[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation ]
[00:00:10]
>>> GOOD EVENING. IT'S 6:00, TUESDAY, JULY 8, 2025. WE DO HAVE A A COUNCIL PRESENT, BARELY A QUORUM OF COUNCIL PRESENT BUT WE'RE HERE.
EXCITED TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY CONTINUE. I CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN TONIGHT WITH OUR INVOCATION AND PLEDGES.
IF YOU WOULD BOW IN PRAYER WITH ME AS WE OPEN UP THIS MEETING.
FATHER, WE COME BEFORE YOU TONIGHT TO DO THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY.
GOD, I PRAY FOR WISDOM AND YOUR GUIDANCE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE DECISIONS THAT REFLECT YOUR WILL FOR YOUR GLORY RIGHT HERE IN OUR COMMUNITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.
GOD, WE LIFT UP ALL OF OUR FIRST RESPONDERS WHO ARE IN THE STREETS THIS EVENING, KEEP THEM SAFE, HELP THEM TO REPRESENT YOU AND REPRESENT WELL IN THIS CITY AS THEY DO THEIR DAILY DUTIES.
GOD, WE GIVE THIS TIME TO YOU, THIS MEETING TO YOU.
MAY WE HONOR AND BLESS YOU AND REFLECT YOUR WILL HERE IN OUR CITY. IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN.
>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
>> HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE, TEXAS, ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.
>> AS MENTIONED BEFORE, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS OUT THIS EVENING. THEY'RE TRAVELING, ILL, AND BUSY AT WORK AND OTHERWISE, SO
[2025-214]
GRATEFUL FOR THE ONES THAT ARE ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT.WE'RE GOING TO START TONIGHT WITH OPPORTUNITY FOR COUNCIL MEMBERS TO PRESENT ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST, WHICH IS 2025.214. ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE ANY STAFF MEMBERS OR ANY MOMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY THAT THEY'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF WEEKS? I'LL MAKE MENTION OF OUR PARADE AND OUR FANTASTIC PARKS AND RECREATION TEAM, BOTH THE BOARD AND THE STAFF.
A LOT WENT INTO THAT AND WE ALSO HAD GREAT WEATHER FOR IT, TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS
[2025-215]
A NICE REPRIEVE FROM THE HEAT. SO, NOT SEEING ANY OTHER MICS LIGHT UP, WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS CITIZENS TO BE HEARD, THE COUNCIL MEMBER INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE TOPIC. CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A PARTICIPATION FORM.SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
>> MS. HEALY, IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD AND TURN THE MICROPHONE ON WHEN YOU SEE IT'S RED. JUST STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MIC, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE
MY NAME'S LISA HEALY, I LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND I AM SPEAK TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF MAKING A REQUEST THAT ITEM D ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS PULLED, AND WE HAVE A FULL EXPLANATION WHY THE REPAIRS FOR AVENUE F HAS GONE FROM $40,000 PRICE TAG TO NOW OVER $276,000. OBVIOUSLY, SOMEONE ON THE COUNCIL OR SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THETHE MADE A REALLY BAD DECISION, AND I THINK THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE MADE AWARE OF IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE TAKING CARE OF US, THE CITIZENRY. OF MIDLOTHIAN.
SO, I HOPE THAT YOU WILLWILL THAT SO THERE CAN BE FULL TRANSPARENCY ON WHAT HAPPENED IN THAT SITUATION. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK?
>> MS. LEAVITT, COME FORWARD AND TURN YOUR MICROPHONE ON.
STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE, AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IN THE CITY LIMITS, AND THEN IT'S -- YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. IT SHOULD BE RIGHT DOWN THERE AT THE BASE.
MY NAME IS HILARY LEAVITT, AND I'M A RESIDENT OF MIDLOTHIAN. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO VOICE GROWING CONCERNS ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING AT OUR COMMUNITY PARK IN THE EVENINGS.
CONCERNS SHARED BY MANY OF MY NEIGHBORS. WHAT WAS ONCE A PLACE FOR FAMILIES, CHILDREN, AND COMMUNITY, OUR DREAM PARK, IS RAPIDLY BECOMING A NIGHTMARE. IN THE EVENINGS, THE PARK TURNS INTO SOMETHING UNRECOGNIZABLE.
LOUD, UNFILTERED MUSIC BLARES LATE INTO THE NIGHT, BASS FROM THE SPEAKERS IS SO LOUD THAT IT LITERALLY SHAKES THE HOMES SURROUNDING THE PARK.
WE'VE WITNESSED DRUG USE, PUBLIC FIGHTING, GAMBLING AND FIREWORKS BEING SET OFF IN PEOPLE'S FRONT YARDS JUST STEPS AWAY FROM THEIR PORCHES.
THIS ISN'T AN ISOLATED INCIDENT. IT'S RECURRING AND MANY OF THOSE INVOLVED AREN'T EVEN FROM
[00:05:02]
MIDLOTHIAN. THEY'RE COMING FROM OTHER CITIES, TAKING OVER OUR SPACE, FUNDED BY OUR TAX DOLLARS, AND IN THE PROCESS, PUSHING OUT THE VERY RESIDENTS THIS PARK WAS MEANT FOR BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER FEELING SAFE.LAST YEAR, SIMILAR ISSUES WERE HAPPENING, AND POLICE WERE CALLED OUT ON COUNTLESS OCCASIONS BY THE RESIDENTS, AND STILL, THE PROBLEM PERSISTS.
IT HAS ESCALATED EACH YEAR. THIS IS PUTTING ADDITIONAL STRAIN ON OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT. THIS IS NOT JUST A NUISANCE.
IT'S A SERIOUS SAFETY ISSUE, A QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUE, AND IT'S UNFAIR TO THE FAMILIES WHO BUILT LIVES AROUND THE PARK, EXPECTING A PEACEFUL COMMUNITY SPACE. I'M NOT HERE JUST TO COMPLAIN.
I'M HERE ASKING FOR ACTION. WE NEED A CLEAR, EFFECTIVE PLAN TO RESTORE SAFETY AND RESPECT AT OUR COMMUNITY PARK, WHETHER THAT MEANS CURFEWS, INCREASED PATROLS, SURVEILLANCE OR ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT. SOMETHING HAS TO CHANGE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND FOR YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS URGENT
MATTER. >> THANK YOU, MS. LEAVITT.
WOULD YOU MIND STEPPING OVER HERE? CLYDE, WOULD YOU GET HER INFORMATION, PLEASE? WE CAN START SOME COMMUNICATIONS BACK AND FORTH WITH THE STAFF TO HOPEFULLY MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO CONSENT AGENDA.
WAS THERE -- DID YOU FILL OUT --
>> PAT FERRELL? YOU WANT TO COME UP? SURE.
PAT, STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE IN THE CITY LIMITS, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> IT'S PATRICK FERRELL AND YES, I'M A RESIDENT WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF MIDLOTHIAN, AND I WANTED TO SPEAK ON A SPECIFIC ITEM AT THE END.
ITEM NUMBER 2025-230. THAT ITEM IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU GUYS TONIGHT FOR APPROVAL FOR SOME MONEY TO APPROVE SOME PURCHASE OF PARKLAND, I BELIEVE, THAT'S WHAT I'M HEARING. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURESURE THAT YOU AWARE BASED ON THE PARK'S BYLAWS THAT ANY LAND ACQUISITION AND THINGS LIKE THAT SHOULD BE RUNNING THROUGH THE PARKS BOARD FIRST BEFORE WE BRING IT ON UP TO COUNCIL. NONE OF THIS WAS KNOWN BY ANY PARKS BOARD MEMBER, WHAT'S GOING ON RIGHT HERE. I JUST HAPPENED TO FIND OUT ABOUT IT TODAY AND THE ONLY REASON I FOUND OUT ABOUT IT IS BECAUSE I CHECKED AND HEARD THERE WAS A WORK SHOP LAST WEEK. AFTER IT WAS APPROVED THROUGH MCDC LAST WEEK, I WAS ABLE TO GET THE INFORMATION TODAY TO FIND OUT WE'VE GOT SOME PARKS BOARD LAND BEING PURCHASED, AGAIN, NOTHING COMING THROUGH THE PARKS BOARD. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN IT GETS TO PROPERTY THAT DOES GET REAL SENSITIVE.
AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PARKS BOARD TO BE INVOLVED WITH THESE TYPES OF THINGS.
AS Y'ALL KNOW, I'M A FIERCE ADVOCATE FOR THE PARKS BOARD, AS THE VICE CHAIR, AND I'M JUST COMING UP HERE AND LETTING YOU KNOW, AGAIN, HERE WE ARE. NOT INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.
SO, THAT'S ALL I GOT TO SAY. THANK YOU.
>> THANKS, PAT. WE'RE UNABLE TO ENGAGE ON THE TOPIC YET BUT IF YOU ARE ABLE TO STICK AROUND, WE'LL BE REVISITING THAT TOPIC IN A LITTLE BIT.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
NO OTHER SPEAKERS, TAMMY? OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 2025-216.ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION.
IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM CAN BE REMOVED AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. WOULD ANY COUNCIL MEMBERS LIKE TO REMOVE ANY ITEMS?
>> OKAY. REMOVING ITEM D. ANY OTHERS, COUNCIL MEMBERS? OKAY, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS
ITEM D. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE WOULD REMOVE ITEM D.
>> I'M SORRY. I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPT FOR ITEM
D. >> WE HAVE A MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER RODGERS, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHUFFIELD. PLEASE VOTE.
[2025-216 D. Consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian’s Fiscal Year 2024- 2025 General Fund Budget Appropriations in an amount not to exceed $276,675 from the Unreserved Fund Balance to fund the design of the Avenue F improvements.]
ITEM PASSES 4-0. WE WILL OPEN ITEM D, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN'S FISCAL YEAR 2024- 2025 GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $276,675 FROM THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE AND TO FUND THE DESIGN OF AVENUE F IMPROVEMENTS.>> I'LL ADDRESS THE QUESTION. THE JUNE 24 MEETING, 2025-206 WAS CONSIDERED AN ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH PARK HILL FOR AVENUE F DESIGN SERVICES AT A COST NOT TO EXCEED $276,675$276,675 THAT IS WHAT THIS
[00:10:02]
BUDGET TRANSFER IS. TRANSFERRING THIS MONEY FROM THE UNRESERVED FUND TO OUR GENERAL FUND IN ORDER TO PAY FOR THAT CONTRACT.>> SO, THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY
NO. >> THIS IS THE DESIGN OF UPGRADES TO THE AVENUE F CORRIDOR IN KEEPING WITH OUR DOWNTOWN MASTER PLAN.
>> AND I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT I BELIEVE THE $40,000 THAT WAS REFERENCED BEFORE WAS THE DESIGN FOR 7TH STREET. WE DID PROVE A $40,000 DESIGN FOR 7TH STREET, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAN AVENUE F THAT'S TALKED ABOUT HERE.
>> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. CAN THE AUDIENCE HEAR US PRETTY CLEARLY?
>> I'M GETTING COMPLAINTS EVERY WEEK THAT THEY CAN'T HEAR US.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? ARE YOU GOOD?
OKAY, TAKE A MOTION ON IT. >> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
>> OKAY, GOT A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM D FROM CONSENT AGENDA BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER.
>> SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHUFFIELD.
[2025-217 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a secondary dwelling unit relating to the use and development of Lots 4 and 5 of the Oaks of Shiloh, presently zoned Planned Development District No. 140 (PD140) and located at 3609 Cherrybark Lane. (SUP02-2025-030)]
MOVING ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS.2025-217, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS 4 AND 5 OF THE OAKS OF SHILOH, PRESENTLY ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 140 AND LOCATED AT 3609 CHERRYBARK LANE.
GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. SO, THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL ELECTRICAL METER FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT LOCATED ON THE WEST OF THE CURRENT PRIMARY.
THE TOTAL SITE IS A LITTLE OVER TWO ACRES, AND THE FUTURE LAND USE IS COUNTRY MODULE. THE CURRENT ZONING IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 140 OR PD- 140, WHICH IS THE SHILOH PD. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IN THE ORANGE AND RED OUTLINE.
AND THEN, TO THE SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST, THEY'RE ALL UNDER THE SAME PD AS THE PROPERTY, PD 140.
ALL OF THE PROPERTY SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY WE'RE DISCUSSING IS UNDEVELOPED÷÷ LAND UNDER COUNTRY MODULE AND THEN TO THE NORTH IS AGRICULTURAL ZONED LAND. SO, WITH THE BUILDING SIZES, THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENT WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS 75% OF THE AIR CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA OF THE PRIMARY OR 1,800 SQUARE FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. AND THEN ON HERE, THE CURRENT PRIMARY IS TO THE EAST AND THEN THE PROPOSAL TO THE WEST AND AS YOU CAN SEE HERE -- OKAY.
THIS IS -- THE GARAGE IS NOT A SEED AND THERE'S A LITTLE BREEZEWAY RIGHT HERE. IT ALSO DOESN'T HAVE AC. THE ONLY AC SPACE IS RIGHT HERE.
WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AT THE JUNE MEETING.
THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL.
>> SINCE THERE'S NO PUBLIC INPUT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE.
>> IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.
COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF ARDEN OR THE APPLICANT?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RODGERS.
THANK YOU, ARDEN. >> THANK YOU.
[2025-218 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the zoning regulations of Planned Development District No. 98 (PD-98) relating to the use and development of Lot 3, Block 1, Massey Heritage Addition, to allow a drive through restaurant with additional signage through Specific Use Permit approval. The property is generally located on the east side of S. Walnut Grove Road, north of FM 1387. (SUP04- 2025-034)]
>> PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER 2025-218. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE. RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 3, BLOCK 1, MASSEY HERITAGE ADDITION TO ALLOW A DRIVE- THRU RESTAURANT WITH ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE THROUGH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVAL.
[00:15:02]
THIS PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SOUTH WALNUT GROVEROAD. >> COUNCIL MEMBERS, CAN YOU HEAR ME?
THERE. >> THIS S.U.P. IS FOR DRIVE- THRU WITH SIGNAGE ON FOUR SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
THE SIDE IS 1.2 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND.
IT'S EAST OF WALNUT GROVE AND NORTH OF FM 1387.
WATER AND SEWER WILL BE PROVIDED BY MIDLOTHIAN.
GUIDING OUR FUTURE, MIDLOTHIAN 2024 COMP PLAN SHOWS THIS AREA'S NEIGHBORHOOD LOCAL RETAIL MODULE. IT MEETS GOALS FOR ECONOMIC AND FISCAL HEALTH TO EXPAND THE RETAIL BASE, TO PROVIDE SERVICES, AND PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT FOR THE CITY'S RESIDENTS. IT'S SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES, NORTH, EAST, AND SOUTH BY PD 98 FOR COMMUNITY RETAIL USES, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSTRUCTED AS A MASSEY MEADOWS.
TO THE WEST, IT IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 3, HOWEVER IT'S SHOWN AS LOCAL RETAIL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THAT'S HOW THE OWNER PLANS TO DEVELOP IT.
SO, THE PLAN SHOWS WALNUT GROVE IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, 120 FEET WIDE. THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD IS 120 FEET EXISTING. IT WILL BE A -- THE PROPOSED USE IS A M CDONALD'S, 3,694 SQUARE FEET. THE SIGNAGE FOR ALL SIDES OF THE BUILDING EQUALS 107. 6 SQUARE FEET, AND WHICH IS STILL IN THE ALLOWABLE AMOUNT.
THE PARKING WILL MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, AND AS WELL AS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. THIS IS THE DETAILED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE DRIVE-THRU LANES AND THE PARKING.
THEY DO HAVE ALL OF THE STREET TREES LANDSCAPED PARKING TREES AND SHRUBS THAT ARE NEEDED.
ELEVATIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COLOR SCHEME FOR THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THEY DO HAVE THE HORIZONTAL, VERTICAL ARTICULATION THAT'S NEEDED. THEY'RE PROVIDING DUMPSTER SCREENING THAT MATCHES THE BUILDING AND THEY HAVE A PEDESTRIAN GATE.
SO, THERE ARE NO TRAFFIC FLOW CONFLICTS WITH THE DRIVE-THRU. THESE ARE THE ELEVATIONS. THEY'RE÷÷THEY'RE STORY, 22 FEET IN HEIGHT. THERE ARE EIGHT LETTERS THAT WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET, AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CORRESPONDENCE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP FOR DRIVE- THRU WITH SIGNAGE FOR ALL FOUR ELEVATIONS AND TNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> THANK YOU, MARY. TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE
MOVED. >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHUFFIELD, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER.
IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PRESENTATION, YOU'RE WELCOME TO OR STAND FOR QUESTION, EITHER WAY.
