[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:02]
          I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF PARKER, TEXAS TO ORDER. IT'S FEBRUARY 17, 2026 AT 5.45 P.M. 
          FIRST THING, I WILL ASK MS. HALL, DO I HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, YOU HAVE A SEAT AT THE DESK. 
          OKAY. THANK YOU. TONIGHT WE'RE 
          [WORKSHOP]
GOING INTO OUR WORKSHOP, WHICH IS ON DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. 
          WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS WHEN RANDY KARCHOW WAS ON COUNCIL, HE WAS NOT HAPPY WITH SOME OF THE REPORTS THAT WE GOT. 
          HE WANTED US TO LOOK AT THEM TO SEE IF THEY'RE CAPTURING THE INFORMATION WE NEED. IF NOT, WHAT INFORMATION SHOULD THEY BE CAPTURING? WHAT CAN WE DO IF WE WANT INFORMATION THAT IS NOT BEING PICKED UP BY THE COMPUTER? JUST BECAUSE IT'S ON MY TOP IS THE POLICE REPORT IS WHAT I HAVE AS THE FIRST ONE. 
          IT'S PRETTY DETAILED. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES OR ANYTHING THEY WANT TO TALK ABOUT ON THE POLICE REPORT? FIRST, DID MR. KARCHOW LEAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT HE WAS WANTING CHANGED? NOPE. 
          WE GOT NO BACKUP. I WASN'T SURE WHAT WE WERE REALLY DOING HERE. 
          I KNOW THAT HE HAD CONCERNS MORE ON THE CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW THINGS LIKE THE NUMBERS DIDN'T WORK. 
          IT WOULD SHOW 20 THINGS OPENED, 2 THINGS CLOSED, AND THEN YOU WOULD GO, WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OTHERS? YOU HAD NO IDEA. 
          IF YOU LOOK AT THE REPORT ON CODES IN HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S ADEQUATE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME. 
          WHAT INFORMATION CAN THE CODE ENFORCEMENT REPORT PICK UP? DO YOU HAVE AN IDEA ON WHAT THE COMPUTER PROGRAM WILL DO? NO, MADAM MAYOR. I'M NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH THE BACKGROUND AND WHAT INPUTS ARE DRIVING THOSE STATISTICS. 
          GARY'S NOT HERE YET. WE REALLY NEED GARY TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS ON WHAT THEY CAN DO. 
          DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE CONCERNS ON THE POLICE REPORT? BECAUSE TO ME IT JUST ISN'T SUFFICIENT. 
          I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE REALLY DIFFICULT FOR US TO HOLD THIS WORKSHOP TONIGHT. 
          NONE OF US GOT ANY OF THE DOCUMENTS TO REVIEW AT ANY TIME AS PART OF A PACKET OR ANY SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS TONIGHT. 
          I THINK MAYBE WE ALL WOULD HAVE SOME INPUT TO GIVE ON SOME OF THE VARIOUS REPORTS IF WE HAD THEM AT A MINIMUM UP ON THE SCREEN IN FRONT OF US SO THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT THEM MAYBE LIVE, BUT I WOULD ACTUALLY PREFER TO HAVE THEM HAVE THEM AS PART OF A PACKET. 
          THE LINK WAS IN THE PACKET, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. 
          BECAUSE IT'S LIKE WHEN I PRINTED THIS OUT, I CAN'T READ THAT. I HAD TO GET A MAGNIFYING GLASS TO READ IT. 
          MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO BRING UP ANY SPECIFIC REPORT ON THE BIG SCREEN? I CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. 
          WOULD THAT HELP? WHERE'S THIS LINK ON THE AGENDA IF YOU GO DOWN? IF YOU GO DOWN TO THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CLICK THE HYPERLINK AND IT WILL BRING UP A SEPARATE WINDOW FOR SPECIFIC REPORTS. 
          IT WILL ACTUALLY BE IN THE TOP PART WHERE THE AGENDA IS LISTED. 
          WHERE'S THE BOTTOM OF THE LAST ONE? IT'S IN THE NUMBER 11. 
          THESE ARE ALL LINKS. 
          OKAY, ALL RIGHT. FAIR ENOUGH. 
          WE REALLY NEED OUR DEPARTMENTAL PEOPLE HERE TO EXPLAIN TO US 
          [00:05:04]
ABOUT THEIR REPORTS AND WHAT THEIR... 
          WERE THEY NOT INFORMED THAT THIS WAS ON THE AGENDA? THEY WERE. 
          OKAY, THAT'S THE... IS THAT CODE ENFORCEMENT? YES, MADAM MAYOR. THIS IS THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORT FOR BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND CODE ENFORCEMENT. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          SO, KENNETH, ONE OF MY CONCERNS IS HOW MUCH TIME ARE WE SPENDING GENERATING THESE REPORTS? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO BE A TIME-CONSUMING BURDEN ON STAFF SINCE WE'RE ALREADY SHORT-STAFFED AS IT IS. 
          SO, UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE THE AGGREGATE TOTAL OF HOURS THAT ARE BEING SPENT ON A MONTHLY BASIS, QUARTERLY BASIS, TO PREPARE THESE REPORTS. 
          I KNOW GRANT IS SITTING HERE. 
          HE CAN MAYBE SPEAK A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICALLY TO THE FINANCE REPORT AND INVESTMENT QUARTERLY REPORT. 
          I'M NOT LOOKING FOR HARD NUMBERS. 
          I'D LIKE THE DEPARTMENT HEADS JUST TO SAY, OH, YEAH, IT'S NO BIG DEAL. 
          OR, HEY, I HAVE TO SPEND FIVE HOURS GENERATING THESE REPORTS. 
          THEY SHOULD BE JUST PRESSING A BUTTON IN THE COMPUTER DOING IT, BUT... 
          AS FAR AS THE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT, OBVIOUSLY, WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS TO PREPARE THAT AND HAVE THAT AVAILABLE. 
          AND THAT ONE NORMALLY TAKES, USUALLY, PROBABLY AT LEAST A DAY TO GENERATE THAT REPORT. 
          BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE HAVE THE OPTION TO NOT DO. 
          I MEAN, IT'S A REQUIREMENT TO DO IT. 
          AS FAR AS THE MONTHLY FINANCIALS, THE MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT, IT MIGHT TAKE A COUPLE HOURS TO PUT IT TOGETHER ONCE I GET ALL THE ENTRIES, THE MONTH END CLOSE AND STUFF. 
          BUT IT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE REPORT TO PUT TOGETHER. 
          AS FAR AS THAT... 
          OH, SORRY. 
          NO, GO AHEAD. KEEP GOING. 
          AS FAR AS THE OTHER... 
          I'M NOT REAL FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE REPORTS, BUT I KNOW THAT THAT'S A REPORT THAT'S GENERATED OUT OF INTERGOV, THE SOFTWARE. 
          AND SO IF YOU'RE RUNNING A LOT OF CHANGES, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH YOU CAN MAKE CHANGES WITHOUT GETTING THE DEVELOPER INVOLVED TO CUSTOMIZE THOSE REPORTS. 
          THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE PUT TOGETHER, AND I KNOW THAT, I THINK, ANNA RUNS THAT JUST ONCE A MONTH AND RUNS THAT REPORT TO PUT IN THE AGENDA. 
          THAT'S FROM INTERGOV. 
          YEAH. 
          THE CODE ONE IS SEPARATE. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          IT IS FROM WESTWOOD. 
          OH, OKAY. 
          SO, YEAH, THE PERMIT ONE THEN WOULD BE RAN OUT OF INTERGOV. 
          MADAM MAYOR? YES. 
          WHO IS THE TARGET AUDIENCE FOR THESE REPORTS? IS IT COUNCIL? OBVIOUSLY, YOURS ARE REQUIRED BY STATE. 
          SO DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE SOME OF THESE? OR IF WE'RE NOT THE INTENDED AUDIENCE, THEN IS IT WORTH CHANGING EVERYTHING? GO AHEAD. 
          OH, I THOUGHT YOU WOULD GET MY SESSION. 
          THE TARGET AUDIENCE, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, IS ONE IS FOR COUNCIL, SO COUNCIL CAN SEE WHAT EACH DEPARTMENT IS OR IS NOT DOING. 
          BUT I THINK CITIZENS ALSO LOOK AT THEM, AND PROBABLY MORE THE FINANCIAL REPORTS THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS. 
          CAN YOU PULL UP THAT SLIDE YOU HAD EARLIER ON WHICH ONES WERE MONTHLY AND WHICH ONES WERE QUARTERLY? OKAY, I'M GOING TO SAY THIS. 
          PERSONALLY, LIKE COURT, BUILDING PERMITS, SOLID WASTE, AS A COUNCIL PERSON, I HAVE NO REASON TO REALLY CARE ABOUT THOSE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. 
          MAYBE WE CAN MOVE THOSE TO QUARTERLY EVEN. 
          BECAUSE THE ONLY THING, PERSONALLY, I WOULD BE LOOKING THERE, ESPECIALLY ON THE PERMIT SIDE, IS ARE WE FALLING BEHIND? IS THE MAJOR QUESTION I WOULD BE LOOKING AT. 
          OR HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO GET A PERMIT ISSUED? BUT SOLID WASTE, IT ONLY MATTERS WHEN WE'RE REALLY RENEGOTIATING THE CONTRACT. 
          I THINK IN COURT, I'M GOING TO ADMIT THIS, I PERSONALLY DON'T REALLY HAVE ANYTHING TO LOOK AT THERE. 
          I GUESS, FOR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, IS ARE THERE PROBLEMS? ARE WE FALLING BEHIND? ARE THERE OTHER ISSUES? I FEEL LIKE THAT'S THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR'S JOB TO MANAGE THAT AND THEN ELEVATE ANYTHING THAT IS EGREGIOUS TO COUNCIL. 
          [00:10:04]
I THINK THE BUILDING REPORT IS EXCELLENT BECAUSE IT GIVES US A LOT OF INFORMATION. 
          AND IT GIVES US THE TIME SO YOU CAN LOOK AND SEE WHEN A PERMIT WAS ASKED FOR, WHEN IT WAS ISSUED, THE COST. 
          ALL THAT'S ON HERE. 
          I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT. 
          I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD DO A BETTER JOB ON IT UNLESS THERE'S SOME OTHER CATEGORY WE'RE NOT CAPTURING THAT WE COULD. 
          DID Y'ALL HAVE A CHANCE TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING REPORT? OKAY. 
          IF NOT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SHARE MINE. 
          I'LL SAY THIS. 
          PERSONALLY, THE ONES I GET ASKED QUESTIONS ABOUT ARE FINANCE, POLICE, AND THEN TO A LESSER EXTENT, FIRE. 
          I PERSONALLY, FOR THOSE DAYS, WHEN THEY COME UP, I JUST DO A QUICK GLANCE OVER. 
          THERE ARE A COUPLE QUESTIONS THAT I'VE HAD AND I CAN EASILY GET TO CITY STAFF WHEN I NEED TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. 
          I THINK IF THEY'RE EASY TO GENERATE OR COMPUTER GENERATED, IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT OF TIME. 
          I THINK THEY'RE VERY VALUABLE. 
          IT'S DATA COLLECTION. 
          WE'LL HAVE THAT DATA WHEN WE NEED TO GO BACK AND MAKE DECISIONS ON CERTAIN THINGS REGARDING THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, REGARDING THE NOISE ORDINANCE. 
          I MEAN, THERE'S LOTS OF DIFFERENT REASONS. 
          BUT I THINK THEY'RE VERY WORTHWHILE TO KEEP. 
          I LIKE THEM THERE. 
          WE CAN CHECK IF WE NEED THEM. 
          BUT IT IS DATA COLLECTION AND THAT'S REALLY HOW I SEE THAT. 
          AND IT'S FOR WHEN WE NEED IT. 
          SO I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT I NEED CHANGED AT THIS TIME. 
          IF I NEEDED SOMETHING, I WOULD ASK. 
          I WOULD SAY I DON'T DISAGREE ABOUT THE DATA COLLECTION. 
          I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO BE DRIVING WHAT THEY'RE DOING. 
          WOULD YOU RATHER THEY ALL BE QUARTERLY AS OPPOSED TO MONTHLY OR DO YOU HAVE A PREFERENCE ON THAT OR DO YOU CARE? I SUPPOSE THE PREFERENCE IS QUARTERLY FOR ALL OF THEM. 
          BUT I'VE HAD DIFFERENT STATEMENTS MADE. 
          SORRY. 
          ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REPORT, IT'S ALL OUTBOUND ACTION. 
          GIVEN THE RELATIVE URGENCY AND IMPORTANCE OF RECRUITING AND I DON'T WANT TO COLLECTIVELY CALL THEM HR-BASED ACTIONS, IS THERE A WAY TO ROLL UP THAT DATA, RECRUITING INTERVIEWS, IMPACT OF ADVERTISED POSITION, ANYTHING LIKE THAT AS A PART OF THE REPORT? THE REPORT THAT I PRESENT IS WHAT WE PRESENT FOR NIBRS. 
          IT'S A MONTHLY REPORT. 
          WE HAVE TO GATHER EVERYTHING ELSE UP. 
          SO IF WE DO A YEARLY REPORT, WE DO A YEARLY. 
          BUT I CAN INCLUDE THAT AS A SECONDARY OF THAT PROGRAM. 
          I THINK IT WOULD HELP COUNSEL IF WE HAVE A GENERAL UNDERSTANDING OF STEADY STATE AND NON-STEADY STATE SITUATIONS OF RECRUITING. 
          IDEALLY, IF YOU GO BACK TO WHAT HAPPENED IN DECEMBER, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD ADDRESS BEFOREHAND. 
          I THINK THAT GIVES US MORE OF AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. 
          I WOULDN'T CHANGE THE FREQUENCY OF THE REPORTS BECAUSE I THINK ALL THE DATA IS STILL GOING TO HAVE TO BE GENERATED ANYWAY, WHETHER IT'S PRINTED AND PRODUCED QUARTERLY OR MONTHLY ANYWAY. 
          SO I WOULD KEEP THEM AS MONTHLY REPORTS BECAUSE I THINK MAYBE THE OPERATING MANAGERS, IN PARTICULAR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR, IS THE ONE WHO REALLY NEEDS THOSE ON A MONTHLY BASIS. 
          I LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL REPORTS ON A MONTHLY BASIS. 
          I LOOK AT THE QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT OBVIOUSLY BECAUSE MY RESPONSIBILITY IS THERE. 
          I DON'T OFTEN LOOK AT THE OTHERS, BUT I KNOW THAT THEY'RE THERE IF I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT A PARTICULAR PERMIT. 
          THE OTHER THING THAT I REMEMBER ABOUT THE CODE REPORT IS IT SEEMS THAT IT GIVES THE INFORMATION ABOUT HOW MANY CODE VIOLATIONS THERE WERE AND HOW MANY WERE RESOLVED. 
          BUT MAYBE THE PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT WAS MISSING WAS WHAT'S THE DURATION OF THE CODE VIOLATIONS BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW. 
          JUST BECAUSE THERE WERE 15 THAT CAME UP AND 7 THAT WERE RESOLVED DOESN'T MEAN THE 7 THAT WERE RESOLVED WERE THE ONES THAT CAME UP ON THAT SAME REPORT. 
          THERE MAY BE 7 OTHERS. 
          THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT, YES. 
          LET ME ASK YOU, KENT. 
          WOULD YOU PREFER TO HAVE THE REPORTS MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY? OR SHOULD YOU BE THE ONE BASICALLY REVIEWING THEM? 
          [00:15:04]
YES, MAYOR, COUNCIL, I'M REVIEWING THESE REPORTS ON A REGULAR BASIS. 
          I DO LIKE THE CONVENIENCE THAT THEY'RE IN THE PACKET SO A LOT OF THE REPORTS THAT I'M NOT DIGGING INTO MYSELF LIKE SOME MORE DETAILED INFORMATION ON THE FINANCES. 
          THIS IS HELPFUL. 
          I THINK THE CODE REPORT CAN CERTAINLY USE SOME IMPROVEMENT. 
          SO IF YOU LIKE, I CAN GO OUT AND LOOK FOR SOME EXAMPLES OF REPORTS WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO USE GOING FORWARD AND GET WITH GARY AND WESLEY AND SEE HOW WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO ADJUST SOME OF OUR METRIC INTAKE TO SUPPORT THOSE CHANGES TO THE REPORT. 
          WE CAN THROW SOMETHING OUT TO YOU, SEE IF YOU LIKE THE CHANGES AND IF YOU WANT TO ADJUST FURTHER, WE CAN GO FROM THERE. 
          OKAY. DOES THAT SOUND FAIR? OKAY. 
          ONE QUESTION I HAVE, AND THIS MIGHT BE JUST ME, BUT IT DRIVES ME CRAZY. 
          WHEN WE INDICATE THAT YOU HAVE MEMORY WARRANTS ISSUED, YOU CODE 5 AND YOU GO FROM 873 TO 872. 
          I ADMIT MY MATH ISN'T THAT GOOD, BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. 
          AND THEN HOW OLD ARE THESE WARRANTS? ARE WE KEEPING WARRANTS FOR 100 YEARS? IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, BY LAW YOU HAVE TO KEEP THEM SO LONG AFTER THAT YOU CAN DISMISS IF YOU WANT. 
          AND I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THAT. 
          KENNY, CAN YOU? THOSE ARE KEPT BY WARREN. 
          THEY'RE APPROVED AFTER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR CLASSIC OFFENSE. 
          THE COURTS USUALLY, EVERY MONTH, SHOULD GIVE THE JUDGE A STACK OF WARRANTS TO REVIEW AND DISMISS THOSE THAT ARE NOT THERE. 
          SO THE NUMBER OF WARRANTS THAT SHE HAS, I HAVE NO IDEA. 
          OKAY. 
          LIKE I SAID, I JUST HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE WITH THE NUMBERS SOMETIMES ON THAT ONE. 
          IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH LAURIE TOMORROW. 
          IF YOU'D LIKE, I CAN FOLLOW UP WITH LAURIE TOMORROW AND SEE IF I CAN GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. 
          DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S A WHOLE LOT ON THE DEPARTMENTAL REPORTS. 
          MADAM MAYOR? YES. 
          I GUESS THIS IS STAYING ON NOW. 
          OKAY, I FORGOT ABOUT THAT. 
          WE DON'T HAVE TO TOUCH ON THAT ANYMORE. 
          I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, FOR INFORMATION FOR US AS COUNCIL MEMBERS, HAS BEEN THE REPORT THAT KENT DOES FOR US EACH WEEK. 
          HIS UPDATE OF THE THINGS THAT ARE GOING ON IN THE CITY AND WHAT HE'S BEEN WORKING ON FOR THE WEEK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT INFORMATION THAT WE GET. 
          YES, AND I DO WANT TO COMPLIMENT HIM ON THAT BECAUSE HE DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB ON THAT. 
          AND SOMETIMES HE DOES TWO OR THREE REPORTS IN A WEEK. 
          HE DOES EXCELLENT WITH KEEPING US INFORMED ON WHAT'S GOING ON. 
          AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE STAFF REALLY APPRECIATES IT, TOO, BECAUSE HE DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB AS WELL. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? 
          [ADJOURN]
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, THEN I WILL ADJOURN THE WORKSHOP AT THIS TIME. 
          IT IS 6.04. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY, WE ARE ADJOURNED UNTIL 7 O'CLOCK FOR COUNCIL MEETING. 
