Link

Social

Embed

Disable autoplay on embedded content?

Download

Download
Download Transcript

[Call to Order, Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance]

[00:00:08]

IT IS 6:00 P.M., TUESDAY JUNE 9, 2020.

ALL MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL ARE PRESENT.

I HEREBY CALL THE MIDLOTHIAN CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.

COUNCILMAN MIKE RODGERS WILL LEAD US IN THE INVOCATION AND

PLEDGES. >> BOW WITH ME.

LORD, WE'RE BLESSED TO BE HERE TONIGHT AS A LOCAL GOVERNORING BODY. WE'D LIKE TO TAKE THE TIME TO PRAY FOR OUR COUNTRY. WE'D LIKE TO PRAY FOR OUR FEDERAL LEADERSHIP AND OUR STATE LEADERSHIP.

WE'D LIKE TO ESPECIALLY PRAY FOR OUR LOCAL LEADERSHIP, LORD.

WE ARE BLESSED AND THANKFUL FOR OUR LOCAL PASTORS AND RESIDENTS AS WE'VE HAD DEMONSTRATIONS AND MARCHES, THOSE MARCHES AN DEMONSTRATIONS HAVE BEEN HANDLED IN A LOVING, CARING WAY.

WE'RE THANKFUL FOR HOW HEALING CAN START LOCALLY.

LORD, WE ASK THAT CALM MINDS WOULD ALWAYS PREVAIL.

WE WANT TO PRAY FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT AND FIRE DEPARTMENT AS THOSE FIRST RESPONDERS WHO ARE RESPONDING IN SO MANY OF THESE SITUATIONS IN MANY CITIES NATIONWIDE.

LORD, WE WANT TO PRAY FOR OUR ECONOMY.

WE HAVE A LOT OF FOLKS OUT OF WORK.

WE HAVE A LOT OF UNKNOWNS RIGHT NOW.

WE KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE CAPACITY AND CAPABILITY TO GUIDE THE MINDS AND DECISIONS FOR WHICH IS BEST FOR THIS COUNTRY AND ALL FAMILIES IN GENERAL. WE WANT TO GET FOLKS BACK TO WORK, LORD. LORD, LAST OF ALL, WE'D LIKE TO PRAY FOR PROVISION WITHIN THIS COUNCIL THAT WE APPLY ALL OF OUR DECISIONS WISELY AND WITHIN THE GUIDANCE THAT YOU WOULD PROVIDE, YOUR GUIDANCE, LORD, AND THAT ALL DECISIONS WE WOULD MAKE WOULD BE IN THE BEST BENEFIT FOR ALL RESIDENTS.

JUST BLESS US THROUGHOUT THE BALANCE OF THIS WEEK AND BLESS US IN ALL THAT WE DO THAT IS A BLESSING TO YOU, LORD.

IN JESUS'S NAME WE PRAY, AMEN.

ALLEGIANCE ]

[Item 2020-178]

>> MAYOR: JOIN ME AT THE PODIUM PLEASE.

THIS IS A PROCLAMATION TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE OF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS. PROCLAMATION WHEREAS THE CORONAVIRUS KNOWN AS COVID-19 WAS DECLARED A PANDEMIC IN EARLY 2020 AND WHEREAS THE GOVERNOR DECLARED A STATE OF EMERGENCY IN TEXAS IN MARCH 2020, CLOSING BUSINESSES, CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS AND COUNCIL AND MASS GATHERINGS TO REDUCE THE SPREAD OF THE PANDEMIC INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF BUSINESSES, NONPROFITS, SCHOOLS, AND OTHER ORGANIZATIONS IN THE MIDLOTHIAN AREA.

AND WHEREAS THE MIDLOTHIAN CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WAS INCORPORATED IN 1936 WITH A MISSION TO IMPROVE THE LOCAL ECONOMY BY PROMOTING THE SUPPORTING BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND BY HOSTING EVENTS TO ATTRACT TOURISTS.

WHEREAS THE CHAMBER LAUNCHED A COVID RESPONSE EFFORT CALLED HASHTAG #MIDLOTHIANRISESPROVIDE PROVIDING CRITICAL INFORMATION THROUGHOUT THE PANDEMIC CLOSURE. AND WHEREAS THE CHAMBER IS PIVOTING THE HASHTAG TO A REOPEN CAMPAIGN BY COORDINATING A MONTH OF SPECIAL EVENTS HOSTED BY THE LOCAL BUSINESSES AND ORGANIZATIONS TO RESTART THE MIDLOTHIAN AREA ECONOMY WHILE MAINTAINING SAFE PRACTICES TO LIMIT THE SPREAD OF THE VIRUS.

THEREFORE I RICHARD RENO MAYOR OF THE CITY DO HEREBY PROCLAIM JUNE 2020 AS HASHTAG #MIDLOTHIANRISES MONTH IN THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN PROCLAIMED THIS NINTH DAY OF JUNE 2020.

THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COUPLE OF

[00:05:02]

COMMENTS FIRST. THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN HAS DONE EXTREMELY WELL THROUGH THIS PANDEMIC.

THE CITY HAS SHOWN GREAT DISCIPLINE, MATURITY AND SELF-GOVERNORING. THE COUNCIL HAS DONE QUITE WELL IN ALLOWING THE CITY TO HAVE THE LEAST AMOUNT OF RESTRICTIONS NECESSARY. CITY STAFF HAS STEPPED UP AND HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB DURING THIS TIME PROVIDING THE SERVICES NEEDED. OUR FIRST RESPONDERS HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB. HAVING A FEW CASES EARLY ON THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN EXCELLENT.

BUT I ESPECIALLY WANT TO THANK OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS STEPPED UP AND THROUGH RECENT EVENTS HAS SHOWN ITS LOVE AND CARE FOR OUR CITY.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS PROVIDED US A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, COMMUNITY TO LIVE IN. AND THEY HAVE THE FULL SUPPORT OF OUR COUNCIL. SO WE THANK THE POLICE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, STAFF, CHRIS, THE CITY HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB DURING THIS TIME. THANK YOU.

[APPLAUSE] 2020-179 CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.

[Citizens to be heard]

THE COUNCIL INVITES CITIZENS TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL AT ANY TIME THAT IS NOT ALREADY SCHEDULED ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CITIZENS WISHING TO SPEAK SHOULD COMPLETE A FORM.

CITIZENS PRECIPITATION FORM AND PRESENT -- PRESENTATION FORM AND PRESENT IT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. YOU WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK. THE COUNCIL WILL NOT RESPOND BECAUSE OF STATE LAW. WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER SIGNED UP.

CYN CYNTHIA WEBB.

>> 104 NORTH 6TH STREET, MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS.

I HAVE A COMMERCIAL BUILDING ON SIXTH STREET AND BEHIND THAT BUILDING IS AN ALLEY THAT I'VE ALWAYS ASKED THAT YOU PAVE IT FOR 20 YEARS. AND I SEE YOU ARE PAVING ALL THESE OTHER ROADS AND THIS IS WHAT THE ALLEY LOOKS LIKE.

MAY I? MANY OF US DRIVE DOWN THAT ALLEY NEXT DOOR TO JOUSTEN'S CAP AND GOWNS AND PEETSDZA.

AND THE TRUCKS PULL IN TRYING TO DROP OFF THE PIZZA PRODUCTS AND THE CAPS AND GOWNS AND OUR CARS HAVE TO GO IN AN OPPOSITE WAY VERSUS THAT WAY. THIS IS WHAT THE ROAD LOOKS LIKE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING BEFORE YOU PAVE IT WHICH MY OPINION DIDN'T NEED IT. MY BUILDING HAD A TEMPORARY C.O.

BECAUSE I WOULDN'T CONCRETE MY PARKING LOT.

IT TOOK ME SIX YEARS TO CONCRETE MY PARKING LOT WHICH CONNECTS THE ALLEYWAY. AND I STILL DIDN'T GET MY PERMANENT C.O. SIX YEARS LATER I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THEY KNOW WHERE IT'S AT. SO THAT'S MY ARGUMENT, IF I MAY.

I HAVE A GENTLEMAN THAT COMES THROUGH TWICE A YEAR FOR ME THAT IS GRADER THAT WILL COME THROUGH AND GRADE THAT ALLEYWAY AT LEAST TWICE A YEAR FOR ME. AND I'M TO A POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE COULD GET IT PAVED.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: CONSENT AGENDA.

[Consent Agenda]

ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION WITHOUT SEPARATE DISCUSSION. IF DISCUSSION IS REQUIRED THEN THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> COUNCILMEMBER: MOVE TO

APPROVE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.

>> MAYOR: MOTION TO APPROVE AND SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

[Item 2020-183]

PUBLIC HEARINGS. I OPEN ITEM 2020-183 FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION OF MIDLOTHIAN TAX ABATEMENT POLICY ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES CRITERIA FOR A TAX ABATEMENT PROGRAM. KYLE?

>> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL.

I HAVE BEFORE YOU THE TAX ABATEMENT POLICY THAT IS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. IF WE ARE TO HAVE A PROGRAM IN PLACE IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED EVERY TWO YEARS.

THIS POLICY IS A SIGNIFICANT REWRITE FROM WHAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD. AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THAT AS WE GO THROUGH TODAY. ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I

[00:10:04]

WANTED TO MENTION IS THAT WITHIN MIDLOTHIAN WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT RESOURCES THAT HAVE A NUMBER DIFFERENT OF ORGANIZATIONS THAT HAVE RESOURCES THAT CAN BE USED AS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS TO HOPE GROW OUR LOCAL ECONOMY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS POLICY HIGHLIGHTS IS THE NEED TO REALLY LEVERAGE THOSE OTHER RESOURCES BEFORE RELYING ON THE CITY'S GENERAL FUND WHICH HAS THE MOST USES THAT CAN BE DONE.

SO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE FORMALIZED IS THAT WE WOULD RELY ON OTHER ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP PROMOTE AND GROW OUR ECONOMY BEFORE IMMEDIATELY JUMPING TO A TAX ABATEMENT.

TAX ABATEMENT IS A POWERFUL TOOL AS YOU WILL SEE IN A WALK-THROUGH A LITTLE LATER. BUT OUR INTENTION IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS POLICY IS REALLY TO USE IT FOR THOSE PROJECTS THAT TAKE OUR COMMUNITY TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND ADD A SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION AS THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE USED THAT TOOL WITH IN THE PAST HAVE. SO, ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO DO WAS DO A LITTLE BIT OF AN OVERVIEW.

I PROMISE NOT TO TAKE TOO MUCH TIME.

BUT REALLY TO GO THROUGH AND JUST DO AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT IS A TAX ABATEMENT. AS IT'S BEEN TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, AND PEOPLE BRING IT UP AND IT'S A WAY TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THIS TOOL IS AND HOW WE CAN USE IT.

SO THE FIRST THING IS THAT IT IS A TOOL TO ATTRACT NEW JOBS AND CAPITAL INVEST TONIGHT OUR COMMUNITY AND THEREBY GROW OUR ECONOMY. THE DEFINITION OR THE BEST THAT I'VE SEEN THROUGH THE COMPTROLLER, YOU KNOW, TO PUT IT SIMPLE IS IT'S OUR ABILITY TO MAKE AGREEMENTS WITH THE PRIVATE SECTOR TO BE ABLE TO EXEMPT ALL OR PART OF THE INCREASE.

SO, THIS IS ONLY THE NEW VALUE THAT'S COMING WITH THAT PROJECT FOR REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR UP TO A PERIOD OF TEN YEARS.

THE TAX ABATEMENT IS GOVERNORED BY CHAPTER 312 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE. AND THEN THE TAX ABATEMENTS ONLY AFFECT THE ENTITIES THAT ARE PART OF THAT AGREEMENT WHICH IS THE CITY AND THE COUNTY OR JUST THE CITY OR JUST THE COUNTY INDIVIDUALLY. SO, UNDER THIS PROGRAM, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES NOT PARTICIPATE.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS TO NOTICE IS THAT THE TAX ABATEMENT CAN BE FOR ANY NEW INVESTMENT. SO THIS IS A TOOL THAT SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR OUR EXISTING INDUSTRY AS WELL AS NEW INDUSTRY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GROW AND TO ATTRACT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

I WANTED TO RUN THROUGH JUST AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT A TAX ABATEMENT WOULD LOOK LIKE. I THINK WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT NUMBERS, IT HELPS JUST TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THIS PROGRAM AND THE TOOL THAT IT CAN BE. SO, RIGHT NOW IS APPRAISAL TIME.

SO, WE'VE ALL SEEN THIS FORM AND SO I'VE JUST CAPTURED ONE OF THEM THAT, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY OUR TAX BILL IS MADE UP OF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT ENTITIES. SO, IN THIS EXAMPLE ALL WE'RE FOCUSED ON IS THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.

SO, FOR THIS FACILITY IT HAD $42 MILLION.

IT GENERATES $287,000 PER YEAR IN AD VALOREM TAXES.

SO THAT $42 MILLION IS CURRENTLY THERE.

AND IT'S EXISTING AT THE FACILITY.

NOW A LOT OF US BELIEVE THAT OVER TIME, BECAUSE WE SEE OUR HOMES AND OUR HOMES APPRECIATE, WITH COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE WHEN THEY LOOK AT THE REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IT ACTUALLY DOESN'T INCREASE LIKE THIS. MOST OF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS ACTUALLY DECREASES IN VALUE. SO THIS GRAPHIC RIGHT HERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE INDICATIVE OF WHAT REALLY HAPPENS FOR OUR BUSINESSES AND WE WENT THROUGH AND PULLED, YOU KNOW, SAMPLE OF MIDLOTHIAN BUSINESSES TO SEE THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING. SO, WHEN WE DO A TAX ABATEMENT ONE OF THE FIST THINGS THAT HAPPENS IS YOU CREATE A BASE VALUE. SO THAT BASE VALUE SAYS WE'RE GOING TO LOCK IT IN NOW FOR THAT ABATEMENT PERIOD.

SO, THAT $42 MILLION IN THIS EXAMPLE IS CURRENT TAX VALUE.

