6.A. 279 W Hidden Creek Pkwy (ZC26-007): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on a zoning ordinance change request on approximately 8.216 acres of land from “PD”, Planned Development, to “PD”, Planned Development. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0)

[6.A. 279 W Hidden Creek Pkwy (ZC26-007): Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on a zoning ordinance change request on approximately 8.216 acres of land from “PD”, Planned Development, to “PD”, Planned Development. (First and Final Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0)]

6.A IS 279 WEST HIDDEN CREEK PARKWAY. ZC26-007 IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGE REQUEST ON APPROXIMATELY 8.216 ACRES OF LAND FROM PD DEVELOPMENT TO PD DEVELOPMENT.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST AND FINAL READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS TONY MCILWAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIRECTOR.

MR. MCILWAIN. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS FIRST DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION INVOLVES A REZONING REQUEST OF PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY TIM WINDMILLER, WITH ASCENT DEVELOPMENT AND A STANDARD AT CHISEN HALL THAT, FOR CONSIDERATION IS A ZONING CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ANOTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TO ALLOW FOR DIFFERING STANDARDS.

THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENTS ARE BEING PROPOSED WITH THE CURRENT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SECTION 4.04, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ADD LANGUAGE TO ALLOW A HEIGHT OF UP TO EIGHT STORIES FOR THE BOUTIQUE HOTEL BUILDING IN SECTION 7.7 OF THE DOCUMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CHANGE TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL GLASS ALONG BUILDING B. A LOT OF THIS IS BEING DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH A NATIONAL BRAND THAT THE DEVELOPER IS WORKING WITH THAT HAS THEIR OWN STANDARDS THAT THEY LIKE TO PROMOTE WITH THE BUILDING IN QUESTION. AS THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING, IT HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE CLASSIFICATION IN TERMS OF USES.

THE PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A FLOODPLAIN AREA.

THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN BUT DOES BACK UP TO ONE.

THIS IS A RENDERING OF THE BAILEY HOUSE AS IT'S KNOWN LOCALLY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY MR. WINDMILLER AND HIS GROUP. AND WE'VE CIRCLED THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS CALLED BUILDING B IN RED, IS TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE, PUSHED BACK FROM THE ROAD.

WE NOTIFIED 31 PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300FT OF THE SUBJECT SITE AND PUBLISHED NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. EXCUSE ME, WE PUT A NEWSPAPER, PUBLISHED, PUBLISHED ARTICLE IN THE NEWSPAPER AND ALSO POSTED A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY.

DURING THE COURSE OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, THEY DISCUSSED THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND DESIGN OF THE STRUCTURE. THERE ARE NO SPEAKERS OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT AND THE VOTE WAS FOR APPROVAL 7-0.

STAFF HAS DETERMINED THAT THE REQUESTED ZONING DISTRICT WOULD ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND HAS NO OBJECTIONS TO THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.

I WANT TO JUST SAY THAT THERE IS NO INTENT TO TAKE THE BUILDING UP TO EIGHT STORIES, BUT DEFINITELY SIX STORIES IS WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE DEVELOPER.

AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION.

AND I ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYONE? THEN I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:55. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? I DON'T SEE ANYONE. SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 5:56.

IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I WAS GOING TO JUST SAY I'M.

I LIKE THE SIX STORY LIMIT INSTEAD OF THE EIGHT.

LIKEWISE. THE DEPOT ON MAIN TAUGHT ME SOME HARD LESSONS ABOUT [LAUGHTER] APPROVING PDS THAT GO BEYOND WHAT THE BUILDER OR DEVELOPER SAYS THEY'RE GOING TO DO. AND I SEE NOTHING IN THE PRESENTATION THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN TO INDICATE THAT THEY WANT TO GO ANY HIGHER THAN SIX STORIES. THEREFORE, I'M GOING TO RECOMMEND THAT WE KEEP THAT RESTRICTION AT SIX STORIES.

THE PICTURE OF THE BUILDING HERE LOOKS GREAT.

I SUPPORT THIS IDEA. I THINK IT'S A GREAT ADDITION TO THE CITY, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GO BEYOND WHAT IT SAYS.

ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS? YOU WANT TO MAKE THE MOTION ACCORDINGLY.

I MOVE TO APPROVE THE PD WITH THE CHANGE THAT SIX STORIES BE THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.

HAVE A MOTION BY DAN AND A SECOND BY ADAM. PLEASE VOTE.

PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

[00:25:03]

THAT BRINGS US TO 6.B. SIX B IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE

[6.B. Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending the text of the city’s zoning ordinance codified in Appendix B, Zoning, Article V, Supplemental Regulations of the City of Burleson Code of Ordinances. (First Reading) (Staff Contact: Tony D. McIlwain, Development Services Director) (The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0)]

CODIFIED IN APPENDIX B ZONING ARTICLE 5 SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS OF THE CITY OF BURLESON CODE OF ORDINANCES.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING, THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ONCE AGAIN TONY MCILWAIN, DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. MR. MCILWAIN.

THANK YOU, MISS CAMPOS, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO BRING FORWARD A FIRST ITERATION OF SOME CHANGES TO THE CITY'S SUPPLEMENTAL ZONING CODE.

THERE ARE VARIOUS PROVISIONS THAT WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD TO YOU TONIGHT THAT WE'RE GOING TO DETAIL ON THE NEXT TWO SLIDES.

THIS IS NOT AN EXHAUSTIVE EFFORT, MORE EFFORTS UNDERWAY, BUT THIS IS THE MORE IMMEDIACY IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'D LIKE TO GET IN FRONT OF THE COUNCIL FOR CONSIDERATION. MOST NOTABLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT MAKING SOME PROVISIONS, ADDING SOME LANGUAGE TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN SECTION OF THE CITY'S CODE. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO LANGUAGE THAT REGULATES THE LOCATION AND EXTENT OF ON SITE SEWAGE FACILITIES OVER MY TIME HERE, THAT HAS BECOME PROBLEMATIC FOR DEVELOPERS WHO HAVE MOVED FORWARD WITH COMMERCIAL SITE PLANS, GOTTEN APPROVALS, AND THEN HAD TO MODIFY THE EFFORTS BECAUSE THEY WERE HAVING AN ON SITE SEWER FACILITY.

WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT PUT IN FRONT WHEN THE COMMERCIAL SITE PLAN IS BEING CONTEMPLATED, SO THAT THE PARKING AND THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS AREN'T AFFECTED AFTER THE FACT.

WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO AMEND VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ACCESSORY BUILDING AND STRUCTURE REGULATIONS, INCREASING THE SETBACK OF AN ALLEY OR SIDE STREET, GARAGE OR CARPORT FROM 18FT TO 20FT.

I DON'T KNOW WHY THE 18FT IS IN THE CODE. IT SEEMS A LITTLE OFF COMPARED TO WHAT WE NORMALLY PROMOTE, BUT WE'RE LOOKING TO PUSH IT OUT TO 20FT FROM THE EDGE OF THE ALLEY OR SIDE STREET.

THERE'S A CODE SECTION 133-1 HUNDRED THAT REFERENCES THE SPINKS AIRPORT AIR HAZARD ZONING ORDINANCE.

THAT ORDINANCE IS OLD AND STAFF HAS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS FOLLOWED THE HEIGHT REGULATIONS WITHIN THE IH35 OVERLAY DISTRICT.

SO THIS BASICALLY UPDATES THE LANGUAGE TO THE PRACTICE THAT STAFF HAS BEEN UNDERTAKING FOR THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT WITHIN THE IH35 OVERLAY DISTRICT. MOST RECENTLY, THE STATE LEGISLATURE UNDERTOOK SEVERAL CHANGES RELATING TO MOBILE FOOD VENDORS, STATIONARY FOOD VENDORS AND THOSE CHANGES HAVE TRICKLED DOWN TO.

LOCAL CODES THROUGHOUT THE STATE WERE NO EXCEPTION.

WE ARE TACKLING THE INFAMOUS SNOW CONE STAND AS AN EXAMPLE OF A SEASONAL USE THAT IS NOW GOVERNED BY THE STATE'S MOBILE FOOD VENDOR REGULATIONS.

WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM LOCAL REGULATIONS THROUGH THE CITY, AND ALSO, WE'RE GOING TO REPLACE STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR WITH MOBILE FOOD VENDOR TO BRING OUR SELF CURRENT WITH THE STATE REQUIREMENTS AND DELETING A SECTION OF THE CODE RELATING TO STATIONARY FOOD VENDORS AGAIN, NOW GOVERNED BY THE STATE'S MOBILE FOOD VENDOR REGULATIONS.

A LOT OF DISCUSSION HAS BEEN GOING ON WITH THAT, THAT OUR LEGAL ATTORNEYS HAVE BEEN HELPING US GET THROUGH REGARDING THIS.

THESE ARE THE FIRST ITERATION OF CHANGES THAT WE HAVE COMING FORWARD TO YOU REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS AND BRIEFING THIS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND FULL SUPPORT BY A VOTE OF 7 TO 0. AND I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE FOR THE FIRST ITERATION OF SUPPLEMENTAL CHANGES.

ANY QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:00.

IS THERE ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? I SEE NO ONE.

SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:01. ANY DISCUSSION? IS THERE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CITY SUPPLEMENTAL REGULATIONS, AS READ TO US TONIGHT.

I GOT A MOTION BY LARRY, A SECOND BY PHIL. PLEASE VOTE.

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

THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION 7. GENERAL. 7.A IS TO HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STANDARDS OF CARE

[7.A. Hold a public hearing and consider and take possible action on an ordinance establishing Standards of Care for childcare programs operated by the Parks and Recreation Department. (First Reading) (Staff Contact: Eric Oscarson, Deputy City Manager) ]

FOR CHILDCARE PROGRAMS OPERATED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

THIS IS BEFORE CITY COUNCIL ON FIRST READING.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS ERIC OSCARSON, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. TONIGHT BEFORE YOU IS THE ORDINANCE TO ADOPT THE STANDARDS OF CARE FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT.

[00:30:04]

THIS IS A REQUIREMENT THAT WE DO ANNUALLY. THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF STATE HEALTH SERVICES REGULATES LICENSED CHILDCARE, BUT OUR DAY CAMPS DO NOT FALL UNDER THAT DAYCARE LICENSING.

SO INSTEAD, WE ARE REQUIRED TO ANNUALLY ADOPT OUR STANDARDS OF CARE ORDINANCE.

THE ORDINANCE THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS THE SAME ORDINANCE THAT WE ADOPTED LAST YEAR.

