3. PUBLIC HEARING ON ZONING REGULATIONS REVISIONS. [CITY CODE OF ORDINANCES, CHAPTER 156: ZONING REGULATIONS]

[4. CONSIDERATION, DISCUSSION, AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ORDINANCE NO. 820 REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 156 ZONING. ]

820 REGARDING AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCE CHAPTER 156 ZONING.

OKAY. NOW COUNCIL IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I HAVE ONE, AND IT IS DIRECTLY RELATED TO ONE OF THE TOPICS THAT WAS JUST DISCUSSED FROM THE RESIDENTS IN THAT I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS MAYBE MY NAIVETE, BUT I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHY THERE WAS THE TWO ACRE LIMITATION.

AND THE REASON IS I LIVE IN SPRINGHILL.

SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE HOUSES IN SPRINGHILL, TYPICALLY THE FRONT YARD PROPERTY IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT SIZE, WHETHER IT'S A ONE OR TWO ACRE LOT, MOST OF THE LOT IS TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS TO WHY THERE WAS THAT LIMITATION BECAUSE TO ME, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.

IT'S BEEN THAT WAY AS LONG AS I WAS HERE.

GARY, CAN YOU? I HAVEN'T BEEN HERE THAT LONG? [LAUGHTER] OH.

I WOULD ADD TO COUNCILMEMBER REED'S COMMENT TO SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A VARIANCE PROGRAM, BUT IT IS EXPENSIVE.

AND IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, WE MARKET OURSELVES.

I'M ACTUALLY STEALING FROM ANOTHER PUBLIC COMMENT AS UNIQUELY COUNTRY.

I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH REDUCTIONS.

I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, THERE WILL BE OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER FOR EACH LOT EASEMENTS AND DRAINAGE, CULVERTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.

BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING WE COULD EASILY AMEND TO ALLOW ANY RESIDENT THAT WANTS TO THE ABILITY TO COME FORWARD.

AND I DON'T SEE HOW IT AFFECTS ANYTHING WITHIN THE CITY BECAUSE WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE WHO HAVE PERIMETER FENCING.

THAT'S CORRECT. YOU KNOW, AND MY PERSONAL OPINION IS I HAVE MY OWN OPINIONS ON WHETHER TO HAVE IT OR WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE IT.

BUT I THINK PEOPLE SHOULDN'T BE LIMITED BASED ON THAT GEOGRAPHIC.

I THINK YOU HAVE SOME NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE KIND OF ALONG THAT AREA.

AND SPRINGHILL HAS SEVERAL PEOPLE WHO DO SO.

HMM. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? WELL, MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE IN THE ZONING CODE. AND I PERSONALLY AND THE MAYOR, WE SPENT A COUPLE OF YEARS GOING THROUGH THIS, AND THEN IT WENT BACK TO P&Z.

THEY DIDN'T ACCEPT THEY DIDN'T TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ANY OF OUR CHANGES.

AND NOW IT'S BACK AT COUNCIL.

I THINK SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT CITIZENS SUBMITTED AND ALSO TONIGHT REQUIRE A LOT MORE DISCUSSION ON THESE ITEMS. THERE WAS ALSO AN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE PUT FORTH BY OUR ATTORNEY, WHICH WAS SURPRISE TO, I THINK, EVERYBODY.

AND I'M SURE THAT THERE'S A GOOD REASON.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE CHANGES REQUIRE MORE IN-DEPTH INVESTIGATION AND DISCUSSION.

AND I WOULDN'T BE PREPARED TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A COUNCIL WORKSHOP WHERE THE PUBLIC CAN ALSO ATTEND AND LISTEN, AND WE GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE CODES AND CHANGES AND IN DEPTH SO THAT EVERYBODY HAS A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS ARE.

IS THAT A MOTION? YES, I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE VOTING ON THE CODES TONIGHT AND TO GO TO A COUNCIL WORKSHOP AND DISCUSS THE CODES AND THEN COME BACK AND VOTE ON THEM.

IS THERE A SECOND? NOT HEARING A SECOND MOTION DIES.

OKAY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE CODES? YES, MADAM MAYOR. OVERALL, I THINK THE CODE IS VERY WELL DONE.

I WAS VERY IMPRESSED WITH WHAT I SAW IN THE CODES.

THEY DID A FINE JOB OF PULLING THINGS TOGETHER AND CLEANING THINGS UP A BIT.

YEAH, I JUST HAVE A LITTLE FROG IN MY THROAT.

SORRY, BUT I HAVE A COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO ACTUALLY, IT'S MS. ILENES ISSUE. I'M SORRY.

[00:20:03]

WITH RESPECT TO FENCES WE TEND TO LIKE FENCES TONIGHT GARY.

[LAUGHTER] AND SO THIS RELATES TO THE REGULATION FOR OPEN CONSTRUCTION OF FENCES.

SECTIONS 156.32 AND 33 I1B IT'S ON PAGES 31 AND 35 IN YOUR PACKETS.

AND I DO APPRECIATE THE CITY'S DESIRE TO MAINTAIN THIS COUNTRY FEEL COUNTRY LIFESTYLE THAT WE'RE ALL WANTING TO KEEP WITH THE USE OF OPEN FENCING.

HOWEVER, WITH THE GROWTH OF PARK OR IN THE ADDITION OF THESE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES AND I KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER TERM FOR THAT, BUT MR. MACHADO IS GOING TO HELP ME WITH THAT.

WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, MAINLY DILLEHAY AND PARKER ROAD.

YEAH. THESE POSE CONCERNS FOR OUR PARENTS, FOR THEIR CHILDREN'S SAFETY AND ADDITIONAL NOISE DUE TO THE HIGH TRAFFIC ROADWAYS.

I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THAT WE MAKE MAYBE I'M MAKING A MOTION.

I DON'T I'M NOT SURE TO MAKE A CHANGE TO THE WORDING AS IT IS TO MODIFY THE SECOND SENTENCE THAT BEGINS.

OFFENSES SHALL BE OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AND NOT SOLID OR NEAR SOLID FABRIC OR SURFACING TO STATE ALL FENCES COMMA EXCEPT FOR PARCELS ADJACENT TO A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ROAD ALONG THE ROADWAY ALONG THAT ROADWAY SHALL BE OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AND NOT SOLID OR NEAR SOLID FABRIC OR SURFACING, ALLOWING PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THOSE ROADWAYS TO PUT SOLID SURFACE FENCING IN THOSE PORTIONS OF THEIR YARD, BECAUSE IT REALLY DOES.

AS MS. EILEEN WAS MENTIONING, THE SOUND IS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF SOUND THESE YOU KNOW, THESE RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO HAVE TO ENDURE, AND THAT'S NOT COUNTRY.

SO I THINK WE DESERVE, YOU KNOW, WE WE OWE IT TO THEM TO GIVE THEM SOME KIND OF ACCOMMODATION.

AND SO THAT'S A SUGGESTION THAT I HAVE.

I HAVE A QUESTION COUNCIL, WOULD WE HAVE TO LIST EVERY ROAD THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE CODES? THAT'S ONE OPTION. YOU COULD LIST EVERY ROAD YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, OR YOU COULD DO IT BY ROAD TYPE, WHETHER IT'S A, YOU KNOW, PRIMARY ARTERIAL, OR A.

GARY, YOU MIGHT NEED TO HELP ME OUT HERE.

MAJOR THOROUGHFARE IS A GOOD TERM.

IS IT A GOOD TERM? OKAY.

YOU CAN DO IT EITHER BY CATEGORY OR TO LIST THE ROADS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF YOU WANTED TO BE VERY SPECIFIC, NAME EACH ROAD, RIGHT? BUT WITH THE TERM MAJOR THOROUGHFARE, GENERALIZE IT TOO MUCH TO THE POINT WHERE CERTAIN RESIDENTS WHO DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA OF LIVING ON A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE ARE THEREFORE THEN DISQUALIFIED. I THINK WE'D OPEN UP A CAN OF WORMS AT THAT POINT.

I THINK IF YOU WANTED TO DO IT, IT'D BE BEST TO NAME THE ROADS.

YES.BUT OR ANOTHER OPTION THAT I THOUGHT ABOUT AS I WAS TRYING TO COME UP WITH THE TERM BECAUSE IS USING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN BECAUSE THESE ROADS HAVE A SPECIFIC TYPE IN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

RIGHT. SO RATHER THAN IDENTIFYING, ALTHOUGH HOPEFULLY WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE OF THESE ROADS COMING IN ANY TIME SOON, BUT YEAH, THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER OPTION FOR CLARIFYING IT BECAUSE I DON'T WANT PEOPLE THINKING, OH, WELL, I CAN DO THIS.

SURELY THIS IS MAJOR.

AND IT'S REALLY NOT.

