[CALL TO ORDER]
          [00:00:05]
          ALL RIGHT? GOOD AFTERNOON. THIS IS TUESDAY, AUGUST 5TH, 3:05 P.M. THIS IS THE CITY OF MCKINNEY CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION. WE WILL CALL THIS MEETING TO ORDER. FIRST ORDER OF 
          [PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AGENDA ITEMS]
BUSINESS IS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL ON AN AGENDA ITEM THAT DOES NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ATTACHED. THAT WOULD BE ANYTHING IN THIS WORK SESSION. 
          YES, MA'AM. MISS HENRY? YES. OKAY. CITY SECRETARY. YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS. SO, ANYONE WISHING TO SPEAK. A COUPLE OF HOUSEKEEPING ITEMS. WE'RE GLAD THAT YOU ARE HERE. 
          WHEN YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES TO SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND YOUR CONCERNS WITH US. WITH THAT, MISS HENRY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. 
          MY NAME IS LOREEN HENRY. I LIVE AT 905 SOUTH MURRAY STREET IN MCKINNEY, TEXAS. I WAS BORN HERE IN THE CITY OF MCKINNEY, TEXAS. I WENT TO SCHOOL HERE. I'M NOT CRYING TODAY. BEFORE, WHEN I WAS HERE, I CRIED. I WAS DEVASTATED BECAUSE MY HOUSE WAS FALLING INTO A BIG HOLE. THAT THE GUY THAT YOU ALL SENT OUT TO DO SOMETHING DUG THIS BIG HOLE, AND YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF IT NOW. 
          I'M ANGRY NOW. I'VE TALKED TO SOME ATTORNEYS. I KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO. I'M COMING TO YOU. 
          I'M NOT COMING TO YOU AGAIN UNLESS YOU COME. I WON'T. I'M GOING TO ASK SOMEBODY TO COME OUT THERE AND LET YOU SEE THE HOLE. IT IS DEEP. AND MY HOUSE IS THE HOLE TO MY BACK DOOR. I NURSED HIM, I NURSED HIM. MY HUSBAND DIED IN 1980. I NURSED AND PAID FOR THAT HOUSE AND MY SUV. I DID WITHOUT FOOD FOR THIS. AND THEN FOR YOU TO SEND SOMEBODY OUT THERE LIKE THIS MAN. AND HE DESTROYED MY HOME. HE'S THE ONE THAT DUG THE HOLE. BUT I'M BEING PUNISHED FOR IT. 
          AND I'M GETTING ANGRY. I'M NOT CRYING TODAY. I NURSED 61 YEARS, BUT I HAVE BEEN DEVASTATED. I CAME BEFORE YOU ALL HUMBLED, AND I CRIED. AND YOU? AND YOU DIDN'T DO ANYTHING. BUT NOW I'M ANGRY. 
          I'VE TALKED TO HER ATTORNEYS. I KNOW WHAT I NEED TO DO. I'M COMING TO YOU ONE LAST TIME. I'M ASKING SOMEBODY TO COME OUT AND SEE IT AND TALK TO ME. YOU CAN DO WHAT YOU NEED TO DO, BUT I'M UPSET. I KNOW HIM. I KNOW HIM, AND I'VE MET YOU. YOU SEEM NICE. THAT DON'T MEAN NOTHING. I'M ASKING FOR HELP. LET ME SAY MY HOME. I CAN'T LIVE IN THAT HOME LIKE THAT. BUT YOU SEND PEOPLE OUT TO REHAB IT. BUT IT DON'T DO NO GOOD BECAUSE IT'S FALLEN. PLEASE HELP ME. I'M ASKING FOR HELP BEFORE I GO ANYWHERE ELSE. I'M COMING TO YOU. BILL, YOU KNOW ME. YOU KNOW I'M A GOOD PERSON, BUT I BE. I'M GETTING ANGRY NOW. YOU'VE BEEN GOOD. WE WALKED THE STREETS TOGETHER. I ENJOYED THE YOUR NICE PERSON. I KNOW YOU, YOU'RE A GOOD PERSON. YOU ALL ARE GOOD. I KNOW HIM, BUT I'M GETTING ANGRY NOW. AND I'M NOT COMING BACK ANYMORE BECAUSE THIS IS MY LIFETIME. AND I MESSAGE SOME OF YOU TO COME OUT THERE AND HELP ME DO SOMETHING TO MY HOUSE. I WORKED HARD FOR THAT HOUSE, FOR MYSELF. MY. THE WHOLE IS UP TO MY BACK DOOR. IT'S TAKING. IT'S ENGULFING MY HOUSE. YOU KNOW, ALL I DID WAS ASK YOU TO HELP ME SAVE IT. AND YOU COULDN'T EVEN DO THAT. BECAUSE. WHY? IS IT BECAUSE I'M A BLACK WOMAN? I'M A STRONG BLACK WOMAN NOW. YOU HAVEN'T SEEN ME YET. HE HAVE? I'VE ASKED YOU ALL NICE. YOU KNOW ME. PLEASE HELP ME SAVE MY HOME. YOU. IT'S NOT GOING TO HURT YOU TO COME OUT THERE AND LOOK AT THAT HOLE. IT'S THERE. 
          IT'S DEEP AND IT'S GOING. YOU GOT MY PHONE NUMBER? BILL KNOW ME? HE KNOWS ME. PLEASE HELP ME SAVE MY HOME. I DIDN'T SAY WHAT I WANTED TO SAY, BUT THANK YOU ANYWAY. THANK YOU, MISS HENRY. 
          OKAY. ANYONE ELSE WISH TO ADDRESS CITY COUNCIL? ALL RIGHT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO. THE FIRST ITEM 
          [DISCUSS AGENDA ITEMS for the City Council Regular Meeting to be held on Tuesday, August 5, 2025 at 6:00 p.m.
]
WILL BE TO DISCUSS OUR REGULAR AGENDA. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? MR. PORTIER, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? NO, SIR, I DON'T. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I'LL MAKE A NOTE OF THAT. 
          NO QUESTIONS FROM MR. CLAUDIA. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? VERY GOOD. FIRST WORK SESSION. ITEM 
          [Consider/Discuss Potential Bylaw Changes to the McKinney Public Facility Corporation (MPFC)]
WILL BE 253004. CONSIDER POTENTIAL BYLAW CHANGES TO THE MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITY CORPORATION. MISS LEE. OH, YOU'RE NOT MARGARET. MISS TODD. THINGS NEVER ON FOR ME. LET'S 
          [00:05:02]
SEE. OKAY. HELLO, MAYOR. COUNCIL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY. AS STATED, THIS ITEM IS TO CONSIDER DISCUSS POTENTIAL CHANGES TO THE MCKINNEY PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION. SO WHAT IS A PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION? THE CHAPTER 303 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE ALLOWS THE CREATION OF A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY WHICH, LIKE A PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION BY THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL BODY SUCH AS A CITY, A COUNCIL AND A HOUSING AUTHORITY. THROUGH THE PUBLIC FACILITIES, YOU CAN CREATE DIFFERENT THINGS SUCH FOR HOUSING, GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS, HOSPITALS AND THEY ALSO HAVE 100% TAX CELLS. WE HAVE ONE PFC DEAL. OUR PFC, OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION, WAS CREATED IN JUNE 21ST OF 2022. WE DID PARTNER WITH JPI FOR JEFFERSON VERDANT. THINGS HAVE CHANGED A LITTLE BIT SINCE 2002. BACK IN 2023, THERE WERE SOME LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT ADDED DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE LEVELS FOR INCOME QUALIFICATIONS. SO IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE ANYMORE AS 50% AT ARMY. SO TODAY WE AREN'T REALLY GETTING AS MANY REQUESTS FOR OUR PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATIONS TO DO PARTNERSHIPS. THOSE REQUESTS ARE REALLY COMING TO THE MCKINNEY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION AND OUR MCKINNEY HOUSING AUTHORITY. AND WITH THAT, WE RECENTLY CREATED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SCORECARD. COUNCIL APPROVED THAT IN FEBRUARY. SO NOW WE LOOK AT ALL OF THOSE INDIVIDUALLY AS THEY COME. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY IS POSSIBLY AMENDING THE BYLAWS FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION, BECAUSE AT THIS DAY AND AGE, IT'S LIKE WE REALLY AREN'T GOING TO HAVE ANY OTHER DEVELOPERS COME AND TRY TO DO A PFC DEAL, RIGHT? THEY'RE REALLY PARTNERING WITH OUR HFC OR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSE OR THE MCKINNEY HOUSING FINANCE CORPORATION. THE NET REVENUES FOR THE PUBLIC FACILITIES CORPORATION CURRENTLY GO INTO THE CITY GENERAL FUND. AND THE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO PUT THOSE FUNDS INTO OUR COMMUNITY HOUSING FUND. WITH THOSE FUNDS GOING INTO OUR COMMUNITY HOUSING FUND, IT GIVES US A DEDICATED REVENUE SOURCE TO HELP US FURTHER COUNCIL'S FINANCIAL GOALS. OUR STRATEGIC PLANS TO BUILD MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. CURRENTLY, THE INCOME THAT'S COMING IN TO THIS IS ONCE JEFFERSON VERDANT IS COMPLETE, THERE WILL BE $420,000 THAT COMES IN ANNUALLY FOR THE LEASE OF THE PROPERTY. I THINK THAT'S IT. I'M HAPPY TO STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. CRYSTAL, THE SPEAKING OF THE JEFFERSON VERDANT. THANK YOU FOR THIS PRESENTATION. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY PAY ANY CITY TAXES THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? THEY DO NOT. OKAY. SO IF WE HAD A MARKET RATE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD BE PAYING CITY TAXES AND THEN PAYING TOWARD ROADS AND POLICING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. 
