HERE WE GO. I NOW DECLARE THAT THE PLANO CITY COUNCIL IS CONVENED [INAUDIBLE].
[PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING]
[00:00:07]
RECORDING IN PROGRESS.AND THAT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT.
THE COUNCIL WILL NOW RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND THE CHILDREN'S PROGRAM ROOM TO HOLD A CLOSED EXECUTIVE MEETING PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF VERNON'S TEXAS CODE ANNOTATED GOVERNMENT CODE, CHAPTER 551, THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 5, 5171, TO CONSULT WITH THE ATTORNEY TO RECEIVE LEGAL ADVICE AND DISCUSS LITIGATION AND SECTION 551 087 TO DISCUSS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
OUR NEXT ITEM PARKS AND RECREATION BOND REFERENDUM PRESENTATION.
KAREN RHODES WHITLEY, DIRECTOR OF BUDGET AND RESEARCH.
AND RON SMITH, DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND REC.
GOOD EVENING, KAREN RHONDES-WHITLEY, BUDGET DIRECTOR.
TONIGHT WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN OUR DEPARTMENTAL OR OUR STAFF PROJECTIONS.
DURING THAT TIME, THE CITY COUNCIL THAT EVENING, ACTUALLY JCPENNEYS OR TOYOTA, IS GIVING US $15 MILLION TOWARDS THE PARK THAT WE HAD ON THE REFERENDUM LIST.
SO WE HAD WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE OFF $23 MILLION DOLLARS FOR PARKS AND REC PROJECTS AND APPLY THAT OVER TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
SO I'M GOING TO DISCUSS MORE ABOUT THAT IN THE NEXT MEETING THAT WE HAVE.
BUT TONIGHT I'M GOING TO HAVE PARKS AND REC GO THROUGH THEIR INDIVIDUAL PROJECTS.
THANK YOU KAREN. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL I'M RON SMITH, YOUR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR.
I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT OUR PROPOSED 2025 BOND REFERENDUM FOR PARKS AND RECREATION.
HERE YOU SEE THE LIST OF PROJECTS OR CATEGORIES THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED AS OUR PRIORITY.
WORKED THROUGH FOR SEVERAL MONTHS TO COME TO THIS NUMBER.
AS KAREN MENTIONED, IT WAS A LITTLE BIT HIGHER WITH SOME ADDITIONAL FUNDING IN THE LAND ACQUISITION AREA, BUT WE'RE AT 51,59,5000 51.5 MILLION. AND THIS IS WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN DISPLAYING IT, AS WE'VE TALKED WITH OUR PARKS BOARD AND THE CITIZENS BOND COMMITTEE.
IT'S THE SAME INFORMATION ON THIS SLIDE HERE.
JUST A LITTLE MORE DETAIL, INCLUDING OUR PROPOSED OR ANTICIPATED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE COSTS.
SO IT'S A 51.595 IS THE NUMBER WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE CATEGORIES WITH YOU.
ONE OF THEM IS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HALL PARK.
YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH HALL PARK.
THIS IS AT THE CORNER OF ALMA AND PARK BOULEVARD.
38 OF THOSE ACRES WILL BE DEVELOPED INTO A PARK THAT WILL HAVE SOME NEIGHBORHOOD PARK ELEMENTS.
IT WILL HAVE OTHER AMENITIES LIKE A TRAIL, PICNIC AREAS, PAVILION PLAY STRUCTURES, THINGS LIKE THAT.
IT WON'T DO THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IT WILL GET US OFF TO A REALLY GOOD START.
WE HAVE 20 MILLION IDENTIFIED FOR THAT.
15 MILLION OF THE 20 IS IDENTIFIED FOR LAND ACQUISITION AT THE ENVISION OAK POINT LOCATION.
THAT IS BEING WORKED THROUGH RIGHT NOW WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE LANDOWNER.
THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL 5 MILLION.
THAT BRINGS US TO THE 20 FOR OTHER ACQUISITIONS THAT MAY COME ALONG.
ACCORDING TO THE PARKS AND RECREATION MASTER PLAN.
[00:05:02]
ONE POTENTIAL USE COULD BE LAND FOR A SECOND SENIOR CENTER SOMEWHERE WEST OF COIT ROAD.BUT IF WE HAVE NO FUNDING, WE ARE NOT ABLE TO BUY ANYTHING.
SO THE 15 MILLION FOR ENVISION OAK POINT, AN ADDITIONAL 5 MILLION FOR LAND TO CONTINUE BUILDING OUT THE ACQUISITION OF OUR PARK SYSTEM, COMMUNITY PARK RENOVATION, THIS CATEGORY 11,595,000.
IT'S VERY SPECIFIC THAT FUNDING WE HAVE IDENTIFIED, WE PRESUME THAT WE WOULD USE IT FOR THE WHOLESALE RENOVATION OF SCHELL PARK. SCHELL PARK IS A COMMUNITY PARK.
IT'S OUR LARGEST ATHLETIC PROGRAMABLE SITE EAST OF HIGHWAY 75.
IT WAS DEVELOPED OVER 40 YEARS AGO AND IS IN NEED OF A WHOLESALE RENOVATION, AND WE WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD USE THAT MONEY FOR COMMUNITY PARK RENOVATION FOR THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION. THOUGH, YOU KNOW, THESE ARE ALL PROPOSALS AT THIS TIME.