ONE EASY WAY TO MAYBE PIGGYBACK ON WHAT COUNCILMAN LYNCH WAS SAYING IS THAT YOU COULD ACTUALLY SAY THOROUGHFARE.

YOU CAN HAVE THAT ASTERISK AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE OR AS SHOWN IN THE TABLE BELOW.

AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE THAT TABLE IN THERE THAT SHOWS WHICH ONES ARE.

AND THEN THAT WAY IT WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE SO VERBOSE WITHIN THE BODY OF IT.

YOU COULD JUST HAVE IT AS AN ANNEX AND HAVE IT IN A TABLE LATER.

THAT WOULD BE EASY TO DO BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT ALREADY.

THAT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING I WOULD RECOMMEND WE JUST PUT THE TWO STREETS, I THINK IS WHAT WE'RE KIND OF DILLEHAY HOGUE AND YEAH. SO, SO COULD I, COULD YOU CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU SAID SOLID SURFACE FENCING.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN SPECIFICALLY? THAT IS AS DEFINED AS STATED IN THE ORDINANCE ON PAGE.

I DIDN'T THINK WE ALLOWED SOLID SURFACE FENCING IN PARKER.

THIS DIDN'T ALLOW SOLIDS SURFACE.

AND SO WHAT THIS IS DOING, YOU KNOW, THAT SENTENCE STATED THAT ALL FENCES SHALL BE OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AND NOT SOLID OR NEAR SOLID

[00:25:06]

FABRIC OR SURFACING.

SO SOLID IS SOLID.

AND I MEAN.

TO ME THAT'S A LITTLE VAGUE BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT KIND OF MATERIAL.

SO IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO PUT UP A CORRUGATED ALUMINUM FENCE, I'M JUST SAYING, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO BE, I THINK, VERY SPECIFIC IN THE MATERIALS.

IT ALSO THAT'S IN SECTION TWO.

IF YOU GO UP JUST TWO PARAGRAPHS ABOVE THAT IN SECTION C, IT ALSO SAYS A SOLID MATERIAL INCLUDES MASONRY OR METAL.

I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE SOME SPECIFICATIONS ALREADY WRITTEN IN THERE THAT.

THERE ARE SOME I WOULD CAUTION THAT THE ENFORCEABILITY OF THAT IS NOW KIND OF UP IN THE AIR.

THE STATUTE CHANGED RECENTLY ABOUT US NOT BEING ABLE TO DESIGNATE WHAT MATERIALS ARE USED.

WE CAN DESIGNATE TYPE, BUT NOT THE MATERIALS TO BE USED.

SO I HAVEN'T SEEN WHERE THAT'S BEEN CHALLENGED ALL THE WAY UP YET BUT.

BUT I'M OF THE OPINION AS WELL THAT REGARDLESS OF WHERE OUR RESIDENTS LIVE, IF THEY HAVE A ONE ACRE LOT, TWO ACRE LOT, EVERYONE SHOULD BE GIVEN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTY PROTECTED.

AND SO IF YOU'RE ALLOWING PEOPLE WITH TWO ACRE LOTS TO HAVE THE PROTECTION OF A PERIMETER FENCE, YOU SHOULD ALLOW PEOPLE WHO HAVE LESS THAN TWO AS WELL. SO.

THAT'S NOT REALLY ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION BUT THAT WAS.

AND I THINK WE COULD I MEAN, I GET THE IDEA THAT WE CAN'T SPECIFY WE DO SPECIFY TYPES MULTIPLE PLACES HERE.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE TO SAY MASONRY OR WOOD STYLED FENCES.

I MEAN, THAT WOULD COVER SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE.

I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WE DON'T HAVE PALLET FENCES.

WE DON'T HAVE CORRUGATED METAL.

WE DON'T HAVE ROOFING SHINGLE FENCES, YOU KNOW, ALL THE THINGS THAT COULD POSSIBLY COME UP THERE.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THE IDEA OF OUR RESIDENTS UNIQUELY COUNTRY MEANS SOMETHING DIFFERENT TODAY THAN IT DID SEVERAL YEARS AGO WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES THAT WE DO NOW AND TXDOT HAS BUILT THESE MAMMOTH ROADS, WHICH WE NEED FOR INFRASTRUCTURE, BUT WE ALLOW THAT PROVISION.

AND IN DOING SO, I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE RESIDENTS SUCH AS MS. EILEEN, WHO'S HERE AND WAS NICE ENOUGH TO COME SPEAK TO US, WHO HER STORY IS, WHAT I'VE HEARD BY OTHER PEOPLE, THAT THEY START HAVING TO REPLACE A WOOD FENCE THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER AND THEY'RE KIND OF STUCK BECAUSE THE CITY SAYS, WELL, YOU CAN ONLY DO IT IN SECTIONS, OTHERWISE YOU HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO CURRENT STANDARD.

I MEAN, SHE DOESN'T WANT TO PUT WROUGHT IRON FENCING AROUND HER HOUSE.

SHE HAS A WOOD FENCE EVERYWHERE ELSE.

BUT I THINK THAT WE DO HAVE TO NARROW THAT IN FOR THE FENCING.

AND THAT IS THE KIND OF THE TOPIC OF THE NIGHT, BECAUSE, AS I'VE SAID THE LAST TIME THIS WAS BROUGHT UP, OUR JOB IS NOT TO BE AN HOA.

OUR JOB IS TO BE A CITY.

AND SOMETIMES WE START PUSHING IT TO A POINT THAT WE TRY TO CREATE A UNIVERSAL HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.

OTHERWISE WE LOSE UNIQUELY COUNTRY.

THERE IS NO COUNTRY THERE ANYMORE.

WE'RE UNIFORMING JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER CITY AROUND.

I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD ON, YOU KNOW, ON SUGGESTING CHANGES.

DO WE JUST KIND OF IDENTIFY IT? I MEAN, SO FAR, WE REALLY JUST HAVE TWO ITEMS. LET ME ASK THIS.

WOULD IT BE AND I'M BASICALLY ASKING YOU TREY? WOULD IT BE EASIER FOR US TO GET IN IF WE AGREE, GET THE CHANGES THAT WE LET YOU GO AHEAD AND WORD THEM, WORDSMITH THEM INTO THE CODES, AND THEN WE COME BACK TO COUNCIL AND VOTE ON THEM? WOULD THAT BE EASY OR WHAT IS IT? WELL, I MEAN, WE COULD RIGHT NOW I'M TRACKING WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

SO I THINK IF YOU ALL WANTED TO MOVE AHEAD WITH THE CODE AS IT'S PRESENTED TONIGHT WITH THE TWO CHANGES WE TALKED ABOUT, WHICH WOULD BE EFFECTIVELY REMOVING SUBSECTION A FROM BOTH SF AND SF-T, SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE 2 ACRES.

SO I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE DELETION.

OKAY. AND THEN, SO THEN WE'D OBVIOUSLY RE-LETTER AS NECESSARY, BUT THEN ON B WE WOULD TALK ABOUT SHALL NOT BE SOLID OR OPEN AND THEN OPEN CONSTRUCTION IS ACTUALLY DEFINED IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE, WHICH IS FINE.

I THINK THAT'S GOOD. BUT ADDING TO THE END OF THAT SECOND SENTENCE THERE, EXCEPT AS YOU KNOW, SHALL NOT BE SOLID OR NEAR SOLID FABRIC OR SURFACING EXCEPT AS ADJACENT TO.

AND THEN WE LIST PARKER HOGUE DILLEHAY WHICH SUCH SOLID FENCE CAN BE MADE OF WOOD WROUGHT IRON OR

[00:30:05]

MASONRY. SHOULD WE PUT A REAR ABUTTING TO PARKER DILLEHAY? THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE PEOPLE PUTTING SOLID FENCES IN THE FRONT YARD.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S.

NOW SAY THAT AGAIN. THAT'S A VALID POINT.

BUT I THINK WE HAVE SIDES TOO, BECAUSE WHEN YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE AREAS THAT WE WERE DISCUSSING, IT'S THE SIDE OF THEIR HOUSES.

SO I THINK NOT FRONT.

FRONT FACING IS HOW WE WOULD HAVE TO EXCLUDE IT BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT I MEAN, ED, HE'S NOT HERE.

I WON'T PICK ON HIM. MR. STANDRIDGE, WHO LIVES ON HOGUE, MAY GET THIS ORDNANCE AND SAY, WELL, I CAN WOULD FENCE THE ENTIRE FRONT YARD OF MY HOUSE BECAUSE I FACE IT.

I THINK THAT WE HAVE TO PUT SOME LIMITATIONS.

IT HAS TO BE THE SIDE OR THE REAR.

AND SO HOW AND SO HOW IS THAT GOING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM OF THE NOISE AND THE SITUATIONS THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE RUNNING INTO? MORE OF THE ISSUES THAT THEY'RE BRINGING UP IS THE SAFETY FACTOR.

