[2026-004 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations relating to the use and development of Lot 2, Block A, Midlothian 287 Business Park, zoned Commercial (C) by granting a Specific Use Permit (SUP) for a Motor Vehicle Repair Garage, Major. The property is generally located south of US Highway 287 Eastbound Service Road, west of Plainview Road and North of Shady Grove Road. (SUP07-2025-091)]

PASSES 7-0. MOVING ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING. OF WHICH THERE ARE THREE. 2026-004, CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOT 2, BLOCK A, MIDLOTHIAN 287 ZONED COMMERCIAL BY GRANTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR MOTOR VEHICLE

[00:15:03]

REPAIR GARAGE. PROPERTY IS SOUTH OF U.S. HIGHWAY 287, EASTBOUND SERVICE ROAST, WEST OF PLAINVIEW ROAD AND NORTH OF SHADY DPROEFB

ROAD. >> DANIEL, SENIOR PLANNER TO PRESENT.

THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST IS MAJOR MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR GARAGE USE IS ONLY PERMITTED IN A COMMERCIAL ZONING WITH APPROVAL OF SUP, PROPERTY IS 2.15 ACRE UNDEVELOPED LOT. THE PROPOSAL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AS REGIONAL MODULE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE PROPERTY SUPPORTS MIXED, COMMERCIAL AREAS, AND YOU CAN SEE PLAN GOAL LISTED FOR FURTHER SUPPORT. THIS LOCATION IS LOCATEDED ALONG EAST HIGHWAY 287. THIS SLIDE SHOWS ADJACENT ZONING, LAND USES, AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND RELATION TO THE PROPERTY. THE SITE PLAN SHOWING THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS. HERE IS THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH INCLUDES NO VARIANCES, SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL WAS PROVIDED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO THE NORTH, AS WELL AS ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ALONG 287. ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING DETAILS. HERE ARE ELEVATIONS. HERE IS THER LOCATION OF FOLLOWING THREE SIGNS, THE MONUMENT SIGN LOCATED ON THE HIGHWAY 287 FRONTAGE. HERE TWO WALL SIGNS.

PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED NO OBJECTION. LAST MONTH PNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED BY VOTE OF 7-0. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED SUP FOR MAJOR MOTOR VEHICLE GARAGE. THANK YOU AND I AM OPEN TO

QUESTIONS. >> THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. NO PUBLIC INPUT, MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION MADE, CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM

WICKLIFFE. >> CLOSES 7-0. APPLICANTS HERE, WOULD THEY LIKE TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION? I WILL GIVE YOU THAT OPPORTUNITY IF YOU WOULD LIKE.

>> IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS, THEY ARE HERE TO SPEAK. COUNCIL,

QUESTIONS OF STAFF. >> QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAJOR AND NON-MAJOR?

>> SO MAJOR FOCUSES ON BODY REPAIR WORK AS WELL AS PAINTING.

OVERALL PAINTING, COLLISION SERVICES, RECONDITIONING OF ANY TYPE OF MOTORIZED VEHICLE, AS WELL AS DISMANTLING OF MOTORIZED

CREAKS. >> SO, MY QUESTION RELATES TO IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT THERE IS NEON SIDE STORAGE ALLOWED OUTSIDE OF BUSINESS HOURS. IT HAS BEEN MY EXPERIENCE WHEN YOU DISMANTLE A MOTOR VEHICLE, YOU GENERALLY ARE NOT THE SAME DAY.

ARE YOU STORING THESE ALL INSIDE THE BUILDING? THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR PAVED SERVICE FOR CARS. I SEE $2,000 A DAY FINE FOR VIOLATION OF SUP IN SECTION 2G OF THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. SO, I GUESS THAT IS WHERE ONE OF MY CONCERNS HAS COME IN. SO THERE WILL BE NO STORAGE OF VEHICLES AT ALL?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> BUT THEY ARE DOING MAJOR

MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SO MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS, COME UP TO THE FRONT IF YOU DON'T MIND, AND ADDRESS HOW YOU HANDLE THAT, BECAUSE I-- IF YOU GUYS ARE TURNING EVERYTHING SAME DAY, YOU MAY GET ALL OF MY

BUSINESS. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. I BELIEVE WE FALL INTO THE MAJOR CATEGORY BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF OUR BUILDING, OVER 3,000 SQUARE FEET. WE DON'T DO ANY BODY WORK, WE DON'T DISMANTLE CARS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I THINK

IT IS JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE. >> WHAT TYPE OF, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SERVICES WILL YOU BE OFFERING IT

>> GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF VEHICLES, POST WARRANTEE WORK, DIAGNOSTICS, BRAKES, SHOCKS, ELECTRICAL SYSTEM, AC SERVICE, ALIGNMENT, OIL CHANGES, WE DON'T DO BODY WORK, PAINTING,

[00:20:06]

TIRE RECAPPING, OR ANY GENERATOR, WE DON'T REBUILD ENGINES OR TRANSMISSION, WE DO ON OCCASION PULL ENGINE OR TRANSMISSION AND SWAP FOR A NEW ONE. WE REPLACE IT BY SENDING OUT TO SUBLET TO ANOTHER COMPANY. THAT IS IT.

>> SO MAYBE THE QUESTION GOES BACK TO STAFF, SHOULD WE HAVE MORE NARROWLY DEFINED SUP BECAUSE IF CHRISTIAN BROTHERS DECIDE THEY NO LONGER OPERATE THE FACILITY, AND ANOTHER MOTOR VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP THAT DOES DO A LOT OF THOSE, WE ARE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR CODE ENFORCEMENT DISASTER.

>> I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE CODE ENFORCEMENT, IT IS ZONING ENFORCEMENT. WE COULD, BUT I DON'T KNOW WE WANT TO OPEN OURSELVES UP TO OUTDOOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES. I THINK THAT IS ONE OF THE, THIS IS 287, I THINK HAVING THOSE VEHICLES REPAIRED INSIDE, HAVING THEM STORED INSIDE IF THERE IS A CASE IT GOES OVERNIGHT, I THINK THIS PROTECTS US.

>> I AGREE A HUNDRED PERCENT. I AM JUST SAYING A LOT OF THOSE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE MAJOR REPAIR CATEGORY OF MOTOR VEHICLE GARAGE ARE NOT TYPICALLY THINGS THAT FIT THAT CRITERIA.

SO, WE ARE OVER APPROVING THE SITE FOR USES BEYOND THE SCOPE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DO. IF SOMEONE ELSE COME IN, THERE IS NOT A COLLAPSE OF TIME, IT COULD BE USED BY SOMEBODY WHO DOES OFFER THE SERVICES AND ALL OF A SUDDEN WE ARE FOUR YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND CARS START STACKING UP BEHIND THE BUILDING AND WE DO HAVE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE, BECAUSE OF THIS ALLOWED

USE, BUT FOR THE STORAGE. >> YEAH. AND YOU ARE RIGHT. I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE A PROBLEM BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT-- I MEAN, WE ARE ALLOWING MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUT AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS HAPPENING INSIDE, IT WILL BE STORED INSIDE AND WON'T HAVE UNSIGHTLY DAMAGED VEHICLES STACKING UP THERE. IF THAT

ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. >> IT DOES. ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF. SIGN THAT.

>> MORE OF A QUESTION FOR STAFF, IT IS NOT A BIG DEAL, MAYBE OVERLOOKED IT IN THE PAST BUT HAVE WE ALWAYS HAD THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE PAST?

>> I DON'T KNOW. >> I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ALL OF

THEM. >> FOR ABOUT A YEAR?

>> OKAY. OKAY. I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER SEEING IT IN THE PAST. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I DIDN'T MISS IT. SO, VRC MEANING ENGINEERS, PLANNING DEPARTMENT, CITY MANAGER, NORMAL DEAL, THAT IS THE GROUP THAT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE CHANGES IN THE MINOR MODIFICATIONS?

>> YES, JUST FOR SITE PLANS. >> NO, I GET THAT. BUT LIKE IF-- IF WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A PD AND IN THAT PD DESIGNATE-- AND I AM GOING TO GRAB AN OFF-THE-WALL-SUBJECT, TREES, WE ARGUED ABOUT TREES BEFORE, WE THINK THE PROJECT IS COMING IN AND DRC HAS-- NOW THIS SAYS 1%, SOME ARE 5%, WE HAVE ALREADY QUITE A BIT ABOUT BUILDING HYPE IN THE PAST. I GUESS I WAS CAUGHT OFF GUARD. IT CAN MAKE UP TO 1% TO 5% DEPENDING ON WHAT THE CHANGE IS ON SOME OF THE BUILDING OR FEATURES OF THE BUILDING, OR SITE. I KNOW THAT IS NOT CHANGING THE USE, BUT IT IS CHANGING THE THOUGHT THAT-- YEAH. WE DO TRY TO QUANTIFY WHAT THOSE CHANGES COULD BE, BUT IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU WANT ZERO TOLERANCE ON, LIKE HEIGHT, WE COULD TAKE

ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT. >> NO, I THINK FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT T IS FINE. I GUESS I DIDN'T NOTICE IN THE PAST, READ OVER IT. I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.

>> SO IN THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, WHAT IS THE

MAXIMUM HEIGHT? >> 30 FEET.

>> 35, I BELIEVE. >> SO, FOR JUST FOR AN EXAMPLE, 5% WOULD BE HAPPY. YOU ARE TALKING 18 INCHES. I THINK THIS IS-- I AM A FAN OF THIS. IF WE NEED TO TWEAK IT AND DIAL IT IN TO GET EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE BUT THIS ALLOWS STAFF TO HANDLE, INSTEAD OF EVERYTHING HAVING TO COME BACK EVERY COUNCIL MEETING, TO HAVE A SIGN PLAN, BECAUSE THEY HAD A HUNDRED TREES ON THERE BUT THEY ARE ONLY FITTING 99, THEN STAFF CAN SAY, OKAY. SO

[00:25:01]

I THINK THIS IS PRUDENT. BUT IT IS UP TO US TO SET THE BOX.

>> ON THIS CASE, SPECIFICALLY, NO OTHER VARIANCES WERE OFFERED

OUTSIDE OF NEED THE USE. >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> ANY OTHER DIALOGUE ON THIS CASE?

>> I AM GOING BACK TO ROSS. SO, ACCORDING TO THIS, NOT CAR PARKED OUTSIDE, ALWAYS INSIDE THE BAY. IT IS NOT A CODE VIOLATION, IT IS A ZONING VIOLATION.

>> YES. $2,000 A DAY. VIOLATION. IF THEY VIOLATE THAT.

>> JUST AT NIGHT. ZONING.

TAKE A MOTION ON IT. >> FOR FURTHER CLARITY ON THE SAME SUBJECT, WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF STORING A VEHICLE? IS THAT A-- IS THAT ACTUALLY A VEHICLE PARKED IN A SPOT AFTER HOURS THAT DOES NOT BELONG TO A PERSON INSIDE THE BUILDING AT

THAT TIME? >> YES. YES. THAT WAY, I MEAN, BASICALLY, A VEHICLE FOR REPAIR STORED OUTSIDE.

>> THERE IS A DEFINITION FOR PARKING VERSES STORAGE OF VEHICLES, AND PARKING IS A PASSENGER VEHICLE THAT IS THERE TEMPORARILY FOR SHORT TIME, FOR USING THE BUSINESS, AND STORAGE IF ANY KIND OF VEHICLE THAT IS THERE TO BE REPAIRED OR, YOU KNOW, FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE FOR LONG TERM.

>> THIS WOULD ALLOW, BASED ON THE DEFINITIONS, THIS WOULD ALLOW A VEHICLE TO BE PARKED THERE THAT IS NOT, LIKE, MAYBE INOPERABLE, OR MAYBE BEING WORKED ON, THIS IS JUST A QUEUE

FOR FUTURE REPAIR? >> COULDN'T BE THERE OVERNIGHT.

>> DURING BUSINESS HOURS. THEN WHEN THEY COME IN FOR A CO, IF THEY WERE TO CHANGE, WENT AWAY AND SOMEONE ELSE CAME IN AND APPLIED FOR A CO, WE DO REVIEW THOSE AND THEN WE WOULD ASK THEM, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY ATTENTION? DO YOU NEED OUTDOOR STORAGE? THAT IS WHERE WE WOULD INFORM THEM THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY TO GET PERMISSION TO DO THAT.

>> THANK YOU.

>> I HAVE SEEN THEIR BUSINESSES BEFORE, DO THEY ALLOW DROP OFF OF VEHICLES? LIKE AFTER HOURS? OVERNIGHT? SO, SOMEBODY COMES AND DROPS OFF THEIR VEHICLE FOR SERVICE THE NEXT DAY, AND IT SITS OUT THERE OVERNIGHT, WE COULD SHOW UP AND SITE THEM $2,000 FOR HAVING A CAR DROPPED OFF.

>> YES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY.

>> YES, WHAT WOULD BE THE INDICATOR FOR STAFF, BECAUSE CLEARLY WE DON'T HAVE THE NEED OR DESIRE, I WOULD ASSUME, TO BE CHECKING THAT UNPROMPTED, BUT WHAT IS THE MAJOR TO WHICH WE E OR THE STANDARD WHICH WE CHECK ON THOSE, JUST WHEN IT GETS BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION IT HAS BECOME A PROBLEM?

>> YEAH. COULD BE BROUGHT UP AS A PROBLEM OR CODE ENFORCEMENT, ZONING INSPECTOR NOTICES, COULD BE EITHER WAY.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> WE CAN FOLLOW UP AND I WILL ASKTHER , DO Y'ALL HAVE A KEY BOX DROP OFF ON THE PROPERTY? SO SOMEBODY COULD COME IN AT MIDNIGHT, LEAVE THEIR KEYS AND CAR AND THEN COULD COST YOU MONEY ON A FINE, JUST TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

>> MOST OF OUR REPAIRS--

>> THEY CAN'T GET IN AND DROP THEIR CAR OFF AND WE CAN PUT IT IN, SO THEY MAY UTILIZE THE DROP BOX.

[00:30:04]

>> COULD BE PROBLEMATIC IF THE ZONING INSPECTOR CAME BY, AM I READING THAT RIGHT? DO YOU SEE ANYTHING ABOUT THAT, THAT WOULD

BE PROBLEMATIC? >> YEAH, IF IT IS, SO YOU ARE SAYING NO OVERNIGHT, EVEN IF THEY DROP IT OFF ON SITE?

>> THE REALTY IS SOMEONE IS COMING BY FROM THE CITY, IT IS A

MATTER OF DRIVING AROUND. >> I DON'T SEE OUR INSPECTORS

DOING THAT, BUT STILL-- >> COULD DRIVE AROUND 6:00 IN

THE MORNING, OR 7:00 AT NIGHT. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR BUSINESS HOURS ARE ON SATURDAY, BUT LETS ASSUME THEY DROP IT OFF ON SATURDAY AFTERNOON, SITS OUT THERE ALL DAY SUNDAY, THERE ARE

TIMES-- AN INSPECTOR COULD SEE. >> WE ARE OPEN--

>> IS IT USUALLY DROP OFF AT NIGHT? PROBABLY NOT? I WANT TO

MAKE SURE EVERYBODY IS AWARE. >> OKAY.

>> I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM DROPPING OFF CARS IN MODERATION, I JUST WANT PAPER TO BE RIGHT SO WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

>> ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ON HOW TO WRITE THAT WHERE IT REFLECTS--

>> PROBLEM IS LAWYERS GET INVOLVED AND YOU HAVE TO LEGISLATE COMMON SENSE.

>> ONLY OPPORTUNITY THAT I WILL SEE THEY COULD HAVE PROTECTED PARKING FROM THE ORDINANCES, THERE WAS A WAY TO HAVE BEHIND THE BUILDING STORAGE.

>> I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY ARE GOING TO GET AROUND EVEN FOLKS THAT HAVE THEIR CAR BREAKS DOWN 2:00 IN THE MORNING AND TOW IT TO CHRISTIAN BROTHERS, DROP THE KEYS OFF TOMORROW, SO IT IS ALMOST LIKE THEY NEED A PROTECTED AREA FOR WHEN THAT HAPPENS.

>> IS IT A PRACTICE?

YES. >> THAT IS YOUR PRACTICE?

>> YES.

>> IS THERE A WAY WE CAN ALLOCATE 10% OF THE PARKING AREA? LOOKS LIKE 20 SPOTS, SO TWO SPOTS COULD POSSIBLY BE UTILIZED FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING, BUT, I MEAN, THAT IS NOT TO SAY THERE WILL BE THREE CUSTOMERS PERMITTED A NIGHT. 24 HOURS.

>> WATER IT DOWN.

>> YEAH.

>> THAT MAKES IT DIFFICULT FOR US. OKAY.

>> I DON'T THINK WE WILL HAVE THAT MANY ISSUES.

>> WE START SEEING TEN CARS OUT THERE EVERY DAY, YEAH.

>> TO JOE'S POINT, YOU WATERINGIT DOWN. WE CAN PLAY CAT AND MOUSE ALL DAY LONG.

>> I WOULD PREFER IF WE HAD LANGUAGE IN THERE LIKE YOU WERE SAYING-- I KNOW IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS THEY HAVE SAID 72 HOURS, EXTEND THE TIME, BECAUSE WE ARE OPEN MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, 7:00 A.M. TO 6:00 P.M., CLOSED ON THE WEEKENDS. IF SOMEONE DROPS IT OFF FRIDAY AFTER WORK.

