[VI.1. Discussion on a referral from the City Council to review and make recommendations on the Parkland Dedication / Fee-in Lieu of ordinance requirements.]

WE'RE DONE. AND WE CAN MOVE ON. MOVE ON. WE CAN MOVE ON TO OUR WORKSHOP, WHICH IS WORKSHOP ITEM ONE, DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE IN LIEU OF ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. AND.

I'VE ASKED THE PARKS AND REC DIRECTOR TO TO ATTEND THIS MEETING SO THAT HE COULD HAVE SOME OF HIS VALUABLE FEEDBACK, BECAUSE HE KNOWS A LOT ABOUT THIS. AND WOULD YOU, JORDAN, AS THE STAFF PERSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GIVE US YOUR STAFF REPORT ON THIS, OR DO YOU WANT TO DEFER TO. I WILL OPEN IT UP A LITTLE BIT. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION I, GIVEN MY TENURE HERE, HAS BEEN PRETTY SHORT. I'VE NOT HAD THE TIME TO SEE THE BACK HISTORY OF THIS ORDINANCE AND ALL OF THE COMMENTS. I KNOW IT'S BEEN ON THE AGENDA A LOT OVER, I WANT TO SAY, THE LAST 6 TO 8 MONTHS. AND SO I DON'T HAVE MUCH OF THE BACK HISTORY OF IT. HOWEVER, I DO KNOW THAT IT IS A VERY DELICATE TOPIC, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING INTO VERY CLOSELY. AND THIS IS WHERE I'M GOING TO APPOINT TO DAVID, BECAUSE I MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT PARKS IS A DEPARTMENT, HAS NOT SEEN THIS ORDINANCE AND HAD THE CHANCE AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE ARE SOME. YES, SIR. OH, IF YOU'RE DONE, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY SOMETHING. YOU'RE DONE. SO MY ONLY THING IS THIS IS PARK SPECIALTY. I DO NOT HAVE THE IN-DEPTH KNOWLEDGE TO DO THE IN LIEU GIVEN STATE LAW.

WHAT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED IN COURT AND WHAT HASN'T. SO I'M GOING TO. HANDLE THIS FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS. LET ME GIVE YOU A HISTORICAL STANDPOINT. OF THE COUNCIL. AND THAT IS. WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S TOO MANY PEOPLE THAT ARE PAYING A FEE RATHER THAN DEDICATING PARKLAND. AND IT IS A TRICKY POINT BECAUSE YOU RAISED THE FEE TOO MUCH, WILL GET SUED FOR TRYING. CARETAKING. AND I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO TALK TO OUR REAL ESTATE GUY ABOUT. AND GETTING PERMISSION TO DO THAT. I ASKED COUNCIL AND OF COURSE KEVIN VOLUNTEERED TO. YOU TALK TO HIM OR YOU CAN TALK TO ANYBODY YOU WANT. THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE A A CURRENT REAL ESTATE AGENT. SO. YEAH. SO MAY I JUMP IN? WHAT WE DID IN FLOWER MOUND WAS FAIR MARKET VALUE, WHICH DIDN'T MEAN THAT THE CITY HAD TO HAVE A REAL ESTATE AGENT, BUT THAT WE DID USE A VARIETY OF THOSE TO COME UP WITH THE MEDIAN. WHAT'S THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR? SO FEE IN LIEU WOULD BE X, WHAT IT'S WORTH. AND THEN AND WE WENT WITH THAT WHICH STOOD I'M SEEING THAT THERE WAS A I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE WELL YEAH. YEAH SURE SURE. KATHY SENT THIS TO ME TODAY. AND SO I'M IF YOU WOULD PASS THAT DOWN PASSING THAT OUT FOR EVERYONE. JUST SO MUCH STUFF. AND I HAVE SHARED THIS WITH DAVID AND I'M WONDERING, DAVID, IF YOU WOULD ADDRESS IF YOU COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND ADDRESS FOR US, THE, THE CONSIDERATIONS, THE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS ABOUT MAKING WORKING ON THIS ORDINANCE, THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT LEGAL SHOULD BE HANDLING OR YOUR DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE HANDLING WITH LEGAL BEFORE WE BEFORE WE HANDLE IT. YES. THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. PLEASURE TO FORMALLY MAKE THE ACQUAINTANCE OF THE COMMITTEE HERE THIS EVENING. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MY NAME IS DAVE MONTGOMERY SCOTT. I AM NOT LONGER MUCH LONGER IN TENURE THAN JORDAN IS. I'M IN MY THIRD MONTH WHILE SHE'S IN HER THIRD WEEK. BUT YEAH, SO I'VE NEVER SEEN THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE.

I'VE NOT HAD OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. AND I HONESTLY DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT PRAC MEMBERS HAVE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. AND GIVEN THE NEXUS IN TERMS OF WHERE THOSE DOLLARS OUGHT TO GO, I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA FOR THEM TO REVIEW IT. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION. SO THE THE WRITINGS OF JOHN CROMPTON. SO JOHN CROMPTON IS A PROFESSOR EMERITUS WHO HAS WORKED ALONG WITH TEXAS A&M. HE ACTUALLY WAS

[00:25:01]

AN ELECTED OFFICIAL FOR THE CITY OF COLLEGE STATION FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS. AND THIS IS AN AREA PARTICULARLY THAT HE WRITES ABOUT OFTEN. AND HE BASICALLY POINTS OUT THAT THERE ARE ESSENTIALLY FOUR APPROACHES THAT MOST CITIES TAKE IN. THEY'RE DEVELOPING AN ORDINANCE FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION, ONE OF THOSE FAIR MARKET VALUE IS A CONCEPT THAT COMES IN. HIS CONCERN WITH THAT IS THAT IF THE FIVE OF YOU WERE TO GO OUT AND GET APPRAISALS FOR PROPERTY, WE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE FIVE DIFFERENT VALUES ASSIGNED TO A PARTICULAR PROPERTY THAT CAN WORK ADVANTAGEOUSLY OR DISADVANTAGEOUSLY TO A COMMUNITY. SO YOU'VE GOT TO BE SUPER CAREFUL ABOUT HOW YOU DO THAT. ANOTHER METHOD IS WHAT THEY CALL NATIONAL STANDARDS, AND THAT IS PEOPLE OFTEN REFER TO NHPA NATIONAL RECREATION PARKS ASSOCIATION AND SAY THEY'VE SET UP GUIDELINES. HOWEVER, YOU'LL FIND THAT NHPA HASN'T CHANGED THOSE GUIDELINES IN SEVERAL DECADES. AND IN FACT, WHAT THEY NOW SUGGEST IS, IN FACT, WHAT THEY SAY IS IT'S IMPERATIVE THAT EVERY COMMUNITY DEVELOP ITS OWN STANDARDS FOR RECREATION, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE. YOU CAN'T RELY ON NATIONAL. A SECOND IS THAT PEOPLE SIMPLY USE ASPIRATIONAL GOALS, AND THAT IS THEY SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT SIX ACRES OF PARKLAND PER 1000 PEOPLE. WE WANT IT TO BE 20. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE AIMING FOR. AND HERE'S HOW WE'RE GOING TO GO AND GET IT. THE PROBLEM IS YOU YOU PUT AN UNLAWFUL BURDEN UPON DEVELOPERS DOING THAT. ANOTHER MECHANISM IS PEER CITIES DOING A SURVEY OF OF AREA CITIES OR EVEN CITIES THAT YOU THINK ARE MUCH LIKE YOUR OWN, AND DEVELOPING THOSE STANDARDS AND SORT OF SAYING, OKAY, WE'LL FALL IN THE MEDIAN SOMEWHERE. THE PROBLEM WITH THAT, TOO, IS THE SUPREME COURT ACTUALLY HAS RULED ON THE ISSUE OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN A CASE CALLED DOLAN. AND WHAT IN FACT THEY'VE SAID IS WE OUGHT TO BE USING THE STANDARD OF ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. AND REALLY, WHAT THAT MEANS IS YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT YOUR PRESENT STANDARDS ARE NOW, NOT ASPIRATIONAL STANDARDS, NOT STANDARDS SOMETIME AGO, BUT WHAT THE REALITY EXISTS IN YOUR COMMUNITY TODAY. AND THAT'S WHAT YOUR PARKLAND DEDICATION FEES NEED TO BE DETERMINED ON.

WHAT IS THE LEVEL OF SERVICE AND THEN HOW YOU DETERMINE, BASED ON DEVELOPMENT, DWELLING UNITS, MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, IT CAN ONLY BE LINKED, ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT, ON YOUR LOCAL REALITY. THAT'S IT. IT'S NOT US AS COMPARED TO LEANDER.

US AS COMPARED TO AUSTIN. US AS COMPARED TO CEDAR PARK BECAUSE THEIR REALITY IS NOT THE SAME AS OUR OWN. THAT'S JUST A QUESTION. ARE YOU? YOU'RE PROBABLY THE GUY TO ASK UNTIL WE YOU GET BRAD HERE. BUT. WHAT ABOUT JUST REMOVING THE IN LIEU? IF YOU'RE GOING TO DEVELOP, YOU GOTTA DO WELL. YOU'VE GOT TO DEDICATE THIS PART. HERE WE GO AGAIN THE SAME. THE ISSUE IS STILL THE SAME. AND THAT IS WHATEVER YOU'RE DEMANDING OF DEVELOPERS. IT HAS TO BE BASED IN LOCAL REALITY. SO WHATEVER YOUR STATE. SO YOU CAN'T GO IN AND SAY IF LOCAL REALITY IS, IS THAT WE'VE GOT SIX ACRES, YOU KNOW, PER 1000 RESIDENTS OR WHATEVER, WE DON'T GET TO GO INTO A DEVELOPER AND SAY, YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US 50 ACRES OR YOU'RE GOING TO GIVE US 80 ACRES, UNLESS WE CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LOCAL STANDARD. SO WHETHER YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKLAND DEDICATION OR WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT IN LIEU FEES, THEY THEY ALL HAVE TO BE BASED IN SPECIFIC ANALYSIS. THAT'S AGAIN ROOTED IN THE LOCAL REALITY. BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, WHY HAVE WHY OFFER THEM IN LIEU FEES? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE CAN'T JUST REQUIRE AN APARTMENT. WELL, ACTUALLY THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. AND HERE'S THE RESPONSE TO THAT ONE. IF IF THERE IS REALLY GOOD PARKLAND THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO GIVE YOU AND IT IS DEVELOPABLE AND AND IT IS CONSISTENT WITH COMMUNITY NEEDS, THEN BY ALL MEANS TAKE THE LAND DEVELOPED SO THAT WHAT THEY PRESENT TO YOU ULTIMATELY IS A PARK READY TO OPERATE. THAT'S WHAT WE DID. NOW, IN SOME INSTANCES, ONCE DEVELOPERS START CHOPPING THINGS UP, THERE'S NOT A LOT LEFT OR THERE'S NOT VERY GOOD QUALITY LAND THAT'S LEFT. AND AND THAT'S OKAY. THE BENEFIT OF SOMETIMES TAKING IN LIEU FEES ARE WE HAVE PARCELS THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED NOW. AND WHAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DEVELOP THOSE IS DOLLARS. SO TAKING IN LIEU FEES AGAIN SO LONG AS THOSE ARE REASONABLY BASED AND WE'RE NOT BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY THE DEVELOPER, IT TOTALLY MAKES SENSE IN SOME INSTANCES TO TAKE DOLLARS. WE HAVE PROPERTY UP ON ON DAWN. WE HAVE PROPERTY LITERALLY ACROSS THE PARKING LOT. WE'VE GOT PARCELS ALL OVER THE COMMUNITY THAT WITH CASH, SOME OF THEM CAN BE DEVELOPED, BUT IT TAKES DOLLARS TO DO THAT.

[00:30:05]

SO SO THERE'S A BALANCE TO BE STRUCK THERE. IT OFFERS YOU A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY. YEAH.

DO YOU THINK THAT IF THE IN LIEU OPTION WAS NOT VERY APPEALING, THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET DEVELOPERS TO RESTRUCTURE THE DESIGN OF THE DEVELOPMENTS SO THAT THEY CAN CREATE PARK LAND AGAIN? I MEAN, THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO US. WE DEVELOP ONCE WE DETERMINE WHAT PRESENT REALITY IS, THEN WE CAN DICTATE WHAT EITHER AGAIN, PARKLAND DEDICATION OR IN LIEU FEES, WHAT BENEFITS THE COMMUNITY WITHOUT US BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF OR TRYING TO UNNECESSARILY TAKE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DEVELOPERS. AND WE DON'T HAVE LIKE OTHER COMMUNITIES, WE DON'T ALWAYS HAVE A DEVELOPMENT. SO IN MY HISTORY, WHAT WE DID WAS IF YOU HAD A DEVELOPMENT LIKE A, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, LIKE A FIREFLY OR WHATEVER, THEN WE WOULD WE WOULD GO IN AS THE COMMITTEE AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY ITSELF TO DETERMINE, YES, THIS COULD BE A PARK. AND, AND SO INSTEAD OF JUST SAYING, HERE'S SOME DIRT YOU'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT TO US. WE WE ASK THEM TO DEVELOP A TYPE OF WORK. AND WE HAD DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARK AND WHAT IT WOULD COST. AND SO FOR EACH OF US, A POCKET PARK, BECAUSE THAT'S ALL THAT YOU COULD HAVE IN THIS COMMUNITY, OR IT WAS A REGIONAL PARK. AND THEN WE ALSO BECAUSE WE WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR TRAIL SYSTEMS, WE ALSO ASKED THAT THEY CONNECT THE TRAILS SO PARK TO PARK, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPMENT. HERE YOU HAVE THINGS LIKE YOU HAD BROWN HOMES AND WATERLOO COMING IN AND DOING ALL THESE INDIVIDUAL HOUSES. SO THERE'S NOTHING THEY THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THEY JUST BUILT A BUNCH OF HOUSES AND LEFT. AND SO UNLESS AND UNLESS THEY'RE ALL DEVELOPMENTS, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE THAT CONSISTENCY EITHER. SO BUT LIKE WATERLOO AND YEAH THAT'S THAT'S ALL THEY BUILT AN EXISTING SUBDIVISION. YES THEY DID. THIS WOULD GENERALLY BE FOR NEW FOR ANYTHING NEW. YEAH. GOING FORWARD. YEAH. SO IS THIS ONLY FOR PUBLIC PARKS OR WOULD IT BE PRIVATE PARKS. SO PO HOA PARKS. NO. AND THIS IS I JUST KEEP THINGS GOING SMOOTHLY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU GET THE PERMISSION TO SOME THIS CHAIR. SURE. GET THE FLOOR. BECAUSE FRANK'S BEEN WANTING TO ASK A QUESTION SO QUITE A WHILE NOW AND AND BUT JUST TO GET THE MEETINGS TO.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE EXCEPTION TO A COUNCIL MEMBER, BUT I'M FINE WITH YOU GOING OUT WITH YOUR CONVERSATION, SIR. SO YOU'RE ON AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED. SO I WAS JUST ASKING. I THINK I WAS ASKING, YES. SO, SO IN TERMS OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IN LIEU FEES, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT COMES TO THE CITY EXCLUSIVELY. YEAH. SO THE PO IS IS PRIVATE.

