[2026-257 Conduct a public hearing and consider and act upon an ordinance amending and restating the development and use regulations of Planned Development District No. 184 (PD-184) for 16.24+ acres out of the Martha Brenan Survey, Abstract No. 43. The property is generally located on the west side of S. 14th Street, and north of McAlpin Road. (Z17-2026-047) ]

CONSENT AGENDA PASSES 7-0. ONTO OUR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

2026-257. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING AND RESTATING DEVELOPMENT AND USE REGULATIONS OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.

>> ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, THE NEXT ITEM IS AN AMENDMENT TO RESTATE THE DEVELOPED STANDARDS FOR WHAT WAS FORMERLY KNOWN -- THE PROPERTIES 16.01 ACRES HAD WHAT THEY ARE ASKING TO DO IS THERE AMENDING THE PD THAT WAS RECENTLY APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR TO GO FROM 37 UNITS OF SINGLE FAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO 38 UNITS WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN BUT MAINTAIN THE DEVELOPED STANDARDS THEY APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR. GUIDING OUR FUTURE 2045, STATES THE AREA SHOULD BE MEDIUM AND LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WHICH IS 3 TO 4 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE MULTIPLE TDS TO THE NORTH AND THE SELF AND YOU HAVE AGRICULTURAL TO THE EAST AND WEST.

TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE AMENDMENTS THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU, ORIGINALLY THEY PROPOSED FOUR UNITS ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF IT. THEY CAME BACK AND PUT THREE LOCKS AND NOW THEY ARE GOING BACK TO THE FOUR LOTS BUT THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WERE APPROVED WHICH INCLUDES THE REPETITION, 65% MAXIMUM FRONT ENTRY GARAGES.

THESE ARE THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND VISIT THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT WERE APPROVED EARLIER THIS YEAR. WE DID 728 POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200 FEET, THERE WAS A SIGN POSTED, STILL A SIGN POSTED AND IT DID GET POSTED IN MIDLOTHIAN, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY OPPOSITION WITHIN THE 200 FEET, WE DID RECEIVE AN EMAIL TO OUTSIDE THE HUNDRED FEET.

REGARDING THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST BECAUSE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING LAND USES, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL AT THE JULY 21ST MEETING. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE.

>> THE CHAIR: THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ANYBODY SIGN UP TO SPEAK? NO PUBLIC INPUT I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

[00:25:03]

MOTION MADE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COUNCILMEMBER CHESHIER, SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER HAMMONDS.

ITEM PASSES 6-0, JUST FOR THE RECORD COUNCIL MEMBER STIC STEPD OUT. I DON'T SEE ANYBODY SHAKING HER HEAD AT ME -- COUNSEL, QUESTIONS TO STAFF?

>> THE ONLY CHANGE IS TO GO FROM 37 TO 38 LOTS?

>> YES. >> IT MAY HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THIS BUT I THOUGHT THERE WAS A REQUIREMENT THAT ON LOTS BACKING UP TO A THOROUGH FARE, THOSE BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY HOMES, MY THINKING ABOUT A DIFFERENT

PROJECT? >> I BELIEVE THAT WAS A DIFFERENT ONE. I THINK THAT'S THE SAME CONCERN.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF 14TH LITTLE SELF, WE DID A MIRROR IMAGE, HAVING THE BACK OF THOSE HOUSES HAVE BEEN THE GIANT TWO STORIES ESPECIALLY AS CLOSE AS THEY ARE GOING TO BE TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION, I THINK THE WILL OF COUNSEL WAS TO SAY THOSE ARE A

LITTLE SMALLER AND PROFILE. >> I WOULD ECHO THAT BUT I WOULD

ALSO ADD ON 14TH AS WELL. >> I LOOKED AT THAT TIME AND IT HAS A MUCH DEEPER BUFFER, 40 FEET WAS THE REASON WHY I WASN'T AS CONCERNED, THAT'S A SIDE EXTRA THE WAY -- I THINK THEY ARE SET BACK FURTHER THAN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, CLOSER TO THE

SIDE PROFILE OF THE HOUSE. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CAPTURING IT. FOR THE FOUR LOTS HERE THEY BE SINGLE-STORY AND WHAT ABOUT -- THESE ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR,

FIVE YEAR. >> THAT IS MY PREFERENCE BUT OBVIOUSLY COUNSEL CAN DISCUSS THAT.

YOU'RE OKAY WITH TWO STORIES BRING ALONG 14TH STREET?

>> I'M NEITHER FOR OR AGAINST THAT.

I'M KIND OF AMBIVALENT ON THAT TOPIC.

I THINK THE ONES ALONG MCALPINE ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IF COUNSEL PREFERS TO SAY ALL THE ONES ADJACENT TO THE THOROUGHFARE, I DON'T HAVE ANY

OPPOSITION TO THAT. >> WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY PASSED ON THE AMENDMENT FOR THE FIVE PROPERTIES BASIC 14? WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THE STANDARDS?

>> THOSE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SINGLE-STORY.

>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE -- SORRY. >> RIGHT NOW THE HEIGHT IS 35 FEET. [INAUDIBLE]

>> AS IT'S WRITTEN NOW, YES. >> THE CHAIR: DOES ANYONE HAVE PASSIONATE OPINIONS ON THOSE, THE TWO DISCUSSION POINTS ROSS AND I BROUGHT UP? THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

>> I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED WITH THE RESTRICTION OF THE FOUR LOTS ADJACENT TO MCALPIN ROAD BE LIMITED TO SINGLE STORY IN HEIGHT.

>> THE CHAIR: I WILL SECOND, MOST MOTION COUNCILMAN WEAVER, SECONDED BY MYSELF, PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

WE WILL PAUSE UNTIL HE RETURNS. ACTUALLY IT'S A REALLY LONG

[Items 2026-258 & 2026-259]

DESCRIPTION I WILL START REA READING.

ITEM 2026 TO 58. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE REZONING 593.939+ ACRES OUT OF THE W. M. LICK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 620, J.P. NEILL SURVEY ABSTRACT NO. 1387, E. RICE SURVEY, ABSTRACT NO. 929, A.R. -- I'M NOT GOING TO READ THIS WHOLE THING. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 136 (PD-136) TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 136 (PD-136); AND TO AMEND THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 136 (PD-136). THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED EAST OF

[00:30:01]

LAKEWAY ESPLANADE AND HOMESTEAD ROAD, AND NORTHWEST OF US HIGHWAY 287 AND REX ODOM DRIVE.

>> REAL QUICK I'M SORRY TO INTERJECT, REAL QUICK.

I WOULD LIKE TO OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ANY ACTION NEEDS TO BE COMBINED WITH THE NEXT ITEM, 259. THAT IS ANNEXATION INTO THE MMD -- THOSE NEED TO BE ACTED ON TOGETHER.

>> WHAT'S OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THAT WHICH I HAVE ALREADY DONE IS THERE ANY PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT ON ITEM 258? ANY SPEAKERS? OKAY.

I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MOTION MOVED BY THE MAYOR PRO TEM, SECONDED BY COUNCILMAN SHUFFIELD, PLEASE VOTE. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSES 7-0.

GO AHEAD AND OPEN TO 59? YOU COULD KEEP 258 OPEN AS FAR AS AGENDA ITEM GOES BUT WE ARE ALSO KIND OF OPEN TO 59, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION CONSENTING TO THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN LAND INTO MIDLOTHIAN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2. ANY PUBLIC SPEAKERS ON THAT ITEM? YOU CAN HIT BOTH OF THOSE ITEMS

TOGETHER. >> IT'S GOING TO BE FINE.

NO I'VE GOT TO GO BACK. THE NEXT ITEM IS A REZONING REQUEST TO REZONE 291.042 ACRES FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 1:30 SIX FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL USES. ALSO REQUESTING TO AMEND THE PD 1:30 SIX DEVELOP STANDARDS AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

WHAT'S COMING BEFORE YOU IS A TOTAL OF 593 ACRES AND THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDISTRICTS, TWO TOWNHOMES SUBDISTRICTS, TWO COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICTS, AND WANTED INDUSTRIAL SUBDISTRICT. THE GUIDING OUR FUTURE MIDLOTHIAN 2045 DESIGNATES THIS PROPERTY AS A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, CORPORATE, AND REGIONAL MODULE.

THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE IS -- THE MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IS E AND THE PROPOSED ELEMENT UNITS IS 6.27 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THIS AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THIS IS THE BRIDGEWATER EXPANSION, THIS ITEM CAME BEFORE YOU A FEW MONTHS AGO AND THEY HAVE AMENDED THEIR APPLICATION TO ONLY EXPAND THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ARE WITHIN PD-1:30 SIX. PREVIOUSLY THEY HAD ADDED A MIXED USE DISTRICT, SO THEY HAVE ADDED TWO TOWNHOME AREAS AND EXPANDED THE COMMERCIAL ACROSS, THIS IS THE PATRIOT PARKWAY.

THOSE OF THE CHANGES THEY HAD MADE THERE.

THEY HAVE EXPANDED TO BE THE SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISION, THEY'VE EXPANDED THE RESID RESIDENTIAL.

SO THEY ARE ASKING TO ADD 910 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND EXPAND PART OF THAT 910 UNITS IS EXPANSION OF THE TOWNHOMES. THE PRODUCT THREE, FOUR, FIVE WITHIN THE PD. THEY'RE STILL SHOWING THE SAME COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THIS IS PART OF THAT HAYES ROAD DEVELOPMENT. SHOWING AT 200 UNIT INCREASE IN TOWNHOMES, 270 INCREASE IN THE TIGHT FIVES WHICH ARE 50-FOOT WIDE AND ALSO A 270 UNIT INCREASE IN THE TIGHT 4 WHICH ARE 60-FOOT WIDE AND A 210 INCREASE FOR THE 70S AND 50 UNIT INCREASE ON THE 80-FOOT WIDE.

THEY ARE NOT CHANGING THEIR ENTRY FEATURES, THEY ARE STILL GOING TO HAVE A MIXTURE OF PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AND AMENITIES.

THEY ARE SHOWING THE SCREENING WITH BOARD ON BOARD FENCING.

[00:35:07]

ALONG HAYES ROAD TO BUFFERED THE RESIDENTIAL FROM INDUSTRIAL, THEY DO HAVE ORNAMENTAL FENCING AND MASONRY SCREENING.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO TRAILHEADS IN THIS PHASE OF BRIDGEWATER, A REMINDER ALL RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITHIN BRIDGEWATER WILL BE A HALF-MILE. THIS IS SHOWING THE TRAIL SYSTEM, THIS IS THE POCKET IN THE COMMUNITY PARK.

THIS IS SHOWING EXPANSION OF AMENITIES AND AMENITY CENTER IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW. WE DID SEND 26 POSTCARDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY DID HAVE SIGNS OUT THERE.