          [CALL TO ORDER]
I HEREBY CALL THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF PARKER, TEXAS, TO ORDER. 
          IT IS FEBRUARY 17, 2026 AT 7 P.M. 
          AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MS. HULL, DO WE HAVE A QUORUM? YES, MADAM MAYOR, WE HAVE A SUPER QUORUM. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          AT THIS TIME, I WILL ASK MATT WARE IF HE WOULD LEAD US IN THE AMERICAN PLEDGE, AND SEAN TERRY IF HE WILL LEAD US IN THE TEXAS PLEDGE. 
          I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          [PUBLIC COMMENTS]
          [00:20:06]
NEXT WE WILL GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT, AND I HAVE ONE PUBLIC COMMENT CARD FOR CAROLYN MOBIUS. 
          COME ON UP MRS. MOBIUS. 
          MY NAME IS CAROLYN MOEBIUS, I LIVE AT 1412 PARKVIEW LANE IN MURPHY, TEXAS. 
          I RESPECTFULLY URGE CAUTION BEFORE ANY DISCUSSION ADVANCING THE RTG DEVELOPMENT BEFORE KEY ISSUES ARE RESOLVED. 
          FIRST, HAVE LINES WITH DRAIN FROM THE CITY OF PARKWAY'S DTJ. 
          THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT STRATEGIC DECISION. 
          IF THE PROJECT IS NOW BEING POSITIONED DIFFERENTLY BETWEEN THE CITY, THE COUNTY, AND THE COUNTY PARKERS SHOULD CAREFULLY EVALUATE WHETHER IT IS BEING PLACED IN A REACTIVE POSTURE. 
          BEFORE CONSIDERING A SETTLEMENT, THE CITY MUST CLEARLY UNDERSTAND WHAT PLAN IS ACTUALLY BEING PURSUED IN EACH VENUE AND WHETHER THOSE PLANS ARE CONSISTENT. 
          SECOND, WHILE THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR NEARLY FIVE YEARS, SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL ARE NEW AND WERE NOT PART OF THE EARLIER LEGAL DISPUTES, ENGINEERING OBJECTIONS, AND PUBLIC SAFETY DISCUSSIONS. 
          IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE HISTORY, THE LITIGATION POSTURE, THE TECHNICAL CONCERNS, AND THE LONG-TERM IMPLICATIONS BEFORE MAKING DECISIONS THAT COULD PERMANENTLY AFFECT THE CITY. 
          THE FIRE MARSHAL, COUNTY FIRE MARSHAL, HAS STATED THAT DENSITY ALONE IS NOT A LIMITING FACTOR, BUT THAT CODE-RELATED FEATURES MAY BE REQUIRED DEPENDING ON THE SCENARIO. 
          AT THE SAME TIME, THE COUNTY ENGINEER CONFIRMED AS OF FEBRUARY 13TH THAT THE FLOOD STUDY REMAINS UNDER REVIEW AND IS NOT APPROVED. 
          ACCESS REMAINS CONDITIONAL. 
          IN ADDITION, THE CITY OF PARKWAY IS CURRENTLY INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE ACTIVE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. 
          THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IN DISTRICT COURT, THE MUDD CONTESTED CASE HEARING THAT STARTS IN SEPTEMBER, THE GREGORY LANE JURY TRIAL, THE LAWSUIT CHALLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SENATE BILL 2038, THE ETJ OPT-OUT LAW. 
          EACH OF THESE CASES CAN MATERIALLY AFFECT ACCESS, JURISDICTION AUTHORITY, INFRASTRUCTURE OBLIGATIONS, AND LONG-TERM PLANNING AUTHORITY. 
          IF PARKER SELLS BEFORE ANSWERS IN ANY OF THESE CASES, THE CITY RISKS ALTERING THE TRAJECTORY OF ITS FUTURE WITHOUT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE LEGAL LANDSCAPE. 
          THIS IS NOT SIMPLY ABOUT ONE DEVELOPMENT. 
          IT'S ABOUT THE LONG-TERM CHARACTER, INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY, GOVERNANCE AUTHORITY, AND DEVELOPMENT PRECEDENT OF A CITY. 
          BEFORE ENTERING INTO ANY SETTLEMENT, COUNSEL SHOULD ASK, ARE THE TERMS ENFORCEABLE IF FUTURE LEGAL RULINGS CHANGE THE JURISDICTIONAL LANDSCAPE? ARE SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE IF DEVELOPMENT PLANS EVOLVE AGAIN? DOES THE CITY RETAIN CONTROL OR DOES IT RELINQUISH LEVERAGE PREMATURELY? BEFORE ANY URGENCY TO SETTLE IS ENTERTAINED, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COUNCIL REQUIRE A FULLY RECONCILED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENT ACROSS CITY, COUNTY, AND TCHE FILINGS, VERIFIED CODE-COMPLIANT EMERGENCY ACCESS, NOT DEPENDENT ON LITIGATION OUTCOMES, AN APPROVED WEB STUDY THAT DOCUMENTED DOWNSTREAM IMPACT MITIGATION, A COMPLETE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS TIED TO FINALIZED ACCESS GEOMETRY, A CLEAR EXPLANATION OF HOW EACH PENDING LAWSUIT COULD AFFECT THE PROJECT'S VIABILITY, OR THE CITY'S AUTHORITY. 
          THIS DECISION DESERVES FULL UNDERSTANDING, TRANSPARENCY, AND PATIENCE, NOT URGENCY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          I HAVE TO TALK FASTER THAN THIS. 
          OKAY, THAT'S THE ONLY PUBLIC 
          [ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST]
COMMENT CARD I HAVE, SO WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS, I'D LIKE TO NOTE THAT BECAUSE OF THE ELECTION, WE WILL NOT HAVE A MEETING ON MARCH 3RD BECAUSE THEY'LL BE USING OUR ROOM, AND WE HAVE MOVED THAT MEETING TO MARCH 10TH. 
          OKAY, SO JUST CANCEL MARCH? GO AHEAD. 
          MADAM MAYOR, AT ONE TIME I THOUGHT I SAW ON THE CALENDAR THAT IT WAS RESCHEDULED FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 4TH. 
          WAS THAT CHANGED? THAT DID CHANGE, YES IT DID. 
          SO WE'RE GOING TO MARCH 10TH. 
          OKAY. 
          THE NATIONAL PRESCRIPTION DRUG TAKE BACK DAY, THE NEXT ONE IS SATURDAY, APRIL 25TH 
          [00:25:02]
FROM 10 TO 2. 
          IS THAT RIGHT, CHIEF? CORRECT. 
          OKAY. 
          THE LAST DAY TO REGISTER TO VOTE IN THE MAY 2ND ELECTION IS APRIL 2ND. 
          IF YOU'RE NOT REGISTERED, PLEASE GET REGISTERED TO VOTE. 
          IF YOU ARE REGISTERED, THANK YOU. 
          MAKE SURE YOU'RE REGISTERED IN THE CITY OF PARKER TO VOTE IN THE CITY OF PARKER. 
          AND THE STATE PRIMARIES, AS YOU KNOW, IS GOING ON NOW AND WILL BE GOING ON THROUGH EARLY VOTING THROUGH FEBRUARY 27TH AND THE ELECTION DAY IS MARCH 3RD FOR PARKER'S MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS. 
          THE EARLY VOTING WILL START APRIL 20TH AND GO THROUGH APRIL 28TH AND THEN ELECTION DAY IS MAY 2ND. 
          OKAY. 
          THAT'S ALL THE PUBLIC COMMENTS 
          [CONSENT AGENDA]
I HAVE TODAY. 
          SO WE'LL NOW GO TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THERE ARE TWO ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. 
          THE FIRST ITEM IS CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-084 AUTHORIZING AN AGREEMENT FOR EML'S MEDICAL DIRECTOR. 
          THE SECOND ITEM ON THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-085 AUTHORIZING CONTINUED PARTICIPATION WITH THE STEERING COMMITTEE OF THE CITY SERVED BY ENCORE AND AUTHORIZING THE PAYMENT OF 10 CENTS PER CAPITA TO THE STEERING COMMITTEE TO FUND REGULATORY AND LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND ACTIVITIES RELATED TO ENCORE ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC. 
          AT THIS TIME I WILL ASK, DOES ANYONE ON COUNCIL WISH TO HAVE EITHER ONE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? MS. BALDWIN. 
          NO, BUT I'D LIKE TO NOTE ABOUT THE DATE AND THE AGREEMENT WITH THE MEDICAL DIRECTOR THAT THE DATE HAS CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL POSTING, BUT IT HAS BEEN UPDATED AND HAS BEEN POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AND HAS BEEN THERE FOR SEVERAL DAYS. 
          SO I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT, BUT I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS WRITTEN. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER BALDWIN AND A SECOND FROM MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM TO ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA AS NOTED. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANYONE OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          [5. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ESTATES AT SOUTHFORK RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAT.]
OKAY. 
          NEXT WE WILL GO TO INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS. FIRST UP IS ITEM NUMBER FIVE, CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ESTATE AT SOUTH PARK RANCH PRELIMINARY PLATTE. 
          MR. MARTIN, DO YOU WANT TO INTRODUCE THIS? ABSOLUTELY. 
          THANK YOU, MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY, AND WE'VE GOT THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE FROM THE ESTATES AT SOUTH PARK RANCH. 
          SO JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW, THIS IS TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION ON THE ESTATES AT SOUTH PARK RANCH PRELIMINARY PLATTE. 
          DESCRIPTION OF THIS, WE'VE GOT 23 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON GREATER THAN TWO ACRE ESTATE LOTS ON TRACK TWO. 
          THAT'S ABOUT 54 ACRES OR SO ON THE WEST SIDE OF HOAG ROAD. 
          AND THEN WE'VE GOT 63 SINGLE FAMILY HOME SITES, MOSTLY GREATER THAN TWO ACRE ESTATE LOTS LOCATED ON TRACK NUMBER ONE. 
          AND THAT'S THE 151, GIVE OR TAKE, ACRE PROPERTY THAT'S JUST SOUTH OF THE HISTORICAL SOUTH FORK MANSION, SO TO SPEAK. 
          THIS WAS SUBMITTED FOR A NEW SUBDIVISION. 
          WE'VE GOT A TOTAL OF 86 HOME SITES. 
          THIS GENERALLY CONFORMS WITH THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, RISK AND VARIANCE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AS WELL AS THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING PLAN AND MAP OF THE CITY OF PARKER. 
          SO A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THE SUBMISSION. 
          THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT'S BEEN IN CONCEPT REVIEW FOR NEARLY TWO YEARS. 
          THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH CITY STAFF TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR RULES AND REGULATIONS. 
          I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH. 
          AND OF COURSE, THE DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM SLOWED SOME OF THEIR PROGRESS. 
          SO THEY'VE BEEN WAITING A LONG TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT. 
          SO JUST SORT OF SOME BACKGROUND. 
          CONDITIONAL APPROVAL WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THEIR JANUARY 8, 2026 MEETING. 
          HOWEVER, SEVERAL REQUESTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO MODIFY THE LAYOUT SINCE THEN. 
          THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINT THAT HAS BEEN ADDED TO HOAG ROAD. 
          [00:30:01]
AND THAT IS DUE TO INCREASE MOBILITY WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION AND INCREASE PUBLIC SAFETY ACCESS. 
          SO HERE'S A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF THE CONCEPTUAL MAP FOR THE ESTATES AT SOUTH FORK RANCH. 
          AND THEY'VE GOT A MARKUP ON THE BACK WALL AS WELL, IF ANYBODY WANTS TO TAKE A BETTER LOOK AT THAT. 
          HERE'S A VICINITY MAP. 
          DOESN'T DO A WHOLE LOT OF JUSTICE ON THERE, BUT LETS YOU KNOW THE GENERAL AREA THIS IS LOCATED IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR. 
          SO I WAS JUST GOING TO HIT ON A COUPLE ADDITIONAL ITEMS HERE. 
          AND THEN IF WE DON'T MIND BRINGING UP OUR CITY ENGINEER TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT MORE. 
          BUT I WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL VARIANCES HERE DUE TO THE NEW ACCESS POINT OFF OF HOAG. 
          FIRST AND FOREMOST, THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME LOTS WITH LESS THAN TWO ACRES. 
          I DON'T REMEMBER THE TOTAL ON THAT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I THINK THE DEVELOPER CAN SPEAK TO THAT. 
          THERE WILL ALSO BE SOME LOTS WITH FRONTAGE LESS THAN 200. 
          AND THERE ARE ALSO SEVERAL LOTS THAT WERE ADJUSTED ON THE SETBACKS SO THAT THE GENERAL CONFORMITY OF THE HOUSES ARE ALL CONSISTENT, I.E. THE FRONT FACADE OF THE BUILDING KIND OF GOES IN LINE AND IS A LITTLE BIT MORE OFFSET. 
          SOME OF THE SETBACKS THAT WE HAD, IF YOU FOLLOWED THOSE TO A T, WE'RE PUSHING THE ACTUAL HOME SITE FURTHER BACK ONTO THE PROPERTY. 
          SO WE MET WITH THE DEVELOPER AND WE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS. 
          AT THIS POINT, WE FEEL CONFIDENT IN MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL FOR CONDITIONAL APPROVAL. 
          WHILE WE'D LIKE TO BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ALONG ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS, WE FEEL CONFIDENT THAT MOST OF THEM CAN BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE FINAL PLAT BEING SUBMITTED. 
          SO I WILL ALSO JUST NOTE THAT BY GRANTING THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL, THE DEVELOPER WOULD BE ABLE TO PROCEED WITH CONSTRUCTION AND DURING THAT TIME, WE WOULD WORK WITH THEM TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH THE DRAINAGE AND WITH THE ESCROW BEING SOME OF THE PRIMARY CONCERNS. 
          CRAIG, DID YOU WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT YOUR ENGINEERING COMMENTS? ONE SECOND. 
          DID ALL COUNCIL GET THE NEW LETTER FROM... 
          YES. 
          YES. 
          THERE'S ONLY FOUR COPIES HERE. 
          I'VE GOT ONE. 
          IS THERE ANYTHING NEWER THAN THIS? IS THERE ANOTHER ONE COMING? I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT YOUR LETTERS. 
          YOU GOT THEM. 
          YOU GOT THEM. 
          OKAY. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR SEEING ME AGAIN. 
          CRAIG KIRKHOFF, BURKHOFF, PHOENIX AND CARTER, CONSULTING ENGINEERS, 11910 GREENVILLE AVENUE, SUITE 600 IN DALLAS, TEXAS. 
          AS MR. MANN WENT OVER, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH WITH THE SPELL FOR QUITE SOME TIME FOR VARIOUS REASONS AND WORKED THROUGH A VARIETY OF ISSUES. 
          THEY'VE GONE THROUGH THE DRAINAGE. 
          THEY'VE DONE A FLOOD STUDY. 
          SO WE'VE APPROVED THE DRAINAGE AS A WHOLE WITH THIS RECENT ACCESS ROAD THAT WAS REQUESTED SINCE P&Z. 
          THEY'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF GRADING TO DO, REVISIONS, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WILL AFFECT THE OVERALL DRAINAGE PLAN. 
          WE'VE GONE THROUGH EVERY WHICH WAY OF THAT. 
          SO IT'S MORE MINOR LOT GRADING AND WHATNOT. 
          SO I DON'T HAVE MAJOR DRAINAGE CONCERNS REGARDING THE REVISED PLANS WITH THAT ACCESS POINT. 
          THEY DID SHOW ON THE REVISED PLAN WHERE THEIR NEW DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT IS. 
          THERE'S AN EXISTING MEDIAN CUT ALONG FM 2551 THERE. 
          SO THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO UTILIZE THAT AS PART OF A TURNING MOVEMENT AND NOW A SUBDIVISION, NOT CREATING SAFETY HAZARDS. 
          OTHER THAN THAT, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH THE ENGINEERING REVIEW FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND THEY'VE ADDRESSED OUR COMMENTS PREVIOUS TO THESE LAST FEW REVISIONS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY. 
          SO THEY'RE MINOR IN MY CONSIDERATION AT THIS POINT. 
          COUNCIL, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MR. KIRCHHOFF? ENGINEERS, DID I HAVE TO LEAN WAY OVER THE DAIS HERE? SO A CITIZEN COMMENT THAT WAS EMAILED TO COUNCIL YESTERDAY WAS ABOUT THE REMOVAL OF A BERM ON THE EAST SIDE. 
          AND I GUESS THERE'S A HISTORY THERE IN TERMS OF BOTH THE BERM, THE REMOVAL, THE CREEK FILL-IN. 
          LET ME TALK ABOUT THIS BECAUSE THIS IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND I PERSONALLY KNOW AND HAVE SPOKE WITH THE CITIZEN WHO SENT US THAT COMMENT. 
          CAN YOU PULL THE MAP BACK UP? THE PREVIOUS MAP? SO THAT DARK GREEN AREA ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS A DETENTION POND OR RETENTION POND. 
          IF YOU GO UP NORTH FROM THERE TOO, YOU SEE THE HOUSES ON THE RIGHT WHICH IS BROOKS 
          [00:35:01]
FARM. 
          THERE ARE I BELIEVE FOUR HOUSES IN BROOKS FARM THAT ABUT THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT. 
          AND PRIOR TO, I WANT TO SAY 2018, 2019-ISH, A LOT OF WATER CAME OFF OF THE FARM THAT'S NORTH OF SOUTH FORK AS WELL AS THE SOUTH FORK PROPERTY ITSELF INTO THAT PART OF BROOKS FARM. 
          AND WHAT WAS DONE WAS BROOKS FARM AND ONE CITIZEN IN PARTICULAR FUNDED TO HAVE SOMEBODY BUILD A GIANT BERM ON SOUTH FORK'S PROPERTY. 
          AND THAT'S UNDER THE PRIOR OWNERSHIP OF SOUTH FORK BEFORE CENTURION AMERICAN TOOK IT OVER. 
          SO IF YOU GO OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A SIX, EIGHT FOOT HIGH BERM THERE. 
          AND SO WHAT THE CITIZEN'S CONCERN IS, HE SENT US PICTURES AND VIDEOS FROM HOW IT WAS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PRIOR TO THAT BERM AND IF YOU LOOK, HIS HOUSE WAS JUST SURROUNDED BY WATER. 
          AND AFTER THAT BERM WAS BUILT, ALL OF THE PROBLEMS WENT AWAY. 
          SO NOW I HAVE MET WITH CRAIG, I HAVE MET WITH THE DEVELOPERS ENGINEER ALONG WITH GARY AND KENT AND I FORGET IF YOU'RE THE MAYOR OR NOT, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN, ABOUT THIS ISSUE. 
          AND SO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS TO REMOVE THE BERM AND REPLACE IT WITH A FIFTY FOOT WIDE, FOUR FEET DEEP DRAINAGE DITCH. 
          THE RESIDENTS OVER ON THAT PART OF BROOKS FARM AND IN FACT THE RESIDENT WHO SENT US THAT LETTER WANTED TO BE HERE BUT HE HAD A BUSINESS CONFLICT SO HE COULDN'T COME. 
          SO THEY'RE NERVOUS ABOUT THIS CHANGE AND IF I WAS IN THEIR SHOES I WOULD BE TOO. 