>> IF THE ZONING INSPECTOR SITES THEM, IS IT, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WORKS IN THE ZONING VIOLATION, IS THAT AUTOMATIC

$2,000? >> IT WOULD GO TO COURT.

>> IT IS DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE.

>> OKAY. THEY ARE NOT NECESSARILY-- YEAH.

>> I THINK IF WE ARE GOING TO EDIT THIS DOCUMENT, IT WILL PROBABLY NEED-- COUNCIL? WE CAN--

[00:35:07]

>> THERE YOU OPEN IT WIDE OPEN, 72 HOURS, YOU COULD HAVE 20 CARS STORED THERE OVERNIGHT AND IT WOULD BE LEGAL AND THEN WE ARE COUNTING THE LICENSE PLATE, COUNTING CARS, .

>> IF THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH IT.

[INAUDIBLE]

>> I AM GOING TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AND THE MOTION.

>> MOTION MADE BY MYSELF, SECONDED. PLEASE GO AHEAD AND VOTE.

>> FAILS. IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE MOTION ON THE TABLE? NO ALTERNATIVES? [INAUDIBLE]

>> WE MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THE AGENDA GIVEN THAT OPPORTUNITY TO BRING IT BACK.

>> IS THERE A SECOND? >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED. MOTION MADE, SECONDED TO TABLE. PLEASE VOTE.

>> ITEMS TABLED 6-1. STAFF WILL GET BUSY, GUYS, THE NEXT DAY OR

[2026-005 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations relating to the use and development of Lots 1-A and 1-B, Block 1, Sharka MDN Addition, located in Planned Development District No. 106 (PD-106), by adopting development regulations with a Unified Sign Agreement. The property is generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Railport Parkway and US Highway 67. (Z32-2025- 079)]

TWO. NEXT STEPS. >> THANK YOU.

>> OUR NEXT PUBLIC HEARING IS 2026-005. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF LOTS 1A, 1B IN PD NUMBER 106 BY ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS UNIFIED SIGN AGREEMENT. THE PROPERTY IS GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INTERSECTION RAILPORT PARKWAY, U.S. HIGHWAY

67. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, DANIEL HUMRY, SENIOR PLANNER TO PRESENT. THIS IS A REQUEST TO INCORPORATE UNIFIED SIGNGREEMENT INTO PD106 BY COMBINING TWO LOTS INTO A SINGLE PREMISE. THE AGREEMENT INCLUDES TWO MONUMENT SIGNS AND WILL CREATE A CONSULIDATED INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT, AS SINGLE DESTINATION. CURRENT USE OF THE LOTS INCLUDES WATER TREATMENT PLANT AND DATA CENTER. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE PROPERTIES IS INDUSTRIAL MODULE, SUPPORTS CLOSE PROXIMITY AND INDUSTRIAL ACTIVITY. HERE IS THE UNIFIED SIGNAGE PLAN TO PICK SIGN LOCATIONS AS WELL AS ELEVATION OF EXISTING SIGN. HERE IS THE ELEVATION THE SIGN WILL BE ERECTED IF THE ITEM IS PASSED BY COUNCIL. LAST MONTH PNZ RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED BY A VOTE OF 7-0, PUBLIC NOTICES WERE SENT OUT TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A 200-FOOT RADIUS OF THE PROPERTY AND STAFF RECEIVED NO OBJECTION. SINCE ITS AGREEMENT WILL NOT RESULT IN CHANGE IN PROPERTY USE, THE PROPOSAL IS COMPATIBLE WITH ADJACENT ZONING OF LAPD USE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL. THANK YOU, AND I AM HOPING TO QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AS WELL.

>> THANK YOU, DANIEL. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DID ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC SIGN UP TO SPEAK? I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE

PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION MADE, SECONDED BY COUNCIL SHUFFIELD. PLEASE VOTE.

>> CLOSES 7-0. WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION OR SPEAK FOR STAND FOR QUESTION? THANK YOU. COUNCILMEMBER

ENGAGEMENT ON THIS AGENDA ITEM? >> I HAD A QUICK QUESTION FOR STAFF. IS THERE ANY SIGN REQUEST, OR PD REQUEST THAT HAVE BEEN MADE THAT HAVE NOT BEEN APPROVED OF LATER IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS? I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE, I THINK IF WE START PICK ING SIGNS IN RAILPORT, I THINK THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY.

[00:40:03]

>> IT APPEARS TO ME, CORRECT ME IF WRONG, THEY WANT TO RELOCATE THE SIGN ON THE LOT THAT IS NOT FOR THE BUSINESS THAT THE SIGN IS RELATED TO, SO, TO AVOID OUR OFF SITE SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A UNIFIED SIGN PLAN TO, TREAT THESE TWO LOTS AS ONE UNIT SO THEY CAN PUT THE SIGN IN A BETTER LOCATION FOR THE FACILITY. IS THAT CORRECT UNDERSTANDING? OKAY.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MOTIONS? MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-006 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the development regulations for the use and development of 1.523 + acres of Planned Development District No. 06 (PD-06); being Lot 2A, Block 1, Town Centre at the Meadows Revised. Generally located on the southwest corner of Roundabout Drive and South 9th Street. (Z36-2025-078).]

ITEM PASSES 7-0. >>> 2026-006 ORDINANCE AMENDING DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION FOR THE USE 1.523 ACRES PD06 BEING LOT 2A BLOCK 1, TOWN CENTRE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ROUNDABOUT DRIVE, SOUTH 9TH STREET.

>> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE REQUEST IS FOR PD AMENDMENT TO PD OR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 6 FOR DETAILED SITE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, ELEVATIONS, AND REVISED SIGNAGE REGULATIONS. THE TOTAL SITE IS 1.7 ACRES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE ORANGE STRIPING. THE BASE STUNNING IS GENERAL PROFESSIONAL/COMMUNITY RETAIL. THE PART WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING THE NEW BUILDING TO GO CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED AND THE PLAN SHOWS NEW TOWN MODULE WHICH SUPPORTS THE OFFICE USE. THE PROPERTY IS ZOOMED IN HERE, YOU CAN SEE IN THE YELLOW. TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST IS ALSO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER SIX, BUT TO THE NORTH THERE IS VARIOUS RETAIL USES, AND TO THE WEST SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL. TO THE SOUTHSER U.S. HIGHWAY 287 RIGHT OF WAY. SO THERE ISN'T A ZONING OR FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATION. TO THE EAST IS COMMUNITY RETAIL DISTRICT, UNDEVELOPED, AND EVERYTHING BUT THE HIGHWAY HAS A FUTURE LANDUSE CLASSIFICATION OF NEW TOWN MODULE. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, ON THE SOUTH IS THE CURRENT VET OFFICE, AND THEN THE BOLD ON THE NORTH IS NEW PROPOSED BUILDING. THE CURRENT PD ALLOWS FOR 150 SQUARE FEET OF SIGNAGE FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING ONE NEW MONUMENT SIGN TO THE NORTH IN FRONT OF THE NEW PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING REPLACING THE CURRENT GROUND MONUMENT SIGN WHICH IS TO THE EAST, KIND OF IN FRONT OF THE VET, JUST WITH A NEWER SIGN. AND THE MONUMENT SIGNS WILL BE REGULATED BY ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION 4.5841, WHICH IS OUR, THE PART OF ZONING ORDINANCE THAT REGULATES SIGNAGE WITHIN GENERAL PROFESSIONAL AND COMMUNITY RETAIL FOR MONUMENT SIGNS. EACH BUILDING WILL BE ALLOWED A MAXIMUM OF 150 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SIGNAGE FOR ONE FACADE. AND THE LAST TIME THE PD WAS AMENDED WAS 2017, IT STATED THAT A FENCE WILL NOT BE REQUIRED ALONG BOUNDARY LINES, AND THE RESIDENCE TO THE WEST ALREADY HAVE FENCES FOR THEIR BACKYARDS. ON THE LEFT YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT LANDSCAPING WITH TREES TO BE REMOVED, SO TO THE NORTH YOU CAN SEE, LET ME SEE IF THIS WILL WORK. PERFECT. I TRIED TO USE THE LASER LAST TIME AND IT DIDN'T WORK. BUT THERE ARE TWO TREES THEY ARE GETTING RID OF AND THEN THERE IS ONE TREE WHERE THE PROPOSED DUMPSTER IS SUPPOSED TO GO. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY HAVE ADDED TWO NEW TREES AND ANOTHER ALONG ROUNDABOUT, AND THEN THEY ARE GETTING RID OF THAT TREE AROUND THE DUMPSTER AND ADDING TWO NEW TREES TO THE PARKING LOT ON THE EAST SIDE. HERE ARE THE OFFICE ELEVATIONS ON ALL FOUR SIDES. THEY WILL MIMIC THE VET'S CLINIC THAT IS ALREADY THERE. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENT WILL NOT CHANGE THE BASE ZONING, SO THE PROPERTY WILL REMAIN COMPATIBLE SURROUNDING USES, THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WILL REMAIN NEW TOWN MODULE, SO IT IS CONSISTENT.

THERE ARE A LOT OF GOALS THAT THIS PROPOSAL ALIGNS WITH, SO THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE 2045 GUIDING OUR FUTURE. THIS INCLUDES FOCUSING ON THOROUGHFAIRS AS IMPORTANT ENTRY TO THE COMMUNITIES, AND ENHANCING

[00:45:02]

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, JOB AVAILABILITY, AND HORIZONTAL MIXING OF APPROPRIATE USES WITHIN DEVELOPMENT ZONING DISTRICTS. WE DID SEND 23 POST CARDS, WE HAVEN'T RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL BECAUSE THIS AMENDMENT IS COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING, IT WILL REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL WITH A VOTE OF 7-0 IN DECEMBER, CONTINGENT UPON THE ADDITION OF A SIDEWALK ON THE SITE PLAN OFF OF ROUNDABOUT DRIVE, NORTH OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. THAT IS ALL THAT I HAVE. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I AM NOT SURE IF THEY HAVE

SOMETHING TO SAY OR QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC DECIDE TO SPEAK?

>> WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER, CHERYL BLANTON.

>> MS. BLANTON IS HERE? CHERYL BLANTON? WELCOME, IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD AND THEN JUST STATE YOUR NAME INTO THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD AND WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS

AND YOU WILL HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> OKAY. MY NAME IS CHERYL BLANTON, I LIVE WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. I AM HERE TO REPRESENT SOME FAMILY MEMBERS THAT LIVE ON BLAKE, WHICH IS BEHIND WHERE THEY ARE PLANNING TO GO. MY QUESTIONS ARE WHAT KIND OF OFFICE SPACES WILL BE AT THE LOCATION? HOW MANY OFFICE SPACES ARE ALLOWED FOR THE BUILDING? ARE THERE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES TO ACCOMMODATE THAT? AND THERE WAS A MENTION OF ADDITIONAL DAUCHLSTER THAT WOULD BE PUT AT THAT SITE. THERE WAS A PROBLEM WITH THE DUMPSTER THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE WITH RODENTS. I THINK THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED. BUT SAME TREATMENT WILL GO FOR THE SECOND DUMPSTER AND ALSO THE ROUTING SCHEDULE TO NOT HAVE AS MUCH NOISE IN THE MORNING FOR THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE RIGHT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE. AND, TWO, THEIR FENCES ARE PROVIDED AND THE LAND OWNERS ALREADY HAVE THEIR YARDS FENCED IN. I KNOW THAT THIS NEW BUILDING ISN'T REQUIRING FENCING TO BE PUT UP, BUT TREES OR SOME KIND OF BOUNDARY WILL BE THERE. SO, MY QUESTION JUST IS DOES THAT SPACE ACCOMMODATE FOR THE NUMBER OF OFFICE SPACES OR IS THIS FOR PROFESSIONAL OFFICE SPACE? OR IS IT FOR FOOD SERVICE OR RETAIL? THAT IS IT.

>> THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS. >> THANK YOU.

>> ARDEN, DO YOU MIND STEPPING BACK UP? CAN YOU ADDRESS THE USES ALLOWED WITHIN THAT FILT IF APPROVED?

>> YES, IT IS PROPOSED OFFICE BUILDING, UP TO THREE TENANTS.

WE HAVE ONE PER 300 SQUARE FEET OFFICE SPACE FOR OFFICES. WITH THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THEY ARE PROPOSED, 17 SPACES, WHICH THEY

DO HAVE. >> BUT NO FOOD SERVICES ALLOWED?

>> NO, SIR. >> THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

>> YES, SIR. >> IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK YOU ARE WELCOME TO DO SO, OR ANSWER QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. IF QUESTIONS ARISE, THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

>> ANNA, YOU ARE DPURS. >> I WAS GOING TO HAVE YOU ADDRESS THE DUMPSTERS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE NEW ONE-- I AM ASSUME WRG IT IS GOING IS JUST BECAUSE THAT IS THE BEST ACCESS FOR THE TRUCK TO COME IN, WITH IT BEING OUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

>> YES, MA'AM. WE DIDN'T WANT IT OFF ROUND-BOUT, SO KIND OF

TUCKED AWAY A LITTLE BIT. >> AS FAR AS THE QUESTIONS BROUGHT UP BY THE NEIGHBORS, IT IS ACTUALLY FURTHER AWAY THAN IT COULD BE, LIKE NOT BEHIND THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> YOU MEAN OFF OF-- WHAT DO YOU MEAN FURTHER AWAY?

>> SHE BROUGHT UP THE CONCERN ABOUT THE DUMPSTERS BEING SERVICED AND IT BEING CLOSE TO THE HOUSES. SO, IT WILL BE-- I MAINLY WANTED YOU TO ADDRESS HER CONCERNS AROUND THE DUMPSTER

PART. >> YEAH, I KNOW THEY WILL HAVE TO CONTACT REGARDING PICK UP AND WHEN THE TRUCKS WILL BE ARRIVING KIND OF EARLY MORNING, THEY HAVE TO CONTACT WASTE KECKS AND DEAL WITH THAT WITHIN THEM. I COULD BE WRONG IF ADAM IS HERE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE. YEAH, WE WANTED IT TO BE TUCKED AWAY THE VET, AS YOU CAN SEE, THEIR DUMPSTERS KIND OF PUSH BACK HERE, SO IT IS KIND OF EQUAL WITH THE RESIDENCE, A LITTLE BIT CLOSE, BUT NOT BY MUCH. BUT JUST THE BEST, WE THOUGHT IT WAS THE EASIEST WAY FOR THE TRUCK TO GET BACK WITHOUT BEING OFF

ROUNDABOUT. >> RUSS?

>> SO, THE BASE ZONING IS BOTH. >> YES, IT IS AN OLDER PD.

>> COMMUNITY RETAIL DOES ALLOW FOR FOOD SERVICES, DOES IT NOT?

>> I DIDN'T THINK SO. THEY ARE PROPOSING THE OFFICE.

>> THOUSAND SQUARE FEET? REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE CALL THE BUILDING, THE ZONING DETERMINES THE USE.

[00:50:04]

>> RIGHT. >> I AM STRUGGLING TO PULL MY USE CHART BUT I AM PRETTY SURE CR ALLOWS--

>> AM I OFF? >> YOU CAN PUT A TROPICAL SMOOTHIE OR SOMETHING SMALLER THAT DOESN'T HAVE AS LARGE OF A

FOOTPRINT IN THERE. >> UNDER THE THOUSAND.

>> COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY RESTRICTS THAT USE WITHIN THE

PD. >> CORRECT.

>> OR THIS PD, THIS ISN'T EVEN A PD AMENDMENT. WE ARE JUST

DOING SITE PLAN APPROVAL? >> YES, SIR.

>> RIGHT. >> OKAY.

>> I WANTED TO BE CLEAR ON THAT, BECAUSE, I MEAN, I WENT BACK TO CHECK AND THE BASE PD SAYS GPCR, THAT IS A MUCH BROADER SET OF USES THAN JUST A BASE OF GP. I DON'T THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN ADDRESS. THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT, TONIGHT, OR SOME OF THE COUNCILMEMBER MAY WANT TO ADDRESS, BUT I DIDN'T WANT ANYBODY TO HAVE A MISPERCEPTION OR CONCEPTION THERE.

>> WE ARE AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND USE OF THIS PD.

>> WE ARE? >> WE CAN CALL THE SERVICE OUT?

>> I THOUGHT IT WAS DETAILED SITE PLAN.

>> NO, IF YOU LOOK AT THE HEADING OF THE ORDINANCE, 2026, IT IS AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE REGULATION 6 BY AMENDING THE SITE PLAN AND SIGN REGULATIONS SET FORTH, JOE, I ASSUME, THROUGH THE HEADING, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO RESTRICT RESTAURANTS OR ANYTHING.

>> I DON'T KNOW, NOT SURE COUNCIL WAS AWARE OF THAT.

