[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:10]
>>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. HERE YE.
HERE YE. WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. TODAY IS MONDAY, MAY 19TH, 2025.
IT'S 6:00 P.M. THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED IN A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION.
CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, CALL EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURN M. FOR IN- PERSON COMMENTS, REGISTRATION FORMS ARE AVAILABLE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM.
GO AHEAD AND CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
THERE IS NO EXECUTIVE SESSION. CITIZEN'S INPUT.
NO ACTION CAN BE TAKEN BY THE COUNCIL DURING CITIZEN'S INPUT. WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUEST
[4A. Discuss and consider revision of Parks Rules in general and at specified parks.]
TO SPEAK FORMS. DOES ANYONE FROM THE AUDIENCE WISH TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE. ITEM FOUR.WORK SESSION. MAKING THAT PRESENTATION IS EXECUTIVE MAYOR, I BELIEVE.
>> SO, THIS CAME ABOUT BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS WORK SESSION WHERE THEY MENTIONED JUST KIND OF IN PASSING ABOUT THE JET SKIS AND THE PROBLEMS WITH THOSE AT THE PARK. AND DOING THAT, IT WAS NOT IN AGENDA, SO I SAID THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS PUT ON ANOTHER WORK SESSION. SO, WE COULD TALK ABOUT WHETHER WE COULD RESTRICT THINGS LIKE, I BELIEVE, CITY ATTORNEY SAID WE COULD SPECIFY CERTAIN PARTS ARE OFF LIMITS TO CERTAIN TYPES OF WATER CRAFT. AND THAT KIND OF THING.
IT KIND OF GREW OUT OF THAT BECAUSE THAT HAVE I WENT TO READ THE ENTIRE PARKS ORDNANCE AND SAW A FEW OVER THINGS AND THOUGHT, WELL, YOU KNOW, OVER COUNCIL MEMBERS MAY ALSO HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE SECTIONS THERE. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE THIS CAME FROM. AND COUNCIL MEMBER BOWERS GRACIOUSLY SECONDED IT AND WILL BE CONTINUING WITH THIS PAST THIS WHEN I'M NO LONGER WITH US. THERE WE GO.
THAT'S PROBABLY MORE FORMAL THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.
THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT IS JUST KIND OF SOME BACKGROUND INFORMATION, THE PREVIOUS REVISION, SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT SOME OF THE PARTS OF THE ORDNANCE THAT I NOTICED AND THEN, OF COURSE, I WANT EVERYBODY ELSE -- THAT'S WHAT THE CALL TO ACTION IS FOR EVERYBODY ELSE TO LOOK IT OVER AND SEE IF YOU ALSO HAVE ISSUES WITH ANY OF THESE. SO, CHANGES TO THE PARK ROAD REGULATIONS, OF COURSE, ANY CHANGES THAT WE MAKE HERE WE WANT TO CONSIDER IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY AND THE PARK USERS. SO AFTER THE COUNCIL GETS A CHANCE TO DISCUSS THIS, I HOPE THAT IT WILL -- THAT WE'LL GET THE PARK'S BOARD INVOLVED BUT I WANTED TO GIVE THE COUNCIL A CHANCE FIRST SINCE IT CAME UP IN A COUNCIL MEETING INITIALLY TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBERS WANT TO DO AND THEN TAKE IT TO THE PARKS BOARD AND SEE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT THAT AND IF THEY HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL INPUT. SO WE FEEL LIKE ALL PARKS ARE -- I FEEL LIKE ALL PARKS ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL, SO THE RULES FOR DIFFERENT PARKS MAY MAYBE NEED TO BE ADJUSTED A LITTLE BIT SO THAT PADDLE POND -- PADDLE POINT PARK OBVIOUSLY IS DIFFERENT FROM COMMUNITY PARK, FOR EXAMPLE.
SO, IT MAY NEED SOME DIFFERENT SPECIFIC RULES THAT APPLY TO SPECIFIC PARKS.
THE CURRENT RULES WERE ADOPTED IN 2009 AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE. SO, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REVISIT IT, TO SEE IF THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN HOW THE PARKS ARE ACTUALLY BEING USED THE CITY DYNAMICS THAT PEOPLE ARE USING THE PARKS, STATE LAWS, DIFFERENCES IN THAT AND THEN TALK ABOUT REVISING EXISTING RULES. WE COULD HAVE COME WITH JUST A JET SKI AMENDMENT, BUT I FELT LIKE IF WE WERE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THIS THING, IT MAKES SENSE TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE ORDNANCE AND SEE.
THERE ALSO MAY BE A FEW AMBIGUOUS REVISIONS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO CLARIFY AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO THESE ARE THE PARKS RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT ARE ON THE
[00:05:02]
CITY WEBSITE. ONE THING I WANT TO MAKE SURE OF, I THINK, IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE WEBSITE GETS UPDATED AS THE RULES GET UPDATED. OR THAT RULES DON'T JUST GET KIND OF STUCK IN THERE THAT DON'T HAVE ANY BASES IN THE LAW OR IN SOME KIND OF WRITTEN POLICY SOMEWHERE. SO, THIS IS THE EXISTING RULES.AND MOST OF THESE CERTAINLY MAKE SENSE.
SOME OF THEM ARE EASIER TO ENFORCE THAN OVERS, SO THAT'S SOMETHING ELSE WE'LL WANT TO LOOK AT BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE RULES THAT YOU CAN'T ENFORCE, THAT SORT OF CREATES A SITUATION WHERE PEOPLE FEEL LIKE, WELL, NOBODY IS ENFORCING THIS RULE, SO THE RULES DON'T MATTER SO THEY DON'T ABIDE BY ANY OF THE RULES.
SO THAT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DID.
>> SO THE ORIGINAL ISSUE IS THE JET SKI LAUNCHES AT PADDLE POINT PARK. WE CAN'T CONTROL, AS EVERYBODY KNOWS, WHAT GOES ON THE LAKE ITSELF, ON THE WATER, BUT WE DODO CONTROL OVER WHAT GOES ON ON THE LAND IN THE PARK.
AND SO, THEY CAN'T LAUNCH FROM THE LAND IF WE DON'T ALLOW THEM TO BE THERE ON THE LAND IN A LAUNCHING SITUATION.
AND WE MIGHT WANT TO TALK ABOUT NOT JUST JET SKIS.
I KNOW THAT WAS THE MAIN THING THAT DAVE WAS TALKING ABOUT DISTURBING THE KAYAKS AND THE WATER LINES AND THAT KIND OF THING, BUT SAILBOATS.
HE ALSO HAD MENTIONED. I THINK EVERYBODY GOT THAT EMAIL, TOO, FROM DAVE ABOUT THERE BEING SAILBOATS THERE AND PRESENTING SAFETY ISSUES AND THEN MOTOR BOATS. IT DOES SEEM TO ME -- I'M NO EXPERT ON BOATING OR ANY OF THIS, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO ME THAT THOSE ARE SORT OF INCOMPATIBLE IN SUCH A SMALL AREA. SO, THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO COUNCIL TO CONSIDER AND ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY ISSUES BECAUSE SAFETY COMES FIRST. SOME OF THE OPTIONS WOULD BE TO PROHIBIT THE JET SKI LAUNCHES FROM PADDLE POINT TO PROHIBIT THE LAUNCH OF ALL NON- PADDLE SPORTS WATER CRAFT, JET SKIS, ET CETERA. SO IS THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO DISCUSS AND DECIDE, DO YOU WANT TO DO ANY OF IT? HOW FAR DO YOU WANT TO GO? THE PREVIOUS ORDNANCE -- YES, THE CURRENT ORDNANCE ACTUALLY, IS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET. SO HOPEFULLY YOU ALL GOT THAT AND MAYBE EVEN WENT THROUGH IT ALREADY SO WE COULD TALK ABOUT SOME OF IT NOW.