          I UNDERSTAND FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE IT ALL WORKS BUT IT IS A LITTLE DISCONCERTING WHEN YOU HAVE THIS GIANT BERM THERE AND YOU'RE BEING TOLD, HEY, IT'S GETTING REMOVED AND A DITCH IS GOING TO BE THERE AND YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEMS. SO THAT'S THE BASIS OF HIS CONCERN IS HE JUST DOESN'T WANT TO GET BACK TO THE STATE WE HAD BEFORE WHERE THERE WAS FLOODING IN THAT PART OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. 
          IS THERE A QUESTION? WELL I WAS KIND OF, WELL OKAY SO THAT CITIZEN'S QUESTION I THINK AT THE END IS ONE, IS THERE ANY WAY TO KEEP THE BERM AND THEN TWO, IF THE BERM CAN'T BE KEPT IS THERE SOME KIND OF LEGAL ASSURANCES THAT FROM CENTURION AMERICAN WILL MAKE THE RESIDENTS THERE TO RESOLVE ANY ISSUES OR ANY DAMAGES? THAT WAS THE CITIZEN'S. 
          MR. KIRCHHOFF, DID YOU LOOK AT THIS BERM? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THIS AT ALL? THE BERM ITSELF I DID NOT GO OUT AND LOOK AT. 
          I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE CITY ENGINEERING'S PERSPECTIVE THE WAY WE EVALUATE THE DRAINAGES WE WOULD NOT ALLOW THE RUNOFF TO GO FROM THESE LOTS OF DEVELOPING ACROSS THOSE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST. 
          THERE IS A DRAINAGE CHANNEL BACK TO THOSE THAT WILL TAKE IT SOUTH AND TO THE POND AND ANYWHERE THEY DO DISCHARGE OFF SIDE IT HAS TO BE LIKE AN EXISTING CHANNEL POINT OF DISCHARGE OR WHAT NOT. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE A CORRECTION TO WHAT YOU SAID. 
          THE DISCHARGE FROM THAT DOES NOT GO TO THE POND. 
          IT GOES TO A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO THE RIGHT, SORT OF JUST RIGHT AND UP FROM THE DRAIN. 
          YEAH, YOU'RE CORRECT. 
          THERE'S A HIGH POINT THERE. 
          BASICALLY SOMEWHERE ALONG THAT BACK ROW OF LOTS, SOME WILL GO SOUTH OF THE POND AND THE REST WILL GO TO THE NORTH WHERE THEY HAVE AN EASEMENT AND THERE'S A FLOODPLAIN TO THE NORTH. 
          I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT HOW WE ENDED UP CREATING A DRAINAGE SITUATION THAT WOULD COMPLETELY SURROUND A RESIDENCE. 
          I'M SORRY? HOW DID WE ALLOW BROOKS FARM TO BE BUILT IN SUCH A WAY THAT A HOME WOULD BE COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY WATER? OKAY, SO TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, HERE'S THE HISTORY THERE. 
          OKAY, SO THOSE LOTS TO THE NORTH ARE ZONED AGRICULTURAL AND AGRICULTURAL ZONING, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT THE DRAINAGE THERE. 
          PEOPLE CAN FARM IT AND THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT IS. 
          NOW, IN SOUTH FORK WAS ZONED AS 
          [00:40:01]
SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT AND THAT OCCURRED LONG AGO. 
          AND THEN WHEN BROOKS FARM WAS MADE, WARNER GROUP WAS THE DEVELOPER OF THAT PROPERTY AND WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE WAS PUT A BERM ALONG THE BACKSIDE OF BROOKS FARM, BUT THAT WAS NOT DONE. 
          LATER, THEY CAME BACK AND THEY PUT A BERM ON THE NORTHERN PROPERTIES THERE, BUT LET'S DON'T GET INTO THE DISCUSSION OF ALL THE PROBLEMS OF THAT BECAUSE THAT DIDN'T AFFECT THIS PLOT. 
          BUT THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING DOWN ON THE SOUTHERN END AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHO'S THE CITY ENGINEERING FIRM BACK THEN OR WHO WAS SUPPOSED TO BE INSPECTING OR WHAT NOT, BUT THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED. 
          MR. KERKHOFF, IN YOUR LETTER, THE ISSUE, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT YOU'VE NOTED. 
          YES, THERE ARE SEVEN ON THE LAST LETTER, YES MA'AM. 
          OKAY, ARE ALL OF THOSE STILL OUTSTANDING? YES, THEY ARE. 
          MOST, I'D SAY FIVE, ARE A RESULT OF THE RECENT CHANGE THAT THEY MADE RELATED TO THE ACCESS ROAD IN THE PLOT THAT WAS JUST WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS FROM FEEDBACK THEY RECEIVED FROM THE CITY. 
          THE LAST TWO WERE REGARDING THE ESCROW FOR THE ROADS AND OFF-SITE DRAIN IMPEDIMENT FOR THE NORTHERN TRACT, WHICH I KNOW WE'RE IN PROCESS. 
          I DO NOT KNOW THE CURRENT STATUS. 
          I KNOW THEY'RE ONGOING, THEY'RE NOT DEAD, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THOSE WILL BE YET. 
          OKAY, JUST ONE MORE THING. 
          FOR THE RECORD, THE LOTS THAT ARE UNDER TWO ACRES ARE JUST BARELY UNDER TWO ACRES, CORRECT? THEY'RE NOT? YES, FROM A CURSORY REVIEW, TODAY WITH IT, THEY WERE 1.7, 1.8, SO THEY WERE ALL OVER TWO ACRES, MY RECOLLECTION, AND SO THEY ADDED ON THE EASTERN TRACT, YOU HAVE THAT SERVICE ROAD RIGHT THERE, SO THEY BASICALLY TOOK THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH THEY NEEDED FOR THE ROAD OUT OF THE FIVE LOTS AS OPPOSED TO JUST ONE, MAKING IT THAT. 
          THEY'RE ALL 1.7, 1.8, 1.9 THROUGH THAT CURVE. 
          I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE DEVELOPER FOR BEING SO ACCOMMODATING. 
          WE UNDERSTAND THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT FOR THE SAFETY OF THOSE RESIDENTS, I THINK IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT, SO WE DO APPRECIATE YOU ALL WORKING WITH US. 
          AT THIS TIME, SHALL WE BRING UP MR. TERRY AND HIS GROUP? DON'T GO AWAY, CRAIG, WE MIGHT NEED YOU AGAIN. 
          THAT'S SEAN TERRY WITH CENTENNIAL AMERICAN, 1800 VALLEY VIEW LANE, DALLAS, TEXAS, OR FORMERLY BRENT'S, TEXAS, SORRY, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENT ON THAT. 
          YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE GOOD PARTNERS IN THIS CITY. 
          WE HAVE A BIG INVESTMENT HERE SINCE WE BOUGHT IT THREE YEARS AGO. 
          IT'S NOT OUR FORTE TO SIT ON LAND THIS LONG, BUT KNOWING THE MAYOR AND KNOWING WHAT PARKER IS ABOUT, YOU'RE A SPECIAL PLACE, AND WE'VE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE, EVEN TWO WEEKS AGO, GETTING THIS ROAD DONE. 
          WE'VE BEEN MEETING WITH A LOT OF THE HOMEOWNERS. 
          WE'VE GOT ONE LEFT THAT WE'RE WORKING ON TO GET EASEMENT FROM. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO SPEAK FOR HIM TONIGHT, BUT I THINK WE'RE THERE. 
          IT'S NOT SIGNED YET, BUT WE'RE DOING A LOT OF THINGS. 
          THEY'RE A GREAT COUPLE. 
          WE WANT TO DO SOME SPECIAL THINGS, LIKE ON THOSE HOUSES, PUT UP A SIX-FOOT FENCE, MAYBE AN EIGHT-FOOT FENCE, WHATEVER THEY ALLOW US, JUST DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION TO KEEP SOME OF THE DUST DOWN AND THINGS LIKE THAT THERE. 
          AND SO, OUR ASK TONIGHT, AS WE UNDERSTAND, WE HAVEN'T GOT, WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH THE ROAD ESCROW AGREEMENT, SOMETHING A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WE TYPICALLY DON'T DO, BUT I THINK WITH KEN AND GARY, WE'RE CLOSE TO DOING THAT. 
          SO TONIGHT, WE'RE JUST ASKING, HEY, LET US GET STARTED GRADING. 
          YOU GUYS STILL CONTROL THE KEYS TO THE CAR. 
          IF SOMETHING HAPPENS, WE DON'T GET THIS DONE IN THE NEXT 30, 60 DAYS. 
          WE'RE PROBABLY ABOUT A 90-DAY PROCESS OF GRADING, WHICH IS AT OUR OWN RISK, WHICH YOU'VE ALREADY SENT A LETTER IN STATING THAT. 
          BUT IF WE DON'T GET THESE THINGS FINE-TUNED, WE WON'T BE ABLE TO MOVE ON TO OUR UTILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          SO, WE WANT TO GET IT WRAPPED UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN A LONG JOURNEY. 
          WE'RE EXCITED TO START. 
          WE'VE ALSO, IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT TO SOUTH FERB LATELY, KEN AND I TALKED ABOUT MAYBE DOING A TOUR OUT THERE. 
          WE HAD ABOUT 600 PEOPLE OUT THERE TODAY FOR BIZNOW, WHICH WAS GREAT. 
          WE PUT A LOT OF MONEY INSIDE, BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE IT MORE TO A WEDDING VENUE AND CORPORATE RETREATS. 
          WE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY PUTTING STUFF INSIDE SO IT'S NOT AS LOUD OUTSIDE. 
          WE'RE CUTTING OFF OUR TIME. 
          I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY OUTDOOR EVENTS. 
          ONE THING WE HAVE EVERY YEAR IS CATTLE BARON'S BALL, WHICH THEY DO IN THE BIG TENT, WHICH IS A GREAT DRAW FOR US AND A GREAT CAUSE. 
          BUT WE'VE TRIED TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND WE WANT TO CONTINUE DOING THAT. 
          THAT'S ALL WE STEP THROUGH WITH YOU GUYS. 
          WE UNDERSTAND THERE'S SOME DEVELOPERS THAT COME IN HERE AND WANT TO SAY, IT'S OUR WAY OR NO WAY, AND WE UNDERSTAND OUR LAWS, AND YOU DO TOO. 
          BUT ALSO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE WANT TO LOOK AT MORE OPPORTUNITIES IN PARKER. 
          WHAT CAN WE DO TO BRING A PRODUCT THAT YOU'LL BE HAPPY WITH? YOUR STAFF, GARY, HAS BEEN GREAT. 
          KENT'S BEEN ON BOARD FOR THREE OR FOUR MONTHS NOW. 
          GREAT COMMUNICATION. 
          IT JUST TAKES SOME TIME SOMETIMES, AND WE KNOW THAT. 
          WE'RE JUST ASKING NOW IF WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH GRADING, BECAUSE THAT TRIGGERS... 
          THE MARKET IS NOT AS GREAT AS IT WAS NINE MONTHS AGO, 
          [00:45:01]
AND SO WE HAVE A LOT OF BUILDER OBLIGATIONS. 
          ONE THING IS, ONCE WE CAN START GRADING, THAT TRIGGERS SOME ESCROW MONEY WE CAN GET FROM THEM AND KEEPS THEM ON THE HOOK SO THEY DON'T BACK OUT. 
          THE THING I PERSONALLY AM MOST CONCERNED ABOUT IS THE OFF-SITE STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT. 
          CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THAT IS? IS THAT THE ONE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, MR. LEVY'S PROPERTY? WE HAD EVERYTHING WORKED OUT. 
          WE MET WITH HIM IN OUR OFFICE ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO. 
          HIS ONLY REQUEST, AND GARY, I KNOW I TALKED TO HIM A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AS WELL, WAS TO MAKE SURE... 
          HE WANTED THE EASEMENT TO BE IN THE CITY'S NAME, NOT THE HOA'S NAME. 
          WE DON'T CARE. WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. 
          WE WANTED TO TAKE IT A STEP FURTHER. 
          YOU HAVE ONE EASEMENT THAT GETS FILED WITH THE COUNTY. 
          WE HAVE ANOTHER SEPARATE AGREEMENT TO WORK WITH HIM DIRECTLY, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE SOME OF THOSE TREES DOWN AND HIS FENCE AND STUFF. 
          WE'RE LETTING THEM... 
          THEY'VE GIVEN US SOME PICTURES. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PUT THEM A NEW FENCE UP. 
          WE'RE GOING TO PUT SOME TREES UP. 
          AGAIN, IF HE WAS HERE, I'D LOVE FOR HIM TO SPEAK ON IT WHILE HE TRAVELS A LOT. 
          I FEEL LIKE WE'RE THERE WITH HIM. 
          IT'S JUST GETTING... 
          OUR ATTORNEY DRAFTED UP THE LETTER THAT HE JUST GOT LATE LAST WEEK. 
          AGAIN, THE ONLY COMMENT THAT I UNDERSTAND WAS THIS. 
          HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE CITY WOULD HAVE CONTROL OF THE EASEMENT BECAUSE HE DID NOT WANT TO RELY ON SOME HOA IN THE FUTURE THAT MIGHT SAY, HEY, WE DON'T WANT TO GO IN THERE AND REPAIR THAT. 
          NOW, WE'LL HAVE IT IN OUR CC AND OURS ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT WILL BE AN HOA THAT WILL SAY THAT IF IT'S THE CITY'S WISHES THAT WE MAINTAIN IT OR VICE VERSA. 
          BUT THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE LAST TIME THAT I TALKED TO HIM WAS HE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THE CITY WOULD BE THE ONE GETTING GRANTED THE EASEMENT, NOT TO US. 
          I GUESS I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE NOTHING IN WRITING AT THIS TIME ON THAT. 
          WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO SAY TO ME? WHENEVER. 
          GO AHEAD. 
          OKAY. 
          LOTS 8 THROUGH 18 IN SECTION C, ARE THOSE EXACTLY TWO ACRES? LET ME GET MY ENGINEER UP HERE. 
          HE'S SMARTER THAN ME ON THIS. 
          ALL RIGHT, WILL YOU COME UP HERE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THESE ONES? YES. 
          LOTS IN PARTICULAR 8 THROUGH 13 IN BLOCK C. 
          I BELIEVE 14 IS THE LAST ONE THAT IS BELOW. 
          YEAH. 
          I UNDERSTAND 14 THROUGH 18, YOU HAD TO REDUCE. 
          CORRECT, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS 2.00. 
          OKAY, SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION, IS WHETHER OR NOT 8 THROUGH 13 ARE EXACTLY TWO ACRES? THEY MAY BE LARGER. 
          IS THERE A SLIGHT AMOUNT LARGER, OR ANY OF THEM SLIGHTLY LARGER THAN THAT, SO THAT YOU CAN MOVE SOME OF THOSE OVER, LIKE 14, MOVE THE LINE OVER ON 14 A LITTLE BIT SO THAT YOU CAN GET IT A LITTLE CLOSER TO TWO ACRES? I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU KNOW HOW FAR BELOW TWO ACRES EACH OF THEM ARE? THE SMALLEST ONE WAS 1.7, AND I THINK THERE WERE TWO THAT WERE UNDER 1.8 AND 2. 
          GOING FROM MEMORY ON THAT, I COULD BE SLIGHTLY OFF, BUT NOTHING BELOW 1.7. 
          OKAY. 
          I MEAN, YOU GET THE MAIN POINT I'M WONDERING ABOUT. 
          IF YOU'VE GOT ANY EXCESS ABOVE TWO ACRES ON LOTS 8 THROUGH 13, WHERE YOU COULD SHIFT THOSE OVER JUST SLIGHTLY TO PICK UP A LITTLE BIT AND ADD WHATEVER YOU PICK UP TO AT LEAST TO LOT 14, IF NOT TO ANY OF THE OTHERS. 
          JUST SO EVERYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDS, IF YOU DIDN'T CATCH THIS, THE ONLY REASON THOSE LOTS WENT BELOW TWO ACRES TO BEGIN WITH WAS REALLY BECAUSE MISS BOCKTON WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY NOT HAVING A SECOND EXIT THERE, AND IT'S THE CITY THAT REQUESTED THAT SECOND EXIT, AND THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD GET IT IS TO MAKE THOSE LOTS AT THE BEGINNING OF SECTION C ADJACENT TO THE STREET JUST SLIGHTLY SMALLER TO PICK UP THE RIGHT OF WAY. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. 
          WE'RE STILL VERY COMMITTED TO TWO ACRE LOTS, AND THIS IS A SAFETY ISSUE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          MR. BARRON. 
          OKAY. 
          WELL, SEAN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR MEETING WITH US SEVERAL TIMES, AND YOU'VE BEEN ABSOLUTELY WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH. 
          DID YOU GET THAT EMAIL FROM THAT RESIDENT? BECAUSE HE SENT IT TO YOU FIRST. 
          I DID NOT, AND ACTUALLY GARY CALLED ME TODAY, AND I COULDN'T EVEN FIND IT IN MY INBOX, OR IN MY JUNK MAIL. 
          GARY ACTUALLY CALLED ME, AND THEN I ACTUALLY, HE SENT IT TO ME TODAY, AND I MADE SURE MATT HAD IT, BUT THAT WAS PROBABLY THREE O'CLOCK TODAY, I GUESS. 
          OKAY, BECAUSE THAT CITIZEN WAS A LITTLE UPSET THAT YOU HADN'T REPLIED TO HIM. 
          YEAH, IF I WOULD HAVE GOT IT, YOU KNOW I WOULD HAVE REPLIED. 
          YEAH, WELL, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE DISCUSSED. 
          SO, IF YOU COULD REACH OUT TO HIM, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. 
          I WILL. 
          I'LL REACH OUT TO HIM, BECAUSE ONE THING, YOU KNOW, WE'VE LOOKED BACK ON THE BURN THAT GOT BUILT THERE. 
          THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTATION OF IT EVER BEING GRANTED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNERS, AND THAT CREEK BEING FILLED IN COULD BE A WHOLE OTHER ISSUE. 
          I WILL CALL HIM AND HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH HIM. 
          YEAH, AND I CAN FULLY BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS NO OFFICIAL DOCUMENTATION ON THAT. 
          I THINK IT WAS. 
          [00:50:01]
I WASN'T ON OUR HRA BOARD BACK IN THOSE DAYS, BUT I THINK IT WAS OUR HRA CONTACTED JANA TIM, AND JANA SAID, OH YEAH, YOU ALL CAN GO BACK THERE AND DO THAT. 
          AND I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED. 
          OKAY, BUT AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU. 
          YOU'VE BEEN REALLY GOOD TO WORK WITH, AND I WISH ALL OF OUR DEVELOPERS WERE AS OPEN-MINDED AND OPEN TO DISCUSSION. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU, ROBIN. 
          CAN YOU TELL US A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SCREENING THAT YOU INTEND TO DO THERE? I KNOW WE HAD ASKED THAT QUESTION EARLIER. 
          ON THE SCREENING FOR JUST THE RESIDENTS? ALONG 2551, ALONG HOAG ROAD. 
          SO, WE'RE GOING TO BE WORKING ON THAT WITH THE CITY. 
          THAT COMES IN OUR LANDSCAPING PLANS. 
          IF IT'S A RETAINING WALL, THEY WENT UP THERE TO SCREEN SOME OF THAT. 
          WE WILL DO THAT. 