WE DID POST IT IN THE MIDLOTHIAN MIRROR.

WE DID RECEIVE ONE EMAIL OF OPPOSITION FROM THE INDUSTRIAL OWNER HERE -- RIGHT HERE. THE GENTLEMAN WHO EXPRESSES OPPOSITION, HIS CONCERN HE WAS GOING TO BE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE HE IS AN INDUSTRIAL ZONE PROPERTY BY THE PORTION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IS PLANNED TO BE INDUSTRIAL, HE WAS OKAY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PD AMENDMENT AND THE PNC ALSO RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS

AMENDMENT. >> THE CHAIR: WITH THE APPLICANTS HERE LIKE TO SPEAK OR MAKE A PRESENTATION ARE WELCOME TO COME FORWARD. OR YOU CAN JUST BE AVAILABLE FOR

QUESTIONS. >> WE HAD A PRESENTATION -- WE ARE BACK. WE LISTEN TO YOU THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE. ABOUT THE MIXED-USE DISTRICT SO WE MADE THAT CHANGE AND CHANGE OF THE TOWNHOMES WHICH IS THE EXACT SAME LANGUAGE WE HAD IN THE ORIGINAL ZONING THAT CURRENTLY HAS IT IN THE SAME AREA AS TOWNHOME RIGHT NOW, IF IT'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ABOUT IT WE ALSO WORKED ON HAYES ROAD ALIGNMENT WITH CITY ENGINEERING AND THE LANDOWNER TO THE NORTH TO MAKE SURE THAT LINED UP WITH THAT -- NOTHING OTHER THAN THAT, NOTHING HAS CHANGED. THE CENTER IS NOT QUITE THERE YET, WAITING ON A COUPLE PERMITS FROM THE CITY BUT THAT SHOULD BE GOING ON STARTING IN EARNEST IN SEPTEMBER AND BE UP NEXT YEAR.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I AM HERE.

>> JUST AS A REMINDER THIS IS FOR BOTH ITEMS TO 58 AND 259, QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY OF THAT FEEL FREE TO ENGAGE.

>> JUST TO CONFIRM US IN LOOKING BACK RELATIVE TO LATE APRIL THE MAJOR CHANGES IS GOING TO BE YOUR MIXED USE OF TOWNHOME? I'M GOING TO POINT DOWN TO SECTION 5D WORK TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TOWNHOMES SUBDISTRICT.

SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS, DEVELOPED THIS COMMUNITY AND YOU GET INTO YOUR DEFINITIONS YOU ALSO HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AND CONDOMINIUMS. WHAT IS GOING TO BE IN THIS

COURT OR? >> TYPICALLY HAVE WE DONE IT IN OTHER CITIES IS IT ALLOWS YOU FLEXIBILITY, IT HAS TO BE TOWNHOMES, HAS TO BE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS BUT IT CAN ALSO BE PLATTED AS ONE LOTS WE CAN HAVE ITS OWN CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX WHICH IS BETTER FOR MAINTENANCE, MOWING PEOPLE'S YARDS OF IS NOT SINGLE-FAMILY, INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE LOTS IT'S HARD TO GET ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S LOT TO DO THAT. THAT'S NOT A MAJOR DEAL TO US IT JUST GIVES US FLEXIBILITY. BUT THESE WILL BE TOWNHOME UNITS, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING ELSE.

>> GOTCHA. I'M SEEING LOTS OF DETAIL ON RESIDENTIAL, ON PARTICULAR THE TOM HOMAN AREA, IT IS VERY VAGUE RIGHT NOW ARE WE ANTICIPATING TO SEE ANY DETAILS?

>> IT'S PART OF THE PDF HAS TO COME BACK BEFORE.

AT HAS TO COME BACK WHEN YOU GUYS LOOK AT ELEVATIONS, AMENITIES, ALL THE STREET PASS, EVERYTHING ELSE IN THERE.

>> I TRIED TO FIND IT WHERE THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY STATED I KNOW

YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT. >> YES, BECAUSE THE SECTION WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DETAILED SITE PLAN, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE THE LAYOUT OF THE TOWNHOMES, IT WOULDN'T MATCH THE

[00:40:04]

EXISTING CONCEPT PLAN. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COMBAT THE

DETAILS. >> I FOUND IT FOR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL I DIDN'T SEE IT FOR THE TOWNHOME PER SE.

LOOK AT SECTION 12-C. THAT WOULD BASICALLY BE WHERE IT DESCRIBES IT. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT HAS THE ELEVATIONS, ET CETERA, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AS A DETAIL THAT IS AMENDING THE ORDINANCE JUST LIKE

WE ARE DOING HERE. >> IF YOU WANT US TO BE MORE CLEAR WE CAN STATE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE DISTRICT HAS

TO HAVE DETAILED SITE PLAN? >> I WILL DEFER TO STEPHAN THAT.

HAYES ROAD IS ALSO A MAJOR PIECE FOR ME I DON'T KNOW IF THIS DIRECTED TO APPLICANT OR STAFF BUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL 910 UNITS BEING ADDED, HOW DOES IT LINED UP WITH THE DEVELOPED OF

THESE HOMES IN THAT AREA? >> I KNOW THEY HAVE BEEN COORDINATING WITH ENGINEERING TO COORDINATE THE DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS ALONG HAYES. I WILL LET MIKE ANSWER THAT QUESTION. [LAUGHTER]

>> I'M GOING TO ADD IN A QUESTION, EXHIBIT B SHOWS A DIFFERENT ALIGNMENT OF HAYES ROAD THAT EVERY OTHER EXHIBIT IN THE DRAFT ORDINANCE CLICK ON WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE OLD VERSION OF EXHIBIT B IN THERE. THE ONE THAT SAYS THOROUGHFARE PLAN IS THE ONE THAT SENDS WHERE THE ROADS GO AND IT APPEARS TO DIVERT FROM ALL THE REST OF T THEM.

>> IT'S REALLY GOING TO BE BASED ON THEIR PHASING WHEN IT HAPPENS. WE LOOK FOR ONE OF THE THINGS GOING TONIGHT, THE BOND PROPOSITION WHICH INCLUDES THAT ROADWAY. WE WILL DEFINITELY BE LOOKING FOR THE RIGHT OF WAY BUT ALSO THE PORTION OF THE SEGMENT ON HAYES ROAD GOING TO DEVELOPMENT. IF THEY HAPPEN TO BE THERE SOONER THAN US, GREAT BUT WE WILL STILL BE LOOKING FOR

PARTICIPATION ON OUR PROJECT. >> TO ANSWER THE QUESTION IF YOU WANT TO INCLUDE THE TOWNHOME IN SECTION 12C THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE MOTION AND COUNCILMAN WEAVER TO YOUR POINT WE WANT TO REPLACE EXHIBIT B TO ALIGN WITH EXHIBIT A, WE CAN MAKE THAT AS

PART OF THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE EXHIBIT B SHOWS NO SWOOP TO THE WEST ON THE NORTHWEST OF HAYES ROAD AS IT

SHOWS ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. >> WE WERE COORDINATING WITH MR. ADAMS, WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE LANDOWNER WE HAD THAT EXHIBIT, WE JUST HAVE IT UPDATED THAT BUT I HAVE A COPY OF IT HERE. WHAT DOES LINEUP WITH WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW. WE'LL RESEND IT.

>> FOR SIMPLE TO APOLOGIZE FOR MY QUESTION, BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GOT A CONSISTENT ANSWER AND I OWNED A TOWNHOME ONCE IN HOUSTON -- WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A TOWNHOME? WHAT IS THE DEFINITION OF A CONDOMINIUM, AND WHAT'S THE

DIFFERENCE? >> BASICALLY IN THE WAY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN RIGHT NOW IS A TOWNHOME IS AN ATTACHED UNIT THAT CAN ONLY BE A CERTAIN ROUND FEET LONG AND HAS TO BE IN A BLOCK SIZE. AT HAS TO FOLLOW THOSE GUIDELINES BUT IT'S ON ONE LOT VERSUS INDIVIDUAL PLATTED LOTS.

IT'S STILL THE SAME PRODUCT -- I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> GO AHEAD. >> STILL THE SAME PRODUCT, JUST A DIFFERENT WAY. THE OWNERSHIP WOULD BE A CONDOMINIUM STYLE OWNERSHIP OR THEY WOULD ALL PAY DUES VERSUS AN INDIVIDUAL BUYING AN INDIVIDUAL LOT.

SPEAK OF THE OWNERSHIP ESPECIALLY OF THE LAND, WHO OWNS

WHAT? >> THEY BUY INTO -- AND THE CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX, THEY BUY A PIECE OF THE CONDOMINIUM.

IT'S LIKE A HIGH-RISE. IF IT'S TOO COMPLICATED WE CAN

REMOVE IT. >> I KEEP ASKING THIS QUESTION I KEEP GETTING DIFFERENT ANSWERS. MY QUESTION REALLY DEALS AROUND

OWNERSHIP, WHO OWNS WHAT? >> EVERYBODY HAS A PARTIAL OWNERSHIP IN THE LAND AND ALL THE IMPROVEMENTS.

>> THAT'S TRUE FOR A TOWNHOME ALSO?

>> IN THE TOWNHOME THEY OWN JUST THE LAND AND THE IMPROVEMENTS,

INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS. >> I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID BEFORE, THE TOWNHOME DOES OWN THE LAND.

>> HE OWNS THE LAND IN HIS UNITS.

>> AND THE MAINTENANCE? SPEAK OF THE REASON WHY WE HAVE DONE IT IN CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX IS IN TOWNHOMES YOU WANT ONE PERSON MAINTAINING ALL THE FRONT GUARDS COME ALL THE COMMON SPACE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. IN A SINGLE-FAMILY LOT DEVELOPMENT YOU DON'T HAVE A CONDOMINIUM YOU CAN'T GO ON SOMEBODY'S YARD AND MOW IF THEY ARE NOT DOING AT THE SAME WAY

[00:45:03]

EVEN IF IT'S IN AN HO WAY, YOU CAN'T.

IT'S THE SAME THING WITH A FEE SIMPLE TYPE DEAL.

AND A CONDOMINIUM COMPLEX YOU TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO DO THAT.

SO DEVELOPERS LIKE TO HAVE THAT DONE, SOME DON'T.

IT'S JUST TO MAINTAIN -- THIS WILL HAVE TO COME BACK IF IT COMES BACK THEY WILL BETTER EXPLAIN HOW IT WORKS BUT IF IT'S CAUSING HEARTBURN FOR PEOPLE WE CAN REMOVE THE WORD CONDOMINIUM

WORKOUT. >> THANK YOU.

>> FOR ME ON THE CONDOMINIUM PART I WOULD PREFER TO SEE THAT REMOVED TO BE COMPLETELY HONEST WITH YOU.