IT CONTAINS THE RULES FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION AND THEN ARTICLE 2 HAS THE SPECIFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT WAS REVISED BY ORDNANCE NUMBER 002. 09 IN 2009.
THERE'S AT LEAST ONE OBSOLETE OR UNENFORCEABLE PROVISION IN THERE.
SO, WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO UPDATE THE ORDNANCES? WELL, BECAUSE THEY AFFECT PEOPLE'S LIVES.
THERE'S A FINE OR PENALTY FOR VIOLATING CITY ORDNANCES, $200 OR IN CASES OF HEALTH TYPE ORDNANCES, IT'S HIGHER THAN THAT.
BUT IN ANY CASE, IT HAS AN IMPACT ON THE CITIZENS.
SO, COMPLIANCE WITH THE STATE LAW OF COURSE COMES FIRST BECAUSE IF AN ORDNANCE IS THERE ON THE BOOKS IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, CAN'T BE ENFORCED BUT IT CONFUSES PEOPLE.
OUR RULES HAVEN'T BEEN UPDATED FOR 15 YEARS, SO THERE'S BEEN NEW TECHNOLOGY, NEW LAWS SO WE NEED NEW RULES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS.
THERE MAY BE SOME WITH SOME OF THESE DEPENDING ON WHAT PEOPLE DECIDE, BUT NONE THAT I CAN SEE.
BILLABLE HOURS FOR THE CITY HAS BEEN -- MY RECOMMENDED ACTION IS ANALYZE THE CURRENT ORDNANCE. IDENTIFY THE AREAS NEEDING REVISION, POST THOSE REVISIONS TO THE CITY OTHER THAN TO APPROPRIATE THEM INTO A NEW ORDNANCE WHICH WOULD BE THEN PASSED BY THE COUNCIL. SO, YES.
ONE SPECIFIC THING IN HERE THAT WE HAVE IS I WANTED TO BRING UP IN ADDITION TO --
[00:10:04]
SECTION 4284 IS CALLED ARCHERY. AND IT SAYS NO PERSONS SHALL SHOOT, THROW, PROPEL OR PROJECT ANY ROCK, STONE, STICK OR OVER MISSILE EXCEPT IN AREAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR SUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY ARCHERY AREAS IN OUR PARKS?>> NONE THAT I'M AWARE OF CURRENTLY, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU MAY NOT DESIGNATE OR DEVELOP SOME IN THE FUTURE, BUT NO, MA'AM.
>> I WAS NOT SURE OF THAT. AND IS THROWING ROCKS CONSIDERED TO BE ARCHERY?
>> BUT SHOULD ARROWS BE ADDED THERE SINCE THERE'S EVERYTHING BUT ARROWS. IS THAT JUST ME?
>> YEAH. OVER MISSILE, I GUESS COVERS THAT. BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THIS WAS WRITTEN IN VERY STRANGE LANGUAGE THERE. I DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THE TITLE MAYBE NEEDED TO BE EXPANDED BEYOND JUST ARCHERY.
>> MUST HAVE BEEN PUT IN THERE DURING A TIME WHEN WE HAD A ROCK- THROWING
I WOULD NOT BE SURPRISED AT THAT.
THE FIRES, SOMETHING ELSE THAT I KNOW DAVE HAS BROUGHT UP SEVERAL TIMES AND SOME OVER PEOPLE HAVE BROUGHT UP TO ME ARE THE ABILITY TO USE THESE LITTLE PORTABLE GRILLS, WHICH APPARENTLY THAT'S LEGAL NOW AS LONG AS YOU DON'T PUT IT ON THE GRASS OR THE PICNIC TABLES. SO PEOPLE ARE PUTTING THEM ON THE SIDEWALKS AND OBSTRUCTING WALKING ON THE SIDEWALKS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE WANT TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT SOMETHING YOU MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT.
I KNOW SOME CITIES AND PARKS THAT ONLY ALLOW COOKING IN PERMANENT, INSTALLED GRILLS THAT THE CITY OWNS AND DESIGNATES. THAT WOULD GIVE THE CITY A LITTLE MORE CONTROL OVER IT. SO THAT'S SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. AGAIN, I'M NOT NECESSARILY PROPOSING THAT, JUST THINGS I'VE IDENTIFIED THAT WE MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER THAT OVER CITIES DO DIFFERENT.
FLYING OBJECTS 4288, FLYING OBJECTS.
I DON'T KNOW -- THIS I SUPPOSE WOULD COVER DRONES.
THIS WAS WRITTEN BEFORE DRONES BECAME POPULAR, I KNOW.
BUT I WANT TO BE SURE THAT THAT WOULD COVER DRONE.
THEY ARE RADIO CONTROLLED. SO SOME OF THEM WEIGH 20 POUNDS OR LESS. SOME OF THEM WEIGH 20 POUNDS OR MORE, SO I DON'T KNOW.
>> SO I WONDER IF THAT WAS WRITTEN WHEN MAYBE RC --
>> R- C AIRPLANES I'M SURE IS WHAT IT WAS ACTUALLY WRITTEN TO ADDRESS.
SO THE CITY ATTORNEY MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT AND SEE WHETHER THAT LANGUAGE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED AND THAT KIND OF THING.
HORSES. WE HAVE DESIGNATED -- WHEN IT SAYS DESIGNATED DRIVEWAYS, WHAT IT SAYS IS NO PERSONS SHALL RIDE, LEAVE OR DRIVE A HORSE UPON ANY PART OF THE CITY PARK OR ALLOW HORSE TO ENTER UPON ANY CITY PARK EXCEPT UPON DESIGNATED DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOTS OR ROAD PASS.
SO WOULD THAT MEAN THOSE -- IT WOULDN'T MEAN THEY COULD COME ON ALL DRIVEWAYS, CORRECT? IT WOULD NEED TO BE -- HAVE SIGNAGE OR SOMETHING ALLOWING HORSES? I'M NOT SURE.
THIS IS ONE OF THOSE AMBIGUOUS.
>> IF I WAS INTERPRETING, THAT'S ANYWHERE PARK AND RIDE. YOU CAN COME IN VEHICLE, DRIVEWAYS, PARKING LOTS, THEY JUST DON'T LIKE THEM, FROM WHAT I CAN REMEMBER IN THE PAST, WALKING IN THE PARK.
>> AND THEY DO SOME BUSINESS AND THEN SOMEBODY DOESN'T CLEAN IT UP.
WELL, SOMEBODY WILL CLEAN IT UP.
>> OKAY. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO MAYBE FURTHER DEFINE THAT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. PARK HOURS.
DO THEY ALL NEED TO BE THE SAME HOURS? I KNOW A LOT OF PARKS CLOSE AT SUNSET OR CLOSE AT DARK IN OVER CITIES.
SO, THE HOURS ARE SOMETHING ELSE.
YOU GUYS MIGHT WANT TO DISCUSS AND
I'VE GOT A COMMENT ON THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HIGHLIGHTED ALSO.
>> AND I DO NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH JUST A STRAIGHT OUT 11:00 BECAUSE I THINK IT PUTS A VERY FINITE END TO THE DAY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE, THOUGH, AS PART OF THIS IS WOULD BE MORE ROBUST SIGNAGE THAT REALLY -- BECAUSE I DON'T THINK RIGHT NOW THE 11:00, YOU KNOW, POLICE WILL -- YOU KNOW, I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE, ME PERSONALL WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE ROBUST SIGNAGE ENFORCING THE IDEA OF AN 11:00 CURFEW.
