Apr 08, 2025 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation]

[00:00:22]

>> GOOD EVENING. COUNCILMAN SHUFFFIELD IS ON HIS WAY.

COUNCILMAN ROGERS IS ON HIS WAY. >>> DEAR LORD, WE ARE BLESSED TO BE HERE THIS EVENING TO BE PART OF A FREE COUNTRY AND BE TO ABLE TO CONDUCT OURSELVES IN A MANNER THAT HOPEFULLY MEETS THE NEEDS OF OUR COMMUNITY. WE ASK YOU TO LOOK OVER OUR COMMUNITY AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE MANY PRAYER REQUESTS UNMENTIONED WE WILL NEED YOUR OVERSIGHT. WE ASK, LORD, YOU WOULD BE WITH ALL THE FIRST RESPONDERS AND WE ARE THANKFUL FOR THEIR SERVICE TO OUR COMMUNITY, LORD, WE ASK YOU BLESS OUR COUNTRY AS A WHOLE.

AND EACH AND EVERY ONE US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT WE HANDLE OURSELVES AND CARRY OURSELVES IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE WORTHY OF YOUR SIGHT. IN JESUS' NAME WE PRAY, AMEN.

>> 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. PROTECT THIS FLAG. TEXAS. ONE

[2025-096]

STATE, UNDER GOD. >> THANK YOU COUNCILMAN RODGERS.

WE BEGIN WITH CITY COUNCIL TO REPORT ON ANY ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. ANYBODY LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT ANYTHING GOING ON? I WOULD LIKE TO MENTION BRIEFLY NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK, APRIL 6TH THROUGH 12TH WHERE WE CELEBRATE OUR LIBRARY. 2025 CELEBRATES AND MARKS THE 67TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE FIRST NATIONAL LIBRARY WEEK. THIS YEAR'S THEME IS CALLED DRAWN TO THE LIBRARIES SO OUR HOPE IS OUR COMMUNITY IS DRAWN TO USE AND MAXIMIZE OUR LIBRARY. WE HAVE A FANTASTIC LIBRARIAN AND STAFF AND WE PRAY THEY CAN'T TO SERVE THE COMMUNITY WELL IN THAT CAPACITY. SO ALL OF MIDLOTHIAN IS INVITED TO JOIN US AT THE

[2025-097]

LIBRARY. >>> WE WILL MOVE ONTO 2025-097.

CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. TO SPEAK ON ANY TOPIC NOT ON ANY HEARING.

CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A CITIZENS FORM. AND

[CONSENT AGENDA]

NONE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE TO ENTERTAIN AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY MAYOR PRO TIM.

MULTIPLE SECONDS. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 5- 0. MOVING TO OUR

[2025-099 ]

ALL RIGHT. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS REQUEST IS TO ALLOW AN SUP FOR A GASOLINE STORE RETAIL SALES ON 1.65 ACRES. THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS THIS AS LOCAL RETAIL.

AND YOU SUPPORT SEVERAL OF THE STRATEGIES, CROSS ACCESS OF

[00:05:06]

THEY ARE ASKING FOR ONE PARKING VARIANT TO ALLOW MORE THAN THE 25% ALLOWED IN THE ORDINANCE. THIS IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH OTHER CONVENIENT STORES IN THE AREA. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A SIGN VARIANCE TO ALLOW TWO SIDES OF THE BUILDING TO HAVE SIGNAGE WHICH ARE THE ONES THAT FACE STREETS. SO, THIS IS A SIGNAGE PLAN THAT THEY INCLUDED. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER 7/11S , ONE WE RECENTLY APPROVED IN WEST SIDE PRESERVE. INCLUDING PITCH ROOF SO THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF THE RESIDENTIAL CHARACTER BROUGHT INTO THE ARCHITECTURE. SO FOR LANDSCAPE AND SCREENING, THERE IS AN EIGHT FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL. LIGHT WILL BE DOWNCAST AND SHIELDED. THE LANDSCAPE IS 25% OF THE SITE WHICH EXCEEDS THE REQUIREMENTS. AND ADDITIONAL SHRUBS ARE BEING PLANTED ON THE BUFFER TO THE SOUTH. 22 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED SIX OPPOSITION LETTERS AND ONE SUPPORT LETTER, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP. THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED DENIAL 7-0 AT THE MARCH MEETING. ARE THERE

QUESTIONS? >> I'M SURE THERE WILL BE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THE DID ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING SIGN UP TO SPEAK OUTSIDE OF THE APPLICANT?

>> JOHN KNIGHT. >> MR. KNIGHT, WELCOME, COME ON UP, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.

>> I LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS BUT KNOW EACH OF YOU AND VERY INVOLVED IN MIDLOTHIAN. THREE REALLY IMPORTANT REASONS THAT I SUPPORT THIS AND TWO OF THEM ARE MY TEENAGE BOYS THAT GO TO HERITAGE. FOR SOME REASON BOYS ARE JUST REALLY BAD DRIVERS. I UNDERSTAND WHY THE INSURANCE RATES ARE DIFFERENT FOR BOYS THAN GIRLS. I KNOW ALL OF Y'ALL HAVE EITHER TEENAGERS THAT ARE DRIVING OR WILL DRIVE. BY BOYS DRIVE TO THAT SCHOOL EVERY DAY. IT WOULD BE NICE FOR THEM TO STOP THERE AND GET GAS VERSUS GOING THROUGH THE CURVE DOWN MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY AND CROWDED MAIN STREET. THAT'S TWO REASONS AND MY AUNT RECENTLY MOVED TO REDDEN FARMS AND SHE IS 75 YEARS OLD. SHE IS MIDLOTHIAN'S NEWEST TAXPAYERMENT SHE JUST MOVED IN FEBRUARY. I SAID DID YOU LIKE IT? SHE SAID I DO, BUT I MISS THE CONVENIENCE OF EVERYTHING. SHE LIVED AT A PRETTY, SHE LIVED IN A NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT SHE WAS A COUPLE OF MILES AWAY FROM EVERYTHING. SHE SAYS NOW I HAVE TO DRIVE A LONG WAYS. TEN MINUTES IS NOT A LONG WAY, BUT IT IS FOR SOMEBODY WHO HAS DRIVEN THREE MINUTES THEIR WHOLE LIFE. SHE LIKES THE COMMUNITY AND THE ACCESS AND THE ENVIRONMENT. BUT SHE IS IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS AS WELL AS SOMEBODY WHO IS 75 YEARS OLD WITH MOBILITY ISSUES. HOPEFULLY WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN. THANK

[00:10:02]

YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU JOHN. ANY OTHER

SPEAKERS? >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 5-0. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, YOU CAN MAKE A PRESENTATION OR STAND FOR QUESTION AS NEEDED. THERE YOU

GO. >> HI. MY NAME IS MATTHEW SMITH.

MY ADDRESS IS 1800 MACON STREET. I HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO ADD. JUST POINTING BACK TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION IS LOCAL RETAIL. AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE INTENDED USE OF LOCAL RETAIL IS TO PROVIDE MIDLOTHIAN RESIDENTS WITH NEARBY SERVICES AND ESTABLISHMENTS. ALONG HIGHLY TRAVELED THOROUGHFARES. WITH THIS BEING A PLANNED THOROUGHFARE OF A MAJOR ARTERIAL AND MINOR ARTERIAL, WE BELIEVE THIS FITS IN VERY NICELY. THE IDEA IS TO PROVIDE AN CONVENIENT ALTERNATIVE TO THE ALREADY CONGESTED WALNUT GROVE INTERSECTION. JUST TO THE EAST. TO THAT POINT, A CAPTURE OF EXISTING TRAFFIC. WHAT IS ALREADY EXISTING. AS MS. ELLIOT POINTED OUT, WE HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF. WE DIDN'T WANT TO BRING ANYTHING THAT THE STAFF DID NOT FULLY SUPPORT. SO WE WORKED WITH STAFF DILIGENTLY TO PROVIDE THE BUILD OUT. IT DOES NOT IMPACT OUR LANDSCAPES OR ANY REQUIREMENTS BY THE CITY. AS WELL AS THE EXISTING REDDEN FARMS SIGN SO THEY CAN INCLUDE THAT ENTRY FEATURE. THE CURRENT IMPROVEMENT AS SHOWN HERE IS RIGHT HAND TURN NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND. LEFT HAND TURN IF YOU ARE HEADED EASTBOUND. NOTHING HAS BEEN STRIPED YET. SO WE WORKED WITH TEX DOT. BEEN ON SITE MULTIPLE TIMES. HAD MANY MEETINGS AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AS OF TODAY THAT WILL ALIGN WITH THERE'S ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS INCORPORATED INTO THE EXPANSION PLAN. BUT WE WILL BE ADDING THE STRIPING TO TURN LEFT AND EXPANDING THE CURRENT PAVING TO PROVIDE THE FULL ACCESS OFF 1387 WITH THE INTENT TO KEEP ALL OF THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC ON 1387 AND REDUCE THE UP PACT ON ON WARD. I WOULD ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.

>> WHAT WAS YOUR NAME AGAIN? >> MATTHEW.

>> THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD STAY CLOSE. COUNCIL, QUESTIONS FOR

STAFF OR MATTHEW? SURE. >> SO I LOOKED AT THIS. I THINK BASED ON SOME OF THE UPCOMING DEVELOPMENTS WITH THE TOM THUMB THAT'S COMING IN, I THINK THERE WILL BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC COMING THROUGH THERE. HOWEVER, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT WILL DRIVE THAT TRAFFIC. IT WILL TAKE PLACE FOR RAPIDLY. THIS IS A GREAT CONVENIENCE FOR RESIDENTS ON THAT END OF TOWN. I TRIED TO LOOK AT IT TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULDN'T PUT A GAS STATION THERE. PARTICULARLY THIS ONE WITH THE WAY IT IS BEING PRESENTED. I CAN'T SEE IT SO I

SUPPORT IT. AND THAT'S THAT. >> ANYBODY ELSE?

>> MINE JUST HAS TO DO WITH SIGNAGE. IS IT TWO SIGNS ON THE

BUILDING AND ONE MONUMENT SIGN? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO THE VARIANCE IS FOR THE EXTRA BUILDING SIGNAGE. OKAY.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. I WAS JUST MAKING SURE. THAT WAS

SEPARATE OF THE MONUMENT SIGN. >> OUTSIDE OF THE VARIANCES BEING OFFERED, TWO VARIANCES. THE SIGNS AND WHAT WAS THE

SECOND ONE? >> PARKING.

>> PARKING. SLIGHTLY OVERAGE ON PARKING. WHAT KEEPS THIS FROM BEING A BY RIGHTS SITUATION? IS IT SIMPLY THE PUMPS? THE GAS

[00:15:02]

PUMPS? >> YES. THE SUP TO HAVE AN CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GASOLINE SALES. BUT THEY COULD DO A

RETAIL. >> ROSS, MIKE, OR WAYNE,

WELCOME. NO COMMENTS? >> THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS RELATE TODAY TRAFFIC CIRCULATION. WILL IT CONNECT FURTHER OUT TO THE EAST AND BACK SOUTH? IF YOU WANT TO COME HERE AND GET A SNACK OR SOME GASOLINE, YOU CAN TURN RIGHT INTO IT. COMING OUT OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT THEN COMING BACK, YOU HAVE TO GET ONTO 1387 AND TURN ACROSS TRAFFIC TO THE

LEFT TO COME BACK IN. >> THE INTENT IS TO HAVE CIRCULATION BACK TO ON WARD WHEN THAT IS DROPPED. SO YOU CAN TAKE ANOTHER RIGHT AND CIRCLE BACK WITH THEIR FUTURE BASE. WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM. WILL YOU BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT EVER

GETTING ON 1387? >> THAT IS NOT IN PLACE YET.

THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE WILLING TO DO GIVEN THE EXPANSION IS CHANGING THEIR CONCEPT PLAN AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU. MARY, CAN YOU SPEAK TO ANY OF THE CONCERNS PNC

SHARED? >> THEY SAID THEY WANTED TO SEE SOMETHING MORE WALKABLE SO THEY WANTED SOMETHING WITH THE GENERAL PROFESSIONAL SIDE OF THE TRACKS. THEY ENVISION A

DOCTOR'S OFFICE. >> SO THIS FIT IT IS BILL FOR BOTH OF THOSE OPPORTUNITIES BUT THIS IS THE ONE PRESENTED TO US

TONIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCILMAN MOORMAN.

SECOND BY WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU.

[2025-100]

YOU, MARY? WELCOME. >> REMIND ME OF YOUR NAME .

>> ARDEN O'CONNELL. >> WELCOME.

