>> I HEREBY CALL THE PARKER CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO ORDER.
[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:09]
IT IS OCTOBER 21, 2025 AT 7:00 PM.MS. HALBERT, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM?
>> THANK YOU. AT THIS TIME, WE WILL DO THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, AND I WILL ASK CYNDY LANE IF SHE WILL LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE AND TERRY LYNCH IF YOU WILL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE.
[PUBLIC COMMENTS]
WE'LL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENTS.I HAVE THREE PUBLIC COMMENTS CARDS.
THE FIRST IS FROM MARCUS [INAUDIBLE].
MR. [INAUDIBLE] YOU WANT TO COME UP?
TO OUR CITY AND COMMUNITY, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON THE PLAN MCCRAE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M NOT IN SUPPORT OF ONE-ACRE LOT SIZES AND SUGGEST THAT TWO TWO-ACRE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BE CONSTRUCTED.
DO WE NEED TO HAVE MORE ONE-ACRE LOTS AND IS THERE GOING TO BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? EACH PROPERTY COME WITH BINDS FOR EACH HOUSE.
LET'S THINK ABOUT THE CONSISTENCY OF THE CITY OF PARKER AND KEEP OUR CITY UNIQUELY COUNTRY AND COUNTRY AGAIN.
IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY TALKS WITH ANY FUTURE OWNERS ABOUT THE ETJ LAND NEXT TO MAXWELL CREEK, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THERE BE TWO-ACRE LOTS FOR OUR COMMUNITY SHALL MAKE NO SUPPORT AND OPPOSE.
I SUGGEST THERE BE TWO-ACRE LOTS [INAUDIBLE] FACILITIES.
THE FUTURE CANDIDATES MUST KEEP THIS IN MIND ABOUT THESE ONE ACRE DEVELOPMENTS.
>> MY COMMENT RELATE TO PUBLIC TO MCCRAE.
MY COMMENTS REGARDING THE PLOT FOR MCCRAE ESTATES, AND I JUST HAPPENED TO LOOK AT IT LAST NIGHT WHEN I WAS LOOKING TO SEE WHAT ORDER OF THE AGENDA WAS IN.
I LOOKED AT THE PLOT AND AS THE CITY REQUIRES PER CODE, WE NEED 50 FOOT SETBACK TO HOME, 25 FEET ON EACH SIDE AND 30 FEET FROM THE BACK PROPERTY LINE, SO MY CONCERN WAS LOTS 10, 08, AND 11.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLOT, ONE OF THESE IN PARTICULAR LOTS 10 IS VERY NARROW.
WHEN YOU TAKE THE SETBACK, I DON'T KNOW HOW THERE'S ROOM IN THERE FOR OUR HOUSE.
IT WOULD BE AN AWFULLY SKINNY HOUSE, [LAUGHTER] SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST THAT YOU DISCUSS THAT AND FIND OUT HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SEEM RIGHT TO ME.
IT HAS GONE THROUGH, I KNOW, PUBLIC WORKS AND IT'S GONE THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING, IT'S GONE THROUGH P&Z, AND NOBODY BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION, WHICH IS SURPRISING.
PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS I HAVE THAT ARE NOT AS TO THE COMP PLAN.
NEXT, WE WILL TALK ABOUT THE ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST.
[ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
THERE'S GOING TO BE A NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK EVENT SATURDAY, OCTOBER 25, FROM 10:00-2:00.CHIEF PRICE, ARE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO SHOPS AT THIS WEEK?
>> LET'S JUST DRIVE TO THE POLICE STATION AND YOU'LL HAVE A PERSON OUT THERE TO HAND [INAUDIBLE] NEXT,
[00:05:02]
AS EVERYBODY KNOWS ORAL VOTING HAS STARTED, AND THERE ARE 17 CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS, AND THERE'S SOME OTHER THINGS ON THE BALLOT.THE CITY OF PARKER DOES NOT HAVE AN [INAUDIBLE] AS A MUNICIPALITY ON THIS BALLOT, BUT WE WOULD STILL ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE UP UNTIL NOVEMBER 4, WHICH IS ELECTION DATE.
AFTER THAT, WE HAVE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION, WHICH NEXT MEETING IS NOVEMBER 12 AT 5:00 PM IN THIS ROOM.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE AT THIS TIME TO GIVE A SHOUT OUT TO PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION BECAUSE THEY DID AN AWESOME JOB WITH PARKERFEST.
THEY WORKED THEIR HEARTS OUT, ESPECIALLY FRANK AND DONNA DACOSTA.
THEY JUST DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.
FOR PEOPLE WHO ATTENDED, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE YOUR FEEDBACK ON WHAT YOU LIKE, WHAT YOU DIDN'T LIKE, WHETHER YOU'RE ON COUNCIL, OR WHETHER YOU'RE A CITIZEN, WE WOULD REALLY LIKE INPUT.
IF YOU DIDN'T GO, WE'D LIKE TO KNOW WHY.
LET US KNOW WHAT WAS IT ABOUT PARKERFEST THAT JUST DIDN'T APPEAL TO YOU OR DIDN'T CAUSE YOU TO COME.
WAS IT THE COWBOY GAME OR NOT? WE REALLY LIKE TO KNOW.
WE'D APPRECIATE THAT BECAUSE, PARKERFEST, WE WANT IT TO BE, AND IT'S HARD TO DO IF WE DON'T GET ANY INPUT FROM YOU.
NEXT, WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THERE ARE FOUR ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.THE FIRST ONE IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR MAY 20, 2025.
SECOND IS APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 3, 2025.
NEXT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MEETING MINUTES FOR JUNE 10, 2025.
LASTLY, IS CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION OR ORDINANCE NUMBER 902, APPROVED 2025 TAX RULE.
COUNCIL, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE ANY ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA.
NOT HEARING ANY, I WOULD CALL- [OVERLAPPING].
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL-MEMBER BARRON TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL-MEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL-MEMBER BOGDAN TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
ANY DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 3,0.
I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCIL-MEMBER SHARPE IS NOT WITH US TONIGHT [INAUDIBLE] HOPEFULLY, HE WILL GET BACK WITH US PRETTY QUICKLY.
NEXT, WE WILL GO TO THE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS.
[6. PUBLIC HEARING, CONSIDERATION, AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 903, ADOPTING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PARKER. ]
THE FIRST ONE IS ITEM NUMBER 6, PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION AND OR APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 903, ADOPTING AND UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PARKER.FIRST, IS WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE IS 709, AND MS. LYNCH, I THINK YOU INDICATED THAT THIS IS WHERE YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. TERRY LYNCH, 5809 MIDDLETON DRIVE.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE DRAFT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I APPRECIATE THE SIGNIFICANT WORK THAT'S GONE INTO PREPARING THIS DOCUMENT AND THE COUNCIL'S TIME IN REVIEWING IT IN WORKSHOP.
WHILE IT INCLUDES SOME USEFUL BACKGROUND AND COMMUNITY INFORMATION, THE PLAN AS WRITTEN, IT DOESN'T YET PROVIDE ENOUGH CONCRETE RECOMMENDATIONS OR IMPLEMENTATION STEPS TO SERVE AS A RELIABLE FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING.
I HAVE SHARED MY DETAILED COMMENTS WITH OUR CITY SECRETARY AND COUNCIL MEMBERS EARLIER TODAY.
BUT IN RECAP, I BELIEVE MORE CLARITY IS NEEDED IN THE AREAS SUCH AS LAND USE, CONSISTENCY, COMMERCIAL GROWTH POLICY, INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES AND CITY OPERATIONS.
[00:10:02]
THE PLAN SHOULD BETTER ALIGN WITH THE ORDINANCES INTENT TO SERVE AS A FRAMEWORK FOR FUTURE PLANNING AND DECISION MAKING.ONE THAT SUPPORTS MEASURABLE, REALISTIC, AND WELL COORDINATED GROWTH CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY'S VALUES, STANDARDS, AND AVAILABLE RESOURCES. THANK YOU.