          THAT COMES THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS, BUT I THINK WE MET WITH YOU, AND WHATEVER THE WISH IS OF THE COUNCIL, WE'RE LOOKING AT MORE LIKE A RETAINING WALL KIND OF LOOK, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT THAT WE DESIGN IT, WE'LL COME BACK AND BRING IT TO YOU GUYS AND THE RESIDENTS AND TALK TO THEM, BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON THAT. 
          I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT PROBABLY ON THAT MAIN ROAD TO HAVE SOME KIND OF BARRIER, AND SO WE LIKE DOING THE MASONRY, CONCRETE, MASONRY WALL, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IT LOOKS GOOD THAT FITS THE MOLD OF SOUTH PARK, BUT THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS TODAY. 
          I SEE YOU HAVE TREES ALONG THERE AS WELL, BUT THAT BARRIER HELPS ON THERE, BUT THOSE LANDSCAPING PLANS WILL HAVE TO COME BACK AND BE APPROVED BY YOU GUYS WHEN WE GET TO THAT POINT. 
          OKAY, THANK YOU. 
          JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS I WANT TO ASK YOU JUST FOR THE SAKE OF GETTING THESE ON THE RECORD FOR A BROADER PURPOSE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          SO WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIVE LOTS THAT WE REDUCED TO CREATE ANOTHER EXIT THERE, ALL THE REST OF THE LOTS ARE TWO ACRES OR MORE, CORRECT? YES, SIR. 
          YOU ALL DIDN'T FORM A MUD, DID YOU? ABSOLUTELY NOT. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE ANY NEED FOR A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO COMPENSATE YOU FOR BUILDING THE ROADS OR THE INFRASTRUCTURE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, DO YOU? NO, SIR. 
          IT'S NOT NECESSARY, IS IT? NO, SIR, NOT FOR US. 
          WE WANT TO BE IN THE CITY. 
          OKAY. 
          DO YOU INTEND TO MAKE A PROFIT ON THIS? WE HOPE TO MAKE SOME, YES, SIR. 
          WE DON'T DO IT FOR FREE. 
          WE'RE NOT HERE TO DO IT. 
          BUT YES, SIR, WE DO. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO JUST TO REPEAT, YOU'VE GOT TWO ACRE LOTS. 
          YES, SIR. 
          YOU DON'T HAVE A MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT TO LEVY TAXES ON THESE PROPERTIES TO REIMBURSE YOU FOR THE STREETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE, AND YOU BELIEVE YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A PROFIT ON IT? ABSOLUTELY. 
          OKAY. 
          AND IF YOU LOOK AT OUR HISTORY OF CENTURION AMERICA, WE DON'T DO A LOT OF MUDS. 
          THE ONLY TIME WE HAVE TO DO A MUD SOMETIMES IS WHEN IT'S OUT IN A VERY UNINCORPORATED AREA AND WE HAVE A LOT OF COSTS. 
          WE HAVE TO DO OUR OWN WATER WELLS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          WE WANT TO BE PART OF YOUR CITY BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IN FIRE AND POLICE. 
          PEOPLE ARE VERY SAVVY TODAY. 
          IF THEY LIVE IN A MUD, YOU KNOW, SOME DAYS WE DO DO PIT AND TORCH. 
          NOW, WE DO ASK FOR INCENTIVES SOMETIMES, BUT THAT'S IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. 
          BUT HERE, NO. 
          WE WANT TO BE PART OF PARKER. 
          WE'RE PROUD TO BE HERE. 
          SOUTH PARK'S BEEN A LONG HISTORY FOR YOU GUYS HERE, AND WE JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT TO IT. 
          WELL, I COMMEND YOU FOR THE WAY YOU'VE WORKED WITH THE CITY ON THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          THANK YOU. 
          AND FOR WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THERE. 
          IT'S GOING TO BE NICE. 
          YES, SIR. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          MR. BOREN. 
          KENT, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. 
          HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE ESCROW NEGOTIATION? IF WE APPROVE TONIGHT CONDITIONALLY, DO YOU FORESEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH GETTING THAT RESOLVED? I THINK WE JUST NEED MORE TIME. 
          THAT'S BEEN THE BIGGEST CONSTRAINT. 
          WE HAVE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON WHAT THAT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE, BUT THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE IS WHAT'S GOING TO CONTROL HERE, AND WE STILL HAVE THE LEVERAGE OF THE FINAL PLOT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO RELEASE UNTIL WE'VE COME TO TERMS ON THAT. 
          ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          THANK YOU. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR MR. KIRKOFF, WHO'S HIDING BACK OVER THERE? I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. MANTON. 
          WE HAD AN EMAIL LATE REGARDING THIS TODAY. 
          CAN YOU QUICK GO OVER WHAT THAT WAS? BECAUSE A LOT OF US DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO READ IT. 
          YES. 
          JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THAT ONE, SIR. 
          WE DID GET SOME LAST MINUTE ADDITIONS, AND MAYBE SEAN IS PROBABLY BEST TO SPEAK TO THIS ONE AS WELL, BUT THE STREETS THAT WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE PRELIMINARY PLOT THAT'S IN THE PACKET WERE NO LONGER ALLOWED DUE TO SOME MAYBE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT? COME ON. 
          CONCERNS? IT'S NOT A COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SO MUCH AS CENTURION'S AGREEMENT WITH THE TV SHOW DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE ENTITY THEY CREATED FOR THE SUBDIVISION. 
          THEY DON'T SPECIFICALLY HAVE THE RIGHTS TO USE IT THE SAME WAY THAT SOUTH FORK, THE EVENT CENTER, DOES. 
          THAT'S WHERE THEY DON'T WANT TO ACCIDENTALLY STEP IN SOMETHING. 
          THANK YOU, MATT. 
          ALL THE ROAD NAMES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A COUPLE HAVE BEEN CHANGED. 
          I DID DO A QUICK CHECK ON THAT JUST TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY MAJOR CONFLICTS IN THE AREA. 
          THERE DIDN'T APPEAR TO BE, 
          [00:55:01]
SO I THINK WE'RE SAFE ON THAT ONE. 
          YES. 
          I FORGOT. 
          I'M SORRY. 
          I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND. 
          I THOUGHT YOU COULD ANSWER IT BETTER, BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. 
          JUST BECAUSE OF THE COPYRIGHT STUFF, WE DON'T WANT ANYTHING WRONG. 
          WE OWN THE STATLER HOTEL, AND WE DID A MICKEY MOUSE SOMETHING, AND WE GOT NAILED RIGHT QUICK JUST FOR USING THAT. 
          WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS UP ON BOARD. 
          THIS STILL IS A PRELIMINARY PLOT, SO IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS, SOME NAMESAKES OF PARKOUR THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THE STREETS NAMED AFTER, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          WE'RE IN THE PRELIMINARY PLOT PHASE. 
          WE DON'T COME TO THE FINAL PLOT UNTIL WE GET ALL THIS STUFF DONE. 
          SOMETIMES WE LIKE TO DO THAT, AND IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS LIKE THAT, WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN. 
          NAME A STREET SOMETIMES GETS TRICKY. 
          THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT THEY HAVE RULES THAT YOU CAN'T NAME A STREET UNTIL SOMEBODY IS ALREADY DEAD. 
          WE DID THAT BEFORE THAT WASN'T DEAD, AND WE GOT IN TROUBLE. 
          SO WE'RE OPEN TO ANY OF THAT STUFF, ANY WAY TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT REALLY MADE PARKOUR. 
          THAT'S ONE THING THAT WE DO IN EVERY CITY. 
          THE CITY I CAME FROM, WHERE I LIVE IN, SALINA, TRYING TO NAME INFRASTRUCTURE OR NAME STREETS, MAJOR THOROUGHFARES OR WHATEVER, AFTER PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUILT YOU, BECAUSE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT DID THE WORK TO GET US TO HERE TODAY. 
          IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WASN'T THE ORIGINAL LANDOWNER ACTUALLY NAMED J.R.? I DO NOT REMEMBER. 
          I DON'T EITHER. 
          I REMEMBER HAVING A MEETING OUT AT SOUTH HILL RANCH, AND I WAS TOLD THAT. 
          THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE RANCH, HIS ACTUAL NAME WAS J.R. 
          I DID NOT KNOW THAT. 
          INTERESTING. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYBODY? IF NOT, WILL YOU GIVE US THE OPTIONS ON WHERE TO GO FROM HERE? YOU BET, MA'AM. 
          JUST TO SUMMARIZE HERE, THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE. 
          IT'S A MINISTERIAL CONSIDERATION ITEM, SO TONIGHT WE DO NEED ACTION FROM YOU. 
          THAT'S EITHER APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY. 
          OTHERWISE, IT IS APPROVED BY THE FUNCTION OF LAW. 
          STAFF IS RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON THIS ONE, WITH THE CAVEAT BEING THOSE ITEMS LISTED ON YOUR 2-17-2026 ENGINEERING LETTER BEING RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAT. 
          I HAVE ATTEMPTED A SUGGESTION MOTION THERE FOR YOU. 
          CATHERINE CAN, I'M SURE, HELP YOU STEER THROUGH THAT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. 
          THANK YOU. 
          CATHERINE HAS NO COMMENT. 
          I'LL MAKE A MOTION, MADAM MAYOR. 
          OKAY. 
          I MOVE THAT THE ESTATES OF SOUTH FORK RANCH PRELIMINARY PLAT BE APPROVED, ALONG WITH THE NECESSARY VARIANCES FOR LOT SIZE, BUILDING SETBACKS, AND LOT FRONTAGE, ON THE CONDITION THAT ALL ITEMS LISTED IN THE ENGINEERING LETTER DATED 2-17-26 BE FULLY RESOLVED BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAT. 
          FURTHERMORE, THAT NO CONSTRUCTION SHOULD COMMENCE UNTIL OUR CONSULTING ENGINEERING FIRM HAS HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE THE UPDATED CONSTRUCTION PLANS. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          FOR A POINT OF CLARIFICATION, WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY CONSTRUCTION? DO YOU MEAN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSES, OR DO YOU MEAN ENGINEERING OF THE LAND, GRADING? I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. 
          SO, SPECIFICALLY IN THIS INSTANCE, IT WOULD BE ANY OF THE GRADING AND ANY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE? INFRASTRUCTURE. 
          CONSTRUCTION. 
          CONSTRUCTION OF THE LOTS. 
          CORRECT. 
          CORRECT. 
          BECAUSE WE WERE DOING A LITTLE BIT OF A TIME CRUNCH HERE, THOSE ENGINEERING PLANS HAVEN'T BEEN FULLY REVIEWED WITH THE ADDITION OF THIS NEW STREET. 
          BUT AS CRAIG MENTIONED, A LOT OF THAT IS DE MINIMIS AT THIS POINT. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANTED IT CLARIFIED SO WE ALL KNEW EXACTLY WHAT COULD AND COULD NOT BE DONE. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM, WITH A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON, TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY PLAT WITH THE ITEMS NOTED IN MR. KERKHOFF'S LETTER FROM FEBRUARY 17TH, 2026, AND THAT ALL THOSE MUST BE RESOLVED BEFORE THE FINAL PLAT. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANY OPPOSED? NOT HEARING ANY, MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          IT HAS BEEN A PLEASURE DEALING WITH YOU, SEAN. 
          IT HAS BEEN VERY NICE. 
          [6. RECEIVE INFORMATION, CONSIDER, DISCUSS, AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED STRIPING OF DUBLIN ROAD AND LEWIS LANE.]
OKAY. 
          NEXT WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX, RECEIVE INFORMATION, CONSIDER, DISCUSS, 
          [01:00:02]
AND GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON THE PROPOSED STRIPING OF DUBLIN ROAD AND LEWIS LANE. 
          COUNCIL, YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A BID ON STRIPING FOR EACH OF THE ROADS. 
          THE STRIPING FOR LEWIS LANE IS $40,951.92. 
          THE STRIPING FOR DUBLIN ROAD IS $36,727.20. 
          SO WHAT WOULD YOU ALL LIKE TO DO? MR. BARRON. 
          OKAY. 
          SO MY FIRST QUESTION, IS THIS FOR SIDE STRIPING AND CENTER LANE STRIPING? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. 
          MR. SHAW. 
          DO WE HAVE A VISUAL INDICATOR FOR THE START OF BOTH SIDES OF THE S-CURVE IN HERE? I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT THE S-CURVE FOR LEWIS, AND I PRESUME THERE IS A VERY SIMILAR SITUATION ON DUBLIN, IS EXTRAORDINARILY SEVERE. 
          SO A LARGE ARROW, VERY BRIGHT SIGN, IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM RUNNING INTO THE BACKYARD OF THE PEOPLE AROUND IT. 
          SO OUTSIDE OF THAT SIGN, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS WHOLLY APPROPRIATE. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. MACHADO, WHAT DO YOU NEED FOR A CURVE SIGN TO GO UP? THIS IS FOR UWO. 
          OKAY. 
          NOW, DOES THE STRIPING ALSO INCLUDE BUTTONS FOR THE CURVES? YES. 
          A HUNDRED FOOT AHEAD OF THE S-CURVE IN EACH DIRECTION. 
          THEY'LL START WITH THE BUTTONS AND PUT THEM ALL THE WAY THROUGH THE S-CURVE. 
          OKAY, SO IT WOULD BE THE OUTSIDE OF THE STRAIGHT STRIPING, THE CENTER LANE, OR THE CENTER LINE STRIPING, AND THEN BUTTONS ON THE CURVES. 
          A DOUBLE YELLOW STRIPE IN THE CENTER, AND THEN WHITE STRIPES ON THE OUTSIDE EDGES, AND THEN BUTTONS THROUGH THE S-CURVE. 
          OKAY. 
          MR. PILGRIM. 
          I BELIEVE WE HAVE TURN SIGNS ON THE S-CURVE NOW. 
          THE LAST TIME I SPECIFICALLY REMEMBER LOOKING AT THEM WAS SOMEBODY HAD RUN OVER ONE OF THEM. 
          ON DUBLIN WE DO, I'M NOT SURE. 
          YEAH, ON DUBLIN. 
          ON DUBLIN WE DO HAVE THE ARROWS NOW. 
          BUT WE MIGHT NEED ANOTHER ONE SINCE SOMEBODY RAN OVER THAT ONE. 
          MR. BARRETT. 
          I KNOW IN PARTICULAR THE S-CURVE ON SOUTH DUBLIN HEADING SOUTH, THAT RESIDENT HAS HAD THEIR FENCE RUN THROUGH NUMEROUS TIMES. 
          AND I KNOW THIS ISN'T EXACTLY THIS ITEM, BUT IT'S RELATED AND IT'S ALL ABOUT ROAD SAFETY. 
          IS THERE ANY WAY TO PUT SOME KIND OF BARRIER OR SOMETHING THERE TO PREVENT THAT? OR IS THAT THE BEST OPTION, JUST LET THEIR FENCE GET KNOCKED DOWN EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE? WE CAN DISCUSS THAT AT ANOTHER TIME. 
          THIS IS NOT ON THIS AGENDA. 
          OKAY. 
          SOUNDED LIKE A REQUEST. 
          YEAH. 
          I THINK, JUST AS AN ASIDE, I THINK NATHAN SHEA HOLDS THE RECORD FOR 19 MAILBOXES. 
          ONE OF THEM, IT WASN'T EVEN DRY WHEN IT GOT HIT AGAIN. 
          IT'S UNBELIEVABLE. 
          AS TO WHAT IS ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE STRIPING FOR LEWIS AND DUBLIN, WITH DUBLIN. 
          IN HERE IT SAYS THAT THE TRAFFIC CONTROL AND BARRICADES AND STUFF IS NOT INCLUDED IN THIS. 
          SO HOW DO THEY HANDLE THAT? THEY DO HAVE SOME TRAFFIC CONTROL. 
          THE STUFF THEY'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING DOWN DRIES REALLY FAST. 
          WITHIN 30 SECONDS TO A MINUTE IT CAN BE DRIVEN ON. 
          I TALKED TO THE GUY TODAY. 
          HE'LL HAVE HIS GUYS IN FRONT OF AND BEHIND THE TRUCK FLAGGING TRAFFIC. 
          BUT HIS GUY BEHIND, AS THEY'RE PAINTING THE STRIPES, HE'LL BE FAR ENOUGH TO WHERE THEY CAN DRIVE ON IT. 
          THEY'LL JUST KEEP UP WITH THEM. 
          THAT'S AMAZING. 
          THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE REALLY FAST. 
          THAT'S A DIFFERENT FLAGGING GROUP. 
          OH, YES. 
          OKAY. 
          SO THIS ISN'T FOR US TO APPROVE, RIGHT? IT'S JUST TO GIVE STAFF DIRECTION? WELL, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR COUNCIL TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS EXPENSE FOR THAT. 
          ARE WE POSTED FOR THAT? WE'RE POSTED FOR DIRECTION. 
          WE DON'T HAVE A CONTRACT OR ANYTHING. 
          SO THIS PROPOSAL OR THE REQUEST TO COUNCIL IS GIVE US DIRECTION TO GO BACK AND DRAFT A CONTRACT. 
          OKAY. 
          THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STRIPING OF BOTH DUBLIN AND LEWIS LANE. 
          [01:05:01]
I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          I'LL SECOND. 
          I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. 
          HAVE WE TALKED ABOUT FUNDING? GRANT, CAN YOU GIVE US SOME INSIGHT WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM? SO RIGHT NOW ON THE STREET CONSTRUCTION FUND, WE'RE ANTICIPATING ABOUT $173,000 OF FUND BALANCE AFTER LEWIS LANE AND DUBLIN ROAD ARE BOTH COMPLETE. 
          SO THIS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT BALANCE TO COVER THE STRIPING. 
          GREAT. 
          JUST TO CLARIFY, HOW MUCH DID WE END UP SAVING ON DUBLIN BY GOING AHEAD AND JUST MOVING FORWARD? APPROXIMATELY $400,000, BUT THAT'S IN THE UTILITY CONSTRUCTION FUND. 
          I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE MEAN BY MOVE FORWARD. 
          INSTRUCT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STRIPING. 
          IS THAT TO GET THE CONTRACT OR GO AHEAD AND GET IT DONE? THEN WE CAN APPROVE THE FINAL AMOUNT. 
          OKAY. 
          I JUST WANT CLARITY ON WHAT YOU MEANT BY MOVE FORWARD. 
          WHAT I HAVE IS I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARROW AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE STRIPING AND THE BUTTONS. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M STILL CONFUSED AS TO WHETHER MOVE FORWARD MEANS GO AHEAD AND EXECUTE THE CONTRACTS AND GET THE WORK DONE OR WHETHER MOVE FORWARD MEANS BRING THE CONTRACT BACK. 
          WELL, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WHAT WAS SAID EARLIER IS WE CAN'T GIVE DIRECTION OR APPROVE A CONTRACT RIGHT NOW. 
          SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THEM TO GO AHEAD AND GET THE CONTRACTS WORKED OUT TO BRING BACK TO US. 
          THAT IS CORRECT. 
          I JUST HAVE ANOTHER CLARIFICATION. 
          TO GIVE DIRECTION TO STAFF, DOES THAT HAVE TO BE A MOTION OR CAN THEY NOT JUST TAKE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMENTS ON THE DAIS? WE CAN ABSOLUTELY TAKE DIRECTION FROM COMMENTS ON THE DAIS. 
          IT'S NOT A PROBLEM IF YOU HAVE A MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF AND VOTE ON THAT EITHER. 
          SO MY QUESTION IS WE'VE GOT THESE. 
