City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everybody to the City of Farmer Springs City Council meeting for Tuesday, August 18th. Our first order of business this evening will be our invocation and pledges. So if you would please join me. Heavenly Father, we ask that you shine your light on our city this evening as we are here to do important work for our community. Help us to remember that we are all neighbors and we are here to serve others and not ourselves. That we're here to make decisions that will move our community forward, recognizing that we serve many different people. Give us guidance to look beyond ourselves. We ask that you also shine your light on our police officers and firefighters as they are serving our community every day without fail. We ask that you keep them safe. And finally, may the blessings that you have given us be a reminder that serving others is service to you. In Jesus' name, we thank you. Amen. If you would please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

And now the Texas Pledge.

honor the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to the Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Thank you very much. Next up are items of community interest.

Good evening, everyone. My name is Ariel Wallace, communications manager, and here are your items of community interest for the week. Budget town hall meeting set for August 25th. Join us for the budget town hall meeting on Tuesday, August 25th at 6 p.m. here at city hall. This is your opportunity to learn about the proposed budget, ask questions and share your feedback. We also encourage every resident to review the proposed budget, learn more about the city's priorities and be a part of the conversation. Visit the city's website to view the proposed budget at farmersbranchtx.gov. Can attend? We'd still love to hear from you. Email your comments to fbinfo at farmersbranchtx.gov.

Paw Plunge returns to the Frog Pond.

Join us for an awesome event with your furry friends on September 12th from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. at the Farmers Branch Frog Pond, located at 14032 Hartside Place. Admission is $8 per dog with a limit of up to two people per dog, and all dogs must be accompanied by a handler of age 16 or older. Don't miss this chance to make unforgettable memories with your pup. For questions, please call 972-919-8720 or visit farmersbranchtx.gov slash 567 slash aquatics. Registration for the Spooky Dash 5K is now open. Registration is now open for the family-friendly Spooky Dash 5K and One Mile Fun Run on the city's website at farmersranchtx.gov slash spooky dash. Residents can attend a community meeting scheduled to discuss race logistics for affected neighborhoods on September 9th at 5 p.m. at Venue 1842 at the Historical Park. For additional details and updates, visit farmersbranchevents.com. And as always, you can sign up for the city e-news at farmersbranchetx.gov or by scanning the QR code on the screen. Have a great evening.

Thank you very much. Next up are our public comments. I will remind everybody that there is a three minute time limit and all speakers who have signed up agree to the City of Farmer's Ranch speaker policy. So when I call your name, please come to the podium and state your name and address and There are lights on the podium, so when you start talking, the green light will go on, and when the light turns red and you hear the tone, that is your time to stop. So, I wanna make sure I'm not leaving anybody out, because we do have a number of people that have signed up to speak for various items. This is just general public comment, so I'm gonna call up folks that I have. The first one is Elizabeth Cardenas. Elizabeth Cardenas. Al Green.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS AL GREEN. MY BUSINESS IS AT 4100 SPRING VALLEY. in doubt i'm in informers branch but it sits kind of in dallas and it's a new restaurant and you know i know a lot of time people come and they have something to say to you may be negative but i come to say something positive i want to say thank you for allowing me to do business in former's branch and also thank you for you know often time the city they don't listen or the people that work in the city don't listen. And it just so happened that our whole situation changed because someone in Formos Branch listened. And that was Mr. Derek Hull. He listened to what looked like a complex problem. but he took the time to navigate through it. And it made the difference in a business that I will tell you that would make Fulmer Sprint very proud. And I'm more than honored to have a certificate of occupancy in the City of Florence branch. As I look around, I see the yards, I see everything like that. I feel good just to be here and I'm grateful for that. I want to thank the mayor. I want to thank the Mayor Pro Tem. I want to thank the deputy, I mean the city manager and the deputy city manager and all of you council members because surely that was the choice that y'all made that really made the difference. I want to thank you so much. Thank you. Mr. Green.

Before you leave, tell everybody what your restaurant is.

It's Annie Mae's Kitchen, 4100 Spring Valley. And what do you serve? Well, greens is always on the menu. Greens, baked chicken, fried chicken, things of that nature. But that is our specialty. So please, I welcome it. This is not a commercial. I didn't come for that, Mr. Mayor.

Might as well use your three minutes.

But I do appreciate it. And like I said, again, I can't express enough how I'm so grateful. And also, also, Elizabeth Arts. She helped facilitate. In other words, she helped to make me better. And I want to thank her for it as well. Thank you so much, Mr. Mayor.