>> THANK YOU. THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE FOR A 4401, 4405, AND 4409 OAK HOLLOW DRIVE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY TWO. IT IS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND ALL THREE OF THOSE SITES TOGETHER IS 4.03 ACRES. THERE ARE EXISTING HOMES ON EACH OF THE PROPERTIES. THE APPLICANT IS ASKING TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURE TO SINGLE FAMILY TO CREATE MORE CONFORMTIVE. THEY WERE ANNEXED IN 2012 AND THEY DIDN'T MEET THAT CULTURAL STANDARD THERE. THEY WANTED TO CREATE MORE CONFORMITY. MR. ERIC OLSEN CAME TO STAFF ABOUT TWO MONTHS AGO.

WANTING TO EXTEND HIS GARAGE. BUT HE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE THOSE AGRICULTURAL SETBACKS SO THAT IS THE REASON FOR THE REZONE. HIS TWO NEIGHBORS WANTED TO JOIN IN, WITH THE CONFORMTIVE. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTIES HERE. I HAVE A COMPARISON CHART OF AGRICULTURE VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY TWO AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SO FROM THE LEFT TO THE RIGHT. IT GOES DEVELOPMENT SATURDAYS TO CURRENT ZONES. EXISTING CONDITIONS AND PROPOSED ZONING. AS YOU CAN SEE, ALL THE EXISTING CONDITIONS MEET THE SF2 REGULATIONS. A TOTAL OF 21 LETTERS WERE MAILED OUT TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SUBJECT SITE. TODAY STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE FROM ANY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF A VOTE BY 7-0 AT THE MARCH 18TH

[00:20:03]

MEETING. >> THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? SINCE THERE ARE NO

SPEAKERS I MOVE TO CLOSE. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU CAN STAND. OTHERWISE.

>> HE'S HERE. >> YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK IF

YOU LIKE. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M ERIC OLSEN AT 4409 OAK HOLLOW. JUST WAS TRYING TO GET THE REZONING DONE SO I COULD EXTEND MY GARAGE AS IT IS NOW, THE SETBACK IS 25 FEET. AND, WITH THE NEW GARAGE IT WILL BE WITHIN ABOUT 20 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. WITH THE SF2 IT IS 15 FEET FOR THE SIDE SETBACK. SO IT WOULD MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU SIR. >> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR STAFF? SEEING, OH, CLERK, GOT A QUESTION? I'LL TAKE A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> THIRD. >> GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE BY PRO TEM WICKLIFFE. TO APPROVE PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[2025-101]

>> THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WITH THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT ALONG VB JONES ROAD FROM 67 TO POWER WAY, THE ROADS CURRENTLY POSTED AT 35 MILES PER HOUR. BACK WHEN IT WAS MORE OF A RURAL SECTION SO IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE SPEED FROM 35 TO 40, WE NEED TO BRING THIS ORDINANCE BEFORE COUNCIL. WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR IT. THE SPEED WILL CHANGE FROM 67 TO POWER WAY AND THEN FROM POWER WAY BACK TO THE SOUTH WITHIN OUR CORPORATE BOUNDARY WE WILL STAY AT 35 MATCHING WITH WHAT THE COUNTY HAS POSTED. WE WILL CONTINUE TO MONITOR IT. IF IT LOOKS LIKE WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE SPEED LIMITS WE WILL BRING AN ORDINANCE. BUT THIS WILL ALLOW THE SPEED TO BE INCREASED TO 40 WHICH THE WAY THE ROAD LOOKS TODAY, IT COULD DEFINITELY ACCOMMODATE 40 MILES PER HOUR. WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THANKS MIKE.

>> WHAT DOES THAT STREET CROSS SECTION LOOK LIKE?

>> I BELIEVE IT IS 32 FEET OF CONCRETE.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? TAKE A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN. SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WHITCLIFFE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[2025-102]

>> THE AIRPORT DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF AN INCREASE IN THE HANGAR RATES. LAST TIME THEY DID THIS, THIS WAS APPROXIMATELY THREE YEARS AGO, THEY HIRED APPRAISALS INCORPORATED TO DO A MARKET STUDY ON VARIOUS SISTER AIRPORTS THROUGHOUT THE REGION.

RECOMMENDED AN INCREASE OF 4.49% ON THE TEE HANGARS, A 20% INCREASE. LITTLE OVER ON THE BOX HANGARS. NINE OF THOSE. THEN 12% INCREASE ON THE CORPORATE HANGARS. THE AVERAGE INCREASE IS ABOUT 11-POINT #%. THAT WILL GENERATE AN EXTRA $72,000. A LITTLE HIGHER THAN $72,000 ANNUALLY. AND THAT WILL HELP THE AIRPORT WITH SOME DEFERRED MAINTENANCE AND THINGS LIKE THAT TO GET THESE HANGARS UP TO A GOOD SPOT FOR THE FUTURE. SO, WITH THAT, I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> ROSS, YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD AS A LIAISON?

>> I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THERE IS QUITE A BIT

[00:25:04]

>> IT IS ALSO THROUGHOUT THE AIRPORTMENT NOT JUST THE HANGARS BUT THE GATES AND THE AMENITIES OUT THERE.

>> CORRECT. >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE INFORMATION. I'M A NOVICE AROUND HEREMENT WITH REGARD TO THE BOARD. THE AIRPORT BOARD VOTED ON APPROVED THIS.

BUT THIS HAS TO BE APPROVED BY BOTH CITIES?

>> YES, SIR, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. LAST NIGHT, THE CITY COUNCIL DID THESE RATE INCREASES. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP. THEY HAVE APPROVED THAT AS WELL. YES, SIR.

>> GREAT LOOKING JACKET BY THE WAY. NO. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS DID THEY AND I DON'T KNOW BECAUSE I WAS OVER THE AIRPORT BOARD. AND THEN WE SWITCHED BOARDS. DID THEY EVER FINISH THE STRATEGIC PLAN AND DID IT MAKE A REFERENCE TO RATE

INCREASES FOR THE AIRPORT? >> THEY FINISHED THE MASTER PLAN. THAT WILL BE. COOING BEFORE YOU SHORTLY.

>> THEY HAVEN'T REACHED THIS PORTION?

>> NO, SIR. >> THEY HAVE NOT. THAT IS WHY THEY DID AN INDEPENDENT STUDY THAT WHILE IT HAD SOME CLARIFY ERRORS IN THE WAY THE NARRATIVE WAS WRITTEN IN THE STUDY, A LOT OF THE DATA SUPPORTED THERE WAS ROOM FOR INCREASE. YOU COULD REALLY LOOK MORE AT THE INCREASE IN THE TEE HANGAR RATE AT MORE OF A COST OF LIVING STYLE OR CPI STYLE. ADJUSTMENT. MOST OF THE LEASES ARE THREE TO FIVE YEARS LONG FOR COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW IF THE RATE STAYS THE SAME. THE GOAL IS ALSO WITH WORKING ACTUAL QUALITY LEASE AGREEMENTS. THAT GIVES CLARITY AND ASSURANCE WITH HOW THINGS WILL HAPPEN AND WHAT THE RESPONSIBILITIES ARE AS IT CONCERNS MAINTENANCE. AND WHEN THEIR RATES CAN GO UP. SO THIS IS THAT FIRST STEP IN THAT DIRECTION. CODIFYING IT SO BOTH SIDES KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IS GOING ON.

>> THERE IS ALSO JUST A WAITING LIST WITH ABOUT 50 PEOPLE WAITING FOR HANGARS OUT THERE, THERE IS A DEMAND.

>> AND THE CORPORATE HANGARS, THEY DIDN'T BUILD THOSE.

>> THOSE HAVE BEEN FULLY REIMBURSED.

>> FOUR YEARS? THREE FOUR YEARS? >> ALL THE LEASE IS FLOWING

THROUGH TO THE AIRPORT. >> ABOUT 20 YEARS OR WHATEVER

THE NUMBER IS. >> THEY GOT REBATES.

>> AND THERE SEEM TO BE A MOMENT TO AIRPORT BOTH CITIES.

HOPEFULLY, WE CAN GET A JOINT WORKSHOP. LATE SPRING EARLY SUMMER TO DISCUSS THE FUTURE OF THE AIRPORT. BUT ON THIS TOPIC, IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL TAKE A MOTION ON

IT. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE.

>> PLEASE VOTE. IITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU CLYDE. 225-103.

[2025-103]

[00:30:03]

>> THANK YOU MAYOR. ONCE AG THIS IS THE LAWSON DEVELOPMENT.

WE CAME THROUGH AND GOT I THINK IT WAS A 48-INCH ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT. WE REALIZED THAT WASN'T ENOUGH AND THERE WAS QUITE A BIT MORE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ALONG THIS AREA. THIS IS JUST SOME EXAMPLE OF SOME CHILLER UNITS ON THE WEST SIDE AS WELL AS THE GAS AND ELECTRICAL FACILITY THAT'S ARE ON THERE. SO, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO WAS A BLANKET FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ALONG THAT ALLEY. THOSE ROCKS ARE PLACED THERE AS BOLLARDS. WE WANTED ENCROACHMENT ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF THAT BUILDING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THAT ALLEYWAY FOR FIVE FEET TO ALLOW FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO GO IN THERE. AND TO JUST BE

ALL GOOD FOR LAWSON TO MOVE IN. >> ANYBODY SIGNED TO SPEAK ON

THIS? >> IT IS FIVE FOOT DIRECTLY FROM

THE PAD. >> YES, SIR. AND, TO THAT POINT, THE PROPERTY LINE IS THE PAD. THE PROPERTY LINES ARE THE BUILDINGS. SO ANYTHING BEYOND THOSE BUILDINGS ARE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. THAT IS WHY EARLIER WE HAD A GREASE TRAP ENCROACHMENT.

A CHILLER ENCROACHMENT. BUT THIS IS JUST A BLANKET MECHANICAL

ENCROACHMENT. >> COUNCIL?

>> SO THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS THIS WOULD PREVENT US FROM HAVING TO PIECEMEAL OUT EQUIPMENT BY EQUIPMENT. HOW MUCH

WIDTH DO WE HAVE TOTAL? >> 24-FOOT.

>> FROM THE FOUNDATION TO THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE WEST. LET'S SEE IF I CAN POINT THIS. I CAN. SEE THIS TELEPHONE POLE? IT IS ABOUT 24 FEET.

>> FROM THE POLE TO THE BUILDING.

>> I'M GUESSING. >> SO THIS WILL LEAVE 19 FEET OF

USABLE SPACE. >> YES.

>> AND WE ARE COMFORTABLE FROM DELIVERY STANDPOINT. FIRE

STANDPOINT. >> I DON'T THINK FIRE IS GOING TO FIGHT A FIRE BACK HERE. THERE WAS A FIRE BACK THERE TODAY AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT FIGHTING IT. THE PEOPLE WHO STARTED IT WERE FIGHTING IT. YEAH. THAT WAS A DIFFERENT STORY. BUT YEAH. THIS SHOULD COVER EVERYTHING. AND I THINK WITH 19 FEET, YOU WILL BE ABLE TO GET DELIVERIES AND PEOPLE

THROUGH THERE. >> MY ONLY CONCERN REALLY IS AT A LATER DATE I THINK AT SOME POINT, THIS ALLEY WAY WILL PROBABLY HAVE TO BE IMPROVED. FOOD DELIVERY ON 7TH WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. I THINK THAT IS LITER SO I'M NOT DIGGING THAT TOO MUCH. MY ONLY QUESTION IS THAT IS STAFF SATISFIED THAT IF THIS NEEDS TO BE IMPROVED THERE IS ENOUGH WIDTH THERE TO RUN ARE

THE SEMITRUCKS. >> I HAVE SEEN. THEY GET DOWN SOME PRETTY NARROW ALLEYS IN MIDLOTHIAN. I BELIEVE THEY COULD GET DOWN THIS ONE. YOU HAVE THAT, SOMEBODY WHO COULD SPEAK A LOT BETTER THAN THIS. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY DELIVERIES YOU'LL

HAVE. >> FOR SURE TWO.

>> YEAH. >> ACCESS.

>> THAT'S THE THING. THEY WILL GO LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATORMENT GET THERE AT 7:00 IN THE MORNING. DUMP THEIR STUFF AND THEY ARE OUT OF THERE. I DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEED TO UTILIZE THIS ALLEY. I HAVE SEEN THEM IN MIDLOTHIAN UTILIZE ALLEYS CLOSE

TO IT. >> OKAY.