WE WENT AWAY FROM HAVING MUL MULTI-MIXED-USE APARTMENTS, I'M LIKING DEFINITION CLEARLY ON WHAT CONDOMINIUM LOOKS LIKE THAT DOES CONCERN ME BUT IT'S COMING DOWN THE ROAD.

>> WE CAN REMOVE THAT LANGUAGE AND MAKE THE ADJUSTMENTS WITH

THESE OTHERS TOO. >> I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THE CONDOMINIUM LANGUAGE.

IT'S SIX OF ONE, HALF A DOZEN OF THE OTHER.

IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING WITH EIGHT UNITS YOU EITHER OWN THE LAND FEE SIMPLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR OR YOU OWN A FRACTION OR YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A CONDO REGIME.

EITHER WAY THE UNIT IS MARKETABLE SEPARATE FROM ALL THE OTHER UNITS. I HAVE GREATER CONCERNS WITH IN A CONDO SITUATION, THE PROPENSITY OR POSSIBILITY FOR STACKED UNITS COMES INTO PLAY. I BE LIKE SEE THAT IN THE DEFINITION, YOU CAN'T STACK ONE UNIT ON TOP OF ANOTHER UNIT?

>> WE COULD STRIKE THAT. >> I HAVE CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MANY TOTAL UNITS WHETHER THEY ARE PLANTED, FEE SIMPLE OR CONDO OR IN ONE BLOCK. IF WE GET MUCH BEYOND SIX OR EIGHT IT CHANGES THE DYNAMIC OF THAT.

BOTH DEFINITIONS I THINK WE CAN SOLVE FOR THE PERCEIVED HARM OR POTENTIAL HARM BY SAYING WE ARE LIMITED TO SIX OR EIGHT UNITS IN ONE BUILDING AT THE NO UNITS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO BE ON TOP OF ANOTHER UNIT. IF WE ARE GOING TO DO THAT, THEN IT BECOMES A DIFFERENCE VEHICLE, DO WE WANT TO HAVE A FULLY AMANA TIES DID MAINTAIN BUILDING OR DO WE WANT TO HAVE EACH OWNER HAVE TO MAINTAIN THEIR OWN PORTION OF THE COMMON AREA OR THE GUARDS THEY OWN. I AGREE THAT IS A MATTER OF PREFERENCE AND ECONOMICS. BUT I DO WANT TO SEE WE DON'T HAVE MORE THAN EIGHT UNITS IN ONE BUILDING AND WE DON'T HAVE

STACKED UNITS. >> WE CAN ADD THAT LANGUAGE IN THERE I DIDN'T EVEN THINK ABOUT THE STACKED UNITS.

THE PEOPLE WE BUILD WITH DO THAT WHAT WE WILL ALSO ADD IN MINIMUMS, MAXIMUMS OF UNITS PER BUILDING.

>> ALONG THE ROAD I WAS UNCLEAR WHETHER OR NOT THIS WOULD BE FENCED OR RAIL FENCE, WOOD FENCE, THAT SORT OF THING.

PARTICULARLY ALONG WITH HAYES ROAD.

>> HAYES ROAD BEHIND THEIR WE WILL HAVE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY THAT WE HAVE A 20-FOOT LANDSCAPE, 30-FOOT LANDSCAPE OFFER AND WE WILL HAVE A BOARD ON BOARD FENCE WITH BRICK COLUMNS EVERY HUNDRED FEET AND LANDSCAPING IN THERE AS WELL.

TO BE PERFECTLY HONEST WITH YOU, HAYES ROAD WILL SIT HIGHER, THEN YOU WILL HAVE THIS 6-FOOT FENCE AND IS GOING TO BE A RETAINING WALL. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE ANY

EFFECT FROM THAT. >> MINE IS JUST A STATEMENT, THAT IS WE WORK TOGETHER ON THE FIRST ONE IT TURNED OUT BEAUTIFUL, LOVE THE DEVELOPMENT. I LOVE EVERYTHING YOU GUYS ARE PUTTING FORWARD HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD PRODUCT, I THINK YOU DESERVE AN ANSWER AT LEAST FROM WHERE I STAND I GAVE THE WHOLE THING ABOUT IT LAST TIME I'M NOT GOING TO DO IT AGAIN. ME AND MY COUNTERPARTS MAY OR MAY NOT DISAGREE, I THINK THIS IS A MORE TRANSITIONAL AREA TO LARGER LOTS COME I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT MY NONSUPPORT FOR THE PROJECT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU GUYS CAN WE GET A GREAT JOB ON PHASE ONE TREND. I THINK IT DOES NEED TO TRANSITION INTO LARGER LOTS. OTHER THAN THAT IT'S A GREAT

PROJECT. >> QUESTION ON THE SECOND AGENDA ITEM .259. 290.731 ACRES IS AT THE ENTIRETY OF THE PROPERTY OR SUDDEN EXCLUDE THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY.

>> IT EXCLUDES THE INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY IF YOU LOOK AT THE EXHIBIT UP THERE RIGHT NOW, THAT IS NOT INCLUDED.

>> THAT WAS PART OF OUR AGREEMENT WITH Y'ALL.

>> I WANT TO GO BACK ONE SECOND -- GO.

>> BUT IT DOES INCLUDE THE COMMERCIAL PIECE.

>> RIGHT OF THE COMMERCIAL PIECE ON THE FRONTAGE IS ALREADY IN THE MMD. IT'S JUST THE NEW PART OF THE

[00:50:04]

INDUSTRIAL THAT'S IN THE SEAL TRACK WILL NOT BE IN THE MMD.

>> WHAT'S CALLED OUT IN SECTION 3 OF THE RESOLUTION THAT SAYS ANYTHING INTENDED TO BE DEVELOPED INDUSTRIAL SHALL NOT

BE ANNEXED. >> PERFECT.

>> ON 259, WHAT IS BRINGING THE ADDITIONAL ACREAGE DOING TO THE MMD OVER WALL. STRENGTH OF THE DISTRICT BY EXPANDING THE TAX BASE, DOES IT CREATE ADDITIONAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATION VERSUS THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF BRIDGEWATER?

>> IT'S BASICALLY A TAX THAT IS LEVITY ON ON TOP OF YOUR TAX AND WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO IS CREATE MORE AMENITIES LIKE WE ARE DOING RIGHT NOW. WE ARE FILLING A NINE AND A HALF MILLION DOLLAR AMENITY CENTER ALL OF THESE OPEN SPACES AND THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE IF WE ARE UNDER THREE UNITS PER ACRE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THE HORSEPOWER TO DO THAT.

A WHOLE LOT OF INFRASTRUCTURE WE HAVE TO DO OUT THERE WELL.

IS NOT ANYTHING THE CITY IS GOING TO DO, THE RESIDENTS ARE DISCLOSED ABOUT IT WHEN YOU DRIVE IT TO THE PROPERTY NOW YOU SEE SIGNS BUT THAT'S HOW IT WORKS WORKOUT.

>> ARE YOU ANTICIPATING THAT FINANCIAL OBLIGATION STAYING THE SAME FOR THOSE RESIDENTS? TO BE DETERMINED?

>> IN THE TAX? YEAH.

THEY WILL ALWAYS HAVE A TAX ON THERE.

IT'S GOOD FOR THE TWO REASONS IT HELPS YOU BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS WE SELL BONDS TO REIMBURSE OUR INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS.

WHEN THAT DEBT IS RETIRED THEN IT WOULD BE REDUCED BY THAT DEBT SERVICE YOU STILL HAVE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE, THAT HELPS MAINTAIN THESE AREAS AS WELL.

THAT FLOWS IN WHICH THEN CAN DO THINGS FOR THE COMMUNITY FROM THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS IF THERE IS A HUGE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE THAT NEEDS TO COME UP INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH HOA TO TRY TO ASSESS PEOPLE YOU CAN DO IT THROUGH THE MMD AS WELL.

SPEAK ALL THAT IS DISCLOSED. >> THERE'S ONE FEE FOR

EVERYBODY. >> IT'S BASED ON A TAX RATE, JUST BASED ON YOUR TAXABLE VA VALUE.

>> DOES THE TAX IT SET UP IN THIS CASE TO HONOR 100% DISABLED VETERANS SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE NO ASSESSED VALUE?

>> I THINK THAT IS CORRECT, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM IT.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR MOTIONS?

>> CAN I RECAP WHAT WE HEARD? MAX OF EIGHT UNITS PER BUILDING ON THE TOWNHOME? NO STACKED UNITS? TOWNHOME ADDED TO SECTION 12C REQUIREMENT THAT IT MUST COME BACK TO THE COUNCIL AND EXCHANGE EXHIBIT B FOR THE CORRECT EXHIBIT B SHOWING THE CHANGE THAT'S THE FOUR THINGS I'VE

HEARD. >> THAT'S WHAT I HAVE.

>> THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSING, LEAVING THE CONDO LANGUAGE IN THEIR? I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

>> IT LIMITS THE NUMBER IN EACH INDIVIDUAL BUILDING.

>> WE DO THIS AS A JOINT MOTION? >> JOINT MOTION TO 58-259.

>> MAKE AN AGENDA ITEM TO APPROVE THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS TO 202-6258. FIRST REPLACED HE EXHIBIT B WITH THE UPDATED VERSION SHOWING THE HAYES ROAD ALIGNMENT, SECOND TO ADD TO PARAGRAPH 12-POINT SEE DETAILED -- TOWNHOME COMMUNITY AND TO REFLECT A MAXIMUM OF EIGHT UNITS PER BUILDING, AND NO STACKED UNITS. AND ANY OTHER AREAS REQUIRED.

>> WELL SAID, I SECOND THAT. >> MOTION MADE BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CHESHIER.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-1.

[2026-260 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing the issuance by the Midlothian Municipal Management District No. 2 of Unlimited Tax Utility Bonds, Series 2026, in the amount of $7,615,000. ]

REGULAR AGENDA 2026 TO 60, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE MIDLOTHIAN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NO. 2 OF UNLIMITED TAX UTILITY BONDS, SERIES 2026

[00:55:02]

IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,615,000. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS IS A FOLLOW UP WITH THE PREVIOUS AGENDA ITEMS, THIS IS THE MENISCAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE AND A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY, MMD 2, AND KNOCKS PARTNERS ENTERED IN RESTATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND FINANCE PLAN.

IN 2019. IN COMPLIANCE WITH THAT AGREEMENT, MMD HAS NOTIFIED THE CITY OF ITS INTENTION TO ISSUE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 2 UNLIMITED TAX UTILITY BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF 7,615,000.

THE MMD FOLLOWED THE REQUIREMENTS TO ISSUE THESE BONDS, THEY HAD AN ELECTION, THEY HAVE NOTIFIED US THE AMOUNT OF THE AUTHORIZED BONDS THEY CAN HAVE AND SUMMARIZING THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS A DISCUSSION FOR ABOUT THEIR FUNDING.

