[1. Call to Order]
[00:00:03]
HOWDY, EVERYBODY. TODAY IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 25TH, AND THE TIME IS 5.30 P.M.
WE'RE HERE FOR THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE COPPELL CITY COUNCIL.
WE DO HAVE A QUORUM PRESENT, SO I'M GOING TO CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.
WE'RE GOING TO BE CONVENING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION OF THE
[2. Executive Session (Closed to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room]
FIRST FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM.AT THE END OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, I'LL COME BACK OUT AND ANNOUNCE WORK SESSION, AT WHICH TIME THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO JOIN US.
WE HAVE ADJOURNED FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 6.25, AND WE'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO WORK SESSION IN THE FIRST
[3. Work Session (Open to the Public) 1st Floor Conference Room Citizen comments will not be heard during the Work Session, but will be heard during the Regular Session under Citizens' Appearance.]
FLOOR CONFERENCE ROOM. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED AND ENCOURAGED TO JOIN US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.COMMENTS WILL NOT BE HEARD DURING OUR WORK SESSION.
THEY WILL BE HEARD DURING THE REGULAR SESSION UNDER CITIZENS' APPEARANCE.
ITEM A IS DELIBERATION REGARDING ANY AGENDA ITEMS. ANY QUESTIONS ON AGENDA TONIGHT? IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S GOING TO BE A FINAL EXPLANATION.
THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU ANSWERED? YES.
SO WHY DON'T YOU COME OVER AND JUST KIND OF GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS.
DO YOU HAVE THEM WITH YOU? I DON'T, BUT I CAN.
FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVEN'T HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE MANAGER OF THE TENNESSEE PICKEL BALL CENTER, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME OUT HERE TONIGHT.
QUESTION NUMBER ONE WAS HAVE WE DONE AN INVESTIGATION INTO WHY THE CURRENT CONCRETE FAILED SO QUICKLY? THE ANSWER WAS YES, THERE ARE THREE POSSIBILITIES OF WHICH IT COULD BE ONE OR MULTIPLE.
ONE, IT'S POOR WORKMANSHIP FROM THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR.
TWO, THERE WAS SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE BATCH OF SERVICING MATERIAL THAT WAS USED.
OR THREE, THERE ARE FOUNDATIONAL CONCRETE SLAB ISSUES WITH THE COURSE THEMSELVES.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT CAN'T BE CONFIRMED UNTIL THE EXISTING SERVICE MATERIAL IS REMOVED.
SECOND QUESTION, DO WE KNOW IF THE CONTRACTOR FOLLOWED THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDED INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS? YES.
DO WE HAVE DOCUMENTATION? THROUGH ALL OF OUR ONGOING COMMUNICATIONS, WE HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET A FIRM ANSWER FROM THE VENDOR ON THIS ISSUE AS WELL.
AS WE STAND HERE TODAY, WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED CONFIRMATION THAT THE SERVICE WAS APPLIED APPROPRIATELY ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDED MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTIONS.
THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT HAVE TRIGGERED A CONSTRUCTION TYPE INSPECTION.
THIRD QUESTION, WHAT WAS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO THE FAILURE? THEY STATED THAT IT IS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING, STRUCTURAL CRACKING WITHIN THE CONCRETE SLAB, AGING ACRYLIC SURFACING SYSTEMS, ADHESION FAILURE BETWEEN THE ACRYLIC COATING SYSTEM AND THE UNDERLYING CONCRETE SLAB, MOVEMENT OF THE UNDERLYING CONCRETE SLAB, NON-UNIFORM SLASH INADEQUATE SURFACE DRAINAGE RESULTING IN PROLONGED EXPOSURE TO WATER.
THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT PROVIDE ANY GUIDANCE PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION THAT THERE MAY BE PROBLEMS AND WE HAVE NOT HAD THESE PROBLEMS ON THESE COURTS OR ANY OTHER COURT SERVICES AS WE RESURFACE DIFFERENT COURTS EVERY OTHER YEAR.
WHAT WAS THE NAME OF THE ORIGINAL PRODUCT? THIS IS THE ACTUAL SURFACING MATERIAL.
IT'S FLEXIPAY FROM A COMPANY CALLED PALO VERDE SPORT SERVICES.
DID WE HAVE THE MANUFACTURER'S REP COME OUT AND INSPECT THE FAILURE? THE MANUFACTURER'S REP DID NOT COME OUT AND INSPECT THE FAILURE.
AS THEY ARE LOCATED IN MASSACHUSETTS, THE VENDOR DID PROVIDE THEIR OWN CIVIL ENGINEER TO COME ON SITE AND INSPECT THE COURTS.
THE VENDOR'S ENGINEER PROVIDED REASONS FOR THE POSSIBLE SURFACE FAILURE AND THOSE ARE LISTED IN WHAT WAS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSE TO FAILURE QUESTION ABOVE.
AND THEN FINAL QUESTION, THE NEW PRODUCT, LAKE COLD ACRYLIC RESURFACING, HAS A LIFE EXPECTANCY OF FOUR TO SEVEN YEARS AND A WARRANTY OF ONE YEAR WHICH EXCLUDES CRACKING IN THE SUBSTRATE.
ARE WE DOING ANYTHING TO MITIGATE EXISTING CRACKS ASSUMING THERE ARE SOME? ANSWER, SMALL HAIRLINE SURFACE LEVEL CRACKS ARE EXPECTED TO HAPPEN OVER TIME AND ARE PREVALENT ON MANY COURTS.
THESE CRACKS SHOULD NOT AFFECT PLAY.
PROPER MAINTENANCE OF REGULAR RESURFACING SHOULD MITIGATE ISSUES IN THE LONG RUN.
[00:05:01]
ROTATING EVERY SIX YEARS AND THE ISSUES WE ARE FACING NOW IS NOT ONE THAT WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED WITH ANY OTHER PRIOR RESURFACING WORK.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I CAN ANSWER? ARE WE PURSUING LEGAL ACTION? BOB IS INVOLVED.
YEAH, I'M INVOLVED AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST DISCLOSED TO YOU AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.
ONCE THE MATERIAL IS TAKEN OUT, I'VE TOLD THEM TO MAKE SURE THEY DON'T GET RID OF IT, MAKE IT AVAILABLE AND SO THAT WE CAN TEST IT AND DETERMINE WHAT'S WRONG.
CIRCUMSTANTIALLY I WOULD SAY BASED ON OUR PAST EXPERIENCE, THERE'S EITHER SOMETHING WRONG WITH THE APPLICATION OR THE MATERIALS THAT THEY USE.
BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THAT THERE'S OTHER FOUNDATION PROBLEMS. THERE MAY BE BUT IT'S PROBABLY THE PREP.
ON L, THIS IS JUST INFORMATIONAL.
IS IT A MILE AND A HALF? NO, NO IT'S NOT.
THIS IS FROM MONTENEGRO TO COOKEVILLE.
OKAY, SO THAT'S A MILE AND A HALF.
AND I KNOW PART OF THAT IS DALLAS.
I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS LONGER THAN A MILE AND A HALF.
SO THE MILE AND A HALF IS JUST THE BEST THROUGHOUT THE GROUP.
I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE LONGER THAN THAT ALL THE WAY OVER TO FREEPORT.
AND THEN ON H, I JUST, THIS IS MORE OF A COMMENTARY WHETHER IT'S MINDY OR ANYBODY ELSE.
I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THEY ARE ASKING THAT THIS PROGRAM SEEMS TO HAVE EXPLODED, BUT IT'S INCREASED QUITE A BIT AND THE BUSINESSES ARE USING IT MORE.
SO I'M EXCITED THAT THAT HAPPENED.
THIS COMES UP AT LIKE A DRMC AND THINGS LIKE THAT A LOT ABOUT FIRST MILE, LAST MILE, AND HOW DO YOU SOLVE FOR SOME OF THAT.
AND FOR A LONG TIME I WILL TALK ABOUT THIS, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF ACTIVITY.
IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ACTUALLY BEEN USED.
DO WE ACTUALLY THINK THE SILVER LINE, DID THAT MAKE IT AN INFLUENCE AT ALL? OR ARE PEOPLE JUST MORE AWARE OF THIS PROGRAM FOR THE BUSINESSES OR WHAT? I JUST DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE WHERE THE RIDES ARE NECESSARILY ORIGINATING FROM, BUT I THINK IT'S JUST EVEN A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE OF THE NUMBER OF YOUR BUSES AND THEN THE NUMBER OF THE UNDISPUTED PASSENGERS.
AND I'VE EVEN HEARD TJ FROM DCTA BOARD, TJ GILMORE TALK ABOUT, WE'LL HOLD THIS UP AS AN EXAMPLE OF A PROGRAM TO USE WITH THE BUSINESSES.
SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENTARY THAT I THINK IT'S BEEN A GREAT INITIATIVE.
IT'S TAKEN A LITTLE BIT WHILE TO GET IT GOING AND EVERYTHING, BUT I LOVE THE FACT THAT WE'RE SEEING IT GOING WHERE IT'S GOING.
JUST TO PILE ON THAT ONE, THE CHAIRMAN OF DCTA, PAUL.
ANYWAY, THE CEO OF DCTA IS VERY PLEASED WITH THE PROGRAM.
HE WAS VERY EXCITED TO SEE IT GROW LIKE IT HAS AND IS USING IT KIND OF AS AN ADVERTISEMENT FOR OTHER CITIES.
HE TOLD ME THE SAME THING AND I THINK HE WAS POTENTIALLY LOOKING AT EXPANDING THE CONCEPT EVEN WITH US OVER TIME.
SO IT'S BEEN A GREAT SUCCESS, I THINK.
ON ITEM E AS IN ECHO, THE GENERATOR FOR DS AND DELTA, THE GENERATOR FOR COST DELIVERY.
SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT AS LONG AS THE LIBRARY HAS EXISTED, WE HAVE NOT HAD A GENERATOR, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THE LAST PART OF IT? SO THIS IS FOR ITEMS D AS IN DELTA.
SO AS LONG AS THE COST DELIVERY HAS EXISTED, WE HAVE NOT HAD A GENERATOR SO FAR.
BUT THE GENERATOR WE HAVE FOR THE COST DELIVERY, WE'RE ACTUALLY INSTALLING THE ONE THAT WE PULLED FROM THE ARTS CENTER WHEN WE PUT A LARGER GENERATOR AT THE ARTS CENTER.
SO WE HAVE THAT GENERATOR ALREADY AT BASICALLY NO COST.
SO ITEM E IS THE ONE THAT YOU'RE BUYING BRAND NEW? FOR THE SENIOR CENTER.
AND THE SENIOR CENTER HAS NEVER HAD A GENERATOR BEFORE? CORRECT.
AND GIVEN THAT IT'S A QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS FOR THE LIFETIME OF OWNERSHIP, IS THERE ANY PARTICULAR REASON WHY WE ARE DOING IT THIS TIME, I MEAN THIS YEAR? FROM THE STANDPOINT WHEN POWER GOES OUT AT THE SENIOR CENTER, FROM THE SAFETY STANDPOINT, IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT THERE'S AUXILIARY POWER IN PLACE.
[00:10:01]
IT'S PART OF OUR FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL PLANNING.IT'S TIME FOR THIS ROTATION TO COME UP.
SO THIS MEANS WE WILL BE TRYING TO DO THIS FOR ALL MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS? FOR ONES THAT HAVE EVOLVED FROM PUBLIC SAFETY TO THE CORE, TO THE LIBRARY, TO THIS BUILDING.
SO THOSE TYPES OF BUILDINGS? YES.
BUT I CAN'T SAY EVERY MUNICIPAL BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY WE DID THE LIBRARY.
ORIGINALLY THE SENIOR CENTER WAS ACTUALLY SCHEDULED BEFORE THE LIBRARY.
THE GENERATOR WAS BUILT IN THE ARTS CENTER.
IT WAS BUILT BEFORE THE LIBRARY, BUT NOT AT THE SENIOR CENTER.
THAT'S WHY WE LOST SOME OF IT.
KEVIN? I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT.
YOU AND I WERE THERE AT THE SENIOR CENTER THAT LAST MONTH.
AND THERE WAS THAT BLIP IN POWER.
AND THEY WERE TRYING TO MAKE SHIFT HVAC SYSTEM AND STUFF.
AND I DO THINK THAT TENDS TO BE A MORE VULNERABLE POPULATION.
WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT BACKUP SYSTEMS IN PLACE AND STUFF.
EVERYONE WAS VERY GRATEFUL THAT THE CITY WAS SO REACTIVE TO, IN THEIR RESPONSE, TO QUICKLY GET OUT THERE AND TRY TO GET SOME SORT OF SOLUTION SO PROGRAMMING COULD STILL GO ON.
BUT I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE US PROVIDING THAT EXTRA LEVEL WHERE PEOPLE CAN STILL BE COOL IN THIS HEAT THAT WE FACE.
SO I DEFINITELY THINK IT'S A GOOD MOVE FOR THE SENIORS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON CONSENT? ALL RIGHT.
WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM B, WHICH IS A DELIBERATION REGARDING THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER.
FIRST, I THOUGHT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE EVERYBODY GET UP AND TALK ABOUT THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER.
NO, I'M LIKE, WHAT IS HAPPENING? GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO BE HERE.
IT IS TIME TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE ARTS CENTER.
SO TONIGHT, I'M HERE TO PROVIDE A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION REGARDING COPPELL ARTS CENTER'S FUTURE OPERATIONS AND COST RECOVERY GOALS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO YOU BACK IN FEBRUARY.
SO BEFORE I GET STARTED, I WANT TO INTRODUCE OUR NEW ARTS CENTER MANAGER.
SHE'S BEEN WITH US FOR ALMOST FIVE MONTHS NOW, AND WE ARE SO EXCITED TO HAVE HER ENERGY AND TALENT WITH US EVERY DAY.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PUT A FACE WITH A NAME THERE.
SO TO START THIS EVENING, I WANTED TO DO A BRIEF RECAP ON HOW THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER IS FUNDED.
SO THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER IS FULLY FUNDED AND SUPPORTED BY THE COPPELL RECREATION AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, OR FOR SHORT, CRDC.
AND THEN A SMALL PORTION OF THE ARTS CENTER IS SUPPORTED BY THE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX, OR THE HOP FUND.
SO THE ARTS CENTER IS NOT FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAXES.
CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? IS THAT TRUE OF ANY OTHER FACILITY WE HAVE IN TOWN? THE LIBRARY, THE CORPS, THE BIODIVERSITY CENTER? NOT FULLY FUNDED, AS FAR AS GENERAL FUND, CRDC.
RIGHT. WELL, I MEAN, ARE ANYWHERE OTHER FACILITIES FULLY FUNDED BY SALES TAX AND HOP FUND? NOT FULLY FUNDED, NO.
THE ARTS CENTER IS THE ONLY FACILITY FULLY FUNDED.
THERE ARE ASPECTS OF PROJECTS THAT HAPPEN IN SOME OF THOSE FACILITIES, LIKE BEFORE, WHENEVER WE DO POOL REPLACEMENTS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, IS FUNDED THROUGH CRDC.
OKAY. BUT IN TERMS OF ANNUAL OPERATIONAL COSTS, WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER FACILITY FUNDED EXCLUSIVELY WITH SALES TAX? CORRECT.
SO THE CRDC RECEIVES ITS MONEY FROM THE HALF-CENT SALES TAX THAT IS COLLECTED THROUGH TRANSACTIONS WITHIN COPPELL.
THE CENTER EARNS MONEY FROM THEIR TICKET SALES AND FACILITY RENTALS, AND THAT EARNED REVENUE GOES BACK INTO THE CRDC FUND BALANCE TO SUPPORT THEIR FUTURE OPERATIONS.
DURING OUR LAST UPDATE ON FEBRUARY 24TH, STAFF PRESENTED FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL DATA FROM FISCAL YEAR 2025.
CURRENTLY, THE ARTS CENTER'S COST RECOVERY AS A WHOLE IS AT 32%.
TO BREAK THAT PERCENTAGE DOWN, OUR CURRENT REVENUE IS GENERATED FROM THE THREE AREAS YOU SEE UP THERE.
YOU WILL ALSO NOTICE THAT THERE'S A FACILITY FEE LISTED UP THERE AT 0%.
[00:15:01]
PER COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION, THAT FEE WAS REMOVED BACK IN 2024, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WE DID PREVIOUSLY COLLECT REVENUE THROUGH THAT.SO DURING THAT FEBRUARY CONVERSATION, COUNCIL EXPRESSED A HIGH LEVEL OF SATISFACTION WITH THE QUALITY OF THE ARTS CENTER'S OPERATIONS.
WE ALSO DISCUSSED COST RECOVERY AND WHAT IT COULD LOOK LIKE FOR THE ARTS CENTER.
WHILE A SPECIFIC COST RECOVERY TARGET WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, COUNCIL DID PROVIDE CLEAR GUIDANCE ON A FEW AREAS.
SO TO START OFF, THE COUNCIL AND THE COMMUNITY AGREE THAT THE ARTS CENTER IS OPERATING SUCCESSFULLY AND IS A TRUE AMENITY FOR OUR COMMUNITY.
SECONDLY, WE WERE ASKED TO FOCUS ON QUALITY OVER QUANTITY, BUYING FEWER SHOW TITLES TO ENSURE THAT EVERY BOOKING MAINTAINS THE HIGH STANDARDS OF OUR COMMUNITY.
THIRD, OPTIMIZE PRIVATE RENTAL OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THAT EARNED INCOME, AND LASTLY, ACTIVELY SUPPORT OUR LOCAL RESIDENT ART COMPANIES TOWARDS A SUSTAINABLE FUTURE.
IF COUNCIL DESIRES FOR THE ARTS CENTER TO ACHIEVE INTENTIONAL REVENUE GROWTH WHILE CONTINUING TO SUPPORT BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND OUR RESIDENT COMPANIES, POLICY ADJUSTMENTS MUST BE CONSIDERED.
TONIGHT, WE ARE SEEKING COUNCIL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION TO CLEARLY DEFINE THE CENTER'S PRIORITIES, COMMUNITY IMPACT, AND LONG-TERM FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY.
CURRENTLY, THE ARTS CENTER DATA SHOWS THAT WITHOUT FUTURE POLICY CHANGES, WE CANNOT DRASTICALLY INCREASE OUR EARNED REVENUE.
SO TO HELP GUIDE OUR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING, I WOULD LIKE TO POSE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION.
SO THE FIRST ONE UP THERE IS WHAT IS THE FISCAL EXPECTATION TO SUPPORT OUR LOCAL RESIDENT COMPANIES, UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS WILL HELP DEVELOP THE ANSWER FOR THE SECOND QUESTION, AND ARE WE TARGETING A SPECIFIC COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE MOVING FORWARD, AND IF SO, WHAT IS THAT GOAL? TO GIVE US SOME HELPFUL CONTEXT, THE CHART ON THE SCREEN LOOKS BACK OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
IT TELLS THE STORY OF THE COST RECOVERY JOURNEY THAT THE ARTS CENTER HAS MAINTAINED SO FAR AND CAN HELP WHEN CONSIDERING THAT COST RECOVERY GOAL.
ON THE CHART, YOU WILL SEE A LARGE JUMP IN 2022.
THAT WAS THE FIRST OPERATIONAL SEASON FOR PRESENTED PROGRAMMING IN OUR THIRD-PARTY RENTALS.
IN 2023, COUNCIL APPROVED A MID-YEAR STAFF EXPANSION FROM 9.5 FTES TO 18 FTES TO SUPPORT ADDITIONAL THIRD-PARTY RENTALS, PRESENTED PROGRAMMING, AND HIGH-QUALITY SERVICE FOR OUR PATRONS.
IN 2024, WE INCREASED PROGRAMMING COSTS BY INTRODUCING A HEADLINER AND INCREASED THE VOLUME OF THIRD-PARTY RENTALS, WHICH IN TURN CREATED A CONSISTENT COST RECOVERY AT THAT 31%.
THEN IN 2025, WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THE COST RECOVERY AGAIN BY ADDING MORE THIRD-PARTY RENTALS AND STABILIZING THE PRESENTED PROGRAMMING TO WHAT YOU SEE TODAY.
SO USING THAT INFORMATION, LET'S RETURN BACK TO OUR DISCUSSION QUESTIONS.
WHAT IS THE FISCAL EXPECTATION TO SUPPORT OUR RESIDENT COMPANIES, AND ARE WE TARGETING A SPECIFIC COST RECOVERY GOAL? SO I'M HERE AND AVAILABLE TO HELP GUIDE YOUR DISCUSSION.
WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING A COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE FOR A FACILITY FUNDED ENTIRELY BY SALES TAX AND HOT FUNDS THAT ARE PAID ALMOST ENTIRELY BY PEOPLE THAT DON'T LIVE HERE? WHY ARE WE NOT DISCUSSING COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGES FOR ALL THE FACILITIES THAT ARE FUNDED BY PROPERTY? SINCE THE ARTS CENTER HAS BEEN OPENED, IT'S BEEN A CONSTANT CONVERSATION FOR THE COUNCIL, AND WE HAVE SOUGHT AND CONTINUE TO SEEK INFORMATION FROM THE COUNCIL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT. MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE WE AS A COUNCIL CONTINUING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE? NO ONE'S ASKING FOR THE BIODIVERSITY CENTER TO SET A COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE OR FOR THE LIBRARY, AND THOSE ARE ALL FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAX, WHICH IS WHAT PEOPLE THINK IS TOO HIGH OFTENTIMES.
BUT ACCORDING TO OUR LATEST NUMBERS FROM THE MAYOR, 66% OF OUR SALES TAX IS PAID BY NON-RESIDENTS, AND I IMAGINE PROBABLY ABOUT 99% OF OUR HOT FUNDS IS PAID BY NON-RESIDENTS BECAUSE THEY'RE STAYING AT A HOTEL.
SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? WHY IS THE ARTS CENTER BEING SINGLED OUT WHEN IT'S NOT EVEN FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAX? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I WILL SAY IF THAT'S THE QUESTION YOU'RE ASKING, WHY EVEN SET IT AT 31%? WHY JUST GIVE IT AWAY FOR THE REST OF THE COURSE AND NOT HAVE ANY SHOWS? WELL, THAT DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH MY QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE WE DISCUSSING THE COST RECOVERY FOR THIS FACILITY WHEN IT'S NOT FUNDED WITH PROPERTY TAX? GIVEN THAT WE DID APPROVE
[00:20:01]
ADDITIONAL HEADCOUNT AND ADDITIONAL HEADCOUNT, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE PAYING IT THROUGH THE SALES TAX AND THAT SALES TAX MONEY COULD BE USED FOR ANYTHING IN THE CITY.IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE ONLY USED FOR THE ARTS CENTER.
KEEP IN MIND, I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE CURRENT FUNDING FOR ARTS CENTER, BUT I DO THINK HAVING A COST RECOVERY TARGET BETWEEN 30 TO 40 IS A GOOD LONG-TERM THING, SO THAT WAY THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES ALSO VALUE THE TIME THAT THEY'RE GETTING.
SO IF SOMETHING IS ZERO, IT DOESN'T HAVE A VALUE.
SO HAVING SOME KIND OF A CANCELLATION FEE OR 5% OR 10% COST RECOVERY WOULD SET BEST PRACTICES AND MAKE THEM MORE EFFICIENT AS WELL AND MAKE THEIR SHOWS BETTER SO PEOPLE WON'T SEE IT.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF CUTTING THE FUNDING, BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF CHARGING THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES SOMETHING, WHETHER IT'S CANCELLATION OR 5% OR 10% COST RECOVERY.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT IT STILL DOESN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.
WHY IS THIS FACILITY THAT'S NOT FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAX BEING SINGLED OUT AS REQUIRING A SPECIFIC COST RECOVERY? AGAIN, I DON'T HAVE A DIRECT ANSWER, BUT CORE HAS A COST RECOVERY OF 68%.
AND WHEN WE NEED TO INCREASE THE COST RECOVERY, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO INCREASE THE SUBSCRIPTION FEE THAT THE RESIDENTS PAY.
WHEREAS FOR ARTS CENTER, WE DON'T HAVE THOSE DIALS THAT WE CAN TURN ON.
AGAIN, THIS DISCUSSION IS NOT GOING TO BE DECIDING, I GUESS WE ARE DECIDING WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE, BUT LET'S SEE WHAT EVERYONE THINKS.
THERE ARE DIALS THAT YOU CAN DIAL ON THE CORE OR THE ARTS CENTER.
YOU CAN INCREASE TICKET PRICES AT THE ARTS CENTER.
YOU CAN INCREASE THE FEES TO THE RESIDENT COMPANY, BUT IT'S UP TO THE STAFF TO DETERMINE WHAT THE OPTIMUM RATES ARE FOR THOSE.
AND SO THEY ARE WHERE THEY ARE.
ANYWAY, THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE.
I'M SORRY, BIJEE, YOU WERE NEXT.
THANK YOU, MAYOR. MIKE, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU.
I'M LOOKING AT THE CITY BUDGET FY26 AMENDED.
THE CRDC FUNDING IS $8.2 MILLION.
ALL OF THEM ARE FROM SALES TAX FUNDING.
AND WHAT ARE THE PROJECTS THAT WE PUT ASIDE BECAUSE OUR EXPENDITURE AT THE ARTS CENTER INCREASED FOR BUDGET? YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN INCREASING EVERY YEAR.
I DEFER TO JESSICA AND THE PARKS BOARD BECAUSE THEY ESTABLISHED THE PRIORITIES FOR FUNDING FOR PARK-RELATED EXPENSES.
YES, SO EACH YEAR THE CRDC BOARD AND THE PARK BOARD, THE WORK PROGRAM IS ALREADY SET ASIDE TO MAINTAIN OPERATIONS AT THE ARTS CENTER.
SO THIS IS NOT ANYTHING THEY HAVE TO DEBATE EACH YEAR.
THE ARTS CENTER IS FULLY FUNDED THROUGH THE CRDC, AND THEN ANYTHING ELSE WE THEN SLATE IN PROJECTS BASED ON COMMUNITY INPUT OR NEED OR REPLACEMENT SCHEDULE.
AND TO DATE, WE HAVE NOT DELAYED ANY OTHER PROJECT IN ORDER TO SUPPORT THE ARTS CENTER.
WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING WE NEED TO DO AS FAR WITH THE COUNCIL'S SUPPORT COMMUNITY SUPPORT.
SO LET ME REPHRASE MY QUESTION.
WE ARE USING $3 MILLION FOR ARTS CENTER.
SO ABOUT 39% OF THE BUDGET IS USED FOR ARTS CENTER.