>> MIKE? >> I WOULD SIDE WITH CLARK ON WHAT HE JUST MENTIONED. VERY WISE WORDS. I DON'T SEE HOW WE ARE GOING TO AVOID OVERDELIVERIES. I KNOW I'M HAVING A HARD TIME. OUT OF THOSE PARKING SPOTS. THERE ARE ONLY ABOUT 10 FEET BETWEEN THE CORNER OF MY BUMPER AND THE SIDEWALK.

IF I DON'T SNUG UP ON THE STONE THAT'S HAVE BEEN LAID IN THE MEDIAN AREA. SO CLARK BRINGS UP AN EXCELLENT POINT. WHERE ARE SINGLE AXLE SEMIS, FOOD TRUCKS, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO STAINING

AND DELIVER? >> I HAVE WITNESSED SINGLE AXEL

[00:35:02]

>> LET ME MAKE SURE I'M POSING MY QUESTION CORRECTLY. I'M NOT SAYING IT IS A PHYSICAL IMPOSSIBILITY. I'M STATING THAT THE INTERFERENCE OF ACTIVITY, TRAFFIC FLOW PEOPLE, FOLKS GETTING OUT IN THEIR CARS, WHEN FOOD TRUCKS DELIVER, THEY ARE STAGED AND STOPPED FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. THEY COME TO A STOP IN THE MIDDLE OF SEVENTH. THEY HAVE EVERYTHING BLOCKED. SO, ARE WE REALLY FULLY THINKING THROUGH THIS?

>> RIGHT HERE, WE ARE JUST TALKING ABOUT THE ALLEY ON THE

WEST SIDE. NOT SEVENTH. >> BUT CLARK BROUGHT UP AN EXCELLENT POINT. I INNOCENT KNOW HOW WE WILL GET AROUND IMPROVEMENTS BEING MADE ON THIS ALLEY WAY. WE WON'T HAVE

PARKING IN THE ALLEYWAY. >> WE CAN SECOND-DEGREE THIS TO THE PROBLEM THAT WE IMPROVE THIS ALLEY.

>> NO FURTHER COMMENTS? I'LL TAKE A A MOTION ON THIS CASE.

>> I WILL MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> I WILL SECOND. >> SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEM.

PLEASE VOTE. THANK YOU. >> ITEM PASSES 6- 0.

[2025-104]

>> OPENING ITEM 2025-104. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON THE HERITAGE PARK MASTER PLAN CONCEPT DESIGN. WELCOME.

>> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. WE ARE HAPPY TO BE HERE THIS EVENING TO DISCUSS THE HERITAGE PARK MASTER PLAN FINAL CONCEPT DESIGN. WE HAD A JOINT MEETING WITH PARK BOARD AND COUNCIL. PARK HILL TOOK ALL THE COMMENTS AND CAME BACK AND UPDATED THE PLAN. SO HENRY PARKER WITH PARK HILL IS HERE TO

DISCUSS THE UPDATES. >> DO YOU HAVE THE PLAN?

>> THERE WE GO. >> THERE IT IS.

>> THERE WE GO. >> ALL RIGHT. HERE WE ARE AGAIN.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE PLAN HAS NOT CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY. WE DID ADDRESS A HANDFUL OF COMMENTS THAT CAME UP IN THE JOINT SESSION. FIRST OF WHICH IS THE COMMENT CAPITAL OF TEXAS SIGN SHOWS WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS AND WILL REMAIN THERE. WE ENLARGED THE PLAYGROUND AREA. IT IS NOT QUITE DOUBLED IN SIZE. BUT WE ENLARGED IT TO FIT AND MAINTAIN THE APPROPRIATE CIRCULATION. WE DID ADD A WATER FOUNTAIN. IT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE JOINT MEETING THAT THIS WOULD BE AN ONGOING DISCUSSION. THE MAINTENANCE REQUIRED AND THE COST OF THE MAINTENANCE. WE ARE REFLECTING THAT ON THE PLAN. ON THE ORIGINAL MEETING IT WAS RECOMMENDED OR SUGGESTED TO BE CLOSER TOWARD THE FRONT DOOR OF CITY HALL. WITH THE CABIN, THE WAY THE ENTRANCE INTO THE PARK FROM CITY HALL WORKS, IT DIDN'T REALLY FIT SO WE ARE SHOWING IT WHERE WE ORIGINALLY SHOWED IT. THAT SOMETHING WE CAN REVISIT DURING ENGINEERING. THE TIME OF FOUNTAIN. THE SCALE. WHETHER OR NOT IT TRULY HAPPENS OR NOT. WE ADDED, WE INCREASED THE FOOD TRUCK PARKING. NOT GREATLY. BUT FROM THREE TRUCK TO FOUR. I RECALL IT BEING DISCUSSED THIS ISN'T THE LOCATION FOR BIG TRUCK FOOD TRUCK EVENTS. IF THERE IS A GREATER EVENT, IT WOULD BE HELD IN HERITAGE PARK. WE ADDED PARKING ALONG 10TH STREET. AND, THE SCREEN FENCE. THEN THERE WERE SOME OTHER COMMENTS THAT CAME UP THAT REALLY WEREN'T ITEMS THAT WOULD BE REFLECTED ON THE PLAN. ICE RINK, LIGHT LEVELS. STUFF LIKE THAT. THERE WAS ONE OTHER ITEM. REGARDED THE MID BLOCK CROSSING

[00:40:06]

BUT THAT'S A DISCUSSION AND SOME INVESTIGATION THAT WILL

HAPPEN DURING ENGINEERING. >> THANK YOU HENRY. COUNCIL, YOU ARE VERY AWARE, THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL PLAN. THIS PROCESS WOULD LOOK LIKE THIS. APPROVAL. ONCE WE GET A CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVED WE WOULD GET ENGINEERING IDEAS AND WE WOULD TALK POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES OR PHASING AND THOSE SOURCES OF OPPORTUNITIES OR STRATEGY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. AND THAT STRATEGY MIGHT BE IN THE NEAR TERM OR THE LONG TERM. BUT THAT IS THE PROCESS TO GET US TO THAT POINT. WHEN THE ACTUAL NUMBERS GET HERE, THAT IS WHEN WE CAN SHARPEN OUR PENCILS AND WHITTLE.

AND MAKE SLIGHT ADAPTATIONS SO THAT IS SORT OF THE PROCESS. I WILL KICK IT OFF WITH ONE COMMENT I FAILED TO MENTION. THE THREE FLAGS WE HAVE OUT THERE CURRENTLY. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE IMPLEMENTED IN THE PLAN. IF NOT, WHERE THEY ARE AT NOW OR SOMEWHERE CLOSE BY. I LOVE THE WAY THEY LOOK NEAR OUR CITY HALL

SO THAT'S MY FEEDBACK. >> I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE. I GOT ASKED ABOUT THIS AND WANTED TO CLARIFY. IS THE CEMENT CAPITAL SIGN BEING MOVED?

>> IN THE PLAN WE HAD A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, WE HAD MOVED IT BUT THE INTENT IS TO KEEP IT WHERE IT IS NOW.

>> OKAY. >> WE MAY NOT BE SHOWING IT IN THE EXACT RIGHT LOCATION HERE, BUT THE INTENT IS NOT TO MOVE IT

FROM WHERE IT IS. >> THAT WAS ONE QUESTION. AND THE SECOND ONE, THIS WAS JUST BROUGHT UP TO ME ABOUT WHEN WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO OPEN UP THAT STAGE MORE I GUESS AND MOVING THE RESTROOMS POTENTIALLY. DID YOU MENTION THAT AT THE BEGINNING? BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE

THINGS. >> IT WAS DISCUSSED. IT WASN'T

AN ITEM VOTED ONTO MOVE IT. >> OH IT WASN'T?

>> ENED A I WOULD SAY IT WASN'T ON THE LIST I RECEIVED BUT ONCE WE GOT INTO ENGINEERING WE WILL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THE SCALE OF THE STAGE, THE AMOUNT OF STORAGE. THE SAME THING WITH THE RESTROOMS. SO, THIS MASTER PLAN IS A GUIDE. NOT AN ABSOLUTE OF WHAT IT WILL BE SO THAT RESTROOM MAY MOVE BACK UP OR DOWN.

>> THE DIRECTIVE WAS TO FACILITATE AS MUCH LAWN EVENT

STAYS AS POSSIBLE. >> THAT'S A HALF ACRE LAWN. A PRETTY GOOD SIZED LAWN FOR AN AMPHITHEATER IN A DOWNTOWN PLAZA. IF WE NEED TO MAKE IT BIGGER, WE CAN CERTAINLY PULL THAT RESTROOM BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. AND MAKE IT LONGER. THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN ADJUST WITH THE DETAILED DESIGN.

>> YOU HAVE MORE? >> THAT WAS THE ONLY TWO

QUESTIONS I HAD. >> CLARK?

>> I KNOW THIS IS CONCEPT. I DON'T WANT Y'ALL TO WASTE TIME CHASING RABBITS. SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I WOULD LIKE TO KNICK IF THE COUNCIL IS WILLING TO DO THAT. ONE IS THE RAILROAD CROSSING MIDWAY DOWN. I DON'T WANT TO WASTE STAFF HOURS FOR THINGS I ALREADY KNOW THE ANSWER TO. TRYING TO SAVE TIME THERE.

>> AT THAT POINT, WE DID A QUICK LAY-OUT. BY THE TIME YOU ADD IN THE SIDEWALK, YOU MADE IT ALMOST ALL THE WAY AROUND FROM THE PARKING LOT, FROM ONE PARKING LOT TO ANOTHER. SO LENGTH WISE IT IS NOT SAVING YOU A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF DISTANCE.

IT IS NOT SAVING YOU A LOT OF EFFORT. TO HAVE PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY AROUND THE AREAS. I DON'T SEE THAT THERE IS A

[00:45:02]

SUFFICIENT. >> CLARK?

>> I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT STAGE TO BRING IT UP. SO I KNOW THERE WAS A CONCERN ABOUT THE DRIVE COULD CLOSE YOU TO F.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS HOW IT IS RECORDED ON WHETHER IT IS A STREET OR CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT. I GUESS THE CONCERN I'M HERING IS WHAT HAPPENS IF WE BLOCK THAT. CARS TRYING TO COME BACK OUT ON MAIN. IF I'M JUMPING AHEAD, THAT'S FINE, I'LL HOLD OFF. BUT IS THERE SOMETHING WE NEED TO DO?

>> DURING THE DISCUSSION, WE TALKED ON HAVING TO USE IT THE

SAME AS IT IS. >> OKAY.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHERE THAT STAR IS SHOWN WITH THE WORD GATEWAY ON TOP OF IT IS DESIGNED AS A VEHICULAR ACCESS.

>> YES, SIR. >> OKAY.

>> I THINK THE ONLY VEHICULAR ACCESS WE WOULD BE ELIMINATING WOULD BE FROM 10TH STREET BACK TO EIGHTH STREET ALONG AVENUE F.

>> I'M HAPPY WITH EVERYTHING ELSE. THE ONLY OTHER THING THING I WAS GOING TO ASK. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE THIS SIMPLER. THAT BRICK AREA IS ONLY, IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TEN FOOT OUTSIDE EXCEPT WHERE THE HEART GOES IS A LITTLE FURTHER.

IS IT BETTER TO JUST NOT EVEN TOUCH THAT AREA? I KNOW WE HAVE TO RELEVEL THE BRICKS ESPECIALLY FOR 88. BUT CAN WE JUST SAY THAT WE ARE NOT GOING TO. PEOPLE BUYED THE BRICKS AND PLACED THEM SO I'M KIND OF HAVING HEARTBURN THAT WE WILL BE JUST PICKING

THEM UP. >> WE CAN KEEP THE INTENT OF WHERE THEY CALL IN FRONT OF THE CABIN AND HOW THAT IS LIED OUT.

IF IT DOES CREATE THAT CIRCULAR PATTERN. WE CAN TAKE A PICTURE OF THAT AND PUT IT IN THAT SAME SIMILAR ORDER. BUT I DON'T THINK THE INTENT AT ALL, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD BE TOO CHALLENGING TO PULL THEM ALL UP. PREPARE IT PROPERLY. KNOWING THAT WE HAVE THESE BRICKS SOMEWHAT IN THE SAME AREA OR WHAT THAT MIGHT BE. BECAUSE WE PROBABLY HAVE FAMILIES THAT HAVE BRICKS CLOSE TO EACH OTHER THAT WANTED TO PICK THAT LOCATION OR WANTED TO BE CLOSER TO THE HEART. WE CAN DOCUMENT ALL OF THAT. AND THEN, RECREATE THAT AS WE PUT IT IN WITH THE NEW BRICK

AND THE NEW LAY-OUT. >> THAT WORKS.