SO, THROUGHOUT THE LIFE OF THAT AGREEMENT THEY'LL KEEP PAYING TAXES ON THAT BASE $42 MILLION. SO, NOW AS YOU HAVE A NEW PROJECT WE SAY THAT UNDER THIS EXAMPLE A COMPANY WANTED TO INVEST AN ADDITIONAL $56 MILLION TAKING IT TO $98 MILLION OF NEW

[00:15:02]

TAXABLE OR OF TAXABLE PROPERTY. THE PURPLE REPRESENTS THAT NEW VALUE OR THAT THAT WOULD QUALIFY FOR A TAX ABATEMENT.

ONE OF THE OTHER KEY THINGS THAT WE DO IS, YOU KNOW, NONE OF US REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS.

WE CAN ALL MAKE OUR BEST ASSUMPTIONS, BOTH THE COMPANY AND THE CITIES, BUT WHAT WE DO AS PART OF OUR AGREEMENT IS WE ESTABLISH A BASELINE THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IN ORDER TO EVEN REACH THAT ABATEMENT. SO, EVEN THOUGH YOU SEE THEY'VE GOT UPS AND DOWNS DIFFERENT YEARS AND OVER THE LONG TERM IT MAY DECREASE A LITTLE BIT, WITH ALL OF OUR AGREEMENTS WE CREATE A BASE VALUE LINE THAT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN IN ORDER TO QUALIFY FOR THAT ABATEMENT. SO, NOW IN THIS EXAMPLE I'LL JUST PUT UP SOME DIFFERENT PERCENTAGES AND HOW THIS WOULD WORK IS UNDER THE ABATEMENT THE PART THAT'S IN THE BASE VALUE, THEY PAY 100 PERCENT OF THAT VALUE.

SO, EVERYTHING IN THE ORANGE, THEY WOULD PAY THAT EVERY YEAR.

AND THE ABATEMENT PERCENTAGES THAT WE SEE IN THESE AGREEMENTS ONLY APPLIES TO THAT PORTION THAT IS IN THE PURPLE.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE HAD A COMPANY-- AND THIS WAS THE SCENARIO THAT WE USED-- IN YEAR ONE IT WOULD GENERATE $364,000 IN TAXES TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN.

THE COMPANY WOULD GET $306,000 IN BENEFIT TO THEM.

ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WORTH MENTIONING IS WHEN WE DO THESE PROJECTS THEY'RE STILL PAYING THOSE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES.

SO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT REALLY BENEFITS, THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT PLAYER IN OUR COMMUNITY AND REALLY CONTRIBUTE, WE THAT WOULD GET $1.45 MILLION UNDER THIS IN YEAR ONE.

AS WE GO TO YEAR FIVE-- TO THE ABATEMENT PERCENTAGE HAS DECREASED-- THE CITY WOULD RECEIVE $376,000.

THE COMPANY WOULD GET $206,000. SO, EACH YEAR IT'S STILL GOING TO DECREASE. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WOULD GET $1.25 MILLION. BUT THE KEY THING THAT I THINK IS THE REAL TAKEAWAY IS IN THAT-- DURING THE ABATEMENT PERIOD THAT SECTION THAT'S IN THE ORANGE, THEY'RE PAYING 100 PERCENT ON THE VALUE THAT'S THERE CURRENTLY.

THE ABATEMENT IS ONLY FOR THAT PORTION WHICH IS IN PURPLE.

NOW, I DON'T HAVE THE ILLUSTRATION BUT OFTENTIMES WE DO ABATEMENTS ON PROPERTY WHERE THERE'S REALLY NO VALUE OR THERE'S VERY LITTLE THERE JUST WITH THE PROPERTY THAT'S THERE.

BUT IT'S STILL THE SAME PRINCIPAL AT PLAY.

WHATEVER THAT BASE VALUE IS, WHATEVER THE TAXES ARE THAT'S CURRENTLY HERE, WE GET THOSE TAXES.

ANY OF THE NEW INVESTMENT WE'RE SHARING THAT NEW VALUE OF TAX TO HELP ATTRACT NEW JOBS AND NEW INVESTMENT TO OUR COMMUNITY.

SO, NOW AS WE SWITCH OVER TO OUR PROPOSED POLICY.

I APOLOGIZE, I GOT A SLIDE OUT OF ORDER.

SO THE POLICY THAT WE PROVIDED IN THE PACKET THAT'S BEFORE US, WHAT IT DOES IS IT ESTABLISHES THE GUIDELINES AND CRITERIAS AS PART OF STATE LAW WE'RE REVIEWING IT EVERY TWO YEARS.

AND THEN IT OUTLINES THE PROCESS THAT WE NEED TO IDENTIFY THESE AREAS OR REINVESTMENT ZONES AND THEN THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'LL HAVE FOR THESE TAX ABATEMENT POLICIES.

NOW, NOWHERE IN THE POLICY DOES IT REQUIRE OR OBLIGATE THE COUNCIL TO OFFER AN INCENTIVE OR TAX ABATEMENT.

YOU WILL RETAIN THAT ABILITY TO REVIEW EACH PROJECT TO GO THROUGH AND EVALUATE AND MAKE SURE THAT IT BRINGS MAXIMUM BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY. SO, NOW AS FAR AS THE MAJOR CHANGES THAT WE HAVE AS PART OF THE POLICY THAT WE'VE BROUGHT FORWARD TODAY. THE FIRST ONE WE WENT THROUGH AND MADE SURE ALL THE REQUIREMENTS COMPLY WITH THE RECENT LEGISLATIVE CHANGES. SO, THERE WERE SOME ADDITIONS WHICH REQUIRE LONGER REVIEW PERIODS AND NOTIFICATION TO THE PUBLIC. SO THOSE HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE AGREEMENT. ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE ALSO

[00:20:04]

DONE IS THE STATE LAW OR OUR LOCAL POLICY WAS MORE RESTRICTIVE SO WE ELIMINATED THE ABILITY TO INCLUDE LAND AND INVENTORY AS PART OF OUR POLICY. SO WHAT I AM WANTING TO DO IS KNOWING THAT EACH AGREEMENT IS STILL -- YOU KNOW WE CAN STILL NEGOTIATE EACH AGREEMENT, WE WANT TO HAVE ALL THE TOOLS AVAILABLE FOR US THAT WE CAN USE.

THERE'S NO GUARANTEE WE HAVE TO USE THEM.

NUMBER THREE IS THAT WE ADJUST THE APPLICATION ANNUAL CERTIFICATION PROCESS. SO, CURRENTLY M.E.D. IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE FRONT END THROUGH THE APPLICATION PROCESS.

AND UNDER THIS PROPOSED POLICY WE WOULD ALSO PARTICIPATE IN THE ANNUAL CERTIFICATION. SO, IT WOULD KEEP CONSISTENT CONTACT WITH THE COMPANY THROUGHOUT THIS PROJECT FROM BOTH, YOU KNOW, THE BEGINNING THROUGH TO IMPLEMENTATION.

THEN ULTIMATELY WE'VE MADE IT MORE USER-FRIENDLY THAT WE'VE TAKEN IT FROM 20 PAGES DOWN TO 5 PAGES.

COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WERE VERY AWARE OF. SO, THESE ARE AREAS WHERE WE HAVE GONE ABOVE WHAT THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ARE.

KNOWING THAT IN MIDLOTHIAN WE HAVE OTHER TOOLS THAT WE CAN USE FOR OTHER PROJECTS WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED IS THAT EVERY PROJECT THAT WOULD GET A TAX ABATEMENT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THEY PAY AN AVERAGE WAGE IN EXCESS OF THE COUNTY AVERAGE WAGE.

THAT TIES OUR HANDS A LITTLE BIT.

HOWEVER, KNOWING THAT WE'RE KIND OF MAKING THIS POLICY A LITTLE BIT WIDER AND APPLY IT TO MORE THINGS, WE WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO BE USED FOR BETTER PROJECTS. THE OTHER THING THAT WE WANTED TO DO IS EACH PROJECT AS THEY SUBMIT THEIR APPLICATION TO YOU AS A COUNCIL, AS YOU REVIEW IT, WE WANT TO IDENTIFY ONE OF THESE FOUR AREAS THAT WE'VE HEARD THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO THE COMMUNITY.

AND SO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THEY ADDRESS PROPERTY AND REDEVELOPING IT, CREATING NEW DEVELOPMENT AS A CATALYST FOR OTHER AREAS, OR CREATING CONCENTRATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT OR NEW COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY. THEN THE LAST ONE WOULD BE THAT YOU COULD USE THIS AS A TOOL IN REDEVELOPMENT OF MAIN STREET.

WITH THAT, I WANTED TO PROVIDE REALLY AN OVERVIEW AND MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD WHAT ABATEMENTS ARE AND THEN OUR LOCAL POLICY AND WHAT IT IS THAT'S PROPOSED.

SO WE CAN TURN IT OVER FOR QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE.

>> MAYOR: I KNOW THE ANSWER BUT I WANT TO ASK IT FOR THE PEOPLE MAYBE WATCHING ONLINE. YOU HAVE A BOARD THAT YOU ANSWER TO. IT IS A CITIZEN LED BOARD OF HOW

MANY VOLUNTEERS? >> SPEAKER: FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROGRAM THIS-- APPLICATIONS WOULD COME AND BE REVIEWED BY STAFF AT MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BUT THEY WOULD NOT GO TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

THEY COME STRAIGHT TO THE CITY COUNCIL.

SO, AS PART OF THIS PROCESS THEY'RE NOT BEING PRE-REVIEWED BY THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD.

THEY WOULD COME STRAIGHT TO COUNCIL.

FOR ALL ABATEMENTS. SO THAT SCREENING PROCESS THEY WOULD COME TO STAFF FIRST AS WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THE PROGRAMS AND WE COULD HELP THEM TO SEE AN ABATEMENT IS RIGHT FOR YOU OR, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY WE DO-- PARTICIPATE DIRECTLY WITH MIDLOTHIAN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS AN EXAMPLE.

BUT IF IT WERE AN ABATEMENT, THAT'S ONLY BEING REVIEWED BY

THE CITY COUNCIL. >> MAYOR: OKAY.

>> DOES THE COUNTY PARTICIPATE AND IF SO HOW DOES THAT WORK?

>> SPEAKER: SO THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO OFFER TAX ABATEMENTS. THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT WAYS IT CAN HAPPEN. IF IT'S WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONE THAT HAS TO ESTABLISH A REINVESTMENT ZONE. AND THEN THE COUNTY HAS THE ABILITY TO PARTICIPATE WITH THE TAX ABATEMENT THROUGH A SEPARATE AGREEMENT. SO, TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS, IF WE HAVE A PROJECT WE'LL GO IN AND SET UP THE REINVESTMENT ZONE. WE WILL DO THE TAX ABATEMENT WITH THE COMPANY. AND THEN WE'LL WORK WITH THE COUNTY AND OFTENTIMES THEY WILL VERY CLOSELY ALIGN THEIR AGREEMENT WITH OURS. BUT THEY DO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO AN ABATEMENT ON THEIR OWN BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE THAT WE

ESTABLISH THE REINVESTMENT ZONE. >> IS THAT APPROVAL-- HOW ARE

[00:25:01]

THEY COORDINATING AND SYNCHRONIZED IF NEED BE OR CAN

THEY BE DONE INDEPENDENTLY? >> SPEAKER: SO THEY EACH REQUIRE APPROVAL BY THAT INDIVIDUAL BODY.

SO, ONLY THE CITY COUNCIL CAN APPROVE TAX ABATEMENT AGREEMENTS FOR THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. AND ELLIS COUNTY CAN APPROVE TAX ABATEMENTS BUT THOSE HAVE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSIONER'S COURT. SO THEY EACH HAVE TO BE APPROVED INDIVIDUALLY. UNDER THE NEW RULES YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT AT A REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING.

SO, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO A JOINT MEETING ANYMORE. I WOULD RELY ON LEGAL COUNSEL

THOUGH. >> THERE'S GENERALLY A LOT OF COORDINATION THAT HAPPENS BETWEEN THE TWO.

TYPICALLY A DEVELOPER WHO IS LOOKING TO OBTAIN TAX ABATEMENTS, YOU KNOW, WILL GO TO BOTH ENTITIES AND SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT TO DO THE PROJECT-- ACTUALLY SOMETIMES IT DEPENDS ON BOTH ENTITIES DEPENDING ON THE SNARE OF THE FINANCING -- NATURE OF THE FINANCING.

BUT USUALLY WHILE BOTH GOVERNORING BOARDS HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THEIR OWN ABATEMENT AND MAKE THEIR OWN DECISION, FREQUENTLY, AS STATED, THERE IS A LOT OF COORDINATION THAT USUALLY HAPPENS AMONGST, YOU KNOW, USUALLY STARTING AT STAFF LEVEL THEN GOING ON TO THE GOVERNORING BOARD LEVEL.

PARTICULARLY IF IT IS A PARTICULAR PROJECT THAT BENEFITS BOTH THE CITY AND THE COUNTY THAT MAY BE HIGH EMPLOYMENT, HIGH PROPERTY VALUE TYPE OF THING THAT WOULD BENEFIT BEYOND THE CITY WITH RESPECT TO THE TYPE OF PROJECT.

>> SPEAKER: AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE GOOD RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COUNTY AND WE ARE VERY ACTIVE IN DISCUSSING POTENTIAL PROSPECTS

THAT WE HAVE. >> MAYOR: DOUGH YOU ALL HAVE A QUESTION? I HAVE A COUPLE.

>> I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO THE SLIDE SHOWING PERCENTAGES.

OKAY. I GUESS I WAS EXPOSED TO TAX ABATEMENTS BACK IN ABOUT 2011 RIGHT WHEN I FIRST CAME ON AND I'VE BEEN THROUGH A NUMBER OF THESE.

I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL THANK YOU.

THIS IS LIKE AHA LAY LIEU YEAH MOMENT FOR ME.

TAX ABATEMENTS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT DEAL IN MEGA-BUCKS. I'VE ALWAYS FELT LIKE THEY'RE KIND OF A SHOT IN THE DARK. I ENCOURAGE YOU AND I'M GLAD TO SEE WE'RE WORKING SYSTEMATICALLY TO SET THRESHOLDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR TAX ABATEMENTS. HONESTLY, MY QUESTION HAS ALWAYS BEEN, AS A BUSINESSMAN I HAVE TO HAVE A GUIDE.