I KNOW THERE ARE PARK BOARD PROJECTS, 20 ITEMS. EVERY YEAR THEY HAVE A LIST.
THERE ARE PROJECTS WE COULD DO IF WE HAD $8 MILLION, BUT WE ARE NOT BECAUSE WE ARE SETTING ASIDE FOR $3 MILLION FOR ARTS CENTER.
SURE, THERE'S ACTUALLY, THERE'S MONEY IN THE CRDC FUND BALANCE, AND THAT'S PUT INTO THE BUDGET EACH YEAR BASED ON THE PROJECTS WE'VE ALREADY PRE-PRIORITIZED.
AND THE ARTS CENTER IS ALREADY TAKING CARE OF, THE OPERATIONS ARE ALREADY THERE.
SO THERE'S STILL FUNDING AVAILABLE TO PULL IN PROJECTS.
WE JUST DO THE PROJECTS THAT WE CAN DO CAPACITY-WISE AND THAT ARE PRIORITIZED.
BUT WE'RE NOT FORGOING ANY OTHER PROJECTS BECAUSE THE ARTS CENTER IS USING $3 MILLION OF THE BUDGET ANNUALLY.
BUT IF YOU HAVE INCREASED INCOME FROM ARTS CENTER, WE DON'T NEED TO USE THE CRDC FUND.
SO WE CAN USE IT FOR PARK PROJECTS OR PARK-RELATED PROJECTS.
BUT YEAH, WE'RE ABLE TO DO EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.
[00:25:04]
MARK, WERE YOU NEXT? YEAH.THE QUESTION I WANTED TO ASK WAS, WE'VE ALREADY ADJUSTED THE BUDGETS FOR NORTH CENTER AND OTHER FACILITIES THAT ARE DRAWING ON THAT HACCP SALES TAX TO REFLECT AS IF THE DESTINATION CHANGE IS OCCURRING, RIGHT? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT THAT.
KEVIN? SO I WAS GOING TO BRING UP THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THE LAST AUDITED ACTUALS, IS THAT 23, 24? 24, 25.
DIDN'T THEY ACTUALIZE ABOUT $11 MILLION IN SALES TAX UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE BUDGETING? GOSH.
I FEEL A VERY CONFIDENT NUMBER BECAUSE I JUST LOOKED AT THE BUDGET, MEANING THAT WHILE WE ARE BUDGETING AT $8 MILLION, WE ACTUALLY HAVE ACTUALIZED BECAUSE, TO YOUR POINT, THAT WE ARE STILL RECEIVING THE FULL SALES TAX.
SO THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL $3 MILLION THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY RECEIVING VERSUS BUDGETING.
AND WHAT I'M HEARING FROM OUR DIRECTOR IS THAT WE HAVE ALL THE FUNDS THAT WE NEED TO PROPERLY EXECUTE THE PROJECTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US.
SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE TOOK A NEGATIVE HIT IN THE LAWSUIT AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, AT THAT POINT THAT WOULD GO DOWN, BUT WE'RE STILL ACTUALIZING A PRETTY HEFTY AMOUNT, I WOULD SAY, IN RELATION TO THAT, WHICH IS SUSTAINING THE FUND BALANCE THAT WILL ALLOW US TO CONTINUE TO SUPPORT FUTURE ART PROJECTS.
IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT TO SAY? CORRECT.
THIS IS DIRECTED TO WHOEVER HAS AN ANSWER.
I THOUGHT I SAW SOME NUMBERS THAT THE ARTS CENTER IS THROWING OFF.
HOW MUCH FOR REVENUE FOR YOU? THROWING OFF? CREATING, GENERATING.
THE ACTUAL REVENUE PER YEAR THAT WE'RE CREATING.
WITH THE EVENT RENTALS, TICKET SALES.
SO I KNOW I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL NUMBERS IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I DO KNOW IT'S ABOUT.
WHAT IS IT, ABOUT 800,000? YEAH, SOMEWHERE AROUND THERE.
AND THEN THE SALES TAX ON THE HOT FUND ARE THEN PAYING THE DIFFERENCE, WHICH WOULD BE ROUGHLY 2.2 MILLION.
SO WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT SPENDING 3 MILLION ON THE FACILITY.
AND THEN IT'S ACTUALLY THROWING OFF 800,000 REVENUE ON ITSELF.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO COMMENT.
I'M GOING TO FINISH MINE THEN, DON.
ON THE CRDC PROJECTS, CORRECT ME IF I REMEMBER, WE'RE BASICALLY CAPACITY LIMITED ON PROJECTS, NOT FINANCE OR THE $8 MILLION IS NOT A LIMIT ON THE CAPACITY OF THE FUND.
IT'S REALLY A CAPACITY OF STAFF, OF JUST BEING ABLE TO MANAGE THE PROJECTS, BRING THEM TO THE COUNCIL, BRING THEM TO THE BOARDS, AND GET THOSE DONE AT A HIGH LEVEL, WHICH IS ALWAYS OUR GOAL.
SO IT'S NOT REALLY THE FUND LIMITING US.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, I EVEN THINK WE NEED TO PULL BACK TO A HIGHER LEVEL, TALK ABOUT WHICH BUCKET EVERYTHING'S COMING OUT OF.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT ALL THAT, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I GUESS IF WE DIDN'T HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE DEFICIT IS AT THE PARKS, $4 MILLION IN EXPENSES FOR THE PARKS OR SOMETHING.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT, WE COULD SPEND THAT MONEY ON SOMETHING ELSE.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE A $2 MILLION DEFICIT AT THE LIBRARY, WE COULD SPEND THAT MONEY ON.
SO YOU COULD SAY THAT PROBABLY ABOUT ANY OF THE SERVICES THAT ARE PROVIDED BY THE CITY.
IT HAPPENS THAT THE ASSETS SITTING OVER IN OLD TOWN IS THE ONE THAT ACTUALLY CAN GENERATE A LITTLE BIT OF MONEY.
I GUESS THE CORPS GENERATES THE MONEY, BUT WE COULD SPEND SOME OF IT.
IF WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT ONE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO COVER THOSE EXPENSES IF WE COULD GET RID OF THAT ALSO.
SO I GUESS WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP A LITTLE BIT ON WHERE THE FUNDING'S COMING FROM, AND THAT'S ALL FINE AND GOOD TO DEBATE AND EVERYTHING, BUT ALL THE SERVICES ARE PAID FOR BY PROPERTY TAXES OR SALES TAX OR SOMETHING ELSE.
NONE OF THESE SERVICES, QUOTE, PAY FOR THEMSELVES IF YOU WANT TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY, JUST FROM A FEE THAT'S AT THE DOOR.
SO I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO GET TOO BOGGED DOWN IN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A DEFICIT HERE, AND THEREFORE WE GOT TO MAKE UP FOR IT SOMEWHERE ELSE.
I DON'T KNOW THAT, YOU COULD MAKE THAT ARGUMENT
[00:30:01]
ABOUT ANYTHING IN THE CITY.IF I COULD INTERJECT REALLY QUICK.
SO I KNOW WE'RE TALKING A LOT ABOUT COST RECOVERY GOALS AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ABLE TO ANSWER THE FIRST QUESTION BECAUSE THAT REALLY CREATES THE TARGET FOR THAT SECOND QUESTION.
DEPENDING ON YOUR ANSWER OF OUR FISCAL SUPPORT OF THE RESIDENT COMPANIES, THAT'S WHAT IS GOING TO CREATE THAT BALANCE FOR US.
WE CAN INCREASE OUR COST RECOVERY NUMBERS OR IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO.
SO I'VE GOT JIM AND THEN BRIANNA AND THEN DON.
OKAY, WELL, TWO QUESTIONS THEN.
SO I GUESS WITH RESPECT TO THE HOT FUND THAT WE'RE USING FOR PART OF THE COST OF THE ARTS CENTER, I MEAN, WE'RE RELATIVELY LIMITED IN THE TYPES OF THINGS WE CAN EVEN SPEND THAT MONEY ON.
AND AS I RECALL, PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA FOR THIS NEXT SESSION IS TO TRY TO GET THEM TO WRITE THE LAW TO EXPAND THE KIND OF DESCRIBED USES SO THAT WE COULD USE IT ON SOME OTHER THINGS.
SO WE'RE EVEN LIMITED ON WHAT WE CAN USE THAT FOR.
AND THEN I GUESS I WOULD ASK YOU, BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION WITH A QUESTION.
SO WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE FISCAL EXPECTATION TO SUPPORT OUR LOCAL RESCUES, I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? ARE WE SAYING, ARE WE GOING TO TRY TO INCREASE WHAT WE'RE CHARGING THE RESCUES FOR THEIR USE OF THE FACILITY AS A WAY TO BOOST COST RECOVERY? SO THAT IS UP FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.
TODAY WE DON'T CHARGE ANYTHING.
SO CURRENTLY, FISCALLY, RIGHT, WE PROVIDE FULL SUPPORT FOR THE RESIDENT COMPANIES.
WE HAVE DONE THAT SINCE THE OPENING OF THE BUILDING.
WE PROVIDE EVERYTHING THAT THEY NEED BESIDES THEIR ACTUAL OPERATIONS.
AND SO IF WE ARE LOOKING AT, OR IF COUNCIL DECIDES THAT WE WANT TO INCREASE THE REVENUE AT THE ARTS CENTER, THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY WITH THE RESIDENT COMPANIES BECAUSE WE HAVE MAXED OUT OUR CAPACITY WITH OUR THIRD-PARTY RENTALS, WHICH IS A HUGE PORTION OF OUR REVENUE RIGHT NOW.
AND OUR TICKET SHOWS ARE PRETTY IN LINE WITH HOW THEY'RE WORKING.
AND SO THAT THIRD ARM OF SERVICE, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, IS THE RESIDENT COMPANIES.
AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT THAT GOES BACK TO.
IF YOUR DISCUSSION IS, LET'S FULLY SUPPORT THE RESIDENT COMPANIES AS WE ARE DOING, WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT PATH AND DO THAT.
YOU JUST HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THAT 32%, 31% IS WHERE WE WOULD STAY AT COST RECOVERY FOR THE ARTS CENTER.
OKAY, SO MY FOLLOW-UP WOULD BE THEN, ARE WE GOING TO FOLLOW UP THEN AND INCREASE OUR EXPECTATION FOR THE SENIORS TO FUND A LARGER PART OF THE OPERATIONAL COSTS OF THE SENIOR CENTER? BECAUSE I MEAN, THEIR MEMBERSHIP COSTS ARE EFFECTIVELY SUBSIDIZED BY THE CITY.
ARE WE GOING TO INCREASE ANYTHING THAT WE CHARGE DOWN THE BIODIVERSITY CENTER TO OFFSET THE COSTS? I MEAN, ARE WE GOING TO CHARGE $100 A MONTH FOR A LIBRARY CARD? RIGHT? I MEAN, ALL OF THAT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THE SAME THING, BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS ONE FACILITY, WHY THE LOCAL RESCUES ARE BEING SINGLED OUT WHEN WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANYONE ELSE THAT USES ANY OTHER AMENITY IN TOWN AND IMPOSING THE SAME EXPECTATION ON THEM.
SO I'M OPPOSED TO THE WHOLE CONCEPT.
I MEAN, I DO THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF PROVIDING GUIDANCE TO STAFF THAT WE SHOULD TRY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO ENHANCE OUR EVENT RENTALS AND, YOU KNOW, ENHANCE THE SHOWS.
AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, UNDER JANINE'S GUIDANCE AND NOW OUR CURRENT DIRECTOR, I KNOW WE'VE GOTTEN A REALLY GOOD SENSE FOR WHAT SHOWS BOOK MORE TICKETS AND WHAT SHOWS DON'T.
AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE KID-FRIENDLY SHOWS OR, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE SHOWS LIKE LEAH AND ROGER ARE REALLY POPULAR.
SO I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT BETTER SENSE FOR HOW TO RUN IT AND WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT SELLS TICKETS, WHAT SELLS SEATS.
AND I CERTAINLY AM IN FAVOR OF ENCOURAGING STAFF TO CONTINUE TO PURSUE THAT AND FINE-TUNE THAT AS WE GO AND KEEP US APPRISED.
BUT I'M NO MORE IN FAVOR OF SETTING A SPECIFIC COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE FOR THE ARTS CENTER, PARTICULARLY SINCE IT'S NOT EVEN FUNDED BY PROPERTY TAX, AND I AM FOR SETTING A COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE FOR ANY OTHER FACILITY OR AMENITY WE OFFER.
BRIANNA? SO I'LL PIGGYBACK ON THAT, AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE, AND I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IS WHY ISN'T THIS PART OF A BIGGER DISCUSSION? I FEEL LIKE, I GUESS TO YOUR POINT, JIM, LIKE WHY ARE WE SINGLING OUT THE ARTS CENTER? I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT NUMBER OF WHERE WE SHOULD LAND, IF ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, IF WE AREN'T LOOKING ACROSS THE COMMUNITY
[00:35:02]
AT OTHER FACILITIES AS WELL, AND IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO GIVE AND TAKE WHEREVER THAT MIGHT BE? AND SO I GUESS MY THOUGHT WAS THAT THIS WOULD BE PART OF THE CONVERSATION WE WOULD HAVE AT RETREAT, IF THAT'S WHERE IT FITS.BUT I GUESS TO YOUR POINT IS THERE'S BUCKETS OF MONEY, ONLY SO MUCH WE CAN DO WITH A HOT TAX, AND I'D LIKE TO NOT TALK ABOUT THIS IN A VACUUM, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IMPACTS EVERYTHING ELSE.
I THINK, I'M NOT SURE IT DOES IMPACT ANYTHING ELSE.
I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CASE BY CASE.
FOR EXAMPLE, AT THE CORE, WE COULD INCREASE THE TICKET, OR THE COST OF MEMBERSHIP AT THE CORE, BUT YOUR MEMBERSHIP IS GOING TO GO DOWN.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT.
SAME THING GOES WITH THE LIBRARY.
WE COULD CHARGE, WHAT DID YOU SAY, $100 A MONTH? LIBRARY CARD? RIGHT.
OR THERE'S A SENIOR CENTER, OR ANY OF THAT, SO, YEAH.
BUT, SO, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANT TO START CHARGING EACH CITIZEN $100 OR $1,000 FOR CALLING INTO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
SO, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY THE REASON THAT THIS ONE'S COMING UP IS THE ARTS CENTER IS A BIT DIFFERENT.
IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THERE ARE OTHER FACILITIES THAT COULD BE HELD THE SAME, BUT, YOU KNOW, EVEN REC CENTERS AREN'T HELD TO A COST RECOVERY MODEL.
AND THEN I HAD ANOTHER QUESTION, ACTUALLY, AND IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER, I'M COMPLETELY FINE WITH THAT, AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT ANOTHER TIME, BUT HOW DOES OUR FACILITY COMPARE, IF ANY, TO OTHER FACILITIES AROUND THE AREA THAT MAY BE IN A SIMILAR SITUATION AND HAVE A SIMILAR COST STRUCTURE, RIGHT? SO, CHARGING THEIR LOCAL RESIDENT ART COMPANIES AND SO ON.
DO WE HAVE ANY OF THAT DATA? YES, WE DO.
WE ACTUALLY LOOK AT ALL THE SURROUNDING ARTS FACILITIES FOR PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS, AND SO WE ARE THE ONLY PERFORMING ARTS CENTER THAT DOES NOT CHARGE SOME TYPE OF FEE STRUCTURE FOR RESIDENT COMPANIES IN THE FACILITY.
AND THEN I DID WANT TO PIGGYBACK ON THE, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THIS IS BROUGHT BACK UP WAS BECAUSE IN THAT FEBRUARY CONVERSATION, THERE WAS A LOT OF CONVERSATION ABOUT COST RECOVERY AND WHAT SHOULD THE COST RECOVERY OF THE ARTS CENTER BE AFTER WE CAME OFF THE DEVOPS STUDY A FEW YEARS AGO.
SO AS STAFF, WE TOOK THAT BACK AS, OKAY, WE NEED TO COME BACK TO YOU GUYS TO FIGURE OUT IF THERE'S AN ACTUAL COST RECOVERY GOAL YOU WANT AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.
SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PHONING THAT AND BRINGING THAT BACK TO YOU.
OKAY, I'VE GOT DON, THEN KEVIN, THEN JIM, THEN BIJU, THEN RAMESH.
IF WE CHARGE THE RESCOES, LET'S SAY 5% OR WHATEVER, AND I THINK I REMEMBER SEEING SOME NUMBERS THROWN OUT THERE OR WHATEVER, BUT HOW MUCH ARE WE ACTUALLY, IT WOULD MOVE IN THE NEEDLE AT ALL? I MEAN, HOW MUCH REVENUE, HOW MUCH MORE COST RECOVERY IS THERE IF YOU CHARGE THEM 5%? YEAH, SO IF THERE'S, GIVEN THE DATA THAT WE HAVE, I COULDN'T SAY IT'S 1%, 2%, 3%, BUT TO BE HONEST, IT'S NOT A LOT.
WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT, LET'S SAY 5% IS A GOOD NUMBER TO CHARGE FOR THAT.
WELL, I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT, IS IF WE'RE LOOKING TO GET FROM 32% TO 40% OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS BY CHARGING THE RESCOES, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN CHARGE THEM ENOUGH TO EVER GET THERE TO BEGIN WITH, SO IT'S SORT OF A FUTILE EXERCISE, QUITE FRANKLY.
YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO CONTINUE TO IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ARTS CENTER OVER TIME, IT LOOKS LIKE WE'VE PLATEAUED AT 30%, 32%.
THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE'RE GOING TO RUN, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF OUR ARTS CENTER COMPARED TO SOME OTHERS OR WHAT IT IS, BUT THAT SEEMS TO BE SORT OF THE NORM, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO FALL BACK FROM THAT AND MAYBE EVEN IMPROVE IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF NECESSARILY CHARGING THE RESCOES IS GOING TO DO IT.
IF YOU DID A 5% CHARGING OF THE RESCOES OR SOMETHING SO THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE SKIN IN THE GAME, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT'S GOING TO GET PAID.
IT'S GOING TO COME OUT IN THE SERVICE OR CONVERSATION DURING BUDGET TIME, AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE A CALIBER TO HAVE THEM LOCK ARMS WITH US AND CONTINUE TO TRY TO BE EFFICIENT, BUT IT'S ALL GOING TO COME OUT OF THE SAME PUZZLE TO ME.
THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN.
CHARGING THE RESCOES IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY BRING UP A LARGE PERCENTAGE, BUT THEN
[00:40:03]
LIKE I SPOKE ABOUT IN THE VERY BEGINNING, THAT TICKET FEE OF THE FACILITY FEE, THAT IS AN ADDITIONAL POTENTIALLY $40,000 A YEAR IF WE WERE TO PUT BACK THAT TICKET FEE TO ADD ON TO THAT, AND THEN THE ONLY OTHER PIECE OF THAT WOULD BE, IT'S A COUPLE DIFFERENT PIECES THAT COULD MOVE THE MARK, IS IF WE WERE TO CHARGE THE RESCOES, THEN THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE LESS RESERVATIONS, WHICH THEN OPENS THE BOOKING UP FOR THIRD-PARTY RENTALS, BUT ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO GO TOGETHER TO MOVE THE DEAL.WE'RE GOING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE'VE GOT.
AND JUST AS A LITTLE, KEEPING IN THE BACK OF YOUR MIND, THE ARTS CENTER WAS SET UP TO SUPPORT OUR RESCOES.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING TOO.
WELL, IT DOES SEEM LIKE WE'RE SORT OF AT THIS LEVEL THAT IF WE GET IMPROVEMENT, IT'S GOING TO BE SMALL INCREMENTAL IMPROVEMENT OVER TIME.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO ANYTHING TO MOVE THE NEEDLE BIG TIME.
KEVIN? DON, YOU'RE A VERY SMART MAN, BECAUSE YOU HAD SOME VERY SIMILAR THOUGHTS THAT I HAD ON THAT.
MY POINT BEING THAT I DO STRONGLY BELIEVE THAT IF WE DO IMPOSE SOME SORT OF ADDITIONAL FEE TO THE RESCOES, THAT THAT IS JUST GOING TO INCREASE THE ASK, AND WE KNOW THAT THAT FUNDING COMES FROM OUR GENERAL FUND.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE BASICALLY LOOKING AT IS DRAINING MONEY FROM THE GENERAL FUND AND THEN JUST FUNNELING IT OVER TO THE CRDC, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE PROFITS GO FROM THE ARTS CENTER.
SO REALLY IT'S JUST A MOVING OF MONEY.
AND LET'S BE HONEST, WITH SOME OF OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD OVER THE PAST COUPLE MONTHS, THERE'S MORE PRESSURE ON THE GENERAL FUND THAN THERE IS ON THESE FUNDS THAT ARE SUPPORTED BY SALES TAX.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT IT IS IN ANYONE'S BEST INTEREST TO SET THAT UP, TO KIND OF FUNNEL THAT OUT.
THERE'S ALREADY AN ODD NARRATIVE GOING ON AROUND IN OUR COMMUNITY THAT SOME OF THESE GENERAL FUND-SUPPORTED FACILITIES ARE BEING PRESSURED BECAUSE OF THE ARTS CENTER.
AND IN MY OPINION, IF WE IMPOSED ADDITIONAL FEES, THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CAUSE THAT TO HAPPEN.
WE WOULD BE PUTTING ADDITIONAL PRESSURE ON THE GENERAL FUND, WHICH I DO NOT WANT TO DO, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT, AS HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PAST, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS IN THE FUTURE ABOUT.
SO THIS JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
YES? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NOT CONFUSION.
I MAY BE CONFUSING THE HEARING YOU.
THE ARTS GROUPS ARE FUNDED OUT OF THE HOT TAX, NOT THE GENERAL FUND.
BECAUSE I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
THERE'S THAT SHEET, IF YOU REMEMBER.
THERE WAS THE GENERAL FUND SERVICES, AND THEN THERE WAS HOT TAX.
THE ARTS GROUPS WERE THE HOT TAX.
AND EVERY ONE OF THEM COMES OUT OF THAT? UH-HUH.
I WAS IN THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY.
SO YOU'RE MOVING HOT TAX OVER TO THE.
I GUESS I AM MOVING THE HOT TAX OVER.
BUT STILL, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ON OUR HOT TAX FORMS. FOR THE ARTS, IT'S LIMITED TO 50%.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THAT IN THE FUTURE.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PUTTING MOVING UNNECESSARY MONEY OVER TO THE CRDC WHEN THE CRDC IS.
WE WERE SHOWING THAT IT'S GOT PLENTY OF REVENUE.
I WANT TO CHOOSE MY WORDS CAREFULLY ON THAT IN TERMS OF.
BUT IT HAS THE REVENUE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE ARTS CENTER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT MOVING OF MONEY, EVEN IF IT COMES OUT OF HOT TAX TO SUPPORT THEM, IT'S JUST AN UNNECESSARY DRAIN ON THEM, THAT HOT TAX FUND.
JOHN? I GUESS I WANTED TO ANSWER ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
SO I THINK THE ANSWER FOR WHY WE DON'T CHARGE FOR LIBRARY CARD OR MEMBERSHIP AT THE BIODIVERSITY CENTER OR WHY THE SENIOR MEMBERSHIP IS SO LOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE THAT.
IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL TAXPAYERS.
THEY'RE ALL PAYING PROPERTY TAX INTO OUR SYSTEM, AND THEN WE'RE PROVIDING THESE AMENITIES, WHICH IS ONE REASON, I PRESUME, WHY THEY WANT TO LIVE HERE, TO PAY THE PROPERTY TAXES.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT CHARGING THEM BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY PAYING FOR IT.
AND ALL OF THOSE, WHETHER YOU USE A LIBRARY OR USE ALL THE FACILITIES OR NOT, STILL CONTRIBUTES TO YOUR PROPERTY VALUE AND CONTRIBUTES TO YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE LIVING IN THIS COMMUNITY.
WHEREAS HERE WITH THE ARTS CENTER, YOU KNOW, HARDLY, I MEAN, 36% OF IT, ROUGHLY, 35% OF IT ON THE SALES TAX SIDE IS BEING FUNDED BY RESIDENTS.
[00:45:02]
BY PEOPLE WHO LIVE OUTSIDE OF THE TOWN.AND TO ME, THE MOST IMPORTANT WORD IN THE TITLE OF RESCO IS THE RESIDENT ARTS COMPANIES.
THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT LIVE HERE, TOO.
THEY'RE ALSO PAYING PROPERTY TAXES.
AND WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THEM OFFSETTING THE COST OF THE ARTS CENTER, WE'RE ASKING THEM TO OFFSET THE COST THAT 66 CENTS OF EVERY DOLLAR BEING PAID BY SOMEBODY THAT DOESN'T LIVE HERE IS PAYING.
SO IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
IT'S AN APPLES AND ORANGES COMPARISON.
AND I THINK THE RESIDENT ARTS COMPANIES WERE A BIG MOTIVATING FACTOR WITH PETE WILSON WANTING TO GET OUT OF THE RED FIREHOUSE AND GET INTO A REAL LIVE PLAYHOUSE.
AND THERE'S BEEN A SERIOUS BALANCING, YOU KNOW, IN LIKE WHEN THE THEATER CAN SET UP, YOU KNOW, IN RELATION TO WHEN WE CAN USE THAT, THE BLACK BOX AS A RENTAL.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH A LOT OF GROWING PAINS, A LOT OF BALANCING OF INTERESTS TO KIND OF MAXIMIZE WHAT WE'RE BRINGING IN ON THE ARTS CENTER.
BUT TO ME, THIS IS PART OF WHAT REALLY CONTRIBUTES A GREAT DEAL OF VALUE TO LIVING HERE.
AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THESE AMENITIES, THE QUALITY OF LIFE, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO OUR MEDIANS, AND THE QUALITY OF OUR ROADS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I JUST, TO ME, THIS IS FOCUSING ON SOMETHING FUNDED BY PEOPLE THAT LARGELY DON'T EVEN LIVE HERE AND TRYING TO CREATE FINANCIAL EXPECTATIONS THAT DON'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME WHEN ALL OF THESE AMENITIES ARE BEING FUNDED, EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE, BY PROPERTY TAX, BY PEOPLE THAT ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THEM AND HAVE A CERTAIN, I THINK, DESIRE TO BE HERE FOR THAT REASON.
AND SO I DON'T WANT TO DO THIS FOR ANY FACILITY.
I THINK ALL OF THIS IS WRAPPED UP IN THE DEBATE, THE LARGER DEBATE ON THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE AND PRIORITIES THAT WE ASSIGN STAFF AT OUR RETREAT WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE WANT TO SEE DEVELOPED IN TOWN.
