Oct 24, 2023 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation ]

[00:00:07]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: GOOD EVENING, IT IS 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY OCTOBER 24TH, WE HAVE A QUORUM OF COUNCIL PRESENT, SO, I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. WE BEGIN WITH YOUR INVOCATION AND OUR PLEDGE. WE HAVE PASTOR MCKINNON FROM ONE CHURCH FROM HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN, AND WHEN HE'S COMPLETE, WE'LL HAVE THE MARY PRO TEM COME THROUGH WITH THE PLEDGES. IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD, PUSH THAT RED BUTTON AND BLESS OUR MEETING? PUSH THE GRAY BUTTON THAT WILL TURN RED. THERE YOU GO.

>>> WOULD YOU BOW YOUR HEAD IN A WORD OF PRAYER. FATHER WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR THANKFULNESS AND KINDNESS. THANK YOU FOR THE SETTING OF THIS MEETING AND PRAY THAT OUR HEARTS ARE OPEN, PRAY FOR CLARITY REVELATION DISCUSSIONS AND TRUTH AND HONESTY ON THE TABLE THAT THIS COUNCIL AND THIS LEADING TEAM WILL MAKE FINE DECISION TOSS HELP LEAD OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENCE, THANK YOU YOUR PATIENCE. IN JESUS' NAME, 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,

[2023-420]

>>> THANK YOU, PASTOR MACK. THANK YOU, CLARK. BEGIN THIS EVENING WITH THE OPEN ITEM, 2023-420, PRESENTATION OF ARBOR DAY PROCLAMATION. IF HEATHER WILL COME FORWARD AND I THINK WE HAVE ONE OTHER ONE FROM PARK'S BOARD HERE, IF WE HAVE OTHERS,

PLEASE COME FORWARD AS WELL. >> HEATHER IS THE DIRECTOR OF OUR PARK'S AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND IT'S MY HONOR TO PRESENT A PROCLAMATION TO HER, WHEREAS THE HOLIDAY CALLED ARBOR DAY WAS FIRST OBSERVED IN 1872 WITH THE PLANTING OF MORE THAN A MILLION TREE IN NEBRASKA. WHEREAS ARBOR DAY IS CELEBRATED NATIONWIDE AND ARNOLD THE WORLD WHEREAS TREES CAN HELP REDUCE THE EROSION OF PRESHTS TOP SOIL BY LOWER HEATING AND COOLING COST MODERATE THE TEMPERATURE, CLEAN THE AIR AND WATER. AND WHEREAS TREES SYMBOLIZING ENDURING HEALTH BRING PEACE TO THOSE THAT REST UNDER THEM. MAKE A HOUSE FEEL LIKE A IT HOME AND GROW A LEGACY FOR GENERATIONS TO COME. WHEREAS TREES IN THE MIDLOTHIAN AREA INCREASE PROPERTY VALUE AND BUTTEFY THE COMMUNITY, AND NOW, THERE, I THERE FOR, JUSTIN COFFMAN, MAYOR OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS DO PROCLAIM TEXAS ARBOR DAY. (APPLAUSE)

[2023-421]

>>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND CITIZENS OF MIDLOTHIAN. I WROTE THIS DOWN SO THAT I DON'T GET TOO WORDY, BECAUSE I GET CRAZY SOMETIMES. I'M EXCITED TO BE HERE THIS EVENING TO CELEBRATE THE NATIONAL DESIGNATION OF TREE CITY USA, THE ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION AND TREE CITY USA SHOW THAT IS WE'RE TAKING OUR TREE CANOPY SERIOUSLY T TREES PROVIDE CLEAN AIR AND WATER, REDUCE RUNOFF PROVIDE SHADE AND HABITAT AND AS SAID IN THE PROCLAMATION MAKE A HOUSE FEEL LIKE A HOME. THEY REDUCE STRESS, LOW TRAFFIC AND BEAUTIFY OUR COMMUNITY ALL WHILE IMPROVING PROPERTY VALUES. THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT HAS MADE TREES A PRIORITY IN OUR COMMUNITY. IN 2022 WE PLANTED 525 TREE IN OUR PARKS AND MEDIANS TO BEAUTIFY AND IMPROVE HEALTH FOR OUR RESIDENTS. AND WE INTEND TO CONTINUE OUR TREE MANNING EFFORTS FOR YEARS TO COME. OUR VISION IS TO PLANT A TREE, GROW A FOREST, LEAVE A LEGACY. I CAN GO ON AND ON ABOUT TREES AS YOUR LITTLE LORAX AND YOUR TREE-HUGGING PARK GIRL, BUT, I WANT TO MOVE ON AND INTRODUCE OUR SPECIAL GUEST MIKE SILLS REGIONAL FORESTER WITH THE

[00:05:03]

COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU, HEATHER, AND, UM, MAYOR COFFMAN, TEXAS A & M, FOREST SERVICE TO PRESENT THIS TO YOU ARBOR DAY FROM THE ARBOR DAY FOUNDATION. IT'S THE TREE

CITY USA CERTIFICATION. >> THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. (APPLAUSE)

>> I GOT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UM, LET YOU KNOW THAT YOU GUYS WERE THE FIRST COMMUNITY IN ELLIS COUNTY TO GET THE TTREE CITY USA RECOGNITION. I'VE BEEN WORKING ON OTHER COMMUNITIES FOR AWHILE, AND I'M REALLY PROUD OF YOU GUYS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

>> YEAH. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: THANK YOU, MIKE, THANK YOU, HEATHER, WE JUST GOT DONE FILMING A MIDLOTHIAN MINUTE WITH SOCIAL MEDIA, AND WE HAD MIKE AND

[2023-422]

VEGETATION. >>> MOVING ONTO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, ITEM HEARD, ITEM HEARD, ITEM 2023-422 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD - THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A "CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORM" AND PRESENT IT TO THE CITY SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING OPENED FOR DISCUSSION. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 3 MINUTES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT. TAMMY, DID ANYBODY SIGN UP

FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD? >> MAYOR COFFMAN: DO YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD. AND THEN, JUST PUSH THAT BUTTON TO TURN ON THE LIGHT. AND STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND WETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU'LL HAVE 3 MINUTES.

>> I'M LINDSEY BROSTICK AND I DO LIVE WITHIN CITY LIMITS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF MY HUSBAND AND MYSELF REGARDING AN ISSUE THAT WE'RE EXPERIENCING IN OUR HOME. AS FIRST-TIME HOME OWNERS, WE WERE EXCITED TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, HOWEVER, INBEKNOWNST TO US AT THE TIME, OUR LAND HAS A DRAIN EASEMENT.

IT HAS BEEN NOTHING SHORT OF A NEW SANS FOR US. AND WITH EVERY RAINFALL, THE LAND ERODES MORE AND MORE, AND DUE TO THE PATTERN OF DROUGHTS FOLLOWED BY THE TORRENTIAL DOWNPOURS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING HALF OUR OUR FENCE EASEMENT IS LEFT STANDING. OUR ENTIRE SIDE OF THE STREET HAS TO DEAL WITH THE REPRECAUTIONS OF THE EASEMENT, HOWEVER, WE'RE RECEIVING THE BRUNT OF THE DAMAGE SINCE WE LIVE ON THE CORNER AND HAVE THE CONCRETE HEAD WALL THAT FUNNELS ALL THE WATER UPSTREAM AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD DRAIN RUNOFF. THE EROSION HAS REACHED NINE PACES OF OUR HOUSE. WE ARE BRINGING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION AS A LAST RESORT. WITH WHEN WE FIRST NOTICED THE TISSUE WE REACH THE YOU TO THE PREVIOUSLY HOMEOWNERS FOR ADVICE. WE HIRED ENGINEERS TO COME OUT AND GIVE THEIR PROFESSION MALL OPINION AND WE RENTED EQUIPMENT AND TRIED TO CLEAN UP AND CLEAR OUT THE BRUSH AND TREES WHICH WERE IMPEDING THE FLOW OF WATER. DESPITE ALL THE EFFORTS, THE TASK REMAINS TOO DAUNTING FOR AN INDIVIDUAL HOME OWNER TO TAKE ON. AT SOME POINT BEFORE WE BOUGHT THE HOUSE, SOMEONE WITH ACCESS TO HEAVY MACHINERY, A DEVELOPER OR CONSTRUCTION COMPANY DUMPED HUGE SLABS OF CONCRETE AND REBASH IN THE EASEMENT. ENGINEERS AND HAVE ALREADY INVESTED CLOSE TO # A THOUSAND DOLLARS TRYING TO MITIGATE THE ISSUE. SOME ENGINEERING FIRMS HAVE TOLD US THIS IS NOT A PROJECT THEY WOULD TAKE ON ONE REASON BEING THAT IF IT'S GOING TO BE DONE PROPERLY, THE ENTIRE STREET WOULD NEED TO BE DONE NOT JUST OUR SMALL PORTION. WE FEAR THAT IF WE DO ANYTHING TO MITIGATE THE ISSUE OR REDIRECT THE FLOW OF WATER TO SOLVE OUR PROBLEM, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A LAWSUIT FROM NEIGHBORS. WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT POINT, THIS IS OUR PRIVATE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, NEIGHBORHOOD KIDS AND ADULTS ALIKE USE IT AS A PLAYGROUND.

WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO FENCE THIS OFF AND OUR NO-TRESPASSING SIGN IS IGNORED TIME AND TIME AGAIN. FROM WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY

[00:10:03]

LIKE TO SEE IT. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: WOULD YOU

SAY THE ADDRESS AGAIN? >> IT'S 919 IT ADVENT AVENUE.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOVING ONTO THE CONSENT AGENDA. ALL MATTERS LISTED ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT A SEPARATE DISCUSSION. IF A DISCUSSION IS DESIRED THAT ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. COUNCIL, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT

AGENDA? >> HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN

A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE BY MAYOR PRO TEM

WICKLIFFE. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: IT DOES PASS 7-0. MOVEN ONTO THE REGULAR

[2023-431]

STREET. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, THIS IS AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE PRIVATE PROPERTY TO BUILD SOME SEVEN PARKING SPOTS ALONG NORTH 2ND STREET TO ALLOW FOR PARKING. WHEN THEY GOT THE PUD THEY DIDN'T NEED ALL OF THEM, THEY NEEDED SEVEN AND THOSE ARE ON PREMISE. THESE ARE OFF PREMISE, THEY'RE ON PREMISE BUT ON THE STREET AS WELL WHICH IS WHAT REQUIRES THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT. IT IS ON NORTH SECOND AAND MAIN STREET AND IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY

TO ENTERTAIN THOSE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: HAS ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? AND THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC

HEARING? >> NO, SIR.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> THIS WAS BEFORE, RIGHT? 18 MONTHS AGO?

>> YES. AND THAT WAS A PUD TO GET THE USE TO OPEN UP. AT THAT POINT THEY DIDN'T KNOW FOR SURE IF THEY NEEDED TO GET THE SEVEN ADDITIONAL SPOTS. NOW THEY WANT THEM. SO, THEY'RE GETTING AN

ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT FOR THAT. >> I MUST HAVE BEEN WRONG. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY GET PERMISSION TO USE THE SEVEN

SPOTS LAST TIME. >> THOSE SEVEN SPOTS ARE ON-SITE. THESE SEVEN SPOTS WOULD BE ON THE STREET.

>> SO, A DIFFERENT SET OF SEVEN?

>> YES, SIR. A PORTION OF IT WOULD BE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BUT A PORTION OF IT WOULD BE ON PUBLIC AS WELL.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I WILL MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT I DROVE BY THE PROPERTY THIS AFTERNOON AND TO ME, THERE'S PLENTY OF SPACE THERE TO HOUSE THIS AND THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, FOR THE RECORD IS APPROVE THIS. HEARING NO FURTHER --

>> MY ONLY QUESTIONS IS ARE THESE STRAIGHT HEAD-IN PARKING

OR ARE THEY ANGLED? >> I'M ALMOST POSITIVE THEY'RE STRAIGHT-END, I THINK WITH THE SPEED LIMIT ON THE STREET,

STRAIGHT-END MAKES SENSE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COUNCIL? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

>> I'LL MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION MY MYSELF AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HARTSON. PLEASE VOTE.

>>> ITEM PASSES 6-0. WOULD SOMEBODY GRAB CLARK FOR US.

[2023-432]

>> OPENING ITEM 2023-432 REVIEW AND DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF ON THE FUTURE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CHAPTERS OF THE GUIDING OUR FUTURE MIDLOTHIAN 2045.

>>> COUNCIL, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THIS IS, JUST KIND OF AN UPDATE, A GENERAL UPDATE AND A DISCUSSION OF THE FUTURE LANDFUTURE LAND UE HAD A WORKSHOP SEVERAL WEEKS

[00:15:02]

SETHCO. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: I'LL LET THE PRESENTATION GO AND WE'LL OPEN UP TO COUNCIL.