          BUT THIS ONE DOESN'T. INSTEAD WE'RE GETTING THE 420. IS IT COMPLIANT FOR US TO LEAVE IT IN THE GENERAL FUND, OR MUST WE MOVE IT TO SOMETHING ELSE? YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY LEAVE IT IN THE GENERAL FUND. OKAY. I'LL SAY THAT JUST FOR ME. I WANT TO BALANCE THAT BETWEEN MAYBE FUNDING THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST, WHICH I KNOW NEEDS A SOURCE OF FUNDING. AND I'D LIKE TO EXPLORE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE FURTHER, BUT AND MAYBE THAT'S JUST MY OWN DUE DILIGENCE ON THAT. BUT THANK YOU, CRYSTAL. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS. CRYSTAL. THANK YOU. SO WOULD YOU GUYS, IS IT OKAY TO PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM TO AMEND THE BYLAWS? OR YOU PREFER US NOT TO LOOK AT AMENDING THE BYLAWS? I DO STRUGGLE BECAUSE THERE'S TWO THERE'S I DO WANT TO HAVE A BROADER TAX BASE, WHICH AT LEAST FOR ME, WOULD MEAN THEM PAYING SOMETHING INTO THE GENERAL, BUT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE WHOLE 420 BUT I ALSO STRUGGLE BECAUSE I KNOW THE CLT NEEDS A. SOURCES OF CONSISTENT INCOME. IF WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THIS THING MORE THAN WHAT IT IS TODAY, AND TO HAVE SOME CONSISTENT LEGS UNDERNEATH IT. SO. FORGIVE ME IF I'M BEING VERY OPAQUE ON THIS THING, BUT I'D KIND OF LIKE TO MAYBE DO A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH WOULD BE IF, IF ASKED RIGHT NOW WHAT I'D WANT TO DO, I'D WANT TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF BOTH OF THOSE AND NOTHING ELSE. CRYSTAL WITH THE WE'VE GOT THE DEVELOP AT LEAST TEN SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR TOWNHOMES THROUGH THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST BY SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2026. DO WE KNOW WHAT KIND OF CAPITAL THAT WOULD REQUIRE, LIKE THE IN TERMS OF FUNDS INTO THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST? IT SEEMS LIKE THAT WOULD BE OVER AND 
          [00:10:01]
ABOVE THE ANNUAL ALLOCATION OF 420,000. BUT DO WE KNOW LIKE THE THOSE NEEDS SEEM TO BE SOMETHING THAT WILL FLUCTUATE BASED ON PROJECTS? OR IS THERE CONSISTENT OPERATING FUNDS THAT ARE NEEDED ONCE THOSE ARE ESTABLISHED? LIKE WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE DEMAND OF FUNDING THAT THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST IS GOING TO HAVE? ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S DEFINITELY GOING TO DEPEND ON WHAT PROJECTS WE HAVE GOING ON. I MEAN, WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT POSSIBLE DEVELOPMENTS OF BUILDING SOME TOWNHOMES, AND THAT COST IS DEFINITELY GOING TO BE LARGER THAN THE $420,000 THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT WITH THIS, MOVING THESE FUNDS INTO THE COMMUNITY HOUSING FUND, IT WOULD STILL TECHNICALLY BE IN CITY FUNDS AND COUNCIL ALWAYS BUDGETS, YOU KNOW, APPROVES THOSE BUDGETS. SO WE COULD WITHIN THAT SAY THIS IS THE AMOUNT WE WANT TO USE TOWARDS OUR CLT. THIS IS THE AMOUNT THAT WE WANT TO USE FOR ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING. 
          BUT THERE'S STILL THE FLEXIBILITY IN COUNCIL STILL APPROVES ALL THOSE DOLLARS THAT WE DO SPEND. OKAY. SO FROM THE STANDPOINT OF AND I'M JUST I'M MAKING UP NUMBERS. BUT LET'S SAY OUR GOAL IS TEN THROUGH 2026, WHICH IS A HEAVY LIFT AT THIS POINT. BUT YOU KNOW THAT OUR WE HAVE A TEN AND OUR GOAL AS A PROJECT. AND THEN WE THAT MAY BE OVER A COUPLE OF YEARS AND THEN WE HAVE TEN MORE. AND SO THAT'S AN INCONSISTENT. BUT IF YOU ALLOCATE IT ANNUALLY YOU'RE BUILDING THAT CAPITAL TO USE IN THE FUTURE. OR IS IT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT WE THINK THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE ONGOING CAPITAL OPERATING NEEDS THAT WILL BE THERE EVERY YEAR? I GUESS, WHAT'S THE DEMAND? BECAUSE IF THE ASK IS. TO COMPLETE THE TEN THAT WE WANT TO COMPLETE, WE'RE GOING TO NEED A BIG BUDGET ALLOCATION, THEN THIS MAY NOT BE WHAT'S NECESSARY, BUT WE MORE THAN WILLING TO MAKE THE BIG BUDGET APPLICATION. AND THEN 2728 IT MAY NOT HAVE ANY NEEDS. 
          AND SO YOU KIND OF RECOUP THAT INTO THE GENERAL FUND FOR THAT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I GUESS A PROJECTION ON HOW WE USE THAT CASH, I THINK, WOULD BE HELPFUL IN DETERMINING SHOULD IT BE A DEDICATED OR SHOULD IT NOT, BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO FRONT A BUNCH OF CAPITAL INTO THIS FUND, IT MAY BE GOOD TO RECOUP THAT OVER OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS SO THAT IT DOESN'T GO INTO IT. I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST THAT MAY ANSWER SOME OF PATRICK'S CONCERNS. WELL, YOU'VE INTRODUCED A CONCEPT THAT I HADN'T REALLY THOUGHT OF. NOW, IF EX HOME BUILDER IS GOING TO GO AND BUILD A DEVELOPMENT ON A PIECE OF LAND, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT HOME BUILDER FINANCE IS THE COST OF THOSE HOMES. THEY THEN SELL THOSE HOMES AND THEY RECOUP THE THEIR INVESTMENT AND AUSPICIOUSLY A PROFIT ON THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. THERE IS A PATHWAY THAT I THINK MOST OF US UP HERE CAN SEE, AND THAT YOU CAN SEE THAT PERHAPS THERE'S LAND THAT THE CITY ALREADY OWNS THAT WOULD WE WOULD BUILD THESE HOMES ON. MY THOUGHT IS WE WOULD CONTRACT A HOME BUILDER IN DEALING WITH THE COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. WOULD IT BE COMMON FOR THE HOME BUILDER TO FINANCE IT AND THEN ULTIMATELY SELL HIS PRODUCT, HIS OR HER PRODUCT AND THEN RECOUP IT? OR WOULD IT BE INCUMBENT ON THE CLT TO BE WORKING AS THE BANK IN THAT WAY? I JUST THIS IS OUR FIRST FORAY INTO BUILDING THE CLT, AND I JUST ASSUMED THAT THE BUILDERS WOULD COME IN AND DO THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE DOING A LARGER DEVELOPMENT WITH MULTIPLE HOUSES AT ONE TIME, SAY THE TEN, THE 20, RIGHT? WE WOULD DEFINITELY DO AN RFP FOR THAT, TO HAVE A DEVELOPER COME IN AND BUILD THOSE FOR US. OKAY. THEY WOULD UPFRONT THE MONEY. OKAY. WE ARE PURCHASING OR BUILDING ON A SINGLE INFILL LOT THAT WE OWN. WE COULD BUILD THAT HOUSE AND THEY GET REIMBURSED. GOT IT. SO BUT IF WE DO LOOK AT A SERIES OF TEN TOWNHOMES, THEN PERHAPS IF WE ALREADY OWN THE LAND, THERE IS NO I'M ASKING THIS. I'M NOT REALLY SAYING THIS, BUT IS THERE ANY UPFRONT COST TO THE CITY IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THOSE TEN TO 12 TO 15 TOWNHOMES? NO. OKAY. SO TO ME THEN, IF I GET THAT WE WANT TO BUY MORE LAND, BUT AND PERHAPS IT WOULD MEAN A WORK SESSION ON THE CLT AND THE MATH OF HOW IT WORKS AND THE NEEDS THAT WHAT NEEDS IT HAS FOR INCOME FROM US. BUT. THOSE ARE MY TWO PRIORITIES. SO IS THE CLT AND THE GENERAL FUND. I THINK I JUST WANT TO WEIGH IN. I MEAN, THE QUESTION THAT WE'RE THE CLARITY I THINK THAT CRYSTAL IS LOOKING FOR THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR STAFF IS THE MOST FLEXIBLE WAY YOU CAN PLACE THIS MONEY IS TO PUT IN THE GENERAL FUND, AS WE DO TODAY. THAT GIVES THE COUNCIL THE MOST DISCRETION OVER WHERE TO USE THOSE FUNDS. 
          HOWEVER, IF YOU THINK THAT THIS MONEY SHOULD BE SINCE IT'S GENERATED FROM AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IN THIS CASE A PFC PROJECT TO HELP US USE THAT MONEY TO FUND OTHER AFFORDABLE 
          [00:15:03]
HOUSING PROJECTS, THEN FUND 14 IS A FLEXIBLE WAY TO DO THAT, BECAUSE YOU CAN ALWAYS ASSIGN THAT MONEY FROM FUND 14 TO A MORE SPECIFIC USE, LIKE CLT. IF THE COUNCIL'S POLICY OBJECTIVE, HOWEVER, IS SAY NO. WE WERE VERY SPECIFIC ABOUT CLT AND WE WANT THIS MONEY TO GO TO CLT. YOU COULD DO THAT TOO, BUT YOU PROBABLY HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. GOOD COMPROMISE ON THIS ONE. 