THEY'RE COMPLETELY INDEPENDENT OF OUR OPERATIONS. YEAH. THANK. YOU. THE CHAIR WAS. NO. GO RIGHT AHEAD. MY ISSUE HAS TO DO FUNDAMENTALLY WITH THE CONCEPT THAT PARKLAND DEDICATION HAS TO SOMEHOW BE DOAND I UNDERSTAND, DOLAN, THERE'S THREE OF US HERE, MAYBE FOUR THAT GET DOLAN, WHICH IS ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE. YOU CANNOT APPLY IMPACT FEE PROCESS TO PARKLAND DEDICATION.

HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT THE OTHER CITIES HAVE. AND YOU TELL ME. WE HAVE ADOPTED A STANDARD OF X NUMBER OF ACRES PER FOLKS THAT WILL USE IT. NOW, IS THAT A GOOD STANDARD? IS THAT THE NATIONAL STANDARD? IT'S A STANDARD. AND. I WAS GOING TO SAY WHAT FOR EVERY DEVELOPMENT OR. WELL, NO. MY POINT IS THAT HOW DO YOU TAKE AN EXCEPTION TO DOLAN FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION? IT'S DIFFERENT. DOLAN IS FUNDAMENTALLY THE BASIS FOR IMPACT FEES. OKAY. PARKLAND DEDICATION IS NOT AN IMPACT FEE LIKE MATHEMATICAL PROCESS. WHAT I'M SUGGESTING IS AND I'M NOT GETTING THE NOD. SO WE'LL SEE. MOM SUGGEST. AND I'M SEEING A BUNCH OF THIS AND YOU HAVE TWO CITIES HAVE ADOPTED A STANDARD FOR PARKLAND, WHICH IS FUNDAMENTALLY FOR SUBDIVISIONS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE. SO WHEN SO EVERY SUBDIVISION THAT COMES IN, THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THE PARKLAND BASED ON THEIR IMPACT. AND EVERYBODY HAS THE SAME STANDARD. OKAY. EVERY DEVELOPMENT. YEAH. AND THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BECAUSE IT CAN'T BE AN IMPACT FEE BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PARKLAND PLAN TO GET NUMBERS FOR. IN OTHER WORDS,

[00:35:04]

WHEN YOU DO IMPACT FEES FOR WATER AND WASTEWATER, YOU DETERMINE WHAT THE FUTURE COSTS ARE FOR TEN YEARS. AND YOU CHARGE FOLKS, THAT'S NOT PARKLAND DEDICATION, BUT IT'S STILL ROUGHLY PROPORTIONATE. AND THOSE NUMBERS CAN BE RUN OKAY. I QUESTION TWO QUESTIONS, ACTUALLY. YES, MA'AM. IT IN SOME OF OUR DEVELOPMENTS, WE HAVE ALLOWED PRIVATE HOA PARKS TO BE THE PARKLAND DEDICATION. AND IN SOME WE HAVE TAKEN PUBLIC TAKEN LAND AND SAY IT'S GOING TO BE A PUBLIC PARK. IS IT EQUALLY ACCEPTABLE TYPICALLY IN IN THE PARK WORLD AND PARK BUSINESS TO HAVE TO HAVE THAT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES? IS IT OKAY TO SAY WE WERE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL THE ACREAGE IT'S GOING TO BE JUST FOR THE USE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT AND JUST FOR THE USE OF THIS HOA IS THAT IS ACCEPTABLE AS SAYING WE'RE GOING TO INSTEAD OF MAKING IT PRIVATE FOR THE HOA, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT PUBLIC FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS. IS IS THERE ANY KIND OF IS THERE ANYTHING THAT ADDRESSES THAT IN THE THE ACTUALLY, I'VE SEEN IT GO BOTH WAYS. AND THE CHALLENGE BECOMES ONE OF, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU START LIMITING ACCESS, I MEAN, YOU'VE SORT OF GOT THAT REALITY IN THIS COMMUNITY NOW WHERE THE PO HAS 350 ACRES OF PARKLAND THAT'S ACCESSIBLE BY LITERALLY, I READ THE FIGURE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 70 AND 90% OF THE COMMUNITY. BUT I THINK THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IS THAT SMALLER FIGURE IS GOING TO CHANGE OVER TIME BECAUSE YOU HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE ELBOW. AND SO YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, WHAT DO YOU DO FOR THOSE FOLKS? BECAUSE ANYBODY WHO'S EVEN IN DEVELOPMENTS WHERE THE LAND IS PRIVATE, PARKLAND IS PRIVATE, THEY GET FULL ACCESS TO CITY AMENITIES, CITY FACILITIES, ETC. BUT IT DOESN'T RUN IN THE SAME DIRECTION. AND SO IF YOU'RE SORT OF CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS BEST FOR THE BROADER COMMUNITY, THEN I THINK YOU HAVE TO TAKE THOSE THINGS UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT I'VE SEEN COMMUNITIES DO IT BOTH WAYS. WELL, WE'VE DONE IT BOTH WAYS IN THE COMMUNITY. IT'S LIKE A CASE BY CASE BASIS. AND IN THE CASE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, TURN BACK RANCH, WHICH WAS A RECENT DEVELOPMENT, WE TOOK SOME PUBLIC AND SOME WAS PRIVATE FOR THE HOA, BUT BRINGING THE COMP PLAN INTO THIS, THE THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA HAVE SAID IN THE EXISTING COMP PLAN, WHICH HAS BEEN ONGOING FOR A FEW YEARS, AND I THINK THAT THEY'VE ALSO EXPRESSED THE SAME IDEA IN THE IN THEIR COMMENTS FOR THE NEW COMP PLAN RELATIVE TO PARKS IS THEY DON'T WANT PARKS THAT PEOPLE FROM OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF LAGO VISTA TO ATTEND. SO IF WE HAVE A PUBLIC PARK PUBLICLY OWNED BY THE CITY, THEN THAT THAT THAT DOES MAKE IT SO THAT OTHERS FROM OTHER CITIES CAN COME. PUBLIC IS PUBLIC. AND SO IT'S KIND OF A. KIND OF A CHALLENGE BECAUSE IT CAN BE FOR THE MEMBERS OF THE HOA ONLY, FOR EXAMPLE, PRIVATE, OR IF IT'S IF IT'S DEEDED TO THE CITY, THEN IT'S PUBLICLY VERY PUBLIC. AND I THINK THE RESIDENTS ARE SAYING THEY WOULD LIKE SOMETHING IN BETWEEN THAT THEY WOULD LIKE. IN FACT, THEY ACTUALLY EXPRESSED IN THE EXISTING COMP PLAN. THEY ACTUALLY SAID THEY WOULD LIKE IT FOR ALL OF THE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA, BUT THEY WOULD LIKE PEOPLE TO HAVE TO SHOW LIKE A DRIVER'S LICENSE. AND THEY EVEN SPECIFIED A DRIVER'S LICENSE TO SHOW THAT THEY WERE RESIDENTS OF LAGO VISTA. SO HOW DO YOU ACCOMPLISH THAT? HOW DO YOU HOW DO YOU ACCOMPLISH? HOW DO YOU REGULATE AND ENFORCE THAT? YEAH, I CAN IT'S CHALLENGING. YOU DO IT LIKE THE POA DOES IT CURRENTLY. AND THAT IS YOU HAVE PARK ATTENDANTS WHO ARE STANDING AT THE GATE. THAT GETS A CHALLENGING AND BE COSTLY TO ENFORCE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS. AND SO YOU I MEAN, YOU SORT OF GOT TO ASK YOURSELF, HOW MANY FOLKS ARE TRAVELING INTO LAGO VISTA TO PARKS? DOES IT DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO INCUR THE COSTS AND THE HEADACHES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT KIND OF THAT LEVEL OF REGULATION? OR DO YOU JUST SAY IT'S A PUBLIC PARK? BECAUSE THE REALITY IS, EVEN, YOU KNOW, IN PRIVATE AREAS, FOLKS IN POA ARE COMPLAINING THAT FOLKS ARE STILL MANAGING TO GET IN THERE WHEN IT'S NOT BEING REGULATED. AND THAT'S JUST GOING TO HAPPEN WHERE THERE'S A WILL, THERE'S A WAY. I THINK THAT'S LARGELY TRUE. SO YOU HAVE TO ASK YOURSELF, DOES IT MAKE SENSE TO PUSH IN THAT DIRECTION? IS THERE A REAL AND SERIOUS NEED FOR DOING THAT? BECAUSE AGAIN, YOU INCUR COSTS AND YOU INCUR EFFORT WHEN YOU TRY TO REGULATE LIKE THAT. WELL, JONESTOWN HAD

[00:40:04]

THEY HAD A PUBLIC PUBLIC OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ACCESS PARK, TO THE TO THE LAKE. AND THEY HAD A LOT OF TROUBLE AND A LOT OF EXPENSE INVOLVED WITH THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHERE PEOPLE HERE ARE KIND OF REFERRING TO LIKE THAT IS THE THAT IS, THEY HAD PEOPLE COMING FROM BY THE BUSLOAD TO ACCESS THE LAKEFRONT. I THINK THAT WAS A PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCE IN A PARTICULAR TIME IN HISTORY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT. IT WAS IT WAS MID COVID. LAKE LEVELS WERE LOW EVERYWHERE, AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE FEW PLACES WHERE PEOPLE COULD GET ACCESS. AND SO PEOPLE CAME EVERYWHERE FROM ACCESS TO DO THAT, DO YOU DERIVE PRINCIPLES BASED ON EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES? GENERALLY SPEAKING, NO YOU DON'T, I WOULD DISAGREE, I DON'T THINK THAT'S EXCEPTIONAL. RUB A YEAH. I WOULD NOT SPEND A LOT OF TIME ON TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO DO THAT FOR THOSE CITIZENS, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK IT'S LEGAL. AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S IF IT'S A PUBLIC PARK, IT'S A PUBLIC PARK. EVERYBODY GETS TO COME. RIGHT? EXACTLY. SO I WOULD SAY, YEAH, THAT TAKE THAT OUT OF YOUR FACTORY. YOU MAY HAVE TO CHARGE FEES LIKE SAN MARCOS DOES. SAN MARCOS CHARGES FEES ON THE WEEKENDS TO GET TO THEIR CITY PARKS ON THE RIVER BECAUSE THEY'RE OVERRUN. THE I THINK THAT'S THAT'S AN ACCESS TO THE RIVER FEE. RIGHT ON THE ON THROUGH CITY PARK PROPERTY, RIGHT? YEAH. THE I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION IS IT WAS WHAT'S THE BLEND OF PARKS THAT WE WANT? I PERSONALLY THINK THAT NEW DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD AND SHOULD PROVIDE AMENITIES FOR THEIR RESIDENTS. I THINK WE NEED SOME PUBLIC AREAS, ESPECIALLY FOR THINGS THAT WOULD BE DEFINITELY BE AN ADVANTAGE FOR ALL. IT WOULD BE TOO UNIQUE FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL SUBDIVISION TO DO AND AND REALIZE THAT WE MAY NOT WANT CERTAIN AMENITIES BECAUSE WE MAY BE OVERRUN. WE MAY NOT WANT A PUBLIC BOAT RAMP. LET PEOPLE GO USE THE COUNTY PARK FOR THAT. YOU KNOW, THAT'S CAN. MADAM CHAIR. RACHEL, I WILL SAY THAT'S 100% ACCURATE, WHICH IS WHY IN THE TURN BACK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT'S LITERALLY A PRIMITIVE. IT IS SPELLED OUT PRIMITIVE P2 PARK BECAUSE IT WAS VERY OBVIOUS THAT PEOPLE AND THEY SPOKE ABOUT IT DID NOT WANT A PUBLIC PARK, DID NOT WANT A PUBLIC BOAT RAMP, DID NOT WANT SOME TYPE OF PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN TURN BACK AND THE CITY TO CHARGE FEES. DID NOT WANT ANY OF THAT. THAT WAS VERY EXPLICIT. AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S IN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. YEAH. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IS CLEAR FROM THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT THIS IS THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF LEGALITIES AROUND THIS THAT REALLY NEED TO BE ADDRESSED. AND I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT THE PARKS DEPARTMENT HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS, I THINK THAT WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS TURN THIS AT THIS POINT OVER TO THE PARKS DEPARTMENT FOR THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT THIS ORDINANCE AND ALSO. THE, THE, THE CITY. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DEVELOPMENT SERVICES OR THE CITY OVERALL IS WORKING ON REDOING ALL OF THE ORDINANCES. SO I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO, AT THIS POINT, START PATCHWORKING EXISTING ORDINANCES WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE REDOING ALL OF THE ORDINANCES. ROB. YEAH, AND I THINK, BOTH STAFF AND PARK MIGHT BENEFIT FROM SOME A PARTICULAR. POLICY STATEMENT FROM YOU GUYS. AND THAT IS HERE YOU GO. GO WORK ON IT. WE WANT THIS BUT NOT THAT. WHATEVER IT IS, YOU KNOW WE WANT WE WANT TO GET RID OF THE IN LIEU OF THIS WHATEVER. BUT. AND I BUT I WOULD GIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT OF GUIDANCE BEFORE JUST SAYING OKAY HERE YOU GO. FRANK. ON THAT FRONT ONE, ONE ISSUE THAT'S RELATED TO DOLAN THAT WE MAY WANT TO DO, BECAUSE YOU GOT A HUGE STAFF, RIGHT, THAT CAN TAKE ON ALL THESE PARKS YOU'RE GOING TO GET FROM ALL THREE OF US, SOON TO BE FIVE OF US. YES. SOME OF THE CITIES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE PAPER HAVE A TWO TIER. FEE IN LIEU OF MONEY FOR THE LAND AND MAINTENANCE MONEY. YEAH, AND I WOULD, MADAM

[00:45:05]