WE JUST HAVE TO ADOPT IT ANNUALLY. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO ESTABLISH BASIC CHILD CARE REGULATIONS FOR RECREATION USE PROGRAMS OPERATED BY OUR PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT.

OVERSIGHT OF ALL YOUTH SERVICES IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF OUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, AND DEPARTMENTAL LEADERSHIP IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SUPERVISING ALL OF OUR COMPONENTS OF OUR PROGRAMS, AS WELL AS ON SITE STAFF DEALS WITH THE DAY TO DAY ADMINISTRATION.

THESE STANDARDS ARE TO APPLY TO ALL ONGOING YOUTH PROGRAMS OFFERED THROUGHOUT THE DEPARTMENT, AND THESE INCLUDE EVERYTHING FROM OUR DAY CAMPS TO OUR SPORTS CLINIC AND OUR CULTURAL PROGRAMS. ANY AGRICULTURE AND CULINARY EXPERIENCES THAT WE DO AT RUSSELL FARMS, AS WELL AS ANY MUSIC OR PERFORMANCE BASED ACTIVITIES.

THE STANDARDS OF CARE COVERS THESE AREAS, SO GENERAL INFORMATION.

STAFFING, FACILITY STANDARDS, SERVICE STANDARDS, OPERATIONAL ISSUES AND GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR CHILDREN AS WELL AS ACTIVITIES AND INCLUDES MONITORING AND ENFORCEMENT. THE ORDINANCE IS ATTACHED.

AGAIN, THIS IS THE SAME ORDINANCE WE ADOPTED LAST YEAR, AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO ORDINANCE PRIOR TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANYBODY? THEN I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:03.

IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS? I SEE NO ONE.

SO I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:04. IS THERE A MOTION? I MOTION PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. AT THIS TIME, WE'LL CALL FORWARD ITEMS 7.B AND C TO DO ONE PRESENTATION BUT TWO DIFFERENT MOTIONS.

[Items 7.B. & 7.C. ]

7.B IS TO CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDED AND RESTATED REAL ESTATE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 112 SOUTHEAST GARDENS BOULEVARD. BURLESON, TEXAS IN THE AMOUNT OF $500,000.

AND 7.C IS TO CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN AMENDED AND RESTATED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLESON AND BTX FLEX, LLC, INCORPORATED FOR A COMMERCIAL FLEX DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 112 SOUTHEAST GARDENS BOULEVARD AND BURLESON, TEXAS. OUR PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS ALEX PHILLIPS, DIRECTOR OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

MR. PHILLIPS. THANK YOU, MS. CAMPOS. COUNCIL.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL TONIGHT. PROJECT BONUS BTX FLEX BRING TOWARDS A.

FORWARD AN AMENDMENT. JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU BACK AN OVERVIEW.

IT IS A COMMERCIAL PROJECT THAT WOULD HAVE USES CURRENTLY THAT'S ALREADY IN THE CODE.

THIS IS LOCATED BEHIND THE SCHLOTZSKY'S ON CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

THAT'S ABOUT TWO AND A HALF ACRES. TOTAL. PROJECT WOULD HAVE A CAPITAL INVESTMENT OF ABOUT 2 TO 2.5 MILLION.

THERE'S POTENTIAL. THEY SHOW FIVE BUILDINGS. THERE'S POTENTIAL COULD ONLY HAVE FOUR JUST DUE TO THE DRAINAGE AND DETENTION THAT MAY BE NEEDED ON THE SITE.

USES WOULD BE SMALL COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, LIKE AN AUTO TENT BUSINESS OR EVEN MAYBE A GYM OR SOMETHING SMALLER SERVICE COMPANY.

THE PROJECT WOULD ACTIVATE A PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE CITY, AS WELL AS PROVIDE A TYPE OF BUILDINGS THAT WE DON'T HAVE CURRENTLY IN THE COMMUNITY.

SO THE DEVELOPER HAS BEEN CONDUCTING DUE DILIGENCE SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE CONTRACT AND AGREEMENT IN MARCH EARLIER THIS YEAR.

THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING NEW PERFORMANCE DATES, JUST PUSHING OUT DATES, SIX MONTHS FOR THEM TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THE ZONING WOULD RESTRICT USE AS STAFF DON'T WANT TO SEE AND BETTER ALIGN WITH THE VISION OF THE DEVELOPMENT WITH MINIMAL RETAIL AND MORE OF THE MIXED USES THAT ARE DESIRED, LIKE SMALLER COMPANIES AND SERVICE PROVIDERS.

NOTHING CHANGES WITH THE INCENTIVES. IT JUST PUSHES OUT ALL THE DATES SIX MONTHS.

SO OBTAIN THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE FIRST BUILDING IN APRIL OF NEXT YEAR.

COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION BY THE END OF MAY OF NEXT YEAR.

THE. OBTAIN THE CO FOR THE FIRST BUILDING BY APRIL 1ST OF 2028 AND THEN THE LAST BUILDING BY JANUARY 1ST, 2030. NOTHING CHANGES IN THE PERFORMANCE. STILL HAS A TEN-YEAR ROI OF ONE 109% AND A 20-YEAR ROI OF 149.

THERE'S TWO MOTIONS, ONE TO AMEND THE RESTATED REAL ESTATE CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY BURLESON AND BTX FLEX,

[00:35:04]

AND THEN APPROVE OR DENY THE AMENDED AND RESTATED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND BTX FLEX.

HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ANYBODY? SO WE NEED TWO.

TWO VOTES ON THIS? YES, SIR. I'LL CALL THEM FORWARD EACH ONE SO YOU CAN ASK FOR A VOTE.

THE FIRST ONE IS GOING TO BE 7.B CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDED AND RESTATED.

STATED. REAL ESTATE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY LOCATED AT 112 SOUTHEAST GARDENS BOULEVARD.

I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 7.B. I HAVE A MOTION BY VICTORIA, SECOND BY LARRY.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 4 TO APPROVE, 1 ABSENT AND 2 ABSTAIN. THANK YOU MAYOR. THAT BRINGS US TO 7.C.

CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AMENDED AND RESTATED PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLESON AND BTX FLEX LLC FOR DEVELOPMENT.

LOCATED AT 112 SOUTHEAST GARDENS BOULEVARD. IS THERE A MOTION.

MOVE TO APPROVE 7.C. I GOT A MOTION BY VICTORIA.

SECOND BY LARRY. PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 4 4 1 ABSENT AND 2 ABSTAIN. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 58 PARKS AND RECREATION.

[7.D. Consider and take possible action on an ordinance amending Chapter 58 “Parks and Recreation” (CSO#103-12-2014) of the Code of Ordinances by adding electric motorcycles to the list of prohibited motor vehicles in city parks, by adding electric bicycles to the list of wheeled equipment that may be prohibited at city parks if designated by proper signage, and amending Chapter 78 “Traffic and Vehicles” (B-554) by adding a prohibition of operating an electric motorcycle, pocket bike, mini-motorbike, and ATVs on city property, by adding a prohibition of any child to operate certain wheeled devices without a helmet, and by adding the prohibition for any parent or guardian to permit a child to operate certain wheeled devices. (Staff Contact: Wes Routson, Deputy Chief of Police)]

CSO NUMBER 103-12-2014. OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

BY ADDING ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE TO THE LIST OF PROHIBITED MOTOR VEHICLES IN CITY PARKS.

BY ADDING ELECTRIC BICYCLES TO THE LIST OF WHEELED EQUIPMENT THAT MAY BE PROHIBITED AT CITY PARKS IF DESIGNATED BY PROPER SIGNAGE.

AND AMENDING CHAPTER 78 TRAFFIC AND VIOLATIONS B-554 BY ADDING A PROHIBITION OF OPERATING AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE, POCKET BIKE, MINI MOTORBIKE AND ATV ON CITY PROPERTY BY ADDING A PROHIBITION OF ANY CHILD TO OPERATE CERTAIN WHEELED DEVICES WITHOUT A HELMET, AND BY ADDING THE PROHIBITION OF ANY PARENT OR GUARDIAN TO PERMIT A CHILD TO OPERATE CERTAIN WHEELED DEVICES.

THIS IS BEFORE US FOR FIRST READING BY WES ROUTSON, DEPUTY CHIEF OF POLICE.

WES. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL WES ROUTSON.

THIS WILL BE REGARDING THE E-BIKES AND HELMET ORDINANCES AND A FEW THINGS HERE BEFORE YOU.

SOME OF THIS PRESENTATION YOU'VE SEEN BEFORE. SO THE INITIAL BEGINNING OF IT WILL BE KIND OF A RECAP. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANYTHING, WE'LL ADDRESS IT. IT IS KIND OF A COMPLICATED MATTER AND SOME THINGS. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO COVER TODAY IS UNDERSTANDING THE CURRENT LAWS ON E-BIKES AND MOTORCYCLES.

WE WILL REVIEW THAT, RECOGNIZE THE CURRENT STATE LAWS THAT ARE IN PLACE AMEND THE CURRENT CITY ORDINANCES IN PLACE ON E-BIKES AND MOTORCYCLES PROPOSED CITY ORDINANCES ON E-BIKES AND MOTORCYCLES AND PROPOSED SAFETY HELMET ORDINANCE.

THE HISTORY OF THIS, WHICH HAS BROUGHT THIS BEFORE US.

I KNOW WE'RE NOT THE ONLY CITY IN THE COUNTRY DEALING WITH THIS PRETTY MUCH ANY MAJOR CITIES HAVING TO DEAL WITH E-BIKES AND MOTORCYCLES AND THE EXPLOSION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY THAT'S OUT THERE. SO WE'RE JUST HAVING TO ADDRESS IT AND THEN COME UP WITH SOME TOOLS SO THAT WE CAN DEAL WITH THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT'S EMERGING AND GET OUR LAWS TO HELP US OUT. REGARDING THE HISTORY OF THIS, WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN E-BIKE AND MOTORCYCLE USAGE IN THE CITY PARKS AND STREETS.

THERE HAS BEEN INCREASED CONCERNS AND COMPLAINTS CALLED IN TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT BY THE CITIZENS REGARDING THE USAGE OF THESE TYPES OF THINGS. JUST IN 2026 ALONE, AS LAST WEEK WHEN I WAS CHECKING THE NUMBERS, WE HAD JUST A LITTLE OVER 50 CALLS COME IN THAT ARE RELATED TO EITHER MOTORCYCLES OR E-BIKES OR SOME FORM OF THAT IN THERE. SO REGARDING THAT, ABOUT HALF OF THOSE, BY THE TIME WE WERE THERE RESPONDED TO THEM, THEY WERE ALREADY GONE AND NO LONGER IN THE AREA.

