Feb 01, 2022 City Council Work Session

[1. CALL TO ORDER]

[2. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

[3A. Discuss the candidates for a Stakeholder Engagement Group to guide, solicit and review public input for the update of the Rowlett Development Code and Form-Based Code. (30 minutes)]

[00:02:21]

>> I ALREADY READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD. THANK YOU, COUNSEL.

WE'RE BACK. A LITTLE LATER THAN WE ANTICIPATED WITH SOME NAMES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GROUP, THE DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE. LET ME WALK THIS THROUGH AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO BE EMBARKING UPON THE UPDATE TO OUR DEVELOPMENT CODES, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT FOR THE PURPOSES TO GIVE US AS A SOUNDING BOARD FOR ANY PROPOSALS THAT WE OR A CONSULTANT WOULD BRING FORWARD TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE FULLY ENGAGED OUR COMMUNITY THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS, SO THEY WOULD BE WORKING TO IDENTIFY KEY INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS TO BE SURE THAT WE HAVE INVOLVED IN THIS UNDERTAKING AND LASTLY, ALSO TO ADVISE US AS WELL AS THE CONSULTANT ANY ADDITIONAL ITEMS THAT WE HAVE NOT YET THOUGHT OF. FOR OUR UPDATE FOR CONSIDERATION WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MODIFICATION TO THE WORK PLAN. AGAIN, WHEN WE BROUGHT THIS FORWARD TO YOU LAST MONTH, WE HAD SOME THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE A PARTICULAR CHARACTERISTICS. AND ALSO TO HAVE SOME FAMILIARITY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND OUR DEVELOPMENT CODES, EITHER BY BEING A RECENT USER OF THE CODES OR BEING ON THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE COMMISSION IN CURRENTLY OR IN THE RECENT PAST. WE ENVISION THIS GROUP BEING ABOUT 9-12 MEMBERS WITH THE BROAD RANGE OF INTERESTS AND BACKGROUNDS, COMPOSED OF CITIZENS AND NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS FROM ROWLETT, OWNERS OF BUSINESSES HERE IN ROWLETT, PEOPLE THAT ARE ACTIVE ENGAGED IN THE NON-PROFIT COMMUNITY HERE IN THE CITY, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND ALSO PEOPLE THAT RECENTLY GONE THROUGH OUR PROCESS THAT HAVE FAMILIARITY WITH OUR EXISTING CODES AND CAN GIVE FEEDBACK ABOUT WHAT THEY LIKE OR DON'T LIKE IN THAT CODE. WITH THAT, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF NAMES THAT SHOW UP ON THE NEXT COUPLE OF SLIDES THAT ARE A COMBINATION OF FOLKS THAT WE, THE STAFF WOULD LIKE TO BRING FORWARD FOR CONSIDERATION. AND THEN ALSO, THAT YOU, THE COUNCIL SENT OUR DIRECTION AS WELL WHEN WE SENT OUT THAT REQUEST AFTER THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU IN THE WORK SESSION ON JANUARY 4TH. OR 3RD.

[00:05:02]

>> DR. KEEN, K-E-A-N. >> WE WILL TAKE FULL CREDIT FOR ANY NAMES AS THEY ARE PRESENTED THIS EVENING.

>> AND Y'ALL HAD RECOMMENDED MICHAEL THE SECOND PAGE WERE THE NON-PROFIT LEADERS AND ALSO THE DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS AND DEVELOPERS. AS WELL. SO, I DID NOT COUNT THE NUMBER OF NAMES THAT WE HAVE UP HERE FOR CONSIDERATION. AGAIN, TO REMEMBER THE IDEA THAT WE'RE LINKING FOR SOMEWHERE IN THE RANGE OF 9-12 THAT WOULD MAKE UP A GOOD, WELL-ROUNDED GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS FROM THIS LIST. AND THEN THE LAST SLIDE, AGAIN, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE TO SELECT THAT NUMBER OF 9-12 CANDIDATES FOR US TO REACH OUT TO GAUGE THEIR INTEREST IN SERVING ON THIS BOARD WITH AN OFFICIAL APPOINTMENT COMING FRO AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING. SO, WITH THAT, WE WILL.

>> WHAT DO WE DO NOW? >> THAT IS KIND OF THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE. HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO THROUGH THIS? TO

SELECT A GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS? >> SO, CAN WE PICK UP SOME OF

THE EASY ONES. >> YES.

>> LIKE, HOW MANY BUSINESS OWNERS DO YOU WANT? HOW OF GOI ARE OUR INITIAL THOUGHT HERE, A COUPLE, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY A COUPLE OF THREE, IN REGARD TO FROM PERHAPS EACH OF THOSE

CATEGORIES. >> YES. TO BE SURE THAT WE

HAVE GOOD COVERAGE. >> OH COUPLE THREE?

>> TWO OR THREE. >> NOW, IF YOU NOTICE ON WITH ANNEXED WITH ONE OF THE SLIDES WHERE YOU SEE PNZ AND PAST EXPERIENCE, YOU HAVE VERY SOLID INTEREST OF FOLKS ON THE SCREEN BUT WE WANT A BROAD SPECTRUM OF INDIVIDUALS BECAUSE WE WANT TO ENGAGE AND WE WANT AS MANY PEOPLE TO PARTICIPATE. SUCH GROUPS HAVE BEEN KNOWN TO BE ABOUT 15, AS WELL. YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT OPTION. A LOT OF THE NAMES THAT YOU SUGGESTED, JUST A COUPLE OF YOU HAD THE SAME NAMES, THAT'S WHY WE WANTED

TO BE SURE YOU KNOW. >> YEAH.

>> WHAT IF WE SO, LIKE, ROWLETT BUSINESS OWNERS, WE HAVE SIX NAMES UP THERE, SO, WHAT IF WE ALL JUST RANKED THEM 1-6 IN A SECRET BALLOT AND Y'ALL SORT THROUGH THE SECRET BALLOTS?

>> PERFECT. >> IT'S JUST SO THEY HAVE A PRIORITY TO CONTACT, NUMBER ONE, WITH THE MOST VOTES FIRST.

>> I AGREE. >> THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

>> I DON'T THINK ANY OF US ARE INTERESTED IN GOING NO, WE WANT THIS PERSON OR WANT THIS PERSON. THAT'S NOT FAIR TO ANYBODY.

>> OKAY. THAT'S RIGHT. >> SO, DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT

IN E-MAIL OR DO IT RIGHT NOW IN >> RIGHT HERE.

>> IF TIME PERMITS, WE CAN DO THAT NOW.

>> OH, WE HAVE OUR LITTLE PADS. >> OR YOU COULD PRESENT US A LIST OF THESE AND WE CAN RANK THEM THAT WAY. THAT WOULD

PROBABLY BE A LOT EASIER. >> WHY DON'T WE DO IT BY

E-MAIL. >> I AGREE WITH THAT IF EVERYBODY'S COMMITTED TO DO THAT.

>> I'LL DO IT. >> I'LL DO IT. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ICE STORM, WE'LL HAVE PLENTY OF TIME.

>> I WAS BUSY LAST ICE STORM, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU.

>> I'M JUST SAYING. >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >>

(INDISCERNIBLE) >> I WAS BUSY TRYING TO KEEP AFLOAT. (INDISCERNIBLE)

>> OKAY. SO, LET'S I DON'T KNOW ALL OF THESE PEOPLE,

THOUGH. >> SO, WE CAN E-MAIL THEM.

>> WELL, YOU DO THAT AND I'LL E-MAIL IT TO HER.

>> WE COULD JUST E-MAIL YOU EVERYTHING?

>> CAN Y'ALL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE BUSINESS OWNER NAMES CAME UP, WERE THEY US RECOMMENDING PEOPLE OR DID YOU

ALL VOTE? >> FOR INSTANCE, WE'VE HAD A

[00:10:02]

SUGGESTIONS. >> SO, WE'RE MAKING A DISTINCTION THEN, BETWEEN FOLKS THAT WE WANT TO BE ON THE STEERING COMMITTEE, MORE OR LESS, AND THEN FOLKS THAT ARE JUST INTERVIEWED FOR THEIR EXPERIENCE?

>> THIS KIND OF INVOLVES BOTH. >> WELL, THE BUSINESS OWNERS

DOES. >> WELL, BUT, DOESN'T THAT HOLD

TRUE FOR EVERYTHING ELSE, TOO. >> NO, NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN YOU'VE GOT THOSE WHO HAVE EXPERIENCED THIS TYPE OF PROCESS BEFORE, AND THEN YOU HAVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS WHO ARE ACTIVELY SEEKING OUT OR HOAS NOW SO WE WANT THEM TO BECOME ENGAGED. BUT, THE SPECIFIC QUESTION IS WHY DID, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE IMPORTANCE OR RELEVANCE IN THE BUSINESS OWNERS, WE KNEW THAT WE HAD, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO BE A SUPER BE

TRANSPARENT. >> SOMEBODY MAY HAVE HAD AN EXPERIENCE THAT WE WANT TO CAPTURE THAT EXPERIENCE, MAY BE GREAT TO REACH OUT TO IN A ROUND TABLE DISCUSSION, WHO MAY NOT BE GREAT FOR THE ACTUAL STESTEERIN COMMITTEE. .

>> ED SECOND PART IS THEY HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT 18 MONTHS IS YOUR COMMITMENT. IF YOU WOULD RATHER JUST BE INTERVIEWED

FOR YOUR EXPERIENCE. >> IF YOU SAY 18 MONTHS, YOU'RE

GOING IT CHASE EVERYBODY AWAY. >> WE SAY IT'S 2 HOURS A

MONTH. >> OKAY. THERE YOU GO.

>> IT'S TWO MEETINGS A MONTH. >> THAT WORKS REALLY WELL.

>> CAN YOU GO TO THE SECOND PAGE AGAIN?

>> YEAH. >> SO, I GUESS I THINK YOU ALL SHOULD MAKE THE DEVELOPER DECISION.

>> WE DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU AT ALL ON THAT ONE.

>> YEAH. AND THEN ON THE BUSINESS SIDE, I WOULD HATE FOR US TO GET TOO LIKE-MINDED, BUT YOU COULD SORT THROUGH THAT.

>> BEAUTIFUL, I MEAN, ABSOLUTELY, WE COULD DO THAT.

>> IF OUR TOP TWO ARE HAPPY, WE TONIGHT WANT HAPPY PEOPLE, NECESSARILY. WE WANT YOU KNOW EFFECTIVE INPUT.

>> CORRECT. >> WE'LL DO DEVELOPERS AND DEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONALS AND WE'LL DO THE BUSINESS STAFF.

>> I THINK SO, WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?

>> I'M SORRY, SAY THAT AGAIN? >> WE'RE GOING TO DO THE DEVELOPERS AND THE BUSINESS OWNERS. DO YOU ALL AGREE IN.

>> YES. >> SO, WE'LL JUST DO THE

NON-PROFIT AND THE CENSUS. >> YEAH.

>> AND THEN THE COUNCIL/PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEMBERS AS WELL. I THINK YOU GUYS ARE BEST SUITED

FOR THAT TOO. >> LOOK YOU POWERFUL YOU ARE.

>> YEAH. I AM. >> JUDICIOUS.

>> I MEAN, WE NEED TO SEE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.

>> PROTOCOL IN SEEING THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS BACK AT WORK

SESSION OR? >> E-MAIL.

>> E-MAIL. >> OKAY. WE'LL DO THAT.

>> AND THEN, LIKE ON THE LAST SLIDE HERE, WE'RE ANTICIPATING TO BRING THIS FORWARD FOR YOUR SIGNING OFF ON, APPOINTING

OFFICIALLY IN TWO WEEKS. >> SO, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE ALL OF THOSE DECISIONS, YOU'RE GOING TO CONTACT ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE AND THIS ENWE'RE GOING TO APPROVE THEM?