CHAIR, I WOULD THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO GET GUIDANCE, I THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE THAT THEY MIGHT WANT TO LOOK INTO. WELL, WHILE WE WHILE WE CAN GIVE GUIDANCE, I THINK THAT THE PRIMARY GUIDANCE SHOULD COME FROM THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT, NOT ONLY I MEAN FROM PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COMMITTEE AND CERTAINLY TAKE OUR OUR GUIDANCE INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT THAT'S KIND OF THEIR THING TOO. SO KIND OF AS A AS A PARTING WORDS, AS FAR AS, AS, AS FAR AS TURNING THIS OVER, SAYING THAT WE ARE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THIS FOR TWO REASONS. WE'RE GOING TO HOLD OFF ON IT BECAUSE THE CITY IS REDOING ALL OF THEIR ORDINANCES, AND WE DON'T WANT TO COME UP WITH A TEMPORARY LITTLE PATCHWORK ONTO THE EXISTING ORDINANCES THAT THAT MAY. MAY GO AWAY WHEN WHEN THE REST OF THE ORDINANCES ARE REVIEWED. AND SECOND, WE SHOULD TURN IT OVER TO PARKS BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THEIR THING. AND THEY HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. JIM. YEAH, I JUST I HAVE A QUESTION. I'M AS NEW AS YOU TWO ARE. MORE NEW BECAUSE I'VE NEVER DONE THIS SORT OF THING BEFORE. BUT I JUST NOTICED IN THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT TALKS ABOUT INITIATING DIRECTION TO INITIATE A NEXUS STUDY. SO WHAT'S THE NEXUS STUDY AND WHO INITIATES THAT? DO WE NEED THAT? DO WE NOT NEED IT? IT'S IT WAS MENTIONED. SO SOMEBODY THINKS COUNCILOR ROBERTS THIS CAME FROM HIM. THERE'S AN OPINION OUT THERE THAT WE NEED THAT AND IT AND YOU MENTIONED I GUESS I HAVE TWO THINGS YOU MENTIONED SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS TO SET ASIDE PARK LAND. IF I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY, THERE'S YOU MENTIONED LIKE 4 OR 5 DIFFERENT WAYS THAT CITIES DO IT. YES. WELL, IF STATE LAW IS YOU HAVE TO USE CONSTITUTIONAL, YOU KNOW, ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. THROW OUT ALL THOSE OTHERS. WE HAVE ONE TO USE. PERIOD. END OF STORY. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. THANK YOU SIR. YES, I AGREE IT SHOULD BE A LOCAL STANDARD. RACHEL. YEAH, I'M JUST I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE I'M HEARING CONFLICTING INFORMATION, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE CLEAR. SO COMMUNITY INPUT HAS BEEN THAT THEY DON'T WANT OUTSIDE PEOPLE LIKE PEOPLE FROM AUSTIN OR WHEREVER ELSE BRINGING UP THEIR BOATS OR COMING IN TO USE THE PARKS OR WHATEVER. RIGHT. THEY WANT TO KEEP IT LOCAL TO LOG OUT. SO TO DO THAT, WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO PUT A MECHANISM IN TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE GUARDS OR WHATEVER WE COME UP WITH. BUT THEN I'M ALSO HEARING THERE'S A LOT OF INITIATIVES OR THERE'S A MOVEMENT TOWARDS BRINGING IN TOURISM TO LAGO VISTA. SO I WANT US TO BE MINDFUL OF WHAT THE RESIDENTS ARE ASKING AND RESPECTING, KEEPING OUR PARKS, OUR PARKS, WHILE BALANCING THIS OTHER AGENDA AND THIS PUSH FOR TOURISM AND TO FILL UP STRS AND WHATEVER ELSE IS GOING ON WITH THAT AGENDA. THAT'S IT. OKAY. MR. I DID HAVE A QUESTION, AND I JUST AND I THINK MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER IN YOUR IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT. YEAH. YEAH. SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PARKS, YOU KNOW, PER DEVELOPMENT, I MEAN, ARE THERE DIFFERENT LEVELS LIKE THERE'S A REGIONAL PARK, THERE'S A POCKET PARK, THERE'S A WHATEVER. AND THOSE ARE DETERMINED BY WHATEVER THE DEVELOPMENT IS. SO THOSE TITLES ARE TYPICALLY DETERMINED BY THE ACREAGE. ACREAGE SITE. YEAH. SO YOU AND YOU KNOW THAT A POCKET PARK IS X AND A AND A REGIONAL PARK IS X. AND AND IT CONTAINS, YOU KNOW, THIS MUCH AMENITIES OR WHATEVER OR THEIR STANDARDS. SO THOSE ARE IN PLACE. RIGHT. OR THERE WILL BE OR THAT'S PART OF THE DISCUSSION. WELL SO PART OF WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON. WELL YOU GUYS ARE DOING THE MUCH OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PRCAC WILL BE WORKING THROUGH THE PARK MASTER PLAN AS WELL. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE KINDS OF THINGS WILL BE DELINEATED IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY NEEDS ARE. BECAUSE AGAIN, EVEN WHEN WE SAY A REGIONAL PARK, SURE, YOU KNOW, X ACREAGE, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY INCLUDE ALL THESE VARIOUS AMENITIES IN IT. YEAH. IT'S WHAT YOU CAN WHAT YOU CAN PRODUCE, WHAT YOU CAN DEVELOP BASED ON THE DOLLARS THAT YOU HAVE. AND YOU MAY START HERE AND GROW INTO THIS, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. BUT YEAH, WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHAT THAT DEFINITION OF WHAT THOSE ARE. AND THAT'S WHAT THE PARK MASTER PLAN SHOULD HELP US TO DO. THAT SHOULD BE THE GUIDING DOCUMENT. OKAY. AND AND THAT WOULD ALSO HELP DEVELOPERS OR SUBDIVISIONS WHEN THEY COME IN THAT THEY KNOW THIS SUBDIVISION IS GOING TO GET A POCKET PARK AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE A PLAYSCAPE OR IT'S GOING TO HAVE THESE THINGS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IN A THIS TYPE SIZE PARK OR COULD BE IN THIS SIZE

[00:50:04]

PARK. SO YEAH. YEAH OKAY. YEAH. BASED ON COMMUNITY NEED. PERFECT. I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE HEARING FROM US BECAUSE MR. ROBB SAID HE WANTS TO HAVE DIRECTION, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT FOR DIRECTION IS THAT WE WANT SOMETHING DEVELOPED THAT IS GOING TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, SO THAT EVERY DEVELOPER IS IT'S VERY CLEAR TO EVERY DEVELOPER WHAT THEY NEED TO DO WITH RESPECT TO PARK, EITHER FEES OR OR LAND OR WHATEVER, THAT IT'S THAT IT IS SO CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY AND THAT THERE IS NO PARTIALITY, THAT EVERY DEVELOPER IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO GO DOWN A CHART AND SAY, WELL, THIS IS HOW I CALCULATE WHAT IT HAS TO BE DONE. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE BITS OF DIRECTION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE COME OUT OF THE REVISED. SURE, SURE. YEAH. AND ONE OF THE GOOD THINGS IS THE WE DON'T HAVE TO REINVENT THE WHEEL. THERE ARE, IN FACT, CITIES OUT THERE THAT HAVE CREATED WHAT THEY CALL PARKLAND DEDICATION MANUALS, WHICH CLEARLY DELINEATES WHAT ALL WHAT THE ORDINANCE SPELLS OUT WHAT'S REQUIRED, EVEN THE CALCULATIONS FOR HOW YOU DETERMINE WHAT YOU EXPECT FROM THEM. AND IT'S FILLABLE. THEY CAN ACTUALLY PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION AND HAVE SOME SENSE OF WHAT COMMUNITY EXPECTATIONS ARE GOING TO BE. SO NO SURPRISES FOR ANYBODY. OKAY, RACHEL. SO, LINDA, JUST TO KIND OF PIGGYBACK OFF OF WHAT YOU SAID.

YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO MAKE THE EXPECTATIONS CLEAR. BUT I THINK THE BIGGER QUESTION HERE, AND I KNOW IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED BEFORE, IS, IS THE ACTUAL FEE ADEQUATE? BECAUSE WHAT I'VE HEARD IN THE PAST IS IT'S NOT IT'S VERY LOW FEE IN LIEU OF. CORRECT, CORRECT. SO I GUESS.

COUNCILOR DURBIN OR I KNOW PAUL WAS ONLINE AND I THINK HE, I SAW HIM. CAN YOU CLARIFY, PLEASE, WHAT EXACTLY YOU ARE ASKING? LIKE WHAT WHAT YOU WANT FROM THIS? I LET PAUL TALK IN A SECOND, BUT SINCE I HAVE A MICROPHONE, I MEAN, I'LL GO. AND THAT IS, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO SEE THE. WELL. YES. THE, THE WE BELIEVE THE FEE IS, IS EITHER TOO LOW. OR I MEAN, OR I MEAN I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO JUST GET RID OF IT. WHAT. AND SAYING, YOU KNOW, YOU GOT TO DEDICATE THIS MUCH PARKLAND BECAUSE WE, WE DO NOT HAVE A LOT OF CITY PARK. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED. THAT'S THE REASON THAT THE TURN BACK PARK IS PRIMITIVE IS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THE MONEY TO DEVELOP IT. YEAH, THAT WAS PART OF THE REASON. CORRECT. AND AND YOU KNOW, FOR. US. BUT YOU KNOW, AND I DON'T SAY A LOT OF NICE THINGS ABOUT TURN BACK. BUT IN TERMS OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AND THEIR OWN POA, I THOUGHT THEY DID A DECENT JOB. WE'VE WE'VE GOT A NICE SIZED PARK AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN POA AMENITIES THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT THAT WORKS. THAT WORKS FOR ME. AND YOU KNOW, THEY OWN THEIR THEY OWN THEIR OWN AMENITIES AND THAT, YOU KNOW, SO I THINK THAT WORKS. WHAT WE NEED IS PARKLAND. IN THE OLD DAYS. THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES THE CITY JUST WANTED CASH. SO BUT WE'RE WE'RE REALLY NOT IN, IN THAT SORT OF SITUATION ANYMORE. AND AND HOW MUCH HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE SITTING THERE. SORRY. HOW MUCH MONEY DO WE HAVE SITTING IN THERE? BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE A BUNCH OF PROPERTIES THAT ARE POCKET PARKS THAT COULD BE DEVELOPED. AND I KNOW WE HAVE A GOOD CHUNK OF CHANGE SITTING THERE. SO I'M WONDERING WHAT THE HOLDUP IS. WE HAVE A CHUNK OF CHANGE FROM THE THE THE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, AND NOW IT'S CLOSE TO $1 MILLION, I BELIEVE. I DON'T KNOW THE AMOUNT ON THE FEES IN LIEU OF MAYBE. PAUL, DOES YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THOSE NUMBERS ARE? I THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M REFERRING TO. THEN. THANK YOU. I'M JUST I'M ALSO I WANT TO MAKE THE POINT IN WONDERING WHY WE'RE NOT UTILIZING THOSE FUNDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEVELOPING THE POCKET PARKS, SINCE THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY ARE SAYING THEY WANT PARKS, YOU KNOW, AND THERE'S A LOT OF CONTROVERSY AROUND LIKE THE POA AND TO SARAH AND ALL THESE OTHER THINGS, WHY WE'RE NOT MOVING FORWARD WITH THE MONEY AND THE PROPERTY WE ALREADY HAVE. RIGHT. COMMISSIONER RICH, THANKS FOR YOUR QUESTION. I THINK I CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT. I ALSO WANT TO SAY, DAVID, I THOUGHT YOU SOUNDED GREAT. THANK YOU.

THAT'S. I THOUGHT YOU DID A FANTASTIC JOB. I GUESS FIRST THING I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SPEAK TO IS. I'M ALWAYS CONFLICTED. YOU KNOW, I'M STILL TECHNICALLY A COUNCIL MEMBER.

[00:55:06]

I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS REALLY PERMISSIBLE FOR ME TO SAY OR NOT, BUT I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SHARE AN OBSERVATION, AND THAT IS THAT THE AGENDA ITEM IS STRICTLY ABOUT ONE THING, AND ONE THING ALONE. IT'S ABOUT IS THE FEE IN LIEU OF THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT. THAT'S IT.

NOTHING ELSE, NOTHING ELSE. THAT'S THE AGENDA ITEM. THAT'S THE TOPIC. I SUSPECT IF THIS WAS A COUNCIL MEETING, BRAD WOULD HAVE ALREADY THROWN A FLAG AND SAID, YOU GUYS HAVE GONE WAY OFF AGENDA STRAY. BUT I COULD BE MISTAKEN WITH THAT. ON THE. AS TO THE QUESTION AS TO HOW MUCH IS IN THERE FROM THE THE FEE IN LIEU OF FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION. I DON'T KNOW THE NUMBER, BUT I WANT TO SAY AROUND $750,000 IS IN THERE PURSUANT TO THE ITEM THAT YOU MENTIONED, ROB. THE OTHER ONE, THE TREE PRESERVATION. TREE PRESERVATION USED TO BE ABOUT THAT, BUT IT'S PUSHING A MILLION AND IT'S A LOT OF MONEY. BUT THE THING IS TO REMEMBER IS THAT THAT'S ALSO PART OF OUR OUR GENERAL FUND. AND WE HAVE TO HAVE MAINTAIN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RESERVES TO MAINTAIN TO HAVE OUR BOND RATING. AND WE HAVE WE'RE ACTUALLY DO REALLY WELL IN THAT REGARD. I KNOW OTHER CITIES IN TEXAS ARE ACTUALLY IN A LOT OF TROUBLE RIGHT NOW WITH THE STATE AUDITS AND STUFF, BUT AS FAR AS THE. POCKET PARKS GO, COMMISSIONER RICH, IT WAS ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO. I, I GOT $15,000 ADDED TO THE BUDGET COUNCIL. I SHOULDN'T SAY I COUNCIL DID. WE ADDED $15,000 TO THE BUDGET. THE FORMER PARKS AND RECS DIRECTOR OPTED NOT TO SPEND THAT. THERE WAS A CONFLICT WITH HIM AND THE CITY MANAGER. THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO IT. THEY SAID IT WAS THEIR DISCRETION, NOT THE DISCRETION OF THE PARKS AND REC, EVEN THOUGH THE COUNCIL HAD ALLOCATED THAT MONEY SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT. AND I NEVER APPRECIATED THAT CHOICE THAT THEY MADE. SO IT WAS NOT SPENT. I CAN'T EXPOUND FURTHER UPON WHY IT WASN'T, BUT THERE WAS 15,000 THEN AND THERE'S 15,000 NOW. WE DID TALK ABOUT IN OUR IN OUR RECENT BUDGET CYCLE WITH DAVID, AND HE'S WORKING ON SOMETHING THAT HE'S GOING TO BE BRINGING FORWARD. BUT KEEPING MYSELF IN CHECK ON AGENDA STRAY. THE IDEA WAS IN FEE IN LIEU OF COMMISSIONER HARRIS, YOU BROUGHT UP THAT TEXT FROM THE AGENDA ITEM. AND I THINK RIGHT NOW THE AMOUNT IS THE WAY THE CALCULATION WORKS FOR FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION AND MISS. MADAM CHAIR, I BELIEVE YOU AND I HAVE ACTUALLY SPOKEN ABOUT THIS SO YOU CAN CORRECT MY MY RECOLLECTION HERE. I BELIEVE IT'S $1,500 PER PER DWELLING UNIT OR LIEU. I DON'T RECALL 51,050. THANK YOU. I HAD THE ONE IN THE FIVE IN THERE $1,050.

AT YOUR PRIOR MEETING. YOU GUYS CONTEMPLATED THE QUESTION, IS THAT AN APPROPRIATE AMOUNT? AND THEN YOU DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, HOW ARE WE GOING TO COME UP WITH THAT NEXUS STUDY? I DON'T RECALL IF THERE WAS DIRECTION TO STAFF, IF STAFF WAS TO COME BACK WITH THAT, OR IF YOU ALL WERE GOING TO RESEARCH THAT THROUGH GENERAL GOOGLE SEARCHES, OR I THINK THERE WAS CONVERSATION ABOUT WHO IS THE CITY'S CURRENT REALTOR REAL ESTATE. WE DON'T HAVE ONE. YEP.