>> THANK YOU, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND MAYOR, I'M DAN SETHCO. JUST BY WAY OF INTRODUCTION, WE HAVE BEEN MARCHING ALONG. THESE ARE THE MEETINGS THAT WE'VE HAD ALREADY, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT AS A CHECK-IN WITH THE CITY COUNCIL TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE AND THEN SOME COMMENTS ON OUR HOUSING POLICIES. WE HAVE SOME LEFT TO GO. WE HOPE THESE HAVE NOT BEEN SCHEDULED. WE HOPE TO BE ABLE TO INCLUDE THIS BY THE SUMMER OF NEXT YEAR. IF YOU ALSO REMEMBER AND MANY OF YOU WERE AT THESE MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD COMMIT MEETINGS, AND JOINT WORKSHOPS WITH THE CITY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND YOU AS WELL. AND WE'VE HAD COMMUNITY I'D EVENTS, AS WELL AS A VIRTUAL IN HOUSE INPUT PROCEDURE ONLINE. SO, WE'VE BEEN SEEKING PUBLIC INPUT DILIGENTLY ALONG THE WAY. HERE'S A GENERAL GRAPHIC OF WHERE WE ARE, AND REALLY JUST TO ILLUSTRATE, THAT AS WE MARCH ALONG, WE'RE WORKING ON VARIOUS DIFFERENT CHAPTERS AND THEY'RE IN VARIOUS STATION OF COMPLETING. THAT WILL GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF WHERE WE ARE. WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME INPUT THIS EVENING, AS YOU ALL HAVE KNOWN, WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE MIDLOTHIAN PLANNING AND HOUSING GUIDELINES AS WE'VE WORKED THROUGH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'VE GOTTEN GOOD CONSENSUS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN BUT WE WOULD LIKE FURTHER INPUT FROM YOU THIS EVENING, IF YOU HAVE A FEW MOMENTS TO GIVE US DIRECTION ON THAT. THE NEXT SLIDE AFTER THIS IS THE ONE REALLY THAT HAS OUR POINT OF DISCUSSION FOR THIS EVENING. THIS SLIDE SETS IT UP. THESE ARE FACTS, JUST FOR SET UP OF THE ISSUE. IS RIGHT NOW, AS YOU COULD SEE, IS THERE ARE REALLY TWO NUMBERS HERE. THERE'S A NUMBER THAT'S 8 PERCENT AND 10%. AND SO, IF YOU LOOK ADD THESE TWO NUMBERS, THE TOTAL, IN YOU LOOK AT THAT, EXISTING PLUS ENTITLED MULTIPLE FAMILY. THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IN MIDLOTHIAN TODAY. THAT'S 18% OF THE UNITS. AND, SO, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. AND YOU COULD SEE THE BREAKDOWN THERE. NOW, THIS IS WHAT THE MEMO THAT YOU HAVE HAD IN YOUR PACKET THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED AND THIS IS KIND OF THIS IS REALLY WHAT WE WANT TO HAVE SOME INPUT ON THIS EVENING IF YOU HAVE A FEW MOMENTS FOR US. FIRST OF ALL, WE THINK THAT WE OUGHT TO CLARIFY WHAT MULTIPLE FAMILY ACTUALLY MEANS. IT'S REALLY TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES AND THESE OTHER TYPES OF UNITS ARE REALLY NOT MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, SO, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEPARATE THOSE OUT AND HAVE SEPARATE DEFINITIONS FOR EACH ONE OF THOSE. AND THEN, UM, THIS ROLLS INTO WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING AS 14 PERCENT CAP WHICH WOULD BE ALL MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS AS THEY WOULD BE REDEFINED. THEN, THAT WOULD GO INTO A NEW POLICY THAT WOULD GO INTO YOUR PLAN TO REPLACE 10% POLICY THAT YOU HAVE NOW. AS IF YOU DIRECTED US TO DO SO IN THIS MANNER, AND THAT NEW POLICY WOULD BE 14% OR IF WE'VE, IF WE DON'T RECALCULATE OR REDEFINE ALT OTHER UNIT TYPES, BUT, WHAT WE WOULD HAVE IS, IS WE WOULD HAVE A NEW PERCENTAGE OF 14%, THAT WOULD BE THE CAP AND THEN WE WOULD HAVE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA WHERE IF IT MET CERTAIN DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, YOU COULD APPROVE OTHER WORTHY, MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS THAT MET THIS DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA. YET TO BE DEVELOPED, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SPEND A WHOLE BUNCH OF TIME DRAFTING THIS UNTIL WE GOT YOUR GUIDANCE ON THE BASIC POLICY THAT IS PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT.

[00:20:06]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: FOR TONIGHT THE FOCUS IS PURELY ON THE

MULTI-FAMILY ELEMENT? >> YES. WE REALLY NEED TO WRITE THIS UP IN THE DRAFT AND WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET IT THROUGH THE WAY THE CITY COUNCIL WOULD LIKE IT.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: LET'S GIVE MR. SETHCO THE PROCEDURE ON THE

MULTI-FAMILY. >> CAN YOU CLARIFY FOR ME, WHAT'S THE BENEFIT FOR THIS CHANGE? DOES IT RESULT IN MORE MULTIPLE FAMILY? INCLUDING THE CURRENT, INCLUDING EVERYTHING IN THE CURRENT DEFINITION, OR, DOES IT CREATE LESS OPPORTUNITIES FOR

THAT? >> REALLY, WHAT IT DOES IS IT IS SETS A NEW BASELINE. BECAUSE, YOUR CURRENT POLICY IS 10% WHICH HAS BEEN EXCEEDED NOW. SO, WE'RE AT, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU CALCULATE IT, IF YOU INCLUDE OUR ENTITLED LAND, WE'RE 18%.

OR, IF WE LOOK AT JUST WHAT'S ON THE GROUND, YOU COULD SEE THAT WE'RE ABOVE THAT TOO. SO, IT REALLY IS A RESET OF THE BASELINE. SO, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. AND WE'RE SAYING THAT'S THE LIMIT TO GO OVER THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE CRITERIA OF NEW CRITERIA THAT WOULD BE THINGS LIKE STYLE, MAYBE MORE VERTICAL, NEW URBANIZED STYLE OF DEVELOPMENT, NO MORE REALLY, GARDEN-TYPE MULTIPLE FAMILY. OTHER CITIES AROUND THE METROPLEX HAVE SIMILAR TYPES OF POLICY, AND WE WOULD CRAFT ONE FOR YOU ALL AS WELL. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION IS, IT JUST SETS THE NEW BASELINE AND THAT'S THE LINE IN THE SAND, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEN, ANYTHING MORE THAN THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY YOU, IF IT MEANT THE NEW CRITERIA FOR HIGH QUALITY MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> I BELIEVE SO, SO, DOES THE NEW CAP ENCOMPASS THE TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES THAT YOU REFERRED TO?

>> WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING IS THE NEW CAP IS 14% AND WE WOULD CARVE THOSE OUT. BECAUSE, AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE JUST DON'T THINK THOSE ARE MULTIPLE FAMILY. THOSE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING. DUPLEX AND TOWN HOUSE ARE JUST NOT REALLY MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS IN THE PLANNING WORLD DEFINITION. SO, IF WE CARVE THOSE OUT, THE NEW DEFINITION WOULD BE 14%. IF WE KEEP THEM ALL TOGETHER, IF YOU DIRECT US TO KEEP THEM ALL TOGETHER, IT WOULD BE 18%. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION?

>> I BELIEVE SO. >> SO, YOU'RE SAYING 18 AND 14%, 14% BEING CURRENT AND ENTITLED APARTMENTS?

>> YES, MA'AM. >> SO, YOU'RE BASICALLY JUST PUTTING A PERCENTAGE ON ONE OF THE CATEGORIES?

>> YES, MA'AM. THE TRUE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS.

>> BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WAS A BIG CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD

LAST TIME. >> YES, MA'AM.

>> I GUESS I'M HAVING TROUBLE CONNECTING WHAT THAT DOES FOR US

GOING FORWARD. IT WOULD >> WHAT'S THE POINT OF IT?

>> TO ME, IT WOULD KEEP THE SAME POLICY EXCEPT IT WOULD SET

A NEW BASELINE. >> IS IT SO THAT WE CAN IDENTIFY AND PAY ATTENTION TO ONE AREA?

>> RIGHT NOW, THIS IS A CITY WIDE POLICY, SO, THERE'S NO DIFFERENTIATION. BUT, I BELIEVE THE WAY WE'RE PROPOSING IT HERE WOULD ALLOW USE OF LATITUDE OF AREAS, FOR EXAMPLE, DOWNTOWN, WE THINK SMALLER AREAS OF DOWNTOWN WOULD HELP DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES AND WOULD BE PART OF FURTHERING THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. SO, THIS WOULD ALLOW YOU TO IMPROVE THOSE TYPES OF PROJECTS IF YOU

[00:25:05]

WISH. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: THAT IS KIND OF THE BREAKDOWN BETWEEN THE EIGHT AND THE NINE UNITS. THE ADVISORY GROUP SAW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EIGHT AND NINE, I KNOW IT'S AN ARBITRARY NUMBER, BUT, ON A CITY BLOCK, WHAT WOULD MAKE SENSE HOW MANY UNITS? EIGHT UNITS.

>> WE COULD ALREADY DO THAT NOW.

>> WELL, WHAT IT WOULD DO IS CLARIFY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT WOULD CLARIFY THE FACTS. BECAUSE, RIGHT NOW YOUR STANDARD IS 10%, BUT, THERE'S NO ABILITY TO, NO POLICY TO ALLOW FOR INNOVATIVE OR INTERESTING MULTIPLE FAMILY DESIGN. THERE

IS >> THERE IS BY US VOTING. I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF SPLITTING THE MULTIPLE FAMILY INTO DIFFERENT SECTIONS, FOR ME THAT'S JUST A HOCUS POCUS WAY OF PUTTING IN

MORE MULTIPLE FAMILY. >> I DON'T WANT MULTIPLE FAMILY, BUT, A DUPLEX, TOWN HOME, ARE TECHNICALLY INDIVIDUAL FAMILY. BECAUSE, YOU COULD HAVE INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP OF SAID

UNIT. SO, THAT'S THE ONLY PART. >> WE DO LOOK AT THEM VERY DIFFERENTLY. I MEAN, THEY'RE VERY DIFFERENT ENTITIES. LIKE, A SENIOR LIVING VERSUS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX.

>> THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED REDEFINING AND BREAKING THEM OUT SO THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THOSE, AND HAVE A TRUE, PUTTING UP, I DON'T KNOW FOR A LACK OF BETTER WORD, DRAGNET ON ALL OF THESE

KINDS OF (INAUDIBLE) >> IT'S NOT QUITE FAIR TO THE UNITS THAT WEREN'T TRUE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS. THAT'S WHY WE WERE THINKING THIS WOULD BE A BETTER WAY TO APPROACH THIS.

>> SO, IF WE DID THAT, WOULD THAT ALLOW MORE APARTMENTS OR

LESS? >> WELL, ALL IT IS GOING TO ALLOW RIGHT NOW UNDER THIS POLICY WOULD BE WHAT'S ENTITLED.

THAT'S NOT ON THE GROUND. SO, WHAT WE HAVE ON THE GROUND IS ON THE GROUND. WE ADOPT THIS POLICY AND ALL IT WOULD ALLOW UNDER THE 14 PERCENT OR 18%, IF WE KEEP IT ALL UNDER ONE, AT THE 18%, ALL IT WOULD ALLOW WOULD BE THE ENTITLED UNITS WHICH ARE ALREADY ZONED AND ENTITLED IN YOUR PDS. MOST OF YOUR THINGS ARE, MOST OF THESE MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN YOUR PDS, SO,

THEY'RE ENTITLED. >> WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AND MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING YOU. WOULD THAT ALLOW MORE APARTMENTS

OR LESS. >> NO NEW.

>> THAT AREN'T BUILT. >> IS IT THE SAME?

>> THE SAME. >> SO, NO NEW ONES. SO, I MAKE THIS REAL CLEAR, NO NEW ONES THAT YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY APPROVED IN A PD. THEY'RE NOT ON THE GROUND.

>> THEY'RE ON PAPER. THEY'RE ON PAPER. BUT, THEY'RE NOT BUILT. SO, IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO SEE SOMETHING BEING BUILT, AND THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, YOU'RE ALLOWING NEW MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS, WELL, NO, YOU APPROVED THOSE THROUGH A PREVIOUS PD AND THOSE WILL BE ALLOWED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. I WANT TO BE SURE

THAT I'M BEING CLEAR ON THIS. >> I THINK THAT'S CLEAR, I JUST DON'T, I DON'T THINK THIS IS CLEAR, YOUR ANSWER WAS CLEAR RIGHT THERE, BUT, I DON'T THINK THIS IS CLEAR AS TO WHAT ACTUALLY THAT LOOKS LIKE WHEN IT COMES TO FRUITION. I THINK THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW MORE MULTIFAMILY.

>> I WANT TO MENTION SEVERAL THINGS, I SAID ON COUNCIL WHEN WE APPROVED THE DEFINITION, WE HAVE APPROVED (INAUDIBLE) THEY'RE NOT INDIVIDUALLY OWNED. THEY'RE CORPORATELY OWNED. WE TALKED ABOUT ALL THE REASONS WHY WE HAD TOWN HOMES AND YES, INCLUDED, UM, ELDERLY LIVING, I DON'T REMEMBER THE WORD USAGE USED A MOMENT AGO. WE KNEW THAT WE HAD 5800 UNITS PRE-APPROVED IN ROUGHLY 2011, 2012, AND WE KNEW THAT WE WERE UNDER A 10% CAP. I WANT TO SAY BACK THEN, WE WERE RUNNING ABOUT 7 OR 8%.

I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUICK QUESTION, WITHIN THE CAP, IF WE GO WITH THE 14% CAP, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THERE IS NO WAY WE COULD GO ABOVE THAT? SO, SOMEHOW WE GOT FROM 7 TO 8% TO

[00:30:06]

18%? HOW DID WE GET THERE? >> YOU APPROVED THEM.

>> AH, YES, WE DID. AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. IF YOU GO TO 14%, YOU'RE GOING TO 22%.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. >> AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THE LAST I REMEMBER, FRISCO AND THEM WERE SITTING AT 23-25% AND THEY HAVE A MESS RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE SHUTTING THEM OFF. WE'RE ALREADY SITTING AT 18%, AND I'LL ASSURE YOU, WITHOUT A DOUBT, GUYS, IF WE RUN TOWN HOMES AND DUPLEXES AND ALL OF THIS OTHER, THE REASON WE DECIDED IT HAD TO BE WITHIN THE DEFINITION IS WE CAN NOT DICTATE

OWNERSHIP. >> CORRECT.

