Sep 24, 2024 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation ]

[00:00:10]

>> ALL RIGHT, GOOD EVENING. IT'S 6:00 P.M. TUESDAY THE 24TH OF SEPTEMBER. -- THE COUNCIL TO ORDER. COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS IS GOING TO LEAD US IN A VACATION IN THE PLEDGES.

>> FATHER GOD, WE LOVE YOU AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SERVE YOU AND YOUR KINGDOM . GIVE US WISDOM TONIGHT, LEAVE THE CONVERSATIONS, HELP US TO SEE THE VISION FOR YOUR COMMUNITY, LORD, AND HELP US TO WORK TOGETHER WELL AND DO ALL THINGS TO GLORIFY YOU. WE PRAY FOR ALL THESE THINGS IN YOUR

SON'S 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

[2024-355 ]

INDIVISIBLE. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE START TONIGHT WITH OUR ITEM NUMBER 2024-355, THE QUARTERLY BOARD LIAISON REPORT. GIVE OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO DISCUSS -- THEY MAY HAVE WITH THE BOARDS. IF YOU HAVE NO UPDATES , THAT IS PERFECTLY FINE, AS WELL. JUST SAY THAT WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT ONE. COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN?

>> I'M LIAISON CURRENTLY TO THE PARKS BOARD, NO MAJOR UPDATES FOR THIS QUARTER BUT I WILL SAY WE HAVE A COUPLE OF NEW BOARD MEMBERS OVER THE LAST QUARTER AND A HALF AND GOT SOME REALLY PASSIONATE INDIVIDUALS ON THAT BOARD AND THERE'S A LOT OF UPCOMING , YOU KNOW, PLANNING AND UPCOMING THINGS THAT THERE'S A LOT MORE INTENTIONALITY AROUND. THE FUTURE, AS FAR AS PARKS GO. I'M EXCITED ABOUT WHERE IT IS HEADED BUT NO MAJOR UPDATES TO GIVE YOU GUYS TODAY.

>> I'VE GOT A NUMBER OF THINGS TO GO OVER. THIS IS FOR -- I'LL GO OVER THE DEVELOPMENT WORKPLAN. WITHIN DEVELOPMENT IS ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE AGREEMENTS. ALL OF THEIR PERFORMANCE -- THEY ARE CERTIFIED AND UP-TO-DATE. SOME NOTABLE ACCOMPLISHMENTS , THE RECENTLY COMPLETED -- AND THEY ARE QUALIFYING FOR -- ALSO, DESERT WILLOW IS RUNNING AHEAD OF SCHEDULE BY THE NEW YEAR AND WILL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT -- FIRST OF ALL, THERE WAS AUGUST THE FIRST AND 11 ATTENDEES. OF COURSE, THE COMMUNITY INFORMED IT'S PURPOSE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT ECONOMIC AND HOW THAT BENEFITS OUR CITY. ALSO, HAD A SMALL BUSINESS TRAINING IN OCTOBER THE THIRD. REGISTERED WITHIN THAT. THOSE ARE TRAINING OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE A STRONG PARTICIPATION IN REGION AND BUSINESSES. AND THE UPCOMING MEETING , ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT , THE ANNUAL REPORT. WE HAVE BEEN DOING --

>> THANK YOU, MIKE. >> YES, LIAISON TO THE TYPE B BOARD. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. THURSDAY NIGHT, AT THE -- BOARD MEETING. WE'VE ALSO HAD A SEPARATE SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING AROUND THIS. TALKING ABOUT THE CONFERENCE UPDATES SO THAT WILL BE COMING. ANOTHER THING I'VE BEEN REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IS SEVERAL OF US HAVE MET THE CITY OF -- AND ALSO WENT TO A CONFERENCE LAST THURSDAY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SPECIFICALLY AROUND ECONOMIC COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT , ALL AROUND SMALL BUSINESS, THE PARK DOWNTOWN, ALL OF THAT. IT WAS VERY EXCITING. SO IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN, SPECIFICALLY , IF Y'ALL HAVE NOT BEEN TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA, YOU SHOULD REALLY CHECK IT OUT. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE EXCITING THINGS WE

[00:05:06]

HAVE GOING ON. >> THANK YOU. FOR MYSELF, I SERVE AS LIAISON -- NEWLY ESTABLISHED FOR A TEST WITH MANAGING AND GIVING US FEEDBACK REGARDING -- ASSUMED OPEN AND THAT BOARD SPECIFICALLY HAS BEEN ROLLING THROUGH THE SEASON PROCEDURES IN AN ATTEMPT TO ESTABLISH EXACTLY WHAT THE LIBRARY -- EXCITING TIMES. A LOT OF FORMAL DOCUMENTS.

CURRENTLY BEING ENCOURAGING THE COUNCIL TO -- VERY THOROUGH IN THEIR APPROACH AND THEY ARE GOING LINE BY LINE RESEARCHING AND EVALUATING THESE -- THAT THEY ARE WORKING ON.

RECOMMENDATIONS. CLERK? >> YEAH. I FEEL LIKE IT'S HARD TO UPDATE ON PNC -- SOMETHING WE ARE LOOKING AT TONIGHT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WE HAVE SOME FUN ITEMS COMING AT THE NEXT MEETING THAT WERE PRESENTED THIS LAST WEEK.

>> SERVE AS THE LIAISON AND -- NOT A LOT GOING ON JUST DUE TO NO MAJOR ACTION BUT IT IS A STUDY THAT IS CUSTOMARY HANGAR RATES WHERE WE ARE AS FAR AS -- OPERATIONS MORE FUNDING FOR THE AIRPORT . TAKEOFFS AND THERE IS, I THINK AT THE LAST MEETING, THE PRESENTATION LOOKING AT POTENTIALLY BUILDING SOME OF THE INITIAL -- IN THAT PART OF THE WORLD. THE BOARD SEEMS TO BE LOOKING AT HOW DO WE GROW THAT ENDEAVOR IN MAKING

IT A NET REVENUE GENERATOR >> THANK YOU, ROSS.

>> ON THE UTILITY BOARD AND DIDN'T HAVE ANY ACTUAL -- THE ONLY MEETING WE'VE HAD SO FAR , THERE ARE NUMBER OF STUDIES AND BEING DEVELOPED FOR SOME OF OUR FLOW AND THE WATER IS GOOD.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. WE HAVE A GOOD WATER DEPARTMENT. COUNSEL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS THE PURPOSE OF THESE UPDATES ARE FOR YOU TO -- BUT THEN ALSO FOR YOU TO PEAK YOUR INTEREST AND GO SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL LIAISON FOR FURTHER DETAILS. IT'S GOOD TO KNOW WHO THE PEOPLE ARE FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL AND HIS COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMIT TO, ON THEIR OWN TIME TO THESE EXTRA MEETINGS ON THESE VERY SPECIFIC ITEMS. I ENCOURAGE ALL OF THE COMMUNITY TOO, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT ONE OF THESE OR OPERATIONS OF THE CITY TO SEE THIS PERSON WHO SPOKE ON THAT

[2024-356 ]

>> YEAH, TODAY, THE HEIGHTS ORGANIZATION , MARY, YOU KNOW , GOOD REPORT ON THEIR OPERATIONS . THEY PARTY SORBED DOUBLE -- SERVE DOUBLE. GOOD ORGANIZATION .

] >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? >> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK THE COMMUNITY FOR THEIR OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT FOR THE -- THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO. AND I JUST WANT TO PRAY FOR THE FAMILY BUT IT WAS JUST A GREAT OUTPOURING OF SUPPORT AND A LOT OF IT , THE FUNERAL THAT RANDALL KIRK AND I AND I , JUST AMAZED AT HOW OUR COMMUNITIES TO STEP UP TO HELP PEOPLE IN NEED OF THESE -- IF THESE TRAGEDIES DID OCCUR.

>> THANK YOU FOR SERVING. >> THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION , I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT DATE , WE HAVE THE

HERITAGE MEMBERS COMING . >> WELL -- OCTOBER 12TH.

[00:10:12]

>> YOU KNEW THAT. >> I DID KNOW THAT. I AM JUST TESTING THE CITY SECRETARY. BUT WE WANT EVERYONE TO COME OUT.

IT'S A BIG EVENT FOR US EVERY YEAR. WE HOPE TO SEE ALL OF

Y'ALL THERE. >> EXACTLY. THREE MILL. BE

THERE. >> ALL RIGHT, SEEING NO OTHER , I WILL GO WITH THE FIRST ONE, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE THE PASSING OF THE FORMER MAYOR -- SERVE THE CITY FOR A LONG TIME, WE SEND CONDOLENCES AND PRAYERS TO THESE FAMILIES. WE WILL DO SUMMING A LITTLE MORE FORMAL IN HIS HONOR BUT I WOULD BE REMISS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THIS HERE THIS EVENING. ON A BRIGHTER NOTE, I WOULD LIKE TO CONGRATULATE LINDA WALKER, LONG TIME MEMBER OF THE DEVELOPMENT JUST MAKING A PUBLIC STATEMENT, APPRECIATE THE SERVICE TO THE CITY. AND FINALLY, I HEARD THIS EVENING THAT LESLIE , I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND THANK HER AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS . WE APPRECIATE HER SERVICE AND WE WISH HER WELL IN HER ENDEAVORS.

SAFE TRAVELS. THANK YOU FOR THAT SLOW CLAP. THEN, FINALLY, I WANT TO, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO ISSUE A PROCLAMATION THIS EVENING IN HONOR OF -- BEFORE I DO THAT, I WOULD LIKE TO REINFORCE THE INVITATIONS THE COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. THIS IS QUITE LITERALLY AND THE FACILITATION OF EACH INDIVIDUAL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT PARTICIPATES, IF YOU'RE NOT PARTICIPATING NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU SHOULD BE.

IT'S ONE OF THE BEST OR THE BEST -- IN THE NATION. GO MEET YOUR NEIGHBORS. IT HELPS YOU, IT HELPS THE COMMUNITY , IT HELPS THE COMMUNITY TO GET CONNECTED AND TO MAKE THIS A HEALTHIER PLACE TO LIVE. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO COME FORWARD, I INVITE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO COME UP AND THEY MAY HAVE SOMETHING THEY WANT TO ADD, AS WELL AND THEN I WILL READ THIS PROCLAMATION.

I KNOW WE RANKED AT THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT. SECOND? IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. THAT'S PRETTY SOLID. THE SECOND STATE OF TEXAS , KUDOS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

>>

SAY? >> ] ALL THE FREE FOOD THAT I CAN BUT THE REAL WORK BEHIND IT IS THAT THEY DID FOR OVER 240 COMMUNITIES AND THEY REALLY WORKED HARD . TITLE I, WE HAVE 2023. WE HAVE 17 LECTURES. OVER TO THE WEBSITE, SIGN UP AND WE WILL COME SEE IT.

>> DEFINITELY THE HARDEST WORKING UNITS IS AT EVERY EVENT THAT I MATT AND I MET A LOT OF EVENTS. -- AND I AM AT A LOT OF EVENTS. THE NATIONAL -- SPONSORING A UNIQUE NATIONWIDE CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAM, OCTOBER THE FIRST, 2024, ENTITLED NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WHEREAS THE ANNUAL NATIONAL NIGHT OUT PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY TO JOIN FORCES WITH THOUSANDS OF OTHER COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO PROMOTE COOPERATIVE, PLEASE COMMUNITY CRIME PREVENTION EFFORTS, AND WHEREAS IT'S ESSENTIAL FOR ALL CITIZENS IN THE CITY TO BE AWARE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF CRIME PREVENTION PROGRAMS AND THE IMPACT THAT THEIR PARTICIPATION CAN HAVE ON REDUCING CRIME IN THE CITY, WHERE AS CRIME AND DRUG PREVENTION AWARENESS SUPPORT PARTICIPATION OF GLOBAL ANTICRIME EFFORTS, STRENGTHENING THE NEIGHBORHOOD SPIRIT AND THE POLICE COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIPS, SENDING A MESSAGE CRIMINALS THAT THEY ARE ORGANIZED AND FIGHTING BACK AND THESE ARE IMPORTANT THEMES OF THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT PROGRAM. WHEREAS PARTICIPATION MAY BE AS SIMPLE AS TURNING ON THE FRONT PORCH LIGHT WAR PLANNING A NEIGHBORHOOD BLOCK PARTY. NOW, THEREFORE, I, JUSTIN COFFMAN, THE MAYOR OF MIDLOTHIAN, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL,

[00:15:05]

-- WITH YOU ON THIS. >>

>>

>> OFFICER HUGHES, WHAT DOES IT TAKE TO PROVIDE WHAT YOU ARE

LOOKING FOR? >> ] CHRIS DOES A GREAT JOB GETTING OUT IN THE COMMUNITY AND GETTING EVERYONE INVOLVED. SO WE ARE IN THE CATEGORY -- AND THEY GO BY HOW MANY PEOPLE AND HOW MANY NEIGHBORHOODS YOU HAVE. THIS YEAR , BUT WE STILL USE , YOU ARE GOING TO HELP US

AND -- >> YOU WANT MORE NEIGHBORHOODS

AND -- THE NIGHT OUT. >> I THINK THAT'S REALLY GOING TO --

[2024-357 ]

>> AWESOME. THANK YOU. >> OKAY, WE MOVE ONTO CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. THE CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON ANY TOPIC NOT ARE ESSENTIAL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A CITIZEN PARTICIPATION FORM AND PRESENTED TO THE CITY SECRETARY PRIOR TO THE ITEM BEING OPEN FOR DISCUSSION. SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, THE CITY COUNCIL CANNOT ACT ON ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA. HOWEVER, YOUR CONCERNS MAY BE ADDRESSED BY CITY STAFF, PLACED ON FUTURE AGENDA, OR RESPONDED TO BY SOME OTHER COURSES.

>> CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES.