>> HELLO. MY NAME IS DANIELLE CARTER ON BEHALF OF MCDONALD'S. A THIRD-PARTY ENTITLEMENTS CONSULTANT AND I AM JUST HERE IN CASE YOU GUYS HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT OR OF STAFF?
>> JUST FOR MY OWN CLARITY, JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, ON THE -- I GUESS THE SOUTH SIDE. ARE WE LOOKING AT THE NORTH SIDE ON THAT PICTURE?
>> IS THAT A -- IS THERE ACCESS TO THE OTHER REST OF THE PARKING LOT WITH THAT LITTLE STRIP THERE? BECAUSE I DIDN'T NOTICE ANY
INSIDE. >> YES, THERE'S GOING TO BE.
YES. >> THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD BE, RIGHT THERE?
>> I JUST -- I WANTED TO MAKE SURE OF THAT.
>> IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE BECAUSE OF THE DARK GRAY VERSUS THE WHITE.
>> MARY, DO WE KNOW WHO THE NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO BE ON THAT HARD CORNER? THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE OF THE DUMPSTER LOCATION.
DO WE HAPPEN TO KNOW WHAT THE FUTURE PLAN IS OF THAT SITE?
>> NO, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A USER YET.
>> YOU'VE GOT TWO DRIVE-THRU LANES.
WHAT AMOUNT OF QUEUEING IS THAT ALLOWING FOR IN CARS?
>> IT'S REQUIRED TO BE A MINIMUM OF SIX, AND I BELIEVE THEY EXCEED THAT QUITE A BIT. JUST KIND OF LOOKING AT IT.
[00:20:04]
DO YOU HAVE THE NUMBER?>> I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER ON THIS.
>> IS THAT MEASURED FROM THE WINDOW, MARY,
OR IS THAT FROM -- >> IT'S FROM THE ORDER BOARD.
>> IF YOU GO -- OH. IF YOU LOOK AT THE DETAILED SITE PLAN IN YOUR PACKET, I THINK THAT HAS A DIMENSION ON IT OF -- THERE'S A DIMENSION ON THERE OF 30 FEET, AND I THINK A CAR LENGTH IS TYPICALLY 20 FEET, SO TO MARY'S POINT, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST SIX SPOTS.
THAT'S PROBABLY BEFORE YOU GET TO THE DOUBLE SPLIT.
>> AND THEN MARY, DID I READ THE STAFF REPORT CORRECTLY, THAT WHILE THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE EXCEPTION FOR THE SIGNAGE TO BE ALLOWED ON ALL FOUR SIDES, THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOT OF SIGNAGE STILL STAYS WITHIN OUR NORMAL PARAMETERS?
>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS CASE? I'LL TAKE A MOTION IF THERE IS
NONE. >> MOVE WE APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RODGERS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 4-0.
[2025-219 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance relating to the use and development of Lot 5, Highridge Acres, located at 2025 Highridge Lane, by changing the zoning from Agricultural (A) District to Single Family Two (SF-2) District. (Z05-2025- 006)]
PUBLIC HEARING ITEM 2025-219, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 5, HIGHRIDGE ACRES, LOCATED AT 2025 HIGHRIDGE LANE BY CHANGING THE ZONING FROM AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT TO SINGLE FAMILY TWO DISTRICT.>> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
I'M DANIEL TO PRESENT ITEM 2025-219.
THIS IS CURRENTLY A 2.95-ACRE VACANT AND UNDEVELOPED LOT. LITTLE BACKGROUND.
THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR THE CURRENT ZONING IS FOUR ACRES, WHICH MAKES THIS AN EXISTING NONCONFORMING LOT. THE CODE ALLOWS DEVELOPMENT OF A ONE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A NONCONFORMING LOT, BUT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO DEVELOP TWO. THEREFORE, THE ZONE CHANGE, AS WELL AS A REPLAT INTO TWO LOTS WILL BE REQUIRED. RIGHT.
SO, FOR SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES, THAT WILL INCLUDE SF- 1 TO THE NORTH AND AGRICULTURAL TO THE SOUTH, EAST, AND WEST WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES ADJACENT TO ALL SIDES. HERE'S THE COMPARISON CHART BETWEEN THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED ZONING THAT SHOWS THE DIFFERENCES IN HOW THE PROPERTY MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROPOSED ZONING.
STAFF RECOMMENDS YOU CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING.
THE SURROUNDING LAND USE COMPATIBILITY AS PREVIOUSLY NOTED. THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS SINCE SF-2 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE FALLS WITHIN THE RANGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL MEDIAN DENSITY MAXIMUM OF FOUR.
AND THE REQUEST -- EXCUSE ME. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT.
AND THE REQUEST AND PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM DENSITY DESIGNATION, WHICH SUPPORTS TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES.
WE MAILED OUT 13 LETTERS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 200-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY, RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE, AND PNZ COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF 7-0. AND FINALLY, HERE'S AN EXHIBIT PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, SHOWING THE REPLATTED LOTS AND PROPOSED BUILDINGS MEETING ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS THE MINIMUM LOT DIMENSIONS AND BUILDING SETBACKS. THANK YOU, AND I'M OPEN TO QUESTIONS.
TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? OKAY WITH NO PUBLIC SPEAKING, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC
SECOND. >> MOTION MADE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 4-0.
OKAY. QUESTIONS. OR IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION, YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO SO.
>> COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NO QUESTIONS. I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
>> MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER RODGERS. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SHUFFIELD. PLEASE VOTE.
[2025-220 to 2025-228]
ITEM PASSES 4-0. WE'LL MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA. COUNCIL, WE'VE GOT SEVERAL ITEMS THAT ARE VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE.ITEMS 2025-20 THROUGH ITEM 2025-228.
WE WILL HEAR ALL THESE CASES TOGETHER AND THEN TAKE ONE MOTION TO COVER THEM ALL UNLESS ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO PULL ANY OF THESE SPECIFIC ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL MOTIONS.
BUT YOU'RE WELCOME TO DO THAT AS A PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
SO, WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO OPEN ALL OF THESE ITEMS TOGETHER AND WHO'S MAKING THE PRESENTATION? KEVIN AND HEATH.
[00:25:01]
CLYDE? YEAH. OKAY.CHIEF, YOU'RE WELCOME TO COME UP TOO. THE MORE, THE MERRIER. NUMBER 220 IS FIRE CODE, AND I BELIEVE THE REST OF THEM ARE BUILDING CODES.
>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL. WE ARE MOVING TO THE -- OR WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO THE 2021 FIRE CODE TO ENHANCE OUR FIRE PREVENTION, AND ALSO ADOPT THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COG AMENDMENTS ALONG WITH THE -- EXCUSE ME -- THE CODE.
>> OKAY. OKAY, WITH THAT, WE'LL -- IS THERE ANY SPECIFIC ONES ABOUT THE FIRE CODE? SORRY, SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FIRE CODE? MIKE?
>> MY QUESTION'S PRIMARILY REVOLVE AROUND SPRINKLERS.
I KNOW IN THE PAST, WE'VE ALLOWED FIREWALL AT ROUGHLY 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND IT APPEARS AS THOUGH, AND I MIGHT HAVE MISREAD IN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT THAT FIREWALLS APPEAR TO BE BEING ELIMINATED AT THIS POINT.
AND THAT THE FIREWALL PORTION -- AND I'M ASSUMING WITHIN THIS QUESTION, THAT THE EXISTING FIREWALL BUILDINGS AT 6,000 FOOT ARE GRANDFATHERED IN. I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE THE COMMERCIAL FIREWALL PORTION OF THIS CHANGES IF WE COULD.
>> OKAY. THE FIREWALLS YOU'RE REFERENCING WERE ON PREVIOUS ADOPTIONS.
THEY WERE LOCAL AMENDMENTS THAT WERE ADDED BY CHIEF ON THE 2003 AND THE 2009 FIRE CODE. THEY WERE NOT PART OF THE CODE, AND THE FIREWALLS DO NOT DEFINE -- THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN, THEY DO NOT DEFINE SEPARATE AREAS AS FAR AS THE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT.
>> SO, THE QUESTION WOULD BE -- AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.
THERE ARE, OF COURSE, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES IN THE CITY LIMITS THAT HAVE FIREWALL TO APPLY FOR THAT PREVIOUS PROVISION THAT WAS ALLOWABLE. I'M ASSUMING THEY WILL BE GRANDFATHERED IN AND WITHIN THE ANSWERING OF THAT QUESTION, WILL ANYTHING INHIBIT OR MAKE CHANGES UPON THE SELL OF THAT PROPERTY OR PRODUCE HARDSHIP DUE TO THESE CHANGES ON THOSE GRANDFATHERED PROPERTIES?
>> IF THEY INCREASE THE UNDER- ROOF BUILDING SIZE OR THERE WAS A CHANGE OF USE THAT OCCUPANCY USE THAT TRIGGERED A SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT.
>> WHEN YOU SAY A CHANGE OF USE, ARE YOU TALKING IN TERMS OF A CHANGE OF USE IN FIRE RATING GOING UP OR ANY CHANGE OF USE?
>> IT DEPENDS ON THE CHANGE OF USE.
IF IT'S A MORE RESTRICTIVE USE --
>> THAT'S WHY I -- I PHRASED IT AS A FIRE RATING GOING UP VERSUS -- BUT IT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY MEAN IT PRODUCED A PROBLEM OF A CHANGE OF USE GOING DOWN IN RATING VALUE?
>> IF IT'S A LESS RESTRICTIVE USE, THEN THERE'S FLEXIBILITY ON
DO YOU -- IS THAT UP TO YOURSELF, THE FIRE MARSHAL, OR HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> I AM THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY. THAT'S MY DETERMINATION.
>> AND IT RELIES UPON YOURSELF ONLY, NOT SOME FORMAT OF A COMMITTEE?
>> WE REQUIRE PLAN REVIEW. ALL OF OUR -- ANY CHANGE LIKE THAT WOULD GO THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS THROUGH THE -- THROUGH A THIRD-PARTY AND BUILDING CODE REVIEW AND ANYTHING THAT TRIGGERED THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD APPLY. SO, IT'S NOT JUST MY DECISION.
>> IS THERE A FORM OF AN APPEAL PROCESS IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT AGREE WITH THE RULING OF THE LOCAL FIRE PROVISION UPON RATINGS AND WHATNOT?
>> YES. >> IS THERE AN APPEAL PROCESS?
>> THERE IS. WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
>> THIS IS A CURIOSITY QUESTION, AND I BELIEVE IT FELL IN THE REALMS OF TOWN HOMES WHERE THEY HAVE CHANGED A TWO- HOUR WALL RATING INTO TWO ONE-HOUR WALL RATINGS.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS JUST A GAIN IN MORE PROTECTIONARY MECHANISMS OR WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THAT? DO YOU KNOW? AND HEATH MAY KNOW BETTER, BUT GO AHEAD.
>> THAT WAS MOST LIKELY DRIVEN BY THE BUILDING CODE.
>> THE TWO CODES OVERLAP, AND A LOT OF THOSE FIRE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS COME FROM THE LIELD CODE.
THEY'RE JUST REFERENCED IN THE FIRE CODE.
>> OKAY, AND OF COURSE, WITHIN READING ALL THIS INFORMATION, IT'S WAY ABOVE MY PAY GRADE, A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE TO TRY TO TAKE IN.
I DON'T KNOW HOW Y'ALL KEEP IT ALL SEPARATED.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WITHIN THE -- WHAT WILL BE TAKEN ON AND ADDED
[00:30:03]
PROVISIONS AND WHATNOT, I'M ASSUMING THERE ARE NOTHING WITHIN THESE PROVISIONS THAT ARE PROVIDING ADDED OR ANY FORM OF -- WELL, I WOULD EVEN GO AS FAR AS TO SAY, ADDED SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS UPON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.OR IS THERE ANYTHING WITHIN -- IS THIS ALL JUST COMMERCIALLY
THE FIRE CODE DOES NOT REGULATE BY STATE LAW, DOES NOT REGULATE THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE OTHER THAN MULTIFAMILY.
YOU. >> TOWNHOMES, MULTIFAMILY, THAT SORT OF THING.
>> DID YOU SAY THAT IT CAN'T REGULATE
MULTIFAMILY EITHER? >> IT DOES REGULATE MULTIFAMILY.
THAT IS CONSIDERED COMMERCIAL.
SIR. >> THAT WAS ONE OF MY KEY QUESTIONS TOO, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT -- I KNOW THE INTERNATIONAL CODE FREQUENTLY TRIES TO BRING THAT IN, AND I WAS HOPEFUL THAT OUR STATE LAW HAD PRECLUDED THAT.
AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, DIGESTING THIS INFORMATION, WHICH I SPENT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME CROSS- REFERENCING, BECAUSE IT -- ONE CODE REFERENCES ANOTHER CODE THAT THEN DEFERS TO ANOTHER CODE, AND THEN YOU KNOW, YOU'RE SIX CODES DEEP TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE REGULATION IS.
GIVE ME A SUMMARY OF ANY KEY OR IMPORTANT CHANGES.
I MEAN, WHY ARE WE ADOPTING THE 2021 INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE 2019? WHAT ARE WE IMPROVING FOR THE RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN BY DOING THIS?
>> IT'S A MORE CURRENT VERSION THAT HAS -- IS ADDRESSING CHANGING IN BUILDING CODES, CHANGES IN CONSTRUCTION.
CHANGES IN FIRE PROTECTION. DIFFERENT TECHNOLOGIES.
>> SO, ARE THERE ANY KIND OF SPECIFIC EXAMPLES THAT STAND -- I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE SPENT A LOT MORE TIME FORENSICALLY GOING THROUGH THIS THAN I'M CAPABLE OF BECAUSE SOME OF THE TERMINOLOGY, I HAD TO LOOK UP WHAT THEY MEANT WHEN THEY USED CERTAIN ACRONYMS AND WORDS SO I ASSUME THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S PART AND PARCEL TO BHAU GUYS ARE DOING, SO JUST AS A PERSON WHO DOES NOT REGULATE FIRE SAFETY FOR A LIVING, WHAT'S THE IMPORTANCE OF -- I MEAN, WHAT ARE THE KEY THINGS THAT WE'RE GAINING FROM THIS?
>> I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC EXAMPLE.
LIKE I SAID, THE -- KEEPING UP WITH THE CODE VERSIONS JUST KEEPS UP WITH CURRENT TECHNOLOGY, CURRENT CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM.
THE BIGGEST CHANGE FOR US WAS GOING FROM THE 2009 TO THE 2015 AND THEN THE 2015 AND SO ON HAVE BEEN VERY SIMILAR. THERE WILL BE SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES DUE TO BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS COMING UP IN THE '24 CODE. THE '21 IS ADDRESSING A LOT OF THAT, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S AN EVOLVING TECHNOLOGY THAT THE FIRE SERVICE IS REACTING TO. WE'RE HAVING TO LEARN THAT TECHNOLOGY, BATTERY SYSTEMS, AND A LOT OF THAT WASN'T WELL ADDRESSED IN SOME OF THE PREVIOUS CODES, INCLUDING THE '18. THAT IS ONE THING THAT'S -- THEY'RE ADDRESSING. ALTERNATIVE FUEL SYSTEMS. THINGS THAT WE'RE STARTING TO SEE WITH VEHICLES, WITH HOMES, WITH BUSINESSES.
>> AND THEN, JUST BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN THE LIAISON TO THE AIRPORT BOARD, YOU KNOW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DEBATE BACK AND FORTH IN THOSE HALLS AS IT RELATES TO AIRCRAFT HANGARS AND THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENT THAT WE APPLY TO ALL STRUCTURES OF COMMERCIAL USE.
I HAVE DONE SOME INVESTIGATIVE WORK ON MY OWN FOR VARIOUS OTHER AIRPORTS OF SIMILAR MAGNITUDE AND COMMUNITIES, AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT RUNS THE GAMUT FROM 6,000 TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET, DEPENDING ON WHICH EXPERT IS GIVING THE ANSWERS.
SO, IS THERE -- IS THERE A SIGNIFICANT AND COMPELLING REASON WHY WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE MIDWAY AIRPORT TO HAVE A LARGER MINIMUM FOOTPRINT BEFORE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS REQUIRED IN THE AIRCRAFT HANGAR?
>> IT'S NEVER COME UP AS A QUESTION ON THE CODE ADOPTION.
BUT WE HAVE JUST FOLLOWED THE 6,000- FOOT REQUIREMENT FOR ALL ALL BECAUSE OF OUR RESPONSE MODEL. TO PROTECT OUR FIREFIGHTERS.
>> OKAY. AND SO THE CORE USE OF A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT IS FOR THE PROTECTION OF FIREFIGHTERS?
