HONESTLY TE, IS THIS FINISHED BY SEPTEMBER.

HE SAID HE CANNOT TELL ME THAT. WE HAVE NOT DISCOVERED WHAT IS UNDER THE STREET WHEN WE BORE. IF THERE IS SOLID ROCK, THERE MAY BE PLACES THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY NEED TO DO.

MY QUESTION IS, WHY DID YOU DIG THESE HOLES BEFORE WE RESEARCHED FURTHER TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T MAKING A BAD CHOICE IN THE WAY WE ARE DOING THIS. HIS ANSWER TO ME WAS, ML PIPELINE, ATLAS HAS NO INFORMATION ON THIS COMPANY AT ALL THAT'S ACTUALLY REPRESENTING THEM BECAUSE THEY WERE LOW BID FOR THIS CERTAIN JOB. NOBODY KNOWS ANYTHING ABOUT THEM. HERE WE ARE RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. I WANTED TO MAKE YOU GUYS AWARE OF SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN LOOK INTO IT AND LOOK FOR RESOLUTIONS.

I BELIEVE IN YOU GUYS. >> MAYOR: WE HAVE NO OTHER

[CONSENT AGENDA]

SEPARATELY. >> COUNCILPERSON: MAYOR, I WOULD

LIKE TO PULL ITEM 275. >> MAYOR: ALL RIGHT, ITEM 275.

ANY OTHER REQUESTS? TAKE A MOTION, PLEASE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF 275, SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES 4-0. THEN REGULAR AGENDA ITEM, WE

[2022-275]

YEAR. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL, MAYOR.

THIS YEAR WE WE BRING IN A NEW CONTRACT, NEW INTERLOCAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL BASED ON SCHOOL RESOURCE PROGRAM THIS YEAR, WE HAVE, IN OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, ASKED FOR TWO ADDITIONAL OFFICERS BASED ON DISCUSSIONS WITH MISD EARLY IN THEIR BUDGET DISCUSSIONS. AND SO THE WAY THE WORDING IS, THE TENTH OFFICER WE ARE ACTUALLY, THEY ARE GOOD WITH NINE OFFICERS AND LOOKING TO BRING ON A TENTH IN JANUARY WHEN THITHEY RECONSIDER OR RE-EVALUAE THEIR BUDGETING SYSTEM.

IT IS A MONEY ISSUE FOR THEM. BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY IN OUR STRATEGY APPROVED TEN OFFICERS, THEY WANT TO PUT THE TENTH OFFICER ON BUT THEY HAVE TO RE-EVALUATE.

SO WE WANT TO COME IN WITH A CONTRACT THAT LOOKS LIKE TEN AND COME BACK WITH AMENDMENT IN JANUARY.

WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE THINK AS WE LOOK MONTH TO MONTH, IF THE MONEY IS THERE, WE WILL HAVE THE TENTH OFFICER.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

THE OTHER ONE WAS, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER, THE SECOND REASON I

[00:10:02]

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS THE SCHOOL'S DECISION OR BOTH OF OUR DECISIONS, WHY IS THERE ONE OFFICER PER CAMPUS?

>> BUDGET. WE DON'T HAVE -- IT IS -- WE ARE STEADILY, I THINK WE HAVE MADE AT LEAST ONE ADDITIONAL OFFICER EVERY YEAR. WE WOULD HAVE TO BRING ON FOUR

OFFICERS TO DO THAT. >> COUNCILPERSON: THAT'S A SCHOOL DECISION, BUDGET DECISION, BUT SCHOOL'S DECISION IF THEY WANT ADDITIONAL FOUR OFFICERS?

>> WELL, I GUESS IN REALITY, WE COULD FOUR OFFICERS THERE, THAT IS OUTSIDE OUR NORMAL DEPLOYMENT.

IF WE WANTED TO ADD FOUR ADDITIONAL OFFICERS, AND PUT THEM THERE, I'M SURE THEY WOULD TAKE THE OFFICERS WITH THE

CITY'S BLESSING. >> THIS IS THE TWO ADDITIONAL THAT WE ARE ADDING IS PART OF LAST YEAR'S BUDGET.

ON THE BUDGET CYCLE THIS YEAR, YOU WILL TRY TO ADD THEORY TWO?

>> THIS IS THE 22-23 BUDGET. WE WON'T BE ADDING THESE -- IF YOU APPROVE THIS, WE HAVE AN OFFICER WE HAVE ALREADY SELECTED AND WILL GO INTO TRAINING AND BE READY BY FIRST OF AUGUST.

WE WILL BE PUT IN PLACE AN OFFICER THERE, BASED ON THEIR BUDGETING THAT WE CAN START RECOUPING THAT COST OF THAT OFFICER PLACED ON 64%. BUT OUR BUDGET WON'T KICK IN UNTIL OCTOBER. BUT WE WILL BE SHORT AN OFFICER

UNTIL OCTOBER. >> COUNCILPERSON: ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR: MOTION TO APPROVE, SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES. >> THANKS CHIEF.

[2022-281]

>> MAYOR: ITEM 281, I MOVE TO MOVE ITEM 281 TO THE JULY 26TH SESSION AT THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.

IS THERE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO TABLE --

>> MAYOR: LEAVE IT OPEN AND CONTINUE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: MOVE TO CONTINUE.

>> MAYOR: SECOND? >> COUNCILPERSON: SECONDED.

>> MAYOR: ANY DISCUSSION? PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. OPEN ITEM

[2022-277]

>> YES, SIR, THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

THE NEXT ITEM, CASE NO. SUP15-2022-120.

AGAIN, THIS IS FOR PROPOSED ONCOR SUBSTATION.

THE TOTAL ACRES FOR THE SITE IS ROUGHLY AROUND FIVE ACRES AND THE LAND IS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR PROPOSAL ONCOR SUBSTATION. AS YOU SEE AGAIN ON THIS NEXT SLIDE, SUP COURTESY OF CITY OF MIDLOTHIANZONING ORDINA.

THE APPLICANT IS COMING BEFORE YOU GUYS TONIGHT.

WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE PROPOSED CONTROL CENTERS AS WELL AS TRANSFORMERS.

ALSO, THERE WILL BE AN EIGHT-FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL SURROUNDING THE DEVELOPMENT.

IN THEX NEXT SLIDE WHAT THE WALL LOOK LIKE.

CONSTRUCTED OUT OF BRICK MATERIAL.

THE NEXT TWO SLIDES, ELEVATION FACADE RENDERING.

THE NEXT SLIDE IS A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF THE COLOR VERSION,

[00:15:02]

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ONE VARIANCE.

SO PER THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE WITHIN THE SINGLE FAMILY ONE ZONING DISTRICT, IN ADDITION TO FENCING SCREENING, APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE LANDSCAPING ON THE OUTSIDE. HOWEVER, DUE TO NO PUBLIC WATER LINE BEING AROUND THE AREA, THE AREA IS REQUESTING VARIANCE REQUEST FOR SHRUBS TO BE THERE AND AGAIN, THAT WILL BE DUE TO THE APPLICANT NOT BEING ABLE TO IRRIGATE THE LANDSCAPING AT THE SITE. SO THE CONFLICT IS ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THAT. AT THE JUNE 21ST, 2022, PLANNING & ZONING VOTED 7-0 TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

AND AGAIN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED.

>> MAYOR: DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SPEAK? AND WE DO HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER, TOO.

>> THAT'S ME, SETH SAMPSON, I'M A SIGHTING SPECIALIST WITH ON CONCOR. I'M HERE TO ANSWER THINK

QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE FOR US. >> ANY QUESTIONS? MOTION TO CLOSE? SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM IS CLOSED.

ANY DISCUSSION. >> COUNCILPERSON: I ONLY HAD ONE QUESTION, HOW FAR IS WATER FROM THE SITE?

IS THERE A LINE GOING GIFCO. >> I COULDN'T GIVE YOU THE EXACT MEASUREMENT. AS YOU GO FURTHER EAST, KIND OF FURTHER DOWN THIS WAY, YOU WILL RUN INTO A WATER LINE.

BUT, AGAIN, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FAR.

I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACT MEASUREMENT.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE APPLICANT'S

REQUEST. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> MAYOR: DO WE HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE?

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> WE CLOSED. >> COUNCILPERSON: MOVE TO

APPROVE. >> MAYOR: MOTION TO APPROVE.

IS THERE A SECOND? WE HAVE A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 4-0.

[2022-278]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM 2022-278, CASE NO. SUP18-2022-127.

AGAIN, THIS IS PROPOSED SECONDARY UNIT ALONG MC MCALPIN ROAD. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CONSTRUCT A SECONDARY DWELLING IN ADDITION TO THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. SO THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE SITE LAYOUT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY.

AS YOU SEE OVER TO THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE, IMAGE.

REAL CONCEPTUAL. WHERE NO. 1 IS DEPICTIVE OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. NO. 2 IS DEPICTIVE OF THE SECONDARY STRUCTURE ON THE SITE. AGAIN, THAT'S JUST CONCEPTUAL DRAWING. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DWELLING AT THE SAME TIME. THE SECONDARY DWELLING WILL BE ROUGHLY AROUND 3,313 SQUARE FEET.

TWO-STORY CONSTRUCTED OF BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL.

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS 5,941 SQUARE FEET.

THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS USED AS MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE.

SO WHENEVER AN APPLICANT REQUESTS CONSTRUCT A SECONDARY DWELLING ON THE SITE, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN ZONING ORDINANCE, WE HAVE ROUGHLY 10 TO 11 STANDARDS APPLICANTS MUST MEET.

THE APPLICANT IS WILLING TO MEET ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF TWO. ONE IN PARTICULAR, AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE, IS ITEM NO. 3, THE FLOOR AREA SHALL NOT EXCEED 50% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. SO CURRENTLY AS IT STANDS, AGAIN, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT IS PROPOSED TO BE 3,313 SQUARE

[00:20:04]

THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE 3499 SQUARE FOOT OF AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA. 50% OF THE PRIMARY WOULD BE 1749 SQUARE FEET. AGAIN, THE PROPOSED SECONDARY DWELLING WILL BE 3,313 SQUARE FEET.

SO BETWEEN THAT 50% MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE AND WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 1500 DIFFERENCE IN BETWEEN.

HOWEVER, AGAIN, STAFF WE DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THIS IS ROUGHLY AN EIGHT-ACRE SITE. IF APPROVED WITH BOTH STRUCTURES ON THE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT WILL BE ROUGHLY 20% OF THE 40% LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS THE ELEVATION FACADE PLAN. GOING TO CONSIST OF BOARD AND BATTEN MATERIAL. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A BETTER VIEW OF IT WITH IT BEING IN COLOR.

THIS IS THE SECONDARY DWELLING PROPOSAL.

HOWEVER, THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IS INTENDED TO BE ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME. THIS NEXT SLIDE, AGAIN, VARIANCE REQUEST, WE TALKED ABOUT 50% THAT WE JUST WENT OVER IN REFERENCE TO THE AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING UNIT. THE APPLICANT IS EXCEEDING THAT BY ROUGHLY 1500 SQUARE FEET. LASTLY, ELECTRICAL POWER FOR THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT MUST BE SERVED BY THE SAME ELECTRIC UTILITY METER WITHOUT SUB METERING.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR TWO SEPARATE METERS.

I WILL LET THE APPLICANT EXPLAIN THEIR REASONING FOR THAT.

HOWEVER, AT THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETINGS, THE P&Z COMMISSION VOTED 7-0 TO APPROVE PER STAFF COMMENTS AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SUP PER THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS. THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO OBTAIN A CITY PERMIT. THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE SETBACKS OF THE AGRICULTURAL.

AND THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS REGARDING THE SALE OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY BEING PROHIBITED UNTIL REPLATED. AGAIN, THOSE LAST TWO STATEMENTS, NO. 4 AND 5, WERE IN REFERENCE TO THOSE VARIANCE REQUESTS AS REQUESTED BY APPLICANT.

THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION FOR THIS CASE.

I THOUGHT THEY WERE HERE. NEVER MIND.

>> COLBY, POINT 3, AN APPROVED PAVED SURFACE OF CITY STAFF, MINIMUM CON RECEIPT MATERIAL OF 25 FEET.

CONCRETE MATERIAL, 25 FEET.

>> HOW OFTEN APPLICANTS STATE DUE TO THE PRICE OF CONCRETE OR WHATEVER THE MATERIAL IS, THEY ARE REQUESTING FOR SOME FORM OF ANOTHER VARIANCE, IF YOU WILL. SO AFTER SPEAKING WITH OUR ENGINEERS, CITY ENGINEER, THEY APPROVED AN ALL-WEATHERED SURFACE WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHICH IS FINE. HOWEVER, WITHIN THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE AREA, 25 FEET WIDE AND 2E CONSTRUCTED OF CONCRETE MATERIAL. AND THEN THE REST WILL BE AN APPROVED ALL-WEATHER SURFACE BY THE CITY ENGINEER.

>> WE ARE TALK BEING A PAD IN TN FRONT OF THEIR GARAGE.

>> YES. >> THANK YOU.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SO AGAIN, THIS IS CONCEPTUAL, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE 50 FEET FROM THE FRONT AND 2.

50 FEET FROM THE FRONT, 25 FEET FROM THE SIDE.

50 FEET FROM THE REAR. SO EVEN THOUGH THAT IS CONCEPTUAL, THEY HAVE AGREED TO MEET THE -- YES, SIR.

COKTHE TWO SETBACKS, THE 50-FOOT REAR, THAT MUST MEET THE SAME DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO STRUCTURES AS IT DOES FOR THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE FOR THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

[00:25:05]

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THERE WILL BE A GAP IN BETWEEN THEM. THEY SHOULD MEET REQUIREMENTS.

>> COLBY, NOT TO INTERRUPT, DOESN'T THAT SETBACK REQUIREMENT ONLY PERTAIN FROM ONE OWNER PROPERTY TO ANOTHER OWNER PROPERTY AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE SAME OWNER HAVING TWO BUILDINGS ON THE SAME PROPERTY. SO A, QUOTE, SIDE YARD SETBACK WOULDN'T APPLY IN BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK RICHARD IS PROBABLY GETTING AT.

>> I COULD BE MISSPEAKING ON THAT.

I CAN SAY THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, LABELED NO. 1, IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS. THEY WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 50-FOOT FRONT, 25-FOOT SIDE, 50-FOOT REAR SETBACK.

THERE WILL BE A DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THOSE -- OF THE SAME SETBACKS OF THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE DUE TO THIS BEING CONCEPTUAL. WE DON'T KNOW THE EXACT DISTANCE BETWEEN THEM. HOWEVER, THEY WILL MEET THE REQUIRED SETBACKS PER THE AGRICULTUREAL ZONE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> RIGHT, SO GOING BACK TO THAT RECOMMENDATION -- SORRY, I KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE SLIDES. SO DUE TO THEM HAVING -- THEY ARE REQUESTING TWO SEPARATE METERS, WHICH WE ARE OKAY WITH.

COMMENT NO. 5, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE NOTICE IN THE PROPERTY RECORDS REGARDING THE SALE OF ANY PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY BEING PROHIBITED UNTIL REPLATED.

AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WORKED OUT WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEYS AND WE FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

SO THEREFORE THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO LEASE OUT OR RENT THE SECONDARY DWELLING FOR ANY REASON.

