Jan 27, 2026 City Council

[Call to Order, Pledges, and Invocation]

[00:00:22]

BEGIN WITH PLEDGES LED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN.

>> LORD, WE THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET TONIGHT, WE PRAY THAT JUST AS WE BEGIN THIS MEETING , GOD, YOU GIVE US WISDOM AND MAKING DECISIONS FOR OUR COMMUNITY, WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR BRINGING US ALL HERE SAFE THIS EVENING, WITH THE ROAD CONDITIONS AND JUST PRAY THAT AS THINGS CONTINUE TO THAW OUT, THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE SAFE, FOLKS WOULD BE SAFE AS THEY TRAVEL TO AND FROM, JUST THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO FOR US, LORD, YOUR LOVE, YOUR GRACE, YOUR COMPASSION FOR US. IN JESUS' NAME, AMEN.

>> I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC, FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

[2026-022 Announcements/Presentations]

>> THANK YOU. WE BEGIN TONIGHT WITH ITEM 2026-22, WHICH IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CITY COUNCIL TO REPORT ON ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. ANY COUNCILMEMBERS LIKE TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEMS TODAY? I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE A SHOUTOUT TO ALL ESSENTIAL STAFF WORKERS WHO HAVE BEEN VERY ACIVE THROUGHOUT THIS FREEZE THAT WE ARE CURRENTLY DEALING WITH, EVERYBODY FROM THE STREETS AND ROADS TO PUBLIC WORKS, POLICE, FIRE, PARAMEDICS, COMMUNICATIONS, ON DOWN THE LINE, IT HAS BEEN A VERY INTERESTING, BUSY WEEK FOR THOSE FOLKS. WE APPRECIATE THEIR SERVICE TO THE COMMUNITY AND OUR CITIZENS ARE GRATEFUL, 45,000 PLUS CITIZENS IN MIDLOTHIAN, WE THANK ALL ESSENTIAL WORKERS THAT HAVE BEEN NOSE TO THE GRIND THE PAST WEEK. ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? HEARING NONE, WE WILL MOVE ON, 2026-23, CITY COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO INVITES CITIZENS, CITIZENS WISHING TO

[CONSENT AGENDA]

>> MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT BY MAYOR WICKLIFFE, AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 7-0, TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES ON THE SCREEN. I

[2026-025 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending the regulations relating to the use and development of 10.284+ acres out of the William Hawkins Survey, Abstract No. 465 by changing the zoning from Planned Development District No. 2 (PD-2) to Planned Development District No. 170 (PD-170) for a mixed-use development. The property is generally located on the south side of East Ridge Drive and north of Main Street. (Z17-2025-032)]

>> SO THIS IS A REQUEST FROM PD2 TO PD170 FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, VERTICAL MIXED USE SUB DISTRICT, IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FEATURE LAND USE MAP, THE POLICIES AND COMPATIBLE SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USES. THE CHANGES FROM THE NOVEMBER CITY COUNCIL, ELEVATIONS REVISED TO CREATE A MORE TRADITIONAL MERCANTILE STYLE, THE BUSINESS FACING MAIN STREET REDUCED FROM THREE TO TWO STORIES, DETAILED IN THE ORDINANCE. PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS ENHANCED WITH MARKINGS AND

[00:05:02]

AN ATHLETIC AREA, BALL COURTS. PRO7 POST CARDS WERE MAILED TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE SITE. STAFF HAS ONLY RECEIVED ONE LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SINCE IT IS COMPATIBLE SURROUNDING LAND USES AND CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDED APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 5-0 AT THE SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING.

ANY QUESTIONS? >> THANK YOU, MARY. I WANT TO-- I APPRECIATE YOU GIVING THE ABRIDGED VERSION. JUST, FOR THE RECORD, FOR ANYBODY THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING ONLINE, WE WORKSHOPPED THIS AGENDA ITEM ONCE AND HAD TWO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS DATED SEPTEMBER 23RD AND NOVEMBER 11TH, BOTH WERE THIS ITEM WAS REVIEWED IN DEPTH, YOU WITH WATCH THESE MEETINGS AND IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS THAT MIGHT BE DISCUSSED GOING FORWARD. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DID ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. A MOTION TO CLOSE IT.

>> MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION MADE BY MAYOR WICKLIFFE. SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHUFFIELD. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM CLOSES 7-0. I KNOW THE APPLICANTS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR STAND FOR QUESTION AS THEY ARISE? COUNCIL? I ONLY HAVE ONE QUESTION, ON THE ORDINANCE, IT SAYS-- GO BACK TO IT. THE ELEVATION EXTERIOR DESIGN AND APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO EXHIBIT C. I AM ASSUMING THE RENDERINGS ARE EXHIBIT C, IT

JUST DOESN'T SAY EXHIBIT C. >> THIS IS.

>> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WE CAN START PUTTING THE LABELS ON THE DRAWINGS IF THAT MAKES IT EASIER.