AND IF IT'S THE SIDE AND THE REAR THAT'S GOING TO COVER THE MAJORITY OF IT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE SECURITY ISSUES OF HAVING AN ENTIRE PROPERTY FENCED THAT IT POSES FOR OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO GENERALLY THE APPEAL.

THE IDEA WAS AND WHAT A LOT OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED WERE THE SAFETY OF CHILDREN, THE SAFETY OF PEOPLE PLAYING IN THEIR BACKYARDS.

THAT'S NOT REALLY SOMETHING IF THEY HAVE ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE.

SO THE IDEA WOULD BE IF YOUR SITE IS PROTECTED, YOUR REAR IS PROTECTED, THEN THAT COVERS THE MAJORITY OF WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT.

THAT MIGHT NOT COVER 100%, BUT IT STILL MAINTAINS THE VIEWS OF THE CITY WHILE COVERING THE MAJORITY OF WHAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT.

AND THOSE PEOPLE WOULD AT LEAST HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A FENCE IN THEIR FRONT YARD, WHICH THEY HAVEN'T HAD.

THEY WOULDN'T NOT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T BLOCK THE VIEW OF TRAFFIC.

THAT WOULD BE ONE CONCERN.

AND I UNDERSTAND IN GOING BACK TO YOUR EARLIER MOTION, I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA IS I THINK THAT GENERALLY THERE'S A LITTLE GUN SHYNESS THAT IT HAS TAKEN.

YOU GUYS HAVE WORKED ON THIS FOR SO LONG AND IT HAS TAKEN SUCH A LONG TIME TO GET HERE.

I THINK EVERYONE'S SOMEWHAT AFRAID TO LET IT GO AGAIN AS TO HOW LONG IT'LL BE BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO US.

[LAUGHTER] WELL, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

AND ALTHOUGH MOST PARTS OF PARKER HAVE HOAS, NOT ALL OF THEM DO.

WHEN YOU START PUTTING SOLID FENCING DOWN A PROPERTY LINE, YOU'RE BLOCKING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.

YOU'RE NOT JUST YOUR VIEW, BUT YOU'RE BLOCKING YOUR NEIGHBOR'S VIEW.

AND THEN SHOULD IT BE A WOOD FENCE IF YOU GO INTO THE OLDER SECTIONS OF ALLEN AND PLANO AND THAT TYPE OF THING, YOU SEE WHAT WOOD FENCES LOOK LIKE AFTER TEN YEARS OR 15 YEARS.

THEY DON'T LOOK VERY NICE.

SO I THINK THAT THERE'S A NEED.

I THINK THAT THIS REQUIRES A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST SOLVING ONE PROBLEM AND CREATING TEN OTHERS.

WELL, I WOULD SAY, THOUGH, YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE BLOCKING SOMEBODY ELSE'S YOU KNOW, NOT BLOCKING YOUR NEIGHBORS, BUT THESE PROPERTIES ABUT TO THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARE.

SO WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT A SOLID FENCE RIGHT NEXT TO A SIX LANE STREET.

THE RESIDENT MAY THEIR NEIGHBOR MAY NOT BE ABLE TO SEE THE CARS PASSING BY AND SIT ON THEIR BACK PATIO WITH THEIR COFFEE TO WATCH IT.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BIG CONCERN AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM.

BUT AGAIN, IT GOES BACK TO MY PRIOR COMMENT.

OUR JOB IS TO MAINTAIN THE SANCTITY OF PARKER, NOT TO BE AN HOA, AND THERE ARE HOAS IN THE AREA.

I CAN DRIVE DOWN THE STREET AND FIND TEN THINGS THAT I DON'T PARTICULARLY LIKE THAT MIGHT BE IN PEOPLE'S YARDS, BUT IT'S THEIR PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO REASONABLY ENJOY THEIR PROPERTY AND AS LONG AS IT DOESN'T DIRECTLY IMPACT SOMEBODY ELSE, I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE DRAW THE LINE.

AND THE WOOD FENCE IDEA.

I GET THE IDEA OF THE MAINTENANCE ISSUE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT WE HAVE THAT WITH EVERYTHING.

I MEAN, A WROUGHT IRON FENCE CAN BECOME JUST AS UNSIGHTLY VERY QUICKLY.

I MEAN, THERE'S DRIVE DOWN DUBLIN, THERE'S SEVERAL OF THEM THAT ARE, BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF PAR FOR THE COURSE OF LIVING IN A CITY UNTIL IT BECOMES SO DILAPIDATED IT'S A HAZARD AND THEN CODE GETS INVOLVED.

AND WHEN WE MAKE THESE CHANGES, I UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF IT BEING SUCCINCT AND THINKING THROUGH, BUT THERE IS ALWAYS THAT OPPORTUNITY THAT WE WILL MISS SOMETHING.

AND THAT'S THE BENEFITS OF BEING ALWAYS HAVING A CITY COUNCIL THAT CAN COME BACK AND AMEND SOMETHING.

IF WE NOTICE THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE OR SOMETHING THAT NEEDS FURTHER AMENDMENT DOWN THE LINE, WE CAN ALWAYS COME BACK AND HANDLE THOSE SITUATIONS IF THEY COME UP.

[00:35:09]

OKAY. IF WE'RE FINISHED DISCUSSING THE FENCE, I DO HAVE SOME OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS IN THE DOCUMENT.

ONE IS THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

THERE WERE TWO THINGS. ONE IS SF-T THE DESIGNATION, SF-T.

AND SF-T FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT HAVEN'T BEEN IN PARKER LONG ENOUGH WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS CREATED, WHAT, 20 YEARS AGO OR SO IN AN ATTEMPT TO ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO DEVELOP PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO ANOTHER CITY WITH A HIGHER DENSITY.

AND THAT WAS THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SF-T.

IT'S BEEN ABUSED OVER THE OVER THE YEARS BECAUSE NOW SF-T IS NOT NECESSARILY ADJACENT TO ANOTHER CITY, BUT IT'S IN THE INTERIOR AND UNIQUELY PARKER AND THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM AND ALL THAT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP PARKER COUNTRY.

I'M NOT SURE WHY WE NEED SF-T ANYMORE.

BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE UNDEVELOPED PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO ANOTHER CITY.

SO THAT WHOLE SECTION IN MY MIND SHOULD BE RETHOUGHT.

YOU WOULD HAVE TO STILL KEEP THE ZONING IN PLACE, BECAUSE IF THOSE HOUSES SOMETHING DOES HAPPEN LIKE A HOUSE BURNS DOWN THERE, STILL, IT'S GOT TO BE, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS SET IN PLACE FOR REBUILDING THAT HOME.

SO LIKE I THINK ALL THAT WOULD REMAIN.

IF THE PROPERTY IS A CERTAIN SIZE AND THE HOUSE IS A CERTAIN SIZE AND IT'S REBUILT.

THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE DESIGNATION.

IT'S STILL GOT TO BE CODIFIED SO WE SO STAFF CAN KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH IT.

COULD WE ADD A TERM THAT SAYS NO FUTURE VERSIONS WILL BE OR NO FURTHER SF-T WILL BE ALLOWED? I THINK THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION, BUT IT COULD BE OVERTURNED BY ANY COUNCIL AT ANY POINT AT THAT POINT.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN THE PAST WHERE THE DEVELOPER PRETTY MUCH WROTE THE BOOK.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NO PARAMETERS SET IN THOSE TO KIND OF REIGN IN. AND IT'S I KNOW WE RELY ON P&Z AND WE RELY ON THE COUNCIL, BUT HISTORICALLY, AGAIN, THEY HAVEN'T DONE A VERY GOOD JOB BECAUSE THINGS HAVE GONE THROUGH THAT PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE GONE THROUGH.

I THINK THAT IF WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IN ITSELF, BUT THERE HAS TO BE SOME BASIC PARAMETERS PUT IN PLACE THAT GIVES THEM SOME LIMITATIONS AS TO HOW MUCH THEY CAN CHANGE OUR CODES.

WHAT ARE YOU SUGGESTING OR DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION IN PARTICULAR? WELL, I DON'T HAVE THE WORDING NOW, AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE SUGGESTION OF DOING A WORKSHOP, BECAUSE THERE ARE A LOT OF INSTANCES AND GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT I MEAN, IT'S WORTHY OF DISCUSSION BECAUSE THIS WILL BE OUR CODE FOR YEARS.

FOREVER. [LAUGHTER] FOR YEARS.

FOR YEARS, YOU KNOW, AND IT'LL IMPACT THE CITY AND THE LOOK OF THE CITY AND OUR UNIQUELY COUNTRY ATMOSPHERE.

