[00:00:01]
>> I HEREBY CALL A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER – Roll Call and Determination of a Quorum]
IT IS AUGUST 14TH, 2025 AT 6:00 PM.I WILL ASK MISS HUB, DO I HAVE A SUPER FORM?
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I DO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS.YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK. GOT IT.
THESE WILL BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD.
>> ARE YOU READING THEM INTO THE RECORD?
>> WE ATTACH THEM TO THE RECORD.
IS THAT OKAY? WE DON'T READ THEM INTO THE RECORD. RAY [INAUDIBLE].
CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. MY NAME IS RAY [INAUDIBLE].
I LIVE AT 30405 PLUS LANE AND PARKER AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR ABOUT 27 YEARS OR SO.
I WISH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL REGARDING THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE 101 ACRES OWNED BY MARGARET TURNER AND NOW OWNED BY SOME CONDITION OF PARTNERSHIPS RELATED TO THE [INAUDIBLE] FINES, WHATEVER THAT IS TODAY.
MY CONCERN AS IT'S BEEN SINCE THE BEGINNING, AND I AM A REGISTERED PROTESTANT IN THE SO COURT FILING AND IN OTHER FILINGS, HAS BEEN THE ABSOLUTE DISK, IT WAS PERHAPS IGNORING THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY REGARDING THE SIZES OF THE HOMES AND THE SIZE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, ADDING POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT MAYBE EVEN DOUBLE DIGIT INCREASE TO THE POPULATION OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
THE CITY OF PARKER HAS BEEN MY HOME, AS I MENTIONED, FOR 27 YEARS.
IT HAS BEEN A NICE QUIET COUNTRY COMMUNITY, WHICH IS BEING ENCROACHED BY MANY SIDES, BUT OUR ETJ LAND AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR ME.
I DO NOT LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING [INAUDIBLE] HOMES WITH VERY GREEN SPACE WHEN THEY'RE SURROUNDED BY DEVELOPMENTS OF MUCH LARGER LOTS, INCLUDING EVEN IN THE CITY OF MURPHY IMMEDIATELY TO ITS SOUTHERN BORDER.
SO MY CONDITIONS FOR SPEAKING TONIGHT, WE JUST NEED TO RE-EMPHASIZE THE FACT THAT THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF THE CITY RESIDENTS WHO DO NOT WANT TO SEE MANUFACTURED SHORT NO NEIGHBOR POLICIES WITH CONDENSED HOMES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED IN SEVERAL OF THE PROPOSALS.
THE NUMBER OF 254 HOMES OR WHATEVER IT IS IS ALMOST TWICE WHAT IT SHOULD BE TO MEET THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN 85-90% OF THE CITY OF PARKER.
AND I DON'T THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE PROCEEDING TO APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT DENSITY.
>> WE HAVE TWO OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT WERE MAILED IN.
THEY WILL BE ATTACHED TO THE MINUTES OF THIS MEETING.
ONE IS FROM [INAUDIBLE] WHO DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THIS DEVELOPMENT.
THE OTHER IS FROM OLGA PHILIP, AND SHE TOO IS AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT.
AS I SAID, THESE ALONG WITH MISS ESTABROOK'S COMMENTS WILL BE ATTACHED AND MADE A PART OF THE RECORD OF THIS MEETING.
THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY COMMENTS. I'M EMILY PLUMMER.
I LIVE AT 5908, GREGORY LANE, AND ALTHOUGH I APPRECIATE JORDAN'S EFFORTS IN MAKING THIS SOMETHING THAT'S AGREEABLE TO ALL PARTIES.
I'M FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO ACCESS ON GREGORY LANE, EVEN IF IT IS FOR EMERGENCY ACCESS THAT HAS A ROAD THAT COULD BE TURNED INTO NON EMERGENCY ACCESS IN THE FUTURE.
MY VIEW IS THAT IF IT IS TO TRULY BE EMERGENCY ACCESS, THEN THE ROAD SHOULDN'T BE CONSTRUCTED AS A ROAD, BUT HAVE SOMETHING AKIN TO WHAT'S IN MONTGOMERY FARMS WHERE THEY HAVE CONCRETE WEBBING IN THE GRASS THAT'S STRONG ENOUGH TO SUPPORT A FIRE TRUCK.
[00:05:03]
THAT'S A TRUE EMERGENCY ACCESS IN MY VIEW, BUILDING A ROAD AND PUTTING A LITTLE BAR IN FRONT OF IT THAT CAN BE SUED TO BE TAKEN DOWN LATER ISN'T EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.SO I'M FUNDAMENTALLY OPPOSED TO ANY TYPE OF TRUE ROAD ACCESS ON TO GREGORY LANE, SINCE GREGORY LANE IS UNABLE TO SUPPORT IT, AND I ACTUALLY OWN PART OF GREGORY LANE, I FEEL LIKE I KNOW THERE'S A WHOLE ANOTHER ISSUE WITH THE PRIVATE PUBLIC, BUT IF IT IS DEEMED TO BE A PUBLIC ROAD, I FEEL LIKE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AND THEN FINALLY, I THINK THAT THE MUD IS AN APPROPRIATE USE.
THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICTS IS TO CREATE A ROAD TO SERVICE RESIDENTS WHO DON'T HAVE ACCESS, AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE'S ACCESS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY, AND IF AN AGREEMENT WERE TO BE COME TO IN GOOD FAITH BY BOTH SIDES.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S REALLY BEEN OUR EXPERIENCE THIS FAR WITH THE DEVELOPERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER.
>> THANK YOU, EMILY. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT? DID YOU FILL OUT A GREEN CARD IF SO PLEASE HAND IT TO MR. BERA. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS SO TO SAN 1,000 [INAUDIBLE] MAFIRE.
I HAVE ATTENDED FOUR MEETINGS.
I THINK TODAY IS MY FIFTH MEETING.
ONE DAY OR OTHER, YOU WILL SEE THIS LAND WILL BE DEVELOPED.
AND PROBABLY I KNOW YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT YOUR INTELLIGENT EFFORT.
AND AS A DEVELOPER, I HAVE FEW SUGGESTIONS.
THE PROPERTY IS ETJ, AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THEY HAVE DONE THE HOMEWORK LIKE THE EMERGENCY, I HEARD ONE COMMENT.
EMERGENCY ACCESS IS THE KEY RIGHT NOW.
SO HOW BAD ULTIMATE PLAN, FEWER HOME AND NICE LOOKING CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT WITH EMERGENCY EXIT ON GREGORY LANE? SO I WAS JUST THINKING, HOW CAN WE RESOLVE THIS ISSUE? SO I WOULD [INAUDIBLE] THE PROPERTY AS A DEVELOPER.
I WOULD HAVE PROPOSED ALTERNATE PLAN, SOMETHING LIKE FEVER HOMES, AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO [INAUDIBLE] MUD.
IF YOU [INAUDIBLE] WITH MUD, THEN THE DEVELOPER CAN WORK WITH CITY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER. THAT'S ONE THING.
IF THERE IS NO MUD, I HEARD THE COMMENT [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT, THERE IS THE WAY TO GO.
DEPENDING ON TODAY'S MARKET, IT IS DIFFICULT TO SELL WITH MUD.
MUD WILL ADD ANOTHER CERTAIN AMOUNT TO THE HOMEOWNER.
SO IF SOMEONE WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY LIKE FEVER HOMES WITHOUT MUD, AND CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S A COMBINATION OF LIKE TILE ROOFS, SHOE ROOFS, AND THERE ARE SOME PRODUCTS VERY CLOSE BY TO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF TRACK, IN MURPHY AND EVEN IN LOOKERS IN RILEY, AND IF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF PLOTS CAN RAISE UP TO 12,000 OF 1/3 OF ACRE.
SO I THINK THE NUMBER WILL COME AROUND 210 OR 215.
SO IF YOU DO WITH MUD, IT SHOULD BE AROUND 200.
THAT'S MY EXPERTISE, BUT THEY ARE BETTER THAN ME BECAUSE I'M NOT AGAINST, BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT, BUT FROM A DEVELOPER'S PERSPECTIVE, I THINK AFTER THE DUE DILIGENCE AND TOPOGRAPHY AND CONSIDERING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BRIDGE AND WHETHER YOU WANT TO CONNECT THE SANITY SO TO THE LIFT STATION, ALL THESE THINGS MAKES THE DIFFERENCE.
SO MY REQUEST TO COUNSEL IS, IF DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER AND COME UP WITH A DIFFERENT PRODUCT, AND THAT'S ONE OPTION.
IF THERE IS ANY ULTIMATE PLAN, THERE ARE CERTAIN PRODUCT IN THE MARKET, AND THOSE PEOPLE CAN ALSO THINK ABOUT IT. THANK YOU.
[00:10:01]
>> [INAUDIBLE] I'M LATE. SO MINE'S MACHESKY MURPHY OF 1328 [INAUDIBLE] DRIVE.
I'VE BEEN WATCHING THIS FIGHT I BEING IN THIS FIGHT FROM NOW LIKE 3.5 YEARS.
I HAVE SEEN ALL THE DETAILS FROM THIS DEVELOPER, MR. MIRES.
I HOPE HE'S GOT MORE DETAILS TO SHOW TODAY.
THE INITIAL THINGS I'VE SEEN DON'T EXCITE ME IN ANYWAY.
I DON'T THINK THEY DON'T ADDRESS ANY OF THE ISSUES WE'VE HAD BEFORE THE PREVIOUS PROPOSALS.
IN FACT, IN SOME WAYS, I THINK IT'S WORSE.
SO I THINK I WANT THIS COUNSEL TO BE VERY CAREFUL WITH ANY DEVELOPER OR POTENTIAL DEVELOPER, OR EVEN IF HE'S REALLY ACTUALLY PART OF HUFFINE DEAL YET.
I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING THAT TELLS ME THAT IT'S EVEN RIGID, WHAT THIS DEVELOPER'S PROPOSING ANY OF THE HUFFINES PROVE ACCEPTED ANYWAYS.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THE NEW PROPOSAL IS NOT BETTER THAN THE PREVIOUS ONE.
I THINK IN ACTUALLY MANY WAYS, THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL WAS BETTER THAN THIS ONE, AT LEAST BASED ON WHAT I'VE SEEN.
AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T LET THE DEVELOPER COME IN AND DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
WRITE THE PROPOSAL IS VERY CAREFUL.
>> THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? LAST CALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS.
IF ANYONE ELSE HAS PUBLIC COMMENTS AND I'M SPEAKING TO SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROBABLY WATCHING THIS VIRTUALLY, YOU CAN SUBMIT YOUR COMMENTS IN WRITING TO PATTY HER, SEND THEM TO PATTY GRAY AT PARKER, TEXAS, AND SHE WILL MAKE SURE ALL OF COUNSEL GETS THEM, OR YOU CAN BE HERE IN PERSON ON AUGUST 19TH AND AGAIN WE'LL BE TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
[1. RECEIVE A PRESENTATION FROM JORDAN RAMIREZ REGARDING A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED TO PROPERTY IN THE ETJ; DISCUSS; AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION.]
WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO OUR WORKSHOP WITH JORDAN RAMIREZ.MR. RAMIREZ IS, I THINK MOST OF US KNOW HIM.
HE HAS PRESENTED HIS PROPOSAL.
HE'S BRIEFLY GOING TO GO OVER THAT PROPOSAL AGAIN, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. MR. RAMIREZ.
>> YES. THANK YOU [NOISE]. TOUGH START.
WHO IS CONTROLLING THIS GUY? AWESOME. I ALSO GAVE YOU GUYS PHYSICAL COPIES OF THE DOCUMENT.
MAYBE I CAN JUST POINT WHEN WE GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, IS IT OKAY?
>> GENERAL MOTIONS [INAUDIBLE].
>> GOT IT. BEFORE WE GET INTO THIS, I THINK THAT 4, 5 PEOPLE SPOKE.
IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHEN I'VE PROBABLY BEEN ON THIS PROJECT FOR ABOUT A YEAR.
I'VE TALKED TO SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHEN THESE TYPES OF WORKSHOPS COME ABOUT, IT'S TYPICALLY THE NEGATIVE THAT IS MORE LOUD THAN THE POSITIVE.
MY WIFE AND I ARE ON THE INTERNET, WE SEE THE SAME THING.
THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT I HAVE SPOKEN TO, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE TOWN HALL WHEN I WAS VERY TRANSPARENT ABOUT THE SITUATION THAT I WISH WOULD HAVE SHOWED UP TODAY TO SAY THE OPPOSITE OF THE TONE THAT WAS SET.
BUT MAYBE I CAN MAKE A CASE HERE.
SO IT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME TO START THIS PRESENTATION AND SOME PEOPLE WERE AT THE TOWN HALL, OXANNE AND WE WERE THERE, YOU WERE THERE, BUDDY WAS THERE.
IT'S VERY IMPORTANT IN THE ENTIRETY OF THIS PRESENTATION AS HARD AS IT MAY BE TO SEPARATE ME FROM THE PAST FOUR YEARS.
I AM NOT ASSOCIATED WITH THE HUFFINES.
IN FACT, THERE'S A FUNNY SLIDE IN THIS DECK OF ME BEING SPIDER MAN, TRYING TO BRING THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE HUFFINES AND THE OPPOSITION PARTIES TOGETHER TO TRY AND BROKER WHAT I CALL THE PEACE TREATY, WHICH IS THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THE PAST YEAR, WHAT I HAVE HAD TO DO IN THIS SITUATION IS BRING THE PRIOR DEVELOPERS, WHICH AT ONE TIME WAS JOHN COX.
PROOF OF THAT HAS BEEN SENT TO CITY COUNCIL, AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE IT PUBLICLY WITH THE REST.
JOHN COX WAS PREVIOUSLY PART OF IT, BUT MOSTLY FILING DON HUFFINES.
I THINK THAT THE TEMPERAMENT AND THE TONE OF THIS WHOLE SITUATION, AND AT ONE TIME THIS WAS THE CASE IS THAT THERE'S THIS WE GOING ON WHERE IT'S LIKE THE HUFFINES WANT TO SCREEN THE CITY OF PARKER AND THE CITY OF PARKER HAS TO FIGHT BACK.
AND I WOULD SAY THAT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO WHEN I GET HERE, BUT THE HUFFINES DEVELOP LAND THAT IS 1700, 1800 ACRES.
THIS DEAL CAME ABOUT FROM JOHN COX WHO WANTED THE DEAL TO COME THROUGH.
HE BROUGHT IT TO THE HUFFINES AS CAPITAL PARTNERS.
THE HUFFINES BOUGHT THIS LAND, THEY OWN THE LAND.
[00:15:03]
SO IT JUST SEEMS TO ME UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS IS A PRETTY PASSIVE DEAL TO THEM AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS HOW I GOT HERE.I HAVE THE SIGNED AGREEMENTS OF WHAT HE'S WILLING TO LET ME BUY INTO, BECOME THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS AND BROKER THE PIECE THAT I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FOR ABOUT A YEAR.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SIDE. I'LL EXPLAIN.
THIS IS MORE BECAUSE BOB HAD RUMORS ABOUT ME. KEEP GOING.
WE'RE GOING TO FLY THROUGH, BUT MOST PEOPLE, I LOVE THIS TO THE WHOLE COMMUNITY.
SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THIS ON FACEBOOK, IT'S BEEN ON FACEBOOK.
THIS PRESENTATION JUST SHOWS THE ORIGINAL INTEREST THAT I HAD IN [INAUDIBLE] ORIGINALLY, I MET HIM OVER LUNCH THROUGH A MUTUAL CONNECTION.
I SAID, HEY, LISTEN, MY WIFE AND I WANT TO DEVELOP A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S REALLY CENTRIC AROUND RAISING KIDS, LETTING THEM BE OUTDOORS, LOW DIGITAL ENVIRONMENTS BECAUSE A LOT OF THE RESEARCH THAT'S COMING OUT THROUGH MAINLY A BOOK CALLED AXIOS GENERATION IS SHOWING THAT A CITY LIKE PARKER IS REALLY WONDERFUL BECAUSE IT'S WHERE PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THE CITY LIKE US ARE WANTING TO RETREAT TO.
SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE SAW TO DEVELOP A COMMUNITY FOR THE X-PATHS OF URBAN ENVIRONMENTS THAT JUST SIMPLY DON'T HAVE BACKYARDS OR FREE WALKABILITY OF FREE ROAM TO RAISE THEIR KIDS.
THIS IS PUBLIC. I THINK EVERYONE'S SEEN THAT SKIP A LOT OF THE FLUFFY STUFF.
GOT TO KEEP GOING. SMARTPHONES ARE BEING ADOPTED.
