[J1. ORD-2026-04-27 Continue the public hearing from March 23, 2026 City Council Meeting and consider an ordinance rezoning the property at 1503 Longneck Road from Single Family Estate (SF-E) to Planned Development 46 (PD 46); and take appropriate action.]

[00:25:05]

AND WE WILL GO A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER.

WE WILL JUMP INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

ITEM J, MS. COOK.

CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR MARCH 23, 2026, CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE PROPERTY AT 1503 LONG NECK ROAD FROM SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 46 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

MS. ROOS.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.

THIS IS A CASE YOU'VE HEARD BEFORE.

IT IS REZONING THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY WE SEE UP HERE ALMOST SOUTHEAST OF MONTE CARLO BOULEVARD AND LONG NECK.

IT'S A ONE ACRE PROPERTY.

THE PURPLE AROUND IS THE 200 FEET BUFFER.

WE DO HAVE...

THE ZONING HERE IS SFE RIGHT NOW.

I KNOW THAT IT SHOWS GRAY, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S SUBJECT PROPERTY.

BUT ACROSS IS ALSO A SINGLE-FAMILY ESTATE ACROSS THE STREET.

THE REST OF THIS IS AGRICULTURAL.

THE CORNER, 0.5 ACRE AT THE CORNER ABOVE THIS PROPERTY, IS PD46.

THE STREET ON BOTH SIDES OF 75 IS COMMERCIAL.

IT'S IN A PD, BUT BOTH CORNERS ARE ZONE COMMERCIAL.

AND WE DO HAVE A PD 37 THAT'S MULTIFAMILY, PD 29 THAT'S MULTIFAMILY, AND THIS AREA YOU SEE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY.

ALL OF THEM HAVE APPROACHED AND ARE CONSIDERING SOME SORT OF MIXED USE.

THIS PROPERTY OWNER, NOBODY KNOWS, BUT THIS CORNER PROPERTY ALREADY HAS TALKED ABOUT REZONING IT COMMERCIAL.

NOW, PD46 IS SPECIAL BECAUSE THEY HAVE A BASE ZONING OF C2, BUT THEN THEY HAVE EXCLUSIONS FROM THERE.

SO THE IDEA IS TO MAKE IT MORE NEIGHBORHOOD.

NEIGHBORHOOD RETAIL INSTEAD OF THE C2 BIG RETAIL.

I WILL BE HONEST THAT THERE ARE SOME USES THERE THAT WHEN WE DO LOOK AT A FULL ORDINANCE CHANGE WE PROBABLY SHOULD LOOK AT ALL THE USES THAT WE ALLOW BUT THAT'S YOUR ZONING.

AS WE SAID, I THINK THERE HAS BEEN SOME CONFUSION TOO ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PD.

SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY, OUR CODE DOES SAY THAT IT SHOULD BE TWO ACRES OR ABOVE IF IT'S A PD, BUT THEN THE VERY NEXT LINE, IT GIVES AN OUT SAYING COUNCIL CAN DO A PD ON SMALLER PROPERTIES IF IT MEETS THE COMP PLAN.

SO HERE, OH, SORRY.

HERE IT IS.

YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.

YOU HAVE TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED BEFORE YOU SPEAK, BUT LET HER FINISH AND THEN WE'LL GO SO YOU CAN HAVE YOUR FULL TIME AND WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

SO THIS IS COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD PER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE WAY COMPACT NEIGHBORHOOD IS DEFINED IS A WALKABLE, HIGHER DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD WITH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ALLOWED IN THERE FOR PEOPLE LIVING THERE.

AND SO THIS IS, I'M SORRY, THIS IS VERY SMALL, BUT YOU CAN SEE USES THAT WILL BE, I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING DENTAL OFFICE, COFFEE SHOP, AND NAIL SALON.

THOSE ARE NOT EVEN USES IN OUR USE CHART.

HOWEVER, THEY WERE EXCLUDED SPECIFICALLY.

BUT TATTOO PARLOR, SMALL ENGINE REPAIR, MORTUARY FUNERAL HOME, CHILD CARE CENTER TOO.

PUTS A LOT OF TRAFFIC AND CREATES ISSUES ON THE CORNER.

VAPE AND SMOKE SHOP, LAUNDROMAT, THOSE ARE THE KIND OF USES, OR DRIVE-IN OR DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT, GAS PUMPS.

ALL OF THIS HAS BEEN EXCLUDED FROM THE LIST OF C2 USES.

AND SO THE OVERALL EFFECT IS RESTRICTING USES THAT WILL CAUSE TRAFFIC ISSUES, QUEUING.

ODERS.

PRESERVING A LOW IMPACT, A LOWER IMPACT ON NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBLE, COMPATIBLE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.

CONCEPT PLAN IS IT'S 5,000 SQUARE FOOT.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

[00:30:01]

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY THE APPLICANT THAT IT WILL BE A STATE FARM OFFICE SUITE, MAYBE ANOTHER OFFICE THEY MIGHT SHARE AND RENT SOME SPACE BUT I DID WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THIS IS JUST A CONCEPT PLAN.

THIS IS NOT HOW IT WILL DEVELOP.

AFTER THE ZONING GOES THROUGH, IF IT GOES THROUGH, THEY HAVE TO DO A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

SO THE CONCEPT PLAN IS JUST AN IDEA.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME BACK WITH ALL THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING, EVERYTHING, AND THEN AFTER THAT, THEY WILL HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A SITE PLAN AND SITE CIVILS.

TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING FITS IN, MEETS OUR ORDINANCE, AND CAN BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTY.

SO JUST WANTED TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT CONCEPT PLAN JUST MEANS THAT'S THE IDEA.

THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO GO OVER $5,000 BECAUSE THE CONCEPT PLAN SAYS $5,000, BUT THEY CAN GO LOWER IF THE PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING DOESN'T ALLOW THAT WITH PARKING.

LANDSCAPING THEY MIGHT HAVE TO GO LOWER BUT THAT THEY CAN DO THEY JUST CAN'T MAKE IT 10,000 SO JUST SO YOU ALL SEE WHAT STAFF DID AS AN ANALYSIS WE LOOKED AT THE SURROUNDING ZONING AND LAND USE WE LOOKED AT IF IT WAS COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMP PLAN FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY ONE ACRE PROPERTY THERE IS INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY RIGHT NOW TO SERVE THIS PROPERTY AND THEN TRAFFIC OR ACCESS CONCERNS, WE WILL BE REQUIRING A TIA.

AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE APPLICANTS SAID THEY'RE DOING OFFICE USE.

BUT AGAIN, IT'S PD46, SO THEY COULD DO ANY USE.

THAT'S WHY WE ASKED FOR TIA.

AND BEFORE WE EVER LET ANYONE BUILD ANYTHING, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THE TRAFFIC IS NOT.

CREATING AN ISSUE FOR THE COMMUNITY AROUND IT.

ENVIRONMENTAL FLOOD CONSIDERATIONS, I MEAN, THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW THE RULES, OUR RULES, AND SO THEY WILL BE ONLY ALLOWED TO CONSTRUCT WHAT MEETS OUR RULES.

SO THAT'S WHY STAFF IS COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL BASED ON A LAND USE DECISION.

SO RIGHT NOW IS COMMERCIAL LAND USE OKAY AT THIS CORNER BASED ON THE PLANNING BEST PRACTICES.

EVERYTHING AROUND HERE IS GOING COMMERCIAL.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL OF LOW INTENSITY IS PROBABLY THE BEST WE WANT AT THIS POINT.

BUT LIKE I SAID, THAT'S WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL.

AND SO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED, AS YOU CAN EITHER APPROVE AS REQUESTED, APPROVE THE REQUEST WITH CONDITIONS, OR DENY THE REQUEST.

QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.

YOUR TIME.

SO FIRST, THERE IS A SECOND ORDINANCE IN REGARDS TO THE MINIMUM ACREAGE WHERE IT SAYS A SPECIFIC FINDINGS IS MADE THAT ESTABLISHES THAT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A STRATEGIC FOCUS AREA, A SPECIAL PROJECT, OR ANY OTHER PURPOSE.

SO THERE WILL BE A FINDINGS THAT HAS TO BE MADE TODAY OFFICIAL FOR THIS.

FURTHERMORE, SOMETHING THAT WHEN I BROUGHT TO YOU, YOU HAD SAID I WAS RIGHT.

WITHIN OUR PD, IT STATES CLEARLY CONCEPTUAL AND DEVELOPMENT PLAN ARE REQUIRED.