AND QUESTION ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS OR YEAH, THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENTS, WOULDN'T THOSE DON'T THOSE REQUIRE COUNCIL APPROVAL BEFORE ANYTHING GOES FORWARD? SO YEAH, SO IT DOES HAVE THE RESTRICTIONS.

IT DOES. BUT BY VIRTUE OF COMING THROUGH COUNCIL, SO HISTORICALLY AND I'VE BEEN TO A LOT OF COUNCIL MEETINGS BEFORE I EVER GOT ON COUNCIL, COUNCILS HAVE PASSED THINGS THAT THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE EVER PASSED ONLY BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T THINK THROUGH IT WELL ENOUGH OR THEY DIDN'T TAKE THE TIME TO DO THE RESEARCH.

[00:40:03]

THERE ARE DEVELOPMENTS AND I DON'T LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, PICK ON CERTAIN AREAS OF THE CITY BECAUSE I'M NOT PINPOINTING THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE THERE, BUT RATHER THE SITUATIONS.

BUT WE'VE HAD DEVELOPERS COME IN AND ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THE SETBACK AND COUNCIL DIDN'T EVEN DISCUSS IT. THEY SAID, OKAY, WELL THAT PARTICULAR AREA LOOKS LIKE MORE COOKIE CUTTER HOUSES MORE. IT LOOKS SIMILAR TO PLANO THAN TO PARKER, LET'S JUST PUT IT THAT WAY.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD WANT TO LEAVE THOSE DECISIONS UP TO EACH INDIVIDUAL COUNCILS BECAUSE COUNCILS MAKE MISTAKES. I TOTALLY AGREE, JUST AS WE WOULD BE SUSCEPTIBLE TO MAKE A MISTAKE.

BUT AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR THOUGHTS ON SF-T.

I'M NOT A FAN. THAT'S ACTUALLY ONE OF THE NOTES I HAVE HERE, SOME CHANGES TO THAT AT A MINIMUM.

BUT MY CONCERN IS, IS NO MATTER WHAT WE WRITE IN HERE, COUNCILS ARE ELECTED AT LARGE BY THE PEOPLE YOU HOPEFULLY ELECT, PEOPLE WHO TAKE THE TIME.

AND I KNOW YOUR FRUSTRATIONS BECAUSE I SHARE THEM.

AND I'VE LIVED IN SOME OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS IN PARKER THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING.

I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT WE CAN PUT, IN MY OPINION.

AND, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ASK TREY, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE I KNOW HIS ANSWER THAT WOULD STOP A COUNCIL FROM DOING WHATEVER THEY WANTED TO DO IN THE FUTURE ANYWAY.

IF THEY HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE TO DO IT, I MEAN, THEY CAN WE CAN GO AGAINST CODE AT ANY TIME TO MAKE A CHANGE.

RIGHT. WELL, AND YOU CAN ALWAYS COME BACK TO CHANGE THE CODE, BUT I MEAN, THE PURPOSE OF THE OF THE DEVELOPER AGREEMENT IS SPECIFICALLY TO VARY FROM WHAT IS IN SF OR SF-T. AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF WHAT MAKES WOULD MAKE IT CHALLENGING TO TRY TO PUT FURTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THAT BECAUSE THE WAY THAT IT'S DRAFTED NOW IS THAT THE DEFAULT IS THE CODE UNLESS THAT'S SO CHANGED BY A DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT.

AND SO THEN IT WOULD BE UP TO WHATEVER THE DEVELOPER, WHATEVER THAT VARIANCE FROM THE CODE PROVISION THEN WOULD BE TO BE APPROVED BY RECOMMENDED BY P&Z AND THEN APPROVED BY COUNCIL.

AND THAT'S THE PROCESS FOR THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT.

AND WHOEVER'S ON COUNCIL AT THAT TIME WOULD BE THE ONES LOOKING AT IT.

AND THERE'S DEVELOPERS AGREEMENTS ARE MUTUALLY AGREED UPON.

IT'S JUST NOT THE CITY JUST CAN'T DICTATE ALL THE TERMS WITH THOSE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

SO THEY HAVE TO, I THINK WHAT WAS IT KINGS CROSSING WHEN THAT WENT IN? I BELIEVE THERE WERE SOME ROAD IMPROVEMENTS AND LIFT STATIONS THAT WERE UPGRADED AS PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR CERTAIN CONCESSIONS ON OTHER THINGS. SO YOU DO SEE THAT IN SOME OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS.

SO IT'S JUST THAT WAS MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY BOTH PARTIES.

IT'S A NEGOTIATION. IT'S A NEGOTIATION.

YES. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS, I MEAN, I'M TAKING THIS ALL IN AND I'M AGREEING WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, COUNCILMAN MEYER.

AND I UNDERSTAND THAT WE DEFINITELY NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, IN MY OPINION, YOU KNOW, AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DO THE RIGHT THING.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE IS A TON OF WHEN I WENT THROUGH THIS, WHAT I WAS CATCHING IS SO MANY OF THE THINGS THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEANED UP, THAT WERE CLEANED UP IN THIS.

AND THE THING IS, IF WE WAIT AND WE KIND OF STOP IT, ALL OF THIS GOOD CHANGE THAT NEEDS TO BE IN HERE FOR AN ACTUAL, ACTIVE, WORKABLE DOCUMENT.

I'M AFRAID THAT IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A DOCUMENT THAT IS NOT WORKABLE, AND THERE'LL BE LOTS OF WORKAROUNDS THAT ARE HAPPENING BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO AGREE TO IT BECAUSE IT'S BEEN SO OUTDATED.

SO THAT'S MY ONLY IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE IT PALATABLE AND MAKE SURE THAT SOME OF THESE BLATANT VIOLATIONS TO OUR CITY THAT WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE HAPPEN TO MAINTAIN OUR UNIQUELY COUNTRY ENVIRONMENT.

IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING, I THINK IT'S OUR DUTY AS A COUNCIL TO COME UP WITH THAT SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.

YEAH, AND I WAS JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT TREY COULD CAPTURE WHAT WE'RE SAYING AND PUT IT IN THE CORRECT LANGUAGE TO GO TO THE ORDINANCES OR TO THE CODES, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO FIND OUT.

WE COME UP WITH SOME GREAT WORDING AND IT IS.

IT DOESN'T WORK. I UNDERSTAND.

[LAUGHTER] YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

SO AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT HIM ON THE SPOT, BUT YOU KNOW, DID YOU PICK UP EVERY BIT OF THAT? YOU KNOW, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? SO BUT I DO THINK KIND OF GOING BACK TO YOUR FIRST, I KNOW WE WERE ON THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT I DON'T THINK WE FINISHED THE SF-T BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A HOT BUTTON FOR A LOT BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN ABUSED.

AND IF WE CAN PUT SOMETHING THAT STATES THAT WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO ALLOW FUTURE EXPANSION OF OUR SF-T ZONING AREAS, THAT WOULD BE MY

[00:45:02]

FIRST RECOMMENDATION.

MY SECOND ONE IS IF WE CANNOT DO THAT, THEN I WOULD LIKE TO STRIP THE WORD AVERAGE LOT SIZE AVERAGE OUT OF THERE BECAUSE THERE'S NOWHERE ELSE IN OUR CODE THAT WE AVERAGE.

YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THIS AND I'M GOING TO PICK ON FENCES ONE MORE TIME IF I HAD EIGHT FEET SECTION OF WOOD FENCE AND THE REST OF MY FENCE WAS ALL IN WROUGHT IRON, THE CITY WOULD HAVE STILL HIT ME FOR THAT EIGHT FOOT, EVEN IF I ARGUED WELL, AVERAGE.

I'VE GOT WROUGHT IRON FENCING AND I THINK THAT AVERAGING IS SOMETHING THAT'S LEFT UP TO TOO MUCH DISCRETION.

AND I DON'T LIKE THAT THEY AVERAGE IN STREETS, THEY AVERAGE IN DRIVEWAYS, THEY AVERAGE IN CULVERTS, THEY AVERAGE IN.

THEY AVERAGE IN ACREAGE.

YES. AND THAT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE IN MY OPINION.

I WOULD PREFERABLY LIKE TO SEE IT STATE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THERE WILL BE NO FUTURE SF-T EXPANSION IN PARKER, BUT IF WE CAN'T DO THAT THEN I AT LEAST LIKE TO SEE THOSE WORDINGS STRIPPED AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS THE BETTER WAY TO DO THAT.

AND I WOULD FALL ON TREY'S ADVICE FOR THAT.

YOU'RE GETTING REALLY USED TO NIGHT, TREY.

YEAH. RIGHT.

AND ADMITTEDLY THAT'S NOT ONE THAT I'VE LOOKED UP.

I WOULD IMAGINE THAT JUST LIKE AT ONE POINT WE STRUCK OUT A PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

WE CAN STRIKE OUT FUTURE, I GUESS, PERMITS FOR THIS ZONING.