YEAH. SMARTPHONE'S BAD. DEPRESSION.
>> TREAT PEOPLE LEAVING CITIES, COMING TO RURAL ENVIRONMENTS, KEEP GOING.
>> WATCH ALL PRESENTATION PROVIDES QUICK [OVERLAPPING]
>> [LAUGHTER] I KNOW. LISTEN, I'M SKIPPING THE FLUFFY SUBJECTS I THINK EVERYONE'S HEARD A LOOSE FOUR TIMES AT THIS POINT.
GOT TO PARKER WAS INTRODUCED TO THE PARKER COMMUNITY FUNNY STORIES I SAID, IF YOU CAN BUY FOR, IF YOU CAN FIGURE THIS SITUATION OUT, THEN YOU CAN LAUNCH YOUR FIRST DEVELOPMENT HERE AND I SAID, WELL, HOW BAD IS THE SITUATION? HE SAID, IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
THEN I HAD A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AND I WAS LIKE, WAIT, IN A SCALE OF 1-10, I WAS, IT'S LIKE A 12.
THAT'S HOW I ARRIVED HERE. I KEEP GOING.
THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART TO REALLY GET IN THE GUTS OF IT.
THE TIMELINE. I SAID THE SAME JOKE AT THE TOWN HALL SO DON'T FAULT ME FOR IT.
I TRIED TO COME UP WITH A BC AND AD REFERENCE BEFORE JORDAN BEFORE DOMES AND THEN AFTER DOMES.
BEFORE DOMES, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THESE TIMELINES ARE NOT EXACT, BUT JOHN COX FINDS THIS LAND.
I THINK THE CONFLICTS BEGAN WHEN HE CALLED IT RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
THAT WAS PROBABLY THE FIRST SLIDE AGAINST THE CITY.
I THINK IT WAS TAKEN PRETTY NOT TRANSPARENTLY.
THERE'S A LOT OF INTERNET SLUICE IN THE CITY OF PARKER THAT I FOUND OUT ABOUT, AND I THINK THAT THEY CAUGHT ONTO IT PRETTY QUICKLY.
THAT SET THE TONE OF A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY OR A LACK OF COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY, WHICH IS THE MAIN COMPLAINT.
SOMEWHERE IN THAT, I THINK THAT LAWSUITS STARTED FLYING.
THAT'S WHEN CAROLYN MOBS GOT INVOLVED, THAT'S WHEN GREGORY LANE GOT INVOLVED, AND BASICALLY, ALL OF THESE OPPOSITION ISSUES, WHETHER IT BE GREGORY LANE, WHETHER IT BE THE RATE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHETHER IT BE WATER AND SEWER NEEDS.
ALL OF THOSE STARTED TO COMPOUND BECAUSE WHILE THIS IS ETJ LAND THAT THE HUFFINES HOME, THERE HAS TO BE SOME COLLABORATION WITH THE CITY.
THEY HAVE A WAY OF DOING THINGS.
THERE'S A FUNDAMENTAL DISAGREEMENT OF I'M A LAND OWNER, WHAT ARE THE CITY'S RIGHTS, WHAT ARE MY RIGHTS AS THE LAND OWNERS, AND THEY HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC PATH THAT THEY TYPICALLY TAKE TO GET SOME OF THEIR DEVELOPMENTS DONE.
I THINK THAT THEY WEREN'T PREPARED OR JOHN COX, I WOULD SAY, WAS NOT PREPARED FOR THE CITY OF PARKER BECAUSE THERE WAS A FIGHT BACK. THAT HAPPENED.
I'VE HEARD FOUR YEARS AGO, FIVE YEARS AGO, BUT IT'S DRAGGED ON TO WHERE WE'RE AT TODAY.
THERE WAS A OPPORTUNITY FOR A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
IT LOOKS DECENTLY LIKE THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT THAT I'M PROPOSING TONIGHT.
SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT IT'S ACTUALLY WORSE.
IT IS WORSE TO BE CLEAR, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS WHEN WE'RE STRUCK ON, IS THAT THE DEALS GET WORSE.
THE FED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION WAS IT WAS JOHN COX AND THE HUFFINES TRYING TO MAKE AMENDS OF SAYING, HEY, LISTEN, WE JUST WANT TO BE OUT OF THIS. WE WANT TO BE DONE.
I DON'T THINK IT WAS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT ITSELF THAT WAS BAD.
I THINK IT WAS THE FORM BY WHICH IT CAME ABOUT.
IT WAS PERCEIVED TO BE LACKING TRANSPARENCY, IT WAS PERCEIVED TO BE DONE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS.
THAT'S HOW THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FAILED.
I THINK THAT WAS AROUND 2024 AND IS ABOUT WHEN I THINK I WAS INTRODUCED THE PROJECT.
[00:20:03]
MY TIMELINE IS AROUND FEBRUARY OF THAT SAME YEAR.MY WIFE AND I INVENTED THIS CONCEPT.
WE HAVE A VERY SOLID UNDERSTANDING OF FAMILIES THAT HAVE TYPICALLY ONE TO THREE KIDS THAT LIVE IN DALLAS.
WE TYPICALLY UNDERSTAND THE SHOVELING LIVING IN A CITY, SO THAT'S THE INVENTION OF PROJECT HOMESTEAD.
WE HAD THE CAPITAL FOR THE PROJECT.
WE HAD THE MARKETING FOR THE PROJECT, BUT WE NEEDED A STRONG DEVELOPMENT PARTNER. I SAID THIS.
THAT IS HOW I WAS INTRODUCED TO HILLARD, A COUPLE OF OTHER DEVELOPERS AROUND TOWN AND THEN EVENTUALLY PHIL HUFFINES BECAUSE WHAT I WANTED TO DO WAS EXPEDITE THE TIMELINE IRONICALLY, EXPEDITE THE TIMELINE OF GETTING A DEVELOPMENT TO FRUITION BECAUSE TYPICALLY THEY'LL TAKE FOUR TO SEVEN YEARS AND INTERNET YEARS, THAT'S A LIFETIME.
I WAS I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN SUSTAIN THAT.
THAT WAS PHIL, I ATTENDED PARKER FEST, WHICH BUDDY INVITED ME TO, STARTED MEETING THE PREVIOUS CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
THEN AROUND JUNE OF LAST YEAR, SO AGAIN, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR NOW, I BEGAN THE PROCESS OF BROKERING PEACE.
YOU'VE GOT THE DON AND PHIL HUFFINES OVER HERE WHO OWN THE LAND.
YOU'VE GOT THE SI PARKER AND THE OPPOSITION LEADERS ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND I FELT THAT MY JOB WAS TO TRY AND BRING EVERYONE TOGETHER TO DEVELOP A PEACEFUL WAY TO RESOLVE THIS OTHER THAN THE LAW FAIR, WHICH I FELT PERSONALLY, MAYBE I'VE GOT EVERYONE NOWHERE.
IT WAS EXHAUSTING AND THEY'VE BEEN DRAGGING ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS.
IT'S THE FIRST COUNCIL MEETING SHARING MOST FIRST PRESENTATION IN AUGUST, I PRESENTED A NEW LAND PLAN TO MAYOR LEE AND BUDDY AT A RESTAURANT AND SAID, LISTEN, THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING.
MOST OF THAT HAS BEEN THE PAST YEAR TALKING TO OPPOSITION LEADERS WHO ARE ALL INTRODUCED IN A SECOND.
REALLY WORKING WITH THE COMMUNITY, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE COMMUNITY, UNDERSTANDING THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY, COMBINING THOSE WITH THE CONCERNS OF THE CITY, AND THEN FIGURING OUT WHAT WE CAN PHIL AND DON TO BACK DOWN ON JUST TO GET A DEAL DONE.
THAT WAS MY ROLE THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
GREAT. THESE ARE THE MAIN PEOPLE THAT I HAVE BEEN WORKING.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SITUATION AND THE MESS THAT IT IS, IT CAN BE DISTILLED DOWN TO A COUPLE OF MAIN POINTS.
ONE IS THE ISSUE WITH ACCESS THAT INVOLVES GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS.
TWO IS THE RACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH BECAME A VERY CONTENTIOUS TOPIC, TWO, THREE YEARS AGO.
THEN THE DENSITY IS OBVIOUSLY A HUGE ISSUE SPOKEN ABOUT TONIGHT.
THEN THERE'S MULTIPLE LAWSUITS JUST FLYING ALL OVER THE PLACE BETWEEN ALL OF THE PARTIES.
BUT I ALWAYS LIKE TO SAY IT'S DENSITY, WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND GREGORY LANE ACCESS THAT ARE THE CRUX OF THE ISSUES THAT ARE THE BIGGEST PAIN POINTS FROM THE COMMUNITY IN MY OPINION.
WHAT I DID IS, I HAVE MET SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, 100 OR SO 150 OF THEM WERE AT THE TOWN HALL.
BUT THE MAIN WAY FOR ME TO RESOLVE THIS ISSUE WAS TO APPOINT WHAT I CALLED OPPOSITION LEADERS THAT STUART MATTHEWS, WHO'S THE LEADER FOR GREGORY LANE, CAROLYN MOBS, WHO WAS PROBABLY THE MOST VOCAL AND PASSIONATE ABOUT THE WASTE WATER TREATMENT PLANT.
BUDDY, I DON'T THINK HE LIKES THIS TITLE, BUT I FOUND HIM TO BE THE MOST PASSIONATE ABOUT DENSITY AND TRYING TO COMPRESS THE DENSITY DOWN FROM THE 666 OR WHATEVER IT WAS, DOWN TO WHERE IT IS NOW THE 254.
THEN MAYOR LEE AS A JUST KIND PERSON TO HELP NAVIGATE THIS WHOLE SITUATION.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE FUNNY SLIDE.
THIS HAS BEEN FOR THE PAST YEAR.
THE SHOW HIT BETTER AT THE TOWN HALL, BUT GENUINELY, IT'S REALLY HARD FOR PEOPLE TO REALIZE THIS AND RECOGNIZE THIS, BUT I AM AN INDEPENDENT AGENT, I AM PULLING TOGETHER ALL OF THESE PARTIES AND PUTTING ALL OF THE PEACE TREE DOCUMENTS INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE HAD FOR MULTIPLE WEEKS NOW.
NEXT SLIDE. THIS IS THE LAND PLAN.
LISTEN, I WANT TO SAY THIS AND I'M GOING TO PIVOT HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE ARE NOT ONE ACRE WATTS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT THE DENSITY THAT YOU HOPED FOR OR WISHED FOR.
BUT TAKING THE PICTURES OF MY HAND.
THERE IS AN ECONOMIC MODEL THAT THIS THING WAS SET UP FOR FAILURE FROM THE BEGINNING.
IT IS NO ONE'S FAULT, BUT ULTIMATELY THIS LAND WAS BOUGHT AT A PREMIUM WITH THE ASSUMPTION OF 660 HOMES,
[00:25:04]
MULTI FAMILY, ETJ LAND AND FREEDOM.OBVIOUSLY, PARKER HAS DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB AT BLOCKING THAT, BUT THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL ECONOMIC MODEL.
WHEN WE COMPRESS DOWN THE DENSITY AND ASK FOR ONE ACRE LOTS OR TWO ACRE LOTS, THE MODEL DOESN'T SUPPORT IT. IT JUST DOESN'T.
IT DOESN'T SUPPORT IT FOR ME AS A DEVELOPER TRYING TO BUY INTO THE STEAL.
IT'S NOT GOING TO SUPPORT IT FOR ANY OTHER DEVELOPER.
THE OPTIONS ON THE TABLE ARE EITHER REFIGURE OUT A DENSITY, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPRESSED DOWN FROM 660 TO 254, WHICH IS THE SAME AS THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, OR YOU SAY NO TO THAT AND ALTERNATIVES HAVE TO HAPPEN.
I'LL GET INTO THE ALTERNATIVES IN A SECOND.
THIS LAND PLAN REPRESENTS MY ETHOS WITH DANNY OF FREEDOM CHILD PLAYS, FISHING PONDS, ADVENTURE PARKS, PLAYGROUNDS.
IT REPRESENTS THE ETHOS AND THE VALUES OF THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WE SET OUT TO BUILD WITH THE COMPLEXITY AND THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED WITHIN THIS ECONOMIC MODEL.
THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED. IT'S BEEN IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL FOR AT LEAST THE PAST ADMINISTRATION FOR MONTHS, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING OFF OF.
THERE'S MORE PRECISE PLATS THAT I HAVE TO SHARE, SHOULD THOSE BE OF INTEREST, BUT THIS ABIDES BY THE 254 DENSITY DEVELOPMENT.
NEXT SLIDE, I THINK IT IS OKAY.
JUST OUTLOOK AT THE COMMUNITY. KEEP GOING.
THIS LEADS TO THE PUBLIC ALREADY.
KEEP GOING. PERFECT. WE'LL GO BACK.
THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT VERSION.
MOST OF THIS LANE THAT YOU SEE IS IN THE ETJ LAND, YOU SEE THAT GREEN SLICE THAT IS ACTUALLY IN PARKER, THAT DOES ABIDE BY THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE CITY OF PARKER.
NEXT SLIDE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO NOW, AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IS, BEFORE I ASK QUESTIONS, I WOULD LIKE TO GO THROUGH EACH TOPIC WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND EXPLAIN TO YOU GUYS MAYBE NOT EVERY ALAS WITHIN IT, WHICH IS OPEN TO RED LINE, BUT MORE SO THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL OF WHAT HAS BEEN BROKERED OVER THE PAST YEAR WITHIN THIS PEACE AGREEMENT.
I BROKE IT UP BY TOPIC, SO WE'RE GOING KEEP POINTING OUT.
THIS IS ONE OF THE TRICKIEST ONES, AND I DO HAVE UPDATES THAT I WILL SHARE ON THIS POINT TONIGHT.
AGAIN, WORKING WITH EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY IS AMENABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT, THAT IS, THE HUFFINES MYSELF AS TAKING IT OVER, BECAUSE THE CORE ISSUE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT IS TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, AND TWO POINTS OF ACCESS CAN BE DONE WITH EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
WHAT HAS BEEN AGREED TO BY ALL PARTIES OUTSIDE OF THE CITY IS EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
THIS PROTECTS THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS WHO ARE PROBABLY SOME OF THE MOST VOCAL AGAINST THIS DEAL.
IT LIMITS TRAFFIC TO EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
IT LIMITS TRAFFIC TO CONSTRUCTION.
THE DEAL POINTS ARE STILL BEING DECIDED.
WHAT IS REQUESTED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS FRAUD LESS.
THERE'S BEEN SOME PUSH-BACK FROM THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS THROUGH STEWART ON THE FS. THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S AN EASY POINT TO WORK OUT, WHETHER THAT NEEDS TO BE ONE WAY OR TWO WAY, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE THE MINIMUM FOR THE PANORAMA ROAD TO BE BUILT, AND THAT WAY ACCESS CAN START FLOWING THROUGH HOG ROAD AFTER THAT ROAD IS BUILT.
THAT'S JUST WHAT IS NEEDED TO BE FIGURED OUT, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALSO CONTEMPLATES RETURNING GREGORY LANE TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS WITH THE RESIDENTS OF THIS IS GOING TO BE BROKEN DOWN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING THIS FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN YOU'RE GOING TO LEAVE US WITH ALL THE POTHOLES AND ET CETERA.
THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE CONTEMPLATES BRINGING IT BACK TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE.
THE NEWEST DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THIS ARE, THERE'S NOW A BIG ISSUE BETWEEN THE CITY PARKER AND THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS OVER THIS FIGHT BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE ROAD.
THAT WAS ORIGINALLY A FIGHT BETWEEN THE HUFFINES AND THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS.
I'VE ACTUALLY RESOLVED THAT FOR YOU GUYS, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE THE DEAL.
STEWARD, AND I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK TOO MUCH FOR HIM, BUT HE DID GIVE ME HIS BLESSING TO SERVICE TODAY.
STEWARD AND THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS ARE WILLING TO MAKE CONCESSIONS ON A PUBLIC ROAD.
SHOULD THE CONCESSIONS THAT ARE MORE IMPORTANT TO THEM BE MET.
THOSE ARE THE CONCESSIONS THAT I HAVE MORE CONTROL OVER, WHICH IS THE CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE.
INSTEAD OF FOUR YEARS, IT'S TWO YEARS, AND IT'S ALSO SOME TYPE OF ADDITION OF PENALTIES THAT THIS IS NEVER A FULL INGRESS EGRESS, AND THAT'S NEVER BEEN THE INTENTION FOR ME AS THE DEVELOPER, NO ACTUALLY IS THE INTENTION OF FOR OR THE HUFFINES.