>> BECAUSE I CANNOT HEAR Y'ALL BACK THERE. MY NAME IS CARL, I LIVE AT 201 -- AND -- AS ANY OF Y'ALL SHOULD KNOW. I HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE '09 . I LIKE MY TOWN. THAT'S WHY AM HERE. -- WHY I AM HERE. MY QUESTION TO YOU IS WHY ARE WE DESTROYING THE -- OF MIDLOTHIAN. THE REASON WHY I SAY WHY IS BECAUSE WE HAVE SENSITIVE GROWTH , WE HAVE EXCESSIVE DEVELOPERS, WE HAVE EXCESSIVE HOUSING . WE HAVE EXCESSIVE CARS, WE HAVE EXCESSIVE BUSINESSES, AND WE HAVE EXCESSIVE SPENDING. IF YOU WANT TO SPEND IS GO BACK HOME. IT WILL SAVE YOU A LOT OF TIME AND TROUBLE DOWN THE YEARS AND YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT RAISING TAXES. YOU WILL HAVE THE MONEY THERE FOR EMERGENCIES. AND ALL THIS EXCESSIVENESS TO MY WAY OF THINKING CREATES A MORE CRIMINAL ATMOSPHERE , WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE THOSE GUYS BACK THERE. WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE LIFE A LITTLE EASIER THAN THEM. YOU CANNOT MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM WITH EXCESSIVE GROWTH. NOW I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS ARE GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT BUT WHEN I MOVED HERE, THERE WAS 10,000 PEOPLE. LIKE YOU SAID, THERE'S ABOUT 40,000 IN THE CITY LIMITS, ABOUT 100,000 IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WHY? DO YOU NOT BELIEVE IN LETTING MIDLOTHIAN BE MIDLOTHIAN? DOES IT HAVE TO COMPETE WITH EVERY OTHER TERRITORIAL AREA OUT HERE? LET MIDLOTHIAN BE MIDLOTHIAN . THAT IS MY

THOUGHT. >> THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANYONE ELSE SIGN UP FOR -- ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

[00:20:02]

>> I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT 2024-360 AND 2024-363.

>> WE WILL BE REMOVING FROM THE CONSENT 360 AND 363 . I WILL

ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO -- >> ACTUALLY, I ALSO --

>> 364, AS WELL. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT

AGENDA , 363 AND 364. >> I MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM

[2024-360 ]

QUESTIONS? >> GOOD EVENING. SO READING THROUGH THE AGREEMENT, IT INDICATES THAT THERE WILL BE ADMINISTRATIVE FEES PAID BY THE SUPPLIERS TO THE -- GROUP. IS

THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> CUSTOMARILY, 2% . >> YES.

>> SO -- TO BE PART OF THIS. >> OKAY. AND WE ARE EXPECTING BUSINESS TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE COST THAT WE ARE -- AND I GUESS OVER A LONG TIME .

>> WELL, I CAN SAY THIS IS LIKE MANY OF OUR OTHER COOPERATIVES . THEY OFFER A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF SERVICES.

THEY HAVE VENDORS THAT SIGN UP AND THEN THEY NEGOTIATE THE CONTRACTS. A LOT OF TIMES, -- WITH THESE . YOU WILL SEE AGENDA ITEMS COME ACROSS WHERE WE HAVE THAT WE BOUGHT IN THE PAST FROM THEM. WE DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BIDDING PROCESS BECAUSE OF THE VOLUME OF PURCHASES THAT WE DO SAVE MONEY OVERALL. THIS PARTICULAR ONE WE WENT WITH INITIALLY AND ADDED IN BECAUSE WE WERE INTERESTED IN THE AUCTION SERVICES . TO BE HONEST , FOR THE ITEMS IN THIS BUILDING.

HOWEVER, WE FOUND OUT THAT -- AUCTION SERVICES OTHER THAN THE SERVICES THAT WE ALREADY USED FOR SUCH PURPOSES. BUT I DON'T THINK IT NEVER HURTS TO HAVE ANOTHER GROUP THAT WE CAN GO TO AND LOOK AT THEIR VENDORS AND COMPARE THEM TO THESE OTHER COOPERATIVES. SO THEY ALL DO CHARGE SOME KIND OF A SERVICE FEE TO THOSE PEOPLE TO SIGN UP, IF THEY GET THE CONTRACT BUT, OVERALL, SAVING US MORE MONEY TO USE THESE IN GENERAL.

>> PRECLUDE THE USE OF -- >> I WILL SAY SOMETIMES IT DOES BUT NOT ALWAYS. THERE ARE SOME LOCAL VENDORS THAT , I DON'T KNOW ABOUT -- SPECIFICALLY ANY LOCAL VENDORS BUT IT DOES, IT

CAN IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS. >> I WOULD HOPE THAT THE -- THAT WE HAVE, AT LEAST HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY .

>> NO. >> ANYONE ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS PAGE? ENTERTAIN A MOTION?

>> I HAVE A QUESTION. SO JUST AS A FOLLOW-UP SO I UNDERSTAND, SO DOES THE LOCAL VENDOR HAVE TO , DO THEY INCUR COSTS FOR

SOME OF THIS PARTICULAR -- >> IN THE EVENT OF OCCURRING A COST -- INCURRING A COST. NOT SIGNING UP WITH THEM.

>> OKAY. >> THEN THEY HAVE A SERVICE

FEE. >> YES, BUT IT DOESN'T, TO HIS QUESTION ABOUT INCLUDING IT FROM -- AS LONG AS THEY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS, AWARDED THE CONTRACT. OKAY, THANK YOU.

>> QUESTIONS? I MOVED TO APPROVE.

>> SECONDED . PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES, 710. 2024-363, CONSIDER

[2024-363 ]

>> QUESTIONS? >> MY QUESTION FOR THAT IS -- THE ROOT, IT HANGS THAT GOING DOWN AND WITH THAT BEING A FAIRLY ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION AREA , I JUST, WHAT'S CONCERNING IS

[00:25:05]

>> I AM GOING TO SOMEWHAT DEFER TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON THAT BECAUSE EVERYTHING PASSES THROUGH THEM WHEN IT COMES THROUGH US, WE FEEL LIKE THE ALUMNI IS, YOU KNOW, COMFORTABLE WITH THE -- AND PD IS COMFORTABLE WITH THE ROUTE.

CAN I -- I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE. I'VE GOT IT RIGHT HERE.

>> SO YOU ARE CONCERNED . MOSTLY --

>> WITH THE -- WAS IT -- >> YES, WITH ALL THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S OCCURRING IN THAT AREA. PEDESTRIANS AND SPECTATORS WILL, YOU KNOW , OCCUPY THAT ROUTE.

>> I KNOW THAT , SO MY MAIN CONCERN WITH THIS ROUTE IS SEEING WHERE THE LOCATIONS ARE GOING TO BE, WE ARE ACTUALLY MEETING AFTER THIS TO DISCUSS THAT FINAL WAY OUT. BASED ON THIS ROUTE BUT WE DO LIKE THE ROUTE. I'VE NOT SEEN ANY SPECIFIC KIND OF -- THAT WILL BE -- FOLLOWING UP ON THIS BUT FROM WHAT I REMEMBER , THERE WAS QUITE A FEW PEOPLE PARKED AND USING THAT AREA ANYWAY. SO I'M NOT SURE , I CAN'T FULLY ANSWER THAT TO SEE -- FOLLOWING THIS PRESENTATION.

>> AND YOU GET A GOOD STAND OF PEOPLE THAT LIKE TO GET NEAR THE STADIUM AND DOWN IN FRONT OF THE SPORTS PARK, THE LAST PARADE THAT WE DROVE THE ROUTE A LOT OF PEOPLE WERE ALONG 14TH AND ALONG THE SIDEWALK AND DOWN CLOSER TO THE STADIUM SO THEY CAN BE AT THE END WHERE EVERYONE IS FINISHED.

>> WHEN I WAS IN SCHOOL, I USED TO GO TO WALTER STEVENS AND TURN ONTO 14TH AND I GUESS TO FOLLOW UP WITH ROSS, IF Y'ALL THINK THAT'S THE BEST ROUTE, -- A SIMPLER ROUTE. THERE'S AN

ACTIVE CONSTRUCTION SITE. >> THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH THAT IS SO THE SOUTH SIDE , THE NORTH SIDE. SO THAT, THIS ONE IS ACTUALLY, THIS ONE DOESN'T, THIS ONE ALLOWS NORTH OF THAT ROUTE TO BE -- IN AND OUT IN THE PROCESS OF LIVING . SO.

>> I KNOW THAT YOU ARE ON THE ALUMNI ASSOCIATION.

>> IN WITH THE PEP RALLY. LAST YEAR, WE PROBABLY HAD -- SO IT'S EASIER TO GET FROM A HIGH SCHOOL TO A STADIUM THAT WAY THAN TRYING TO -- THEN TRY TO GET TO THE STADIUM.

INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] >> WHEN I WAS A KID, WE WENT TO

287. >> AND AS THE TRAIN CAME, THE

WHOLE -- STOPPED. >> BUT JUST MAKE SURE WE NOTIFY YOU WITH THE CONSTRUCTION AREA FOR THAT OCCURS. ANY OTHER

QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? >> BUT WHEN I WAS A KID. JUST KIDDING. THANK YOU. I WAS IN ARLINGTON SO THANK YOU ALL VERY

MUCH. >> I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

[2024-364 ]

>> I MOVED TO APPROVE. >> MOTION AND APPROVED BY -- SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES, 7-0 AND FINALLY, ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, 2024-364. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE TRUNK OR TREAT EVENT HOSTED BY STORM FC. THE EVENT IS SCHEDULED FOR -- IN ACCORDANCE WITH A SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT.

>> MY OTHER QUESTION ON THIS IS -- TO THE PUBLIC?

>> IT IS. >> I NOTICED WE WERE WAITING

>> IT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. THEY JUST WANTED A SAFE PLACE TO LET THE KIDS COME OUT AND GIVE BACK TO THE COMMUNITY.

OKAY, YES, SIR. >> MOTION, APPROVED.

>> MOTION AND APPROVED, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMONS .

[2024-365 ]

[00:30:02]

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. 3651 SHILOH ROAD. IF THIS LOOKS FAMILIAR, IT SHOULD. THIS WAS ACTUALLY BEFORE YOU IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THIS IS THE ALLOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY.

SO, AGAIN, IT WAS APPROVED IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR. THE APPLICANT PAID FOR, ASKING FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. THAT WAS APPROVED. ONCE THE APPLICANT BEGAN CONSTRUCTION , HE FOUND OUT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM HAVING ONE ELECTRIC METER. SO DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, HE SPOKE WITH HIS ELECTRICIAN AND THEY FOUND OUT THAT A SECOND METER WOULD BE NECESSARY FOR CONSTRUCTION AND SO THAT IS WHERE HE IS BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE PLANE DEVELOPMENT, NUMBER 15. WE WERE PROVIDED A LETTER FROM THE MASTER ELECTRICIAN OF THIS PROJECT. THEY WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO REMAIN ON ONE METER . ALSO, THEY COULD POSSIBLY BE TEARING OUT CONCRETE, DISRUPTING THE SCHOOL AND SPRINKLER LINES AND WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT, ADDITIONAL COST.

THIS IS AN AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY. SO, AGAIN, REGULATIONS FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT. HE IS ASKING FOR A SEPARATE SEPTIC METER. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND THEN A SECOND ELECTRIC METER. THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY OPPOSITION FROM THIS. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS IN THE LAST THREE YEARS, COUNSEL HAS APPROVED HUNDRED 50% OF THE ELECTRIC -- THAT'S COME THROUGH AND ONE OF THOSE ALSO IS ASKING FOR A SEPARATE SECTOR, AS WELL. AND I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DID ANYONE SELLS SIGN UP TO

SPEAK FOR THIS? >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY -- PLEASE VOTE. AND THE ITEM , 7-0. IF THE APPLICANT HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME. YOU COULD STAND UP NOW, OR OTHERWISE I WILL -- I HAVE ONE QUESTION. YOU DIDN'T MENTION --

>> THEY DID. THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.

>> COUNSEL, QUESTIONS? NO QUESTIONS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN TO APPROVE. PLEASE

[2024-366 ]

>> THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BASICALLY ASKING FOR A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN. THIS IS LOCATED AT 5757 PORT ROAD , LOCATION MAP OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS A SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED TO US . IF YOU CAN SEE THESE SMALL CIRCLE -- LET ME PULL THIS OUT FOR YOU. THIS IS THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE SECONDARY MONUMENT SIGN. THE ORIGINAL MONUMENT SIGN IS APPROVED AND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS A RENDERING OF IT ON THE LEFT HERE. EACH MONUMENT SIGN WOULD BE -- WITH THE SIGN PHASE 12.5. THAT'S FAIRLY SMALL IN COMPARISON TO MOST OF OUR MONUMENT SIGNS . FOUR SECTION 4.607 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN IS ALLOWED IF THE BUSINESS HAS MORE THAN ONE PUBLIC ENTRANCE

[00:35:01]

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> WITH NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING , SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE. THE ITEM IS CLOSE, SEVEN MINUS YEAR. NOW'S A GOOD TIME TO SPEAK. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF

LESLIE? >> YES, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD

IS CURRENTLY -- >> IT IS ON -- OKAY. THE SPIRIT OF THOSE ORDINANCES . NOT SURE THAT THE --

>> IT IS ON BOARD. AND I DID WANT TO MENTION SOMETHING ELSE.

EXTERNALLY BUT THESE ARE NOT COMMON SENSE.

>> MY ONLY QUESTION IS THE REGULATIONS, IT'S JUST, THE

FACT THAT THERE'S TOO. >> THIS ONE IS MATCHING SIGN THAT WAS ALREADY APPROVED. THE ONLY THING THAT IT WOULD NOT MEET IS THE SIX INCHES OF MASONRY ALONG THE SIGN. THE FIRST ONE WAS APPROVED THIS WAY SO THEY WANTED TO MATCH EXACTLY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT WOULD NOT BE NEEDED.

>> I JUST GOT A QUICK QUESTION. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS EARLIER .

JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF IT'S MEETING ALL THE ORDINANCE AND EVERYTHING, WHY IS IT COMING TO US? IS IT BECAUSE IT

WAS APPROVED THROUGH A -- >> IT'S BECAUSE IT'S A SECOND MONUMENT SIGN. OUR ORDINANCE ALLOWS, WITH THE APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, AND THIS CRITERIA TO HAVE A SECOND, OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. THEY DO STILL HAVE TO

GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. >> NO, THAT'S GREAT. JUST TO CLARIFY IF THEY WANT A SECOND SIGN, ACCORDING TO THE ORDINANCE, THEY HAVE TO COME TO THE COUNCIL THROUGH THE

PROCESS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> NO OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN I

GET A MOTION? >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION DID BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, I WILL TAKE THE COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES, 7-0. OPENING ITEM 2024-368, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 24 TO ALLOW TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTAINERS ON THE PROPERTY, BEING 27.71 ACRES OF LOT 1 , BLOCK A, WALMART ADDITION, CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN , ELLIS COUNTY,

[2024-367 ]

>> GOOD EVENING. YOU MAY REMEMBER LAST TIME, IT WAS MARCH, APRIL AT -- IT WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW FOR AN ACRE GROCERY STORE, TOM YOUNG, A CONVENIENCE HER WITH SEVERAL OTHER USES. WHAT HAS COME UP SINCE THEN FOR THE DEVELOPER AND THAT RELATIONSHIP IS THE TOM THUMB ATTORNEY HAD A CONCERN ABOUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE, THEY HIGHLIGHT IT HERE IN RED AND THERE ARE SOME CHANGES GOT MYSELF, AS WELL AS THE CITY ATTORNEY BOTH REVIEWED IT. THE MAIN POINT OF THAT EXERCISE IS JUST THAT FOR LOTS FIVE AND SIX, THEY ARE ALREADY OVER PARKED SO IT'S UNNECESSARILY TO HAVE LANGUAGE REQUIRING ANY KIND OF SHARED PARKING . IT SHOULDN'T BE NECESSARY. SO THAT WAS THE CONCERN FOR TOM THUMB WAS HAVING SOME POSSIBLE OBLIGATION FOR A SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT WHEN THE CONVENIENCE STORE, EIGHTS TO BASES ARE REQUIRED.

THEY WERE APPROVED FROM 19 AND FROM THE GROCERY, 235 MAY HAVE BEEN REQUIRED AND THEY WERE PROVED THROUGH 305. IT'S ALREADY WELL OVER PARKED. THERE'S NO REAL NEED FOR THAT PARKING AGREEMENT. THAT IS WHY THEY HAVE ASKED TO AMENDED THIS PART OF THE ORDINANCE. WE ARE NOT CHANGING USES, WE ARE NOT CHANGING FORM, ONLY THIS RED TEXT IS WHAT CHANGES. STAFF

[00:40:04]

>> I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES, 7-0. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE , NOW IS A GOOD TIME. IF NOT, YOU CAN SUSTAIN THE

MOTION. >> I DON'T SEE THEM.

>> QUESTIONS? >> JUST WANTED TO -- THE OTHER

POSSIBLE -- >> IT COULD BE AS ORIGINALLY WRITTEN , LOTS FIVE, SIX, AND 10, OR TECHNICALLY REALLY

ANYBODY. >> SPEAKING OF THE OTHER --

>> AS WRITTEN HERE , EXEMPT , LOTS FIVE AND SIX FOR HAVING TO BE ACQUIRED TO USE A FORMAL AGREEMENT TO SHARE.

>> TOM THUMB -- THIS OPPORTUNITY.

>> WHY AM I BRINGING THIS UP? >> I'M SORRY, I DON'T THINK

THEY WERE -- >> YEAH, THE DEVELOPER YEAH, WELL, YEAH. THE CORPORATIONS , I THINK BY THE TIME IT MADE ITS WAY UP THROUGH THEIR CHAIN OF COMMAND AT ALBERTSON'S, WHICH I THINK THEY HAVE BEEN, AT THE TIME, ACQUISITION DATA. THIS TINY LITTLE DETAIL ABOUT SOMEBODY'S -- MONTHS AFTER .

SO I UNDERSTAND , I DO, BUT JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE. I GUESS WHERE I AM CONFUSED IS WHY WOULD IT MATTER IF THE AGREEMENT WAS IN THERE AND, AMY, WHO IS GOING TO STOP SOMEONE FROM PARKING IT IF ONE OF THE USES COME IN FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND I AM INTENDING TO USE IT? WHO IS

ENFORCING THAT? >> RIGHT, SO PRIVATE MATTER, FROM A PRACTICAL PERSPECTIVE, NO ONE IS REALLY POLICING THIS.

>> I GUESS IN THEORY, THE ABILITY TO MOVE SOMEBODY OFF

THE LOT. >> THEY ARE NOT ASKING FOR THAT. IT SOUNDS LIKE TRESPASSING.

>> DO YOU WANT TO, I THINK, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN IT BETTER THAN ME BUT I WILL TRY AGAIN. WITH ALBERTSON'S AS IT'S RELATED TO THIS. PRETTY MUCH SETTLED ON THIS LANGUAGE REMOVED. BUT AS FAR AS HAVING TO TRESPASS , ONE OF THE OTHER

-- >> I WISH THE APPLICANT WAS

HERE TO -- >> I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH THE HEAVY USE THAT CAME INTO THOSE AREAS. WOULD THAT BE IN THEIR

PARKING AREA? >> THE ONLY CONCERN THAT WAS EXPRESSED TO ME WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE LIKE AS JOE DESCRIBED IT, THEY DID NOT WANT TO -- AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, OF COURSE, I DIDN'T TALK TO THE ATTORNEY THEIR UNDERSTANDING WAS THIS WOULD NEED SOMETHING LIKE , FOR SOMEONE TO ENTER A CONTRACT WHO HAD A CONVENIENCE STORE CONNECTED. PARKING AND MANEUVERING AND DOING YOUR THING THAT THEY MAY ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO AND FILE A FORMER PARKING AGREEMENT AT THE COUNTY IN PERPETUITY TO DO THAT AND THEY JUST DIDN'T WANT TO BE OBLIGATED FOR THAT. THEY HAVE NO NEED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL --

>> YES, I DON'T DISAGREE. BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE USED THE WORD -- SO MANY TIMES IN THIS CONVERSATION. THEY HAVE MORE SPACES , THEY ARE JUST BY THE USE OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO I THINK THE INTENT TO APPROVE THIS OF THE SHARED PARKING REQUIREMENT HERE IS TO ALLOW POTENTIALLY OTHER -- TO NOT HAVE OVER PARKING AND I THINK THAT IS -- COUNTING FOR USES OF THIS PROPERTY. SO WHAT THEY ARE ESSENTIALLY SAYING IT HERE IS THEY WANT TO GO RIGHT TO SHARING THE PARKING OTHER NEIGHBORS BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE. THAT IS THE TEXTBOOK CHANGE THEY HAVE MADE HERE BY STRIKING ITEM SIX OUT . IT WOULD LEAVE NINE AND 10 , REQUIRED TO HAVE. SO IF THEY WANT TO HAVE -- AND I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT , TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE PARKING TO THE APPROPRIATE LEVELS.

BECAUSE THE BLESSING AND CURSE OF THAT IS -- NOT HAVE TO PAY

[00:45:03]

ANY WAY. >> JUST GOING TO TAG ON TO WHAT ROSS SAID. THAT'S MY CONCERN. WITH THE EXTRA PAD SIDES, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, I WAS CERTAINLY UNAWARE OF THE WAY THOSE PEOPLE ARE PARKING AND I KNOW IT'S CONSIDERED OVER PARKED AND I'M SURE IT'S CONSIDERED OVER PARKED BUT IF YOU GO ON A SATURDAY, ALL THE SURROUNDING USES PARKING LOT.

THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERN FOR THIS ONE, TOO.

>> I AM FINE THE STRIKING OF THE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT .

BECAUSE I THINK THAT IS A MUNICIPALITY REQUIREMENT OF A COVENANT THAT WOULD -- I DO NOT OKAY WITH US REMOVING THE LANGUAGE OF THE PREDICATION OF THE ZONING IS GOING TO BE A

FREE FLOW. >> ANY COMMENTS?

>> I GUESS WHEN I PREPPED THIS, I DIDN'T EXPECT IT TO GO THIS WAY SO I NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE UNDERSTANDING OF WHY , MAYBE ROSS, IF YOU COULD REPEAT WHAT YOU SAID BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE WHY I CARE. LIKE BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING , AND NO ONE IS POLICING PARKING SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF THIS, YOU KNOW, HOLDS UP OR EVEN TANKS IT OF WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.

>> IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT THE HARM THEY WERE TRYING TO DO -- PERPETUATED TO AN EXCUSE AND AGREEMENT FOR ACCESS THAT WOULD BE JOINED AND FILED . THAT IS A SEPARATE OF DEED RESTRICTION VERSUS -- SO I AM FINE WITH THE PRIVATE AGREEMENT BUSINESS AND THE FOR-PROFIT ENTERPRISES BUT I THINK THE INTENT ORIGINALLY WAS THE SHARED AND APPROVED -- THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SITE. SO I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE -- THAT ALLOWS FOR THE INTERPRETATION TO SIT DOWN, DIDN'T AGREE TO FLOW THROUGH OUR PROJECT. THEY CAN DO THEIR OWN THING. WE HAVE -- PEOPLE GETTING ONTO TO GO TO THE SAME AND THAT WOULD GO AGAINST EVERYTHING IN THE LAST DECADE .

>> WELL, WILL IT ACTUALLY CHANGE , TRYING TO FAST-FORWARD OF WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE WILL IT ACTUALLY CHANGE , I MEAN, ARE PEOPLE -- TO PARK HERE?

>> IT'S NOT ABOUT HAVING TO PARK HERE. THE INTENT IS ALL OF THESE COMMERCIAL ARE CONNECTED AND THEY SHARE PARKING. THEY GO IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE SCALE. THEY ARE ALL GOING TO HAVE A

SHARED PARKING SYSTEM. >> WHAT ABOUT THE CHANGES ?

>> IT REMOVES TWO LINES FROM SHALL BE TREATED

>> THE TEXT OF THE RULE NOW SIMPLY AGAINST THE SPIRIT.

>> I DON'T -- WERE YOU HERE THAT NIGHT ? I GUESS TO ROSSES.

LIKE AND I CAN'T SPEAK FOR OTHER PEOPLE, WHAT THEY'VE NOT DONE BUT INITIALLY THOUGHT ABOUT PARKING AND OVER PARKING.

WAS KNOWING THAT THE GROCERY STORE WAS ALL SHARED PARKING .

FOR EXAMPLE I CAN PARK AT KROGER'S PARKING LOT. NOT SAYING THEY STILL CAN'T BUT THE WAY IT'S GOING TO BE CHANGED IN THEORY -- IS NOT SHARED . I WOULD HAVE MADE IT THROUGH THIS PROJECT, KNOWING OF WHICH IS BEING APPROVED IS NOW CHANGED. OR MAYBE OR WHATEVER THE PADS ARE.

>> IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LESS

[00:50:03]

THEIR PARKING SPOTS. >> RELATED TO THIS , WHEN YOU SEE SIGNS THAT BUSINESSES WILL PUT UP LIKE SAY, ONLY FOUR, DOES THIS OPEN THAT UP FOR THAT POSSIBILITY? DO THEY HAVE TO

GET IT APPROVED FOR THAT? >> NOT FROM US.

>>

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE? THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A

MOTION . >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE HE CAN ONLY STRIKING THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CROSS

ACCESS EASEMENT. >> PROVIDING FOR CROSS ACCESS.

>> RIGHT, PROVIDING FOUR. >> ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO FIND AN EASEMENT BUT THE ZONING --

>> CREATE PARKING SPACES. THE SHARED PARKING AMONGST THE

LOTS. >> YEP .

>> I THINK THE EASEMENT HE'S TALKING ABOUT IS THE SECOND.

YOU WANT TO GIVE -- >> I THINK THAT WAS PART OF IT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. >>

] >> MIGHT I MAKE A SUGGESTION? ALL OF PARAGRAPH B WAS -- I MEAN .

>> PARKING --

>> RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.

>>

>> YES. YES, SIR. >> IS EVERYONE CLEAR ON THAT

MOTION? >> I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION BECAUSE THERE'S NO TAKING OUT THEIR REQUIREMENTS.

THEY HAVE BEEN TAKING OUT THE EASEMENT. BUT I THINK WE STILL

NEED CROSS ACCESS. >> WE'VE GOT THAT COVERED.

>> BUT WITH THE PLAN, I MEAN, THIS PART, AS WELL AS --

>> BUT THIS PLAN DOES NOT SHOW, HIS ASSAULT SO CROSS ACCESS BETWEEN -- THERE'S NOTHING SHOWING ON THAT?

>> WE REQUIRE ACCESS . >> I THINK IT WOULD BE SAFER.

>> SHALL BE. >> YOU CAN TRY AND EVEN IN. BUT I THINK JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT OUR -- COVERED.

>> FOR CLARITY, I WOULD LIKE TO -- REWRITTEN.

>> THERE WE GO. >> THE PARKING SPACES , ALMOST FIVE, SIX , SHARED PARKING , ADDITIONALLY, ACROSS SHALL BE PROVIDED IS THAT YOUR MOTION ROSS?

>> YES IT IS MY MOTION. >> SECOND.

>> I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES, 7-0.

[2024-368 ]

CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATION TO ALLOW

[00:55:06]

QUESTIONS. >> NO PUBLIC INPUT, -- THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I HAVE A COMMENT. SO WE JUST WENT THROUGH A FAIRLY THOROUGH EVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY THAT'S GOING ACROSS THE STREET AND A BIG TOPIC OF CONVERSATION WAS TRYING TO THINK OF THE RIGHT WAY TO SAY IT. VERY I WOULD SAY A LEVEL OF SCRUTINY WAS THE AMOUNT OF OUTSIDE SEASONAL STORAGE. I KNOW THAT WE HAVE TRADITIONALLY ALWAYS APPROVED THIS FOR YEARS BUT MY CONCERN IS WITH CONTINUING TO APPROVE THIS HUGE STORAGE UNIT IN THE BACK AND WE WERE TRUST SCRUTINIZED QUITE A BIT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET ABOUT THE STORAGE, WHAT PREVENTS THOSE , YOU KNOW, THOSE STORAGE TO SAY HEY, WELL, I KNOW ORIGINALLY, WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO THIS BUT CAN WE BRING IT BACK SEASONALLY. I'M NOT SURE THAT WE WANT THAT TO SCALE OUT THROUGHOUT THIS AREA SO THAT MY CONCERN ALONG WITH OTHER LARGE USERS IN THE AREA THAT WE ARE GOING TO END UP AFTER CHRISTMAS WITH 20 OVER HERE, 20 OVER THERE, 20 AT HOME DEPOT . YOU KNOW, THESE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE GOING TO WORK SO I FELT LIKE WE NEED TO EXPRESS SOME CAUTION WITH THESE

IDEAS. >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.

