Sep 09, 2024 City Council

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:05]

I NOW DECLARE THAT THE PLANO CITY COUNCIL IS RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION, THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.

WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT'S REGULAR MEETING WITH THE INVOCATION LED BY SENIOR PASTOR JASON ATCHLEY WITH HUNTERS GLEN BAPTIST CHURCH.

PLEASE JOIN THE COUNCIL IN RECITING THE PLEDGE AND THE TEXAS PLEDGE AFTER THE INVOCATION.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. LET'S PRAY.

CREATOR GOD, WE ACKNOWLEDGE YOU AS THE GIVER AND SUSTAINER OF ALL THINGS.

I THANK YOU ON BEHALF OF ALL WHO HAVE GATHERED HERE TODAY, AND WE THANK YOU FOR THE MANY AND ABUNDANT BLESSINGS YOU HAVE BESTOWED UPON US.

THANK YOU FOR THE FREEDOMS THAT YOU PROVIDE.

I PRAY FOR OUR MAYOR AND THE VARIOUS LEVELS OF CITY OFFICIALS, AND FOR THIS ASSEMBLED COUNCIL, ASKING THAT YOU WOULD GRACIOUSLY GRANT THEM WISDOM TO GOVERN, SINCE A WELFARE FOR ALL THE PEOPLE OF PLANO.

PERSONAL PEACE IN THEIR LIVES AND JOY IN EVERY TASK.

PRAY FOR THE AGENDA SET BEFORE THEM TODAY.

WOULD YOU GIVE US AN ASSURANCE OF WHAT WE DO, WOULD PLEASE YOU AND WOULD BENEFIT ALL PEOPLE WHO CALL PLANO HOME.

IN JESUS NAME, AMEN.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL.

ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION BY A COUNCILMEMBER, THE CITY MANAGER, OR ANY CITIZEN.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE.

WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES.

[(1)  

Public Hearing and consideration of an Ordinance to grant the appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission's denial of Zoning Case 2024-012.  Request to rezone from Neighborhood Office to Single-Family Residence-6 and rescind Specific Use Permit No. 585 for Veterinary Clinic and Kennel (Indoor Pens) on 7.7 acres located on the east side of Spring Creek Parkway, 540 feet west of Meadowlands Drive.  Petitioner: Big OS Properties, LP Conducted and Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-3 granting the appeal.

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.

REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY AMEND THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT COMMENT.

PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A CUMULATIVE TIME LIMIT.

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED UNTIL THE CUMULATIVE TIME IS EXHAUSTED.

ITEM NUMBER ONE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO GRANT THE APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF ZONING CASE 2024 -12 REQUEST TO REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX AND RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 585 FOR VETERINARY CLINIC AND KENNEL ON 7.7 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, 540FT WEST OF MEADOWLANDS DRIVE.

HERE TO PRESENT A ZONING CASE FOR YOU THIS EVENING.

THIS IS AN APPEAL OF A ZONING CASE THAT WAS DENIED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SO IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A UNIQUE SITUATION WITH ZONING.

THE PROPERTY IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

BOTH THE EXISTING ZONING YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT AND THE AERIAL OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS HEAVILY TREED AND UNDEVELOPED.

ON THE RIGHT SIDE.

YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE SURROUNDING LAND USES IN THE AREA.

THE HISTORY OF THIS SITE.

IT WAS REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND TO THE NORTH TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, AND INCLUDES AN SUP FOR VETERINARY CLINIC AND KENNELS.

THAT WAS IN 2007.

THERE WERE PLANS APPROVED AS PART OF THAT REQUEST.

ADDITIONALLY, PLANS WERE APPROVED IN 2012 FOR VETERINARY CLINIC AND OFFICE USES.

THOSE HAVE NEVER BEEN BUILT.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PARKS MASTER PLAN WERE AMENDED IN 2023 TO CONSIDER THIS PROPERTY FOR A FUTURE PARK DUE TO THE

[00:05:04]

SO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO SINGLE FAMILY SIX TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES ON THE SITE.

IT WOULD ALSO RESCIND THE VETERINARY CLINIC SUP.

SO NO PLAN WAS SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW SO WE DO NOT HAVE CONFIRMATION OF THE DEVELOPABLE AREA.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS ESTIMATED THAT 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS MAY BE POSSIBLE ON THE PROPERTY.

WE ALSO, DUE TO THE SITE LAYOUT, THE NATURE OF THE LIMITED ACCESS, WE ANTICIPATE THAT VARIANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND FIRE CODE ARE LIKELY REQUIRED.

SO THIS IS WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN LOOKS LIKE ON THIS PROPERTY.

PRIOR PLANS YOU'LL SEE A BRIDGE GETTING FROM THE ACCESS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST.

SO THIS IS THE TOPOGRAPHY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE PROPERTY IS AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER ALONG SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, AND THERE IT SLOPES DOWNWARD TO FLOODPLAIN AREA AND THEN RISES A LITTLE BIT AND THERE'S FLOODPLAIN TO THE SOUTH AS WELL.

SO THERE IS A LAKE ABOUT 1100 FEET TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY, NORTHEAST, REALLY, AND YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS.

THE CITY DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE BREACH OF THAT DAM AND WHAT WOULD BE THE IMPACTS TO PROPERTY OWNERS DOWNSTREAM, AND SO THE YELLOW LINE, THERE IS A SUNNY DAY INUNDATION BOUNDARY.

SO IF IT'S NOT RAINING RED IS IF IT IS RAINING.

THAT IS THE EXTENT OF MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS.

HOWEVER, THERE ARE ENGINEERS HERE CALEB THORNHILL, THE DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING, AND RUSSELL ERSKINE, WHO'S OUR HYDROLOGICAL ENGINEER, IS HERE TO DISCUSS THIS FURTHER.

IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS IS SHOWN AS OPEN SPACE NETWORK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND A PARK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OR THE PARKS MASTER PLAN.

WE DID NOT CONSIDER THIS SO DIRECTLY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP.

IT CAN DEVELOP ON THE BASED ON THE EXISTING ZONING TODAY.

SO THE QUESTION IS REALLY WHETHER IT SHOULD DEVELOP UNDER 01 ONE ZONING OR UNDER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.

SO THIS IS THE PARKS MASTER PLAN.

SO THE REASON WHY THIS WAS ADDED IS REALLY YOU SEE THOSE BUBBLES ON THE MAP INDICATE PARK SERVICE AREAS.

SO THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF LAND IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE CITY THAT IS NOT COVERED BY PARKS, AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY IS LOOKING TO ADD IN THIS AREA.

THERE WERE ALSO THE COMPLEXITIES OF DEVELOPING THIS SITE THAT LENT IT TO CONSIDERATION FOR A PARK.

SO WHAT ABOUT THE SUITABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL IN THIS LOCATION? WELL, THEIR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES SPEAK TO THIS IN THE UNDEVELOPED LAND USE ACTION UL3.

THE PLAN TALKS ABOUT ENSURING THAT NEW HOUSING GROWTH IS CREATES A FUNCTIONAL AND APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.

SO THAT IS A CONSIDERATION.

IT IS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACROSS SPRING CREEK AND TO THE SOUTH ACROSS ANOTHER CREEK.

SO THERE IS PROXIMITY BUT NOT CONNECTION.

SO IT ALSO SPEAKS TO ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, WHICH ARE NOT DIRECTLY AVAILABLE IN THIS LOCATION.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH IS A GATED COMMUNITY, SO THE UNDEVELOPED LAND USE POLICY ALSO SPEAKS TO THESE ISSUES ABOUT RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS.

REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT TALKS ABOUT LIMITING NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS TO AREAS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE BASED ON INDIVIDUAL SITE CONSIDERATIONS.

THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS DOES SPEAK TO THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE CITY.

SO YOU'LL SEE IN THIS SUMMARY THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF POLICIES THAT ARE NOT MET, BUT SOME ARE MET BY THIS REQUEST.

SO THE RESPONSES WE'VE HAD WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BOUNDARY, THE PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT RESPOND DIRECTLY WITH LETTER, BUT WE DID HAVE THREE LETTERS IN SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION FROM PEOPLE WITHIN 200FT, AND THE OVERALL TOTAL SUPPORT IS SIX, ONE OPPOSED AND SEVEN FOR SEVEN TOTAL RESPONSES ON THIS SITE.

SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID DENY THIS BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 2.

THAT RESULTS IN A REQUIREMENT FOR A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE ON THIS ITEM.

IF IT IS TO PASS, THAT REQUIRES SIX COUNCILMEMBERS TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM.

[00:10:05]

THAT IS THE END OF MY REPORT AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION.

THANKS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR CHRISTINA? KAYCI. HOLD ON, HOLD ON.

KAYCI. ON THE MAP YOU SHOWED THAT OUTLINED WHERE? WE DON'T HAVE COVERAGE FOR PARKS IN THE AREA.

DID THAT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE PARKS LAND WE HAVE SET ASIDE IN THE LEGACY WEST AREA? I BELIEVE THE EXISTING RED BUBBLE THAT YOU SEE THERE IS RELATED TO GLASSCOCK PARK.

RON SMITH IS HERE WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD.

SPECIFICALLY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, THIS MAP, THE RED BUBBLE IS SHOWING WHERE GLASSCOCK PARK IS, WHICH IS THE GENERAL VICINITY OF THAT OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING STILL SHOWS A SIGNIFICANT GAP TO THE WEST AND SOUTH OF THAT, AND THIS WOULD ADDRESS A PORTION OF THAT.

OKAY. THANK YOU, CHRISTINA, GOOD PRESENTATION.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARDS THAT PARK'S LOCATION THAT YOU HAD INDICATED ON HERE.

IS IT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL OR DID IT COVER A MUCH LARGER AREA OF THAT OPEN SPACE? BECAUSE, I MEAN, WHAT YOU HAD DELINEATED WAS THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REZONED.

SO WAS THAT SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE WERE TARGETING TO BE A FUTURE PARK, OR WAS THAT A MUCH LARGER AREA? COULD YOU PLEASE, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION FOR ME? THIS PICTURE WE'RE SEEING HERE ON THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN.

OKAY. THAT LOOKS AN AWFUL LOT LIKE THE PARCEL IN QUESTION RIGHT NOW.

MY QUESTION IS, THAT'S A LOT OF OPEN SPACE OVER THERE.

WAS YOUR PARK THAT YOU THAT WE'RE HOPING TO PLAN MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS PARTICULAR PLACE? NO, IT WAS JUST THAT ONE SPOT.

IT'S NOT MUCH BIGGER AT ALL, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF OPTIONS IN THAT PORTION OF PLANO, AND SO WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR PIECES THAT WILL HELP ADDRESS THOSE GAPS IN OUR SYSTEM.