THE MMD IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE 150,061,000 AND UTILITY BONDS WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS BOND SALE THEY WILL HAVE A REMAINING AUTHORIZATION TO ISSUE 133,5133,585,000 AND SPECIFICALY UTILITY BONDS. WE CAME BEFORE, THEY ALSO HAD AN ELECTION TO ISSUE 229,000,560 ROAD BONDS WITH 12,645,000 ROAD BONDS ISSUED TODAY. THE BONDS ARE THE SOLE OBLIGATION OF THE MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, THE CITY HAS NO OBLIGATION TO PAY THESE BONDS.

THE REQUIREMENTS ARE WE APPROVE IT AS A CITY.

HOWEVER IF WE DON'T GIVE A NOTICE 45 DAYS AFTER THEY HAVE NOTIFIED US THEY WANT TO ISSUE THOSE THEY BECOME ISSUED REGARDLESS WHETHER OR NOT WE APPROVE THEM OR NOT.

I THINK WHEN I BROUGHT THE BONDS BEFORE I EXPLAINED THAT.

THEY HAVE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, THEIR VOTER APPROVED AUTHORITY, AND WITH THAT I WILL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS

ANYBODY MIGHT HAVE. >> ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK ON THIS? QUESTIONS ON THIS CASE?

>> MY LIGHT IS ON, I'LL ASK A QUESTION.

TO RECAP THIS HAS NO EFFECT ON THE CITY'S BOND RATING, THE CITY'S BOND DEBT LOAD, DEBT SERVICE, THIS IS PURELY RELATED TO THE RESIDENCE IN THE AMENITIES AND ROADWAYS BEING CONSTRUCTED FOR THEIR BENEFIT THE DEVELOPER'S FINANCING

THROUGH THE SALE OF THESE BONDS? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> FURTHER QUESTIONS? MOTIONS? SPEAK I WOULD POINT OUT THE COUNCIL THERE IS A SUGGESTED MOTION LANGUAGE ON THIS. IF YOU SEE IN YOUR AGENDA SUMMARY, THERE IS A SUGGESTED MOTION PLAN.

>> I MOVED TO ADOPT A RESO RESOLUTION, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE BY THE MIDLOTHIAN MUNICIPAL MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

NUMBER 2. >> THE CHAIR: MOTION BY

[2026-261 Consider and act upon a resolution accepting and approving a preliminary amended and restated service and assessment plan and preliminary assessment rolls for the Redden Farms Public Improvement District, calling a public hearing on the levy of special assessments against Improvement Areas #3-6 of the District and approving all other matters related thereto.]

COUNCILMAN WEAVER, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN SHUFFIELD, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 6-1.

ITEM 2026-261 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING AND APPROVING A PRELIMINARY AMENDED AND RESTATED SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR THE REDDEN FARMS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LEVY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST IMPROVEMENT AREAS #3-6 OF THE DISTRICT AND APPROVING ALL OTHER

IT'S AMENDING THEIR PRELIMINARY SERVICE AND ASSESSMENT PLAN

[01:00:04]

MOVING FORWARD. WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. IT IS FOR PAVING, WATER, SANITARY SEWER AND DRAINAGE, SOFT COSTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS AS WELL. I DO COME ARMED WITH A LOT OF

HELP. >> ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS?

MOTIONS? >> THERE IS A SUGGESTED MOTION

AS WELL. >> OF MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION, PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT ROLES FOR PUBLIC APPROVE A DISTRICT CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE LEVY OF SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS AGAINST IMPROVEMENT AREAS

NUMBER 3 THROUGH 6. >> SECOND.

>> PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7-0.

[2026-262 Consider, discuss and take a record vote to establish a maximum ad valorem tax rate of $0.640000 and schedule a public hearing regarding the proposed ad valorem tax rate for September 8, 2026. ]

SPEAK OF THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL BE ON AUGUST 25TH FOR THIS.

>> OPENING ITEM 2026-262. CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND TAKE A RECORD VOTE TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM AD VALOREM TAX RATE OF $0.640000 AND SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE PROPOSED AD VALOREM TAX RATE FOR SEPTEMBER

8, 2026. >> THIS IS AS THE CAPTION STATED, A RECORD VOTE. IT IS TO ESTABLISH THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE, SOME ITEMS TO NOTE, THE CITY'S TOTAL ADJUSTED TAXABLE VALUE HAS BEEN CERTIFIED AT 8 MILLION, 200 -- 8,002,047,000 -- NOPE. 8 MILLION -- SORRY, Y'ALL.

8,000,247,000, 860 -- 8,247,000,000, 863,000 -- 145, IT'S BEEN A LONG DAY. THAT MAKES EACH PENNY WORTH 824,786 OF YOUR TAX RATE. WE DO HAVE IN THE AGENDA ITEM, THE CITY'S VALUE, 1-2 -- JUST TO REITERATE WE ARE PROPOSING $0.60 PER 100 TAX RATES, THAT IS 1 PENNY DOWN FROM WHAT WE HAVE HAD IN OUR CURRENT YEAR THAT WE ARE OPERATING IN.

WE HAVE PROPOSED MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF 0.3365 -- 85 AND WE HAVE INTEREST IN SINKING RATE OF 0.03415, WE HAVE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE OF 0.604.722 AND A VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF 0.640, I KIND OF GO THROUGH THIS EVERY YEAR BUT JUST TO MAKE SURE EVERY ONE THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS WHAT THOSE TERMS MEAN, THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE IS THE RATE THAT PROVIDES THE EXACT SAME REVENUE AS THE PREVIOUS YEAR ASSUMING NO CHANGE IN THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES TAXED. IT EXCLUDES NEW CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENTS AND THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE IS THE HIGHEST PROPERTY TAX RATE THE CITY MAY ADOPT.

THAT DOES ALLOW THE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE OVER THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IT DOES ADD TO THE DEBT RATE PLUS SOME ADJUSTMENTS USED INCREMENTAL AMOUNTS.

THE STATE LAW DOES REQUIRE THE TAX UNIT HOLD A PUBLISHED DOMESTIC PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLISH A NEWSPAPER AD BEFORE ADOPTING A TAX RATE THAT SEES THE APPROVAL RATE OR NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE WHICHEVER IS LOWER SINCE THE RECOMMENDED PROPOSED TAX RATE WILL EXCEED THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE THESE REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET. WE DO HAVE -- ARE REQUIRED TO PUBLISH IN OUR NEWSPAPER OF RECORD WHICH IS THE MIDLOTHIAN MIRROR AS WELL AS THE CITY'S WEBSITE.

WE HAVE TO IN ADDITION LIKE I SAID I KEEP REPEATING JUST TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T MISS IT, WE HAVE TO DO THE RECORD VOTE TO ESTABLISH THIS MAXIMUM TAX RATE. ONCE THAT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE COUNCIL, WE CAN ALWAYS LOWER THAT TAX RATE BUT THIS IS THE HIGHEST TAX RATE THAT CAN BE ADOPTED TO.

[01:05:01]

IN ADDITION, IF YOU DO DECIDE TO GO BACK ON THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO START OUR WHOLE PROCESS OF NOTICES TO THE PUBLIC.

WE DO NEED TO ALSO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PROPOSED TAX RATE AND THE RECOMMENDED DATE FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS SEPTEMBER 8TH. I KNOW THAT'S A LOT OF DETAIL.

AGAIN, IT'S THE CAP THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THE COUNCIL HAS THE RIGHT TO RECOMMEND AN ALTERNATE CAP BUT THE ONE THE CITY IS RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME IS THE $0.64 PER 100.

>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK?

>> IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME THE MICROPHONE FOR THE RECORD AND WHAT GOT YOU LIVE IN THE CITY WILL HAVE

3 MINUTES. >> HELLO, LISA HEALY EYELID WITHIN THE THE CITY LIMITS AND I KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS BUT LAST WEEK THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE WAS 0.640000. WITHIN THE LAST WEEK WHEN THAT WAS NOTIFIED TO THE CITY MANAGER, THE CITY MANAGER AND HIS TEAM MANIPULATED -- BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT IS THE WORKSHEET, BACK-AND-FORTH EMAILS WITH THE TAX ASSESSOR.

IT WILL BE UPLOADED FOR ALL TO SEE.

TO INCREASE THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE TO THAT .640172 I THINK YOU HAD SAID -- I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT WAS BECAUSE THE TAX ASSESSOR COULD GET BACK TO ME BEFORE THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

I THINK THIS IS THE THIRD YEAR IN A ROW THAT THIS IS HAPPENED.

FOUR YEARS AGO WHEN I ACCUSED THE CITY MANAGER OF LYING TO CITY COUNCIL, I EXPERIENCED RETRIBUTION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. WHILE IT'S ALLOWABLE, IT'S NOT RIGHT. I ASKED THAT YOU EITHER GO UP TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE OF THE 0.640172 OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT WAS -- IT'S THOUSANDS OF A PENNY, WE ARE TALKING.

THEY MANIPULATED THE DEBT SERVICE.

GO UP AND LET THE VOTERS DECIDE, OR DO THE RIGHT THING AND BRING THE RATE DOWN. CUT SOME THINGS OUT.

YOU ARE INCREASING THE BUDGET FOR PUBLIC WORKS IN THE TEENS.

WE ARE ALREADY PAYING AN ADDITIONAL TAX WITH THE NEW WASTE CONNECTION GARBAGE, AND IT IS, IT'S GARBAGE.

I JUST ASK THAT YOU CONSIDERABLY LOOKING AT THIS BEFORE WE GET TO

THE PUBLIC HEARING, THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? QUESTIONS OF AN AND CHRIS -- CAN YOU ASK WHEN THE BACK-AND-FORTH LOOK AT THESE NUMBERS FINALIZE ITEMS IN THIS LETTER MOVING PARTS INCLUDING PEOPLE DISPUTING THEIR TAXES AND THESE OVERALL VALUES COMING OF THE LAST

MINUTES. >> WE GET THE CERTIFICATION AND WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, DO ALL THE CALCULATIONS TO SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE. THERE'S ADJUSTMENTS FOR DEBTS, NO DOUBT ABOUT IT. WE HAVE A PROGRAM WE TALK TO YOU ALL ABOUT, WE ARE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT IT IN ITEM, THAT IF THE COUNCIL SO CHOOSES TO PUT OUT A BOND REFERENDUM, WE HAVE TO MAKE MULTIYEAR PLANS TO ISSUE THAT DEBT.

THAT'S WHAT WE ARE DOING FOR LOOKING AT LONG-TERM DEBT ISSUANCE OVER TIME AND TRYING TO KEEP A CONSISTENT RATE AND OUR PLAN IS TO DROP IT AGAIN NEXT YEAR.