DURING THE REVIEW AND PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL REQUIRE, NOT MAY, SHALL REQUIRE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS A DETAILED SITE PLAN.

IT ALSO GOES ON TO CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT EACH OF THOSE PLANS SPECIFICALLY REQUIRE.

SO THE THINGS THAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD ASKED FOR ARE ACTUAL EITHER ITEMS THAT ARE AUTOMATICALLY INCLUDED, SUCH AS THE TOPOGRAPHICAL CONTOURS, THINGS THAT THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO ASK FOR BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DOES.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS A PLAN BROUGHT BEFORE COUNCIL.

AND ADDITIONALLY, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO BRING IT

[00:35:01]

TO NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL IS A ZONING THAT WE OFFER.

AND WE'RE OFFERING THEM C2, WHICH INCLUDES A DATA CENTER.

LET'S SEE, WHAT ELSE CAN WE HAVE ON HERE? PRIVATE CLUB.

WE CAN HAVE MOTORCYCLE SALES.

WE CAN HAVE, THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF LAUNDROMATS THAT ARE OPTIONAL.

EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY SALES.

THERE ARE A SERIES OF THINGS IN HERE THAT ARE HIGH-INTENSITY USES, AND ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU HAVE SAID AND THE STAFF REPORT, WE HAVE REMOVED THE HIGH-INTENSITY USES OF C2, WHICH IS COMPLETELY INACCURATE.

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LOOK AT THE C2 ITEM.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION, POINT OF ORDER? OKAY.

SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU IS HOW IS THIS, WHEN IT'S NOT MEETING THE ORDINANCE, WHEN IT'S NOT BRINGING BEFORE US THE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD HAVE, AND IT'S NOT MEETING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, HOW IS THIS SOMETHING THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING? TODAY WHEN IT'S OFFERING ASKING FOR ALL THESE THINGS SO I'LL LET THE ORDINANCE LANGUAGE I'LL LET THE ATTORNEY SPEAK TO THAT ABOUT BUT LIKE I SAID THE WAY I READ THE ORDINANCE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND COUNCIL IT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE ALL WE DO AS STAFF IS TO GIVE YOU THE BEST TECHNICAL ADVICE SO THE REASON AND YOU'RE CORRECT THAT WHOLE LIST OF USES FOR C2 WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS BEFORE IS VERY INTENSIVE.

HOWEVER, THIS IS A ONE ACRE PROPERTY.

SO STAFF MADE A JUDGMENT CALL THAT ON A ONE ACRE PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S NO DATA CENTER THAT CAN COME IN.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH PRELIMINARY PLAT, THROUGH SITE PLAN, THROUGH FINAL PLAT.

AND THOSE ARE TIMES WHERE WE WILL MAKE SURE WHATEVER GOES ON IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

SO IN THE SHORT PERIOD THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO FIX OUR ORDINANCE, WHICH I KEEP TELLING EVERYONE AS SOON AS WE GET THE NEW COMP PLAN, WE WILL DO A COMPREHENSIVE CODE AMENDMENTS FOR OUR SUBDIVISION AND OUR ZONING.

BUT RIGHT NOW WE'RE JUST PATCHING THINGS UP AND MAKING IT WORK.

SO WE CONSIDERED DURING STAFF ANALYSIS THAT YES, THOSE USES ARE.

VERY HIGH INTENSIVE USES BUT ON A ONE ACRE PROPERTY WITH ALL THE OTHER THINGS THEY HAVE TO MEET THEY CAN'T DO THOSE.

PD-486 IS ALREADY CREATED RIGHT? SO PD-486 IS ALREADY CREATED? SO WE'RE NOT APPLYING SO THE USES ARE EVERYTHING THAT'S DEFINED IN DETAIL IS ALREADY DEFINED IN PD-486.

SO THIS PROPERTY SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DEFINE THIS USES OR ANYTHING ELSE FOR PD-486 BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY BEEN DEFINED CORRECT? YES, SIR.

SO THE ONLY REQUEST WAS TO EXPAND PD 46 TO INCLUDE THIS ONE ACRE LOT.

PD 46 WAS CREATED LAST YEAR, EARLY LAST YEAR, I BELIEVE.

AND SO WE CAN ONLY ACT ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST AND THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WAS JUST TO EXPAND PD 46 AND PUT THAT ON HERE.

HOLD ON.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS? COUNCIL, COULD THIS BE YOUR SECOND? YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS.

THERE ARE SOME LETTERS THAT WERE PRESENTED.

CAN WE ASK QUESTIONS ON THOSE? OKAY.

THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS THAT I BELIEVE IS REALLY IMPORTANT.

THIS IS AN ISSUE WE DISCUSSED, VOTED ON, AND IT'S BEING BROUGHT BACK.

AND I BELIEVE IT'S IMPORTANT TO ADD SOME CLARITY AND FOR OUR RESIDENTS, FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES.

WE RECEIVED AN EMAIL TODAY, ACTUALLY.

AND IN THAT EMAIL THERE WERE SEVERAL THINGS.

IT SAYS THAT MR. PAXMAN WAS COACHED IN THIS PROCESS.

BUT THERE IS SOMETHING THAT, THERE IS A STATEMENT HERE THAT SAYS THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF PD46 APPLICATION AND EXPECTED APPROVAL HAS BEEN THE SINGLE GREATEST EXAMPLE OF OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT, NON-FEASANCE, AND DERELICTION OF DUTY.

WOULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT PLEASE? AND ABUSE OF POWER.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE HOW TO ANSWER THAT.

HOWEVER, I CAN SAY THAT THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT THE APPLICATION WAS INCORRECT.

I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT WHEN WE PEOPLE SUBMIT APPLICATION FOR PLANNING CASES,

[00:40:01]

ALL WE ASK IN THOSE APPLICATIONS, THE ONLY REASON WE ASK FOR AN APPLICATION IS SO THAT STAFF UNDERSTANDS WHAT THE REQUEST IS.

WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT THE FEE IS PAID AND ALSO THAT THE OWNER IS THE OWNER.

THAT SOMEBODY ELSE IS NOT CHANGING ZONING OR DOING THINGS ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY.

AND THAT'S WHY WE USUALLY ASK A NOTARY TO SIGN SO THAT IT DOESN'T LIE COMPLETELY ON OUR STAFF TO MAKE SURE BECAUSE WE DO IT THREE WAYS.

WE ASK FOR A DEED.

WE ASK FOR ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION IF IT'S AN LLC OR A COMPANY.

WE ALSO GO ON THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WEBSITE TO MAKE SURE.

THE OWNERSHIP IS CLEAR AND MOST TIMES WE'VE SPOKEN TO THE OWNER SO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S THERE SO IF ONE OF THOSE THINGS IS OFF IT IT'S I MEAN YES I TOTALLY AGREE NOTARY GOING WRONG IS ILLEGAL HOWEVER I'M A PLANER I WILL LET POLICE CHIEF TALK TO IT I DON'T KNOW WHO MAKES THE UH CASE AGAINST A NOTARY NOTARIZING INCORRECTLY BUT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE APPLICANT MADE THE APPLICATION WE DID THE NOTIFICATION CORRECTLY BECAUSE ON THE APPLICATION YOU'LL SEE THAT IT SAYS AS YOU BEAT NOT IT BUT WE MADE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTOOD WHAT IT IS SOMETIMES BECAUSE WE ARE DOING THIS ELECTRONICALLY PEOPLE ARE SENDING IT BACK SO WHEN YOU SEND IT BACK ACT.

THEY'RE LIKE, NO, NO, THIS IS OKAY.

SO THEY'LL SEND AN EMAIL BACK AND WE GET THAT EMAIL.

SO THAT'S WHY THESE KIND OF THINGS HAPPEN, BUT THEY'RE NOT REALLY PROCEDURALLY.

NOBODY IS PULLING ANYTHING OVER.

WE'VE MADE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T START WORKING ON IT UNTIL THEY PAID THE CORRECT FEE.

WE DIDN'T START WORKING ON IT UNTIL WE HAD A SIGNATURE FROM A NOTARY.

NOW, IT'S NOT ON US.

TO MAKE A DECISION ON WHETHER THAT SIGNATURE WAS DONE CORRECTLY OR NOT.

AND THAT'S ALL I WILL SAY.

WE'RE PLANNERS.

WE'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM A DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE.

AND THAT'S IT.

SO THAT'S THE REASON WE DID.

AND THEN THERE IS A CONCERN THAT WE ARE REZONING THIS IN A HURRY WITHOUT THINKING, WITHOUT DOING OUR DUE DILIGENCE.

THAT'S REALLY NOT.

