I Out. Everybody. They are. Thank you. Sorry about the G. I now declare that the Plano City Council preliminary open meeting is reconvened and open session that all council members are present. Our first item on the preliminary agendas is consideration and action resulting in, uh from executive session. On personnel. Appointment reappointment of North Texas Municipal Water District board member Council member Horn. Um Mr Mayor. Uh, we would like to table this until the next meeting. Where When I have an opportunity to have a discussion with Mr. Uh Kelly. OK? Would you like to make a motion? Make a motion that we table the appointment till the next City council meeting. Second Thank you. I have a motion. Uh by mis, Uh, Council member Horn and a second by council member, Smith. All in favor of tabling. Please raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. Or. Next item. Uh item two personnel appointments Tax increment financing reinvestment zone number five members and chair Council member Smith Council member Horn. You are the liaisons. Thank thank you, Mayor . Uh yes, Uh, Council member Horn and I have spoken to applicants and have made decision We'd like to appoint the following. Uh, Gary Berlin. Doug Binder. Abu Kari Masoud. H. Jeannie Cordina. And Deborah Farer. And then we will further appoint doctor Gary Berlin as chair. And uh, Jinna as vice chair. OK? You have that Lisa? OK? You. Did You make that motion? OK I'll make that a motion to approve. Motion by council member Smith seconded by council member Horn. All in favor. Please raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. OK? Item three. Heritage Preservation grant program, administrative cost funding. Well, Mr Hill. OK I'll try to speak loudly. It sounds like it's on now. Well, good evening. I appreciate you, Uh, Being able to discuss this with me. If you remember we brought a discussion to the commission in February, 26th meeting, uh, getting some initial direction from you about changes to the program related to operations and maintenance funding. We uh, discussed this with the Heritage Commission at the march 27th meeting as well and we have some recommendations for you. So um, just a reminder. There's a million dollars that's anticipated to be allocated for funds in this upcoming fiscal year. So the recommendations that we have, uh, number one. We recommend that some fixed allocations be retained, and those are the Heritage Farmstead Museum and the Plano Conservancy . Um, those funding amounts have been in place for many years. So we're recommending that those be retained and set aside as fixed costs, moving forward. These operations are unique because they're both on city owned property. And to differentiate these from other funds. They'll still be called operations and maintenance on M. And then secondly, We Talking about something called Project, administrative costs, so the remaining funds should be available to support projects as well as the indirect cost to operate them. And those indirect costs were entitling project administrative costs. These would be open to all grantees and eligible expenses or items such as salaries, utilities, et cetera. Recommending a cap of 20% of each individual project for those project, administrative costs, and when those are requested, the grantees must clearly articulate the value as it pertains to supporting heritage tourism projects. So these recommendations, um were before the Heritage Commission. They were supportive of those, Uh, we did have several grant recipients in attendance at the meeting, and then we had one speaker who was in support of the recommendations that evening . Um, I'll stop right there and be glad to answer any questions that you may have. Questions for Eric. Here. Please. Uh, Councilman Ricardelli had. Thank you, Mark. Sorry I did not have a question. So I was waiting for a discussion. But OK, well, let's so I get my time. It's time. Go ahead. Thank you, Mayor . Thank you, but, uh, Anyway, I looked into this, and I think this is what city manager Israel. Elson was alluding to I sent an email to staff about this because as y'all may remember, uh, a couple of months ago, we had another issue, I. I guess it was a very similar issue to this one. And I looked into or rather ask the staff to look into, uh, how much have hotel occupancy tax revenues increased over the past 15 years . And then uh, how much, uh, has our cultural arts and historic preservation funding increased, and, uh, In fiscal year 2009 2010 hotel occupancy tax revenues were a little under $4.1 million in the current fiscal year. 2324 They're over $14 million, so they have more than tripled. Um In that same 09 . 2010 year, Uh, support of the arts or cultural arts was $586,384 in the current fiscal year. It's a million historic preservation was 501,000 and change in the current fiscal year. It's 800,000 and, of course, as we just heard for next year proposed for a million, um, but the city is allowed to give up to 15% The staff has confirmed of hotel motel tax funding. Each to heritage preservation and cultural arts grants programs. Currently that would be $2.1 million for each of them. And so I know there are other things we're using hotel occupancy tax revenue for But obviously over the past 15 years the percentage of hotel occupancy tax revenue that's used on cultural arts funding and historic preservation funding has declined as a percentage of our overall hotel occupancy tax revenue, and I think those are important city objectives. So in the upcoming budget cycle, I'd like to see us look at going Above a million dollars for historic preservation and for cultural arts. And um, just as a reminder, I know everyone at council knows this, but to everyone watching, we're not talking about anything that would come from a attacks on Plano residents. You know, this is not property tax. It's not sales tax. It's not based on fees. This is from hotel occupancy tax based on hotel stays, and it has to be used for certain very narrowly defined purposes. And so when we're looking at other things that are eligible uses competing for those hotel occupancy tax funds. Uh, those are also great goals. But I just think Maybe we've let cultural arts and historic preservation slip a little bit. And I'd love to see us boost that up in the upcoming budget cycle and go above that $1 million recommendation. And then the other thing that I wanted to bring up. This is kind of a smaller point, but I like the 20% cap, but as we just saw in the last budget cycle, uh, we had a situation where we as a council made an exception because we had an applicant come to us, and they had a good reason for us to make an exception, so I'd love to see that be a guideline rather than a hard cap. You know, say that we would just say We don't think we should go above 20% barring, you know, some unusual circumstance, but leave that flexibility in there that the council could say this is a circumstance that qualifies for going above 20% for project administrative costs. Those are the two changes I would propose. Can we? Can we get some Just for councils. Um Appreciation of understanding whether or not this would be something that W. Fit into the parameters that we're trying to, uh, move forward with how would this affect The hotel motel. Uh, Tax. Well, Mayor Council II. I think we can bring back some information, uh, in a timely manner that that provides some of that analysis. Uh, you know, the, uh, Councilman did reach out. We did provide him some of that information, but we've not done an analysis on what this would mean to the fund. In general. He's he's correct in the growth of the fund. He's correct in in the numbers of what 15% would look like, um, but as far as the impact of the fund or what it might have, as far as the cascading effect, we've not provided that information. Nor have we done that analysis. But we'd be happy to do that. Bring that back to council and You make a policy decision, So if you're comfortable with that we're happy to do it and bring it back. I. I have a question. Just um, clarification. So Anthony, are you saying at this point That instead of using our budgets from From general revenue or, um, you know, from property tax and sales tax. To instead move the heritage funds and grants to Um, use city and hot. I mean hotel. Um So as as a clarification. They're already funded through hotel occupancy tax through the hotel motel tax. But what I was saying is that, uh, the amount of annual collections of hotel occupancy taxes greatly increased more than tripled over the past 15 years and the amounts that we give for cultural arts and historic preservation haven't kept pace. So I. I totally agree . In fact, this is what I was anticipating coming into the meeting and why I said, I'd like to look at this during the budget sort of relatively grow. With um as as as the taxes for hotel motel grows, then the, um um the heritage, uh, revenue should grow with it in in relative term. Is that what you're trying to say exactly So, as as an illustration back when hotel occupancy tax revenues were a little over $4 million that 15% cap would have wrecked. Uh uh, would have represented a little over $600,000 and the actual amount? Uh, during that year. Were 586,000 for support of the arts and 501,000 for historic preservation. So we were very near that cap. Not quite there, but we were near that cap. Now we're at less than half of the cap and so a as a as a percentage of hotel occupancy tax revenue collected annually. The amount spent on these grants for cultural arts and historic preservation has significantly decreased over time, not in dollar terms, but in in terms of the percentage of hotel occupancy tax revenue devoted to these uses. And so I'd like to see what else it's being spent on, you know, put this on the agenda during the budget cycle, see what the competing uses are, But I I'd love to challenge us to see if we can go above that 1 million, uh and, you know, really support historic preservation and cultural arts. Conversation We'll bring back that analysis. Thank you. Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance rewrite project funding. Good evening. Marin Council. I'm Christina Day, the director of planning and here to give you a brief update on the zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite Project. So uh, the current regulations we have are, um, dated back to the 19 eighties. Um I found a copy of our old development regulation Binder to kind of give a little visual representation of the roots of the current ordinances. They've been updated repeatedly. We do try to keep them up to date. But those updates over time, um really do have an impact on the regulations in just trying to look at them in a comprehension. Manner is the best practice so Where looking to update the development regulations to align with the new comprehensive plan 2021 and make sure that the regulations are meeting the policy objectives of the city's comprehensive plan. So Again. We've done updates through the past, but we're looking to make this a comprehensive review that would allow us to simplify the policies, align them with the current market and just make it more user friendly up to modern standards, where the document language and graphics are all more helpful to individuals using the ordinances. So the contract we have on this Is, uh, we currently have $500,000 that were set aside in fiscal year 2223. This project's been delayed so that the same division could address short term rentals. So they've been working on that, uh, for a substantial period of time, but trying to get this next project booted up as we are trending toward the end of the short term rental project. Um we're looking to need additional funds. When we went out to bid. We found that additional funds were needed. To support a very high level of transparency that we were looking for in the objectives from the con consultant and also just Like most projects, inflationary changes. So free and Nichols has been selected, uh by the project team to lead the rewrite based on their qualifications and experience there, as you're aware, very, uh, aware of our comprehensive plan and also very qualified to manage this process . Um there are two primary phases proposed a diagnostic report that would include a general audit of our zoning and how it aligns with the comprehensive plan as well as additional Content. Uh, development. Edits to our current regulations and then implementation of those So as far as public outreach. We're looking at a dedicated steering committee that would work over 19 months. Seven meetings with PNZ, and there's also a joint workshop with PNC and council built in for a lot of public input. Um we'd be coming back to you with a steering committee recommendations of this project moves forward. It would also require budget requests to be made the next two fiscal years. So with that this is the Project budget as it stands the consultant contract Legal Review , which is through a separate contract technology implementation, uh that we're funding to again, make it more transparent and user friendly and then administrative costs. As a percentage of the total. And so with that we are Um, requesting to move forward with this project. It is an item on the consent agenda. That's the end of my update, and I'm available for questions you might have. The consultants are also here. Thank you, Christina. Any questions? Christina just for clarification. The majority of the additional money is for that outreach thing, just making sure outreach piece and I just want to make sure that that is stated over and over again that that that's really what that's based for the rewrite itself could likely be accomplished with the money that we have. It's the additional public outreach that takes a lot of time and effort and, uh, requires additional funding. Um, explain the steering committee. The steering committee, uh, would be appointed. We hope with subject matter experts, people that are using the ordinance to give us direct feedback on how this is going to impact their day to day lives. Good. Ok, thank you. Everybody. Good. All right. Thank you. Great. Thank you. OK, Item five. Discussion and direction regarding rules and decorum policy for public meetings. Marin City Council. We have some informal policy statement on the sign up and on our general rules, but we have never adopted a formal policy. And so we just wanted to visit this with you and see if you want to do that. If you do want to do that, we'll bring back a resolution based on your direction. I. I want something in writing. Black and white, where I could look at So we suggest that we have a policy statement to lay out that we intend for our chambers to be a limited public forum and that we're meeting for the defined purpose of conducting the city's business, and we do welcome public input related to the limited purpose, but we also want to conduct ourselves in a businesslike manner and respecting the citizen's time and taxpayer resources and reflect our excellence by conducting the meetings in a respectful and professional manner, and we also Ask the people that participate in our meeting show the same level of respect and decorum and the more adopt the rules in accordance with the direction. These are viewpoint neutral rules that apply to everyone, regardless of the content or viewpoint of their message. And if people, um , are unable to abide by the council's expectations for conducting themselves in the chambers than we have alternative ways for them to communicate with you, which is by email to city At plano.gov. So here's um, some options that we could incorporate into a policy and, um, I do think that you guys have been consistent about saying that you do want to allow the public comments even though we're not required by law to do that for public, just general comments. Um and also it's an option to just temporarily suspend while at Davis, but I think from what you've told me as we've worked, um over time on this, that you want to go ahead and have comments. Um Do you wanna provide any further direction on that about how you want to go about that? Yeah I, uh like II. I would say at this point because of the confined, you know, the space that we have here and a limited resources unlike we have at, uh Thank you, unlike we have at the municipal center that, uh to continue to have the general comments but have it via zoom, which everybody has access to, and, uh, still allow them to speak. Uh, it would be, I think, probably even More likely we get more comments because people will be able to do it from the comfort of their home rather than sit here and wait till they enter a meeting. So that's that's what I'd recommend for us to move forward with. I like to see that, um as a potential for even beyond, um, the time that we're currently in Davis Library. Um, and come up with some type of Um Uh, Structure in which that could be, um uh, the type of Uh, public comment that we will allow I think By doing this it at the library here for the time that we're here will give us a good idea how effective it is, and then Maybe a month before we head back to City Hall. We? We can, uh, revisit this and see if not, this wasn't an idea that we would either do permanently or go back to what we've been doing. OK? Um, Council. We seem to get a lot of comments regularly. Now that really aren't within your purview of the city business and things that you can Actually do something about because we get things about geopolitical, Um, school district and other forums so You could. If you want to limit comments to city business that is within your purview, and we can refer speakers with other items that don't Affect you to the local state or US representatives or agencies that can assist with their issues of concern. Do you want to do that? I would love to do that. It just whether or not we can, um Help help them kind of get educated at that. That's really all that we're really allowed to hear. It that we can do anything about. But uh, I. I think it'll take a while before Um I