SO AT THE JOINT SESSION IT WAS WE DON'T HAVE ONE. AND MAYOR SULLIVAN VOLUNTEERED THAT HE WOULD GIVE US THE NUMBERS FOR THAT. Y'ALL ALSO CAN TALK TO ANYBODY. YOU GUYS ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE YOU RAISED THE POINT, MADAM CHAIR, ABOUT THE THE WHAT FREESE AND NICHOLS DOING IS ON THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC. I DON'T THINK THAT IS GOING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION OUR FEE, BECAUSE THAT WHAT THAT DIAGNOSTIC IS DOING IS JUST LOOKING FOR CONFLICTS IN THE ORDINANCES. MAYBE I'M MISTAKEN. I'M. I'M NOT FRANK OR YOU'RE NODDING YOUR HEAD, AM I CORRECT OR AM I MISTAKEN? I WOULD BE SURPRISED IF THEY CAUGHT THAT. YEAH, I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. SO WAY OUT OF LINE. THAT WOULD BE SURPRISED, RIGHT? I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT. BUT SO THE QUESTION I THINK BEFORE YOU GUYS IS HOW DO YOU THE QUESTION IS, IS $1,050 SUFFICIENT? IF THE IDEA BEHIND A FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION IS THAT FOR EVERY ACRE THAT THEY PAY FOR, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO GO REPLACE THAT ELSEWHERE SIMILAR TO THE FEE IN LIEU OF FOR TREE PRESERVATION. OKAY. COULD COULD I JUST INTERRUPT YOU? YES, MA'AM. HERE. WE'VE KIND OF GOT INTO AGENDA CREEP. AND THAT IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS ACTUALLY THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. SO THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. WELL, WELL, NO, NO, NO, THAT'S THE CURRENT AGENDA ITEM THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW I THINK, ISN'T IT PARKLAND DEDICATION FEE IN LIEU.

WE'RE ON ONE RIGHT NOW BUT I AND I DON'T I WOULDN'T WORRY ABOUT AGENDA CREEP BECAUSE

[01:00:04]

AGENDA SAYS DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL OKAY. SO I JUST SO I HOPE MY COMMENTS HAVE BEEN HELPFUL OKAY. SO GIVEN THAT WE'VE KIND OF TALKED ABOUT BOTH THE FIRST TWO AGENDA ITEMS, IF YOU COULD READ THEM BOTH, THEN NO, I HAVE NOT. NO NOT YET YOU HAVEN'T. NO. OKAY. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT BOTH OF THEM PERTAIN TO TO BUT DIFFERENT. OKAY. GO AHEAD FRANK. OH, I THOUGHT YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. NO. OKAY, WELL, NO. INTERRUPT THE CHAIR. SO, HAVE WE COMPLETED? DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY OR TO ADD? GIVING DIRECTION. OKAY, I JUST WANT TO TAG ON TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BEFORE. FUNDAMENTALLY ONE OF THE ISSUES, I THINK, MADAM CHAIR, THAT WE WANT TO GET BACK FROM THE STAFF AND I AGREE WITH YOUR PROCESS, OKAY. BUT FUNDAMENTALLY WE NEED A NUMBER BACK FROM THE STAFF. OKAY. WHAT THAT WHAT THAT FEE AND THAT WILL BE BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS, HOW THE MULTIPLE WAYS YOU'VE INDICATED HOW YOU KEPT HERE. CORRECT. IT'S A NUMBER THAT'S A BIG DEAL OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT THE COUNCIL IT WILL BE A NUMBER OR A PROCESS OF HOW TO GET THAT NUMBER. BECAUSE IF THE NUMBER CHANGES AS TIMES CHANGE OR AS MARKET VALUE CHANGES, IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT PROVIDES FOR SOME KIND OF FLUIDITY. AS THE MARKET GOES UP AND GOES DOWN. SO IT MAY NOT BE AN ACTUAL HARD NUMBER. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR FROM YOU IS A BIG NUMBER. YEAH, NO, I TOTALLY, BUT THE NUMBER SHOULD BE BASED ON AN EQUATION. AND SO THAT AND THAT SHOULD BE VERY CLEAR TO EVERYONE.

ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT IT IS NOT AN ARBITRARY FIGURE. BUT IT'S AGAIN IT'S BASED IN REALITY.

JEFF. SO IF WE GO THAT PATH, IF WE ALSO DECIDE OR WANT TO DISCUSS JUST REMOVING THE FEE IN LIEU OF PARKLAND ALTOGETHER, WOULD THAT BE A COMPLETELY SEPARATE THING FOR US TO ADDRESS? I THINK JORDAN, BASED ON WHAT IS GOING TO BE DONE WITH THE ORDINANCES, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS AS FAR AS THE BREADTH OF WHAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING RIGHT NOW, AS FAR AS THE ORDINANCE ITSELF? YES. WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE AGENDA IS SETTING THAT NUMBER, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, WHICH I THINK SHOULD GO TO PARKS AS THIS IS THE PARK FUNCTION. WITH THAT BEING SAID, AND SPECIFICALLY TOWARDS THE FEE IN LIEU ASPECT OF IT, WE WILL HAVE SOME DEVELOPMENTS THAT CANNOT DO PARKLAND BASED ON TOPOGRAPHY BASED OFF OF SITE CONDITIONS. AND SO IF WE DON'T HAVE A WAY FOR THEM TO ACCOMMODATE THAT, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PIGEONHOLING THEM AND SAYING THAT THEY CAN'T DEVELOP AT ALL. AND SO THE FEE IN LIEU IN CASES SPECIFIC TO THAT, THE PARKS GETS A CHECK TO IMPROVE SOMEWHERE ELSE BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY CANNOT DO A PARK. I DON'T THINK THE FEE IN LIEU OF SHOULD BE OUR FIRST GO TO, BUT IT SHOULD BE AN OPTION THAT PHYSICALLY CANNOT PARK ONTO THEIR PROPERTY. AND SO WE SHOULD NEVER DISCUSS GETTING RID OF IT. I AGREE WE NEED TO KEEP BOTH AND THEN JUST INCREASE IT. AND SO JUST FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, AS FAR AS THE THE CODES THEMSELVES, I THINK GIVEN THE AT LEAST FOR DAVID AND MYSELF, I KNOW THAT OTHER STAFF MEMBERS HAVE BEEN PRESENT DURING THESE ORDINANCES AND, YOU KNOW, SOME THAT ARE STILL OUT THERE TRYING TO BE REWORKED.

THEY'RE STUFF THAT DAVID HAS SAID TODAY THAT I DID NOT KNOW, BECAUSE I DON'T DO PARKS THE WAY HE DOES PARKS. AND SO I THINK ON ALL OF THESE, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, GIVE US YOUR GUIDANCE, TELL US WHAT YOU WANT IT TO SAY OR WHAT YOU WANT IT TO IMPLY, OR SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU NEED FROM US AS STAFF. AND LET US DO IT AND BRING IT BACK TO YOU. AND IF WE'RE OFF THE MARK, WE'RE OFF THE MARK. AND I ENCOURAGE YOU TO LET US KNOW. BUT WE GOT BROUGHT IN TO DO THESE THINGS AND WRITE ORDINANCES AND MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH OUR CURRENT CODE AND THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. AND SO LET US DO IT IS ALL I'M ASKING FROM YOU AS A BOARD AND FROM COUNCIL AND ANYBODY ELSE INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS.

SO MY RECOMMENDATION FOR ONE IS TO TELL PARKS WHAT YOU WANT AND HAND IT TO PARKS AND LET THEM BRING SOMETHING BEFORE YOU THAT IS WITH YOUR GUIDANCE. BUT WITH ALL THAT KNOWLEDGE AND THAT BIG BRAIN WRITTEN OUT. I APOLOGIZE, WHICH I DO A GOOD BIT. YOU MAY BE TALKING ABOUT TWO STEPS, ONE

[01:05:06]

STEP. COME BACK TO US WITH THE NUMBER ONE NUMBER BEING THE NUMBER. THAT'S ONE STEP. SECOND STEP IS FIX THE ORDINANCE, WHICH COULD BE PART OF FIXING THE WHOLE ORDINANCE. AND IF I MAY ADD TO THAT, COMMISSIONERS, ON THAT NOTE, FREESE AND NICHOLS IS DOING OUR CODE DIAGNOSTIC TO LET US KNOW WHAT'S WRONG WITH IT. I KNOW SEVERAL DEPARTMENT HEADS HAVE NOTED THAT THERE ARE ISSUES JUST FROM OUR GENERAL, YOU KNOW, WHEREWITHAL. AND SO I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND, AFTER THE CODE DIAGNOSTIC THAT WE DO A CODE REWRITE, BECAUSE JUST FIRST GLANCE, THERE'S CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. THERE'S THINGS THAT DON'T MAKE SENSE. IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IN A PROFICIENT ORDER AS YOU'RE READING IT. AND SO IF ALLOWED, IF WE HAVE THE FUNDS TO DO SO AND THE ABILITY TO DO SO, MY RECOMMENDATION IS GOING TO BE NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO AGENDA CREEP. SOMEBODY GOT A MOTION. OKAY. DOES DOES DO YOU FEEL THAT YOU HAVE THE GUIDANCE FROM US THAT YOU NEED TO TO MOVE FORWARD WITH WITH AGENDA ITEM ONE? YES, A PARKLAND DEDICATION ORDINANCE SHOULD INHERENTLY INCLUDE AN IN LIEU FEE. BOTH OF THOSE SHOULD BE BASED IN REAL EQUATIONS BASED ON LOCAL REALITY, AND SHOULD BE CLEAR FOR EVERYBODY WHO'S READING IT, SEEING IT. AND IT SHOULD ABSOLUTELY BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEEDS OF THE COMMUNITY SO THAT WE'RE NOT TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY DEVELOPERS, BUT SHOULD ALSO NOT BE ARBITRARY IN TERMS OF HOW WE DEAL WITH DEVELOPERS. YES. AND WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR PLAN, WHEN YOU MAKE WHEN YOU MAKE IT, ARE YOU GOING TO BE DOING THAT? FOLLOWING THE AFTER I MEAN, FOLLOWING AFTER WE GET THE CODE INFORMATION FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS. IS THAT SO? IS THAT GOING TO BE ALL DONE AT ONCE? YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COME TO US WITH LIKE A TEMPORARY LITTLE ORDINANCE SUGGESTION AND THEN FREE TO NICHOLS ARE GOING TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE AND WE'RE GOING TO REDO IT. RIGHT. THIS IS GOING TO BE DONE AS A COMBINED EFFORT. SO WE WANT TO INITIATE THE PROCESS BY ONE TIME WITH ONE. YEAH. BUT WE WE ABSOLUTELY WANT TO DO SOME RESEARCH, GET SOME. WE NEED TO DO A STUDY. WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT LOCAL REALITY IS SO THAT WE CAN, IN FACT PUT TOGETHER REAL NUMBERS. SO ALL OF THAT WILL ABSOLUTELY BEGIN SO THAT IT WILL RUN CONSISTENT WITH THE PROCESS. AND NOT LONG AFTER THEY'RE FINISHED, WE CAN IN FACT, MOVE FORWARD. SO YOU MAY BE COMING TO US WITH SOME OF THE IDEAS THAT YOU'VE COME UP WITH OR IF WE'RE THAT FAR ALONG. YEAH, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. YEP. CAN I SAY SOMETHING? I MEAN, I THINK IT MIGHT BE A GOOD IDEA FOR IT TO TAKE IT IN TWO STEPS. ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE IN LIEU FEE AND GO AHEAD AND AND PASS RECOMMEND A NEW DOLLAR AMOUNT DOLLAR AMOUNT AND THEN GO BACK AND WORK ON FIXING THE ORDINANCE MORE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SUBDIVISIONS COMING IN MORE AND MORE FOR DEVELOPMENT. AND WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET OUR PIPELINE OUT. OKAY. SO YOU'RE YOU'RE SUGGESTING THAT WE GET A FEE IN LIEU? I THINK THAT SHOULD BE A PRIORITY AND THEN WAIT FOR THE FOR THE REST OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE DEVELOPED. LET'S NOT WAIT IF WE CAN. YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH. MAY I ATTEMPT A MOTION OR PARLIAMENTARIAN AND STAFF LIAISON SAID WE MIGHT WANT TO DO THAT. GREAT. I WOULD, AND I'M NOT GOOD AT THIS, BUT I MOVE THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO INITIATE A NEXUS STUDY TO COME UP WITH A DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR A FEE IN LIEU OF, AND ALSO AN ACREAGE AMOUNT FOR PARKLAND TO BE DEDICATED. THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW REQUIREMENT THAT IT CONFORM TO ROUGH PROPORTIONALITY. AND THEN THAT INFORMATION CAN BE HARMONIZED WITH ANY ORDINANCE WORK THAT'S DONE ALONG THE LINE. DO WE HAVE A SECOND, SECOND DISCUSSION? IS THAT ENOUGH? IT'S A START. YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING RIGHT NOW EXCEPT A BUNCH OF. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. OKAY. THAT'S UNANIMOUS. OKAY, NOW, TO GO ON TO MORE SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY

[VI.2. Discussion on a referral from the City Council to review and make recommendations on the Fee-in Lieu of Tree Preservation ordinance and define the allowed uses for those fees.]

WITH DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO REVIEW AND MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE

[01:10:02]

FEE IN LIEU OF TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE, AND DEFINE THE ALLOWED USES FOR THOSE FEES. SO WE HAVE A FEE IN LIEU. WE WERE SPEAKING OF A LITTLE WHILE AGO. WE HAVE A FEE IN LIEU PRESERVATION ACCOUNT, AND WE HAVE A FEE IN LIEU PRESERVATION ORDINANCE. AND NOW WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE ALLOWED USES FOR THOSE FEES. AND I AGAIN, I WOULD LIKE TO ASK OUR DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO WHAT EXTENT WILL THIS BE REWORKED BY FREESE AND NICHOLS, AND HOW MUCH SHOULD WE HOW MUCH SHOULD INPUT SHOULD WE BE GIVING NOW TO THIS, GIVEN THAT FREEDOM NICHOLS IS GOING TO BE SO FREESE AND NICHOLS IS ONLY DOING A DIAGNOSTIC ON OUR CURRENT ADOPTED CODE. THEY WILL NOT LOOK AT ANYTHING THAT IS PROPOSED. THEY WILL NOT LOOK AT ANYTHING THAT IS IN THE WORKS, ANYTHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, SIGNED, CODIFIED, IT'S OUT OF THEIR SCOPE OF WORK. AND SO AGAIN, SAME RECOMMENDATION AS THE FIRST ONE.

GIVE STAFF DIRECTION. LET US RUN WITH IT, SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO AND BRING IT BACK BEFORE YOU AS WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE. PARK OR NOT. PARKLAND. EXCUSE ME. THE TREE PRESERVATION DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE A HOME BETWEEN DEPARTMENTS. HALF OF ITS DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, HALF OF ITS PARKS AND REC. AND SO WE'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO HELP WHERE WE CAN. WE JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT DIRECTION YOU WANT US TO GO. FRANK, IS I'VE WRITTEN. I'VE GOT COMMENTS ON ALL THIS STUFF, BUT THE COUNCIL REFERRAL DOCUMENTS MISSING. WHAT DID COUNCIL REFER TO US? THE COUNCIL REFERRAL DOCUMENT THAT I'VE SEEN ISN'T ISN'T VERY CLEAR. SO I THINK THIS AGENDA WAS PUT TOGETHER BASED ON THAT. AND YOU KNOW, THE FACT THAT IT SAYS DISCUSSION ON ANY OF THESE THINGS I THINK SAVES YOU FROM A LOT OF THE AGENDA CREEP. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THIS ONE IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE FIRST ONE. YEAH, BY THE SAME NAME. SO IT IS JUST A NUMBER. YES. OKAY.