WE HAVE 5 MILLION IDENTIFIED FOR THIS CATEGORY.
THIS WOULD ALLOW US FUNDING TO DO ANY KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE CITIZENS OF PLANO OR OUR CITY COUNCIL OR CITY LEADERSHIP IDENTIFY AS A NECESSITY.
A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THIS IS ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA.
WE'RE USING PARK IMPROVEMENT FUNDING THAT WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE VOTERS IN 2021 FOR THAT.
THE $5 MILLION ALLOWS US OVER THAT FOUR YEAR PERIOD FROM 25 TO 2029 TO MAKE THOSE TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS THROUGHOUT OUR SYSTEM AND RECREATION TRAILS, WE HAVE 5 MILLION IDENTIFIED FOR THIS.
THIS WOULD ALLOW US TO CONSTRUCT NEW TRAIL TO BUILD OUT OUR MASTER PLAN FOR OUR TRAIL SYSTEM.
THERE ARE A LOT OF THE EASY STUFF HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED A LONG TIME AGO.
WE'VE GOT SEVERAL GAPS IN OUR SYSTEM THAT ONCE WE ARE ABLE TO BRIDGE THOSE GAPS, THE SYSTEM WILL BE THAT MUCH MORE USER FRIENDLY AND EXPANSIVE. BUT WE HAVE TO HAVE THE MONEY AVAILABLE SO THAT WE CAN MAKE THOSE CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS A REALITY WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY PRESENTS ITSELF.
SO AGAIN, 51.59 MILLION IN COMPARISON TO SOME PREVIOUS BONDS THAT HAVE BEEN PARKS AND RECREATION RELATED, 2005 WAS 64 MILLION.
SO THIS GIVES YOU A GOOD IDEA OF WHERE WE'RE AT FOR THIS 2025.
THANKS, RON. ANY QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE] QUESTION ON SOME OF THESE LAND ACQUISITIONS AND JUST THE FOR EXAMPLE, A SENIOR CENTER.
HAVE WE CONSIDERED BECAUSE THERE'S LOTS OF PLACES IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT NEED TO BE REVITALIZED OR YOU KNEW WHAT I WAS GOING TO ASK, OR TORN DOWN, NOT JUST BUILDING THINGS FROM SCRATCH, TRYING TO USE THIS AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SOME OF THESE OLD BUILDINGS IN OUR CITY AND REVITALIZE THEM, OR TEAR SOMETHING DOWN IN OUR CITY THAT SHOULD BE TORN DOWN AND USE THAT LAND, VERSUS JUST TAKING SOME VACANT LAND AND BUILDING ON THAT? YES. SO IF IT'S A CITY OWNED FACILITY, THERE WOULD BE NO ACQUISITION.
BUT OUR REAL ESTATE MANAGER, MATT YEAGER, IS CONSTANTLY SCANNING THE CITY, ESPECIALLY IN SPECIFIC GENERAL LOCATIONS OF THE CITY, FOR EXISTING PROPERTY THAT'S GOING UP FOR SALE, WHETHER IT'S MOST OF THEM ALL HAVE BUILDINGS ON THEM, SO WE'RE DEFINITELY LOOKING AT THAT AS A VIABLE OPTION. I'D GIVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES.
WE'VE LOOKED AT MONTESSORI SCHOOLS RECENTLY.
WE'VE LOOKED AT BANKS RECENTLY, WE'VE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF OTHER AREAS.
AND WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS KIND OF PROXIMITY TO EXISTING FACILITIES AS WELL, SO THAT IT'S NOT JUST KIND OF A COMPLETELY OUT ON ITS OWN, BUT WE HAVE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF FACILITIES LIKE THIS.
SOMETHING LIKE THAT. TO TO REPURPOSE WOULD BE A REALLY A HOME RUN FOR US IF WE CAN FIND SOMETHING.
[00:10:03]
AWESOME. THANK YOU. I LOVE THAT IDEA OF NOT HAVING A BUNCH OF EMPTY BUILDINGS SITTING AROUND IN PLANO.STICKING IN THE CATEGORY OF LAND ACQUISITIONS FOR THE $15 MILLION FOR ENVISION OAK POINT FOR LAVON FARMS. ARE WE LOOKING AT A SPECIFIC AREA OF THAT, OR IS THAT JUST HOLDING $15 MILLION IN RESERVES? IN CASE WE KNOW THIS 15 MILLION IS SPECIFIC, WE'VE ALREADY GOT THE APPRAISAL FOR THE DIFFERENT PARCELS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THE PLAN.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE WHEN THE TRANSACTION WILL OCCUR, BUT THAT 15 MILLION IS BASED OFF OF THE SPECIFIC PLOT OR LOCATIONS THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IN THAT PLAN WITH AN APPRAISAL ATTACHED TO IT.
SO WE KNOW IF THINGS DEVELOP AS THE PLAN IS WORKING THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, WHAT WE SEE, WE KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE PARK LAND, WHERE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TRAIL, AND THAT 15 MILLION IS PRETTY MUCH RIGHT ON THE BUTTON.
OKAY. COULD YOU ALL SHARE THOSE MAPS WITH ME? YEAH, I THINK I MEAN, THE MARK.
THOSE ARE GOING THROUGH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENTS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE'RE WAITING FOR IS THE FINAL PLANS TO ACTUALLY BE DEVELOPED AND SUBMITTED.