PEOPLE IN GENERAL. >> SO, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LARGE, RELATIVELY EMPTY STRUCTURE COMPRISED OF MOSTLY METAL AND VERY, VERY LITTLE PEOPLE, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M SITTING HERE SCRATCHING MY HEAD, GOING, IS THAT, YOU KNOW, IS THAT TOO EGREGIOUS IN THAT REALM, IN THAT SETTING?
[00:35:02]
>> THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF THE SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS TO PROTECT PEOPLE, YES, CIVILIANS AND FIREFIGHTERS, BUT IT IS ALSO DESIGNED TO PROTECT PROPERTY.
AND YOU KNOW, WITH AIRCRAFT, THEY'RE VERY EXPENSIVE AND THE SOONER YOU PUT OUT A FIRE -- WE CAN'T JUST LET A FIRE BURN, AND THAT FIRE SPRINKLER IS WORKING 24/7 TO MITIGATE THAT DAMAGE. AND WITH OUR RESPONSE MODEL, IT'S -- IT'S EASIER FOR US TO FIGHT A FIRE IN A 6,000-FOOT OR LESS BUILDING THAN IT IS A 12,000-FOOT BUILDING.
>> THE WAREHOUSES, THOSE SYSTEMS ARE SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED TO PUT OUT -- TO SUPPRESS FIRES, WHERE ONES LIKE YOU SEE IN A BUILDING LIKE THIS ARE DESIGNED TO PROTECT PEOPLE. AND AIRCRAFT HANGARS, DEPENDING ON THE DESIGN, THEIR DESIGN FOR RESPONSE, THERE'S PHONE SYSTEMS, WATER- BASED SYSTEMS, BUT IT'S TO PROTECT THE INFRASTRUCTURE, PROTECT PEOPLE'S
INVESTMENTS. >> BUT WHAT WE'RE REQUIRING IS A WATER- BASED SYSTEM?
>> YES, SIR. IT DEPENDS ON THE TYPE OF HANGAR, BUT OUT THERE, IT'S CALLED A GROUP 3 HANG HAR. THOSE ARE TYPICALLY WATER- BASED SYSTEMS, YES, SIR.
>> OKAY. >> SO, JUST ONE OTHER THING, COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT WE FACE AT THE AIRPORT, SPECIFICALLY, IS ONCE THE SPACE IS OCCUPIED, AND WE ALSO HAVE A SPLIT SYSTEM OUT THERE. WE HAVE WAXAHACHIE AND CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.
IT'S AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE WE'RE ENFORCING THE FIRE CODES IN ANOTHER CITY.
WE REGULATE WAXAHACHIE'S LEVEL. I KNOW WAXAHACHIE HAS A DIFFERENT SQUARE FOOTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO THEIR SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT. WE GOT INTO THAT CONVERSATION WITH A HANGAR A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
ONCE THOSE SPACES ARE OCCUPIED, IT IS VERY -- I MEAN, IT STARTS OUT GREAT AND WE JUST SAY, WE HAVE ONE SINGLE PLANE SITTING IN THERE, AND BEFORE YOU KNOW IT, THREE WEEKS LATER, WE'VE GOT DRUMS OF FUEL. WE'VE GOT OIL.
WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WORKING ON PLANES.
AND THEY'RE NOT -- THOSE HANGARS AREN'T DESIGNED FOR THAT TYPE OF WORK. WE HAVE STRUCTURES BUILT INSIDE THE HANGARS.
>> TECHNICALLY, THOSE HANGARS ARE NOT CONTRACTUALLY ALLOWED FOR THAT TYPE OF WORK EITHER, AND I THINK THAT WAS A CODE ENFORCEMENT --
>> IT'S A REGULATORY ISSUE FOR
SURE. >> THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED OUT THERE. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PRACTICE OF STORING FUEL IN HIGHLY FLAMMABLE, YOU KNOW, OILS AND OTHER COMBUSTIBLES COMBUSTIBLES IN STORAGE HANGARS FOR PLANES, IF IT'S A REPAIR FACILITY, THAT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF ENTERPRISE.
AND SO, I'M SPECIFICALLY SPEAKING OF WHERE THEY -- THEY'RE STORING PLANES, NOT WHERE THEY'RE DOING THE MECHANICAL
>> I TRUST THAT PEOPLE ARE DOING
THE RIGHT THING. >> THEY'RE BEING INSPECTED MORE REGULARLY NOW.
>> GOOD. AND WHO'S DOING THAT, BY THE WAY?
>> THE AIRPORT STAFF. >> SO, THEY HAVE TO -- THOSE PEOPLE ARE GIVING THEM ACCESS TO SEE THAT?
>> THEY'RE THE LANDLORD, YES, SIR.
>> OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT CORRESPONDENCE IS MAKING IT BACK TO US. WE'D LOVE TO SEE THAT INFORMATION.
>> I BELIEVE, ALSO, THE FIRE MARSHAL INSPECTS IT ONCE A YEAR.
>> ONCE A YEAR. A LOT OF THINGS CAN CHANGE IN A
YEAR. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE STAY ON TOPIC, GUYS. REGARDING THE CODE OF ORDINANCES HERE WITH THE FIRE CODE.
>> WE WERE TRAILING A BIT. BUT OKAY.
>> I MEAN, IT'S -- I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LOCAL AMENDMENT IN OUR ADOPTION OF THE FIRE CODE THAT ALLOWS FOR THE MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE AT THE AIRPORT TO BE THE GREATER OF THE TWO CITIES THAT ARE IN JOINT OWNERSHIP OF THE AIRPORT. I THINK THAT'S MORE COLLABORATIVE.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, MIKE?
>> COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS ON FIREWALLS.
SO, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS STILL -- I KNOW THAT WHAT WE USED TO KIND OF GO BY, MIDLOTHIAN HAS HAD A VERY -- QUITE STRINGENT SPRINKLER ORDINANCE.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S STILL THIS -- VIEWED IN THIS MANNER, BUT FOR THE LONGEST TIME, WE HAD THE SECOND MOST STRINGENT FIRE SPRINKLER ORDINANCE IN NORTH TEXAS, ASIDE OF ADDISON. HAS THAT CHANGED?
>> WHO HAS -- SO, ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, WHO'S OPERATING AT THIS LEVEL THAT'S A CITY OF OUR SIZE?
>> ADDISON REQUIRES FIRE SPRINKLERS FOR ANY BUILDING SIZE.
LEWISVILLE REQUIRES THEM AT 3,600 FEET.
FLOWER MOUND REQUIRES THEM AT H 4 THOUSAND FEET. CROWLEY, LITTLE ELM, RICHARDSON, FRISCO, 5,000 FEET.
DUNCAN DUNCANVILLE, ALLEN, CKINNEY, ROYSE CITY, SOUTHLAKE AND TROPHY CLUB REQUIRE THEM AT 6,000 FEET. WEATHERFORD AND DENTON REQUIRE
[00:40:02]
THEM AT 7,500 FEET. CEDAR HILL IS 9,000 FEET.AND THE REMAINDER ARE 12,000 FEET. TWO CITIES THAT HAVE CHANGED FROM THE 6,000- FOOT REQUIREMENT TO 12, AND I CANNOT SPEAK FOR WHY, IS MANSFIELD AND
OVILA. >> SO, WHAT -- WHAT WOULD CAUSE US TO GET AWAY FROM ALLOWING A FIREWALL AT 6,000 FEET? IS THERE STUDIES AND CRITERIA THAT SHOWS THAT THE FIREWALL WILL BE BROKEN?
>> CAN I JUMP IN ON THAT? THE CODE STILL REQUIRES FIREWALLS, FIRE BARRIERS, FIRE SEPARATION, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. BUT WHAT IT DOESN'T DO IS IT DOESN'T SAY THAT THERE IS A -- AN EITHER/OR WHEN IT COMES TO FIRE SPRINKLING.
ONCE YOU REACH THE THRESHOLD TO SPRINKLE A BUILDING, YOU SPRINKLE THE BUILDING. YOU STILL MAY HAVE FIRE BARRIERS, FIREWALLS, THAT SORT OF THING.
WHAT WAS IN PLACE IN MIDLOTHIAN, AND THIS WAS TEN YEARS AGO, WE'VE NOT DONE THIS FOR TEN YEARS, WHEN WE WENT FROM THE '06 OR THE '09 TO THE '15, WE TOOK THAT OUT BECAUSE THERE WAS NO CODE BODY. THERE'S NO NATIONAL STANDARD THAT SAYS THAT THAT IS A -- AN OPTION THAT SHOULD BE HAD.
AND SO, CODES ARE BASED ON NATIONAL STANDARDS, AND SO THAT'S WHY WEWE ADOPTED -- TRY AND STAY UP TO A CURRENT CODE STANDARD SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY AND THOSE THINGS THAT ARE HAPPENING. WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW, YOU KNOW, A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT CONSTRUCTION TYPES THAT GO FORWARD, BUT THIS OPTION OF JUST CUTTING IT OFF, THAT HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED IN THE CODE SINCE BEFORE 2000. THAT'S A VERY OLD, OLD TECHNOLOGY, AND BECAUSE IT DIDN'T WORK. IT WASN'T PROTECTING PROPERTY.
IT WASN'T PROTECTING FIREFIGHTERS.
THE CHANGE. >> SO, I'M SORRY. GO BACK OVER THAT AGAIN. IT WASN'T WORKING WHY?
>> IT WASN'T WORKING TO DO THE INTENTION.
THIS IDEA THAT WE CAN BREAK THIS BUILDING UP INTO SEPARATE BUILDINGS WASN'T GETTING THE DESIRED EFFECT THAT YOU CAN GET FROM A SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
>> I GUESS I COULD -- I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT TOTALLY IF YOU HAD AN INSTANCE WHERE YOU HAD AN INDIVIDUAL THAT WAS TRYING TO TAKE 24,000 FOOT AND PUT IT INTO FOUR BUILDINGS WITH THE FIREWALLS.
I GET THAT, TOTALLY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY FOR FIRE JUMP. I'M NOT A FIREMAN, BUT I'M GUESSING. I'M THINKING ABOUT FOLKS THAT HAVE 8,000 OR 9,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDINGS AND THAT'S ALL THEY HAVE. AND MAYBE WE DON'T HAVE A THRESHOLD THAT YOU HIT TO WHERE ONCE YOU GET TO 12,000, YOU CAN'T GO ANY FURTHER IF IT'S SPLIT IN THE MIDDLE. I'M JUST THINKING OF THE SMALL
BUSINESS PEOPLE. >> WELL, IT'S -- THE 6,000 THRESHOLD IS FAIRLY COMMON.
SO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, TAKEN PLACE IN THE DFW AREA FOR QUITE SOME TIME. WE DISCUSSED WITH OUR -- WITH PEOPLE WHEN THEY COME INTO OUR DRC MEETINGS ABOUT SIZE.
MOST OF THEM, IF THEY DON'T WANT A SPRINKLER, THEY'RE SIZING THEIR BUILDING AS SUCH. WE MAKE SURE AND LET THEM KNOW IT'S UNDER ROOF, SO IT'S NOT JUST THE FOOTPRINT.
IT'S WHAT'S UNDER ROOF, SO MAKE SURE THAT YOU KEEP IT UNDER THAT THRESHOLD IF YOU'RE WANTING TO AVOID SPRINKLING. YOU'RE RIGHT, SOME BUSINESSES, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO SPRINKLE THE BUILDING, BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THEM, IT'S A COMMON PRACTICE AT THIS POINT IN TIME AND PEOPLE ARE KIND OF USED TO DOING THAT SORT OF THING.
>> THERE ARE A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN MIDLOTHIAN STILL THAT ARE OVER 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> AN EXAMPLE OF THAT, THAT'S WHY LAWSON'S BUILDING SAT THERE ALL THAT TIME.
>> RIGHT. >> HE WAS NOT GOING TO PAY FOR THAT WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEM.
>> THERE ARE OTHER BUILDINGS IN MIDLOTHIAN THAT ARE 8 OR 9,000
SQUARE FEET. >> FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAVE ONE OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND IT'S 8 OR 9,000, AND IT'S GOT THAT -- I THINK THE REQUIREMENT AT THE TIME WAS A FOUR- HOUR SEPARATION.
WELL, TO ACTUALLY GET A FOUR-HOUR SEPARATION IS AN INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE THING TO DO.
IT'S NOT JUST PUT UP A COUPLE PIECES OF SHEET ROCK. IT HAS TO BE TESTED TO BE A FOUR-HOUR RATED WALL.
BUT IF THEY HAVE THAT, AND AS LONG AS THAT USE IS NOT INCREASING -- SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IT'S A BUSINESS. IT'S AN OFFICE SPACE.
THAT'S A VERY, YOU KNOW, EASY, LOW-USE, THEY DECIDE THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE IT INTO A NIGHTCLUB OR A RESTAURANT.
THAT'S OF ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY. THAT JUST KICKS EVERYTHING UP. THAT COULD TRIGGER THAT CODE, THAT SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT TO COME IN. BUT AS LONG AS THEY STAY IN THAT SAME TYPE OF BUSINESS, WE'RE GOING TO TREAT THAT BUILDING AS IT IS.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AN OVER 6,000-SQUARE- FOOT BUILDING?
>> ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. IF WE'VE GOT A BUILDING THAT'S A 10,000 OR 12,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT'S NOT SPRINKLED AND IT'S A BUSINESS
[00:45:02]
USE, AND THEY COME IN AND SOMEBODY ELSE BUYS IT AND THEY TURN IT INTO ANOTHER BUSINESS USE, THEY KEEP MOVING ALONG. NOTHING CHANGES. IT'S A 10,000 SQUARE FEET MERCANTILE USE AND THEY COME IN AND MAKE IT A BUSINESS USE, NOTHING CHANGES.THEY KEEP MOVING ALONG. THEY DO HAVE A CERTAIN LEVEL OF LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE THEY GET TO ENJOY WITH THAT.
IT'S WHEN THEY TAKE A BUILDING THAT HAS BEEN A BUSINESS USE AND THEY MAKE THAT INTO A RESTAURANT OR NIGHTCLUB, THINGS ARE CHANGING BECAUSE THOSE ARE GOING TO BE MORE EXTENSIVE
USES. >> I GUESS MY COMMENTS WERE MORE ALIGNED AROUND THE FOLKS WHO ARE IN A COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENT, USING THEIR BUSINESSES FOR COMMERCIAL APPLICATION, NO NIGHTCLUBS, NO RESTAURANTS.
THEY'RE AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THEY'RE OVER 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
I HAVE NOT PUT THE PENCIL ON IT. I KNOW THAT FOR LIKE A 9,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IS WELL OVER 100 GRAND, EASILY. THEN YOU HAVE ALL THE MAINTENANCE, UPKEEP, ALL THIS OTHER THAT GOES WITH IT. INSPECTIONS AND ALL THAT OTHER.
AND WITHIN ALL THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BETTER PRICED, IF THEY WANTED TO SPLIT THAT BUILDING INTO TWO 4,500S AND PUT DOORS ON EACH END AND RENT OUT BOTH HALVES SEPARATELY. IT MAKES ME A LITTLE NERVOUS TO JUST SAY, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GET RID OF THIS.
TO ME -- >> WE DON'T HAVE THAT NOW.
WE HAVEN'T HAD THAT IN TEN YEARS.
THAT'S NOT BEEN -- THAT'S NOT BEEN AN OPTION YOU CAN DO IN TEN YEARS IN MIDLOTHIAN.
>> SO, THE ONLY WAY YOU COULD DO IT IN THE PAST IS IF IT WAS INSTALLED FROM THE ORIGINAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTION?
>> IF IT WAS INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE 2015 FIRE CODE, WHICH WAS DONE IN
2017. >> SEE, AND I DIDN'T EVEN REALIZE THAT. THIS KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH WHAT -- IT'S NOT AGAINST ANYONE.
>> NO -- >> THIS STUFF HAS GOTTEN SO DEEP AND SO CONFUSING, I ALMOST FEEL AS THOUGH UNSBLOOENGS CAN INTENTIONALLY CAN BE USED CODE TO RETRUMP THIS CODE AND MANIPULATE
IT. >> I HOPE THAT THE FACT OF TEN YEARS OF IT NOT BEING ALLOWED AND IT NOT BEING A PROBLEM, I HOPE THAT GIVES YOU A LITTLE BIT OF COMFORT IN KNOWING THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT'S BEST FOR THE CITIZENRY AND THE BUSINESSES OF THE COMMUNITY. WE DON'T WANT TO IMPOSE, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIONS. THE CODE DOESN'T WANT TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS.
