Jul 28, 2026 City Council & Work Session

[CALL TO ORDER ]

[00:00:09]

CALL TO ORDER THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR THE CITY OF WYLIE, TEXAS ON JULY 28TH, 2026 AT THE WYLIE MUNICIPAL CENTER, WITH THE TIME BEING 6:02 P.M. WE DO ASK IF YOU'RE HERE THIS EVENING AND YOU HAVE A CELL PHONE WITH YOU, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE MAKE SURE THAT THAT CELL PHONE IS EITHER TURNED OFF OR SET TO VIBRATE SO AS NOT TO DISTURB PROCEEDINGS. WE DO ASK IF YOU GET A CALL YOU NEED TO TAKE, PLEASE STEP OUT TO OUR ATRIUM. MADAM CITY SECRETARY, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE ROLL AT THIS TIME? YES, MAYOR. MAYOR MATTHEW PORTER PRESENT. COUNCILMAN DAVID R DUKE PRESENT. COUNCILMAN DAVE STRANG, PRESENT. COUNCILMAN TODD PICKENS, PRESENT. COUNCILMAN SCOTT WILLIAMS, PRESENT. COUNCILMAN SID HOOVER, PRESENT. MAYOR PRO TEM GINA MILICI, COUNCILMAN OR MAYOR PRO TEM WILL BE UNABLE TO ATTEND THIS EVENING. WE HAVE A QUORUM, MAYOR. THANK YOU, MISS STORM. AT THIS TIME, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE STAND FOR THE INVOCATION, WHICH WILL BE LED BY COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, FOLLOWED BY THE PLEDGE LED BY COUNCILMAN HOOVER. YOU'LL PRAY WITH ME. LORD, WE COME TO YOU AS WE SIT TO TAKE ON THE BUSINESS OF THE CITY. WE ASK, LORD, THAT YOU HELP US TO MAKE WISE DECISIONS THAT REFLECT THOSE THAT ELECTED US TO OFFICE, AND THAT REFLECTS THE INTENTIONS OF THE CITY OF WYLIE.

WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THE FIRST RESPONDERS, FOR THEIR FAMILIES, THE SACRIFICES THAT ARE MADE BY BOTH AS WELL AS THOSE THAT ARE SERVING OUR COUNTRY, ABROAD AND LOCALLY. WE THANK YOU, LORD, FOR THE ABILITY TO COME TO YOU FREELY IN PRAYER. IN PUBLIC. WE ASK YOUR GUIDANCE AND DIRECTION. I PRAY ALL THIS IN JESUS CHRIST'S NAME. AMEN. 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, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THEE. TEXAS, ONE STATE UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE.

PLEASE BE SEATED. SO THIS EVENING, AS WE HAVE NO PRESENTATIONS OR RECOGNITIONS TO START THE EVENING, WE WILL MOVE TO OUR COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS. IF ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC IS PRESENT WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, WE DO ASK THAT YOU COMPLETE A FORM IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING AND TURN THAT INTO OUR CITY SECRETARY. WE DO REMIND INDIVIDUALS IF ANYONE WISHES TO COMMENT ON AN ITEM NOT LISTED ON THE AGENDA UNDER THE TEXAS OPEN MEETINGS ACT, WE ARE UNABLE TO DELIBERATE, CONVERSE, OR RESPOND. MISS STORM, HAVE ANY FORMS BEEN TURNED IN? I DO NOT BELIEVE FOR NON-AGENDA. YES. I DON'T HAVE ANY EITHER. YES, NOT. I DO HAVE SOME TO SPEAK ON ITEMS BUT NOT ON NON-AGENDA. SO WITH THAT WE WILL THEN MOVE TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING. COUNCIL AND STAFF. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF ITEMS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONS, CONSIDERATION OR ANY POTENTIAL CORRECTIONS? AND IF THERE ARE NONE, I WOULD BE OPEN TO A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

[WS1. Discuss potential Bond Election projects and proposition verbiage. ]

[00:05:10]

COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO STATE 20 YEARS BUT NOT TO EXCEED 40? LIKE, IS THERE A WAY YOU ONLY SET AN UPPER CAP IN BECAUSE I, I CAN SEE MR. MR. PARKER'S POINT AND NOT LIMITING THE THE POSSIBILITY NOT KNOWING WHAT THE MARKET'S GOING TO DO OR WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BUT AS FAR AS VOTERS GOING IN AND LOOKING AT WHAT THEY'RE APPROVING, IF THEY THINK THE INTENT IS 40, MY CONCERN IS THAT THAT COULD THAT COULD CREATE AN ISSUE. JUST SEEING THAT NUMBER. AND SO IN THAT CASE, IF I HAVE TO PICK A NUMBER, I'M GOING TO PICK 20/40. BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO IF THERE'S A WAY TO ASK MR. GREENFIELD IF THERE'S A WAY TO WORD IT IN THERE WITHOUT IT PUTTING TOO MANY WORDS OR

[00:10:04]

AND THAT'S REALLY THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN HERE RIGHT NOW. SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO LIMIT THAT TO 20, WHICH IS YOUR PREROGATIVE TO DO, JUST RECOGNIZE THAT THAT'S 20 YEARS IS THE LIMITATION. SO IF YOU SAY WE REALLY NEEDED TO DO A 20 YEAR DEAL, 22 YEAR DEAL, THEN YOU CAN'T EXCEED THE 20. SO THE CONCEPT OF THIS PROPOSITION IS REALLY TO GIVE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY AS A COUNCIL, TO DECIDE WHEN IT COMES TIME TO ISSUE THE DEBT FOR WHAT THE MATURITY PATTERN YOU WANT TO HAVE FOR THAT. TYPICALLY IN TODAY'S MARKETPLACE, THESE DEBTS ARE 20 YEAR DEBTS. YOU PRETTY MUCH UN COMMON TO SEE ANYTHING MORE THAN A 30. AND VERY SELDOM DO YOU SEE 30. AND I HAVEN'T SEEN 40 IN A LONG, LONG TIME. THERE'S GOT TO BE SOME REALLY SOME UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCE FOR THAT. SO THIS, THIS ISN'T JUST INTENDED TO SEE, HERE'S YOUR CONTRACT WITH THE VOTER AND IT SAYS WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE DEBT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE MATURITY OF NOT TO EXCEED 40 YEARS. AND SO THAT'S THE PARAMETER FOR THAT. BUT IF YOU SAID, NO, WE WANT TO HAVE A SHORTER TIME FRAME, WHETHER IT'S 20 YEARS, 25 YEARS, 30 YEARS, 35 YEARS, YOU CANNOT EXCEED 40 UNDER THE STATE LAW. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD PUT FORWARD 25 JUST SO THAT IT'S ABOVE. 20 TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY. BUT YET WHEN WHEN IT'S LOOKED AT, IT'S STILL IN THE 20S AND IT'S NOT A 30 OR 40, THAT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A SIGNIFICANTLY LONGER THAN WHAT THE, THE ROADS, YOU KNOW, ARE DESIGNED TO, TO, TO LAST. OKAY. SO I WILL ASK FOR AN OPINION FROM COUNCILMAN HOOVER. I THINK THE 25 YEARS WOULD BE BETTER. OKAY. AND COUNCILMAN STRING 20. OKAY. AND COUNCILMAN PERKINS, I'M GOOD WITH 22, 22 OR 20 AS WELL. OKAY, JUST MAKING SURE I CLARIFY THERE. THAT'S ONE OF THOSE LITTLE THINGS YOU'LL SEE ON TV WHEN THEY HAVE EVERYONE RUNNING AROUND WITH THAT. SO I WILL ASK, SINCE WE HAD A DIFFERENT PROPOSAL THAT WAS PUT FORWARD, COUNCILMAN DUKE, WOULD YOU PREFER 20 OR 25? I'LL REMAIN AT 20. OKAY. AND I WOULD HAVE BEEN OKAY WITH EITHER IN THAT CASE.

BUT IT SEEMS THE MAJORITY IS 20. SO WE WOULD PUT 20 YEARS IN THERE. AND I AGREE, I THINK SOME OF THEM I WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE COMFORTABLE WITH. 25 SOME OF THE BUILDING RENOVATIONS AND THINGS THEY TEND TO WEAR OUT OVER TIME AS WELL. SO IF WE CAN MAKE THAT EDIT TO THE PROPOSITION SIR, TO 20 YEARS. AND NOW I'LL GO BACK TO WHERE WE WERE BEFORE. AND THAT WAS PROPOSITION A COUNCIL. WOULD YOU LIKE TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR WYLIE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND BALLARD, SEXY ROAD INCLUDED, OR NOT? I BELIEVE THOSE ARE THE SUBSTANTIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, MAYOR. THE OPTION THAT YOU HAVE THAT HAS THE SPECIFICS LIMITS, THE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE TO ONLY THE HISTORIC DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND BALLARD ROAD, IF THAT'S THE DECISION, YOU WANT TO LIST THAT ROAD. SO IT'S ALL ROAD KIND OF IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THAT AREA AND THE THINGS THAT YOU SEE RELATED DRAINING AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT THAT'S ONLY RELATED TO THOSE PARTICULAR STREETS. SO YOU'RE GOING TO LIMIT THAT AS OPPOSED TO DOING STREET IMPROVEMENTS IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CITY IF YOU ELECT TO GO THAT DIRECTION. OKAY. SO AGAIN, I WILL ASK EVERYONE'S OPINION. I'LL START WITH, I THINK I HAD COUNCILMAN PICKENS LAST, SO I'LL ASK YOU TO GO FIRST, WOULD YOU? WHICH WOULD YOU PREFER, SIR? I PREFER THE LANGUAGE THAT'S IN THE REVISED COPY HERE. DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT AND BALLARD SLASH SEXY ROAD. OKAY. AND COUNCILMAN STRAIN, I AGREE. OKAY. AND THEN I THINK IT WAS COUNCILMAN HOOVER. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I AGREE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. BALLARD. OKAY. AND COUNCILMAN DUKE, I AGREE. OKAY.