BUT AGAIN, UNTIL IT'S FILED IT'S NOT FINAL AND SURE.
RIGHT. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO SEE THE PRELIMINARY PLEASE.
WELL, THANK YOU, DOCTOR SMITH, FOR THAT EXCELLENT PRESENTATION AS ALWAYS.
THANK YOU AND FIRST OF ALL, I APPRECIATE THAT, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE DONATION YOU KNOW, FOR MADAM PARK, THAT WE ARE YOU KNOW, MAKING DO WITH MAYBE LESS FOR PARKS IN THE BOND PACKAGE THAN HAS BEEN THE CASE IN THE PAST.
BUT I WAS WONDERING SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE $5 MILLION FOR UNIDENTIFIED LAND ACQUISITIONS.
I KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, AT LOS RIOS AND JUPITER, WE WERE ABLE TO ACQUIRE SOME LAND THAT COULD BE USED FOR PARKLAND, COULD BE USED FOR SOMETHING ELSE WITH A DIFFERENT SOURCE OF FUNDS AND, YOU KNOW, WE'RE STARTING A LAND BANKING FUND THAT OBVIOUSLY COULD BUY LAND.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE COULD LATER DECIDE TO USE IT FOR PARKLAND IF WE WANTED TO.
SO I WAS JUST WONDERING AND NOW THAT I'M MAKING IT MORE GLOBAL, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A QUESTION FOR YOU, RON, OR FOR MARK, BUT DO WE THINK WE NEED 5 MILLION FOR SOMETHING WE HAVEN'T IDENTIFIED YET, OR ARE THERE OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDS THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE FOR AN UNEXPECTED OPPORTUNITY, IF THAT WERE TO ARISE? WELL, FIRST I'LL, ANSWER YES.
SO IF THOSE PROPERTIES BECOME AVAILABLE, WE WOULD WANT TO HAVE THE MONEY TO BUY THOSE.
SO WE MAY HAVE IDENTIFIED SOMETHING, BUT UNTIL IT COMES UP FOR SALE, WE CAN'T BUY IT UNTIL THAT OWNER WANTS TO SELL IT TO US, BUT WE WANT TO HAVE THE FUNDING AVAILABLE. SO WHEN THAT DAY COMES, IF WE ONLY ASKED FOR MONEY FOR ACQUISITION, WHEN WE KNEW THAT WE HAD A PENDING SALE, THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL THAT OUR CITY MANAGER MENTIONED, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO BE FIRST IN LINE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T ABLE TO MOVE FAST ENOUGH.
SO HAVING THAT MONEY AVAILABLE IS REALLY A KEY PART OF BUILDING OUT THIS SYSTEM.
OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE.
WELL, AND I GUESS THE SECOND PART, WHERE I WAS GOING TO ASK THE CITY MANAGER, THOUGH, JUST ABOUT THE BUDGET AND THE TREASURY MORE GLOBALLY, WE HAVE YOU KNOW, I AGREE WE HAVE TO HAVE MONEY AT THE READY. OTHERWISE AN OPPORTUNITY COULD ARISE.
AND WE CAN'T SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO BUY THAT IN 2029 AFTER OUR NEXT BOND ELECTION.
BUT DO WE HAVE OTHER SOURCES OF FUNDS, YOU KNOW, IN THE TREASURY OR ELSEWHERE IN THE BUDGET WHERE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO YOU KNOW, TO PURCHASE THAT AND THEN GO FOR A BOND IN 2029 TO KIND OF REPAY THE LAND BANKING FUND OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.
WELL, WE HAVE CASH FLOW THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PAY FOR, BUT THE ISSUE OF WAITING FOR YEARS TO BE ABLE TO BACKFILL AND REFILL THAT CASH FLOW IS GOING TO CREATE A HOLE SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE BUDGET. SO THE ISSUE THAT WE'VE DONE WITH THE LAND BANK IS THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD HOLD THAT PROPERTY AND THEN WHATEVER THE DISPOSITION OF THAT PROPERTY BECOMES REPAYS THE LAND BANK.
RIGHT. SO THE ISSUE, I THINK WITH GOING INTO THE TREASURY AND TRYING TO TAKE FUNDS OUT OF THE TREASURY IS A LOT OF THOSE ARE CIP DOLLARS, THEIR BOND DOLLARS THAT ARE DEDICATED TO SPECIFIC AREAS.
SO TO TRY TO TAKE THAT AND APPLY IT IN THIS WAY WOULD CREATE A HOLE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.
SO I THINK YOU COULD DO THAT IN THE SHORT TERM.
LONG TERM, IT BECOMES A MUCH MORE DIFFICULT POSITION.
WELL, THANK YOU BOTH FOR THOSE RESPONSES I APPRECIATE IT.
RON. YOU'RE WELCOME. APPRECIATE IT.
I'M SORRY. ADDITIONAL QUESTION ALONG THOSE LINES.
NOT FOR YOU, DOCTOR SMITH, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK.