>> YES. >> COOL.

>> WE REALLY WANT TO GET GOING. >> I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S A

QUICK TURN AROUND. >> YOU'RE GOING TO BE STUCK IN THE OFFICE FOR THE NEXT THREE DAYS.

>> WELL, AT LEAST WE CAN WORK FOR ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD THESE

DAYS. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> I WOULD SAY THAT WE BRING IT BACK IF WE HAVE ACCOMPLISHED ALL

OF THAT. >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. >> IF IT'S OPTIMISTIC, THEN WE BRING IT TO THE NEXT MEETING. WE'RE CAUTIOUSLY OPTIMISTIC.

>> BECAUSE, WHEN DO YOU WANT THE 18 MONTHS TO START?

>> WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE APRIL, LIKELY, BY THE TIME WE

[00:15:03]

GET. >> FEBRUARY 16TH.

>> SO, APRIL? >> FEBRUARY, 16TH. YES, THAT'S

THE RIGHT ANSWER. >> I MEAN, WE STARTED THE GROUND WORK AND NOW WE NEED TO GET, WE MIGHT JUST GET IT PHASING JUST TO KEEP THINGS MOVING.

>> OKAY. >> ANYTHING ELSE?

>> SO, SEND ME THAT LIST. >> WE'RE GOOD.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MOVE TO ITEM 3-D, DISCUSS

[3B. Discuss and receive direction regarding an amendment to the Take Area Regulations. (30 minutes)]

REGULATIONS. THANK YOU. SIR. >> THERE SHE IS. ARE YOU BACK

THERE? >> YES, I'M BACK HERE. I KEPT

LOOKING FOR YOU. >> JUST TALK FROM HERE?

>> COME ON UP HERE SO WE COULD HEAR YOU.

>> WHY DON'T YOU TALK FROM THIS CORNER RIGHT HERE.

>> >> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE NO EMAILS, BUT WE HAVE DEB, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO TALK ON, YOU DIDN'T

PUT WHICH ONE. >> I HAVE THREE. 3 D, 3C, AND.

>> YOU MEAN SIT INPUT FOR THE REGULAR MEETING?

>> RIGHT. >> THERE ARE THREE SLIPS FROM

ME. >> WE NEED TO DO THIS DURING

THE REGULAR MEETING THEN. >> ALL RIGHT. TAMARA, THANK

YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME THANK YOU Y'ALL FOR BEING HERE. WE NEED TO STAY SAFE AND HEALTHY.

>> I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE ON ANY HEARINGS, AND I WAS UNAWARE

ON. >> TAMARA WILLIAMS, A 5518, MILLER HEIGHTS DRIVE, ROWLETT TEXAS, AND I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE ABOUT THIS TAKE AREA. OR I NEVER RECEIVED NOTICE OF ANY HEARINGS, REGARDING THE TAKE AREA, SO, I SAW IT ON THE AGENDA TODAY AND I READ THROUGH WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL DENY IT. BECAUSE, I LIVE ADJACENT TO 790 FEET OF CREEK THAT DEADENDS INTO THE LAKE. AND EVERY TIME IT RAINS, I HAVE A MESS ON MY HANDS BECAUSE I GET ALL THE GARBAGE IN MY YARD AND IN THAT TAKE AREA, FROM AS MAR NORTH AS MCKINNEY.

AND I HIRE CREWS AND HAVE SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS THROUGH THE YEARS JUST TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH THIS. AND BECAUSE IT STARTED TO ERODE IN THE LATE '90S AND NOBODY WOULD DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE EROSION, DALLAS SAYS IT'S ROWLETT'S PROBLEM, ROWLETT SAID IT'S DALLAS' PROBLEM. I SPOKE TO SO MANY PEOPLE IN DALLAS AND IN ROWLETT, EVERYONE WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO IT, AND HERE WE'RE IN 2022 AND WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. BUT I LIVE NEXT TO IT AND I DON'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO A PIG PEN, SO I HAVE SPENT MY TIME AND MY MONEY, EVERY TIME IT RAINS AND EVEN WHEN IT DOESN'T RAIN, YOU KNOW, STUFF MIGHT JUST SHOW UP THERE FROM THE LAKESIDE. AND RIGHT NOW, THERE'S DEAD TREES, SOME OF THOSE TREES HAVE FUNGUS, THE CITY OF DALLAS HAS BEEN OUT THERE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'VE DONE, THEE CREATE AN ADDITIONAL CREEK BUT IT'S FULL OF DEAD LIMBS AND TRUNKS AND DEBRIS SO THE WATER IS STILL NOT FLOWING. SO, THIS SAYS THAT THE NUMBER 5 ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE IS TAKE CARE OF YOUR BOUN

[00:20:08]

>> THE PROBLEM WITH THE SUBLEASE FROM DAY ONE. AND I WAS HERE WITH ALL THAT SUBLEASE BUSINESS BACK IN 2001, 2002, AND 2003, IF I SUBLEASED THAT PROPERTY, THEN I BECOME RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION. THAT CREEK HAS BEEN NEGLECTED FOR DECADES. WHY SHOULD I BE HELD RESPONSIBLE? I HAVE CONTRACTORS OUT THERE, I HAVE BEEN GIVEN BIDS FOR JUST DREDGING IT OUT EVERY OTHER YEAR FROM A COST FROM ANYWHERE FROM 10 TO

$20,000. >> WE'RE WAY OVER THREE

MINUTES, JUST TRY TO WRAP IT UP. >> I WOULD JUST HOPE THAT YOU WOULD DENY THIS REQUEST. AND THINK OF HOMEOWNERS LIKE ME WHO HAVE WORKED REALLY HARD AND SPENT TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS TRYING TO KEEP UP WITH IT AND DON'T TAKE ALL OF OUR

RIGHTS AWAY. >> THANK YOU, MA'AM.

>> BECAUSE THIS IS A WORK SESSION ITEM, IT WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN PUBLIC TO PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATIONS. THAT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, THIS IS A DISCUSSION ITEM. YOUR COMMENTS AND OTHER PEOPLE'S COMMENTS, HOPEFULLY, WE'LL BE ABLE TO COMMENT ON THEM DURING THE WORK SESSION. OKAY.

>> NEXT SPEAKER, STEPHANIE HIGGINS.

>> YEAH, I MEAN IT'S KIND OF. >> 4021 TEASER ROAD, IT STEPHANIE HIGGINS. I GUESS, GOING BACK TO WHAT SHE'S SAYING, I THINK THE TAKE ON BOARD SHOULD BE GOOD BUT I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A REVISION OF THINGS THAT GO ON IN THE BOARD, ESPECIALLY THE HIGH FEE. IN MY MIND, I CAN'T SEE WHY THIS SPECIFIC BOARD IS BEING CHARGED $500 FOR AN APPEAL WHEN OTHERS ARE LOWER.

I THINK THAT DEFINITELY NEEDS TO CHANGE AND I GUESS SOME OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I HAD, IS THAT ONLY SPECIFICALLY TO THE SUBLEASED AREAS OR IS THIS AN APPEALS COURT THAT COULD BE FOR TAKE AREAS THAT ARE NOT AVAILABLE FOR SUBLEASE? IT'S REALLY NOT VERY SPECIFIC AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, THAT GOES IN THE PACKET THAT I SAW. AND YOU KNOW, SOME OF THEM TAKING THE RIGHTS AWAY FROM THE HOMEOWNERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS ON THAT BEFORE WE DECIDE TO MAKE AN APPEALS FOR IT.

>> THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE.

>> AND DEBORAH? >> DEBORAH SHENDER. 3009 DRIVE. AS A LAKE FRONT PROPERTY OWNER WHO LEASES THE TAKE AREA, THIS IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO ME. I'M HAPPY THAT YOU ARE CONSIDERING ACTION TO SET UP A PROCESS TO ALLOW STAFF TO APPROVE DEVIATIONS FROM THE EXISTING REGULATIONS, THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY FLEXIBILITY THERE PREVIOUSLY AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE PROPOSAL WOULD CREATE A TAKE REGULATION APPEALS COURT IF THEY DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF'S DECISION AND THE APPEALS COURT DECISION ITSELF COULD BE APPEALED FROM THE CITY COUNCIL.

THIS IS A POSITIVE AND I BELIEVE THAT WD BENEFIT THE TAKE AREA SUB SUBLEASEES AS YOU KNOW SPEND A LOT OF MONEY MAINTAINING THE TAKE AREAS. I THANK THE STAFF FOR THE CONCERNS THAT COME UP PREVIOUSLY, BUT I THINK IT NEEDS TWEAKING, AS STEPHANIE SAID. I THINK THE LAKE FRONT PROPERTY OWNERS SHOULD HAVE SOME INPUT INTO THAT AND MORE THAN JUST BEING HERE AT THIS WORK SESSION WHICH A LOT OF PEOPLE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW ABOUT. ONE PART OF THE PROPOSAL THAT I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IS THE $500 FEE TO APPEAL TO THE BOARD, I THINK THAT'S EXCESSIVE. I KNOW THERE'S WORK AND TIME INVOLVED IN APPEALS, BUT THE BOARD IS UNPAID AND DEALING WITH TAKE AREA ISSUE SUNSHINE WITHIN THE STAFF'S RESPONSIBILITIES. THERE SEEMS TO BE IN TALKING WITH OTHER LAKE FRONT OWNERS, THERE'S

[00:25:03]

>> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS THE TAKE AREA REGULATIONS, OBVIOUSLY, AND TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY ON THIS, IN 2001, DALLAS, ROWLETT ENTERED INTO AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WHICH ALLOWED ROWLETT TO LEASE THE TAKE AREA FROM THE CITY OF DALLAS. IN THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, ROWLETT WAS NAMED AS THE PRIMARY LEASEE AND ALLOWED THE CITY OF ROWLETT THE SUBLET FOR ADJACENT PROPERTY USES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES IT DID NOT ALLOW FOR COMMERCIAL USES IN THE TAKE AREA, ONLY RESIDENTIAL USES. IN THE IRA, SPECIFICATIONS WERE CREATED TELLING US WHAT CAN BE DONE THERE, WHAT STRUCTURES COULD BE PUT IN THE TAKE AREA, WHAT THE MAXIMUM SIZES ARE ON THE STRUCTURES AND WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE IN RELATION TO PROPERTY LINES. ROWLETT WENT FURTHER WITH THAT AND CREATED THOSE PROPERTY LINES THAT SEPARATED THOSE AREAS FOR THE ADJACENT PP WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MAP, THIS IS AN ACTUAL MAP OF THE TAKE AREA, THE PINK LINES, DO SHOW AN AREA THAT BELONGS TO THE CITY OF DALLAS AND IS AVAILABLE TO LEASE TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE GREEN AREA THAT'S ADJACENT TO IT. AND SO, THERE WERE SEVERAL ELITEER ITERATIONS OF THIS. AND AT SOME POINT AFTER THAT, THE TAKE AREA APPEALS BOARD OR AS THEY CALLED IT, THE TAKE LINE APPEALS BOARD BACK THEN, WAS DESOLVED. AND THOSE CHANGES WERE SOLIDIFIED AT THAT POINT. AND IT BASICALLY REMOVED ANY OPTIONS THAT THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO ALLOW FOR VARIATIONS FOR AN APPEAL FOR REGULATIONS WITHIN THE TAKE AREA. AND SO, IN SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH SOME OF THE SITS THAT WERE ADJACENT TO THE TAKE AREA WHERE THEY WERE COMING BACK AND ONE OF THE SPECIFICATIONS WAS THAT THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET OF LAKE FRONTAGE IN ORDER TO BUILD A BOAT DOCK. WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE THAT HAVE 57 FEET OF LAKE FRONTAGE AND THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A BOAT DOCK AND THERE'S NO PROCESS TO ALLOW FOR A VARIANCE OF 3 FEET. AND THERE WERE SOME OTHER ISSUES THAT CAME UP, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THEM IN JUST A MINUTE, BUT, WHAT WE TRIED TO DO AND AS WE BECAME AWARE OF THESE OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS AND SEVERAL REQUESTS MADE BY CITIZENSES, WE DISCUSSED WITH WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND

[00:30:02]

THAT FEE IS $500, WE MIRRORED THAT FEE, IT'S NOT A NEW FEE OR SOMETHING THAT WAS PULLED OUT OF THE AIR, IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE FELT WAS A VERY SIMILAR PROCESS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOES A SIMILAR TYPE OF NOTIFICATIONS AND DOES SIMILAR VARIANCES AND THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, BASED ON THAT ORDINANCE WOULD ACT AS THE TAKE AREA APPEALS BOARD. THAT WOULD BE THE SAME MEMBERS THAT WOULD STEP UP AND CONVENE AS THE TAKE AREA APPEALS BOARD INSTEAD OF CONVENING AS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

>> SO, CAN'T YOU JUST SAY THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WILL HEAR APPEALS FOR TAKE AREA ADJUSTMENTS.

