6.A. Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the City's zoning ordinance codified in Appendix B of the City of Burleson Code of Ordinances relating to a Heavy & High Energy industrial district. (First Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director)

[6.A. Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the City's zoning ordinance codified in Appendix B of the City of Burleson Code of Ordinances relating to a Heavy & High Energy industrial district. (First Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

6.A IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE CODIFIED IN A, IN APPENDIX B OF THE CITY OF BURLESON CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO A HEAVY AND HIGH ENERGY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS TONY MCLLWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

[00:25:01]

MR. MCLLWAIN. THANK YOU, MISS CAMPOS, AND GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS EVENING I'M BRINGING TO YOU AN ITEM THAT WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED IN OPEN SESSION THAT BEING A DRAFT ORDINANCE FOR A HEAVY AND HIGH ENERGY INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY BRIEFED, THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS TO IMPLEMENT A NEW ZONING CATEGORY TO ACCOUNT FOR HIGH ENERGY USES. THIS PROPOSED DRAFT ORDINANCE INCORPORATES CERTAIN BUSINESSES WITH OPERATIONS AND FACILITIES THAT MAY CREATE ENERGY OR REQUIRE HIGH ENERGY CONSUMPTION RELATIVE TO OTHER BUSINESSES AND OTHER DISTRICTS.

WE HAVE PROVIDED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS WITHIN THIS DRAFT ORDINANCE THAT COVER THINGS SUCH AS NOISE, SMOKE AND PARTICULATE MATTER, OTHER AIR CONTAMINANTS, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, FIRE AND EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS, GLARE AND VIBRATION. THIS SNAPSHOT IS A PRIMARY USE CATEGORY TABLE.

IT SHOWS WHAT STAFF HAS PROVIDED AS FAR AS BY RIGHT USES.

WHEN WE SAY BY RIGHT IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN SUP CONSIDERATION.

WE'VE GOT AVIATION AND PASSENGER TERMINALS IN THE UPPER LEFT DOWN THROUGH WHOLESALE SALES TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT.

AND THESE WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT.

I'LL PAUSE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THESE PROPOSED USES. OKAY, THE SUP OR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT CATEGORIES ARE SOME OTHER LAND USES THAT WE HAVE.

AND YOU'LL START SEEING A TRANSITION TO SOME OF YOUR HIGHER INTENSITY USES AS IT RELATES TO ENERGY, OR THE USE OF ENERGY IN THE BUSINESSES IN WHICH THEY ARE INVOLVED.

WE'VE GOT THINGS THAT WE TYPICALLY DON'T SEE IN BURLESON, BUT WE WANTED TO KIND OF HAVE A WIDE SPECTRUM OF USES COAL POWER PLANTS, DATA CENTERS, WHICH HAS BEEN A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION FOR THE COUNCIL.

AND OTHER USES THAT EITHER, AGAIN, CREATE ENERGY OR USE ENERGY IN A VERY HIGH CONSUMPTIVE MATTER, MANNER, EXCUSE ME. AND I'LL PAUSE HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS WITH THE CATEGORIES OR THE LAND USES LISTED.

ANYONE? OKAY. WE PUT IN A SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT AND BUFFER REQUIREMENT FOR THESE USES.

SO COUNCIL. IF YOU RECEIVE AN SUP FOR ANY OF THESE USES, IT ALSO WILL TRIGGER A SITE PLAN.

AND DURING THE COURSE OF THAT DELIBERATION, COUNCIL CAN CONSIDER WHETHER ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, BUFFERING, SCREENING, NOISE AND GLARE MITIGATION AND OTHER PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ARE REQUIRED WITH THE PARTICULAR APPLICATION.

AND ADDITIONAL TO THAT, THE DRAFT THAT WENT FORWARD TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REQUIRED A BUFFER FOR AN SUP OF 200FT AGAINST A RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY OF 100FT AGAINST ANY NEAREST RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. NOW, I WILL TELL YOU THAT DURING THE COURSE OF CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THAT ITEM BE INCREASED.

SO AS YOU WENT WITH SOME OF THE HEAVIER ENERGY USES, THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE AN INCREASE IN THOSE USES TO 500FT. WHEN YOU HAVE A LARGE ENERGY USE, AND 250FT WHEN IT'S AGAINST RESIDENTIAL.

AND I'LL GO INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THAT. THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT IS BEING PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

I'LL READ IT OUT LOUD. FOR BUFFER REQUIREMENTS, THE CLOSEST PORTION OF ANY BUILDING, VERTICAL SUBORDINATE EQUIPMENT, THAT'S AN ADDITION, OR OTHER STRUCTURE REQUIRING APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT SHALL BE 500FT FROM THE NEAREST BOUNDARY OF ANY DISTRICT, ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES AND 250FT FROM THE NEAREST BOUNDARY OF ANY RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

SO EVERYTHING THAT YOU SEE UNDERLINED IS THE PROPOSED NEW TEXT IS RECOMMENDED TO YOU BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

STAFF HAS NO OBJECTION TO THOSE CHANGES BEING PROPOSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I LIKE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE.

COUNCIL PRIOR TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY QUESTIONS? THEN I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:59. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? I SEE NONE, SO WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5.

WELL, AT 6:00. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? MAYOR, BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT THAT THERE ARE NO BIG DATA CENTERS PLANNED IN CASE ANYBODY'S WONDERING FOR THE CITY.

WE HAVE ONE VERY SMALL ONE THAT, ER, BUT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO GET AHEAD GIVEN THE POLITICAL HOT BUTTON, THIS HAS BEEN IN NEIGHBORING COUNTIES AND I THINK THIS IS THIS IS A GOOD STEP FORWARD AND I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT TO US SO WE CAN HAVE A LITTLE MORE CONTROL OVER

[00:30:09]

WHAT WE CAN HAVE IN THE CITY. AND I AGREE WITH PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO. YEAH, TONY, I ALSO AGREE WITH THE P AND Z.

THAT WAS A GOOD CATCH ON THEIR PART. YES, SIR.

THANKS FOR HITTING THAT OFF ADAM. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE WITH PLANNING AND ZONING RECOMMENDATIONS.

I HAVE A MOTION BY ADAM AND A SECOND BY ALEXA.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES. UNANIMOUS. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[6.B. Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending Section 50, “Definitions,” of Article II of Appendix B, “Zoning,” of the Code of Ordinances by amending the definition of Home Occupation by adding a new definition of No-Impact Home Based Business in accordance with State law. (First Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

THAT BRINGS US TO 6.B, HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 50, DEFINITIONS, OF ARTICLE II OF APPENDIX B, ZONING, OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES BY AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF HOME OCCUPATION BY ADDING A NEW DEFINITION OF NO-IMPACT-HOME HOME BASED BUSINESSES IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING, AND THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ONCE AGAIN TONY MCLLWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR. THANK YOU. AS THE CITY SECRETARY MENTIONED, THIS AMENDMENT BRINGS THE CITY, CONSISTENT WITH CHANGES THAT THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE MADE INTO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 229, EXCUSE ME. SPECIFICALLY HOUSE BILL 2464 WAS INTRODUCED AND ADOPTED IN THE 89TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE.

IT ESSENTIALLY WAS PUT IN PLACE TO ELIMINATE, OR AT LEAST A MINIMUM, REDUCE RED TAPE FOR ENTREPRENEURS, ALLOWING FOR EASIER, LOWER COST, HOME BASED BUSINESS OPERATIONS.