I'VE GOT TO BID JOBS. AND I HAVE TO HAVE A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH ON THAT OR I END UP LOOKING FOOLISH.

AND I ALSO FIND THAT MY CUSTOMER BASE DOES NOT FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN TREATED ON AN EVEN PLAYING FIELD.

IT'S SYSTEMATICALLY NOT GOOD. SO, MY QUESTION IS, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS SOMETHING IN YOUR PROPOSAL.

THESE DIFFERENT NUMBERS, IF I'VE GOT FIVE DIFFERENT BUSINESSES WITHIN $3 MILLION OF EACH IN GROSS SALES THEY BASICALLY ARE WITHIN A TEN PERCENTILE PATTERN OF EMPLOYMENT BASE AND LIKENESS AMONG COMPANIES, FIVE COMPANIES, HOW DO WE JUSTIFY-- JUSTIFY IS A HEAVY WORD-- WHO GETS WHAT? AND THE PROBLEM I HAVE WITH THIS I HAVEN'T SEEN YET AND I'VE BEEN ASKING AND IT'S NOT MIDLOTHIAN'S FAULT. AS I'VE EXPERIENCED IN THE PAST, UNLESS I'VE BEEN TOLD WRONGLY, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS IN DEALING WITH TAX DOLLARS WHERE I VIEW IT AS VERY IMPORTANT -- THESE ARE BIG BUCKS THAT WE CAN FLOAT RIGHT BACK INTO OUR REVENUE SIDE THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE BENEFIT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS BY REDUCING THEIR PROPERTY TAXES.

AND I DON'T SEE THAT THAT'S HAPPENED YET.

SO, THEREFORE, IF BE DON'T HAVE A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH-- AND I WILL AGREE EVEN IF I WERE TO ASK YOU AND IT'S WHAT I WILL ASK STAFF TODAY IF IT'S POSSIBLE FOR US TO EVEN BEGIN TO TAKE WHAT TAX ABATEMENTS THAT WE'VE OFFERED OVER THE YEARS.

AND IN THE YEARS WE'VE EVEN KIND OF SOMEWHAT-- AND I COULD BE WRONG ON THIS, CHRIS, SO CORRECT ME QUICKLY IF I AM, THAT WE'VE TAKEN TAX ABATEMENT KNOWLEDGE FROM OTHER BUSINESSES OR OFFERINGS IN OITIES TO HELP PROVIDE A BALANCE OF WHAT WE MIGHT PROVIDE THAT I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE KNOW AT ALL WHAT

[00:30:02]

WE'RE DOING. IT'S NOT JUST FAULT, JUST THERE'S NOT A GUIDE OUT THERE. AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO DEVELOP SOME SORT OF SPREADSHEET THAT HAS THE SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO JOBS, LONGEVITY OF PRODUCTION, ON AND ON I COULD GO, WHICH CAUSES A CROSS-FIELD IN THE GRASS SETTINGS WHICH GIVES US WITHIN TEN OR FIFTEEN PERCENT WHAT THEIR TAX ABATEMENT WOULD BE. DOES THAT EXIST IN THIS PLAN?

>> SPEAKER: SO IT DOES NOT. WHAT THIS POLICY DOES IS IT DOES-- IT OPENS UP THE BOOK TO ALLOW US FULL FLEXIBILITY.

IT DOES MAKE SURE THAT WE IDENTIFY THESE BASE VALUES THAT WE ENSURE THAT WE'RE GETTING A GOOD DEAL THROUGHOUT EACH OF THESE AGREEMENTS THAT WE MAY ENTER INTO.

ONE THING IT DOES DO IS IT DOES LET THE COMPANIES KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO BENCHMARK THEIR PROJECT BASED OFF OF PREVIOUS PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE DONE. NOW HAVING WORKED IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SEEING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PROJECTS IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT POLICIES ONE OF THE CHALLENGES ARE HAVING A POLICY WHERE IT IS VERY SYSTEMATIC THAT SAYS IF YOU INVEST THIS MUCH YOU GET THIS MUCH AND, YOU KNOW, IT IS FACTORED OUT IN THAT WAY. ONE OF THE THEM CHANGES IS A PROJECT WILL COME ALONG THAT YOU HAVE NOT ANTICIPATED THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THAT. SO, IMMEDIATELY THE COMMUNITY WILL GO IN AND THEY WILL CHANGE THE RULES FOR THAT COMPANY.

WHICH I THINK PROVIDES LESS TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC AND ALSO TO THE COMPANIES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GROW OUR COMMUNITY WITH. WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO TRY TO ADDRESS THAT CONCERN AND HELP TO BUILD A RATIONALE OVER TIME FOR WHY WE WOULD CHOOSE ONE PROJECT TO PARTICIPATE WITH OVER ANOTHER. ULTIMATELY BY MOVING THESE THINGS TO THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WE GO THROUGH AND WE PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -- YOU KNOW WE RUN AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MOD OLE THIS PROJECT.

AND WE GO THROUGH AND WE IDENTIFY EACH PROJECT, HOW IT IS BENEFITTING US AS MIDLOTHIAN. YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER KEY THINGS THAT'S PART OF THIS THAT'S VERY HARD IS WE HAVE TO REMEMBER, YOU KNOW, THAT ULTIMATELY WE'RE USING THE TAX ABATEMENT OR OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS SO THAT WE CAN BRING DIRECT BENEFIT TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN FOR OFFERING THAT PROGRAM. AND SO WHERE I BELIEVE WE ACCOUNT FOR THAT PARTICULAR REQUEST THAT YOU HAVE IS, YOU KNOW, OUTLINED IN THE STEPS WHERE FIRST M.E.D. IS GOING THROUGH AND EVALUATING THAT PROJECT ALONG WITH THE OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE REVIEW. AS THEY HAVE THAT APPLICATION THE APPLICANT CLEARLY HAS TO IDENTIFY WHAT THOSE KEY BENEFITS ARE TO THE CITY OF MIDLOTHIAN. AND THEN IN NUMBER THREE UNDER THAT NEGOTIATION PHASE OR IT'S UNDER NUMBER TWO.

SO, THE M.E.D. CONDUCTS THAT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS FOR THAT PROJECT. SO THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL IS ABLE TO SEE HERE'S THIS INDIVIDUAL PROJECT THAT'S IN FRONT MUCH US THAT WE'RE REVIEWING AND WE CAN COMPARE THAT TO, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUS PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE.

WE CAN KNOW IF WE HAD TO GIVE THIS MUCH FOR THE LAST ONE, COULD WE GIVE LESS NOW KNOWING THERE'S MORE OF A MARKET FOR THAT TYPE OF AN INDUSTRY COMING INTO OUR COMMUNITY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I GUESS WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO, AND YES I WILL SAY I'VE EXPERIENCED THAT WHERE WE TRY TO USE PROJECT A VERSUS PROJECT B. BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS WHEN YOU DELVE INTO THE DETAILS THEN MAYBE PROJECT A-- BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE PROJECT A AND PROJECT B ARE TWO BIG BUILDINGS, THEY LOOK THE SAME, THEIR EMPLOYEE BASE, THEIR PAY WAGES.

SO I WOULD ENCOURAGE JUST AS A CITY TO DEVELOP A, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORDING, A BASICALLY A BENEFIT LIST.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT IS A TOP FIVE OR SEVEN OR TEN OF HOW THAT PARTICULAR INDUSTRY OR TAX ABATEMENT IS GOING TO BENEFIT OUR CITY. IT IS A COMMUNITY-BASED BENEFIT.

SO WHAT ORDER DO WE PLACE THESE NUMBER OF THRESHOLDS OF BENEFIT

[00:35:04]

TO THE CITY AND OF WHAT NUMBER LEVELS DOES WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING BENEFIT US IN THAT ORDER WHICH THEN TIES BACK INTO THIS IT'S DOABLE. I FEEL LIKE YOU ARE 70, 80 PERCENT THERE. BUT TO GIVE US THE PACKAGE OF WHY WE NEED TO DO AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM.

BUT I STILL FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT NUMBERS THAT ARE KIND OF LIKE IN A BASKET. AND I NEED TO SEE THEM IN AN ORDER. THAT'S ALL I'M LOOKING FOR.

BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR INPUT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SO IS IT A TEN-YEAR ABATEMENT OR NOTHING? OR WE CAN JUST GO UP TO TEN YEARS? AND IF WE DO LIKE A FIVE WOULD A THE PERCENTAGES CHANGE?

>> SPEAKER: SO THE PERCENTAGES-- YOU ARE NOT LOCKED INTO THE PERCENTAGE AT ALL. AS FAR AS THE TEN-YEAR PERIOD, THAT'S THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT BY STATE LAW THAT WE CAN DO A TAX

ABATEMENT FOR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO ANYTHING IN

BETWEEN TEN YEARS. >> SPEAKER: YEAH, YOU CAN DO ANYTHING BETWEEN ONE AND TEN YEARS.

YOU CAN DO ANY PERCENTAGE. THINGS THAT YOU CAN'T CHANGE: YOU CAN'T GO BEYOND TEN YEARS THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T PARTICIPATE AT ALL WITH THAT BASE LEVEL WHICH IS SHOWN UP

HERE IN THE ORANGE. >> MAYOR: I HAVE A QUESTION.

I WANT TO CLARIFY INSPECTOR JUSTIN'S QUESTION.

EVERY PLACE YOU HAVE M.E.D., THAT IS THE COMMITTEE RIGHT?

>> SPEAKER: M.E.D. IS-- IT IS THE ORGANIZATION AS A WHOLE.

HOWEVER THE WAY THIS IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT DOES NOT

GO TO THAT BOARD. >> MAYOR: IT GOES TO YOU?

>> SPEAKER: IT GOES TO STAFF. >> MAYOR: AND WHEN DOES 4A, A

COMMITTEE, GET INVOLVED? >> SPEAKER: FOR A TAX ABATEMENT-- LET ME COME HERE TO THE VERY FIRST SLIDE.

SO THE M.E.D. OR THE TYPE A CORPORATION IS A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE CITY. AND SO THE CITY-- THIS WOULD BE THE PROGRAM THAT WOULD BE THE TAX ABATEMENT.

IF THERE WERE AN INCENTIVE GIVEN FROM M.E.D., M.D.A., M.C.D.C. OR ANY OF THE OTHERS, THAT WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER A SEPARATE-- THAT'S A TOTALLY SEPARATE TOOL AND A SEPARATE PROCESS.

SO, OFTENTIMES YOU WILL COMBINE AND HAVE, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, M.E.D. OFFERS PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS.

OFTENTIMES YOU WILL HAVE A PROJECT WHERE THERE'S A PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT AND THERE'S ALSO AN ABATEMENT.

SO, YOU DO HAVE THAT OVERLAP WITH ANOTHER BOARD THAT'S ALSO REVIEWING THAT AGREEMENT. THE WAY THAT WE WROTE THIS THOUGH, WE DID NOT HAVE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD OR A BOARD REVIEWING TAX ABATEMENT APPLICATIONS.

THEY GO THROUGH STAFF. SO, THEY'RE VAL WAITED UNDER THE SAME PROCESS AS OTHER INCENTIVES BUT THEN IT COMES TO CITY COUNCIL. BECAUSE ULTIMATELY IT'S OUTSIDE OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. NOW THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT YOU CAN'T ADD TO THIS, AN ADDITIONAL STEP THAT IT WOULD GO TO M.E.D.

OR SOME OTHER BOARD BEFORE COMING TO COUNCIL.

YOU CAN ADD THAT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: DID THAT CHANGE? I REALLY THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD DID ALL ALONG WAS SORT OF REVIEW THESE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COUNCIL.

>> SPEAKER: SO THERE-- >> I THINK IN THE PAST THEY HAVE. I THINK THEY'VE RUN IT BY THEIR-- SO PROBABLY UNDER THE EXISTING POLICY THEY MAY HAVE MADE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PART OF THE BROADER PANEL.

BECAUSE AS KYLE SAID YOU COULD HAVE MULTIPLE INCENTIVES AND THEY MAY HAVE HEY WE RECOMMEND DOING THIS AND THAT CAME TO THE

COUNCIL. >> SPEAKER: SO TO THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, ANY TIME M.E.D. BOARD IS LOOKING AT A PROJECT THEY'LL LOOK AT EVERYTHING. ALL THE TOOLS AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT HOLISTIC PICTURE THE SAME WAY THAT COUNCIL WHEN WE BRING PROJECTS AND YOU MAY HAVE M.E.D. PARTICIPATING AND ALSO THE CITY WITH THE TAX ABATEMENT. IN PRACTICE THAT MAY HAVE BEEN HAPPENING BUT THAT WAS NOT OUTLINED IN THE CURRENT POLICY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: JUST SO I UNDERSTAND, CHRIS, FROM TRYING TO RECOLLECT ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

AND I MIGHT BE WRONG. DID WE IN THE PAST HAVE A

[00:40:04]

RECOMMENDATION FROM 4A ON THE TAX ABATEMENT PERCENTILE?

BECAUSE I DON'T REMEMBER THAT? >> SPEAKER: I DON'T KNOW THAT WE DID ON EVERY CASE. I THINK IT PROBABLY WAS WHEN THEY HAD AN INCENTIVE IN ADDITION TO THE TAX ABATEMENT THEY WERE PROBABLY MAKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.

BUT IT COULD GET CONFUSED BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE 4A PRESIDENT, IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THAT WAS LARRY OR KYLE BEFORE BRINGING THOSE PACKAGES.

BECAUSE THEY'RE RUNNING THE NUMBERS.

WE'RE RUNNING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ON EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES THROUGH WHEN WE'RE GOING TO RECOMMEND AN ABATEMENT TO TRY TO FORMULATE THE BENEFITS TO THE COMMUNITY.

SO IF THOSE ECONOMIC MODELS DON'T WORK OUT TO THOR THERE'S A BENEFIT FOR THE CITY YOU ARE JUST NOT GOING TO DO THAT.

OF COURSE, THAT'S ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS.

YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST LIKE WHEN THE GOOGLE JUST TO BRING THAT UP. THAT'S A PROJECT WE HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. WE'VE SEEN CEMENT PLANTS BUT WE HADN'T SEEN A DATA CENTER. YOU GOT A HUGE CAPITAL INVESTMENT BUT VERY LITTLE EMPLOYMENT.