AND THEN ABOUT A QUARTER OF THOSE THAT WE DID ACTUALLY MAKE CONTACT WITH, LITTLE OVER A DOZEN OF THEM, TURNED INTO EDUCATIONAL SITUATIONS FOR DEALING WITH THE JUVENILES.

AND THEN A COUPLE OF THOSE INCIDENCES. THERE WERE ACTUALLY ADULTS WHO WERE RIDING THOSE.

AND WE HAVE HAD A COUPLE OF MINOR ACCIDENTS IN THE PAST WHERE INVOLVING E-BIKES AND JUVENILES.

SO WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE TONIGHT? E-BIKES VERSUS MOTORCYCLES.

WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? THIS IS THE KIND OF PHOTOGRAPH THAT HELPS YOU TELL THE DIFFERENCE.

[00:40:02]

THE QUICKEST WAY TO DETERMINE THEM BY LOOKING AT THEM IS OPERABLE PEDALS FOR BICYCLE VERSUS A NO OPERABLE PEDALS FOR AN E-MOTORCYCLE.

SO E-MOTORCYCLES, MANY DIRT BIKES AND THAT KIND OF STUFF.

SO IF THEY HAVE OPERABLE PEDALS, YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT BICYCLE AND MOTORCYCLES WITH NO OPERABLE PEDALS.

AND THE LAW DEALS WITH THEM TOTALLY DIFFERENTLY.

SO FOR AN E-BIKE, IT IS DIVIDED INTO THREE CLASSES.

THERE'S THE CLASS 1. BASICALLY IT'S A MOTOR ASSISTED ONLY WHILE PEDALING, THE BICYCLE CAN GO UP TO A MAXIMUM SPEED OF 20 MILES AN HOUR.

A CLASS 2 E-BIKE IS A MOTOR ASSIST WITHOUT PEDALING CAN GO UP TO 20 MILES AN HOUR.

AND THEN YOU GET INTO YOUR CLASS 3 MOTOR ASSISTS WHILE PEDALING, BUT THOSE BICYCLES GO SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER 20 TO 28 MILES AN HOUR.

REGARDING THOSE. SO REGARDING TRANSPORTATION CODE, THE E-BICYCLE IS DEFINED THERE AND EQUIPPED WITH FULLY OPERABLE PEDALS AND AN ELECTRIC MOTOR OF FEWER THAN 750W. WITH THAT TOP SPEED OF 28MPH OR LESS, IF THEY GET BEYOND THAT 750W BEYOND THAT 20MPH.

NOW THEY'RE NO LONGER BEING CLASSIFIED AS E-BICYCLES.

AND NOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MOTOR VEHICLES ACCORDING TO THE TRANSPORTATION CODE.

SOME STATE LAWS. WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT A COUPLE OF STATE LAWS THAT ADDRESS E-BIKES AND WHERE THEY ARE, AND THEY'RE KIND OF LACKING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE WITH CITY ORDINANCES TRYING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE SEEING THIS FIRST STATE LAW 551.106 REGULATION OF BICYCLES, THE DEPARTMENT OR LOCAL AUTHORITY. WHAT THIS LAW HERE BASICALLY SAYS IS THAT WHAT CITIES AND LOCAL AUTHORITIES CAN DO AND NOT DO BASICALLY SAYS THE CITIES CANNOT REGULATE BICYCLES OR ELECTRIC BICYCLES ON A HIGHWAY THAT IS USED PRIMARILY BY MOTOR VEHICLES, OR IN AN AREA IN WHICH THE OPERATION OF A NON-ELECTRIC BICYCLE IS PERMITTED, UNLESS THAT IS A PATH THAT IS NOT OPEN TO MOTOR VEHICLES OR HAS A NATURAL TREAD SURFACE MADE BY CLEARING AND GRADING THE NATIVE SOIL WITHOUT ADDING SURFACE MATERIALS WHERE THE AUTHORITY CAN AND DOES HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ACT REGARDING ELECTRIC BICYCLES, THEY MAY PROHIBIT THE OPERATION OF A BICYCLE ON A SIDEWALK AND ESTABLISH SPEED LIMITS FOR BICYCLES ON PATHS THAT ARE SET ASIDE FOR THE EXCLUSIVE OPERATION OF BICYCLES AND OTHER PATHS IN WHICH BICYCLES MAY BE OPERATED.

BASICALLY, THE SUMMARY OF THAT IS THE CODE MEANS THAT THE CITY MAY NOT PROHIBIT E-BIKES ON PUBLIC STREETS AND ANY AREA WHERE STANDARD BIKES ARE PERMITTED, UNLESS IT'S A MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL, A PATH THAT IS NOT OPEN TO MOTOR VEHICLES, I.E.

A NATURAL DIRT TRAIL KIND OF THING, AND E-MOTORCYCLES.

NOW THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED ON PUBLIC STREETS. THEY'RE DIFFERENT THAN A BICYCLE.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED ON PUBLIC STREETS UNLESS THE ELECTRONIC MOTORCYCLE IS DESIGNED FOR USE ON A HIGHWAY ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATE OF TITLE UNDER THE TRANSPORTATION CODE.

BASICALLY, WHAT THAT MEANS IS ARE THEY ABLE TO BE REGISTERED SAFETY LIGHTS, BLINKERS, THAT TYPE OF THING, GET INSURED AND THAT KIND OF STUFF. SO. OH YES.

YES. IS AGE BEEN BROUGHT UP IN THIS AT ALL? IN REGARDS TO THE WHEN WE GO TO HELMETS WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT. OKAY. THANK YOU. STATE LAW.

NO STATE LAW HERE THAT ADDRESSES THIS OPERATION OF AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE.

A PERSON MAY NOT OPERATE AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE UNLESS THE ELECTRIC MOTOR DISENGAGES OR CEASES TO FUNCTION.

WHEN THEY STOP PEDALING OR THE BRAKES ARE APPLIED, THE MOTOR'S GOT TO SHUT OFF. THE MAIN POINT TO TAKE OUT OF THIS LAW HERE THAT'S APPLICABLE IS WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THOSE CLASS 3 E-BICYCLES.

THEY CAN GO 20 TO 28 MILES AN HOUR SIGNIFICANTLY FASTER ONES.

THOSE ARE CLASS 3'S AND UNLESS THE PART. THEY HAVE TO BE 15 YEARS OF AGE MINIMUM TO RIDE ONE OF THOSE.

NOW THEY CAN BE A PASSENGER ON IT, BUT IF THEY'RE OPERATING, THEY'VE GOT TO BE AT LEAST 15 YEARS OF AGE FOR A CLASS 3 E-BICYCLE.

CAN I ASK A QUESTION HERE? YES, SIR I HAPPEN TO OWN AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE. THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY FAMILIAR.

A LOT OF PEOPLE IN TOWN, BECAUSE IT'S THE ONE THAT HAS AUSTIN, MY SON, WHO IS HANDICAPPED ON THE BACK OF IT, AND MYSELF OR MY WIFE IN THE FRONT. IT'S A CURIOUS THING BECAUSE IT'S A PEDEGO BIKE.

IT'S A VERY COMMON BRAND. AND IT'S FULLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S PEDALS, IT'S A PEDAL BIKE AND IT HAS A MOTOR ASSIST, BUT SOME MODELS OF THOSE ARE IDENTICAL TO LATER MODELS, EXCEPT THEY HAVE A THROTTLE TO TWIST INSTEAD OF THE PEDAL ASSIST BIKE, WHICH IS MORE COMMON NOWADAYS.

MINE HAPPENS TO BE A FEW YEARS OLD, AND THE EARLIER MODELS OF THIS PARTICULAR BIKE WEREN'T PEDAL ASSIST.

THEY HAD A THROTTLE. SO TECHNICALLY I'M IN A DIFFERENT CLASS.

EVEN THOUGH THE BIKE IS IDENTICAL JUST ONE YEAR TO THE NEXT, THEY JUST CHANGED THE WAY THE PEDALS WORKED. SO WHAT'S THE POINT OF DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN ONE THAT WON'T OPERATE UNLESS THE OPERATOR STOPS PEDALING?

[00:45:02]

THAT. I DON'T GET THAT. WELL, IT CAN OPERATE WITH PEDALS OR WITHOUT THE PEDALS GOING.

IT'S JUST GOT A LIMITED SPEED ON SOME OF THOSE E-BIKES.

A CLASS 2 E-BIKE CAN GO WITHOUT THE PEDALS GOING AND STILL BE OPERATED WITH THAT THROTTLE AND GO UP TO 20.

BUT IT DOES HAVE FUNCTIONAL PEDALS THAT CAN WORK THE DEAL.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT AND BASICALLY AN E-MOTORCYCLE WHERE IT HAS NO FUNCTIONAL PEDALS THAT CAN MAKE IT GO SELF-PROPELLED.

OKAY. I'M NOT SURE IF I'M CLEAR THAT WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW ONE TYPE OR THE OTHER TYPE, BUT THOSE EVER SINCE E-BIKES BECAME A SCENE ON, THERE'S BEEN A CONSTANT BLENDING OF WHAT WATER AND E-BIKE IS AN E-MOTORCYCLE IS A REGULAR BIKE, YOU KNOW, AND THEY'RE NOT AS DISCREET AS AUTOMOBILES ARE.

YOU KNOW YOU GET ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENCES IN SIZE AND SPEED AND DESIGN AND PURPOSE AND SO FORTH.

BUT I DON'T THINK THE ONE THAT WE OPERATE IS BEING OPERATED BEYOND ANYTHING IT'S INTENDED TO BE OPERATED FOR OR SHOULDN'T BE ANY DIFFERENT FROM A BICYCLE. AS FAR AS TREATMENT GOES, IT'S JUST GOT A PEDAL WITH A MOTOR THAT HELPS US CARRY THAT HEAVY THING DOWN THE STREET OR TRAIL OR WHATEVER ON.

RIGHT. YES. MOST MOST BICYCLES, THE WAY THE LAW USE THEM.

AN E-BICYCLE AND A BICYCLE ARE THE SAME THING IN THE EYES OF THE LAW.

THERE'S JUST A CLASS FOR E-BICYCLES ABOUT SOME OF THOSE WITH THE POWER AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CLASS. THEY VIEW THE LAW AS BICYCLE E-BIKE IS THE SAME THING AND IT IS CONVOLUTED AND COMPLEX, TRYING TO DETERMINE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO.

AND YES, PEOPLE USE E-BICYCLE AND E-MOTORCYCLE INTERCHANGEABLE.

YOU KNOW, I WAS GUILTY OF THAT FOR A WHILE TOO, UNTIL WE STARTED DIVING INTO THIS AND THEN HAVING TO SPEAK WITH LEGAL.

WE'RE ALL TRYING TO WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THIS, AND WE THINK WE'VE GOT SOME IDEAS HERE THAT WILL HELP US.

BUT AS WE GET THERE, WE'LL GO THROUGH IT. SO THOSE ARE THE STATE LAWS ON IT.

SO WHAT DO WE HAVE BEFORE US TONIGHT IS AMENDING A COUPLE OF CITY ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE ON THE BOOKS BY UPDATING THEM WITH SOME OF THIS INFORMATION.

AND THEN TWO NEW CITY ORDINANCES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. SO THE FIRST ONE WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT IS 58-6 OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES AND PARKS.

THIS IS GOING TO BE AN AMENDMENT ON THIS ONE.

AND THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE ADDING THE AMENDMENT REQUESTING OR FOR Y'ALL TO BEFORE Y'ALL IS TO ADD ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES SPECIFICALLY TO THIS ORDINANCE THAT WE ALREADY HAVE ON FILE THAT SAYS THE RIDING OF OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO MOTORCYCLES AND ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE E-MOTORCYCLE, UNLESS IT'S DESIGNED FOR USE ON A HIGHWAY I THINK STREET LEGAL MOTORCYCLE AND OPERATING LOCATION AUTHORIZED FOR MOTOR VEHICLES AND ALL TERRAIN VEHICLES IS PROHIBITED IN ALL CITY PARKS, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH USE IS BY A CITY EMPLOYEE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

SO BY ADDING THE ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES SPECIFICALLY TO THAT ORDINANCE, WHERE IT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THOSE ARE PROHIBITED, SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO DO THAT IN ALL CITY PARKS.

WHILE WE'RE ON THIS SUBJECT, A LOT OF WHAT I'M SEEING IS THAT THERE ARE ACTUALLY GOLF CARTS BEING OPERATED ON THE CITY'S TRAILS.

SOME OF THESE GOLF CARTS, LIKE EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT ELECTRIC VEHICLES, THEY CAN RANGE ALL THE WAY FROM A GOLF CART LIKE YOU'D SEE OUT THERE, TO A GOLF CART WITH BIG, TALL CLEARANCE AND KNOBBY TIRES THAT'S MADE TO GO OFF THE ROAD.

BUT THOSE THINGS HAVE NO BUSINESS ON CITY TRAILS, EITHER.

SURE. AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PARKS, I'M LIMITING THIS TO LINEAR PARKS, TO TRAILS, THE HARD SURFACE TRAILS THAT WE ALL ENJOY.

AND I'VE SEEN A LOT OF GOLF CARTS ON THOSE. I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE US, ADDING THAT AS A LISTED ITEM RATHER THAN JUST REFERRING TO IT IN A GENERIC PHRASE SUCH AS OFF-ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLE. YOU KNOW, I WOULD INCLUDE GOLF CARTS SPECIFICALLY IN THIS.

OKAY ABOUT AMENDING IS 58-23 BICYCLES, ROLLERBLADES, SKATEBOARDS, AND OTHER WHEELED EQUIPMENT.

THE SPECIFIC AMENDMENT HERE IS TO ADD THE TERM ELECTRIC BICYCLES TO THIS ORDINANCE HERE AND THIS ORDINANCE ALREADY ON THE BOOKS.

IT SAYS IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO USE A BICYCLE ROLLERBLADE, SKATEBOARDS, SCOOTERS, ELECTRIC BICYCLE COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS AN E-BIKE OR OTHER WHEELED EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING WHEELED EQUIPMENT FOR THE DISABLED AND DESIGNATED PARKS OR RECREATION AREAS, OR ANY PORTION OF PARKS OR RECREATION AREAS WHERE SUCH USE IS PROHIBITED AND HAS BEEN SO DESIGNATED BY SIGNS INDICATING SUCH PROHIBITION.

THAT, THAT IS ON THE BOOKS FOR E-BIKES. BUT THERE ARE NO PARKS THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT PROHIBIT ANY OF THAT.

IT JUST ALLOWS IT. IF COUNCIL CHOOSES TO GO THAT ROUTE, IT'S THERE AND IT'S ALREADY IN THE ORDINANCE REGARDING THIS, WHAT THAT IS. BUT THIS IS WHERE IT'S ADDING E-BIKES SPECIFICALLY IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO ANY RESTRICTIONS ON IT.

[00:50:01]

AND THEN PURSUANT TO STATE LAW, IF E-BIKES ARE PROHIBITED, STANDARD BICYCLES ALSO MUST BE PROHIBITED UNLESS IT'S A MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL.

SO YOU BIKES AND BICYCLES ARE TREATED THE SAME WAY.

THE FIRST NEW ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT THAT WE HAVE A PROPOSAL ON IS 78-6.

ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, POCKET BIKE, MINI MOTORBIKES AND ATVS ON CITY PROPERTY.

IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON TO OPERATE AN ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLE REFERRED TO AS E-MOTORCYCLE.

UNLESS THE ELECTRONIC MOTORCYCLE IS DESIGNED FOR USE ON A HIGHWAY ELIGIBLE FOR CERTIFICATE THERE.

A POCKET BIKE OR MINI MOTORBIKE AS DEFINED BY THOSE TRANSPORTATION CODES OR ALL TERRAIN VEHICLE AS DEFINED BY THE VERNON TEXAS CODE.

ANNOTATED TRANSPORTATION CODE THERE ON ANY SIDEWALK OR IN OR ON ANY REAL PROPERTY, INCLUDING ANY PARKING LOT OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY THE CITY OF BURLESON, EXCEPT WHEN SUCH USE BY CITY EMPLOYEE IS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES.

SO THIS ORDINANCE IS ADDRESSING IS THE ELECT, NOT THE BICYCLE, BUT THE ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES.

AND SAYING THAT THE FIRST ONE WE TALKED ABOUT MOTORCYCLES WAS IN PARKS.

THIS ONE WAS COVERING ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S OWNED OR MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. SO YOUR SIDEWALKS, YOUR PARKING LOTS, AND MAYBE THE DRAINAGE TRAILS OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT THE CITY IS HAVING TO MAINTAIN.

THAT IS WHAT THIS ONE IS DEALING WITH THE E-MOTORCYCLES SPECIFICALLY.

AND IN THE LAST NEW PROPOSED ORDINANCE WE HAVE IS A HELMET REQUIRED ORDINANCE 78-7.

THIS HERE FOR YOU ALL'S CONSIDERATION. IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL FOR ANY CHILD TO OPERATE OR RIDE UPON A BICYCLE, ELECTRIC BICYCLE, MOTOR SCOOTER OR ANY SIDECAR, TRAILER, CHILD CARRIER SEAT OR OTHER DEVICE ATTACHED TO A BICYCLE OR ELECTRIC BICYCLE UNLESS THE CHILD IS WEARING A HELMET. AND IN SUBSECTION B THERE SAYS THE SAME THING.

IT JUST SAYS IT'S UNLAWFUL FOR A PARENT TO PERMIT THE SAME THING FOR A CHILD TO DO THAT.

IT IS A DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION THAT THE BICYCLE ELECTRIC BICYCLE WAS NOT BEING OPERATED ON A PUBLIC WAY AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED OFFENSE.

SO AND AN AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE TO PROSECUTION BASED UPON FIRST OFFENSE ONLY IF THEY WENT AND GOT A HELMET FROM THE TIME THEY WERE CONTACTED AND DEALING WITH THAT, THEY, THEY CAN DO THAT FOR THE COURTS.

THE PENALTY FOR THIS VIOLATION WOULD BE UP TO A $50 FINE FOR A FIRST OFFENSE CONVICTION AND THEN UP TO $100 FINE FOR ANY SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE CONVICTIONS RELATED TO THAT HELMET. THE PURPOSE OF THIS IS TO PROMOTE BICYCLE SAFETY BY ENCOURAGING THE USE OF HELMETS AND KEEPING THAT PURPOSE.

THE MUNICIPAL COURT WILL BE URGED TO CONSIDER DEFERRED DISPOSITIONS UNDER THE CCP WHENEVER CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED.

DEFERRED DISPOSITIONS AND THE DEFERRAL MAY INCLUDE THE DEFENDANT, IF ABLE, OBTAIN A HELMET AND PROMISES THE COURT THAT IT WOULD BE USED IN THE FUTURE.

SO HELMET REQUIRED. HERE'S THE DEFINITIONS REGARDING THAT.

WE'RE DEFINING WHAT A BICYCLE IS AND THAT KIND OF THING. KEY DEFINITION HERE TO TAKE WOULD BE CHILD.

SO WHO DOES THE HELMET ORDINANCE APPLY TO? WE'RE DEFINING A CHILD HERE AS A PERSON 16 YEARS OF AGE AND UNDER.

SO FAMILY CODE DEFINITION WHERE THEY'RE TRULY A MINOR AT 16 AND AT 17 WOULD THEY BE ARRESTED AS ADULTS SO THAT'S THE AGE THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED GOING WITH 16 AND UNDER FOR A CHILD THAT WOULD HAVE TO WEAR A HELMET ON PUBLIC PLACES WHERE THEY'RE RIDING THESE THINGS.

DEFINING ELECTRIC BIKE, A HELMET, PROPERLY FITTED BICYCLE HELMET.

YOU KNOW, BY THOSE STANDARDS, DEFINING WHAT A MOTOR ASSISTED SCOOTER IS, WHICH IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

SO SOME OF THOSE LIKE STAND-UP SCOOTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WE HAVE A DEFINITION HERE FOR WHAT THAT IS REGARDING THAT POCKET BIKE OR MINI MOTORBIKE IS DEFINED BY THE TEXAS CODE, VERNON TEXAS CODE ANNOTATED TRANSPORTATION CODE THERE.

AND THEN THE OTHER KEY TO TAKE AWAY HERE IN THESE DEFINITIONS IS WHAT A PUBLIC WAY IS DEFINED AS PER THIS ORDINANCE, MEANING ANY PROPERTY THAT IS PUBLICLY OWNED OR MAINTAINED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO A STREET OR HIGHWAY, A PUBLICLY MAINTAINED TRAIL, A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, ANY PUBLIC PARKS FACILITY, PROPERTY OWNED BY THE CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS, AND FACILITIES AND PARKING LOTS OWNED BY THE CITY OF BURLESON, TEXAS.