THE CASE BECAUSE AND AND I UNDERSTAND THERE IS A LOT OF DISTRUST IN THE COMMUNITY I CAN ONLY PROVE IT BY DOING THE RIGHT THINGS OVER AND OVER AGAIN I AM VERY NEW I GET IT BUT I CAN ONLY SAY THAT THIS IS LAND USE RELATED THIS IS A ONE ACRE PROPERTY WE WILL MAKE SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY IS NOT THE IDEA IS NOT SPOILED THE OTHER REASON WE RECOMMENDED COMMERCIAL WAS IF YOU LOOK AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER FROM HERE, THAT IS DRIVE-THRU, MCDONALD'S, GAS STATION.

HAVING A HOME ON THIS PROPERTY IS REALLY SINGLE-FAMILY HOME.

THAT ROAD IS NOT GOING TO BE THE MOST FUN ROAD TO LIVE ON.

AND SO IF YOU LOOK AT IT, IT...

INCREASES THEIR PROPERTY VALUE.

IT INCREASES EVERYBODY AROUND'S PROPERTY VALUE.

SO IN THE END, IT'S GOOD.

AND THEN ALSO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IS AN OFFICE USE WHEN THE MARKET COMES TO THIS PORTION IN ABOUT 10, 15, 20 YEARS, THIS BUILDING WILL HAVE LIVED ITS LIFE.

SO IF SOMEBODY WANTED TO AT THAT TIME SAVE IT WAS APPROPRIATE, COUNCIL THINKS IT'S APPROPRIATE, WANTS TO COMBINE PROPERTIES, BUILD SOMETHING ELSE.

THIS IS ONE USE THAT WON'T STOP IT.

SO WHEN WE LOOK AT IT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND HOW NOT TO SPOIL THINGS IN THE FUTURE.

THERE ARE MANY THINGS WE'RE HAVING TO DEAL WITH THAT HAPPENED IN THE PAST.

WE'RE TRYING NOT TO DO THAT.

WE'RE TRYING TO LET PEOPLE USE THEIR PROPERTY.

WE CAN'T JUST SAY, OH.

DON'T USE YOUR PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING, BUT CAN WE MANAGE AND CONTROL IT SO THAT THAT PROPERTY IS USED FOR PROPERLY, THAT FITS IN WITH THE SURROUNDING? KEEPING THE FUTURE IN THE MIND SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THIS IS NOT A USE THAT WILL CREATE AN ISSUE AND THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY.

SO I'M NOT REALLY CONCERNED,

[00:45:02]

I'M NOT REALLY UNDERSTANDING.

OTHER THAN THIS, I'M NOT AWARE OF WHAT COULD HAVE UPSET PEOPLE, BUT I WILL SAY THIS IS WHAT I TELL ALL MY PHD AND GRAD SCHOOL STUDENTS IS.

NOT EVERYONE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH A PLANNER'S RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT'S OUR JOB IS TO GIVE YOU ALL THE FACTS, GIVE YOU ALL THE BACKGROUND, AND THEN GET BACK.

IT'S ON YOU ALL HOW YOU WANT TO, WHAT DECISION YOU WANT TO TAKE.

MS. GRACE, LET'S MAKE SURE EVERYBODY ELSE HAS SPOKEN BEFORE YOU GO BACK INTO IT.

I HAD A QUESTION REGARDING THE ORDINANCE.

I REVIEWED IT AND I LOOKED AT IT.

I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY BEING WHERE IT IS, ESPECIALLY BEING THAT IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTING THE CHANGE.

I'M NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF TELLING PEOPLE WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

BUT MY QUESTION WAS IN REGARDS TO THE ORDINANCE ITSELF WHERE IT STATED, WE SHALL HAVE THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT FULLY FLESHED OUT DEVELOPMENT PLAN IN THERE.

IS IT CUSTOMARY TO NORMALLY HAVE THOSE IN A...

CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

SO ORDINANCE, OUR ORDINANCES DO LEAVE A LOT TO BE REQUIRED, DESIRED, BUT YEAH, FOR A SMALL ONE ACRE PROPERTY, A CONCEPT PLAN AND A DEVELOPMENT PLAN LITERALLY ARE THE SAME BECAUSE IF YOU GO MORE DETAIL THAN THAT, IF ONE, IF WE CALL DO A CONCEPT PLAN, THEN YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THEY'RE GOING TO SHOW THE SAME THING ON A DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT THEY'RE SHOWING ON A CONCEPT PLAN AT THIS STAGE, WITHOUT ANY PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING.

THAT'S WHAT THEY CAN SHOW.

THE REASON, AND THIS IS JUST ME, I WILL TELL YOU, 30 YEARS EXPERIENCE, I DON'T LIKE ASKING FOR THAT KIND OF DETAIL AT A ZONING POINT WITH AN ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IF YOU TIE IT TO AN ORDINANCE, THEN...

THEY CHANGE ONE PARKING SPACE, WE'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU, WE'LL BE SPENDING $1,000 WITH PRINCETON HERALD, NOTIFYING THINGS, AND I'M NOT CHARGING PEOPLE $1,000 FOR A ZONING CHANGE.

SO, I'M SORRY, I'VE BEEN WORKING ON THE BUDGET, SO I'M KIND OF HURTING ON THE NOTIFICATION THING COST, BUT THAT'S WHY WE DON'T GO TO THAT MUCH DETAIL IS BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST ALL OF US.

ARE SPENDING TIME IF ITTY BITTY LITTLE THING CHANGES ON A CONCEPT WHICH AND THEY CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY'RE GONNA DO AT THIS STAGE IN DETAIL THEY GIVE YOU AN IDEA IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL BEFORE WE GO INTO THE SECOND ROUND QUESTIONS ALL RIGHT I THINK MISS TY WANTED TO GO AGAIN FIVE MINUTES IT'S NOT STAFF'S PLACE TO EXEMPT DEVELOPERS OR APPLICANTS FROM THINGS THAT OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRE, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT SAYS THAT PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL SHALL.

THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING PLANNING AND ZONING AND COUNCIL, THAT'S A DECISION FOR US TO MAKE.

AND THAT DECISION WAS ALREADY MADE AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS WHEN THEY MADE THEIR APPLICATION AND ONLY CAME AS PART OF IT, AND IT WAS PRESENTED AS SUCH LIKE THAT EVEN THROUGH THE FIRST ROUND.

SO THAT IS DEFINITELY A SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM WITHIN OUR STAFFING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.

STAFF CANNOT MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.

ZONING IS A LEGISLATIVE DECISION.

THAT IS OUR POWER.

ALL RIGHT, POINT OF ORDER.

CAN YOU ASK THE QUESTION, PLEASE? IN REGARD TO THIS ZONING, AND I AM FINE WITH COMMERCIAL.

IF WE'RE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS, I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR, IF WE ARE FOLLOWING THE PROCESS AND DOING THINGS THE RIGHT WAY, I WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.

IN REGARDS TO THE NOTICE, IT WAS NOT POSTED ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING WEBSITE UNDER NOTICES ONLINE.

AND I DID NOT SEE ANY NOTICE INCLUDED IN THE PACKET TO THE ISD, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY THE STATE LAW OR ITS VOID.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? SO DO WE HAVE EVIDENCE OF A NOTICE GOING TO THE ISD BECAUSE THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING CHANGED? SO THAT IS AN IMPACT TO THE ISD AND A NOTICE FOR THE HEARING IS REQUIRED TO GO TO THE ISD.

I MEAN, I HAVE MORE, BUT YOU

[00:50:03]

CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION FIRST.

YEAH, MR. LACKIN.

THAT'D BE, I GUESS.

KEVIN, IF YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR MIC UNTIL YOU'RE READY TO SPEAK.

I CAN SPEAK TO WHY WE, I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOU, STAFF HAS NO AUTHORITY TO CIRCUMVENT AN ORDINANCE OR TO GIVE ANY...

EXEMPTION TO ANYBODY.

THE WAY I READ THAT ORDINANCE WAS PNZ AND COUNCIL SHALL, BUT IT KIND OF THE WAY THAT WORD SHALL WAS USED WAS IF YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION TO MAKE YOUR DECISION, YOU SHALL ASK FOR THOSE THINGS OR YOU MAY ASK FOR THOSE THINGS, BUT THAT'S JUST HOW I INTERPRETED IT, BUT IT'S ON PNZ AND COUNCIL TO ASK.