>> WAYNE? >> THIS IS FOR CLARIFICATION. I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEFORE. BUT IT IS HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE. OBVIOUSLY, THE DETAIL THAT GOES INTO THE PLAZA PART OF THE WALKING AREA. I HAVE A BIG CONCERN WITH REGARD TO HANDICAP MOBILITY. WHEELCHAIR, WALKER. PEOPLE ABLE TO ACCESS AND GET AROUND. A LOT OF TIMES I HAVE BEEN TO PLACES WHERE THEY ARE VERY DECORATIVE. VERY NICE. AND THEN, MY FATHER CAN'T EVEN GET TO WHERE WE ARE TRYING TO GET TO T. AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND I AM ASSUMING Y'ALL ARE GOING TO WORK THAT INTO IT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. FULL ACCESSIBILITY ACROSS THE SITE IS

A PRIORITY. >> ONCE WE START CHANGING THIS, WE WILL HAVE TO BE TDA COMPLIANT. AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, THEY WILL COME IN AND CHECK OUR SLOPE AND MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCESSIBILITY. SO THIS AREA WILL BE MUCH BETTER AND PROVIDE MUCH BETTER ACCESS TO EVERYONE THAN WHAT WE HAVE GOING ON RIGHT NOW. DEFINITELY. AND THE PAVERS WILL BE DONE. THEY WILL BE STUCK. NOT LIKE THEY ARE

CURRENTLY. >> MIKE IS NEXT.

>> MY QUESTIONS TYPICALLY REVOLVE AROUND PARKING. WHAT DID WE DECIDE WE BATTERED AROUND A NUMBER OF NUMBERS. WHAT DID WE

DECIDE WAS A NET GAIN WE THINK? >> I UPDATED THOSE NUMBERS. SO

[00:50:03]

>> SO WHAT WOULD YOU CALL THE TYPICAL AMOUNT OF PERSONNEL IN THE VEHICLE? ARE YOU TALKING THREE ON A TRAVEL LAND? WHAT DO Y'ALL THINK OF? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT NUMBER IS?

>> TWO-AND-A-HALF TO THREE PEOPLE ON AVERAGE.

>> SO, MY QUESTION TO COUNCIL AND TO PARKS IS, WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT IS THIS CONCEPT PRETTY MUCH SET IN STONE AND THIS IS THE WAY IT IS GOING TO BE? AND IF THE ENGINEERING NUMBERS COME BACK AND FUNDING IS FOUND, THIS IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO PUT IN? ARE WE GOING TO BE HAVING ANY CONVERSATIONS ABOUT POTENTIAL STAGING OF THIS PARK COMPLETION EVEN IF THE FUND CANS BE MET TO GET OURSELVES IN A BETTER PARKING SCENARIO UNTIL MORE PARKING BECOMES AVAILABLE TO CONSUME MORE PARKING SPACE WHERE PARKING WAS. I HAVE BEEN IN THREE MEETINGS IN OLD TOWN OF FOLKS ALREADY GETTING THEIR HOMES PARKED IN FRONT OF AND THEIR DRIVEWAYS PARKED IN. AND I LOOK AT THIS TO BECOME A MUCH BIGGER PROBLEM. THIS WILL CAUSE MORE INBOUND FOLKS TO WANT TO EXPERIENCE THE MIDLOTHIAN DOWNTOWN AREA. AND WE START GETTING OVERLOADED WITH A LOT MORE FOLKS THAN WE THINK WE ARE.

AND WE START GETTING A LOT OF KICKBACK FROM RESIDENTS WHO AS LONG AS THEY ARE PARKED IN THE EASEMENT IN FRONT OF THE HOMES, THAT IS ACTUALLY CITY PROPERTY. IN OLD TOWN, THAT WILL NOT BE MET WELL SO HOW FAR IN THIS STONE IS THIS PROCESS AND WILL WE STAGE IT IN WITH PARKING CONVERSATIONS?

>> WE WILL TALK POTENTIAL PHASING AFTER THIS. AFTER A CONCEPT IS APPROVED. AND SO, THAT DOESN'T DIRECTLY ADDRESS YOUR FURTHER NEED FOR PARKING CONVERSATIONS. IT IS MY PERSONAL OPINION THAT PARKING OPPORTUNITIES CAN BE FOUND

OUTSIDE THIS PLAN. >> I WOULD FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT THE PLAN IF WE TRIED TO MOVE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE

TOWARD WHAT THE ANSWERS ARE. >> IDENTIFYING SOME OF THOSE.

>> IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS BEFORE WE CREATE PROBLEMS. THAT'S ONLY MY MAIN CONCERN TO BE ABLE TO COMFORTABLY VOTE FOR A CONCEPT.

>> I KNOW THE WATER FOUNTAIN WAS AN ADDED IN FEATURE. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT A TRUE FOUNTAIN OR THE JETS THAT SHOOT UP OUT OF

THE GROUND OR WE HAVE NO IDEA? >> THE RECOMMENDATION WAS THE TIERED, THE THREE TIERED FOUNTAIN. LIKE THE OLD FASHIONED FOUNTAIN. THEN I SHOWED THE PHOTO OF THE FOOD IMAGERY. LEVEL WITH THE GROUND WHERE IT CAN BE TURNED OFF AND IT BECOMES PLAZA SPACE. SO, BOTH OF THOSE WERE DISCUSSED. AND THAT WILL BE PART OF THE DISCUSSION IN ENGINEERING. WE CAN LOOK AT COSTS ON BOTH OF THOSE OPTIONS. MAINTENANCE. THEN THE DECISION CAN BE MADE. THE DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE WHAT IT IS GOING

TO BE AT THIS POINT. >> SO, GO AHEAD ALLEN.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH ANY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH ANY CONCEPT THAT IS BEING PRESENTED WITHIN THIS PLAN. I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME. I STARTED THINKING. EVEN THE QUESTION ABOUT THE FOUNTAIN. ARE WE GOING TO COST OUT EVERY ASPECT OF THIS PARK AND VOTE LIKE OKAY, ARE WE KEEPING THE FOUNTAIN? WILL IT BE THIS FOUNTAIN OR THAT. HOW IS THIS PROCESS GOING TO PLAY OUT? I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS ANYTHING WE HAVE EVER JUST HAD NO BUDGET ON THAT WE JUST SAID, YOU KNOW, WE WILL PUT THIS PLAN TOGETHER. I DO KNOW THERE IS A DESIRE

[00:55:01]

SEE THAT PROCESS. >> OUR FIRST STEP IS TO COME BACK WITH AN OPINION OF COST. WE CAN BREAK IT DOWN WITH THE COST OF BACK ALLEY PLAZA AND HERITAGE CROSSING. AND IT IS ABOUT PHASING. Y'ALL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW MUCH YOU WANT TO SPEND.

>> RIGHT KNOW WE DON'T KNOW. SO UNTIL WE GET IT ENGINEERS WE DON'T KNOW IF OR WHAT WE NEED TO WHITTLE. MAYBE WE DON'T NEED TO WHITTLE. UNTIL WE HAVE A TRUE NUMBER THAT WE CAN PRESENT AND FIGURE OUT HOW EVERYBODY FEELS ABOUT IT, THEN WE CAN START DISCUSSING I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THIS NUMBER. WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO TO GET TO AN AGREED UPON NUMBER.

>> SO WHEN WE BUILT PHASE TWO, THEY WENT OUT AND, I HAVE A FEELING THIS WILL BE A LOT LIKE MCPMENT THEY BID THE CONCEPT PLAN. AND THEY CAME TO US WITH BASICALLY AN EXCEL SHEET AND WE WENT LINE BY LINE AND SAID WE CAN'T AFFORD THAT. SCRATCH IT

OUT. >> AND ANOTHER PART THAT GOES WITH THIS, AS THE ENGINEERING GOES, THEY COME BACK WITH A 30%.

AND THEN THEY COME BACK WITH A 60%. AND THEN THEY COME BACK WITH A 90. AS WE ARE GOING THROUGH THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE STARTING TO LOOK AT COSTS. AND FEASIBILITY OF FITTING ALL OF THIS IN. SO THERE'S DISCUSSIONS OF HEY, WE LOOK AT THIS AND WE ARE LIKE THIS ISN'T WORKING AND THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK. JUST AS CLARK SAID, WE WENT OUT FOR BID. AND WE WENT THROUGH. WHEN THAT CAME BACK, WE WERE 24 MILLION. AND WE COMMIT LED WHITTLED THAT DOWN TO 19.1. THIS IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY ASKED FOR.

THIS IS WHAT THEY SPECIFICALLY WANTED TO SEE IN THIS PARK. SO HOW DO WE VALUE, ENGINEER, WE INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE SPLASH SPAED. IT IS GOING THROUGH AND IDENTIFYING THOSE THINGS. AND YOU ARE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE HIGHEST END PRODUCT OF THIS LET'S SAY A WATER FOUNTAIN. HERE IS THE LOWEST END. HERE IS THE COST DIFFERENCE. DO WE GO IN THE MIDDLE, HIGH, OR LOW.

>> THOSE ARE VERY HEATED DISCUSSION WHERES WE LITERALLY DEBATED. HE WAS WILLING TO DIE ON THE HILL OF THERE BEING AN AMPHITHEATER THERE. SO THERE WAS A LOT OF GIVE AND TAKE. THE ROCKS AROUND THE POND. BUT UNTIL WE HAVE THOSE ACTUAL NUMBERS, WE

DON'T KNOW. >> HOW DO WE AVOID ALL OF THAT?

>> OH IT'S COMEING. >> I HAVE NO INTEREST IN A

DEBATE. OVER EVERY ASPECT. >> SO, TO YOUR POINT, ALLEN, THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO AVOID. THERE WAS ONLY SIX OF US AT THE TIME. TIED VOTES. WHAT I WAS GOING TO BRING UP NEXT, WAS THIS WATER MOUNTAIN. ARE WE ALL ON BOARD WITH THIS WATER FOUNTAIN? WE ARE NOT, LET'S JUST TAKE IT OUT.

>> SO HERE IS MY QUESTION. I WAS ON COUNCIL WHEN WE HAD A WATER FOUNTAIN IN THE CITY. WE DECIDED TO DIG IT UP AND PUT METAL STATUE THERE WITH A MAN HITTING A PIN OVER AT THE CONVENTION

CENTER. WHY DID WE DO THAT? >> MONEY.

>> BECAUSE IT WAS A CATASTROPHE TO TAKE CARE OF. IT DIDN'T WORK RIGHT. IT LEAKED. IT BECAME AN EYESORE.

>> UH-HUH. >> I MEAN, I'M JUST ASKING THESE QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN THIS CONCEPT THAT

[01:00:03]

>> BECAUSE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE JOINT WORKSHOP.

THAT'S HOW IT GOT ADDED BACK. OBVIOUSLY, Y'ALL HAVE THE POWER TO TAKE IT OUT. BUT I DO WANT TO ADDRESS. THE NEXT STEP WILL BE AN ENGINEERING AGREEMENT SO WE CAN GET YOU BETTER NUMBERS. WHAT WE HAVE DONE IN THE PAST IS CREATED A BUDGET OUT OF CONCEPT.

EVERYBODY STARTS THEIR OPINIONS AND THE SCOPE CREEP TAKES OVER.

WHAT WE THOUGHT WAS 20 MILLION IS NOW 30 MILLION. WE ARE TRYING TO ENGINEER THIS THING SO WE HAVE A HARD NUMBER FOR THE BEST WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE. WHAT YOU ARE SEEING IN THIS CONCEPT IS WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN THAT POINT MEETING BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY

CHANGE THAT. >> WHAT MATERIAL DIFFERENCE WOULD IT BE? THAT IS WHERE MY MIND GOES. ARE WE GOING TO WASTE TIME, EFFORT, AND TREASURE ON SOMETHING THAT WE SEE AS PROBABLY AN EXTREME WISH OR A BIG WANT VERSUS YOU KNOW, WHAT A MESSY WOULD BE LIKE. A PAID PARKING SPOT. I DON'T WANT TO SEE US INFLATE THE COST OF ENGINEERING BY LEAVING IN THINGS THAT ARE A LITTLE MORE PIE IN THE SKY.

>> WITH THE WATER FEATURE, THE WATER FOUNTAIN, WE WORK WITH LOCAL MANUFACTURERS AND INSTALLERS. FIND SIMILAR EXAMPLES THAT HAD BEEN RECENTLY BUILT. GET THE COST FOR THEM.

SHOW YOU, YOU HAVE THIS OPTION. THIS COST.

>> THAT IS NOT MY CONCERN. >> BUT IT IS NOT A WHOLE LOT OF TIME FOR US. SO IT WOULDN'T DRIVE UP OUR FEE. IT IS NOT

GOING TO BE A HUGE COST FOR US. >> BUT IT WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL

COST VERSUS IT NOT? >> THE TIME WOULD BE IN DESIGNING IT. ENGINEERING IT. SO YEAH.