          MIGHT BE FUN. 14 BECAUSE THAT IS AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, THAT IT GIVES YOU SOME FLEXIBILITY TO USE IT FOR OTHER POTENTIAL USES. BUT IF WE COME FORWARD WITH A CLT PROJECT AND WE SAY, HEY, IN THE FUNDING SOURCE FOR THAT PROJECT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE ONE YOU'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT. BUT ANOTHER ONE IS FUND IS FUND 14, AND YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO AUTHORIZE THAT. I, I DO THINK THAT THAT HAVING SOME ANNUAL ALLOCATION SHOWS A COMMITMENT TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES, WHETHER WE HAVE PROJECTS IN PLACE OR NOT. AND SO THIS ALLOWS US TO DO THAT. I, I VOTED AGAINST THE PFC THREE YEARS AGO BECAUSE WE DIDN'T DO THAT. SO I DO THINK THAT THIS IS A GOOD STEP TO DO. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THAT IT IT THIS MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE, THAT THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL NEEDS OVER AND ABOVE THIS ALLOCATION, THAT THIS ALLOCATION IS SUPPOSED TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A GROWING FUND TO POTENTIALLY MEET SOME CAPITAL NEEDS IN THE FUTURE. BUT I'M FINE WITH MAKING THE COMMITMENT THAT SAYS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ESSENTIALLY PUTTING $420,000 ANNUALLY OUT OF OUR GENERAL FUND INTO AFFORDABLE HOUSING INITIATIVES, WHATEVER THOSE MAY BE. SO AND I THINK WE DID THAT SIMILARLY WITH THE HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND WE NEED TO PLACE AN EXPECTATION ON THEM FOR HOW THEY DEPLOY THOSE FUNDS WITH THE WITH THE PROJECTS THAT THEY HAD. SO I'M FINE WITH IT. BUT I WOULD LIKE SOME PROJECTION OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. IF WE HAVE PROJECTS THAT DEMAND CAPITAL. WHAT THIS REPRESENTS TO THOSE TOTALS, AND ULTIMATELY THIS MAY ONLY BE A DOWN PAYMENT FOR WHAT IS NEEDED. IF WE DO HAVE CLT PROJECTS THAT THAT ARE SUCCESSFUL AND DO NEED CAPITAL FUNDING. SO. EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT. I'LL BE CANDID, I STRUGGLE, YOU KNOW THEY THIS IS PART MARKET RATE. THAT'S THE WAY THESE THINGS GO. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT PAYING ANYTHING TOWARD COPS AND ROADS. 
          I DON'T REALLY LIKE THAT IN PARKS. I DON'T, BUT I DO WANT THE CLT TO GET SOME MONEY. SO I THINK FOR ME, I'D HAVE TO HAVE A DEEPER DIVE ON AVENUES TO FUND THE CLT BEFORE I WAS ABLE TO, BEFORE I GOT COMFORTABLE PUTTING ALL THIS TOWARD THAT. ARE YOU OKAY WITH FUND 14? CAN FUND 14 GO TO COPS AND ROADS IT? NO, NOT DIRECTLY, BUT NO, I'M NOT OKAY. BECAUSE WE'RE RIGHT NOW IN THE MOST FLEXIBLE PLACE WE CAN. RIGHT. I CAN GO COPS AND ROADS OR I CAN GO AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND FUND 14 WOULD PRECLUDE HALF OF THAT. I RESPECT THAT I'M ONLY ONE OF SEVEN. NOT TODAY, BUT RIGHT. YOU STILL MAY BE ON THE SHORT END, BUT WE'LL FIND OUT. OKAY, NO, MIKE. NO, I WOULD SAY IS JUST. NO, I, I THINK I'LL BE OKAY WITH HAVING SOME DEDICATED FUNDS TO THE, YOU KNOW, COMMUNITY LAND TRUST. BUT MY THING IS, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS GOING ON IN THE CITY THAT WE HAVE TO FUND, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GENERATE REVENUE SOMEWHERE. AND THIS TO PATRICK'S POINT, THIS DOESN'T GENERATE THIS DOESN'T HELP WITH THE ROADS, THIS DOESN'T HELP WITH POLICE. SO WE HAVE TO HAVE OTHER PROJECTS. SO I'M FINE WITH SUPPORTING THIS. JUST KNOWING THAT. THAT'S WHY WE AS A CITY, AS AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AS A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, WE PUT MONEY TOWARDS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS BECAUSE THAT'S THAT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THINGS LIKE THIS. AND SO I THINK WE HAVE IT IN OUR BUDGET TO DO IT. SO WE SHOULD LOOK AT DOING SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT JUST NOT LOSE SIGHT OF HOW DO WE GET THAT MONEY. YEAH. AND I'D BE COMFORTABLE IF YOU SAID IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE 50 OVER 50, I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH LEAVING 50% IN THE GENERAL FUND, 50% TO FUND 14. I THINK THAT'S AT LEAST A STEP THAT I COULD LIVE WITH. BUT AGAIN, I'LL RESPECT THE WAY ANYONE ELSE WANTS TO VOTE. MR. BELLER, DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON A 5050 SPLIT? I UNDERSTAND PATRICK'S COMMENTS ABOUT WE CAN ALWAYS ADD THE ADDITIONAL, LIKE IF A PROJECT COMES UP AND WE'VE DEDICATED $210,000 INTO THE HOUSING, THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING FUND, BUT IT NEEDS THE OTHER 210, WE CAN ALWAYS MAKE THAT DECISION TO DO THAT. SO I DON'T THINK THIS RESTRICTS US IN ANY WAY. SO IF THAT MAKES PATRICK HAPPY AND IT SHOWS A NOT NOT THAT SAID THAT IN A WAY THAT MAY COME OFF WRONG, BUT IF THAT SATISFIES EVERYBODY, I THINK IT 
          [00:20:03]
IS A THAT STILL ACHIEVES THE GOALS THAT WE HAVE. SO. MR. JONES, LIKE I SAID, I'M FINE EITHER WAY. I LIKE THE FULL BOAT OR 5050 IF WE HAVE A CONSENSUS ON 5050, BUT. I WOULD FULLY FUND. OKAY. MR. LYNCH, DO YOU HAVE ANY ANY ANY THOUGHTS? NO. MY POSITION IS JUST MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY BY KEEPING IT IN THE GENERAL FUND. OKAY. I UNDERSTAND JUSTIN'S POSITION ABOUT MAKING THAT CONTRIBUTION TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, BUT MY FIRST INCLINATION IS KEEPING GENERAL FUND AND KEEPING THE MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE. YEAH, I COULD SUPPORT A 5050 SPLIT THAT GIVES US IT GETS EVERYONE SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR. AND TO MR. BELLER'S POINT, WE COULD ALWAYS COME BACK AND ADD FUNDS TO THE OTHER ACCOUNT. AND I JUST MAKE ONE LAST COMMENT AND I WILL SAY TO MR. LYNCH, I MEAN, I'M WITH YOU, AND MAYBE IT'S JUST MY TENURE ON COUNCIL BEING ABLE TO SEE THE ABSOLUTE NEED THAT IS THERE TO THAT. THE CLT IS IN A UNIQUE POSITION TO ANSWER BECAUSE IT I THINK MR. BELLER SAID AT ONE POINT, NOT TODAY. BUT HE SAID IT'S A BALLOON OF PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN APARTMENTS RIGHT NOW THAT WOULD LOVE TO BE IN A HOUSE AND OWN IT WITH THE CLT. ALLOWS THEM TO DO IS NOT HAVE TO BUY THE LAND FOR THAT HOUSE, WHICH IS MAYBE A THIRD OF THE PRICE, AND THEN BE ABLE TO GET INTO HOMEOWNERSHIP, WHICH IS I THINK THE BEST RESULT FOR THE CITY LONG TERM. SO WITH DUE RESPECT TO THAT, I'D BE SUPPORTIVE OF 5050. AND THEN WE MOVE FORWARD AND LOOK AT WHAT OTHER OPTIONS WE CAN USE TO FUND THE CLT. SO FOR PURPOSES OF EXPECTATIONS, STAFF WILL GO BACK AND MAKE SOME CHANGES TO THE BYLAWS. WITH THAT, AS A PROPOSED CHANGE THAT YOU WOULD ULTIMATELY ADOPT. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. WE COULD EVEN GO ONE STEP FURTHER. WE HAVE SOME NON SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, BUT JUST PUT A BLANK IN THE COUNCIL CAN MAKE THE MOTION. IT CAN BE 50 CAN BE 100. BUT SO YOU'LL HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY AT THAT MEETING TO DO THAT. I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD GIVE MORE MEMBERS A CHANCE TO BE HERE AND WEIGH IN. CORRECT. YEAH I AGREE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU CRYSTAL VERY MUCH. CRYSTAL. 
          [Consider/Discuss an Overview of Construction Noise Ordinance Enforcement]
THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM 253005. CONSIDER AN OVERVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE ORDINANCE ENFORCEMENT, MR. SMITH. GOOD AFTERNOON, MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL, MY NAME IS CHRIS SMITH. I'M THE CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER FOR CODE SERVICES. I'VE SERVED IN THAT ROLE FOR JUST OVER A YEAR NOW. 
          PRIOR TO THAT, I SPENT 12 YEARS IN THE CITY OF PLANO AS A CODE COMPLIANCE MANAGER, AS A SUPERVISOR THERE. SO TODAY I WANTED TO SPEAK TO YOU GUYS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN MCKINNEY, EXPLAIN WHAT SOME OF OUR PROCESSES ARE AND HAVE BEEN AND SOME CHANGES WE'VE MADE RECENTLY. ALSO PROVIDE SOME INSIGHT AS TO WHAT NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS DO WITH REGARD TO CONSTRUCTION HOURS IN THEIR CITIES. THERE WE GO. SO WHAT MCKINNEY CURRENTLY ALLOWS IS CONSTRUCTION HOURS MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY FROM 6 A.M. TO 9 P.M, SATURDAYS FROM 8 A.M. TO 5 P.M, AND SUNDAYS FROM 1 P.M. TO 5 P.M. THAT'S A TOTAL ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION HOURS PER WEEK OF 88. THE CITY DOES PROVIDE EXCEPTIONS AND VARIANCES IN CERTAIN SELECT CASES FOR THE PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE, SO LONG AS THOSE JOB SITES ARE IN A PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, EASEMENT OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AND NOT WITHIN A QUIET ZONE, AND IN DENIAL OF THE EXCEPTION WOULD CAUSE AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY. AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT GOES, THE PROCESS TO THIS POINT HAS BEEN HAS INCLUDED SEVERAL DEPARTMENTS. AFTER HOURS CONCERNS WOULD GO TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO WOULD RESPOND IF THE PRIORITY OF CALLS THAT NIGHT ALLOWED THEM TO DAYTIME. DAYTIME COMPLAINTS WOULD BE WOULD COME THROUGH THE CODE SERVICES DEPARTMENT. OUR STAFF WOULD DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S A RESIDENTIAL OR A COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION SITE. 