think comments of public interest will be directly associated with city business, so we'll just have to continue to help. Educate them along the way. I. I also agree, II I one of the concerns I have is, um public comments made specifically on agenda items, so whether or not that should be restricted. So II. I personally believe that If there is Uh, no relation or very far relationship to what is on the agenda item when the public comments made that there should be some type of, um, restriction on How much time they can take and you know, and whether or not they're, um they're allowed to make those comments during the time of those agenda items does that make sense? Thank you, Mayor. I also support doing this. I think everything, uh, on this slide. Uh uh, You know, Uh uh. Other than the first bullet point which I think we kind of talked about. Aside from that first bullet point, I. I would support everything on here, uh, on the prohibit slash limit signs. Um Historically, I think we've allowed people to come in with kind of small, You know, signs who are sitting, uh, sitting in the audience that might say something, you know, like next meeting, we might have homes, not hotels on one side property rights on the other. You know, we've historically allowed that I wouldn't want to ban that. You know, as long as it's a small sign, that's not blocking anybody else's view. But aside from that first bullet point, and that little caveat, I think you know all of this looks good so we can stay focused on city business and have decorum at meetings. I'm supportive of all the bullet points on this line. Council member Homer The rival there. Good. OK I'm also supportive. And I also, um just wanna remind people that we're accessible by email and available to meet in person. And when someone does come to public comments, we are not allowed to respond. We can just hear what you have to say so you actually can engage in a conversation with us If you so wish outside of, um this forum, so I, I would be supportive as well. Councilman Williams. Uh, thank you. I'm also, uh, generally supportive, except for the first bullet, as Councilman Ricardelli pointed out as well as I agree with 8.5 by 11 signs. Um I don't think that's disruptive. Similar to what we do for the audience right now. That's size. Yeah. Some council the other aspect of banners and props. Are you OK with banning banners and props But removing the sign of it for that defined piece that we already I think we already have. Council member Smith. Thank you. Yeah. Great point. That's what I can say. I I again, I think a small sign, especially it's expression of free speech. You know, you're you're promoting your opinion, as and it usually is, Uh, more confined to when we really have a Wide wide interest . Uh uh, Agenda item there, so I wouldn't have any problem with that, Uh, I do Still, I'm still in favor of the, uh, public comments. Uh, as I stated being on, zoom, not I, uh you know, you know, or prohibited entirely . Uh and I think is, uh, a deputy mayor had mentioned that even when I look at that moving forward, uh, the mayor made a good point is, let's see how it goes here because we got a good trial period 56 months and then bring it up, and we make a recommendation at that time because we're talking about, uh, now Putting together firm and written, uh, rules of conduct that we really kind of hadn't had, Uh, before. Uh, we've kind of had to had to I guess, Uh uh, implement things as things came up that we, uh we haven't had hit us before. So now we have a black and white It makes it easier for the public to understand as well as you know, for us to work with. So Yeah, I'm really good, uh, you know, with, uh, with everything, it's like seven instead of prohibit just to move it to a electronic format. And uh, I agree with everything we have here. I do like specifically having the signs limited to 8.5 by 11 1 of the issues, though I do have is with the public meeting being solely done through Zoom. And because we do have some that are technically, some of our citizens are technically challenged. So I'd like to see if there is a way that we can have a separate area within the Davis Library. I'm not sure where, but it'd be something to think out. Logistically down the line if someone wants to Again appear. In a public comment, but we haven't isolated in another part of the building. And make it easy for them to at least provide that comment. I hate to be able to limit them just because they don't know how to use zoom or teams or whatever else is being used. All right. Well it sounds like the majority it sounds like the majority wanna do Zoom, correct, OK? That's true. So you've got some guidance there, and we can, uh We have another slide. Oh, Do you wanna? These are some other suggestions that have been, um, brought up? Over time limit comments to Plano residents or, you know people who manage own work at Businesses in Plano. Uh, Just for public comments because obviously you have much Wider array of people that come just with agenda items. Um Prohibiting the personal attacks and insults if they have nothing to do with the policy issues or official city business. Um which I think is taken care of, just by the fact that you're limiting to city business and, um, require that comments address the City Council as a whole. And prohibit offensive, vulgar, profane in intimidating, threatening type of remarks. Period or in the event that they disrupt council meetings. Well, I would agree with all of them. But if they're indefensible, then that would be a problem. For the city. So if in fact One of those autumns. Would not would violate a first Amendment right then I'd be concerned about applying those To An ordinance so that that's something we need from you to. To give us feedback on whether or not it's allowable or UN Allowable to the First Amendment. Yeah. Um well, we could start with the first slide and also things that cause disruption to the meetings. I. I think the fact that right now we're agreeing that zoom is a is the option. Maybe some of these other restrictions could wait because I mean zoom itself is pretty contained by itself. So we may come back, you know in a few months and decide Re evaluate what else we need to put in place. And Brian. OK with that, OK? And this is just some of the things that we will Be using for enforcing rules, which is calling. This is stuff we already do. But call a point of order issue a verbal warning if a speaker does not cease the violation will forfeit the remainder of the time we will cut the mic or cut the camera for Zoom. Provide an alternative option for comments, which is emails and the next two Don't really apply if we're doing by zoom, so I think we'll be fine. Mayor and council. One of the things I wanted to reiterate, was that the cutting the mic Three minutes. Um you know, in in consultation with some of our advisors Or whatever that time frame is, is critically important that everybody have the same amount of time. Um, regardless of content, the same amount of time. Uh and what we'd like to start moving to is an element of even though it may be something that we passionately agree with, um or somebody that we greatly respect or somebody that has the most urgent issue that three minutes is three minutes or two minutes or two minutes, and that the microphones or the zoom gets cut at that time, so that we're applying that equally to everybody. That is, uh, that is speaking. I. I know that that's kind of a hard line. But it's a fair line and, if applied equally gives us greater ability to make sure that we are applying that fairly and equally to everybody that comes in in front of council. And so one of the things we'd like to do is have the have the authority to go ahead and stop the stop the presentation at that three minutes, no matter what, that once the three minutes is done, and that time timer goes off. Even if they're trying to wrap it up. We cut that cut that, um, that presentation at that moment because we think that that's fair and that's equal and people can't adjust to it. We've We've been very accommodating. And I think that the issue with accommodating is where do you stop? And it becomes a harder challenge. Um as you go forward is it's not truly three minutes. It's actually three minutes, plus whatever time So, uh, it's that cutting the time is an important feature that, um, can be done administratively. It can be done by staff. Um but we would need that direction from council if you were comfortable with that direction. You know, Mark I. I think that's great. Uh the only two caveats I've put in there is number one, and I'm sure we do is we make that announcement at the beginning, so people aren't surprised. Uh and number two. Lisa keeps doing the great job with the 20 seconds. 