Thank you.

We appreciate it. Good luck.

Next up, Brenda Broderick. Take off.

Hello, Mayor and City Council. I am Brenda Broderick. I live at 13531 Rawhide. I am just asking that the bring back the social media calendar for review be scheduled for a City Council agenda item. The desire is to keep everything on the calendar except the eight monthly acknowledgements listed on the calendar of events for acknowledgement on social media. And actually those eight months are highlighted on the Farmers Branch website. So thank you so much.

Thank you. Okay. That is all the speakers I have signed up for citizen comment. Everybody else who has filled out a form is wanting to speak to a particular issue. If that's not correct, please raise your hand. Seeing none, okay. Next up is our consent agenda.

Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve the consent agenda.

I second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. If you would, please indicate your vote accordingly. Consent agenda is approved. Thank you. Next up is a public hearing, item K-1. Conduct a public hearing and consider the, or a specific use permit request to allow guest quarters within an attached accessory structure on approximately one acre lot or property located at 3125 Brocallo Drive and located within the one family residential district or one zoning district and take appropriate action.

All right. Well, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council. Good evening. Brian Campbell, planner for the Planning Division. Due to needing more time to prepare, the applicant has requested that this item be tabled to the October 20th City Council meeting. Okay.

Motion. Excuse me. Council, I would entertain a motion to table this to the October 20th.

Mr. Mayor, make a motion that we table this until October 20th.

I'll second.

Great. We have a motion and a second. If you would, please indicate your vote.

Can we have discussion?

Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

I think that we have all of the information that we need. All of the neighbors and residents from the Brook Hollow Spur Trail area are already here. We already have detailed information, detailed presentation. I don't think there's any reason to postpone it until October 20th.

Mr. Mayor, Brian, do you happen to know the reason why they wish to delay?

They said they needed more time to prepare. They didn't provide more details than that.

there information that the city may have requested from them for which they need more time to provide no sir that's all the questions i have right now go ahead is there a way to rescind the first motion and make a motion to oh was it uh we have a second was it seconded not that i heard okay i'm sorry i was moving so fast not reading

You did second. I believe Lupe seconded.

OK, I thought I heard a second. So we have a motion and a second. So at this point, since we have a motion and a second, you can vote to reject rescinding it or vote nay. So the motion is to table. And if you are for that, you vote for. If you're against tabling it and want to do it now, then vote against. Okay, motion fails. So we will move forward and You want to continue with your presentation, and then we will open up for resident comment.

Yes, sir. All right. Well, with that, thank you, Mayor, and thank you, Council. Good evening. It's always a privilege and a pleasure to be presenting before you. I'm Brian Campbell, planner with the Planning Division, here to present to you tonight on the specific use permit for 3125 Brook Hollow Drive. And so this is a subject property it is owned one family residence district dash one and this is a specific use permit request for guest quarters. And so the applicant is Nick Patel on who has applied on behalf of John and Jennifer Hoffman. who own the 6,542-square-foot single-family home currently located on this property. They are now proposing a 2,123-square-foot guest quarters, which will feature a two-car garage, a kitchen, a living and dining area, bathroom, bedroom, and covered patio. Staff can affirm that the proposed guest quarters does meet all of the requirements of the CZO Section 2.9 for accessory structures. And so turning to the recommendation of the Farmer Branch 2045 plan, the plan does designate the subject property in the surrounding area as moderate density residential. With this land use designation, the plan does recommend maintaining the existing single family homes within the area, as well as providing for additional opportunities for other residential uses and some compatible uses. which includes single family homes, duplexes, town homes, churches, schools, and institutional uses. In addition to that, the plan does also recommend housing diversity, of which guest quarters accomplishes this. Therefore, the applicant's proposal is consistent with the Farmers Branch 2045 plan. And so now turning to public response regarding this case, because we did receive quite a bit of correspondence. And so on July 2nd, we did mail out 23 notification letters to all affected property owners within 300 feet of the subject property, including the Carrollton Farmers Branch and Dallas ISDs. A zoning sign was placed on the property that same day. Of those 23 letters, 15 were within the 200 foot boundary. We did receive 25 letters and emails in opposition, and of those, 13 were from within the 200-foot boundary. So currently, opposition to this case stands at approximately 64.59%. However, per Texas state law, given that this is a residential upzoning, a simple majority vote by council is required for approval rather than a supermajority. And at their July 13th meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend denial of this case by a vote of four to three. And with that, that does conclude my presentation. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to take those. Otherwise, as always, I thank you for your time this evening.