AND ALL THOSE ARE IMPORTANT DISCUSSIONS, BUT THIS, TO ME, IS, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
WE, OUR CITY MANAGER WARNED US IN 2028 TO 2029 BUDGET WILL BE CHALLENGING.
THAT'S TWO AND A HALF, THREE YEARS FROM TODAY.
AND ONE OF THE REASONS, HE SAID, THE WAY WE ARE SPENDING THE MONEY, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER IT THROUGH SALES TAX.
YES, WE ARE GOING THROUGH A LAWSUIT WITH THE STATE.
SO WE MAY NOT RECEIVE THE SALES TAX MONEY THAT WE ARE GETTING TODAY.
SO THAT IS THE PREMISE THAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE HAVE ISSUES COMING UP.
HOW ARE WE GOING TO BALANCE THE BUDGET IN THREE YEARS WHEN WE FACE CHALLENGES IF WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE SALES TAX MONEY THAT WE ARE RECEIVING TODAY? THAT'S NUMBER ONE POINT.
NUMBER TWO POINT IS WE HIRED A CONSULTANT TO LOOK AT OUR SALES, I MEAN, RECOVERY IN ART CENTER.
AND THE STAFF AT THE COUNCIL RETREAT, WE SAID, YES, LET'S FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT IS WHAT THE STAFF WAS FOLLOWING.
AT LEAST THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WAS.
THE RECOVERY COSTS WE CAN INCREASE BY PROVIDING MORE RENTAL TO THIRD PARTIES OR CHARGING SOME FEE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES.
IS THAT RIGHT? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE DEVOS STUDY? YES.
SO THE DEVOS DID SUGGEST A CERTAIN COST RECOVERY PERCENTAGE, BUT I REMEMBER AT THAT TIME THE COUNCIL SAYING THAT THAT WAS TOO HIGH FOR US TO TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
WHAT PERCENTAGE WAS THAT? IT WAS 45%.
AND THEN THEY HAD EVEN SUGGESTED RENTAL FEES AND EVEN THAT THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME SAID WAS TOO HIGH.
THEY WERE SUGGESTING WE NEED TO INCREASE THE RENTAL, ALSO CHARGE SOME FEE TO RESIDENTS.
BUT THEY DID THAT NOT NECESSARILY SPECIFIC TO CAFL, BUT SPECIFIC TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
SO THEY DO NATIONWIDE LOCAL ART COMPANY, OR PERFORMING ARTS CENTERS, AND SO THAT WAS THEIR NATIONWIDE STUDY.
AND OBVIOUSLY AS WE KNOW IN CAFL, WE DO THINGS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY.
AND SO THAT'S WHY AT THE TIME COUNCIL HAD SAID LET'S NOT NECESSARILY FOLLOW THAT COST RECOVERY.
AND SO WE KIND OF PUT THAT ON THE SHELF AS A REFERENCE.
AND WE'RE MOVING FORWARD, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HAVING THE CONVERSATION AGAIN BECAUSE IT CAME UP LAST TIME.
I'M REALIZING THAT I'M GOING TO BE THE MINORITY IN THIS DECISION.
I WILL RESPECT WHAT THE MAJORITY DECISION IS GOING TO BE.
HOWEVER, I'M GOING TO STRONGLY DISAGREE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT THIS IS SALES TAX MONEY AND HARD MONEY.
[00:50:02]
WE HAVE ENOUGH IN CRDC, SO WE CAN USE ALL OF IT TO SPEND ON, YOU KNOW, AS WE CURRENTLY SPENDING WITH THE ART CENTER.IF YOU GIVE ME THAT MONEY IN CRDC, AND IF THERE ARE ENOUGH PROJECTS TO BE DONE, WE COULD HIRE THE PEOPLE NEEDED TO GET EVERYTHING DONE.
SO YOU CAN USE THE MONEY TO SPEND IT DIFFERENTLY.
WE ARE CHOOSING TO SPEND IT IN THIS CURRENT WAY.
AND AGAIN, I WANT TO SAY THAT I'M IN SUPPORT OF THE THREE MILLION BUDGET FOR ART CENTER.
I VALUE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES.
I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT AND WE SHOULD SUPPORT THEM.
WHAT I'M DISAGREEING IS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF SKIN IN THE GAME FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES.
THERE SHOULD BE A CANCELLATION FEE.
THERE SHOULD BE SOME COST RECOVERY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL COMPANIES, BECAUSE IF SOMETHING IS GIVEN FREE, THEN IT HAS A DIFFERENT VALUE AS OPPOSED TO IF YOU HAVE TO WORK FOR IT.
AND IF WE CAN INCREASE OUR COST RECOVERY FROM A CURRENT 32 TO MAYBE EVEN A 40, LIKE YOU SAID, THERE WOULD BE MORE BANDWIDTH FOR THE MANAGEMENT TO GIVE IT OUT FOR RENTALS.
SO THAT MEANS WE'LL HAVE MORE RENTAL THERE WHEN YOU'RE COMING IN.
AND I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING.
I THINK AS STEWARDS OF THE CITY FINANCES, WE SHOULD BE INVESTING OUR MONEY IN WHAT IS THE BEST RETURN IN VALUE FOR THE CITY.
IN MY OPINION, INCREASING THE COST RECOVERY TARGET IS A GOOD FISCAL DECISION.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL KEEP MY PEACE.
DON? I GUESS I WAS JUST GOING TO REITERATE SORT OF IN RESPONSE TO THAT.
IF WE SHUT A BUNCH OF PARKS, WE'LL HAVE EXTRA MONEY TOO TO GO DO STUFF WITH.
AND SO, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT DOING COST RECOVERY ON THE PARKS.
SO IT DOESN'T COMPLETELY MAKE SENSE.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE THAT WE ONLY DO IT, I GUESS, ON THE ARTS CENTER.
SOMEBODY EXPLAINED IT TO ME THIS WAY THAT'S MADE A LOT OF SENSE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A LOT OF QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES IN THIS CITY OR A BUNCH OF CITIES.
AND ULTIMATELY, WHAT MIKE AND CLAY AND JIM AND WHOMEVER FOR YEARS AND YEARS AND YEARS HAVE TRIED TO DO IS COME UP WITH, WHAT DO ALL THE PARK, ALL THE OUTDOOR PEOPLE, DO THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GO DO? AND WHAT DO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE TO READ, WELL, DO THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GO DO? AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE BUTTERFLIES, DO THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO GO DO? AND ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO WORK OUT, THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO DO.
AND DO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO LOVE THE FINE ARTS HAVE SOMETHING GOOD TO DO? SO IT'S AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE SORT OF FILL OUT, WHAT DO ALL THE PEOPLE IN COPPELL ENJOY DOING? AND DO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT CAN SORT OF ADDRESS THAT? AND I GUESS THAT HELPS BRING IT INTO VIEW A LITTLE BIT THAT I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO PIT A DEFICIT IN ONE DEPARTMENT AGAINST A DEFICIT IN ANOTHER DEPARTMENT WHEN WE'RE TRYING OUR BEST TO ADEQUATELY PROVIDE QUALITY OF LIFE AMENITIES FOR EVERYONE WHO LIVES HERE.
SO I GUESS THAT'S JUST TO SORT OF REITERATE WHAT I WAS SAYING EARLIER ABOUT THE COST RECOVERY.
THE PARKS, I THINK, ARE A GOOD EXAMPLE.
AND THEY COST A LOT OF MONEY TO HAVE FABULOUS PARKS.
AND I THINK THAT GETS OVERLOOKED SOMETIMES.
SOMETIMES WE THINK THE PARKS JUST SORT OF APPEAR, AND THEY LOOK BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW, JUST NATURALLY.
AND MAYBE BECAUSE IT'S NOT A MAN-MADE THING.
BUT IT TAKES A LOT OF MAINTENANCE.
IT TAKES A LOT OF MONEY TO KEEP THAT THING GOING.
KEVIN? I LOVE GOING AFTER YOU, BY THE WAY.
THERE WAS A COMMENT, RAMESH, THAT YOU SAID ABOUT, YOU WANT THE RESIDENT ART COMPANIES TO HAVE SKIN IN THE GAME.
MY POINT WAS GOING TO BE, WELL, WHAT SKIN IN THE GAME DOES A FAMILY GOING OUT AND SPENDING AN AFTERNOON IN THE PARK HAVE? AND TO REITERATE.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO USE THAT ARGUMENT, THEN WHY ARE WE CHARGING A FEE FOR THE COURT? WHY IS IT NOT FREE FOR ALL THE COPPELL RESIDENTS? I MEAN, BUT I THINK TO BRIANNA'S POINT, THERE'S A DISCUSSION ABOUT ALL OF THE FACILITIES AND EVERYTHING.
I MEAN, WE EVEN TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN SOME OF OUR BUDGET MEETINGS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WELL, ARE WE IN LINE WITH WHERE THE CORE IS? I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE SEEN SOME CORRESPONDENCE THAT THE CORE IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN A LOT OF THE INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
SO MAYBE THERE DO NEED TO BE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT OUR OVERALL FEE STRUCTURE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
[00:55:01]
BUT I MEAN, TO YOUR POINT, I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU LOOK AT IT, I MEAN, IT IS AN INVESTMENT IN OUR OVERALL STRUCTURE, RIGHT? AND I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE WE'RE STARTING TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE'RE PICKING THESE WINNERS AND LOSERS VERSUS LOOKING AT EVERYTHING HOLISTICALLY AS A PARK SYSTEM, AS A RECREATION SYSTEM.SO I WOULD MUCH RATHER LOOK AT IT LIKE THAT.
BUT THERE IS NO COST RECOVERY FOR SOMEONE TO GO OUT AND ENJOY AN EVENING, YOU KNOW, AT THE PARK.
SO JUST KIND OF REITERATE THAT.
BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I DON'T WANT YOU TO THINK THAT I'M.
BUT I THINK IT'S JUST DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT IT.
WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE AN ART CENTER IN COPPELL WITH THE SIZE OF 43,000 PEOPLE.
NOT MANY CITIES WITH THE 43,000 POPULATION HAVE AN ART CENTER.
IT'S A GREAT THING THAT WE HAVE A QUALITY OF LIFE THAT PEOPLE CAN ENJOY.
COMPARING THAT TO AN ART CENTER, I MEAN, TO A CORE WHERE WE ARE COLLECTING MEMBERSHIP FEE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S FAIR.
PEOPLE ARE PAYING MEMBERSHIP FEE TO HAVE HEALTH AND WELLNESS.
WORKING OUT, HAVING PROGRAMS, THEY PAY FOR THE FEE.
AND ALSO, YOUTHS ARE PLAYING BASKETBALL.
ALL TYPES OF SPORTS ARE PLAYED IN COURT.
AND THEY ALL HAVE TO PAY EITHER A GUEST FEE OR A MEMBERSHIP FEE TO ENTER THE BUILDING.
SO MY POINT IS IT IS IMPORTANT THAT WE NEED TO HAVE A LIBRARY IN TOWN.
BUT ART CENTER IS SOMETHING WE ARE BLESSED TO HAVE, AN ADDITION.
NOT MANY OF THE CITIES THAT I KNOW WITH 43,000 POPULATION HAVE AN ART CENTER.
SO WHAT IS THE BEST WAY? YES, I AGREE THEY ARE PAYING PROPERTY TAX.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS RAMESH JUST MENTIONED IS THEY CAN CANCEL AT ANY TIME.
WE COULD HAVE USED THAT TIME TO RENT IT OUT AND COLLECT SOME MONEY FROM THE THIRD PARTY RENTALS FEE.
OR COLLECT SOME REVENUE IF THEY CANCEL.
SO, YOU KNOW, SKIN IN THE GAMES, SOME PEOPLE USE THE PHRASE HERE.
THERE IS NO MEMBERSHIP FEE TO ART CENTER.
I MEAN, THEY PURCHASE A TICKET.
THAT'S HOW WE RECOVER THE COST AND THROUGH THIRD PARTIES.
YES, IT IS FUNDED BY SALES TAX.
60 PERCENT, YOU REFERRED, 67 OR WHATEVER, COMES FROM SALES TAX, PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE.
MY THINKING IS ALWAYS IF WE HAVE ENOUGH MONEY IN THE CRDC FUNDING, WHICH IS 8.2 MILLION, WE ARE INCREASING THAT TO 8.5 THIS YEAR, CAN WE DO ALL THE PROJECTS THE PARK BOARD IS RECOMMENDING? ARE WE PUTTING ANYTHING ON A SIDE? I KNOW WE ARE MOVING MONEY FROM THE EXCESSIVE BUCKET TO CRDC TO SPEND ON SOME OTHER PARK PROJECT.
SO MY POINT IS, YES, WE NEED TO HAVE A WAY TO RECOVER MAYBE MORE THAN 32 PERCENT.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT NUMBER.
BUT THAT'S MY OPINION ON THIS.
WE'VE GOT THREE MINUTES UNTIL 7.30.
DO WE WANT TO CONTINUE THIS AFTER OUR REGULAR SESSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL OR ARE WE READY TO MOVE ON? BECAUSE I'M HEARING FIVE TO AT LEAST FIVE SAYING CONTINUE ON, SHERRY, AS WE ARE.
NOW, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AT THE WINTER RETREAT IF YOU WANT TO DO THAT.
AND TO BRIANNA'S CASE, MAYBE IT'S BETTER TO EXPAND IT OUT TO JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION FOR THE CITY SHORTLY.
I THINK THE WRITING IS CLEAR ON THE WALL.
I THINK THE GUIDANCE IS THEY CONTINUE AS THE CONTINUOUS STATUS QUO.
AND THEN WHETHER WE DISCUSS THIS IN RETREAT OR NOT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT IT.
JOHN? THE ONLY THING I WAS GOING TO ASK IS, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU ARE NEEDING FROM US? THERE'S NOT REALLY ANYTHING YOU NEED FROM US.
WE'VE GOT A NEW BUDGET ABOUT TO GO INTO PLACE.
[01:00:01]
THE SPECIFIC THING I NEED IS IF WE'RE CONTINUING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OUR CURRENT OPERATIONS AND FULLY SUPPORTING THE RESIDENT COMPANIES AND TRYING TO CREATE REVENUE WHERE WE CAN, BUT NOT FORCEFULLY TRYING TO CREATE REVENUE, OR DO YOU WANT US TO FORCEFULLY TRY TO CREATE REVENUE? THOSE ARE THE ANSWERS THAT I NEED.AND WERE THESE THE ONLY QUESTIONS OR DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING? I THINK THERE WERE THREE MORE.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD HAD A CHANCE TO.
DO YOU HAVE DIRECTION? SO WHAT I'M HEARING, CONSENSUS-WISE, WE ARE CONTINUING FORWARD WITH OPERATIONS, SUPPORTING THE RESIDENT COMPANIES, AND CREATING REVENUE WHERE WE CAN, AND THEN YOU GUYS WILL HAVE A DISCUSSION AT A LATER TIME IF YOU FEEL THE NEED TO LOOK AT.
CAN I HAVE A THUMBS UP, PLEASE? OKAY.
WE ARE RECESSED FROM WORK SESSION AT 729.
WE WILL BE BACK IN HERE TO CONTINUE ITEM C AFTER THE REGULAR SESSION.
[4. Invocation 7:30 p.m.]
GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY.WE HAVE CONCLUDED WORK SESSION.
WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IN, AND WE ARE HERE FOR THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE COPPELL CITY COUNCIL.
JUST AS A REMINDER, PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK DURING THE CITIZENS' APPEARANCE OR PUBLIC HEARINGS MUST SIGN THE APPROPRIATE REGISTER LOCATED OUTSIDE THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AND LIST YOUR ADDRESS.
WE DO HAVE A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WELL AS OUR CITIZENS' APPEARANCE, AND WE ARE VERY COGNIZANT THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT SIGN-UP SHEETS.
AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ASK LAUREN.
THIS EVENING, WE'RE FORTUNATE TO HAVE REVEREND DANIEL BUAN KIM, FORMERLY OF THE FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF COPPELL, HERE TO GIVE THE INVOCATION, AND THEN WE WILL RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, SO PLEASE REMAIN STANDING.
AND I'D LIKE TO ASK REVEREND KIM, BEFORE SHE BEGINS, TO KIND OF EXPLAIN HER NEW ROLE IN LIFE WITH THE UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
MY NEW ROLE IS TO COME ALONGSIDE CITIZENS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS IN CARROLLTON, THE FARMER'S BRANCH AREA, AS COMMUNITY CLERGY.
I HAVE BEEN APPOINTED AS COMMUNITY CLERGY, UPON COMPLETING MY SERVICE AT FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH OF COPPELL THIS PAST JULY, AND IT IS SUCH AN HONOR TO CROSS THE BORDERS THAT WE SHARE, TO BE WITH YOU ALL THIS EVENING AND OFFER TONIGHT'S INVOCATION.
SO I AM SO GRATEFUL THAT I GOT TO FULFILL MY PROMISE TO BE HERE TONIGHT, SO BEFORE MY APPOINTMENT CHANGED.
SO LET US GO TO GOD IN PRAYER TOGETHER.
GRACIOUS AND ETERNAL CREATOR, WE GATHER THIS EVENING IN A SPIRIT OF DEEP GRATITUDE FOR THE VIBRANT COMMUNITY OF COPPELL AND FOR THE ENDURING BONDS THAT CONNECT ALL OF US ACROSS THIS REGION.
WE ASK FOR YOUR BLESSING AND GUIDANCE UPON THE CITY COUNCIL, MAYOR MAYS, AND EVERY PUBLIC SERVANT WHO HAS DEDICATED THEIR TIME AND TALENTS TO THE BETTERMENT OF THIS CITY.
GRANT THESE LEADERS WISDOM, CLARITY, AND COMPASSION AS THEY DELIBERATE ON THE MATTERS BEFORE THEM TONIGHT.
MAY THE ACTIONS TAKEN HERE TONIGHT STRENGTHEN THE FOUNDATION OF COPPELL AND SERVE AS A BEACON OF GOOD GOVERNANCE FOR ALL OF US.
PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[6. Citizens’ Appearance]
ITEM NUMBER SIX IS OUR CITIZEN'S APPEARANCE.PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK MUST SIGN THE REGISTER AND LIST THEIR ADDRESS.
PRESENTATIONS BY INDIVIDUALS SHALL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES EACH, DURING WHICH TIME THE SPEAKERS WILL REMAIN AT THE PODIUM AND FACE FORWARD AND ADDRESS ONLY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COUNCIL.
PERSONS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK WILL BE CALLED UPON TO SPEAK AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING.
IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN ORDERLY AND RESPECTFUL MEETING ENVIRONMENT AND TO CONDUCT THE PUBLIC MEETINGS OF THE CITY, SPEAKERS WILL ADHERE TO THE STANDARDS OUTLINED IN ORDINANCE 2025-1633.
THERE WILL BE NO COMMENTS OR DELIBERATIONS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL DUE TO THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS RECORD ACT.
WE DO HAVE THREE PEOPLE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND THE FIRST ONE IS BARB SCHMIDT.
[01:05:02]
GOOD EVENING, BARB SCHMIDT, 622 PHEASANT LANE.MY COMMENTS WILL BE BRIEF AND TO THE POINT, AND THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
I'VE BEEN AN AVID PICKLEBALL PLAYER AT WAGON WHEEL FOR NEARLY FOUR YEARS NOW, AND THE ATTENDANCE AT OPEN PLAY AND PARTICIPATION IN THE INTRAMURAL LEAGUES HAS INDEED EXPLODED.
LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PEOPLE EACH AND EVERY WEEK ARE PLAYING PICKLEBALL THERE, WHETHER IT'S RENTING COURTS, PLAYING IN LEAGUES, OR AT OPEN PLAY.
WE HAVE AT LEAST SIX OPEN PLAY TIMES A WEEK.
NOT ONLY ARE WE MAKING NEW BEST FRIENDS, BUT THE SOCIALIZATION AND COMMUNITY INTERACTION IS CONTAGIOUS AND FUN.
WE ARE ALWAYS GETTING NEW PLAYERS, AND THE ATMOSPHERE IS ELECTRIC, AND EVERYONE IS WELCOME.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO LET YOU KNOW HOW MUCH THE ENTIRE WAGON WHEEL PICKLEBALL COMMUNITY APPRECIATES YOUR CONSIDERATION OF ITEM J ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.
WITH YOUR AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, YOU WILL BE APPROVING THE REPAIR OF THE EIGHT DEDICATED PICKLEBALL COURTS USING CRDC MONEY.
THIS YES VOTE WILL ALLOW THE COURTS TO BE REPAIRED AND FIXED SUCH THAT THEY ARE SAFELY PLAYABLE.
THE CRDC HAS AGREED TO ALLOW THESE FUNDS TO REPAIR THESE COURTS, AND YOUR VOTE WILL ALLOW THIS PROCESS TO GO FORWARD.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME, AND YOUR VOTE, YES VOTE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
SECOND PERSON SIGNED UP TO SPEAK IS MAYOR CANDY SHEEHAN.
OH, YOU'RE ALWAYS. SORRY, MAYOR, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE DISCUSSION.
THE WORD IS THAT ONCE MAYOR, YOU'RE ALWAYS MAYOR, SO WELCOME.
YOU KNOW, I JUST RECENTLY HEARD THAT.
MY NAME IS CANDY SHEEHAN, 321 QUIET VALLEY.
I AM ALSO HERE TO TALK ABOUT ITEM J ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
JUST NOTE BARB'S COMMENTS WILL BE MINE AS WELL.
WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE COMING, SO MANY NEW PLAYERS COMING, AND IT IS AN EXCITING PLACE TO BE.
IT'S REALLY BEEN INTERESTING FOR ME TO SEE AN ATHLETIC COMPLEX THAT'S REALLY FOR ADULTS.
WE'RE FUNDING ADULT ACTIVITIES, AND IT'S REALLY BEEN NICE TO SEE SO MANY PEOPLE COME OUT.
THIS LEADS ME TO MY NEXT TOPIC, IS THE FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT YOU WILL BE SEEING IN SEPTEMBER.
SEPTEMBER 22ND, THE PARK BOARD AND JOE . IS JOE HERE? HE'S BEEN AWESOME.
HE HAS BEEN MEETING WITH US THANK YOU, JOE.
HE HAS BEEN A GREAT LIAISON WITH Y'ALL AND THE PICKLEBALL COMMUNITY.
CAN'T SAY ENOUGH FOR HIM ABOUT HIM, BUT THE FEASIBILITY STUDY IS COMING UP.
I JUST WANT YOU TO NOTE THE INCREASE IN PARTICIPATION, AND WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ROOM FOR NEW CONCRETE PADS FOR PICKLEBALL COURTS, BUT MAYBE CONVERTING SOME TENNIS COURTS INTO PICKLEBALL COURTS AND MAKE THOSE DESIGNATED.
OUR PLAYERS ARE JUST EXPLODING ALL THE TIME.
THE ACTIVITIES THAT JOE LEADS FOR GETTING NEW PLAYERS INTERESTED IN THE SPORT IS REALLY GOOD TOO.
ANYWAY, HOPE YOU'RE SUPPORTING ITEM J ON YOUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.
WE WILL STAY HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
SO PLEASE TAKE NOTE OF THE FEASIBILITY STUDY THAT WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU AT THE END OF SEPTEMBER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
OUR LAST SPEAKER IS WALLY GRINS.
I'M WALLY GRINS, AND I'VE LIVED IN CAPELLE FOR THE LAST 30 YEARS AT 713 CASTLE CREEK DRIVE.
I WANT TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE ON THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER VIS-A-VIS THE IDEA THAT'S BEEN FLOATING AROUND OUT THERE THAT THE CENTER SHOULD GENERATE MORE REVENUE TO COVER MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF ITS COSTS.
IF THAT'S TRUE, THEN I'D SUGGEST THAT THE ARTS CENTER MAY BE BEING HELD TO A HIGHER STANDARD THAN THE CORE WHO I LOVE, THE BIODIVERSITY CENTER, THE LIBRARY, ALL OF WHICH ARE GREAT.
BUT IT'S A HIGHER STANDARD THAN SOME OF THE OTHER AMENITIES THAT WE ENJOY HERE IN COPPELL.
LOOK, I'VE SPENT 40 YEARS IN THE BUSINESS WORLD WORKING WITH LARGE PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANIES, PRIVATE COMPANIES.
SO UNDERSTAND THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH, RIGHT? WE HAVE TO KEEP COSTS IN LINE, AND WE DO WANT MORE REVENUES.
BUT I'VE ALSO SERVED ON THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF SEVERAL CHARITABLE ORGANIZATIONS DURING MY CAREER.
THE DALLAS YMCA, SENIOR SOURCE, THE DALLAS REGIONAL CHAMBER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
[01:10:01]
STRANGE, STRANGE ANIMALS.THE PRIMARY OBJECTIVE OF AN NFP, WHICH I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER IS, IS SERVE ITS CONSTITUENTS, NOT NECESSARILY TO MAKE A PROFIT, WHICH IS NOT UNLIKE NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS.
SO I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COUNCIL TO TAKE THESE COMMENTS INTO CONSIDERATION AS THEY ASSESS THE FUTURE OF THE ARTS CENTER.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.
[7. Consent Agenda]
FOLLOWING ON, ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA.THE CONSENT AGENDA IS ROUTINE IN NATURE AND IS GENERALLY ENACTED IN A SINGLE MOTION.
THESE ITEMS HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY APPROVED THROUGH THE BUDGET OR PAST COUNCIL ACTIONS.
ANY ITEM MAY BE PULLED AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, AND FULL DESCRIPTIONS ARE AVAILABLE ON THE SCREEN.
WE DID HAVE A DISCUSSION DURING WORK SESSION ON SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS. SO COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE PULLED OR HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS ON? MAYOR PRO TEM.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FIRST.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? BACK TO YOU, MAYOR PRO TEM.
AT THIS TIME, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS STATED, ITEMS A THROUGH L.
AND I HAVE A SECOND FROM COUNCIL MEMBER NEVELS.
ALL IN FAVOR? WALKER, HINOJOSA-SMITH, CARROLL, NEVELS, PREMKUMAR, MATHEW, HILL.
[8. 2026-0340 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING: Hold a Continued Public Hearing and consider approval of Planned Development- 214 Revision 11- Commercial (PD-214R11-C), a zoning change request from PD-214R2- C (Planned Development-214 Revision 2- Commercial) to PD-214R11-C (Planned Development-214 Revision 11- Commercial) to allow for the Detail Planned Development of a 14,480 square foot commercial center, for retail and medical uses on approximately 2.03 acres located at the south side of Sandy Lake Road, approximately 560-ft west of Denton Tap Road.]
ALL RIGHT.ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.
I AM A MEMBER OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE HOA THAT IS ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.