THIS IS SIMPLY A REQUIREMENT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS,
[00:30:05]
AND EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY DOES SATISFY THAT.I MAY GET AHEAD OF ONE QUESTION WHICH I THINK ROXANNE'S GOING TO ASK, AND IT IS THE COUNTY WON'T ACCEPT EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY FOR TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, AND THEY WILL UNDER ONE CONDITION.
THIS IS FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL HIMSELF, THE COUNTY.
A LOT OF LAND IN DALLAS IS LAND-MARKED AND THIS IS AN ISSUE BECAUSE THE COUNTY REGULATIONS REQUIRE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, BUT ONE WAY AROUND IT IN GETTING THIS EMERGENCY ACCESS IS YOU BASICALLY INSTALL SPRINKLER SYSTEMS INTO EACH HOME THAT PROTECTS AGAINST ANY FIRE ISSUES SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN.
I WORKED WITH COUPLE OF ENGINEERS, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT A HARD LIFT AND IT'S VERY COMMON WITHIN A LOT OF DEVELOPMENTS AROUND DALLAS, AND SO THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO ADD THE SAFETY ELEMENT WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY FOR THE 254 DENSITY.
>> THAT'S BEEN NEGOTIATED WITH THE COUNTY AND YOU HAVE THAT IN LINE?
>> CORRECT. YES. FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL.
>> YOU SAID YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING?
>> I'LL GET IN WRITING. THAT'S NOT.
>> YOU DO NOT HAVE IN WRITING.
>> I DO NOT HAVE ANY WRITING, BUT THAT IS CONFIRMED WITH THE FIRE MARSHAL MULTIPLE TIMES. WE'LL GO NEXT.
>> I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. CLICKER WOULD BE KEY FOR THESE MEETINGS.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO GREGORY LANE, I'M SORRY.
THIS IS THE TRICKIEST TOPIC AND IT EVOLVES EVERY DAY.
THERE IS A LAWSUIT FROM THE HUFFINES TO THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS, THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS BACK TO THE HUFFINES, THE CITY TO GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS, AND VICE VERSA.
THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONTEMPLATES ALL LAWSUITS BEING DROPPED.
I CANNOT SPEAK FOR THE CITY BUT WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT SHOULD THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS BE SIGNED, WHICH IT'S ALREADY SIGNED BY PHIL AND DON, BUT I'M SURE THERE'S RED LINES.
SHOULD THIS BE SIGNED, THERE'S NO LITIGATION TOWARDS THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS MOVING FORWARD.
THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE HOPE OF WHAT I BROKER IS THAT THE CITY, MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE CITY'S DESIRES IS THAT THIS BE DEEMED A PUBLIC ROAD, AND SO IF THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS CAN AGREE WITH THAT, I THINK THAT ALL LAWSUITS IN THIS CAN BE DROPPED.
I KNOW THAT THERE WAS A DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE COURTS OF A SUMMARY JUDGMENT BEING DENIED JUST RECENTLY.
NOT A THREAT. DON'T SAY. DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER.
STEWART HAS EVERY INTENTION OF FLARING THIS THROUGH THE COURTS.
THAT'S GOING TO MEAN DEPOSITIONS FOR THE CITY.
THAT'S GOING TO MEAN A LOT OF TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT ON THIS FIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO STRESS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BROKERS PIECE FOR THE CITY AND THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA.
NEXT SLIDE. WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS.
THERE'S BEEN SOME HICCUPS ON THIS LANGUAGE BECAUSE THE ROAD THAT THE LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED, IS THAT THE DEVELOPMENT DOES HAVE TO GET WATER AND SEWER FROM EITHER THE CITY OF MURPHY OR THE CITY OF PARKER IN ORDER FOR WASTEWATER TREATMENT TO NOT HAPPEN.
YES, THAT IS HOW IT'S DRAFTED, BUT THE INTENTION THE SPIRIT OF THE STEAL AND THE DEVELOPMENT IS TO REMOVE KAREN'S CONCERNS MOSTLY FOR ANY TYPE OF WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
IF THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS BROKERED INSTEAD OF THERE'S NO NEED FOR A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, ASSUMING THAT WATER AND SEWER IS ACCESSIBLE FROM EITHER PARKER OR MURPHY.
MURPHY'S CHALLENGING AT THE MOMENT.
IT'S AN INTERESTING SITUATION, BUT SHOULD THAT HAPPEN, I THINK THAT WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IS REMOVED FROM THIS, AND THERE'S NO INTENTION TO CONTINUE FORWARD WITH IT.
BUT ALSO, AGAIN, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATES AND OUTLINES ALL LAWSUITS ARE DROPPED.
ANY LAWSUITS OR LEGAL ISSUES BETWEEN THE CITIES OF MURPHY PARKER, THE HUFFINES ARE DROPPED AFTER THIS.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANT TO ENTER INTO.
NEXT SLIDE. FLOODING AND DRAINING.
BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
>> THIS IS A PROTECTION WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I'M GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO LEGAL SIDE, STATE LAW SECTION 11.806, WHICH BASICALLY SAYS THAT ANY FLOODING CAUSED TO CITIZENS OR RESIDENTS THAT OCCURS FROM THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE THE PENALTY TO THE DEVELOPER.
THIS IS STATE LAW, TO BE CLEAR.
THIS PUTS THE DEVELOPMENT IN CONTROL OF LAURA HERNANDEZ.
IF WE CREATE ADDITIONAL FLOODING TO HER PROPERTY.
IF WE'RE TOO HURT OR INFRINGE ON ANYONE'S PROPERTY FROM A FLOOD OR DRAIN STANDPOINT,
[00:35:06]
THAT WOULD BE ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT.OF COURSE, WHEN THE PLAT IS APPROVED, THAT IS WHEN YOU TYPICALLY MOVE TO FLOOD STUDIES BEING COMPLETED, AND ALL OF THAT BY LAW AND BY CITY REGULATION WILL BE COMPLETED.
THAT'S GOOD. IMMINENT DOMAIN HAS COME UP QUITE A BIT.
I THINK THAT THERE'S BEEN MISUNDERSTANDINGS THAT THIS IS TRYING TO OVERREACH BEYOND THE STANDARD MUD LANGUAGE AROUND IMMINENT DOMAIN, AND SO CONDEMNATION, THAT IS NOT THE CASE HERE.
IF THERE NEEDS TO BE TREATS THE LEGAL LANGUAGE, I THINK THAT THAT IS AMENABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT IS TRYING TO BE OUTLINED, I THINK IN THE DEVELOPMENT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT THAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THERE'S A STANDARD MUD AUTHORITY THAT COMES WITH HAVING A MUD AND THAT IS SIMPLY IS ALIGNED IN THE DOCUMENT.
HOWEVER, THERE WAS A CONCERN THAT I WAS ABLE TO CATCH BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CAME ABOUT, AND I DON'T REMEMBER IF THIS CAME FROM BUDDY OR CAROLYN, BUT SOMEONE WAS CONCERNED THAT THE LANGUAGE WAS TOO BROAD, AND SO IT WAS NARROWED TO JUST LANGUAGE TO NOT INCLUDE ANY ROADS BECAUSE I THINK THE CONCERN WAS THAT THE CONDEMNATION AUTHORITY WANTED TO WRITE THE PEOPLE'S ROADS AND CREATE MORE INGRESSES AND ENGRESSES, AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
LANGUAGE CAN BE TRACED TO CREATE COMFORT HERE, BUT THE SPIRIT OF THE DA, LIKE I SAID, IS THAT THIS IS SIMPLY FOR WATER, DRAINAGE, ANY ISSUES THAT COULD COME UP, AND THIS IS STANDARD LANGUAGE THAT WOULD COME BACK FROM THE MUD.
THIS IS MORE FOR THE TOWN HALL.
I SOURCE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE TOWN HALL.
THIS IS NOT FOR LOW INCOME HOUSING, THIS IS NOT FOR REAL HOMES.
THIS IS HOMES THAT ARE ESTIMATED TO BE 770,000 TO A MILLION TO RAISE THE PROPERTY VALUES, NOT DIMINISH THEM.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT MASS INFLUX OF PEOPLE.
AGAIN, SIMPLY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DENSITY, I WOULD CHALLENGE YOU TO LOOK AT THE DENSITY, NOT NECESSARILY FROM A LOW INCOME HOUSING STANDPOINT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, BUT THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE ECONOMIC MODEL THAT WERE SET UP FIVE YEARS AGO, WHICH AGAIN, IS NOT THE CITY'S FAULT, IT'S JUST THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN.
NEXT SIDE. I REMEMBER THIS ONE.
ANOTHER POINT THAT AGAIN, THIS IS MORE FOR CAROLYN, ANY ROLLING RIDGE RESIDENTS, WHICH I THINK IS YOUR.
THERE ARE HOMES WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT THAT BACK UP TO ROLLING RIDGE.
THE SOLUTION THAT WE WERE ABLE TO COME UP WITH REGARDING THAT WAS THE PRESERVATION OF THE ROLLING RIDGE TREE LINE TO CREATE SEPARATION AND PRIVACY FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT TO OTHER PEOPLE'S BACKYARD.
IF FOR SOME REASON BECAUSE OF A SETBACK ISSUE, THE TREES DO HAVE TO BE REMOVED, THEN THERE ARE CONTEMPLATIONS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO REPLACE THOSE TREES WITH I THINK IT'S ROD IRON FENCES OR SIX FOOT BODING FITS.
I THINK THE WAY IT'S OUTLINED IS EQUAL LANDSCAPE ENHANCEMENTS TO CREATE THAT PRIVACY.
AGAIN, GETTING INTO THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL HERE, IT'S NOT REALLY THE INTENTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE ANY CHAOS OR ANY FURTHER CHAOS THAN HAS ALREADY BEEN CREATED WITH THE RESIDENTS OF ROLLING RIDGE.
THERE'S ALSO IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAIN PLAN, AT LEAST THE BUBBLE MAP ONE, THERE ARE SOME ROCKING TREES THAT CONNECTED ROLLING RIDGE.
I THOUGHT THAT THAT WOULD BE NICE FOR THE CHILDREN TO BE ABLE TO MIX, BUT CAROLYN COMMUNICATED TO ME THAT THE RESIDENTS WOULDN'T WANT THAT, SO THAT IS GOING TO BE REMOVED, AND THAT'S FINE.
LAND PLAN DENSITY. THESE ARE THE ONLY XS THAT WE HAVE.
I KNOW IT'S ONE OF THE MOST CONTENTIOUS ISSUES.
THERE WAS A TIME, PROBABLY ABOUT FOUR MONTHS AGO I REMEMBER CALLING BUDDY AND SAYING, "HEY, LISTEN, I THINK I GOT A BOW OUT OF THIS STEEL I CAN'T GET LOWER THAN 254." THAT WAS BECAUSE I JUST KNEW THE ECONOMIC MODEL WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT, AND I'M STILL HERE, SO I WAS ENCOURAGED TO BE HERE.
BUT 254 IS THE LOWEST DENSITY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO GO LOWER THAN THAT BOTH FOR ME OR FOR ANY DEVELOPER STEPPING INTO THE SITUATION.
THE ECONOMIC MODEL, I DO WANT TO SAY THIS, AND I THINK IT'S THE SAME FOR THE CITY.
THIS WHOLE SITUATION DRAGGING OUT, IT'S MORE LEGAL FEES.
IT'S MORE COST, IT'S MORE EXHAUSTION, IT MORE TEMPERS RISING.
THERE'S A REALITY OF THE SITUATION THAT THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR FIVE OR SIX YEARS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS IN LEGAL COST TO IF I DO KNOW WHAT'S IN LEGAL COST TO YOU GUYS, BUT ANY ARGUMENT FOR THE ECONOMIC MODEL GETTING BETTER FROM HERE, IT'S A FLAWED ARGUMENT BECAUSE IT ACTUALLY JUST KEEPS GETTING WORSE AND WORSE.
[00:40:05]
LET'S GO. FUTURE ROAD, ROXANNE.I DON'T KNOW IF YOU BELIEVE ME. THERE'S NO FUTURE ROAD.
IS IT IN THE BIBLE MAP? IF YOU GO BACK TO THE BIBLE MAPS, LET'S NOT DO THAT.
IN THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, THERE IS A FUTURE ROAD THAT'S CONTEMPLATED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT WAS THERE, LIKE THERE IS NO FUTURE ROAD AND THAT IS STATED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IF IT'S HARD I'M HAPPY FOR YOU GUYS TO ADD THAT LANGUAGE.
THERE'S NO ROAD ON THE REST END.
THAT BECAME AN ISSUE THAT WAS A LITTLE BIT UNNECESSARY TO HAVE COME UP JUST SIMPLY FROM THAT RENDERING OR DRAWING.
NEXT SLIDE. LET'S GO TO THE NEXT ONE JUST BEFORE.
LET'S GO BACK TO THE INVITATION.
LISTEN, THIS IS WHERE I LEFT THE TOWN HALL.
I'M GOING TO START PULLING OUT A COUPLE OF THINGS.
I DON'T HAVE THEM. AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WHAT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH THE CITY IS TWO ALTERNATIVE PATHS THAT THE HUFFINES HAVE.
LISTEN, I HEAR YOU GUYS, AND I GENUINELY EMPATHIZE THAT YOU WISH THEIR DEVELOPMENT WAS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT, YOU WISH THIS, YOU WISH THAT.
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT PHIL AND DON HUFFINES OWN THIS LAND.
THERE HAVE BEEN PEOPLE WHO HAVE SAID, WHY DON'T YOU BUY IT FROM THEM, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SELL THIS.
THIS IS 100 ACRES IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE PORTFOLIO.
TENSIONS HAVE ROSE SO MUCH, BUT AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE MONEY FROM THEIR INVESTMENT AS IS THEIR RIGHT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THE SITUATION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS THAT THERE IS THE PATH OF CONTINUED LAWFARE, TO GET OUT IN THE COURTS, SEE WHAT HAPPENS, SEE WHAT YOU CAN STALL, SEE WHAT YOU CAN REMOVE FROM THE MUD.
I WILL SAY THAT EVERY MODE THAT I'VE TALKED TO REGARDING THE TCEQ HEARING COMING UP, SAYS THAT IT'S A FORMALITY TO HEAR OUT THE CONTESTANTS OF THE MUD, BUT IT WOULD UNPRECEDENTED FOR A MUD NOT TO BE GRANTED IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A MATTER OF IF, I THINK IT IS A MATTER OF WHEN.
AS YOU GUYS KNOW ABOUT THE MUD APPLICATION, IT DOES CONTEMPLATE A MUCH HIGHER LOT DENSITY THAN 254.
THE CONTINUED PATH OF LAWFARE, I'M SPEAKING OBJECTIVELY, SEEMS TO BE MAKING THE SITUATION WORSE AND WORSE FOR EVERYONE.
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS A ALTERNATIVE PATH, A PATH TO BASICALLY SAYING, "LISTEN, WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, EVERY MAIN ISSUE THAT IS FACING THE RESIDENTS HAS BEEN RESOLVED OR PEACE HAS BEEN BROKERED IN SOME FORM OR FASHION." YOU'VE GOT THE LAWFARE PATH, YOU GOT MY INVITATION FOR PEACE.
IS IT PERFECT? NO. IS IT GOOD ENOUGH AND BETTER PROBABLY THAN THE ALTERNATIVES? THAT'S FOR YOU GUYS TO DECIDE.
I DON'T WANT TO PUSH YOU THERE, BUT I DO BELIEVE IT IS.
THEN THE THIRD OPTION IS THE ALTERNATIVES.
I'M SO SORRY I DON'T HAVE IT IN THIS PRESENTATION.
I'VE SHARED WITH THE CITY TWO ALTERNATIVES THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE HUFFINES.
IT'S FOR WAREHOUSES TO GO IN WITHIN 100 ACRES THAT WOULDN'T REQUIRE ANY OF THE CITY APPROVAL, AND IT'S FOR A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT CAN BE BUILT ON A RACE WATER TREATMENT PLANT, WHICH THEY ALREADY HAVE THE PERMIT FOR AND WATER BASE.
IS THAT THE MOST ECONOMICALLY VIABLE OPTION FOR THE HUFFINES? ABSOLUTELY NOT. IS THAT THE BEST THING FOR THE CITY? IT FOR YOU GUYS TO SAY, BUT I WOULD THINK NOT.
WHERE I STAND TODAY WITH MY INVITATION IS I'VE WORKED FOR A YEAR.