IT'S SOMEWHERE, AND IF I READ THIS WRONG, MY APOLOGIES, BUT STAFF CAN ASK FOR IT IF WE WANTED TO AND WE DIDN'T NEED THAT INFORMATION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION LIKE I EXPLAINED WE HAD OUR REASONS WE COME GIVE YOU THE BACKGROUND AND OUR TECHNICAL BUT YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK FOR ALL OF THOSE THINGS AND I WILL LET THE CITY ATTORNEY TALK TO YOU WHETHER WE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR ALL THIS INFORMATION.

AND OF COURSE, I'LL GO WITH IT.

LIKE I SAID, THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CONCEPT PLAN, NOBODY ASKED FOR BOTH.

THEY ARE ONE IN THE SAME IN IDEA.

WE ARE ASKING FOR BOTH.

WE AND FRANKLY, IT WORKS FOR.

SAY 120 ACRE PROPERTY IF YOU'RE PUTTING A PD ON IT SO THEN YOU DRAW BUBBLES TO SAY CONCEPTUALLY THIS IS COMMERCIAL THIS AREA IS THIS SUB DISTRICTS AND THEN YOU DO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN WHICH IS MORE SPECIFIC BUT FOR A ONE ACRE PROPERTY UM YES WE MADE A JUDGMENT CALL MY APOLOGIES UM I MEAN THAT THAT WOULD BE WHY PDS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE MORE THAN TWO ACRES BECAUSE OF THAT.

SO THAT BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION.

IF THEY WANTED NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST ASK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? WHY ARE WE HERE TODAY WITH A PD THAT HAS C2 ZONING AS THE BASE THAT CAN HAVE A DATA CENTER? AND WHILE THEY'RE ONE ACRE, I KNOW FROM, AS THEY STATED IN THEIR LETTER, I DID GO TO THEIR BARBECUE TO MEET THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

I KNOW THEY'VE BEEN TALKING TO THE NEIGHBOR NEXT TO THEM WHO DOES HAVE THE LAND FOR IT.

I'M ALSO AWARE THAT A DATA CENTER HAS APPROACHED THAT NEIGHBOR.

SO THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE REAL POSSIBILITIES OF REQUESTS THAT ARE COMING BEFORE US.

SO IF THEY WANT OFFICE SPACES, AND YOU ALSO MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT A BAKERY THAT WAS NOT IN-HOUSE.

IT'S JUST LIKE THEY MANUFACTURE AND PUT IT OUT THERE.

THAT'S ACTUALLY MANUFACTURING ZONING THAT'S NOT UNDER C2, SO THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FOR THAT.

WHY ARE WE HERE LOOKING AT A PD WITH A BASE OF C2? WHY ISN'T IT JUST NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL? BECAUSE A PD IS SUPPOSED TO, YOU HAVE A BASE AND IT GOES UP.

WHY ARE WE MAKING A LIST OF TAKEAWAYS? SO CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY? THE PDS ALREADY EXIST, SO WE'RE NOT FORMING A PD.

SO YOU KEEP ASKING WHY DO THE PDS ALREADY EXIST.

ACTUALLY, THE PD WAS CREATED WITHOUT TELLING COUNCIL ABOUT THE TWO-ACRE THING, SO THAT WAS A VOIDABLE THING.

I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT THIS CASE THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

IF PD 46, THE ORIGINAL, IS VOIDED, THEN TONIGHT'S HEARING IS ALSO VOIDED, WHICH IS NOT FAIR TO THEM AT ALL.

SO AGAIN, WHY ARE WE NOT LOOKING AT IT JUST AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ZONING WHEN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE SPACES IS WHAT THEY ARE SAYING THEY'RE HERE FOR TODAY? SO AGAIN, THIS IS BECAUSE OUR ORDINANCE IS SPECIAL.

WE DO NOT ALLOW OFFICE USE IN C2.

WE DO NOT, THEY CANNOT DO A STATE FARM OFFICE IN C2.

THEY CAN DO AUTO USES BUT NOT A PLAIN OFFICE.

SO THEY CAN'T DO MEDICAL OFFICE, THEY CAN'T DO ANY PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, IT'S JUST NOT AN ALLOWED USE

[00:55:01]

IN NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

I'M GONNA GIVE IT TO MS. GRAVES BECAUSE SHE HAD A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION.

I'M LOOKING AT ANOTHER LETTER THAT WAS PROVIDED TO US AND IT TALKS ABOUT THAT TWO ACRE RESTRICTION FOR THE TIA AND THE ADDITIONAL DOWNSTREAM AND DRAINAGE IMPACT STUDY.

GIVEN WHAT YOU'VE SHARED WITH US AND WHAT'S IN THE ORDINANCE, ARE THESE REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT? I'M GOING TO LET THE ATTORNEY SPEAK TO IT WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE.

I DON'T READ THAT THESE ARE REQUIRED.

I READ IT AS YOU CAN ASK FOR THESE IF YOU NEED IT TO MAKE YOUR DECISION.

BUT THAT'S ME.

I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY.

I'M GOING TO LET KEVIN SPEAK.

YEAH, ON THAT ISSUE, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS FAIRLY EXTENSIVELY AT THE PLAYING ZONE COMMISSION LAST WEEK, A LOT OF THAT INFORMATION IS SOMETHING THAT THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION OR THE CITY COUNCIL MAY REQUIRE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION PROCESS BEFORE YOU APPROVE THE PD IT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED IT'S IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS AN ADD-ON YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT FROM A PLANNING STANDPOINT IT'S NECESSARY ON A DEVELOPMENT THIS SIDE THAT'S A MATTER OF POLICY BUT THOSE PROVISIONS WE'VE DISCUSSED YOU KNOW RATHER EXTENSIVELY LAST WEEK AS NOTED IS NOT REQUIRED THAT THOSE ITEMS BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE OVERALL PD APPLICATION.

AND WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHEN WE'RE, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN AND WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ASK FOR CERTAIN THINGS BEFORE A ZONING CASE, IF THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S A TARGET OR A MADE DEVELOPMENT AND WE MAKE THEM DO THESE STUDIES AT THIS POINT IN TIME BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ZONING ON THE LAND, THEY WILL WALK AWAY.

SO ONCE WE START SETTING THIS PRECEDENT.

THIS CITY THAT THIS IS HOW DEVELOPMENT GOES WE WILL LOSE ALL COMMERCIAL THAT IS THESE THESE STUDIES ARE GOING TO BE REQUIRED REGARDLESS AFTER THEY GET ZONING ZONING CHANGES SO THEY WILL BE REQUIRED IN THE PRELIMINARY PLACE BUT NOBODY'S GOING TO SPEND A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS AND THAT IN THERE FOR TEN USES ON THIS LAND IT COULD BE A MILLION TO GET THEIR COMMERCIAL BUSINESS BEFORE THEY EVEN HAVE ZONING SO THIS IS THIS IS NOT NORMAL IN THE CITY THIS HAPPENS THIS HAPPENS AFTER THE FACT WITH YOUR MAYOR SOMEONE SPOKE EARLIER ABOUT BEATING UP DEVELOPERS.

WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL HOW WE APPROACH THESE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS.

WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL WHAT WE ASK FOR AS A CITY.

WE DO HAVE TO BE CAREFUL IF WHEN THE INFORMATION IS PRESENTED TO US THAT THESE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE NEEDED, THEN WE ASK FOR THEM AT THAT TIME.

BUT NOT BEFORE AND WE HAVE NOT BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANYTHING THAT SUBSTANTIATES THEIR REQUIREMENT.

RIGHT, MS. TIDA, I'LL LET YOU FINISH UP.

SO AGAIN, THIS IS WHY SOMETHING LESS THAN TWO ACRES IS NOT SUPPOSED TO BE A PD, BECAUSE THESE ARE EXPECTATIONS TO THE PD ORDINANCE.

THERE IS A ZONING PROCESS AND A ZONING WITH A PD PROCESS, AND YOU DID NOT ANSWER MY QUESTION AS TO WHY IS IT IF ALL THEY WANT IS OFFICE SPACES.

WHY ARE WE HERE LOOKING AT A PD FOR LAND THAT DOESN'T MEET THE PD REQUIREMENTS? SHE ANSWERED THAT QUESTION.

SHE DID NOT.

SHE SAID THAT C2 IS ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE TO HAVE OFFICE SPACES.

SHE'S NOT ANSWERING WHY THEY JUST AREN'T GETTING NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL.

BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED THEM AT THEIR BARBECUE, THEY SAID IT WAS CITY STAFF THAT ENCOURAGED THEM TO GO FOR THE PD WHEN THEY COULD HAVE JUST GONE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL REGULAR ZONING THE WHOLE TIME.