>> MY CONCERN IS THE BUILDING THAT IS DIRECTLY TO THE 9TH STREET SIDE OF THIS, ON THIS IS CALLED BRICK OFFICE BUILDING, WHERE TWO TREES ARE SHOWN IN MIDDLE OF THAT IS CAGE FENCE THAT HAS ALL OF THEIR AC UNITS, ONE OF THE MORE PROMINENT FEATURES FACING TRARD THE STREET SIDE. THIS SITE PLAN DOES NOT SEEM TO INDICATE WHERE THOSE SYSTEMS WOULD EXIST FOR THE BUILDING. ARE THEY GOING TO BE ON THE STREET SIDE AS WELL? OR ONTHER WESTERN SIDE ADJACENT TO THE FENCE IN THE RESIDENTIAL

AREA? >> I AM NOT SURE BUT THE

APPLICANT MIGHT. >> THE APPLICANT WOULD COME FORWARD. IF YOU DON'T MIND, INTRODUCE YOURSELF IN THE

MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD. >> GOOD EVENING, GPF ARCHITECTS, THE ELECTRICAL AND THREE CONDENSER PLAN TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE THERE OF THE BUILDING. SO, YEAH, ADJACENT BUILDING, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR, HAS ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH WE FEEL IS UNSIGHTLY. WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. PLANNING TO PUT IT ON THE WEST SIDE.

AGAIN, THESE ARE THREE UNITS AT 1400 FEET EACH, 1600 FEET EACH, PROBABLY FOUR-TON UNIT, SMALL PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.

>> ABSOLUTELY. THE ONES ON THE OTHER BUILDING AREN'T THAT LARGE, EITHER. IT IS JUST THE WAY--

>> YEAH T IS UNSIGHTLY, I AGREE. WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

>> I DIDN'T WANT TO REPLICATE IT NEXT DOOR. I APPRECIATE YOU.

>> THE DUMPSTER DOES HAVE SOME HEDGING ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE WHICH WILL PARTIALLY SCREEN IT. BUT IT IS A STONE FINISH TO COMPLIMENT THE BUILDING. SAME STONES ON THE BUILDING.

>> WITH THE LANDSCAPE PLANNER, THE RESIDENT WHO WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING AREA, IT APPEARS THERE IS SHRUBBERY GOING IN ALONG THAT FENCE LINE? OR IS THAT ALREADY IN EXISTINGANCE?

>> THAT WOULD BE EXISTING. >> OKAY.

>> WHAT IS NOW THERE IS WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE WITH THE

ADDITION OF TREES. >> YES, SIR. THEN PARKING, WASN'T PLANNED FOR ANY KIND OF RESTAURANT USE, WE ARE NOT PUTTING IN A GREASE TRAP, THEN THE PARKING IS FOR OFFICE, AS RETAIL, GETS THE HIGHER DENSITY PARKING. WE ARE NOT PLANNING ON

ANY RETAIL OR RESTAURANT. >> IF WE WERE TO LIMIT THIS TO JUST GENERAL PROFESSIONAL USE, ONLY, NOT THE COMMUNITY RETAIL, WOULD THAT BE PROBLEM FOR YOU GUYS?

>> MR. FRANKLIN. >> PERFECT.

>> THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> BACK TO STAFF, MY QUESTION AROUND THE RECOMMENDED SIDEWALK, CAN YOU POINT THAT OUT ON THE

MAP AND EXPLAIN? >> THERE IS AN EXISTING SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. BUT THE SITE PLAN WASN'T SHOWING IT PREVIOUSLY, NOW IT IS SHOWING IT.

[00:55:02]

>> IT IS? >> YES, SIR. WOULD OUR MOTION

NEED TO INCLUDE THAT? >> IT IS ALREADY--

>> ON HAD SITE PLAN? >> YES, SIR.

>> WE SHOULD BE COVERED THERE. >> OKAY. FURTHER QUESTIONS?

>> I SEE THE LARGE EXISTING TREES ALONG THE FENCE LINE, ON THOSE LITTLE SHRUBS THAT GO ALL THE WAY AT THE BASE LINE?

>> YES. >> ARE THEY ADDING SHRUBS? WHAT I HEARD IS THEY ARE NOT ADDING ANYMORE.

>> THEY ARE ADDING THEM, I AM PRETTY SURE.

>> THEY ARE NOT EXISTING. >> YEAH.

>> THEY ARE NOT THERE NOW, SO I WOULD LIKE IMPLICATION, WILL IT BE ADDED? THAT WILL HELP WITH THE EXTRA BARRIER.

>> YES, MA'AM. THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. SO IT WOULD BE

REQUIRED WITH THE SHRUBS. >> THERE ARE LARGE TREES NOW THAT LOOKS LIKE SMALLER SHRUBS ON THE DRAWING. I WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION THEY WILL BE ADDED.

>> I THINK WE DO NEED TO CLARIFY. SO THERE ARE TWO EXHIBITS D1, BUT THEY ARE DIFFERENT. I MIGHT BE MISSING SOMETHING AS WELL ON THE LANDSCAPE. THEY BOTH SAY LANDSCAPING PLAN WITH BUILDING TWO BUT BOTH EXHIBIT E1, BUT THEY HAVE-- SO, WE TALK TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THOSE TWO? SHRUBS ARE IN ONE, AND NOT THE OTHER.

>> SORRY. ONE IS, SO THE FIRST ONE IS THE, WHAT IS CURRENTRY THERE, AND THEN WITH THE MARKINGS OF WHAT THEY ARE TAKING OUT. THE SECOND ONE IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING WITH THE NEW ADDED TREES OFF THE ROUNDABOUT AND THE SHRUBS AND THE COUPLE OF TREES IN THE PARKING LOT. YES, MA'AM.

>> I JUST HAVE A MOTION. >> FURTHER DIALOGUE?

>> TAKE YOUR MOTION. MOTION, ROSS.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED RECOMMENDED WITH THE MODIFICATION THAT WE BASE FOR THIS PARTIAL BE REDUCED

TO ONLY GP, AND NOT CR. >> OKAY.

>> SECOND.

>> OKAY. >> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I APOLOGIZE, COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY, WHO? MAYOR PRO TEM WICKLIFFE. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THANK YOU, I AM OUT OF PRACTICE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE, DOES THE MOTION STILL STAND?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> MOTION ON THE TABLE FROM COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-007 Consider and act upon an ordinance granting a Special Exception request to Section 6.16 of the Subdivision Ordinance to allow an alternate pavement (gravel) on an 8.75+ acre portion of Lots 4 and 6, Block 1, Crossroads Logistics Park. The property is located at 620 Crossroads Drive. (M07-2025-095)]

ITEM PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU, ARDEN.

>> THANK YOU. >> ON TO REGULAR AGENDA 2026-007 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON ORDINANCE GRANTING SORRY, WE HAVE ONE MORE

PUBLIC HEARING, DON'T WE? >> NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> ESPECIALLY EXCEPTION IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> SO ON 07 NOW? 2026-007 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON ORDINANCE GRANT GRANTING SPECIAL EXCEPTION REQUEST 6.16 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW ALTERNATIVE PAVEMENT, GRAVEL, ON 8.75 ACRE PORTION OF LOT 4, AND 6 BLOCK CROSSROAD LOGISTIC PARPT AT 620 CROSSROADS DRIVE. MARY.

>> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THIS REQUEST IS FOR AN EXCEPTION FOR AN ALTERNT PAVEMENT, GRAVEL STORAGE YARD. PD147 HAS BASE ZONING OF HEAVY INDUSTRIAL AND IT ALLOWS OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY WITHOUT SEP AS THE PROPERTY IS FULLY SCREENED.

THERE CURRENTLY IS A WAREHOUSE ON THE SITE ON LOT 4, WHAT THEY

[01:00:01]

ARE WANTING TO DO IS EXPAND THEIR PROPERTYER AND REPLAT IT INTO LOT 4R1 WHICH WOULD INCLUDE 8.75 ACRES OF OUTSIDE STORAGE AREA, ONLY 7.87 ACRES OF THAT WOULD BE GRAVEL AND THE REST WOULD BE LANDSCAPE.

SO WHAT THEY ARE WANTING TO DO IS TO REMOVE SOME OF THE CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER ON THE NORTH SIDE THAT IS EXISTING, AND ADD AN EIGHT-FOOT BLACK VINYL COATED FENCE AROUND THE PROPERTY FOR SECURITY. THEY ARE PLANNING SHRUBS FOUR FEET APART, AND THEY WILL GROW TO SEVEN FEET TALL AFTER TWO YEARS. THEY ARE PROPOSING THREE-INCH CALIBER TREES, BASED 40 FEET APART ALONG THE STREET, AND THREE-INCH CALIBER EASTERN CEDAR ALONG THE ACCESS DRIVE RIGHT HERE. SO, THIS IS JUST A CLOSE UP OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY THEY ADDED AN EARTH BERM TO CREATE MORE SCREENING. THEY PROVIDED RENDERINGS THAT SHOW HOW THE EARTH BERM AND THE SHRUBS WOULD WORK TOGETHER. THESE ARE THE STREET TREES ALONG CROSSROADS AND THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE ALONG THE PROPERTY. THE ACCESS WILL BE GATED HERE, WHERE THE THREE TREES WILL BE, AND THEY WILL ENTER THE PROPERTY INTERNALLY. SO WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER RECENT CASES WHERE WE APPROVED THE SAME EXCEPTION. THEY ARE DIFFERENT CONTEXT THAT I DO WANT TO PROVIDE BACKGROUND. FOR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF WYATT ROAD AND HIGHWAY 67, THIS WAS THE GURDEL FACILITY. I WANT TO SAY STAFF DID NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL. IT WAS APPROVED WITH PROVISIONS THAT THE PROPERTY THAT IS BEING STORED, THAT IT WOULD NOT BE STACKED MORE THAN TEN FEET TALL, THAT ANY OF THE PROPERTY BEING STORED HAD TO BE KEPT WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES, AND THAT THE SITE WOULD INCLUDE TREES AND SHRUBS ALONG WYATT ROAD AND HIGHWAY 67. THEY DID PROVIDE A PROVISION FOR EMULSIFIED TOP COAT FOLLOW GEOTECHNICAL STUDY AND ALL OF THE OTHER SURFACES WOULD BE CONCRETE. THE WHOLESOME FACILITY ON DEV LANE, NORTHEAST CORNER OF MIDLOTHIAN AND DOVE LANE, THAT WAS APPROVED. STAFF DID SUPPORT THIS. IT IS QUITE AWAYS AWAY FROM THE ROAD, THE MAIN ROAD, AND IT IS IN THE QUARRY MODULE OF BASE ZONING HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.

THEY PROVIDED THE EMULSIFIED TOP COAT, CONCRETE PAVING FOR PASSENGER PARKING, FIRE LANES AND DRIVE ENTRANCE, AND PROVIDED LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT SHOW SHRUBS WOULD BE FIVE FEET ON CENTER, GROWING 12 FEET IN HEIGHT, AND FOUR INCH STREET TREES FACE 40 FEET APART. SO, TO GRANT THE SPECIAL EXCEPTION YOU TO SHOW THAT IT WON'T BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE, IT WON'T PREVENT ORDERLY SUBDIVISION OF THE LAND, AND NOT RESULT IN MODIFICATION. RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF THE REQUEST, IF YOU LOOK UNDER SPECIAL EXCEPTIONS, THERE IS NOT A LOT OF THE INFORMATION I PROVIDED TO YOU, SO, WE HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT NEGOTIATE ON CASE-BY-CASE BASIS. IF WE APPROVE A LOT OF THESE WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU CONSIDER REVISING THE ORDINANCE TO REFLECT THAT, BUT IF WE ARE GOING TO CONSIDER APPROVING THIS, WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE SURE THE SURFACE IS TREATED TO REDUCE DUST, APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER TO WITHSTAND 80,000 POUNDS AND PROVIDE COMBINED SCREENING, I BELIEVE WE WORK THESE INTO THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. ARE THERE ANY

QUESTIONS? >> PNC TAKE ACTION ON THIS CASE?

>> THEY DID. THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL AND WANTED TO ADD THE

EMULSIFIED TOP COAT. >> JUST THAT ONE?

>> YEAH, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING ADDED BETWEEN PNZ AND COUNCIL.

>> ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? >> YES, ONE SPEAKER DEBORAH

[01:05:10]

MARKHEART. >> INTRODUCE YOURSELF INTO THE MICROPHONE, WHETHER OR NOT YOU LIVE IN CITY LIMITS AND YOU WILL

HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> I AM DEBORAH, YES Y AM IN CITY LIMITS. THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK CROSSROADS IS LIKE KITTY CORNER FROM ME. I CAN SEE IT ALL. WHEN YOU ALL APPROVED JORDAR TO HAVE THE ASPHALT THERE, OR GRAVEL, YOU JUST OPENED UP A CAN OF WORMS. NOW EVERYBODY IS USING THESE EXAMPLES, WITH JORDAR, YOU MADE THEM TWO SIX INCHES GRAVEL, SIX INCHES COMPACTED SUBGRADE AND THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO PUT ASPHALT OR ASPHALT MILLINGS ON THE TOP. THAT WAS NEVER DONE. THEY WERE ALSO SUPPOSED TO PUT EMULSIFIED COATING ON IT. NONE OF THAT IS EVER DONE. CAN CAN GO BACK THERE AND THE WIND IS BLOWING ALL THAT GRAVEL AROUND, ALL THAT DUST. NOW THIS IS THE SAME. TEN ACRES, EIGHT ACRES, IN THE MIDDLE OF A NICE INDUSTRIAL PARK. IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO HAVE GRAVEL OPEN JARRED, 300 ACRES? HOW MANY OTHER BUILDINGS ARE COMING UP? YOU WILL HAVE TO PROVE THAT. YOU HAVE A NICE INDUSTRIAL PARK THERE. IF THEY WANT THAT, THEY NEED TO CONCRETE IT FOR STORAGE. MAYBE YOU MIGHT NOT NEED 80,000 BUT THAT IS ALL BLACK DIRT. AND LIKE MIKE RODGERS SAID, YOU SINK IN THAT DIRT. YOU ARE SUGGESTING EIGHT INCHES, YOU DID 12 INCHES.

8 INCHES, YOU GO NOW AND ALL THE GRAVEL IS POTHOLES AND RUTS FROM THE SKIDSTERS GO BACK AND FORTH. WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITH EIGHT INCHS? AND THE REST OF THE NICE INDUSTRIAL PARK. THEN YOU HAVE BREMERS, AT LEAST THREE FEET HIGH WITH TREES PLANTED SO THEY CAN'T SEE ANYTHING IN. IF THEY WANT TO MOVE AND DO OUTSOURCED STORAGE, FINE, PUT CHAIN LINK AND SLATS IN IT SO IT BE ALL COVERED LIKE YOU REQUESTED OTHERS INDUSTRIAL AREAS TO CONFORM. I DON'T WANT ANYMORE DUST IN THE AREA. THIS IS GETTING RIDICULOUS. IF YOU ALLOW THEM TO DO IT, THAT WHOLE CROSSROADS, ANYBODY ELSE CAN MOVE IN THERE. THEN IF THAT TENANT MOVES OUT, WHO SAYS SOMEBODY CAN'T MOVE IN THERE WITH LEAKY MOTORS AND ALL THAT? AND NOW YOU HAVE WASTE GOING INTO THE SOIL. SO, I MEAN, I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CONCRETED.

>> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. I DO SEE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. WOULD YOU LIKE TO STAND?

>> QUESTIONS OF STAFF FOR THE APPLICANT?

>> IT HAS BEEN A WHILE. I WAS HERE WHEN WE FIRST DID THE ORIGINAL HILLWOOD PD. WHEN WE DID THE ORIGINAL THERE WAS A LOT OF, REMEMBER NEGOTIATIONS ARGUINGS, ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND LANDSCAPING BUFFERS AND I DIDN'T SEE IT IN HERE, AND, AGAIN, I MIGHT HAVE MISSED IT, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PD AS FAR AS LANDSCAPING FOR OUTSIDE STORAGE, LIKE, I KNOW THEY ARE ASKING FOR GRAVEL, BUT DOES THE LANDSCAPING, WHETHER IT IS GRAVEL OR CONCRETE AROUND IT, STAY THE SAME TO THE ORIGINAL PD? OR IS THIS ABOVE AND BEYOND

THE ORIGINAL PD? >> IT MEETS THE PD. THE PD SAYS THEY CAN EITHER DO THE VEGETATIVE SCREEN, THEY CAN DO FENCING OR COMBINATION OF BERM AND LANDSCAPING. SO IT GIVES THEM SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR THE SCREENING. I THINK THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WITH THE THREE INCH CALIBER VERSES FOUR-INCH CALIBER. THAT IS THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO THE THREE-INCH CALIBER.

>> OKAY. >> THANK YOU.

>> MIKE? >> I JUST HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND, IF YOU CAN CONFIRM, I BELIEVE I PICKED UP ON THE PLAN THEY POSTED, IS THAT 134 FEET DEEP? DID I READ THAT CORRECTLY?

>> OUTSIDE STORAGE? >> AS FAR AS THE AREA, THE OUTDOOR STORAGE, I AM THINKING 130-150 FEET DEEP?

>> I CAN KIND OF SEE THE, THERE IS A DIMENSION THERE FROM THE ROAD TO THE OUTSIDE STORAGE, WHICH IS ABOUT 136 FEET, SO IT

IS 1-- >> 136.

>> OFFSET FROM THE ROAD. SO IT APPEARS TO BE LITTLE BIT DEEPER

THAN THAT. NORTH TO SOUTH? >> RIGHT. IN OTHER WORDS, WE ARE NOT TALKING HUNDREDS OF ACRES HERE, WE ARE TALKING 130 FOOT.