>> IT'S THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE QUORUM IS FOUR OUT OF FIVE AND THEY HAVE CERTAIN STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS WITH REGARD TO WHAT CAN BE PASSED PERCENTAGE REQUIREMENTS AND BOARDS OF ADJUSTMENT BY STATE LAW HAVE CERTAIN PROTECTIONS, WHEN IT SAYS THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEY HAVE ALL THE RIGHTS AND AUTHORITY. WHEN THEY SIT AS A BOARD OF APPEALS ARE OH A BUILDING CODE OF APPEAL THE, THEY'RE JUST A

REGULAR BOARD. >> THAT DOESN'T CONFUSE THE WHOLE PROCESS? THAT THEY HAVE TWO DIFFERENT.

>> THEY DON'T MEET VERY MUCH, SO THEY GET REEDUCATED.

>> I MEAN, A SPECIFIC BOARD HAVING TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES DEPENDING ON WHAT THEY'RE HEARING IS CONFUSING.

>> CURRENTLY, THEY'VE THREE HAT THAT IS THEY CAN PUT ON RIGHT NOW, ONE IS BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THE SECOND IS THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION AND THE THIRD IS APPEALS TO THE BUILDING, PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL FIRE CODES. AND SO IN THOSE CASES, THEY'RE CONVENING AS THE BUILDING CCODE OF APPEALS BOARD RATHER THAN THE BOBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, AND I THINK THAT THE INTENT HERE IS THAT SOME OF THE BOARDS THAT EXIST, RATHER THAN CREATING THREE OR FOUR DIFFERENT BOARDS THAT MAY ONLY MEET EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS, THAT WE HAVE ENOUGH WORK FOR THAT BOARD SO THAT THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING AND MAY BE THEY ONLY MEET THREE OR FOUR TIMES A YEAR, BUT IT'S A WHOLE LOT.

>> IF THAT PROCESS IS ALREADY IN PLACE, THAT'S A GREAT PLACE

TO PUT IT. >> THE MECHANISM IS IN PLACE AND WE DID FINE TUNING AND ORIENTATION, OBVIOUSLY, BUT WE THOUGHT THIS WAS A GOOD WAY TO USE THOSE BODIES FOR THIS FUNCTION AND THEN THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY WOULDN'T SIT AS THE ZONING BOABOARD OF ADJUSTMENT B THEN THEY'RE DECISION COULD GO

[00:35:07]

>> USUALLY, BY THE TIME SOMEONE TAKES SOMETHING TO AN APPEAL TO THE BOBOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IT'S GONE THROUGH A SERIES OF ELIMINATING SEVERAL STEPS AND THIS IS THE FINAL STEP, WHEREAS REALLY FOR THESE FOLKS IT WOULD BE A FIRST STEP TO APPEAL. IT WOULDN'T BE APPEALED TO COUNCIL FIRST, IT WOULDN'T GO TO PNZ FIRST, IT WOULD GO TO THIS BOARD. SO, I WOULD HAVE TO AGREE THAT THAT FEE IS PRETTY HIGH FOR SOMEONE TO TAKE A FIRST STEP. AND, ALSO I THINK THAT MOST OF THE TIME WHEN SOMEONE BRINGS SOMETHING TO THE BOA DEVELOPED PROPERTY, OFTEN IT'S COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE PRIVATE PROPERTY, MOSTLY UNDEVELOPED, I WOULD ASSUME, AND SO, I JUST THINK EVEN CONSIDERATION FOR THAT BOARD WOULD BE A SHORTER TIME FRAME AND NOT QUITE AS MUCH RESEARCH. SO, I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT WE WOULD ALL CONSIDER REDUCING THAT FEE CONSIDERABLY.

>> AND WHEN BOAS FUNCTIONS IN IN THOSE OTHER ROLES, WHAT'S THE

FEE FOR THOSE OTHER ROLES. >> IT'S $500.

>> SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT IS WHENEVER COUNCIL CONSIDERED THE MASTER FEE AMENDMENTS TWO YEARS AGO IN DECEMBER 2019, WE CAME BACK AS STAFF AND PUT TOGETHER A SPREAD SHEET SHOWING HOW MUCH TIME WAS INVOLVED WITH HOW MUCH TIME WAS IN AND SO, WE HAD PROPOSED BASED ON THAT SPREADSHEET THAT THE FEE FOR BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WAS $1,700, I BELIEVE IS WHAT IT WAS. AND COUNCIL REDUCED THAT DOWN TO $500 FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

>> DID EVERYBODY HEAR THAT? >> I'M SORRY.

>> THAT'S WHY WE CAME UP WITH THE $500. BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT ALL OF THESE WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL.

>> I APPRECIATE THAT BACKGROUND. WHEN THE BOA FUNCTIONS IN THESE OTHER ROLES CURRENTLY, IS THAT ALSO $500?

>> IN THEIR CURRENT ROLES, THE FEE FOR A VARIANT IS $500.

>> SO, WHATEVER ONE OF THEIR THREE FUNCTIONS THEY'RE

FUNCTIONING AS, IT'S $500. >> SO, THE BUILDING AND

STANDARDS COMMISSION? >> THE BUILDING AND STANDARDS COMMISSION IS TYPICALLY SOMETHING DRIVEN BY THE CITY.

SO THE CITY WOULD GO BACK AND BEGIN A PROCESS AND SAY, WE FEEL LIKE THIS PROPERTY IS SUBSTANDARD AND WE RECOMMEND

THIS -- >> THROWS NO FEE.

>> SO, WHAT'S NUMBER TWO? >> NUMBER TWO IS THEN, IF THIS

WAS TO BE CREATED, >> YOU SAID THEY HAVE THREE.

>> THEY'VE BOA, BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION AND

BUILDING CODE APPEALS. >> AND HOW MUCH IS THAT?

>> THAT ONE IT'S NOT SET. AT THIS POINT IF THERE WAS A REQUEST WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHARGE A FEE. BUT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LOOK AT, IT WOULDN'T BE AS SIGNIFICANT AS YOU KNOW, OVER $500 FOR SURE. I DO WANT TO JUST ADD SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT. THE TAKE AREA BOUNDARIES AND THE RESEARCH ASSOCIATED WITH THAT THE YOU KNOW, ANY MODIFICATIONS OCCURRING IN THE PAST, HAVING THAT WHOLE DOCUMENT AND LOOKING THROUGH IT AND LEAFING THROUGH ALL OF THAT. IF THERE IS AN ADJUSTMENT OR VARIATION OR BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENT THAT DOES OCCUR, A SURVEY WOULD HAVE TO BE CONDUCTED AS WELL. SO, THE REVIEW OF THOSE DOCUMENTS IS NOT AS SIMPLE AS HE CAN CHECKING BOXES BUT WE WOULD HAVE TO READ THE LANGUAGE SOCIETY WOULD THAT AND DOUBLE CHECK TO SEE IF THE BOUNDARIES CLOSE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THAT WE KEPT IT AS THAT. WE COULD REASSESS AND SEE HOW MANY TOUCH POINTS THERE IS ON THIS ONE AND COME BACK TO

YOU WITH THAT. >> WE ARE LOOKING INTO INTERNAL PROCEDURES THAT WOULD BE ASSOCIATED THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE APPLICANT PROVIDING US WITH NEW SURVEYS, ALSO PROVIDING US WITH GIS SHAPE FILES THAT WOULD MODIFY OR GIS MAPPING SO THAT THOSE MAPS ARE CURRENTLY SHOWING ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE CHANGED OR MODIFIED. OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T GO BACK TO

[00:40:06]

>> AND SO, IF THE CONSENSUS AS IT RELATES TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF, THE FEES, WE CAN DEFINITELY COME BACK WITH AND PROVIDE YOU THOSE DETAILS AS IT RESULTS TO THE COST AND WE CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE OR ARTICULATE THE PROCESS MORE CLEARLY AT THAT POINT. WE WANTED TO SEE YOUR THOUGHTS RELATED TO THE

ORDINANCE. >> YEAH, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION TOO, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU TALKED ABOUT WHEN A CITIZEN WOULD BRING THIS TO AN APPEALS BOARD, BUT YOU ALSO TALKED ABOUT FOR SOME ALMOST ADMINISTRATIVE TYPE CHANGES THAT ARE SMALL THAT STAFF WOULD HAVE SOME DISCRETION THERE AND SO, I THINK THAT DISCRETION NEEDS TO BE DEFINED AS WELL.

>> I AGREE, THAT'S A NOTE THAT I MADE. I NEED TO DEFINE MINOR,

BUSINESS MAJOR. >> CAN I ADD ONTO YOUR

QUESTION. >> FOR SURE.

>> YOU MAY HAVE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A HISTORICALLY IF IT'S A COUPLE OF INCHES, DALLAS WOULD RULE, NO, IS THAT BECAUSE WE SEND IT TO DALLAS TO MAKE OUR RULING, SO HOW DO YOU THINK YOU CAN MAKE MINOR DECISIONS WITHOUT INVOLVING DALLAS?

>> SO, DALLAS WILL AUTHORIZE CHANGES, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE AN OFFICIAL CHANGE. SO, IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE, SUCH AS THE CITY OF HEATH, THEY HAVE A SIMILAR ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS STAFF TO MAKE ADMINISTRATIVE VARIANCES, DALLAS HONORS THOSE VARIANCES. BUT WITHOUT THAT VARIANCE BEING GRANTED,

>> THEY RULE. >> THEY RULE.

>> THAT WAS A DETAIL I DIDN'T HAVE.

>> YEAH, THAT'S A BIG ONE. >> YEAH.

>> YEAH. >> I GOT YOU. KIND OF LIKE A

MAJOR, MINOR WARRANT. >> EXACTLY.

>> THAT'S HOW WE STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT ACTUALLY.

>> AND SOMETIMES IT'S HARD TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN A MAJOR AND

A MINOR WARRANT. >> YOU CAN'T ALWAYS DEFINE EVERYTHING BUT WE COULD PUT PERIMETERS UP THERE.

>> YEAH. >> AND WE WANTED TO START THIS CONVERSATION. WE'VE DONE RESEARCH, DAVID SPUPPORTED US WITH PUTTING THE WORDS TOGETHER BUT THERE'S INCREASED TRAFFIC AS IT RELATES, I LEASED THIS AREA, BUT THERE'S NOTHING I COULD DO BECAUSE OF THESE RESTRICTIONS OR IMPEDIMENT, SO, WE'RE TRYING TO RESOLVE THE IMPEDIMENTS, BUT WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T COMPROMISE OTHER AREAS BECAUSE IT'S A DOMINO AFFECT.