YOU HAVE CERTAIN -- YOU HAVE CERTAIN RIGHTS WITHIN EXISTING BUILDINGS, AND WE'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN THOSE RIGHTS.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT Y'ALL WOULD EVER INTENTIONALLY DO ANYTHING. I THINK THE CODE IN ITSELF DWARFS AND MOVES AND GROWS TO WHERE IT MAKES IT TO WHERE UNLESS YOU'RE A DEVELOPER AND YOU CAN AFFORD THE BIG MONEY, THE LITTLE MAN'S SQUEEZED OUT. SO, I GET EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. AND IT ALL MAKES SENSE UNTIL YOU DO IT AND IT AFFECTS YOURSELF, BUT I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH, I HAVE SIMILAR QUESTIONS WITH WHAT'S BEEN GOING ON HERE IN THE CONVERSATION, BUT YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT THIS 9 OR 12,000 IS IN THIS KIND OF USE.
AND THEN, IF IT GOES TO A NIGHTCLUB OR A RESTAURANT OR THAT SORT OF THING. IS THERE ANYTHING WRITTEN INTO THE CODE THAT SPECIFIES THOSE KINDS OF THINGS? OR IS THAT -- IS THAT JUST UNDERSTOOD?
SPECIFIED. >> THAT'S THE BLANKET
CODE. >> I WAS TRYING TO READ INTO THAT, FINDING THOSE SAME KIND OF THINGS.
WHAT'S GOING TO TRIGGER THAT SMALL BUSINESSMAN HAVING TO COME UP WITH $100,000 WHEN HE PROBABLY IS JUST BARELY MAKING $100,000 NET PROFIT, MAYBE EVEN GROSS PROFIT, DURING THE COURSE OF THE YEAR, JUST AN INSPECTION TO COME ALONG.
>> THE CODE IS DICTATING THE BULK OF ALL OF THIS.
THE CODE DICTATES THE TYPE OF USE THAT IT IS, WHAT CONSTRUCTION TYPE IT HAS TO HAVE, WHAT TYPES OF SPECIAL, YOU KNOW, SAFETY REQUIREMENTS MAY NEED TO BE THERE. THAT'S ALL DICTATED THROUGH THE CODE. SO, WE GATHER ALL THAT INFORMATION IN THE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS, AND WE DETERMINE WHAT HAS TO MOVE FORWARD. AND DESIGN PEOPLE DO THAT AS WELL. AND I HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE SMALL BUSINESSMAN, BUT WE WORK WITH THOSE GUYS EVERY DAY TOO.
YOU KNOW? THEY'RE COMING IN, AND THE HOMEOWNER THAT WANTS TO REDO THEIR, YOU KNOW, ADD A BATHROOM ON TO THEIR HOUSE AND ANOTHER MASTER BEDROOM FOR THEIR MOTHER-IN-LAW. WE'RE DEALING WITH ALL THAT AS WELL, AND THOSE ARE NOT PROFESSIONAL PEOPLE.
AND WE'RE WALKING THEM THROUGH THE PROCESS ALSO.
>> OKAY. AND THOSE THAT ARE ALREADY IN ESTABLISHMENT, BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALREADY OUT THERE THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY, IS THERE KIND OF A GRANDFATHER -- I MEAN, YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE -- ABOUT BUILT BEFORE 2015.
>> AS LONG AS THE BUSINESS IS BEING USED AND DOESN'T
[00:50:01]
CHANGE ITS OCCUPANCY, WE DON'T -- THE FIRE DEPARTMENT GOES THROUGH ONCE A YEAR AND DOES A SAFETY INSPECTION.ONCE THE BUILDING PERMIT CLOSES OUT, BUILDING INSPECTION DOESN'T GO BACK INTO THAT BUILDING UNTIL SOMEONE PULLS A BUILDING PERMIT AGAIN.
THAT'S OUR ONLY LEGAL WAY TO GO INTO A BUILDING.
SO, WE HAVE -- WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH BUILDINGS AFTER THEY'RE COMPLETED.
SO, WHATEVER CODE THEY'RE BUILT TO, THAT'S THE CODE --
>> EVEN IF THEY'RE SELLINGSELLING ANOTHER BUSINESS, BUT IF IT'S A SIMILAR BUSINESS OR SAME KIND OF BUSINESS --
>> AND OCCUPANCY STILL BASICALLY THE SAME, THEN EVERYTHING PRETTY MUCH STAYS? OKAY, THAT HELPS CLARIFY IT FOR ME.
>> YES, SIR. >> I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. AS AN EXAMPLE, LOCALLY, TO TRY TO FIND OUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS THROUGH THIS. SO, THE YOUTH -- I KNOW OF THIS.
THE YOUTH BASKETBALL LEAGUE WAS LOOKING AT PURCHASING A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN MIDLOTHIAN THAT WAS A WELDING SHOP BEFORE.
I WANT TO SAY THAT BUILDING WAS MAYBE 12,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT WAS GOING TO BECOME A DROP NET BASKETBALL COURSE. THAT'S IT.
BUT THEY WERE GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PUT A WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THE BUILDING. IS IT BECAUSE OF THE INVOLVEMENT OF PEOPLE CHANGES THE REQUIREMENT PROCESS? I LOOK AT IT AS A MUCH LIGHTER USAGE THAN A WELDING SHOP WITH EXPLOSIVE BOTTLES IN IT.
>> IT'S THE ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY. IT WASN'T BUILT -- I THINK WHEN THAT BUILDING WAS BUILT, IT WASN'T IN THE CITY LIMITS.
BUT IT WAS A MANUFACTURING, POSSIBLY FACTORY.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS. THAT WAS ALL BEFORE
WELDING SHOP. >> BUT IT'S LONG ENOUGH NOW THAT IT'S LOST ANY LEGAL NONCONFORMING USE AND A GYMNASIUM IS AN ASSEMBLY OCCUPANCY, SO WE MAY HAVE, YOU KNOW, TWO TEAMS OF TEN KIDS EACH IN THERE, 40, 50 PARENTS AT ONE TIME. THAT CHANGES THE OUTLOOK BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE -- USING THE BUILDING AT ONCE.
>> SO, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A FIRE RATING GOING DOWN.
THERE'S ALL MANY KINDS OF APPLICATION PROCESS CONSIDERATIONS THAT, AS I VIEW MOST -- I'VE RARELY SEEN -- I KNOW OF ANOTHER ONE ONE THE MIDDLE SCHOOL -- THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHERE THERE'S A RATHER LARGE BUILDING UP THERE THAT WOULDN'T SELL BECAUSE IT HAD TO HAVE WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEM. AND THEY WERE JUST GOING TO DO HVAC OUT OF THAT BUILDING. SO, I'M JUST FINDING IN MOST OF THESE PROCESSES, IT DOESN'T GENERALLY WORK OUT FOR THE NEW APPLICANT, WHO'S -- EVEN IF THEY'RE GOING IN A DOWN USAGE PROCESS. THEY'RE TYPICALLY ALWAYS HAVING TO PUT IN 100 TO $150,000 SPRINKLER SYSTEM, AND YOU HAVE A TWOFOLD PROBLEM IN MY MIND.
IT SQUEEZES OUT THE LITTLE MAN, AND THEN YOU HAVE A PROPERTY OWN HEAR THE CAN'T SELL IT.
AND IF YOU CAN'T PUT -- WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, FOR INSTANCE, THE BLUE WELDING SHOP THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT SHOP IS LARGE ENOUGH, EVEN IF THEY COULD FIND A -- I CAN'T THINK OF A LOWER- IMPACT USAGE PROCESS THAN PLAYING BASKETBALL IN THAT BUILDING ON A COUPLE OF COURTS. AS FAR AS A FIRE IMPACT PROCESS PROBLEM.
IT'S THE LOWEST IMPACT I CAN THINK OF, BUT IF THAT BUILDING HAS TO SPEND -- THEY CAN'T SELL THAT BUILDING MORE THAN LIKELY UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT ABOUT 100 TO $150,000 IN IT.
IN MOST PROCESSES OF APPLICATION.
SO, IT PRODUCES IN ITS OWNOWN NOT THAT IT'S YOUR FAULT, BUT A HARDSHIP ON BOTH PROPERTIES UNLESS SOMEBODY WITH ENOUGH MONEY CAN COME IN AND MAKE IT MEET CODE REQUIREMENT. AND THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME.
THE TAXES ON EVERYTHING ARE BAD ENOUGH.
AND THEN, WE HAD THIS WHOLE OTHER LEVEL WE'RE HEADED INTO, AND IT'S PART OF MIDLOTHIAN'S GROWTH, AND I REALIZE THAT YOU GENTLEMEN NEED TO FOLLOW THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE PROVIDING FOR THE BEST SAFETY POSSIBLE, BUT IT ALL CONCERNS ME DEEPLY HOW IT SEEMS TO FALL ON THE SHOULDERS OF THE LITTLE MAN. BUT THANK
YOU. >> IS THERE -- WHETHER IT BE A AIRPORT HANGAR OR BASKETBALL FACILITY OR ANY OTHER SORT OF USE, IS THERE ANY SORT OF APPEAL PROCESS TO THE COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THESE ISSUES AS THEY ARISE FOR AN APPLICANT?
>> THERE'S NO APPEAL TO A CODE REQUIREMENT.
THERE'S AN APPEAL TO AN INTERPRETATION.
SO, IF THE APPLICANT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE THE CODE OFFICIAL HAS PROPERLY INTERPRETED THE CODE, THEN THAT CAN BE APPEALED.
BUT JUST -- THERE'S JUST A BLACK-AND-WHITE CODE REQUIREMENT, THERE IS NO APPEAL
>> AND THE APPEAL GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> YES, SIR, AND THAT COULD BE AS THE CITY COUNCIL.
[00:55:01]
SOME CITIES DO THAT.>> SO, THE AIRPORT HANGAR SITUATION THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, NOTHING'S CHANGED AS FAR AS UPDATING THIS CODE FROM THE LAST CODE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE? OR IS SOMETHING CHANGING REGARDING THAT?
>> WE HAD ONE LOCAL AMENDMENT THAT WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE AIRPORT MANAGER AT THE TIME. THAT WE COULD ALLOW WHAT HE CALLED A HAIL COFFER.VER. IF YOU HAD UP TO A 6,000 FOOT HANGAR, TWO ADJOINED, YOU COULD PUT A METAL TOP IN BETWEEN THOSE BUILDINGS TO SHELTER AIRCRAFT FROM HAIL, AND THAT WAS NEVER APPLIED, NEVER ASKED FOR. NOBODY EVER -- EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE TALKED TO --
>> SO, THAT'S BEING REMOVED? >> YES, SIR.
EVERYBODY THAT WE HAVE TALKED TO HAS, WITH ONE EXCEPTION, HAS TALKED ABOUT -- HAS BEEN ON BOARD WITH SPRINKLING THEIR HANGAR.
>> SO, A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE AN EXCEPTION FOR THE GROUP 3 AIRCRAFT HANGARS AS LONG AS THERE'S NO HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS IN THERE. THAT'S A HANGAR UP TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET. THERE'S A MAXIMUM HEIGHT ON THE DOOR SO IT LIMITS THE SIZE OF AIRCRAFT THAT CAN GO IN THERE BUT THEY SAY, IF IT'S A GROUP 3 WITH OPERATIONS, THERE'S NO FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN, THAT'S NOT JUST, LIKE, SOMETHING ROSS IS MAKING UP. THERE'S COMMUNITIES -- LIKE, I'VE GOT DENVER'S CODE WHERE THEY'VE ADOPTED THIS SAME FIRE CODE BUT THEY HAVE THIS AMENDMENT THAT'S A LOCAL AMENDMENT THAT SAYS, IF IT'S THESE SMALLER HANGARS, THERE'S NOT REALLY A NEED FOR THAT.
AND THERE'S MANY OTHER CITIES DO
THE SAME THING. >> HOW PRESSING IS THIS TO GET THIS ADOPTED AND PUT INTO PLACE? I MEAN, WE'RE ABLE TO RUN ON LAST YEAR'S OR THE PREVIOUS YEAR'S CODE FOR INDEFINITELY, CORRECT?
>> I JUST HAD ONE QUICK QUESTION.
AND I APOLOGIZE TO KEEP ASKING QUESTIONS.
WHAT IS WAXAHACHIE'S CODE ON THIS AS FAR AS THE MAX -- WE MENTIONED EARLIER, IT SOUNDED LIKE WAXAHACHIE'S HAS A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT CODE AT THE AIRPORT ON VOLUME OF BUILDING SIZE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT IS, OFFHAND?
>> THEY JUST USE THE STRAIGHT CODE REQUIREMENT OF 12,000 FEET.
>> 12,000 FEET. >> THEY DON'T HAVE A -- I'M NOT -- I DON'T KNOW IF THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC AMENDMENT OR ANYTHING, BUT THEY JUST -- I BELIEVE THEY USE OPTION A, WHICH --
>> AND THEY'RE AT 12,000 FEET. DO YOU KNOW IF THEY'VE ALREADY ADOPTED WHATEVER THIS IS, THE 2021? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA IF THEY'RE AT THAT LEVEL YET?
>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT CODE VERSION THEY'RE ON.
>> DO Y'ALL HAVE ANY SIGNIFICANT OBJECTION TO WHAT ROSS IS TRYING TO SPEAK TO ON AN ADJUSTMENT THERE, RELATED TO THE HANGARS?
>> AS THE FIRE CODE OFFICIAL AND A FIREFIGHTER, I THINK KEEPING THE 6,000- FOOT LIMIT IS THE RIGHT WAY TO GO, JUST TO PROTECT, BECAUSE OF THE LOGISTICS OF THE AIRPORT, OUR RESPONSE MODEL, THE SAFETY OF OUR FIREFIGHTERS, THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE. THAT IT -- IT'S MORE PREVENTIVE.
>> SO, I HAVE A, YOU KNOW, A ROUGHED OUT EXCEPTION THAT -- I'M PERFECTLY FINE APPROVING EVERYTHING WITH MAKING ONE EXCEPTION TO THAT SPECIFIC 903.2.11.9 THAT ESSENTIALLY SAYS, FOR THE GROUP 3 AIRCRAFT HANGARS, NOT TO INCLUDE ANY HANGAR USED FOR HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM BUILDING AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CITIES OF MIDLOTHIAN AND WAXAHACHIE, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
SINCE THAT IS A JOINT- RUN OPERATION OUT THERE, I THINK THAT IS THE RIGHT SPIRIT OF COOPERATION, AND I THINK THAT THE INHERENT RISK IS NOT COMPOUNDED. IT'S A VERY SMALL FOOTPRINT AREA. IF IT GROWS, AND WE HAVE A LOT MORE HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS GOING ON OUT THERE, WE COULD ALWAYS REVISE IT IN THE FUTURE IF IT BECOMES A PROBLEM. BUT I THINK THE SIZE AND SCOPE TODAY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALIGN THE CITIES WITH REGARD TO THE MANAGEMENT OF THAT FACILITY.
>> WHAT, AGAIN, WAS YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THAT?
>> IT WOULD BE THE GREATER OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN OR WAXAHACHIE.
SO, IT ESSENTIALLY WOULD TAKE IT TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET OUT THERE, WHICH IS THE MAXIMUM SIZE FOR A GROUP 3 HANGAR, WHICH MANY AIRPORTS DO NOT REQUIRE TO BE SPRINKLED IN THE FIRST PLACE, UNLESS THERE IS HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS OCCURRING INSIDE OF THE STRUCTURE.
>> OKAY, WELL, WE HAVE A RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL MAKE A SECOND RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT IS TO CONSIDER TABLING THIS TO HAVE A FURTHER DISCUSSION AND GET MORE INFORMATION FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL AND FIRE CHIEF REGARDING THE IMPACT OF SUCH A DECISION MIGHT HAVE.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH A LOCAL AMENDMENT SECTION.
THE EXCEPTION BEING THAT GROUP 3 AIRCRAFT HANGARS
[01:00:03]
LOCATED WITHIN THE MIDWAY AIRPORT NOT TO INCLUDE ANY HANGAR USED FOR HAZARDOUS OPERATIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE MINIMUM BUILDING AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE CITIES OF MIDLOTHIAN AND WAXAHACHIE, WHICHEVER ISI'LL SECOND. >> I WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION BEFORE I VOTE. I BELIEVE MR. WEAVER JUST MADE A MOTION. DID -- YOURS WAS A RECOMMENDATION.
>> MINE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO GET MORE FACTS ON THE ISSUE BEFORE WE MAKE A DETERMINATION ON IT.
>> OKAY. AND I'M JUST ASKING TO CLARIFY.
AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE VOTING ON APPROVAL OF THIS WITH MR. WEAVER'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND WE WILL NOT BE TABLED. WHATEVER WORD WE WANT TO
USE. >> THAT'S THE MOTION, AND MY POINT WAS SIMPLY THAT I DIDN'T FEEL PREPARED TO MAKE THAT SORT OF DECISION TONIGHT WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION.