>> ARE WE TALKING TENS OF DOLLARS? HUNDREDS? THOUSANDS?

TENS OF THOUSANDS? >> THE AMOUNT OF TIME SPENT ON A FOUNTAIN, IT WOULD BE THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.

>> THAT IS WHERE THE CONCERN COMES IN. IF THERE'S ELEMENTS MANY THIS PLAN THAT COUNCIL DEEMS NOT VIABLE AS WE LOOK AT THE OVERALL FUTURE COST OF THIS PROJECT, DO WE WANT TO WASTE SMALLER DOLLARS TODAY TO KNOW WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND BIGGER DOLLARS LATER. AND I THINK THAT IS THE HARD CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT. IF IT IS ON THIS PAPER. THEY WILL BUDGET IT INTO THE COST OF THE ENGINEERING AGREEMENT. IF THERE ARE NONSTARTERS FOR THE FOLKS IN THIS COUNCIL, I'M WITH CLARK. I DON'T SEE A WATER FOUNTAIN AS BEING A CORE NECESSITY IN THIS PROJECT. IT IS A NEAT AMENITY. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, DO WE WANT TO WASTE TAXPAYER DOLLARS TODAY TO TELL US THAT WE DON'T ACTUALLY WANT TO DO SOMETHING TOMORROW?

>> SO I HAVE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS WANTING TO DO AWAY WITH THE WATER FOUNTAIN TEACHES. I GOT FOUR. OKAY. DO AWAY WITH THE WATER FOUNTAIN FEATURE. NEXT? ANY OTHER ITEMS LIKE THAT.

>> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE. IT IS JUST SENSITIVE BECAUSE BEING COLOR BLIND, WE CHANGE THE COLOR OF SOMETHING.

WE ARE SHOWING EIGHTH STREET WITH A DIFFERENT COLOR. IS THAT BECAUSE WE EXPECT IT TO BE A DIFFERENT MATERIAL OR BECAUSE WE ARE SHOWING IT INCLUDED INTO THE CONCEPT PLAN? IF WE ARE GOING TO DIG UP PERFECTLY GOOD CONCRETE PAVING THAT IS NOT THAT OLD, I AM DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED TO THAT.

>> IF THAT'S THE CONCERN, WE COULD LEAVE IT THE WAY IT S. I WOULD LIKE TO DRESS IT UP. ADD THE BRICK PAVERS, MAKE THE PARK FEEL LIKE IT CONTINUES THROUGH THE STREET UP INTO CITY HALL.

>> ARE THEY BRICK PAVERS OR STAMPED CONCRETE?

>> THAT HASN'T BEEN DECIDED. THIS IMAGE SHOWS BRICK.

>> WE HAVE A PERFECTLY GOOD STREET. HOW LONG AGO DID THAT

[01:05:05]

GET PUT IN, CHRIS? >> WAS IT 20? SO.

>> 2008. LIFE EXPECTANCY ON A STREET LIKE THAT MIKE? SO MAYBE 50% THROUGH ITS LIFE SPAN AT THIS POINT. THAT'S WHERE I SAY THAT'S COOL AND NEAT. BUT IF ONE DAY, WHEN IT REACHES LIFE EXPECTANCY AND STARTS TO COME UNBUCKLED. MAYBE WE LOOK AT THAT. BUT TODAY IT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD STREET.

>> IS THAT A RECOMMENDATION? >> THAT IS.

>> I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN SEEING THE COSTS ON STAMPING IT. AND THEN, DOING AWAY WITH THAT.

>> YOU MEAN, REHABBING THE EXISTING STREET?

>> YEAH. JUST STAMPING IT. >> YOU COULD CUT IT AND STAIN.

>> IT WOULD BE A FULL REPLACEMENT.

>> I HAVE NEVER BUILT A ROAD. >> THERE ARE SOME OVERLAYS BUT I DON'T THINK THE THEY ARE RECOMMENDED FOR TRAFFIC.

>> EVERY PLAN SHOWS THAT STREET STAYING OPEN AS A DRIVE STREET TO CLOSE IT OFF WITH THE EVENT OF AN EVENT. IT IS A PERFECTLY GOOD DRIVE STREET IN GOOD SHAPE. THAT MONEY WOULD BE BETTER

INVESTED IN OTHER PLACES. >> I HAVE TWO ON THAT.

>> I FEEL LIKE WE COULD PROBABLY DO THIS ON EVERY ASPECT.

>> AGAIN, THIS IS CONSENSUAL. THINGS YOU KNOW YOU WOULD LIKE

TO DO AWAY WITH. >> THERE ARE THREE OF US HERE THAT HAVE BUILT A PARK. I DO WISH WE WOULD HAVE CUT MORE IN THE BEGINNING ON THE COMMUNITY PARK SO WE DIDN'T FIGHT SO MUCH LATER. BUT THERE ARE THING THAT'S WE CUT THAT I WISH WE WOULD HAVE JUST DONE. BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IS FAR OUT OF REACH, LET'S PULL IT NOW. WE KNOW THE RAIL CROSSING, I MEAN, I THINK WE AGREED THAT IS CRAZY. THE WATER FOUNTAIN IS A CLOSE SECOND. THAT WHAT'S I'M TRYING TO DO. THESE REACHING FOR THE STARS ITEMS. IF THERE IS SOMETHING WE ARE NOT SUPER PASSIONATE ABOUT, LET'S GET IT OUT OF THE WAY SO THERE

IS LESS ARGUING LATER. >> SO WHAT IS THE COST? IF IT IS THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TO ENGINEER LIKE A WATER FOUNTAIN. WHAT'S THE TOTAL COST OF ENGINEERING? OH, YOU'RE COMING BACK FOR

THAT. >> WE COULD CUT OR PHASE.

>> THEY WILL COME BACK WITH THE PRICE OF GRASS AND TURF AND START PICKING AND CHOOSING WHAT WE WANT.

>> AT THIS POINT, I GUESS, I'M GOOD.

>> I'M HAPPY. >> I JUST HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. WHEN I LOOK AT THE PATIO AREA AROUND CITY HALL, THERE IS A GOOD COLLECTION OF CABIN, CEMENT CAPITAL SIGN. WE HAVE THE BRICK PAVERS. WE HAVE EVERYTHING THERE THAT SPEAKS TO MIDLOTHIAN'S HERITAGE AND HISTORY. THERE IS ONE THING THAT I FIND WAY OUT OF PLACE. MAYBE IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ANYBODY ELSE. WHY WOULD WE TAKE THE ICONIC WATER TOWER AND SHOVE IT ALL THE WAY OVER. I GET THE IDEA TO WHERE IT IS OVER THERE, I GUESS NINTH AND MAIN. BUT IN MY MIND FOR A PERSON WHO REMEMBERS WHEN THE WATER TOWER WAS HERE FROM THE WEST. THE SUN COMING UP IN THE EAST. I'M GOING TO WORK AND THAT ICONIC WATER TOWER IS RIGHT THERE DECIDE THE NOW FIRE BUILDING WHICH USED TO BE THE CITY HALL AT ONE TIME. THE WATER TOWER WAS AT THE VERY CENTER OF TOWN. THAT FED ALL THE WATER TO EVERYONE. SO WHY HAVE WE PULLED THAT? THAT TO ME IS THE LAST MISSING PIECE OF THE PUZZLE. I KNOW IT WILL NOT BE AS GRAND AS WHAT I REMEMBER WHICH IS TALLER

[01:10:01]

>> I WILL SPEAK TO THAT. I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. WE DID HAVE THAT IDEA IN THE ORIGINAL WORKSHOP. I BELIEVE THE IDEA FROM HENRY AND HIS TEAM, THAT WOULD BE A FOCAL POINT ALONG MAIN STREET. I PREFER FOR IT TO BE IN THAT VICINITY. I BELIEVE IT IS A DRAW TO OUR CENTRAL PART OF OUR DOWNTOWN.

>> MORE OF AN EASY CHANGE. >> WHERE YOU LOOK IN FRONT OF THE EDMOND BUILDING. THERE WERE TWO TREES THERE. THAT IS RIGHT WHERE IT'S AT. THOSE TWO TREES ON THAT CORNER WAS IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THAT IS WHERE THAT WAS AT. WAS IT NOT? YEAH. RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE ADMIN BUILDING. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS JUST THE WAY IT USED. IT IS A WOODEN STRUCTURE BUT RIGHT THERE AT CITY HALL. RIGHT THERE IN THE MAIN COURTYARD. I GUESS FOR ME THAT'S THE ONLY MISSING PIECE OF MY COLLECTION OF WHAT I

REMEMBER. >> IS THE COUNCIL AMENABLE TO PUTTING THE WATER TOWER FEATURE MORE CENTRALLY LOCATED? I GOT

ONE. I WILL BE TWO. THREE? >> SURE.

>> SO LET ME SUMMARIZE AND WE WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS ONE. THE WATER TOWER CENTRALLY LOCATED. DO AWAY WITH THE RAILROAD CROSSING. DO AWAY WITH THE FOUNTAIN. PLAZA DRIVE, MAKE SURE THAT IS CONNECTIVITY. ALL THE WAY THROUGH. AND THEN, RETAINING THE FLAGS OR IMPLEMENTING THE FLAGS SOMEWHERE NEAR CITY HALL. DID I MISS ANYTHING? I'LL TAKE A MOTION ON

THIS. >> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO PROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN. SECONDED BY RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 5-1. THANK YOU HENRY. HEATHER. APPRECIATE ALL

[2025-105]

THIS CASE, YOU ARE WELCOME TO. >> I HAVE SOME EXHIBITS UP HERE.

>> GIVE US AN OVERVIEW. >> OKAY. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED IN 2020, CHRIS. I THINK IT WAS IN 2020. WE PURCHASED BOTH LAWSON BUILDINGS. RFP. THE PERSON WHO WON THE RFP PUT TOGETHER A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THIS WAS ONE OF THE EXHIBITS. WE STARTED MOVING FORWARD. SO IT WAS APPROVED AT THAT POINT. YOU CAN SEE THE PARKING OVER HERE. ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE. THEN WE BROUGHT IT BACK, DECEMBER 6, 2022. 22? 23? 22. WE BROUGHT IT BACK FOR DISCUSSION AT THE DECEMBER 6TH MEETING. BASED ON CONCERNS WE HAVE. THIS DESIGN HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED OUT THERE.

AND I THINK THREE MEMBERS BROUGHT THIS SOME CONCERNS TO OUR ATTENTION. AND HERE WE ARE. SO, AS REFERENCED, THAT BLOCK IS ABOUT 300 FEET. WE HAVE 60 PARKING SPOT INS THE MIDDLE NOW.

30 GOING NORTH. 30 HEADED SOUTH. I HEARD DISCUSSIONS OF PARALLEL PARKING. PARALLEL PARKING SPOTS ABOUT 22 FEET. LONG. COMPACT CAR. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK WE ARE GOING TO GAIN OR LOSE PARKING SPOTS ON THE COMPACT CAR ISSUES. I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. I'M SURE THERE ARE A PLETHORA.

>> ANYONE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK TAMMY?

>> DO WE HAVE ANY? >> AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE. HE

[01:15:01]

>> DO WE HAVE ANY PLACES IN TOWN THAT HAVE THAT PORTION OR THAT SIGNIFICANT OF A PORTION OF COMPACT CAR ONLY PARKING?

>> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF SIR. >> THANKS.

>> WHICH I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE IN TOWN.

>> I THINK THE TELLING PORTION IS AT THE FAR RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE SCREEN WHERE YOU SEE THE TWO MEASUREMENTS AT THE MIDPOINTS OF THE SPOTS WHERE IT SHOWS WHERE 18 FEET IS. CARS ARE RECTANGLES.