AND THEN WEARING A HELMET MEANS IT'S GOT TO BE SECURE AND FASTENED AS SUCH.

SO THE GIST OF THAT ORDINANCE IS 16 YEARS OF AGE AS THE MINIMUM THERE.

SO WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS REGARDING THE PROPOSALS HERE? AN EDUCATION CAMPAIGN TO EDUCATE STAFF ON E-BIKE SPECIFIC LAWS AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN E-BIKES AND E-MOTORCYCLES.

PARKS DEPARTMENT STAFF NEEDS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY ARE. EDUCATE THE CITIZENS AND PARENTS OF JUVENILES THAT ARE OPERATING E-BIKES THAT FALL OUTSIDE OF THE DEFINITION OF AN ELECTRIC BICYCLE. WITH THOSE THREE CLASSIFICATIONS, AND MOST OF THEM I THINK WE'RE ENCOUNTERING RIGHT NOW ARE ACTUALLY E-MOTORCYCLES AND NOT BICYCLES, BECAUSE MOST OF THEM DON'T HAVE THE OPERABLE PEDALS. EDUCATE CITIZENS AND PARENTS OF JUVENILES.

THE MOTORCYCLES ARE NOT. THAT'S A TYPO. THAT ARE PROHIBITED ON CITY RIGHT OF WAY PROPERTY OR FACILITIES THERE.

[00:55:06]

SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS, SOCIAL MEDIA CAMPAIGNS FOR THAT AND TAKE APPROPRIATE ENFORCEMENT ACTION OF OFFENDERS IN VIOLATION OF THE CITY ORDINANCES OR STATE LAW.

OBVIOUSLY, OUR FIRST COMPONENT IS REGARDING THIS ARE TO EDUCATE GAIN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW.

THAT KIND OF STUFF, BEFORE WE MOVE TO PROGRESSIVE THINGS IF NECESSARY.

SIGNAGE. ENHANCED SIGNAGE. EDUCATIONAL SIGNAGE.

IDENTIFYING AUTHORIZED PROHIBITED EQUIPMENT. VEHICLES WOULD BE PLACED THROUGHOUT THE PARK SYSTEM.

WHILE SOME EXISTING SIGNAGE IS IN PLACE TODAY, IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCES, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SIGNS OUT FOR THE OFF ROAD VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT PROHIBITION OR THE E-MOTORCYCLE PROHIBITION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE SIGNS SAYING THOSE ARE ILLEGAL, AND THEN THE HELMET REQUIREMENT, IF ADOPTED, DOESN'T NECESSARILY REQUIRE SIGNAGE, BUT SIGNAGE IS REQUIRED TO ENFORCE THE PROHIBITION OF E-BIKES.

SO E-BICYCLES WITHIN A PARK ARE DESIGNATED SECTION OF A PARK.

THERE'S A SECTION OF THE PARK THAT COUNCIL CHOOSES THEY WANT WHERE E-BIKES CAN'T GO, AND BICYCLES. THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNAGE THERE, AND THAT WOULD REQUIRE COUNCIL ACTION TO SET THAT UP IF THEY'RE PROHIBITING THAT IS THERE A DESIRE TO DESIGNATE CERTAIN PARTS OR SECTIONS OF PARK AS PROHIBITED FOR E-BIKE USE.

NOW, IF YOU ALL CHOOSE TO DO THAT OR THAT'S THERE, THEN REMEMBER, PURSUANT TO THAT TRANSPORTATION CODE, THE CITY CANNOT PROHIBIT AN E-BIKE IN A PARK UNLESS STANDARD BICYCLES ARE ALSO PROHIBITED.

THE ONLY EXCEPTION WOULD BE THE MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAILS. AND THEN IF YOU CHOOSE TO GO THAT ROUTE, STANDARD BICYCLES AND E-BIKES ARE PROHIBITED.

SHOULD ROLLER BLADES, SKATEBOARDS, ETC. BE PROHIBITED AS WELL FOR THOSE KINDS OF PROHIBITIONS.

AND THEN IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS OR BUSINESS PROPOSAL ORDINANCES.

NOW, ONE THING WE'RE GETTING READY TO APPROACH THE HOLIDAYS.

CHRISTMAS IS COMING UP. PARENTS ARE BUYING THESE THINGS.

THEY SEE THEM IN AMAZON OR WALMART AND THEY LOOK COOL AND THE KIDS WANT THEM.

SO WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF THEM OUT THERE. SO THERE WILL DEFINITELY BE AN INFLUX GOING THERE.

AND THIS IS BASICALLY GIVING US SOME TOOLS TO ADDRESS WHAT WE'RE SEEING.

AND THEN IF WE RUN ACROSS MORE THINGS THAT THIS DOESN'T ADDRESS, AND WE'LL HAVE TO COME BACK AND GO, OKAY, HERE'S WHAT WE'RE SEEING. WE NEED TO TWEAK OR ADJUST THIS AS NEED BE.

QUESTIONS ANYONE? WILL THE CITY HAVE ANY AUTHORITY IF IT COMES TO THIS, TO TAKE POSSESSION OF A VEHICLE, OR IF IT IS A CHILD FOUND IN VIOLATION TO ADDRESS IT WITH THE PARENTS? OUR PREFERRED RESPONSE WOULD BE NO TO BE SEIZING UNLESS IT'S SOME TYPE OF INVOLVEMENT SOME TYPE OF CRIME, WHETHER IT'S A STOLEN ITEM AND WE'RE RETURNING IT BACK TO THE OWNER OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THE PREFERRED METHOD IS NOT TO GET INTO SEIZURES OF THAT.

A WHOLE LOT OF OTHER THINGS COME UP IF WE START SEIZING BICYCLES, MOTORCYCLES, ONE, BECAUSE THERE'S KIND OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL COMPONENT BECAUSE OF THESE BATTERIES THAT ARE IN THEM, AND STORAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE STORED, CAN'T BE STORED WITH THE OTHER PROPERTY IN EVIDENCE.

AND THEN OUR CURRENT STORAGE FACILITY, THAT KIND OF STUFF IS OUTDOORS AND EXPOSED TO WEATHER AND STUFF LIKE THAT.

SO IT DOES CREATE OTHER PROBLEMS. SO THAT WOULD BE AN ABSOLUTE LAST DITCH EFFORT.

I DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THE OFFICER'S AUTHORITY.

IF THEY GET TO SOMETHING WHERE THEY DEVELOP, A CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED AND THAT'S APPROPRIATE EVIDENCE FOR A CRIME, THEY COULD TAKE IT, BUT THAT WOULD BE WAY, WAY DOWN THE ROAD.

ON INVESTIGATION IF THEY GOT TO THAT POINT. OKAY.

AND AS FAR AS THE EDUCATION, IF IT WAS A CHILD THAT WAS FOUND RIDING ON THE ROAD WOULD THEY HAVE DO YOU HAVE PROTOCOL TO GO TALK TO THE PARENTS OR WOULD THAT BE A STEP BEYOND WHAT YOU COULD DO? OH, NO, WE WOULD DEFINITELY TRY TO TALK TO THE PARENTS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT JUST PUT THEIR CHILD ON. I MEAN, THEY'RE GREAT AND THEY LOOK COOL, BUT THEY ARE SUPER QUICK AND FAST, AND YOU CAN END UP BEHIND A CAR IN FRONT OF A CAR, OR I THINK YOU CAN DRIVE ON THE ROAD AND BE SAFE.

AND IT IS PROBLEMATIC. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO PREVENT ANY [LAUGHTER] DISASTERS.

THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD. SO AT THIS TIME WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARKS DESIGNATED.

WE PASS THIS. THEN IT'S STILL REALLY DOESN'T DO US ANY GOOD BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T DESIGNATED THE PARKS YET FOR E-BICYCLES.

FOR E-BICYCLES. MOTORCYCLES, IF YOU PASS THAT OKAY. BUT IF WE DO THE E-BICYCLE, THEN YOU HAVE TO DO STANDARD BICYCLES AT THE SAME TIME.

YES. OKAY, THIS JUST ADDING THIS ONE IN HERE FOR E-BICYCLES JUST PUTS THE LANGUAGE IN THERE.

YOU HAVE TO DESIGNATE AND THEN YOU HAVE TO COME AND GO. OKAY.

AND IF WE DESIGNATE IT AS A SEPARATE ORDINANCE? MATT YOU CAN SPEAK TO THIS IF I SAY ANYTHING INCORRECT, BUT WE CAN BRING THAT BACK AT A LATER DATE TO DESIGNATE SPECIFIC AREAS BE REVISION TO THIS EXISTING ORDINANCE? OKAY. AND THEN AND THEN BY AREA, WE CAN SAY, WELL, YOU CAN ALLOW THEM ON THE SIDEWALKS, BUT JUST NOT LIKE IN THE PARK, ON THE PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT OR STUFF LIKE THAT.

YOU CAN DO THE RESTRICTIONS LIKE YES,

[01:00:02]

IT'S OFFICIAL. AT THAT POINT, YOU CAN ENFORCE AT THAT POINT.

YES. YEAH, YEAH.

OKAY. OR SOMEBODY PUTS THE SIGNS UP. OKAY. I NOTE THAT I DON'T DOES ANYBODY KNOW THE COUNCIL HAVE THE WILL TO PREVENT BIKES FROM BEING USED? I MEAN, I DON'T THINK I DON'T SEE WHY ANY REASONABLE PERSON WOULDN'T.

YOU KNOW, WE HAVE WE HAVE WHAT WE CALL SHARED USE PATHS, WHICH TYPICALLY CAN BE EITHER PARALLEL TO THE CURB AND FOLLOW THE ROADWAY LIKE A SIDEWALK, OR THEY CAN GO OUT ACROSS PARKLAND LIKE THE BAILEY LAKE TRAIL OR THE OAK VALLEY TRAIL.

BUT THOSE ARE INTENDED TO BE MIXED USE TRAILS FOR BICYCLES AND WALKERS.

AND I KNOW THERE'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE FRICTION PROBABLY BETWEEN THE TWO BECAUSE PEOPLE FEEL PUT UPON IF THEY'RE WALKING ABREAST WITH THREE OF THEIR GOOD FRIENDS AND COMPLETELY BLOCKING THE TRAIL, AND A BICYCLE COMES ALONG AND THE BICYCLIST HAS TO EITHER SHOUT TO GET THEM TO LET HIM COME BY OR DRIVE OFF INTO THE GRASS OR WHATEVER.