[00:15:05]
AND I KNOW THAT'S NOT OUR STANDARD PRACTICE, BUT GIVEN THAT ISSUING BONDS DOESN'T HAPPEN THAT QUICKLY EITHER, EVEN IF THE AUTHORIZATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ATTAINED, IF WE WERE TO HAVE AUTHORIZATION FOR BONDS WITHOUT ISSUING THEM, AND WE COULD ACCESS THE CAPITAL WE ALREADY HAVE FROM THE TREASURY, IN THE EVENT THAT SOMETHING COMES AVAILABLE AND WE HAVE TO MOVE QUICKLY AND THEN ISSUE THE BONDS FOR WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE AUTHORIZATION AFTER THE FACT.THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE THAT WE PUT OUT THOSE BONDS FOR AUTHORIZATION, BUT WOULD GIVE US TIME, NOT WITHOUT HAVING TO WAIT FOR THE NEXT BOND CYCLE TO BE ABLE TO ISSUE THOSE BONDS AND THEN START BACKFILLING THAT THE VOTERS WOULD HAVE ALREADY APPROVED.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, WE ACTUALLY INVEST THOSE DOLLARS.
SO IT'S NOT JUST CASH SITTING OUT THERE.
THERE IS A NUMBER OF SECURITIES THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TREASURY AT ANY GIVEN TIME.
SO WE'RE ALWAYS HAPPY TO TO LOOK AT THOSE ELEMENTS.
BUT TO YOUR POINT, COUNCILMAN, WE TRY TO WE WORK VERY HARD OPERATIONALLY THAT IF WE'VE ISSUED BONDS, WE TRY TO SPEND THAT MONEY WITHIN THREE YEARS AND THAT'S A BEST PRACTICE THAT WE HAVE FROM GFOA THAT OUR FINANCE AND OUR BUDGET DEPARTMENT TRY TO HOLD US TO AND WE WORK VERY HARD TO DO THAT, BUT WE TRY TO DO THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID THINGS LIKE ARBITRAGE AND OTHER ELEMENTS OF INTEREST EARNINGS.
SO TO YOUR POINT, IF WE'RE IN A FOUR YEAR CYCLE, WE'RE NOT ISSUING ALL OF THAT DEBT IN YEAR ONE.
WE'RE ISSUING IT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS.
SO PROJECTS THAT ARE IN YEAR FOUR, WE WILL ISSUE THAT DEBT FOR IT IN YEAR FOUR.
SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT MORE JUST IN TIME ALONG THOSE LINES OF COURSE.
OKAY. NEXT ITEM DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON POLITICAL SIGNS AT CITY FACILITIES.
CELSO MATA, YOU GOT HE'S GOT VISUALS.
HE'S GOT ALL SORTS OF GOOD STUFF.
WE'LL GET TO THOSE HERE. OKAY.
LET'S SEE. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL SELSO MATA.
BUILDING INSPECTIONS. HERE TO LOOK AT OUR POLITICAL SIGN ORDINANCE.
MAYBE SOME REVIEW AND DIRECTION AND POSSIBLE UPDATES.
SO THE FIRST PORTION OF OUR ORDINANCE GIVES US THE PRIVATE PROPERTY AT 36FT².
SECOND PORTION, WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE TO REALLY LOOK AT IS ANY UPDATES.
NUMBER TWO IS OF COURSE FOUR SQUARE FEET IN SIZE PER SIGN AND THEN EIGHT FOOT SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE THE SIGNS CAN BE LOCATED. NUMBER FOUR IS THE TIMING OF WHEN THE SIGNS CAN BE PLACED AND WHEN THEY MUST BE REMOVED AND OF COURSE, THE LAST PART IS OUR SIGNS AND PROHIBITED AND RIGHT OF WAYS. SO SOME ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER ARE OF COURSE THE SIZE.
THE WAS THE NUMBER STACKING AND THE OVERALL HEIGHT AND JUST FOR A VISUAL ON SCHEMATIC SIZES, YOU CAN SEE COMPARISONS FOR SQUARE FEET MARGINS 36.
[INAUDIBLE]. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE TYPICAL 18 BY 24. THIS ISN'T TWO BY TWO BUT RATHER 18 BY 24 AND AS YOU SEE STACKING WOULD BE WHAT WE HAVE SEEN WHERE YOU PUT ONE SIGN ON TOP OF THE OTHER.
THEY FIT NEATLY INSIDE THE CORRUGATED PORTION OF IT AND THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE SEEN SOMETIMES WE'VE SEEN THREE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER SO THAT IT KIND OF GROWS.
BUT IF YOU DID THE TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT VERTICAL STACK, YOU WOULD HAVE A EIGHT SQUARE FOOT TOTAL.
THIS WOULD BE REPRESENTATIONAL OF A EIGHT SQUARE FOOT TOTAL TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT.
SO THIS IS A TWO FOOT BY TWO FOOT SIGN PUT TOGETHER.
YOU CAN SEE THE 18 BY 24 VISUAL.
SO HOW HIGH DO WE GO WITH SIGNS IS A QUESTION.
[00:20:01]
THANK YOU AND SO YEAH, WE'VE IF IT GOES INTO THE GROUND, OF COURSE, THEN AND YOU PUT IT ALL THE WAY DOWN AT THE STAKE HERE, YOU GET IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND.IS IT GOING TO BE FIVE FOOT? IS IT GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, FOUR FOOT SIX.
IF THESE WERE TOGETHER IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT TALLER.
YOU CAN SEE THAT. SO THIS IS ACTUALLY WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.
IN MY LEFT HAND IS THE FOUR SQUARE FOOT.