I CAN'T SPEAK FOR COUNCIL, BUT THE PLAN WE ROLLED OUT TO YOU WENT TO THE CITIZEN PLANNING COMMITTEE WAS WE ARE GOING TO 64 THIS YEAR WE WILL GO TO 63 NEXT YEAR, THAT IS OUR PLAN PRESUMING THAT THE BOND ELECTION GOES AND GETS APPROVED.

IT IS A MULTIYEAR PLAN, WE ARE NOT LYING TO ANYBODY, I WILL

[01:10:05]

STATE FOR A FACT I HAVE NOT LIED TO THIS COUNSEL REGARDLESS OF WHAT MS. HEALY THINKS. I'M BEING UPFRONT WITH YOU NOW,

THAT IS OUR PLAN. >> WOULD YOU DESCRIBE SOME OF THE EXEMPTIONS THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR RESIDENTS TO TAKE

ADVANTAGE OF? >> WE DO HAVE THE EXEMPTION, WE HAVE A SENIOR FREEZE, WE ALSO HAVE OUR HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, WE HAVE EXEMPTIONS FOR DISABILITY FOR VETERANS, I WILL THINK IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE OR FOR THOSE WHO ARE DISABLED, THERE'S A NUMBER OF AVENUES THAT PEOPLE CAN CONTACT DALLAS COUNTY AND LET THEM KNOW AND THEY CAN APPLY FOR THOSE.

>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERY CITIZEN TO REACH OUT TO ELLIS COUNTY AND MAKE SURE YOUR TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXEMPTIONS YOU QUALIFY. AT A MINIMUM PHYSICAL HOMESTEAD IS GRANTED TO THE 20% WHICH IS MAX ALLOWABLE BY THE STATE OF TEXAS WHICH EFFECTIVELY LOWERS THE TAXABLE VALUE FROM $0.64 TAX RATES TO AROUND 52 USING ROUND NUMBERS.

WELL BELOW FOR HOMESTEAD PROPERTIES.

>> RICHARD, I SEE YOU OVER TH THERE.

>> I WANT TO SPEAK AS MUCH AS A BUSINESSMAN IS ANYTHING, I THINK YOU HAVE TO BACK UP EIGHT, TEN YEARS WHEN AUSTIN DECIDED TO SEND IN THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, BUILT IN THERE, THREE AND HALF PERCENT INFLATION. FOR THE CITY SAYING INFLATION IS REAL. AND YOUR COSTS GO UP AND BACK THEN THERE WAS A DEBATE OF WHETHER IT SHOULD BE MORE THAN 3.5%, I DO THINK 5% WAS KICKED AROUND, CORRECT ME.

THIS VOTER APPROVAL RATE RECOGNIZES THE CITY IS FACED WITH INFLATION LIKE EVERYBODY, WE ARE NOT PLAYING GAMES WE'RE DOING THE BEST WE CAN TO DELIVER SERVICES TO THE CITY AND COLLECT THE FUNDS NECESSARY TO DO THAT. THIS PROCESS -- I HAVE TO GIVE THE COUNCIL KUDOS BECAUSE I'M A LATE JOINER HERE.

IT WAS EXCELLENT TO. IT WAS ABOVE BOARD AND WE KNEW WHAT THE IMPACT WAS. WE ARE GOING UP TO THE EDGE OF WHAT WE CAN DO, WE ARE WORKING WITHIN A 3.5% INFLATION COST THE CITY. THAT'S MY TWO CENTS.

>> EXECUTING THE BOND PROPOSITIONS THAT ARE VOTED ON BY THE PEOPLE. THIS SETS THE MAX RATE, IT DOES NOT SET THE RATE IT ESTABLISHES DECEMBER 8TH IS THE DATE WE WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT, CAN I TAKE A MOTION ON ITS? WE ARE GOING TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE.

YOU WANT TO DO IT? >> MR. RENO?

>> YES. >> MR. CHESHIER?

>> YES. HAMMONDS?

>> YES. WEAVER?

[2026-263 Consider and act upon an ordinance calling a special election to be held on November 3, 2026, relating to the issuance of bonds; providing for the conduct and the giving notice of the election; providing an effective date; and enacting other provisions relating to the subject. ]

>> YES. SHUFFIELD?

YES. >> THE CHAIR: ITEM PASSES 7-0, ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 3RD 2026 FOR THAT TO THE ISSUANCE OF BONDS PROVIDING FOR THE CONDUCT AND THE GIVING NOTICE OF THE ELECTION; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE; AND ENACTING OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE

SUBJECT. >> WE DO HAVE A REQUEST TO CALL FOR SPECIAL ELECTION ON NOVEMBEE PROPOSITIONS ON THE BALLOTS.

THE FIRST BEING PROPOSITION A WHICH WOULD BE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 102,300,000 TAX BONDS FIRST STREET AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS.

WE HAVE PROPOSED PROPOSITION B THE ISSUANCE OF 6,805,000 FOR BONDS RELATED TO CONSTRUCTING AND EQUIPPING A NEW POLICE SUBSTATION PROPOSITION C THE ISSUANCE OF 10 MILLION TO SURVEY AND COMPLETE IMPROVEMENTS TO CITY DRAINAGE.

WE HAVE PROPOSITION D WHICH IS 47,260,000 FOR PARKING

[01:15:08]

IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PARKS AND THAT WE HAVE PROPOSITION E FOR THE ISSUANCE OF 26,085,000 FOR BONDS FOR PARK CONSTRUCTION AND EQUIPPING PARKS. THIS IS THE INFORMATION ON POLLING PLACES, DATES AND TIMES, EARLY VOTING AND ELECTIONS WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE ORDINANCE ONCE RECEIVED FROM ELLIS COUNTY ELECTIONS DURING THE CONTRACTING PROCESS.

I WILL BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> WOULD ONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS MIGHT GIVE US AN OVERVIEW HOW WE GOT HERE REGARDING THE STEERING

COMMITTEE? >> EACH COUNCIL MEMBER APPOINTED TERKEL MEMBERS TO THE COMMITTEE AND THEN THE HEAD OF OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, PARKS BOARD --

>> LIBRARY , THEY FORM THE CITIZEN COMMITTEE THAT LED THIS EFFORT TO REVIEW AND ANALYZE AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL ON PROJECTS TO BE PLACED BEFORE THE VOTERS.

WENT THROUGH ALL OF THESE PROJECTS AND MORE, THEY CUT DOWN THE LIST TO THIS RECOGNITION IN FRONT OF YOU.

THEY ALSO PICKED, WE LAID OUT A FIVE AND SEVEN YOUR PROPOSAL TO THEM, THEY PICKED A FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL BASED ON WHAT WE FELT LIKE THE BONDING CAPACITY WAS. PICKED A FIVE YEAR PROPOSAL WITH A LIST OF PROJECTS. THIS WAS A CITIZEN LED EFFORT TO

MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION. >> ANYBODY SET UP TO SPEAK?

COUNSEL, QUESTIONS? >> NO.

>> FROM A CLARITY STANDPOINT DO YOU MIND OUTLINING, THE TWO THAT HAVE SOMEWHAT VAGUENESS TO ITS EXISTING PARKS VERSUS NEW PARKS,

CAN SOMEONE SPEAK THAT? >> SEVERAL PARK ITEMS LISTED AND EXISTING PARKS SUCH AS THE SPORTS PARK ET CETERA THAT WE HAVEN'T PLAYED TODAY. TRYING TO REVAMP IF YOU WILL COME A TWO NEW PARKS ON THE L LIST, THE OTHER IS AT THE CORNER OF MIDLOTHIAN PARK AND MOCKINGBIRD LANE WHICH IS PROPERTY THE CITY-OWNED, WHILE THEY ARE PART PROPERTY THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING ON THEM. IT WAS JUST DIFFERENTIATING THE EXISTING PARKS AND THOSE THAT DO NOT HAVE ANYTHING UPON THEM.

>> I WANT TO THINK ANYONE WHO SERVED IN THE CITIZEN PLANNING COMMITTEE FOR THEIR TIME, DUE DILIGENCE THEY PUT A LOT OF WORK REVIEWING THESE PROJECTS AND WRITTEN ADDITIONS FROM STAFF.

I THINK WE ALL KNOW MIDLOTHIAN CONTINUES TO GROW WITH THAT GROWTH COMES SOME IMPORTANT DECISIONS ABOUT HOW WE PREPARE FOR THE NEEDS OF THIS COMMUNITY. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT WENT INTO THE PROCESS I THINK THE NEXT STEP IS PUTTING THAT INVESTMENT DECISIONS IN THE HANDS OF OUR VOTERS LEADING OUR COMMUNITY DECIDE HOW WE MOVE FORWARD TOGETHER.

>> I AGREE WITH CASEY -- WE STARTED THIS PROJECT I THOUGHT THAT OUR NEXT BOND ISSUANCE WOULD BE FOR ROADS AND FOR STAFF, THEY BROUGHT UP OTHER ISSUES I COULDN'T THINK OF.

I WAS EDUCATED AND REALIZED THERE WERE OTHER ASKS OUT THERE AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO WEIGH IN ON WHAT THEY WANT US TO SPEND THEIR MONEY ON.

IT'S A GOOD DEAL. >> THE CHAIR: ANY FURTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MOVE TO APPROVE?

>> MOTION MADE TO IMPROVE BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILWOMAN HAMMONDS. PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-264 Receive a presentation from SAMCO Capital Markets, Inc. outlining a General Obligation Bond issuance for the construction of streets and road improvements, and Tax Notes to fund new and replacement equipment, sidewalk and curb rehabilitation, facility repairs and software. ]

ITEM PASSES 7-0. ITEM 2026-264 RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM SAMCO CAPITAL MARKETS, INC. OUTLINING A GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND ISSUANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREETS AND ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND TAX NOTES TO FUND NEW AND REPLACEMENT EQUIPMENT, SIDEWALK AND CURB REHABILITATION, FACILITY REPAIRS AND SOFTWARE.

>> THANK YOU, MAYOR. JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE THE MAY 1ST 2021 BOND ELECTIONS, THE CITIZENS APPROVED 46 MILLION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY AND POLICE HEADQUARTERS.

I SHOULD SAY POLICE AND FIRE. 25 MILLION FOR CITY HALL AT THE PUBLIC LIBRARY AND THE RECREATION CENTER, 19 MILLION FOR THE RECREATION CENTER WE JUST DISCUSSED EARLIER TONIGHT

[01:20:02]

AND THEN WE HAVE 35,000,575 FOR CITY STREETS AND ROADS.

OF THOSE BONDS REMAINING FROM THAT ELECTION WE HAVE 21,175,000 21,175,000APPROVED AND UNISSUED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS THAT'S A MAJOR IN PORTION OF WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING TO ISSUE AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE TWO OPTIONS FOR TAX NOTE ITEMS THAT PERTAIN TO EQUIPMENT, SIDEWALKS AND CURB REHABILITATION.