IT TOOK EFFECT EFFECTIVE SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY'S LEGAL COUNSEL TO BRING THIS FORWARD TO YOU, COUNCIL, AND IT'S A VERY SIMPLE TWEAK TO OUR CURRENT EXISTING ZONING CODE. TWO THINGS ARE BEING PROPOSED.

ONE IS TO ADD A NEW SUBSECTION TO THE DEFINITION OF HOME OCCUPATION.

THAT SUBSECTION IS NUMBER 10 ON THE SCREEN. THAT NEW LANGUAGE WILL BE INSERTED WITHIN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES UNDER THE DEFINITION SECTIONS.

REGARDING HOME OCCUPATION. THE SECOND THING THIS ORDINANCE DOES IS IT ACTUALLY PROVIDES A DEFINITION OF WHAT A NEW HOME-BASED BUSINESS IS. THIS LANGUAGE IS TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM THE LANGUAGE IN THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 229, AS ADOPTED BY THE TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE. THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE A NEW ADDITION TO CHAPTER, SECTION 50 UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THERE ARE TWO VERY SIMPLE THINGS HAPPENING A NEW SUBSECTION TO HOME OCCUPATION, AND THEN THE ADDITION OF NO IMPACT HOME-BASED BUSINESS TO OUR ZONING CODE AS A DEFINITION.

WE CONDUCTED A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THERE WAS NO ONE SPOKE IN OPPOSITION, AND THERE IS A UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL TO YOU FROM THE P&Z.

AND STAFF, OF COURSE, SUPPORTS THE CHANGE IN LAW, AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYONE? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:03.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? THEN I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:04. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICTORIA, SECOND BY ALEXA.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU TONY.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 7, GENERAL.

[7.A. Consider the use of eminent domain to condemn property and consider and take possible action on Resolution No. 6106-04-2026 authorizing the filing of eminent domain proceedings for the purpose of obtaining the necessary real property for the Town Creek Basin Parallel Interceptor Sewer Line project (WW2301) to serve existing and new development in the City. (Staff Contact: Randy Morrison, PE, Director of Capital Engineering)]

7.A IS TO CONSIDER THE USE OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO CONDEMN PROPERTY AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON RESOLUTION 6106-04-2026. AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAINING THE NECESSARY REAL PROPERTY FOR THE TOWN CREEK BASIN PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWER WATER LINE PROJECT (WW2301) TO SERVE EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY. THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS RANDY MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL ENGINEERING. MR. MORRISON.

MY NAME IS RANDY MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL ENGINEERING.

THE ITEM. THIS ITEM IS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO BEGIN NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR THE NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR THE PROJECT, AND THEN PROCEED WITH EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS IF NECESSARY FOR THE TOWN CREEK BASIN PARALLEL

[00:35:08]

INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE PROJECT. SO I'LL RUN THROUGH A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT, A QUICK BACKGROUND, SO WE HAVE THE PROJECT. IT WILL CONSIST OF A PARALLEL SANITARY SEWER LINE.

THERE'S AN EXISTING ONE THAT WAS CONSTRUCTED IN 2003 THAT WILL RUN THIS, THIS PROJECT WILL RUN PARALLEL TO THAT.

IT STARTS NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF SCOTT STREET AND RIGNEY WAY, WHICH IS JUST WEST OF I-35 AND RUNS EAST FOR ABOUT TWO MILES TERMINATING IN THE SOUTHERN OAKS GOLF COURSE.

THAT'S WHERE THE EXISTING METER STATION IS WITH FORT WORTH.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE WE CONNECT TO THEIR SYSTEM. THE PROJECT OR THIS PIPELINE IT'S NECESSARY, EXTREMELY NECESSARY FOR OUR FORECASTED GROWTH WITHIN THE CITY.

IT'S NEEDED IN ORDER FOR US TO SUPPORT MAJOR DEVELOPMENTS SUCH AS CHISHOLM SUMMIT AND TALL GRASS THAT ARE QUICKLY MOVING FORWARD.

THE IMPROVEMENTS ARE NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE SEWER CAPACITY THAT THE CITY HAS ALREADY SECURED WITH THE CITY OF FORT WORTH.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PURSUING THE PROJECT AT THIS TIME.

DESIGN IS ROUGHLY 90% COMPLETE. WE'RE WRAPPING UP THE FINAL DESIGN ELEMENTS, BUT ACQUIRING THE NECESSARY RIGHT OF WAY OR EASEMENTS FOR THE PROPERTY OR FOR THE PROJECT. IT IS OUR CRITICAL PATH ON THE PROJECT.

SO WE ANTICIPATE INITIATING THE RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION.

AND THEN THAT WILL BE COMPLETE THIS FALL. IF EVERYTHING GOES SMOOTHLY THIS RESOLUTION WILL ENABLE US TO, TO STAY ON TRACK OR ON SCHEDULE WITH THAT. AND THEN WE ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO BID THE PROJECT AND MOVE INTO CONSTRUCTION EARLY 2027.

JUST A QUICK SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS.

WE HAVE 18 TOTAL ACQUISITIONS. 4 PERMANENT EASEMENTS FROM PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE INCLUDED IN THAT.

TWO PERMANENT EASEMENTS ON CITY OF BURLESON PROPERTY.

WE HAVE EIGHT TEMPORARY EASEMENTS WITH WITHIN THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS ALONG THE CORRIDOR.

AND THEN 4 TEMPORARY EASEMENTS WITH THE CITY OF FORT WORTH.

SO ALTOGETHER, IT'S ROUGHLY 7.2 ACRES. AND WE HAVE OUR DESIGN CONSULTANTS WITH THEIR SUBCONSULTANTS.

THEY WITHIN THEIR SCOPE IS TO ASSIST THE CITY IN THESE ACQUISITIONS.

AND THEY'VE PUT TOGETHER ALL THE EASEMENT DOCUMENTS, THE APPRAISALS, AND NOW THEY'LL HELP US WITH THE ACQUISITION.

SO WE'RE UTILIZING THEIR SERVICES TO COMPLETE THESE.

WITH THAT THE ITEM THIS EVENING IS TO CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF NEGOTIATIONS AND IF NECESSARY, FILING THE EMINENT DOMAIN PROCEEDINGS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING PROPERTY FOR THE USE OF THE CITY, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TOWN CREEK BASIN PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE PROJECT.

I'LL BE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OR DISCUSSION ANYBODY? IS THERE A MOTION? BEFORE I BEGIN THIS. I'D LIKE TO SAY I'M ABOUT TO SET A RECORD FOR THE LONGEST MOTION EVER MADE FROM THIS BENCH. IF ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SLIP OUT.

I'LL USE THE RESTROOM, CALL HOME AND CHECK ON MOM.

NOW THAT WOULD BE A GOOD TIME TO DO IT. BUT OUR ATTORNEYS HAVE ADVISED ME THAT WE MUST READ THIS INDIVIDUALLY FOR EACH OF THESE 18 ACQUISITIONS AND TO MEET THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS. SO HERE WE GO. I MOVE THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLESON AUTHORIZE THE USE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN TO ACQUIRE THE PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENTS AND TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENTS DESCRIBED IN RESOLUTION NUMBER 6106-04-2026, AS PRESENTED, SPECIFICALLY. A 0.0590-ACRE (2,568 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER D219296596. THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

1 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0249-ACRE (1,083 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1999, PAGE 618, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

2 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0537-ACRE (2,339 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1999, PAGE 618, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

3 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0903-ACRE (3,935 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED

[00:40:04]

IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2020-34764, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

4 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.1152-ACRE (5,018 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3815, PAGE 917, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

5 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.2486-ACRE (10,829 SQUARE FOOT) PERMANENT SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENTS RECORDED IN VOLUME 3747, PAGE 114, DEED RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS, AND AN INSTRUMENT, AND AN IN INSTRUMENT NO. 2010-22820, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT NO.

