Recording in progress. And how are you doing? Good. How about you? Doing well. Great. What did you make? I made it. Hold on. I now declare the Plano City Council has convened an open session. That all council members are present, with the exception of council member Williams and council member. Smith. Yeah. Okay. Council member. Smith. The council will now recess into executive session in the children's program room. Actually, in the party room, to hold a closed executive meeting pursuant to the provisions of Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated Government Code, chapter 551. The open Meetings Act, in accordance To consult with the attorney and receive legal advice. Section 551 087 to discuss economic development and section 551 072. To discuss real estate. Thank you. Council Member Williams is here. Let the minutes refer. To. I now declare that the Plano City Council preliminary open meeting is reconvened in open session, and all council members are present, with the exception of council member Rick Smith. Our first item on the preliminary agenda is consideration and action resulting from the executive session. Okay. Next item is personnel appointments. The tax increment Financing Reinvestment Zone number five. Chair. Mr. Mayor. Yes, Rick. Councilman Smith and I had discussions about this, and we want to nominate or renominate Janine Cadena as continue as the chair of tax increment zoning number five. Okay. And Mr. Councilman Smith was going Yeah. That's good. Oh, okay. Wasn't working there Nadia. So yes, I second. Okay. I have a motion and a second to approve Janine Cadena as the chair of the tax increment financing Reinvestment zone number five. All in favor, raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. Okay. Next item, item three. Discussion and direction regarding extra duty solutions for the police department. Hello, chief. Mayor and council. Back in the summer, when I came to speak to the council about the city manager said we would provide an update in about three months or so. And that is because of our meeting today. Good. Okay. So this is the timeline that we talked Over over 12 months. Now, back in June, we started to call in assignments with editors. In April, and there was some discussion about whether we whether the city should pay, whether we should have the employers pay, whether we should use it at all. I'm a strong proponent that we should definitely have something like editors here. And so the council made a decision starting on 1st July to start covering the cost for that, that and 1st July did not include our ISDs at that time. And they were picked up on 1st October of this year. So again, some of the problems that we were having before and how that's been addressed, all officers are willing to work off duty assignments are not given an opportunity to do so. That was one of the issues that we have. There are cliques within the police department. That's not surprising when you have an organization of over 600 people, you're going to have that and you're going to have people that are friends and people that don't know each other, and they typically want people to work for them who are friends. And in this environment, I believe that when those jobs come in, they should be open to all officers that are willing Chain of command. You know, it's months after the first of the year before we get that done. All that's taken care of now, we've got those locations in and all that's tracked by us, by our vendor that's handling this. Can I track what the policy is being followed or established on long term assignments? Some of those problems that we saw is we had supervisors on their regular job. They supervise this employee. In some cases, they were working for their employee because their employee was the coordinators of those jobs. We have policies related to if you work a extra duty assignment, you have to be certified or qualified in something called standardized field sobriety, which is the alcohol test that you see on the side of the road. If you're in, if you're in patrol, you will be qualified to do that at all times. But if you're a detective or an administrative position, you may not have to do that. But you may want to go work at an assignment where they have that. So. So there was no way we could track whether those things were being managed appropriately and whether whether the are sleeping, whether our sleep requirements were being met. Officers can work up to 16 Off duty employment. In some cases, we found officers who were working more than that in one assignment. Big liability issue for us. Now we're able to track that through editors as well. Our next slide is yeah we talked about that. Not qualified to work certain assignments too much on duty time used to coordinate off duty employment when and I did not have a rule in place. Neither did Chief Russian that officers, when they're on their regular duty, that they can't. The coordinators can't work on their secondary employment because there's no way they have to be able to do it at work, or we might as well not do it at all. So that's taken. So now our coordinators don't have to do any of that. We got rid of most of the coordinators, except for our faith based organizations and our hospitals. We still have coordinators there, but we no longer need coordinators to do that because all that coordination is handled by by editors, no cash assignments. We were having some jobs where officers were being paid in cash. The optics of that are obvious to me. On why that doesn't look good. Officers driving to a location, you know, after they've worked that assignment to You. Additional benefits admin sergeants. No longer taking. This is a huge one. So we have three admin sergeants. Two of those are working day shift. One was working assignment to work evening shift. The two on day shift were primarily working tracking our call in jobs. That was the bulk of their time. They weren't able to assist in patrol and do other things. So now that we have this in place, we've got one day shift sergeant who assists patrol officers out in the field handling briefings. We've got one who works evening and we have one now. We were able to create what's called a field training officer sergeant. And that is a big deal for us because we have officers that are that are that are training on different shifts, on different parts of time around the clock. And so how we're set up is we have two platoons on day shift. We have two platoons on the evening shift. And so we had a coordinator on each one of those those shifts really never see or Now we're able to do that. Take one of those administrative sergeants and they are the full time FTO sergeant, and they can track all those records and make sure that the recruits that are coming through are getting the appropriate training that they need. They're in training for about 18 weeks, and then they have to go and move to other parts of town and try to do that. With four coordinators who don't don't ever work at the same time. I was a bit much for. So that has simplified life from a training perspective dramatically a reduced job, emails and coverage and short notice items. Officers have an app on their phone. Those can still come into their email if they want to, or they can just block those and not have those come in versus, you know, you've got people all over the department sending emails, trying to get people to fill positions that we were doing before. All that's gone away. Tracking, job tracking of jobs, accountability and statistics. Some of the data that I'm going to show you tonight, I wouldn't I would not have been able to show you that six months ago because we didn't have the capability of doing that the way we were set up. So yeah, this is some of the statistical data And we only have. We only authorized 428 officers total even with the over hires. So with some jobs in particular Pisd, they've got of course facilities and operations that are outside of our city. And so they've got some of those officers that are in our system. And so we okayed that. The only thing those officers can do, though, is work Pisd jobs. We've got a few others that some of the hospitals that are like that as well. So that's why there is more officers up there than we have at the department. Active employers that includes both long term and one time call ins, grandfathered employers, 37 and then one time employers 100. So our. So just again, just more basic data that we were able to collect by having this system in place. And total paid to officers so far at this point, about $1.3 million through this system is the big number up there. What questions do you have? Yes, sir. Can you define for me The ones that that we already had a relationship with, where we had officers working on a habitual basis and they typically have a crew or squad of officers that work maybe five, maybe ten that were working at those employers beforehand. So those were the grandfathered employers. So those were not the ones that we initially started with in April. We also have employers who call in, who may only need officers for 1 or 2 days for something. So we started putting them on this system in April. But the ones that where they had a long term relationship with the officers, we gave them