[01:10:05]

IS ALL. >> 136 FOOT OFFSET FROM THE ROAD, SO IF I TAKE THAT DIMENSION AND ROTATE IT--

>> I FOLLOW YOU. >> PROBABLY DOUBLE.

>> SO HARD TO SEE, BUT I SEE NOW.

>> IS THERE-- CAN I GO BACK? >> OKAY. OKAY. I GOT YOU. THERE WE GO.

>> SO, I AM TRYING TO GATHER IN MY MIND WHAT-- THE ROUGH WIDTH

AND DEPTH OF THIS PROPERTY. >> WE HAVE THAT ON A SITE PLAN.

>> IT IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT IF WE DON'T KNOW. I THOUGHT, WHEN I SAW THAT 136, IT THREW ME OFF. BUT THAT IS OFF THE ROAD.

>> I CAN'T QUITE READ THAT. I THINK IT SAYS 318 FEET NORTH TO SOUTH. THAT WOULD BE ALONG CROSSROADS. THE DEPTH, OR THE WIDTH, I AM GOING TO SCALE, LOOKS 600-700, ABOUT THE WIDTH

OF THE LOT ITSELF. >> SO WHAT IS THE-- WHAT WILL Y'ALL BE STORING IN THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE?

>> SO, THIS PARTICULAR TENANT, THEY WOULD BE STORING ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES, A LOT OF IT IS TRANSFORMERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT WOULD SUPPLY BUILDINGS. SO THAT IS WHAT IS STORED IN THE YARD. AND AS MARY SAID, IT WILL BE FULLY SCREENED

AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER. >> SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU WILL BE STORING IS NON-FLAMMABLE. NOT FLAMMABLE.

>> CORRECT. >> THERE SHOULDN'T BE A REASON FOR A FIRE TRUCK TO NEED TO ENTER THE AREA. OTHER QUESTIONS, OF COURSE, THE APRON IS ALREADY AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING AREA.

THAT GIVES FIRE EMERGENCY SERVICE THE ABILITY TO OPERATE AROUND THE ENTIRE PERIMETER TO THE BUILDING. SOMEWHAT THE PLAN AS FAR AS THE SURFACE AREA? IS THIS GOING TO BE CRUSHED CONCRETE? DO YOU HAVE PLAN ON SUBSURFACE TOO? SOIL, I KIND OF GET IT, THAT SOIL IS BAD ENOUGH THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING FLEXIBLE BUT DO YOU HAVE A PLAN AS FAR AS WATER INJECTION? LIME INJECTION? ANY PLAN FOR THE SUBSURFACE ON THE 80,000-POUND

WEIGHT? >> YES. WE WOULD COMPACT THE SUBGRADE. THERE IS A GEOGRID THAT GOES OVER THE SUBGRADE TO KEEP THE DIRT DOWN, AND GRAVEL OVER TOP. WE CAN DO GRAVEL OR CRUSHED CONCRETE, THEN WE ALSO HAVE HAPPY TO TREAT THE GRAVEL WITH EITHER THE THERE IS A FEW OPTIONS, ASPHALT TOP COAT, THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHERS WE BROUGHT UP TO CITY ENGINEERING. THERE ARE TWO OTHER SUBSTANCES, NATURAL OCCURRING SUBSTANCE THAT ARE USED FOR DUST CONTROL FOR GRAVEL. LITTLE BIT CLEANER, A CLEAR SUBSTANCE THAT YOU SPRAY OVER IT. WE WOULD OFFER TO DO ANY OF THOSE THREE THINGS AT THE CITY'S APPROVAL.

>> MARY, IS THAT PART OF OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WE WOULD BE APPROVING? OR IS THAT SOMETHING WE WOULD ASK FOR IF WE DO IN THE

IN THE MOTION. >> WELL, PNZ WANTED TO BE SPECIFIC, HOWEVER, WE DID PUT A PROVISION IN THE ORDINANCE THAT SAYS IT HAS TO BE WHATEVER THE SECTION IS, HAS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY. WE SAID THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK WITH A SECTION AND SUBMIT TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND WE WOULD DETERMINE AT

THAT TIME. >> IT IS IN THERE.

>> SECTION 1C, TALKS ABOUT 80,000 AND APPROVED BY THE

ENGINEER. >> I GET THE 80,000. I AM TRYING TO DESIGNATE THE CONVERSATION ABOUT SPRAY MILLINGS, WHATEVER IS GOING TO HOLD THE DUST DOWN, THAT IS GOING TO BE IN THIS PACKAGE TOO, SO WE KIND OF GET OFF ON THE RIGHT FOOT WITH WHAT THE RESIDENT HAD MENTIONED TO WHERE WE ARE AT LEAST TRYING TO AID IN THE DUST CONTROL A LITTLE BIT.

>> THE EMULSIFIED TOP COAT WAS PUT INTO THAT ORDINANCE. SO, STAFF UNDERSTANDS IT IS A PRIORITY.

>> THAT IS ALL WITHIN THE CONSIDERATION BY ENGINEERING?

>> YES. >> EMULSIFIED TOP COAT

DETERMINED BY THE CITY ENGINEER. >> OKAY.

>> BUT IS THAT JUST A ONE-TIME INSTALLATION?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. I WILL CALL MIKE ON THAT ONE. THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IS IT IS MORE MAINTENANCE LONG TERM THAN

[01:15:02]

CONCRETE. >> IT DOESN'T SAY IN HERE THAT

THEY HAVE TO REAPPLY, RIGHT? >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

>> WE COULD ADD, IT SAYS GRAVEL SERVICE MUST BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED, AND MAINTAINED, LETS ADD MAINTAINED IN THERE.

>> THERE ARE A COUPLE OTHER SUBSTANCES WE RECOMMENDED, CALCIUM CHLORIDE AND MAGNESIUM CHLORIDE. BOTH OF THOSE, WHEN IT RAINS, IT RECHARGES THE STUNS YOU SPRAY ON THERE. THAT WAS SOMETHING WE CAN TALK TO MIKE ABOUT AND REVIEW, BUT THOSE SOLUTIONS WOULD BE MORE OF LONG-TERM SOLUTION IN OUR EYES, OVER THE, JUST, EMULSIFIED ASPHALT YOU SPRAY, OTHER TWO OPTIONS WE BELIEVE MORE LONG TERM.

>> WHATEVER THE ANSWER IS, I WOULD LIKE IT PUT IN HERE THAT IT IS-- THE MAINTAIN PART MEANS, I DON'T WANT ONE-TIME-THING, WE SPRAY IT, THEN TURNED OVER Y. LIVE OFF A GRAVEL ROAD, I HAVE A BLACK CAR, I AM VERY FAMILIAR WITH DUST IT PRODUCES. I AM STRUGGLING WITH THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. I UNDERSTAND SHRUBS AND BERM ARE THERE TO HELP HIDE THE VIEW, -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT HAS TO BE FULL-BLOWN-- THE AMOUNT OF MONEY SAVED, LIKE BEEF UP THE

FENCE A LITTLE. >> THE BLACK VINYL CHAIN LINK FENCE IS ALREADY ALLOWED BY THE PD THAT IS IN PLACE.

>> RIGHT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN I LIKE IT.

>> I UNDERSTAND, YES, MA'AM. >> CLARK?

>> MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO HINDER Y'ALL'S BUSINESS, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I SAT UP HERE FOR SIX OR, GOING ON SEVEN YEARS NOW, WE KEEP GOING BACK AND FORTH BETWEEN GRAVEL AND CONCRETE, GRAVEL AND CONCRETE. IT HAS AUL ALWAYS KIND OF BAFFLED ME. MIKE, WHERE IS YOUR BUSINESS AT? EAST GATE, TO POUR A PARKING LOT OF A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER BUT WE KEEP APPROVING GRAVEL ON THE LARGER SCALE BUSINESSES. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT GRUDAL, IT WAS A BUILDING THAT WAS ALREADY THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHO WAS UP HERE, DEFINITELY JUSTIN, BUT WE SPENT MONTHS GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH HILLWOOD BECAUSE WE WERE SPECIFIC ON THE TYPE OF QUALITY WE WANTED THIS LARGE OF A DEVELOPMENT TO BE THIS CLOSE TO OUR DOWNTOWN, BECAUSE Y'ALL ARE-- YOU ARE GETTING CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN. SO, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF ARGUING ABOUT DUST AND MAINTENANCE AND WHO IS ENFORCING, I PERSONALLY THINK IT IS EASIER TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW WHAT? WE ALREADY NEGOTIATEED THIS, BACK IN THE DAY, IT WILL BE CONCRETE. SORRY IF THAT IS A PROBLEM BUT WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN THERE AND HAD THAT CONVERSATION.

BUT IF THE REST OF THE COUNCIL THINK S GRAVEL IS THE BETTER WAY TO GO, SO BE IT. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING WE ALREADY NAILED OUT

AND ARGUED. >> I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I KNOW FROM GOING AS BACK FAR AS YOU MENTIONED, THE QUESTION ALWAYS HAS WHY CONCRETE? THE ANSWER WAS THAT IS JUST THE WAY WE DO IT.

THAT WASN'T A GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER FOR ME, AS A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I WILL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW I HAVE GRAVEL AND IT DOES GREAT. THE FEAR ABOUT GRAVEL WHEN WE GOT STARTED IS WE WOULD HAVE MUTT ON THE STREET. WE DON'T HAVE ANY MUD ON THE STREETS. I AM CONFIDENT THIS WILL BE DONE FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE. I WOULD SAY THAT GRAVEL IS NOT THE ANSWER FOR ALL APPLICATIONS, I DO BELIEVE CONCRETE SHOULD BE USED ON MAIN THOROUGH FAIRS AND ON THE FRONTS OF BUILDINGS AS IT HAS BEEN DONE IN THE APPLICATION AND DEFINITELY GIVE FIRE AND SAFETY AN APRON WRAP AROUND THE BUILDING FOR ACCESS. THAT IS HAS ALL TAKEN PLACE. YOU HAVE AN APPLICATION TO WHERE-- AND I HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF SITUATION WITH MY COMPANY DO WHERE WE HAVE CONCRETE COME TO THE BUILDING BUT WHERE WE NEED TO DRIVE FORK LIFTS TO STORE WOOD ON THE GROUND, THERE IS NO NEED TO HAVE THAT ON CONCRETE: THIS IS KIND OF THE SAME TYPE OF APPLICATION THEY ARE DISCUSSING HERE. THEY HAVE, IN THIS CASE ESPECIALLY, A

[01:20:04]

NON-FLAMMABLE PRODUCT, I AM WILLING TO GO THE EXTRA MILE TO HOLD THE DESK DOWN. I WOULD ALSO ASK THIS QUESTION, HOW FAR BACK

IN THE DEVELOPMENT IS THIS SITE? >> IT IS PRETTY, VERY WELL TUCKED INTO THE DEVELOPMENT, IF I CAN GO BACK TO THIS OVERALL SITE PLAN, EVEN I WISH WE COULD GO ALL THE WAY.

>> THIS DOESN'T SIT. THIS VIEW OFF A MAJOR HIGHWAY, OR A MAJOR

THOROUGHFAIR. >> YES, SIR, BUILT TWO BUILDINGS TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN YOU 287. SO THIS OUTDOOR STORAGE YARD IS TUCKED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PD TO THE EAST OF US, WHAT WILL BE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS DETENTION AND TRUCK TRAILER STORAGE. IT REALLY IS TUCKED IN THE MIDDLE OF AN OVERALL INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT YOU WILL NOT SEE IT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE SCREENING WE HAVE. ANOTHER REASON WE DO WANT TO USE GRAVEL IS WE SEE GRAVEL AS MORE OF A TEMPORARY USE. ONCE YOU GO AND CHRONCRETE THIS, IT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THERE FOR LONG, LONG TIME. HIGHER AND BETTER USE FOR THIS SITE WOULD BE A BUILDING ON THIS SITE ONE DAY, ANOTHER INDUSTRIAL BUILDING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK. THAT IS ANOTHER REASON WE SEE GRAVEL, IT IS MORE OF A TEMPORARY, YOU KNOW, A TEMPORARY SITUATION FOR THE LOT AND THEN THERE IS A

HIGHER BERM USE IN THE FUTURE. >> THE MAIN REASON I ASK THE DEPTH OF HOW FAR INTO THE PROPERTY IT IS, IS I DON'T-- EACH TO THEIR OWN, I HAVE GALVANIZED CHAIN LINK AT MY BUSINESS AND I THINK IT IS GREAT. BEING IN THE FENCE BUSINESS FOR OVER 30 YEARS BEFORE THE CURRENT BUSINESS, EVERYTHING THAT IS PRETTY PEALS. I AM A BIG ADVOCATE OF KISS, KEEP IT SIMPLE, STUPID, JUST DO WHAT I THINK. I WOULD SAY I DON'T HAVE AS BIG A PROBLEM WITH GRAVEL AND I CAN SAY AS FAR AS THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE, IT IS JUST LIKE A LOT OF OTHER ASPECTS WITHIN. . IF YOU ARE SITED UPON THAT, HOPEFULLY A FINE SITED, UNLESS THEY BRING THAT TO DATE, CORRECT IT IF SITED FOR SOME REASON. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU TRYING TO DO, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME. THE BLACK CHAIN LINK IS A VERY GOOD UPGRADE FROM WHAT I AM ACCUSTOM TO SEEING IN INDUSTRIAL ZONES. IT IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE, MADE FOR STORAGE AND PRODUCTION. SO, I THINK WHAT YOU PRESENTED

IS A GOOD PRODUCT. >> VERY MUCH CASE-BY-CASE ON THESE ISSUES. WHAT YOU SAID MAKES SENSE ABOUT THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PIECE OF PROPERTY. I DON'T FORESEE IT BEING GRAVEL PARKING OR STORAGE FOREVER. IT IS PROBABLY FAR MORE LIKELY TO BE A BUILDING AND I FEEL LIKE IT WOULD PROBABLY BE AN UNDUE BURDEN TO FORCE CONCRETE AT THIS POINT IF THERE WILL BE ULTIMATELY A FOUNDATION FOR IT THERE. P

>> WE WILL ONLY HAVE FOUR CLIFFS ON THE TENANT ONLY DRIVING FOUR CLIFFS ON THE GRAVEL. NO BIG SEMIS THAT WILL BE DRIVING BACK

ON THE GRAVEL LOT. >> Y'ALL WOULD BE FINE IF IT IS LIMITED TO NOT INCLUDE VEHICULAR TRAVEL BEYOND INTERNAL SITES REGULATION? PROHIBITED AGAINST TRACTOR TRAILERS PULLING IN AND

DRIVING IN THE GRAVEL AREA. >> YES, I BELIEVE SO. YEAH.

>> UM, SO I DO WANT TO-- I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF OR APPLICANT, BUT WHEN TALKING ABOUT FENCING, I DID PULL UP THE ORDINANCE WHICH I BELIEVE, I DON'T BELIEVE IT HAS BEEN AMENDED, AND IT DOES SAY THAT OUTDOOR -- WHERE IS IT? I THINK THERE WAS OUTDOOR STORAGE SCREENING REQUIREMENT FOR MASONRY FENCE OR SIX FOOT WROUGHT IRON OR STEEL SIX FOOT-- I DON'T BELIEVE CHAIN LINK IS IN THE BASE ZONING. I AM TRYING TO FIND IT AGAIN. SO, SAM, ARE WE DOING, PART OF THE SPECIAL

[01:25:01]

EXCEPTION FOR FENCING AS WELL? OR JUST FOR THE PAVING?

>> THIS IS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION, SPECIAL EXCEPTION TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WHICH CARRIES REQUIREMENT FOR CONCRETE PARKING AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. WE COULDN'T DO-- WE CAN'T TOUCH THE ZONING ASPECT OF THIS. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, IT IS JUST A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FOR THE SUBDIVISION

ORDINANCE. >> WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO APPROVE-- HERE IT IS, OUTDOOR STORAGE, IT IS IN ITEM G, ITEM 3, SECTION 1 OF THE BASE PD. MASONRY WALL OR MATERIAL SIMILAR, A BERM, NOT LESS THAN THREE FEET, WITH STEEL OR METAL FENCE WITH ELEMENTS TOTALING COMBINED HEIGHT OF SIX FEET ABOVE THE AVERAGE GRADE FOR THAT PORTION, OR A PLANNING ENCLOSURE LARGE EVERGREEN SHRUBS NOT GREATER THAN FOUR FEET APART.

ARE WE DOING C AND ADDING A FENCE TO IT?

>> YEAH. IT ALLOWS THE COMBINATION ALONE. THEY ARE ADDING THE FENCE AROUND IT FOR SECURITY.

>> OKAY. SO, THE FENCE IS JUST ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT IS REQUIRED. THEY ARE MEETING THE BASE ZONING CLASSIFICATION, OR

BASE ZONING REQUIREMENT. >> WITH THE BERM.

>> UNDER SECTION 3C. >> YEAH.

>> BY USING PLANTINGS AND THEY ELECTED THE FENCE FOR SECURITY PRURPSS. OKAY. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE CLEAR ON THAT.