OKAY. IT'S WHAT'S THE NUMBER AND WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE MONEY. AND WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THE MONEY I THINK IS. YEAH. IS WHAT WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED ABOUT YET. A LOT OF THAT IS IS LIMITED BY, BY STATE LAW. SO AND AGAIN I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DAVID CAN HELP A LOT WITH AS FAR AS WHAT WE CAN USE THE MONEY FOR. IF WE COLLECT MONEY FOR TREE PRESERVATION, THERE'S A LIMIT TO WHAT WE CAN USE IT FOR. THE ACTUALLY I DON'T HAVE A TON OF FAMILIAR. I'VE ACTUALLY NOT SEEN THE ORDINANCE AT ALL EITHER. I JUST KNOW THAT THERE HAS BEEN A TON OF DISCUSSION, AND EVERY MEETING WITH PRAC. THE QUESTION IS OKAY, WHERE ARE THEY AT WITH REVIEWING THIS THING? SO THE ONLY THING THAT I'VE HEARD CONSISTENTLY IS, IS FROM COUNCILOR PRINCE, FOR EXAMPLE, IS THERE'S A REFERENCE TO POCKET PARKS IN THE ORDINANCE IN TERMS OF ITS USE. HE'D LIKE TO REMOVE THE WORD POCKET SO THAT IT CAN BE USED MORE BROADLY. OPEN SPACE AND PARKS. BY I MEAN IT REALLY IS, AGAIN, JUST A MATTER OF THE DIRECTION THAT YOU GUYS WANT TO GIVE. THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DID WANT TO POINT OUT IS, LIKE WITH MOST THINGS, THERE'S SORT OF IS NATIONAL STANDARDS FOR THINGS. AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY'RE MEASURING TREES, BUT THE NATIONAL STANDARD FOR THAT IS WHAT THEY CALL D.B.H OR DIAMETER AT BREAST HEIGHT. YEAH. WHICH IS LITERALLY YOU MEASURE UP AND YOU DETERMINE THE AND THAT'S WHEN YOU KNOW THE SIZE OF IT. AND SO I'VE HEARD LOTS OF REFERENCES TO CALIPERS AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW THAT IS SORT OF WORKED OUT. BUT AGAIN, SO THERE IS A STANDARD FOR DOING THAT. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE EVEN ADHERING TO THAT STANDARD, BUT THERE IS SOME FLEXIBILITY IN TERMS OF HOW THE CITY DETERMINES TO USE THOSE TREE MITIGATION FUNDS. A LONG TIME AGO, I WAS THE LIAISON TO IRAQ, AND INITIALLY AT THAT TIME, THE FEES THAT WERE COLLECTED ON FROM TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE COULD ONLY BE USED TO PLANT MORE TREES. WE HAVE SINCE EXPANDED THAT TO ALLOW THE MONEY TO BE USED FOR TREES AND SHRUBS AND LANDSCAPING, AND I THINK TRAILS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WHAT THIS IS ASKING YOU TO DO IS TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT WE'VE CURRENTLY SAID AND SEE IF THAT'S ENOUGH. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S IF THERE'S OTHER THINGS THAT YOU CAN SPEND THEM ON, SPEND THE MONEY ON, YOU CAN LIST THEM OUT. OR AT SOME POINT YOU CAN JUST SAY, IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW, AND THEN YOU SPEND IT ON ANYTHING THAT'S LEGAL, SPEND IT ON. BUT INITIALLY THERE WAS A LOT OF IT

[01:15:07]

WAS ABOUT REPLACING TREES. AND YOU KNOW, AND I I'VE BEEN YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I WAS DIRECT LIAISON TWO, THREE YEARS AGO. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT AND THEN THIS MONEY BACK THEN AND YOU KNOW, BUT YOU GOT TO GET YOU HAVE TO GET A VERY CLEAR RECOMMENDATION FROM THEM AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO SPEND IT ON, WHICH IS DIFFICULT TIMES. YEAH, I THINK THAT THERE WAS A COMMENT THAT WANTED TO BE MADE FROM THE GALLERY PERHAPS. IS WAS THIS YOUR REFERRAL? YES. OKAY. YEAH. WELL NO, HE'S GOT ONE. OH YES. THE SUBDIVISION ONE. I GOT THAT ATTITUDE. SO THE REFERRAL FROM COUNCIL WAS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. JUST AS THE FORMER AGENDA ITEM. THE QUESTION IS IS THE FEE IN LIEU OF FOR TREE PRESERVATION SUCH AS THE CONSIDERATION OF FEE FOR FOR PARKLAND DEDICATION. IS THAT CURRENT AMOUNT APPROPRIATE? IT'S BEEN RAISED ONCE IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS. THE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE THAT WE WANTED TO PASS TO YOU GUYS IS, AND IT'S REALLY I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO NEED TO GET GUIDANCE FROM BRAD, WHICH IS HOW BROAD CAN YOU MAKE. THE ORDINANCE SUCH THAT YOU CAN USE THE MONEY, THE FEE, IN LIEU OF TREE PRESERVATION? HOW WE WANT TO THE COUNCIL'S DISCUSSION WAS WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO USE IT FOR AS MUCH AS WE POSSIBLY CAN. LEGAL DRAW THE BOUNDARIES, AND THEN THAT WAY WE CAN USE IT FOR NOT JUST REPLACING SHRUBS AND TREES, BUT CAN WE USE IT FOR OTHER PURPOSES THAT ARE GERMANE TO PARKLAND AND TREES AND BEAUTIFICATION AND STUFF? THAT'S IT. SO AMOUNT. AND HOW BROAD CAN WE GO. THAT'S IT. AND AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A NEXUS STUDY FROM STAFF. AND YOU'RE GOING TO NEED LEGAL GUIDANCE FROM BRAD. AND THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. AND THE CURRENT CURRENT ORDINANCES RIGHT NOW DO SAY ANY SUCH FEES COLLECTED BY THE CITY SHALL BE PLACED IN A SPECIAL FUND, AND THE USE OF THESE ARE RESTRICTED FOR THE PLANNING OF TREES ON CITY PROPERTY OR OTHER AREAS. SO WE DID NOT CHANGE THAT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE ORDINANCE. AND THE REASON WHY WE LOOKED AT THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE IS BECAUSE IT TALKED ABOUT CALIPER AND DIAMETER AND ALL THAT, BECAUSE THAT AFFECTS WHAT YOUR FEE, IN LIEU OF THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AND WHAT IT APPLIES TO. SO IT'S NOT ONLY IT'S FOR MITIGATION, IT'S FOR. SO WE DID GO DOWN THAT ROUTE OF OF OF UPDATING THOSE AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S PART AND PARCEL OF. I WOULD JUST JUST FOR CONTEXT AND HISTORICAL KNOWLEDGE FOR DAVID AND JORDAN, THE CATALYST FOR ME BRINGING THIS TO COUNCIL ORIGINALLY BACK IN APRIL OR MAY OF 2025, WAS IT FOLLOWED ON THE HEELS OF SPECIFICALLY THE. WELL, NO, I JUST WENT BLANK. WALTER'S WEDDING VENUE. OH YEAH. YOU'LL RECALL THEY BASICALLY WENT IN EVEN EVEN EVEN AFTER NATURE'S POINT. NATURE'S POINT, EVEN AFTER THE TREE, THERE WAS NOT A SINGLE TREE WAS PRESERVED ON THAT PROPERTY. THEY PAID THE 100, I THINK 100, $150,000 TO JUST WIPE OUT ALL THE TREES IN ORDER TO ELIMINATE THE BUFFER BETWEEN DIANE JOHNSHOPKINS PROPERTY AND OTHERS. IT WAS LIKE, CLEARLY IT'S NOT ACTING AS A DETERRENT OR A MOTIVATION TO PRESERVE SOME TREES. SO THE QUESTION WAS, WHERE IS THAT THRESHOLD? WHERE'S THE WHERE'S THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT BASED ON A DEFENSIBLE NUMBER? YEAH. THANK YOU. THAT THAT ISSUE IS GOING TO COME UP WITH A GREAT PERSON. WITH WHAT? WITH WHAT? WITH WHAT SIR. CAN I JUST SAY, YOU KNOW, THE TREE SUBCOMMITTEE HAS LOOKED AT A LOT AND IS IS WORKING ON PROPOSING A LOT. I THINK WE WE NEED TO JUST LOOK AT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AGAIN FOR EXPEDIENCY RIGHT NOW. YEAH. AND COME BACK TO THE SECOND, MAYBE EVEN A THIRD PASS ON ALL THE THINGS WE'RE LOOKING AT AS FAR AS THE ORDINANCE. YES. SO SO AGAIN, IT'S JUST THE DOLLAR AMOUNT. AND IF I MEAN UTILIZE THE CITY STAFF, YOU KNOW THEY'RE HERE. WE DID TO WORK AND PRODUCE PRODUCT. AND I THINK I'M JUST GUESSING HERE I'M NOT LOOKING HERE. I'M JUST GOT MY BLINDERS ON. BUT I'M ASSUMING THEY WOULD WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THEIR PROFESSIONAL INPUT ON WHAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE ON ON

[01:20:05]

BOTH THE HOW BROAD CAN YOU GO AND WHERE THE APPROPRIATE AMOUNT IS. AND THEN IF THEY THINK THE UTILIZATION OF ANOTHER CITY COMMITTEE IS APPROPRIATE, I'M SURE THEY'LL RECOMMEND THAT. THANKS. I THINK THAT YOU VERY WELL CAPTURED WHAT IS BEING ASKED FOR. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ANYTHING ELSE TO GIVE TO THE GIVE TO THE CITY STAFF FOR THEM TO WORK ON IT, OR ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? CAN I SAY JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS, INCLUDING THE FEE IN LIEU OF. WE ALSO INCLUDED THINGS THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, PERMITS FOR REMOVAL. SO IT'S NOT JUST A DOLLAR AMOUNT AND AND THAT SO IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE REMOVING OR IF THEY'RE PROTECTED TREES JUST CAN'T. BUT THERE ARE OTHER DOLLAR AMOUNTS ASSOCIATED WITH SOME OF THE ORDINANCES AND THE, THE THINGS TREE REMOVAL PERMITS AND STUFF. SO THERE ARE OTHER FEES ASSOCIATED NOT WITH JUST KNOCKING DOWN A TREE. SO IT'S MORE THAN JUST A THIS FOR THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR THAT. SO THERE ARE OTHER OTHER FEES IN THERE. BUT YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WOULD NEED TO REVIEW THAT. RIGHT. THIS IS RELEVANT TO WHAT KATHY'S TALKING ABOUT. AND YOU KNOW WE'D HAVE TO GET FROM JORDAN. AND AND AND THAT IS FEES HAVE TO RELATE DIRECTLY TO HOW MUCH IT TAKES TO ADMINISTER THOSE THAT PROCESS. WE CAN'T JUST SLAP A BIG FEE ON SOMETHING BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO IF IT TAKES A WHOLE BUNCH OF WORK FEES, BIGGER, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, LOOKING OVER A CHECKLIST OF FOR THINGS TO THE FEES, NOT SO MUCH.

SO YOU KNOW THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE WE SHOULD THIS GROUP SHOULD WEIGH INTO THAT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW. YEAH. I JUST A COUPLE THINGS I'M IN AGREEMENT THERE. THE THE FEE FOR PUTTING UP A SIGN IS IS NOT THE POINT IN MY OPINION. FEE IS FOR THE TREES. I MEAN, OUR ISSUE IS WITH THE TREES, NOT FOR HOW MUCH A PERMIT COSTS TO HANG A SIGN. SO. I WOULD I'M READY TO VENTURE OUT ANOTHER MOTION IF WE'RE THERE, BECAUSE WE GOT TO KEEP GOING. YEAH, EXACTLY. WE DO. SO GO AHEAD, GO RIGHT AHEAD. I MOVE THAT WE DIRECT STAFF TO RESEARCH RAISING FEE IN LIEU OF TO ACCOUNT FOR AT MINIMUM KEEPING UP WITH INFLATION.

INITIATE THE NEXUS STUDY THAT GOES ALONG WITH THAT AND WORK WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL ON ON THE ISSUE OF TO WHAT EXTENT CAN THAT MONEY BE USED FOR SECOND, ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. I THINK WE SHOULD NOTE FOR THE RECORD, THAT RACHEL RICH DROPPED OUT AFTER THE FIRST AGENDA ITEM. OKAY. SO WE THAT WAS UNANIMOUS FOR THOSE OF US PRESENT. AND NOW WE CAN MOVE ON

[VI.3. Discussion on a referral from the City Council to recommend an ordinance establishing criteria and policies on dealing with Dormant Entitlements that were established and not utilized within a specific time frame. This ordinance will also need to follow established State Statutes as they apply to zoning.]

TO ITEM THREE. DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL FROM THE CITY COUNCIL TO RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CRITERIA AND POLICIES ON DEALING WITH DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED AND NOT UTILIZED WITHIN A SPECIFIC TIME FRAME. THIS ORDINANCE WILL ALSO NEED TO FOLLOW ESTABLISHED STATE STATUTES AS THEY APPLY TO ZONING. AND DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO THAT? YES, COMMISSIONER. SO JUMPING INTO THIS AND BEING FAIRLY NEW, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF EMAILS ABOUT THIS SPECIFICALLY AND A LOT OF WAY IN FROM THE ATTORNEYS AND COUNCIL. I HAVE NOT HAD SUFFICIENT TIME TO FIGURE OUT THE THE LAY OF THE LAND ON THIS. SPECIFICALLY, IF AS A BOARD, YOU'RE WILLING TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR A MOTION OR ANY KIND OF DIRECTION, HAPPY TO HEAR IT. FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION ON IT TO GIVE ANY SORT OF GUIDANCE OR ADVICE AS A STAFF LIAISON, AND SO HAPPY TO GO IN ANY DIRECTION YOU'RE RECOMMENDING. I THINK IT IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE SOME MORE DISCUSSION WITH THE ATTORNEY, BUT THAT'S ME PERSONALLY. GENE. YEAH, A COMMENT. ONE THING THAT I HEARD IN ATTENDING DIFFERENT COUNCIL MEETINGS WAS THAT ALONG THE LINES OF THIS, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE. ESTABLISH A, A VERY DISTINCT CRITERIA THAT WE CAN FOLLOW THAT SAYS WHAT A DORMANT WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY DORMANT, BECAUSE I DON'T EVEN KNOW ALL THE WAYS THAT SOMETHING CAN BE CONSIDERED NOT DORMANT. ALL THEY HAVE TO DO IS GO MOVE A SHOVEL FULL OF DIRT

[01:25:02]

OR SOMETHING. SO IT SEEMED LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF AMBIGUITY, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, ON WHAT'S DORMANT AND WHAT ISN'T DORMANT. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE BEING TASKED WITH, WHICH I THINK WOULD BE OUTSIDE PROBABLY OUR LEGAL EXPERTISE. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD NEED TO LEAN ON. OUR CITY ATTORNEY. AND ONCE AGAIN, STAFF TO RESEARCH ALL THAT STUFF TO FIND OUT WHAT REALLY ENTAILS. SAYING THAT'S DORMANT, THAT ISN'T. I MEAN, FOR ME, I'M NOT CLEAR ON THAT. I AGREE WITH WITH GENE. AND I THINK THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IF THE COUNCIL WANTS TO HAVE SOME KIND OF PARAMETERS BY WHICH THEY DETERMINE WHAT IS DORMANT AND WHAT IS NOT, BUT THAT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IS DEVELOPED BY THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, NOT BY NOT BY US, NOT BY US. FRANK. I AGREE, HOWEVER, MY LEGAL INTERPRETATION OF THIS 245 WHICH IS WHICH IS WHAT WE GOT THE ATTORNEY'S OPINION ABOUT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT'S CALLED VESTING. AND HE THOUGHT THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WITH RESPECT TO DORMANCY. 245 DOES NOT ADDRESS THE KIND OF ISSUES WE FACE WHEN WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE DEEDS. WHAT IS 245? BECAUSE 45 IS THE STATE LAW LOCAL GOVERNMENT ABOUT IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE, AND THE CITY ATTORNEY'S WRITTEN US AN OPINION ABOUT THAT RELATED TO OUR WORK ON THE PD. IN MY OPINION, ACCORDING TO 245, EVERY PDB IS VESTED, NOT DORMANT BECAUSE THE TWO. WELL YOU CAN WE CAN IF I MAY THE WAY THAT I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN TOLD ZONING IS NOT ENTITLEMENT AS FAR AS UTILITIES GO. HOWEVER, WHEN YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR A DEED THAT IS DIRECTLY TIED TO YOUR UTILITY CAPACITY, AT THAT POINT IT IS LOCKED IN. YOU CANNOT TOUCH IT, YOU CANNOT CANCEL IT. YOU CANNOT SAY, WE HAVE NO CAPACITY.