AND I AGREE AS WELL. SO WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE RESTRICTED TO THAT AREA. SO PROPOSITION B,

[00:15:08]

BUT MR. GREENFIELD, OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE 225 AND THEN 20. AND THEN IN THIS ONE, THE THREE GOES INTO THE PUBLIC WORKS. SO IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THE CHANGE THERE AND IF IF THE IF IT NEEDS TO BE BROUGHT BACK, IF IT INDEED IS RELATED TO THAT KIND OF COMPLEX OVER THERE.

MAYOR AND MEMBERS, FUNDAMENTALLY, YOU CAN ONLY HAVE ONE PURPOSE IN A PROPOSITION. YOU CAN'T HAVE MULTIPLE PURPOSES IN THE PROPOSITION. SO IN PROPOSITION NUMBER B, THAT'S GOING TO BE YOUR PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES. AND THIS IS INDICATED HERE. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SECOND VERSION, THE SPECIFIC FOR PARKS THAT ARE LISTED THERE. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS AS WELL THAT YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE BECOME PART OF THE PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE RENOVATED OR TRANSFERRED AND SO FORTH. IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY SPACE, SO IT WOULD BE INAPPROPRIATE TO HAVE THE PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSITION CONTAIN DOLLARS FOR THAT PARTICULAR PARK BUILDING, IF YOU WILL. SO THAT'S WHY YOU WOULD STRIP THAT OUT AND PUT THAT INTO SOMETHING, YOU KNOW.

AND SO IF THAT ENDS UP BEING, YOU KNOW, AND I SAW ONE SCENARIO THAT HAD KIND OF LUMP SUM TOGETHER A $3 MILLION VERSUS FOR THE KIND OF THE THINGS, AND YOU COULDN'T TELL FOR SURE WHETHER THAT WAS SOMETHING $3 MILLION FOR ALL FOR THE PARKS BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE MOVED OVER THERE, OR THE RENOVATIONS THAT WERE GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS CAMPUS TO DO SOME OTHER THINGS ON THAT SPOT. SO THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS WHAT YOU GUYS NEED TO TELL ME AND GIVE ME SOME DIRECTION. AT ONE TIME, I THINK WE'VE GOTTEN SOME DIRECTION FROM STAFF THAT LOOKED LIKE THAT COULD MAYBE BE A $2.5 MILLION COMPONENT PART FOR THE PARKS BUILDING ITSELF TO BECOME PART OF THE PARKS PROPOSITION. AND THEN THAT $500,000 WOULD BE USED IN THE PUBLIC WORKS PROPOSITION. BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE DOLLAR AMOUNTS THAT YOU GUYS NEED TO GUIDE US AND DIRECT US ON AS TO HOW YOU WANT TO PROCEED. OKAY. SO I WILL ASK WHETHER IT'S MR. PARKER, MISS BEARD. I'M NOT SURE WHO THE CORRECT PERSON IS.

HOW MUCH OF THAT, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S, I BELIEVE, TWO RENOVATIONS THAT OCCUR.

THERE'S THE RENOVATION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING FOR PARKS DEPARTMENT, AND THEN THERE'S THE RENOVATION OF THE EXISTING ANIMAL SHELTER INTO FACILITIES, WHICH I DON'T KNOW IF THEY FALL UNDER PUBLIC WORKS OR IF THEY'RE SEPARATE. SO DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH OF THAT MONEY SHOULD BE FOLLOWED? IS IT TWO AND A HALF AND 500 OR 2 AND ONE THAT BECAUSE IT SOUNDS IF YOU'RE I'M HEARING RIGHT THAT THE MONEY FOR THE BUILDING RENOVATING ON BEHALF TURNING INTO PARKS WOULD NEED TO BE IN THE PARKS SECTION. CORRECT. SO HOW DO WE KNOW WHAT THE SPLIT ESTIMATION IS, MR. PARKER? YES, SIR. THE THE, THE MONEY WE HAD ORIGINALLY IN THE FIRST VERSION WAS THE CORRECT AMOUNT. BUT BECAUSE THAT ALSO INCLUDED THE PARKING LOT ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE CURRENT PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING THAT WILL BECOME THE PARKS BUILDING. SO THAT WAS IN THE THAT DOLLAR FIGURE AS WELL. OKAY. AND. THE I'M ASSUMING IT'S A HALF $1 MILLION FOR THE OTHER RENOVATION. WOULD THAT MONEY AND THIS IS A JOINT QUESTION, WOULD THAT MONEY FALL UNDER THE PUBLIC WORKS SEGMENT? THEN WILL THE RENOVATIONS FOR PUBLIC WORKS FACILITY. CORRECT.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S IT'S FACILITIES. YEAH. WE'RE TRYING TO MATCH UP THE PURPOSES FOR WHAT THEY'RE REALLY BEING USED FOR. SO SO THE BUILDING, OUR CURRENT ANIMAL SHELTER IS GOING TO BE RENOVATED FOR OUR FACILITIES. GENERAL WAREHOUSING FOR OUR FACILITIES, FOLKS TO STORE THINGS IN THERE AND DO REPAIRS. AND, AND THAT STRIKES ME A LOT AS A PUBLIC WORKS TYPE CONCEPT AS OPPOSED TO SOMETHING ELSE. I MEAN, JUST GENERAL FACILITIES IS IT'S A HARDER PROCESS TO GO. SO PUBLIC WORKS IS A PRETTY BROAD CATEGORY BY DESIGN. AND IT STRIKES ME THAT THAT'S THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO THINK ABOUT IT. OKAY, SO COUNCIL, I WILL ASK, IS ANYONE OPPOSED THEN TO MAKING THE AMOUNT THE. 225 TO ENSURE THAT IT ENCOMPASSES THE RENOVATION OF PARKS AND KEEPS ALL THE PARKS IN ONE PROPOSITION? OKAY. OPPOSED IN FAVOR. OKAY. I THINK THAT THAT ONE ANYONE? IS THERE ANYONE WHO'S OPPOSED TO THAT? WE CAN GET INTO THAT NOW AND THEN WE'LL GET INTO THE SPECIFICS LANGUAGE HERE. SO AGAIN, AS MR. PARKER MENTIONED, I REACHED OUT TO MR. GRANDFIELD ON THIS ONE, REQUESTED THAT IT INCLUDE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE FOR

[00:20:04]

OKAY. SO THE SO THE 2.5 MILLION TO RENOVATE THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING INTO THE NEW PARKS BUILDING WOULD GO INTO THE PARKS PROPOSITION, AND IT WOULD COME OUT OF PROPOSITION. YES, IT WOULD COME OUT OF A DIFFERENT PROPOSITION WITH YOU. WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON LANGUAGE SPECIFICITY FOR THAT, SIR? I'LL ASK YOU TO. YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND KICK US OFF. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I THINK AS IT'S STATED FOR THE PARKS IS FINE. JUST INCLUDE VERBIAGE IN THERE THAT INDICATES THAT IT'S A PARKS FACILITY THAT WILL BE RENOVATED, RENOVATED, THE ORIGINAL OR THE REVISED VERSION, THE REVISED VERSION. OKAY. SO THE MORE SPECIFIC, MORE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND BUT ADDING ADDING FOR THE BUILDING. SO, SO I WOULD ENVISION BE SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINES AND TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE FOUR PARKS, INCLUDING LIGHTING, PARKING FACILITIES, FIELD ENHANCEMENTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND THEN IN A LAND FOR FUTURE PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. AND THEN PROBABLY ADD AT THE END OF THAT THE SPECIFICS OF RENOVATION OF THIS BUILDING. YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, I'LL GO TO YOU SECOND. SURE. YOUR THOUGHTS? I'M OKAY. ADDING THE 2.5 BACK INTO IT, AND I'M OKAY WITH THE. ADDING THE LANGUAGE FOR THAT BUILDING. THE QUESTION I HAD IS, AND SOME OF IT IS JUST MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE PERMANENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND PUBLIC AND PUBLIC PURPOSES, DOES THAT NOT ENCOMPASS IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILDING AND FACILITIES, OR IS IT JUST BETTER TO SPELL IT OUT SPECIFICALLY? WELL, YOU SPELL IT OUT. I MEAN, ALL YOU'RE DOING IS PERMANENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS. THAT'S THE WHOLE NATURE OF THE BOND ELECTION. SO, OKAY. AND THIS IS JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THOSE PERMANENT PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ARE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. YES, MAYOR. I'M I'M OKAY WITH THAT. WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THOSE PARKS OR THE ORIGINAL THAT THAT DOES NOT? I WANT TO NAIL IT DOWN TO THOSE PARKS AND THE LAND ACQUISITION AND BUILDING LAND ACQUISITION, BUT ALSO THE FACILITY. YES.

OKAY. I'LL GO TO COUNCILMAN STRING. I LIKE THE REVISED LANGUAGE AND KEEPING TOGETHER.

OKAY. IF I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT FOR ME REAL QUICK? EXCUSE ME. NO WAY.

I WAS LOOKING AT THE WRONG ONE. SORRY. NO, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN HOOVER, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. OKAY. COUNCILMAN DUKE, I AGREE. OKAY, SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE WOULD LIKE THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THOSE PARKS, BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF THE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW THE RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING AND SHIFTING THAT MONEY BACK INTO THAT PARKS PROPOSITION. YES, SIR. PROPOSITION C, THIS IS FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY, RENOVATIONS AND EXPANSION. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE WERE ANY CHANGES FROM ONE TO THE NEXT OTHER THAN WELL, I SHOULD CLARIFY, I APOLOGIZE. SO THIS IS WHERE THE FIRST SPLIT OCCURS. SO PROPOSITION C AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, INCLUDED THE ANIMAL SHELTER WITH PUBLIC SAFETY ALL WITH ONE.