Thank you very much.

Council, I do have a number of people that have signed up to speak. Would you like to hear them first before your question? Okay. All right, so I'm gonna call these up in the order that I received them. Again, when you come up to the podium, please state your name and address. You'll have three minutes. First speaker is John Brownlee.

Move us up a touch. Good evening, thank you, Mayor and Council. My name's John Brownlee, live at 3116 Brook Hollow Drive. I'm part of the within 200 feet that submitted the formal notice of protest, believing we actually did achieve the amount needed to get the supermajority. I'm hoping that won't be necessary. This would be so obvious. But this has been an attempt from the beginning to split the lot in an R1 neighborhood. You can look at the aerial photo of the house that's been built. It's jammed to the west side of the lot, leaving the other half open. We don't believe, as the owner has never been willing to meet and even talk to us about our concerns, has done this, rejected all attempts to meet, and laid it out the way he's done it, and in the last meeting even claimed hardship, that now he's being forced to add on in this odd way because of the way he built the house the first time. He's a developer. He's supposed to know how to develop a home. But in our view, this is not in keeping with the neighborhood and what's best for it, for all the city's values, and we would request that you reject it. I'm not sure if there's anything else. I mean, we have a lot of speakers. I'll be brief, but we appreciate your support. Oh, one last thing. The staff's report shows 65% opposition. We actually submitted an amended notice of protest per the guidelines on Friday before noon. We're actually at 79%. voting to oppose this. And we're not aware of any support for it, but 79% against it.

Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker is Kevin Kirksey.

Hello, I'm Kevin Kirksey. I live at 3132 Spur Trail, and the southeast corner of my lot butts up against the northwest corner of the lot in question. I've always believed my city operators work really hard to vote in favor of its citizens rather than against them, so thank you for your service. For me, this all started with rumors that the lot owner at 3125 Brook Hollow wanted to build two houses on the lot, which nobody in our neighborhood wanted. Fast forward, based upon where the first home was built and subsequent efforts to subdivide the lot failed, and now attempts to bypass R1 zoning and achieve getting two houses on that lot under the guise of a rather large guest house. The rumors that I was hearing back then turned out to be true. I did a little bit of research. The average size guest house is 600 to 800 square feet, not 2,100 square feet. So even though the lot owner would never communicate with his future neighbors despite repeated requests, I was still very enthusiastic about a single family home being built, but it appears that's not what they want. We have a wonderful neighborhood where we live. with super friendly and loving people. My enthusiasm and trust vanished when despite the failure to subdivide the lot, the owner still proceeded and jammed a house up to the west side of the lot, hidden behind very dense landscaping, perhaps on purpose, I'm not sure. I purposely witnessed them, I purposely stood outside and witnessed them changing the lot grade to avoid the time and expense of properly installing drainage to run south to Brook Hollow, just as I had to do when I built my house to the tune of $30,000. I couldn't figure out why this owner was exempt. I even called the city to report what I'd witnessed, which is something I never do. So here I am with good cause, distrustful of my new neighbor, and wanting to trust my city officials to do the right thing. I sense that the homeowner and their representatives are attempting to railroad an outcome with consideration of an involvement of the proper channels, steps, neighbors, the community, and even law. My wife and I are both living with life-threatening cancers. And I just wanted to live out my years peacefully and harmoniously. There's really nothing that's been peaceful and harmonious about what's been going on here, unfortunately. So I ask that 100% of you align with what the neighborhood wants to keep the R1 zoning promises, what the P&Z committee recommended, and what our community wants as executed and filed with Dallas County. Thank you very much. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Thank you. Next up is John Schumacher.