>> YEAH, JUST A REFERENCE, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE, IN THE PAST, I HAVE APPROVED THINGS AND WHEN THEY GOT BUILT, I WAS LIKE I DON'T REMEMBER THE FACADE LOOKING LIKE THAT. THAT IS THE ONLY REASON I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. THAT IS THE ONLY QUESTION

I HAVE. >> MADAM CLERK, ANY QUESTIONS OF COUNCIL? I WILL MAKE A COMMENT FROM THE FACADE, IT IS BEAUTIFUL. GREAT JOB. I THINK IT MATCHES OUR DOWNTOWN FEEL, I THINK IT IS A GOOD LOOKING FACILITY.

>> YEAH, I WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THANK STAFF FOR REVISING THE CALCULATIONS IN THE TABLE ESTABLISHED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT IS GOOD TO SEE THAT IS WORKING AS INTENDED WITH RESPECT TO MIXED USE AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY, LIKE THE MAYOR ECHOED, I REALLY FEEL LIKE THIS, MOST RECENT RENDITION OF THE SETTING BLENDS THE MERCANTILE FEEL OF DOWNTOWN BUT ALSO MODERN ELEMENTS THAT KIND OF FITS IT INTO BOTH STYLES THAT WE SEE ALONG THAT MAIN STREET CORRIDOR, AND REALLY APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT WORKING DILIGENTLY AND LISTENING TO FEEDBACK ON THAT, FURTHER, THIS DOES FALL IN THE NEW TOWN MODULE, WHICH DOES IDENTIFY BOTH TYPES OF MIXED USE AND ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY AS

[00:10:04]

DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR

COMMENTS? >> I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE CHANGES TO THE FACADE. IT LOOKS A LOT CLOSER TO WHAT WE NEED TO SEE. I HOPE, ALSO, TO HAVE THIS COMMENT TOWARD COUNCIL, I HOPE THAT WE CAN CONTINUE TO PLACE BETTER GUIDANCE TOOLS ALONG THE BALANCE OF MAIN IN OUR ORDINANCE SPACES, AND, PERHAPS, BUILD ING STANDARD CORPORATIONS, LONG RANGE WITHIN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NOT SURE IF WE WILL DO THAT, IF WE GET ON WITH THAT. THEN, HOPEFULLY FOLKS LIKE YOURSELVES, WILL FEEL LIKE YOU ARE ABLE TO COME BETTER PREPARED FIRST TIME NOT GET CHEWED UP SO MUCH. THANK YOU FOR WORKING WITH US ON THIS, AS YOU HAVE BIND KIND OF THE PROTOTYPE, I AM SURE YOU DIDN'T KNOW THAT WOULD HAPPEN WHEN YOU APPLIED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I JUST, A COMMENT, I WANT TO ECHO WHAT MIKE SAYS, THERE IS A LOT OF DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN HERE, AND THEY FIGHT US TOOTH AND NAIL. YOU ACTUALLY LISTENED, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. I KNOW THAT Y'ALL HAD A ROUGH ROUND WITH US, BUT I JUST-- I FEEL LIKE I GOT TO SAY IT BECAUSE I HAVE ALREADY SHOWED THE BUILDING TO A COUPLE OF PEOPLE AND THEY WERE-- EVERY PERSON I HAVE SHOWN WAS LIKE THAT IS GOING TO BE AWESOME. I THINK IF YOU BUILD IT ANYTHING LIKE THE RENDERING, PROBABLY SET THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT

IT SHOULD LOOK LIKE. >> THANK Y'ALL.

>> WE WILL TAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE.

>> MOTION MADE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER WEAVER, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER SHUFFIELD.

PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-026 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute an Impact Fee Reimbursement Agreement with Oakhull Investments, LLC for roadway improvements along US Highway 287 as part of the development of Shady Grove Business Plaza.]

>>> ON TO REGULAR AGENDA, 2026-2026, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MADGEER TO NEGOTIATE IMPACT FEE REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT WITH OAKHULL INVESTMENT AS PART OF DEVELOPMENT SHADY GROVE BUSINESS PLAZA.

>> AS PART OF THIS IMPACT AGREEMENT IT IS CONSTRUCTION OF THE SEGMENT OF FRONTAGE ROAD ALONG THE SHADY GROVE BUSINESS PLAZA LOCATED TO THE WEST OF PLAINMAN ROAD, MIDLOTHIAN PARKWAY, SOUTH OF 287. THERE WAS THE NEED FOR BUILDING A SEGMENT OF TWO TO SEVEN FRONTAGE ROAD NOT THERE EVERY DAY, MAINTAIN SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO 207, SO AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING AT BUILDING ONE OF TWO LANES OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD WHICH TEX DOT BASICALLY APPROVED IN CONCEPT, SO THIS AGREEMENT, REALLY, IS GOING FWEE REIMBURSING IMPACT FEES COLLECTED FROM THE DEVELOPMENT BACK TO THE DEVELOPER, BASED ON ACTUAL COSTS OF BUILDING THE ROADWAY, WHATEVER IT COSTS. WE WON'T PAY MORE THAN WHAT IS COLLECTED WIN THAT AND PAY JUST WHAT THOSE COSTS ARE. IF IT TURNS OUT COSTS WERE MORE THAN WHAT WE COLLECT, WE WILL ONLY PAY WHAT WE COLLECT VICE VERSA, WE COLLECT MORE THAN WHAT THE ROAD COSTS, WE WILL PAY JUST WHAT THAT COSTS.

>> THANK YOU, MIKE.

>> OKAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER?

>> MIKE, YOU SAID IT WILL DO ONE OF TWO LANES ON THE SERVICE

ROAD? >> YES.

>> WILL THAT HAVE A CURB AND CURB AND ONE KNOCKED OFF IN THE

FUTURE? >> ONE RIGHT, JUST A CURB, LOOKS LIKE A NORTHERN LANE, FUTURE THEY WILL DO THE SOUTHERN LANE.

>> AND WHAT IS THE CALCULATION BASED ON THE CURRENT SITE PLAN?

WHAT DO WE THINK? >> WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE, BECAUSE IT IS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ROOMS, DEPEND IF THEY ARE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS INSIDE, WHAT THE USES ARE, TO GIVE YOU AN ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, TEX DOT, IN ORDER TO DO THIS, GOING TO BE COME BACK WITH THIS AS WELL. TYPICALLY WHAT WE HAVE BEEN TOLD IS THE MAXIMUM ARE RIGHT THERE.

>> DO WE HAVE CONCERNS THIS LENGTH OF ONE LANE WILL EXCEED

THAT? >> EXCEED? ESTIMATES ARE UNDER A MILLION BUT STILL A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY. HOPEFULLY WE WILL BRING THAT BACK. THE DEVELOPER WILL BE THE ONE DOING THE ROAD.

>> SO, WOULD TWO LANES GREATLY EXCEED THAT MILLION-DOLLAR

THRESHOLD? >> YES, SIR, I BELIEVE IT WOULD.

I THINK, REALLY, IT IS KIND OF INTERESTING, I BELIEVE TEX DOT

[00:15:02]

>> THANK YOU. >> WHAT IS THE LINEAR FOOTAGE?

>> 800 FEET. >> WILL IT CONNECT TO WHERE IT TERMINATES IN FRONT OF THE SALVAGE YARD?

>> YEP. CORRECT. >> ANY OTHER KWEGS ON THIS CASE?

TAKE A MOTION. MOVE TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY WICKLIFFE, SECONDED BY

[2026-027 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager and Midlothian Public Library to execute an application with Texas State Library and Archives Commission for funds for the Special Projects Grant.]

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

>> 2026-27, CONSIDER ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND PUBLIC LIBRARY TO EXECUTE APPLICATION WITH TEXAS STATE LIBRARY ARCHIVES COMMISSION FOR FUNDS FOR SPECIAL PROJECTS GRANT.

>> THIS IS STATE LIBRARY CAME OUT WITH THIS GRANT OPPORTUNITY, PRETTY SHORT WINDOW, THE DEADLINE IS FEBRUARY 9TH. WHAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO DO IS PUT HOLD LOCKERS OUT SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, SO THAT PATRONS CAN COME IN AFTER HOURS AND AFTER THE FACT, OBVIOUSLY APPLYING FOR A GRANT, WE DON'T KNOW IF WE ACTUALLY WILL BE AWARDED THE GRANT. BUT I WILL TRY MY BEST TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE FOR

THIS. >> THANK YOU. ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? IS IT POSSIBLE TO ALSO DO A DROP LOCATION? I KNOW, LIKE WE HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS PEOPLE WALK UP TO THE BUILDING AND DROP OFF BOOKS, IF THEY ARE MOUNTING BOXES, A DROP BOX TOO?

>> THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN BETWEEN THE TWO DOORS ON THE

SIDE. IT IS LOCKERS INSIDE. >> I MISUNDERSTOOD. NEVERMIND.

[INAUDIBLE] >> SO, THE GRANT WILL FUND HUNDRED PERCENT? OR IS THERE A MATCH?

>> >> I DO NOT BELIEVE THERE WAS A MATCH WITH THIS, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.

>> AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IT IS ALWAYS MY CONCERN WHAT COSTS CAN BE INCURRED. ARE WE ANTICIPATING MAINTENANCE OR ONGOING

OPERATION? >> INCLUDED IN THE GRANT, WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE-- WHERE THE BADGE DOOR IS, BUT THAT IS INCLUDED IN THIS. SO, FROM OPERATIONAL STANDPOINT, NO, THESE ARE JUST LOCKERS, THEY PUT THE BOOKS IN THERE, LOCK THEM, CODE, IS MY UNDERSTANDING, THEY COME AND CAN GET ACCESS.

>> YEAH, WE WILL CHANGE THE KEY CARD TO INSIDE. SO THE PATRONS WILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS INTO THE [INAUDIBLE] THEY CAN'T GET IN

THE LOCKER. >> AS FAR AS LIFE EXPECTANCY OF THE LOCKER, THE SOFTWARE SYSTEM THAT RUNS IT, LAST FIVE YEARS AND THEN HAVE TO PAY OUT OF OUR POCKET TO REBUILD A NEW ONE?

>> I THINK THE LOCKERS WOULD LAST A LOT LONGER THAN THAT, FROM A SOFTWARE STANDPOINT, PROBABLY HAVE TO ASK MIKE.

>> ONGOING COST-- I DON'T EXPECT [INAUDIBLE]

>> THANK YOU, SIR.

>> THAT IS MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT IT IS NOT MUCH.