>> SINGULAR OWNERSHIP WHICH IS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR. NOW, I'LL TELL YOU THIS, YES, WE COULD APPROVE SMALL UNIT ALLOTMENTS DOWNTOWN RIGHT NOW. I'M PRETTY SURE UNDER AN SUP PROCESS. OR, A PDSUP PROCESS. SO, IT IS ALLOWABLE. AND I WOULD EVEN ENCOURAGE SOME OF THAT. I COULD SEE SOME OF THAT.

BUT, THERE'S A REASON WE NEED THIS, DON'T NEED IT IN MY OPINION, BUT, IT'S WANTED, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY. DEVELOPMENT IS NOT INTERESTED IN BUILDING LITTLE STRIPS, THEY NEED 20-30 ACRE TOWN HOMES. AND STAFF IS HAVING TO TELL THEM, NOT BUT THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IT'S NOT EASILY HAPPENING BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE 2200 UNITS ON THE BACK BURNER.

SO, WE'RE REALLY IN A GOOD POSITION, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE WOULD ENTERTAIN CHANGING WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE'RE ALREADY EXCEEDING IT BY 8%. AND THE REASON THAT I SEE THAT WE WANT TO INCREASE IT IS SO WE COULD GROW ANOTHER 4 TO 5%. BECAUSE, COUNCIL WILL STILL HAVE, I SAY, IF WE CONSIDERED DOING THAT, WHICH, I WOULDN'T, THAT, WE'RE GOING TO GROW BEYOND OUR MEANS ANYWAY BECAUSE COUNCIL WHICH WE CAN'T CONTROL HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THESE EXCEPTIONS AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT WHERE WE'RE AT.

AND IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME. >> NO, MR. RODGERS, YOU'RE RIGHT. ALL WE NEED TO HEAR FROM THE COUNCIL AS CONSENSUS IS, IF THAT'S -- IF YOU ALL CONCUR THAT'S THE DIRECTION, WE'LL WRITE IT UP THAT WAY. IN OTHER WORDS, WE'LL, IF YOU DESIRE FOR US TO KEEP THE 10%, WE'LL WRITE IT UP THAT WAY, AND THEN WE'LL WRITE IT SUCH THAT IF YOU HAVE WORTHY PROJECTS, WHICH WOULD BE BASICALLY, UM, NUMBER THREE IF YOU HAVE WORTHY PROJECTS THAT MEET THE CRITERIA, AND WE'LL LIST THEM OUT. THINGS LIKE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, LIKE THE OTHERS, WE'LL LIST THEM ALL OUT,

THEN YOU COULD APPROVE THEM. >> YOU DID SAY SOMETHING I WAS VERY INTERESTED IN, THOUGH, YOU BROUGHT UP WITHIN SOME OF YOUR FORMAT THE REASON WHY WE WERE BUMPING THOSE PERCENTAGES UP.

BECAUSE WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS. DID YOU MENTION SOMETHING ABOUT THAT.

>> YES, SIR. >> I LIKED THAT.

>> WE THINK THAT'S APPROPRIATE BECAUSE FRANKLY, THE OLD STYLE, GARDEN STYLE APARTMENTS ARE THE THING OF THE PAST. MULTIPLE FAMILY DEVOLVEMENTS HAVE REALLY MOVED TO A HIGHER PLAIN GENERALLY ACROSS THE METROPLEX. BUT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE STILL CERTAIN QUALITIES AND CERTAIN THINGS THAT HELP AREAS LIKE DOWNTOWN. AND WE WANT TO WRITE THAT AS POLICIES, SO, EVEN THOUGH THE NUMBER DOESN'T ALLOW, YOU STILL HAVE A WRITTEN POLICY THAT SAYS YOU COULD APPROVE WORTHY, MULTIPLE FAMILY PROJECTS IF THEY MEET THESE CONDITIONS AND CRITERIA.

>> BUT, WOULD THOSE BE ALLOWABLE BY RIGHT IF THEY EXCEED THE 10%? OR THE COMP PLAN REQUIREMENT?

>> IF YOU DIRECTED US, WE WOULD WRITE IT THAT WAY.

>> I'M DIRECTING YOU, IN MY OPINION, IS I REALLY LIKE WHAT WE GOT. AND I'M LIKING WHAT WE GOT SO MUCH AND WE'RE RUNNING 8% RIGHT NOW, I WANT TO IMPROVE THE IMPROVEMENTS AND STAY WHERE

WE'RE AT. >> I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN.

>> I'LL ADD ON AND I AGREE. I'LL MAKE THE STATEMENT THAT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA PUTTING A REQUIREMENT OF COMMERCIAL RETAIL ON THE MODERN FLOOR, THOSE TYPES OF FACILITIES. I WOULD LOOK TO LEGISLATE OUT GARDEN-STYLE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE CITY.

AND, HAVE MORE OF A CREATIVE SORT OF NEWER, STYLE

[00:35:01]

DEVOLVEMENT. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION, AND MR. RODGERS AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT AND BEN AS WELL. WOULD WE EVER LOOK TO EXPAND THE DOWNTOWN DEFINITION DOWN MAIN STREET A LITTLE BIT? AND, THIS IS NOT TO GET MORE (INDISCERNIBLE) WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SEE A LOT OF REDEVELOPMENT ALONG MAIN STREET OVER THE NEXT 10 OR 20 YEARS, IT'S KIND OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THEY JUST GO OUT. THE MARKET RISES, THE COST PER SQUARE FOOT RISES TO THE POINT WHERE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THESE STRIP CENTERS, WOULD WE EVER PROLONG ALONG MAIN STREET THAT DEFINITION OF DOWNTOWN TO THE CRITERIA THAT WE'RE CREATING COULD EXTEND ITSELF DOWN FURTHER TO WHEREVER THE CROSS STREET.

>> WHAT BROUGHT ALL OF THIS TO LIGHT FOR ME, HONESTLY, WAS THE RECENT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HOTELS AND I REALLY WONDERED WHAT ARE THE FOLKS GOING TO THINK ABOUT THIS 20 YEARS FROM NOW. WHICH, IT'S BEEN VOTED ON, THAT'S GREAT. BUT, I REALIZED THAT THE OLD TOWN, EXCUSE ME, THE DOWNTOWN OVERLAY STOPPED AT ROUGHLY, THE POST OFFICE. AND WOULD WE, AND, SO, WE'VE GOT BASICALLY A DOWNTOWN PLAN FOR THE TOP OF THE HILL ALL THE WAY TO THE POST OFFICE AND ON 8TH STREET DOES IT GO TO 67? NO, IT GOES TO THE BRIDGE. SO, WHY NOT HAVE AN EXTENSION CALLED AN OLD TOWN OVERLAY THAT GOES FROM 67 AND AN OVERLAY FROM THE POST OFFICE TO THE. WE'LL LET THE COMMUNITY TALK ABOUT DO THEY WANT HOTELS THERE, WHAT DO THEY WANT, AS THOSE FAST-FOOD RESTAURANTS AND CAR WASHES AND ALL OF THAT, GET REDEVELOPED, WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT DO THEY WANT IN THERE. THAT'S JUST A

THOUGHT. >> I GUESS, YOU KNOW, MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS, I LOOK AT THE FACT THAT YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT THIS IS A NEW LINE IN THE SAND. WHICH, TO ME, IS TELLING BECAUSE THE OLD LINE IN THE SAND WAS THE LINE IN THE SAND. AND WHENEVER YOU MOVE THE GOAL POST, ALL YOU DO IS, IS, SET THE NEW NORM AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO EXCEED THAT AS COUNCILMAN RODGERS SAID. SO, YOU KNOW, I HAVE REAL HEARTBURN AND ESPECIALLY OF INCREASING THE PERCENTAGES WHILE PULLING OUT ENTIRE CATEGORIES OUT OF THAT. SO, YOU KNOW, YEAH, SO, IF YOU'RE TAKING MY STANDPOINT ON THIS, I THINK WE NEED TO, IF WE WANT TO PULL OUT THOSE CATEGORIES FOR BETTER GRANULARITY, THAT'S FINE. BUT, LET'S DO IT WITHIN THE TARGET THAT IS WE HAVE NOW AND LET'S WORK AT TIGHTENING UP OUR STANDARDS SO THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN OUR TARGET RATHER THAN SET A NEW TARGET THAT NONE OF US ARE HAPPY WITH AND WE'RE NOT

COMFORTABLE WITH. OKAY. >> I NEED HIM TO CLARIFY BECAUSE, BECAUSE, I WOULD LIKE TO DO WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, BUT, WITH COUNCIL HAVING THE POWER TO DO LITERALLY ANYTHING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, HOW DO WE SET A THRESHOLD THAT CAN'T BE SURPASSED BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE'RE AT NOW.

>> I'M TRYING TO READ CONSENSUS HERE.

>> I'M FOLLOWING ED, AND I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE CONSENSUS.

>> LET ME ANSWER HIS QUESTION. SO, THE, THE RESPONSE THAT I HAVE TO THAT IS THAT THE LARGER THE FIELD, THE LARGER THE FLOCK'S GOING TO GROW. SO, IF WE MAINTAIN OUR BOUNDARIES, WHETHER IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGES, THERE'LL, INEVITABLY, WITH NEW COUNCILS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S GOING TO BE EXCEPTIONS MADE.

WE'RE GOING TO APPROVE SOMETHING ADDITIONAL, WE'RE PROBABLY STILL GOING TO END UP WITH THIS 18 PERCENT. BUT, WHAT CHANGING THE PERCENTAGE IS 18 WILL GUARANTY IS THAT WE EXCEED THAT NUMBER AS

WELL. THAT'S WHERE I'M HEADING. >> YOU'RE NOT TRYING TO PULL ANYTHING OUT OF THE DEFINITION LINE OR CHANGE ANYTHING?

>> WELL, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT REMOVING TOWN HOMES AND TRI-PLEXS AND DUPLEX FROM THE CRITERIA. IF YOU DO SO, YOU DO IT FROM THE CURRENT PERCENTAGES, AND YOU FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT PERCENTAGE IS AND YOU SET IT ASIDE, MAYBE THAT'S 4% AND THE MULTIFAMILY IS 6% AND THAT STILL EQUALS THE 10%. WE'RE NOT EXPANDING THE PERCENTAGES, ALL WE'RE DOING IS GETTING FURTHER

[00:40:06]

>> THE 10% IS BASED ON UNITS OR POPULATION?

>> UNITS. >> SO EVERY TIME WE APPROVE ANOTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT THAT LOWERS THE

PERCENTAGE? >> RIGHT.

>> AND, I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT TO MIKE AND ED, I HEAR YOU AND I'M WITH THAT, IN FACT, IF WE WANTED TO SAY THE APARTMENTS CAN'T EXCEED 10%, THAT'S FINE, I DO THINK IT HELPS HAVING THEM SPREAD OUT. NOW, AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO ALLOW FOR MORE, SO, IF WE DO SPREAD THEM OUT, WE COULD SAY TOWN HOMES ARE CAPPED AT 2.5, AND DUPLEX ARE CAPPED AT WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO. BUT, I DON'T LIKE TO LOOK AT A SUMMARY SHEET OF A PNL. I WANT TO SEE THE DETAILS ONE BECAUSE I WANT TO SEE EXACTLY HOW MY BUSINESS IS MADE UP. SAME HERE, I WANT TO SEE EXACTLY HOW THE CITY'S MADE UP. WHETHER WE'RE APPROVING MORE OR LESS. FOR EXAMPLE, I DON'T LIKE DUPLEXES, I LIKE TOWN HOMES, BUT, I UNDERSTAND AS A BODY, MAYBE WE DON'T LIKE CORPORATE HOUSING, I DON'T KNOW. BUT, I DO THINK SPREADING THEM OUT HELPS. THE ONLY THING THAT I WILL SAY, IS EVERYBODY SAID, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS HELPS. BUT, I WILL PUT ON BOTH HAT THAT IS I WEAR, FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW, HOW IT HELPS IS WHEN SOMEONE COMES INTO THE CITY AND SAYS, I HAVE A NEW, COOL, INNOVATIVE PRODUCT THAT'S NOT LIKE YOUR NORMAL APARTMENTS AND I WANT TO SHOW IT TO COUNCIL AND THE FIRST WORDS OUT OF THEIR MOUTHS IS I'M SORRY, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T ALLOW IT BECAUSE WE'RE OVER THE THRESHOLD. AN I KNOW EVERYBODY SAYS, WELL, THEY COULD BRING IT ANYWAYS, BUT, THAT'S AFTER THEY SPEND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. THEY DON'T WANT TO RISK BRINGING IN A PROJECT BECAUSE THEY'RE SCARED THEY'RE GOING TO SPEND 50 GRAND AND THEY'RE GOING TO COME BEFORE US AND WE'RE GOING TO SAY, I DON'T LIKE THAT. WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT WHETHER THAT'S AN OLD TOWN OVERLAY OR SOMETHING SO THAT PEOPLE FEEL LIKE IT'S OKAY TO RISK THE $50,000 TO SEE IF

THEY GET THAT APPROVED. >> THEY KNOW THIS WHEN THEY

WALK INTO THE DOOR. >> NO THEY DON'T.