AGAIN, NEED TO MAKE SPECIAL ACCOMMODATIONS FOR A
[00:15:02]
PARTICULAR EVENT, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT, BUT THIS IDEA OF HAVING SORT OF A FLOATING, FLOATING CLOSING TIME DEPENDING ON THE PARK AS A GENERAL POLICY FOR ME I DON'T LIKE THINGS THAT AMBIGUOUS.I WOULD RATHER MAKE AN EXCEPTION THAN JUST MAKE EVERYTHING
EXCEPTIONS. >> THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS THE PARKS THAT ARE VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL AREAS, THE PEOPLE BEING REALLY LOUD UNTIL 11 WAS THE ISSUE THAT BROUGHT IT
UP. >> WE DON'T GENERALLY HAVE SPORTS GO THAT LATE IN COMMUNITY PARKS, DO WE?
>> PEOPLE FISHING ON THE LAKE IS A REAL COMMON ONE, OBVIOUSLY.
>> NOT JUST -- OVER AT LAKE SIDE SOUTH, TOO.
>> LIKE I SAID, IN SUMMERTIME, 11:00 IS NOT A -- TO MY MIND, IT STAYS LIGHT UNTIL 9:30. THAT'S JUST MY OPINION.
I'M VOICING IT. BUT I TEND TO LIKE THE IDEA OF A ENFORCEABLE, WELL- DOCUMENTED, WELL- SIGNED RULES FOR CLOSING AND I LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING WHETHER IT'S 11 OR 10:30, WHATEVER WE WANT TO PICK, THAT'S KIND OF SECONDARY. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IT A FAIRLY CONSISTENT.
>> DEFINITELY AGREE WITH SIGNAGE.
THAT NEEDS TO BE FOR ALL OF THE RULES NEEDS TO BE MORE ROBUST.
>> JUST FOR THE RECORD, PARKS WENT OUT AS YOU ALL KNOW THE WHOLE CAMP MILLER THING, THEY PUT BRAND NEW SIGNS OUT, LARGER, ACCURATE WHICH IS WHY THE WEBSITE WAS UPDATED TO BE MORE ACCURATE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION, INACCURATE INFORMATION. THEY'VE GONE BACK AND SURVEYED THAT INFORMATION MULTIPLE TIMES TO MAKE SURE IT'S STILL ACCURATE.
THE SIGNAGE OUT THERE HAS A QR CODE NOW A STICKER OVER I THINKTHINK IN INSTILLATION PROCESS ON SOME OF THE SIGNS, THE BOLT WAS COURTING THE QR CODE MAKE IT INEFFECTIVE.
THEY'VE DONE A TEST AND GOT STICKERS PLACED OVER THE BOLTS SO THEY ADDED QR CODES, LARGER SIGNS, ACCURATE SIGNS AND DID THAT IN ALL OF THE PARKS.
WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S ENOUGH IS CERTAINLY A DISCRETIONARY QUESTION, BUT BE AWARE THOSE UPDATES HAVE BEEN MADE.
>> MASS GATHERINGS. GATHERINGS WHICH WILL ATTRACT 100 PERSONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU CAN POST AND ENFORCE THAT. HOW DOES A PERSON KNOW IN ADVANCE WHETHER IT WILL ATTRACT MORE THAN 100 PERSONS.
>> POLICE DEPARTMENT JUST RECENTLY TOOK SOME SIGNIFICANT ENFORCEMENT ACTION ON THAT NOTE.
>> THAT WOULD BE ONE THAT DID ATTRACT MORE THAN
RIGHT. >> BUT THE WAY IT'S WORDED IS WHICH WILL ATTRACT MORE THAN.
>> WELL, IT ACTUALLY HADN'T AT THAT TIME AND THEY WERE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION TO PREVENT IT FROM DOING SO. SO IT WAS USEFUL.
>> PROMOTERS NORMALLY KNOW THAT A BALLPARK IDEA OF HOW MANY PARTICIPANTS THEIR EVENT WILL ATTRACT.
IF IT WON'T ATTRACT A CERTAIN NUMBER, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE THE EVENT.
>> BUT THIS IS EXCLUDING ORGANIZED ACTIVITY, WHICH I WOULD THINK A PROMOTER'S ACTIVITY WOULD
BE. >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT EXCLUDING ORGANIZED ACTIVITY MEANS.
>> SEE, THAT WAS ANOTHER AMBIGUOUS THING.
>> SO YOU ONLY NEED A PERMIT IF YOU'RE UNORGANIZED?
>> THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE. UNORGANIZED ONES ARE THE ONES WHERE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO KNOW WHETHER IT'S --
>> IT WOULD SEEM THAT IF YOU READ IT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SPECIAL EVENTS PERMIT THAT THEY'RE PROBABLY TRYING TO TARGET SOMEONE WHO WILL UTILIZE IT FOR COMMERCE, RIGHT? I THINK THAT'S WHY -- YOU KNOW.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE IT SHOULD SAY IT. BUT OKAY.
>> CERTAINLY THERE ARE A LOT OF WAIT WE CAN WRITE THIS BETTER. I'M TRYING I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT IS YOU ALL WANT TO HAPPEN ANY CHANGES YOU MAY
I DON'T EVEN -- IT'S NOT EVEN A MATTER OF NOT LIKING WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT IT SAYS. I THINK IT NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
>> IT'S BEEN USED MORE THAN ONCE.
WE USED IT WHEN ALL THE KIDS IN GISD SENIOR DECIDED TO COME UP THERE AND HAVE A SENIOR SKIP DAY AND JUST OVERTOOK THE PARK OVER.
>> OKAY. THAT WOULD BE EXCLUDING ORGANIZED.
>> GET THEM OUT THERE AND MOVE THEM OUT.
I DON'T WANT TO TAKE TOOLS AWAY FROM THE POLICE
I WANT TO CLARIFY SAYING SO THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHAT IT MEANS.
I DON'T KNOW WHY ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS EXCLUDED.
[00:20:01]
BECAUSE IT SAYS WITHOUT FIRST OBTAINING A SPECIAL PERMIT. IF YOU GET A PERMIT, IT'SORGANIZED. >> I'M THINKING THAT'S LIKE THE --
>> I JUST THINK YOU NEED TO TAKE OUT THAT EXCLUDING ORGANIZED ACTIVITY.
AND THAT WOULD GIVE YOU MORE TOOLS BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ANY EXCLUSIONS.
>> I WAS READING THIS EXCLUDED AS HAVING A PERMIT.
>> YEAH. THAT'S HOW I LOOK AT IT.
THEY WANT TO EXCLUDE IT. IF YOU RENTED ONE OF THE COMMUNITY PARK.
>> THE BOAT REGATTA OR WHATEVER OUT THERE.
>> VICTORIA, CAN YOU TAKE THAT FEEDBACK AND TURN THAT INTO A LITTLE BIT CLEARER MESSAGE FOR 4296? LET'S GO -- I KNOW YOU PROBABLY HAVE MORE.
LET'S GO BACK AND GET FEEDBACK ON SOME OF THESE OVER ONES THAT WAY VICTORIA CAN HOPEFULLY CONSOLIDATE IT DOWN TO A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE THAT WE CAN RUN BY THE PARKS BOARD. SO 4284 ARCHERY, I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER'S POINT ABOUT AN ARROW IS VALID. YOU COULD ARGUE A STICK IS AN ARROW, BUT I THINK EXPLICITLY SAYING ARROW AS OPPOSED TO STICK OR OTHER MISSILE IS PROBABLY A BETTER DESCRIPTION.