>> THEY COULD SELL IT, THOUGH. >> THEY CAN SELL IT, REPLAT THE PROPERTY, SPLIT IT AND THEN ASK FOR A VARIANCE IF THEY DON'T MEET THE SETBACKS AT THAT POINT. CORRECT.

. >> THEY ARE ASKING FOR SECONDARY METER WHICH MEANS THEY COULD REPLAT AND SELL OFF.

>> IF THEY ONLY HAVE ONE DRIVE ACCESS, THEY CAN HAVE AN ACCESS EASEMENT. EASEMENT FOR THE DRIVEWAY THAT

WE ARE APPROVING. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> AND THE WATER AND POWER BOTH SEPARATE? FROM THIS HOUSE TO THIS HOUSE, NOT METERED SEPARATELY.

>> THEY WANT TWO SEPARATE ME METERS.

SORRY, I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SO JUST OUT OF YOU'RE YOS CURIOSITY.THE AGRICULTUREAL WIDS THIS THE ONLY REASON THEY ARE COMING FOR THIS IS BECAUSE OF THE 50%.

>> AND THE ELECTRIC METER. >> OTHER THAN THAT, WE WOULDN'T

HAVE SEEN THIS. >> RIGHT.

>> WOULD SEPARATE HOUSES, PUT THEM ON THE SAME LOT.

>> ONE PRIMARY, SECONDARY. >> SOUND TO ME LIKE YOU HAVE TWO

PRIMARIES. >> ONE PRIMARY, ONE SECONDARY.

>> MAYOR: WE ARE STILL IN PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> VOTE TO CLOSE.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. NOW DISCUSSION.

>> MY ONLY POINT IS QUICK AND EASY.

I'M NOT AGAINST IT. IT JUST DOES SEEM LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO BUILD TWO HOUSES AND THEN SPLIT IT AND THEN ASK FOR A COUPLE OF VARIANCES AND SELL IT OFF.

THAT'S THE BIGGEST MOTHER-IN-LAW SUITE I EVER SAW.

MORE POWER TO THEM. >> I WISH THE APPLICANT WAS HERE

TO SPEAK THE REASON ON THAT. >> MAYOR: I AGREE WITH WALTER.

BUT IT IS WHAT IT IS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH STAFF

CONDITIONS. >> SECOND.

[00:30:04]

>> MAYOR: MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

SECONDED, PLEASE IT PASSES 3-1.

[2022-279]

>> MAYOR: OPEN OPEN ITEM 2022-279, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMUNICATION TOWER, LOCATED ON LOT 2RA, BLOCK 1 OF WALNUT GROVE CENTER SOUTH OR COMMONLY KNOWN AS 4470 EAST HIGHWAY 287. COLBY.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, NEXT CASE FOR THIS EVENING IS AGENDA ITEM 2021-279, CASE NO. SUP16-2022-123.

THIS FOR A PROPOSED COMMUNICATIONS TOWER LOCATED AT -- IN THE REAR OF H 4470 EAT HIGHWAY 287.

AROUND TWO AND A HALF ACRES. THERES AN EXISTING STRIP RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.

THE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY IS COMMERCIAL.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO APPROVAL TO ALLOW 150-FOOT TALL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON THE SITE.

GOING OVER TO THE NEXT SLIDE, FEW DEVELOPMENT NOTES.

AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING 150-FOOT TALL COMMUNICATIONS TOWER ON TWO AND A HALF ACRES IN THE REAR OF EXISTING STRIP RETAIL COMMERCIAL DEVELOP MANY. DEVELOPMENT.

THE COMMUNICATION WILL BE UTILIZED FOR CUSTOMER COVERAGE AND PUBLIC SAFETY FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

IN ADDITION TOWER CAN BE PARTIALLY BE USED BY MIDLOTHIAN FOR WATER READING AS WELL. THIS NEXT SLIDE DEPICTS A SITE LAYOUT PLAN. OUTLINED IN GREEN, THE LEFT-HAND SIDE HERE, REPRESENTS THREE-FOOT LANDSCAPE SHRUBS SURROUNDING THE SITE. OUTLINED IN RED WILL BE 8-FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL. REPRESENTING THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED 150-TOWER LOCATION, OUTLINED IN YELLOW HERE WOULD BE 12-FOOT WIDE DOUBLE ACCESS GATE SIDE.

THE NEXT SLIDE, IF APPROVED, ONCE CONSTRUCTED.

THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU WILL BE LOOKING AT, THE FRONT OF THE STRIP RETAIL BUILDING LOOKING TO THE REAR, IS WHAT THE PROPOSED COMMUNICATION TOWER WOULD LOOK LIKE.

AT THE JUNE 21ST, 2022 PLAN ZONING MEETING, 7-0 TO APPROVE.

CASE NO. SUP16-2022-123. ALLEGES PRESENTED BY STAFF.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS PRESENTED,.

>> MAYOR: COUNCIL, QUESTION? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE

PUBLIC HEARING? >> COUNCILPERSON: MAKE A MOTION

TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> COUNCILPERSON: SECOND.

>> MAYOR: PLEASE VOTE. ITEM IS CLOSED.

DISCUSSION? COMMENTS?

MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. >> MAYOR: OPEN ITEM

[2022-280]

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.

51. MARCOS.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WHERE THE CURRENT MISD AGRICULTURAL BARN IS LOCATED.

THIS IS FAMILIAR WITH US, NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY AND MOCKINGBIRD LANE. MISD IS WANTING TO LEGALLY STORE FIVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS AT THIS PARTICULAR SITE.

IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE CONTAINERS WILL BE USED FOR OVERFLOW STORAGE AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES.

THE ORDINANCE OUT THERE, IT ALL FALLS WITHIN PD51.

SO -- LET ME BACK UP. WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE THAT ACTUALLY COVERS SHIPPING CONTAINERS AND THE FOUR CRITERIA IS WHAT I SHOW UP HERE ON THE SCREEN.

IN ORDER TO HAVE A SHIPPING CONTAINER ON A SITE, BASED ON WHAT IS SHOWN UP HERE ON THE SCREEN, MISD IS NOT MEETING ITEM NO. 4 OR NO. 3. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY DUE TO HAVING MORE THAN ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER AND IT BEING VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. THE CONTAINERS ARE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW UP HERE ON THE SCREEN. I PROBABLY TOOK THIS PICTURES ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO. YOU CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHAT YOU

[00:35:03]

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PROPOSED SHIPPING CONTAINERS, THE EXISTING SHIPPING CONTAINERS ABOUT 860 FEET FROM MOCKINGBIRD LANE AND ABOUT 1520 FEET FROM MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.

I WILL ADD ALSO THAT STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM ANY OF THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL.

AT THE JUNE 21ST MEETING, THE COMMISSION DID ANONYMOUSLY APPROVE THIS REQUEST WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS WERE MADE IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION AND THAT THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE SCREENING ENCLOSURE FOR THESE CONTAINERS.

SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, YOU KNOW, AT MINIMUM, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THEY AT LEAST HAVE AN 8-FOOT TALL BOARD ON BOARD WOOD FANS WITH TOP CAP AND KICK BOARD T IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE. WITH THAT, I WILL TAKE ANY

QUESTIONS. >> COUNCILPERSON: HOW TALL IS A

SHIPPING CONTAINER. >> EIGHT AND A HALF TO NINE FEET TALL. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, SHIPPING CONTAINERS ARE ABOUT EIGHT AND A HALF FEET TALL.

SO YOU HAVE GOT ABOUT A NINE AND A HALF FALL SHIPPING CONTAINER

AS WELL ON THE PROPERTY. >> WE ALLOW ONE CONTAINER ON TEN ACRES. YOU HAVE FOUR OUT THERE WITHOUT -- FIVE OUT THERE WITHOUT PERMISSION.

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

WE DRAFTED A VIOLATION LETTER WHEN WE TALKED TO MISD.

THEY DID SUBMIT AN APPLICATION TO TRY TO GET THIS RECTIFIED AND SEE IF THEY CAN GET PERMISSION TO SHIPPING CONTAINERS OUT THERE. NOW, SHE IS SHIPPING CONTAINERS ORIGINALLY WERE LOCATED AT THE RANDALL HILL LOCATION.

THEY ARE EXPANDING BACK IN RAN DOLL HILL.

THEY ARE ACTUALLY ADDING A NEW PARKING LOT.

EXPANDING THEIR PARKING AT RANDALL HILL.

IT IS THE LO LOCATION OFF AVENU. FIFTH STREET AND THEN ALSO THE LOCATION DOWN THE STREET FROM HERE.

SO THESE SHIPPING CONTAINERS GOT SHIFTED TO THE LOCATION TO THE

AGRICULTURAL FARM LOCATION. >> MAYOR: HOW LONG HAVE THEY

BEEN OUT THERE? >> PROBABLY NOW A FEW WEEKS.

I SAY A COUPLE MONTHS ACTUALLY. THE APPLICATION, I BELIEVE, WAS SUBMITTED TO US MAY 13TH. MAY 14TH.

I THINK IS WHEN WE GOT THE APPLICATION.

SO IT WAS AROUND THAT TIME FRAME IS WHEN EVERYTHING GOT SHIFTED

TO THE AG BARN LOCATION. >> CAN YOU GO TO THE AERIAL.

I DON'T HAVE MY POINTER, BUT ON THE NORTH END IS THE STEER WING, THEY HAD TWO SHIPPING CONTAINERS BEHIND THERE.

I DON'T SAY THAT BECAUSE I AM GETTING ON TO THEM.

BUT TO SAY THEY HAVE HAD A STORAGE ISSUE.

THEY HAD THEM ON EACH SIDE OF THE BIG DOOR BECAUSE I USED TO KEEP MY AG EQUIPMENT OUT THERE. THE FACILITY WAS BUILT TOO SMALL. THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO GO WITH, WITH P&Z RECOMMENDED IT STAYS IN THAT SPOT, THE EXPANSION IS SUPPOSED TO BE RIGHT THERE.

I DON'T WANT THEM COMING BACK TO SEE US IF THEY DECIDE TO EXPAND.

I AGREE THEY NEED TO BE SCREENED BUT I DON'T CARE WHERE THEY PUT

THEM ON THE PROPERTY. >> MAYOR: JUST NOT CLOSER TO THE

ROAD. >> DO WE WANT TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING? >> YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. MOTION TO CLOSE, SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE. ITEM IS CLOSED.

>> MY COMMENTS ARE A LITTLE LESS LOVING.

I HAVE BEEN OUT TO THAT AG BARN. IT IS IN NEED OF SIGNIFICANT REPAIR AND, WELL, THE SCHOOL -- ISD JUST CAME A FEW MEETINGS AGO AND, AGAIN, ASKED TO CIRCUMVENT BASE STANDARDS FOR THEIR FINANCIAL BENEFIT. THEY COLLECT A HEFTY SUM OF OUR RESIDENTS' TAX DOLLARS. I DON'T SEE WHY WE CAN'T PUT MONEY INTO THE BUILDING AND INCORPORATE INTO THE EXPANSION THE NEEDED ADDITIONAL STORAGE. SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE SHIPPING CONTAINERS, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A TIME LIMIT TO MAYBE HELP THINGS KICK INTO GEAR IN A MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION OUT

THERE. >> MAYOR: COULD THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD, PLEASE. NAME AND --

[00:40:12]

>> DERRICK CASPER, 5238 LEANDERWAY.

DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT. >> MAYOR: COULD YOU SHARE US WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S LONGER TERM PLANS FOR THE AG

BARN. >> WELL, AS I HAVE BEEN ON THE JOB LESS THAN A YEAR, WE HAVE A GROWTH AND PLANNING COMMITTEE WHO PUT IT ON HOLD A LITTLE BIT. WE HAD A COUPLE MEETINGS BEFORE SUMMER STARTED. AND COMMUNITY IS DEFINITELY PUTTING INPUT INTO WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN IN THE NEXT BOND.

AND SO THAT IS ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS THAT CAN BE

BROUGHT TO THE COMMITTEE. >> OKAY, APPARENTLY WE HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS TOWARD YOU.

THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> ACTUALLY, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

>> TO WHO? >> TO DARREN.

DARREN, I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION.

DOES THE WATER WORK OUT THERE IN ALL THOSE SPIGOTS? LAST YEAR IT DIDN'T AND WE HAD EXTENSION CORDS RUNNING EVERY WHICH WAY TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AG PROGRAM.

SO IS THE WATER STILL BUCKET SERVICE ONLY IN THE AG BARN?

>> NOT THAT I KNOW OF BUT I CAN'T ANSWER THAT DEFINITELY.

>> I THINK THERE IS OVERHEAD WATER, IS THAT RIGHT? THERE IS SUPPOSED TO BE WATER FOR EACH STALL, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ROUGHLY EACH STALL BANK THAT WAS INOPERATIVE.

THEN WE HAD IMPROPER ELECTRICAL AND CERTAIN FIRE HAZARDS.

>> I KNOW THAT THE ELECTRICAL IS BEING ADDRESSED.

I KNOW THAT WE ARE PUTTING NEW LIGHTING IN IT THIS SUMMER AND I KNOW WE ARE CLEANING IT THIS SUMMER.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR: THANK YOU. WE HAVE CLOSED, SO WE ARE NOW

INTO DISCUSSION. >> COUNCILPERSON: I GUESS ONLY THING IS, I AGREE WITH YOU, WALTER.

BUT AT LEAST WHEN WE SLAP THE WRIST ON THE SCHOOL BOARD FOR THE BUS BARN, REALLY WE WENT AFTER THE TAXPAYER.

BUT IF WE GET RID OF THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS, WE ARE GOING AFTER THE KIDS. THEY ARE THE ONES REALLY

AFFECTED. >> COUNCILPERSON: I AGREE.

AND I FULLY SUPPORT THE NEED FOR THE STORAGE TO FURTHER SUPPORT THE PROGRAM. I REALLY JUST WANT TO FIND A WAY TO COMPEL THE ISD TO PUT THE NECESSARY FUNDS INTO THAT FACILITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CHILDREN.

SO -- >> MAYOR: AND WITH THE RECOGNITION THAT THEY HAVE TALKED ABOUT EXPANSIONS FOR --

>> COUNCILPERSON: [INAUDIBLE] >> COUNCILPERSON: THEY ARE, DARREN, WAS IT, SIR, I APOLOGIZE, DARREN SAYS THEY HAVE SOME FUTURE PLANNING GROWTH GROUP DISCUSSION.

>> WE HAVE BOND COMMITTEE GROWTH MEETINGS.

WE WENT OUT FOR A RFQ TO GET PROFESSIONAL HELP.

WE ARE GOING TO HEAT WITH OUR BUILDING SUBCOMMITTEE, CONSTRUCTION SUBCOMMITTEE FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD AND TAKE A RECOMMENDATION BACK FOR A SMALLER [INAUDIBLE] TO BE

INTERVIEWED. >> THIS PROCESS TYPICALLY TAKES -- DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? WITHIN 24 MONTHS WE SHOULD SEE SOMETHING OUT OF THE ISD FOR PLANNING AND EXPECTATIONS FOR

DEVELOPMENTS? >> YES.

NOW, WHAT PROJECTS THAT INCLUDES, I COULDN'T TELL YOU.