>> THE RULES ARE THE RULES THAT DALLAS DEFINES. SO, THIS IS REALLY A BOARD TO REVIEW COMPLIANCE AND VARIATIONS. YES Z WITHIN REASON TO THOSE RULES, NOT TO RESET THE RULE SNUZ

>> CORRECT. ABSOLUTELY. >> BECAUSE THAT'S NOT IN OUR

AUTHORITY. >> AND THAT WAS PART OF THE CONCERN THAT WE HAD WAS THAT ANY MAJOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE IOA WOULD NEED APPROVAL FROM COUNSEL. SO, THIS WAS AN ATTEMPT DO SEVERAL THINGS, ONE IS TO SOLIDIFY OUR REGULATIONS THAT DO EXIST AND WERE ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE. AND ANOTHER ONE IS TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FLEXIBILITY FOR THE HOMEOWNERS THAT MIGHT BE ONE INCH OVER. AND NOT HOLD THEM TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW AND THEN HAVE DALLAS HOLDING US TO THE LETTER OF THE LAW. SO, IT WAS REALLY THAT INTENTION.

>> SO, DALLAS WILL APPROVE THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTION ALSO?

>> THEY WILL. >> YES.

>> AS LONG AS THEY HAVE IT IN WRITING THAT THIS WAS APPROVED,

THEY'RE GOOD. >> QUESTIONS?

>> I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA. >> I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA, TOO, I GO BACK TO THE FEE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE MORE LOOKED INTO IT, MAY BE IT'S A TIER DEAL, LIKE IF YOU HAD NOTHING AND YOU'RE COMING INTO THE CITY TO DO ALL THIS WORK FOR YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LARGER COST, BUT IF YOU COME PREPARED AND YOU'RE READY AND YOU HAVE DONE YOUR SURVEY AND YOUR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND YOU HAVE THAT, AND MAY BE IT'S YOU KNOW,

[00:45:02]

SO, TO ME, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT THROUGH THE SYSTEM Z ABSOLUTELY. WE'LL COME BACK WITH A WELL-THOUGHT OUT PROCESS AND ASSOCIATED FEE AND THE TOUCH POINTS ON THAT. OKAY.

>> OKAY. THANKS, GUYS. >> ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GOING TO

MOVE TO 3C. >> 3C DISCUSS RIGHT-OF-WAY

[3C. Discuss right-of-way concerns regarding commercial property located at Paddle Point Park and Miller Road. (30 minutes)]

SHIBNER? >> YOU WANT TO WAIT UNTIL BLAKE'S BACK TO HEAR YOUR COMMENTS?

>> OH, SURE. >> CAN WE TAKE 5?

>> WE'RE BREAK.

>> . (BREAK)

>>

[00:50:08]

>> DEB SHIBNER, 0097, AND I KNOW IT THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT'S BEEN ONGOING BETWEEN DAVE AND THE CITY STAFF FOR AWHILE AND I'M GLAD TO SEE IT BEING BROUGHT TO THE COUNCIL AND I CERTAINLY DON'T HAVE ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT I'VE SEEN SOME DOCUMENTS AND E-MAIL CORRESPONDENCE THAT DAVE HAS, AND IT SEEMS THAT HE'S GOTTEN DIFFERENT INFORMATION FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE. AND I THINK THAT SHOWS, IF NOTHING ELSE, A COMMUNICATIONS PROBLEM. AND, AS IN MANY CASES, COMMUNICATIONS IS THE FACTOR THAT CAUSE AS LOT OF THE PROBLEMS BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS. I HOPE THAT THE COUNCIL LISTENS TO HIS CASE IF HE DID RELY ON A CITY STAFF MEMBER TELLING HIM IT'S GOING TO BE THE 10 TO 20 YEARS FOR THE TRIGGERS EVENT WHICH IS THE WHICH HADDENING OF MILLER ROAD IN THAT LOCATION WOULD CAUSE THE FENCE THAT HE BUILT TO BE MOVED AND LESS THAN ONE YEAR LATER HE WAS TOLD TO REMOVE IT, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM AND THAT'S NOT ENTIRELY OF HIS OWN MAKING EVEN IF HE DID SIGN SOMETHING THAT SAID HE WOULD REMOVE THE FENCE WHEN MILLER ROAD WAS WIDENED.

SO, EVEN THOUGH HE MIGHT BE OPERATING UNDER A MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION AS HE WAS TOLD, THE ASSUMPTION SEEMS TO HAVE REASONABLE BASIS GIVEN HIS CORRESPONDENCE WITH SOME OF THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CITY TO WORK WITH HIM TO TRITE TRY AND FIND A COMPROMISE SITUATION HERE. AND MR. HALLS KAYAK CROSSING BUSINESS I THINK IS A REALLY BIG ASSET TO THE CITY, AND I THINK IT'S BROUGHT A LOT OF PEOPLE INTO THE CITY, IT HAS A 4.5 SISTER RATING ON GOOGLE REVIEWS WHICH ISN'T ALWAYS EASY TO GET. LOTS OF POSITIVE COMMENTS FROM HIS CUSTOMERS THAT I TALKED TO, AND IT SEEMS LIKE HE'S CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING, THAT AS I SAID, WASN'T ENTIRELY HIS OWN MAKING. I THINK HE DESERVES TO BE HEARD AND HIS CONCERNS RESPECTED AND HIS REQUESTS CONSIDERED HERE. THAT'S WHAT I

WANTED TO SAY. >> I JUST WANT TO SAY I AGREE

WITH DEB. >> I AGREE WITH DEB.

>> I DO THINK A LOT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. WHOSE TAKING THIS ONE?

>> SO, MAYOR, THIS WAS REQUESTED BY CONGRESS MEMBER BROWN AND COUNCIL MEMBER SHERRILL, I THINK THERE'S A PRESENTATION, IS THERE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON HOW YOU WOULD

LIKE TO DO THIS? >> I HAVE A PRESENTATION READY IF I COULD SPREAD OUT ON THE TABLE THERE, I THINK THAT YOU WILL BE ABLE TO HEAR ME BETTER AND I CERTAINLY WILL BE ABLE TO

HEAR YOU BETTER. IS THAT OKAY? >> COME ON UP. OR COME ON

DOWN, I GUESS. >> GOOD EVENING.

>> THANK YOU. >> 6917 MILLER ROAD, DAVID HALL. ARE YOU READY WITH THE PRESENTATION?

>> YES, SIR. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST A

SECOND. >> AND I WILL SAY, WHILE DAVE IS PREPARING THAT THE REASON THAT I REQUESTED THIS BE PUT ON A WORK SESSION AGENDA IS DAVE HAD E-MAILED ME AND CALLED ME AND WANTED TO MEET INDIVIDUALLY WITH MYSELF AND I KNOW HE TALKED TO COUNCIL MEMBER DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SHERRILL AND SO, RATHER THAN MEETING INDIVIDUALLY FOR SOMETHING THAT REALLY NEEDED TO BE HEARD AND CONSIDERED BY THE FULL COUNCIL AND MAYOR AND ALSO TO HAVE STAFF AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS TO GIVE HISTORIC CALL CONTEXT AND ALSO THE CITY ATTORNEY TO TALK TO US ABOUT DOCUMENTS THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SIGNED AND HOW THAT CAME ABOUT. I FELT LIKE THIS WAS THE PROPER VENUE TO HEAR THAT. I SAY WELCOME AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> OKAY. ARE YOU READY FOR ME? >> YEAH.

>> OKAY. MY CONCERN UP THERE IS THE 15-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION AGREEMENT MADE WITH CITY STAFF PRESENTED TO AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, IT WAS APPROVED AND SIGNED INTO ORDINANCE BY CITY COUNCIL AND SUCKED TO A LICENSED AGREEMENT WHICH I WAS ULTIMATELY NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE. THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION IS TO REVISIT THE ZONING APPROVAL DETAILS AND INFORM THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS OF THE ISSUES THAT OCCURRED SINCE THE SIGNING OF THE ORDINANCE AND REQUESTS THAT THE COUNCIL REQUIRE THE

[00:55:02]

>> HANG ON RIGHT THERE. THERE'S NO LICENSE AGREEMENT ITEM ON THE AGENDA. THE ONLY THING ON THE AGENDA IS RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, WE NEED TO KEEP THE DISCUSSION TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION NOT A LICENSE AGREEMENT DISCUSSION.

IF THERE'S INCIDENTAL CONVERSATION AS TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WE COULD HAVE THAT DISCUSSION, BUT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DISCUSS A LICENSE AGREEMENT, ARE WE CORRECT ON THAT?

>> THEN WE NEED TO REVISE WHAT WE'RE DOING TO GET THAT IN BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT DONE AND YOU, THE COUNCI VOTED ON THIS

THAT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT. >> DAVE, I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT THE AGENDA ITEM SAYS AND WE CAN'T VEER OFF OF THE AGENDA

ITEM. >> THEN WE NEED TO PUT ANOTHER AGENDA TOGETHER ON THIS, I WANTED TO TALK WITH MARTHA AND

BROWNIE INDIVIDUALLY. >> I DIDN'T SAY THAT, WE CAN'T HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE LICENSE AGREEMENT CONSIDERATION IS NOT ON THE AGENDA. BUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY DISCUSSION IS.

>> OKAY. THE AGENDA ITEM IS TO DISCUSS RIGHT-OF-WAY CONCERNS WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. AND YOU CAN TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU PLANNED ON, I THINK, YOU COULD TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE PLANNING ON TALKING ABOUT, BUT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ITSELF AS WAS MENTIONED IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PRIMARY CONVERSATION.

>> WELL, THE DEDICATION WAS DONE SUBJECT TO THIS LICENSE AGREEMENT AND PASS BIDE COUNCIL. AND I DON'T WANT TO GET SANDBAGGED ON THIS, I'VE DONE EVERYTHING AND CONTACTED. AND I WANT TO TALK WITH COUNCIL ABOUT THIS.

>> NOBODY'S TRYING TO SANDBAG YOU, BUT THE WORDS I HEARD YOU SAY EARLIER, IF I GET IT WRONG, TELL ME. IT'S A DETERMINATION

-- >> GO BACK.

>> BUT YOU MADE A STATEMENT, HANG ON REQUESTS THAT THE COUNCIL REQUIRE THE LICENSING AGREEMENT TO BE MADE. THAT WE CAN NOT CONSIDER, IT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA.

>> YOU'VE ALREADY VOTED ON THAT.

>> IT'S NOT ON THIS AGENDA. >> WHAT DO WE DO TO GET IT IN, THEN, SO WE DON'T WASTE EVERYBODY'S TIME.

>> YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT POSTED FOR 72 HOURS IN ADVANCE WITH THE CORRECT LANGUAGE IN ORDER TO TALK ABOUT THE REQUEST TO HAVE COUNCIL REQUIRE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TO BE MADE, I THINK.

>> MAYOR CAN I ASK A POINT OF ORDER?

>> YES. >> DAVID ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT RELATED TO THE RIGHT-OF-WAY? IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND WHY WOULDN'T WE BE ABLE TO DISCUSS

THAT? >> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE LICENSE AGREEMENT PERTAINING TO THE

15-FOOT EASEMENT STRIP. >> NOT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, NOT THE LICENSE AGREEMENT ALLOWING YOU TO DO BUSINESS.

>> OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. I THINK THIS WAS

ABOUT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY ITSELF. >> JUST THE EASEMENT.

>> RIGHT. >> DAVE HOLL IS REFERRING TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT REGARDING THE 15-FOOT EASEMENT.