THIS WOULD BE TWO SIGNS STACKED.
WE SEE THIS A LOT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE VISUAL AND THAT'S THE SIGN WE USUALLY SEE ONE FOOT.
I THINK IT'S EIGHT INCHES BY TWO FOOT.
SO THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE AND OPEN FOR YOUR INPUT.
WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING? WELL, I THINK IF YOU LET ME ASK YOU THIS THOUGH, SIR.
WHAT ARE WHAT ARE OTHER COMPARABLE CITIES AROUND US? WHAT? WHAT DO THEY DO? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'RE THE WILD WEST HERE IN PLANO AND I DON'T SEE THAT.
JUST MASS OF SIGNS, ALL ON POLLING PLACES IN OTHER CITIES, LIKE I DO HERE. I AND I GUESS THE QUESTION FOR MICHELLE WOULD BE WHAT'S ENFORCEABLE? SURE. YEAH.
IT'S A MIXED BAG OF WHAT WE CAN DO AND WHERE WE END UP WITH SITUATIONS.
YOU DO SEE SIGNS THAT ARE LARGER AND ON THE CLOSE TO THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE ELECTION, WE DID AND WE THEN PATROLLED AND WE REMOVED THOSE SIGNS.
SO WE DID THAT ALL DAY, EVERY DAY FOR THE LAST WEEK OR SO AND IT THAT'S WHY YOU SAW SO MANY DIFFERENT SIGNS. IT WAS AN ATTEMPT, OF COURSE, TO GET THE WORD OUT AND MANY PEOPLE KNOW THEY'RE IN VIOLATION, BUT IT'S ARE THEY GOING TO COME GET IT OR NOT? AND, WE DO.
BUT IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW ENFORCEMENT AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE SO MANY DIFFERENT SIGNS AND I THINK, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER CITY AS FAR AS SIGNS ARE CONCERNED AND THE AMOUNT OF THEM, PERHAPS WE DO SEE MORE IN PLANO.
BUT I THINK THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THIS IS WHERE I FREQUENT AND LOOK AND OBSERVE.
SO, I THINK THE DIRECTION WE'RE ASKING IS DO WE ALLOW STACKING OR DO WE NOT ALLOW STACKING OF SIGNS.
IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE AND IS THERE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
RIGHT NOW WE'RE AT THIS IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
THIS IS WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW.
BUT WHAT YOU SEE IS THIS SIZE, THIS IS THE POPULAR SIZE.
BUT BUT THEY COULD AND THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE.
YOU KNOW, WHAT IS POSSIBLE AND WHAT IS NOT, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LESS STACKING AND A, YOU KNOW, A RESTRICTION ON HEIGHTS AS TO THE SIGNS AT THE POLLING PLACES.
ANYTHING THAT WOULD HELP TO BE FAIR FOR ALL THE CANDIDATES WHO ARE RUNNING.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A MONOPOLY OF ONE CANDIDATE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY GET THERE AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING AND TAKE OVER THE ENTIRE FIELD. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT EVERY ALL CANDIDATES GET A CHANCE TO BE ABLE TO PUT THEIR SIGNS OUT THERE.
AS FOR HEIGHTS, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN ENFORCE BECAUSE I'VE SEEN PEOPLE WHO WOULD HAVE ONE SIGN THAT'S NOT ATTACHED TO THE SECOND SIGN, BUT THE FIRST SIGN WOULD BE ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE DIRT, AND THEN THE SECOND SIGN WOULD, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD JUST RAISE IT A LITTLE BIT.
[00:25:01]
SO IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S STACKING, BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY TWO DIFFERENT SIGNS.THIS ONE FITS INSIDE THIS ONE IT THE THE WIRE HARNESS DIDN'T GO ALL THE WAY DOWN.
WHAT WAS WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
I WILL SAY THERE'S VARIATION ON ON DIFFERENT SIGNS SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE COULD WORK ON TO HELP.
THAT'S HOW I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT.
YES. WHAT I'M HAVING A PROBLEM RIGHT HERE IS REALLY TIED TO SAFETY.
IF YOU SEE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN HERE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE DRIVEWAY, A VEHICLE COMING OUT, IT'S GOING TO BE BLOCKED BY THE FURTHER THEIR VISION IS GOING TO BE BLOCKED EITHER WAY HERE AND THAT'S DUE TO HEIGHT, BUT ALSO TYING THEM TOGETHER.
AND HEAVEN FORBID IF, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE WE HAVE POLITICAL SIGNS UP.
SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING ABOUT HEIGHT, BUT ALSO GANGING THEM TOGETHER WHERE I HAD THIS WALL OF SIGNS, I THINK THERE SHOULD BE DISTINCT, SEPARATE SIGNAGE WITH A CERTAIN HEIGHT LIMIT, PARTICULARLY AROUND THE DRIVEWAYS THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THEIR VEHICLES CAN READILY SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC.
IF THEY STACK THEM, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT NEAR A DRIVEWAY, I'M PROBABLY OKAY WITH THAT.
SHELBY. I JUST WANT TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM IS, THE PROBLEM YOU'RE HAVING IS YOUR TEAM DOESN'T REALLY KNOW HOW TO ENFORCE, BECAUSE IT FEELS LIKE THESE SIGNS RIGHT HERE COULD TECHNICALLY FALL UNDER OUR ORDINANCE BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALLER THAN THESE.