WE ALSO HAVE IN THE PUBLIC ANY OTHER PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THE COMP PLAN.
THEN I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC AT 7:10 PM.
AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK COUNCIL, IF YOU WISH TO HEAR FROM CYNDY LANE, WHO COMPLETED THE COMP PLAN FOR US.
SHE IS HERE TONIGHT OR DO I WANT TO JUST GO AHEAD AND GO TO THE COMP PLAN?
>> I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY. SHE HAS MADE THE SUGGESTIONS THAT COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] IT'S THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WOULD NEED FROM HER?
>> WE GAVE HER DIRECTION AND SHE'S MADE THOSE.
IS THERE ANY REASON WE NEED TO BRING HER BACK UP AGAIN?
BUT THAT'S YOUR DECISION IF YOU WANTED TO HEAR FROM HER, YOU KNOW CHANGES SHE'S MADE.
>> I SPOKE TO CYNDY EARLIER TODAY, CHANGE MESSAGES WITH HER.
CYNDY, HAS BEEN SAYING THINGS, SO I THINK WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.
THERE ARE THREE ITEMS IN MS. LYNCH'S COMMENTS THAT I DO THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
THE FIRST ONE IS ABOUT THE DATES, WHAT YEAR IT IS.
THE SECOND IS AND I ASKED MR. MANTON THIS EARLIER TODAY TO CLARIFY HOW MUCH MONEY WE DID RECEIVE FROM THE AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN ACT.
THE THIRD ONE IS STANBURY SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST OF PRIVATE STREETS BECAUSE IT IS DEFINITELY A PUBLIC ROAD.
>> COUNCIL [INAUDIBLE] MR. GRANT BROUGHT UP SOME CONCERNS. GO AHEAD.
>> YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, MR. GRANT [INAUDIBLE] HAS PREPARED THE NUMBER FOR THE ARPA FUNDING.
>> THAT NUMBER SHOULD ACTUALLY BE 1,205,000.
>> WE DEFINITELY NEED TO GET THAT CORRECTED AS WELL.
I FORGOT WHAT WE DECIDED ABOUT WHETHER WE WERE CALLING THIS THE 2024 OR 2025 PLAN.
I THOUGHT WE HAD DECIDED ON 2025.
>> I THINK WE DID, AND THAT'S WHEN IT'S CALLED THAT.
IT'S STILL REFERRED TO AS THE 2024 PLAN IN THE ORDINANCE, WAS THE POINT THAT MS. LYNCH POINTED OUT, SO THE ORDINANCE IS DIFFERENT THAN THE PLAN NAME.
>> THE ORDINANCE SAID 2025, I THINK IT WAS THE COMP PLAN COVER PAGE THAT HAD 2024.
>> THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH WHEREAS 2024 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? AGAIN, IN SECTION 2.
>> I JUST CHECKED THE TITLE AND THE FOOTERS ON THE PLAN BOTH SAY 2025.
>> MY QUESTION TO COUNCIL WILL BE, DO YOU WISH TO CORRECT THIS HERE TONIGHT AND STILL MOVE FORWARD OR DO YOU WISH MORE CONSIDERATIONS [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE CAN JUST AMEND IT WITH THOSE COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO CHANGE OR UPDATE.
>> WITH RESPECT TO 2024 VERSUS 2025, I WOULD JUST AMEND THE ORDINANCE TO SAY 2025, AND I WOULD LEAVE THE TITLE OF THE PLAN 2025 BECAUSE THIS IS THE YEAR WE'RE DEVELOPING IT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS STARTED IN THE PAST.
I GUESS THE OTHER COMMENT I REALLY HAVE.
I AGREE WITH THE POINTS THAT COUNCIL-MEMBER BARRON MADE ABOUT THOSE MINOR CHANGES.
THE ONLY OTHER THOUGHT I'VE HAD ABOUT THIS IS, THIS HAS BEEN IN THE WORKS FOR A LONG TIME. WE NEED TO GET IT DONE.
[00:15:02]
MY INCLINATION IS TO WANT TO GO AHEAD AND PASS IT WITH ONE EXCEPTION.HAVING JUST BROUGHT KENT ON BOARD AS OUR NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR, I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULD DELAY MAYBE ANOTHER 30 DAYS OR SO TO SEE IF HE HAS ANY INPUT FROM HAVING DEVELOPED A SIMILAR PLAN, AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO COMMENT BACK TONIGHT.
IF YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT INPUT FROM DEVELOPING A PLAN IN THE PAST, AND IT'D BE WORTH OUR TIME TO WAIT ANOTHER 30 DAYS FOR YOU TO PROVIDE THAT INPUT.
I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING IT.
IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE.
I'M NOT CONCERNED THAT YOU DON'T HAVE INPUT FROM A PRIOR PLAN.
BUT THAT'S THE ONLY OTHER THOUGHT I HAVE WROTE.
I THINK IT'S CERTAINLY WISE AND PRUDENT TO CONSIDER ALL THE COMMENTS.
YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR QUITE SOME TIME. I AGREE WITH THAT.
I'VE BEEN OBSERVING SOME OF THE MEETINGS FROM THE PAST MONTH OR SO, SO I THINK MY INITIAL RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS BASED OFF OF REMEDIED INFORMATION HERE WOULD BE TO GO AHEAD AND APPROVE THE PLAN AS IS AND THEN IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WORKING ON A NEW PLAN, SO CREATE MAYBE ANOTHER COMMITTEE AND START WITH THE GOAL OF IMPLEMENTING ANOTHER PLAN WITH REVISIONS, AMENDMENTS, MAYBE IN 2027 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> YES, MADAM MAYOR. I'M GOOD WITH THAT.
WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THIS THING PERFECT, SO DON'T LET PERFECTION BE THE ENEMY.
.>> IF I'M HEARING YOU CORRECTLY, YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON IT IN A MINUTE.
BUT YOU WANT THE DATES TO BE CORRECTED.
YOU WANT THE AMOUNT TO BE CORRECTED AND YOU WANT STANBURY TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PRIVATE ROAD LIST AND THE YEAR, IS THAT IT?
>> ONE OTHER SMALL CORRECTION, SYCAMORE LANE IS LISTED AS A CONCRETE STREET THAT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO ASMA.
>> IS EVERYBODY AGREEABLE WITH THAT? I WOULD ACCEPT THE MOTION, IF ANYONE SAW FIT THE POINT.
>> I APPROVE THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE 903 WITH THE FOLLOWING UPDATES.
UPDATE ORDINANCE TO 2025, UPDATE CHAPTER NINE TO READ THE AMERICAN RESCUE AMOUNT TO BE 120,500 100 NO.
$285,000 AND THEN REMOVE SUDBURY FROM THE PRIVATE ROADS AND UPDATE SYCAMORE LANE TO YOUR ASPHALT.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT. IS THERE A SECOND?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE COMP PLAN FROM COUNCIL MEMBER HOBBIT AND A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BON.
IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? GO AHEAD.
>> JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR STAFF.
DO YOU WANT US TO GO AHEAD AND PUT THIS ON A FUTURE AGENDA TO DISCUSS A POINT IN THE COMMITTEE OR TALK ABOUT?
>> WE'RE AHEAD OF THIS. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING ORDINANCE 903, ADOPTING AN UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THE CITY OF PARKER, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
I'M SO EXCITED ONLY TWO YEARS.
MISS MAYER, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN THIS.
I THINK YOU'VE HAD WITH IT FOR TWO YEARS.
NOW WE'LL MOVE TO ITEM NUMBER SEVEN,
[7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 2025863, MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. ]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025.863, MAKING APPOINTMENTS TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.COUNSEL, IN YOUR PACKET, I BELIEVE YOU RECEIVED AN APPLICATION FROM CHARLIE RES TO THE APPOINTED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
THIS WOULD BE TO FULFILL THE HEADLINES ALTERNATE ONE POSITION, MISS HEADLINE BOARD RESIN YOUR POSITION.