SO, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THOSE FACTORS HAVE TO GO IN TO DETERMINE WHAT YOU ARE GOING TO GET.

HOW MUCH SALES TAX ARE THEY GOING TO GENERATE OR NOT GOING TO GENERATE. SO, ALL OF THOSE MODELS GET RUN IN ORDER TO FORMULATE WHAT THE BENEFIT IS AND ULTIMATELY WHAT

THE RECOMMENDATION IS. >> SPEAKER: IN PRACTICE, LOOKING OUT, IT WOULD BE VERY RARE THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A PROJECT THAT WOULD ONLY COME FOR AN ABATEMENT UNDER THIS CURRENT STRUCTURE THAT WE HAVE. YOU KNOW, WE CAN ADD THAT AS AN ADDITIONAL REVIEW THAT HAPPENS. WOULD BE FINE TO DO.

>> M.E.D., THE BOARD ITSELF, WOULD ONLY GET INVOLVED IF IT'S AN ABATEMENT THAT INVOLVES THEIR BUDGET OR SOME INCENTIVE THAT IS GOING TO DIRECTLY IMPACT THEIR BOTTOM LINE.

IS THAT CORRECT? >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.

>> THEY'RE DOING THE SALES TAX. THIS WOULD BE AN ABATEMENT OF PROPERTY TAXES WHETHER REAL OR PERSONAL.

BUT IT'S NOT A TYPICAL-- PARTICULARLY WITH CITIES THAT DON'T HAVE THEIR OWN IN-HOUSE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BUT DO HAVE A 4A OR 4B BOARD TO DEFER A LOT OF THAT ANALYSIS WORK TO YOUR 4A OR 4B STAFF AND/OR BOARD PARTICULARLY SINCE MOST OF THE PROSPECTS WHILE THEY MAY ANNOUNCE THEMSELVES USUALLY CONFIDENTIALLY TO CITY STAFF, THEY'LL ALMOST ALWAYS SPECIFICALLY GO TO YOUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION STAFF TO MAKE THOSE INITIAL INQUIRIES REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVES. SO IT'S PRETTY COMMON, YOU KNOW, FOR YOUR 4A OR 4B. I SEE IT ALL THE TIME IN A LOT OF OUR OTHER CITIES. ALLEN IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT I THINK OF, YOU KNOW, THAT WE DO A LOT OF WORK FOR PARTICULARLY WHERE MOST ALL THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT WORK IS USUALLY GENERATES FROM THEIR 4A BOARD AND STAFF.

AND THEN IF THERE'S ADDITIONAL FUNDS THAT ARE NEEDED TO HELP FINANCE A PROJECT AND ABATEMENTS OR ALTERNATIVELY PROPERTY TAX REBATES, WHICH IS KIND OF THE SAME THING IN A DIFFERENT METHOD, YOU KNOW, WOULD ALL COME TO THE CITY AS PART OF THAT.

BECAUSE THAT'S THE PIECE OF THE PIE THAT THE CITY CONTROLS IS

THAT PROPERTY TAX. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> MAYOR: MOTION TO CLOSE. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 6-0.

IT'S CLOSED. DISCUSSION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> MAYOR: WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU, KYLE. OPEN ITEM 2020-184.

[Item 2020-184]

CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT OF PUBLIC ORDINANCE SUBMITTED IN VARIOUS EXHIBITS THROUGH OAR NANCE 2019-62 ESTABLISH AN URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 124. THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 111

SOUTH SEVENTH STREET. >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IN FRONT OF YOU IS TO AMEND AN EXISTING URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. LOOKING AT 111 SOUTH SEVENTH

[00:45:02]

STREET. ZEST 10, 2019 THIS PROPERTY WAS BROUGHT TO YOU TO CHANGE ZONING FROM COMMERCIAL TO URBAN VILLAGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AT THAT TIME WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO DO IS THERE'S AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE THEY WANT TO EXPAND. BUT DUE TO THE BASE ZONING BEING COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IT WAS CONSIDERED-- IN ORDER TO EXPAND THEY WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE THEIR ZONING TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH ZONING REGULATIONS. AND THAT'S WHEN THEY WENT FORWARD FOR THE PROCESS. AFTER PLANS WERE DONE AND IT WENT THROUGH THE WHO PROCESS AFTER THEY FIGURED OUT THEIR PLANS THEY REALIZED THAT THEY DECIDED TO COME THROUGH-- THIS IS THE ORIGINAL CONFIGURATION AS APPROVED IN DECEMBER.

AFTER THEY WORKED ON IT IT MADE MORE SENSE THEY ADDED ON ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. BACK IN DECEMBER 6, '07 SQUARE FEET WERE APPROVED. WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TODAY IS THE ONLY CHANGE THEY WANT TO SQUARE THIS OFF.

THEY FOUND IT A LOT EASIER TO SQUARE OFF NEAR THE REAR A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN IN THE FRONT.

THE BUILDING IS NOT GOING TO SETBACK ANYMORE THAN WHAT WAS APPROVED. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.

WE FIND THAT IT MAKES IN NATURE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA AS UVPB WAS APPROVED.

THIS DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC HEARING.

ZERO CAME BACK IN FAVOR. ZERO IN OPPOSITION.

AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

>> MAYOR: QUESTIONS BY THE COUNCIL? THANK YOU. A MOTION PLEASE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. MAYOROR PLEASE VOTE.

6-0. QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, DISCUSSION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> MAYOR: PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0 AS PRESENTED.

THANK YOU, TRENTON. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND

[Item 2020-185]

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AN ORDINANCE CHANGING THE ZONING OF 40.399 PLUS OR MINOR ACRES IN THE R. HOSSFORD SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 533C JENKINS SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 555.

MARCUS? >> SPEAKER: THANK YOU.

THIS P.D.62 WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN 2013.

THAT WAS FOR 70 ACRES. THEN IT EXPANDED LATER ON IN 2014 FOR AN ADDITIONAL 63 ACRES WHICH ACTUALLY CREATED PD62A WHICH YOU WILL SEE UP ON THE SCREEN LABELED AS 133.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY AGAIN AND ADD AN ADDITIONAL 40 ACRES INTO THE SAME PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

ALONG WITH THIS BOUNDARY EXPANSION, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT PD62A'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ALSO APPLY TOWARDS THIS 40 ACRE TRACT WHICH ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO CONSIST OF 116 LOTS. THIS LOT COUNT DOES INCREASE OVERALL FROM 376 LOTS TO 492. THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THE CURRENT SF3 ZONING THAT'S ON THE GROUND RIGHT NOW IN RELATION TO THAT SUBJECT 40 ACRES. YOU CAN SEE TO THE NORTH PD62A IS PHASE 4 OF THE GROVE. PD107 IS REDDEN FARMS. BELOW THAT UNDER PD52 WOULD BE THE VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE.

OUR FUTURE LAND USE SHOWS THIS AREA TO BE WITHIN WHAT WE CALL OUR COUNTRY MODULE WHICH ENVISIONS THIS AREA WITH AT LEAST A MINIMUM OF ONE ACRE SIZE LOTS.

THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL DOES FALL WELL BELOW THIS.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 8,000 TO 14,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AM IF IN ADDITION OUR PLAN PROVIDES GUIDANCE RELATED TO GARAGE PLACEMENT. THE PLAN DOES STATE ALL FUTURE NEW DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD BE LOCATED TO THE REAR OF THE LOTS OR SET WELL BACK FROM THE FRONT FACADE.

OBVIOUSLY STAFF LOOKS TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR GUIDANCE WHEN REVIEWING THESE NEW DEVELOPMENTS THAT COME ACROSS OUR DESK. BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSED LOTS AND THAT GARAGE ORIENTATION THE DEVELOPMENT DOES FALL SHORT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GUIDANCE.

THAT BEING THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTIVELY SEEKING 65 PERCENT FRONT ENTRY. SIMILAR TO WHAT IS ALREADY PERMITTED BETWEEN PD62A. ON THE SLIDE YOU WILL SEE THIS IS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. WHAT THEY'RE CALLING PHASE 5.

THE VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE TOSS THE SOUTH.

PHASE 4 OF THE GROVE IS TO THE NORTH.

YOU WILL SEE THAT CONNECTION POINT HERE ALONG SUMMER GROVE DRIVE. WE ALSO HAVE A CONNECTION POINT LEADING INTO THE REDDEN FARMS DEVELOPMENT OR FUTURE REDDEN FARMS DEVELOPMENT. ON THE SCREEN IS A LIST OF AMENDMENTS TO THE P.D. IF EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THESE 40

[00:50:04]

ACRES. I'M NOT GOING TO READ THROUGH ALL OF THIS. THIS IS ALL WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT POP OUT. THE REAR YARD SETBACK CURRENTLY IS 20 FOOT. THE APPLICANT WAS LOOKING TO REDUCE THAT DOWN TO A 15 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK.

WE TALKED ABOUT GARAGES. AS WE ALL KNOW AGAIN 65 PERCENT IS PERMITTED WITHIN PD62A. THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR THAT 35 PERCENT FOR ALL SIDE AND REAR ENTRIES TO ALSO BE APPLIED TO PHASE 5. I DID WANT TO NOTE DOWN HERE THE PLANNING ZONING RECOMMENDATION DID ASK THAT 100 PERCENT OF THOSE 116 LOTS BE SIDE OR REAR ENTRY.

COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS TO NOTE. THE OPEN SPACE IS INCREASING FROM 10.69 ACRES UP TO ABOUT 20 ACRES.

THIS SLIDE HERE SHOWS THAT THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO PUT AN 8 FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING MEDIUM INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THAT'S ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

TO THERE WILL BE A PLAY AREA WITHIN PHASE 5.

THE TRAILS WILL BE CONCRETE. ONE ITEM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID INCLUDE WAS THEY DID WANT TO SEE A SIX FOOT BOARD ON BOARD PRIVACY FENCE THAT WOULD RUN ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S NEAR WALNUT LANE AND CLANCY LANE. I BELIEVE CLANCY LANE IS CONSIDERED THE COPYCAT SUBDIVISION AND WALNUT LANE IS CONSIDERED THE WALNUT GROVE SUBDIVISION.

SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE FIVE ACRES OF OPEN SPACE WITH THE PLAYGROUND AND THE PROPOSED TRAIL THAT WILL RUN THROUGH THERE. THAT RED COLOR INDICATES AN EIGHT FOOT WIDE TRAIL. GREEN INDICATES A SIX FOOT WIDE TRAIL AND THE BLUE INDICATES JUST A TYPICAL SIDEWALK OF FIVE FOOT IN WIDTH. PHASE 1 CURRENTLY HAS ABOUT 1.3 ACRES OF COMMON SPACE WITH A PLAYGROUND AND A PARKING AREA.

OVERALL YOU CAN SEE ALL OF THE OPEN SPACE THAT ULTIMATELY WILL EBB COMPASS THE GROVE BASEDED ON WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.

I DO NEED TO SHIFT GEARS AWAY FROM PHASE 5 SINCE WE DO HAVE THE PD OPEN. THE EXISTING PD DOES REQUIRE A TRAIL SYSTEM THAT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT LOCATED WITHIN PHASE 3 AND 4 OF THE GROVE.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE RIGHT HERE IN THIS GREEN AREA.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THAT THIS TRAIL BE SHIFTED TO THE WEST AND RUN ALONG SUMMER GROVE DRIVE DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE FLUM THAT'S NEEDED THAT WILL RUN DOWN INTO THIS DRAINAGE POND AREA OR PROPOSED DRAINAGE POND. HERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THAT FLUM--FLUME WOULD LOOK LIKE. IT SPANS THE EASEMENT WIDTH ALONG THIS AREA. ONCE YOU GET CLOSER TO THE DETENTION POND YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVE MORE SPACE BUT THE APPLICANT IS CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THAT FLUME AND A TRAIL SYSTEM RUN SIDE-BY-SIDE. THEY ENVISION JUST A SEA OF CONCRETE GOING FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.

AND THAT'S REALLY THEIR MAIN REASON FOR WANTING TO SHIFT THE SIX FOOT TRAIL OVER TO SUMMER GROVE DRIVE.

ANOTHER ITEM THEY'RE WANTING TO DO AS WELL, AGAIN, THAT WILL BE SIX FOOT RUNNING UP TO THE TRWD LINE.

ONE ADDITIONAL UPGRADE THEY WANT TO DO IN LIEU OF SHIFTING THAT TRAIL OUT OFF THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THEY DO WANT TO INCREASE THE SQUAWK TO SIX FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GROVE BRANCH BOULEVARD. AND THE TRAIL SYSTEM ONLY-- I GUESS THE EXISTING PD REQUIRED THAT THE TRAIL SYSTEM WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT ONLY BE SIX FOOT.

THE APPLICANT WOULD WANT TO INCREASE THAT TO EIGHT FOOT.

BOTH TRAILS WOULD ULTIMATELY CONNECT INTO THE CITY'S EIGHT FOOT WIDE TRAIL THAT'S PROPOSED ONCE WALNUT GROVE ROAD IS REDONE. SO THIS RIGHT HERE YOU WILL SEE THE MASONRY WALL THAT'S PROPOSED ALONG EAST GATE ON THIS SIDE.

WE DID SEND OUT NOTIFICATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED TO ALL SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS TO DATE.

STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY WRITTEN RESPONSES FROM THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. WE DID GET A PHONE CALL FROM ONE PERSON THAT FELL OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION TO THIS. WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT BUT THEY WERE ALSO OUTSIDE OF THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REZONE REQUEST AS THE DEVELOPMENT DOES FALL SHORT OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE GUIDELINES.

AT A MINIMUM WE EXPECT TO SEE MAYBE LARGER TRANSITIONAL LOTS

[00:55:01]

AND NON-FRONT FACING GARAGES. THAT WOULD BE MORE IN LINE WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. ON MAY 19TH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID APPROVE A REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS.

I'VE LISTED THESE CONDITIONS HERE.

THOSE ARE ALL LISTED WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

WITH THAT, IF CAN TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A NUMBER.

CAN WE GO BACK TO-- YOU HAD A PICTURE SHOWING PDS ON IT.