BUT THE PROBLEM IS, IT'S ACTUALLY TWO SIGNS.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO SOLVE TONIGHT? THE STACKING IS NEW.
THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TWO SIGNS ON TOP OF EACH OTHER LIKE THIS IS CALLED, IT'S WITHIN THE FOUR SQUARE FEET. WE'RE NOT HAVING AN ISSUE WITH IT.
THE ONLY PROBLEM WHICH WAS ALLEVIATED IN EARLY FEBRUARY WAS THE FIVE.
RIGHT AND WE ALREADY KNOW ABOUT THAT.
SO THAT WAS THE ONLY THING THE SIGNS THAT STARTED GETTING PRODUCED, MASS PRODUCED BASICALLY THE LAST FEW DAYS OF THE ELECTION WERE LARGE AND SO THE SIGNS WERE WELL, THEY EXCEEDED THE SIZE AND THAT WAS THE ISSUE, BUT WE REMOVED THEM SO THAT WAS PROBABLY THE ONLY THING THAT WAS A PROBLEM.
THAT'S ENFORCEMENT. IT'S NOT ALLOWED.
SO IF WE WANT TO SET A CERTAIN IF WE WANT TO ALLOW STACKING, THAT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE RIGHT NOW.
WE DON'T HAVE THIS AS AN ALLOWANCE.
DO WE WANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO STACK AND IF SO, HOW MANY? I WOULDN'T GO MORE THAN TWO.
BUT THE ONLY REAL ISSUE I SEE TO ECHO COUNCILMAN HORN'S CONCERN IS OBSTRUCTION OF VISIBILITY.
WHERE IT MATTERS NOT ALL PLACES, NOT ALL PARTS OF A POLLING LOCATION.
IS IT GOING TO PRESENT AN ISSUE? BUT WHERE IT DOES, THAT MATTERS NOW.
ACTUAL, YOU KNOW, STACKING OF SIGNS AND CONNECTING THEM LIKE YOU'RE HOLDING DOCTOR SMITH.
THEY'RE NEVER GOING TO ACTUALLY BE THAT TALL WITH TWO STANDARD SIZED YARD SIGNS TOGETHER, BECAUSE THOSE WIRES ARE GOING TO BE IN THE GROUND, AND NOBODY'S GOING TO STACK A SIGN LIKE THAT WITH A TALL WIRE LIKE THAT, BECAUSE THE WIND'S JUST GOING TO BLOW IT AND IT'S GOING TO BE WITH A SHORT WIRE GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.
SO LIKE, IF YOU TURN THAT UPSIDE DOWN, DOCTOR SMITH, AND THEN PRETEND THE WIRES AREN'T AT THE TOP.
I SPEAK FROM SOME EXPERIENCE HERE AND EVEN THAT'S GOING TO PRESENT A CHALLENGE WITH THE WIND, WHERE YOU'LL SEE IT MORE OFTEN IS WITH A SINGLE SIGN WITH SHORT WIRES STUCK ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND, AND THEN ONE IMMEDIATELY BEHIND IT WITH THE TALLER WIRES SO IT LOOKS STACKED AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A WAY AROUND THAT, OR IF YOU WOULD EVEN WANT A WAY AROUND THAT, OTHER THAN WHERE THERE ARE ACTUAL VISIBILITY CONCERNS, YOU JUST SAY NO HIGHER THAN TWO FEET AND WHETHER THAT'S ONE SIGN OR
[00:30:05]
20, I DON'T CARE AS LONG AS IT'S NOT HIGHER THAN TWO FEET.WE DO HAVE, AS A REMINDER, EIGHT FOOT.
EIGHT FEET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THAT IS THE SETBACK THAT WE HAVE.
SO YOU CAN'T GO ANY FARTHER THAN THAT.
SO IN THAT PICTURE, YOUR VISUAL, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT IN THE DRIVEWAY.
IT IS. BUT WHEN YOU PULL UP TO THE DRIVEWAY YOU'VE STILL GOT EIGHT FOOT OUT IN FRONT.
YEAH. SO ANYWAY, THOSE ARE THE ONLY THINGS I REALLY CARE ABOUT.
YEAH. I HAD A COUPLE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STACKING, ARE WE ONLY TALKING ABOUT THE SAME SIGN ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER, OR COULD IT BE TWO DIFFERENT SIGNS FOR TWO DIFFERENT CANDIDATES? WE DON'T GET INTO CONTENT.
SO IT COULD BE TWO DIFFERENT SIGNS.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
NO. BECAUSE WE DON'T ACTUALLY LOOK AT WHAT WE DON'T REALLY READ THE SIGN PER SE, IN OUR ENFORCEMENT.
OKAY. AND THEN THE OTHER COMMENT I JUST WANT TO BRING UP, BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT TO ME.
SO I WANT TO BRING IT UP PUBLICLY, EVEN THOUGH I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER.
SOMEONE HAD RECOMMENDED OR SUGGESTED THAT CANDIDATES AGREE WHEN THEY FILL OUT THEIR CITY PAPERWORK FOR LOCAL MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF SIGNS.
BECAUSE WE, AS A COUNCIL, AGREED IN 21 THAT WE WANTED TO KEEP THE SIGNS TO A LIMIT OF OF FIVE.