BUT I'VE NOT SEEN INDICATIONS OTHER THAN THE ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES WHERE THIS IS A PROBLEM.

BICYCLES AND WALKERS SEEM TO GET ALONG JUST FINE.

ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO ANYTHING TO CHANGE THAT.

DO WE NEED MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS OR DO WE WANT TO? MAKE SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? TO ME, IT'S KIND OF UP IN THE AIR ON SOME OF THE THINGS I DON'T KNOW.

THE BICYCLES IS KIND OF AN ISSUE. I DON'T WANT TO ELIMINATE THAT, BUT I'VE ALMOST BEEN RUN OVER BY SOMEBODY PEDALING.

I MEAN, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE PART OF IT. THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THIS, I THINK ALL OF THIS IS GOOD.

I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU'RE GOING TO ENFORCE IT.

ARE WE GOING TO PULL SOMEBODY OFF OF A DETAIL TO GO RUN SOMEBODY DOWN ON A BICYCLE? YOU KNOW, WE WILL RESPOND TO THE CALLS AS THEY COME IN, DEPENDING UPON THE NATURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON.

I MEAN, SOMETIMES THEY'RE JUST RIDING AND PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO SEE THEM THERE. AND, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE TYPE OF PRIORITY OF A CALL.

SOMETIMES THEY ARE BEING RECKLESS AND ALL THAT.

AND THAT'S GOING TO CHANGE THE PRIORITY OF THE CALL AND HOW FAST WE GET THERE AND THE RESOURCES WE USE TO DEAL WITH THAT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, INJURIES ARE POSSIBLE AND THAT KIND OF THING. SO IT'S GOING TO VARY THE RESPONSE TIME.

TYPICALLY, MOST OF THEM ARE NOT YOUR HIGHER PRIORITY CALLS, BUT WE'RE CERTAINLY GOING TO RESPOND AS THOSE CALLS COME IN.

AND AND I'M SURE YOU ALL WILL TAKE CARE OF IT.

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT YOU ALL TAKE CARE OF IT.

ANYBODY ELSE? I'M GOOD WITH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN.

BUT I AGREE WITH DAN. THERE NEEDS TO BE ONE EXCEPTION.

AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE IT IN THE MOTION. OR DOES IT HAVE TO COME BACK? THAT'S WHAT I'M ASKING. YOU CAN MAKE IT IN YOUR MOTION. IF YOU'RE SPEAKING REGARDING THE GOLF CARTS TO 58-6, A GENERIC TERMINOLOGY FOR GOLF CART OR QUADS.

BE INCLUDED NOT IN THE STATE LAW BECAUSE ITS LEGISLATIVE VEHICLES, BUT IN CITY LAW.

YES, SIR. ORDINANCE. ARE YOU READY TO MAKE THE MOTION? I THINK THE MOTION I'M MAKING IS THAT WE ARE GOING TO PROHIBIT OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL VEHICLES IN CITY PARKS, INCLUDING ALL OF THE LISTED ELECTRIC MOTORCYCLES, ATVS, ETC., WITH THE ADDITION OF GOLF CARTS AS AN ADDITIONAL PROHIBITED VEHICLE.

IS THAT EVERYBODY'S UNDERSTANDING? ALL RIGHT THEN, THAT'S MY MOTION.

AND FOR CLARITY, THAT'S SPECIFICALLY TO SECTION 58.6, WHICH IS DEFINING OFF ROAD RECREATIONAL MOTOR VEHICLES IN PARKS.

CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, YES. AND THERE WAS AN AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 78.

ALSO THE TRAFFIC AND VEHICLES. ARE YOU APPROVING ALL THE OTHER PROPOSED AMENDMENTS IN OTHER PROPOSED ORDINANCE? SO THE IN ONE MOTION WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE 58-6 AND 78-6 OKAY.

AS WELL. SAME. ANYTHING ELSE. SECOND. WE GOOD.

WE GOOD. I HAVE A MOTION BY DAN A SECOND BY ADAM.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO SEVEN.

[7.E. Consider and take possible action on a minute order electing a councilmember to serve as Mayor Pro Tem for a term of one year. (Staff Contact: Monica Solko, Deputy City Secretary)]

YES, YOU DID GOOD. THANK YOU. CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION ON A MINUTE ORDER.

[01:05:05]

ELECTING A COUNCIL MEMBER TO SERVE AS MAYOR PRO TEM FOR A TERM OF ONE YEAR.

THE STAFF PRESENTED THIS EVENING IS MONIKA SOCKO, DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.

MONIKA. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO TEM, BUT THE MAYOR PRO TEM WILL SERVE FOR A ONE YEAR TERM.

AND WE DID RECEIVE FIVE NOMINATIONS FOR THE SAME PERSON WHO IS THE CURRENT MAYOR PRO TEM DAN MCCLENDON.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO THE REST OF THE COUNCIL TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS OR WE WOULD LIKE TO REAFFIRM THE NOMINATION.

THAT'S BEFORE YOU. YOU'RE GOING TO GET THE HANG OF THIS SOONER OR LATER.

IT'S LIKE ONE, TWO, THREE. NOT IT. OKAY. IS THERE A NOMINATION? I MOVE TO REAPPOINT DAN MCCLENDON AS MAYOR PRO TEM.

SECOND. I HAVE A MOTION BY ADAM SECOND. SECOND BY VICTORIA.

PLEASE VOTE. YOU GOT IT, BUD. PASSES. UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU ALL. AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU DAN. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THAT BRINGS US TO 7.F. CONSIDER AND TAKE POSSIBLE ACTION TO CAST THE CITY OF BURLESON VOTE FOR TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE REGION EIGHT DIRECTOR.

[7.F. Consider and take possible action to cast the City of Burleson’s vote for Texas Municipal League Region 8 Director. (Staff Contact: Monica Solko, Deputy City Secretary)]

THE STAFF PRESENTER IS ONCE AGAIN MONIKA SOCKO, DEPUTY CITY SECRETARY.

HERE WE GO. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL.

THIS ITEM BEFORE YOU IS TO IS THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE REGION EIGHT DIRECTOR ELECTION.

THE REGION DIRECTOR ELECTION WERE PREVIOUSLY DONE BY THE TML REGIONAL MEETING AT THE REGIONAL MEETING, BUT WAS CHANGED. I HAVE LAST YEAR, BUT IT WAS ACTUALLY 2023.

EVEN NUMBERED REGION DIRECTORS ARE ELECTED TO AN EVEN NUMBERED YEARS AND SERVE TWO YEARS.

TERMS BEGIN AT THE ADJOURNMENT OF TML ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND THIS YEAR THE CONFERENCE IS NOVEMBER 11TH THROUGH THE 13TH IN SAN ANTONIO.

THE CITY OF BURLESON IS IN REGION EIGHT AND THE OFFICIAL BALLOT IS DUE TO TML BY NOVEMBER 5TH.

WE HAVE TWO CANDIDATES ON THE BALLOT. MIKE BROWNING, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER FOR THE CITY OF AUBREY AND THE INCUMBENT MAYOR.

MAYOR PRO TEM FOR THE CITY OF GRANDVIEW. IN YOUR PACKET WE DID INCLUDE BOTH THEIR BIOS.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP TO COUNCIL TO REVIEW THE CANDIDATES AND DETERMINE THE CITY OF BURLESON VOTE FOR THE TML REGION EIGHT.

DIRECTOR. IS THERE ANYBODY IN QUESTION HERE? I'LL TELL YOU.

MIKE BROWNING HAS CONTACTED ALL OF US REQUESTING THE VOTE, AND I'M LEANING TOWARDS MIKE BROWNING.

I AM TOO. IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE VOTE AND ELECT MIKE BROWNING TO REPRESENT US IN TML 8.

I HAVE A MOTION BY LARRY AND A SECOND BY PHIL.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES UNANIMOUS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO SECTION EIGHT REPORTS AND PRESENTATIONS.

[8.A. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding our federal legislative efforts. (Presenter: Mike Lane, Kiley & Associates) (Staff Contact: Janalea Hembree, Director of Strategy and Innovation)]

8.A IS TO RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING OUR FEDERAL LEGISLATIVE EFFORTS.

THE PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS MIKE LANE WITH KYLIE AND ASSOCIATES, MR. LANE. ALL RIGHT, LET'S SEE IF I GET MY SLIDE UP HERE.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR FLETCHER AND COUNCIL. I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME THIS EVENING TO PROVIDE OUR BRIEFING TO YOU, AS WELL AS WE APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TO WORK WITH YOU HERE OVER THE LAST PAST YEAR.

I WAS HERE EARLIER, I BELIEVE IN FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, WE HAD BRIEFED YOU ON WHAT WE HAVE DONE TO DATE AND THEN WAS ASKED TO COME BACK AND TALK ABOUT THE MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS THAT WE'VE HAD SINCE THEN, AS WELL AS NEXT STEPS THAT WE INTEND TO EXECUTE OVER THE COMING MONTHS AND NEXT YEAR.

SO BOTTOM LINE UP FRONT IN FY 20 OR EXCUSE ME, IN CALENDAR YEAR 26, I'M PROUD TO SAY THAT WE WERE SUCCESSFUL IN ACHIEVING OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE PER THE TERMS OF OUR CONTRACT, WHICH WAS SECURING A FEDERAL EARMARK INTO THE FY 2027 FEDERAL APPROPRIATIONS BILL WITH THE HOUSE. SO WE WORKED WITH CITY MANAGER LUDWIG AND STAFF TO IDENTIFY A HANDFUL OF PROJECTS OF WHICH AFTERWARDS, I WORKED WITH CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS'S STAFF TO ESSENTIALLY ADVOCATE ON BEHALF OF THE CITY FOR WHAT YOU WERE REQUESTING.

[01:10:03]

AND THE PROJECT THAT HE ENDED UP CHOOSING WAS TO SUPPORT THE BULLET RESISTANCE COMPONENTS FOR PD VEHICLES UNDER COMMERCE, JUSTICE AND SCIENCE. SO THE EARMARK THAT HAS BEEN SELECTED AND IS CURRENTLY SITTING IN THE FY 2027 BUDGET IS APPROXIMATELY $334,927 FOR BULLET RESISTANCE COMPONENTS FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

NOW, THE GOOD THING ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR EARMARK IS THAT THERE IS NO CITY MATCH.

SO ESSENTIALLY WHEN THIS WHEN THESE FUNDS ARE ALLOCATED, THAT'S JUST MONEY THAT YOU GUYS CAN SPEND ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE OUT OF THE GENERAL FUND. SO WE CONSIDER THAT TO BE A BIG WIN FOR THE CITY OF BURLESON.