more time to get ready and we started it in July because at the time we were under the assumption that they would be paying the fee for the service, and so we wanted to give them time to be able to do that. And Pisd was given more time, even beyond that, because SSDs off duty employment situation is just so complex with all the different facilities and the number of officers they use by far they're our biggest employer. Easily, I think Mayor All came to the council because there was such a dramatic increase in fee to the people who are being provided services specific. One specific example is one of the churches that had always used off duty officers to assist them, but all of a sudden the fees went up. I think that was also correlated to the fact that you guys are now using a new system. But the new system, we're not we weren't paying for that new system. Am I correct about that? Is that how this all came about? I, I well, how this came about is the reason this came about is because of the problems that I just talked about. So we needed to address this. This is going on across law enforcement agencies are using companies like this to help them manage off duty employment. What we're doing in Plano with our officers working at hospitals and schools and banks and things of that nature, is not unique. We don't have the capability to do this here. I mean, we're having to we're having to take on that cost internally to do What they're paying potentially up to 8%. So whether that's dramatically expensive or not is a matter of opinion, but that's what the going rate is in the industry for this type of a service. And that's what we were that's what we were charging. There are some who thought that was too high. And then this body agreed to cover the cost of that. It's how we got here. Thank you, mayor, and thank you, chief. So just to make sure that I'm remembering correctly, this is 270,000 for six months, so it would be 540,000 annually going forward. Correct? Yes, sir. Yeah. That's correct. And the I remember there being a discussion about, you know, other vendors saying that they thought that they could do things less expensively. And I know that there was a time period where all of those were looked into. And then then, you know, there was a discussion that maybe once we got into this, we would have more data about what our needs were and that might enable us to put We do you think the three months has given us enough experience that now we could define exactly the features we need? These are, you know what we don't need? Or I guess, do we have a good idea of how we're using this and what we need? Yeah, we have a good idea of how we're using this. We haven't had I haven't had any complaints from officers. You know, when we initially started, some of the officers were concerned that they may lose certain jobs. That's been overcome. But now that we've fully implemented this, I'm not hearing officers saying the software doesn't work. I'm not hearing vendors complaining that officers are not showing up or things of that nature, that things are getting missed. So this system is working as designed, and it's not taking up a lot of our staff time to manage the system. I have one employee. Well, I have more than one that can go in and see the administrative data, but I've got one that's designated to be able to go in and go do that and be the liaison with this vendor. And it's working fine. One of the, you know, there are maybe three vendors in the country that can do this. I mean, we you know, that's it. And on one of those, I'm not even sure if they can meet one of Is just a requirement sometimes, and we've gotten these people always answer the phone. And one of our vendors may not be able to do that. So which is going to leave us with two vendors, ours and one other one. Okay. Gotcha. Well, thank you very much for the information on that. So and by the way, so I think what we said was that the city is going to pay the cost for the grandfathered employers. What about the what about the new employers coming on? Do they pay the cost of editors, or is the city paying that for the 270 is covering the cost for everybody. Okay. Gotcha. At this point okay. Well, you know, I don't know if this is the right time for a discussion or I think. Shelby. Oh, yeah. Sorry, sorry. Go ahead. Shelby. Thank you chief. So I'll preface by saying I was always in favor of a technological solution for this. The challenge, as Mayor Pro Tem pointed out, was in the sudden increase of 10% to a lot of the community partners that have been paying for a while. But when we had this discussion previously and recognizing that there were very Evaluating the ability for the on duty solution, which kind of came with the package with editors. To determine whether that would meet our needs. It was kind of thrown in. But we didn't know whether that would meet our needs. So we had looked at that and we heard from roll call as well. But have we done any kind of analysis in the past three months to compare those side by side? That's where I think we had discussed having an actual RFP to determine how they stacked up to meet our needs for both off duty and on duty, Councilman. Real quick, the on duty side of things we shelved during this process. So we have I asked the chief not to look at that at this time until we had an opportunity to look at the off duty side of things, which is really what we were focused on with that project and bringing it forward. And during that discussion, the two got kind of conflated or wired together in some ways. And so for this trial period that we were looking at, I asked that we not go forward with the on duty aspect of things at this time until we knew for sure kind of where the off duty side of things were. So the chief can can And we weren't basically judging the efficacy of the off duty aspect based upon the on duty solutions. And that's what I was going to say exactly that. Thank you. So in regards to fair. Yeah. Oh I'm sorry Rick. Go ahead. Oh that's okay. I was just listening to a very good discussion so far. Chief, just a couple of questions for you. Contractually. What what are we looking at here? Is this a multiyear contract that we're being asked to look at, or is it a one year contract with right of extension? And if it's multi-year, what are our options if for whatever reason, let's say after year one or after getting year two, they they say they needed to double their cost to us for providing the service. What are our options to make a change? We've had a contract with editors for more than a year now, so we can and I And want to fulfill the contract and we're out of it. So. So when this six month period is up, if we don't want to go forward, we just let the company know. Okay. So it's basically it's a at will type of a contract that we have. We don't have a particular term that we're committing to now. Yeah we're past that point. Yes. Okay. Great. Thanks, chief. So I know they've been doing it longer, but this three month period, I, I think I'd like to I'd like to see it a little longer before we. You know, decide and make sure things are, are pretty relative to what we've heard tonight and be able to you know, look at it a while longer to make sure that the data is what, what we were hoping for. And I that's just my suggestion. But I think three months is pretty short to make any you know, That. And maybe we need more time, more data. I think I think that's fine. But at some point before we get at the end of this six months, do you think it's still going to be that kind of at will contract that Council member Smith was was asking about, you know, is it still going to be do you think we're going to get locked in at the end of this six months, or you mean locked in for another six months, locked in for, you know, one year or five years or is it still going to be that same kind of structure, like we can just give a certain amount of notice and. Yeah. No. Yeah, we can we can extend our contract just like, just like we have been doing. Yeah. We won't be locked in for any long term term deal. Yeah. No, not at all. Gotcha. Then I think it could make sense to gather a little more data, but I would like to see us at some point. Have you know, formal RFP or RFP process, because, you know, I remember during this process we had, you know, people coming in like we had a representative from Roll Call who came in and it wasn't the time or place for them to, you know, make that kind of a pitch. But, you know, I would just love to see them. And anyone else who's interested to be able All had an opportunity to do that with us, and we selected editors for us to go through an RFP process with this. And not continue this process after December until the new year would be. I cannot describe how disruptive it would be because we can't go back. I've already changed my sergeants. We can't go back. I mean, we have to continue on. And this can't be something like, okay, we're using this camera system today, and now we're going to use this one tomorrow. And then we can continue to use this other one. You know, to pull a video. We can't do that. We would have to stop the service. And then now we've got to go through all that pain again. It took us from June until April to be able to get this set up. Now