SO I WILL TURN THE MEETING OVER TO THE MAYOR PRO TEM, JIM WALKER.
THIS IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING, BUT JUST TO REFRAME THE ISSUE, I'LL HAVE MARY PERRONE BOSWELL GO AHEAD AND READ THE ITEM NOW BEFORE THE COUNCIL.
SO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING.
TO HOLD A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER APPROVAL OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 214 REVISION 11 COMMERCIAL, A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST FROM PD 214 R2 TO PD 214 R11 TO ALLOW FOR THE DETAILED PLAN DEVELOPMENT OF A 14,480 SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL CENTER FOR RETAIL AND MEDICAL USES ON APPROXIMATELY 2.03 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF SANDY LAKE ROAD, APPROXIMATELY 560 FEET WEST OF DENTON TAP ROAD.
PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING MUST SIGN THE REGISTER AND LIST THEIR ADDRESS.
YOU WILL BE CALLED TO SPEAK IN THE ORDER YOU HAVE REGISTERED.
PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE LIMITED TO FIVE MINUTES PER SPEAKER.
SO AT THIS TIME, WE'RE CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING SO IT IS OPEN.
AND WE'LL NOW HAVE THE PRESENTATION BY STAFF.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCIL.
SO ITEM NUMBER EIGHT IS THE SHOPS AT SANDY LAKE.
SO WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU HERE IS, HERE WE GO.
SO THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY PLOTTED AS PART OF A LARGER 29-ACRE DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDED THE DEVELOPMENT OF ARBOR MANORS AND ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY ALONG BOTH DENTON TAP AND SANDY LAKE ROADS.
THE ZONING FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT WAS APPROVED IN 2007 WITH SUBSEQUENT REZONINGS OCCURRING WITH EACH NEW DETAILED SITE PLAN FOR THE COMMERCIAL SITES.
THIS REPRESENTS THE FINAL COMMERCIAL PIECE TO BE DEVELOPED.
A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS SITE, WHICH INCLUDED RETAIL, MEDICAL, RESTAURANT USES WITH A PATIO, WAS DENIED IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR.
THIS NEW PROPOSAL IS FOR RETAIL AND MEDICAL USES ONLY.
THERE'S NO RESTAURANT OR PATIO OR DRIVE-THROUGH PROPOSED.
SO WHAT WE HAVE UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW ON THE LEFT IS THE ORIGINAL PD AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL.
SO THE ORIGINAL PD SHOWS TWO BUILDINGS OUT FRONT ADJACENT TO SANDY LAKE ROAD VERSUS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH ONE BUILDING AT THE REAR OF THE SITE.
THE ORIGINAL PD SHOWED PARKING AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY VERSUS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL HAS THE MAJORITY OF PARKING OUT FRONT WITH SOME AT THE SIDES.
THE ORIGINAL PD SHOWS TWO DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES, ONE OFF SANDY LAKE AT THE WESTERN EDGE AND A SHARED DRIVEWAY OUT TO ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
THE CURRENT PROPOSAL ALSO SHOWS
[01:15:01]
TWO DRIVEWAYS ALONG SANDY LAKE, ONE SHARED WITH THE VERIZON LOT ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE SECOND IS APPROXIMATELY 200 FEET WEST OF ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE JUST WEST OF THE TURN LANE WITH THE MEETING ON SANDY LAKE ROAD.THE LAST PROPOSAL HAD THAT SECOND DRIVE ABOUT 100 FEET CLOSER TO THE EAST, BUT WITH LOOKING AT WHAT THE RESIDENTS HAD REQUESTED, THIS DRIVEWAY WAS MOVED FURTHER WESTWARD.
AND THERE IS NO SHARED DRIVEWAY CONNECTION TO RESIDENTIAL VIA ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
SO THE SITE IS CURRENTLY VACANT.
THE SITE PLAN SHOWS A PROPOSED 14,480 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING THAT WILL CONTAIN A MIX OF RETAIL AND MEDICAL USES ACCESSED BY TWO DRIVEWAYS ALONG SANDY LAKE ROAD.
AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THE PREVIOUS PROPOSAL HAD RESTAURANT AND PATIO USES AS A COMPROMISE WITH THE NEIGHBORS, THE DEVELOPER HAS REMOVED THE RESTAURANT AND PATIO USES WITH THIS NEW PROPOSAL.
A RESTAURANT USE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE REZONING PROCESS TO BE ALLOWED.
SO THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING A LARGER REAR SETBACK WHERE 20 FOOT IS THE NORM, THEY ARE PROVIDING 30 FEET.
WHERE A 10 FOOT REAR LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS REQUIRED, THEY ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING 30 FEET.
AND THIS WAS ALL AS A COMPROMISE TO THE RESIDENTS.
THERE ARE TWO TRASH RECEPTACLES PROPOSED ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE SITE.
ORIGINALLY THEY WERE PLACED AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, BUT BASED ON RESIDENTS' CONCERNS, THEY WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 70 FEET FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND RESIDENCES.
THERE IS AN EXISTING SIX FOOT IN HEIGHT BRICK SCREENING WALL BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH DOES MEET CITY ORDINANCES.
IN THE PRIOR PROPOSAL, THE EASTERN DRIVER WAS CLOSER TO ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
IT HAS SINCE BEEN MOVED FURTHER WEST, APPROXIMATELY DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, AND IS OUT OF THE TURN LANE ENTRANCE.
SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE HIGHLIGHTED IN RED IS WHERE THE DEVELOPER HAS MADE COMPROMISES FOR THE RESIDENTS' CONCERNS.
HERE WE ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING.
BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS, THE DEVELOPER INCREASED THE REAR LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND BUILDING SETBACK TO 30 FEET, WHERE ONLY 10 TO 20 FOOT IS REQUIRED.
IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS INCREASED LANDSCAPE SETBACK AT THE REAR AND MAINTAIN THE PARKING COUNT, THERE IS A PD CONDITION PROPOSED TO ALLOW THE FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE STRIP AS SHOWN.
THIS RANGES FROM 9.1 TO 15.24 FEET AND AVERAGES APPROXIMATELY 12.5 FEET IN DEPTH, WITH PARKING ABUTTING IT VERSUS THE REQUIRED 15 FEET.
NOW THE PARKWAY ALONG SANDY LAKE ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET IN DEPTH, SO THE LANDSCAPING OUT FRONT WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 30 TO 43 FEET WHEN YOU INCLUDE THE PARKWAY.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
AGAIN, THERE IS AN ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AT THE REAR OF THE SITE, WHERE NORMALLY ONLY 10 FEET IS REQUIRED.
THE DEVELOPER IS PROPOSING MORE, WITH THE BUILDING BEING 30 FEET FROM THE SOUTHERN PERIMETER.
ADDITIONAL TREES ALONG THE SOUTHERN PERIMETER ARE ALSO BEING PRESERVED.
THE EASTERN PERIMETER WILL SEE A LARGE NUMBER OF TREES BEING PRESERVED AS WELL.
IN TOTAL, 55 EXISTING TREES WILL BE SAVED ON SITE AND AN ADDITIONAL 31 OVERSTORY TREES WILL BE PLANTED ON SITE.
AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE 71 NELLIE R. STEVENS TO BE PLANTED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SCREENING ALONG THE SOUTHERN PERIMETER.
THESE TYPICALLY GROW TO 15 TO 25 FEET IN HEIGHT AND MAKE AN IDEAL PRIVACY SCREEN IN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING MASONRY WALL.
HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ELEVATIONS.
THE BUILDING HEIGHT IS JUST UNDER 19 FEET WITH A PARAPET WALL AT THE FRONT, VARYING HEIGHT FROM APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 25 FEET, CREATING SOME ARTICULATION.
THE TRASH ENCLOSURE MATERIAL WILL MATCH THE BUILDING AS WELL.
THEY WILL ALSO BE SCREENING THE HVAC EQUIPMENT.
THE BUILDING WILL BE A COMBINATION OF BRICK, ALUMINUM STOREFRONT WITH A DARK BRONZE METAL FASCIA AND TRIM.
THE LOWER PART OF THE BUILDING
[01:20:02]
CONTAINS A LIGHT COLORED BRICK AND A DARKER COLORED BRICK ABOVE THE WATER TABLE.THERE IS NO DRIVE-THROUGH PROPOSED.
A MONUMENT SIGN IS PROPOSED ALONG SANDY LAKE ROAD.
THE SIGN WILL BE THE SAME DARKER BRICK AS THE BUILDING AND BE 6 FEET IN HEIGHT AND 6 FEET IN WIDTH WITH EXTERNAL ILLUMINATION.
THE MONUMENT SIGN PROPOSED ALONG SANDY LAKE ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 6 FEET INSTEAD OF 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO NOT BE COVERED UP FROM THE PARKING SPACES.
AGAIN, THE PARKWAY ALONG SANDY LAKE ROAD IS APPROXIMATELY 24 FEET IN DEPTH, SO THE SIGN WILL BE ABOUT 30 FEET FROM THE ROAD.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ALSO HAD NO OBJECTION TO THIS REQUEST.
THERE'S NO SIGNAGE PRESENTED FOR THE BUILDINGS ITSELF.
ANY PROPOSED SIGNAGE WILL NEED TO COMPLY WITH CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND WE DID SEND OUT NOTICES.
26 WERE SENT OUT WITHIN 200 FEET AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW.
WE RECEIVED 15 IN OPPOSITION, 1 IN FAVOR.
SO THEY HAVE REACHED THE 20% OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP IN OPPOSITION, WHICH MEANS THAT THE VOTE BY CITY COUNCIL WILL NEED TO BE A SUPER MAJORITY WITH 6 IN FAVOR TO APPROVE THE ITEM.
WE SENT ADDITIONAL COURTESY NOTICES WITHIN 800 FEET AND DID RECEIVE SOME OPPOSITION, ONE IN OPPOSITION BEYOND THE 800 FEET.
THE OPPOSITION NOTED WAS FOR TRAFFIC, LOSS OF GREEN SPACE, QUALITY OF LIFE, AND NOISE.
SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL 6 TO 0 OF PD 214R11, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, ONE, THAT A DETAILED ENGINEERING REVIEW WILL OCCUR AT THE TIME OF FULL ENGINEERING SUBMITTAL, TWO, TO ALLOW FOR LANDSCAPING AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, THREE, TO ALLOW FOR THE MONUMENT SIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS, FOUR, FOR THE DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS WILL NEED TO BE UPDATED TO ADDRESS STAFF COMMENTS, WHICH THEY HAVE ADDRESSED OUR CONCERNS, AND FIVE, THAT ALL OTHER SIGNAGE MEET CITY REQUIREMENTS.
SO THAT IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION.
I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE DO HAVE TWO OTHER PRESENTATIONS THIS EVENING, ONE BY THE DEVELOPER AND ONE BY THE RESIDENTS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, I WOULD INVITE THE DEVELOPER TO THE PODIUM TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR PRESENTATION THAT HE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE, SIR, WHEN YOU ARRIVE, NAME AND ADDRESS.
TYLER ALLEY, 952 BASSETT PLACE, DALLAS, TEXAS.
I KNOW MOST OF YOU GUYS WERE HERE LAST TIME WHEN WE PRESENTED.
I THINK MARY COVERED A LOT OF THIS.
JUST TO SHOW YOU GUYS SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND JUST GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO BUILD HERE.
WELL, LET'S SKIP AHEAD TO THE LIST.
THIS IS OUR CURRENT SITE PLAN.
JUST WANT TO START NOTING THINGS THAT I THINK, AND GO BACK ACTUALLY, JUST TO NOTE SOME THINGS THAT I THINK ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL PD THAT I THINK ARE IMPROVEMENTS.
SO I THINK THE LACK OF CONNECTION TO ARBOR MANOR DRIVE I THINK IS SOMETHING THE RESIDENTS ARE DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF AND DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT.
GETTING THE ACCESS EASEMENT TO THE WEST WASN'T AVAILABLE WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET THAT ACCESS SO THAT YOU CAN HAVE THE CONNECTION TO THE MEDIAN AND THAT WOULD MAKE, I THINK, TRAFFIC FLOW A LOT BETTER AND HOPEFULLY KEEP TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT FROM THE WEST SIDE AND LESS SO OUT OF THE EAST SIDE.
SO AS MARY SHOWED, AND AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT TOO MUCH OF WHAT MARY SAID, BUT THIS IS WHAT THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE PLAN IS.
WORKING WITH THE CITY AND WE WERE ABLE TO INCREASE THE BUFFER FROM 20 FEET TO 30 FEET THAT ALLOWED US TO SAVE A LOT MORE TREES IN THE BACK AND SO NOW I THINK WE HAVE QUITE A BIT OF LANDSCAPING ON THIS PROPERTY WAY, WAY ABOVE CODE.
AND SO I THINK ONE THING TO JUST POINT OUT THAT IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY, THERE ARE ZERO TREES REQUIRED BACK THERE.
WE'RE PLANNING TO DO 71 TREES AND THERE WAS ALSO TREE MITIGATION DONE WHEN THE PD WAS ORIGINALLY DONE AND SO I THINK BOTH OF THOSE ARE THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRED FOR A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, BUT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORS.
AND SO WE ALSO HAVE SAVED 50 PLUS, I THINK IT'S LIKE 55 NOW.
WHEN WE CAME HERE, WE MAY HAVE
[01:25:01]
VOTED ON THIS LAST TIME, WE WERE AT 44, BUT ONCE WE WERE ABLE TO MOVE THE BUILDING UP FURTHER WITH THE CITY'S HELP, THAT CREATED A LOT MORE ROOM TO SAVE MORE TREES.AND SO THIS WAS BACK IN APRIL, WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY GAVE US A LIST OF ITEMS. I THINK BACK THEN THEY DIDN'T REALIZE THEY WERE TRYING TO COMPROMISE.
I THINK NOW THEIR OPINION IS MORE JUST TO SAY NO COMPLETELY TO IT, SO I DON'T WANT TO STATE THAT THESE ARE THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF WHAT THEY WOULD WANT.
NEXT SLIDE I THINK IS WHEN THE LIST COMES UP.
THESE ARE THE NEIGHBOR REQUESTS.
THESE AREN'T THEIR CURRENT OPINIONS OF WHAT THEY WOULD WANT, BUT JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SHOW WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE.
THIS IS THE KIND OF LIST WE WERE WORKING OFF OF AS WE REDESIGNED THE PLAN.
SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THESE AND KIND OF EXPLAIN WHERE WE WERE AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN YOU GUYS VOTED AND WHAT CHANGES, IF ANY, WERE MADE.
AND THEN SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE ARE TODAY AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS.
SO WE'LL GO THROUGH THESE ONE BY ONE.
SO PREVIOUSLY WE WERE AT 20 FEET.
THE RESIDENTS HAVE REQUESTED 40.
WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THE CITY TO GET 10 MORE FEET BY REDUCING SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING UP FRONT AND HAVING MORE IN THE BACK.
AND SO WE MAXED OUT THE DISTANCE IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY WITH 30 FEET.
THIS HAS MOVED THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT A LOT.
THIS WAS, AND THEY CAN CLARIFY, BUT THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH ON WHETHER THEY WANT THE BUILDING IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY OR THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
I THINK WHERE THEY SETTLED WAS HAVE THE BUILDING AS FAR AWAY FROM THE FENCE AS POSSIBLE, BUT STILL HAVE THE DRIVEWAY NORTH OF THE BUILDING AND NOT COMING BEHIND THE BUILDING.
AND SO I THINK WE'VE AGAIN MAXED THAT OUT WITH THE 30 FOOT BUFFER IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS THE ONE AREA THAT WE CAN'T ADJUST.
SO WE HAVE A 14,480 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
THE RESIDENTS REQUESTED THAT WE CUT THAT IN HALF.
THIS IS JUST ONE THAT FINANCIALLY MAKES IT COMPLETELY INFEASIBLE TO BUILD THE PROJECT.
SMALL BUILDINGS JUST GET REALLY EXPENSIVE TO BUILD.
AND SO THIS IS THE ONE POINT WHERE WE DIDN'T COMPROMISE ON.
SO RESTAURANTS, WE HAD 4,200 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANTS AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
WE ARE NOW AT ZERO, AND WE'RE NOW AT ZERO AND AREN'T ASKING FOR ANY RESTAURANT USES.
WITH NO RESTAURANT USES MEANS NO PATIOS, SO THAT'S CHECKED OFF THAT ONE AS WELL.
WE WERE NEVER DOING A DRIVE-THROUGH, SO THAT WAS A KEY POINT FOR THEM, I THINK.
BUT NO DRIVE-THROUGHS BEING REQUESTED, NO DRIVE-THROUGH COULD BE APPROVED UNLESS SOMEONE CAME BACK IN THE FUTURE TO CITY COUNCIL.
BUT ONCE THIS BUILDING GETS BUILT, IT'S PRACTICALLY PRETTY INFEASIBLE TO ADD A DRIVE-THROUGH LATER.
SO PREVIOUSLY WE HAD TO PUT IT TO THE EAST.
WE DIDN'T REALLY CARE WHERE WE WENT, BUT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS KIND OF DICTATING THIS.
WE WERE ABLE TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET THIS MOVED FURTHER WEST, AS MARY SHOWED.
SO AT THE LAST CITY COUNCIL MEETING WHEN YOU GUYS VOTED, IT WAS WHERE THE RED CIRCLE IS.
NOW IT'S FURTHER WEST, JUST TO CREATE MORE SEPARATION.
WE WOULD MOVE IT EVEN FURTHER WEST, TO BE HONEST, IF WE COULD, BUT THAT WAS THE MAX THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD ALLOW US, JUST FROM A TURN RADIUS PERSPECTIVE.
OH, NO CONNECTION TO ARBOR MANAGE DRIVE, SO THIS WAS A REQUEST BY THEM.
WE NEVER HAD A CONNECTION THERE, AND SO THAT'S ONE THAT WE WERE ABLE TO CONCEDE ON.
SO WE PREVIOUSLY HAD NO ADJUSTMENTS TO THE WALL.
THE RESIDENTS REQUESTED AN INCREASE TO THREE FEET.
WE'RE WILLING TO PROVIDE, WELL, WE SAID WE CAN PROVIDE $25,000 TO HOA.
THE WALL IS ACTUALLY NOT ON THE PROPERTY, AND SO WE DON'T WANT TO BE TOUCHING OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY.
WE'RE HAPPY TO CONTRIBUTE TO FUNDS TO INCREASE THAT.
BUT WITH THE 30-FOOT BUFFER, WITH THE 71 TREES THAT WE'RE ADDING, WITH THE TREES THAT WE'RE SAVING, I'M HOPING THAT THAT HELPS ACHIEVE A LOT OF THE CONCERN THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR BY HAVING THIS.
SO WE WERE RETAIL RESTAURANTS AND MEDICAL LAST TIME.
THE RESIDENT'S KEY REQUEST WAS GETTING RID OF RESTAURANTS, AND THEY ALSO ASKED ABOUT SOME OF THE MORE NEGATIVE USES, LIKE VAPE STORES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE RESTRICTED THIS TO RETAIL MEDICAL.
IF THERE IS AN EASY WAY TO RESTRICT FAST CASH PLACES, TATTOO SHOPS, SMOKE SHOPS, WE'RE NOT LEASING TO THOSE PLACES ANYWAY, SO THAT'S AN EASY THING FOR US TO GIVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EASIEST WAY TO DO THAT, BUT WE'RE VERY MUCH WILLING TO DO THAT.
AND SO THIS SHOWS WHERE WE'VE CONCEDED, WHERE WE'VE COMPROMISED.
THE WALL HEIGHT, WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE TENANT RESTRICTIONS, WHICH I THINK TENANT
[01:30:02]
RESTRICTIONS, THAT COULDN'T BE ARGUED TO BE GREEN AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE GOT RID OF THE RESTAURANTS.THE ONLY TWO THINGS THAT WE COULDN'T DO IS REDUCE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT, AND WE COULDN'T ELIMINATE THAT SECOND ENTRANCE.
THE COMPROMISE WAS MOVING IT CLOSER, BUT FOR FIRE CODE, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ELIMINATE THAT, TO ONLY HAVE ONE, HAVE A SINGLE ENTRY POINT, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS REQUESTED.
AND SO WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO, SO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL VERSUS THE ORIGINAL ONE, SO WE HAVE ACCESS TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY, WHICH COST US $100,000 TO PAY FOR THE ACCESS, PLUS GATES FOR THE VERIZON BUILDING.
WE FLIPPED THE, AND THIS IS VERSUS THE, THIS IS, WE FLIPPED THE BUILDING FROM THE LONG SANDY LAKE TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A 30-FOOT REAR SETBACK.
AND JUST TO MAKE THIS CLEAR, THIS IS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL VERSUS THE PD APPROVED PLAN BACK IN 2007.
SO THESE ARE WHAT WE FEEL ARE MASSIVE IMPROVEMENTS FROM THAT PLAN FOR THE RESIDENTS.
NO AUBURN MANOR DRIVE CONNECTION, NO DRIVE-THROUGH, $25,000, THE HOA FOR SCREENING, AND THEN THE HVAC UNITS WILL BE SCREENED.
THAT WAS, AT SOME POINT, THAT WAS ASKED TO BE DONE, AND WE ACTUALLY, WITH THE 30-FOOT GUT BUFFER, WILL PROBABLY PUT THE HVAC UNITS ON THE GROUND BEHIND THE BUILDING, SO THEN YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO, THEN THE WALL WILL ACT AS ANOTHER BUFFER OF SOUND, AND YOU VISUALLY WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE IT.
I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT PROBABLY THE BIGGEST COMPLAINT LEFT AND THE ONE THAT WE CAN'T SOLVE IS TRAFFIC.
YOU KNOW, AS YOU ALL KNOW, WHAT MAKES THIS TRICKY IS THAT WHERE TRAFFIC IS MOST INTENSE IS WHERE RESIDENTS MOST HAVE AN ISSUE, BUT WHERE TRAFFIC IS MOST INTENSE IS ALSO WHERE RETAILERS WANT TO BE.
I THINK I WAS HERE A COUPLE MONTHS AGO WHEN SOMEONE HAD A BUSINESS IN THE COPPELL DOWNTOWN AREA WHERE RETAIL WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY COULDN'T LEASE IT TO RETAIL.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD SOLUTION FOR IT.
I THINK THE RESIDENTS WOULD LIKE TO SEE A TRAFFIC LIGHT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THAT.
I THINK A TRAFFIC LIGHT WOULD BE REALLY HELPFUL TO THE AREA AND REALLY HELPFUL TO THE RESIDENTS, AND SO WE'VE OFFERED TO CONTRIBUTE FINANCIALLY TO THAT AS WELL, AND I THINK WE SET $100,000 AT THE P&Z MEETING.
WE'D BE WILLING TO CONTRIBUTE FOR A TRAFFIC LIGHT IN FRONT OF THE VERIZON BUILDING, AND SO WE UNDERSTAND THEIR CONCERN.
WE ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEIR CONCERN THAT THERE'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC HERE.
IT JUST ALSO HAPPENS TO BE WHY RETAIL TENANTS WANT TO BE HERE, RIGHT? SO WE'RE ACTUALLY ALIGNED WITH THE RESIDENTS THERE, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SOLVE.
THAT IS A, WE DON'T HAVE A CURB CUT THAT IS ON AN INTERSECTION, AND SO HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND ONCE THE RESIDENTS SPEAK, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, HAPPY TO COMMENT THEN AS WELL.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COUNCILMEMBER HILL.
YEAH, YOU MENTIONED THAT THE UNITS WILL PROBABLY GO ON THE GROUND AND NOT THE ROOF.
I MEAN, WILL THEY OR WON'T THEY? I THINK FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DISCUSSION, WE WOULD PUT THEM, ASSUME THAT THEY'RE ON THE ROOF AND THEY'RE SCREENED, WHICH IS WHAT THE REQUEST IS.
I'M HOPING THAT WHEN WE TALK TO THE TENANTS THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO, FOR THEM IT MAKES SENSE TO GO AND BACK THE PROPERTY.
I WOULD SAY ASSUME THE MORE CONSERVATIVE SCENARIO, WHICH IS THAT THEY GO ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING, BUT THEY WOULD BE SCREENED IN EITHER SCENARIO.
BUT GIVEN THAT WE HAVE SO MUCH ROOM BACK THERE, I THINK THE TENANTS WILL CHOOSE TO.
THAT WORKS PART OF THEIR PERMIT, NOT PART OF OUR PERMIT, AND SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK OUT OF TURN FOR THEM.
BUT YEAH, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT GOES ON THE TOP OF THE BUILDING FOR TODAY'S PURPOSES.
AND HOW ARE YOU SCREENING THEM? WE'LL JUST PUT SOME SORT OF, IT WILL LITERALLY JUST BE LIKE ALMOST LIKE THE PARAPET THAT'S IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.
IT'LL BE SOMETHING SIMILAR IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO IF YOU'RE ON THE ROOF AND YOU TURN AROUND, YOU'LL SEE THE TPL RUN UP.
YEAH, YOU'VE GOT A TWO-FOOT PARAPET NOW.
ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT RAISING THE PARAPET OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT BUILDING SOME TYPE OF WOOD STRUCTURE ON TOP OF IT? WE FRANKLY WILL DO EITHER.
WE'RE HAPPY TO DO WHICHEVER THE CITY, THE BUILDING OFFICIALS WOULD LIKE TO SEE.
BUT TYPICALLY WE WOULD DO IT BY JUST DOING AS LARGE OF A PARAPET AS WE NEED ON THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY TO KEEP IT SIMPLE.
WHEN I LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ADJACENT WHERE EINSTEIN BAGELS IS, THEIR PARAPET'S 42 INCHES, I WANT TO SAY.
SO IT'S A GOOD SIZE THAT WILL MITIGATE THE SOUND AND ALSO CREATE A VISUAL BARRIER.
[01:35:01]
AND I'M WONDERING IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OF CONSIDERATION TO YOU GUYS.THAT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE ENVISIONING.
I MEAN, IF YOU START TO GET YOUR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ANYWHERE CLOSE TO THE EDGE, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PUT UP FALL PROTECTION.
AND YOU'LL HAVE AN UGLY RAILING ON TOP OF THE PARAPET AND JUST TRYING TO AVOID UGLY.
AND AGAIN, WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE THE CITY'S DIRECTION ON WHAT THEY VIEW AS SCREENING.
AND MY HOPE IS THAT WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DO THAT, WE WON'T HAVE TO BECAUSE WE PUT THE UNITS ON THE GROUND.