I'M NOT SAYING I'M FOR IT OR AGAINST IT, JUST DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION IN FRONT OF ME. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER. ANY CLARIFICATION ON THE MOTION? SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORMAN. PLEASE VOTE.
ITEM PASSES 3-2. FOR CLARITY, THAT WAS ITEM 2025-220 REGARDING THE FIRE CODE.
>> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> HEATH, I THINK THE REST OF THESE ARE UNDER GENERAL BUILDING? AND AGAIN, COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY SPECIFICS OF THESE CODES, WE CAN CERTAINLY PULL THEM AND DO THEM ITEMIZED.
OTHERWISE, WE'LL JUST DO ONE MOTION÷÷ ON THE REMAINING 221 THROUGH 228.
>> LISTENING TO THE GENTLEMEN TALK, I REALIZED THAT I AM THAT CODE -- TALKING ABOUT THIS STUFF ALL THE TIME. I'M NOT A GREAT COMPUTER GUY.
SO -- THAT'S ALL. SO, WE'RE HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE DISCUSSION OF --
>> HEATH, HIT YOUR BUTTON, YOUR
MICROPHONE BUTTON. >> I'M SORRY.
HERE TO DISCUSS THE CODE ADOPTION FOR THE 2021 I- CODES WITH THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENT AMENDMENTS, AND LOCAL AMENDMENTS, AND THOSE ARE IN YOUR PACKET, I BELIEVE.
THEY SHOULD BE IDENTIFIED IN RED.
THERE WE GO. THESE ARE THE CODES THAT 2021 I-CODES, THE 2020 NEC. WE GENERALLY -- SO, CODES ARE RENEWED, SO TO SPEAK, EVERY THREE YEARS, AND WE GENERALLY TRY AND RUN ABOUT THREE YEARS BEHIND THE CURRENT CODE MODEL, SO THE 2024S CAME OUT LAST YEAR. MOST CITIES RIGHT NOW ARE CURRENTLY UNDER THE 18S AND THE 21S.
SOME ARE MOVING TO THE 24S. I GENERALLY LIKE TO STAY A CYCLE BEHIND, LET'S GET SOME OF THE BUGS WORKED OUT.
WHY DO WE HAVE CODES? TO ESTABLISH MIMT REQUIREMENTS TO SAFEGUARD PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND GENERAL WELFARE THROUGH STRUCTURAL STRENGTH, MEANS OF EGRESS, STABILITY, SANITATION, ADEQUATE LIGHT AND VENTILATION, ENERGY CONSERVATION AND SAFETY TO PROTECT LIFE AND PROPERTY FROM FIRE AND OTHER HAZARDS, INCLUDING WIND, FLOODING, FREEZING, MOISTURE, ATTRIBUTED TO BUILDING ENVIRONMENT, AND TO PROTECT FIRST RESPONDERS AND FIREFIGHTERS.
THAT HAVE TO GO INTO THESE BUILDINGS WHEN THINGS HAVE GONE BAD.
I HAVE JUST KIND OF GOT A QUICK SUMMARY OF EACH OF THE CODES.
IF YOU WANT ME TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE, I CAN. I'LL GO AS FAST AS OR AS SLOW AS YOU WOULD LIKE, AND JUST STOP ME AT ANY POINT IN TIME IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING. THIS IS NOT A BIG CODE CYCLE.
FOR MASSIVE CHANGES. THERE'S A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, SMALLER CHANGES, THAT SORT OF THING. THE LAST TIME WE ADOPTED THE '18, NOT A LOT OF CHANGES THERE.
BEFORE THAT, WE WENT FROM THE '9 TO THE '15, THAT WAS WHEN, MR. MR. MR. RODGERS, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THIS, THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT FOR THE PUBLIC BUILDINGS TO HAVE STORM SHELTERS. SO, THAT WAS A BIG DEAL.
THAT MADE A LOT OF -- THAT WAS A BIG FINANCIAL HIT TO A LOT OF GOVERNING BODIES, AND SO THAT WAS ALWAYS TOUGH.
2021 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
BUILDING CODE GOVERNS ALL BUILDING EXCEPT ONE AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS. WE HAVE A SEPARATE CODE FOR ONE AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS BUT IF WE'RE BUILDING AN APARTMENT BUILDING, A MULTIRESIDENT PERMANENT BUILDING OR BUILDING A WAREHOUSE OR BUILDING A BUILDING LIKE THIS, WE'RE GOING TO USE THE BUILDING CODE FOR THAT.
SOME OF THE HIGHLIGHTED CHANGES FROM '18 TO '21 IS WHAT IT'S ALLOWING MASS TIMBER TO DO AND MASS TIMBER CAN BE BIG LOGS CUT FROM LARGE TREES.
IT CAN ALSO BE ENGINEERED LUMBER, AND SO THE CODE IS CHANGING FROM TYPE FOUR ONLY TO GIVING US SEVERAL DIFFERENT OPTIONS AND EVEN ALLOWING US TO GO UP TO 18 STORIES WITH MASS TIMBER, WHICH IS -- THERE'S A LOT OF FIRE PROTECTION
[01:05:02]
REQUIREMENTS THAT GOES INTO THAT AS WELL.BUT IT'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. SOME OF OUR WIND AND SNOW LOADS ARE CHANGING A LITTLE BIT, JUST KEEPING UP WITH CURRENT MAPS, THAT KIND OF THING. SHOULDN'T AFFECT US HERE IN ANY WAY AT ALL. ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. KEVIN MENTIONED THE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. THIS IS BECOMING SOMETHING THAT'S BECOMING A LITTLE MORE DETAILED. IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE CODE HASN'T ADDRESSED, AND IT'S TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT MORE ON TOP OF THAT.
THERE WILL BE DETAILED PROVISIONS FOR BATTERY STORAGE IN THIS ONE. ROOFTOP AMENITIES.
THERE WAS MINIMAL GUIDANCE IN THE '18.
WE GOT CLEAR RULES ON EGRESS AND LOADS IN THIS CODE. ACCESSIBILITY.
OUR ACCESSIBILITY CODE -- SO, A LITTLE UNDERSTANDING HERE, AND I LIKE TO TALK, GUYS, I'M SORRY.
THE CITY OF -- WE HAVE THE ADA, THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. THAT'S A FEDERAL REQUIREMENT.
THE STATE OF TEXAS MEETS THAT THROUGH THE TEXAS ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS, SO WHEN A NEW BUSINESS OPENS UP, WITHIN A YEAR OF GETTING THEIR CO, A TAS INSPECTOR WILL ACTUALLY COME OUT TO THE SITE, AND THEY WILL HAVE TO PASS INSPECTION THROUGH THEM.
THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN DOESN'T ACTUALLY ENFORCE THAT.
WHAT WE ENFORCE IS CHAPTER 11 OF THE BUILDING CODE, WHICH IS ABOUT ACCESSIBILITY.
WE TRY AND STEER FOLKS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, BUT THAT'S REALLY OUR ENFORCEMENT ARM IS CHAPTER 11. FIRE BARRIERS AND EGRESS, STANDARD RULES, MORE NUANCE FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION, R- 4, I-1, THAT SORT OF THING. EXITING PROTECTION AS WELL.
GAS DETECTION WASN'T REQUIRED IN THE 2018.
NOW IT'S REQUIRED IN CERTAIN HAZARDOUS USES.
FLOOD RESISTANCE. LESS DETAILED, ENHANCED PROVISIONS IN THIS NEW CODE.
2021 CODE, LOT OF STUFF ON DECKS AND DECK FRAMING.
AGAIN, THIS IS NOT A REAL PROBLEM FOR US IN THIS AREA, IN THE NORTH AND THE MIDWEST AND OUT WEST, A LOT OF TIMES, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF HOUSES BUILT ON HILLS, AND WE'LL HAVE REALLY TALL DECKS, 30, 40 FEET OF DECK SO THERE'S A LOT MORE DESCRIPTION FOR THAT TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION TYPE. WE CURRENTLY WOULD REQUIRE ANYTHING OF THAT SIZE TO BE ENGINEERED DESIGN AS- IS BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T DO, YOU KNOW, FOUR FOUR BY FOURS 30 FEET IN THE AIR AND HOPE IT'S GOING TO WORK.
MR. RODGERS, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS.
COMMON TWO- HOUR WALL IS REQUIRED.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A LISTED, TESTED PRODUCT, AND NOW THEY'RE SAYING WE CAN DO THE SAME THING WITH TWO ONE- HOUR WALLS, WHICH IS REALLY JUST MAKES IT EASIER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PEOPLE, BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNOWS HOW TO GET A ONE-HOUR WALL MADE. THERE'S A LITTLE MORE NUANCE TO THE TWO- HOUR WALL, SO IF WE BUILD TWO ONE- HOUR WALLS SIDE-BY-SIDE, THEY'RE BASICALLY SAYING, WE'RE COMING UP WITH THE SAME PROTECTION.
SO, THAT'S THE REASONING BEHIND THAT.
SMOKE ALARMS REQUIRED TO BE HARD WIRED. THEY'RE MAKING SOME ADJUSTMENTS TO ALLOW FOR WIRELESS INTERCONNECTIVITY IN SMOKE ALARMS. CO ALARMS, THOSE ARE VERY LIMITED. THEY'VE PUSHED THOSE OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT CHANGE IN WHAT WE DO HERE. GFCI PROTECTION, THAT'S BEEN EXPANDING EVERY CODE CYCLE FOR THE LAST SEVERAL CODES. AGAIN, IT'S PERSONNEL PROTECTION. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T GETTING HURT WHEN THEY'RE DEALING WITH ELECTRICITY. OUTDOOR DISCONNECT.
THIS IS KIND OF A BIG ONE FROM THE '18 TO THE '21.
THERE ACTUALLY HAS TO BE A DISCONNECT OUTSIDE OF THE HOME NOW, SO THAT IF THERE'S AN EMERGENCY SITUATION ARISES, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCESS TO TURN THAT ELECTRICITY OFF AT THE SITE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO IN, DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TRYING TO PULL A METER OR ANYTHING ALONG THOSE LINES. SOME OF THE FLOOD ZONE STANDARDS ARE CHANGING, GETTING A LITTLE MORE STRINGENT IN COASTAL AREAS. YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND, THE BUILDING CODE IS AN INTERNATIONAL CODE.
THIS IS KIND OF TO COVER EVERYTHING IN AMERICA ANYWAY.
WHY IT'S CALLED INTERNATIONAL, I'M NOT SURE.
AND THE ENERGY CODE, WE'RE GETTING HIGHER INSULATION, TIGHTER ENVELOPES, THEY'RE HAVING TO MAKE SOME RESTRICTIONS FOR THAT.
I DON'T WANT TO GO TOO MUCH INTO THE INTERNATIONAL EXISTING BUILDING CODE, BUT TO YOUR POINT, THIS IS A TOOL THAT WE HAVE THAT WE CAN UTILIZE AT ANY POINT IN TIME IF WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME RENOVATING AND MEETING A CURRENT BUILDING CODE STANDARD.
WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO INTO THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, APPLY THAT, WHAT THAT GENERALLY MEANS IS WE BRING IN A LOT MORE EXPERTS, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERS AND THAT SORT OF THING, TO COME IN AND MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS, BUT THIS GIVES US A TOOL THAT WE CAN USE TO HELP PEOPLE KEEP AN OLDER BUILDING, YOU KNOW, IN USAGE WITHOUT BEING TOO FINANCIALLY OVERBEARING FOR THEM.
AND WE USE THAT ON A FAIRLY -- SOMEWHAT REGULAR BASIS.
[01:10:06]
THE 2020 INTERNATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE -- I'M SORRY. I'D LIKE TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH THIS, AND THIS REALLY HAS MORE TO DO WITH OUR LOCAL AMENDMENTS.SO, THE 2020 CODE CHANGED GFCI RECEPTACLE REQUIREMENTS IN HOUSEHOLDS, AND SO IT'S ALWAYS KIND OF BEEN, YOU'VE GOT AN ISLAND, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A GFCI PROTECTED PLUG IN THAT ISLAND. THE 2020 CODE SAID, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO SAY, DEPENDING UPON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT ISLAND, WE MAY NEED YOU TO PUT MORE THAN ONE.
OKAY. THEN, THE 2023 CODE CAME OUT, AND NOW, CURRENTLY, TAKING IT OUT ALTOGETHER.
THEY'RE GIVING YOU OPTIONS TO EVEN REMOVE NOT EVEN HAVING IT.
IT'S ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS, I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S AN ANSWER IS SOLVED YET.
SO, WHAT I HAVE DONE IS I'VE MADE AN AMENDMENT TO KEEP US AT THE '17 REQUIREMENTS.
RECEPTACLE REQUIRED. YOU COULD STILL MEET THE OTHER CODES BY PUTTING A POP- UP PLUG IN AND MEET THE '20 OR THE '23 SO THERE'S AN OUTLET TO MEET ANY OF THOSE THREE CODES, BUT THIS KEEPS US DOING WHAT WE'RE DOING UNTIL THE CODE BODY ACTUALLY MAKES A DETERMINATION OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT'S A FINISHED DEAL YET. AGAIN, SERVICE DISCONNECTS REQUIREMENTS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT. AFCI REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S THE ARC FAULT CIRCUIT INTERRUPTERS.
LIGHTING LOAD CALCS, REDUCED PER L.E.D. NOW.
CODE NOT ONLY IS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NEW TECHNOLOGY.
IT'S WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH FROM THAT STANDPOINT. IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, LET'S SEE WHAT PROBLEMS WE'RE HAVING.
TECHNOLOGY -- INSURANCE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO -- TRAGEDY DRIVES CODE CHANGE. INSURANCE ABSOLUTELY DRIVES CODE CHANGE. BUT TECHNOLOGY ALSO DRIVES CODE CHANGE. AND SO, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALLOWING, YOU KNOW, THE MOST TECHNOLOGY THAT WE CAN, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO KEEP ADOPTING A MORE CURRENT CODE FOR THAT PURPOSE.
INTERNATIONAL PLUMBING CODE, STORM SYSTEM SIZING WAS AT A TEN- YEAR RAINFALL THROUGH THE IPC.
THIS IS PRIVATE. THIS IS NOT PUBLIC.
SO, THIS IS STORM WATER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, NOT IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY, SO DON'T GET THAT CONFUSED.
2021 CHANGED THAT TO A HUNDRED-YEAR RAINFALL, WHICH IS PROBABLY GOING TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE STRICT, BUT IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT'S ALSO NEEDED AS YOU GUYS KNOW WITH OUR RUNOFF AND THAT SORT OF THING.OUR FIXTURE DRAIN COUNTS.
THEY'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION A MORE LOW- FLOW USAGE. SOME OF THAT'S GOING DOWN.
THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW US TO ACTUALLY GET SMALLER PIPING, THINGS LIKE THAT. BACKFLOW PROTECTION IS BECOMING MORE SPECIFIC. A LITTLE MORE STRICT. AGAIN, THAT'S A GOOD THING.
WE'RE PROTECTING THE PUBLIC WATER SUPPLY FROM THAT STANDPOINT. AND THEN ROOF DRAINAGE. THEY'RE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME MORE TECHNOLOGY IN ROOF DRAINAGE.
THE MECHANICAL CODE, REFRIGERANT DETECTION WAS MINIMAL. NOW IT'S ENHANCED FOR FLAMMABLE TYPES. GREASE DUCTS USED TO BE FIELD- BUILT ONLY.
NOW THEY'RE ALLOWING FOR SOME FACTORY-BUILT GREASE DUCTS.
SEISMIC SUPPORT IS EXPANDING FOR HIGH SEISMIC ZONES.
NOT A LOT OF -- IT'S FUNNY, THE EXHAUST DISCHARGE, NO ADDED DISCHARGE IMPLIED. IT'S ACTUALLY ALWAYS BEEN ENFORCED THAT WAY, TO MY KNOWLEDGE,÷÷ BUT NOW IT'S EXPLICITLY FORCED THAT WAY.
INTERNATIONAL FUEL GAS CODE, ANOTHER ONE WE HAD TALKED.
NOT A LOT OF CHANGES HERE. SOME MINIMAL STUFF.
AGAIN, WE'RE MOSTLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SOME TECHNOLOGY CHANGES, THAT SORT OF THING. ONE INTERESTING ONE HERE, CSST BONDING. CSST BONDING, IF YOU'RE IN YOUR ATTIC, YOU SEE THE ORANGE, METAL, FLEXIBLE GAS PIPING, THAT'S CSST AND THERE'S BEEN SOME INSTANCES WHERE LIGHTNING HAS STRUCK AND CAUGHT SOME HOUSES ON FIRE. SO, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ON THAT. THERE'S A FAMILY OUT OF LUBBOCK THAT HADHAD TRAGEDY HIT THEIR LIFE AND THEY'VE REALLY BEEN THE DRIVING FORCE BEHIND THAT. AND SO, NOW, THERE'S ENHANCED BONDING RULES FOR LIGHTNING SAFETY WHEN IT COMES TO DEALING WITH CSST.
INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE.
AGAIN, OUR HOUSES ARE GETTING TIGHTER. WE'RE TRYING TO GET MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT IN HOMES. THIS IS REALLY DRIVEN BY INDUSTRY IN A LOT OF WAYS. I MEAN, JUST THE THINGS THAT WE'RE INSTALLING ARE JUST GETTING BETTER. AND SO, THE CODES ARE GETTING MORE TIGHT.
SORRY ABOUT THAT. I WENT BACK ONE.
BUT IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THOSE.
>> YOU'LL FORGIVE ME, I'M REFERENCING THE SUMMARY HERE, UNDER THE -- I THINK IT'S THE
[01:15:01]
ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE. THERE WAS A NOTE UNDER 2021 THAT RENEWABLES ARE NOW REQUIRED IN SOME PROJECTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY OPTIONAL.AND I JUST WONDER IF YOU COULD GIVE ME ANY MORE CLARITY ON THAT SUMMARY ITEM.
>> IS THAT UNDER THE ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE?
>> YEAH. UNDER THAT SUMMARY TABLE, THE NEXT TO LAST ONE.
>> RENEWABLES, OPTIONAL, REQUIRED IN SOME PROJECTS. YEAH, SO, DEPENDING UPON THE TYPE OF -- IT WOULD BE A -- A PROJECT THAT DEALS IN -- THAT WOULD CURRENTLY BE REQUIRED TO HAVE CERTAIN ENERGY REQUIREMENTS FOR RENEWABLES. I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD RIGHT NOW THAT WE WOULD HAVE REMOTELY HERE THAT WOULD APPLY TO THAT. BUT IT'S LIKELY TO BE THAT THOSE INDUSTRIES KNOW WHAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE WHEN THEY GO INTO THAT. I'M TRYING TO THINK.
WE HAD A GROUP COME HERE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO THAT WANTED TO DO THE LETTUCE, THE GROWING THE LETTUCE, AND THEY HAD A WHOLE PLAN TOGETHER FOR HOW THEY'RE REUSING AND RESOURCING WATER AND THOSE SORTS OF THINGS. THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THEM. HONESTLY, OUR GOOGLE FACILITY, THEY DO A LOT OF THINGS THERE TO MITIGATE WASTE AND RENEWABLES.
I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT IS. I'M GUESSING IT'S PRETTY MINIMAL, BUT I CAN DOUBLE CHECK THAT AND SHOOT YOU AN EMAIL WITH IT.
>> AND THEN, IN THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE, I WAS JUST CURIOUS, THERE'S A -- I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE COG AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 202 WHERE IT DEFINES BOTH EXISTING BUILDINGS AND EXISTING STRUCTURE.
AND IT GIVES THEM BOTH THE SAME EXACT DEFINITION, BUT IT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING THAT WAS ACHIEVED AT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AT LEAST TWO CODE CYCLES PRIOR.
AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY THAT WOULD BE TWO CODE CYCLES. I MEAN, TO ME, WHY WOULD IT NOT BE JUST BEFORE THE ADOPTION OF THE CURRENT CODE?
>> FROM WHAT I KNOW ABOUT EXISTING BUILDING CODE IS THAT FOCUSES A LOT ON THE HISTORICAL ASPECT. AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S THE CASE, IF THAT'S WHY THEY'RE FOCUSING ON TWO.
>> WELL, SO, THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY'RE CHANGING, AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IS, WITH OUR COG AMENDMENTS, THOSE GENERALLY COME FROM -- WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THINGS, WHAT WE WOULD NORMALLY DO IN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS AREA.
THE THINGS THAT WE HAVE ALWAYS DONE. SO, THE CHANGE THEY'RE TAKING OUT IS ERECTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF ADOPTION OF THE APPROPRIATE CODE. I THINK THEY'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT LANGUAGE A LITTLE MORE SIMPLER.
IT NEEDS TO BE -- WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPLY AN EXISTING BUILDING CODE TO A BUILDING THAT WE JUST BUILT.
THERE'S NO REASON TO. WE CAN ABSOLUTELY MAINTAIN WITH OUR CURRENTCURRENT CODE WHAT WE NEED TO -- WHAT WE NEED TO DO.
IT'S A BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE -- THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING TO MEET A CURRENT STANDARD.
FOR SOME REASON, IN WHAT IT'S DOING.
HISTORICAL BUILDINGS COME TO MIND A LOT, BECAUSE TO KEEP THAT HISTORICAL ACCURACY, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU CAN PLAY WITH AND CERTAIN THINGS THAT YOU CAN NOT.
>> SO, THAT CODE IS LESS -- IT PROVIDES EXCEPTIONS OR LESS STRENUOUS RULE SET, AND TO QUALIFY FOR IT, YOU HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY OLDER --
>> AND THAT CODE IS -- IT'S APPLIED SOMETIMES IN SINGLE AREAS. YOU MAY MEET THE REST OF THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE IN EVERY OTHER ASPECT.
IT'S THIS ONE AREA THAT YOU'RE JUST NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. ENERGY CODE COMES TO MIND IN A LOT OF THESE BUILDINGS. AND SO, WE CAN APPLY THE EXISTING BUILDING CODE IF WE COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE FORM.
>> I HAD A QUESTION ON -- IT'S ON THIS SECOND PAGE IN BEHIND THE -- BEHIND THE RESOLUTION.
WITH BUILDING AT THE TOP. IT REFERENCES SECTION 105.2, WORK EXEMPT FROM PERMIT. AND IT'S GOT A CROSS- THROUGH ONE STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, AND I KNOW YOU WERE MENTIONING EARLIER SOME OF THESE ARE SPECIFIC OR I THOUGHT WHAT YOU SAID YOU WERE REFERENCING WAS THAT THEY'RE SPECIFIC TO MULTIFAMILY.
SO, I WAS TRYING TO JUST CLARIFY WHERE IT HAS ONE STORY DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES USED AS TOOL OR STORAGE SHEDS, BECAUSE IT'S CROSSED OUT, THAT DOES NOT -- OR IT DOES OR DOES NOT MEAN THAT CURRENTLY, YOU CAN BUILD A 120 SQUARE FEET STORAGE SHED WITHOUT A PERMIT AND MOVING FORWARD, YOU WOULD NEED TO GET THAT PERMIT?
[01:20:01]
>> NO. SO, CURRENTLY, WE ARE ALLOWING ANYTHING 200 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER NOT TO REQUIRE A
OKAY. >> IT'S LOOKED AT AS A TEMPORARY STRUCTURE, BASICALLY. MUCH IN THE SAME WAY WE WOULD LOOK AT A -- I BELIEVE THAT SECTION -- I DON'T KNOW
[2025-221 ]
EXACTLY WHERE YOU'RE REFERENCING, BUT I BELIEVE IT HAS TO DO WITH COMMERCIAL ANDMULTIFAMILY. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GETTING TO.
>> THAT'S NOT LIKE A ONE- FAMILY
DWELLING. >> LIKE SOMEBODY WANTS TO BUILD A LITTLE STORAGE SHED, NONE OF THAT'S CHANGING.
>> SO, WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY MAKE SOME CHANGES TO MEET WHAT HAS BEEN THE DESIRE IN MIDLOTHIAN.
THE IRC DOES NOT REQUIRE PERMIT. BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A CERTAIN STANDARD MET SO WE HAVE TO AMEND THE CODE.
THE IRC DOESN'T REQUIRE A PERMIT FOR BUILDINGS THAT ARE 200 SQUARE FEET OR SMALLER, ACCESSORY USE BUILDINGS.
WE LEAVE THAT IN THERE BECAUSE WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THOSE BUILDINGS BEING THAT WAY.
>> OKAY. THAT'S -- I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD PROPERLY THAT THAT WAS SPECIFIC TO EITHER COMMERCIAL OR MULTIFAMILY.
>> THAT IS SPECIFIC TO COMMERCIAL.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO, JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION, THE IBC, THE BUILDING CODE APPLIES TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES?
>> BUILDING CODE APPLIES TO EVERYTHING EXCEPT ONE AND TWO- FAMILY DWELLINGS.
>> OKAY. SO, I HAD THE SAME QUESTION.
SO, YOU KNOW W WE'VE GOT TWO THINGS.
>> YOUR APARTMENT COMPLEX IS GOING TO BE BUILDING CODE. RESTAURANTS. BUT SINGLE- FAMILY, DUPLEXES AND SOME TOWNHOMES, THREE OR FOUR OR LESS, I BELIEVE, FALL UNDER THE IRC.
>> OKAY. >> QUESTION UNDER THE IRC. THERE'S MADE REFERENCE THERE TO TIGHTER ENVELOPES ON THE BUILDING. AND I ASSUME THAT MEANS LESS PENETRATION OF INTERIOR AIR TO THE OUT AND OUTSIDE AIR TO THE IN, RIGHT?
>> YES, SIR. >> AND I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL PEOPLE, AS TIGHT AS THOSE ENVELOPES ARE GETTING, IT'S REQUIRING VERY SPECIALIZED HVAC SYSTEMS THAT CAN BE MORE COSTLY, MORE EXPENSIVE TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP FUNCTIONING, MORE PRONE TO DOWNTIME, IF YOU WILL, AND THERE'S OTHER ISSUES THAT ARE OCCURRING AS WE, YOU KNOW, LIKE HOUSES USED TO BREATHE. AND NOW, THEY'RE BELT BELT YETI COOLERS AND THEY DON'T BREATHE.
>> WE HAVE TO BRING OUTSIDE AIR INTO THE HOMES.
>> OKAY. >> THAT'S TO MAKE OUR HVAC UNITS FUNCTION PROPERLY.
>> AS WE'RE TIGHTENING THESE ENVELOPES, THAT'S INCREASING THE NEED FOR DUMPING EXTERNAL AIR BACK INTO THE SYSTEM?
>> THAT'S JUST A CONCERN THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE EXPRESSED.
THOSE SYSTEMS THAT DO HAVE TO DRAW THE AIR AND BALANCE IT, AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THEM HAVE TO HAVE A DEHUMIDIFIER COMPONENT BECAUSE THEY'RE BRINGING IN MUCH MORE HUMID AIR THAN WHAT'S INSIDE THE STRUCTURE.
>> IT DEFINITELY PRESENTS NEW CHALLENGES TO US, WHAT WE NORMALLY WOULD THINK OF. HOUSES USED TO -- I MEAN, A HOUSE WOULD BREATHE. MY HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1995.
I CAN SIT ON THE COUCH AND LITERALLY FEEL A BREEZE SOMETIMES.
>> BUT EVEN IF YOU TOOK THE ENERGY CODE COMPLIANCE AWAY FROM IT, WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ENERGY CODE IN TEXAS THAT WE HAD TO ENFORCE, JUST OUR NEW PRODUCTS ALONE, THE FACT THAT MOST PEOPLE WANT TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEIR HOME PHONE, BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO JUST, YOU KNOW, HAVE BAD INSULATION. THE FACT THAT PEOPLE -- THE PRODUCTS THAT WE'RE USING TO WRAP HOMES ANYMORE, WE'RE NOT JUST PUTTING PLYWOOD AROUND IT. WE'RE USING THESE PRODUCTS THAT ARE MEANT TO SEAL AND TO TIGHTEN. THAT'S CAUSING ISSUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. AND THE HVAC FOLKS, THEY KEEP UP WITH THAT BUT IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
THERE IS NOT A HOME BUILT NOW THAT'S NOT USUALLY TIGHT.
>> WHERE YOU MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT DRAINAGE, TEN- YEAR AND NOW 100-YEAR.
IS THAT ON -- WHAT ALL'S THAT INCLUDE? IS THAT -- ARE YOU TALKING, IT'S GONE TO A HUNDRED-YEAR FORMAT FOR DEVELOPMENT SIDE?
>> STORM WATER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
>> OKAY. >> SO, WHEN YOU'RE PUTTING A STORM WATER SYSTEM IN ON YOUR BIG PARKING LOT OUTSIDE OF YOUR BIG BOX STORE, YOU'VE GOT TO STILL HAVE TO MOVE THAT WATER TO A CERTAIN PLACE. THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS ON THE PRIVATE SIDE IS DICTATED THROUGH THE PLUMBING CODE. THE STUFF THAT HAPPENS ON THE PUBLIC SIDE IS DICTATED THERE OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS. SO, WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS THEY'RE MAKING IT -- IT'S CURRENTLY WOEFULLY INADEQUATE TO DO WHAT IT SHOULD DO.
THEY NEED TO TAKE A STEP TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT HAVING MORE WATER÷÷ HITTING THAT PUBLIC STORM SYSTEM N WE NEED. THIS ALL FITS INTO THE PUBLIC, EITHER THROUGH A DETENTION POND OR DIRECTLY IN, BUT IT'S COMING OFF OF PRIVATE PROPERTY.
[01:25:03]
>> WOULD THIS SAME REQUIREMENT BE REQUIRED IN THE COUNTY?
>> IT WOULD BE REQUIRED ANYWHERE THAT THERE'S -- THE STATE REQUIREMENT, IT WOULDN'T BE THE 2021. I THINK THE STATE PLUMBING CODE IS CURRENTLY THE 15.
>> YEAH. BUT YES, THE -- THAT IS ALL REQUIRED. SO, THAT CHANGE, IT WOULD STILL BE THAT TEN- YEAR IN THE COUNTY UNTIL THE STATE MAKES THAT CHANGE. ONLY MUNICIPALITIES ARE -- THAT ADOPT ORDINANCES --
>> BUT WHAT I'M STATING, THOUGH, IS WITH WHAT WE'RE ADOPTING TODAY, WE'RE MOVING FROM A TEN-YEAR TO A HUNDRED- YEAR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
THAT TIES INTO THE PUBLIC. >> EXACTLY.
SO, IS THIS SAME FORMAT -- AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T ANSWER CONCLUSIVELY, BUT DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS SAME FORMAT OF REQUIREMENT IS AT THE COUNTY LEVEL IN ELLIS COUNTY RIGHT NOW?
>> OKAY. SO, YOU TALKED EARLIER ABOUT DISCONNECTS.
>> YES, SIR. >> IS THAT FOR ONLY NEW CONSTRUCTION, OR LET'S GIVE AN EXAMPLE.
YOU GOT WILMA LIVES ON NORTH 5TH STREET AND SHE HAS TO -- HER POWER GETS RIPPED OFF THE SIDE OF HER HOUSE BECAUSE A TREE LIMB FALLS ON IT. SO, HER POWER HAS TO GET
UH-HUH. >> WILMA'S ON SOCIAL SECURITY, BARELY GETTING BY. DOES SHE HAVE TO PUT IN THIS DISCONNECT BECAUSE SHE HAS TO TURN THE POWER BACK ON BEFORE YOU'RE GOING TO GREEN TAG HER?
>> SO, SHE GETS -- SO, THIS IS ONLY FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION?
>> IT'S FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION OR REMODEL.
BUT I INTERPRET THAT TO BE AN ACT OF GOD SITUATION. THAT IS BEYOND THEIR ABILITY.
AND I GET TO MAKE INTERPRETATIONS OF THE BUILDING CODE. SO, THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD LOOK AT AND GO, IT'S BEEN THIS WAY ALL ALONG, THAT'S -- IT WAS DONE RIGHT TO THE CODE.
THE TREE FELL OVER ON TOP OF IT. WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT.
AS LONG AS IT'S SAFE AND A SAFE MANNER AND NO ONE'S GOING TO GET HURT, THEN NO, WE WOULD NOT DO THAT.
WOULD WE ENCOURAGE THEM TO PUT A DISCONNECT? ABSOLUTELY. MIGHT THE ELECTRICIAN SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT UNLESS YOU DO A DISCONNECT? MAYBE. BUT IN A SITUATION AS SPECIFIC AS THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY WORK WITH OUR --
>> BUT EVEN FROM A STANDPOINT OF ANYONE WHO IS ON MORE OF A FIXED INCOME, THIS WOULD POSSIBLY BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THEM TO GET A GREEN TAG AND MAYBE NOT AS AN EXTREME OF AN EXAMPLE BUT WHAT I'M GETTING AT, THIS ISN'T ONLY APPLICABLE TO NEW CONSTRUCTION. IT'S ALSO APPLICABLE TO REMODELING, AS YOU HAD
MENTIONED. >> RIGHT, SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU SAID, I'M GOING TO -- I'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, KNOB AND TUBE WIRING THROUGHOUT MY 110-YEAR- OLD HOUSE AND I'M GOING TO REWIRE THE WHOLE THING, PUT IN A NEW PANEL BOX, THEN A DISCONNECT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
>> OR IF THEY POSSIBLY ADDED A ROOM ON TO THE HOUSE?