I HAVE BEEN TRANSPARENT, I HAVE BEEN OPEN, I HAVE WORKED WITH BUDDY, I'VE WORKED WITH THE MAYOR, I'VE WORKED WITH OPPOSITION LEADERS.
AT THIS POINT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HEAD SCRATCHER THAT WE CAN'T BRING EVERYONE ELSE TOGETHER TO BROKER A PEACE AGREEMENT.
BUT THAT'S MY INVITATION IS TO STRONGLY CONSIDER THIS DEVELOPMENT.
STRONGLY CONSIDER WHAT THE PEACE TREATY OFFERS TO EVERYONE TO BE ABLE TO MOVE ON, ETC.
THE LAST THING I WANT TO COVER THAT IS NOT A MISREPRESENTATION, IS I WANT TO TALK ABOUT MY SITUATION WITH THE HUFFINES.
THE CITY COUNCIL HAS AND I'M HAPPY TO SHARE THIS WITH THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY.
KAREN'S GOT ABSOLUTELY FIRE FACEBOOK GROUP THAT EVERYONE READS.
THERE'S PROOF THAT JOHN COX IS OUT OF THE STEAL.
JOHN COX HAS BEEN REMOVED AND BOUGHT OUT WITH THE EXPRESS INTENTION BECAUSE I WAS THE ONE BROKERING THAT DEAL WITH PHIL TO GET JOHN COX OUT.
[00:45:03]
HE HAS BEEN BOUGHT OUT AND REMOVED FROM THE STEAL WITH THE INTENTION OF LETTING WE AS THE NEW DEVELOPER BUY IN AND TAKE A MANAGING DIRECTOR ROLE OF THIS PROPERTY.MY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT THAT IS NOT SIGNED BY ME, TO BE CLEAR, I HAVEN'T SIGNED ANYTHING BECAUSE IF THIS IS NOT GOING TO WORK OUT, I WANT NO PART OF IT.
IT WOULD BE A LIABILITY FOR ME, NOT AN OPPORTUNITY.
THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT THAT IS ALSO SIGNED BY PHIL AND DON CONTEMPLATES ME BECOMING THE MANAGING MEMBER OF RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
THAT'S A VERY CONTENTIOUS ENTITY NAME. I UNDERSTAND THAT.
IT WAS THE SIMPLEST AND CLEANEST LEGAL WAY TO DO IT BECAUSE EVERYTHING IS FILED UNDER RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
I DON'T THINK THAT IF I'M NOT GOING TO BE THE MAJORITY OWNER, THERE'S NO OTHER DEVELOPER THAT THEY ARE GOING TO LET IN TO BECOME THE MAJORITY OWNER.
BUT I WAS ABLE TO PUSH FOR A KEY CONTENTIOUS TOPIC, WHICH IS, CAN THEY JUST REMOVE YOU ONCE THIS DEAL IS ASSIGNED? THAT LANGUAGE WAS REMOVED TO ALLOW FOR ME TO NEVER BE REMOVED FROM THIS PROJECT.
MOVING FORWARD. I THINK THAT'S IT. LOTS OF QUESTIONS PROBABLY.
>> COUNCIL, WHO WOULD LIKE TO GO FIRST WITH THE QUESTION. MS. HALBERT?
>> I WOULD JUST LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT JUST WE NEED TO BE FISCALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
HOWEVER, THIS IS ONE PARCEL OF LAND THAT WE ARE FACING THAT IS UNDEVELOPED.
IT IS NOT JUST ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WHAT HAPPENS THERE.
IT IS THE PRECEDENT THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE SETTING ON OUR FUTURE ETG DEMAND THAT NEEDS TO BE DEVELOPED.
THAT IS ALSO THE LENS THAT WE ARE HAVING TO WORK THROUGH.
>> THE MUD APPLICATION HAS $44 MILLION.
IT IS THE DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THE MUD.
I'VE RUN THE NUMBERS AND THAT IS GOING TO PUT A LIABILITY OR DEBT ON EACH HOUSEHOLD OF OVER $170,000 AND I DON'T SEE THAT BEING ECONOMICALLY VIABLE FOR THE WHOLE HOME.
MUD ARE KNOWN TO GO BANKRUPT, AND THIS ONE JUST SEEMS TO ME TO BE SET UP FOR FAILURE.
>> IS THERE A QUESTION IN THERE?
>> WELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT OR?
>> THESE ARE PRETTY EXPERIENCED DEVELOPERS.
I DON'T THINK THE MUD WOULD GO BANKRUPT.
I THINK MUDS ARE A CONTENTIOUS TOPIC AT THE STATE LEVEL.
I WAS TALKING TO EMILY PLUMMER WHO CAME.
I KNOW THAT THERE'S A FIGHT, SHE'S FIGHTING THAT GOES BEYOND THIS DEVELOPMENT ON WHETHER MUDS ARE JUSTIFIED OF WHETHER THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED, WHETHER THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED.
THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION IS THAT THE LAND OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY CONTEMPLATED THIS MODEL AROUND A MUD.
THEY WILL MOST LIKELY GET A MUD.
IT'S THE DEVELOPMENT THAT HAPPENS BEYOND THE MUD APPLICATION THAT IS MOSTLY TO BE DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
>> I'LL PROBABLY COME BACK TO A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ISSUES.
LET ME JUST PICK UP WHERE YOU LEFT OFF A MINUTE AGO WHERE YOU SAID YOU NEVER COULD BE REMOVED AS MANAGING MEMBER.
>> PUT YOUR MIC UP. >> I'M DOING THAT.
>> YOU SAID THERE WERE TERMS IN THE RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS AMENDED AGREEMENT BUT SAID YOU NEVER COULD BE REMOVED FROM YOUR CAPACITY.
I PRETTY MUCH READ EVERY WORD OF THE AMENDED AGREEMENT THAT YOU SENT OVER, EXCEPT THE FORTUNES THAT ARE COMPLETELY REDACTED.
I DON'T THINK YOU WOULD WANT TO REDACT SOMETHING THAT SAID THAT IF IT WAS IN THERE.
>> I CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THIS PROPERTY.
>> CAN YOU POINT TO WHERE THAT IS IN THE AGREEMENT?
>> IT'S IN THE AGREEMENT. THIS IS A VERY CONTENTIOUS NEGOTIATED POINT BETWEEN LAWYERS, AND I WAS SHOCKED THAT I GOT IT, BUT I CANNOT BE REMOVED FROM THIS PROPERTY.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS BECAUSE I BROUGHT MINE UP INTO ONE SECTION THAT HAS TO DO JUST WITH THE THIRD RESTATED AMENDED AGREEMENT OF RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
WE ORIGINALLY COMMITTED TO THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A COMPLETELY NEW ENTITY THAT WOULD TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, AND YOU WILL BE A PARTNER IN THAT NEW ENTITY WITH THE HUFFINES.
BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO DELIVER ON THAT FOR YOU.
>> I ADDRESSED THAT. EVERYTHING IS FILED UNDER RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS, AND IT MADE NO SENSE TO START A COMPLETELY NEW ENTITY.
THE MUD APPLICATIONS WOULD PUT EVERYTHING AT RISK.
>> BUT YOU DIDN'T GET THAT DONE.
IT'S NOT A NEW ENTITY, IT IS JUST RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS REVISED.
>> NO, IT JUST TO RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS.
[00:50:01]
YOU ARE A COMPLETE ENTITY, BUT WANT TO RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS BECAUSE OF THE REASONS YOU MENTIONED, BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT ALL THESE OTHER THINGS ROLLING IN.
THE LANDS ARE NOT GOING TO CHANGE TO A DIFFERENT ENTITY, RIGHT?
>> LEGAL QUESTION, BUT I WOULD PRESUME NO.
>> CONCERNING YOUR AUTHORITY, DIDN'T I ALREADY SAY I DIDN'T SEE HOW YOU COULD BE REMOVED, BUT WHAT I DID SEE IN THERE IS 37 TIMES, THE DOCUMENT SAYS, REFERS TO THE POWER OF THE MAJORITY INTEREST IN THE PARTNERSHIP AS HAVING THE CONTROLLING AUTHORITY.
IN PARTICULAR, ARTICLE 2, ON PAGE 5, IT DEFINES MAJORITY INTEREST AS, "MEMBERS THAT OWN MORE THAN 50%, WHICH WOULD BE THE [INAUDIBLE] ORGANIZATIONS", AND IT STATES SPECIFICALLY IN ARTICLE 6 0.1, "THE AUTHORITY OF THE MANAGING MEMBER", WHICH WOULD BE YOU, OVERTLY REQUIRES, "THE MANAGING MEMBER SHALL MANAGE THE COMPANY SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF MAJORITY INTEREST?".
>> EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NAMED AS THE MANAGING MEMBER, 37 TIMES IN HERE WHEN IT REFERS TO YOUR AUTHORITY, IT SAYS, "SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE MAJORITY INTEREST." YOU DON'T HAVE ANY AUTHORITY THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO GRANT TO YOU, CORRECT?
>> THE AUTHORITY OF ME IN THE PROJECT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
WHICH IS THE DEAL THAT PHIL AND DON HAVE BOTH SIGNED THAT BINDS THEM TO 254 LOTS, THE GREGORY LANE ISSUES, AND EVERY OTHER ISSUE I'VE BROUGHT UP?
>> BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO ANYTHING THEY DON'T WANT YOU TO DO, ACCORDING TO THIS.
>> THIS AUTHORITY I HAVE IS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND OUTLINED WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> WELL, I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT SAYS SUBJECT TO THE MAJORITY INTEREST.
THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP IS BECAUSE YOU TALK A LOT ABOUT THE THINGS THAT YOU'LL DO IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THINGS THAT ARE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT ARE FRANKLY NOT IN THE DETAILS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
AFTER ALL, IT'S A VERY SKETCHY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> WELL, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU MENTIONED THE FENCES.
THEY'RE NOT IN THERE. THE TURN. THEY'RE NOT IN THERE.
>> BUT I POINTED THIS OUT TO YOU, AND YOU KNOW IT'S WITHIN THE PLAT. I'VE ALREADY SHOWN IT TO YOU.
>> THEY CAN BE ADDED IN THERE.
>> BUT THEY'RE NOT IN THERE NOW. THEY CAN BE ADDED.
ALL THESE THINGS YOU SAY CAN BE ADDED, WILL BE IT BE.
>> BUDDY, I'VE SHARED THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH YOU.
>> I KNOW THAT. I'LL BRINGING OUT THE THINGS THAT ARE STILL IN THE [INAUDIBLE].
>> THE POINT IS, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN ITS CURRENT FORM IS NOT IN A FORM THAT IS SPECIFIC ENOUGH FOR ANYONE TO RECOGNIZE IT AS A LEGITIMATE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT WE WERE GOING TO SIGN, BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO GO INTO THE TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
AFTER ALL, I WANT TO STAY FOCUSED ON THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
BUT THERE ARE SECTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT SAY, "THE DEVELOPER CAN REVISE THE PLAN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING THE LOT CONFIGURATION, AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TERMS IN EXHIBIT D." EXHIBIT D IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE GRAPHICAL OVERVIEW OF A PLAT.
IT'S NOT THE ONE THAT YOU PROVIDED; I WAS DRAWN UP BY LJA.
THAT IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE DEVELOPMENT TERMS THAT ARE REFERRED TO IN THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CALL THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IT'S EXHIBIT D, WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THAN A SINGLE GRAPHIC IMAGE.
IT'S NOT THE ROOM THAT YOU PUT UP THERE.
EVEN IF IT WERE, THAT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT DETAILS TO DEFINE WHAT THE DEVELOPMENT IS.
>> CAN I SAY THIS BETTER? WHAT DO YOU WANT TO HAPPEN WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT? BECAUSE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH YOU FOR A YEAR, AND IT ONLY COMES OUT IN PUBLIC FORUMS, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE HAD SEVERAL PRIVATE CONVERSATIONS, ALL OF THESE CONCERNS YOU'RE SHARING WITH ME?
>> NO, SIR. I BROUGHT UP THESE CONCERNS ALL ALONG.
I BROUGHT UP THE CONCERNS ABOUT YOU.
>> YOU BROUGHT THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> I BROUGHT UP THESE CONCERNS ABOUT YOU NOT HAVING CONTROL AND AUTHORITY, BUT ULTIMATELY, THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO THAT YOU CAN'T KEEP THEM FROM REMOVING YOU, OR YOU CAN'T STOP THEM FROM STOPPING YOU FROM SOMETHING? [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S WHY THE WRITTEN DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
YOU SAY WHAT DO I WANT TO BE DONE? I'M A PICKER FOR DETAIL.
IF I WERE TO AVOID ANYTHING, I WOULD WANT TO BE VERY SPECIFIC.
THERE ARE POINTS AFTER POINTS THAT ARE MADE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT ARE GENERIC IN THE WAY THAT THEY ARE STATED, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THEY CAN BE CHANGED.
[00:55:01]
>> IS THIS NOT THE POINT OF THE WORKSHOP? IS THIS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE AT THIS FORUM TO DISCUSS THE DETAILS THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO MAKE THE CITY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PEACE AGREEMENT THAT EVERYONE ELSE IS COMFORTABLE?
>> YOU'RE MAKING A NOTE TO ADD THIS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT?
I SUPPOSE I HAVE A SLIGHTLY HIGHER-LEVEL QUESTION FOR YOU, GEORGE.
>> YOU'VE MENTIONED, AND I APOLOGIZE.
I'M ONE OF THE NEWER MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THE PROFIT MODEL DOESN'T SUPPORT A TWO-ACRE BOX.
YOU MENTIONED THAT A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND SO I THINK THAT'S FAIR FOR ME TO ASK QUESTIONS AROUND IT.
>> THE INITIAL LAND PURCHASE FROM MARGARET TURNER WAS FOR 20. THERE WAS $18 MILLION.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I'M ABLE TO DISCLOSE THIS FOR $171,000.
>> THANK YOU. YOU CAN DISCLOSE IT BECAUSE ALL PROPERTY SALES IN TEXAS ARE PUBLIC RECORD.
I WOULD ASSUME IT'S RUBBED, AND I ASSUME THAT YOU SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 5-6%, ,, YEAR YOU, IT OR AT LEAST THE [INAUDIBLE] FINES HOLDER.
BUT IF YOU DIVIDED THAT 100 ACRES INTO 50 LOTS, IT STILL COMES OUT TO $300,000 FOR THE LAND IN A TOWN WHERE THE LAND IS WORTH MORE THAN $200,000 AN ACRE.
I GUESS THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU IS, WHAT KIND OF DEVELOPER CAN'T TURN A PROFIT ON A REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT THAT IS INHERENTLY PROFITABLE BY SELLING IT AS LAND?
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I THINK THAT THE DEVELOPER, NOT I.
WHAT I WOULD IMAGINE SHE WOULD SAY IS THAT WHAT RIGHT IS IT OF A CITY TO DETERMINE WHAT PROFIT I MAKE ON A PROPERTY THAT I OWN?
>> BUT I THINK WHEN YOU PLEAD, THERE'S ONLY A CERTAIN WAY THAT YOU CAN MAKE A PROFIT, BUT YOU OPEN YOURSELF UP TO THE ARGUMENT OF.
YEAH. THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO MAKE A PROFIT ON THIS.
THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO BENEFIT FROM IT, AND IF YOU DON'T WANT THAT ATTENTION OR SCRUTINY, YOU SHOULDN'T BREAK IT UP.
>> I THINK THAT HE HAS THOSE ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS TO MAKE THAT MONEY.
LISTEN, I COME BACK TO THE INVITATION.
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SATISFIES THE CORE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATED TO ME BY THE OPPOSITION LEADERS OF THIS COMMUNITY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE WANTS TO THE [INAUDIBLE] INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT.
THEY ARE THE LANDOWNERS,, THEN THAN OTHER THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP IT AND YOU GUYS CAN DO IT WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] FINES OR ALL OF THE ROLES THAT YOU'VE HAD WITH JOHN COX, A LACK OF TRANSPARENCY, A LACK OF COLLABORATION.
THE IRONY OF THE SITUATION FOR ME IS THAT I FOLLOW THROUGH ON ALL OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT HAPPENED WITH THE PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATION, AND I'M STILL SITTING HERE IN THE SAME SPOT THAT I THINK THEY WERE IN.
THAT'S CONFUSING TO ME BECAUSE THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHILE NOT PERFECT AND WHILE VERY MUCH OPEN TO DISCUSSION OR REDLINING AND HAS BEEN OPEN FOR THE PAST COUPLE OF MONTHS THAT EVERYONE'S HAD IT, I'M NOT SURE.