WALMART HAD PROPOSED OR WAS IN THE PROCESS OF PROPOSING -- ISN'T THAT LOCATED IN THIS EXACT SPOT? AND DOES THAT MAKE , WOULD THIS INTERFERE WITH THAT? BECAUSE WE HAVE CONCERNS IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO A MULTIYEAR ESTIMATION THAT WOULD POTENTIALLY INTERFERE. I KNOW -- I DON'T KNOW IF I -- SO .

[01:00:07]

>> ROSS IS HERE, RIGHT? >> YES. EXHIBIT C-ONE. THE FIRST PLACE ON THE REAR EAST SIDE. THERE IS NO EXHIBIT -- ON

THE EAST SIDE. >> SO THAT IS IN , SO WITH THE WAY WE DO THE PD'S HERE , WE HAVE THIS PATCHWORK. THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF, THE HAB ALREADY HAS THE EXHIBIT. SO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE BEFORE YOU BASICALLY REFLECTS THE PN THE RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WOULDN'T CHANGE THINGS. BUT STAFF IS SAYING WE SUPPORT MULTIYEAR IDEAS TO SUPPORT THE APPLICANT'S WOULD NEED A NEW LOCATION. THAT EXHIBIT YOU ARE

REFERENCING . >> I DON'T EVEN HAVE A COPY .

>> THIS IS THE LOCATION AND ALSO, THEY SAID AT P&Z WOULDN'T WORK FOR THEM. WITH THE CHARTS BACK THERE. SO YOU SAW THE LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT SAYS YOU MUST -- BEHIND THE FRONT ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING.

>> WHEN THE ORDINANCE FIRST PLACE THEM IN THE REAR.

>> OH, OKAY. >> WHICH WAY IS FRONT?

>> THE TOP OF THE PICTURE. THAT IS WHERE I AM JUST , FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT, THE ORDINANCE THAT I DON'T HAVE THE EXHIBIT TWO. AND THIS IS NOT THAT. THIS IS PROBABLY TAKEN FROM THAT. WHY ARE WE PUTTING -- FIRST ? YOU KNOW? DO WE NEED TO REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE ? I HAVE THIS FALSE IMPRESSION IN THE NEW LOCATION. THAT'S WHAT IT'S TELLING US WE ARE

GOING TO DO. >> NOT IN THE PRESENTATION.

>> OKAY. >> I'M JUST KIND OF SITTING HERE , I'M THINKING EITHER -- AND WE WENT THROUGH A CONSTRUCTION PROCESS . WHEN THEY WERE GOING TO ADD IN SOME USES POTENTIALLY FROM GETTING -- BUILDING FORMAT. AND I THINK THEY DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CHANGE FOR WHO CARRIES OUT THE GROCERY PROCESS.

>> HE WAS REFERENCING WHERE IT SAID -- CURBSIDE PICKUP , APPROVING THAT AREA FOR THE STORE , WHAT YOU CALL IT,

SHIPMENTS, CURBSIDE . >> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY , SHARING THAT THOUGHT PROCESS WAS BECAUSE GOT REPRIMANDED THEY HAD TOO MANY -- OUT THERE, OR THEY HAD SOMETHING WAS

WRONG. >> THE CONTAINERS WERE OUT

THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE. >> SO WE DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT A FORM OF STORAGE . REFERRED TO BRING IT AS

[01:05:02]

>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT IF YOU ARE NOT PLANNING ON BUILDING THE STORAGE , THREE MONTHS OUT OF THE YEAR. NOW EVERYBODY CAN CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG BUT THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT , I DON'T THINK THEY EVER INTENDED TO PUT STORAGE PERMANENTLY FOR THIS SEASONAL TIME .

>> SO THE NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE IS THAT WRITTEN LINE THERE BECAUSE IT WOULD ALLOW -- COULD USE , OR IS IT JUST A ZONE.

>> IT'S JUST CONCEPTUAL. IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 20 SHIPPING CONTAINERS. NO LONGER THAN 40 FEET LONG. WE ARE LOOKING AT ROUGHLY MAXIMUM OF 640 SQUARE FEET. HOW MANY

PARKING SPACES. >> 32.

>> THANK YOU. >> HAVE WE HAD ANY MORE ISSUES?

MAINTENANCE OR ANY ISSUES ? >> NOT THAT I'M SPECIFICALLY AWARE OF. I THINK THEY FIXED THE LANDSCAPE.

>> HERE ? SO TO PICK BACK ON WHAT MIKE IS SAYING, I FEEL LIKE THIS SINCE THIS IS MY -- AND SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH , IF IT'S IN EVERY YEAR THING, IF I'M SUPPOSED TO START THIS.

EVERY YEAR. >> RIGHT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND THAT. I DO FEEL LIKE ONE YEAR , AT LEAST THE LAST THREE. I FEEL LIKE WE HAD THE CONVERSATION GOING , DOING CONSTRUCTION FOR A SPAN , FOR THIS AND THEN IT ENDED UP COMING BACK THAT WE

ACTUALLY -- >> TWO YEARS AGO, TALKING ABOUT EXPANDING THEIR BACK OFFICE. AND IN THAT TIMEFRAME , A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO IN THAT TIMEFRAME, THE CURBSIDE MODEL REALLY -- MORE CURBSIDE IS THE WAY I RECALL IT.

>> I REMEMBER THE INTENT , THIS SHOULD BE THE LAST YEAR AS WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO CONSTRUCTION AND THEN IT WAS

SWITCHED TO MORE CURBSIDE. >> WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS ALONG WE ARE IMPROVING APPROVING IT.

>> WELL, AND THIS IS FOR OCTOBER WHICH IS HOW MANY DAYS?

>> I DO REMEMBER ALL OF THAT. ACTUALLY, I REMEMBER THIS. AND THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY CAME , THE EXPANSION YEAH. I WAS GOING TO SAY WE DID STREAM IT ONE YEAR. YEAH, WAS THAT IN THIS --

>> THE MESH, SAME AS LAST YEAR. >> IS THAT IN THE ORIGINAL? IT IS, AND THAT'S JUST NOT -- THAT'S NOT JUST CONSTRUCTION.

SO THESE SPECIFICALLY. >> I WAS HERE ORIGINALLY WHEN IT WAS LIMITED TO JUST WHAT SHE WAS REFERENCING. I WAS HERE WHEN THEY -- THE NORTH SIDE AND I DON'T THINK , I DON'T THINK WE EVER DID IT, SO, IT'S BEEN THERE , THEY CAN DO IT ON THE -- IS THAT JUST TIED TO THE PERMIT.

>> IF YOU REMEMBER , THE CONTAINER FORMAT WAS --

>> THAT'S HOW IT GOT DONE . >> DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE. BECAUSE GOING OFF OF , NOT JUST MY MEMORY, BUT THINGS LIKE WHAT ROSS WAS TALKING ABOUT, IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE. DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO THAT? IS THIS IN A LIBRARY SOMEWHERE? IS THE NEW LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE --

>> CURBSIDE PICKUP. >> IN THE BACK IS NOT BECAUSE

TRUCKS ARE GOING BACK THERE? >> HOW DOES THIS IMPACT THE

[01:10:02]

DRIVE THROUGH ? >> IF YOU CAN STATE ON THE

RECORD. >> DROVE AROUND, I GUESS.

>> YOU CAN DRIVE AROUND THIS PARTICULAR, THIS PARTICULAR

>> WELL FROM THE SOUTH , THE WALMART.

>> WELL, IF THE INTENT IS TO HAVE GOOD VISUALS IN SO MANY CARS ARE GOING ON THAT SIDE , CURBSIDE AND THE DRIVE-THROUGH PHARMACY . IT'S NOT REALLY YOUR VISUALS.

>> I MEAN ALAN -- ALLEN, ON LOWS. WE HAVE BEAT UP ON THE

PRETTY HARD , OUTSIDE STORAGE >> ON THAT NOTE , YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND IT'S A WALMART AND OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S A GREAT ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DO A LOT OF -- IN COMPARISON TO THE VOLUME, IT DON'T MAKE SENSE BUT IF Y'ALL THINK ABOUT IT, WE HAD A LOCAL RETAILER, ONE OF OUR LOCAL COME IN SAY HEY, FOR THREE MONTHS, JUST TWO STORAGE UNITS, WE ONLY NEED ONE OR TWO IN THE BACK LINE BUILDING. I HAVE A FEELING WE MIGHT HESITATE A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE, WAIT A SECOND. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO DO THAT AND I UNDERSTAND WE'VE DONE A TRADITIONALLY A LONG TIME. I'M JUST STARTING TO THINK IT MAY NOT BE THE BEST ROUTE TO CONTINUE NOW WITH THE LONGEVITY AND, TO BE FAIR WITH THE COMMUNITY AND RETAILERS AND

OTHER DETAILS. >> WE DIDN'T WANT TO SEARCH

THE CONTAINER IN DOWNTOWN. >> BRIAN, TELL ME , AM I READING IT CORRECTLY THAT THE ORIGINAL ORDINANCE MIGHT BE FROM OCTOBER 1ST TO DECEMBER 1ST AND THREE YEARS , FROM SEPTEMBER TO DECEMBER, AN EXTRA MONTH.

>> OCTOBER. >> IT SAYS RIGHT HERE BEGINNING

ON SEPTEMBER 1ST. >> SOUNDS LIKE A TYPO. IT SHOULD BE OCTOBER 1ST. THE SUMMARY SAYS OCTOBER 1ST.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT.

>> IS ANYONE AWAITING MORE INFORMATION? MAKE SURE

EVERYBODY HAS THEIR QUESTION. >> YES, SIR.

>> SO WHERE ARE THE LOCATIONS IN THE BACK?

>> THANK YOU, BRIAN. ESSENTIALLY , IT WAS ENOUGH FOR

TWO TRAILERS OR OKAY. >> I ALLEN HAS THE MOTION.

>> MOTION TO DENY . >> MOTION TO DENY.

>> SECOND? >> MOTION TO DENY FROM COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN, SECONDED FROM COUNCILMEMBER WICKLIFFE.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES, 7-0. OPENING ITEM 2024-369,

[2024-369 ]

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 213 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE .

YEAH. WHO'S MAKING THAT ONE , DANIELLE? WELCOME, DANIELLE.

>> THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE TONIGHT. WE ARE REALLY EXCITED TO GIVE YOU A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE DOCUMENT TONIGHT. THEN, WE HAVE A POWERPOINT, WHICH I THINK WE CAN HOPEFULLY PULL UP ON THE SCREEN. OH, SORRY, OKAY. OKAY.

>> BEFORE YOU START, IS ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS PIECE? LET'S GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY? SECONDED -- PLEASE VOTE. OKAY, GO AHEAD NOW.

[01:15:11]

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO WE WILL GO THROUGH THE AGENDA REAL QUICK AND REALLY JUST WALKING THROUGH THE DOCUMENT. WE WILL START OF COURSE BACK IN FEBRUARY OF 2023, WE WILL HIGHLIGHT THOSE OF THE SECOND. WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO LOOK AT ADOPTING THIS PUBLIC HEARING, P&Z RECOMMENDED IT . WE HAD EVERYTHING UP ON THE WEBSITE WHERE PEOPLE COULD TAKE A LOOK AND SEE THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION SO EVERYONE COULD GO THROUGH THE INFORMATION WE SHARE. OF COURSE, THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS DOCUMENT IS THE STATE ALLOWING US TO PLAN TO LOOK TO THE FUTURE AND SAY WHAT WE WANT TO BE, HOW DO WE ADDRESS THESE GROWTH ISSUES AND OUR SUBDIVISION BUT IT IS A PLAN. THIS IS NOT YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IT'S NOT CHANGING THE ACTUAL ZONING ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW BUT THIS COUNCIL AND CAN USE AS THEY ARE MAKING DECISIONS. SORT OF THE INPUT THAT WE USE, WE HAVE A CONFERENCE OF PLAN, WE HAVE SOME OF THE MEETINGS WITH THAT COMMITTEE TO GO OVER INPUT ACTIVITIES, DRAFTING THE CHAPTERS, TALKING ABOUT ASPIRATIONS TO ADDRESS ANY KEY ISSUES. WE HAD P&Z AND COUNCIL MEETINGS, WE'VE HAD THREE JOINT MEETINGS , DRAFTING A VISION STATEMENT. THEN, WE ALSO HAVE THREE ADDITIONAL MEETINGS TO WORK OUT, FINAL THINGS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THE HOUSING POLICY. WE DID HAVE OPEN HOUSES. WE WILL HAVE ONE AT THE BEGINNING. THIS IS JUST A COUPLE OF PHOTOS FROM THAT WHERE PEOPLE WERE ABLE TO COME OUT AND PROVIDE INPUT THROUGH DIFFERENT BOARD EXERCISES. WE ALSO HAD THIS ONLINE, AS WELL, FOR PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE. ONCE WE HAVE THE DRAFT DOCUMENT, WE HAVE ANOTHER OPEN HOUSE IF PEOPLE COULD SEE HOW THE INPUT WAS USED IN THE PLAN AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE PLAN ITSELF. LET PEOPLE ON THESE BOARDS, YOU SEE ON THE PICTURES THERE, DISAGREE OR AGREE ON THE DIFFERENT ISSUES. SO SOME PLAN HIGHLIGHTS. WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT CHAPTERS THAT WE ARE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. ONE OF THE THINGS I REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON IS WE WE HAVE YOUR COUNCIL VISION AND MISSION STATEMENTS.