THAT IS UP THE COMMUNITY. BUT IF THERE WAS A STRONG PUSH TO THE COMMUNITY, I WOULD SAY THAT IS A REASONABLE TIME FRAME.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: I HAVE A NET POINT.

WHAT WAS READ, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ONE COLOR.

I WOULD LIKE -- EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE BEHIND A FENCE, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO BE MORE PROFESSIONAL, TO BE ONE COLOR.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS PART OF THE --

>> COUNCILPERSON: I KIND OF THOUGHT THE SAME THING.

DIFFERENT SIZES AND DIFFERENT COLORS.

>> I THINK THE RULE -- EXCELLENT POINT, MAYOR.

IT SAYS ONE COLOR NONREFLECTIVE AND EARTH TONE SHADES.

SO I THINK THEY MEET THE EARTH TONE SHADES.

BUT, YOU ARE RIGHT, ONE COLOR. OF COURSE, THEY ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO HAVE ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER.

ONE SHIPPING CONTAINER SHOULD BE ONE SINGLE COLOR.

THE IDEA IS NOT TO HAVE A SHIPPING CONTAINER WITH MULTIPLE COLORS. THE IDEA IS TO HAVE ONE SHIPPING

[00:45:01]

CONTAINER. >> THEY SHOULD ALL BE UNIFORM.

>> THAT'S ABSOLUTELY -- >> IDEALLY.

ATTENTION TO DETAIL. I'M SORRY.

GETTING DOWN IN THE WEEDS, PEOPLE.

>> MAYOR, WHAT ABOUT AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE.

>> WALTER, I DON'T WANT TO CUT YOU OFF.

ARE THOSE PRIVATELY OWNED? DOES THE DISTRICT OWNS THOSE?

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SOMETIMES SOME OF THE AG STUDENTS LEAVE EQUIPMENT OUT THERE.

I WASN'T SURE IF IT WAS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S SHIPPING

CONTAINER. >> I'M THINKING AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, ASK THEM TO PAINT THE TOPS OF IT AND GIVE THEM 24-MONTH WINDOW TO COME BACK TO US AND TELL US WHY THEY STILL NEED THEM AFTER ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS.

>> I MIGHT BE MORE LENIENT ON THE TIME.

SINCE CLARK, YOU HAVE BEEN PART OF THE PROBLEM --

>> LONG TIME AGO. >> THAT'S FINE, I AGREE WITH WALTER. I MEAN, SURELY FOR THE STUDENTS, RIGHT, I'M SYMPATHETIC AND HOPING IT IS A PRIORITY OF THE PARENTS IN THE DISTRICT TO EXPAND THE AG PROGRAM.

THAT WAS A PROGRAM I WAS PART OF.

I SEE THAT POINT OF IT. I ALSO SEE TRYING TO GIVE THEM SOME GRACE. IF TWO YEARS IS THE GRACE

PERIOD, THEN TWO YEARS IT IS. >> I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> PROPOSED FENCE? IT TRULY DEPENDS ON HOW FAR AWAY THEY NEED TO PLACE THEM.

THE IDEA IS JUST TO GO A FEW FEET AWAY FROM THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS. NOW, NORMALLY --

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WITH THE KICK BOARD ON BOTTOM AND TOP CAT, AS LONG AS THOSE PANELS ARE EIGHT FEET TALL, I THINK YOU WILL EXCEED THE EIGHT-FOOT REQUIREMENT.

KICK BOARD ITSELF WILL GIVE YOU ABOUT SIX INCHES, I WOULD THINK.

TOP CAP, AT LEAST THREE TO FOUR MORE INCHES.

SO THE PANELS WOULD NEED TO BE AT LEAST EIGHT FOOT.

YOU CAN'T GET AWAY WITH A SIX FOOT PANEL WITH A KICK BOARD.

THEM TRYING TO GET TO EIGHT FOOT.

THE IDEA IS TO HAVE EIGHT FOOT PANEL WITH KICK BOARD AND TOP

CAP. >> FIVE FEET AWAY.

>> EIGHT FOOD HIGH BOARD ON BOARD FENCE, TOP CAP AND KICK

BOARD. >> I GET THE SPIRIT OF THE ASK FOR THE SCREENINGS. I GET IT.

MY ONLY ACTUALLY ADDITIONAL QUESTION I FORGET WAS, I DON'T SEE ANY TYPE OF IMPROVED SURFACE TO AND FROM THIS, WHAT WOULD BE NOW A FENCED AREA. ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY STORE IN THERE AND HOW THEY GET TO AND FROM.

>> IT IS BASICALLY LIKE A ROAD BASE MATERIAL THAT SURROUNDS THE AREA. ACTUALLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT IMPROVING FROM THIS POINT.

I KNOW THE CONCRETE STOPS AT THIS POINT.

BUT I THINK WE ARE -- STAFF IS ALWAYS OPEN TO ADDING ADDITIONAL CONCRETE FROM THAT STANDPOINT. I KNOW FROM SCHOOL DISTRICT'S STANDPOINT, THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY MORE INTERESTED IN FIGURING OUT A WAY TO KEEP CONTAINERS ON THERE.

>> I HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING WHETHER I SHOULD EVEN ASK THIS.

REALLY I'M NOT TRYING TO STICK IT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

ARE THOSE OTHER TWO SHIPPING CONTAINERS STILL AT THE BACK.

I HAVE A GOOGLE IMAGE FROM 2020 THAT SHOWS THEY ARE STILL THERE.

I DON'T CARE THAT THEY ARE THERE.

I'M CURIOUS, IF WE PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT SAYS -- WELL, YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE GOOGLE IMAGE. THAT'S WHAT I AM SAYING, IF WE PASS THIS ORDINANCE SAYING EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, AND LIMITING

IT TO FIVE, SO -- >> MAYOR: PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER.

>> THOSE ARE TWO STILL THERE. THEY ARE THE SAME COLOR AS THE BUILDINGS. THEY ARE LIKE A CREAMED COLORED.

>> AREN'T THOSE IN VIOLATION? >> IT IS SOMEWHAT COMICAL THAT YOU ASKING FOR VARIANCE ON FIVE WHEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER TWO THAT ARE JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.

>> THEY ARE SCREENED. BUT THE ONLY REASON I BROUGHT IT UP, THE VARIANCE SAYS FIVE. I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T GET ANOTHER VARIANCE LETTER.

SO TO ME, I DON'T CARE. THEY ARE SCREENED.

BUT -- [INAUDIBLE]. >> MONDAY BEFORE FOURTH OF JULY,

FIRST TIME I WENT OUT THERE. >> YOU DID ADVERTISE IT AS FOR

[00:50:02]

NOW. >> YOU WANT TO PUT THEM ALL

TOGETHER? >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> MAYOR, CAN I ATTEMPT TO MAKE A MOTION I THINK ENCOMPASSES

EVERYTHING WE ARE ASKING. >> YEAH, BUT, CHRIS --

>> WELL, I HAVE ONE QUESTION, KIND OF PERTAINS WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT THE FENCE AND HOW CLOSE IT IS GOING TO BE.

THE SHIPPING CONTAINERS HAVE DOORS THAT SWING OPEN.

WHAT ARE YOU PUTTING IN THERE? I MEAN, YOU BETTER LEAVE ROOM TO GET WHATEVER YOU ARE GOING TO GET IN THERE.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S -- CLARK, YOU MAY KNOW FROM YOUR HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEING PUT IN THOSE THINGS? DO THEY NEED TO BE SCREENED ON THREE SIDES.

OR PUT THE ONE SIDE FAR ENOUGH BACK WHERE THEY CAN GET MOWERS, TRACTORS, WHATEVER THEY ARE PUTTING IN THERE.

>> OUR INTENT IS THAT, YEAH, ALL FOUR SIDES ARE SCREENED.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHETHER WE ARE TALKING SWING DOOR OR MULTIPLE

SWING DOORS ON THAT SIDE. >> LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM.

>> BUT IT WOULD NOT BE THREE SIDES.

WE ARE TALKING ALL FOUR SIDES . >> IF I WERE TO MAKE A MOTION -- I'M NOT MAKING A MOTION. I WOULD PROBABLY RECOMMEND AN EIGHT-FOOT SCREENING FENCE AS PROPOSED BY STAFF.

I WOULD CHANGE THE LANGUAGE FROM FOUR TO SEVEN.

ALLOW FOR THE CONTINUANCE OF THE PLACEMENT OF THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN THERE, SO BRINGS THEM INTO COMPLIANCE THERE.

AND PUT A TWO-YEAR REVISIT WITH US ON THESE FIVE AND THEN I WOULD ADD SOME SORT OF ROAD BASE IMPROVED MATERIAL FROM THEIR CURRENT DRIVE TO WHAT WILL BE NO DOUBT THEIR STORAGE LOT:IF I

:I., IF I WERE TO MAKE A MOTION. >> FIVE SCREENED, AND TWO RE REMAIN. IMPROVED ROAD BASE TO THE FIVE.

WHAT ABOUT THE COLOR. >> NIGHTTIME GI'M NOT GOING TO .

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF THEY SPRAY PAINT THEM.

>> NOT JUST THE TOPS, BUT SO -- IT SETS A PROFESSIONAL TONE.

>> ALL FOR SIDES. MY ONLY QUESTION, HOW THEY OPEN

THOSE SHIPPING CONTAINER DOORS. >> WE DIDN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE

SCREENED SIX INCHES FROM THE -- >> I KNOW.

>> SO I MEAN, IT IS UP TO THEM TO PUT THE FENCE -- THEY COULD PUT FENCES ANYWHERE THEY WANT. IF THEY PUT IT 50 FEET OFF ALL

FOUR SIDES, WHO ARE WE TO SAY. >> GATES.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YOU HAD YOUR PRACTICE, GO FOR

IT. >> SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION, DO ME A FAVOR, GO BACK SO I CAN GET IT ALL.

I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CASE AS STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, BEAR WITH ME, WITH THE ADDITION OF A TWO-YEAR

SUNSET. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> SUP FOR TWO YEARS. CHANGING THE NUMBER OF SHIPPING CONTAINERS FROM THE PROPOSED FOUR TO THE CURRENTLY PRESENT SEVEN. SO THERE'S TWO ALREADY HERE AND THEN THEY ARE ADDING FIVE. SO WE WANT TO PLAY HOP SCOTCH CONTAINERS. JUST THE ONES THAT ARE THERE.

ALLOWING FOR THE TWO THAT HAVE BEEN ON SITE FOR EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME TO STAY WHERE THEY ARE WITHOUT ANY ADDITIONAL SCREENING. AND PAINTING THE CONTAINERS A SOLID COLOR WITH THE ADDITION OF AN APPROPRIATE ROAD BASE FROM THE EXISTING DRIVE LOT TO THE FENCE-IN AREA.

SO MADE. >> MAYOR: DO WE HAVE A SECOND?

I WILL SECOND IT. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> I WAS READING AS HE WAS WRITING.

MOSTLY ON THE ROAD BASE. >> IF THEY FENCE ALL THE WAY,

[00:55:11]

THE WAY. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> ROAD BASE TO THE FENCE LINE AT THE ACCESS POINT FOR THE ENCLOSED AREA. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND THEY CAN DO WITH THAT AS THEY SEE FIT.

>> MAYOR: WE HAVE A MOTION AND SECONDED TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED FOR TOTAL OF 7 CON TERRANCE. CONTAINERS.

THE 5 IDENTIFIED AND 2 EXISTIN, WITH THE APPROVED ROAD BASE.

FENCING AS DISCUSSED, PAINT ONE COLOR AND TWO YEARS.

>> PAINTING PERTAINS TO 5 SHIPPING CONTAINERS.

>> MADE AND SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. DARREN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT, HERE A WHILE BACK I WENT TO THE ANNUAL AG DINNER. THIS IS AN EXCELLENT PROGRAM AND I ENCOURAGE THE SCHOOL TO DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO ENSURE THAT ITS ONGOING SUCCESS OF THE PROGRAM.

IT IS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY.

IT BUILDS CITIZENS THAT WE NEED FOR THE FUTURE.

[2022-282]

MARCOS. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR.

THE APPLICANT WANTS TO REZONE THIS 51-ACRE TRACT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT FOR FUTURE COMMERCIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND RETAIL USES. AS WE ALL KNOW, WE ALWAYS COMPARE THE REQUEST FROM THE APPLICANT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, WHICH THE PLAN DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS REGIONAL MODULE. THE GUIDELINES UNDER THE MODULE DOES SUGGEST THAT FUTURE USES SHOULD INCLUDE COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND PROFESSIONAL TYPE DEVELOPMENTS.

SO STAFF DEFINITELY FEELS THAT THIS REQUEST IS ABSOLUTELY CONSISTENT WITH OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONSIST OF 7 TRACTS.

WHAT YOU SEE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN, RED AREA SIGNIFIES THE RETAIL AREA. THE ORANGE COLOR SIGNIFIES THE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AND THE LIGHT TAN AREA SIGNIFIES THE COMMERCIAL TYPE USES THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BRING IN THE FUTURE. WITH PD DISTRICTS, THE ORDINANCE DOES GIVE THE APPLICANT AND ALSO GIVES COUNCIL AS WELL THE FLEXIBILITY TO RESTRICT CERTAIN TYPES OF USES WITHIN THE SUBJECT AREA. WHAT YOU SEE UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW IS A LIST OF WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED AS RESTRICTED FROM OCCURRING WITHIN THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.

STAFF IS ALSO LOOKED AT THIS LIST AND AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT. THE PROPERTY IS ACCESSIBLE FROM BOTH 287 ON THE NORTH SIDE AND SHADY GROVE ROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE IS ACTUALLY ONLY ONE EXISTING DRIVE CUT THAT LEADS ON TO 287.

SO WHEN THE AREA DOES DEVELOP, THE APPLICANT WILL REMOVE THE EXISTING DRIVE CUT AS YOU CAN SEE UP HERE ON THE SCREEN AND THEY WILL ADD TWO NEW ACCESS POINTS ON TO HIGHWAY 287.

>> WHAT DO YOU MEAN, WHEN IT DEVELOPS?

WHEN THEY DEVELOP THEIR -- >> WHEN THEY BRING THAT DETAILED SITE PLAN TO US, THE PLAN IS TO DEFINITELY HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS AS OPPOSED TO JUST ONE SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS ON TO 287. SO PART OF THIS REVIEW AND APPROVAL ON THE CITY SIDE IS ALLOWING FOR THOSE TWO POINTS OF

[01:00:04]

SO I CAN SAY ALSO THAT THE APPLICANT WILL, WITHOUT A DOUBT, ALSO ADD A DECELERATION LANE ON TO 287.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, ONCE WE SEE MORE DETAIL WITH THESE SITE PLANS, AGAIN, VERY GENERAL, YOU KNOW, A FULL TRAFFIC STUDY OR A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS ABSOLUTELY GOING TO BE NEEDED AND IT IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, TXDOT WILL REVIEW ANY ACCESS ON TO 287 AS THAT IS THEIR ROAD.