[00:20:03]
IS THERE ANY COMMENTS OR ANY DISCUSSION THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE REGARDING THIS? IF NOT, THEN I WOULD ACCEPT A MOTION.>> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025.863, APPOINTING CHARLES WORTH TO THE ALTERNATE POSITION ON THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOG AND A SECOND BY MAYOR PRO TEN PILGRIM, TO APPROVE CHARLES BEING APPOINTED TO ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, RESOLUTION NUMBER 2025.863.
I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
NEXT WE WILL GO TO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT.
[8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON MCCREARY ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLAT. ]
CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON MCCRAE ESTATES PRELIMINARY PLANT.FIRST THING I'D LIKE TO DO ON THIS IS JOHN, YOU WANT TO COME UP AND GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF A REVIEW OR PRESENTATION THAT YOU HAVE.
>> I'M PRETTY QUICK AT THAT. WELL, LET'S START THERE.
I GOT A CALL TODAY ABOUT THE NAME MCCRAE ESTATES.
APPARENTLY, THERE'S ANOTHER SUBDIVISION THAT'S VERY SIMILAR.
CAME IN AS BUCKINGHAM ESTATES.
THE FAMILY DIDN'T LIKE BUCKINGHAM ESTATES.
WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE FAMILY AND COME BACK ON OUR FINAL PLAT WITH A NAME THAT EVERYBODY CAN AGREE TO.
>> I JUST WANT TO GIVE SOME OF THE PEOPLE HERE DON'T HAVE IT WAS CALLED MCCRAE ESTATES, AND THE BIGGEST ISSUE WAS THERE WAS A HUGE SUBDIVISION IN WY NORTH OF 544 CALLED MCCRAE ESTATES.
AS WELL AS HAVING MCCRAE CREEK ESTATES WITHIN PARK?
>> WE GET THAT AND WE'RE OPEN TO CHANGING IT.
WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S SOMETHING THE FAMILY IS HAPPY WITH, BECAUSE THAT'S A PROMISE WE MADE TO THE FAMILY THAT WE WOULD HONOR THEM IN THE NAME IN SOME WAY.
I KIND OF GO BACK TO THEM AND FIGURE THAT OUT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN DO. IS THERE A CLICKER? PRESENTATION GUY. IF YOU'RE FIGURING THIS OUT. WHAT'S THE BACK.
IF YOU GO FORWARD, BUT YOU CAN COME DOWN.
THAT'S BUCKINGHAM ESTATE, TBD.
WE'RE S WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY REAL QUICK.
EVERYBODY REMEMBERS WHERE WE ARE.
WE'RE ON THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF PARKER AND MCCRAE.
THIS PROJECT CAME IN IN FEBRUARY, WELL, OCTOBER AND FEBRUARY.
WE HAD A ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PUT TOGETHER FOR THE ONE ACRE LOTS, AND THEN WE CAME THROUGH ZONING IN FEBRUARY.
THE NEXT SIDE, JUST A LITTLE CLOSER.
THEN GO TO DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THIS WAS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.
THERE WAS 39 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, ALL ONE ACRE MINIMUM SIZE, 03,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM HOME SIZE, HOA MAINTAINED PERIMETER LANDSCAPE.
WE HAD DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS, STANDARDS.
IT MEETS MIRRORS THE CONCEPT PLAN EXACTLY AS IT WAS.
WE STILL HAVE 39 LOTS, ALL THE LOTS ARE STILL ONE ACRE.
WE MET THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTHS, FRONT SETBACKS, REAR SETBACKS, SIDE YARD SETBACKS.
LOT TEN WILL BE A UNIQUE LOT AND IT'LL PROBABLY END UP BEING SOME KIND OF A CUSTOM HOME, BUT THIS MEETS MIRRORS THE CONCEPT PLAN EXACTLY AS WAS PRESENTED.
IT MEETS ALL THE REGULATIONS SET FORTH IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WE APPROVED IN EARLIER THIS YEAR.
I KNOW THERE WAS A MAJOR CONCERN DURING THAT PROCESS DURING A ZONING PROCESS AND PROCESS WITH THE DRAINAGE, HOW WE HANDLE THE DRAINAGE ON THIS PROJECT.
I'M GOING TO SHOW YOU TWO SLIDES THAT I SHOWED YOU AT THAT TIME.
THESE SLIDES WERE BEFORE WE GOT TOPOGRAPHY ON ON SITE.
[00:25:03]
I WENT OUT AND GOT EVERY SHOT ON SITE.IT'S AERIAL AERIAL TOPOGRAPHY RATHER THAN ON THE GROUND SHOT.
THESE WERE IMAGES IN EAR STUDIES WE PUT TOGETHER DURING THAT ZONING PERIOD BEFORE ENGINEERING GOT DONE.
DURING THAT PERIOD, WE THOUGHT THIS WHOLE AREA DOWN HERE CAME DOWN ABOUT 28.6 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, CAME DOWN TO THAT AREA.
AT THAT TIME, WE TALKED ABOUT, WE'RE GOING TO TAKE MOST OF THAT TO THE MIRTH, 21, WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THAT BY ABOUT 25%, WHAT I THOUGHT WAS.
WE ENDED UP WE WERE ABLE TO ACTUALLY REDUCE THAT MORE.
TO THE NORTH, WE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLY DUE TO DETENTION POND, BUT WE WERE GOING TO DO A STUDY ON THE CREEK.
WE DID A DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT.
WE LOOKED AT WHAT'S COMING INTO THE CREEK, ALL THE DIFFERENT COVERTS, THE TIMING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
WE'VE DONE A DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT.
WE'RE ALSO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, DECIDED TO TAKE ON THE BACK SIDE OF THOSE LOTS WHERE THE TENSION POND IS.
THERE'S LIKE THAT DOTTED LINE THAT'S SQUARELY.
THAT'S A FLOODPLAIN. WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO GO TO A LAMAR.
AFTER WE GET NOW THAT WE'VE GOT OUR GRADING DONE, THE SHOTS ON THE GROUND, WE GOING GET A LAMAR, AND FINALIZED DRAINER STUDY, DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENTS DONE, BUT WE'LL GO GET A LAMAR AND ACTUALLY GET GET THAT REMOVED FROM THE BACK OF THOSE LOTS AND SET THAT LINE, BECAUSE IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY SET BY FMA AT THIS POINT.
THAT'S WHAT OUR ANTICIPATED DRAINAGE WOULD BE FOR THE SITE.
NOW PUT NEW SLIDES IN THAT ACTUALLY SHOW WHAT WE ACTUALLY FOUND ON THE GROUND AND WHAT WE DESIGNED.
NEXT SLIDE IS THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
WE GOT TO THE SITE, WE REALIZE THAT HILL ACTUALLY GOES IN QUADRANTS.
WE GOT ONE THAT GOES TO THE SOUTHEAST AND THAT'S ABOUT 27.4 CUBE FEET PER SECOND.
THAT ACTUALLY COMES DOWN AND THERE'S A BREAK ALONG THE FENCE SIGN THAT'S BEEN THERE FOREVER THAT ACTUALLY GOES DOWN ONTO OUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY, TURNS A CORNER BY HIS HOUSE AND THEN GOES DOWN BEHIND THAT INTO THE SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH.
THEN TO THE EAST, THERE'S ABOUT 6.4 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND THAT GO TO THE EAST TO THAT LAND OWNER.
THEN I'LL SHOW YOU I WAS IN THE SOUTH RIGHT NOW.
THE NEXT SIDE SHOWS YOU WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING.
THE SOUTH SIDE, WE ACTUALLY TOOK 50% OF THAT WATER AND WE'RE TAKING IT SOUTH NOW INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.