ALSO, THE BEACON ELEMENTS THAT THESE ARE ALL REFLECTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REALLY HAS A VISION THAT ALIGNS WITH THOSE ELEMENTS OF THE COUNCIL , SORT OF SETTING THE COURSE ON. WE DO HAVE ITEM PRINCIPLES THAT ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND THESE SIX PRINCIPLES HELP US AS WE GO THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO ACHIEVE. OF COURSE, LOOKING AT AN EXISTING LAND USE, WHAT IS CURRENTLY USED FOR, THAT HELPS US TO GET INTO THE UPDATED FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES, THE MAP THERE. FOCUSING ON A LITTLE BIT WHEN YOU ZOOM INTO DOWNTOWN A LITTLE BIT SO WE HAVE DIFFERENT LAND USE CATEGORIES ALL REPRESENTED BY DIFFERENT COLORS. WE HAVE A GRAPHIC HERE TO SHOW YOU HOW WE CAN INTERPRET THOSE COLORS. ALL OF THESE COLORS ALSO RELATE ON TOP OF RESIDENTIAL. WE HAVE THAT WORKED OUT WITH OUR DIFFERENT MEETINGS AND WE PREVIOUSLY HAD LOOKING BACK OUR NONRESIDENTIAL, DRESSED A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY . WHEN WE GET TO OUR DASHBOARDS, IT'S VERY USEFUL TO HELP INTERPRET WHAT THESE COLORS ON THAT MEAN. WE HAVE A LAND-USE DESCRIPTION WITH THE COUNTRY MODEL SHOWING HERE. TALK ABOUT THE DIFFERENT , HOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS FORMED AND DEVELOPED .

DIFFERENT LAND-USE MIX, WHETHER IT'S RESIDENTIAL OR NONRESIDENTIAL. THEN WE GET INTO DIFFERENT DENSITY SCALE, HEIGHT, HOW PARKING IS ADDRESSED AND THEN ALSO, WE GET INTO DIFFERENT TYPE OF APPROPRIATE USES IN THOSE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. HERE'S JUST SORT OF A SUMMARY TABLE WHERE YOU CAN SEE ALL THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND WHERE THEY ARE APPROPRIATE IN THOSE DIFFERENT LAND-USE CATEGORIES.

THEN, OF COURSE, WE CAN TRANSLATE TO, IF ALL THE LAND WAS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED, WHAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE POPULATION TO PLAN FOR INFRASTRUCTURE. THAT LAND-USE PLAN WOULD PRODUCE A COMMUNITY OF 140,000 PEOPLE IN THE ULTIMATE POPULATION. ONCE A VINE, ONCE ALL THE LATEST DEVELOPED AND THEN THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WHEN WOULD THAT HAPPEN IN OUR PROJECTION WOULD BE AROUND 2070 BEFORE WE GET TO THAT. SO THERE'S A TIME WHERE WE GET THERE AND OF COURSE , WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GROWTH RATES, WE CAN SEE WE ARE GROWING FASTER THAN SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORS. WE WILL ALSO LOOK AT DIFFERENT HOUSEHOLD INCOMES. WE HAVE A STRONG HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR OUR FAMILIES. THIS SHOULD BE NO SURPRISE BUT HOME SALE

[01:20:08]

MAPS WERE ANYTHING ELSE. >> QUICK QUESTION. THE LAST MASTER PLAN , CAPPING OUT AT ABOUT -- AND WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS, AND I'M SURE I'M JUST NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW WE DECREASE OUR MULTIFAMILY POPULATION , IS IT BECAUSE OF THE NEW TOWN MODEL WE ADDED ON THE WEST SIDE AND IS THAT WHERE THE INCREASE IN POPULATION IS?

>> INCREASING THE DENSITY ZONES. THIS IS WHAT'S THROWING ME OFF AND WE CAN GO BACK AND TAKE A LOOK AND DIVE IN DEEPER INTO THAT BUT THAT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIG REASONS WHY THAT

CHANGE HAPPENED. >> THEY GIVE US A RANGE.

>> OH YES. >> HIGH-END. I THINK WE ARE GOING MORE WITH THE POTENTIAL RANGE. THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING. >> AND I THINK YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE PREVIOUS ADOPTED PLAN RATHER THAN THE EARLIER VERSION THAT WE HAD. SORRY.

>> JUST A QUICK COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE. UNDER TRANSPORTATION, WE ALSO HAVE BRINGING IT IN THERE TWICE AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE -- SO I DON'T KNOW IF -- THE OTHER THING IS IT MAY HAVE BEEN DURING ONE OF THE -- BUT ON THE CH5 , I REMEMBER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT NATURAL RESOURCES BUT I DON'T REMEMBER TALKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING THE IMPLEMENTATION -- IN ALL ASPECTS OF THAT.

>> OKAY. SO I'M ALL FOR PRESERVING REQUIRING IT BY MANDATE AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN -- WHAT PAGE IS THAT? IT'S ON PAGE --

>> EIGHT. >> HE GETS INTO MORE GRANULAR DETAIL. YOU KNOW, AT LEAST I REMEMBER US TALKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING THE IMPLEMENTATION . I MEAN I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH IT. I WANTED THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN TO BE ACTIVE

AND ENCOURAGEMENT . >> THE CONSENSUS WITH COUNCIL ,

OKAY. NEXT. >> THAT'S EVERYTHING I HAVE.

IN SUMMARY, MOVING INTO THE PLAN UNDER THE COUNTRY MODULE

[01:25:05]

WORTH. >> I'M SORRY. IT'S NOT THE

INTENSITY . >> I WOULD AGREE BUT THE SCOPE WHERE THE NARRATIVE THAT IT DOES SAY INCREASING LANDSCAPING BUT THAT IS JUST SAYING THAT OUR DESIRE IT'S TO HAVE A SIGNIFICANT -- ON THERE. OR MAYBE EVEN INCLUDE IT IN THE NARRATIVE THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE SAY INDUSTRIAL. I DON'T WANT THERE EVER TO BE CONFUSION. UNLESS

THE COUNCIL DISAGREES. >> ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT. THE CONSENSUS IS OKAY.

>> THE OTHER THING WOULD BE IN THE ORIGINAL , WE SHOW TWO DOTS OF EMPHASIS ON SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED AN EMPHASIS ON STANDALONE AND MULTIFAMILY. MY VISION IS HURTING THOSE. WE WANT TO HAVE THE MOST EMPHASIS ON A SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHMENT THAT WOULD WORK FOR INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP VERSUS A GRIEVANCE ON A SMALLER SCALE -- QUAD PLAQUES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> COUNCIL? >> TO THAT, AND MAYBE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT IN THE , WHAT ARE WE DOING NEXT, ZONING CHANGES? MAYBE THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT THERE WAS A CONVERSATION TO BE HAD ABOUT THE J HOOKS AND I SEE HERE BUT IT'S NOT DEFINED .

MAYBE IT DOESN'T EVEN TOUCH HERE. THE ZONING , OKAY.

>> I THINK THERE WAS A LOT, ESPECIALLY I THINK MAKING SURE CERTAIN OVER ARCING LANGUAGE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE OR MODULES THAT APPROPRIATE CUEING OUTSIDE OF THE PEDESTRIAN AREA . NO MATTER WHICH ONE -- SELECTED ON AND GRANTED, I DID NOT -- THE MOST RECENT UPDATE OR FRIDAY I THINK I WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE , THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION . I READ A LOT OF IT. BUT THAT LANGUAGE DIDN'T JUMP OUT AT ME. HAVING THAT IS

KIND OF AN OVER ARCING THEME. >> LOW-DENSITY MEETING DENSITY OFF THE J HOOKS . I DIDN'T CITY -- HIGH DENSITY TALKS ABOUT -- IT'S A J HOOK ON THE SIDE OF A HOME FROM THE FRONT DOOR.

ROSEWOOD IS PROBABLY THE ZONING AND THE SPIRIT OF THE IDEA BECAUSE WHAT'S HAPPENING THERE IS --

>> DID YOU SAY ONLY J HOOKS? MEDIUM AND LOW?

>> SO, THE PLACES WHERE I SEE THEM IS LOW RESIDENTIAL. IT DOESN'T SAY J HOOKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. WHICH IS FINE BY ME. BUT ON THE TWO AREAS THAT DO TALK ABOUT THE J

HOOK IN FRONT IS AN ISSUE. >> I'M AMENABLE TO THAT. MIKE,

YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> JUST A FOLLOW-UP ON THE J

[01:30:01]

THE PD. >> YOU HIT IT IN THE ZONE .

>> RIGHT, RIGHT. SO I EVEN TOOK IT THAT THAT WAS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT THE COUNCIL THE INPUT THEY GOT HELPS MADE

WITHIN THE PD FORMAT. >> I WOULD AGREE WITH CLARK.

>> I GUESS THE ONLY THING THAT I'M UNSURE ABOUT IS WHAT JUMPED OUT THE CLARK IS ONLY ONE QUESTION AND THE BIG SCOPE OF THIS, STEPPING BACK, I THINK THIS MIGHT NEED A THIRD -- I DON'T REMEMBER. I REMEMBER WHEN WE THOUGHT , 80 TO 100,000. I REMEMBER SERVING ON THE COUNCIL AND DEFINITELY -- TO THAT LEVEL. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THIS CONVERSATION. WHEN WE MENTIONED A MOMENT, I BELIEVE IT WAS THE 140S? AND WE TALKED A 160 NUMBER AND I THINK THAT WAS REPRESENTATIVE OF THAT CONVERSATION, AND A PASS COMP PLAN. THAT WAS TO THE BEGINNING OF THIS REVIEW FOR WHAT WE COULD BE . I GUESS MY CONCERN IS I DON'T WANT TO LOSE THE POINT AND POSITION TO BEGIN WITH. LIKE ANOTHER CITY IS I RAN THE MATH, LIKE I JUST MENTIONED , TO HAVE 197 I KNOW THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE -- BY THAT AND THAT POPULATION 81 SQUARE MILES AND 64 SQUARE MILES. REALLY MAKING ME PAUSE ARE WE DOING THIS RIGHT? THE THING THAT I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IS BEING ABLE TO HOPEFULLY -- TOWARDS A SOLUTION. AND RIGHT NOW, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT LEAVING THE CITY TO THE NEXT. AND SELL I WANT -- AND SO I WANT TO KNOW .

THE NUMBER THAT I HAVE ALWAYS , IT FINALLY CLICKED UP THAT'S THE NUMBER. YOU SAID 40, IT KIND OF TOOK ME BACK AND I THOUGHT, WOW. SO YOU ARE TAKING, THERE'S NO WAY, OF COURSE , BUT YOU ARE TAKING INTO THESE MODULES AT THESE LEVELS AND FOR WHAT WE ARE PLUGGING IN RIGHT NOW, FOR THE SAME MATH , WE'VE GONE FROM 110 TO 140 IN AND ABOUT SEVEN OR EIGHT --

>> THANK YOU. ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT --

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS 90 TO --

>> IN FACT, THE ONLY REASON I REMEMBER THE NUMBER AND HE BROUGHT UP THAT NUMBER AND I GUESS NOW YOU , IT STILL THROWS ME THROUGH ANOTHER LOOP IS WE ACTUALLY LOST ON THIS. WE TOOK OUT 9% OF OUR MULTIFAMILY AND YET WE HAVE A 30 TO 40,000 INCREASE IN POPULATION. WHICH AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS IS, BUT THAT PART IS A LITTLE CONFUSING. AN INCREASE IN IDENTITY, A DECREASE IN LANDMASS. AND THAT IS WHY I WAS QUESTIONING THAT BECAUSE I'M STILL CONFUSED ON THAT COMING

FROM THE THEORY SO >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONTO THAT. I THINK , JUST GOING TO USE -- THAT WHOLE AREA WAS

[01:35:03]

INDUSTRIAL . >> NEW TOWN.

>> NEW TOWN, ALLOWS FOR I MEAN IT'S NOT ALL OF THEM. HIGHER DENSITY SO I THINK , AND , TOO, I THINK JUST LOOKING AT, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF -- HOUSING WHEREAS LOW-DENSITY BEFORE. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE IT DEFINITELY SEEMS THAT THERE'S A COUNTRY MODULE . I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER , THESE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT STUCK OUT TO ME.

>> ANNA? >> SO MY QUESTIONS ARE MAINLY CONCERNED LIKE I SEE , I THINK IT'S ALL GREAT WORK. THERE IS NOT NECESSARILY -- NORMAL TO HAVE THIS BUT THE CONCERN OF A CATEGORY AND STUFF WHICH IS GREAT. DO YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS LIKE ROSS , I DON'T LIKE TO WORK OVER THE WEEKEND BUT -- I KNOW, I'M SORRY. BUT DO YOU HAVE RECOMMENDATIONS ON LIKE HOW WE AS A CITY, HOW WE -- ON THE SHELF AND THEN I'M ALSO A LITTLE BIT THINKING ABOUT OUR DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN. LIKE COORDINATING ALL OF THIS. ARE THERE BEST PRACTICES ON HOW TO KEEP TRACK OF THIS PARK?

>> SO WHAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND IS TO PLEASE HAVE A MEETING DEDICATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CHECKING THAT INVITATION BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD CHECKLIST TO MAKE SURE HOW WE ARE DOING, MAKING PROGRESS , IS THIS SOMETHING WE NEED TO MOVE INTO A HIGHER PRIORITY. ULTIMATELY, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL TO SAY IS THE STILL HIGH PRIORITY OR IS THERE SOMETHING NEW FROM THAT SIDE? THE STAFF CAN DEVELOP A REPORT TO SORT OF HELP THAT PROCESS .

WORKING WITH THE P&Z AND THEN HAVE A PRESENTATION WITH YOU GUYS AGREE EVERY YEAR TO SAY HERE WE CURRENTLY ARE WHETHER WE WANT TO SAY IT'S THAT LIKES TO BE DONE MAYBE IT'S A LITTLE EARLIER IN THE SPRING BUT THAT'S POSSIBLE TIME TO HAVE

THAT BATTLE. >> YEAH, I WOULD PERSONALLY LIKE TO MOVE ON TO A SPECIFIC LIKE EVERY X , APRIL OR WHATEVER THAT HAVING SPECIFICALLY DEDICATED TIME TO THIS. WE'VE ALSO SOMETIMES HAD THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS , THEY WANT TO CONTINUE TO SERVE A MONTH WAS SO TO GO WITH STAFF TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE CHECKLIST TO SEE HOW THEY ARE DOING HAVE ANOTHER BODY TO LOOK AT THAT.