WE LIKE LUKE MENTIONED EARLIER, WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT TO LEAVE IT IN FOR THOSE THAT ARE SF-T NOW AND LEAVE THAT CODIFIED.

I THINK WE COULD ADD A PROVISION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NO LONGER ONE BEING OFFERED FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CODE GOING FORWARD.

AND IT'S IN THERE FOR HISTORICAL AND VESTED PROPERTY PURPOSES.

THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS ANOTHER CHANGE BECAUSE I THINK AGAIN, OF COURSE, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS CAN ALWAYS COME AND COUNCIL'S GOING TO DO WHATEVER THEY'RE GOING TO DO. BUT THIS IS A GUIDE THAT WILL HELP, HOPEFULLY ALONG WITH OTHER GUIDES THAT WE'RE CREATING FOR FUTURE COUNCILS.

AND WE OWE A RESPONSIBILITY TO HOLD OUR FUTURE COUNCILS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS THAT THEY MAKE TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH WHAT THE RESIDENTS WANT.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? Y'ALL ARE BEING AWFUL QUIET.

SO TO CLARIFY, MICHAEL, YOU'RE JUST WANTING THAT NO MORE SF-T WILL BE OFFERED.

THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

YES. I MEAN, WE CAN'T I WOULDN'T I DON'T BELIEVE IN STRIPPING PEOPLE'S PROPERTY AND WE CAN'T STRIP PROPERTY BY ORDINANCE.

BUT I WOULDN'T WANT ANYBODY TO FEEL LIKE THEY'RE LESS OF A PARKER RESIDENT BECAUSE THEY'RE ON AN SF-T ZONED AREA.

THAT'S NOT THE CASE.

WE JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE. WE'RE PRETTY MUCH BUILT OUT ON EVERYTHING THAT TOUCHES SOMETHING.

WE DON'T NEED SF-T ANYMORE.

IT'S USABILITY IS GONE.

THE ONLY THING IF WE.

MAYBE ALONG HEARTBURN IF WE REMOVED THOSE AT THIS TIME JUST BECAUSE IF WE.

REMOVE WHAT I DON'T? THE WORD AVERAGE.

I THINK IF WE PUT THE PROVISION THAT SAYS WE'RE NOT ALLOWING FUTURE I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE AVERAGE ANYMORE BECAUSE THAT WILL HAVE APPLIED TO ANYTHING THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.

BECAUSE THEN BECAUSE IF WE YEAH.

IF WE REMOVE THE WORD AVERAGE, I THINK WE'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO EACH ONE OF THOSE DEVELOPMENTS AND DO PDS FOR EACH ONE OF THEM.

AND THAT WOULD BE A TEDIOUS PROCESS.

AND THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT I THINK HAS KIND OF IN MY AGAIN, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION, BUT I'LL THROW IT OUT.

AS AN EXAMPLE, IN KINGS CROSSING, THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE WAS GOING TO BE AN ACRE AND A HALF.

WELL, THE KINGS CROSSING THREE, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE WORKING ON NOW, CORRECT? THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS ONE ACRE.

THAT IN ITSELF IS NOT PROBLEMATIC.

BUT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING PUT ON THAT ONE ACRE ARE HUGE.

SO WHAT YOU WIND UP WITH IS NOTHING BUT ROOFTOPS WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE DONE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT MAY NOT BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME PEOPLE, BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT MOVED TO PARKER SO THAT TO GET AWAY FROM THAT BECAUSE WE CAN JUST MOVE TO PLANO IF WE WANT TO SEE NOTHING BUT ROOFTOPS.

RIGHT. BUT THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE.

ANOTHER PROBLEM, AND I KIND OF AGREE WITH KAY BOOTH'S COMMENTS ON THIS, BUT SHE IS QUESTIONING THE TEMPORARY NON TEMPORARY STORAGE SHED.

COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE DEFINE WHAT THAT IS? THE DEFINITIONS FOUND IN SUBSECTION B, THERE ARE STORAGE SHEDS OF LESS THAN 200 SQUARE FOOT FEET OF FLOOR ARE ALLOWED ON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

SO HOW IS IT A NON TEMPORARY STORAGE SHED.

[00:50:03]

IN THAT IT'S NOT A PORTABLE BUILDING? RIGHT. HAS A FOUNDATION.

NOT A PLASTIC HOME DEPOT TUFF SHED.

IT HAS A FOUNDATION.

OKAY. BUT THEN IT SAYS BUILDING SETBACKS DO NOT APPLY TO STORAGE SHEDS DESCRIBED IN THIS DIVISION.

SO I THINK THAT STORAGE SHEDS COULD BE A PROBLEM IN SOME AREAS.

I PERSONALLY AM IMPACTED BY MY NEIGHBORS STORAGE SHED WHO BUILT THEIR TEMPORARY.

IT'S A TEMPORARY STORAGE SHED.

IT'S MADE OUT OF SOMETHING YOU BUY AT HOME DEPOT AND IT'S RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE.

NOW, THEY CAN'T SEE IT FROM THEIR BACKYARD, BUT I CAN SEE IT FROM MY BACKYARD AND TO MAKE THINGS WORSE.

NOW, NOT ONLY DO THEY PUT THINGS IN THE SHED, BUT THEY PUT THINGS ALL AROUND THE SHED.

SO ALL THE JUNK IS OUT THERE FOR MY VIEWING PLEASURE.

[LAUGHTER] AND, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE THAT, I THINK, THAT WE COULD ALLEVIATE BY TIGHTENING SOME OF THE THINGS, SOME OF OUR CODES UP.

AND THERE ARE A SLEW OF THAT WITHIN THIS WHOLE DOCUMENT.

AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR A WORK SESSION.

BUT. WHAT WOULD COUNCIL LIKE TO DO? YOU KNOW, ONE, WE CAN HAVE THE WORK SESSION.

TWO, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT TREY CAPTURES EVERYTHING, AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE, DECIDED HERE TONIGHT, AND HAVE HIM BRING IT BACK SO WE CAN SEE IT TO MAKE SURE OR WE CAN JUST GO WITH WHAT WE HAVE AND HOPEFULLY IT'LL ALL BE RIGHT.

WHAT DO YOU ALL WANT TO DO? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR COUNCIL.

SO IF WE DO MAKE THESE AMENDMENTS, ARE WE REQUIRED UNDER THE 72 HOUR RULE THAT WE HAVE TO GIVE 72 HOURS NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC FOR ANY SORT OF PROTEST GRIEVANCE? OH, NO, MA'AM, WE CAN PASS IT AS AMENDED BY COUNCIL TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HOW WE'RE MOVING FORWARD THUS FAR WITH MR. LANSFORD CAPTURING THE DISCUSSIONS, THE CHANGES TO MAKE THOSE THUS FAR THEY'RE CONTROLLABLE.

I THINK WE'RE, ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE I DON'T KNOW IF Y'ALL WANTED TO MORE DISCUSSION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.

NO, BUT I HAVE A FEW MORE COMMENTS.

LIKE I MENTIONED FIVE YEARS AGO, THE MAYOR AND I STARTED WORKING THROUGH THIS AND WE WENT THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT PROBABLY FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT TIMES.

SO I'M QUITE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT'S IN THERE, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN ALL MY CHANGES.

SO I'M DOING THIS BY MEMORY.

SOMEBODY HAD CHANGED AND I DON'T AND GARY YOU PROBABLY CAN ANSWER THIS, THE HEIGHT OF THE HOME, THE ROOF HEIGHT.

I DID. AND YOU CHANGED IT FROM 35 TO 45 FEET.

FOR WHAT PURPOSE? BECAUSE WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF PROBLEMS WITH A LOT OF TROUBLE WITH THE SIZE OF THE HOUSES AND THE ROOF PITCHES THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO GET FOR THE LOOK THAT THEY WANT THAT WE WERE HAVING. EVERY TIME THEY COME IN WITH A PERMIT, WE'RE HAVING THEM HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDRAW THEIR HOUSE TO BRING THE ROOF PITCH DOWN TO COMPLY WITH THE 35 FEET.

AND DOES THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A HIGHER ROOF PITCH? THERE'S NO PROBLEM. THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S IN THE MEASUREMENT.

I THINK THE MAYOR AND I AT ONE TIME THOUGHT THAT THE MEASUREMENT SHOULD BE FROM GROUND LEVEL, BUT THE MEASUREMENT IS NOT FROM GROUND LEVEL.

NOW IT'S FROM THE FIRST FLOOR, WHICH.

IT'S CALLED FINISHED FLOOR.

IT'S THE FLOOR LEVEL OF THE FIRST.