>> LET ME REPEAT, THE DEAD CASE, THE 15 FEET THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THE DEDICATION WAS SUBJECT TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT BEING MADE BETWEEN STAFF, THE CITY AND MYSELF, AND YOU THE COUNCIL MEMBERS, MOST OF YOU CURRENTLY HERE RIGHT NOW, VOTED THAT THROUGH. AND THAT'S WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT.

>> I WAS INTERPRETING TO BE THE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR OPERATIONS, WHICH IS WHY I ASKED IF WE WERE ALLOWED TO TALK ABOUT

IT. >> WHICH IS WHY I ASKED TO

CLARIFY IT. >> OKAY. BACK ON COURSE, NEXT PICTURE. OKAY, SO THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. YOU COULD SEE THE STANDING IN THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE TO PADDLPADDLE POINT P TO THE RIGHT IS MILLER ROAD, YOU COULD SEE MY BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD AND YOU COULD SEE THE 15-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY, THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY ME IN 2014, IT WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SF 40, THERE WAS ONE RESIDENT ON THE PROPERTY UNTIL THE TORNADO DEMOLISHED IT IN 2015. AT THE TIME OF MY PURCHASE AND RECEIPT OF THE SURVEY, THERE WAS NO RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION REQUIRED BY THE CITY NO RESERVATION WAS REQUESTED BY ME, NO RIGHT-OF-WAY

[01:00:04]

PLEASE. >> THE FINAL PACKET LANGUAGE THAT WENT TO PNZ, IN THEIR IT SAID THERE'S A PRECEDENT FOR A LICENSE AGREEMENT IN ROWLETT AS SHOWN IN CITY STAFF'S COMMENTS ABOUT DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES. THEIR VERBIAGE, MR. HOLL MADE IT REQUIRED THAT THAT LAND BE MADE FOR. EASEMENT VERSUS A TRUE DEDICATION. CITY STAFF BELIEVES MR. HOLL'S GOALS CAN BE ACHIEVED WHILE ADDRESSING THE CITY'S CONCERN FOR DEDICATION. CITY STAFF SUGGESTING A SOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT. AFTER THE FULL DEDICATION OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY AFTER EXISTING AGREEMENTS WITH BUSINESSES DOWNTOWN BECAUSE STAFF BELIEVES SOLUTIONS EXIST THAT ALLOWS THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, STAFF CANNOT SUPPORT THE REQUEST. SO, IN ORDER FOR ME TO GET A PERMIT AND CONTINUE ON WITH BUILDING, IT WAS NECESSARY FOR ME TO GIVE THE CITY THE DEDICATION AND THE CITY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GIVE ME THE LICENSE AGREEMENT TO OPERATE THERE AND WE COULD GO ON IN THE CONVERSATIONS THAT TOOK PLACE BETWEEN BRIAN SHAWN AND MYSELF AND EVEN MORE CURRENT. THIS WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AGREEMENT THAT HAD ALLOW ME TO USE IT FOR 30 YEARS INTO THE FUTURE, UNTIL MILLER ROAD BRIDGE WAS WIDENED. NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE. THE DEDICATION, I FEEL WAS USED AS A CONDITION FOR APPROVAL TO BUILD THE BUILDING. I FELT COERCED TO AGREE TO A TRUE DEDICATION RATHER THAN A RESERVATION AS THE ONLY WAY TO OBTAIN ZONING APPROVAL TO PURSUE BUILDING MY BUSINESS ON MY OWN PROPERTY, AND AT THIS POINT, I HAVE SPENT A WILL THE OF MONEY AND I WAS TOO FAR AHEAD TO TURN BACK AND I BASED MY DECISIONS TO THIS POINT ON THE RESERVATION. THEREFORE THE AGREEMENT WITH CITY STAFF MADE TO PROPOSE EXHIBIT D WHICH WAS PRESENTED AND APPROVED AT PNZ, HOWEVER, DEDICATION OF MY LAND WAS NEVER ATTENDED WITHOUT THE ACCOMPANYING LICENSE AGREEMENT. AT THE VERY BOTTOM, BOY, I HOPE YOUR EYE ARE BETTER THAN MINE. EXHIBIT D. A 15-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR FUTURE EXPANSION OF MILLER ROAD IS DEDICATED SUBJECT TO THE CITY PROVIDING A LICENSE FOR THE USE OF A RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL THE CITY USES IT FOR THE NECESSARY RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THIS WAS COMMUNICATED TO BE 10-20-30

[01:05:04]

>> WHAT YEAR WAS THAT? WHAT WAS THE DATE ON THAT?

>> I THINK IT WAS 2019. >> I SEPTEMBER YOU A LIST OF TIMELINES WITH ALL OF THE DATES ON THEM. AND I HAVE THESE HERE, BUT, I THINK TO GO BACK RIGHT NOW AND FIND THAT WILL EAT UP SOME OF MY 30 MINUTES, BUT I'LL BE GLAD TO GET IT FOR YOU LATER

IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU. >> I'LL LOOK AT IT."

>> I'M ON THE ONE THAT SAYS I HAD CATERAQ SURGERY. FOR PNZ, WE WE WANT TO CITY COUNCIL, THE 2/6/18 MEETING, IN THE DOCUMENTATION MAYOR DANA-BASHIAN SAID I WOULD SUPPORT THIS PD AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST WAS PASSED WITH A UNANIMOUS VOTE ON 3/18, IT WAS SIGNED, EXCUSE ME, IT WAS ORDINANCE 318, SIGNED ON FEBRUARY 6TH, AS PROPOSED. AND I'VE GOT THE LICENSING AGREEMENT MENTIONED AGAIN. A I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT. UNLESS YOU WANT TO HEAR IT 15 TIMES IN THIS PRESENTATION. NEXT PAGE, PLEASE. OKAY, LICENSE AGREE NE SENT AN E-MAIL TO HUTTON AND WILLIAMS ASKING THEM TO HELP ME WITH THAT. AND HE SAYS WE DON'T NEED THAT LICENSE AGREEMENT, ALL WE NEED IS THIS PERMIT COMPLETED AND THAT WILL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SO, THE PERMIT FORM WAS COMPLETED AND SUBMITTED ON THE FORM CITY ATTORNEY RECOMMENDED TO CITY STAFF FOR DOCUMENTATION OF THE COUNCIL LICENSE AGREEMENT SUBJECT TO THE DEDICATION. UPON INVESTIGATION, THIS PERMIT DID NOT MEET THE INTENT NOR THE SAME LEGAL STANDARD OF THE LICENSE ACREAMED WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED AND SUBSEQUENTLY APPROVED AS A CONDITION FOR THE ZONING CHANGE. I COMMUNICATED THE INABILITY TO OBTAIN A LICENSE AGREEMENT TO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ON 4/6/18 AND THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT STAFF ON 4/16/18. THIS IS A SAMPLE LICENSE AGREEMENT USED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS BY TXDOT, AND I'M NOT GOING TO READ IT ALL THROUGH TO YOU, BUT ON THE BOTTOM, VERY IMPORTANTIOUS THERE'S A TERM, THIS AGREEMENT IS FOR A TERM OF XYZ AND COMMENCING ON SUCH AND SUCH DATE AND TERMINATING. IN THE LICENSE AGREEMENT THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE PUT TOGETHER, THERE SHOULD BE A TERM FOR WHATEVER THE PERIOD WAS FOR THE WIDENING OF THE MILLER ROAD BRIDGE. CAN YOU GO TO THE NEXT PAGE, PLEASE? OKAY.

OUTLINE OF THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE HERE, I MADE AN INVESTMENT, I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ON THAT BUILDING WHICH THE CITY WANTED ME TO BUILD AND BRING PROGRAMS THAT GREATLY ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF ROWLETT. SO, I HELD UP MY PART OF THE DEAL. IF THE CITY TAKES THIS 15 FEET AWAY FROM ME, AND YOU REMEMBER IN THE FIRST SLIDE, THE SECOND SLIDE, IT SHOWED THAT THERE WAS ESSENTIALLY NO SPACE IN FRONT OF MY BUILDING AND THERE'LL BE AN UNREALIZED POTENTIAL FOR BOTH MY BUSINESS AND THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS OF ROWLETT IF THE CITY TAKES THIS DEDICATION AND IT'S NO LONGER ALLOWED TO BE USED BY ME.

DEDICATION FOR THE EMPTY P REALIZATION WAS A LONG TERM PLAN AND THE WAS NO CLARITY ON THE ACTUAL OPPORTUNITY TO UTILIZE THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY. COST WILL BE INCURRED TO MODIFY INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE SERENITY CITY REQUESTS. WHEN UTILITY AND STORM WATER DRAINAGE CAN BE CONDUCTED WITHOUT PERMANENTLY DAMAGING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THIS NEEDS TO BE AGREED UPON. FROM ANOTHER SIDE, THIS IS A PICTURE OF THE 15 FEET THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ONCOR HAS COME AND SAID THEY CAN PUT, THEY NEED TO PUT ONE POLE WITHIN THE NORTH SIDE OF MY FENCE AND

[01:10:04]

>> MY REQUEST IS A COMPLETE LICENSE AGREEMENT AS AGREED UPON FOR USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BY A BUSINESS FOR AN AGREED UPON TIMEFRAME IN WHICH INCLUDED STIPULATIONS WOULD BE OUTLINED, CITY ACCESS IS NEEDED FOR PLANNING IMPROVEMENTS, SUCH AS UTILITY POLES, RELOCATION, SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENTS AND ET CETERA. AND THE ET CETERA, I GET TO DEFINE THOSE, NOT THE STAFF WE'LL WORK TOGETHER ON THESE. WITHOUT SUCH A LICENSE AGREEMENT, WOULD REQUEST PLAT TO BE MAEDIFIED WITH DEDICATION RESCINDED AS NO LINK WITH MY BUSINESS AND THE MTP EXISTS TO JUSTIFY A CLAUSE AND I WOULD HAVE NO REASON TO ALLOW THE CITY TO USE OF ROW. I HAVE THE GREATEST INTEREST OF MILLER ROAD AND THE BRIDGE TO BE COMPLETED, I HAVE A HOUSE NEXT TO THE VINEYARDS, I HAVE TWO ACRES IN ONE HOUSE, THE VINEYARDS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT, THEY'VE CRAMMED THREE OR FOUR HOUSES THERE, RIGHT NEXT TO THE LAKE. I HAVE A STORE RIGHT NEXT TO THE TANK LINE THAT I SPENT A LOT OF MONEY ONNED AND WORKS VERY WELL. AND YOU GET A LOT OF BENEFITS. I'M VERY INTERESTED IN DOING THIS RIGHT, BUT NOT THE WAY IT'S GOING AT THIS STAGE. THIS IS THE PLAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, THIS IS IS A PICTURE OF ONE OF MY CIVIL PLANS AND IF YOU LOOK DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, YOU'LL SEE A 20-FOOT EMERGENCY ENTRANCE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE BUILT WELL THIS PROJECT AT THE END OF THE PROJECT, WHEN THE FIRE MARSHAL CAME BACK TO LOOK AT IT, FOR THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, KEN BELL CAME BY AND SAID, DAVE, I NEVER LIKED THE IDEA OF THIS EMERGENCY ENTRANCE AND EXIT HERE, TAKE IT OUT, DON'T PUT IT IN, NOW HAD THAT BEEN PUT IN, I THINK MANY OF THE PROBLEMS THAT ENCORE IS ENCOUNTERING, WOULD NO LONGER BE PROBLEMS. IS LAST NIGHT, I SENT A TIMELINE OF THE EMAILS THAT EXISTED FROM STAFF, FROM ME WHEN A RESPONSE WAS NEEDED AND FROM THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES AND I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH AND READ THOSE, BUT ALL OF THIS INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE AND YOU NEED TO READ THIS BECAUSE THERE'S SOME ALTERNATE FACTS THAT ARE BEING PASSED AROUND. AND IF YOU KNOW THESE EMAILS ARE HERE, IT WILL HELP YOU TO GET THE CORRECT FACTS AND MAKE THE CORRECT DECISION. BUT ONE IMPORTANT POINT ON THERE, ON JULY 19TH, 2022, VERY RECENTLY, PART OF THAT DATA, I NOTICED ONCOR WAS WALKING AROUND ON MY PROPERTY AND I ASKED THEM WHAT WAS GOING ON AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REMOVE THE FENCE TO REMOVE THE POLES, SO I WENT TO THE CITIZEN ACTION CENTER TO GET DOCUMENTATION ON WHAT WAS GOING ON. I RECEIVED AN E-MAIL FROM TIM INGLE AND IN THIS E-MAIL IT SAID, THERE WERE NO PLANS TO WIDEN THE ROAD ON MY PROPERTY. THE CITY HAS BEEN OFFERED SEED MONEY FROM DALLAS COUNTY, TO BEGIN DESIGN OF SUCH A PROJECT, BUT THE PROJECTED $50 MILLION CONSTRUCTION COST MEANS IT WILL NOT OCCUR ANYTIME IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, THERE ARE NO OTHER PLANNED PROJECTS WHICH WOULD AFFECT 6917 MILLER.