I THINK THE GROUND IS A GOOD SOLUTION, OBVIOUSLY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, SIR.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
AT THIS TIME, WE'LL ENTERTAIN COMMENTS FROM INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE SIGNED UP FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND JUST START AT THE TOP OF THE LIST.
WE HAVE OUR INITIAL FIRST TWO SPEAKERS ARE APPEARING VIA REMOTE MEANS.
SO THE FIRST INDIVIDUAL WILL BE AITIN KULKARNI.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THERE IS ONE WHO'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON ZOOM.
THERE WAS ANOTHER VISHY SUBRAMANIAM.
YES, HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE ON ZOOM.
THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO MEET WITH US OR LISTEN TO US.
WE DON'T SEE YOU, BUT WE HEAR YOU.
THE INTERNET CONNECTION IS REALLY BAD, SO I'M TRYING MY BEST TO TALK.
MY SPEECH COMES LATER, SO CAN I PASS IT ON TO RAM, WHO'S GOING TO BE TALKING FIRST? WELL, WE NORMALLY CALL THEM IN THE ORDER THAT THEY'VE SIGNED UP, SO MR. KULKARNI WOULD GO FIRST.
OKAY, HE'S NOT HERE? WELL, HE'S SUPPOSED TO APPEAR BY ZOOM.
YEAH, HE'S NOT ABLE TO MAKE IT.
WELL, THEN, MR. SUBRAMANIAM, YOU'RE UP NEXT.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN YOUR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME.
CAN I REFRAIN AND WAIT TILL THE SECOND SPEAKER IS DONE? IT IS DONE, BECAUSE IF HE'S NOT ABLE TO TALK IN THE FIVE MINUTES THAT'S ALLOCATED TO HIM, I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE THERE.
SO WE REQUEST FOR THE WAY TO SIGN UP WAS DIFFERENT.
IN MY EMAIL, I HAD REQUESTED TO PUT ME IN THE END, BUT WE SIGNED UP LIKE THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, I'M NOT ABLE TO BE THERE.
WELL, SINCE WE'VE GOT YOU ON A GOOD CONNECTION AND WE CAN HEAR YOU AND WE CAN SEE YOUR PRESENTATION, WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD AND JUST GO FORWARD, SIR, IN THE ORDER THAT THE SIGN-UP WAS PROVIDED? I'M NOT THERE FOR THAT, SO CAN I? OKAY, LET ME PASS IT ON TO RAM.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS RAM NARASENYAMI.
SIR, NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I LIVE IN A 130 WILD PLUM DRIVE.
OUR HOME IS DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SITE.
THIS PROJECT WILL HAVE A DIRECT AND AS WELL AS A LASTING IMPACT ON OUR HOME AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WHAT WE ARE GOING TO SHARE TONIGHT IS NOT THE SAME WHAT WE PRESENTED IN APRIL.
SO IT'S NOT A REQUEST FOR KILLING THIS PROJECT.
TODAY WE HAVE SIX SPEAKERS LINED UP TO GO THROUGH THESE SLIDES, INCLUDING MYSELF, AND I'LL BEGIN WITH THE FIRST FEW SLIDES, SETTING THE CONTEXT, AND THEN I WILL HAND OVER TO OUR NEIGHBORS WHO WILL BE COVERING THE REMAINING SLIDES AND DETAILS.
OKAY, WHERE DO WE STAND? THERE ARE FOUR THINGS WE WANT TO FOCUS TONIGHT.
THE ONE IS WHAT HAS ACTUALLY CHANGED SINCE APRIL, AND THE SECOND ONE IS THAT THE FACT OUR PROTEST NOW IS LEGALLY REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY VOTE, AND THE MOTION WE ARE ASKING YOU TO MAKE, AND THEN FINALLY HOW THE REST OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION SUPPORTS THE REQUEST.
LET ME START WITH WHAT HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
THE CITY HAS NOW VALIDATED 20%
[01:40:02]
PROTEST CALCULATION BASED ON THE 200 FEET REQUIREMENT.SO THAT MEANS ANY APPROVAL TONIGHT REQUIRES A SUPER MAJORITY.
OUR STAND TO BE HERE IS NO LONGER IN QUESTION, AND THE DEVELOPER AGREED, AT LEAST IN PRINCIPLE, TO ELIMINATE THE RESTAURANT AND PATIO USED FROM THE SITE.
THIS IS KIND OF MEANINGFUL PROGRESS.
I DON'T WANT TO REALLY ACKNOWLEDGE IT.
SO HERE IS WHAT NOT CHANGED AND NOT BEING RESOLVED.
THE CITY HAS NOT PROVIDED THE RESIDENTS THE REQUESTED DATA FROM PIR.
IT WAS PROMISED AT AUGUST 11TH MEETING.
AND THE PHASE TWO TRAFFIC STUDY WAS NOT COMPLETED WHEN THE PNC VOTED UP TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT.
THE CUT THROUGH AS WELL AS THE U-TURN TRAFFIC IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS NEVER BEEN COUNTED BY THE CITY.
AND THEN SIGNAL ANALYSIS WAS CONDUCTED AT THE WRONG INTERSECTION.
SO IT DOESN'T REFLECT OR ADDRESS THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC CONDITIONS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD EXPERIENCES.
SO DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IS STILL A MAJOR CONCERN.
THE BUILDING SIZE, SETBACK, AND CLASS PROXIMITY TO OUR HOMES HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED.
WE ARE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THE PROJECT FITS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DOESN'T NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE NEXT TO IT.
WHAT WE ARE ASKING TONIGHT IS NOT APPROVED, NOT DENIED.
CONTINUE THIS ITEM WITH YOUR NEW DATE UNTIL WE GET ALL THE COMPLETE INFORMATION.
AND DIRECT THE CITY STAFF TO COMPLETE THE DEFENSIBLE TRAFFIC RECORD.
RETURN WITH REVISED PD REFLECTING THE SIX CONDITIONS WE LAID OUT.
SO THE MOTION SPECIFICALLY ASKS THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT TO RETURN OVER FOUR THINGS.
THE FIRST ONE IS COMPLETE THE PHASE TWO TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WITH THE MULTI-DAY COUNTS AND THE FEATURE YEAR PROJECTION.
THE SIGNAL WARRANT IN THE CORRECT INTERSECTION.
THE INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW FROM THE QUALIFIED TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FIRM.
AND THE REVISED PLAN REFLECTING THE SIX CONDITIONS THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PUTTING FORWARD TONIGHT.
SO THESE ARE THE SIX SPECIFIC CONDITIONS.
I DON'T WANT TO GO THROUGH INDIVIDUAL.
IT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE OF THE TIME LIMIT.
SO THESE SIX CONDITIONS ARE SPECIFIC, REASONABLE, AND ACTIONABLE.
EACH ONE IS GROUNDED IN ADAPTIVE CITY CODE, ESTABLISHED STANDARD PRACTICE, OR THE CITY'S OWN VISION 2040 PLAN.
OUR NEIGHBOR ARE GOING TO TAKE YOU THROUGH THE TRAFFIC RECORD AND CUT THROUGH DATA AND AS WELL AS THE REVISED DESIGN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES.
STARTING WITH THE CITY-OWNED TRAFFIC ENGINEER ACTUALLY FORMED.
SO I WILL TURN OVER TO OUR NEXT SPEAKER WHO IS GOING TO LEAD THE TRAFFIC RECORD.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS SIGNED UP AS DEBASHISH MUKHERJEE.
PLEASE, SIR, NAME AND ADDRESS.
THIS IS DEBASHISH MUKHERJEE, 148 AMBERWOOD DRIVE, COPPELL, TEXAS, IN THE ALBAN MANNERS NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO I WANT TO START OFF BY SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, MY FOCUS IS ON THE TRAFFIC RECORD, THE SCOPE OF THE ENGINEERING STUDY, WHAT IT ACTUALLY FOUND, WHERE IT FALLS SHORT, AND WHAT THE TRAFFIC RECORD DOES NOT SUPPORT, WHY THE TRAFFIC RECORD DOESN'T SUPPORT THE APPROVAL FOR THE AUGUST 25TH, WHICH IS TODAY.
SO WHAT THE STUDY DID WAS ESSENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, TO TAKE THE, YOU KNOW, THE STUDY WAS SUPPOSED TO TAKE, WAS TO BE CONDUCTED ON THE DENTON TAP AS WELL AS THE SANDY LAKE INTERSECTION.
THE TYPE OF STUDY WAS COMMISSIONED FOR SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS AND THEN THE DATA WAS COLLECTED, BUT IT WAS ONLY DONE FOR A 24-HOUR PERIOD.
IT WAS DONE ON MAY 13TH, SO THAT WAS THE CURRENT ANALYSIS.
WHAT IT DIDN'T DO WAS IT DID NOT PERFORM A TIA ANALYSIS TO THE ITE STANDARDS.
IT WAS NOT MULTI-DAY, AND IT'S REQUIRED TO BE AT LEAST FOR A COUPLE OF DAYS AND A WEEKEND.
SO IT WASN'T MADE FOR, YOU KNOW, A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME, AND IT WASN'T DONE FOR THE BUILD THAT IT WAS BEING DONE FOR.
IT WAS DONE IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.
[01:45:03]
BEFORE.THE SIGNAL WARRANT WAS DONE FOR BRAYWOOD, BUT NOT FOR SANDY LAKE, SO IT WASN'T COMPLETE.
SO THAT'S THE PHASE TWO REPORT THAT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET FROM YOU.
SO WHAT THE CITY'S OWN STUDY ACTUALLY FOUND IS THERE ARE TREMENDOUS LEVEL OF SERVICE DELAYS ON BRAYWOOD AS WELL AS DENTON TAP.
THE BACKUP ON SANDY LAKE IS MORE THAN 442 FEET, WHICH GOES WAY BEYOND OUR ENTRANCE.
WE'VE HAD PROBLEMS WITH SIGHT DISTANCE.
WE'VE HAD OVERALL 53 CRASHES IN THE 2020 TO 2025 PERIOD, AND THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE ON THE P&Z APPROVAL IN TERMS OF WHETHER IT WAS ENGINEERING, SIGNAGE.
ALL THOSE THINGS WERE DONE, BUT NOTHING FOR THE U-TURN, THE RESOLUTIONS OF Q.
SO THOSE WERE THINGS THAT WE'RE RAISING IN THIS PRESENTATION.
WHERE IT FALLS SHORT, I'VE ALREADY MENTIONED THIS.
SO JUST A ONE-DAY COUNT, THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.
THE CUT-THROUGH SCOPE WAS TOO NARROW.
WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF BYPASS TRAFFIC THAT KIND OF COMES INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
NO TRIP GENERATION TABLE WAS IN PLACE.
THE PROJECTED TIA THRESHOLD WAS NOT PUBLISHED.
LEVEL OF SERVICE WAS REFRAMED AS ACCEPTABLE.
SIGNAL WARRANT STOPS TOO EARLY.
SO WE HAD A LOT OF SHORTCOMINGS THAT WE DISCOVERED, WHICH WE FELT WAS FALLING SHORT OF THE TIA PRACTICE.
NOW, THIS IS WHERE WE WANT TO ACTUALLY DO THE SHOW AND TELL.
AND I WOULD LIKE FOR VISHY, IF HE CAN, TO TAKE MY FIVE MINUTES.
I HAVE A MINUTE AND A HALF LEFT ABOUT.
BUT IF VISHY CAN STEP IN HERE, HE CAN TAKE THE FIVE MINUTES, AND WE CAN ACTUALLY SHOW THE VIDEOS AND THE IMAGES IN THE NEXT TWO OR THREE SLIDES, IF THAT'S ACCEPTABLE.
IF YOU'RE CONCLUDED WITH YOUR REMARKS, SIR, THEN WE CAN MOVE ON TO HIM.
THE NEXT PERSON WE'LL CALL IS VISHY SUBRAMANIAM.
PLEASE, SIR, NAME AND ADDRESS.
VISHY SUBRAMANIAM, 126 WILD PLUM DRIVE, COPPELL.
MY HOUSE IS DIRECTLY BEHIND THIS PD, AND THANKS FOR TAKING THE TIME TO.
THANKS FOR BEING FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO GIVE US THE TIME.
I'LL REQUEST MARY TO HOVER OVER THE FIRST PICTURE ON THE LEFT, AND I THINK THAT IS A PLAY WE HAVE TO DO.
THIS IS HOW OUR NORMAL DAY IS, COMING IN AND OUT OF ALL THE MANNERISMS, IN SHORT, MORNINGS, YOU KNOW, AND THE 44-SECOND VIDEO, OF COURSE, SHOULD BE DONE NOW.
AND THIS PD IS ONLY GOING TO MAKE THIS THING WORSE.
YEAH, THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE SHOWS THE.
HOW CRAZY THE INTERSECTION IS.
THAT'S AN ACCIDENT THAT TOOK PLACE, AND IT HAS NOT BEEN FIXED FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS NOW.
SO, THIS IS A PICTURE THAT HAS BEEN TAKEN ON APRIL 8TH, 2026, AT AROUND 6 P.M.
YOU CAN SEE THAT WE ARE STANDING AT THE INTERSECTION OF ARBOR MANOR AND SANDY LAKE ROAD.
IF YOU TAKE THE FIRST PICTURE ON YOUR LEFT, YOU CAN SEE THE TRAFFIC LINED UP ALL THE WAY FROM OUR ARBOR MANOR DRIVE TO SANDY LAKE.
TO DENTON TAP, ACTUALLY, SORRY, ON THE.
THIS IS THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE IT'S GOING ALL THE WAY BACK TO THE VERIZON BUILDING, IF NOT FARTHER AWAY FROM THERE.
SO, YOUR 200-FOOT CUT-THROUGH IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE COMING RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE THERE, IN BETWEEN ALL THOSE CARS.
SO, THAT'S HOW THIS TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE ONCE THIS.
IT'S ONLY GOING TO MAKE THE ALREADY EXISTING BAD TRAFFIC WORSE.
SO, BASICALLY, WHAT WE ARE SAYING IS THIS STUDY DOES NOT SUPPORT A PAROLE FROM THE COUNCIL ON AUGUST 25TH.
[01:50:02]
BASICALLY, WE ARE SAYING THAT YOU POSTPONE THE ACTION FOR THIS TO A LATER DATE UNTIL THE PHASE 2 REPORT IS DONE PER THE STANDARD THAT IS PRESCRIBED BY THE IT AND THE TMU-TCB PRACTICE NORMAL TRAFFIC STUDY PROCESS THAT'S GOING FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS.WE DO REQUIRE A SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST, A SUPPLEMENTAL TRAFFIC STUDY BASICALLY FOR THREE MIDWEEKS AND THREE MIDWEEK TRAFFIC COUNTS AND A SATURDAY COUNT.
THIS IS AS PER THE IT TRIP GENERATION TABLE.
WHY WOULD WE NOT FOLLOW THE PUBLISHED TRIP GENERATION REQUIREMENTS? WE ALSO REQUIRE A REQUEST TO DO A RERUN OF THE SIGNAL WARRANT ANALYSIS, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING IT FOR THE WEST END OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, NOT OUTSIDE ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
THE REASON WHY WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS IS THE TRAFFIC LIGHT THERE WILL STOP THE TRAFFIC FROM COMING AND GIVE US A BREAK SO WE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF OUR HOMES MORE EASILY.
AND THEN LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST, WE DEFINITELY REQUEST AN INDEPENDENT PEER REVIEW OF THE STUDY THAT WAS DONE, OR THE STUDY THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE ALSO.
AND WE DEFINITELY REQUEST SOME TRAFFIC MITIGATION CONDITIONS.
THANK YOU, SIR, FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS MONICA PANDA.
I'M GOING TO SPEAK REALLY FAST.
MONICA PANDA, 114 ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
SO QUICKLY GOING THROUGH WHAT WE DID, WE HAVE SOME FACTS IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE DID A 24-HOUR RESIDENT STUDY WITH THE CAMERAS INSTALLED, WHAT WE FOUND AND WHY WE THINK THE P&Z STILL NEEDS TO REASSESS THE PD AND WITHOUT RESETTING THE PROCESS OF THE SURVEY.
SO THIS IS TYPICALLY WHAT HAPPENS AS THEY ENTER ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE.
THEY MAY STOP THERE, NOT STOP THERE.
AND THIS IS WHAT A TYPICAL CUT-THROUGH LOOKS LIKE.
THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT CUT-THROUGHS.
THERE'S ANOTHER STOP SIGN, WHICH THEY MAY OR MAY NOT STOP AT.
AND THEY'RE OUT THE DOOR, OUT THE ARBOR MANOR'S ENTRANCE.
SO THERE IS A HOOP RIGHT THERE, A BASKETBALL HOOP, WHERE THE KIDS ARE USUALLY PLAYING.
THAT IS A PROBLEM BECAUSE THEY GET TAKEN OUT.
WE ARE BACKING OUT OF OUR GARAGES.
SO THIS IS THE CUT-THROUGH THAT WAS NOT ADDRESSED.
WE ASKED THE TRAFFIC CIVIL ENGINEER AT THAT TIME WHETHER THIS WAS A PART OF IT AND NO ONE HAD THAT ANSWER.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS THE, IN CASE YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THAT DIRECTIONAL MAP LOOKS LIKE, YOU ENTER THROUGH ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE, MAKE A BIG CIRCLE, AND EXIT OUT OF ARBOR MANOR'S DRIVE AGAIN ONTO SANDY LAKE ROAD.
WE HAD A 24-HOUR CAMERA IN TWO DIFFERENT PLACES JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR CUT-THROUGH, WHICH IS JUST ONE PIECE OF IT.
THE OTHER ONE IS IT ENTERS THROUGH ARBOR MANOR'S, GOES ALL THE WAY THROUGH BERRYWOOD.
WE DID NOT ACCOUNT FOR THAT ONE.
WE ALSO DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE ILLEGAL U-TURNS THAT HAPPENED AT OUR ENTRANCE.
RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, THOSE, BARELY SOME OF THE CAMERA CATCHES BECAUSE OF THE ANGLE OF THE CAMERA.
SO WE HAD ABOUT, WE HAD 63 VEHICLES THAT CAME IN, TURNED AROUND, AND LEFT.
AND THEY, NONE OF THEM STOPPED AT OUR HOME.
AND THIS IS JUST THIS CUT-THROUGH.
THIS WAS ON 26 JULY THROUGH 27 JULY, 9 P.M. TO 9 P.M., 24-HOUR WINDOW.
NOT A SCHOOL NIGHT, SO NOT TYPICALLY REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WOULD BE RIGHT NOW.
SO THIS IS JUST BASED OFF OF THAT.
I HAVE ABOUT 500 VIDEOS, AND IF YOU GUYS NEED THAT FOOTAGE, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO SHARE THAT.
WHAT THIS ALSO SHOWS IS THAT THERE IS ALWAYS THIS CUT-THROUGH.
SO EXCEPT FOR THE 12 A.M. TO 4 A.M. WINDOW, THERE IS ALWAYS A CUT-THROUGH.
THERE'S NEVER, NEVER NOT A CUT-THROUGH, RIGHT? THERE ARE CLUSTERS, OF COURSE, MIDDAY, 12 TO 3 P.M.
OR SO, AND THEN, OF COURSE, THE EVENING PEAK, RUSH PEAK HOURS.
BUT THERE'S NEVER A TIME PEOPLE ARE NOT CUTTING THROUGH.
SO THIS IS A PROBLEM NO MATTER WHAT.
JUST BECAUSE IT'S LEGAL, THERE'S A PUBLIC STREET, IT'S NOT SAFE.
SO QUALITY OF LIFE, AND IT'S NOT SAFE.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS ADDRESSED, IRRESPECTIVE OF THIS PD, RIGHT, WHAT THE BUILDER SAID.
WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT? WE JUST CAN'T LOOK THE OTHER WAY AND SAY, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE ARE GOING TO ADDRESS, BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC STUDY PROVES THIS.
WE ARE SHOWING YOU EVIDENCE TO THINGS THAT ARE OTHERWISE.
THE REASON THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING THAT THE P&Z DECISION WAS NOT MADE, DUE DILIGENCE IS MY WORD, I THINK THEY DID NOT DO THEIR DUE DILIGENCE, BECAUSE, A, AT THAT TIME, THE TRAFFIC STUDY
[01:55:01]
WASN'T COMPLETE.OUR QUESTIONS, OR THESE ARE P&Z QUESTIONS, WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS.
ON THE TIMELINE, WERE VERY VAGUE AND NOT ANSWERED CORRECTLY.
THERE WERE NO FIRM DATES GIVEN.
IT KEPT SHIFTING UNDER QUESTIONING.
IT DIDN'T INSPIRE A LOT OF CONFIDENCE IN US.
CUT-THROUGHS TRAFFIC WAS NEVER DEFINED.
LIKE I SAID, THERE'S THREE CUT-THROUGHS TRAFFIC, THE U-TURNS, THE CUL-DE-SAC, AND THEN THE ACTUAL BREAKWOOD EXIT, WHICH THE CITY DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
THE CRASH DATA WAS FILTERED TO FATALITIES ONLY.
SO MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS REALLY, SO A CRASH IS A CRASH IS A CRASH.
SO IT COMPROMISES THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE HURT, WHETHER OR NOT YOUR CAR IS BANGED UP, IT'S TRAUMATIC.
IT COMPROMISES THE QUALITY OF LIFE.
SO IN FACT, IN 2019, THE COPPELL POLICE DEPARTMENT DID A STUDY AND SAID THE SANDY LAKE INTERSECTION AND DENTON TAPE WAS THE WORST AT THAT TIME.
SO I'M SURE IT'S GOTTEN WORSE SINCE THEN AND HASN'T GOTTEN BETTER.
THE SIGNAL THEY LOOKED AT WAS THE WRONG INTERSECTION.
IT WAS NOT THE STATE FARM VERIZON THAT WE WERE REFERRING TO.
SO AGAIN, THAT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND FINALLY, THERE'S PICTURES THAT WE SHOWED OF THESE TRAFFIC BACKUPS THAT YOU'VE ALSO SEEN.
DIFFERENT DAYS WERE WAIVED OFF AND WE WERE TOLD IT'S A ONE-OFF.
WE'VE PROVED IT HOW BECAUSE WE LIVE HERE AND WE'VE SHOWED YOU PICTURES.
AND AGAIN, WE HAVE FOOTAGE THAT WE CAN PROVIDE TO YOU GUYS AS EVIDENCE.
SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE HAVE HIRED CONSULTANTS.
AND THIS IS NOT JUST US SPEAKING.
WE HAVE DONE OUR DUE DILIGENCE, AND WE WANT YOU TO DO THE SAME.
AND I HOPE YOU WILL DO THAT BECAUSE I GUESS WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME TEAM.
SO ONE COPPELL TO BE PROGRESSIVE, TO HAVE A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE, AND TO BE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT IN A CITY.
SO THAT IS THE UNDERLYING REQUEST THAT WE ARE MAKING HERE.
OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS NILESH PAGAR.
NILESH PAGAR, 140 JUNIPER DRIVE.
WHAT WE ARE HERE, SO FAR YOU HEARD ABOUT TRAFFIC, RIGHT? AND WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT ALSO.
WHAT I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS HOW THE PROPOSALS SO FAR CITY HAS RECEIVED IN THE 21-YEAR SPAN OF OUR P&Z COMMISSIONER WHO HAS BEEN LEADING THIS COMMISSION.
THIS LOT HAS BEEN SITTING UNTIL FEBRUARY 2025.
AND IN ONE WAY, I THINK FOR THE GREAT WORK WHAT THIS P&Z HAS DONE, THIS IS KIND OF A STIGMA.
SO WE GOT A DEVELOPER, AND WE ARE RUSHING TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO THESE ARE THE TWO PLANS WE HAVE, CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
I STILL CONSIDER DEVELOPER OFFERING IS CONCEPTUAL.
AND THESE ARE TWO CONCEPTUAL PLANS, CONTEXTUALLY FOR 2026, ABSOLUTELY MISFIT.
I WILL GIVE MORE CREDIT TO THE 2007 PLAN.
THE ONLY SUPER MISUNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT HAD WAS ARBOR MANOR DRIVES WAS SHAREABLE.
SO THAT WAS A MISUNDERSTANDING THERE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE OLD PLAN, THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS AWAY FROM NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PERSON WHO WOULD DRAW THAT CONCEPT DID RESPECT THE PRIVACY, SAFETY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
AND THAT, THIS DEVELOPER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT TRYING.
HE'S PLAYING WITH US AMERICAN FOOTBALL GAME, 20 FEET, 30 FEET, 50 FEET.
THIS IS NOT WHY WE ARE HERE FOR.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE SECOND MODEL HERE, THE 200 FEET FIRE LAND CAME AFTER ALL OF US SPENDING FOUR MONTHS OF OUR LIFE.
WELL, LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING, AND WE HIRED OUR OWN CIVIL ENGINEER, AND WE PUT TOGETHER THIS CONCEPT PLAN.
AND RIGHT NOW, IF YOU SEE THIS, WITH THE SAME FIRE LAND THAT HAS COME OUT NOW, YOU CAN HAVE 09,000 SQUARE FEET BUILDING IN FRONT OF THE TOWER, A LOT, TOWARDS THE SANDY LAKE.
AND I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU THE EXAMPLE OF THAT.
NOW, WHY DO WE NEED TO, WHY WE ARE SAYING 7,000, 9,000? BECAUSE AS WE TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC, THE LAND USAGE AND THE LAND TRIPS ARE STILL NOT EVALUATED.
SO WE ARE GIVING YOU THIS DATA.
WE GAVE THAT DATA TO YOU IN APRIL.
AND IF YOU LOOK AT IT, WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS 40 FEET OF SETBACK, GREEN SPACE IN BOTH SIDES OF OUR PROPERTY, BEHIND OUR HOMEOWNERS AND 40 FEET NEXT TO ARBOR MANOR DRIVE.
THAT ALSO LINES UP WITH THE VISION 2040, PILLARS FOUR AND SIX.
WE EXPECT DEVELOPERS TO RESPECT OUR CITY'S VISION.
SO THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY DROPPED.
SO THIS 20 FEET AND 30 FEET BUSINESS, WHAT DEVELOPER IS DOING IS ABSOLUTELY NONSENSE.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS COMING FROM THE DATA WE PRESENTED YOU IN APRIL.
I KNOW THAT TIME WE WERE NOT PREPARED.
WE GAVE YOU A PRINTED COPY, AND IT COVERS THE LAND USAGE.
IF YOU LOOK AT MEDICAL RENTAL USAGE, 4,600 SQUARE FOOT OF SPACE IS GOING TO GIVE YOU 169 DAILY TRIPS.
IF YOU ADD SHOPPING CENTER, 211 SPACE.
SO WE ARE LOOKING AT AROUND 400 DAILY TRIPS.