          RESIDENTIALLY, WE WOULD FORWARD THOSE TO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS GROUP COMMERCIALLY TO ENGINEERING, WHERE STAFF MEMBERS FROM THOSE DEPARTMENTS WOULD CONTACT THE PERMIT HOLDER, ADVISE THEM OF THE CONCERNS, EDUCATE THEM ON THE ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION HOURS, AND REQUEST COMPLIANCE WITHIN THOSE HOURS. THE PENALTY FOR VIOLATING THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS NOISE ORDINANCE IS A CLASS C MISDEMEANOR AND UP TO A $500 FINE. SO HOW MANY NOISE COMPLAINTS ARE WE RECEIVING? I CAN REPORT TO YOU THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS RECEIVED 35 COMPLAINTS FROM JANUARY 1ST OF THIS YEAR TO JUNE 30TH. NONE OF THOSE HAVE RESULTED IN ANY ENFORCEMENT ACTION CODE SERVICES. BECAUSE OF THAT PROCESS THAT I'VE DESCRIBED TO YOU, WE DON'T HAVE GOOD DATA ON THE VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS THAT WE'RE RECEIVING DURING THE DURING BUSINESS HOURS, BUT I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THAT IN JUST A MOMENT. SO IN LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER CITIES DO, WE SURVEYED SIX CITIES ADJACENT TO OR CLOSE TO MCKINNEY. AT THE TOP ROW, YOU CAN SEE WHAT THEIR SCHEDULES ARE. I'M JUST GOING TO HIGHLIGHT A COUPLE OF OBVIOUS DIFFERENCES. MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, MCKINNEY'S HOURS START AT 6 A.M. WE ARE IN THE MINORITY 
          [00:25:01]
THERE. MOST OF THE OTHER CITIES THAT WE SURVEYED. WEEKDAY HOURS START AT 7 A.M. ABOUT HALF THE CITIES DO NOT ALLOW FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION HOURS ON SUNDAY. WHAT THIS AMOUNTS TO LIKE I SAID, FOR MCKINNEY, WE HAVE 88 ALLOWABLE HOURS DURING THE WEEK. WE'RE THE SECOND HIGHEST TO THE CITY OF ALLEN, WHO CURRENTLY ALLOWS CONSTRUCTION SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM 7 A.M. TO 10 P.M. AND SPEAKING WITH THE OTHER JURISDICTIONS ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, IS 50 OVER 50. ABOUT HALF THE CITIES REPORTED THAT CODE AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ENFORCE IT. SIMILARLY TO WHAT I DESCRIBED IN MCKINNEY AND THREE OF THOSE JURISDICTIONS PLANO, FRISCO AND ALLEN. THE POLICE DEPARTMENT EXCLUSIVELY HANDLES ALL NOISE COMPLAINTS, CONSTRUCTION OR OTHERWISE PRETTY CONSISTENT ON THE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATING $500 FINE. WE DID HAVE TWO JURISDICTIONS WHO HAD ENHANCED FINES FOR SUBSEQUENT CONVICTIONS OF THE NOISE ORDINANCE UP TO $2,000. SO IN LIGHT OF THE SCHEDULES FROM OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, WE JUST PUT A FEW POSSIBLE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS UP HERE FOR THE COUNCIL TO CONSIDER. I'M GOING TO DROP DOWN TO THE MIDDLE ONE THE WEEKDAY START TIME, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY AT 7 A.M. TO 9 P.M. THAT WOULD JUST BE ALTERING OUR CURRENT SCHEDULE BY ONE HOUR IN THE MORNINGS. IT WOULD HAVE AN OVERALL IMPACT OF A REDUCTION OF FIVE HOURS ON OUR ALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR THE WEEK. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THERE WHAT SATURDAY AND SUNDAY HOURS WOULD DO IF COUNCIL SO CHOSE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT THERE. SO NEXT STEPS. IN LIGHT OF THAT PROCESS, I TALKED ABOUT WHERE WE DON'T HAVE GREAT DATA CODE SERVICES AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO BETTER IDENTIFY OUR AREAS OF RESPONSIBILITY GOING FORWARD, CREATED A NEW INTER-DEPARTMENTAL PROCESS THAT WE THINK SHOULD HELP. SO GOING FORWARD, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WILL STILL RECEIVE AFTER HOURS CONCERNS IF THE PRIORITY OF CALLS AT THAT NIGHT ALLOWED THEM TO INVESTIGATE, THEY WILL. IF THEY DON'T. EITHER WAY, THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO REPORT BACK TO CODE COMPLIANCE. THE ISSUE, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE ADDRESS OF THE POTENTIAL VIOLATION CODE SERVICES WILL THEN OR CODE COMPLIANCE WILL THEN OPEN A CASE AND ADDRESS IT, JUST LIKE WE DO ALL THE OTHER VIOLATIONS THAT WE INSPECT. SO WHAT THIS THE DIFFERENCES THIS SHOULD MAKE IS IT'S GOING TO ALLOW CODE COMPLIANCE TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THESE COMPLAINTS ALL THE WAY TO FULL COMPLIANCE. THERE WILL BE DOCUMENTATION AS TO THE ACTIONS TAKEN AND THE INDIVIDUALS WE'VE SPOKEN TO. IT WILL ALSO SERVE THE BENEFIT OF ALLOWING CODE TO UPDATE OUR COMPLAINANTS REGULARLY. THROUGHOUT OUR CASE. THAT'S BEEN A BIG FOCUS IN THE PAST YEAR. 
          FOR CODE COMPLIANCE IS TO PROVIDE ENHANCED CUSTOMER SERVICE BY KEEPING THOSE COMPLAINANTS UP TO DATE. SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO DO THAT. WE'LL BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY THOSE PROPERTIES WHERE WE HAVE REPEAT OFFENDERS AND BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE APPROPRIATELY WITH ENHANCED ENFORCEMENT, SHOULD THAT BE NEEDED. THE FINAL BENEFIT OF THAT IS THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU, IF YOU SO WISH, AT SOME POINT IN TIME, WITH MUCH BETTER DATA AS TO THE VOLUME OF COMPLAINTS WE ARE RECEIVING AND THE ACTIONS WE'RE TAKING TO BRING THOSE PROPERTIES TO COMPLIANCE. SO WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. CHRIS, YOU INDICATED THAT WE'VE HAD A FEW COMPLAINTS. I WANT TO SAY WAS 35 OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YET NO FINES WERE ENFORCED. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THAT A LITTLE BIT AS TO HOW WE ARE BATTING ZERO ON FINDING THESE FOLKS? YEAH, FOR THOSE THOSE THOSE ARE COMPLAINTS THAT ACTUALLY CAME THROUGH TO THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AFTER HOURS. SO I WOULD PROBABLY DEFER TO POLICE ON THAT. HI, CHIEF. 
          DURING PATROL USED WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS WHY THERE'S NO ENFORCEMENT. WE WOULD WRITE A CITATION. WE'D NEED TO DO THAT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S A WORKER THAT'S THERE BY THEMSELVES. SO IT WOULD TAKE A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH AND CONTACT TO DIG INTO A FINDING THAT PROPERTY, THAT CONSTRUCTION OR COMPANY OWNER. SO OUR INITIAL STEP IS TO TRY TO GAIN COMPLIANCE BY WORKING WITH CODE, REFERRING THEM TO THEIR DEPARTMENT FIRST SO THEY CAN STAY WITHIN THE HOURS BEFORE WE TAKE ENFORCEMENT ACTION. OKAY. MAY JUST VERIFY IF YOU DON'T MIND, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE COUNCILMAN IS GOING ON THE BATTING PERCENTAGE METAPHOR. NOT ALL OF THESE ARE VIOLATIONS. WE MAY GET A COMPLAINT. OR ARE THEY? THE 35 ARE THEY ARE. SO WITH THE COMPLAINTS. I'M SORRY. NO, I WAS SAYING ALL THOSE 35 ARE VIOLATIONS, BUT WE'VE THEY WERE VIOLATIONS WITHIN THE CURRENT CODE. OPERATING HOURS. YES, SIR. OKAY. WE DID RECEIVE QUITE A FEW MORE THAT WE DO RECEIVE MULTIPLE COMPLAINTS ALL THE TIME ABOUT IT. BUT MANY OF THE COMPLAINTS ARE NOT VALID JUST BECAUSE THAT'S 35 OF EVEN A LARGER NUMBER. THOSE 35 ARE BASICALLY VALIDATED OR VERIFIED AS CODE VIOLATIONS. YES, SIR. THEY'RE VERIFIED VIOLATIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, BUT PEOPLE WILL CALL IN JUST FOR EVEN THE CONSTRUCTION WORKERS PLAYING 
          [00:30:02]
LOUD MUSIC. SO THE NOISE COMPLAINTS COME IN. BUT THOSE WERE THE VERIFIED VIOLATIONS. I KNOW I THOUGHT IT WAS 35, OF WHICH. NO. ALL RIGHT. I DID CLARIFY THAT. YEAH, I, I GUESS MY INITIAL THOUGHTS ARE I'D LOVE FOR THERE TO BE A BETTER SYSTEM IN PLACE WHERE IF WE DO UNDERSTAND THERE'S A VIOLATION, THAT WE CAN HOLD THESE PEOPLE TO ACCOUNT. MY INITIAL THOUGHT IS $500 IS NOT A LOT OF MONEY, BUT AT LEAST THAT'S SOME MONEY I WOULD HAVE AN APPETITE TO BETTER ENFORCE THESE THINGS. I WOULD HAVE AN APPETITE TO CLIMB UP THE LADDER OF FINES IF WE HAVE MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS FROM A CERTAIN PLACE, WHICH I CAN SEE HAPPENING. THE OTHER OBSERVATION I WOULD MAKE, MR. MAYOR, AND THANK YOU, IS THAT WE ARE A GROWING CITY. I WOULD MAKE AN ARGUMENT THAT PLANO NO LONGER IS, AND YOU MIGHT KNOW MORE ABOUT THAT THAN ME, SIR. BUT YOU KNOW, WE ARE GROWING CITY LIKE PROSPER SALINA AND MAYBE MELISSA AND I UNDERSTAND WE PROBABLY NEED A BIT MORE HOURS THAN MAYBE SOME OF THOSE CITIES DO AT THIS POINT, BUT I DO WANT TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS FROM FROM NOISE COMPLAINTS. AND I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO THAT IS GET IN THE WALLET OF THE PEOPLE VIOLATING. YEAH. NO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN REVAMP THE FEE SCHEDULE BASED ON, ON PROJECT SIZE. I MEAN, BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A NOISE COMPLAINT ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, FOR INSTANCE, $500 MIGHT BE IMPACTFUL OVER, YOU KNOW, A COUPLE OF TIMES. BUT IF YOU HAVE A 50,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE OR, YOU KNOW, 10,000 SQUARE FOOT RESTAURANT GOING UP, YOU KNOW, AND THEY GOT TO GET THEY HAVE COMPLETION DEADLINES, THEY MIGHT ABSORB THAT AS JUST THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS AND JUST KEEP MOVING, YOU KNOW. SO MAYBE I DON'T KNOW, IN THE FUTURE WE LOOK AT SOME KIND OF SCHEDULE, YOU KNOW, OF HOW WE, WE FEED PEOPLE OR CHARGE. SURE. 