6 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.1285-ACRE (5,599 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 3815, PAGE 917, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

1 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.1199-ACRE (5,223 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2020-34764, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

2 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.5659-ACRE (24,651 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1999, PAGE 618, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

3 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.5668-ACRE (24,692 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 2332, PAGE 615, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

4 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.5351 ACRE (23,310 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2022-16540, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

5 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0850-ACRE (3,704 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1242, PAGE 203, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

6 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0702 ACRE (3,057 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1241, PAGE 460, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

7 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.0079-ACRE (344 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1215, PAGE 740, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

8 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.4763-ACRE (20,750 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1215, PAGE 740, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

9 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 0.2446-ACRE (10,655 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1240, PAGE 856, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

10 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND A 1.1384-ACRE (THAT'S 49,587 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER 2020-31249, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO, 11 TO THE RESOLUTION.

AND A 2.4588-ACRE (107,105 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN INSTRUMENT NUMBER

[00:45:02]

D219015491, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS.

BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

12 TO THE RESOLUTION. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, A 0.2829-ACRE (12,322 SQUARE FOOT) TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT ON PROPERTY DESCRIBED IN THE DOCUMENT RECORDED IN VOLUME 1160, PAGE 106, OFFICIAL PUBLIC RECORDS OF JOHNSON COUNTY, TEXAS. BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN EXHIBIT A, TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT NO.

13 TO THE RESOLUTION. ALL THESE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE OF THE TOWN CREEK BASIN PARALLEL INTERCEPTOR SEWER LINE PROJECT KNOWN AS WW2301, TO SERVE EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY AND FOR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSES AS PERMITTED BY LAW.

AND I FURTHER MOVE TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NUMBER 6106-04-2026 AS PRESENTED.

THE FIRST RECORD VOTE WILL APPLY TO ALL UNITS OF PROPERTY TO BE CONDEMNED.

I HAVE A VERY LONG MOTION BY DAN MCCLENDON AND A SECOND BY ALEXA.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS. GOOD JOB DAN. THANK YOU.

FOR THE RECORD, MAYOR, IT WAS SEVEN MINUTES AND 20S FOR HIS MOTION.

PRETTY GOOD JOB. THAT'S GOOD. HE ONLY STUTTERED ONCE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AND THANK YOU MAYOR PRO TEM FOR TAKING THAT ONE.

7.B CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY'S OPERATING BUDGET (CSO095910-09-2025)

[7.B. Consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the City operating budget (CSO#5910-09-2025) for Fiscal Year 2025-2026 by increasing appropriations in the General Fund in the amount of $13,430, by increasing appropriations in the Public Safety Grant Fund in the amount of $31,070, by increasing appropriations in the 4B Fund in the amount of $195,607, by increasing appropriations in the newly established Bartlett Park Soccer Complex Fund in the amount of $260,757, by increasing anticipated revenues in the Public Safety Grant Fund by $31,070, and by increasing anticipated revenues in the Bartlett Park Soccer Complex Fund by $260,757; and finding time is of the essence. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Contact: Kevin Hennessey, Deputy Director of Finance)]

FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2025 2026, BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE GENERAL FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF 13,430.

BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF 31,070.

BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE 4B FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF 195,607.

BY INCREASING APPROPRIATIONS IN THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED BARTLETT PARK SOCCER COMPLEX FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF 260,757.

BY INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUND BY 31,070.

AND BY INCREASING ANTICIPATED REVENUES IN THE BARTLETT PARK SOCCER COMPLEX FUND BY 2000, BY 260,057 AND FINDING THAT TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE. THEREFORE, THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

ON FIRST AND FINAL READING. THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS KEVIN HENNESSY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF FINANCE.

KEVIN. THANK YOU AMANDA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

AS MENTIONED, WE'RE HERE TO DISCUSS A PROPOSED BUDGET AMENDMENT.

SO AS IS OUR TRADITION, WE'LL LOOK AT HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THE CITY AT LARGE.

AND THEN WE'LL LOOK AT EACH FUND TO DISCUSS THE DETAILS OF WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL.

SO THIS IS A SNAPSHOT OF HOW THIS IMPACTS THE CITY.

SO THERE'S A SMALL ITEM IN THE GENERAL FUND, PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUND, AND THEN THE 4B FUND AND THE NEWLY ESTABLISHED BARTLETT PARK SOCCER COMPLEX FUND, OR A TANDEM ITEM THAT WE'LL DISCUSS IN DETAIL WHEN WE GET TO THOSE FUNDS.

SO WE'LL BEGIN LOOKING AT THE GENERAL FUND. SO THIS BUDGET AMENDMENT IS PROPOSING THE CREATION OF A NEW FULL TIME EQUIVALENT.

SO THIS WILL ADD ONE POSITION TO THE FULL-TIME HEADCOUNT.

AND SO FOR THAT POSITION FOR THE BUDGETED AT 25% TO COMPLETE THE YEAR IS THE 44,767 AMOUNT.

AND THIS POSITION WILL COME WITH AN OFFSETTING REDUCTION TO EXPENDITURES AS FROM THE ENGINEERING DESIGN AND PLANNING.

THAT'S A TRANSFER THAT WE DO FROM OUR CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS TO COVER THE WORK THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS DO TO SUPPORT THOSE PROJECTS.

AND SO THE NET OF THOSE TWO TRANSACTIONS ENDS UP BEING AN INCREASE OF $13,430 TO THE BUDGET FOR THAT PROPOSED POSITION FOR THIS FISCAL YEAR. THEN THAT BRINGS US TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY GRANT FUND.

SO THIS IS $31,070. THIS IS THE APPROPRIATING THE REMAINDER AMOUNT OF THAT GRANT THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED.

WHICH BRINGS US TO THE 4B FUND. SO THIS IS A PART OF THE AGREEMENT WITH THE SFC AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT OF THE BARTLETT SOCCER FIELDS CONCESSION STANDS. AND SO THIS REQUIRES SOME START UP CAPITAL COSTS TO BUYING SOME EQUIPMENT AS WELL AS THE NET OPERATING WHAT

[00:50:04]

THE COSTS ARE GOING TO BE MINUS EXPENDITURES OR EXCUSE ME, MINUS THE REVENUES FOR THE REMAINDER OF THIS FISCAL YEAR.

AND THEN THERE'S ALSO $100,000 FOR STARTUP WORKING CAPITAL.

SO AS REVENUES EBB AND FLOW, THERE'S WORKING CAPITAL WILL BE AVAILABLE IN THE BANK TO HELP COVER THOSE COSTS AS THOSE DIFFERENT TRANSACTIONS OCCUR.

AND SO THIS IS HOW THE TOTAL OF THE 4 B FUND PROPOSAL LOOKS.

WHICH BRINGS US TO A BIGGER TABLE. SO THIS IS THE BARTLETT PARK COMPLEX FUND.

THIS IS A NEW FUND THAT WE'RE ESTABLISHING TO TRACK THE ACTIVITY OF THIS NEW ARRANGEMENT WITH SFC.