WHAT WE DID IS ACTUALLY MOVED OVER.
WE GOT AN EASEMENT, WE WORKED WITH THE LAND OWNER TO THE SOUTH OF US.
WE MET WITH HIM, AND WE MOVED OVER THE OUTFIT POINT ON HIS SIDE AND GOT AN EASEMENT FROM HIM.
WE CAN MOVE IT AWAY FROM HIS HOUSE, BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THAT WATER KIND OF CAME TO HIS HOUSE.
THERE WAS AN AREA THAT WAS FLOODING HIS HOUSE AND IT TURNED A CORNER AND IT WAS JUST ALWAYS WET AND HE SAID IT HAD BEEN A PROBLEM IS AND HE'D BEEN ARGUING WITH THE NEIGHBOR WHO OWNED THE PROPERTY FORCE FOR FOREVER.
WE CORRECTED THAT FOR HIM, MOVE THAT OVER TO THE BACK AND WE'RE GOING TO REGRADE HIS SWELL IN THE BACK AND PUT UP HIS YARD, MAKE IT TO WHERE HE CAN MOW EVERYTHING AND KIND OF MAKE IT BETTER FOR HIM, BUT THE BIG POINT IN THAT IS THERE'S GOING TO BE 50% OF THE THROW THAT WAS ORIGINALLY GOING THERE IS NOW GOING THERE.
WE REDUCED THAT FLOW FROM 6.4 TO 3.9.
WE'RE JUST KIND OF TAKING A LITTLE BACK CORNER OF THAT BACK YARD AND GO INTO WHERE IT EXISTING.
THERE'S A DRAINAGE SWELL THAT GOES ONTO THAT PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CROPS, AND SO WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE MOST OF THAT WATER OR HALF OF THAT WATER GOING IN THAT WAY.
THAT'LL HELP YOU FUTURE IN FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND ANYTHING THAT MIGHT GO TO THE SOUTH UNDER THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH.
REDUCING THAT. WE DIRECTED ADDITIONAL FLOW TO THE NORTH AND SO I'LL EXPLAIN THAT.
ALL THAT FLOW THAT WE LOST THERE, WE DIRECTED IT TO THE NORTH.
TO THE NORTH, THERE WAS EXISTING 60.6 CUBIC FEET PER SECOND, GOING DIRECTLY INTO THE CREEK AND THEN ANOTHER 33.8 THAT GOES KIND OF INTO ANOTHER SRAIL THAT GOES DOWN TO THE CREEK.
THERE'S A CREEK KIND OF IT'S USUALLY DRY UNLESS IT'S RAINING, AND THEN IT HITS A CREEK IN ANOTHER LOCATION ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. NEXT SIDE? WE DID IS ON THE NICHOLSON PROPERTY, WE ACTUALLY REDUCED THAT.
IT'S GOING TO THAT AREA, BECAUSE THERE WAS JUST FLOODING AND WATER, AND WE REDIRECTED EVERYTHING UP TO THE CREEK AT OUR POINT, AND SO QUESTION CAME UP TODAY, WELL, HOW DID ALL THAT WATER THAT WAS GOING HERE HERE AND HERE, YOU REDUCED THAT AND TOOK IT TO THE NORTH? BY STUDYING THAT CREEK, I SEE IT'S BASICALLY TIMING ON IT.
I CAN READ BUT MY ENGINEER WROTE, BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ENGINEER.
I JUST EXPLAIN THAT SAY BASICALLY, THIS HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY BROKE OFF S CARTER, FLOOD STUDY WENT INTO THE BROKE OFF CARTER CAME BACK WITH A COUPLE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY THEM.
[00:30:02]
BASICALLY, WE'RE ALLOWED TO INCREASE THE DRAINAGE AREA THAT GOES TO THE NORTH, BECAUSE THE CREEK ON OUR NORTHERN BOUNDARY HAS A VERY LARGE DRAINAGE AREA OF ABOUT 607 ACRES AND THE UPSTREAM LIMITS OF THE DRAINAGE AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 1.5 MILES NORTH OF PARKER.BASICALLY, WATER IS FLOWING TO THE EAST, THERE'S 607 ACRES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT CULVERT IS THAT COMES INTO THIS AREA.
THE PEAK RUNOFF TIME FROM OUR SITE HAPPENS ABOUT 20 MINUTES EARLIER THAN THE PEAK RUNOFF OF THE REST OF THE DRAINAGE BASIN.
BASICALLY WHAT THAT MEANS IS OUR ROUTER HAS ENOUGH TIME TO GET INTO THAT CREEK, GET OUT BEFORE EVERYTHING ELSE GATHERS AND MAKES ITS WAY DOWN.
THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO TAKE THE WATER THAT'S GOING ONTO THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, CAUSING PROBLEMS TO THE SOUTH AND THEN BRINGING UP INTO THE CREEK UP TO THE NORTH.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GO OVER ALL THE DRAINAGE.
THESE WERE OUR ABOUT CONCERNS AT THE VERY BEGINNING.
I WANT TO GO OVER THOSE TWO THINGS WITH ALL TODAY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COUNSEL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MISS BIRD.
>> FOR THE PROPERTY WITH THE SECTION WHERE ALL THE WATERS DRAINING INTO, WHAT ARE EXACTLY THE PLANS FOR THAT TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE? LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A SWAMP.
RIGHT NOW WE GOING TO MAINTAIN THAT LANDSCAPING.
>> THERE'S PLANS TO CLEAN IT UP, BUT WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT NATURAL.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO MAKE IT LIKE SOLID AND BEAUTIFUL.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE IT IN ITS NATURAL STATE, BUT OUR PLAN IS TO CLEAN UP THE CREEK AREA.
WE HAVE A LITTLE AREA THAT WE HAVE TO ARMOR THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY OUT FALLING INTO THAT CREEK, BUT PLAN IS TO CLEAN IT UP AND MAKE IT LOOK NICE AS YOU COME DOWN.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE FULLY LANDSCAPED AND IRRIGATED AND ALL OF THAT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO DO A CLEAN-UP JOB ON IT, LIMB UP TREES AND MAKE IT LOOK NICE UP THERE.
>> HRA WE BE MAINTAINING OUT THE CREEK AND KEEPING UP WITH THE RODS AND ALL OF THAT. MR. PETER.
>> UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING ABOUT YOUR ABILITY TO TAKE THAT WATER TO THE NORTH? IT HINGES ON THE FACT THAT IT'S GOING TO GET TO THAT CREEK SOONER THAN THE WATER THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT CO? YES, IT'S FURTHER AWAY.
HOW DOES THAT CONTINUE TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXTENDED RAIN AND NOT BECOME A PROBLEM.
>> YOU'RE ASKING THE WRONG MAN HERE.
>> GOOD EVENING. HOW'S EVERYBODY? TYPICALLY REDESIGN OR SUBDIVISIONS ARE DESIGNED BASED ON A 100-YEAR EVENT.
YOU USUALLY DON'T GO TO A 500-YEAR, WHICH I BELIEVE THE CITY'S ORDINANCE IS 100-YEAR EVENT.
THAT'S WHAT EVERYTHING IS BASED ON FOR THIS STUDY.
THAT'S ALL THAT REALLY FEMA CARES ABOUT.
YOU'LL PROBABLY SUBMIT MAYBE SOME LESSER STORM EVENTS TO FEMA, BUT ULTIMATELY WHAT'S GOING TO BE MAPPED WITH THE LOMA IS GOING TO BE 100 YEARS FLOODPLAIN.
WHEN YOU HAVE A ZONE A, THAT IS DEPICTED HERE.
THE ZONE A WAS DETERMINED YEARS AGO BASED ON PROBABLY USGS CONTOURS.
IT WASN'T BASED ON UP TO DATE DATA NECESSARILY.
IT WAS JUST THE BEST GUESS AT THE TIME.