MY CONCERN IS THAT THERE'S'S SUCH A DESIRE TO HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] OUT OF THIS PROJECT THAT THERE'S NO WAY FOR ME TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN.
I MEAN, THIS IS MY LAST HURRAH.
BUDDY'S COACHED ME A LOT THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
I KEEP KIND OF GETTING BLINDSIDED BY THE SITUATION, BUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WHERE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS.
>> I'D ASK A QUESTION, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
DO YOU THINK THAT IS THE MAJOR ISSUE THE [INAUDIBLE] AS OPPOSED TO SIMPLY REDEVELOPMENT ITSELF? I DON'T FEEL THAT WAY AT ALL.
>> I THINK IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BUDDY [INAUDIBLE], YES, I DO THINK THAT THAT IS THE MAIN ISSUE.
>> I APPRECIATE ALL YOU'VE DONE TO TRY AND BROKER THIS DEAL.
I DO NOT HAVE A DEAL WITH THE, [INAUDIBLE] SO DO DOESN'T BOTHER ME ONE BIT.
I SAY THIS IS A SQUARE PEG BEING PUSHED INTO A ROUND HOLE.
I'LL BE HONEST, YOU HAVE ONE ENTRANCE, PERIOD.
THE 250 HOMES, TIMES TWO CARS, POSSIBLY MORE PER HOUSEHOLD,
[01:00:02]
GOING IN AND OUT OF ONE ENTRANCE, SEVERAL TIMES A DAY, RUNNING SCHOOL BUSES, THINGS LIKE THAT.IT'S NOT SAFE. IT'S NOT CONVENIENT. IT'S A PROBLEM.
I TRIED AND TRIED TO COME UP WITH IDEAS TO HELP THE SITUATION.
GREGORY LANE IS NOT AN ANSWER TO ME, AND I CAN'T GET PAST IT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WE CAN DO AS FAR AS ENTRANCES WITH THIS DENSITY.
>> BECAUSE OF A BAD DEAL, A BAD PURCHASE, A BAD THOUGHT, THEY DIDN'T PROFIT, AND THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.
THAT'S NOT OUR FAULT. THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
>> I'VE HAD SOME ISSUES, AND I'VE DISCUSSED WITH YOU ABOUT BOTH EMINENT DOMAIN AND CONDEMNATION.
I CANNOT A IN A SITUATION WHERE THE CITY WOULD TURN OVER THAT AUTHORITY TO AN OUTSIDE PERSON, A THIRD PARTY.
MY QUESTION IS, CAN IT BE ELIMINATED, OR CAN IT BE IN SOME WAY DOWN? BECAUSE THE WAY IT READS NOW IS THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO THAT FOR ANY INFRASTRUCTURE.
>> THAT DOESN'T WORK FOR ME AT ALL.
>> YEAH. I STAND BY THE COMMITMENT.
I THINK THAT I NEVER HAD AN OPPORTUNITY LEGALLY TO SIT DOWN WITH CATHERINE'S LAWYERS AND DISCUSS THIS, BUT I THINK THAT THAT IS NOT A MAIN STICKING POINT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A WAY TO GET EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE.
>> THE OTHER ISSUE I HAVE, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE BURGLARY LANE RESIDENCE, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT STEWART REPRESENTS A SMALL PORTION OF THOSE RESIDENTS.
>> WHAT ABOUT THE REST OF THE RESIDENTS ON BURGLARY LANE?
>> I SPOKE WITH EMILY PLUMMER TODAY.
SHE SPOKE BEFORE I CAME UP HERE.
>> EMILY'S FEEDBACK WAS THAT SHE MENTIONED ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT, AND SHE WAS TALKING MORE ABOUT THE ACTUAL MATERIALS USED WITH EMERGENCY ACCESS TO DISSUADE PEOPLE FROM ENTERING AND EXITING FROM THAT.
WE WERE ABLE TO TALK AND FIND WAYS TO GET HER COMFORTABLE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, THE STORY WAS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.
IT WOULD HAVE BEEN REALLY HELPFUL IF HE WERE, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS THAT HE DOES REPRESENT ARE TIRED OF PAYING LEGAL FEES AND ALSO WANT THIS RESOLVED.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE OTHER RESIDENTS.
>> BECAUSE I DON'T SEE KATHY HARVEY HERE.
I DON'T KNOW JACKSON, AND FRONT JACKSON HERE.
>> THEY ARE NOT A PART OF THE RES BUT ARE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS, AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THEM.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN INCLUDED.
>> I GAVE MY EMAIL TO THE ENTIRE CITY OF PARKER.
I'VE MADE MYSELF ACCESSIBLE TO EVERY RESIDENT, WHETHER THEY'RE REPRESENTED BY STEWART OR BEYOND.
I HAVE NOT HEARD FROM MANY OF THESE PEOPLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT I DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? BUT I WILL SAY THAT THE RESOUNDING FEEDBACK THAT I GOT AFTER THE TOWN HALL WAS THAT THIS IS A FIGHT THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY.
I DON'T WANT TO BE HYPOTHETICAL.
THE MAJORITY OF THE COMMUNITY ONCE RESOLVED ON SOMETHING GOOD, BUT MAYBE NOT PERFECT.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE SPIRIT OF THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS WHO ARE AT LEAST TIED UP IN THIS LAWSUIT WANTS TO FIND A RESOLUTION THAT CUTS OFF THEIR HAVING TO PAY FEES ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
>> SOME OF THE GREGORY LANE FOLKS HAVE REACHED OUT TO ME AND INDICATED THEY DO NOT WANT, AT ANY POINT IN TIME, GREGORY LANE TO BE USED AS A STAGE FOR CONSTRUCTION.
>> AFTER PANORAMA ROAD IS DEVELOPED, YES.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STEWART, MOSTLY ON THE TIMELINE.
WHAT'S REQUESTED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS FOUR YEARS.
I THINK THAT THERE IS ROOM TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THAT STAGING TIMELINE IS.
THE INTENTION AFTER THE PANORAMA ROAD IS DEVELOPED IS TO USE [INAUDIBLE] ROAD AS THE MAIN ENTRANCE.
>> APOLOGIZE, BUT SOMETIMES YOU SHOW YOUR LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE DETAILS OF THIS.
WE SAID THAT AFTER PANORAMA ROAD IS DEVELOPED, WE WON'T HAVE TO USE GREGORY ANYMORE.
PANORAMA ROAD IS, BY NAME, THE ROAD THAT CONNECTS TO GREGORY LANE.
IT WOULD MAKE IT FOR THE [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION AND THE AFTER CONSTRUCTION.
[01:05:04]
PANORAMA DRIVE IS THE ROAD THEY WANT TO BUILD ON THE 12-ACRE [INAUDIBLE] PIPE.>> I DON'T THINK WE'RE ON DIFFERENT PAGES.
>> WE ARE, AND WHAT I MEAN IS CORRECT.
>> OKAY. THANKS FOR THAT, BUDDY.
>> I MADE A POINT EARLIER THAT THIS BE PERSONAL BETWEEN YOU AND THE HUTS. YOU SAID WITH MEDICAL.
I THINK YOU NEED TO START BEING VERY CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU MAKE PUBLIC SUPPOSITIONS ABOUT WHAT I THINK OR BELIEVE, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT I THINK OR BELIEVE, AND IT WOULD BE TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO TELL THE PUBLIC WHAT YOU THINK I KNOW OR BELIEVE.
>> I WAS TO OF A FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT THAT YOU REQUESTED FROM THE COUNTY ON ALL PUBLIC RECORDS RELATED TO THE [INAUDIBLE] FINES.
THE CONFUSION THAT I HAVE, BUDDY, IS THAT I'VE WORKED WITH YOU PERSONALLY AND DIRECTLY FOR THE BETTER PART OF A YEAR, AND I GET ONE VERSION OF YOU, AND THEN BEHIND THE SCENES, IT FEELS LIKE THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER AGENDAS THAT YOU HAVE THAT I CANNOT FIGURE OUT.
I'VE ASKED YOU, BUDDY, WHAT DO YOU WANT FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT? HOW CAN I HELP YOU?
>> THE FACT THAT I NAME THE INDIVIDUALS THAT I'M LOOKING FOR COMMUNICATIONS FROM IN THE [INAUDIBLE] OF INFORMATION ACT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER I HAVE A GOOD OR BAD RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE PEOPLE.
IT'S SIMPLY THAT I WANT COMMUNICATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THE COUNTY AND THESE INDIVIDUALS.
YOU CAN ASSUME NOTHING FROM THAT.
THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT TOPIC.
>> I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF WHAT YOU HAVE.
I DON'T THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR WHERE IT IS.
I APPRECIATE THAT YOU WANT TO GET KIDS OUT INTO NATURE AND ON THEIR PHONES.
I REALIZE THAT YOU'RE PUTTING THESE TINY LITTLE LOTS IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS BY AND LARGE, TWO ACRES OR MORE WHERE THE KIDS ARE OUT AND PLAYING IN THEIR YARDS.
I DON'T SEE THE NEED FOR THIS COMMUNITY IN PARKER.
I GUESS THE OTHER THING I GUESS I HAVE AT THE MOMENT.
LET ME JUST PICK THAT LOCATION.
IT FEELS LIKE YOU HAD THIS CONCEPT, AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SPOT AS OPPOSED TO THIS CAME UP AND LET ME DO THE THING.
>> I WAS INTRODUCED TO THE SITUATION.
I MADE A JOKE ABOUT IT EARLIER, NOT KNOWING WHAT IT WAS [LAUGHTER] I THINK THAT THE BIG QUESTION IS DID [INAUDIBLE] THAT LED ME INTO THIS SITUATION, WAS IT FOR NOT OR WAS IT FOR A REASON? WAS IT FOR A REASON TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A PEACE AGREEMENT BETWEEN ALL THESE PARTIES AND IT WORKED OUT OR WAS IT A GIANT WASTE OF TIME? I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT'S BEING DECIDED HERE TONIGHT.
AGAIN, I DON'T BLAME ANYONE FOR THIS.
I WISH THAT I GOT AS MUCH TRANSPARENCY FROM THE CITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL THAT I TRIED TO GIVE TO EVERYONE ELSE.
BUT IF TONIGHT IS THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD DEVELOPMENT, THEN AGAIN, I'VE NOT SIGNED ANYTHING.
I'VE NOT SIGNED MY PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT.
I'VE NOT SIGNED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE IF THE DECISION IS THAT THE CITY WANTS TO KEEP DIGGING IT OUT WITH THE HEAD FINES, YOU ALL HAVE AT IT.
I HAVE A GREAT TIME DOING THAT, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ME.
>> YOU MENTIONED THE GREGORY MEETING AND THAT REPAIRING IT TO ITS ORIGINAL STATE, AND THAT THERE WOULD BE PENALTIES IF THAT DID NOT HAPPEN.
[INAUDIBLE] FIRES AT COUNSEL KNOW THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH LEWIS LANE, WHICH IS VERY SIMILAR.
>> WE ARE LITERALLY FIGHTING THAT SITUATION RIGHT NOW AND THEN YOU'RE LIKE, LET'S DO IT ALL AGAIN.
THERE'S DEFINITELY [INAUDIBLE] MECHANISM IN [OVERLAPPING]
>> I SHARE THAT AND EMPATHIZE WITH THAT, AND I'VE WORKED VERY CLOSELY WITH STEWART ON THAT.
THE PENALTIES WERE A MECHANISM THAT HE SUGGESTED THAT WAS AMENABLE TO US.
AGAIN, I THINK THAT THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL HERE IS THAT THERE'S NO CONSPIRACY TO MAKE IT A WIDE FORM IN [INAUDIBLE].
IT WILL REMAIN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE TO DO TO SATISFY THE COUNTY BECAUSE OF THEIR TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.
>> COULD YOU CONSIDER WHAT EMILY PLUMMER SUGGESTED WHERE IT'S NOT AN ACTUAL [INAUDIBLE]?
>> I HEARD ABOUT IT AT 3 O'CLOCK TODAY.
I DIDN'T LOOK AT IT BUT I CALLED HER TODAY AND THAT WAS THE FIRST TIME IT WAS RECOMMENDED, BUT I THINK THAT THINGS LIKE THAT ARE ON THE TABLE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET PEOPLE COMFORTABLE IN MINOR WAYS.
I THINK THAT WE JUST HAVE TO ROCK OUT OF HERE BEING ALIGNED ON THE MAJOR POINTS OF PEACE THAT ARE TRYING TO BE BROKERED.
[01:10:03]
>> I WANT TO MAKE TWO POINTS HERE.
SIMILAR RELATED TO WHAT IS JUST DISCUSSED.
MY SUGGESTION FOR ME WAS IF THE DEVELOPER ESCROWED SOME MONEY IN ADVANCE SO THAT WE HAVE A POOL OF MONEY TO GO OUT AND REPAIR IT, INSTEAD OF THE SITUATION WE'VE HAD ON LEWIS WHERE WE HAD A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT SAID THE DEVELOPER REPAIRED AND THEN WE GET INTO ARGUMENTS ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS LATER.
WE PUT SOME LANGUAGE IN THERE AND THEN WE SAY THE DEVELOPER WILL PUT $500,000 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS.
IN A TRUST OR ESCROW OR HOWEVER.
THE MONEY IS THERE, AND THEN PARKER CAN SPEND TO GET THE ROAD REPAIRED AND THEN RETURN WHATEVER IS LEFT BACK TO THE DEVELOPER THE END.
THAT'S ONE. SECOND ABOUT THE POTENTIAL DOWN THE ROAD OF EGRESS THROUGH GREGORY, WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO PUTTING SOME LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SAYING THAT [INAUDIBLE] TO REQUEST IT TO BECOME A PUBLIC ACCESS.
I MEAN, THAT GETS BACK INTO THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL.
THERE'S NO INTENTION FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO USE THAT AS A MAIN THOROUGHFARE.
I THINK THAT THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE IS TO TRY AND FIND WAYS TO GET THE CITY COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE OR THE PENALTIES,
IF YOU WILL, TO PROTECT THE SPIRIT OF THE DEAL. >> [INAUDIBLE].
>> WHAT ABOUT CONSIDERATION OF NOT USING GREGORY PANORAMA DRIVE, THE PROPOSED PANORAMA DRIVE, WHICH IS THE ACCESS ROAD THAT RUNS ACROSS TO GREGORY RAINE? NOT USING THAT FOR A CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL, BUT SIMPLY BUILDING THE ENTRANCE OFF THE HOB ROAD AND BUILDING THE BRIDGE ACROSS MAXWELL CREEK BEFORE YOU BEGIN ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION, AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT.
>> IT'S NEVER BEEN BROUGHT UP OR ASKED.
>> WAS IT A DECISION THAT YOU CAN MAKE AS THE MANAGING MEMBER OR DO YOU HAVE TO GO GET PILLS PERMISSION?
>> THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE CONSIDERATION BY ALL PARTNERS.
>> I'LL GIVE YOU ONE OTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS CURRENTLY PRESENTED, IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE.
IT STATES IN SECTION 1.1 THAT NO RESIDENTIAL RIGHTS SMALLER THAN 8,000 SQUARE FEET WOULD BE BUILT.
BUT IT ALSO SAYS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WILL BE AS ILLUSTRATED IN EXHIBIT C. EXHIBIT C, IF YOU ZOOM IN AND LOOK AT THE DETAILS REALLY CLOSE, THEY'RE HARD TO SEE.
YOU HAVE TO REALLY EXPAND IT AND THE COPY THAT YOU GAVE US HAS 53 LOTS THAT ARE 7,700 SQUARE FEET.
WHICH IN MY MATH, 07,700 IS LESS THAN 8,000, SO 53 OF THE 254 LOTS ARE ALREADY PROPOSED TO BE LESS THAN 8,000 SQUARE FEET FROM THE GET GROW.
THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL EXAMPLE.
PLEASE LOOK AT ME WHEN I'M TALKING TO YOU.
THAT'S JUST ONE SMALL EXAMPLE OF HOW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT IS WRITTEN RIGHT HERE IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY ACCURATE TO EXPECT ANYBODY TO SIGN OFF ON IT.
IN ADDITION TO THAT THAT STATES IN A NUMBER OF TIMES THE DEVELOPER MAY REVISE THE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ITS OPTIONS AND WITHOUT RESTRICTION.
WHAT'S PRESENTED HERE IS NOT SUFFICIENT DETAIL.
EVEN THE LGA DRAWING, THE ENGINEERING DRAWING THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE HUFFINES ENGINEERING COMPANY PROVIDES NO SPECIFICS WHATSOEVER ABOUT STREAM WATER DRAINAGE, ABOUT WHERE IT'S GOING TO COME FROM AND WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO TO.