AND NONE OF THAT ESTIMATION, THE TRAFFIC STUDY LEADING HAS DONE.
[02:00:01]
PLEASE.NOW, IF THIS IS STILL NOT FINANCIALLY DOABLE, IF THE DEVELOPER IS STILL CRIBBING, NO, I'M SPENDING MONEY.
OKAY, YOU CAN BUILD ANOTHER 05,000 ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THAT GIVES 14,000 SQUARE FOOT.
THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS LITTLE SPACE GOING TO THE FRONT IS 100% POSSIBLE.
BUT THIS DEVELOPER HAS NOT ENTERED IN BECAUSE HE IS ONLY AFTER MAKING EVERY SINGLE INCH USE FOR THE PARKING LOT.
AND CITY AND THE P&Z ESPECIALLY HAS IGNORED THAT.
SO AND WE ARE SPENDING OUR TIME, OUR MONEY, OUR PASSION, OUR EFFORT TO SHOW YOU THIS IS POSSIBLE.
NOW, THIS IS AN EXISTING EXAMPLE, LIVE EXAMPLE.
WE WANT CITY AND POST DEED TO RESTRICT THIS NEW PD WILL NEVER GET RESTAURANTS OR ANY OTHER THING, UNLIKE WHAT WE ARE SEEING, THE LITTLE SCISSOR INSTEAD OF MEAL SALON.
IF YOU LOOK AT THIS, THESE TWO ARE EXISTING EXAMPLES.
THIS IS P&Z APPROVED EXAMPLES.
HOW COME P&Z'S PLANNING CANNOT QUESTION THIS DEVELOPER? THIS IS SUCH A SHAME.
IF WE ONLY HAVE AN EXISTING SOLUTION, WHY SIX MONTHS OF OUR TIME, YOUR TIME IS WASTED? THIS NEEDS TO 100% GO BACK TO P&Z.
SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING IS WE ARE WILLING TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND COME TO THE TABLE TO WORK WITH YOU, TO WORK WITH DEVELOPER, BUILDING HAS TO GO TO THE FRONT.
NOW I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU WHY 45.
LET'S GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRASH BIN AND THERE IS AN AC UNIT, MR. HILL IS ON TOP OF THE BUILDING.
BOTH OF THESE ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED IF THE BUILDING IS IN THE FRONT.
WE DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT.
WE JUST WANT EXISTING MATURE TREES.
GIVE US 40 FEET AND OUR SCREEN IS ENOUGH.
NOW, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS SLIDE, PLEASE WATCH VERY CLOSELY.
I WANT EXTRA ONE MINUTE, PLEASE.
THE TOP BUILDING IS, THE TOP PICTURE IS BEHIND THE MCDONALD'S.
AND IF YOU CAN SEE, IT IS 20 FEET, NO PRIVACY FROM THAT WALL.
AND THE BOTTOM ONE IS THE LIGHTS BEHIND THE BUILDING, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE MONICA'S HOUSE.
DO YOU WANT THIS 15,000 FEET BUILDING NEXT TO OUR HOMES AND HAVING ALL THOSE LIGHTS? SO WE REQUEST YOU TO HOLD ON FROM YOUR DECISION MAKING.
WE ARE WILLING TO SUPPORT THIS PD.
LET'S MOVE THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
THE NEXT SPEAKER IS NILESH AGRAWAL.
NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, SIR.
NILESH AGRAWAL, 117 WILD PLUM DRIVE, COPPELL, TEXAS.
SO WHAT I WILL BE SHARING IS THE COMMUNITY FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE SURVEYS THAT CAME OUT.
SO MAINLY THE SURVEYS WERE SENT TO OR THE SURVEYS WE PUT A SUMMARY OF IS FROM THE ARBOR MANORS COMMUNITY, THE SHADY LANE COMMUNITY, AND THEN TWO MORE COMMUNITIES.
AND FINALLY, WE GOT A RESPONSE FROM THE STATE FARM BUSINESS AS WELL.
SO IF YOU SEE THE SURVEY, I WON'T GO INTO EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, BUT THE MAIN ISSUE THAT CAME OUT FROM ALMOST EVERY SINGLE RESIDENT IS INCREASED TRAFFIC.
SO THAT IS THE NUMBER ONE TOP ISSUE THAT CAME UP.
YOU WILL SEE, LIKE MONICA AND EVERYBODY ELSE DISCUSSED, ABOUT DRIVE THROUGH AND THE U-TURN.
SO 113 WILD PLUM DRIVE RESIDENT ACTUALLY DID REPORT THAT A CAR THAT WAS IN FRONT OF THEIR HOUSE GOT HIT BY ONE OF THE CARS THAT WAS DOING A U-TURN FROM THE COMMUNITY.
SO IT IS A HAZARD AS WELL WHEN MORE TRAFFIC IS COMING THROUGH THE COMMUNITY AND TAKING A U-TURN LIKE IT WAS SHOWN.
SO A FEW MORE RESPONSES CAME IN IN TERMS OF THE DEED RESTRICTION AS IT WAS DISCUSSED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE RESTAURANTS, TOBACCO, VAPE, SMOKE OR LIQUOR STORES OR ANY ADULT STORES ARE NOT PERMITTED.
THE SECOND ONE IS THE POLLUTION, SO NOISE POLLUTION, LIGHT POLLUTION.
SO MR. HILL, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE AC UNITS COMING DOWN.
SO IF THE AC UNITS ARE TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE BUILDING AND IF THERE IS ONLY A 30 FEET DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE HOUSE RESIDENTS AND THE BUILDING, THEN YOU WILL, WE WILL START HEARING THE AC NOISES AS WELL.
I THINK 14,480 SQUARE FEET WILL CAUSE WAY MORE NOISE, LIGHT AS WELL AS TRAFFIC POLLUTION.
SO 9,000 SQUARE FEET IS A MUCH REASONABLE GIVE AND TAKE FROM THE RESIDENTS FOR THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS KIND OF A COMMUNITY AS WELL, DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.
[02:05:02]
DRIVE COMMUNITY AS WELL AS THE WINDPAGE COMMUNITY.AGAIN, SAME THING, NOISE, SAFETY ISSUES, TRAFFIC ISSUES AND DUMPSTER AND OTHER ISSUES AS WELL.
SO THREE MAIN TOPICS, TRAFFIC, POLLUTION AND SAFETY.
THOSE WERE THE THREE MAIN THINGS THAT CAME OUT.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS, SIR.
THE FINAL SPEAKER THAT WE HAVE SIGNED UP IS SHANTI SUBRAMANIAM.
HI, I'M SHANTI SUBRAMANIAM AND I'M AT 126 WILD PLUM DRIVE.
SO TODAY YOU'VE HEARD FROM SO MANY OF OUR RESIDENTS AND COMMUNITY MEMBERS AND WE, GIVEN ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT YOU HAVE AND THE FACT THAT WE NEED MORE RESEARCH DONE, MORE ANALYSIS, WE'RE ASKING TO DELAY YOUR FINAL DECISION AND APPROVAL TO FIRST GET ALL OF THOSE THINGS DONE.
AND IT HELPS ALL STAKEHOLDERS TO BE MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE DECISION THAT'S BEING MADE.
AND WE UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER HAS WORKED WITH US AND WE'RE ASKING FOR SOME MORE IN ORDER TO MAKE THINGS GOOD FOR THE RESIDENTS BY MOVING THE BUILDING FORWARD, HAVING THE TRAFFIC STUDY, ANALYZING.
AND PART OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS TO UNDERSTAND THE FACT THAT MORE AND MORE TRAFFIC MEANS MORE CUT-THROUGHS, REDUCE SAFETY ISSUES FOR MORE ACCIDENTS THAT COULD HAPPEN.
AND I THINK THE DEVELOPER HAS ALSO AGREED WITH THAT.
THE REASON THAT THEY WANT A DEVELOPMENT THERE IS BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BRING, THEY ALREADY HAVE A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND IT'S GOING TO BRING MORE TRAFFIC.
SO IN THE END, THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND ALL OF THAT IS MAINLY BECAUSE WE WANT A TRAFFIC LIGHT.
WE WANT THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT.
WE WANT TO SEE IF WE CAN REDUCE THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ENFORCE THE USE RESTRICTIONS.
I KNOW THAT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE RESTRICTING IT.
BUT IF WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT EVERY AGENDA AT THE CITY, I DON'T WANT TO SUDDENLY FIND OUT THAT THIS HAS GOTTEN APPROVED AND CHANGED.
SO CAN WE HAVE SOMETHING MORE CONCRETE TO ENFORCE THE USE RESTRICTIONS? AND THEN FINALLY, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT THE WALL THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE IS ON OUR PROPERTY, IT BELONGS TO THE HOA, BUT WE REALLY NEED SOMETHING HIGHER TO INCREASE PRIVACY.
AND IF WE CAN HAVE A WALL, WE NEED TO REDUCE ALSO THE LIGHTING AND THE LIGHT POLLUTION THAT WILL COME FROM THOSE THINGS.
YOU CAN SEE HOW THOSE LIGHTS ARE VERY, VERY BRIGHT.
IN FACT, FROM MY HOUSE, I CAN SEE THE LIGHTS FROM SPROUTS WAY ACROSS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WANT SO MUCH BRIGHT LIGHTS, AND WE WANT ANY CAMERAS THAT ARE PUT IN FOR SAFETY AND SO ON TO BE RESTRICTED SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE OUR PRIVACY TAKEN AWAY.
SO WE'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL, IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.
SO I THINK BY TAKING TIME, IT HELPS THE CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE VERY COMPLETE INFORMATION BEFORE MAKING A VOTE.
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAVE ALL OF THIS OTHER INFORMATION ON THERE, BUT I THINK THE MAIN THING IS YOU WILL BE MORE COMFORTABLE HAVING ALL OF THE INFORMATION FOR YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
SO THE STAFF GETS MORE TIME TO ADJUST, TO RUN THE REQUIRED ANALYSIS, TO DO THE SIGNAL WARRANT AT THE RIGHT PLACE, NOT AT BRAYWOOD WHEN WE ARE AT SANDY LAKE.
WE ARE ASKING FOR A PEER REVIEW JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS INFORMATION IS THOUGHT THROUGH WELL AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY ELSE IN THAT INDUSTRY IS ABLE TO LOOK AT IT AND GIVE SOME ADVICE.
FOR THE APPLICANT, WE ARE NOT, WE RECOGNIZE, I KNOW WE CAME, WE WANTED TO SAY NO, BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE JUST ASKING THAT IF WE CAN WORK AND KEEP THIS PROJECT GOING, MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION, AND SEE IF WE CAN MOVE THE BUILDING TO THE FRONT AND KEEP THIS PD INSTEAD OF STARTING ALL OVER AGAIN.
LET'S DO ALL OF THE RESEARCH, LET'S MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION AND PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PROTECT THE PRIVACY, THE INCREASED SAFETY FOR NOT JUST OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT PUTTING THE LIGHT THERE ALLOWS FOR SAFETY FOR A LOT MORE PEOPLE, INCLUDING THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS AROUND GEORGIAN DRIVE, WINDPAGE, EVERYBODY'S BEEN SAYING THOSE ARE ISSUES.
AND WE BELIEVE THAT DOING THIS ANALYSIS, PUTTING THE LIGHT,
[02:10:02]
MOVING THE BUILDING, ALL OF THIS AND KEEPING MORE TREES HELPS TO ACHIEVE THE VISION OF THE CITY THAT WE ALL LOVE AND WANT TO BE RESIDING IN.I THINK I'M JUST SAYING EVERYTHING NEEDS TIME, SO PLEASE TAKE THE TIME AND MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY, THANK YOU.
I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED, BUT IS AITIN KULKARNI AVAILABLE? HE DIDN'T SHOW UP? OKAY.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL? I SEE COUNCILMEMBER MATHEW.
CAN WE GO BACK TO THE CITY PRESENTATION, PLEASE? WHERE WE HAVE TWO BUILDINGS IN AGRA.
I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY A QUESTION, PLEASE.
SO THE ORIGINAL PD ON THE LEFT SIDE HAD TWO BUILDINGS AND TODAY'S APPLICATION IS ONE BUILDING.
BUT THIS, IT SAYS ZONING CHANGE APPROVAL REQUIRED.
WHAT IS THE CHANGE? THE REQUIREMENT UNDER OUR ORDINANCE IS THE FINAL SITE PLAN.
A CONCEPT PLAN IS JUST MERELY A CONCEPT.
IT COULD HAVE ONE BUILDING, TWO BUILDINGS.
THE SITE PLAN IS THE DEVELOPMENT INSTRUMENT THAT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT INCLUDES WHERE THE BUILDING IS LOCATED, HOW BIG IT'S GOING TO BE, WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE, WHAT THE LANDSCAPING IS, WHAT THE HEIGHT AND ITS ADJACENCY, INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT.
THOSE ARE THE ACTUAL PLANNING DOCUMENTS.
THE CONCEPT PLAN IS JUST MERELY TO SHOW WHAT IS POSSIBLE, NOT WHAT IS NECESSARILY REQUIRED.
SO WE ARE APPROVING SITE PLAN TODAY.
DOES THAT REQUIRE A TRAFFIC STUDY? NO, SIR.
THE USES ON THE BUILDING, GENERALLY WHEN WE HAVE USE, THE USE DICTATES THE AMOUNT OF DENSITY, THE AMOUNT OF INTENSITY OF THAT USE.
THESE USES THAT ARE PROPOSED TODAY ARE THE SAME USES IN 2007.
SO WE'VE ALWAYS KNOWN WHAT THOSE USES WERE GOING TO BE SO THAT THE SITE PLAN WOULD NOT DICTATE A TRAFFIC STUDY IF THEY DIDN'T WANT ANY ADDITIONAL USES.
BACK IN MARCH AND APRIL WHEN YOU FIRST CONSIDERED IT, THEY ADDED IN THE RESTAURANT.
BY DOING THAT, THAT INTENSITY OF USE THEN DICTATED WOULD THAT CREATE MORE TRAFFIC? THE CURRENT USES DOESN'T CHANGE USE SO THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WOULD NOT BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS CASE OR RELEVANT IN MAKING THE CONSIDERATION.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT TRAFFIC IS NOT AN ISSUE AT THIS INTERSECTION.
I'M JUST SAYING IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO MAKING A DECISION ABOUT WHERE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO GO, HOW HIGH IT IS, WHAT THE LANDSCAPING IS, WHAT THE POINT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS ARE.
THOSE ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE BEFORE YOU, NOT NECESSARILY TRAFFIC.
IF THIS PROPERTY WERE AGRICULTURE AND WE WERE GOING TO PUT A SHOPPING CENTER IN THERE, THEN ABSOLUTELY TRAFFIC WOULD BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE OF THAT INTENSITY OF USE OF BRINGING THAT THERE WHEN THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN SET FOR ALMOST 20 YEARS.
SO I JUST WANT TO RESTATE WHAT I HEARD FROM YOU.
SINCE THERE IS NO RESTAURANT AND PATIO, IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS STUDY.
OR NO CHANGE IN THE INTENSITY OF THE USES THAT ARE PERMITTED ON THE SITE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, OBSERVATIONS? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, THIS TIME WE'RE GOING TO BIFURCATE THIS.
I WOULD CALL FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COUNCILMEMBER HILL, IS THERE A SECOND? OKAY.
COUNCILMEMBER CARROLL, ALL RIGHT.
[02:15:02]
ONE THAT FAVORS CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.WALKER, HINOJOSA-SMITH, CARROLL, NEVELS, PREMKUMAR, MATHEW, HILL, NONE OPPOSED.
SO THE NEXT MOTION THAT I'LL CALL FOR IS TO APPROVE THE ITEM THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING, THE PD214R11C.
THIS TIME I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 08, HAVING CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS.
COUNCILMEMBER HILL, COUNCILMEMBER CARROLL HAS MOVED IT.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION, ANY COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER PREMKUMAR.
THANK YOU, MAYOR FOR THE SO MY COMMENTS ARE FOR THE RESIDENTS, YOU KNOW, I HEAR YOUR CONCERN AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE TAKEN THIS AS SERIOUSLY AS IF I WAS LIVING IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I HOPE YOU REMEMBER MY COMMENTS FROM THE LAST TIME WHEN WE VOTED ON THIS ISSUE.
AS I SEE IT, THE ISSUE HERE IS THE LANDOWNER HAS RIGHTS THAT THE CITY HAS TO HONOR.
BECAUSE, AS THE ATTORNEY JUST SAID, THE LAND USE HAS NOT CHANGED.
THE APPLICANT DID NOT HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY.
IN FACT, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAID, THE CITY DID NOT HAVE TO DO A TRAFFIC STUDY EITHER.
WHEN THIS WAS DISCUSSED, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE APRIL 28TH CITY COUNCIL WHERE THE APPLICANT HAD A RESTAURANT THERE.
I HEARD THE RESIDENTS HAVE EXPRESSED A LOT OF CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.
AND OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, THE CITY WENT AHEAD AND ENDED THIS TRAFFIC STUDY.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE STUDY THAT THEY HAVE DONE, THE RESIDENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED WITH.
BUT KEEP IN MIND THAT IT WAS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE APPLICANT TO DO IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, AS I SEE IT, WE CAN'T DENY THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE WE HAVE FACTORED THIS TRAFFIC FOR ITS INTENDED USE.
AND LIKE I SAID, I EMPATHIZE YOUR CONCERN WITH THE TRAFFIC.
I LIVE ABOUT A QUARTER MILE EAST ON SANDY LAKE FROM YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND I HAVE A TRADER JOE'S OPEN DURING PEAK TRAFFIC.
WHEN I COME OUT OF MY STREET AND I CAN ONLY MAKE A RIGHT TURN BECAUSE THERE'S A SOLID MEDIAN, I SOMETIMES HAVE TO WAIT THREE TO FOUR MINUTES FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO MERGE ON TO SANDY LAKE.
AND I'M SURE IT'S FRUSTRATING FOR YOU BECAUSE YOU'RE LIVING IT EVERY DAY.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT TRAFFIC IS BAD.
BUT THE QUESTION IN FRONT OF ME IS, IS THE TRAFFIC SEVERE ENOUGH THAT WE OR SOMEONE PAYS $2 MILLION TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN CONVERT IT INTO A GREEN SPACE? AND IF WE DO THAT, WHO PAYS FOR IT? YOU KNOW, DO WE EXPECT THE TAX PAYERS TO PAY FOR IT? AND IF WE DO THAT, ARE WE SETTING A PRECEDENT FOR ANY OTHER COMMERCIAL LAND THAT IS STILL UNDEVELOPED? PUBLIC SAFETY IS OUR COUNCIL'S NUMBER ONE PRIORITY.
AND BASED ON THE TRAFFIC STUDY, WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS THAT AS OF NOW, THERE'S NOT A HUGE PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE RIGHT NOW.
AND PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE TRAFFIC IS THE CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY, NOT THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY.
SO IN THE FUTURE, AND I'LL REQUEST THE STAFF TO MONITOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD CLOSELY.
AND IF THERE'S A NEED IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD ASK THE STAFF TO COME BACK AND RECOMMEND AND INSTALLING A SIGNAL THERE.
SO I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN AND SAY THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE TO APPROVE THIS MOTION.
BUT WE ARE TIED TO FOLLOWING THE LAW.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? COUNCILMEMBER, MATHEW.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, I JUST WANTED TO LET THE RESIDENTS KNOW THAT WE LOOKED AT THE TRAFFIC STUDY AS WELL.
IT IS BAD AT THAT INTERSECTION.
AT THE VIDEO THAT YOU PLAYED, IT SHOWS BAD TRAFFIC AT THAT TIME.
[02:20:01]
WE HAVE TO FOLLOW SOME OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS IN FRONT OF US, ESPECIALLY THE ZONING CHANGE REQUEST AND THE LAND USE THAT THE ATTORNEY JUST MENTIONED.SO WITH THAT, I AM GOING TO BE APPROVING THIS MOTION.
I KNOW THAT THIS HAS TAKEN UP A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF YOUR TIME, A LOT OF YOUR ENERGY, A LOT OF EMOTION, AND PLEASE KNOW THAT YOUR COMMENTS ARE HEARD, AND WE UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS.
AS MY FELLOW COUNCILMEMBER MENTIONED, I KNOW THAT THAT AREA IS BUSY.
WE HAVE SEVERAL OF THOSE, I WOULD CALL THEM, KIND OF HOT SPOTS IN THE AREA, AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR HOW WE CAN CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN AND KEEP PUBLIC SAFETY AS A PRIORITY.
AGAIN, KIND OF AS MY FELLOW COUNCILMEMBERS MENTIONED AS WELL, WE ALSO HAVE TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT IS IN FRONT OF US AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF ALLOWING THE LAND USE TO MOVE FORWARD.
SO AGAIN, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I DO APPRECIATE IT.
I KNOW A LOT OF TIME HAS BEEN PUT INTO IT, AND YOUR COMMENTS HAVE BEEN HEARD.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY A COUPLE THINGS.
THERE WAS AN ARTICLE IN THE RAMBLER, AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WHO SAID IT.
BUT THE STATEMENT WAS MADE THAT NO ONE HAS TAKEN EVEN A MINUTE TO SIT DOWN WITH THE HOMEOWNERS AND TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BOTHERING THEM.
BUT OF COURSE, ALL IT TOOK TO GET ME TO MEET Y'ALL WAS A SINGLE EMAIL FROM MONICA.
IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE HOMEOWNERS, YOU LOVE YOUR HOMES, YOU LOVE YOUR COMMUNITY, AND I WAS HAPPY TO MEET WITH YOU.
AND FRANKLY, IF WE STARTED ALL THIS OVER AGAIN TOMORROW, I'D MEET WITH YOU AGAIN.
YOU WERE PROFESSIONAL, YOU WERE KIND, YOU WERE VERY GRACIOUS, AND I THOUGHT IT WAS A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE MEETING.
I THINK WE MET FOR ABOUT TWO HOURS.
AND I'M PROBABLY TO BLAME FOR THE CONFLATION OF THE TRAFFIC ISSUES WITH THE LAND USE ISSUES BECAUSE WHEN WE CAME OUT OF THAT MEETING, ONE CONCERN I HEARD LOUD AND CLEAR WAS TRAFFIC.
AND AT THE LAST MEETING, YOU MAY EVEN RECALL THAT I REMARKED THAT WHEN I'M TRYING TO GET OUT FROM MILK CREAMERY, YOU KNOW, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO CROSS SANDY LAKE.
I'VE PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED IT.
SO I ASKED IF WE COULD CONDUCT A TRAFFIC STUDY.
AND, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE BRAYWOOD LOCATION, IT JUST, IT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER.
THAT IS A COMPANY THAT WE USE.
THEY'RE HIGHLY COMPETENT, HIGHLY PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION.
AND SO I HAVE TO DEFER TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT WITH RESPECT TO THOSE CONCLUSIONS.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY HAD SUGGESTED A SIGNAL, THEN I WOULD HAVE SUPPORTED THAT JUST AT THE SAME TIME.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO MEET YOU.
I KNOW IT'S BEEN UNDER VERY DIFFICULT CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PASSION FOR OUR COMMUNITY AND FOR YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND FOR YOUR FELLOW NEIGHBORS.
YOU ALL ARE A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHAT WE HOPE TO HAVE IN EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH RESPECT TO THE SUPPORT YOU'VE PROVIDED EACH OTHER.
SO THAT WOULD CONCLUDE WHAT I'D LIKE TO SAY TO ALL OF YOU.
I WANTED TO SAY THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR COMING HERE TONIGHT AND THE SEVERAL NIGHTS THAT YOU'VE BEEN HERE.
I CAN'T IMAGINE THE TIME THAT YOU'VE PUT IN TO THAT, TO PREPARING FOR TONIGHT.
I DO WANT TO JUST SHARE MY THOUGHTS THAT MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID.
EVERY EMAIL THAT YOU'VE SENT, EVERYTHING THAT YOU, I'VE READ IT.
I HAVE A GOOD FEELING THAT ALL OF US HAVE READ IT.
I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, BUT WE TAKE WHAT OUR RESIDENTS SAY VERY SERIOUSLY.
AND I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND THE BALANCE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO STRIKE WITH THE RIGHTS OF YOU YOURSELF AS PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE RIGHTS OF THE LAND OWNER AND DEVELOPER AS WELL.
WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT THIS IS DIFFICULT.
I AM IN YOUR AREA AND YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD QUITE OFTEN BASED ON WHERE I WORK.
AND I UNDERSTAND A LOT ABOUT WHAT YOU GUYS DEAL WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS.
I DO AGREE WITH MY FELLOW COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT SAID THAT THIS ISN'T JUST A, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WALK OUT OF THE ROOM, WE FORGET EVERYTHING THAT WAS SAID.
[02:25:01]
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU GUYS KNOW WE WILL STILL MONITOR.WE'RE STILL GOING TO SEE IF FUTURE JUSTIFICATIONS ARE NECESSARY MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE WE WANT OUR CITY TO BE SAFE.
AND I DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO THINK THAT IF THIS IS APPROVED, THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT WE DON'T CARE ABOUT SAFETY BECAUSE WE DO.
WE HAVE A ZONING ISSUE AND WE HAVE THOSE ISSUES ARE SEPARATE FROM TRAFFIC ISSUES AND WE WILL LOOK AT THEM SEPARATELY.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT YOU TO BELIEVE THAT YOUR CONCERNS HAVE FALLEN ON DEAF EARS.
I KNOW THAT THAT MIGHT SOUND LIKE WE'RE NOT LISTENING RIGHT NOW IN THIS SITUATION, BUT I PROMISE YOU EVERYONE HERE, WE LIVE IN THIS COMMUNITY.
WE SHARE VERY SIMILAR BELIEF SYSTEMS ABOUT WHY WE LIVE HERE.
AND THE SAFETY OF OUR RESIDENTS IS PARAMOUNT BASED ON WHAT WE DO AND, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR PUBLIC SAFETY POLICIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I JUST DON'T WANT YOU GUYS TO THINK THAT YOUR CONCERNS HAVE FALLEN ON DEAF EARS TONIGHT.
I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR YOUR HARD WORK.
I WILL COMMENT THAT I BELIEVE THE DEVELOPER HAS SHOWN MORE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT TRYING TO FIND ACCOMMODATIONS THAN ANY OTHER DEVELOPER IN MY FIVE YEARS ON CITY COUNCIL.
SO I KNOW IT MAY SEEM LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT THE WALLS ARE STILL BEING PUT UP.
I REALLY APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT WOULDN'T GO THROUGH THE EFFORT TO TRY TO MAKE THE ACCOMMODATIONS THAT YOU'VE DONE.