>> HOW DO THEY NOT. THEY TALK TO STAFF, THEY FILL OUT AN

APPLICATION. >> OR, THE TOWN HOMES AND IF THEY'VE TAKEN ANYTIME TO LOOK AT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> THE STEP IS TO SIT DOWN WITH STAFF AND SAY, I HAVE THIS IDEA, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO. AND IT'S NOT STAFF'S FAULT, STAFF PULLS IT UP AND GOES, THAT'S A COOL IDEA. BUT, WE CAP OUT AT 10 AND WE'RE AT 18, SO, WE CAN'T. AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT YOU'LL SAY THIS, BUT, COUNCIL WILL NOT APPROVE THIS BECAUSE

COUNSEL'S POLICY IS AT 10%. >> I THINK, IF YOU'LL PERMIT ME. I THINK THAT WE HAVE A SOLUTION, OR I HAVE A SOLUTION THAT CAN ADDRESS THAT. HERE'S WHAT I THINK THAT YOU ARE TELLING ME. KEEP IT AT 10%, BUT, I THINK THE WAY TO DO THAT IS IN THE PLAN WE RIGHT COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES FOR NUMBER 3 AND IF IT MEETS THOSE GUIDE LIPS, YOU COULD CONSIDER IT. THAT WAY THE STAFF CAN LOOK AT THAT AND SAY, IF THESE ARE TRADITIONAL MULTIPLE FAMILY UNITS, THE ANSWER IS NO. BUT, IF YOU MEET THE GUIDELINES AND I KNOW WE HAVE TO HAVE THEM AND PRESENT THEM TO YOU, AND WE HAVE TO WORK ON THOSE, THEY WOULD BE THINGS THAT THEY HELP DOWNTOWN OR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENTS, RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. WE CAN PUT ALL OF THAT CRITERIA IN THERE, AND THEN, IF THEY MEET THAT CRITERIA, THEN YOU CAN CONSIDER IT AND THAT'S WRITTEN IN THE PLAN, THE STAFF WITH REVIEW THAT AND MAKE THAT IN THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS THEY BRING THOSE FORWARD. AND THEN, THEY WOULD PRESENT. THEY DO NOT MEET THE PERCENTAGE, BUT, UNDER THESE CRITERIA, THEY MEET ABCDG

AND H. >> I THINK THE CONCERN THAT I HAVE IS WHEN YOU BREAK IT ALL UP INTO SMALLER PERCENTAGES, I THINK THEN EACH OF THOSE WILL BE EXPANDED ON BY COUNCIL BY TWO TO THREE PERCENT. AND IT WILL BE LIKE, WELL, IT'S ONLY TWO, AND WE'RE AT FIVE AND MULTIPLY THAT BY FOUR AND FIVE ITEMS NEXT THING YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIKE, HOW DID WE GET TO 24%.

>> LIKE I'VE SAID, HEAVE IT AT 10%. I DO AGREE WITH WHAT HE'S SAYING. YOU GUYS ARE TALKING OUT OF BOTH ENDS. YOU'RE SAYING

[00:45:04]

>> I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF GOING OVER THE PERCENTAGE AT ALL.

>> WE HAVE TO SERIOUSLY, DESIGNATE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. I MEAN, WHAT WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO MORE MULTIPLE FAMILY. BECAUSE, WHAT YOU MENTIONED, AND I'M IN AGREEMENT, BECAUSE IT'S HAPPENING, WE ARE SITTING AT 18% WHICH IS JUST ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE% OFF OF FRISCO AND PLACES LIKE THAT. WE'RE UP THERE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE AT 10, AND OOPS WE'RE AT 11.5, SHAME ON US. WE HAVE 8% WHEN WE'RE SUPPOSED TO. AND WHAT I'M STATING IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A WAY IN THIS CONVERSATION STAFF HAVING TO TELL FOLKS COUNCIL WILL NOT APPROVE IT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO ANOTHER THREE FOR FOUR PERCENT. THAT'S WHAT THIS CONVERSATION IS ABOUT.

TELL ME IF I'M WRONG. >> YOU'RE NOT WRONG, SURE, IT'S OPENING UP FOR THEM DO MORE. AND I GET IT, I DON'T WANT ANYMORE APARTMENTS EITHER, BUT, AGAIN, YOU'RE SAYING WE GOT TO PUMP INTO DOWNTOWN, DOWNTOWN NEEDS DENSITY. SO, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS UNLESS IT'S DOWNTOWN WE DON'T WANT APARTMENTS.

PERIOD. LET'S QUIT GOING AROUND THE SUBJECT AND TALK DIRECT. WE

DON'T WANT APARTMENTS. >> IS THAT LEGAL?

>> WELL, I JUST DON'T HAVE TIME FOR ALL OF THIS.

>> IN ALL DUE FAIRNESS, WE KNOW FOR INSTANCE, BEHIND THE TACO BELL THERE'S ANOTHER HUGE SWATH OF APARTMENTS THAT ARE VESTED AND BY RIGHT, THAT SWOOP ALL THE WAY AROUND. ANOTHER HUGE BLOCK, SO, THE OTHER THING THAT WE'RE COMBATTING HERE IS THAT WE STILL HAVE 22 UNITS TO WORK WITH THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND SINCE THE '70S,

SO, IT'S A DOUBLE-EDGED SWORD. >> CAN'T WE LIMIT, IN A CERTAIN OVERLAY DISTRICT, THE DENSITY LEVELS TO BE THAT HIGHER DENSITY, WHATEVER THAT RESIDENTIAL HIGH DENSITY NUMBER

WOULD BE? >> YES. WE DO THAT ALREADY.

SO, NEW TOWN MODULE FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT IS 10 UNITS PER

ACRE. >> SO, FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE

PLAN T YOU COULD DESIGNATE. >> I THINK THAT WE'RE GETTING, THIS IS A LITTLE MORE MICROSCOPIC, A LITTLE BIT.

>> THAT'S WITH A WE DO. >> IT'S JUST A LARGER AREA.

SO, ONE THING THAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS WE DO HAVE ENTITLED, UM, PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY. THIS NUMBER THREE, IF IT'S NOT A PD, THAT NUMBER THREE WOULD APPLY TO THOSE

ENTITLED PARCELS. >> EXACTLY.

>> SO, TO WHAT DAN WAS SAYING, WE COULD GO WITH THE 10%, WHICH IS WHERE WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE NOT CHANGING A I THINK THIS, BUT, WE COULD ADOPT THE NUMBER THREE, DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA, SO, THAT WHEN THEY COME IN FOR THE ENTITLED AREAS THAT ARE NOT IN PDS, WE COULD PUT THIS IN THERE.

>> WE NEED NUMBER THREE REGARDLESS.

>> YES, SIR, I AGREE. >> THE MAYOR MADE A FAIR STATEMENT, WE NEED NUMBER THREE NO MATTER WHAT WE DO.

>> BUT, HERE'S WHAT I'M MISSING, I'M IN FAVOR TO WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF IT'S GOING TO GET US CLOSE TORE 18 OR

10, BUT, IT'S NOT. >> THE MORE SINGLE FAMILY WE

BUILD, THE CLOSER WE GET. >> IT MAKES MY EYE TWITCH A BIT WHEN WE SAY WE'RE AT 18 PERCENT, BECAUSE, THAT'S INCLUDING ENTITLED, IT'S INCLUDING ASSISTED LIVING. AND I'M NOT TRYING TO MAKE ROOM FOR HAVING MORE, BUT, THEY'RE DIFFERENT.

EACH OF THEM ARE DIFFERENT IN MY MIND AND I CAN'T PUT THEM ALL INTO ONE BUCKET. AND WE DON'T REALLY EVEN HAVE THE NUMBERS OF EXISTING RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE PERCENTAGES. AND THEN, LIKE CLARK'S SAYING, THE MORE WE GROW, THE NUMBER GOES DOWN. SO, IT'S AN OVERALL GUIDELINE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KNIT-PICKING NOW.

>> WE WERE LOOKING FOR A GUIDELINE TO MANAGE OUR HOUSING

CHOICES. >> I DO NOT ENVY YOUR POSITION

RIGHT NOW. >> TO ME, CLEARLY, ASSISTED LIVING IS A DIFFERENT ANIMAL RIGHT NOW.

>> IT'S A DOWNTOWN OVERLAY WHERE WE DESIGNATED WHERE WE WANTED DENSITY WITH TOWN HOMES AND APARTMENTS CONFLICTS WITH

[00:50:04]

>> BUT, WHICH ONE IS THE ONE LIKE IF WE HAD SOMEONE COME TOMORROW, BECAUSE, I THINK THIS IS WHY WE GET CONFUSED ALL THE TIME, BUT, IF WE HAD SOMEBODY COME TOMORROW AND WE APPROVED THIS ON A SITE SOMEWHERE DOWN HERE, THE FUTURE LAND PLAN SAYS THIS, AND THE POLICY SAYS THIS, BUT, THE DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN CALLS FOR THIS, WHICH ONE DO WE LOOK AT? DO WE LOOK AT ALL OF

THEM? >> IT'S BETWEEN THE THREE.

>> AND THAT'S A GOOD POINT, WE'RE TRYING TO SYNC THOSE UP.

WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PLAN IS NOT AT ODDS WITH THE DOWNTOWN PLAN. SO, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT SYNCED UP. BUT, WE'RE TRYING TO SET POLICY HERE TONIGHT, AND, YEAH, WE HAVE TO WORK THE DETAILS BUT, WE CAN'T REALLY DO THAT WITHOUT YOUR GUIDANCE ON THE OVERALL DIRECTION OF THE POLICY.

>> DID WE GIVE YOU ENOUGH DIRECTION TONIGHT OR IS THERE SOMETHING SPECIFIC THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO PULL OUT OF US.

>> LET ME SEE. >> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE ONE COMMENT, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. THAT 18 PERCENT, WHILE IT DOES INCLUDE THE ENTITLED PARCELS AND PROPERTIES, WE GOT TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN THEY'RE ENTITLED, JUST LIKE THE SITUATION THAT WE HAD RECENTLY, WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO EVERY TIME IS THEY'RE GOING TO COME TO COUNCIL AND SAY, HEY, I CAN BUILD THIS UGLY, YOU KNOW, TERRIBLE PROPERTY THAT I'M ENTITLED TO, OR, IF YOU GIVE ME MORE UNITS, I'M GOING TO MAKE IT BEAUTIFUL, AND COUNCIL IS STUCK WITH THOSE SITUATIONS JUST LIKE WE WERE RECENTLY, SO, THAT 18 COULD TURN IN ON THE PARCELS THAT MIKE'S TALKING ABOUT. THAT COULD GO TO 19 OR 20 IN ONE BIG DEVELOPMENT, SO, I JUST WANT US TO BE AWARE OF WHAT WE'RE

TALKING ABOUT HERE. >> ALL I'M GETTING AT IS, WE EITHER WANT THE THINGS WE SAID WE WANT IN THE DOWNTOWN OR WE DON'T. I GET IT, I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER 10%, I'M FINE WITH LEAVING IT AT 10%. I FEEL LIKE DOWNTOWN'S A DIFFERENT ANIMAL, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE PLUG THAT INTO IT.

>> WHAT MAKES YOU THINK THAT WE CAN. SO, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BRING IN EIGHT OR 10 UNITS BY THE TRACKS, WHERE THE STORAGE USED TO BE, BRING IT. IF IT'S NICE. IF THEY WANT TO BRING IN WHAT JEFF'S TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S ANOTHER POTENTIAL BUILDING DOWNTOWN. AND THERE COULD BE MORE POTENTIAL AS WE GO

DOWN 8TH STREET. >> I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING

SAID THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> I WOULD PUT ON MY CITY HAT ON AND REPRESENT MY CITY BEST. BUT, YOU ASKED QUESTIONS AND I'M TELLING YOU FROM A DEVELOPMENT STAND POINT IT'S EASY TO SAY BRING IT WHEN YOU'RE NOT WRITING THE CHECK. THE GUY WRITES THE $50,000 OR $100,000 CHECK BEFORE GETTING IT APPROVED, IT'S HARDER FOR HIM WHEN THEY DON'T SEE HOW THEY CAN GET THIS DONE. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT LAWSON AND LAWSON'S THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED RECENTLY, SORRY JOE, BUT, THAT WAS THE WAY TO CONTRACT ZONING BECAUSE THEY SAID WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU $300,000 UNTIL YOU GIVE US THE ZONING. IT WAS LEGAL AND THERE WAS NO RISK FOR HIM. IT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT.

>> LET ME SEE IF I COULD RECAP CONSENSUS HERE.

>> GOOD LUCK. >> LET ME SEE IF I GET THIS AND SO WE CAN MOVE ONTO YOUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM. WHAT I'M HEARING IS THE CONSENSUS ON THE COUNCIL IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP 10%

AND NUMBER THREE? >> I WOULD LIKE TO CONSIDER.

>> I NEED TO SEE THE LONG DEFINITION FOR IT.

>> AGREED. IT'S NOT FAIR. >> YOU COULD MAKE IT SO

CONFUSING THAT IT GOES. >> IT'S NOT FAR FOR YOU ALL TO APPROVE THAT, BUT, WE GOT TO HAVE DIRECTIONS, YOU WANT TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE WORTHY PROJECTS. WE OUGHT TO HAVE SOME POLICIES AND SOME GUIDANCE IN THE PLAN FOR YOU TO DO THAT. AND THAT'S

WHAT NUMBER THREE SAYS. >> CAN I JUST, CAN I ASK THE QUESTION OF COUNCIL TO CONSIDER REMOVING ASSISTED LIVING FROM THAT DEFINITION. I BELIEVE THAT TO BE A MEDICAL STYLE FACILITY

IN MY OPINION. >> THAT'S KIND OF WHERE I WAS HEADED. SO, THE PERCENTAGES, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT OUR 10% IS NOT ACCURATE BECAUSE WE HAVE NON-QUALIFYING PROPERTIES AND INCLUDED IN THAT. AND YOU KNOW, THAT ASSISTED LIVING TO HIS

[00:55:04]

THAT MAKE SENSE? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO UNDERSTAND YOUR NORMALIZE, BECAUSE, WE'RE GOING TO BE ABOVE 10% IF WE DO ALL OF THOSE.