>> POTENTIALLY THERE AS WELL, YES, SIR.
>> POSSIBLY. OKAY, SO, THIS IS KIND OF -- I GUESS I'M KIND OF TRAPPED IN A TIME WARP. I DON'T BLAME YOU FOR ANYTHING YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
>> YOU'RE DOING AN EXCELLENT JOB. I'M THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE YOU.
I DON'T BLAME FIRE FOR ANYTHING THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. POLICE FOR ANYTHING THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
THE THING THAT CONCERNS ME WITHIN ALL THIS IS WE ARE CONTINUING TO DEVELOP HOUSING THAT IS UNAFFORDABLE. THESE ARE ALL WONDERFUL IDEAS.
I DO BELIEVE THAT WITHIN A RELATIVELY SHORT PERIOD OF TIME, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE WATER SPRINKLERS IN ALL OF OUR HOMES ALSO. I THINK IF I LIVE LONG ENOUGH TO STAY ON THE COUNCIL LONG ENOUGH, I'VE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME, I THINK I'LL SEE THE DAY COME --
>> STATE LAW WILL HAVE TO CHANGE TO GET THERE.
>> EXACTLY. SO, ALL THESE ARE WONDERFUL IDEAS, BUT -- AND ALL THESE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITHIN THESE CODES THAT WE CONTINUE TO ADOPT ARE IDEAS TO HELP PROTECT PEOPLE BETTER. WHO CAN ARGUE AGAINST HAVING A WATER SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN A HOME WHICH HELPS OUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT÷÷ AND MAY SAVE LIVES? BUT I'M ALSO LOOKING AT HOW DO WE MAKE HOUSING AFFORDABLE? I DO HAVE A SLIGHT FEAR WHEN I LOOK AT A REVENUE BASE FOR A CITY, AND WE KNOW MUDS ARE COMING ON, AND I BELIEVE THIS WILL BE THE LURE FOR THE MUDS.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO GET AROUND A BUNCH OF THIS STUFF, I BELIEVE. I COULD BE WRONG.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THAT IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM THE ABILITY TO OFFER THAT MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT CREATES A CRUNCH ON MUNICIPALITIES IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THEY'VE GOTTEN, RIGHTLY SO, THEMSELVES SO WRAPPED UP IN ALL THESE PROTECTIONARY MECHANISMS, INCLUDING WITH THE TAXES, THAT IT JUST MAKES IT UNAFFORDABLE.
>> WELL, IF IT HELPS AT ALL, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, WE KNOW
[01:30:02]
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BAD PEOPLE, BAD PLAYERS AT EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, BOTH IN THE CITY AND OUTSIDE THE CITY. SINCE THAT SITUATION'S COME UP WITH THE GFCI RECEPTACLES, I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY CONVERSATIONS I HAVE HAD ARE WANTING TO DO WHAT THE CURRENT CODE SAYS THEY HAVE TO DO, AND THEY'RE SAYING, I CAN'T DO WHAT YOUR CODE SAYS BECAUSE I'M VIOLATING THE TDLR REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS WHERE MY LICENSE COMES FROM.AND THAT'S WHEN I SAT DOWN WITH THE GUY THAT'S OVER THE ELECTRICAL CODE REQUIREMENTS AT TDLR, AND WE DETERMINED, YES, THE POP- UP PLUG MEETS OUR CODE AND THEIR CODE.
NOW, I DON'T ENFORCE THE '23 CODE, BUT IF THEIR CONSCIENTIOUS ENOUGH, TRADESMEN, TO WANT TO GO IN AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE DOING THINGS RIGHT, I THINK THERE'S -- I THINK THAT'S STILL HAPPENING OUT THERE.
SO, IF YOU'RE NOT IN A MUNICIPALITY, YOU'RE CURRENTLY UNDER WHATEVER CODE ADOPTED BY THE STATE IS, AND YOU'RE -- YOU HOLD THE LICENSE THROUGH THE STATE OF TEXAS, YOU'RE REQUIRED TO MEET THAT CODE STANDARD. CURRENTLY, IT'S THE '15
THE '15. >> THEY'RE UNDER THE '15.
STATE HAS NOT MADE ANY MOVES TO CHANGE THAT YET.
THEY USUALLY DO AROUND EVERY TEN YEARS OR SO, AND WHEN THEY DO, THEY'LL ADOPT THE MOST CURRENT, WHICH WILL PROBABLY BE THE '24 OR MAYBE '27.
BUT THAT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT COMES TO THE IDEA OF PEOPLE AND THEIR NEEDS AND THEIR WANTS, WELL, WE'RE PEOPLE TOO. AND WE'RE NOT JUST A FACELESS BUREAUCRACY. WE'RE MEETING WITH THESE FOLKS. THIS IS OUR COMMUNITY AS WELL.
AND WE'RE TALKING TO PEOPLE. AND SO, I MEAN, I HAVE HAD SITUATIONS WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A FEDERAL BOX IN A CLOSET IN YOUR BEDROOM. I KNOW THAT'S A FIRE HAZARD. I'M NOT TRYING TO TALK YOU INTO CHANGING IT ANY WAY I CAN, BUT I CAN'T MAKE YOU CHANGE IT. BECAUSE THAT HOUSE WAS ALREADY THERE AND IT WAS PUT IN PER CODE. IF YOU HAVE A SITUATION -- WE HAVE HAD THE SITUATION WHERE THE ELECTRIC PANEL BOX IN THE CLOSET, WE HAVE HAD -- I NEED YOU TO MOVE THIS OUTSIDE THE HOUSE. I'VE TALKED TO ELECTRICIANS THAT SAY, HELP ME OUT. WORK WITH THEM ON THIS THING. WE'RE DEALING WITHWITH PEOPLE ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS AS WELL. AND SO, IT'S NOT JUST, WELL, THAT'S WHAT THE CODE SAYS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TOTO GO. AS THE CODE OFFICIAL, I HAVE THE RIGHT TO INTERPRET THE CODE. NOW, THERE'S A LOTLOT LEGAL WEIGHT TO THAT, BECAUSE I ALSO CAN BE HELD LIABLE FOR MAKING THE WRONG INTERPRETATION.
BUT I HAVE THE ABILITY TO INTERPRET THE CODE, AND APPLY IT AS I BELIEVE IT NEEDS TO BE APPLIED. AND SO, I THINK THAT'S JUST ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE CODE, AND I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS FOR 25 YEARS. THIS -- I'VE SEEN THIS IN MULTIPLE DIFFERENT MUNICIPALITIES.
PEOPLE SIT DOWN AND THEY TALK TO PEOPLE AND REALIZE, I CAN'T AFFORD TO PUT THAT DISCONNECT IN.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK SOMETHING OUT. WE'RE GOING TO GET YOU SAFE.
>> YEAH. THE CONVERSATION IS -- I DIDN'T MEAN FOR IT TO DWELL INTO -- AND I DON'T THINK YOU THINK I DID, TO DRAW INTO A POSITION WHERE I WOULD EXPECT YOU OR THINKTHINK YOU'RE GOING TO INTERPRET ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS, AND I KNOW YOU DO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION AT TIMES WITH CERTAIN OUTCOMES. MY MAIN THING IS THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING A SYSTEM. IT'S A MONSTER.
IT'S A LOT. I CAN'T EVEN BEGIN -- I COULD READ THIS STUFF FOR A YEAR AND I WOULDN'T KNOW HOW TO INTERPRET ALL OF IT.
THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING A SYSTEM THAT HAS BASED ITSELF AROUND TRYING TO KEEP EVERYONE IS SO WELL PROTECTED THAT IT'S GOING TO BECOME UNAFFORDABLE FOR MANY. IT'S NOT THAT YOU'RE MAKING BAD DECISIONS. IT'S A BIG MONSTER NOW, AND IT HAS ALL THE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT BY THE BIG DEVELOPERS, IT'S A MUCH BIGGER CONVERSATION, BUT ENOUGH OF MY GRANDSTANDING.
[2025-222]
>> THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. >> ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THESE BUILDING CODE AGENDA ITEMS? I WILL TAKE A MOTION ON ALL ITEMS 2025-221 THROUGH 228.
>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE SAME AMENDMENT TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE MATCHING THE EXCEPTION WE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE FIRE CODE TO THE SAME SECTION, 903.2.11.9 TO KEEP THEM CONGRUENT.
>> THAT IS THE CORRECT LOCATION FOR THAT SAME EXCEPTION, CORRECT?
>> FIRE SPRINKLERS? OKAY. MAKING SURE.
>> OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THAT ONE EXCEPTION THAT WAS CALLED OUT BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER.
>> TO THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
>> SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER MOORMAN.
[01:35:02]
[2025-229]
ITEM 2025-229. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE AIA B 101 AGREEMENT WITH HOEFR WELKER ARCHITECTS FOR SCOPE OF SERVICES TO DESIGN AND ENGINEER THE NEW MIDLOTHIANMIDLOTHIAN FIRE STATION NUMBER 4.
>> THE ITEM BEFORE YOU WOULD ALLOW FOR US TO AMEND THE CURRENT CONTRACT WE HAVE WITH HOEFR WELKER TO TAKE US FROM 50% CDS. CURRENTLY, WE'RE AT 100% SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND ENTERING INTO THE DESIGN DOCUMENT PHASE. THIS AMENDMENT HOW WOULD ALLOW US TO GO TO 95% CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, AND ALSO COVER THEIR BID PREPARATION TO ASSIST A CMAR IN COMING UP WITH THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE. SO, TOTAL COST IS $231,800.
$110,600 OF THAT WILL BE ABSORBED BY THE TAX NOTE.
THE REMAINING BALANCE WOULD BE ABSORBED INTO THE CO BOND THAT YOU TOOK ACTION ON TO ISSUE THE INTENTION TO ISSUE THAT AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. THAT WOULD BE DEALT WITH AT THE AUGUST 26TH MEETING, BUT BASICALLY, THE REMAINING BALANCE WOULD BE ABSORBED INTO THAT CO BOND IF IT'S APPROVED.
>> OKAY, THANKS, CHIEF. TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK?
>> MS. HEALY, IF YOU WANT TO COME FORWARD.
STATE YOUR NAME AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY, AND YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES.
>> HI, LISA HEALY. I LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS.
I JUST WANT TO REAL QUICK THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION EARLIER WITH MY EARLIER COMMENT.
REGARDING THIS MATTER, I FEEL IT'S VERY DISMISSIVE OF THE CITIZENS OF MIDLOTHIAN TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO A CONTRACT WHEN YOU HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN THE FINANCING. IT'S DISMISSIVE BECAUSE THE NOTIFICATION PERIOD HASN'T EVEN EXPIRED. WHAT IF SOMEONE DOES A PETITION, AND YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT? IT'S ONLY 2,100 SIGNATURES.
THAT IS NOT A HARD THRESHOLD. SO, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS UNTIL AFTER THE AUGUST 20-WHATEVER MEETING, AND THEN COMMIT TO THIS CHANGE.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? OKAY, COUNCIL, QUESTIONS OF STAFF?
>> HIT YOUR MICROPHONE. >> SORRY.
THIS FINALIZES THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SO THAT WE CAN GET HARD CONSTRUCTION COSTS REGARDLESS OF THE VEHICLE IN WHICH ULTIMATELY THE CONSTRUCTION IS FINANCED.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. AND IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, THE INTENTION OF THE COUNCIL WAS FOR US TO CREATE DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO GET TO A GMP AND BE PREPARED FOR EITHER A CO BOND OR A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND IN NOVEMBER SO THAT WE COULD MAINTAIN OUR TIMELINE OF STARTING CONSTRUCTION BY THE FIRST OF THE YEAR.
>> AND JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID GMP, WHICH IS A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE.
>> THAT'S WHAT THE CMR WILL --
>> THAT WILL GIVE US A HARD FIXED NUMBER SO WE KNOW EXACTLY THE AMOUNT WE'RE FINANCING, REGARDLESS OF THE VEHICLE THROUGH WHICH IT GETS FINANCED.
>> AND THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE ANCILLARY ON THIS IS, NOW WE HAVE THE HOEFR WELKER CONTRACT AMENDMENT HERE, BUT WE ARE REFERENCING STEEL AND FREEMAN CONSTRUCTION AS THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK. ARE WE OBLIGATED TO THAT?
>> I KNOW WE INVESTED A SMALL AMOUNT FOR THEM TO DODO BIDDING SERVICES WITH
SUBCONTRACTORS. >> THAT WAS STRICTLY FOR PRECONSTRUCTION.
>> SO IT WAS A $20,000 CONTRACT JUST FOR PRECONSTRUCTION TO HELP US WITH THE -- TO GENERATE A BETTER PRICE WITH SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND THEN FURTHER ON. SO, IF WE CHOOSE THEM AS CMAR, WE WILL HAVE TO ENTER INTO ANOTHER CONTRACT IF WE GO THAT PROCUREMENT
METHOD. >> IT WAS MY INTENT NOT TO DO ANYTHING. I WAS NOT GOING TO BRING THAT TO COUNCIL UNTIL AFTER YOU DETERMINED YOU WERE GOING TO BE ABLE TO VOTE AND ISSUE THE CO BOND.
AND YOU KNOW, THE IDEA BEHIND THE ARCHITECT IS THEY'RE ALREADY WORKING AND MOVING TOWARDS THAT GOAL. WE JUST WANTED TO GO AHEAD
[01:40:02]
AND AMEND THE CONTRACT. WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY LEFT OVER IN THE TAX NOTE, AND THIS WOULD ALLOW THEM TO TAKE US TO COMPLETION.>> SO, WE NEED FIRE STATION 4 IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
WE NEED TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT COSTS AND WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD, AND THIS WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT.
NOW, I DO HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, WE INDICATE THAT THE ADDITIONAL $213,000 WOULD BE IMBURSED FROM THAT CO IF IT IS TO BE IMPLEMENTED.
IF IT'S NOT IMPLEMENTED, CHRIS, WHERE DOES THE $121,200 COME FROM?
>> JUST COMES FROM FUND BALANCE.
>> OKAY, SO, THAT WOULD BE OUT OF THE UNRESTRICTED FUND BALANCE?
>> THAT'S WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM.
IF, LET'S SAY, THIS CONTRACT WAS GOING TO BE FULLY EXECUTED AND WE MADE ALL PAYMENTS BEFORE AUGUST 26TH, WE WOULD HAVE TO ADVANCE IT FROM THE GENERAL FUND.
AND FUND BALANCE AND THEN TO YOUR POINT, REIMBURSE OURSELVES. SO, IF THIS CO DOESN'T HAPPEN, YOU'RE NOT REIMBURSING YOURSELF.
>> SO, WE HAD A MEETING, A WORKSHOP, AND IT WAS -- AND I MUST HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAD A CLOSE- TO NUMBER AT THAT WORKSHOP.
THAT WAS MORE OF A RESEARCHED, EVEN PROVIDED FOR ENGINEERING- TYPE NUMBER OF AROUND 15 MILLION RANGE.
WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT INFLATIONARY CONCERNS OVER A SIX- MONTH PERIOD AND HOW IT COULD AFFECT IT BY $1.5 MILLION AND A LOT OF THAT CONVERSATION. SO, THE NUMBER THAT WE SHARED AT THE MEETING, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS CLOSER TO WHAT THIS CONTRACT WAS GOING TO OFFER US, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT NUMBER AND THIS NUMBER? HOW DID WE GET THE NUMBER AT THE MEETING? WHO PROVIDED THAT?
WORKSHOP. >> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE $15 MILLION? EMPHASIS ON THE ISH.
THE NUMBER WAS PROVIDED TO US BY STEEL FREEMAN, WHO HAD WORKED WITH HOEFER WELKER AT ABOUT 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGN DOCUMENTS. THAT'S -- THERE'S STILL SOME UNKNOWNS IN THE BUILDING AT THAT POINT. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THAT WE HAVE SOME CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CMAR AND THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE I WAS GETTING SOME MIXED SIGNALS ON PER SQUARE FOOT PRICING FROM ONE AGAINST THE OTHER. THE ARCHITECT HAD SOME REFERENCES THAT WERE SHOWING LESS ON THE PER SQUARE FOOT PRICE THAN THE CMAR BECAUSE THEY ALSO HAVE A COMPONENT IN THEIR PROCESS WHERE THEY'RE PRICING THE BUILDING AS WELL.