WELL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER FUTURE LAND USE MAP, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN AWFUL LOT OF OPEN SPACE THERE.

OKAY, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M GETTING AT, THAT LITTLE PARCEL THAT YOU HAVE HERE, WHICH THE PETITIONER IS TRYING TO DEVELOP AS RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU GOT MUCH MORE OPEN SPACE NORTH OF THAT.

YES, THERE IS OPEN SPACE THAT IS OWNED BY A CORPORATION JUST NORTH OF THAT, AND SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY IDENTIFYING AS A POTENTIAL PARK, BUT THIS SPACE HERE IS OWNED BY AN INDIVIDUAL.

CORRECT. THE ONE THAT HAS THE SUP.

THAT'S RIGHT. CORRECT.

SO THE CITY DOES NOT OWN THIS PROPERTY.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

SO REALLY YOU'RE DEFINING A PARK ON PROPERTY YOU DON'T OWN.

YES, AND THAT'S THE CASE IN A LOT OF THE PARK MASTER PLAN WHERE WE IDENTIFY PROPOSED PARKS, FUTURE PARK, SOMETHING THAT WE DO STRATEGICALLY TO TRY TO ADDRESS GAPS IN OUR SYSTEM.

IT DOES NOT PREVENT THE OWNER FROM DEVELOPING THIS PROPERTY WHATSOEVER.

RIGHT. OKAY, I APPRECIATE THAT.

THANK YOU. SHELBY.

YES. THANK YOU, CHRISTINA AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TEAM'S ADHERENCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING PROPERLY.

IS THE NONCONFORMANCE WITH THE MIX OF USES AND THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, STRICTLY BECAUSE THIS IS IDENTIFIED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS OPEN SPACE NETWORK.

THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY, BUT TO COUNCILMAN HORNE'S POINT, WE DON'T OWN THE LAND, BUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATED IT OPEN SPACE NETWORK NONETHELESS. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO WE JUDGED IT BASED ON THE MASTER PLAN.

OKAY. OKAY.

I APPRECIATE THAT DILIGENCE, BUT I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE NUANCES THAT GIVES COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO REVIEW THIS FOR.

I DON'T ACTUALLY SEE THAT AS A REAL VIOLATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I WOULD AGREE A TECHNICAL.

YES. YEAH. THANK YOU ANTHONY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR.

CHRISTINA, I WANTED TO ASK.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL MENTIONS THE MIX OF USES ISSUE REGARDING OPEN SPACE NETWORK THAT COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS ADDRESSED, AND ALSO THE DAM BREACH CONCERNS AND ESSENTIALLY SUITABILITY FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WOULD YOU SAY ONE OR THE OTHER OF THOSE IS THE PRIMARY DRIVER FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL? WHAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT ISSUE?

[00:15:01]

IS IT APPROPRIATE FOR HOUSING VERSUS OFFICE, WHERE WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S FEWER HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO THE LAND USE? OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE, AND I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR RUSSELL ERSKINE.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE RIGHT TIME FOR THAT OR MAYBE AFTER THE APPLICANT.

LET'S GO AHEAD AND LET OPEN.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LET THE APPLICANT PRESENT.

THANK YOU MAYOR.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE DO HAVE SEVERAL SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.

BRIAN ROBERTSON WAS THE FIRST ONE FOR THE APPLICANT THAT HAD SIGNED UP.

ONE QUICK QUESTION I HAVE.

DO WE WANT PUBLIC CITIZENS ON THE PRESENTER AND THE APPLICANT AS THE DEVELOPER? DO WE WANT THE PUBLIC TO SPEAK FIRST OR ME DO THE PRESENTATION FIRST? OKAY, GREAT.

I DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE--BRIAN ROBERTSON WITH ROBERTSON COMPANIES, 5700 GRANITE PARKWAY AND PLANO, TEXAS.

APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THIS REQUEST, AND I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH GENERAL PRESENTATION ON WHY WE THINK SINGLE FAMILY WOULD BE THE BETTER USE, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE MITCHELL JENSEN WITH KIMLEY-HORN, WHO IS OUR CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER, AT THE REQUEST OF CERTAIN REQUESTS.

WE WEREN'T PROPERLY PREPARED AT P&Z, HENCE THE DENIAL FOR THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THINGS.

SO I'M GOING TO SAVE THAT TO THE END, GO THROUGH THE GENERAL PRESENTATION FIRST, AND THEN HAVE HIM HERE TO ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. SO OUR REQUEST IS OBVIOUSLY TO REZONE FROM ESSER TO SF-6 FROM THE LET ME SEE, I THINK WAS IT THE CURRENT ZONING 01.

I'M GOING TO REHASH THIS REAL QUICK.

OH ONE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE IS THE CURRENT ZONING WITH THE SUP FOR VET OFFICE, SO THERE'S ROUGHLY 35,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE.

WE FEEL THROUGH OUR CALCULATIONS REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF PLANO AND OUR SUBMITTAL, WE HAVE ABOUT 628 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY.

OFFICE WAS APPROVED ABOUT 17 YEARS AGO.

PLANS FOR THE OFFICE WERE APPROVED A LITTLE OVER 12 YEARS AGO, AND NOTHING HAS HAPPENED TO DATE.

PROPOSED ZONING TO REZONE TO SF-6.

WE'VE GOT 13 LUXURY LOTS, RANGING ANYWHERE FROM 2.2 TO $2.5 MILLION HOMES.

WE FEEL LIKE THERE IS A DEFINITE NEED FOR THIS THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH NORMANDY ESTATES, SHOAL CREEK AND KINGS RIDGE RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

THE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY ON SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS THE CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE IS ONLY 187 TRIPS, SO THERE'S A DECREASE OF OVER 400 VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY FOR SINGLE FAMILY, AND JUST COMPARING THE TWO.

JUST TO REITERATE, THERE'S 441 MORE TRIPS PER DAY WITH THE OFFICE.

IT'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN ZONED FOR OVER 17 YEARS.

THERE'S NOTHING NOTHING HAS HAPPENED.

NO TAX BASE TO THE CITY FOR OVER 17 YEARS, AND WE'RE READY TO PUT ABOUT 35, 40 MILLION IN REVENUE TO ADD TO THAT TAX BASE IN THE CITY OF PLANO. WE FEEL LIKE THE SF-A PATIO HOME ZONING AROUND WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING A LITTLE BIT LESS DENSE, AND SO IT FITS THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD UP AND DOWN THE SPRING CREEK CORRIDOR.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BETTER VIEW OF OF OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

OUR CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO US AS DEVELOPERS IS A PRETTY PICTURE, RIGHT? THE CITY OF PLANO'S CONCEPT PLAN LOOKS MORE LIKE A SITE PLAN HAS REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S WHY WE DID NOT SUBMIT THAT FORMALLY BECAUSE SF-6 STRAIGHT ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN TO BE SUBMITTED.

WE HAVE VETTED THIS OUT.

THE NEED FOR FIRE OR SOME VARIANCES ARE NOT.

NOT LIKELY.

WE HAD A CUL DE SAC LENGTH IN OUR INITIAL MEETING OF ABOUT 630FT.

WE'VE REDUCED THAT UNDER THE 600 FOOT MINIMUM.

THAT IS REALLY THE ONLY DISCUSSION WE HAD ABOUT VARIANCES, AND WE WILL NOT NEED TO DO THAT AT THIS POINT.

[00:20:04]

WE WEREN'T REALLY PREPARED FOR THE TECHNICAL SIDE OF THINGS.

WHEN WE WERE AT P&Z, WE ARE PREPARED TODAY.

WE'VE DONE SOME EXTENSIVE RESEARCH.

WE'VE BOILED DOWN THAT THE REAL CONCERN WAS NOT REALLY THE SUITABILITY OF SINGLE FAMILY.

THE ISSUE THAT WAS MENTIONED WAS THE LIFE AND SAFETY OF CITIZENS, AND WE REALLY FEEL LIKE WHAT WE HAVE IN THE TECHNICAL DATA THAT WE HAVE AND THE DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS AND FLOOD STUDY THAT WE HAVE ALREADY PERFORMED, WHICH IS TYPICALLY DONE AT PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE, WAS DONE IN ADVANCE.

SO WE'VE DONE ALL THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE DELAYED OUR APPEAL TO PROVIDE US MORE TIME TO MEET WITH THE ENGINEERING, HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE HAVEN'T MADE THE FORMAL SUBMITTAL.

WE JUST HAD THE HIGH-LEVEL CONVERSATION.

SO WE'RE HERE TO DO THAT TODAY, AND WE ALSO HAVE THE SELLER'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE.

SHE HAS BEEN SITTING ON THE PROPERTY FOR OVER 17 YEARS, AND SO SHE'S IN CONNECTICUT, BUT HER REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE TO SPEAK AS WELL, AND I WILL LEAVE THAT RIGHT HERE, AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WHILE I'M UP, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO.

WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION.

SO IF YOU WANT, I GUESS YOU WANT YOUR ENGINEER TO COME UP.

YEAH. OKAY. WELL, I'D LIKE SOME SUPPORT TO TALK.

WE'VE GOT SOME NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN SUPPORT, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE.

WE'LL DO THAT AFTER AFTER YOUR YOUR PRESENTATION WITH WITH WHOEVER YOU'RE HAVING PRESENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU BRIAN, AND THANK YOU COUNCILMEMBERS. MY NAME IS MITCHELL JENSEN.

I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WITH KIMLEY-HORN ASSOCIATES AND A CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER.

I SPECIALIZE IN HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS, AND I'VE BEEN HELPING BRIAN AND HIS TEAM LOOK THROUGH THE DUE DILIGENCE ON THIS SITE.

SO AS YOU SEE ON THIS EXHIBIT HERE, THERE'S SEVERAL FLOODPLAIN LINES GOING ON, FIRST AND FOREMOST, AND I THINK WE'VE ALREADY DISCUSSED EARLIER, BUT THE HATCHED AREA, THE HATCHED BLUE AND THE HATCHED RED THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH OUR FEMA FLOODPLAIN.

THE DATE OF THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN STUDY IS A LITTLE BIT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OLD.

THE FEMA MAPS WERE LAST PUBLISHED IN 2011.

SO THE FLOODPLAIN MAPPING LIKELY DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE CURRENT CONTOURS, BUT IT IS A CLOSE APPROXIMATION.

PER CITY OF PLANO REQUIREMENTS, WE HAVE ALSO PERFORMED A FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN ANALYSIS.

THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN AND THE FULLY DEVELOPED IS THE FEMA TYPICALLY TAKES THE FLOWS FOR EXISTING CONDITIONS AT THE DATE OF THE STUDY. SO THINK POST 2011 LOTS CHANGED IN THIS AREA SINCE THEN, AND THEN THE FULLY DEVELOPED ASSUMES A FULLY DEVELOPED WATERSHED PER THE CURRENT ZONING.