>> SO, RIGHT NOW, IF YOU'VE GOT SAY 1,000 PROPERTIES AND YOU HAVE 500 OF THIS AND 50 OF THAT, YOU COULD FIGURE OUT WHAT THE

DISTRIBUTION PERCENTAGE IS. >> CORRECT.

>> SET THAT, RATHER THAN INCREASING BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE, JUST SET THOSE PERCENTAGES AS THEY ARE, BUT, ESTABLISH IT

AT THE 10%. >> AND THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE

DONE. >> AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. AND WHAT YOU JUST TOLD ME YOU DIDN'T WANT TO DO.

>> BUT, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> I'M SAYING DO NOT INCREASE IT TO ACCOMPLISH IT, YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY DECREASING IT TO

ACCOMPLISH IT. >> BUT, IT IS 13.8% RIGHT NOW

WITH APARTMENTS. >> BUT, OUR TARGET. WE DON'T INCREASE OUR TARGET ACCORDINGLY. WE KEEP OUR TARGET. YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING, IF YOU AIM FOR SOMETHING AND MISS, IT'S BETTER THAN AIMING FOR NOTHING AND HITTING IT. SO, IT'S MUCH BETTER TO AIM FOR THE LOWER NUMBER RATHER THAN SETTING OUR

TARGETS TO THE HIGHER STANDARDS. >> WE HAD BROKEN THAT DOWN TO WHAT TOWN HOMES AND WHAT ASSISTED LIVING.

>> MY CONCERN GOES BACK TO SOMETHING THAT I BELIEVE MIKE MENTIONED, WHICH IS THAT WHEN WE HAVE THEM ALL IN THEIR OWN COMPORTMENT THAT TWO GOES TO FOUR AND FIVE GOES TO SEVEN.

>> NOT IF WE SET A HARD LINE ON IT. BUT, IT GIVES US A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE HAVE OUT THERE AND WE CAN SET BETTER STANDARDS ACCORDINGLY, RATHER THAN SET A MULTIFAMILY WHICH INCORPORATES ALL OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND STANDARD. YOU COULD HAVE A STANDARD FOR ASSISTED LIVING AND HAVE A STANDARD FOR MULTIFAMILY, YOU COULD HAVE A STANDARD FOR TOWN

HOMES. >> BUT, KEEP IN MIND, THE ONLY REASON WE'RE NOT WHERE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE IS COUNCIL

CHANGES YEARLY. >> I GET THAT, I GUESS MY POINT IS WHAT ALLEN MADE EARLIER, AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD A BUY RIGHT SITUATION RECENTLY WHERE THEY CAME IN AND WE ADDED, INSTEAD OF 200 UNITS WE ENDED UP WITH 300 SOMETHING UNITS ON THAT PROPERTY, BECAUSE, WE DIDN'T HAVE CLEARLY DEFINED CRITERIA FOR WHAT WE WANTED. SO I'M TALKING ABOUT CLEARLY DEFINING THE CRITERIA SO IT ALIGNS WITH OUR TARGETS.

>> THAT'S NUMBER THREE. >> SO, ALIGNING THAT TO THE SMALLER TARGET THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE.

>> BUT, JUST TO CONFIRM F WE SET THE CRITERIA TO A CERTAIN POINT WITH THE BUY RIGHT, LIKE, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT. IF IT'S BUY RIGHT, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO THAT AND THEY CAN BUILD

THE BUY RIGHT PLATFORM. >> BUT, IF IT IT BY RIGHT.

REMEMBER IT'S PRIOR TO WHAT WE WANT.

>> SO, THE REASON WHY THESE INCREASES HAPPEN IS TO GET IT AWAY FROM, BUT, THAT'S A WHOLE OTHER CONVERSATION.

>> NOT ONLY DOES THE COUNCIL TURN OVER EVERY YEAR, THIS DOCUMENT WILL TURN OVER EVERY FIVE YEARS. SO, WE'RE SETTING THE STAND POINT FOR THE NEXT THREE TO FIVE YEARS. DAN, DID YOU GET EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED?

>> YES, SIR. HERE'S WHAT I THINK I HEARD, I THINK I HEARD, 10% AND NUMBER THREE. YES, WE HAVE TO WORK ON THE CRITERIA ON NUMBER THREE FOR YOU. BUT, YOU'VE TOLD ME ABOUT THE THINGS FOLLOWING NUMBER THREE AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BRING BACK. SO, OF COURSE, THE STEERING COMMITTEE AND YOU GET TO SEE THAT LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD. BUT, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE GOING TO START. IS THAT THE CONSENSUS I'M READING CORRECTLY, COUNCIL?

>> I WANTED TO DIVE INTO THE ASSISTED LIVING DISCUSSION. IS ANYBODY ELSE INTERESTED IN PULLING THAT DEFINITION OUT OF

THIS? >> NOT AT THIS TIME, I THINK THAT'S MORE OF A WORKSHOP THING, WE'RE TURNING THIS INTO A LONG

TOPIC FOR DISCUSSION. >> IT'S NOT A BIG PERCENTAGE.

>> TO JUSTIN'S POINT, IF WE AGREE, I DON'T KNOW, HOW FOUR OF

[01:00:06]

>> AS LONG AS WE DECREASE THE 10%.

>> MY CONCERN IS THAT THOSE ARE TYPES OF FACILITIES THAT DIRECTLY IMPACT OUR ELDERLY COMMUNITY WHICH IS RAPIDLY GROWING. AND IF WE LIMIT THAT ON A MASSIVE SCALE, I THINK IT

WILL HAVE A LARGER IMPACT. >> SO, YOU WANT TO EXEMPT THE

ASSISTED LIVING ON THE CRITERIA. >> ONLY IF WE DECREASE THE 10%.

>> YOU CHIP THE PERCENTAGES OF THESE CRITERIA FOR AS LONG AS

YOU KEEP THE 10% THRESHOLD. >> YEP.

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> I DON'T THINK IT WILL BE

MORE APARTMENTS. >> IT WILL IF YOU TAKE OUT THE PERCENTAGE OF THE ASSISTED LIVING OUT OF THAT 10% THAT

ALLOWS FOR MORE MULTIFAMILY. >> YOU DON'T BECAUSE IT'S ONLY

.8%. >> WE'RE ALREADY OVER IT.

>> WE'RE ALREADY OVER IT. >> I THINK THAT WE COULD LOOK

INTO THAT. >> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH NURSING FACILITIES FOR OUR FUTURE.

>> IT'S NOT NURSING HOMES. >> WELL, SENIOR LIVING

COMMUNITIES, THEY'RE ON THE WAY. >> AND I THINK IN THE PAST WE'VE TALKED. WELL, WE NEED TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON THAT.

REALLY. I'M THROUGH TALKING ABOUT IT. I HAVE A REALLY QUICK QUESTION AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE CORRECT PLATFORM, BUT, I WANT TO BE SURE THAT I'M NOT MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY. AND CLYDE, YOU COULD CORRECT ME AND SAY, WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THAT ANOTHER TIME. WE'VE GOT A SITUATION RIGHT NOW WHERE HE HAVE A RETAINER WALL THAT'S LIKE 20 SOMETHING FOOT TALL. SO, WE CAN'T PUT THIS INTO THE COMP PLAN TO HAVE REQUIREMENTS. OR,

IS THAT PART OF STANDARDS? >> THAT'S PROBABLY STANDARDS.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THANKS, DAN. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: APPRECIATE

YOU. >> THANK YOU, MUCH, BUT, I THINK, ALSO, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE WORTHY IS I HATE TO MAKE YOU HAVE MORE MEETINGS BETWEEN NOW AND THE HOLIDAY SEASON, BUT, WHEN WE GET ALL OF THIS TOGETHER, AND WRITTEN UP, I THINK IT PROBABLY IS ADVISABLE TO HAVE A WORKSHOP SO THAT YOU COULD SEE IT ALL WRITTEN UP. WE JUST NEEDED GUIDANCE TO GET TO GET US ON THE RIGHT TRACK AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT THAT. MORE WORK TO DO BUT WE'LL NEATFY YOU THROUGH CLYDE AND WE'LL HAVE THE WORKSHOP SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THE RESULTS OF WHAT WE'RE

WRITING UP. >> THANK YOU, DAN.

>> CAN I ASK, I DON'T WANT TO THROW A GRENADE ON IT US, THERE'S A 10% CITY WIDE AND A FIVE% INNER LOOP. ARE YOU SAYING WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT AT 10% CITYWIDE AND 5% INNER

LOOP. >> THAT BRINGS UP A GOOD QUESTION, DID I HEAR YOU SAY IN OUR WORKSHOP, SOMETHING ABOUT

30%? >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT, YES, IT'S HIGHER. BUT, THE LOOP WAS WHAT WE WERE

CALLING THE AREA BOUNDED BY 67. >> THE INTERLOOP.

>> THE BYPASS 287 AND ALL OF THAT WHICH WAS TOO BIG OF AN

AREA. >> BUT, WOULDN'T THAT UP THERE?

>> IT WAS A LOT. >> OKAY.

>> WE CAN DIVE INTO THAT IN A WORKSHOP, RIGHT?

>> (INAUDIBLE) >> DOES THAT IMPACT THE WORK

AND YOUR TASK GOING FORWARD? >> NO, WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON THE 10% AND AS WE GET INTO IT, WE'LL HAVE TO EVALUATE IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO DIFFERENTLY WITH THE OVERLAY AND HOW WE APPLIED STANDARDS ON NUMBER THREE.

THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S WORTHY OF A WORKSHOP.

>> SO, CAN WE DISCUSS THAT INNER LOOP THING?

>> YES. >> YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU, DAN. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: APPRECIATE

YOUR PRESENTATION. >> WE'RE WORKING HARD.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: I KNOW THAT YOU ARE.

>> WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET US WHERE WE NEED TO BE.

[2023-433]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS YOU COULD TELL, CAN BE QUITE COMPREHENSIVE. OPENING ITEM 2023-433 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING BOTH MIDLOTHIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT AND MIDLOTHIAN FIRE DEPARTMENT TO ACCEPT FUNDS FROM THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE DIVISION OF THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE FOR THE FIRST RESPONDER MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM

[01:05:02]

GRANT. CHIEF SMITH? >> YES, SIR. IF Y'ALL APPROVE THAT I'LL BE USING IT SOON. SO, COUNCIL WE WERE AWARDED $35,426.25. THIS WAS A GRANT WHICH WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL POLICE DEPARTMENTS, FIRST RESPONDERS IN THE STATE. IT COMES OUT OF THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR. . AND IT WILL BE USED SPECIFICALLY FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS HERE IN MIDLOTHIAN FOR PROGRAMS DESIGNED TO REDUCE STRESS AND ASSIST IN THEIR ONGOING NEED FOR EMOTIONAL SUPPORT, AND PEER SUPPORT AND OTHER PROGRAMS SIMILAR TO THAT. I KNOW THAT IN THE PAST, WE'VE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF DIFFERENT GRANTS, THIS ONE, IT DOES HAVE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT WE ARE ALREADY MEETING. PRIMARILY, REPORTING REQUIREMENTS, REQUIREMENTS NOT TO VIOLATE OR, IGNORE, UM, ICE REQUIREMENTS WHEN WE MAKE ARRESTS FOR VARIOUS VIOLATIONS THAT WOULD DETAIN FOLKS ON THE (INDISCERNIBLE) BASICALLY. BUT, OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T SEE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF WHAT WE NORMALLY DO AND THAT WE DON'T ALREADY MEET CRITERIA, AND IT'S

PRETTY STRAIGHT-FORWARD. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS

FOR THE CHIEF? >> THE ONLY QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE IS THERE ANY REPORTING BACK TO THE STATE ON METRICS OR ON INFORMATION OF HOW THE PROGRAM IS BEING UTILIZED?

>> WE DO HAVE METRICS THAT WE DO HAVE TO REPORT BACK ON, HOW MANY WERE USED, HOW THE PROGRAM WAS USED, THE TRAININGS INVOLVED, SO, YES, IT'S AN ONGOING GRANT AND WE WOULD HAVE TO REPORT THAT BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.

>> AND IS THERE ANY CRITERIA FOR HOW WE DEPLOY THE GRANT?

>> IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS FOR OUR FIRST RESPONDERS, LIKE FOR PEER SUPPORT TRAINING, ANY EMOTIONAL WELLNESS TRAINING THAT WE COULD PROVIDE FOR THEM.

>> I GUESS MY QUESTION IS IT'S NOT A STATE CURRICULUM WHICH IS

HANDED TO YOU? >> NO. NO. THIS IS, THIS IS ACTUALLY SUPPORTING A PROGRAM THAT WE'VE BEEN A PART OF FOR SEVERAL YEARS NOW. OFFICER WELLNESS AND INVESTMENT INTO THE HEALTH OF THE FIRE-FIGHTERS AND OUR TELE COMMUNICATORS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: QUESTIONS, COUNCIL?

>> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION. PLEASE

[2023-434]

VOTE. PASSES 7-0. >> THANK YOU.