SOME. THE DISCUSSIONS I HAD WITH MR. GREENFIELD WERE TO PULL THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE ITEM, CREATING A PROPOSITION E SPECIFIC TO THE ANIMAL SHELTER COUNSEL. WOULD YOU LIKE THOSE TOGETHER OR SEPARATE, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON THAT? SIR, I DON'T NECESSARILY THINK I'LL WEIGH IN, BUT I WILL TELL YOU THAT I THINK LOTS OF TIMES YOU CAN CONSIDER ANIMAL SHELTER AND ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITIES AS PART OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY GENERICALLY. SO YOU'LL SEE A

[00:25:04]

OKAY. SO. COUNCILMAN DUKE, I'LL START WITH YOU THIS TIME. WOULD YOU LIKE THEM COMBINED OR SEPARATED? I'D LIKE THEM SEPARATED. OKAY. COUNCILMAN PICKENS, I AGREE WITH DUKE.

I'LL SEPARATED. PLEASE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN HOOVER SEPARATED, PLEASE. OKAY. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'M. I'M GOOD WITH SEPARATED. I DID WANT TO CONFIRM THAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WE MEANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT BY 500,000. YES. IF WE IF WE KEPT THEM TOGETHER. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO THAT AND MOVE THAT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS. THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

OKAY. BUT OTHERWISE. BUT IF WE SEPARATE THEM, THEN IT IS THE 500 HAS BEEN PULLED OUT ALREADY.

OKAY. SO WHICH IS YOUR PREFERENCE? YEAH, I'D SEPARATE THEM. OKAY. AND COUNCILMAN STRING, KEEP THEM SEPARATED. OKAY. SO THAT'S THE DIRECTION THERE. I'M SORRY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, MA'AM. WHERE WAS THE ADDITIONAL 500 000? WHERE WAS THAT SUPPOSED TO GO TO? SO THE OTHER 500,000 WOULD GO INTO PROPOSITION D? I BELIEVE MR. GREENFIELD SAID IT WOULD FIT UNDER PUBLIC WORKS FOR THE RENOVATION THAT'S HAPPENING FOR FACILITIES. SO THAT PROPOSITION WILL NOW BECOME 155. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. SO AND THAT SO THAT BRINGS US TO PROPOSITION D. IT WAS 15 FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING AND IT WAS $500,000 FOR THAT RENOVATION THAT WOULD FIT UNDER THERE. SO THAT MAKES THAT 155. WITH THAT BEING SAID, COUNCIL, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT INCLUDING LANGUAGE REGARDING. THE FUNDING OF THE PORTION THAT CAN COME FROM THE UTILITY FUND. I BELIEVE, IF I'M REPRESENTING IT CORRECTLY, THAT THAT CAN BE IN LIKE A VOTER EXPLANATION, BUT IT DOESN'T GO INTO THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE. RIGHT? RIGHT. MAYOR, AS WE TALKED, I MEAN, THERE'S THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE ACTUAL PLEDGE OF DOLLARS TO SUPPORT THIS AND THEN THE USE OF DOLLARS. SO JUST BECAUSE YOU GET AUTHORITY TO GO AHEAD AND AUTHORIZE BY THE COMMUNITY TO ISSUE BONDS TO UP TO A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DOLLARS, THAT FIRST OF ALL, DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO ISSUE THAT MANY BONDS, AND YOU CAN DETERMINE HOW MANY BONDS OUT OF THAT VOTER AUTHORIZATION YOU ELECT TO WANT TO ISSUE AT THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN TIME. SO IF YOU SAID, LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A $10 MILLION PROJECT AND WE'VE GOT $5 MILLION WORTH OF CASH LAYING AROUND, AND WE'RE ONLY GOING TO ISSUE BONDS FOR $5 MILLION, THEN WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THAT OTHERWISE LAWFULLY AVAILABLE AND OTHERWISE UNENCUMBERED FUNDS AND USE THAT TO OFFSET. SO YOU END UP STILL A $10 MILLION PROJECT, BUT YOU'VE PAID FOR IT PARTLY WITH BOND PROCEEDS AND PARTLY WITH CASH. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY FINE, SO LONG AS THOSE DOLLARS ARE NOT RESTRICTED, YOU'LL FIND SOME DOLLARS THAT ARE RESTRICTED, LIKE HOTEL OCCUPANCY TAX AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE THE OPTION OF INCLUDING IT FOR THE 155 WE HAVE. AND IN FULL TRANSPARENCY, I REACHED OUT TO MR. PARKER AND ASKED HIM IF WE HAVE OPTIONS TO DO REVENUE BONDS DIRECTLY FROM THE UTILITY FUND. I BELIEVE YOU PROBABLY COORDINATED ON THE RESPONSE WITH MISS BEARD AND MR. GREENFIELD. CERTAINLY CITIES HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS. NOW, YOU ALL ARE SET UP THAT YOU'RE YOU CONTRACT FOR A LOT OF SERVICES WITH THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. SO THAT'S. THEY GET THEIR FIRST CLAIM ON YOUR UTILITY REVENUES. THAT'S FOR THEM, YOUR COMMITMENT TO THEM AS AN OPERATING EXPENSE OF YOUR SYSTEM. TYPICALLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS, YOU WOULD ISSUE NET REVENUE BONDS, MEANING YOU PAY THE OPERATING COSTS FIRST, AND THEN YOU PAY YOUR DEBT SERVICE AND RESERVE FUNDS THAT MAY BECOME, IF NECESSARY, SECOND OR AFTER THAT. BUT YOU CLEARLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT. YOU CAN DO THAT WITHOUT A VOTE. IT'S NOT REQUIRED THAT YOU GO TO THE VOTERS TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS.

AND THAT'S BEEN A LONG TIME STANDING HISTORY IN OUR JURISPRUDENCE IN TEXAS. SO IF THAT'S THE DESIRE THAT YOU WANT TO GO THROUGH, THEN YOU GO THROUGH THAT EXERCISE AND THEN THOSE BONDS WILL BE SECURED SOLELY AND EXCLUSIVELY FROM THE REVENUE STREAM, THE OPERATIONS OF YOUR SYSTEM. AND AGAIN, THERE'S I MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PLEDGE AND USE. AND SO IF YOU HAD OTHER LAWFULLY AVAILABLE AND OTHERWISE UNENCUMBERED FUNDS THAT COULD BE USED TO HELP SUPPORT THAT DEBT AS WELL. BUT THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE BEAST. SO YOU HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY SHOULD YOU WANT TO, TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS AND START THAT PROCESS. I

[00:30:03]

THE REQUIREMENT IS CURRENTLY 90 DAYS TO PULL 10 MILLION OUT OF THERE WOULD MOVE IT DOWN TO 30.6 AT THAT POINT, WHICH WOULD, IN ROUGH NUMBERS, PUT IT AT 300 DAYS OF OPERATING FUNDS, WHICH IS STILL WELL ABOVE THE THE 90. AND SO I I'LL BE HONEST, IF WE'RE GOING TO FUND IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, IF WE'RE MAKING A STATEMENT TO THE CITIZENS THAT THERE'S $10 MILLION THERE, IF WE TRANSFER IT OVER 20 YEARS, ALL WE'RE DOING IS EATING INTEREST COSTS. SO THE FUND BALANCE IS HIGH BECAUSE WE HAVE ALLOCATED PROJECTS THAT ARE WATER AND SEWER RATES. STUDIES HAVE PAID FOR OR THROUGH OUR WATER AND SEWER RATE STUDIES. WE HAVE IDENTIFIED CAPITAL PROJECTS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PAY CASH FOR THROUGH THOSE STUDIES. SO IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT WITH THAT MONEY THAN THOSE PROJECTS THAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED TO USE, THAT FUNDS THOSE FUNDS FOR, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND A DIFFERENT WAY TO FUND THOSE CAPITAL PROJECTS. SO DO YOU HAVE A TIME FRAME ON THOSE? ARE WE PLANNING TO SPEND ALL THAT MONEY OVER THE NEXT TEN YEARS? IF IF I CAN INTERJECT A LITTLE BIT WITH THE WATER SEWER RATE STUDY THAT WE DID LAST YEAR AND WAS ADOPTED IN LAST SUMMER, THAT ADDRESSES THE YEARS 26 THROUGH 30. AND WHILE WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE FUND BALANCE IN DAYS, THE CASH ON HAND IS 402 DAYS SEEMS HIGH.

IT'S ALMOST EXACTLY PROJECTED TO BE THAT WAY WITH THE RATE STUDY. THE. IN FACT, THE PROJECTED 2027 IN BALANCE THAT WE HAVE NOW IS 402 DAYS. AND THE STUDY HAD PROJECTED OUT 405 DAYS. SO WE'RE SPOT ON WITH THAT. AND OVER TIME, BY THE END OF THIS 2030 PERIOD, WE WOULD BE DOWN TO 280 DAYS. IF WE ACCOMPLISH THE PROJECTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THERE. SO THERE WAS A PLAN TO BRING DOWN THAT BALANCE. NOWHERE IN THAT RATE STUDY DID WE CONSIDER. I'M NOT SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT. OF COURSE, IF YOU CHOOSE TO PAY CASH FOR THIS PORTION OF THE PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, YOU CAN DO THAT. OR IF YOU WANT TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS, YOU CAN DO THAT. YOU CAN ALSO DO IT WITH THE GEO PLEDGE. YOU CAN DO ANY OF THOSE THINGS. BUT NONE OF THOSE THINGS ARE CONSIDERED IN THE LAST RATE STUDY THAT WE DID. SO THAT WILL NOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. BRINGING THIS DOWN TO 280 DAYS BY 2030, IT WOULD BE A LOT LESS THAN THAT.

SO YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER THAT IN YOUR DECISION. AND THE ONLY OTHER THING THAT I WILL SAY IS THAT IN DISCUSSING WITH NICK, OUR FINANCIAL ADVISORS, REVENUE BONDS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. THEY'RE NOT IT'S NOT A LARGE AMOUNT. BUT HE ESTIMATED THAT IT WOULD BE SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 710 BASIS POINTS, WHICH IS STILL A LOT OF MONEY TO THE CITY OVER 20 YEARS.

[00:35:02]

AND FOR ME, I CAN'T IMAGINE LEAVING MONEY IN THE BANK TO PAY INTEREST COSTS BECAUSE OVER THOSE FIVE YEARS, IF WE DO A TRANSFER TO GEO, WE'RE ASKING THE CITIZENS TO TAKE THAT ON.