          THESE ARE PHONE BILLS, RIGHT, GARY? YES, SIR. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE'VE GOT PHONE BILLS, WE KNOW WHAT THE COST IS. 
          WHAT ELSE ARE WE ASKING TO BE DONE? JUST HAVE A FORMAL CONTRACT THAT BACKS UP THE BID? AND THE CONTRACTOR IS READY TO GO WITH ABOUT A WEEK'S NOTICE. 
          AND NEXT WEEK THEY'RE GOING TO START BACKFILLING THE EDGES OF DUBLIN ROAD AND FIXING THE SHOULDERS. 
          SO HE COULD BE READY AFTER THEY'RE DONE WITH THAT TO START STRIPING. 
          SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL AGAIN OR CAN WE JUST GIVE THE AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACTS, HAVE THE MAYOR EXECUTE THE CONTRACTS BASED ON THE COSTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS HAS TO COME BACK TO US. 
          CATHERINE, WILL YOU WEIGH IN ON THAT? YOU DON'T NORMALLY AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITHOUT A RESOLUTION IN FRONT OF US AND WE DON'T HAVE THAT TODAY. 
          TECHNICALLY YOU COULD, BUT HAVING A WRITTEN RESOLUTION KIND OF DEFINES WHAT YOU'RE APPROVING THERE. 
          AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE CAN'T GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD NOW WITHOUT IT HAVING TO COME TO OUR NEXT MEETING. 
          RIGHT, IT'S NOT A $20 MILLION CONTRACT AND WE'VE GOT A FIRM BID ON IT, SO WHAT ELSE ARE WE WAITING ON? I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO TONIGHT, IS GO AHEAD AND AUTHORIZE THE JOB, THE EXECUTION OF THE JOB. 
          I'M WITH YOU, I THOUGHT WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO IS TELL GARY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS. 
          TO BE HONEST, I THINK TO BE FAIR TO GARY, WE'VE BEEN KIND OF ALL OVER THE PLACE AND WE DIDN'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WAS GOING TO COST AND IS IT ONLY GOING TO BE THE SIDE STRIPES OR JUST THE CENTER STRIPE, SO I THINK THERE WAS SOME CLARITY ON THAT THAT THEY NEEDED AS WELL. 
          I WILL SAY THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE STAFF WAS COMING FROM ON THIS ONE. 
          FROM OUR GENERAL UNDERSTANDING, WE THOUGHT THERE MIGHT BE SOME MORE DISCUSSION ON WHAT THIS DESIGN NEEDED TO LOOK LIKE BEFORE WE WENT AHEAD AND DRAFTED THE CONTRACT AND DRAFTED THE RESOLUTION, SO WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          AS I THINK WE ALL WANT TO MOVE FORWARD EXPEDITIOUSLY, IF WE GET THIS READY IN A WEEK, TWO WEEKS, GIVE ME A MINUTE. 
          WELL, I THINK AFTER SOME FURTHER DISCUSSIONS WITH GARY, HE'S SAYING THAT THESE DOCUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY ALL THAT THE CONTRACTOR WAS PREPARED TO GIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO THERE WAS A MISCOMMUNICATION BETWEEN US ON THAT. 
          I'LL DEFER TO CATHERINE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE APPROPRIATELY POSTED ON COVERING AN ACTION ITEM HERE. 
          [01:10:01]
I THINK THE POSTING IS SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO GIVE DIRECTION AND AUTHORIZE EITHER THE MAYOR OR THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO SIGN AN AGREEMENT. 
          YOU'RE JUST NOT SEEING THE AGREEMENT BEFORE IT'S EXECUTED. 
          I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO AMEND THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR TO AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACT CONSISTENT WITH THE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT AND ALLOW THE MAYOR TO SIGN IT. 
          AND THE MAYOR TO SIGN IT, THE CONTRACT, AS IS NORMALLY THE CASE, BUT WE WOULD ALLOW EXECUTION OF THE CONTRACTS CONSISTENT WITH THE BIDDING THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED HERE TONIGHT SO THAT THE CITY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE ACTUAL WORK. 
          MR. BARRON, WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT? I'LL ACCEPT THAT. 
          OKAY. MS. HALBERT, WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT? OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? CATHERINE, WILL YOU ACCEPT THAT? DO WE NEED TO AMEND THAT TO ACCOUNT FOR THE ADDITION OF THE TWO ARROW SIGNS AROUND THE S-CURVE ON LEWIS? NO. THAT'S A SEPARATE ITEM. WE CAN DO IT SEPARATELY. 
          WE CAN DO IT SEPARATELY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE AUTHORIZING A CONTRACT TO BE DRAWN TO THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND THAT CONTRACT MAY BE SIGNED BY THE MAYOR. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          AND GARY, I DO WANT TO SAY AS A PERSON WHO USES DUBLIN ROAD DAILY, IT IS AWESOME. THEY HAVE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB. THEY HOOKED UP MY DRIVEWAY TODAY. I MEAN, IT IS JUST FANTASTIC. 
          MADAM MAYOR, CAN I JUST JUMP ON THAT AS WELL? I THANK YOU FOR JUST STAYING ON TOP OF THE CRUISE AND THE CIRCUS. 
          SOMETIMES I FEEL LIKE A RINGLEADER. 
          WELL, AND SOON THE PEOPLE 
          [7. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 2026-886 AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR A GRANT REQUIRING MATCHING FUNDS FOR A PARKS STRUCTURE.]
FROM LEWIS LANE WILL BE AS EQUALLY HAPPY. 
          THAT'S THE NEXT CIRCUS. 
          OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 7. 
          CONSIDERATION IN OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-886 AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR A GRANT REQUIRING MATCHING FUNDS FOR A PARK STRUCTURE. 
          DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THIS? YES, MA'AM. I CERTAINLY CAN. 
          MAYOR, COUNCIL, IT BRINGS ME GREAT PLEASURE TO GET TO WORK WITH THE COMMISSIONERS OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION. 
          TONIGHT WE'VE GOT THE ROHRER FAMILY OUT HERE TO HELP ME OUT WITH THIS PRESENTATION. BUT THIS HAS BEEN A DISCUSSION ITEM OF THEIRS FOR QUITE SOME TIME ABOUT REPLACING THE GAZEBO. 
          WE WANT TO BE FRUGAL AND GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR RESOURCES AND WE KNOW THAT COLLIN COUNTY HAS A PARK ASSISTANCE FUND. 
          AND SO AT THE FEBRUARY 11, 2026 COMMISSION MEETING, THE COMMISSIONERS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED A RECOMMENDATION TO PROCEED WITH A GRANT SUBMISSION THROUGH THE COLLIN COUNTY PARK FOUNDATION PROJECT FUNDING ASSISTANCE PROGRAM. 
          I'M SURE THERE'S AN ACRONYM FOR THAT, BUT I COULDN'T EVEN GUESS WHAT THAT WOULD BE RIGHT NOW. 
          SO THIS IS GOING TO BE FOR THE FULL REPLACEMENT OF THE ROSE GARDEN GAZEBO, WHICH IS LOCATED ON THE PARK AND PRESERVE. 
          SO I THINK EVERYBODY'S PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS, BUT IT IS OFF HERE TO THE EAST OVER BY THE PARKING LOT OFF GRAY LANE. 
          SO A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORICAL INFORMATION HERE. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED AT THE JANUARY 14, 2026 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE MEETING. 
          SO A DISCUSSION WAS HELD ON THIS GRANT PROJECT, SEVERAL QUOTES WERE SOLICITED FROM VARIOUS DIFFERENT VENDORS, AND THEN A PREFERRED CONTRACTOR FOR THE JOB WAS SELECTED. 
          AND AT THE LAST MEETING LAST WEEK, THAT CONTRACTOR CAME OUT AND PRESENTED SOME SAMPLES OF THE MATERIALS THEY WERE GOING TO BE USING, AND THEY ALSO PROVIDED A PRESENTATION WITH SOME MARKUPS ON WHAT THIS STRUCTURE WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          SO THE COMMISSIONERS ULTIMATELY ARE RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THIS AND THE ASSOCIATED MATCHING FUNDS. 
          THEY ALSO INCLUDED THE BASE BID, WHICH WE'LL GO INTO HERE IN JUST A COUPLE MINUTES, AS WELL AS TWO OUT OF THE THREE ALTERNATE BIDS THAT WERE PRESENTED AS A PART 
          [01:15:02]
OF THIS QUOTE. 
          THAT WOULD BE THE SIDEWALK PAVING FROM THE PARKING LOT TO THE GAZEBO, AND ELECTRICAL WORK COMPONENTS FOR POWER AND LIGHTING. 
          BUT THE BODY ALSO REQUESTED SOME REVISIONS TO INCLUDE A NEW TRASH CAN SCREENING FENCE, AND I WILL JUST NOTE THAT THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT HAS ENTHUSIASTICALLY AGREED TO DEMOLISH THE OLD STRUCTURE AS SOON AS COUNCIL IS READY TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN. 
          IT'S CAUSING THEM QUITE A FEW ISSUES OVER THERE. 
          I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE DEMOLISHED SOONER RATHER THAN LATER, BECAUSE AS IT STANDS RIGHT NOW, IT'S A LIABILITY TO THE CITY. 
          WE WERE DISCUSSING IN THE AGENDA MEETING, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT MIGHT WANT TO USE IT AS SOMETHING TO BURN DOWN, A TRAINING EXERCISE. 
          IT COULD BURN, BUT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BURN. 
          THEY HAVE TO BE ALLOWED TO GO THROUGH THE BURNING PROCESS. 
          I THINK YOU JUST AXED BREAKING INTO BUILDINGS. 
          SO COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF, THEY'RE REQUESTING THE FOLLOWING FROM YOU TONIGHT. 
          ALIGNMENT ON THE PROPOSED DESIGN, AND THEN APPROVAL FOR A GRANT SUBMISSION TO THE COUNTY, AS I MENTIONED, WITH A COMMITMENT OF THE 50% MATCHING FUNDS THAT WILL LIKELY BE REQUIRED WITH A NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT OF $30,000. 
          SO STAFF WOULD WORK WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO PREPARE THE APPLICATION PACKET, AND WE'LL SUBMIT THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CRITERIA AND THE TIMELINE THAT WILL BE ADOPTED BY COLLIN COUNTY. 
          THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO AT THIS TIME. 
          I WILL JUST MENTION, IF SOME OF THE ALTERNATES ARE SELECTED, IF THERE ARE SOME INCREASES IN SCOPE, THAT NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT WOULD NEED TO INCREASE TONIGHT. 
          I'LL ALSO JUST MENTION HERE THAT A BUDGET AMENDMENT IS NOT NEEDED FOR THIS, BECAUSE THE FUNDS WOULD NOT BE SPENT IN THIS FISCAL YEAR. 
          THE AWARDS AREN'T EVEN GOING TO BE EXPECTED UNTIL FALL OF 2026. 
          WE'LL JUST SIMPLY NEED TO ACCOUNT FOR THIS IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR BUDGET. 
          SO, MATT, I'M SURE YOU WANT TO COME UP AND KIND OF TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DESIGN AND KIND OF HOW WE CAME TO THIS ITERATION. 
          HELLO EVERYBODY. THANK YOU FOR TAKING A LOOK AT OUR PROPOSAL TONIGHT FOR CONSIDERATION. 
          WE TOOK SOME OF THE ASPECTS OF THE EXISTING GAZEBO THAT EVERYBODY IS IN FAVOR OF, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT OF CHARM AND CHARACTER TO IT, SO IT'S NOT TOO MUCH OF A MODERN FACILITY. 
          BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO LOOK AT THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE THE SIZE A BIT. 
          AND SO THE STRUCTURE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS 30 FEET IN DIAMETER AS OPPOSED TO 20 FEET FOR THE CURRENT BUILDING. 
          BUT IT WOULD BE ADA COMPLIANT. 
          IT WOULD BE VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF HAVING MULTIPLE OPENINGS FOR ACCESS INTO IT. 
          IT WOULD ALSO HAVE BUILT-IN BENCHES SIMILAR TO WHAT IS THERE TODAY, ONLY THE PROPOSED BENCHES WOULD BE MADE OF A TREX MATERIAL. 
          SO THEY WOULD ALSO BE VERY LOW MAINTENANCE, NO SPLINTERS INVOLVED. 
          THERE'S A NUMBER OF OTHER ASPECTS THAT KENT CAN SPEAK TO FROM A CONSTRUCTION STANDPOINT. 
          BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IN TERMS OF LOOKS AND STYLE, STABILITY. 
          IT MEETS WITH THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR LOW MAINTENANCE IN TERMS OF MATERIALS BEING USED. 
          AND WE THINK IT WOULD BE EXTREMELY POPULAR WITH THE FOLKS THAT COME OUT MULTIPLE SEASONS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR FOR PICTURE AND PORTRAIT TAKING, BECAUSE IT'S A VERY POPULAR PLACE FOR THAT. 
          SO TELL ME MORE ABOUT THE CURRENT USE AND HOW THAT IS GOING TO TRANSFER, BECAUSE I THINK THE OTHER ONE HAS A COUPLE OF STEPS AND ISN'T QUITE AS WIDE. 
          THE CURRENT ONE, YOU DO HAVE TO EITHER ACCESS FROM THE RAMP OR MULTIPLE STEPS FROM, I THINK IT'S THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDE, IF I'VE GOT MY DIRECTIONS RIGHT. 
          THIS WOULD BE MORE AT GROUND LEVEL, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF I THINK THERE'S A SMALL LIP, SO ANYONE THAT NEEDS ADA ACCESS WOULD BE ABLE TO ENTER VIA THE RAMP. 
          THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS THAT IT WAS ALSO SUGGESTED WE LOOKED AT THE ADDITIONAL COST ADD-ON FOR THE SIDEWALK TO ACTUALLY BE, IT'S CURRENTLY CRUSHED GRANITE, BUT IT'S THERE NOW. 
          BUT TO HAVE THAT PAVED OVER WITH CEMENT, SO THAT WOULD ALSO BETTER FACILITATE ACCESS FROM THE PARKING LOT. 
          BESIDES PHOTOGRAPHY, WE HAVE HELD A COUPLE OF SMALL SCALE EVENTS THERE. 
          WE DID A HOLIDAY EVENT THERE. 
          WE DID ANOTHER KIND OF FAMILY PROGRAM, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAM IN THE FACILITY. 
          [01:20:01]
THERE'S BEEN A FEW WEDDINGS OVER THE YEARS. 
          SO I THINK THAT IF WE BUILD IT, THEY MAY COME, AND WE MAY HAVE OTHER DEMANDS AND REQUESTS TO USE THE FACILITY. 
          I SEE, CAN YOU PUT THE PICTURE BACK THAT HAD THE WHOLE FULL GAZEBO, THAT THERE IS JUST A SMALL LIP. 
          IS THERE NOT A WAY WE CAN JUST BUILD UP THAT GROUND WITH THE SIDEWALK AND NOT HAVE TO DO THE WHOLE RAMP, WHERE IT WOULD ALMOST JUST BE LEVEL? SO IT'S JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BUILDUP OF DIRT TO PUT THE SIDEWALK IN AND NOT HAVE A WHOLE RAMP WITH SIDES AND ALL OF THAT. 
          IT WOULD JUST BE LEVEL WITH THE GROUND? YEAH, WE TALKED ABOUT JUST PUTTING A SLIGHT RAMP THERE, BUT I DON'T KNOW ABOUT WATER ISSUES, IF THAT HAPPENS. 
          HE'S GOT A BOOMING VOICE, HE CAN PROJECT. 
          WE DID TALK ABOUT PUTTING A RAMP THERE. 
          HOWEVER, I THINK WE COULD DO WHATEVER YOU NEED TO, TO BE ABLE TO LOWER THE CEMENT DOWN. 
          THIS IS ALL IN THE PLANNING STAGES. 
          SO EITHER LOWER TO MAKE IT LEVEL WITH THE GROUND, OR JUST BUILD THE GROUND AT A TINY ELEVATION. 
          THAT WAS THE INTENT, TO PUT A RAMP THERE THAT MEETS DIRECTLY TO THE CONCRETE. 
          YEAH, BUT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THE ADA WITH ALL THE BARS AND ALL THAT OTHER STUFF IF THERE WASN'T THAT LITTLE TINY STEP. 
          AND IF IT'S ONLY FOUR INCHES, I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER TO DO SOME GROUND WORK TO MAKE THAT A LITTLE STRAIGHT, NO STEP UP. 
          YEAH, IF WE'RE BRINGING A SIDEWALK FROM THAT PARKING LOT OVER, THAT SIDEWALK COULD BE ELEVATED A LITTLE BIT MORE THAT YOU GET TO THE GAZEBO. 
          WHAT I'M HEARING IS DEFINITELY A RAMP OF SOME KIND. I DON'T HAVE THE THOUGHTS THAT YOU'RE REALLY GOING TO CHANGE THIS TONIGHT. 
          I JUST THINK IT WOULD TAKE AWAY FROM THE COST IF WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO ALL THOSE BARS AND ALL THAT OTHER BUILDING OF A RAMP, VERSUS JUST DOING A LITTLE BIT OF GROUND WORK TO INCORPORATE THE FLATNESS OF THE GROUND. 
          LOOKING AT THIS ILLUSTRATION RIGHT HERE, JUST HAVING THE SIDEWALK THAT APPROACHES IT AND AT GRADE LEVEL WITH THE SURFACE WITHIN THE GAZEBO. 
          SO NOT LOWERING THE LEVEL OF THE GAZEBO BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO KEEP IT ABOVE GROUND LEVEL SO THAT WATER DOESN'T RUN UP IN IT, BUT ALL YOU'RE DOING IS JUST TAKING THE SIDEWALK UP TO THAT GRADE LEVEL AND THEN TAPERING IT OFF. 
          YEAH, IF THEY CHOOSE THE SIDEWALK OPTION, THEN THAT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM AT ALL. 
          SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP WATER GOING INTO IT, THE COMMISSION HAD SOME DISCUSSION. 
          I WAS AT THEIR MEETING ABOUT POSSIBLY PUTTING SOME LANDSCAPING AROUND TO JUST MAKE THE WATER NOT GO DIRECTLY INTO THE GAZEBO. 
          IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ANYTHING HIGH. IT COULD BE JUST LIKE ONE FOOT HIGH TO DIVERT THE WATER. 
          WE HAVE OTHER OPTIONS TO DEAL WITH THAT. 
          ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS? IF I CAN, I'LL CONTINUE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THE FINANCIAL ASPECT OF THIS. 
          THE BASE BID THAT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IS $43,600. 
          SOME OF THESE ADDITIONS ARE ESTIMATED AT $2550 FOR THE ELECTRICAL PACKAGE. 
          THIS WOULD INCLUDE LED INSIDE AND ALSO SOME LIGHTING ON THE OUTSIDE. 
          THE ADDITION OF THE CONCRETE SIDEWALK AT 6 FOOT WOULD BE ABOUT $11,000. 
          HOWEVER, COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON POINTED OUT THAT OUR TRAIL SYSTEM MAP AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY, IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT THAT, SPECIFIES 8 FOOT IS THE MINIMUM, I BELIEVE. 
          DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT? THE COUNTY PLAN, AND I'LL CALL IT AN AGREEMENT, HAS US HAVING 10 FOOT WIDE TRAILS THROUGH THE PRESERVE. 
          HOWEVER, WHERE WE DO HAVE CONCRETE IN OUR TRAILS, THEY'RE CURRENTLY 8 FOOT WIDE. 