THOSE WOULD BE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS THAT AS A CITY COUNCIL WANT TO KNOW ABOUT.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT FEDERAL HUFFINES.
THIS IS ABOUT KNOWING THE REVENUE AS DOCUMENTED SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GET, AND IS ADHERED TO.
I DON'T KNOW YET HOW THE DRAINAGE WOULD RUN.
I DON'T KNOW YET WHAT THE EMINENT DOMAIN WOULD BE USED FOR.
BECAUSE IN THE REVISION THAT YOU PUT IN, YOU SAID IT WOULD BE USED FOR DRAINAGE.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT MEANING SPECIFICALLY THAT WITHIN THE CITY OF PARKER AND OUTSIDE OF THIS 101 ACRES THAT YOU WOULD WANT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN ON TO RUN DRAINAGE ACROSS?
[01:15:02]
IS IT KATHY HARVEY'S LAND? WAS IT MAT TURNER'S LAND AT CROSS CREEK, THAT YOU WANT TO BUILD A DRAINAGE DITCH ACROSS? IS IT THE LANE THAT RUNS BEHIND [INAUDIBLE] PELE'S HOUSE? BECAUSE THE STORM RUN IN THAT DIRECTION WOULD GO INTO DUBLIN CREEK BEHIND HER HOUSE.WE HAVE NO IDEA DRAINAGE WOULD GO IN WHICH DIRECTION IN WHAT LINEAT YOU WOULD WANT TO TAKE IN ORDER TO CREATE A DRAINAGE STITCH.
ONE IS I ADDRESSED IT WITHIN YOUR QUESTION OF, CAN WE DISCUSS AND REDLINE THE LANGUAGE AROUND EMINENT DOMAIN OR CONDEMNATION? I GAVE YOU THE ANSWER OF YES, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF ZOOMING IN TO EXHIBIT C, BUT THESE ARE I WOULD GENERALLY SAY IS I WELCOME THE RED LINES.
I MEAN, THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE.
I MEAN, I THINK LAST TIME THIS WORKSHOP OR THIS SETTLEMENT DISCUSSION BECAME VERY CONSPIRATORIAL.
YOU'RE TRYING TO SNEAK THIS IN, YOU'RE TRYING TO DO THIS.
WHAT I CAN TELL YOU IS, I WELCOME YOUR REDLINES.
I WELCOME ALL OF THESE QUESTIONS.
I WISH I WOULD HAVE KNOWN THEM BEFOREHAND, SO I DON'T LOOK LIKE A FOOL, BUT HOW ABOUT IT?
>> [INAUDIBLE] DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> NO, BUT I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT THE EMERGENCY ONLY EXIT ONTO GREGORY.
WE COLLEEN AND I HAVE HAD THIS IN ANOTHER CITY THAT WE USED TO WORK FOR, BUT WE HAD THAT PUT INTO A DEVELOPER AGREEMENT AND WE WERE SUED AFTER THE FACT.
THAT WILL ALWAYS BE IN THE BACK OF MY MIND EVEN THOUGH THIS SAYS EMERGENCY WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE] DEVELOPMENT THAT SAYS THEY WILL NEVER SUE.
THERE'S NOW THE RESIDENTS THAT ARE TOGETHER AND SUE TO HAVE IT OPEN.
WE DO HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND.
BUT THAT IS A POSSIBILITY DOWN THE ROAD.
THIS CITY JUST CANNOT HANDLE THAT TRAFFIC GOING THROUGH THAT AREA OF TOWN.
>> THIS ONE IS A FUNNY POINT BECAUSE I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THIS IS ONE POINT THAT EVERYONE'S ALIGNED ON.
PEOPLE ARE JUST NOT TALKING TO EACH OTHER.
IF YOU ASK THE GREGORY LANE RESIDENTS, IT'S NOT ALL OF THEM, BUT AT LEAST THE ONES IN THE LAWSUIT, THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TO.
THEY DON'T WANT CHAMPS, I THINK IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY ADJACENT.
WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT GOES IN, THEY DON'T WANT ANY TYPE OF MAIN THOROUGHFARE THROUGH GREGORY LANE EITHER.
THE CITY WANTS THAT THE DEVELOPER DEVELOPMENT IS AGNOSTIC TO THE SITUATION.
IT IS PART OF THE IRONY OF THE SITUATION IS, I THINK THAT PEOPLE ARE CLOSER TO WANTING THE SAME THING THAN THEY THINK, ESPECIALLY ON THE TOPIC OF GREGORY LANE.
BUT GETTING COMFORTABLE WITH THE LANGUAGE IS VERY MUCH.
>> THE PROBLEM IS [INAUDIBLE] THAT THERE'S ONE PART MENTION, AND NONE OF US KNOW WHAT THESE PEOPLE THINK AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS THE FUTURE HOMEOWNERS DEVELOPMENT.
>> THEY'RE ALL ABLE TO GET TO WORK IN THE MORNING.
>> SPEAKING ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AND GETTING TO SCHOOL, CAN YOU ADDRESS THE ROLLING RIDGE DRIVE PIECE?
>> THE ROLLING RIDGE DRIVE PIECE.
>> ON THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY THAT IF YOU WERE EVER ABLE TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE CITY OF MURPHY TO PUNCH THREE, TO USE ROLLING RIDGE DRIVE, THAT WE WOULD NOT OPPOSE THAT.
>> I HAVEN'T TOUCHED THAT ONE.
I'M GOING TO BE HONEST WITH YOU GUYS.
I HAVE NOT FOUND GREAT COLLABORATION FROM THE CITY OF MURPHY, AND SO I HAVEN'T EVEN TOUCHED A ALTERNATIVE OPTION.
WHAT I WOULD PERCEIVE LOVE THE IDEA, BUT WHAT I WOULD PERCEIVE, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I PERCEIVE FROM THE RING RIDGE COMMUNITY IS THAT THAT WOULD BE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED.
BY THE HOA OF RING RIDGE, CAROLYN WOULD BE IN MY BACK YARD AND YELLING AT ME.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD GO [LAUGHTER].
>> I GUESS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS A FUTURE IS IF I WAS LIVING IN ONE OF THESE 254 HOMES AND I'M GOING TO DRIVE MY KID TO HICKEY ELEMENTARY, INSTEAD OF WALKING THEM TO SCHOOL AT HUNTS, I WOULD BE PRETTY MAD.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO PLANO YSD, AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO DUMP ALL THESE KIDS FROM ALL THESE HOMES INTO AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT CAN'T HANDLE IT.
YES, YOU'RE GOING TO GET OPPOSITION NOT JUST FROM TRAFFIC, BUT ALSO WHAT'S HAPPENING TO MY SCHOOL.
>> THERE ARE SEVERAL PLACES IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH SAYS THE CITY OF PARKER WILL MAKE THE CITY OF MURPHY DO SOMETHING.
WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. THE CITY MURPHY DECIDES WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THEMSELVES.
THAT LANGUAGE AND IT'S IN HERE ON SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS NEEDS TO BE TIED OR SOMETHING.
[01:20:07]
>> I DON'T THINK MAYOR BRADLEY LIKES THAT GAGE.
>> BECAUSE ONE OF THEM IS MAYOR BRADLEY AND I'M LIKE, I DON'T THINK SO [LAUGHTER]
>> AMONG THE SAME LINES, THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT INDICATES THAT WE WILL ALLOW VARIANCES FOR THOSE PROPERTIES ON PANORAMA DRIVES, BUT IT DOESN'T STATE WHAT THE NATURE OF THOSE VARIANCES ARE.
I DO NOT THINK WE CAN SIGN SUCH AN AGREEMENT IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
>> DO YOU KNOW WHAT SPECIFIC [INAUDIBLE].
>> THERE'S A SETBACK REQUIREMENT THAT IS DIFFICULT TO MAINTAIN, SO IT'S A VARIANCE ON THE SETBACK.
>> LET ME BE SURE. I'M PRETTY SURE, BUT DON'T I DON'T KNOW. THEY DETERIORATED
>> THEY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THAT LAND DOES NEED TO ABIDE BY PARKERS.
>> I THINK IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DIMENSIONS OF THE LOT DON'T CONFORM TO OUR TYPICAL DIMENSIONS FOR A TWO ACRE LOT.
>> QUESTION TO LEE AND CATHERINE, CAN WE SIGN SUCH AN AGREEMENT WITHOUT GOING THROUGH P&Z FIRST?
>> IT'S NOT REALLY BINDING P&Z, BUT YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT THAT DOES NOT NECESSARILY COMPORT WITH YOUR SUBDIVISION STANDARDS BY VERIFIED.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? AM I ALLOWED TO?
>> YES. >> ROXANNE, ON THE SAFETY, WHICH LANE PLANE ARE YOU LOOKING AT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SAFETY? IT'S IT'S THE ONLY TWO ROADS GOING.
>> IT'S WHAT ENTRANCE [INAUDIBLE].
>> IT'S THE ACCESS THAT'S CAUSING THE SAFETY BECAUSE I KNOW THAT.
>> HAVING 500 CARS GOING IN AND OUT THE ONE ENTRANCE A DAY IS.
>> BECAUSE THIS ONE CONTEMPLATES QUITE A NUMBER OF CUL DE SACS, AND THAT WAS WITHIN THE DESIGN OF HOW WE WANTED THE COMMUNITY TO LOOK.
IF YOU LET YOUR KIDS PLAY IN THE CUL DE SAC, YOU TYPICALLY FEEL SAFER.
BUT THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT ARE THE ANTITHESIS OF SAFETY WHEN YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT LIKE EMERGENCY FIRE TRUCKS COMING IN, EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
I DON'T HAVE A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY ON THE ACCESS ISSUE, BUT I WONDER IF THERE WAS A RAY THAT WE COULD WORKSHOP, IF YOU WERE CUTTING THOSE CUL DE SACS AND CREATING THOSE AS LIKE THOROUGHFARE STREETS SO THAT IT AT LEAST CREATES A LITTLE LESS CONGESTION ON THESE MAIN ROADS HERE.
>> MY BIG THING IS COMING IN AND OUT ONTO MURPHY ROAD.
>> I MEAN, THAT'S RIGHT [LAUGHTER] I'M VERY LITTLE FLEXIBILITY [LAUGHTER]
>> WELL, NOT CORRECT MY BRAIN TRYING.
>>I'M SURE [LAUGHTER] I THINK WE ALL HAVE.
WHAT SHE PROPOSED COLLEEN, TRUST ME EARLY ON IN MY DAYS, I EXPLORED THAT ONE AND THAT WAS NOT A GOOD ONE TO EXPLORE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I MEANT WITH A SQUARE PER INTO A ROUND HOLE.
THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT WAS JUST NOT THAT SPACE FOR IT.
>> YOU READ MY EXPRESSION SO WELL.
ACTUALLY, THIS IS ONE OF MY KEY CONCERNS HERE IS UNDER THIS DESIGN AND ACTUALLY UNDER THE OTHER DESIGN, IT DOESN'T TAKE MUCH OF A CONDITION TO THINK OF.
THAT MEANS COMMUNITY, AS YOU SAY FOR YOUNG ADULTS AND THEIR CHILDREN TO THINK OF SOMEONE NEEDING AN EPI PIN, WHO'S NEVER HAD AN ALLERGY BEFORE, OR A VARIETY OF OTHER THINGS THAT WORK COULD LOCK THEM OFF FROM EMERGENCY SERVICES.
YOU SAY IT'S REALLY HARD TO GET AROUND, BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 255 FAMILIES AND SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 750 TO 1,000 PEOPLE THAT COULD ALL BE THE PRISONER OF F PINTO ON A BRIDGE.
IF YOU REMEMBER THE EXPRESSIONS, IT SOUNDS SMART, AND THAT'S WHY I LAUGHED.
I SAID THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING I WAS LIKE, HE'S READING SOMEWHERE [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW IF FOR PINTO IS.
>> CORE. I'M SORRY. I THOUGHT YOU SAID FOR PINTO.
SORRY. KEEP GOING. STUDENT POINT. YES.
[01:25:02]
>> WITHOUT A WAY AROUND THAT, I DON'T THINK I CAN BUY OFF ON A DESIGN WHERE I'M A PARENT, AND I'VE GOT OLDER CHILDREN, BUT I CAN VERY READILY SEE THE FUTURE OF SOMEONE HAVING THAT SITUATION, THAT BEING ON ME.
>> SOLUTION IS MULTI POINT ENTRANCES, AND HOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET TO THAT IS ON YOU, I WOULD HATE TO RECOMMEND THAT YOU NEED TO PUT ANOTHER BRIDGE OUT THERE, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT.
IF NOT FOR US THEN FOR YOUR CONSCIENCE.
>> I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS NOW AND I'M THINKING BACK TO WHEN WE HAD A SITUATION IN MORNING RANGE WHERE SEVERAL BLOCKS WERE BLOCKED OFF BY SWOTS FROM WILEY AND PLANO, WHICH MEANT THAT PEOPLE CANNOT GET TO THE ROOMS. I'M JUST THINKING IF SOMETHING HAPPENS ON THAT FAR RIGHT END, SUDDENLY WE'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO CANNOT LEAVE AND PEOPLE WHO CANNOT ARRIVE HOME, AND SO IT'S JUST ONE BAD THING COULD MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO LIVE.
>> WHAT DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE AVERAGE LIGHT VALUE TO SELL FOR HERE?
>> I HAVE THE HOME VALUES IN THAT SLIDE, 770 TO ONE MILLION.
>> NO, LIGHT VALUE, NOT HOME VALUE.
>> MARKET TO WHAT PARKER IS RIGHT NOW, WHICH I DON'T KNOW THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
>> YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT IS?
>> HOW DO YOU RUN AN ECONOMIC MODEL IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE VALUES ARE?
>> THERE'S A LOT OF DETAILS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT.
I'M SORRY. I DON'T HAVE EVERY NUMBER.
>> IT'S OKAY. WE ARE ON THE SUBJECT TO SELLING THIS.
THE OVERARCHING PRESENTATION THAT YOU'VE MADE FROM THE VERY BEGINNING REPRESENTS AS A VERY SPECIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A SPECIAL GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN IT WHOSE KIDS SPEND MORE TIME OUTSIDE AND REST TIME PLAYING ON PDAS, WHICH IS A GREAT IDEA.
I APPLAUD YOU FOR THAT CONCEPT.
FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO IMPLEMENT THAT? WHO'S GOING TO SELL THESE HOUSES? ARE YOU? WHO'S GOING TO SELL THE LOTS? BECAUSE TYPICALLY WHAT THE HUFFINES DO IS THEY DEVELOP LAND, AND THEY SELL THE LOTS TO GRAND HOMES OR SOME OTHER DEVELOPER LIKE THAT, AND THEY TAKE ON THE JOB OF SELLING THE LOTS AND SELLING BUILDING THE HOUSES AND SELLING THEM, AND THEY SELL THEM TO ANYBODY WHO WILL COME IN AND PAY THE PRICE AND CAN APPLY FOR A MORTGAGE.
HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONTROL WHO BUYS HOUSES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR ROLE?
>> THE ANSWERS CHANGED QUITE A BIT AS I'VE GOTTEN MYSELF INTO THIS SITUATION, BUT ORIGINALLY, THE IDEA WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE, IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER THE FIRST TOWN HALL I WAS IN, WE HAD A FILM CREW IN HERE.
THE WHOLE IDEA OF THIS WAS TO TELL THE STORY IN A VERY PUBLIC WAY OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP AND HOPEFULLY HAVE THIS CONCEPT FLOW THROUGH TO OTHER DEVELOPERS.
AS I'VE GOTTEN INTO THIS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT SIGNED AND WE CAN LAY DOWN OUR ARMS, I THINK THAT THAT'S STILL A POSSIBILITY, BUT THAT WOULD GIVE US QUITE A BIT OF CONTROL OVER WHO WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT TO THE CITY OF PARKER, JUST SIMPLY THROUGH OUR AUDIENCE AND THE WAY THAT WE COMMUNICATE ON A DAILY BASIS WITH OUR AUDIENCE.
AUDIENCE IS VERY UNIQUELY PARKER IN THE SENSE THAT TYPICALLY 25 TO 35-YEAR-OLD FAMILIES, ONE TO THREE KIDS, THEY'RE YOUNGER KIDS, AND THEY'RE JUST IN THAT STORY ARC WHERE THEY'RE LIKE, WE DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR DALLAS PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
WE WANT TO MOVE TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE.
WE WANT A COMMUNITY THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE THIS.
I THINK THAT IF THAT TO NOT HAPPENED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A LIABILITY FOR US TO GET INVOLVED IN THIS AT ALL.