NOW, IF WE ADJUST OUR RATE, DON'T KNOW HOW THAT ADJUSTS ANYTHING FROM A BUDGET STANDPOINT, BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF STATE REQUIREMENTS AROUND M AND O VERSUS INS, BUT IF WE WERE TO NOT CHARGE THE INS IN ORDER TO DO TRANSFERS, WE'RE STILL PULLING THE MONEY OUT, BUT WE'RE PULLING THE MONEY OUT TO COVER NOT ONLY PRINCIPAL BUT INTEREST. AND FOR ME, THAT'S A WASTE OF MONEY. AND I UNDERSTAND WE LIKE TO HAVE A HEALTHY FUND BALANCE, DOUBLE THE DOUBLE THE DAYS OF OPERATING EXPENDITURES. WELL CLEAR OF IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK IS IS MORE THAN HEALTHY AT THAT POINT FOR THE UTILITY FUND. OBVIOUSLY, COSTS WILL CHANGE. BUT IF WE'RE PULLING THE MONEY OUT OVER 20 YEARS AND COVERING INTEREST AND DEBT PAYMENTS, OUR INTEREST IN PRINCIPAL AS OPPOSED TO JUST PAYING CASH FOR IT AND NOT HAVING TO PAY THAT $10 MILLION, I WOULD BE WILLING TO VENTURE THAT THE PAYBACK OVER 20 YEARS IS GOING TO BE PROBABLY DOUBLE THAT COST. TYPICALLY, IT COULD BE HIGHER. I'M NOT I DO NOT DO AMORTIZATION OR, OR WHATEVER THE PROPER TERM WOULD BE ACCOUNTING TERM WOULD BE, BUT I WOULD BE WILLING TO BET THE INTEREST WILL BE SIGNIFICANT OVER THAT TIME PERIOD. AND FOR ME, IF WE CAN PAY FOR IT WITHOUT COVERING THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PREFER TO DO. BUT I'M ONE VOICE THAT WE'RE LOOKING. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY.

SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT YOUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO PAY FOR IT WITH CASH? YES, MA'AM. AND SO ARE YOU GOING TO GIVE DIRECTION ON THE PROJECTS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO BE DONE IN THE WATER SEWER FUND, WHERE THE CASH HAS ALREADY BEEN PLEDGED FOR THOSE PROJECTS, OR YOU JUST WANT TO DRAW THE FUND BALANCE DOWN? I WANT TO DRAW THE FUND BALANCE DOWN. WE'VE TAKEN THESE THESE REVENUES FROM CITIZENS AND BUSINESSES, AND I BELIEVE THAT SPENDING THEM WITHOUT PAYING INTEREST OUT OF THAT FUND IS THE BEST WAY TO UTILIZE THAT MONEY. AND SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH, IF WE WE'RE NOT AT A 90 DAY OPERATING EXPENDITURE. AND YES, I COULD BE OFF TEN DAYS, BUT IF IT WAS, THE PLAN WAS TO TAKE IT FROM 402 TO 280 BY 2030 AND WE PULL TEN OUT. THAT'S 100 RIGHT NOW. THAT'S 100 DAYS WITH BASIC MATH. SO THAT PUTS US AT 180, WHICH IS STILL DOUBLE THE POLICY REQUIREMENT. AND ESSENTIALLY THAT'S SIX MONTHS OF FUNDS THAT'S SITTING THERE, WHICH IS ACTUALLY PRETTY SIMILAR TO, I BELIEVE, WHERE WE RUN TYPICALLY.

AND I COULD BE DEAD WRONG WITH THE GENERAL BUDGET, BUT FROM MY STANDPOINT, WE HAVE THE FUNDS IN PLACE TO DO IT. I CAN'T I CAN'T JUSTIFY PAYING INTEREST ON IT OR PUTTING IT ON PROPERTY TAXES BECAUSE WE CAN MAKE A PLEDGE, BUT SOMEONE IN THREE YEARS CAN SIT UP HERE AND SAY THEY DON'T WANT TO PLEDGE THAT MONEY ANYMORE. THEY WANT IT TO COME BACK OUT OF THE INS RATE.

AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN BE DONE. IT'S BEEN ISSUED. SO FROM MY STANDPOINT, WE HAVE THE CASH AND THE MONEY SHOULD BE SPENT WITHOUT THE INTEREST FEES OR THE ISSUANCE FEES OR ANY OF THE OTHER COSTS THAT COME ALONG WITH BONDS. SO THAT IS MY PREFERENCE. AND NO, I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW THE BALANCE DOWN. I BELIEVE THAT THAT MONEY EXISTS TO BE SPENT FOR THE PUBLIC GOOD. AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT I BELIEVE THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION IS. THAT'S DEFINITELY A COUNCIL DECISION THAT CAN BE MADE. SO SO COUNCIL, I NEED TO HEAR FROM YOU ALL ON YOUR THOUGHTS. I'VE SPOKEN PLENTY, COUNCILMAN STRING, YOU BUZZED IN. YEAH. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. NOTHING'S CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING IN TERMS OF US DESIRING TO SPEND THIS MONEY OUT OF THE CASH. IS THAT CORRECT? SO THEY WERE. AS TO WHY IT SEEMED LIKE THE INTENT

[00:40:09]

OKAY, FINE. I WOULD LOOK FOR IT'S CASH. WHAT'S YOUR PREFERENCE ON THIS ONE? MY PREFERENCE IS THAT WE PAY CASH LIKE WE INTENDED. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WITH AN OPINION? COUNCILMAN PICKENS, I AGREE WITH COUNCILMAN STRING. I RECOMMEND THAT WE GO BACK TO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY RECOMMENDED, THAT WE PAY CASH AND PROCEED FORWARD. OKAY. COUNCILMAN DUKE, I WOULD LIKE TO GO WITH THE CASH OPTION, BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO SEE A LIST OF THE IMPACTED PROJECTS AND COMPLETION DATE THAT WAS SLATED. OKAY. COUNCILMAN HOOVER. I WOULD PREFER THE CASH, SIR. OKAY. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, THANK YOU. MAYOR. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE, I NEED TO VERIFY WHAT DOLLAR AMOUNT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BECAUSE I'VE GOT 15,000. I'VE GOT 18,000. AND ON THE WE TALKED ABOUT ADDING IT'S CURRENTLY 15.5. OKAY. AND WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING ON THE CASH SIDE IS UP TO TEN CAN COME FROM THE UTILITY FUND AND FIVE WOULD HAVE TO BE MATCHED THROUGH GENERAL OBLIGATION GENERAL FUNDS FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF. THE OTHER 500,000 WOULD NOT BE INCLUDED. THAT'S THE FACILITY.

SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE QUESTION IS FOR THE OTHER 10 MILLION FROM UTILITY. DO YOU WOULD YOU WISH IT TO COME FROM THE GEO, FROM A GENERAL BOND, AND THEN PLEDGE TO MOVE MONEY FROM THE UTILITY FUND TO COVER THAT? OR WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO BE REVENUE BONDS, AS WE'RE EXPLAINED, OR TAKING $10 MILLION IN CASH JUST STRAIGHT OUT TO PAY FOR THAT PORTION? AND WE DID LAND ON. WE HAVE TO GO. THE BOND HAS TO BE FOR EVERYTHING, EVEN IF WE DO MOVE IT FROM THE UTILITY FUND, BECAUSE THAT WAS OUR CONVERSATION LAST TIME. PARDON ME. EVERYTHING THE FULL EIGHT, THE FULL 155 IS WHAT THE THE BOND HAS TO BE FOR. WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WHAT I'M IF YOU DO A REVENUE BOND OR CASH. NO, IT WOULD DROP THAT TO 5.5. OKAY. WITH THE TEN COMING FROM EITHER A REVENUE BOND OR IF WE'RE IF WE'RE LOOKING AT SHELVING PROJECTS THAT WE WERE PLANNING ON DOING OR DRAWING DOWN ONE OF THE TWO, WHAT IS TO KEEP US FROM REVISITING A BOND NEXT YEAR OR THE FOLLOWING YEAR? I REALIZE NORMALLY IT'S EVERY 2 TO 3 OR SO, BUT THERE ARE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ELECTIONS AND ISSUANCE, ETC. IS THAT NOT CORRECT, SIR? I WOULD RATHER LET YOU HEAR FROM HIM ON THAT.

WELL YES SIR, THERE ALWAYS COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH THEM. SO IN THE WORLD THAT WE'RE LIVING IN TODAY, THERE'S NO RESTRICTION ON HOW OFTEN YOU CAN GO BACK TO THE VOTERS. YOU CAN ONLY GO TO THE VOTERS TWO TIMES A YEAR IN MAY AND NOVEMBER, AND YOU CAN GO BACK AS MANY TIMES AS YOU LIKE UNDER THE LAW AS IT IS TODAY. UNLIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR CHARTER AMENDMENTS, YOU CAN'T DO THOSE ONCE EVERY TWO YEARS. BUT SO THOSE ARE THE RESTRICTIONS YOU WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF VOTING. AND IF YOU WANT TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AGAIN. SO IF WE DRAW DOWN THAT GEO BALANCE, THERE'S NOTHING. I MEAN, IF WE DRAW DOWN THE UTILITY BALANCE, THERE'S NOTHING KEEPING US FROM DOING A BOND FOR THE PROJECTS THAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THOSE FUNDS IN A YEAR. IF WE ARE NOT ABLE TO, YOU JUST HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE VOTERS AND THEY'LL HELP DECIDE WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT OR NOT. RIGHT. BUT IF THEY WANT WATER OR DON'T. YEAH. SO IT'S I MEAN, BUT THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE OPTION THAT YOU HAVE.