>> IT DOESN'T PROHIBIT OR REQUIRE IT AS VINYL COATED CHAIN

LINK. >> WHAT IS THE REQUIREMENT ONCE

AGAIN? >> IT IS EITHER MASONRY WALL, BERM AND METAL FENCE, TUBULAR STEEL OR WROUGHT IRON, OR A PLANNING ENCLOSURE ALL VEGETATIVE SCREENING THAT HAS VERY SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS THAT I AMSUMING STAFF INSURED THEY HAVE MET. THERE IS NO FENCE REQUIRED OR COMBINATION.

>> IN THIS COMBO SINCE PROVIDING THE BERM AND SHRUBBERY, WHICH IS THE INITIAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE BLACK VINYL IS KIND OF ABOVE AND

BEYOND BEHIND THAT? >> THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND THE FENCE BEING EIGHT FOOT RATHER THAN SIX. I GUESS TRANSFORMERS ARE GOING TO BE STORED ON THAT PROPERTY? IS THAT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT?

>> YES, SIR. >> DO Y'ALL STACK THEM? LAY THEM? I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT STORING TRANSFORMERS.

>> I DON'T THINK-- NOT STACKED. >> THEY CAN'T GO HIGHER THAN, WHAT? TEN FEET IS THAT WHAT I READ EARLIER?

>> WE DON'T HAVE-- >> THAT WAS ANOTHER ORDINANCE.

>> OKAY. >> UNLESS THE BASE ZONE.

>> I AM THINKING EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, HOW HIGH IS THIS GOING TO

GO? >> YES, SIR. SO, ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER WILL PROBABLY BE THE BIGGEST PIECE OF EQUIPMENT OUR TENANT WOULD BE STORING. THEY ARE NOT EIGHT FEET TALL. I

DON'T HAVE THE EXACT HEIGHT. >> OKAY. I DON'T KNOW.

>> CURRENTLY PER THE ZONING, THERE IS REALLY NO RESTRICTIONS ON HEIGHT AND ALL OF THE OUTSIDE STORAGE IS ALLOWED, DOING ALL THE LANDSCAPING FOR THE OUTSIDE STORAGE. REALLY WE ARE HERE FOR JUST THE GRAVEL IS THE ONLY THING WE ARE ASKING.

>> THE GRAVEL 80,000. IS THAT-- HOW MUCH DO THEY WEIGH? HOW MANY YOU GOING TO HAVE IN THERE? GOT TO HAVE ROOM TO MANEUVER THEM.

>> THAT IS RIGHT. >> TALKING 40 TONS OF A ABILITY.

>> I DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE WEIGHTS OF THE FORK LIFTS AND THE EQUIPMENT AND ALL THE MAX WEIGHTS WE CHECKED THAT OUT WITH A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. I DON'T HAVE THAT ON ME TONIGHT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT PUTTING ANYTHING THAT THE GRAVEL

AND THE SUBGRADE CAN'T SUPPORT. >> IT IS MORE ABOUT THE DUST AND MORE ABOUT THE SITE, THE SIGHTLINESS OF EVERYTHING. SO FAR WHAT I AM HEARING YOU ARE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE SIGHTLINESS. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE DUST OTHER THAN GETTING IT SPRAYED EVERY NOW AND THEN AND KEEPING IT MAINTAINED.

>> I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE REFERENCE TO 80,000 AS IT IS IN OUR CASE, TRUCKS LOADED WEIGH 80,000.

>> THAT IS FOR A FIRE TRUCK, AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF. A TRUCK COULD ACCESS THE LOT IN CASE THEY NEEDED TO. THAT IS NOT

FOR SEMIS. >> ALSO TRUCKS THAT NEED TO BE UNLOADED WEIGH 80,000 GROSS WEIGHT. FIRE TRUCKS OR 18

WHEELERS CAN BE UNLOADED. >> YES, SIR, THEY COULD. WE JUST DON'T PLAN FOR ANY TRUCKS TO DRIVE ON THE GRAVEL LOT.

>> TO CLEAR UP ON THAT NOTE, SO, ARE WE WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE,

[01:30:08]

ACTUALLY LIMITING THE DRIVING ON THE GRAVEL TO NONTRADITIONAL

VEHIC ULAR-- >> 80,000 COVERS EVERYTHING, 18 WHEELER CAN ROLL ON IT, WATER TRUCK. WHATEVER.

>> THERE WAS SOMETHING MENTIONED EARLIER, JUST ASKING FOR

CLARIFICATION. >> OKAY. YOUR QUESTION IS MORE JUST IN PRACTICALITY, WHAT IS THE INTENTION?

>> YEAH, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT WOULD BE USED FOR FORK LIFTS, INTERNAL APPARATUS TO USE EQUIPMENT IN THE BUILDING ITSELF OR ON TO A TRUCK TO DELIVER OR RECEIVE THE PRODUCT. IS THAT

CORRECT? >> YES, SIR.

>> SO, I MEAN, THAT IS WHERE I AM SAYING. I DON'T THINK THEY ARE TRYING TO ENGINEER IT TO HAVE SEMIS ON THE GRAVEL. I THINK THEIR INTENTION AS SEMI WOULD BE, OR DELIVERY TRUCKS, WOULD BE ON THE CONCRETE, UNLOADED, AND FORK LIFT OR OTHER SIMILAR, WHATEVER IT MAY BE, TO MOVE THE EQUIPMENT AROUND ON

SITE. >> IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY FROM THE EARLIER COMMENTS, THERE IS A REQUEST FROM ENGINEERING IN THIS PROPOSAL THAT ENGINEERING WOULD REQUIRE THAT THIS IS AN 80

,000-POUND INSTALLATION. >> RIGHT.

>> EVERYTHING IS OVER ENGINEERED ON THIS.

>> WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, BECAUSE I GET WHAT YOU ARE SAYING ABOUT NONFLAMMABLE, BUT WE STILL WOULD, LIKE I SAY, RESCUE OPERATION, WE WOULD STILL BE HAVING THAT FIRE TRUCK SHOW UP.

IT IS MORE THAN WHETHER IT IS FLAMMABLE, WE MIGHT HAVE TO PROVIDE RESCUE OPERATIONS. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT HOLDS.

>> I AM QUITE CONFLICTED BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE USE, IT SEEMS APPROPRIATE, BUT ALSO I HAVE BEEN A PART OF THE BODY THE LAST THREE YEARS WHERE WHEN WE HAD SIMILAR SITUATIONS FOR GRAVEL AND OTHER PROJECTS, WE HAVE HELD A VERY STERN LINE AND I KNOW THERE HAS BEEN RECENT SITUATIONS WHERE WE HAVEN'T PROVED IT, BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THERE HAVE BEEN VERY SPECIFIC LONG-TERM PLANS WHERE IT IS VERY IMMEDIATE SHORT TERM USE, UNDERSTAND THERE IS MAYBE LONG-TERM IDEA OF WHAT THIS COULD BE BUT IT IS A LITTLE CONFLICT ING WITH THE WAY WE HANDLED THIS IN THE PAST.

>> THAT WAS THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD FOR YOU, MARRY AND WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER. THERE WAS A QUESTION BROUGHT UP PERHAPS IF THIS BUILDING CHANGED HANDS AND USES CHANGED, I WOULD ASSUME THIS SPECIAL USAGE WOULD BE APPLIED TO OWN THIS PARTICULAR CO HOLDER AND THIS PARTICULAR BUSINESS FOR THIS USAGE, OR WOULD THIS TRAVEL WITH THE PROPERTY?

>> TRAVEL WITH THE PROPERTY. I MEAN, AS LONG AS IT REMAINED THERE THEY COULD SWITCH HANDS AND IT WOULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO

BE GRAVEL. >> I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE I SEE YOUR HAND BUT WE MOVED PAST THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION SO I CAN'T TAKE-- I APOLOGIZE. RESPECTFULLY I CAN'T GO BACKWARDS. RESPECTFULLY, I CAN'T GO BACKWARDS.

>> DID YOU WANT TO ADD SOMETHING, JOE?

>> GOES WITH THE PROPERTY.

>> I THINK THE MAYOR MADE GOOD POINTS ABOUT THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THIS, AND IF IT IS PAVED IN A MORE PERMANENT FASHION, IT DOES LIMIT THE FUTURE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE REMAINDER TRACT THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THIS PIECE IN THE FUTURE. USERS COME AND GO, THE INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS INDUSTRIAL PARK IS TO CREATE JOBS AND ECONOMIC VIBRANCY FOR THE COMMUNITY TO BRING IN SALES TAX REVENUE THAT REDUCES THE PROPERTY TAX ON OUR LOCAL RESIDENTS. I THINK IN THAT RESPECT, IT IS A CASE-BY-CASE THING. I AM COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT THEY ARE ASKING FOR. IT IS SCREENED ON THREE SIDES BY TWO EXISTING AND ONE PLANNED. THE OTHERSER RIGHT OF WAY, ADJACENT IS A MUCH LARGER INDUSTRIAL BUILDING THAT WILL BE BUILT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. THEY STACKED UP THAT STREET SCAPE, LANDSCAPING SIDE, THEY ARE MEETING THE ASPECT OF BASE

[01:35:01]

ZONING. I FEEL THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PLANNING LIKE WE HAVE DONE FOR A CHURCH IN TOWN AND OTHER INDUSTRIAL PARTNERS TO MAKE THAT KIND OF EXCEPTION. I DON'T THINK IT SETS A PRECEDENT THAT MEANS WE HAVE TO DO IT EVERYWHERE ELSE. IT IS STILL A SPECIAL EXCEPTION DUE TO THE NATURE AND CHARACTERISTIC OF THIS PROPERTY. I DON'T FEEL IT IS INAPPROPRIATE THERE, INCLUDING IN THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> THAT BEING SAID, I HAVE A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE MY FINAL COMMENT, I, PERSONALLY, THINK EVEN THOUGH I LIKE ROSS, I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE STATISTICS ON HOW MUCH WE WAIVE THIS FOR BIG USERS AND HOW MUCH WE ENFORCE ON SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE HEAVILY SKEWED ONE WAY. WE ARGUED THIS WHEN WE APPROVED OF THIS PD, THERE WAS A REASON WE DIDN'T ALLOW THE GRAVEL THE FIRST TIME. I JUST-- I THINK IT IS WRONG, PERSONALLY. I WILL

LEAVE IT AT THAT. >> OKAY.

>> MIKE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MIKE, YOU SAID YOU HAVE A

MOTION. >> I HAVE A MOTION, I WANT TO TAKE AMENDMENTS ON THE MOTION THAT WOULD HELP THE MOTION.

>> THE MOTION WE BE WE APPROVE AS PRESENT WOULD THE STIPULATION AS HOWEVER LEGAL OR STAFF WOULD ADVISE ON THE IF NEEDED DUST PREVENTION APPLICATION WITHIN THIS ORDINANCE, BASICALLY APPROVING AS PRESENTED, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

>> ACCEPT FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. OKAY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? TAKE A SECOND ON IT.

>> SECOND. MOTION MAID BY COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER WITH FRIENDLY AMENDMENT. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 4-2. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU.

[2026-008 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing an expenditure in the amount of $3,500,000 by the Midlothian Community Development Corporation (MCDC) to the City of Midlothian for costs related to the renovation of Ridgeview Park, located at 750 Walter Stephenson Road, Midlothian, Texas 76065.]

>> SORRY. 5-2.

MOVING ON, 2026-008. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $3.5 MILLION BY THE MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION TO THE CITY FOR COST RELATED TO THE RENOVATION OF RIDGEVIEW PARK LOCATED 750

WALTER STEPHENSON ROAD. >> GOOD EVENING. MCDC DID HEAR AT DECEMBER 4TH MEETING, A REQUEST FOR FUNDING FOR RIDGEVIEW PARK, WE HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PARK FOR THE LAST YEAR OR SO, AND THEY WERE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF REFURBISHING SO WE CAN BRING MORE PARK SPACE TO THAT AREA. THERE IS A LOT OF APARTMENTS AND TOWN HOMES OVER THERE. WE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS THAT PARK AND IT WILL ALSO EASE THE BURDEN ON OTHER PARKS. WE ARE JUST REQUESTING APPROVAL OF

THAT $3.5 MILLION EXPENDITURE. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? I DO SEE WE HAVE A CHAIR OF MCDC HERE IN CASE, ALSO CHAIR OF PARKS BOARD, AND JEFF NUMEN, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO ENGAGE IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THOSE TWO INDIVIDUALS YOU CAN AS WE DISCUSS THIS. BUT I AM CURIOUS, IS HEATHER HERE? CAN YOU GIVE A HIGH VIEW OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE RENOVATION WILL

INCLUDE? >>

>> WOULD BE A NEW PLAYGROUND, THIS TIME IT WOULD INCLUDE A RESTROOM NEAR THE PLAYGROUND. WE HAVE TWO HALF BASKETBALL COURTS IN THERE, CONCRETE TRAIL, ALL THE WAY THROUGH. THE CURRENT PAVILION ADDRESSING THAT UP AND ADDING A FEW OTHER LITTLE SHADE PICNIC AREAS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY, SOME OTHER LITTLE PLAY AREAS NEAR THE DRAINAGE AREA, KIND OF USING THE NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY OF THE LAND, AND IT INCLUDES FOUR PICKLEBALL COURTS.

IT PUTS IN A NEW PARKING LOT, CONCRETE PARKING LOT IN THE FRONT, AND THEN ANOTHER PARKING LOT BACK TOWARDS THE BACK OFF OF ONE OF THE SIDE ROADS FOR THE PICKLEBALL COURTS.

>> HEATHER, IF I AM NOT MISTAKEN, THE PRICE WAS HIGHER THAN 3.5 AND THEY CAME BACK DOWN, IS THE POSSIBILITY WE CAN'T GET EVERY ELEMENT THAT WAS PROPOSED?

>> THE PROBABLE COST OF OPINION WAS ABOUT 4.5 MILLION. WE FELT THAT WAS PRETTY HIGH FOR A SMALL NEIGHBORHOOD PARK, MET WITH

[01:40:07]

MCDC, AND THEY FELT THE SAME, WE SHOULD TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN GET FOR 3.5. WE HAVEN'T BIDED OUT SO WE DON'T KNOW THE TRUE COST. OFTEN WHEN THEY COME BACK WITH THE COST, YOU KNOW, THEY CAUTION TO THE HIGH SIDE BUT THE WAY THINGS GO NOW, YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT THE PRICE IS GOING TO BE. SO OUR THOUGHT WAS, FIRST OFF, WE GO, WE PUT IT OUT TO BID, SEE WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET, WHAT IT COMES IN AT, AND THEN EITHER WE CAN PHASE IN A PORTION OF IT, OR WE JUST LEAVE OUT SECTIONS OF IT TO REACH THAT 3.5 MILLION GOAL. THE MAIN THINGS WE HAVE SEEN FROM THE COMMUNITIES IS THEY WANT THE CONCRETE TRAILS, THE PLAYGROUND, IF WE DO NOT DO THIS PROJECT AND REPLACE IT, I AM GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE IT BECAUSE IT IS NO LONGER SAFE AND WE CANNOT GET

THE PARTS TO REPLACE THEM >> TALKING FUNDING TONIGHT, WILL THERE BE A SEPARATE AGENDA ITEM AT A LATER DATE?

>> YES, SIR. PARK BOARD HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS WHOLE PROJECT AND PLANNING AND SO HAS MCDC. YES, SIR, WE WOULD COME BACK. IT IS ENGINEERED, ALL READY TO GO. WE WOULD GO BACK, OUT TO BID, COME BACK AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS AS TO WHAT THE BIDDING COMES BACK TO SEE WHAT WE-- IF WE GET TO PUT EVERYTHING IN OR IF WE NEED TO REMOVE THINGS AND VALUE ENGINEER SOME THINGS TO REACH

3.5 MILLION. >> WE WILL GET THE OPPORTUNITY OF COUNCIL TO DISCUSS THE PARK PLAN AT LATER DATE.

>> YES, SIR. >> RUSS.

>> HOW IS THE CURRENT PARKING LOT OUT THERE?

>> IT IS-- I BELIEVE GRAVEL AND MILLINGS AND ALL SORTS OF STUFF.

IT IS NOT PAVED. IT IS NOT LOVELY.

>> I WAS JUST-- >> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT IS FROM WAY LONG AGO, THAT IS WHY WE HAVE PUT IN OUR PLAN A NEW

CONCRETE PARKING LOT. >> HOW MANY TOTAL PARKING SPOTS

WILL WE END UP WITH? >> GOOD QUESTION. I THINK RIGHT NOW WE HAVE MAYBE TEN AND I THINK WE GOT UP TO 21. IT IS NOT

EXCESSIVE. >> GENEROUS.

>> SOME ARE A LITTLE-- EIGHT TO A PORTION OF TEN, I BELIEVE, IS WHAT WE ARE AT THERE. AND THEN I THINK THIS ONE GETS US TO, I BELIEVE WE ARE 18-22 UP THEN ADDITIONAL, MAYBE ANOTHER 12 IN THE BACK FOR PICKLEBALL. WE PUT ENOUGH TO MANAGE ALL OF THE PEOPLE ON THE PICKLEBALL COURTS, IF THEY HAVE SPECTATORS, THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO WALK FROM THE FRONTMENT

>> AND I THINK THAT IS IMPORTANT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE THE PARK, AS IT SITS TODAY, IS VERY ACCESSIBLE TO NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, THE APARTMENTS IN THE AREA, THE OLD MIDLOTHIAN MEADOWS SUBDIVISION THERE, VERY WALKABLE FOR THEM. BUT FOR THE REST OF MIDLOTHIAN T IS VERY HARD TO ENGAGE WITH THAT PARK BECAUSE THERE IS NO-- THERE IS NOT REALLY ANY PARKING THERE.