it wouldn't take us that long. Again, I think because now we know some things, we know what to ask for. But it is it is a very. And now and we've got to go through, we've got to send letters to all these different employers. Again, it would be a beatdown to have to change for you know, at most we're going to get maybe you know, you know five you know 50 basis points maybe different half of a We need them to front the money because we need to get out of the cash paying business. We need to get out of officers getting paid by employers. So I need the companies to do that. And there's a certain amount that that money costs for them to be able to do it. Otherwise the technology is not very drastically different between the companies. The two biggest companies out there on a nationwide basis. We have one here now, and I use the other one at my previous assignment, and I'm very familiar with both of them. And they're going to come in at about the same amount of money for the same service. Okay. Gotcha. Well, and by the way, I am absolutely convinced that we need this for the reasons that you've articulated. I mean, I think you've really studied this, chief, and I think we need to do this. I just, you know, there's been a lot of information floating around. So I thought at some point I'd, I'd, I would just love to personally understand better, you know, what all of the options and the pros and cons are with only one vendor came in and attempted to make a pitch to you guys. If all of the vendors came in, they would all make a very convincing pitch, I can assure you. And we listened to those pitches and we selected editors. Well, thank you so much for that. And there All right. Thank you. Chief. You mentioned one just a minute ago. I wasn't maybe five minutes ago. You said that we had the ability to back away from this contract. And they also had the ability to back away from this contract. You just. I mean, you just said that a couple of minutes ago. If they backed away from this contract, what would happen? How would we go about supplying off duty officers to our grandfathered institutions and the one time institutions? Will we go back to the system we have now? I think for the. Oh. I'm sorry. Go ahead sir. Or would we use some type of use there system that you're using now. But somehow the software modify it to serve Plano? Or would you go out for another procurement? Oh, we. Well, yeah. Assuming that well, number one, if we're talking about whether the council whether the city is going to pay versus we're going to have the employers pay would be one thing I'd have to take into consideration. But yes, I would want to go out and look for another vendor Long term employers, it would be less disruptive because a lot of those officers who are working there now were already working that job before we started. So for those employers, we didn't make a whole lot of changes. They don't have most of them don't have coordinators now because they don't need a coordinator. But the churches have coordinators. Those are a little bit more complex because of the traffic direction situation and just because of the because of the unique things with our faith based community. And our hospitals also have a unique situation. They've got an infrastructure in place with this that will continue on. Fine. The piece that would be more difficult are the call in jobs where they need I need somebody for my wedding. I need, you know, because I've, you know, got just it's a different charge that's going to be taking that call every day. And that's why that would be a little confusing. But we would work it out until we got a new vendor. Okay. I speaking from the experience that I have with our churches, typically they pay out in checks with the 1099. That's how they process it. I'd like to get a bit of understanding about this cash payout. Does that happen during the one time events for like a wedding or what is Therefore calling assignments typically for a call in one time assignments and the job will go out and the sergeant will stay on the job. Yeah. Cash at the end of the job. I mean, that's not something that's unique that we saw or an officer who was scheduled to work the job. Now they can't they need someone to take their place. They'll send a mass email out, hey, I need somebody to work this cash at the end of the job. That's certainly not all jobs, but it's not uncommon to get paid cash at the end of a job. And officers, some officers prefer to get or they preferred to get paid in cash at the end of jobs. So does that what type of job is that? Typically the one time call in where they pay cash. Oh, it could be a wedding. It could be any kind of an event. You know, there are some of the events at the event center, at our event center, even though the event center is a city facility, whoever is renting that facility actually pays those officers. That one doesn't come on their city check like they do for one of our official special events that we do, some of those jobs are in cash. Yes, absolutely. Not uncommon The other feature that's been optioned that that we have not looked at. I think if we are going to give a little bit more time of gathering data, this would be an appropriate time. Also to give the chief the green light, to look at the on duty feature that that extra duty Solutions has had. So if counsel is okay with that, that way we're evaluating the entirety of the of the technology solution. And Mark, I just wanted to say, council member Ricciardelli, you mentioned that some of them came in and they said they could do it at a lower cost. Again, we have to do everything on an apples to apples comparison. They can't say they're going to do it on a lower cost. But but they're not going to do this piece over here that we think is important. And so that's an issue as well. It's got to be on an apples to apples comparison for sure. I completely agree. It's got to be apples to apples because anybody could, you know, could do it cheaper by doing less. Exactly. I understand that. So thank you for making that point. Chief, I was just going to ask on the point about evaluating extra duty solutions on duty solution. If we start to implement that and try it out. You mentioned that on the off duty The on duty solution from extra duty solutions. Will we have a similar situation where we've put a lot of work into that, and it would be very disruptive to then look at other vendors for that solution or. Yeah. Any on duty solution is going to be very labor intensive because you've got to go in and take all those employees and you've got to match up who their supervisors are and the phone numbers and make sure that's right. There's just a lot of detail. Once you get it set up, then it's good. But it just takes a lot of time and we don't have anybody designated to do that. And so you've got the primarily the administrative assistants in each one of my divisions would probably be the person the people that would be working on that. And they've got other things they've got to do just to kind of do it when they can to get the people in there in their division and their unit implemented into that system. And it would take a while. But yeah, thank you so much for that information, chief. And the reason I asked is because I think if we're going to, you know, if, if we're almost going to get locked in, just by evaluating, by the time we've set up and we've started using this to see if it works well for us, then I think we I asked for evaluation. Oh. Oh, okay. We're just we're just wanting to evaluate by evaluation. I thought you meant try it out and see how it works. Not necessarily. Okay, I see what you're saying, Shelby. Yes. I think it's worth evaluating. Not necessarily implementing yet, because when we first evaluated the off duty solution, the freebie of the on duty was presented as a benefit. And I think it makes sense to isolate the on duty from the off duty for evaluation of the off duty. And but it wasn't shelved indefinitely. And so I see the possibility that in the future, when we're ready for an on duty solution, we say, oh, well, we already have this. So that's where I think it does make sense to go ahead and evaluate that and the prospective options. Now, before we go too far down the rabbit hole. All right. All right everybody okay with that. All right. Thanks, chief. Thanks guys. Appreciate it. Okay. Next item, item four dart update. And discussion. Andrew Let me see if I can get the slide to advance. All right. Real quick. This evening I wanted to update you all collectively as a body on a few meetings that have happened in relation to our Dart priority identified for council. The RTC recently had a spirited discussion related to the Dart issue and their legislative agenda upcoming. As a result of that, Michael Morris with the Cog has encouraged the member cities. The six of us who have passed resolutions to get together with him and to communicate some of our concerns. So in that spirit, all of the mayors from the Six Cities met. Mark and I joined Mayor Muns in Irving. Irving hosted us with Michael Morris as well as Addison, a seventh city who has not passed a resolution but has been involved in the conversation. As a action item out of that meeting, Michael Morris has asked each city to advance through