AND AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU CAN, YOU CAN DO HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO THIS IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WANT TO HAVE THE DOLLAR AMOUNT AS THE NOT TO EXCEED DOLLAR AMOUNT FOR YOUR BOND PROPOSITION. AGAIN, IT DOES NOT OBLIGATE YOU TO SPEND THOSE DOLLARS. SO THAT'S JUST SOMETHING I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR WITH YOU ALL AS TO WHAT THAT THOUGHT PROCESS IS FOR YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU, MISS BROWN. THE INTEREST THAT'S GOING TO BE SAVED ON 10 MILLION NOT GOING TO BOND, WHAT, OVER 20 YEARS? WHAT IN QUICK MATH WOULD THAT WOULD THAT CALCULATE TO KNOW? OKAY, I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TENS OF THOUSANDS, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE GAUGE ON THAT THAT PUTS YOU IN THE HOT SEAT. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. SORRY. IT'S OKAY. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. I'M OKAY. TAKING AND JUST TO HELP YOU OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE, SINCE YOU ASKED ABOUT ANOTHER BOND ELECTION, SOME OF THE PROJECTS THAT ARE IN THE RATE STUDY WERE CASH FUNDED, AND THEY THERE WAS ALSO SOME BOND ISSUANCES THAT WERE IN THERE. SO THE AMOUNT THAT WAS CONSIDERED IN THE RATE STUDY

[00:45:03]

WE HAVEN'T DONE AN ISSUE FOR THAT. I'M JUST SAYING IT WAS IT WAS PLANNED THAT WE WOULD ISSUE SOME BONDS TO FINISH SOME OF THOSE PROJECTS, BECAUSE WE OBVIOUSLY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH CASH TO PAY FOR SOME OF THE BIGGER PROJECTS. OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE THEN. THANK YOU.

MAYOR. I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF USING WHAT CASH IS AVAILABLE UNTIL WE'RE NOT ABLE TO. OKAY.

MR. PARKER. YEAH. I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT COUNCILMAN PICKENS AND STRING ARE TALKING ABOUT OVER HERE. OH, COUNCILMAN PICKENS, I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY HAVING IS THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD LIKE TO USE TEN. I'M IN ON YOUR PHONE. SAY AGAIN, THIS IS A PUBLIC MEETING AND Y'ALL ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION ON YOUR PHONE. OKAY. I'D BE GLAD TO TELL YOU. OKAY. SO IF YOU THERE IS A COMPLAINT TO BE FILED. YEAH, THAT'S PERFECTLY FINE. SO THAT'S NOT GERMANE AT THIS TIME. I WILL ASK THAT PEOPLE PUT THEIR ANY PRIVATE DEVICES AWAY. MR. PARKER, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PURSUE THAT FURTHER. WE HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT. YES, SIR. SO. SO I WANT TO MAKE A POINT OF CLARIFICATION TO COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS POINT DURING THE LAST COUNCIL MEETING. DURING THE WORK SESSION, THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT THE FULL 15.5 MILLION WAS TO BE PUT ON THE BOND. CASH WAS USED TO BE PAID FOR THE DEBT PAYMENT. THERE WAS NOT DISCUSSION OF USING 10 MILLION OUT OF FUND BALANCE TO PAY FOR THE DEBT, WITH ONLY 5 MILLION BEING PLACED ON THE BOND OR ANY OTHER OPTION. SO I'M NOT SURE WHERE THAT CONFUSION CAME FROM, BUT THAT WAS THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AND I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND COUNCILMAN DUKES STATEMENT AT THE END OF WHAT HE SAID. IT SOUNDED LIKE HE WANTED A LIST OF PROJECTS OR SOMETHING. SO I WOULD ASK THAT HE CLARIFY THAT SO WE CAN GET HIM THE INFORMATION THAT HE WAS REQUESTING. I WAS JUST WANTING TO KNOW. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER.

I WAS JUST WANTING TO KNOW THE PROJECTS THAT WERE IMPACTED. SO, I MEAN, I'VE BEEN ON THIS COUNCIL FOR SIX YEARS AND I DON'T REMEMBER THERE. I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE PROJECTS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE DOES EITHER. BUT I JUST LIKE TO BE A LIST OF A LIST OF PROJECTS AND HOW MUCH THEY ARE. AND WHEN WE THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THEM DONE. ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. AND TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. I PUT IT IN GOOGLE, BUT $20 MILLION OVER OR 10,000,000/20 YEARS AT 5% IS $5.8 MILLION. OBVIOUSLY, WE GET A LITTLE BETTER RATES THAN THAT, BUT IT WOULD STILL BE SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS IN INTEREST. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, THANK YOU.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID, WE HAVE A MAJORITY THAT WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT NUMBER AT $5.5 MILLION FOR THE PUBLIC WORKS AND THE RENOVATION. I WOULD ASK WE MAKE SURE THAT WE INCLUDE THE LANGUAGE NECESSARY FOR THAT RENOVATION FOR THE OLD ANIMAL SHELTER INTO THE FACILITIES, MAKE SURE THAT'S COVERED FOR FUTURE USAGE TO ENSURE THAT THOSE FUNDS ARE THERE WITH THE OTHER MATCHING FUNDS. IF THE VOTERS APPROVE. COMING FROM THE FUND BALANCE, WE ALREADY CHOSE TO SPLIT AND HAVE A PROPOSITION E BEFORE WE MOVE ON. MAYOR. SURE, IF I MAY, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT WE DON'T NEED TO REVISIT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT WHERE WE ARE AT 15.5 BEFORE THE TEN IS TAKEN OUT, BEING THAT FLEET SERVICES THERE, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT.

YOU'RE REFERRING TO THE MAINTENANCE CORRECT FACILITIES, I APOLOGIZE. THAT'S THAT 500.

THAT WAS THE NUMBER THAT WE RECEIVED FROM STAFF WAS 15 WAS THE CORRECT NUMBER, RIGHT.

THERE WAS THREE FOR RENOVATIONS. TWO AND A HALF SHOULD BE ON THE PARKS PROPOSITION, WHICH WE AGREED TO MOVE OVER. THAT LEFT 500 000 IN ADDITIONAL AND AT THE ADVICE OF OUR BOND COUNCIL, THAT WOULD STAY HERE. SO THAT'S WHERE THE IT WENT FROM 1518 TO 15 FIVE. AND THEN IF IF WE'RE USING CASH, THEN IT MAKES IT FIVE. AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE PROJECTS OR BIDS OR ANY OF THAT, THAT WE'RE NOT SHORTCUTTING OURSELVES TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, REALLY WE NEED, YOU KNOW, 17 AND NOW, BECAUSE IT'S NOT ON THE BOND, WE GOT TO COME UP

[00:50:02]

JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE GOOD NUMBERS THAT ON THE PROJECT, THAT'S MY CONCERN.

OKAY. IF YOU'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT AND AND MR. PARKER'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THEN OKAY. THAT'S THE ONLY THING I WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. YOU MAY GET DIFFERENT ANSWERS FROM DIFFERENT PEOPLE, BUT, MR. PARKER. WELL, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ORIGINAL NUMBER WAS 20 MILLION FOR PUBLIC WORKS OR 18. I DON'T REMEMBER NOW, BUT THE IT WAS 20. SO IT WAS 20 MILLION.

AND THEN LAST MEETING, COUNCIL AGREED TO 15 MILLION. SO IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHAT THE DOLLAR AMOUNT IS, THE BUILDING WILL JUST SHRINK. I MEAN, IF IF THE VOTERS APPROVE OR COUNCIL RECOMMENDS US 15 MILLION TO BUILD A PUBLIC WORKS BUILDING, WE'LL JUST BUILD A BUILDING FOR 15 MILLION AND WE'LL JUST DO WITH WHAT WE CAN. SO IF IF THE. PRICE PER FOOT EXCEEDS WHATEVER, IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, WE'LL JUST BUILD A BUILDING FOR THE SIZE THAT WE CAN GET AND WORK WITHIN THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. PICKETT OR COUNCILMAN PICKENS APOLOGIES. THANK YOU. MAYOR.

THIS IS FOR THE MONTGOMERY. AND I THINK THIS IS TO HELP CLARIFY WHAT WILLIAMS IS SAYING SO THAT I UNDERSTAND AS WELL. BUT THE BOND WOULD BE WRITTEN FOR 5.5, AND THERE WOULD BE VERBIAGE IN THERE TO TALK ABOUT 10 MILLION COMING FROM PUBLIC WORKS. IS THAT CORRECT? THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY VERBIAGE IN THE PROPOSITION ITSELF. OKAY. BUT YOU CAN TYPICALLY YOU'LL PUT TOGETHER SOME SORT OF VOTER INFORMATION THAT SAYS, HERE'S WHAT YOU PLAN TO DO. OKAY. AND THAT'S HOW YOU GIVE A LITTLE EXPLANATION AS TO WHAT THAT IS. I'M ALWAYS GOING TO ENCOURAGE THAT TO BE FLEXIBLE, TO HAVE WORDS LIKE ANTICIPATED AND EXPECTED AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. BUT THAT'S WHERE OFTENTIMES YOU GET A LITTLE BIT MORE CLARITY AS TO WHAT YOUR INTENTION IS. BUT, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST TO YOU THAT THE PROPOSITION WOULD STAY AS IT IS, JUST WITH A REDUCED DOLLAR AMOUNT AT 5.5, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF THE COUNCIL. OKAY. THANK YOU SIR, APPRECIATE THAT. OKAY. AND I DID HAVE THAT AS THE MAJORITY THERE. SO THAT WORKS THROUGH THE PROPOSITIONS WITH THEIR AMOUNTS THEIR. WE CAN WE CAN I CAN BRING IT BACK UP. WE TALKED ABOUT IF WE WANTED TO SPLIT IT OUT FROM PROPOSITION C AND THE MAJORITY SAID YES. SO PROPOSITION E WOULD BE THE $12 MILLION FOR THE ANIMAL SHELTER BEING SPLIT OUT. WE DISCUSSED SPLITTING THEM WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT PROP C. IS THAT STILL THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL? COUNCILMAN STRING. YES. COUNCILMAN. HOOVER. YES, SIR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. YES. COUNCILMAN PERKINS. YES.

[00:55:04]

YES, SIR. SO I'M GOING TO. ALL THE PROPOSITIONS ARE GOING TO HAVE A NOT TO EXCEED 20 YEAR MAX. PROPOSITION A WILL LEAVE AT 255. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WITH THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE THAT'S INCLUDED. YES. PROPOSITION B WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THAT TO 225 AD RENOVATION.