>> EXACTLY. >> I THINK THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT WE HAVE THAT. HOW MUCH OPEN SPACE WILL WE HAVE LEFT?

>> WE WILL KEEP, PROBABLY KEEP 75% OF THE OPEN SPACE, SO THE ONLY TWO AREAS THAT ARE REALLY GOING TO TAKE UP MORE SPACE, BECAUSE THE PLAYGROUND WILL FIT IN ESSENTIALLY THE OLD FOOTPRINT, AND WE ARE KEEPING THE CURRENT SHAPE STRUCTURES BECAUSE THEY ARE NEW AND IN GOOD CONDITION, SO WE ARE BUILDING THE PLAYGROUND AROUND THAT AND ADDING TO IT BUT WE DID NOT WANT TO TEAR SOMETHING DOWN THAT WAS STILL IN REALLY GOOD CONDITION.

PICKLEBALL COURTS, BACK PLAY GROUND, AND BASKETBALL COURTS ARE THE ONLY OTHER LAND TAKEN UP. EVERYTHING IN THE MIDDLE WILL BE WIDE OPEN THAT KIDS CAN KICK SOCCER BALLS, THROW FOOTBALLS, THROW FRISBEES, DOGS CAN PLAY. WE WANT TO KEEP IT NOT COMPLETELY PROGRAMMED BUT THIS IS TRYING TO KEEP A MORE NATURE-BASED PARK IN THE MIDDLE OF TOWN AND ALLOWING, NOW THAT IT HAS A RESTROOM, PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE RIGHT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CAN UTILIZE IT AND NOT HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT HAVING TO LEAVE AND TAKE THE KIDS OUT TO GO USE THE RESTROOM IN THE

MIDDLE OF PLAY TIME. >> I LOVE THE IDEA OF OPEN SPACE. THROW A BALL, KICK A BALL, THROW A FRISBEE. I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT IN PARKS, NOT OVER PROGRAMMED. I AM EXCITED TO SEE OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IS INVESTING IN ASSETS OUR COMMUNITY OWNS AND MAKING THEM BETTER FOR THE RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, MAKING THEM ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC AT

[01:45:07]

LARGE THAT LIVES IN MIDLOTHIAN. I THINK THIS IS GREAT. I AM

EXCITED. >> SPEAKING OF ACCESSIBLE. WILL

THESE BE TEN-FOOT WIDE PARKS? >> I DO NOT HAVE THE MEASUREMENT

ON THE PARKING. >> WE NEED ONE ON A CHAMPIONSHIP PICKLEBALL, WE NEED ROOM TO GET OUT WITH OUR RACKETS. SO, TEN FOOT WIDTH OR MORE IS VERY IMPORTANT.

>> I WILL FOLLOW UP ON THE ENGINEERING.

>> IF PULL A HAM STRING WHEN WALKING IN THERE, GETTING OUT OF THAT CAR, WE MUST LOSE THE CHAMPIONSHIP.

>> I WOULD PAY MONEY TO WATCH THAT.

>> ANYWAY, I AM CONFUSED ON THEEXPENDITURE,BER WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE SPENDING IT ON. NORMALLY YOU HAVE A PLAN, THINGS WE ARE TRYING TO BUY. ARE WE PREAUTHORIZING THE CREDIT CARD?

>> WE HAVE A PLAN, IT IS ALL ENGINEERED. WE HAVEN'T PUT IT OUT FOR BID BECAUSE WE CAN'T PUT IT OUT FOR BID WITHOUT

FUNDING. >> I THINK SOME OF THIS GOES BACK TO THE DIFFERENT WAYS IN WHICH THE TYPE A AND TYPE B DO ANNUAL BUDGET. TYPE A ALLOCATES THEIRS INTO SILO AND BUCKET.

THEY HAVE $4 MILLION BUDGET, WE WANT TATAKE OUT OF OUR BIG GENERAL BUCKET OF FUNDS AND PUT $3.5 MILLION FOR THIS. SPENDING MONEY, ALLOCATING THE FUNDS BUDGEITARILY AND WILL HAVE TO--

[INAUDIBLE] ? >> WE WILL PUT IT BACK TO BID.

MCDC SAID IF IT COMES BACK AND WE HAVE TO CUT HALF THE PARK, THAT THEY ARE WILLING TO HEAR, HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION TO REACH WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS TO SEE IN THAT. OUR HOPE IS THAT WE CAN GET THIS PARK BUILT FOR THIS FUNDING BUT THE BID WILL GO OUT.

WE ARE NOT SAYING WHAT OUR BIDDING IS. WE ARE NOT SAYING WE HAVE $3.5 MILLION. WE ARE PUTTING IT OUT AND SAYING GIVE THIS BACK. WHEN WE PUT IT IN THERE, IT WILL BE A LA CARTE, WE WILL ASK THEM TO, WHEN THEY COME IN AND GIVE US THE BID, YOU KNOW, IT IS GOING TO BE MOBILIZATION AND ALL OF THIS, BUT IT WILL SHOW THE BASKETBALL COURTS COST THIS MUCH, THE PICKLEBALL COURTS COST THIS MUCH, THE TRAIL COSTS THIS MUCH, THE LIGHTING. SO WHEN WE DO THAT WE WANT TO SEE THAT AND NOT JUST ONE BIG NUMBER, WE WANT TO SEE WHAT IT IS, WHICH WE HAD TO DO WITH THE COMMUNITY PARK. WE HAVE ITEMIZED AREAS IN THERE FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THE FUNDING WE ACTUALLY HAVE.

>> MAKE A MOTION, APPROVE THIS AS PRESUMED.

>> DO YOU HAVE COMMENTS? >> WAS YOUR LIGHT ON? I APOLOGIZE. MOTION, SECONDED TO APPROVE. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-009 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing an expenditure in the amount of $2,352,240 plus additional funds for closing costs, survey, and inspections by the Midlothian Community Development Corporation (MCDC) for the purchase of a portion of parcel 288075 (property North of realigned Mt. Zion Rd.), parcel 221990, and parcel 313242 located on Mt. Zion Road, from Hawkins Midlothian Development, LLC.]

>> PASSES 7-0. 2026-009, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE $2,352.240 FOR FUNDS FOR CLOSING COSTS, SURVEY, INSPECTIONS, FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PARCEL 28805, NORTH OF MT. ZIONROAD AND THE HAWKINS MIDLOTHIAN

DEVELOPMENT LLC. >> THANK YOU.

>> AS YOU MAY OR MAY NOT KNOW, MCDC ALREADY OWNS PROPERTY AT THE HARD CORNER OF MT. ZIONAND 14TH IN THE 287 SERVICE ROAD. WE WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE THE REMAINING TRACT OF LAND SO WE CAN PUT ALL THAT LAND TOGETHER AND CAN GO OUT AND SEE ABOUT HAVING IT DEVELOPED IN A MANNER THAT WOULD BRING FAMILY-FRIENDLY AVENUES OR VENUES TO THAT AREA, WOULD SUPPORT CONFERENCE CENTER, SUPPORT THE HOTEL, SUPPORT THE PARKS, AND THE LITTLE LEAGUE TOURNAMENTS THAT COME THROUGH THERE, SO WE DID VOTE UNANIMOUSLY TO PURCHASE THIS LAND AT THE PURCHASE AMOUNT.

THAT WOULD GIVE US ROUGHLY A LITTLE OVER 13 ACRES ON THAT

HARD CORNER TO DEVELOPMENT >> OKAY. THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? COUNCIL, SO YOU ARE AWARE, THERE IS A WRITTEN MOTION IF THE DESIRE IS MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, I WILL PASS THIS DOWN. LET ME KNOW AND I WILL

[01:50:02]

SEND IT YOUR WAY. MIKE, I SAW YOUR LIGHT FIRST.

>> PARDON? >> HAVE A QUESTION? COMMENT?

>> DID NOT. I APOLOGIZE. RUSS. >> SHE SAID THIS WILL CREATE

AGGREGATE OF 13 ACRES? >> IS THE INTENTION TAKE ALL OF THAT AND START DOING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS?

>> YES. >> SO KIND OF WHAT IS THE TYPE B CORPORATIONS AND THE BOARD'S VISION?

>> WE TALKED ABOUT MULTIUSE, MIXED USE, REALLY SOMETHING THAT WOULD CREATE A GATHERING PLACE AND WALKABILITY IN THAT AREA, WE RECOGNIZE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD COME TO THE CONFERENCE CENTER AND USE THE HOTEL, THEY DON'T HAVE ANYWHERE TO WALK TO TO EAT. SO WE REALLY WANT THAT FAMILY-FRIENDLY VENUE, WHERE MAYBE KIDS CAN PLAY AFTER THE BASEBALL TOURNAMENT AND REALLY SUPPORT THAT AREA AND WE HAVE NOT PINNED DOWN EXACTLY HOW WE WOULD GO OUT FOR PROPOSAL, BUT THEY DO KNOW THEY WANT TO SEE WHAT PEOPLE HAVE THAT WOULD GO INTO THE AREA THAT WOULD SUPPORT

OUR COMMUNITY. >> INK BAIT MIKE?

>> THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE IS, HOW LONG HAVE WE HAD THE OTHER

PIECE OF PROPERTY? >> MCDR ORIGINALLY BOUGHT THAT FROM THE CITY IN 2012. THEN WE ADDED THE-- GAVE SOME TO THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND 14, ADDED THE STEPHENSON'S 1.5 ACRES IN 23, ABANDONMENT OF THE ROAD GAVE US ANOTHER ACRE SO THIS WOULD BE

THE LAST OF IT. >> PRIVATE SECTOR, I AM AWARE OF

ALL THAT. >> I WOULD ADD, THOUGH, FOR THE B BOARD TO CONSIDER, I AM STARTING TO GET QUESTIONS AS I LIKE TO SAY, ON THE STREET, ROUND TOWN, ON PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS WITH SALES TAX DOLLARS, THEY PREFER TO SEE THOSE PROPERTIES NOT BOUGHT AND HELD FOR WHAT THEY WOULD CALL LONG PERIODS OF TIME, WHICH THEIR PREFERENCE IS THEY DON'T HAVE AS BIG A PROBLEM WITH PURCHASE A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WE NEED TO DO THIS FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY, WE ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING WITHIN SIX MONTHS, ONE YEAR TOPS, BUT THEY ARE STARTING TO GET A LITTLE HEARTBURN WHEN WE THINK WE ARE GOING TO GO-- I AM NOT SAYING-- BUT WE GOING TO BUY THAT $4 MILLION PIECE OF PROPERTY, WE MIGHT TURN IT INTO A PARK SOME DAY, THEY WANT TO SEE THE STUFF FLIPPING A LITTLE BIT SO I THOUGHT I SHOULD MENTION THAT. GOOD IDEA ON ALL THIS.

>> UNDERSTANDABLE. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? I WILL MAKE THE MOTION SINCE I HAVE THE PAPER IN FRONT OF YOU. I MOVE THE PURCHASE BY MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION OF FOUR PLUS OR MINUS 4.4 ACRES ON MT. ZION ROAD LLC PURCHASE PRICE $2,352,240 PLUS ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR CLOSING COSTS, SURVEY, AND INSPECTIONS IS HERE BY RATIFIED AND APPROVED. IS THERE A SECOND? MOTION MADE BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHUFFIELD. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-010 Consider and act upon a resolution amending the Bylaws for the Midlothian Community Development Corporation per the recommendation of the MCDC Board of Directors]

>> THANK YOU. PASSES, 7-0. >> THANK YOU, MELISSA.

>>> 2026, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON RESOLUTION AMENDING BUY LAW FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION FOR RECOMMENDATION

OF MCDC BOARD OF DIRECTORS. >> THANK YOU, AT DECEMBER 18TH MEETING WE DID DISCUSS AS A BOARD UPDATING OUR BY LAWS, THERE WERE THINGS WE WANTED TO UPDATE ANYWAY AND WITH THE MOVE IT MADE SENSE TO DO IT THEN SO WE COULD UPDATE OUR PHYSICAL ADDRESS. A LOT OF IT WAS VERBIAGE CLEAN UP, THE BIG ONE IS THE $50,000 APPROVAL, UP TO, AND THEN, I THINK THOSE REALLY ARE THE BIG ONES, THE OTHER WAS AGENDA AUTHORITY. FOR SOME REASON HAD GONE TO WHERE ONLY ONE BOARD MEMBER COULD PUT SOMETHING ON AGENDA, WANTED TO TIGHTEN THAT UP AND FOLLOW WHAT THE CITY DID. THOSE ARE BASICALLY AN OVERVIEW OF THOSE

BY LAWS. >> THANK YOU, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS FOR MELISSA OR CASEY IS HERE AS WELL IF YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION ON HOW THAT MEETING WENT, AND

[01:55:02]

ANNA, AS WELL AS LIAISON. >> SO ON THE AGENDA SETTING, NO OFFENSE TO JUSTIN, BUT MAYOR IS ON THE BUT THREE COUNCIL PEOPLE AREN'T. IF WE ARE TRUE TO WHAT THE CITY DOES, THAT IS WHAT WE DO, THREE OF US OR THE MARE WHY ARE WE BEING LEFT OUT OF THIS?

>> OVERSIGHT . >> THE NO ROSS AND MIKE POLICY?

>> I THINK THREE COUNCIL SHOULD BE ABLE TO AS WELL. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WILL HAPPEN. THAT ALIGNS IT WITH WHAT OUR BY LAWS STATE ANYWAY. OR-- WHICH DOCUMENT?

>> GOVERNANCE POLICY. >> AND THEN ON THE OFFICER ELECTIONS, SO, I SERVED ON PLANNING AND ZONING BETTER PART OF A DECADE AND WE ALWAYS DID THEM AFTER THE NEW FOLKS TOOK THEIR SEAT. THE WAY THIS VERBIAGE IS WRITTEN, MAYBE ON ALL OF OUR BORES AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING IT AS A CERTAIN CUSTOM AND PRACTICE, BUT THIS SAYS AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN APPOINTED, BUT NOT AFTER THEY HAVE BEEN SLOTTED. IS THAT CONSISTENT ACROSS THE BOARD WITH ALL OF OUR BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS? BECAUSE IF NOT, CAN WE JUST SAY JANUARY?

>> I DON'T-- I THINK SOME ARE DIFFERENT, LIKE THE PARKS BOARD, I THINK THEY DID IN DECEMBER, BECAUSE IT GIVES THEM FLEXIBILITY. I DON'T THINK THEY ARE CONSISTENT, EVERY ONE OF

THEM READS THE EXACT SAME. >> MAYBE THAT IS NOT A MISSION FOR TONIGHT, BUT I DO THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT AND EVERYONE THE SAME WAY. I THINK I COULD HAVE ONE CONCEPTUALIZATION , WICKLIFFE COULD HAVE ANOTHER, RODGERS COULD HAVE ANOTHER. IF WE ARE NOT DOING IT THE SAME ACROSS THE BOARD IT CREATES ENVIRONMENT WHERE PEOPLE GET CONFUSED AND FEELINGS CAN GET HURT UNNECESSARILY. IF WE WANT IT TO BE THE OUTGOING MEMBERS ELECTING FROM ONE OF THE EXISTING MEMBERS, GREAT. LETS DO IT THAT WAY ACROSS THE BOARD. IF WE WANT IT TO BE THE NEW MEMBERS AND THE RETURNING MEMBERS ARE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, TALK AMONGST THEMSELVES AND AFFECT LEADERSHIP, GREAT, LETS DO IT THE SAME EVERYWHERE WE GO. I DON'T HAVE HEARTBURN ABOUT HOW THIS IS WORDED, I JUST WANT IT TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS ALL OF

OUR BOARD AND COMMISSIONS. >> ARE YOU OKAY WITH-- THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS, LIKE THE AIRPORT BOARD, BECAUSE WE ARE JOINT BOARD, GOT MDA THAT IS JOINT, WE ARE NOT THE ONLY, THE COUNCIL IS NOT THE ONLY APPOINTING MEMBER. I THINK HHB MIGHT BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, ALTHOUGH I DON'T KNOW WHY RIGHT OFF HAND, BUT SO THERE MIGHT BE SOME EXCEPTIONS THAT MAY WARRANT BEING EXCEPTIONS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

>> YEAH, I THINK PERFECTLY FINE, THE AIRPORT BOARD IS A GREAT EXAMPLE. I THINK MDA AS WELL. WE ARE NOT THE ONLY PARTY TO THAT BOARD. SO, OBVIOUSLY IN THOSE, AS MUCH AS WE WANT TO TELL EVERYBODY HOW TO DO THEIR BUSINESS, WE DON'T HAVE THAT LUXURY OR OPPORTUNITY. BUT ON THE ONES WE DO ONLY CONTROL UNLESS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES I THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSISTENT SO WE DON'T HAVE CONFUSION ABOUT HOW THAT IS APPLIED AND ENFORCED AND OCCURRING MOVING FORWARD.

>> I DON'T THINK THAT CLARIFICATION WOULD HAVE HELPED US OUT WITH THE REWRITING OF THE BY LAWS, ABSOLUTELY.