ZONE A'S ARE RARELY CORRECT, AND SO IT'S NOT VERY UNCOMMON FOR THOSE TO BE WRONG AND FOR A STUDY TO COME IN AND SHOW THAT THE EXISTING FLOODPLAIN IS ACTUALLY NOT IN THE LOCATION THAT FEMA IS CURRENTLY SHOWING.
>> THANK YOU. I REALLY COMMEND YOU FOR WHAT YOU DID, BECAUSE MOST OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE HAD PRESENTED TO ME ABOUT IT, MOST OF THE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAVE PRESENTED TO ME ABOUT IT HAD BEEN THE WATER GOING TO THE SOUTH.
>> THAT'S WHAT WE ADDRESSED WHEN WE FIRST TALKED TO YOU ABOUT THE CONCEPT PLAN.
I CAN TELL YOU TOOK THAT TO HEART.
YOU LITERALLY FOUND A WAY TO DIRECT EVEN MORE, EVERYTHING THAN YOU ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO THE NORTH.
I COMMEND YOU ON THE WAY YOU WORKED WITH THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH TO EVEN IMPROVE HIS PROPERTY AND FIX SOME OF THE DRAINAGE PROBLEMS HE ALREADY HAD.
OVERALL, YOU GUYS, FROM MY OPINION, HAVE BEEN GREAT TO WORK WITH.
I WISH EVERY BUILDER THAT WE HAD TO WORK WITH, THAT'S WANTING TO DEVELOP IN THIS AREA ON ETJ LAND WOULD WORK WITH THE CITY THE WAY YOU HAVE.
JUST TO GO AHEAD AND ANSWER THE CONCERNS THAT SOME OF OUR CITIZENS MAY HAVE ABOUT WHY ARE WE APPROVING ONE ACRE LOTS? YOU MAY NOT RECALL.
THIS WAS ETJ LAND, AND ETJ LAND IS SOMETHING WE DON'T HAVE COMPLETE CONTROL OVER.
WE FELT WE WERE MUCH BETTER GOING AHEAD AND APPROVING ONE ACRE LOTS, GETTING THIS INTO THE CITY, WE COLLECT TAX REVENUE OVER IT,
[00:35:01]
WE CAN CONTROL THE REST OF IT.THEN WE WOULD BE LETTING THIS STAY ETJ AND END UP IN THE KIND OF PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE NOW WITH THE TURNER TRACT THAT'S OWNED BY THE HUFFINES.
I COMMEND YOU FOR HOW WELL YOU WORKED WITH THE CITY.
YOU HAVE PROVEN THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO PUT 12 HOUSES PER ACRE TO MAKE A PROFIT.
>> I APPRECIATE THE WAY YOU'VE WORKED ON THE DRAINAGE ISSUES AS WELL.
>> MR. BARRON, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> WELL, BEFORE I WANT TO GO ON TO ROADS NEXT, BUT I WANT TO SEE, HAS EVERYBODY DONE THE DRAINAGE?
>> I KNOW COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN AND I BOTH HAVE SOME ROAD CONCERNS.
THAT LOWER ROAD IS CALLED ZETA, I BELIEVE.
ONE OF OUR CONCERNS IS HOW IT'S NOT EXACTLY ALIGNED WITH OVERBROOK, BUT IT'S FAIRLY CLOSE.
WHAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT IS PEOPLE COMING OUT OF OVERBROOK TURNING LEFT AND THEN PEOPLE COMING OUT OF ZETA, AT THE SAME TIME, SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE PROBLEMATIC GIVEN THE SITUATION.
WHAT I THOUGHT ABOUT WAS I BELIEVE THERE'S STILL SPACE BETWEEN WHERE MCCRAE IS AND WHERE THE TELEPHONE POLES ARE TO ADD A LANE THERE THAT THE PEOPLE ON ZETA COULD TURN INTO.
GARY, I'M WONDERING IF THAT MIGHT HELP ALLEVIATE FOR A PROBLEM.
>> WAS THE QUESTION MAKE A MEDIAN CUT THERE?
>> NO. DON'T MAKE A MEDIAN CUT.
JUST ADD A THIRD LANE ON MCCRAE FOR JUST A LITTLE BIT SO THE PEOPLE ON ZETA COULD [OVERLAPPING] TO, HAVE THEIR OWN LANE TO TURN ON INSTEAD OF TURNING ONTO MCCRAE DIRECTLY.
>> HE'S TALKING ABOUT LIKE [OVERLAPPING]
>> NO. IT'S NOT AN ENTRY LANE, AN EXIT LANE. WHAT HE'S SAYING IS.
>> YOU SAY A LANE ON THE CURVE, THAT WAY.
>> YOU SEE WHERE OVERBROOK IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THIS?
>> THEN YOU COME UP A LITTLE BIT TO [OVERLAPPING] ZETA, YES.
>> YOUR CONCERN IS THAT SOMEBODY COMING OFF OVERBROOK OR SOMEBODY COMING OUT THERE.
>> WHEN YOU PULL OUT HERE, YOU'RE LOOKING FOR TRAFFIC COMING IN THIS DIRECTION AND THIS DIRECTION.
I'M REALLY LOOKING THIS DIRECTION LEFT BEFORE I TAKE OFF AND PUNCH IT.
I'M COMING OUT HERE TO TURN LEFT, AND IF THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT AT THE SAME TIME AS I'M PULLING OVER HERE, IT'S REALLY CLOSE.
THIS LOOKS TOO BAD RIGHT HERE, BUT IT'S REALLY CLOSE, AND I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCIDENT HERE.
THE OTHER THING I'M WORRIED ABOUT IS THIS IS SO CLOSE THAT IF THEY WANT TO TURN LEFT AND THEY DON'T WANT TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN HERE TO FIND A CUT TO TURN AND COME BACK AROUND, THEY'RE JUST GOING TO CUT YOU HERE.
>> MR. BARRON, PLEASE CONTINUE.
>> NO. I THINK I MADE MY POINT.
>> THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU PUT ANOTHER LANE THERE?
>> I WAS LOOKING AT IT TODAY AND TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ENOUGH SPACE INSIDE THE TELEPHONE POLES TO PUT ANOTHER LANE THERE.
>> WE MIGHT HAVE TO ACQUIRE SOME MORE LAND AWAY FROM THAT LOT RIGHT THERE AND THAT WOULD SHRINK THAT LOT.
>> WE WOULD TAKE IT OUT OF THE ONE ACRE MINIMUM PROBABLY.
IT WOULD TAKE SOME RIGHT OF WAY AS WELL.
>> 1.029, [INAUDIBLE] THAT LOT.
>> IT MEETS THE ORDINANCE, THE DISTANCE ON IT, AND IT MATCHES THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE HAD APPROVED.
THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WE LOOKED AT EARLY ON IN THE DEVELOPMENT.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT THAT LAYER, BILLY, BUT IT'S NOT LIKELY BECAUSE THERE'S SOME THREE BIG HOLES ON THERE THAT'S MAKING ANOTHER LANE THERE.
>> WELL, I'M WONDERING WHERE IS THE BOUNDARY OF THAT LOT.
IS IT ALL THE WAY TO MCCRAE OR DOES IT STOP WHERE THE TELEPHONE POLES ARE?
>> THERE'S SOME RIGHT OF WAY THERE ON MCCRAE, SO TO WIDEN THAT, WE'D HAVE TO TAKE MORE RIGHT OF WAY TO SCOOT THAT RIGHT OF WAY OVER MORE AND BE ABLE TO PUT THAT OTHER LANE IN.
>> YOU'RE SAYING YOU HAVE TO MAINTAIN A RIGHT OF WAY.
[00:40:01]
USE UP THE RIGHT OF WAY TO PUT A LINE IN IT.IF YOU MOVE THE LANE OVER, YOU'VE GOT TO HEAD OUT RIGHT OF WAY, RIGHT?