AT THE END OF THAT DISCUSSION, PROPOSITION C IS GOING TO STAY AS IS 25 MILLION, AS IS D WOULD BE REDUCED TO 5.5 AND E WOULD BE STAYING AT 12 AS IT IS. YES, SIR. THAT'S WHAT I HAVE AS THE AS THE WILL OF THE COUNCIL. AND THEN WHAT I'LL DO IS I'LL I'LL REVISE THIS THING, SEND IT BACK TO YOU ALL TO LOOK AT. HOPEFULLY WE HIT THE RIGHT TARGET AND THEN KIND OF GO FROM THERE. AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU CAN ONLY CALL THIS ELECTION BETWEEN AUGUST THE 5TH AND AUGUST THE 17TH. COULDN'T TAKE ACTION TONIGHT EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO, BUT WE'LL GET YOU A REVISED VERSION OF THIS FOR YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT, AND WE'LL KIND OF GO FROM THERE, AND WE'LL COORDINATE WITH THE FINANCIAL ADVISOR TO GET THE NUMBERS THAT ARE PLUGGED IN IN EXHIBIT C, AND ALSO IN THE TEXT OF THE THING A LITTLE BIT TO MAKE SURE WE'VE GOT THE RIGHT PROCESS FOR YOU. OKAY. BEFORE YOU GO, COUNCILMAN PICKENS DID BUZZ IN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IF HE ACTUALLY MAYOR, I YOU SAID PROPOSITION A WAS 255. YES. YES. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I HAD. THANK YOU. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE HAVE A CHANCE TO DOUBLE CHECK. THANK YOU FOR COMING THIS EVENING, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING THOSE BACK FROM YOU FOR PRESENTING THIS TO OUR CITIZENS. MR. PARKER, MELISSA, DO WE NEED ANYTHING FOR EXHIBIT C FOR THEM TO TELL US OR PROVIDE DIRECTION ON HOW THEY WANT TO ISSUE THE DEBT? YES. SO IT'S SORT OF IN GENERAL. BUT WHEN THE WHEN NICK AT HILLTOP HAS A. CALCULATE THE TAX IMPACT FOR THE PROPOSITION, I HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE HIM BEST GUESS OF HOW AND WHEN WE'RE GOING TO ISSUE THE THE DOLLARS. AND MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS THE FIRST YEAR WOULD BE FOR DESIGN OF ALL THE PROJECTS, WHICH I BELIEVE IS. IS IT NORMALLY AROUND 10% PERCENT OF THE COST OF THE PROJECT? SO AND THIS IS NOT SET IN STONE. THIS IS JUST AN ESTIMATE FOR US TO GIVE TO HIM SO HE CAN MAKE THE CALCULATION. SO WHAT I HAD ORIGINALLY DONE IS I HAD TAKEN 10% OF ALL THE PROJECTS AND THOUGHT THAT WE WOULD ISSUE THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR BEING 27, WITH THE FIRST DEBT PAYMENT BEING DUE IN 28. AND THEN I TOOK THE REST OF THE MONEY FOR EACH OF THE PROJECTS. OR BY PROPOSITION, THIS HAS TO BE BY PROPOSITION AND JUST DIVIDED IT OVER FOUR YEARS EVENLY AS AN ISSUANCE. AND IF THAT'S OKAY WITH YOU, THEN I CAN SEND THAT INFORMATION TO HIM IN THAT WAY. IF THERE'S ANOTHER WAY THAT YOU WANT TO DO IT, IF YOU WANT THE TAX IMPACT TO LOOK A DIFFERENT WAY, I NEED TO KNOW TONIGHT BECAUSE THAT THOSE NUMBERS HAVE TO BE ON THE THE PROPOSITION. I THINK THAT'S FAIR BECAUSE I THINK WE HAVE DIFFERENT DIFFERENT PROJECTS THAT WILL LET AT DIFFERENT TIMES. AND OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T PAY EVERYTHING UP FRONT AND WE ISSUE PAYMENTS SEVERAL TIMES. SO I THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO DO IT, TO BE LOOKING AT US DOING DESIGN FOR AT LEAST THE FIRST YEAR OFTEN TAKES A LITTLE BIT LONGER TO GET THAT STUFF DONE. BUT IN ORDER TO BE TRANSPARENT, I THINK IF ANYTHING, IT'S A LITTLE AGGRESSIVE IN A GOOD WAY TO ENSURE THE VOTERS ARE AWARE THAT THAT'S WHAT WE POTENTIALLY SEE AS AN IMPACT TO IT. I THINK IT MAY PUSH OUT A LITTLE, BUT I THINK THAT'S A FAIR WAY TO REPRESENT IT. COUNCIL. I'LL ASK OTHERS. COUNCILMAN PICKENS. I'M SORRY, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT FOR ME? SO SO THE SUGGESTION WAS TO, AS WE RELEASE THE INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC ON HOW IT IMPACTS THE TAX RATE, THE DESIGN IS ABOUT 10% OF PROJECT COSTS. SO 10% OF ALL THE BONDS. AND THAT WOULD BE FOR 2037 WITH AN IMPACT IN 3820 2727. YEAH, I'M JUMPING WAY TO THE FUTURE. I THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME. 27 WITH DEBT ISSUANCE, HITTING IN WITH THE ACTUAL DEBT PAYMENT STARTING IN. 28 AND THEN THE REST OF THE FUNDS FOR THESE BONDS DIVIDED OVER THE NEXT FOUR YEARS, EQUALLY TO REPRESENT US PAYING TO START THESE PROJECTS AND FINISH THE PROJECTS OVER THAT TIME PERIOD. AGREED. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS, I'D AGREE. I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD

[01:00:06]

THANK YOU. SO THAT DOES COMPLETE OUR FIRST WORK SESSION THIS EVENING. WE WILL NOW MOVE

[WS2. Discuss the relocation and restoration of the historic Stonehaven House. ]

WE HAVE THE TAPS, MISS ALEXIS, TAP AND MR. TROY TAP TO DO A PRESENTATION ON RELOCATING THE STONEHAVEN HOUSE. ALSO ON THE AGENDA WAS MR. JAMES PRIVETT. I WILL LET THE ALL OF COUNCIL KNOW. IF YOU HAVE NOT HEARD. HE WILL NOT BE HERE TONIGHT. HE CALLED ME A LITTLE BIT BEFORE THE MEETING, SAID HE WAS IN ROUTE AND THEN HIS WIFE CALLED HIM AND SAID HER WATER BROKE AND THEY WERE AT THE HOSPITAL FOR THEIR NEW BABY. HIS WIFE DID TELL HIM THAT WE COULD CALL HIM IF WE NEEDED TO, AND I TOLD HER WE WOULD NOT BE CALLING, BUT HIS PARTNER, MISS SANDRA STONE, IS AWARE OF HIS PRESENTATION, SO I WILL PULL IT UP AT THAT TIME WHEN HIS TIME IS HERE AND KIND OF RUN THROUGH TO SHOW YOU THE PRESENTATION. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, MISS STONE IS HERE AND AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THOSE, BUT WE WILL. IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME SINCE I'VE STOOD DOWN HERE. OKAY, WHERE ARE WE? I'M JUST GLAD I DON'T HAVE TO RUN ANY OF THAT STUFF.

THERE WE GO. SO MISS ALEXIS TAP WILL COME UP AND DO HER PRESENTATION. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO TO ADVANCE IS JUST HIT THE APPS. THAT'S ALL. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, GOOD EVENING, GOOD EVENING. SO I THINK WE'RE ALL PREPPING TO TAKE NOTES. WELL, I HOPE IT'S NOT I DON'T THINK THERE'S TOO MANY THINGS TO TAKE NOTES ON. I'M ALEXIS TAP. I LIVE AT 3713 CARRIE LANE 75098. AND I'M HERE TO REPRESENT JOY AND ALEXIS TAP AND THE STONEHAVEN HOUSE AND OUR WISH AND DESIRE TO BE PART OF THE RENOVATION. I'M GOING TO USE SOME CHEAT SHEET HERE IN BIG LETTERS. YOU SAW MY PREVIOUS PRESENTATION AND I'VE INCLUDED A FEW OTHER PHOTOGRAPHS, AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT QUICKLY BECAUSE CAN YOU YOU CAN'T SEE THAT. OH, YOU CAN SEE IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SO I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH IT PRETTY QUICKLY SO YOU DON'T LOSE YOUR ATTENTION HERE. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE IS THE STONEHAVEN HOUSE PROJECT.

THAT'S PRETTY MUCH THE WAY THE HOUSE LOOKS RIGHT NOW. IF YOU GO AROUND ON THE SIDE IT DOESN'T LOOK QUITE THAT GOOD. BUT THAT'S PRETTY UPDATED. THIS IS JUST A RENDERING THAT WAS DONE OF AN EARLY MEMBER OF THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. I'M NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IT LOOKED JUST LIKE THAT WHEN WE'RE FINISHED, BUT THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE OF A RENDERING THAT WE WOULD LIKE FOR IT TO LOOK PRETTY SIMILAR TO THAT IT IS TO BE, AS YOU'VE DECIDED, I BELIEVE THE HOUSE IS TO BE BECOME PART OF A PRIVATE MOVE INSTEAD OF WITH THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY. SO MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE PURCHASED A LOT IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT, AND IT WILL FIT THE HOUSE. I WILL SAY THAT I HAVE MET WITH SO MANY PEOPLE THAT THAT EITHER OWN LOTS IN THE DOWNTOWN HISTORIC DISTRICT OR ARE BUSINESSMEN AND KNOW THINGS.