AND THEN THERE WERE STILL LOOSE ENDS ON THIS, SO, I WENT BACK THROUGH THE CITIZEN'S ACTION CENTER AGAIN AND ASKED MORE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AND I GOT AN E-MAIL SAYING, I QUOTE, THERE'LL BE NO IMPACT UPON ME, MY FENCE WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED, THE CONTRACTOR WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REPAIR TOSS MY FENCE IF IT WAS DAMAGED THERE WERE NO OTHER PROJECTS PLANS IF IT IMPACTED ME. THAT'S JULY 21, 2021, AND ABOUT A WEEK LATER ON JULY 29TH, I RECEIVE ADD PHONE CALL FROM GARY TELLING ME TO REMOVE MY WROUGHT IRON FENCE. AND I QUOTE IN IT HE STATES IN RETROSPECT, IT' PAIRED THAT THE CITY'S ACCOMMODATION ALLOWING THE TEMPORARY USE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS REGRETTABLE AS

[01:15:03]

BUTT LEAL POINT TWO, WHY A LARGE STORM WATER RUN OFF PIPES CROSSING UNDER MILLER AND DIVERTS ADDITIONAL RUN OFF TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER TO THE NORTH SIDE. WHY NORTH PLACE THE STORM WATER RUNOFF PIPES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER WHERE THERE'S PLENTY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY AVAILABLE. PLACING THE STORM WATER SEWER PIPES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE ROAD WOULD REQUIRE THE BLOCKING OF THE TWO LANES IT PADDLE POINT PARK AND MY FACILITY. PLACING THE STORM WATER SEWER PIPES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF MILLER ROAD MAY REQUIRE THE PARTIAL BLOCKING OF CHARDONNAY WHERE THERE ARE THREE LANES WITH WHICH TO WORK. ALSO THERE'S NO PARKING ON 7/29/21 MENTIONED DALLAS WANTED THE MILLER ROAD BRIDGE TO BE WIDENED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CURRENT TWO-LANE BRIDGE, NOT THE NORTH SIDE. THIS PLAN WOULD LIMIT THE LAKE WATER STORAGE CAPACITY LOST DUE TO THE BRIDGE WIDENING CONSTRUCTION, THE CITY'S VISION OF THE USE OF THIS 15 FEET IS FOR ONE UTILITY POLE, ONE POLE BOX AND A LOT OF GREEN GRASS ALONG MILLER ROAD. THE KAYAK FACILITY USED FOR THIS 15 FEET IS FOR ADA COMPLIANT PARKING AND CLASSES.

>> OKAY. >> AT THIS POINT, THIS IS TAKING A VERY LONG TIME. AND, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ON SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES, SINCE THE TORNADO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS TAKEN A LOOK AT HOW ROWLETT TOOK THIS LAND FROM ME WITH THE DEDICATION AND SAID IT WAS DONE ILLEGALLY AND HERE'S THE LETTER FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAYING THAT IF THE LAND IS NOT GIVEN BACK TO ME THAT I SHOULD SUE THE CITY WITH A CITY CASE. I DON'T DO BUSINESS THIS WAY, AND I DON'T THINK ROWLETT DOES BUSINESS THIS WAY EITHER, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE STAND AND I WOULD ASK YOU, AND I WOULD GIVE EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER, I WILL E-MAIL IT TO YOU TONIGHT. YOU SHOULD BE AWARE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER DOCUMENTATION BEHIND THIS THAT SUPPORT THIS IS SUMMARY. AND I WILL DOCUMENT THAT TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ROWLETT.COM TONIGHT TO YOU ALL. I THINK

>> I'M SHOCKED, I DON'T THINK THE AG WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THIS.

>> WE NEED TO SEE IT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE CONSIDERING IT RIGHT NOW.

>> TO MR. BEERMAN, I WILL GIVE IT TO YOU IN A MINUTE. I WOULD LIKE TO READ ONE MORE STATEMENT. MR. BEERMAN.

[01:20:01]

>> IT'S BIERMAN. >> MR. BIERMAN, NO DISRESPECT TO YOU BUT I'M ADDRESSING MY COUNCIL MEN AND WOMAN WHO TOLD MY LAWYERS NOT TO TALK WITH CITY STAFF OR COUNCIL WHEN THEY WANTED TO SIT DOWN WITH A SOLUTION THAT WAS FAIR AND REASONABLE. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PLEASE WRITE THEME DOWN TO A LETTER IN MY LAWYERS, YOU HAVE TREATED ME WITH DISRESPECT THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS, ME AS A RESIDENT WHO

BRINGS SO MUCH TO ROWLETT. >> WAS THAT A STATEMENT THAT YOU ARE SAYING TO ME? BECAUSE I'VE HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS WITH

YOU WHATSOEVER. >> YOU'VE HAD A NUMBER OF

COMMUNICATION WITH MY ATTORNEYS. >> YOU AND I HAVE NEVER, RIGHT NOW, IS THE MOST YOU AND I HAVE EVER SPOKEN TO EACH OTHER. I'M A BIT DISTURBED THAT YOU ARE ACCUSING ME OF TREATING YOU IMPROPERLY WHEN I'VE NEVER DEALT WITH YOU AT ALL, FACE-TO-FACE, ONE-ON-ONE OR EVEN IN A GROUP CONTEXT. BUT, I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO REPRESENT THE CITY IN THE BOUNDS OF MY ABILITY AND ANYONE, WHETHER IT BE A CITIZEN OR NOT SENDS A THREATENING CORRESPONDENCE TO THE CITY THREATENING LITIGATION, I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO RESPOND. I'M SORRY THAT YOU FEEL THAT I'VE BEEN TREATING YOU UNFAIRLY OR IMPROPERLY, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT COMES FROM, I DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT,

AND I THINK THAT'S INCORRECT. >> THE LETTERS THAT YOU SENT BACK TO MY ATTORNEY HAD MANY INCORRECT STATEMENTS, IF THAT WAS ZEALOUS DEFENDING THE CITY, I DON'T THINK THE CITY WANTS TO BE DEFENDED WITH INACCURATE STATEMENTS LIKE THAT AND THAT IS

WHY I SENT. >> OKAY. THIS IS NOT PRODUCTIVE AT THIS TIME, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT BETWEEN OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND A RESIDENT. WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE LANGUAGE OF THE LETTER, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A FIGHT BETWEEN THE TWO OF YOU, IT'S NOT PRODUCTIVE.

>> SORRY, MA'AM, I APOLOGIZE. >> SO, DID YOU GIVE LAURA THE

LETTER? >> YES.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER PART OF YOUR PRESENTATION?

>> NO, I'M HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> SO, CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW YOU FELT COERCED?

>> CAN WE STAY ON THIS LETTER FOR JUST A SECOND. I'M SORRY.

>> I DON'T HAVE A COPY. >> OH, I'M SORRY. BECAUSE I SAW THIS LANGUAGE EARLIER, I THINK IT WAS IN YOUR E-MAIL. IT SAYS "BELIEVE YOU COULD FILE A CIVIL CASE". IT SAYS THAT YOU COULD FILE A CIVIL CASE. THIS WAS NEVER LOOKED AT BY THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL. >> SO, THAT'S A

MISREPRESENTATION. >> DON'T TALK ABOUT MIS --

>> I'M TALKING ABOUT YOUR REPRESENTATION.

>> SAYS YOU COULD FILE A CIVIL CASE.

>> YES. >> THAT IS NOT WHAT YOU REPRESENTED VERBALLY A MINUTE AGO, WHAT THE AG SAID. NOT EVEN

CLOSE. >> OKAY.

>> ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION?

>> YES. >> OKAY.

>> COUNCIL, QUESTIONS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM

STAFF. >> WHOSE GOING TO TAKE THIS?

>> I'LL GET INTO IT A LITTLE BIT.

>> DO YOU MIND, WE'RE TRYING TO PROTECT HER, SHE HAS REALLY IMPORTANT REASONS NOT TO BE EXPOSED.

>> CAN YOU JUST MOVE OVER ONE SEAT AND JEFF AND I WILL SIT

TOGETHER. >> THANK YOU, DAVE.

>> WE TRY TO PROTECT EVERYBODY. YOU

>> GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. THE PURPOSE OF THE COMMENTARY THAT YOU RECEIVED FROM STAFF THIS EVENING IS JUST TO SPEAK TO SOME OF THE PROCESSES, THE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS OF A PLAT AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE PERMITTING THAT OCCURRED AS IT RELATES TO THE FURNITURE OR THE STREET FURNITURE, SUCH AS THE FENCE THAT IS WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, REALLY, WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE SITE CONDITIONS AND JEFF, COULD YOU JUST JUMP IN WHEN NEEDED.

>> OKAY. >> SO, THERE IS, BASED ON THE CURRENT APPROVED PLAT THAT HAS OBVIOUSLY THE OWNER'S SIGNATURE ON IT TOO, THERE'S FENCE AND PARKING AREA THAT IS CONTAINED WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. AND I'M GOING TO HIT THESE POINTS AND I HAVE SOME VISUALS THAT WILL PROVIDE MORE CLARITY.

[01:25:04]

WERE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS DEDICATED TO THE CITY. SO, I WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE OF POINTS. THIS IS RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION. IT IS NOT AN EASEMENT. IN FACT, WHAT HAPPENS IN ANY PROCESS AS IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT, IF A PROPERTY WANTS TO BE DEVELOPED, IT HAS TO SECURE A BUILDING PERMIT. A BUILDING PERMIT CAN ONLY BE ISSUED IF THE PROPERTY IS PLATTED. IF THERE'S A LOT ON RECORD FOR THAT PROPERTY. IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, THE PLANS WERE REVIEWED, THE TEAM WAS READY FOR CONSTRUCTION, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO CREATE THE PLAT. THE MASTER PLAN AND GENERAL PLATTING PROCESSES OR REQUIREMENTS IF THERE IS SUBSTANDARD RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT, IS IF THERE'S NOT SUFFICIENT WIDTH TO ACCOMMODATE THE ULTIMATE CONDITION FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY OR FUTURE RIGHT-OF-WAY, THAT IS AT THAT POINT DEDICATED TO THE CITY AS PART OF THIS PLATTING PROCESS.