>> SO THIS IS JUST GIVING THEM THE APPROVAL TO APPLY FOR THE GRANT, AND IF THE GRANT IS FUNDED, THEN IT IS A DONE DEAL?

OR COME BEFORE COUNCIL? >> SO, THE-- WE CAN STILL BRING BACK THE COST OF THE LOCKERS, BECAUSE IT IS LIABLE TO EXCEED THE $50,000 LIMIT. YOU CAN-- NOW THIS ONE ALLOWS THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE IF THERE IS CONCERNS ABOUT IT THAT WE CAN JUST ADD IN THE STIPULATION WE BRING BACK, IF WE AWARDED THE GRANT WE COULD BRING BACK ACCEPTANCE TO COUNCIL AS WELL, IF THERE ARE CONCERNS

ABOUT US ACCEPTING THAT. >> I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS.

ANYBODY HAVE CONCERNS? >> NO CONCERN.

>> MAKE THE MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED.

>> MOTION MADE BY MYSELF, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-028 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing an expenditure up to $65,000 to be awarded by the Midlothian Community Development Corporation ("MCDC") to Midlothian Chamber of Commerce to provide promotional funds for sponsorship of the 2026 MidloFest event.]

[00:20:01]

>> GOOD EVENING, AT OUR JANUARY MEETING WE DID AWARD THE MIDLO FEST $50,000, REQUESTING APPROVAL OF THAT EXPENDITURE.

>> THANK YOU, MELISSA. TAMMY, ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DID READ IN THE PACKET IT WASAPPROVED--

>> UP TO. THERE WAS DELAY IN MAKING THE DECISION AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO DELAY THEM GETTING THEIR FUNDS, SO, CHRIS WAS KIND ENOUGH TO WORK WITH US AND GET IT ON THE AGENDA FOR

THIS MEETING. >> SO WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE THAT AT THIS POINT THEY CAN MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO JUST

$55, NOT $60. >> YES.

>> JUST AMENDMENT. IF THAT IS WHAT COUNCIL DECIDES.

>> ONE QUESTION I HAD, BUT AS READING THROUGH THE WRITE UP ON THIS, THE SUMMARY BACKGROUND, SO, THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE INITIAL REQUEST IN NOVEMBER WAS [INAUDIBLE]

>> CORRECT. TO WHICH THE BOARD SAID WE WILL GIVE YOU $45,000, THEN YOU CAME BACK IN WITH THE REQUEST FOR $65,000. WHAT I WANT TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS NOT IN THE SUMMARY? HOW DID THAT CONVERSATION GO TO $55, IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT FOR INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY, AND WITH THE REQUEST MADE?

>> SO THE PROCESS IS, WE RECEIVE THE MARKETING PACKAGE AND THEY MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION AND WE HAVE A SUB COMMITTEE THAT MEETS AND DISCUSSES AND MAKES A RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD. IN THE PAST, THE MARKETING PACKAGE HAS ONLY GIVEN US ONE OPTION, SO WHEN THE SUB COMMITTEE MET, THEY CAME BACK AND SAID WE WOULD RECOMMEND $45,000, BUT THIS WOULD BE THE MARKETING PACKAGE.

BUT WE REALLY AREN'T IN A POSITION TO TELL SOMEONE WHAT THEIR MARKETING PACKAGE SHOULD BE. SO THE CHAMBER CAME BACK LATER WITH THE MARKETING PACKAGE THAT HAD THREE DIFFERENT LEVELS ON IT, SO THAT THE BOARD COULD MAKE A DECISION, INSTEAD OF BASING IT ON THIS IS YOUR ONE AND ONLY CHOICE.

>> OKAY. SO, INITIALLY THERE WAS A SINGLE REQUEST.

>> CORRECT. >> THEN CAME BACK WITH MINIMAL

OPTIONS. >> CORRECT.

>> THE BOARD THEN PICKED FROM THAT [INAUDIBLE]

>> YES, SIR. >> THEY ALSO HAD A WORKSHOP, I GUESS A WORKSHOP-- OR SUB COMMITTEE?

>> A SMALLER GROUP MET WITH THE CHAMBER SO THAT WE COULD DISCUSS THROUGH, BECAUSE A LOT OF PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THAT WE HAVE THE FRAMERS, WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN BECAUSE OF STATE CODE, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, SO IT WAS A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CHAMBER AND THE OFFICERS OF OUR BOARD TO GET TOGETHERER AND TALK THROUGH THAT AND WHAT WE NEED IN OUR APPLICATION PROCESS.

>> THAT HELPS CLARIFY, I MEAN, READING THE SUMMARY, I AM LIKE ARE WE NEGOTIATING? SOMEBODY SAID WE NEED $70, SAID WE ARE GIVING YOU $45, THAT IS HOW THE SUMMARY READ. I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL CLARITY, AND I ASSUME YOU, AFTER THE MEETING, HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND THEY FEEL LIKE THAT IS A GOOD AND VALUE PARTNERSHIP TO CONTINUE PUTTING ON THE SAME QUALITY OF PRODUCTION, AND

NOTORIETY FOR THE COMMUNITY. >> YES.

>> THANK YOU.

>> OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENT S? ANYTHING TO UPDATE REGARDING

FROM LIAISON STANDPOINT? >> NO, THERE WAS BACK AND FORTH, AND THIS IS WHERE THEY ENDED UP AND I THINK WE ARE ALL HAPPY TO HAVE A SOLUTION ON IT. I WAS GOING TO ASK THE STATUS OF [INAUDIBLE] DID THEY COME THROUGH?

>> NO, THEY HAVE NOT. I HAVE CONTACTED THE CHAMBER, WHEN IT WAS UNFROZEN LAST WEDNESDAY OR THURSDAY, I THINK THURSDAY, BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE MCDC MEETING AND THEY ARE PUTTING IN REQUEST FOR ONES COMING IN.

>> TAKE A MOTION ON THIS CASE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE AS

PRESENTED. >> THERE IT IS.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED BY COUNCILMEMBER MOORMAN. QUICKLY, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-029 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing an expenditure in the amount of $10,000,000 by the Midlothian Community Development Corporation (MCDC) to the City of Midlothian for the costs associated with Heritage Park improvements.]

>> ITEM PASSES 7-0. THANK YOU TO MY RIGHT SIDE FOR KEEPING IT PROFESSIONAL.

>> THANK YOU, MELISSA. >>> 2026-029, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXPENDITURE OF IN THE AMOUNT OF $10 MILLION BY TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN FOR COSTS ASSOCIATED

[00:25:05]

WITH HERITAGE PARK IMPROVEMENTS. >> WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS PARK, WE HAD MANY DISCUSSIONS BUT AT OUR DECEMBER MEETING WE DID COMMIT, OR THE BOARD DID COMMIT $10 MILLION TO THIS PROJECT. SO WE WOULD LIKE APPROVAL OF THOSE EXPENDITURES.

>> THANK YOU, MELISSA. ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? OKAY. ANYTHING

TO ADD? >> THIS WAS A PUBLIC HEARING, MELISSA, CORRECT ME, DO YOU KNOW THE DATE THAT IT HAD TO GO

THROUGH? SOMETIME IN FEBRUARY? >> IT WILL BE MARCH.

>> MARCH. WE-- YOU KNOW, HAVE A 60-DAY PUBLIC HEARING DATE, SO WANT TO GET THIS ON THE BOOKS IN ANTICIPATION THE CMAR GETTING THE GMP AND GETTING READY FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE MARCH

TIMEFRAME. >> THIS QUESTION ROLLS OFF AS QUESTIONS I HAVE HAD, PRIMARILY DUE TO FUNDING, HOW THE FUNDING WILL BE CARRIED OUT ON THIS PARK. SO, THERE IS A $10 MILLION REQUEST AND LET ME SEE HOW IT IS WORDED . IT IS WORDED PUBLIC HEARING APPROVE EXPENDITURE OF $10 MILLION TO FUND THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH HERITAGE PARK. THE QUESTION IS, WILL THEY RESERVE ON THEIR OWN? PULL ALL OF THOSE DOLLARS OUT, SECURE THE BOND? TURN THE MONEY TO THE CITY AND THE CITY HAS A BOND ACCUMULATING FUNDS TOGETHER? HOW IS THIS FUNDING MECHANISM GOING

TO WORK? >> ALL OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS HAVE BEEN HAD AND WE HAD THE BONDING COMPANY SPEAK TO US TWICE BUT AS THE BOARD WANTED TO WORKSHOP IT SO THEY CAN MAKE A FINAL DECISION HOW THAT WOULD BE FUNDED.

>> OKAY. >> BONDING, I DON'T THINK THEY LIKE THE CERTIFICATE OF OBLIGATION BUT IT IS ON THE TABLE, THEN THERE IS ALSO THE STAGGERED PAYMENT PLAN LIKE WITH CITY HALL, THERE IS A LOT OF GOOD OPTIONS, WE HAVE A HEALTHY BALANCE IN OUR ACCOUNT TO GET IT STARTED. REALLY T WILL BE THE DECISION OF HAD BOARD. YOU HAVE JIMMY LOU, I THINK WE WILL COME UP WITH A GOOD PROGRAM FOR YOU GUYS.

>> THESE DOLLARS ARE PROPORTION OF A GROSS, AS WITHIN A REASONABLE TERMS OF WHAT THE FULL GROSS WOULD BE, DO WE KNOW WHERE THAT IS YET? IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE KNOW A COST ON THE

FULL PARK YET? >> WE DO NOT, AT THIS POINT.

>> SO WE DON'T KNOW-- WE KNOW THE B-BOARD HAS GRACIOUSLY SAID WE ARE WILLING TO COVER UP TO THIS AMOUNT, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT PERCENTILE THAT PARK EXPEREDTURE--

>> COUNCILMEMBER RODGERS, WE HIRED CMAR STRICTLY FOR PRE-BIDDING SERVICES THAT, I THINK THAT WAS DECEMBER, SO, WE HAVE GOT THEM GOING THROUGH AND SCRUBBING THE PLANS RIGHT NOW, AND THEY WILL BE ABLE TO GO UP A TOTAL GMP FOR THIS PROJECT. SO THEY ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT. PLANS ARE OVER 90% COMPLETE.

>> GETTING CLOSE. >> THANK YOU.