>> THAT YOU CAN. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: OPENING ITEM 2023-434, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATION AND EXECUTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY COMPENSATION AGREEMENT WITH TXI OPERATIONS, LP, RELATING TO THE VV JONES ROAD IMPROVEMENT AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

>> THIS IS BASED ON LOOKING TO CLARIFY, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ABON DONE. AS PART OF THE VV JONES PROJECT. RIGHT NOW, THE VV JONES ROAD IS HERE AND WITHIN THE EXISTING AGREEMENT, TALKED ABOUT THE ABANDONMENT IN MARIETTA, AND THE CITY AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT CLEAR TO THE ABANDONMENT FOR THIS PART OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, THIS IS TO CLARIFY, THAT ONCE THIS IS BUILT HERE, THE CITY WAS QUICK CLAIM A PORTION TO THIS PART OF IT. THE CITY WOULD QUICK CLAIM THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE ROAD. IT'S REALLY JUST A CLARIFICATION WITHIN THE AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? OKAY. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF MIKE? HEARING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION BY THE PRO TEM, SECOND BY MS. HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES

[2023-435]

7 ON 0. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: OPENING ITEM 2023-435, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION UPON THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS AUTHORIZING AN EXTENSION FOR THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS FOLLOWING THE RECORDING OF A FINAL PLAT RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 1, BLOCK A, ONCOR SOUTHWEST MIDLOTHIAN.

[01:10:01]

>> AS PART OF THAT ONCOR SITE, THEY'RE HAVING TO DO PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS, SO, THE ROAD WILL BE REBUILT. HALF OF THAT SECTION WILL BE REBUILT ALONG WITH THE PUBLIC WATER LINE.

IT'S WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS. A BUILDING PERMIT CANNOT BE ISSUED UNTIL THE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT ARE NOT COMPLETED AND ACCEPT BIDE THE CITY UNLESS A LETTER OF HE IS ESCROW IS PUT UP. WITHIN THE ORDINANCE IT ALLOWS FOR THEM TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION, BEFORE THEY GET STARTED THEY WANTED AN EXTENSION IN PLACE SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR A YEAR. THOSE BONDS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE FOR A YEAR AND THEY JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT

AHEAD OF TIME. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF MIC? HEARING NONE, I'LL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES

[2023-436]

7-0. >> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: THANK YOU, MIKE. OPENING ITEM 2023-436 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT FOR .0124 ACRE TRACT OF LAND ADJACENT TO PROPERTY LINE AT FIRE STATION NUMBER TWO AT A COST OF $30,000 PLUS CLOSING COST. CHIEF.

>> MAYOR, COUNCIL, GOOD EVENING, WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A PURCHASE SALE AGREEMENT AND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO BUY SOME LAND THAT'S JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY JUST NORTH OF THE PROPERTY WHERE STATION TWO IS LOCATED. IT'S ABOUT 25 FEET DEEP TO THE NORTH AND A LITTLE OVER 200 FEET EAST AND WEST. WHAT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DO IS TO, UM, IT WOULD GIVE US ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD A 60 X 60 BUILDING IN THE FUTURE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO SUPPORT STORE OUR EQUIPMENT. WE'RE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME KEEPING SOME OF OUR MORE EXPENSIVE EQUIPMENT INSIDE A PROPOKEDED ENVIRONMENT. THE ADRUMMOND WOULD BE $30,000 PLUS CLOSING COSTS AND THAT'S WHAT THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WILLING TO ACCEPT. AND I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE AT THIS POINT.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF, COUNCIL?

>> I WOULD SAY, CHIEF IS THIS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR OR IS THIS IN ADDITION?

>> SO, IT IS NOT BUDGETED. IT WAS ORIGINALLY, OPPORTUNITY THAT WAS GOING TO BE PAID FOR BY THE ESD, BUT, WITH DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'VE HAD TODAY, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARILY A VIABLE OPTION. I TALKED WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THAT AND HE HAD

SOME OTHER IDEAS. >> DEPENDING ON HOW THE ESD DISCUSSION GOES, BECAUSE THIS IS AN ITEM THEY HAD. IF NOT, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO GET THE CONTI CONTINGENCY MONEY WHICH IS ALREADY IN THE BUDGET TO MAKE

THIS PURCHASE. >> I'M, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, I THINK IT'S A PERFECT SPOT FOR IT. I WOULD JUST PREFER TO UTILIZE FUNDS FROM WITHIN OUR BUDGET JUST BASED ON SOME OF THOSE ONGOING DISCUSSIONS.

>> CHIEF, I AGREE, I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA AND IF IT'S NEEDED IT'S AN EVEN BETTER IDEA. AND IT'S RIGHT THERE NEAR THE

STATION WHICH IS VERY IDEAL. >> YES, SIR.

>> I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT, I HAVE A SIDE QUESTION. AND THIS MAYBE LOOKING DOWN THE ROAD AND YOU MAY NOT EVEN KNOW. BUT, WHEN WE GO TO WHETHER THAT 60 X 60 AXILLARY BUILDING, WILL THAT MATCH, WILL THAT MATCH THE EXTERIOR BRICK OF THAT STATION?

>> WELL WE WOULD HAVE MANY OPTIONS THERE, I DON'T KNOW BY LAW IF THE STATE CAN REGULATE BUILDING AESTHETICS, OBVIOUSLY, I WOULD LIKE IT TO MATCH THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE AN EYE SORE FOR THE NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA. I THINK THAT WE WOULD WANT TO DO SOMETHING THAT MAKE IT IS LOOK NICE. NOT JUST A METAL BUILDING.

>> AND THAT STATION IS ALL BRICK, CORRECT?

>> YES, SIR. >> IT IS A WOOD-FRAMED BUILDING

WITH A BRICK VENEER. >> THANKS, CHIEF.

>> SO, CHIEF, IS THIS THE SAME BUILDING WHICH WAS GOING TO BE BUILD OUT BY THE WATER TREATMENT CENTER FOR STORAGE, OR, IS IT

DIFFERENT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE EVER HAD ANYTHING PLANNED FOR STORAGE OUTSIDE OF THAT.

>> I THOUGHT THAT YOU WERE PLANNING TO PUT YOUR AXILLARY

[01:15:04]

>> THAT WAS NEVER MY INTENTION, WE DO HAVE A TRAIN LING CLASSROOM THAT WE ADDED AS A MODULAR BUILDING. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAVE ABOUT THE REMOTE SITE. WHEN WE HAVE RESERVE EQUIPMENT THAT HAS TO BE PLACED INTO SERVICE, SOMETHING BREAKS, WE HAVE TO BIG UP THE TRUCK IMMEDIATELY AND WE MOVE EQUIPMENT OVER. WHEN IT'S NOT CLOSE TO OUR FACILITIES, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR US TO MANAGE THAT, KEEP IT UP AND RUNNING, UM, IT'S A LITTLE MORE LABORIOUS. SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MANAGE IF WE HAD TO, THAT I FEEL LIKE THE BUILDING BEHIND STATION 2 WOULD BE A MORE MANAGEABLE SITE FOR US

FOR THAT TYPE OF AN OPERATION. >> OKAY. SECOND QUESTION.

>> YES, SIR. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY PRELIMINARY COST FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 60 X 60 BUILDING, HAVE YOU

LOOKED INTO THAT AT ALL? >> YES. SO, THE ESD WAS WORKING WITH A CONTRACTOR, AND DEPENDING ON WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IF WE JUST GO WITH RED IRON METAL SKIN, WE COULD GO AS LOW AS $200,000. IF YOU WANTED TO VENEER IT, AIR CONDITION FOR THE BUILDING, IT WILL HAVE TO BE CLIMATE CONTROLLED AS FAR AS HEAT GOES FOR THE WINTER. AND WE HAD BEEN PUTTING INTO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN MONEY TO SAVE UP FOR THAT BUILDING AS A PROJECT

IN THE FUTURE. >> DOES THAT $400,000 IS THAT IN ALIGNMENT AS HUD ASKED WITH THE AESTHETICS OF THE CURRENT

STATION THAT'S THERE? >> YES. THAT WOULD BE THE TOP

END. >> AND I GUESS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION THEY HAVE ON THIS IS IF THE ESD IS NOT ENACTED OR IF WE WERE TO BEGIN TO PULL OUT OF THE ESD, DOES THAT AFFECT THE NEED

FOR THIS IN ANY WAY? >> NO. THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE HAVE IS ON THE GROUND TODAY AND WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING. ONE OF THE BIGGER FACTORS HERE IS WHEN WE GET OUR NEW LADDER TRUCK WHICH IS STILL OVER A YEAR AND-A-HALF OUT. THAT LADDER TRUCK WILL BE PLACED IN SERVICE AND WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE OLD LADDER TRUCK, SO, THAT WHEN THE FIRST ONE GOES DOWN FOR SERVICE, WE HAVE A LADDER TRUCK TO DEPLOY. IT'S A 45-FOOT VEHICLE THAT NEEDS TO BE DEPLOYED. AND I WOULD PREFER NOT TO PUT IT IN THE ELEMENTS WHERE THEY'RE NOT SECURED. WE HAVE TWO AMBULANCES WHICH ARE BASICALLY NOT IN THE BAY DIRECTLY, WE HAVE THEM SHOVED IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. WE HAVE THEM BUT IT'S NOT IDEAL.

AND WE HAVE THE COMMAND VEHICLE WHICH IS BACKUP RIGHT NOW AND IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING OUTSIDE. SO, THE NEED FOR STORAGE IS COMING IN THE NEXT YEAR TO TWO YEARS.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. >> THE LADDER TRUCK THAT WE CURRENTLY OWN, HOW OLD IS THAT, NOW?

>> 2014. >> IT WILL BE 10 YEARS-OLD. IT WILL BE 11.5 YEARS-OLD BY THE TIME WE GET THE NEW ONE.

>> IS THE STANDARD TRADE OUT USUALLY ABOUT 12 YEARS?

>> WELL, WHEN WE BOUGHT THE LADDER TRUCK, WE DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD FEEL FOR THAT BECAUSE WE WERE NOT RUNNING IT ON BASIS, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE STAFF FOR IT, SO, THOSE GUYS WOULD SWITCH ON THE ENGINE IF A CERTAIN CALL WOULD COME IN. BUT, NOW, IT'S STAFFED AND WE'RE RUNNING IT EVERYDAY. ALL ALONG, I FELT LIKE 12 YEARS OF FRONT LINE USE IS WHERE I WAS SHOOTING FOR AND THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT WILL BE WHEN WE ROLL IT INTO STATUS.

>> I KNOW THAT WE HAD ONE TRUCK WHEN I CAME ON IT WAS 20 YEARS-OLD. HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THAT YOU'LL KEEP THE

RESERVE TRUCK? >> I MEAN, I THINK, YOU GET ANOTHER FIVE TO SIX YEARS OUT OF IT.

>> WHATEVER YOU GET OUT OF IT? >> YES. IT'S ALSO A MANAGEMENT ISSUE, WHERE ARE YOUR MAINTENANCE COST AND RELIABILITY MEETING THE CURRENT STANDARDS. I DON'T SEE ANY REASON WHY WE COULDN'T KEEP IT THAT LONG. ANOTHER SIX YEARS AT LEAST.

>> ON THE FIRST TRUCK, I BELIEVE,

(INDISCERNIBLE) BOUGHT THAT. >> AND THE INDUSTRY ENDED UP

STOCKING IT? >> I THINK IF, I WASN'T THE CHIEF THEN, BUT, THEY BOUGHT THE TRUCK AND ADDED $200,000 OF

EQUIPMENT. >> SO, WE WON'T NECESSARILY STOCK IT. IT WILL BE A NEW TRUCK, WE'LL TAKE ALL THE EQUIPMENT OFF OF IT. AND IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO OFFER THAT, I'LL ACCEPT IT. BUT, UM, THE NEW TRUCK WILL COME IN AND WE'LL TAKE ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT'S ON THE TRUCK THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. AND PUT IT ON THE NEW TRUCK.

[01:20:01]

>> WE NEED TO STAY ON TOPIC HERE.

>> THE LAST QUESTION WOULD BE ON THIS INVESTMENT BUYING THE ESD IF IT WERE TO TAKE PLACE, ON A LOT OF THESE TYPES OF INVESTMENT, ARE THEY DOING SOME TYPE OF NOTE ON THAT?

>> IF THEY GO INTO DEBT AND THEY BUY PROPERTY OR EQUIPMENT, THEY HAVE TO OWN IT. BECAUSE, THAT'S THE WAY THAT DEBT IS

BEING PAID. >> SO, THEY WOULD BE OWNING

SOMETHING ON OUR CITY PROPERTY? >> THAT IS CORRECT. AND BASED ON TODAY'S CONVERSATIONS I WOULD NOT RECOMMEND THAT BEING THE

CASE. >> I'M 110% FOR WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA. BUT, NO WAY, EVEN IF WE KEPT ESD, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT BY GETTING INTO THAT TYPE OF

SITUATION, I'M ALL FOR THIS. >> I BELIEVE THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO FUND IT WITH THE ALTERNATIVE FUNDING SOURCE FOR CHRIS AND FOR ALLEN, IF YOU WOULD FORM THAT INTO A MOTION.

>> SURE, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE STIPULATION OF THE FUNDING COMING FROM THE CONTINGENCY FUND

WITHIN THE BUDGET. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION FROM MR. MOORMAN, SECOND FROM

MR. HARTSON. PLEASE VOTE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

>> (CHORUS OF AYES).

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: ALL OPPOSED, SAME SIGN. IT PASSES 7-0.

[2023-437]

>> AND THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT IN THE MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAM AS WELL. IT'S IMPORTANT TO OUR GUYS AND GIRLS.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: OPENING ITEM 2023-437, PRESENTATION BY MICHAEL FLYNN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE ANNUAL REPORT, 2022-23 FISCAL YEAR, AND

FY 2023-2024 WORK PLAN. KYLE? >> I KNOW IT LIKE THE BACK OF

MY HAND. >>

>> GOOD EVENING COUNCIL AND MAYOR, I'M COMING BEFORE YOU AS OR ANNUAL CHECK IN FROM OUR MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS OUTLINED BY OUR BILAWS -- BY LAWS TO REPORT ON OUR PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR. BEFORE GOING INTO THE REPORT, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE OUR BOARD MEMBERS OVER THE LAST YEAR, WE HAD THREE BOARD MEMBERS THAT LEFT US, EITHER MOVED FROM THE COMMUNITY AS IN THE CASE OF OUR PRESIDENT, BOBLY FRAZELLE, OR, WERE MOVED TO OTHER BOARDS WHICH INCLUDES MORGAN WHITEHEAD AND DAN ALTMAN.