>> WELL, AND WE HAVE HAD ARCHERY LESSONS IN GROVE PARK.
SO WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S OKAY THAT WE HAVE ARCHERY LESSONS. SO SOMEHOW --
>> IT DOES SAY SPECIFICALLY -- EXCEPT IN AREAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED. AS LONG AS THAT'S IN THERE, IT'S PROBABLY COVERED.
>> SO SOMEWHERE IN THE PECAN GROVE RULES IT SAYS YOU CAN DO ARCHERY?
>> IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BREAKING THE RULES INTO DIFFERENT PARKS, NOW THAT'S A SEPARATE CONVERSATION FROM THIS WHICH IS STILL A SET OF RULES THAT GOVERNS ALL THE PARKS.
SO, THIS HAVING EXCEPT IN AREAS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR SUCH, THE DIRECTOR CAN DESIGNATE IT AS A ONE- OFF AT THEIR DISCRETION FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME, NOT IN PERPETUITY ALSO.
AND SO, ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT, TO ADD IN SOME SORT OF REFERENCE TO AN ARROW?
>> OKAY. 4287 FIRES. ONE THING WHILE YOU WERE TALKING THAT OCCURRED TO ME IS THERE ARE A LOT MORE SMALL PROPANE STOVES AND GRILLS NOW FROM JET BOILS TO EVEN IF SOMEONE HAS A BANQUET AND THEY HAVE ONE OF THOSE WARMING TRAYS THAT HAS HEAT UNDERNEATH IT, RIGHT? THAT'S AN OPEN FLAME AS WELL. THERE'S PROBABLY A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT CAVEATS TO THIS, BUT I THINK IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO HAVE AT LEAST SOME ALLOWANCE FOR PEOPLE TO GRILL IN THE PARK?
>> I THINK OVER CONCRETE IS IMPORTANT BECAUSE, AS WE KNOW, IT GETS PRETTY DRY AND CHARCOALCHARCOAL GRASS WOULD BE A PRETTY MAJOR CONCERN.
>> BUT THEN POINT CONCERNS MADE IS OF COURSE IT WOULD NEED TO BE OVER CONCRETE, BUT WHAT CONCERNS ME IS SO NOW THEY'RE GOING TO CHARCOAL GRILL ON OUR SIDEWALKS OR ON OUR PARKING LOT?
>> THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN DO THAT.
SO I WOULD ACTUALLY -- I ACTUALLY THINK ADDING MORE OF THE INSTALLED GRILLS THAT YOU JUST BRING YOUR CHARCOAL BAG. I THINK THOSE LITTLE GUYS -- I JUST DON'T -- I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF PEOPLE USING -- PUTTING THE CHARCOAL ON OUR SIDEWALKS OR IN OUR PARKING LOTS.
>> SO, ABSENT BEING ABLE TO DO THAT IMMEDIATELY, DO WE WANT TO CHANGE THE ORDNANCE THAT SAYS NO GRILLING? BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO OUT TO EVERY PARK AND MAKE THAT UPGRADE TOMORROW?
>> I WOULD NOT WANT TO DO THAT.
>> CAN I ASK THE COUNCIL A QUESTION, WHAT ARE WE SOLVING FOR THE FEAR OF FIRE? OR THE POTENTIAL BLOCKING OF PEOPLE WHO MAY BE GRILLING IN THE PARKING AREAS OF CERTAIN PARKS?
>> I THINK BOTH ARE ISSUES. THE FIRE ISSUE IS CERTAINLY THE BIGGEST
ISSUE. >> WE HAD A LOT OF INCIDENTS OF FIRE? I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER.
>> WE HAVE NOT. PARKS RELATED TO GRILL USAGE.
>> SO IF THE QUESTION IS YOU WANT TO BLOCK -- STOP THEM FROM BLOCKING OUR PARKING AREA, I MEAN THAT MAY BE A SIMPLER FIX, AGAIN, STILL THE ENFORCEMENT QUESTION WHICH IS A DIFFERENT ISSUE, BUT IT WOULD BE CLEARER AND SIMPLER FOR US PERHAPS TO DO THAT.
AND THEN IF IN TIME YOU DESIRE TO TRY TO ADD, YOU KNOW, MORE SPACES, THEN SO BE IT, WE'LL WORK ON THAT FROM AN INFRASTRUCTURE STANDPOINT OR IF WE'RE MAYBE TARGETING ONE SPECIFIC AREA, TOO, WITH
[00:25:01]
MORE ENHANCED REGULATION, YOU COULD THEN SPECIFICALLY OUTLAW GRILLING AT PADDLE POINT PARK OF ANY TYPE ANYWHERE.>> YOU COULD ALSO REQUIRE AFFORDABLE GRILLS TO BE PLACED ON A METAL TABLE, A METAL SURFACE.
>> THE PROBLEM IS SOMEBODY THAT'S USING A GRILL, PROBABLY OVER PEOPLE HERE, I DON'T WANT TO SAY THEY'RE NASTY, BUT IT'S NOT YOUR GO- TO -- W.
PROPAIN. >> COME GRILL IF YOU'RE HAVING A BIG FAMILY EVENT UNLESS YOU'RE GOING OUT WITH A BLOW TORCH AND IRON SCRUB BRUSH TO CLEAN THEM OFF. SO, AND THERE'S A LIMITED NUMBER OF THEM IN ANY GIVEN PARK, THE LITTLE PARKS MAY HAVE ONE, MAY.
SOME HAVE NONE. AND YOU KNOW, I THINK GRILLING IS A THING PEOPLE LIKE TO DO OUTSIDE.
I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER FOR THEM TO DO.
I WANT TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THEM TO DO, STILL BE SAFE WITHIN PARAMETERS. THE IDEA IS -- I SAY I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT HARDER TO DO IT. AND IF WE NEED TO MORPH IT AS WE GO ALONG, THAT'S FINE. I WOULD NOT BE FOR, YOU KNOW,
OUTLAWING THEM AT THIS POINT. >> I WOULD PROPOSE WE LEAF VE IT THE SAME AS NOW AND ASK THE PARKS BOARD FOR
FEEDBACK. >> I KNOW WE'RE KIND OF THINKING ABOUT PADDLE POINT PARK RIGHT NOW, BUT WE ALSO REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT COMMUNITY PARK BECAUSE, I MEAN, THE TAILGATING THERE IS -- IT'S AMAZING. THEY HAVE AMAZING FOOD AND ALL OF THAT KIND OF GREAT STUFF. BUT, YOU KNOW, THE GRILLING IS OCCURRING KIND OF I THINK WILLY NILLY. I CERTAINLY SAW IT.
SO I DO THINK THAT -- I DO THINK THAT THAT IN PARTICULAR DESERVES MORE ATTENTION THAN JUST WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT HERE.
>> AND THIS IS SPECIFICALLY REFERENCING CHARCOAL GRILLS. IF THERE'S SOMEONE OUT THERE WITH A PROPANE GRILL, THEY CAN BE CURRENTLY
ANYWHERE. >> FRANKLY I WOULDN'T WANT TO TAKE ACTION ON ANY OF THESE UNTIL IT HAD GONE THROUGH THE PARKS BOARD AND THEN HAD A CHANCE TO GO OVER THE WHOLE THING TO SEE WHAT NEEDS TO BE
RECOMMENDATIONS. >> THAT WAS THE IDEA.