WE ALSO REQUIRE A FULL, AS I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, WE REQUIRE FULL DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR ANY AREA IN THE CITY THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED. SO TYPICALLY WITH, LIKE, A STRAIGHT ZONE DEVELOPMENT. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, SOMETHING STRAIGHT ZONED COMMERCIAL, SITE PLANS ARE USUALLY ONLY REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND ONLY IF I NEED TO DO A SPECIAL EXCEPTING OR IF I NEED TO DO A VARIANCE DO I BRING IT TO THIS BOARD OR TO THIS COUNCIL. BUT IN THIS CASE, SINCE THIS IS A PD AND WE DO NOT HAVE ANY DETAILED SITE PLANS FOR ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY, ONCE WE RECEIVE A PLAN, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ALL DETAILED SITE PLANS COME BACK TO THE P&Z AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR FULL REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

THE APPLICANT DOES PREFER THAT IT STAY REALLY ONLY AT THE STAFF LEVEL AND ONLY IF WE NEED A SPECIAL EXCEPTION OR NEED A VARIANCE DO WE BRING IT BACK. BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING. WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING IS THAT ANY DETAILED SITE PLANS COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR

FINAL APPROVAL. >> THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> YES, SIR, THAT IS WRITTEN INTO THE ORDINANCE.

STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THIS REQUEST.

AT THE JUNE 21ST MEETING, THE COMMISSION DID VOTE 7-0 TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. IT IS CONCURRING WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT NOT BE DONE AT ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL. IT BE BROUGHT BACK TO THE COUNCIL FOR YOUR GUYS TO REVIEW AND APPROVE OR DENY.

AND I WILL CONTINUE TO STAND FOR QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILPERSON: MY ONLY REQUEST IS A SIMIL SIMPLE ONE.

I AM FUZZY. I KNOW WHERE THE ENTRANCE TO 287 IS NOW, ACROSS FROM E EASTGATE. WITH THESE PROPOSED REALIGNMENTS OF THE ENTRANCES INTO SHADY GROVE ROAD, ARE WE GETTING INTO THE SURFACE ROAD AT THAT POINT OR STILL DIRECT ON TO 287?

>> IT WOULD BE DIRECT ON TO 287. AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT -- [INAUDIBLE] THEY HAVE A DRIVE ENTRANCE, AND THERE IS SERVICE ROAD THAT TXDOT IS CONSTRUCTING AT THIS POINT RIGHT HERE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> COUNCILPERSON: SO I KNOW WE ARE REALLY, REALLY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, SO I WANT TO HE CAN EXS THAT I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT SAFETY ISSUE CONSIDERING THAT THERE IS AN EXIT RIGHT THERE THAT IS A SERVICE ROAD.

WE ARE DEALING WITH EGRESS OFF OF 287 IN THIS GENERAL AREA.

SO I WOULD EXPECT FOR THE AMOUNT OF DEVEL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HERT SOMEONE SHOW ME A SURFACE ROAD THAT EXTENDS 280 S 280 FEET SO Y ARE NOT GOING OUT TO 287. WE HAVE APPROVED TO CLOSE ALL CROSSOVERS FROM THIS POINT ALL THE WAY OUT TO THE CITY LIMIT.

I WOULD HATE TO BE ADDING ANYTHING INTO 287.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: THERE ARE TWO SPEAKERS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ORDER YOU WISH. CHAD ADAMS FIRST, AND THEN ANDREW. YOU ARE THE APPLICANT.

>> APPRECIATE IT. CHAD ADAMS, TROPHY COURT WEST, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. AND APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

WHAT YOU GUYS SAY IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE TAKE THAT BACK AND WE

[01:05:02]

CAN'T CLAP AT ONE HAND. YOU DON'T WANT A DEVELOPER BUILDING AND THE CITY BUILDING, WE WORK TOGETHER.

I USED TO DRIVE BY THIS PROPERTY FOR QUITE A FEW YEARS.

I DRIVE BY, WHO WOULD EVER WANT TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY.

IT HAS A GAS LINE IN IT. IT IS COMPLICATED.

WATERS OF THE U.S. AND YOU HAVE A JUNKYARD THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT THAT WHEN THOSE DOORS WOULD OPEN UP, I WOULD TRY AND PEEK IN TO SEE WHAT WAS INSIDE OF IT. MY BUSINESS PARTNERS ANDREW GARRETT AND DR. PATEL CAME TO ME, CHAD, WHAT DO YOU THINK ABOUT THIS PROPERTY IN MIDLOTHIAN? LET'S TRY AND DEVELOP IT. SO WE STARTED TO CAST A VISION OF AN AREA THAT WAS LESS INDUSTRIAL, MORE OF A BUSINESS PARK AND WE HAVE WATCHED OTHER PLACES IN THE TOWN WHERE THEY ARE COMING TO AN AREA AND BUILT A NEW HOME AND THAT PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD STARTS TO TAKE OFF WITH REVITALIZATION.

WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS KIND OF A CUTTING EDGE AREA FOR US.

IT IS NOT THE NICEST LOOKING PLACE IN TOWN BUT WE HOPE TO CHANGE THAT WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS PRETTY SIGNIFICANT THAT DREW OUR ATTENTION TO IT IS THE SHADY GROVE ROAD THAT RUNS BEHIND IT.

WE DO HAVE CONCERNS ALL OVER THIS PROPERTY ABOUT TRANSPORTATION AND AS PART OF OUR PROCESS WE ARE DOING A TRANSPORTATION STUDY. THAT WILL DETERMINE THESE FACTORS. BANISTER ENGINEERING, THE ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT, WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE REGARDING THAT. WE KIND OF GIVE YOU A QUICK OVERLAY OF WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO ON THIS ITEM.

I ASK ANDREW TO COME UP WITH A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AND RUN

THROUGH MORE DETAIL FOR YA'LL. >> MIMY NAME IS ANDREW GARRETT, WAXAHACHIE, TEXAS. I AM THE OWNER OF HY-VEE REAL ESTATE IN WAXAHACHIE. I HAVE BEEN IN THIS COMMUNITY MY WHOLE LIFE. AND I WILL FUMBLE THESE PAPERS ONE MORE TIME. AS MR. ADAMS INTRODUCED, WE HAVE PUT TOGETHER A PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT AND AS HE HAS TAKEN, WE ALSO HAVE TXDOT CONCERNS AND WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE --

>> I CAN'T HEAR YOU. >> WE HAVE AN UPHILL BATTLE OR AT LEAST A BATTLE THAT'S COMING IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GET IN AND OUT OF THIS SITE. WE UNDERSTAND.

MR. ADAMS HIT A COUPLE OF MY POINTS.

SO LET ME JUST BREEZE PAST A COUPLE OF THESE.

IF YOU DON'T MIND, MARCOS, GOING BACK TO THE GOOGLE AERIAL VIEW.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. AGAIN, 51 ACRES, ROUGHLY 1200 LINEAR FEET OF FRONTAGE ON HIGHWAY 287.

ROUGHLY 1200 FEET OF LINEAR FRONTAGE ON 287.

ABOUT 3,000 FEET ON SHADY GROVE. THERE'S TWO, THREE LITTLE NOTCHES IN THE PROPERTY. AS A PART OF OUR CONTRACT, WE HAVE TWO OF THEM. ONE OF THEM WE DON'T CONTROL AT THIS TIME. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THAT RED NOTCH ON THE WESTERN PORTION THERE.

MR. DARRACH MENTIONED EASTGATE. THE DRIVE FOR EASTGATE IS FURTHER NORTH THAN US. MAKING SURE WE ARE -- AND, YES, STAFF ENLIGHTENED US THAT A LOT OF THOSE CLOSURES ARE GOING TO HAPPEN FOR THE U TURNS, WHICH WE THINK ACTUALLY HELPS OUR CASE FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT BECAUSE WE ALSO AGREE THOSE ARE DANGEROUS, WITH THAT SPEED OF TRAFFIC.

SO WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT OUR TRAFFIC WOULD ONLY BE ABLE TO TURN RIGHT AND THAT BY THE U-TURN BEING GONE, YOU WOULDN'T BE CONCERNED WITH ANYONE MAKING A U-TURN ANYMORE.

ONLY BE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE ALREADY ON THE HIGHWAY.

SO WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT. FROM A T TOPOGRAPHICAL STANDPOI,

[01:10:09]

I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN YOU GUYS ARE AWARE OF WHAT THE WATERS OF THE U.S. MEANS. JUST FOR A REFRESHER, IT MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO CROSS, TO DISTURB, TO DEVELOP THE AREAS THAT ARE DRAINING INTO AND ADJOINING THE WATERS OF THE U.S.

CREEK, WHICH IS THE KIND OF CORNER CREEK THAT MARCOS IS SHOWING YOU RIGHT NOW. CURRENTLY, IT IS IN SOME SORT OF AG PRODUCTION. SO AS MR. ADAMS MENTIONED, WE DO LIKE THIS SITE FOR MANY REASONS. RETAIL, GEN PROFESSIONAL, MEDICAL. WE ARE LEAVING SOME COMMERCIAL ON THE TABLE. BUT WE THINK THAT THERE IS STILL A SIGNIFICANT DEMAND FOR THAT USE UP AND DOWN HIGHWAY 287.

I THINK IN A MATTER OF YEARS, WE WILL CONSIDER THIS -- YOU ARE ALMOST IN WAXAHACHIE AT THIS POINT.

SO I THINK THAT THOSE RETAIL CORRIDORS WILL BLEND TOGETHER EXTREMELY NICELY. I DID WANT TO MENTION ONE THING THAT I WANT TO BE SURE CARRIED OVER FROM PLANNING & ZONING.

THERE WAS ONE MATTER OF THE APPROVAL THAT WE REQUESTED THAT THE SITE IN THE BOTTOM, THE CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL. EI WANTED TO BE SURE THAT CARRID FORWARD. FANTASTIC.

WE CONSIDERED LEAVING THAT SOUTHEASTERN CORNER AS AGRICULTURAL. WE REALIZED THAT MIGHT BE KIND OF SILLY. YOU ARE ZONING MOST OF IT, YOU SHOULD PROBABLY ZONE ALL OF IT AND PUT IT ALL TOGETHER.

SO WE DID THAT. THAT WAS APPROVED AT P&Z THERE'S .THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF FLOODPLAIN.

RIGHT WHERE THE WATERS OF THE U.S. GOES INTO THE JOW JUNKYARDD GOES INTO THE CREEK, THERE IS A LITTLE THUMB OF FEMA, RIGHT IN THERE. JUST A TAD BIT THAT WE HAVE TO WORK WITH. MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE HAVE THE INFAMOUS MAGELAN PIPELINE THAT IS BUY SEC BISECRET BISECTING O.

THERE ARE CERTAIN ANGLING YOU CAN CROSS THE PIPELINE.

THERE ARE WEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. YOU HAVE TO CASE THE LINE, CERTAIN THINGS. OUR GOAL IS TO ONLY CROSS IT ONCE AND OUR SITE PLAN OBVIOUSLY SHOWS THAT.

JEFF HAS COACHED US UP ABOUT AS WELL AS WE CAN BE FOR NOW ON TXDOT AND WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE A TIA ORDERED.

WE KNOW WE ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PERFORM TO TXDOT STANDARDS. IF THEY DECEL LANE, ACCELERATION LANE, CERTAIN WHICH H WIDTHS ON TURN-INS, WE UNDERSTAND THAT WILL BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIGURE OUT WHENEVER TXDOT GIVES US THE FINAL. I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION, WE WILL BE PURSUING A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR THIS SITE.

ONE LARGE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION AT P&Z WAS SIGNAGE AND I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO FAR INTO THAT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO DISTRACT YOU. I DON'T WANT TO MAKE THIS ANY LONGER THAN IT HAS TO BE. OUR INTENT WOULD BE TO COME BACK FOR CENTRAL SIGNAGE ON THE BOULEVARD ONCE WE DISCOVERY THEE FINAL USER THAT MIGHT ANCHOR THE SITE.

RIGHT NOW IT IS A POA AND EVERYTHING ABIDES BY THE SIGN ORDINANCE. THAT IS IT FOR ME.

I HAVE MR. ADAMS, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.

I DO HAVE ONE MORE. SORRY.

WE ARE IN AGREEMENT, I BELIEVE, WITH CITY STAFF ON EVERYTHING THAT THEY PRESENTED. WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY

[01:15:01]

WE HAVE -- WE ARE COMFORTABLE BRINGING EVERY SITE PLAN BACK TO P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL. THAT HAD SOME CONVERSATION AND GREW SOME LEGS AT P&Z. WE UNDERSTAND YOUR THINKING ABOUT IT. WE ARE HAPPY TO BRING IT BACK.

WE JUST THINK THAT IT WILL COME BACK SEVERAL TIMES WITH EACH INDIVIDUAL USER. BUT, YES, ALL IN ALL, I THINK WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF AND NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES AND IF MR. ADAMS DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD, WE WILL TAKE

QUESTIONS. >> I WILL INVITE JEFF, IF IT PLEASES THE COUNCIL, TO TALK ABOUT TXDOT-RELATED MATTERS.

OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

JEFF LIIINDER BANISTER ENGINEERING.

I WILL BE REPETITIVE, BUT IN PARTICULAR DISCUSSION, DISCUSSING TEX TXDOT RIGHT-OF-WY AND ACCESS.

I HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CHRISTOPHER WALKER, I BELIEVE IT IS, WITH TXDOT, AND REGARDS TO THOSE DRIVEWAYS.

WE SHOWED THEM SPACED OUT AS HE REQUESTED THAT WE DO WITH THE 100-FOOT TRANSITION THERE YOU SEE ON THE WEST SIDE DOWN TO THE FULL LANE WHICH IS THE 510 FEET BEFORE YOU HAVE THE DRIVEWAY.

THAT IS PRESENTLY PROPOSED TO BE ON THE MAIN LANES BECAUSE THE -- NOBODY CAN EVEN REALLY BEGIN TO TELL US WHEN THE EXTRA OR THE NEW ACCESS ROAD WILL BE EXTENDED TO THE WEST.

FIVE YEARS PLUS IS KIND OF WHAT I'M HEARING.

THE ADDITIONAL DRIVE WE ARE SHOWING, THAT'S REALLY TO ACCESS THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT IS KIND OF BETWEEN THE CREEK TO THE SOUTHWEST THERE AND 287. WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO CROSS THAT CREEK ONCE. WE DON'T WANT TO CROSS IT TWICE BECAUSE OF THE WATERS OF THE U.S. DI DESIGNATION THAT THE CRK HAS. THE DRIVEWAY, SECOND DRIVEWAY, FURTHER TO THE EAST, WOULD BE SET BACK FROM THE CURRENT MAIN LANES NOW. AS YOU SEE, WE WOULD BE CREATING THE EXTRA LINE FOR THE DECEL LANE, AND THAT LANE WOULD CONTINUE ON FOR THE OFF AND ON TFRONTAGE OFTHE PROPERTY.

SLOWING DOWN TO THE EASTERN DRIVE OR ACCELERATING OUT FROM THE EASTERN DRIVE WOULD HAVE A LANE OUT OF THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC LANE TO SLOW DOWN AND TO SPEED UP.

IN ORDER TO STAY OUT OF WAY OF TRAFFIC THAT IS ALREADY UP TO SPEED. WE HAVE ALSO WORKED WITH STAFF ON LOCATING, THIS IS TALKING ABOUT SHADY GROVE NOW, I THINK WE HAVE FOUR LOCATIONS, NOT FINALLY SET, BUT IDENTIFIED AS HAVING THE APPROPRIATE -- RIGHT THERE.