SO THIS IS THE LARGE PICTURE. WE'LL DRILL DOWN AND LOOK AT THE DETAIL OF EACH ONE OF THESE LITTLE SUB TABLES.

BUT IN SUMMARY WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME SUBSIDY AND WORKING CAPITAL FROM THE 4B FUND, THE CITY OPERATIONS.

THE CITY IS GOING TO MAINTAIN MANAGEMENT OF THE MANAGEMENT AND UPDATING OF THE FIELDS, THE SFC PORTION OF WHAT THEIR COSTS AND REVENUES ARE GOING TO BE TO RUN THE CONCESSION STANDS.

AND THEN THE ONE TIME COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES TO GET STARTED UP.

AND SO TO BREAK THIS DOWN, THE WORKING CAPITAL AGAIN, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, IT'S FUNDS THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOAD INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT TO HELP US ENSURE THAT AS EXPENDITURES ARISE AND REVENUES COME IN THAT THERE'S ENOUGH CASH FUNDING IN THERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN MAKE IT BETWEEN THOSE TWO EBBS AND FLOWS. AND THEN AS THE CITY WILL TAKE ON OR TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR MANAGING THE FIELDS AND SCHEDULING TOURNAMENTS AND LEAGUE PLAY.

THESE ARE OPERATING COSTS THAT WILL SUPPORT THOSE INITIATIVES, SUCH AS MAINTENANCE AND STAFFING, AND THEN THE DIFFERENT COMBINATIONS OF MAKING SURE ALL THOSE THINGS MOVE SMOOTHLY.

SO THERE WILL BE REVENUES THAT COME ALONG WITH THIS. BUT THIS IS THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THAT OPERATION.

THEN WE COME TO THE SFC PORTION OF THE OPERATION, WHICH IS THE CONCESSION STANDS, AND SO WHICH WILL ALSO SUPPORT AND BE OPEN FOR THE OUTDOOR POOL SEASON AS WELL. SO THIS IS TO HELP THE DAY TO DAY COSTS SUCH AS FOOD AND BEVERAGE COSTS AND STAFFING, DIFFERENT INVENTORIES THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE SUCCESSFULLY.

AND THEN THE LAST ITEM TO BE ABLE TO FOR THEM TO OPERATE AND PRODUCE A HIGH QUALITY CONCESSION EXPERIENCE.

THERE ARE SOME UPFRONT INVESTMENTS IN EQUIPMENT AND SUPPLIES SO THAT THEY CAN RUN FORWARD AS SUCCESSFULLY AS POSSIBLE.

AND SO THAT IS TO THE TUNE OF $96,610. SO HOW THIS BREAKS DOWN.

SO THE SUBSIDY FROM THE 4B WHICH THAT BRINGS THE THE NET TOTAL OF THIS FUND TO NET ZERO TO HELP FUND THE THE STARTUP OF THIS VENTURE. AND THEN THE TRANSFER IN OF THE WORKING CAPITAL.

AND THEN THERE IS THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THE WORKING CAPITAL. SO AS WE LOAD IT TO THE BANK ACCOUNT WHAT THAT DOES IS IT SHOWS ON THE GENERAL LEDGER.

HOWEVER, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THAT DOLLAR, EVERY DOLLAR IS GOING TO BE SPENT, BUT THAT 100,000 WILL BE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AVAILABLE.

AS WE MENTIONED, AS THE REVENUES COME IN AND EXPENDITURES GO OUT, THAT THEY CAN CONTINUE TO OPERATE WITHOUT ANY HICCUPS.

HERE'S A SUMMARY OF THE CITY FIELD OPERATING COSTS TO MAINTAIN AND DO THE SCHEDULING OF THOSE FIELDS.

SO THERE'S THAT ANTICIPATED REVENUE AND THEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURES THROUGH 9/30, SEPTEMBER 30TH.

HERE'S THE SFC PORTION. THEY'RE PROJECTING FOR $9500 THAT THEY'LL RECEIVE IN ANTICIPATED REVENUES, AND THEN THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURES TO RUN THAT OPERATION ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS.

HERE IS A SUMMARY OF HOW THE ONE-TIME COSTS, DIFFERENT EQUIPMENT, SETTING UP THEIR STAFF WITH THE DIFFERENT SUPPLIES AND UNIFORMS AND DIFFERENT THINGS THAT THEY NEED TO GET GOING.

AND SO THIS IS A TOTAL OF 92,610 OF ONE-TIME COSTS.

AND AGAIN, THIS IS HOW IT LOOKS AT THE FUND LEVEL.

SO. AND WITH THAT, THAT WRAPS UP OUR PROPOSAL TO YOU.

AND SO WE MOVE TO THE REQUEST IS TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT TO INCREASE REVENUES OF $291,827 AND INCREASE APPROPRIATIONS TOTALING IN $500,864.

AND I'LL GLADLY STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS? IS THERE A MOTION? I KNOW THIS IS A SMALL FINANCIAL ITEM.

[00:55:03]

THE $750 FOR UNIFORMS. YES, SIR. THAT'S THE SMALLEST ITEM ON THERE, ACTUALLY.

BUT I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. ARE WE BUYING SFC UNIFORMS? THIS IS THE. IT'S. SO WE. THEY NEED THE CASH TO START UP.

AND SO THAT IS A PART OF THE START UP COST THAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.

YES, SIR. OKAY. SO THEY HAVE UNIFORMS THEY WEAR.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? IS THERE A MOTION? IS THERE A MOTION? GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA AND A SECOND BY DAN.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

[7.C. Consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the five-year Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Year 2026-2030. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Contact: Randy Morrison, P.E., Director of Capital Engineering)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO 7.C, CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 2026-2030. THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST AND FINAL READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS RANDY MORRISON, DIRECTOR OF CAPITAL ENGINEERING.

MR. MORRISON. GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THIS ITEM IS FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF AN FY 26 THROUGH 35-YEAR CIP AMENDMENT.

THIS THIS SLIDE BREAKS DOWN THE CHANGE. WE HAVE ONE CHANGE PROPOSED IN THIS CIP AMENDMENT.

IT INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF ONE NEW PROJECT WITHIN THE 4B IT'S FOR ADDING THE DEMOLITION OF THE HIDDEN CREEK SOFTBALL FIELD COMPLEX. WE ARE ADDING 500,000 TO THE FY-26. AND THAT WILL ALLOW US TO COMPLETE THAT DEMOLITION AND GET THAT STARTED UPON THE COMPLETION OF THE SPRING SEASON. SO THAT BREAKS DOWN THE CHANGE.

AND JUST THIS, THIS SCREEN SHOWS THE RED LINE MODIFICATION TO THE CIP.

WE ADDED THE ACTUALLY, SORRY, THIS SHOWS THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT WHERE THERE'S NO CHANGES.

SAME WITH WATER AND SEWER. AND 4A, AND THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE ADDITION OF THE, THE NEW PROJECT THERE, YOU CAN SEE THAT WAS ADDED AND THEN THE UPDATED TOTALS FOR FY 26 THROUGH 30.

AND THEN THIS IS THE TIF CIP. SO ALL OF THE OTHER FUNDS, THERE WERE NO PROPOSED CHANGES, JUST THE ADDITIONS IN THE 4B.

THIS IS AN UPDATED FUND SUMMARY TABLE SHOWING THOSE NEW FUNDS.

AND WITH THAT REQUEST, THE CONSIDERATION AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN FOR FISCAL YEAR 26 THROUGH 30. QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? IS THERE A MOTION? I GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA, SECOND BY ADAM. PLEASE VOTE.