>> SO, ON THAT TOPIC, SHOULD WE, AT A LATER DATE, TAKE THAT TOPIC FROM A 50,000 FOOT VIEW HOW THAT APPLIES, SHOULD WE CALL THAT BULLET POINT OUT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE IT NOW OR RATIFY THIS AND CLEAN IT UP LATER?

>> WE WILL DISCUSS IT, THEN GO BACK BETWEEN ALL OF THOSE

POLICIES OF THE BOARD, ARTICLES. >> DOES THE IDEA OF BRINGING CONSISTENCY ACROSS ALL OF THE CITY BORES EXCEPT FOR THOSE THAT WE CAN'T DO, DUE TO SHARED, GIVE ANYBODY HEARTBURN ON THIS COUNCIL? IS ANYBODY IN AGREEMENT WE SHOULD SYNC THOSE UP?

>> I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING ROSS SAID, MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE, I HOPE, THAT THE, THOSE BOARD MEMBERS WOULD BE VOTED ON BY THE EXITING BOARD, ESPECIALLY TERM LIMITS LEAVING, BECAUSE NEW MEMBERS, IN MANY CASES, HAVE NO IDEA OF THE COMPLEXITY AND DEPTH OF WHAT THEY ARE COMING INTO. AND HOW CAN THEY VOTE ON A CHAIRMAN WHEN THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THE BOARD IS REALLY DOING FOR SIX MONTHS OR A YEAR? THAT IS MY BIGGEST CONCERN,

ACTUALLY. >> I THINK WHOEVER THE BOARD GETS APPOINT SHOULD ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS.

>> WHAT? >> THE BOARD THAT HAS BEEN

[02:00:01]

APPOINTED, ONCE EVERYBODY GETS SEATED, NEW APPOINTEES GET SEATED, I THINK THEY SHOULD ELECT THEIR OWN LEADERS.

>> IF THEY DO, AND YOU ARE, I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU, BECAUSE I SERVED ON THE, GOING BACK TO THE WATER DISTRICT BOARD, THE UTILITY ADVISORY BOARD, Z TWICE, AND HONESTLY I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT PMZ REAL DID IN DEPTH UNTIL THE SECOND TIME I GOT ON THERE. IT TOOK ME ONE TO ONE AND A HALF YEARS TO FULLY ACCEPT AND UTILIZE THE COMPLEXITY OF EACH IT OF THE BOARDS IN ITS TRUE PURPOSE. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU VOTE ON A CHAIRMAN MEMBER THAT IS THE GUIDING PRINCIPLE OF THAT BOARD IF YOU DON'T EVEN

KNOW WHAT IT DOES? >> CAN WE STOP THIS CONVERSATION AND WE WILL WORKSHOP THAT VERY TOPIC AT A LATER DATE, AND GIVE STAFF CLEAR DIRECTION ON HOW TO APPLY THIS TO ALL THE BOARDS AT

A LATER TIME? >> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I HAD, AND I AM FINE WITH THAT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE IT, I DO ALSO REMEMBER THAT THIS TOPIC OF CONVERSATION FROM 20-50,000 HAS BEEN TAKEN UP SEVERAL TIMES THE LAST SIX TO EIGHT TO TEN YEARS.

I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE COMPLEXITIES THAT WE DISCUSSED A LOT OF TIMES IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHY IT WAS DECIDED TO LEAVE IT AT 20,000, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO BE REMINDED OF WHAT ALL OF THOSE POSSIBILITY SUBJECT MATTERS WERE ON WHY WE LEFT IT AT 20, AS WE HAVE, BECAUSE WE-- THIS TAKEN IT TO 50 HAS BEEN

BROUGHT UP BEFORE. >>IER CAN SPEAK TO THAT.

>> SOMEWHERE WE DECIDED TO LEAVE IT AT 20.

>> I WILL SPEAK TO THAT, I THINK, I GUESS TO START WITH, I HAVE NO ISSUE. I THINK IN TODAY'S DOLLARS AND THE SIZE OF OUR BUDGETS, THAT WE GOT, THAT WE HAVE INTERESTED THESE FOLKS AND TO OVERSEE, I THINK 50,000, WE ARE TALKING FEW DAYS WURG OF REVENUE AT THIS POINT WITH THE WAY THAT THESE BUDGETS AND REVENUE COMING IN. I THINK, TO WHAT YOU ASKED SPECIFICALLY, I THINK, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WHEN THIS GOT BROUGHT UP, ORIGINALLY, WITH THE DIFFERENT COUNCILMEMBER, I THINK THERE WAS QUESTIONS AROUND IT, AND I THINK MCDC AT THE TIME, ONCE AGAIN, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, SAID IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE ARE REALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE PUSHING HEAVILY FOR, SO THEY JUST SAID WE ARE FINE WITH LEAVING IT AT 20. I DON'T THINK WE HAD A REAL THOROUGH BACK AND FORTH ON IT. I THINK THE GOT BROUGHT UP AND KIND OF GOT TAKEN OFF OF THE CHANGES AT THAT TIME.

I DON'T THINK IT WAS MUCH MORE THOROUGH THAN THAT. DO YOU

RECALL >> THE ONE THING I RECALL IS THEY HAD JUST OBTAINED STAFF, SO THEY WANTED TO GIVE MORE TIME TO, YOU KNOW, GET THINGS SORTED OUT THROUGH STAFF, GET POLICIES AND PROCEDURES IN PLACE, AND NEW BOARDS. KIND OF COOL THAT DOWN.

>> 50,000, IS WHAT? TYPE A LIMIT IS?

>> THAT IS HOW THE CONVOE CAME UP TO, TYPE A WENT TO 50. THE NEXT YEAR B WANTED 50. I REMEMBER FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION CON VERSATIONS, 50,000, WHETHER THREE DAYS OF REVENUE OR NOT, IS STILL A TON OF MONEY TO SOME OF OUR RESIDENTS, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS AND I AM NOT SAYING THERE IS A PROBLEM. I WOULD LIKE TO BE REMINDED OF WHAT THOSE CONVERSATIONS WERE.

>> A LOT OF IT CIRCLED AROUND WHAT MELISSA SAID, STRUCTURE GIVEN STAFF. NOW WITH MCDC, IN MY OPINION, HAS A LOT OF STRUCTURE AROUND THEIR BUDGET, AND THEIR PLANNING, AND THEIR STRATEGIC PLAN, SO THAT IS MY RECOLLECTION OF THE REASON WHY.

>> THAT IS WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY, PART OF IT IS CONSISTENCY, WE GOT TYPE A, TYPE B, BOTH HAVE STAFF NOW, HIRED STAFF. THAT IS ONE, ANOTHER ISSUE. AND I THINK WITH THE GROWTH OF BUDGET, ASPECTS OF WHAT NEEDS TO BE MOVED FORWARD, AND WHAT CAN BE MOVED FORWARD. I THINK WITH HIRED STAFF ON BOTH SIDES, THEY DO HAVE BOARDS THAT HAVE OVERSIGHT, AND THAT SORT OF THING. I FEEL CONSISTENCY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON THIS

PARTICULAR REQUEST. >> CAN SOMEBODY REMIND ME ON THE LIMIT THIS IS FOR BUDGETED ITEM, IF THEY PUT ANYTHING OVER $50,000 IN THE BUDGET AND COUNCIL APPROVES THE BUDGET,

[02:05:02]

THEY ARE NOT HAVING TO COME BACK, MAYBE FOR FORMAL APPROVAL, BUT FOR THIS SPECIFIC REASON, THIS IS $20,000, TO $50 THOUSAND R WHATEVER NUMBER WE PICK, OF SOMETHING THAT WASN'T IN THEIR BUDGET THAT COUNCIL HAS TO APPROVE.

>> I KIND OF TAKE THIS, TOO, AS-- WE GOT PROBABLY NEED TO VERIFY THIS, JOE, MAYBE COULD HELP. THEY APPROVE THEIR BUDGET AND LUMP SUM FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS. WHEN A GRANT COMES THROUGH, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO ALLOW THEM TO APPROVE GRANTS. IT WAS NOT SPECIFIC. MAKE SENSE NOW?

>> YEAH. >> TOTAL NUMBER ALLOCATED.

>> YES. >> $3 MILLION. WHEREAS FOR US IF YOU APPROVE A VEHICLE, AMBULANCE OR SOMETHING, IT WE GOT THAT IN OUR BUDGET, WE CAN DO IT.

>> YOU GUYS DO ALL THIS, THERE ARE SOME WE KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO DO, SO LIKE, IS THERE NOT A WAY TO CALL OUT THOSE WHERE THEY ARE NOT HAVING TO COME BACK BECAUSE THEY RUPROVED DURING THE

BUDGET PROCESS? >> THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT CALLS OUT, YOU CAN GET SOME KIND OF CORRECTION, MAYBE IT IS IF $50,000 GRANT, WHETHER CALLED OUT.

>> YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK THE GOES BACK TO WHEN WE MOVED CITY EXPENDITURES FROM REGULAR DOWN TO CONSENT, BECAUSE IT WAS LIKE WE ALREADY APPROVED THESE ITEMS. THAT IS WHERE I AM GOING. IT IS ONE THING TO SAY I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO ASK YOU FOR $50,000 BECAUSE YOU APPROVED IT. IT IS ANOTHER TO SAY I WANT TO SPEND $50,000 OF SOMETHING THE COUNCIL HAS NEVER SEEN, WE DIDN'T BUDGET, BASICALLY UNEXPECTED EXPENSE. I THINK THAT, TO ME, IS WHERE I AM-- I AM TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, IS IT THE CHICKEN OR

THE EGG? >> IT WAS SOMETHING ELSE THAT WENT ON, THOUGH, TAKEN $50,000, A LARGER EXPENDITURE NEEDED, I DON'T REMEMBER, THAT IS THE CONVERSATION TALKED ABOUT, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER, THERE WAS A REASON WHY IT WAS HELD. I NEED

TO BE REMINDED OF THAT. >> THE ONLY RECOLLECTION I HAVE AROUND THE $20 TO $50 IS RELATED TO THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUDGET AND COMPARISON OF THAT IN TODAY'S DOLLARS AND EXPENDITURES. THAT IS WHAT I RECALL. I THINK AT THE TIME, TO WHAT THE MAYOR SAID, WITH NEW STAFF IN PLACE, I THINK THEY NEEDED SOME, JUST TO SHOW THE STRUCTURE OVERALL, I THINK THEY HAVE DONE THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS. I DON'T HAVE ISSUE WITH $50,000. I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH, REALLY, ANY OF OUR-- ANY ADJUSTMENTS, AMENDMENTS TO TO THE BY LAWS. I ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO BRING UP, WHICH I WON'T SHARE IN DEPTH, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN BROUGHT UP, IS UNDER AGENDA AUTHORITY. AGAIN, NO OFFENSE TO JUSTIN, BUT I THINK IF WE HAVE THE MAYOR AS AUTHORITY FIGURE, TO PUT AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I THINK IT SHOULD BE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS OR REMOVE THAT COMPLETELY, LEAVE IT TO THE BOARD TO MAKER THEIR OWN AGENDA, I WOULD BE FINE EITHER WAY. I DON'T HAVE PREFERENCE. I DON'T KNOW IT WOULD COME INTO PLAY, BUT JUST FOR THE FUTURE, CONSISTENCY, MAYBE SOUND FAMILIAR, SOMEBODY ELSE? AND SO JUST, FOR THAT LONG-TERM SIDE, YOU KNOW, I THINK CONSISTENCY IS GOOD THERE. THE ONLY OTHER THING, I WAS GOING TO BRING UP AROUND THE OFFICE TURNS, NOT THE OFFICER, YEAH, THE OFFICER ELECTIONS, I GUESS, SPECIFICALLY. I DON'T REALLY HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY, BUT I DO THINK IT MERITS SOME AMOUNT OF CONVERSATION BECAUSE WE ARE APPROVING THIS BOARD WITH THESE PARAMETERS, AND IT THERE IS A DESIRE TO ADJUST OR CHANGE IT, I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD APPROVE IT TONIGHT WHAT DIRECTION WE ARE GOING TO GO WITH THAT. I DON'T HAVE A STRONG OPINION EITHER WAY, I JUST, I DO THINK IT IS RELEVANT

TO THIS CONVERSATION. >> COULD BE ADJUSTED OR CHANGED, OR ARE YOU TALKING ADJUSTED OR CHANGES BY COUNCIL?

>> LIKE IF WE HAVE A WORKSHOP CONVERSATION ABOUT IT AND CHANGE IT.

>> I GUESS WHAT WHERE AM DOING IS VIEW IT AS THOUGH, B, BECAUSE IT IS SEPARATE ENTITY, HAS THE ABILITY, RIGHT NOW OVER $20,000

[02:10:08]

OR IN THIS ELECTION, THIS PROCESS, FOR THEM TO DECIDE AS A BOARD, BUT WE KIND OF, AS THE LAST STRAW, --

>> NOT SUGGESTING COUNCIL HAVE INPUT ON THAT. I AM SUGGESTING THAT OUR CONVERSATION AROUND IT, IF THERE IS A DESIRE, A STRONG DESIRE FOR IT TO BE GO THE DIRECTION OF ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ON HOW WE DO THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT TO GIVE THAT DIRECTION TO MCDC, THE RESIDENTS, HEY, WE ARE GOING TO ACCEPT THESE. NOT SAYING WE HAVE TO HAVE A FULL-BLOWN CONVERSATION, OBVIOUSLY, BUT I AM SAYING IT IS RELEVANT TO THIS. I THINK IT WE CAN GET SPECIFIC AND MIMIC THAT ACROSS THE BOARD, I THINK IT CAN LEAD, I THINK IT CAN REALLY TAKE OUT A LOT OF DRAMATICS AROUND AMBIGUITY, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE HEALTHY. SO I DON'T HAVE A STRONG PREFERENCE ON WHETHER IT IS JANUARY, DECEMBER, APRIL, BUT THAT IT IS CLEAR, CONCISE, SO

THAT WE CAN REMOVE-- >> DO YOU AGREE WITH ROSS, TO BE CONSISTENT ACROSS, WITHIN REASON, ALL BOARDS THE SAME?

>> SEE, I THINK THAT IS THE BIGGER CONVERSATION THE MAYOR

WAS TALKING ABOUT. >> LETS PULL THAT PORTION OUT, IF WE CAN PULL THE OFFICER TERMS OUT, NOT TAKE ACTION ON THAT PIECE. REVISIT THAT AFTER THE WORKSHOP TO DISCUSS. THEN APPLY

IT TO ALL. IS THAT FAIR? >> I THINK IT IS FAIR, BUT I THINK THE REASON THEY GOT IT IN HERE IS BECAUSE AMBIGUITY.

>> IT IS A NONISSUE UNTIL NEXT DECEMBER.

>> THAT BRINGS-- >> WELL, THE PROPOSED TAX AMENDMENT TO THAT SECTION ONLY CHANGES IT FROM THE FIRST BOARD MEETING TO THE FIRST MEETING. IT NOT CHANGING-- I MEAN, IT IS CLEANING UP LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT MORE CORRECT. SO, I DON'T KNOW WE NEED TO PULL IT OUT OF THERE. IN READING THAT PARAGRAPH, THAT IS WHAT PROMPTED MY WHOLE COMMENT TO BEGIN WITH. IS THIS CONSISTENT LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE ACROSS ALL BORES OF COMMISSIONS? I THINK THE ANSWER IS NO. I THINK WE SHOULD WORKSHOP THAT AND FIGURE HOW WE WANT TO BE CONSISTENT, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A NEED TO PULL THAT SECTION BECAUSE IT IS NOT CHANGING ANYTHING OTHER THAN-- [INAUDIBLE]

>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. [INAUDIBLE] WE CAN DO THAT. I ALWAYS ASSUMED THEY WERE THEIR OWN ENTITY, THAT CAME UP WITH

THEIR OWN RULES. >> I AM NOT LOOKING FOR A LONG EXPLANATION, JUST TRYING TO LEARN SOMETHING VERY QUICK.

>> I THINK FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.

>> PRACTICAL STANDPOINT. >> I DON'T THINK IT SAYS-- I BELIEVE IT SAYS MEMBERS HAVE TO INITIATE.

>> WE CAN TAKE A LOOK. >> RIGHT.

>> I WAS LOOK TO SEE IF WE THE ABILITY TO INITIATE THE CHANGE

HERE. >> CAN WE MAKE THE PROPOSAL THE LANGUAGE STAYS? IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE THE INTENT OF WHEN.

>> I AM FINE WITH THE LONGER WORKSHOP. I LIKE THE LANGUAGE OF THAT ONE.

>> I AM A LITTLE CONFUSED. SO, ON THE INCREASE FROM 20-50, THAT IS ONLY FOR CONTRACTS, EXPENDITURES--

>> IT WILL BE ANYTHING THAT WE SPEND.