SO A LITTLE BIT MORE CONSERVATIVE, AND WE WENT THROUGH THAT AND SAW THAT WE COULD PLACE 13 LOTS WITH SOME CUT TO MITIGATE THE LITTLE BIT OF FILL THAT WE WERE PUTTING IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE IN THE DARKER BLUE HATCHED AREAS THERE.

SO THAT'S CUT TO OFFSET ANY FILL SO THAT WE WOULD SHOW NO RISE IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS, NO INCREASE IN VELOCITIES PER CITY CRITERIA, AND OUR FINISHED FLOORS FOR ALL THE HOMES COULD BE AT LEAST TWO FEET ABOVE THE FULLY DEVELOPED AND FEMA FLOODPLAIN.

IF WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.

SORRY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, SO WE HAVE PLOTTED SO THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION CHANGES QUITE A BIT AS YOU GO THROUGH THE LENGTH OF THE CREEK BECAUSE IT'S ABOUT 3 TO 400FT, BUT WE HAVE SUMMARIZED IT BETWEEN THE UPSTREAM AND DOWNSTREAM END OF THE PROPERTY.

SO WE THE ON THE UPSTREAM END, THE LET ME SEE.

I'M GOING TO PULL UP MINE REAL QUICK.

I CAN'T QUITE SEE THAT FAR.

ON THE UPSTREAM END, THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS ARE.

THE 100 YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED EVENT ARE AROUND 595 ARE FINISHED FLOORS FOR THE LOWEST FINISHED FLOORS IN THE AREA, AROUND 598.1, SO WE'RE ABOUT THREE FEET ABOVE ABOVE THOSE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE TOOK A LOOK AT WHAT THE SUNNY DAY BREACH WAS AS A REMINDER.

WHEN THAT WAS DISCUSSED, THE SUNNY DAY BREACH IS HEY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE DAM WERE TO FAIL IN ITS NORMAL OPERATION CONDITIONS? SO AS YOU SEE IT TODAY, THE DAM WERE TO SUDDENLY FAIL.

THE BREACH LIMIT THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO DO PER TCEQ IS THREE TIMES THE HEIGHT OF THE DAM.

[00:25:06]

SO THE BREACH WIDTH THAT WAS USED IN THIS ANALYSIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THREE TIMES THAT.

SO ALMOST 70FT.

SO WITH THE SUNNY DAY BREACH YOU CAN SEE PER THIS TABLE, ALL OF OUR FINISHED FLOORS ARE ELEVATED ABOVE THE SUNNY DAY BREACH EVENT.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, TO PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL DATA, WE LOOKED AT HOW THIS COMPARED TO A 100-YEAR BREACH WHICH IS NOT NECESSARILY REGULATED BY TCEQ, BUT AS AN ADDITIONAL DATA POINT, AND WITH THAT, ALMOST ALL OF THE LOTS I SAID ALL BUT FIVE LOTS ARE ELEVATED ABOVE THAT BREACH EVENT AS WELL, AND THEN THE 75% BREACH, WHICH IS THE DESIGN STORM FOR THE RESERVOIR.

SO TO GIVE YOU GUYS AN IDEA OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE 100 YEAR DESIGN EVENT AND THE 75% PMF, THE 100 YEAR FLOW THAT WE'RE USUALLY USING IS BASED ON ABOUT 9.5 INCHES OF RAIN IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD, WHEREAS THE 75% PMF IS BASED ON A 75% OF THE CONTROLLING STORM DURATION, WHICH IN THIS CASE WAS A ONE HOUR STORM WHICH YIELDS ABOUT 15 INCHES OF RAIN IN A ONE HOUR TIME PERIOD.

WHEREAS WE'RE NORMALLY DESIGNING FOR 9.5 INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

SO THAT PRODUCED THE HIGHEST WATER SURFACE ELEVATION IN THE UPSTREAM LAKE, AND THEREFORE THE, WHICH IS WHAT THE DAM OWNERS OF THAT LAKE NEED TO DESIGN THEIR SPILLWAY TO HANDLE SO THAT THE DAM DOES NOT OVERTOP AND IT ACTS AS A DATA POINT TO PREPARE THE BREACH ANALYSIS DOWNSTREAM, TO KIND OF PAINT A PICTURE OF A WORST CASE SCENARIO RATHER THAN AN EVERYDAY EVENT OR THE I GUESS THE NORMAL DESIGN STANDARD, WHICH IS THE 100-YEAR.

SO IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.

SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT BY PLACING THESE HOMES ON THE PROPERTY, WE WEREN'T GOING TO INADVERTENTLY IMPACT OTHER NEIGHBORS OR OTHER NEIGHBORS AND OTHER HOMES THAT WERE IMPACTED BY THE BREACH.

SO WE PRELIMINARILY HAVE UPDATED THE BREACH MODEL TO ADD THE FILL ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT, AND SAW THAT WE DO INCREASE WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS LOCALLY AT THE SITE AS WAS EXPECTED.

HOWEVER, THOSE INCREASES ARE CONTAINED WITHIN AN AREA THAT HAVE NO HOMES IMPACTED, AND AS YOU LOOK DOWNSTREAM, WE'RE GENERALLY REDUCING OR HAVING NO INCREASE IN WATER SURFACE ELEVATION OR ANY INCREASES ARE OCCURRING IN LOCATIONS THAT ARE ALREADY IMPACTED BY THE BREACH.

SO WE FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT ADD ADDITIONAL HOMES INTO INTO THE BREACH AREA.

I THINK THAT IS IT.

ANY QUESTIONS SO FAR? THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO I WANTED TO ASK BEFORE YOU DID THIS STUDY, I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S ALREADY BEEN RESIDENTS THAT'S BUILT AROUND THAT AREA, RIGHT? WAS THE SAME STUDY OR THE SAME REQUIREMENT THAT WAS ASKED OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT DOWN CLOSER TO DOWNSTREAM THAN WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. DO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TRYING TO ASK? YES. YOU'RE ASKING IF A BREACH ANALYSIS WAS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPERTIES DOWN DOWNSTREAM.

SO WHY IS IT NOW? IT'S NOW A PERTINENT ISSUE WHEN YOU GUYS ARE MAKING THIS PROPOSAL.

I'LL GIVE YOU A QUICK HISTORY ON THIS.

SO MITCHELL WAS HIRED BY PEPSICO BACK IN 2020 TO DO THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS.

IRONICALLY, HE'S OUR ENGINEER WHO'S HANDLING ALL THE FLOOD STUDY ANALYSIS ON OUR PROPERTY.

SO WE GOT THE GUY WHO PRODUCED THE REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED BY STAFF, AND NOW WE HAVE THE DOWNSTREAM RESULTS AND WHAT WE INTEND TO DO FROM THE SAME CERTIFIED FLOODPLAIN MANAGER, MITCHELL.

THIS WAS NOT DONE BEFORE.

SO EVERY DAM THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS HAS TO PERFORM A DOWN A DAM BREACH ANALYSIS TO BE CERTIFIED AND REGISTERED WITH WITH TCEQ.

THEN THEY HAVE TO PERFORM BY THE OWNER ANNUAL INSPECTIONS AND INSPECTIONS BY THE TCEQ EVERY FIVE YEARS.

SO THIS IS A REQUIREMENT OF TCEQ.

WELL, SINCE THE REPORT WAS PRESENTED AND BROUGHT, IT MADE ATTENTION TO THE CITY.

[00:30:04]

YOU KNOW, PEOPLE OR HOMES OR STRUCTURES, AND SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TRIED TO PROVE IN OUR SHORT TIME FRAME THAT WE WILL NOT ONLY MEET THE 100-YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED, WHICH IS THE CITY OF PLANO STATE ORDINANCE.

WE COULDN'T EVEN BE STANDING HERE TODAY.

IF WE CAN'T BRING 13 LOTS OUT OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN FULLY DEVELOPED TODAY, BUT WE'RE ALSO GOING THROUGH A COUPLE ADDITIONAL ITERATIONS BECAUSE OF THE DAM BREACH REPORT, AND WE'RE PROVIDING THOSE RESULTS IN A POSITIVE WAY THAT WE'VE DONE OUR RESEARCH, AND WE REALLY FEEL THAT WE'RE NOT PRODUCING ANY LIFE AND SAFETY ISSUES FOR OUR HOMEOWNERS OR DOWNSTREAM.

WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING IT JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S ALMOST JUST, YOU KNOW, A NON-ISSUE FOR THE DOWNSTREAM PORTION BECAUSE MOST PEOPLE MIGHT SAY WHEN YOU DEVELOP WELL, NOW WE'RE GETTING FLOW FROM THEM, BUT THIS MODEL AND PRELIMINARY REPORT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO STAFF PRELIMINARILY, NOT A FINAL REPORT, WHICH WILL BE DONE AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE AND REVIEWED BY STAFF, WILL BE SUBMITTING THAT DOWN THE ROAD. IT'S USUALLY DONE AT THE PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE.

OKAY. ANOTHER THING, I MIGHT ADD ONE THING ON THIS SLIDE, I JUST WHEN, WHEN WHEN MITCHELL WAS EXPLAINING ABOUT THE 100 YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED FLOOD, THE 100 YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED FLOOD IS ABOUT 9.52 INCHES IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

WE WENT BACK TO NOAA RESULTS OVER THE LAST 125 YEARS, 1932, THERE WAS 9.57 INCHES OF RAIN IN A 24 HOUR PERIOD.

THAT IS THE LARGEST RAIN EVENT IN DALLAS FORT WORTH RECORDED, AND SO THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS THE TCEQ REQUIRES IS ABOUT FOUR TIMES THAT AMOUNT.

IT'S JUST AN UNREALISTIC REQUIREMENT, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT.

SO YOU KNOW WHY WE DID NOT ONLY A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT AND THE DAM BREACH THAT THE 75% PMF IS FOUR TIMES THAT AMOUNT, AND WE'VE NEVER, EVER SEEN THAT TYPE OF RAINFALL.

DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? THANK YOU. YES, I DID FOR MITCHELL.

JUST WANTED TO GO OVER THOSE PEAK WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS.

SO EVEN EVEN AT THAT EXTREME, 75% PMF BREACH THAT WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT.

YES. IT LOOKS TO ME SO THAT THE NEGATIVE ELEVATIONS ARE THE ONES WHERE IN THAT KIND OF CATACLYSMIC STORM THAT HASN'T HAPPENED IN RECORDED HISTORY IN NORTH TEXAS.

THE FINISHED FLOOR WOULD BE UNDERWATER BY THOSE NEGATIVE AMOUNTS, AND JUST LOOKING THROUGH THAT I DON'T THINK I SEE UNLESS I'M MISSING SOMETHING.