THANK YOU. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[8.A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction on street light requests. (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director)]

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 8, REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

8.A IS TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION ON STREETLIGHT REQUESTS.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS ONCE AGAIN TONY MCLLWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

TONY. THANK YOU. MISS CAMPOS. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, COUNCIL MEMBER RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM A RESIDENT FOR AN ADDITIONAL STREETLIGHT ALONG TINKER TRAIL. TINKER TRAIL IS A LOCAL STREET DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE HERITAGE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD.

STAFF CONTACTED THE RESIDENT, WHO EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH THE ADEQUACY OF STREETLIGHTS DURING LATE EVENING AND NIGHTTIME DRIVING HOURS.

FOLLOWING THAT CONVERSATION, MYSELF AND MICHELLE MCCULLOUGH CONDUCTED ONE NIGHTTIME.

WELL, MICHELLE CONDUCTED ONE NIGHTTIME WALKING EXERCISE, AND WE BOTH INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED TWO NIGHTTIME DRIVING EXCURSIONS ALONG TINKER TRAIL.

AS FAR AS EXISTING CONDITIONS, THERE ARE FOR STREETLIGHTS ALONG TINKER TRAIL.

ALL WERE OPERATIONAL DURING THE NIGHTTIME DRIVING EXCURSIONS, AND THE LIGHTS ARE SPACED AT THE FOLLOWING APPROXIMATE DISTANCES 500FT, 610FT AND 560FT. THE 610FT SPACING IS DUE TO THE STREET LIGHT BEING PLACED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE INTERSECTION TO ACCOUNT FOR A STOP SIGN.

THIS MAP GRAPHIC AERIAL SHOWS THE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS OF THE STREET LIGHTS.

WE HAVE THOSE DENOTED. AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IS ADDED THE DISTANCES BETWEEN THE EXISTING STREETLIGHTS.

[01:00:03]

SO YOU'LL SEE UP NORTH, HEADING SOUTH 500FT SPACING, 610FT SPACING AND 560FT SPACING ALONG TINKER TRAIL. THESE ARE PICTURES THAT WE TOOK OF THE STREETLIGHTS.

THEY WERE IN WORKING CONDITION AT THE TIME THAT WE MADE OUR DRIVE THROUGH.

OUR STREETLIGHTING STANDARDS ARE LISTED ON THE SCREEN.

ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'VE DONE IS I'VE MADE EVERYTHING BOLD AS IT RELATES TO HOW STREET LIGHTS ARE PUT IN IN NEIGHBORHOODS, SUBDIVISIONS. SO WE HAVE A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 600FT ALONG LOCAL AND COLLECTOR STREETS, AND LIGHTS TYPICALLY ARE NOT PLACED ANY CLOSER THAN 500FT, EXCEPT FOR INTERSECTIONS IN CUL DE SACS AND WHERE CURVES OR GRADES REQUIRE ADDITIONAL LIGHTING.

AND I'LL PAUSE THERE JUST TO GIVE YOU, AGAIN, AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT SOME OF THE FAMILIARITY WITH WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS OUR STREET LIGHTING STANDARDS. SO IN OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE CITY MANAGEMENT TEAM AND ALSO THE RESIDENT, THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE AN OFFICIAL STREET LIGHT REQUEST, POLICY OR PROGRAM, AND DECISIONS TO ADD A STREETLIGHT TYPICALLY OCCUR AT THE STAFF LEVEL.

IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, STAFF HAS NO BASIS FOR RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE STREET LIGHT REQUEST. BASED ON OUR CURRENT DESIGN STANDARDS, HOWEVER, WE'RE BRINGING THIS ITEM FORWARD FOR COUNCIL FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE A POLICY OR PROGRAM IS WARRANTED.

STAFF IS IN THE PROCESS OF UPDATING THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE, AND WILL LIKELY RECOMMEND THAT A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY BE CONDUCTED INSTEAD OF THE CURRENT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS. THE STUDY WOULD GENERATE A LIGHTING PLAN FOR PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR TRAFFIC BASED ON THE EQUIPMENT UTILIZED BY THE ELECTRIC PROVIDER OR PROVIDERS, AS IT RELATES TO BURLESON THAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY.

WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THIS WOULD INCREASE THE COST FOR DEVELOPERS, BUT YIELD A MORE SPECIFIC APPROACH TO LIGHTING.

THIS CHANGE WOULD ONLY AFFECT NEW DEVELOPMENT, WILL NOT IMPACT EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THAT'S CURRENTLY WHAT WE'RE DOING BEHIND THE CURTAINS.

NOW YOU'LL HAVE DIFFERENT STANDARDS AS IT RELATES TO PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING, WHICH WOULD TYPICALLY BE PLACED CLOSER.

AND THE INTENT OF PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING IS TO LIGHT THE SIDEWALKS WHERE STREET LIGHTING IS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STREETS AND DRIVING EXPERIENCE.

AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, WE UNDERTOOK ONE NIGHTTIME WALKING EXERCISE.

THERE IS NO PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY CURRENTLY ALONG TINKER TRAIL. WE EXPECT PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING TO COME IN AT 10 TO 14FT IN HEIGHT, BASED ON SOME OF THE SPECIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT.

AGAIN, IT SERVES THE PURPOSE OF ILLUMINATING SIDEWALKS AND PATHWAYS WITH A SMALLER INTERVAL.

WE DID DISCUSS PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING WITH THE RESIDENT, BUT THE ISSUE IS DRIVING RELATED, NOT THE WALKING EXPERIENCE.

WE REVIEWED MULTIPLE CITIES WITHIN THE REGION.

MOST DID NOT HAVE AN ARTICULATED PROCESS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE UNDERSTANDS, I DIDN'T FIND THE PROCESS.

IT MAY BE VERY WELL THAT THEY HAVE THEM, BUT THEY WERE PRETTY WELL HIDDEN FROM MY VIEWPOINT, I COULDN'T FIND THEM. BUT WE DID FIND THREE CITIES WITH IDENTIFIABLE PROCESSES.

BIDDEFORD REQUIRES COMPLETION OF A STREET LIGHT REQUEST FORM AND A PETITION SIGNED BY 100% OF PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 200FT OF A PROPOSED LOCATION, AND THE LIGHT IS INSTALLED AT THE CITY'S EXPENSE.

MY, THE QUESTION BEFORE THE COUNCIL FROM STAFF IS DOES COUNCIL WANT TO EXPLORE A FORMAL STREET LIGHT REQUEST POLICY OR PROGRAM, AND DOES COUNCIL HAVE ANY DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESIDENTS REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL STREET LIGHT ALONG TINKER TRAIL? WE HAVE NOT PERFORMED OUTREACH TO SOLICIT FEEDBACK FROM ANY OF THE RESIDENTS ALONG TINKER TRAIL, SO WE CANNOT SPEAK TO THE PREFERENCES OF OTHERS WITHIN THE HERITAGE VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOOD.

AND THAT CONCLUDES THE SHORT PRESENTATION. BUT JUST WANT TO RECEIVE THE COUNCIL'S FEEDBACK.

ON THE PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING IS, WOULD THAT BE ADDITIONAL 10-TO-15-FOOT POLES, OR WOULD YOU PUT IT ON THE BACK END OF A STREETLIGHT JUST LOWER DOWN.

IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENTLY SPACED. OKAY.