>> I WOULD THINK, FEBRUARY. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS

CASE? >> SO, ESSENTIALLY AT THIS POINT WE ARE JUST ALLOCATING BUDGETARY FUNDS, WE ARE NOT ACTUALLY SPENDING FUNDS. JUST SAYING, HEY, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL COST YET, BUT $10 MILLION IS FUNDED.

>> FUNDED $10 MILLION.

[INAUDIBLE]

>> SO-- >> GO AHEAD.

>> SO, ON THAT 60-DAY WAITING PERIOD WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, THEY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING AT THEIR BOARD MEETING TO PRODUCE THIS. WE ARE NOW VALIDATING THAT REQUEST. BUT IT STILL HAS TO

PERCOLATE. >> YEAH, I AM NOT SURE THE ACTUAL-- YOU SAID MIDDLE OF MARCH?

>> EARLY MARCH. LATE FEBRUARY. >> SIX WEEKS.

>> SO NOT HAVING A GMP UNTIL MID FEBRUARY, I DON'T EXPECT THIS-- [INAUDIBLE]

PROJECT, BEFORE APRIL, REALLY. >> IT COULD BE, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK WE COULD BE LOOKING AT THIS CONTRACT EASILY BY THE

BEGINNING OF MARCH. >> OKAY.

>> OKAY. I MEAN, FOR ME, I AM SITTING HERE GOING, WE DON'T

[00:30:01]

>> WE CAN PROBABLY EXPECT A VERY SIMILAR AGENDA ITEM. AND THEN, AT THAT POINT, WE WILL HAVE AN IDEA AND SEE WHAT THE RESULTS ARE, AND THEN MAKE DETERMINATION.

[INAUDIBLE]

>> I WANT TO EXPAND A LITTLE BIT, I KNOW THE QUESTIONS I AM FIXING TO GET THIS COMING WEEK. I AM A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE DIGESTING THIS, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS, WE HAVE KIND GONE OUT OF OUR WAY ON AT LEAST WITHIN CONVERSATION, ON LARGE EXPENDITURE GEOBONDS AND WHATNOT, TO WHERE WE STARTED ON LARGER INFRASTRUCTURE AND ASSET-BASED INVESTMENT TO WHAT WE WOULD DECIDE AND HAVE THAT, I BELIEVE, I MAY BE CHOOSING SOME WORDING WRONG, IN OTHER WORDS COST STRUCTURED OUT AHEAD OF TIME. SO WITHIN A REASONABLE AND RESPECTFUL AMOUNT OF DOLLARS. I KNOW THIS IS NOT A GEOBOND, BUT THESE SALES TAX DOLLARS DO BELONG TO THE PUBLIC, JUST LIKE, IN A WAY, PROPERTY TAX DOLLARS DO, BECAUSE THEY HAVE MADE INVESTMENT AND ABASEMENT IN OTHER FORMS TO GET THESE SALES TAX DOLLARS IN HERE. WHERE I HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF CONCERN IS IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE WE HAVE KIND OF GOT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, BECAUSE WE ARE JUSTIFYING SOME DOLLARS THAT ARE GOING TO BE SPENT UP TO, I WOULD HAVE LIKED FOR THIS PLAN TO BE BROUGHT BEFORE US WITH THE BALANCE OF WHO IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE DOLLARS RIGHT AFTER THIS, AND, CORRECT ME IF I AM WRONG, AND IF WE HAVE IT, OF COURSE, I KNOW SOME ROUND ABOUT NUMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN TALKED ABOUT, WHAT WE SPENT ON THE PARK, BUT IF WE EVER-- WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT, A MOMENT AGO COUNCILMEMBER, ABOUT WE WOULD KNOW THEN ABOUT WHAT TO PULL BACK TO, OR HOW MUCH WE COULD SPEND, THAT WE ACTUALLY CAME TO WHAT OUR MAXIMUM DOLLAR IS WE ARE GOING TO SPEND, BEFORE US, BEFORE I AM VOTING TO APPROVE THESE FUNDS, OR POSSIBLE EXPANDING INTO LOOKING MORE HEAVILY INTO THESE FUNDS, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO SPEND, WE MADE THAT DECISION AS COUNCIL, WITH THE MAXIMUM DOLLAR IS OVER

THERE? >> I CAN ANSWER THAT. NO. NOBODY HAS MADE A DECISION WHAT THE FINAL NUMBER IS. I MEAN, I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS IF THE GMP COMES BACK AND IS $21 MILLION, THEN, I AM SURE THE COUNCIL, DISCUSSIONS WE HAD, IF WE NEED TO PULL IT BACK, I DON'T THINK, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, COUNCIL HAS PUT ANY CAP ON THIS.

>> THE PHASE-- SO, AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, I AM IN THE PROCESS OF BUSINESS WISE OF SPENDING A LARGE VOLUME OF MONEY PRESENT, AND ASSURE YOU I KNOW WHAT ALL THOSE COSTS ARE BEFORE I AM

STARTING TO SPEND THE MONEY. >> JUST, THEY ARE NOT SPENDING ANY MONEY, YOU ARE APPROVING THE ABILITY TO FUND, BUT FEW THINGS HAVE HAPPENED, IF THE COUNCIL DOES NOT APPROVE A CONTRACT, THEY ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND A TIME. IF THEY DECIDE TO DO A BOND ISSUANCE, YOU ARE ALSO GOING TO HAVE TO APPROVE THAT.