the form of a letter. Some of our top priorities that we would like to see from dart. And so The council has eyes on this before we send that letter. Of those three, what I'll call priority items. One is this idea of a general mobility program that we've talked about in the form of a rebate of 25% of our sales tax contributions for Plano. That would be just under $30 million an a la carte model is something that we consistently have heard from this body, and we believe from a staff perspective would work best 41 years after the creation of Dart. And that really is looking at a responsive model where via Uber Microtransit services may work better than a bus or vice versa, that we really take that approach a little more proactively in concert with dart. And finally, a legacy West circulator or shuttle. Given the large concentration of the business community and the walkability and drivability issues that we may encounter out there with that many people, we wanted to highlight those three as our request items from dart in the immediate future. That is not to say that our understanding on direction of moving forward with our legislative program has changed, but in the immediate future, we do believe, given the EA study, that Plano should have some of Yes, ma'am. So don't we already have number three? No, ma'am. No, we have no. Go go go. Link does not operate as a as a dedicated circulator for the legacy business area. Dart has actually partnered in West Dallas to have things that are a little bit larger than golf carts dedicated to a specific area to get people in and around that area. So when we're talking with some of the people moving in, whether it is going, you know, a 10 to 15 minute walk to the to the retail and the restaurants, the issue that we have is we don't have dedicated, dedicated shuttles, actually dedicated to the legacy business park and the idea is, is once people drive into the business park, they should not have to get back in their car to go have lunch, to go to a meeting at a different building, that it should be dedicated to that specific area. So go link by itself doesn't provide the frequency or the access point to be able to I might add on to that that go link in contrast to a service like VA that Arlington and Grand Prairie use, go link is limited to specific zones within our city, so you'd have to get out of the go link vehicle, hop into another, and then go on. Yeah, I just thought at one point when we when Toyota first came, we did have some shuttles that were going from Toyota over to legacy West. So did that stop? I'd have to go back because right now we do not have that circulator. So maybe it was there at a time and is not there. And we would like that back, but we would like it just performing loops and circles on a, you know, ten minute headways, if you will, to, to that area. But for us there's a critical value to be able to, to have that. So your idea is a good one. We really like that. And so that's number three. So we there are like 29 the high rise housing. They have their own shuttle. And so they'll move some of their residents over to Legacy West and some of the others will do that. We're we're trying to make that Into Legacy West shops, a legacy. I know there's more than these, but Mr. Morris is asked us to present these things to carry to the dart board and as a as a representative of RTC, not not so much the, the member cities, but the member cities are letting Michael take these to the Dart board. So we're hoping this alternative procedure will will he he thinks he can help. So I'm all ears. Well, yes. Okay. So all I care about is that whatever overly subsidized money that we have provided to dart in the years that we've had had Dart service in which almost over 75% of our funds from that 1% sales tax is really subsidizing No really need that money for other competitions that we have in our own city, and that's the only point. You know, we could be all flowery and sweet and talking about all these things, but really dart really need to understand that we need we, you know, if they're going to spend our sales tax one, one sensor, they need to provide the services. That's required for us to feel like that $0.01 sales tax is being used properly, because that is our residents money. And if we're only getting 25% of the benefit of that $0.01, then the other 75%, what they should definitely think about how they should refund that to us. Anthony, thank you. Mayor. Well, first, mayor, I want to thank you for your leadership on this issue and yours, Mark and Shelby and Andrew. Thank you so much for everything you all are doing. I think a couple other things that are that are kind of, you know, front burner items like this one. One would be, Possible to other Collin County cities. Cities to our north. Because I think that, you know, Dart was founded in 1983, the year that a couple of us on the council were born. And so it I don't know if I should have said that. Anyway, I said it so but you know so it's been around for a while and needs have changed over that time. I mean dart was based on kind of a hub and spoke model, right, where people went to or from Dallas, you know, for work. Maybe they, they lived in Plano but worked in Dallas. Plano is now a net importer of jobs. You know, during the day. So our needs are very different than they were in 1983. And I think that you know, for Dart to be useful to Plano, dart needs to catch up with the times and the current situation that exists on the ground. So part of that is, you know, adjusting to plano's new identity as as a net importer of jobs during the work day, not a bedroom community where people you know, leave and go to Dallas to work, but also you know, the reality of growth in Collin County with Live in Plano may work to the north of us or people work in Plano, but live to the north of us. And if we're going to have useful public transit, it's going to have to somehow take into account the rest of Collin County to the north of us. And so I don't know how Dart can change its value proposition to become, you know, attractive to cities to the north of us. But I think that's a key piece of it. And without that, it will be impossible for dart to deliver adequate value to the city of Plano. Shelby, I think that's been part of the thing we've discussed consistently is that the model and I agree, number two here, we need a better model, but not just for Plano because it's not going to work long term if other cities continue to want to not join, but the entire system has to reform and change so that other cities actually want to join, the value proposition has to be there. And I fully agree with Mayor Pro Tem about the value we're getting. And even though we're we're losing a Them. A lot of the money that is actually being spent in Plano is being spent poorly in Plano, because not only do other members and other cities not want to become members, people don't want to ride it either. All right, we have our direction. Oh, yes, sir, just real quick. I was around in 83 when this was voted and I was an adult. And I also remember I also remember Allen McKinney and Frisco not voting for dart. Okay. They they chose not to play. That's their shame on them. They want to play now that's something that has to be addressed. The North Central Texas Council of Government fully understands we have a mobility problem in the 16 counties. Okay. We understand that RTC is part of that. The mayor, his charter is to serve Plano. Our charter is to serve Plano. I love Allen, love McKinney. But that's not part of my responsibility. It's not part of your responsibility. Our issue here Fares are paid to help the mobility within the city of Plano, and if the border stops at 121, so be it. But my point being here is, what we're going with this letter here is going to help us with help. Mr. Morri, present our case to dart and saying, look, we got to have another alternative besides empty busses. And that's what we're trying to get. And then the second tight aspect tied to this, especially if we have something like what V is doing, is if from an economic development perspective, if we're able to have a circular route between editors to research corridor where canes is going, where we're hoping additional businesses are going to develop and make it easy for them to shop and eat in shops. At Legacy and Legacy West, that is a draw for economic development. So it's tied hand to hand. So I have to remind you of our charter and protect the citizens. Taxpayers Clarify, I was pointing to the lack of other cities wanting to join as evidence of a model that doesn't work for them or us. I don't think Plano would want to opt into the system right now either under the current model, and if Allen, Frisco, McKinney, or any of them never want to join. But it works for everybody else. Well, I don't think that would be the case. If it does work for everybody else, then maybe they would want in on the action. But we actually are footing the bill for many of them who come to the Red line at the Parker Road station. And if I may briefly respond also just to the point about other cities, because I agree with you, our fiduciary duty on this council is to the city of Plano, and that's who I'm thinking about here. You know, while also thinking about