          AND ONE THING I'LL POINT OUT WITH THE PROCESS NOW RUNNING COMPLETELY THROUGH CODE, EACH AND EVERY TIME WE OBSERVE THAT VIOLATION, EACH DAY THAT IT OCCURS IS A SUBSEQUENT OFFENSE. 
          SO THEORETICALLY, IF IT WAS FIVE DAYS IN A ROW, THAT COULD BE FIVE $500 CITATIONS. MR. MAYOR, WE ALSO HAVE SOME LIMITATIONS IN STATE LAW ON THOSE FINES. SO WE HAVE TO STAY WITHIN THOSE LIMITS TOO, MEANING THE 500. AND THEN THE ENHANCED IS REALLY THE ONLY OPTIONS WE HAVE. OKAY, OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS LIKE ONCE A IF SOMETHING IS REPORTED IT'S CHECKED OUT AND THEN IT STOPS AND THEN MAYBE A FEW DAYS IT COMES BACK AGAIN. YEAH. THAT THAT'S UNFORTUNATELY KIND OF HOW THESE THINGS HAVE RUN TO DATE. BUT THE NEW PROCESS WE HAVE WILL ENSURE THAT THERE IS PROMPT FOLLOW UP AND OUR STAFF WILL INVESTIGATE AFTER HOURS IF NEED BE, AND WE WILL BE ABLE TO TRACK THESE ALL THE WAY THROUGH UNTIL THE PROPERTIES ARE COMPLIANT. DO YOU SEE A PATHWAY WHERE WE CAN START ENFORCING THESE FINES BETWEEN CODE WORKING WITH POLICE? ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. 
          BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WHAT CHIEF NAVARRO WAS SAYING IS, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE THE AFTER HOURS. BUT OF COURSE, THAT'S WHEN YOU GET A FINE, IT'S AFTER HOURS. AND YOU GUYS ARE, YOU KNOW, NOT WORKING. 
          AND SO I WOULD LIKE THAT'S PROBABLY THE MAIN APPETITE OF THE THING I'D LIKE TO SEE IS, IS TO THE EXTENT WE GET BONA FIDE COMPLAINTS, THOSE FINES ENFORCED AND THEN PAYING SEE WHERE WE GO. 
          BUT I WOULD HAVE AN APPETITE, AS OUR CITY ATTORNEY SAID, TO STEP UP TO THE MAXIMUM STATE ALLOWANCE THAT THAT WE COULD FOR THOSE THINGS, BECAUSE MY SENSE IS THAT IF WE GET A COMPLAINT, IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE BEING BUILT NEAR EXISTING HOMES AND, YOU KNOW, MOSTLY RESTAURANTS, AND THE BIG THINGS AREN'T BUILT NEAR THOSE THINGS. SO IF THEY VIOLATE, IT MAY WELL JUST GO INTO THE ETHER LAND BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE THERE TO COMPLAIN. RIGHT? BUT FOR FOLKS WHO ARE BEING DISTURBED WITH THEIR SLEEP AND HAVE YOUNG KIDS AND MAN, I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE ENFORCED. MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBER CLOUTIER, THERE ARE ALSO OPTIONS UNDER OTHER CHAPTERS OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE FOR CIVIL ACTIONS TO RECEIVE INJUNCTIVE RELIEF. IF PEOPLE DON'T PAY THEIR FINES OR THEY JUST LET YOU TICKET THEM IN DAY AFTER DAY. SO WE HAVE THOSE OTHER OPTIONS FOR THOSE CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT WE HAVE USED IN THE PAST AS WELL. SO WE'VE GOT SOME TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX, IF YOU WILL. YES, SIR. OKAY, CHRIS. ANYTHING ELSE? YES, SIR. I, WITH THE EROSION CONTROL DEPARTMENT, COME TO SPEAK TO YOUR AUDIENCE IN THE MICROPHONE. SIR. MY NAME IS CODY. I'M WITH THE EROSION CONTROL DEPARTMENT. YES, SIR. I'M ACTUALLY PRESENTING, COMING UP FOR THE NEW BUDGET TO INCREASE FEES AND ADD NEW FEES TO HELP OUT WITH THIS. CHRIS DOESN'T KNOW THIS YET. $500 PER RESIDENTIAL THAT WORKS AFTER HOURS OR BEFORE HOURS. AND THEN I'M ALSO REQUESTING $1,500 FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS THAT WORK BEFORE OR AFTER HOURS. IN 
          [00:35:02]
THE MEANTIME, WHEN WE DO GET COMPLAINTS, WE GO OUT THERE AND WE TALK WITH THEM. IF THEY DON'T COMPLY, THEN WE'LL GO BACK AND WE'LL SHUT THEM DOWN FOR 24 OR 48 HOURS. THAT USUALLY GETS THEIR ATTENTION. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A HEADS UP, KIND OF WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM, HE DOESN'T KNOW IT YET, BUT MAYBE WE CAN START WORKING TOGETHER. CHRIS. SO I'D LIKE THE SHEET OF MUSIC YOU'RE SINGING FROM CODY, DO I? I LIKE THE SHEET OF MUSIC YOU'RE SINGING FROM MUSIC TO MY EARS, MAN. CODY, COULD YOU MOVE A LITTLE? TELL US. I THOUGHT YOU SAID EROSION CONTROL. I'M WITH THE EROSION CONTROL DEPARTMENT. YES. AND YOU'RE OUT ENFORCING NOISE ORDINANCES? YES. AT LEAST AFTER OUR. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. ANYWAY, SO WE OVERSEE ALL NEW RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. AS OUR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTOR, THEY DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY TO ENFORCE ANY VIOLATIONS. COME IN HERE. NOW. WE'VE GOT MICHAEL QUINN. SO LET ME LET ME SPEAK TO SOME OF THE POTENTIAL CONFUSION. REMEMBER ON THE FIRST, MAYBE SECOND SLIDE WHERE IT SAID ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS IN THE PAST HAVE BEEN DOING SOME OF THIS. THIS IS THE THIS IS WHAT CODY IS SPEAKING TO, WHERE ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS WOULD TAKE A MORE ACTIVE ROLE. ONE OF THE CHALLENGES IN DOING SO IS WE LOSE SOME OF THE REPORTING CAPABILITIES AND SOME OF THE CONSISTENCY. AND SO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK OUT INTERNALLY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THE NEXT STEPS, IS WE'RE MODIFYING THE CODE ENFORCEMENT PROCESS SO THAT IT'S MORE DRIVEN BY PD AND CODE SERVICES EXCLUSIVELY. SO I THINK WHAT CODY IS WORKING ON IS KIND OF SPEAKING TO WHERE WE STAND NOW. WE'RE TRANSITIONING TO SOMETHING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT IN THE NEAR FUTURE. OKAY. YEAH. CODY'S GOT BOOTS ON THE GROUND. YOU'RE SEEING IT FIRST. MAYBE. 
          RIGHT. SORRY. WHAT YOU'RE SEEING YOU'RE SEEING THE VIOLATIONS. YOU'RE HEARING THESE VIOLATIONS, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY. DO WE NEED TO DO ANYTHING OTHER THAN ENCOURAGE HIGHER FINES? WELL, MORE VIGILANT REINFORCEMENT. WHAT? WHAT DO WE WANT? I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF CODE AND POLICE WORKING TOGETHER TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT THE FINES. AND I'M VERY SUPPORTIVE OF INCREASED FINES AS STATE LAW ALLOWS US TO DO FOR FREQUENT VIOLATORS. OKAY. I AGREE WITH THAT. MR. HALLS. 
          ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT? YES, SIR. OKAY, TEAM. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. YEAH. 
          [Consider/Discuss the Redevelopment of Approximately 4.75 acres of City-Owned Property in Historic Downtown McKinney]
NEXT ITEM 253006. CONSIDER THE REDEVELOPMENT OF FORT OF 4.75 ACRES OF CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN DOWNTOWN HISTORIC MCKINNEY. MAYOR. COUNCIL. HELLO AGAIN, MICHAEL QUINN, CITY OF MCKINNEY. 