YOU WILL, AGAIN, SEE THAT, COUNCIL WILL HAVE TO TAKE ACTION IF THEY ISSUE A BOND FOR $10 MILLION. THIS IS JUST SAYING, TO ME, THIS IS SAYING THEY ARE WILLING TO GIVE US $10 MILLION.

IF WE DON'T APPROVE OF CONTRACT TO BUILD THIS, THIS WILL NOT--

>> IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES. >> IF WE DID IT THE OTHER WAY, THE ARGUMENT WOULD STILL STAND, WE ARE SETTING A BUDGET, WE HAVE NO IDEA [INAUDIBLE] IF ANYTHING WE AREIDENTIFYING TO MAKE THE

[00:35:03]

I CAN PROMISE YOU I DON'T. >> YOU SAID $50? LIKE FIVE-ZERO?

>> ANOTHER PERSON MIGHT THINK $10 MILLION IS TOO MUCH. SO, THIS IS IDENTIFYING FUNDING SOURCES SO THAT WE CAN HAVE

THAT-- >> I UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> THAT VERY CONVERSATION YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, THAT I WANT TO HAVE. WE CAN'T, IN MY OPINION, CAN'T HAVE IT UNTIL WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THE BUCKETS THAT WE HAVE AVAILABLE, SHOULD WE

CHOOSE TO PROCEED. >> I JUST DON'T WANT THIS TO TURN INTO A SITUATION TO WHERE I AM-- I DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO BE VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING LIKE WE ARE HAVING TO PLACE TOO MANY DOLLARS OUT OF PROPERTY TAX REVENUES TO FILL A GAP TO GET TO THE $25 MILLION PARK WHEN WE HAVE $15 MILLION, AND GOT TO GET THIS DONE. THAT IS WHAT I AM TRYING TO GUARD AGAINST.

>> THAT IS THE DISCUSSION WE WILL HAVE AFTER WE IDENTIFY FUNDING SOURCES, AFTER WE GET THE GMP BACK, AND YOU WILL HAVE IT OPPORTUNITY TO VOICE THOSE CONCERNS.

>> I AM JUST STUDYING WHEN I SPEND MONEY, I KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY I HAVE TO SPEND BEFORE I START TALKING ABOUT WHAT I AM

GOING TO SPEND. >> WE ARE DOING THAT SAME THING.

>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT I THINK, I AM INTERESTED TO SEE HOW THIS

WORKS OUT. >> NUMBER ONE, I THINK MCDC, THE BOARD HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB LOOK ING AT THEIR BUDGET, TRYING TO SEE WHAT AMOUNT IS APPROPRIATE TO ALLOCATE TOWARD IT, GOT US TO THIS POINT, AND I EVEN LIKE THE CREATIVE IDEAS ON HOW TO GO ABOUT FINANCING IT, AND I ACTUALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THAT, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND MIKE'S CONCERN WITHER-- WHAT IS THE ACRONYM WE KEEP USING?

>> GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE. >> GMP.

>> GMP. SORRY, I WAS GOING TO BUTCHER THAT. THE GMP, WOULD IT NOT BE, OR WOULD IT POTENTIALLY BE A GOOD SUGGESTION JUST TO TAKE THE GMP, THE REQUEST FROM MCDC AND THE REQUEST IF IT DOES COME FROM MED, AND PUT THEM IN ONE, MEETING WITH ONE

CONVERSATION? JUST A SUGGESTION. >> THAT IS WHAT WE DID WITH COMMUNITY PARK, WHENEVER WE WERE EVALUATING THAT, AND IT PUT IT BACK AND FORTH. 21 PEOPLE AT THE TABLE, DEBATING ASTROTURF, WHICH

IT WENT SOUTH REALLY FAST. >> YEAH, IT DID.

>> AND THEN THERE WERE THREATS TO PULL FUNDING, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. IN THIS SCENARIO, WITH THIS PATHWAY FORWARD, IN MY OPINION, IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE FINAL DETERMINATION, IF WE NEED TO PULL BACK ON THE PART, LOWER THE COST, TO NOT COST DOLLARS, IF WE GO THAT ROUTE. IT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO MAKE THE DECISIONS AS A UNIT, AS AN ELECTED BODY.

>> I WILL SAY, I MEAN, I HAVE BEEN ON TWO BOND COMMITTEES, TWO COUNCILS THAT APPROVED BONDS, AND BUILT ONE PARK SO FAR, WHERE I THINK WE HAVE MESSED UP IN THE PAST, WHEN WE DID COMMUNITY, WE ARE LIKE WE LOOK AT A PICTURE AND SAY THAT WILL COST ABOUT $16 MILLION, WE THINK $16 MILLION, SO WE WENT FOR THE BOND AND IT ENDED UP BEING $21, $22 MILLION. SO, LIKE, TO ME, FOOT NOTING, BECAUSE THAT IS ALL THEY ARE REALLY DOING IS FOOT NOTING WE ARE NOT GOING TO SPEND THIS $10 MILLION THE NEXT SIX MONTHS UNTIL WE SEE WHAT COUNCIL IS GOING TO DO. ALL WE ARE DOING IS GETTING A BUCKET, LIKE THE BOND, IF WE WENT OUT FOR BOND OF MONEY THAT WE HAVE TO PLAY WITH, AT THAT POINT WE DO WHAT WE DO WITH THE COMMUNITY, STRIP IT DOWN TO WHATEVER, IF THEY GIVE US 15, WE STRIP IT DOWN TO 15 MILLION OR WE SAY, NO, BUT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK FOR APPROVAL, PARK HAS TO COME FOR APPROVAL, AND THE OTHER BOARD THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE GIVING US MONEY HAS TO COME FOR APPROVAL. THERE IS PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO STOP THIS. I THINK ALL WE ARE DOING NOW IS SAYING, OR THEY ARE SAYING, COUNCIL, FOR THE NEXT SIX MONTHS UNTIL YOU FIGURE WHAT YOU ARE DOING, OR YEAR, WHATEVER PHYSICAL BUDGET, WE ARE GOING TO SET THIS MONEY ASIDE AND IF Y'ALL USE IT, YOU DO, IF NOT WE