Good evening. My name is Clint Schumacher, John Clinton Schumacher. My wife Jennifer and I live at 3117 Brook Hollow Drive, which is immediately next to the subject property. We oppose the requested special use permit. We've lived here since 2010. One of the defining features of our neighborhood is that it's large lot, single family. That's the character of the neighborhood. That is what we bought into, and that is what the R1 zoning is intended to protect. We have an accessory building on our property, so our objection is not to accessory structures. Ours is subordinate. Our structure is subordinate to the main residence. It's located behind it, and it has no kitchen. This proposal is different in kind. It creates a fully equipped residential structure on an undeveloped half of the lot. The history is important. You have already heard some of it. I won't repeat that. But after this property was purchased, an effort was made to subdivide the lot that was abandoned after substantial neighborhood opposition. Nonetheless, the owner built an approximate 6,500 square foot home on one half of the lot. I hope that each of you have this picture in the materials that you've been given and you can see. And you'll notice that the driveway goes right down the middle and there are stub outs to the empty eastern half of the lot. Now, just a handful of months after the initial structure was built, the property owner completed and now plans to seek approval of a second fully equipped structure on that vacant half. An SUP, a special use permit, is not a use by right, even if all the requirements of the special use permit have been complied with. The approval of an SUP still requires this council's judgment and discretion. And here, as you've heard, there is significant opposition to the request in the neighborhood. I would respectfully disagree that a majority vote is proper. I believe it's a supermajority vote. And the reason, Mr. Berman, is that given the restrictions in the use of the SUP, This does not qualify as permitting more residential development per section 211.0061 of the Texas Local Government Code. I believe a three-fourths vote's required under 211.0061 . This is not additional residential development in the nature of that statute. Furthermore, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended denial, and so we respectfully ask you to protect the large lot residential character of Brook Hollow Estates and to deny the special use permit. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Steve Mentisano.

Hello, council members, and thank you for your service and time tonight. My name is Steve Minasana. I live at 3124 Brokawlo Drive. I do oppose the FCP being applied for at 3125 Brokawlo. Brokawlo Estates was established originally in 1947 and represents one of the most well-established neighborhoods in large lot style estates and has historical significance to the city. We ask you to reject the SUP order that our neighborhood can better maintain its character. Central to this issue is to consider what the overall plan is for this lot, this one acre lot. Since the house has been built essentially on half of this lot, now the owner is asking to build another structure, which is essentially another house. The aversion to this is that you end up with basically a duplex situation with enough room overall to build a third house, which we're going to end up with a with a multifamily use in this neighborhood. This is the reason why the neighbors got together and put together these new deed restrictions were which were originally put together back when the the neighborhood was established, and so this is specifically not allowed within these deed restrictions. You as the city council, y'all know that you can override those deed restrictions, but this is really the wishes of the neighborhood. Please help us keep Brook Hollow Estates the way it was envisioned. And it's been for over 70 years. And then hopefully to a point where we don't have to keep addressing this over and over. Because we know that just because even if it doesn't go the way tonight, it's going to be. So that's why I'm saying somebody needs to look at this and say, what is the plan for the other 2 thirds of this lot? think about the future for what it does to the neighborhood. Thank y'all.

Thank you. Next up is Gary Weinstein.

Thank you. I'm Gary Weinstein. I live at 3116 Spur Trail Drive in Bercalo Estates. We, I moved into this neighborhood in 2017 for the exact reason that it is single family homes on large lots. The beauty of this neighborhood, the uniqueness of this neighborhood is why we live in Farmer's Branch. We, you know, I hear about the staffer saying that diversity of neighborhoods is important to Farmer's Branch and a goal. Well, if you make our neighborhood look like every other neighborhood in Farmer's Branch, there is no diversity. Our neighborhood is why, is part of why there is considered to be diversity in Farmer's Branch as far as housing goes. The homeowner at 30125 Brukalo is also the developer, and he's been misleading from the very beginning when he attempted to replant the lot to all he's done, which you guys are well aware of. He has not shown any compelling reasons to allow this special use request, and he has trying to correct the problem that he created by building the lot, building his house on half the lot. He created this mess. It's his problem, not ours. The overwhelming majority of our neighborhood is opposed to this. And we respectfully request that the city council also oppose this and have the wisdom that the Planning and Zoning Commission did. I would further request that it gets denied with prejudice. This is not something we wanna deal with every year, every time there's a new city council. This is not good for the neighborhood. It's not what the neighbors want. There's no compelling reason to allow this. And again, we would respectfully request that this gets denied. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Donna Casey. Okay. Next we have David Coletti.

Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Thank you, Council. My name is David Coletti. I live at 3166 Procolo, so just up the street. Not immediately impacted, but like others, my wife, my five kids, and I moved into the neighborhood in 2020 for the specific reason that this is a large lot, R1 single-family home neighborhood, and that's unique to Farmer's Branch. This is what diversity is. I think for that reason, for real diversity in farmer's branch is not turning every neighborhood into the same neighborhood, as my neighbor just said, but recognizing the uniqueness and the value that this neighborhood brings. Third, there's been significant damage suffered by other properties already because of this developer owner's choice to not adjust their plans when they had the opportunity and they lost their plan to subdivide it. They had plenty of time to adjust the plans to develop if they really needed more housing to house their in-laws or their parents, whomever. They chose not to. They built it a certain way. They've now created that problem. In the end, this is a clear case of a self-inflicted problem. That's not the purpose of a special use permit, right? If this house had been here for 50, 60 years and now they were needing to develop a second guest quarters, we would all, I think every neighborhood would be coming out trying to help them. So you have a situation here really that has been created by an owner developer who didn't get what they wanted the first time, which was splitting a property from one acre into two acres. They've now already damaged their neighbors' properties to the tunes of tens of thousands of dollars, probably did not follow along with the plans they were supposed to as far as how they created the grade, and are looking for now a backdoor to build additional property, additional housing on the property that it fit to begin with. This is a self-inflicted problem, and they're coming to the city with a backdoor way to do what they couldn't do to begin with. I think we all know that this is the start of a slippery slope. If one person gets into this neighborhood or other neighborhoods around across the creek where you have larger lots, other people will look to use this attached dwelling special use permit as a way to build what they can't really build on a property. So I'd ask you to retain the sanctity of the neighborhood as it's meant to be, as the neighbors have all come together and restricted their own properties. to do at their own cost. And we reject this special use permit with prejudice. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Stanley Saccafeo.

My name is Stanley Sakifio, and I've lived in 3178 Brook Hollow for the past 30 years. And for the longest I've seen, the integrity of the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood has been the same. The people there are very friendly. We get along. It's a diversified group of people, cultures, professions, and what have you. When I saw this development going on at the time, the man who used to be there, whose property was sold at auction and was bought by the developer, was a bank robber who was apprehended. So that is what happened. That's how the land became available. If I had a Trump change and won the lottery, I possibly would have bought that land. And then I made sure that it maintained one house. But here we are. We have to do what we have. I am opposed to that, primarily because of the fact that it would destroy the character of the neighborhood irrevocably. And I don't think that's what any one of us want. What we want is to live harmoniously with our neighbors and to live in peace with ourselves and with the people around us. And then to introduce an element which essentially disturb the equilibrium of the neighborhood in character as well as in form, I don't think is what the council want. I don't think that anybody will want to have a a multi-family house back on their back doors. And I strongly recommend that the council rejects this proposal for this thing at this time. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Council that is all the speakers that I have signed up for this. So if you have any questions for staff or anybody else, question.

No question. I just wanted to mention why I wanted to postpone because we got this packet. But while everyone was speaking, I was going through it. So that was just my two cents. Thank you. Councilman Bennett.

It was in our mailboxes in there. So we did not have time to get that ahead of time. But with that being said, is the developer here?

No. No.

Okay. Thank you.

Sure. Councilman Reed. I'm good. Council Member Villafrata.

I'd like to hear my colleagues comments before I make any comment.

Brian, are you familiar with any of the deed restrictions that were previously mentioned?

No, sir.

And it was the planning and zoning favor denial in a four to three vote? Yes, sir.

Okay.

Can you talk to me briefly about that particular PD and the restrictions? Is it requiring one-acre lots?

this is so yes so it's yes so it's the one family residence zoning district so it's one of our six single-family zoning districts that's governed by the um comprehensive zoning ordinance i don't have all the development standards um um i don't know all the developments on top of my head but it does allow for single-family homes that's the only use permitted for that property okay okay that that's all i have mayor thank you thank you brian of course

I appreciate all of you coming out, all of the work that you've done. And there are some really important points that were made. This is not a guest house. 2100 square foot house is far from a guest house. And from the beginning, this property owner has tried, you know, unsuccessfully to build two houses. And so at this time, if there's no further discussion, I would like to make a motion to deny Ordinance 4007 with prejudice.

Just a quick comment, just real quick. Is this flooding a neighbor's house? Okay. It's your house flooding? Okay. And so they, so the city required them to fix their issues here and they ignored it.

Hold on. Hold on. Sorry. If you're going to ask a question, I'm going to ask that you come up and state your name and address.