YOU OWE THEM THAT CAPACITY. WHEN YOU ZONE A PROPERTY, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY ABOUT TIMING ON UTILITIES AND ENTITLEMENTS AND WHAT THAT MEANS. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR YOU HAVE A PPD, THE WAY THAT WE HAVE THEM SITUATED NOW, WE ARE LOCKED IN AND TRYING TO FIGHT A DORMANT ENTITLEMENT ON THOSE IS GOING TO BE VERY CHALLENGING BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCKED IN. YEAH. THE POINT IS, I DON'T THINK 245 FROM A LEGAL PERSPECTIVE IS GOING TO HELP US. WHAT I THINK THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NEEDS IS LEGAL OPINIONS, CASE LAW ASSOCIATED WITH DOWN ZONING, AND THAT GETS US TO TAKING WELL, I THINK GIVING GIVEN THAT THE LIST OF POTENTIALLY DORMANT OR PARTIALLY DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US, SOME OF THESE ARE PDS AND SOME OF THESE ARE JUST CURRENT ZONING SITUATIONS. AND SO THEY REALLY ARE TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES. AND I THINK THAT IN ORDER TO PROVIDE COUNCIL WITH THE LIST OF THIS IS A CHECK OFF LIST OF WHAT YOU WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO CONSIDER SOMETHING DORMANT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE PROVIDING.

I DON'T THINK THAT IT'S IT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS SO. THAT IS SO FRAUGHT WITH LEGAL PERIL AS THIS PARTICULAR TYPE OF BEHAVIOR WOULD BE. I THINK IT SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT. AND RATHER THAN COME TO US FOR THIS, I THINK THAT COUNCIL SHOULD REFER IT TO CITY ATTORNEY. IF I HAD TO MAKE A MOTION, IT WOULD BE THAT. YEAH, I'M. EXCUSE ME. WHAT THE COUNCIL WAS REFERRING TO IS 245 .005, WHICH SPEAKS DIRECTLY TO DORMANT PROJECTS. AND IT STATES AFTER THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER, A REGULATORY AGENCY THAT'S THE CITY MAY ENACT AN ORDINANCE, RULE OR REGULATION THAT PLACES A. SORRY, IT'S VERY HUNGRY A. ONE THE PERMIT. PROCESS IN OH EXPIRATION DATE ON A PERMIT. RIGHT, RIGHT. IF THE FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF THE OF THE

[01:30:04]

EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER AND BASICALLY IN WHAT FRANK IS SAYING AND WHAT WHAT JORDAN IS SAYING IS CORRECT, THESE THESE THINGS ARE BRUTALLY DIFFICULT TO TO DECLARE IT DORMANT BECAUSE EVEN DORMANCY IS DESCRIBED AS NOT DOING ANYTHING WITH THE PROPERTY. WHEN RANCH, FOR INSTANCE, THEY GOT A THEY GOT A PD, THEY DIDN'T DO A DAMN THING WITH IT. THEY DIDN'T SPEND ANY MONEY, THEY DIDN'T MAKE ROADS, THEY DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. BUT IF THEY IF IF YOU SEND THEM A NOTICE THAT SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO DECLARE YOUR PROJECT DORMANT, AND ALL THEY GOT TO DO IS, YOU KNOW, TAKE OUT A PERMIT TO GO DIG UP A TREE OR, YOU KNOW, MOVE A LITTLE DIRT AROUND AND IT'S NO LONGER DORMANT. AND YOU GOT TO WAIT ANOTHER, ANOTHER FOUR YEARS. SO IT EVEN IN THE ABSOLUTE BEST, MOST OPTIMISTIC CASE IS I DON'T THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD SPEND AN ORDER WRITE AN ORDINANCE ABOUT IT.

BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE THAT'S WHAT COUNCIL IS TALKING ABOUT IS, IS 245 .05.

THAT'S THAT'S BUT AGAIN THAT IS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK THE CITY ATTORNEY SHOULD HANDLE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE, WHEN THE DORMANT AND PARTIALLY DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS THAT ARE LISTED ARE LIKE APPLES AND ORANGES BECAUSE THEY'RE ZONING SITUATIONS AND THERE'S ENTITLEMENTS THERE PDT SITUATION PDS THAT ALREADY HAVE ENTITLEMENTS SPECIFICALLY GIVEN TO THEM, AND THEN SOME ARE JUST AN UNSPECIFIED NO CONCEPT PLAN, NO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT RELATED, JUST ZONING. SO I THINK WE HAVE APPLES AND ORANGES, AND WE CAN'T COME UP WITH A LIST OF THINGS TO CONSIDER IN DORMANT AMONGST OURSELVES. I DON'T THINK THIS IS. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR BRAD, OR DO YOU JUST WANT TO SAY, WELL, NO. YES, YES. IF I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR AND OUR DIRECTOR. BY THE WAY, Y'ALL HAVE NOTICED WE HAVE A PLANNER.

I'M GOING TO TEAR UP HERE IN A MINUTE. SON OF A. GOT IT. THANK YOU. KNOW THE BRAD'S ISSUE IF YOU MOVE FORWARD, WHICH I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PERIOD. FULL STOP. BUT THAT MAY RELATE TO.

OUR DIRECTOR GETTING A HANDLE ON THIS STUFF AND AT SOME POINT. SHE MAY FIND SOMETHING OUT THERE WITH THIS OLD STUFF AND SHE GOES, OH MY GOODNESS, WE NEED TO FIX THIS. BUT THAT'S GOING TO BE A WHILE DOWN THE ROAD. SHE'S GOT SOME OTHER STUFF TO GET AT. SO I AGREE WITH THE CHAIR'S POINT. WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO PUT THIS DOWN THE ROAD, BUT IF IT COMES BACK, MY SUGGESTION, MADAM CHAIR, IS THAT THE THAT OUR CITY ATTORNEY GIVE US A LEGAL OPINION ON DOWN ZONING. IF IT COMES BACK, I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT AT THE MEETING.

CAN I JUST ADD, JUST FOR YOUR HISTORY OR JUST HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE? I KNOW THAT THIS CAME ABOUT BECAUSE THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PEOPLE GOODS OBVIOUS, BUT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF PDS THAT WERE JUST SITTING OUT THERE LIKE MAHOGANY, WHICH IS NOW, I THINK, TURNED BACK. SO THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THEM THAT WERE APPROVED, BUT THEY'VE BEEN SITTING THERE NOTHING. AND TURN BACK WAS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IT, WHERE THEY WERE DOING NOTHING FOR A DECADE. AND SO THAT THE THE IDEA, I THINK, FROM COUNCIL WAS LOOKING AT THOSE OLD THINGS THAT NOTHING'S EVER HAPPENED TO. AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN WE'VE APPROVED THIS. AND IN LIGHT OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND WHERE WE ARE AND ROAD STRUCTURE, ALL THAT STUFF THAT WE THAT WE JUST ALLOW THAT TO GO FORWARD. SO THAT WAS THE THE KIND OF THE ISSUE BEHIND ALL THAT WAS HOW DO WE ADDRESS THAT IF IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE FOR A WHILE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER YOU DO A SHOVEL OF DIRT OR NOT, BUT IF THEY'VE NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO IT, HOW DO WE THAT WE'VE APPROVED IT TEN YEARS AGO? HOW DOES THAT HOW IS THAT ALIGN WITH OUR OUR GOALS FOR NOW FOR CURRENT AND IF I MAY, A LOT OF THAT IS IN HOW WE HANDLE DEVELOPMENT AS A CITY AS A WHOLE. IT'S IN OUR POLICIES, IT'S IN OUR PROCEDURES, IT'S IN THE AGREEMENTS. WE WRITE AND WE AGREED TO. IT'S THINGS WE SIGN AND VOTE AND APPROVE ON AND. IT'S SOMETHING. MADAM, MADAM CHAIR, CAN I MAKE A POINT ON THAT? YES. WHICH IS THE POINT ABOUT 245 .05. YOU PUT THE EXPERT FOR FUTURE STUFF. YOU

[01:35:07]

PUT THE EXPIRATION DATE, YOU'RE DROP DEAD DATE, YOU'RE EXPIRED. RIGHT. THAT GOES AWAY. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW. WE'RE DOING THAT NOW. YOU GOT TWO TWO COMMENTS. GO AHEAD. I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE A LITTLE, LITTLE CONTEXT ON THE HISTORY. SOME OF THIS FOR JORDAN'S EDIFICATION. WHEN I FIRST GOT ON COUNCIL ABOUT SIX MONTHS IN MAY, JUNE OF 2021 WHEN RANCH PD CAME BEFORE US, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED ON THAT AT THAT MEETING, WHICH SADLY HAD NEVER BEEN ASKED BY COUNCIL MEMBERS OR PNC MEMBERS IN THE PAST, IS WHAT PERCENTAGE OF OUR WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY ARE WE AT? IT WASN'T KNOWN CITY BEEN APPROVING PDS LEFT AND RIGHT, WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION WHAT WE CAN ACTUALLY DELIVER, BECAUSE WE HAVE A CONTRACTUAL OBLIGATION TO DELIVER THOSE LEVEES. YEAH. OKAY. TO MR. ROBINS, COMMISSIONER ROBINS POINT AND TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE DIRECTOR'S POINT. WE THAT WAS THE FIRST ONE IN MY MEMORY WHERE WE DID INCORPORATE PHASING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THAT'S EFFECTIVELY AN EXPIRATION. AND I'VE SEEN THE LEGAL MEMO THAT YOU GUYS ARE REFERRING TO FROM BRAD. AND HE SAID THAT IN THE PDS, THEY BECOME VESTED WHEN THEY TAKE OUT THE PERMITS, WHEN THEY START CUTTING DIRT, WHEN THEY INITIATE THAT FIRST PHASE, RIGHT? THAT'S WHEN THEY BECOME VESTED. THE REALITY IS 245.05 AND OUR CITY ORDINANCES PRESCRIBED FOR A PROCESS TO BE ABLE TO. REZONE OR AMEND A PD, AND THAT CAN BE INITIATED BY EITHER THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THAT IS NEVER GOING TO CHANGE.

SO I THINK THE IDEA THAT WHAT COUNCIL'S PERSPECTIVE WAS ON THIS, IN REFERRING IT TO THE COMMISSION WAS, LOOK, IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THIS SCENARIO, THE IF THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS, YOU NEED TO HAVE A PLAN FOR IT. SO WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN DECIDING WHETHER OR NOT TO INITIATE, WHETHER IT BE THE PNC OR THE COUNCIL INITIATE THAT ZONING OR PD AMENDMENT. WHAT IS THE BASIC CRITERIA AT ONE OF YOUR PRIOR MEETINGS, YOU DIRECTED THE CITY ATTORNEY TO PROVIDE YOU WITH THE INITIAL TEMPLATE FOR THAT, THAT YOU COULD THEN EXPOUND UPON? AND AGAIN, I'M JUST RECITING STUFF I'M NOT ADVOCATING EITHER WAY ON ANYTHING. AND HERE YOU ARE NOW. SO I JUST THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT THAT POSSIBILITY OF ALWAYS INITIATING THAT ZONING OR PD AMENDMENT AT THE PNC LEVEL OR THE COUNCIL LEVEL IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE THERE. IT'S BETTER TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PARAMETERS OR A LIST OF BOXES YOU HAVE TO CHECK RATHER THAN HAVING NONE. AND THE SOONER YOU CAN HAVE THINGS LIKE THAT DONE, I THINK THE BETTER. THANK YOU. ROB. YEAH, AND I RECALL THAT WHEN? WHEN? AND THE, THE THE PHASING WAS PUT INTO THAT ONE. AND AT SOME POINT SHORTLY AFTER THAT, I DON'T REMEMBER WHETHER IT WAS A RESOLUTION OR AN ORDINANCE OR WHATEVER BECAUSE WE WERE GETTING NOT NOT THE BEST LEGAL ADVICE AT THAT TIME, BUT WE, WE DID AS A COUNCIL TALK ABOUT PHASING. AND I, I THINK PASSED A RESOLUTION THAT SAID, BUT YOU MAY LOOK INTO THAT, THAT BASICALLY SAYS PHASE THEM ALL BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT WE DIDN'T, COUNCILOR. BUT I DON'T RECALL IF WE PASSED A RESOLUTION. BUT I KNOW THAT WITH THAT COUNCIL, THERE WAS UNANIMOUS CONSENSUS THAT FOR THE VERY REASONS I ARTICULATED A MOMENT AGO, THAT WE NEED TO HAVE PHASING IN ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS, AND THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE VERY POINT THAT MISS STROHMEYER MADE ABOUT, TO THE BEST OF HER UNDERSTANDING, RECOLLECTION ABOUT THOSE VESTED RIGHTS AND THOSE LAWS, WHICH WOULD MAKE SENSE IF YOU HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH NO EXPIRATION DATE, AND YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEVELOP UP TO 1500. LOUISE.