>> OKAY. UNDER $50,000. >> I HOW MUCH DO YOU SPEND NOW

WHAT IS YOUR AVERAGE GRANT SIZE? >> ANYWHERE FROM, WELL, WE HAVE THE BIG THREE THAT HAVE BEEN RUNNING 45-50,000. WE ALWAYS GET ASKED FOR MORE EVERY YEAR FROM THOSE ENTITIES. IT COULD FALL IN THERE. BUT THAT VERBIAGE IS NOT TO KEEP US FROM HAVING TO COME TO Y'ALL FOR THINGS LIKE THAT. IT REALLY IS THE SIGN OF THE TIMES. THINGS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. WE ARE DOING MORE

[02:15:02]

THAN WE HAVE EVER DONE BEFORE. SO, IT IS JUST THAT LITTLE BIT OF FREEDOM TO BE ABLE TO GET SOME OF THAT AND NOT BE HERE ALL THE TIME FOR SOME OF THE SMALLER STUFF.

>> OKAY. >> YEAH. I WILL SAY IT RIGHT NOW, IF I COULD TAKE EIGHT CORPORATIONS TO 20, I WOULD SUPPORT IT. THAT IS MOSTLY BECAUSE I HAVE A WORRY THERE IS A, PERSONALLY, I THINK THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPOINTED BODY AND ELECTED BODY. ONE HAS MORE CONQUENCIES, I THINK IT IS COUNCIL'S JOB TO OVERSEE THINGS. BUT THAT IS JUST ME.

>> I THINK, YEAH, THERE IS A DIFFERENCE, THE ELECTED BODY APPROVES THE APPOINTED BODY,EE REFINE THAT BODY IF NECESSARY.

ULTIMATELY THAT COMES DOWN TO CONDITION OF TRUST, IN MY OPINION, AND YOU KNOW, DETERMINATION OF WHOEVER YOU FEEL WE HAVE SEATED ON THE BOARD THAT WE TRUST WITH ADULT $30,000 BETWEEN THIS. I LOOK AT THE STANDPOINT, WE CONTINUOUSLY, EVERY YEAR, PUSH BOTH THE A CORPORATION AND B CORPORATION TO NOT ONLY LOOK AT THE BIG MACROPROJECTS, BUT TO GET MORE MICROLEVEL AND START HELPING LOCAL BUSINESSES IN TEXAS, FOLK THAT HAVE ADDRESS OF THEIR PERSONAL AND KIDS ATTEND MIDLOTHIAN ISD, THOSE ARE THE GRANTS IN MY OPINION THAT WILL FALL IN THAT $20 AND $50,000 RANGE. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE A GOOGLE DATA CENTER THAT SIZE AND SCOPE. THIS IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM THE FLEXIBILITY TO CREATE GRANTS AND PROGRAMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TOWARDS THIS. WE HAVE VERY INTELLIGENT FOLKS ON THAT BOARD. WE HAVE GOOD STAFF ON THAT BOARD THAT ARE ALL COMMITTED TO DOING WHAT IS THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR CITIZENS AND I, PERSONALLY, I HAVE ZERO CONCERN ABOUT CHANGING THAT FROM $20,000 TO $50,000 JUST BECAUSE I THINK THAT GIVES THE ABILITY TO PLAY IN THE ARENA THAT BEST SUPPORTS SMALL BUSINESSES.

FINAL COMMENTS ON THIS CASE?

>> WE WILL CERTAINLY WORKSHOP THAT TOPIC THAT WE DISCUSSED

BEFORE. >> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO

APPROVE THE AMENDMENT. >> A MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> WOULD YOU ACCEPT A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO INCLUDE THREE COUNCILMEMBERS?

>> YES. >> ADD THREE COUNCILMEMBERS AS

AGENDA SETTING UP BOARD. >> YES.

>> DOES YOUR SECOND COUNT? >> MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE AMENDMENT STATED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

>> ITEM PASSES 6-1. >> THANK YOU, MELISSA.

[2026-011 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a “Utility Relocation Agreement” with Sardis-Lone Elm Water Supply Corporation for costs associated with the relocation of their existing waterlines along Mockingbird Lane in the amount of $938,299.23.]

>> COUNCIL, WE WILL WORKSHOP THAT DISCUSSION ITEM AS SOON AS

WE CAN. >> 2026-011, CONSIDER AND ACT PAWN AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A UTILITY RELOCATION AGREEMENT WITH COST ASSOCIATED WITH RELOCATION OF EXISING WATER LINE ALONG MOCKINGBIRD LANE

$938,299.23. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. AS PART OF THIS WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE WE ACQUIRED ALL OF THE RIGHT AWAY NECESSARY TO BEGIN RELOCATION WORK UTILITIES IN CONFLICT WITH THE PROJECT. AGAIN, WE DO HAVE ALL OF THE RIGHT AWAY WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE UNDER CONTRACT WORKING WITH THE LENDER TO BE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARCEL BUT WE ARE READY NOW TO START MOVING FORWARD. WE ARE WORKING WITH THE FRANCHISE UTILITIES AND STAR DUST, THEY HAVE A WATER LINE ONWARD ROAD TO WALNUT GROVE ROAD. THEIR LEANS ARE WITHIN EXISTING EASEMENT AND BECAUSE OF THAT THEY ARE IN CONFLICT WITH OUR PROJECT AND ACQUISITIONS WE HAVE DONE. WE ARE WORKING WITH THEM, ACQUIRED NEW EASEMENTS ALONG THE SEGMENTS, AND RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING RELOCATION COSTS. PART OF

[02:20:06]

THE AGREEMENT, THEY ARE WANTING TO UPICIZE EXISTING 12-INCH WATER LINE TO 20, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING FOR THE 12-INCH COSTS, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR UP SIZE COST TO GO TO THE 20. THEY ARE HAVING TO EXTEND BACK. AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE PROJECT, TAKE THIS AGREEMENT, LAST MEETING, DO NOT HAVE [INAUDIBLE] THESE ARE FIRM PRICES, THEY DID RECOMMEND WE BRING THIS FOR CONSIDERATION APPROVAL AND I AM HERE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS?

>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> SECONDED. PLEASE VOTE.

>> THANK YOU, COUNCIL.

[2026-012 Consider and act upon authorizing the purchase of a 2025 AEV Ambulance on a F550 chassis and required equipment at a total cost of $432,092 on the Buy Board contract (745- 24).]

>> DIDN'T BRING MY GLASSES TODAY. ALL RIGHT. NOW, OPENING ITEM 2026-12 CONSIDER ACT UPON AUTHORIZING PURCHASE OF 2025AEC AMBULANCE ON F550 CHASSIS AND REQUIRED EQUIPMENT FOR TOTAL

$432,092. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, THE ITEMBEFORE YOU IS PLACING AN ORD FOR A NEW AMBULANCE ASSIGNED TO FIRE STATION FOUR. WE CURRENTLY HAVE THE STAFFING IN PLACE TO STAFF THAT UNIT THROUGH THE SAFER GRANT, THOSE EMPLOYEES ARE BEING TRAINED IN PARAMEDIC SCHOOL AS WE SPEAK. THE AMBULANCE REQUIRES US TO ORDER IT NOW SO WE CAN HAVE IT IN FEBRUARY OF 2027. BY AUTHORIZING THIS AGENDA ITEM, WE CAN PLACE THE ORDER FOR THE UNIT SO IT WILL BE HERE IN TIME FOR THE FIRE STATION TO OPEN. AND BE READY TO GO AND SERVICE.

CURRENTLY WE ARE-- THE WAY WE COULD FUND THE AMBULANCE WOULD COME THROUGH VARIETY OF OPTIONS. ONE COULD COME OUT OF THE SAVINGS THAT WE HAVE IN THE FIRE STATION THAT WE WILL TALK ABOUT IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. ANOTHER COULD BE A POSSIBILITY ESD WOULD WANT TO PARTNER WITH US AND WE COULD ACCEPT FUNDS FROM THEM TO PAY FOR THIS, THIS UNIT. IT COULD BE THE ISSUANCE OF A TAX NOTE. THAT DECISION DOESN'T NEED TO BE MADE TODAY. WE JUST NEED TO BE ABLE TO AUTHORIZE THE ORDER SO THAT WE CAN GET THE BALL ROLLING. I AM OPEN TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ABOUT THE

ITEM. >> ALL RIGHT. JUST HAVE A QUESTION, CHRIS, YOU ARE PROBABLY IN THE BEST POSITION TO ANSWER THIS. IF WE ARE AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE FUNDS, TECHNICALLY THIS BECOMES A BURDEN AGAINST RESERVE FUNDS THAT WE ARE HOLDING UNTIL WE DETERMINE ALTERNATIVE FUNDING

MECHANISM? >> WE COULD USE THE SAVE UP PLAN, THE DIFFICULTY WITH THAT HERE UNTIL WE HAVE THE SAFER GRANT, WE WERE NOT PLANNING TO OPEN THE FIRE STATION. WE GOT THIS AND IT ALLOWED US TO STAFF IT UP. WE DO HAVE THE MONEY AND SAVING PLAN. THE HOPE IS THAT WE ARE ALSO POTENTIALLY HAVE SAVINGS. PROBABLY LIST ALL THE OPTIONS, NARROW IT DOWN TO ONE.

I GUESS WORST CASE, HELP ME WITH THIS, COMES TIME AND WE DONE HAVE IT, MAY NOT BE BUYING IT. RIGHT? IT COULD GO TO ANOTHER

AGENCY. >> WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE SOME

TYPE OF-- >> SOME TYPE OF PENALTY FOR ORDERING IT AND THEN NOT ACCEPTING THE UNIT.

>> I DO NOT ACCEPT THAT. >> I DON'T EITHER, I AM JUST MORE MECHANICALLY SAYING RIGHT NOW WHAT WE DOING IS AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF THIS VEHICLE IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $432,092, SAYING WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MONEY IS COMING FROM YET BUT IF WE ARE AUTHORIZING IT, WE HAVE ALLOCATED FUNDS.

[02:25:01]

>> NUMBER ONE SOURCE-- >> OKAY.

>> IF WE HAD TO CUT CHECKS TODAY--

>> SO RIGHT NOW, IN THE 2025-26 BUDGET, IS THIS GOING TO SHOW

OBLIGATION? >> BECAUSE THE SAVE UP PLAN IS

NOT IN [INAUDIBLE] >> RIGHT NOW, TODAY, IT IS A DEBT AGAINST A SAVING PLAN UNTIL 2026-2027 BUDGET.

>> RIGHT. AGAIN, WE HAVE, LETS SAY WE HAVE SAVINGS IN CO, GENERAL FUND BUDGET NEXT YEAR, SAVINGS THAT OTHER FUND IS

CERTIFICATE. >> SO, I WANTED TO INSURE THAT BY DOING IT THIS WAY, WHERE IT IS FREE FORM, THAT WE ARE NOT RESTRICTING THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE FOR OTHER PROJECTS.

>> WE JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THERE COULD BE OTHER SOURCES.

>> A QUICK QUESTION. WHAT DO WE HAVE IN THE SAVINGS PLAN NOW?

$50,000? >> COUPLE MILLION, FOR SURE, PROBABLY AT LEAST $2 MILLION IN THERE.

>> THE PURPOSE OF THAT PRIMARILY FOR FIRE? OR ALL SOURCES?

>> ONE FOR FIRE, ONE FOR-- TWO SEPARATE ONES.

>> [INAUDIBLE] >> IT DOES FLUCTUATE A LITTLE BIT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN AVERAGING ABOUT $700-$800,000 A YEAR.

>> IS THAT A NUMBER COUNCIL COMES UP WITH BASED OFF REVENUE?

A PURSE? >> IT IS SOMETHING I PROPOSE BASED ON THE PLAN AND REPLACING THE UNIT.

>> YOU CAN SEE THE NUMBER IN THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S BUDGET AND THE

FLEMENT'S BUDGET. >> TAKE A MOTION ON ON THIS.

>> SECOND. >> PLEASE VOTE.

WERE

[2026-013 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to finalize an AIA A133 amendment to our current agreement with Steele and Freeman, Inc. for construction scope of services as the Construction Manager at Risk for Fire Station #4 with a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) of $14,869,502.]

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

>> 2026-013 CONSIDER ACT AND UPON AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE A1A AMENDMENT TO CURRENT AGREEMENT WITH CONSTRUCTION SCOPE SERVICES AS CONSTRUCTION MANAGER FIRE STATION FOUR WITH GUARANTEE MAXIMUM PRICE $14,869,502.

CHIEF. >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, AFTER ABOUT A YEAR'S WORTH OF WORK, WE ARE HERE AT THE FINISH LINE TO A NEW START LINE. WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH AN ARCHITECT NOW FOR ALMOST A YEAR TO DEVELOP THE PLAN BASED ON RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNCIL SO THAT WE CAN DIAL IN THE MOST ACCURATE NUMBER POSSIBLE FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. WE HAVE ALSO ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT PREVIOUSLY WITH STEEL FREEMAN TO HELP WITH PRECONSTRUCTION SERVICES, AGENDA ITEM BEFORE YOU WOULD ALLOW THE CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE BECAUSE THE CMAR IS STILL STHAIR IN THE PROCESS OF VETTING EACH OF THOSE VENDORS, BUT THEY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PRICING SO THEY CAN GENERATE THE GMP. SO THIS WOULD AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO FINALIZE THAT AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT SO THAT STEEL FREEMAN COULD BEGIN THE PROCESS BUILDING FIRE STATION 4, NOT TO EXCEED ALLOTTED BY COUNCIL. THERE'S ALSO IN THAT SAME IN CONTINGENCY FUNDS THAT WOULD BE MY HOPE THAT WE DON'T BURN ALL THOSE.

EXTEND THE SAVING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. THE ONE THING THAT'S NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ITEM IS WE TOOK OUT ALL THE FF & E.

THERE'S STILL AN FF & E PROCESS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT WOULD PROBABLY RUN ABOUT $250,000 OR SO TO BUY THE EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS AIR COMPRESSORS FOR SCB AS, FURNISHINGS, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS. WE WILL COME TO YOU AT A LATER DATE AS WE GET FURTHER INTO THE PROJECT.

WHETHER THAT'S US BUYING IT INDIVIDUALLY ITEM

[02:30:02]

BY ITEM OR HIRING SOMEBODY TO DO THAT FOR US. WE FELT LIKE WE COULD BE MORE ECONOMICAL WE WE TOOK THAT AWAY FROM THE CMAR AND DID IT OURSELVES.

>> OKAY.

>> OPEN FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK? ROSS?

>> MY ONLY QUESTION, SO WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, WE AMEND THE AGREEMENT, WHEN DO WE START SEEING DIRT FLY?

>> I WON'T BE OUT THERE DIGGING TOMORROW.

SO FEBRUARY IS THE GOAL TO START MOBILIZING AND GETTING STUFF ON SITE SO THAT WE CAN START DOING DIRT WORK.

OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO GET PERMITS LINED UP, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT STEEL FREEMAN HAS GIVEN US A TIME LINE OF STARTING IN FEBRUARY. THE ARCHITECTS ARE LINED UP AND READY TO GO, SO THAT IS WHAT WE COMMUNICATED TO ALL THE CONTRACTORS IN THE PRECONSTRUCTION BID MEETING THAT WE NEEDED TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN FEBRUARY SO THAT WE CAN MEET A 12 TO 14- MONTH BUILD TIME AND BE OPENING IN MAY OF 2027.

>> THANK YOU, CHIEF.

>> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER DIALOGUE? TAKE A MOTION.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> SECOND. >> MOTION TO APPROVE BY MAYOR, SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6- 0 WITH COUNCIL MEMBER CHEFFIELD STEPPING

[2026-014 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to enter into a professional services agreement with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the purpose of developing a City of Midlothian Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP).]

OUT. >> THANK

YOU. >> 2026-014 CONSIDER ACT UPON AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT SAFETY ACTION PLAN.

HEATHER? >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN.

SO, I'M HERE TO DISCUSS OUR SS 4 A PROGRAM. WE RECEIVED A GRANT FROM TEX DOT TO WORK ON OUR SAFETY PLAN FOR THE COMMUNITY.

WE GO OUT AND LOOK AT CRASH DATA AND PERFORM SAFETY ANALYSIS, LOOKING AT IMPROVING OUR ROADWAYS FOR VEHICLES, FOR PEDESTRIANS, FOR BICYCLES, TRAILS, SIDEWALKS. SO IT'S REALLY ABOUT IMPROVING THE SAFETY THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND SAVING LIVES, REDUCING ACCIDENTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO WE WENT OUT FOR AN RFQ AND AFTER REVIEWING EVERYTHING, WE CAME UP WITH KIMBERLY HORN IS THE ONE WHO WAS SELECTED TO PROVIDE THIS SERVICE TO GET US TO A SAFER COMMUNITY FOR MIDLOTHIAN. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK? COUNCIL, QUESTIONS ON THIS? ROSS?

>> I LOVE QUESTIONS. SO I SEE IN HERE THAT PART OF THIS IS THROUGH A FEDERAL GRANT AND THEN THE TYPE B CORPORATION IS PICKING UP THE DIFFERENCE?

>> YES, SIR. WITH THE FEDERAL GRANTS THEY DO AN 80- 20 SPLIT. SO THE COMMUNITY HAS TO PROVIDE 20% AND MCDC PROVIDED THAT FUNDING FOR US.

>> AND SO, THIS EXPENDITURE OF FUNDS AND GRANT FUNDS WILL GET US A

PLAN. >> YES, SIR.

>> ARE WE UNDER THE GRANT AGREEMENT OR ARE WE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT ANY PORTION OF THE PLAN IN A TIME FRAME?

>> NO, SIR. I MEAN, OTHER THAN CREATING THIS ACTION PLAN. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, NO.