THE NEXT SHEET OVER. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. YOU SEE THE THREE LINES, THERE'S A CENTER LINE AND THEN AN EDGE OF PAVING.

THOSE WERE SELECTED FOR SPACING FOR ACCESS AROUND THAT NOTCHOUT THAT WE ARE NOT ABLE TO GET CONTROL OF, PROBABLY EVER BUT WE WOULD CERTAINLY LIKE TO. AS WELL AS VISIBILITY AND SEPARATION. SO THOSE WOULD BE FINALIZED IN TERMS OF LOCATION WITH THE DETAILED SITE PLAN.

FOR THE PROJECT OR IT MAY BE A DETAILED SITE PLAN BY PHASES.

IT DEPENDS ON HOW IT IS PUT TOGETHER.

HOWEVER, WE UNDERSTAND THAT IN ORDER TO DO -- PROVIDE THE ACCESS THAT'S GOING TO BE NECESSARY, MEET THE FIRE REQUIREMENTS AND WHATNOT, THERE MAY BE A FAIR AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO BE PUT IN, ESPECIALLY WITH THE INITIAL PHASES. THE INTENTS, I DON'T THINK IT IS GOING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE LITTLE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS POCK MARKED ALL OVER. IT WILL BE MORE COHESIVE THAN THAT DONE IN BIGGER CHUNKS. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I

WILL STOP RAMBLING. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> COUNCIL, OTHER QUESTIONS? MOTION TO CLOSE THE OPEN HEARING, PLEASE.

[01:20:03]

>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECONDED. >> LEASE VOTE.

>> ITEM IS CLOSED. COMMENTS.

I DO HAVE A COUPLE COMMENTS. MARCOS, REFRESH MY MEMORY, WHAT WILL THEY HAVE BY RIGHT FOR SIGNAGE.

>> EACH TRACT HAS ITS OWN PERMITTED RIGHT TO HAVE SO MUCH SIGNAGE. POLE SIGNS AREN'T PERMITTED BY RIGHT. WON'T BE WORRIED ABOUT A POLE

SIGN. >> JUST REGULAR --

>> YEAH, WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT LIKE BUILDING SIGNAGE AND STUFF, IT IS VERY MUCH BY THE BOOK.

MONUMENT SIGNS ARE GOING TO BE THE BASE REQUIREMENT.

THAT MONUMENT SIGN, AGAIN, CAN'T GO OVER 60 SQUARE FOOT, STONE BASED, LANDSCAPING. THERE'S A WHOLE SLEW OF REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAVE WITH ANY TYPE OF MONUMENT SIGN.

>> PER ZONING DISTRICT? >> WELL, EACH ZONING DISTRICT, DEPENDS ON THE TRACT. EVE TRACT OF LAND IS ALLOWED ONE. IF THEY FURTHER SUBDIVIDE THESE PROPERTIES, THEN YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE MONUMENT SIGN PER ACTUAL TRACT. BUT AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, FROM WHAT I'M SEEING ON -- FROM WHAT I'M SEEING, IT LOOK LIKE THEY ARE BREAKING IT OUT JUST INTO 7 TRACTS.

WHEN THEY REPLAT THE PROPERTY, THERE WILL BE 7 PLATS.

7 POSSIBLE SIGNS. FURTHER SUBDIVIDED CHANGES THINGS. AT THIS PARTICULAR POINT, YOU

ARE LOOKING AT 7. >> ALL RIGHT.

>> I AGREE WITH WALTER'S COMMENT, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT DIRECT ACCESS TO 287. 287 IS VERY DANGEROUS AND IS

ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE. >> IF TXDOT EXTENDED THE

SERVICE ROAD -- [INAUDIBLE]. >> NO.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THE DEVELOPER CAN DO IT.

THE DEVELOPER CAN DO IT. IT IS 280 FEET PLUS OR MINUS.

>> SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. THAT'S A GREAT CONCERN I HAVE.

>> THAT GOES BACK TO WHERE I WAS HEADED, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, BASICALLY WE ARE APPROVING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REALLY JUST NOTHING MORE THAN ZONING.

THERE IS -- IT IS -- >> ONCE IT IS --

>> WE DON'T NORMALLY DO IT THAT WAY.

>> ONCE IT IS REZONED, THEY CAN PUT FOR SALE ON IT.

THEN THEY COME BACK FOR WHAT THE GENTLEMAN SAID WOULD BE NO DOUBT FEWER THAN -- NO FEWER THAN 7 AMENDMENTSMENTS.

SO, YES, CLARK, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.

>> I WANT TO ALSO ASK, ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SOMEWHERE IN HERE IT SAYS THAT ALL SITE ELEVATIONS PLANS AND SITE PLANS HAS TO COME BACK TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> SO EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ELEVATION.

>> EVERY SINGLE BUILDING ELEVATION, EVERY SINGLE SITE PLAN, EVERYTHING. IT IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ARE REQUIRING IS AN AMENDMENT PROCESS.

EVERY SINGLE TIME, WHEN THEY COME IN, WANT TO DO TWO OF THE 7 TRACTS, BOTH TRACTS NEED TO COME TO THIS BOARD AND WE WILL HAVE TO GET THE APPROVAL FROM YA'LL. THEY MAY DECIDE TO DO ALL 7.

IT IS JUST, AGAIN, LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS KIND OF BACKWARDS OF HOW WE DO PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.

AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN HERE, YOU NORMALLY HAVE A LOT OF DETAIL UP FRONT. YOU HAVE THE FULL PACKAGE.

>> THAT'S MY CONCERN. OUR BIGGEST CONCERN, HONEST QUESTION, NOT TRYING TO CUT INTO THIS, HOW DO WE AS A CITY PROTECT THIS PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED.

IF IT SEEMS LIKE IT IS BEING DEVELOPED IN CHUNKS.

WE WILL DO THIS ONE, MIGHT CHANGE OUR MIND ON THIS ONE SHALL NOT REALLY SURE. HOW DO WE MAKE IT NOT LOOK IT

WAS JUST -- >> PIECEMEALED.

>> WE WANT IT NICE AND CONSISTENT LIKE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. IS THERE A WAY TO PROTECT US IN

THAT PROCESS? >> I MEAN, UNLESS THEY CAME IN WITH A FULL-FLEDGED LAND PLAN, LIKE A MASTER PLAN, KIND OF LIKE DIAMOND J. A MASTER PLAN AND THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DOING.

I SHOULDN'T DAY DIAMOND J, I GUESS IT IS BRIDGEWATER.

>> OR KROGER. THEY HAVE A LOT OF DETAIL DONE AT THE BEGINNING. [INAUDIBLE].

>> THAT'S TIEWSHL USUALLY LEFT E STAFF LEVEL BECAUSE WE HAVE

[01:25:04]

ARE IN THERE. IN THIS CASE, IT MAY BE MORE PIECEMEALED. THE BEAUTY IS IT IS A PD.

IT HAS TO CONTINUALLY COME BACK OR WE CAN ALWAYS ADD ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS OR RESTRICTIONS AT THIS POINT.

>> MARCOS I CAN TELL YOU ONE RESTRICTION THAT I WOULD HAVE TO SEE ON THE PROHIBITED USES LIST WOULD BE A STORAGE UNIT, WITHOUT A DOUBT. I'M NOT SURE WHICH MODULE -- I BELIEVE IT IS PROBABLY COMMERCIAL, IF NOT COMMERCIAL, CERTAINLY -- I THINK IT IS CERTAINLY COMMERCIAL.

BUT IF NOT, POSSIBLY YOU CAN MAKE IT FALL UNDER COMMUNITY RETAIL IF YOU PLAYED IT RIGHT. STORAGE UNITS.

>> YEAH, OKAY. I THINK LIKE INDOOR STORAGE UNITS. THE REASON IT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS IS ONLY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES A SUP BY RIGHT.

SO EITHER WAY, I WOULD HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL AND YOU GUYS HAVE THAT ABILITY TO DENY IT. BUT ABSOLUTELY, THIS LIST CAN BE

EXPANDED UPON. >> I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD ADDITION. GENTLEMEN? BACK TO CLARK'S POINT, CONSISTENCY OVER TIME.

I GUESS IS REALLY --

>> YOU KNOW, ALL I HAVE REALLY IS OUR GENERAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, H WE ARE TALKING E TALKING ABOUT CONSISTENCY.

WE HAVE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS WITH ARTICULATION, HORIZONTAL, VERTICAL, PARAPET REQUIREMENTS, CORNICE DETAILING.

THESE THINGS ARE THE BASE STANDARDS.

I WOULD -- BECAUSE IT IS NOT WRITTEN INTO THIS PD, MY ONLY OPTION IS TO GO BACK TO WHATEVER IS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

ANYTHING THAT IS SILENT IN THIS FALLS BACK ON OUR TYPICAL ZONING

ORDINANCE. >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> NOT NECESSARILY DIRECTED TO YOU MARCOS, TYPICALLY, HOPEFULLY THEY ARE GOING TO EXCEED THE BASE STANDARDS.

THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS UNIQUE SOMETHING OTHER THAN BASE. WE ARE PUTTING OUR BASE IN A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT DEFEATS THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

THAT IS ABOVE OUR BASE STANDARD. THIS IS JUST WEIRD.

THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED. >> SO YOU COULD, BUT YOU CAN'T PROHIBIT ANY OF THE USES. IF YOU DO BASE ZONING.

IF THESE CAME IN AND WE JUST DID, OKAY, WE WANT TO DO STRAIGHT COMMERCIAL, STRAIGHT IMHIEWNCOMMUNITY RETAIL, ANY OFE USES, WE CAN'T PROHIBIT ANY OF THOSE.

>> WE COULD DENY THIS AS PRESENTED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE UP TO PAR WITH WHAT A TYPICAL PD DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE OF THIS SIZE AND PUNT IT BACK TO THEM FOR CORRECTION.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE COULD ASK THEM TO PULL IT

AND COME BACK LATER. >> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU ARE

LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH? >> SOMETHING MORE OF WHAT WILL

BE IN 55 ACRES. >> MORE DETAILED SITE PLANS.

>> CORRECT. >> DESIGN GUIDELINES.

>> WHOLE PACKAGE I NORMALLY GET WITH MY DEVELOPERS.

>> HONESTLY, THIS PARCEL IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT.

AND SO BY SUBDIVIDING IT, IT ALLOWS US BEING ABLE TO MARKET IT. THAT'S WHY WE ARE THINKING YOU GUYS CAN COME BACK FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE TRACT AND VOTE ON THE SUP. NOW, I'M TRYING TO GET EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THAT YOU WANT IN THE EVENT THAT WE SHOULD TAKE THIS BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD BECAUSE HONESTLY, I MEAN, RIGHT NOW IT IS NOT A MARKETABLE PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT GETTING IT DIVIDED UP AND FOR US TO COME BACK OUT TO THE MARKET AND SAY, HEY, THIS IS AVAILABLE FOR THAT ZONING.

BUT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SUP TO THE COUNCIL.

>> I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT. FOR ME, NORMALLY WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS INFORMATION, ELEVATIONS, THE SETBACKS AND SITE PLAN. I DON'T MAYBE NEED LANDSCAPING, BUT PROBABLY A SITE PLAN WOULD HAPPEN.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE ZONING. THE SITE PLAN WOULD

[01:30:02]

I CAN'T REMEMBER THE ONE WE JUST APPROVED BY 7-ELEVEN, BUT SHOPS ON MAINE. MAIN.I DON'T WANT TO FEEL LIKE M IN 7 DIFFERENT PROJECTS. I WANT TO FEEL LIKE WE ARE THIS ONE CONSISTENT THOUGHT-OUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO HOW WE ACCOMPLISH THAT, I THINK IS MAYBE BY A SITE PLAN,

MAYBE A LANDSCAPING PLAN. >> THE TYPICAL PD WILL HAVE

THAT. >> I'M NOT TRYING TO BE

DIFFICULT. >> NO, NO, WE WORKING TOGETHER.

THAT'S ALL IT IS. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> RICHARD, I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S WHERE A DENIAL AS PRESENT THE WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD ALLOW THEM NO TIME WINDOW TO HAVE TO WAIT, THEN THEY CAN GO BACK TO THEIR RESPECTIVE CORNERS AND MEET WITH STAFF AGAIN AND SEE IF THEY CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT SHOWS A LITTLE BIT MORE OF --

>> WE HAVE THE KROGER DEVELOPMENT.

[INAUDIBLE]. >> SURE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WOULD IT TABLE?

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE WOULD MEAN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT SIX MONTHS TO BRING IT BACK.

YOU CAN IMMEDIATELY NEXT WEEK, MAKE YOUR CHANGES, GET WITH STAFF, GET IT BLESSED AND GO BACK TO P&Z AND COME TO OUT.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE SAVES YOU A COUPLE OF MONTHS.

>> OKAY. YOU WANT MORE MEAT ON THE BONES, YOU WANT TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF WHAT IT POTENTIALLY HAS TO LOOK AT. WE WILL GO BACK AND REVIEW SOME OF THE OTHER PDS. BUT, AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE EXACT HOTEL THAT WE WANT TO PUT ON THIS SITE.

>> SURE. >> SO I CAN'T COMMIT TO THAT.

BUT I WILL COMMIT TO MORE RESTRICTIONS, MORE LANDSCAPING

ISSUES AND INCLUDE ALL THOSE. >> I THINK LIKE CLARK SAID, SITE PLAN, INGRESS, EGRESS, BUILDING LAYOUTS, RELATIONS FROM BUILDING. ARE WE PUTTING 57 BUILDING OUT THERE. FIVE TO SEVEN BUILDINGS OUT HERE. THAT WILL, I THINK, SIGNIFICANTLY PLAYS INTO THE DETERMINATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE OF THE PROPERTY MOVING FORWARD.

>> WHAT I HEAR, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, I THINK THEY CAN PROVIDE DESIGN ELEMENTS. THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. [INAUDIBLE]

>> COUNCILPERSON: THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.

AT LEAST A RANGE. WE HAD ONE APPLICANT ON THIS PROPERTY LAST YEAR THAT PROPOSED, I THINK, IT WAS ALMOST 50,000 SQUARE FEET STORAGE UNIT. I'M NOT KIDDING.

THANKFULLY THAT GN DIDN'T GO THROUGH.

I THINK WE CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION OF APPROXIMATELY WHAT YOU SEE HAPPENING ON THIS PROPERTY.

>> KROGER AND SHOPS ON MAIN, WE GAVE THEM A RANGE.

>> KROGER WAS PRETTY MUCH TO THE POINT.

THERE WAS GENERALITIES IN THERE -- [INAUDIBLE].

>> THE DIFFERENCE WITH KROGER, THEY KNEW ANCHOR TENANTS.

THEY HAD BUILDINGS LAID OUT BECAUSE THEY KNEW WHO WAS COMING. SOME OF THE OUT-PARCELS THEY DIDN'T. YOU HAD GENERAL BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T KNOW WHO WAS COMING. THEY LEFT THOSE KIND OF FOR

FUTURE DECISION. >> JOE, WHAT'S BETTER.

I'M NOT RELAYING TO THIS CASE, BUT IN HYPOTHETICAL, WITHDRAWAL OF AN APPLICANT OR DENIAL? WHAT'S BETTER.