30 seconds. Whatever we do ahead of time to say 20 seconds, uh, that that would be great And then also it's not just Three minutes it sometimes depending on how many people have the mayor might make it two minutes so, But whatever the time frame is so I, I think that's great. I'm grieving on that Shelby Uh, I was gonna touch on that as well. Thank you that sometimes when we have, uh, a lot of speakers, we trim the time to two minutes or 90 seconds. A lot of people come timing what they have to say for three minutes and we catch them a little bit off guard. When we shorten it, I would advise giving a little bit of grace when we cut the time to two minutes or some less lesser time than three minutes. Um because they may not be able to adjust that well on the fly. I. I think the applicant the application of Grace is the hard piece Councilman. So IIII. I respect that and everything else. I. I think one of the things that we could possibly consider is announcing the time and then maybe even taking a, uh, a five minute recess to allow people to reconfigure their their talking points. Um I would rather do that and then have that hard cut off because then again applied equally, and we're not worried about what Grace looks like to one person versus the other. So, uh, for us. I think having that and having that Ability. Um is just the fairest and most equitable way of going about that, but that that would still be my recommendation. Julie. I I agree with that. I also just wanted to Point out that oftentimes after a speaker comes the following day or evening, we will receive their notes in an email so that we're able to read over them again. So if for some reason we did miss the very end or they didn't get up all of their points in it. It is a way that we're able to, you know, reflect back on them and Get anything that they might have had to cut off at the end. Anthony Thank you, Mayor. Just a quick practical suggestion toward Council member Williams point about, uh, cutting down the time of people trying to adjust their comments. It may be helpful to add a one minute warning to our our repertoire that I think currently includes the 22nd. Maybe a 32nd. I can't remember Warning. But if people knew they've got one minute left, and you know it's time to move on to their summing up comments. Well Miss Henderson is very talented. And so I would I Sorry to add to you. I would ask, Uh, Lisa, if it's possible To add a one minute in addition to the 32nd Um, it could be challenging because I'm doing multiple things and on zoom. It does take a little bit longer to get someone shut off, but we have switched to the 4 P.m. cut off. So we know at the beginning of the meeting, how many speakers were going to have so at the beginning of the meeting? It's Lot of Everyone's gonna have two minutes and they have the length of the meeting to adjust their their comments. So that may be a solution. If that's administratively challenging, I think you already have so many irons in the fire during public comments. Uh I don't want to make it harder than it needs to be so I'll I'll withdraw that suggestion. Thank you. Well I needed to sensing consensus around that from an administrative perspective. Just one quick comment, Um Most of us have campaigned before I've been in situations where we're at a forum and we have time to allotted amount of time. I don't know if there's anything technical they can use. That is a clock to keep Lisa from having to. You know where you can just You can see your time. I personally find that very helpful and that would be a fair way to treat everyone. Podium in in in in the chamber. It's going to be different when we get back in the chamber. There's gonna be a new system, which I believe I could be. Off guard, but it's like can be on the big screen. So Lisa, I think if on zoo wouldn't it be possible to put a clock right next to the person's face. You know, having two screens, we can look into it. You know the judges do that to us all the time. They have this whole screen up with the zoom on zoom with the clock right next to us, so that we have to make sure that we don't go over our time, so that we'll we'll look into that technology. But thank you, Counsel for the consensus around the support for doing that, I. I think that that will make it more consistent. And like I said, more fair to everybody, So thank you for that. Next item, Uh, item, six consent and regular agendas. Any item, Uh, Council member would like to remove Mayor I'd like to remove for individual consideration item B. OK? And Council Adams for discussion, uh, on future agendas. Action. All right. Will take a, uh 30 minute break and resume the regular meeting at seven. Yes. I . I I'm. OK? Is that what Hey, Paul. Do we have any napkins or anything like that? Something for a little bit of condensation. You know. Oh, thank you. That Oh, OK. Thank you. Yes. Yeah, a lot. Long period. Uh, you know, I now declare that the Plano City Council is reconvened in open session that all members are present. We begin tonight's regular meeting with the invocation, led by Pastor Day Young with West Plano Presbyterian and the Pledge of Allegiance in Texas pledge. Please surprise OK? Well, it's been about a year since I last came to pray for the beginning of the service. And I, uh, not the service. The council meeting , and I'm sure it's been a top of your conversation about the, uh, the clips and I was just wondering, looking at this little microphone here at the tip. It's the size of a maybe planet Earth. And the sun is the size of this room. So we're grateful today for the invitation of the universe to see and witness what we have seen this afternoon. Let us pray. Oh, God. We are lost in wonder and awe this afternoon by total Eclipse. Realizing how small we are as the sun, the moon and our planet Earth. Were in perfect alignment. For a brief moment We forgotten our division strife and warring Joined by our curiosity and wonder. That binds us together as human family. We are grateful in our hearts are filled with awe. From this place of unity and shared humanity. We also realize how fragile life can be. And at the same time how beauty and the power of life holds us together. Maybe. From this place of compassion and unity. And the power of life. The conversation. We have the decisions we make the policies make and people we serve. Come from these places. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands One nation under God with liberty. For all Honor the Texas flag. I pledge allegiance to the Texas One state under God. One and indivisible. Be seated. Thank you, Pastor Young. Thank you very much. Reverse item on the agenda is consent agenda. The consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically, non controversial items may be removed from this Agen agenda for individual discussion by a council member, the city manager any citizen, the presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests. Mr Mayor, a move we approve the consent agenda. With the exception of item B for individual consideration. Second Thank you. I have a motion by council member Horn and a second Council member Ricardelli. With the exception of item B. All in favor. Raise your hand. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item B. IBRFQ number 2023 dash. 0398 B for the zoning ordinance rewrite for the Planning Department to freeze the nickels in the amount of $996,300 in authorizing the city manager to execute all necessary documents. Council Mayor Horn. Yeah, Mr. Mayor. Um, thank you for this time. Um I understand the need and the reasoning behind what we have to do here. Of course, When our last plans were developed, they were back in 19 eighties, when we looked at our subdivision ordinance and our zoning ordinance, and at that time we had a lot of land. That was green space. Now we're a mature city, and we need to focus on redevelopment and do that smartly. My concern are a couple fold. I have two fold. Actually one is the price that we're looking at here. That is a lot of money to be looking at Ordinance and looking at the rewrite of zoning and Subdivision ordinance. I understand a lot of that will be going to outreach, which we invite the entire public to come out and give their opinions as to what they'd like to see. But I voice a concern about that. And the second part about this is the steering committee that we're looking at. I think that this is going to have to be, uh, a much smaller steering committee than we had on the comprehensive plan. But made up of those that had experience in zoning and planning and or development. So I think we need to have those in consideration as we move forward. Those are my two points. OK? Yeah. All right. I can respond. I think, um With regard to the price. I would just state that it is going to be similar to in length to the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee process. And so I think the price is also similar to that price. So um, that's my only comment there. But the steering committee, um It is. It's my expectation that we would be looking at people with experience. So I am aligned with the council in that regard. Right? Motion to approve. Thank you. And I'll I'll second that I did wanna just ask a question since we brought up the steering committee. About how the steering committee would be appointed. I think it was very fruitful for the CPR C process that every council member had two appointments. I think that would be we could perhaps discuss this at a later date, but I think that would be a great method. OK well, I, I think for this particular item, OK, so I'll just second approving is written. So I have a motion by mayor pro temp Prince and second by council member Ricard Dali to approve item B. All in favor of pre raise your hand. OK, motion passes 8 to 0. Next 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 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 Leading efficiency and may include a cumulative time limit. Speakers will be called in the order of the requests are received until the cumulative time is exhausted. Item number one public hearing and consideration of a resolution to approve the use or taking of a portion of city of Plano Public Park land known as Los Rios Park pursuant to chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code to approve using a portion of dedicated Parkland as temporary utility easement for the purpose of sanitary sewer improvements authorizing the city manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents and providing an effective. Good Evening Council. I'm Ron Smith, your parks and recreation Director Lisa. Thank you for Giving my presentation right there in those opening comments. Chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code does require a public hearing when land is considered for a taking. In this case, and in the other two cases you'll hear tonight. Uh land is being considered by North Texas Municipal water district for easements. They're requesting those easements. Item number one is a request by the district to use 0.65 acres of land at Los Rios Park. As a temporary construction easement for four years during Phase two Of the district's peak flow management improvements Project. The location of the easement is where the former golf courses maintenance building used to stand just north of the district's wastewater plant during tonight's hearing council will determine if the following two criteria are met. Number one that there is no feasible alternative to the taking and number two that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to Parkland. The Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the district's request and we feel the project meets these two criteria. The district also presented to the Parks and Recreation Planning Board on February 27th and received the board's support. Mark Simon, the district's assistant deputy of engineering, will present their case tonight. Right? Thank you. Hold on just a second. Let let me open the public hearing just a second. I'll open the public hearing. We do not have any speakers on this item. Well, you have Mr Simon. So he's on there. OK Yeah. Good evening council. So uh, this is related to the peak flow improvements at the Raleigh Creek plant. Um Is currently 24 MGD plant average, uh, average annual day and peak flow is 77.5 MGD when in the process of improving some, uh, parts of that facility to go first to 97 inch D and then perhaps long term to 120, If you recall we, uh, came with the site plan a while back, and that was approved, Um, for the impact of the, um No no impact of the flood area so In this particular case. Um we need a area to mobilize in, Um for some of the improvements that are there on the northeast side of the plant. So this shows the box there is the is the facility and then the red area is the temporary construction easement we're talking about. It's just, uh Little under three quarters of an acre. Um we have a temp, an existing permanent easement. Uh, adjacent to that. And what we would like to do is take the area that's currently mostly gravel and some concrete structure. Mobilizing that location. Um while we do improvements, um, in that little red dashed box there, that's UV Filter improvement area. And when we complete that work, um uh we would restore the site to a better condition than it currently exists. So this is what the area looks like. Right now. Um there's no trees will be impacted by this work. Um you can see there's kind of limited growth depending on how much, Uh, flex space gravels in the area, as well as the concrete infrastructure that's under underlying that area. So is this . Uh Mr Smith said. This is the requirements for chapter 26. And in our case when we did the evaluation of how we would mobilize for the work in that part of the plant. There was two things that we considered there's insufficient space within the boundary of the existing fence line, uh, to mobilize and keep the plant operating. And then if we were to mobilize, um, on our adjacent lot, which is a south, uh, West corner, um of that entire plot, Uh, we would have to move all of the construction. Materials to 14th Street and then down Los Rios and then back down that entrance road. And so the consideration there was that, um , moving that equipment and the materials. Uh, we just create a lot of additional traffic at that intersection of Los Rios in 14th Street as well as considerable amount of traffic. Uh, up and down Los Rios. And so there's, uh, to kind of summarize the planning that we went through, Uh, to minimize the harm we kind of evaluated what the mobilization area would be so that, uh, when we did the temporary construction area, uh we would not have to remove any trees and then we would provide a temporary screening around the mobilization area and whatever materials are stored there, uh by doing that, that will hopefully minimize the traffic and moving the Materials along the public right away there on 14th Street and on Los Rios, and then the site would be restored. Um what we'll do is come in and remove the construct the concrete infrastructure that's there as well as the flex space material and then reestablished turf. Uh in that area, and that's part of the cost of, uh Payment of the easement. And then, uh, there is a portion of it. Concrete infrastructure there that's required, um for drainage. And we would, uh, maintain that, um, for the purposes of meeting the Storm flow requirements. So this project in total for on the Row. That plant is about 100 and $46 million. This is for the two the second phase of the work there. We were hoping to start this project near September of this year. Uh, and it would take about five years. So part of that is in order to maintain, um The average annual day. Treatment capacity. We have to take very small pieces of the facility out of service at a time. And so it's kind of an extended duration a construction so that the impact is less you know, per per time, and then we hope to complete the project in and January 2029 or substantial completion with operation and then final completion with clean up by 2029. So in conclusion, um, the fees no feasible impact alternatives where we really didn't see another place to mobilize, Um either on our property or if we were off site, there would be a significant impact to the to the, um, traffic in the General area and then utilizing this space, um, that were requesting doesn't require any tree removal. Um is a location that was a previous maintenance facility. Um, for the go Of course, that was there . Um, we can screen the area, uh, to minimize the visual impact, and then at the end, we could restore it back to a better condition than it currently exists. I think with that I'll entertain any questions. Thank you Any any questions for Mr Simon? Go ahead , Rick. Thank you. Uh, OK, mark. I think the to clarify, uh, all the information for the key to this use in taking this is use. You're not taking this is coming back to the city, but it's gonna make it, uh, much easier for the water district to conduct the work that needs to be done by having this piece of land to use for the next four years or so. Right This is temper temporary construction easement only for the duration of the project, And typically when we do Uh, temporary easement. See whether you're on private property or not, we usually write into the terms of it. What the timing of it is, so that's something that we all have to, um, negotiate with the city of Plano. Great. Thank you. Thank you. Any of the questions. Oh so sorry. Go ahead . Did you say when you return the land? It'll be improved. It'll be. I mean, I'm curious. Is there an opportunity here or is there something you're gonna add to the to the property and is that the current area? Um because of the past use, um it can't really sustain vegetation. So we're gonna remove a lot of that material so that vegetation can be restored. Thank you. Mark. Appreciate it. All right. Any other speakers? All right, I'll close the public hearing, confine the comments to the council. Oh, sorry, I. I understand the need for the easement. But unless I missed it , though, it's to be a temporary construction easement. I'm not seeing any expiration for this or reversion. In fact, it says there would be no future action. So is this temporary or permanent? I'm