I DON'T THINK I SEE ANY THAT ARE MORE THAN 4.3FT.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

YEAH, AND SO JUST BASED ON ON YOUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND I'M GOING TO ASK OUR STAFF THIS AS WELL.

IS THIS THE KIND OF SUDDEN SURGE THAT WOULD CAUSE A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE OR THE KIND OF THING THAT WOULD PRIMARILY CAUSE PROPERTY DAMAGE, BUT PEOPLE COULD GET OUT OF THE WAY? THAT IS A DYNAMIC QUESTION.

I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO IT, AND IT'S MORE OF A STRUCTURAL ENGINEER QUESTION.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, BRIAN.

DO YOU I SEE SHANE JORDAN? YEAH. DO YOU WANT SHANE TO TALK? YEAH. SHANE IS REPRESENTING US.

YEAH, AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE SOME.

WE HAD A COUPLE THAT COULDN'T MAKE IT.

GOT STUCK IN TRAFFIC, BUT THEY ARE HERE.

SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START OFF WITH SHANE JORDAN.

THANKS. MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS, STAFF, SHANE JORDAN 16475 DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE 540 IN ADDISON.

I REPRESENT THE OWNER IN A REAL ESTATE BROKERAGE CAPACITY.

CHRISTINA ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I DON'T REALLY NEED TO GO THERE, BUT SINCE LAST YEAR, WE'VE HAD IT UNDER CONTRACT TO RESIDENTIAL BUILDER, NOT THE PARTY THAT'S HERE TONIGHT. AN OFFICE DEVELOPER, AND THEN BRIAN AND THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDER WENT AWAY AFTER THEY WERE TOLD THEY'D HAVE TO RAISE THE SITE EIGHT FEET BECAUSE OF THE FRITO-LAY'S POTENTIAL DAM BREACH, AND WE NEED TO PUT A NOTE ON THE PROPERTY THAT ON THE PLAT THAT THE PROPERTY COULD FLOOD.

[00:35:03]

THE BANKS OF THE TRINITY RIVER WOULD OVERFLOW, AND YET THEY HAVEN'T STOPPED CONSTRUCTION IN LEWISVILLE, CARROLLTON, FARMERS BRANCH, THE CITY OF DALLAS.

NOBODY'S, YOU KNOW, OVERLY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS LAKE LEWISVILLE DAM BREACHING.

THE SITE DOESN'T REALLY WORK FOR JUST ONE BUILDING DUE TO THAT.

THERE'S A CREEK THAT KIND OF SPLITS THE PROPERTY INTO TWO PIECES.

SO TO GET A SINGLE USER ON THE SITE TO BUILD A BUILDING IS JUST DIFFICULT.

SO THAT'S ORIGINALLY WHY WE HAD THE VET CLINIC ON ONE SIDE, AND THEN WE HAD SOME LITTLE OFFICE CONDOS DESIGNED FOR THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CREEK, BUT SUBDIVIDING THE SITE INTO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER, INDIVIDUAL LOTS LETS YOU WORK WITH THE CHALLENGES OF THIS SITE TO ALLOW IT TO DEVELOP PROPERLY.

SO I'M HOPEFUL THAT AFTER HEARING KIMLEY-HORN INFORMATION ABOUT NOT AFFECTING DOWNSTREAM FLOOD IF YOU HAVE A DAM BREACH AND THE UNREALISTIC NATURE OF A 75, I DON'T KNOW.

IS IT PMF, PFM, WHATEVER IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A LOT OF HYPERBOLE.

SO ANYWAY, I THINK IF YOU TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS THAT IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THAT I HOPE YOU WOULD CONSIDER APPROVING THE ZONING REQUEST.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THE NEXT SPEAKER IS LISA PRICE.

HI THERE. LISA PRICE 6821 POURCHOT PLACE.

POUCHOT PLACE BACKS UP BASICALLY TO THIS DEVELOPMENT, PROBABLY ABOUT 550FT AWAY FROM IT, AND WE WOULD BE TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT VERSUS TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING OR VETERINARY CLINIC OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND DUE TO THE TRAFFIC AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT FALLS INTO THAT REALM.

YES, WE'RE IN TOTAL SUPPORT BASED OFF OF ALL THE DATA WE'VE SEEN.

THANK YOU. THANKS.

MARK HESS.

MR. HESS AND MR. VOIGT UNABLE TO ATTEND, AND THEN I'M HERE FOR ANY FINAL QUESTIONS.

THIS IS OUR LAST BITE AT THE APPLE, SO I'M HERE.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OF COURSE. GO AHEAD.

GO AHEAD, RICK. ACTUALLY, MAYBE MORE FOR YOUR ENGINEER.

IS HE STILL HERE? YEAH. YEAH. YES, SIR.

YEAH. JUST A COUPLE OF TECHNICAL POINTS YOU KEPT.

OR MAYBE BRIAN THROWING OUT YOUR TCEQ.

YES. A LOT OF PEOPLE MAY NOT KNOW WHAT THAT IS.

THAT'S A STATE AGENCY THAT REGULATES ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

YES, AND AREN'T THEY REQUIRED? DON'T THEY REVIEW THIS AND INSPECT THE DAMS LIKE THIS LIKE WHAT EVERY FIVE YEARS OR SO? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

SO YEAH. TCEQ, TEXAS COMMISSION ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, THEY HAVE A DEPARTMENT THAT REGULATES DAM SAFETY.

SO THEIR DAM SAFETY DIVISION.

THEY INSPECT OR SEND SOMEBODY DIRECTLY FROM THE COMMISSION TO INSPECT ANY SIGNIFICANT AND HIGH HAZARD DAM WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS ONCE EVERY FIVE YEARS.

GOTCHA, AND THEN THE FINAL THING I THINK I HEARD THE APPLICANT SAY THAT YOU ACTUALLY YOU PERSONALLY WERE INVOLVED IN DOING THE ORIGINAL FLOOD STUDIES FOR THE OWNER OF THE

[00:40:07]

YES, AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT AS BEING PART OF THE PROPERTY OWNED BY LARGE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY, THAT THEY WOULD BE PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN MAINTAINING THIS DAM IN TIP TOP SHAPE TO PREVENT US FINDING OUT IF IT WOULD BE BREACHED AT SOME POINT. YEAH.

THEY WERE.

THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE FROM TCEQ ABOUT THEIR DAM AND THEY ADDRESSED ANY DEFICIENCIES THAT WERE THERE AS PART OF OUR SERVICES.

OKAY. GREAT. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. RICK.

JUST REAL QUICK. YES.

WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE FF&E FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATIONS.

YES. RIGHT NOW, YOU WERE SAYING WITH THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING TO HAVE ALL THE HOMES 2 TO 3FT ABOVE THAT FF&E.

I MEAN THAT FLOODPLAIN, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

CITY STANDARDS REQUIRE TWO FEET ABOVE MINIMUM AND WE ARE MEETING THAT AND EXCEEDING THAT, AND WE ARE ALSO ABOUT THAT SAME HEIGHT ABOVE THE SUNNY DAY BREACH AS WELL.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

APPRECIATE IT. IS THAT IS THAT IT? OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL.

I'D MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.

I THINK THE FACT THAT THIS WAS DESIGNATED OPEN SPACE NETWORK, DESPITE THE CITY NOT OWNING THE LAND MAKES THE NON CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN A TECHNICALITY, AND I'VE SEEN ENOUGH DATA TO FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH ANY POTENTIAL BREACH OF THE DAM BECAUSE THE FACT IS THAT WHETHER IT'S OFFICE OR RESIDENTIAL.

IF SUCH A THING WERE TO OCCUR, THERE'S GOING TO BE DAMAGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

THERE'S NO ESCAPING THAT.

I UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT IT WOULD BE MITIGATED IF IT WERE OFFICE, AND I'D RATHER HAVE MY OFFICE DAMAGED THAN MY HOME, BUT STILL, THERE WOULD BE DAMAGE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. OKAY, AND I'LL SECOND.

I THINK THIS IS A MUCH BETTER USE THAN THE CURRENT ZONING.

I AGREE WITH THAT.

I DON'T ANTHONY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, I JUST WANTED TO ASK OUR ENGINEER, RUSSELL ERSKINE, I JUST WANT TO SEE IF WE AGREE WITH THE ANALYSIS THAT THE ENGINEER MITCHELL PRESENTED. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE THAT WE FEEL LIKE THAT WAS ALL ACCURATE.

RIGHT NOW, I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY LOOK.

I LOOKED AT THE DATA. I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THE MODELS YET, SO I CANNOT VERIFY ALL THE ELEVATIONS INFORMATION THAT THEY PRESENTED.

RIGHT NOW IT LOOKS GOOD, BUT I HAVE NOT VERIFIED IT.

OKAY, BUT AT LEAST WE DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF ANY ISSUES WITH THAT ANALYSIS AT THIS TIME.

AT THIS TIME. OKAY, AND WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY THAT ALSO ARE LIKE WILLOW BEND THAT ARE POTENTIALLY IMPACTED BY AN UNLIKELY DAM BREACH AS WELL.

YES, SIR. WE DO.

OKAY. OKAY. GOTCHA, AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY REASON TO DISAGREE WITH THEIR DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS EITHER.

NO, WE DO NOT. OKAY.

GOTCHA. OKAY.

WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT INFORMATION.

THANK YOU, MR. ERSKINE. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT ZERO.

THANK YOU. MAYOR, WE'LL NEED TO FILL OUT THE FINDINGS FORMS. OH, YEAH, LOVELY.

WE'LL TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS TO FILL OUT OUR FINDINGS FORMS.

[(2)  Public Hearing and consideration of an Ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2024-014 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, Ordinance No. 2015-5-2, as heretofore amended, granting Specific Use Permit No. 68 for Used Vehicle Dealer on 0.1 acre of land located on the west side of K Avenue, 1,285 feet south of Spring Creek Parkway, in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, presently zoned Corridor Commercial, directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the City; and providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date.  Petitioner: Oak Point Plaza I, LLC Conducted and Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-4]

ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AS REQUESTED IN ZONING CASE 2024-14 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2015-5-2 AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, GRANTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 68 FOR USED VEHICLE DEALER ON POINT ONE ACRE OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 1285FT SOUTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS. PRESENTLY ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY, PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE, A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A PUBLICATION CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THIS ITEM, THE SECOND ITEM IS ZONING CASE 2024-14.

IT IS REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT ON A SMALL PIECE OF PROPERTY ALONG K AVENUE.

[00:45:07]

YOU CAN SEE THE PARCEL THAT'S BEING CONSIDERED.

THE REQUEST FOR SUP IS FOR A USED VEHICLE DEALER, AND IT IS AT 5025 K AVENUE.