>> AND THEN JUST , WHEN THIS IS COMPLETED, WE WILL GET A COPY

OF THIS. >> YES.

>> IT IS THAT A POLICY CHARGE? WE WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE

CHART. >> SO WE --

>> WELL, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THE CHART. IT'S GREAT. THANK YOU

FOR YOUR WORK. >> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> THE CRITERIA FOR -- THERE'S THE FORCE FROM THE BOTTOM BULLET SAYS POSITIONED ELEMENTS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 25% OF THE PROJECT , KNOW THAT THAT WOULD REALLY -- KIND OF WHAT WE ARE DOING . THE STANDALONE UNITS , 10%. 15 TO 25%. I JUST THINK THAT THAT'S NOT IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE CHANGE TO THE OVERALL

HOUSING . >>

] >> WHICH I AGREE WITH COMPLETELY, JUST THE HOUSING POLICY , JUST MAKE SURE -- CONCERN. HOWEVER THAT THEN, CHAPTER 5, IT'S THE CHAPTER 5 , SUB ITEM C, I BELIEVE. WHICH IS TALKING ABOUT REBATES ON

[01:40:05]

ARE NOT OPPOSED TO THOSE THINGS BUT CHARTING THE COURSE TO -- AND THEN, UNDER CHAPTER 6 IT'S GOING TO BE ITEM H AND -- H 9 .

VOLUME ]

>> THERE WE GO. YEAH, IT IS UNDER CH FIVE YEAH. THAT IS WHERE, AGAIN, TALKING ABOUT ENCOURAGING ENERGY ADOPTION, SUSTAINABLE PRACTICES AND ITEM I TALKS ABOUT THE IMPLEMENTATION FOR RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES , FOR OTHER RENEWABLE ENERGY RESOURCES. JUST KNOW IF THESE INCENTIVES ARE ANYTHING TO TALK ABOUT AND THAT IS THE END OF MY NOTES.

>> COUNCIL, I FEEL LIKE THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF FEEDBACK, ESPECIALLY MINOR ADJUSTMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE. I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE, WE'VE HAD OUR PUBLIC HEARING , I'M GOING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE BRING THIS BACK FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND SEE WHAT ADJUSTMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE SO WE CAN -- CHECKS AND BALANCES.

>> YEP. THAT SOUNDS GREAT. >> COUNCIL, WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT? THANK YOU, DANIEL, FOR THE PRESENTATION.

>> I TELL YOU WHAT, COUNCIL. TAKE A LITTLE BREAK. WE WILL RUN TO THE RESTROOM AND THEN COME BACK AT 7:50. IT'S NOW 7:52. -- 7:42.

[2024-370 ]

>> ALL RIGHT, IT IS 7:50. I CALL US BACK INTO SESSION HERE.

[2024-371 ]

CHRIS, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THIS ONE?

>> YES, JUST KIND OF OUTLINING THIS THERE'S FIVE CURRENT APPOINTED POSITIONS FOR THIS BOARD SO YOU CAN MAKE UP TO FIVE NOMINATIONS . ALL FIVE OF THE CURRENT APPOINTEES ARE SEEKING TO BE RENOMINATED SO YOU CAN REAPPOINT TO THOSE FIVE OR YOU CAN PICK A FIVE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT PEOPLE OR MIX IT UP HOWEVER YOU WANT. THIS IS THE FIRST STEP ALONG WITH ALL THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES THAT ANY FUTURE MEETING WE WOULD COME BACK AND ACTUALLY CAST THE CITY'S VOTE FOR ONE OR MORE OF THE PEOPLE ON THE BALLOT. SO, AGAIN, THIS IS A FIRST STEP IN THE PROCESS TO APPOINT BOARD MEMBERS.

>> ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE NAMES YOU WOULD LIKE TO THROUGHOUT THEIR , LISTING IT

NOW -- TO THROW OUT THERE . >> THERE NOMINATIONS?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. I'M JUST NOT AWARE IF THEY WOULD NOMINATE THEM. FOR MYSELF, I WILL JUST SPEAKER MYSELF I'M RECOMMENDING THE SAME FIVE NAMES THAT WERE THERE EARLIER.

ANOTHER NAME TO ADD TO THAT LIST AND AS WAS MENTIONED AT A LATER MEETING, DISTRIBUTE DISTRIBUTE OUR 400 , 408 VOTES BETWEEN WHATEVER CANDIDATES ARE LISTED. THIS WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MAIN LIST . IN THE PAST, WE'VE HAD SOME

[01:45:05]

THERE FOR THE NEXT YEAR. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER. PLEASE

VOTE. AND THAT PASSES, 7-0. >> ALL RIGHT.

[2024-372 ]

>> OPENING ITEM, 24-372, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE -- IN AN AMOUNT OF 113,629 AND $.68 PLUS CONTINGENCY AN AMOUNT OF $40,000 TO THE AMOUNT OF 153 $600 AND $.68.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. EVERY NOW AND THEN YOU HAVE PROJECTS THAT YOU HAVE BEEN WANTING TO GET DONE SO THIS WILL ACTUALLY INVOLVE , WHICH IS LOCATED OFF THE WEST SIDE THERE. THE INSTALLATION OF THE GRAVITY TO DOVE CREEK TO THE ORIGINAL STATION THAT WAS ORIGINALLY BUILT BY THE CREEK. WE DID RECEIVE OPEN BIDS ON AUGUST 6TH AND THE NINE THAT WE RECEIVED, LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER IN THE AMOUNT OF 913,006 $29.68 AND WITH THAT, I WOULD NINE OR $13,629.68 --

>> THIS IS ONE OF MY MORE , MOST FAVORITE RECOMMENDATIONS REFERENCES THE SEVEN CREW MEMBERS . YOU KNOW , MY CONCERN HERE IS THE CONSULTANT SAID HEY, WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE BECAUSE DAN IN HIS SEVEN PERMITS STARTS LIKE A -- BUT THERE'S NOTHING CONTRACTUALLY THAT SAYS THE ELITE CREW OF SEVEN FIRST SEWER LINE INSTALLATION IS ACTUALLY GOING. THEY SAY THEY ARE GOING TO ASSIGN THEM BUT IS THAT CONTRACTUAL BECAUSE MY FEAR IS THE PREVIOUS QUARTER WAS WELL KNOWN , HE LEAVES THIS COMPANY , WE ARE STILL STUCK WITH THE GUYS THAT AREN'T THE GUYS THAT WE WANT DOING THE PROJECT.

>> SO, THE SIX MEMBERS .

>> THE PREDICATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT IT'S BASED UPON THIS ONE GENTLEMAN AND SEVEN CREW MEMBERS. THEY

HAD CONCERNS . >> YES, SIR.

>> LOW BIDDER, QUALIFYING >> YES, SO WHAT WE DID IS WE ACTUALLY HAD AND SAT DOWN WITH THEM, AS WELL, BECAUSE THE THING WAS THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE. THEY HAD NO WORK EXPERIENCE, THEY HAD SOME UTILITY EXPENSE BUT THEY DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE SO WHEN WE DO THIS, AGAIN, THE WAY WE HAVE THIS STRUCTURE IS THE LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER SO WE GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.

>> THAT IS WHERE I AM HANGING ON. THE LOWEST QUALIFIED BIDDER AND THE RECOMMENDATION, THIS BIDDER WAS QUALIFIED.

>> THAT'S BASED OFF OF PAST EXPERIENCE.

>> AND AGAIN, THIS ISN'T ONE WHERE, WE ACTUALLY CAN GO THROUGH AND YOU CAN RANK THEM AND YOU CAN. BASED ON EXPERIENCE, THE COST, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. THIS WAS NOT SET UP LIKE THAT ON THIS PARTICULAR DAY.

>> SIR, WHO IS -- THE DESIGN CONSULTANT.

>> ARE THEY THE ONES THAT WOULD HAVE AND THEY PRESENTED THESE

TO US, CORRECT? >> WE ARE A PART OF THAT BUT

YES. >> BUT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING IS , YOU KNOW, FEEDBACK, REFERENCES , EVALUATING -- PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH THE LOW BIDDER PREVIOUS PROJECTS AND THE FEEDBACK WAS NOT GOOD. SPECIFICALLY CONTACTED FOR ADDITIONAL REFERENCES FOR A EMPLOYEE OF THIS COMPANY THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY NOT IN THOSE PROJECTS AND THEY SAY BECAUSE OF HIS EXPERIENCE THAT THEY RECOMMEND THE CITY , THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTOR SO THEIR CONCLUSION OF THEIR

[01:50:01]

ACTUALLY GOING TO DO IT. >> QUESTIONS CONCERNING TO ME.

IT MAY BE STATE LAW. IF IT IS, IF -- IF IT IS, IT'S STUPID.

THE WHOLE CONCLUSION OF THIS LETTER, THE DESIGN FIRM THAT WE HIRED TO CHIPPER THIS PROJECT IS AS LONG AS DAN IS THERE IS OKAY BUT WE ARE NOT CONTRACTING WITH DAN THAT HE'S ALREADY ALL OF HIS GOOD WORK WAS ALREADY -- MAYBE THAT'S OKAY TO EVERYONE

ELSE . >> WILL KIND OF OVERSIGHT DO WE

HAVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS? >> WE HAVE INSPECTION ON A DAILY BASIS SO THEY WILL BE OUT THERE BEING DEALT WITH ON A DAILY BASIS. WE ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO HAVE PUBLIC WORKS, UTILITIES INVOLVED, AS WELL. JUST BECAUSE WHEN THIS PROJECT IS DONE, THEY WILL TAKE IT OVER AND THEY WILL MAINTAIN IT AND BE RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. WE ALSO HAVE TO -- AND WE WILL BE

INVOLVED WITH THAT, AS WELL. >> WITH THOSE CONCERNS, CAN WE NOT JUST GO WITH ANOTHER CONTRACTOR?

>> NO. THIS WAS DONE AT THE LOWEST -- IT HAS TO BE AWARDED

TO THE LOWEST -- >> CAN WE GET -- CAN'T WE JUST

DO THIS AGAIN? >> YES, WE CAN START THE

PROCESS ALL OVER THEN. >> AND HAD SOME REQUIREMENT

THAT CONCLUDES OUR CONCERNS? >> YOU HAVE TO -- CORRECT.

>> BUT FOR WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, EXPERIENCING --

>> HOW MUCH DOES IT COST TO BID ON A PROJECT?

>>

>> OVERALL, THIS IS WHAT THE OVERALL DESIGN .

>> BUT THE BIDDING PROCESS. >> IT'S ALSO SENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A HUGE COST. AGAIN, WE ACTUALLY SET WITH THE CONTRACTOR, AS WELL. WE KIND OF WAIT A LITTLE BIT SO WE ACTUALLY BROUGHT IN, THEY WERE TALKING TO CONTRACTORS. THE THING ABOUT THIS --

>> WITH DAN? >> YES, THEY BROUGHT IN THE SUPERINTENDENT, AND THE OWNER, AS WELL. WITH THIS BEING, AGAIN, IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROJECT. IT'S NOT AS TECHNICAL AS OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AT , ELECTRICAL AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO AFTER OUR DISCUSSIONS , AS WELL, IF THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD. FROM OUR MEETING WITH THEM, YOU CAN DO THAT, AS WELL.

>> BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF DAN. >> THEY ALSO HAVE A CREW THAT COMES ALONG. IT'S NOT JUST THE SUPERINTENDENT, BUT ALSO, THEY HAVE OVER 20 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE, AS WELL.

>> YOU ARE ALL GOOD. >> I'M VERY CONFIDENT. THE PROJECT IS A TECHNICAL PROJECT BUT IT'S VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT . I WILL SAY THAT , YOU KNOW, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE WORK TEAM WILL BE MONITORED WHAT , WE DO ADDRESS THESE CONTRACTORS. WE EXPECT A LOT OF THINGS AND EVEN THOUGH IT'S ON A HIGHLY -- ROADWAY , YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE LOOKING.

ANY CURRENT WEATHER OR I THINK THE CONFIDENCE FROM THE OWNER THAT CAME IN, AS WE SAT DOWN AT THE ROUNDTABLE , THEY ARE HUNGRY AND THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. TO MAKE SURE IT'S GOING TO BE DONE. I THINK I'M CONFIDENT .

>> UTILITY ADVISER. >> WE ARE STILL DOING THE CHECKING SO WE WILL MAKE SURE WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY .

>> MIKE, YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? >> HOW TIME SENSITIVE IN THIS

PROJECT? >> IS NOT REALLY A TIME SENSITIVE. IT'S ONLY WE HAVE TO HAVE DONE BUT IT'S NOT CRITICAL. IT HAS TO BE DONE BY CERTAIN DATE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE 120 DAYS AS PROVIDED IN THE CONTRACT.

>> FROM THE CONCEPT OF THIS CONVERSATION, IS IT TIME

SENSITIVE TO GET INTO THAT? >> WELL, WHAT WILL END UP

[01:55:03]

HIGHER THAN WE HAVE. >> I THINK, AT LEAST FOR ME, IF Y'ALL FEEL CONFIDENT, I MEAN , I THINK ADDING THAT INFORMATION IN, I WOULD APPRECIATE Y'ALL SHARING. I THINK IF Y'ALL FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT, I WILL VOTE ON IT. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE

. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MEMBER FROM COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN, SECOND

[2024-373 ]

MIKE. >> CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SIX MONTH CONTRACT WITH THE CITY OF OVILLA FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES

RESPONSE AND TRANSPORT. >> I JUST GET OUT OF HERE. I'VE GOT TWO CONTRACTS. I'M SCARED RIGHT NOW. SO BEFORE YOU TONIGHT ON THE AGENDA ITEMS IS AN EXTENSION THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WITH THE CITY OF OVILLA, THE CURRENT CONTRACT EXPIRES THIS MONTH . THE CITY OF OVILLA IS IN THE PROCESS OF , AND THE SERVICES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED OUR EMS TRANSPORT FOR THE CITY OF OVILLA . WE HAVE DONE THAT FOR DECADES NOW AND THEY ARE AT THE POINT THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO INITIATE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS WHERE THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN EMS TRANSFER SERVICE FUNDED BY THE CITY OF OVILLA IN THE PARTNERSHIP . RIGHT NOW, WE ARE PROJECTING THAT TO HAPPEN IN APRIL, OR THEY ARE, AND SO THIS CONTRACT IS A SIX MONTH CONTRACT TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES THAT WE PROVIDE TODAY UNTIL APRIL 1ST OF NEXT YEAR AND THAT WOULD BE GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE IF THEY WERE READY TO TAKE ON THAT SERVICE FULLY I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OF THE CITY OF OVILLA VILLA

>> CHIEF, I HAVE ONE QUESTION .