          I'M HERE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT THE POTENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT OF SOME CITY OWNED PROPERTY IN DOWNTOWN. TO MANY OF YOU, THIS WILL SEEM FAMILIAR. YOU'RE VERY AWARE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT I'M SPEAKING TO, BUT KNOWING THAT WE HAVE A NEW MAYOR, NEW COUNCIL MEMBER WANTED TO KIND OF GET EVERYONE COLLECTIVELY UP TO SPEED WITH WHERE WE'VE BEEN AND KIND OF WHERE WE STAND AS OF TODAY. SO HIGH OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION. I'M GOING TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE PROPERTIES. AGAIN, SOME OF THIS INFORMATION MAY BE COMMONPLACE OR WELL KNOWN TO THE PUBLIC OR TO MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, BUT I WANT TO HIT THE HIGH POINTS. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT WHERE WE'VE BEEN, WHAT WE'VE LEARNED, AND KIND OF THE PROS AND CONS OF WHAT WE DO NEXT. ULTIMATELY, NOT ASKING THE COUNCIL FOR ANY DIRECTION TONIGHT WANT TO LEAVE YOU WITH THE INFORMATION, AND WE'LL BE WORKING WITH YOU TO CHART A PATH FORWARD IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS. SO FIRST OFF, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF ALL THE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE CITY OF MCKINNEY IN AND AROUND OUR HISTORIC DOWNTOWN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE QUITE A FEW OF THEM, BUT TODAY I REALLY WANT TO FOCUS IN ON THIS BLUE AREA. IT'S ABOUT 4.75 ACRES. THE OLD CITY HALL BUILDING, THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING, AND A COUPLE OF OUR VACANT OR I GUESS, ACTIVE PARKING LOTS. SO AGAIN, CLOSER VIEW OF THOSE FOUR PROPERTIES, AGAIN TOTALING JUST UNDER FIVE ACRES, YOU CAN SEE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, BUILDING NUMBER ONE, OLD CITY HALL NUMBER TWO, AND THEN THE PARKING LOTS THAT I MENTIONED ON BLOCKS THREE AND FOUR, A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT TRACT ONE. AGAIN, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING, GIVE OR TAKE ABOUT 40,000FT■S. THE APPRAISED VALUE JUST FOR THE LAND IN 2023 WAS ABOUT $1 MILLION. THE ZONING IS IN OUR MTC. OUR FORM BASED ZONING CODE DOES ALLOW A WIDE RANGE OF USES, INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL, HOTEL, OFFICE, RESTAURANT, PERSONAL SERVICES. YOU CAN SEE ALLOWS FIVE STORIES AND THEN THE TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN DID INDICATE LOFTS OVER OFFICE AND RETAIL. AT THAT POINT. MARKET STUDY WE HAD DONE 
          [00:40:05]
IN EARLY 2023 ANTICIPATED A POTENTIAL FOR OFFICE AND RETAIL, RESTAURANT, AND PAST PROPOSALS FOR THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY INDICATED A 139 ROOM HOTEL WITH ABOUT 5000FT■S OF COMBINED MEETING SPACE. MOVING ON TO TRACK TWO, OLD CITY HALL, VERY SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS TRACT OF LAND, 40,000FT■S, VALUED JUST FR THE LAND AT ABOUT $1 MILLION. PART OF THE MTC FORM BASED ZONING CODE. SAME USES ALLOWED, AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED AGAIN LOFTS OFFICE OVER RETAIL. 
          ANTICIPATED. ANTICIPATED BY THE FORM BASE OR FOR THE TOWN CENTER. STUDY MASTER PLAN 2023 MARKET STUDY ANTICIPATED HOTELS. YOU HEARD ME SAY ONE OF THE PROPOSALS ON THE LAST PROPERTY DID INDICATE A HOTEL ON THIS PROPERTY. PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS HAVE INCLUDED A THREE STORY MIXED USE BUILDING ABOUT 47 48,000FT■S IN SIZE, MIXTURE F OFFICE, RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS. 
          MOVING ON TO LOT THREE VALUE LAND VALUED AT ABOUT $2.6 MILLION. ALSO WITHIN THE TRS WITHIN OUR FORM BASED ZONING CODE. SO I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED. BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, SOME OF THE SAME ANTICIPATED USES LOFTS OVER RETAIL AND OFFICE STILL ANTICIPATED BY OUR TOWN CENTER MASTER PLAN HERE. MARKET STUDY ANTICIPATED MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL USES. I WILL TELL YOU PAST PRESENTATION OR PAST PROPOSALS ON THIS PROPERTY ANTICIPATED ABOUT A 239 UNIT MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX. AND LAST BUT DEFINITELY NOT LEAST, LOT NUMBER FOUR OR BLOCK NUMBER FOUR, AGAIN VALUED AT ABOUT $1 MILLION. A LOT OF THE SAME THINGS THAT YOU'VE HEARD ME SAY ALREADY PLAY TRUE ON THIS PROPERTY AS WELL. JUST A REMINDER, THIS IS ONE OF THE IN THE PAST PROPOSAL WE RECEIVED. THIS WAS KIND OF COMBINED INTO BLOCK THREE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT 239 UNIT MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX. SO WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PROPERTY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO, WHAT WAS THE PLAN. SO THIS KIND OF GIVES YOU A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. WE ANTICIPATED GOING THROUGH SIX PHASES. YOU CAN SEE THEM KIND OF THE INITIAL LAUNCH PUBLIC INPUT RFQ OR REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, PARTNER SELECTION NEGOTIATION AND THEN ULTIMATELY DEVELOPMENT. SO WHERE DID WE END UP. SO WE WERE ABLE TO GET THROUGH ABOUT FOUR AND A HALF OF THOSE PHASES. WE GOT TO THE PARTNERSHIP NEGOTIATIONS AND ULTIMATELY JUST COULDN'T REACH A DEAL. AND SO WE SHELVED THE PROJECT. AND I AM BACK HERE NOW KIND OF GIVING YOU AN UPDATE AND KIND OF SETTING THE STEPS FOR NEXT OR WHAT COMES NEXT. WHAT DID WE LEARN DURING THAT YEAR TWO YEAR PROCESS? SO WE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS, BOTH WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AS WELL AS DOWNTOWN STAKEHOLDERS AND RESIDENTS. WE LEARNED I LEARNED A LOT, BUT AT A HIGH, HIGH LEVEL, WE LEARNED WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS ON THESE PROPERTIES NEEDS TO BE ASPIRATIONAL, NEEDS TO BE STRATEGIC, AND IT NEEDS TO BE RESPECTFUL OF WHAT'S DOWN THERE. 
          AND I THINK YOU WILL ALL ECHO THAT. YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE DOWNTOWN STAKEHOLDERS AS WELL, THAT WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THOSE PROPERTIES NEEDS TO PAY HOMAGE TO THE EXISTING CHARACTER, THE EXISTING HISTORY THAT IS IN PLACE ALREADY IN THE AREA, AND THEN ALSO SOME CONSENSUS THAT WE HEARD FROM THE COUNCIL THE LAST TIME AROUND THAT WE TALKED ABOUT THESE PROPERTIES WAS THAT WE REALLY WANT A BOUTIQUE STYLE HOTEL WITH SOME MEETING SPACE. DOWNTOWN NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THESE PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS SOME OFFICE USES NEED TO HAVE A ROLE IN WHATEVER HAPPENS ON THESE PROPERTIES GOING FORWARD. SO WHERE DO WE STAND NOW? SO AS WE STAND NOW, BOTH BUILDINGS ARE VACANT. THE FORMER CITY HALL AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. OBVIOUSLY WE ARE HERE NOW, SO WE HAVE MOVED OUT OF THOSE TWO BUILDINGS. WE ARE WORKING WITH OUR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT AND OUR FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION MANAGER TO MOVE FORWARD WITH DEMOLITION ON THOSE TWO BUILDINGS IN EARLY 2026. WE'VE GOT SOME CIP WORK UNDER DESIGN RIGHT NOW THAT WILL ALSO GO UNDER CONSTRUCTION IN EARLY 2026 TO REPLACE SOME OF THE UTILITIES, SUBSURFACE AND HORIZONTAL UTILITIES IN THE AREA. WE ARE ALSO, IF YOU'LL RECALL, ON THE CITY HALL FACILITY, THERE IS A AN EXISTING HISTORIC MARKER. IT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST KIND OF DRIVE THROUGH BANKS IN DOWNTOWN. AND SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE TEXAS HISTORIC COMMISSION ON HOW TO MOVE OR RELOCATE THAT HISTORIC MARKER. AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, WE ARE STILL MAKING PLANS KIND OF INFORMALLY FOR A AND I'M GOING TO GO BACK A COUPLE OF SLIDES. 
          JUST SO ANYBODY WATCHING THIS PRESENTATION CAN VISUALIZE WHERE I'M TALKING ABOUT THE SOUTHWEST 
          [00:45:01]
CORNER OF HUNT AND KENTUCKY, WE ARE ANTICIPATING REDEVELOPING THAT PARKING LOT FOR A STRUCTURED PARKING GARAGE. CENTRAL PARK RIGHT NOW IS KIND OF TUCKED AWAY FROM KENTUCKY. 