I THINK THAT COMES DOWN TO THE PARTNERSHIP THAT YOU HAD WITH THE BUILDER AND THE RESOURCE YOU DECIDED TO BRING ON.
>> I APPRECIATE YOU TRYING TO ANSWER IT.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER WHO BUYS ANY OF THESE HOMES.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE INVOLVED IN THE BUILDING OF THE HOMES, CORRECT? HOME CONSTRUCTION?
>> NO. I WOULD BE INVOLVED IN DEVELOPING THE PARTNERSHIP WITH THE BUILDER.
>> NO. I'M TALKING ABOUT BUILDING THE HOMES.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BECOME A HOME BUILDER.
>> THE HOME BUILDERS ARE THE ONE WHO ULTIMATELY SELL THE HOMES, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> YES, BUT THIS WILL BE A LITTLE BIT DEEPER OF A PARTNERSHIP THAN THE STANDARD HUFFINES MODEL.
>> YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T CALL IT PARKER.
YOU KEEP TALKING LIKE YOU'RE IN PARKER WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF OUR RULES, WE WANT TO TAKE ALL THE GOOD THINGS AWAY FROM PARKER,
[01:30:03]
BUT YOU'RE NOT BUYING INTO PARKER.YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO GET AWAY FROM EVERYTHING THAT WE ARE.
EXCEPT BE RIGHT NEXT TO US ON THE LINE AND SAY, "LOOK, WE'RE JUST LIKE PARKER," BUT THAT'S NOT FAIR. IT REALLY ISN'T.
I HOPE YOU SEE THAT, BUT IT'S INSULTING TO ME THAT YOU WANT TO TAKE EVERYTHING THAT'S GOOD ABOUT PARKER, BUT YET YOU DON'T WANT TO FOLLOW ANY OF OUR RULES.
>> TO THAT POINT, THE WHOLE POINT IS YOU SAY WE'RE NOT IN THE ETJ, AND WE ARE NOW IN THE LAWSUIT SAYING, THAT LAW DOESN'T EXIST.
NOT EVEN ETJ AT SOME POINT AND SO THAT'S CHALLENGING.
>> THIS IS THE BIG DEBATE IS THAT THIS IS ALL HAPPENING, I THINK AT THE STATE LEVEL RIGHT NOW IS THAT, CAN THEY OPT OUT AND BE OUT OF THE ETJ? ARE THEY STILL IN ETJ IT'S A BIG STATE LEVEL THING GOING ON, AND THAT DID PREDATE MYSELF.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR FIRE, MEANING.
IF I WAS HERE EARLIER, I POTENTIALLY WOULD HAVE PLAYED IT DIFFERENT, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR FRUSTRATION.
>> MISS SHARP, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> WHAT MAKES THIS 770,000? THAT'S ODDLY SPECIFIC NUMBER TO ONE MILLION.
I CAN GO OUT TODAY, I CAN FIND A TWO ACRE LOT HOME WITH A 2,000 2,500 SQUARE FOOT RANCHER ON HOG ROAD TODAY AND IT'S 700,000.
THAT WOULD COMPEL SOMEONE TO SPEND 700,000 TO A MILLION TO SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LIKE A TOWNHOUSE.
>> MARKETING. THAT'S THE ANSWER.
AGAIN, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN OF WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THIS COMMUNITY, THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL INTENTION.
>> CAN WE TALK ABOUT THIS SEWER PIECE? I DON'T KEEP IMPRESSION THAT MURPHY IS GOING TO LET TO HAVE THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW. HE COME AROUND.
>> I HAVE KNOWN MR. BRADLEY FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS NOW.
>> THAT WAS SO FUNNY BECAUSE I NEVER HAD A PRIOR, THAT WAS THE SECOND TIME I HAD EVER TALKED TO THEM.
I WAS VERY SURPRISED BY THAT CONVERSATION.
>> THEN THE OTHER TWO OPTIONS ARE THIS WASTEWATER TREATMENT FOR SEWER PROVIDED BY CITY OF PARKER.
WE DON'T GENERALLY HAVE THAT AND SO THAT IS ANOTHER ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT IF WE ALLOW THAT TO TAKE PLACE ON YOUR PROPERTY THEN WHAT ABOUT THE GUY FURTHER UP ON 25 51 OR WHAT HAVE YOU, WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIKE YOU.
WHAT ABOUT ALL THESE RESIDENTS WHO ARE SITTING IN THIS ROOM RIGHT NOW THAT ARE ON SEPTIC GOING, I REALLY LIKE SEWERS.
THAT'S PART OF WHY IT TOOK SO LONG TO GET TO PARKER.
THAT'S A CHALLENGE AS WELL THAT I THINK HASN'T REALLY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR FOCUS IS THIS, BUT WE HAVE TO FOCUS ON THE BIGGER PICTURE.
IT'S ALREADY A PUSHBACK, IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT SELLING A GREAT PRODUCT, IT'S BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL.
>> THANK YOU FOR TELLING ME THAT. APPRECIATE THAT.
>> WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE SIZE OF THE HOMES AND THE COMPOSITION OF THE BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE HOMES? BECAUSE THAT'S NORMALLY IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
THAT'S COMPLETELY MISSING FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
I WAS ACTUALLY IN JOHN COX ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT AGREE.
THAT'S A LEGITIMATE QUESTION I'M ASKING YOU, NOT TRYING TO GET YOU.
>> BUT IT'S ONE OTHER EXAMPLE OF WHY I'M TELLING YOU, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT YOU PRESENTED TO US IS WELL FULLY INCOMPLETE.
>> I THINK IN THE RAS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT IS A MINIMUM OF 2,000 SQUARE FEET, DOES THAT SOUND ABOUT RIGHT?
>> IT'S YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE JOHN COX ONE.
I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH THAT ONE.
YOU SAID IT WAS IN THE LAST ONE.
>> IT WAS IN THE JOHN COX ONE.
>> THE JOHN COX ONE. WAS IT A MINIMUM?
>> IT SOUNDS ABOUT RIGHT. IF IT'S NOT IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT SHOULD BE, BUT IT'S A MINIMUM OF 2,200.
>> ARE YOU PROPOSING THAT ALL OF THE STIPULATIONS THAT APPLIED TO THE BUILDINGS, THE STRUCTURES THAT WERE IN THE JOHN COX AGREEMENT WOULD BE WRITTEN OUT?
BUT IT CAN BE CONSIDERED. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT.
>> BUT WE UNDERSTAND WHY THIS THING WAS SO UNDEFINED THAT NO ONE COULD ACCEPT IT NOW?
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT WHY WE ARE HERE IS TO DISCUSS WHAT IS UNDEFINED, AND I LOOK FORWARD TO ANY RED LINES THAT HELP BRING COMFORT.
>> IT'S JUST SHOWING WHAT I MEAN ABOUT SPECIFICS.
YOU MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF IT THAT THIS WOULD HAVE FISHING PONDS IN IT.
THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT I'VE DISCUSSED SPECIFICALLY,
[01:35:02]
SO IT'S NOT A SURPRISE.WHAT YOU DESCRIBE AS FISHING PONDS ARE ACTUALLY THE DETENTION PONDS FOR FLOOD DETENTION WATER.
IF YOU RUN A DETENTION POND FULL OF WATER ALL THE TIME TO MAKE IT A WATER FEATURE, A FISHING POND, INSTEAD OF A DETENTION POND, IT CANNOT SERVE ITS PURPOSE AS A DETENTION POND BECAUSE IT'S S WATER AND WATER CANNOT ABSORB WATER.
ONLY A DRAIN POND CAN ABSORB WATER.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOOD TO PRESENT THESE AS FISHING PONDS AND PART OF THE AMENITIES WHEN THEY NEED TO BE DETENTION PONDS.
BUT WE STILL NEED TO KNOW HOW BIG ARE THE PONDS, WHAT'S THE DEFINITION? WHERE'S THE WATER GOING?
>> I'M HAPPY TO GET THAT DEFINITION.
UNDERSTAND. THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
>> I UNDERSTAND THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE MARKETING, WHAT HAVE YOU.
WHAT KIND OF MARKET STUDIES HAVE YOU DONE OR BEEN PARTY TO THAT LET YOU THIS CONFIDENT THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO MARKET THIS DEVELOPMENT TO THE GROUP THAT YOU ARE?
>> I THINK MOST OF THAT PREDATED ME.
THAT WAS PROBABLY A LOT OF THE WORK THAT THE HUFFINES WERE DOING.
THE PREMIER EXPERIENCE IN WHAT THEY DO, SO YES, THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF ME TRUSTING THE RESEARCH AND MARKET STUDIES, BUT I THINK THAT WAS A FAIR ASSUMPTION TO MAKE.
>> IS THERE A REASON THAT THERE'S ONE IS IT THE BRIDGE COST BY THERE ISN'T ANOTHER ONE THAT GOES IN THE WAY OR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LAND, WHO OWNS THE LAND TO CUT OVER TO DO TWO ENTRANCES?
>> I'D HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU ON THIS ONE.
THE TWO BRIDGES WERE EXPIRED EARLY ON.
WHEN THIS LAND PLAN WAS PRESENTED, AND AGAIN, IT WAS PRESENTED TO A SMALLER CIRCLE, BETTY AND MAYOR LEE.
THE TWO BRIDGES JUST HAVEN'T COME UP SINCE THEN SO I KNOW IT'S BEEN SOME DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T RECALL THE SPECIFICS.
BUT IF THAT'S PART OF THIS DISCUSSION, I CAN GIVE YOU THAT ANSWER.
>> WE ACCEPT FOR QUALIFICATION, SECOND BRIDGE GOING OUT TO DUBLIN.
>> FROM THAT PICTURE, IF YOU PUT ONE ON ONE SIDE OR ONE ON THE OTHER, THAT WOULD BE TWO COMPLETELY SEPARATE ENTRANCES, BUT IF IT'S AN EXTENSIVE BRIDGE GOING OVER A FLOODPLAIN, THE COST INVOLVED HAS GOT TO BE VERY GREAT.
I ASSUME THAT'S THE PROBLEM AND NOT COMMAND.
>> I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY THE LAND THAT IS ON THE SOUTHERN END OF THAT TRACK IS NOT PART OF THE LAND THAT'S OWNED BY THE HUFFINES, IT'S OWNED BY A DIFFERENT FAMILY, WHO'S A PRETTY LARGE LAND OWNER IN THE COUNTY AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD HAVE ANY.
THEY'RE NOT IN NEED OF MONEY, SO THEY HAVE NO INCENTIVE TO SELL.
IT WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THE DOG LEG PORTION THAT HUFFINES OWNS.
IF YOU TRY TO PUT TWO POINTS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ON THAT DOG LEG PORTION, THEY'RE TOO CLOSE TOGETHER FOR TEXT DOT TO EVER APPROVE THEM AS TWO DIFFERENT POINTS TO ACCESS ROAD.
>> ACTUALLY, THAT LINE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IS POSSIBLY AN EXPRESSIVITY OF MURPHY, PROBABLY ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? JORDAN, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION TO MAKE THE DECISION TONIGHT, BUT LET ME ASK YOU.
IS EVERYTHING IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT ON THE TABLE FOR DISCUSSION, NEGOTIATION, AND AS YOU CALL IT.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M HERE. ABSOLUTELY.
>> I THINK EXCEPT THE DENSITY.
>> WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON NOT TO CONSIDER A LOWER DENSITY WITH A LARGER LOT SIZE THAT SELLS FOR MORE MONEY SO THAT YOU STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE COMING IN PER ACRE OF DEVELOPED LOT?
>> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I NEVER ASKED THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY.
IT'S JUST NEVER COME UP, BUT MY ASSUMPTION IS THAT THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS ARE THE ALTERNATIVES BEING THE RARE HOUSES AND OR THE MULTI FAMILY THAT IS JUST ON THE ETJ LAND IS PROBABLY MORE ECONOMICALLY VIABLE THAN LESSER DENSITY.
>> I TAKE YOU AT YOUR WHEN YOU SAID EARLIER, YOU DIDN'T KNOW WHAT THE LOT VALUES WOULD SELL FOR, BUT ASSUME SOMEWHERE NEAR THE MARKET VALUE OF THOSE LOT SIZES IN PARK IN THIS AREA.
THERE'S NOT A PRECEDENT FOR IT.
BUT IF YOU WERE TO TAKE THE VALUE OF THAT LAND WOULD BE IN THIS AREA AND JUST CONVERT IT TO FEWER LARGER LOTS, I CAN TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO COME OUT PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE.
[01:40:05]
IT'S NEVER REALLY MADE SENSE TO ME THAT THERE HAS TO BE THAT MANY HOUSES ON THERE.I UNDERSTAND WHY JOHN COX WANTED 660 BECAUSE HE WAS REALLY CREAMING A LOT OF PROPERTY ONTO A VERY SMALL PIECE OF LAND OR A LOT OF HOUSES ON THERE.
BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'VE GOT TO GO ALL THE WAY TO 254 AS OPPOSED TO 180 OR 150 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO GENERATE VIRTUALLY, IF NOT LITERALLY THE SAME AMOUNT OF REVENUE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPER.
>> LISTEN, SURE WE MAKE CHECKS OUT.
AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE ARE DEALING WITH A LANDOWNER TOO.
THE LANDOWNER HAS A DECISION THAT HE WANTS TO MAKE IN TERMS OF WHAT HE WANTS HIS PROFIT TO BE AND WHAT HIS LOWEST DENSITY THAT HE'S WILLING TO GO ON.
MY OBJECTIVE TAKE ON THIS SITUATION IS THAT HE STARTED AT 660.
I'M GOING TO BELIEVE THE LAND OWNER WHEN HE SAYS THE 254 IS THE FLOOR, AND TRUST ME.
I'VE GOTTEN THIS MAN TO DELAY SUMMARY JUDGMENTS.
I HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AGAINST PHIL HUFFINES AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, 254 IS THE FLOOR.
IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO GO LOWER, AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S A DREAM AND I KNOW THAT THAT'S A DESIRE OF THE COMMUNITY.
I KNOW IT'S A DESIRE FOR YOU, BUDDY, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S HIS DECISION.
>> IF WE DECIDED TO NEGOTIATE.
>> IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE COULD TRY TO NEGOTIATE ON IN A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT?
>> NO, IF YOU REMOVE ME FROM THE SITUATION.
IF I WALK AWAY AND YOU ARE LEFT TO DEAL WITH THEIR FINES, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM IN THAT CAPACITY.
THE BLOOD IS BOILING ON BOTH SIDES.
I THINK I'M THE INTERMEDIARY HERE WHO'S TRYING TO MEDIATE IT.
BUT FOR ME PERSONALLY TO INVEST MY DOLLARS AND TO BUY THE STATE THAT I WOULD BUY AND RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS TO [INAUDIBLE] THE FLOOR.
>> WHICH IS REALLY UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE IF YOU DID HAVE LOW SIZES THAT WERE MORE REFLECTIVE OUT OF THAT [INAUDIBLE] PART OF ROLLING RANGE, YOU WOULDN'T HAVE SUCH VITRIOL FROM, NEIGHBORHOOD CITY AND BE ABLE TO GET SOME THINGS OUT OF THAT AS WELL.
>> COLLEEN, I WISH I BELIEVED YOU, BUT THERE'S BEEN A VISCERAL REACTION TO EVERY BIT OF THIS [LAUGHTER].
>> I DON'T KNOW THESE PEOPLE. I JUST MOVED FROM THERE.
[OVERLAPPING] FAMILIAR WITH THAT GROUP, AND I UNDERSTAND.
>> WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT EVERY BROKERED PIECE ON EVERY SINGLE TOPIC HERE HAS BEEN PRETTY VISCERAL.
I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST THE DENSITY.
IF YOU THINK THERE'S MORE TO ME THAN THAT.
MEANING DENSITY IS YOUR BIG OBVIOUS SAFETY, YOU JUST DROVE [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] SAFETY HAS TO DO. WITH DENSITY.
THERE IS ONE HOUSE LANDLOCKED BEHIND ONE ROAD THAT IS NOT A BIG DEAL, BUT WHEN YOU TRY TO [INAUDIBLE] A 1,000 PEOPLE, IT'S DIFFERENT, THE RISK IS DIFFERENT.
I'M CONVINCED THAT THERE IS A PROFIT THAT DOES WORK HERE.
MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT TO SHARE YOUR PROFIT THAT YOU HAVE WORKED OUT BEHIND, YOU GOT TO UNDERSTAND THAT TOO, BUT IT MAKES WANTING TO WORK WITH YOU ON IT MORE DIFFICULT BECAUSE, IF YOU SAY, HEY I BOUGHT THAT FROM YOU AT THE COST THAT YOU PAID FOR IT AND WENT TO TOWN ON IT MYSELF, I WOULD MAKE A PRETTY SIZABLE PROFIT.