RIGHT. SO. IN THE FOUNDATION? YES. AND SO IN SOME CASES OR IN ONE CASE, THERE'S A HOME IN PARKER THAT THE FIRST FLOOR IS ELEVATED OFF OF GROUND LEVEL, LEVEL BY, I DON'T KNOW, FOUR OR FIVE STAIRS.

[00:55:02]

AND IT'S ALSO A VERY TALL HOUSE.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHY THE YOU'RE NOT MEASURING FROM GROUND LEVEL.

I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED OUT THAT WE HAVE TO MEASURE FROM FINISH FLOOR.

CALLED OUT BY WHO? I MEAN, IT'S IN THE DOCUMENT THAT WAY.

YEAH, BUT SOMEBODY CHANGED THE DOCUMENT.

I DON'T KNOW WHEN THAT HAPPENED. TYPICAL.

THAT IS TYPICAL OF YOUR YOU MEASURE FROM FINISHED FLOOR IF YOU GO TO MANY CITIES THAT'S A TYPICAL MEASUREMENT.

MEASURE FROM WHAT? FINISHED FLOOR.

EVEN IF THE FIRST FLOOR IS BUILT UP TO ABOUT TEN FEET TO BE RIDICULOUS? IF THEY WANT TO PUT THAT MUCH DIRT IN.

AND THERE'S A HISTORY ON THAT THAT IS FAIRLY COMMON AMONGST MOST OF THE CITIES THAT I'VE BUILT IN THEM.

THE HISTORY IS THERE'S A LOT OF CITIES AND A LOT OF COUNTIES THAT ARE TAXABLE FROM GROUND LEVEL UP. AND SO IN TERMS WHAT PEOPLE WILL DO IS BUILD A WHOLE FLOOR THAT IS CONSIDERED A BASEMENT LEVEL TO LIFT UP THE FIRST FLOOR FINISH.

THEY'RE NOT TAXED ON THAT SPACE.

SO THEY MAY HAVE A 3000 SQUARE FOOT STRUCTURE ON THEIR FIRST FLOOR AND HAVE 6000 SQUARE FOOT OF BASEMENT.

THEY'RE NOT TAXED ON 9000 FEET.

AND SO A LOT OF CITIES HAD THAT PROVISION IN PLACE THAT IT WAS THE GROUND FLOOR UP IS WHERE THE MEASUREMENTS COME FROM.

EVERYBODY I KNOW OF AROUND HERE DOES FROM FINISHED FLOOR.

AND SO THAT'S BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT KIND OF GROUND SLOPE YOU'RE DEALING WITH, WHAT KIND OF GRADING THAT YOU'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH.

AND SO YOU CAN RUN A LOT OF VARIANCE THERE TOO, BY THEM JUST BUILDING UP MOUNDS ON THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE TO GET THE HEIGHT THAT THEY WANT.

WHEREAS IF IT'S A FINISHED FLOOR, IT'S, FAIRLY STANDARD.

TIME OUT.

ANYTHING ELSE? CINDY, YOU'RE ON A ROLL.

I DIDN'T WRITE DOWN EACH ONE OF THESE THINGS BECAUSE I MADE THE BAD ASSUMPTION THAT COUNCIL WOULD BE WILLING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON IT.

[LAUGHTER] I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING? I WANT TO SAY GOOD JOB TO P&Z.

THANK YOU FOR THE HARD WORK THAT WENT INTO THIS.

I REMEMBER GOING TO A MEETING ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO AND WATCHING WEI WEI PAINFULLY STRIKE OUT.

THE WORD WERE TO WORD THE VERB TENSES.

AND IT WAS IT WAS BRUTAL.

IT WAS BRUTAL. SO GREAT JOB.

I'M JUST GOING TO CONFIRM, YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE MADE AND BEING ABLE TO TRACK THOSE CHANGES TO INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE CODE? YES. IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IF COUNCILS AGREED ON THE THREE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED IN GREATER DETAIL, THEN YES, I'M GOOD WITH THOSE.

FOR? IF YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO GO THROUGH THEM FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES AND CONFORMATION PURPOSES, I'M HAPPY TO DO SO.

IF I HAVE YOU DO THAT AND SAY I WERE TO BE OBLIGED TO MAKE A MOTION, COULD I JUST STATE AS THE AMENDMENT STATED BY THE COUNCIL SO I'D HAVE TO REPEAT ALL OF THEM AGAIN? YOU COULD.

DO YOU MIND, MR. LANSFORD, GOING THROUGH ALL THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE HAD SO FAR? SO THE CHANGES THAT I HAVE NOTED ARE IN 156.32 AND 156.33 BOTH SUBSECTIONS I1A WOULD BE STRUCK REGARDING THE FENCES BEYOND THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN THE FRONT YARD FOR TWO ACRES.

WE'RE JUST GOING TO STRIKE THAT ALL TOGETHER.

THEN IN SUBSECTION B, ABOUT FENCES SHALL BE OF OPEN CONSTRUCTION AND NOT SOLID OR NEAR SOLID.

WE'RE GOING TO ADD AN EXCEPTION FOR THOSE TRACKS THAT ARE SIDE OR REAR ADJACENT TO DILLEHAY HOGUE AND PARKER ROAD, IN WHICH A SOLID FENCE SHALL BE OF WOOD, MASONRY OR WROUGHT IRON.

THOSE TWO CHANGES WILL BE MADE BOTH IN 156.32 AND 156.33.

BOTH SUBSECTIONS MATCHING.

AND THEN THE THIRD CHANGE WOULD BE ADDING A SECTION TO 156.33 THAT THE SF-T WILL NOT BE OFFERED FOR FUTURE HOUSING DEVELOPMENTS BUT IS BEING LEFT IN CODIFIED FOR THE PROPERTIES WITH VESTED RIGHTS IN SF-T.

THANK YOU.

MADAM MAYOR. I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 820 REGARDING THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER 156 ZONING

[01:00:10]

WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS STATED BY COUNSEL MR. LANSFORD. OKAY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER TO ACCEPT OR TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 820 WITH THE AMENDMENTS AS READ INTO THE RECORD BY OUR COUNSEL, TREY LANSFORD.

IS THERE A SECOND? MADAM MAYOR? MADAM MAYOR I MOVE TO SECOND.

OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ACCEPTING ORDINANCE NUMBER 820 WITH AMENDMENTS AS READ INTO THE RECORD BY COUNCIL. PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OK MOTION PASSES 4 TO 1.

THE ONE AGAINST IS COUNCILMEMBER MEYER.

OK. THANK YOU.

I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW GLAD I AM TO HAVE THOSE DONE.

OK. NEXT WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 5 CONSIDERATION AND ARE ANY APPROPRIATE

[5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2022-708 SETTING A PROPOSED TAX RATE, AND APPROVING A DATE, TIME, AND A LOCATION FOR ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 2022-2023 BUDGET AND TAX RATE, AND A DATE FOR THE VOTE ON]

ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-708, SETTING A PROPOSED TAX RATE AND APPROVING A DATE, TIME AND LOCATION FOR ONE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED FY 2022 2023 BUDGET AND TAX RATE AND A DATE FOR THE VOTE ON THE ADOPTION OF THE 2022 2023 BUDGET AND APPROVAL OF TAX RATE.

OUR ESTEEMED DIRECTOR OF FINANCE'S GRANT SAVAGE, WILL DO A BRIEF PRESENTATION TO START US.

THANK YOU, MAYOR COUNCIL JUST TO KIND OF DO AN OVERVIEW OF THE CALENDAR THAT WE'RE FOLLOWING RIGHT NOW, YOU CAN SEE THAT WE'VE HAD OUR BUDGET PLANNING WORKSHOP BACK ON THE 23RD OF MAY.

WE'VE HAD A COUNCIL GOES WORKSHOP, BUDGET PLANNING WORKSHOP AGAIN ON THE 20TH OF JUNE, OUR FIRST AND SECOND BUDGET WORKSHOPS.

AND THEN WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO SET THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

AFTER SETTING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE ON FRIDAY, AUGUST THE 5TH WE'LL BE FILING PROPOSED BUDGET WITH THE SECRETARY AND WE'LL BE POSTING THAT ON THE WEBSITE.

AND THEN ON AUGUST 16TH, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AND BUDGET.

AND FINALLY, ON AUGUST THE 22ND, COUNCIL WILL BE TAKING FINAL ACTION ON THE TAX RATE AND BUDGET.

SO THAT'S WHERE WE STAND.

A LITTLE HISTORY ON SENATE BILL TWO.

THIS IS PART OF THE PROPERTY TAX REFORM THAT WAS BACK IN 2019, WENT INTO EFFECT ON JANUARY 1ST OF 2020.

THE TWO CHANGED THE NAMES OF TWO RATES, THE EFFECTIVE TAX RATE AND THE ROLLBACK TAX RATE TO THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AND THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE WENT FROM 8% INCREASE, ALLOWABLE TO A THREE AND ONE HALF PERCENT INCREASE ALLOWABLE.