[01:05:04]

AND TONY, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH CREATING A STREET LIGHT EVALUATION REQUEST.

BUT I WOULD ONLY REQUIRE ONE SIGNATURE ON IT.

THE REASON BEING LIGHTING AND OTHER SAFETY ISSUES.

IT SHOULDN'T BE A POPULARITY VOTE. SO IF WE HAVE A SAFETY ISSUE.

ONE CITIZEN COMPLAINS JUST LIKE BTX 311. THEN WE SHOULD TAKE IT SERIOUS WITHOUT 10-15 PERCENTAGE.

I THINK ANYTIME THEY DO A REQUEST, IT SHOULD TRIGGER AN INVESTIGATION.

AND AS YOU KNOW, IF THE INVESTIGATION COMES BACK THAT ALL LIGHTING IS TO STANDARD AT THE TIME THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT WENT IN, THEN THAT'S THE ACTION WE WOULD TAKE IS NO ACTION.

IF THERE IS AN ISSUE AND IT DOESN'T MEET THE STANDARD, THEN WE NEED TO EVALUATE IT.

LIKE YOU SAID, INVESTIGATE IT, ENGINEER IT AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES NEED TO BE MADE AT THAT TIME.

AND AS FAR AS THE CURRENT STANDARD FOR PUTTING IN LIGHTS I'VE ALWAYS THOUGHT THAT THE FIXED DISTANCE THAT CREATES MARKERS INSTEAD OF ILLUMINATION. SO YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE CERTAIN LIGHTS AT A CERTAIN DISTANCE DOWN THE STREET, BUT IT NEVER HAS BEEN TO ME ADEQUATE ILLUMINATION.

NOW I KNOW TXDOT AND ANSI HAVE POLICIES THAT CREATE THE CORRECT ILLUMINATION, THE PROPER LUX, AS YOU MIGHT SAY, FOR VISIBILITY. SO I AGREE THAT WE NEED TO REEVALUATE ILLUMINATION.

AND I COULD GO INTO PARAGRAPHS OF CONVERSATION ABOUT IT, BUT I DON'T LIKE THE STANDARD OF 500FT TO 600FT.

AND I AGREE WITH YOU, WE NEED TO REEVALUATE AND GO TO THE ANSI POLICY.

WHAT IS IT, ISP-8 OR TXDOT'S INTERPRETATION? THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THAT. I COMPLETELY, I BROUGHT THIS BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF THE DESIGNATED FEET SPACING.

ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT I BROUGHT UP WHEN I WAS FIRST ON COUNCIL BECAUSE PARTICULARLY HALLOWEEN, FOR EXAMPLE, IT TURNS DARKER SO MUCH EARLIER AND YOU CANNOT SEE NOW.

OF COURSE, THAT COULD BE THAT'S A PEDESTRIAN LIGHT THING, BUT IT'S ALSO A SAFETY WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS ONE OF THOSE THAT'S VERY POPULAR AT HALLOWEEN, WHICH I THINK IS FANTASTIC, BUT IT IS SCARY. YOU CANNOT SEE IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO CROSS THE ROAD.

THERE'S A DEAD ANIMAL IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE THIS MORNING.

SO SOMEONE DIDN'T SEE SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, DARTING OUT.

AND SO I COMPLETELY AGREE THAT I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE AWAY FROM THE STANDARDIZED 500-600FT.

IT NEEDS TO JUST TO MAKE MORE SENSE. I, EVERYTHING, PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING COUNCIL MEMBER SCOTT SAID, IS WHAT I'VE BEEN THINKING FOR YEARS OF. IT'S MORE OF A MARKER.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY LIGHTING UP THE STREET WAY FOR DRIVING SAFETY, IT'S JUST LIKE, OH, THERE'S ANOTHER STREETLIGHT, BUT I DON'T, I JUST DON'T BELIEVE IT'S REALLY ADDRESSED LIGHTING AS A WHOLE, AS A SAFETY ISSUE.

AND THIS INDIVIDUAL CONTACTED ME AND I KICKED AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHETHER WE SHOULD BRING THIS FORWARD AS A COUNCIL REQUEST. AND I THOUGHT, I THINK THIS IS A BIGGER DISCUSSION.

AND SO I GENUINELY APPRECIATE THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID SO FAR, BECAUSE I AM IN SO MUCH OF AN AGREEMENT THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AND HAVE A PROCESS.

AND I TRULY APPRECIATE THE REMARK OF IF IT'S A SAFETY CONCERN, WE NEED TO BE ELEVATING THAT.

AND IT SHOULDN'T BE. I DIDN'T THINK OF IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.

AND THAT'S SO TRUE OF IF SOMEONE RAISES A SAFETY CONCERN, WE NEED TO BE LOOKING THAT ON THAT ON ITS OWN ACCORD AND NOT BASED ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY GOT THEIR NEIGHBOR'S SIGNATURES, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THAT THOSE NEIGHBORS MAY NOT BE OUT DRIVING AT NIGHT.

I KNOW I DON'T SEE VERY WELL AT NIGHT ANYMORE, AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE HOW THAT'S GOING TO PROGRESS AS I GET OLDER.

SO THE MORE LIGHTING, THE BETTER. AND I THINK THERE'S A BALANCE.

I CAN SEE I JUST HAVE TO SQUINT. BUT I APPRECIATE IT.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR CLARITY. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ON MY END.

SO THE DIRECTION WE'RE HEADING IS TONY SAID WAS PHOTOMETRIC STUDY AS WE GO FORWARD WITH OUR DESIGN MANUAL UPDATES.

SO THAT'S GOING TO ADDRESS DEFICIENCIES OR BE A NEW STANDARD FOR ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT.

BUT FOR EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD CORRECTLY.

THAT WOULD BE JUDGING THE REQUEST FOR LIGHTS BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT WERE IDENTIFIED THEN IN EFFECT.

IS THAT WHAT WE HEAR? OH, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY.

THE DISTANCE IN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE OAK VALLEY, THE TREES HAVE GROWN UP.

IT'S DIMINISHED. THE LIGHTING, THE LINE OF SIGHT AND STUFF OF THAT NATURE.

BUT 500-600FT SEEMS LIKE AN AWFULLY LONG WAY APART.

AND I'VE HAD A LOT OF CALLS ABOUT WANTING LIGHTING HERE AND WANTING LIGHTING THERE.

[01:10:04]

AND I HADN'T REALLY PAID A WHOLE LOT OF ATTENTION TO IT, AND THAT'S MY FAULT. BUT SOMETHING NEEDS TO BE DONE.

IT REALLY IS. YEAH. WE'RE ALL GETTING OLDER. OKAY.

SO YEAH, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS.

I CONCUR WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY'RE APPARENTLY GOING TO MAKE ABOUT PHOTOMETRIC STUDY, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY WAY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AREAS ARE BEING SUFFICIENTLY COVERED.

AS I RECALL, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY PEDESTRIAN LIGHTING IN BURLESON OTHER THAN OLD TOWN.

AND THAT'S SORT OF A NEW ADDITION, I THINK IN SOME OF THE AREAS, EVEN IN OLD TOWN TYPICALLY WE DON'T EXPECT THAT ALONG RESIDENTIAL, LOCAL ROADWAYS ONLY ALONG THE THOROUGHFARES WHERE THERE ARE WIDE SIDEWALKS OR TRAILS.

BUT A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY IS A, IS A GOOD IDEA FOR ANY NEW.