WELL, THEY DON'T JUST GO AWAY. I MEAN, IT'S THERE UNLESS THERE'S SOME TYPE OF EXPIRATION OR TERMINATION CLAUSE IN THE CONTRACT. SO YEAH, THAT'S IMPORTANT. AND I THINK ONE OTHER POINT OF, OF CONTEXT THAT I THINK IS WORTH SHARING IS THAT AT THAT TIME, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE IT WAS, IT WAS THAT WAS IN THE MAY JUNE TIME FRAME. AND IT WAS IN OCTOBER I HAD WE

[01:40:04]

FINALLY GOT THE NUMBERS BACK FROM THE, FROM TAYLOR AS TO WHAT THAT WATER WASTEWATER CAPACITY WAS. AND OF COURSE, HERE A FEW YEARS LATER, WE'VE LEARNED THAT THAT WAS WRONG AND P VERSUS ANYWAY. AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS THESE SEVERAL THESE PDS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE FOR 20 YEARS OR MORE, AND THEY'RE JUST SITTING THERE AND THERE'S THOUSANDS OF LOUISE THAT ARE TIED UP IN THESE PDS THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO SEE MORE MIXED USE, COMMERCIAL, MIXED USE AND COMMERCIAL, ETCETERA AROUND TOWN, IF YOU HAVE A LIMITED CAPACITY, WHERE CAN YOU PULL THAT FROM? AND SO THE THINKING WAS, LET'S ADDRESS THESE DORMANT PDS. IS THAT WAS THAT THE RIGHT THINKING? I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT REALLY MATTERS AT THIS POINT. I THINK THE THE QUESTION I WOULD JUST REFER BACK TO MY PRIOR COMMENTS WAS THAT THERE'S AN ORDINANCE AND A STATUTE THAT SAYS YOU CAN GO BACK AND AMEND A PD AND YOU CAN REZONE, YOU CAN INITIATE REZONING AS WELL. WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS THAT A BODY OF VOLUNTEER CITIZENS SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? AND THAT'S IT. AND YOU'VE GOT THE INITIAL BASES OF THAT COMING FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY. AND BASED ON MY FIRST VIEW OF IT, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A COMPLETE PRODUCT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MORE DISCUSSION OR ARE WE READY FOR A MOTION? RECOMMENDING. MADAM CHAIRMAN, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER UNTIL THE STAFF BRINGS UP THIS ISSUE BACK TO US, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE A LEGAL OPINION ON DOWN ZONING. G, COULD I HAVE YOU CONSIDER ADDING TO THAT THAT PART OF THE STAFF WORK IS THAT THEY SEPARATE ONCE AGAIN ON WHAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT, SEPARATE PDS INTO ONE CATEGORY, CATEGORY AND JUST ZONING INTO ANOTHER CATEGORY SO THAT WE DON'T RUN INTO A ISSUE OF DOING SOMETHING THAT'S NOT LEGAL. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, I THINK SO I'M JUST I'M I UNDERSTAND OKAY. I WOULD IF I MIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T WANT TO DO THE PARLIAMENTARY THING. WELL LET ME LET ME LEAVE MY MOTION ON THE TABLE. WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES. YOU DON'T HAVE YOUR OWN.

YOU CAN AMEND IT. YEAH. WHAT THE. THE AMENDMENT TO MY MOTION WOULD BE IS WHEN AND THERE MAY BE AN IT, BUT IT'S DEFERRED TILL WHEN STAFF COMES BACK THAT THE STAFF PROVIDE THE CRITERIA.

SO IT'S DEFERRED. MOTION IS TO DEFER UNTIL STAFF COMES BACK WITH THE LEGAL OPINION ON DOWN ZONING AND THE CRITERIA TO DOWN. SO AND I WOULD NOT, MADAM CHAIR, I WOULD NOT MAKE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN STRAIGHT ZONING AND PDS OKAY. THEY'RE ALL THEY'RE ALL. IN FACT SOME SOME OF THE STRAIGHT ZONING CATEGORIES ARE SIGNIFICANT. THE MAXIMUM ONE COULD DO IN THOSE STRAIGHT ZONING CATEGORIES IS WAY HIGHER THAN PDS BECAUSE YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. BUT THAT'S WHY IT WOULDN'T MAKE A DISTINCTION THAT MAKES SENSE IF THEY'RE ALL GIRL. I WOULD JUST HAVE A QUESTION JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHEN YOU SAY DOWN ZONING. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THERE? THERE'S A BUNCH OF STATE LAW CASE LAW ABOUT CITIES THAT HAVE INITIATED DOWN ZONING, CITY INITIATES THE DOWN ZONING. OKAY. WHEN THEY DOWN ZONE, WHAT HAPPENS? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING.

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? THEY GO TO COURT. THEY'VE GONE TO COURT. AND THE COURTS HAVE INDICATED. THE FIRST THING IS WHAT'S THE BACKGROUND AND THE DATA ASSOCIATED WITH THE CASE. AND THEN COURTS LOOKS AT THIS AND DECIDES WHETHER THE, THE, THE, THE WORD IS TAKING. YEAH. THE CITY TAKE WITHOUT COMPENSATION. IN THE DOWN ZONING. WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THEY SAY THIS HAS BEEN DOWN ZONED. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. SOME

[01:45:02]

CASES THE CITIES HAVE SAID IT. IF THE CITY DOWN ZONES THERE'S THE ISSUE IS ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO PAY THEM FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY HAD AND WHAT YOU WANTED? DOWN ZONE TWO ISSUE IS PAYMENT. OKAY, SO DOWN ZONING IF I THINK I'M HEARING IS IT'S JUST BASICALLY SAYING YOU WERE GIVEN PERMISSION TO DO THIS, BUT NOW WE'RE GOING TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT AWAY AND SAY IT'S GOING TO BE THIS. SO IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN WHEN YOU SAY DOWN ZONE? YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT IT IS, WHAT IT MEANS. AND, AND, AND THE COURTS ARE IN INTERESTING PLACES. BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FACING. I THINK THOSE THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THIS, THIS COMMISSION HAS BEEN BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT, NOT WHETHER IT'S DORMANT OR NOT.

RIGHT. BUT WHAT HAPPENS IF WE TRY TO DOWN ZONE THESE GUYS TO SOMETHING. SO ISN'T THAT DIFFERENT THAN JUST DEALING? I WOULD AMEND IF I CAN I AMEND YOUR MOTION BEFORE WE HAVE A SECOND ON IT. SURE. OKAY. I WOULD I WOULD AMEND YOUR MOTION TO SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE NOT DEFERRED, BUT REFERRED TO CITY STAFF. AND CITY STAFF SHOULD RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE FOR US TO EVALUATE SO THAT ORDINANCE SHOULD CITY STAFF CHOOSE TO DO SO, WOULD WOULD LIST THE CRITERIA AND THE POLICIES AND DEALING WITH DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS. THANK YOU FOR COMMENT. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO DEVELOP AN ORDINANCE TO DO IT THAT THAT THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THAT THAT'S JUST CREATING ANOTHER PROCESS, OKAY. IN AN MAKE AN ORDINANCE THAT'S GOT TO GO TO COUNCIL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE COUNCIL'S ASKED US TO FIND THE CRITERIA. WELL, THEY ASK US TO RECOMMEND IT IS TO RECOMMEND AN ORDINANCE. AND THAT'S I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ORDINANCE.

I THINK THAT'S A PART OF THE PROCESS THAT WE MAY OR MAY NOT GET INTO THE CRITERIA. I THINK WE PROBABLY OUGHT TO GET TO DOING THIS. I MY MY POINT, FRANKLY, IS DEAD. WHERE OUR NEW DIRECTOR IS NOT. NOW, THAT'S ALL. SHE'S GOT A COMP PLAN IN TWO WEEKS AND SHE'S GOING TO TAKE ON 20 DOWN ZONING CASES. THAT'S NOT HAPPENING. NO, I DON'T I DON'T MEAN TO REFER IT TO TO HER, I MEAN TO REFER. AND THE REASON I SAID AN ORDINANCE BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEN THEY WOULD COME BACK AND SAY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO AN ORDINANCE AND THAT WOULD BE THE END OF IT.

SO. SO I DON'T THINK TO MOVE FORWARD REQUIRES AN ORDINANCE, MADAM CHAIR. I THINK IT REQUIRES A DOCUMENT WHICH STAFF WOULD BRING US. OKAY. MY, MY MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE MAKE A REFERRAL. MY MOTION IS THAT WE MAKE A REFERRAL TO CITY STAFF, WHICH WOULD BE CITY ATTORNEY, THE CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY TO COME UP WITH CRITERIA AND POLICIES AND DEALING WITH DORMANT ENTITLEMENTS AND HAVE ALL OF THE CRITERIA DEVELOPED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND THEN BRING IT TO US. AND TO SEE IF I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT, MADAM CHAIR.

OKAY. MY POINT. MY MOTION IS STAFF, OKAY. AND MY MOTION WOULD INCLUDE THE CITY ATTORNEY.

BUT DON'T CUT IT. DON'T CUT SHORT. NOW YOU HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SO WE HAVE HASN'T BEEN SECONDED. YEAH. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A SECOND FOR A SECOND. ANY DISCUSSION. ARE WE SECOND? I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO VOTE ON, TO BE HONEST AT THIS POINT. REPEAT YOUR MOTION. LET ME LET ME. YEAH. CAN YOU REVIEW YOUR MOTION? YEAH. CAN YOU STATE YOUR MOTION VERY CLEARLY? FOR THE RECORD, 30 WORDS OR LESS. WE DON'T HAVE A SECRETARY EITHER WHO CAN READ IT BACK. I MOVE THAT WE DEFER. THIS ISSUE. THAT'S ON ME AS WE'RE SPEAKING UNTIL THE STAFF.

BRINGS IT BACK TO US, INCLUDED IN WHAT COMES BACK TO US IS A LEGAL OPINION. ABOUT DOWN ZONING AND CRITERIA THAT WE MIGHT USE TO EVALUATE THOSE CASES THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE US WERE DORMANT IN A SECOND. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE A SECOND. YEAH, MAKE A COMMENT. MOTION DIES SO YOU CAN MAKE A COMMENT. WE HAD A SECOND. NO, I DID A SECOND ON HERS. DIDN'T YOU DO A MOTION

[01:50:02]

BEFORE? BUT WE ALREADY HAD A MOTION SO THEY COULDN'T MAKE IT BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO RESTATE IT. SHE SECONDED MY MOTION, BUT MY MOTION WAS INVALID. SO YOU HAVE MADE YOUR MOTION SO I DIDN'T MAKE IT. SO HE SECONDED SOMETHING THAT IS. SO DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON FRANK'S MOTION? NO WE DON'T. SO. NO, WE. GENE, YOU HAVE SOMETHING. GO AHEAD. YES, I THINK I DON'T KNOW THAT I DISAGREE. I JUST TO BE JUST BRUTALLY HONEST, I DON'T TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. BUT IN MY LITTLE PEANUT BRAIN, I THINK WHAT'S BOILED DOWN IN ON SOME OF THIS PAPERWORK IS WHAT YOU SAID, IF YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT THOSE THINGS RIGHT THERE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK WE WANT WE WE NEED STAFF NEEDS TO STAFF NEEDS. WELL THEN MAKE YOUR MAKE IT THAT. OKAY. LET ME MAKE A MOTION THEN DIRECT STAFF TO DEVELOP CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING AND CLASSIFYING PDS AS DORMANT. IDENTIFY POTENTIAL APPROACHES FOR ENGAGEMENT WITH PROPERTY OWNERS. FIGURE OUT THE TRIGGERS OR THRESHOLDS FOR INITIATING RECONSIDERATION OR REZONING. GET WITH CITY ATTORNEY TO LOOK INTO LEGAL BOUNDARIES AND RISKS RELATED TO VESTED RIGHTS AND TAKINGS, AND THEN DEVELOP A PROCESS AND STRUCTURE A CHECKLIST, IF YOU WILL, FOR REVIEWING DORMANT PDS ONE BY ONE SECOND, SECOND. OKAY. AND THEN ALL RIGHT. THEN MY DISCUSSION IS TO SAY THAT WE ARE TELLING STAFF TO DO WHAT WHAT CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO. AND STAFF WILL BE DOING EXACTLY WHAT CITY COUNCIL ASKED US TO DO. SO WE ARE REFERRING IT TO CITY STAFF, WHICH WILL BE THE CITY ATTORNEY. SURE, BUT IT'S GOING TO COME BACK. IT'S COMING BACK TO US. THEY'RE JUST DOING SOME RESEARCH TO SEND BACK TO US. OKAY. IF IT'S ONLY RESEARCH THAT THEY'RE DOING, AND I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF IT. NO, THEY SHOULD DRAFT. THEY SHOULD DRAFT AN ORDINANCE OR PROPOSED ORDINANCE. IF THEY DON'T, OKAY, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DRAFTED. WE SHOULD NOT BE DRAFTING ANYTHING. THIS SHOULD BE TURNED OVER TO CITY ATTORNEY. WELL, WHAT WHAT I JUST I'M SORRY I INTERRUPTED. NO, I SAID PERIOD. OKAY. WHAT WHAT I THINK ANYWAYS, WHAT I JUST READ DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT AN ORDINANCE. FIRST WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT THESE THINGS THAT I JUST READ OFF TO GET ALL THE ANSWERS TO THOSE QUESTIONS. BEFORE AN ORDINANCE CAN EVEN WRITTEN, I THINK WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR THAT'S BEEN SECONDED AND IT'S BEEN SECONDED.

SO NEED TO VOTE. WE NEED TO VOTE. GOOD POINT. COM QUESTION. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE AYE AYE. OKAY.

SO IT'S STILL CARRIES. SO FOR 1.1. OKAY. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL

[VI.4. Discussion on a referral from the City Council on possible subdivision regulations drafted by Council Member Rob Durbin.]

FROM THE CITY COUNCIL ON POSSIBLE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS DRAFTED BY COUNCIL MEMBER ROB DURBIN. AND THEN THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS WERE ATTACHED. HOPEFULLY YOU GOT A RED LINE ON THAT BECAUSE I WROTE THOSE SO LONG AGO, I DON'T REMEMBER. I GAVE IT TO STAFF. YES. MISTER, DO YOU HAVE. COMMENTS TO MAKE A REPORT TO COMMISSIONERS? AGAIN, THIS GOES BACK TO THE SAME THING. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK INTO THIS. I HAVE NOT HAD A CHANCE TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE IS ALL THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED. YES, SIR. WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MY THOUGHTS AS TO WHY I DRAFTED IT? IT WAS. IT WAS A. I BELIEVE A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE CAME BEFORE YOU GUYS THAT HAD. WHERE. IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CITY. IT.

BUT IN MY MIND IT WAS NOT A COMPLETE APPLICATION BECAUSE THEY SKIPPED A BUNCH OF STEPS.

AND THE CITY APPARENTLY SAID, WELL, THAT'S OKAY. AND WE THIS ELIMINATES THE WELL, THAT'S OKAY. SHE JUST BASICALLY SAYS YOU CAN'T SKIP STEPS. AND FROM A DEPARTMENT STANDPOINT, WHAT I

[01:55:05]

SEE LISTED IN 2.1, 2.5, NO ISSUES WITH WHATSOEVER. I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE. IT GIVES US YOUR PROCESS IS ONLY AS GOOD AS YOUR CODE. AND THIS GIVES US A LITTLE BIT MORE AUTHORITY TO SAY, HEY, YOU'RE YOU'RE INCOMPLETE OR YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE, HOWEVER, I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THIS THESE ARE THE ONLY RED LINES THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THIS SMALL SECTION. IF THERE'S MORE, IF WE NEED TO DO A FEW MORE MODIFICATIONS BEFORE WE TAKE IT TO COUNCIL FOR FINAL APPROVAL SO WE CAN ADDRESS ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY BE IN THERE, LIKE STATE LEGISLATIVE COMPLIANCE AT THE SAME TIME, WHICH WOULD BE A BIG ONE. AND SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT IT'S NOT A GOOD ORDINANCE OR THAT IT SHOULDN'T GO THROUGH. I AGAIN, WOULD ASK FOR STAFF TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT WHEN WE TAKE AN AMENDMENT TO CODE BEFORE COUNCIL, IT IS HOLISTIC AND COMPLETE AND COVERS WHAT WE NEED IT TO COVER. I BELIEVE TO KEEP IT SIMPLE. DEAL. AND THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT. THANK YOU. WERE GOING TO SPEAK. I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I THINK THAT GIVEN THAT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAS NOT NEW DEVELOPMENT SERVICE HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS, THAT IT IS NOT A GOOD IDEA FOR US TO TAKE ANY ACTION ON IT. NOW, I THINK WE SHOULD DEFER IT UNTIL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND MAKE THEIR COMMENTS OR SUGGESTIONS OR. AND GIVES IT TO LEGAL REVIEW. BUT I, I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD BE TAKING ACTION ON THIS TONIGHT. I AGREE.