IT ALSO CREATED A NEW RATE CALLED THE DE MINIMIS RATE AND THIS GAVE CITIES WITH A POPULATION BELOW 30,000 THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADOPT A TAX RATE THAT WOULD GENERATE AN ADDITIONAL 500,000 IN PROPERTY TAX REVENUE.

THE TAX RATES THAT HAVE BEEN CALCULATED BY THE TAX ASSESSOR.

AND THAT I REVIEWED OUR TAX RATES FOR 2022.

THE TOP TWO RATES THERE, THE NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE CAME IN AT $0.32, 32.0101 CENTS.

AND THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE CAME IN AT 32.9289 CENTS.

AND YOU SEE THE DE MINIMIS RATE CAME IN AT 35.3399 CENTS.

THE PROPOSED TAX RATE IS BEING PROPOSED AT 33.3109 CENTS, WHICH IS A DECREASE OF 3.2875 CENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR.

SINCE THIS TAX RATE DOES EXCEED THE NO NEW REVENUE OR VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE RECORD VOTES REQUIRED AND THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE NEEDS TO BE SCHEDULED. SO WITH THE RECORD VOTE PASS, IF THE RECORD VOTE PASSES, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THAT TAX RATE WILL BE AT CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 16TH, 2022, AT 7:00.

[01:05:07]

SO AT THIS TIME, WE NEED TO TAKE A RECORD VOTE ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE . COUNCIL IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN WE WERE IN OUR WORKSHOP, THE RATE THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT WAS RIGHT AT THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE, AND THAT INCREASED A BIT.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A PLEA TO SEE ABOUT LESSENING OUR TAX RATE, YOU KNOW, TO THE FACT THAT IT'S ABOVE THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE.

I THINK IS POOR FORM.

I KNOW IT'S STILL LOWER THAN THE DE MINIMIS RATE AND WON'T REQUIRE A TAX INCREASE.

AND I DO RESPECT THE CONCERNS THAT WERE EXPRESSED AT THE MEETING ABOUT UPCOMING EXPENDITURES.

BUT UNTIL WE HAVE A PLAN, IT'S HARD.

IT'S HARD TO APPROVE A RATE THAT'S GREATER THAN A THREE AND A HALF PERCENT INCREASE TO OUR RESIDENTS OVER THE LAST YEAR, ESPECIALLY IN THIS TIME.

SO JUST MY REQUEST.

ANY TAKERS? [LAUGHTER] WHAT WOULD THE COST TO THE CITY BE AS FAR AS LOST REVENUE, IF WE WERE TO DO THAT? IT WOULD BE AROUND 40, AROUND 45,000.

45,000 WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM LOSS.

AROUND THAT NUMBER. I MEAN, IT'S LESS THAN 50,000, BUT AROUND 45,000.

AND THEN SO THEN THE TAX RATE WOULD BE THEN WHAT? AT THAT POINT? IT WOULD BE? IT WOULD BE IF, ACCORDING TO WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MEYER WAS PROPOSING, IT WOULD BE THE NO NEW TAX REVENUE.

I'M SORRY, THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE, WHICH.

SO WOULD BE THAT VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE THREE AND A HALF PERCENT.

YEAH. I MEAN, I KNOW I'VE BEEN TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, I'VE BEEN ENCOURAGING A NO NEW REVENUE TAX RATE AND I DON'T SEE THAT AS POSSIBLE.

BUT IF WE COULD AT LEAST GET TO THIS TO THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE IT WE'RE SO CLOSE. I WOULD AGREE THAT $45,000 IS NOT A TON OF MONEY.

MY CONCERN IS NOT PHANTOM IN THE SKY EXPENSES.

WE HAVE SOME KNOWN EXPENSES AND WE DID.

WE WORKED HARD TO DROP THIS.

I MEAN, ORIGINALLY WE WERE BUDGETED AT THE DE MINIMIS, WHICH IS LOWER THAN LAST YEAR'S TAX RATE.

WE WORK TO KEEP DROPPING IT.

AND I AGREE, WE DON'T WANT TO PULL A VEIL OVER ANYBODY'S EYES.

THIS IS NOT A MONEY BACK TO THE RESIDENTS.

THIS IS JUST NOT CHARGING THEM AS MUCH AS, I GUESS, LEGALLY WE COULD TO PROVIDE THE SERVICES IN A YEAR WHERE INFLATION HAS BEEN 9% IN THE CITIES, NOT IMMUNE TO INFLATION.

MY CONCERN AT THE END OF THE DAY IS SOMETHING I BROUGHT UP IN THE WORKSHOP AND WHY I WAS NOT FOR THE NO NEW REVENUE THOUGH I AM FOR IT.

I JUST DIDN'T THINK IT WAS PRUDENT WAS OUR SALES TAX REVENUE WE'RE BUDGETING BASED ON THAT AND CITIES DON'T DO THAT.

GENERALLY SPEAKING, MOST CITIES IN THIS AREA DO NOT BUDGET BASED ON THEIR SALES TAX REVENUE BECAUSE IT'S VARYING AN OURS WAS A LITTLE MORE VARIED THAN USUAL.

ABSOLUTELY. AND I WAS REALLY CONCERNED IF THEY DO A CALLBACK ON THAT, WHAT HAPPENS IF WE'VE GOT SOMETHING WRONG THERE? $45,000, THOUGH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, I DON'T THINK IS A MAKE OR BREAK IT.

I ALSO FELT LIKE WE WERE AT THE VOTER APPROVAL.

BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE MISCOMMUNICATION WAS.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH YOU.

IT'S WE HAVE TO BASE ON THE FACT THAT WE HAVE DELINQUENT SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T PAY THEIR TAXES.

I DON'T WANT TO CALL THEM DELINQUENT TAX PAYERS, BUT SOMEBODY WHO CAN'T OR SOME SITUATION THAT COMES UP.

IN RESPECT WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE TO HAVE TO SHAVE 45,000 MORE DOLLARS OFF? I MEAN, I KNOW I'M NOT PUTTING YOU ON THE SPOT.

[01:10:01]

YOU DON'T TELL ME WHAT CATEGORY, BUT IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU SEE IS EVEN FEASIBLE? I MEAN, SURE, WE COULD AND IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED TONIGHT.

BUT I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, WE COULD WE COULD CUT THE BUDGET MORE IF NEED BE TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT TAX RATE.

SO WILL ESSENTIAL SERVICES BE IMPACTED? THAT'S THE MAIN QUESTION.

I UNDERSTAND. IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR US TO SACRIFICE.

I THINK WE'D PROBABLY JUST TAKE IT FROM ONE OF THE TRANSFERS.

YEAH. PROBABLY WITHOUT HAVING TO GET INTO DEPARTMENTS, LINE ITEMS AND CUT THAT KIND OF MONEY.

IT WOULD PROBABLY WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE TRANSFERS AND PROBABLY CUT IT SOMEWHERE IN THE TRANSFERS.

SO NO, SO ESSENTIAL SERVICES WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED IF WE WERE TO GO WITH THAT.

NO. AS LONG AS COUNCIL GAVE THAT DIRECTION.

AND WHAT IS OUR RESERVE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR? 5 MILLION.

YEAH, JUST OVER 5 MILLION.

SO WE'VE GOT MORE THAN A YEAR'S RESERVE ALSO.

AND WE COULD I MEAN A COUNCIL CAN PASS A BUDGET THAT HAS A DEFICIT.

SO THERE'S THAT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

SO WE COULD PASS THE BUDGET LINE ITEM AS IS AND WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE PROPERTY TAXES.

AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE NEXT YEAR IS GOING TO BRING.

AND WE MAY VERY WELL NEED THE MONEY.

I MEAN, THE ECONOMY IS TEETERING, SO.

RIGHT. YOU KNOW, I THINK IF WE CAN TAKE IT OUT OF CERTAIN LINE ITEMS AND REDUCE THE BUDGET THAT WAY.

OH, SURE. THAT'S THE WAY WE COULD GO.

ABSOLUTELY. THAT WOULD BE FINE.

THAT WOULD BE PREFERABLE. YEAH.

I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF OF A NEGATIVE BUDGET, SO I WOULD MUCH PREFER IT TO COME OUT OF A TRANSFER.

AND I THINK THAT WE CAN FOR $45,000.

IF WE CAN'T DO THAT, THEN YOU NEED TO GET SOMEBODY ELSE IN HERE.

WHICH, TRANSFER? I MEAN. WELL, I MEAN THAT WOULD BE UP TO YOU ALL'S DECISION YOU KNOW WE HAVE THE TRANSFER TO THE OBVIOUSLY THE RECONSTRUCTION FUND.

WE HAVE THE TRANSFER TO THE EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND.

WE HAVE ONE TO THE DRAINAGE FUND.