SO I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THAT MEETING, SO I CAN'T SPEAK TO IT, BUT I CAN AS A PLANNER EXTRAPOLATE WHAT MY PLANNERS MUST HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT.

IF THEY WANTED A STATE FARM OFFICE, THERE WAS ALREADY A PD THAT HAD C2 ZONING, SO INSTEAD OF GIVING THEM STRAIGHT C2 ZONING, THEY PROBABLY THOUGHT, OKAY, THAT ONE AT LEAST GETS RID OF A FEW BAD USES.

YOU CAN JUST EXPAND IT INSTEAD OF HAVING A PD-46 AND THEN A C2 USE.

THE REASON THEY HAVE TO GO FOR C2 USE IS C2 IS THE ZONING THAT ALLOWS OFFICE USES.

NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL DOES NOT ALLOW OFFICE PROFESSIONAL.

USE AND SO THAT'S WHY STAFF PROBABLY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS EASY TO JUST EXPAND THE PD 46 THAT WAS ALREADY THERE.

NOW I TOTALLY AGREE EVEN TWO ACRES AS A PLANER MY

[01:00:01]

RECOMMENDATION IN THE FUTURE IS GOING TO BE WE DON'T DO A PD FOR ANYTHING LESS THAN FIVE ACRES UNLESS THEY'RE COMING UP WITH A REALLY COOL CONCEPT THAT'S SO DIFFERENT BUT WE CAN ONLY DO THAT ONCE OUR ORDINANCES ARE CLEAR AND CLEAN AND HELP PEOPLE.

TILL THEN WE ARE PATCHING UP.

WE'RE USING BAND-AIDS AFTER A SURGERY.

AND LIKE I SAID, I'VE BEEN HERE SIX MONTHS.

PLEASE GIVE ME ANOTHER SIX MONTHS OR EIGHT MONTHS AND WE WILL GET THIS GOING STRAIGHT.

BUT UNTIL THEN, WE HAVE TO TAKE CARE OF EVERYONE.

MR. WASHINGTON.

YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO THANK YOU, SHAI, FOR ALL THE THINGS THAT YOU'VE DONE SINCE YOU'VE BEEN HERE.

I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN HERE A SHORT TIME, HAD A LOT OF THINGS TO PULL TOGETHER AND CLEAN UP.

AND THE OTHER THING I WAS GOING TO MENTION, I AGREE WITH YOU, MAYOR ESCOBAR, THAT WE HAVE TO REALLY, REALLY BE CAREFUL OF HOW WE BEAT DEVELOPERS UP, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE NOBODY'S GOING TO SPEND THOSE KIND OF FUNDS UP FRONT, RIGHT, IF I DON'T HAVE THE ZONING.

BUT THE OTHER THING IS WE HAVE TO TRUST THAT OUR STAFF WILL DO WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO.

AND IF THEY DON'T, THEN THAT'S ANOTHER CONVERSATION.

BUT AT SOME POINT, WE HAVE TO ALLOW OUR STAFF TO ENFORCE WHAT WE HAVE IN PLACE.

AND THEN, MR. KEVIN, DO WE HAVE TO OPEN UP ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS? AS WELL SINCE IT'S A CONTINUATION WE HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING THE LAST MEETING NO NO WE KNOW WE DID NOT I'M SORRY WE DID WE OPENED IT AND IT'S STILL OPEN SO AT THIS TIME I'M GOING TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 7 37 AND UM I DON'T BELIEVE WE GOT ANY REQUESTS FOR PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO THE MEETING IT NEEDS TO BE IN PRIOR TO THE MEETING AND I DON'T HAVE ANY REQUESTS PRIOR IT'S WHAT OUR ORDINANCE SAYS AND WHY WE'RE ADOPTING RESOLUTION BLUE CHINS.

I DON'T HAVE A FORM FOR YOU, MR. HISS.

ABOUT 50 EMAILS, I THINK.

YEAH, THEY CAME IN TODAY, AND THEY HAVE TO BE TWO DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING FOR THOSE REQUESTS.

WHEN WAS THAT? OKAY.

IF YOU LIKE IT.

YOU CAN HAVE THIS ONE.

IS THIS, OKAY, SO YOU WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE, SO PLEASE SIT DOWN.

PLEASE SIT DOWN.

YOU WOULD NOT RECOGNIZE.

OKAY, PLEASE SIT DOWN.

WORDS ARE POWERFUL, AREN'T THEY? THE TIME IS 739, AND THIS WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AT THIS TIME, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

YOU ARE ON A MOTION TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2026.0427.

MS. DAVID GRAY SECOND.

[H. EXECUTIVE SESSION]

MOTION PASSES 4-2.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE TERMS OF CHAPTER 551 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE.

THE CITY COUNCIL MAY ENTER INTO A CLOSED SESSION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS THE FOLLOWING SECTION 551.071 TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE CONSULTATION WITH CITY ATTORNEY.

THIS WILL BE FOR 6TH AND LAGOON LLC VERSUS CITY OF PRINCETON, NORTH COLLINS SPECIAL UTILITY DISTRICT VERSUS THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

AND WE'LL ALSO BE GOING TO SECTION 551.076.

THAT'S THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECURITY DEVICES OR SECURITY AUDITS.

ALSO, SECTION 551.074, PERSONNEL MATTERS.

THIS WILL BE FOR CITY MANAGER SEARCH, CITY MANAGER, AND CITY ATTORNEY.

AND THE TIME IS 740.

THE TIME IS 820, AND THIS

[I. ACTION PERTAINING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION]

WILL TAKE US OUT OF EXECUTIVE.

AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.

YEAH, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPOINT CHIEF WATERS AS THE ALTERNATE CITY MANAGER FOR THE CITY OF PRINCETON.

MR.

[01:05:01]

STANTON, I'LL SECOND.

MR. JOHNSON, SECOND.

TAKE A VOTE.

ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 6-0.

CONGRATULATIONS.

[G3. 2026-087 Consider a final plat for Crossmill Lot 58X Block A for Banschbach Middle School; and take appropriate action]

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM K, OUR REGULAR AGENDA, STARTING WITH THE FIRST ITEM THAT WAS PULLED FROM CONSECUTIVE, WHICH WOULD BE ITEM G3.

G3, CONSIDER A FINAL PLOT FOR CROSS MILL, LOT 58X, BLOCK A FOR BENCH BLOCK, MIDDLE SCHOOL, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

MRS. ROOS.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL.

THIS IS A FINAL PLAT FOR BUNCH PARK.

IT WAS PRELIMINARY PLATTED AS A PART OF THE CROSS MILL SUBDIVISION.

CAN WE GET THE STAFF REPORT UP? THE WAY THE SUBDIVISION IS, THERE'S BROOKSIDE RUNNING THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT WITH SCHOOLS ON EITHER SIDE AT ONE END.

AND THE CROSS MILL SUBDIVISIONS AROUND IT.

AND SO PHASE ONE IS WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO DO.

BUT BOTH THE SCHOOLS, SORRY, G3 IS BUNCH PARK MIDDLE SCHOOL, IS TO THE NORTH OF BROOKSIDE.

THE REASON WE'RE NOT ACCEPTING INFRASTRUCTURE IS BECAUSE THE INFRASTRUCTURE DOESN'T COME WITH IT.

SO RIGHT NOW, THE TWO SCHOOLS AND THAT...

BROOKSIDE BOULEVARD IS INSIDE CITY LIMITS.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS AND IN THAT SUBDIVISION.

AND SO THAT'S WHY, BECAUSE THEY'RE INSIDE CITY LIMITS, WE CONTROL IT, GIVING THEM CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY IF THE ROADWAY IS NOT FULLY DONE.

IT HAS ALL BEEN, IT'S BUILT, IT'S JUST NOT, IT STILL HAS A FEW THINGS LEFT TO BE FIXED, WHICH IS WHY.

THE FIRE ENGINE CAN GET THERE.

WHILE THEY'RE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THE FIRE ENGINE CAN GET THERE.

THE ROAD IS THERE, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THAT FINAL PLAT.

IT'S JUST ONE THING TO GET DONE BEFORE THE KIDS HAVE TO START SCHOOL, AND IT'S JUST FASTER.

AND THEN, ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT? THERE'S NO QUESTIONS.

I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.

MS. TODD? SO, THIS IS ONE WITHIN CITY LIMITS, SO I WILL MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLOT, NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

I SECOND.

MS. DAVID-GARCE? SECOND.

MOTION PASSED.

WELL, HOLD ON.

SORRY, I'M MISSING A VOTE.