>> CORRECT. WE ALSO GOT A WATER LINE IN THERE TOO THAT WE HAVE TO MOVE IF WE MOVE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
>> I AGREE ABOUT THE WATER LINE BECAUSE THE FIRE HYDRANTS ARE DEFINITELY CLOSER TO THE ROAD.
>> WE COULD DEFINITELY PUT SOME SIGNAGE IN.
>> I HAVE NOT SEEN THIS BECOME A CONCERN, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OVERBROOK DOESN'T HAVE A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF IT, AND I'VE GOT 39 LOTS.
WE'RE NOT PUTTING A 150, 200 LOT SUBDIVISION OUT ONTO THE STREET.
>> WELL, I THINK THE REASON COUNCILMAN BOGDAN AND I BOTH ARE MENTIONING THIS IS BECAUSE WE DO LIVE OVER THERE AND DO GO OUT THAT WAY FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.
WE'RE AWARE OF DEALING WITH THE TRAFFIC LOADS AND SUCH.
DURING THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY, I DON'T THINK IT'S SUCH A PROBLEM.
IT'S MORE GOING TO BE A RUSH HOUR TYPE CONCERN WHEN THE TRAFFIC'S A LITTLE BUSIER.
ALSO, WE SUSPECT MCCRAE'S GOING TO GO A LOT BUSIER ONCE HEB OPENS UP DOWN IN MURPHY.
THAT WILL ADD A LOT OF TRAFFIC ONTO MCCRAE.
>> CHIEF PRICE, DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS?
>> WE HAVE A MILLION ROWS THAT HAVE TWO LANES THAT THEY TURN INTO EVERYDAY WITHOUT CAUSING ANY PROBLEMS. NOW, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I HAVE SEEN PEOPLE DO WHAT COUNCILMAN BOGDAN SAYS.
BUT FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT STANDPOINT, PUTTING A THROUGH LANE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME BECAUSE YOU ALREADY HAVE ONE MADE COMPLETELY COME OFF OF OVERBROOK AND THE OTHER SIDE COME OFF OF [INAUDIBLE].
>> ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENT TO MR. BARRON?
>> WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, GARY.
IF PEOPLE DO COME OUT OF ZETA AND TURN RIGHT, THERE ARE A COUPLE MEDIAN CUTS THERE THAT ARE VERY SMALL.
DO WE WANT TO PUT NO U-TURN SIGNS THERE?
>> WELL, I WILL SAY ONE THING.
I THINK SOMETHING I CAN GIVE IS THAT MEDIAN CUT WAS THERE FOR THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY FOR THE HOME THAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
>> WELL, I BELIEVE THERE'S TWO MEDIAN CUTS.
THERE'S THAT ONE AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER ONE FOR THE CORVETTE PLACE.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE CITY NOT ASKING YOU NECESSARILY.
[OVERLAPPING] THE TOP ONE THERE, THAT'S WHERE THERE ARE OTHER STREETS COMING OUT.
THAT'S GOING TO BE A FOUR-WAY INTERSECTION.
BUT I'M WONDERING IF WE SHOULDN'T PUT A NO U-TURN SIGN ON WHERE THE CORVETTE PLACE IS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I THINK PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE STOPPING THERE TO U-TURN AND BLOCKING TRAFFIC.
>> THAT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING WE CAN LOOK INTO AND SEE IF THERE'S A NEED OR A DESIRE TO DO THAT, WE CAN DO THAT.
>> I CAN DO IT IF YOU WANTED TO.
>> IF THERE'S A NEED, WE CAN ADD THAT DURING CONSTRUCTION.
>> I WOULD RATHER GO WITH THE LEAST INVASIVE THAN EXPENSIVE OPTIONS UNTIL WE KNOW IF THERE'S ACTUALLY.
>> WE'RE MAKING ASSUMPTIONS NOW BASED ON HOW WE DO THINGS, BUT IT COULD BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO NAVIGATE.
>> I AGREE. I THINK MAYBE WE LOOK AT IT AND SEE IF IT IS A PROBLEM AND THEN WE CAN ADDRESS IT WITH TRAVEL SIGNAGE.
IF THAT DOESN'T WORK, WE CAN PAUSE IT AND SEE IF THAT TAKES CARE OF IT.
>> I DON'T THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE DECIDED NOW.
SINCE IT'S MEDIAN RELATED, WE CAN ADDRESS IT AT ANY POINT IN TIME.
>> ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE FLAT OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE FLAT? [OVERLAPPING]
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WITH [INAUDIBLE] THAT THAT DON'T HAVE ANY OF OUR ORDINANCES OR STREET RULES THAT SAY THAT A STREET CAN BE OFF JUST A LITTLE BIT LIKE THAT. [BACKGROUND]
>> IT WAS IN OUR [INAUDIBLE] AS WELL, AND WE LOOKED AT THIS EARLY ON.
>> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT RUNNING UP OF THE ROADS WOULD HAVE BEEN A NICE THING TO HAVE FOR FUNCTIONALITY.
>> GARY, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WISH TO SAY OR ADD TO THIS?
>> I THINK WE'VE COVERED MOST OF IT.
THIS PLAN HAS BEEN GONE THROUGH ENGINEERING AND A LOT OF OTHER INFORMATION HAS BEEN EXCHANGED ON THIS AND IT LOOKS TO BE PUT TOGETHER PRETTY WELL.
[00:45:08]
>> COUNCILMEN, ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS? COLLEEN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> DO WE HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT THE NAME CHANGE? DOES THAT MATTER? WHEN WE MAKE A MOTION FOR THIS TO BE ACCEPTED THIS WAY?
>> THAT'S A CONDITION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I WOULD SAY THAT I'M COMING BACK FOR A FINAL PLAT AND I'LL SHOW YOU ALL AT THAT TIME.
YEAH. BUT THIS IS PRELIMINARY PLAT.
I'LL FINISH SUBDIVISION COME BACK FOR A FINAL AND THEN I'LL UNVEIL THE NAME.
>> AT FINAL PLAT, IF WE DON'T LIKE THE NAME CAN I? [LAUGHTER]
>> EVEN AFTER MR. MACHADO? [LAUGHTER]
>> COUNCILMEN, ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS PLAT? I'M LETTING YOU [INAUDIBLE].
I WOULD ASK IS THERE A MOTION?
>> I'M WILLING TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT I DON'T HAVE MY SCREEN BACK UP NOW TO WHERE I CAN READ OFF THE ORDINANCE NUMBER.
>> IS THERE AN ORDINANCE NUMBER JUST TO APPROVE THE PLAT? I'M NOT APPROVED [INAUDIBLE].
>> MAY I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE PLAT FOR WHAT HAS BEEN CALLED BUCKINGHAM ESTATES OR MCCRAE ESTATES WITH THE DESIGN AS PRESENTED.
WITH THE NAME TO BE FINALIZED AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO APPROVE THE PLAT WITH THE NAME TO BE DECIDED AT A FUTURE DATE OTHERWISE AS PRESENTED.
ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.
ALL THOSE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, FOUR, ZERO. THANK YOU.
[BACKGROUND] WE'RE HAVING TOO MUCH FUN OUT THERE.
[9. CONSIDERATION AND ANY ACTION ON COST ESTIMATE FOR THE FLOOR PLAN/LAYOUT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING CENTRAL PUMP STATION. ]
CONSIDERATION AND INTERACTION ON COST ESTIMATE FOR THE FOUR PLAN LAYOUT OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OF THE CENTRAL PUMP STATION.I BELIEVE GARY, THIS IS YOURS AND GOOD, USE THE MIC.
>> AT THE LAST MEETING I WAS ASKED TO GO BACK TO THE ARCHITECT AND TAKE ANOTHER SHOT AT COST REDUCTIONS.
THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING OVER THERE.