          I DON'T SEE ANY REASON TO MAKE THIS ONE STRETCH 10 FOOT JUST TO MAKE THE COUNTY HAPPY WHEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE REST OF IT. 
          JUST TO REITERATE, THE 8 FOOT WOULD FIT THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, SO TO SPEAK. 
          THIS IS A BREAKDOWN OF WHAT THOSE COSTS WOULD LOOK LIKE. 
          YOU'VE GOT OPTION 1 THERE FOR THE 6 FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, OPTION 2 FOR THE 8 FOOT. 
          THIS DOES COMPLICATE THE RESOLUTION THAT BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. 
          WE HAD LISTED IN THERE A $30,000 NOT TO EXCEED AMOUNT. 
          IF COUNCIL WANTS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A BIGGER SIDEWALK OR IF THERE ARE SOME 
          [01:25:01]
OTHER ASPECTS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THE SCOPE HERE, MAYBE SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING, SOME OTHER MINOR THINGS THAT MIGHT COME UP JUST AS A PART OF THE PROJECT, I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THAT NTE BE INCREASED TO $40,000 SO THAT WE CAN PREPARE THAT DURING THE APPLICATION PREPARATION PERIOD. 
          DOES THIS INCLUDE DEMOLITION? BECAUSE SINCE WE DECIDED WE'RE DOING THAT OURSELVES, WOULD THAT CHANGE THE AMOUNT? NO, MA'AM. DEMOLITION WAS AN ALTERNATE ADDITION. 
          WE ASKED THEM NOT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT AND THAT WAS NOT A PART OF THESE CALCULATIONS. 
          THIS IS ALSO BASED ON BEING A MATCHING GRANT. 
          IF THE GRANT DOESN'T COME THROUGH AT THAT FULL AMOUNT, WHICH IS NOTORIOUS FOR COLLIN COUNTY, YOU CAN APPLY FOR $40,000 AND YOU CAN GET $20,000. 
          AGAIN, THERE COULD BE ADDITIONAL COSTS COMING UP LATER IF THE FULL GRANT DOES NOT GET AWARDED. 
          IF FOR SOME REASON THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LARGER PLAN FOR A PAVILION OVERALL. 
          I'D RATHER LOOK AT NOT JUST ONE PIECE AT A TIME, BUT THE OVERALL PIECE. 
          THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE REPLACE, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT FUNDING FOR A GAZEBO ON OUR OWN, I WANT TO LOOK AT WHERE DOES THAT FIT IN THE GRANT SCHEME. 
          AND THEN LASTLY, JUST TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE TIMELINE. 
          IF WE DO HAVE YOUR ALIGNMENT AND APPROVAL TONIGHT, WE WILL WORK TOGETHER TO SUBMIT THAT APPLICATION PACKAGE WITH THE COMMISSIONERS. 
          ADDITIONAL APPROVALS, IF THOSE ARE NEEDED AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS OR IF THE SCOPE IS MODIFIED SIGNIFICANTLY. 
          AND THEN BY JULY IS WHEN WE'RE EXPECTING THE SUBMISSION DEADLINE WOULD OCCUR. 
          WE'LL GET THAT OVER TO THE COUNTY. 
          OCTOBER 2026 IS WHEN WE WOULD EXPECT AN AWARD SUBMISSION TO GO BEFORE THE COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S COURT. 
          AT THAT TIME WE WOULD BE NOTIFIED WHETHER OR NOT WE WERE GOING TO BE RECEIVING THIS ASSISTANCE OR NOT. 
          AND THEN TOWARDS THE END OF 2026 IS WHEN COUNCIL WOULD BE BROUGHT IN A LOCAL FUNDING AGREEMENT. 
          AND THEN CONSTRUCTION WOULD COMMENCE SOMETIME IN EARLY 2027. 
          JUST A SMALL COMMENT AND I REALLY HATE EVEN MAKING IT BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE US TRYING TO MICROMANAGE DETAILS LIKE THIS HERE. 
          ON THE STUFF ABOUT THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK, I WOULD THINK IT'S JUST A SIMPLE MATTER OF YOU MAKE THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK THE SAME WIDTH AS THE OPENING IN THE FENCING THAT GOES AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE GAZEBO. 
          AND WE DON'T NEED TO DECIDE AS A CITY COUNCIL WHETHER THAT'S A SIX FOOT WIDTH OR AN EIGHT FOOT WIDTH. 
          IT'S WHATEVER THE WIDTH OF THE OPENING IS, IS THE WIDTH OF THE SIDEWALK. 
          BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SENSE TO HAVE A SIDEWALK THAT'S TWO FEET WIDER THAN THE OPENING. 
          I'LL COMMENT. I WAS OUT THERE MEASURING AND THE OPENING AT THE PARKING LOT IS EIGHT FEET. 
          I DON'T KNOW ON THE GAZEBO SIDE. 
          YEAH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OPENING ON THE GAZEBO SIDE. 
          BECAUSE THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY GOING TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE JOGGING PATH OR THE WALKING PATH, RIGHT? CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP? SO THIS IS OFF TO THE SIDE. SO IT'S GOING TO BE A WALKWAY LEADING FROM THE JOGGING PATH OR FROM THE PARKING LOT OVER TO IT, CORRECT? CURRENTLY THE WALKING PATH IS CONNECTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE GAZEBO BY THE EXISTING RAMP. 
          YEAH. OKAY. 
          AND THAT RAMP GOES FROM THE PARKING LOT? WELL, THE SIDEWALK COMES FROM THE PARKING LOT AS WELL AS IT COMES AROUND FROM THE SIDE BY THE BARN AND THE POND AND THEN COMES IN ON THE NORTH SIDE THERE. 
          OKAY. SO IT IS IN THE MIDDLE? WELL, I WOULD SAY IT'S ADJACENT TO. IT IS TOUCHING. YES. 
          YEAH, YOU WALK DOWN THE TRAIL AND THE GAZEBO IS JUST LIKE SIX TO TEN FEET OFF THE SIDE OF THE MAIN TRAIL. 
          THE POINT IS MAKE THE ENTRANCE TO IT THE SAME WIDTH AS THE OPENING OF THE GATE. IT'S THAT SIMPLE. 
          OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, QUESTIONS? OKAY. COUNCIL, WHAT SAY YOU? WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO? WHAT'S ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-886 AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR A GRANT REQUIRING MATCHING FUNDS 
          [01:30:01]
FOR A PARK STRUCTURE. 
          NOW THE RESOLUTION ACTUALLY SAYS $30,000. THAT CAN BE AMENDED. 
          OKAY. MS. HALBERT? I MOVE TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2026-886 AUTHORIZING THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION TO APPLY FOR A GRANT REQUIRING MATCHING FUNDS FOR A PARK STRUCTURE WITH A NOT TO EXCEED OF $40,000. 
          $40,000. IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID? IS THERE A SECOND? SECOND. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER BOGDAN TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-886 BUT RAISING THE AMOUNT TO $40,000. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          [8. CONSIDERATION AND/OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 908 AMENDING TITLE XV, CHAPTER 150, SECTION 150.02 OF THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES, RELATING TO MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.]
THANK YOU AND THANK YOU, MATT AND SHERRY. THAT IS REALLY GREAT. THAT IS AWESOME. 
          OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 8. 
          CONSIDERATION AND OR ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION ON ORDINANCE NUMBER 908 AMENDING TITLE 15 CHAPTER 150 SECTION 150-02 OF THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATING TO MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          COUNCIL, WHAT THIS IS ABOUT IS PLANNING AND ZONING HAS BEEN MEETING WHENEVER AND THERE HAVE BEEN SOME COMPLAINTS WHEN THEY STARTED SOME OF THEIR MEETINGS AT 4 O'CLOCK WHEN PEOPLE FELT THEY NEEDED TO BE THERE AND THEY DIDN'T FEEL THEY SHOULD HAVE TO TAKE OFF WORK TO COME TO SOME MEETINGS WHEN THERE'S SOMETHING OF HIGH INTEREST ON THERE. 
          IN LOOKING AT THIS, WE COULDN'T FIND THE ORIGINAL RESOLUTION FOR THEIR MEETING. 
          SO, CATHERINE HAS DRAWN UP A NEW ORDINANCE AND WE PUT IT IN HERE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. 
          AND IT PRETTY MUCH LETS THE COUNCIL DECIDE WHEN THE MEETINGS WILL BE, WHETHER WE WANT THEM TO BE ON THE 2ND AND 4TH THURSDAY OF EACH MONTH AT 7 O'CLOCK, WHETHER WE WANT THE CALL OF THE CHAIR, HOW DO WE WANT IT DONE. 
          IF I MAY. THIS MODIFIES THE ORDINANCE. THE EXISTING ORDINANCE PROVIDES, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE RED LINE, FOR THE MEETINGS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE CHAIRPERSON AND AT SUCH OTHER TIMES AS THE COMMISSION MAY DETERMINE. 
          THERE HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN RESOLUTIONS, WHICH AS THE MAYOR NOTED, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND THE PHYSICAL RESOLUTION, BUT I BELIEVE IN 2005 THERE WAS A RESOLUTION ADOPTED BY COUNCIL THAT WAS ACTUALLY CONTRARY TO THE ORDINANCE AT THE TIME THAT PROVIDED FOR ONE MEETING AT 7 P.M. 
          ON THE FIRST THURSDAY OF THE MONTH. 
          IN 2008, IT WAS CHANGED TO MEETINGS ON THE 2ND AND 4TH THURSDAY OF THE MONTH, ALSO AT 7 P.M. 
          THERE'S KIND OF A RECOGNITION THAT THE COUNCIL MIGHT WANT TO HAVE MORE GUIDANCE ON WHEN A MEETING CAN BE CANCELED AND THAT SORT OF THING THAN YOU WOULD ACTUALLY WANT TO PUT IN THE ORDINANCE. 
          SO THE ACTION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS AN ORDINANCE THAT JUST GIVES THE COUNCIL THE ABILITY TO SET GUIDELINES FOR MEETINGS AND THAT'S ALL THAT'S HAPPENING TONIGHT. WE'LL COME BACK WITH A RESOLUTION FOR THE COUNCIL TO SET THOSE MEETINGS AT A FUTURE MEETING. 
          I THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING BECAUSE BY THEM NOT HAVING TRULY REGULAR MEETINGS, WE HAD ALL THOSE ITEMS THAT COUNCIL EARLIER LAST YEAR SENT TO THEM AND THEN NONE OF THEM HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AT THIS POINT AND A LARGE PART OF THAT HAS BEEN THE LACK OF REGULAR P&Z MEETINGS IN MY OPINION. 
          HOPEFULLY THIS WILL GIVE THEM MORE DIRECTION ON THAT. 
          SO THIS RESOLUTION WILL CODIFY THE AUTHORITY OF CITY COUNCIL TO DETERMINE WHEN THEY'RE GOING TO MEET, BUT TO ACTUALLY PUT THAT INTO EFFECT, WHAT WE'RE REALLY GOING TO NEED TO DO IS PROPOSE A RESOLUTION OR PASS A RESOLUTION ON PRECISELY WHEN IT'S GOING TO BE. 
          IF THERE'S A CERTAIN TIME OF DAY, A CERTAIN DAY OF THE MONTH, OR HOW MANY WEEKS A MONTH AND ALL THAT. 
          [01:35:01]
WOULD WE BE PREPARED TO DO THAT NEXT TIME WE MEET SO THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY MAKE THIS EFFECTIVE? I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. 
          BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT TONIGHT, RIGHT? NO, CORRECT. WE DIDN'T WANT TO PRESUME THAT THIS WOULD HAPPEN. 
          MR. SHAW. 
          I GUESS PART OF THIS IS TO ADDRESS THE SHOT CLOCK FOR THE PLAT SUBMISSION PROCESS AND ENSURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE MEETINGS TO HAVE COVERAGE THERE. IS THAT ALSO PART OF WHY WE'RE DOING THIS? SURE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. BARRON. 
          I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ORDINANCE 908 AMENDING TITLE 15, CHAPTER 150, SECTION 150.02 OF THE CITY OF PARKER CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO MEETINGS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. 
          OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 908. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          [9. RECEIVE INFORMATION, DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND/OR TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATED TO THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ORDINANCE(S), INCLUDING REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMENDATIONS FOR UPDATE/REVISION.]
ANY OPPOSED? OKAY. MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          NOW WE'LL GO TO ITEM 9, WHICH IS RECEIVE INFORMATION, DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND OR TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATED TO THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ORDINANCES, INCLUDING REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATED REVISIONS. 
          WE SENT THIS OVER TO PAINSLEY IN LIKE APRIL, AND WE JUST GOT A RECOMMENDATION BACK FROM THEM THAT I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK IS APPROPRIATE. 
          IT WAS NOT ADDRESSING WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO DO. 
          SO I'M SUGGESTING WE SEND IT RIGHT BACK TO THEM WITH BETTER INSTRUCTIONS. 
          MR. BARRON. 
          I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. 
          I BELIEVE THEIR RECOMMENDATION, AND PLEASE GARY OR KENT CORRECT ME ON THIS, WAS FOR COUNCIL TO NEGOTIATE WITH CENTURION A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 
          THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF THEIR RECOMMENDATION. 
          IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? YES, SIR. THAT IS CORRECT. 
          AND FURTHERMORE, THEY DESCRIBED A DESIRE TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT IN THE FUTURE AND FOCUS ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS. 
          GARY, DID I CAPTURE THAT? AND I THINK PART OF THE REASON FOR WANTING TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT, WHICH I PERSONALLY AGREE WITH THIS, IS THAT IT WAS SORT OF REALLY A THING THAT WAS NEGOTIATED JUST FOR SOUTH FORK. 
          BUT IT HAS, I THINK, A 175-ACRE MINIMUM, SO IT WASN'T GOING TO BE – NOBODY ELSE WAS GOING TO COME ALONG AND TRY TO USE IT. 
          BUT NOW, IF IT WAS AMENDED TO SAY, OH, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING, BUT IT'S 39 ACRES, WHICH IS WHAT I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE NOW FOR IT TO WORK FOR THEM, THEN WE ARE AT RISK OF OTHER DEVELOPMENTS COMING IN AND SAYING, I HAVE 40 ACRES, I WANT TO DO ALL THIS SAME STUFF. 
          AND SO I THINK THAT WAS THEIR MOTIVATION BEHIND THE SUGGESTION OF PD. 
          AND I'M NOT DEFENDING THEIR SUGGESTION, I'M JUST EXPLAINING IT. 
          CATHERINE, WOULD YOU SPEAK TO NON-CONFORMING SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT ONCE THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS OF SOUTH FORK LEFT THE REST OF SOUTH FORK? RIGHT. SO WHAT EXISTS IS NON-CONFORMING, SO IT'S ALLOWED TO EXIST, BUT IF ANY OF THE STRUCTURES, FOR EXAMPLE, WERE TO BURN DOWN, THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REPLACE THOSE BECAUSE IT'S A NON-CONFORMING USE. 
          OKAY. SO WHAT WE HAVE AT THIS POINT IS PART OF WHAT WE THINK OF AS SOUTH FORK IS SF, ON WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS ARE, AND WHERE THE EVENT CENTER AND THE MANSION IS, IS STILL A SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT, JUST A NON-CONFORMING SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT. 
          [01:40:03]
I DON'T KNOW WHERE PD WOULD COME INTO THAT. 
          I THINK THE SUGGESTION IS THAT PD WOULD REPLACE THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT. 
          THE PORTION THAT REMAINS THAT HAS NOT BEEN REZONED SINGLE FAMILY. 
          OKAY. IF THAT HAPPENS, THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT ARE WITHIN THAT NON-CONFORMING DISTRICT, SUCH AS SOUTH FORK COULD HAVE A HOTEL, SUCH AS THEY COULD HAVE AN ALOE VERA FACTORY. WHAT HAPPENS TO THOSE? WE WOULD NEGOTIATE THAT INTO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. 
          OR OUT OF. 
          I'LL POINT OUT THAT IT'S CONFUSING BECAUSE WE HAVE THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT ZONING, WE ALSO HAVE THE SOUTH FORK ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, AND IN THE SOUTH FORK ANNEXATION ORDINANCE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT ALOE FACTORY CAN ONLY BE IN THE AREA RIGHT NOW THAT'S BEING TURNED INTO HOUSES. 
          SO THAT USE WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE REGARDLESS GOING FORWARD. 
          NOW, YES, THE HOTEL, I THINK THEY CAN HAVE TWO OR THREE RESTAURANTS AND SO ON. 
          YEAH, THAT'S IN THERE. AND THERE'S A LIST OF OTHER THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED. 
          NOTHING VERY WEIRD OUTSIDE OF THE ALOE FACTORY. 
          BUT AT LEAST FOR MYSELF, I'M NOT SURE WHAT A PATH FORWARD IS. 
          THE ONLY TWO PATHS FORWARD I'M AWARE OF, AND CATHERINE OR ANYBODY ELSE, PLEASE SUGGEST OTHERS, IS EITHER WE MODIFY THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT TO GET THEM IN COMPLIANCE, AND THEN ALSO WE NEED TO LOOK AT THAT SOUTH FORK ANNEXATION ORDINANCE BECAUSE SOME OF IT IS OUT OF DATE, OR WE DO SOMETHING LIKE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, OR IS THERE SOME THIRD OPTION THAT WE CAN MOVE TO? I'M JUST WONDERING, I WANT TO ASK COUNCIL, SO DO WE HAVE A UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS? SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE NEGOTIATE WITH SOUTH FORK BECAUSE THEIR EXISTING ZONING, IT'S IN PLACE? SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICTS, I THINK THERE'S A SECTION IN OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT ADDRESSES SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICTS AND THE COUNCIL COULD TAKE ACTION ON THAT. 
          THEN THERE'S THE SPECIAL ACTIVITIES DISTRICT THAT WAS ADOPTED THAT IS SOUTH FORK, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE PERFECT RECALL OF ALL OF THESE THINGS. 
          AND IN THAT, I WOULDN'T SAY IT'S UNILATERAL, BUT I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT THEIR ABILITY TO DEVELOP ANYTHING THAT DOESN'T CURRENTLY EXIST IS VERY LIMITED BECAUSE IT'S NO LONGER CONFORMING TO THE EXISTING DISTRICT. 
          I GUESS THE WAY I'M KIND OF UNDERSTANDING IT IS WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE UNILATERAL AUTHORITY TO CHANGE IT. 
          WE WOULD NEED THEM TO COOPERATE. 
          BUT THE INCENTIVE FOR THEM TO COOPERATE IS THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING RIGHT NOW, AND IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN TO ONE OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDINGS, THEY COULDN'T REBUILD IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER CONFORMING. 
          SO THAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO GO TO THEM, GET AHEAD OF THE CURVE OF ANYTHING HAPPENING OUT THERE, AND NEGOTIATE SOMETHING THAT WORKS BEST FOR BOTH PARTIES. 
          YES, AND BECAUSE THEY'VE CHANGED THE SURROUNDING USE, THEY MIGHT WANT TO DO OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE IT MORE ATTRACTIVE TO THE REST OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT. 
          BUT IF SOUTH FORK SAID, WE'RE NOT INTERESTED, WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE US? AND THAT'S A CONCERN. 
          I'M KIND OF LIKE BILLY, ARE THERE ANY OTHER OPTIONS? SOUTH FORK HAS INDICATED THEY ARE INTERESTED IN MEETING NEGOTIATIONS. 
          THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. 
          I FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO START CLEAN WITH THE CURRENT, NOW EXISTING SITUATION. 
          OKAY. 
          SO IF WE WERE TO DO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHO IS THE APPROPRIATE PARTY TO NEGOTIATE THAT FROM THE CITY SIDE? IS IT PLANNING AND ZONING? IS IT COUNCIL? IS IT SAP? IS IT SOME COMBINATION THEREOF? IF THAT'S A QUESTION FOR ME, I THINK THAT IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE FOR IT TO BE STAFF BECAUSE ANY BODY IS LIMITED BY 
          [01:45:02]
TOMA AND MAKES NEGOTIATIONS KIND OF CHALLENGING. 
          I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT, MADAM MAYOR. 
          THAT'S A JOB TO ASSIGN TO STAFF AND LET THEM COME BACK TO US. 
          IF WE DO DO THAT, I WOULD REQUEST THAT STAFF TALKS TO ME BECAUSE I'M PROBABLY THE MOST FAMILIAR WITH THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES OUT THERE. 
          BECAUSE WE DON'T ONLY HAVE THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT. 
          WE HAVE THEIR ANNEXATION AGREEMENT AND TO BE HONEST, THEY'RE CURRENTLY NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH SOME OF THE THINGS IN THOSE CURRENT ORDINANCES. 
          LIKE FOR INSTANCE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SCREENING ALONG HOGUE. 
          BASED ON THEIR PARKING LOT SIZE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO HAVE SO MANY TREES. 
          AND SO I'M NOT SAYING WE GO OUT THERE AND BUST THEM ON THE STUFF. 
          I'M NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL. 
          I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M AWARE OF THESE THINGS AND WE JUST NEED TO INCLUDE THIS AS PART OF OUR DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM. 
          YEAH, AND I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT KIND OF LIKE COLLEEN, HOW DO WE GET FROM THERE TO THERE? AND STARTING CLEAN IS A GOOD WAY. 
          MADAM MAYOR, I THINK THAT COUNCIL SHOULD DIRECT CITY ADMINISTRATOR AND HIS STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS ON A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH CENTURION. 
          ARE WE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? ABSOLUTELY, MADAM MAYOR. 
          AND I'D ALSO JUST SUGGEST JUST FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION HERE THAT IT COULD BE THROUGH A COMMITTEE PROCESS THAT COMBINES SOME OF OUR ELECTED AND APPOINTED OFFICIALS WITH CITY STAFF SO THAT WE'RE TAKING IN THAT INPUT. 
          AND THEN I WOULD JUST SEEK A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY. 
          ONCE WE GET A DRAFT PD TO A POINT OF CONSIDERATION, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT TO GO BEFORE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FIRST BEFORE IT MAKES ITS WAY TO CITY COUNCIL? I THINK SO. 
          I MEAN, THEY'RE THE ONES WHO ASKED US TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND BEGIN THIS PROCESS. 
          I THINK WE SHOULD HONOR THEIR WILLINGNESS TO DO THAT. 
          DO WE HAVE A PRECEDENT ON THAT, GARY? I DON'T THINK SO. 
          I DON'T KNOW OF ONE, BUT I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE FINE TO DO THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, WHAT IS THE MOTION? I DIDN'T MAKE THE MOTION. 
          I MEAN, TO DIRECT THE STAFF, WE NEEDED TO MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. 
          DO WE NEED TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THEIR RECOMMENDATION BACK TO US OR CAN WE JUST GIVE DIRECTION? YOU PROBABLY NEED A MOTION ON THIS ONE. 
          YOU KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. 
          MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE TO DIRECT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR TO WORK WITH CITY STAFF AND A SMALL COMMITTEE TO CREATE AND NEGOTIATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT WITH CENTURION. 
          OKAY. 
          IS THERE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOONE TO DIRECT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR WORKING WITH STAFF AND OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS, IF ONE IS FORMED, TO DEVELOP PD. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY QUESTIONS? YES, MADAM MAYOR. 
          I WOULD AMEND THAT JUST SLIGHTLY TO SAY THAT THEY WOULD BRING THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS ON THAT BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID. 
          OKAY. 
          AND AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING, THEN IT WOULD COME TO CITY COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 
          OKAY. 
          SO, THERE'S A DRAFT PROPOSAL. 
          OKAY. 
          I'LL ACCEPT THAT. 
          I'LL ACCEPT THAT. 
          DO WE HAVE A SECOND, THOUGH? I'LL ACCEPT IT AS WELL. 
          OKAY. 
          BEFORE WE VOTE, CAN I MAKE ONE QUESTION? EVENTUALLY, ONCE WE GET THIS PD DONE, WE WILL NEED TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT TO REMOVE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT FROM OUR ZONING. 
          SO, DO WE NEED TO JUST PUT THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM? YEAH. 
          I WOULD THINK THAT WE AS A COUNCIL HAVE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO ELIMINATE THAT FOR THE FUTURE. 
          HOW ARE WE GOING TO HANDLE THAT? ANYTHING ELSE ON ITEM NUMBER NINE? IF NOT, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HOWARD AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARROW TO DIRECT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR ALONG WITH STAFF AND ANY OTHER COMMITTEE MEMBERS THAT MIGHT BE FORMED TO DEVELOP A PD REGARDING THE ZONING FOR THE SPECIAL ACTIVITY 
          [01:50:04]
DISTRICT. 
          AND ONCE THAT IS DONE, TO REFER THAT TO P&Z. 
          AND ONCE P&Z FINISHES IT, THEN THEY BRING IT BACK TO COUNCIL. 
          IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION AT ALL? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          DOES THAT GIVE KIP THE ABILITY TO ASSEMBLE A COMMITTEE? YES. 
          DOES THAT GIVE KIP THE ABILITY TO ASSEMBLE A COMMITTEE? YES. 
          THAT'S THE INTENTION. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY, THEN I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR WAS... 
          RIGHT, I'M GIVING HIM THE AUTHORITY TO MANAGE THIS. 
          OKAY. 
          DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          HEARING NOTHING ELSE, ANYBODY ELSE? HEARING NOTHING ELSE, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO DIRECT CITY ADMINISTRATOR WITH STAFF TO DEVELOP A COMMITTEE AS NEEDED TO DEVELOP A PD, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WILL THEN GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR THEIR RECOMMENDATION WHO WILL THEN SEND IT BACK TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL. 
          OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, 
          [10. RECEIVE INFORMATION, DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND/OR TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATED TO FIREWORKS AND THE PREVENTION OF FIRES ORDINANCE(S), INCLUDING REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATE/REVISION.]
PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY. 
          THANK GOD. 
          FIVE-ZERO. 
          OKAY. 
          ITEM NUMBER 10 IS PRETTY MUCH LIKE ITEM NUMBER 9, WHERE IT IS RECEIVE INFORMATION, DISCUSS, CONSIDER, AND TAKE ANY APPROPRIATE ACTION RELATED TO FIREWORKS AND THE PREVENTION OF FIRES, INCLUDING REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATED PROVISIONS. 
          I WAS AT THE MEETING, AND AT NO TIME DID I HEAR FIREWORKS REALLY DISCUSSED, OTHER THAN WHAT WAS SAID, THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A FIREWORKS PROBLEM IN THE CITY OF PARKER. 
          ONE OF THE REASONS WE SENT THIS TO PNZ IS WE HAVE LIKE THREE DIFFERENT FIREWORKS ORDINANCES OR RESOLUTIONS THAT WE NEED TO UPDATE AND OR CONSOLIDATE. 
          AND I'LL NOTE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE IN CONFLICT WITH ONE ANOTHER. 
          I BELIEVE SPECIAL ACTIVITY DISTRICT MENTIONS FOUR FIREWORKS EVENTS PER YEAR. 
          THE SOUTH FORK ANNEXATION ORDINANCE MENTIONS 12, AND THERE MAY BE INFORMATION SOMEWHERE ELSE IN OUR CODE AS WELL. 
          WELL, IT NEEDS CLARIFICATION. 
          AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE DIDN'T COMMUNICATE WELL WITH... 
          I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. 
          SO I'LL NOTE, I BELIEVE THE COMMISSION DIRECTED CATHERINE TO COME UP WITH AN ORDINANCE, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY GAVE HER ANY INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT IT NEEDED TO ACTUALLY SAY. 
          THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. 
          I DON'T THINK ANYBODY HAS A PROBLEM WITH CATHERINE PUTTING TOGETHER THE ORDINANCE, BUT SOMEBODY HAS TO GIVE THE BONES TO CATHERINE. 
          OKAY, MS. BOGDAN, I THINK YOU WERE FIRST. 
          CAN WE SEND THIS BACK TO THEM, JUST LIKE WE DID THE SIGN ORDINANCE? I THINK THEY NEED TO GO BACK. 
          I THINK THEY NEED TO LOOK AT ALL THE OPTIONS, PULL SOME OTHER CITIES, SEE WHAT THEY HAVE. 
          I THINK THEY NEED TO COME UP WITH THE CRITERIA, AND I THINK THEY NEED TO COME UP WITH WRITING WHAT THEY WANT. 
          OKAY. 
          SO... 
          DID YOU HAVE YOUR HAND UP? I DID. 
          THANK YOU. 
          QUESTION FOR CHIEF PRICE. 
          WHAT PROBLEMS DO YOU HAVE? I MEAN, THE NOTES HERE INDICATE THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM OF INSUFFICIENT PERSON POWER TO ENFORCE THE EXISTING ORDINANCES. 
          WE ACTUALLY STAFFED 4TH OF JULY NIGHT WITH EXTRA PERSONNEL, AND BETWEEN DARK AND MIDNIGHT, THERE'S PROBABLY AN EXCESS OF 30 TO 75 CALLS FOR FIRE. 
          THERE'S NO WAY THAT 2 OR 3 PEOPLE CAN KEEP UP AT ALL, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING OFF ALL OVER THE CITY. 
          THEY START FIRES. 
          LAST YEAR, WE HAD ONE IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY IN SOUTH FORK, WHERE THE PEOPLE WERE SHOOTING FIREARMS ACROSS THE ROAD INTO THAT. 
          WE DIDN'T SET IT ON FIRE. 
          I THINK OUR OFFICERS GOT IT PUT OUT BEFORE IT GOT BIG, BUT THEN WE GOT IT BACK. 
          AND SO WE HAVE A CONSTANT ISSUE WITH ENFORCING IN THIS COUNTRY. 
          THE NEXT ISSUE I HAVE, FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S STANDPOINT, IS IF WE TAKE THOSE—IF YOU CITE SOMEBODY AND TAKE THEIR FIREWORKS FOR THE ORDINANCE, 
          [01:55:02]
THEN WE HAVE TO STORE THEM SOMEPLACE. 
          PRIOR TO ME, THEY WERE STORED IN THE PROPERTY ROOM, AND I WOULD JUST SHIP THEM OUT TO HAVE A BOMB IN THE PROPERTY. 
          AND THEN THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO APPEAL THOSE STATEMENTS TO THE COUNTY, WHICH MEANS THEY COULD POTENTIALLY GET THEIR FIREWORKS BACK. 
          SO KEEPING UP WITH IT IS A NIGHTMARE. 
          SO THE ORDINANCE NEEDS TO BE REWORKED. 
          CAN YOU ADDRESS THE FIRE PITS TOO? THE FIRE PITS? YEAH. 
          SO PART OF THIS WAS—I MEAN, THEY'RE MENTIONING IN THE SAME BREATH THAT THEY WANT TO REWRITE THE FIRE PITS, THE FIRE BURNING AND FIRE PIT ORDINANCES. 
          ACTUALLY, THAT CAME FROM CHIEF MILLER OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, WAS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT THAT UP. 
          THAT DIDN'T COME FROM PLANNING AND ZONING ITSELF OR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          WE CAN CAUSE THAT TO BE ADDRESSED IN THIS, BUT THIS WENT OVER THERE ON FIREWORKS BECAUSE WE HAVE NUMEROUS DIFFERENT RESOLUTIONS, ORDINANCES ON FIREWORKS, AND IT'S A MESS. 
          IT'S WHAT PREVAILS ON WHICH DAY OF THE WEEK, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE ASKING TO GET CLEARED UP. 
          SO WE HAVE ONE CLEAR ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION. 
          MS. ALBA? YEAH, I GUESS FOR ME—I'M JUST GOING TO STOP PASSING THAT. 
          IT SEEMS LIKE THIS IS A LOT. 
          I UNDERSTAND IT'S ALL ABOUT PREVENTING FIRES, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S TOO OVERWHELMING FOR THEM TO DISCUSS, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO BREAK THEM INTO TWO SEPARATE ORDINANCES, ONE ABOUT FIREWORKS AND ONE ABOUT FIRE PITS, AND THEN WE HAVE CLARITY AT LEAST ON WORK ON THIS, THEN WORK ON THIS? THAT'S FINE. 
          THE ONLY ONE WE REFERRED TO WAS FIREWORKS, SO IF WE WANT TO ADD FIRE PITS, BURN BANS, ALL THAT KIND OF THING. 
          YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY MAKE FIREWORKS A SEPARATE ISSUE. 
          IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE BLENDED IN. 
          WELL, TECHNICALLY WHAT'S HERE SAYS RELATED TO FIREWORKS AND THE PREVENTION OF FIRE, AND AS CHIEF MILLER EXPLAINED, THE FIRE PIT ISSUE, IT FALLS UNDER THE PREVENTION OF FIRE. 
          I DON'T DISAGREE ABOUT SPLITTING THEM APART, THOUGH. 
          SO I GUESS MY ANSWER TO THAT WOULD BE PERHAPS THERE'S AN ORDINANCE ON THE PREVENTION OF FIRES, SECTION ONE FIREWORKS, SECTION TWO FIRE PITS, AND DO IT THAT WAY. 
          YEAH, ONE OF THE REASONS THIS WENT OVER THERE ON FIREWORKS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS ONE DEAL ON FIREWORKS, THE CITY HAS ANOTHER ONE, SOUTH FORK HAS ANOTHER, AND IT'S LIKE WHAT PREVAILS, AND WE WERE HOPING TO GET SOME GUIDANCE ON THAT, AND WE GOT INTO, ONCE THAT STARTED, WE GOT INTO FIRE PITS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. 
          SO I THINK THAT IS A GOOD IDEA. 
          I THINK THEY ALL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED, BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO BREAK IT DOWN SO IT'S MORE MANAGEABLE FOR P&G, AND THEY CAN THEN COME UP WITH THE BONES, AND THEN CATHERINE, IF SHE WILL, CAN DRAFT THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE RESOLUTION. 
          SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JEFF OR ASSISTANT CHIEF. 
          HOW MUCH OF AN ISSUE OR HOW MUCH OF A PROBLEM DO WE HAVE WITH FIRE PITS AND BURN PITS? THE PROBLEM IS WE JUST DON'T HAVE THE CONSISTENCY WHERE WE CAN SIT THERE AND SAY, HEY, IT'S THIS, BUT WE REALLY DON'T KNOW, BUT WE DO. 
          IN FACT, LAST NIGHT THEY RAN ON SOME GUYS HAVING, THEY BOUGHT A COUPLE OF LOGS FROM KROGER AND THEY WERE BURNING IN THE BACKYARD. 
          SO THERE'S REALLY NOTHING SPECIFIC THAT WE TELL THEM, WE'RE LIKE, HEY, YOU CAN'T BURN IN THE CITY. 
          WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HAVE SOMETHING WHERE, HEY, IF IT'S A, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU KNOW, THE DIMENSIONS THAT YOU SPOKE OF, BUT JUST SO WE CAN HAVE SOME TYPE OF A DIMENSION THAT WE CAN SAY, THIS IS THE DIMENSION THAT IT HAS TO BE, AND IT HAS TO BE CONTAINED, IT HAS TO BE COVERED SO THAT WAY WE'RE NOT CAUSING MORE FIRES. 
          SO THE CALL THAT YOU JUST HAD, HOW DID THAT CALL COME ABOUT? DID A NEIGHBOR CALL AND COMPLAIN BECAUSE THEY HAD A NEIGHBOR THAT... 
          THEY SAW SOMETHING BURNING, SO THEY CAME IN AS AN INVESTIGATION. 
          THEY FIGURED OUT IT WAS ACTUALLY A FIRE. 
          THEY SHOWED UP LIKE, HEY GUYS, YOU CAN'T DO THIS. 
          THEY PUT IT OUT, THEY PUT IT OUT, AND WE WENT HOME. 
          SO HOW COULD YOU TELL THEM THAT THEY CAN'T DO THAT IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE? BECAUSE ESSENTIALLY YOU CAN'T BURN IN THE CITY. 
          WE'RE JUST MORE TRYING TO HAVE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE, IT HAS TO BE CONTAINED SO THAT WAY YOU HAVE SOME TYPE OF CONTAINMENT. 
          THAT WAY YOU CAN'T JUST GO AND JUST BURN WHATEVER YOU WANT TO BURN. 
          BECAUSE WE'VE HAD TIMES WHERE WE HAVE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO BURN A BIG PILE OF BRUSH. 
          AND IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT. 
          SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET IT WHERE THERE'S A DEFINITION OF WHAT YOU CAN AND CAN'T DO. 
          OKAY, SO YOU THINK WE NEED SOME REGULATION DEFINING WHAT A FIRE 
          [02:00:01]
PIT IS VERSUS A BURN PIT FOR EXCESS LIMBS AND STUFF? YEAH, ONE OF THE ISSUES THEY WERE TRYING TO DEFINE WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A FIRE PIT AND AN OUTDOOR FIREPLACE. 
          AND THAT WAS QUITE AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION. 
          OKAY. 
          I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS EVER RESOLVED. 
          DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE? NO, I WAS JUST, WERE YOU ASKING ME SOMETHING? I'M SORRY, I WASN'T LISTENING TO YOU. 
          I THINK SHE WAS JUST COMMENTING ON HOW IT GOT AGREED. 
          SO IF WE'RE READY FOR A MOTION, I MOVE TO REDIRECT ORDINANCE NUMBER 201 RELATING TO THE PREVENTION OF FIRES BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION WITH TWO SEPARATE DISCUSSIONS OF FIREWORKS AND FIRE PITS WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF BOTH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FOR GUIDANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          YEAH, I WILL NOTE AT THE LAST MEETING AT PNZ, CHIEF PRICE WAS NOT THERE. 
          I'M GOING TO MOTION, I THINK, FOR AN AMENDMENT TO ADJUST FIRE PIT TO BE THE OPEN BURNING OF FUEL, I GUESS. 
          FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WE NEED YOUR HELP. 
          OR WE COULD JUST USE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S HERE IN OUR ITEM, PREVENTION OF FIRES, WHICH I THINK FITS ALL THAT. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT THEY CLEARLY GOT OFF TRACK AND ENDED UP DISCUSSING FIRE PITS AND NOT, SO I WANT IT TO BE VERY CLEAR TO THEM THAT THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ISSUES THAT THEY NEED TO CLEAN UP. 
          I KNOW, I'M JUST SAYING THE SECOND ISSUE, WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT FIRE PIT NECESSARILY. 
          WE CAN CALL IT PREVENTION OF FIRE. 
          I DON'T THINK THEY'RE TAKING DIRECTION WELL, SO I WAS TRYING TO BE CLEAR. 