AND, THESE SPACES ARE PARALLELOGRAMS. SO IF YOU PUT A RECTANGLE INTO A PARALLELOGRAM. THERE IS A TRIANGLE THERE IN THE FRONT. WHERE THE CAR DOESN'T SHIFT IN TO FIT IN THE SPACE. IF YOU THINK ABOUT A SINGLE CAB F150. IT WILL NOT FIT IN THE 18 FEET. WHERE THE ROCKS ARE THERE IN THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER TO KEEP YOU FROM PULLING ACROSS. THEY WILL BE ON THE DRIVE SIDE STICKING OUT TWO FEET MINIMUM. PROBABLY CLOSER TO TWO-AND-A-HALF TO THREE FEET. RIGHT? WHICH THAT SHRINKS THAT DRIVE LANE DOWN TO 12 FEET ON THE OPTIMAL SIDE. THEN YOU TAKE THE ANGLE OF THAT AND THE PASSENGER SIDE CORNER OF THAT TRUCK IN THERE AT AN ANGLE WILL BE STICKING OUT THREE-AND-A-HALF TO FOUR FEET AND YOU ALREADY HAVE A IS A FOOT DRIVE. THAT 15-FOOT DRIVE IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK THAT WILL HAVE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR RETAILERS. IF YOU LOOK AT THE WESTERN SIDE OF IT, IT IS ACTUALLY THE LOSS ON THAT SIDE IS ELEVATED. SO YOU HAVE A CONCRETE RETAINING WALL IN SOME PLACES. THAT YOU ARE SKINNING DOWN WHAT YOU ARE ABLE TO DRIVE ON. YOU TAKE A FULL SUPER CREW CRAB AND YOU HAVE ENCROACHED FURTHER OUT INTO THAT SPACE. I HAVE A SMALL TRUCK. I HAVE A JEEP GLADIATOR. BUT IT STILL WOULD HANG OUT OF THIS SPOT AND INTO THE DRIVEWAY. IT IS KIND OF DECEPTIVE WHEN WE SAY WE HAVE 15-FOOT DRIVE LANES. IF YOU PUT WHAT I CONSIDER A NORMAL PASSENGER CAR IN ONE OF THEM, YOU HAVE MUCH SMALLER DRIVE LANES THAN THAT. THAT IS ONE REASON I WANTED US TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THIS IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN READING A SET OF PLANS AND UNDERSTANDING HOW THE ACTUAL WORLD SITS. I TALK TO THE OWNER.

I TALK TO STAFF WHO SAID I'M NOT SURE WE REALLY WANT TO DO THIS. AND PREVIOUS COUNCILS SAID YES. YES. AND THEN, YES AGAIN.

THEY WERE LOOKING AT PAPER AND NOT THE WAY THE WORLD SITS.

ANYBODY WHO LOOKED DOWN THE PARKING AISLES, THIS IS NOT A WORKABLE SOLUTION IN THIS PART OF TOWN, AT A MINIMUM, WE NEED TO PUT UP THE COMPACT CAR SIGNS. IT IS THE RETAILERS HAVING TO CALL FOR THEM TO BE TOWED. WHETHER IT BECOMES A PD ENFORCEMENT WHERE WE HAVE TO HAVE AN OFFICER SITTING OUT THERE ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY NIGHTS ADVISING PEOPLE THEY NEED TO NOT PARK THERE SO I THINK THAT IS REALLY THE DISCUSSION WE NEED TO HAVE TONIGHT. OR WE COULD LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS AND SEE HOW IT SHAKES OUT. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT WILL WORK OUT WELL FOR ANYBODY. BECAUSE CAR MEETS PEOPLE IS USUALLY BAD FOR

EVERYONE. >> MY OPINION BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS TO TURN IT TO PARALLEL OR COMPACT CAR, I WOULD PREFER PARALLEL PRIMARILY BECAUSE THE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE THAT I THINK IS GOING TO EITHER DRAIN RESOURCES THAT COULD BE ELSEWHERE DOING OTHER THINGS OR PUT A RETAILER IN REALLY. I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY RETAILERS DO NOT LIKE TO TOW THEIR CUSTOMERS CARS SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE PROBABLY A CHALLENGE AND ENFORCING IT AND PUTTING RESOURCES TOWARD IT SOFT COSTS MONEY SO I DEFINITELY THINK IT NEEDS TO CHANGE AND I APPRECIATE

[01:20:04]

THAT. >> I AGREE IT IS TIGHT. IT IS NOT FULLY ONLINE YET. I AM HESITANT TO TAKE EXTREME STEPS.

I THINK WE CAN TAKE A MORE RESERVED APPROACH IN LEAVING IT AS IS UNTIL THE PROBLEM IS WARRANTED OR POTENTIALLY MARKING IT CONCEPT. I BELIEVE WE COULD TAKE A MORE MEASURED APPROACH AND SEE WHAT THE ACTUAL RESULTS ARE BEFORE WE TAKE A PROACTIVE AND EXTREME APPROACH THAT WILL CUT DOWN DRASTICALLY ON DOWNTOWN PARKING. I DO AGREE THAT IT IS TIGHT. AND THERE IS AN ISSUE THERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT MARKED COMPACT CAR AND LOOK AT

ENFORCEMENT AS NEEDED. >> CAN WE SEE WHAT JUSTIN

THINKS? ABOUT IT? >> YEAH.

>> IN HIS OPINION? >> I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING

ABOUT ME. >> YEAH.

>> STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> YES. WE HAVE BEEN IN HERE A COUPLE OF TIMES. THERE ARE NEW FACES ON THE COUNCIL SINCE WE WERE IN HERE. AT THE TIME, THERE IS SUCH A BIG FOCUS ON NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES. BECAUSE THERE IS NOT A LOT IN THE AREA. AND THERE ARE RESTRICTION WITHS THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD. WE CAME IN TO TALK ABOUT THIS. THIS IS WHAT WE WERE DIRECTED TO DO. WE ARE VERY OPEN MINDED. MY REMINDER WOULD BE THE ISSUE OF PARKING SPOTS. I KNOW PARKING, IT IS SHORT IN DOWNTOWN. THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY ISSUE WITH THAT PERSONALLY. I DO LIKE THE IDEA MAYOR COFFMAN HAS ABOUT THAT. I DRIVE AN F250. AND I DON'T TRY TO DRIVE DOWN THERE OR PARK THERE. THERE'S A LOT OF NEW PARKING TO THE NORTH. AND THAT IS WHERE I'M GOING TO GO.

I FEEL LIKE MOST DOWNTOWN AREAS, THERE ARE PARKING CONSTRAINTS SO I'M SELECTIVE ABOUT WHERE I GO AND TRY TO PARK MY TRUCK. THAT SAID, WE CAN'T REGULATE COMMON SENSE. THAT'S JUST ME PERSONALLY. IF I DID HAVE A RECOMMENDATION, IT WOULD BE TRY NOT TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SPOTS JUST YET AND SEE HOW IT WORKS. AND REVISIT IT AT A LATER DATE.

>> CAN I ASK YOU A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REAL QUICK, JUSTIN?

>> SURE. >> HOW MANY APARTMENTS ARE

UPSTAIRS? DO YOU KNOW? >> I COULDN'T GIVE YOU AN EXACT

NUMBER. >> 15, 20?

>> LESS THAN 20, BUT, IT GETS CLOSE TO THAT BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME AIRBNB TYPE UNITS THAT GET CLOSE TO THAT.

>> HOW MANY SPECIAL RETAIL SPOTS ARE DOWNSTAIRS? ROUGHLY. WE CAN DO BALLPARK. I DON'T NEED EXACT.

>> YOU HAVE, WITH THE INTERIOR WORK SPACES THAT ARE SMALL

OFFICES, YOU HAVE OVER 30. >> ALL RIGHT. THAT'S THE ONLY

QUESTIONS I HAD. THANK YOU. >> YES, SIR.

>> I JUST, FEEL BAD FOR THE APPLICANT. HE HAS BEEN THROUGH THIS TWO OR THREE TIMES. AND I SEE WHAT WE ARE DEALING WITH. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO MAKE THIS ANY CLEARER. I CANNOT GET OUT OF MY TRUCK IN A NINE FOOT WIDE PARKING SPOT. I CANNOT. I CANNOT GET OUT OF IT. WITHOUT RAMMING MY DOOR INTO THE OTHER CAR AND THEN WALKING SPIEDWAYS LEAVING KNEECAP PRINTS ON THE OTHER CAR IN THEIR GUSTY CAR. AND IT IS OUR JOB TO CHANGE THIS MINIMALLY TO 10 TO 18. WE HAVE TO GET BUSY ON THIS. WE HAVE A PARKING ORDINANCE SET UP FOR A MUCH HIGHER DENSE AREA WITH A LOT

[01:25:03]

>> SO, I WAS ON THE COUNCIL THAT APPROVED THIS. I THINK TO ROSS' POINT, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. PAPER VERSUS REAL LIFE.

AT THE TIME WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SPOTS. SHAME ON US FOR NOT LOOKING AT FUNCTIONALITY. THIS IS A CONCERN I HAVE. ON CHANGING ANY, I MEAN, IF WE CHANGE THE DESIGN. HOW WE MEASURE DENSITY ON OURS AT 20 APARTMENT UNITS AND I'M USING HIGH END. THAT IS 50 PEOPLE. TWO PEOPLE PER UNIT, EVEN IF WE TOOK THE LOW END, THAT IS STILL 40. IF YOU SAID EACH PERSON WAS ONLY ONE PERSON PER OFFICE AND THREE PEOPLE PER RESTAURANT, A COOK, WAITER, AND A COAST, WHICH WE ALL KNOW WILL BE MORE THAN THAT, THAT IS NINE FOR THE THREE RESTAURANTS. 76 TO 86 PARKS SPACES NEEDED TO MAKE EL PRIMOS AND LOSS AND DEVELOPMENT WORK. I AGREE. 7TH IS A NIGHTMARE. AND I WISH WE WOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BUT LIKE JUSTIN, I DRIVE AN F250. I PULLED DOWN THERE ONE TIME. I WON'T DO IT AGAIN. IN DALLAS, THERE ARE PARKING LOTS I DON'T PULL IN. I WILL CIRCLE DALLAS BLOCKS A COUPLE OF TIMES. AND, IF WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS. DON'T FORGET THE EIGHT PARKING SPOTS BEHIND THE ALLEYWAY. WE ARE ABOUT TO HAVE, EVERYONE KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THIS PARKING LOT. IT WILL BE FULL. I GET THAT IS ASSUMING YOU ARE FULLY OCCUPIED 24/7. AND THE APARTMENTS IN THE AIRBNBS MAY NOT BE. BUT, ON A WORST CASE SCENARIO, JUST THAT STREET CAN'T HANDLE THE FULL FUNCTIONALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO, IF WE WANT TO TRY COMPACT, I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST DOING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAT, WE WILL HAVE A VERY SERIOUS PARKING ISSUE GOING ON.

>> GIVING THE RUN AROUND OR WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT THEY HAVE BEEN THROUGH WITH THIS IN THE PAST, I'M PERFECTLY FINE WITH DOING THE COMPACT AND JUST SEEING HOW THINGS GO. I DON'T

HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> OKAY, WE ARE NOT TAKING ACTION TONIGHT. JUST GIVING DIRECTION. ANY FURTHER COMMENTS

ON THIS? >> THE ONLY THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF, WE HAVE A CLEAR DEFINITION WHEN WE SAY SOMETHING IS A COMPACT CAR IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. THAT MIGHT BE A JOE QUESTION OR A PROJECT AS WE DEVELOP THIS FURTHER TO ENSURE

[01:30:03]

>> OKAY. >> IS EVERYONE GOOD WITH THE

IDEA OF THE COMPACT CARS? >> I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. I'M NOT TRYING TO GO BACKWARDS. I'M LOOKING AT THE MEASUREMENTS. COULD WE GAIN ANY ROOM AT ALL IF WE REMOVE THE STONES AND DID PARKING STOPPERS? IS THERE ANY ROOM TO BE GAINED

THERE? >> I DOUBT IT. I MEAN.

>> THERE IS ONLY A THREE FOOT GAP.

>> YEAH. OKAY. JUST A THOUGHT. >> OKAY. SO THAT IS THE DIRECTION TO STAFF. WE WILL RUN IT WITH COMPACT CAR AT THIS

MOMENT. >> I JUST HAD ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF. DOES OUR STREET EASEMENT BUMP TO HIS SIDEWALK?

>> I THINK IT BUMPS UP TO THE BUILDING. YEAH.

>> OKAY. I'M JUST THINKING OF HIS VERY NICE LOOKING STONE COLUMNS HE HAS OUT IN FRONT THAT THE COMPACT CARS WILL BE BACKING INTO. I DON'T GUESS HE CAN GET BOLLARDS IN FRONT OF THAT. I KNOW IT IS COMING. IT IS WHAT IT IS.

>> SO IS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE TO MAKE THIS AN ENFORCEMENT AIR NALOXONE THAT IF SOMEONE PARKS IN A NON-COMPACT VEHICLE THEY CAN BE TICKETED OR TOWED?

>> YEAH. >> I DO WANT TO KNOW THE DEFINITION OF A COMPACT CAR. I KNOW WE HAVE TO WRITE ONE.

>> PROBABLY NINE BY 18. I WILL LOOK.

>> IT WILL BE WHETHER OR NOT THEY FIT.