AND AFTER LOOKING AT IT, THERE'S JUST NOT MUCH ELSE WE CAN DO AS FAR AS COST REDUCTION WITHOUT GETTING INTO SOME RISKY TERRITORY OF REDUCING TO THE POINT WE HAVE TO INCREASE IT LATER.
WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. THERE IS A HEALTHY DESIGN CONTINGENCY IN THERE OF $315,000 THAT IF WE DON'T NEED THAT, THERE'S SAVINGS THERE.
THERE IS A SAVINGS OF PROBABLY ABOUT $100,000 ON THE SANITARY SEWAGE SEPTIC SYSTEM THAT WOULD NEED TO BE INSTALLED.
IT WOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE NEAR THAT TO INSTALL THAT.
THERE COULD BE SOME SUBSTANTIAL SAVINGS THERE, BUT I ALSO WANT TO BRING UP THAT WHAT IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS ESTIMATE IS ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL FEES, WHICH ARE GOING TO BE AROUND 9%, SO ABOUT $360,000.
>> AROUND 360 OR SO THOUSAND DOLLARS.
>> COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS AS TO MR. MACHADO? MR. BARRON?
>> IT'S REALLY JUST TO COMMENT.
NOT A QUESTION. I APPRECIATE YOU GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THAT.
I KNOW I'VE ASKED A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COST ON IT.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, YOU'VE DONE EVERYTHING YOU CAN DO AND I'M READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT. THANK YOU.
T 86, THE SECOND-FLOOR STORAGE SPACE ON THIS? WE COULD. WE DID NOT, THOUGH. WE DID NOT.
NO, WE DID NOT. WE DIDN'T DO MUCH FINISH OUT BECAUSE IT WOULD JUST BE OPEN FOR STORAGE.
IF WE CUT IT OUT OF THIS NOW AND TRY TO ADD IT LATER IT COSTS AS MUCH.
YEAH. I WOULD DEFINITELY LEAVE THE STORAGE.
[00:50:04]
THE MARGINAL DIFFERENCE IN COST IS GOING TO BE SMALL.MR. SAVAGE, HOW MUCH DO WE HAVE FACILITIES BUDGET THAT WE COULD SPEND ON THIS RIGHT NOW? WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY 2.3 OR A LITTLE OVER $2 MILLION IN THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND.
OF COURSE, WE STILL HAVE THE ELEVATED TANK THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH AS WELL.
BUT THAT 2 MILLION DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE $250 ENGINEERING FEE FOR THE ELEVATED SOURCE TANK.
SO WE DO HAVE THE FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR ENGINEERING.
AND THIS PROGRAM IS GOING TO BE FUNDED HALF FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND HALF FROM THE WATER FUND OR HOW'S THAT GOING TO? I DON'T THINK THAT'S REALLY BEEN DISCUSSED. OKAY.
WE UMBER OFF OF THE AGENDA ITEM.
THE AGENDA ITEM IS JUST A P FOR FOR G TO BRING US THE INFORMATION REGARDING COST. OKAY. GO AHEAD, GRANT.
OKAY. IT'S IT'S NOT AN ACTION ITEM.
WE'RE WELCOME TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION AND ASK FOR ALL THE INFORMATION, BUT NOT IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA TO APPROVE FUNDING.
I WASN'T TRYING TO APPROVE ANYTHING.
I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET THE INFORMATION TO START THINKING ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO FUND THIS, WHICH I THINK FITS IN WITH THE COST ESTIMATE. OKAY.
I THINK THERE'S A FEW OPTIONS.
OBVIOUSLY, MAYBE BONDS MIGHT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT ISSUING PARTIAL BOND AT CASH FUNDING PART OF IT.
FUND THREE HAS SOME EXCESS FUND BALANCE IN THERE THAT WE COULD USE.
IF WE WANT TO USE A FUND BALANCE FROM THE GENERAL FUND, THAT'D BE AVAILABLE AS WELL.
AS FAR AS EXACT NUMBERS, A LOT OF THIS CAN DEPEND ON HOW MUCH WE WANT TO SPEND ON THE ELEVATED STORAGE TANK IF WE WANT TO DO A BOND FOR THAT.
THERE'S A COUPLE ITEMS THERE THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT.
SO I GUESS WHAT I'M HEARING IS WE HAVE FUNDING OPTIONS TO MAKE THIS POSSIBLE? YES.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, OF COURSE, I THINK KAINE CAN PROBABLY LET US KNOW IF THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE GERMANE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE FUNDING ASPECT OF THIS, NO, IT REALLY HASN'T BEEN DISCUSSED IN A WHOLE LOT OF DETAIL, BUT I THINK YOU'LL PROBABLY ARE GETTING TO A POINT WHERE YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE OVERALL CONCEPT.
AND IF YOU WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH ENGINEERING, AND RELEASE THAT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY DO.
THEN JUST MAYBE TAPER THAT A BIT AND SAY, BRING BACK 30% OR 90% DESIGN SO THAT YOU CAN CONTINUE TO SEE HOW THAT'S PROGRESSING THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT COMMITTING YOURSELF TO THAT FINAL ACTION ITEM OF APPROVING THE TOTAL PROJECTS COST.
WALK IT OUT A LITTLE BIT AS YOU CONSIDER YOUR DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR YOUR OTHER PROJECTS AS WELL.
OKAY. AND WE ARE 210 ADAMS UPDATES.
[10. UPDATE(S)]
GARY, YOU WANT TO TELL US ABOUT 25 51? 25 51, ROCKING ALONG THE PAVING SOUTHBOUND LANES AS WE WILL NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT SHOULD HAVE THOSE PAVED PROBABLY BY THE END OF THE WEEK BACK ALL THE WAY TO PARKER ROAD.A QUESTIONS ABOUT 25 51 FROM ANYONE.
OKAY. NEXT, WE HAVE MR. PROGRAM.
JUST A QUICK UPDATE, OCTOBER 15 WAS THE DEADLINE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE CITY OF PARKER, MURPHY, AND THE INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS AND THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT APPEAL IN DISTRICT COURT IN AUSTIN.
OCTOBER 15 WAS THE DATE FOR THE PLAINTIFFS TO HAVE THEIR INITIAL BRIEF IN THE COURT.
THE INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS FILED TWO.
I FILED ONE AND ANOTHER GROUP CARLY MOBS FILED ONE.
THE CITY OF PARKER FILED ONE AND THE CITY OF MURPHY FILED ONE.
AND THEY WERE ALL I THINK VERY WELL WRITTEN BRIEFS.
I FEEL BETTER ACTUALLY ABOUT BEING ABLE TO
[00:55:02]
STOP THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT PROBABLY THAN I HAVE IN A LONG TIME.I THINK ALL OF THE ATTORNEYS TOGETHER MADE SOME REALLY GOOD POINTS, INCLUDING INCLUDING PARKER'S ATTORNEY.
THERE'S NOTHING NEW GOING ON WITH THE APPROVAL RIGHT NOW.
IT'S WE HAVEN'T SET A SCHEDULING ORDER YET.
THAT'S PROBABLY THE NEXT THING TO TAKE PLACE THERE.
THERE IS STILL TWO MOTIONS TO DISMISS THAT CASE PENDING, ONE WRITTEN BY PARKER AND ONE MOTION TO DISMISS THAT I FILED.
THE RESTORE THE GRASSLAND RESPONDED TO EACH OF THOSE TWO MOTIONS.
THE CITY OF PARKER DID NOT FILE A REPLY ON ITS PART.
AND I THINK CARLYN MOVIUS FILED ONE FOR THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL PROTESTANTS IN THE GROUP, AND WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE JUDGE TO MAKE A DECISION ON THAT. OKAY.
I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT LOIS LANE, BUT THAT'S DARRYL, AND HE IS NOT WITH US.
DO YOU HAVE ANY UPDATE ON LOUIS LINE? OKAY. UP.
AS I CAN SAY D IS A POINT PERSON ON WORKING WITH LEWIS LINE.
THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD, BUT IT'S STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS.
I TRUST DARRYL TO DO A GOOD JOB AND GET TO THE FINISH LINE.
I WISH HE WAS HERE TONIGHT TO UPDATE EVERYBODY, BUT THAT'S THE BEST I CAN DO.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO OKAY.
NEXT WOULD BE BUD ROAD WATER LINES.
SEGMENT TWO OF THE WATER LINES IS NEARING COMPLETION.
WE'VE GOT EVERYTHING PRESSURE TESTED AND BACTERIOLOGICAL TESTED.
SO WE SHOULD GIVE RESULTS BACK BY THE END OF THE WEEK ON THAT AND WE GET THAT TO PASS, AND WE'LL START OPEN UP SERVICES AND FISHING UP THAT.
I HAVE A QUESTION. THERE WAS SOME ADDITIONAL WORK HAPPENING AT THE NORTH END OF 3,100 DUBLIN.
WAS THAT RELATED TO THE WATER LINE OR IS THAT A DIFFERENT PROJECT? NO. THAT'S AT THE NORTH END YOUR ROOF? NO. I'M SORRY. NORTH END OF 3,100 DUBLIN.
THERE WAS THAT FIRE HYDRANT THAT WAS SPOUTING? NO. THEY WHAT ARE THEY DOING THERE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE TAKING OFF THE BLOW OFF DOWN THERE AND DOING SOME MINOR WORK THERE.
YEAH. IT'S RELATED TO THE WATER.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PSYCHO CLARIFICATION.
SO, THOSE OF US WHO USE THE WATER LINE THAT'S ALONG DEVLIN ROAD.
THE WATER THAT WE'RE USING NOW, IS IT THE WATER IN THE WATER LINE? WA WATER LINE HADN'T BEEN SHUT OFF YET. OKAY.
IT WILL BE AT SOME POINT IN THE NEAR FUTURE.
IT LOOKED LIKE WE HAD SOME CLOUDY WATER A LITTLE BIT THIS WEEK.
THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE LEAKS AND PROBLEMS THAT WE'VE HAD TO A LITTLE BIT LINE.
OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT MAKES IT LOOK CLOUDY.
OKAY. YEAH. WE TRY TO THAT ELEVATION CHANGES THERE? OKAY. AND WHEN YOU GET READY TO MAKE THE CHANGE OVER, WILL IT BE A WHOLESALE CHANGE OVER TO WHERE YOU COMPLETELY SHUT OFF EVERY BIT OF THE LINE AND GO COMPLETELY TO THE NEW LINE OR WILL THAT BE DONE IN PHASES? WE'RE GOING TO MOVE SERVICES BOTH LINES ARE GOING TO BE LIVE TO ALL THE SERVICES MOVE TO THE NEW LINE.
OKAY. THEN WILL KILL THE LINE.
OKAY. AND LAST QUESTION AND I'M JUST GETTING THESE QUESTIONS FROM NEIGHBORS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M PASSING THEM ON.
WHEN DO YOU EXPECT TO START PAVING? WE WANT TO BE 100% COMPLETE WITH THE WAR LINE.
IT'S IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GET INTO MID NOVEMBER BEFORE WE START.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S LOOKING LIKE TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU, SIR.
HAVE ANYBODY ELSE HAVE DATE ON ANY I WANT TO CHAT ABOUT? I DON'T KNOW IT IS AN UPDATE, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO THANK THE POLICE AND FIRE FOR THE NATIONAL NIGHT OUT THAT WENT AMAZINGLY WELL AND DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE COMMUNICATION AND JUST HOW MANY REVIEWS I GOT FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT I SPOKE TO.
[01:00:10]
V. EVERYBODY DOES REALIZE ON YOUR AGENDA IN BLUE, IT SAYS, MONTHLY QUARTERLY REPORTS.THOSE ARE HYPERLINKS. IF YOU HIT ON THEM, IT'LL TAKE YOU THERE FOR ANYBODY THAT IS CONFUSED ABOUT THAT.
[11. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801]) ]
ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE, FIRE CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD.CORE AND MAN DONATED FOUR CUPCAKES FROM SMALL COKE CUPCAKE AND CREEN VALUED A $20 TO CITY STAFF.
NEXT IS THE STEIN DONATED BEAR WITH ME.
SCOTT M FLORES, $50 CHECK, PILL AND JOAN DONET $50 CHECK, JOHNNY TURN $50 CHECK, CASH $25.
DATED A TOTAL OF $275 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
STATE AGAIN, A AND SCOTT FLORES, $50 CHECK.
PI AND JOANNE DONET $50 CHECK.
JOHNNY TURN TURN $50 CHECK, CASH $100.
DATED F HUNDRED AND $50 TO OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT.
WE ARE SO GRATEFUL AND APPRECIATE OUR DONORS AND YOU ARE SO GOOD TO US AND WITHOUT YOUR DONATIONS, WE COULDN'T DO A LOT OF THINGS.
WE JUST REALLY THANK EVERYBODY ON THAT. AWESOME JOB.
NEXT WE HAVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS.
[12. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ]
OKAY. DID YOU WISH TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? YOU MIGHT HAVE TO REMIND ME OF WHAT THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN, MAYOR.SORRY. ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? ABSOLUTELY.
FOR THOSE WHO DON'T KNOW, THIS IS KIT MATON.
HE IS OUR NEW CITY ADMINISTRATOR.
HE'S BEEN HERE SO OFTEN, I FEEL LIKE EVERYBODY HAS KNOWN HIM, BUT WE'RE WELCOMING YOU AND SO GLAD YOU WERE FINALLY HERE.
THANK YOU. VERY HAPPY TO BE HERE.
PLEASE FORGIVE ME AS I GET MY BEARING ABOUT ME.
OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE MR. BARRY.
CAN WE ADD THE NOISE WORKSHOP TO THE IT'S ALREADY ON THERE.
I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SPREADSHEET.
THE PROBLEM WITH SCHEDULING AS WORKSHOP IS A CROWD OF COUNCIL MEMBERS.
I HAVE TWO COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO WILL BE OUT OF TOWN UNTIL AFTER NOVEMBER, WHATEVER.
AND SO THEN WE HAVE SOMEONE ELSE'S GOING AWAY FOR A LITTLE WHILE.
SO I'M TRYING TO FIND A STAND ALONE D TO HOLD IT.
AND I COULD USE SOME HELP WITH THAT FOLKS.
IF YOU HAVE SOME SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT IT COULD BE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE'RE ALL HERE.
I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE IT WHEN WE'RE OUT OF TOWN OR IS NOT HERE.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ALL BE HERE.
SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT AT THE LAST TIME.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY AFTER YOU HAVE HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE AN EMERGENCY.
BUT YEAH. I WOULD LIKE IT TO BE BEFORE THANKSGIVING.
BUT IT'S WHEN CAN EVERYBODY BE HERE? THAT'S THE IMPORTANT F. BUT I WILL PUT IT ON AGAIN.
OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS ROCK AND GET ME SOMETHING BACK ON.
[EXECUTIVE SESSION START TO FINISH ]
CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL TO DELIBERATE THE APPOINTMENT, EMPLOYMENT, EVALUATION, REASSIGNMENT, DUTIES, DISCIPLINE, OR DISMISSAL OF A PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE.GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.0 711, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY CONCERNING PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION.
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551 0712, CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS SARAL RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT TO THE STATE BOARD OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER, OPEN IS ACT.
[01:05:04]
AT THIS TIME, IT IS E 05, WE ARE IN RECESS. OKAY.I HEREBY RECONVENE THE BANKRUPTCY COUNCIL MEETING
[RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.]
OCTOBER, 2025.WE ARE RECONVENED AFTER EXECUTIVE SESSION THAT COUNSEL, IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SUBJECTS LISTED ABOVE.
OKAY. IS THERE ANYTHING OR ANYTHING? JOINED IS.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.