A SLIDE WITH THE DIFFERENT PDS. I'M SORRY.

>> SPEAKER: THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: LET'S KEEP ROLLING BACK.

THERE'S A PD SLIDE. >> THE ZONING MAP.

>> SPEAKER: SURE. SORRY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT'S IT. SO I AM TRYING TO WRAP MY MIND AROUND COMP PLAN. THIS WAS ONE OF OUR PRIMARY CONCERNS WHEN WE WENT AND REDID DEVELOPMENT DEFINITIONS.

WE DON'T PAINT DEVELOPERS INTO A SITUATION WITH ONGOING DEVELOPMENT THAT TIES INTO NEW DEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THE SAME SUBDIVISION AND THEN WE START SAYING WAIT A MINUTE WE KNOW THAT WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THREE YEARS IS THIS WAY BUT WE GOT NEW RULES. AND BECAUSE OF THAT YOU GOT TO DO IT THE NEW WAY. SO, MY FIRST QUESTION WOULD BE, ON THE FRONT ENTRY GARAGES ON THE GROVE, WHAT WAS THE PERCENTAGE ON THAT

BEFORE? >> SPEAKER: ON THE GROVE IT'S

ALWAYS BEEN 65 PERCENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

THEN MY NEXT QUESTION WOULD BE, I BELIEVE JUST A COUPLE WEEKS AGO WITHIN THE LEDGE STONE LANE, THAT HAD 65 PERCENT AND WE WERE DEALING WITH ALMOST THIS EXACT SAME ISSUE OF AN EXTENSION.

AND WE GOT IN MY VIEW WE'VE GOT TO BE CAREFUL-- NOW IF THIS WAS A BRAND-NEW LITTLE SF3 THAT YOU'VE GOT UP THERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF TOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE, I GET IT.

BUT BECAUSE IT'S AN ATTACHMENT WE'RE PUSHING IT A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS I SEE THAT. I AM ASSUMING STAFF IS PLACED KIND OF INTO A BOX FOR A BETTER WORD OF HAVING TO FOLLOW NEW REGULATION CORRECT? THEY CAN'T MAKE THE AMENDMENT FOR-- THEY'VE ALREADY DONE A TRACT TO THE NORTH AND ANOTHER 133 ACRES. WHICH IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY ALL THAT WAS PART OF ONE FARM. SO, EVEN THOUGH THEY DID ONE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY ADDED ANOTHER LATER ALL THAT LAND WAS BOUGHT TOGETHER FOR THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROVE WHICH JUST HAPPENS TO MEET UP WITH THIS RIGHT?

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. THAT WAS THE TUCKER PROPERTY I BELIEVE. THIS PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY DID NOT BELONG TO THEM BUT THIS IS WHERE THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO EXPAND INTO PHASE 5.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THEN THE NEXT THING I'M LOOKING AT AND WHY I WANTED TO BRING THE PD SLIDE UP IS IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE THE REAL PROBLEM THAT WE'VE GOT IS WE'VE GOT THIS THAT JUST SO HAPPENS IN THIS REMOTE AREA IS A DEANOUS HOLE -- DONUT HOLE OF WHAT WE'RE ARGUING HAS TO BE ALL COUNTRY MODULE CORRECT.

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S CORRECT. I BELIEVE COUNTRY MODULE ENCOMPASSES-- YOU ARE CORRECT. WALNUT GROVE AND CLANCY LANE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE-- I BELIEVE THIS IS REDDEN DAIRY. THAT'S HIGH.

WE'VE GOT-- THAT'S GOING TO BE WHAT, DIAMOND JAY COMING ACROSS THE ROAD. WE ALREADY KNOW IT'S NOT APPROVED YET BUT WE'VE GOT SOMETHING COMING RIGHT IN HERE THAT'S AT LEAST KIND OF-- THAT'S URBAN STYLE OF WHAT'S BEEN KIND

OF PROPOSED RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THE ISSUE THAT I'M HAVING IS, IS IF WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDE BEFORE SHOWING THE PDS, WE HAVE THIS LAND LOCKED PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S IN THE MIDDLE OF ALL OF THIS THAT ISN'T COUNTRY MODULE, AS I SEE IT.

AND IT'S PROBABLY-- EVEN IF IT'S NOT CURRENTLY UNDER A PD THAT'S COUNTRY MODULE, WE KNOW FROM THE GROOVETATION OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'RE SEEING IT'S NOT GOING TO BE COUNTRY MODULE.

>> SPEAKER: CORRECT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THEN I HAVE A REAL HARD TIME SAYING THAT THIS CAN'T EVOLVE INTO MEETING UP WITH THIS AT A MUCH BETTER DENSITY RATE THAN IS IN THIS

CORRECT? >> SPEAKER: THE DENSITY IS

LOWER. >> COUNCILMEMBER: MUCH LOWER.

I'M BELIEVING THIS IS RIGHT AT THREE?

>> SPEAKER: CLOSER TO THREE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THIS IS JUST ABOUT 2.86. WHICH I'M THINKING IS 5 TENTHS

[01:00:04]

HIGHER THAN WHAT THEY DID TO THE NORTH.

THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT THE TRAIL FOR A MINUTE.

CAN WE GO OVER AND LOOK AT THAT. HERE'S WHAT I AM THINKING IN MY MIND. BECAUSE I'M ONE OF THOSE THAT'S FORTUNATE THAT GETS TO DO-- WE WORK IN THE SUBDIVISION SO WE WATCH ALL THE ACTIVITY. THE LAST THING-- AND LET ME GO BACK AND PROVIDE A LITTLE HISTORY AS I REMEMBER IT AND I CAN STAND TO BE CORRECTED. IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY WHEN THIS SUBDIVISION WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND THE TRAIL SYSTEM WAS PROVIDED FOR, IT WAS KIND OF A LAST-- THERE WAS A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THERE. IT WAS KIND OF A LAST-MINUTE LEFT FIELD THROW THAT YOU GO OUT AND CATCH, THE DEVELOPER CATCHES IT AT THE OUTFIELD FENCE, HEY, COULD YOU JUST INCORPORATE A TRAIL INTO THAT DITCH. I REMEMBER A COUNCILMAN KIND OF LOBBING THAT PUPPY OUT THERE. DO YOU REMEMBER IT THAT WAY KIND

OF? >> SPEAKER: I MIGHT HAVE BEEN SLEEPING DURING THAT TIME. [LAUGHTER]

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU DON'T SLEEP.

>> SPEAKER: I DON'T. THAT'S TRUE, IT WAS ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT I WAS TALKED ABOUT TOWARDS THE END.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO I CAN IMAGINE BEING A DEVELOPER WANTING TO GET THINGS ROLLING SAYING SURE WE CAN DO THAT.

THEN WHEN YOU GET TO-- YOU START GETTING YOUR CIVILS BACK AND YOU START LOOKING AT THE LAY OF THE LAND YOU START GOING OOH WE

MIGHT HAVE MESSED UP. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT'S NOT GOING

TO FIT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: NOT ONLY THAT BUT HERE'S WHAT I AM THINKING. IF I WAS GOING TO DEVELOP THAT-- I WATCH THESE KIDS-- WHEN THE FOUR INCH RAIN COMES WHERE DO THEY LOVE TO GO? THE DITCH.

WITH THE ROARING SIX FOOT DEEP WATER.

AND IF I AM THE DEVELOPER I WOULD WANT TO PUT A FENCE AND GATES UP AROUND THAT AND SAY WE'LL RELEASE THIS WHEN WE RELEASE IT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.

BECAUSE I DON'T WANT THE LIABILITY OF KIDS POSSIBLY NOT MAKING IT THROUGH THE SWIM DOWN THE CREEK.

SO THE WORST PLACE I COULD ENVISION HAVING A TRAIL NOW OR LATER IS IN A DRAINAGE DITCH OR ANYWHERE EVEN AROUND IT.

SO I THINK IT'S VERY WISE TO BUMP THAT TRAIL SYSTEM OUT OF THAT AND INCORPORATE IT INTO A SIDEWALK TO TIE IT IN.

LET'S PUT THE FOLKS IN SAFETY. LET'S NOT SAY NO THAT'S WHAT WE SAID IT'S GOING TO BE SO YOU ARE GOING TO DO IT THAT WAY.

PLUS, THE PARTS OF THAT LITTLE TRAIL, EVEN THOUGH IT WOULD BE CONCRETE ENCASED, I DON'T BELIEVE WHAT THE DEVELOPER HAD IN MIND-- AND I MAY BE WRONG IT MAY HAVE ALWAYS BEEN CONCRETE ENCASED-- BUT I FEEL WHAT THEY HAD IN MIND WAS RIP ROCK OR PEBBLE. I DON'T KNOW THAT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'VE GOTTEN INTO NOT ONLY EXTRA EXPENSE, POTENTIALLY HIGHER LIABILITY, THROUGH THE WAY THIS IS EVOLVED AND THEY'RE AFRAID TO STEP ON TOES.

THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT. WE NEED TO ALLOW THEM TO-- NOT FOR THEM. WE NEED TO CREEP OUR RESIDENTS -- KEEP OUR RESIDENTS OUT OF THAT HIGH LIABILITY ZONE IS WHAT I SEE. AND IN THE LONG TERM I SEE ALSO POTENTIALLY THAT YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE THOSE CONCRETE WATERWAYS, YOU COULD END UP WITH HIGH ENOUGH WATER WHERE YOU END UP WITH EROSION ON THOSE AND YOU COULD END UP WITH WATERWAYS THAT WEREN'T QUITE PROPERLY LINING FIVE OR SIX YEARS LIKE I'VE SEEN THEM IN LITTLE STANDING WATER. THEN YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE GOING DOWN WALK TRAIL SYSTEM WITH LITTLE MOSQUITO PODS.

SO I'M NOT SEEING ANY WIZARDS DOM ON THIS.

THAT'S MY TAKE ON IT. >> SPEAKER: UNDERSTOOD.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I AGREE WITH YOU, WE NEED TO HAVE A-- IF YOU LIVE IN THE STAGE 5 OR PHASE 5 AND YOU GO ALL THE WAY UP TO PHASE 1 WHERE YOUR GRANDMA LIVES, IT NEEDS TO HAVE SOME CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN IT AND DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION THAT POPPED UP IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE. AND THEY'RE DOING MORE ON TRAILS BY TAKING IT OUT OF THE DITCH BY ADDING IT TO THE FRONT.

BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE.

UP AND DOWN THAT MAIN ROAD. NOW THE ONLY THING I AGREE WITH WHERE PNZ WAS IS THEY WERE ON THE MASONRY WALL ON THE WEST SIDE. I HAVE TO AGREE WITH THAT ONE.

AND I DON'T KNOW SO MUCH ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE BUT WE FOR SURE WE'VE DONE IT IN MOST EVERY SUBDIVISION WHEN YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT ADJOINING A LARGER LOT WE'VE TRIED TO MAKE AS MANY COMMITMENTS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE THE BIGGER LOT, YOU KNOW, BY MAKING IT MORE BETTER FOR

[01:05:01]

THEM. BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO LIVE NEXT TO IT NOW. DON'T WANT TO MAKE THEIR PROPERTY WORTH NOTHING. SMEC LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YEAH LOOKING FOR CONSISTENCY.

SO, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE CHANGED THE GARAGE ORIENTATION. AND I'VE ALWAYS CONSIDERED THAT JUST USING IT FOR A NEGOTIATING TOOL.

AND THEY'RE COMING IN WITH A LOT MORE GREEN SPACE THAN BEFORE.

THEY'RE COMING IN WITH A BETTER TRAIL SYSTEM THAN BEFORE.

LOOK AT THE CONNECTIVITY BETWEEN ALL OF THAT PHASE 1 AND PHASE 5.

I MEAN, I JUST THINK THAT'S-- THEY'RE ALREADY COMING TO THE TABLE WITH MORE WITHOUT US REALLY ASKING FOR IT.

SO I COULD GIVE THEM THE 65 PERCENT ON THE GARAGES PRETTY EASILY BECAUSE OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO WITH THE OTHER

STUFF. >> MAYOR: BEFORE WE GET TOO DEEP INTO DISCUSSION WE HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO READ INTO THE RECORD. CHRIS?

>> SPEAKER: FIRST ONE IS EDWARD HANES DALLAS TEXT TEXAS.

HE HOPES THE CITY COUNCIL WILL SUPPORT THIS USE REQUEST.

THE SECOND FROM VICKI RATLIFF MIDLOTHIAN, TEXAS IN OPPOSITION.

THE GROVES TWO-STORY HOUSES WILL BE AT THE BACK OF MY PROPERTY LINE. NO DIVIDING LINE OR TREES.

OUR PROPERTY WILL NO LONGER HAVE THE PRIVACY OR SECURITY THAT WE ONCE HAD. I OPPOSE MAKING WALNUT LANE A THOROUGHFARE TO WALNUT GROVE ROAD.

THERE ARE THREE SCHOOLS WITHIN THREE MILES.

WALNUT LANE IS ONE-FOURTH MILE LONG AND A PEACEFUL STREET.

I AM AWARE OF HOW IT WAS PLATTED IN 1973 BUT IT CAN BE CHANGED.

I AM ASKING THE COUNCIL TO PLEASE LEAVE IT AS A DEAD-END STREET. TRAFFIC WILL BE HORRENDOUS.

THAT'S IT. >> MAYOR:S THAT ALL THE COMMENTS WE HAVE FOR THE RECORD. DO WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS ABOUT WALNUT LANE. WHY DO WE NEED-- WHY IS IT IMPORTANT THAT WE CONNECT THAT? DO WE NOT HAVE THE PROPER EAST-WEST CONNECTORS NORTH AND SOUTH OF THERE? WHY-- THOSE FOLKS FEEL LIKE THEY'RE IN A CUL-DE-SAC.

AND WE WOULD AGREE THAT CLANCY, IS THAT JUST SOUTH OF THEM? CLANCY GOT SAVED BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE A CUL-DE-SAC.

WHERE THE ONES TO THE NORTH DIDN'T SO DOES THAT CHANGE THINGS UP A LOT IF WE DON'T HAVE THAT CONNECTOR?