NOT TO TAKE ACTION. JUST TO GET THE COUNCIL'S IDEA OF WHAT THE COUNCIL'S CONSENSUS
SO THAT'S FEEDBACK ON THAT. UNLESS THERE'S ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON 4287, LET'S GO TO 4288. I WOULD -- SO THERE'S TWO COMPONENTS HERE. NUMBER ONE WAS THE DRONES, WHICH YOU MENTIONED. AND I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE ADD A PROVISION FOR DRONES TO ALLOW THEM AS LONG AS THEY EITHER ARE BELOW THE 249 GRAMS OR IT'S A LICENSED OPERATOR IF THEY'RE ABOVE 249 GRAMS. IS THERE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT BEFORE I MAKE MY SECOND POINT?
>> AND MAYBE THIS IS YOUR SECOND POINT, I BELIEVE ON TOMORROW'S AGENDA AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT COMMERCIAL DRONE --
SEPARATE. >> BUT THAT WAS WHAT MY POINT WAS BEING, OKAY, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DRONES AND WE GOT SEPARATE THINGS, LET'S MAKE SURE WE'RE REAL CLEAR AS TO --
>> WHO DRONE, WHAT DRONE, WHERE DRONE.
>> YEAH. THIS IS ONLY FOR OPERATION WITHIN A PARK. VERY SPECIFIC USE CASE.
>> I WOULD SAY IT'S ALL RECREATION TO ME.
>> THE SECOND ONE IS -- I KNOW EVERYBODY IN HERE HAS SEEN HIM OR I ASSUME YOU HAVE SEEN HIM, THE GUY THAT FLIES THE PARA MOTEER AROUND. FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, HE TAKES OFF FROM COMMUNITY PARK. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. BUT HE HAS TO TAKE OFF FROM A PRETTY WIDE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY A RUNWAY FOR YOURSELF.
>> RIGHT OVER OUR BACKYARDS ABOUT TEN FEET UP.
>> HE HAS A BIG FAN ATTACHED TO HIS BACK AND HE'S FLYING OVER
>> HE DOES STUNTS AND TRICKS AND ALL KINDS OF STUFF AND OFTEN POSTS VIDEO ON SOCIAL MEDIA. SO, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY -- HE'S NOT JUST FLYING IN THE PARKS, RIGHT? HE'S FLYING ALL OVER THE CITY BUT HE'S TAKING OFF POTENTIALLY FROM PUBLIC SPACES. JUST AS EASILY HE COULD FIND A PRIVATE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND TAKE OFF ON HIS OWN AND BE IN THE SAME SITUATION THAT HE IS TODAY AS FAR AS FLYING OVER HOMES AND BUSINESSES, THOROUGHFARES.
SO, I'M INCLINED TO NOT DO ANYTHING AND I THINK THIS ORDNANCE RIGHT NOW MIGHT RESTRICT HIM IF WE FELT THE
[00:30:02]
NEED TO TO GIBBS' POINT, DON'T TAKE AWAY ANY MECHANISMS THAT THE POLICE HAVE TO DO ENFORCEMENT IF THEY NEED TO.ORDNANCE WOULD -- >> HE'S NOT A RADIO CONTROLLER.
>> WELL, THAT'S, B, THOUGH. A, FLYING OR PROPELLED OBJECTS.
>> SO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO STRETCH THAT
YOU WANT TO MAKE THE CHANGE TO ALLOW DRONES.
DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE OVER RADIO CONTROLLED AIRCRAFT IN ALL PARKS? RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY ALLOWED IN ONE.
>> I WOULD SAY NOT. NOT IN ALL THE PARKS BECAUSE THERE IS A PLACE FOR THEM TO GO FLY DRONES. WE PROVIDE THAT.
>> SO JUST LEAVE IT LIKE IT IS, RESTRICTED TO THAT ONE AREA BUT MAKE SURE THE DRONES ARE INCLUDED?
>> I'VE ASKED THAT PARKS WHEN THEY DO THEIR RUN THROUGH IT THAT THEY GO IN AND SEE WHAT THE OVER CITIES ARE DOING WITH THEIR PARKS WITH THE DRONES AND THEN COME BACK WITH A RECOMMENDATION.
>> REALLY I WOULD THINK YOU ALMOST -- IT WOULD BE AT LEAST COURTEOUS TO TALK TO THE RC CLUB BECAUSE THEY MAY, YOU KNOW, THEY SPEND TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS ON THESE BIG MODELS AND STUFF. AND I DON'T KNOW THE DIVISIONS WITHIN THE RC WORLD. THEY MAY NOT WANT DRONES FOR WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND THEY SPEND THEIR TIME AND MONEY KEEPING THAT PLACE UP. AND THEY HAVE CERTAIN OWNERSHIP. I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE US TO SAY DRONES YES OR NO AND GET THEIR INPUT ON IT BECAUSE I'M CERTAINLY NOT QUALIFIED TO MAKE THAT
CALL. >> FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, THE MAJORITY OF THE CITIES THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH, THAT DO REGULATE IT AT ALL, ONLY ALLOW DRONES IN CERTAIN AREAS OF CERTAIN PUBLIC
>> AND IF IT'S FOR COMMERCIAL USE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PERMIT.
>> DO YOU KNOW OF ANY CITIES THAT HAVE OUTRIGHT BANNED?
>> I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW OF ANYBODY THAT'S PROHIBITED IT. I THINK USUALLY THEY EITHER HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IT OR ARE ADDRESSING IT.
IT'S JUST A CERTAIN PARK IN A CERTAIN AREA.
>> I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE, WOULD WE WANT TO PUT THE DRONES IN THE SAME PARK AS THE RC?
>> THAT'S WHY I WOULD ASK DEB.
>> I WOULD SAY YOU PROBABLY DON'T WANT TO MIX
THEM. >> YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD
I THINK THAT'S -- THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE THE STARTING POINT.
AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON FROM THERE AND MAYBE WE JUST DESIGNATE ANOTHER AREA AND THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO DO IT.
>> CLEAR AS MUD ON THAT ONE, VICTORIA?
>> SO IF YOU COULD DO SOME RESEARCH ON WHAT OVER CITIES HAVE DONE AND ALSO DO WE HAVE A COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WOULD BE WILLING TO REACH OUT TO THE RC FLYING CLUB?
>> I'LL GO TALK TO THEM. I DON'T KNOW -- I'LL TALK TO DEBBIE.
DEBBIE CAN HELP ME GET IN CONTACT.
BEFORE. >> THAT WILL GET US ON THE RIGHT PATH FOR THAT ONE. OKAY.
4293, HORSES. ANY CHANGES TO THAT OR LEAVE AS IS SINCE IT WAS BROUGHT UP?
>> LEAVE AS IS. THAT'S THE WAY I READ IT.
>> ALL RIGHT. I JUST DESIGNATED TO ME SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU HAVE TO SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATE -- DRIVEWAYS FOR FORCES.
SO I WAS TRYING TO KIND OF TAKE THAT OUT IF WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS LET THEM BE ON ALL THE DRIVEWAYS AND PARKWAYS.
>> SO CONSIDER TAKING OUT THE WORD DESIGNATED?
>> OR TAKING OUT THE WORD HORSES.
WELL, NO, SERIOUSLY. IF YOU LOOK -- MY OPINION AGAIN.
BUT YOU LOOK AT THE PARKS WE HAVE INVENTORY GENERALLY, I DON'T KNOW THAT MOST OF THEM NOT BEING A HORSE GUY, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT MOST OF THEM LEND THEMSELVES WELL TO A LOT OF --
>> THERE'S NO TRAILS AND HORSE TRAILS. F1
>> YEAH. THE NATURE TRAILS A MILE AND A HALF THIS WAY AND A MILE AND A HALF BACK, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S A GREAT HORSE TRAIL.
COMMUNITY PARK IS TOO CROWDED. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I JUST DON'T KNOW WHERE HORSES ARE REALLY APPROPRIATE.
