S. >> Mayor Muns: I NOW DECLARE THAT THE PLANO CITY COUNCIL PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING IS RECONVENED INTO OPEN SESSION, THAT ALL COUNCILMEMBERS ARE PRESENT, OUR FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PRELIMINARY AGENDA CONSIDERATION AND ACTION RESULTING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION. ITEM 2, COMPREHENSIVE FINANCIAL MONTHLY REPORT FOR SEPTEMBER OF 2022. LING NEW YEAS RESOLUONATIO FORTUNATE FORTUNATE FORTUNATE NDENISE TAC. WELCOME. >> I'M HERE TO PRESENT THE CMFR FOR SEPTEMBER OF 2022. THAT IS OUR FISCAL YEAR END. THESE NUMBERS AREN'T AUDITED YET, SO THEY'RE PRELIMINARY, SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE. THE GENERAL FUND HAS REVENUES OF 327.8 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR. THAT REGIMENTS 103.7% OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REESTIMATED BUDGET. THE WATER AND SEWER FUND HAS 191 MILLION IN REVENUES, WHICH REPRESENTS 105.4% OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REESTIMATED ANNUAL BUDGET. SO WE DID PRETTY GOOD COMPARED TO BUDGET ON THOSE REVENUES. THIS SLIDE REPRESENTS OUR EXPENDITURES COMPARED TO BUDGET BY FUND. THE GENERAL FUND HAS EXPENDITURES OF 290.9 MILLION FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, WHICH REPRESENTS 96 P96.8%. THE WATER AND SEWER FUND HAS EXPENDITURES OF 152.4 MILLION, WHICH REPRESENTS 100.3% OF THE TOTAL ANNUAL REESTIMATED BUDGET. HERE THIS IS STLIED IS OUR NET CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS. IN THE GENERAL FUND FOR THE FISCAL YEAR, THE FUND BALANCE HAS DECREASE BID 2.8 MILLION. THIS IS TRENDING BELOW WHERE WE WERE THIS TIME IN THE PRIOR YEAR. WE HADN'T DECREASED QUITE AS MUH, THE WATER AND SEWER FUND BALANCE HAS INCREASED BY 12.2 MILLION WHICH IS A GOOD SIGN. WE'RE FINALLY RECOVERING THIS THAT FUND. THE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE SERVICES FUND HAS DECREASED BY 2.9 MILLION, AND THE MUNICIPAL DRAINAGE FUND HAS DECREASED BY 55,000. DUE TO THE PERFORMANCE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL WASTE SERVICES FUND, WE'LL BE DOING A RATE MODEL STUDY TO MAKE SURE WE'RE GETTING THIS FUND IN LINE WITH THE RATES THAT WE REALLY SHOULD BE CHARGED TO RECOVER, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF DAYS IN WORKING CAPITAL IN THAT FUND. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE HAVE LIKE ONE DAY. WE'LL BE STARTING THAT STUDY IN JANUARY. OUR GENAL FUND REVUES E HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR YEAR BY $16.5 MILLION. OUR PROPERTY TAX REVENUES ARE FLAT. COMPARED TO THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR. BUT OUR SALES TAX REVENUE IS STRONG AND IT'S INCREASED BY 15.9 MILLION OVER THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR. THERE WAS ALSO AN INCREASE IN FRANCHISE FEE REVENUE OF 1.5 MILLION, AND BUILDING PERMIT FEES OF 1 MILLION. THIS WAS OFFSET BY INTEREST INCOME WHICH DECREASED BY 6.7 MILLION. THIS IS DUE TO A LARGE UNREALIZED LOSS. THAT IS PART OF THE REASON AT IT LKS LIKE THE FUND BALANCE IS GOING DOWN TOO. BUT REMEMBER, WE HOLD OUR PORTFOLIO TO MATURITY, AND SO WE'LL NEVER RECOGNIZE THOSE UNREALIZED LOSSES, BUT IT'S SIGNIFICANT THIS YEAR. IT'S A RISING INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT SO YOU'RE GOING TO SEE A LOT OF THAT. OUR GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES ARE HIGHER THAN THE PRIOR YEAR BY 10.5 MILLION, A LOT OF THIS IS DRIVEN BY PERSONNEL COSTS. THEY'RE UP 9.2 MILLION, AND THAT IS DUE TO THE 3% SALARY ADJUSTMENT EFFECVE OCTOBER 2021. OUR COST FOR MATERIALS AND SUPPLIES HAVE INCREASED. WE'RE ALREADY SEEING THE INFLATIONARY DRIVE AGAINST OUR EXPENDITURES, AND OUR CONTRACT ACTUALLY AND PROFESSIONAL FEES INCREASED BY 7.6 MILLION. THIS IS PRIMARILY DUE TO HIGHER INFORMATION SERVICE CHARGES. JUST INFORMATION SERVICE IS VERY EXPENSIVE. OUR INCREASED FUEL CHARGES AND INCREASES IN TRAVEL AND TRAINING COSTS ALSO HAVE INCREASED BECAUSE WE RESUMED TRAVEL AND TRAINING SINCE THE PANDEMIC, WHEREAS AS WEREN'T DOING SOME OF THAT. OF COURSEOME OF THESE INCREASES WERE OFFSET BY THE ARPA FUNDS, THAT'S THE FEDERAL REIMBURSEMENT THAT WE GOT OF 8.1 MILLION. OUR HEALTH CLAIMS FUND HAD A DECREASE OF 10.6 MILLION. THIS IS MOSTLY DUE TO THE INCREASE AND USAGE OF THE PLAN COPPING OUT OF THE PANDEMIC, AND PEOPLE PUTTING OFF TREATMENTS THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DOING, AND THEREFORE WE'RE ENDING UP WITH INCREASED MEDICAL COSTS. WE HAD A LOT OF LARGE CLAIMANTS AS WELL. THIS FUND HAD A FUND BALANCE OF 5. MILLION, THAT'S NOT NEARLY WHERE WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE, OUR POLICY IS TO KEEP SIX MONTHS OF CLAIMS PLUS REPORTED CLAIMS IN. THERE WE HAVE INCREASED THE EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTIONS. WE STARTED THAT IN MARCH TO THE FUND. AND THEN THERE IS AN INCREASE IN EMPLOYEE PREMIUMS IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. AN EMPLOYMENT RATES IN JUNE WERE 3.3%, AND THOSE HAVE SINCE DECREASED TO 3% IN SEPTEMBER. THIS IS A LOOK AT OUR SALES TAX FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER. THAT WAS UP CPARED TO THE PRIOR YEAR BY 21.24%. SO WE'RE CONTINUING TO SEE THAT SHOW POSITIVELY. WHEN WE LOOK AT THE REAL ESTATE MARKET RECAP, WE SHOW THE NUMBER OF DAYS ON THE MARKET WAS 15 DAYS IN JUNE, THAT HAS SINCE INCREASED TO 29 DAYS IN SEPTEMBER. THE PERCENT OF ASKING WAS AT 107% IN JUNE, IF YOU REMEMBER, IN JULY, THAT HAS DECREASED TO 99% IN SEPTEMBER. MORE REAL ESTATE INFORMATION, THE MEDIAN SELLING PRICE FOR A HOME IN PLANO WAS AT 564 IN JUNE, THIS COMPARES TO 530 IN SEPTEMBER. THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT IN JUNE WAS $228. COMPARED TO 213 IN SEPTEMBER. SO AS YOU CAN SEE FROM, THE LAST -- THE LAST QUARTER, WE'RE SEEING A SOFTENING IN THE REAL ESTATE MARKET. THAT CAN BE EXPECTED BECAUSE OF THE HIGH INTEREST RATES. HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAXES IS UP BY 3.9 MILLION COMPARED TO THE PRIOR FISCAL YEAR. AGAIN, THIS INDUSTRY IS RECOVERING NICELY FROM THE EFFECTS OF COVID. THIS IS OUR EQUITY AND TREASURY POOL. IT'S WHERE OUR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO RESIDES FOR EACH FUND. THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS HAVE 18% OF THE EQUITY AND TREASURY POOL. THE LARGEST SHARE OF COURSE IS GOING TO BE THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS, BECAUSE WE DEPOSITED ALL OF THE BOND PROCEEDS IN JUNE, AND THEY'RE AT 39%, AND THEN THE GENERAL FUND IS ONLY 10% OF THE EQUITY AND TREASURY POOL WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN IT NORMALLY IS, AND OF COURSE THAT'S JUST BECAUSE THE PRESSURE ON THE INCREASED EXPENSES. OUR PORTFOLIO BOOK VALUE IS NOW AT 687.2 MILLION. WE HAVE TIME MATURITY OF THE PORTFOLIO OUT, WE'RE GOING TO PROBABLY START MOVING A LITTLE BIT MORE TO CAPTURE SOME INTEREST RATES, BUT AS WE GET PROPERTY TAXES IN RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO JUST PUT IN IT THE POOLS AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES TO CATCH SOME BETTER INTEREST RATES IN THIS INTEREST RATE ENVIRONMENT. AND THEN OF COURSE THIS IS OUR DIVERSIFICATION OF OUR PORTFOLIO, OUR INVESTMENT POLICY DOESN'T ALLOW US TO HAVE MORE THAN 50% IN ANY ONE INVESTMENT CATEGORY, AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'RE VERY DIVERSIFIED. OUR MUNI BONDS ARE AT 47.34%, SO WE'LL PROBABLY HOLD OFF A LITTLE BIT ON THOSE AND MOVE THAT -- THE SIZE OF THOSE INVESTMENTS DOWN A LITTLE IT. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> COUNCILMAN GRADY? >> Grady: WELL, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE ARE -- YOU'VE ALREADY TOUCHED ON A COUPLE OF THINGSHAT I KIND OF EARMARKED, CERTAINLY SALES TAX -- MY NOTE NEXT TO IT WAS IT SAVED OUR BACON, BUT IT'S -- >> AND THAT AND THE FEDERAL FUNDS ARPA. >> Grady: YEAH. AND I HAD A NOTE NEXT TO THE WATER AND SEWER WHERE I SAW THERE WAS AN EXCESS OF 13 MILLION, AND DO WE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OF WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT EXCESS? ARE WE HOLDING THAT OVER FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR OR -- >> YOU DO, BECAUSE YOU NEVER KNOW. IT DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU GET A RAINEY YEAR, YOU'RE GNG TO HA WATER AND SEWER REVENUES ARE GOING TO FALL, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE JUST HOLDING IT OVER, AND WE'LL ADJUST THE RATES ACCORDINGLY. WE LOOK AT THEM EVERY YEAR TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE ADEQUATELY COVERING THE COST -- >> I WOULD LIKE TO ADD IN THAT WE ALSO HAVE A SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION THAT WE'RE USING FOR SOME OUR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FOR WATER AND SEWER THAT HAVE SEEN INCREASED COSTS, SO WE'RE BRINGING THAT ACROSS ACTUALLY THIS EVENING ON THE AGENDA AS PART OF THAT SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATION, SO THAT WILL DRAW DOWN SOME OF THOSE FUNDS AS WELL. >> Grady: OKAY, GOOD. >> BECSE IYOU RECALL, WE'RE PAY AS YOU GO FOR THE MOST PART, WE DON'T BOND FUND IN THERE, AND SO WE ARE SEEING AN INCREASE IN THE NUMBER OF PROJECTS THAT WE'RE NEEDING TO FUND OUT OF THERE SO -- >> Grady: YEAH, I WAS A LITTLE ALSO CONCERNED AN ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING A NEGATIVE FUND BALANCE, YOU ALREADY MENTIONED THAT, SO THAT WAS A GOOD POINT. AND I NOTICED THE -- THE ARP FUNDS IN THE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS, HAVE THOSE ALREADY BEEN EARMARKED FOR PROJECTS OR IS IT JUST SITTING THERE? >> THE ARP FUNDS? >> Grady: YEAH, ABOUT 15, ALMOST 16 MILLN SITTING THERE. >> SO THE -- THE FEDERAL FUNDS. >> OH, OH. >> SO, YES, ALL OF THOSE HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY EARMARKED FOR PROJECTS THAT WE'VE H SO IF YOU REMEMBER, WE HAD SOME OF OUR TECHNOLOGY FUNDS FOR THE VEHICLE DETECTION, AND SEVERAL OTHER PROJECTS THAT WE ACTUALLY IDENTIFIED FOR THE USE OF THOSE FUNDS, SO WE DO HAVE THOSE COMMITTED AND REPORTING BACK TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ON A MONTHLY OR QUARTERLY BASIS AS FAR AS THE PROGRESS TO THOSE FUNDS. >> Grady: THANKS VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> Mayor Muns: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU NEXT ITEM IS ITEM 3. THE DART INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT UPDATE. MARK? >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, WE ARE WORKING IN A FAST-MOVING TIMELINE FOR THE RECEIPT OF SOME DART FUNDS THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL MONTHS. DART HAS APPROPRIATED FUNDS BACK TO THE MEMBER CITIES, AND THE IMPACT TO THE CITY OF PLANO IS GOING TO BE JUST OVER $28 MILLION THAT'S GOING TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR PROJECTS TOWARD -- FOR THE SO I ACTUALLY PUTNACH OF YOUR DESKS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHEAT SHEET, AS FAR AS NOTES GO, FOR THOSE DART FUNDS. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THE ILA, OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED IT. IN A FEW IMPORTANT ASPECTS THAT I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE ILA IS SUPPOSED TO BE EXECUTED BY THE END OF JANUARY 2023. EVERY CITY MUST BE IN GOOD STANDING. PLANO IS IN GOOD STANDING WITH DART. WE ACTUALLY WILL BE HAVING TO SUBMIT PROJECTS FOR APPROVAL FROM DART, AND THEY ARE GOING TO THEN REIMBUR CITIES FOR ACTUAL COSTS FOR THOSE -- FOR THOSE PROJECTS. SOME OF THE ELIGIBLE PROJECTS ARE THAT ARE ELIGIBLE, EXCUSE ME, ARE COMPLIMENTARY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES SPECIAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES FOR A PERSON THAT'S ELDERLY OR HAS A DISABILITY, MEDICAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, ASSISTANCE IN STREET MODIFICATIONS, NECESSARY TO ACCOMMODATE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, AND ANY OTHER THAT ACCOMMODATE THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM. THE OTHER THING IS CITIES CAN SET ASIDE FUNDS FOR FUTURE PROJECTS IF THEY WOULD LIKE. THE LAST BUTOT LEAST IS THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A SHOT CLOCK ON THIS THAT ALL FUNDS MUST BE REQUESTED BY DECEMBER OF 2026. SO WITH THOSE CONDITIONS, IT -- DART HAS A BIT OF A PROCESS, YOU'VE GOT TO SUBMIT YOUR PROJECTS. THEY HAVE TO BE APPROVED. AND THEN YOU CAN BEGIN WORKING ON THAT, AND THEY WILL REIMBURSE CITIES FOR THOSE EXPENSES. WE ARE IN THE PROCESS, WE'VE HAD ACTUALLY A TEAM MEETING TO START PUTTING TOGETHER A LIST OF PROJECTS THAT WE THINK WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS PROGRAM. OUR GOAL IS TO BRI THOSE BACK AT THE FIRST MEETING, JANUARY, FOR COUNCIL TO REVIEW. AND THEN WE WILL SEND THEM TO DART BECAUSE DART HAS A PROCESS OF REVIEWING THAT IT WILL TAKE ABOUT FOURTEEN DAYS FOR THEM TO GIVE US THE THUMBS UP OR THUMBS DOWN ON THOSE PROJECTS, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, AGAIN, WE DON'T LEAVE ANY MONEY ON THE TABLE, WE GET IT ALL BACK AS QUICKLY AS WE CAN. BUT THE GOAL IS TO GET THOSE PROJECTS IN FRONT OF YOU. WE WILL BRING MORE THAN $28 MILLION, JUST LETTING YOU KNOW, BECAUSE JUST IN CASE SOME GET KICKED BACK, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A FEW EXTRA IN THERE TO MAKE SUREE CAN UTIZE ALL THOSE. AND THEN ONCE WE HAVE THE COUNCIL'S FINGERPRINTS ON THE PROJECT LIST, WE'LL SEND IT TO DART FOR APPROVAL, AND START WORKING THAT PROCESS. BUT IF WE RUN INTO ANY ISSUES, WE HAVE NOT PASSED THE ILA QUITE YET, SO STRATEGICALLY, WE'RE GOING TO WAIT ON THE ILA UNTIL WE GET OUR PROJECT LIST APPROVED. SO RIGHT NOW, THAT'S OUR PLAN. WE HAVE SEVERAL TYPES OF PROJECTS OR CATEGORIES OF PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED INCLUDING SIDEWALKS, MAJOR INFILL AND REPLACEMENT. WE HAVE A NUMBER O AREAS THAT WE HAVE BIG SIDEWALK GAPS THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS. WE HAVE, AS Y'ALL KNOW, A VERY ROBUST SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT PROGRAM THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO SUPPLEMENT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF STREETS PROJECTS INCLUDING QUITE A BIT OF OVERLAY THAT WE CAN GET ASSERTIVE WITH. WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE TRANSPORTATION TECHNOLOGY WITH OUR SIGNAL SYSTEM, SOME OTHER COSTS THAT WE THINK WE CAN HAVE, AND THEN THERE'S ACTUALLY A COUPLE OF PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT WE THINK MIGHT BE STRATEGIC THAT GOES TOWARD THE GOALS OF THE DART MONEY. SO WE'LL BE PUTTINGOGETHER THAT T INTERNALLY WITH STAFF, AND THEN BRINGING IT BACK FOR COUNCIL TO TAKE A LOOK AT. AND WE'LL TRY TO HAVE THAT TO YOU ON THE 9th, BUT I WANTED TO HAVE THIS MOMENT TO JUST KIND OF BRIEF YOU ON THE PROCESS. I KNOW EVERYBODY HAS BEEN WATCHING CLOSELY WHAT'S GOING ON WITH THIS PROJECT, AND THEN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER. >> Mayor Muns: COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI. >> Ricciardelli: THANK YOU, MAYOR, AND THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION, MARK. THOSE ALL SOUND LIKE GREAT ITEMS. I WAS CURIOUS ON THE TENTATIVE LIST THAT THE STAFF STARTING TO WORK ON, HOW MANY OF THOSE ITEMS MIGHT BE THINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY APPROVED FOR USE OF BOND FUNDS THROUGH OUR CIP, SO THAT PERHAPS WE COULD DECREASE OUR BOND EXPENDITURE BETWEEN NOW AND 2025, AND MAYBE HOLD SOME OF THOSE OVER SO THAT THE NEXT BOND PACKAGE IN 2025 COULD BE SMALLER THAN IT MIGHT OTHERWISE BE? >> SO COUNCILMAN, THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE ACTUALLY DO HAVE SOME OF THE PROJECTS, OUR BOND CURRENTLY TARGETED FOR BONDS. WE'VE SEEN COST ESCALATIONS ON A NUMBER OF THOSE AS WELL, SO MUCH LIKE THE INFLATIONARY ENVIRONMENT THAT THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY IS GOING THROUGH, WE'VE SEEN THAT IN OUR CONSTRUCTION COSTS. SO SOME OF THOSE ARE BOND RELATED, QUITE A BIT OF THEM ARE ALSO -- QUITE A BIT OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY CAPITAL MAINTENANCE RELATED AS WELL, WHICH AS YOU KNOW, WHICH CASH FINANCE THOSE, SO WE HAVE SOME IN EACH POOL, ACTUALLY, RIGHT NOW, THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, SO THAT LIST IS NOT FINALIZED, BUT WHEN WE BRING IT BACK, WE'LL IDENTIFY WHICH POOL IT'S COMING FROM. >> Ricciardelli: FANTASTIC. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. AND THAT MAY NOT BE 100% OF THE FUNDS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE AT LEAST A SIIFICT PTION A BEING USED IN THE WHY THAT MITIGATE THE ISSUANCE OF DEBT, OR SAVE FUNDS IN THE CAPITAL MAINTENANCE FUND SO WE CAN USE THAT TO DELIVER TAX RELIEF DOWN THE ROAD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> Mayor Muns: DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. MARK, LET ME GET SOME CLARIFICATION. SO WE -- WE GIVE DART 1 CENT OF OUR SALES TAX EVERY YEAR, RIGHT? >> THE CITIZENS VOTED TO HAVE ONE CENT GO TO VOTE. WE DO NOT ACTUALLY CUT THEM A CHECK. IT GOES STRAIGHT FM THE COMPTROLLER TO DART, SO, YES, ONE CENT OF SALES TAX GOES STRAIGHT TO DART. >> AND THEN RIGHT NOW, THEY ARE GIVING US $28 MILLION TO BE USED ON PROJECTS ALL THE WAY -- IF WE REQUEST IT BY 2026, AND THAT'S THE MONEY, ACTUALLY, THAT WAS -- FROM THE SALES TAX, AM I CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> SO ARE WE SHARING ALL THESE ILA WITH OTHER CITIES WHO ARE ALSO MAKING CORIBUTIONS OR T MAKING CONTRIBUTIONS TO DART? >> SO EVERY -- IT'S ONLY DART CITIES. DART MEMBER CITIES ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THIS ILA, AND EVERY SINGLE DART CITY IS RECEIVING FUNDS BACK. NOW, THERE'S -- IT'S BEEN A BIT OF A PROCESS, AND COUNCILMAN GRADY IS WELL AWARE OF THIS THROUGH THE RTC. THERE WAS A DISCUSSION OF THE METHODOLOGY FOR RETURNING THE FUNDS, WHETHER IT WOULD BE ON SALES TAX CONTRIBUTIONS OR POPULATION. DART ACTUALLY WORKED TO BE ABLE TO RETURN THE GATER OF WHICH METHODOLOGY GENERATED MORE FUNDS FOR EACH CITY, SO SOME CITIES IT'S ON SALES TAX CONTRIBUTION. SOME CITIES IT'S ON POPULATION, SO THAT'S THE METHODOLOGY THAT DART USED TO ALLOCATE THE FUNDS BACK TO THE MEMBER CITIES -- >> I GUESS MY QUESTION REALLY IS ALL THE CITIES THAT ARE PARTICIPATING IN DART, ARE THEY ALSO PROVIDING ONE CENT FROM THEIR SALES TAX DIRECTLY TO DART? >> WELL, ONLY 13 CITIES ARE MEMBERS OF DART, CONTRIBUTE THAT SALES TAX THAT WAY, AND EACH ONE OF THEM DOES CONTRIBUTE THE FULL ONE CENT. >> I SEE. AND THEN THAT MONEY THEN IS ULTIMATELY GIVEN TO US FOR THE SPECIAL PROJECTS THAT NEEDS TO BE APPROVED BY DART. >> SO IT'S -- THE FUNDS -- THE FUNDS, AS THEY COME BACK TO THE CITIES, THIS IS THE PROCESS THAT THEY SET UP. SO IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT NECESSARILY, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT DART FEELS VERY STRONGLY ABOUT. >> I'M SORRY, I KEEP ASKING MORE QUESTIONS, BUT WHAT IS IT THAT THEY'RE FEELING STRONG ABOUT, THE MONEY THAT THEY GET, OR THE PROJECTS THAT THEY APPROVE? >> BOTH. SO THE -- THE ISSUE IS IS THAT THE CITIZEN ELECTIONS TO DEDICATE ONE CENT TO DART WERE FOR TRANSIT AND TRANSPORTATION PURPOSES, SO THAT'S -- THAT'S THE THEORY BEHIND TYING SOME OF THESE FUNDS TO TRANSIT OR TRANSPORTATION TYPE SUPPORTING SERVICES. AND THEN THE ONE CENT, AS IT GOES TO DART, RETURNING THIS BACK TO THE CITIES IS SOMETHING THAT IT'S THE FIRST TIME TO MY KNOWLEDGE THAT THEY'VE EVER DONE ANYTHING LIKE TS, SO IT'S A FIRST, AND SO WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THAT WITH THEM. >> I SEE. SO THIS IS NOT A REGULAR THING THAT'S BEEN GOING ON, BUT ARE WE GOING TO ACTUALLY REQUEST THAT THEY -- I MEAN, IF THERE ARE MONEY THAT IS NOT BEING USED, THAT'S CONTRIBUTED BY OUR RESIDENT AND OUR BUSINESSES, INSTEAD OF PUTTING THESE LITTLE LIMITATIONS AND RESTRICTIONS ON HOW WE COULD USE OUR SALES TAX, I THINK MAYBE THERE SHOULD BE A RE-EVALUATION OF WHAT -- HOW MUCHHEY -- WEEED TO NTRIBUTE. >> WELL, THE -- >> JUST SAYING. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. AND WE DON'T HAVE OPTIONS OTHER THAN THE FULL ONE CENT RIGHT NOW. SO I KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT ESPECIALY IN COMPARISON TO WHAT SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES ARE ABLE TO DO WITH ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONS AND HOW THEY'RE ABLE TO USE SOME OF THEIR SALES TAX, YOU KNOW, THIS STARTED BACK IN 19 -- I THINK IT WAS '83 THAT THE ZENS VOTED INTO DART, AND IT'S THE FULL PENNY, YOU HEAR YOU, ESCIALLY ON RETURNING OF FUNDS. I THINK NOW WE HAVE A ROAD MAP FOR HOW THAT CAN WORK . AND I KNOW THAT WE HAVE A STUDY THAT SOME OF OUR COUNCIL HAVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THAT SHOULD BE COMING BACK SOON TO HELP US ON THAT, AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK AT THIS, SO WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES FROM HERE. >> Mayor Muns: COUNCILMAN SMITH? >> Smith : THANK YOU, MAYOR. I THINK THIS IS GREAT. AS WE ALL KNOW, WE'RE GETTING BACK SOME OF THE FUNDS THAT WE CONTRIBUTED. ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO GO ON THE RECORD, I WOULD REALLY HOPE THAT WE WILL COME UP, WE'RE DEVELOPING THIS WITH A NICE ROBUST COMBINATION OF ONE AND TWO FOR SOMETHING TO ENHANCE WHAT WE'VE HAD, WE'VE CALLED SENIOR RIDES, WHICH PROVIDES -- IT WAS PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, VERY LOW COST, BUT COST TRANSPORT TRANSPORTATION FOR OUR SENIORS, THIS WOULD BE A OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, HEALTH REASONS, FOOD REASONS, PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING THE SENIOR WOULD QUALIFY FOR, SOMETHING THAT MEMBERS OF OUR SENIOR ADVISORY BOARD COULD BRAIN STORM SOME OF THE WAYS WE COULD IMPROVE THAT, SO JUST LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN. >> THANK YOU FOR THE SUGGESTION. HAPPY TO INCLUDE IT. >> Mayor Muns: COUNCILMAN GRADY? >> Grady: I JUST WANTED TO ADD A COUPLE OF POINTS OF CLARIFICATION ON THE DISCUSSION, FROM THE THE RTC STANDPOINT, THAT IS FIRST IT IS ONE CENT OFF A SALES TAX, SO IT ISN'T ALL OF THE PLANO CITIZENS THAT CONTRIBUTED TO THAT. IT WAS ANYBODY THAT SPENT MONEY IN THE CITY OF PLANO. SO THERE ARE LOTS OF PEOPLE THAT COME INTO TSITY AND SPEND MONEY. IT IS ALL OF THOSE CITIZENS AS WELL, SO GIVING IT BACK TO THE CITIZENS IS PROBABLY AN IMPOSSIBLE -- IMPOSSIBLE CHORE. SECOND, THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL PARTICIPATED IN THIS TO MAKE THE MATH WORK. AND TO MAKE THE MATH WORK FROM AN RTC STANDPOINT, ALL THE DOLLARS HAD TO BE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION, BECAUSE THEY WERE TRADING FEDERAL DOLLARS FOR LOCAL DOLLARS, ET CETERA. SO ALL OF THAT HAD TO TAKE PLACE. THIRD, THE MONEY -- THE SALES TAX MONEY IS ALLOCATED FROM A LEGISLATIVE STANDPOINT AND SO IN ORDER TO USE IT FOR SOMETHING OTHER THAN TRANSPORTATION, YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE THE STATE LEGISLATURE CHANGE THE LAW, SO THE -- RIGHT NOW, IT IS STATED WITHIN THAT THAT THE DOLLARS ARE GIVEN FOR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. YOU WOULD ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACK AND HAVE THAT REWRITTEN IF YOU WERE GOING TO USE IT FOR ANYTHING BUT TRANSPORTATION, WHICH IS WHY THE RTC PARTICIPATED. >> Mayor Muns: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE 9th OF JANUARY. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING $28 MILLION GOING INTO PLANO. >> Mayor Muns: WE'RE NOT GOING TO TURN IT DOWN -- >> SPILL W ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'SR MONEY. >> Mayor Muns: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION, COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST POLICY, INCLUDING THE USE OF ZOOM. >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, I PUT A SECOND SHEET AT EVRYBODY'S DESK JUST TO HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE NOTES THAT I HAD BEEN TAKING. WE DID NOT -- WE WERE UNABLE TO FINISH THE DISCUSSION RUNNING INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING LASTOUNC MEETING, SO THESE WERE THE NOTES THAT I HAD, BY NO MEANS ARE THESE FINAL OR APPROVED OR ANYTHING ELSE, BUT IT WAS KIND OF WHAT WAS -- WHAT I WAS HEARING AS FAR AS GENERAL CONSENSUS, BUT I REALIZE THAT THERE WERE STILL SOME COMMENTS TO COME AROUND THE DAIS. BUT WHAT WE HAD BEEN FOE FOCUSING ON THAT 4:30 WAS A LITTLE EARLY AT A START OUT OF CONCERN FOR CITIZENS. IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT OF GALVANIZING AROUND A 5:00 POSSIBLE START TIME. THE IDEA THAT IT WOU HAPPEN AT EACH REGULARLY SCHEDULED COUNCIL MEETING, NOT ONCE A MONTH, BUT EACH MEETING, THAT IT WOULD BE STILL FOR THE 30 MINUTE LIMIT THAT'S CURRENTLY THERE, IT WOULD BE FOCUSED ON CITY BUSINESS, AND THEN AS FAR AS THE MEETING, COULD BE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING BECAUSE IT WOULD BE STARTING OFF -- IT WOULD GO FIRST BEFORE WE ACTUALLY GOT TO ANY OF OUR REGULAR MEETINGS, WHICH WOULD GIVE COUNCIL THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS WHETHER OR NOT IT IS ON TV BROADCAST. THERE WAS ALSO NO FINAL DECISION ON THE ZOOM OPTION, OR THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT RESIDENCY REQUIREMENTS. SO THOSE WERE MY NOTES, AND I WANTED TO GIVE THOSE TO YOU JUST TO BEGIN YOUR DISCUSSION SO WE COULD START AT THAT POINT, AND THAT'S ALL THAT I HAVE TO REPORT. >> Mayor Muns: ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. JUST WITHIN THE PARAMETERS, AND OF COURSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THEM, BUT IS EVERYBODY COMFORTABLE WITH THE 5:00 START, AND DOING IT ON A -- ON EACH MEETING DAY? COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T DO A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING IN THE MIDDLE OF A MEETING, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE HAS -- I'VE GOTTEN SOME FEEDBACK THAT 5:00 IS STILL TOO EARLY, HONESTLY, WHEN I THINK ABOUT IT, YOU KNOW, IF THIS IS NOT SOMETHING YOU ALL COMMITTED TO DO, YOU KNOW I SHOW UP AT 4:59 MOST OF THE TIME. IT'S NOT EASY TO GET HERE AT 5:00 ON A WORK DAY, THAT IS SOMETHING WE'VE COMMITTED TO AS COUNCILMEMBERS BUT I THINK FOR RESIDENTS IT'S GOING TO IMPOSE A HARDSHIP, SO, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER THING, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT TIME WAS IN ORDER TO GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO NOT HAVE IT BROADCAST, BUT I'VE ALSO HEARD FROM RESIDENTS SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, UNBEKNOWNST TO TO ME, UNBEKNOWNST TO ALL OF IT, THEY HAVE AN INTEREST OF WATCHING THE COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST ON TELEVISION OR STREAMING ON THE INTERNE SO -- SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, HEARING THE INTEREST THAT I HEARD IN HAVING THAT STILL BROADCAST CHANGED MY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THOSE TWO THINGS. BUT I'M OBVIOUSLY VERY ITERESTED IN HEARING WHAT THE REST OF THE COUNCIL HAS TO SAY. >> Mayor Muns: COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS? >> Williams: THANK YOU, MAYOR. I GAVE THIS A LOT OF THOUGHT AFTER OUR DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY, AND FOR MONTHS NOW, REALLY SINCE THE CIRCUS CAME TO TOWN, I HAVE -- I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT HOW WE CAN -- HOW WE CAN CONFINE COMMENTS THAT THE PUBLIC CAN LEGITIMATE MALY MAKE TO MATTERS THAT ARE PERTINENT TO THE CITY WITHOUT HAMPERING, RESTRICTING OR MAKING IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR CITIZENS TO RAISE LEGITIMATE COMMENTS, AND I CAN'T COME UP WITH ANYTHING. YOU KNOW, THE VERY FIRST TIME THAT ALEX STEIN AND, AS I CALL THEM THE UNDERCARDACS CAME HERE, IT WAS A NOVEL APPROACH, I CHUCKLEDDER, BUT IT VERY QUICKLY BECAME USE. BASICALLY TAXPAYER FUNDED VIDEO PRODUCTION STUDIO IN ORDER TO BUILD THEIR AUDIENCE, NOT ONCE HAVE ANY OF THEM EVER SAID ANYTHING PERTINENT TO CITY BUSINESS. IF WE WERE TO RESTRICT COMMENTS TO CITY BUSINESS, WHICH I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH, IT'S VERY EASY TO PICK AN AGENDA ITEM AND SIGN UP TO SPEAK ON THAT AND CREATE A BIT AROUND THAT. I HAVE NO IG LUCIANS THAT SOMEONE WHO IS DEDICATED CAN CIRCUMVENT ANY RESTRICTIONS WE PUT IN PLACE. AND WHAT I'M INCASINGL UNCOMFORBLE WITH IS RESTRICTING CITIZEN COMMENTS, AND I WAS KIND OF OKAY LAST WEEK WHEN WE DISCUSSED THIS WITH MOVING TO A NONTELEVISED BROADCAST, OR -- NOT A BROADCAST, IF IT'S NOT TELEVISED, BUT A NONTELEVISED MEETING, BUT NOT ONLY DID I RECEIVE FEEDBACK AS WELL, BUT THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, APART FROM THE CIRCUS ACTS, THERE ARE MANY LEGITIMATE REASONS FOR CITIZENS TO CONTACT US, AND WE GET INDIVIDUAL CONTACTS AND MASS CONTACTS VIA E-MAIL AND PHONE ALL THE TIME, BUT HAVING US AS A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE IS SOMETHING SPECIAL, WHICH EVEN THOUGH WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO BY LAW, I THINK IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO HEAR IT, AND SO THERE'S NOT ONLY VALUE IN CITIZENS BEING ABLE TO COME -- I'LL ASTAKEHOLDERS, NOT JUST PLANO CITIZEN, BUT PEOPLE WHO WORK HERE, PEOPLE WHO SPEND MONEY HERE, AND PEOPLE WHO DRIVE THROUGH HERE AND HAVE TO SIT THROUGH SIX CYCLES OF A LIGHT, THEY SHOULD NOT ONLY BE ABLE TO COME AND SPEAK TO US WHILE WE'RE A CAPTIVE AUDIENCE, BUT I DO THINKHERE'S TREMENDOUS VALUE HAVING THE PUBLIC HEAR THEM SPEAK TO US WHEN WE ARE IN MEETING. I WISH, AND I'M PERFECTLY OPEN TO IDEAS THAT WOULD ALLOWS TO RESTRICT THE CIRCUS PERFORMERS WHILE STILL NOT >> ... KIND OF STAKEHOLDER ARE YOU IN PLANO, ARE YOU A RESIDENT, DO YOU OWN A BUSINESS, DO YOU OWN PROPERTY, WHAT IS YOUR RELEVANCE HERE. IS THERE ALREADY SOMETHING ON THE CARD WHAT YOU'RE SPEAKING ABOUT? IS THERE A TOPIC? >> THEY CAN SELECT WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC COMMENT OR AGENDA ITEM, IF IT'S A PUBLIC COMMENT OR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, THERE'S A BOX THAT POPS UP TO PUT WHA TOPIC THEY WILL BE SPEAKING ABOUT. >> MAYBE IF WE COULD ADD TO THAT, WHAT IS YOUR STICK IN STAKE INTHE CITY OF PLANO, WHATS IT YOU'RE GOING TO BE SPEAKING ON, MAYBE BE SPECIFIC ENOUGH THAT WE'RE NOT GETTING SURPRISES. YES, I AGREE. I THINK THERE'S A MERIT TO HAVING IT VIDEOTAPED. I ENJOY GOING BACK SEEING WHEN I HAVE MISSED MEETINGS FOR WHATEVER REASONS, GETTING TO HEAR INPUT FROM PEOPLE, I THINK WE'RE MISSING OUT TO NOT BE ABLE TO GO BACK AND WATCH THAT, I THINK THE MAYOR PRO TEM BROUGHT UP A GOOD POINT, HAVING THE MEETING IN ITS ENTIRETY, SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING BITS AND PIECES THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE VIDEOTAPING. >> Mayor Muns: DEPUTY MAYOR? >> YES, I THINK THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT, NOT TO CUT OFF COMMENTS FOR PUBLIC INTEREST, BUT RATHER NOT MAKE IT INTO A CIRCUS SHOW. AND SO THEREFORE, SEVERAL IDEAS WERE TOSSED WITH REGARD TO, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY WAY TO LIMIT THE MEDIA ATTENTION TO THIS? IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE DON'T, YOU KNOW, TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OUR SYSTEM AND FOR THEIR OWN PROFIT AND FOR THEIR OWN -- FOR THEIR OWN MONETARY GAINS. BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT I THINK PUTTING IN THE FRONT OR IN THE BACK, DOESN'T SEEM TO BE VERY -- I MEAN, AT THIS POINT, I MEAN WITH THAT -- IF THAT'S THE ONLY OPTIONS WE'RE GIVEN, I'M NOT -- I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I AGREE, IT'S REALLY DIFFICULT FOR GENERAL PUBLIC TO GET TO A MEETING AT 5:00. ESPECIALLY AT 4:59. [ LAUGHTER ] BUT I DO HAVE -- I BELIEVE THAT ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT I MADE AT THE LAST MEETING WAS WITH REGARD TO RESTRICTION ON ZOOM, AND I STILL FEEL VERY STRONGLY ABOUT IT. I DON'T MIND PEOPLE USING ZOOM ON A SPORADIC BASIS, BUT I DO MIND OUTSIDE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN PLANO, WHO TONIGHT HAVE ANY BUSINESS IN PLANO, WHO ARE PURELY TRYING TO PARTICIPATE, INCITE MORE, YOU KNOW, I GUESS FLAME INTO HOT TOPIC ISSUES TO APPEAR BY ZOOM. AND I WANT TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY WAY, JUST LIKE WE'RE TRYING TO CURB THE DECORUM OF THE SPEAKERS WHO ARE HERE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO CURB THE USE OF ZOOM FOR THOSE -- FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO REALLY COULD APPEAR IF THEY WANT TO. THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO DRIVE, YOU KNOW, 30 OR 40 MINUTES TO GET HERE. SO THAT -- I'M JT TOSSING THAT OUT THERE. >> Mayor Muns: ANYBODY ELSE? I THINK I'VE HEARD -- COUNCILMAN GRADY? >> Grady: I'LL BE VERY CANDID AND VERY HONEST. YES, I'VE HEARD FROM PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT PUBLIC COMMENT, NOT TELEVISED, ABOUT THREE PEOPLE, AND WHEN WE SAY WE'VE HEARD FROM A LOT OF PEOPLE, I THINK WE REALLY NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW MANY PEOPLE WE'VE ACTUALLY REALLY HEARD FROM, BUT I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE COUNCIL IS GOING, AND THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE WHATEVER DECISIONS. IF WE THINK THAT THE INDIVIDUALS RESPECT US, THEY DON'T. THEY DON'T RESPECT US. THEY DON'T RESPECT THE DECORUM AND THEY NEVER WILL. BECAUSE I'M SORRY, THEIR PARENTS FAILED THEM IN THEIR UPBRINGING, AND THEY DON'T RESPECT A WHOLE LOT OF THINGS. I WATCHED THEM AS THEY MADE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE WHICH I TRULY AND VERY MUCH RESPECT, AND THEY WERE LAUGHING AND CLOWNING AND -- AND USING DIFFERENT WOR TH YOU WOU NORMALLY USE IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, THEY THOUGHT IT WAS FUNNY. THEY THINK THEY'RE FUNNY. THEY'RE NOT. BUT IF YOU THINK THEY'RE GOING TO WEAR OUT AND SOME TIME DISAPPEAR, WE'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR A YEAR, WE'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG, THEY'LL GET OVER IT, THEY WILL MOVE ON, THEY HAVEN'T MOVED ON, THEY WON'T GET OVER IT, THEY DON'T RESPECT ANYTHING. AND SO YOU CAN CONTINUE, IF YOU LIKE, TO HAVE THEM HERE, AND JUST DON'T EVER EXPECT THEM TO HAVE ANY KIND OF DECORU DON'T EVER EXPECT THEM TO RESPECT YOU. DON'T EVER EXPECT THEM TO RESPECT THE PROCESS. BECAUSE THEY DON'T AND THEY WON'T BECAUSE THAT'S HOW THEY MAKE THEIR MONEY. >> Mayor Muns: THANK YOU. COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI. >> Ricciardelli: THANK YOU MAYOR. I WOULD SAY -- YOU KNOW, I ALSO THINK THAT PRESERVING THE MAJORITY OF THE STATUS QUO IS A GOOD IDEA. I WOULD BE COMPLETELY SUPPORTIVE OF A REGULATION THAT COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST HAVE TO RELATE TO CITY OF PLANO BUSINESS OR TO THE CITY OF PLANO IN GENERAL, BECAUSE AFTER ALL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. IT'S A PLANO CITY COUNCIL MEETING. AND, YOU KNOW, THE RESOURCES THAT ARE BEING USED TO RECORD OUR MEETINGS ARE TAXPAYER RESOURCES BEING FUNDED BY PLANO TAX DOLLARS FOR PLANO PURPOSES. I THINK ALSO WE ALREADY HAVE RULES ABOUT VULGAR AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE, AND I THINK WE ALL SUPPORT, YOU KNOW, STEPPED-UP ENFORCEMENT OF THAT, AND I THINK BETWEEN A LIMITATION THAT COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST SHOULD RELATE TO THE CITY OF PLANO, AND TT VULGAR AND ABUSIVE LANGUAGE IS ALREADY SOMETHING THAT IS OFFLIMITS, I THINK WE MIGHT BE IN A GOOD SPOT, SO, YOU KNOW, AND IF WE'RE NOT, THEN WE'LL DISCUSS FURTHER. >> Mayor Muns: COUNCILMEMBER WILLIAMS? >> Williams: DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM BROUGHT UP THE ZOOM WHICH I COMPLETELY FORGOT ABOUT, BUT THE MORE I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT, THE MORE I REALIZE THERE ARE SOMETIMES PEOPLE WHO JOIN OUR ZOOM MEETINGS OR JOIN OUR MEETINGS VIA ZOOM WHO ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR PLANO, BUT VERY OFTEN WE'VE HAD PLANO RESIDENTS WHO HAVE JOINED THE MEETINGS BY ZOOM, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T, OR MAYBE IN SOME CASES THEY JUST DON'T WANT TO COME IN PERSON, BUT I THINK THAT IS EQUALLY VALUABLE JUST AS HAVING OUR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST TELEVISED. I THINK IT'S VALUABLE TO ENABLE OUR RESIDENTS TO JOIN VIA ZOOM EVEN IF THERE ARE OCCASIONAL ABUSERS, AND TO DRAW A DISTINCTION AND A CLARIFICATION AT TO DRAW A DISTINCTION TO SOMETHING COUNCILMAN SMITH SAID. HE SAID THAT COMMENTS THAT ARE DEMEANING TO THE COUNCIL. I AGREE. I WOULD DRAW A DISTINCTION BETWEEN DEMEANING AND CRITICAL. I'VE HAD PEOPLE COME HERE DURING COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST AND CRITICIZE ME, AND I THINK THAT SHOULD BE ABSOLUTELY PROTECTED, BUT DEMEANING COMMENTS LIKE WE HAD A FEW MEETINGS AGO TO THE FEMALE MEMBERS ON THIS DIAS ARE COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE AND SHOULDN'T BE TOLERATED. MUNZ MUAYOR MUNS: >> IF YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED AND YOU CONTINUE TO BE DISRESPECTFUL, I DON'T KNOW. THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION THAT CAME IN FROM A CITIZEN. >> IF WE DID -- MAYOR MUNS: IF WE DID LIMIT IT TO CITY BUSINESS, I CAN DO THE BEST I CAN TO CONTROL IT, BUT, OBVIOUSLY >> UNFORTUNATELY, MAYOR, THIS WHOLE BURDEN FALLS ON YOU. >> MAYOR MUNS: THE OTHER NIGHT -- >> DO WE HAVE THE RIGHTS TO SAY, HEY, STOP? I DON'T THINK WE CAN. >> MAYOR MUNS: SOMEHOW WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO DISSEMINATE THIS INFORMATION BEFORE THEY COME TO THE PODIUM. I'M CURIOUS TO KNOW HOW THAT WORKS. I CAN READ THIS, BUT AS COUNCILMAN GRADY SAYS THEY NO RESPECT FOR WHAT I'M READING TO THEM. I WANT AT LEAST THEM TO KNOW. I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA MAYBE ON THE WEBSITE WE CAN PUT THOSE TYPE OF, YOU KNOW -- CHECK A BOX TO SAY I HAVE READ THE AGREEMENT. THEY'RE POSTED UPSTAIRS AS WELL. I'LL WORK TO ADD A CHECK BOX TO ACKNOWLEDGE. IN A LOT OF THOSE FORMS THAT WE APPLY WHEN WE MAKE APPLICATIONS WE HAVE TO SAY I CERTIFY THAT I READ THE ABOVE, AND I AEE TO ABIDE BY IT, AND MAKE SURE THEY CERTIFY THEY READ IT AND AGREE TO ABIDE BY THE RULES AND THAT THE SANCTION WOULD BE THAT IF THEY ARE -- IF THEY DELIBERATELY INTENTIONALLY VIOLATE THIS, THEN THERE'S NO REPEAT OFFENDERS OR THEY GET A WARNING AND THEN THEY'RE OUT. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING. REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT WE ENFORCE THE CERTIFICATION, AT LEAST WE HAVE IT ON RECORD THAT THEY AGREE TO IT. THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PAIGE. SOMETHING THAT POPPED IN MY MIND HERE IF I'M HEARING IT CORRECTLY. SO WE'RE NOT REQUIRED BY LAW TO HAVE PUBLIC COMMENTS? DID I HEAR THAT CORRECTLY? OKAY. THE FKT THAT WE HAVE IT IS A PRIVILEGE FOR THOSE THAT COME HERE TO SPEAK. IT'S NOT A RIGHT, OR DOES IT BECOME A RIGHT IF WE ALLOW THAT? THE POINT BEING IF WE'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE IT BY LAW, BUT WE DO IT AS A PRIVILEGE FOR OUR CITIZENS, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON. YOUELL ME WHY WE CAN'T. IF SOMEONE ABUSES THAT PRIVILEGE, WHATEVER SWEAT, ONE TIMES, WHATEVER, BUT THEY NO LONGER HAVE THAT PRIVILEGE TO COME AND SPEAK AT PUBLIC COMMENTS. >> MAYOR MUNS: WE'LL HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT TO MAKE SURE. SHE DOESN'T NEED TO SPEAK ON THAT. >> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO THROW THAT OUT THERE. JUST HEARING THAT THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. >> MAYOR MUNS: SO, MARC, DID YOU HAVE FINAL THOUGHTS? >> MAYOR AND COUNCIL, A LOT OF GREAT DISCUSSION AND APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE AT THE STATUS QUO. I THINK WE'RE AT THAT. I JUST ALSO WANTED TO HAVE A SECOND TO REMIND THE COUNCIL THAT YOU HAVE STAFF MEMBERS AT THIS DIAS AS WELL, AND YOU ARE A BOARD OF DIRECTORS, AND THE ENVIRONMENT, THE WORK ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE IN IS PARTLY YOUR RESPONSIBILITY. WHAT YOU CONDOME, WHAT YOU DO NOT SPEAK UP ON BECOMES A MATTER OF RECORD, AND SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE -- EVERYBODY SITTING AT THE DIAS HAVE A ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS, INCLUDING MYSELF AS FAR AS WHAT IS CONDONED IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE. THAT IT'S NOT JUST SIMPLY THE MAYOR. IT'S EVERY PERSON AT THIS DIAS HAS A ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY IN THIS. >> NOW I NEED CLARIFICATION BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS WHEN THERE IS COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST, WE ARE TOLD -- I ABIDE BY IT THAT WE ARE NOT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR RESPONSE TO WHAT IS BEING SAID, AND THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE -- WE ARE ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT IS FACTS. WE COULD CONVEY FACTS. SO IF SOMEONE -- LET'S JUST SAY SOMEONE COMES UP AND SAYS SOMETHING THAT IS VERY DISRESPECTFUL, AND I FIND IT VERY TROUBLING, ARE WE ALLOWED TO -- I MEAN, AT THIS POINT CAN WE RESPOND? I'VE BEEN TOLD APPROXIMATE TIMES YOU DO NOT RESPOND, YOU DO NOT COMMENT, YOU JUST LET IT HAPPEN. SO AT THIS POT AREE SAYING THAT'S NOT TRUE? THAT WE REALLY ACTUALLY CAN? >> YOU HAVE IT CORRECT. YOU SHOULD BE SIGNALLING TO THE MAYOR THAT YOU ARE OFFENDED BY THE COMMENTS SO THE MAYOR CAN USE HIS AUTHORTY TO RUN THE MEETING. WHEN I SAY RESPONSIBILITY IT'S SIGNALLING THE MAYOR THAT YOU FOUND THAT OFFENSIVE. >> MAYOR MUNS: I GET IT. >> IT'S A FACT THAT I FIND THAT COMMENT REP REHENCIBLE. >> SO IT'S NOT ADDRESSING THE PERSON. IT'S ADDRESSING THE MAYOR TO LET THEM KNOW THAT THAT BEHAVIOR WAS OFFENSIVE. >> OKAY. I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MUNS: OKAY. ITEM 5, CONSENT AND REGULAR AGENDAS. >> I'M SORRY FOR THE LATE PULL. I WOULD LIKE TO PULL CONSENT ITEM B. I JUST HAVE A COUPLE OFENTS E QUESTIONS ON IT. >> MAYOR MUNS: B LIKE BOY? >> OR BRAVO OR BAKER. >> MAYOR MUNS: ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION ORCTION FOR FUTURE AGENDAS? OKAY. WE WILL TAKE A RECESS AND RETURN AT 7:00. (RECESS) ESS) ESS) ESS) ESS) ESS) ESS) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S ) ) S S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) S ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) PLANO CITY COUNCIL. MUNZ I DECLARE THAT ALL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. WE'LL BEGIN WITH REVEREND DR. KYLE DENNIS WITH THE FIRST CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF PLANO. THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE AND TEXAS PLEDGE LED BY WEBLOS OF CUB SCOUT PASS 1220 WITH RESURRECTION LUTHERAN CRCH OF PLANO, FOLLOWED BY THE MUSIC OF LEGACY HARMONY CHORUS. WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE RISE? >> LET US PRAY. AS WITH GO INTO THE END OF THIS YEAR, MAYBE ONE OF THE LAST MEETINGS IN THIS ROOM, WE GIVE YOU THANKS FOR THE YEAR THAT HAS GONE BY. THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BROUGHT MORE CHALLENGES AND DIFFICULTIES AND SURPRISES AND TEMPTATIONS TO BE DIVIDED, TO STOP TRUSTING EACH OTHER, TO STOP LISTENING TO EACH OTHER. THE FAITH THAT THEY HAVE THAT OUR CITY AND WORLD CAN ALWAYS BE BETTER IF WE KEEP TRYING. IF WE WORK TOGETHER,IF WE COOPERATE AND COMPROMISE. I THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THE FAITH THAT THEY TO OFFER THEMSELVES IN THESE ROLES. I ASK THAT YOU ADD TO THEIR FAITH CREATIVITY AND WISDOM AND PATIENCE AND STRENGTH. I ASK THAT YOU HELP US ALWAYS TO CARE MORE ABOUT WHAT GETS DONE AND LESS ABOUT WHO GETS THE CREDIT, TO CARE MORE ABOUT MEETING THE NEEDS OF THE MOST VULNERABLE AND LESS ABOUT THE WISHES OF THE MOST POWERFUL. BE WITH ALL THESE HERE AND ALL THE MEETINGS THAT WILL TAKE PLACE IN THE YEAR TO COME. LET THERE BE A SENSE OF HARMONY. LET EVERYONE WHO ENTERS THIS ROOM BE ABLE TO SEE ONE ANOTHER AS PEOPLE, WOMEN AND MEN OF VALUE, TO LISTEN TO ONE ANOTHER, TO SET AN EXAMPLE THAT THIS COUNTRY DESERVES. WE THANK YOU THAT WE LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT MAKES ROOMS AND PEOPLE LIKE THIS POSSIBLE. AMEN. PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE AMERICAN FLAG. PL (PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE) >> PLEASE JOIN ME ALSO IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS FLAG. (TEXAS PLEDGE >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU. PLEASE BE SEATED. (SINGING "I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS) ♪ I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ YOU CAN COUNT ON ME ♪ ♪ PLEASE HAVE SNOW AND MISTLETOE ♪ ♪ AND PRESENTS ON THE TREE ♪ ♪ CHRISTMAS EVE WILL FIND ME WHERE THE LOVE LIGHT GLEAMS ♪ ♪ SO I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ IF ONLY IN MY DREAMS ♪ ♪ CHRISTMAS EVE WILL FIND ME ♪ ♪ WILL FIND ME ♪ ♪ WHERE THE LOVE LIGHT GLEAMS ♪ ♪ SO I'LL BE HOME FOR CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ IF ONLY IN MY DREAMS ♪ ♪ IF ONLY IN MY DREAMS ♪ ♪ IF ONLY IN MY DREAMS ♪ (APPLAUSE) ♪ WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS ♪ AND YOUR K ♪NG WE BRING TO Y ♪ WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR ♪ ♪ WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS ♪ ♪ AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR ♪ >> MERRY CHRISTMAS! (APPLAUSE) >> MAYOR MUNS: WE'LL TAKE A PICTURE RIGHT HERE. (APPLAUSE) >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU FOR SAYING THE PLEDGE. WE REALLY APPRECIATE IT. DID EVERYBODY GET ONE? OKAY. I'M GOING TO LEAVE THEM HERE FOR ALL OF THE PEOPLE SO TY'LL BE NICE TO US. I'M THE MAYOR. HERE WE GO. THERE YOU GO. HERE YOU GO. OKAY. EVERYBODY GET RIGHT UP RE. WEE READY. >> MUNS: YOU WERE QUITE THE PLEDGE LEADER. ALL RIGHT. HERE WE GO. >> SMILE ON THREE. ONE TWO THREE. >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU, GUYS, SO MUCH. NOW WE HAVE THE PLEASURE OF THE FRIENDS OF PUBLIC LIBRARY ORGANIZATION IS PRESENTING A CHECK TO SUPPORT THE PLANO PUBLIC LIBRARY. THAT'S ALWAYS A GOOD THING. SO I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE SCOTT JOHNSON, PRESIDENT OF THE FRIENDS OF THE PUBLIC LIBRARY, PLANO PUBLIC LIBRARY, LIBBY HOLTMAN, DIRECTOR OF THE PLANO PUBLIC LIBRARY, AND TAMMY CORNS, OUTREACH AND ENGAGEMENT MANAGER. COME ON DOWN. AND ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THEY'RE HERE. I STOLE SOME OF YOUR THUNDER, SCOTT. SORRY. >> THIS IS ALWAYS A GREAT TIME TO GIVE MONEY FOR THEIR USE IN THE UPCOMING YEAR. THEY DO A WONDERFUL JOB OF ASSISTING PEOPLE ALL THE TIME. THEY ENGAGE. THE LIBRARY CAN COME TO YOU VIA ELECTRONICS OR THEY GO OUT, AND WE BOUGHT THEM A VAN A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. SO THE LIBRARY GOES OUT TO ORGANIZATIONS AND KIDS, AND IT'S A WAY TO GET KNOWLEDGE AND THE ABILITY TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO GET THAT KNOWLEDGE OUT TO THE WHO COMMUNITY. VERY IMPORTANT. >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU SO MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO PLANO PUBLIC LIBRARY. WE WILL ACCEPT THIS WITH GRACE AND HONOR AND, LIBBY, GO BUY SOME BOOKS. >> AMONG MANY OTHER THINGS BECAUSE WE'RE SO MUCH MORE THAN BOOKS. >> MORE THAN BOOKS. >> MUNS: I DIDN'T WANT TO OVERSTEP MY BOUNDS. COME GET A LITTLE CLOSER. THERE WE GO. >> BOTH THE LIBRARY AND THE FRIENDS STARTED IN 1965, AND WE'VE HELPED THEM WITH SERVICE, CONTRIBUTIONS, VOLUNTEER HOURS. JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, SINCE THE YEAR 2000 WE HAVE CONTRIBUTED OVER $2.2 MILLION IN CASH. (APPLAUSE) THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COMES FROM A COMMUNITY TO HELP THE PUBLIC LIBRARY. PLEASE IF YOU HAVE DONATIONS IN CASH OR TENDERLY USED OLD BOOKS YOU NO LONGER WANT, DROP THEM OFF AT THE LIBRARY. WE'LL PUT THEM TO GOOD USE AND FIND A HOME AND SOME MONEY FOR THEM. WHICH GOES BACK TO THE LIBRARY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT, AND HAPPY HOLIDAYS TO ALL OF YOU. >> MUNS: THANK YOU, SCOTT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. (APPLAUSE) >> MAYOR MUNS: >> THE CONSENT AGENDA, THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW -- CONSENT AGENDA. I'M READING PUBLIC COMMENTS. WE DON'T HAVE ANYONE FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS THIS EVENING, BUT WE'LL GO ON TO CONSENT AGENDA NOW. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPN IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSN BY A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE CITY MANAGER, OR ANY CITIZEN. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS. >> MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, EXCEPT FOR ITEM B AS IN BRAVO. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEM B. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0. ITEM B. >> RFB NUMBER 2022-0686B FOR SEWER IMPROVEMENTS, PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, PROJECT NO. 6821.1 FOR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO A & B CONSTRUCTION LLC IN THE AMOUNT OF $5,869 -- LET ME START THAT OVER. $5,869,469 AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EBBING CUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. >> GOOD EVENING. CALEB THORNHILL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CALEB. SORRY TO PULL YOU UP AT THE LAST MINUTE. ON THIS ITEM I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. IT'S NOTED THAT THE CURRENT SEWER MAIN ALONG THE GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE IS AMONG THREE THAT ARE SCHEDULED FOR WORK. >> IT'S THE SAME LINE THAT WILL RUN BACK TO THE WEST. IT EXTENDS ACROSS CUSTER TO COYT. >> THE THREE POINTS ON THE LOCATION MAP ARE ALL THREE THAT ARE BEING DISCUSSED. >> SO THE THREE LOCATION ON THIS PROJECT ARE TWO AERIAL CROSSINGS AND THEN THE LINE ITSELF. THERE WILL BE TWO ADDITIONAL LINES IN THE FUTURE GOING BACK TO COYT. WE'LL BREAK IT INTO TWO ADDITIONAL PHASES. >> OKAY. >> THAT WILL BE SUBSEQUENT TO THIS PROJECT AS WELL. >> I MAY HAVE MISUNDERSTOOD THAT. THAT DOES LEAD TO ANOTHER QUESTION. THE DESCRIPTION NOTES THAT THE CURRENT LINES BECAUSE THEY'RE TOO NARROW CURRENTLY EXPERIENCE SURCHARGING, WHICH LEAD TO ODOR ISSUES. AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED HERE SEVERAL TIMES, ONE OF THE MOST NOTABLE ODOR PROBLEMS IN THE CITY IS NEAR THE ROULETTE CREEK SEWER TREATMENT PLANT. ARE THERE PLANS TO REPLACE THOSE SEWER LINES AND ENHANCE THEM TO PREVENT SURCHARGING? >> SO NOT CURRENTLY, BUT I CAN WORK WITH DAN PENDERGRAST, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS, TO SEE IF THERE ARE SOME PROJECTS WE CAN DO. >> THANK YOU. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM B. >> SECOND. >> MAYOR MUNS: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM B IN THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MUNS: NEX ITEM. >> PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY AMEND THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. NONPUBLIC HEARIN ITEMS. THE OFFICER WILL PERMIT COMMENTS FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY APPROVE CUMULATIVE TIME LIMIT. THE SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THEY WERE RECEIVED UNTIL THE CUMULATIVE TIME IS EXHAUSTED. ITEM NUMBER ONE, PUBLIC HEARING CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AS REQUESTED IN ZONING CASE 2022-15 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY, ORDINANCE NUMBER 2015-5-2 AS HERETOFORE AMENDED SO AS TO REZONE 30.5 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEGACY DRIVE, 1,168 FEET EAST OF ALMA DRIVE IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT 489 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 489 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS 2 DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY INCLUDING A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A PUBLICATION CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. >> MAYOR MUNS: WHO ARE THE APPLICANTS? >> THE APPLICANT IS 701 LEGACY C. >> MAYOR MUNS: SORRY. KEEP GOING. OKAY. >> GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL, AND EXECUTIVES. I'M CHRISTINA DAY, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. I'M JOINED BY CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, THE LAND RECORDS MANAGER IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO TONIGHT WE DO HAVE A ZONING CASE FOR YOU. IT'S ZONING CASE 2022-015. THIS REQUEST IS TO MODIFY A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO CHANGE THE BASE ZONING AND ADD . THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU SHOWS THE NOTICE AREA BOTH 200 FEET AND 500 FEET AS REQUIRED BY OUR ORDINANCES AND THE 200 FEET BY STATE LAW. THIS IS AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SITE. YOU CAN SEE THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING AND IS SURROUNDED IN LARGE PART BY AN EXISTING GOLF COURSE. SO THIS IS A COMPARISON BETWEEN TH REVED CONCEPT PLAN ON THE LEFT THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE CITY AND A PERHAPS MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND COLORED RENDERING THAT'S BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. SO WE WANTED TO NOT ONLY SHOW YOU THE TECHNICAL DOCUMENT, BUT SHOW YOU THE MORE COLORFUL DOCUMENT BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THIS IS AN EASIER WAY TO COMMUNICATE THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO THE SITE. THE TAN BUILDINGS REPRESENT THE EXISTING BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE TODAY,ING AND THEN IF YOU CAN TELL, SOME OF THE BUILDINGS ARE COLORED ORANGE. THESE -- FROM MY PERSPECTIVE THEY'RE A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT THERE ARE OTHER ONES THAT ARE YELLOW, AND THE ORANGE AND YELLOW BUILDINGS ARE THE NEW BUILDINGS, AND THE DIFFERENCE IN COLOR REPRESENTS STORAGE. THE YELLOW BUILDINGS ARE TWO-STORY BUILDINGS. THE ORANGE BUILDINGS ARE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS. THEN THERE ARE TWO ADDITIONAL CHANGES I WOULD LIKE TO REPRESENT TO YOU. AS YOU DRIVE INTO THE PROPERTY FROM LEGACY DRIVE, THERE'S AN EXPANSION OF THE AMENITY CENTER WHICH IS A PURPLE SHADE KIND OF BY THE POOL, SAYS AND THEN THEY'RE ADDING A DOG PARK AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AS WELL AS ALONG THE WESTERN EDGE. IT'S MORE OF A LINEAR STYLE PARK THERE ON THE WESTERN EDGE. THESE ARE THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED TO THE SITE. RECENT ZONING HISTORY. THIS WAS A CASE -- FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT MAY HAVE BEEN SITTING ON THE COUNCIL IN 2020, THE PROPTY OWNER DID BRING A CASE FARTHER AT THIS TIME. IT WAS CONSIDERED UNDER THE PLANO TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE DO HAVE A DIFFERENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN PLACE AT THIS TIME. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION VOTE WAS IN SUPPORT,ING AND THE CITY COUNCIL DID DENY THAT IN 2020, BUT THIS IS A MODIFIED REQUEST. THEY HAVE MADE CHANGES BOTH TO THE SETBACK AND TO A PATH THAT WAS GOING AROUND THE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY, SO THERE ARE SOME CHANGES. THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SHOWS THIS AS THE NEIGHBORHOODS FUTURE LAND USE MAP. ADDITIONALLY IN THE LAND USE AND HOUSING INVENTORY IT'S DESIGNATE THE PERHAPS NOT SURPRISINGLY AS MULTI-FAMILY TYPE SINCE IT HAS MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IN THE MIX OF USES THAT'S PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NOW WE HAVE THESE RECOMMENDED MIXES THAT ARE ON A SLIDING SCALE, AND IN THE HOUSING MIX FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD CATEGORY SHOWS AN IDEAL MIX OF MULTI-FAMILY BETWEEN 0% AND 20%. CURRENTLY THAT'S EXCEEDED. CURRENTLY IT'S 24.7%. THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL .1 PERCENTAGE POINTS. JUST BY ADDING UNITS, JUST THE NUMBERS WORK TOUT REDUCE THE PERCENTAGE OF SINE FAMILY ATTACHED AND DETACHED. SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED STILL REMAINS WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IS -- WE CONSIDER THAT NEUTRAL BECAUSE IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE POINTS. THERE'S ALSO A LIST OF CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT TALKS ABOUT BUILDING FORM, STYLE, DENSITY, INTENSITY, OPEN SPACE. THE VAST MAJORITY, AS YOU CAN KIND OF SEE BY THE CHECKMARKS OR THE KIND OF STOPLIGHT CONFIGURATION ON THE RIGHT SE THE MAJORITY OF THESE ARE MET. THE KIND OF DIFFERENTIALS ARE BUILDING HEIGHT IN NEIGHBORHOODS IS INTENDED TO BE ONE TO TWO STORIES, AND THEN THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE BLOCK PATTERN OR STREET SCAPE, SO THAT'S WHY THAT IS NEUTRAL. BUT THE MAJORITY OF ITEMS ARE MET IN THE DASHBOARD. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS A REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION, NUMBER ONE, THAT TALKS ABOUT REQUESTS CAN BE APPROVED WHEN THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND SURROUNDING AREA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TOOK THIS PATH IN RECOMMENDING THIS APPROVAL FOR THIS CASE, AND COUNCIL WOULD NEED TO DO THE SAME SO THAT FINDINGS ARE NEEDED APPROVE THE MIX OF USES AND THE BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED, THE DENSITY FOR THE PROPERTY IS IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVELANS DASHBOARD. SO IN SUMMARY, THE POLICIES AND STUDIES, THEY'RE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS. THE DESCRIPTION IS NEUTRAL. THE PRIORITIES IN MIX OF USES ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE, BUT THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS ARE LARGELY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HEIGHT. P & Z DID FIND CONFORMANCE WITH THE FINDINGS POLICY, AND THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS STUDY. REGARDING DENSITY AND HEIGHT, THERE IS A REQUEST TO INCREASE DENSITY FROM TEN UNITS PER ACRE TO 13.6 UNITS PER ACRE AS PART OF THIS ZONING CASE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE HEIGHT TO THREE STORIES AND 45 FEET. THE CURRENT ZONING IS CAPPED AT TWO STORIES, 35 FEET. BASED ON THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE SOLVED THROUGH ENGINEERING, BUT WE WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THIS IS A FAIRLY UNIQUE SITE BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, AND WILL CREATE SOME CONDITIONS WHERE YOU SEE THIS ROW OF NEW BUILDINGS. SOME OF THOSE WILL BE ACCESSED FROM ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND SOME ON THE SOUTH SIDE BECAUSE OF THE RETAINING WALL CONFIGURATION. SO THE TUCK-UNDER PARKING THERE, BUILDINGS IN GROWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE, THOSE ARE THE TUCK-UNDER PARKING SPACES BEING REPRESENTED IN GREEN. SO THE RIGHT-HAND BUILDINGS ARE ONLY ACCESSED FROM THE NORTH AND THE LEFT-HAND BUILDINGS ARE ONLY ACCESSED FROM THE SOUTH. SO IT IS A BIT OF A UNIQUE CONFIGURATION JUST SIMPLY TO DEAL WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY AT THE SITE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MODIFY PARKING ON THIS SITE TO BEDROOM. THE TANDEM PARKING SPASDZ, THEY'RE ASKING TO ALLOW THOSE BEHIND RESIDENTIAL GARAGES AS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE PLAN. IF BOTH THOSE SPACES ARE ASSIGNED TO A SINGLE UNIT. ALSO, THAT PARKING SPACE CONSTRUCTED BELOW RESIDENTIAL USES SUCH AS REFERENCED TUCK-UNDER PARKING. AFTER THE PASSAGE OF THIS ZONING CASE MAY NOT BE ENCLOSED BY A GARAGE DOOR. THESE ARE THE STIPULATIONS FOR PARKING THAT ARE PROPOSED. THEY'VE ALSO PROVIDED A PARKING EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING PARKING ON SITE, THE PROPOSED PARKING ON SITE, WHAT'S IN GARAGES, WHAT IS SURFACE PARKING, AND THEN WHAT'S TUCKED UNDER THE BUILDING. SO THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ADD SOME SITE AMENITIES AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL. THOSE ARE -- THERE ARE TWO SIGNIFICANT AREAS. ONE IS EXPANSION OF THE CLUBUS THE OTHER IS THE ADDITION OF THE DOG PARKS AS I POINTED OUT IN ONE OF THE EARLIER SLIDES. ONE OF THE OTHER ITEMS THAT THEY INTEND TO DO IS MEET THE EXTERIOR WALL CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN ARTICLE 23, SAYS AND THAT MEANS THAT EACH BUILDING'S FACADE WILL BE 80% MASONRY, AND THAT CAN INCLUDE BRICK STONE GLASS BLOCK CONCRETE BLOCK, THREE STEP STUCCO, LAP SIDING. THAT IS A REQUIREMENTF THE PLAN. SO THESE ARE THE EXISTING PD RESTRICTIONS IN STRIKE-THROUGH AND UNDERLINED FORM, SO YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING STANDARDS VERSUS THE PROPOSED STANDARDS. ALL OF THESE ARE NEW STANDARDS FOR PARKING AND AMENITIES. WE CAN GO BACK AND DISCUSS THOSE MORE IN DETAIL IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS. THE RESPONSES, THIS IS WITHIN 200 FEET. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS PUBLICLY OWNED WITH BETWEEN GOLF COURSE AND OTHER RECREATION LAND. THE RESPONSES CITY-WIDE DID INCLUDE TWO RESPONSES FROM HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS. ONE IN SUPPORT. ONE IN OPPOSITION AS WELL AS TWO DDITIONAL ONLINE RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR RESPONSES. THAT HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THEY RECEIVED THE SAME RESPONSES. OBVIOUSLY, THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION ARE THE ONES CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY. SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID VOTE 5-2 IN SUPPORT. THEY PROVIDED FINDINGS. THOSE WERE INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL'S PACKET. SO I'VE INCLUDED THE LANGUAGE AGAIN ABOUT FINDINGS FORMS AS A REFERENCE FOR YOUR USE, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS CASE. >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT STAFF IS SAYING THAT THEY COULD INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING IF THE ALLOWANCE WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW THEM THE MAXIMUM DENSITY, CORRECT? THERE'S JUST A CAP ON THE CURRENT DENSITY? >> RIGHT. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PLANS THE DENSITY, BUT THE BASE ZONING WOULD ALLOW UP TO 2 UNITS PER ACRE. >> SO THAT WOULD GIVE THEM 416, CORRECT, WITHOUT CHANGING THE ACTUAL ZONING TO MF2? >> THAT WOULD -- I WILL DOUBLE-CHECK THAT NUMBER, BUT THAT SOUNDS CORRECT. >> BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO STAY WITHIN THE TWO-STORY MAXIMUM HEIGHT, RIGHT? >> THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE TWO-STORY MAXIMUM HEIGHT. >> MAYOR MUNS: COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH. >> THANKS, MAYOR. CHRISTINE, REMIND ME THIS PROPERTY, I BELIEVE, ORIGINALLY WAS ZONED -- WAS IT SINGLE FALY OR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED? >> IT WAS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. >> OKAY. SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THEN IN 1995 I BELIEVE IT WAS THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT REACHED WITH COUNCIL TO CONVERT IT TO THE MULTI-FMILY, BUT AS LONG AS IT RETAINED THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS, LIVING UNITS. DO I REMEMBER THAT CORRECTLY? >> YES. >> LASTLY, WHAT WERE THE -- WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF ON THIS PROPOSAL? >> IT DID NOT CONFORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SO WE RECOMMENDED DENIAL. >> OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. >> I WANT TO MAKE ONE CORRECTION. THE MF1 DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE CURRENT BASE ZONING, IS A THREE-STORY, 40-FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. SO ONLY IN CHANGING THE ZONING -- THE MF2 DISTRICT, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED DISTRICT, IS TWO STORIES, 35 FEET, BUT THROUGH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MODIFY THE BASE ZONING THAT'S BEING PROPOSED TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. >> OKAY. SO MF1 DOES ALLOW THREE-STORY? >> THAT IS CORRECT, BUT IT'S 40 FEET, NOT 45 FEET AS PROPOSED. >> CHRISTINE, I HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE PLACEMENT OF THAT CURRENT PROPOSED THREE-STORY BUILDING. THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE FROM TWO STORY TO THREE STORY, AM I CORRECT? >> YES. >> AND IS THAT FOR ALL THE APARTMENT COMPLEX -- ALL THE CURRENT APARTMENT COMPLEX OR JUST FOR THE NEW ONE TO BE DEVELOPED? >> THE CURRENT MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT IS T STORIES, 35 FEET UNDER THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE PROPOSAL WOULD ALLOW THREE STORIES AND 45 FEET. THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS A MIX, BUT THE ZONING ITSELF WOULD ALLOW THREE STORIES, 45 FEET SO THEY COULD BUILD THREE-STORY BUILDINGS AS FITS ON TO THE PROPERTY WITH THE LIMITATION OF THE NUMBER OF UNITS. >> LET ME UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE BIT SHOW. IF THIS ORDINANCE WERE TO PASS, THEN THERE IS NO RESTRICTION IF THEY WERE TO COME BACK AND REMODEL ANY OF THE EXISTING BUILDING? THEY COULD ACTUALLY REMODEL THE EXISTING BUILDINGS UP TO THREE STORIES IF THEY WANT TO. >> AS LONG AS THEY STILL MEET THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE NUMBER OF UNITS THEY COULD ADD ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. >> CURRENTLY THE PROPOSAL IS FOR THE NEW BUILDINGS TO BE THREE STORIES. >> THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES, 45 FEET FOR -- >> I SEE. OKAY. >> -- ANY BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY ESSENTIALLY. I WOULD ASSUME IT WOULD BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT IF THEY WERE TO REBUILD, THEY COULD MAKE THAT CHANGE. >> THEY WOULD NEVER -- THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO COUNCIL TO DO THAT; IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT WOULD BE A BY RIGHT SITUATION. >> MAYOR MUNS: OKAY. THANK YOU, CHRISTINE. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE FROM THE APPLICANT? EXCUSE ME. I HAVEN'T DONE THIS IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE'LL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. >> MR. MAYOR, COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME HERE. LAST TIME WE SPOKE IT WAS THROUGH ZOOM, SO I'M HAPPY THAT WE'RE HERE IN PERSON THIS TIME. THANK YOU FOR HAVING US. IF I COULD HAVE ONE OF THOSE MAGIC WANDS, I THINK THAT WOULD HELP ME WHEN I'M UP HERE. THE PENCILS. (LAU (LAUGHING) THANK YOU FOR HAVING US HERE. JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT STAR POINT. I'M ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF STAR POINT. STAR POINT OWNS AND MANAGES ABOUT 3,500 MULTI-FAMILY UNITS, ABOUT 8 MILLION TO 9 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND RETAIL, AND WE DO A LOT OF NEW BUILDED. RIGHT NOW WE'RE BUILDING A 250 UNIT IN LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. WE'RE DOING A 270 UNIT NEW BUILDING IN MESA, ARIZONA. WE'RE DOING A COUPLE OF NEW BUILDS, INDUSTRIALS, IN DIFFERENT CITIES. ONE IN ARIZONA AGAIN, AND ONE IN DOWNTOWN PHOENIX. WE'RE WELL ATUNE AS FAR AS BUILDING IS CONCERNED.pTHIS IS AS FAR AS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, AS FAR AS ACQUISITIONS. THIS IS WHAT WE DO. THIS IS OUR DAY JOB, AND WE APPRECIATE IT TREMENDOUSLY. WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING. LGACY -- WE BOUGHT LEGACY ABOUT FOUR, FIVE YEARS AGO. IT'S A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY. IT'S GOT GARAGES UNDER THE UNITS. SO ASOU PARK, YOU GO UPSTAIRS. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING, AND WE'VE DONE TREMENDOUS THINGS WITH IT. LAST TIME WE WERE HERE IN ZOOM WHEN COUNCIL WAS CONSIDERING OUR POSITION, THERE WERE TWO INSTRUCTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN TO ME AND SAID GO WORK ON IT, COME BACK, AND WE'LL TALK TO YOU AND WE'LL SEE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO, SO WE'RE BACK AGAIN. THE FIRST THING WAS WE WERE GOING TO PUT A JOGGING FACILITY AROUND THE PROPERTY. NOBODY WANTED THAT,ING SO WE WERE ASKED TO FOREGO THAT, WHICH WE HAVE. THE SECOND BIG ISSUE THAT COUNCIL HAD WITH US WAS THAT WE HAD BUILDINGS IN FRONT OF -- WE ARE BUILDINGS IN FRONT OF LEGACY. WE WERE TOLD THAT LEGACY IS SAYING DON'T BUILD ANYTHING AS FAR AS THE FRONTAGE IS CONCERNED. GO AHEAD AND PUT UNITS IN THE BACK SIDE AND ON THE SIDE. AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE BECAUSE WE HAVE FOREWENT ALL THE UNITS AS FAR AS LEGACY IS CONCERNED ON THE FRONTAGE. WE STILL HAVE MAINTAINED THE 70-FOOT FRONTAGE AS FAR AS LEGACY IS CONCERNED AND 50 FEET AS FAR AS THE SIDE IS CONCERNED. WE DID THAT. THAT'S WHY ON SOME OF THE BUILDINGS WE HAVE GONE THROUGH A THREE-STORY. ANYTHING TO THE EXISTING ING BUILDINGS AS FAR AS GOING THREE STORY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IS CONCERNED. IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. YOU CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THOSE BUILDINGS ARE NOT MEANT TO HAVE A THREE-STORY ON TOP OF THEM. THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EXISTING WILL STAY EXISTING. THE ONLY THING THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD IS GOING TO BE THE NEW BUILD, AND THE ONLY THREE STORIES THAT ARE GOING UP IS AT THE BACK OF THE BUILDING SO IT DOESN'T SHOW AS MUCH. THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE AS FAR AS THE CHANGES ARE CONCERNED. THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE DISRUPTIONS TO THE -- TO OUR CURRENT TENANTS WERE CONCERNED. I WA TO ADDRESS THAT VERY QUICKLY. YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A STAGING PLAN AS FAR AS CONSTRUCTION IS CONCERNED. WHEN WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO IT. THIS IS WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING. WE DO CONSTRUCTION. WE HAVE ADVANCED MEETINGS WITH THE TENANT. NOTICE OF TEMPORARY DRIVE CLOSING, MATERIAL STORAGE SITES, EMERGENCY CONTACT INFORMATION, REGULAR UPDATES, TERMINATE LEASES. IF PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BE AT A PROPERTY WHOO I WILL WE GO INTO THE SKRUNKZ, WE WILL TERMINATE TEIR LEASES WITH NO PENALTIES WHAT WHATSOEVER. ALSO, WE WILL DISCOUNT THE RENT IF WE'RE CAUSING DISRUPTIONS TO INF ANY OF OUR TENANTED. THE HOA IS CALLED THE CHASE OAKS HOA. ERIC, THE PRESIDENT OF CHASE OAKS, IS TRAVELING. HE COULD NOT BE HERE, BUT WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM HIM THAT SAYS THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT AS FAR AS OUR BUILD IS CONCERNED. THE CLOSEST BUILDING TO US IS ABOUT 570 FEET, SO WE'VE GOT OURSELVES, WE'VE GOT THE GOLF COURSE, AND WE'VE GOT THE CHASE OAKS HOA, AND THEY'RE ALL SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES. AS FAR AS CHASE OAKS IS CONCERNED, WE'VE GOT THE LETTER THAT THEY'RE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT. I PLEASE ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THIS. THIS IS GOING TO BETTER THE COMMUNITY, AND ONE OF THE BIG THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REHABBING ALL THE UNITS. THIS IS A 1990 STOCK AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED. THERE ARE SOME UNITS THAT OBVIOUSLY ARE 34 YEARS OLD, AND IN THE SAME TIME THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING BUILDING THESE UNITS, WE'RE GOING TO BE REHABBING ALL THE EXISTING STOCK SO THAT WE CAN COMPETE WITH THE REST OF THE PROPERTY. WE ARE ASKING TO GO TO MF2. MF2, YOU CAN GO TO ALL THE PROPERTIES AROUND USR 18 TO 20 UNITS PER ACRE. WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THE END OF THE DAY 13.6 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS STILL WAY, WAY BELOW ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE AROUND US. FRANK. >> SURE. COUNCIL, FRANK TURNER, URBAN OPPORTUNITY REPRESENTING THE CLIENT. I WOULD LIKE TO BRING YOUR ATTENTION TO SEVERAL DETAILS ABOUT THE REQUEST AND TO CLARIFY A FEW ITEMS. LET'S SEE. WE'RE GOING TO ADVANCE THIS. SO THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE IN THE CHASE OAKS AREA. IT ACTUALLY IS MISSING TWO OF THEM. TWO OF THEM ARE ON THE OVER SIDE OF CHASE OAKS DRIVE OVER ABOUT THE CEREMARK THEATER. THERE ARE TEN IN ALL. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS DIAGRAM, THE LEGENDS IS THE LOWEST DENSITY DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA CURRENTLY JUST BELOW 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD 124 UNITS, WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE DENSITY TO 13.6 UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH WOULD STILL BE THE LOWEST IN THE CHASE OAKS AREA. IN FACT, OF MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS OF APARTMENT COMMUNITIES IN THE CITY, IT WOULD BE THE LOWEST. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS OF SMALL APARTMENT COMPLEXES, PARTICULARLY IN EOWNTOWN AREA, THAT ARE BELOW THAT DENSITY, BUT IN TERMS OF MAJOR APARTMENT COMMUNITIES, WOULD BE, IS TODAY AND WOULD BE, THE LOWEST DENSITY. THE MAJOR MOTIVATING OR ONE OF THE MAJOR MOTIVATING FACTORS BEHIND THIS ZONING CASE IS TO ALLOW FOR REINVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. NOT ONLY IN THE EXISTING UNITS, BUT TO BRING NEW VALUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT BY THE 124 PROPOSED UNITS. WHEN THIS PROPERTY WAS DWOMD IN THE LATE 1990s, THE LAND TO TOTAL VALUE REPRESENTED ONLY ABOUT 10% OF THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THE LAND PORTION OF IT. TODAY IT'S OVER 40 BERZ. THAT HAS REAL MEETING TO AS THE CONTEXT THAT YOU HAVE SEEN IN AREAS LIKE THE PARK CITIES OR, MAYOR, YOU'LL BE WELL FAMILIAR WITH ONE PARTICULAR EXAMPLE IN PLANO. LAND VALUES CONTINUE TO CLIMB, AND YET THE IMPROVEMENT VALUE REMAINS STATIC. IT BRINGS ABOUT PRESSURES FOR REDEVELOPMENT, AND WE WILL EXPERIENCE THAT IN IN OTHER COMMUNITIES AS WELL. THE OPPORTUNITY HERE IS THERE IS SUFFICIENT LAND AREA TO ADD ADDITIONAL UNITS AS WELL AS UPGRADE THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT TO ADD VALUE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AS A WHOLE AND TO MAKE ITORE SUSTAINABLE ECONOMICALLY INTO THE FUTURE. WE DID A STUDY FOR US TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE'S CLEARLY DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE AREA. IT CAN BE EASILY ABSORBED. MOST OF THE APARTMENTS IN THE AREA ARE SITTING IN THE MID 90% LEVEL IN TERMS OF OCCUPANCY. THAT'S TRUE CITY-WIDE. THERE'S HIGH DEMAND FOR APARTMENTS IN PLANO AS A RESULT OF REALLY EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT. IN TERMS OF SETBACKS BY FAR THE LEGENDS HAS THE MOST GENEROUS SETBACKS OF ANY APARTMENT COMMUNITY IN PLANO. IT IS A 70-FOOT SETBACK ON THE FRONT AND A 50-FOOT SETBACK ALONG THE PERIMETER. WE ARE PROPOSING LEAVING THAT JUST AS IT IS ZONED TODAY. THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THREE-STORY UNITS, AND WE ARE PROPOSING SOME THREE-STORY UNITS ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, I WOULD LE MS. CHRISTIN DAY TO SPEAK TO THIS ABOUT THE ABILITY TO TAKE EXISTING BUILDINGS TO THREE STORIES OR TEAR THEM DOWN AND REBUILD. THERE IS A SETBACK PROVISION ON THREE STORIES, I BELIEVE, OF 150 FEET FROM A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING LINE. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT PRETTY MUCH MEANS THE PERIMETER HAS TO STAY IN TWO STORIES. SO THE PROPOSED THREE-STORY BUILDINGS WOULD BE IN THE CENTER PORTION. THE KEY STIPULATIONS HERE, OF COURSE, ARE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF UNITS, TO 470. THAT'S 124 ADDITIONAL UNITS, MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS AS THEY ARE TODAY TO KEEP THE LANDSCAPIG AND SETBACK ALONG THE LEGACY DRIVE AS-IS. WE WOULD ENHANCE IT SOME, BUT KEEP THE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME APPEARANCES AS YOU HAVE TODAY. ALLOWING FOR ARE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS IN THE CENTER, ADDING TWO DOG PARKS. THAT'S ONE ADDITIONAL WHERE WE'RE RELOCATING ONE, AND THEN, OF COURSE, EXPANDING THE CLUBHOUSE. THE PARKING WOULD BE MEASURE AT ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM, WHICH IS COMMONLY USED IN THE URBAN AREAS OF PLANO, SUCH AS LEGACY WEST, LEGACY TOWN CENTER, DOWNTOWN PLANO AND SO ON, AND HAS PROVED TO BE MORE THAN SUFFICIENT. . I WOULD LIKE TO COVER A FEW DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES THAT HAVE OCURRED IN THE COMMUNITY THAT ARE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE IN 1995 PLANO ABOUT 170,000 PEOPLE AND WAS STILL CHARACTERIZED AS A BEDROOM COMMUNITY. COLLIN COUNTY HAS GONE DURING THAT PERIOD FROM A LITTLE OVER 300,000 PEOPLE TO OVER 1 MILLION PEOPLE TODAY. PLANO IS A MAJOR JOB CENTER. BY SOME ESTIMATES AS MUCH AS ISTN PLANO.ANY AS 170,000 JOBS THAT CREATES A HIGH DEMAND FOR HOUSING AND A WIDE RANGE OF HOUSING. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FAILS TO DO IS TO RECOGNIZE THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CLASSIFICATION. IT'S NOT HOMOGENIOUS AT ALL. THERE ARE SOME AREAS OF PLANO THAT HAVE NO APARTMENTS, AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT HAVE QUITE A FEW. THIS IS AN AREA BECAUSE OF TOPOGRAPHY, STREET ARRANGEMENT, THE GOLF COURSE AND SO ON THAT WAS PARTICULARLY WELL-SUITED FOR MULTI-FAMILY. THEY'RE SMALL ENCLAVES, SUCH AS LEGENDS, THAT ARE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE THAN THEY ARE OTHERS. THIS IS ALSO A VERY APPROPRIATE SITE FOR IT WAS 600 FEET FROM THE NEAREST MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING THAN THE HOME. THERE ARE NO STREET CONNECTIONS IN BETWEEN LEGENDS AND THE CHASE OAKS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT HAS AMPLE CAPACITY IN TERMS OF FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT THIS DEVELOPMENT. I THINK I'VE COVERED THE PD SECTION, SAYS SO I WILL LET MICHAEL CLOSE. >> AGAIN, AS WE WERE HERE LAST TIME, THE TWO THINGS THAT WE WERE ASKED TO DO WAS, A, LEGACY WAS WHOLLY DON'T TAKE EVERYTHNG OFF OF LEGACY, WHICH WE DID GET RID OF THE WALKING TRAIL, WHICH WE DID, AND THUS, WE PUT THE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS IN THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. AGAIN, EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING IS WITHIN THE CONFINEMENTS OF OUR PROPERTY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERY STEP POSSIBLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NOT A LOT OF ISSUES AS FAR AS THE TENANTS ARE CONCERNED. IF THERE ARE ISSUES, THAT'S AWAY HAD WE GET PAID FOR. THAT'S OUR JOB, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT BOTHERED. WE WILL TAKE CARE OF IT. >> MAYOR MUNS: ANY CONVECTION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. THANK YOU BOTH FOR THAT PRESENTATION. I WANTED TO ASK, THOUGH, BECAUSE I SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT THERE IS A DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING STAFF ABOUT TYING ESSENTIALLY A PHASING REQUIREMENT THAT WOULD TIE CONSTRUCTION TO THE NEW BUILDINGS TO BUILDING PERMITS BEING ISSUED FOR THE RENOVATIONS GIVEN. THAT THAT'S THE STATED PURPOSE FOR THE REZONING REQUEST AND THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT THAT WAS NOT AGREEABLE TO THE APPLICANT. I JUST WONDERED IF YOU GUYS COULD ELABORATE ON THAT. PROPTY AS WE DO THE TO EMPTYHE RENOVATIONS, SO WE DO OUR RENOVATION AS WE GET TURNS. AS AN EXAMPLE, EVERY MONTH WE HAVE 12 TO 15 PEOPLE THAT ARE LEAVING THE APARTMENTS. WE WOULD DO THE RENOVATION IN THAT MANNER. AS WE GET EMPTY APARTMENTS, WE WOULD RENOVATE. WE WOULD WAIT UNTIL WE GET MORE EMPTY APARTMENTS SO THAT WE'RE NOT KICKING PEOPLE OUT. THAT'S THE WHOLE REASON FOR IT. >> THERE ARE ALSO NO BUILDING PERMITS REQUIRED FOR MOST OF THE UPGRADES. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO TRACK. >> WE'RE GOING TO BE PUTTING IN NEW CARPETS, NEW FLOORING, NEW PLUMBING AND LIGHTING FIXTURES. WE DON ME ANY WALLS. AGAIN, THE UNIT HAS TO BE VACANT, BUT IT CANNOT ON THAT KIND OF A SCHEDULE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING TO EMPTY THE WHOLE PROPERTY, THROW AWAY 347 PEOPLE AND THEN DO THE WORK AND THEN COME BACK. >> IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO EMPTY OUT THE PROPERTY. >> THANK YOU, MR. COUNCIL. >> ONE OTHER POINT, THE AMENITIES HAVE TO BE COMPLETED BEFORE THE NEW CONSTRUCTION ON RESIDENTIAL UNITS CAN OCCUR. THE EXPANSION OF THE CLUBHOUSE AS WELL AS THE DOG PARKS HAVE TO BE COMPLETE FIRST. >> OUNC WANTSO DO, THEN I'M MORE THAN HAPPY. THE BIRTH THE AMENITIES OF THE PROPERTY, THE BETTER THE RENTER POOL AND THE BETTER IS CUSTOMER SATISFACTION. WE HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ADDING AMENITIES AS FAR AS THE COUNCIL WANTS. THE OTHER POINT I'M FACING IS IT NATURALLY HAS TO OCCUR BECAUSE IF YOU CAN SEE, THE NEW CONSTRUCTION IS THROUGHOUT THE DWOOMT. IT WILL HAVE TO BE PHASED IN ORDER TO MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE. >> MAYOR PRO TEM. >> HELP ME UNDERSTAND SOMETHING. I WOULD GUESS THAT IF YOU REINVESTED IN A UNIT, YOU DO ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU ARE DOING, THAT YOU COULD THEN GO AND CHARGE HIGHER RENT BECAUSE IT'S A NEWER, NICER PRODUCT. >> YES. >> SO IF YOU ARE SAYING THAT YOU NEED TO DO THIS IN ORDER TO RENOVATE THE UNITS, CAN'T YOU JUST GET THE MONEY YOU NEED TO RENOVATE THE UNITS BY CHARGING HIGHER RENTS TO RECOUP YOUR COSTS OF THE INVESTMENT THAT YOU ARE GETTING FROM THESE INVESTMENT INTO THE UNITS? IF >> RIGHT NOW WE'RE RUNNING 95%, 96% OCCUPIED. IF -- I HAVE TO GET A WHOLE CREW OVER HERE TO DO ALL THAT WORK, AND THAT -- THOSE CREWS ARE VERY EXPENSIVE. THE LIFT THAT I'M GOING TO GET BASED ON THE HIGH RENT, I WILL GET HIGH RENT, BUT THE LIFT IS NOT GOING TO JUSTIFY HAVING THOSE PEOPLE HERE AND THE BOOTS ON THE GROUND, SO THEY WOULD ALL HAVE TO BE DONE AT THE SAME TIME AND PHASED OUT. >> OF COURSE, IT'S MARKET DRIVEN ON RENT, AND IT IS A COMPETITIVE WORLD OUTHERE IN TERMS OF APARTMENTS. IT'S NOT AS IF RENT CAN BE RAISED TO ANY LEVEL YOU WOULD DESIRE. IT HAS TO BE MARKET-DRIVEN. >> PERCENTAGE-WIDZ YOU WILL RAISE YOUR RENTS AFTER YOU MAKE THEM NICER, CORRECT? THEY'RE NOT JUST -- >> CORRECT. >> -- THEY'RE NOT JUST GOING TO REMAIN THE SAME? >> WE'RE GOING TO BE SPENDING $15,000 PER DOOR AS FAR AS THE ON WHAT WE WANT TO DO.RNED BASE- IT DEPENDS ON WHAT KIND OF RENT WE'RE ABLE TO GET TO JUSTIFY THAT KIND OF RETURN ON INVESTMENT OR AS WE CALL IT ROI. >> THANK YOU. >> DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM. >> I WANTED TO ASK YOU A FEW QUESTIONS AND EXPRESS SOME OF MY CONCERNS. AT THE 2020 PROPOSAL WHEN YOU ALSO MADE THE PRESENTATION, I WAS HERE. I BELIEVE ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT I HAD WAS THAT I LIVE IN THAT COMMUNITY. THAT'S MY COMMUNITY, AND I WAS CONCERD TH NONE OF THE PEOPLE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD OOSH AT LEAST NOT ME I DIDN'T GET ANY NOTICE THAT THERE WAS ANY PROPOSAL FOR ANY CHANGES, AND I ASKED YOU AND FRANK REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT YOU HAVE REACHED OUT SPECIFICALLY TO THE RESIDENTS OF MY COMMUNITY, CHASE OAK. NOT JUST THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION, BUT RATHER, THE HOMEOWNERS. THE REASON WHY I TALKED ABOUT THAT WAS BECAUSE OUROMEOWNER ASSOCIATION IS VOLUNTARILY. WITH THIS CURRENT ECONOMY, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO FEED THE FAMILY IN ADDITION TO COMING UP WITH $100 OR $150 TO PAY FOR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION FEES. WHAT I ASKED WAS THAT INSTEAD OF JUST POSTING EITHER ON THE WEBSITE OR GETTING THE APPROVAL OR ENDORSEMENT FROM APPROXIMATE THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION PRESIDENT THAT YOU SPECIFICALLY REACH OUT TO THE RESIDENTS AND ASK FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ITSELF. I THINK I ALSO TALKED ABOUT THAT A COUPLE OF MONTHS BACK OR MAYBE A MONTH AGO DIRECTLY WITH YOU THAT THAT WAS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I WAS REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT. I GET IT THAT WHEN YOU ARE DOING DEVELOPMENT, YOU WANT TO TURN A PROFIT. NOT ONLY DO YOU WANT TO REVITALIZE TO HELP THE COMMUNITY, BUT YOU ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT OUT OF POCKET WHEN YOU ARE DOING THESE THINGS. YOU ARE TRYING TO MAKE THESE ADJUSTMENTS TO BALANCE THE TWO INTERESTS. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT WITH THE CURRENT CONCERN FOR A LOT OF DENSITY IN SPECIFIC AREAS LIKE THE CHASE OAK AREA, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT PROBABLY SHOULD GET -- I MEAN, WE SHOULD GET SOME SORT OF AFFIRMATION FROM THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE SURROUNDING THAT AREA. YOU JUST SHOWED THAT MAP. WE ARE SURROUNDED. OUR COMMUNITY IS SURROUNDED BY TEN DIFFERENT MULTI-FAMILY ITS. TH REASON WHY LEGEND HAS SUCH A LOW DENSITY, I'M SURE IT WASN'T BECAUSE IT WAS SINGLED OUT. IT WAS SINGLED OUT BECAUSE THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS NOT WITH THE INTENTION FOR IT TO BE RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF BEING APARTMENTS. THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SETBACK, AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE LOW DENSITY, AND THAT'S THE REASON WHY IT IS SO -- IT BALANCED OUT THE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY APARTMENTS THAT ARE AROUND THAT AREA. I THINK WHEN WE AR LOOKING AT LEGEND WE CAN'T JUST LOOK AT LEGEND. I THINK FWHEED TO LOOK AT THE p SURROUNDING AREA THAT CHASE OAK COMMUNITY IS CURRENTLY BEING SURROUND THE BY. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT I THINK NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. I WANT TO ASK, WAS THAT ADDRESSED? >> COUNCILWOMAN, A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY THE GOLF COURSE. WE DID SPEAK TO THE CITY OF ALLEN. THEY'RE IN AGREEMENT, AND THERE'S A LETTER FROM THEM THAT STATES THAT. FRANK AND I HAD TWO OR THREE ZOOM CALLED WITH ERIC THE HEAD . IOLD HIM SPECIFICALLY. I SAID LAST TIME WE WERE ON COUNCIL, COUNCILWOMAN DREW ASKED -- TU ASKED ME SHE WANTS TO SIT WITH HOMEOWNERS AND KNOW EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON. HE ASSURED ME THAT, A, HE HAD TOLD THEM WHAT'S GOING ON, B, I OFFERED ON TWO OR THREE DIFFERENT OCCASIONS FOR ME TO COME BACK HERE, FOR ME TO HAVE AN OPEN HOUSE WITH THE HOMEOWNERS. I BELIEVE HE SENT LETTERS TO THEM. NOT ONE PERSON WANTED TO ATTEND. SO AFTER TRYING THAT SEVERAL TIMES, I -- SHORT OF ME GOING AND KNOCKING ON ALL THE HOMES OF 600 HOMEOWNERS, THERE'S NOT MUCH ELSE I COULD DO. AGAIN, WE HAD SEVERAL CALLS WITH ERIC. HE ASSURED US THAT HE HAD TALKED TO THE HOMEOWNERS. THERE WERE NO ISSUES. AGAIN, WE OFFERED OUR TIME. I OFFERED MY TIME TO COME HERE AND THERE WAS NO NOT ONE PERSON THAT TOOK ME ON. >> WHEN YOU SAY 600 RESIDENTS, WHAT PART ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE SUN KISS AREA? >> WHAT IS THE NAME OF THE -- THE CHASE OAKS HOA. >> IF IT'S THE CHASE OAK, THAT . I NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING. I NEVER RECEIVED A LETTER. I NEVER RECEIVED AN EMAIL. I NEVER RECEIVED ANYTHING THAT NOTIFIED ME THAT THERE IS CURRENTLY SOME TYPE OF PUBLIC HEARING THAT IS GOING ON. I REMEMBER MAKING THAT VERY CLEAR ABOUT A MONTH AGO WHEN I ACTUALLY SPOKE WITH SEVERAL OF YOU REGARDING THAT, AND I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. LIKE I SAID, WE ARE HERE. THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE HERE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE AND WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT REVITALIZATION CONTINUES TOO FOR PLANO. WE DO NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT DENSITY. THE REASON WHY CHASE OAK IS CURRENTLY SURROUNDED BY TEN DIFFERENT MULTI-FAMILY UNITS AND THEN LEGEND NOW IS REQUESTING FOR INCREASE. LEGENDS REQUEST MAYBE 100 UNITS. 150 UNITS. WHAT ABOUT THE NINE OTHER MULTI-FAMILY UNITS SURROUNDING SEEING THAT WE HAVE APPROVED OR POENL WE WILL APPROVE THE REVITALIZATION OF LEGEND AND COME BACK FORWARD AND SAY, WELL, SINCE YOU DID THAT FOR THEM, WHAT ABOUT US? I THINK THAT'S THE REASON WHY I THINK THIS REALLY IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A VERY SERIOUS DIALOGUE WITH THE CURRENT PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD. SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN, LITERALLY IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKING THEM UNDERSTAND AND BE AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE WITH REGARD TO WHAT YOU'RE PLANNIN ON DOING, WHY YOU ARE DOING SO, AND HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT HOME VALUE AS WELL AS THE DENSITY ISSUES IN PLANO. >> COUNCILWOMAN, THE HOA IS 600 FEET AWAY FROM US. NUMBER TWO, THE OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE AROUND US AS WE ALLUDED TO EARLIER, THOSE ARE ALREADY AT 18, 20 UNITS PER ACRE, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY CAN GO FROM 18 TO 20. WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 10, AND WE'RE ASKING TO BE AT 13.5. IN REPLY TO YOUR ANSWER, YES, I UNDERSTAND THE OTHER ONES, BUT THEY'RE ALL 18 TO 20 AT THIS INT, AND WRE NOT. AGAIN, WE WENT TO -- >> MAYOR MUNS: OKAY. >> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. IF I PROPOSE THAT WE TABLE THIS THAT FURTHER DIALOGUE COULD HAPPEN WITH THE RESIDENTS IN THE CHASE OAK COMMUNITY, ARE YOU WILLING TO CONSIDER THAT, OR DO YOU WANT AN UP-OR-DOWN VOTE TODAY? >> LOOK, THIS JOURNEY HAS TAKEN ME FOR YEARS ALREADY. I'VE DONE IT TWICE. I'VE LISTENED TO EVERYTHING THAT THEOUNC -- TOOK EVERYTHING AT HEART. WE'VE SPENT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND EFFORT ON THIS. EVERYTHING YOU ASKED FOR COUNCILWOMAN I DID A GOOD HEART, AND YOU ARE HEAD OF THE HOA WHICH HAS A LETTER ON FILE THAT SAYS HE SUPPORTS IT AND TOLD ME TO EVERYBODY AND NOBODY HAD ANY ISSUES WHATSOEVER. >> SPECIFICALLY IN THIS LETTER HE SAYS THAT HE DELIVERED PACKETS. I'M NOT SURE H THE MEANS WAS, BUT TO THE 55 CLOSEST HOMES, AND THAT IT WAS ALSO POSTED ON THE SOCIAL MEDIA THAT THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION USES. >> GO AHEAD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A LOT OF DISCUSSION HAS BEEN HAD TONIGHT ABOUT NOTIFYING PEOPLE IN SURROUNDING AREAS. AS CHRISTINA POINTED OUT, THERE WERE NO LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET PRINCIPALLY BECAUSE THERE'S NOBODY WITHIN 200 FEET. HAVE YOU -- THE TRACE OAKS HOA ASIDE, HAVE YOU REACHED OUT TO THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF CHASE OAKS APARTMENT COMPLEX TO SPEAK WITH THEM AND GET THEIR ASSESSMENT. I DO APPRECIATE THAT YOU MADE REQUESTS AS FAR AS REMOVING THE PROPOSED BUILDINGS ALONG LEGACY OR THE WALKING PATH, BUT I WENT BACK TO REFRESH MYSELF. IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS. I WENT BACK AND WATCHED ALL THE FOOTAGE FROM THE P & Z MEETINGS FROM TWO YEARS AGO. THERE WERE MULTIPLE STEPS. STAFF HAD REQUESTS FOR CHANGES. THE FIRST P & Z MEETINGAD REQUEST FOR CHANGES. THEN IT WAS TABLED. THERE WERE A COUPLE OF POINTS BROUGHT UP AT THE SECOND P & Z MEETINGS, AND THEN IT WENT ON TO COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO. AT THE COUNCIL MEETING THE BUILDINGS ALONG LEGACY WEREN'T OF PRIMARY CONCERN NOR WAS THE WALKING PATH EVEN MENTIONED I THINK. THE BIGGEST CONCERN AS MAYOR PROTEM PRINCE BROUGHT UP THEM AND REITERATED TONIGHT AND COUNCILMAN RICCIARDELLI REITERATED WAS THEDEA THATOU HAVE TO BUILD NEW GRUN ITS IN ORDER TO UPDATE EXISTING UNITS. AS MAYOR PRO TEM PRINCE POINTS OUT, IF ANYBODY OWNS A PROPERTY, THEY EXPECT TO INVEST PERIODICALLY TO KEEP IT UPDATED. PEOPLE WHO RENT EXPECT THE SAME THING EXCEPT THAT IT IS THROUGH THEIR RENT. I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM, BUT I THINK WHERE SHE WAS GOING ABOUT SETTING AN EXPECTATION WITH OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES ISN'T NECESSARILY THE EXPECTATION THAT THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO INCREASE THEIR DENSITY IN ORDER TO RENOVATE OR UPDATE THEIR EXISTING STOCK. ONE IS HAVE YOU PULLED THE EXISTING RESIDENTS OF THE APARTMENT COMPLEX? >> NOT ALL OF THEM. WE'VE HAD A HANDFUL OF CONVERSATIONS BECAUSE, AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO CREATE AN UPROAR AS FAR AS SOMETHING THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WE'VE TALKED TO SELECT PEOPLE, AND THE SELECT TENANTS THAT WE HAVE TALKED TO HAVE TOLD US WE'RE READY FOR IT. THEY WANT AND WELCOME IT. YES, THERE IS GOING TO BE SOME DISCOMFORT. WE'VE TOLD WE'RE GOING TO WORK UPTED NTALATES FOR THE EM TIME THE CONSTRUCTION GOES ON, AND THEY WERE OKAY WITH IT. AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND TELL YOU WE'VE TALKED TO ALL OF OUR TENANTS BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT. >> THAT LEADS ME TO A QUESTION THAT JUST OCCURRED TO ME. SO I UNDERSTAND ECONOMIES OF SCALE. IF YOU HAVE A LARGE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, THEN YOU DO THE UPDATING WHILE YOU'RE AT IT, BUT IF YOU SAID YOU'RE WAITING UNTIL YOU HAVE NATURAL TURNOVER BEFORE YOU RENOVATE THE APARTMENTS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET THOSE ECONOMIES OF SCALE. THAT'S GOING TO TAKE YEARS. >> ACTUALLY, IT'S GOING TAKE US A WHILE BEFORE WE CAN GET OUR PLANS THROUGH SO ON AND SO FORTH. WE CAN GET THE CONTRACTOR GOING AS SOON AS WE'RE READY TO GO. THEY'LL BE HERE IMMEDIATELY AND START WORKING ON THE FIRST 10, 15 UNITS AND MOVE FORWARD UNTIL WE'RE READY TO GO -- UNTIL WE ARE READY TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION ACTUALLY. THERE WILL BE OTHER CREWS HERE ONCE THEY DO THE CONSTRUCTION. THERE WILL BE REHAB CREWS AND CONSTRUCTION CREWS. >> THEN IT'S FAIR THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WAIT THE GET THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION CREWS. IF YOU HAVE RENOVATION CREWS, REHAB CREWS COMING IMMEDIATELY, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF JUST GETTING RENOVATION CREWS? >> BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE RT OF THE SAME -- IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE LARGER CONTRACT. WE'RE GOING TO DID A HUGE CONTRACT BECAUSE THEY'RE BUILDING -- THOSE 124 UNITS ARE GOING TO COST ME PROBABLY ABOUT $25 MILLION TO $30 MILLION. WHEN I HAVE THAT KIND OF A CONTRACT, I'M GOING TO HAVE A LOT MORE LEVERAGE AS FAR AS BOOTS ON THE GROUND ARE CONCERNED. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO USE AS FAR AS THE REHAB IS CONCERNED. >> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. >> I WOULD ASK YOU TO JUST LEVERAGE IN GETTING THE OVERALL CONTRACT. >> CORRECT. >> THAT MAKES SENSE. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. THE OVERARCHING CONCERN I STILL HAVE IS THE MSAGE O BUILDING ADDITIONAL UNITS FORD TO REFURBISH EXISTING UNITS, AND THE UNDER -- WHILE LIKE I SAID, I TRULY DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORTS YOU'VE MADE, AND, IN FACT, IT WAS ME AT THE COUNCIL MEETING TWO YEARS AGO THAT SAID IF YOU CAN FIND A WAY TO MAKE THIS MORE PALATABLE, THEN I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO, BUT THE UNDERLYING PROPOSITION I DON'T SEE HAS CHANGED. >> GETTING BACK TO THE LAND VALUE COMPARED TO THE PRONL AS A WHOLE THIS IS A PHENOMENON THAT HAPPENS TO SINGLE FAMILY HOME MUI-FALY HES, COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND THE LIKE. AS LAND VALUES INCREASE, YOU HAVE TO MAKE GREATER CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN ORDER TO BALANCE THAT OUT. SIMPLY THE UNDERWRITING OF FINANCING WILL DEMAND IT. WE'RE AT THE LEGENDS COMPLEX, AND 40% OF IT IS IN THE LAND. IT IS NOT IN THE IMPROVEMENTS. UPGRADING CERTAINLY CORRECT THAT TO SOME DEGREE, BUT NOT SUFFICIENTLY. THIS IS WHAT DRIVES REDEVELOPMENT. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS INCREMENTAL REDEVELOPMENT VERSUS ARE AED SPRAY AND REBUILD TYPE OF DEVELOPMNT WRFSH THAT'S WHAT'S DRIVEN BY LAND ECONOMICS IS PRICES CONTINUE TO CLIMB WHERE, IT EVENTUALLY BRINGS ABOUT REDEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. >> I HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH. >> ONE OF THE OBJECTIONS I HAD BACK IN NOVEMBER OF 2020 WAS THE BIG WALL, THREE-STORY BUILDING THERE ON LEGACY, AND YOU HAVE RESPONDED, AND MROOUFD THAT OUT OF THE WAY. I DO STILL SEE WE HAVE A THREE-STORY THAT IS DOWN THAT SOUTH, SOUTHEAST CORNER. >> ON THE BACK SIDE, CORRECT. >> THERE'S ONE ON THE CORNER, CORRECT. AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT AS I GOT OFF THE PLANE TODAY. FRANK CALLED ME AND SAID, LOOK, HE HAS -- SOME OF THE FOLKS THAT HE HAS TALKED TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT CORNER BUILDING BEING THREE-STORY. I'M FINE DOING A TWO-STORY. THAT'S NOT A DEAL KILLER FOR ME. >> I JUST WANT TO BE SURE. AM I LOOKING AT THE RIGHT LOT HERE? >> IT'S ALL THE WAY TO THE CORNER. WE THOUGHT IT WOULD BE OKAY. IF IT'S NOT OKAY, WE'LL MAKE THAT TWO-STORY AS WELL. >> THAT'S FAIRLY EASY TO ADDRESS, COUNCIL, BY ADDING A STIPULATION THAT THE PROBT SETBACK FOR THREE-STORY BUILDINGS IS 100 FEET WE CAN WORD IT SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT IT ELIMINATES THAT AS BEING THREE STORIES. IT WILL BE TWO STORIES. >> THAT WAS ONE THING HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO JUST SAY THAT I APPRECIATE Y BEING HEREND ING AN INVESTOR IN PLANO, AND I WOULD GATHER THAT SEVERAL YEARS BACK WHEN YOU MADE THE DECISION TO BUY THIS PROPERTY IT WAS PARTLY BECAUSE OF ITS UNIQUENESS. I HAVE BEEN HERE 37 YEARS. THIS HAS ALWAYS BEEN A STAND-OUT PROPERTY IN PLANO. >> IT STILL IS. WE STILL LOVE BEING THERE. >> IT'S BEEN A DESIRABLE PLACE. YOU HVE GREAT LOCATION AND EVERYTHING. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU REGARDLESS OF WHAT HAPPENED HERE TONIGHT TO INVEST ALL YOU CAN INTO REHABBING AND MAKING THAT PLACE VIABLE BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LAND VALUE RATIO TO PROPERTY VALUE. THAT ALL CHANGES. IT WILL CHANGE AGAIN. I DON'T KNOW WHERE IT'S GOING TO GO, BUT IT MAY NOT ALWAYS BE 40%. AS LONG AS YOU'VE GOT A UNIQUE PROPERTY IN THIS AREA AS DEPUTY MAYOR TU WAS TALKING ABOUT, YOU ARE SURROUNDED BY A LOT OF COMPETITORS. THEY CAN'T OFFER WHAT YOU HAVE OVER THERE NOW. I HAVE TO BE COGNIZANT OF THAT BECAUSE OF THE AREA AND THE PEOPLE THAT RENT THERE, THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT THERE WIT THIS THE WAY IT WAS. I GO BACK TO THE '95 DECISION. ORIGINALLY THIS WAS SET ASIDE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THEN, I GUESS, THERE WAS THE NEED TO PUT THIS IN PLACE AND GET SOMETHING ELSE GOING AND THE ONLY THING THAT WAS VIABLE WAS THE MULTI-FAMILY AT THE TIME. THAT DECISION WAS MADE. WE'LL DO THIS, BUT THE DENSITY STAYS THE SAME. THAT HASN'T REALLY CHANGED. NOW, TWO YEARS AGO WE WERE UNDER A DIFFERENT LAND USE PLAN THAN WE ARENO UNFORTUNATELY, RIGHT NOW THE CHANGES THAT YOU ARE SEEKING US TO APPROVE DON'T CONFORM TO OUR PLAN. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOKED AT. YOU MAY NOT BE AWARE, BUT WE HAD OUR STAFF, CHRISTINA'S STAFF, AND SEVERAL CITIZENS FROM THE CITY WORKED A YEAR AND A HALF. ENDED UP BEING A LOT LONGER THAN WE THOUGHT TO PUT TOGETHER THIS NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO JUST SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO PAY ATTENTION AND NOT RESPECT THAT IS A SLAP IN THE FACE FOR PEOPLE THAT WORKED HARD TO PUT THIS TOGETHER. I APPRECIATE WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM, BUT I THINK THAT IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD REALLY TRY TO MAKE THE BEST I CAN OF A REAL GEM PIECE OF PROPERTY THAW OWN AND IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE I WOULD THINK A GOOD ASSET IN YOUR PORTFOLIO PERHAPS EVEN IF YOUR PROJECT DOESN'T GET AUTO PROVED TONIGHT TO HAVE THE EXPANSION THERE. THEN I WOULD MAKE SURE THAT WE KEEP THAT AS A REAL HIGH-END, HIGH-QUALITY PLACE BY PUTTING THE BEST INVESTMET YOU CAN INTO REHABBING IT. >> COUNCILMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT REAL BRIEFLY. FIRST OF ALL, ON THE INITIAL ZONING OF CHASE OAKS, CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT DID THE CHASE OAKS DEVELOPMENT IN ZONING. IT WAS DESIGNED AS BEING MULTIPLE USES BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE GOLF COURSE WAS LAID OUT. SOME PORTIONS WERE SINGLE FAMILY. SOME PORTIONS WERE MULTI-FAMILY. THIS PARTICULAR TRACK WAS OUTLINED FOR TOWNHOMES. THAT WAS THEIR DESIRE AND HOPE. IT WAS APPROVED BY THE COUNCIL. YEARS LATER AS THEYOLD OFF VARIOUS PIECES THEY DEVELOPED THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS, BUT THE MULTI-FAMILY, THEY SOLD OFF TO DEVELOPERS TO DO. THIS WAS THE LAST REMAINING TRACK. AT THAT TIME TOWNHOMES WERE NOT POPULAR IN THE MARKETPLACE CAMBRIDGE REALLY WANTED TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY. SO THEY ASKED TO SIMPLY CONVERT SO THEY COULD BE MULTI-FAMILY INSTEAD OF TOWNHOMES, AND IT WAS A QUICK SOLUTION DEBT. OF COURSE, THEY HAD RAY BUYER FOR IT. AND THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED AND DELOPEAS T APARTNT COMPLEX THAT WE KNOW. NOW, THE QUESTION OF CONFORMANCE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THERE ARE THREE MAJOR TESTS OR TWO MAJOR TESTS. ABOUT THREE. ONE, SAYS DOES IT CONFORM TO THE LAND USE MAP? YES, IT DOES. THE AREA IS SHOWN AS NEIGHBORHOOD, AND NEIGHBORHOOD INCLUDES MULTI-FAMILY, AND SO IS THIS PROPOSAL. THEN THERE IS THE CONDITIONS IN THIS REZONING TEST OF SAYING THE DASHBOARD ELEMENTS. THE DASHBOARD ELEMENT PRINCIPALLY DEALT WITH BUILDING HEIGHT AS WELL AS THE DENSITY REQUEST OR THE NUMBER OF UNITS. THE MIX. I THINK IT'S CALLED. GRANTED, IT DOES NOT MEET EITHER OF THOSE TWO. THREE STORIES IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. TWO STORIES IS WHAT IS RECOMMENDED IN THE PLAN. HOWEVER, OUT OF THE TEN APARTMENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THIS AREA, SEVEN HAVE THREE-STORY BUILDINGS. SO THE CONTEXT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THIS. THE OTHER PART OF THIS -- AND THIS IS BOTH A QUESTION OF EQUITY AS WELL AS CONTEXT OF THE PARTICULAR SITE, THIS AREA IS TOTALLY ISOLATED FROM OVERDEVELOPMENT. IT HAS A GOLF COURSE AROUND IT ON ONE SIDE. PARK AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT TO THE SOUTH SIDE. IT IS AN ENCLAVE, IF YOU WILL. IT HAS THE CAPACITY FOR EXPANSION, BUT STILL RETAINING THE CHARACTER AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLAN. IT IS STILL A VERY LOW DENSITY DEVELOPMENT AS PROPOSED AT 13.5 UNITS PE ACRE. SO I THINK GIVEN THE DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL HOUDZING, WHICH THE PLAN RECOGNIZES THAT THERE IS DEMAND FOR ADDITIONAL HOUDZING THAT NEEDS TO BE MET BY THIS COMMUNITY, I CAN'T THINK OF A PLACE THAT'S MORE IDEAL FOR ALLOWING FOR SOME ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS. 124 IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER. GIVEN YOUR PREFERENCE, WOULDN'T YOU SOONER HAVE THEM IN IAN LIKE THIS VERSUS A NEW PIECE OF LAND BEING DEVELOPED AS AN APARTMENT COMPLEX BRSH THIS DOES NOT EXPAND THE BUILDING INTO WHAT WOULD THE LAND ENVELOPE FOR MULTI-FAMILY. THIS AREA IS ALREADY DEVELOPED AS MULTI-FAMILY. >> AND IT'S WITHIN THE CONFINEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. >> YEAH. THERE'S NO EXPANSION OF LAND AREA. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. >> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL. WAS THERE ONE OTHER SPEAKER? OH, I'M SORRY. >> THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL SPEAKER THAT WAS TO BE IN ATTENDANCE VIA ZOOM, AND THEY ARE NOT THERE, SO IS TIGER DARLING IN THE AUDIENCE? IS IT EVERY THAT IS A NO. TIGER ALSO INDICATED SUPPORT IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. >> MAYOR MUNS: I WAS THE CHAIR OF P & Z WHEN YOU FIRST CAME. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT MOTIVATES ME IS TO REVITALIZE AREAS OF NEED THROUGHOUT ALL OF PLANO. WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING AT A -PLUS-YEARLD COMPLEX, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT WE REALLY WANT TO FOCUS ON TO GET THAT REVITALIZATION. THIS IS, AS THEY SAID, SAYS IT GOES FROM NINE TO TEN UNITS PER ACRE TO 13.6 UNITS PER ACRE. STILL, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS DENSE THAN MOST APARTMENTS THAT ARE BUILT TODAY. I THINK IF BE HOPE TO SEE THIS OPPORTUNITY AND WE TURN IT DOWN, THERE'S LITTLE MOTIVATION FOR EXISTING OWNERS OF 30-PLUS-YEAR-OLD APARTMENTS TO PUT ANY MONEY INTO IT BECAUSE IT JUST SHOWS THAT MAYBE WE SAY WE WANT TO SUPPORT REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY, AND YET, WE TURN IT DOWN. I HOPE THAT WE CAN SUPPORT WE LAEL WANT TO UPGRADE OUR THAT STOCK THAT'S GOT A LOT OF AGE ON IT, AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE IT DETERIORATE. THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE LOST SOME OF THESE APARTMENTS TO PLANO HOUSING AUTHORITY BECAUSE THEY COULDN'T GET THE REVITALIZATION THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. SO I FEEL LIKE THIS WAS A GOOD PROJECT A FEW YEARS AGO. THEY HAVE COME BACK AND TAKEN ANY OF THOSE PRORTIE OFF OF LEGACY, AND I HOPE THAT WE CAN GET A STIPULATION ON THE THREE-STORY THAT'S CLOSEST TO LEGACY TO GO DOWN TO A TWO-STORY. I HOPE THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO UPGRADE THIS FACILITY AFTER 30-PLUS YEARS. SORRY. COUNCIL MEMBER RICCIARDELLI. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WANT TO FIRST SAY I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT THE MAYOR JUST MADE AND CERTAINLY AGREE WITH THE IMPORTANCE OF REVITALIZATION AND REINVESTMENT. I ALSO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT AND THEIR COMMITMENT TO REVITALIZATION AND REXIMT. I COMMEND YOU ALL FOR WORKING WITH THE NEARBY HOA EVEN IF THERE WERE SOME ISSUES IN THE HOA GETTING INFORMATION OUT. I BELIEVE THAT YOU ALL ARE GOOD HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPERS AND CERTAINLY YOU ADDRESSED THE PHASING ISSUE THAT I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT TO MY SATISFACTION. THAT BEING SAID I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE DENSITY AND THE PCEDENT THIS CASE WOULD SET, SO I WANT TO ADDRESS THREE ARGUMENTS THAT ARE MADE IN FAVOR OF THIS SFWLOENING. THE FIRST, WHICH I THIS I IS THE BIGGEST IS THAT REINVESTMENT IS DESIRABLE. OF COURSE, IT IS. REINVESTMENT IS VERY IMPORTANT. MANY APARTMENT COMPLEXES ARE RENOVATED AND MAINTAINED WITHOUT MAKING ZONING DENSER AS THE STAFF REPORT SAYS WHILE THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP O EXISTING MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS ARE EMPHASIZED EVERY. IN THE END THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD DASHBOARD AND ENCOURAGED MAINTENANCE OF THE EXISTING UNITS SHOULD NOT REQUIRE A CHANGE IN LAND USE RIGHTS. WE ALSO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE NEXT ONE. DURING THIS PRESENTATION WE'VE HEARD THE APPLICANT UNDERSTANDABLY TALK ABOUT WHAT OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES HAVE GOTTEN IN TERMS OF DENSITY. SHOULD WEIGH APPROVE THIS? WE SHOULD EXPECT THAT ANY APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT NEEDS REVITALIZATION AND REINVESTMENT WILL SAY THE LEGENDS AT CHASE OAKS GOT ADDITIONAL DENSITY IN ORDER TO REVITALIZE. WE WANT ADDITIONAL DENSITY TO REVITALIZE TOO. AGAIN, THE STAFF REPORT SAYS ZONING FOR ADDITIONAL DENSITY CANNOT BE THE REVITALIZATION SOLUTION FOR ALL EXISTING APARTMENT SITES IN PLANO WITHOUT ADEQUATELY PLANNING FOR THE ECONIC, SOCI, AND INASTRUCTURE IMPACT OF SUCH A POLICY SHIFT. THE SECOND -- AGAIN, I THINK THAT FIRST ARGUMENT IS NOT PERSUASIVE. THE SECOND ARGUMENT THAT IT'S LESS DENSE THAN OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THE SURROUNDING AREA IS TRUE, BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO IS UNDO THE 1995 DEAL THAT ALLOWED THIS TO BE SWITCHED FROM SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED TO MULTI-FAMILY. THE IDEA WAS THAT IT WOULD BE TECHNICALLY MULTI-FAMILY ZONING, BUT IT WOULD RETAIN THE DENSITY OF SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. THAT'S WHY IT'S LE DENSE. THAT BE THE OER APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THE AREA. THIS WAS DONE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING, YET UNANIMOUS FROM THE CITY COUNCIL IN 1995. CLEARLY, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS THE SUBJECT OF DEBATE AT THAT TIME. THE THIRD POINT IS IN REGARDS TO THE 2020 COUNCIL DIRECTION, AND I WAS HERE AT THAT TIME. MANY OF US WERE HERE AT THAT TIME. THERE HAVE BEEN STATEMENTS THAT MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THE CONCERNS THAT THE COUNCIL EXPRESSED WERE JUST ABOUT THE FRONTAGE ALONG LEGACY DRIVE AND JUST ABOUT THE WALKING PATH. WHILE THOSE WERE CERTAINLY DISCUSSED, THAT DIDN'T MATCH MY RECOLLECTION, AND I CAN TELL YOU IT WAS NOT THE MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR IN MY 2020 VOTE, SO I WENT BACK AND WATCHED THAT MEETING OR AT LEAST THE PORTION AFTER WE CLOSED THE COMMENTS AND CONFINED THEM TO COUNCIL. THE PREDOMINANT CONCERN THAT I HEARD, AGAIN ON THE VIDEO TODAY, WAS ABOUT DENSITY AND PRECEDENT. MAYOR PRO TEM PRINCE SPOKE FIRST. RAISED A CONCERN ABOUT THE IDEA THAT ADDITIONAL DENSITY IS NEEDED IN ORDER TO FACILITATE I SPOKEND QTED SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME LINE FROM THE STAFF REPORT THAT I QUOTED TONIGHT ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT WE WOULD BE SETTING AND THAT THIS CAN'T BE A REVITALIZATION STRATEGY FOR EVERY APARTMENT IN PLANO. SO IF WE DO IT FOR THIS ONE, HOW DO WE SAY NO TO THE OTHERS? IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN DO FOR 200-PLUS COMPLEXES AS THEY AGE WITHOUT TREMENDOUSLY INCREASING DENSITY CITY-WIDE, WHICH WE'RE NOT PREPARED FOR. DEPUTY MAYOR PROTEM TU SPOKE ADDRESSING DENSITY AND THEN UNCIMEMB BOUGH SPOKE AND RAISED POINTS REGARDING DENSITY AND/OR PRECEDENCE. WHILE FRONTAGE ALONG LEGACY DRIVE WAS DISCUSSED, I WOULD SAY THE PREDOMINANT TOPIC -- THERE'S BEEN NO CHANGE IN THIS REGARD WAS DENSITY AND THE PRECEDENT THAT THIS WOULD SET. WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF EVERY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF PLANO SAID THAT THEY NEED MORE DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER -- AND MORE DENSITY IN ORDER TO RENOVATE. WE'RE AT THE SAME DENSITY THAT WAS PROPOSED AND VOTED DOWN IN 2020. THE STAFF IS STILL RECOMMENDING DENIAL. IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,ND I THINK IT WOULD SET A DANGEUS PRECEDENT BECAUSE HOW DO WE KNOW THE NEXT TIME A DEVELOPER RAISES THIS ISSUE? ? WHILE I REALLY DO GENUINELY APPRECIATE THE ENERGY AND THE SPIRIT WITH WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS APPROACHED THIS, WHILE I GENUINELY APPRECIATE THE MAYOR'S POINTS AND THE IMPORTANCE OF REINVESTMENT AND QUALITY, I CAN'T VOTE FOR THIS REQUEST. I COULD MAKE RAY MOTION FOR DENIAL OR WAIT UNTIL OTHERS SPEAK. I'M FINE ETHER WAY. ABSOLUTELY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD, M. ABSOLUTELY. >> COUNCILMAN GRADY? I'LL JUST GO AROUND THE ROOM. >> YES. I HAVE A COUPLE. THEY ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE HAD ECHOED BY SEVERAL OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. WITHOUT GOING INTO ANY KIND OF REALLY LONG EXPLANATION ON REALLY THE ENTIRE PLAN, WHAT I'M SEEING -- THIS IS JUST MY OBSERVATION. WHAT I'M SEEING IS ABOUT 20 BUILDINGS BEING ADDED INTO THIS PROPERTY OF WHICH 14 OF THEM ARE WHAT I CONSIDER JUST WEDGING THEM IN. I TAKE A LOOK AT THE MAP AND SEE ON THE SOUTHEAST SIDE A SERIES OF BUILDINGS THAT ARE PUT BETWEEN TWO DRIVEWAYS BASICALLY. THERE'S A LITTLE GREEN SPACE THERE, BUT BASICALLY THE GREEN SPACE GOES AWAY, AND THE BUILDINGS GO IN. I SEE ON THE SWERS SIDE THREE REALLY WEDGED INTO SOME OPEN UR SPACE THAT'S THERE. I SEE ON THE NORTH SIDE FOUR OR FIVE BUILDINGS THAT ARE PUT IN, AGAIN, IN A GREEN SPACE BETWEEN TWO PARKING AREAS AND TWO ROADWAYS, TWO EXISTING BEINGS. AGAIN, I WOULD SAY THEY'RE WEDGED IN. WHEN I BOIL IT DOWN, I FIND 14 BUILDINGS THAT I CALL BEING WEDGED INTO THE COMPLEX AND SIX OF THEM THAT REALLY -- IT JUST THOSE SIX EXISTED, PROBABLY WOULD ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT OF THE COMPLEX. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING FOR, BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M SEEING. TO ME DID DOESN'T CHANGE THE DIVERSITY OF THE PRODUCT AT ALL. TO ME IT REALLY CAUSES AN ISSUE FOR PARKING FOR TENANTS. TO ME IT DECREASES REALLY SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED THE NEED AND DESIRE FOR OPEN SPACEND WT THAT DOES TO THE HUMAN ELEMENT. SO I'M NOT AT THIS POINT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT PLAN FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. DOES IT NEED TO BE REDEVELOPED OR CAN IT BE REDEVELOPED OR SHOULD IT BE REDEVELOPED? THOSE ARE QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER TO RIGHT NOW OTHER THAN IT PROBABLY SHOULD. IT PROBABLY COULD. IT CERTAINLY WOULD ENHANCE IT, BUT AT THIS POINT I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT BY TAKING A SERIES OF SMALL BUILDINGS AND PLACING THEM IN AREAS THAT WOULD -- I'M GOING TO SAY CROWD THOSE BUILDINGS IN, JUST DOESN'T SEEM TO BE THE RIGHT ANSWER. >> THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE LAND VALUE INCREASING MORE THAN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, I'M STRUGGLING WITH ALL OF THIS BECAUSE I AGREE WITH THE MAYOR THAT REVITALIZATION ACROSS OUR CITY WHEN OUR CITY IS AGING IS VERY IMPORTANT. I THINK THAT THIS JUST INCREASES OUR NEED FOR CONVERSATIONS WE'VE HAD AS A COUNCIL ABOUT HOW DO WE GO ABOUT REVITALIZING OUR CITY AND WHAT MEANS DO WE HAVE AVAILABLE FOR THAT? I DON'T KNOW THAT. I THINK THAT THIS IS THE MEANS T DO IT. IF WE WENT WITH THE PHILOSOPHY OF CHANGING DENSITY FOR LAND VALUE, THEN WE WOULD ALL BE UP HERE SAYING WE'RE GOING TO TEAR DOWN OUR HOUSES AND BUILD TOWNHOMES AND NONE OF US ARE GOING TO DO THAT. I STRUGGLE WITH THAT PHILOSOPHY FOR DOING IT. I'M STILL REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO ADD DENSITY IN ORDER TO RENOVATE. I'M GOING ON HAVE TO NOT SUPPORT THIS AS WELL. >> DEPUTY MAYOR, D YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS? >> I'M VERY, VERY CONFLICTED BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT THE INTENT TO REVITALIZE IS GENUINE, AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I BELIEVE A DIRECT AND DRANZ PARENT COMMUNICATION WITH THE RESIDENTS AROUND THAT AREA. YU'VE GOT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT WE JUST HAD A NEW PLAN PUT IN PLACE BECAUSE OUR RESIDENTS DEMAND THAT WE TAKE THEIR ISSUES AND THEIR CONCERNS TO HEART. SO THE COMMUNICATION AND THE TRANSPARENCY IN THE HEARING IS SOMETHING THAT I VALUE A LOT. IF YOU HAVE THE RESIDENTS SUPPORTING YOU INSTEAD OF ALL WRITING LETTERS OF OPPOSITIONS TO. NOT TO YOU, BUT TO US. I THINK IT WOULD BE EASIER FOR US TO COME BACK AND TRY TO RE-EVALUATE. THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I WAS SO RELUCTANT. I DECIDED THAT I WANTED TO ASK WHETHER OR NOT A POSSIBILITY OF TABLING IT IS A POTENTIAL POSSIBILITY, BUT OBVIOUSLY I ALSO I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPER AND THE APPLICANT. I GET IT. YOU'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR FOUR YEARS. THE TEMPERAMENT IS NOT VERY GOOD AS WE CONTINUE TO GO ON. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU PRESENT, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR HEART IN REVITALIZING THE EAST SIDE PLANO. I'M CONFLICTED AN RELUCTANT AT THIS POINT. >> MAYOR MUNS: COUNCIL MEMBER WILLIAMS. >> THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH MAYOR MUNS THAT REVITALIZATION IS CRUCIAL AS OUR CITY AGES. TO MAYOR PRO TEM PRINCE'S POINT, HOW WE GO ABOUT THAT MATTERS A GREAT DEAL. NOW, I SAID AND I GENUINELY MEAN THAT APPCIATE YOUR EFFORTS TO WORK TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE CONCERNS, BUT AS I SAID, I STILL SEE THAT THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS WITH THIS COUNCIL TWO YEARS AGO VOICED HAVEN'T REALLY CHANGED AT ALL. I DO AGREE THAT WITH COUNCILMAN SMITH'S POINT THAT THIS IS A SPECIAL PROPERTY, AND WITHOUT BUILDING ADDITIONAL DENSITY, I THINK YOU CAN -- EVEN THOUGH YOU MIGHT NOT GET THE SAME ECONOMIES OF SCALE, I THINK YOU CAN UPDATE THESE EXISTING UNITS AND PEOPLE, ESPECIALLY IN THIS AREA SURROUNDED BY A GOLF COURSE, WILL HAPPILY PAY THE MARKET RATES IN ORDER TO ENJOY THOSE UPDATED UNITS. ONE OF THE THINGS -- ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S COME UP A FEW TIMES IS THE IDEA THAT THE VOUPDING APARTMENT COMPLEXES HAVE GREATER DENSITY. WHILE THIS IS THROUGH, THIS WAS A QUESTION I ASKED TWO YEARS AGO, AND THOSE COMPLEXES WERE APPROVED FIRST. WHEN THIS WAS REZONED FROM APPROXIMATE THE ORIGINALLY INTENDED SINGLE FAMILY TO THE MULTI-FAMILY, THAT WAS ALL BAKED INTO THE CAKE AND THE DECISION WAS MADE VISA VI THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO KEEP THAT DENSITY LOW. WHILE, YES, THOSE APARTMENT COMPLEXES DO HAVE GREATER DENSITY, THIS WAS INTENDED THEN NOT TO, AND AS COUNCILMAN RICK DELL XWRI POINTED OUT, THIS WOULD BE, IN EFFECT, OVERTURNING THAT DECISION FROM THE '90s. WHILE WE HAVE TO DO THAT PERIODICALLY, WHILE THE COUNCIL HAS TO REVISIT OLD DECISIONS PERIODICALLY, ONE OF THE THEMES THAT CAME THROUGH IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AND IN SOME OF THE FINNGS FOR A SINCE WERE WE NEED ADDITIONAL HOUSING STOCK. WE NEED MORE HOUSING. THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A DEMAND FOR HOUSING, BUT I DON'T THINK ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS OR LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE THE ANSWER BECAUSE THAT'S OVERWHELMINGLY ALL WE HAVE. LARGE OR LARGISH. I'M GOING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD. LARGE OR LARGISH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND APARTMENTS. WE HAVE TONS AND TONS AND TONS OF BOTH. WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS A DIVERSIFIED HOUSING STOCK THAT ALLOWS FOR MOBILITY THROUGH DIFFERENT NEEDS IN LIFE STAGES AMONGST THAT HOUSING STOCK, AND THAT CREATES ARTIFICIAL SCARCITY WHICH DRIVES THE PRICES UP. I THINK THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE DASHBOARDS THAT CAME FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE PROCESS BECAUSE WE SEE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIGNATION, THERE'S A TON OF ROOM FOR GROWTH FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HEIGHTS, WHICH WE HAVE ALMOST NONE OF CITY-WIDE COMPARATIVELY SPEAKING. IF WE FOCUS ON DIVERSIFYING OUR HOUSING TYPES, THEN I THINK A LOT OF THE DEMAND ISSUES -- NOT ALTHOUGH, BUT A LOT OF THE DEMAND ISSUES WILL BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE PEOPLE LOOKING TO GET A FIRST HOME STARTING OUT OR MAYBE THEY'RE SINGLE OR NEWLYWEDS, THEY CAN FIND SOMETHING APPROPRIATE FOR THEM WITHOUT RESORTING TO A LARGE SINGLE FAMILY HOME OR AN APARTMENT IF THEY DON'T WANT IT AND LIKEWISE, WHEN EMPTY NESTERS ARE DONE WITH THAT LARGE TWO-STORY HOUSE, THEY CAN FIND SOMETHING APPROPRIATE TO MOVE INTO IF THEY STILL DON'T WANT TO RENT. RIGHT NOW THEY DON'T HAVE THOSE OPTIONS. THAT'S A LONG-WINDED WAY OF SAYING I DON'T AGREE THAT A LACK OF HOUSING STOCK IS OUR FUNDAMENTAL CHALLENGE. I THINK IT'S A LACK OF DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK. I DO UNDERSTAND THAT LAND VALUES HAVE INCREASED CONSIDERABLY OVER RECENT YEARS, BUT THAT'S CITY-WIDE, AND IT AFFECTS EVERYBODY. THERE ARE PROJECTS WHICH ARE STILL VIABLE IN THE VERY RECENT PAST. WE APPROVED A DEVELOPMENT PROJECT FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED HOMES IN PLANO WITH OUR LAND PRICES, AND IT'S STILL VIABLE. I'M JUST TOUCHING ON ALL THE CONCERNS I HAVE. I JUST WANT TO REITERATE, I DO APPRECIATE THE EFFORT WH WHICH THE CHANGES WERE MADE, BUT THE UNDERLYING CALCULUS HAS NOT CHANGED. ALTHOUGH IT WAS MAYOR PRO TEM PRINCE WHO MADE THE MOTION TO DENY TWO YEARS AGO, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION NOW. >> I'LL SECOND. >> MAYOR MUNS: ALL RIGHT. HOLD ON. IT'S OKAY. THE MOTION IS FINE. COUNCIL MEMBER HOLMER. >> I TEND TO DISAGREE WITH THE COMMENT ABOUT THE VARIETY OF HOMES. I DON'T THINK THE LAND VALUE WILL ALLOW US TO OFFER A VARIETY OF HOMES. THAT'S WHY YOU GO TO THEND STREETS AND HIGHLAND PARK AND PEOPLE ARE TEARING DOWN SMALL HOMES AND BUILDING McMANSIONS BECAUSE THE COST OF THE LAND IS SO HIGH. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S OUR BIGGEST CHALLENGE. FLAUL, I WOULD BE REMISS IF I DIDN'T ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT AMENITIES. AS THE OFFICIAL CITY COUNCIL ADVOCATE FOR PICKLEBALL, IN IF YOU ARE GOING TO ADD AMENITIES, WE WOULD LOVE PICKLEBALL COURTS IF YOU DO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS. I WATCHED THE P & Z MEETING TWO WEEKENDS AGO THINKING THIS WAS ON LAST WEEK'S AGENDA, SO I FELT LIKE I WAS REALLY PREPARED, AND I REACHED OUT TO PEOPLE THAT I KNEW WERE IN OPPOSITION TO HEAR THEIR THOUGHTS. THE COMMISSIONERS HAD VOTED AGAINST IT AND WORKED REALLY HARD TO DO MY DUE DILIGENCE AND THOUGHT I WAS PREPARED FOR THIS MEETING. THEN AT 5:20 LAST NIGHT EMAILS START FLOODING IN. A LOT OF THEM ARE THE SAME EMAILS. DIVE A DRAFT EMAIL. THERE WERE A LOT OF POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, AND I FELT LIKE IT WAS -- I NEEDED DO MY DUE DILIGENCE TO GO THROUGH AND RESPOND TO ALL OF THOSE QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE. ONE HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED ABOUT THIS WAS REJECTED TWO YEARS AGO. NOW, MY UNDERSTANDING FROM WATCHING THE P & Z MEETING, I DIDN'T GO BACK AND WATCH THE 2020 MEETING. IT DID SOUND LIKE THE BIG PUSH WAS TO REMOVE THE ADDING ANY MORE BUILDINGS ON THE FRONTAGE THERE AT LEGACY. SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED SAID, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS DENIED BEFORE. YOU NEED TO BE CONSISTENT AND DENY IT AGAIN. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM THE INFORMATION I HAD UP UNTIL THIS POINT THAT THE DEVELOPER WAS RESPONDED TO WHAT THOSE REQUESTS WERE. I DO AGREE WITH I THINK COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH BROUGHT UP REDUCING THE NORTHEAST THREE-STORY BUILDING TO A TWO-STORY BUILDING SINCE IT IS KIND OF CLOSER THERE TO LEGACY, SO I WAS IN FAVOR OF THAT. I READ COMMENTS ABOUT PARKING BEING AN ISSUE. THAT WAS COVERED PRETTY EXTENSIVELY IN THE P & Z MEETING. NONE OF THE NOTES IN THE OPPOSITION MENTIONED PARKING. I KNOW PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THAT COMPLEX, AND I ASKED CURRENTLY DO YOU HAVE ANY TROUBLE FINDING PARKING. I WAS TOLD ABSOLUTELY NOT. THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT THERE OONL BEING A SINGLE ENTRANCE OR EXIT ON TO LEGACY, AND THERE'S ACTUALLY TWO. ONE IS KIND OF AN EXIT, AND ONE IS AN ENTRANCE. WHEN I WENT TO VISIT THE PROPERTY, IT WAS ABOUT 5:30 -- BETWEEN 5:30 AND 6:00 AT NIGHT ON A WEEK NIGHT. I JUST DIDN'T SEE A LOT OF TRAFFIC. THERE WAS PLENTY OF PARKING SPOTS THERE. GREEN SPACE. YES, I UNDERSTAND WE'RE LOSING SOME, BUT I AGREED WITH A LOT OF THE COMMENTS MADE TO P & Z ABOUT THIS IS SURROUNDED BY A GOLF COURSE. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL AREA. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT BUILDIN -- SOMEONE PUT A COMMENT THAT WE'RE BUILDING ON OUR EXISTING SETBACK. THAT'S NOT TRUE. WE'RE NOT REDUCING THE SETBACK. LET'S SEE. SOMEWHERE THERE WAS A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ACCUSING THE DEVELOPER WOULD PETITION FOR A NEW TEXAS STATE LAW WHICH WOULD BASICALLY PARTNER WITH PLANO HOUSING AUTHORITY AND TURN THIS INTO TKE IT OFF THE TAX ROLES, WHICH DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME. IF ARE YOU GOING TO IMPROVE THE PROPERTY, WHY WOULD YOU -- TO ME THIS IS AN EFFORT THAT WOULD KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING. I SEE THAT AS A PRO. LET ME SEE HERE. LET ME GO TO SOME OTHER. I GOT A TEXT TODAY RIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING WITH SOME COMMENTS. LET ME READ THESE. THIS WAS SOMEONE I HAD MET WITH THAT WAS IN OPPOSITION TO GET HIS FEEDBACK. YOU MENTIONED INCREASED TAX BASE FROM THE INVESTMENT IN NEW APARTMENTS. TWO POINTS ARE RELEVANT. VERY FEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES PAY ENOUGH TAXES TO COVER CITY SERVICES TO THEIR OCCUPANTS. THAT IS TRUE OF OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR APARTMENTS. THE BUSINESS TAX BASE CONTRIBUTES CLOSE TO 50% OF REVENUES, BUT PROBABLY 75% TO 80% MUCH -- OF CITY SERVICES ADVANTAGES. THAT'S WHY PLANO IS ABLE TO MAINTAIN A LOW TAX RATE. NO DOUBT, IF WE ADDED 100,000 RESIDENTS TO EXISTING PLANO, EVERYONE'S TAXES WOULD GO UP BECAUSE THE HOME THEY LIVED -- THEY WOULDN'T GENERATE ENOUGH REVENUE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS TT APARTMENTS ARE TREATED JUST LIKE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED GET A HOMESTEAD EXEMSHON. THEY DO NOT GET A SENIOR FREEZE. WE WOULD RECEIVE THE SAME PROPERTY TAXES AS IF IT WERE A CORPORATION. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. THIS IS PAIN FISHL THING AS FAR AS REVENUE GOES. MULTI-FAMILY IS CLOSER TO PICKING UP THE TAX BURDEN THAN OUR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE. I APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER IS WILLING TO PROVIDE FOR TERMINATION OF LEASES WITHOUT ANY PENALTIES AND POSSIBLY GIVE A REDUCTION IN RENT FOR DISRUPTIONS. ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS ABOUT THE DISRUPTIONS AND LIVING TLUR CONSTRUCTION. I AM SOMEONE THAT OWNED A PROPERTY, A BUSINESS IN DOWNTOWN PLANO AND HAD TO LIVE THROUGH HAVING OUR PARKING LOT TORN OUT AND APARTMENTS BUILT BEHIND ME. IT WAS VERY DISRUPTIVE TO MY BUSINESS. NOT JUST MY LIFE, BUT MY LIVING, MAKING A LIVING. HOWEVER, NOW I DRIVE DOWNTOWN, AND I LOOK AT THE 2KW0789, AND I KNOW IT'S 98% OCCUPY EVENINGS, AND THE MERCHANTS ARE THRIVING DOWN THERE AS A RESULT OF THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. UNFORTUNATELY, SOMETIMES PROGRESS COMES WITH PAIN. THAT'S NEEDED IN ORDER TO IMPROVE AND BECOME MORE VIABLE. LET ME SEE. I'M SORRY. I HAD A LOT OF NOTES HERE. ANOTHER COMMENT WAS TALKING ABOUT ALL THE MULTFAMILY UNITS THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE RADIUS. LEGACY SQUARE CAME UP. I WAS, LIKE, OKAY, THAT'S RIGHT THERE AROUND THE CORNER. I DON'T KNOW A WHOLE LOT ABOUT LEGACY SQUARE, SO I CALLED THEM UP. I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY'RE NOT OPEN YET. THEY WON'T OPEN UNTIL JANUARY 8th. THEIR CLUBHOUSE WILL. I SPOKE TO THE MANAGER THERE. THE PROPERTY IS SUPPOSED TO OPEN BY THE END OF JULY. THE PROPERTY SHE JUST MOVED FROM, THE KINCADE, I BELIEVE IT WAS, IS AT 96% OCCUPANCY AND 98% LEASED. TOHOMES AND 222 MIDRISE, 141 THREE-STORY. THEY'VE HAD OVER 3,000 INQUIRES INTO THEIR PROPERTY THAT IS NOT EVEN OPEN. I HAVE A HARD TIME BELIEVING THAT THERE'S NOT A DEMAND FOR MORE HOUSING IN PLANO. THEY'VE ALREADY LEASED SEVEN UNITS SIGHT UNSEEN. THEY HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO GO INSIDE THE UNITS, AND THEY'VE ALREADY LEASED SEVEN OF THEM. I ALSO TAKE A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE WITH THE FACT. AGAIN IT WAS A LITTLE FRUSTRATING TO HEAR NO OPPOSITIONHATSOEVER UNTIL OTHER T NIGHT, AND THEN THROUGHOUT TODAY. THE MAJORITY OF THE OPPOSITION CAME FROM LANDOWNERS AND HOMEOWNERS THAT DIDN'T LIVE ANYWHERE NEAR THIS PROPERTY. TY STRUGGLE WITH THAT. TO MARIA'S POINT, IT WOULD BE NICE TO KNOW WE ARE GETTING REALLY GOOD, THOROUGH FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. ANOTHER POINT THAT WAS MADE IN THE TEXT THAT I THOUGHT WAS A GOOD ONE, WAS SUGGESTING MAYBE THE OWNER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE A VETERAN WAL REALITY 3-D MOCK-UP OR DO THIS IN PHASES. A 3-D MOCK-UP IS NOT THAT EXPENSIVE TO DO ANYMORE, AND I BELIEVE IT WOULD SHOW IN MANY PLACES BUILDINGS ARE BEING SHOEHORNED IN. I'M NOT A VERY VISUAL -- I AM A VISUAL PERSON. I'M ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT SIZE CONTAINER TO PUT MY LEFTOVERS IN. I KIND OF NEED TO SEE IT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS MAYBE A GOOD SUGGESTION. AGAIN, THAT WOULD DELAY THINGS, AND I KNOW YOU WANT TO VOTE TONIGHT. I HAVE OTHER NOTES, BUT THOSE ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE. I DO BELIEVE WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN PLANO. THE LAND VALUES ARE HIGH. THERE IS A DEMAND. THE COST OF HOUSING CONTINUES TO GO UP, AS IT WILL AS LONG AS THERE'S A SHORTAGE. I WOULD LIKE TO NOT SEE OUR PROPERTIES GET TO A POINT WHERE WE TURN THEM INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING. I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP OUR PROPERTIES REVITALIZE AND COMPETITIVE. WE HAVE A HUGE WORORCE IN PLANO. WE'RE CONTINUING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE HERE. I TRULY BELIEVE GIVING PEOPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO LIVE CLOSE TO WHERE THEY WORK TAKES TRAFFIC OFF THE ROAD. THERE'S A LOT OF ATTRACTIVE REASONS TO MAKE THAT AVAILABLE. I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. I WILL NOT BE APPROVING THE MOTION TO DENY IT. >> MAYOR MUNS: COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. ONE THING I THINK PRETTY MUCH ALL OF US AGREE ON IS, AGAIN, THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PIECE OF LAND. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY. PEOPLE THAT MOVE THERE IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION, BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUENESS OF IT AND THE GREEN SPACE. IT'S REALLY. IT IS A RENTAL. IT'S STILL LIKE A HOMEY ENVIRONMENT. YOU HAVE DRIVE-IN GARAGES UNDER THE YIN ITS. IT'S JUST A BEAUTIFUL PLACE. THE ISSUE I KEEP HEARING IS THE LA VAL NOW IS 40%. WE CAN'T HAVE THAT BE THAT HIGH. AGAIN, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF THIS DOES NOT GET APPROVED TONIGHT, INVEST IN THE INFRASTRUCTURE. FIX THE APARTMENTS. MAKE THEM EVEN MORE. YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING YOUR COMPETITORS CAN'T COMPETE WITH. YOU HAVE GREEN SPACE. YOU HAVE A DESIRABLE PLACE FOR FAMILIES TO LIVE. EMPHASIZE THAT, IMPROVE UPON THAT. PUT MORE INTO THE PROPERTY TO BRING THAT VALUE DOWN. ATOME POINTHAT LAND VALUE WILL EQUALIZE ANYWAY. MAKE THIS THE BEST THAT YOU CAN BE. I BET IF YOU DON'T DO IT, YOU'RE REALLY MISSING AN OPPORTUNITY HERE. I THINK YOU SAW THAT OPPORTUNITY AS BUSINESS PEOPLE A FEW YEARS BACK WHEN YOU DECIDED BUY THIS. EVEN WITHOUT LOOKING, YOU SAW HOW UNIQUE THIS PROPERTY IS TO THE CITY OF PLANO. I DO APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. I APPRECIATE YOU INVESTING IN THE CITY. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP YOU CAN'T MAKE LAND.IS PROPERTY- YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE CAN'T COMPETE WITH. MAKE THE MOST OF THAT. >> MAYOR MUNS: I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO DENY AGENDA ITEM ONE. DOES EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND? (OFF MICROPHONE) >> MAYOR MUNS: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, THE VOTE TO DENY WOULD BE A YES VOTE. A VOTE TO NOT DENY WOULD BE A NO VOTE. IS THAT OKAY? PLEASE VOTE. MOTION TO DENY PASSES 6-2. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM. >> ITEM NUMBER TWO. PUBLIC HEARING AND COMMENT. REVIEW OF THE CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT DESCRIBING THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS. THIS REPORT DETAILS HOW THE CITY USED U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT FUNDS DURING THE 2021-22 GRANT YEAR. THE PUBLIC WILL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL. HOUSING COMMUNITY SERVICES HE - MANAGER. TONIGHT I'M HERE TO DISCUSS THE 2021 CONSOLIDATED ANNUAL PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT, WHICH I'M GOING TO REFER TO AS A CAPER FROM THIS POINT GOING FORWARD. THIS IS AN ANNUAL REPORT THAT HUD REQUIRES THAT WE HAVE, AND DIRE FUNDING FROM HUD TO AT GETS PREPARE AT THE END OF THEIR PROGRAM YEAR. ALSO, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW HAT HUD HAS A TEMPLATE EACH ENTITY MUST USE WHEN ACTUALLY WRITING THIS REPORT. AS SUCH, THIS REPORT IS JUST A HISTORICAL REPRESENTATION OF THE ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY OF PLANO UNDERTOOK UTILIZING HUD FUNDS FROM OCTOBER 1st OF 2021 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30th OF 2022. IT ALSO REPRESENTS THE SECOND COLETED YR OF OUR FIVE-YEAR CONSOLIDATED PLAN. THIS DOESN'T NEED ANY COUNCIL ACTION. RATHER, HUD REQUIRED THAT WE HOLD A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE REPORT. A PUBLIC NOTICE WAS PLACED IN THE PLANO STAR COURIER ON SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 27th. IT WAS ALSO ONLINE THROUGH THE PLANO STAR COURIER AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. SO THE NEXT THREE SLIDES THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH PROVIDE A GLANCE OF HOW THE CITY UTILIZED HUD FUNDS TO HELP PLANO'S LOW TO MODERE INCOME REDENTS. HUD REQUIRES THAT THE FUNDS ARE USED TO -- ARE USED ON ACTIVITIES THAT FALL UNDER THREE CATEGORIES. THAT'S DECENT HOUSING, SUITABLE LIVING ENVIRONMENT, WHICH I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT THAT EXACTLY MEANS, AS WELL AS EXPANDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES. ALL OF THOSE FOR LOW TO MODERATE INCOME RESIDENTS HERE IN PLANO. SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS FROM OCTOBER 1st OF 2021 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30th OF 2022 WE ASSISTED A TOTAL OF9 HOEHOL HER IN PLANO, LOW TO pMODH HOME REPAIRS. WE ASSISTED THEM THROUGH TWO DIFFERENT PROGRAMS. THE CITY'S IN-HOUSE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM COMPLETED 27 OF THE 29 REHABS YOU SEE. 17 OF THOSE WERE EMERGENCY REPAIRS. THOSE ARE REPAIRS THAT HAPPENED WITHIN 14 DAYS AND A RESIDENT CALLS US SAYING THEY NEED HELP WITH A REPAIR. OUR TOP THREE EMERGENCY REPAIRS WE SAW OVER THE LAST YEAR WERE HVAC REPAIRS, HOT WATER HEATERS, AS WELL AS A LOT OF ADA COMPLIANT ISSUES THAT WE REPAIRED. SPECIFICALLY A LOT OF BATHROOM REMODELS THAT WE DID. WE'LL TAKE OUT A TUB AND REPLACE IT WITH A SHOWER AS WELL AS SEATS AND GRAB BARS. THE NEXT WHEN YOU ARE STILL LOOKING AT THE OTHER TEN REHABS THAT WE DID THAT WEREN'T EMERGENCY REPAIRS, INHOUSE HERE THROUGH OUR INHOUSE HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM. THE TOP THREE REPAIRS THAT WERE DONE THROUGH THAT PROGRAM WERE FOUNDATION, SEVERE PLUMBING ISSUES, A LOT OF CAST IRON PIPES HERE THAT WERE BREAKING THAT PEOPLE COULDN'T AFFORD TO REPAIR, AS WELL AS ROOF REPAIRS. THOSE WERE OUR TOP THREE. OVERALL JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THE REPORT SAYS WE SPENT ALMOST $1.2 MILLION IN OUR INTERNAL HOUSING REHAB PROGRAM. WHEN LOOKING AT THAT BIG AMOUNT, 12.5% OR ABOUT $150,658 WAS SPENT INTERNALLY FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM, MEANING STAFF ACTUALLY UTILIZED THAT AMOUNT OF THE PROGRAM. HABITAT FOR HUMANITY IS HERE. ON THE SLIDE AS WELL. THEY ASSISTED TWO LOW TO MODERATE INCOME AND ACTUALLY HUD WOULD CLASSIFY THE INCOME WITH HABITAT FOR HUMANITY YOU HAVE TO BE 60% OR BELOW OF THE MEDIAN INCOME. THEY ASSISTED TWO HOUSEHOLDS WITH OUR FUNDING WITH FOUNDATION AND ROOF REPAIRS. IN THAT THAT'S A DIRECT PASS-THROUGH THAT COMES. HUD GIVES IT TO US, AWARDS IT TO US, AND WE GIVE IT STRAIGHT TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON TO SUITABLE LIVING. WHEN YOU HEAR THOSE WORDS, I JUST WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT ACTIVITIES THAT OUR RESIDENTS HAVE ACCESS TO THAT ARE GOING TO IMPROVE THEIR SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL HEALTH OR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO LOOK AT THAT. WHEN YOU SEE ON THESE NEXT TWO SLIDES PUBLIC SERVICES, PUBLIC SERVICES IS A HUD TERM. ALL THAT MEANS IS SOCIAL SERVICES. ANY KIND OF ACTIVITY THAT'S SOCIAL SERVICE IN NATURE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE UNDER THIS SLIDE AND UNDER THESE ACTIVITIES. TEXAS MUSLIM WOMEN'S FOUNDATION, BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB, AS WELL AS FAMILY PLACE, YOU CAN SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE THEY ASSISTED HERE, BUT THOSE FUNDS ARE WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY ARE PASS-THROUGH FUNDS. CITY DIDN'T TAKE ANY ADMINISTRATIVE DOLLARS. HUD AWARDED THE MONEY. WE GAVE IT STRAIGHT TO TEXAS MUSLIM WOMEN'S FOUNDATION SO THAT THEY CAN HELP THE DOMESTIC SURVIVORS SURVIVORS AS WELL AS BOYS AND GIRLS CLUB WITH AT-RISK USE AND FAMILY PLACE THAT WAS ASSISTING THOSE THAT HAD EXPERIENCED FAMILY VIOLENCE. A LOT OF THEM THAT ARE LIVING IN IT SHELTERS HERE IN PLANO. THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM IS ALSO UP HERE. JUST LIKE THE OTHERS THAT I SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT. ALTHOUGH THE HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PLAN IS A CITY OF PLANO PROGRAM, THE CITY OF PLANO STAFF DOES NOT ADMINISTER IT. 100% OF THESE FUNDS THAT ARE ALLOCATED TO THIS PROGRAM GO TO THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY. WE GIVE THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY DIRECT ASANCE IN THE FORM OF SHORT-TERM RENTAL ASSISTANCE, AND WE ALSO GIVE THEM FUNDS TO ADMINISTER THE PROGRAM. CASE MANAGEMENT, BUT AS WELL AS EVERYBODY ON THE BACK END THAT HELPS RUN THIS PROGRAM. OKAY. THIS FINAL SLIDE IS WHAT WE LIKE TO TELL HUD WE DO THAT SHOWS A NEED TO H THAT PLANO RESIDEN HAD THAT THEY DIDN'T FUND, BUT WE WERE ABLE TO USE OTHER GRANT FUNDS. AS A CITY COUNCIL, YOU ALL KNOW YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY SET ASIDE $2 PER CAPITA FOR THE BUFFINGTON COMMUNITY SERVICE GRANT FUNDS. THROUGH THE HELP AND EXPERTISE OF THE 17 AGENCIES THAT ARE SLIGHTLY MENTIONED HERE, WE WERE ABLE TO HELP OVER 6,700 PEOPLE HERE LIVING IN PLANO WITH A LAT OF DIFFERENT SERVICES, WHETHER IT WAS SHELTER OR HEALTH SERVICES. YOU NAME IT, THEY WERE ABLE TO RECEE IT THROU THO FUNDS. WE ALSO USED THE STATE'S MONEY FOR RAPID REHOUSING PROGRAM, WHICH I SPOKE TO YOU ALL ABOUT A FEW MONTHS AGO. LAST WE FINALIZED OVER THIS LAST YEAR USING OUR LAST OF OUR EMERGENCY RENTAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM FUNDS. THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US BY THE TREASURY. WE'VE HELPED 333 PEOPLE WITH THAT LAST SET OF THE MONEY. AS I SAID BEFORE, COUNCIL DOES NOT NEED TO TAKE ACTION ON THIS REPORT. IT IS A HISTORIC REPORT OF EVENTS THAT HAVE ALREADY OCCURRED. HOWEVER, HUD DOES REQUIRE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD TO BE HELD, PUBLIC HEARING TO BE HELD TODAY. ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT ARE MADE TODAY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THIS REPORT TO HUD. >> MAYOR MUNS: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? COUNCIL MEMBER GRADY. >> THANK YOU. AS YOU MAY KNOW AND CERTAINLY THE CITY MANAGER KNOWS, I RELAYED PROBABLY SOMEWHERE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF 35 TO 40 QUESTIONS EARLIER TODAY WHICH I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE ANSWERS TONIGHT. THEY WERE IN A LONG EMAIL, BUT THERE WERE JUST QUESTIONS I HAD DURING THE REPORT THAT STIMULATED THOUGHTS ABOUT OTHER THINGS. IT'S DIFFERENT THAN HAVING A COMMENT ON THE REPORT THAT NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED TO HUD. IT'S JUST AS I WAS READING THE REPORT IT RAISED THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS IN MY MIND THAT I FELT I NEEDED A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARIFICATION ON AND AN ANSWER TO. I DO HAVE SOME SPECIFIC THINGS THAT I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT. IN THE REPORT UNDER THE GOALS AND OUTCOMES I THINK IT'S ON PAGE 2. IT'S IN A TABLE. IT SAYS GENERAL ADMINISTRATION, AND IT SAYS ADMINISTRATION, AND THEN IT HAS CDBG FUND AND HOME FUNDING TO THE TUNE OF ABOUT $348,000. IF YOU ADD THE TWO OF THEM TOGETHER, AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO ADMINISTERS THOSE FUNDS. WHERE DO THOSE FUNDS GO? IS THAT INTERNAL PEOPLE THAT IT'S PAYING FOR, OR IS IT EXTERNAL PEOPLE OR A COMBINATION? >> THERE WAS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE REPORT THAT'S ONLINE AS WELL AS IN YOUR PACT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT ATTACHMENT FOR THE 293,379 FOR THE CDBG GRANT ADMINISTRATION, HUD ALLOWS THE CITY AND ANY CITY TO SET ASIDE 20% OF THEIR OVERALL ALLOCATION FOR ADMINISTRATION. SO AS LISTED HERE IN THE ATTACHMENT THE CITY HAS SEVEN PARTIALLY FULL-TIME FTEs AND BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS OUR FINANCE DEPARTMENT THAT HAVE WORKED ON THE CDBG PROGRAM. THAT -- THOSE FUNDS ARE USED FOR SUBRECEPENT TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE. ALL THOSE THAT WE SAW, WE WILL GO ON SITE AND PROVIDE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AS WELL AS JUST TRAINING EVEN NOT IN HOUSE, BUT OVER THE PHONE, MONITORING GRANT OVERSIGHT, SINGLE AUDIT FEES. THERE'S A LIST IN HERE AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES THAT WE SEE TO CONTINUE THE FURTHER -- CONTINUE FURTHERING THE CONTINUUM OF CARE. MY GOODNESS. THERE IT IS. SO CONTINUE OF CARE IS HOMELESS ACTIVITIES. A LOT OF TIMES THERE ARE HOMELESS ACTIVITIES THAT THE CITY WILL UNDERTAKE THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY ACTIVITIES THAT IT WERE FUNDED. SO, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN WE NEED SUPPLIES FOR OUR UPCOMING HOMELESS COUNT, WE END UP USING CDBG ADMINISTATION AND SAYING WE ARE FURTHERING THE CONTINUUM OF CARE AND HELPING HOMELESSNESS THROUGH IT. BECAUSE IT'S UNDER THE BIG AUSPICES OF GRANT ADMINISTRATION, WE'RE ALLOWED TO USE IT. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HOME FUNDS, HOEMT GRANT ADMINISTRATION THAT AS WELL THAT YOU ALL HAVE THE CITY STAFF HAS FOUR FULL-TIME FTEs BETWEEN THE FINANCE DEPARTMENT AND AS WELL AS OUR NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT. IT'S NOT IS00% FUNDED UNDER THIS ONE GRANT, BUT IT'S FOR THE SAME EXACT THING THAT I'VE TALKED ABOUT. THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF THE WHOLE MOANS OF THE CDBG MONIES ARE THE SAME REQUIREMENTS OF OUR HOME GRANT FUND ADMINISTRATION. I WON'T REPEAT ALL OF THAT. >> BASICALLY TO SUMMARIZE, OF THE $293,000, THOSE ARE COMING IN, AND THE CITY IS UTILIZING THOSE FUNDS, WHETHER IT'S DOG OUT AND ASSIST AND TRAINING AND EVERYTHING ELSE, BUT THAT'S REALLY COMING INTO THE CITY FOR USE GOING OUT VERSUS BEING ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS TO A NONPROFIT. >> EXACTLY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HOMEOWNERSHIP AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRIMARILY HOME FUNDS. 150,000 IN HOME FUNDS. ANOTHER 10,000 IN CDGB FUNDS. I BELIEVE YOU CAN CORRECT ME, I BEEVE THOSE ARE FUNDS THAT WERE GOING TO BE ASSIGNED TO OR ALLOCATED TO HABITAT FOR HUMANITY, BUT I ALSO HAVE A CURIOSITY. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE BALANCE IS IN THE HOME FUNDS AND SPECIFICALLY A BALANCE THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FOR USE IF WE HAD A CHODA? >> THIS IS GOING TO BE ON PAGE THREE FOR THOSE OF YOU UP HERE THAT HAVE THE REPORT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S THE RIGHT CHART. IT SAYS THREE ON IT. THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING THAT IT IS DIRECT FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO HOME BUYERS, HOUSEHOLDS 15, AND TALKS ABOUT HOW MANY WE SERVE. THAT IS THE CITY OF PLANO'S FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER PROGRAM. THAT $10,000, IF YOU LOOK AT I ATTACHMENT 1, THERE IS 909 -- THERE'S 9,960 DOLLARS THAT WE SPENT FOR FIRST-TIME HOME BUYER ADMINISTRATION. WE DIDN'T HELP ANY FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS WHICH SHOULDN'T SURPRISE YOU ALL THIS YEAR BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE MARKET HAS BEEN. WE DID HAVE A LOT OF INQUIRIES AND CONTINUED TO HAVE OUR ONLINE HOMEOWNERSHIP CLASS. WE'VE HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE ATTEND OVER THE LST YEAR OF THAT CLASS AS WELL AS SAT DOWN WITH RESIDENTS THAT WERE HOPING TO SECURE A HOME THAT WE APPROVED FOR THE PROGRAM, BUT IT DIDN'T. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO SECURE IT. WITH REGARDS TO THE OTHER STUFF THAT'S NOT HERE IN THE REPORT, I COULD GET THAT TO YOU, BUT THAT'S NOT A PART OF THE HISTORIC REPORT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. >> TRUE. >> I CAN GET YOU BACK THAT INFORMATION. >> YOU MENTIONED THE FIRST-TIME HOME BUYERS CLASS. DO WE TEACH THAT, OR DO WE CONTRACT WITH SOMEBODY THAT TEACHES E TEACHES THAT? >> WE ACTUALLY TEACH THAT OURSELVES. WE HAVE A PERSON THAT -- ONE THAT TEACHES IT IS A FORMER MORTGAGE LENDER HERSELF. WE ALSO HAVE HAD -- SHE'S HUD-CERTIFIED COUNSELOR. SO HAS GONE THROUGH THE HUD TEST TO TEACH THE CLASS. WE USE A LOT OF THE BASICS THAT HAVE COME FROM NEIGHBOR WORKS, WHICH IS A HUD-APPROVED AGENCY WHEN TEACHING THAT CLAS WE WILL BRING IN PEOPLE OCCASIONALLY TO TALK ABOUT MORE SPECIFIC THINGS. PROPERTY STANDARDS. WE'LL TALK ABOUT PROPERTY MAINTENANCE. VARIOUS THINGS. >> THE REPORT ON PAGE 7 UNDERNEATH RESOURCES AND INVESTMENTS THE SUBPARAGRAPH OR THE SUBTOPIC IS NARRATIVE. THERE APPEARS TO BE A HOLD-OVER OF DOLLARS OF ABOUT $1.4 MILLION. THAT'S $1,428,027. IF YOU HAVE THE CDBG FUNDING AND THE ME FUNDING TOGETHER. DO WE KNOW WHAT THE REAL BALANCE IS THAT'S BEING HELD OVER FROM THE PY2021 THAT MIGHT BE USED IN '22/'23? >> THAT NUMBER IS NOT HERE IN THIS REPORT, BUT I CAN GET THAT BACK. THAT'S AN EASY NUMBER TO GET BACK WITH YOU ON. AND THAT NUMBER WILL INCLUDE AGENCIES THAT WE HAVE FUNDED THAT HAVE NOT USED THEIR MONEY. WE HAVE AGENCIES THAT -- THAT WERE FUNDED IN 2021, AND THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO UTILIZE THEIR FUNDS. I MENTIONED HABITAT FOR HUMANITY. THEY'RE ONE. IT'S A LAND ISSUE THAT EVERYBODY IS EXPERIENCING. THEY'RE LOOKING, AND SO -- AUTO PAGE 12 IN THE REPORT WE TALK AGAIN ABOUT PROGRAMS. HERE AGAIN I HAVE THE QUESTION. HOW MANY DOLLARS REMAIN IN THE PROGRAM THAT ARE BEING UNUSED RIGHT NOW. IT ALSO STATES IN THE VERY BOTTOM PARAGRAPH ABOUT A HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM THAT LOS ANGELES A STEADY LIST OF PROJECTS UNDERWAY, BUT IT PROJECTS ARE.Y SAY WHAT THOSE - SO DO WE HAVE A LIST? IF SO CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THOSE PROJECTS ARE? ZOOM A HOUSING REHABILITATION PROGRAM, KWEEP OUR RESIDENTS IN MIND BECAUSE THAT IS -- WE CALL IT SENSITIVE INFORMATION. SOME RESIDENTS DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THAT THEY HAVE TO GET HOUSING ASSISTANCE FROM THE CITY OF PLANO. 15 YEARS AGO IT WASN'T A OBLEM. WE ACTUALLY WOULD PUT SIGNS OUT. RESIDENTS ARE FINE PUTTING SIGNS OUT SAYING WE'RE BEING HELPED THROUGH THE CITY OF PLANO REHAB PROGRAM. NO LONGER DO RESIDENTS WANT THINGS LIKE THAT. THEY DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW THEY'RE IN FINANCIAL SITUATIONS. DO WE HAVE A LIST? YES. WE HAVE ADDRESSED THIS. YES. WE DO. >> IS THERE A I THOUGHT WE HAD A LIMIT AS TO WHAT WE COULD SPEND ON ANY GIVEN HOUSING UNIT. IT WAS SOMEWHERE IN THE 40 TO 5 . DO WE ALWAYS STAY IN THAT KIND OF 40 TO 50 RANGE, OR DO WE WANDER OUTSIDE OF IT? OUR PROGRAM GUIDELINE SAYS THAT WE WILL NOT SPEND MORE THAN $55,000 ON WHAT WE CALL A LIMITED REPAIR. IF WE'RE GOING TO RECONSTRUCT A HOUSE, THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING TO TEAR IT DOWN OR REBUILD IT. HUD MAKES US TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT IS THE POST-REHABILITATION VALUE OF A HOME, AND THERE'S A LOT OF CCULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO DO FOR THAT. LIMITED REPAIR A WHILE AGO IT USED TO BE 5,000. WE TOOK IT UP TO 10,000. EXCEPTIONS ARE MADE BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE SEEING NOW IS WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING FOR EMERGENCIES THEY ARE EXPENSIVE EMERGENCIES. WHEN THEY DO GO BEYOND THAT 10,000, WE'LL PAY IT. EVEN WITH 55, THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE WE DO GO ABOVE THAT BECAUSE WHEN WE GET INTO THE HOUSE THE WORK ENDS UP BEING WAY MORE EXTENSIVE. WHAT WAS GOI TO BE A LEAK ISN'T A LEAK. IT ENDS UP BEING SOMETHING MORE OR YOU SEE OTHER REPAIRS THAT ARE NEEDED IN THE HOUSE. THOSE ARE INKZ THIS THAT WE WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNER ON. WE GO WITH THEM ON IT. IF FOR EVERY FOR SOME REASON WE BID THOSE PROJECTS OUT. IF FOR SOME REASON THE BID LIKE ANY OTHER BID THE CITY USES, IF IT GOES ABOVE 25%, WE HAVE TO REBID IT. WE DO THAT LIKE ANY OTHER CITY PROGRAM. WE TALK ABOUT IN THE REPORT ON PAGE 14, 15, SORT OF A COMBINATION IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DOCUMENT WE TALK ABOUT THE UNIQUENESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES BUILDING AND WHERE IT IS LOCATED. WE INDICATE THAT INDIVIDUALS -- AND I'M GOING TO ASSUME THOSE LA EVERY THAT ARE HOMELESS OR IN NEED OF ASSISTANCE ARE STOPPING INTO THE BUILDING ASKING FOR ASSISTANCE. DO WE KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE ACTUALLY STOPPING IN AND DO WE KNOW THE TYPES OF SERVICES THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR AND THEY RECEIVE? WE KEEP A LONG LIST IN OUR DEPARTMENT. EVERY TIME SOMEBODY COMES INTO OUR DEPARTMENT, THEY SIGN THEIR NAME. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY'RE THERE FOR. RY BE WE DO KEEP TRACK OF WHO COMES IN AND OUT OF THE BUILDIN BECAUSE THE SECTION IS IN A SECTION FOR HOMELESSNESS WE SEE TWO TO THREE PEOPLE COMING INTO OUR OFFICE FOR HOMELESS SERVICES. THEY ARE ACTUALLY HOMELESS COMING THROUGH. IS THAT EVERY DAY, OR EVERY WEEK? >> EVERY DAY WE GET AT LEAST TWO TO THREE. >> IS THAT TO THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY, OR -- >> SO WHAT WE HAVE FOUND IS THAT WHEN OUR UNHOUSED RESIDENTS KNOW WE ARE CLOSE AT 5:00 AND ARE OPEN AT 8:00 A.M., THEY COME TO US. EVERY AGENCY HAS THEIR OWN -- THEIR OWN TIME. I CAN ONLY TALK ABOUT OUR HOURS. I KNOW THE ASSISTANCE CENTER BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. I BELIEVE THEY CLOSE AT 3:00. IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN APPOINTMENT, YOU CANNOT GO IN THERE. THERE ARE OTHER AGENCIES THAT -- HOPE RESTORED. THERE ARE A LOT OF AGENCIES AROUND HERE THAT WE WORK WITH REALLY WELL TO REFER ASSISTANCE AND IDs. YOU NAME IT. THEIR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE JUST DIFFERENT THAN OURS. PEOPLE KNOW AT 8:00 A.M. IF YOU WANT SOMETHING, YOU CAN CALL THE CITY OF PLANO OR COME IN ONE OF THESE DOORS AND WE'RE OPEN. AT 5:00 P.M. IF YOU COME AT 4:58, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU COME IN, AND WE'RE GOING TO HELP YOU. I MENTIONED ABOUT CASE MANAGEMENT, AND I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. DO WE ACTUALLY EMPLOY SOMEBODY WITHIN THE CITY THAT'S A CASE MANAGER? >> OH. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? >> SECOND TO THE LAST PARAGRAPH. >> THE CITY DOES NOT DO CASE MANAGEMENT. WHEN I SPOKE TO YOU ALL ABOUT THE AGENCIES IN HERE THAT ARE RECEIVING FUNDS THEY'RE USING THOSE FOR CASE MANAGEMENT. NOT US. DO WE HAVE A LICENSED SOISHL WORKER THAT HAS THAT LICENSE UNDER HER BELT? YES. BUT THAT PERSON SERVES AS OUR HOMELESS SERVICED COORDINATOR THAT DOES STREET OUTREACH. AS FAR AS CASE MANAGING, WE DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OUR AEGDZ WE FUND DO ALL OF THAT. >> THEN IN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH, YOU TALK ABOUT A WHOLE PLETHORA OF SERVICES, FINANCIAL EDUCATION, CREDIT COUNSELING SDT CITY DO THAT? >> THIS IS OUR HOMELESSNESS PREVENTION PARAGRAPH YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. EVERYTHING THAT'S LISTED HERE ARE SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE ASANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY. WHEN SOMEONE IS AT RISK OF HOME SAYSNESS COMES IN AND SAYS THEY NEED RENT OR UTILITY ASSISTANCE, THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY DOES A WHOLE REVIEW. THEY'LL DO A HOUSING STABILITY PLAN AND SEE WHAT PEOPLE NEED. SOMETIMES IT'S JOHN TRAINING. SOMETIMES IT'S CREDIT COUNSELING. THEY OFFER THOSE PROGRAMS. WHEN THEY DON'T -- LIKE THEY HAVE A BUDGETING CLASS, FOR INSTANCE. IF IT'S NOT CREDIT COUNSELING SPECIFIC, THEN THEY WILL REFER OUR RESIDENT TO SOMETHING -- TO ANOTHER AGENCY FOR THAT ASSISTANCE. ALL OF THOSE LISTED ARE THINGS OFFERED BY THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY. >> TAT WAS KIND OF MY CONFUSION BECAUSE THE PARAGRAPH STARTS OFF AND SAYS "THE CITY'S PROGRAM." BY READING THAT I WOULD ASSUME IT'S US, AND IT'S NOT THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY. >> YEAH. >> LIKE I SAID, THERE IS A WHOLE LES OF QUESTIONS THAT I SUBMITTED. SOME ARE IN THE RANGE OF 35 OR 40. I CAN SEE ADDRESSING THOSE LATER, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. >> CONDITIONS MEMBER SMITH. >> THANK YOU, MAYOR. I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. SHOULD I HAVE ASKED BEFORE, AND WE TALKED ABOUT IT. WHAT, IF ANYTHING, HAVE WE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO TRY TO GET FUNDS TO THE PEOPLE WHO NEED IT IN A QUICKER, LESS RESTRICTED FASHION? MADE ME THINK ABOUT IT AGAIN BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT ONE OF THE AGENCIES, THE VOLUNTEER AGENCIES, CLOSED AT 3:00, AND WE THEY ONLY SEE PEOPLE WITH APPOINTMENTS. I'VE HEARD IT'S AI BIG HASSLE TO GET IN THE DOOR. WHAT CAN WE DO OR WHAT CAN WE DO BETTER TO TRY TO MAKE THAT MORE ACCESSIBLE? >> WE CAN WORK BETTER WITH OUR EXISTING NONPROFITS. A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE GOING THROUGH CAPACITY ISSUES. WE TRY TO WORK WITH THEM KNOWING THAT I THECASE. A GOOD EXAMPLE IS WE -- LAST YEAR WE GAVE THE ASANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY, SOME OF THE 293,000 THIS YEAR THAT I TOLD YOU ALL WAS CITY OF PLANO STAFF. SOME OF THAT MONEY WE ACTUALLY GAVE TO THE ASSISTANCE CENTER OF COLLIN COUNTY. WE REALIZED WE NEEDED SOMEBODY THERE LATER THAN 3:00. WHEN WE'RE ABLE TO DO THAT, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE DO. I DON'T KNOW HOW ELSE'S TO ANSWER THAT OTHER THAN WE WORK WITH THE AGENCY SO THAT THEY CAN IMPROVE. TEY HAVE -- WE'VE GIVEN THEM THE MONEY. IT'S NOT A FACTOR OF DO THEY HAVE ACCESS TO THE MONEY TO GIVE OUT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE SOME CAPACITY ISSUES WITH A LOT OF OUR AGENCIES THAT THEY'VE BEEN GOING THROUGH AS OF LATE. THAT'S GOING TO DICTATE THE CALLS BACK. ANY RESIDENT IS ABLE TO CALL US AT THE CITY. IF THEY ARE NOT REACHING ONE OF OUR SUBRECIPIENTS, THEY CAN CALL US, AND WE WILL MAKE THOSE CALLED ON THEIR BEHALF WRFSH I KNOW YOU DID DO TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO STOP GREASED BOTTLENECK SOZ THEY'RE NOT CAUSING A PROBLEM. WHEN PEOPLE GET TO THE POINT THAT THEY'RE REACHING OUT FOR HELP, THEY NEED THE HELP. NOT MORE RED TAPE. THANKS. >> THANK YOU. >> MAYOR MUNS: DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> WE DO NOT ON THIS ITEM. >> I'LL CLOSE THEUBLIC THAT'S ALL THAT'S REQUIRED. CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. >> OKAY. THERE BEING NO FURTHER BUSINESS. THE MEETING IS ADJOURNED. [MEETING ADJOURNED 9:11 P.M.]