AND SO ASKING THAT CANDIDATES AGREE TO THAT WHEN THEY FILED THEIR PAPERWORK.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO TAKE THAT, MICHELLE? SURE. THANK YOU.
I THINK WE'D HAVE A PROBLEM WITH FIRST AMENDMENT CONCERNS.
OKAY, BUT COULD WE HAVE THEM SIGN SOMETHING SAYING THIS IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE CITY? I BELIEVE WE HAVE A SIMILAR OPTIONAL FORM THAT IS SIGNED BY CANDIDATES TO COMPLY.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE TERM IS.
THEY COULD ACKNOWLEDGE THE ORDINANCE AND THEY COULD.
YOU COULD EXPRESS A PREFERENCE AND ASK THEM TO PLEASE AS A COURTESY TO THE CITY COMPLY.
JUST JUST ACKNOWLEDGING THE LIMIT OF FIVE.
RICK, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT? SORRY, JUST A QUICK COMMENT.
YOU WORK HARD AS YOU CAN, AND IT'S LIKE THE EARLY BIRD GETS THE WORM.
THE FIRST PERSON THERE AT 1201 PUTS THE SIGN UP THERE.
SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TRYING TO MAKE ALLOWANCES FOR THAT.
IT CAME FROM OVER HERE SOMEWHERE THAT I THINK THAT THE TWO SIGNED IS SHOULD BE MAX.
AND AS SHELBY SAID, YOU KNOW, JUST THE TWO SIGNS MEASURED THAT SHOULDN'T BE THE HEIGHT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE ALLOWANCE FOR THAT.
SO IT MAYBE IT IS A, YOU KNOW, 4 FOOT OR 5 FOOT OR SOMETHING.
YOU KNOW, BUT I THINK STACKING NO MORE THAN TWO SHOULD, YOU KNOW, SHOULD BE THE RULE NO MORE.
I'VE BEEN GUILTY OF THIS PYRAMIDS AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE KIND OF THINGS.
I THINK JUST TO, YOU KNOW, FLAT FACING OUT SIGNS WOULD BE FINE AND THEN THE LAST THING KIND OF ON COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS POINT IS I KNOW WE HAVE SOME LIKE, IN OUR FENCE ORDINANCE AND THINGS.
WE HAVE SOME SETBACKS THAT YOU CAN'T OBSTRUCT, YOU KNOW, VISION.
SO SO WE MIGHT WANT TO ADD SOMETHING IN THERE THAT IF IT'S DEEMED TO BE AN OBSTRUCTION FOR TRAFFIC SOMEHOW THAT THE SIGNS COULD BE PICKED UP, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.
[00:35:09]
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE LEFT TO THE PERSON ON THE GROUND OR YOUR STAFF IS IF IT'S DEEMED TO BE A SAFETY HAZARD, THEY CAN BE MOVED.IF IT'S BLOCKING VISION, DON'T PUT YOUR SIGN THERE.
WE DO HAVE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE THAT IS USED WHEN WE INSTALL FENCES AND HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT AT ALLEYS AND WE COULD USE THE SAME THING AT A DRIVEWAY AT EACH OF THE LIBRARIES AND HAVE THAT TRIANGULAR AREA OFF LIMITS ON THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT FOR SIGNAGE AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD INCLUDE.
YEAH. THAT'S IT AND IF I MIGHT ADD, I THINK SOMETHING KEY THAT YOU SAID THERE IS THAT WE COULD MARKET IN ADVANCE OF THAT MIDNIGHT DEADLINE WHERE THEY CAN GO UP, THAT THIS AREA IS OFF LIMITS BECAUSE FOLKS DON'T WANT TO PUT THEIR SIGN THERE.
YOU KNOW, THOSE COST MONEY AND THEN GET IT REMOVED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S BETTER TO MARK OUT THE AREA AND SAY NO SIGNS HERE FOR SAFETY, YOU KNOW? COUNCILMAN. SORRY.
CAN I ASK ONE POINT OF CLARIFICATION, COUNCILMAN? YOU MENTIONED TWO SIGNS AND YOU SAID WITH SOME DEGREE, I THINK IT'S EASIER TO HAVE A TOTAL NUMBER SO THAT WHEN THEY'RE OUT THERE WITH THEIR TAPE MEASURE, THEY'RE LOOKING AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IF YOU WANTED TWO SIGNS LIKE THAT TO BE ABLE TO GO, THAT'S, 40 TO THAT SIZE, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE TWO, FOUR BY FOURS STUCK ON TOP OF EACH.
BUT KNOWING KNOWING THAT THERE MAY BE A.
WOULD BE THIS SIZE RIGHT HERE.
ACTUALLY THIS IS THE ACTUAL LARGER ALLOWANCE WE HAVE FOR SQUARE FEET.
MOST OF THE TIME THEY'RE CHEAPER.
BUT WHEN FACED WITH WHAT CAN I GET, WHAT CAN I GET AND WHAT'S ALLOWED, THIS IS ON THE GROUND.
THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.
NOBODY'S DOING IT, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE.
SO MY QUESTION IS COUNCILMAN IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? OR WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE TWO OF THE OTHER SIGNS THAN JUST TWO? YEAH. PERSONALLY, I MEAN I THAT'S ALL I EVER USE WAS THE ONE THAT DOCTOR SMITH IS HOLDING WAS TWO STACKED ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AND IT WORKED TWO TIMES FOR ME.