THAT MAKES IT HARD TO NEGOTIATE IN GOOD FAITH WITH YOU.
>> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S WHERE $50 MILLION OF THAT MONEY IS COMING INTO YOUR BACK POCKET, TOO.
THAT MAKES IT EVEN HARDER TO BELIEVE 254 IS THE ONLY NUMBER THAT WORKS BECAUSE THERE ARE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS THAT FLOW BACK TO THE FINES.
BY DEFINITION, YOU JUST SAID, LAND SALES FOR LAND VALUE AND NOBODY IS GOING TO GIVE ANY CONSIDERATION TO THE FACT THAT THE FINES PUT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS IN THEIR BACK POCKET FROM A MUD WHEN THEY DECIDE WHAT PRICE THEY'RE GOING TO PAY FOR ONE OF THOSE LIGHTS.
>> BUT IT'S NOT PERSONAL FINES.
[LAUGHTER] IT'S NOT PERSONAL AT ALL.
I CAN SAY IT IS. IT CAN BE PERSONAL AGAINST MUDS.
I THINK MUDS ARE A HORRIBLE THING.
>> YES. I UNDERSTAND THAT. ASSUMES PERSONAL FINE.
[01:45:09]
THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S OPEN TO THE RED LINE.WE'VE NEVER HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS AND COLLABORATE ON IT ACROSS THE BOARD.
THIS UNFORTUNATELY COMES, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME BRINGING IT TO ALL COMMUNITY MEMBERS WHO HAVE CALLED ME SINCE THE TOWN HALL, WHO ARE EXCITED ABOUT SOME TYPE OF PEACE RESOLUTION.
THIS HAS GONE ON FOR YEARS AND YEARS.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE IS A SINGLE HUMAN INDEPENDENT AGENT THAT WOULD HAVE WORKED HARDER.
I'M TRYING TO BROKER THIS PEACE DEAL THAN I HAVE.
IT'S A GREAT DEAL FOR THE CITY.
IT'S A GREAT DEAL FOR ME AS THE DEVELOPER.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT DEAL FOR THE RESIDENTS AND IT ULTIMATELY BRINGS THE TEMPER DOWN QUITE A BIT. IS IT PERFECT? NO. WILL YOU GUYS PROBABLY GET PERFECT? I DON'T THINK SO. THAT IS WHAT THE CITY IS GOING TO HAVE TO WEIGH.
ULTIMATELY, THIS IS A BROADER DISCUSSION BETWEEN LAND OWNERSHIP AND THE RIGHTS THAT LAND OWNERS HAVE AND THE GOVERNANCE AND THE AUTHORITY THAT CITIES HAVE.
THAT IS THE CROSSFIRE THAT I AM CAUGHT IN BETWEEN HERE.
THERE'S A MIDDLE GROUND TO BE HEARD.
I THINK, IT'S LARGELY OUTLINED IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND I HOPE YOU GUYS WILL CONSIDER.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU.
FOUR OF US WERE NOT HERE FOR THE PRIOR TIME AND SO THIS IS BRINGING US UP TO SPEED.
BUT YOU ARE SITTING IN THIS FUN SPOT.
I DO APPRECIATE YOUR WILLINGNESS TO SPEAK TO US AND BRING US UP TO SPEED AS WELL.
>> AS TENSE AS MAYBE SOME MOMENTS GOT IN HERE, I REALLY DO HAVE A LARGE SPIRIT OF COLLABORATION WITH YOU GUYS.
I HAVE THE EAR OF THE HARD FINES.
I HAVE THE EAR OF SOME OF THE OPPOSITION GROUPS AND I THINK THAT THERE IS A WIN-WIN TO BE BROKERED HERE.
BUT AT THIS POINT, IT'S ALMOST LIKE I'VE GOTTEN THE CITIZENS, THE OPPOSITION LEADERS BEHIND IT, I'VE GOTTEN THE HARD FINES BEHIND IT AND IT IS GOING TO BE WHETHER YOU GUYS CAN GET BEHIND IT AND COME TO THE TABLE AND FIND A RESOLUTION.
>> THAT GOES TO THE REDLINE VERSION.
SOME THINGS HAVE COME UP TONIGHT THAT WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON.
>> THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DETAIL [OVERLAPPING] AGREEMENT.
I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE UP AGAINST THE HARD DEADLINE. IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IT SHOULD BE IN [INAUDIBLE].
I KNOW THAT THERE'S BEEN SOME SURVEY TRUCKS AND THINGS THAT I HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT ARE HAPPENING AND WHAT I WOULD EXPLAIN ABOUT THAT SITUATION, BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO CREATE CONFUSION.
I'VE BEEN VERY HONEST WITH BETTY AND THE MAYOR AND THE CITIZENS THAT THAT IS A LAND OWNER HEDGING HIS BETS AND PROBABLY HAVING INCREASINGLY LITTLE FAITH THAT SOMETHING LIKE THIS PEACE TREATY IS EVER GOING TO BE BROKERED.
>> THAT EXPLAINS WHY EVEN IN MURPHY, THE SURVEY TRUCKS WERE, YOU KNOW.
I THINK I INCLUDED ALL OF YOU GUYS ON THAT EMAIL AND MY FRUSTRATION IN THE EMAIL THAT YOU GUYS PROBABLY READ WAS THAT I'VE BEEN SAYING THIS FOR MONTHS, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN COACHED AND WALKED THROUGH THE PROCESS OF HOW TO COLLABORATE WITH THE CITY AND COMMUNICATE WITH THE CITY BY BETTY AND MAYOR LEE PRETTY WELL.
WHAT I'VE INCREASINGLY BEEN ABLE TO SAY IS THESE ARE NOT EMPTY BREATHS.
[LAUGHTER] THE CONFIDENCE AFTER A YEAR THAT THIS IS GOING TO EVER COME ABOUT.
I'M NOT BLAMING YOU FOR FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUESTS AND ALL THESE THINGS HAPPENING BEHIND THE SCENES, IT REALLY MAKES IT DIFFICULT TO KEEP ALL PARTIES ON THE SAME SIDE TO WORKING TOWARDS A RESOLUTION.
THAT'S NOT ALL THAT YOU GUYS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.
IT'S NOT ENTIRELY WHAT THE HARD FINES ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR, BUT IT DOES MAKE MY JOB VERY DIFFICULT.
>> WHAT'S THE DEADLINE WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS?
>> IT'S IN THE LETTER, IF YOU FLIP THROUGH YOUR PACKETS ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, I THINK.
>> SEPTEMBER 1ST IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
BUT [INAUDIBLE] IS NEGOTIABLE AND THERE ARE DETAILS THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE TO GO INTO THIS.
IF WE CAN GET ALL THAT TOGETHER, CAN WE GET BACK TOGETHER, ASSUMING COUNCIL IS AGREEABLE WITH THIS BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1ST, TO SEE IF YOU WOULD HEAR AT THAT POINT?
I THINK I HAVE PROVEN THAT. TALK TO YOU ALL THE TIME AT 10 P.M.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, I'LL PROBABLY GET BACK TO YOU WITH ANY DETAILS THAT ARE REQUESTED WITHIN 24-48 HOURS.
IF ANY DETAILS, I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE,
[01:50:02]
I CAN GET ON PHONES WITH LAWYERS OR ENGINEERS AND FIGURE THOSE THINGS OUT.IT WOULD BE YOU ALL THAT I WOULD QUESTION WHETHER THAT'S VIABLE, THAT'S ONLY BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE CITY.
>> IT'S NOT FOR US TO SIGN THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT.
>> BECAUSE THEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE BINDING THE SETTLEMENT TO.
>> THERE WAS A POINT ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO.
BUT I BECAME INCREASINGLY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE WE CAME OFF THE TOWN HALL, WHICH I WAS COACHED TO GO TO BY YOU AND BETTY AND I COLLABORATED WITH THE CITY WITH THE CITIZENS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I WAS GETTING A TON OF PHONE CALLS, AND BEHIND THE SCENES, I WAS EXPECTING MORE MOMENTUM.
I SPOKE A LOT WITH BETTY DURING THAT TIME, I SPOKE WITH YOU AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THIS WORKSHOP, WHICH THEORETICALLY COULD HAVE HAPPENED EARLIER, DIDN'T HAPPEN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE UP AGAINST A TIMELINE, BUT THE QUESTION OF A LACK OF DETAIL IS WHY I'VE TRIED TO GET THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS FOR PROBABLY A BETTER PART OF THREE OR FOUR WEEKS, BECAUSE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED TO BE IN THE PROCESS.
WE NEED TO BE QUESTIONING WHAT DETAILS YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
WHAT DO YOU NEED MORE CLARITY ON? THAT IS WHAT I WAS TOLD IS THE POINT OF THIS WORKSHOP.
HAPPY TO CONTINUE YOUR DISCUSSION.
>> COUNCIL, I MADE A LIST AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH IT, SO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN GET TO YOU PRETTY QUICKLY.
>> WE CAN START WORKING ON THAT, AND THEN WE CAN DO OUR PART.
>> YEAH. CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION? IN TERMS OF THE REDLINING, WHICH IS A SPECIFIC LEGAL PROCESS BETWEEN ATTORNEYS, HOW DOES THAT INVOLVE CATHERINE, TYPICALLY?
>> [INAUDIBLE] ATTORNEYS. [LAUGHTER]
>>I THINK ONE THING YOU CAN JUST PROACTIVELY SEND TO US, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO DEFINITIVELY KNOW IN DETAIL EXACTLY WHAT PROPERTY YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO USE EMINENT DOMAIN FOR, AND FOR EXACTLY WHAT PURPOSE.
BECAUSE IF YOU WANT THE CITY OF PARKER TO GRANT THAT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KNOW WHOSE PROPERTY WE'RE PUTTING AT RISK.
>> QUITE HONESTLY, THAT PROTECTS FUTURE COUNCILS AND RESIDENTS FROM A FUTURE.
LOOK AT BESIDES LIKE THOSE DOCUMENTS.
>> I GOT YOU. AGAIN, THESE ARE THINGS THAT I CALL MAJORING IN THE MINORS.
THESE ARE NOT HUGE STICKING POINTS FOR ME.
ANYTHING THAT I CAN DO TO BE A HELP FOR FUTURE PRECEDENT, I THINK IT'S PRETTY EASY TO PULL OFF.
>> COUNCIL. AT THIS TIME, WHATEVER TIME IT IS.
AT 7:53, I WILL CLOSE THE WORKSHOP.
THANK YOU, JORDAN. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [OVERLAPPING].
>> FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND YOUR INFORMATION.
COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
>> YEAH. EXACTLY HOW IS THIS SUPPOSED TO WORK? WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP.
>> YEAH. [OVERLAPPING] I'M GLAD YOU ASKED BECAUSE I DIDN'T WANT TO BE DONE, BUT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND.
>> WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANOTHER WORKSHOP ON REDLINE.
THIS IS A NEGOTIATION, SO IT'S EXECUTIVE. HOW DOES THIS?
>> IS THIS ATTORNEY-TO-ATTEMPTOR AT THIS POINT? [OVERLAPPING] HOW DOES IT WORK?
>> TO THE EXTENT THAT ANYTHING LEGAL, IF WE CAN PUT IT ON THE AGENDA FOR TUESDAY, THEN WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION IN EXECUTIVE ON TUESDAY.
>> WE CAN'T DO THE EXECUTIVE TODAY BASED ON THAT.
CLEARLY STATES THAT WE SIT DOWN HERE TO WE CAN GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ANY TIME DURING THE MEETING TO DISCUSS THE POSTED AGENDA.
WE COULD TONIGHT. I THINK YOU TONE, [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'M NOT INCLINED TO GO THROUGH A DOCUMENT LINE BY LINE.
>> NO, AT LEAST TO GET A START TO SEE IF THIS IS WORK.
THIS IS, I THINK, NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU OR THIS PROJECT, JORDAN, BUT I WANT TO CONTINUE TO TRY TO WORK ON THIS.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE EXCEEDINGLY DIFFICULT, IF NOT IMPOSSIBLE, TO HIT THIS ARBITRARY SEPTEMBER 1 DEADLINE BECAUSE WE JUST CAN'T GET THINGS TO MOVE THROUGH THE CITY PROCESS THAT FAST, BECAUSE SOME OF THEM, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, EVEN INVOLVE US GETTING AGREEMENT FROM POTENTIALLY MURPHY ON SOMETHING.
[01:55:02]
EVEN IF SCOTT BRANDER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO IT, SCOTT PROBABLY COULDN'T AGREE WITHOUT GETTING THE CITY COUNCIL OVER THERE TO HAVE A MEETING.GOVERNMENT [INAUDIBLE] MOVE,, SLOWLY AND THAT'S JUST LISTEN TO THAT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE TO COLLABORATE WITH YOU, TOO. WE JUST NEED TO HUG IT OUT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND, AND I'M NOT TRYING TO PUT SOME ARBITRARY TIMELINE ON YOU GUYS.
I'M BEING DEAD SERIOUS, AND THIS TIME MY ANSWER IS THAT THERE'S NO MORE TIME TO ENTERTAIN THIS ON MY SIDE.
I THINK, I MEAN, SOMEONE'S PROBABLY WATCHING THIS TONIGHT.
I MEAN, THIS DID NOT SEEM VERY PROMISING IF YOU'RE WATCHING OVER LIVESTREAM, AND I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THE REPRESENTATION OF THAT.
IT'S MORE SO THERE'S JUST NOT, THERE'S INCREASINGLY LESS OF AN APPETITE TO BELIEVE THIS IS A BIBLICAL OPTION.
FOR MYSELF, I FEEL A LITTLE BIT BETTER TOWARDS THE END, WHICH IS IRONIC, BUT FOR THE FINES WHO ARE IN PARTICULAR.
>> I REALIZED THAT THIS IS A PRIORITY.
WE WOULD LOVE TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
BUT WE ARE ALSO IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING A CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO MEET OUTSIDE OF COUNCIL MEETINGS, AND SO ADDING ADDITIONAL.
>> NO, FOR SURE [OVERLAPPING].
I SYMPATHIZE WITH YOU. AGAIN, I'M NOT TRYING TO PRESS YOU.
THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME FOR ALL PARTIES, AND SO I THINK THAT IT'S JUST TRYING TO MAINTAIN THE CONFIDENCE.
I WAS COMMUNICATING THIS DISSOLVING LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE TO BETTY AND THE MAYOR IN THAT CLOSED SESSION TWO MONTHS AGO.
NOW WE'RE HERE, AND IT'S [OVERLAPPING].
>> DO WE ACTUALLY BUILDING THE BRIDGE FIRST, JUST BUILDING A BRIDGE FROM THE OTHER SIDE, AND USING GREGORY ROAD AS A CONSTRUCTION ACCESS? THAT'S SOMETHING YOU OUGHT TO GET AN ANSWER TO PRETTY QUICKLY.
LEGITIMATELY BUYABLE ALTERNATIVE, THE BRIDGE TO THE REST OF THE FUTURE, AS THE BRIDGE GOING OUT TO HOG ROAD.
BUILD THE ENTRANCE FIRST AND DEVELOP EVERYTHING FROM THERE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO TEAR UP GREGORY LANE AND BUILD AROUND THE DRIVE.
>> WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT. THAT IS A MUCH HARDER OPTION THAN WHAT I FEEL LIKE MOST PEOPLE ARE AGREEABLE TO WITHIN THE GREGORY LANE SETTLEMENT, IF I'M BEING TOTALLY HONEST.
IT'S LIKE, WE'RE LIKE 90% AND IT'S GOOD. [LAUGHTER]
>> GIVEN THAT, WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM JORDAN AND WAS WERE UNLIKELY TO COME UP WITH A RESOLUTION BEFORE SEPTEMBER 1 TO WE WANT TO PURSUE IT YOU TO YOU SAY [INAUDIBLE] ANSWERS YOU COME BACK.
>> DOES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS?
>> THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE YOU'RE PUTTING ON THE EMINENT DOMAIN ISSUE IN THE BRIDGE?
[Additional Item]
COUNCIL WILL RECESS IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.I AM CONVENING THE CITY OF PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
IT IS 9:06. COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY ITEMS FOR THE LIBERATION OR ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION?
>> ARE THERE ANY OTHER ITEMS AT ALL? HEARING NONE. THEN WE ARE ADJOURNED, IT IS 9:07.
>> DON'T OPEN YOUR MIC.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.