IT'S, IT'S REALLY INDICATIVE OF THE WORK THAT WE'VE DEVELOPED BUILDING THE RELATIONSHIPS.

AND IT'S A GOOD SIGN THAT MOVING FORWARD, AS WE REQUEST FUNDING IN THE FUTURE CYCLES.

WE'VE GOT A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THAT TEAM.

KENDALL OVER ON HIS STAFF AS WELL AS BROOKS, THEY'RE THEY UNDERSTAND BURLESON.

THEY KNOW BURLESON, THEY UNDERSTAND US AND OUR FIRM AND WE'RE CONFIDENT IN THE RELATIONSHIP MOVING FORWARD.

SO WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE IN TERMS OF EXPECTATION SETTING FOR WHAT WE CAN WHEN BURLESON CAN SEE THOSE FUNDS? SO YOU NOTICE THE CHOICE WORD OF EXPECTED TIMELINE TO FUNDS.

THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE WE AT THIS POINT ARE AT THE BEHEST OF CONGRESS.

WHAT THEY NEED TO DO NEXT. IN A PERFECT WORLD, THEY WOULD HAVE APPROVED THE THE BUDGET BY OCTOBER 1ST.

NOW THAT HASN'T HAPPENED. WE'RE CURRENTLY CONTINUING RESOLUTION, BUT ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE ANTICIPATE BASED OFF OF WHAT'S HAPPENED HISTORICALLY IS BY NO LATER THAN ROUGHLY MARCH 2027, CONGRESS WILL COME TOGETHER, THEY'LL MAKE THEIR DEALS.

THEY'LL PASS THE BUDGET. WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE FUNDS WILL GET APPROPRIATED AND OBLIGATED FROM OMB TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AT WHICH POINT ROUGHLY AROUND THEN. ONCE AGAIN, I HATE TO SAY IT DEPENDS, BUT IT REALLY JUST COMES DOWN TO THINGS WELL, OUTSIDE OF OUR OUR CONTROL. THE DOJ UNDER THE COPS PROGRAM WILL OPEN UP A GRANT, BUT IT'S A NONCOMPETITIVE GRANT, WHICH MEANS IN THAT GRANT, BURLESON WILL BE LISTED AS A LINE ITEM WINNER.

AND SO ONLY FOLKS THAT ARE ON THAT CAN APPLY.

IT'S A IT'S A BUREAUCRATIC MATTER OF PAPERWORK, ESSENTIALLY, WHERE YOU WILL KIND OF RETEST WHAT YOUR NEED IS TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR SCOPE HASN'T CHANGED AND IT'S WITHIN THE CONFINES OF WHAT YOU APPLIED FOR IN THE EARMARK.

ONCE THAT PROCESS GOES THROUGH, AND THIS IS NOT A HEAVY LIFT BY ANY MEANS, WE SERVICE THIS WITH SEVERAL OF OUR CLIENTS.

THEY WILL THEN HAVE THE GRANT AGREEMENT SIGNED AND THE FUNDS WILL BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE CITY.

SO GENERALLY SPEAKING, CONSERVATIVELY AND THIS IS ALL VERY CONSERVATIVE, SUMMER TO FALL OF NEXT YEAR IS WHEN YOU'LL HAVE THESE FUNDS.

HOWEVER, IT COULD BE MUCH SOONER. I HATE SAYING IT DEPENDS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH WASHINGTON, THAT'S JUST HOW IT GOES. BUT THE GOOD NEWS STORY IS THE HARDEST PART, WHICH WAS GETTING ALL OF THIS INTO THE APPROPRIATIONS BILL HAS SUCCESSFULLY HAPPENED, AND WE SHOULD LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THAT 335,000 NEXT YEAR.

SO AND I WILL PAUSE AT THE END OF EACH OF THESE SLIDES TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS, AS WELL AS AT THE END.

THE SECOND MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT THAT WE HAD THIS PAST YEAR WAS WITH RESPECT TO THE WATER RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT ACT.

SO I KNOW MANY OF YOU MAY NOT BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS.

SO JUST GENERALLY SPEAKING, EVERY TWO YEARS, CONGRESS HAS A PROCESS IN WHICH THEY OPEN UP APPLICATIONS AND WHAT WE CALL IT WRDA COLLOQUIALLY TO THE WATER BILL. AND WHAT THIS IS, IS IT IS A GOVERNMENT BILL AUTHORIZING FUNDING TO THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FOR WATER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE RELATED PROJECTS. SO THEY OPENED THAT UP EARLY IN 2026.

I BROUGHT IT TO THE ATTENTION OF CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS STAFF BECAUSE IT'S IT'S NOT A COMMONLY KNOWN THING THAT PEOPLE EXECUTE ON, AS WELL AS CITY MANAGER LUDWIG AND HIS STAFF TO SEE IF THERE WERE INTENT TO APPLY.

WE WORKED TOGETHER. WE SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION THROUGH CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS, AND WE ARE VERY HAPPY TO SAY THAT BURLESON IS ONE OF ONLY 13 CITIES IN TEXAS TO GET A WORD OF AUTHORIZATION, SO IT'S A PRETTY BIG DEAL.

SO WHAT THIS IS, IS IT'S AN AUTHORIZATION. SO IT'S NOT FUNDS RIGHT NOW.

BUT WHAT IT IS, IS IT'S THE ABILITY TO GET FUNDS IN THE FUTURE FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECTS WRIT LARGE.

SO WHERE WE HAVE EARMARKS THAT ARE TYPICALLY FOR WATER WOULD GO THROUGH THE EPA.

WE CAN NOW APPLY FOR THEM THROUGH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS.

SO IT JUST OPENS UP ANOTHER AVENUE. THERE'S ALSO MULTIPLE DIFFERENT PATHS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION TODAY, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE WEEDS ON THAT, BUT IT BASICALLY OPENS UP THE OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO APPLY FOR FUNDING THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE. AND WE COULDN'T HAVE UNLESS WE WERE TO GET ON THIS BILL.

WHERE THE BILL STANDS RIGHT NOW IS IT HAS PASSED HOUSE COMMITTEE.

IT'S PENDING GETTING SENATE APPROVAL. HOWEVER, TRADITIONALLY THIS IS A NON-CONTROVERSIAL BILL.

EVER SINCE IT CAME OUT, I BELIEVE IN THE LATE 90S, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY DECEMBER OF EVERY YEAR THAT IT'S COME UP CONSISTENTLY.

SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY ISSUES THERE. THE OTHER GOOD NEWS ABOUT THIS IS THIS IS GOING TO BE OPEN FOR COULD BE AS MANY AS TWO DECADES.

[01:15:07]

SO WE HAVE AN AVENUE WHERE IF THERE ARE LARGE SCALE PROJECTS OR SEVERAL SMALLER PROJECTS, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO SEEK FUNDING THAT WAY.

AND I'LL GET INTO THE DETAILS HERE ON THE THE NEXT SLIDE.

BUT I'VE ALSO MET WITH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS DALLAS REGION TO TALK THROUGH WORD AND KIND OF UNDERSTAND THE NUANCES OF WHAT WE NEED TO DO OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT SEVERAL YEARS TO TRY TO GET SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS FOR WATER PROJECTS TO COME TO BURLESON.

BUT ULTIMATELY, IT'S A BIG SUCCESS BECAUSE EVERY OTHER CITY THAT DID NOT DO THIS IS NOT ELIGIBLE, AT LEAST FOR ANOTHER YEAR AND A HALF. SO YOU GUYS ARE AHEAD OF THE POWER CURVE IN MANY WAYS.

SO AS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THEY AUTHORIZED THIS.

RIGHT NOW WE'RE WAITING IS FOR THE THE SENATE TO PASS IT, WHICH WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT THAT BASED OFF OF HISTORY, THEY'LL THEY'LL WORK ON. BUT THE NEXT STEP IS TO WORK TOWARDS APPROPRIATIONS.

SO I KNOW THAT CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS WAS VERY EXCITED.

I BELIEVE MAYOR FLETCHER HE HE CALLED YOU THE DAY THAT HE FOUND OUT THAT THIS CAME UP.

AND IN TALKING TO HIS STAFF, I THINK A REALLY GOOD AVENUE FOR THE CITY IS TO PURSUE WATER PROJECTS THIS YEAR, BECAUSE CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS HAS ALREADY MADE THE EFFORT TO GET THE THE WORD AUTHORIZATION.

NOW, IT WOULD BE A GOOD IDEA TO FOLLOW THROUGH AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS TOWARDS THAT.

SO THE LIKELIHOOD IS SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED BECAUSE NOT ONLY CAN WE APPLY THROUGH THE EPA SUBCOMMITTEE, BUT NOW WE CAN ALSO APPLY THROUGH THE ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. SO IT JUST GREATLY INCREASES BURLESON'S CHANCES TOWARDS GETTING FEDERAL FUNDING FOR WATER PROJECTS.

AND I KNOW THAT THE CITY HAS SEVERAL WATER PROJECTS IN YOUR YOUR WATER CIP.

SO LONG STORY SHORT, IT'S A GOOD NEWS STORY. NOW IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ME TO WORK WITH WITH BURLESON TO IDENTIFY WHAT YOU WANT TO PURSUE, WHETHER IT'S THIS NEXT YEAR OR OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.

SO YEAH. AND THEN THE OTHER NOTE IS AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT.

DELEGATION IS CHANGING. SO WE ALL KNOW SENATOR CORNYN IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE IN OFFICE.

AND WE HAVE EITHER PAXTON OR TALARICO WHO WILL BE COMING IN.

POLITICS ASIDE, THERE IS OPPORTUNITY HERE BECAUSE SENATOR CORNYN DID NOT SUPPORT FEDERAL EARMARK PROCESS.

NEITHER DOES SENATOR CRUZ WITH TALARICO OR PAXTON IN.

WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY ARE, BUT WE AT LEAST KNOW THAT THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE. THAT'S A SEPARATE PROCESS CALLED CONGRESSIONALLY DIRECTED SPENDING.

SO IF YOU HAVE A LARGE WATER PROJECT THAT MIGHT BE AN AVENUE.

NOW IN TERMS OF EXPECTATION SETTING. I'LL TALK ABOUT THAT ON THIS SLIDE.

WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT FEDERAL FUNDING REQUESTS. WE TYPICALLY AIM FOR ANYWHERE FROM 250,000 TO 2 TO $3 MILLION.