I'VE MET WITH THE EDC, THE CITY AND TWO CHURCHES, SO I'VE PUT FEELERS OUT EVERYWHERE. AND IN THAT PROCESS, I STILL HAVE ONE THAT HAS NOT RESPONDED TO ME YET BECAUSE IT'S AN ENTITY THAT

[01:05:01]

WHEN IT SAYS RESTORATION, WE DON'T WANT TO SLAP A BAND AID ON IT. WE WANT IT TO LOOK JUST LIKE IF YOU WALKED INTO IT. AND AND IT WAS THIS IN THIS CASE, THE STONEHAVEN HOUSE, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN 1912. SO MR. SNOW MOVED THIS HOUSE 400FT FOR THE CITY AND 2015. AND HE IS ALSO A MOVER THAT WE HAVE USED. HE'S NO LONGER IN BUSINESS. SO WE HAVE FOUND ANOTHER MOVER THAT CAN DO THE PROPER DO THE JOB FOR US. THIS IS THE FIRST HOUSE WE MOVED FROM SKILLMAN ABRAMS. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE. A FEW YEARS LATER. THAT IS THE DITCH THAT I DUG ON A BACK HOLE SO THAT WE COULD HAVE DRAINAGE. THAT IS FROM GARLAND HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL FIELDS. IRVING.

IT'S A 1930S HOUSE, AND WE RESTORED IT TO PRESERVE ITS INTERIOR, TO BE FOR 1930. AND THERE IT IS. THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU HOW THE HOUSE LOOKS UP ON BEFORE IT BECOMES BRICKED.

THERE'S. AFTER THIS HOUSE WAS ON A SLANT, A SLOPED PROPERTY WHICH WAS GOING TO CAUSE PEOPLE DRAINAGE ISSUES. SO WE CREATED THE FOUNDATION TO MAKE THE HOUSE, EVEN WITHOUT CHANGING THE LANDSCAPE. AND THERE IT IS. AND THIS IS. THIS ONE CAME FROM THE CITY OF BUCKINGHAM. WE PUT IN THE DRIVEWAY AND HAD THE LOT REPLANTED. IT HAS FIVE ACRES BEHIND IT FOR HORSES. AND THEN THE CITY SAID WE HAD TO HAVE A STREET TO IT. THE STREET HAD, I BELIEVE, BEEN DESIGNATED, BUT IT HAD NEVER BEEN BUILT. SO THEY ALLOWED US TO PUT A GRAVEL STREET IN, BUT WE HAD TO REDO THE CULVERTS FOR DRAINAGE. THERE'S THE HOUSE LATER AND THERE'S THE ROAD THAT WE PUT IN.

THIS WAS THE LAST HOUSE THAT WE MOVED. IT WAS LARGE, SO IT WAS OVER 3000FT■!S HAD TO BE CUT IN HALF. AND THERE'S MY SON AND MR. SNOW ON A WORK DAY. THAT'S WHAT THE HOUSE LOOKED LIKE WHEN IT WAS MOVED TO LAVON. AND THERE ARE THE PIERS, AND WE PUT IN A LONG DRIVEWAY. WE HAD TO BE. WE HAD TO PUT IN CULVERTS AND DO A DRAINAGE SYSTEM FOR THAT HOUSE. AND THERE IT GOES.

NOW WE'RE BACK TO THE MY SHINING BEAUTY. SO THE GALLAGHER HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1917, AND IF WE EVER DOUBTED THAT WHEN WE UNCOVERED THAT LITTLE AREA ON THE HOUSE, IT HAD PLYWOOD ON IT, WE DISCOVERED THE ORIGINAL EMBOSSED LETTERS. IT NOW HAS ITS HISTORICAL MARKER FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE WHEN WE BOUGHT IT. AND THE BACK, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT IS VERY MUCH DETERIORATING. THE INSIDE OF

[01:10:08]

AND THOSE ARE JUST LITTLE THINGS THAT HE DID TO EVEN THE KITCHEN FLOOR WHERE WE BUMPED IT OUT. WE HAD TO LOOK LONG AND HARD TO FIND FLOORING THAT MATCHED THE FLOOR THAT WAS IN THE KITCHEN. AND WE WANTED TO EXTEND IT. SO YOU HAVE TO FIND EXACTLY THE KIND OF WOOD, EXACTLY THE KIND OF SIZE AND DEPTH, AND THEN WEAVE IT IN. SO THOSE THINGS WERE DONE. NOW THIS IS FOR THE MAYOR. THIS IS THE SINK FROM THE AGGIE DORM. WE DROVE DOWN AND PICKED UP THIS SINK AND BROUGHT IT BACK AND PUT IT IN OUR LAUNDRY ROOM. AND EVERYTHING IN THAT ROOM IS REPURPOSED FROM THE HOUSE. I DIDN'T SHOW YOU, BUT THE WINDOWS IN THE KITCHEN AND SOME OF THE DOORWAYS. WE TOOK WOOD FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE HOUSE AND PUT IT IN THE KITCHEN, SO THAT THERE WAS NEVER A TIME WHEN YOU THOUGHT, OH, THEY PUT NEW STUFF IN THIS HOUSE. ALL OF THAT WAS REPURPOSED OFF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, AND HE BUILT THE CABINET. THAT'S COLTON ON THE LEFT, SCRAPING PAINT SO THAT WE CAN PRIME AND PAINT. THAT'S OUR LIFT. THAT'S BUILDING THE PORCH AND THE PILLARS. THE PORCH HAD A CONCRETE PORCH. IT WAS KIND OF GOING THIS WAY AND CRACKED. SO WE REMOVED THAT, BUILT A WOOD PORCH AND BRICK COLUMNS BECAUSE IT HAD BEEN REMODELED IN THE 50S OR 60S AND HAD WROUGHT IRON PILLARS. THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE NOW, AND MY HUSBAND FOUND THAT GAZEBO, TOOK IT APART, MOVED IT HERE FROM ANOTHER TOWN AND PUT IT BACK TOGETHER AND PAINTED IT TO MATCH THE HOUSE. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN MARRIED THERE. AND HERE'S COLTON, SANDING KITCHEN FLOOR. OUR WORKER STAINING IT.

THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. NOW THESE ARE SOME OF THE ROOMS IN THE HOUSE. THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE. MY HUSBAND BUILT IT AND THEN USED THAT GREEN WOOD FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, SANDED IT AND PUT A PRIMER AND A GLOSS ON IT SO THAT IT WOULDN'T END UP IN YOUR SPAGHETTI. AND THEN THAT'S THE DINING ROOM AND PIANO ROOM FOYER. THERE'S OH, THERE'S THE TEARDROP. OOPS,

[01:15:04]

[01:20:04]

AND, AND I'M OPEN TO HEARING IDEAS FROM THE CITY ABOUT IF THERE IF THERE'S A PREFERRED PLACE, IF SOMEBODY COMES UP WITH A BETTER IDEA OF WHERE TO PUT IT, BUT WE'RE YOUR PEOPLE.

AND THERE'S STONEHAVEN. THANK YOU. MISS TAM, BEFORE YOU SIT DOWN, I DID WANT TO ASK, I APOLOGIZE, A QUICK QUESTION THAT CAME TO MIND ON THE USAGE PAGE. YOU MENTIONED MUSEUM AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT OBVIOUSLY, I KNOW AS YOU PRESENTED THIS EVENING, YOU'VE USED THE GALLAGHER HOUSE FOR OTHER USES AS WELL. IS THERE A PLAN TO HAVE DIFFERENT USAGES OF THAT SPACE BEYOND JUST MUSEUM OR PUBLICLY BEING OPEN? OH, I HAVE ALL KINDS OF IDEAS. I JUST HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WHAT WILL WORK ONCE I GET IN THERE. BUT THERE ARE SOME PRETTY BIG OPEN SPACES IN THAT HOUSE, ACTUALLY BIGGER OPEN SPACES THAN I HAVE IN THE GALLAGHER HOUSE. SO I CAN SEE IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A TASTE OF SOME OF MY VISIONS, I CAN SEE. LIKE A TRIO, LIKE A LISTENING ROOM FOR SONGWRITERS LIKE MYSELF. WHEN WE GO TO SING OUR ORIGINAL MUSIC IN A BAR, SOMETIMES PEOPLE ARE LISTENING AND SOMETIMES THEY'RE NOT. AND YOU POUR YOUR HEART AND SOUL INTO THIS. AND SO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO HEAR YOUR STORY. AND I'M A STORYTELLER, SO I WANT THEM TO KNOW THE BEGINNING WORD AND HOW IT ASSOCIATES WITH THE END WORD. AND IF YOU HAVE A LISTENING ROOM, YOU CAN DO THAT. YOU CAN GET PEOPLE THERE. MY HUSBAND AND I WENT TO A, A CHURCH LISTENING ROOM LAST YEAR AND SAW SOME PRETTY WELL KNOWN SINGER SONGWRITERS. AND YOU CAN JUST HANG ON EVERY WORD. I LOVE THAT IDEA, AND I THINK IT WOULD GO. BUT THERE'S ALSO THINGS LIKE WE WE HAVE AN OPEN FOYER IN THE MIDDLE OF THE HOUSE THERE THAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE A HALLWAY, BUT THAT THING IS HUGE. AND IT WOULD BE A PERFECT PLACE FOR A GALLERY. AND WE COULD HAVE A REVOLVING GALLERY. I, I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO HOG IT. I HAVE PAINTINGS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IN THERE SOMEDAY, BUT I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE IT THE ALEXIS TAPP ART GALLERY, IF I CAN HELP IT. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER USAGE FOR THAT, THEN I, I WANT TO DO THAT.