>> IN THE BUDGET PROCESS. >> I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN.

A HALF A YEAR. IT WON'T HURT US .

>> THIS CONVERSATION -- THEY ARE DOING A GREAT JOB OVER THERE PREPARING.

>> MY COMMENT OR QUESTION FOR YOU , MY NEXT COMMENT WAS ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO PREPARE WHERE WE ARE. IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE IN APRIL?

>> THERE'S A POSSIBILITY THAT THE CITY OF OVILLA, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY PUBLICLY ANNOUNCED IT. THE FIRE CHIEF POSITION, WHICH WILL BE THE FIRST FULLY PAID FIRE CHIEF POSITION AND THEN BETWEEN NOW AND APRIL 1ST , THEY WOULD HAVE TO HIRE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE, TRAIN THOSE PEOPLE, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WILL BE TRAINED IN OUR ORGANIZATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO CREATE THEIR OWN FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS. WE ARE GOING TO BE TRAIN THEIR FIELD TRAINING OFFICERS SO THEY HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE AND TRAINING.

THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THERE. THE CONTRACT ITSELF HAS A CLAUSE IN IT TO SAY THAT IF THEY ARE NOT READY, THEN THAT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY REMOVE THE AGREEMENT FOR SIX MONTHS AT THE RATE THAT WE ARE BEING COMPENSATED FOR IN THE FIRST SIX MONTHS AND THEN THERE IS A 30 DAY KICK OUT CLAUSE THEY CAN COME TO US TO MONTH LATER AND SAY WE ARE READY LET'S GO AHEAD AND GET THE CONTRACT. MOTION?

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

[2024-374 (Part 1 of 2)]

>> CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A MULTIYEAR CONTRACT WITH ELLIS COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT NUMBER TWO TO PROVIDE FIRE AND EMS RESPONSE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL ONCE AGAIN. THE AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU IS SOMETHING THAT HAS COME UP ON AN ANNUAL BASIS NOW FOR MANY YEARS. THE ESD CONTRACT, A DELIVERY TO THE ESD AND THE CAPACITY OF FIRE AND EMS RESPONSE., THE CONTRACT THAT IS BEFORE YOU IS A MULTIYEAR SUGGESTION ON THE ESD'S PART. THREE-YEAR COMMITMENT AND THEN A TWO ONE YEAR ADD-ONS IF BOTH PARTIES AGREE . THE CONTRACT ITSELF

[02:00:07]

THAT HELPS US HOW WE DISPATCH. THERE ARE EIGHT BOXES THAT ARE BETWEEN US AND THE CITY THAT ARE CONSIDERED TO BE IN THE ESD. THOSE EIGHT BOXES WITHIN SHIFT -- WOULD THEN SHIFT TO THE THE PRIMARY AMBULANCE RESPONDED TO THOSE BOXES FOR EMS RESPONSE. WE WOULD CONTINUE TO BACK THEM UP ON A SECONDARY BASIS , IT WOULD BE OF MUTUAL AID AND SO IN ESSENCE, IN APRIL OF NEXT YEAR , THE VALUE OF I GUESS OUR CONTRACT WILL INCREASE BECAUSE OUR CALL VOLUME WILL DECREASE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT IN SOME OF THOSE AREAS. AND I WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE

PROPOSED ESD CONTRACT. >> IS THE FINAL DEAL THAT WE GOT HERE , IS THAT WHAT WE BUDGETED FOR ORIGINALLY OR WHATEVER WE APPROVED THE BUDGET?

>> SO ORIGINALLY, THEY HAD ONE .1 BILLION AND THEN WE WANTED TO SQUEEZE A LITTLE MORE JUICE AND SO THEY HAD $25,000 MORE

JUICE . JUST ADDED. >> SO THAT IS THE JUICE THAT'S

NOT , THAT'S IN ADDITION TO -- >> IT IS.

>> I DO WANT TO REQUEST A BRIEF EXECUTIVE SESSION .

>> CAN WE GET A MOTION? >> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION I MEMBER TALKING ABOUT -- I DON'T RECALL , IS THAT NEW OR

DID I -- >> THE ESD IS WHAT THEY SENT TO THIS CONTRACT TO US AND SAID THIS IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.

>> IS IT 125 EVERY YEAR? >> THERE'S AN ESCALATION CLAUSE IN THERE AND THE ESCALATION CLAUSE IS BASED ON THE INCREASE SO WHENEVER -- THEY WILL APPLY THAT INCREASE TO OUR CONTRACT IN THE FOLLOWING YEARS.

>> I WAS JUST WONDERING ABOUT THE VEHICLES WAS THAT INCLUDED

? >> THE VEHICLES ARE OWNED BY THE ESD. THEY WERE PURCHASED BY THEM OVER THE COURSE OF SEVERAL YEARS. THE FIRST VEHICLE THEY PURCHASED FOR US WAS OUR 2020 AND THEY DID THAT AS WE WERE FINISHING UP OUR PROJECT AT THE STATION. THAT WAS A WAY THAT THEY COULD HELP WITH THAT PROJECT. THEY BASICALLY BOUGHT US AN AMBULANCE WHICH ALLOWED US TO SPEND SOME OF THOSE DOLLARS AND IN THE BUILDING AS WE WERE ABLE TO DO IN THE END. THE TRAINING CHIEFS VEHICLE AND THE -- ARE OWNED BY THEM. THEY ALLOW US TO USE THEM AS OUR EMERGENCY VEHICLES. IF WE WERE TO STOP THE CONTRACT, THE WAY THE CONTRACT READS IS WE WOULD RE-EVALUATE WHAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS FOR THOSE VEHICLES AND REIMBURSE THE ESD

FOR THAT. >> SO THESE ARE -- GOING TO

CONTINUE. >> THEY ARE MAKING DEBT

PAYMENTS ON THOSE RIGHT NOW. >> SO THESE ARE NOT --

>> WE WOULD HAVE NEED -- WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED TO PURCHASE THOSE VEHICLES, WE WOULD INCUR THE COST TODAY.

>> THE COST OF THOSE VEHICLES. CORRECT.

>> SO I MEAN WHEN WE ARE LOOKING AT THE ESCALATOR CLAUSE A MULTIYEAR AGREEMENT I DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S BASED UPON WHAT WE ARE DOING RIGHT. SO IT'S THE PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN CALL

[02:05:01]

>> THE ONLY THING THAT I MIGHT ADD TO THAT AND I MY PERSONALLY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER IS THAT THEY, AS FAR AS THE CAP, THEY CANNOT GO ABOVE A CERTAIN RATE, AS FAR AS THEIR $.10 AND SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEIR SALES TAX IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE. THEY ARE NOT GOING TO GET ANY OF THAT REVENUE UNTIL MARCH OF NEXT YEAR AND SO I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT THAT ESCALATION MAY BE IN SALES TAX THAT THEY GET AN ADDITIONAL VEHICLE THAT PRINTS REVENUE BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHATEVER COMES IN, THEY ARE SENDING OUT IS BEEN THE BASIC PLAN THAT WE

WERE FOLLOWING FOR YEARS. >> I'M NOT TRYING TO CHANGE THAT . WHAT I'M SAYING IS THERE'S A METRIC BY WHICH WE GET THE COST . IF WE ARE DOING A MULTIYEAR AND, TO ME, THE MEASUREMENT IS BASED UPON THE INCREASE IN CALL VOLUME NOT THE INCREASE IN REVENUE. WE ARE MEASURING APPLES AND SEPARATING

ORANGES. >> HISTORICALLY, AND I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER SPECIFICALLY IN FRONT OF ME RIGHT NOW BUT I WOULD SAY WE AVERAGE ABOUT 5 TO 6% INCREASE IN THOSE CALL

VOLUMES. >> ABSOLUTELY.

>> THERE'S MORE EXCLUSIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY FOR WHAT THOSE FACTORS MIGHT BE TO CHANGE VERY QUICKLY WALKING OURSELVES BEHIND THE BELL CURVE. THE VALUE IS NOT GOING TO HINGE ON THE SERVICE HITS. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?

>> INSTEAD OF WRITING THE CREST. FOR ME, IF COUNCIL DOESN'T WANT TO -- THE ESCALATOR BE BASED ON -- MIKE?

>> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT. IT COULD BE VERY EASY FOR US TO RUN A FIRE TRUCK IN WHATEVER LENGTH OF TIME AND FOR OUR ANGLING SERVICE. BUT THEY CAN'T DO THAT BECAUSE THEY RUN OUT OF TIME. I'M ALL FOR THAT. AT SOME POINT, SOMETHING I CAN'T WRAP MY HEAD AROUND, DEALING WITH PERCENTAGES INSTEAD OF -- SO IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR THIS PROGRAM , WHEN THEY HAVE TO ROLL OUT TO THEIR FOR WE GET TO DECEMBER 31ST, AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE REALLY GOING THROUGH THIS AND 2016 .

WE HAVE TO GET TO A CERTAIN POINT . AT WHAT POINT PROVIDING A SERVICE FOR -- WE ARE REALLY COMING TO A POINT NOW THE CHIEF IS AWARE NEXT 15 YEARS. WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY , BUT SEVERAL RIGHT NOW ARE CONCERNED , NUMBER ONE WE DON'T KNOW , AND FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND , IT COULD GET THE PACE FOR WILL BE MUCH EASIER TO IMPLEMENT THE SPEED OF DEVELOPMENT. WE ALREADY KNOW THAT WE HAVE SEVERAL , THREE TO FOUR OF THESE LARGE DISTRICTS, WE ALREADY KNOW WE HAVE SO THE NEXT TWO TO FIVE YEARS , THIS

[02:10:12]

>> YES. >> WE DO.

>> WE HAVE A COPY THEY PUT TOGETHER. THEY DID NOT HIRE A CONSULTANT. AND I SHARED THAT WITH CHRIS. IT REALLY JUST RESTATES EVERYTHING , I MEAN CHRIS AND I LOOKED AT IT. IT WAS NOW AN OUTSIDE LIPS IS NOT AN OUTSIDE FIRM . THEIR INTERNAL ANALYSIS AND MIRRORED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE DOING TODAY WHICH IS DEVELOPING A SEARCH FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THIS RELATIONSHIP WITH US WAS IN A POSITION WHERE THEY COULD TRUST US AND SO THEY WENT OUT AND BASICALLY GOT THE SALES TAX AND WHAT THEY COULD FUND AND A LISTERS RESPONDED TO THOSE AREAS BETWEEN US . IT DOES NOT ANSWER A LOT OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE STILL AROUND THE COMMUNITY TO OUR WEST AND TO OUR SOUTH BUT THERE IS A DOCUMENT THAT THEY HAVE PRODUCED THAT REALLY DOES NOT , IT DOESN'T , IT SHEDS LIGHT ON BASICALLY EVERYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN THOUGHT UP.

>> I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR IS A PROCESS OF SEVERAL DIFFERENT CHOICES THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE.

CONTINUING THE SAME PROCESS. THAT IS SLOWLY DEVELOPING , IN MY VIEW . SECONDLY, WE TALK ABOUT THE ENDING, IN AN INTERLOCAL STOP THAT THAT WAS PERHAPS A PROCESS YEARLY TO GET TO THAT POINT . IS THIS AND I COULD BE WRONG THE SAME TYPE OF SERVICE THAT WE'VE OFFERED ALL ALONG FROM YEAR TO YEAR AT ITS MOST CRITICAL. AND THE LEGISLATURE ACTION ZERO CONFIDENCE . IS THIS THE SAME CONTRACT FOR THREE YEARS

INSTEAD OF ONE? >> THERE IS NOTHING IN THIS CONTRACT THAT CHANGES THE LANGUAGE ABOUT HOW WE DELIVER SERVICE TO THE ESD. IN MY OPINION, THE THREE-YEAR COMMITMENT , THE INFORMATION THAT I HAVE PRIVY TO ME DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT IN THREE YEARS THAT SERVICE DELIVERY TO THE SOUTH IS GOING TO CHANGE WHAT WE DO TO SIGNIFICANTLY SO THEREFORE, TAKING THE $3 MILLION FOR THE NEXT THREE YEARS AND RE-EVALUATE IN YEAR FOUR.

>> SO WE , JUST SO, I CAN TELL YOU FACTUALLY THERE'S A MAN ON THE FRONT LINES SINCE FEBRUARY TRYING TO DEAL WITH THIS . HOW DO WE DEAL WITH IT? I'M TALKING FACTUAL THAT THEY NEED TO USE THE ESD HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL AND HUGE DEVELOPERS PROCESS . I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ARE AWARE .

>> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

>> THEY DO TAKE YOUR SERVICE VERY SERIOUSLY AND WE CATCH THOSE WAY TO LIGHT. I WOULD SAY THIS THAT IT'S OBVIOUS THAT ONE OF OUR GREATEST EXPENSES OF WHICH THERE IS NO RETURN ON TRUE DOLLAR RETURN ON INVESTMENT FOR OUR SERVICES AND THAT IS EXPECTED. SO THERE'S NO WAY TO ACTUALLY SAY AND WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS FIGURE OUT HOW TO STILL PROVIDE THAT

[02:15:04]

LONG-TERM? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS. AS WE SIT TODAY , THAT IS NOT EVIDENT . IT MAY BE IN FIVE YEARS OR 10 YEARS. I'M NOT ADVOCATING THAT WE SHOULD SERVE THE POPULATION LARGER THAN OUR OWN CITIZENRY OUTSIDE OF OUR CITY LIMITS. I'M JUST ADVOCATING RIGHT NOW THAT WE PROVIDE A SERVICE THAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDING FOR DECADES ON DECADES ON DECADES , TAKING IN THE REVENUE TO OFFSET THE COST FOR OUR CURRENT CITIZENS IN TOWN. AND AS THAT DEVELOPS OUT THERE , EVALUATE WHERE WE ARE AT. AND YOU CAN SAY TODAY, CUT THEM OFF TODAY. WITH PUT THE MILLION DOLLARS OUT THE WINDOW AND PULL THE BAND-AID OFF.