ALL RIGHT, CAN WE RE-VOTE? I'M GUESSING, YEAH, CAN WE RE-VOTE? CAN WE OPEN IT BACK UP, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 5

[G4. 2026-088 Consider a final plat for Crossmill, Lot 27X, Block 1 for Joyce Carrell Elementary School; and take appropriate action.]

WITH 1 ABSTAIN.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM G4.

MS. COOK? CONSIDER OUR FINAL PLOT FOR CROSS MILL, PLOT 27X, BLOCK 1 FOR JOYCE CARROLL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THIS IS THE EXACT SAME THING RIGHT ACROSS FROM BROOKSIDE IS JOYCE CAROL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

AND AGAIN, IT'S IN THE CITY LIMITS.

THE ROAD GOES THROUGH IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TWO, MIDDLE SCHOOL AND THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.

SO THERE IS NO INFRASTRUCTURE WITH THIS PLAT EITHER.

I MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL PLOT WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE.

SECOND.

MS. DAVID GRACE SECOND.

WE CAN GO TO VOTE.

ALRIGHT, MOTION PASSES 5-1.

[G5. 2026-089 Consider a final plat Crossmill Phase 1A subject to acceptance of Brookside Blvd.; and take appropriate action]

WE WANT TO TAKE THIS TO ITEM G-5.

THIS IS THE ITEM THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO TABLE UNTIL MAY 11TH.

[01:10:01]

YEAH, G-5.

YEAH, AND I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO TABLE ITEM G-5 TO THE MAY 11TH MEETING.

SECOND.

MR.

[G6. 2026-090 Consider a final plat for Whitewing Trails - Phase 4A-1; and take appropriate action.]

AVERY, SECOND.

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

SO TAKE US TO ITEM G6.

MS. COOK.

CONSIDER A FINAL PLOT FOR WHITE WING TRAILS PHASE 4A1 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

THIS PLAT IS A FINAL PLAT FOR THAT ONE PHASE WITHOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE BEING A PART OF IT.

THEIR WALK WAS, THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF.

WE WILL BE BRINGING IT NEXT TO YOU.

THEY JUST ARE NOT A PART OF THIS PLAT BECAUSE BY THE TIME WE PUT THIS ON COUNCIL AGENDA, THERE WAS STILL THE FINAL WALK LEFT TO DO, BUT OUR ENGINEERS HAVE APPROVED IT.

AND WE WILL BE BRINGING IT SEPARATELY TO YOU, THE INFRASTRUCTURE PORTION.

THIS IS JUST THE FINAL FLAT PORTION.

MS. WILSON, CAN YOU TURN OFF YOUR MIC? OKAY, FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU SAID THAT THEY STILL HAVE TO DO A FINAL WALK.

WHEN WE WROTE THE REPORT, WE DO THIS THREE WEEKS BEFORE IT COMES TO YOU.

THEY HAD THE WALK AFTER THAT BUT SINCE THEN THEY HAVE BEEN APPROVED SO WE'RE WRITING REPORTS THAT WE RECOMMEND SOMETHING BEFORE WE GET REPORTS CLARIFYING THAT IT'S GONE THROUGH SO THAT'S WHY IT'S NOT A PART OF IT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO RECOMMEND SOMETHING WHEN WE DIDN'T HAVE THE FINAL ANSWER SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ONLY THE FINAL FLAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE WILL BRING NEXT TIME OKAY G6 I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G6 FOR THE FINAL PLOT AND NOT THE INFRASTRUCTURE I'LL SECOND I'M MR. WASHINGTON SECOND I MOTION PASSES 6-0 TO TAKE SIDE AND

[G7. 2026-091 Consider a final plat Whitewing Trails Phase 3E; and take appropriate action.]

DO SEVEN IS GOOD CONSIDER A FINAL PLOT WHITEWING TRAILS PHASE 3E AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION THIS PLAT IS AGAIN THE SAME CASE WHERE? AT THIS POINT YES THE INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN APPROVED, BUT IT WASN'T AND BUT THE FINAL PLAT IS GOOD THEY'VE MET ALL OUR REQUIREMENTS, SO WE BROUGHT IT FORWARD AS FOR APPROVAL I'LL MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM G7 FOR THE FINAL PLAT AND NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

I'LL SECOND.

MR. WASHINGTON SECOND.

[G8. 2026-092 Consider a final plat for Eastridge Phase 8; and take appropriate action.]

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

LET'S TAKE ITEM G8.

CONSIDER A FINAL PLAT FOR EASTRIDGE PHASE 8 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

MS. ROOS.

THIS ONE IS A DIFFERENT SUBDIVISION, EASTRIDGE.

IT'S PHASE 8.

YOU ALL HAVE SEEN OTHER PHASES.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS JUST THE FINAL PLAT.

IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INFRASTRUCTURE.

IF NO QUESTIONS, I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM G8-2026-092 AS PRESENTED.

ARE WE CLARIFYING AS PRESENTED WITHOUT INFRASTRUCTURE? AS PRESENTED.

THEN I'LL SECOND.

YES, MS. TODD IS SECOND, SORRY.

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

[K1. 2025-086 Consider the reappointment of Larry Thompson to the North Texas Municipal Water District Board; and take appropriate action.]

LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT OUR REGULAR ITEMS. THE FIRST ITEM WILL BE K-1.

MS. COOK? CONSIDER THE REAPPOINTMENT OF LARRY THOMPSON TO THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT BOARD AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

YOUR HONOR, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM K-1-2025086, THE REAPPOINTMENT OF LARRY THOMPSON.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

MR. WASHINGTON, SECOND.

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU.

[K2. 2026-04-27-R06 Consider Resolution No. 2026-04-27-R06 authorizing an application for a grant from the Motor Vehicle Crime Prevention Authority Grant Program; and take appropriate action.]

[01:15:01]

STICKERS ITEM K-2 IS GOOD.

CONSIDER RESOLUTION 2026-0427-R06, AUTHORIZING AN APPLICATION FOR A GRANT FROM THE MOTOR VEHICLE CRIME PREVENTION AUTHORITY GRANT PROGRAM AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

MY NAME IS JORDAN HOOKS.

I'M A DETECTIVE HERE FOR THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE MVCPA GRANT.

THIS GRANT WOULD ALLOW THE PRINCETON POLICE DEPARTMENT TO EXPAND OUR EQUIPMENT AND OUR RESOURCES TO FURTHER COMBAT MOTOR VEHICLE RELATED CRIMES.

WE DO HAVE A POWERPOINT PRESENTATION AS WELL.

IT WAS ON THE...

MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T UPLOAD IT.

ALRIGHT, WELL YOU GET TO HEAR ME INSTEAD.

WE HAD A POWERPOINT FOR YOU.

I WORKED VERY HARD ON IT.

SO THE MVCPA GRANT...

IT IS A STATEWIDE PARTNERSHIP FOCUSED ON REDUCING VEHICLE THEFT IN BURGLARY MOTOR VEHICLES.

IT IS A CONCOCTION OF A BUNCH OF LOCAL AGENCIES, ATTORNEYS, STATE AGENCIES, AND TASK FORCES THAT HAVE COME TOGETHER TO TRY TO COMBAT MOTOR VEHICLE THEFTS.

THEY PUT TOGETHER A FUND THAT HELPS LOCAL AGENCIES GET EQUIPMENT THAT CAN LOWER THESE CRIMES.

THROUGH THIS GRANT, WE WILL BE SEEKING CONTINUED FUNDING FOR SIX BLOCK CAMERAS THAT WERE APPROVED LAST YEAR.

ON TOP OF THAT, WE'LL BE SEEKING SIX MORE CAMERAS INCLUDING A LIVE FEED POLE CAMERA THAT WOULD BE USED IN HIGH ACTIVITY AREAS.

WE ALSO WILL BE REQUESTING MOBILE VEHICLE TRACKERS, A VEHICLE LEASE PROGRAM, AND THE POTENTIAL SALARY AND BENEFITS REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE DETECTIVE THAT CURRENTLY HANDLES ALL OF OUR REGULAR MOTOR VEHICLE CRIMES OR ALL OF OUR VEHICLE RELATED CRIMES.

COST OF THIS GRANT IS A 20% CASH MATCH FROM THE CITY.

SO THE GRANT TAKES CARE OF 80% OF IT.

IT'S A REIMBURSEMENT GRANT.

SO WE PAY THE MONEY UP FRONT FOR THE EQUIPMENT.

WE'LL SEND RECEIPTS TO THE MVCPA, AND THEY WILL REFUND US FOR THE MONEY.

TOTAL AMOUNT THAT WE ARE REQUESTING IS $230,825.54.