IN AN EXISTING BUILDING.

YOU CAN SEE THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTED IN THE AERIAL VIEW TO THE RIGHT.

IT IS KIND OF TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THIS IS A CLOSER VIEW OF THE LEASED SPACE.

IT IS JUST OVER 2700FT² OF LEASED SPACE INSIDE THE EXISTING BUILDING.

SO THIS PROPERTY WAS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL IN THE YEAR 2000 AND HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ZONED THAT WAY SINCE THAT TIME.

IT WAS JUST RECENTLY DEVELOPED LAST YEAR WITH THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU SAW ON THE SITE IN THE AERIAL VIEW.

SO THE REQUESTED USE IS FOR VEHICLE DEALER USED VEHICLES, AND THERE IS A RESTRICTION PROPOSED BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE USE.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO DO TO PROHIBIT OUTDOOR VEHICLE STAGING AND STORAGE.

THEY ARE GOING TO STORE ALL THE VEHICLES INSIDE THE BUILDING.

SO THIS IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

YOU SEE THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER CATEGORY THAT IS SUPERSEDED BY THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN.

THE STAR ON THE MAP IS CLOSE TO THE LOCATION OF THE REQUEST.

THIS IS A COMMERCIAL NODE DESIGNATION AND ENVISION OAK POINT, WHICH HAS A MIX OF COMMERCIAL USES.

IT. THE OUTDOOR STORAGE AND DISPLAY WOULD BE INCONSISTENT, BUT SINCE THAT'S PROHIBITED, IT DOES NOT IMPACT ENVISION OAK POINT.

SO YOU'LL SEE THERE ARE VERY FEW RELEVANT SECTIONS IN ENVISION OAK POINT, AND IT DOES MEET THE COMMERCIAL NODE.

SO THE FEEDBACK WE'VE HAD HERE IS A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE BECAUSE IT'S A LEASE SPACE, THE PROPERTY OWNER RESPONDED.

SO YOU'LL SEE ONE LETTER WITHIN 200 OR 1 LETTER WITHIN THE.

THAT IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT EXTENDS BEYOND THE LEASE SPACE, AND THEN WE HAD ANOTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY RESPONSE.

SO A TOTAL OF TWO RESPONSES, BOTH THE PROPERTY ITSELF AND AN ADJACENT PROPERTY BOTH IN SUPPORT.

SO CITYWIDE WE HAD TWO IN SUPPORT, TWO IN OPPOSITION FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR RESPONSES.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL UNANIMOUSLY BY AN EIGHT ZERO VOTE WITH THE RESTRICTION THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY STATED.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE AND THE APPLICANT APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU CHRISTINA.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THIS EVENING REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, JAY RAMPURIA.

IS HE HERE? YES, MA'AM.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, COUNCILMEN, COUNCILMEMBERS, I APOLOGIZE.

JAY RAMPURIA AT 1707 WOODSBORO COURT, ALLEN, TEXAS, 75013.

ONE OF THE OWNERS OF P1 MOTORWERKS.

WE'RE A MODERN COLLECTIBLES DEALERSHIP THAT IS BASED IN COLLIN COUNTY.

SO I'LL SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON US AND WHY WE CREATED THE DEALERSHIP OVER TWO YEARS, TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.

MYSELF AND MY BUSINESS PARTNER, WE'RE ENTHUSIASTS AND COLLECTORS, FIRST BEEN IN THE BUSINESS FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS NOW.

WE'RE NOT A TYPICAL DEALERSHIP.

WE'RE CREATING MORE OF AN EXPERIENCE FOR OUR CLIENTELE.

OUR CLIENTELE ARE USUALLY PURCHASING THESE KIND OF VEHICLES AS INVESTMENTS, OR THEY'RE PART OF THE LARGER COLLECTIONS.

THEY'RE NOT DAILY VEHICLES THAT THEY'RE PURCHASING.

THE REASON WE ACTUALLY CREATED THE DEALERSHIP WAS AS ENTHUSIASTS AND COLLECTORS, WE WERE ACTUALLY PRETTY DISAPPOINTED WITH THE OVERALL EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER DEALERSHIPS AS FAR AS CLARITY, POOR INFORMATION, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE, AND FRANKLY, THE CUSTOMER WAS NOT THE PRIORITY.

IT WAS VERY MUCH VERY TRANSACTIONAL.

SO OUR GOAL IS TO CHANGE THAT MODEL, AND WE HAVE.

SO JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND OUR BUSINESS MODEL, WE'RE A VERY LOW VOLUME.

WE'RE APPOINTMENT ONLY.

WE DO ABOUT TEN VEHICLES PER MONTH.

THEY'RE COLLECTOR GRADE VEHICLES.

ON AVERAGE THE VEHICLE SALE PRICE IS ABOUT $100,000, IF NOT MORE AS FAR AS REVENUE JUST GIVE YOU A GENERAL SIZE OF OUR BUSINESS AND THE VOLUME WE'RE DOING.

WE CURRENTLY HAVE TWO GARAGES IN ALLEN WHERE WE STORE MAJORITY OF OUR VEHICLES.

WE DO ALL THE RECONDITIONING, CLEANING, PREP THAT WILL ALL TAKE PLACE THERE.

IT WILL NOT TAKE PLACE AT THE PLANO LOCATION.

THE LOCATION IN PLANO IS MEANT TO BE A DESTINATION FOR OUR CLIENTS.

MORE OF A CELEBRATION DEAL, SIGNING, VEHICLE, PHOTOGRAPHY, ETC.

SO ALL THE VEHICLES, JUST TO REITERATE, ARE GOING TO BE STORED INSIDE.

WE ARE NOT A LOT DEALERSHIP BY ANY MEANS, AND AGAIN, 90% OF OUR TRANSACTIONS ARE ACTUALLY SIGHT UNSEEN AND OUT OF STATE.

[00:50:07]

THIS GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE KIND OF VEHICLES THAT WE'RE CURATING.

SO ONCE AGAIN, THEY WE WILL NOT STORE ANYTHING OUTDOORS.

THEY'RE JUST THE VALUE IS TOO MUCH THERE.

SO WE ONLY STORE THEM INSIDE SECURE LOCATIONS THEMSELVES.

THIS GIVES YOU A GENERAL IDEA OF THE SPACE AND THE CONCEPT THAT WE'RE DESIGNING.

SO THE ONE IN THE TOP LEFT IS OUR CURRENT SPACE THAT WE HAVE.

AGAIN, IT'S MORE OF A DESTINATION, A MEETING SPACE, AND AGAIN IS BY APPOINTMENT ONLY, SO IT WILL NOT BE LARGE VOLUME OPEN TO THE PUBLIC DEALERSHIP.

IT'S VERY MUCH KIND OF BY APPOINTMENT AND KIND OF VERY MUCH LOW VOLUME ITSELF.

JUST SOME BACKGROUND. MYSELF AND MY BUSINESS PARTNER HAVE BEEN IN THE INDUSTRY AGAIN FOR OVER TWO DECADES.

WE'RE INVESTORS, AND I'VE BEEN IN THE COLLIN COUNTY AREA FOR OVER 40 YEARS NOW, AS MY WIFE'S FAMILY HAS.

SO WE FELT THAT PLANO IN PARTICULAR WAS A GREAT LOCATION FOR US, GIVEN THE CORRIDOR AND LOCATION, AND JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON US, IT'S OUR WEBSITE, OUR SOCIAL, AND FEEL FREE TO TAKE A LOOK AT ANY OF OUR GOOGLE REVIEWS.

JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE KIND OF CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE WE OFFER.

ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR JAY? VERY NICE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. NEXT.

NEXT. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS MICHAEL HOPE.

HELLO, MAYOR, COUNCILMEMBERS AND STAFF, THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

MY NAME IS MICHAEL HOPE, P.O.

BOX 427, ADDISON, TEXAS 75001.

I REPRESENT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, AND I WANT TO SAY THAT P1 MOTORWERKS IS THE TYPE OF QUALITY BUSINESS THAT WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT A POTENTIAL TENANCY TO HAVE.

WE THINK IT WOULD REALLY HELP TO REALIZE THAT OAK POINT IS IN A NEIGHBORHOOD IN TRANSITION, AND A BUSINESS LIKE THIS COULD HELP LEAD THAT TRANSITION AS WELL, AND WE THINK IT'S JUST REALLY COULD SET THE TONE FOR FUTURE TENANTS AND NOT ONLY IN OUR PROPERTY BUT IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AS WELL, SO WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT IT.

WE HOPE YOU FIND FAVOR WITH THIS APPLICATION, AND THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

IS THAT IT? ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO AS PRESENTED.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER TWO.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

MOTION PASSES.

THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT GUYS.

[(3)  

Consideration of an Ordinance to approve and adopt the Operating Budget and setting the appropriations for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and terminating September 30, 2025; and providing an effective date. (Public Hearings held on August 12, 2024,  August 15, 2024, and August 26, 2024.) Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-5

GOOD EVENING, KAREN RHONDES-WHITLEY, BUDGET DIRECTOR.

MY GOODNESS. ANYWAY, IN YOUR PACKET IS ALL THE UPDATED FUND SUMMARIES AND THE APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FOR THE ENTIRE BUDGET. THE TOTAL IS $758 MILLION.

IT HAS NOT CHANGED HARDLY ANY SINCE THE RECOMMENDED BUDGET WAS PRESENTED AT THE END OF JULY.

THE ONLY THING THAT REALLY WAS CHANGED WAS WE CONSOLIDATED AND THE CITY COUNCIL DECIDED WE WERE GOING TO GO WITH THE MEDIAN PLUS 5% INSTEAD OF THE LUMP SUM FOR EACH OF THE EMPLOYEES.

SO THAT IS THE OPERATING BUDGET.

WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.

OH, YES. EXCUSE ME.

OKAY. JENNIFER GROISMAN.

JENNIFER GROISMAN.

I WATCHED THIS COUNCIL MEETING ON THE BUDGETS.

I HEARD THAT THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS CUT TO THE BONE AND WE NEEDED TO TIGHTEN OUR BELTS.

HOWEVER, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE ACTUAL NUMBERS, I DID NOT SEE LOSSES IN REVENUE OR CUTS.

HERE'S WHAT I DID SEE.

$906.6 MILLION IN NEW PROPERTY.

I ALSO SAW THAT BUDGET REVENUES ARE OVER 846 MILLION, AND THE

[00:55:09]

THAT IS ALMOST A 90 MILLION.

THAT WILL NOT BE SPENT.

I SAW YOUR PLANNING AN INCREASE ON OUR WATER, TRASH AND SEWER RATES, AN INCREASE IN UTILITY FEES THAT WILL BE PASSED ON TO THE RESIDENTS FROM THE UTILITY COMPANIES. ONE AREA OF THE BUDGET THAT I FOUND TOTALLY TONE DEAF TO THE ECONOMIC STRUGGLES OF THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE DEALING WITH A 22% INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES AND LOWER WAGES.

IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALSO KNOWN AS CORPORATE WELFARE? THAT LINE ITEM STAYED THE SAME FROM LAST YEAR AT 8.5 MILLION.

8.5 MILLION ADDED TO THE FUND THAT CURRENTLY HAS MORE THAN 53 MILLION IN IT FOR COMPANIES LIKE RAISING CANE'S, A $3.3 BILLION COMPANY.

INSTEAD OF HANDING MONEY OUT TO MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES, HOW ABOUT LOOKING OUT FOR THE RESIDENTS OF PLANO? FIRST CUT THE PROPOSED 8.5 MILLION IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BY 6 MILLION TO LOWER THE TAX RATE BY $0.01, THAT WOULD STILL LEAVE 2.5 MILLION FOR BUSINESSES THAT DON'T NEED IT.

ONE COUNCILMEMBER ARGUED AGAINST CUTTING ANYTHING FROM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THE BUSINESS TO BUSINESS SALES TAX REVENUE WAS GOOD AND IT REDUCES THE BURDEN ON RESIDENTS. HERE'S THE FLAW IN THAT ARGUMENT.

BUSINESSES DON'T ACTUALLY PAY TAXES; THEIR CUSTOMERS DO.

IF I HIRE A PAINTING COMPANY TO PAINT MY HOUSE, THE PAINTER BUYS THE PAINT FROM HOME DEPOT AND HE CHARGES ME FOR THE PAINT, INCLUDING THE SALES TAX THAT HE PAID.

SO ANY TAX THAT THE BUSINESS PAYS MUST BE PASSED ON TO THE CUSTOMERS.

IF THE BUSINESS INTENDS TO MAKE A PROFIT.

SO YOU ARE NOT SAVING US ANYTHING.

THE RESIDENTS WILL END UP PAYING FOR THE TAXES AND THE COST OF THE PRODUCTS, MATERIALS AND SERVICES.

GO BACK AND CUT THE MONEY IN THE BUDGET FOR MILLIONAIRES AND BILLIONAIRES AND HELP REDUCE THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECONOMIC PAIN YOUR RESIDENTS ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

I NEED A MOTION ON ITEM THREE.

MAYOR, I HAVE A COUPLE OF SLIDES I'D LIKE TO.

I'M SORRY. RELATED TO THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE.

GO AHEAD. WELL, I WASN'T EXPECTING THE PLANO LOGO BEHIND THAT, SO THAT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO READ.

WHEN MY SLIDES WERE COPIED INTO THE DECK THAT WAS APPLIED.

I'M GOING TO DO MY BEST.

THE LEGEND AT THE BOTTOM SHOWS WAGES, AND I'M MISCATEGORIZED THESE COLUMNS.

THE NEXT ONE OVER THE COLORS ALL CHANGED AS WELL.

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME. THE NEXT ONE OVER THAT SAYS POPULATION PLUS INFLATION.

THAT'S ACTUALLY SUPPOSED TO BE CPI INFLATION.

THAT'S WHAT THE CONSUMER EXPERIENCE IS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE LIME GREEN LINE.

THE NEXT ONE OVER THAT SAYS MCI INFLATION.

THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE POPULATION GROWTH PLUS MCI MUNICIPAL COST INDEX.

THAT'S THE COST TO THE CITY.

THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO COVER THE NEXT ONE OVER.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S PURPLE IS THE PLANO BUDGET GROWTH AND THE NEXT ONE OVER IS ACTUAL PLANO PROPERTY TAXES.

THAT'S NOT ALL TAXES.

THAT'S JUST PROPERTY TAXES.

SO I STARTED AT A BASELINE OF THE SAME NUMBER FOR ALL OF THESE FROM Q1 2020, TO SHOW THE GROWTH OF ALL OF THESE OVER TIME. NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MISS GROISMAN JUST POINTED OUT, AND IT WAS TRUE, IS THAT INFLATION HAS OUTPACED WAGE GROWTH UNTIL Q1 OF THIS YEAR, WHICH IS RIGHT OVER THE LEFT SIDE OF THE N OF PLANO, WHERE THEY INTERSECT, AND WAGES JUST CAUGHT UP TO INFLATION OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS.

SO SOME PEOPLE ARE CERTAINLY EXPERIENCING WAGE DECLINE OR STAGNANT WAGES, BUT IN IN ALL, AND I LOOKED AT THE BUREAU OF LABOR STATISTICS FOR THIS JUST TODAY. I WAS PRETTY SICK LAST WEEK AND I'M BEHIND THE CURVE ON ALL THESE SLIDES.

OTHERWISE I WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PREPARED.

WITHOUT THE PLANO LOGO BEHIND THESE, THE HIGHEST LINE HERE IS THE COST TO THE CITY OF PLANO, WHAT WE HAVE TO COVER THROUGH POPULATION GROWTH AND MCI INFLATION, MUNICIPAL COST INDEX INFLATION OF COURSE, IS MEASURED DIFFERENTLY THAN CPI.

WE'RE NOT MEASURING LOAVES OF BREAD.

WE'RE MEASURING THINGS LIKE CONCRETE, WHICH ISN'T A DRAMATIC PART OF OUR BUDGET, BUT SIGNIFICANT AS ANYBODY WHO'S DRIVEN ON PARKER LATELY WILL TELL YOU.

[01:00:04]

THAT'S THE LATEST WAGE DATA I COULD FIND.

SO I LEFT IT AT Q1.

I DIDN'T BRING IT UP TO CURRENT.

THEY'RE ALL PRETTY CLOSE AND PRETTY TIGHT.

SO WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THE SUPPOSED TAX INCREASE THIS YEAR? AND THERE IS A TAX INCREASE.

I'D LIKE TO GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

THIS IS A LITTLE EASIER TO READ, AND I WAS SPEAKING WITH COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI ABOUT THIS.

IN EVERY YEAR THAT WE'VE ADOPTED THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, WE SEE THE SAME CHART EVERY YEAR.

WE SEE THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

WE SEE THE AVERAGE TAXABLE VALUE OF A HOMESTEADED SINGLE FAMILY HOME, WHICH IS ARTIFICIALLY JUST THE MARKET VALUE, LOPPING 20% OFF TO REPRESENT A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION, AND WE SEE THE TAX IMPACT TO A HOMESTEADED SINGLE FAMILY HOME.

HOWEVER, HOMESTEADED SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ONLY MAKE UP ROUGHLY 40% OF THE PROPERTY VALUE IN PLANO.

THE $62 BILLION PLUS THE NEW 900 AND SOME ODD MILLION, WHICH IS ONLY A 1.4% INCREASE, BUT WE'VE LOOKED AT THAT SAME CHART YEAR AFTER YEAR WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE IMPACT OF THE TAX RATE, WHICH IS AN AGGREGATE CALCULATION ACROSS ALL OF OUR PROPERTY, BUT WE DON'T LOOK AT WHAT IT DOES TO COMMERCIAL, BUSINESS, COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY, WHICH IS LUMPED INTO COMMERCIAL AND BUT THE TAX IMPACT THAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, AND THEN FROM THE TAX INCREASE THAT WE ACTUALLY PASSED LAST YEAR, WAS WHAT WE EXPECTED TO SEE FROM THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, NO NEW TAXES, AND WE'RE LIKE, OKAY, THAT LOOKS GOOD, AND THEN THIS YEAR THERE WAS A DRAMATIC JUMP THAT DIDN'T THAT WASN'T EQUAL TO THE ACTUAL TAX INCREASE OR THE BUDGET INCREASE, AND SO THAT GOT ME THINKING FOR THE FIRST TIME IN FIVE YEARS.

WHAT ACCOUNTS FOR THAT? THAT'S WHEN I ASKED FOR THE DATA FOR THE INCREASES TO MULTIFAMILY AND BUSINESS COMMERCIAL.

SO THAT CHART RIGHT THERE SHOWS EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THE VALUATION INCREASE FROM THAT AS OVERWHELMINGLY THE LARGEST VALUE INCREASE THAT WE SAW BASED FROM BASED ON THE CARDS THIS YEAR.

EXISTING MULTIFAMILY IS RIGHT NEXT TO IT IN THE SECOND COLUMN.

IT'S TEENY TINY, BUT COMPRISES A MUCH LARGER SHARE OF THE ACTUAL PROPERTY.

EXISTING COMMERCIAL HAS THE SECOND LARGEST COLUMN IN THERE, BUT IT'S DWARFED BY THE INCREASE TO THE APPRAISED VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY.

SO THAT'S THE APPRAISED VALUE.

THAT'S NOT THE MARKET VALUE, AND I LOOKED AND WHEN I DID THE CALCULATIONS, NOT THE MARKET VALUE BUT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WENT UP 10.6%. THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT OF A HEAD SCRATCHER AS WELL, BECAUSE WE SUPPOSEDLY HAVE THE 10% CAP ON THE INCREASE IN TAXABLE VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND THAT IS TRUE FOR HOMESTEADED HOMES.

ABOUT 10% ROUGHLY OF OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE RENTALS AND HAVE NONE OF THOSE PROTECTIONS, WHICH WOULD LOGICALLY ACCOUNT FOR AN APPRAISED VALUE INCREASE IN EXCESS OF 10%, 10.6.

ON TOP OF THAT, AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE SPEAKING, KAREN, ABOUT THE FACT THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOME VALUES HAVE BEEN GOING UP AND UP AND UP FOR ABOUT A DECADE, SOMETIMES WELL IN EXCESS OF THAT 10% APPRAISAL CAP, AND THAT'S NOT SHUT OFF EVERY YEAR.

IF THE CURRENT MARKET VALUE OF THE HOME IS TWICE THE TAXABLE VALUE, THEN IT'LL JUST GO UP TO THE MAXIMUM OF 10% EVERY SINGLE YEAR UNTIL IT FINALLY CATCHES UP, IF EVER, TO.

THE MARKET VALUE.

SO WHEN THE MARKET VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INCREASED THIS YEAR.

STILL IN EXCESS OF ANY OF THIS BY 7.6%, IT MAKES SENSE THAT THE APPRAISED VALUE OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WENT UP 10.6%.

THE APPRAISED VALUE OF MULTIFAMILY WAS NEGLIGIBLE.

WE DIDN'T GET ANY NEW REVENUE THERE, BUT BECAUSE OUR TAX CALCULATION IS APPLIED ACROSS ALL PROPERTIES, WE CAN'T MIX AND MATCH ACROSS SINGLE FAMILY, MULTIFAMILY, COMMERCIAL, ETC. BECAUSE OF THE DISPARITY IN THE APPRAISED VALUE INCREASES.

[01:05:01]

NO MATTER WHAT WE DO WITH THE TAX RATE, IF WE DO NOTHING, SHOOTING FROM THE HIP, THEY'RE GOING TO GET ABOUT AN 8% TAX INCREASE, WHICH YOU COULD CONSIDER ONE OF THE LARGEST TAX INCREASES ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

LARGEST SINGLE YEAR TAX INCREASES ON SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, BUT THAT'S IF WE ACTUALLY ADOPTED THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE, AND THEN MULTIFAMILY WOULD ACTUALLY GET A TAX CUT, A REAL TAX CUT BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE APPLYING THESE IN AGGREGATE, AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES MAKE UP ALMOST 50% OF OUR TOTAL PROPERTY TAX BASE.

SO I FOR A PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM WHICH DOESN'T RISE AND FALL WITH SALES AND WAGES LIKE INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE TAX INCREASES OVER TIME TO KEEP PACE WITH INFLATION, WITH SALES TAX AND INCOME TAX THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF JUST BY MARKET DYNAMICS.

YOU DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE TO CHANGE ANYTHING WITH THE LEVEL OF TAXES.

IT JUST COMES IN AUTOMATICALLY WITH PROPERTY TAXES.

FOR A LONG TIME WE JUST SET THE RATE AND FORGET IT, AND THE SAME DYNAMIC TOOK EFFECT.

PROPERTY VALUE WOULD GO UP AND THE TAX INCREASES CAME WITH IT, BUT WHEN PROPERTY VALUES STARTED GOING UP SO HEAVILY OR SO HIGH, THEN THAT NECESSITATED LOWERING INCREMENTALLY THE TAX RATE EVERY YEAR.

ALL OF THAT IS A VERY LONG WINDED WAY OF SAYING I WAS PREPARED TO VOTE AGAINST THIS BUDGET UNTIL I FINISHED DOING THE MATH MYSELF, AND I SAW THAT WHILE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A VERY LARGE TAX INCREASE THAT APPLIES STRICTLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMESTEADED HOMES, AND IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THE SINGLE FAMILY RENTALS, THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE COMMERCIAL WHO DON'T HAVE ANY PROPERTY TAX PROTECTIONS, IN A MANNER OF SPEAKING, THEY'VE ALREADY PAID THEIR DUES.

THEY WERE TAKING IT ON THE CHIN EVERY SINGLE YEAR OVER MANY YEARS.

WHILE IT WAS THE HOMESTEADED SINGLE FAMILY HOMEOWNERS THAT REAPED THE BENEFIT OF THE NO NEW REVENUE RATE.

SO I PRESENTING THIS HERE IN THE BUDGET DISCUSSION, BECAUSE WE HAVE A BALANCED BUDGET AND THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE ARE INEXTRICABLY INTERTWINED, BUT ALL OF THIS TO SAY THAT ONCE I LOOKED AT THE MATH MYSELF AND I SAW THE INCREASE IN WAGES AND THAT WAGES HAVE KIND OF CAUGHT UP PAST THE INFLATIONARY EFFECTS AS OF Q1 THIS YEAR, AND I SAW THE DISPARITY BETWEEN WHAT'S HAPPENED WITH PROPERTY VALUES, WHICH AS A TANGENT, IS ANOTHER GOOD REASON TO ELIMINATE PROPERTY TAX IN TEXAS. I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE.

OKAY, ANTHONY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS AS WELL.

YOU ALL WILL BE RELIEVED AT LEAST TONIGHT.

I DON'T HAVE SLIDES. I KNOW I DID THAT TO YOU ALL TWICE DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS.

SO MY APOLOGIES FOR THAT.

ANYWAY, I WANT TO START BY JUST QUICKLY THANKING CITY MANAGER ISRAELSON AND DIRECTOR RHONDES-WHITLEY AND THE BUDGET AND RESEARCH TEAM FOR ANSWERING TONS OF QUESTIONS DURING THIS BUDGET PROCESS.

I HAVE GREATLY APPRECIATED IT.

I KNOW, I KNOW, IT'S NOT EASY, SO THANK YOU.

I ALSO WANT TO COMPLIMENT WHAT I VIEW AS THE ABSOLUTELY EXCELLENT WORK THAT CITY MANAGER ISRAELSON, DIRECTOR RHONDES-WHITLEY THE BUDGET AND RESEARCH TEAM AND ALL OF THE DEPARTMENT HEADS AND THE WHOLE STAFF HAVE DONE ON ON THE PROGRAM OF SERVICE, YOU ALL IMMEDIATELY TOOK A PROACTIVE AND DECISIVE APPROACH WHEN IT EMERGED THAT WE WERE IN A CHALLENGING FISCAL ENVIRONMENT, AND I JUST FEEL THAT WE HAVE THE BEST STAFF ON THE EARTH, AND SO I REALLY APPRECIATE YOU ALL.

IT PROBABLY WILL NOT SURPRISE YOU ALL TO KNOW THAT AFTER A LOT OF REFLECTION AND REALLY A HARDER DECISION THAN I HAD ANTICIPATED EARLIER IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE TO VOTE NO ON THIS BUDGET TO SOUND A NOTE OF CAUTION ABOUT THE SUSTAINABILITY OF FILLING THE HOLES THAT WERE THAT WE ARE VERY TRULY FACING WITH PROPERTY TAXES.

THAT'S CERTAINLY ONE WAY THAT WE CAN DO IT, BUT I THINK THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO DO IT THAT I WOULD ADVOCATE FOR.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE USED TO BE MORE OF A PERCEPTION THAT A BUDGET VOTE WAS A VOTE ON WHETHER THE CITY IS A GOOD VALUE OVERALL.

THE OVERALL DIRECTION OF THE CITY, CONFIDENCE IN CITY LEADERSHIP.

I THINK THAT PEOPLE NOW UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE JUST VOTING ON A BUDGET FOR ONE YEAR, BUT I STILL FEEL THE NEED TO SAY THAT MY CONFIDENCE IN CITY MANAGER ISRAELSON IS ABSOLUTE, AND MY CONFIDENCE IN DIRECTOR RHONDES-WHITLEY AND THIS WHOLE 2500 PERSON STAFF IS ABSOLUTE.

WE TRULY HAVE THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE HERE, AND I FEEL SO BLESSED TO BE A PART OF THIS.

AS YOU ALL KNOW AND ARE PROBABLY SICK OF, I HAVE TALKED FOR A LONG TIME ABOUT COST RECOVERY AND THE DECLINING PERCENTAGE OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES THAT, THAT COME FROM NON-TAX REVENUES, THINGS THAT ARE NOT PROPERTY TAXES OR SALES TAXES.

[01:10:01]

PROBABLY, AND YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT REVENUES ARE AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.

I DON'T THINK WE'VE UPDATED THOSE SINCE SOMETIME AROUND 2017.

WHILE OBVIOUSLY WE'VE SEEN TREMENDOUS INFLATION AND THE COMPLEXITY OF OF WHAT OUR PLANNERS DO, INCREASING ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.

EACH CASE BEING MORE COMPLEX.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE VALUE ADDED SERVICES THAT BENEFIT INDIVIDUALS AND BUSINESSES IN A PARTICULARIZED WAY, I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE FROM THE ADDITIONAL COST RECOVERY.

I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC.

I DO WANT TO OFFER SOME CLARIFICATIONS, BECAUSE I WANT THE COMMUNITY TO BE CLEAR ON THIS.

THE GROWTH THAT WE'RE SEEING IN PROPERTY TAXES THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND RELATING TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS SAID IS ABSOLUTELY NOT A RESULT OF OUT OF CONTROL SPENDING.

TO THE CONTRARY, WE'RE SEEING ONLY 0.2% INCREASE IN GENERAL FUND REVENUES AND A 2.8% INCREASE IN REVENUES FOR THE COMBINED BUDGET, NET OF THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT PAYMENT.

SO IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THAT NOT ONLY IS SPENDING NOT OUT OF CONTROL, THIS BUDGET, FROM A SPENDING PERSPECTIVE, EXERCISES TREMENDOUS FISCAL RESTRAINT IN THE FACE OF CHALLENGING FISCAL CONDITIONS.

BOTH OF THOSE NUMBERS, OF COURSE, ARE LESS THAN INFLATION.

ALSO, PLANO REMAINS A GREAT VALUE, THE BEST VALUE IF WE COMPARE TO OTHER COLLIN COUNTY CITIES.

PLANO HAS A A TAX BILL OF $1,744 THIS YEAR FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER WHO HAS JUST THE HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION AND NO OTHER EXEMPTIONS.

THOSE NUMBERS FOR ALLEN ARE $2,122, FOR MCKINNEY, ARE $2,138, AND FOR THE COLLIN COUNTY PORTION OF FRISCO, THIS IS ONLY THE COLLIN COUNTY PORTION, $2,371 AND FOR THAT WE GET TREMENDOUS CITY SERVICES.

SO I THINK THAT THE CITY OF PLANO IS THE BEST VALUE IN THE WORLD BY A WIDE MARGIN.

THAT PROBABLY BEGS THE QUESTION WHY NOT VOTE FOR THE BUDGET, THEN? WELL, SOME OF THE TRENDS THAT WE'RE FACING, THE FLATTENING OF CERTAIN REVENUES AND SPIKES IN CERTAIN EXPENSES, MAKE IT INEVITABLE THAT THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT, A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT SOMEWHERE IN THIS BUDGET.

AS A PHILOSOPHICAL POINT, I BELIEVE THAT MAINTAINING THE SAME TAX RATE, THOSE IMPACTS ARE ALLOCATED TOO HEAVILY TO PROPERTY TAX PAYERS.

I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD OPERATE WITHIN THE TWIN CONSTRAINTS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR EMPLOYEES, AND WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF OUR TAXPAYERS.

I WAS VERY GLAD THAT WE FOUND THE MONEY FOR OUR EMPLOYEES SO THAT WE CAN MEET OUR MEDIUM PLUS 5% PAY PHILOSOPHY.

I ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THE RAISES, THE $5.3 MILLION, AND AS YOU ALL REMEMBER, I PUT FORTH A PROPOSAL AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WOULD HAVE KEPT ALL OF THAT, EVERY PENNY THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION, AND I DO SUPPORT EVERY PENNY THAT WE'RE SPENDING ON EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION IN THIS BUDGET, AND STILL WOULD HAVE PROVIDED SOME AMOUNT OF TAX RELIEF TO RESIDENTS, WHICH I JUST THINK IS INCUMBENT ON US WHEN WE'RE FACING A SIGNIFICANT TAX IMPACT LIKE THIS.

I THINK COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS RAISED EXCELLENT POINTS JUST NOW.

I THINK I THINK HIS ANALYSIS IS GOOD AND BUT AND REALLY IN TALKING WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY LESS THAN A QUORUM, JUST THE TWO OF US TALKING OUTSIDE OUTSIDE OF A MEETING.

IT REALLY SHIFTED MY PERSPECTIVE FROM THAT 12% INCREASE FOR THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER TO LOOKING AT THE OVERALL NUMBERS, EVEN THOSE OVERALL NUMBERS, THOUGH, AND THESE ARE NUMBERS THAT THE BUDGET TEAM PREPARED, 6.77% INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE FROM EXISTING PROPERTIES, WHICH IS DOUBLE INFLATION, 8.35% INCREASE IN IF YOU INCLUDE THE NEW GROWTH PROPERTIES COMING ONLINE TO THE TAX ROLL, WHICH IS DOUBLE INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH, EVEN IF YOU TAKE OUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT STATE LAW REQUIRES TO BE TAKEN OUT, LIKE TIF AND THINGS THAT SHOULD BE TAKEN OUT, LIKE THE SENIOR TAX FREEZE, YOU END UP WITH THE 6.9% NUMBER THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEE IN ITEM SEVEN, WHICH IS SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER THAN THE 4% INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH.

SO WHILE I DO THINK THAT COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS HAS AN EXCELLENT POINT, THAT THE 12% INCREASE, WHICH THE AVERAGE HOMEOWNER WITH ONLY A HOMESTEAD EXEMPTION WILL FACE THIS YEAR DOESN'T TELL THE WHOLE STORY OF THIS BUDGET.

SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT, BUT NONETHELESS, I JUST THINK THAT IF HOMEOWNERS FACE AND IF NOT JUST HOMEOWNERS, ALL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS FACE INCREASES GREATER THAN INFLATION AND POPULATION GROWTH YEAR OVER YEAR, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SUSTAINABLE OVER TIME.

FOR THOSE OF US WHO WERE ELECTED IN 2017, WE PROBABLY REMEMBER THE ACRIMONY ABOUT BUDGETS WHEN WE STARTED.

THERE'S NOT ACRIMONY, BY AND LARGE ABOUT BUDGETS LIKE THAT THESE DAYS, AND, YOU KNOW, THIS WILL BE MY LAST BUDGET ON THE COUNCIL, BUT FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONTINUING, I WOULD JUST

[01:15:03]

WE ARE STILL WAY UNDER WHERE THE WHERE THE TAXABLE VALUE OF HOMES WOULD BE WITHOUT THAT 10% APPRAISAL CAP.

SO EVEN IF VALUES DON'T INCREASE NEXT YEAR, IT IS LIKELY THAT AT THE SAME TAX RATE NEXT YEAR, HOMEOWNERS WOULD SEE ANOTHER 10% INCREASE, AND SO I JUST REALLY WANT TO ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT GOING FORWARD NEXT YEAR.

ANYWAY, I'M GOING TO SKIP SOME OF THESE COMMENTS.

THIS IS TAKING LONGER THAN I THOUGHT IT WOULD, BUT OKAY.

WELL ANYWAY, THAT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, I APPRECIATE THE GREAT WORK, BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE.

NO THANK YOU. OKAY.

THERE IS GOING TO BE A QUIZ BETWEEN COUNCILMEMBER RICCIARDELLI--OH MY GOD.

[CHUCKLING] THANK YOU ANTHONY.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOVE TO APPROVE.

SECOND. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER THREE.

DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THAT? OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.

[LAUGHTER] I DIDN'T SAY "SIMON SAYS." OH. ALL OPPOSED.

OKAY. OH, NO.

YOU KNOW WHAT? YOU GET TO A POINT IN THE MEETING WHERE.

SORRY. ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

[(4)  Consideration of an Ordinance to approve and adopt the Community Investment Program and setting the appropriations for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024, and ending September 30, 2025; and providing an effective date. (Public Hearings held on August 12, 2024, August 15, 2024, and August 26, 2024.) Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-6]

YES. THIS IS YOUR COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM.

WE HAVE PROVIDED THE APPROPRIATIONS ALONG WITH THE FUNDING MECHANISMS WITHIN HERE.

THE TOTAL IS $320.9 MILLION FOR THE COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

MOTION TO APPROVE.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION, AND SECOND, TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

ALL IN FAVOR? MAYOR, IF I MAY JUST TAKE FIVE SECONDS, I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M GOING TO RAISE MY ARM THIS TIME, AND IT'S NOT A MISTAKE BECAUSE MY ISSUES WERE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUDGET, NOT ON OKAY. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

OKAY. ALL OPPOSED? SO 8-0.

[(5)  

Public Hearing on the proposed tax rate of $0.4176 per $100 of taxable value for Fiscal Year 2024-25. (The first Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2024.) Conducted

ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF 0.4176 PER $100 OF TAXABLE VALUE FOR FISCAL YEAR 24-25. YES.

THIS IS THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THIS IS ACTUALLY YOUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ACTUAL TAX RATE OF 41.76 CENTS PER 100 DOLLARS OF ASSESSED PROPERTY VALUES.

YOUR FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, WE DID BACK AUGUST 26TH, AND THIS IS OUR SECOND ONE, EVEN THOUGH BY LAW WE'RE ONLY WE ONLY NEED TO DO ONE.

WE ALWAYS DO A COUPLE OF THEM.

SO THIS IS YOUR SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK WE HAVE A SPEAKER ONE SPEAKER, JENNIFER GROISMAN.

HELLO AGAIN.

BY KEEPING THE TAX RATE THE SAME AS LAST YEAR, YOU WILL BE GIVING RESIDENTS THE LARGEST TAX INCREASE IN 20 YEARS.

THAT'S YOUR WORDS, NOT MINE.

FOR ME, THAT MEANS I HAVE TO COME UP WITH $271.61 FOR PLANO BY THE END OF JANUARY, AND I AM NOT GETTING A RAISE THIS NEXT YEAR.

MY TOTAL BILL.

UNLIKE YOUR NICE CHARTS THERE, SHELBY HAS NEVER GONE DOWN.

IT'S ALWAYS GONE UP, AND I'VE LIVED HERE 16 YEARS.

SO I'VE ALWAYS TAKEN IT ON THE CHIN, AND MY TOTAL TAX BILL FOR PLANO, ACCORDING TO YOUR OWN SITE, WILL BE $2,406.13. SO NOT EXACTLY THE AVERAGE I ONCE BROUGHT A BAG OF GROCERIES TO CITY COUNCIL TO SHOW YOU WHAT A PARENT CAN GET AT THE STORE, FOR THE COST OF THE PROPOSED TAX INCREASE THAT YEAR.

[01:20:03]

RESIDENTS ARE STRUGGLING TO PAY FOR FOOD, ACCORDING TO SPECTRUM NEWS.

77% OF TEXANS ARE HAVING TROUBLE BUYING FOOD.

THEY NOW HAVE TO DECIDE BETWEEN BUYING FOOD OR PAYING THE UTILITIES.

WHEN YOU MAKE TAX BILLS HIGHER, YOU ONLY CAUSE THE PRICE OF LIVING IN PLANO TO GO UP.

IF YOU WANT FAMILIES TO MOVE TO PLANO, THEY HAVE TO BE ABLE TO AFFORD IT.

IF THEY CAN'T AFFORD THE TAX BILL, YOU WILL SEND THEM NORTH.

WHERE THE HOMES ARE CHEAPER AND THE TAX PAYMENTS ARE LOWER.

YOU ALSO ARE MAKING RENTS HIGHER WHEN YOU INCREASE PEOPLE'S TAX BILLS, BECAUSE LANDLORDS ARE NOT GOING TO EAT THE HIGHER COST.

MY CHILDREN BOTH GRADUATED FROM COLLEGE THIS SPRING.

NEITHER ONE OF THEM ARE ABLE TO AFFORD RENT IN PLANO ON THEIR SALARY.

I HAVE THREE GENERATIONS LIVING IN MY HOUSE RIGHT NOW AND NOBODY'S GOING ANYWHERE SOON.

IF YOU DO NOT KEEP TAXES AFFORDABLE FOR THE AVERAGE PERSON TO LIVE HERE, PLANO WILL BE MADE UP OF THREE DEMOGRAPHICS SENIORS WITH THE PROPERTY TAX FREEZE, THE VERY RICH, AND COMPANIES YOU GIVE CORPORATE WELFARE TO.

STOP PUTTING MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR COMPANIES FIRST AND GIVE US $0.01 IN A DEDUCTION OF TAX RATE.

THAT WILL AT LEAST HELP US A LITTLE BIT AND REDUCE THE INCREASE SLIGHTLY.

THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

EXCUSE ME. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL.

WE'LL GO TO NUMBER SIX.

[(6)  Consideration of an Ordinance to approve and adopt the Tax Rate for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2024 and terminating September 30, 2025; and providing an effective date. (The first Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2024.  The second Public Hearing is being held on September 9, 2024, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.) Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-7]

CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO APPROVE AND ADOPT THE TAX RATE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 AND TERMINATING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025 AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND THERE IS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE REQUIRED FOR THE MOTION.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT THE PROPERTY TAX RATE BE INCREASED BY THE ADOPTION OF A TAX RATE OF 0.4176 CENTS, WHICH IS EFFECTIVELY A 5.29% INCREASE IN TAX RATE.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SIX.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 7 TO 1.

[(7)  Consideration of an Ordinance to ratify the property tax revenue in the 2024-25 Budget as a result of the City receiving more revenues from property taxes in the 2024-25 Budget than in the previous fiscal year; and providing an effective date. (The first Public Hearing was held on August 26, 2024.  The second Public Hearing is being held on September 9, 2024, prior to the adoption of this Ordinance.) Adopted Ordinance No. 2024-9-8]

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE TO RATIFY THE PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IN THE 2024-25 BUDGET.

AS A RESULT OF THE CITY RECEIVING MORE REVENUES FROM PROPERTY TAXES IN THE 2024-25 BUDGET THAN IN THE PREVIOUS FISCAL YEAR, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE, AND THIS ONE ALSO REQUIRES SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

MR. MAYOR, I MOVE TO RATIFY THE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE REFLECTED IN THE BUDGET ADOPTED FOR THE FISCAL YEAR BEGINNING OCTOBER 1ST, 2024 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2025.

SECOND. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 7 TO 1.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, KAREN.

NEXT ITEM. THE NEXT ITEM IS COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN, AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.

THE COUNCIL MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION.

THE COUNCIL MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA AND WE HAVE TWO SPEAKERS, BUT I AM NOT SHOWING EITHER OF THEM ON ZOOM. THAT'S A PROBLEM.

YOU DON'T SEE THEM? THERE'S NO ONE AS AN ATTENDEE ON ZOOM.

THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE'RE ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.