THE CMAR IS THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY OUT THERE CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING AND HAS, YOU KNOW, SOME REALTIME DATA. SO, THAT NUMBER WAS PRODUCED OFF OF ABOUT 50% SCHEMATIC DESIGNS. THE NUMBER AT 15.5, I JUST SET THAT AS, THAT'S THE HIGHEST.
IT WILL NOT GO ABOVE THAT. IT'S -- I HAVE BEEN -- IT'S MY INTENT, AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE ARCHITECT AND THE CMAR AS WE DRILL DEEPER INTO THIS THAT NUMBER IS GOING TO COME BACKWARDS.
I CAN PROMISE YOU THAT -- I CAN STAND HERE AND COMMIT TO YOU TODAY THAT I WON'T GO OVER THAT NUMBER. I'LL CUT THINGS OUT OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE NOT FUNCTIONAL.
LONG-TERM, I WANT TO KEEP THE FUNCTIONALITY OF THE BUILDING, BUT THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE CAN SQUEEZE IF WE HAVE TO.
IT JUST MAY CHANGE SOME OF THE ACCOMMODATIONS OF THE BUILDING.
BUT THAT NUMBER WAS PRODUCED BY THE CMAR AND IT WAS PRODUCED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH FROM THE ARCHITECT.
>> SO, WHAT -- HOW MUCH CLOSER DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THIS CONTRACT WILL GET US IN NUMBERS?
>> WELL, THIS CONTRACT WILL GET US DOWN TO THE GMP. THIS WOULD TAKE US TO WHERE THEY -- CMAR IS GOING TO COME IN HERE AND SAY, I CAN BUILD IT FOR THIS, AND I GUARANTEE IT.
>> SO, WE WOULD BE -- WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IS WE WOULD BE SIGNING ON FOR A GUARANTEE OF PRICING CONTRACT AHEAD OF A POTENTIAL GO? OR CO?
>> WELL, I MEAN, IF THE CO DOES NOT GO, I MEAN, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL NOVEMBER TO FINISH OUT OUR -- I MEAN, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER SITTING THERE ON STAFF.
RIGHT NOW, ALL THEY'RE DOING IS PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES.
THAT CMAR, I DON'T SEE ANY NEEDING THEM PRODUCING ANYTHING UNTIL AFTER WE KNOW IN NOVEMBER IF THE CO BOND
[01:45:01]
DOESN'T GO THROUGH.>> SO, HOW LONG DO YOU PROPOSE THAT THIS CONTRACT WILL TAKE THEM TO COMPLETE?
>> IT WILL BE -- WE'LL BE AT 50% DESIGN DOCUMENTS IN AUGUST, AND I THINK THEY SAID THAT THEY COULD GET US TO 95% CDS AROUND THE MIDDLE OF SEPTEMBER.
WITH THE INTENT -- THE INTENT AT THE LAST MEETING WE HAD, ABOUT A WEEK AGO, WOULD BE TO DO SOME BIDDING AND START DRILLING INTO THAT
GMP IN OCTOBER. >> SO, WHAT WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE IN THAT AND WAITING UNTIL -- TO TRY TO GET SOME MORE ANSWERS IN THE AUGUST REGION TO FIND OUT WHETHER OR NOT, BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST, IF WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE A CO? IF NOTHING COMES FROM THE THE GENERAL PUBLIC OF A REQUIREMENT OF A GO, WOULD WE NOT STILL HAVE TIME FROM
AUGUST TO NOVEMBER? >> IT JUST DELAYS THE
>> IT JUST DELAYS THE PROJECT.
>> IT JUST DELAYS THE PROJECT. THAT'S ALL IT
DOES. >> MY QUESTION IS, IF WE HAVE ENOUGH TIME BETWEEN JULY AND SOUNDS LIKE OCTOBER, WHICH IS 60 DAYS, ABOUT WOULD THERE NOT BE ENOUGH TIME BETWEEN AUGUST AND NOVEMBER TO PRODUCE THE SAME SAME OUTCOME TO FIND OUT WHAT ESSENTIALLY HAPPENS WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE A CO OR GO?
>> WELL, WE'LL KNOW THAT IN AUGUST, RIGHT?
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> THAT'S MY QUESTION.
YES, WE'LL KNOW IN AUGUST, AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS GOING TO BE, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION AROUND INFLATIONARY
CONCERNS. >> THEY WERE QUOTING US A 1.
>> AND THE 15. 5 THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING INCLUDES ABOUT $1.5 MILLION IN BETTERMENT, CONTINGENCY AND ESCALATION. THAT ESCALATION WAS CUT DOWN SOME BECAUSE OF THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD BE GOING TO BID AND GETTING A GMP IN OCTOBER.
>> I COULD HAVE SWORE WE USED THE EXAMPLES, AND THAT'S WHY I WISH OUR WORKSHOPS WERE RECORDED. I COULD HAVE SWORN WE USED THE EXAMPLES OF A 15. 5 AND WE NEEDED TO GO AHEAD AND ADD A 1.
5 TO MAKE IT CLOSER TO 16 16 $17 MILLION IN THAT
MISREMEMBERING. >> THE DISCUSSION WAS IF IT DOES GO TO A GO BOND IN NOVEMBER, A, THERE'S LEAD TIME. YOU CAN'T JUST GO THE DAY BEFORE THE ELECTION AND PUT THAT ON THERE. SO, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THAT NUMBER THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR ANYWAY. AND THEN, YOU CAN'T ISSUE THE DEBT UNTIL THE FOLLOWING BUDGET CYCLE, WHICH WOULD BE AUGUST OF 2026.
WHEN IT'S BUDGETED FOR IN THE INS SIDE OF THE BUDGET.
SO, THAT WAS WHERE THE DELAY IS, NOT JUST AN ADDITIONAL 90 DAYS. YOU KNOW, IF WE WANT HARD NUMBERS TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO DO THIS, YOU KNOW, A CO BOND OR A GO BOND PROCESS, AS A COUNCIL, THEN THIS DOCUMENT GETS US THERE, AND WE NEED IT EITHER WAY. THIS IS THE ENGINEERING SIDE, NOT THE CONSTRUCTION SIDE.
>> MY QUESTION REVOLVES MORE AROUND, HE JUST MENTIONED HE HAD A $1.5 MILLION IN THERE.
>> I THINK IT WAS 1.5% PER MONTH WAS WHAT HE SAID.
>> SO, THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THAT WE BASICALLY PRESENTED AS AN ESTIMATE, IT INCLUDED 1. 5 -- I THINK IT WAS -- LET ME THINK ABOUT THAT. I'VE SEEN ABOUT FIVE DIFFERENT SHEETS OVER THE LAST SIX WEEKS. THE CURRENT ONE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE HAS ABOUT $500,000 FOR BETTERMENT, $500,000 FOR CONTINGENCY AND ABOUT $500,000 FOR ESCALATION ON A THREE TO FOUR-MONTH LEAD TIME TO GET IT TO BID. THE LAST ONE WAS SIX MONTHS. SO -- AND WE WERE TALKING ABOUT 1.5% ON $15 MILLION, SO THAT WAS JUST AN ESTIMATE.
THERE'S A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT WHAT ESCALATION LOOKS LIKE RIGHT NOW. THE ARCHITECTS, THEY DON'T SEE THAT SAME TYPE OF ESCALATION THAT THE CMAR WAS SHOWING. SO, I DON'T KNOW.
I'M JUST GOING BETWEEN THE TWO OF
THEM. >> I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO KNOW.
I'M TRYING TO -- I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY SOMETHING ABOUT $1.5 MILLION OF THE $15.5 MILLION WAS AN ESCALATION AND POSSIBLE EXPECTATION OF EXPENDITURE DUE TO INFLATIONARY
IMPAGS. >> THAT IS BROKEN UP INTO THREE CATEGORIES, BETTERMENT, CONTINGENCY AND THEN THE ESCALATION COST, SO ABOUT HALF A MILLION OF THAT IS ESCALATION.
>> OKAY. TAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER. IS THERE A SECOND?
[01:50:03]
I WILL SECOND THAT. MOTION MADE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY MYSELF. PLEASE VOTE.[2025-230]
>> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, CHIEF.
ITEM 2025-230, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,157,000 BY THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3080 SHADY GROVE ROAD, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.
>> GOOD EVENING. THANKS FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO ASK FOR APPROVAL OF AN EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,157,000 TO PURCHASE ABOUT 16.5 ACRES -- WHERE'S THE -- OFF OF SHADY GROVE AND 287. CURRENTLY RIGSBY GARDEN CENTER.
THE BOARD DID GO AND VIEW THIS PROPERTY SEPARATELY, OF COURSE, AND DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR THE LAND.
SPOKE WITH HEATHER, AND THIS WOULD FALL IN LINE WITH THE REGIONAL TRAIL AND COULD EVEN SERVE AS A TRAILHEAD. SO, THE BOARD DID APPROVE THIS EXPENDITURE AND WANTED TO MOVEMOVE WITH IT.
THEY FEEL THAT IT COVERS THE PARKS MASTER PLAN. IT FALLS IN LINE WITH OUR FIVE-YEAR PLAN, BUT IT ALSO HAS LAND ONON CORNER THAT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED ALL AROUND IT THAT WE CAN RESELL AT A LATER TIME AND TRY TO RECOUP SOME COSTS FROM THIS EXPENDITURE AND PUT IT BACK INTO THE CITY AND HELP THE CITIZENS.
>> THANK YOU, MELISSA. ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? AND I NOTICE THAT JAN DAVIS IS HERE AS WELL. COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FROM HER AGENCY THE BOARD CHAIR FOR THE MCDC. QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE?
>> JUST A COMMENT. SO, I'M A BIG FAN OF THIS PROJECT. I THINK IT'S A GREAT ENDEAVOR.
I THINK IT WILL BE A REALLY GOOD ASSET TO THE CITY, BUT AS THE PARKS BOARD LIAISON, I GOT QUITE A FEW CALLS TODAY, AND THIS ISN'T ANYTHING AS FAR AS DIRECTED AT FAULT OR WHO, YOU KNOW, PUT THE PROCESS TOGETHER WHERE, YOU KNOW, THINGS DIDN'T CONNECT, BUT I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERN FROM THE PARKS BOARD ABOUT NOT HAVING THE ABILITY, ALTHOUGH THEY ALL SEEMED VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE PROJECT, NOT HAVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE INPUT PRIOR TO PARK ACQUISITION, AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE FEEDBACK PRIOR TO MAKING A MOTION TO APPROVE ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC.
>> IS THE MCDC REQUIRED TO DONATE A PORTION OF THIS AS PARKS LAND?
>> NO. >> SO, THIS IS A COMMERCIAL OPERATION THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS THAT A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF ALONG THE ROADWAY AND THE HARD CORNER IN AN AREA DEFINED AS THE REGIONAL MODULE IN OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, CAN BE ESSENTIALLY ACQUIRED BY OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND POSITIONED TO HAVE A MUCH HIGHER AND BETTER ECONOMIC USE FOR OUR COMMUNITY?
>> AND AS AN ANCILLARY BENEFIT, IF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND PARKS BOARD SO CHOOSES, AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE LAND AT A DISCOUNTED COST BECAUSE WE'RE REALIZING THE VALUE OF SELLING OFF THAT COMMERCIAL VIABLE CORNER AS PARKLAND, IF THE MCDC SO CHOOSES TO DONATE THAT, IN FACT.
IT COULD BE REQUIRED POTENTIALLY FOR THE COMMERCIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY.
>> AND WE DO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT CLASSIFYING IT TOO EARLY.
ONCE YOU DO THAT, THERE ARE LIMITATIONS AS FAR AS FLIPPING THE PROPERTY, USING IT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ARE GOING TO BE SEVERELY
THAT'S JUST A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION OF PURCHASING PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR X.
>> AND THESE ARE FUTURE POTENTIAL USES, A MYRIAD LIST, NOT INCLUSIVE LIST OF THINGS THAT COULD BE DONE WITH
IT. >> YES, BECAUSE THEY'RE DEVELOPING ALL AROUND THERE.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO REDO THAT ROADWAY, SO IT'S A REALLY GOOD CORNER FOR US TO PICK UP.
>> SO, I THINK MY QUESTIONS LEAD TO THE FACT THAT I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY INTENTIONAL, IMPLIED
[01:55:01]
OR OTHERWISE ACTUAL CIRCUMVENTION OF OUR ESTEEMED PARKS BOARD, WHO I KNOW IS PASSIONATE AND NEEDS TO BE INVOLVED IN THOSE PROCESSES.THIS IS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR REDEVELOPMENT UNDER THE STATUTORY GUIDELINES AND
OBLIGATIONS OF THE SAME. >> CORRECT.
>> ONE ELEMENT OF WHICH COULD BE PARKS BUT WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO SO.
>> SO, JAN AND I WENT TO MCKINNEY AND WENT TO A RESTAURANT CALLED STICKS, AND THEIR MODEL IS THEY HAVE A RESTAURANT THAT ALL THE KIDS GO TO AFTER SOCCER GAMES, BASKETBALL GAMES, AND IT IS LOCATED NEXT TO FLOODPLAIN AND A PARK. AND SO, WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING FOR A WAY TO BRING SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO MIDLOTHIAN AT ANY TIME A POSSIBILITY. SO, WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR THINGS TO ENHANCE THE COMMUNITY LIKE THAT. BUT NO -- AS YOU SAID, NO FUTURE PLANS.
>> SO, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR ASSESSMENT.
I THINK IT'S COMPLETELY APPROPRIATE FOR MCDC TO BRING A PROJECT SUCH AS THIS AND FOR US TO APPROVE IT IF WE SO WISH TONIGHT.
I ALSO DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ILL INTENT BY THE MCDC STAFF OR BOARD OR OTHERWISE IN RELATION TO THE PROCESS IN WHICH IT'S BEEN THROUGH.
HOWEVER, WHAT WE'RE LEAVING OUT IS WHERE THE PROJECT INITIATED WAS WITH OUR PARKS STAFF IN RELATION TO WHAT IT COULD BE IN THE FUTURE. SO, I THINK THAT'S WHERE, FOR ME, IT DOES HAVE IMPLICATIONS RELATED TO PARKS BOARD INPUT. SO, THAT'S MY OPINION.
>> AND I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. BUT I WANT TO ECHO JOE'S COMMENTS THAT WE'RE NOT BUYING PARKLAND TONIGHT. WE'RE BUYING COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LAND TO BE REDEVELOPED FOR THE PURPOSES FOR WHICH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS STATUTORILY CREATED, AND I THINK IT'S VERY RELEVANT AND VERY SALIENT TO THE CONVERSATION, REGARDLESS OF WHO HAPPENED TO KNOW THE LANDSCAPER OR THE GENTLEMAN WHO OWNED THIS PROPERTY TO GET THIS DEAL IN FRONT OF OUR MCDC.
WE'RE NOT OBLIGATING ITS USE TO THAT TONIGHT IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, FORM OR FASHION, BECAUSE IF WE DO, THEN WE ARE LIMITED TO ONLY THAT USE WHEN WE COULD HAVE A HIGHER USE IN THE FUTURE.
>> AND IF WE GO DOWN THAT ROUTE, CERTAINLY THE PARKS BOARD WILL BE INVOLVED.
>> SO, TO CLARIFY, IN THE EVENT THAT THIS WAS EDICATED AS PARKLAND, THERE WOULD BE A SEPARATE PROCESS IN WHICH WE WOULD MAKE AN APPROVAL? IS THAT ACCURATE?
>> IF THIS TURNS INTO SOME SORT OF PARK PROJECT, ABSOLUTELY THE PARKS BOARD WILL BE INVOLVED.
>> OKAY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
>> OKAY, FURTHER QUESTIONS OF MELISSA? TAKE A MOTION ON IT.
>> MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.
>> MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER MOORMAN: PLEASE VOTE.
MAN WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN MOORMAN: PLEASE VOTE.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION]
>> ITEM PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU, MELISSA.
THE CITY COUNCIL WILL NOW CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS ARE TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION.
TONIGHT, WE ARE JUST DISCUSSING ITEM NUMBER 3, WHICH IS SECTION 551.074, PERSONNEL MATTERS TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, OR DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, HR SPECIALIST. SO, AT 7:58 P.M., WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
>>> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOOD. IT IS 8:04 P.M., AND WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION.
THERE IS ACTION TO BE TAKEN TONIGHT ON NUMBER 3, SECTION 551.074, PERSONNEL MATTERS TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, OR DUTIES OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE, HR SPECIALIST. I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN SHUFFIELD HAS
A MOTION. >> APPROVE THE HR SPECIALIST POSITION ABOVE THE MIDPOINT.
>> SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.
ITEM PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.
WITH THAT, AT 8:05 P.M., WE ARE ADJOURNED.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.