SO I MEAN, I THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY THAT SIZE THOUGH.
I THINK IT WOULD BE. DO YOU WANT TO BE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE SIZE OR THE SIZE? WHAT IS THAT STANDARD SIZE RIGHT THERE? THAT'S I THINK THAT'S THE 18 INCH BY 24, WHICH IS THE SECOND LINE.
OKAY. YOU CAN SEE UP THERE THE GRAPHIC SCHEMATIC 18 BY 24 AND THEN THE 24 BY 24 WHICH IS, THIS ONE.
OH YEAH. BIG 24 IS BY FAR I THINK, ALWAYS BEEN THE MOST POPULAR SIZE.
AND FROM A COST STANDPOINT, AS A CANDIDATE THAT'S YOU CAN ORDER BULK.
SO IF YOU'RE DOING THAT TO THAT POINT, COUNCILMAN, THAT'S 36IN.
IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE A GRACE AMOUNT BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOME ERROR BETWEEN THOSE.
DO YOU WANT TO JUST SAY 40IN? YEAH, 40IN MAXIMUM REGARDLESS OF STACKING 40IN.
THE FOUR FEET IS WHAT CELSO HAS.
YEAH WE HAVE WELL YEAH WE HAVE FOUR FOOT.
WE HAVE FOUR SQUARE FOOT MAXIMUM ON RIGHT NOW.
BUT THAT'S 24 BY 24 WHICH IS THIS.
YEAH. BUT WHAT CELSO IS HOLDING UP IS FOUR FEET HIGH.
YEAH. WHICH IS FOUR FOOT HIGH.
I WAS JUST SAYING THERE WOULD BE SOME WIRE COMING OUT OF THE GROUND AND THEN SOME WIRE.
THAT'S WHERE I GOT THE FIVE FOOT MAX.
THAT'S WHERE I HAVE NO MORE THAN AN 18 BY 24 SIGN.
I WASN'T WANTING TO GO TALLER THAN MY WIFE, SO.
BUT. WELL, IF YOU'RE GOING WITH THAT, THEN THIS GOES AWAY.
THIS GOES AWAY AND WE'RE GOING WITH THAT, WHICH IS THAT'S WHAT WE'RE THE CONSENSUS IS.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS FIVE FEET IS A VERY TALL.
OKAY. DOUGLAS ADAMS DESCRIBED THE ULTIMATE ANSWER HERE.
[INAUDIBLE] SO I WOULD STILL BE MORE INTERESTED IN FOUR FEET THAN FIVE FEET.
SO NO FIVE FEET FOR THE FOUR FOOT WOULD BE IF YOU TURN THAT AROUND, THAT WOULD BE EXACTLY.
IT'LL BE WHEN WE MEASURE EXACTLY FOUR FOOT.
I MEAN THAT'S WHY WE HAD THE FIVE FOOT RULE.
BUT WHY DO WE EVEN WANT TO GO THAT HIGH SINCE WE ORIGINALLY WANTED TO? THAT'S JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE PLAY, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S.
EXACTLY. BUT THOSE AREN'T TWO FEET TALL.
SO COMBINED, THAT'S LESS THAN 48.
LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP THIS UP REAL QUICK.
LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS COUNCIL.
WE HAVE TWO OF THE 18 BY 24 SIGNS.
SO THAT'S IT'S KIND OF AN OR 218 BY 24 SIGNS UP TO FOUR FEET.
[00:40:06]
I WOULD KEEP IT EVEN SIMPLER AND JUST SAY NO SIGN SHALL EXTEND HIGHER THAN 40IN AND 40IN OR 42 IF YOU WANT TO GIVE TWO EXTRA INCHES OF GRACE.AND THAT COVERS TWO SIGNS STACKED TOGETHER.
IT COVERS A BUNCH OF LITTLE SIX INCH SIGNS, AND WE'LL SEE HOW CREATIVE PEOPLE CAN GET.
JUST NO SIGNS WILL EXTEND HIGHER THAN 40 OR 42IN.
SO LET US WORK ON BRINGING BACK THE 42IN AS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
WE WILL BRING BACK ALSO DRAFTING THAT WE'RE THAT'S 48.
SO IT WOULD BE LOWER THAN THAT.
THIS IS FOUR FOOT TALL RIGHT HERE.
IT WILL BE 42 IS WHAT WE'RE SAYING.
SO 42IN AND WE WILL BE STRIKING THE, THE SECTION THAT WE WERE NOT ENFORCING ON THE NUMBER AND STRIKING THAT SECTION OR IT'S GOING TO BE TO FIT THE HEIGHT OF TWO WHATEVER YOU FIT THE HEIGHT.
BECAUSE IF YOU DO A 12 INCH SIGN, IT'S UP TO 42IN, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER, 42IN IS THE MAX.
I THINK WE'RE THERE FOR ALL FUTURE DISCUSSIONS.
WE ALL NEED TO BRING TAPE MEASURES.
THANK YOU, COUNCIL. THANKS SELSO.
OUR NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 4, CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDAS.
IS THERE AN ITEM COUNCIL MEMBER WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE? MR. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM K.
COUNCIL ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION OR ACTION ON FUTURE AGENDAS.
ALL RIGHT. WE WILL TAKE A RECESS AND RETURN AT 7:00.
THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.