FACILITY REPAIRS, A NEW FIRE ENGINE AND SOFTWARE THAT IS IDENTIFIED OF THE 2026-2027 BUDGET PLUS WE ALSO HAVE AN UPGRADE TO CAMEL PART, THAT IS THE OPTION THAT MARK IS GOING TO COME AND DISCUSS IN ADDITION, THERE IS AN OPTION TO PROVIDE A REMODEL OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY FOR AN ADDITIONAL 3 MILLION, 83,000 AND I WILL HAVE MARK MACLEAN HE COME AND DISCUSS THE ISSUING STRATEGY.

>> WELCOME, MARK. >> THANK YOU ALL.

A LOT OF NUMBERS THAT WILL MAKE YOUR EYES GO CROSSWISE.

THEN WE WILL GO THROUGH IT AND DISCUSS IT.

ONE OF THE REASONS WE WANT TO COME TODAY IS WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT BOND ISSUES WITH YOU MORE THAN ONCE.

A TAX NOTE ONLY HAS ONE LEGAL REQUIREMENT, IF YOU ASK US TO PROCEED FOR THE 25TH, WE DIDN'T WANT TO HAVE YOU SHOW UP ON THE 25TH WITHOUT HAVING A CHANCE TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS THAT MAY COME UP. WE WENT THROUGH, 21,000,175 OF GEO BONDS VOTED AND UNISSUED FOR STREETS.

WE SAW TAX NOTE FOR 2026, THAT INCLUDES PD IMPROVEMENTS -- WHAT IS THE PD IMPROVEMENTS? TRAINING FACILITY.

THE OTHER IS FOR FIRE AND SOFTWARE.

ATTACKS NOTE LEGALLY CAN ONLY GO SEVEN YEARS.

IT HAS TO BE KEPT FROM THE TIME YOU ISSUE THEM.

-- I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE CHART UNLESS YOU WANT TO, BUT IT'S TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOUR TAXABLE VALUE WHICH WE GOT FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT. WE HAVE EXISTING DEBT THAT IS SUPPORTED BY AD VALOREM, LEFT TO MIKE RIGHT.

WE HAVE PAYMENTS THAT COME IN, THEN WE HAVE BLOCKED OUT 21,000,175 RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE WHICH IS THE GEO BONDS, THAT'S FUNDED OVER 20 YEARS, THAN THE 11,011,000,001D5 OVER SEVEN YEAS GIVING US -- IF YOU PROCEED WITH TOTAL DEBT WOULD BE.

THE ANNUAL PAYMENT GOING FORWARD.

WE HAVE CERTAIN DEDUCTIONS THAT C.A.D. PROVIDES US AND THAT'S FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEN 43D WHICH IS USING -- 43B LINE ITEMS AS FROM OTHER SOURCES AND A 43D IS WHAT WE ARE GOING TO USE FROM ACCRUED INTEREST, MONEY THAT'S ON HAND AND EXCESS DEBT COLLECTIONS WHICH AMOUNT COMES FROM THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT ON MONEY THAT COMES IN AFTER YOUR CERTIFIED VALUES COME IN.

THAT MONEY IS USED FOR NEXT YEAR'S PAYMENT, IT IS SET THERE FOR OUR BEHALF. WHAT GIVES YOU A NET GENERAL FUND DEBT FOR NEXT YEAR OF ONE TO 4 MILLION TO 71 PICK OF YOU TAKE IT TO THE FAR RIGHT HAND COLUMN, IT'S THAT 30.3516 TAX RATE, AT THAT -- WE ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAX OUT TWO YEARS, $0.64 FOR THE TARGET. NOTICE RIGHT BELOW THAT NUMBER ON THE RIGHT-HAND COLUMN: IT DROPS TO $0.17 THE FOLLOWING YEAR PREVENTS THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE GEO BONDS THAT YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT ALLOWS YOU TO DO UP TO THAT 195 MILLION WITHOUT HAVING A TAX INCREASE ON THE INS SIDE.

TODAY WAS, WE ARE PLANNING ON SELLING THESE OBLIGATIONS ON THE

[01:25:02]

25TH. WE WOULD BE BRINGING FINAL INTEREST RATES FOR THE TAX NOTES AS WELL AS FOR THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND. THE GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS WE TALKED ABOUT WE HAVE HAD THE PROCESS GOING FOR SOME TIME, WE DID NOT WANT YOU ALL TO COME TO CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND BE FORCED TO MAKE AN AUTHORIZATION WITHOUT HAVING A CHANCE TO ASK THE QUESTIONS AND HOW THIS WILL PLAY OUT WITH YOUR TAX RATE WHICH IS TIED TO DO THIS TIME OF YEAR, SETTING THE BUDGET, SAID OF THE TAX RATE IN MOVING FORWARD.

IN THEORY, IF YOU APPROVE THESE ON THE 25TH YOUR BOND PAYMENT WILL BE SET AND YOU CAN SET YOUR TAX RATE AFTERWARDS, SEPTEMBER 8TH SCHEDULED MEETING. REALLY JUST NOW QUESTIONS AND WHETHER YOU WANT TO USE ALL THOSE PROJECTS ON THE TAX NOTES AND LOOKING FOR DIRECTION SO WE CAN PROCEED TO THE 25TH.

>> COUNCIL QUESTIONS OF MARK OR ANNA BUT THE TAX NOTE SITUATION?

>> ON THE 21 MILLION LEFT, WITH IT BEING SPACED OUT BETWEEN NOW AND 2046 DOES THAT MEAN WE ARE DRAWING DOWN THAT MUCH EACH YEAR? THAT'S THE PLANNED PAYMENT.

>> THAT IS GOING TO BE YOUR PLANNED PAYMENT AFTER YOU GET THE FUND. ONCE YOU START SPENDING IT, YOU WILL HAVE IT IN YOUR ACCOUNT STARTING LATE SEPTEMBER.

IT WILL BE IN YOUR CONSTRUCTION EARNING INTEREST.

HOW QUICKLY YOU GET TO THE PROJECTS AS IF YOU BID THEM OR

START WORKING THROUGH THEM. >> AT THE SAME TIME?

>> THIS ROUND WE ARE ISSUING 21 TODAY, 175.

FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE GOT. >> WE WILL BE SPENDING IT QUICKLY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO BE SUBJECT TO ARBITRAGE.

>> I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

THE DEBT SERVICE FOR BOTH OPTIONS THEY ARE ALREADY BUILT INTO THE PROPOSED TAX RATE WE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN DISCUSSING,

CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT.

>> SINCE WE DON'T KNOW INTEREST RATES RIGHT NOW, WE BACK INTO -- WE KNOW WHAT THE TOTAL IS COME YOU'VE GIVEN US THE $0.64 BROKEN OUT -- IF, FOR EXAMPLE, WE ESTIMATE FOUR AND THREE QUARTERS 450 WE ARE GOING TO BE CLOSER TO FOUR AND A QUARTER ON A 20, CLOSER TO FOUR ON THE SEVEN YEAR TAX NOTE TO.

IN THAT EVENT BECAUSE WE HAVE A TARGET THE TAX RATE WE ARE GOING TO PUSH PRINCIPAL IN YEAR ONE TREND LOWERING THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROJECT. WE DON'T HAVE TO CARRY AS MUCH INTERESTED THAT FREES UP FUTURE CAPACITY.

ALTERNATIVELY IF RATES GO HIGHER WHICH WE DON'T ANTICIPATE WE WOULD PULL THE PRINCIPAL OUT OF THAT FIRST YEAR AND PUSH IT IN LATTER YEARS. WE WILL BE ABLE TO HIT YOUR

TARGET THAN $5,000 TOTAL. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> LOOKING AT OPTION 2, OPTION ONE TREND DIFFERENCES IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PUBLIC SAFETY TRAINING FACILITY.

>> IT IS. >> WE WERE TALKING ABOUT OPTION ONE TREND VERSUS OPTION 2, OPTION ONE IS EVERY THING THAT'S BEEN INCLUDED ON THE SUPPLEMENTAL GENERAL FUND, OPTION 2 IS GOING TO BE THE 3 MILLION FOR PUBLIC SAFETY?

>> THAT'S CORRECT. SPEAKER READY FOR MOTION?

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE WITH OPTIO. >> MOTION MADE TO IMPROVE WITH OPTION 2 BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7-0.

>> GETTING FINAL ANSWER TWO WEEKS FROM T TODAY?

>> SETTLE FROM YOUR BOND COUNSEL, I SHOULD'VE INTRODUCED

HIM TO BEGIN WITH. >> WE LET HIM MAKE A SPEECH LATER. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEEDED ACTION THERE, DID WE? WE GOT THE DIRECTION?

[2026-265 Consider and act upon a resolution authorizing an expenditure in the amount of $85,109 by Midlothian Community Development (MCD) to El Primo’s Midlothian for the costs associated with a cabinet sign, sidewalk, railing and trim lights at 211 W. Main St., Midlothian, TX 76065. ]

2026-265 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AN EXPENDITURE IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,109 BY MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO EL PRIMO'S MIDLOTHIAN FOR THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH A

[01:30:01]

CABINET SIGN, SIDEWALK, RAILING AND TRIM LIGHTS AT 211 W. MAIN ST., MIDLOTHIAN, TX 76065.

>> AT OUR JULY 23RD MEETING WE DID HEAR A GRANT REQUEST FROM PRIMO'S TO ASSIST WITH SITE IMPROVEMENTS AND THAT WAS APPROVED THE AMOUNT OF $85,190.02.

WE ARE LOOKING FOR APPROVAL OF THAT EXPENDITURE.

>> ANYONE SIGN UP TO SPEAK? QUESTIONS ON THIS?

MOTIONS ON THIS? >> REAL QUICK QUESTION, HOW DOES THIS PROJECT FITS WITHIN THE TYPES OF PRIVATE PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT THAT MCD -- I KEEP GETTING IT WRONG HAS

HISTORICALLY SUPPORTED? >> WE HAVEN'T DONE A LOT OF PROJECTS LIKE THIS BUT IT DOES FIT WITHIN OUR DOWNTOWN IT DOES FIT WITHIN SMALL BUSINESS IMPROVEMENTS AND OF COURSE IT

FITS WITHIN CODE. >> IN YOUR OPINION IT FITS WITH

MCD'S BROADER VISION? >> IT'S ESSENTIALLY IT CAN DO

WHATEVER TYPE A CAN DO. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APP

APPROVE. >> MOTION, SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-266 Consider and act upon a recommendation from Midlothian Economic Development to approve the program and expenditures outlined in the Economic Development Performance Agreement with 67287 CCOT Investors, LLC for project related infrastructure improvements necessary to promote new or expanded business enterprise. ]

ITEM PASSES 7-0. ITEM 2026 TO 66 CONSIDER AND ACT ON A RECOMMENDATION TO APPROVE THE PROGRAM AND EXPENDITURES OUTLINED IN THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT WITH 67287 CCOT INVESTORS, LLC FOR PROJECT RELATED INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS NECESSARY TO PROMOTE NEW OR

EXPANDED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE. >> GOOD EVENING.