AND AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO RESIDENTS.
YOU'RE DOING WHAT WE TRY TO DO AND LISTEN AND TRY TO BE AS ACCOMMODATING AS POSSIBLE.
BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A DEAL.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S THAT ECONOMIC COMPONENT TO IT.
SO I AT LEAST APPRECIATE YOU TAKING TIME TO MEET WITH THE RESIDENTS, LISTEN AND TRY TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO TRY TO MAKE IT AS ACCOMMODATING AS POSSIBLE.
SO THANK YOU FOR EVERYONE FOR YOUR EFFORTS AND YOUR HARD WORK THROUGHOUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR COUNCILMEMBER HILL? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY TO EVERYONE IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THAT LONG DISCUSSION AND I HEARD WHAT YOU SAID.
AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS.
IF WE APPROVE THIS ZONING CASE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THESE EXISTING TRAFFIC ISSUES ARE FORGOTTEN AND HAVE GONE AWAY.
I THINK AS THE DEVELOPMENT COMES ONLINE, WE START TO SEE POTENTIALLY MAYBE MORE ISSUES, MAYBE NOT.
WE CAN LOOK AT THOSE INTERSECTIONS AT BRAYWOOD AND RIGHT THERE AT VERIZON AND SEE IF THERE ARE SOME BETTER SOLUTIONS BECAUSE THERE JUST HAS TO BE.
AND I KNOW OUR CITY STAFF HAS A GREAT DEAL OF TALENT AND CAN HELP US GET THROUGH THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE FACING THERE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE CUT-THROUGHS AND THE U-TURNS.
MAYBE A LIGHT IS WARRANTED FURTHER DOWN AWAY FROM BRAYWOOD IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE THAT WOULD DEFINITELY GIVE SOME BREATHING SPACE.
BUT KNOW THAT ALL YOUR CONCERNS HAVEN'T FALLEN ON DEAF EARS.
I APPRECIATE THE TIME I'VE SPENT WITH YOU AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT EACH AND EVERYONE GAVE ME.
BUT I'M GOING TO HAVE TO VOTE ON THE ZONING CASE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT.
AT THIS TIME, I'LL GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR A VOTE ON ITEM 8, SUBJECT TO STAFF CONDITIONS AS THE MOTION'S BEEN MADE.
ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WALKER, HINOJOSA-SMITH, CARROLL, NEVELS, PRATT AND SMITH.
PRATT AND SMITH, CARROLL, NEVELS, PREMKUMAR, MATHEW, HILL.
AND THANK YOU TO EVERYONE THAT PARTICIPATED.
[02:30:14]
MAYOR MAYS, YOU HAVE THE GAVEL,[9. 2026-0335 PUBLIC HEARING: Hold a Public Hearing and consider adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Coppell, Texas, establishing the City’s participation in the Texas Enterprise Zone Program pursuant to the Texas Enterprise Zone Act, Chapter 2303, Texas Government Code as revised, identifying available tax incentives, designating a liaison for communication with interested parties, and nominating Dave & Buster’s I, L.P. located at 1221 S. Belt Line Road, Coppell, Texas, to the Office of the Governor, Economic Development and Tourism (EDT) through an Economic Development Bank as a Texas Enterprise Zone Project, providing for an effective date and authorizing the Mayor to sign.]
SIR.ITEM NUMBER 9 IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ASK MS. MINDY HURLEY TO COME FORWARD AND READ THE ITEM INTO THE RECORD.
HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COPPELL, TEXAS, ESTABLISHING THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM, PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE ACT, CHAPTER 2303, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE AS REVISED, IDENTIFYING AVAILABLE TAX INCENTIVES, DESIGNATING A LIAISON FOR COMMUNICATION WITH INTERESTED PARTIES, AND NOMINATING DAVE BESTER'S ONE LP, LOCATED AT 1221 SOUTH BELTLINE ROAD, COPPELL, TEXAS, TO THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND TOURISM, THROUGH AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BANK AS A TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROJECT, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN.
GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
TONIGHT WE ARE HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERING THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE FOR THE CITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND TO NOMINATE ONE OF COPPELL'S BUSINESSES FOR THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM.
THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM IS AN INCENTIVE OFFERED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS THROUGH THE OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR.
THIS INCENTIVE IS DESIGNED TO ENCOURAGE THE CREATION OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT AND JOB CREATION AND OR RETENTION.
THE INCENTIVE IS A REBATE OF THE STATE'S PORTION OF SALES AND USE TAX ON QUALIFIED EXPENDITURES.
THE DURATION OF THE INCENTIVE CAN BE AWARDED FOR ANYWHERE FROM ONE TO FIVE YEARS.
TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE INCENTIVE, THE BUSINESS MUST BE NOMINATED BY THE MUNICIPALITY, MUST HAVE A MINIMUM OF $40,000 IN CAPITAL INVESTMENT, MUST CREATE OR RETAIN JOBS, A PERCENTAGE OF WHICH MUST BE HELD BY INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED, VETERANS OR RESIDENTS OF THE ENTERPRISE ZONE, AND MUST MAINTAIN THE JOBS FOR THE DURATION OF THE DESIGNATION PERIOD OR AT LEAST THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TAX BENEFIT IS RECEIVED.
THE CITY'S ONLY ROLE IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT AN ORDINANCE NOMINATING A BUSINESS FOR THE PROGRAM.
THE CITY DOES NOT CONTROL ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR THE AWARD.
DAVE AND BUSTER'S CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS IS LOCATED AT 1221 SOUTH BELTLINE ROAD HERE IN COPPELL.
THIS IS A MAP TO SHOW YOU VISUALLY WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED HERE IN COPPELL.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE BLUE OUTLINE PARCEL, THEY ARE IN THE BUILDING THAT IS FARTHEST EAST AND CLOSEST TO BELTLINE ROAD.
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS PARCEL IS THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THIS PARCEL IS DAVE AND BUSTER'S HAS REQUESTED THE CITY TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND PASS AN ORDINANCE TO NOMINATE THEM FOR THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM.
DAVE AND BUSTER'S IS INVESTING $8 MILLION TO MODERNIZE AND ENHANCE THEIR CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS AND BUSINESS OPERATIONS OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
THEY WILL BE ADDING 10 JOBS FOR A TOTAL OF 297 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.
THERE IS NO IMPACT TO THE CITY'S FINANCES.
THE CITY IS NOT BEING ASKED FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES.
THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE RAMBLER ON SATURDAY, AUGUST 15TH, WAS POSTED ON THE CITY'S BULLETIN BOARD AND PUBLISHED ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE.
THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND PASSING THIS ORDINANCE SATISFIES ALL OF THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE TEXAS ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM AND FOR THIS NOMINATION FROM THE CITY.
SO WITH THAT, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
COULD YOU GO OVER THE NUMBER OF APPLICANTS THAT WE GET TO NOMINATE AND THE PERIOD THAT WE GET TO DO THAT OVER, PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY.
BASED ON THE SIZE OF OUR COMMUNITY, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED SIX NOMINATIONS PER BIENNIUM.
WE HAVE NOT HAD A NOMINATION SINCE 2011, SO WE DO NOT SEE THESE REQUESTS ALL THE TIME.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I THINK IT'S WONDERFUL THAT DAVE AND BUSTER'S LOCATES THEIR HEADQUARTERS HERE IN TOWN.
WE'VE HAD REALLY A GREAT DEAL OF SUCCESS IN ATTRACTING CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS WITH WELL BUILT AND NEXT TERRAIN.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST BEEN FANTASTIC.
AND I'M SURE I'M FORGETTING SOME, BUT IT'S REALLY EXCITING THAT WE'RE ATTRACTING THAT MANY CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS.
AND SO TO ME, I THINK THERE'S A WONDERFUL WAY TO SUPPORT ONE OF THEM AND DAVE AND BUSTER'S, A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN.
AND IF THEY'VE REQUESTED THIS, THERE'S NO FINANCIAL IMPACT ON THE CITY,
[02:35:01]
BUT IT IS EXCELLENT RECOGNITION OF THEM.THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR GETTING US UP ON GETTING US UP TO SPEED ON THIS.
OBVIOUSLY, MOST OF US, I DON'T THINK WE'RE ON COUNCIL THE LAST TIME SOMEONE WAS NOMINATED.
SO I REALLY HOPE THAT MORE OF OUR HEADQUARTERS WILL TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND CHOOSE TO REINVEST AND USE THIS AS A TOOL TO HELP FUEL THAT REINVESTMENT.
SO I'M HOPING THAT BY BRINGING THIS UP, NOT ONLY IS IT GREAT FOR DAVE AND BUSTER'S, I LOVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPORT ONE OF OUR LOCAL HEADQUARTER BUSINESSES, BUT I REALLY HOPE THAT OTHER PEOPLE WILL SEE WHAT THEY'RE DOING AND TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PROGRAM AND LOVE TO SUPPORT THEM IN THE FUTURE.
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD TO US.
AND THANK YOU FOR REPRESENTING DAVE AND BUSTER'S AND JUST BEING ABLE TO HAVE THIS BE A POSITIVE THING FOR THEM.
SO DEFINITELY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
MY COUNCILMEMBER NEVELS KIND OF STOLE MY THUNDER.
BUT MS. HURLEY, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR REJUVENATING THIS INITIATIVE.
THANKS TO DAVE AND BUSTER'S FOR BEING NOMINATED.
I HOPE WE SPREAD THIS MESSAGE AND WE HAVE THOSE SIX CORPORATIONS, EVERY BIENNIUM NOMINATED.
AND I KNOW OUR CHAMBER PRESIDENT, ROBIN, SHE USUALLY LISTENS IN.
ROBIN, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, FROM A CHAMBER STANDPOINT, YOU SHOULD BE PUSHING MORE OF YOUR MEMBERS TO BE DOING THIS.
COUNCIL, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM MINDY? SEEING NONE, DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE TO SAY ANYTHING? I'M NOT SURE.
IF YOU NEED TO SPEAK, COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.
I'VE JUST BEEN CHASTISED FOR CATCHING OFF GUARD, SO I APOLOGIZE.
I'M A VICE PRESIDENT OF TAX FOR DAVE AND BUSTER'S.
AND MY RESIDENCE ADDRESS IS 4540 PAINT ROCK DRIVE, PROSPER, TEXAS.
BUT MY BUSINESS ADDRESS IS 1221 SOUTH BELTLINE ROAD.
YEAH, WE DO HAVE RESIDENCES HERE THAT WOULD CUT YOUR COMMUTE DOWN.
AND DAVE AND BUSTER'S IS A GREAT COMPANY.
IT'S A GREAT COMPANY TO WORK FOR.
AND WE ARE VERY CHARITABLE IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT AND RECEIVE THIS NOMINATION.
AND IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR ME, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE.
COUNCIL, ANY QUESTIONS? IT TOOK A LONG TIME TO GET YOU GUYS HERE.
WE'RE JUST PLEASED THAT YOU'RE HERE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR RELOCATION HERE.
AND WE'VE BEEN HERE ABOUT FOUR YEARS, FOUR AND A HALF YEARS.
AND IT'S DEFINITELY AN UPGRADE.
WE DO HAVE ONE APPLICANT OR ONE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, SIR.
GOOD EVENING, MR. MAYOR, MR. CITY MANAGER, ESTEEMED MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
I RESIDE AT 521 ANDERSON AVENUE IN COPPELL WITH MY BREATHTAKINGLY BEAUTIFUL WIFE AND OUR TWO HEARTBREAKINGLY HANDSOME SONS.
I CHUCKLED WHEN I READ THE MEMO REGARDING THIS ITEM.
THE PART THAT AMUSED ME WAS ABOUT DAVE AND BUSTER'S PLANS TO ADD 10 NEW EMPLOYEES AT THEIR HEADQUARTERS IN COPPELL.
I HOPE ALL THE PEOPLE WHO APPLY FOR THOSE JOBS HAVE BETTER EXPERIENCES THAN I'VE HAD THIS YEAR.
IN MARCH, I APPLIED FOR A POSITION AT DAVE AND BUSTER'S CALLED MANAGER OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS AND EMPLOYER BRAND.
OTHER THAN AN AUTOMATED RESPONSE THAT ARRIVED WITHIN SECONDS, I HEARD NOTHING FROM DAVE AND BUSTER'S ABOUT THIS APPLICATION.
THAT SAME JOB WAS REPOSTED IN JUNE, SO I APPLIED FOR IT AGAIN.
TWO DAYS LATER, I RECEIVED A FORM LETTER THAT SAID DAVE AND BUSTER'S HAD DECIDED AFTER CAREFUL REVIEW TO MOVE FORWARD WITH OTHER CANDIDATES.
NEARLY SIX WEEKS LATER, I RECEIVED AN EMAIL FROM INDEED.COM THAT SAID I COULD BE A STRONG MATCH FOR AN OPEN POSITION AT DAVE AND BUSTER'S.
THAT POSITION, MANAGER OF INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS AND EMPLOYER BRAND, THE SAME JOB I HAD ALREADY APPLIED FOR TWICE.
AT THAT POINT, I ASKED MY FACEBOOK FRIENDS IF I KNEW ANYBODY WHO KNOWS ANYBODY THAT WORKS AT THE DAVE AND BUSTER'S HEADQUARTERS.
TWO OF MY FRIENDS TOLD ME ABOUT A COPPELL RESIDENT WHO'S THERE IN AN HR CAPACITY, AND ONE OF THEM GAVE ME HER WORK EMAIL ADDRESS, WHICH ALLOWED ME TO FORWARD THE MESSAGE FROM
[02:40:01]
INDEED AND REITERATE MY INTEREST.SO, COUNCILMEMBERS, I STRONGLY ENCOURAGE YOU TO APPROVE THIS ORDINANCE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY TO PROVIDE DAVE AND BUSTER'S WITH TAX ABATEMENTS, TAX DEFERRALS, TAX INCENTIVES, AND TAX REFUNDS.
BECAUSE IF THE CITY DOES PROVIDE ANY OF THESE BENEFITS TO DAVE AND BUSTER'S, THAT WOULD GIVE ME AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO OVER ANY SUCH AGREEMENT WITH A FINE TOOTH COMB DESPITE MY LACK OF HAIR AND PUBLISH AN EXCRUCIATINGLY DETAILED REPORT.
I VOW TO OBSESSIVELY SCRUTINIZE ANY SUCH DEAL.
OBVIOUSLY, I CAN'T MAKE DAVE AND BUSTER'S HIRE ME, BUT I CAN ABSOLUTELY MAKE DAVE AND BUSTER'S WISH THEY HAD HIRED ME.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND ATTENTION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS TONIGHT.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. HURLEY.
MS. HURLEY, FROM YOUR INTERNAL PRESENTATION, MY UNDERSTANDING IS ANY OF THE INCENTIVES THAT DAVE AND BUSTER'S WOULD GET IS FROM STATE OR FEDERAL AND NOT THE CITY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THIS INCENTIVE THAT THEY ARE APPLYING FOR IS A REBATE OF THE STATE'S PORTION OF SALES AND USE TAX.
IN THE ORDINANCE, IT DOES LIST POTENTIAL INCENTIVES THAT THE CITY OFFERS TO BUSINESSES, BUT THEY HAVE NOT REQUESTED THOSE FROM THE CITY.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COUNCIL OR QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE, I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION.
WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 9 AS STATED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCILMEMBER NEVELS? ALL IN FAVOR? WALKER, CARROLL, NEVELS, PREMKUMAR, MATHEW, HILL.
[10. 2026-0328 Consider approval of a maximum proposed tax rate of $0.441166 for the 2026 tax year and to set the Public Hearings on the budget and proposed tax rate for the regularly scheduled City Council Meeting on September 8, 2026, at 7:30 p.m. Taxpayer Impact Statement: Fiscal Year (FY)- Median-Valued Tax Rate Per Estimated (Tax Year (TY)) Homestead $100 of Value Property Tax Bill FY 2025-2026 Adopted 2025 (TY 2025) $585,944 Tax Rate: $2,607.31 .444976 FY 2026-2027 2026 No New (TY 2026) $605,309 Revenue Tax Rate: $2,553.68 .421881 FY 2026-2027 Proposed 2026 tax (TY 2026) $605,309 rate based on the $2,670.42 proposed budget for FY 2026-27: .441166]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.IS A MAXIMUM PROPOSE TAX RATE OF 0.441166 FOR THE 2026.
YOU ARE LATE IN GETTING UP THERE.
SO I HAVE TO READ ALL THESE NUMBERS.
TAX YEAR AND TO SET THE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE BUDGET AND PROPOSE TAX RATE FOR THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
ON SEPTEMBER 8TH, 2026, THAT'S 7 30 PM.
THE TAXPAYER IMPACT STATEMENT FROM MS. KIM TIEN.
IMPACT STATEMENT IS REQUIRED NOW UNDER THE LEGISLATION PASSED LAST YEAR. THIS STATEMENT SHOWS THAT THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME FOR THE 25-26 FISCAL YEAR VERSUS THE 26-27 FISCAL YEAR IT WAS $585,944.
THE MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME, HOUSE, HOMESTEAD. THANK YOU.
TAXABLE VALUE OF A HOMESTEAD IS $605,309.
THE TAX BILL FOR THIS HOME IN THE 25-26 FISCAL YEAR WAS $2,607.31 AND UNDER THE PROPOSED OR THE MAXIMUM TAX RATE THAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IT WOULD BE $2,670.42.
AND SO MAYOR AND COUNCIL THANK YOU. THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF A MAXIMUM TAX RATE FOR THE 26 TAX YEAR WHICH IS THE 26-27 FISCAL YEAR.
THE ITEM IS PROPOSING A MAXIMUM TAX RATE OF .441166 CENTS.
THIS IS A RECORD VOTE WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE TEXAS TAX CODE SECTION 26.06 REGARDLESS OF THE TAX RATE BEING PROPOSED.
THIS RECORD VOTE IS REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO VOTE ON THE TAX RATE THAT IS PUBLISHED IN OUR NEWSPAPER OF RECORD AND THAT PUBLICATION MUST OCCUR AT LEAST FIVE DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE.
THE NOTICES WILL BE PUBLISHED ON AUGUST 29TH IN THE RAMBLER AND WE ALSO PUBLISH IT IN THE GAZETTE ON AUGUST 28TH.
THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE MEETING TO ADOPT BOTH THE BUDGET AND THE TAX RATE IS SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 8TH OF 2026. THIS ITEM IS NOT A VOTE ON THE TAX RATE OR A VOTE TO ADOPT THE TAX RATE.
IT IS ONLY A VOTE TO PUBLICIZE THE TAX RATE WILL NOT EXCEED .441166 CENTS. AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS. TIEN? COUNCILMEMBER CARROLL. I WAS GOING TO MAKE A MOTION.
THAT'S FINE. OKAY I WOULD MOVE
[02:45:04]
TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 10.THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO I HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER HILL. I HAVE COMMENTS.
COUNCILMEMBER MATHEW. THANK YOU MAYOR. THE MAXIMUM PROPOSED TAX RATE OF .441166 INCLUDES A 6.75 INCREASE IN THE NET OPERATING BUDGET WHILE THE NET REVENUES ARE PROJECTED TO INCREASE BY ONLY 4.01 COMPARED TO THE PREVIOUS PHYSICAL YEAR.
WE ARE A CITY THAT ENCOURAGES THE HEALTH AND WELLNESS OF OUR RESIDENTS AND OUR RESIDENTS MAKE MEMBERSHIP FEES DUE TO THIS FACILITY AT THE CORE LOCATION. MANY WORKING FAMILIES, PARENTS AND YOUNG PEOPLE RELY ON EVENING HOURS TO EXERCISE AND PARTICIPATE IN THE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES.
I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF REDUCING THE CORE OPERATING HOURS FROM 10 PM TO 8 PM. BEFORE REDUCING THE HOURS AND SERVICE TO OUR RESIDENTS I BELIEVE WE SHOULD LOOK CAREFULLY AT THE OVERALL 6.75 GROWTH IN THE OPERATING EXPENDITURES AND IDENTIFY THE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE SAVINGS.
WITH THE EXPENDITURES GROWING FASTER THAN REVENUES WE NEED TO PRIORITIZE ESSENTIAL SERVICES, COMMUNITY FACILITIES AND RESPONSIBLE LONG-TERM SPENDING.
THIS MAXIMUM PROPOSAL IS FOR THE DRAFT BUDGET THAT WE THE STAFF RECOMMENDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU UNDERSTAND THAT THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE APPROPRIATE ON THE SEPTEMBER THE 8TH MEETING? YEAH THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT MAY I HAVE THAT MOTION AGAIN COUNCILMEMBER CARROLL? OF COURSE YOU MAY.
I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 10. ALL RIGHT AND SECONDED BY COUNCILMEMBER HILL. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR.
WALKER, CARROLL, NEVELS, PREMKUMAR, HILL OPPOSED.
[11. 2026-0352 Consider approving authorization to submit proposed Legislation to the 90th Texas State Regular Legislative Session for Creation of a Special District for a portion of Old Town District and adjacent Commercial and Industrial zoned areas for Entertainment and Economic Development; providing for creation of the District, providing for the creation of a Board of Directors and Governance; providing for Powers and Duties; providing for Annexation or Disannexation to the District; providing for No Additional Taxes or Assessments; providing for Dissolution; Authorizing City Manager or designee to coordinate with City’s Legislative Representation in the Texas House and Senate to assist and support the passage and adoption.]
NUMBER 11 IS CONSIDER APPROVING AUTHORIZATION TO SUBMIT PROPOSED LEGISLATION TO THE 90TH TEXAS STATE REGULAR LEGISLATIVE SESSION FOR CREATION OF A SPECIAL DISTRICT FOR A PORTION OF THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT AND ADJACENT COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONED AREAS FOR ENTERTAINMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF THE DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR THE CREATION OF A BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND GOVERNANCE PROVIDING FOR POWERS AND DUTIES PROVIDING FOR ANNEXATION OR DIS ANNEXATION TO THE DISTRICT PROVIDING FOR NO ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS PROVIDING FOR DISSOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THE CITY'S LEGISLATIVE REPRESENTATIVE IN THE TEXAS HOUSE AND SENATE TO ASSIST AND SUPPORT THE PASSAGE AND ADOPTION.MISS WILLIS YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN WHAT I JUST READ? YES I WILL. GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL.
TONIGHT I AM BRINGING BACK THE PROPOSED SPECIAL DISTRICT LEGISLATION FOR OLD TOWN. THIS IS THE NEXT DECISION POINT AND A PROCESS WE'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH TOGETHER SINCE FEBRUARY.
TONIGHT'S ACTION IS TO CONSIDER AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION FOR THE CONSIDERATION DURING THE 90TH TEXAS LEGISLATIVE SESSION THAT WILL BEGIN IN JANUARY. BEFORE I GET TO THAT ACTION I WANT TO BRIEFLY BRING TOGETHER WHERE WE HAVE BEEN WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTION HAS PRODUCED AND HOW THAT DIRECTION IS REFLECTED IN THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
OLD TOWN IS ALREADY A BELOVED SOURCE OF ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMUNITY WITHIN THE CITY OF COPPELL. IT IS WHERE WE HOST MANY OF OUR SPECIAL EVENTS. IT'S HOME TO THE FARMER'S MARKET THE ARTS CENTER AND THE SENIOR AND COMMUNITY CENTER. WE HAVE LOCAL RESTAURANTS AND SMALL BUSINESSES. WE HAVE OUR ONLY INTERACTIVE FOUNTAIN A PLAYGROUND AND A PUBLIC GATHERING SPACE. WE ARE NOT STARTING WITH THE PLACE THAT NEEDS TO BE CREATED. OLD TOWN ALREADY HAS AN IDENTITY AND OUR COMMUNITY ALREADY USES AND ENJOYS IT. AT THE SAME TIME BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND COUNCIL HAVE RECOGNIZED THE OPPORTUNITY AND EXPRESSED THE DESIRE FOR OLD TOWN TO CONTINUE GROWING AND EVOLVING. WE HAVE HEARD THAT CONSISTENTLY THROUGH COMMUNITY INPUT OVER SEVERAL YEARS.
THE SPECIAL DISTRICT LEGISLATION IS A TOOL THAT COULD HELP OLD TOWN ENTER THE NEXT PHASE OF GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT WHILE RESPONDING TO THE COMMUNITY INPUT WE HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT WHAT PEOPLE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IN THIS AREA. IT CREATES A GEOGRAPHICALLY FOCUSED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TOOL INTENDED TO SUPPORT ENTERTAINMENT OPPORTUNITIES PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND CONTINUED INVESTMENT IN OLD TOWN.
THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU ESTABLISHES THE OVERALL FRAMEWORK NECESSARY FOR CREATION AND OPERATION OF THE DISTRICT. IT ESTABLISHES THE DISTRICT'S PURPOSE BOARD AND GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE POWER AND DUTIES AND THE TYPES OF ELIGIBLE IMPROVEMENTS THE DISTRICT COULD SUPPORT. IT
[02:50:01]
INCLUDES A GEOGRAPHICALLY LIMITED ALCOHOL BEVERAGE AUTHORITY COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED AS WELL AS PROVISIONS RELATED TO ANNEXATION AND DE-ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE DISTRICT. THE LEGISLATION ALSO PROVIDES FOR NO ADDITIONAL TAXES OR ASSESSMENTS AND ESTABLISHES A MECHANISM FOR DISSOLUTION.BUT ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IS THE AMOUNT OF LOCAL AUTHORITY THAT REMAINS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. THE INTENT OF THE FRAMEWORK IS NOT TO SIMPLY ESTABLISH A DISTRICT IT IS TO CREATE THE AUTHORITY FOR THE DISTRICT WHILE PRESERVING LOCAL DECISION-MAKING AUTHORITY FOR THIS COUNCIL AND FUTURE COUNCILS. THAT OVERSIGHT IS BUILT THROUGHOUT THE LEGISLATION.
COUNCIL RETAINS SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITY THROUGHOUT THE PROPOSED DISTRICT FRAMEWORK CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERSIGHT WE'VE DISCUSSED THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS. COUNCIL REMAINS INVOLVED IN BOARD APPOINTMENTS AND GOVERNANCE AND RETAINS FINAL APPROVAL OVER DISTRICT PROJECTS AND EXPENDITURES INCLUDING HOW THEY ARE PLANNED FUNDED AND CARRIED OUT.
COUNCIL ALSO RETAINS A FINAL APPROVAL OVER ANNEXATION AND DE-ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY AND AUTHORITY RELATED TO THE DISSOLUTION OF THE DISTRICT.
THAT LOCAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS TO FUTURE CITY COUNCILS AS WELL.