WE HAVE LONG-STANDING COMMUNITY VOLUNTEER, JIM MORRIS, TODAY'S HIS BIRTHDAY, SO, HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO HIM. AND WE HAVE A NEW BOARD PRESIDENT WHO IS BEEN ON OUR BOARD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. THAT IS BILL BIRDETTE. SO, INCLUDED IN THE REPORT WE OUTLINED SEVERAL HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR. WE ALSO HAVE AN UPDATE TO OUR STRATEGIC PLAN THAT IDENTIFIES THE SIX KEY PRIORITIES THAT MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS FOCUSSING ON. THAT IS A FOLLOWUP FROM OUR STRATEGIC PLAN. AS EACH YEAR WE GO OUT AND EVALUATE THE CURRENT NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY AND BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH THOSE PRIORITIES SO THAT WE COULD CLEARLY ARTICULATE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THOSE WHO WISH TO INVEST IN OUR COMMUNITY WHEN THOSE FUNDS WOULD BE AVAILABLE, WHEN MED FUNDS WOULD BE AVAILABLE.

>>> A COUPLE OF NEW SECTIONS THAT WE'VE ADDED. THE HISTORY OF MED PROJECTS, SO, WE HAVE A LIST OF ALL OF THE COMMITMENTS AND THOSE THAT HAVE BEEN PAID OUT. WE ALSO HAVE ECONOMIC IMPACTS. SO, WITH OUR NEW SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WHICH REQUIRES COMPANIES TO COMMIT TO MINIMUM NUMBER OF JOBS, ANNUAL PAY ROLL AND TAXABLE VALUE, THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO USE ECONOMIC DATA TO EVALUATE THE INDIRECT IMPACTS

[01:25:02]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? TALK OFF?

>> PERFECT. SO, THE NEXT ONE, THAT IS THE SEPARATE DOCUMENT THAT I'VE HANDED TO YOU. EACH YEAR AS PART OF OUR STRATEGIC PLAN, OUR BOARD GETS TOGETHER AND IDENTIFIES ANNUAL WORK PLAN THAT FOR THE PROJECTS MOST IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY AT THIS TIME. THE WORK PLAN IS BROKEN UP SIMILAR TO LAST YEAR'S, WHERE THE FIRST SECTION THAT WE HAVE A BREAKOUT OF THE BENCHMARKS OF OUR AGREEMENTS. THIS ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE GOOD CUSTOMER SERVICE TO COMPANIES THAT WE'VE INTERRED INTO AGREEMENTS BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT WE STAY ON TOP OF ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, WE COULD ALWAYS REPORT TO THE RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN THAT OUR AGREEMENTS ARE IN COMPLIANCE. AND THAT WE DON'T MAKE FORGIVENESS OR PAYMENT OF ANY GRANTS THAT ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AGREEMENTS. THAT'S THE FIRST

SECTION. >>> SECOND SECTION WE HAVE OUT LINES OUR PRIMARY JOB RECRUITMENT, GOALS AND INITIATIVES, OUR KPIS THAT WE FOCUS ON EACH YEAR. WE'VE KEPT SEVERAL OF THESE AT A SIMILAR LEVEL DESPITE THE FACT THAT WE HAVE SEEN A LITTLE BIT OF A DECREASE IN OUR INDUSTRIAL MARKET. YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT YOU KNOW, MAINTAINING THE FOOT ON THE GAS PEDDLE, SO TO SPEAK IS IMPORTANT, SO THAT WE COULD ENSURE THAT WE, YOU KNOW, PROACTIVELY GO AFTER THE TYPE OF COMPANIES THAT OUR COMMUNITY SEEKS TO HAVE JOIN AND EXPAND IN OUR COMMUNITY. THE NEXT SECTION THAT WE HAVE ARE VARIOUS MARK MARKETING CAMPAIGNS THAT WE WILL UNDERTAKE IN THE NEXT YEAR. WE HAVE EFFORT IN PLACE TO BE BETTER ORGANIZED WITH A NEW CRM DATA BASE. WE HAVE, WE WILL BE GOING OUT TO DO A NEW CAMPAIGN FOR DIGITAL ADVERTISING, THIS IS WHERE WE PROMOTE THE CITY AND OUR ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES OUTSIDE OF OUR MARKET. AND WE HAVE UNDER OUR PARTNER ENGAGEMENT, A STRATEGY OF WORKING WITH BROKERS AND SELECTORS THAT GENERATE THE MOST PROJECTS. SO, THIS IS A CAMPAIGN TO ENSURE THAT MIDLOTHIAN STAYS TOP OF MIND AS THEY HAVE PROJECTS TO CONSIDER FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND THE NEXT ONE WE HAVE IS OPPORTUNITIES FOR SMALL BUSINESS. MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND OUR CHAMBER HAVE PARTNERED TOGETHER IN AN EFFORT TO HELP OUR SMALL BUSINESSES TO GROW AND EXPAND.

WE ARE DOUBLING UP AND YOU KNOW, REALLY TAKING A BIGGER STEP WITH THIS PROGRAM WHERE THEY WILL PARTNER WITH A LOCAL TRAINER AND PROVIDE QUARTERLY WORKSHOP TRAININGS TO HELP ALL OF OUR SMALL BUSINESSES. NOW, ONE, THAT'S PART OF THE KEY THING THAT WE'RE DOING WITH YOUR SMALL BUSINESSES IN HELPING THEM WITH TRAINING AND EDUCATION. THE SECOND ITEM THAT WE OUTLINED HERE IS THE NEED FOR IDENTIFYING SMALLER SPACES. WE'VE DONE A GREAT JOB TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP SPACES FOR USERS THAT ARE COLLECTIVELY, 3,000 CARE FEET OF SPACE, AND FOR THESE EFFORTS IT WILL PUT IN PLACE A PLAN TO BE ABLE TO HELP SPUR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE SMALLER NEEDS THAT WE HAVE UNDER 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE. AND THEN, THE LAST ONE WITH COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT, AGAIN, AS WE CONTINUE TO EDUCATE OUR COMMUNITY ON THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE AND THE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THAT EACH OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE GO INTO ARE REALLY ADDING VALUE AND BENEFIT TO EACH OF OUR RESIDENTS SO WE IDENTIFIED A COUPLE OF ADDITIONAL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT THAT WE'LL DO WHICH ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND THE TWO IN--PERSON MEETINGS. THE SECOND FROM THE LAST ONE IS TECHNICAL EDUCATION. OVER THE LAST YEAR, WE DID A LOT

[01:30:01]

YOUR INPUT AS WELL. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK HERE? OKAY. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF KYLE?

>> I JUST HAD A QUESTION ON THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CHAMBER.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EFFORTS TO PROVIDE SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING, CAN YOU SHARE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THAT?

>> SURE, THE CHAMBER HAS A NEW PROGRAM THEY'RE GOING TO BE ROLLING OUT. PREVIOUSLY WE HAD A SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING WHICH WAS REALLY FOCUSED ON ENTREPRENEURSHIP, AND THE CREATION OF NEW BUSINESSES. AS YOU KNOW, THE CHAMBER HAS EVALUATED THOSE EFFORTS AND WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM AND EVALUATED, THE SUCCESS OF THOSE, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE GREATEST NEED THAT WE HAVE STILL HELPING THE SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE. HOW DO WE HELP THEM SCALE TO THE NEXT LEVEL? SO, THAT'S WHAT IS YOU KNOW, BEING PUT FORWARD. THE CHAMBER WILL BE ROLLING OUT THAT PROGRAM, I THINK NOVEMBER 1ST, THEY HAVE THAT INFORMATIONAL MEETING TO TRY AND DRIVE ADDITIONAL ENGAGEMENT. AND AS PART OF OUR PARTICIPATION AND RES SPONSORSHIP. THEY ARE GOING TO GET OUTSIDE OF THE BUBBLE THEY CURRENTLY HAVE THE SCOPE OF INFLUENCE, HOW DO WE ENGAGE THE MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY THAT HAS A BUSINESS BUT IS LOCATED OUTSIDE, WE WANT TO HELP THEM TO GROW LOCAL AND SCALE THROUGH OUR COMMUNITY AND REALLY GROW FROM

THERE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: COUNCIL, MORE QUESTIONS? THERE'S NO ACTION ON THIS.

>> CORRECT. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: NO MORE

QUESTIONS. WE'LL MOVE ON. >> PERFECT.

[2023-438 ]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: OPENING ITEM 2023-438. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE THE MICHAEL FLYNN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY MANUAL THAT WAS UPDATED OCTOBER 2023.

>> THANK YOU. SO, LAST YEAR WAS THE FIRST YEAR THAT MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FORMALIZED POLICIES THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO OUR ORGANIZATION. SO, AS WE SHARED WITH COUNCIL AND YOU'RE WELL AWARE, THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT IS A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE CITY. AND WE OPERATE UNDER SEPARATE SECTIONS OF THE CODE AND HAVE DIFFERENT RULES THAT EACH ENTITY APPLIES AND GOES BY. AND SO, AS WE HAD THE POLICY IN PLACE AND AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH AND REVIEWING IT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF KEY ITEMS THAT WE WENT THROUGH WHICH HAVE GAPS THAT ARE DIFFERENT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRIED TO IDENTIFY. INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, HE HAVE A SERIES OF RED LINES, THERE ARE QUITE A BIT OF RED LINES, AND REALLY THE FIRST ONE IS THAT WE'RE PRIMARILY DOING REFORMATTING, RIGHT? YOU KNOW, MOVING THINGS TO, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR, ONE DOCUMENT RATHER THAN KIND OF HAVING SEPARATE, INDIVIDUAL, STAND ALONE POLICIES, THINK OF THIS HOW AS A COHESIVE BOOKLET OF POLICIES. THE SECOND ONE, WE DO REINSTATE AND CLARIFY THAT ALL EXPENDITURES ARE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL THAT ARE INCLUDED IN OUR BUDGET UP TO THAT $50,000 LIMIT. NOW, THAT IS ALREADY PART OF OUR BYLAWS. BUT, I FELT IT APPROPRIATE TO BE INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL.

>>> THE OTHER MAJOR SET OF CHANGES REFLECT WHEN WE PUT OUR POLICY IN PLACE LAST YEAR, OUR DEPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE PURCHASING CARDS, WE WERE USING PERSONAL CREDIT CARDS, SINCE THAT TIME, WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO WORK WITH FINANCE AND HAVE PURCHASING CARDS ISSUED. SO, WE'RE MAKING CHARGES THROUGH

[01:35:03]

>>> THE NEXT ITEM IS ONE THAT IS NEW. SO, AS A SEPARATE ENTITY, WE ARE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES. AND, SO, CURRENT CCITY POLICY, THERES A SECTION AS IT RELATE TOSS GIFTS FOR EMPLOYEES. SO, SOME OF THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT EVENTS THAT WE PARTICIPATE IN COULD BE CONSIDERED AS GIFTS.

SO, WE WANTED TO ESTABLISH A POLICY, ONE THAT PROTECTED THE ORGANIZATION BUT ALSO EMPLOYEES THAT WOULD CREATE A SYSTEM THAT WOULD ADD ADDITIONAL TRANSPARENCY THAT WOULD FORMALIZE THESE EVENTS AS BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES.

SO, WHETHER IT'S PARTICIPATING AT A GOLF EVENT, MAYBE PAID FOR BY THE PARTNERING ENTITY. THE PROCESS THAT IS OUTLINED IN THE POLICY IS THAT THE PERSON ATTENDING WOULD HAVE THEIR NEED SUPERVISOR APPROVE THAT. IF OUR BOARD PARTICIPATED, THAT WOULD GO TO THE MAYOR AS WELL. THAT'S THAT ITEM. AND THE LAST ITEM WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE POLICY, WE'VE ADDED A NEW STATEMENT FOR CONFLICTS OF INTEREST. SO, AS WE'VE TALKED BEFORE, MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BEING GOVERNED BY THE NON-PROFIT CODE DOES HAVE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAN A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY. SO, THIS POLICY WAS DRAFTED BY OUR ATTORNEY TO CLARIFY AND TO PUT IN PLACE THE PROCESS SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THE SAME TRANSPARENCY THAT THE COUNCIL AND OTHER BOARDS HAVE. BUT, IT WOULD PUT IN PLACE A POLICY OR A PROCEDURE. SO, WITH THAT, A LOT OF DIFFERENT ITEMS. YOU KNOW, AS WITH ALL OF, YOU KNOW, THE POLICIES THAT WE HAVE, WE SEEK THE ADDITIONAL APPROVAL OF COUNCIL. OUR INTENTION IS THAT WE'RE ALWAYS IN ALIGNMENT ON THE SAME PAGE WITH COUNCIL. SO, IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR DIRECTION THAT YOU GUYS HAVE, WE'RE HAPPY TO GO THROUGH AND REVIEW IT. OUR BOARD DID APPROVE THIS AT OUR OCTOBER MEETING WITH A UNANIMOUS 6-0.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK HERE? OKAY. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF KYLE REGARDING THE POLICY?

>> KYLE, YOU MENTIONED IF THE BOARD WAS TO GO TO AN EVENT LIKE THAT OR RECEIVE THINGS, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE SOMEBODY, AND YOU SAID IF YOU DID, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BEFORE THE BOARD PRESIDENT. WHAT IF IT'S JUST ONE BOARD MEMBER?