CAN I MAKE SOME COMMENTS THOUGH FOR FOR THE STAFF FOR FURTHER REVIEW? OKAY, I MAKE COMMENTS ON ALL THIS STUFF. MR. ROBBINS, SORRY IF I CAN ASK MORE THAN HAPPY TO HEAR AND GET THE FEEDBACK. AS I SAID, IT'S IMPORTANT. IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT TO ALSO GET IT IN WRITING IF WE CAN SEND IT AFTER THE FACT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE AS WE GO THROUGH THIS, WE'RE NOT MISSING THINGS OR YOU GOT IT. THANK YOU. NO, NO. DID THE DOCUMENT. THIS ONE? YES, MA'AM.

EVEN BETTER. OKAY. OKAY, OKAY. GIVEN THAT WE ALL HAVE IT AND AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICE HAS IT, THEN CAN WE CONSIDER IT? AND HAND IT OUT? I WOULD, MADAM CHAIR. I'D LIKE TO GET STUFF ON THE RECORD, IF THAT'S OKAY. ABOUT THIS DOESN'T HURT, MAY I? OKAY. THANK YOU. WHY ARE WE PUTTING IN HERE THE ISSUE OF HAVING TO FOR A STAFF REPORT THAT WHEN IT WAS HELD AND WHAT PEOPLE WERE ATTENDING, WHY ARE WE DOING THAT? ACCOUNTABILITY. IF THERE IS CONFUSION OR. AT SOME POINT IF IF THE DEVELOPER AND THE CITY DON'T AGREE WHAT HAPPENED AT THAT STAFF REPORT, WE KNOW WHO TO TALK TO ABOUT IT. AND WE'VE GOT A WE GOT A REPORT THAT SHOULD BE SIGNED OFF BY BOTH PARTIES AND SAYS, THIS IS WHAT WE DID TODAY. YEAH. ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH WITH THIS ONE, THE GREAT PERSON IS STAFF ISSUES. THIS IS FUNDAMENTALLY APPARENTLY A CHECK TO SEE IF STAFF DID SOMETHING OKAY WITH SOME DETAIL. THAT I THINK IS IT'S OKAY, BUT IT'S UNNECESSARY AND IT'S NOT SIMPLE BECAUSE IT ADDS WORK TO KEEP TRACK OF ALL THOSE FOLKS, PUT THE DATE IN AND THEN PUT THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT'S OKAY, BUT IT'S UNNECESSARY. SECOND POINT HAS TO DO WITH YOU CAN'T SKIP STEPS, RIGHT? YOU CAN'T SKIP STEPS NOW.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PARDON ME. IT IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT OUR CODE SAYS THEY CAN SKIP STEPS.

IT'S THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY STEPS HAVE BEEN SKIPPED, WHICH HAS LED TO A LOT OF CLEANUP ON OUR END AS A DEPARTMENT, NO QUESTION. BUT THAT'S KIND OF MY POINT. WELL, ONE OF THE POINTS IS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HOW ARE YOU GOING TO GET STUFF RIGHT WHEN THE STAFF SCREWS UP? I DON'T THINK PUTTING IN AN ORDINANCE PARTICULARLY, IT'S THE WAY TO DO IT. OKAY. ALL I'M TALKING ABOUT. WHEN STAFF SCREWS UP, I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT FOR CLARIFICATION. I MEAN, WHO ARE YOU GOING TO TALK TO IF YOU DON'T, IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHO IS IN THE MEETING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOU SAID? I'M SORRY. I'M GOING TO. I NEED TO STEP BACK. YOU GUYS. YOU GUYS NEED

[02:00:05]

TO. COME ON. OKAY. CAN I GO CONTINUE WITH SKIP STEPS? CAN YOU RIGHT NOW, PLEASE, PLEASE GO THROUGH THIS AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN, BECAUSE WE'VE GOT A LOT TO COVER TONIGHT, SO YOU CANNOT SKIP STEPS IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY. WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW FOR STEPS TO BE SKIPPED BY THE COUNCIL, AND THAT IS GOING TO TRIGGER A 30 DAY PROBLEM AND IT'S UNNECESSARY. DON'T DO IT. I COULD THE COUNCIL SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO GIVE A DEVELOPER A CHANCE TO SKIP STEPS. THIS DRAFT DOES THAT OKAY. AND OKAY OKAY. OKAY. IS IT THE LAST SAY YOUR LAST POINT ON THIS. YES. OKAY. SO WE ARE GOING TO DEFER THIS THIS AGENDA ITEM UNTIL.

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GETS A CHANCE TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT. AND, AND REVIEWS IT AND BRINGS IT BACK TO US FOR REVIEW. AND I WOULD HOPE THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT NO LATER THAN MID DECEMBER. WELL, SO ON THAT NOTE, FREEZE NICHOLS HAS SAID THAT THEY WILL HAVE OUR IN DEPTH DIAGNOSTIC IN FEBRUARY, AND SO WE MAY START WORKSHOPPING SOME OF THESE DETAILS LEADING UP TO IT. AND THEN THEY WILL CALL OUT SOME THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE BROUGHT UP TO STATE LAW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE NEWEST UPDATE. AND SO IT MAY BE PAST DECEMBER, BUT WE WILL BE WORKING ON IT DURING THAT TIME FRAME WITH FEEDBACK FROM BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T WANT IT BACK UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO BRING IT BACK. SO I DON'T WANT TO SET AN ARBITRARY DEADLINE. I MY BIGGEST THING IS JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE NOT DOING DAISY CHAINED ORDINANCE ADOPTIONS. I WOULD RATHER DO ONE BIG CHUNK, HAVE IT DONE, HAVE IT CODIFIED AT THE SAME TIME, AND ENTERED INTO RECORD AT THE SAME TIME. AND IT'S JUST CLEANER. OKAY, MOVE TO DEFER UNTIL STAFF BRINGS IT BACK. OKAY, GOOD. IS THAT A MOTION? YES. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

[VI.5. Discussion on a referral from the City Council to clarify the definition of aggrieved person and any zoning or subdivision procedures associated with an aggrieved person.]

OKAY, GOOD. AGENDA ITEM FIVE. DISCUSSION ON A REFERRAL FROM CITY COUNCIL TO CLARIFY THE DEFINITION OF AGGRIEVED PERSON AND ANY ZONING OR SUBDIVISION PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH AN AGGRIEVED PERSON. AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. DO YOU HAVE A REPORT TO MAKE ON THAT? NOT AS MUCH OF A REPORT. MORE SO. QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS? POINTS OF CLARIFICATION.

THERE'S SOME. I GUESS MY WHAT IS THE INTENT? WHAT DO WE WANT THIS TO LOOK LIKE? WHERE DO WE WANT THIS TO GO? NOTIFICATION IN THE STATE OF TEXAS IS VERY CLEAR. MINIMUM OF 200FT. AND SO WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO MAKE THIS HANDLE OR WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH THIS CODE. AND THAT'S PURELY MY EDUCATION. YEAH. GIVEN MY TIMELINE HERE. SO IS IT IN THE TERMINOLOGY AGGRIEVED OR IS IT WHAT IT I THINK SINCE COUNCILOR ROBERTS BROUGHT THIS FORTH, SHOULD WE HAVE SHOULD WE HAVE HIM GIVE US SOME BACKGROUND ON THAT? SURE. I WAS JUST LOOKING I DIDN'T BRING A COPY OF THE PACKET, BUT I BELIEVE I ADDRESSED THESE VERY QUESTIONS IN MY IN THE PACKET THAT WAS REFERRED TO YOU GUYS. DID YOU GUYS READ THAT? YEAH. YES. NOT MEANT TO BE RHETORICAL. I MEAN. YEAH, OKAY. BECAUSE IT'S NOT FRESH ON MY MEMORY, BUT YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE A FRESHER RECOLLECTION OF THAN I DO. I HAVEN'T READ IT IN MANY WEEKS.

SO YES, GENERALLY SPEAKING, AND I AS I RECALL, OUR ORDINANCE DOES CURRENTLY LIMIT AN AGGRIEVED PERSON TO 200FT WITHIN. THIS IS ALL FROM MEMORY, SO FORGIVE ME IF I'M MAKING MISTAKES. 200FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. OKAY, OKAY. MANY OF THE ZONING CHANGES, PLATTING AND ALL THAT STUFF TENDS TO HAPPEN ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE CITY. NOT ALL OF IT, BUT MUCH OF IT. THERE'S NOT A LOT, NOT SO MUCH ON THE INFILL AS IT HAPPENS ON THE OUTSIDE. IT'S ON THE OUTSIDE, ON THAT PERIPHERY WHERE NEW THINGS ARE HAPPENING AS OPPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE CHANGING THE ALLEGIANCE FIRE STATION FROM THIS TYPE OF PERMITTED USE TO, YOU KNOW, A BOAT REPAIR SHOP. I THINK THAT WAS AN EXAMPLE YOU ALL MIGHT RECALL A WHILE BACK. SO ONLY

[02:05:05]

SOMEBODY WHO HAD A CONCERN WHO, WITH WHAT OCCURRED AT THE COMMISSION MEETING, FOR EXAMPLE, COULD RAISE A FLAG AND SAY, HEY, I THINK YOU MADE A MISTAKE. I THINK YOU MADE A PROCEDURAL MISTAKE. THUS AN AGGRIEVED PERSON. IT'S IN OUR ORDINANCES. THERE'S A DEFINITION. AGGRIEVED PERSON IS THROUGHOUT OUR ORDINANCES. IT'S CURRENTLY LIMITED TO 200FT. I ACTUALLY, BEFORE I SUBMITTED THIS AGENDA ITEM TO COUNCIL, I CONFERRED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY AND WE HAD MULTIPLE EMAIL EXCHANGES ABOUT IT. AND HIS INITIAL CONCERNS WERE CONSISTENT WITH ALMOST, SAID MADAME STROHMEYER STROHMEYER OVER HERE AND IS, YOU KNOW. HE DIDN'T WANT SOMEBODY TO BE ABLE HE DIDN'T WANT BECAUSE THE LAW WOULDN'T SUPPORT IT. HE DIDN'T WANT AN AGGRIEVED PERSON TO BE ABLE TO CAUSE A DO OVER OF THINGS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN FINALIZED.

FINALIZED. OKAY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, WHAT THIS WOULD DO BY EXPANDING THE DEFINITION BEYOND 200FT TO, FOR EXAMPLE, PEOPLE, YOU CAN EITHER CHANGE THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA OR YOU COULD SAY THE WHOLE CITY. EVERYBODY WITH UTILITY BILL. THAT'S FOR YOU TO DECIDE WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE BOUNDARY. BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENS IS THOSE INDIVIDUALS, THERE MIGHT BE ONE PERSON WITHIN A ONE MILE, A 1000 FOOT RADIUS OF THAT PROPERTY. THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT, AND THEY COULD BE IMPACTED BY IT BY THAT MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE. SO BRAD'S ADVICE WAS WHAT YOU SEE IN THIS, AND IT'S THAT IT'S ONLY TO THE ABILITY TO APPEAL WOULD BE LIMITED TO A PROCEDURAL MISTAKE. AND IT OCCURRED AND IT HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED BY COUNCIL, FOR EXAMPLE. IN OTHER WORDS, Y'ALL HAVE DONE SOMETHING. STAFF HAS MADE AN ERROR. THEY OVERLOOKED SIGNAGE. THE SIGNAGE WAS IT. IT WAS PROPERLY THAT'S AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING A GREEN PERSON COULD RAISE AFTER THE MEETING HAS ALREADY OCCURRED, OR YOUR PLAT LINES WERE WRONG. I LOVINGLY THOUGHT OF THIS AS THE ORDINANCE, QUITE FRANKLY. AND BECAUSE LINDA DOES DO A LOT OF DILIGENCE AND SHE TENDS TO FIND MISTAKES AND AND THEY OFTENTIMES HAPPEN OUTSIDE OF A VERY SMALL AREA. AND SO ANYWHO, EVERYTHING IS IN THE PACKET.

BUT THAT WAS THE THINKING IS SHOULD THE AGGRIEVED PERSON DEFINITION BE REVISITED. AND BECAUSE IT IS LIMITED TO SUCH A SMALL GEOGRAPHIC AREA, BRAD'S CONCERN WAS THAT I AGREE WITH AND IT'S THAT SOMEBODY SHOULDN'T BE ABLE TO CAUSE AN ORDINANCE TO GET RECONSIDERED.

THAT'S NOT THE INTENT HERE, AND THIS WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. IT NEEDS TO BE BEFORE THEN AND BEFORE THEN. AND THE INTENT IS TO BE ABLE TO ALLOW A CITIZEN OUTSIDE OF THE CURRENT 200FT TO BE DEFINED BY YOU GUYS. HOW FAR OUT IS ANYBODY WITHIN THE CITY TO SAY, HEY, STAFF, I THINK YOU MADE A MISTAKE. PLEASE LOOK AT IT. AND I THINK IN WHAT I INCLUDED IN THERE WAS LANGUAGE THAT SAID, IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE CITY MANAGER'S DISCRETION OR THEIR DESIGNATED RECALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO DID I ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FOR EVERYBODY? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. YOU DID. WHAT I WOULD WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE WERE GOING TO WORK ON AN AGGRIEVED PERSON ON THIS IS OF COURSE WE CAN WE CAN CHANGE THE. FOOTAGE. WE CAN MAKE IT 500FT OR 1000FT OR WHATEVER. I MEAN THAT THAT IS VERY EASY TO CHANGE. I MEAN, THAT DOESN'T, BUT THAT'S ARBITRARY. BUT WELL, THIS WE HAVE TO MAKE IT A MINIMUM OF 200FT. BUT THERE ARE CITIES LIKE GEORGETOWN THAT HAVE 300FT. THERE ARE CITIES LIKE AUSTIN THAT HAD 500FT.

OKAY. BUT THE THE THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS TO ME, THE AGGRIEVED PERSON IS WHO'S GOING TO DETERMINE. I MEAN, GENERALLY WHEN I'VE SEEN THINGS THAT WERE. THAT CAUSED AGREED AGREEMENT, IT WAS OFTEN THE CITY COUNCIL WHO DID IT. AND SO UNLESS THAT IS TAKEN CARE OF IN THIS AGREED DEFINITION, WE WON'T HAVE A SUFFICIENT DEFINITION. AND SO I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BROUGHT TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND HAVE THE CITY ATTORNEY ADDRESS QUESTIONS LIKE, WELL, WHAT IF THIS WHAT IF THE CITY COUNCIL DOES NOT COMPLY? WHAT DO WE DO? AND THIS GOES UNDER THE CITY MANAGER OVERSIGHT BOARD. IF THE CITY MANAGER DOESN'T COMPLY? I MEAN THOSE I MEAN, I REALLY FEEL LIKE, YES, IT'S TRUE THAT THAT THERE HAVE BEEN GRIEVOUS SITUATIONS, BUT. I WOULD LIKE

[02:10:03]