THE FRAMEWORK ALLOWS THE DISTRICT TO EVOLVE OVER TIME THROUGH COUNCIL ACTION RATHER THAN REQUIRING THE CITY TO RETURN TO THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE AS NEEDS CHANGE.
AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE ABILITY FOR COUNCIL TO MODIFY THE PERMANENT BOARD STRUCTURE AND TO APPROVE THE FUTURE ANNEXATION AND DIS-ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY. ULTIMATELY THE FRAMEWORKS GIVES THE DISTRICT THE TOOLS TO ACCOMPLISH ITS PURPOSE WHILE PRESERVING CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY OVER THE SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS ABOUT HOW THOSE TOOLS ARE USED.
COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED DIRECTION REGARDING THE IDENTITY OF THE DISTRICT.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES THE OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT.
THE NAME TIES THE DISTRICT DIRECTLY TO OLD TOWN AND REFLECTS THE PURPOSE ESTABLISHED IN THE LEGISLATION. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IDENTIFIES ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE AS ENTERTAINMENT AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FOR THE BENEFIT OF COPPELL RESIDENTS. AS THE LEGISLATION WAS DEVELOPED FROM COUNCIL'S FRAMEWORK DIRECTION THERE ARE TWO AREAS WHERE WHAT YOU SEE TONIGHT DIFFERS SOMEWHAT FROM WHAT COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED.
THE GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARY AND THE INITIAL BOARD COMPOSITION.
I WILL START WITH THE BOUNDARY. THE PROPOSED LEGISLATIVE BOUNDARY IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE GEOGRAPHICAL DIRECTION COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED. THE YELLOW BOUNDARY REFLECTS COUNCIL'S INITIAL DIRECTION AND THE RED BOUNDARY REFLECTS WHAT IS PROPOSED IN THE LEGISLATION.
DURING LEGISLATIVE DRAFTING THE BOUNDARY HAD TO BE ESTABLISHED USING EXACT EXISTING PLOTTING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES.
IN THREE LOCATIONS CITY'S INITIAL BOUNDARY INCLUDED ONLY PART OF AN EXISTING PLOT.
BECAUSE THOSE PLOTS COULD NOT BE DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF ESTABLISHING THE LEGISLATIVE BOUNDARY THE ENTIRETY OF THESE PROPERTIES IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSED MAP.
TWO OF THESE AREAS WHICH ARE THE TWO ON MY LEFT INCLUDE ADDITIONAL COMMERCIAL PROPERTY GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTY ALREADY CONTEMPLATED FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT.
THE THIRD IS THE PLOT CONTAINING THE SENIOR AND COMMUNITY CENTER.
BECAUSE THAT PLOT CANNOT BE DIVIDED FOR PURPOSES OF THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY THE ENTIRE SENIOR CENTER PROPERTY IS INCLUDED.
I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THAT INCLUSION IN THE DISTRICT DOES NOT CHANGE THE SENIOR CENTER'S EXISTING USE OWNERSHIP ZONING OR OPERATION. ANY FUTURE CHANGE TO THAT PROPERTY WOULD REMAIN SUBJECT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION AND THE NORMAL PROCESSES.
INCLUDING THE SENIOR CENTER WITHIN THE DISTRICT COULD PROVIDE ANOTHER MECHANISM FOR INVESTING IN THE FACILITY AND POTENTIALLY OFFSET ELIGIBLE EXPENDITURES THAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SUPPORTED BY THE GENERAL FUND. THE LEGISLATION IS PRESENTED TONIGHT ALSO ALLOWS THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO GROW AND CHANGE WITH THE COMMUNITY OVER TIME.
IT PROVIDES MECHANISMS FOR ANNEXATION AND DE-ANNEXATION AND A PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGE WOULD FIRST REQUIRE DISTRICT BOARD ACTION AND THEN FINAL APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL.
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ESTABLISHES BOTH THE TEMPORARY BOARD AND INITIAL PERMANENT BOARD STRUCTURE. DURING THE INITIAL FORMATION THE TEMPORARY BOARD CONSISTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND MAYOR.
ITS ROLE IS TO SERVE DURING FORMATION AND ESTABLISH THE PROCESS FOR SELECTION AND APPOINTMENT OF THE PERMANENT DIRECTORS.
THE PROPOSED INITIAL BOARD HAS SEVEN DIRECTORS SERVING TWO-YEAR TERMS. FIVE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT, AND ONE BUSINESS PROPERTY OWNER.
THE INCLUSION OF RESIDENTIAL REPRESENTATIVE AND A BUSINESS REPRESENTATIVE FROM OLD TOWN WAS PART OF THE LEGISLATIVE STRATEGY RECOMMENDED BY OUR LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS.
PROVIDING STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTATION FROM WITHIN THE DISTRICT WHILE MAINTAINING CITY COUNCIL REPRESENTATION ON THE BOARD.
IMPORTANTLY THIS IS JUST THE INITIAL PERMANENT BOARD STRUCTURE.
THE LEGISLATION PROVIDES A MECHANISM FOR THAT STRUCTURE TO BE CHANGED IN THE FUTURE THROUGH CITY COUNCIL ACTION.
SO SIMILAR TO THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY COUNCIL IS ESTABLISHING A WORKABLE INITIAL FRAMEWORK WHILE PRESERVING LOCAL FLEXIBILITY FOR FUTURE COUNCILS TO ADJUST THE GOVERNANCE STRUCTURE AS THE DISTRICT DEVELOPS.
[02:55:01]
THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION ALSO INCLUDES THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE AUTHORITY COUNCIL PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED. THE AUTHORITY ADDRESSES THE SALE, CONSUMPTION, AND DISTRIBUTION OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AND IS GEOGRAPHICALLY LIMITED TO THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.BUSINESSES REMAIN SUBJECT TO APPLICABLE TEXAS ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE COMMISSION LICENSING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS BRINGS US BACK TO THE THREE-PHASE APPROACH THAT COUNCIL WAS SHOWN IN THE SPECIAL DISTRICT TOOL WAS FIRST INTRODUCED.
CURRENTLY WE ARE IN PHASE ONE WHICH IS ESTABLISHING THE FRAMEWORK.
THE ACTION BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WOULD COMPLETE THE FRAMEWORK AND MOVE US INTO PHASE TWO OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
THIS INCLUDES ALL THINGS THAT COME WITH THE LEGISLATION, SO BILL FILING, TESTIMONY, EVERYTHING THAT HAPPENS IN AUSTIN. LEGISLATIVE AUTHORIZATION IS NOT GUARANTEED AND A DECISION TONIGHT ALSO DOES NOT GUARANTEE THAT THAT WILL HAPPEN.
IF IT IS ULTIMATELY APPROVED BY THE LEGISLATURE, THEN PHASE THREE WE BEGIN AND THAT IS AFTER THE SESSION AND WHEN THE IMPLEMENTATION WOULD BEGIN.
THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL BUDGET IMPACT ANTICIPATED FROM TONIGHT'S ACTION. THE PROPOSED FISCAL YEAR BUDGET INCLUDES $10,000 FOR LEGISLATIVE TRAVEL CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS YEARS, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED TO ACCOMMODATE TRAVEL ASSOCIATED WITH TESTIMONY AND LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY.
THE OLD TOWN ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT WOULD GIVE THE CITY ANOTHER TOOL TO SUPPORT THE CONTINUED GROWTH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN AREA OUR COMMUNITY ALREADY VALUES.
AT THE SAME TIME, THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION PRESERVES CITY COUNCIL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT.
TONIGHT'S ACTION IS THE NEXT STEP BUT NOT THE FINAL STEP.
IT AUTHORIZES US TO TAKE THE FRAMEWORK COUNCIL HAS DEVELOPED TO THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS AND ADVOCATE FOR THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE THIS TOOL FOR COMPEL.
THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COUNCIL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MAYOR PRO TEM? THANK YOU MAYOR. SO I WAS CURIOUS WITH RESPECT TO THE ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION AND SALES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, WHAT IS PROPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAFTING OF THE LEGISLATION REGARDING THAT SPECIFIC? DO YOU WANT TO HAVE AT IT? WE'LL ASK THE AUTHOR HERE.
THERE YOU GO. WHAT WE'VE ANTICIPATED IS THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO PASS AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALLOW SAY A BREWERY, BREW PUB, A MICRO DISTILLERY.
RIGHT NOW WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION TO HOLD THAT UNDER THIS LEGISLATION THAT I'VE PROPOSED THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD BY ORDINANCE ALLOW THOSE USES WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND THEN WHOEVER THE OWNER OR TENANT THAT WOULD OCCUPY A PLACE IN THE DISTRICT ITSELF WOULD HAVE TO GET THE RIGHT AND CORRECT LICENSE FROM THE STATE AND OTHERWISE QUALIFY. SO IT WOULD GIVE US BASICALLY LOCAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THOSE USES.
THERE HAD BEEN SOME PRIOR DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ABILITY TO CARRY AN OPEN CONTAINER WITHIN THE DISTRICT. IS THAT GOING TO BE ALLOWED BY THE LEGISLATION AS PROPOSED? IT WOULD ALLOW YOU AS THE COUNCIL TO MAKE THAT DISTINCTION AND CHOICE AND RESTRICTION.
OKAY AND THAT, THANKS BOB, THAT'S REALLY WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET DOWN TO. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION THAT WE INTEND TO PROPOSE BE PASSED, HOW BROAD IS THE GRANT OF OR THE ALLOWANCE FOR ALCOHOL SALES? WHAT TYPE OF ALCOHOL SALES? HOW IS THAT GOING TO BE WRITTEN? BECAUSE THE DEVIL'S ALWAYS IN THE DETAILS WHEN IT COMES TO TO WRITING THE LAW. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE WOULD HAVE THE SALE DISTRIBUTION OF WOULD BE THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT'S ALLOWED TO HAVE ALCOHOL WOULD BE A LOCAL DECISION.
ITS DISTRIBUTION INTO THE CITY WOULD BE A LOCAL DECISION AND THEN THE ACTUAL CONSUMPTION OF THE ALCOHOL IF IT WAS OUTSIDE THE BUSINESS OPEN CARRY. OPEN CONTAINER. OPEN CONTAINER ISSUES WOULD ALL BE LOCALLY CONTROLLED BUT THE LICENSING WOULD REMAIN IN AUSTIN AS FAR AS THE THINGS YOU NEED TO DO TO GET THE LICENSE.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS TRY TO DRAFT THE LEGISLATION AS IF WE HAD AN ELECTION TO ALLOW A BREW PUB OR MICRO DISTILLERY WHICH RIGHT NOW ARE NOT PERMITTED.
BUT WOULD OKAY BUT WOULD IF THIS IF IF THE LAWS PASSED IS WORDED WOULD WE HAVE WOULD WOULD WE ALREADY HAVE ALLOWED A WINE BAR OR A BREW PUB OR A MICRO DISTILLERY OR WOULD THAT STILL HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL? STILL HAVE TO COME TO COUNCIL. OKAY SO AND AND THERE'S NO CONCERN THAT BY HAVING A BROADER SWATH THAT
[03:00:02]
REFERENCES JUST THE THE SALE AND DISTRIBUTION AND SERVICE OF ALCOHOL THAT THAT WOULD ENABLE ANY KIND OF LIKE A FULL BAR THAT'S LESS THAN A NOT WITHOUT YOUR LEGISLATIVE APPROVAL.OKAY SO WE WOULD HAVE TO MEET AND THEN WOULD WE BE AMENDING WOULD WOULD WE BE ACTING ENACTING AN ORDINANCE WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THIS LAW OR WOULD WE BE AMENDING THE LAW? WE WOULD BE ACTUALLY WE'D HAVE OUR OWN LITTLE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE THAT WOULD BE FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE DISTRICT TO ALLOW A BREWERY TO ALLOW A MICRO DISTILLERY A WINE BAR OR A BEER GARDEN. OKAY OKAY I HAVE SOME COMMENTS BUT I CAN WAIT TILL THAT OTHERS HAVE ASKED THEIR QUESTION.
KELLY EARLIER YOU MENTIONED THIS TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR TNI BUDGET THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE SPENT FOR ANY LEGISLATIVE YEAR BECAUSE STAFF AND MAYOR AND COUNCIL WE REGULARLY GO TO AUSTIN TO LOBBY FOR EVERYTHING THAT WE WANT.
THAT'S GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS PARTICULAR LEGISLATION RIGHT? I MEAN WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THIS WITHIN THAT TEN THOUSAND DOLLAR BUDGET.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR KELLY? COUNCILMEMBER MATHEW. THANK YOU MAYOR. DO WE HAVE A SPONSOR FOR THIS LEGISLATION? SO THE NEXT STEPS AFTER TONIGHT WOULD BE TO SEND THIS TO OUR LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS AND THEY ARE WORKING WITH OUR REPRESENTATIVES AND SENATORS OR SENATOR SINGULAR. CURRENTLY OUR REPRESENTATIVE IS UP FOR ELECTION THIS YEAR SO WHILE IT IS CASSANDRA GARCIA HERNANDEZ RIGHT NOW THAT POTENTIALLY COULD CHANGE BUT SHE IS STILL WORKING WITH THAT OFFICE AND AS WELL AS SENATOR PARKER SO THEY WOULD BE OUR SPONSORS.
YOU MENTIONED WE HAVE A CONSULTANT SO THERE WOULD BE A FEE FOR THE CONSULTANT.
SO YES WE DO HAVE TWO LEGISLATIVE CONSULTANTS THAT WE HAVE USED FREQUENTLY SO WE USE THEM BEFORE THIS AND WE USE THEM FOR ALL OF OUR LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AT THE STATE. OKAY THANK YOU.
THANK YOU MAYOR. THIS IS A FOLLOW-UP TO WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MATHEW SAID.
THESE CONSULTANTS ARE COVERED UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF ALL THE OTHER INITIATIVES THAT THAT WE USE SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE ARE GOING TO PAY THEM INCREMENTAL FOR THIS PARTICULAR DECISION.
CORRECT. THIS IS INCLUDED. YOU MET ONE A COUPLE COUNCILMEMBERS AGO. JENNIFER.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE I WILL ACCEPT A MOTION.
COUNCILMEMBER NEVELS. THANK YOU MAYOR. I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 11 AS PRESENTED. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILMEMBER HINAJOSA-SMITH. IS IT ANY DISCUSSION? I JUST HAD SOME COMMENTS IF I COULD. MAYOR PRO TEM.
OKAY THANK YOU MAYOR. I JUST I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PROVIDES EITHER THIS COUNCIL OR FUTURE COUNCIL'S FLEXIBILITY TO RESPOND TO THE MARKET AND TO ENHANCE AS BEST WE CAN THE OFFERINGS IN OLD TOWN.
BUT WHEN I RECEIVED THE POLL HAVING NOT LOOKED AT IT FOR FOR SOME TIME YOU KNOW WHEN YOU DRILL DOWN INTO IT I MEAN THERE IS CERTAINLY A MAJORITY OF PEOPLE IN FAVOR OF BEER AND WINE SERVICE IN OLD TOWN BUT THERE ALSO IS PRETTY MUCH A NEAR MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT WANT A FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT.
AND I THINK SINCE THE POLLS CONDUCTED MY IMPRESSION TOTALLY UNDOCUMENTED IS THAT MORE FAMILIES NOW RESIDE IN OLD TOWN THAN DID AT THE TIME THE POLL WAS CONDUCTED.
SO I WANT TO BE VERY CAREFUL THAT WE PRESERVE A FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT IN OLD TOWN AND THAT THIS NOT LEAD TO THE OPEN CARRY OF BEVERAGES OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD LEAD SOMEONE TO CONCLUDE MAYBE THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE THEIR KIDS OUT IN THAT ENVIRONMENT.
AND AND I ALSO JUST ANOTHER POINT LOOKING AT THE POLL THERE WERE THERE WAS A PRETTY STRONG MAJORITY OF PEOPLE THAT DIDN'T WANT ACTIVITY AFTER NINE O'CLOCK.
NOW THERE WERE SOME THAT DID BUT I IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WERE PROBABLY MORE THAT DID NOT AND VIRGINIA LAWSON WROTE IN NOT TOO LONG AGO REALLY COMPLAINING ABOUT THE PROSPECT THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT IT CREATES THE FOUNDATION THAT THIS COUNCIL OR FUTURE COUNCILS CAN BUILD UPON TO ENHANCE THE OFFERINGS IN
[03:05:01]
OLD TOWN AND AND WE'LL BE VOTING FOR IT TONIGHT BUT I I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF YOU KNOW PURE BAR DOWN THERE OR OPEN CARRY OF LIQUOR DOWN THERE OR ANYTHING THAT OUR COMMUNITY AS IT EXISTS AT THE TIME THAT DECISION IS MADE WHETHER IT'S NEXT YEAR OR FIVE YEARS FROM NOW FIELDS IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH A FAMILY FRIENDLY ENVIRONMENT.THANK YOU ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM COUNCIL SEEING NONE ALL IN FAVOR WALKER, HINOJOSA SMITH, CARROLL, NEVELS PREMKUMAR MATHEW, HILL NONE OPPOSED.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH THAT WAS I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DOING A LOT OF WORK ON THIS.
[12. City Manager Reports, Project Updates, Future Agendas, and Direction from Work Session ]
YES AND THERE IS MORE TO COME SO STAY TUNED.ALL RIGHT ITEM NUMBER 12 IS THE CITY MANAGER REPORTS WITH PROJECT UPDATES FUTURE AGENDAS AND DIRECTION FROM WORK SESSION.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL JUST A FEW UPDATES.
LOOK AND HOW THE WORK IS COMPLETE.
THE PROJECT IS BEING CLOSED OUT.
STILL SOME SMALL THINGS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF.
STORM DRAIN HAS BEEN INSTALLED AND THE CONTRACTOR IS STARTING TO WORK ON THE SUBGRADE PREPARATIONS.
THE JUSTICE CENTER REMODEL THE CONTRACTOR IS WORKING ON PUNCH LIST ITEMS FOR THE INTERIOR REMODEL AND IS WORKING ON FINISHING THE ADDITION.
FIRE STATION THREE THE SLAB HAS BEEN POURED AND WORK ON THE STORM SHELTER AND ERECTING STEEL IS COMING UP.
ARBOR ARBOR I CAN'T TALK ARBOR BROOK CHANNEL.
THE SANITARY SEWER LINE IS COMPLETE AND THE CONTRACTOR IS INSTALLING THE STORM DRAIN AND HUNTERWOOD PARK BANK STABILIZATION.
[13. Mayor and Council Reports on Recent and Upcoming Events.]
THE CONTRACTOR IS BEGINNING TO GAVE ME ON BASKET INSTALLATION THIS WEEK.MAYOR THAT CONCLUDES MY REPORT.
ITEM NUMBER 13 ARE THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS ON RECENT AND UPCOMING EVENTS.
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS APPLICATIONS ARE CURRENTLY OPEN AND WILL BE ACCEPTED THROUGH THE FOURTH 4 P.M. ON FRIDAY SEPTEMBER 4TH 2026.
I ENCOURAGE ALL CITIZENS THAT ARE INTERESTED IN SERVING THE COMMUNITY TO SUBMIT YOUR APPLICATION SOON.
FOR MORE INFORMATION PLEASE VISIT COPPELL.GOV BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS.
THE NORTH TEXAS COMMISSION WILL BE HOLDING AN INFRASTRUCTURE SUMMIT AT THE END OF AUGUST BRINGING TOGETHER REGIONAL LEADERS FOR TIMELY AND FORWARD LOOKING DISCUSSIONS ON INFRASTRUCTURE PRIORITIES SHAPING THE FUTURE OF NORTH TEXAS.
I AND SEVERAL OF MY COLLEAGUES ON THE COUNCIL LOOK FORWARD TO ENCOURAGING THESE IMPORTANT CONVERSATIONS TO REPRESENT COPPELL'S NEEDS AND GAIN VALUABLE INSIGHTS THAT WILL HELP INFORM OUR COMMUNITY OUR OUR COMMUNITY'S CONTINUED GROWTH.
LASTLY THE TEAM AT TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE WILL BE HOLDING THEIR ANNUAL BUSINESS MEETING AT THE COPPELL ARTS CENTER ON SEPTEMBER 10TH BEGINNING AT 6 P.M.
THE FEATURED SPEAKER WILL BE CHRIS MCLAUGHLIN CEO OF THE DFW AIRPORT.
THE EVENING WILL BE THEMED WITH A VERY DEFINITE AIRPORT I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO CALL IT.
NO IT'S MORE THAN A MOTIF IT'S GOING TO BE THANK YOU IT'S GOING TO BE AT AIRCRAFT OR AEROSPACE ATMOSPHERE.
UM THE TML THIS IS TML REGION 13 WHICH ENCOMPASSES NINE COUNTIES FROM NORTH TEXAS INCLUDING OVER 130 CITIES SO PLEASE CHECK OUT THE THE EMAIL THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED FROM TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE AND MAKE YOUR RESERVATION SOON.
WHO'S THE DIRECTOR OF THAT OF THAT REGION? THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION 13 IS YOURS TRULY.
[14. Council Committee Reports concerning items of community involvement with no Council action or deliberation permitted.]
KEVIN ITEM NUMBER 14 COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS CONCERNING ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT WITH NO COUNCIL ACTION OR DELIBERATION.WE HAVE A REPORT FROM THE DALLAS REGIONAL MOBILITY COALITION FROM COUNCIL MEMBER DON CARROLL.
THANK YOU MAYOR IT'S ONLY BEEN A COUPLE OF MONTHS SINCE I REPORTED OUT SO WE'VE ONLY MET ONCE SINCE THEN.
SENATOR ROYCE WEST FROM SENATE DISTRICT 23 JOINED US TO TALK ABOUT ALL THINGS TRANSPORTATION.
HE'S THE VICE CHAIR FOR THE SENATE TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE AND HE CERTAINLY HIGHLIGHTED SOME OF THE THINGS THEY WILL BE DISCUSSING DURING THIS NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION.
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES CERTAINLY CONTINUE TO EVOLVE AND HOW THE STATE RESPONDS TO THOSE IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE IMPORTANT.
HE DID POINT OUT THAT FIVE OUT OF THE NINE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE ACTUALLY FROM NORTH TEXAS SO WE'RE HOPING THAT ACTUALLY IS TO OUR BENEFIT.
UM I DID BRING UP THE CONCEPT THE IDEA OF E-BIKES.
I ASKED HIM ABOUT E-BIKES AND WHAT WHAT HE'S HEARING SO FAR AND HE'S HE HE HIS RESPONSE WAS HE'S HEARING NOTHING SO I I THINK BY THE FACT THAT I BROUGHT IT UP THOUGH I THINK IT IS NOW ON HIS STAFF'S RADAR.
IN FACT I NOTICED IN HIS COMMUNICATION EMAIL A FEW DAYS LATER IT WAS HIGHLIGHTED THAT E-BIKES ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED AND EVERYTHING.
SO AND I TOLD HIM I SAID I THINK THIS IS MORE THIS MAY BE
[03:10:01]
MORE OF A MUNICIPAL ISSUE BUT WE NEED THE WE NEED THE TOOLS TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE AND WE DON'T HAVE WORDS A LITTLE BIT HAMSTRUNG FROM THE STATE LEVEL TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE.SO HOPEFULLY BETWEEN TAN AND ROYCE WE WILL BE ABLE TO MAKE SOME HEADWAY ON THAT.
UM WE CONTINUE TO CERTAINLY BE UH CONTINUE TO HAVE A LOT OF GROWTH IN THIS AREA AND THAT CERTAINLY HAS HURT THE CONGESTION.
YOU WILL HEAR THINGS AT TIMES SUCH AS THERE ARE NOT FARM TO MARKET ROADS THERE'S NOT MONEY FOR FARM TO MARKET ROADS IN THIS AREA AND A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH THERE ARE SO MANY LARGE PROJECTS FOR THE NORTH TEXAS AREA THEY CROWD OUT A LOT OF THE SMALLER PROJECTS AND THE FACT IS IF WE COULD IF WE HAD MORE TOOLS IN OUR TOOLBOX FROM A TRANSPORTATION STANDPOINT MEANING MANAGED LANES OR TOLL ROADS OR THINGS LIKE THAT THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE A WAY TO FREE UP SOME DOLLARS BECAUSE YOU'RE ABLE TO GO AND FINANCE SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS LONG TERM AND THEREFORE YOU KNOW IF HOUSTON HAS A 9 BILLION DOLLAR PROJECT AND AUSTIN HAS A 6 BILLION DOLLAR PROJECT THAT'S 15 BILLION DOLLARS THAT'S BEING TIED UP OUT OF THE UTP.
WELL IF YOU WERE ABLE TO FINANCE THAT YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO SPEND 15 BILLION DOLLARS YOU WOULD FINANCE A LOT OF IT YOU WOULD ONLY SPEND PART OF THAT AND YOU COULD FREE UP MONEY FOR OTHER PROJECTS BUT AT THE MOMENT WE'RE BEING RESTRICTED A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT TOOLS WE HAVE TO DEVELOP IN THE GROWING AREA SO AS WE GO INTO THE NEXT LEGISLATIVE SESSION THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON CERTAINLY LOCAL CONTROL CONTINUING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE NEED FOR OUR REGION AND GIVING US THE TOOLS TO ACTUALLY ADDRESS THAT THERE'S ALWAYS LITTLE THINGS LIKE YOU KNOW THE SALES TAX ON AUTOMOBILES YOU WOULD THINK THAT ALL GOES TOWARD TRANSPORTATION BUT IT DOES NOT IT A BIG CHUNK OF IT GOES TO THE GENERAL FUND AND SO DIVERTING YOU KNOW DIVERTING FUNDS LIKE THAT THAT WERE ARE SPECIFIC TO TRANSPORTATION THEY SHOULD BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT ALWAYS WORKS COMING OUT OF AUSTIN SO THAT'S SORT OF MY REPORT FOR THIS MONTH THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND GOOD JOB ON INFLUENCING SENATOR WEST IT GOT IN THE EMAIL AT LEAST HEY THAT'S WE GOT A LITTLE PROGRESS THAT'S A PLUS ITEM NUMBER 15 ARE PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS CONCERNING ITEMS OF COMMUNITY INTEREST WITH NO COUNCIL ACTION OR DELIBERATION PERMITTED DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENTS SEEING NONE THERE WAS NO ACTION FROM THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WE ARE GOING TO DEFER OUR ONE WORK SESSION ITEM TO A FUTURE COUNCIL MEETING AS THERE WAS NO URGENCY ON THAT SO WITH THAT BEING SAID THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THIS COUNCIL WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 9 48.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.