BUT ALSO I, I INVITED A FEW PEOPLE HERE TONIGHT. I JUST WANT TO QUICKLY INTRODUCE THEM, IF THAT'S OKAY. LARRY HEATH AND HIS WIFE AND NEIGHBOR, THEY ARE THEY LIVE IN THE STONE RANCH DEVELOPMENT AND HE HAS SIGNED UP TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL. YES. AND AND I'VE BEEN COMMUNICATING

[01:25:02]

AND IN ONE OF MY RECENT CONVERSATIONS WITH MR. HEATH, HE SAID, WELL, THAT WAS ME THAT SAID THAT I WAS THE ONE THAT SAID THE HOUSE SHOULD BE TORN DOWN. AND I SAID, YES, I KNOW I DIDN'T WANT TO POINT IT TO YOU, BUT IT IT WAS ON THE MINDS OF A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT, THAT AREA THAT FEEL LIKE THEIR HOUSES HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW. DIMINISHED IN SOME WAY BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF THE HOUSE. AND THEN LASTLY, I NOT LASTLY, I INVITED FRAN VESTAL, WHO HAS A HISTORIC HOUSE, AND JAN PARKER MORGAN. THAT IS ON THE. HELP ME HERE. WHAT'S THE NAME OF THE TRUST? THE BIRMINGHAM TRUST. I'M SORRY. SO SHE'S ON THE BIRMINGHAM TRUST. SO I WAS SPEAKING WITH HER ABOUT POTENTIAL CLASSES FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL THERE. IN THE AREA OF PRESERVATION. NOW, WHETHER THAT COULD EVER HAPPEN, I DON'T KNOW. BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA TO TRY TO GET OUR YOUNG GENERATION TO BE INTERESTED IN THIS, BECAUSE WHO'S GOING TO DO IT WHEN WE'RE GONE? SO THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, SIR? I DON'T SEE ANY RIGHT NOW, BUT WE MAY CALL YOU BACK UP. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. MISS ALI, SO OBVIOUSLY YOU INFORMED US THAT MR. PRIVET HAS OTHER OTHER THINGS GOING ON RIGHT NOW, WHICH I CAN EMPATHIZE WITH. SO. I ARE YOU GOING TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS ON HIS BEHALF? I WOULDN'T EVEN CALL IT A WALK THROUGH. I WILL SHOW YOU TWO SLIDES. PROVIDE US THE SLIDES. YES. AND THEN IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, MISS STONE CAN ANSWER THAT. ONE OF THE THINGS FROM THE LAST TIME THAT HE PRESENTED, WHEN HE TALKED ABOUT RELOCATING THE SCOTT BARKER HOUSE IN MELISSA, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON IT, CURRENTLY, THE HOUSE IS DOES SIT ON A PERMANENT FOUNDATION, SO IT HAS MOVED FROM RELOCATION TO STABILIZATION TO NOW IN THE STAGE OF BEING RESTORED. SO THOSE ARE SOME PICTURES OF IT. AND THEN. I'M SUMMONING MISS MISS STONE DOWN HERE. PAGE 22. WANTED ME TO PULL THIS SLIDE UP TO LET YOU KNOW IN REGARDS TO HIS WORK FOR THE STONE HAVEN HOUSE THAT THE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE. HE HAS UPFRONT FUNDS AND IT'S READY. AND KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHAT THE STAGES OF MOVING FROM RELOCATION TO ACTUAL RESTORATION TO BEGIN RESTORATION. NO DELAY IN THAT TIME. IS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD, SANDRA STONE 211 NORTH KEIFER DRIVE. I REALLY DO THINK THAT HIS PRESENTATION, AND I KNOW YOU GOT IT LATE, AND I DO THINK THAT IF YOU GO THROUGH IT, IT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. THE SCOTT BARKER HOUSE HAS SINCE DECEMBER. THEY'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS ON THAT HOUSE. I KNOW THAT HE HAS ALL THE FUNDS UP FRONT FOR STONEHAVEN. HE HAS ALL OF THE CONTRACTORS IN PLACE, MATERIALS IN PLACE, COST FOR WHAT HE WANTS TO DO WITH THE HOUSE. AS FAR AS RESTORATION, MY PART IN THIS IS WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS AND I'VE AGREED TO WORK WITH HIM ON THE RESTORATION, HISTORIC RESTORATION AND ALSO TO HELP CREATE PROGRAMS FOR THE HOUSE, FOR THE COMMUNITY. I THINK THE COMMUNITY NEEDS AN OPTION WITH THIS HOUSE BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ANYTHING. NOW, AS FAR AS MUSEUM HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS, I BELIEVE COUNCILMAN DUKE SAID HE HAD VISITED THE HISTORIC MUSEUM AND WAS REALLY IMPRESSED WITH ALL THE HISTORIC

[01:30:02]

EVERYBODY WANTS TO LEARN ABOUT THEIR FAMILIES AND THE HISTORICAL PART OF THE TOWN AS WELL. I'M TALKING TO SOME, SOME MARGIE RAO, SOME OF THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN HERE FOREVER ABOUT ARTIFACTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE, YOU KNOW, GIFT TO, TO PUT IN A MUSEUM TYPE THING, HISTORICAL STUFF FOR THE CITY. SO THAT'S MY PART. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? SO I WILL LET COUNCIL MARINATE IN CASE THERE ARE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS. WE DID HAVE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO SIGNED UP WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ON THIS ITEM, SO THIS TIME I'LL CALL THEM IN THE ORDER I HAVE THEM SITTING HERE. SO FIRST THIS EVENING IS MR. LARRY HEATH. IF YOU WILL STEP FORWARD, IF YOU'LL TURN THAT BACK ON FOR US. AND THEN I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE, YOU WILL HAVE IF YOU'LL START WITH YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES IN WHICH TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL, SIR. THANK YOU. IF YOU'LL HIT THE MICROPHONE ON FOR US THERE, THEIR THEIR NAME AND ADDRESS, IF YOU'LL START WITH. AND THEN WE'LL START YOUR TIME. ALL RIGHT. LARRY HEATH 507 VIRGINIA LANE, WYLIE, TEXAS, IN STONE RANCH. AND IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE OR IS THAT IT? NO, NO, THE THREE MINUTES IS YOURS. OKAY.

VERY GOOD. I JUST WANTED BECAUSE I HAVE PRESENTED A FEW TIMES BEFORE, MY WIFE AND I MOVED INTO STONE RANCH EARLY ON WHEN STONE RANCH WAS JUST STARTED. SO WE'VE BEEN THERE ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AND WE WERE TRYING TO JUST GET THE STONEHAVEN HOUSE MOVED FROM ONE POSITION TO ANOTHER POSITION. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS JUST SITTING THERE FOR SO MANY YEARS.

AND SO WE WERE JUST TRYING TO GET SOMEONE TO PLACE IT ON THE CATEGORY TO DO SOMETHING WITH IT. I WORKED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT MANAGER SEVERAL TIMES. I WAS A HOA PRESIDENT AT STONE RANCH FOR A YEAR, AND I WORKED WITH HIM DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME. IT JUST DIDN'T

[01:35:04]

[01:40:03]

COUNCILMAN WILLIAMS. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I WOULD ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION BEFORE I. QUESTIONS ARE FINE AS WELL, AND THAT IS, I DON'T KNOW, MISS STONE, IF YOU COULD ANSWER IT OR MISS ALI, IF YOU COULD, HAS GENTLEMAN RECEIVED HAS HE PURCHASED A PROPERTY IN DOWNTOWN? DOES HE HAVE A PROPERTY TO MOVE. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF, NO. HE'S. HE'S CURRENTLY LOOKING, BUT DOESN'T HAVE ONE YET. IF YOU LOOK IN THE PRESENTATION, I BELIEVE HE. OR MAYBE IT WAS THE PREVIOUS ONE. HE DID GIVE YOU A MAP OF THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT HE'S LOOKING AT. HE'S AS FAR AS THE WHAT THE EDC OWNS AND WHAT'S OPEN, BUT HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANYTHING YET. HE WAS KIND OF WAITING FOR LET'S GO. AND THEN HE PURCHASED. SURE. OKAY. I WOULDN'T PURCHASE BEFORE. THANK YOU. HAD A HOUSE. IT'S LIKE BUYING A SADDLE BEFORE YOU GOT A HORSE. WITH THOSE BEING THE FACTS, MAYOR, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD WITH MISS TAPP'S PRESENTATION TO SEE IF WE ARE ABLE TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT, AND THAT HOUSE IS GOING TO FUNCTION ON THE PROPERTY THAT SHE'S GOT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT HOW MUCH OF THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT TO WHAT LEVEL AS FAR AS MOVING HAVE WE? YEAH, I THINK THIS IS JUST WHO DO WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THOSE DISCUSSIONS. SO YEAH, I WOULD START WITH. MISS TAPP FIRST.

AND THEN I WOULD MOVE TO I KEEP DRAWING A BLANK ON HIS NAME AND I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME.

SO OKAY. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO IN FAVOR OF THE TAPP COUNT? YES, COUNCILMAN STRANG, THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'VE ALWAYS BEEN INCLINED. I'M STILL INCLINED TO GO WITH MR. PRIVET. OKAY, COUNCILMAN DUKE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'LL PUT MY VOTE IN FOR MR. PRIVET. OKAY.

AND DO WE HAVE ANY? I HAVE SEVERAL OTHERS THAT I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM COUNCILMAN PICKENS.

WE'LL GO WITH MR. PRIVET. OKAY. COUNCILMAN HOOVER, I'LL GO WITH MR. PRIVET. OKAY. WELL, THAT IS A MAJORITY, MISS ALI. SO APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION THIS EVENING, AND I GUESS WE WILL BE MOVING FORWARD WITH MR. PRIVET WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM. IF YOU COULD HAVE THOSE AND JUST KEEP US UPDATED ON HOW THAT GOES, HOW HIS SEARCH FOR A LOT PROCEEDS AND WE CAN WE'LL

[01:45:04]

THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, SIR. OKAY, OKAY. GOT IT. COUNCILMAN STRING, I CONCUR WITH COUNCILMAN HOOVER. 90 DAYS TO GET UNDER CONTRACT. SOUNDS SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. COUNCILMAN DUKE. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I CONCUR WITH THE 90 DAYS. OKAY.

COUNCILMAN PICKENS, I AGREE. OKAY, SO THAT'S A MAJORITY THERE. SO 90 DAYS TO HAVE A LOT UNDER CONTRACT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THAT DOES COMPLETE OUR TWO WORK SESSIONS

[RECONVENE INTO REGULAR SESSION ]

[EXECUTIVE SESSION ]

[RECONVENE INTO OPEN SESSION ]

[READING OF ORDINANCES ]

PROVIDING FOR REPEALING SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES. PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND PROVIDING FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE CAPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE. THAT IS ALL. THANK YOU, MISS STORM. WITH THAT, THAT DOES COMPLETE EVERYTHING THIS EVENING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? COUNCILMAN PICKENS, A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

MOTION TO ADJOURN. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? COUNCILMAN HOOVER, I SECOND. OKAY. MOTION WITH A SECOND TO ADJOURN. COUNCIL, PLEASE CAST YOUR VOTES.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.