[00:40:06]

INTO. >> I DO WANT B-BOARD TO KNOW I AM VERY THANKFUL, MY COMMENTS ARE HARD, BUT I AM VERY-- THIS IS THE MASSIVE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THEY HAVE LAID ON THE TABLE. THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH FOR THAT. SO MY COMMENTS ARE IN NO WAY TO INSINUATE THERE HAS BEEN OVERSIGHT OR BAD THOUGHT PROCESS, THANK YOU VERY, VERY MUCH. I AM TRYING TO LOOK A FEW MONTH SAID AHEAD TO WHERE MY PLANE IS FIXING TO LAND.

>> I HAVE TWO SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT ON ONE ASPECT, IF I AM LETTING A PROJECT FOR BID, I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SHOW MY BANK BALANCE TO THE CONTRACTOR, BECAUSE THAT CAN DECKITATE THE OUTCOME AND MAYBE THE PENCIL IS NOT AS SHARP. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, I RESPECT THAT THE MCDC BOARD AND STAFF ARE EVALUATING PROJECTS AROUND OUR COMMUNITY IN THEIR MISSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WHICH I THINK PARKS IS DEFINITELY A KEY LEG IN THAT STOOL, AS WE LOOK, THEY ARE WORKING RIGHT NOW AT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO REHAB SOME OF OUR OLDER AND LESSER USED FACILITIES TO MAKE THEM MORE USABLE, YOU KNOW, I DO LIKE THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS LAND WE ALREADY OWN, AND WE ARE REALLY LOOKING AT THIS PROM A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, HOPEFULLY TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH IS AN INCUBATOR FOR SMALL AND LOCAL BUSINESSES, WE ARE SEEING SEVERAL OF THOSE THAT ARE STARTING UP, YOU KNOW, IN THE LAWSON DISTRICT AND EXISTING DOWNTOWN BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY THIS WILL ENCOURAGE EVEN MORE ENTERTAINMENT-TYPE, YOU KNOW, RESTAURANTS, AND GOLF SIMULATORS AND THINGS IN THE DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, THAT HAS LONG BEEN DOMINATED BY OFFICES, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ARE GREAT FOR BUSINESS, BUT NOT NECESSARILY GREAT FOR SALES TAX REVENUE AND THINGS TO DO FOR RESIDENTS AND ECONOMIC TOURISM. I THINK OUR INCORPORATION IN LOOKING AT INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS DOWNTOWN THAT MEET THE SAME GOAL INCENTIVEIZING LOCAL BUSINESSES IS WORTH WHILE CAUSE UNDER THEIR CHARTER AS WELL. FROM A BUDGETARY ALLOCATION STANDPOINT, I MEAN, WE APPOINTED A BOARD WHO FEELS LIKE OUT OF THE FUNDS THAT THEY ARE GIVEN TO RECOMMEND AND MANAGE, THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE INVESTMENT TO MAKE IN THE ZONE. I DO HAVE SOME RESERVATIONS THAT WE ARE KIND OF PUTTING A CART IN FRONT OF A HORSE HERE, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE NEED AND THE BIDS AREN'T IN YET, AND WE ARE SHOWING SOME OF THE CARDS IN OUR HAND AS TO WHAT WE IS GOT FROM A FUNDING SOURCE. SO, I HAVE VERY MIXED FEELINGS ABOUT NOT WHAT WE ARE DOING, BUT THE ORDER IN WHICH WE ARE DOING IT.

SO, YEAH. >> NO, SIR.

>> ANY FURTHER COMMENTS ON THIS?

>> I AGREE WITH A LOT OF WHAT WAS SAID TODAY, I DO THINK IT IS MORE OF A FOOTNOTE SITUATION, I THINK CLARK ITERATED THAT WELL

Y. AM READY TO PROCEED. >> I WILL TAKE A MOTION.

>> MOVE TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. >> MOTION MADE TO APPROVE BY MAYOR WICKLIFFE, SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS. ITEM PASSES 6-1. THANK YOU, MELISSA. THANK YOU, CASEY, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL, PLEASE THANK YOUR BOARD FOR US AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE SESSIONS TONIGHT. SO, THIS MEETING IS GOING TO ADJOURN EARLY. Y'ALL, DRIVE SAFELY BACK TO

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.