I'VE SEEN SEVERAL FOR 5 MILLION. BUT THAT'S DEPENDENT ON IF YOUR YOUR MEMBERS ON THE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, IF THEY'RE REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WITH THE ELECTIONS IN NOVEMBER, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN.

IT'S LOOKING LIKE THE HOUSE WILL FLIP BLUE. SO THERE'S A LOT OF CONSIDERATIONS WHEN IT COMES INTO IT.

BUT THE GENERAL DOLLAR VALUE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IN ANY GIVEN YEAR IS THAT 250,000 TO $2 MILLION SWEET SPOT.

SO FOR YOUR WATER PROJECTS, IF YOU HAVE A LARGE ONE, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET $40 MILLION TO DO A REGIONAL PROJECT, BUT WE CAN GET A CHUNK OF THAT THAT YOU WON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT TAKING A LOAN OUT FOR OR FUNDING THROUGH THROUGH OTHER MEANS OR TAKING ON DEBT.

SO AS A REMINDER, THE CATEGORIES THAT WE APPLY FOR.

AND THIS IS WHAT THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH LAST YEAR ARE GENERAL PUBLIC SAFETY, BIPARTISAN PROJECTS.

SO IT'S YOUR WATER, YOUR WASTEWATER, ROADS, TRANSPORTATION, PARKS AND THINGS OF THAT SORT.

SO I'VE LISTED OUT KIND OF WHAT QUALIFIES AND THE FEDERAL VEHICLES, BUT REALLY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING NEXT, AND I'LL GO INTO A TIMELINE AFTER THIS, IS WORKING IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY, THE CITY MANAGER STAFF, AND AND THE COUNCIL'S PRIORITIES. IT'S ESSENTIALLY WE'RE GOING TO WORK TO GET A LIST OF WHATEVER THE CITY'S PRIORITIES ARE, AND THEN OUR TEAM WILL WORK WITH YOU TO ESTABLISH HOW WE SHOULD RANK THOSE, BECAUSE THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT IS A COUNCIL PRIORITY, BUT IT'S REALLY NOT FEASIBLE OR ELIGIBLE BY FEDERAL MEANS.

MAYBE THERE'S NO FEDERAL NEXUS OR IT'S OUT OF VOGUE IN D.C.

THE OTHER COMES INTO WHAT'S THE COST? WELL, YOU MIGHT YOUR PRIORITY NUMBER ONE MIGHT BE TO FUND A $38 MILLION X, Y, AND Z. THAT'S MAYBE NOT AS REALISTIC AS ASKING FOR $2 MILLION FOR ROAD WORK.

SO WE WILL WORK WITH THE CITY ONCE WE HAVE THAT LIST TO TO RANK THAT.

THERE'S OTHER CONSIDERATIONS AS WELL, LIKE LOCAL MATCH.

EVERY ACCOUNT IS DIFFERENT. EVERY SUBCOMMITTEE, EVERY PROGRAM.

SOME REQUIRE MATCHES LIKE EPA REQUIRES 25% MATCH.

SOME DON'T. DOJ REQUIRES NO MATCH. SO YOU KNOW, THAT'S ANOTHER CONSIDERATION TO TAKE INTO TO SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO CONSIDER WHEN WE

[01:20:03]

MAKE THESE APPLICATIONS. AND THEN LASTLY, IT COMES DOWN TO WORKING WITH CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS AND THE INCOMING SENATORS PRIORITIES.

IF THEY'RE REALLY HARD ON ON WATER, BUT REALLY DON'T CARE ABOUT ROADS FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER.

WE'RE GOING TO WANT TO STRAY AWAY FROM ASKING FOR FUNDING FOR PRIORITIES THAT DON'T ALIGN TO WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

SO THAT'S GOING TO BE ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT OVER THE NEXT CYCLE.

EXCUSE ME. SO IN TERMS OF NEXT STEP, I TOUCHED ON A LOT OF THIS.

AND SOME OF THIS HAS ALREADY OCCURRED IS WE'RE WE'RE DOING SEVERAL ACTIONS IN TANDEM.

SO ONE IS WE'RE JUST GOING TO STAND BY AND CONTINUE TO WORK WITH THE SENATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT WORD OF BILL GETS PASSED AS IS.

RIGHT NOW THEY'RE JUST RECONCILING THE SENATE WORD OF BILL AND THE HOUSE WORD OF BILL.

THEY'RE GOING TO COMBINE THEM, SEE IF THEY NEED TO DO ANY MARKDOWNS AND PASS THAT.

ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S DECEMBER TIME FRAME 2027 FUNDING.

WE'LL JUST CONTINUE TO WAIT AND SEE WHEN CONGRESS PASSES ITS BUDGET AND TAKES NEXT ACTIONS.

I'VE ALREADY MET WITH THE ARMY CORPS REGARDING THE SECTION 219 AWARD OF FUNDING OR WORD AUTHORIZATION THAT WE HAVE, BUT I WILL HAVE A FOLLOW UP ONCE THE BILL HAS BEEN SIGNED TO TALK THROUGH ANY ANY NEXT STEPS.

IDEALLY BY DECEMBER, WE'LL HAVE WORKED WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE TO IDENTIFY ALL OF THE PROJECTS THAT YOU WANT TO PRIORITIZE. AND THEN I'M ALREADY WORKING THE RELATIONSHIPS AS WE SPEAK WITH CONGRESSMAN WILLIAMS AND CONGRESSMAN LEE'S STAFF, BECAUSE AS YOU KNOW, HE'S GOING TO BE PICKING UP THROUGH THE REDISTRICTING.

HE'S GOING TO HAVE A PORTION OF BURLESON WHICH WILL BE ELIGIBLE WITH FUNDING THROUGH HIS OFFICE.

AND THEN AS WE GO INTO JANUARY AND FEBRUARY, THAT'S REALLY WHEN WE'RE DOING THE FINAL WORK ON THE ON THE PROJECTS AND THE ADVOCACY THAT WE CHOOSE. WE HAVE OPTIONAL. I KNOW WE DIDN'T DO THIS LAST YEAR, BUT WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE A CITY VISIT.

I KNOW THAT COUNCIL MEMBER BOEDEKER CAME OUT, BUT I THINK SHE CAME OUT AFTER I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY WHEN IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MARCH BEFORE THE DECISION WAS MADE OR JUST AFTER, BUT SHE DID FACETIME WITH ELLZEY AND WILLIAMS, WHICH ALWAYS HELPS IF YOU MAKE THE VISIT OUT TO D.C..

SO WE ALWAYS ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO COME OUT, BUT IF YOU DON'T, THAT'S FINE.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. IT HELPS, BUT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT MANDATORY.

AND THEN AROUND THE FEBRUARY TO APRIL TIME FRAME AND I SAY AROUND IS BECAUSE IT CHANGES EVERY YEAR, SOMETIMES IT'S IN LATE MARCH. THIS PAST YEAR IT WAS MARCH 3RD.

THEY MOVED IT UP. THAT'S WHEN THEY'LL OFFICIALLY OPEN THEIR PORTALS.

WE'LL MAKE OUR SUBMISSIONS. AND THEN IT'S IT'S UP TO THE THE CONGRESSMAN ON WHAT THEY CHOOSE.

BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW, AND WHAT I'VE DESCRIBED OVER THE NEXT SEVERAL MONTHS IS THE, THE LEGWORK SO THAT ALL THE PREP IS DONE.

SO WHEN WE DO THE SUBMISSIONS, WE'VE ALREADY TALKED WITH THE CONGRESSMAN STAFF.

WE'VE ALREADY VETTED THE PROJECTS, WE'VE MADE SURE THEY'RE ELIGIBLE. WE'VE DONE ALL THE WORK TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE THE HIGHEST LIKELIHOOD OF SUCCESS. AND THEN SUMMER WILL COME AND WE'LL START THE WHOLE PROCESS ALL OVER AGAIN.

BUT HOPEFULLY WITH A BIGGER DOLLAR VALUE NEXT YEAR.

SO THAT CONCLUDES MY SECTION OF THE BRIEF, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

ANYBODY? THANKS, MIKE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THAT BRINGS US TO 8.B RECEIVE A REPORT, HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE STAFF DIRECTION REGARDING UPDATES FROM THE FORESTRY

[8.B. Receive a report, hold a discussion, and provide staff direction regarding updates from the Forestry Division. (Staff Contact: Dr. Jessie Farris, Urban Forester)]

DIVISION. THE STAFF PRESENTER THIS EVENING IS DOCTOR JESSIE FERRIS, URBAN FORESTER.

DOCTOR FERRIS. GOOD EVENING COUNCIL. GOOD EVENING MAYOR.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME. SO TODAY IS ACTUALLY MY 10TH MONTH WITH THE CITY. I'M VERY PROUD OF THE WORK WE'VE DONE. SO I'M VERY PROUD TO BE ABLE TO SHOW YOU AND KIND OF HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE PROJECTS WE'VE DONE OVER THE LAST NINE MONTHS.

WHEN I STARTED HERE, MY FIRST MAJOR GOAL WAS TO GET TO KNOW ALL THE FORESTRY PROCEDURES AND THE DIFFERENT PRACTICES THAT WE HAD IN PLACE AND THAT INCLUDING INCLUDED LOOKING AT THE GRANTS WE CURRENTLY HAD CONNECTING WITH THE COMMUNITY AND LOOKING AT OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES.

OVER THE LAST NINE MONTHS I'VE BEEN ABLE TO SECURE $30,000 IN GRANT FUNDING.

WE HAVE PLANTED OVER 100 TREES ACROSS OUR PARKS.

FOR OUR ARBOR DAY CELEBRATION THIS YEAR, IT WAS OUR LARGEST CELEBRATION.

WE HAD OVER 100 VOLUNTEERS. I'VE ENGAGED THE COMMUNITY THROUGH STUDENTS WITH OUR SCHOOLS.

I DID FIVE CAREER DAYS THAT HAD OVER 800 STUDENTS ACROSS EACH EACH CAREER DAY, AND 75 TREES WERE GIVEN OUT TO RESIDENTS AT OUR EARTH DAY AND ARBOR DAY EVENTS AND I PROVIDED SEVERAL TRAININGS TO OUR PARKS MAINTENANCE TEAM.

SO BUILDING A FOUNDATION, MY FIRST PRIORITY WAS REVIEWING OUR STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES,

[01:25:04]

LOOKING AT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND THINGS THAT WE CURRENTLY HAVE IN PLACE, AND LOOKING AT HOW WE COULD BRING THOSE UP TO OUR STANDARDS.