OF COURSE, I DON'T HAVE THOSE IN FRONT OF ME HERE, BUT.

WE COULD TAKE IT FROM THE THE FACILITIES FUND. THE FACILITIES FUND.

YOU COULD AND I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WE'VE CURED THE DRAINAGE ISSUE WITH THE LACK OF RAIN.

SO WE HAVE THAT OPTION, TOO.

[LAUGHTER] YEAH, IT'S ALL SOLVED.

YOU KNOW, WE JUST STOPPED THE RAIN AND THEN THAT STOPPED THE DRAINAGE.

YEAH, BUT I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF LOOKING AT THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE THAT TONIGHT, THOUGH, DO WE? NO, WE DON'T KNOW. WE DON'T HAVE TO DECIDE THAT TONIGHT.

WE'RE JUST SETTING THE PROPOSED TAX RATE.

SO IF YOU JUST GIVE THE DIRECTION TO REVISE THE BUDGET TO REFLECT THE NEW TAX RATE, PROPOSED TAX RATE AND A BALANCED BUDGET. OKAY.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION AT THIS POINT.

SURE.

I WOULD MAKE A MOTION THAT ON THE PROPOSED TAX RATE FOR THE FY 22-23, THAT WE GO TO THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE AND LOOK AT THE BUDGET ITEMS TO GET DOWN TO THAT LEVEL.

AND THAT WOULD BE MY MOTION IS THAT WE GO WITH THE 0.329289 FOR THE 22-23 PROPOSED TAX RATE.

AND I'LL SECOND THAT.

MADAM MAYOR, DON'T WE HAVE TO INCLUDE A DATE AND TIME AS PART OF THIS AS WELL? WE DO AND IT HAS TO BE A RECORD VOTE.

YES. SO ONCE WE GET TO MOST OF THE MOTIONS, WOULD YOU ACCEPT AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION OF A DATE AND TIME OF? WELL, I THINK. SORRY.

LET ME JUMP IN. WE'VE GOT A PROPOSED RESOLUTION AS PART OF THE BACKUP.

IT'S 2022-708 THAT'S GOT THE PUBLIC HEARING AS PART OF THAT RESOLUTION.

YOU COULD MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2022-708 AS AMENDED TO CHANGE OUT IN SECTION TWO THE TAX RATE FROM WHAT IS PROPOSED TO THE VOTER APPROVAL RATE IN SECTION TWO AND THEN PASS IT THAT WAY.

THEN I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION 2022-708, BUT SET THE PROPOSED TAX RATE AT THE VOTER APPROVED TAX RATE.

THAT WOULD BE THE AMENDMENT.

OKAY. WOULD YOU PLEASE STATE WHAT THE TAX RATE WOULD BE? THE TAX RATE WOULD BE 0.329289 FOR THE 22-23 FISCAL YEAR.

[01:15:06]

OKAY. AND I SECOND THAT.

OKAY, AS AMENDED.

OK THEN IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT THIS TIME? I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

MR. REED.

ARE YOU IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THE.

I'M IN FAVOR. OK.

DIANA ABRAHAM FAVOR OR OPPOSED? FAVOR. OK.

CINDY MEYER FAVOR OR OPPOSED? FAVOR.

OK TERRY LYNCH FAVOR OR OPPOSE? FAVOR. MICHAEL SLAUGHTER FAVOR OR OPPOSE.

IN FAVOR.

OKAY.

THE PROPOSED TAX RATE OF THE VOTER APPROVAL TAX RATE .329289 IS APPROVED AND UNANIMOUSLY.

AND ALSO THE NEXT PUBLIC HEARING ON THE TAX RATE WILL BE HELD AT CITY HALL ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 16, 2022, AT 7:00 PM.

THANK YOU. AND FINAL ACTION.

AND FINAL ACTION AUGUST 22ND AND FINAL ACTION WILL BE AUGUST 22ND.

RIGHT.

ITEM NUMBER 6 CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-709 AWARDING

[6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2022-709 AWARDING THE 2022 ANNUAL MOWING CONTRACT.]

THE 2022 ANNUAL MOWING CONTRACT.

MR. MACHADO, WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US ABOUT THIS? THIS IS THE SAME COMPANY THAT'S BEEN DOING THAT.

THEY WERE AWARDED A CONTRACT THIS YEAR WITH LOW BIDS AND SLIGHT INCREASE IN COST, BUT OVERALL, THEY'RE DOING A GOOD JOB.

THIS INCLUDES THE NEW MEDIANS? YES. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, COMMENTS FROM MYSELF AND OTHERS.

FIRST, IS THERE A WAY TO SEVERAL PEOPLE HAVE ASKED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF MOWINGS THAT WE DO THAT WE'RE DOING WAY TOO LONG AND TOO OFTEN.

IS IT POSSIBLE TO CHANGE THE CONTRACT AT THIS TIME, OR IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED NEXT YEAR? SO TO MAKE A MODIFICATION TO IT, I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD DO THAT NOW.

THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

NO, THAT WOULD CHANGE THE TERMS THAT WE BID IT ON.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

BUT I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT.

SO WHEN YOU DO THE NEXT YEAR'S CONTRACT, I WOULD ASK THAT YOU TAKE A LOOK AT LIMITING HOW MUCH MOWING WE ARE HAVING DONE.

ALSO, PEOPLE HAVE SUGGESTED AND.

WELL, FOR CLARIFICATION, THEY THINK WE ARE MOWING TOO MUCH? WAY TOO OFTEN.

WELL, IT'S AN EXTREMELY DRY YEAR TOO.

IN A WINTER YEAR IT'S NOT AS OFTEN AS YOU THINK.

[LAUGHTER] WELL, AND THAT'S TRUE.

AND BUT THE COMMENT WAS TOO OFTEN AND TOO LATE.

WE GO TOO FAR.

AND I DO KNOW IT'S A VERY DRY YEAR.

BUT ONE OF THE OTHER COMMENTS KIND OF JUST AN FYI, I KNOW WE MOW OUR GRASS AT LIKE THREE INCHES AND THE GRASS THEY GROW, THEY MOW THAT GRASS WAY TOO LOW.

AND IT'S NOT HEALTHY FOR THE TREES OR FOR THE GRASS ITSELF, FOR THE ROOTS TO GROW.

SO IF YOU COULD ASK THEM TO START MOWING A LITTLE BIT HIGHER RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT GROWING.

ED KEEPS GROWING. HE KEEPS MOWING HIS BUT IT'S NOT GROWING.

THE OTHER THING IS ON THE MEDIANS, NOT THE MEDIANS, THE MONUMENT, WEEDS AND SHRUBS COULD BE LOOKED AT FOR MAINTENANCE ITEM TO FOLLOW UP WITH THEM.

BUT OVERALL, I MEAN, I LIKE SEEING THEM OUT THERE AND THEY SEEM TO BE PICKING UP THE TRASH BEFORE THEY MOW.

? OK. THEN I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-709 FOR THE 2022-23 ANNUAL MOWING

[01:20:04]

CONTRACT. OK.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LYNCH TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-709.

IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION AN A SECOND TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-709 THE ANNUAL MOWING CONTRACT.

IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-710

[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2022-710 APPROVING AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR UTILITY RELOCATIONS ALONG F.M. 2551 FROM PARKER ROAD TO NORTH CITY LIMIT.]

APPROVING AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE UTILITY RELOCATIONS ALONG FM2551 FROM PARKER ROAD TO THE NORTH CITY LIMITS.

MR. OLSON, YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THIS? YES. PREVIOUSLY THIS IS KIND OF A PAIRING WITH A PREVIOUS ITEM THAT WE HAD.

I BELIEVE IT WAS ACTUALLY THE LAST MEETING WITH THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY.

THIS IS JUST GETTING BIRKHOFF ON BOARD NOW TO ENGINEER THOSE CROSSINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO AND LOWERINGS THAT WE HAVE TO DO WITH THE 2551 PROJECT. GOOD PORTION OF THIS IS BEING PAID BY THE COUNTY FOR THIS PROJECT AND WE'LL BE REIMBURSED FOR THAT IN ANY OVERAGES.

WE DO HAVE SET ASIDE WITHIN THOSE AMERICAN RECOVERY ACT FUNDS, SO WE CAN USE THOSE FUNDS FOR THAT.

SO BASICALLY NO MONEY OUT OF OUR POCKET AT THIS POINT.

YEAH. OKAY. COUNCIL, ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY.

THEN I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-710 APPROVING AN ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR THE UTILITY RELOCATION ALONG FM 2551 FROM PARKER ROAD TO THE NORTH CITY LIMIT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER FOR APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-710.

IS THERE A SECOND? MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO SECOND.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM SLAUGHTER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER ABRAHAM TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2022-710 AS PRESENTED.