>> SO, IF IT WOULD BE ANY BOARD MEMBER, THEY WOULD GO THROUGH THAT SAME PROCESS. SO, THE BOARD ULTIMATELY, MED BOARD REPORTS UP THROUGH COUNCIL, SO, WE FELT IT WOULD BE BEST TO GO

THROUGH THE MAYOR. >> SO, IF ONE BOARD MEMBER HAS THAT, THEY WOULD GO BEFORE THE COUNCIL?

>> IT WOULD GO TO THE MAYOR. SO, LET ME GIVE YOU A HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE, SO, THE THRESHOLD THAT WE PUT IN THERE IS ANYTHING OVER $50. SO, IF WE WERE INVOLVED IN A BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT, WE WERE HOSTING A PROSPECT FOR DINNER THAT MAY HAVE TO BE AT A PLACE THAT WE PERCEIVE TO BE OVER $50 THAT A BOARD MEMBER WAS ATTENDING AS PART OF, YOU KNOW, OUR SELLING OF THE COMMUNITY, THE BOARD MEMBER WOULD REACH OUT TO THE MAYOR AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF COUNCIL, EXPLAIN THAT, CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT PURPOSE, WHO ALL WAS

THERE, AND THEN -- >> BUT THE BOARD MEMBER WOULDN'T HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD PRESIDENT?

>> NO. >> AND TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE THE BOARD PRESIDENT WHO WOULD BE THE ONE ATTENDING. SO, IT COULD BE A DIFFERENT BOARD MEMBER IF THE BOARD PRESIDENT WASN'T AVAILABLE. THE PURPOSE AND THE INTENTION IS REALLY JUST TO ESTABLISH A YOU KNOW, A TRANSPARENT PROCESS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANY OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> WITH THAT, THIS DOES REQUIRE ACTION AND I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION FROM MR. GARDNER TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: SECOND FROM MAYOR PRO TEM WICKLIFFE. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THAT PASSES 7-0. WITH THE VERBAL YES WERE MS. HAMMONDS.

[2023-439 ]

>>> OKAY. SHE'S LIGHTING THAT GREEN UP. 2023-439, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TOLE REAL ESTATE

[01:40:03]

>> THERE WAS A CHANGE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET THAT I WILL IDENTIFY LATER. ULTIMATELY, THE BOARD VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO APPROVE IT AT 5-0. WE HAD A BOARD MEMBER NOT THERE. SO, THIS ITEM HAS TO DO WITH, LAND SALE OF LOT FOUR BLOCK A WHICH IS LOCATED IN MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK. SO, THIS IS A REMNANT PROPERTY THAT WE HAVE THAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF SILK CREEK, FROM THE MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESS PARK.

SO, IN DECEMBER 2020 WE ENTERED INTO AN OPTION AGREEMENT WITH DESERT WILLOW ENERGY STORAGE, THIS IS THE PROJECT THAT HAS COME BEFORE COUNCIL AND HAS BEEN APPROVED. INCLUDED IN THAT AGREEMENT WAS LAID OUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS TO THAT PROPERTY. SO, WE HAVE BASICALLY A 24-FOOT SECTION THAT ACCESSES ON VV JONES ROAD. AND BECAUSE OF ACCESS ON THE SITES AND UTILITIES, THERE WERE ADDITIONAL NEEDS CREATED.

OUTLINED IN THAT AGREEMENT THERE WAS A PROCESS THAT WE HAD TO GO TO ACQUIRE TO GET THOSE ADDITIONAL EASEMENTS AND WE HAD TO MAKE OUR BEST EFFORT IN SO DOING, WE DID THAT AND WE WERE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT. AND SO, THEY STILL ELECTED TO MOVE FORWARD AND PURSUE THOSE EASEMENTS ON THEIR OWN. THIS ITEM IS CONNECTED WITH THE NEXT ITEM. HOWEVER, THE OBLIGATIONS AND THE OPTION AGREEMENT, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT ARE OF INTEREST TO US. AND SO, WE HAVE ELECTED TO INTERINTO AN AMENDMENT THAT MOVES THEM FROM US, THE SELLER DOING THEM, TO THE BUYER DOING THEM AFTER CLOSING. AND THOSE, THOSE, UM, ITEMS REALLY ARE TWO THINGS. SO, ONE, THEY AS THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL DEDICATE A SEWER EASEMENT TO THE CITY. WHICH WILL OPEN UP YOU KNOW AT SEWER FOR OTHER PROPERTY IN THE COMMUNITY THAT WILL HELP FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. SO, THAT WAS OF INTEREST. AND IN SO DOING, WE ALSO WANT TO HAVE THAT ACCESS ROAD THAT THEY'RE CONSTRUCTING AS PART OF THIS PROJECT TO BE DEDICATED AS AN EASEMENT SO THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WILL BE ABLE TO USE THAT AS WELL. SO, THAT IS THE TWO PROPERTIES, BUT, IT ONLY HAS TO DO WITH THIS ONE TRACT.

YEAH. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: OKAY.

COUNCIL IS THERE QUESTIONS OF KYLE ON THIS CASE?

>> I WANT TO REFRESH MY MEMORY. THIS IS THE WHAT ARE THEY DOING

ON THIS PROPERTY? >> SO, THIS IS THE BATTERY

STORAGE FACILITY. >> SO, THERE WAS A PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THAT? THAT THE EASEMENT WAS GOING TO COME OUT OF. DID YOU GET ALL OF THAT EASEMENT WORKED OUT WITHOUT A

PURCHASE? >> THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE

SECOND ITEM. >> SO, DID YOU GET A PRIVATE PURCHASE OR ARE WEE GOING TO HAVE TO PURCHASE IT?

>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PURCHASE IT.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: FURTHER QUESTIONS? TAMMY, DID ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE?

>> THE CHANGE WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET, THE EASEMENTS WILL BE IN PLACE 45 DAYS, WHAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET WAS 30 DAYS, SO, THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO DO IT IN

30 DAYS. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> ASK FOR EXECUTIVE SECTION FOR LEGAL REASONS.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: OKAY. I HAVE A REQUEST TO GO INTO

EXECUTIVE ON THIS CASE. >>> SO, PER SECTION 551.071 LEGAL CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA, LISTED HERE, WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7:44.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: ALL RIGHT, IT IS 7:50 COUNSEL IS BACK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION, NO ACTION TAKEN AS A RESULT OF EXECUTIVE

SESSION. YOU MAY CONTINUE. >> YES.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: OR, DID YOU TURN IT OVER TO US FOR

[01:45:01]

QUESTIONS? >> CORRECT.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: IS THERE ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF KYLE ON 2023-439?

>> I'LL TAKE A MOTION. >> POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WE CAN'T ACCEPT THIS AS-IS WITHOUT CHANGING THE MOTION TO

ACCOMMODATE WITH? >> WE NEED APPROVAL. RIGHT?

>> CORRECT. >> SO, WELL, AND SO, ACTUALLY, IN THE WAY THAT WE'VE LAID OUT BOTH OF THEM, UM, 440 WILL NOT HAPPEN IF 430 DOESN'T HAPPEN. THAT'S LAID OUT IN THE

AGREEMENT. >> (INAUDIBLE)

>> CORRECT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE MY MS.

HAMMONDS. >> SECOND.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: SECOND BY MR. RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 5--- SORRY, 5-1 IT PASSES.

[2023-440]

>>> OPENING UP, IS HE STILL RECUSING?

>> YES. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: OPENING ITEM 2023-440, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TO PROVE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF DEVELOPMENT FROM ESVOLTA DEVELOPMENT LLC AS A BUYER TO

MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. >> THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM HOWEVER THIS IS A SECOND PROPERTY. THE PREVIOUS ITEM ALL OF THE EASEMENTS ARE LOCATED, THE MED IS ON THE LOT FOUR BLOCK A PROPERTY. THE SECOND PROPERTY IS ON A JUST OVER SIX ACRE TRACT THAT DESERT WILLOW WILL NEED TWO DIFFERENT EASEMENTS FOR. THERE IS A 75 X 75 FOOT SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT THAT'S NEEDED TO TURN OFF OF VV JONES ROAD TO BRING IN THE EQUIPMENT TO THE SPACE. THEY ALSO HAVE AN ELECTRIC TELECOM ACCESS EASEMENT THAT WILL RUN SECONDARY POWER BACK TO THE FACILITY. SO, UM, THIS IS FOR A PURCHASE AND SALE ASSIGNMENT AGREEMENT. SO, MS. VOLTA HAS ALREADY ENTERED INTO THE PROPERTY OWN FOR A PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT. UNDER THAT PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE THE ABILITY ON BEHALF OF THEIR OWN DECISION TO ASSIGN TO A THIRD-PARTY. MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THAT THIRD PARTY. WE WOULD PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FOR $530,000 MINUS THE DUE DILIGENCE MONEY THAT WAS PAID AND WE ALSO AREN'T OBLIGATED TO HAVE ANY OF THE DUE DILIGENCE OBLIGATED. THEY WOULD STAY WITH ESVOLTA AS THE ITEM OCCURRED. AS THIS ITEM WAS DESIGNED FOR THE MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR THE COMMUNITY BECAUSE IT DOES CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE BELIEVE THAT WORKS WELL FOR SMALL INDUSTRIAL USERS. YOU KNOW, HAVING A NEED FOR SMALLER USERS TRACTS LIKE THIS TO OPEN UP AS THAT OPPORTUNITY. NOW, THERE PROPERTY IS OF NO VALUE TO US, UNLESS THE SALE OF THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY IS ABLE TO GO THROUGH. AND, SO THE AUTHORIZATION THAT I'VE RECEIVED IN THE MED RESOLUTION WAS ONLY TO EXECUTE THE PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY ONLY AFTER DESERT WILLOW HAD CLOSED ON THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY. SO, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, WE WOULD SELL THE PREVIOUS PROPERTY FOR $1 MILLION AND WE WOULD TURN AROUND AND PURCHASE THIS OTHER PROPERTY FOR $550,000. WHICH IS WHAT THEN WOULD NET THE KORPGS THE ABILITY TO HAVE $450,000 NET, PLUS, THIS SIX ACRE TRACT AND WE'LL HAVE ADDITIONAL UTILITIES AND OR EASEMENTS NEEDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY.

SO, WITH THAT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCIL? THE MED BOARD MET YESTERDAY AND APPROVED THIS ITEM UNANIMOUSLY 5-0.

[01:50:01]

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO.

QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL? >> HAS ANYBODY LINED UP FOR THE

PROPERTY YET? >> WE'VE HAD DEVELOPERS EXPRESS INTEREST IN BUILDING WHAT I'LL CALL FIVE TO 6,000 SQUARE FOOT STAND ALONE BUILDINGS THAT EXPRESSED INTEREST ON THE SITE.

THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO IMMEDIATELY PUT IT OUT TO THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY, THEY DO NOT HAVE INTEREST IN CONSTRUCTING THOSE, ANY IMPROVEMENTS OF THE SITE, WE WOULD TURN AROUND AND SELL IT TO A DEVELOPER THAT MAYBE

INTERESTED IN THE PROPERTY. >> SO, THERE'S NO INTENTION OF

DOING THE DEVELOPMENT YOURSELF? >> CORRECT.

>> COUNCIL, FURTHER QUESTIONS? ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: MOTION TO APPROVE. AND SECOND BY MR. MOORMAN. PLEASE VOTE.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: ITEM PASSES 5-1.

>> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: THANKS, KYLE. OPENING UP ITEM 2023-441 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON

[2023-441 ]

>> COUNCIL, MAYOR, MCDC IS ASKING COUNCIL TO APPROVE THE EXPENDITURE OF $23,000 THAT IS BEYOND OUR $23,000 LIMIT.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF MELISSA ON THIS REQUEST?

>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> WE'LL START WITH YOU, JOE. >> MAKE IT TECHNICAL.

>> I LIKE BRINGING UP THE REAR. THE LAST ITEM.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?

>> SO, I KNOW ORIGINALLY, THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AROUND, UM, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT PROPERTY FOR THOSE BUILDINGS, TO SEE IF THERE MAYBE COULD BE SOME USE FOR THEM PRIOR TO THEM NEEDING TO BE, UM, DEMOLISHED. DID THAT JUST NOT PAN OUT TO BE A VIABLE

OPTION? >> NO. THERE WAS NOTHING SALVAGEABLE THAT COULD BE REUSED.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU. >> BUT, THEY WERE USED BY THE

POLICE. >> YES, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT CAME IN AND DID TRAINING FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS THERE NOW. WE HAD HOPED TO US USE THE BACK STRUCTURE FOR THE PARK'S DEPARTMENT, BUT, THE WAY IT WAS CONSTRUCTED IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE. (INAUDIBLE)

>> YEP. FIRE'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, OR, THIS WEEK.

>> WHOSE GOING TO DO THE DEMOLITION?

>> IT IS, CAJUN SAW CUTTING, OVERSEEN BY ADAM AND HIS CREW.

>> AND THAT WAS PUT UP FOR BID? >> YES. WE HAD THREE BIDS AND

THAT WAS THE LOWEST BID. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: COUNCIL, FURTHER QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE HOW LONG WE COULD

KEEP MELISSA HERE. >> MAYOR COFFMAN: DLNGS MOTION BY MR. MOORMAN AND SECOND BY MR. GARDNER. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES. >> THANK YOU.

>> MAYOR COFFMAN: 7-0. TROUBLE WITH THE BUTTONS THIS EVENING. WITH THAT, COUNCIL, WE GOT THROUGH OUR AGENDA, THERE'S NO FURTHER EXECUTIVE SESSIONS FOR THE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.