WHAT'S THAT DESIRE THERE? >> SPEAKER: IT DOES CHANGE THINGS. I MEAN, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES SHOW THE CONNECTION, YOU KNOW, GOING FROM WALNUT LANE LEADING THIS DIRECTION TO THE MAIN SUMMER GROVE DRIVE.

NOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES SHOW A DIRECT CONNECT BUT IT BEING JUST A 60 FOOT CONNECTOR. OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T MIND THE JOG.

AGAIN, WE'RE FOLLOWING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

SECOND, I WOULD SAY THAT THE PLAT THAT WAS FILED BACK IN 1972, THEY ALWAYS SHOWED-- THEY DID SHOW A CUL-DE-SAC BUT THEY SHOWED A TEMPORARY CUL-DE-SAC ONLY FOR TEMPORARY PURPOSES FOR FUTURE CONNECTIVITY. I BELIEVE THAT LANGUAGE IS ON

THE PLAT ITSELF. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IF WE WERE TO EVEN DISCUSS OR APPROACH CHANGING THAT CONNECTIVITY, THAT'S GOING TO AFFECT A LOT OF TIME BASED INSTRUMENTS IN WHAT

WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO, IN OTHER WORDS, THAT CONNECTIVITY HAS

BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. >> SPEAKER: THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN PLANNED. YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: YOU AND I BOTH KNOW WE'VE SEEN WHERE PEOPLE SCREAMING AND HOLLERING WHEN THEY LIVED IN ONE OF THOSE SPOTS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING.

WE GOT AN ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF IN NORTHRIDGE THAT HAS ONE OF THOSE ROADS RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE THAT HAS A BARRICADE IT UP IN FRONT OF IT NOW PUT UP IN THE 70S.

IT MAY NEVER HAVE A ROAD ON IT. BUT ONE OF THESE DAYS KITE HAVE A ROAD GOING IN FRONT OF HIS HOUSE.

IT'S BEEN A DEADEND FOR 40 YEARS.

BUT WHEN YOU HAVE-- LIKE WALNUT ENDS.

CLANCY HAS THE CUL-DE-SAC CIRCLE.

YOU KNOW WHEN YOU GOT A CIRCLE I'D BE A LITTLE MORE LENIENT IN GOING IF THEY ADDED A ROAD THERE.

BUT IF YOU KNOW THERE'S A BARRICADE THERE, THERE'S GOING

TO BE A ROAD THERE ONE DAY. >> I'VE HEARD ABOUT THIS CONNECT OVER BUT DIDN'T GET TO WITNESS WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE.

THE WAY IT'S STUCK OFF IN THE CORNER OF THAT SUBDIVISION AND IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT EAST-WEST CONNECTOR I WOULD LIKE TO THINK THAT TRAVEL CORRIDOR IS GOING TO BE USED RESPECTFULLY RATHER-- IN OTHER WORDS, NOT A TON OF HEAVY TRAFFIC.

IT'S BEEN SET-UP WISELY. >> SPEAKER: ABSOLUTELY.

I THINK THE FACT THAT IT RUNS DIRECTLY INTO GREEN SPACE.

I DON'T HAVE ADDITION REALLY-- THEY DON'T HAVE ADDITIONAL HOMES. YOU'VE GOT A VERY LARGE

[01:10:01]

DETENTION POND TO THE NORTH. YOU'VE GOT THIS DRAINAGE AREA DIRECTLY TO THE WEST. YOU KNOW, WILL FOLKS TRAVEL THIS DIRECTION AND GO OVER? IT WILL BE A LOT LESS THAN WE THINK. THE SPEED WE KEPT WAY DOWN BECAUSE IT'S 290 FOOT. IF WE RAN IT STRAIGHT ACROSS I WOULD AGREE WALNUT LANE WOULD BECOME A SPEEDWAY.

BUT TURNING 90 DEGREES LIKE THAT, I THINK THAT'S THE BEST USE OF THE END OF IT. BECAUSE IT WILL SLOW THEM WAY DOWN TO MAKE THAT CORNER. I DON'T CARE WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

>> MAYOR: THE ONLY PROBLEM WE ONLY HAVE ONE WAY IN AND OUT.

>> SPEAKER: YOU'LL BE ABLE TO CONNECT INTO-- SUMMER GROVE IS CURRENTLY-- I BELIEVE THIS SECTION IS ALREADY BUILT.

THIS SECTION IS. THIS WILL, AS SOON AS THIS GETS BUILT YOU WILL HAVE THIS SECOND CONNECTION.

ONCE REDDEN FARMS GOES IN, WE'LL HAVE A CONNECTION HERE.

YOU ARE RIGHT THE VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE HAS NOT BEEN BUILT SO THERE'S NO CONNECTION POINT JUST YETTOR ACCESS I GUESS I SHOULD SAY. BUT THEY WILL HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS. THIS POINT AND THIS POINT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I SEE. TO THE NORTH.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. I BELIEVE PHASE 4.

THE ROADS HAVE BEEN BUILT. WE'VE NOT ACCEPTED THE ROADS BUT IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY. >> MAYOR: MARCUS, YOU ARE

TALKING ABOUT TRANSITIONAL LOTS? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

>> MAYOR: SHOW ME WHERE YOU WOULD SEE THEM AND HOW MANY

WOULD YOU EXPECT >> SPEAKER: KNOWING THAT WE'VE GOT THESE VERY LARGE LOTS ON THIS SIDE, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD TRY TO SEE SOMETHING CLOSER MAYBE IN THE I THINK TRANSITIONAL YOU ARE THINKING HALF-ACRE STYLE TYPE LOTS RUNNING FROM THIS DIRECTION GOING TO THE WEST.

>> MAYOR: JUST ON THE EASTERN EDGE THERE?

>> SPEAKER: I WOULD THINK SO. ONLY BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE WE HAVE EXISTING LOTS. THOSE LOTS WERE ANNEXED INTO THE CITY. THOSE HAVE BEEN THERE FOR VERY,

VERY, VERY LONG TIME. >> MAYOR: AND ON THE NORTH SIDE

NOT AT ALL? >> SPEAKER: NO SIR.

ONLY BECAUSE AGAIN WE DEFINITELY SEE THIS CONNECTION INTO SUMMER GROVE. WHICH THOSE LOTS ARE VERY SIMILAR, 9 TO 10,000 SQUARE FOOT.

I BELIEVE REDDEN FARM MIGHT HAVE-- I THINK THESE ARE THE LARGEST LOTS IN REDDEN FARMS IF I'M CORRECT.

REDDEN FARMS IS VERY, VERY LARGE.

LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET A LARGER PICTURE HERE.

I WANT TO SAY THE LARGEST LOTS ENDED UP HERE.

ON OF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS. PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE 9 TO

10,000 SQUARE FOOT >> MAYOR: WHAT'S THE SMALLEST

FRONTAGE ON ANY LOTS? >> SPEAKER: IN THIS DEVELOPMENT?

THAT WOULD BE 65 AND 70. >> MAYOR: AND WHAT PERCENT DO YOU HAVE LESS THAN SAY 72, 75 FEET?

JUST BALLPARK. >> [INAUDIBLE].

>> SPEAKER: NOW I CAN SAY ONE THING.

THE 14,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THEY'RE INDICATED IN ORANGE, THESE LOTS-- AND SORRY I'M GOING TO APPROACH THE SCREEN JUST TO GET A BETTER. SO THIS LOT RIGHT HERE IS ABOUT 19,000 SQUARE FOOT. THESE RIGHT HERE ARE 18,000 SQUARE FOOT. THIS IS A 13, THIS IS A 14.

THIS IS AN 18. YOU'VE EVE GOT 15.

WHEN THE APPLICANT PUT THIS TOGETHER THEY JUST SHOWED 14,000-PLUS. BUT WE DO HAVE SOME LOTS THAT ARE GETTING TO THE 20,000. I THINK IT'S MORE OF A MATTER OF PREFERENCE AS FAR AS SEEING THEM SPRINKLED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT VERSUS HAVING THEM ALL PUSHED UP.

BUT THE COMP PLAN IS VERY SPECIFIC.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT AS A GUIDING TOOL AS WELL. WE PREFER TO SEE SOME TRANSITION. I MEAN, THAT'S JUST BECAUSE

THAT'S JUST THE GUIDE FOR US. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO MARCUS THE ONES WITH THE STAR ON THEM, THE YELLOW WITH THE STARS ON THE FAR RIGHT-HAND SIDE, THOSE ARE THE 12 TO 14,000? THOSE ARE THE NINE 12 TO 14S RIGHT?

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. 14,000 AND THAT STAR CATES ALL

JAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: THAT IS WHAT

THEY'RE GOING TO DO. >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: IF THAT'S 12 TO 14 WE CALL IT 20 NOW A HALF-ACRE. NOT FAR OFF A HALF-ACRE.

>> MAYOR: SO LOTS WITHOUT STARS OR FRONT ENTRY? THE LOTS WITHOUT A MARK OR A STAR OR SOMETHING, ARE THOSE

[01:15:01]

FRONT ENTRY? >> SPEAKER: THAT IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. YES, SIR.

>> AND IT'S RECESSED GARAGE. >> SPEAKER: AS FAR AS THE J

SWING? >> COUNCILMEMBER: NO THE STEP

BACK. >> SPEAKER: THAT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE NOW I BELIEVE ON OUR-- THAT IS A CURRENT REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR ALL GARAGES.

YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE GARAGE SETBACK SO MANY FEET.

FIVE FEET FROM THE FRONT FACADE. BUT HERE'S THE THING GUYS.

THAT THAT'S OUR GENERAL GARAGE REQUIREMENTS.

IS HAVING THAT FOOT FOOT OFFSET FOR THE GARAGE DOOR.

THE GARAGE DOOR IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE FLUSH WITH THE FRONT FACADE. THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT, PD62A DOES NOT HAVE THAT LANGUAGE EMBEDDED.

SO, OUR ONLY OPTION IS TO ALWAYS DEFAULT TO WHATEVER OUR CURRENT ZONING REGULATIONS REQUIRE. SO THAT WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT AS WELL. UNLESS THIS PD IS VERY SPECIFIC IN SAYING FRONT GARAGES CAN'T BE FLUSH WITH THE FRONT FACADE.

>> MAYOR: MARCUS, WHAT IS THE FRONTAGE OF THAT LOT THERE?

>> SPEAKER: THEY WOULD ALL MEET THE 65 AT THE BUILD LINE.

SO THAT SHOULD BE AT LEAST 65 FEET AT THE BUILD LINE.

BECAUSE IT'S ON A CUL-DE-SAC. >> MAYOR: WHAT WOULD THAT LOT

GET? >> SPEAKER: A J SWING LOT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO THAT BRINGS UP A QUESTION THAT I THINK I SAW A MOMENT AGO ABOUT A CHANGE IN THE BACK END OF THE LOT SETBACK.

DOES THAT HAVE TO DO BECAUSE OF OUR NEW REQUEST OF GARAGE

SETBACKS ON THE FRONT? >> SPEAKER: I THINK I WANTED DEFER THAT QUESTION MAYBE TO THE--

>> COUNCILMEMBER: ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION.

ARE THOSE DIFFERENCE IN SETBACK ON THIS PROPOSED PORTION

DIFFERENT FROM THE BALANCE OF? >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

EVERYBODY RIGHT NOW WITHIN PD62A HAS A REQUIREMENTS TO HAVE A 20 FOOT REAR YARD SETBACK. THIS ONE SECTION--

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SO I'M GUESSING THE 15 FOOT IS A SPACE INCREMENT THEY NEEDED WITHIN THAT RECTANGLE THEY WERE DEALING

WITH. >> SPEAKER: YES, SIR.

THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.

>> MAYOR: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION.

CHRIS? >> COUNCILMEMBER: I JUST WANT TO MAKE A MOMENT BACK TO THE MAP. KEEP IN MIND WHEN YOU WERE LOOKING AT THAT MAP AND YOU HAD THE STAR NOTES THAT DENOTE J SWING GARAGES THAT'S NOT THE ORDINANCE YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU. PNZ'S RECOMMENDATION IS 100 PERCENT J SWING OR REAR ENTRY. SO THAT MAP WITH THOSE STARS DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT'S IN THE--

>> MAYOR: DO YOU REMEMBER PNZ HAVING ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THE RULES CHANGE. WAS THERE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT COUNCIL'S CONCERN WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THESE RULES CHANGES ABOUT THAT IMPACT UPON DEVELOPERS OF CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENTS AND HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE BUILD OUT? BECAUSE WE HAD THOSE TALKS WITHIN THOSE DEFINITION CHANGES IN THOSE MEETINGS THAT THAT WOULD NOT THROWING A NEW BURDEN ON THOSE DEVELOPERS. WAS ANY OF THAT CONVERSATION

HAD? >> SPEAKER: I THINK THE PROBLEM IS THE ONES THAT WERE ALREADY-- THEY'VE ALREADY GOT ZONING AND A PD THEN IT WOULDN'T HAVE AN AFFECT.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO WAY TO KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BUY THAT-- WHEN YOU ARE SAYING CONTIGUOUS. YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IS GOING TO BUY THAT ADJACENT LOT. SO IT'S HARD TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION THAT BECAUSE IT SITS NEXT TO AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE AUTOMATICALLY GOING TO BUY IT--

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I UNDERSTAND THAT.

BUT I WOULD ASK THIS QUESTION. IS THIS ADDED PROPORTION ON THE BOTTOM END IS IT CONTAINING THE WORD THE GROVE IN IT?

>> SPEAKER: I THINK THAT'S THE WAY THEY'RE PROPOSING IT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT I AM GETTING AT IT IS A CONTINUATION OF THE GROVE WHICH WAS ONE OF MY PRIMARY CONCERNS.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS THAT WE GOT IS DEVELOPER-- EVEN A LITTLE BIT AND I DON'T KNOW THE DEPPTH OF THIS POSSIBILITY, A LITTLE BIT OF THE LEGALITY INVOLVED OF KNOW DEVELOPERS-- AND I'M ONLY LOOKING AT THIS BECAUSE-- I'M NOT A DEVELOPER. BUT THEM NOT HAVING THE ABILITY FOR CONTINUATION. IF IT'S WITHIN THE SAME

DEVELOPMENT. >> SPEAKER: I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE COUNCIL HAS A RIGHT. BUT IT COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN A CONTINUATION OF THE VILLAGES OF WALNUT GROVE WHICH TOSS THE SOUTH. OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN EXTENSION OF WALNUT LANE AND CLANCY COULD HAVE COME OVER AND IT COULD HAVE BEEN ONE ACRE LOT. OR IT COULD BE AN EXTENSION OF

[01:20:07]

REDDEN FARMS TO THE SOUTH. REDDEN FARMS PD ALSO TOUCHES THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY.