>> I WOULD ASSUME IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE, IT WOULD BE, THEY WOULD EASE INTO IT WITH WARNINGS AND THINGS

LIKE THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THERE WILL BE SOME OBVIOUS

OFFENDERS. >> WE WILL HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

AT SOME POINT, WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE THEM OR TOW THEM.

>> WE DON'T JUST COLLECT TICKETS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE IN THE FIRST DAY OR COUPLE OF DAYS. THAT IS ONE OF THE REASONS I WOULD LIKE TO GET THIS SOLVED. SO IT OPENS WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING. THAT IS JUST HOW IT IS.

>> ANOTHER THING YOU WANT TO CONSIDER. TICKETING IS ONE THING. TOWING, ON THE TOWING STATUTE, IT REQUIRES SIGNS.

LOCATION, WHERE DO WE TOW. WITH THE NUMBER. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO LITTER THAT WHOLE ENTIRE AREA WITH THAT TYPE OF SIGNAGE.

>> I THINK TICKETING WOULD BE JUST AS EFFECTIVE.

>> EVERYBODY GOOD WITH THIS? WE'LL MOVE ON.

[2025-106 ]

>> THANK YOU. OPENING ITEM. 2025-106. CONSIDER AND DISMISS AMENDING THE GOVERNANCE POLICY, BOARD REQUIREMENTS AND RULES.

ATTENDANCE AND TERM LIMITS POLICIES AND PROVIDE DIRECTION

TO STAFF. >> ALLEN AND I HAD A CONVERSATION AND I KNOW THERE WAS ONE AREA IN PARTICULAR WHERE OUR CURRENT GOVERNANCE POLICY DOES NOT DISCUSS WHEN A BOARD MEMBER FILLS AN UNINSPIRED TERM. THAT NOT ONLY GIVES THEM THE POTENTIAL BUT IT IS HAPPENING WHERE THEY EXTEND PAST THE TERM

LIMIT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. YEAH. I JUST HAD SOMEBODY FROM THE COMMUNITY CHALLENGE ME ON THIS. THAT WE WERE NOT OPERATING WITHIN OUR GOVERNANCE POLICY. AND I TOLD HIM NO WE ARE. WHEN WE GOT TO LOOKING AT IT. I LOOKED AT IT

[01:35:04]

THAT WAY. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T

HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS. >> JOIN.

>> WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

>> I'M JANE. I LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. AND MY REASON FOR BEING HERE AND EVEN SPEAKING IS I THINK IT IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO ENCOURAGE AS MUCH CITIZEN PARTICIPATION IN OUR LOCAL GOVERNMENT. AND I'M NOT SURE I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND THIS. BUT IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT EXTENDING THE SIX-YEAR TERM LIMIT TO LONGER, THEN TO ME, YOU KNOW, THAT LIMITS THAT PARTICIPATION. I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM, REALLY, WITH THE ABSENCE AND AMENDING THE ATTENDANCE POLICY. AS FAR AS THE TERM LIMITS. THAT IS A CONCERN. SO MAINTAINING THAT POSSIBILITY.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

>> OKAY, ALLEN ASKED THIS BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. ALLEN, IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS?

>> YEAH. SO JUST FOR THE FOLKS AT HOME, WHAT HAPPENS IN PRACTICE CURRENTLY IS WHEN EVER SOMEBODY COMES IN AND THEY FEEL WHAT WE CALL AN UNEXPIRED TERM. LET'S SAY SOMEBODY DECIDES HEY, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE THIS TIME COMMITMENT IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TERM OR SOMETHING COMES UP WITH FAMILY OR ILLNESS OR A MYRIAD OF REASONS WHY THAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY LEAVE IN THE MIDDLE OF THEIR TERM, WE APPOINT SOMEBODY TO FILL THAT EXPIRED TERM. THAT IS NOT A FULL TERM THAT WAS THEIRS TO BEGIN WITH.

THEY CAN GO ONTO FILL TWO FULL TERMS THAT THEY SERVE IN FULL.

SO WE DO THAT IN PRACTICE CURRENTLY. WITHIN OUR GOVERNANCE POLICY, WE DO NOT HAVE THAT IDENTIFIED AS BEING WITHIN THE GUIDELINES SO I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON THAT OUTSIDE OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONALITY BEING A LOT SIMPLER WHEN WE DO IT IN PRACTICE THE WAY WE ARE CURRENTLY DOING IT. MY INTENT IS PRIMARILY TO SAY IF THAT IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO, WE SHOULD HAVE IT CLARIFIED WITHIN THE POLICY SO IT IS NOT AS MUCH ABOUT EXTENDING TERM LIMITS. IT WAS NOT THE PRIMARY FOCUS. THOUGH OBVIOUSLY, THE DISCUSSION IS OPEN TO ANY OF THAT. BECAUSE WE ARE DIVING INTO THIS. I WANT TO CLARIFY AND SOLIDIFY WHAT WE DO IN PRACTICE WITHIN THAT

POLICY. >> I'LL SAY WHAT MY INTENT WAS.

I BROUGHT IT UP IN MARCH OF 2023. MY INTENT AND THE WAY I THOUGHT WE DID IT WHICH IS NOT WORKING OUT IN PRACTICE WAS THAT I THOUGHT WHEN SOMEBODY CAME ON, IT WAS NOT AN EXPIRED TERM OF THAT PLACE. THEY WEREN'T FOLLOWING THROUGH. I THOUGHT IT WAS THE INDIVIDUAL NOT THE PLACE. I HAVE SEEN HOW THAT HAS CAUSED SOME CONFUSION. BUT THAT IS HOW I WOULD WANT IT TO READ.

NOT THAT THIS PERSON FOLLOWS A PLACE. IF WE PUT SOMEBODY NEW, THAT PERSON GETS A FULL SIX YEARS. AFTER THIS SIX YEARS THEY MUST ROLL OFF. THAT IS WHAT I INTENDED AND THOUGHT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THAT IS WHAT I WOULD WANT IT TO SAY IF WE CHANGE IT. BECAUSE, IF THESE PEOPLE ARE WANTING TO SERVE THEY SHOULD GET A FULL TERM. NOT A HALF TERM BECAUSE THEY GOT

PLACED INTO SOMETHING. >> BUT IN PRACTICE CURRENTLY,

[01:40:01]

A FRESH ONE? >> YEAH. THEY WILL GET BETWEEN, THEY WILL GET BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT YEARS. IT MIGHT BE SIX YEARS AND ONE MONTH OR IT MIGHT BE SEVEN YEARS AND EIGHT MONTHS DEPENDING ON WHEN THAT PERSON. THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH HOLDING TWO TO SIX YEARS, IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS. YOU HOLD THE STRAIGHT SIX YEARS, YOU'LL HAVE PEOPLE ROLLING OFF ALL DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE YEAR. YOU WILL BE APPOINTING ALL THE TIME. BECAUSE SIX YEAR TERMS WILL BE STAGGERED ALL OVER THE YEAR. THAT IS WHY

WE HAVE DONE IT IN PRACTICE. >> WE ARE JUST NOT PUTTING THE POLICY THAT ALL TERMS START AND END IN NOVEMBER NO MATTER WHEN THEY WERE APPOINTED? OR JANUARY, SORRY. THAT WAY IT IS ONLY ONCE

A YEAR? >> IT WOULD STILL BE IN THE POSITION OF SIX YEARS. MOST OF OUR BOARDS HAVE TWO YEAR TERMS. AIRPORT IS THE ONLY THREE YEAR TERM WE HAVE. LET'S SAY SOMEBODY GETS ON THERE. WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE THAT JUST KIND OF BAIL AFTER THE FIRST COUPLE OF THREE MONTHS. I MEAN, IT DOES HAPPEN. BUT THAT WILL BE MORE OF THE EXCEPTION THAN THE RULE. MORE OFTEN IT IS HEY, I SERVED A YEAR, MY LIFE CHANGED AND I NEED TO BOW OUT. WE REPLACE THAT POSITION. AND SO, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM SAYING THAT IT IS NECESSARILY SIX YEARS PLUS THE UNEXPIRED TERM YOU WERE APPOINTED FOR. BECAUSE LIKE YOU SAID, WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE APPOINT SOMEBODY, THEY SERVE FOR ONE DAY WHICH I DON'T KNOW THAT IT EVER REALLY HAPPENED. AND THEY BOW OUT AND WE PUT SOMEBODY ELSE ON. NOW THAT PERSON WILL GET SIX YEARS AND 23 MONTHS. YOU KNOW. SO IF WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE WILDEST SCENARIO THERE, IF WE WANT TO MAKE A SPECIAL CAVEAT FOR THE AIRPORT BOARD, A THREE YEAR TERM, WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT. BUT, IF LIEU LOOK AT THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT. THE PRESIDENT. IF YOU SERVE LESS THAN TWO YEARS AS VICE PRESIDENT AND GET PROPOETED TO PET, YOU CAN RUN TWO MORE TIMES. THAT'S FROM THE HIGHEST OFFICE IN OUR COUNTRY SAYING YOU CAN SERVE UP TO TEN YEARS. IF YOU SERVE TWO AS VICE PRESIDENT AND GET ELECTED TWO MORE TIMES. SO THAT IS THE CONCEPT WE ARE TALK ABOUT HERE. TO ME IF IT WORKS FOR THE OVAL OFFICE, I'M FINE WITH IT WORKING ON THE PARKS BOARD. BUT MAYBE THAT IS JUST ME. I THINK THAT MAKES IT A LITTLE CLEANER. SO WE ARE NOT HAVING FOUR PEOPLE LIKE I THEY WE HAVE RIGHT NOW HAVE. ONE OF OUR BOARDS ALL ROLL OFF AT THE SAME TIME WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE STAGGERED

TERMS. >> IT IS MORE PROBABLY THAN NORM TO ALLOW THOSE FILLING ON UNEXPIRED TERM FOR THAT NOT TO COUNT TOWARD THAT SECURED TERM LIMIT. THERE ARE SOME CHARTERS THAT TREAT IT THE SAME WAY. IT IS A POSITION SO YOU WANT TO HAVE EVERYBODY ROLLING OFF OF IT AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

>> I AGREE WITH YOU AND ROSS ON THE SIMPLICITY. THE PROBLEM IS WHEN WE ATTACKED THIS LAST TIME, WE WEREN'T TRYING TO BE SING MILLION. WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FORCE CHANGE SO WE CAN GET DIFFERENT OPINIONS AND VOICES IN THERE. NOT THAT THE PEOPLE THAT SERVED DID ANYTHING WRONG. IT IS SOMETIMES GOOD TO MOVE THEM TO DIFFERENT BOARDS. BECAUSE, IT IS BETTER FOR THE WHOLE COMMUNITY. AND TRUTHFULLY, IT'S THE BEST WAY TO COME UP AS A COUNCIL MEMBER WHICH WE NEED TO GET OTHER PEOPLE READY TO RUN FOR COUNCIL. THERE WILL BE ONE DAY THAT ALL OF US WILL NOT BE SITTING HERE AND SO, I AM NOT TRYING TO MAKE IT COMPLICATED. I WANT SOMEBODY WHO GETS ON THERE TO HAVE A FULL SIX YEARS BUT I DON'T WANT THEM TO SAY FOR 20.

>> THERE HAS TO BE A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT. I THINK ALLEN WANTS THE

VERBAGE TO MATCH UP. >> I FELL VICTIM OR BLESSED BY IT. BECAUSE I HAD SERVED ON BNZ AND I WAS SERVING A TERM.

>> 30 YEARS WASN'T IT? >> IT WAS NOT 30. IT WAS LESS THAN A DECADE. BUT NOT MUCH LESS. AND, IT WAS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ME TO GRACEFULLY FEEL COMFORTABLE WALKING AWAY

[01:45:05]

>> WAS THERE ANOTHER ISSUE? >> IS THE COUNCIL AMENABLE TO

WHAT ROSS LAID OUT? >> I AM.

>> THROUGH WITH ANOTHER ISSUE WITH WORKSHOPS COUNTING AGAINST?

>> THERE ARE QUESTIONS AROUND ABSENCES. AND, FORGIVE ME FOR NOT HAVING THE LANGUAGE SPECIFICS IN HERE.

>> WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING IS SO ON THE MISSING THREE MEETINGS IN A ROW. WE HAVE ONLY BEEN APPLYING THAT TO REGULAR MEETINGS. THE QUESTION IS, SHOULD IT APPLY TO WORKSHOPS AND OR SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS? JUST ME PERSONALLY. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WITH WORKSHOPS IS IF YOU GET ON A TOPIC AND WE TALKED ABOUT ONE EARLIER WITH COMMUNITY PARK. WE HAD A LOT OF WORKSHOPS BACK TO BACK TO BACK. WE COULD RUN THEM OUT OF ONE OF THESE SPOTS REALLY FAST. THAT IS WHY WE HAVE APPLIED IT ONLY TO REGULAR MEETINGS BUT WE NEED THAT CLARIFIED. THAT'S WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR BASED ON OUR DISCUSSION. DO Y'ALL WANT WORKSHOPS TO APPLY OR SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS? WE HAD A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING OF THE PARKS BOARD. SO, THAT IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON THIS POLICY.