THIS IS THE STEP THAT OCCURRED IN MAY OF 2018. SO, 15 FEET OF THE PROPERTY WAS THEN DEDICATED TO THE CITY TO ACCOMMODATE CITY FACILITIES, PROCESS WISE, THOSE ARE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE. AND WHICH ALSO SPEAK TO THE MASTER SURVEY. WHEN A PLAT IS CREATED, THERE ARE SPECIFIC ELEMENTS OF IT THAT DEFINE A DEDICATION STATEMENT WHICH TALKS ABOUT WHAT'S BEING DEDICATED IN WHAT USE. IN THIS INSTANCE, THE 15 FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WAS DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC USE FOREVER FOR THE STREETS, ALLEYS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THAT PLAT. SO, ANY PUBLIC UTILITY CAN REMOVE OR KEEP REMOVED, BUILDINGS, FENCES OR STREET FURNITURE. RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE CITY'S MASTER PLAN. SO, IN INSTANCES WHERE YOU HAVE AVAILABLE WIDTH RIGHT-OF-WAY AND YOU KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENT OR YOU NEED TO BE SURE THAT YOU HAVE THE REQUISITE RIGHT-OF-WAY IT'S THROUGH THE SUBDIVISION PLANNING PROCESS. NOW, TO SPEAK ABOUT THE FENCE THAT'S ALREADY CONTAINED WP THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY. WHY IS IS THAT FENCE THERE? FULL KNOWING, AS PART OF THE PD AND THE ZONING CHANGE, IT WAS REALIZED THAT IT IS NOT GOING TO BE AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE AND IT WASN'T GOING TO HAPPEN IN 2017 OR 2018, IN TERMS OF MILLER ROAD AND THE IMPROVEMENTS, YES IT'S PART OF THE PLAT THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD BE DEDICATED, BUT TO ALLOW FOR THE USE OF THAT STREET FURNITURE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO, A PERMIT APPLICATION WAS SUBMITTED AND THAT WAS FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY AND STREET USE NON-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND THIS WAS APPLIED FOR IN MAY, 2018, MAY 2ND. AS PART OF THIS PERMIT APPLICATION, THERE WAS AN EXIT THAT EXPLICITLY ARTICULATED UPON THE WIDENING OF MILLER ROAD, ANY STRUCTURE WITHIN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE REMOVED AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION WITH NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO, THIS PERMIT APPLICATION, ONCE APPROVED BECAME IN ESSENCE, THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE FENCE IN THE AREA UNTIL THE CITY NEEDED USE OF THAT RIGHT-OF-WAY.

[01:30:03]

>> CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN? >> THIS PERMIT APPLICATION IN ESSENCE BECAME THE ABILITY OR AN AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THE STREET FURNITURE, TO ALLOW THE FENCE IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT IT WAS NECESSARY TO UTILIZE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

>> THANK YOU. >> AND NOW TO GO BACK TO MY

FIRST SLIDE. >> SORRY, GO AHEAD.

>> SORRY, I WAS GOING TO SAY THERE'S THE ACTUAL PERMIT.

>> THIS APPLICATION OCCURRED AND THE ACTUAL PERMIT WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE COMMENTARY THAT I JUST MENTIONED. SPHERE

>>> WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF NON-CONSTRUCTION?

>> BUILDINGS. SO, YOU CAPTAIN HAVE A BUILDING IN A RIGHT-OF-WAY. RELATED TO FOPSING, LIGHT POLES, BENCHES, AND IN IN INSTANCE THERE'S PARKING LOTS.

>> SO, ESSENTIALLY, HIS PERMIT GAVE HIM THE RIGHT TO DO THIS?

>> CORRECT, AS AN INTERIM STEP OR AN INTERIM SOLUTION Z SO, THEN THIS BECAME THAT PERMIT APPLICATION.

>> ABSOLUTELY WANTED TO SHARE SOME OF THE CROSS SECTIONS BECAUSE MR. HOLL DID HAVE GOOD IMAGES IN HIS PRESENTATION THAT ILLUSTRATED THE 15-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT. THIS IS ILLUSTRATING THE BOUNDARY OF THE AREA IN QUESTION AND WHERE THE FENCE IS IN RELATIONSHIP TO WHAT ELSE WOULD BE OCCURRING ON THAT PROPERTY. RIGHT-OF-WAY IS NEEDED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS WIDENING THE ROAD ON MILLER DRIVE. ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY, THEY'VE A BUILDING UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THEY DEDICATED THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. IN FACT, AT THE INTERSECTION THROUGH THE PLATTING PROCESS AND AS WE WORKED ON MILLER ROAD PLANS, WE REALIZED THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION NECESSARY. SO, RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION OCCURS THROUGH PLATTING, VERY REGULARLY BECAUSE IT IS THE ONE WAY THAT THE CITY HAS THE ABILITY TO ENSURE THE REQUISITE WHICH ARE AVAILABLE IN PREPARATION OF FUTURE CONSTRUCTION. WHY IS THE

RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDED NOW? >> INSTALL THE STORM DRAIN TO SERVE THE MILLER ROAD WIDENING PROJECT, THE STORM DRAINOUT FALLS INTO LAKE RAY HUBBARD AT PADDLE POINT PARK. RELOCATE THE EXISTING ONCOR ELECTRIC POWER POLES TO IF A SILL STATE INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN, THE POWER POLES MUST BE MOVED TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MAKE ROOM FOR THE STORM DRAIN. THAT'S WHY THE FENCE WOULD HAVE TO BE MOVED. THE STRUCTURES, SUCH AS FENCES, FURNITURE AND PARKING IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO ALLOW THE RELOCATION OF THE ONCOR ELECTRIC POWER POLES. YOU'VE GOT THE OTHER STORM SEWER AND AS A RESULT OF THAT YOU NEED TO HAVE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO BE ABLE TO WORK IN THAT EASEMENT TOO. SO, INSTALLING AN EASEMENT THERE, THERE ARE ALSO MAINTENANCE ASPECTS RELATED TO IT. THAT'S THE NEED FOR THE 15-FOOT DEDICATION THAT OCCURRED THROUGH THE REQUISITE PROCESSES. THESE ARE VISUAL IMAGINES THAT GIVE A LITTLE MORE PERSPECTIVE ON THE LOCATION OF THE FENCE AS IT IS ABUTTING THOSE POLES. YOU COULD SEE THE FENCE AGAINST THE POLES AND THE STORM SEWER, THE FUTURE STORM SEWER. THEREFORE IT'S STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT WE HAVE THE DEDICATE THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, IT IS THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE FENCE BE PERMANENTLY RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. WITH THAT, WE'LL TRY AND ANSWER ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY

HAVE. >>> HI, I'LL START OUT BY MAKING A STATEMENT, I WAS KIND OF INVOLVED ALONG THE WAY WITH SOME OF THIS AND THESE DISCUSSIONS AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND I VERY CLEARLY REMEMBER MANY CONVERSATIONS THAT THIS 15-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY WOULD NOT DISTURBED UNTIL THIS MILLER BRIDGE WAS WIDENED, THAT MAY NOT BE WHAT YOU HAVE WRITTEN DOWN

[01:35:03]

I HAVE TO SAY THAT RIGHT OFF THE BAT, AND, DAVE, I MEAN, JUST LOOKING AT THIS, AND I'M NO ATTORNEY, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME THAT THEY'RE JUST SAYING THAT YOU COULD NOT FILE A CRIMINAL CASE BUT THAT YOU COULD FILE A CIVIL CASE.

ANYONE CAN FILE A CIVIL CASE, DOESN'T MEAN IT'S JUSTIFIED OR THAT YOU'RE GOING TO WIN THAT CASE AND YOU CEREMONY HAVE THE RIGHT TO FILE THAT IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT THAT'S A WAY DIFFERENT SITUATION THAN GETTING A DETERMINATION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, I JUST WANTED TO STATE THAT JUST AS A REGULAR PERSON.

LOOKING AT THIS, I DON'T SEE ANY DETERMINATION FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT WOULD PROBABLY ABOUT 15-20 YEARS OR EVEN LONGER DOWN THE ROAD BEFORE THE MILLER ROAD BRIDGE WOULD BE WIDENED AND HE WAS WELCOMED TO USE THIS FOR HIS FACILITY UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THAT BRIDGE WAS WIDENED, AND THERE WAS NEVER A DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY STORM DRAIN THAT WOULD MAKE A 20-FOOT WIDE TRENCH OR ANY OF THAT WAS NEVER DISCUSSED.

AND YOU KNOW, WHETHER LICENSE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE OR NOT MADE, MAY BE FOR A COURT TO DECIDE, I DON'T KNOW. BUT, I DO KNOW THAT HE DID THESE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT HE WOULD HAVE 15-20, OR MORE YEARS TO BE ABLE TO USE THAT. NO ONE WOULD GO TO THAT KIND OF EXPENSE FOR A YEAR YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE CRAZY. AND SO, I THINK HE DID HAVE THAT EXPECTATIONS THAT HE WOULD HAVE MANY YEARS TO BE ABLE TO USE THOSE PROVED AREAS, MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I KNOW YOU HAVEN'T HAD THIS CONVERSATION WITH ONCOR, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING FROM TALKING WITH DAVID AND OF COURSE YOU WOULD WANT TO GET THIS IN WRITING, IS THAT HE'S WORKED OUT SOME STUFF WITH ONCOR FOR THE RELOCATION OF THOSE POLES AND THE TEMPORARY REMOVAL OF THAT FENCE SO THEY COULD GET THEIR HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN THERE TO BE ABLE TO RELOCATE THE POLES. AND SO, I WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT I HAVE HEARD THAT CONVERSATION BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYTHING IN WRITING THAT THERE'S AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN DAVE AND ONCOR TO DO THAT. ALTHOUGH HE SAYS THAT THERE IS.

AND SO, THEN, ME MY QUESTION FOR YOU WOULD BE THAT, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING ALL OF THAT, AND THERE WERE A LOT OF STAFF CHANGES AND A LOT OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION GOING BOTH WAYS, YOU KNOW, NOT JUST DIFFERENT INFORMATION COMING FROM STAFF, BUT A LOT OF CHANGES COMING FROM DAVE AND SO, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONFUSION, WE HAD SEVERAL DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEETINGS, WHERE WE CONSIDERED A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS OF THIS. SO, I COULD UNDER THEM GETTING CONFUSED ABOUT IT, BUT, CONSIDERING THAT, AND CONSIDERING HE'S A GOOD PARTNER WITH THE CITY AND BRINGS GREAT PROGRAMS IN HERE AND HAS MADE, OBVIOUSLY, A MAJOR INVESTMENT OF A VERY NICE FACILITY THAT'S BEING USED BY HIS NON-PROFIT AND OTHERS, YOU KNOW, IS THERE SOME WAY THAT WE CAN ACCOMMODATE THIS? IF IT'S A STORM DRAIN AND THERE ARE NO IMPROVEMENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE, WHERE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO BE TEARING OUT SOMEONE'S BRAND NEW STRUCTURE, TELL ME, WHY WE COULD

ORB COULD NOT DO THAT? >> TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION HERE WITHOUT ANY PLANS IN FRONT OF ME OR THE TEAM SITTING AND LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVES, I'M NOT ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IT WOULD NOT BE A FAIR ANSWER AT THIS POINT.

>> THAT'S GOOD, DOES THE CITY HAVE A RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE OTHER

SIDE? >> WE DO.

>> IS IT IMPROVED OR UNIMPROVED.

>> WELL, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY IS JUST DEDICATION AT THIS POINT.

>> SO, IT DOESN'T HAVE IMPROVEMENTS?

>> NO. AND JUST TO ADD SOME FOOD FOR THOUGHT AS WE'RE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT A ROADWAY EXPANSION IT INCLUDES THE OTHER ELEMENT THAWS DON'T SEE ON THE SURFACE, WHAT HAPPENS BELOW GROUND OR BACK STAGE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

>> TOTALLY GET IT. >> AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE REFERRING TO FROM THE BACKSTAGE PERSPECTIVE.

[01:40:04]

>> I GUESS THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS REPRESENTED TO HIM WHEN HE DID THESE IMPROVEMENTS IN THAT 15-FOOT DEDICATION.

>> DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHEN STAFF REALIZED THAT WE NEEDED THIS RIGHT-OF-WAY? ARE THERE ENGINEERING REPORTS OR DESIGN

REPORTS? >> LET ME TRY AND ANSWER THIS IN TWO PARTS, ONE IS WHENEVER THERE'S EVEN, EVEN IF THERE'S NO IMMEDIATE NEED FOR ROADWAY IMPROVEMENT OR EXPANSION OR UTILITY IMPROVEMENT, IF RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATION IS NECESSARY TO NECESSARY TATE THE FULL WIDTH OR REQUIREMENT OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AS REFLECTED ON THE MASTER PLAN, THAT IS EXECUTED ON THE PLAT. IN TERMS OF A RAMPUP, AS YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT MILLER ROAD EXPANSION AND THAT EXPANSION INCLUDES UTILITY WORK WE'RE WORKING ON THE INTERSECTION AT MILLER, AND ALL OF THAT IS RAMPING UP. NOW, I DON'T HAVE SOLID DATES AS TO WHEN THAT COMMITMENT WAS MADE OR WHEN WE REALIZED, AS YOU ARE ASKING, BUT WE KNEW THAT WE NEEDED THAT DEDICATION TO MOVE FORWARD. GOING GOING BACK TO TALK ABOUT THE PERMIT

APPLICATION. >> LET ME STEP IN, BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A PIECE OF THIS THAT I REMEMBER EVEN BEFORE ARE THAT TIME. GOING BACK TO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVE SAID EARLY ON. SO WHEN WE WERE PLANNING ON THE EXPANSION OF MILLER ROAD, WE DID APPROACH DAVE ABOUT THE EXPANSION OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BOTH ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE HAD ALREADY APPROACHED HIM ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ON HIS PROPERTY AND THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RIGHT AFTER THE TORNADO, BUT I CAN'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHEN THAT WAS.

>> THAT WAS AFTER THE TORNADO WHEN I WANTED TO REBUILD MY HOUSE, YOU INDICATED FOR ME TO GET A PERMIT TO REBUILD MY HOUSE DURING THE TORNADO, I WOULD HAVE TO DEDICATE INTO THE FIVE FEET

OF MILLER ROAD. >> FIVE FEET BECAUSE WE HAD 10 AND WE NEEDED AT LEAST FIVE. SO, ANYWAYS, ON THE NORTH SIDE, WE TOLD DAVE WHAT WE WANTED TO DO, I RECALL DAVE ASKING ONE, IF IT'S POSSIBLE TO SHIFT THE ROAD TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN, WHEN WE DETERMINED AFTER STAFF WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THAT AND DETERMINED THAT THAT WAS NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER, THEN HE ASKED FOR AND I'M GOING TO GET THE WORD WRONG, BUT, ASKED FOR THE NOT

DEDICATION, BUT THE -- >> RESERVATION.

>> RESERVATION, THANK YOU. THAT WAS A CONVERSATION THAT WE HAD. STAFF THEN TOOK A LOOK AT THAT AND WE SPENT SEVERAL MONTHS ON IT AND ULTIMATELY DETERMINED THAT DEDICATION WAS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY. WHETHER IT WAS FOR THE EXPANSION OF THE BRIDGE OR FOR THE MILLER ROAD EXPANSION, AT THAT POINT, I DON'T THINK WE KNEW WHERE IT WAS GOING TO STOP AND STUART AND WE HAD NO IDEA AT THAT TIME, GOING BACK TO THE UTILITIES THAT MIGHT HAVE TO BE LOC LOCATED AT THAT POINT BECAUSE THE ENGINEERING HAD NOT BEEN DONE. THAT'S WHEN STAFF LET DAVE KNOW THAT WE WOULD INSIST ON A DEDICATION. HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THAT AND DID NOT LIKE THE IDEA. I COULD TELL YOU POINT BLANK HE DID NOT. BUT WE INSISTED THAT WE FELT THAT THE DEDICATION WAS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY. SO, GOING FORWARD PASSED THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WOULD HAVE ASKED ME WHEN MILLER ROAD BRIDGE WOULD BE EXPANDED, I WOULD HAVE TOLD YOU THE SAME THING, IT WOULD BE DOWN THE ROAD IN THE FUTURE, AND WHAT I FEEL LIKE IS WE DID NOT KNOW THAT WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT EXPANDING MILLER ROAD, PERIOD, THAT AT SOME POINT WE HAD TO ALSO LOOK AT THE UTILITIES. AND I THINK WHERE IT CAME OUT OF WAS WHEN THE ENGINEERS WERE DOING THE DESIGN ON THE EXPANSION OF MILLER ROAD. NOW, AGAIN, WHEN WE FIRST DID THIS BACK WHEN HE AND I FIRST HAD THIS CONVERSATION IN 2017, THEN FOLLOWUP IN 2018, I THINK AT THAT POINT, WE STILL DIDN'T KNOW WHEN WE EXPANDED IT WOULD WE GO ALL THE WAY TO THE LAKE AND LATER DO THE BRIDGE OR COME BACK THE OTHER WAY FROM THE BRIDGE AND THEN CUT IT OFF MAY BE AT THE RAILROAD TRACKS. I THINK THAT WAS STILL UP IN THE AIR. SOME OF WHAT MAY HAVE BEEN UP IN THE AIR YOU KNOW, I MAY HAVE BEEN UP IN THE AIR, WHEN HE AND AT DIFFERENT TIMES, I HAVE NO S- DOUBT GNAT COMBINATION OF HAVING DIFFERENT STAFF PEOPLE AT DIFFERENT TIMES PROBABLY

[01:45:02]

WAS DONE. >> AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, AND WHERE I THINK THE DISCONNECT IS SOMEWHERE WHETHER IT WAS STAFF TURNOVER OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, THESE AGREEMENTS WERE BEING SIGNED AT THE SAME TIME AS WE WERE PASSING THE BOND PACKAGE AND ALL THAT CIP WORK WAS BEING DONE THAT LED TO THIS. YOU KNEW THERE WAS GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENTS DONE TO MILLER ROAD AND YOU KNEW THAT WAS GOING TO BE COMING, DO I THINK THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISCOMMUNICATION IN THERE AND MARTHA, YOU JUST BACKED IT UP, THAT YOU HEARD PEOPLE SAY THERE WOULDN'T BE ANYTHING THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE ON THAT SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS AND I'M SURE THAT YOU HEARD THAT AT SOME POINT ALONG THE LINE. BUT, I'M SURE THAT WAS LOOKED AT AND ENGINEERED AND STARTED TO BE LOOKED AT AS WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER THAT CIP PROJECT. SO, I SEE THERE ARE FAULTS ON BOTH SIDES HERE, AND I THINK YOU PROBABLY GOT SOME BAD INFORMATION AND SO, I AGREE, THAT HOW THAT HAPPENED, I'M NOT QUITE SURE, BUT THERE'S ALSO THIS PROCESS THAT WAS NOT NEFF NEFARIOUS IS THERE A WAY TO BE ABLE TO USE OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY WITHIN HERE TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THE SEWER LINE WHICH IS GOING TO BE THE BIGGEST IMPACT TO THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE THAT HE HAS AND LOOK AT WHAT THAT DOES TO THE OVERALL COST OF THE PROJECT AND LOOK WHAT THAT DOES TO EVERYTHING TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, IT WAS BACKED UP BY MARTHA THAT THERE WAS BAD INFORMATION GIVEN TO HIM. AND IF THAT'S TRUE, AND IT SOUNDS TO ME WITH OTHER BACKING THERE WAS BAD INFORMATION GIVEN TO HIM. AND NOW AS THE PROJECT HAS PROGRESSED, WE KNOW THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE THIS ADDITIONAL WORK, I THINK WE SHOULD AT LEAST LOOK AT IT TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER ALTERNATIVES, NOW IF IT'S A DEAL WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF DOLLARS MORE TO MAKE THE CHANGES, THE PROCESS IS THE PROCESS, I'M SORRY, AND THAT'S HOW IT WORKS.

TO ME IT'S AT LEAST WORTH LOOKING AT THE ENGINEERING TO SEE IF THERE ARE OTHER WAYS TO ROUTE THAT SEWER CONNECTION.

>> I ALSO THINK WE NEED US TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION WITH ONCOR TO UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY WHAT THEY'RE ABLE AND AGREEING TO DO BECAUSE OF A MISCOMMUNICATION ON ALL FRONTS.

>> CAN I ADD A COMMENT THAT TIES IN WITH WHAT MATT SAYS, HUE WIT HAS BEEN DESIGNING THIS MILLER ROAD PROJECT FOR OVER A DECADE. AND WHEN A CIVIL ENGINEER PUTS THEIR PLANS TOGETHER, THEY DON'T HAVE THE UTILITY POLES IN IT, THE UTILITY COMES IN AFTERWARDS AND COWBOYS IN AND SAYS LET'S PUT ONE HERE

OR THERE. >> I JUST SAID, I WANT THEM TO TALK TO ON CAR FOR THE UTILITY PIECE, THAT'S NOT THE SEWAGE.

>> MAY I CONTINUE? IS THAT OKAY?

>> SURE. >> SO, HUE WIT'S DESIGNED THIS WITH THE LOWEST COST OPTIONS, AND RATHER THAN CHANGE AS THE

[01:50:05]

>> AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT'S NOT AN AFFIRMATION THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.

>> I UNDERSTAND. >> IT'S JUST LOOKING AT IT AND IF THERE IS A POSSIBILITY AND IF THERE IS A WAY DO IT, THEN THAT'S MORE OF DISCUSSION POINTS.

>> RIGHT. >> BUT WE'RE IN THE SITUATION WHERE WE ARE, IF THE COST OUTWEIGHS THE BENEFIT, THAT WILL BE THE DECISION. I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THAT'S CLEAR.

>> HAVE Y'ALL ALREADY LOOKED AT THAT?

>> NO. >> NO. WELL, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE WITH WHY WE HAVE TO MOVE THINGS BUT WE COULD DEFINITELY GIVE IT A SECOND PAIR OF EYES.

>> AND I, JUST TO CONFIRM WHAT BRIAN SAID, THESE UTILITIES WERE NOT ON THE RADAR, SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT HE WAS SPEAKING IN THESE THINGS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO NEED THAT FOR 20 OR 25 YEARS OR WHATEVER UNTIL THE MILLER BRIDGE WOULD BE BUILT WAS A TRUE STATEMENT AT THE TIME. BUT THINGS EVOLVES, THESE UTILITIES ARE NOT ON OUR RADAR AT THE TIME AND THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. BUT I THINK THAT TO ME, MATT'S COMMENTS MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. I THINK WE DO OWE IT TO YOU AS DOING WHAT YOU DID IN GOOD FAITH AND ALSO THE CITY DOING WHAT IT DID IN GOOD FAITH, NONE OF US EVER PLANNED ON BEING AT THIS POINT, BUT HERE WE ARE. AND SO, I THINK THE LEAST WE COULD DO IS HAVE A LOOK AT IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, NO ONE, NO ONE WITH BAD FAITH OR BAD INTENTIONS MADE THE STATEMENTS THAT THEY DID TO YOU.

IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE SIX YEARS DOWN THE ROAD NOW AND THINGS

HAVE CHANGED. >> SO, WE'RE 10 MINUTES OVER, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE

WRAP UP? >> SEEING NONE, WE WILL END THIS DISCUSSION ON ITEM

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.