SO, YOU COULD HAVE HAD CONTINUATION IN A LOT OF WAYS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'M FOLLOWING EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING AND I'M IN FULL AGREEMENT. I'M SAYING WITHIN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS APPLICATION IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT IT IS GOING TO BE PART OF A GROVE. I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE SPACE OR A CONTROL MECHANISM FOR NOT KNOWING WHAT'S COMING BUT, IN THIS CASE, THAT'S MY ARGUMENT WE KNOW WHAT'S COMING UPPING AND IT'S MORE OF THE GROVE.

>> SPEAKER: I KNOW. AND,OF COURSE, THAT'S COUNCIL CERTAINLY HAS -- YOU KNOW WITHIN THEIR POWER TO MAKE IT CONTINUOUS.

>> MAYOR: GO BACK TO THE LOTS LAYOUT.

SO, THEY'LL BE LOCKED INTO THAT LAYOUT?

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> MAYOR: DOES ANYBODY WANT TO SPEAK THAT HASN'T SIGNED UP YET? ALREADY.

I HAVE A MOTION-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION TO

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.

>> MAYOR: PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 5-0.

PLEASE NOTICE THAT CLARK WICKLIFFE HAS ACCUSED HIMSELF AND WILL NOT BE VOTING. KEVIN, I HAVE A CURIOSITY QUESTION. DOES IT TAKE THREE OR FOUR VOTES

FOR THIS TO PASS? >> SPEAKER: IT WOULD TAKE THREE.

YES. WE DON'T HAVE 20 PERCENT RULE IN

EFFECT SO IT ONLY TAKES THREE. >> MAYOR: BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO

HAVE A MAJORITY OF-- >> I CHECKED THAT OUT WHEN DEALING WITH A PRIOR CASE AND TALKING ABOUT THE 20 PERCENT RULE. A CHARTER DOESN'T HAVE THAT

REQUIREMENT. >> MAYOR: DO WE HAVE DISCUSSION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'M SORRY, SIR.

>> MAYOR: GO AHEAD. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. AND USING THE CONTINUE SO I OF THE 65 PERCENT GARAGES, THE FRONT ENTRY, THE PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY OUT OF THE DRAINAGE DITCH, THE COMP PLAN TO BE AMENDED, THE MASONRY WALL ON THE WEST SIDE AGAINST THE EAST GATE, AND THEN THE WOULD FENCE ON THE EAST SIDE AGAINST THE NEIGHBORS.

THAT DOES COVER EVERYTHING? >> EXCEPT I THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT THE COMP PLAN NEEDS TO BE AMENDED BECAUSE WE NEED TO

TREAT THAT AS A SEPARATE ACTION. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY TAKE THAT

OUT. >> MAYOR: TRY THAT AGAIN.

>> SPEAKER: IF I CAN, I THINK THE EIGHT FOOT WALL IS ALREADY IN THERE. AND IT'S ALREADY SOMETHING THAT

THE APPLICANT-- AND THAT'S-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: RIGHT.

BECAUSE I WAS AT PNZ AND THAT'S WHY I MISSED OUR PARTS MEETING.

I WAS THERE LISTENING TO THAT. I MAY NOT AGREE WITH MUCH BUT I

AGREED. >> I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY CHANGES VERSUS THE PNZ RECOMMENDATION IS THE FRONT GARAGES. MOVING THE TRAIL ON TO SUMMER GROVE, THE SIX FOOT BOARDS ON BOARD ARE ALREADY IN THIS ORDINANCE BECAUSE OF THE PNZ RECOMMENDATION.

SO, REALLY YOU ARE CHANGING THE FRONT--

>> AND TRANSITIONAL LOTS. >> HE'S GOT BIGGER LOTS AGAINST THE BIG LOT. OR DO I HAVE TO MENTION THAT?

>> NO. >> COUNCILMEMBER: HE'S GOT 14,000. DOES THAT COVER IT ALL KEVIN?

>> I BELIEVE SO. AND MARCUS, HELP ME IF I'M JUST-- BASICALLY, EVERYTHING THAT HE JUST SAID IN HIS MOTION IS-- I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER HOW WE ENDED UP DRAFTING THE ORDINANCE AS IT APPEARS IN THE PACKET.

I THOUGHT THE ORDINANCE CONTAINS THE 65 PERCENT ALREADY.

>> SPEAKER: WE CHANGED THAT TO ZERO PERCENT IN THE ORDINANCE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THE FENCE, THE TRAIL IS IN THERE.

>> SPEAKER: THAT'S ALL IN THERE. >> MAYOR: AND 65 PERCENT IS

ALLOWED. >> SPEAKER: ALLOW 65 PERCENT,

YES, SIR. >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN I SECOND

THAT. >> MAYOR: SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ALLOW 65 PERCENT FRONT END. EVERYTHING ELSE IS OKAY?

[01:25:04]

OKAY. AND AS WRITTEN OTHERWISE.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 5-0. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN.

[Item 2020-186]

OPEN ITEM 2020-186 CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AN ACT UPON ORDINANCE IN SECTION 2.04 USE TABLE SECTION A RESIDENTIAL USES BY AMENDING WHERE SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS

MAY BE LOCATED. >> SPEAKER: 2.04.

ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR SECOND DWELLING UNITS.

THERE'S CERTAIN PARAMETERS THAT SECOND DWELLING THOSE MEET TO HAVE SNP APPROVED. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS A LOT MORE QUICK.

TABLE THINGS WE MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY THINK NEEDS TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPROVAL.

SINCE 2012 WE'VE HAD APPROXIMATELY EIGHT APPLICATIONS. ONE OF THOSE APPLICATIONS WERE WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT THEMSELVES.

ONE OTHER APPLICATION WAS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THAT HAD TO DO WITH JUST SCREENING THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT.

ALL OTHER ITEMS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY'RE MEETING THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

IN ORDER TO QUICKEN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND TO HELP OUT OUR CITIZENS DURING THIS PROCESS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WAIT AN ADDITIONAL 45 TO 60 DAYS FOR A SECONDARY DWELLING STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO CHANGE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TO PERMIT BY RIGHT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THESE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS IN SECTION 3.5700. IF THERE'S ANY OF THESE REQUIREMENTS THEY CANNOT MEET THAT IS WHEN THEY WOULD GO BEFORE THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL THROUGH AN SEP PROCESS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.

THIS WENT BEFORE THE PLANNING ZONE COMMISSION ON MAY 19TH AND THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 6-0. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT

THIS TIME. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I HAVE A QUESTION I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE IF IT ATTAINS TO THIS.

IF NOT, TELL ME ASK YOU LATER. BUT I KNOW WE DON'T ENFORCE DEED RESTRICTIONS AND CAN NO LONGER ENFORCE BUILDING MATERIAL BUT PART OF THE CITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR FOLLOWS THE RULES. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO DO THAT IF WE DO NOT ENFORCE THE DEED RESTRICTIONS?

>> SPEAKER: WITH THIS ORDINANCE THERE'S CERTAIN THINGS AROUND THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES, SIMILAR ROOF PITCHES, NONE OF THIS REALLY TALKS ABOUT BUILDING MATERIALS.

SO WE WOULD STILL BE ABLE TO REGULATE WHAT THE SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT DOES LOOK LIKE AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. AS LONG AS IT'S CONSTRUCTED

APPROPRIATELY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT'S

DIFFICULT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I WAS JUST

CURIOUS. >> COUNCILMEMBER: BUT AS LONG AS WE DEAL WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL STUFF AND BASICALLY THE WAY WE'VE BEEN DRAFTING ORDINANCES IS THAT PARTICULARLY THOSE THAT WE'VE EVEN ATTACHED ELEVATIONS TO WE BASICALLY ARE SAYING YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR BUILDING LOOK LIKE THIS.

NOW, WHETHER THEY USE, YOU KNOW, LAMINATE OR REAL WOOD OR WHATEVER TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE THAT, AS LONG AS IT LOOKS LIKE THAT, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'RE STUCK WITH RIGHT NOW.

WE CAN'T GO BEYOND THAT UNDER CURRENT STATE LAW.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC

HEARING. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND.

>> MAYOR: MOTION TO CLOSE. SECONDED.

PLEASE VOTE. IT PASSES 6-0.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: MOTION TO APPROVE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND >> MAYOR: I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE. PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, TRENTON.

PUBLIC HEARING 2020-187 HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

SO, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[Item 2020-188]

2020-188 CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A SPECIAL EXCEPTION ACCORDANCE TO SECTION 7.13 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FROM SECTION 3.16 DEDICATION AND SECTION 4.14 FINAL PLATS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION OF APPLE

COURT AND APPLE LANE. >> SPEAKER: 3.16 AND 4.14 REGULO

[01:30:04]

STATE WHENEVER SOMEONE DOES SUB-DIVIDE THE PROPERTY RIGHT-OF-WAY-- PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDICATED. IN THE EVENT THERE IS NO-- TO BE CRITHED. THE APP PLI CAN'T IS REQUESTING THAT BE WAIVED. THROUGH A SPECIAL EXCEPTION PROCESS AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE FIVE CRITERIA A SPECIAL EXCEPTION FROM ANY PROVISIONS WITHIN SUBDIVISION CAN BE APPROVED. THE PROVISIONS FOR 3.16, 4.14 THE APP PLI CAN'T WHEN THEY CAME INTO SUB-DIVIDE THEIR PROPERTY THEY HAVE PROPERTY ABUTTING APPLE COURT AND APPLE LANE.

THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE FOR APPROXIMATELY 25 PLUS YEARS. IT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED A PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PREVIOUS JUST TO THIS BEING ANNEXED IN THE CITY YEARS AGO THIS ROAD WAS MAINTAINED BY THE COUNTY AS PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

DUE TO THEM SUB-DIVIDING THE PROPERTY THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO DEDICATE 1.04 ACRES OF THEIR PROPERTY TO THE CITY FOR THE EXISTING THOROUGHFARE. EXISTING ROADS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THE RIGHTS TO THE PROPERTY. THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THIS PROPERTY AS THEIR PROPERTY. THEY SEE VALUE IN KEEPING IT AS THEIR PROPERTY. STAFF DOES RECOMMEND THE VARIANCE-- SPECIAL EXCEPTION BE APPROVED ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS.

WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. THAT A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT EDGE GRANTED ON APPLE COURT AND APPLE LANE TO OFFER CONTINUOUS ACCESS. STAFF DOES BELIEVE THAT ALL FIVE CRITERION HAVE BEEN MET. STAFF BELIEVES THE CONDITIONS OF THE ROAD BE IN PLACED PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY ANNEXED IN 2008 AND NO FUTURE THOROUGHFARES ARE PLANS ALONG THESE ROADS AND IT WOULD CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP WITH SPLITTING THE LOT.

ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS WHEN YOU SPLIT THIS LINE YOU WILL HAVE CONTINUOUS SPIKE STRIPS GOING DOWN THE ROADWAY THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WILL HAVE TO TRY TO MAINTAIN.

AND I THINK THERE WILL BE ISSUES ON WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IS THAT TO MAINTAIN THROUGH THE YEARS. ADDITIONALLY IT IS NOT SELF-IMPOSED. THIS WAS ANNEXED IN THE CITY AS IS. WHEN IT WAS ANNEXED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT CAME UPON THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REGULATIONS. EASEMENT IN LIEU OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION WE FEEL WILL PROVIDE THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WITH THE SAME BENEFIT AS A PUBLIC ROAD WOULD PROVIDE IN THESE AREAS. ONCE AGAIN BECAUSE THESE AREN'T ON THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN THERE WON'T BE ANY FUTURE EXPANSIONS.

THAT'S ANOTHER REASON WHY THE CITY DOES SUPPORT THE GRANTING OF HAVING AN EASEMENT THERE INSTEAD.

THE PROPOSED SPECIAL EXCEPTION IS SPECIFIC TO REGULATIONS AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. LAST PROVISION STATES WILL THIS CHANGE THE ZONING IN ANY FASHION.

THIS IS SPECIFICALLY PERTAINING TO THE SUBDIVISION AND REGULATIONS AND WILL NOT AFFECT THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.

STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVE POLL.

THIS WENT BEFORE THE ZONING PLANNING COMMISSION.

THEY RECOMMENDED APPROVAL 5-1. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. AND JUST ONCE AGAIN THE CITY DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE REPORT OF REQUIRING A PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT AND NOT TO AGREE TO THE RELEASE OF LIABILITY FOR ANY ACCIDENTS THAT OCCUR ON APPLE COURTOR APPLE LANE AS ADVISED BY OUR ATTORNEYS.

>> MAYOR: I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE STARTS DOWN THE MIDDLE OF APPLE COURT?

>> SPEAKER: THE SOLID BLACK LINE HERE? IT'S A ONE OF THE SURVEY MARKS. RIGHT HERE? THAT'S THE PROPERTY LINE THAT GOES UP AND ALL THE WAY UP AND AROUND APPLE COURT. AS YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY LINE GOES UP AND COVERS BOTH WAYS. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND COMES BACK

DOWN. >> MAYOR: AND THEY'RE WANTING TO

KEEP THE PROPERTY LINE THERE? >> SPEAKER: THEY WANT TO MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTY. THEY SEE VALUE IN THE

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> I THINK THAT'S TYPICALLY THE WAY IT WAS DONE IN THE COUNTY WITH THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY. A LOT OF TIMES THE PROPERTY LINE

WENT TO THE CITY. >> MAYOR: THEY TOOK ALL OF MINE AWAY FROM ME. [LAUGHTER]

THE APPLICANT AGREES? >> SPEAKER: TO BOTH CONDITIONS

>> MAYOR: EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED.

>> SPEAKER: YES, SIR. >> MAYOR: I AM TOTALLY CONFUSED.

MAYBE YOU CAN HELP EXPLAIN IT TO YOU.