THIS IS AN ITEM WE BROUGHT BEFORE COUNSEL A FEW WEEKS AGO WE ARE BRINGING IT BACK WITH THE SAME STRUCTURE WHERE AT THE POINT OF APPROVAL THE CONDITIONAL CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN IT WOULD BE APPROVED BY BOTH COUNSEL AND ECONOMIC DEVEL DEVELOPMENT. QUICK OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT, THIS IS AN ITEM THAT IS SUPPORTED FOR DESTINATION DEVELOPMENT WHAT IS PROPOSED TO BRING ADDITIONAL ENHANCED IMPROVEMENTS TO HELP THIS DEVELOPMENT TO BECOME MORE OF A DESTINATION ENVELOPMENT AS OUTLINED IN THE AGREEMENT, IT STATES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF FUNDS THAT CAN BE EARNED BASED ON FACILITIES THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO.

WE WENT THROUGH AND DEVELOPED SALES TAX PROJECTIONS AND THIS LOOKS AT FUTURE SALES TAX COLLECTIONS THAT WILL BE RECEIVED AT THE SITE BUT THEN CAN BE REINVESTED ON SITE.

WE WOULD BRING BACK THE FINAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED APPROVAL FROM BOTH COUNSEL AND THE BOARD AS WE ARE LOOKING AT THAT FIRST YEAR FUNDING GRANT.

ONCE THEY START CONSTRUCTION OF ONE OF THE BUILDINGS THAT QUALIFIES FOR FUNDING, THEY WOULD ALSO HAVE THE ABILITY TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL FUNDING THAT WOULD GO TOWARDS MAINTENANCE.

THIS IS WHEN THE THE KEY THINGS THAT HELPS TO ENSURE WE CAN HAVE THESE NICE IMPROVEMENTS WITHOUT HAVING THE BURDEN ON THE ADDITIONAL BUILDING COMPANIES THAT OPERATE AT THAT SITE.

AS THE AGREEMENT CONTINUES ON, THE FUNDS AGAIN THAT ARE GENERATED AFTER THAT SITE WILL PAY FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE LAST HALF GOING TOWARDS ADDITIONAL MAINTENANCE. THIS AGREEMENT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT ALREADY HAS IMPROVEMENTS AT THE SITE, ONE OF THINGS WE HAVE FORMALIZED AND THIS IS THE DEVELOPER WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THAT AMENITY AREA WHICH ALIGNS WITH THE INITIAL OBLIGATION THEY WERE REQUIRED TO DO. WITH THAT ARE THERE ANY

QUESTIONS OF COUNSEL? >> WHAT WAS THE INITIAL

OBLIGATION TO THE DEVELOPER? >> IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS WHAT WE ARE PUT AGAIN, THAT MILLION DOLLARS, 25% OF THE

INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS. >> I WILL SAY THANKS FOR ADDING FOR COUNSEL THAT FINAL CONCEPT PLAN, YOU'RE TRYING TO ENGAGE A UNIQUE FEATURE IN THE DEVELOPMENT I HOPE THIS MAKES AN ATTRACTIVE CORE DOOR NOT ONLY FOR RESIDENTS BUT FOR VISITORS

AS WELL TO SPEND THEIR MONEY. >> DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON

THIS ONE? >> THE CHAIR: IF YOU COME FORWARD AND STATE YOUR NAME TO THE MICROPHONE AND WHETHER YET

[01:35:02]

YOU LIVE IN THE CITY LIMITS. >> I'M GOING TO ASK YOU NOT SUPPORT THIS, AS ONE OF THE MAJOR BUILDINGS IT WON'T BE A TAX REVENUE GENERATOR FOR US, THEY'RE GETTING A HUGE BENEFIT BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THEIR LOT, LOT TEN.

I REALLY DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE SPENDING MORE MONEY IN THIS AREA THAN THE OTHER ONE YOU APPROVED FOR $7.6 MILLION FOR A CREEK WALK. ARE WE TRYING TO BE LIKE RIVERWALK IN SAN ANTONIO BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A CREEK WALK? IF THEY WANTED TO LOOK NICE, BIG BOX STORE, GAS STATION, CONVENIENCE STORE, LET THEM PAY FOR IT.

THEY REALLY WANT TO LOOK NICE AND THEY WANT TO BE HERE, DON'T USE THE SALES TAX MONEY, THANK YOU.

>> THE CHAIR: THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KYLE? MOTIONS?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN CHESHIER, PLEASE V VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-1. WE ARE GOING TO SKIP TO 67 FOR

[2026-268 Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Mayes Media Group to provide public relations/public education communication services for the November 3, 2026, special election bond referendum for a consulting fee of $18,500 and materials fees estimated at $76,873 for a total not to exceed $95,373.]

NOW AND COME BACK TO THE END COME WE'RE GOING TO GO TO 2026 TO 68. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MAYES MEDIA GROUP TO PROVIDE PUBLIC RELATIONS/PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026, SPECIAL ELECTION BOND REFERENDUM FOR A CONSULTING FEE OF $18,500 AND MATERIALS FEES ESTIMATED AT $76,873 FOR A TOTAL NOT TO

EXCEED $95,373. >> GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNSEL, THANK YOU. TONIGHT YOU EARLIER APPROVED AN AGREEMENT FOR BOND REFERENDUM FOR NOVEMBER 3RD AND THIS IS AN AGREEMENT FOR MEDIA GROUP THEY WORKED WITH THE CITY IN 2017 TO HELP WITH COMMUNICATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF TRAINING AND MEDIA SUPPORT. WE WANT TO CONTINUE THAT SAME PROGRAM AND 2026 AND TONIGHT THE AGREEMENT BEFORE YOU IS FOR CONTINUATION OF THAT SERVICE. THEIR AGREEMENT FOR THE FEES AND ALSO THE MATERIALS ITEMS. WE ADDED IN A 10% CONTINGENCY AS THE MAYOR JUST REFERENCED, ESTIMATING MATERIALS AT 76,873 WITH THAT CONTINGENCY BEING INCLUDED, WE WILL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

>> THE CHAIR: THIS IS PURELY FOR INFORMATIONAL AND

EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES? >> WHAT THEY DID IN 2017 AND 2021 THEY EDUCATE COUNSEL AND STAFF ON THE APPROPRIATE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES. THEY HELP WITH MOST MEDICATION PIECES, FACTUAL PIECES THAT GO OUT TO THE PUBLIC AND GUIDE TO STAFF THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND ALSO COUNSEL.

>> THE CHAIR: MS. HEALY IF YOU WOULD COME BACK AND STATE YOUR NAME AND TO THE MIC FOR THE RECORD, WHETHER OR NOT YOU ARE IN THE CITY AND YOU HAVE 3 MINUTES.

>> I'M LISA HEALY EYELID WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS I'M GOING TO ASK YOU NOT USE TAX DOLLARS TO INCREASE OUR TAXES.

WHILE IT'S PRESENTED AS EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL, LET'S BE HONEST, WE KNOW WHAT THESE P.R. MATERIALS ARE, THEIR PROPAGANDA.

AND YOU ARE USING OUR TAX DOLLARS, THE TOTAL BETWEEN THIS ONE AND TRANSFERRING MONEY IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, IT'S $172,000. AND CHANGE.

THAT'S A LOT OF MONEY. GET BONDS PASSED.

MAKE IT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD WITH THE VOTERS.

DON'T SPEND THE MONEY, DON'T DO THE TAXES, BUT OUR MARKETING DEPARTMENT HANDLE THE EDUCATION. MAKE IT AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD.

I'M NOT WORKING HARD ON A VOTE NO CAMPAIGN -- I KNOW HOW I'M GOING TO VOTE. THAT'S NOT FAIR THAT YOU USE OUR TAX DOLLARS AGAINST US, BECAUSE INEVITABLY PASSING THESE BONDS ARE GOING TO RAISE OUR TAXES. I DON'T CARE HOW MANY TIMES YOU SAY IT'S EDUCATIONAL MATERIAL, IT'S NOT.

IT'S MATERIAL THAT IS SAYING TO THE PEOPLE YOU REALLY NEED THESE

[01:40:02]

THINGS THAT WE ARE USING YOUR MONEY TO COMMUNICATE IT.

JUST LET IT ROLL. LET'S DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT TO.

I WOULDN'T CARE IF YOU ALL SPOKE IN SUPPORT OF THE BONDS IF YOU DIDN'T USE THE TAX DOLLARS FOR THIS.

IT WOULDN'T BOTHER ME IN THE LEAST.

BUT IF THEY ARE TRULY NEEDED, IF THESE ITEMS ARE TRULY NEEDED, YOU SHOULD NOT NEED THESE EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS.

AT $172,000, $268. YOU SHOULDN'T NEED THAT BETWEEN THIS ITEM AND THE NEXT ONE, THANK YOU.

I'M HAPPY I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ALLOWED TO DO IT.

>> THAT'S TECHNICALLY NOT THE STANDARD PROTOCOL, YOU CAN ASK

ONE ANOTHER. >> THE CHAIR: LETS HAVE DIALOGUE AROUND HER COMMENTS BUT PROBABLY NOT BACK-AND-FORTH.

MAYBE LATER ON. WOULD YOU PUT YOUR MICROPHONE

ON? >> THE POINT IS WELL STATED, IT COMES TO EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC WHEN I WAS RUNNING FOR THE MAYOR, THERE WAS FAR TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T KNOW THERE WAS RUNOFF ELECTIONS. YOU WOULD THINK THE COMMUNITY WOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF AN ELECTION OF THAT MAGNITUDE.

I QUESTION -- I'M STRUGGLING TO BE FAIR, DO WE OWE AND WE CAN POST, I DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR MARKETING DEPARTMENT IS, WE CAN POST ALL THIS INFORMATION AND THERE'S GOT TO BE A LOT OF PEOPLE OUT THERE WHO WANT TO TO BE AWARE OF IT.

THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. DO WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE ARE AWARE THERE IS ELECTION OR BOND ELECTION, AND HERE'S WHAT WE WILL SPEND THE MONEY ON.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS OUT THERE I'M GETTING FEEDBACK ALREADY FOR PEOPLE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO VOTE FOR AND WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AGAINST. EDUCATING THEM ON WHAT'S ON THE BOND IS NOT BIASED, THERE'S PEOPLE OUT THERE IT MIGHT VOTE AND MOTIVATE VOTE AGAINST IT. PERSONALLY I DON'T THINK OUR ADVERTISEMENT HAS TO BE BIASED -- BUT I DO QUESTION HOW MUCH EFFORT WE PUT IN AND HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE SPEND TELLING PEOPLE THERE IS A BOND ELECTION AND HERE'S WHAT'S ON IT AND HERE'S WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO YOU? I FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO TELL PEOPLE.

