[CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:05] >> I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING TO ORDER. IT IS NOVEMBER 19, 2024 AT 6:00 P.M. MS. SCOTT CRIAG, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? >> YES, YOU HAVE A QUORUM. >> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGES. I WILL ASK GREG KERSHAW IF HE WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND MISS ESTRA HASS, IF SHE WOULD LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE. >> >> THANK Y'ALL. FOR THOSE WHO ARE WATCHING VIRTUALLY, I HAVE BEEN REMISS IN DOING THIS FOR A LITTLE WHILE, SO LET ME DO IT. I WANT TO INTRODUCE EVERYBODY THAT'S HERE. TO MY FAR LEFT IS COUNCILMEMBER RANDY KERSHAW, NEXT TO HIM IS COUNCILMEMBER BUDDY PILGRIM, NEXT TO MR. PILGRIM, IS MAYOR PRO TEM JIM RED, NEXT TO MR. REED, IS OUR CITY ATTORNEY, KATHERINE CLIFTON. I'M MAYOR PEDLE. TO MY RIGHT IS COUNCILMEMBER AMANDA NAU, AND NEXT TO MISS NAU IS COUNCILMEMBER TODD BECK. ON THE FIRST DROVE. YOU IS PATTY SCOTT GRAY, WHO IS CAREFULLY MOVING AROUND THERE. I KNOW YOU PROBABLY CAN'T SEE HER, BUT SHE'S THERE NEXT TO MISS GRAY IS GARY MACHADA, OUR DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. MOVING ON THEN, ARE THERE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? I DON'T HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS AT THIS TIME. [ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST] WE WILL MOVE TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. ONE THING I'D LIKE TO SAY IS ON THE PEANUT BUTTER COLLECTION FOR NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK. I WANT TO LET PEOPLE KNOW WE COLLECTED 78 POUNDS OF PEANUT BUTTER, WHICH TRANSLATE, THEY TELL ME TO 68 MEALS, WHICH IS PRETTY DARN GOOD. LET'S TRY FOR 100 POUNDS NEXT YEAR. BUT I'M PROUD OF PARKER. THANK Y'ALL. THANK EVERYBODY THAT PARTICIPATED IN THAT. I'LL NOTE THAT OUR NEXT CITY COUNCIL MEETING IS DECEMBER 3. THERE WILL BE A PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING ON DECEMBER 11 AT FIVE O'CLOCK IN THIS ROOM. THE NEXT WELL, AFTER THAT, THERE WILL BE A COUNCIL MEETING ON DECEMBER 17. [CONSENT AGENDA] AFTER THAT, LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. AT THIS TIME. THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2024. CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 879, APPROVING THE 2020 EXCUSE ME, TAX ROLL. CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON APPROVAL OF RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE TO CITY HALL AND CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2020 4-821, ABOLISHING THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE. AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNSEL, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO PULL OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION? >> MADAM MAYOR. >> THEN I WOULD ACCEPT THE MOTION. >> EXCUSE ME. I WOULD MOVE TO EXCUSE ME, TAKE OFF THREE AND FOUR, AND PUT IT AS AN ITEM. >> OKAY. >> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO TAKE OFF NUMBER 5, AND PUT IT AS AN ITEM. >> THREE, FOUR AND FIVE. THEN LET'S MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER THREE, CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE. WELL, FIRST, LET'S GO AHEAD AND FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. GO AHEAD AND LOOK AT ITEM NUMBER 2, WHICH IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2024. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? [00:05:01] OTHERWISE, I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 2 OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> MADAM MAYOR, I'D SECOND, THAT MOTION. >> ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY. I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM OF THE APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES FOR NOVEMBER 12, 2024, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 4, 0. NOW WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER 3. [3. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 879, APPROVING THE 2024 TAX ROLL.] CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 879, APPROVING THE 2024 TAX ROLLS. >> MADAM MAYOR, I JUST WANTED TO IDENTIFY IT FOR THOSE THAT ARE WATCHING AND PERHAPS WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE, BUT WE GOT CERTIFIED TOTALS PREVIOUSLY IN REGARDS TO THE TAX ROLES, AND THIS IS BASICALLY A LETTER COMING TO THE CITY WITH BASICALLY THE SAME INFORMATION. JUST A PROCEDURE BASICALLY TO ACCEPT IT AT THIS POINT. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> WITH THAT, MADAM MAYOR I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 3, ORDINANCE NUMBER 879, APPROVING THE 2024 TAX RAW. >> MADAM MAYOR I, SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER KERSHAW AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER NAU TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 879, APPROVING THE 2024 TAX ROLL. IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE NUMBER 879, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5, 0. THANK YOU. NEXT IS ITEM NUMBER 4, [4. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE APPROVAL OF RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE AT CITY HALL.] CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON APPROVAL OF RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE TO CITY HALL. IN YOUR PACKET, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED DIAGRAMS, PICTURES OF THE PROPOSED RENOVATIONS. YOU WILL NOTICE THERE IS NO FUNDING REQUEST WITH THIS BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BEEN FUNDED IN OUR BUDGET PROCESS THAT WE WENT TO. BUT COMMENTS. MR. KERSHAW. >> AGAIN, JUST FOR VISIBILITY. I KNOW THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT READ THE CAPTION AND SAY, OKAY, APPROVAL, RENOVATIONS AT CITY HALL AND NOT KNOW EXACTLY WHERE IT GOES, BUT BASICALLY WE'RE TAKING AWAY VERY SMALL SPACE THAT CURRENTLY HAS FILE CABINETS IN RIGHT NOW TO MAKE ROOM FOR AN ADDITIONAL OFFICE AND PUT SOME SOUND PROOFING IN. I THINK THE BID IS JUST ABOVE $7,000. >> THERE'S TWO BIDS. I ASSUME THAT PEOPLE WANT TO GO WITH THE LOWER BID OF 7,500, I THINK IT IS. >> THEN WITH THAT, MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD MOVE TO APPROVE THE RENOVATION OF THE ADDITIONAL OFFICE BEING MADE TO CITY HALL. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> MADAM MAYOR, I'LL MAKE A SECOND TO MOTION. >> THANK YOU, SIR. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILMEMBER KERSHAW AND A SECOND FROM COUNCILMEMBER PILGRIM TO APPROVE THE RENOVATIONS TO BE MADE TO CITY HALL. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION. IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THE RENOVATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5,0. NUMBER 5. [5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2024-821, ABOLISHING THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE ] CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-8201 ABOLISHING THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS, WE HAD A NEWSPAPER COMMITTEE THAT PUT OUT A PAPER NEWS LETTER BY SNAIL MAIL THAT WENT OUT QUARTERLY. CINDY MYER WAS THE PERSON THAT WAS DESIGNATED BY COUNSEL TO DO IT. WHEN CINDY LEFT COUNSEL NO ONE WAS REALLY EAGER TO TAKE ON THAT RESPONSIBILITY, AND WE DECIDED AT THAT TIME TO PAUSE THAT SO THAT WE COULD GO AND SEE ABOUT DOING AN ELECTRONIC NEWSLETTER RATHER THAN A SNAIL MAIL NEWSLETTER, AND THAT'S LOOKING PRETTY GOOD AT THIS TIME WITH SOME DIFFERENCES. [00:10:07] BUT BECAUSE THIS IS A RESOLUTION THAT ISN'T IN EFFECT, WE HAVEN'T USED IT IN TWO YEARS, IT SEEMS LIKE IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO RESCIND IT. >> MADAM MAYOR, MAY I HAVE THE FLOOR? >> SURE. >> THANK YOU. WITH RESPECT TO THE NEWSLETTER, I THINK THE NEWSLETTER IS AN IMPORTANT MEANS TO COMMUNICATE TO THE RESIDENTS IN OUR CITY IN TERMS OF WHAT VARIOUS DIFFERENT THINGS ARE BEING DONE AT THE CITY, WHAT FUTURE THINGS MIGHT BE COMING. I THINK THE COMMUNICATION TO ALL THE RESIDENTS OF THE CITY IS A VERY IMPORTANT ASPECT. I THINK THAT WE HAVE AND THAT WE OWE OUR CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE TO THEM. I THINK TO BE ABLE TO DELIVER THE NEWSLETTER IN ELECTRONIC FORM MAKES SENSE. I THINK TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO HAVE THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE TO PRODUCE THE NEWSLETTER, BUT DISTRIBUTE IT ELECTRONICALLY MAKES SENSE. I ALSO FEEL THAT THERE'S CONSIDERABLE EFFORT IN POSTING INFORMATION ABOUT UPCOMING EVENTS ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND I FEEL LIKE THE SOCIAL MEDIA CAN BE EXCLUSIVE BECAUSE SOME OF THE PARKER GROUPS HAVE A FACEBOOK ADMINISTRATOR WHO'S NO LONGER HERE IN PARKER. I CAN TELL YOU MYSELF, I TRIED TO GET INTO A GROUP, I WAITED TWO YEARS BEFORE THE PERSON LET ME IN. I FEEL LIKE RELYING ON COMMUNICATION VIA FACEBOOK, ALTHOUGH IT'S CONVENIENT, IT DOESN'T INCLUDE EVERYBODY IN OUR CITY AND I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE INCLUSIVE AND LET EVERYBODY HEAR ANY WORDS THAT WE WANT TO SHARE REGARDING THE GREAT CITY OF PARKER. I WOULD LIKE TO NOT ABOLISH THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE. I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE WITH ANY EFFORT THAT'S BEING PUT INTO ANY COMMUNICATIONS VIA FACEBOOK OR OTHER MEANS TO ALSO BE COPIED AND REPLICATED INTO A NEWSLETTER SO ALL THE CITIZENS OF PARKER CAN HEAR THE GREAT WORDS THAT WE HAVE TO SHARE. >> I'M WITH YOU. I WANT US VERY MUCH TO CONSIDER WITH THE NEWSLETTER AND I DO WANT TO GO OUT ELECTRONICALLY, AND THERE'S SOME IDEAS. THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN PROGRESS. I JUST DON'T I THINK WE NEED A SEPARATE DISCUSSION SOMEHOW ON SOCIAL MEDIA BECAUSE A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, THE COUNCIL VOTED NOT TO BE A PRESIDENT ON SOCIAL MEDIA, AND THAT MAY CHANGE. WE MAY WANT TO RE LOOK AT SOME OF THOSE ITEMS. WE MAY WANT TO LOOK AT THE NEWSLETTER, HOW IT'S GOING TO BE DONE IN ALL OF THAT. I JUST DON'T PARTICULARLY THINK THAT RESOLUTION IS HOW WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. IT'S UP TO Y'ALL ON WHAT Y'ALL WANT TO DO. >> I THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN A RESOLUTION THAT INCLUDES A NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE BECAUSE OTHERWISE, IF IT'S NOT A FORMAL COMMITTEE, THEN IT'S NOT CHARTERED BY COUNSEL. I THINK WE SHOULD KEEP IT. >> I WOULD SAY IF I CAN TALK JUST FOR A SECOND HERE, I AGREE WITH WHAT COUNCILMEMBER NAU IS TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK THAT IF IT'S NOT SUPER ACTIVE, THAT'S OKAY. WE COULD AUGMENT THIS RESOLUTION FOR THE MEETING FREQUENCY AND FOR WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO AND ALL THAT THINGS. IF WE WANT TO MELD IT INTO SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. BUT I DO HAVE A FEAR THAT IF WE JUST LET IT GO, THEN THEN NOTHING WILL HAPPEN EVER. IF YOU IF YOU LET IT GO, THEN THEN THERE WON'T BE A NEWSLETTER AT ALL AND YEAH. THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DRAFT ANOTHER ONE THAT IS GOING TO BE A REPLACEMENT OF THIS ONE. WHY NOT JUST LEAVE IT OUT THERE AS A BABY CATALYST TO CONTINUE TO PUT SOMETHING IN THAT WOULD BE MORE FORMED TO WHAT WE ACTUALLY END UP WITH. >> MR. KERSHAW. I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF A NEWSLETTER AND GOING THAT DIRECTION. I JUST DON'T KNOW THE LEGALITIES AND MAYBE OUR LEGAL COUNSEL COULD TELL US IF WE HAVE A NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE AND BASICALLY IS DEFUNCT AND THERE'S NOBODY ON THE COMMITTEE. DOES ONE LEAVE IT OPEN OR DOES ONE GET RID OF IT AND OPEN UP AT A LATER POINT? >> IT WOULD JUST DEPEND ON WHETHER SOMEONE WANTED TO REQUIRE THE CITY TO PRODUCE IT TO TAKE SOME ACTION. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE'S NO NEWSLETTER POLICE THAT ARE GOING TO COME AND SAY, HEY, THE CITY OF PARKER SHOULD BE PRODUCING THIS. BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY AN EXPECTATION THAT IF YOU HAVE THAT, THAT YOUR CITIZENS WOULD EXPECT THAT TO BE PRODUCED. >> I GUESS I WOULD ASK IF THERE'S SOMEONE. LETTER COMMITTEE AND SUCH, MOVE IT FORWARD. IF THERE'S A GOOD DEAL OF PEOPLE THAT WANT TO SEE THE NEWSLETTER COMMITTEE EXIST AND CONTINUE TO PUSH FORWARD, THEN HOPEFULLY THERE'S SOMEONE THAT WANTS TO TAKE THE REALMS OF IT. [00:15:02] >> I GUESS FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I JUST HAD THOUGHT WE WOULD IN THIS ONE AND DRAW UP A NEW RESOLUTION. BUT IF THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU WANT TO DO, THAT'S FINE. JUST TELL ME WHO'S GOING TO BE THE NEWS LETTER PERSON. >> I THINK THE STRUCTURE OF THIS IS FINE. IT INCLUDES THE MAYOR, THE CITY SECRETARY, THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, AND ONE COUNCIL MEMBER THAT SHOULD BE APPOINTED EVERY TWO YEARS IN JUNE. I THINK THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE WOULD BE THE SAME GROUP OF PEOPLE WE'D PICK AGAIN IF WE WERE GOING TO DRAFT THIS AGAIN, SO I DON'T SEE A REASON TO ABOLISH IT. >> I TAKE IT. IS THERE A MOTION? ITEM 5 FAILS FOR A LACK OF MOTION. [6. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2024- 815, APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND APPOINTING AN ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF.] >> ITEM NUMBER 6. CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2024-815, APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND APPOINTING AN ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF. ON MY OWN MOTION, I AM PULLING THIS OFF OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA AT THE REQUEST OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. IT WILL BE ON THE DECEMBER 3RD AGENDA BECAUSE THE FIRE FOLKS COULD NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING AND THEY ASKED THAT IT BE MOVED TO A TIME IN PLACE WHEN THEY COULD BE PRESENT FOR THE APPOINTMENT. MOVING TO ITEM NUMBER 7. >> JUST AS A POINT OF ORDER, DOES IT REQUIRE THREE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO VOTE TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE AGENDA? >> I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE RESOLUTION, BUT IT'S NOT IN FRONT OF ME NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S SPECIFICALLY THREE OR IF IT'S A MAJORITY OF THE COUNCIL, BUT THERE IS SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT THAT EXISTS. >> THEREFORE, SHOULD WE TAKE A VOTE? >> [OVERLAPPING] TO PULL IT OFF ON A OWN MOTION? >> THAT'S NOT WHAT I RECALL FROM IT. IT'S NOT [INAUDIBLE] >> SHOULD WE TAKE A VOTE? >> IF YOU WANT TO VOTE ABOUT IT THAT'S FINE. >> WE CAN TAKE A VOTE. >> I NEED SOMEBODY TO MAKE A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR I WILL MAKE A MOTION THAT ON ITEM 6, RESOLUTION 2024-815, APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND APPOINTING THE ASSISTANT CHIEF THAT WE TAKE THAT OFF OF THE AGENDA. >> MADAM MAYOR I SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO REMOVE ITEM NUMBER 6, APPOINTING A FIRE CHIEF AND ASSISTANT CHIEF OFF OF TONIGHT'S AGENDA AND RESCHEDULING IT TO DECEMBER 3RD'S AGENDA. ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU. [7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2024-817 REGARDING __7__ VOTES FOR COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS.] NOW, ITEM NUMBER 7, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2024-817, REGARDING SEVEN VOTES FOR COLLIN COUNTY CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE IN YOUR PACKET A LIST OF PERSONS THAT WOULD LIKE YOUR VOTES. I WILL NOTE ONE IS A PARKER RESIDENT, JERRY TARTALINA, BUT WE ARE OPENING THE FLOOR TO ANY NOMINATIONS. >> MADAM MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE PUT ALL SEVEN VOTES TOWARDS JERRY TARTALINA. >> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND THAT WE GIVE ALL OF OUR VOTES TO JERRY TARTALINA. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF GIVING ALL SEVEN OF OUR VOTES TO JERRY TARTALINA, A PARKER RESIDENT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. [8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE “WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT” BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC., RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM CITY OF PARKER’S CCN TO THE CITY OF WYLIE’S CCN. [ORDINANCE NO. 881]] ITEM NUMBER 8, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF PARKER, CCN, TO THE CITY OF WYLIE, CCN. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 881. [00:20:02] AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK OUR CITY ATTORNEY TO GIVE A BRIEF INTRODUCTION OF THIS AND I HOPE EVERYBODY GOT THE UPDATED INFORMATION IN THEIR PACKAGE. [INAUDIBLE] YOU DIDN'T? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> NO TO PUNT THIS, BUT GARY MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO IT BETTER THAN I AM. BUT ESSENTIALLY, THERE'S PROPERTY THAT IS LOCATED WITHIN PARKER'S CCN THAT IS ALSO INSIDE THE WYLIE CITY LIMITS. THIS IS WHAT CAME ABOUT AS A REQUEST FROM A PROPERTY OWNER, AND WHO WANTS TO HAVE THAT PROPERTY THAT PORTION OF THE CCN TRANSFERRED TO WYLIE CCN, SO THEY ARE BOTH IN THE CITY LIMITS OF WYLIE AND IN THE WYLIE CCN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, DISCUSSION? MR. KIRCHO. >> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE THAT TALKS ABOUT AGREEMENT THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN WYLIE AND PARKER DATED, I GUESS, MARCH 30TH OF 2010, WHERE THEY BASICALLY AGREED TO SUPPLY THE WATER AND PROVIDE PARKER THE OPPORTUNITY TO WHOLESALE THE WATER OR RETAIL THE WATER OUT TO THAT AREA. MY QUESTION IS WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT IN THE PACKET, BUT WAS THERE AN END DATE LOOKING AT THAT PARTICULAR AGREEMENT OR WYLIE SAID THIS IS WHAT WE WILL DO? HOW WAS THAT WORDED? WAS THERE AN END DATE OR YEARLY RENEWED OR WHAT? >> I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN THAT AGREEMENT, BUT ANECDOTALLY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT EXPIRES NEXT YEAR. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THE PIECE OF PROPERTY ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HAS NO FACILITIES. IT HAS NO WATER OR SERVICE FROM EITHER CITY AT THIS TIME. >> MY OTHER QUESTION WAS THAT THE 15,000 THAT WAS PROPOSED TO BE PAID. I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO WIND UP DOING STAFF WORK AS WELL AS LEGAL COSTS IN REGARDS TO HELPING THE TRANSFER TAKE PLACE. DO WE BELIEVE THE 15,000 IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO COVER BOTH LEGAL AND STAFF SERVICES? >> I BELIEVE THAT IS ADEQUATE TO COVER THAT, YES. >> I HAD A QUESTION, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION. IF I REMEMBER THE STORY ON THIS ALSO IS THAT IF WE ELECT NOT TO DO ANYTHING ON THIS, THAT IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE RE-ROUTED IN SOME REGARD TO TAKE CARE OF THOSE AREAS, IS THAT CORRECT, THE WAY I UNDERSTAND THAT? >> IF WE ELECT NOT TO SELL THE CCN OR [INAUDIBLE] TAKING OVER, THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUY WATER AND WE'VE GOT SOMEBODY TRYING TO DEVELOP THAT NOW AND THEY WANT WATER. >> MY POINT BEING IS THAT EVEN IF WE ELECTED NOT TO SELL THE CCN AND WE HAD TO GO THROUGH AND PROVIDE WATER, THAT'S A MUCH MORE COSTLY OPTION, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY. >> IF WE TAKE THE WATER LINES THERE [INAUDIBLE] IT'S GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE. >> SO DO WE HAVE AN ESTIMATE OF WHAT THAT COST MIGHT BE? >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY NEED, WE GOT TO KNOW WHAT THEY NEED FIRST. IF THEY NEED A 10 INCH WATER LINE, IT'S GOING TO BE A LOT. [INAUDIBLE] >> WHAT IF LET'S GO CONSERVATIVE AND SAY IT WAS ONLY EIGHT INCH LINE WHILE YOU'RE TALKING? BALL PARK. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> WOULD THEIR WATER IMPACT FEES IN SOME WAY OFFSET THE COST OF THE NEW WATER LINES? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. THERE'S POTENTIAL. >> HOW MANY UNITS ARE WE TALKING? IT'S JUST THAT ONE PROPERTY OR WOULD IT BE? >> WELL, NO. THERE'S SOME MORE PROPERTY THERE TOO. BUT IT'S NOT THE CITY OF PARKER PROPERTY, IT'S WYLIE. >> BUT IF WE'RE IN THE CCN AND THEN IF WE'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WATER LINES, AREN'T WE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY PUT THEM IN THE GROUND? >> WELL, TYPICALLY WHEN THE DEVELOPERS COME IN, THEY PUT THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEY PUT THE WATER LINES IN. BUT THIS DEVELOPER IS NOT WANTING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S EXPENSIVE. WYLIE HAS WATER LINES ALREADY AT THE CHURCH AND THE SCHOOL RIGHT NEAR THE PROPERTY OF THE BACKSIDE. WITH THAT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE, WHICH WAS 15 YEARS AGO, ROUGHLY, IT EXPIRED IN 15 YEARS SO MARCH OF 2025, IT WILL EXPIRE. THE AGREEMENT IS FULLY WRITTEN. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS WHEN IT EXPIRES. WHEN YOU READ IT, IT DOESN'T SAY AT THE EXPIRATION, THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED, IT JUST SAYS IT EXPIRES, SO WE'VE GOT DR. WYLIE TO SORT THAT OUT. >> PETTY, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. [00:25:02] YOUR RECORDER NEEDS BATTERIES. >> THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT SAY WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE CCN OF THE 15 YEAR CONTRACT EXPIRED? >> NO BUT I THINK WYLIE IS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT AFTER 15 YEARS IT'S THEIRS. >> I SEE. >> WHEN YOU SAY THAT, YOU MEAN THEIRS WITHOUT? >> WE'D HAVE TO FIND OUT. >> WISH GRANT WAS HERE BECAUSE I SEEM TO REMEMBER THAT THE ACTUAL, NOT THE IMPACT FEE, BUT THE WATER RATE, IT'S PRACTICALLY PASSED SO WE DON'T GET SO MUCH FOR THAT. >> EXCUSE ME, AT THIS TIME, WE ARE GOING TO RECESS VERY BRIEFLY TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR A LEGAL MATTER. UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.7102, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENT BODY OF THE STATE UNDER THE STATE DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT AND THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, OPEN MEETINGS ACT. IT IS 6:27, WE ARE IN RECESS. AT THIS TIME, WE ARE BACK IN SESSION ON THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING. IT IS NOVEMBER 19, 2024. WE HAVE RETURNED AT 7:04 PM. WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 8, WHICH WAS ANY CONSIDERATION AND OR OTHER ACTION ON THE WATER CCN TRANSFER PAYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS AND INTEGRITY COMPANIES, LLC, RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FROM THE CITY OF PARKER, CCN TO THE CITY OF WYLIE, CCN. CONTINUE DISCUSSION ON ITEM 8. NOT HEARING ANY MORE DISCUSSION. IS THERE A MOTION? >> MADAM MAYOR, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE TABLE THIS. >> POSTPONE. >> POSTPONE EXCUSE ME, THAT WE POSTPONE ANY CONSIDERATION ON ITEM 8 UNTIL THE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING. >> WE HAVE A MOTION TO POSTPONE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE DECEMBER 3RD CITY COUNCIL MEETING. IS THERE A SECOND? >> MADAM MAYOR, I SECOND THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER NO TO POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON ITEM NUMBER 8 UNTIL THE DECEMBER 3RD CITY COUNCIL MEETING. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? >> CAN I MAKE JUST ONE COMMENT ON THAT? I THINK THAT WHAT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON IS THAT A LOT OF THIS INFORMATION IS NEW, AND WE HAVEN'T HAD A TIME TO DIGEST A LOT OF THIS SO WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO TIE JUST THIS, AND THERE'S ALSO SOME QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ANSWERED THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE THAT AS A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION FOR THE POSTPONEMENT. >> YEAH, I WOULD AGREE IN GETTING THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION. I THINK WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THE THIRD. >> IF THERE'S NO FURTHER DISCUSSION, THEN I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING ITEM NUMBER 8 UNTIL DECEMBER 3RD'S COUNCIL MEETING, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. PATTY, WOULD YOU PLEASE NOTE THAT THIS WILL NOW GO ON THE DECEMBER 3RD AGENDA? NOW WE WILL MOVE TO NUMBER 9, [9. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF WYLIE AND THE CITY OF PARKER,” BETWEEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF WYLIE RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF WYLIE FROM PARKER’S WATER CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY (“CCN”) TO WYLIE’S WATER CCN. [ORDINANCE NO. 882]] CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY OTHER ACTION ON THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF [00:30:03] PARKER AND THE CITY OF WYLIE RELATING TO THE TRANSFER OF APPROXIMATELY 48 ACRES IN THE CITY OF WYLIE FROM PARKER'S WATER CERTIFICATE OF CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY, CCN TO WYLIE'S WATER CCN. IT'S LABELED AS ORDINANCE 882. >> MADAM MAYOR. I THINK THIS IS RELATED TO EIGHT, AND SO BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH RELATED, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE POSTPONE THIS AS WELL TO THE DECEMBER 3RD. >> IS THAT A MOTION? >> I WILL MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO POSTPONE ORDINANCE NUMBER 882 TO THE DECEMBER 3RD AGENDA AGAIN, WITH THE SAME BACKGROUND THAT WE NEED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WHERE WE CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMAN PILGRIM TO POSTPONE ITEM NUMBER 9 TO THE DECEMBER 3RD MEETING. ANY DISCUSSION ON THAT? NOT HEARING ANY. I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING ITEM NUMBER 9 TO DECEMBER 3RD'S MEETING PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. [10. CONSIDERATION AND/OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE “FIRST AMENDMENT TO NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT - CITY OF PARKER POTABLE WATER SUPPLY AMENDATORY CONTRACT,” PROVIDING FOR A SECOND POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNTS, AND PROVIDING CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. [ORDINANCE NO. 883]] NEXT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM NUMBER 10, CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, CITY OF PARKER PORTABLE WATER SUPPLY AMENDATORY CONTRACT, PROVIDING FOR A SECOND POINT OF DELIVERY FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, SETTING MINIMUM WATER DELIVERY AMOUNTS AND PROVIDING CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THIS IS ORDINANCE NUMBER 883. ANY DISCUSSION, COUNCIL? MR. KIRCHO. >> I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS. [INAUDIBLE] LATE SO I HAVE A HARD TIME DIGESTING [INAUDIBLE]. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> ABOUT HOW IT COULD BE CALCULATED? >> YEAH, CALCULATED. >> BUT I THINK WE NEED TO DIG INTO THE MATHEMATICS OF THAT JUST TO UNDERSTAND IT PRIOR TO GOING THROUGH. ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT HERE, THEY'RE ASKING DURING THE CONTRACT THAT WE USED FROM A WATER CONSERVATION PLAN. WELL, KNOW THAT THE TYPE OF CITY THAT WE HAVE WITH LARGER ACREAGE, WE TYPICALLY USE MORE WATER THAN SOME OF THE OTHER SURROUNDING CITIES, AND THAT'S BEEN A CONTENTION POINT, I GUESS, FOR NORTH TEXAS, THAT WE USE PERHAPS MORE WATER PER INDIVIDUAL THAN OTHER CITIES. THEY HAD ASKED US TO COME UP WITH A CONSERVATION PLAN, WHICH WE HAD PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED. BUT FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT, IS THAT PREVIOUSLY WE HAD WE COULD CONSIDER SOMETHING FOR ADOPTION FURTHER IF SOMETHING CAME UP, BUT THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT SAYS THAT WE WILL ADOPT ANYTHING THAT THEY COME UP WITH, WHETHER IT BE TEXAS WATER CODE, TCQ, OR THEIR BOARD OF DIRECTORS. BASICALLY, IT SAYS IF THEY COME UP WITH SOMETHING, WE IMMEDIATELY HAVE TO ADOPT IT AND THAT AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THIS PARTICULAR CONTRACT, WE WOULD PROVIDE THEM WITH OUR WATER CONSERVATION PLAN. THEY WOULD COME BACK AND TELL US HOW IT NEEDS TO CHANGE, WHICH WE WOULD AUTOMATICALLY HAVE TO ADOPT. I WOULD SAY THAT WE SHOULD PROVIDE THAT FIRST TO THEM AND FIND OUT WHAT EXACTLY THEY'RE GOING TO TELL US WE HAVE TO ADOPT PRIOR, SO WE HAVE ALL THE CARDS IN OUR HAND AS TO WHAT WE ARE, IN FACT, VOTING ON BECAUSE IT COULD HAVE NEGATIVE INFLUENCES UPON OUR CITIZENS IF THEY CAME BACK WITH CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, I WASN'T REALLY SURE ON HOW THE PAYMENTS COME BACK IN TERMS OF THE SIX MILLION, WHETHER IT'S SIX MILLION OR NOT, HOW IT'S PAID BACK TO NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. WASN'T QUITE SURE AS THEY TALKED ABOUT THE MINIMUM TAKE POINTS, [00:35:06] WHETHER IT WAS FROM DELIVERY POINT 1 OR 2 OR WHETHER IT REALLY DIDN'T EVEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. I DON'T HAVE WHAT OUR WATER USAGE WAS FROM LAST YEAR'S ANNUAL AMOUNT THAT IDENTIFY HOW CLOSE WE ARE TO THE NUMBERS THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHAT [INAUDIBLE] PERIOD, I THINK OF THREE YEARS, WE'RE GOING TO BE PAYING WHAT THEY CALL IN THE CONTRACT FULL CUSTOMER CITY RATE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS FROM A DEFINITION OF THAT. THEY ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT DURING THE FIRST PART OF THE YEARS THEY'RE CALCULATING MINIMUMS, THEY WOULD TAKE FROM WHAT I COULD GATHER. THEY WOULD TAKE WHAT OUR USAGE WAS FOR THE PERIOD OF TIME THAT WE USED IT AND THEN PRO-RATED OVER A YEAR TO COME UP WITH WHAT OUR ANNUAL USAGE WAS. BUT IF WE CONNECT CLOSE TO THE SUMMER AND THEN THEY EXTRAPOLATE THAT TO AN ENTIRE YEAR, IT COULD BE A BIG NUMBER. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO CALCULATE THAT AS WELL. THEY ALSO HAD ONE SECTION, SECTION 5, THAT THEY HAD NO ANNUAL MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR USAGE. BUT THE WHOLE THING TALKS ABOUT MINIMUM USAGE REQUIREMENTS, SO I WASN'T SURE BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO BE CONTRADICTORY TO THE REST OF THE CONTRACT. SECTION 4 SAYS IT REQUIRES US TO GET SIGN OFF FROM CONTRACTS FROM CUSTOMERS WHERE WE ARE ACTING AS BASICALLY THE WHOLESALER. IT GOES BACK AGAIN TO THE WATER CONSERVATION PLAN. IT SAYS IF WE'RE WHOLESALING WATER AND WE HAVE A CONTRACT WITH ANOTHER CITY LOCATION, WHATEVER, WE HAVE TO GET A CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH THEM SIGNED BY THEM, THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THAT AS WELL. OF COURSE, IF WE'VE GOT CURRENT CONTRACTS WITH OTHER CITIES OR WHAT HAVE YOU TODAY, THEY COULD EASILY COME BACK AND SAY, NO, I'M NOT GOING TO SIGN A NEW CONTRACT WITH YOU, YET THIS REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE TO HAVE IT. NUMBER OF QUESTIONS IN HERE THAT CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO GET MORE INFORMATION ON AS WELL AS JUST GOING THROUGH IT AGAIN AND TRYING TO ABSORB THE CONTRACT. >> ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? >> THE ONLY OTHER DISCUSSION I WOULD HAVE IS THAT AS I SAID, IT WAS VERY LATE THAT WE RECEIVED THIS AND IT'S PRETTY COMPLEX AND THERE'S A LOT OF PIECES OF THIS THAT ARE REFERENCED TO IN THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION TO MAKE ANY ASSESSMENT. WITH THAT, I WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACTUALLY POSTPONE THIS UNTIL DECEMBER 3 AS WELL WHERE WE CAN GET SOME OF THAT OTHER INFORMATION. AS A COUNCIL, WE CAN ACTUALLY DIGEST ALL OF IT AND LOOK AT THE RELATIVE ANNEX DOCUMENTS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE RIGHT NOW TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT. >> IS THAT A MOTION? >> YES. >> I SECOND. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER FAT TO POSTPONE ANY ACTION ON NUMBER 10 REGARDING THE CONTRACT FROM NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT UNTIL DECEMBER 3 FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF POSTPONING THIS ITEM UNTIL DECEMBER 3, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. MISS SCOTT GRAY, DO YOU HAVE THAT DOWN? THANK YOU. [11. TEMPORARY MORATORIUM EXTENSION: PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXTENSION OF THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW, AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION, SITE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF PARKER. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 880 EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NO.’S 871, 866, 854, 846, 844, 839, 833, 824, 815 & 812 ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW, AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION, SITE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF PARKER.] NOW, WITH THAT, WE WILL GO TO THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM EXTENSION. AT THIS TIME, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM EXTENSION. IT IS 7:18 P.M. MR. KIRKOF, DO YOU HAVE ANY WORDS OF WISDOM ON THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> COULD YOU ALL HEAR THAT? ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE TEMPORARY WATER MORATORIUM? NOT HEARING ANYBODY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7:19. [00:40:09] AT THIS TIME, WE WILL GO TO THE SECOND PART OF THIS ITEM, CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 880, EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 871, 866, 854, 846, 844, 839, 833, 824, 815 AND 812 ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW, AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION SITE, PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, AND OR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND EXTRATERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF PARKER. COUNCIL, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? >> MADAM MAYOR, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE A NOTE TO ANYBODY WHO'S WATCHING ONLINE OR THOSE WHO ARE HERE IN THE ROOM THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MORATORIUM HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND HAS COME BEFORE US TO RENEW OFTEN. I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT IT'S REALLY EXCITING TO SEE GOOD PROGRESS TO HAVE THE AGENDA ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10, THAT WE DID JUST POSTPONE BUT WE DO HAVE AN AMENDMENT IN OUR MIDST UNDER REVIEW, AND I FEEL LIKE THAT HAS BEEN REALLY EXCELLENT PROGRESS THAT HAS BEEN MADE. I JUST WANTED TO LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE'RE DEFINITELY WORKING ON IT, AND WE DO SEE SOME POSITIVE MOVEMENT TOWARDS ENDING THIS WATER MORATORIUM. >> IF WE ENACT A MORATORIUM TONIGHT, AS SOON AS WE COME TO AN AGREEMENT WITH NORTH TEXAS ON A CONTRACT, WE WILL IMMEDIATELY CALL A CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO END SAID MORATORIUM. BUT EVEN KEEP IN MIND THAT IT DOES TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF TIME TO CONNECT THE WATER PUMP STATION AND GET WATER FLOWING, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, IT WOULD TAKE 30-45 DAYS. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE'RE WORKING ON IT. IT LOOKS HOPEFUL, BUT THERE ARE STILL ISSUES AND WE WANT TO DO THE RIGHT THING WITH THE RIGHT CONTRACTS. >> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT COUNCILMAN KNOW SAID, I CANNOT WAIT TO OPEN THE FLOODGATES AND GET WATER ONCE WE GET THE APPROPRIATE CONTRACT, THAT'S THE RIGHT THING FOR PARKER. >> I AGREE WHOLLY. >> ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR MOTION. >> WITH THAT IN MIND, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION, MADAM MAYOR, TO EXTEND THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM. THIS WOULD BE ACTUALLY ORDINANCE NUMBER 880 EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ENACTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 871, 866, 854, 845, 844, 839, 833, 824, 815, AND 812 ON THE ACCEPTANCE, REVIEW AND APPROVALS NECESSARY FOR THE SUBDIVISION SITE PLANNING, DEVELOPMENT, OR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS, AND EXTRA TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION OF THE CITY OF PARKER. >> THANK YOU. IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND IT. >> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM REED AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER KERSHAW TO APPROVE ORDINANCE NUMBER 880, WHICH WOULD EXTEND THE MORATORIUM FOR UP TO 120 DAYS. ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF EXTENDING THE WATER MORATORIUM UNDER ORDINANCE NUMBER 880, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. AGAIN, I WILL REITERATE THAT IF AT ANY POINT IN TIME, WE GET THE CONTRACT WORKED OUT WITH NORTH TEXAS, WE WILL PROBABLY COME BACK PRETTY QUICKLY AND END THIS MORATORIUM. JUST BECAUSE IT IS FOR 120 DAYS DOES NOT MEAN IT HAS TO STAY IN EFFECT IF EVERYTHING WORKS OUT AND WE HAVE WATER FLOWING. ITEM NUMBER 12. [12. CONSIDERATION OF AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON WHITESTONE ESTATES – PHASE 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT] CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON WHITESTONE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PHASE 4 PLAT. MR. SOLOMON, I SEE YOU SITTING THERE. ARE YOU PRESTON GOING TO INTRODUCE THIS AND IF SO, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. [00:45:05] >> MAYOR, COUNCIL, YOU SAVED THE BEST FOR LAST. THANKS FOR KEEPING WITH US. >> WHAT WAS YOUR NAME? >> PRESTON WAHOOD, 40 40 NORTH CENTRAL, DALLAS, TEXAS 75204. GOOD TO SEE YOU AGAIN. BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE PLAT, CAN I GIVE YOU A BRIEF SYNOPSIS OF WHITESTONE AND THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE WE'VE STARTED, WHERE WE ARE, JUST TO CATCH EVERYBODY UP FOR ANYBODY THAT'S WATCHING? WHITESTONE ESTATES IS LOCATED NORTH OF PARKER ROAD AND THEN WEST OF DILLAHY, WHICH IS THE FUTURE FM 2551. CAN YOU ALL ALL SEE THAT? THIS IS THE MASTER PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. WHITESTONE ESTATES WAS DEVELOPED IN A SERIES OF PHASES. IT'S ABOUT 450 ACRES, AND IN TOTAL WE'LL HAVE A LITTLE MORE THAN 300 HOME SITES. PHASE 1 CONNECTED PARKER ROAD AND CAME ALL THE WAY UP HERE TO THE NORTH AND LOOPED AROUND AND CAME BACK DOWN TO DONNA LANE TO CREATE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS. PHASE 2 CREATED THIS NORTHERN AND THIS WESTERN BORDER HERE WHERE WE HAD LARGER LOTS ON THESE TWO SIDES. THEN PHASE 3 BROUGHT IN THE DOUGHNUT HOLE HERE IN THE MIDDLE WITH THIS CUL DESAC AND THEN THE CONNECTION POINT HERE OF CHESHIRE. DURING COVID, WHEN EVERYBODY WANTED TO BE OUT OF THE BIG CITIES AND WANTED MORE SPACE, EVERYBODY WANTED TO MOVE TO PARKER. THE BUILDERS CALLED US AS PHASE 4 WAS TEED UP AND READY TO GO AND SAID, WE NEED MORE LOTS. WE CAN'T JUST HAVE 34 LOTS BECAUSE THE DEMAND TO LIVE IN PARKER IS VERY HIGH. WE WENT OUT OF ORDER HERE AND WENT FROM PHASE 4 OVER HERE TO PHASE 5 AND 6, COMBINED THEM INTO A SINGLE PHASE AND THEN DEVELOPED THIS 176 ACRES THAT WAS OVER TO THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROJECT AND DELIVERED 93 LOTS ON THIS SIDE. PHASE 4 IS THE FINAL PHASE OF THE PROJECT. IT'S ON THE WEST SIDE. IN MY OPINION, IT'S ONE OF THE PRETTIEST PHASES. IT ALL DROPS DOWN TO AN EXISTING STOCK POND AND THEN DRAINS OUT TO THE WEST. THERE'S GREAT TOPO. THIS IS WHERE THE COWS ARE PRESENTLY THAT IT'S BORDERED BY DONAHUE LANE AND THEN HACKBERRY LANE. THE PHASE 4 PLAT IS 34 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THEN ONE COMMON SPACE LOT. THE COMMON SPACE LOT HAS THE EXISTING POND THAT'S ON IT THAT'S RIGHT HERE, AND THROUGH THE ENGINEERING PROCESS, THE ENGINEERS WORKED WITH BERKO HENDRIX AND CARTER TO DETERMINE THAT THIS POND COULD ACTUALLY HAVE ADDITIONAL STORAGE IN IT. THEY'RE GOING TO RAISE THE DAM ON THIS POND AND CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL STORAGE ON SITE TO MITIGATE FOR ANY DOWNSTREAM EFFECTS. THIS IS ALSO THE FINAL PHASE. JUST TO KEEP EVERYTHING BUTTONED UP AND MAKE IT VERY SIMPLE FOR THE CITY TO ADMINISTER LONG TERM. THEY WENT BACK AND DID A DRAINAGE STUDY THAT WENT ALL THE WAY FROM THIS POINT TO THE NORTHERN END OF WHITESTONE AND ENCAPSULATED ALL OF THE PONDS AND ALL THE DRAINAGE WAYS TO CONFIRM THAT EVERYTHING WAS WORKING AS DESIGNED AND THAT THE OUTFLOW FROM THIS POND, WHEN THIS IS A FULLY DEVELOPED CONDITION, WILL PERFORM AS ORIGINALLY PROJECTED. WITH THAT, WE HAVE TWO [INAUDIBLE] THAT COME IN WITH THIS PHASE. THERE'S A TOTAL OF 34 LOTS, AND THIS IS THE FINAL PHASE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN ANSWER ON WHITESTONE, PHASE 4? >> COUNCIL MEMBER KERSHAW. >> THANKS. FROM THE PERSPECTIVE, ANY OF THIS OR NOT? >> THERE'S NO FLOODPLAIN ON THIS SIDE. >> THEN YOU SAID ONE LOT HERE TO MY LEFT BASICALLY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE DEPTH BASICALLY OF THE POND FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, EVEN FURTHER LESSEN THE IMPACT OF THE WATER FLOW, IS THAT CORRECT? DID I UNDERSTAND THAT? >> IT WILL LESSEN THE IMPACT DOWNSTREAM, BUT OUR ENGINEERS HERE AND CAN PROBABLY SPEAK TO THAT BETTER THAN I CAN BEFORE I TELL YOU THAT WE'RE DEEPENING SOMETHING OR RAISING SOMETHING. I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE RYAN KING. >> MY NAME IS RYAN KING WITH PET DCD AT 1,600 NORTH COLLINS IN RICHARDSON, TEXAS. THE POND MODIFICATIONS, I THINK PRESTON SAID EARLIER THAT WE'D BE RAISING THE DAM AND WE'RE ACTUALLY LOWERING THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATION A LITTLE BIT AND ROUNDING OUT SOME OF THE EDGES TO CREATE MORE STORAGE IN THE AREA. THEN WE ARE PROVIDING A NEW OUTFALL STRUCTURE THAT WILL RELEASE ONLY THE RATE THAT WE'RE WANTING IT TO. WE'RE PROVIDING A DESIGNED OUTFALL STRUCTURE THAT RELEASES THE PROPER RATE. WE'VE REVIEWED THE CULVERT DOWNSTREAM AT HACKBERRY AND THE CHANNEL DOWNSTREAM AS WELL TO MAKE SURE THAT IT CAN HANDLE EVEN THE EXISTING FLOWS THAT ARE COMING THERE TODAY, AND THE STUDY DOES SHOW THAT IT CAN DO. >> YOU'RE SAYING THAT CURRENTLY, THE WAY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE STORAGE CAPACITY? >> WE'RE INCREASING THE STORAGE CAPACITY [OVERLAPPING] BY [00:50:02] LOWERING THE EXISTING WATER SURFACE ELEVATION SLIGHTLY AND THEN CUTTING BACK SOME OF THE EDGES OF THE POND TO MAKE IT SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN IT IS TODAY. >> YOU SAID THAT YOU WOULD CONTROL THEN THE OUTFLOW OF THAT PARTICULAR WATER. HOW DO YOU PARTICULARLY CONTROL THE OUTFLOW OF THE WATER? >> IT'S A WEIRD STRUCTURE. IT'S DESIGNED WIDTH OF A SPOT THAT'S CUT INTO THE DAM WHERE THE WATER IS DIRECTED IN A VERY SPECIFIC LOCATION, AND THAT STRUCTURE IS DESIGNED TO BE A CERTAIN WHEN THE WATER ELEVATES TO THE HUNDRED YEAR WATER SURFACE ELEVATION, IT RELEASES AT A SPECIFIC RATE THROUGH THAT WEIRD. >> IT'S NOT A CHANGE IN WHAT YOU'RE RELEASING UP AND DOWN. IT BASICALLY IS A STRUCTURE THAT WOULD BE THERE IF SHOULD A 100 YEAR TYPE FLOOD OCCUR THAT IT WOULD MAX OUT AT WHAT IT PREVIOUSLY WAS IN TERMS OF WATER FLOW? >> CORRECT. IT WILL BE SLIGHTLY REDUCED FROM THE EXISTING RATE. WE HAD ENOUGH ROOM WITH THIS POND TO GET IT BELOW THE CURRENT RATE SLIGHTLY. IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT, BUT THERE IS A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN THE CURRENT RATE FROM TODAY. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR. DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> I WAS STATING THAT. READY TALKED ABOUT WAS THAT YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY INCREASING THE RETENTION AREA. >> I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. GIVEN SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'VE RUN INTO AND SOME OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY, PARTICULARLY OVER IN KINGS CROSSING, WHERE WE'VE GOT SOME FLOODING IN SOME AREAS ON WHAT YOU BUILT OUT SO FAR, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY AREAS I'M ASKING FOR A VERY CANDID ANSWER FROM YOU. HAVE THERE BEEN ANY AREAS THAT HAVE ENDED UP NOT PERFORMING AS WELL IN TERMS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AS YOU ORIGINALLY ENGINEERED AND EXPECTED THEM TO? >> IS THIS SPECIFIC TO WHITESTONE? >> SPECIFIC TO WHITESTONE. >> I KNOW OF ANY ISSUES WITHIN THE WHITESTONE DEVELOPMENT. PRESTON, YOU MIGHT KNOW MORE IF YOU'VE HEARD ANY FROM THE HOMEBUILDERS, BUT WE HAVEN'T BEEN ASKED ABOUT ANYTHING FROM THE CITY, AND WE DID NOT DESIGN ALL OF WHITESTONE. THERE WAS ANOTHER FIRM THAT DESIGNED TWO OF THE PHASES ON THE EAST SIDE. >> YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT YOU'VE HAD TO REVISE OR ANY THAT HAVE UNDERPERFORMED IN TERMS OF STORMWATER RUNOFF AND WHAT YOU ORIGINALLY ENGINEERED OR WHOEVER ENGINEERED A ITCHY ENGINE? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING ON WHITESTONE THOUGH. >> GARY, ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY ISSUES THERE? >> AT THIS TIME, I'LL ASK MR. KIRKOF TO PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM. >> CAN I ASK A COUPLE OF MORE QUESTIONS? >> JUST. >> YEAH. SAME HERE. >> BUT WE'RE NOT FINISHED. MR. KIRKOF, DID YOU HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH WHITESTONE? >> WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF REVIEWS. WHEN THEY FIRST SUBMITTED, THEY ACTUALLY SUBMITTED ENGINEERING PLANS AND THEY ACTUALLY HAD A SEPARATE FLOOD STUDY THAT DEALT WITH JUST STORM DRAINAGE ALONE. WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL ITERATIONS OF THAT WHERE WE HAD COMMENTS AND THEY WOULD REVISE AND WE HAD SOME MEETINGS, AND THEY HAD REVISED ALL OF OUR COMMENTS THAT WE HAD ON THOSE, AND WE HAD NO FURTHER OBJECTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KERKHOV? AT THIS TIME. I WILL NOTE THAT PARK PLANNING AND ZONING DID REVIEW THIS PLAT AND RECOMMENDED IT TO COUNCIL, JUST FOR THE RECORD. MR. BECK. >> I'VE GOT A QUESTION FOR MR. MACHADO. I ASSUME YOU'VE REVIEWED THIS. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE CHANGED OR DO YOU THINK WE'RE GOOD TO GO ON THIS? >> ALL THE VICE. >> COUNCIL MEMBER, NO, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION WITH RESPECT TO THE POND THAT WE JUST REFERRED TO THAT WE ARE GOING TO INCREASE THE CAPACITY FOR. CAN YOU DESCRIBE THE OUTFLOW OF WHERE THAT POND FEEDS? >> THAT POND CURRENTLY AND IS PROPOSED TO FLOW TO A CULVERT THAT GOES UNDERNEATH HACKBERRY, THAT'S EXISTING. WE ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THAT, BUT OUR HYDROLOGIST DID REVIEW THAT CULVERT WITH THE EXISTING FLOWS AND THE PROPOSED FLOWS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO OVERTOPPING OF THE ROAD AND IT ALL WORKS CORRECTLY. TODAY, WELL, IN THE FUTURE, OUR PROPOSED DESIGN WITH THE FLOWS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WILL WORK WITH THE EXISTING CULVERT AND THE DOWNSTREAM, AND WE WILL NOT BE INCREASING IT FROM THE EXISTING RUNOFF FROM TODAY. >> MR. KERKHOV GO AHEAD. >> I JUST HAD A COUPLE MAYBE EVEN CURIOSITY QUESTIONS. BUT ON LOTS 20 AND 21, THERE'S SOMETHING ON THOSE TWO LOTS, AND IT SAYS IT BASICALLY IS ABANDONED BY THIS PLAT. WHAT EXACTLY IS BEING ABANDONED THERE? >> IN THAT AREA, THERE IS SOME EXISTING DRAINAGE FROM THE PREVIOUS PHASES OF WHITESTONE. [00:55:02] IT'S A DRAINAGE EASEMENT RIGHT THERE THAT WILL BE ABANDONED BY THIS PLAT TO RECREATE. WE'RE MOVING THE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AROUND BECAUSE WE'RE MODIFYING THAT CHANNEL WITH OUR DESIGN PLANS TO ACCOMMODATE OUR FUTURE LOTS AND THE EXISTING DRAINAGE THAT'S GOING THROUGH THERE. >> THEN THERE'S A PARTICULAR LINE. I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT IS. IT'S GOING THROUGH, LIKE LAPS 20, 30, AND 40. >> WHICH LINES ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? >> THAT IS WE HAVE THE CONTOUR LINES ON THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, WHICH DON'T SHOW UP ON THE FINAL PLAT. >> YES. THAT'S ONE OF THE. THAT'S THE DARKER CONTOUR. THAT'S THE 620 CONTOURS. THERE'S A HEAVIER LINE ON THE ON THE OTHER TENS, YES, CORRECT. >> THEN YOU SAID THE P&Z MEETING, BASICALLY, APPROVED IT WAS THERE ANYTHING STIPULATIONS ATTACHED TO IT OR NONE? >> THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. >> THAT WAS IN THE PACKET. I LOOKED AT THOSE AND DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING IN THERE. >> THANKS. >> MR. PILGRIM, DID YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? MR. B. >> THANK YOU. COUNCIL, ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION. >> MADAM MAYOR, I'D MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WHITESTONE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAN THAT WAS PRESENTED. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> MADAM MAYOR, A SECOND, THE MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REID AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER NO TO APPROVE THE WHITESTONE ESTATES PHASE 4 PRELIMINARY PLOT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOT HEARING ANY. I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU, PRESIDENT. >> YES, MA'AM. [13. CONSIDERATION OF AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KINGS CROSSING - PHASE 6 AND 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT.] >> NOW WE'RE GOING TO ITEM 13, OR WHICH IS CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON KING'S CROSSING, PHASE 6 AND 7 PRELIMINARY PLOT. I TAKE IT SINCE YOU'RE STILL HERE. YOU'RE DOING KING'S CROSSING. >> THAT'S ALL RIGHT. MAYOR, COUNCIL. THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 AND 7 PLATE IS THE FINAL PHASE OF KING'S CROSSING. IN ORDER FOR EVERYBODY TO BE ABLE TO SEE THIS, I DIDN'T BRING A MASTER PLAN WITH ME. THE KING'S CROSSING OVERALL IS 400 ACRES BOUNDED TO THE NORTH BY LUCAS ROAD, LEWIS LANE, ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT ON THE WEST SIDE. THERE IS KINGS CROSSING PHASE THREE THAT IS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF LEWIS LANE. THAT'S THE ONLY PIECE. KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5 AND 6 IS ADJACENT TO LUCAS ROAD AS WELL AND THEN IS BOUNDED ON THE EAST SIDE BY MUDDY CREEK, AND THEN THE EXISTING PONDS THAT WERE DEVELOPED WITH PHASE 1 OF KING'S CROSSING. ON THE SOUTH SIDE, IT IS BOUND BY KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, WHICH WAS DEVELOPED LAST YEAR AND ACCEPTED IN DECEMBER OF 2023. KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 AND 7 IS ONE LARGE CONSTRUCTION SET. THIS IS A UNIQUE PROJECT, AND IF YOU'LL GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT, I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH IT. THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO BE GRADED AS AN ENTIRE PROJECT. PHASE 6 AND 7 HAS 82 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THEN ONE OPEN SPACE LOT. IN ORDER TO BALANCE THE SITE AND GET EVERYTHING TO DRAIN FROM THE WEST DIRECTLY TO THE EAST INTO THE CREEK BASIN RATHER THAN GOING THROUGH ANY EXISTING DEVELOPMENT OR ANYWHERE ELSE AND DRAINING DIRECTLY INTO THE CREEK, SIMILAR TO HOW PHASE FIVE DRAINS. WE'RE GOING TO GRADE THE ENTIRE SITE AT ONE TIME; 82 ODDS IS A LOT OF UNITS TO PUT ON THE GROUND HERE. THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL WORK THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE. WE WILL FINISH CONSTRUCTION OF PHASE 6, WHICH IS THE AREA TO THE LEFT OR THE WEST OF THIS BLUE LINE THAT'S ON THIS MAP. ALL OF THE WATER LINE, THE SEWER LINE, AND THE ROADWAY WILL GO IN FOR PHASE 6. A BIG PORTION OR A BIG ADVANTAGE OF THIS GOING IN INITIALLY IS THAT WE'RE [01:00:03] CREATING A NEW ACCESS POINT UP HERE TO LUCAS ROAD FOR THE KINGS CROSSING DEVELOPMENT. RIGHT NOW, PHASES 2 AND 4 AND 5 THAT ARE TO THE SOUTH, AS WELL AS PHASE 3, CAN ONLY GET OUT OF KING'S CROSSING THROUGH LEWIS LANE, AND THAT ROAD IS HEAVILY TRAVELED. WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHASE 6 AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF TO RE DESIGN THIS ROADWAY NETWORK, WE HEARD THE RESIDENTS AND WE HEARD STAFF'S DESIRE TO HAVE A SECONDARY ACCESS POINT UP HERE OFF LUCAS ROAD. THIS WILL GO IN WITH PHASE 6, WHICH WILL CONNECT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PHASE 5 AND SERVE AS AN ACCESS POINT FOR EVERYBODY IN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. THEN ONCE THIS IS IN PLACE AND ALL OF THE DIRT WORK HAS BEEN DONE, THE HYDROLOGY IS COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED TO FMA FOR THE FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION, THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN OVER HERE, THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT JUST A SECOND. THIS WILL BE SUBMITTED TO FMA. AFTER THAT IS COMPLETE AND APPROVED, BASED ON THE ASBILT DRAWINGS, WE'LL COME BACK IN AND COMPLETE THE ROADWAY AND THEN THE WATER SEWER INFRASTRUCTURE FOR PHASE 7. YOU'LL SEE TWO FINAL PLOTS FOR THIS PHASE. IT'S ALL ONE PRELIMINARY PLOT, ONE DESIGN, AND ONE SET OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS. BUT WHEN THE PHASE 6 IS COMPLETE, WE'LL COME BACK WITH A KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 FINAL PLOT, AND THEN WE WILL COME BACK AT A LATER DATE WITH A KING'S CROSSING PHASE 7 FINAL PLOT. BEFORE WE STARTED DEVELOPMENT ON THIS AND REALLY DESIGN ON THIS PHASE, WE SAT DOWN WITH MR. MACHADO, I'LL MOVE THIS SO THEY CAN SEE YOU. YOU CAN NOD ALONG. WE SAT DOWN WITH MR. MACHADO AND THE ENGINEERS OVER BURKE OFF HENDRIX AND CARTER AND ASKED, HOW DO WE WANT TO TACKLE THIS? THIS IS A LARGE SITE. IT'S A UNIQUE SITE. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE THE DESIGN? THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED WAS TO DO IT THIS WAY, TO DO ONE PRELIMINARY PLOT, ONE SET OF CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS, COME BACK AND DO A FINAL PLOT AND TWO DIFFERENT SEGMENTS. THE BENEFIT OF THIS IS IF WE DO ALL OF THE GRADING UP FRONT WITH KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6, WE SUBMIT EVERYTHING TO FMA. THE FLOODPLAIN THAT WOULD BE SHOWN ON A FINAL PLAT OF PHASE 7 WILL BE GONE AND RESOLVED BECAUSE THE MAP WILL BE MOVED AND WE'LL SHOW THE AS BUILT GRADING WHEN WE FILE THE PHASE 7 FINAL PLOT. THE PHASE 7 FINAL PLOT WILL NEVER SHOW FLOODPLAIN THAT IS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING REMOVED. IT WILL BE AN ACCURATE DOCUMENT AT THE TIME THAT IT'S FILED WITH A NEW FIRM NOTE ON IT. THAT WAS FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED FROM COUNCIL WHEN WE WERE DEVELOPING WHITESTONE PHASE 5. IT WAS FEEDBACK FROM STAFF BEFORE WE STARTED ON KING 6 AND 7, SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT THAT IS HOW THIS PROJECT WAS ADDRESSED. IN SPEAKING TO STAFF AND COUNCIL, ONE OF THE REQUESTS WAS TO SHOW ON THE KINGS CROSSING PHASE 6 AND 7 PAD MAP HERE, WHERE IS THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN LINE AND WHERE IS THE PROPOSED FLOODPLAIN LINE? THAT'S BEEN DONE HERE. THIS LINE THAT COMES DOWN THE MIDDLE IS THE PHASE LINE THAT WE SHOWED ON THE OTHER SIDE. THE BLUE LINE IS THE FLOODPLAIN LINE, AS IT IS TODAY, IN THE STUDY WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY THAT WAS COMPLETED IN JANUARY OF 2024. THIS IS VERY RECENT DATA. THE HYDROLOGISTS GO OUT, THEY COMPARE FMAS DATA, AND THEN THEY TAKE ACTUAL TOPOGRAPHY ON THE GROUND TO COMPARE WHAT DOES FMA HAVE ON THEIR MAP THAT IS YEARS OLD AND MAYBE NOT UP TO DATE VERSUS WHAT IS THE ACTUAL GROUND ELEVATION TODAY. THE BLUE LINE SHOWS THE GROUND ELEVATION TODAY, INCLUDING THE EXISTING FMA MAP AND THE EXISTING FMA MAP, AND THEN THE TOPOGRAPHY IN PHASE 6 AND 7. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THAT'S DONE INITIALLY BECAUSE THIS IS AN UNDEVELOPED SITE. THAT'S NEVER BEEN DONE ON THIS SITE. ANY TYPE OF FEMA LINE IS JUST A GUESS TO WHERE THAT ACTUALLY IS IN A PLOWED FARM FIELD. THE GREEN LINE THAT'S SHOWN HERE IS THE AS BUILT PROPOSED 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN LINE. YOU'LL NOTICE IN THIS PHASE, THERE IS NO FLOODPLAIN ON THE BACK OF THE LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED. THERE'S AN OPEN SPACE BEHIND THE LOTS HERE, WHERE WE WILL HAVE A LINEAR PARK THAT RUNS FROM THE NORTH END OF THE DEVELOPMENT DOWN TO THE POND THAT'S ON THE EAST SIDE OF KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, AND THE FLOODPLAIN REMAINS IN THERE IN THE BACK OF THE LOTS. THE FLOODPLAIN THAT DOES COME FORWARD IS CONTAINED IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE SIDE OF THE LOTS TO GATHER WATER AS IT COMES FROM THE DEVELOPMENT AND FEEDS INTO THE FLOODPLAIN. >> ARE YOU FINISHED? >> I CAN BE, IF YOU'D LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION. >> ON THE BLOCKS THAT HAVE THE FLOODPLAIN, HOW HIGH IS THE ACTUAL HOUSE ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN? >> MY ENGINEERS CAN CORRECT ME, BUT I THINK I'M CORRECT IN SAYING THAT THE FINISHED PAD ELEVATION MUST BE TWO FEET ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. IF YOUR FLOODPLAIN IS AT ZERO, THE FINISHED PAD MUST BE TWO FEET ABOVE THAT. YOUR FINISHED FLOOR THAT YOUR HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED ON IS HIGHER THAN YOUR FINISHED PAD. IF YOU THINK ABOUT A FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, YOU FINISH A PAD, [01:05:01] THEN YOU PUT IN PLUMBING, YOU BUILD A FOUNDATION, YOU BUILD A HOUSE, IT'S GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT. >> IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY WHAT 36 " BALLPARK? >> 2.5 FEET, THREE FEET. DEPENDING ON HOW THE PAD IS CONSTRUCTED. THIS IS THOMAS MOSS FROM PAP DAWSON ENGINEERS. I DON'T KNOW YOUR ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. THOMAS MOSS, 6733 LAKE SHORE DRIVE, GARLAND, TEXAS. ACTUALLY OUR GRADING PLAN HAS THE PAD SET TWO FEET ABOVE 100 HERE. I THINK THE REGULATION IS THE FINISHED FLOOR HAS TO BE TWO FEET, BUT WE'RE SHOWING THE FINISHED PAD. >> THE FINISHED FLOOR WILL BE HIGHER THAN THAT? >> YES. >> COUNCIL MEMBER RUTH? >> I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE HYDROLOGY MODELING THAT WAS DONE FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS A LETTER THAT WAS FROM MR. CARTER BETWEEN PAP DAWSON AND MR. CARTER FROM BIRKHOFF HENDRIX CARTER DISCUSSING THE MODELING AND THE EXPECTED RATE OF FLOW AT BOTH THE INGRESS TO THE PROPERTY FROM THE NORTH AT LUCAS ROAD AND THE EGRESS OF THE PROPERTY AT THE SOUTH AT LEWIS LANE. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT I WANTED TO ASK. ONE IS, THERE'S QUITE A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE EXPECTED FLOW RATE AT BOTH THE INPUT AND THE OUTPUT OF THOSE OF THE CHANNEL THAT GOES THROUGH THE PROPERTY AND I WAS WONDERING IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN WHY IS THERE SUCH A SIGNIFICANT DELTA. >> WELL, SO FEMA'S CURRENT MAPPING IS PRESENT STATED, HAD OUTDATED TOPO. ADDITIONALLY, I BELIEVE IT WAS UNSTUDIED AND SO WHEN OUR H&H GROUP WENT THROUGH AND STUDIED IT, THEY HAD A CORRECTED FLOW AND THEN THE PROPOSED FLOW IS ACTUALLY A DECREASE OF, I THINK IT WAS 50 CFS OR SO AND WE'RE BUILDING A CHANNEL TO GET OUR PROPOSED FLOW OUT QUICKER SO THAT WHEN THE PEAK FLOW FROM THE NORTH COMES IN, YOU'RE NOT DISCHARGING DURING THAT PEAK FLOW, CREATING A HIGHER FLOW. I HAVEN'T STUDIED FEMAS STUDY, BUT OUR H&H GROUP, WE ALL MET WITH BIRKHOFF HENDRIX AND CARTER AND THE CITY AND WENT THROUGH ALL THE DETAILS. >> COULD MR. HENDRIX ADDRESS THAT DISCUSSION AND MR. KIRKOFF, PLEASE STEP FORWARD. I'M SORRY. MR. KIRKOFF EXCUSE ME. SORRY. >> SORRY. >> NO WORRIES. AS THOMAS MENTIONED A LITTLE BIT, IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR DISCREPANCIES TO OCCUR BETWEEN FEMA MODELS AND WHEN YOU UPDATE THEM. I KNOW IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY WENT NORTH OF LUCAS ROAD. THERE'S A WALMART. THERE'S PONDS INVOLVED. THERE'S UPDATED RUNOFF INTENSITIES AND WHATNOT. I KNOW THERE WAS DISCREPANCY AND WE MET SEVERAL TIMES WITH THAT. JOE DID NOT COME WITH ME THIS EVENING. HE'S OUR RESIDENT HYDROLOGY GURU. BUT WE ALSO EXTEND THE MODEL FAR ENOUGH DOWNSTREAM TO TIE BACK INTO WHAT WE FELT WAS SIMILAR TO EXISTING CONDITIONS. WHILE THE INPUTS OUTPUTS WERE DIFFERENT, WE TRIED TO EXTEND THE MODEL UP AND DOWNSTREAM ENOUGH WHERE WE FELT COMFORTABLE, HEY, THIS IS ACCURATE INFORMATION. AND THEN TO EXPAND [INAUDIBLE] POINT. SO WE REVIEWED THAT MODEL AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO GO DO THE GRADING, IF YOU ALL APPROVE. THEN AFTERWARDS, THEY'LL GO BACK OUT ON FIELD SURVEY AND THEN THEY RESUBMIT THAT SAME MODEL BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT ON THE ELEVATIONS THEY ACTUALLY CONSTRUCT AND THEN THAT'S WHAT WE'LL GO INTO FEMA FOR THEIR REVIEW. THEY WOULDN'T ACTUALLY BUILD IN THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA UNTIL THEY MOVE THE DIRT, DO THE FIELD SURVEY. WE RE REVIEW THE CITY SIGNS OFF, AND THEN FEMA WOULD REVIEW AND APPROVE AS WELL. >> I HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION IS. >> WAIT A MINUTE. I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE MAP, IF YOU COULD PULL THAT UP AT THE INTERSECTION WHERE THE PHASE 5 LOTS 26 AND 27 ARE SHOWN. IT APPEARS THAT TOP THE FLOODPLAIN CONTOUR NEXT DOWN AND BECOMES A MORE NARROW CHANNEL. BUT AT THAT POINT, YOU ALSO HAVE TWO STREAMS THAT ARE KIND OF FLOWING AND MERGING AT THAT POINT AND I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, DOES THAT MODEL SHOW SOME BEHAVIOR WHERE IT WOULD ALMOST LOOK LIKE ALMOST A PARTIAL DAM OR LIKE A CULVERT UNDER A BRIDGE CONCEPT WHERE WATER WOULD BE CONSTRICTED AT THAT POINT AND THEN BE HELD BACK. BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THESE ARE THE CORNERS OF TWO LOTS. >> THE CHANNEL IT COMES OUT HERE BEFORE IT HITS THE CREEK. THE CREEK'S ON THE SIDE. [01:10:02] >> BECAUSE LIKE RIGHT NOW THERE'S LIKE THE BACK OF THE LOTS THAT ADJUSTS INTO THE NATURAL FLOW OF WATER. IS THERE SOME RETAINER WALL AT THE BACK OF THE LOTS OR ANY TYPE OF BARRIER THAT WOULD HELP GUIDE THAT WATER THROUGH THAT MORE NARROW CHANNEL COMPARED TO THE WIDTH OF THE CHANNEL THAT'S COMING DOWN TO THE NORTH. IT LOOKS LIKE THE CHANNEL WIDTH AT THE END OF LOT 27 IS PERHAPS ABOUT 50% LESS WIDTH COMPARED TO THE UPSTREAM. TO ME, IT'S FUNNELING THAT WATER THROUGH A NARROW CHANNEL, AND I WONDER IF THE IMPACT OF THAT RESTRICTION HAS BEEN PROPERLY MODELED TO SHOW HOW IT MIGHT CREATE SOME TYPE OF POOLING EFFECT BEHIND IT. >> SURE. I'LL JUST PROVIDE A COUPLE POINTS HERE AND THEN I'LL LET THE ENGINEERS TALK ABOUT THE CONFLUENCE OF THE FLOWS. BUT THE FLOW THAT IS COMING FROM THE POND ON THE WEST HAND SIDE IS A RESTRICTED FLOW. THIS IS A FLOW COMING OUT OF THE PARKER LAKE ESTATES DETENTION POND THAT'S LOCATED ON THIS SITE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY STUDIED WITH KING'S CROSSING PHASE 5, AND SO THIS FLOW IS A KNOWN FLOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO MONITOR FOR OVER A YEAR. THEY'RE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THIS FLOW. THIS ISN'T A VERY SMALL CHANNEL. THE CHANNEL IS ONLY A FEW FEET WIDE THAT GOES THROUGH HERE. THE CONFLUENCE OF IT WITH THE ACTUAL CREEK CHANNEL WITH MUDDY CREEK IS NOT ON EITHER OF THESE LOTS ON 26 OR 27, BUT IS OVER HERE ON THIS OPEN SPACE LOT AT THE END, 25, AND THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL POND THERE AT THAT CONFLUENCE LOCATION. WERE THOSE TWO CONNECT, THERE'S ACTUALLY AN OVERFLOW POND THAT IS RIGHT HERE ON THE EXISTING KINGS CROSSING PHASE 5 WATT THAT HANDLES THAT CONFLUENCE AS IT COMES IN BEFORE IT DISCHARGES UNDER LEWIS LANE. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR WOULD YOU LIKE THOMAS TO ANSWER IT TOO? >> IF HE HAS ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO ADD, PLEASE FEEL FREE. >> PRESTON PRETTY MUCH GOT IT RIGHT AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO WALLS IN PHASE 5. >> [OVERLAPPING] BECAUSE OF WHERE THE CREEK IS. >> IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A NATURAL CREEK. IT'S NOT CHANNELIZED AND CONCRETE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THANK YOU. MAYOR PARK HENRY. >> [INAUDIBLE] ALL OF THAT AND UP, I GUESS. YOU'RE GOING TO BE REGRADING ALL THAT SO MY QUESTION IS THAT I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES IN OTHER PHASES OF KING'S CROSSING WITH STAGNATED WATER. IT WASN'T NECESSARILY FLOWING THE WAY THAT IT SHOULD SO I WANTED TO JUST TOUCH BASE ON HOW YOU'RE TAKING CARE OF THAT. I GUESS SINCE YOU'RE GRADING IT, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF IT SO THE FLOW IS GOING TO BE IN A DIRECTION THAT'S NATURALLY GOING TO GO ANYWAY, BUT COULD YOU COMMENT ON THAT A LITTLE BIT? >> SURE. YES. THIS WILL BE GRADED AND THE BIG BENEFIT HERE, COUNCIL MEMBER REID, IS THAT THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE ON AN OPEN SPACE THAT IS MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ON A PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT'S GOING BEHIND SOMEONE'S LOT THAT'S ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WHERE WATER IS BEING CONVEYED ACROSS LOT TO LOT. THIS IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE WITHIN THIS DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN THE COMMON SPACE THAT THE HOA HAS THE ABILITY TO MAINTAIN. THERE'S NOT THE CONCERN OF SOMEONE MOWING THEIR LAWN, BLOWING GRASS DOWN TO THE BOTTOM OF THE DITCH AND CHANGING THE ELEVATION OF THE DITCH AND NOW ONE LOT HOLDS WATER AND IT IMPACTS EVERYBODY UPSTREAM. THAT'S AN ISSUE WE'VE SEEN REPEATEDLY AND IS JUST A LACK OF MAINTENANCE OF THESE CHANNELS AND SO DESIGNING THIS CHANNEL AND INTENTIONALLY PLACING IT AND PLATTING IT ON A COMMON AREA ALLOWS THE HOA TO PERFORM THAT MAINTENANCE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND YOU'RE NOT RELIANT ON A PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL TO MAINTAIN DRAINAGE FOR THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> I GUESS MAYBE COMMENT ON IT SINCE YOU'RE GRADING, YOU CAN BE A LITTLE MORE AGGRESSIVE ON THE TOPOGRAPHY SO THE HYDROLOGY OF THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE EASIER TOO. >> CORRECT. BECAUSE IT'S ALSO NOT IN SOMEONE'S FRONT YARD AND SO THIS IS AN AREA WHERE IT CAN BE GRADED AS IT'S NECESSARY AND YOU'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT A CULVERT CROSSING FOR A DRIVEWAY AT A LATER POINT IN TIME. THE HYDROLOGY HERE WAS DESIGNED TO CONVEY WATER AT A MORE RAPID PACE HERE IN ORDER TO ALLOW IT TO LEAVE THE SITE SO THAT YOU'RE NOT HOLDING IT AND CREATING A PEAK OF IT. >> I GOT A QUESTION. WERE YOU FINISHED? MR. MACHADO, I'M ASSUMING YOU'VE REVIEWED THIS. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE DIFFERENT AND WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON IT? >> ALSO, I READ THROUGH ALL OF THE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS AND THE P&Z YOU SAID THAT IT WAS GOOD TO GO. WITHOUT ANY AUGMENTATION. [01:15:02] >> YEAH AND I USED TO BE ON P&Z. I'VE TALKED TO SOME OF MY FELLOW COLLEAGUES AND IT WAS LIKE UNANIMOUS. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. YOU SAID THAT THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. WHO MAINTAINS IT UNTIL YOU TURN THE AREA OVER TO THE HOA AND WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TURN THE INFORMATION OVER TO THE HOA? >> THREE VERY GOOD QUESTIONS. THE DEVELOPER MAINTAINS IT DURING DEVELOPMENT AND DURING STABILIZATION. THEY WILL CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN IT UNTIL IT IS TURNED OVER TO THE HOA. THE GOAL HERE IS TO DEVELOP A LINEAR ACTIVATED OPEN SPACE AND DEVELOP A WALKING TRAIL THROUGH HERE. THERE'S MANY RESIDENTS START TO LIVE IN KING'S CROSSING, AND THE UNANIMOUS FEEDBACK THAT WE CONTINUALLY RECEIVE IS THEY WOULD LIKE A COMMON OPEN SPACE TO GATHER IN AND A PLACE TO WALK. THIS WILL BE DEVELOPED AS A LINEAR PARK FROM THE NORTH END DOWN TO THIS POND AT PHASE 5 AND SO ONCE THIS IS FULLY DEVELOPED AND LANDSCAPED AND THE TRAIL IS INSTALLED, IT WOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE HOA, BUT ONLY AT THE TIME THAT IT'S FULLY STABILIZED, UNTIL THEN IT WILL BE MAINTAINED BY THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITY. >> I GOT A QUESTION. INFORMATION THAT YOU NICELY GONE THROUGH. WHEN WAS ALL THAT INFORMATION BASICALLY PULLED TOGETHER THAT YOU'RE NOW PRESENTING TO US? HOW OLD IS THE DATA THAT YOU CREATED THAT YOU'RE NOW SHOWING US? >> THE DATA HAS BEEN AVAILABLE AS FAR AS IN THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS AND THIS INFORMATION SINCE THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL SUBMITTAL, AND SO THE DRAINAGE STUDY WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2024. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HOW IS IT DISPLAYED. THE DRAINAGE STUDY IS 200 PAGES. >> BUT IT CAME ABOUT. YOU BASICALLY DID THE STUDIES AND YOU LOOKED AT THE TOPOGRAPHY, ETC JANUARY 2024 OR IT BASICALLY CAME TOGETHER IN JANUARY 2024? >> IT WAS APPROVED IN JANUARY OF 2024. THIS HAS BEEN 18 MONTHS OR MORE OF TWO YEARS WORTH OF WORK AND HYDROLOGY AND ENGINEERING. MR. KIRKOFF CAN COMMENT ON HOW MANY REVIEWS THEY HAVE DONE WITH THIS AND REALLY, WE KNEW THAT THIS PROJECT WAS A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED, AND SO WE HAD A DIFFERENT APPROACH AND REALLY WE MET WITH THE CITY ENGINEERING TEAM AFTER EVERY REVIEW AND SAT DOWN AND FIGURED OUT DIFFICULT QUESTIONS, AND THAT WAS REALLY HELPFUL IN ORDER TO COME TO A PROJECT THAT WE'RE ALL REALLY HAPPY WITH. >> SOME OF THE INFORMATION DATES BACK TWO YEARS YOU'RE SAYING IS 2022 AND CULMINATED IN JANUARY OF 2024? >> FOR THE DESIGN OF THIS PHASE, YES. >> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT OCCURRED, I GUESS, SEPTEMBER OF 23 WAS LUCAS HAD SOME MEETING AND BASICALLY WORKED ON AT WALMART WHERE YOU TALKED ABOUT THEIR DETENTION POND, AND THEY CAME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE PLAN TO BASICALLY MOVE THE WATER AND VOTED ON IT AND GOING INTO MUDDY CREEK. THAT WAS SEPTEMBER OF 2023, JUST CURIOUS IF THAT WAS THAT'S THE END OF YOUR REVIEW PERIOD OR CULMINATION PERIOD AS TO IF THAT WAS CONSIDERED OR HOW IT WAS CONSIDERED. >> DO YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY? >> NO. >> THE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT WAS REVIEWED IN THIS PROJECT INCLUDED ALL OF THE DRAINAGE BASIN THAT'S UPSTREAM, WHICH INCLUDES 418 ACRES OF WATER THAT COME INTO THIS PROJECT. EVERYTHING UPSTREAM WAS EVALUATED AND HOW IT COMES INTO MUDDY CREEK AND THEN STUDIED IN THE HYDROLOGY. >> YOU'RE SAYING YOU STUDY BACK IN 2022, I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE CITY OF LUCAS CAME UP WITH THEIR PLAN LIKE IN SEPTEMBER OF 23. SO YES OR NO, THAT WAS CONSIDERED. >> WHAT'S THE QUESTION? >> THE FLOW OF THE WATER COMING FROM THEIR DETENTION POND. THEY CAME UP WITH A ALTERNATIVE THAT THEY VOTED ON IN SEPTEMBER 23 AS TO HOW TO MOVE THE WATER OUT OF THE TENSION POND INTO MUDDY CREEK, WHICH IS THEN GOING INTO. >> I'LL LET YOUR ENGINEER RESPOND TO THAT, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ALLOWED TO CHANGE THE FLOW OF WATER. IT'S JUST THE PATH OF THE WATER. >> MR. KIRKOFF. >> I'M GOING TO TREAD LIGHTLY, NOT TELL YOU WHAT I THINK OTHER CITIES ARE NOT DOING. I'M NOT THEIR ENGINEER. I DO KNOW THAT AT ONE POINT IN TIME LUCAS ROAD WAS PLANNED TO BE IMPROVED. YOU ALL MAY HAVE HEARD SOME ABOUT THAT OR WHATNOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT PROJECT MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE ONE OF [01:20:02] THE MAIN ISSUES WITH THAT ROADWAY WAS THE DRAINAGE THAT THEY WERE SITTING TOWARDS PARKER. WE HAD A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE WITH THAT. WE COMMENTED POINT THAT OUT AND SO THAT DRAINAGE, ANYTHING FROM LUCAS, WOULD HAVE TO BE CONVEYED THROUGH THAT AND WE REVIEWED ON YOUR BEHALF AND ATTEMPT TO IDENTIFY AND MAKE SURE THAT WOULD NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CITY. >> THE ONLY OTHER QUESTION I'VE GOT IS I DON'T KNOW HOW THE ROADWAYS WORK PARTICULARLY OR NOT OR WHAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE APPROVALS FOR, BUT I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER EXIT AND ENTRANCE INTO THE SUBDEVELOPMENT FROM LUCAS ROAD. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE NEED TO GET APPROVAL ON TO BASICALLY PUSH TRAFFIC ON THE LUCAS ROAD? >> I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT ON SOME THINGS WHERE WE CAN. MOST OF THAT, I THINK IS LUCAS OR THE COUNTY ON THAT ROAD. >> I THINK IT'S OURS. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO TIE IN? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER STUFF TO [INAUDIBLE] >> IT'S OURS. ON THE LUCAS ROAD? >> YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> I HAVE ONE LAST, THIS IS MAYBE TRIVIAL, BUT THERE'S THAT KELLY'S HAMBURGER JOINT RIGHT THERE ON SEVENTH AND THAT'S THE LEAST PROPERTY, I GUESS. IS THAT IN PHASE 7 WHEN PHASE 7 IS THAT LEASE UP OR HOW'S THAT WORK? >> GOOD QUESTION. THE KELLY'S HAMBURGER STAND IS LOCATED BACK HERE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS PARCEL. THAT IS NOT IN THE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 OR PHASE 7 PLATE. WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY HAD AN EXISTING LEASE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THE DEVELOPMENT ENTITY WAS NOT ABLE TO ACQUIRE THE ONE ACRE THAT HAD AN EXISTING LEASE ON IT. THAT WAS ACQUIRED BY A SEPARATE RELATED ENTITY. WHEN THE LEASE EXPIRES AND BY THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT IS COMPLETE ON PHASE 6 AND 7, THAT USE WILL BE RESOLVED. >> WHAT WILL BE THE FUTURE USE ENVISIONED? >> IT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT'LL BE OPEN SPACE IN THAT AREA. >> OPEN OR A RESIDENTIAL, I DON'T KNOW. >> IT'S 100% IN THE FLOODPLAIN, SO IT CAN'T BE BUILT ON. >> IT WILL JUST BE UNUSED OPEN SPACE. >> WELL, IT WILL BE USED IN SOME WAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ACTIVATION PLAN FOR IT YET, AND WHETHER THE TRAIL WILL TIE IN THERE OR WHETHER THERE COULD BE SOME PAVILION USE. THE TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE OFTEN BUILDS RECREATIONAL PAVILIONS BY LAKES IN THE FLOODPLAIN THAT HAVE A CONCRETE BASE. THERE'S A NUMBER OF USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT THAT HASN'T BEEN PROGRAMMED YET. >> IT WOULDN'T BE A COMMERCIAL TYPE OF VENTURE AS THE HAMBURGER SAND CURRENTLY? >> NO, THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TODAY. >> THANK YOU. I THINK THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DOES HAVE A PROPORTION OF LAND IN A CORNER FOR COMMERCIAL USE WITH SOME TYPE OF LIST OF ACCEPTABLE COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES THAT COULD BE THERE. THERE ARE PROVISIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR AN ALLOCATION OF LAND PROPERTY IN THE CORNER FOR COMMERCIAL USE. THAT COULDN'T BE. >> CORRECT. IT'S DOWN HERE. THE COMMERCIAL TRACT IS IDENTIFIED AS A SEPARATE TRACT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE LEWIS LANE AND LUCAS ROAD. >> THAT'S SPECIFICALLY CONTAINED WITHIN THAT? >> YES, MA'AM. >> CORNER AND CAN'T BE, I GUESS, MOVED OVER TO THIS OTHER PROPERTY OR PARCEL? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A LAND SWAP PROVISION. I THINK IT'S RESTRICTED TO THIS EIGHT-ACRE PARCEL. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. MACHADO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? >> NO. I HAD THE SAME QUESTION YOU HAD, JIM. [INAUDIBLE] >> THAT'S BECAUSE THIS ISN'T A PLAT. IS A DESIGN PLAN I HAD. WE COULDN'T GET THE PLAT ON ONE PAGE, IT'S READABLE. THAT'S WHY IT'S ON MULTIPLE PAGES. IT'S ON THIS ONE, IF YOU LOOK ON THE PLAT. >> MR. KIRCHHOFF, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD? ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? >> I JUST LIKE TO SAY, I APPRECIATE THE THOROUGHNESS THAT WAS GONE THROUGH ON THIS. I THINK IT WAS PRETTY THOROUGH AND THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILED QUESTIONS THAT WE ASKED AND VERY GOOD PREPARATION BY THE TEAM. THANKS EVERYBODY, PRESTON, AND EVERYONE ELSE. [01:25:03] >> IF THERE'S NO DISCUSSION, THEN I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 AND 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT. >> IS THERE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. >> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER FRED TO APPROVE KING'S CROSSING PHASE 6 AND 7 PRELIMINARY PLAT. WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT FROM MAYOR PRO TEM REED. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANYBODY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, 5:0. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR, THANK YOU, COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANKS, STEVE. >> THANK YOU. [14. UPDATE(S)] >> NOW WE WILL MOVE TO UPDATES AND, GARY, YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT 25;51? >> 25;51 IS MOVING FORWARD. THEY HAVE OUR WATERLINE CROSSINGS ON DILLA HAY, HAD BEEN COMPLETED. THEY ACTUALLY GOT ONE OF THEM FINISHED UP ON FRIDAY AT 7:00 P.M. THEY'RE MOVING ON TO THE INTERIOR CROSSINGS AND THE RESERVE AT SOUTH BRIDGE AND THEN ON AROUND TO PARKER ROAD. THE NEXT PIECES THEY'LL BE DOING WON'T BE SO INTERRUPTIVE ON DILLA HAY. WILL BE IN INTERNAL. >> MAY I ASK A QUESTION? >> GO AHEAD. >> THEY HAVE ANY MEETINGS NOW AGAIN THAT WE COULD START POSTING? DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE STARTING POSTING ON OUR WEBSITE AS FAR AS WHAT THE ACTIVITY IS PROPOSED TO BE ON 25;51? >> MEETING THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE YESTERDAY [INAUDIBLE] BUT I DID THAT FOR THE EMAIL UPDATES AS SOON AS I [INAUDIBLE] >> THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE ON 25;51? I THINK WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, THAT WILL BE AGAIN ON 12;3? ON THE COMP PLAN, I'M PLEASED TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE COMP PLAN HAS BEEN REFERRED FROM P&Z ALONG WITH COMMENTS TO COUNSEL, AND COUNSEL HAS REQUESTED A WORKSHOP TO BE HELD ON THE COMP PLAN, AND I'VE SCHEDULED A WORKSHOP FOR 12;3. THAT'S GOING TO BE A BUSY MEETING. BUT THAT'S GOOD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE COMP PLAN FROM ANYBODY? I DON'T HAVE ANY UPDATE ON TCEQ, BUDDY, DO YOU? >> NO, MADAM MAYOR. STILL NOT SEEN ON THEIR CALENDAR. >> UNBELIEVABLE. >> THAT'S GOOD. >> PROJECTS IN PROGRESS. COUNCIL MEMBER NOOR OR MR. MACHADO, WHERE ARE WE ON THE ENGINEERING FQS? >> WE'RE TRYING TO SCHEDULE MEETING AFTER THANKSGIVING TO GET TOGETHER TO DO THE SCHEDULES. >> NOISE COMMITTEE. >> I'VE GOT A WRITTEN REPORT HERE AND A COUPLE OF THINGS, AND I JUST WANTED TO OVERVIEW BEFORE I HANDED OUT FOR EVERYBODY. I DIDN'T REALIZE WHEN I RAISED MY HAND TO DO THIS, I WOULD SPEND THREE WEEKS OF MY LIFE BECAUSE I LOOK AT MY HOURS SINCE I'VE RAISED IT MONTHS AGO. I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME, AND BY WAY OF BACKGROUND JUST SO PEOPLE WATCHING KNOW, WHEN I WAS IN MY 20S, I HIRED BAKER MCKENZIE, WHICH IS THE LARGEST LAW FIRM IN THE WORLD TO BE OUR LABOR COUNSEL. I HIRED THE GENTLEMAN WHO WROTE 501C9 AT MUCIN AVIS ROSEMAN. HE ALSO WAS AT THE CHIEF COUNSEL, AND I PUT TOGETHER THE TWO LARGEST 501C9 TRUST IN THE UNITED STATES. I LOOK AT EVERYTHING FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE THOUGH I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, AND I DO NOT PLAY ONE ON TV. I'VE GOT TO SPEAK A LOT WITH OUR ATTORNEY AND DIFFERENT ATTORNEYS. I'VE CALLED NUMEROUS CITIZENS, TALKED TO NUMEROUS FORMER COUNSEL MEMBERS, ETC., AND TRIED TO PUT THIS IN PERSPECTIVE OF CITIZENS RIGHTS, THE LITIGATION POTENTIAL. WE ALREADY HAVE SIX LAWSUITS GOING ON, WE DON'T NEED MORE, [01:30:02] AND WHAT THE BIG PICTURE IS. I HAVE MY REPORT THAT I'VE PUT, AND I ALSO INCLUDED THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND CONTRACT WITH SOUTH FORK THAT WAS SIGNED '96 IN 2017. I THINK WE'VE MADE AMAZING PROGRESS, AND I FIND SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT IN MOST EVERY SITUATION. WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS SIT DOWN WITH THE DIFFERENT PEOPLE THAT ARE AT CROSS CREEK AND SOUTH FORK. THEN I CALLED MATT, SPOKE WITH HIM FOR A LONG TIME. HE WAS VERY KIND, CAME OVER AND MET WITH US, AND THERE WAS ONLY ONE CITIZEN WHO WAS ON THE COMMITTEE THAT HAD ISSUES WITH SOUTH FORK. HE AGREED THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN A PROBLEM SINCE AUGUST, WHICH THE ISSUE WAS THERE WAS A DOOR THAT KEPT OPENING AND THEN THEY ALSO INSULATED IT, SO THEY PUT IN A NEW DOOR IN. THIS PERSON ALSO AGREED, AND I DON'T HAVE THE PERMISSION TO SAY A NAME, SO I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANY NAMES. ALSO AGREED IN THE LAST 365 DAYS, THERE WAS ONLY TWO ISSUES, AND HE HASN'T HAD ANY ISSUES SINCE AUGUST, AND THEY EXCHANGED PHONE NUMBERS SO THEY COULD WALK AND TALK, ETC. >> WAS THAT ON SOUTH FORK OR CROSS CREEK? >> CROSS CREEK. >> THE FRONT PART IS MY REPORT AND THEN THE BACK PART ARE THE TWO CONTRACTS THAT ARE BINDING THAT WE HAVE WITH SOUTH FORK. THAT'S YOURS, YOU'LL PASS THAT AROUND. WHEN I MOVED TO MOSS RIDGE IN 1999, I KNEW I WAS MOVING INTO A CONCERT VENUE WITH SOUTH FORK THERE AND I COULD HEAR THEIR MUSIC, SO I KNEW WHAT I WAS MOVING INTO. I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND READ SOME OF THIS FOR THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WATCHING, I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO READ IT AND LOOK AT IT. THEY DEFINITELY WANT TO WORK WITH US, AND I FEEL THEY'RE VERY SINCERE AND HONEST. I REQUESTED THE LAST FIVE CONTRACTS TO SEE THE LANGUAGE THAT THEY'RE HOLDING CLIENTS TO AS WELL AS A COPY OF THEIR COMPLIANCE AND HOW THEY'RE WORKING. AT THE LAST CONCERT, THEIR DECIBEL LEVELS WERE IN COMPLIANCE WITH OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS AND THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT WITH THEM. ONE CITIZEN IS FROM BROOKS FARM WHO'S HAD ISSUE WITH SOUTH FORK, WHO'S ON OUR COMMITTEE, ANOTHER CITIZEN WHO'S THE ONLY CITIZEN WHO VIRTUALLY EVER COMES TO OUR MEETINGS, BOTH AGREED THAT THE CONCERT WAS IN COMPLIANCE AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. I HAVE ANOTHER MEETING FORTHCOMING WITH SOUTH FORK, WHERE I'M ASKING FOR THEM FOR [INAUDIBLE] IN AREAS THAT THEY COULD GIVE. IF THEY'D BE WILLING TO GET IN 11 O'CLOCK VERSUS 12 O'CLOCK. WE HAVE A BINDING CONTRACT WITH THEM. I'M JUST ASKING THEM UNDER SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT, WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO AND HOW CAN YOU WORK WITH THIS? IN TALKING TO A LOT OF CITIZENS, THEY DO NOT WANT THE CITY TO BECOME AN HOA, NOR DO I. WHEN YOU PURCHASE A HUMAN PARK OR YOU HAVE A BUNDLE OF RIGHTS. THE CITY CANNOT CHANGE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES. FROM THE [INAUDIBLE] ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORT, THIS IS AN ISOLATED SITUATION, WHICH IS AFFECTING LESS THAN 1% OF THE 6,000 RESIDENTS ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORT. I THINK IT'S WRONG TO PUNISH THE LESS THAN 99% WHO AREN'T COMPLAINING WITH MORE RULES, REGULATIONS, ORDINANCES, AND TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS. IT COULD BE UNLAWFUL TAKING AWAY NUMEROUS OTHER THINGS, WHICH WOULD ALL HAVE CONSEQUENCES. I ALSO OUTLINED THE FOLLOWING IS AN ATTORNEY THAT I KNOW THAT I'VE TALKED WITH WHO SUED THE CITY OF PARKER AND ONE BECAUSE WE OVERSTEPPED OUR BOUNDARIES. HE'S ALSO BOTH THE TRIAL AND APPELLATE LAWYER IN THE FOLLOWING CASES WHICH IMPACTED THE LEGALITY OF THE CITY'S ACTIONS IN THE TOWN OF LAKEWOOD VERSUS BIZIOS, CITY OF MCKINNEY VERSUS OH SKYLINE, FTC VERSUS THE CITY OF FRISCO. AS A CITY IS AWARE, THE TEXAS LEGISLATOR AND JUDICIARY HAVE FOCUSED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ON STRENGTHENING PROPERTY RIGHTS AND PRIVATE RIGHTS OF CITIZENS, PARTICULARLY LOCAL GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS IS OF MOLD. THE COURT PARTICULARLY HAVE STRESSED THAT BOTH THE US AND TEXAS CONSTITUTION PROTECTIVE RIGHTS. IN LOOKING AT SOUTH FORK, THEY'RE REALLY WORKING WITH US. I THINK IT WOULD BE A HUGE MISTAKE IF WE'RE TRYING TO CHANGE ANY OF THE ORDINANCES. PLUS, YOU HAVE THE LAND USAGE, VESTED RIGHTS, NUMEROUS OTHER THINGS. THOSE WHO BOUGHT A HOUSE KNEW THAT THIS WAS THE RULES. CHANGING THEM COULD HAVE HUGE CONSEQUENCES, AND WE ALREADY HAVE ENOUGH LITIGATION GOING ON IN THIS CITY WITH SIX CURRENT LAWSUITS. AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE HAVE VERY LITTLE LEVERAGE WITH SOUTH FORK AS WE ALREADY HAVE AN AGREEMENT IN PLACE, WHICH WAS SIGNED IN 1986, 2017, WHICH YOU HAVE COPIES OF. THE OWNER OF SOUTH FORK HAS THE ECONOMIC REALITIES TO BANKRUPT THE CITY IN LITIGATION JUST FOR DRILL IF WE TRY TO UPSET THE APPLE CART. IN MY PHONE CONVERSATIONS WITH FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO LIVES RIGHT ACROSS FROM SOUTH FORK, HE REPORTED TO ME THAT HE'S HAD ONE ISSUE IN FIVE YEARS DUE TO CONCERTS. I ALSO SPOKE TODAY WITH ANOTHER FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO LIVES IN THE BACK OF BROOKS FARM, SAID HE HAS NO ISSUES WITH THE NOISE. AS THE CHAIRPERSON OF THIS COMMITTEE, WHICH YOU ASKED ME TO BE, I HAVE NOT HAD ONE PHONE CALL OR ONE EMAIL FROM [01:35:02] PEOPLE COMPLAINING ABOUT NOISE AT SOUTH FORK OR CROSS CREEK. IF ANYONE LISTENING HAS ANY ISSUES FROM OCTOBER 1, BECAUSE WE'RE MANAGEMENT TO PRESENT, PLEASE EMAIL ME AT MY CITY EMAIL AND WE'LL REVIEW AND MAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. IN THE SPIRIT OF SUGAR GETS YOU FURTHER THAN SALT, MY RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS POINT IS TO TAKE NO ACTION AT THIS TIME AND LET'S KEEP WORKING WITH SOUTH FORK AS WE'VE ALREADY RESOLVED THE ISSUE WITH THE OTHER ONE, CROSS CREEK, AND SOUTH FORK IS GOING TO WORK WITH US. >> COUNCIL MEMBER CERCO, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? >> I KNOW [INAUDIBLE] MOTION. >> ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION TO DISBAND THE NOISE COMMITTEE? >> OH, NO, NOT AT ALL. I'M JUST GIVING A REPORT. >> I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TAKE NO ACTION? >> 100% CORRECT. BUT I'M STILL WORKING WITH SOUTH FORK AND DOING FUTURE MEETINGS ON GETTING THOSE CONTRACTS AND IF THEY'RE WILLING TO GO FROM 12 O'CLOCK ON A SATURDAY NIGHT TO 11:00, AND WHAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO. >> THAT SAYING DISBANDED AT ALL. I'M JUST GIVING A REPORT OF THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY. I'VE HAD NO PEOPLE COMPLAIN. WE'VE HAD, LIKE, 20 SOME COMPLAINT OUT OF 6,000. ACCORDING TO THE POLICE REPORTS THAT THE POLICE CHIEF HAS PROVIDED ME. >> I WOULD AGREE THAT I ALSO HAVE NOT RECEIVED REALLY ANY PARTICULAR COMPLAINTS. I'M NOT SURE FROM YOUR RECOMMENDATION. I KNOW THAT CURRENTLY OUR NOISE ORDINANCE IS SUCH THAT IS BASED UPON A NUMBER OF THINGS, BUT MAINLY DECIBELS AND TIMES OF DAY, ET CETERA. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE NOISE COMMITTEE HAD RECOMMENDED, I THINK, ALSO AT THE REQUEST OF OUR CHIEF IS THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE POLICE TO HAVE SOME DISCRETION OVER WHAT REALLY A NUISANCE WOULD BE. INSTEAD OF ACTUALLY HAVING A DECIBEL READING, WHERE THE POLICE OFFICER WOULD HAVE TO GO OUT THERE WITH DECIBEL METER READING, SAY, HEY, YOU'RE OVER DECIBEL METER READING, THAT THEY COULD BASICALLY GO OUT THERE AND BASICALLY SAY, HEY, TO ME, THIS IS A NUISANCE AND IS A NOISE ISSUE AT THAT POINT. IT ALSO WOULD TAKE AWAY THE SCIENCE ASPECT OF IT FROM THAT AND BASICALLY BE THERE. THEY HAD RECOMMENDED, I THINK WE TALKED TO CITY OF ALLEN AS WELL. THEY TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF YOU HAVE EVER RUNNING YOUR BODY CAMERA, ET CETERA, THAT WAS YOU TAKE IT INTO COURT, YOU COULD CERTAINLY SHOW THAT IT WAS A NUISANCE. IT ALSO TAKES AWAY THE NEIGHBOR TO NEIGHBOR THING BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR DOESN'T HAVE TO POURED ON ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, A POLICE OFFICER COULD GO OUT THERE AND BASICALLY SAY, IN MY OPINION, THIS IS A NUISANCE AND LESSENS THAT IMPACT BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR AND NEIGHBOR ISSUE. I DO THINK THAT THE COMMITTEE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT CHANGE TAKE PLACE AT LEAST, AND I JUST DON'T KNOW FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE IF YOU'RE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT OR YOU'RE NOT BASED ON YOUR REPORT. >>ONE IS THE NOISE COMMITTEE. IT'S NOT THE POLICE COMMITTEE. I'VE SPOKE WITH KATHERINE IN GREAT DETAIL ABOUT BOTH. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE SHOULD DISCUSS AN EXECUTIVE AND LET KATHERINE EXPAND ON THAT KATHERINE THOUGHTS IDEAS ON THE POLICE SIDE OF IT, PLEASE. >> AS FAR AS WHAT I CAN SAY PUBLICLY, I MEAN, IT'S JUST A QUESTION OF WHETHER YOU WANT TO. >> FROM THE POLICE PERSPECTIVE. >> WHETHER YOU WANT TO GIVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT DISCRETION TO DO THAT IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND WHETHER THE CITY COUNCIL THINKS THAT'S THE BEST PATH FORWARD. YES, WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT IT MORE IN EXECUTIVE. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE NOISE COMMITTEE? >> NO. >> JUST I WAS SURPRISED YOU DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANYONE EITHER VIA EMAIL OR PHONE GIVEN THE COMPLAINTS THAT LED TO THE CREATION OF THIS COMMITTEE IN THE FIRST PLACE. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PEOPLE THAT BROUGHT THEIR CONCERNS HERE THAT CAUSED US TO CREATE THIS. YOU DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY OF THEM? EVEN IN PERSON AT THE COMMITTEE? >> I GOT ZERO PHONE CALLS. I GOT ZERO EMAILS. WE GOT A COM MEETINGS. WE HAVE FOUR PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE, AND WE HAD ONE CITIZEN COME EVERY TIME. WE ONLY HAD ONE CITIZEN COME. OF COURSE, THAT PERSON HAD ISSUES WITH IT, BUT THAT WAS ONE PERSON. THAT WAS NOT ON THE COMMITTEE. >> I WOULD SAY THAT I KNEW OBVIOUSLY FROM WHAT TODD SAID, [01:40:03] TODD RECEIVED ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION FROM SOMEONE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE EITHER OF US. I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE STILL ISSUING SOME COMPLAINTS AT SOME OF THE SOUTH FORK EVENTS TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SAYING THAT THERE WAS NOISE ISSUES. IT DIDN'T COME TO MYSELF. >> THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR THE POLICE REPORT SO I COULD WRAP MY ARMS AROUND THIS THING. THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY 21 OR 24 COMPLAINTS AT SOUTH FORK OVER 24 MONTHS, I MEAN, WHICH IS STATISTICALLY INSIGNIFICANT OUT OF 6,000 PEOPLE. >> DID YOU RECEIVE ANY COMPLAINTS RELATIVE TO. >> CROSS CREEK? >> CROSS CREEK, YES. >> I DID NOT RECEIVE ONE EMAIL OR ONE PHONE CALL. BUT ONE OF THE MEMBERS, WHICH I DON'T HAVE THE PERMISSION TO SAY THEIR NAME IS ON THE COMMITTEE HAD ISSUES WITH IT. HE WAS THE ONE THAT I REALLY WANTED MATT AND THE OWNERS TO GET IN THE ROOM, AND WE DID IT RIGHT HERE. HE AGREED THAT FROM AUGUST TO PRESENT, SINCE THEY'VE CHANGED THE DOOR AND PUT INSULATION IN THERE, HE'S HAD ZERO ISSUES. THEN I ASKED HIM OVER THE LAST 365, HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HAD A PROBLEM? HE SAID TWICE. I SAID, ARE YOU HAPPY? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? HE SAID, NO, I'M GOOD. RANDY WAS SITTING THERE AND HE SAW THAT. AM I CORRECT, RANDY? >> I WOULD SAY THAT WAS A GOOD CONVERSATION AND THEY CHANGED THE NUMBERS AND IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS LEADING TO A POSITIVE PATH. >> IN MY MIND, IT WAS LIKE DRY LINE THROUGH IT. WE BROKE BREAD. THAT ONE'S GOOD. NOW WE'RE ON TO SOUTH FORK SEEING WHAT THEY WILL DO FOR US IN SELF-COMPLIANCE, WORKING WITH US SUGAR GETS US FURTHER THAN SALT. THE OTHER THING IS KATHERINE HAD A GOOD POINT, I WOULD LOVE YOU TO EXPAND ON THIS BECAUSE I'VE LITERALLY SPENT THREE WEEKS IN MY LIFE SINCE THEN AND WE'VE BEEN ON THE PHONE FOR A GOOD WHILE. I GOT TO GIVE HER CREDIT BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK OF THIS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S BRILLIANT. SHE GOES, AS THEY START TO BUILD, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A BUNCH OF CONCERTS ON TOP OF ALL THOSE HOUSES RIGHT THERE IN THE BACKYARD. KATHERINE, WOULD YOU EXPAND ON THAT, PLEASE? >> I THINK THAT WAS I THINK THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE REZONING THAT THAT THEY WOULD CHANGE WHAT THEY'RE USING THAT REMAINING 30 SOME ODD ACRES, I THINK FOR. >> I THINK THAT'S GOING TO RESOLVE ITSELF. I GUESS THE ONLY OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO HEAR IS CHIEF PRICE, IF YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THIS, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE I SURE I'M NOT INCLINED TO WANT TO HAVE SOME SUBJECTIVE MEASURE THAT POLICE OFFICERS ARE HAVING TO USE RATHER THAN AN OBJECTIVE MEASURE, BUT DO YOU HAVE ANY GENERAL INPUT ON THIS? >> RIGHT NOW, CURRENT THE WAY THE ORGAN IS WRITTEN THE ONLY OBJECTIVE INFORMATION THEY CAN USE BY THE INVESTORS. IT DOESN'T GIVE THEM DISCRETION TO WORK OUTSIDE OF THAT REGARDLESS. I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME DISCRETION BUILT INTO IT FROM THE OFFICERS TO WORK MORE EFFICIENTLY AND EFFECTIVELY. BUT I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE A DRAMATIC CHANGE, BUT IT SHOULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GET SOME TV BASED ON SOME CALL WE HAD OUTSIDE OF THE TV. >> I'VE SPOKE EXTENSIVELY WITH CHIEF PRICE AND I KNOW LEGAL COUNSEL HAS, AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO EXPAND ON THOUGHTS AND IDEAS ABOUT TALKING AN EXECUTIVE ON THAT AND OUTLINE WHY MAYBE? >> CHIEF PRICE, I HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE HAD COMPLAINTS. PEOPLE CALL ME, AND WHEN THEY CALL ME COMPLAINING ABOUT THE NOISE, I TELL THEM TO CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT SO THAT IT IS LOGGED IN. IF THEY CALL THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND THEY MAY BE CALLING THE NON DISPATCH NUMBER. WHAT DO YOU GET? DO YOU GET A LOB? DO YOU GET. >> WHEN THEY CALL IN A COMPLAINT, IT HAS TO GO TO DISPATCHER ISSUE A CALL SERVICE. IT DEPENDS ON HOW THE CITIZEN CALLS IN AS TO WHETHER IT'S AT THERE ARE GOING TO BE INSTANCES WHERE IT MIGHT BE CALLED TO SOMEBODY'S HOUSE THAT'S COMPLAINED ABOUT SOUTH FORK THEY DON'T MENTION SOUTH FORK. THESE PEOPLE ARE THE DISPATCHER GOING TO HAVE THAT. SKEW IN THE INFORMATION. THE REPORT THAT I PROVIDED TO TODD, WHICH I'VE SENT OUT TODAY, A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE LISTED OUT SOME THAT WE RESEARCHED THAT WERE DEFINITELY AN ISSUE TO SOUTH FORK, BUT WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE THAT WAY SO WE CLASSIFY RESEARCH. THEN THERE WERE SOME IN THAT CATEGORY THAT WERE JUST ABSOLUTELY. NOTHING TO DO. WHEN THE WHEN THEY CALLED IN TO COMPLAIN, THERE'S A CALL FOR SERVICE BAD AND IS HOW THIS LABEL BASEBALL OFFICER, WE KNOW IT WE KNOW IT'S PROPER BUT I CAN'T HANDLE THAT. [01:45:04] >> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IS THERE SOME KEYWORD THAT I SHOULD TELL THE CITIZEN THAT CALLS ME AND I SAY, CALL REPORT A NOISE COMPLAINT. >> [INAUDIBLE]. THEY LIVE IN FARM, THEY SAY THERE'S A NOISE OVER HERE AND THEY DON'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT. [INAUDIBLE]. >> THAT MAY BE DISCONNECTED. >> THE NEW MANAGEMENT, ET NOT ONLY, I MEAN, I'VE TALKED TO SOME PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT LEVELS AND I GET A MEETING THAT I'M WORKING ON SETTING WITH THE NUMBER 2 PERSON. THEY'RE OUT THERE A DECIMAL READING OR MORE THAN WE OWN, LOOKING AT DIFFERENT SPOTS. IS THERE A BETTER ANGLE TO MOVE THE STAGE, ET CETERA? I DON'T THINK WE'RE GETTING A LIP SERVICE. I THINK THEY'RE VERY HONEST AND SINCERE. THEY WANT A GOOD RELATIONSHIP. THEY DON'T NECESSARILY WANT US TO CHANGE THE RULES AND AFFECT THEIR INCOME, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WOULD PROBABLY LEAD TO OUR SEVENTH LAWSUIT. >> ANYTHING ELSE ON THE NOISE COMMIT. >> NO. I'M MEETING WITH SOUTH FORK AND AS THAT PROGRESSES, I'LL GIVE ANOTHER REPORT. BUT THERE WON'T BE AN UPDATE ON THE DECEMBER 3 ONE, BUT MAYBE THE 17TH? >>DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER MEETING SCHEDULED WITH THEM? >> NO. I'M GETTING THOSE CONTRACTS PULLED TOGETHER AND GETTING THE INFORMATION TOGETHER BEFORE WE DO THAT, SO WE CAN ACTUALLY HAVE A CONSTRUCTIVE MEETING VERSUS HAVING A MEETING FOR A MEETING. BECAUSE WHAT I REALLY AM CURIOUS IS THE CONTRACTS THAT THEY HAVE WITH THEIR PEOPLE, ARE THEY HOLDING THEM TO WHAT'S AGREED TO IN 1996 AGREEMENT IN THE 2017, OR THAT'LL TELL ME THE LIP SERVICE PART OF IT IN THEIR HEART, IS IT REAL? >> ANYTHING FURTHER. ANY OTHER. >>REALLY GOOD UPDATE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT. IT'S THREE WEEKS OF MY LIFE. >> ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER UPDATES? Y'ALL HAVE GOT THE LIST OF YOUR REPORTS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION JUST ABOUT THE REPORTS. I NOTICED THAT THE LAST MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT POSTED ON THE WEBSITE IS JULY OF 2024, AND I WONDERED IF THE AUGUST, SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER MONTHLY REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT POSTED. >>GO AHEAD. >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> THANK YOU. WE'LL STILL HAVE THOSE MONTHLY REPORTS COMING, BUT THEY'RE JUST GOING TO BE KIND OF COMING OUT IN. PERFECT. THANK YOU. >> JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS REVISING THEIR MONTHLY REPORTS. IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION THAT YOU WANT THAT IS NOT CAPTURED, PLEASE LET THEM KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO STREAMLINE THEM TO MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT AND TO WHAT WE ARE REQUEST. JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WHEN WE CAN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WORKSHOP ON REPORTS. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE WE GOT SO MUCH TO GO ON WORKSHOPS, IT'S HARD. [15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS] ARE THERE ANY FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? >> MADAM MAYOR, I'VE ASKED REPEATEDLY FOR A WORKSHOP ON THE PERSONNEL COMMITTEE MANUAL. I CAN OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS SAY THAT THEY WOULD ALSO LIKE TO DO A WORKSHOP ON THE PERSONNEL MANUAL. I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SCHEDULE A WORKSHOP ON THE PERSONNEL MANUAL. IT WAS GOING TO BE ON DECEMBER 3, BUT SINCE WE HAD TO MOVE THE COMP PLAN WORKSHOP TO DECEMBER 3, I TENTATIVELY PUT THE PERSONNEL MANNER ON DECEMBER 17. NOW, IF WE FINISHED THE COMP PLAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE COMP PLAN WORKSHOP. >> WE DO BOTH IN THAT MEETING AND JUST KNOCK THEM OUT? IS THAT REALISTIC? I DON'T KNOW. >> IT DEPENDS ON HOW LONG IT TAKES. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THE CAMP PLAN WORKSHOP WILL BE. I TEND TO THINK THAT IT WILL BE PRETTY LENGTHY BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY'S GOING TO WANT TO GO OVER THE CAMP PLAN. I DON'T WANT THAT RUSH. >> NO, I UNDERSTAND. BUT YOU'VE PROBABLY DONE WHAT 700 OF THEM IN THE LAST 15 YEARS OR HOWEVER MANY. ARE THEY USUALLY LIKE A HOUR OR A FOUR HOUR DEAL? I REMEMBER LAST YEAR IT WAS LIKE TWO-AND-A-HALF. >> MOST OF THE WORKSHOPS THAT WE'VE BEEN HAVING EITHER START AT FIVE OR 5:30 AND GO TILL 7:00. [01:50:04] MY CONCERN IS I WOULD PUT THE PERSONNEL ON THE SAME DAY AS CAMP, BUT I JUST I THINK THAT WOULD BE RUSHING THE CAMP PLAN AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THAT'S WHY I MADE IT THE NEXT FOR THE NEXT. >> CAN WE AGREE THAT WE WANT TO PUT IT ON THE 17TH THEN? IT'S ON THERE FOR SURE. I I'M GOOD WITH HAVING IT ON THE 17TH. LET'S JUST PUT IT ON THE 17TH AND HAVE IT NAIL DOWN. >> I THE WORST CASE SCENARIO, LET'S AT LEAST GET IT ON THE 17TH. YOU WANT IT ON THE THIRD? WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? >> SEVENTEENTH IS FINE. >> WELL, LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHERE IT'S TENTATIVELY LISTED. >> I MEAN, IF THEY SERVE BREAKFAST, WE COULD GET IT DONE ON THE THIRD. [EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH] >> AT THIS TIME, WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE. TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SECTION 551.0711, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION. GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER. IT IS 8:28 P.M. WE ARE IN RECESS. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.