          IT'S BURIED KIND OF BEHIND THE PARKING LOT IN THE KIND OF EARLY ITERATIONS OF A STRUCTURED PARKING FACILITY THERE. WE WOULD BE MOVING CENTRAL PARK FORWARD TO FRONT ON KENTUCKY, SO IT'S MORE EASILY ACTIVATED BY THE PUBLIC. SO AGAIN, THOSE PLANS ARE KIND OF INFORMALLY PERCOLATING OUT THERE. NO DECISIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN JUST YET ON THAT. SO LET ME GET BACK TO WHERE I WAS. I APOLOGIZE. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I WANT TO DO NEXT IS I WANT TO TALK THROUGH THE PROS AND CONS OF KIND OF WHERE WE GO FROM HERE. AND AGAIN, I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, NOT ASKING THE COUNCIL FOR ANY DIRECTION JUST YET. I WANT TO LEAVE THIS INFORMATION WITH YOU, LET YOU THINK ABOUT IT. AND AGAIN, OVER THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS, WE'LL BE TALKING TO YOU AGAIN ABOUT IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, BUT HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. SO AGAIN, THIS IS MEANT TO SERVE AS KIND OF A FRAMEWORK FOR YOU TO KIND OF COLLECT THINGS IN YOUR MIND AS WE TALK THROUGH THIS. SO YOU START WITH A BINARY QUESTIO, DO YOU WANT TO REDEVELOP NOW OR NOT? THERE ARE PROS AND CONS FOR BOTH. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU DECIDE YOU DON'T WANT TO REDEVELOP AND LET'S SAY YOU TELL US DON'T DEMO THOSE BUILDINGS, WE WANT TO LEASE THEM OUT. WELL, WE CAN DO THAT. IF WE DON'T REDEVELOP NOW, WE CAN LEASE THOSE OUT. YOU RETAIN ULTIMATE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTIES. THE FLIP SIDE IS YOU'RE NOT GETTING THEM BACK ON THE TAX ROLLS. AND SO WE LOSE SOME FINANCIAL IMPACTS THERE. OR YOU COULD DECIDE TO REDEVELOP NOW. AND I WILL TELL YOU. AND FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT HAVE BEEN THROUGH THIS BEFORE, THE OPTIONS AND THE CONTROL IS WHOLLY UP TO YOU. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE COULD REDEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF PROCESSES WE COULD GO THROUGH. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'LL NEED TO ASK OURSELVES, IF THE COUNCIL'S DESIRE IS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH REDEVELOPING, IS ARE WE GOING TO RETAIN SOME OF THE PROPERTY OR DO WE NOT WANT TO RETAIN ANY OF IT? SO FOR EXAMPLE, DO DOES THE CITY WANT TO KEEP ONE OF THOSE FOR AN AMENITY THAT WE'RE HOPING TO OFFER THE PUBLIC? DO WE WANT TO PARTNER WITH OUR PARTNERS AT MEDC OR MCDC, POTENTIALLY GIVE THEM ONE OF THE PIECES OF PROPERTY THAT THEY COULD DEVELOP? AGAIN, MY POINT HERE IS THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE CAN KEEP THE PROPERTY BUT STILL SEE IT REDEVELOPED. BUT THEN THERE'S ALSO IF WE DECIDE THAT WE DON'T WANT TO KEEP THE PROPERTY, WE CAN GIVE IT OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN A NUMBER OF OPTIONS. WE COULD GO THROUGH A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS. WE COULD DO AN AS IS FEE SIMPLE SALE. WE COULD DO AN AUCTION. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE COULD OFFLOAD THE PROPERTY. SOME OF THOSE HAVE PROS AND CONS ON HOW MUCH CONTROL WE RETAIN. DO WE KEEP A DEED RESTRICTION? DO WE KEEP EASEMENTS? DO WE KEEP THINGS LIKE THAT? AGAIN, ALL OF THOSE THINGS CAN BE EVALUATED GOING FORWARD. AND THEN LAST BUT I'LL SAY NOT LEAST, DO WE REDEVELOP ALL THE PROPERTY VIA A NEW REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS? REMEMBER, THE PROCESS WE WENT THROUGH LAST TIME WAS A REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS, BUT IN DOING SO WE LET IT BE WIDE OPEN. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY NON-NEGOTIABLES. 
          WE DIDN'T SAY WE WANT THIS USE OR THIS USE OR THIS USE. WE JUST SAID, WHAT IS THE MARKET WANT? WE COULD DO THAT AGAIN OR SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON THIS SLIDE. WE COULD DEFINITELY GO BACK TO SOME OF THE RESPONDENTS FROM THE FIRST RFQ IF WE WANTED TO, AND START CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM AS WELL. OR AS I MENTIONED, WE COULD SELL THE PROPERTY OUTRIGHT IN A FEE SIMPLE SALE OR AN AUCTION OR SOMETHING OF THAT NUMBER OR THAT NATURE. BUT SUFFICE IT TO SAY, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF WAYS THAT WE CAN GO FORWARD. THIS INFORMATION IS MEANT TO JUST HELP YOU FRAME THINGS IN YOUR MIND. AS WE APPROACH THIS CONVERSATION. IN THE COMING WEEKS AND MONTHS. 
          WITH THAT, I WILL STAND FOR ANY QUESTIONS. ANYONE. QUESTIONS? MICHAEL, JUST SOME THOUGHTS ON SLIDE PROS AND CONS BEGINS ON 14 OF 17 THAT YOU'RE RIGHT. I DID HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE HISTORIC MARKER ON THE OLD CITY HALL. YES, SIR. THAT'S NOT NEAR THE OLDEST BUILDING DOWN THERE. 
          ARE YOU SAYING THE MARKER IS RESULT OF BEING ONE OF THE FIRST DRIVE THROUGH BANKS? THAT'S THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING. AND THAT'S HISTORIC. THAT IS HISTORIC. YES, SIR. OKAY. YEAH. 
          LET'S FOLLOW UP WITH THAT AND SEE. BECAUSE IF IT IS AND IT CAN'T BE MOVED, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT SET OF CIRCUMSTANCES. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT CAN BE MOVED. THE QUESTION IS WHAT IS THE PROCESS? WE'RE OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS WORKING TO GET A CONSULTANT BROUGHT ON BOARD THAT WILL HELP WALK US THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WE ANTICIPATE HAVING AN ANSWER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BY 
          [00:50:03]
THE END OF SEPTEMBER OR EARLY OCTOBER, WE'LL BE ABLE TO GIVE YOU MORE CLARITY. YOU HAVE ANY ANY TIME CONSTRAINTS OR ANY DEADLINE OR ANY ANY REASON TO SPEED THIS OTHER THAN THREE VACANT BUILDINGS IN DOWNTOWN MCKINNEY. NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF. NOT UNLESS THE COUNCIL INFORMS ME. VERY GOOD. YOU KNOW, HAVING YOU SAID SOMETHING THAT REALLY RESONATED WITH ME, THAT YOU LEARNED A LOT. I LEARNED A LOT, TOO. I TEND TO BE A SKEPTICAL OPTIMIST, BUT I WAS ROBBED OF THAT TO A LARGE EXTENT FROM THE PROCESS THAT WE WENT THROUGH. AND IT SEEMED LIKE, AND I'M GENERALIZING HERE, AND I RESPECT ALL THE WORK THAT MTG DID WITH THIS. AND I THINK THEY'RE WONDERFUL PEOPLE, AND I THINK THEY'RE REALLY GOOD AT WHAT THEY DO. BUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY COMING TO US WAS, WAS A LOT OF SUBSIDIES TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY DOWN THERE, WHICH WAS REALLY NOT AN OUTCOME THAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, AND I SURE DIDN'T WANT TO SUBSIDIZE IT. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME, AND I'M NOT A LAND GUY, I'M NOT A BANKER. BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SMART THING FOR US TO DO IS TO GET THE INFRASTRUCTURE WORK, WHETHER IT'S THE ROADS, THE SEWERS, THE POWER, THE WATER IN THERE TO GET IT RIGHT, SO THAT WHEN WE ARE MARKETING THIS PROPERTY, WHOEVER WE'RE MARKETING IT TO, IT'S ALREADY RIGHT. IT'S ALREADY ATTRACTIVE. 
          SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CONSTRUCTION IN FRONT OF THEIR. IT ALSO SEEMS TO ME THAT WE OUGHT TO BE REALLY LOOKING AT A LONG TERM ANSWER FOR PARKING UP THERE. THAT WOULD PROBABLY INCLUDE WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH WAS A STRUCTURED PARKING THERE NORTH OF HARVEST, THERE AT HUNT STREET AND KENTUCKY, AND THE MOVING OF CENTRAL PARK. OTHER THAN THAT, I'M VERY INTRIGUED BY WHAT EDC MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP US WITH WITH RESPECT TO OFFICE USES. 
          PRIMARILY ON MY BIAS WOULD BE ON THE EXISTING CITY HALL SITE TO DO THAT. SO THOSE ARE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I'M THINKING OF HAVING GONE THROUGH THIS. I DON'T HAVE AN APPETITE TO GO BACK THROUGH RFQ LIKE WE DID. IT JUST SEEMED LIKE WE OUGHT TO DO THE WORK THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE. ON THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO MAKE IT ATTRACTIVE TO THE MARKETPLACE, TO HOPEFULLY MAKE THIS AS ACCRETIVE TO THE TAXPAYERS. AND THE THEN I GUESS I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION MARK. 
          THIS MAY BE A MARK QUESTION IN LIGHT OF THE NEW MULTIFAMILY ABILITY TO BUILD ON COMMERCIAL ZONING, WHAT I'D WANT TO DO IS TO DO EVERYTHING WE COULD AS THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THIS, TO LOCK DOWN ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS ON THIS AND LOCK DOWN USES ON THIS. BEFORE WE ALLOWED IT TO GO TO ANOTHER BUYER. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO? WE CAN DO THAT WITH COVENANTS. 
          YES, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. ONE OTHER NUANCE. I WANTED TO JUST MENTION THAT IF THE COUNCIL WANTED TO LEASE THESE PROPERTIES IN THE INTERIM, THERE WOULD BE A TAXABLE LEASEHOLD THAT WOULD BE COLLECTED UNDER THE STATE LAW. AND THAT AMOUNT REALLY IS BASED ON THE RENT THAT'S BEING PAID TO THE CITY. SO THERE IS A POTENTIAL FOR TAX REVENUE IN A LEASING SCENARIO. WOULD IT BE SMART FOR US TO LOOK AT. AND I KNOW WE HAVE SOMEONE WHO'S AN EXPERT ON THIS KIND OF THING ON THE DAIS, BUT WOULD IT BE SMART TO HAVE EDC FLOAT THAT TRIAL BALLOON OUT THERE TO SEE IF THERE IS AN INTERESTED LEASE OR FOR EITHER THESE PROPERTIES? I NEVER THOUGHT OF THAT. I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. KOSKI, WHO'S HERE TODAY, ABOUT ALL OF THE PROPERTIES, AND I THINK THERE HAS BEEN INTEREST IN HIS BOARD EXPLORING THAT IF THE COUNCIL DESIRES. YEAH, I ALWAYS THOUGHT OF THAT AS MORE OF A SCRAPE IT AND BUILD IT TO SUIT, AS OPPOSED TO HERE'S A 1950S BANK BUILDING THAT HAS A REALLY COOL DRIVE THROUGH. WHAT CAN YOU WEAVE WITH THIS? AGAIN, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT OWNERS HAVE DIFFERENT IDEAS. YEAH THEY DO MAN. I'LL MAKE THIS MENTION BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S IMPERATIVE ON US TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT CLEARER DIRECTION. 
          WHEN, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT WHAT OBJECTIVES WE WANT TO GET OUT OF THIS. I KNOW PATRICK HAS MENTIONED TIME AND AGAIN GETTING THIS BACK ON A TAX ROLL IS IMPORTANT, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ULTIMATELY ARE SUBSIDIZING A PROJECT, YOU YOU KIND OF DELAY WHEN THAT HAPPENS. 