>> I CAN'T ADVISE FOR THEM, BUT FOR US, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION

FROM P&Z -- [INAUDIBLE]. >> [INAUDIBLE].

[01:35:18]

>> I'M WAITING ON THE MAYOR TO MAKE A MOTION.

SO THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS GOING THROUGH MY MIND RIGHT NOW.

WE DO HAVE SOME CONSTRAINTS WITH THE SELLER BUT THAT'S OKAY.

WE WILL WORK -- I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

I MEAN, AND WE DO NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NOT A STORAGE UNIT HERE THAT, THIS AREA IMPROVES THE AREA.

WE WANT A QUALITY, CLASSY DEVELOPMENT HERE.

SO IF I WITHDRAW, HOW LONG DO I HAVE TO BRING IT BACK TO YOU GUYS? I APOLOGIZE FOR YOU EDUCATING ME

RIGHT NOW? >> .

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> REQUEST TO BE WITHDRAWN, ALLOW RESUBMITTAL WITHOUT FEES.

>> THAT WILL BE MY REQUEST, IS THAT WE WITHDRAW THIS CASE.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, COUNCIL. >> MAYOR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL BY APPLICANT.

AND DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS WITHOUT FEES.

>> SECOND. >> TO RESUBMIT WITHOUT FEES.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> SECOND.

>> WE HAVE MOTION AND SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[2022-283]

HEATHER. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. SO I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE PARK SECURITY PACKAGE THAT WE TOOK TO MSDC AND SINCE COVID HIT, WE EXPERIENCED A HIGH VOLUME OF VANDALISM IN OUR PARKS AND ONCE PHASE TWO OF COMMUNITY PARK WAS BUILT, IT CONTINUED TO INCREASE.

SO PARKS POLICE AND IT DEPARTMENTS MET MULTIPLE TIMES, EVEN WALTER JOINED US ONE TIME TO IDENTIFY AREAS OF CONCERN AND DISCUSS OPTIONS TO HELP REDUCE VANDALISM IN THE PARKS.

AND INCREASE OUR OVERALL SAFETY FOR OUR EVENT AND PARK PATRONS.

PD VISITED THE PARKS AND PROVIDED A DETAIL LIST OF SAFETY RECOMMENDATIONS TO HELP PROTECT THE INVESTMENTS OF OUR PARK ASSETS. MSDC APPROVED OUR GRANT REQUEST ON JUNE 23RD FOR $321,374.66. THIS FUNDING WILL ADD MUCH-NEEDED CAMERAS TO MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY PARK, THAT WILL BE TIED DIRECTLY TO POLICE DISPATCH SEN SENDING AN ALERT TO MONITOR THE SITUATION AND DISPATCH POLICE QUICKLY IF NEEDED. THE GRANT WILL ALSO ADD SECURITY LIGHTING TO HAWKINS SPRINGS PARK, JC PARK, KIMMEL PARK, MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY PARK PHASE ONE, MOCKINGBIRD NATURE PARK AND MOUNTAIN PEAK PARK. IT WILL ALSO PROVIDE SIX BIKES FOR PATROL OFFICERS TO PAROLE PARK EVENTS, PARKS AND EVENTS AND ALL THE GEAR THEY NEED TO GO WITH THE BIKES.

FINALLY, IT WILL PROVIDE ONE DRONE TO MONITOR PARKS AND EVENTS FROM A BIRD'S EYE VIEW ALLOWING POLICE TO IDENTIFY AND RESPOND QUICKLY TO ANY ISSUES THAT ARISE.

WITH THAT, I AM HAPPY TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MIGHT POSSIBLY

[01:40:01]

ATTEND TO. >> COUNCILPERSON: I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST QUESTION IS, THE DRONE THAT WE HAVE IS GOING TO BE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE OTHER DRONE

THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE? >> YES.

IT IS SO -- I CAN'T SPEAK FOR POLICE BUT I'M GUESSING THAT WHEN WE HAVE THE LARGER EVENTS OR IF WE HAVE GOT MULTIPLE THINGS GOING, THAT THEY CAN HAVE SOMETHING AT EACH SITE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I'M SURE YOU WOABT WON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO S QUESTION, BUT POSSIBLY THE CHIEF DOES, DOES THIS SIZE OF DRONE REQUIRE SOME TYPE OF LICENSE TO OPERATE?

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> COUNCILPERSON: OKAY, AND DO WE HAVE MORE THAN ONE QUALIFIED OPERATOR TO RUN TWO DRONES AT

THE SAME TIME. >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> MAY >> COUNCILPERSON: HIGH SECOND QUESTION, ARE THE CAMERAS AT THE PARK TIED TO ANY TYPE OF FACIAL

RECOGNITION SOFTWARE? >> THAT IS MR. IT WILL COME UP

AND ANSWER THAT. >> THANK YOU.

>> SO THE CAMERAS HAVE BASIC ANALYTICS ON THEM TO IDENTIFY A PERSON VERSUS ANIMAL BUT THEY DON'T HAVE FACIAL RECOGNITION.

>> COUNCILPERSON: ALL I NEEDED, THANKS.

>> COUNCI I JUST WANT TO MAKE SE OUR FAIR AND FREE-GOING MIDLOTHIAN RESIDENTS CAN DO SO IN PRIVATE.

>> WE WANT THEM TO HAPPILY ENJOY THE PARK IN A SAFE MANNER.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> YES, SIR.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> MAYOR: ITEM PASSES.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL. >> THANK YOU, HEATHER.

[2022-284]

>> YES, SIR, MAYOR, GOOD EVENING.

TONIGHT I'M REPRESENTING MIKE ADAMS WORK IN FRONT OF COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS IS THIS IS A SECONDARY RAW WATER SOURCE FOR THE CITY AND IT IS FROM THE RICHLAND CHAMBERS AND CEDAR CREEK RESERVOIRS.

THIS IS A GENERAL OF IT. BACK IN 2018, WE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE ABOUT TEN MILLION GALLONS A DAY TO OUR WATER PLANT AND THEN WE HAD A -- INITIAL AGREEMENT.

WE CAME BACK LATER, HAD AN AMENDMENT TO THE AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE WATER FOR OUR WHOLESALE PROCESSES THAT.

THAT WAS ABOUT 2.86 MILLION. SO BACK IN DECEMBER OF 2021, WE HAD A RE REVISED WATER DEMAND AD SUPPLY UPDATE.

ONE WAS THE RAW WATER SUPPLY NEED.

AND IT WILL HELP US UPDATE -- THE PLAN ITSELF WAS BEING USED TO UPDATE OUR FUTURE NEEDS FOR WATER, RAW WATER.

ITS STORAGE AND TREATMENT AND TRANSMISSION, DISTRIBUTION.

AND SO WITH THAT THOUGHT PROCESS, MIKE AND CHRIS AND STAFF, THEY PRESENTED THE SUGGESTION TO MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE, I WILL READ IT OUT LOUD, CITY STAFF DISCUSSED POTENTIAL FUNDING OF THIS ADDITIONAL RAW WATER SUPPLY WITH THE MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BOARD OF DIRECTORS, MDA.

THE MDA ANONYMOUSLY AGREED DURING THE FEBRUARY 14TH MEETING TO FUND THE ENTIRETY OF THE TRD ADDITIONAL 6 MILLION-GALLONS OF RAW WATER SUPPLY. IF THIS AMENDMENT IS APPROVED BY COUNCIL, THE CITY TOTAL ANNUAL RAW WATER SUPPLY QUANTITY WILL INCREASE FROM 6.33MPD TO 12.33. IF APPROVED, I WILL GO OVER THESE QUICK NOTES, THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THIS AGREEMENT INCREASES MAXIMUM ANNUAL QUANTITY OF RAW WATER BY 6 MILLION-GALLONS, FROM 12.19MGBD TO 18.9MBD.

THE PREMIUM, LANGUAGE, SEEING PAYING DIRECTLY TO TRWD IN THE AMOUNT OF $8,983,000. 8.9 MILLION.

WITHIN SIX DAYS OF THE AGREEMENT.

[01:45:02]

THEREFORE, THE TOTAL BUY IN FOR THE COST OF 6MGD, 1.9 MILLION.

THE MDA HAS AGREED TO FULLY FUND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY.

WHICH IS PRETTY NICE. SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, WE ALSO LIKE TO -- WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND WE WOULD LIKE TO FORMALLY RECOGNIZE AND EXPRESS OUR APPRECIATION TO THE MDA BOARD FOR THE FUNDING OF THIS REQUEST AND THE TRWD FOR ITS PARTNERSHIP.

MIKE ADAMS, CHRIS, CLYDE ALL OF THOSE THAT CAME TO THIS.

I THINK EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE NEED FOR WATER IN THE FUTURE. SECURING THESE RIGHTS AND PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE OF MIDLOTHIAN IS CRITICAL.

THIS PUTS US IN A GOOD SPOT IN THE FUTURE.

IT IS UP TO YOU TO MAKE THAT DECISION.

THANK YOU. >> COUNCILPERSON: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A STATEMENT. I'M EXCITED, EVERYONE SITTING HERE SINCE THE DAY I HAVE BEEN ELECTED I HAVE BEEN SCRE SCREAMG FOR WATER RIGHTS. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO THE MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T FOR THEIR PARTICIPATION IN THE PROCESS. THANK YOU.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I AGREE. I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT SPENDING MDA MONEY FOR A WHILE. I'M GLAD TO SEE THEM COMING

THROUGH. >> THIS IS A GOOD USE FOR IT.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SO WITH THE INCREASE IN RAW WATER SUPPLY, THAT WILL ALSO INCREASE OUR ABILITY TO THEN SELL TREATED WATER TO OTHER

USERS IN OUR NETWORK? >> THAT'S CORRECT, YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILPERSON: SO GIVEN THAT, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW TO ASK THIS QUESTION APPROPRIATELY, BUT GIVEN THAT WE NOW HAVE POTENTIALLY DOUBLED OUR RAW WATER SUPPLY --

>> FROM ONE SOURCE. INTEREST ONE SOURCE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: AGREED. FROM THAT ONE SOURCE, AND THEN THAT WILL INCREASE THE AMOUNT WE WILL POTENTIALLY SELL OUT, SHOULDN'T THAT MEAN THAT OUR CITY RESIDENTS SHOULD NOT BE EXPERIENCING ANY RESTRICTIONS ON THEIR WATER USAGE BEFORE ANY CITY OR ENTITY THAT WE SELL WATER TO ALSO HAS THOSE

RESTRICTIONS. >> I WOULD SAY THAT MIKE'S INTENT WOULD BE TO KEEP OUR CITIZENS FIRST, RIGHT.

WE STILL HAVE OUR CUSTOMERS, COMMERCIAL CUSTOMERS.

THOSE WILL BE -- >> WHAT I SAID MADE SENSE.

>> THE THING IS, WE SAY RESTRICTIONS.

ANYTHING COULD HAPPEN, WATER LINE COULD BREAK.

BUT OUR INTENT WILL BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT ARE REASONABLE WITHIN CONSERVATION METHODS AND ALL THAT.

RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT IN OUR PORTFOLIO.

>> OUR CITIZENS MAY HAVE RESTRICTIONS --

>> THAT'S CORRECT. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> THEY DO THAT. THEY ARE NOT -- THEY ARE

SEPARATE WATER SYSTEM. >> SO FAR, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY KIND OF DROUGHT RESTRICTIONS. WE DO HAVE THE LAWN IRRIGATION RESTRICTIONS. THAT SOMETIMES IS TIED TO SOME OF THESE RAW WATER CONTRACTS, WHERE THEY WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE CONSERVATION M MEASURES IN PLACE.

TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE HAD TO GO ON ANY TYPE OF STEPPED UP WATER RESTRICTIONS, ABOVE JUST THE NORMAL, DONE WATER BETWEEN 10 AND 6, ET CETERA.

>> SO JUST FOR RECORD, YOU HAVE DOUBLED ONE SOURCE.

WHAT PERCENT INCREASE IS THIS FOR OUR TOTAL CAPACITY.

>> LET HEE ME GET JOE ON THAT ANSWER.

>> 50% INCREASE. 12 TO 18.

>> BUT ON THIS SOURCE. WHAT'S THE TOTAL CAPACITY?

>> DOUBLING ON THIS SOURCE FOR THE CITY.

I'M GOING FROM 6 TO 12. BASICALLY DOUBLING OFF OF THIS SOURCE FROM 6.33 TO 12.33. BUT OVERALL --

>> THE OVERALL PICTURE -- >> DO YOU HAVE A BALL PARK

NUMBER. >> I DO NOT.

[INAUDIBLE] >> MAYOR: I UNDERSTAND.

CLARK, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? MOTION TO APPROVE. SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. >> CONGRATULATIONS.

[01:50:05]

>> AND ECHO OUR COMMENTS. ITEM

[2022-285]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. CITY COUNCIL.

I AM PRESENTING ALSO FOR MIKE TODAY.

HE IS TAKING A WELL DESERVED VACATION.

YOU ARE AWARE OF OUR CURRENT INTERSECTION OF 14TH STREET AND HAWKINS RUN ROAD, 2 FOUR-LANE FACILITIES, OPERATING PRETTY WELL AS FOUR-WAY STOP CONDITIONS.

HOWEVER, WE ARE CURRENTLY WITHIN 30 DAYS OF OPENING THE EXTENSION OF HAWKINS RUN ROAD BY 14TH OVER TO MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY.

AND WE HAVE ALSO AT THE SOUTHWEST -- SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION, THE NEW GENE COALMAN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

IN ANTICIPATION OF THOSE THINGS, WE ARE ANTICIPATING THAT WE WILL SEE SOME MORE TRAFFIC, TO SAY THE LEAST.

WE WILL START SEEING DELAYS AND TRAFFIC SNARLS AT THAT LOCATION AS THE SCHOOL IS SUPPOSED TO COME ON LINE LATER THIS FALL.

IN ANTICIPATION OF THAT, STAFF WAS LOOKING TO GO AHEAD AND DO A DESIGN ON THE FUTURE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SO WE CAN HAVE THAT READY TO PULL THE TRIGGER ON A BID WHEN IT BECOMES NECESSARY.

WE DON'T THOUGH EXACTLY WHAT THE TIMING WILL BE.

WE WILL SEE WHAT HAPPENS ONE THE THE SCHOOL OPENS AND WE WILL HAVE A BETTER NOTION THEN. BUT RIGHT NOW, WITH ALL THE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON IN THE TOWN, WE ARE SEEING TREMENDOUS DELAYS IN SUPPLY CHAINS. AND SO WHAT WE ARE WANT TO GO DO IS GET A LITTLE BIT AHEAD OF THE CURVE ON THIS AND HAVE OUR PLANS READY. THIS PARTICULAR AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE -- IT WOULD PREPARE THE ACTUAL SIGNAL PLANS AND WOULD ALSO INCLUDE BIDDING SERVICES WHEN THAT WOULD BE NECESSARY.

AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES IF NEEDED.

WE ARE ONCE AGAIN, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN WE WOULD NEED THE SIGNAL BUT I THINK IT IS PRETTY OBVIOUS, THE WAY THINGS ARE GROWING IN GENERAL, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SCHOOL GOING IN, THAT WE WILL BE NEEDING A SIGNAL AT THIS LOCATION.

SO THIS WOULD GIVE US THE -- AT LEAST GIVE US THE PLANS AND BE READY TO GO FORWARD WITH THAT. AS SOON AS THE NEED ARISES.