>> THE GOVERNANCE POLICY OR THE CHARTER?

>> THE CHARTER IS THE COUNCIL. >> THE GOVERNANCE POLICY IS THE

BOARD. >> WE KIND OF COPIED AND PASTED FROM THE CHARTER WITH THE REWRITE. MY INTENT WAS THE REASON I USE THE WORD MEETINGS. I ASSUME YOU COULDN'T HAVE A MEETING UNLESS FOUR MORE WERE PRESENT. TO YOUR POINT, MCP WOULD BE A WORST CASE SCENARIO. I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT THIS WAY.

EVERY BOARD WILL MEET ONCE A MONTH. NO BOARD CURRENTLY MEETS MORE THAN ONCE A MONTH UNLESS IT IS A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING WHICH IS ONLY 12 MEETINGS IN THE YEAR. SO YOU CAN MISS THREE OUT OF 12 UNLESS THEY ARE CONSECUTIVE BEFORE YOU GET KICKED OFF AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS PRETTY GRACEFUL. BECAUSE YOU ARE THERE TO SERVE. IF NOT, THERE IS A WAITING LIST TO GET ON A BOARD. IF THERE ARE WORKSHOPS, IT'S A MEETING.

>> SO WE HAVE NOT BEEN APPLYING IT TO WORKSHOPS. IN PRACTICE. WE HAVE JUST DONE THE REGULAR MEETINGS.

>> OKAY. >> THE CHALLENGE I HAVE IS WORKSHOPS TEND TO POP UP. RIGHT? EVEN WITH US TRYING TO HAVE A READILY SCHEDULED COUNCIL WORKSHOP ONCE A MONTH. STILL OTHER ONES POP UP. TAMMY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB OF POLLING US TO SEE IF WE CAN BE THERE. AS AN EMPLOYED INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS KIDS THAT ARE IN ACTIVITIES AND A SPOUSE THAT STILL LIKE TO SEE ME EVERY NOW AND THEN, BLESSINGLY. IT IS A CHALLENGE TO MAKE EVERYTHING WHEN THERE ARE, THE MEETINGS THAT ARE PLANNED, THEY ARE PLANNED. SO TO ME, THE DEMARCATION LINE IS IF THEY HAD AT LEAST A MONTH'S WORTH OF NOTICE THIS MEETING WAS GOING TO

[01:50:08]

>> AND I THINK, IF YOU ARE READING A CHARTER, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBERS CAN BE EXCUSED ABSENCE.

>> THEY CAN. >> SO THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHERE PEOPLE HAVE BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL OR WHATEVER. WE DID ELIMINATE THAT FROM ALL OF THE BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. THERE IS

NO EXCUSING OF ABSENCES. >> THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE CAVEAT. WHEN WE DO MEETINGS, TAMMY DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB.

SAYING CAN YOU MEET? WHAT DAYS CAN YOU MEET? FOR OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, IT WILL FALL ON THE FOR THE MOST PART, EITHER GOING TO HAVE A STAFF MEMBER WITH SOME ADMINISTRATIVE RESPONSIBILITY THEY DON'T NEED TO HAVE OR IT WILL FALL ON THE CHAIRMAN. I DON'T THINK THAT CAVEAT SHOULD BE THE RESPONSIBILITY. SO I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH DOING AS WE HAVE BEEN DOING WITH HAVING THE REGULAR MEETINGS. AND, PROCEEDING IN THAT WAY WITH A

CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THAT. >> SO, IT WILL BE A SHOCKER THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN SERVING WITH ME FOR A WHILE. I DON'T HAVE THE POLICY WITH ME TONIGHT. BUT, I DO REMEMBER WE CARVED OUT, WE ADDED THIS AS A SPECIAL CLAUSE IN THERE THAT TALKED ABOUT IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE THAT AROSE, THE MAYOR PRO TEM AND THE LIAISON TO THE BOARD COULD GATHER. ON THAT CASE, ON AN ABSENCE, WOULD IT BE BETTER TO SAY IF YOU HIT THE MAXIMUM, THE SAME THREE WOULD GATHER AND BE THE ONE TO DECIDE IF IT IS EXCUSED OR DO YOU WANT THE WHOLE COUNCIL TO CONVENE? BECAUSE WE ARE DEALING WITH EXTREMES. MOST OF THESE BOARDS ONLY MEET A FEW TIMES A YEAR. I THINK THE REASON COUNCIL HAS A HIGHER AMOUNT THAN THE BOARDS IS WE HAVE TWO CALLED MEETINGS EVERY MONTH. THESE GUYS

ONLY HAVE ONE. >> LET ME THROW THIS IN HERE TOO. IF YOU ARE GOING TO REMOVE A BOARD MEMBER THEY DO ESSENTIALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD BEFORE THIS COUNCIL BEFORE YOU MOVE THEM. HAVING A COMMITTEE AND NOT GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD COULD BE PROBLEMATIC.

>> I THINK ROSS AND WAYNE WERE ADVOCATING NOT TO.

>> I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH JUST DOING WHAT WE ARE DOING IN PRACTICE AND CODIFYING IT ON PAPER.

>> SO IN THAT CASE, WE WOULD JUST, IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE NEED TO ADD THE WORD REGULAR IN FRONT OF IT SO IT WOULD SAY REGULAR MEETINGS AND THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO CLEAN IT UP. IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. THAT WE DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE WORKSHOPS OR SPECIAL CALLED MEETINGS.

>> OKAY. FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS? CLERK, I FEEL LIKE THE CROWD IS LEANING TOWARD KEEPING IT LIKE WE DO IT OPERATIONALLY CURRENTLY. JUST CLEANING IT UP ON PAPER.

>> THAT'S FINE. I WAS JUST READING OVER IT. IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO DO THAT, ALL I WOULD SAY IS ADD IT TO SECTION 4 WHICH IS WHERE THE SUBCOMMITTEE COULD WAVE THE ABSENCES BUT EITHER

[01:55:01]

WAY. >> WITH THAT, WE DO NOT, I GUESS WE DON'T NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THAT.

>> IT SAYS CONSIDER, YOU COULD TAKE ACTION.

>> OKAY. >> ONE THING. SO, I MEAN, IN ONE CONVERSATION, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT EXTENDING TERM LIMITS. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT MENTIONED YET. ANY INTEREST IN DOING THAT SINCE WE HAVE IT ON THE AGENDA AND THAT WAS ONE OF

THE DISCUSSIONS HAD. >> I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF DOING THAT AT THIS POINT. IS ANYBODY WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGING

THE TERM LIMITS TONIGHT? >> I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO ADVOCATE FOR CHANGING THE TERM LIMITS. BUT, IF WE, IT IS JUST ANOTHER VOTE AGAINST THE STRICT ADHERENCE TO THE SIX YEARS BECAUSE WE CAN CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE ARE HAVING THE MAJORITY OF A BOARDER COMMISSION ROLL OFF AT THE SAME TIME. MY PREDECESSOR I THINK SERVED 16 TO 18 YEARS AND THAT IS TOO LONG. BUT THERE IS ALSO VALUE ADDED. A LOT OF THESE BOARDS. UNLESS IT DEALS WITH WHAT THAT PERSON'S PRIMARY SPHERE OF KNOWLEDGE IS, THAT THE FIRST TERM IS YOU ARE LEARNING.

YOU KNOW. YOU ARE REALLY FIGURING OUT WHAT IS GOING ON.

YOUR SECOND TERM YOU ARE IN YOUR STRIDE. YOUR THIRD, YOU MIGHT BE A CHAIR OR A VICE CHAIR. AND ALL OF THAT IS NOW GONE. RIGHT? AND, THAT IS A GOOD THING. AND THAT IS A BAD THING. I CAN SEE BOTH SIDES OF IT. I DON'T WANT TO GO BACK TO WHERE WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF TERM LIMITS. BUT WE NEED TO BE COGNIZANT OF WHAT WE ARE APPOINTING AND HOW MANY SPOTS WE ARE FILLING IS WHAT IS IT, BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF SOME OF THIS THAT HAS CAUSED THAT? DO WE NEED TO SWITCH THEM ALL TO THREE YEAR TERMS SO WE CAN CYCLE PEOPLE BETTER AND NOT HAVE IT WHERE WHERE WE HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF COLLECTIVE WISDOM THAT IS GONE AND WE HAVE A BOARD TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT FROM SCRATCH WITHOUT ANY SMALLER COMPONENT SAYING HEY, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE. WE WANT NEW IDEAS. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IF THE FIRST YEAR, THEY SPENT A WHOLE YEAR OF WORKSHOPS ESSENTIALLY LEARNING WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO BE DOING OR WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING AT, THAT IS WHERE WE CAN CREATE GRIDLOCK AND CONFUSION THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS. THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO KEEP IT IN MIND.

>> KEEPING IT IN MIND, BUT NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO DO

ANYTHING OF THE ALTERNATIVE? >> SO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION AND THAT IS TO GIVE, TO ALLOW CITY MANAGER TO EDIT THE GOVERNANCE POLICY TO REFLECT THE UNEXPIRED TERM ISSUE. ALLOWING BOARD MEMBERS TO COMPLETE UNEXPIRED TERMS AND ADDING VERBAGE TO REFLECT TO WHERE ATTENDANCE AT WORKSHOPS DO NOT ACCOUNT AGAINST A BOARD MEMBER'S ATTENDANCE RECORDS.

>> YEAH. >> OR SPECIAL MEETINGS.

>> SO SPECIALLY SECTION ONE. NUMBER THREE. INSERTING THE WORD REGULAR MEETINGS. AND 16 ALLOWING THE SERVING OF ANY UNEXPIRED TERMS PLUS SIX CONSECUTIVE YEARS.

>> OKAY. I MADE A MOTION. IS THERE A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE BY MYSELF. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. TAMMY, CAN WE VOTE ON THIS? ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX. IT PASSES 6-0. FOR THE RECORD. ALL RIGHT.

>> CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? >> YES.

>> NUMBER 16 ON SECTION 1. ALL OF THE LAST. ALL OF THE BOARDS THAT WE HAVE, LISTED THAT DON'T HAVE, HOW IS THIS PUT? I THINK IT WAS THAT. ONE OF THOSE. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY DON'T MEET ON A MONTHLY BASIS OR THEY DON'T, THEY MIGHT MEET ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR. I DON'T KNOW THAT ALL OF THEM ARE LISTED THERE. IT MIGHT NOT BE THE LAST SENTENCE. I JUST REMEMBER READING SOMETHING.

>> YOU TALK ABOUT WHERE THIS REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO

THE HISTORIC ADVISORY BOARD? >> YEAH. YEAH. RIGHT.

>> BECAUSE THEY DO MEET. >> BECAUSE THEY DON'T MEET

EVERY MONTH. >> THE REASON WE CARVED THEM OUT, ESPECIALLY ON THE HISTORIC ADVISORY BOARD IS TYPICALLY, IF

[02:00:01]

>> THE THANK YOU VERY MUCH OF THE BOARD.

>> THE NATURE OF THE BOARD. >> THIS REFERS TO THE JOINT LIBRARY BOARD. THAT BOARD IS NO LONGER IN PLACE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A JOINT LIBRARY. SO, I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS CARVE-OUT. THESE RULES APPLY TO OUR LIBRARY BOARD. BECAUSE THIS

BOARD NO LONGER EXISTS. >> SOME OF THESE OTHER ONES. A LOT OF THEM WERE JOINED WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. SO ANYWAY.

>> SECOND MOTION. >> OKAY. SO I WILL MAKE A SECOND MOTION. GIVE THE CITY MANAGER THE ABILITY TO EDIT THE GOVERNANCE POLICY TO REMOVE THE JOINT LIBRARY BOARD. AND INCLUDE THE CURRENT SETUP AS ONE OF THE NORMAL OPERATING BOARDS WITH ALL THE RULES TO APPLY. MOTION MADE BY MYSELF. A SECOND?

>> SECOND. >> ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX. SIX VOTE IN AFFIRMATIVE. AND, PASSES 6-0. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL RIGHT. GOOD MEETING TONIGHT GUYS. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YOUR EFFORT, YOUR ENERGY. THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE SESSION ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA. SO, WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.