NOW THE QUESTION IS, HOW DO YOU WRITE THE STANDARD? WHAT'S THE STANDARD GOING TO BE? WHAT KIND OF LIGHTING IS APPROPRIATE? AND I PREFER SORT OF LIVING IN A LOW LIT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, RATHER THAN HAVING A GLARE ON MY WINDOWS ALL NIGHT LONG WHILE I'M TRYING TO SLEEP.

MOST PEOPLE MIGHT POSSIBLY AGREE WITH THAT, I THINK.

BUT GETTING INTO THIS. WE HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM THAT VICTORIA'S NEIGHBORHOOD HAS, WHERE THE TREES HAVE JUST GROWN AROUND THE STREETLIGHTS, TO THE POINT WHERE THEY'RE NOTHING MORE THAN ILLUMINATION FOR THE TREE CROWN, IT'S ABOUT ALL IT IS.

VERY LITTLE LIGHT GETS TO THE STREET. BUT ANYWAY, I THINK WE JUST NEED TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT WHAT WE WHAT PRECEDENT WE SET FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT A BURDEN.

BUT I THINK THE ONLY THING IF WHAT COMES OUT OF HERE IS THAT WE GO TO A PHOTOMETRIC STUDY BEING REQUIRED, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A POSITIVE MOVE, BUT I DON'T SEE HOW WE'LL EVER BE ABLE TO RETROFIT OLD NEIGHBORHOODS TO MEET A NEW STANDARD.

THAT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. THEN WHAT DO WE DO ABOUT THE OLDER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE THE TREES GROWN UP? OR THEY ABIDED BY THE CURRENT FEET SPACING, BUT THAT DOESN'T ADDRESS.

AND I DON'T KNOW, LIKE THE MAYOR SAID, HE'S RECEIVED A FEW CALLS ABOUT HIM TOO.

HOW DO WE ADDRESS WHEN SOMEONE'S BRINGING FORWARD LIKE, I'D LIKE MORE LIGHTING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

I FEEL LIKE IT'S SUPER DARK AND IT'S DIFFICULT TO SEE WHEN I'M DRIVING.

WHAT DO WE DO IN THE STOP GAP? WELL, I THINK TOMMY WAS CORRECT IN HIS STATEMENT THAT WE CAN'T GO BACK AND RETRO AND FIX ANYTHING BASED ON A NEW POLICY OR A NEW STANDARD. A NEW STANDARD WOULD BE GOING FORWARD TOWARDS THE NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

BUT IF WE HAVE TREES THAT ARE GROWING AROUND THE LIGHTS, WE NEED TO MANAGE THE TREES. AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY THAT DR.

FARRIS IS NOT IN THE ROOM, IS SHE? WE COULD ELIMINATE THE TREE IF WE HAVE TO.

WE DID THAT IN OLD TOWN FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. FOR THE BIRDS.

SO AND I AGREE WITH DAN, WE DON'T WANT TO GO TOO MUCH IN VICTORIA.

WE WANT TO PUT TOO MUCH LIGHT OUT THERE BECAUSE THAT CREATES WHAT THEY CALL THE BUG. AND THE BUG BUGS YOU, DOESN'T IT? IT'S THE BACK LIGHT WHICH COMES OUT AND HITS THE NEIGHBOR'S WINDOWS.

THE UP LIGHT WHICH ILLUMINATES THE STARS, CAUSES LIGHT POLLUTION AND THE GLARE DOWN THE ROAD THAT AFFECTS YOUR DRIVING ABILITY IF YOU PUT TOO MUCH LIGHT OUT THERE.

SO STAY AWAY FROM THE BUG. TONY THE OLDER STREETLIGHTS THAT WE HAVE.

AS THEY GO OUT, THEY GET REPLACED WITH THE NEWER LED ONES, AND THOSE HAVE A MORE KIND OF DIRECT AND WIDER PATH.

AS THEY GO OUT THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, IS THAT THE REPLACEMENT LED.

SO THEY'LL GET A LITTLE BIT UPGRADED. YEAH. AND.

NO, I THINK THEY STINK. THE NEW ONES STINK. YES.

WELL THEY'RE NOT LIKE FORT WORTH'S THAT TURN PURPLE MAGICALLY ALL THE TIME. I MEAN, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY BOUGHT THEIRS. THAT'S LIKE A TCU THING.

YEAH. THEY JUST TRIED TO SNEAK IT IN, BUT I DON'T FEEL LIKE THE LED LIGHTS SHINE VERY.

IT'S MORE DIRECT. LIKE IT'S MORE TO THE SPOTLIGHT.

YEAH. THERE'S A PICTURE THAT SHOWS OVERHEAD THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN OLD STREET LIGHTS AND THE NEW ONES AND THE NEW ONES.

IT'S MORE. YOU CAN SEE THE STREET, BUT NOT AROUND THE STREET.

YEAH. THOSE OF US THAT ARE GETTING OLDER AND HAVING TO WEAR GLASSES, SOMETHING ABOUT ASTIGMATISM.

THOSE LIGHTS ARE TERRIBLE. THEY'RE TERRIBLE. AND SO IF THAT'S WHAT YOU MEANT BY THEY STINK.

YES, I AGREE WITH YOU. IF WE DO ANYTHING WITH MANAGING THE TREES AS FAR AS TRIMMING THEM, PLEASE DO NOT LET THE ENCORE GUYS TRIM THE TREES WITH MAKE THEM FLAT TOPS OR V SHAPE OR WHATEVER, SO. YOU MENTIONED THE PURPLE LIGHTS OUT AT HEARST AND HIDDEN CREEK, THAT INTERSECTION. THEY HAVE THE PURPLE LIGHTS, AND THAT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BY A CITIZEN THAT THEY WERE PACKAGED WRONG.

AND THAT'S WHY FORT WORTH GOT THEM ALL. AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT SOME O THERE.

HOPEFULLY WE GOT THEM AT A DISCOUNT. YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY THINKING OF HIDDEN CREEK, HIDDEN CREEK AND EAST RENFRO, MOST OF THOSE LIGHTS ARE OUT. THEY'RE NOT EVEN ON.

[01:15:01]

SO A LOT OF GOOD THAT'S DOING. TONY YOU MAY BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN THIS.

OKAY. THE PARKS AT PANTHER-SHARP IS RIGHT DIRECTLY BEHIND MY HOUSE.

I LIVE IN AN OLDER NEIGHBORHOOD, MAYBE 20 YEARS IN JUNE.

AND THE FRONT OF MY HOUSE, WE DO HAVE SOME THAT ARE STARTING TO GO OUT LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BUT BECAUSE I SEE ALL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD GOING IN AND OUT MY BEDROOM WINDOW, THOSE LIGHT POSTS ARE SHORTER AND THEY'RE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LIGHT. THERE'S NOT AS MUCH GLARE OFF OF IT, BUT AS SOON AS THEY PUT A HOUSE BEHIND MINE, I WON'T SEE THOSE ANYMORE.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THOSE TWO TYPES OF LIGHTS? SO YOU WE HAVE HAD SPECS THAT HAVE CHANGED OVER THE YEARS, AND YOU HAVE BASICALLY ONCOR AND UCS, THERE ARE THE CITY'S LIGHT PROVIDERS. AND SO AS TIMES CHANGE, THEY MAY OCCASIONALLY CHANGE THE SPECS FOR THE STREETLIGHTS.