not seeing an expiration. I think that the easement itself. I see Matt coming out. Uh, so Oh, Good Evening Council. I'm Matthew Yeager. Hm? Good evening Councilor Matthew Yeager. I'm the city's real estate manager. Um in this particular instance the way the typical language for ease men will be written is that it will terminate upon the acceptance of North Texas by the improvements that will be conducted in part of their project. Alright Is that reflected anywhere in the documentation we received because the resolution simply says that we approve the use or taking of the easement on Parkland period full stop. Sure No, sir. Uh in the future, there will be, um the actual easement language will be executed by the city manager. OK? Thank you. I will double check that that language is in there. Thank you. Basically this resolution just Approve it. And then the ultimately there's going to be another agreement that's going to include the expiration date of the easement. Is that what? OK so tonight you are, Um, speaking to the two findings that there is no feasible or prudent alternative to the easement and that all, uh due considerations that has occurred. All planning has occurred to minimize the harm to the park property. OK, thank you. Mr Mayor. I'll make a motion to approve. Thank you. A second. I think Deputy Beach Uh, I have a motion by Mr Ricardelli and a second by Deputy M. Uh, Pro TEM Two all in favor. The motion passes 8 to 0. Item number two public hearing and consideration of a resolution to approve the use of taking of a portion of city of Plano Public Park land known as Legacy Trail at Ohio Drive pursuant to chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code to approve using a portion of dedicated park land as temporary storage and a utility easement for the purpose of pre Preston Road lift station improvements located at 8015, Ohio Drive. The city manager or his designee to execute all necessary documents and providing an effective date. Good evening, Ron Smith Parks and Recreation This item. Is a request from the North Texas Municipal Water District. For 0.2, Acre, permanent easement and 0.4 Acre temporary construction easement for three years during its upcoming Preston Road Lift Station project. This is a hearing that is required by chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code. During this hearing counsel will determine the following two criteria. Number one that there is no feasible alternative to the taking, and that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park. Parks and Recreation Department has reviewed the district's request and we support it. We feel that it meets these two criteria and also the board or the district presented to the Parks and Recreation Planning Board on February 27th, and there they received the board's Support. We have representatives from the district here, and city staff remains on site for questions. Thank you. Open the public hearing. Go ahead, Mark. OK so again. This is, uh, related to some improvements at the Plano Lift station, which is an interesting name because the Of stations really done on Preston Road. But, uh So again, this is the chapter 26 criteria. So this, uh, will give you kind of an overlay of the of the general area so the hatched area is related to a legacy trail. Uh, linear. Park I guess the green belt there and the blue kind of highlighted area where the red line kind of dead ends is that's the actual Preston Road Lift station, and what that does is take flow from mostly west part of Plano as well as a little bit from Frisco, and we pump it all the way to Wilson Creek in Lucas. So the goal here is we are going to do some improvements to the actual lift station, increase the pumping capacity, uh, due to increased flows in that area from Legacy West and so parts Frisco and then we're gonna Rehabilitate. Um some of the condition of the existing pumps there, So there's um in the process of replacing. I guess some of the older equipment uh, we will Upsize, the current the newer equipment. This is a kind of a blow up of the site itself. The purplish area along the outside, there is temporary construction easement and, uh, kind of the features related to that if you look, um, working with the city of Plano staff were able to define the area such that we didn't impact the trail in any way. And then, um, the trees that are just on the edge. Instead of removing those we're going to protect those trees because they're right on the edge of the actual temporary construction meant Uh, And then the work that's gonna be done, um, is actually within the existing easements for pipelines that come in both from the district and from the city of Plano into that lift station, and then the other work is actually within within the actual lift station property itself. Now the green area in the upper right of the diagram there that is permanent easement or requesting in the primary reason for that is, um, the force main that will leave the Preston Road Lift station at that point in time is about 30 something feet deep, like 32 ft or something like that. So for us to access that line in the future. It's gonna require would require extensive amount of excavation. So in this case, we're requesting a permanent easement. So um, so they can align with, uh, the normal easement we would have for the pipeline itself. So again, this kind of shows, um the layout. The red line is an existing 1 21 4 name and we will talk about that in the next item, actually, And then the blue line is the actual Pipeline that we are going to. We would like to install. Um so these improvements kind of show the overall layout of how it will change from the current condition to what the future condition would be. So we're requesting the temporary ment to be about a little less than half an acre, but the permanent easement is actually just 0.02 acres. That's the again restating the requirements of chapter 26. So in terms of space constraints, there's really not sufficient space on the actual lift station property itself. Um but the position of the junction structure and the lift station property sort of prevents, um, valves from being located. Inside Um or trying to add this, uh, Junction structure to better manage the flow coming into the lift station. And then there's insufficient space. Um Properly construct that 121 Force main, um, just within The property itself. Just because of the size of the line and the depth. Um we need just a little bit more than we have. And uh, so its order to minimize the impact. Um Before being isolation valves on the park property and all other improvements on the lift station property. And then the four main isolation valves will be located in existing, so we're not actually asking for more easements. Um, for what? Ari, is there. And The relocation of those forest mains would be more disruptive. Um To the parks property. If we were to do that, outside of the property if we were to put the junction structure we're adding outside the property. To minimize the harm. Um we're gonna leave the trail open. If you look at the temporary easement or requesting it does not impact the legacy trail. Um or minimize the impact of trees. There's no trees to be removed on this pro on this project. Um we're gonna protect them on the edges of the tempo area and then the sturb areas would be restored to the prior condition or The estimated cost for this project is about almost $20 million. And this is again a project that we're targeting, Um , to start work. Um, later this summer, August, um, time frame, and it's approximately a three year project for the improvements. And this summarizes, uh, the no Feasible improvement alternative. The list station does have to be expanded to meet both, um current projected flows as well as future pro projected growth flows for that part of the system. Um the 121 for main, uh, needs to be replaced, Uh, to maintain reliable wastewater service for Cisco and Plano. And there's insufficient space on the property. And there's insufficient space to construct a junction structure. Um On the site itself, and then add those isolation valves and the reasonable planning to, uh minimize harm again, leaving the trails open, minimize the impact of the trees and then restore the any disturbed conditions. And with that, I'll entertain any questions. All right. Any questions for Mr time? All right. Thank you, Gon. Or close the public hearing. Line. The comments of the council. Motion to approve Thank you. I have a motion, uh by Deputy Mayor pro TEM two and a second by council member Horn. All in favor. Motion passes 80. Thank you. Next item. Item number three public hearing and consideration of a resolution. To approve the use of taking of a portion of city of Plano Public Park land known as Legacy Trail between Hitchcock Road and Sam Rayburn Tollway pursuant to chapter 26 of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code to approve a portion of dedicated Parkland as temporary storage and a utility easement. For the purpose of replacing an existing force main authorizing the city manager or his designee to execute all necessary necessary documents and providing it effective date. Ron Smith, your parks and recreation director. This item is a request from the North Texas Municipal Water District for 6.2 acres of permanent easement. And 7.0 acres for a temporary construction easement for 1.5 years during its upcoming 121 Force main improvements project. The new force main line will extend from the Preston Road Lift station to the 121 Sam Rayburn Tollway. Along Parkland identified as Legacy Trail. During the hearing council will determine if the following two criteria are met. Number one that there is no feasible alternative and number two that the project includes all reasonable planning to minimize harm to the park. The district did present this case to the staff park staff, and we feel that it meets these two criteria and also presented to the Parks and Recreation Planning board on February 27th and received the board's support. As was requested during this meeting by the Parks and Recreation Planning Board. Park staff will work on cleaning up easements that can be abandoned back to Parkland, Uh, when those circumstances are feasible. We do have representatives from the district here to present their case and staff is also available on site for question. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. Go ahead and again, So this is a really long one. When we went over this with the park board, there's like 40 slides. So I'm gonna have to go a little quick if I'm gonna stay within the 15 minutes, but a lot of its maps so We try to cover the important stuff without going on every page. Um Again. This is the chapter 26 requirements. Um, so this is kind of gives you an overview of the map itself and the red line that's shown there. Uh represents, uh, the existing 121 for me now that that line, um has experienced some failures . Um, there was some litigation involved in the in the construction on that one. Essentially, um There was a Condition on the installation that resulted in some of the connection points. Failing um, at the pressures that were pumping out of the Preston Road lift station. So as part of our goal when we look at the need to expand the capacity of the overall system there. Um we only really had two options available to us to run a parallel line to the existing 121 Force main, or run another line and upsize that other line and so this is the alternative we chose, which is the upsize the diameter from 30 inches to 36 inches and find an alternative route. Um And so that's um what the goal of this project will be. So this is about, um 8000 linear feet of 36 inch for main, Um, that, um, we have reduced as much as we could the appurtenances that would be within the park. Those include mostly air relief fouls and the associated over control units. Um, some direct buried vows. Uh, they have isolation points. Those are and then pump out manholes for if that's necessary , and then we would abandon the existing force main in place. And then remove all the surface appurtenances that exists and then grout fill that line. So this gives you an idea of what the appurtenances look like, Um, the manhole you can see, there is, uh, typically just a concrete ring with a with a lid on top. The direct Barry Valve isolation is usually at grade. Um so that that is usually not a huge impact, and then the odor control canisters, which are required, um by TCQ. Uh, Typically we put a fence around them. It's usually a wooden fence. I think, um, if you've been over near, uh Los Rios in 14th Street, you can see one right next to the bank. That's on the southwest corner of that intersection, And this is, uh, pretty standard installation for us on many of our force means So the tree impact here is 82 trees that are eight inches and larger . Um those trees will not be replanted within the easement. And um, as part of the easement and, uh, negotiation with the city of Plano. We would compensate the city for damages. Um, All trees would be removed within the permanent easement and within the temporary construction easement. We try to avoid, uh, removal of trees as much as possible. And, um Otherwise we will protect them. So these are a bunch of maps here, so we'll go kind of quick, but, um, to the lower left of that diagram is where the Preston Road lift station is. And so you can see the Cro crossing there, um, on Ohio Drive that will be a tunneled crossing and this will be kind of important, um, as you'll see in the next diagram. This is one of the areas where we will have to, uh, impact the trail access. Um, you can see there's a number of trees there along that alignment, then we cross under the creek. And you can see there's a tunneled P in there, kind of shown by cross hatching that will also have a, uh, impact on the trail access and then and then we continue on so the green is kind of the alignment, the permanent easement and the yellow is the temporary ment. For the most part. The alignment follows razor road. Um. You can see there's a number of other access points there some trees that are impacted within the permanent easement and then other areas where we've avoided continuous temporary easement in order to protect groupings of trees. Um and you can see when we come. Uh we have another road crossing that we have to do that will be another tunnel access. Um, and part of the reason for the tunneling. Is that? Um you know, we don't want to disturb the traffic right of way as much as possible. And for the creek axis . It's better for us to tunnel under those as opposed to over pumping the creek around and then and then the environmental impact of the creek. So um, there are some benefits to that one of the benefits to us tunneling, um in those sections and then lowering the rest of the line to a deeper elevation. Um allows us, um, to reduce the number of surfaces appurtenances . So we're because we're not going up and down and up and down. We're gonna try to keep it at a lower elevation overall. And this shows another area here , where there is a significant impact for tree removal, um, within the permanent easement and on the edges of some of the permanent easement. Oh, in this area we uh encountered uh a city of Plano. This is not part of the Parks department. But it is the city of Plano facility would be crossing that. Um so there will be some impact to that, Um, you know, within the permanent, um, area. And then we would continue on Or Um there's another crossing there. Um again , I think, uh, that is a storm drainage access area that we're gonna cross under. And then Um, to summarize again. This shows the entire alignment. Um on the upper photo. It starts at the Preston Road Lift station and you can kind of show. Um, how it travels through, Um and you can see it mostly follows, Uh, Ra Razor Boulevard. And then it ends over there on 121. There's a portion of that that that's not impacting. Um much of the infrastructure at all is right on the edge of the edges of the park boundary. So again, restating the chapter 26 requirements. So we did evaluate a number of alternative routes. Um you can see there. The green one shows one of the alignment options, which is essentially parallel to the current, Um 121 for main, But that option actually results in significant number of trail impacts. We also looked at alternatives where we would go through those development areas. But um, after evaluating that the impact to Uh , you know, basically, residential access would be restricted in a lot of cases and we would have to reroute traffic around. Um there was a pretty significant impact in terms of routes that were available that could snake their way all the way up to 121 without either closing roads, Temporarily or permanently for, um di different periods of time or limiting the construction to periods of time such that It extends the duration of the construction so long that the people have to live with the road, constantly having small pieces out for longer and longer periods of time. Um and then so we did there's route study and then working with the Plano staff. We identified this alternative where we would more or less. Go parallel to razor Boulevard. Um so that it has less impact on the number of trails and then also re reduce the impact overall on the part. So we are some of the planning that we've done. We use light utilizing tunnels, um at White Rock Creek crossings, as well as some of the major road crossings on this adds cost to the project, but it um reduces permanent impact to the areas and it preserves trees. Uh, the disturbed areas could be restored to better condition and then, uh, we've minimized the trail impact when you look at the selected routes, we've been able to reduce it from 13 crossings down to three. And then and then we can kinda stage the work such that we don't have all the trail crossings out at the same time, we can do it in different areas, working with the city of Plano staff, and then the contractor can put that back in service. You know more quickly, um, because he doesn't have so many out at a time. And here's a couple of areas that, um, are unique. So right in the on the left there, Uh, that is the initial start from the Plano Road. Uh, um yeah, from the Preston Road Lift station. So you can see the trail kinda does like a wishbone. There We have to tunnel both under Ohio Drive and under the creek there, So that's an area we would probably , uh, construct a fairly deep, uh whole for us to put the tunneling equipment in That will result in us likely needing to close uh one or both of those trails at the same time. Um then. Shortly thereafter we will cross. Um The trail and you can see the blue line running through there. And that would require a crossing as well. Um this is about 315 linear feet. Uh, we do the shutdown over about a month period of time. Close the trail. Come back, Uh, do another pipe installation where we would close the trail again. And then, um They don't have to run concurrent with each other. They can be separate events. And then there's a more reasonable planning This shows, uh, the alignment along razor Boulevard. Um where we cross part of the trail. We would close a section of that to complete the work. And then, uh, we would put it back in service. This is about 200 linear feet of trail that would be removed and then restored and it would take about a month to do that trail crossing and these are similar incidents. You can see there's a crossing there. Um Looking north. Shut it down. Restore it. This is kind of an example of how trees that are on the edge of the easement or in the temporary easement. We would construct sort of a protective barrier at the drip line of the tree, um, to prevent, you know, construction equipment and workers from being in that general area, and this helps minimize the impact of trees that can be protected. Um, and it keeps, um It. It keeps the equipment and whatever from damaging the root line, and the trees die like two or three years later, and nobody knows what the impact was right. And so and then we have lowered the depth of the pipeline. From the goal there was to try to keep there from being a lot of elevation changes, and that allows us to reduce the number of surface features on the park land, um, such as the air valves and the odor canisters. So the cost of this project is estimated right around $16 million again. This is another project that we'd hope to start around the same time as the President Road lift station in August, And then, uh, Ward the, um Construction, maybe later in the fall would start and then projected completion around the spring of 2026. To restate some of the conclusions. So um, we do need to replace And Upsize, The 1 21 4 main Uh, we did a route evaluation and we determined that the proposed routes that are outside of the park land would actually have a more substantial impact on the residents in the area as well as traffic in the streets. And then we've coordinate with city staff to try to find the least impactful route, um, across the park land. Some of the things we've done to minimize harm is we've used tunnel crossings where it's appropriate to reduce the impact, um, both environmentally and to the trails and then where we can, um Lower the pipeline such that we don't have, as many surface features protecting trees everywhere that's possible and then limit your limit The downtime of the trails by, um only taking out portions of the trail. Um one at a time and the easement costs for this, Um The damages associated with some of the tree removal, um would be factored into the easement cost, um, under that's currently under negotiation with the city. And with that, I'll entertain any questions. I. I have a question. Hold on just a second. I'm assuming that on these 82 trees you said that you couldn't you couldn't save that You looked at taking them out and Replete moving them somewhere else, and that wasn't possible. We did not evaluate that as part of our process. Like To address that. The fact that mature trees the likelihood that they could be removed. Successful somewhere. OK, so all of these, the ones we're talking about are all very mature truth, OK? Now we're, uh six inches or 88 in On that would Radiation. Very, very challen. In a new location. OK, so the They're going. You're going to pay us for every tree that you replace. Or that you take out you said correct. Is that what you said? So we do have a tree ordinance that that, uh, informs us on that. I believe that's part of the negotiation that the city is having with the district at this time, And then would we be using that money to replace those trees? What we would do is we would use a portion of that money to plant or recover those 82 trees, probably more than 82, not necessarily in that exact location, but somewhere where our urban forester would deem as an appropriate place for new planting. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Yeah, I was concerned about those trees, too. So um, I wanted to know this this project all three of them. First of all, are they gonna happen at the same time? Are we planning on moving on all three of the ones that we've talked about today? Um At the same time like this year. Yes. Yes, OK. And second of all, um, the II. I take it that this is because, um, our current, um Facility or our current pipeline is deteriorated to the point where it needs to be repaired. Am I correct? Yeah The portions of the 120 line. Um Kitten. Let's say condition challenged. So the alternative is, um If you do a lot of, uh, repairs across the current alliance, it's not cost effective, and it also impacts the park more in that way than this way and the other alternative. The other issue is that even if we did that we still need additional capacity. Um for the line, so we would still be coming back with the need for additional capacity, whether that's a parallel line in the existing easements on the east side of the park or the same alternative here. So um, the other two were mostly temporary, and this one is permanent. So there is a reason because it's longer and it needs more maintenance or what? What is the reason for it to be permanent? So uh, it's a permanent easement because the pipeline is gonna stay within the property and, um Typically when we negotiate these easements we don't want, um, surface features in that area, so it protects our asset. I see. And, um, how long would it last? The line itself. So these are HD , Uh, these are fire FRP. So typically, we would design for a service life of 50 years, 50. How long did our previous one last Not that long. So the previous line was PV C. I see. So it's different material. So this one is stronger. Better. More improved. The $6 million man. Um so I think I think the difference. Uh, what I would say that the main difference is, um the previous line. Uh, The condition of the previous line. Uh Couldn't meet the service conditions of what the future pumping needs are. So um, it was a lower pressure rated pipe. And then also there were some installation issues with that contractor that resulted in Damage to some of the joints. Um some of that has been repaired. Some of those, uh, may have not been evident yet. So how long did the previous one last About almost 20 years from when the original 20 years. So this one we think is gonna last longer than that. Yes, OK. Thank you. Anthony Thank you, Mayor. So just a question for staff, either for uh, Director Smith or city manager Israelson. Um as I understand it from, uh, Council member Williams. Great catch on Item one. This is a two step process. We're we're We're approving tonight. Uh the findings that are necessary for this to go forward, and then the negotiation continues and ultimately results in an easement document that city manager Israelson signs off on is the I've got that understanding. Correct, Mr Yeager. Yeah. Uh Council member Ricardelli? Yes, sir. Um Given the size and the takings of the trees. You can expect to see this at a future council meeting. OK, Fantastic. Well thank you, Director Yeager, and I'm sorry. I guessed two people who might answer and guessed incorrectly. Thank you for giving me a promotion. Manager Manager Jager. I'm sorry. May may may. Maybe in maybe in the future anyway. So uh, I just wanted to ask that to make sure that that this is just like, uh, you know, the one that council member Williams made a great catch on where the temporary language wasn't in the you know, Tonight's ordinance, Uh for, uh, Item one. This is a two step Says, because ongoing negotiations were mentioned, and I wanted to make sure that This is coming back to us as a result of those negotiations, so Thank you for clarifying that. All right. Any other questions. Thanks, Mr Simon. Close the public hearing, confine the comments to the council. Motion to approve second. Have a motion by council member Smith. Second by Mayor Pro TEM France. All in favor. Raise your hand. Motion passes 80. Thank you. We This is this is May I? This is gavel light. Uh, Being there. No further business. We are German. So No. Well