our regional partners and regional transportation. But the point I'm making is that right now, the numbers are pretty clear that we're getting somewhere between 30 and $0.40 on our dollar. You know, for that $0.01 of sales tax, over $100 million a year that we're investing into dart. And one of the reasons for that is that if you want to go I mean, there's probably one city that borders Dallas that's going to come up, that's going to, you know, say, well, you can't go there, but just about any bordering city you want to go to from Dallas, you can do that on dart. That's one reason Dallas is getting such a great value out of dart. If you want to go north from Plano, you cannot do that on dart if you want to go east from Plano. I mean, you know, other than, you know, Richardson, which is part of the East, you know, but other cities to the east of us, you can't do that on Dart. You know, cities to the west of us are in Dcta, Denton County Transit Authority. And so we have an issue where because of connectivity with surrounding cities, the usefulness of Dart just to the city of Plano is hampered. And so we it may look like partnering with, you know, Dcta or other transit agencies. You know, I don't know what it's going to look like, but as long as Plano is on the periphery of Dart service area, that's going to impede the value of Dart to Plano. Mayor and council, we appreciate the feedback. The a la carte model allows us to pick and choose what services we would want. The general mobility would return funds and then the circulator obviously would be reinstituted in in that And that you all have given before. Is that a regional transit system needs to be more than 13 cities funding it. And we need to make sure that we're getting the proper value in Plano. So I think we have that and we're happy to draft this letter. But we felt it was important with all the community discussion on dart that that we're on the same page as far as what that letter would entail. So we appreciate the support and guidance. And Andrew will begin drafting. Thank you. Okay. Item five is discussion and direction regarding comments of public interest via zoom. Mark. Mayor and Council believe it or not, December is right around the corner and we will be moving back into the Council chambers. Jack Carr has given me his personal guarantee that there is no doubt we are going to be fully ready to go into the council chambers, and actually it looks fantastic. If you've seen the photos, it's fantastic. Part of what we're seeing, though, is there's a lot of new technology in the council chambers, a lot of massive monitors in the council Council agenda and to keep them via zoom. As we transition back into the council chambers, my recommendation would be to continue that for the first year that we're back there to allow us to beta test and stress test the council chambers, all the technology and keep this process the same, which seems to have been working. So my recommendation would be to allow that process as we move back. I think we made some of those adjustments as we came over, but allow that process to continue for the first year while we're back in the council chambers, and I'd be welcome. Any questions or comments? Shelby. I like giving citizens the option to join comments of public interest by zoom, but if we're suggesting that we disallow comments of public interest in person when we move back to the council chambers, I wouldn't be in favor of that. I think citizens should have the option to stand before us and look us in the eye, face to face. Okay. Thank you mayor. I would likewise say that I think it's good for citizens to have an in-person or zoom option, but I do like keeping Comments of public interest, and we frequently have children at the beginning of our council meetings, you know, leading the pledge or they're for recognitions of community groups and things of that nature. And so I think just in the interest of protecting children from obscenity and profanity, it's probably good to keep comments of public interest at the end of the meeting. Okay, I appreciate that, Shelby. A question along those lines, maybe for Paige. The unpredictability of when comments of public interest will come helps with the aforementioned problem, but it also keeps citizens with legitimate business on the hook for an indeterminate amount of time. Is there anything preventing us from just randomly jumping to comments of public interest after any given agenda item, so that we're not making citizens stay until the very end of a meeting I have? I have the authority to move things up. So if we wanted to, we could move it anywhere in the meeting. Oka. So if some of our friends who sign up but aren't Boo hoo. But if we want to bring it up so that some of our citizens who have legitimate business to address to us don't have to wait around all night, I think that would be a benefit. Okay. I struggle with the inconsistency of it. I feel like that might cause some challenges. I, I think we probably just need to keep it consistent. Progress. I agree with my colleagues that, you know, I think the one of the things I love about. I love about local government, and it's difficult about government, is how close you get to be to the people. But it's the place where people get to be most involved and closest to their government leaders. So I don't want to completely take away that opportunity from people. I think that's an important part of government. So I appreciate the opportunity to allow people to come face to face. But I do agree with keeping it at the end. I struggle with not being consistent in how we do it The end because you don't like me, but you like these people. So you moved it up. And so I think that could put the mayor in a very difficult position that I would not want to be in personally. Mayor. Yeah. Rick. Yeah. Let me chime in. I'm awake now. Thank you. I agree, I think the two things that we need to be consistent. So the end has been working and I suggest we, you know, we keep it that way. But the other thing, too, I'd like to support I think Mark's right is that, you know, moving back in to a new place loaded with new technology. Interesting things sometimes happen. Believe me, I know. And I think it would behoove us to, you know, wait a little while before we start changing and bringing, you know, people in live again. I don't think we need to preclude that indefinitely. But I do think there's an adjustment period that would be good for us to work through. All right. Thank you Rick. So I actually agree with what council member To evaluate whether or not in person is a good idea, considering the fact that we have new technology that is being put into the new council chambers, as well as what we have seen before, we went to this comments and public interest at the end of the end of the meeting, as well as zoom, is because we don't believe that city resources should be used for private advertisement and promotion of their own businesses. Rather, it needs to be used legitimately for public concerns and comments. So I believe that those tweaks needs to be worked out before we actually start the program of actually allowing more in-person public comments. That also helps us with our public safety, that helps us control what what are some of the policies that needs to be in place? So I am in favor, just like Council Member Smith says, we need some time to get used Can can we then come to a compromise of maybe a shorter time period, maybe a month or two? Because I feel like it's inconsistent if we're saying we're going to use this same technology to let people speak on agenda items, but that same technology, we need a trial period for people to speak on, on one section of our agenda that feels a little odd to me. Let's how about how about three months? So the end of February we we'd we'd have time to be able to do enough testing to be able to monitor how everything works. Shelby, I don't see that we need any testing because we're going to have people speaking in person on agenda items from day one and to Council member Prince's Point. I don't see how there's any difference in the technology between allowing people to speak on an agendized item versus comments of public interest. Well, there's a whole new panel that will be working with about Doing for almost a year now, and this is all new to all of us, and they'll be they'll be speakers that are there, queued up all these things and I think it's just going to take us a little bit of time to make sure we know how to handle someone that's that's being difficult. And I want to say I agree with the mayor. I mean, my preference was, you know, like, I think council members Prince and Williams articulated that really, you know, it does seem like the same thing to speak on an agenda item versus comments of public interest. But I think you raise fair points, mayor. And in any event, I think that the solution that either you or council member Prince came up with that, you know, we clearly have a difference of opinion on the council about this. So, you know, compromising on three months and saying we'll revisit it at that time is probably a sensible way to all get on the same page. So I'm on board with that. So do we have consensus around three months? Okay. Perfect. Thank you for