APPROPRIATE. >> THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT DESIGNATED WAS IN THERE. I THOUGHT IT MEANT ONLY THE DESIGNATED, THOSE YOU CAN SEE IN THE PARKING LOT AND
I SEE THE CONFUSION, TOO. I ALWAYS READ IT TOO, WAS IF WE WERE OUT THERE ENFORCING, THEY SHOULDN'T BE ANYWHERE
[00:35:01]
WALKING. THE HORSE CRAZY AT THE FAIR AND RUN THROUGH AND KNOCKS EVERYBODY DOWN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE STABLE.THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I WOULD HAVE.
WE DON'T SEE IT AS MUCH. WE USED TO HAVE PLACES THAT PEOPLE KEEP THEIR HORSES AND STUFF. THOSE ARE GOING
AWAY. >> PROBABLY AREN'T THAT MANY HORSES AROUND ANY
WAY. >> SO LET'S PAUSE FOR JUST A SECOND.
>> YOU CAN. THIS ORDNANCE, IT'S ODD.
IN AND OUT RIGHT PROHIBITED. IT REALLY JUST ALLOWS YOU TO TRAVERSE THE PARK AND YOU CAN'T TRAVERSE EXCEPT ON CERTAIN DESIGNATED AREAS.
HORSES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THE PARKS.
>> I ASK AGAIN WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE.
NOT ALLOW THE HORSE OR NOT ALLOW THEM TO TRAVERSE THE PARK FROM A TO B WHEREVER THAT MAY BE EXCEPT IN DESIGNATED AREAS BECAUSE BOTH OF THOSE ARE ACTUALLY IN THERE.
YOU CAN'T RIDE THE HORSE IN THE PARK, RIDE, WALK, WHATEVER.
AND YOU SHOULDN'T TRAVERSE THE PARK EXCEPT THROUGH VIA DESIGNATED AREAS. SO I WOULD ASK WHAT ARE WE SOLVING FOR? ARE WE TRYING TO PROHIBIT OR DID WE MAYBE IT JUST FELT MURKY BECAUSE IT KIND OF IS IN A WAY. I THINK A CERTAIN READING OF IT BECOMES CLEAR. WE HAVE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY ACROSS BOTH OF THOSE AREAS OF
ACTIVITY. >> IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY TRAILS FOR HORSES, THEN -- YEAH. WHAT ARE WE -- WHAT IS THIS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? WHY WOULD WE NEED A HORSE TO BE IN A DRIVEWAY OR A PARKING LOT UNLESS TO GET FROM ANOTHER POINT- A TO POINT-B.
>> SO I THINK WE PROBABLY LEAVE IT AS IS.
IF IT GIVES US THAT ENFORCEMENT
ABILITY. >> UNLESS THERE'S WATER REAL CLOSE.
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO THE PARK HOURS. AND DID WE SETTLE ON PARK HOURS?
>> SO, THIS IS LISTED AS -- OR THE ORDNANCE IS WRITTEN AS FROM DAYBREAK.
THE PARK SIGNS ACTUALLY SAY 6:00 A.M.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S OUR ISSUE.
I THINK 11:00 P.M. IS OUR ISSUE. AND IF WE GET MORE GRANULAR IN TERMS OF WHICH PARK WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THEN THE ORDNANCE WILL HAVE TO BREAK THOSE PARKS OUT SPECIFICALLY. SO, ARE WE IN FAVOR OF A SINGLE CLOSING TIME FOR ALL THE PARKS.
HAVING TO ENFORCE IT AND NOT HAVING CONFUSION AMONGST THE OFFICERS AND EVERYBODY ELSE.
>> ANYTHING ELSE? I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE IN THAT PARAGRAPH THAT'S A QUESTION, RIGHT?
>> NO. I THINK SOMEBODY COULD ARGUE IF DAYBREAK IS A DIFFERENT TIME AND YOU'RE INFLUENCING IT. BUT I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO
INFLUENCE. >> WHAT TIME IS SUNRISE.
>> THE PROBLEM I DON'T THINK IS THE MORNING HOURS.
>> NOBODY IS SHOWING UP AT 5:30 AND GETTING IN TROUBLE,
>> THAT CAPTURES ALL THE ONESIVE WRITTEN DOWN UP TO THE POINT WHERE WE KIND OF BROKE.
DEB, WERE THERE OTHERS THAT YOU HAD FLAGGED OR ANYONE ELSE IF YOU HAVE OVER ONES HIGHLIGHTED LET'S TALK ABOUT THEM.
>> 42100 WOULD BE THE ONE WHERE THE JET SKIS AND MOTOR BOATS AND SUCH WOULD BE ADDRESSED IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THOSE. THAT'S SWIMMING OR
THAT ONE IS DEFINITELY INTERESTING.
AND AS FAR AS OUR OVER PONDS AND SUCH GO THAT ARE IN VARIOUS PARKS, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW IF THE JET SKIS WERE WITNESSED LAUNCHING FROM PADDLE POINT PARK AND HOW THEY WERE LAUNCHING FROM
THERE. >> THAT'S WHAT DAVE SAID.
>> THERE'S AN OLD RAMP THAT THEY WOULD TAKE AND THEY WOULD DO LITTLE JOHN BOATS AND STUFF.
>> BUT I THINK IT'S BLOCKED WITH TWO --
>> THEY CAN PUT THEM IN A SHIP ROAD.
I MEAN, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE OUT THERE FOR JET SKIS, I THINK THAT THEY NEED TO ADDRESS IT WITH DALLAS BECAUSE THEY NEED TO PUT NO WAKE BUOYS UP THERE TO KEEP IT FROM --
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY IS LAUNCHING ANY -- I DON'T KNOW HOW ANYBODY IS LAUNCHING MOTORIZED BOATS. YOU CARRY A JOHN BOAT TO THE LAKE. AND PUT A TROLLING MOTOR ON IT.
>> THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT THERE.
IF YOU GOT A JOHN BOAT THE BACK OF YOUR PICKUP AND A LITTLE TROLLING MOTOR, SO HORSEPOWER, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO DRAG IT OUT AND PUT IT THERE.
[00:40:02]
THAT'S WHAT I -->> I DON'T THINK A CHANGE TO OUR RULES ABOUT THIS PARK IS GOING TO SOLVE THE ISSUES DAVE IS HAVING. I SEE BOATS OVER THERE ALL THE TIME. FAST BOATS, JOHN BOATS NOT SAILBOATS BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE IT UNDER THE BRIDGE. I THINK THEY'RE COMING FROM OVER LAUNCH POINTS.
>> SHIP OR DOWN BY SAPPHIRE BAY OR I CAN'T IMAGINE THEIR COMING OVER FROM ROCK WALL BUT THEY COULD BE.
>> OR THEY'RE COMING FROM PEOPLE'S
DOCKS. >> WELL, THEY'RE FISHING.
WHEN I USED TO FISH, WE WOULD GO --
>> NO. BUT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT
BUT THAT'S THE PROBLEM IS WITHOUT KNOWING WHERE THEIR COMING FROM. NOBODY IS I CAN'T IMAGINE SOMEBODY IS PICKING UP AND CARRYING A JET SKI ON THE TRAILER AND PUTTING IT IN THE WATER. HOW ARE THEY LAUNCHING THERE AT THAT PARK?
>> MAYBE A JET SKI BUT NOT A WATER -- WHAT DO YOU CALL THE BIGGER ONES? I DON'T SEE AS MANY OF THOSE.
>> STILL GOT TO BE PRETTY HEAVY.
>> PADDLE POINT PARK IS NOT SET UP TO
LAUNCH. >> CAN YOU PHYSICALLY DO IT IF YOU WANT TO.