WE DO HAVE SOME INSTANCES WHERE IF YOU HAVE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THE DEVELOPER HAS PUT IN A DIFFERENT TYPE OF LIGHT FOR THE RESIDENTS.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HEIGHT YOU HAVE AND I CAN GET AN ANSWER FOR YOU TO GIVE YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU HAVE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT THAT NEW DEVELOPMENT, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME LIGHT POSTS THAT ARE IN MY OLD NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL HELP.

I THINK PANTHER-SHARP IS ONE OF THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT DESPERATELY NEEDS ADDITIONAL LIGHTING.

ONE OF MY FIRST NATIONAL NIGHT OUT, WE WERE STANDING IN COMPLETE DARKNESS TALKING TO PEOPLE.

IT WAS SO DARK. SO I'M IN AWE. I'M YOU'RE BEHIND IT.

AND YOU'RE SAYING IS RIGHT BEHIND ME. AND THERE ARE HOUSES THAT ARE BEING BUILT VERY QUICKLY, BUT I'M PRETTY SURE I CAN SEE 4 OF THEM OUT MY BEDROOM WINDOW.

JUST SAYING. TOMMY, DID YOU GET WHAT YOU NEEDED ABOUT RETRO AND GOING FORWARD? I'M GOING TO RESTATE IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STAFF IS PROCEEDING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION SO WE KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DESIGN MANUAL.

BUT FOR EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, IF WE RECEIVE A REQUEST FOR STREET LIGHTING, WE'RE GOING TO BASE THAT ON THE DESIGN STANDARDS THAT ARE IN EFFECT AT THE TIME THE DEVELOPMENT WENT IN. SO WE'RE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING TO MAKE SURE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT MET THE STANDARDS OR THERE'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S CURRENTLY, YOU KNOW, OUT OTHERWISE THAT WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED OR MAKING SURE IF THERE'S TREE TRIMMING DONE IN THE RIGHT WAY THAT WE ADDRESS THAT.

BUT THAT'S HOW WE WOULD ADDRESS ILLUMINATION.

WOULD WE CONSIDER TONY AND I KIND OF KICKED THIS AROUND OR HE THREW OUT AN IDEA TO ME, WOULD WE EVER CONSIDER SOMETHING LIKE A COST SHARE WHERE IF A CITIZEN REALLY WANTS TO ADD A LIGHT THAT WE MIGHT COST SHARE WITH THEM? SO THIS IS 100% A POLICY DECISION. WHAT I WOULD SAY IS RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE THESE DOLLARS BUDGETED.

I UNDERSTAND. SO I WOULD IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION OF COUNCIL, EITHER BUDGET ACCORDINGLY OR WE CAN SUBMIT A SUPPLEMENTAL.

BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE DO TODAY. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COUNCIL WISHES TO DO, YOU ABSOLUTELY COULD DO THAT.

THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES THAT DO SIMILAR THINGS.

AS FAR AS ADDRESSING THE LIGHTS THAT ARE OUT.

JUSTIN NOR ERIC THOMPSON ARE HERE RIGHT NOW. ERIC MAY BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS.

TONY MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, ONCOR MANAGES THE STREETLIGHTS THROUGH TOWN.

AT THIS TIME, ALL EXCEPT 174, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S A COMBINATION. SO OUR, THE CITY'S SPLIT.

SO UCS PROVIDES STREETLIGHT SERVICES IN CERTAIN AREAS AND ONCOR PROVIDES ANOTHER AREA.

SO IT'S SPLIT DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY. OKAY.

HOW WOULD A CITIZEN KNOW WHO TO CALL ON A STREET LIGHT THAT WAS OUT AT THIS TIME? SO THEY CAN CALL 311, AND 311 HAS ACCESS TO THE INFORMATION AND THEY CAN PROVIDE DIRECTION TO THE RESIDENT THAT CALL.

WE CAN ALSO GATHER THAT INFORMATION AND REPORT IT ONLINE TO ONCOR AND UCS.

AND SO 311 CAN PROVIDE THAT SERVICE IF THEY DON'T KNOW.

TYPICALLY, IF YOU KNOW WHO YOUR PROVIDER OF ELECTRICITY IS IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THAT'S WHO THE PROVIDER OF THE STREETLIGHTS ARE. BUT 311 CAN DEFINITELY HELP.

AND THEN THERE'S ONLINE RESOURCES. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. TONY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, I THINK THERE WAS ALSO AT ONE TIME A GIS LAYER THAT INDICATED WHO THE STREETLIGHTS BELONG TO, AND I MAY BE MISREMEMBERING IT. IT MAY BE, I DON'T RECALL THAT, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE OFTENTIMES GET CALLS FROM CITIZENS ABOUT WHO TO REACH OUT TO, AND WE STEER THEM IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE DID TALK WITH REPRESENTATIVES REGARDING OPTIONS FOR THE RESIDENT BUT THE CONCERN AGAIN IS FOR THE STREETLIGHT AS OPPOSED TO PEDESTRIAN STYLE LIGHTING.

[01:20:02]

I THINK WE'VE GENERALLY HEARD FROM THE COUNCIL THE DIRECTION, SO WE'LL PROCEED, AS I HAD ORIGINALLY INDICATED, IF THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE A DISCUSSION OR FURTHER LOOK AT THIS IN THE FUTURE, WE ALWAYS CAN BRING IT BACK. SO.

[8.B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction on a nomination for the North Central Texas Council of Governments 2026-2027 Executive Board. (Staff Contact: Janalea Hembree, Assistant to the City Manager)]

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO 8B, RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION ON A NOMINATION FOR THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS 2026-2027 EXECUTIVE BOARD.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS JENALEA HEMBREE, ASSISTANT TO THE CITY MANAGER.

JENALEA. THANK YOU, AMANDA. SO TODAY I'M GOING TO GO OVER WITH YOU THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, THEIR EXECUTIVE BOARD AND DIRECTORS. SO WHAT THE NCTCOG IS, IS A VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

IT'S ESTABLISHED TO ASSIST IN REGIONAL PLANNING.

THE PURPOSE IS TO STRENGTHEN BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL AND THE COLLECTIVE POWERS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND HELP THEM RECOGNIZE REGIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.

THEY DO HAVE MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PROGRAMS AND DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COG TRANSPORTATION, PLANNING, ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT, AGING AND DISABILITY RESOURCES, CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 911 EMERGENCY NUMBERS, AND MORE. SO THE EXECUTIVE BOARD WITHIN THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COG CONSISTS OF 16 COUNTY METROPLEX REGION CENTERED AROUND DALLAS AND FORT WORTH.

THE REGION HAS A POPULATION OF MORE THAN 8 MILLION AND AN AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 12,800 SQUARE MILES.

IT DOES HAVE 235 MEMBER GOVERNMENTS, INCLUDING 16 COUNTIES, 170 CITIES, 20 SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND 29 SPECIAL DISTRICTS.

SO WHAT IS THE EXECUTIVE BOARD? THEY ARE THE POLICY MAKING BODY FOR ALL ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE NCTCOG.

THEY DO THE PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AND DECISIONS, THE REGIONAL PLANS, AND THEN OF COURSE ALL THE BUDGETARY POLICIES.

TERMS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. TWO CONSECUTIVE ONE-YEAR TERMS. THE 4 LARGEST COUNTIES AND THE THREE LARGEST CITIES ARE CONSIDERED DEDICATED SEATS, AND THEY SUBMIT THEIR OWN NOMINEES FROM THOSE AREAS.

THE CURRENT BOARD PRESIDENT ROTATES TO A POSITION OF PAST PRESIDENT.