THE 20% CASH MATCH VALUE OF THAT IS $46,165.11.

PIECE OF EQUIPMENT THAT WE BUY IS PIECE BY PIECE.

IT'S NOT $230,000 RIGHT UP FRONT.

WE BUY IT AS WE GO, AND THEN IT'S A QUARTERLY REIMBURSEMENT, SO WE CAN SPACE OUT THE PURCHASES HOW WE SEE FIT AND GET IT IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE FOR THE CITY FINANCIALLY.

BENEFITS OF THIS GRANT.

IT BEGINS AT FY27.

THE PROCESS IS EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

LIKE I SAID, WE JUST SUBMIT FOR THE GRANT.

IF WE'RE APPROVED, THEN WE PURCHASE WHATEVER ITEMS WE SEE, SEND IT OVER TO THEM, AND THEY SEND IT.

THEY SEND US THE QUARTERLY REIMBURSEMENTS.

THE MAIN BENEFIT IS THAT ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE USING IS EXTREMELY VALUABLE.

WE'VE SEEN IT BEING USED.

WE HAVE BEEN USING THE FLOCK CAMERAS, THE FLOCK CAMERA SYSTEM THAT WE GOT APPROVED LAST YEAR, AND IT'S HELPED US SOLVE CASES.

VERY QUICKLY, WAY FASTER THAN IT WOULD HAVE BEFORE HIM.

I HAD A GOOD SLIDE ABOUT A VERY SPECIFIC CASE, BUT BACK IN MARCH OF 26, ANOTHER CITY HAD A STRING OF BURGLARY MOTOR VEHICLES WHERE BETWEEN 8 TO 12 CITIZENS WERE IMPACTED, ONE OF WHICH WAS A PEACE OFFICER IN WHICH HIS GEAR WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN.

USING THE FLOCK...

VEHICLE IDENTIFICATION SYSTEM, NOT THE LICENSE PLATE READERS, BUT JUST IDENTIFYING THE VEHICLE BASED OFF A DESCRIPTION, WE WERE ABLE TO FIND THAT VEHICLE, FIGURE OUT WHERE IT WAS STAYING, AND EVENTUALLY TAKE THE TWO PEOPLE THAT WERE RESPONSIBLE INTO CUSTODY AND RECOVER SOME OF THE GEAR.

THESE SUSPECTS WERE USING...

FACE MASKS, GLOVES, AND THEY WERE SWITCHING THE LICENSE PLATES ON THEIR VEHICLE.

SO EVERY DAY WE WOULD RERUN THAT CAR TO HAVE A NEW LICENSE PLATE AND BE IN A NEW PART OF THE CITY.

THAT IF WE DIDN'T HAVE GLOCK, I WON'T SAY WE WOULDN'T HAVE SOLVED THE CASE, BUT IT WAS A INSTRUMENT, A CRITICAL INSTRUMENT IN US FINDING THOSE SUSPECTS AND TAKING THEM TO JAIL.

SHE SAID TO BE LOUDER.

SORRY.

ONE PART THAT I WOULD LIKE TO RETOUCH ON IS THE SALARY AND BENEFITS REIMBURSEMENT.

I THINK IT PLAYS A CRUCIAL

[01:20:01]

PART INTO THE PRICE OF IT ALL.

IT'S NOT ASKING FOR A NEW DETECTIVE TO COME WORK FOR US.

THE CURRENT DETECTIVE THAT THE CITY CURRENTLY PAYS FOR, WE CAN SUBMIT FOR THEIR SALARY AND BENEFITS TO BE REIMBURSED.

SO OUT OF THAT $230,000, A HEFTY CHUNK OF THAT, OVER 50% IS MONEY THAT WE ALREADY SPEND THAT WE COULD SEND BACK AND GET 80% OF.

IN CLOSING, THIS GRANT GIVES THE CITY AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND PROVEN INVESTIGATION TOOLS AT A FRACTION OF THE NORMAL COST.

IT SUPPORTS CRIME PREVENTION, HELPS SOLVE CASES MORE EFFICIENTLY, AND REDUCES THE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON THE CITY FOR EQUIPMENT THAT WE'RE ALREADY GOING TO REQUEST.

I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE COUNCIL'S APPROVAL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS GRANT AND GRANT APPLICATION IN THE REQUIRED 20% CASH MATCH.

ANY QUESTIONS? I KNOW A FEW OF YOUR CASES THAT WERE SOLVED USING FLOCK AND I'M A FAN.

I KNOW A LOT OF PEOPLE THAT'S PROBABLY NOT A GOOD THING TO SAY OUT LOUD.

BUT WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO SAFETY AND IT COMES DOWN TO SOLVING SOME OF THE CASES, MURDER CASES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THIS HAS BEEN AN EXTREME.

HELP FOR YOU GUYS TO GET CASES IN AND OUT.

SO WHILE I KNOW PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WITH THE PRIVACY ASPECTS OF IT, I THINK THAT IF IT WAS THEIR LOVED ONE AND WE WAS TRYING TO SEARCH FOR THEM AND THIS WAS THE TOOL THAT WE USED TO FIND THEM, THAT THEY WOULD SEE THEIR USE IN THIS.

I SUPPORT THIS 100%.

WELL, IT'S GOING TO BE A VERY GOOD PROGRAM.

I THINK IT'S GREAT.

IT'S IN THE AREAS.

I THINK THE COUNTY USES SOME OF THOSE IN PARTS OF THE COUNTY RIGHT NOW.

BUT AS FAR AS THE MATCHING GRANT, I JUST NEED TO ASK THE ALTERNATE CITY MANAGER, DOES THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE TO DO THAT? HAVE FUNDS FOR THE ALTERNATE I MEAN FOR THE MATCHING FUNDS IN THEIR BUDGET COUNCIL MEMBER DUFFENBAUGH SO AT THIS POINT IN TIME WE'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL TO GO AFTER THE GRANT AND SO ONCE THAT GRANT IS APPROVED WE HAVE WORKED OUT WITH FINANCE TO WHERE WE WILL GO AND WE WILL TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THOSE FUNDS ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO COME FROM THIS 230,000 ALL THAT IS NOT PROMISED ONE BIT SO WE'RE SEEKING FOR APPROVAL TO GO AFTER THE 230,000 ONCE WE GET THAT, IF WE GET ALL THE $230,000, WE HAVE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH KELLY OF OUR FINANCE.

ONCE THAT COMES IN, THEN WE WILL END UP DOING FINE.

BUT, YES, IN THE SHORT TERM, WE HAVE ON THE PD SIDE, WE'RE WATCHING OUR BUDGET VERY CLOSELY.

I KNOW WE DO HAVE SOME SALARY SAVINGS AND ALL THE GOOD STUFF WITHIN THERE TOO AS WELL.

SO THAT MONEY IS THERE.

YEP, SO I WAS GOING TO SAY.

BASICALLY WHAT MAYOR WAS SPEAKING ON THE FALSE POSITIVE PROTOCOL.

I THINK THAT WAS THE DOWNSIDE TO THE FLOCK PROGRAM IS THE IDENTIFYING THE FALSE POSITIVES.

BUT I DO THINK THE RISK, THE REWARD OUTWEIGHS THE THE RISK IN TERMS OF THAT.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE IS ORDINANCES AND THERE ARE PROTOCOLS BUILT AROUND THOSE AND THERE ARE, WE HAVE LIABILITY, FOR SOME OF THOSE FALSE POSITIVES BUILT INTO OUR ORDINANCES AS WELL, AS WELL.

BUT, I AGREE.

I MEAN, WITH THE RECENT CASES, THE WOMAN, SHE ACTUALLY STAYED TWO STREETS, ONE BLOCK OVER BEHIND ME.

AND I FOLLOWED THAT CASE CLOSE AND YOU GUYS WERE, I MEAN, WITHOUT THIS PROGRAM, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, COULD HAVE WENT ANY BETTER.

SO, YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF IT, AND I PRAY YOU GUYS GET THAT GRANT.

MS. GRACE? WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IF THEY DO NOT GET ALL THE MONEY FOR THE CITY TO PROVIDE THE REST, WHAT THEY DID NOT GET FROM GRANT FUNDING? THAT'S WHAT, I MEAN, WE'RE GOING INTO OUR BUDGET SEASON NOW, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN, IF WE HAVE NUMBERS, WE CAN BUDGET FOR IT.

SO AS WE GET INTO THE BUDGET SEASON NEXT MONTH, I'M NOT SURE HOW FAST YOU GUYS CAN TURN THIS AROUND AND GET US NUMBERS, BUT IF WE HAVE TO BUDGET, WE CAN ALWAYS BUDGET AS A COUNCIL.