>> HOW MANY MORE SIGNS CAN BE PUT UP AT PADDLE POINT PARK?
>> I THINK COUNCILMAN GIBBS IS RIGHT, THOUGH.
IF DAVE'S PROBLEM IS WAKE, THAT'S SOMETHING DALLAS WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS. WE DON'T HAVE ANY --
>> HE SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY WERE LAUNCHED BECAUSE WE ASKED THAT.
WE SAID WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE WATER.
42100 DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE IT DOESN'T APPLY TO LAKE RAY HUB BARD. IT'S 42132 AND IT JUST SAYS BOATS WILL BE LAUNCHED ONLY AT DESIGNATED BOAT LAUNCHING.
>> OKAY. MY ONLY OVER ONE WAS 42107 WHICH IS NO PERSON SHALL POSSESS, UTILIZE WEAPONS WITHIN THE PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM AND THAT'S VIOLATION OF THE PREVIOUS
>> SO YOU JUST SOLVED THAT BY REMOVING THAT SECTION.
SO VICTORIA, CAN YOU MAKE NOTE OF THAT.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY OBJECTION, HEARING NONE, THANK YOU.
>> I GOT ONE MORE. MAYBE JUST NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN OR MAYBE Y'ALL DON'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING WITH IT. NO PETS SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY PLAYGROUND AREA OR WHERE ANY ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS BEING CONDUCTED. IF THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT PLAYGROUND AREA LIKE THE ACTUAL UNDER THE SWING SETS, I CAN SEE YOU DON'T WANT A DOG UNDER THERE DOING WHAT DOGS DO.
BUT WHERE, A, ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS BEING CONDUCTED, THAT'S AN AWFUL -- THAT'S AN AWFUL BROAD DOOR TO WALK THROUGH. I DON'T KNOW THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I'M NOT SAYING WE DON'T NEED SOMETHING THERE. I DON'T THINK THAT -- I THINK WE NEED TO UPDATE THE LANGUAGE ON THAT WHERE IT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE AND GETS RID OF THAT, ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS BEING CONDUCTED BECAUSE THAT'S WRING MY
DOGS. >> WHAT IF THE ORGANIZED ACTIVITY IS A DOG SHOW?
>> WOULD THAT PREVENT US FROM, SAY, AT THE JULY 4TH EVENT SAYING NO PETS WOULD BE ALLOWED?
>> IT IS. SO IF WE WERE TO STRIKE THE SECOND HALF OF THIS SENTENCE, WOULD THAT THEN LIMIT OUR ABILITY TO RESTRICT THEM AT CERTAIN EVENTS IF WE DIDN'T WANT ANIMALS THERE?
>> NO. IT DOESN'T PREVENT YOU FROM MAKING A DIFFERENT RESTRICTION FOR THAT SPECIFIC EVENT. IT JUST SAYS THIS IS -- THIS WILL APPLY ACROSS THE BOARD ALWAYS. SO HOW ABOUT WE JUST STRIKE THE LAST HALF OF THIS SENTENCE STARTING WITH THE WORD OR. NO PET SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHIN ANY PLAYGROUND AREA.
>> EVEN TIGHTEN THAT UP BECAUSE PLAYGROUND AREA.
WHEN I THINK PLAYGROUND AREA, I THINK IT IS SPECIFICALLY THE BOUNDARIES OF PLAYGROUND AREA.
MAYBE THAT' TIGHT ENOUGH. I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPLICATE THIS.
BUT WHAT I DON'T WANT IS YOU GOT A LITTLE SWING SET AREA HERE. YOU GOT AN ACRE AROUND IT WITH SOME TABLES. AND SOMEBODY GETS ALL WORKED UP BECAUSE PERSON ON THE OVER SIDE GOT A DOG HERE.
YOU GOT A DOG IN THE PARK. IT'S IN THE PLAYGROUND AND IT'S NOT.
>> YEAH. IF THERE'S A WAY TO CLARIFY THAT WITHOUT BEING TOO MUCH LEGALESE.
>> YOU CAN GIVE THE DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO DESIGNATE WHEN AND WHERE LIKE YOU DID ON SOME OF THE OVER THINGS.
>> ALL RIGHT. GOOD ON THAT ONE, VICTORIA?
>> ANY OBJECTION TO THAT LANGUAGE?
>> WHAT OVER PARAGRAPHS DO WE HAVE THAT WE WANT TO REVIEW?
[00:45:17]
4289 FUNDRAISING, MR. HALL.>> IS THAT A RESTRICTION ON COMMERCE AND IF SO, DOES IT IN ANY WAY IMPACT ANYTHING THAT WE
HAVE. >> YOU KNOW, I WAS READING THAT TRYING TO WRAP MY HEAD AROUND IT. AND I WOULD THINK -- OBVIOUSLY -- I THINK IT DOES PROHIBIT
AUTHORIZED. >> UNLESS AUTHORIZED.
SO HERE IS THE DICEY PART ABOUT THAT.
THERE ARE CERTAIN VENDORS WHO ARED ED ADJACENT TO OUR PARK WHO ARE NOT DESIGNATED TO OPERATE IN OUR PARKS ANY LONGER AS OF JUNE, 2024.
BUT HOW CAN YOU PROVE THAT AND SO JUST BE AWARE.
>> YEAH. IN THAT -- THAT'S A UNIQUE CASE OBVIOUSLY. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT -- IT'S HARD TO SAY WHETHER THAT FALLS UNDER HERE.
I AGREE. I'M THINKING OVER INSTANCES WHERE WE HAVE EVENTS AT OUR PARKS THAT ARE MAYBE HOSTED BY OVER ORGANIZATIONS LIKE SOFTBALL ORGANIZATIONS, YOUTH SOCCER ASSOCIATIONS, THOSE GROUPS.
>> NOT JUST RAISING FUNDS, BUT IF THERE ARE VENDORS OUT THERE SELLING SNACKS, FOOD, CANDY, DRINKS, ET CETERA.
>> PART OF THOSE IS YOU COMPETE WITH THOSE CONCESSIONS.
WE HAVE CERTAIN CONTRACTS WHERE SOME LEAGUES UTILIZE THE CONCESSIONS AS ADDITIONAL REF REVENUE SOURCES. I WOULD ARGUE THE OVER CASE IS GOVERNED BY THIS, TOO. ENFORCEMENT IS ALWAYS THE QUESTION.
>> I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOOD AS WRITTEN.
THAT LEAVES US THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE IT IF WE NEED TO, BUT PROBABLY ONE THAT WILL BE USED WITH SOME DISCRETION JUST BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THE SOME OF THE SITUATIONS.
>> WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL. I CAUTION THE CAREFUL WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
>> COUNCIL, ANY OVER SECTIONS WE WANT TO REVIEW OR DISCUSS? SOUNDS LIKE NEXT STEPS OUT OF THIS ARE TO WORK ON THE DRONE SECTION IN PARTICULAR. VICTORIA WILL DO SOME WORK WITH THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER SHEEP WILL SPEAK TO RC FLYING CLUB AND FROM THERE YOU WILL TAKE THIS TO THE PARKS ADVISORY BOARD?
>> TAKE LEAD ON THAT WITH VICTORIA?
>> ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PROCESS.
OKAY. THEN THIS WILL EVENTUALLY COME BACK TO US FOR PROBABLY A SECOND ROUND OF WORK SESSION JUST TO BE SURE WE'RE GOOD WITH ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THEY HAVE THAT CAN CLEAR THAT UP IF THEY HAVE ANY OVERS THAT THEY SUGGEST NEED TO BE CHANGED.