your guidance. Council okay Just up from Mayor Pro Tem two and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Holmer in regard to some of some of the issues that that are going to be coming up and we they need some direction or we all need direction and discussion on these items. Okay. Mayor Pro Tem two and I had discussed this a little bit since to give a little bit of history. First of all, mayor pro Tem two and I are the liaisons for the cultural arts Commission and council member Ricciardelli brought up the idea of increasing our grant funding because we've seen such an increase in our sales tax hotel, motel tax dollars. And so we did that and then decided as a council to give back to our Arts commission the opportunity to decide how to distribute those funds. I sat in on their meeting where they discussed this, and they had a great conversation and came up with some wonderful ideas on some new initiatives and ways to use the To execute or see any of those come to fruition, so they opted to put those funds back into the pool of money and elected to put a maximum award allowed Award, I believe, was the wording that was used. So there's a couple of things that first, I feel like we need to decide moving forward. Do we want to keep that in place for next year, which I believe Mayor Pro Tem Tu and I are in agreement that that's what we would recommend. We also like the idea of letting them find a way to explore some of those other initiatives. However, I think maybe scheduling a work session would be a good way for us to have a better discussion and have the staff liaison as well as the chair present so they could bring up any concerns they may have, answer any questions, and it might just be a more On the agenda before the end of the year. I think that would serve our timeline. Is everybody okay with that? I don't I don't think it would be a long work session. I think, you know, we could. We can always set we can always set that goal. Okay. All right. Next item consent. And regular agendas. Any item Council member would like to remove. Okay. And then council items for future agendas. All right. Well, we did good. We'll take a recess and return at 7:00. We'll take a recess and return at 7:00. Thank you. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Let's do something like this. Yeah. Yeah. This is. Awesome. I think we just found 5 or 11. Oh, sorry about that. Perfect. Thank you. Where are you? Are you okay? I have an idea. I Walking out every day. Can I get an email? Come in. Both. Yes, sir. Good to me. Thank you. Oh, okay. Yes, sir. Good mornin. Leaving notes everywhere. There is a study of the spring banking study, but. I'm blanking on what I called it. But basically, the study we're supposed to be talking about. Let me make a note to myself Yeah. People that. Definitely. So yeah. No, I'm maxing out on fun. Well, I know there was one one. Well, yeah. That's. Nice to see you. They were supposed to be evaluating that. Like, what would that take a discussion about it on my radar. And I ended up. I think it was supposed to be. Supposed to be how how much it might actually cost to. Because from my standpoint, I. Mean, back in Sometimes the cities, but they are being built out when the nature way towards. I have to believe that in terms of trash, trees, deadbolt, the definition of the question. Yeah, not not shifting stream things. Right? I can't believe anybody ever had that in mind when they made these agreements. Like with any developer or HOA would have looked at that if it actually came up and said, yeah, let's go to those. Yeah, but you're talking $500,000, right? I consider yeah, I consider that I consider that part of the charter. So I think. The question is how what's the mechanism here? This is your house, right. And it's taking a lot longer than I. Well, you're not playing Yeah. No. You're. Because Russell is talking about that. You're talking about if you have a 50 year flood, this is probably the most severe flood. I don't know why we feel safe with 50 or 100 years. 100 years? Isn't actually that low. It turns out that that can be much. So, yeah. I made a reminder for myself for tomorrow, where we stand when we're supposed to be done. Okay, good. Thank you. It's easier to take notes. Yeah. So the other thing is, when you reach on Friday, 5:00 this Saturday, I'm going to be out of town with my. Oh, yeah. While your wife and daughter. Okay. But So let. Yeah, yeah yeah. Vote friends. Vote. And everything in between. Exactly, exactly. Yeah. Get other people. Friends. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, yeah. Yeah, exactly. All the way over here. All right, so. Right now? No. But if you happen to, like, whiskey and more archery and having a fundraiser or just a bit of whiskey and retreat. I attended one with Plano Lifestyle Magazine in the spring. And I like both of those things. And I think I brought my own boat, so I loved it so much. I'm going to oh that's cool. Mission Ridge Gun Range, Plano, Texas. They've got an eight lane archery bag. Wow. I've never been a long time. Yeah. Yeah. But they've also got a Free texting service around the well. Give me an invitation. Thank you. Yeah, I got some other friends. That source. They're both young. Well, we've got the whole archery bay for the event. And, you know, we rentals, they don't need to bring their own boat. I just happen to. And they're all be instructors to help out. Well good because that was that was my next question because I have. You know, I remember when you were 16 or you know, we're searching. What do you what do you think is important. Now? What is it right now? I know I applaud the kid because he's very passionate about. Starting the basketball operations. Of playing high school ball. But he's pretty tall. He's six one. Okay. But he's playing That's amazing, because I was talking to a guy about soccer fields. Right? One of the challenges you have an attractive soccer team. So we were trying to find we were trying to find we have space on the end of our property, church or to put in several practices, but it was so expensive for me to go in there, level it out and configure already. So we just didn't do it. But he was telling me how important he also telling me how many kids go through that program. You said over 100,000 and you. Play baseball, soccer, basketball volleyball whatever. All day is working. Amazing. That's right. And it's very, very. That was a beautiful link. I could have used that when I was thinking. Yeah, it's just amazing. And I tried to get it done because I was excited. Yeah Did. I. Have to worry about. 300 500. Splash damage a week on our property. Because that's what. How cool is that? That's fantastic. I was rapping over it. Yeah, it is now going to all be here at the same time. Yeah, there's that. But yeah, a lot of fun. Here. Here's two dozen hoops we jump to. Yeah, we've been here since 1984. Are you. 30? You know, I know somebody would say. Yeah. Yeah Think about. We're going to be at a watch party, so it's perfect. Yeah. And so Steve. Yeah. Yeah. These parties are for you guys. And this is. For. Yeah. Thank you for having me. You weren't there, but I'm not. Yeah. So, basically, we had access revolving door, and she had spreadsheets and maps, and everybody had their own spreadsheet and their own maps. So you're taking zone three. She's been working for years. He went as early as 630 a you know. We actually. All look forward to seeing you up there. Yeah. All right. Thanks a lot. Yeah. Everybody. And. Well. That, you know, it's just. Communicate. Doctor Smith. Ron Smith. I just said this. But I had another one. Like that. Ron Smith, Parks and Recreation director. The big science. Yeah, I got it. You've already gotten off the bench. I. Yeah, I. Know. It's. Not. I wasn't. Sure. I see a solution. I thought. About that. Yeah. Oh, yeah. Yeah. This is interesting. I'm not. Master of the. But I think there was a couple of people. There. Shut up. What's your house like? I. 100%. Love. It. I also I understand. Thank you. So we sold this house. Yeah. I don't even know. 16. Yeah. Yeah. Oh my God! Oh How are you feeling? It wasn't. So crazy. Once. I saw. You just know that there was something much. Let's say you know. Yes. It's great. What you have now. Now it's just kind of got a little. Work. But it's kind. Of. Back down. It used to be that the weather forecast and 80% of the rain end turned out to be totally. What are we fighting for? Well, yeah. Yeah. All right, y'all. Y'all ready? Yes, sir. I now declare the Plano City Council is reconvened into open session. That all members are present. Council member Rick Smith is on zoom. We will begin tonight's regular meeting with the invocation led by Rabbi Stefan Weinberg, with Congregation and Shai Torah. And please join the Council The invocation. Would you please stand? Aloha. Aloha. Dear God, give us wisdom. Give us courage. Give us the will to do what is needed to inspire and uplift the path of our country. Every one of us is responsible from those elected to the most important positions in our society, to those who are the daily laborers working with each other, looking one another in the eye, striving to do what is good and just, and aspiring to maintain a secure and respectful Commonwealth. Early voting has