BASED ON MY LIMITED HISTORY, WE ARE GOING TO SPEAK FACTS.

THERE'S ALREADY THINKS PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME.

THAT'S JUST MY TAKE ON THE SITUATION, THE MOMENT.

>> I WOULD LIKE TO GET CLARITY ON THE OVERALL AMOUNT MY UNDERSTANDING IS 95,373 NOT TO EXCEED THE FOLLOWING AGENDA ITEM

IS THE BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS. >> YOU DON'T AT THE TWO TOGETHER. ONE IS APPROVING THE CONTRACT AND THE SECOND ONE IS APPROVING THE FUNDS TO ACTUALLY SPEND TWO

PAY THE CONTRACT. >> NO WORRIES COME HONEST MISTAKE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT WOULD BE NOT TO EXCEED 95,376.

>> CORRECT. >> FOR THE RECORD OR POINT

STANDS STILL. >> QUESTIONS, ENGAGEMENT.

>> I WANT TO HIGHLIGHT THE BREAKDOWN OF THOSE FUNDS.

IT SAYS MATERIALS ARE 76,873, CAN WE GET A SYNOPSIS?

>> HIS ESTIMATE THAT HE PROVIDED A $69,885 TIMES 10% CONTINGENCY FEE TAKES IT TO $76,873. YOU ADD THAT AND IT GETS YOU TO

95373. >> IF YOU LOOK AT THE LAST PAGE OF THE AGENDA ITEM, THAT'S A BREAKDOWN OF THE NUMBER.

>> RIGHT. IT LOOKS LIKE THE LION'S SHARE FROM WHAT I'M SEEING IS IN THREE MAILERS, FOUR MAILERS THAT ARE

[01:45:06]

GOING TO BE SENT OUT TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF MIDLOTHIAN?

>> THAT'S CORRECT -- GO. >> RESIDENTIAL? OKAY. I THINK COUNCILMEMBER RENO MAKES A SALIENT POINT THAT WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO ALERT ALL THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY AS BEST WE CAN THAT THERE IS AN ELECTION GOING ON AND HERE ARE THE ITEMS THAT ARE ON THAT ELECTION. WHILE I WISH WE COULD MAKE A POST ON FACEBOOK OR PUT SOMETHING ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE I DON'T KNOW THAT'S GOING TO TARGET EVERYBODY ACROSS THE COMMUNITY AS THEY ALL OPERATE IN DIFFERENT -- I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE READ MAILERS FOR TEN SECONDS BUT AT LEAST REMINDS THEM THERE IS AN ELECTION GOING ON THEY CAN GET MORE INFORMATION IF THEY WANT. EVEN IF WE BROUGHT THIS IN- IN-HOUSE, I THINK THE CITY WOULD HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO SEND OUT 3-4 I DON'T REMEMBER HOW MANY MAILERS AND EMAILS AND FACEBOOK ABOUT THE TRASH SERVICE CHANGES AND THERE ARE STILL PEOPLE WHO USED SAY NOBODY TOLD ME THIS WAS HAPPENING.

I THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO HONOR OUR CITIZENS BY PROVIDING

THAT INFORMATION. >> I GUESS IS THAT JUST THE MAILER I'M GOING TO RECEIVE I KNOW IT HASN'T BEEN CREATED YET BUT IS IT JUST INFORMATIONAL, WE ARE GOING FOR BOND?

>> WHAT'S FACTUAL INFORMATION. YOU HAVE YOUR STEERING COMMITTEE WORKED ON SPECIFIC TYPES OF PARKS, YOU HEARD CHRIS MENTIONED EXPLAINING A NEW PARK WITH REGARDS TO STONE AND MOCKINGBIRD THERE WILL BE FACTUAL INFORMATION TO DESCRIBE WHAT THAT PROJECT IS THAT'S PART OF THE MARKETING AND EDUCATION TO MEDICATION IF YOU WILL THAT WILL BE SENT OUT.

WHAT STREETS -- THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION THAT WAS HELD BY THE COMMUNITY ON WHICH STREETS THAT WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT, THAT'S ALL PART OF THE COMMUNICATION PLAN.

>> IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE I SERVED ON A BOND COMMITTEE, THE LAST ONE WAS ACTUALLY WITH ROSS. FOR MY MEMORY THE CITY CAN'T

SPEND THOSE FUNDS. >> THE CITY CAN USE, CAN PUT OUT

INFORMATION. >> WITH THAT BEING SAID JUST TO TAG ALONG, IF I WAS TO PLAY DEVIL'S ADVOCATE WOULD PROBABLY SAY THAT SPENDING THE MONEY BECAUSE WE HAVE -- NOT SPENDING THE MONEY BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH LOW VOTER TURNOUT WOULD ACTUALLY PROBABLY INCREASE THE ODDS OF I GUESS YOU COULD SAY SNEAKING ONE BY THE PUBLIC. YOU CAN EACH TAKE -- YOU CAN TAKE 100 PEOPLE AND GO SWAY THE VOTE WHEREAS SPENDING THE MONEY NOTIFIES MORE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN EDUCATED TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY AGREE WITH IT.

I CAN ARGUE BOTH SIDES I'M NOT GOING TO SAY THERE IS A RIGHT OR WRONG, FOR ME I THINK AT LEAST TELLING PEOPLE, TELL US HOW YOU WANT US TO SPEND YOUR MONEY IS THE MORE ACCURATE WAY TO GO.

>> I WILL ADD THAT TO A CERTAIN EXTENT WE HAVE TASK TO THE CITIZENS PLANNING COMMITTEE WITH A LOT OF INFORMATION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION AND A DECISION COME I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO INFORM OUR RESIDENTS TO MAKE THAT SAME

DECISION. >> RICHARD?

>> TWO POINTS, COUNCILMAN WEAVER MAKES A GREAT OBSERVATION -- WE ARE SPENDING $19,000 TO CONSULTANTS BUT THE REST IS FOR MATERIAL THAT WE PROBABLY WOULD GET CLOSE TO ANYWAY AND MY QUESTION IS WHAT WE SPEND THE 21? I WILL GO BACK TO THE CONSULTANTS.

I WAS RELATIVELY NEW AND THEY EXPLAINED VERY WELL WHAT WE COULD AND COULD NOT DO -- NO OFFENSE TO STAFF, THEY DID A BETTER JOB EXPLAINING IN TERMS WERE I CAN UNDERSTAND SOME OF THE GUIDELINES AND WHAT WE COULD SAY AND WHAT WE COULDN'T SAY.

TO ME HAVING AN EXPERT IN THAT FIELD EXPLAIN THE COUNCIL WHAT WE CAN DO IS WORTH THE MONEY. YOU COULD ARGUE EITHER WAY HERE

[01:50:06]

AND THAT'S WHY I OPENED, THE QUESTION IS WHAT OBLIGATION DO WE HAVE IS A COUNSEL OF EDUCATION?

>> IF I COULD TO THE 18,500 IS THE SAME FEE AS IN 2021, THE CONSULTANT KEPT THE FEE THE S SAME.

>> IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? MOTION TO APPROVE BY MAYOR PRO TEM, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN HAMMONDS, PLEASE VOTE.

[2026-269 Consider and act upon an ordinance amending the City of Midlothian’s Fiscal Year 2025-2026 General Fund Budget Appropriations in an amount not to exceed $95,373 from the Unreserved Fund Balance for the public relations/public education communication services for the November 3, 2026 special election bond referendum in accordance with Chapter 102, Local Government Code; appropriating various amounts thereof; repealing conflicting ordinances and resolutions; including a severability clause; and establishing an effective date.]

ITEM PASSES 7-0. 2026-269 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN'S FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 GENERAL FUND BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $95,373 FROM THE UNRESERVED FUND BALANCE FOR THE PUBLIC RELATIONS/PUBLIC EDUCATION COMMUNICATION SERVICES FOR THE NOVEMBER 3, 2026 SPECIAL ELECTION BOND REFERENDUM PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY I'LL

SAVE YOU SOME TIME. >> WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT

IT. >> ANY ONE SIDE TO SPEAK ON T THIS? ARE WE OKAY?

>> THANK YOU. >> THE CHAIR: NO PUBLIC SPEAKERS ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS BUDGET TRANSFER?

>> MOVED TO APPROVE. >> SECOND.

>> MOTION TO APPROVE, SECONDED BY MAYOR PRO TEM WICKLIFFE.

PLEASE VOTE. ARE WE MISSING ONE?

[2026-267 Consider and act upon nominations for appointments to the Planning and Zoning Commission, Zoning Board of Adjustment, and Midlothian Development Authority.]

THERE IT GOES, ITEM PASSES 7-0. GOING BACK TO ITEM 2026-267.

>> NO OPENING ITEM 2026-267 CAL CONSIDER AND ACT UPON NOMINATIONS FOR APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND A ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND MIDLOTHIAN DEVELOP AUTHORITY. COUNCIL, THE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS MET AND WE HAVE TRIGGER RECOMMENDATIONS.

ONE IS FOR P&Z -- I BELIEVE THEIR PACKETS ARE IN FRONT OF YOU DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS AND/OR A MOTION?

>> BRIEF STATEMENT I WANT TO CONGRATULATE JIM WHO SAT THROUGH THE ENTIRE MEETING FOR THAT NOMINATION PROCESS, THANK YOU FOR WILLING TO SERVE AND INVEST TIME THIS EVENING, AS WE KILL OF THE CITY'S BUSINESS BEFORE GETTING INTO THIS.

>> I WILL APOLOGIZE. >> MOVED TO APPROVE.

AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN WEAVER.

I DON'T HAVE A VOTING BUTTON, PLEASE VOTE.

[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]

ITEM PASSES 6-0. WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TONIGHT. THE CITY COUNCIL CONVENES INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS ARE DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION BUT ANY AND ALL ACTION IS TAKEN IN REGULAR OPEN SESSION. SECTION 551.071(2) LEGAL: REAL ESTATE: DELIBERATION REGARDING REAL PROPERTY TO DELIBERATE THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, LEASE OR VALUE OF REAL PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS OF MIDLOTHIAN TEXAS.

IT IS >> IT'S 8:00 P.M. WE ARE BACK FROM HIS CHARACTER THE SESSION WE HAVE ONE ITEM THAT HAS ACTION ON TO UNGER TO TURN IT OVER FOR MOTION.

>> I BELIEVE THE CITY MANAGER TO BE AUTHORIZED TO A NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT WITH PETER AND ROBERT DEBOER FOR THE PURCHASE OF LOT ONE BLOCK 2 SKYLINE ACRES ADDITION IN ADDITION TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.