THE FUNDS FOR THIS ARE AVAILABLE THROUGH IMPACT FEE PROGRAM IN THAT AREA. I WILL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILPERSON: THAT'S GOING TO BE A FOUR-WAY STOP.

THEY ARE ALMOST DOWN WITH THE HAWKINS RUN EXTENSION.

>> IT WILL BE A FOUR-WAY STOP THIS WILL WE GET THE EXTENSION COMPLETED AND THEN WE WILL HAVE THE SCHOOL COMING ONLINE.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT IS NOT GOING TO START RIGHT UP WITH THE SCHOOL YEAR. THEY ARE A LITTLE BIT BEHIND.

COMING ONLINE IN THE FALL. AND SO ONCE WE SEE WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC ISSUES WE HAVE. WE DON'T WANT TO JUMP OUT, SPEND THE MONEY IF WE DON'T NEED IT RIGHT THEN.

PLUS, WE WANT TO SEE HOW TRAFFIC IS FUNCTIONING WHEN THE SNARLS COME THIS, WHEN WE HAVE DELAYS AND SUCH.

THOSE THINGS WILL GET PROGRAMMED INTO THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AFTER OR DURING INSTALLATION. IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO RIGHT THOUSAND. WNOW.WE WANT TO GET THE HARDWARE DESIGNED AND READY TO GO IN. ONCE THE SCHOOL IS IN, WE SEE THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, WE WILL BE ABLE TO DETERMINE, LOOKS LIKE RIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE NEED TO GO TO BIDS FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND AT LEAST THE DESIGN PART WILL BE BEHIND US SO WE WILL BE DIRECTLY GOING TO BIDDING FOR CONSTRUCTION.

>> COUNCILPERSON: I'M SOMEWHAT CONFUSED.

I HAVE NEVER DESIGNED A TRAFFIC SIGNAL.

IS THIS NOT SOMETHING WE NORMALLY HANDLE? HOUSE. SINGLE INTERSECTION TRAFFIC LIGHT. LET'S START WITH THAT ONE.

>> THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS ARE A LOT MORE COMPLEX.

ALL THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS IN THE CITY ARE DESIGNED BY CONSULTANT FIRMS. THE STATE ROUTES, DESIGNED BY THE STATE. THEY HAVE THEIR OWN IN-HOUSE DESIGN OR THEY GO TO CONTRACT SOMETIMES FOR DESIGN SERVICES.

ALL OF OUR SIGNALS ARE DESIGNED. >> WHEN YOU SAY DESIGNED, I

[01:55:02]

>> WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SET

OF PLANS. >> UNDERSTOOD.

>> SO THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE BASICALLY DOING.

HAVE TO HAVE A SET OF PLANS TO BUILD IT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO PREPARE, THE SET OF PLANS.

>> COUNCI >> MAYOR: I HAVE A SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL QUESTION. THIS DESIGN IS ONLY FOR THE PHYSICAL CONSTRUCTION OF THE LIGHT.

NOT THE USE. THE USE, THE DEMAND -- JUST THE

STRUCTURE. >> IT GETS THE STRUCTURE PUT IN

PLACE. >> NO OTHER SECRETARY OF STATE IN THE ENTIRE CITY THAT WE CAN TAKE THE PLANS WE ALREADY PAID FOR, MAKE A SLIGHT ADJUSTMENT AND THEN PUT IT HERE?

>> I'M NOT QUALIFIED TO DO THAT MYSELF.

I WOULDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO DO IT.

I HAVE NEVER DESIGNED AN ACTUAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL.

>> I'M NOT SAYING -- >> IT INVOLVES ELECTRICAL.

>> WE KNOW WHAT IS THERE. CERTAINLY THE ISD HAS DONE EXTENSIVE RESEARCH AS TO THE POWER DEMAND AND AVAILABILITY OF UTILITIES, ET CETERA, AT THAT INTERSECTION BECAUSE THEY PUT A BRAND NEW SCHOOL THERE. SO I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T NORMALLY VOTE AGAINST THE CITY.

I JUST -- I'M NOT CONNECTING THE DOTS ON THIS ONE.

>> IT SEEMS TO ME THIS IS AN EQUIVALENT OF A THIRD OF A FTE.

MAYBE A FOURTH. >> IF YOU WANT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, YOU WILL HAVE TO HAVE A SET OF PLANS.

IF YOU WANT A SET OF PLANS, YOU HAVE TO HIRE A CONSULTANT TO DO IT. WE DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO DO IT. I DON'T HAVE THE GRAPHICS ABILITY TO DRAW THEM UP. I DON'T HAVE THE TIME AT THIS POINT TO DO THAT. SO IT IS LIKE ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION PROJECT WE HAVE, WE NORMALLY OUTSOURCE THAT WORK TO A CONSULTING FIRM TO DO THE ACTUAL PLANS PREPARATION.

>> YOU ARE OUTSOURCING THE WORK BECAUSE OF MANPOWER.

>> THAT'S WHAT THE CONSULTANT IS.

>> EQUIVALENT OF -- >> THEY ARE GOING TO DO THE ENGINEERING WORK TO CREATE THE SET OF PLANS SO WE HAVE SOMETHING TO HAND TO A CONTRACTOR TO BID ON SO THEY CAN

BUILD. >> THEN AGAIN, NOT TO COMPOUND THE ISSUE, BUT I SEEM TO REMEMBER HAVING A CONVERSATION SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, CORRECT ME ON THE TIMELINE, BUT IN THAT GENERAL AREA ABOUT WHETHER WE WANTED A TRAFFIC SIGNAL OR FOUR-WAY BLINKER STOP OR FOUR-WAY STOP.

WAS IT AVENUE F AND EIGHTH STREET.

I STILL HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING HAPPEN THERE EITHER.

I HATE TO SPEND $50,000 IN AN INTERSECTION WE DON'T KNOW WHAT

WE ARE DOING. >> COUNCILPERSON: WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS IN THE BUDGET MEETINGS, PEOPLE COME IN ABOUT OUR BOND ISSUES. THIS LIGHT WAS BROUGHT UP AND DISCUSSED QUITE A BIT ABOUT THAT.

SO WE NEED IT. WE NEED IT BAD.

>> THAT'S MY POINT. I'M ALL FOR BUILDING A LIGHT.

BRING ME A COST FOR THE DESIGN, COST FOR THE LIGHT AFTER THE DESIGN, AND TIME FRAME WHEN THAT LIGHT IS GOING TO GO IN.

WE HAVE HISTORICALLY IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, I FEEL, THAT WE HAVE BEEN APPROVING THINGS AND NOT ACTUALLY EVER DOING IT.

IF WE NEED A LIGHT THERE, LET'S PUT A LIGHT THERE.

>> WE HAVE DONE THIS MANY TIMES. APPROVED A DESIGN, THEN COME

BACK AND GET THE JOB. >> I THINK ON THE AVENUE F, I DON'T WANT TO GET OFF THIS TOPIC, AVENUE F, WE NEVER GOT APPROVED TO DO ANYTHING. WE TALKED ABOUT A LIGHT, STOP SIGN. BUT NOTHING WAS EVER -- BECAUSE IT WAS ACTUALLY THREE DIFFERENT OPTIONS.

BLINKING RED LIGHT, STOP SIGN OR A FULL BLOWN TRAFFIC SIGNAL BUT WE NEVER MADE A DECISION TO DO ANY OF THOSE.

ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE, WE WILL HAVE TO HAVE A STAMPED ENGINEERED PLAN TO BUILD THE LIGHTS, MAKE SURE THEY DON'T FALL DOWN PRIMARILY. WE HAVE ONLY -- I THINK THE CITY ACTUALLY ONLY HAS TWO SIGNALS IN TOWN, THE ONE O OUT HERE ON E

[02:00:03]

THOSE WERE BOTH DONE, ENGINEERED BY SOMEBODY WHEN THE NORTH EIGHTH STREET PROJECT WAS DONE AND GEORGE HOPPER.

THEY WRAPPED UP INTO THAT BIGGER PROJECT.

THIS SOMEONE A STAND-ALONE BECAUSE WE ALREADY HAVE THE ROAD

THERE. >> THE REASON WE WANT TO DO IT NOW, YOU CAN DELAY DOING THIS. AS A RU.WHEN WE ARE READY DO ITL HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PROCESS.

IT WILL ADD HOWEVER MANY MONTHS TO THE PROCESS OF GETTING THERE.

I DON'T PROJECT IT, MYSELF, I'M NOT A TRAFFIC, SPECIFICALLY TRAFFIC ENGINEER. I WOULD SAY THE REASON WE PUT THE BIDDING SERVICES IN THERE AS STUFF, IT IS VERY LIKELY OR VERY POSSIBLE THAT THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN PRETTY SOON.

WE ARE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE NEED.

WE KNOW THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO OPEN AND ROAD IS GETTING READY

TO OPEN. >> THAT'S MY ONLY POINT IS.

WE ARE GOING TO APPROVE THE DESIGN.

THEN YOU WILL DO ANOTHER STUDY TO FIGURE OUT IF WE NEED IT?

>> NO. >> YOU WILL PUT IT IN.

>> WE CAN MAKE THE CALL, IF WE DECIDE TO NEED IT OR NOT.

THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE US A COST OF HOW MUCH IT WOULD TAKE TO -- THEIR ESTIMATE TO INSTALL IT.

WE MAKE THE DECISION, LET'S MOVE TOWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE THE NEED

FOR IT. >> MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION, $50,000 ISN'T A LOT OF MONEY IN THE CITY BUDGET, I WANT TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING AND GOING.

WE BONDED 14TH. I DON'T KNOW IF HAWKINS IS DEVELOPED DRIVEN. DID WE THOUGHT BUDGET FOR A

SIGNAL LIGHT? >> NO, NOT AT THAT TIME.

THAT WAS DONE MOSTLY BY TERRY JOB.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> NO, WE DID NO.

>> YOU HAVE HAD THE INTERSECTION, FUNCTIONED WELL.

YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT QUITE YET.

WE KNEW THERE WOULD BE A SCHOOL ON SOME CORNER.

THEY HAVE DEVELOPED THAT. WE HAVE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT ON THE EAST CORNER. PHASE THREE OF HAWKINS MEADOWS HAS BEEN APPROVED, SOUTH OF THE SCHOOL SITE.

THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT GETTING READY TO GO ON THIS.

ALSO DESIGNING PHASE FOUR OF HAWKINS MEADOWS.

A LOT OF THESE AREAS ARE STARTING TO FILL IN QUITE A BIT.

AS FAR AS PULLING THE TRIGGER WHEN SHOULD GO TO BID, THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DECIDE IN HOUSE, JUST SEEING THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AND WHAT'S GOING ON OUT THERE.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, IS A SIGNAL LIGHT A QUALIFYING EXPENSE FOR UTILITY FUNDS?

>> NO. THE IMPACT FEES CAN PAY FOR IT.

THAT'S -- WE ARE PROJECTING BOTH THE ENGINEERING AND EVENTUALLY WHEN WE BUILD THE SIGNAL TO COME OUT OF IMPACT FEES.

>> OKAY, THANK YOU. I GUESS IT IS STARTING TO COME TOGETHER. I WOULD ASK COUNCIL AT THIS POINT, IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO DESIGN IT BEFORE WE WANT TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED IT, THEN WE JUST NEED TO BUILD IT. SO I MEAN IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND 50 GRAND TO DESIGN IT, BUILD THE LIGHT.

THEY PUT THE SCHOOL ON THE INTERSECTION.

IT IS GOING TO BE A BUSY INTERSECTION.

SO WHY NOT ALSO -- IF WE DIDN'T GIVE THE OFFICIAL DIRECTION TO DO ANYTHING AT AVENUE F AND MAIN STREET, THEN WE NEED TO EXPECT SOMETHING COME FORWARD FOR BUILDING OF A SIGNAL LIGHT HERE.

>> YA'LL DECIDE TO INSTALL, HOW LONG FROM THE DECISION TO

INSTALL TO FULLY FUNCTIONAL? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE -- THAT'S WHY WE ARE TRYING TO GET THE DESIGN PART OUT OF THE WAY. WHAT WE ARE SEEING IN CONSTRUCTION, NORMALLY YOU COULD TAKE IT TO BID, DECIDED IN TWO MONTHS. JUST ABOUT THROUGH DESIGNING IT, COUNCIL SAYS, YEAH, WE NEED TO DO IT.

OR YOU GO AHEAD AND SAY YES, PART OF YOUR APPROVAL IS LET'S GO TO CONSTRUCTION. ON THE SIDE, WE GET AN OPCC FROM THEM, CONSTRUCTION COST ONCE THEY DESIGN IT, SO WE WILL KNOW THAT THEN. WE CAN COME BACK WITH THAT CONSTRUCTION COST TO GO FORWARD WITH BIDDING.

BUT WITH THE CURRENT SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES, IT IS REALLY HARD TO TELL. THEY ARE TELLING US RECENTLY -- WE HAD A MEETING TODAY, THEY SAID SOME STRUCTURAL STEEL ELEMENTS, THEY ARE SAYING NINE TO TWELVE MONTHS FROM ORDER.

[02:05:02]

CONTRACTORS. >> HOW LONG HAVE THEY BEEN

BUILDING THAT SCHOOL? >> IT HAS BEEN GOING ON -- I CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN THEY STARTED.

THEY ARE A LITTLE BEHIND. >> SO I WOULD SAY WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BEHIND. NOT TO BRING UP AVENUE F AND MAIN STREET SIGNAL AGAIN, BUT IN THAT, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS A WORKSHOP, THERE WAS AN ESTIMATE FLOATING AROUND OF $150,000 FOR A FULL-BLOWN FOUR-WAY STOP. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE GOT THAT COST ESTIMATE FOR AN INTERSECTION BUT WE DON'T KNOW

HOW MUCH THIS ONE COSTS. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> DIFFERENCE WOULD BE, THIS IS A FOUR-LANE ROAD, LONGER SPANS, ET CETERA. I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WOULD BE APPLES TO APPLES COMPARED TO THIS INTERSECTION VERSUS THAT ONE. BUT, YEAH, ROUGH ESTIMATE.

WE CAN PROBABLY GET AN ESTIMATE BECAUSE HER BUILDING ONE AT

HAWKINS DAY. >> AT TXDOT, YOU COULD COUNT ON HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS FOR STANDARD LIGHT.

THOSE COSTS MAY HAVE DOUBLED BY NOW.

I HAVE BEEN HERE ALMOST EIGHT YEARS NOW.

AND BUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM, WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET AHEAD IS HAVE SOMETHING IN HAND TO BID. I'M ANTICIPATING IT WILL BE JUST MATTER OF MONTHS FROM NOW, AFTER THE SCHOOL OPENS, THAT WE WILL DEFINITELY KNOW WE NEED TO PUT IT IN.

WE WERE WAITING TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL, HERE OKAY, HERE IS OUR APPROXIMATE AMOUNT THAT WE ARE READY TO GO FORWARD WITH IT.

IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO GO AHEAD AND JUST SAY BRING US A COST ONCE IT IS DONE, THAT WOULD BE FINE.