already begun. My wife and I voted yesterday in a peaceful, orderly fashion right here in our neighborhood. Next Tuesday, we will try to reset the agenda for our country, ensuring a path that will reflect the values that have guided this amazing country for nearly 250 years. Each of us, as voters, has been gifted with an extraordinary opportunity. Voting privileges not enjoyed by most of the countries in the world. This past Shabbat, the To the Bible known as the Torah. In the fourth chapter of Genesis, we recalled the harrowing experience of the first murder recorded in the Bible. Cain killed Abel, apparently out of jealousy. What is critical for you and I to glean from the text is found in the dialog between God and Cain. God asks Cain, where is your brother? Refusing to answer God's query gain, Cain introduces his own question, asking God, Hashomer, am I my brother's keeper? I would posit there is no more significant, pivotal question, which in turn becomes one of our country's seminal pillars. Yes, we are each other's keeper. Yes, we are responsible for one another. Ye, we carry an obligation to always be concerned for the welfare of all those in our communities. For the Jewish community across our country, the level of anti-Semitism has spiked like never before in most people's lifetimes. Communities like Plano, Texas have been sources of inspiration and consolation for us as a people. Mayor Muns came to Congregation Anshe Torah to express his and the city's support. One year ago, when we were experiencing tremendous levels of angst. Never did I imagine that I, a rabbi in the greatest country in the world, my mother, a survivor of Hitler's demonic holocaust, and my father, a proud major in the US Army Air Corps, would be supporting the construction of a fence around my synagogue to provide a sense of protection for our congregants. Thank you for all the wonderful work, each of you. And by extension, our greater community does for the welfare of the city of Plano. Amen. Thank you Of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Honor the Texas flag and alleged allegiance to Texas. One state under God. One and indivisible. Thank you. Well, before we start, I wanted to thank everyone in Plano for contributing to the peanut Butter Drive in September. And as always, Plano was the top city and 2024 in the peanut butter drive and my mayor pro tem was there to accept it. And we amazing trophy There we contributed $9,776 and 9,166 pounds of peanut butter. Thank you. Plano. You always come through. We appreciate it. So much. And thank you. North Texas food Bank, for the honor. Now let's move on to the consent agenda. The consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual discussion by a council member. The city manager, or any citizen. Presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests. Motion to approve. Second. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. All in favor, please raise your hand. Thank you. Motion passes 8 to 0. Next item. 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. Necessary nonpublic hearing items. The presiding officer will permit public comment 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 ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a cumulative time limit. Speakers will be called in the order the requests are received until the cumulative time is exhausted. Item number one. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 20 2419 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City Ordinance Number 2015, dash five two as heretofore amended, so as to amend urban mixed use. Two located on 86.2 acres of land Within the 190 tollway Plano Parkway overlay district in the city of Plano. Collin County, Texas, to modify phasing and development standards, directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the city, providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Good evening, Mayor, council and executives. I'm Christina Dade, the director of planning, here to present this zoning case to you this evening. Zoning case 19, as stated earlier, it is a request to amend one of our three urban mixed use districts. It's district number two, which is also known as Beacon Square. So these are maps of the location of the zoning district. The one on the left shows the notification area surrounding the properties and the aerial on the right shows the existing development of the property, as well as surrounding development in each direction Was established in 2014. It did come through and have a request for modifications in 2020, and phase one is currently under construction. As you can see on the aerial. So there are really two parts to this request. The first one is phasing and block A is phase one. Block B was slated per the original development plan, to be part of either phase three or phase four, but there's been so much success along the Coyote Road frontage for the retail development that they have there that the property owner is requesting to move the rest of the Coyote Road frontage up to this phase so they can go ahead and build out the retail that is proposed in that area. The second part of the request relates to signage. They want some identification signage that is unique to their site and are asking See in front of you, and in order to ensure that what you see is what you get, we've actually tied that to the development plan. So it's very clear what the expectation is, including dimensions of the signage. So these are the text amendments relating to the signage. And then the development plan is being amended regarding the phasing. This is a page that's being added to the development plan showing the specifics of the signage. One of the other issues that's being addressed here, as you can see on the upper left hand side of this graphic, there's a substantial amount of slope between Coit Road on the left and the interior of the site on the right, and so it requires a retaining wall. So some of this were clarifying just how we're going to make measurements and so forth through this drawing. So this is in the suburban activity center and open space network of the Comprehensive Plan. It's not proposing to Meet the comp plan priorities. We had one response within 200ft, you can just barely see it. There's a little kind of pop out to make it easier to see on the upper right hand corner of this slide, you can see how it just clips the corner north of the rail. And then we had one other response in favor. So two responses in favor of this request. None neutral or in opposition. And with that you can see the location of those responses on the map. And the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval by a vote of 6 to 0. And I'm available for questions you might have. Thank you. Any questions for Christin? Thank you. Oh. I'm sorry. So for clarification, they're just wanting to approve the plat what was originally subsection B and bring that forward. Now so they can do development of that. Also tied to this was a variance, if you will, of the signage. Correct. That's correct. And In itself, because in my opinion, this is beacon Square. There's no beacon. It's just there isn't. It's just a square. And I figured growing up on the East Coast, you have a beacon. A beacon is supposed to either warn you or provide a path for safe harbor. Provide some. And arts would appreciate this. It's just a square. And I'm kind of like. I thought they're spending so much money on this development. They ought to be something there. It's I don't know. It lights up, Rick. It lights up. It lights up. Okay. You know, but proposing or renaming the square beacon, let's call it the square. All right. But did anybody ask those questions? I don't believe so. Nobody's explicitly. Nobody's from new Jersey. All right. Virginia. Virginia. Thank you Do we have any speakers? All right, I'll close the public hearing and confine the comments to the council. I'll make a motion to approve with the amendment that we rename it to Square Beacon. Strike that last part. Correct? Yes. I'll second without the amendment. Okay. Say it correctly. Motion to approve. Okay. Thank you. Full stop. All right. Second. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve. Item number one. All in favor, raise your hand. I see you, Rick. Thank you. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item two. Item two. Consideration of a resolution to adopt the 2025 legislative program for the City of Plano, Texas. Directing the city Manager, or his designee to act with regard to the city's 2025 legislative program and providing an effective date. Good evening, Mayor and Council Andrew Fortune, Director of Policy and Government Relations. You are all provided via email, a copy of the agenda. It's also in your packet in the email that From the council, but happy to entertain any discussion questions. On that agenda. Thank you, Sir Anthony. Thank you Mayor. And thank you, Andrew, for your work on that and for your responses on my emails. So there is, first of all, a quick clarification just to kind of put it on the record. I think it's good for us to have in our legislative agenda supporting the full funding of public schools because of the importance of public schools to the city of Plano, to our residents, to our businesses and the economic community of our of our city. So I think that's really good. At the same time, I just asked you by email a clarifying question that we're not planning on wading into the school choice debate. That's likely to happen during this legislative session. Obviously, we have public schools and private schools in the city. And so I think, you know, it would be unwise for the city as an organization to take a position one way or the other. And I just wanted to put on the record that that language is about, you kno, encouraging our legislature But. And then the other thing that I was going to, to suggest, as I did during our last meeting, you know, I really would like to add language stating that we would like a beneficial amendment to the Public Funds Investment Act, and I asked the staff to look into a little bit. And by the way, I don't I don't have copies of this or slides. I know you all are so sad that that I don't have this, but the staff provided some analysis showing five year returns for the two year treasury, which is the benchmark for our investment portfolio versus the S&P 500, which is a, you know, widely known index that, you know, one can invest in through an index fund and over every single five year period going back three decades, the S&P 500 outperformed the two year Treasury, even with fluctuations. Even even during the five year period that included the start of the Great Recession, the S&P 500 still did better. The reason I make that point Limit the ways that we can diversify our investment portfolio. Most Americans retirement portfolios are invested in a way that's widely considered safe, but is actually illegal for the city to invest. Its Treasury portfolio that way. And as a result of that, we all cities in Texas get less of a return than we would get if we were able to invest in ways that are generally considered prudent for people's retirement nest egg. And as a result of that lower return, our residents and businesses have to bear higher taxes because the money has to come from somewhere. If we get less of a return on our investment portfolio, then to get the same amount of revenue, we have to tax more. So really, the restrictions that the state of Texas has put on our investment activities under the Public Funds Investment Act result in additional taxes for the businesses and residents in the city of Plano. So for that reason, I would like to include language in the legislative program that we would like We would obviously not want to change how we're investing all of our investment portfolio, but we already have investments that have maturities of five years. And that's why I ask for that five year analysis. I think that portion, that five year portion of our investment portfolio would be better invested if the state would allow it in something like an index fund, than in the types of investments that were required by state law to invest in. And I also know that including this idea in our legislative agenda does not mean that the legislature will magically say, oh well, glad it's in the legislative agenda for the city of Plano. We'll go ahead and pass that. But I think we could start building momentum, you know, across multiple sessions to where maybe we could recruit other cities to join us, start educating the legislature, and hopefully get to a point where cities in Texas can invest in the way that people are investing their retirement nest eggs. That's generally considered safe, and it will result in lower taxes for municipalities throughout the state of Texas. So anyway, I just feel like it's really important to include that in I approach to investment and SLI stands for Security first, then liquidity, then yield. And so security of tax dollars is something that they are very cautious about in the way that you have your investment portfolio. And this comes from experience that they've had in California and in other places where they've actually ended up with security issues and then liquidity issues. And so they are very conservative in what they allow us to invest in. I have no problem. It's your it's your legislative program. So I have no problem with you all asking for more flexibility in being able to create more yield. But I did feel like it was important to understand that the reason for that is because taking risk with tax dollars and investments is something that has that has happened time and time again, where tax dollars have been lost and the outrage that has been extended to the governments that took those investments is something that was very serious. And so I just want to make sure I at least explain the SLI program, and that's what we go through on our public funds investment and if I may just Unfettered discretion to invest in anything. Naw, naw. If we had unfettered discretion, would I want to use it to invest in things like, you know, what we've seen with some some pension funds, for example, and issues that have happened there, but I think there are things like, you know, the S&P 500 index fund has has never lost all value. And has always come back. It's just a matter of time horizon. And so since we already have an approach where we have shorter maturities, you know, that that, you know, safety and liquidity, we have 0 to 1 year maturities. And we have things that are invested in five year maturity bonds already. And what I was suggesting is if the state would allow us and other cities to take that, that five year portion, maybe the four year portion and say, you know, over this time horizon, you know, that's not as big of a risk. And frankly, it's how, you know, 401 K's that people can't afford to lose or they can't retire or, you know, 403 B's or whatever the case may be, IRAs are already invested things that also need to be invested safely, that also can't be lost. And if we could do just a portion of it that way, I think we would we would be able to get a Prevent the deterioration of the public funds we're holding through inflation. And we would also save taxpayers money by generating funds without having to tax them more. Sorry, that was more than 30s. No. That's okay. Shelby, while adhering to SLI principles, I think it's reasonable to lobby the legislature to explore things not just such as varying time horizons like Councilman Ricciardelli proposed, but also allocating just a proportion of a portfolio to such investments. Whether that's 5%, 50%, whatever. So that it's not the whole shebang. Because while I haven't delved into the particulars in other cities and whole state governments, I understand that there has been some risky activity for which taxpayers were not happy. We all want that. Yeah, I think it is possible to explore modifications that still adhere to those principles, and I'd support adding that to the legislative agenda. And I'd also like to weigh in Section of our legislative agenda, not take a position on school choice. Okay. Anybody else? Okay. With that? I, I think it would be wonderful, but I don't I don't think we should get our hopes up real high. Thank you mayor. I know it's a long shot, but if we start educating people, maybe it'll pass in 2034. Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we need to make a motion? A motion to amend. Yeah. I will move to pass the legislative agenda with the addition of language, requesting the beneficial modification of the public funds investment Act to provide greater flexibility to pursue returns while still adhering to SLI principles. All right. Second. Got all that, Lisa? All right. I'm sorry. Go ahead. Can you Just. Oh, sorry, I guess. Did you want me to repeat it or. Perfect. Okay, I really need it. I think what I said was, I'm going to try this verbatim. That we would add language to the legislative program requesting the beneficial amendment of the Public Funds Investment Act to add language, allowing us greater flexibility to pursue investment returns while still adhering to SLI principles. Okay, so I have a motion and a second to approve item number two. All in favor. Raise your hand. All right. Motion passes. Thank you. Next item. Comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker, with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the current agenda. The Council may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The Council may choose to place the item on a future agenda, and we do have one speaker this evening Via zoom. She's moving over. Miss rice, if you can put on your camera. Yeah. Give me one second. I'm gonna come off. Oka. Hold on one second. I think the. Can you see me? No, no. It's not coming off camera. I'm sorry. Okay. We'll need you on camera to allow you to speak. Does it take Miss Rice that the camera is a state requirement for all municipalities. In regard to zoom. So I am trying to connect. I am trying to click on the camera to connect, and it's not allowing the camera's not coming on. So that's that's very normally it comes on because I do zoom a lot. So well if, if, if for some reason it won't wor, we you we'd be glad to have you email us your comments and we'll all the council will receive those comments. Okay. I will email them to you and I will expect a swift response. Thank you city. City council@plano.gov. Okay great. Thank you so much. Thank you. There being no further business we're adjourned.