>> SPEAKER: I'M GOING TO SEE IF I CAN'T GET OUT OF CONFUSION TOO. LOOKING AT THE SATELLITE PICTURE. SO, THEIR PROPERTY IS THE ONE

[01:35:06]

WITH THE-- WHICH LINE? ONE, TWO OR THREE?

>> SPEAKER: ALL OF IT. THAT'S ALL ONE LOT.

>> SPEAKER: THEY'RE GOING TO SPLIT UP THOSE TWO OTHER LOTS

>> SPEAKER: RIGHT. >> SPEAKER: AND THAT'S APPLE COURT. SO, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE PEOPLE

THAT LIVE PAST THEIR PROPERTY? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S WHY WE'RE REQUIRING PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT FOR CONTINUOUS ACCESS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I MEAN, YOU GUYS OWN PART OF MY FRONT YARD SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND-- I CAN'T-- IT IS WHAT IT IS.

YOU OWN 25 OR 30 FEET OF THE FRONT OF MY YARD.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY THINK-- OWN IT BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. IT'S ACCESS.

I DON'T SEE WHY WE'RE EVEN THINKING ABOUT IT.

BECAUSE FOR GOD MOTORCYCLE IF THEY DEVELOP A QUARRY ONE DAY AND TURN IT INTO A SWIMMING POOL-- STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED-- AND THAT IS GOING TO BE A ROAD THEN WE WILL HAVE TO BUY SOME DIRT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BUY DIRT BASED ON THERE'S ALREADY A ROAD THERE.

AND YOU GOT NINE OTHER RESIDENTS THAT LIVE AT THE END OF IT.

THAT'S IT. >> SPEAKER: AND THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT WOULD MAINTAIN THE ROAD.

THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DEVELOP ON THAT ROAD.

THE PUBLIC WILL STILL BE ABLE TO ACCESS AS YOU WOULD

RIGHT-OF-WAY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT'S JUST A STREET. THEY'RE ASKING FOR PART OF THE

STREET. >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: DID YOU JUST SAY WE'RE MAINTAINING THAT

RIGHT? >> SPEAKER: CORRECT.

WE'RE MAINTAINING THE PRESCRIPTIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND WOULD CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN THE PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: IN THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT IT SAYS THE

MAINTENANCE FALLS TO THE CITY? >> SPEAKER: IT WILL.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: AND I'M NOT 100 PERCENT SURE ON THIS.

I BELIEVE THAT EASEMENTS, PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENTS HAS AN END DATE. NOW I THINK THEY'RE LIKE 99 YEARS. NO.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I KNOW THERE'S AN EASE 89 OUT THERE THAT HAS AN END DATE. .

>> IF I MIGHT. IN ADDRESSING COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER'S QUESTION, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE OTHER FOLKS AT THE END OF THE STREET. NOTHING CHANGES REALLY.

BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE AN EXISTING PUBLIC STREET.

I MEAN, ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, IT CAME INTO EXISTENCE OVER USE BY THE PUBLIC OVER THE COURSE OF MANY DECADES.

SO IT'S ESSENTIALLY ALREADY A PUBLIC STREET.

BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THIS EASEMENT IS DOCUMENT THAT AS A PUBLIC STREET IN ESSENCE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE EXISTING PAVEMENT AND DITCHES TO THE EXTENT THEY EXIST AND MAKE THAT ESSENTIAL A PUBLIC STREET WITH AN ACTUAL PIECE OF PAPER AS OPPOSED TO THAT'S RECORDED AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY OPERATION OF LAW WHERE IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR AS LONG AS ANYBODY CAN REMEMBER AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS TYPE OF DEAL.

THERE'S CERTAIN VALUE IN HAVING THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY DOCUMENTED BY RECORDED DOCUMENT. BUT FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, LEGAL STANDPOINT AS FAR AS ITS USE, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING.

SAME THING FOR THE MAINTENANCE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING EITHER. IT WAS A COUNTY ROAD BEFORE.

IT BECAME A CITY ROAD WHEN IT GOT ANNEXED.

>> MAYOR: SO EVERYBODY STAYS THE SAME.

NOBODY'S OBJECTED. >> SPEAKER: I'M JUST RECORDING

THE DOCUMENT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. WANT TO KEEP THE PROPERTY AND PAY TAXES ON A STREET NOW. BUT THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS.

>> SPEAKER: PRESENTLY I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE PAYING TAXES ON THE PORTION THAT'S IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ANYWAY.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: TAXES ON THE PROPERTY ALL THE WAY TO THE

PROPERTY LINE? >> SPEAKER: THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND MAY BE SOMETHING FOR THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT TO ANSWER. BUT I CAN TELL YOU IN LOOKING ACT THE G.I.S. MAPS FOR THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT IT SHOWS A CARVE OUT AROUND THEIR PROPERTY WHERE THE STREETS ARE LOCATED.

AS A NON-TAXABLE STREET. >> MAYOR: DO WE HAVE A MOTION?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> MAYOR: PLEASE VOTE.

ITEM PASSES 6-0. THANK YOU, TRENT.

ITEM 2020-189 REVIEW AND DISCUSS THE SUMMER 2020 SPECIAL EVENTS

[Item 2020-189]

IN RELATION TO COVID-19 PROTOCOLS AND DIRECT STAFF AS

NECESSARY. >> SPEAKER: HOW ARE YOU ALL THIS EVENING? GOOD.

I AM HERE JUST TO DISCUSS, WE CAME TO COUNCIL A WHILE BACK TO TALK ABOUT THE FOURTH OF JULY AND WITH THE WINE FESTIVAL.

[01:40:05]

SO I AM JUST BACK TO READDRESS THOSE AND GET THE FEEL FOR THE COUNCIL OF HOW THEY WANT US TO PROCEED THIS SUMMER WITH COVID AND ALL OF OUR SAFETY IMPLEMENTATIONS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S RULINGS. SO WE DID RECEIVE WORD TODAY THAT THE FIREWORKS SHOW IS GOOD TO GO AND THAT THE SCHOOL WILL OPEN THE GATES FOR US IF WE WANT THE GATES OPEN FOR THE STADIUM.

SO THAT LEADS US TO, DO WE WANT THE GATES OPEN FOR THE STADIUM? ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE PUBLIC TO COME IN AND PARK AND VIEW THE FIREWORKS? AND THEN, DOES WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PARADE THE FOLLOWING DAY?

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OPEN THE GATES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: OPEN THE GATES.

>> SPEAKER: DO YOU SEE WE'RE DOING ANY CONTROL ON THAT AS IT'S SCHOOL PROPERTY. WE'RE JUST OPENING THE GATES AND

HAVING EVERYONE COME IN. >> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT IS YOUR

RECOMMENDATION? >> SPEAKER: IT'S REALLY HARD TO CONTROL A LARGE CROWD THAT'S GOING TO COME IN AND PARK.

AND NOW FROM MY UNDERSTANDING TYPICALLY THE GATES ARE OPENED AROUND 6:00. AND IF WE'VE GOT EVERYONE PARKED IN THAT PARKING LOT, THERE WILL MOST LIKELY NOT BE SOCIAL DISTANCING BECAUSE I WOULD THINK PEOPLE WILL GET OUT OF THEIR CARS AND HANG OUT AND TAILGATE BECAUSE THE FIREWORKS WON'T

BEGIN UNTIL 9:15 O'CLOCK. >> MAYOR: THEY'RE NOT GOING INTO

THE STADIUM ARE THEY? >> SPEAKER: JUST THE PARKING

LOT. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I PERSONALLY PARK OVER BY THE WATER TOWER AND THERE'S A LOT OF CARS OVER THERE. SO, THERE WON'T BE MUCH SOCIAL

DISTANCING OVER THERE. >> MAYOR: I THINK WHAT WE DID ON THE PARADE-- THE GRADUATION PARADE AND OTHER THINGS, I'M PERSONALLY ALL RIGHT WITH LETTING PEOPLE SELF-MANAGE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS BY THE STATE DO WE? AS FAR AS--

>> SPEAKER: JUST FOR THE FIREWORKS SHOW ITSELF AND THAT'S ALL BEEN SET UP THROUGH PERMITS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE

THROUGH THE FIREWORKS COMPANY. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OKAY.

I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR THAT I BELIEVE LETTING CONTROL FOR RESPONSIBLE ADULTS AND THEY CAN MAKE THEIR DECISIONS FOR

THEMSELVES. >> COUNCILMEMBER: OPEN IT UP.

GO WITH THE PLAN. >> SPEAKER: OKAY WE WILL MOVE FORWARD AND PLAN ON GETTING MOVING ON THE PARADE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: WHEN IS THE NEXT MOVIE

IN A PARK? >> SPEAKER: IT IS JULY 11TH.

MAYOR JUST FYI, THAT COINCIDES WITH THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE

WINE FESTIVAL. >> SPEAKER: THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK AT IF WE WOULD LIKE TO MOVE IT, WE CAN MOVE IT.

IT'S PROBABLY-- >> COUNCILMEMBER: CAN YOU GO

DOWNTOWN? >> COUNCILMEMBER: WINE AND MOVIES. I THOUGHT WE HAD THAT HAPPEN BEFORE? I'M THINKING THE MOVIE CONFLICTED WITH SOMETHING ELSE LARGE.

WE STILL MADE IT WORK DIDN'T WE. >> MAYOR: I'D JUST GO FORWARD AND GET PEOPLE OUT. MAYBE THAT WILL HELP RELIEVE

PRESSURE ON THE WINE FESTIVAL. >> SPEAKER: ESPECIALLY IF THEY REDUCE THE CHILDREN'S THINGS. IF WE HAVE THAT WE HAVE ANOTHER OPTION FOR FAMILIES THAT DON'T WANT TO BE DOWN IN PART OF THE WINE FESTIVAL THAT THEY CAN TAKE THE KIDDOS OUT.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: WHAT TIME WILL THE WINE FESTIVAL BE OVER?

>> SPEAKER: IT LASTS UNTIL NINE. AND THE MOVIE WILL START AT DUSK. SO, SEVEN PLUS.

SO, THEY'LL OVERLAP. >> COUNCILMEMBER: ROCK 'N ROLL.

>> SPEAKER: OKAY THANK YOU. >> MAYOR: THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> I THINK IT'S ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED BUT DO YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS COMMENT. FROM DIANE OF MIDLOTHIAN RESIDENT. JUST SAYS AS A RESIDENT OF MIDLOTHIAN I WOULD LIKE TO VOICE MY SUPPORT OF THE 2020 FIREWORKS DISPLAY AS IT RELATES TO AGENDA ITEM 2020-189.

I FEEL THE CELEBRATION OF OUR COUNTRY IS AN IMPORTANT EVENT AND ONE THAT CAN BE HELD AND ENJOYED IN OPEN AIR BY ALL CITIZENS THAT CHOOSE TO PARTICIPATE.

>> MAYOR: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

[Item 2020-190]

FINAL ITEM OF THE NIGHT 2020-190.

CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A RESOLUTION FOR A THREE MONTH INTEREST FORBEARANCE BETWEEN MIDLOTHIAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND THE GATE HOUSE MIDLOTHIAN OWNERSHIP LLC FROM THE ME ADEAN -- MEZZANINE LOAN PROMISSORY NOTE.

>> SPEAKER: GOOD EVENING. YES AT THE LAST 4B MEETING OR TYPE B MEETING ON MAY 28TH GATEHOUSE MIDLOTHIAN BETTER

[01:45:02]

KNOWN AS THE MARRIOTT HERE IN TOWN DID COME FORWARD AND ASK THE MCDC BOARD TO DO FORBEARANCE ON THEIR INTEREST FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY, JUNE AND JULY. IT ROUGHLY IS $21,000.

AND THE BOARD, WITH A VOTE OF 5-0, DID APPROVE TO DO THAT.

THAT HOTEL HAS HAD SIGNIFICANT IMPACT LIKE OTHER HOTELS BECAUSE OF THE ECONOMY ISSUES. AND THEY HAD A STRONG START AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND THEN BEGINNING WITH MARCH STARTED TO SEE A DECLINE IN THEIR OCCUPANCY.

SO, THEY'VE ASKED FOR THIS. AND IT WAS APPROVED.

I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: IS THIS JUST BEING THROWN ON THE BACK OF IT?

>> SPEAKER: YES IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE PRINCIPAL.

SO, THEY'LL HAVE TO PAY IT EVENTUALLY BUT IT'S JUST GIVING THEM A LITTLE BIT OF A FORBEARANCE.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY AND I MIGHT NOT, THE MARRIOTT, THEY AREN'T MAKING ANY-- I MEAN, NOT ONLY ARE THEY NOT MAKING THEIR INTEREST PAYMENT RIGHT NOW, THEY HAVE A FORBEARANCE OF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS OR

AM I WRONG? >> SPEAKER: WELL THEY WAY THEIR AGREEMENT IS STRUCTURED THEY HAVE TO MAKE THE FULL PRINCIPAL PAYMENT AT THE END OF THE NOTE WHICH COINCIDES CLOSELY WITH THE TIME THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO POSSIBLY CALL THAT BOND.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: AND THAT PAYMENT WOULD BE MADE AFTER HOW

MANY YEARS? >> SPEAKER: THE FULL PERIOD IS

TEN. >> COUNCILMEMBER: SO WHAT I AM GETTING AT IS RIGHT NOW THEY'RE MAKING ZERO OF ZERO OF NADA

NOTHING PAYMENTS >> SPEAKER: YES.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: THANK YOU. >> I HAD BEEN MAKING INTEREST

PAYMENTS UP UNTIL NOW. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I AM AWARE.

>> SPEAKER: IT'S THE PRINCIPAL THEY HAVE NOT.

>> MAYOR: WAYNE? >> COUNCILMEMBER: MOVE TO

APPROVE. >> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL SECOND.

>> MAYOR: PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 6-0.

ANN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER

BUSINESS? >> I JUST WANT TO TUMBLING STAFF FOR THIS EXCELLENT READING MATERIAL.

[LAUGHTER] WE CAN'T HAVE A QUORUM BUT DOES ANYBODY WANT COFFEE IN THE MORNING.

I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES THIS IS.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

>> COUNCILMEMBER: SECOND. >> MAYOR: ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.