>> I THINK WE WOULD. I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE HAVE HEARD IT. IT SOUNDS LIKE ONCE WE GET THE DESIGN AND THE COST ESTIMATE, WE WILL BRING IT BACK AND SAY, DO WE WANT TO PULL THE TRIGGER NOW OR WAIT.

WE WILL DO THAT AS SOON AS THE DESIGN.

>> OKAY, FINE. >> DO WE HAVE A TIMELINE FOR HOW

LONG THE DESIGN PROCESS TAKES? >> LET ME SEE IF THEY PROVIDED A

TIMELINE IN THEIR PACKET. >> ARE YOU SAYING WE HAVE DONE

THIS TWICE BEFORE? >> ALL THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS IN THIS TOWN OR TXDOT. WE ONLY HAVE TWO THAT ARE UNDER

OUR CONTROL. >> I GUESS I JUST FEAR, IF WE ARE GOING TO SPEND THE MONEY TO DESIGN A LIGHT, THAT WE BEST PUT THE LIGHT IN BECAUSE, I MEAN, AS SOON AS THAT SCHOOL OPENS, WE ARE HAVING REALLY PISSED OFF PEOPLE EVERY MORNING AND EVERY

AFTERNOON. >> BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

COME BACK FOR APPROVAL. >> I AGREE.

I WANT TO KNOW HOW LONG THIS IS GOING TO TAKE.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> BACK TO MY QUESTION.

UNDER NORMAL TIMES, NOT NOW, BUT UNDER NORMAL TIMES, ONCE YOU DECIDE TO PUT IN A SIGNAL, HOW LONG UNTIL IT IS FUNCTIONAL UNDER NORMAL. WE ONLY HAVE TWO EXPERIENCES.

>> INCLUDING DESIGN, IF YOU HAD AVAILABLE RESOURCES.

>> ONCE YOU HAVE DESIGN. >> IF YOU ALREADY HAVE IT DESIGNED, I WOULD SAY PROBABLY 60 DAYS TO 90 DAYS.

BUT THAT'S -- >> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WHO KNOWS THESE DAYS. WHEN I WAS AT TXDOT, EVERYTHING STARTED AT SIX MONTHS.

>> ALL RIGHT. SO COUNCIL, ARE THERE MORE DISCUSSION, POINTS, QUESTIONS? OR A MOTION?

>> I MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES. >> THANK YA'LL.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 2022-286, CONSIDER AND ACT

[2022-286]

[02:10:05]

YOU COULD HAVE ROUND THAT 40 CENTS.

>> I LIKE ROUNDING THEM UP, TOO. MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING.

AGAIN, THIS IS MIKE ADAMS PRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE WATER TREATMENT PLANT. THIS IS A PART OF A THREE-YEAR MEMBRANE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM, WORKING ON THIS SINCE 2020.

IT IS ANTICIPATED FOR THE -- IF WE GET THE MEMBRANES, IT IS ANTICIPATED FOR THEM TO BE MANUFACTURED AND SHIPPED TO MIDLOTHIAN BY MID TO LATE OCTOBER.

THE MEMBRANES THEMSELVES ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE BUDGETED IN 22/23. HOWEVER, WHAT WE ARE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS THE AUTHORIZATION TO GO AHEAD AND PLACE THAT ORDER IN AND IF WE IT COMES IN BEFORE THE NEW BUDGET YEAR, IF WE DO, IN FACT, GET THOSE MEMBRANES IN OUR HANDS BEFORE OCTOBER, WE HAVE MONIES TO COVER IT IN UTILITY FUND.

AFTER OCTOBER, IT WILL BE ON THE 2022/2023 BUDGET.

HYPOTHETICALS HERE, THE PROJECT PROCESS, WE WANT TO GET AHEAD OF THE GAME AND GET THESE PRICES LOCKED IN TO BE ABLE TO GET THE TOOLS AND THE TREATMENT FACILITIES TO CONTINUE ON WITH THE EXPANSION PROGRAM. JOE IS HERE, HE CAN TALK ABOUT ANY OF THE DETAILS AND THE SMART STUFF.

HE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YA'LL HAVE.

>> COUNCILPERSON: MY QUESTION IS SHORT AND SWEET, FOR CHRIS.

THE CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, I MIGHT BE CALLING IT WRONG, THE COVID RELIEF FUNDING THAT CAME DOWN FROM THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, IS THIS APPLICABLE EXPENSE?

>> YOU COULD USE IT ON WATER AND SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE, THAT'S CORRECT. KEEP IN MIND THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED, PRETEMPREEMPTIVE, WE HAVE A WATR TREATMENT EXPANSION TO BID THAT IS NOTICE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS.

WE WOULD LOOK TO OR DISCUSS WITH COUNCIL THE POTENTIAL USE OF

THOSE ARPA FUNDS. >> THERE'S A SUNSET ON THE

AVAILABILITY OF THOSE FUNDS. >> WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM COMMITTED BY THE END OF 24 AND SPENT BY THE TIME OF END OF

2026. >> RACK 4 IS THE LAST ONE, LAST ONE IN THE REPLACEMENT PROGRAM. THIS SHOULD COVER IT, DEPENDING ON WHETHER WE APPROVE THE PURCHASE TONIGHT AND GO AHEAD AND ORDER IT, AND WAIT FOR DELIVERY.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED, PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-0. THANK YOU.

[2022-287]

>> I'M BACK, THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

ANOTHER ITEM WE WERE LOOKING AHEAD ON WITH INCREASING TRAFFIC ON 663, BEING IN PARTICULAR ON THIS ITEM.

IIT HAS ACTUALLY BEEN DONE A YER AGO IN FEBRUARY, WE FINISHED THE PROJECT ON 663 TO ADD ADDITIONAL LANES SOUTHBOUND FROM APPROXIMATELY HARVEST HILL DRIVE DOWN TO BYRD RANCH ROAD.

THAT HAS NEPPED THIS THERE. HELPED.

I DRIVE THAT WAY QUITE OFTEN. A LOT OF YOU DO.

THAT WAS A PROJECT THAT TXDOT AGREED TO LET US DO.

AND IT HAS BEEN IN PLACE NOW FOR WELL OVER A YEAR.

LOOKING AHEAD WITH THE CURRENT SCHEDULE, OR LACK OF A SCHEDULE ON 663 IMPROVEMENTS BY TXDOT, THEY DID A STUDY ON IT AND WE STILL DON'T SEE ANY FUNDING OR ANYTHING COMING AROUND THE CORNER. WE ARE ASKING THAT WE GET A CONSULTANT ON BOARD TO DO ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD, NORTHBOUND SIDE, ADDITION OF A LANE TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE CAPACITY NORTHBOUND FROM BELMONT BACK UP TO APPROXIMATELY THE SAME LOCATION, HARVEST HILL DRIVE.

[02:15:01]

WE HAVE ADEQUATE SPACE, IT LOOKS LIKE, TO PUT IN AN ADDITIONAL LANE, FROM BELMONT NORTH YOU WILL HAVE TWO LANES NORTHBOUND INSTEAD OF THE SINGLE LANE THAT SPREADS OUT TO TWO LANES AROUND HAWKINS RUN ROAD. THIS WOULD BE, ONCE AGAIN, FOR THE DESIGN SERVICES. WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE PROJECT APPROVED THROUGH TXDOT. WE COULD ASK TXDOT TO ALLOW US TO DEVELOP THE PROJECT AND BUILD IT LIKE WE DID LAST TIME.

ON TXDOT SCHEDULE, IT WOULD TAKE YEARS TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.

SO WE ARE LOOKING ONCE AGAIN JUST TO BE ABLE TO HAVE K KIMLEY-HORN GIVE US A DESIGN SO WE CAN GET ADDITIONAL CAPACITY SOONER RATHER THAN LATER ON 663 NORTHBOUND.

ONCE AGAIN, ALSO A ROA ROADWAY IMPACT FEE ELIGIBLE.

EU8 EU8 II WILL TAKE ANY QUESTI. >> FIRST COMMENT, I LOVE WIDENING 663. IT IS THE CONCERNING CORRIDOR FOR ALL OF OUR RESIDENTS. SO GLAD THAT WE ARE NOT WAITING FOR TXDOT. SECOND QUESTION, FIRST QUESTION, HOW DID WE COME UP WITH KIMLEY-HORN ON YET ANOTHER CITY

PROJECT? >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THEY DID THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE AS WELL.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> COUNCILPERSON: SO SINCE THEY DID THE OTHER SIDE, WE ARE WE SEEING A COST BENEFIT? LIKE YOU SAID, THEY HAVE TOPOS, WHATNOT.

ARE WE EXPERIENCING THE COST BENEFIT BY UTILIZING THEM FOR

THIS SIDE? >> [INAUDIBLE]

>> COUNCILPERSON: SINCE WE DIDN'T GO OUT TO BID, THEY GAVE US A PRICE THAT WE THINK IS IN LINE.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> COUNCILPERSON: SURE.

>> AND THE SOUTHBOUND PROJECT THEY DID FOR US A COUPLE YEARS AGO, THEIR AM WAS 112,700. SO VERY COMPARABLE.

THIS IS A LONGER PROJECT. THAT PROJECT WAS ACTUALLY COMPLETED FEBRUARY 1ST, 2021. COMMENCED IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020.

SO THE ENGINEERING WAS DONE IN EARLY 2020.

>> SEEMS LIKE A COST SAVINGS TO ME, GIVEN INFLATION AND MARKET.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THERE'S A LOT TO BE SAID FOR THE KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR AREA, TOO. WE UNDERSTAND THEY HAVE THE SAME DESIGNERS THAT MAYBE OPERATE OR WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

SO IT SAVES US A LITTLE TIME AND MAYBE GIVES US A LITTLE HIGHER QUALITY IN OUR PLANS FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.

>> FOR ME IT IS AS SIMPLE AS MAKING SURE THAT THE SERVICE PROVIDERS THAT WE CONTINUALLY USE OVER AND OVER ARE STILL COMPETITIVE IN THE MARKET AND THAT WE SOMEHOW TAKE A LOOK AT

THAT EVERY NOW AND AGAIN. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[2022-288]

>> ITEM 2022-288, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH CIGNA TO PROVIDE MEDICAL, FLEXIBLE SPENDING ACCOUNT ADMINISTRATION, AND VOLUNTARY VISION INSURANCE BENEFITS AND WITH METLIFE TO PROVIDE DENTAL INSURANCE BENEFITS FOR CITY

EMPLOYEES. >> GOOD EVENING.

[02:20:05]

NOT GOOD. BUT IT IS GOOD THAT WE HAD THE INSURANCE FOR THE EMPLOYEES. AND SO THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE MEDICAL PROVIDES A 5.1% INCREASE.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IN THE MARKET THAT WITH OUR -- THAT IF WE HAD AN 85% LOSS RATIO, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO EXPECT A 7.4% INCREASE.

WHEN CIGNA FIRST QUOTED BACK TO US, THEY QUOTED A 17.6% INCREASE. AND SO THAT HAS BEEN NEGOTIATED DOWN WITH THE HELP OF OUR BENEFITS ADMINISTRATOR TO THIS 5.1. SOME OF THAT HAD TO DO WITH LOOKING AT CLAIMS AND LOOKING AT WHETHER THEY WERE GOING TO BE ONGOING OR NOT. BUT WE DO FEEL LIKE THE 5.1% IS REASONABLE. ON THE DENTAL, WITH METLIFE, WE HAD ONE-YEAR RENEWAL CAPPED AT 5%.

WITH OUR DENTAL CLAIMS, OUR INCREASE WOULD HAVE BEEN 25%.

SO WE WERE FORTUNATE THAT OUR CONTRACT HAD THAT AGREEMENT.

WE AREN'T PROPOSING GOING OUT TO THE MARKET LIKE WE HAVE IN A LOT OF YEARS PAST AND WE ARE PROPOSING JUST GOING WITH THIS BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE HIGH CLAIMS AND IF WE TAKE IT OUT TO THE MARKET, WE WILL LIKELY HAVE MUCH HIGHER INCREASES.

AND CIGNA, FOR EXAMPLE, WE HAVE ONE YEAR LEFT ON THAT AGREEMENT.

THEY WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE ABLE TO REQUOTE AT A HIGHER RATE. SO I DO BELIEVE IT IS BENEFICIAL. ALL OF OUR OTHER BENEFITS ARE STAYING THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT INCREASING.

AND SO THE TOTAL COST THAT YOU DON'T HAVE IN YOUR PACKET BECAUSE WE GOT THIS LATER, BUT THE TOTAL COST TO THE CITY FOR THIS INCREASE IS 168,547 FOR THE ACTUAL MEDICAL, WHICH IS A LOT LESS THAN THAN WHAT WE HAVE SEEN IN SOME OTHER YEARS, AND THEN FOR THE DENTAL, TOTAL COST IS ROUGHLY ABOUT 5,000 MORE.

SO THE DENTAL IS VERY MUCH A BARGAIN.

I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT

HAVE. >> COUNCILPERSON: I ONLY HAVE A COUPLE. THE INCREASE IN PREMIUMS THAT THE CITY PAYS WILL ALSO RESULT IN AN INCREASE IN PREMIUMS TO THE INDIVIDUAL EMPLOYEE, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> IT WILL. WE HAVE CALCULATED IT BASED ON THE SAME SPLIT THAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST WHERE IT IS 65% PAID BY THE CITY AND 35% PAID BY THE EMPLOYEES.

>> IS THAT 65 FOR EMPLOYEE ONLY OR EMPLOYEE AND FAMILY?

>> IT IS ACROSS THE BOARD. >> THE EMPLOYEE-ONLY IS PAID 10.

>> AT THE BASE LEVEL. IF THEY GET THE BUY UP, THEY HAVE TO PAY A PORTION AS WELL. BUT THAT WORKS FOR THE EMPLOYEES. EMPLOYEE AND SPOUSE, EMPLOYEE AND CHILDREN. SO THE TOTAL, I GUESS, INITIAL COST THAT'S BORNE BY THE EMPLOYEES THEMSELVES IS ABOUT

36,500. >> WELL, THIS IS A MARKET I KNOW A LOT ABOUT, BEING AN EMPLOYER MYSELF.

THAT'S PRETTY GOOD NUMBERS CONSIDERED YOUR RATIOS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS. >> OUR INITIAL BUDGET THAT WE HAD PUT IN FOR NEXT YEAR WAS 10% BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HAD BEEN TOLD ALL ALONG. I WILL SAY WE ARE SAVING SOMETHING. YOU RECENTLY APPROVED A CONTRACT TO USE THIS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATOR AND DO A FIXED FEE. THAT HAS HELPED US QUITE A BIT WITH THAT INCREASE. SO --

>> I WILL TAKE THAT AS A WIN. >> ME, TOO.

>> [INAUDIBLE]. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: ITEM

[2022-289]

[02:25:04]

HAVE FULL COUNCIL PRESENT. >> SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

THE ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED. AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO

[EXECUTIVE SESSION]

551.72, REAL ESTATE. 211 WEST MAIN STREET.

CHAPEL HILL AT NORTH EIGHTH STREET REAL ESTATE.

.7 ACRES AT PAYNE PROPERTY, AND NORTH EIGHTH AND HIGHWAY 67.

ANOTHER REAL ESTATE 6 I CAN AREAS IS THE 1 1 1072

>> MAYOR: THERE ARE NO MOTION TO SAY TAKE.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. AT ALMOST 8:50, WE STAND

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.