>> YOU DISCUSS THE PROCESS OF THE IDEA AND HOW I UNDERSTAND THE ESD FIRM COMMITMENT. I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR ME IS DOES THIS COUNCIL -- MULTIYEAR AGREEMENT OR ARE WE STICKING WITH THE PLANNED PROCESS OF ONE YEAR?

>> I HAVE TWO LEGAL QUESTIONS.

>> I JUST WANT TO SAY BEFORE WE GO TO EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT I CAN'T IMAGINE, 663 AND APPROVED THIS IS GOING TO BE $35,000. WHICH IS JUST 7000 SHY OF OUR CURRENT BUDGET. IT IS NOT AS THOUGH WE KNOW SO I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE SITTING UP HERE AT ANY POINT IN TIME AND , I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT ME TO

SAY. >> WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET AROUND TO THESE QUESTIONS ANSWERED BEFORE WE GET TO THE

EXECUTIVE SESSION. >> CHIEF, MINE IS MORE JUST ABOUT UNDERSTANDING HOW WE GOT HERE AND THE WORKSHOP ON ESD.

JUST THINKING ABOUT LIKE ALL THAT WE'VE DONE TO DATE AND THE BUDGET WORKSHOP IT FEELS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE --

>> THAT WE ARE PROPOSING A MULTIYEAR --

>> YEAH, SO AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A REASON -- ABOUT

COMING SO -- >> I DIDN'T INVITE THEM. THEY

KNEW IT WAS ON THE AGENDA. >> THAT'S GREAT. I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE GOT HERE. SO WHEN WE COME UP WITH THE PLAN, YOU GUYS ASKED FOR A PLAN LIKE DID THAT AND I MISSED IT OR I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW DO WE TAKE A STEP DOWN PLAN TO ONE YEAR AND NOW, THREE TO FIVE PROPOSALS .

>> I'M PRETTY SURE WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT AT ONE POINT IN THIS MULTIYEAR IDEA. I'M NOT SAYING THE COUNCIL PUSH THAT.

WE DID MENTION -- >> YEAH, IT WAS --

>> THE LAST TIME -- IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, IN DELL'S DEFENSE ON THE MULTIYEAR, WHAT WE SAID IS IF WE ARE GOING TO STICK WITH IT, LET'S NOT DO THIS EVERY YEAR, NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKED LIKE, BUT WE DID GIVE THAT LIKE THERE WAS AT LEAST A COUPLE OF -- I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S THE

MAJORITY OR ANYTHING . >> I DEFINITELY AGREE DEFINITELY NOT A LOT OF CONSENSUS BUT

>> THAT'S BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS.

>> YEAH. AND SO I JUST, I WAS REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THE WORKSHOP, WHICH THAT , I WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO SEEING THE CORRECT INFORMATION FROM THE ESD TEAM OF THE MULTIYEAR STEP DOWN PLAN BECAUSE I WANT TO PULL THE PLUG BUT I DO WANT TO THINK LONG-TERM AND NOW, THIS IS, THEIR CONTRACT ENDS ON

[02:20:03]

MONDAY. >> SO, WE HAVE GONE PAST THE OCTOBER 31ST DATE. NOT LIKE, I MEAN WE OBVIOUS THEY WANT THE CONTRACTS TO BE AUTHORIZED AND RENEWED PRIOR TO THE EXPIRATION DATE AND THE PREVIOUS YEAR, NOT ME, THE PREVIOUS CHIEF HAD SOME NARRATIVES. WE HAD SCENARIOS WHERE WE DID NOT THINK THE CONTRACT LANGE WHICH WAS RIGHT AND WE'VE GONE PAST THAT OCTOBER 1ST DEADLINE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS A HUGE DEAL . TO YOUR POINT, I DON'T THINK THAT ANYBODY, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WERE TRYING TO SNEAK SOMETHING PAST YOU. OBVIOUSLY, THEY WOULD LOVE A LONG-TERM CONTRACT WITH US BECAUSE WE PROVIDE A GOOD SERVICE. WHEN THAT PERIOD , WE HAD A COUPLE OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT, DO YOU RECALL DURING THE LAST BUDGET WORKSHOP, WHEN WE WERE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE ESD IN THE REVENUE AND CAN WE GET MORE JUICE? WE GOT MORE JUICE. CAN WE, COULD WE FIGURE OUT WHETHER THERE WAS CONSENSUS FROM Y'ALL AT THE TIME . IS THERE AN OPTION FOR A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT OR NOT AN OPTION? AND WE DECIDED THAT THEY PRESENTED THIS AS A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT. WE DID NOT HAVE CONCISE DIRECT CONVERSATION FROM Y'ALL TO SAY WE ARE NOT DOING A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT. THAT IS WHY YOU ARE LOOKING AT A THREE-YEAR CONTRACT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE ESD WILL TAKE A ONE-YEAR CONTRACT, IF THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL'S WILL IS. THEY WILL BE BACK NEXT YEAR. HOPEFULLY WE CAN CONTINUE THAT RELATIONSHIP. SO, I MEAN HOPEFULLY THAT

ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> I ASK THIS QUESTION AND I'M GOING TO ASK IT AGAIN. STILL TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND THIS. TO BE CLEAR TO ME, RIGHT NOW, THE CHIEF , DONE. YOU ARE

STILL GOING -- >> WILL STILL BE OUT HERE.

>> SO I GUESS TO THAT POINT I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH ALL THE STUFF, TO BE THE COUNTERARGUMENT JUST TAKE THE MILLION DOLLARS ANYWAYS. WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT DISCUSSION.

WE'VE AGREED UPON THE IDEA THIS YEAR AND SO I REALLY DON'T -- ON THAT DISCUSSION. BUT ALSO , JUST TO BE REAL CLEAR BECAUSE ONCE WE GO TO EXECUTIVE ORDER --

>> I WOULD JUST -- BEEN SAYING, JUST CAN'T -- I THINK THAT WE ARE ENTERING INTO A VERY DIVERSE SITUATION. UNEXPECTED ROLLING START TO GET THE NEEDS OUT THERE OR SOMEONE TRAPPED IN FOR -- I THINK IF WE CAN AN AUDITED AMOUNT BY OUR OWN HOURLY RATE. I'M HEARING THEY CAN'T DO THAT. I KNOW WITHOUT A DOUBT -- INDISCERNIBLE - LOW VOLUME ] BUT TWO OR THREE YEARS OF

HOURLY SERVICE, WE WON'T -- >> YEAH, I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE STRUCTURE OF A MULTIYEAR AGREEMENT PLAN. I WOULD LIMIT THE FIRST TERM TO TWO YEARS , 365 DAY KICK OUT. THERE'S NO OBLIGATION . ESSENTIALLY A TWO YEAR PERIOD WITH A ONE-YEAR KICK OUT AT THE AGREEMENT SO IT'S NOMINALLY A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT , FUNDING SCENARIO BUT FOR KICK OUTS, EVERY YEAR BUT, LIKE I SAID, A THREE ONE-YEAR OPTION PREDICATED UPON NOT ON THE INCREASE OTHERWISE, WE DO THIS AGAIN EVERY YEAR. I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS. I HAD THE SAME CONCERNS . IT'S PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE EIGHT TO 10 YEAR WHERE WE HAVE TO MAKE A STRONG JUDGMENT CALL SPECIFICALLY TARGETING AND

[02:25:05]

>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS THAT AREN'T -- WE WILL COME BACK AND TAKE ACTION AFTER. ANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED AND WE WILL RUN THROUGH ALL OF OUR EXAMPLES. THE ONLY THING IT WOULD COST THIS YEAR TO THE CALL VOLUME IS THE SIX MONTHS .

THE CALL VOLUME I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S GOING TO OFFSET THE REST . DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BECAUSE THEY ARE RIGHT THERE

NOW BUT -- >> IN THEORY, IT WOULD BE BOX BY BOX. YOU CHANGE THE DENOMINATOR , TWO BOXES COMPLETELY . THE OTHER, YOU SEND 10 BOXES.

>> WE WILL LOSE ABOUT 100 RUNS ANTICIPATED.

>> HOW MANY BOXES ARE WE TALKING?

>> INCLUDING WHAT -- WILL TAKE , INCLUDING ESD, RIGHT NOW.

>> I NEED TO LOOK AT MY MATH AND DETERMINE THAT.

>> NOT THE NUMBER. >> TOTAL BOXES FOR THE CITY.

>> IN ESD. >> EIGHT.

>> AND THEY WILL GO TO SEVEN. OR THEY WILL GO TO SIX.

>> ALL EIGHT OF THOSE WILL BE THE PRIMARY EMS RESPONSE.

>> OKAY, BUT WE DON'T -- THAT WOULD BE --

>> 284 RUNS IS WHAT WE RAN IN THOSE BOXES LAST YEAR.

>> THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ASKING. YOU HAVE EIGHT UP IN OVILLA.

>> I JUST NEED, I CAN'T, WITHOUT LOOKING WHERE THE CITY

LINE DIVIDES THEM. >> EVERYONE IS TAKING THEM. NOT ON THE ONES THAT ARE -- EASY TO CONTRACTUALLY. WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THEY WERE NOT RELATED AND THIS ISSUE, NEXT , THAT'S THE PERCENTAGE . AND THAT IS WHAT -- MULTIYEAR

AGREEMENT. >> HOW ARE YOU RUNNING THOSE COSTS? THE REQUIREMENTS OF SERVICE ARE GETTING A FURTHER

DISTANCE OUT. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO , AND THAT'S THE BIGGEST PROBLEM. PUNCHING IN, PUNCHING OUT. 28 MILES TO GET TO IT WE PUNCHED IN THE CAN'T

LET YOU DO IT. >> I APPRECIATE IT. IT HAS NO -- GRIEVANCE. IT IS TRULY LOOKING AT THAT FEED BASED UPON -- INCREASES . THAT'S IT. THE COST IS --

>> OKAY. WE'LL PICK THIS UP AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION. AGAIN, WITHIN EXECUTIVE -- OF A LEGAL NATURE, BUT WHILE WE ARE THERE

[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]

READ THOSE INTO THE RECORD. CITY COUNCIL WILL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF TEXAS

[02:30:02]

>> WE ARE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. 10:03 P.M., A REMINDER

[2024-374 (Part 2 of 2)]

CHIEF? I WOULD LIKE TO BE EFFICIENT, WE HAVE DEBATED THE TOPIC FOR MULTIPLE YEARS AND I WANT TO REMIND COUNCIL WE DID DISCUSS THE BUDGET PROCESS, THE IDEA OF CONTINUING THE CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR. THEY HAVE BROUGHT BACK A CONTRACT LONG-TERM . I

OPENED THE DISCUSSION BACK UP. >> I HAVE A MOTION.

>> ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, THE PROPOSAL I BELIEVE ROSS MENTIONED RELATED TO THE INCREASE, CALCULATED WILL , FEASIBLE , I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT WORD, IS IT POSSIBLE COME IN SOME FORM OR FASHION TO STRUCTURE THE INCREASE FOR THE CONSECUTIVE YEARS, IN A WAY THAT HE WAS PROPOSING.

>> IT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD PROBABLY NEED TO CALCULATE.

BASED ON RECENT EVALUATIONS , THAT RATE OF GROWTH IS PROBABLY A LARGE OR LARGER THAN THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE IN COST.

THAT COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE. WE COULD GET A NUMBER

DIALED IN. >> JUST SAY THE HIGHER OF THE TWO NUMBERS. STAYING AHEAD OF THE CURVE.

>> ANNA? >> COMMENT THAT MAY BE BASED ON THE MOTION SO CAN WE MAKE SURE WE PAUSE?

>> IS THERE A MOTION? >>

>> I WILL SECOND IT. I WANT TO SEE, EITHER WHAT THEY RECOMMENDED BASED ON THE MULTI-YEAR, OR COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE NEED TO BRING IN. I THINK ABOUT THE AUDITS, PAY FOR CONSULTANTS ON THE POLICE SIDE. THINK LONGER TERM, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE COME BACK TO THAT. SO WE ARE NOT DOING THIS EVERY SINGLE YEAR.

>> THIS IS ONLY A REQUEST. THAT THE ESD WOULD BRING BACK A PRESENTATION ON WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE A MULTIYEAR PROGRAM. I WOULD NOT CALL IT A PHASEOUT. INTERLOCAL AGREE STATUS, THAT

IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE. >> A MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM MR. RODGERS TO APPROVE THE CONTRACT FOR ONE YEAR. SECONDED

[02:35:01]

BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMONDS. >> SO, MY ONLY COMMENT, I DON'T THINK THE THINGS WE ARE ASKING FOR, WOULD NEED TO OCCUR IN THE NEXT YEAR. THAT MEANS WE WILL GO THROUGH ALL OF THIS AGAIN. SO, TAKE THAT IN MIND WHEN YOU VOTE.

>> STILL A NEGOTIATION PIECE. MOTION HAS BEEN MADE AND SECONDED. PASSES, 5-2. THANK YOU, CHIEF. SEVERAL EXECUTIVE

[2024-376 ]

>> CITY MANAGER BEATRICE TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE A 0.11 TWO ACRE TRACT , AND A 0.128 ACRE TRACT FOR A PERMANENT WATER LINE EASEMENT, AND A 0.121 ACRE FOR A CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ABSTRACT 1096 .

ASSOCIATION WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THE MOCKINGBIRD LANE ROAD PROJECT FOR A PURCHASE PRICE OF $42,500 PLUS CLOSING COSTS. THE CITY MANAGER IS FURTHER AUTHORIZED TO EXECUTE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WITH DOCUMENTS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED AND THE TITLE COMPANY TO CLOSE THE TRANSACTION.

>> MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHUFFIELD. VOTE. PASSES, 7-0. WE HAVE NO ACTION

[2024-379]

>> TO APPROVE . >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.