YOUR HONOR, AT THIS TIME I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM K-2-20-26-04-26, ORAL 6, THE RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR THE GRANT.

MS. DAVID GRACE, SECOND.

SECOND.

MS. DAVID GRACE, YOU VOTE.

[K3. 2026-04-27-R01 Consider Resolution No. 2026-04-27-R01 authorizing Whitewing Trails Public Improvement District No. 2 Improvement Areas #3A 3C; and taking appropriate action.]

ALL RIGHT, MOTION PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU.

SO TAKE US TO ITEM K-3, MS. COOK.

K-3, CONSIDER RESOLUTION NUMBER 2026-0427-R01, AUTHORIZING...

WHITE WING TRAILS PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT NUMBER 02, IMPROVEMENT AREAS 3A THROUGH 3C, AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

HELLO THERE, COUNCIL MEMBERS.

[01:25:03]

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF A DEVELOPER.

I'M DEVELOPER'S COUNSEL FOR THE PID BONDS.

THEY'VE ASKED ME TO DO JUST A QUICK PRESENTATION FOR YOU ON THIS NEXT STEP THAT WE'RE APPROVING.

AS YOU'LL RECALL, IF YOU GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE, PLEASE.

WHAT DO I, HOW DO I DO THAT? SORRY.

THERE WE GO.

ON APRIL 13TH, WE, THE COUNCIL APPROVED THE ISSUANCE OF THE PID BONDS AND AN INDENTURE OF TRUST, WHICH IS AN AGREEMENT WHERE YOU APPOINT A TRUSTEE TO HANDLE THE FUNDS THAT ARE RAISED THROUGH THE PID ASSESSMENTS AND DISPERSE THOSE TO THE, OR THROUGH THE SALE OF BONDS THAT ARE THEN DISPERSED TO THE DEVELOPER WHEN THEY COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS.

WHAT THIS NEXT STEP IS, IT'S AN AGREEMENT THAT'S CONTEMPLATED BY THAT DOCUMENT.

IT'S CALLED THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT.

THAT AGREEMENT THAT YOU'RE APPROVING TONIGHT ACTUALLY DETAILS THE MECHANISM BY WHICH THE TRUSTEE AND THE DEVELOPER AGREE TO GO THROUGH THAT SUBMISSION AND DRAW PROCESS AND TO ALLOW THE CITY TO ACCEPT ALL THE PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND CONFIRM THAT THOSE DOLLARS HAVE BEEN SPENT IN THE APPROPRIATE MANNER UNDER THE PITT STATUTE.

SO WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TONIGHT IS THAT YOU APPROVE THE MAYOR, YOU APPROVE A RESOLUTION THAT ALLOWS THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE THE CONSTRUCTION FUNDING AND ACQUISITION AGREEMENT SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THE CLOSING OF THE SALE OF THE PID BONDS.

THANK YOU.

I'M NOT HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR MIC.

SORRY.

THANK YOU.

SO WE HAVE AN INTERIM CITY MANAGER THAT WE'VE JUST APPROVED TONIGHT.

THE MAYOR, WE DON'T, THERE'S NOT A ROLE THAT THE MAYOR WOULD BE GIVEN TO EXECUTE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN GIVEN TO THE CITY MANAGER OR INTERIM CITY MANAGER.

SO I WOULD BE FAR MORE COMFORTABLE ADJUSTING THIS TO FOLLOW SUIT AS HOW WE'VE DONE THINGS IN THE PAST.

AND IT WOULD BE OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO WOULD BE EXECUTING THIS.

NOT THE MAYOR.

YEAH, I WOULD REFER TO KEVIN ON THAT.

I'M NOT SURE.

THE ONLY QUESTION I WOULD HAVE IS, DOES THE TRUST AND DENTURE DESIGNATE THE MAYOR AS THE ONE WHO HAS TO SIGN, OR THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF THE CITY, OR CITY MANAGER? I MEAN, AGAIN, I'VE BEEN HERE ALL TWO WEEKS AS CITY ATTORNEY, SO I HAVEN'T, I'VE READ NONE OF THE BOND DOCUMENTS, SO I DON'T KNOW.

BUT TYPICALLY, TYPICALLY IT WOULD BE THE CITY MANAGER, BUT MANY TIMES, I MEAN, THINGS LIKE THE BOND FORMS, THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE THE MAYOR.

BUT, SO IT'S NOT A NEW, DOCUMENTS SIMILAR TO THIS WOULD BE FINE.

I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

KEVIN, YEAH, YEAH, IT'S...

THE MICS ARE NOT SYNCING RIGHT, BUT IF YOU CAN TURN OFF YOUR MIC AND SO HE CAN SPEAK.

YEAH, I AM NOT, I DON'T RECALL THE EXACT LANGUAGE IN THE INDENTURE AT THIS MOMENT, BUT I'M, I AGREE THAT NORMALLY IT IS THE CITY MANAGER.

I BELIEVE WE REQUIRED THE MAYOR BECAUSE WE DIDN'T KNOW WHETHER THERE WAS A CITY MANAGER OR NOT AT THE POINT IN TIME WE WERE DOING THIS.

AGENDA ITEM, SO I THINK WE'RE FINE WITH HAVING THIS INTERIM MANAGER OR THE EDITOR CHIEF EXECUTIVE EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT AS LONG AS IT'S EFFECTIVE AND AS LONG AS THE COUNCIL IS GIVEN WHOEVER THE PROPER AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE THE DOCUMENT, WE SHOULD BE OKAY.

OKAY, WE DIDN'T FIND OUT UNTIL JUST BEFORE THE MEETING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE A CITY MANAGER ANYMORE.

SO IT'S INTERESTING THAT THIS WAS PRESET IN THAT MANNER.

WITH THAT ASIDE, I WOULD MOTION TO APPROVE WITH THE AUTHORIZATION GOING TO OUR INTERIM CITY MANAGER AND NOT THE MAYOR.

I'LL SECOND THAT.

MR. WASHINGTON, SECOND.

[K4. 2026-04-27-R04 Consider Resolution No. 2026-04-27-R04 authorizing the purchase of furniture, fixtures, and equipment for the Parks & Recreation Administrative and Maintenance Building from funds approved by Resolution No.2025-04-28-R02 and take appropriate action. ]

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

THANK YOU.

THIS TAKES A K-4.

MS. COOK? CONSIDER RESOLUTION 2026-0427-R04 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF FURNITURE, FIXTURES, AND EQUIPMENT FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION ADMINISTRATIVE AND MAINTENANCE BUILDING FROM FUNDS APPROVED BY RESOLUTION 2025-0428-R02 AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION.

MR. BRYANT.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL.

THIS RIGHT HERE IS A KIND OF A FOLLOW-UP FROM THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION OF 2025-04-28-RO2, AUTHORIZED $630,000 FOR FF&E

[01:30:03]

FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION BUILDING.

THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THE FIRST PHASES COMING OUT OF THAT $630,000. AND WHAT WE HAVE IS...

SOME OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE CABLING, AUDIO, VIDEO, SECURITIES, AND FURNITURE.

THE LEAD TIME ON THE FURNITURE IS ROUGHLY 12 TO 14 WEEKS, SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GET THAT ORDERED PROPERLY AND IS DELIVERED ON TIME.

THIS WAS PRESENTED TO THE PARKS AND REC BOARD AND VOTED UNANIMOUSLY FOR APPROVAL.

IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.

IF THERE'S NO QUESTIONS, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION AT THIS TIME.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM K-4.

NO, I'LL SECOND.

MS. DEFFENBARG, SECOND.

MOTION PASSES 6-1.

[K5. 2026-096 Discussion and possible action regarding the City Manager recruitment process, including timeline, recruitment firm, and next steps.]

I MEAN, SORRY, 5-1.

TAKE US TO ITEM K-5.

ON THIS ITEM, I'M GOING TO ACCESS TO TABLE THIS TO THE NEXT MEETING SO THE NEW LAW FIRM CAN HAVE TIME TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL AND MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION TO TABLE ITEM K-5 TO THE MAY 11TH MEETING.

I'LL SECOND.

[K6. 2026-097 Discussion and review of the Princeton Town Center, including an update and associated incentive agreement.]

MOTION PASSES 6-0.

THIS WILL TAKE US TO ITEM K-5.

K6.

DISCUSSION AND REVIEW OF THE PRINCETON TOWN CENTER INCLUDING AN UPDATE AND ASSOCIATED INCENTIVE AGREEMENT.

TONIGHT WE HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE AND THEN WE ALSO HAVE MRS. ROOS, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS.