[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:06]
          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 PASTOR JULIAN MCMILLAN
WITH GRACE CHURCH, PLANO, AND THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND TEXAS PLEDGE,
LED BY CUB SCOUT PACK 221. 
          THE CHARTER ORGANIZATION, NORTH TEXAS PIONEERS ROTARY CLUB AT THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST
CHURCH. 
          WOULD YOU PLEASE RISE? LET US PRAY. DEAR HEAVENLY FATHER,
I THANK YOU FOR TODAY. 
          LORD, I THANK YOU FOR THE BLESSING THAT IS PLANO AND GOD,
I THANK YOU. THAT WILL REMAIN TO BE A CITY OF SAFETY, A CITY OF EXCELLENCE, WHERE YOUR PRESENCE RESIDES. 
          LORD, I JUST PRAY FOR OUR CITY. LET IT REMAIN THAT WAY. 
          I PRAY FOR OUR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND OUR MAYOR. 
          MAY THE HEALTH OF GOD BE WITH THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES. 
          GOD, I PRAY FOR TODAY. I PRAY FOR TODAY'S MEETING THAT YOUR WISDOM IS HERE,
YOUR STRENGTH IS HERE, AND YOUR PRESENCE IS HERE. SO BE GLORIFIED TONIGHT AND IT'S IN YOUR NAME WE PRAY. 
          AMEN. 
          MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITIZENS OF PLANO. I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE YOU TO PAT 2021 WITH
PLANO, UNDER THE LEADERSHIP OF OUR TWO GREAT LEADERS,
WOULD YOU COME FORWARD? TAKE OVER. SIR. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          ALL. RIGHT. SCOUTS, SALUTE THE FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS ONE
NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. 
          TEXAS. ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. 
          TWO SCOUTS. DISMISSED. OH, WAIT ONE SECOND. STAY HERE FOR THE MAYOR. THANK YOU. OKAY. 
          THAT'S INTERESTING. OKAY. THERE YOU GO. THANK YOU,
GUYS SO MUCH FOR DOING THIS. 
          THANK YOU. OKAY. CAN WE TAKE A PICTURE? YEAH. 
          ALL RIGHT, LET'S TAKE A PICTURE WITH ALL OF THEM. 
          COME ON IN. YEAH. GOSH. COME ON, COME ON, COME ON,
COME ON. 
          ARE WE ALL GOOD? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, GUYS, SO MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. 
          OKAY. COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. 
          [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 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 DO HAVE TWO SPEAKERS THIS EVENING. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS BILL LYLE. 
          GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BILL LYLE AND I'M HERE TO BRING SOMETHING TO YOUR
ATTENTION. 
          IT'S ORDINANCE 2012 DASH 318. THIS IS THE ORDINANCE THAT PHIL DYER SIGNED ON MARCH 26TH OF
2012. 
          AND WHAT IT DID IS IT ESTABLISHED OUR MUNICIPAL COURT AS A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD. 
          I'M GOING TO READ TO YOU FROM WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO COUNCIL,
THEN SAYS, WHEREAS THE APPEALS FROM PLANO MUNICIPAL COURT MAY BE RETRIED AT THE COUNTY COURT AT THE REQUEST OF THE DEFENDANT,
AND WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT RETRYING THE SAME CASE AT THE COUNTY 
          [00:05:10]
COURT IS NOT THE BEST USE OF RESOURCES AND RESULTS IN THE DELAY OF FINAL DECISIONS. 
          AND WHEREAS THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS THAT ESTABLISHING THE MUNICIPAL COURT AS A COURT OF
RECORD WILL AID IN THE DISPOSITION OF CASES BY LIMITING APPEALS. 
          AND ALLOWING THE FINAL DISPOSITION OF THE CASE FOR TRIAL PURPOSES IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT. 
          ANOTHER WAY TO SAY THIS IS YOU CAN'T APPEAL. NOW,
TECHNICALLY YOU CAN, BUT IT'S EXTREMELY DIFFICULT. 
          AND THEY SAID BACK THEN, HEY, THE REASON WE WANT TO DO THIS IS BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT THESE
CASES TO GO TO THE COUNTY AND GET RETRIED. 
          BUT IS THAT WHAT'S BEST FOR JUSTICE? IS THAT SOMEONE THAT'S ACCUSED IN A CRIMINAL
SITUATION IN PLANO HAS TO GO BEFORE A JUDGE THAT'S PAID BY PLANO? I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE A BAD JUDGE. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF HE WOULD HAVE DISMISSED THE CASE THAT I HAD A MONTH AGO,
I WOULD HAVE HAD EXHIBIT A THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS COMING AFTER ME FOR A BAD REASON. NOW, THE CASE THAT WAS TRIED,
THAT CAN'T BE APPEALED. 
          OKAY. LET ME GO BACK TO THAT. I TRIED TO APPEAL IT,
BUT IN ORDER TO APPEAL, YOU HAVE TO GET THE RECORD. 
          IN ORDER TO GET THE RECORD, YOU HAVE TO PAY FOR THE RECORD,
THE ESTIMATE TO GET THE RECORD FROM MY DAY LONG TRIAL IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT WAS $2,000. 
          MY FINES WERE $50 FOR EACH VIOLATION, PLUS COURT COSTS. 
          SO I HAD $250 IN TOTAL COST. BUT I HAVE TO. I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT I VIOLATED SOMETHING IN
THAT I'M A CRIMINAL. 
          I DIDN'T HAVE TO ADMIT IT. THE JURY FOUND ME GUILTY. 
          BUT HERE'S THE PROBLEM. THE JUDGE IS THE ONE THAT DECIDES WHAT EVIDENCE GOES TO IN FRONT
OF THE JURY AND WHAT YOU CAN SAY, BECAUSE THE PROSECUTOR FILES A MOTION IN LIMINE RESTRICTING EVERYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO
SAY, AND THEY GET GRANTED. MR. RICCIARDELLI MARIA TU,
YOU ALL UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. 
          Y'ALL CAN'T PRACTICE IN OUR MUNICIPAL COURT. AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE IF THE JUDGE FINDS
FOR YOUR SITE, HE'S GOING TO LOOK IMPARTIAL, AND HE DOESN'T WANT TO FIND AGAINST YOU BECAUSE YOU HIRE
HIM. 
          AND SO I THINK THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THIS, IF IT'S ALLOWED,
IS THAT WE GO BACK TO A MUNICIPAL COURT, NOT A MUNICIPAL COURT OF RECORD, WHERE. TIME. 
          WE'VE GOT THE CHANCE TO APPEAL TO AN IMPARTIAL JUDGE. 
          THANK YOU. THE NEXT SPEAKER IS DENISE LOUGHLIN. 
          GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. MR. MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL. 
          EVERYONE, PULL THE MIC CLOSER. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          HOW'S THIS? ALL RIGHT, I'M HERE. I'M CLAIMING LITIGATION PRIVILEGE. 
          THIS IS REGARDING EPIC CITY AND WHY EPIC CITY ABSOLUTELY CANNOT BE FURTHERED. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY'S REALLY TRAVELED. I'M AN IMMIGRANT HERE. 
          AND WHAT'S GOING ON IS THE STATE OF TEXAS IS BEING PLAYED BY THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD,
BY M R. 
          [INAUDIBLE], BY THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, EVERYBODY INVOLVED. 
          MR. [INAUDIBLE] OPEN DECLARATION OF WAR FOR EVERYONE WHO OPPOSES ISLAMIZATION OF TEXAS IS OPEN JIHAD. IT'S A DECLARATION OF WAR, WHICH IS,
EXCUSE ME, WHICH IS TECHNICALLY JIHAD. 
          ALL RIGHT, IT'S TREASON. IT'S SEDITION. MR. MUNS. 
          YOU'VE BEEN PLAYED WHEN YOU, COMMISSIONER DUNCAN WEBB AND WHOEVER THE TRUSTEES WERE WENT
TO EPIC MOSQUE. NONE OF YOU HAD ANY AUTHORITY TO GO AND DO PRIVATE RELIGIOUS EDUCATION. 
          DO ANYTHING TO TALK IN THAT MOSQUE ABOUT SHARIA LAW,
SHARIA EDUCATION, ANYTHING GROSSLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST CHRISTIANS AND JEWS. MR. YASIR QADHI HAD HAS A DEATH THREAT OUT AGAINST HIM BY ISIS. HE'S BELITTLED BY A NUMBER OF MUSLIM SCHOLARS. 
          HE'S EFFECTIVELY DEVELOPED SHARIA LAW OF MUSLIM ENCLAVES,
AND BECAUSE OF THIS, THE. 
          THE HEARING ON MARCH 31ST. EVERYBODY'S CONFLICTED OUT. 
          DUNCAN WEBB CONFLICTED OUT. HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF. 
          HE HAD FOREKNOWLEDGE. DAN COGDILL, LAWYER FOR EPIC CITY,
ET AL. 
          [00:10:05]
HE ALSO REPRESENTS TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL KEN PAXTON. 
          IT'S FRAUD ON THE COURT. THE WHOLE THING IS COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. 
          IT'S GOT TO BE STOPPED. EPIC CITY IS 1500 ACRES WITH ISLAMISTS COMING INTO THE CITY,
COMING INTO THIS NORTH TEXAS AREA. 
          AND I'M TELLING YOU GUYS, YOU NEED TO KNOW, PLEASE STUDY AND READ. 
          I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP THIS PRESENTATION. BUT TEXAS HAS BEEN TAKEN OVER BY ISLAMISTS. 
          IF YOU THINK I'M KIDDING, LOOK AT PAKISTAN, LOOK AT SWEDEN,
LOOK AT FRANCE. 
          LOOK WHAT'S HAPPENING IN BRITAIN. IN CANADA. DON'T BE SO NAIVE. 
          IT'S HAPPENING HERE. PLANO CITY COUNCIL HAS ALLOWED MUSLIM ENCLAVES AROUND THESE MOSQUES. 
          YOU THINK I'M KIDDING? PLEASE. BRITAIN'S TRIED TO WARN US. 
          CANADA'S GOING UNDER. YOU PEOPLE ARE THE GATE BETWEEN THE ISLAMISTS TAKING OVER? HAVE YOU READ THE QARAN? DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY WANT TO DO TO CHRISTIANS? TO JEWS? DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA? READ WHAT HE WROTE IN HIS. 
          IN HIS WRITINGS. LISTEN TO THOSE TAPES. BUT ANYHOW EPIC CITY CANNOT GO AHEAD. MR. MUNS YOU, THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE CITY OF PLANO,
YOU'RE GROSSLY CONFLICTED OUT. 
          THAT'S A COMPLETE WASH AND QADHI NEEDS TO BE PROSECUTED FOR TREASON,
SEDITION AND DECLARING WAR IN THE UNITED STATES IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. 
          I'LL FOLLOW UP. THANK YOU. 
          MOVING ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          [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 COUNCIL MEMBER,
THE CITY MANAGER, OR ANY CITIZEN. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF
SPEAKER REQUESTS. 
          SORRY. THAT WAS MY FAULT. YEAH, I GOT TO REMOVE A BUNCH. 
          YEAH. DO YOU NEED A. NO, I GOT IT. OKAY. MOTION TO APPROVE. 
          EXCEPT FOR ITEMS D, F, G, K, AND M. RIGHT. SECOND. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          OR VERY LITTLE OF IT, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF D,
F, G AND K. 
          PLEASE VOTE. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. 
          LET'S START WITH D. OKAY. THIS TAKES ME JUST A SECOND. 
          [(d)  RFQ No. 2023-0570-X for engineering professional services for 7203 Breckinridge Trail Extension - Bradshaw Drive to Shiloh Road Station, Project No. PKR-P-00002, for the Parks and Recreation Department to Schaumburg & Polk, Inc. in the amount of $808,745; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
]
SO LET ME GET IN HERE. START WITH WHICH ONE? D. 
          OKAY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID J FOR SOME REASON. TOO MANY LETTERS IN MY NAME. 
          THAT'S NOT ONE OF THEM. ITEM D, RFQ NO. 2023-0570X FOR ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR 7203 BRECKENRIDGE TRAIL EXTENSION. 
          BRADSHAW DRIVE TO SHILOH ROAD STATION. PROJECT PKRP 0002 FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION
DEPARTMENT TO SCHAUMBURG AND POLK. INCORPORATED IN THE AMOUNT OF $808,745 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. 
          GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. MAYOR, THIS IS RON SMITH HERE. 
          PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR. THIS RFQ EXPENDITURE IS FOR,
ULTIMATELY, A FEDERAL GRANT FUNDED DESIGN CONSULTANT SERVICES FOR THE BRECKENRIDGE TRAIL. 
          ULTIMATELY, 100% OF THIS PROJECT IS ANTICIPATED WOULD BE PAID FOR BY A FEDERAL GRANT. 
          I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANKS,
RON. 
          THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM,
BILL LYLE. 
          GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. AS YOU ALL MAY IMAGINE,
I LOOK THROUGH THE AGENDAS FOR Y'ALL'S MEETINGS, AND IT'S ALWAYS NICE WHEN I CAN JUST KEEP GOING. 
          BUT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE, SOMETHING CATCHES MY EYE. AND I NOTICED THAT WE WERE ABOUT TO
APPROVE $808,000 FOR ENGINEERING 
          [00:15:03]
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ON 1.6 MILES OF TRAIL. THAT'S NOT A LOT OF TRAIL,
AND $808,000 IS A LOT OF MONEY. 
          SO, I STARTED ASKING QUESTIONS, AND I'M JUST GOING TO POINT OUT SOME THINGS THAT GIVE ME
TROUBLE. 
          ONE, I GOT 101 HUNDRED SOME ODD PAGE PACKET FROM THE ENGINEERING SERVICES FOLKS,
AND THEY ESTIMATE THE COST OF THIS PROJECT AT $4.2 MILLION. BUT WHEN YOU ASK STAFF, WHICH I ALSO DID IN AN EMAIL,
THE COST OF A TRAIL, THEY SAY BETWEEN 1 MILLION AND 1.2 MILLION. $1.25 MILLION PER MILE. 
          THAT MEANS THE 1.6 BY THE 1.25 IS $2 MILLION FOR THIS TRAIL. 
          BUT THE ENGINEERS ARE ESTIMATING AT $4.2 MILLION. 
          WELL, WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? WELL, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ARE BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF THE
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST. 
          THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS. OTHER THINGS THAT GIVE ME PAUSE IS THE IN THE BACKGROUND
PARAGRAPH ON THE COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM. 
          IT SAYS THAT THE CITY COMMISSIONED A FEASIBILITY STUDY IN 2020 TO DETERMINE THE OPTIMUM
TRAIL ALIGNMENT. 
          THAT MEANS WE ALREADY KNOW WHERE THE TRAIL IS GOING TO GO. THE TRAIL IS ON RELATIVELY FLAT
LAND. 
          A MILE OF IT IS AN ENCORE EASEMENT. I WALKED IT WITH MY DOG TODAY. 
          IT'S JUST LIKE YOU WOULD IMAGINE UNDER POWER LINES,
A 100 FOOT WIDE EASEMENT, GRASS, GENTLE, NOT A BUNCH OF SLOPES OR ANYTHING ELSE. THE LAST HALF MILE IS ALONG SHILOH ROAD. 
          WE'RE REPLACING ONE SIDE WITH A BIGGER SIDEWALK,
IS WHAT I'M IMAGINING. 
          SO, SOMETHING THAT GIVES ME PAUSE. NOT APPROVING THE CONTRACT WITH SCHAUMBURG AND POLK
WOULD RESULT IN THE CITY HAVING TO FORFEIT THE AWARDED $4.2 MILLION GRANT FUNDING AND DELAY THE DESIGN. WELL, I ASKED THE QUESTION,
WHEN IS THE REAL DEADLINE? LIKE, REALLY, IF THEY DON'T APPROVE THIS TONIGHT,
WE'RE GOING TO LOSE THE $4.2 MILLION. 
          WELL, THE REAL DEADLINE IS TO HAVE A COMPLETED PROJECT BY THE END OF 2028. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT TAKES TIME TO DO THINGS, BUT YOU STILL HAVE ALMOST THREE YEARS TO DO IT. 
          ADDITIONALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE CITY OF PLANO REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS SHEET THAT WAS
FILLED OUT WHEN THEY SCORE. 
          WHEN THE PANEL SCORED THE CONTRACTOR, YOU NOTICE THAT THEY OPENED IT ON TUESDAY,
JUNE 25TH, 24 AT 2 P.M. THE PARKS DEPARTMENT'S BEEN SITTING ON THIS INFORMATION,
OR I SHOULD SAY HAD THIS INFORMATION FOR TEN MONTHS AND IT'S JUST NOW COMING BEFORE Y'ALL. AND IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT, WE'RE GOING TO FORFEIT THE FUNDING. 
          IS THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY PUT IN YOUR AGENDA ITEM. 
          SO. SOMETHING'S NOT RIGHT. IF IT TAKES $5 MILLION TO BUILD 1.6 MILES OF TRAIL,
I'LL LEAVE YOU WITH THAT. 
          THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS OR MOTION? ANTHONY. MR. MAYOR, I WILL TRY TO KEEP THIS BRIEF BECAUSE DR. 
          SMITH, OUR FEARLESS LEADER OF PARKS AND RECREATION,
SENT A VERY ENCYCLOPEDIC EMAIL EARLIER TODAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T WANT TO PREEMPT YOU IF YOU'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS,
BUT I JUST WANTED TO SHARE FACTS BEFORE WE VOTE. OKAY. 
          IF YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH IT, THOUGH, THAT'S I'LL BE HAPPY TO JUST BE HERE. IF THERE ARE
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TO ANSWER. OKAY. 
          WELL, WELL THANK YOU. SO, IT LOOKS TO ME FROM WHAT YOU SENT OUT,
LIKE THE OPINION OF PROBABLE COST IS ABOUT 4.16 MILLION. 
          CORRECT. AND SO THIS WOULD BE. AND THAT TYPICALLY ENGINEERING COSTS FOR A FEDERALLY FUNDED
PROJECT RANGE FROM 20 TO 25%. 
          AND THIS IS SLIGHTLY UNDER 20%. THAT IS CORRECT. 
          OKAY. GOTCHA. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT IT LOOKS TO ME FROM READING YOUR VERY THOROUGH
EMAIL, WHICH I READ IN ITS ENTIRETY EARLIER TODAY, LIKE THE FACT THAT THESE ARE FEDERAL FUNDS
THROUGH CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION AND AIR QUALITY FUNDS ADMINISTERED THROUGH TXDOT WHICH IS A STATE AGENCY. 
          AND A LOT OF STATE AND FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. 
          I THINK YOU MENTIONED IN ONE PLACE, MAYBE 497 OF THEM. 
          YES. SO, WE HAVE, THERE WAS A LIST THAT THOSE ARE TXDOT REQUIREMENTS. 
          NOT ALL OF THOSE 498 WOULD BE PART OF THIS PROJECT,
BUT IT IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW FEDERAL FUNDING A PROJECT RUN THROUGH TEX DOT ADDS A SIGNIFICANT LAYER OF REGULATION THAT THE CONSULTANT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
MANAGING. 
          OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR SHARING THAT. AND SO,
WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS ENTIRE EMAIL, THERE ARE JUST A LOT OF DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS HERE. THERE'S A LOT MORE TO THIS PROJECT THAN JUST DESIGNING A STRAIGHT,
FLAT TRAIL. 
          I MEAN, A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS THAT GO INTO THIS. 
          AND SO, GIVEN ALL OF THESE FACTS AND, YOU KNOW,
I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THE EMAIL WITH ANYONE WHO'S OUT THERE WATCHING. 
          BUT I INITIALLY HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PRICE AS WELL,
BUT IT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE TO ME. 
          [00:20:01]
AFTER READING EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THIS EMAIL. 
          I DO THINK SOME OF THIS IS UNFORTUNATELY NECESSITATED BY STATE AND FEDERAL REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS THAT STRIKE ME AS OVERKILL, BUT THAT IS UNFORTUNATELY NOT IN OUR PURVIEW. 
          TO CHANGE. WE HAVE TO DO THE STATE AND FEDERAL REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO,
UNFORTUNATELY THIS THIS DOES LOOK REASONABLE. 
          SO, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE IT, TOO. 
          WELL. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE THAT, ANTHONY. IF HE SAYS HE READ EVERY BIT OF IT,
I BELIEVE THAT HE DID. 
          AND I FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE ITEM AFTER HEARING THAT FROM YOU. 
          I WOULD LIKE JUST AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS. 
          AS FAR AS THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP ABOUT THE TIME FRAME OF BOTH PUTTING IT ON THE AGENDA
AND HOW SOON IT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED. 
          SURE. SO, THE PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR THE GRANT,
RECEIVING THE GRANT TAKES A LOT OF TIME TO DO THAT. 
          WE ALSO HAVE THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS THAT GOES THROUGH OUR CONTRACT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT. 
          THERE ARE A LOT OF PROCESSES INVOLVED WITH THAT. 
          TEEING IT UP, GETTING IT READY FOR COUNCIL. WE WANT TO BE READY THAT WE HAVE EVERYTHING IN
ORDER BEFORE WE BRING IT TO COUNCIL FOR FULL CONSIDERATION. 
          SO THAT'S TEN MONTHS MAY SEEM LIKE A LONG TIME,
BUT THE WAY THAT THE GEARS GRIND, THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY AN AN EXORBITANT AMOUNT OF TIME FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AND AS FAR AS THE TIMING,
THE DEADLINE OF 2028 COMPLETION BY THAT YEAR, IT'S GOING TO TAKE ABOUT 12 MONTHS TO DESIGN THIS PROJECT,
ANOTHER 12 TO 18 MONTHS TO DELIVER IT, WHICH PUTS US INTO 2028. SO THOUGH IT MAY SEEM LIKE WE'RE PUSHING THE GAS UNNECESSARILY,
WE REALLY HAVE THE TIMING LAID OUT. 
          AND TONIGHT WOULD BE A GOOD NIGHT TO TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT THAT ULTIMATELY IS GOING TO
BE FUNDED BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
          NO CITY OF PLANO TAX WOULD BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT. 
          DOES THAT INCLUDE THE ENGINEERING? YES, MA'AM. 
          FEES AS WELL. AND THEN JUST ONE OTHER QUESTION. 
          MAYBE ANTHONY CAN ANSWER AFTER ALL OF HIS READING. 
          I NOTICED THERE WAS A FEE IN THERE. I THINK IT WAS 35,000 FOR PUBLIC INPUT MEETINGS. 
          IS THAT A REQUIREMENT AS WELL OF STATE OR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT? YES. SO THERE ARE FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WOULD TYPICALLY BE A
PARK PROJECT. 
          WE ENGAGE THE PUBLIC WHEN WE'RE DOING MASTER PLANNING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT THIS THERE ARE SOME FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS. 
          THROUGH THIS TXDOT MANAGED GRANT THAT REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT. 
          WELL, THANK YOU, DOCTOR SMITH, AND THANK YOU,
COUNCIL MEMBER RICCIARDELLI FOR YOUR THOROUGHNESS AS WELL. APPRECIATE IT. 
          YEAH, I'LL SECOND IT. YES. I DO SYMPATHIZE WITH MR. LYLE WHEN HE QUESTIONS THIS. BUT MY 35 YEARS IN DOING WORK AS A CONTRACTOR FOR THE FEDERAL
GOVERNMENT, BOTH THE EPA CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND THE AIR FORCE. 
          YES. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OVERSIGHT ON THIS. 
          JUST THIS LITTLE PROJECT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HYDRAULIC STUDY;
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDY. 
          YOU GOT PUBLIC COMMENT AND ALL THESE BECAUSE IT'S FEDERAL DOLLARS. 
          WE ARE PARTNERS WITH THE PUBLIC. THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS. 
          AND THEN YOU HAVE THIRD PARTY OVERSIGHT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION FOR QUALITY CONTROL. 
          IT BECOMES QUITE ONEROUS, AND THE RFP PACKAGES ARE HUGE. 
          I'VE SEEN RFP PACKAGES. 1100 TO 1200 PAGES. AD NAUSEAM. 
          AND IS THERE A SIMPLER WAY OF DOING IT? PROBABLY. 
          BUT IT IS THE CARDS WE'RE DEALT. THAT'S RIGHT. 
          SO, I WOULD SUPPORT THIS MOTION. AND AGAIN, MR. LYLE, I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU ON THIS, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE COST IS. 
          SHELBY. THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AS WELL. 
          FIRST, WAS THIS GRANT EXCLUSIVELY FOR THIS TRAIL PROJECT? THIS SPECIFIC TRAIL PROJECT? YES. OKAY. AND SECOND,
I HADN'T SEEN THE EMAIL THAT COUNCILMAN REFERRED TO. 
          SO, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO REVIEW IT, I THINK, ON THE TWO. 
          02:20 P.M. TODAY. YEAH. YEAH. I FOUND IT WHEN HE MENTIONED IT,
BUT THIS WAS THE OPINION OF PROBABLE CAUSE WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020. CORRECT? I THINK MOST OF US HAVE TRIED TO BLOCK THAT YEAR OUT OF OUR MINDS. 
          BUT I RECALL THAT IN LATER 2020 CONSTRUCTION COSTS WERE EXORBITANTLY HIGH. 
          HAVE WE HAD A REVISION OF THIS ESTIMATE? WELL,
WE ALSO CONSIDER WE HAVE NOT HAD A REVISION OF THIS ESTIMATE. 
          WE HAVE SEEN THAT CONSTRUCTION COSTS HAVE NOT NECESSARILY FALLEN OFF THE TABLE SINCE 2020. 
          THERE WAS AN INCREASE SIGNIFICANTLY, BUT WE MAYBE HAVE SEEN THINGS LEVEL OFF. 
          BUT THERE HASN'T BEEN A PRECIPITOUS DECLINE IN THE COST OF THINGS. 
          WITH INFLATION OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS, WE HAVE NOT HAD SPECIFICALLY REEVALUATING
THAT. 
          WE FEEL REALLY GOOD WITH THIS NUMBER. STILL,
CONSIDERING WHAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST 8 TO 10 PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE MOST RECENTLY, 
          [00:25:03]
THAT WE STILL FEEL THAT THIS IS A PRETTY ACCURATE ASSESSMENT OF WHAT THAT'S GOING TO COST. 
          AND WHEN THE, THE A THE RFQ CAME IN THE TALLY REPORT. WE EXPECTED SOMEWHERE AROUND $1 MILLION FOR THE DESIGN. 
          AND THEN WHEN THE TXDOT CAME BACK WITH THEIR ESTIMATION OF WHAT OUR CAP SHOULD BE AT
980,000. 
          STAFF FELT REALLY GOOD AFTER THE ASSESSMENT,
AND THAT WE HAD SELECTED A FIRM THAT WE FELT COULD REALLY DELIVER A QUALITY PROJECT WHEN THEIR COST CAME IN BELOW THOSE TWO THRESHOLDS,
WE FELT REALLY GOOD THAT WE WERE IN THE RIGHT SPOT. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. AND LAST QUESTION. I THINK IF THE TOTAL COST OF THIS PROJECT DOESN'T MEET
THE GRANT AMOUNT, WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE EXCESS MONEY? IF THE WHAT HAPPENS TO THE EXCESS MONEY? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT SPECIFICALLY. 
          THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED WHEN WE COME UNDER BUDGET,
WHAT THE SCENARIO WOULD BE. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I COULD FIND OUT. LET ME ASK. 
          WE DO HAVE PARK PLANNING STAFF. RENEE JORDAN HERE. 
          RENEE, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT? NO. WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO WHAT HAPPENS TO FEDERAL
FUNDING IF THE GRANT COMES IN UNDER BUDGET. LET'S TRY TO GET IT UNDER BUDGET AND ANSWER THAT QUESTION. 
          YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH. THANK YOU. 
          MAYOR. RON, APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK. STAFF HAS DONE THIS,
BUT SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO BE SURE I UNDERSTAND THIS CORRECTLY. 
          SO, WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS ESSENTIALLY BECAUSE THESE ARE THIS IS FEDERAL DOLLARS
FEDERAL GRANT. 
          THE OVERALL PROJECT IS PROBABLY COSTING 40% PLUS OR MINUS HIGHER THAN IF YOU OR I WERE
JUST BUILDING IT, YOU KNOW, FOR OUR OWN USE. SO, SO THE FEDERAL FUNDS USED ON A PUBLIC PROPERTY
PUBLIC PROJECT ARE GOING TO ADD THAT MUCH OF A LAYER OF REGULATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THAT THAT'S A PRETTY ACCURATE
ASSESSMENT. 
          SO, THE DESIGN IS A CORRELATION OF THE COMPLEXITY OF THE PROJECT. 
          THE MORE COMPLEX THE PROJECT IS TO DESIGN, THE MORE THAT'S GOING TO COST. 
          SO, THIS IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT JUST A STRAIGHT SHOT OVER PARKLAND THAT'S ALREADY OWNED. 
          THIS IS IN AN ON COURT EASEMENT. THERE'S ALSO ATMOS UNDERGROUND PIPELINE. 
          THERE'S ALSO AN EXPLORER JET FUEL PIPELINE UNDERNEATH. 
          WE'VE GOT THE DIFFERENT PARCELS THAT WILL REQUIRE SOME EASEMENT ACQUISITION BOTH
TEMPORARILY AND PERMANENT. 
          SO, THERE ARE A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS TO THIS. 
          AND THEN WHEN YOU ADD TO THAT THE LAYERING OF THE FEDERAL GRANT AND THOSE EXPECTATIONS,
I WOULD SAY THAT A 40% INCREASE WOULDN'T BE OUT OF THE BALLPARK. 
          SO, IT WOULD BE CHEAPER IF WE WANTED TO SPEND OUR OWN DOLLARS TO DO IT. 
          BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SAYS, HERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO IT TAX FREE,
FROM THE CITY'S PERSPECTIVE, THAT'S PROBABLY A BET WORTH TAKING. AND YOU JUST POINTED OUT ONE THING I WAS ABOUT TO SAY. 
          IT'S SORT OF IT IS LIKE FREE MONEY FOR THE CITY. 
          WE'RE NOT EXPECTING OUR DIRECT BUDGET FUNDS,
BUT WE AS TAXPAYERS, ALL OF US ARE STILL FOOTING THE BILL FOR IT. 
          IT'S JUST COMING BACK TO US THROUGH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 
          AND AS A RESULT OF THAT PRIVILEGE OF GETTING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
WE GET TO PAY 40% MORE FOR PROJECTS. 
          SO HOPEFULLY THAT'S GOING TO GET RESOLVED IN THE NEXT,
NEXT FEW YEARS. 
          BUT ANYWAY, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT STRAIGHT BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT. 
          YEAH, THOSE FEDERAL EXPECTATIONS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH. 
          THANKS. ALL RIGHT. SO, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM F ON THE CONSENT
AGENDA. 
          PLEASE VOTE. D? D. D, EXCUSE ME. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE ON ITEM D. 
          MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ZERO. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          ITEM F. THAT'S. YEAH. ITEM 
          [(f)  
RFP No. 2024-0438-AC for a one (1) year contract with nineteen (19) automatic one-year renewals for Utility Billing Customer Information System for the Customer and Utility Billing - Finance Division to SpryPoint Services, Inc. in the estimated annual amount of $1,860,300 for the first year, and in the estimated total amount, if all annual renewals are exercised, of $16,023,357, for a total estimated amount of $17,883,657; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.
 
]
F, RFP NO. 2024-0438-AC FOR A ONE YEAR CONTRACT WITH 19 AUTOMATIC RENEWALS FOR UTILITY BILLING. CUSTOMER INFORMATION SYSTEM FOR THE CUSTOMER,
FOR THE CUSTOMER AND UTILITY BILLING FINANCE DIVISION TO SPRY POINT SERVICES IN THE ESTIMATED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $1,860,300 FOR THE FIRST YEAR AND IN THE ESTIMATED TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALL ANNUAL IF ALL ANNUAL RENEWALS ARE EXERCISED,
$16,023,357, FOR A TOTAL ESTIMATED 
          [00:30:03]
AMOUNT OF $17,883,657, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY
DOCUMENTS. 
          GOOD EVENING. I'M DENISE TACKE, AND I'M THE FINANCE DIRECTOR FOR THE CITY OF PLANO. 
          CUSTOMER AND UTILITY SERVICES FALLS UNDER MY PURVIEW,
AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PROJECT TO GET A NEW CIS SYSTEM. 
          WE STARTED ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO OR SO. WE'RE VERY EXCITED THAT WE HAVE SELECTED A SYSTEM
THAT WE THINK IS GOING TO BE MUCH MORE FUNCTIONAL THAN THE SYSTEM WE CURRENTLY HAVE. SO EXCITED THAT MY STAFF IS ALL IN THE BACK ROW IN THE RED SHIRTS. 
          THEY'RE HERE TO SEE THIS ITEM APPROVED. BUT I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. 
          YES, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE SOFTWARE NECESSARY. 
          THE THING THAT CAUGHT MY EYE WAS THAT IT'S, THERE'S 19 AUTOMATIC ONE YEAR RENEWALS. 
          20 YEARS IN THE LIFESPAN OF SOFTWARE IS PRETTY ANCIENT. 
          IS THERE A REASON THAT THERE ARE 19 AUTOMATIC RENEWALS? THERE ARE. WE CAN ALWAYS GET OUT OF A RENEWAL IF WE ALWAYS LEAVE AN OUT IN OUR CONTRACTS. 
          BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY A TRUE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM,
AND IT'S NOT BEYOND THE REALM THAT IT WOULD HAVE A 20 YEAR LIFE. 
          AND SO, WE WENT AHEAD AND SET IT UP TO HAVE A 20 YEAR LIFE,
TO HAVE THE 19 AUTOMATIC RENEWALS, JUST FOR THE EASE OF NOT HAVING TO BRING IT BACK BEFORE COUNCIL. 
          BUT I WILL TELL YOU, JD EDWARDS IS OUR GENERAL LEDGER SOFTWARE,
AND THAT SOFTWARE WE'VE HAD FOR 26 YEARS. 
          SO, IT FOR A TRUE ENTERPRISE SYSTEM AND THAT'S WHAT THAT IS. 
          THAT IS PRETTY TYPICAL THAT IT COULD LAST THAT LONG. 
          OKAY. BUT THIS WOULD TAKE COUNCIL TAKING SEPARATE ACTION TO NOT RENEW AT ANY GIVEN POINT
IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT? RATHER THAN PROACTIVE REVIEW OF THE CONTRACT TO DETERMINE WHETHER WE WANTED TO
CONTINUE IT. 
          WELL, I'M NOT SURE WHY COUNCIL WOULD WANT TO NOT RENEW UNLESS STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE
NOT RENEW IT, BECAUSE THE SOFTWARE WASN'T WORKING. BUT PURCHASING THIS SOFTWARE UPFRONT IS COSTLY,
AND SO THAT'S THE REASON WE WANTED TO AUTOMATICALLY RENEW SO THAT YOU'RE JUST PAYING FOR, YOU KNOW, THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENTS ON IT. 
          OH, I FULLY AGREE WITH A PERIOD OF AUTOMATIC RENEWALS,
BUT 19 OF THEM STRIKES ME AS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE. 
          PERSONALLY, I'D FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH MORE COMFORTABLE WITH ABOUT TEN YEARS AUTOMATIC AND
THEN TEN YEARS OPTIONAL. 
          BUT YOU'RE RIGHT. I MEAN, FOR AN ENTERPRISE SYSTEM IT CAN GO ON A LONG TIME. 
          THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU. TWO QUESTIONS. 
          ONE, DID WE GET A SIGNIFICANT COST SAVINGS BY COMMITTING TO THE 20 YEARS AND IN THAT 20
YEARS BECAUSE SOFTWARE DOES CHANGE, ARE THEY COMMITTING TO UPDATING REGULAR SOFTWARE UPDATES FOR
US? THEY ARE ACTUALLY THE THING ABOUT THIS COMPANY IS THEY DO AUTOMATIC UPDATES. 
          IT'S THE WAY THAT THEY ARE. THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED SPRY BECAUSE THEY REALLY DO GO IN AND
UPDATE THIS SOFTWARE. 
          THEY'RE REALLY LISTENING TO THEIR CUSTOMERS THAT ARE COMING UP WITH THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE
IT BETTER, BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY ONE THAT HAS A LOT OF CUSTOMER IMPACT. 
          YOU'LL BE ABLE TO GET TEXT MESSAGES ON YOUR CELL PHONE THAT TELL YOU THAT MAYBE YOUR WATER
USAGE LOOKS LIKE IT'S GETTING HIGHER. 
          THAT KIND OF THING. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE REALLY GOT A SIGNIFICANT SAVINGS FOR DOING 19
YEARS. 
          WE JUST FELT LIKE THAT THAT WAS THE MOST PRUDENT WAY TO DO IT AT THIS POINT IN TIME. 
          ANTHONY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO, DENISE, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY WHETHER WE WERE TO
APPROVE THIS WITH THE 19 AUTOMATIC RENEWALS OR WITH BRINGING IT BACK TO THE COUNCIL AFTER TEN YEARS AS COUNCIL
MEMBER, WILLIAMS WAS SUGGESTING THE CITY WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPTION TO HAVE THIS ENTERPRISE
SOFTWARE FOR 20 YEARS. 
          IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A COUNCIL REVIEW OF THAT CONTRACT IN TEN
YEARS. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? IT IS, BUT I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE THE NEED FOR A REVIEW AFTER TEN YEARS. 
          IF THE SOFTWARE IS NOT WORKING FOR US, STAFF WILL BRING THAT TO YOU AND WE WILL LOOK AT
SOMETHING ELSE THAT IF THIS ISN'T WORKING FOR OUR CUSTOMER BASE, WE'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT GOING TO STAY WITH IT. THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE MOVING FROM UTILITY
THAT WE'RE ON RIGHT NOW. 
          OKAY. WELL, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT. I DO AGREE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS ABOUT A REVIEW
AFTER TEN YEARS. 
          FRANKLY, NONE OF US WHO ARE ON THE COUNCIL CURRENTLY WILL BE HERE TEN YEARS FROM NOW. SOME
OF US WON'T BE HERE MUCH MORE THAN TEN DAYS FROM NOW. BUT, 
          [00:35:02]
YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO TO I GUESS I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM. 
          EXCEPT WITH ONE CHANGE THAT AFTER YEAR TEN, IT COME BACK TO COUNCIL FOR A REVIEW OF
WHETHER TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXERCISE THOSE NEXT TEN RENEWALS. I'D SECOND THAT MOTION. AMENDED MOTION. 
          SO JUST TO CLARIFY, STAFF WILL BE BRINGING THIS BACK AT THAT TEN YEAR REVIEW. 
          WE'RE APPROVING IT AS TO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY STRUCTURED. 
          YES. BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT OUT ASPECT. WE WILL BRING THAT BACK IN ADVANCE OF THAT OUT
CLAUSE SO THAT COUNCIL CAN REVIEW AND BE UPDATED BY STAFF AT THAT TIME TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY WANT TO CONTINUE GOING FORWARD. EXACTLY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS ENVISIONING. I
WOULDN'T WANT TO MAKE IT SO THAT WE LOSE ANY OPTION AS A CITY TO KEEP RENEWING IT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY IF IT'S WORKING WELL, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO RENEW AT THIS SAME PRICE
FOR ALL 20 YEARS. 
          I'M JUST ENVISIONING THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD HAVE A CHECKPOINT TO APPROVE THE SECOND TEN
YEARS, TEN YEARS FROM NOW. SO THE REVIEW IS INTERNAL. 
          IT HAS IT WILL NOT BE A NEW NOT NOT A NEW CONTRACT. 
          EXACTLY. IT WOULD JUST COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL TEN YEARS FROM NOW TO DETERMINE WHETHER
COUNCIL WOULD AUTHORIZE THE STAFF TO EXERCISE THE RENEWAL OPTION FOR YEAR 11, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. I'LL BE WATCHING THAT MEETING IN TEN YEARS. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM F WITH THE WITH THE REVISION
FOR THE CITY OF PLANO COUNCIL TO REVIEW IT AT THE END OF TEN YEARS. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. PLEASE, PLEASE VOTE. 
          OKAY. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. OKAY. ITEM G. 
          [(g)  To approve the purchase of fourteen (14) BNVD-SG System night vision binoculars for the Police Department in the amount of $111,779 from Night Vision Devices, Inc. through an existing contract; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. (GSA GS-07F-0022V)]
ITEM G TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF FOURTEEN BNVD-SG SYSTEM NIGHT VISION BINOCULARS FOR THE
POLICE DEPARTMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $111,779 FROM NIGHT VISION DEVICES THROUGH AN EXISTING CONTRACT,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. GOOD EVENING,
COUNCIL DAN CURTIS, ASSISTANT CHIEF FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          AS SHE SAID, THIS ITEM IS TO PURCHASE 14 NIGHT VISION BINOCULAR SYSTEMS FOR USE FOR THE
POLICE WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SWAT TEAM, THE ITEM WOULD BE FUNDED PRIMARILY THROUGH AN URBAN AREA SECURITY INITIATIVE. 
          FEDERAL GRANTS. I THINK 105,000 THROUGH THE GRANT,
WITH THE REMAINING 6000 BEING PAID FOR THROUGH CID FUNDS, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE FUNDS THERE FOR USE FOR THE SWAT TEAM. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A SPEAKER. OKAY. 
          WE DO HAVE A SPEAKER BILL. WHILE THE STATUTE IS UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BROAD AS IT APPLIES TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THAT IT
DEPRIVES THE BUSINESS OWNER OF THEIR LIBERTY AND THEIR RIGHTS TO SELL PROPERTY AT THEIR OWN BUSINESS. AND IT IS AS SUCH, IT'S UNCONSTITUTIONALLY BROAD. 
          AND BY THE WAY, THE PROOF IS INSUFFICIENT AS A MATTER OF LAW TO SHOW THAT HE'S GUILTY
ANYWAY. 
          THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY AND DISCHARGED. 
          I'LL LET YOU KNOW WHAT THIS HAS TO DO WITH BINOCULARS. IN A MINUTE. REAL QUICK. ALL RIGHT.
I HAVE THREE MINUTES, I THINK. YEAH, BUT YOU NEED TO BE ON TASK HERE. I'M ON TOPIC. 
          ALL RIGHT. GO. WELL, I DON'T HAVE A GOOD PICTURE IN MY MIND OF WHAT THE AREA LOOKED LIKE,
SO I DON'T KNOW. 
          I'M HAVING TO GO BASED ON WHAT THE OFFICER SAID AND WHAT THE DEFENDANT SAID AND TAKING
AWAY THE OFFICER'S STATEMENT OF CONCLUSIONS AND THE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENT OF CONCLUSIONS AND LOOKING AT WHAT THE FACTS ARE LEFT, I JUST DON'T HAVE A BELIEF BEYOND A REASONABLE
DOUBT THAT THE OFFICER HAS SHOWN ME THAT WHAT WAS HAPPENING OUT THERE WAS UNREASONABLE AND IMPRUDENT, GIVEN ALL THE CONDITIONS THAT I HAVE THAT ARE FACTUAL,
THE SIZE OF THE ROAD, THE DIVISION OF THE ROAD JUST PASSING IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT UNREASONABLE UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I HAVE NOT HAD IT SHOWN TO ME. 
          SO THE DEFENDANT IS FOUND NOT GUILTY AND DISCHARGED. 
          YOU'RE STILL NOT ON TOPIC? WELL, I AM ON TOPIC. 
          NO YOU'RE NOT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PURCHASE OF NIGHT VISION. 
          OKAY. OKAY. JUST LIKE WE ALL WANT OUR SWAT TEAM TO BE ABLE TO SEE AT NIGHT. 
          JUSTICE IS SUPPOSED TO BE BLIND. GET IT? THAT'S THE POINT. 
          THANK YOU. MOTION TO APPROVE. SECOND. THANK YOU. 
          [00:40:01]
I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM G. 
          PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. 
          NEXT ITEM K. OKAY. 
          [(k)  To approve the terms and conditions of a Second Revised and Restated Economic Development Incentive Agreement for Tax Rebate for calendar years 2024-2031 by and between the City of Plano, Texas, and CoreWeave, Inc., a Delaware corporation, authorizing its execution by the City Manager or his authorized designee, and providing an effective date.
]
ITEM K TO APPROVE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF A SECOND REVISED AND RESTATED ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT FOR TAX REBATE FOR CALENDAR YEARS 2024 TO 2031 BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PLANO,
TEXAS, AND COREWEAVE INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION AUTHORIZING ITS EXECUTION BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE AND
PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 
          COUNCILMEMBER RICCIARDELLI RECUSED HIMSELF SO HE WILL NOT BE VOTING IN THIS. 
          MOTION TO APPROVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE A MOTION A SECOND. 
          RECORDED THE SECOND. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE. 
          ALL RIGHT. MOTION PASSES. SEVEN YEAS AND ONE RECUSAL. 
          ITEM M, AS IN MARY. 
          [(m)  To abandon all right, title and interest of the City in and to a tract of land situated in the Sanford Beck Survey, Abstract No. 73, City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, and being 0.187 acres of 13th Street; abandoning all right, title and interest of the City in such right-of-way to the abutting property owner, Baymon Servall LP, to the extent of its interest; authorizing the City Manager or his authorized designee to execute any documents deemed necessary to quitclaim the City’s interest; and providing an effective date.]
TO ABANDON ALL RIGHT, AND TITLE AND INTEREST IN THE CITY OF THE CITY IN AND TO A TRACT OF
LAND SITUATED IN THE SANFORD BECK SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 73, CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY,
TEXAS, AND BEING 0.187 ACRES OF 13TH STREET. 
          ABANDONING ALL RIGHT TITLE AND INTEREST OF THE CITY IN SUCH RIGHT OF WAY TO THE ABUTTING
PROPERTY OWNER, BAYMON SERVALL, LP TO THE EXTENT OF ITS INTEREST,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR HIS AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE ANY DOCUMENTS DEEMED NECESSARY TO QUITCLAIM THE CITY'S INTEREST AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE
DATE. 
          GOOD EVENING, CITY COUNCIL. MY NAME IS MATTHEW YEAGER. I SERVE AS THE CITY'S REAL ESTATE
MANAGER. 
          THIS IS TO ABANDON APPROXIMATELY 8000FT² OF 13TH STREET RIGHT OF WAY,
LOCATED TO THE SOUTH OF A PROPERTY THAT IS GOING THROUGH THE REDEVELOPMENT PROCESS. 
          THE APPRAISED VALUE OF THIS RIGHT OF WAY IS $96,000,
GIVE OR TAKE. 
          I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. 
          DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER? WE DO. BILL LYLE. ALL RIGHT. 
          MAYOR MUNS, I WON'T BE READING FROM THE TRANSCRIPTS THAT FOUND ME NOT GUILTY ON APPEAL
WHEN I WAS ABLE TO GET OUT OF THE MUNICIPAL COURT. 
          I'LL ACTUALLY STAY ON TOPIC BY YOUR DEFINITION THIS TIME. 
          ON SEPTEMBER 11TH, 2023, MANY OF YOU ALL. I DON'T THINK MR. HORNE WAS HERE YET, BUT YOU ALL ADOPTED. MAYBE YOU WERE. 
          MAYBE YOU WERE. YOU ALL ADOPTED A NEW THOROUGHFARE PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN STREETS. 
          AND PART OF THAT PLAN WAS KIND OF PUTTING THE GRID BACK TOGETHER. 
          AND 13TH STREET HAS BEEN LONG INTERRUPTED BY THE RAILROAD TRACK. 
          THAT CAME IN A LONG TIME AGO. THIS IS TO GET RID OF A PIECE OF 13TH STREET. 
          THE LANGUAGE IN THE AGENDA ITEM THAT YOU ALL APPROVED BACK ON SEPTEMBER 11TH OF 2023,
SAYS THE CITY'S POLICIES HAVE LONG BEEN DESIGNED SO THAT DEVELOPMENT PAYS ITS OWN WAY IN THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS FOR RELIEF FROM UNRELATED OR DISPROPORTIONAL PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 
          HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS,
STAFF IS PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT COMMITS TO THE CITY FULLY FUNDING STREET IMPROVEMENTS AND REIMBURSING PROPERTY OWNERS FOR RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION IN
THIS AREA. 
          SO THEY TOOK THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT HANDLED ALL THIS GREENFIELD DEVELOPMENT,
AND THEY CHANGED IT FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST ALWAYS GOING TO BE DISPROPORTIONATE. TONIGHT, WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS GETTING RID OF A PIECE OF 13TH STREET. 
          BUT ON THE PLAN ON THE MAP THAT Y'ALL ADOPTED,
13TH STREET RECONNECTS FROM WHERE IT DEAD ENDS AT AVENUE N TODAY OVER TO AVENUE P. 
          BUT THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT AVENUE P ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET,
IS ABOUT 200 YARDS TO THE WEST OF WHERE AVENUE P IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET. 
          AND SO WHEN THIS AREA REDEVELOPS, WHAT MAKES SENSE IS FOR AVENUE P TO LINE UP ON THE NORTH
AND SOUTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET. 
          SO IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT YOU WOULD GET RID OF LAND THAT YOU CURRENTLY OWN BETWEEN P
ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND P ON THE NORTH SIDE. 
          [00:45:05]
BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE WHEN YOU TRY TO PUT HUMPTY DUMPTY BACK TOGETHER AGAIN,
YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BUY THIS LAND AT A BIGGER PRICE. 
          THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MATT. DO YOU? CAN YOU RESPOND TO THIS, PLEASE? SURE. SO, THIS LAND IS LOCATED TO THE EAST OF P AVENUE,
WHEREAS THE AREA IN QUESTION, MR. LYLE JUST BROUGHT FORWARD IS TOWARDS THE WEST. 
          THE PORTION OF 13TH STREET TO THE WEST OF THE AVENUE HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED. 
          THIS WOULD BE STAYING THE COURSE THERE AND ABANDONING THE PORTION TO THE EAST. 
          THAT'S OKAY, BILL. I UNDERSTAND YOU DISAGREE,
BUT I DON'T NEED YOU TO SHAKE YOUR HEAD VIOLENTLY. 
          FACTUAL INFORMATION BEING PRESENTED IS NOT FACTUAL THERE'S NO REBUTTAL FOR ME. THAT'S RIGHT. RIGHT. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. ALL I CAN DO IS SHAKE MY HEAD. OKAY. 
          SO, I'LL, OH, WAIT, SORRY. NO, I GOT YOU. GO,
MARIA. 
          SO, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. I MEAN, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALREADY DISCUSSED WITH I
GUESS OUR RESIDENT WHO HAS RAISED THIS CONCERNED? NO, SPECIFICALLY MR. LYLE, AS HE RAISED THIS CONCERN AND THE QUESTION SO THAT
YOU COULD ACTUALLY DISCUSS THIS IN IN FURTHER DETAILS WITH HIM? NO, MA'AM. OKAY. 
          SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME YOU'RE HEARING THIS AS WELL. 
          CORRECT? BUT PRIOR TO THAT, THIS THIS AGENDA HAS BEEN POSTED FOR A WHILE,
AM I CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN POSTED LAST WEDNESDAY AT AROUND 3:00. 
          I DON'T MEAN TO TREAD ON THE CITY SECRETARY'S PURVIEW. 
          MR. LYLE IS NOT A STRANGER WHEN IT COMES TO HAVING QUESTIONS. 
          RIGHT. LAST FRIDAY, MS. TU. IS THAT RIGHT? MY QUESTION IS,
MR. LYLE IS NOT A STRANGER TO OUR QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS WITH OUR CITY STAFF. 
          IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND HE HAS POSED MANY,
MANY EMAILS AND QUESTIONS TO US MULTIPLE TIMES WITH REGARD TO HIS ISSUES. 
          AM I CORRECT? AM I CORRECT? YES, MA'AM. MR. LYLE IS WELL KNOWN. 
          SO, AT THIS POINT, SO WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS THAT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AT
THIS POINT, IT IS BETTER TO DO THIS. THE ABANDONING OF THIS PIECE,
OF THIS PIECE OF TRACK OF LAND IN ORDER TO BE IN CONJUNCTION AND IN PARALLEL WITH THE OTHER PIECE OF LAND THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ABANDONED. 
          CORRECT. THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BEFORE GOING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, ANTHONY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. 
          JUST ONE QUESTION. YOU KNOW, THE CENTRAL ARGUMENT THAT I THINK MR. LYLE IS MAKING IS THAT WE ARE SELLING LAND THAT HE BELIEVES WE WILL NEED IN THE FUTURE FOR
A ROAD EXPANSION. 
          I KNOW YOU ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE FACT THAT THIS IS ON THE OTHER SIDE FROM THE SIDE OF THE
STREET THAT MR. LYLE WAS TALKING ABOUT, BUT COULD YOU PLEASE GO THROUGH HOW THE STAFF DETERMINED THAT
WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED THIS LAND IN THE FUTURE? SURE. SO, THIS WAS PART OF A SITE PLAN THAT CAME FORWARD THROUGH OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT. 
          THROUGH THE COURSE OF THAT, THEY WOULD HAVE WORKED WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO MAKE
SURE THAT SITE PLAN COMPLY, COMPLIES WITH ALL THE APPLICABLE CITY PLANS AND CITY REGULATIONS, INCLUDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN. 
          CORRECT. OKAY. WELL, GIVEN THAT SINCE WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS LAND AND
WE'RE BEING OFFERED MARKET VALUE FOR IT OR APPRAISED VALUE FOR IT, I'LL MOVE THAT. WE APPROVE THIS. SECOND. OKAY. 
          I WILL SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND FROM MR. RICCIARDELLI AND A SECOND BY MARIA TU. PLEASE VOTE. 
          YOU CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION PASS SIX, A ONE, A ONE. ABSTAIN. NEXT ITEM. 
          OKAY. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. 
          [(1)  Public hearing and consideration of an Ordinance to grant the appeal of the Planning & Zoning Commission's denial of Zoning Case 2024-023 and Preliminary Site Plan 2024-036.  Request to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, Ordinance No. 2015-5-2, as heretofore amended, rezoning 6.6 acres of land located on the west side of K Avenue, 2,240 feet south of Spring Creek Parkway in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from Corridor Commercial to Single-Family Residence Attached; 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.
]
APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF
NEEDED. 
          [00:50:02]
REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED. 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 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 INSURE 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 DASH 23 AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 2024 DASH 36 REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ORDINANCE NUMBER 2015, DASH FIVE TWO AS HERETOFORE AMENDED. 
          REZONING 6.6 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE,
2240FT SOUTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED, DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY,
PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE, A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A CLAUSE,
A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, PUBLICATION CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVES. 
          I'M CHRISTINA DAY, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING,
HERE TO PRESENT AN APPEAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A ZONING CASE AND THE ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. SO WE'LL GET STARTED BY LOOKING AT AN AERIAL OF
THE PROPERTY. 
          THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS OUTLINED IN YELLOW,
AND YOU SEE THE TWO NOTICE BOUNDARIES AT 200 FOOT NOTICE AND A 500 FOOT NOTICE. 
          THIS PROPERTY IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL
ZONING WITH LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ACROSS K AVENUE TO THE EAST. 
          THIS IS A MAP THAT SHOWS YOU THE ZONING IN A BROADER CONTEXT. 
          YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT TOWER TO THE
SOUTH. 
          THAT'S S 54 AS WELL AS SOME AGRICULTURAL ZONING TO THE SOUTH,
BUT IT IS PART OF THE OVERALL CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL CONSISTENT ZONING UP AND DOWN US 75. SO, THIS REQUEST WOULD REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO
STRAIGHT ZONING. 
          SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. IT HAS THE ASSOCIATED PLAN SHOWS 49 RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT WOULD
ACCESS BOTH K AVENUE AND SPLIT TRAIL. 
          THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN 202436 THAT IS SUBMITTED AND APPEALED BEFORE YOU WITH
ALONG WITH THE ZONING CASE. 
          THIS AREA IS PART OF THE ENVISION OAK POINT SMALL AREA PLAN THAT WAS PASSED BACK IN 2018. 
          SMALL AREA PLANS ARE PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE GUIDANCE THERE,
BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE NATURE AND INPUT FROM THOSE PLANS, DOES SUPERSEDE THE LAND USE ADVICE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 
          IT DOES FURTHER REFINE THE COMMUNITY'S VISION FOR THIS AREA. 
          SO, WHAT DOES ENVISION OAK POINT SAY ABOUT THIS AREA? IT PROVIDES SPECIFIC GUIDANCE ON HOUSING, ANTICIPATING A FUTURE WITH MULTIFAMILY AND
SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED AT AN 80/20 RATIO. AND THE UNIQUE AREA PART OF THIS AREA IS THAT IT'S CALLED TRANSIT AND
TRANSIT. 
          READY REALLY ANTICIPATED THE IDEA THAT DART RAIL STATIONS COULD BE EXTENDED HERE IN THE
FUTURE. 
          SO, EITHER RAIL OR BUS RAPID TRANSIT. BUT SOME SORT OF TRANSIT WOULD CONTINUE ON THE
CORRIDOR. 
          THE RAIL CORRIDOR LINE WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. 
          SO, THE RECOMMENDED ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO ESSENTIALLY
HOLD THE LAND, BUT ALLOW IT TO RETAIN VALUE FOR THE NEAR TERM. 
          THEN ONCE THE TRANSIT IS DETERMINED A LOCATION WITHIN A BUFFER AROUND THAT TRANSIT
STATION. 
          RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE WITH THE ASSOCIATED
TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. 
          SINCE NO EXACT STATION LOCATION HAS BEEN DETERMINED YET,
THE LAND USE ADVICE FOR THIS AREA IS STRICTLY COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. 
          THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING. 
          IT IS IN ONE OF THE FOUR QUADRANTS THAT IS ALSO IN ENVISION OAK POINT. 
          THIS IS THE WESTERN QUADRANT, WHICH AGAIN TALKS ABOUT THE PRESERVATION OF LAND IN THIS
AREA FOR POTENTIAL TRANSIT STATION. 
          THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT SHOULDN'T DEVELOP. IT JUST MEANS THAT WE REALLY WANT LIKE LOWER LOT
COVERAGE, 
          [00:55:03]
DEVELOPABLE, EASY TO ASSEMBLE USES IN THIS AREA. 
          AND THEN IT ALSO IS ASKING FOR EAST WEST CONNECTIONS THROUGH THIS AREA TO PROVIDE A BETTER
ACCESS THROUGH AND INTO K AVENUE. SO, THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING DOES NOT MEET A NUMBER OF THE ITEMS
RELATED TO THE COMMUNITY VISION MAP IN ENVISION OAK POINT. IN THE TRANSIT READY CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS,
IT MEETS THREE OUT OF FOUR OF THOSE. 
          THERE IS SLIGHTLY LESS OPEN SPACE BEING PROPOSED,
SO IT DOES NOT MEET THAT FUNCTION. 
          THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THIS REQUEST IN THAT THE COMPATIBILITY IS A CONCERN RELATED TO
ADJACENT USES. 
          THERE IS A RELIGIOUS FACILITY ADJACENT, BUT THERE'S ALSO SERVICE CONTRACTORS AND I MEAN
REALLY IN THE VICINITY, NOT IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. THERE ARE SERVICE CONTRACTORS IN THE AREA. 
          TRUCK, BUS LEASING, RETAIL, MINI WAREHOUSE, PUBLIC STORAGE. 
          THERE IS A MOBILE HOME PARK ACROSS BOTH SPLIT TRAIL AND THE DART RAIL LINE AND THEN
IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT YOU HAVE THE AGAIN COMMERCIAL ANTENNA TOWER. SO, ONE OF THE COMPLICATIONS WITH THIS IS THAT THE TOWER
WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE A SETBACK FOR RESIDENTIAL. BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER,
IT CALCULATES OUT TO 161FT. 
          THE PLAN BEFORE YOU SHOWS THAT SETBACK BEING INCORPORATED. 
          HOWEVER, BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,
IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT. 
          IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT HAS VOLUNTARILY ASKED TO DO AS PART OF THIS PLANNING
EFFORT. 
          RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE ALSO AN ISSUE BECAUSE IF FUTURE ADJACENCIES OCCUR DUE
TO REDEVELOPMENT, THOSE COMMERCIAL USES WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE A SETBACK WHERE IF THEY'RE PROPOSING A
RESIDENTIAL USE THAT'S MARKED WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THAT COULD MEAN AS MUCH AS 150 FOOT SETBACK FOR USES
THAT COULD BE A NUISANCE TO THESE RESIDENCES. 
          SO IT REALLY CHANGES THE CHARACTER OF THE AREA. 
          ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY IS SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED. 
          THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS FROM K AVENUE AND DUE TO THE NATURE OF LOT SPLITS IN THE AREA THAT
EXIST IN OWNERSHIP, THE ACCESS THAT WAS PLANNED OFF OF THE AT THE MEDIAN BREAK IS NOT ACCESSIBLE BECAUSE IT
WOULD REQUIRE A SHARED DRIVE IN THAT LOCATION. SO,
ANYONE THAT'S TRAVELING NORTHBOUND ON K AVENUE WILL NEED TO MAKE A U-TURN. 
          THIS IS A REQUIRES A VARIANCE TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS THROUGH THE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT FOR THIS ARRANGEMENT. 
          SO, YOU CAN SEE HERE A LITTLE BETTER. THE ORIGINAL DESIGN OF THE SITE WAS TO INCLUDE THIS
SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS. 
          THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH. IS HAS LIMITED DEPTH BECAUSE OF FLOODPLAIN IN THE AREA,
SO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY IS HELPFUL TO PROVIDING ACCESS TO BOTH THESE PROPERTIES. 
          SO, THIS IS ALSO WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA. 
          THE COUNCIL DID PASS CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO THIS POLICY,
BUT THIS CASE WAS SUBMITTED PRIOR. 
          SO, WE DID REVIEW IT UNDER THIS POLICY. AND THERE WAS A NOISE STUDY INCLUDED IN YOUR
PACKET. 
          IT DID NOT FIND THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINE'S RESPONSES. 
          WE HAVE ONE IN SUPPORT THAT IS A PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH AND ONE IN OPPOSITION,
THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE NORTH. 
          WE ADDITIONALLY HAD FOUR MORE RESPONSES, ONE IN SUPPORT AND THREE IN OPPOSITION. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE MAP THE LOCATION OF THOSE RESPONSES. 
          SO, TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE
FAMILY ATTACHED. 
          THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE LAND USE GUIDANCE IN THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN. 
          AND THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THAT, INCLUDING COMPATIBILITY,
IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND SITE ACCESS ISSUES. 
          SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AFTER CONSIDERATION,
DID RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THIS CASE BY A VOTE OF 8 TO 0. 
          THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE OUT OF THIS BODY,
WHICH IS SIX COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          AND THE PETITIONER HAS ALSO APPEALED THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. 
          SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR A MOTION ON THE ZONING CASE AND THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. 
          [01:00:03]
THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE SLIDES AND A PRESENTATION FOR YOU AS WELL. 
          I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. THANK YOU,
CHRISTINA. 
          ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, RICK. YEAH. 
          THANK YOU, MISS DAY, FOR A GREAT PRESENTATION. JUST REAL QUICK AGAIN FROM ENVISION OAK
POINT. 
          THE PRIORITIES WE HAD THERE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL WAS BASICALLY A SMALL TRANSIT
ORIENTED EXIT, IF YOU WILL. THAT'S IF DART PROCEEDS UP THERE WITH THE RAIL OR WHATEVER,
WHICH WE CAN'T TELL FROM THIS TIME. 
          THE SECOND PART WAS RESTRICTED TO COMMERCIAL,
WHICH WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA. 
          YES. RIGHT. AND THE THIRD PART WAS RESIDENTIAL. 
          YES. IF IT GAVE GUIDANCE THAT ANTICIPATED CHANGES IN LAND USE BASED ON TRANSIT. 
          SO, IF TRANSIT WERE TO COME IN THE FUTURE, IT WANTED WE KIND OF WANTED TO BE PREPARED FOR
THAT. 
          AND THAT'S THE IMPETUS BEHIND THE TRANSIT READY DESIGNATION. 
          AND THEN I THINK IT WAS THREE MEETINGS AGO, WE ALIGNED THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR WITH EACH
ONE. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT'S ABOUT THREE. YES,
YES. 
          THREE COUNCIL MEETINGS AGO. AND WITHIN THAT,
EACH ONE WE SEVERELY RESTRICTED RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF THE HEALTH IMPACTS. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. THE MORE ADJACENT PROPERTY IS RESTRICTED. 
          RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? WE DO. WE'LL START WITH THE APPLICANT, SAFWAN ALI. 
          GOOD EVENING. SORRY, I HAVE TO USE MY LAPTOP. 
          I WASN'T PREPARED TO PRINT IT. OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          THANK YOU FOR GIVING ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THIS PROJECT. 
          AND CERTAINLY, THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT HAD A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT I WILL HAVE TO
SKIP THROUGH BECAUSE YOU ALREADY MENTIONED IT. 
          SO ALLOW ME FOR SOME SHUFFLING WHILE I'M TALKING. 
          THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT IS BASICALLY 49 TOWNHOUSES,
MODERN TOWNHOUSES WITH THREE BEDROOM APARTMENT, THREE BEDROOMS, TWO BATHS. ROUGHLY SPEAKING,
2000 SQUARE FOOT WITH A BACKYARD AND TWO CAR GARAGES AND BASICALLY A PRICE TAG BETWEEN BELOW 600K, BETWEEN 500 AND 550 AND 600. 
          BASICALLY IT'S, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE YET ELEGANT HOUSING FOR THE FIRST PROJECT OF THIS
KIND IN THIS AREA. 
          THE PROJECT IS EXPECTED TO BE COMPLETED IN 24 MONTHS FROM ACQUIRING BUILDING PERMIT,
IF EVER APPROVED. 
          SO, I'M GOING TO JUMP. WHERE IS THE? OH, HERE IT IS. 
          OKAY, SO SINCE ALREADY THIS WAS REVIEWED, WHERE'S THE LOCATION? I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH THIS. AND AS YOU SEE,
OF COURSE THIS IS THE LOT AS WAS IN THE IN THE BOTTOM THERE IS A WORSHIP PLACE, THE CHURCH. AND ABOVE IT THERE IS THE. ANOTHER WORSHIP PLACE IS THE MOSQUE. 
          AND OF COURSE, NORTH OF IT IS THE EMPTY LOT OWNED BY OUR NEIGHBORS WHO HAVE A CREEK
RUNNING THROUGH IT. 
          AND THEN THEY DEVELOPED A VERY NICE OFFICE SPACE IN THE NORTH OF IT. 
          SO. GOING THROUGH THIS YOU WILL SEE THAT THE PLAN WAS DECIDED THAT WE FIT BETWEEN TWO RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          THERE IS RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE EAST OF US,
RESIDENTIAL AREAS TO THE WEST OF US, AND TO THE EAST NORTH IS APARTMENTS. 
          AND IN THE SOUTH, THERE IS ALREADY EXISTING THE BIG PROJECT FOR THE FARM THAT WILL GO IN
THE SOUTHEAST. 
          AND WE SEE THIS AS A POTENTIAL CONNECTION BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          SO, I'M GOING TO JUMP THROUGH THIS QUICKLY TO BASICALLY SHOW YOU THESE ARE ALL EXISTING
HOUSING AND THESE ARE FUTURE HOUSING. 
          AND THEN THIS IS THE AREA WHERE OUR LOT IS. AND THEN THIS WILL BE CONNECTING THE FABRIC OF
THE RESIDENTIAL BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST. 
          SO, IT'S NOT A FOREIGN BODY INTO THIS. IN FACT,
THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS IN THE NORTH ARE THE COMMERCIAL AREAS. 
          [01:05:06]
SO BASICALLY, JUST TO GO BACK, THIS IS NOT A,
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO INTRODUCE A FOREIGN BODY INTO THIS. 
          WE ARE IN FACT TRYING TO CONNECT THE FABRIC AND THE RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND WE INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED THIS NOT AS A GATED COMMUNITY. 
          IT IS AN OPEN COMMUNITY WITH NO GATES. THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN PATH AND OF COURSE CARS,
BIKES TO CONNECT THE EAST AND THE WEST, AS SHE MENTIONED THAT THE CONNECTIVITY WILL BE NEEDED JUST IN CASE THE TRANSIT STATION
WOULD BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE. 
          WE UNDERSTAND, OF COURSE, THAT THE THAT THERE'S DIFFICULTIES WITH THE TRANSIT STATION. 
          IN FACT, WE COMMUNICATED WITH THE WITH THE DART AND WE GOT AN EMAIL FROM THEM THAT THAT
MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NOT GOING TO BE ANY IN THEIR CALENDAR RIGHT NOW. THERE IS NO STATION TO BE BUILT RIGHT NOW OTHER THAN WHAT THEY
HAVE IN THE SILVER LINE HERE. 
          AND HERE'S THE LETTER. THIS IS THE LETTER. AND I'M JUST HIGHLIGHTING THE AREA WHERE THEY
SAY THAT CURRENTLY THERE'S NO OFFICIAL PLANS TO BUILD IT. 
          SO, UNDERSTANDING THAT. BUT THE THIS WAS THE BASIC OF THE ENVISION PLAN,
WHICH WAS BUILT IN 2018 OR APPROVED IN 2018. 
          ABOUT SEVEN YEARS AGO THAT THAT THIS AREA WILL BE RENDERED TRANSIT READY BECAUSE THERE'S
GOING TO BE A TRAIN STATION. 
          BUT RIGHT NOW, WE KNOW THAT THE TRAIN STATION IS NOT IN THE IN THE NEXT TEN YEARS,
IT'S GOING TO BE AVAILABLE OR FIVE YEARS, GOD KNOWS WHEN. SO, RENDERING THIS AREA AS A TRANSIT READY WITHOUT THE MAIN REASON FOR
CALLING IT SO IS A LITTLE BIT SOMETHING THAT THE CITY NEEDS TO RECONSIDER. 
          SO HAVING SAID THAT, I'M GOING TO JUMP INTO THE SEVEN ITEMS THE OTHER SIX ITEMS LEFT THAT THE CITY HAVE MENTIONED AS POTENTIAL PROBLEMS WITH OUR PROPOSAL. 
          AND ALSO, I WANT TO MENTION THAT THAT THE COMMERCIAL NEED FOR 2016,
2018 TIMEFRAME WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN IT IS TODAY. 
          IN GENERAL, THERE IS REDUCED DEMAND ON COMMERCIAL SPACES. 
          AND TO THE OPPOSITE OF THAT, THE RESIDENTIAL SPECIFICALLY IN PLANO IS SOARING. 
          WE DON'T HAVE ANY HOUSING FOR MIDDLE INCOME FAMILIES TO MOVE IN. 
          THAT'S WHY THEY'RE MOVING TO OTHER CITIES AROUND US. SO,
THESE ASSUMPTIONS, THAT WAS THE PLAN, THE ENVISION PLAN, WHICH IS, BY THE WAY, IT'S A GREAT PLAN. I'M ORIGINALLY AN ARCHITECT
WITH BACKGROUND ON PLANNING AND URBAN DESIGN. 
          SO, I UNDERSTAND THIS GREAT EFFORT WENT INTO THIS PLAN. 
          I STUDIED IT. REALLY? REALLY. IT'S A WELL PUT TOGETHER PLAN,
BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT A MICRO CHANGE IN A PLANT THAT MAKES IT RESPOND TO THE MARKET CONDITIONS. THE MARKET CONDITIONS NOW IS WE NEED HOUSING. 
          THERE'S LESS DEMAND IN PARTICULAR IN THIS AREA,
IN COMMERCIAL SPACES. 
          OUR NEIGHBOR IN THE NORTH HAVE A SPACE, A VERY NICE FACILITY THAT HE BUILT WITH,
WITH VERY LOW OCCUPANCY RATE, WHICH TELLS YOU THAT THIS AREA, BECAUSE IT'S FAR AWAY FROM A MAJOR INTERSECTIONS LIKE
SPRING CREEK AND K AVENUE. 
          IT'S NOT IN HIGH DEMAND. AGAIN, THIS COULD CHANGE,
BUT IT IS CERTAINLY A CONCERN THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY. 
          AND ALSO, THE LANDLORD OF THIS LAND THAT WE'RE TRYING TO BUY HERE REPRESENTING BY MR. JIM, WHO'S SITTING HERE SAID THAT WE NEVER GOT A CALL FROM,
FROM ANYBODY WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL PROJECT IN THIS SECTOR FOR THE LAST EIGHT YEARS. THEY'RE ALWAYS GETTING FOR RESIDENTIAL. 
          SO, IT JUST TELLS YOU THAT THIS AREA IS A PART OF THE FABRIC OF THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE
EAST AND TO THE WEST. 
          SO, ALL RIGHT, SO GOING AND THEN THE, THE, THE POINT OF THE TOWER,
WE AS MENTIONED, WE PUT THE TOWER, WE LEFT 163FT DISTANCE FROM THE TOWER. THE TOWER IS 93FT TALL,
BUT IT'S REQUESTED 163FT DISTANCE IN CASE IT COLLAPSES. AND THAT MEANS THAT WE WASTED 0.83 ACRE OF OUR LOT AS A GREEN SPACE
JUST TO LEAVE IT, JUST TO KEEP A SAFE DISTANCE FROM THE TOWER. ALSO FROM THE ACCESS PROBLEM,
WHICH IS THE VERY IMPORTANT ONE. 
          THERE IS THREE SAFE ACCESS TO OUR LOT IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE,
IN SPLIT TRAIL FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH THEN YOU WILL BE MAKING FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH, AND YOU'LL BE MAKING A LEFT TURN AND SPLIT
TRAIL. 
          IF YOU ARE GOING FROM THE SOUTH OR THE NORTH,
YOU WOULD BE MAKING A RIGHT TURN. 
          IF YOU ARE COMING FROM THE NORTH ON K AVENUE,
HEADING SOUTH, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A LEFT TURN DIRECTLY INTO OUR LOT. 
          [01:10:03]
AND THERE ARE THREE SAFE WAYS TO ENTER THE LOT WITHOUT HAVING TO MAKE THE U-TURN. 
          PLUS, IF THE U-TURN IS A CONCERN, WE CAN ALWAYS PUT RESTRICTION ON THAT U-TURN SO THAT
CARS CAN USE THE FURTHER U-TURN, WHICH IS 350FT, WHICH WOULD NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY INDICATED THAT OUR,
FROM THE U-TURN TO THE ENTRANCE IS 216 AND THE RECOMMENDED IS 250, SO WE CAN ALWAYS CANCEL THAT U-TURN IF NECESSARY. 
          HOWEVER, I NEED TO MENTION SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT. 
          LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THE PLAN FOR IT. YES. 
          OKAY. SO, THIS WAS OUR ORIGINAL SUBMISSION FOR THIS. 
          WHEN YOU CAN MAKE A DIRECT U-TURN INTO THE LOT WITH A 200 FOOT DRIVEWAY,
WHICH BASICALLY MEETS ALL SAFETY REQUIREMENTS, NO U-TURN IS NECESSARY. NO VARIANCE IS REQUESTED. 
          WE, AS SHE MENTIONED, THAT CERTAINLY WE WE WE BECAUSE OF THE IDEA OF HAVING A SHARED
ENTRANCE WITH OUR NEIGHBOR. 
          THIS THEY ASK US TO DEVELOP ANOTHER PLAN TO PUSH IT SOUTH FURTHER,
WHICH WE DID, AND THAT'S THE CURRENT SUBMISSION WAS THE ONE THAT'S PUSHED DOWN. 
          BUT THE ORIGINAL PLAN WAS VERY, VERY MEETING ALL VARIANCE CONCERNS OTHER THAN THE FACT
THAT WE WERE FORCED TO, NOT FORCED, I'M SORRY, I SHOULDN'T USE THAT. BUT WE WERE ASKED TO HAVE TO SHARE THIS WITH
THE NEIGHBOR. 
          IN FACT, I WENT AND TALKED TO THE NEIGHBOR TO SEE IF THEY'RE WILLING TO SELL US THEIR LOT
SO THAT WE CAN SHARE BOTH OF THEM AS A RESIDENTIAL. 
          AND WE HAVE TALKS ABOUT IT, AND WE ACTUALLY SHARED THIS WITH THE CITY AS WELL THAT WE ARE. 
          IF THIS ZONING IS APPROVED, WE ARE INTERESTED TO LOOK INTO THIS THREE ACRE LOT SO THAT WE
HAVE ONE SHARED INTEREST FOR BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE THAT PROBLEM AND WE KEEP THAT, YOU KNOW, LAYOUT THAT IS PERFECTLY SAFE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. 
          SO NOW THE OTHER ISSUE ABOUT THE SOUND, WE BASICALLY CONDUCTED A SOUND STUDY AND THE FROM PROFESSIONAL EXPERTS IN TOWN THAT THEY BASICALLY I COULD ACTUALLY SHOW YOU. 
          YEAH. HERE IT IS. SO BASICALLY, THIS IS THEIR SOUND STUDY,
WHICH INDICATED THAT ONLY ONE BUILDING OUT OF THE EIGHT IS EXCEEDING THE LIMIT BY SLIGHT DIFFERENCE, AND THAT THEY RECOMMENDED THREE THINGS. 
          ONE IS TO USE BRICKS, TWO IS DOUBLE GLAZING,
THREE IS NOT TO HAVE ANY BALCONIES, WHICH WE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OF THE BALCONIES IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. WE ARE ALL GOING TO USE BRICKS FOR THE FOR ALL THE BUILDINGS,
NOT JUST THE IMPACTED BUILDING. 
          AND WE ALSO WILL USE THE DOUBLE GLAZING THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY
PROBLEM. 
          THE RECOMMENDATION SAID THAT YOU CAN MEET IT. IT'S VERY EASY TO CONTROL THE NOISE INSIDE
THAT BUILDING. 
          IT'S ENGINEERING WISE, IT'S DOABLE. SIMILARLY,
THE DEBRIS AND THE STUFF COMING FROM THE MULCH AREA, THE MULCH AREA. 
          AND I WILL SHOW YOU ALSO ANOTHER SLIDE HERE THAT SHOWS YOU THAT OH,
HERE IT IS. OKAY. SO BASICALLY, FROM THAT CENTER OF THE ARROWS,
THIS IS WHERE THE MULCH IS PRODUCED, THAT'S PRODUCING THE HAZARD AND THE SMELL AND ALL THAT. 
          OUR LOT IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT FURTHER MORE THAN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AREAS IN THERE. 
          SO CONTROLLING THE THE THE QUALITY OF THE AIR INSIDE THE BUILDINGS. 
          THAT'S EASY TO DO THROUGH AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS. WE CAN ALWAYS HANDLE THAT ENGINEERING
WISE. OUTSIDE, OF COURSE, WE CANNOT DO THAT. BUT THIS IS NOT ONLY APPLICABLE TO US,
IT'S APPLICABLE TO ALL THESE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. 
          AND IF WE DO THE, THE CITY, THE BIG PROJECT IN THE FARM,
THE WIND WILL TAKE THIS TO IT AS WELL. 
          SO, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS NOT TO PUT RESTRICTIONS ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS,
IT'S TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM AT HAND, WHICH IS THERE IS ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES TO MAKE THESE PLACES USE SPRINKLER SYSTEMS TO
KEEP THEM WET SO IT DOESN'T FLY OVER THE PLACE. 
          YOU PUT CERTAIN COVERS. THERE IS A LOT OF ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES THAT HELP THESE GUYS KEEP
THAT HAZARD AWAY FROM ALL THE NEIGHBORHOOD AROUND IT. 
          I MEAN, THE PROBLEM IS NOT US. THE PROBLEM IS THIS PLACE. 
          IT'S NOT US, AND WE ARE SIMILAR OR FURTHER DISTANCE FROM,
LIKE ALL THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS AROUND IT, AS YOU SEE IN THIS. SO THE VERY LAST POINT THAT I WANT TO MAKE,
WHICH IS THE THE OPEN SPACES. 
          THE OPEN SPACES. OKAY. I'M SORRY FOR THAT. OH,
HERE IT IS. 
          OKAY, SO IN OUR CALCULATION, THE OPEN SPACES WERE MORE THAN 10%. 
          HOWEVER, WE WERE WE TAKE THE NUMBERS THAT THEY CALCULATED AT HEART. 
          THEY BASICALLY SAID IT'S 0.83%, SO WE'RE OFF BY 1.5%. 
          [01:15:05]
IT IS INCREDIBLY EASY TO CHANGE TO MODIFY THIS LAYOUT TO MAKE IT 10%. 
          IN FACT, IN ADDITION TO THE 10%, WE HAVE ONE ACRE OF GREEN SPACE LEFT FOR THE TOWER. 
          THAT IS. ACTUALLY, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THERE'S A LOT OF GREEN SPACES IN THIS PLACE,
IN THIS IN THIS LAYOUT. 
          AND FOR THE OTHER LAYOUT AS WELL THAT, THAT WE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED. 
          SO, SO HAVING YOU KNOW, PRESENTED ALL THIS, I WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH A FEW COMMENTS AT THE
END. 
          SO BASICALLY, WE APPEAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE AN OPEN MIND ABOUT ACCOMMODATING
CHANGES TO AND TO RESPOND TO THE MICROECONOMICS OF THE MARKET AROUND OUR LOT. SINCE NO COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT IS
ECONOMICALLY WORK IS ECONOMICALLY APPEALING, APPROVING OUR REQUEST WOULD HELP PROVIDE NEEDED HOUSING FOR FAMILIES THAT ARE CONTINUALLY
MOVING TO PLANO, AND SUCH AND SUCH FLEXIBILITY WOULD HELP TRANSFORM THE AREA AND STRENGTHEN THE ENVISION
PLAN, NOT WEAKEN IT. ALL CONCERNS RAISED BY THE PNC COMMITTEE IS VERY WELL RESPECTED AND CAN BE
MITIGATED VIA ENGINEERING SOLUTION TO ADDRESS THEM ALL ACCESS NOISE, OPEN SPACES, TELECOM TOWER, ETC. 
          IF ZONING REQUEST IS APPROVED, WE ARE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE P&Z TEAM TO IMPROVE THE
LAYOUT AS NECESSARY, AND WE ARE OPEN TO ADD ANY STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ACQUIRED TO ACQUIRE THE
BUILDING PERMIT. 
          SO BASICALLY, VOTING WITH US AGAINST THIS, YOU RISK DELAYING THE USE OF SUCH A VALUABLE
SIX ACRES OF PLAIN LAND, POSSIBLY FOR ANOTHER 5 TO 10 YEARS FROM TODAY. 
          AND WE YOU KNOW, BASICALLY, IF YOU VOTE FOR IT,
YOU WILL BE HELPING 49 HOMEOWNERS, 150 PEOPLE TO MOVE INTO THESE ELEGANT, SMALL TOWNHOUSES IN VERY QUICK, SHORT TIME. WE CAN FINISH THE HALF OF THE PROJECT IN 12
MONTHS. 
          ALL THE PROJECT IN 24 FROM THE TIME WE ACQUIRED THE BUILDING PERMIT. 
          SO BASICALLY THIS IS WHAT PLANO NEEDS. IT NEEDS. 
          THANK YOU, MR. ALI. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          OH, SORRY. SORRY, MARIA. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO, BUT NOT FOR THE OWNER. I ACTUALLY HAVE A QUESTION FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. 
          WITH REGARD TO THE APPEAL PROCESS. OKAY. SO,
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IN, IN A, IN A CASE WHERE IT'S BEING APPEALED TO CITY COUNCIL THROUGH A DENIAL FROM, FROM P&Z THAT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT THE ORIGINAL
PLAN. 
          RIGHT. SO IF THERE IS A MODIFICATION OR A PROPOSAL FOR CHANGE,
WE CANNOT CONSIDER THAT AS PART OF THE APPEAL. 
          IS THAT, AM I UNDERSTANDING THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S CORRECT. 
          IF THERE ARE ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS THAT THE APPLICANT WISHES YOU WISHES TO BE CONSIDERED,
CHANGES TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO PNC, THEN THE PROPER COURSE IS TO REMAND IT TO PNC AND LET THEM CONSIDER THE REVISED PLAN. 
          THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTION I HAVE, MR. MAYOR. MAY I HAVE A QUICK COMMENT ON WHAT YOU JUST ASKED? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ONE PLAN HERE. THE OTHER PLAN THAT I SAID IS WE STARTED WITH THAT,
BUT WE ENDED UP WITH A PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED. 
          SO, WE DON'T HAVE 2 OR 3 PLANS. IT'S ONLY ONE THAT IS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT THE
END. 
          YEAH. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH THANK YOU. MAYOR. ACTUALLY,
BASED ON THERE ARE SOME CHANGES FROM WHAT YOU PRESENTED TO PNC MOVING THE ENTRANCE,
DOING A COUPLE OF OTHER THINGS THERE. 
          SO, WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO. 
          LET ME FINISH WITH THE SPEAKERS. HANG ON. I'LL KEEP IT. 
          I HAVE TO I HAVE TO DO THAT. SO, LET'S, IS MR. KRISTEN WANT TO SPEAK? OKAY. 
          YEAH, YEAH. SO, WE'RE STILL IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 
          I WILL TELL YOU, MR. KRISTEN, MR. ALI JUST TOOK ALL YOUR TIME. 
          SO, IF YOU'LL BE BRIEF. I'LL BE VERY BRIEF. OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT THE PERSON THAT OWNS IT NOW BOUGHT IT IN 2008,
AND HE BOUGHT IT BECAUSE IT WAS COMMERCIAL, AND HE BOUGHT IT FOR HIS BUSINESS, AND HE OPERATED HIS BUSINESS THERE UNTIL 2017. 
          AT THAT TIME, HE'S IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREETS FOR PLANO,
RICHARDSON, ALL THE CITIES THAT ARE GROWING. 
          AND THE CITY SAID, WELL, YOU CAN'T PARK YOUR EQUIPMENT THERE ANYMORE. SO,
HE WENT OUT INTO THE COUNTY AND BOUGHT COUNTY LAND AND MOVED IT. 
          [01:20:06]
BUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IS THAT AS WE'VE STUDIED IT,
THE CREEK SEPARATES THIS PROPERTY. 
          THERE'S PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, AND THAT SHOULD BE COMMERCIAL. 
          AND IT IS COMMERCIAL. WHEN YOU COME SOUTH, THOUGH,
YOU HIT THE MOSQUE AND THEN YOU GET OUR PIECE AND THEN YOU GET ANOTHER CHURCH. 
          IT REALLY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE 49 HOMES THERE. 
          THEY'RE NEEDED. THEY'RE AFFORDABLE AND THEY CAN BE OCCUPIED QUICKLY. 
          ALL THESE CITIES NEED THEM. BUT I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND AS TO WHY HE BOUGHT
IT, AND NOW HE DOESN'T HAVE THE USE ANYMORE. AND WE ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER IT BECAUSE WE
THINK THE RESIDENTIAL WORKS TAKING EVERYTHING SOUTH OF THE CREEK. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN IT. THAT CREEK IS BIG AND PRETTY,
BUT THAT SEPARATES IT TO THE NORTH. 
          COMMERCIAL TO THE SOUTH. EXCUSE ME. WOULD BE GREAT FOR HOMES. 
          THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, BILL, WHILE. 
          I WILL NOT NEED MY LAPTOP ANYMORE. RIGHT. THANK YOU,
THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. COUNCIL. FIRST, I WANT TO RESPOND TO MARIA. 
          MARIA. IT FELT LIKE I WAS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT FOR A SECOND THERE YOU WERE
CROSS-EXAMINING A WITNESS, LEADING THE WITNESS, TRYING TO GET TESTIMONY ABOUT ME AND WHAT I HAD OR DIDN'T HAVE,
WITH NO CHANCE FOR REBUTTAL. 
          AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY BELIEVE THIS. I THINK I PROBABLY DID MORE TO PREPARE FOR THIS
MEETING, MAYBE THAN YOU. I PROBABLY WORKED HARDER AND ASKED MORE QUESTIONS. 
          I'M GOING TO GET THERE, MR. IF I WAS STANDING HERE TALKING ABOUT HELICOPTERS FLYING OVER MY HEAD,
YOU WOULD BE QUIET BECAUSE I'VE WATCHED YOU DO IT. NO. YOU'RE A CRAZY PERSON. THIS IS AN AGENDIZED ITEM. OKAY, I'M GOING TO GET THERE. 
          IF YOU DON'T GET THERE RIGHT NOW, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU TO SIT DOWN. 
          YOU HEAR ME? I'M NOT DONE. SO ANYWAY. I'M GOING TO ASK YOU EITHER. 
          WELL, THEN YOU'RE DONE. 
          MIC]. 
          WHEN YOU COME BACK, SPEAK ON THE SUBJECT. 
          NO. I AM, NOT. 
          I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL. 
          OKAY. RICK. SORRY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. BASED ON THE NEW FACTS INTRODUCED BY THE SPEAKER,
I WOULD RECOMMEND MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REMAND IT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR REVIEW. SECOND. SECOND. 
          SECOND. YES. MR. MAYOR, I THINK. GO AHEAD. I THINK WHAT WE LOOKED AT HERE WAS A CHANGE TO
THE ENTRANCE ACCESS. 
          TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR NOISE AND THE OPEN SPACE. 
          THOSE WOULD REQUIRE, AGAIN, THAT WE REMAND THAT BACK TO YOU WITH YOUR NEW PLANS AND YOUR
NEW STRATEGY. 
          BACK TO P&Z. I WOULD ENDORSE THAT REMANDING IT. 
          OKAY. SO, I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO REMAND. 
          ITEM ONE BACK TO P&Z TO CONSIDER THE CHANGES THAT HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO COUNCIL. 
          IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT? PLEASE VOTE. SO,
I HAVE A MOTION. SEVEN YEAS AND ONE ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. 
          ITEM NUMBER TWO. ITEM NUMBER TWO. STREAMBANK STABILIZATION ASSESSMENT. 
          [(2)  Streambank Stabilization Assessment Results Presentation.]
RESULTS PRESENTATION. 
          THANK YOU. COUNCIL. CALEB THORNHILL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING. 
          [01:25:05]
SO TONIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE STREAMBANK STABILIZATION ASSESSMENT RESULTS. I
KNOW IT'S A MOUTHFUL. 
          BUT BEFORE I GET INTO THE RESULTS, JUST TO KIND OF A HISTORY OF WHERE WE WERE AND HOW WE
GOT TO HERE. 
          SO, WE ACTUALLY PRESENTED THIS BACK IN AUGUST OF 2022. 
          A PRELIMINARY OPEN AND I WILL SAY THERE IS NO ACTION TONIGHT. 
          THIS IS JUST A PRESENTATION OF THE RESULTS. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN ON THE PRELIMINARY OPEN,
BUT WE GOT BUSY ON THAT. 
          SO JUST A INFORMATION. SO WE BEGAN THE ASSESSMENT IN DECEMBER. 
          THAT FIRST SPRING OF 2023, WE WALKED APPROXIMATELY 30 MILES. 
          AND THEN THIS LAST YEAR, FALL AND SPRING, WE FINISHED THE REMAINING 27 OR,
SORRY, 97 MILES. 
          AND WE HAVE BEEN COMPILING THAT DATA. AND OUR TEAM,
ALLISON AND RUSSELL, HAVE BEEN REVIEWING THOSE RESULTS. 
          AND WE HAVE NOW GOTTEN TO A POINT TO WHERE WE WANTED TO PRESENT THOSE TO YOU GUYS. 
          SO, HERE'S ALL 97 MILES. YOU CAN SEE THE BLUISH COLOR IS THE FIRST 30,
AND THE RED IS THE 97 THAT WE COMPLETED. 
          SO JUST AN IDEA OF WHAT WE ACTUALLY LOOKED FOR WHEN WE WENT OUT AND WALKED THESE MILES. 
          SO, THIS IS YOUR TRADITIONAL HOUSE ADJACENT TO A CREEK. 
          SO A COUPLE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE LOOK AT, IS THERE A THREAT TO THE STRUCTURE? WHAT'S THE
DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BANK AND THE EROSIVE AREA TO THE STRUCTURE. 
          EXCUSE ME? THE CHANNEL ORIENTATION IS THAT ON THE OUTSIDE OF A BEND,
IS IT A MORE HIGHLY EROSIVE AREA THAN ON THE INSIDE? THE CHANCE OF FAILURE. WHAT IS THE SOIL CONDITION? IS THERE ANY VEGETATION? WHAT'S THE BANK HEIGHT? IS IT EXTREMELY HIGH? 8 OR 10FT? OR IS IT CLOSER TO A LESS THAN THREE FEET? AND IS IT AN EROSION HAZARD ZONE? SO AGAIN, THIS LOOKS AT SEVERAL QUALITIES OF THE SLOPE
AND THE BANK. 
          IS IT VEGETATED. IS IT THE HEIGHT OF IT. IS IT MADE OF DIRT? IS IT ROCK? AND THEN THE BANK STABILITY AGAIN. 
          JUST SO WE LOOK AT ALL THESE DIFFERENT COMPONENTS,
WE COMPILE THAT, WE ASSIGN A SCORE TO IT, AND WE PUT THAT INTO THE DATABASE AND THREAT TREES. 
          I'M SORRY I MISSED THE LAST ONE THERE. SO, THIS IS A MAP OF ALL THE MILES WE WALKED. 
          EACH OF THESE COLORS REPRESENTS A DIFFERENT COMPONENT AND I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO SEE ALL OF
IT. 
          BUT THE RED IS I'M SORRY. LET ME GET TO MY NOTES REAL QUICK. 
          MAKE SURE I'M SAYING THE RIGHT THING. SO, THE ORANGE IS AREAS WHERE IDENTIFY WHERE THERE
IS EROSION. 
          RED ARE STRUCTURES. SO, IT COULD BE A GAMING WALL. 
          IT COULD BE A PILOT CHANNEL CONCRETE PILOT CHANNEL. 
          IT COULD BE A BRICK WALL. AND THEN GREEN ARE GOING TO BE AERIAL CROSSINGS. 
          SO, LIKE A UTILITY. AND SO, WE HAVE ALL THIS COMPILED IN OUR DATABASE,
OUR DATABASE. 
          WE CAN GO INTO THAT SYSTEM, CLICK ON THE LINE. 
          AND THEN WE CAN ACTUALLY GO TO A REPORT AND PHOTOS THAT WERE DOCUMENTED FROM THE WALKS
EACH OF THESE LOCATIONS. 
          SO, THROUGH THESE WALKS, WE IDENTIFIED OVER 3000 AREAS THAT WERE EXPERIENCING EROSION. 
          70% OF THAT IS ON CITY OWNED OR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          AND THAT'S PER THE PLAT LANGUAGE, 24% IS PRIVATE OWNER AND 6% OF THAT IS HOA. 
          THE 24% OF PRIVATE OWNER INCLUDES RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL. 
          AND THEN THE 3000 SITES. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON THAT THAT IS NOT PROPERTIES,
THAT IS THE LOCATION WHERE WE IDENTIFIED EROSION. 
          THAT EROSION MAY SPAN MULTIPLE PROPERTIES BUT BE IDENTIFIED AS ONE LOCATION. 
          SO, IN THE SCORING, WHAT WE DID IS THIS IS FROM A 0 TO 100 POINT SCALE,
100 BEING VERY LOW RISK TO RED OR 0 TO 20 BEING CRITICAL WHERE WE FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE SOMETHING DONE IMMEDIATELY. 
          AND SO, WE'VE TRIED TO PUT THE SCORES IN THOSE BOXES TO DETERMINE WHAT PROJECTS WE SHOULD
BE LOOKING AT OR FOCUSING ON. 
          SO, YOU CAN SEE HERE IS A BREAKDOWN OF THE SCORING. 
          1% FELL WITHIN THAT 0 TO 20. IT'S JUST OVER 40 LOCATIONS. 
          32 OF THOSE ARE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CITY. YOU CAN SEE THE MAJORITY OF THE LOCATIONS THAT
WE DID IDENTIFY EROSION FALL WITHIN THE 61 TO 80, WHICH WOULD BE WE WOULD CONSIDER LOW PRIORITY OR LOW RISK. 
          17% WERE IN THE 81 TO 100. SO NEARLY TWO THIRDS OF THE EROSIVE AREAS WE FOUND WERE IN THE
LOW TO VERY LOW. 
          BUT THE 0 TO 60 MADE UP JUST RIGHT AROUND 800. 
          [01:30:04]
SO SOME EXAMPLES OF LOW SCORES OR 0 TO 20. YOU CAN SEE ON THE LEFT THAT IS A LOCATION THAT
SCORED A SEVEN AND A HALF. 
          THAT'S AN EXISTING BAG WALL THAT HAS FAILED;
WE HAVE EXPOSED ROOT FROM A TREE. 
          WE HAVE A VERY HIGH, STEEP BANK. WE HAVE SOIL WITH VERY LITTLE,
IF ANY, VEGETATION. 
          SO, THAT'S WHAT'S GOING TO DEEM THAT TO BE A LOW SCORE. 
          SIMILAR ON THE RIGHT. YOU'VE GOT DIRT, VERY LITTLE VEGETATION,
YOU'VE GOT SOME TREE ROOTS EXPOSED, YOU'VE GOT SOME FAILING INFRASTRUCTURE ON THE RIGHT WITH THE CONCRETE RIPRAP THAT HAS
EXPOSED AND UNDERCUT UNDERNEATH IT. 
          AND THEN THE OTHER COMPONENT HERE ON THE LEFT THAT IS CIRCLED IS A SANITARY SEWER LINE
THAT IS NOW EXPOSED FROM THE BANK, RECEDING. SO, BOTH OF THESE SCORED VERY LOW SCORES. 
          SO, FROM A HIGH PERSPECTIVE, YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION ON THE LEFT HAS A VERY STEEP BANK. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE PERSON THERE FROM A SCALE PERSPECTIVE. 
          NOT NECESSARILY NEXT TO A HOUSE THAT IS NEXT TO A TRAIL. 
          SO, THIS ONE WOULD SCORE A RELATIVELY LOW SCORE. 
          YOU CAN SEE THE ONE ON THE RIGHT. AGAIN, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY NEXT TO A HOUSE OR A
STRUCTURE, BUT WE DO HAVE INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS CRACKING. 
          FAILING WILL LIKELY SOON FALL INTO THE CHANNEL OR THE STREAM THERE. 
          SO SOME MEDIUM ONES AGAIN, PICTURE ON THE LEFT. 
          A VERY HIGH, STEEP BANK, NOT NECESSARILY IMPACTING A STRUCTURE TODAY WILL BE IMPACTING
LIKELY THE FENCES ADJACENT TO THAT AREA. 
          SO THAT IS A CONCERN. BUT THAT'S WHAT PUTS IT IN THE MEDIAN. 
          THE LOCATION ON THE RIGHT IMPACTING A TRAIL,
NOT NECESSARILY A HOUSE, BUT IT ALSO IS A CONCERN FOR THAT AREA. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE SOME LOW SCORES. SO, THE ONE ON THE LEFT WE ALREADY HAVE A GABION
STRUCTURE. 
          THERE ARE SOME AREAS THAT NEED TO BE REPAIRED. 
          ONE THING I DID WANT TO POINT OUT HERE, YOU'LL SEE AT THE BOTTOM NOW THAT THERE IS NO
COST. 
          WE ASKED THE CONSULTANT TO ONLY GIVE US COST ESTIMATES FOR ANY PROJECTS THAT SCORED AT 60
OR BELOW. 
          SO, ANYTHING IN THAT LOW TO VERY LOW RISK, WE ASK THEM NOT TO GIVE US A SCORE BECAUSE WE
FEEL LIKE AT THIS TIME, WE WOULD NOT BE DOING THOSE PROJECTS. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT,
YOU SEE A BANK, IT'S AROUND, YOU KNOW, THREE, 4 OR 5FT TALL. THE TREE ROOTS MAYBE NOT FULLY EXPOSED YET,
BUT IT'S GETTING TO THAT POINT. 
          SO, THIS IS WHY IT'S ON THE LOWER END OF THIS REALM,
BUT NOT AT A RISK. 
          A LOW RISK TODAY. EXCUSE ME. AND THEN THE LAST TWO ON THESE IS THE VERY LOW. 
          AGAIN, WE HAVE SOME INFRASTRUCTURE HERE. WE HAVE SOME ROCK RIPRAP ON THE LEFT. 
          WE HAVE SOME GABION STRUCTURES ON THE RIGHT. THERE IS SOME EROSION,
BUT NONE OF THE COMPONENTS ARE FAILING AT THIS POINT, SO THEY'RE GOING TO SCORE AN EROSIVE SCORE, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY,
VERY LOW RISK. 
          WE ALSO CONSIDERED THE AERIAL CROSSING. SO, BRIDGES,
SANITARY SEWER CROSSINGS. 
          YOU CAN SEE A LOW SCORE ON THE LEFT. WE'VE GOT SOME EROSION NEAR THE PIERS. 
          WE'VE GOT SOME EROSION UNDERNEATH THE BRIDGE,
BUT NOT ENDANGERING THE INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT. THAT'S ONE THAT IS CRITICAL. 
          THAT AREA THAT YOU SEE EXPOSED, THAT'S KIND OF GOT THE YELLOWISH TINT,
THAT IS AN AREA THAT USED TO BE COVERED BY THE BANK THAT IS NOW EXPOSED. 
          SO THAT IS ONE THAT WE CONSIDER CRITICAL. SO,
FROM A COST PERSPECTIVE, LIKE I SAID, WE DID NOT PROVIDE COSTS FOR ANYTHING 61 OR ABOVE, JUST THE CRITICAL HIGH AND MEDIUM. 
          AND SO I'VE BROKEN OUT THE CRITICAL ON THE LEFT AND THEN THE HIGH AND THE MEDIUM OF
COMBINED ON THE RIGHT. 
          SO TOTAL FOR CRITICAL IS JUST OVER $10 MILLION. 
          BUT YOU'LL SEE TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THAT, YOU'LL SEE THE CITY LOCATION AND THE CITY PARKS
MAKES UP RIGHT AT OR REAL CLOSE TO 7 MILLION OF THAT 2.8 FOR COMMERCIAL 650 RESIDENTIAL. AND THERE'S 150 FOR THE HIGH TO MEDIUM. 
          YOU CAN SEE THOSE NUMBERS TOTALS ABOUT 150. SO,
IN TOTALITY THEY CAME UP WITH AROUND $160 MILLION OF REPAIRS. 
          ABOUT 91 OF THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH CITY OR CITY PARKS LOCATIONS. 
          A COUPLE OF PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE BEFORE. SO,
THIS IS BEFORE AND AFTER. 
          AGAIN, YOU SEE THE STEEP BANK, YOU SEE THE TREES ROOTS EXPOSED. 
          YOU SEE A DECK THERE TO THE LEFT, CLOSE TO THE HOUSE. 
          SO, THIS IS A GABION STRUCTURE THAT WE CAME IN AND PUT IN APPROXIMATELY $1 MILLION. 
          ANOTHER BEFORE AND AFTER. AGAIN, SEE A VERY STEEP BANK. 
          ACTUALLY, THIS ONE IS INTERESTING BECAUSE YOU SEE THE BANK ACTUALLY CUTTING UNDERNEATH
ITSELF. 
          SO, IT'S ALMOST CANTILEVERED. AND THIS IS AN AFTER PICTURE,
A GABION STRUCTURE, GABION MATTRESS RESTORATION OF THAT BANK 
          [01:35:05]
AND APPROXIMATELY 1.6 MILLION. I'VE SHOWN THIS SLIDE BEFORE. 
          I THINK BACK IN AUGUST OF 2022, THIS IS WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES OR PEER CITIES DO. 
          IT'S ESSENTIALLY ALL OVER THE MAP AS FAR AS WHAT THEY DO. 
          PLANO IS BASED ON THE PLAT LANGUAGE. DALLAS DOESN'T REALLY HAVE A POLICY,
BUT THEY HAVE USED MONEY IN THE PAST FOR EROSION PROJECTS. 
          RICHARDSON HAS SOME CONTRIBUTION. COMMERCIAL. 
          THEY SPLIT 5050. YOU CAN SEE GARLAND'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT. 
          FRISCO IS A NO. ACROSS THE BOARD. MCKINNEY HAS A SAFETY COMPONENT,
SO THERE'S NO REAL CONSISTENCY. 
          IT'S REALLY UP TO THE COUNCIL AND THE POLICY DECISION. 
          SO WHAT WE DID IS WE COMBINED ALL THIS 0 TO 60 SCORES. 
          I MENTIONED. IT'S AROUND A $91 MILLION FOR CITY AND CITY PARKS. 
          WHAT WE DID IS WE ESTIMATED HOW LONG IT WOULD TAKE US TO FINISH. 
          $91 MILLION, INCLUDING INFLATION EVERY SINGLE YEAR. 
          WE PROJECTED THAT OUT. IT'S APPROXIMATELY 20 YEARS TO FINISH $91 MILLION WORTH OF
PROJECTS. 
          THAT'S ABOUT $9 MILLION A YEAR OF PROJECTS THAT WE WOULD BE DOING. 
          WHAT WE DID DO IS WE LOOKED AT IF WE ADDED RESIDENTIAL ONLY,
THAT ADDS TO THAT. 
          AND THEN YOU CAN SEE FURTHER DOWN IF WE ADD RESIDENTIAL AND HOA,
AND THEN AT THE VERY LAST, IF WE DO EVERYTHING IT'S APPROXIMATELY 15 MILLION A YEAR. 
          SO I WANTED TO SHOW YOU THIS AGAIN. THIS IS A SLIDE YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN BEFORE. 
          WE'VE HAD A FEW UPDATES TO IT THOUGH. SO THE RED LINE IN THE MIDDLE,
THAT IS WHERE OUR RATE WAS JULY 2020. 
          WE HAD A RATE INCREASE IN JULY OF 2020. AND THE $4.15 THAT REPRESENTS THE AVERAGE FOR
RESIDENTIAL TIER. 
          WE HAD AT THE JULY DATE IN 2020; WE HAD THREE TIERS. 
          WE NOW HAVE FOUR TIERS. SO, IN JULY 2020, WE INTRODUCED THE FOURTH TIER AND THE AVERAGE
RATE FOR RESIDENTIAL WAS $4.77. 
          IN NOVEMBER OF THAT SAME YEAR, WE HAD ANOTHER INCREASE AND RAISED THAT TO $5.40. 
          SO, THE FURTHEST RIGHT RED LINE, THE $8.94. THAT IS,
IF WE ADDRESS THE $91 MILLION FOR CITY AND CITY PARKS LOCATIONS. AND YOU CAN SEE OVER THERE ON THE AVERAGES THE $4.36 THE AVERAGE FOR THE
METROPLEX OR FOR THE AREAS THAT WE INCLUDED SIMILAR FOR COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, PRIOR TO JULY,
WE WERE $0.075 PER 100FT² OF IMPERVIOUS AREA. 
          WE INCREASED THAT TO 0.086, AND NOW IT SITS AT 0.115. 
          IF WE INCREASE IT SIMILAR FOR THE 91 MILLION FOR CITY AND CITY PARKS,
IT WOULD GO UP TO 0.19. 
          THAT'S A 65% INCREASE. SO, WHAT WE TRIED TO SHOW HERE,
AND I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF LINES AND COLORS AND EVERYTHING, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT. I COULDN'T THINK OF A GOOD WAY TO SHOW IT TO YOU.
BUT IF YOU ASSUME OUR CURRENT RATE AT THE VERY BOTTOM IS $5.40. 
          IF WE ADD THE CITY AND PARKS, THAT INCREASES IT BY 65%,
AND THAT WILL ADD $3.54 TO THE RATE. 
          IF WE ADD RESIDENTIAL TO THAT, THAT ADDS ANOTHER DOLLAR AND $0.63. 
          HOA ADDS $0.54 AND COMMERCIAL ADDS $1.41. SO,
I WANTED TO SHOW YOU KIND OF THOSE TIERS ON WHAT THE ADDS WOULD BE FOR THAT. 
          AND AGAIN, THE CITY PARKS OR THE CITY AND CITY PARKS WOULD BRING OUR CURRENT RATE UP TO
$8.94. 
          AND THIS IS SIMILAR FOR COMMERCIAL. IF I'M GOING TOO FAST,
TELL ME TO STOP. 
          SO NEXT STEPS. I KNOW THERE ARE SOME SPEAKERS TONIGHT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO YOU. 
          WANT TO RECEIVE YOUR FEEDBACK? I KNOW A LOT OF YOU COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          NOT A LOT, BUT HALF OF YOU GUYS WILL BE LEAVING US. 
          AND SO, I WANTED TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SEE THIS. 
          IT'S TO Y'ALL'S KUDOS TO THAT. WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. 
          BUT WE'LL COME BACK LATER THIS SUMMER AND PRESENT AGAIN TO THE NEW COUNCIL. 
          VERY SIMILAR BASED ON TONIGHT'S FEEDBACK. AND THEN HOPEFULLY THIS FALL,
ESTABLISH A POLICY AND START MOVING FORWARD. 
          AND WITH THAT, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. CALEB. 
          WE HAVE SOME SPEAKERS SO WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT FIRST. 
          ALL RIGHT. OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS BRANT MP. THANK YOU. 
          GOOD EVENING. I'M BRANT DEMKE. PRESIDENT OF THE HILLS OF INDIAN CREEK. 
          HOA. AN HOA OF 122 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES IN WEST PLANO. 
          [01:40:07]
I'M HERE TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE 40. 
          WHERE 20 OF OUR HOUSES BACK UP TO A NATURAL CREEK. 
          OVER 40 YEARS AGO, WHEN OUR SUBDIVISION WAS BUILT,
THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPER ASSIGNED LONG TERM EROSION RESPONSIBILITY TO AN HOA THAT DIDN'T EXIST AT THAT TIME. THIS MAY HAVE SEEMED TO BE A REASONABLE DECISION,
BUT OVER 40 PLUS YEARS, MASSIVE DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED AROUND US. THE CITY NOW DISCHARGES STORMWATER FROM THE
ROADS, ALLEYS, PARKING LOTS AND EVEN PARTS OF WILLOW BEND INTO OUR CREEK. 
          THE VOLUME OF WATER HAS GROWN WELL BEYOND WHAT THE CREEK WAS EVER MEANT TO HANDLE. 
          AS A RESULT, EROSION HAS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED,
CAUSED NOT BY NATURE ALONE BUT BY CITYWIDE DEVELOPMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE DECISIONS. YET THE COST AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF FIXING THIS EROSION IS STILL BEING
PLACED ON THE HOA OR AS WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER LOCATIONS OF THE CITY, EVEN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS. 
          THIS IS NOT JUST UNFAIR, IT'S UNSUSTAINABLE. WE ALREADY PAY MONTHLY DRAINAGE FEES TO THE
CITY TO MANAGE STORMWATER INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          THIS SHOULD INCLUDE THE FULL STORMWATER PATH FROM THE STREET TO THE STORM DRAIN AND TO AND
INCLUDING THE CREEKS. 
          THE CITY'S DATA SHOWS THAT ONLY 6% OF PLANO'S 138 MILES OF STREAMS ARE ASSIGNED TO HOA,
YET THOSE FEW NEIGHBORHOODS BEAR A DISPROPORTIONATE BURDEN OF EROSION CAUSED BY RUNOFF OUTSIDE OF THEIR
COMMUNITY. 
          TO PUT IT SIMPLY, THIS ISN'T A PROBLEM WE CAUSED,
AND IT'S NOT THAT ONE THAT WE CAN SOLVE ALONE. 
          WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL PLACE RESPONSIBILITY FOR FOR RESIDENTIAL STREAM,
BANK MAINTENANCE AND EROSION CONTROL WHERE IT BELONGS WITH THE CITY. THIS WOULD ALIGN THE INTENT OF OF THE DRAINAGE FEES. 
          ENSURE CONSISTENT MANAGEMENT AND TREAT ALL RESIDENTS FAIRLY. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. NEXT SPEAKER IS JOEY SEVIN. 
          I WAS GOING TO SAY GOOD MORNING, BUT GOOD EVENING. 
          THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS JOEY SEVIN. 
          BUT BEFORE I GET STARTED, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU TO RUSSELL AND ALISON FOR THEIR HELP
EDUCATING US ON STREAM BANK EROSION. 
          I MEAN, IT'S A MAJOR UNDERSTANDING TAKING PLACE. 
          MY NAME IS JOEY SEVIN. I'M AT 2520 NAPERTON DRIVE IN PLANO. 
          I'M HERE TONIGHT REPRESENTING THE ESTATES AT WOODED COVE ESTATES OF WOOD COVE IS A SMALL
SUBDIVISION COMPRISED OF 158 HOMES HERE IN PLANO. 
          CONSTRUCTION BEGAN IN 1998. OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A DRAINAGE WATERWAY THAT PASSES THROUGH
IT. 
          THIS WATERWAY IS COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS A DRAINAGE,
DRAINAGE DITCH, OR TRIBUTARY THAT EVENTUALLY FLOWS INTO RUSSELL CREEK AT THE NORTHERN END OF THE 2000 FOOT WATERWAY. THERE IS. THERE ARE TWO SEVEN FOOT CONCRETE CONDUITS,
SEVEN FEET TALL AND WIDE, THAT THAT FEED DRAINAGE WATER FROM 240 ACRES 240 ACRES NORTH OF US. THAT'S NOT IN OUR SUBDIVISION. THAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM DRIVEWAYS,
STREETS AND HOMES LOCATED NORTH AND OUTSIDE OF OUR SUBDIVISION. OUR RESIDENTS HAVE ACTUALLY REPORTED SEVERAL YEARS THAT
DURING HEAVY RAINSTORMS, THE RUSHING FLOW RUSHING WATER FLOWS DANGEROUSLY FAST AND STRONG. 
          NOW, THE DESIGNERS OF THIS DRAINAGE SYSTEM MUST HAVE KNOWN THAT THE WATER AT TIMES WOULD
BE POWERFUL AND DESTRUCTIVE BECAUSE THEY INSTALLED DIFFUSERS TO REDUCE THE WATER FLOW FORCE DAMAGE. THEY EVEN ALSO REINFORCED THE AREA AROUND ONE STREET CALLED
SCENIC DRIVE, THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE ESTATES AND WOODED COVE TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO THIS BRIDGE FROM
EROSION. 
          AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED TO THE CITY COUNCIL,
THERE ARE TWO SITES OF EROSION AND REAL PROBLEM WITHIN THE ESTATES OF WOODY COVE. 
          ONE OF THEM NOW IS MORE SERIOUS THAN THE OTHER,
ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 
          WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. MATTER OF FACT, RUSSELL AND ALLISON HAVE BEEN OUT NUMEROUS TIMES TO
SEE IT DUE TO EROSION IN THE BANK. 
          THE WATERWAY IS IS ABOUT FOUR FEET AWAY FROM THE HOMEOWNER'S FENCE,
AND IT'S A STEEP DROP OFF FROM THERE. 
          [01:45:07]
BUT THERE ARE THREE POINTS THAT I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT REGARDING THIS SITE. NUMBER ONE,
OUR SUBDIVISION SITE PLAN STATES THAT OUR HOA IS IN CHARGE OF MAINTAINING ONE SIDE OF THE WATERWAY, WHILE THE CITY OF PLANO IS IN CHARGE OF THE OTHER
SIDE. 
          20S. ANDREWS ELEMENTARY, WHICH SITS ON THE SIDE OF THE WATERWAY OR CITY MAINTAINED BY THE
CITY. 
          THERE'S 24IN OF DRAIN THAT FEEDS DIRECTLY INTO IT AND PROBABLY CONTRIBUTES TO THE DAMAGE
BEHIND THE HOMEOWNER. 
          NO ONE HAS PROVIDED A CLEAR DEFINITION OF WHAT MAINTENANCE MEANS. 
          WE DON'T THINK IT MEANS THAT OUR HOA IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FIXING STREAM BANK,
AND THAT 240 ACRES NORTH OF US IS CAUSING THE DAMAGE. 
          SO, WE ASKED THE CITY OF PLANO TO PLEASE CREATE A POLICY WHERE THAT YOU CAN BASICALLY
INCLUDE THIS IN YOUR INFRASTRUCTURE FOR DEALING WITH WATERWAYS, BOTH BELOW GROUND AND ABOVE GROUND. THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. NANCY MARKHAM. 
          GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE HILLS OF PRESTONWOOD
AS WELL WITH BRANT. 
          AND I'M A HOMEOWNER IN THE HILLS OF PRESTONWOOD. 
          I'VE BEEN THERE SINCE 2002. I'M ON THE ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE ALONGSIDE OUR HOA
BOARD, AND I'VE BEEN A REALTOR FOR OVER 23 YEARS. MY HOME ON PELICAN BAY BACKS UP TO THE CREEK AT
THE TIME. 
          WE MOVED IN OUR HOME IN 2002. THE SHOPS AT WILLOW BEND STORAGE BUILDINGS APARTMENTS WERE
BUILT ALL UPSTREAM OF OUR HOA. 
          THE CITY APPROVED ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS,
WHICH CONTAINED MULTIPLE BUILDINGS, PARKING LOTS, AND BASICALLY A LOT OF CONCRETE RESULTING IN INCREASED WATER FLOW INTO THE CREEK BEFORE IT
ARRIVES TO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          OUR PROPERTIES BACK INTO THE CREEK HAVE WITNESSED THE WATER LEVEL INCREASINGLY INCREASING
EXPONENTIALLY FROM RAIN RUNOFF. 
          WE'VE EVEN WITNESSED WHITEWATER, IF YOU CAN BELIEVE THAT. AS A RESULT,
THE STREAM THE STREAM BANK ERODED, ENCROACHING UPON OUR PROPERTY LINES. THIS HAS CAUSED FAILURE OF OUR RETAINING WALLS,
AND WE HAVE DEALT WITH HUGE TREES FALLING BECAUSE THE ROOTS WERE EXPOSED FROM THE EROSION. WE HAVE SPENT OUR OWN DOLLARS REMOVING FALLEN TREES AND REPAIRING FENCES AND
RETAINING WALLS. 
          THE FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO THE TO THE EROSION ARE NOT IN OUR CONTROL. 
          MOST OF THE WATER FLOWS IN THE CREEK DOES NOT COME FROM OUR HOA. 
          ALSO OF NOTE, THE CITY OWNS THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREAM BANK FROM OUR HOA. 
          THE CREEK EXISTED BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA. 
          THE SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS ALSO HAVE INCREASED THEIR RUNOFF,
RESULTING IN CREEK EROSION. 
          TO HOLD AN HOA OR PERSON SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REPAIR OF THE EROSION ALONG THE CREEK
THEY LIVE ON IS UNFAIR. 
          IN JANUARY OF 2023, THE CITY MADE AN OFFER TO OUR HILL TO TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THAT PROPERTY. 
          AS I MENTIONED, I'M A REALTOR AND I LISTED A NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE ALONG THIS CREEK IN THE
SPRING OF 2023, AN OFFER SUBSTANTIALLY ABOVE THE TAX ASSESSED VALUE WAS MADE AND ACCEPTED. 
          HOWEVER, DURING THE BUYER'S DUE DILIGENCE, THE BUYER BACKED OUT AND ONE OF THE REASONS
CITED WAS THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE OWNERSHIP AND RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EROSION REMEDIATION. 
          I URGE YOU, THE CITY MANAGEMENT, TO HONOR THE JANUARY 2023 OFFER THAT THE CITY MADE AND
TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE CREEK LOTS. 
          I ALSO ASK THAT THE COUNCIL SERIOUSLY CONSIDER CHANGING CITY POLICY AND TAKE
RESPONSIBILITY FOR CREEK EROSION REPAIRS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE PLAT MAP SAYS. THANK YOU,
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. 
          THE LAST SPEAKER IS MA CLOCK. LISA, CAN I YIELD TO THE MEMBER THAT DIDN'T GET SIGNED UP TODAY? AND I WILL WAIVE MY TIME FOR HER. 
          JUST GO UP THERE TOGETHER. OKAY. THAT'LL BE FUN. 
          Y'ALL HOLD HANDS. DO WE HAVE TO? HI, I'M MA CLOCK. MY FRIENDS CALL ME MARY AGNES. I SAW YOU ALL IN 2022,
WHEN BRANT AND I SPOKE WITH YOU ALL ABOUT THE SITUATION IN OUR HOA. I'M THE ONE THAT STOOD UP HERE AND SAID,
LOOK AT THE DOCUMENT WE'RE GIVING YOU AND PLEASE CHECK FOR THE THE PROOFING ERRORS THAT WERE IN IT. AND I THINK YOU WERE SUPPOSED TO GET THOSE BACK TO ME AND I NEVER HEARD FROM
YOU. 
          [01:50:01]
SO ANYWAY, IF ANYBODY NEEDS A NEW EDITION OF THAT,
THAT DOCUMENT WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE YOU. 
          GO AHEAD. HI, I'M AUDREY GILLETTE, I'VE. WELL,
I AM A REALTOR ALSO. 
          I'M ACTUALLY THE REALTOR WHO LOST THE DEAL WORKING WITH NANCY. 
          MY BUYER JUST COULD NOT FEEL COMFORTABLE. AND THAT IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT. 
          WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT THIS SINCE 2023, AND SOMEONE COMING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD,
WE'VE GOT TO, THEY GET A DISCLOSURE. DOES THE SELLER TELL THEM SOMETHING'S GOING ON HERE OR DO THEY NOT? IF THEY DON'T DOWN THE ROAD, SOMEONE'S GOING TO GET SUED. 
          SELLER MIGHT GET SUED. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO STOP THERE. BECAUSE IF THE SELLER DOESN'T HAVE
ANY MONEY, THEY'RE GOING TO COME AFTER THE HOA, WHICH HAS NO MONEY. AND THEN, OF COURSE, MAYBE THE CITY OF PLANO. SO, IT IS A PROBLEM IN REAL ESTATE. 
          SO THAT IS ONE POINT I WANT TO MAKE. I'VE LIVED THERE 24 YEARS. 
          THE FIRST TEN YEARS, EIGHT YEARS, TEN YEARS. I DIDN'T SEE ANY WATER ISSUES. 
          I DON'T EVEN LIVE ON THE CREEK YET. I HAVE MAJOR WATER ISSUES BEHIND ME THAT I'VE HAD TO
SPEND THE MONEY SHORED UP. 
          BUT SOMETHING HAS CHANGED. THE FIRST 810 YEARS,
I WAS JUST COMPLETELY OBLIVIOUS THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. 
          BUT IN THE LATER YEARS, WE'VE GOT EROSION PROBLEMS. AND WHAT'S CHANGED? WILLOW BEND CAME IN IN 2001. 
          IT WAS COMPLETED. THEY WERE BUILDING IN, I WOULD SAY IN THE 90S IN THE 90S,
LATE 80S, EARLY 90S, WE HAD RTC THE RESOLUTION TRUST, HUGE SAVINGS AND LOAN FAILURES. 
          REAL ESTATE WAS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE. AND THERE WERE IN THE BEGINNING OF OUR
NEIGHBORHOOD AT THAT POINT, THERE WAS ABOUT 20 HOMES UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THERE WAS STILL 100 LOTS NOT SOLD. 
          SO, PEOPLE THAT CAME IN, THEY DIDN'T COME IN BUYING THESE MILLION DOLLAR HOMES. 
          THEY HAVE TAKEN CARE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND DONE EVERYTHING THAT THEY CAN. 
          AND NOW WE'VE GOT THIS PROBLEM THAT WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITH VALUES FROM A REALTOR
STANDPOINT. 
          BUT LIKE I SAID, THE FIRST TEN YEARS WE WERE THERE. 
          THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. WE HAVE WATCHED WILLOW BEND. 
          WE HAVE WATCHED THE STORAGE BUILDINGS COME IN. 
          WE HAVE WATCHED MORE SHOPPING COME IN. WE'VE GOT APARTMENTS THAT IS ALL UPSTREAM FROM US. 
          THIS IS NOT OUR WATER. SO, WE'VE GOT A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION,
122 PEOPLE, OF WHICH 20 OR SO ARE ON THE CREEK, AND I'M ONE OF THEM. ACTUALLY,
MINE IS ONE OF THREE PROPERTIES THAT WAS A HIGH PRIORITY. 
          DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS WITH THE NEW STUDY, BUT WITH THE PREVIOUS STUDY,
IT WAS HIGH. 
          STILL IS THERE? I CAN'T REPAIR IT. YEAH, IT'S JUST TOO MUCH TO PUT ON HOMEOWNERS THAT HAVE
BEEN HERE FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. A LOT OF US, I WILL TELL YOU, ARE SENIORS AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET SOME
RESOLUTION BECAUSE IF THEY YOU WANT NEW PEOPLE TO COME IN, YOU WANT SOME YOUNGER FAMILIES TO COME IN. AND HOW DO YOU SELL A HOME TO SOMEONE WITH THIS
POSSIBLY BECOMING THEIR PROBLEM? OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. 
          SO, THIS IS, THIS IS NOT A IT'S NOT AN ACTION ITEM. 
          AND SO, THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT WE GOT A REPORT ON SOME ACTUAL POSSIBILITIES FOR US
TO PURSUE, TO LOOK INTO. SO, IF I THINK IF WE JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME SUGGESTIONS TO STAFF,
WE'RE GOING TO BRING THIS BACK WHEN WE HAVE THE NEW COUNCIL. SO MAYOR PRO TEM,
I'LL LET YOU START. 
          I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS FOR FOR OUR STAFF. OKAY. 
          SO WITH REGARD TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT THE DIFFERENT DIFFERENT HOA
THAT THAT'S, THAT WERE COMMENTED ARE THEY LISTED ANY OF THEM LISTED IN THE IN THE CRITICAL SECTION OF
OUR STUDY? I'LL HAVE TO SEE IF ALLISON AND RUSSELL CAN LOOK IT UP THE CURRENT DATABASE. 
          BECAUSE IT WOULD SEEM LIKE WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT. 
          DID YOU SAY ABOUT 12%? IF YOU THINK IT WAS 6% HOA. 
          AND THAT'S INCLUDING EVERYBODY, RIGHT? IT WAS JUST HOA. 
          THAT WAS THE 6%. ONLY. OKAY, SO THEY'RE ONE LOCATION. 
          HAD A CRITICAL SCORE. OKAY. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING. 
          I MEAN, I THINK, ANYWAY, THAT'S NOT A QUESTION. 
          SO, I'M DONE WITH MY QUESTION. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. 
          RICK. THANK YOU, MAYOR. AND AS YOU WISELY POINTED OUT THERE'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST FOUR
NEW PEOPLE MAKING THE NEXT DETERMINATION ON THIS. BUT I JUST LIKE TO GO BACK,
YOU KNOW, I THINK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, WAY BACK WHEN IS AT THAT POINT, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AS TO,
YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT WAS CITY OR WHETHER IT WASN'T BECAUSE IT WAS COMING FROM SOMEPLACE 
          [01:55:07]
ELSE. IT WAS CAUSED BY OTHER DEVELOPMENT. AND I BELIEVE MAJORITY OF US THAT WERE HERE DID
AGREE THAT WHATEVER WE DO, WE SHOULD IN THE FAVOR OF OUR HOMEOWNERS. SO,
I STILL HAVE THAT POSITION. 
          I THINK IF I RECALL, YOU PRESENTED SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT TONIGHT,
EXCEPT THAT IN ESSENCE, WE'RE ALL PAYING FOR IT. WE WOULD ALL BE PAYING FOR IT THROUGH THE INCREASED DRAINAGE FEE, WHICH FOR ME, I WOULD BE FINE WITH THAT. I THINK IF IT COULD BE SPREAD OUT,
YOU KNOW, WHERE THE CITY AND EVERYBODY WAS ABLE TO CONTRIBUTE BECAUSE IT MAY NOT BE ME OR MAY NOT BE US NOW,
BUT IT COULD BE IN THE FUTURE. 
          AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO CLARIFY IT. SOMEONE NEEDS TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IT,
AND I THINK WE'RE HEADED IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO MAKE IT WORKABLE. 
          SO, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO STAY ON THAT. BUT IF THERE IS ANYTHING CRITICAL,
LIKE THE YOUNG LADY WAS HERE SPEAKING EARLIER THAT WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF, I WOULD SAY LET'S, LET'S ERROR AND, AND THEIR FAVOR AND GET THAT TAKEN CARE OF. 
          THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHTS. THANKS. THANK YOU. MAYOR. 
          JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS AND MAYBE A COMMENT. 
          AND BY THE WAY, I'LL START BY SAYING, MARY AGNES,
MY APOLOGIES FOR NOT GETTING BACK TO YOU. 
          I DO MY BEST TO GET BACK TO EVERYBODY, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A LOT THAT GOES ON IN
THIS JOB THAT PAYSN$1,000 A MONTH. 
          BUT I DO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT GETTING BACK. NO. IN ALL SERIOUSNESS,
WE ARE. 
          NO. IT'S A LABOR OF LOVE FOR ALL OF US, AND I ASPIRE TO GET BACK TO EVERYBODY. 
          SO, MY APOLOGIES. MARY AGNES DID NOT GET BACK TO YOU ANYWAY. 
          BUT ANYWAY, SO GETTING BACK TO SOME QUESTIONS. 
          SO, CALEB, MY UNDERSTANDING, BOTH FROM OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSION AND FROM YOUR PRESENTATION, IS THAT THERE ARE SOME PLACES, OBVIOUSLY, WHERE THE CITY OWNS LAND,
AND THAT'S CLEARLY OUR RESPONSIBILITY. 
          THEN THERE ARE OTHERS WERE BASED ON THE PLAT AT THE TIME THAT DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED FOR
PRIVATE PROPERTY, IN SOME CASES, THE CITY TOOK ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY AND IN SOME CASES,
THE CITY DIDN'T, WHICH IS TO SAY THERE'S SOME PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY HAS SAID. 
          YES, THIS IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAINTAIN AND OTHER PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT THE CITY SAID
AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE PLAT. 
          THIS IS NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY. EITHER THE HOA OR PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO
MAINTAIN THAT. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES. OKAY. AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WAS THERE A
RHYME OR REASON. 
          LIKE WAS THERE A GUIDING PRINCIPLE, YOU KNOW,
REGARDING. 
          WELL, YOU KNOW, IF THESE CRITERIA ARE MET, THEN THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE RESPONSIBILITY
UNDER THE PLAT. 
          IF THEY'RE NOT, THEN IT'S THE HOA OR THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. 
          OR WAS IT JUST MORE AD HOC? YEAH. SO, I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT. 
          AND WE ACTUALLY HAD A DISCUSSION EARLIER. WE KNOW OF A HANDFUL OF LOCATIONS AND HOW THEY
WERE SELECTED, WHY THEY WERE CHOSEN, WHY THEY WERE DID I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. ALL THAT STAFF HAS
SINCE LEFT. 
          THAT HAPPENED IN THE 90S AND EARLY 2000. AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S JUST READILY APPARENT
TO YOU. 
          THAT'S DIFFERENT ABOUT THE ONES THAT THE PLAT SAYS THE CITY TAKES CARE OF. 
          YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE INFORMATION WE HAVE TODAY. 
          THERE'S NOTHING THAT SAYS A HOUSE WAS HANGING OVER A CREEK OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. 
          I DON'T KNOW THE RHYME OR REASON FOR IT. AND THANK YOU FOR THAT,
CALEB. 
          AND I KNOW YOU WEREN'T THERE AT THE TIME. I'M JUST. WHAT I'M GETTING AT THERE IS,
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT, YOU KNOW, ALMOST BY THE LUCK OF THE DRAW, YOU KNOW,
SOME PEOPLE MAYBE HAVE THE PLAT SAYS THE CITY TAKES CARE OF IT, OTHERS DON'T. AND THIS DECISION OBVIOUSLY WON'T BE MADE BY ME OR,
YOU KNOW, THREE OTHERS OF US WHO WON'T BE HERE. 
          BUT I JUST WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WILL
BE MAKING THIS DECISION AFTER, YOU KNOW, SOME OF US LEAVE THE COUNCIL. ALSO,
YOU KNOW, A POINT THAT I'D LIKE TO, TO MAKE IS THAT ONE OF THE SPEAKERS TALKED ABOUT THE CITY MAKING AN OFFER TO TAKE OWNERSHIP. 
          I DO THINK THAT WHERE THE CITY TAKES OVER YOU KNOW,
INSTALLING EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS. 
          I THINK IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE FOR THE CITY TO OWN THE LAND THAT WE'RE INSTALLING THE
EROSION IMPROVEMENTS ON, YOU KNOW, AND OF COURSE, TO OWN THE IMPROVEMENTS THEMSELVES,
THE EROSION CONTROL IMPROVEMENTS THAT THAT THE CITY EXPENDS TAXPAYER FUNDS TO INSTALL, YOU KNOW, SHOULD THAT BE THE, THE DECISION THAT THE NEXT COUNCIL MAKES? BUT I DO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SOME PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE THE CITY IS
SAYING UNDER THE PLAT, YES, WE'LL TAKE CARE OF IT. OTHERS WHERE WE'RE NOT FOR SOME REASON. 
          AND THERE'S NO OBVIOUS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE TWO. 
          I THINK THAT THAT WOULD, COUNCIL, IN FAVOR OF TRYING TO PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS AS COUNCIL
MEMBER. 
          SMITH WAS TALKING ABOUT SHELBY. YES. THANK YOU,
CALEB. 
          FIRST, CAN WE ADVANCE TWO SLIDES, PLEASE? I JUST WANT TO NOTE CORRECTION. 
          [02:00:09]
SORRY. MAYBE THREE SLIDES PLUS ANIMATIONS. YEAH. 
          RIGHT HERE. UNDER THE RESPONSIBILITY COLUMN. WE DO NEED AN ASTERISK. 
          ASTERISK THERE FOR PLANO. AND THAT'S BETTER FOR THE ADVISEMENT OF THE NEXT COUNCIL. 
          SURE. I'VE BEEN TRACKING THIS ISSUE FOR A WHILE,
AND I HAVE TO THANK ESPECIALLY. 
          PARDON ME. ESPECIALLY BACK IN THE 90S WHEN THESE PLATS SAID IT WOULD EITHER BE PRIVATE
PROPERTY OR HOA RESPONSIBILITY VERSUS CITY FOR MAINTENANCE. WHAT WAS MEANT BY MAINTENANCE? IN ALL LIKELIHOOD IS TAKING CARE OF DEAD
TREES, LANDSCAPING, TRASH, NOT SHIFTING WATERWAYS AND EROSION CONTROL. 
          FOR THAT REASON, I THINK THAT WHEN IT COMES TO OUR WATERWAYS,
THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          ESPECIALLY BECAUSE AS SO MUCH CONCRETE HAS BEEN BUILT IN THE PAST FEW DECADES,
THAT, AS WE'VE HEARD, THAT DOES CHANGE HOW MUCH WATER RUNS OFF INTO STREAM BANKS. 
          AND HOW MUCH EROSION THERE IS AS A RESULT. SO. 
          LAST MEETING. I'M GETTING ALL CHOKED UP. BUT I THINK I THINK THE. 
          THANK YOU. I THINK THE FUTURE COUNCIL, IF YOU WILL TAKE MY ADVICE INTO THE FUTURE IS TO
CONSIDER ALL THESE WATERWAYS AND STREAM BANKS. 
          OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. I DO WANT TO POINT OUT ONE LAST THING. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S FOUR SLIDES FURTHER. IT'S THE IMPACTS OF THE DRAINAGE FEE FOR
RESIDENTIAL. 
          THIS ONE OR KEEP GOING. ONE MORE, PLEASE. I THINK ONE MORE. 
          OKAY. YEAH. WHERE IT SHOWS HERE, THE THEORETICAL INCREASE FOR CITY AND CITY PARKS AT
$3.54. 
          WE ALREADY TAKE CARE OF THAT FOR CITIES AND CITY PARKS. 
          IT'S JUST DONE AD HOC WHENEVER THE NEED ARISES. 
          SO EVEN THOUGH THIS WOULD BE ON A 20 YEAR TIMETABLE. 
          WOULD THERE REALLY BE A NECESSARY INCREASE OVER AND ABOVE WHAT WE ALREADY PAY WHEN THE
NEED ARISES? YEAH. SO RIGHT NOW, WE PUT ABOUT $2.5 MILLION TOWARDS EROSION CONTROL PROJECTS ON CITY
OWNED PROPERTY OR CITY PARKS PROPERTY. 
          THE $3.54 WOULD TAKE US TO $9 MILLION A YEAR. 
          AND SO, IN ORDER TO DO THE 91 MILLION ESTIMATE,
IT WOULD TAKE $9 MILLION A YEAR OVER A 20 YEAR TIME FRAME. 
          OKAY. SO, IF I'M HEARING OR INTERPRETING THAT RIGHT,
THAT MEANS WE'RE NOT EVEN STAYING ON TOP OF OUR OWN EROSION CONTROL NEEDS. 
          THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. EXCUSE ME. 
          SO, ON THIS, YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO INCREASE TO THIS AMOUNT RIGHT AWAY IN
ORDER TO GET US TO THAT 20 YEAR TIME PERIOD, OR CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE BEFORE? HOW ARE YOU SUGGESTING WE WOULD NEED TO GET UP TO THAT? AT WHAT POINT? SO I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT RIGHT NOW. 
          WE COULD LOOK AT IT. SO THIS IS THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT WE DID. 
          AGAIN THE MIDDLE ONE OR THE FURTHEST ONE TO THE LEFT IS WHAT IT WAS PRIOR TO JULY OF 2020. 
          AND YOU CAN SEE WE HAD INCREMENTAL RAISES SO WE COULD INCREMENTALLY RAISE IT INSTEAD OF
$3.54 AT ONE TIME, WE COULD DO $1 A YEAR FOR SOME TIME FRAME. THERE'S A MULTITUDE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. 
          IF WE DID THE FULL 354 TODAY, IT WOULD TAKE US 20 YEARS TO ADDRESS THE 91 MILLION. 
          IF WE INCREMENT IT, IT'S GOING TO PUSH THAT TIME FRAME A LITTLE BIT FURTHER. 
          I HAVEN'T RUN THOSE NUMBERS YET, AND THAT'S WHERE IT JUST THERE'S A LOT OF VARIABLES THAT
WOULD IMPACT THAT. 
          BUT TODAY IF WE INCREASE IT BY $3.54 TODAY, IT WOULD TAKE US 20 YEARS TO ADDRESS IT. 
          OKAY. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS GOING TO BE EITHER RATE,
SHOCK AND COST. 
          BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO BE THE TIME THAT COULD CONTINUE WITH THE DETERIORATION OF THOSE
STREAMS. SO, FOR US, IT'S HOW AGGRESSIVE WE WANT TO BE ON THE RATES AND ON THE WORK IS GOING TO BE
THE. 
          YEAH. AND WHAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FROM THE 91. SO,
LET'S SAY WE DID INCREASE IT TODAY AND WE DO $9 MILLION WORTH OF WORK NEXT YEAR. 
          THAT DECREASES THE 91 DOWN TO 82. NOW WE'VE GOT A YEAR OF INFLATION. 
          AND WE ALSO HAVE ONE MORE YEAR OF ADDITIONAL LOCATIONS THAT HAVE ERODED,
THAT HAVE NOW FALLEN BELOW THAT 60 POINT. 
          SO NOW THAT BUMPS IT UP. BUT THIS IS ASSUMING WE DECIDE WE HAVE TO DO ALL OF THEM THAT ARE
CRITICAL MEDIUM DOWN. 
          AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE PUT ANY OF THEM IN A BOND AND WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY COST
SHARING. 
          THIS IS LIKE WORST CASE SCENARIO THAT WE'RE TAKING IT ALL ON. 
          [02:05:01]
RIGHT. WE WANTED TO. SO, YEAH. OKAY. SO, IF WE GO BACK TO THE OTHER SLIDE THAT SHOWED SOME
OF THE WHAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING WHERE THEY SAID WE'RE PROBABLY BACKWARDS, RIGHT? YEAH, I THINK YES. 
          BUT BEFORE THAT, YES. SO SOME OF THESE CITIES I DO LIKE THAT THERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF COST
SHARING. 
          AND I THINK TO ME YOU WOULD GRADE IT OUT. TO ME YOU WOULD GIVE THE MOST MONEY TO THE MOST
CRITICAL PROJECTS, RIGHT. BECAUSE THOSE HAVE THE BIGGEST SAFETY CONCERN. AND THEN AS YOU GET FARTHER OUT FROM
CRITICAL, THAT'S WHERE YOU WOULD ASK FOR THE MOST COST SHARING. 
          SO THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION OF HOW WE DO IT. 
          I WOULDN'T SAY IT WOULD NOT BE MY SUGGESTION THAT WE SAY EVERYBODY'S IS FREE AND WE'RE
RAISING THE COST FOR ALL CITIZENS. THAT MUCH. I WOULD COME UP WITH A SCALE OF HOW WE DETERMINE WHO'S GETTING A
PERCENTAGE OF THEIRS PAID FOR. 
          THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. 
          ALL RIGHT. SO I REMEMBER FROM THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION THAT I BELIEVE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS
ARE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING THIS SPLIT COST FOR, YOU KNOW, ONE SECTOR OF THE,
OF OUR POPULATION VERSUS ANOTHER SECTOR. 
          WE I BELIEVE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS AGREE THAT I THINK THERE'S A CONSENSUS THAT WE WANT TO
MAKE SURE THAT IF THERE IS AN EROSION, IT NEEDS TO BE FIXED AND IT NEEDS TO COME FROM SOMEWHERE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ALL BORNE BY
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING CLOSEST TO IT. SO, I THINK THAT'S A CONSENSUS. 
          SO, I ACTUALLY REALLY LIKE WHAT OUR SOON TO BE FORMER. 
          COUNCIL MEMBER PRINCE AND SOON TO BE FORMER MEMBER,
COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS AND SOON TO BE FORMER COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI. 
          HE SAID YES BECAUSE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE TO PUT THEIR INPUT IN RIGHT NOW. 
          BUT I, I BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY ARE TRUE. I MEAN,
I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING OWNERSHIP OF THE STREAM BANKS. 
          I LIKE THE IDEA OF FOCUSING ON THE CRITICAL ONES NOW AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE
THE MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT NOW, BECAUSE THAT'S THE MOST IMPORTANT. AND THEN WE DEAL WITH ALL THE OTHER ONES LATER. 
          I GET IT THAT THE OTHER, MAYBE THE MODERATE WILL OR THE LOW RISK. 
          WAS IT. THE HIGH RISK MAY BECOME CRITICAL AT SOME POINT,
BUT WE NEED TO DEAL WITH THE CRITICAL FIRST SO THAT WE COULD RESOLVE THAT AND THEN WE CAN DEAL WITH THE OTHER ONES. BUT IN ANY EVENT, I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD START OUR BUDGETING
BASED ON THE CRITICAL RATHER THAN TRYING TO LEVEL OUT AND TRYING TO PAY FOR EVERYTHING ALL AT
ONCE. 
          SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. ALL RIGHT. RICK? YES. I'M SOMEWHAT TORN IN THE FACT THAT OUR SINS IN
THE PAST, BECAUSE I WALK ALONG A PARTICULAR STREET ALONG ROSSLYN,
AND A NEIGHBOR CALLED OUT TO ME AND HIS PROPERTY TO ONE SIDE HAS A NICE GABION HIS DOES NOT, AND HIS BACKYARD IS FALLING INTO THE STREAM
BED. 
          NOW HE HAS SOME SINS ON HIMSELF IN THAT HE CUT AWAY SOME GREENERY TO MAYBE ACCELERATE
THAT. 
          BUT THE FACT IS, THE CITY BUILT THAT GABION WALL AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY
TURNED THAT OFFER DOWN FOR SOME REASON. WITH THAT BEING SAID, IT'S FAIR. IT'S UNFAIR TO HIM FOR HIM TO SHARE THAT BURDEN
FOR THE COST OF A GABION WALL TO REPAIR HIS PROPERTY. 
          BUT I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOME COST SHARING,
BECAUSE WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT OUR BUDGETS ARE TIGHT. 
          WE'RE PAYING FEES AND TAXES, AND WE ALL HATE TO SEE ALL OUR WATER FEES GO UP. 
          YOU KNOW, WE HATE TO SEE OUR ELECTRICITY FEES GO UP. 
          BUT THERE'S A COST BURDEN HERE. AND I THINK IT'S SOMEWHAT UNFAIR TO THE CITY TO BEAR THAT
COST. 
          BUT THAT BEING SAID, IF THAT MAN'S HOUSE FALLS INTO THE STREAM,
WE JUST LOSE THAT PROPERTY TAX BECAUSE IT'S CONDEMNED. 
          AND SO IT'S PROBABLY PRUDENT ON THE CITY TO LOOK AT HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE
THAT ARE ON THE CRITICAL SIDE TO REPAIR THAT EROSION OR AT LEAST PUT EROSION MITIGATION IN THERE TO HELP WITH THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. 
          BUT AT THE SAME TIME, WE GOT TO FIGURE OUT A UNIQUE WAY TO PAY FOR THAT,
BECAUSE, AS YOU SAID, ON THAT PARTICULAR ONE PARTICULAR SLIDE, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WHAT 12 MILLION A YEAR WAS, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT. THAT'S A BIG BUMP TO COVER. 
          AND SO I THINK THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT,
THE FAIRNESS OF IT, OF WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST, BUT ALSO WHAT WE STAND TO LOSE AS A CITY, WHAT PEOPLE STAND TO LOSE AS THEIR HOME. 
          [02:10:07]
AND WE JUST HAVE TO BECOME WELL, WITH THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS,
MAYBE WE HAVE SOME MORE THAT ARE REALLY GOOD AT MATH. 
          THEY COULD COME OUT A WAY THAT WE COULD COME OUT WITH A WAY TO MAKE IT BENEFICIAL FOR
EVERYBODY. 
          BUT ANYWAYS, THAT'S MY POINT. DEPUTY MAYOR. SINCE WE'VE GOT SOME REALTORS IN THE AUDIENCE, MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN GET BACK TO ME ON. 
          I'M JUST CURIOUS, KIND OF PLAYING DEVIL'S ADVOCATE AND COST SHARING AND TRYING TO
UNDERSTAND WHAT'S FAIR. 
          I GREW UP ON A CREEK ON PITTMAN CREEK IN PITTMAN CREEK ESTATES,
AND I KNOW THAT THAT WAS A LOT OF THE DRAW TO THAT PROPERTY. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S A CORRELATION DIRECTLY WITH THESE PROPERTIES THAT BACK UP TO
CREEKS AND WHAT THE VALUE IS. 
          AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS. 
          I'M JUST IT WOULD JUST BE SOMETHING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT KIND OF IMPACT THERE IS ON THE REAL
ESTATE? THE REAL ESTATE VALUE, THE PROPERTY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IN IN THE FAVOR OF THE
HOMEOWNER OR NOT IN THE FAVOR OF THE HOMEOWNER, BUT THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO. 
          WHAT? NO, NO. I'M SORRY. KEEP GOING. 
          GO AHEAD. KEEP GOING. I'M SORRY. NO, THAT WAS IT. IT WAS JUST A JUST A THOUGHT. I'M NOT,
I'M NOT. 
          I'M NOT SPEAKING IN FAVOR ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. 
          JUST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD TO GATHER AND,
AND, AND CALL ALL OF THESE FORMER COUNCIL MEMBERS UP TO SEE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT FOR THEIR INPUT AND THE FUTURE. WELL, WE'RE WE CAN BEAT THIS TO DEATH,
BUT WE JUST RECEIVED THIS INFORMATION. 
          WE HAVE FOUR NEW COUNCIL MEMBERS COMING ON IN TWO WEEKS. 
          SO, THESE ARE THIS IS GOOD INFORMATION. WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE GOING TO BRING THEM UP TO
SPEED AND START TALKING ABOUT NEXT STEPS. 
          AND HOW DO WE START WORKING ON THIS AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN AFFORD IT. 
          AND B, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT ARE IN THE DIREST NEED CAN,
CAN BE HELPED IMMEDIATELY. 
          SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME WE SAW THIS. 
          WE'LL GET BACK. WE'LL CONTINUE TO COMMUNICATE WITH ALL OF YOU,
BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE SHORE UP ALL OF OUR AREAS THAT THAT NEED REPAIR. SO, I HOPE THIS IS A GOOD START. 
          AND WE'LL CONTINUE TO, TO TALK ABOUT THIS. WITH THAT BEING SAID,
THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS. 
          WE'RE ADJOURNED. AND THIS IS A FRIENDLY REMINDER. 
          YOU STILL HAVE ONE MORE MEETING. YOU STILL NEED TO CANVASS THE VOTE. 
          SO PLEASE SHOW UP ON THE 12TH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.