          I THINK FOR ME, I THINK WE REALLY HAVE TO EVALUATE HOW DO WE INCREASE DAYTIME TRAFFIC AND WEEKDAY TRAFFIC IN DOWNTOWN. AND THEN WE START FIGURING OUT WHAT ARE THE USES THAT CAN BRING THAT ABOUT. AND THAT'S MY PRIORITY. AND I GUESS LAST TIME WE HEARD THE PUBLIC GIVE A LOT OF INPUT. 
          WE DID A LOT OF SURVEYS. AND THEN WE HANDED ALL THAT TO A DEVELOPER WHO AND I AGREE WITH 
          [00:55:03]
PATRICK. I THOUGHT THEY DID A GREAT JOB, BUT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO BE THAT SAME KIND OF OUTCOME, THAT WE COULD SEPARATE THAT IN SOME WAY OR GET THOSE THOSE END USES THAT WE WANT. SO I THINK THAT WE COULD COME TO SOME AGREEMENT ON SOME OF THOSE USES, WHETHER IT BE THE STRUCTURED PARKING OR A HOTEL USE OR HANDING A PORTION OFF TO EDC. AND THEN WHERE WE DON'T HAVE SOLUTIONS IN PLACE, JUST WAIT AND BE PATIENT AND WAIT FOR A MARKET TO COME BACK THAT, YOU KNOW, CAN ALLOW US TO GET BACK ON A TAX ROLL IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT HAVING TO SUBSIDIZE IT IN SOME WAY. AND SO I DO THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE FOR US TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION TO SAY, IS IT A HOTEL THAT WE WANT DOWNTOWN? AND THAT'S A SIMPLE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH AN RFQ AND TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT OR WHAT DO WE WANT TO DO TO GET THAT? IS IT OFFICE? WHAT CAN EDC DO? BUT ULTIMATELY WE'RE WE'RE DRIVING THOSE OUTCOMES AND NOT NECESSARILY PACKAGED WITH THAT ALSO COMES WITH OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF US. AND SO WE KIND OF SLICE IT UP A LITTLE BIT AND BITE OFF WHAT WE CAN FOR NOW. AND THAT MAY MEAN WAITING FOR THE FUTURE IN OTHER PLACES. 
          SO. ANYONE ELSE, MR. GRIMES, CAN WE ALL AGREE THAT THIS IS A CURRENT PROJECT THAT WE ALL NEED TO FOCUS ON? AND IF WE CAN KEEP THIS IN FRONT OF US AND DON'T LET IT SIT THREE MONTHS, SIX MONTHS. LET'S CONTINUE TO ASK THE QUESTION. WHAT'S THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF THE PROPERTIES DOWNTOWN? YES, SIR. MR. QUINN, CAN YOU DO THAT? WILL DO. AND TO YOUR POINT, I MEAN, MAYBE WE HAVE SOME KIND OF EXECUTIVE DISCUSSION ABOUT SESSION DISCUSSION ABOUT KIND OF LIKE WHAT PATRICK SAID. I MEAN, WE CAN LET THE PROPERTY SIT, JUST LIKE JUSTIN SAID, OR, YOU KNOW, WAIT, WE DON'T HAVE TO RUSH ANYTHING, BUT WE CAN GET THIS. THOSE SITES, YOU KNOW, DEVELOP READY. AND IN THE MEANTIME, EVEN MAKE THEM FLAT PARKING LOTS UNTIL WE'RE READY FOR DEVELOPMENT. THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WE SOLVE A PROBLEM DOWNTOWN WHERE PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, THE COMPLAINT OF THERE'S NO PARKING WHILE WE WAIT FOR THE OR COME UP WITH A PLAN FOR A HOTEL OR SOMETHING ELSE THERE. BUT I THINK WE START MOVING ON SOMETHING NOW AND JUST DON'T LET THEM SIT UNLESS THERE IS AN APPETITE TO GO FIND A TENANT, YOU KNOW? AS SOMEONE THAT LIVES IN THAT WORLD, IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE AND AN UPHILL BATTLE TO FIND SOMEONE TO LEASE THOSE BUILDINGS AT ANY TYPE OF ECONOMIC SENSE. THE MONEY SPENT TO GET THEM IN A CONDITION TO BE LEASED PER CODE WOULD FAR OUTWEIGH ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE MARKET RENT. SO THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. IF WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT'S THE COST TO DEMO, YOU KNOW, FLATTEN AND MAKE THESE IF POSSIBLE TEMPORARY PARKING LOTS. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, WHAT'S THE NUMBER TO TAKE IN TAKE THEM DOWN TO THE SLAB. SO JUST YOU KNOW, WE'RE ESTIMATING ABOUT 500 K. WE'VE GOTTEN SOME ROUGH ESTIMATES THAT WE THINK FOR ABOUT HALF A MILLION WE CAN TAKE BOTH DOWN. AGAIN THESE ARE ROUGH ESTIMATES. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME FRAME OF REFERENCE OKAY, MICHAEL, DO I ALSO RECALL CORRECTLY THAT IF WE WERE TO AS A COUNCIL, I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE THERE YET, BUT I COULD GET THERE. BUT IF WE WERE SAYING, HEY, LET'S LET'S MOVE CENTRAL PARK, LET'S GET A PARKING LOT OR PARKING STRUCTURE THERE, THAT THE LEVELING OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUSINESS BUILDING WOULD GIVE US A STAGING AREA TO PERFORM THAT, AND IT WOULD BE A VALUABLE STAGING AREA. AND PERHAPS THERE MIGHT BE SOME WISDOM TO DOING THAT. AT THE SAME TIME THAT WE HAVE THE HALL LIBRARY DEACTIVATED, AS WE DO RIGHT NOW. YES, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME CONVERSATIONS TO THAT EFFECT. I WILL TELL YOU, WITH THE BUILDING, WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES BUILDING DEMO, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF RELIEF ON THE PROPERTY. I WANT TO SAY ABOUT 10 TO 12FT. AND SO STAGING MAY BE SOMEWHAT DIFFICULT JUST BECAUSE OF THE, THE. YEAH, THE FALL ON THE PROPERTY IF YOU WILL. BUT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, THE PROPERTY CAN BE USED, WHETHER IT'S FOR PARKING, WHETHER IT'S FOR THE PARKING LOT BECOMES PART OF A STAGING AREA. THERE'S VALUE IN SEEING THE BUILDING EITHER KEPT IF WE WANT TO LEASE IT OUT OR IF WE WANT TO DEMO, WE CAN USE THE PROPERTY AS A LAY DOWN YARD OR SOMETHING. YES. YEAH. FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, MR. MAYOR, I THINK THAT'S A PLACE THAT I, THE TWO FOLKS I'D LIKE TO HAVE ARE, ARE AND I BELIEVE WE ARE ON TRACK FOR REDOING THE INFRASTRUCTURE WITH THE ROADS AND THE WATER AND SEWER, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT I'D HAVE AN APPETITE TO LOOK AT IT. HEY, WE'VE GOT MORE PARKING RIGHT NOW THAN WE'VE EVER HAD ON THE SQUARE, RIGHT? BECAUSE ALL THE CITY EMPLOYEES ARE GONE. SO THOSE PARKING LOTS THAT WE SAW ARE NOT BEING USED RIGHT NOW. SO THAT SAID, IS NOW A TIME TO CONSIDER STRIKING ON A 
          [01:00:04]
STRUCTURED PARKING THAT CERTAINLY I BELIEVE A IT IS NEEDED, BUT B IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE NEEDED ONCE THESE THESE LOTS ARE REACTIVATED TO HAVE HUMAN USE IN THEM. WELL, IF WE BUILD STRUCTURED PARKING, YOU'RE LIMITING TO THESE SITES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND IS THAT THE HIGHEST AND BEST LOCATION FOR STRUCTURED PARKING I BELIEVE. OR IS IT WE ALREADY OWN THE SITE. 
          WELL, WE ALREADY OWN IT. WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THERE'S BEEN TALK ON COUNCIL BEFORE OF PUTTING THAT STRUCTURED PARKING ON THE LOT NORTH OF HARVEST AND RELOCATING CENTRAL PARK. I'M I'M CERTAINLY OPEN TO OTHER THINGS. I, I'VE HAD A LOT OF CONVERSATIONS PERSONALLY WITH BUSINESS OWNERS ON THE SOUTH END OF THE SQUARE. LET'S CALL IT LOUISIANA. I DON'T THINK IT NECESSARILY SCRATCHES THE ITCH THEY HAVE, BUT I THINK IF WE IMAGINE A WORLD WHERE WE ARE REACTIVATING DAYTIME TRAFFIC AND WORKERS INTO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES AND INTO CITY HALL, WE WILL THINK THAT MAN HAVING A STRUCTURED PARKING GARAGE UP THERE TO SERVICE, THAT IS A GOOD IDEA, ESPECIALLY IF WE DEVELOP THE EXISTING PARKING LOTS THAT ARE ON THERE. ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, MR. MICHAEL. LIAISON UPDATES. ANYONE? NO, I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING, MR. MAYOR. OKAY, 
          [EXECUTIVE SESSION]
MR. HAUSER, WE DO HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION, CORRECT? YES, SIR. SECTION 551.0712. 
          CONSULTATIONS WITH AN ATTORNEY ON ANY WORK SESSION, SPECIAL SESSION OR REGULAR SESSION. 
          AGENDA ITEM REQUIRING CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY CLIENT ADVICE NECESSITATED BY THE DELIBERATION OR DISCUSSION OF SAID ITEMS AS NEEDED. SECTION 551. 071A SECTION 551.072 DELIBERATIONS ABOUT REAL PROPERTY LAW. FIVE PLAZA MUNICIPAL FACILITY SECTION 551.074 PERSONNEL MATTERS AND SECTION 551.087 DELIBERATION REGARDING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MATTERS. WITH THAT, WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THERE SHOULD BE NO SHOULD BE NO ACTION. THERE SHOULD BE NO ACTION. THERE WILL BE NO ACTIONI CHICKEN SPAGHETTI. MR. MAYOR, JUST A MOMENT, PLEASE. GIVE ME JUST A MOMENT. I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. WHEN ARE YOU READY? OKAY, MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE ADJOURN. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN SECOND BY COUNCILMAN JONES. IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. THOSE OPPOSED? SAME SIGN. IT IS SIX. I
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.