          I LIKE COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT'S CLARITY. I THINK WE CAN ADDRESS ALL OTHER FIRE SITUATIONS IF WE NEED TO, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING FOR HERE IS THE DEFINITION OF WHAT IS A FIRE PIT, WHAT'S AN ALLOWABLE OUTDOOR FIREPLACE. 
          I THINK THERE'S GUIDANCE THERE. 
          I THINK WE'LL JUST STICK WITH WHAT WE CAN BITE OFF AND CHEW HERE. 
          OKAY. 
          IS ANYBODY MAKING A SECOND? THERE WAS NO SECOND ANYWHERE. 
          I'LL MAKE A SECOND. 
          WE HAD ASKED THE MAYOR TO BE OUR REPRESENTATIVE LAST TIME ON THE SIGNS TO GO BACK AND GIVE THAT DIRECTION TO PNC, SO CAN YOU DO THAT AGAIN? OH, YEAH. I PLAN TO BE AT ALL PNC MEETINGS FROM HERE ON OUT. 
          JUST IN CASE THEY HAVE QUESTIONS IN PLACE, WE'RE NOT CLEAR ENOUGH TO BE THERE TO ANSWER ANYTHING THAT COMES UP, AND HOPEFULLY WHEN WE HAVE THINGS THAT INVOLVE THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME OTHER ISSUES. 
          I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE, AND JEFF, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING, DO WE HAVE A BURN BAN OTHER THAN WE GENERALLY USE THE ONE FROM THE COUNTY? DO WE HAVE ONE OURSELVES? I THINK FOR THE MOST PART, SORRY, IT'S JUST YOU DON'T BURN IN THE CITY LIMITS, AND THEN ALSO WE ADD IF THE COUNTY HAS A BURN BAN, THEN WE WILL OBVIOUSLY HONOR THAT AS WELL, BUT IT'S KIND OF A DOUBLE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO DO. 
          YOU CAN'T BURN IN THE CITY, AND THERE'S ALSO A BURN BAN HERE, SO YOU KIND OF BROKE TWO RULES HERE, IF YOU WILL. 
          OKAY. 
          I'M GOING TO ASK MS. HALBERT TO PLEASE REPEAT YOUR MOTION. 
          I'M GOING TO STOP WITH THESE. 
          WHAT I GOT WAS FOR 401 BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING, AND IT HAS BEEN TO DEVELOP A FIREWORKS ROSE AND FIRE PIT. 
          OPEN FIRE. 
          OPEN FIRE. 
          OH, OPEN FIRE, OKAY. 
          AND ONCE THEY'VE GOT THE BONES TO THAT, THEN THEY CAN GIVE IT TO, WELL, I GUESS IT SHOULD COME BACK TO US, AND THEN WE WOULD GIVE IT TO KATHLEEN, OR WE CAN GIVE IT TO KATHLEEN, AND WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER? I DON'T REALLY HAVE A PREFERENCE. 
          IS IT FASTER, IS IT MORE EXPEDIENT FOR THEM TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO DO THAT? OKAY. 
          OKAY. 
          [02:05:01]
SO, WE HAVE A MOTION FROM MS. HALBERT AND A SECOND FROM MS. BOGDAN. 
          IS THERE ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? UNFORTUNATELY, YES, MADAM MAYOR. 
          I'M JUST GOING TO AT LEAST MAKE MY COMMENT, AND THEN YOU CAN TAKE THE VOTE. 
          I'M GOING TO VOTE AGAINST THIS, THE WAY THAT IT'S WORDED RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE I THINK THE WAY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DOING IT IS TOO BIG OF A TASK THAT WE'RE SIGNING BACK TO THEM. 
          I THINK THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DO IS JUST SEND A SIMPLE ORDER BACK TO THEM TO DEVELOP A RESOLUTION, TO DEVELOP POLICY ON FIREWORKS AS A PROPOSED ORDINANCE. 
          JUST DEAL WITH FIREWORKS FIRST. 
          IT'S JUST A SINGLE ISSUE. 
          LET'S SEE HOW THEY DO WITH THAT. 
          LET THEM BRING IT BACK TO US. 
          WE'RE HAVING A HARD TIME EVEN WRITING DOWN WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO CRAFT HERE AND MIXING FIREWORKS WITH PITS, WITH BONE PITS, WITH OVERALL FIRE ORDINANCES. 
          I THINK THOSE OTHER ISSUES GET VERY COMPLICATED, AND WE COULD EASILY GET BACK INTO ANOTHER ISSUE JUST LIKE WE HAD WITH THE NOISE ORDINANCE, WHERE WE GET A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THE CITY STIRRED UP THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR COUNTRY LIFESTYLE. 
          WE'RE TRYING TO TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHTS AS INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, SOME OF WHICH COULD BE RIGHT, SOME OF WHICH COULD BE OVERBLOWN, BECAUSE A LOT OF IT WAS OVERBLOWN IN THE NOISE ORDINANCE. 
          SOME OF IT WAS CORRECT, AND WE MADE SOME CHANGES IN THE NOISE ORDINANCE. 
          SO, MY COMMENT IS I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS, COMBINING THE TWO. 
          I THINK WE JUST NEED TO ASK THEM TO DO A SIMPLE FIREWORKS ORDINANCE, SEE HOW THEY DO ON THAT, AND THEN AS A SEPARATE MATTER, IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE OTHER ISSUES, WE'LL DO THAT AT A LATER TIME. 
          SO, CATHERINE, WOULD WE HAVE TO THEN DO SOMETHING TO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE IF WE CREATED A DIFFERENT ONE FOR FIREWORKS TO REMOVE FIREWORKS FROM THIS ONE SO WE DON'T END UP IN THE SAME SPOT? IDEALLY, YES, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WHETHER YOU'RE SENDING IT BACK TO PNC OR YOU'RE SENDING SOMETHING TO ME, IDEALLY WHEN I BRING SOMETHING TO YOU, IT WOULD TAKE CARE OF REPEALING ANY SECTIONS THAT ARE IN CONFLICT. 
          WHAT ABOUT IF WE ASKED THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO COME UP WITH A STARTING POINT? THESE ARE THE GUYS THAT KNOW WHAT'S OUT THERE, KNOW WHAT THEY WANT, KNOW WHAT THEY NEED, AND LET THEM START WITH THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN MAYBE GIVE THAT TO PNC AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK OF IT, BECAUSE I THINK THAT WOULD BE COMING FROM A SOURCE WHERE THEY KNOW WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 
          YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE OPEN FIRES? THE OPEN FIRES, CORRECT. 
          IN FAIRNESS, JEFF, WHAT ARE YOU THINKING ABOUT? THAT'S FINE. THE CHIEF AND I, WE'VE KIND OF TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT IT, BUT THAT'S THE THING IS WE'LL GO OUT TO OTHER CITIES AND STEAL FROM THEM KIND OF WHAT THEY HAVE, AND THEN WE'LL COME BRING IT TO YOU ALL, AND WE'LL TWEAK IT AND MAKE IT RIGHT. 
          BUT I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN IN THE FIRST PLACE, IS KIND OF HELP ROB PETER TO PAY PAUL TO MAKE SURE IT'S RIGHT FOR WHAT'S BEST FOR US. 
          OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. 
          WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE MOTION THAT'S ON THE FLOOR, WHICH IS REFER 2-1-1 BACK TO PNC AND ASK THEM TO DEAL WITH A, FIREWORKS, AND 2, OPEN FIRES, WHICH INCLUDES FIRE PITS. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT MOTION? I'D LIKE TO WITHDRAW MY SECOND ON THAT. 
          OKAY. SO, IS THERE A SECOND? I SECOND IT, AND THE ODDS DON'T INDICATE IT'S GOING TO GO ANYWHERE. 
          OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MS. HALBERT AND A SECOND BY MR. SHARP. 
          AT THIS TIME, I WILL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ALL THOSE OPPOSED? OKAY, IT IS 2, MS. HALBERT AND MR. SHARP IN FAVOR, AND 3 AGAINST, AND THAT IS MAYOR PRO TEM PILGRIM, COUNCIL MEMBER BOWEN, AND COUNCIL MEMBER BOGDAN. 
          SO NOW, IS THERE ANOTHER MOTION? OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE MULTIPLE MOTIONS, BUT LET'S JUST DO ONE FIRST. 
          I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REFER FIREWORKS ONLY BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR FURTHER REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION FOR UPDATE SLASH REVISION. 
          SECOND. 
          OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BOWEN AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER HALBERT TO REFER FIREWORKS ONLY BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING FOR FURTHER RECOMMENDATION. 
          OKAY. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION 
          [02:10:03]
ON THAT? OKAY. THEN I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANYBODY OPPOSED? OKAY. THAT PASSES 5-0. 
          ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? SOMEHOW I KNEW YOU WERE GOING TO HAVE ONE. 
          WELL, I'M NOT SURE I'D AWARD THIS MOTION, BUT WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO FOR THE, WE CAN CALL IT FIRE PIT, OPEN FIRE, PREVENTION OF FIRES. 
          I WOULD SAY LET'S DO PREVENTION OF FIRES. 
          CAN WE HAND IT OVER TO THE CHIEF AND ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF? MAKE A MOTION. 
          OKAY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE REFER THE PREVENTION OF FIRES ORDINANCE TO OUR FIRE AND OUR ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF TO COME UP WITH EITHER A DRAFT ORDINANCE OR JUST THE CONCEPTS THAT NEED TO BE IN THAT ORDINANCE. 
          AND THEN ONCE THEY HAVE DONE THAT, THEY BRING IT TO PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          OKAY. IS THERE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION? I'LL SECOND. 
          OKAY. 
          WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARRON AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER SHAW THAT THE ORDINANCE ON PREVENTION OF FIRES BE REFERRED TO THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF TO DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OR RESOLUTION AND ONCE DONE, REFER THAT TO PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? OKAY. 
          I HAVE A QUESTION, MADAM MAYOR. 
          WAS THAT FOR THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF TO ACTUALLY DRAFT THE ORDINANCE OR JUST COME BACK TO US WITH GENERAL RECOMMENDATIONS? WELL, THE WAY I WORDED IT WAS EITHER ONE. 
          SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE NEED CLARITY ON THIS. 
          WE'VE GOT TOO MANY THINGS WE HAVEN'T HAD CLARITY ON TONIGHT. 
          I'M BIG ON CLARITY. 
          YEAH, I SAID FOR THEM TO EITHER DRAFT THE ORDINANCE OR, NOW I FORGOT THE EXACT WORDING I USED, OR COME BACK WITH THE CONCEPTS THAT GO INTO THE ORDINANCE. 
          OKAY. 
          THERE MIGHT BE MORE OF A COMFORT LEVEL IF YOU REFER IT TO THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF AND ANY COMMITTEE THAT THEY FEEL OF THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. 
          WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS GIVE THEM THE AUTHORITY TO HAVE OTHER PEOPLE PARTICIPATE. 
          WELL, I THINK BY JUST THE WORDING HERE, THEY CAN BRING IN ANYBODY THEY WANT AND GET THEIR OPINIONS. 
          I DON'T SEE MY MOTION PROHIBITS THEM FROM FORMING THEIR OWN COMMITTEE. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE? WE HAVE A MOTION BY BILL O'BYRNE TO REFER PREVENTION OF FIRES TO THE FIRE CHIEF AND THE ASSISTANT FIRE CHIEF TO DEVELOP AND OR DRAFT AN ORDINANCE ON THAT WHICH THEY WILL THEN TAKE TO PLANNING AND ZONING. 
          ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? NOT HEARING ANY, I'LL CALL FOR YOUR VOTE. 
          ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. 
          ANY OPPOSED? 
          [11. UPDATE(S)]
THAT MOTION CARRIES 5-0. 
          OKAY, YES. 
          OKAY, NOW WE WILL GO TO ROUTINE ITEMS UPDATES. 
          THE FIRST UPDATE WE HAVE IS FROM MR. MACHADO ON 2551. 
          I SPOKE WITH THE CONTRACTOR EARLIER TODAY FOR HARPER BROTHERS ON THAT AND HE'S TELLING ME THAT THEY'RE STILL ON TRACK FOR MID-MARCH STARTING BASE WORK ON THE REMAINING SECTIONS OF 2551 BETWEEN LUCAS ROAD, BETHANY, AND CURTIS, THE SECTION THAT'S NOT DONE IN OUR CITY. 
          AND THEN EARLY MAY THEY SHOULD START ACTUAL CONCRETE PAVING ON THOSE SECTIONS. 
          OKAY. 
          COUNSEL, ANY QUESTIONS OF MR. MACHADO ON THAT? OKAY. 
          OUR SECOND UPDATE IS ON TCEQ. 
          THAT IS FROM TIM FOGLE. 
          ON TCEQ, I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT I UPDATED YOU ON LAST TIME. 
          I THINK WE JUST GOT A NEW SCHEDULING ORDER LAST TIME AROUND. 
          [02:15:01]
THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S REALLY HAPPENED SINCE THEN. 
          THERE'S NO DISCOVERY THAT'S BEEN PRESENTED. 
          BASICALLY, IT'S KIND OF IN LIMBO RIGHT NOW BECAUSE AS YOU ALL KNOW, AND THIS UPDATE I CONSIDER IS FOR THE CITIZENS. 
          IT'S NOT JUST FOR US. 
          THE CITIZENS NEED TO KNOW THAT THE CITY IS ACTIVELY IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE HUFFINES, THE CITY COUNCIL IS, ON A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. 
          AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THE CITIZENS KNOW THAT. 
          I THINK IT'S ULTIMATELY IMPORTANT THAT THE CITIZENS BE ADVISED OF THAT BEFORE WE GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THEM TO EVEN CONSIDER. 
          SO THERE'S NOT MUCH GOING ON WITH THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS RIGHT NOW EXCEPT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD TOWARDS A SEPTEMBER HEARING FOR THE MUD AND THE MAY 1ST IS STILL THE DATE FOR THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT APPEAL IN AUSTIN. 
          AND WHAT IS TODAY? TODAY'S THE 17TH, WAS IT? THE 15TH, THE DEADLINE. 
          CATHERINE, DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO SUBMIT THEIR RESPONSE BRIEF ON THE SEWER PLANT PERMIT. 
          DO YOU REMEMBER THAT? I DON'T REMEMBER THAT DATE. 
          YOU MAY BE CORRECT. 
          I THINK IT WAS, AND I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING FILED ON IT. 
          NOW, IT WOULDN'T HAVE COME DIRECT TO ME, THOUGH. 
          IT WOULD HAVE GONE TO OUR ATTORNEY. 
          WE CAN CHECK ON THAT. 
          OKAY. 
          ANYTHING FURTHER, MS. PILGER? NO, MADAM MAYOR. 
          OKAY. 
          LAST ONE IS DUBLIN ROAD. 
          PAVING ON DUBLIN ROAD WAS COMPLETED ON MONDAY, YESTERDAY. 
          AND IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE GOING TO BE STRIPING SOON. 
          ALSO, WE FOUND A LEAK THAT WE COULDN'T FIND FOR A LONG TIME TODAY. 
          I FEEL REALLY GOOD ABOUT THAT. 
          YEAH. 
          LIKE WE SAID EARLIER, EXCELLENT JOB. 
          EXCELLENT JOB. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          OKAY. 
          THIS QUESTION, HOPEFULLY, IS ABOUT LEWIS LANE AND THE WATER LEAK THAT YOU IDENTIFIED. 
          I SAW NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT OUT THERE TODAY 
          [12. ACCEPTANCE OF DONATION(S) FOR POLICE, FIRE, AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD (Each valued at between $0 - $1,000 [RES. NO. 2024-801])]
WITH SOME DIGGING EQUIPMENT. 
          IS THAT TO REMEDIATE THE LEAK? YES. 
          OKAY. 
          THANK YOU. 
          OKAY. 
          MOVING ON TO DONATIONS. 
          THIS IS THE ACCEPTANCE OF DONATIONS FOR POLICE FIRE AND CITY STAFF FOR THE RECORD. 
          THE FIRST ONE IS FROM DAN AND MARY SWANSON, WHO DONATED SNACKS VALUED AT $40 TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. 
          SECOND IS RON. 
          RON, I DO THIS EVERY TIME. 
          BEAU GERVIE AND MOHAMED MAZZOTTI DONATED ONE DOZEN MUFFIN-BAKED CAKES, MARTINIS, VALUED AT $28 TO CITY STAFF. 
          WE WOULD LIKE TO THANK OUR RESIDENTS FOR THEIR GENEROUS DONATIONS TO OUR CITY. 
          [13. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
THAT MAKES SUCH A DIFFERENCE AND MAKES EVERYBODY FEEL REALLY GOOD. 
          THANK YOU SO MUCH. 
          NEXT, WE HAVE FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS. I GOT THE ONE ITEM THAT WE HAD FOR EARLIER. 
          IS THERE ANY OTHER FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS? IF YOU NOTICE IN YOUR PACKET, IT WAS PROBABLY PUT IN THERE TO DIE. 
          I UPDATED THE SHEET, BUT IT IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS. THE DATES WILL BE CHARGED AGAINST MS. ALBERT. I HAD AN ITEM. WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. OH, OKAY. I WOULD, IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE MEETING OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING, I WOULD LIKE TO, I DON'T WANT AN ENTIRE WORKSHOP, BUT I THINK 15 MINUTES TO DISCUSS THE OPERATIONS OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND THE EXPECTATIONS FROM COUNCIL OF THAT GROUP WOULD BE HELPFUL. 
          OKAY. SO NOTED. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? AS YOU KNOW, 
          [EXECUTIVE SESSION]
YOU CAN SEND ME AN EMAIL AT ANY TIME OR SEND KIDS AN EMAIL AT ANY TIME TO HAVE SOMETHING ADDED. 
          OKAY. NOW WE WILL RECESS TO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AUTHORITY CONTAINED IN SECTION 551.0711, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY ON PENDING OR CONTEMPLATED LITIGATION, A SETTLEMENT OFFER OR TWO ON A MATTER IN WHICH THE DUTY OF THE ATTORNEY TO THE GOVERNMENTAL BODY UNDER THE TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF THE PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT OF THE STATE BAR OF TEXAS CLEARLY CONFLICTS WITH THIS CHAPTER ON ANY AGENDA ITEM LISTED ELSEWHERE WITHIN THIS AGENDA AND OR THE SUBJECT MATTER LISTED BELOW. GREGORY LANE LITIGATION. RESTORE THE GRASSLANDS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT 
          [02:20:02]
SLASH MUD PARK TRAILS ANNEXATION. AT THIS TIME, AND I CAN'T SEE THE CLOCK BECAUSE THERE'S A GLARE ON IT. WHAT 
          [RECONVENE REGULAR MEETING.]
TIME IS IT? NINE OH ONE. NINE OH ONE. WE ARE IN RECESS. I HAVE CALLED THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. OH MY GOSH. FEBRUARY 17TH, 2026. BACK INTO SESSION. WE ARE RETURNING TO THE REGULAR MEETING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION. IT IS... TWELVE OH FOUR. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT SAID. MY GOD. IT IS TWELVE OH FOUR. I AM ON FEBRUARY 18TH. IS THERE ANY APPROPRIATE DELIBERATION AND OR ACTION ON ANY OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS LISTED ABOVE? NO, MADAM MAYOR. OKAY. 
          ANYTHING ELSE FROM ANYONE? WITH THAT, WE ARE ADJOURNED. 
          IT IS TWELVE OH FIVE.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.