AND I THINK THIS ACCOMPLISHES WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE PARKS BOARD BEFORE GETTING THEM INVOLVED IN POLICY
RECOMMENDATIONS. >> AND FROM THERE WE CAN BRING IT THROUGH FINAL APPROVAL. OKAY.
COUNCIL, ANY OVER -- THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK
[4B. Discuss potential DART TIRZ Interlocal Agreement.]
YOU DID ON THAT.>> COUNCIL MEMBER BOWERS, YOU, TOO.
IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 4B, DART TIRZ, ALL THE ACRONYM IN THIS AGENDA ITEM.
MR. HALL WILL MAKE THAT PRESENTATION, I
BELIEVE. >> I'M GOING TO NOT PRESENT TONIGHT. WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, MAJOR.
I'LL TELL YOU WHY. LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND, COUNCIL. SOME OF YOU KNOW, DART TIRZ'S STORY PLAYED OUT THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
PART OF THAT CONVERSATION EVOLVING DIALOGUE AND MEMBER CITIES HAS BEEN THE FORMATION OF CERTAIN GROUPS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND ONE MORE.
WE MET EVERY TWO WEEKS, DART TIRZ, DART TIRZ REPRESENTATIVES AND ABOUT SIX OVER -- FIVE OVER CITY MANAGERS THE GOAL WAS TO ESTABLISH NEW TOOLS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR CITIES, AS SOME OF YOU KNOW, DART TIRZ CITIES ARE SOMEWHAT HANDCUFFED IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOLS. NONDART CITIES FULL TAX LEVY AND WE DO NOT. WE GET 50% OF OUR SALES TAX OVER TO DART. IN THIS MARKET, IT CAN MAKE IT VERY CHALLENGING WHEN YOU'RE COMPETING AGAINST SOMEONE CAN USE LITE THEIR 100% SALES TAX AND YOU ONLY HAVE 50%.
DART RECOGNIZED SOME OF THOSE CHALLENGES AND THUS THIS GROUP AND SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
AND WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, COME FROM THAT IS THIS INTERLOCAL CONCEPT OF A TIRZ PARTICIPATION. I SENT YOU THE PRESENTATION.
YOU'VE MAYBE READ THROUGH IT. WE'RE NOT READY TO
[00:50:02]
OFFICIALLY PRESENT THE ILA TO YOU.PART OF WHAT DART ASKED THE CITY MANAGERS TO COME BACK BEFORE THE COUNCIL HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS? DO YOU LIKE IT? ANY IDEAS? HOWEVER, DART PRESENTED THE SECOND ITERATION OF THE TEM PLET DOCUMENT AND THE DEAL POINTS TO THE BOARD AND THE BOARD HAD SOME CHANGES. NOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THOSE CHANGES WOULD ULTIMATELY CHANGE -- I DON'T FEEL CHANGES THE DIRECTION OF THIS CONVERSATION. THEY DON'T APPEAR AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. BUT THEY MAY BE INFLUENTIAL IN TERMS OF HOW SOME OF YOU MAY FEEL IT AND THEY RELATE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THAT WILL BE A COMPONENT OF THIS ILA BUT NOT -- NOT A REQUIREMENT.
IT WILL INCENTIVIZE AFFORDABLE HOUSING BUT NOT REQUIRE FOR THE ILA PARTICIPATION.
FURTHER, THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATION ABOUT HOW DO YOU DEFINE AND SO FORTH.
SO THAT'S A MOVING TARGET. AND SO, REFLECTING ON THAT -- AND ALSO WHEN WE WERE CONTEMPLATING THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE THE COUNCIL, THERE WAS A HOPE WE MAY NOT HAVE A RUN- OFF, WHICH WE DO. AND SO TO BRING THIS CONVERSATION BEFORE YOU TODAY AND GET FULLY IN- DEPTH AND INVOLVED IN IT, JUST TO HAVE TO COME BACK AND, YOU KNOW, HAVE THAT CONVERSATION RESPECT TO ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER FELT LIKE A BIT MUCH, ESPECIALLY IN CONCERT WITH THIS EVOLVING E ING DART BOARD CONVERSATION. I TALKED TO THE MAYOR.
IT FELT BEST TO DELAY THIS MAYBE AT THE EARLIEST UNTIL THE NEW COUNCIL MEMBER IS SEATED. IF THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE DART BOARD ALSO THEN RESOLVED ITSELF, I'LL BRING THIS PRESENTATION BACK BEFORE YOU. THERE IS NO RUSH.
WE JUST HAVE TO HAVE THIS DONE BY DECEMBER, WHICH WE CERTAINLY WILL.
AGAIN, WHEN THE CLOCK STARTS TICKING WITH DART WHEN WE HAVE A FINAL DOCUMENT, OF COURSE WE'LL TALK TO YOU. HAVING SAID THAT, WHAT I WOULD ASK IF YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PRESENTATION IN YOUR PACKET, IF YOU HAD ANY NEGATIVE MISGIVINGS OR FEELINGS ABOUT WHAT YOU READ, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THEM SO I CAN CONVEY THEM BACK TO DART.
>> I LIKE THE IDEA. THE CONCEPT IS GREAT.
I THINK IT MAKES A TON OF SENSE. JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON THAT. SO IT LOCKS IN CURRENT REVENUES.
>> I WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK TO HOLD OFF ON ANY QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO KNOW -- BECAUSE I'LL GET INTO THAT AND NEW COUNCIL MEMBER WON'T GET THE ADVANTAGE OF HEARING YOUR
QUESTIONS. >> I THINK IT'S A GREAT --
>> DO YOU LIKE IT? ARE THERE THINGS YOU DON'T LIKE?
>> I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. EXCEPT THINGS I DON'T KNOW
YET. >> ON ITS FACE, IS THERE SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAID THIS IS BAD?
>> I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO GET IN THE WEEDS, NOT MAKE THIS MORE DIFFICULT. BUT THERE ARE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THERE WAS SOME MONEY ALREADY TO DO SOME DOWNTOWN THAT WE TALKED ABOUT.
IS THIS -- DO WE HAVE TO PASS THIS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? OR ARE THOSE SEPARATE?
CONVERSATIONS. >> THAT'S ALL I NEED TO
KNOW. >> COUNCIL MEMBER, YOU HAVE
>> IT'S A GREAT TOOL. IT'S A GREAT TOOL.
>> ONE LITTLE CAVEAT. THIS WOULD BE FROM THE DOWNTOWN AREA.
>> PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF DART THAT INVOLVES RETURNING MONEY BACK TO CITIES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS GOING TO INVOLVE THE AREA IMMEDIATELY AROUND THE PARK ALMOST EVERY
TO. >> AND THAT'S OUR ONLY HERE IN ROWLETT, THAT'S OUR ONLY OPPORTUNITY.
OVER CITIES WHERE YOU HAVE BUS STOPS AND MULTIPLE LIGHT RAIL STATIONS AND THAT SORT OF THING, YOU HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY BUT ROWLETT LITERALLY HAS THAT. EVERYTHING ELSE IS GOING.
ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL, ANY OTHER FEEDBACK
[5. DISCUSS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR MAY 20, 2025, CITY COUNCIL MEETING.]
OR QUESTIONS ON 4B? WITH THAT WE MOVE TO ITEM 5.DISCUSS THE ITEMS FROM MAY 20 TH, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
THERE'S ONLY THREE OF THEM. DO WE WANT TO PULL ANY OF THOSE FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OR DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY IMMEDIATE QUESTIONS FOR THOSE ITEMS? ALL RIGHT. THEN WE WILL MOVE TO ITEM 6, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT. WE'LL ADJO
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.