Chuck Cornwell, 3140 Spur Trail, directly north of the property in question. From the original onset, the grading for the property and our entire neighborhood is supposed to be about a six inch rise from Spur to Brook Hollow behind us. That is the natural flow of the water that was in the grading. before they did this. Originally, he tried to get a grading permit to where he sloped all his water back to the northwest corner of his property, which is directly behind mine. When the original grading was done and the house was built, there was a gap under our fence, probably about two to three inches. Now that has been filled in and his yard has been filled up after he got the CO. And there is absolutely no pathway for the water to flow directly under there. And he actually has material below the fence blocking his dirt from coming under. And so now it has created a swamp in my backyard. It is affecting my foundation. That's it. It's affecting my foundation. I'm afraid it's going to affect our trees. And we've got huge trees in our lot. I've reached out to the mayor, city manager. They are looking into it. I've talked to zoning. Zoning basically came out and told me that they can't do anything with anybody's yard after it's been done and that we could do whatever we want. It's gonna cost me 30 to $40,000 to do what I need to do to fix migrating. The problem is then I'm affecting my neighbors to the west and to the other side of me. And if this goes in, he's not only damming up what he's already done, he's talking about damming up the entire property from his, where the property is now, or that house, all the way over to the other corner of the property. Now that still affects some of my yard, but that's gonna build up, and he's even closer to the fence with this new property. so it's going to create a dam for not me but my next door neighbor who is unavailable to make it tonight his daughter's at a basketball game so he can't be here but until i'm i'm completely adamant i didn't want to speak because i was afraid i was going to say stuff to get me thrown out um but at at this point i we've tried to reach out to him the entire neighborhood has tried to reach out to this guy he has done things that I don't want to go into. I think you've heard it all. But he's kind of going, he's trying to do things around the back door and try to get things done. And we're not going to have it. And I strongly suggest that, number one, I know the city's looking into the drainage issue. I'm waiting to hear back from Ben. And so they really, I don't think they could should be allowed to do anything else until they rectify the problems they've already created. And I don't think they should be able to do what they're trying to do because if they get this property built, the house built that they want to, what's to keep them from building up that lot from that house for the future and then tear down that section because now they've got the foothold in. So that's all I'm going to say.

Thank you so much for that explanation. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing.

I second. Second. We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. All in favor of closing public hearing? Okay, public hearing is closed. Councilman Reid.

Just a procedural point of order. I want to make sure that this is done correctly. To the City Attorney, do we have a vehicle in place where this can be denied with prejudice?

Our code does not contain a prohibition or cooling off period that says an application can't be reapplied for if denied. But I will say this. In the past, there have been motions to deny with prejudice. I think the only real effect that that has is that if it comes back before the council in a fairly short period of time, That fact, that denial with prejudice, can be used as a basis for denying it the second time. But understand that if you were to deny something with prejudice, that can't possibly mean that no person could ever again apply for any zoning change any time down the road. You understand? Absence of code provision that puts that into effect. You can deny it with prejudice if you want to, but it's not going to have the effect that you believe it might.

Okay. I just wanted to make sure that we did it properly so it doesn't come back to bite us in the butt later on.

I'd just like to add that my understanding of denial with prejudice would mean the item would not be able to come back before this body unless some material facts or change have occurred. Is that correct?

That's what a prejudicial denial would mean, but if the motion were specific, If you just simply say I move to deny with prejudice, that can't mean that an applicant can't ever reply again. If the motion to deny were also made with the proviso that an application could not be resubmitted absent substantial or significant additional information, that's a bit different. I think you can do that.

Right. Which sounds the same to me, but if it needs to be reworded, I think that may be where Councilwoman Villafranca is trying to make her motion as you just described in that second. So if we need to change the wording, I guess she would have to change that motion to meet such wording as you may require. I'm not trying to take words out of her motion.

Well, no, if there were a motion to deny and the intent was to make it with prejudice, it would have to be that the motion that an application could not be reapplied for absent substantial additional information. And I would also prefer that there be a time limit on there, because if it's indefinite, that can't be a deprivation of a property right to file an application forever and ever. I mean, can you say here? Yeah, in some cities they'll have a regulation on the books that will allow, that contains a provision that says that a denial, as opposed to a tabling or inaction, a formal denial of a zoning application cannot be brought back again for a period of one year, absence additional substantial information. And so I think that what I'm suggesting is that if the motion were phrased in a similar way, then that would have the same effect. Council.

I'd like to make a motion. May I do that now?

Yes, you may.

I'd like to make a motion to deny ordinance 4007 with prejudice. And this would be unless there are new facts or significant changes. For a time period of five years, if that's possible. Sure. Make it ten.

For Claire, I think the motion is five years. Is that correct?

I'd like to make it 10 if we can.

I don't know it. You're pushing the line, but if that's the motion, that's what it is.

Okay.

All right. We have a motion. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. If you would, please indicate your vote accordingly. Motion passes.

Thank you, council. So thank you. Yeah, Mr. Cornwell, if you want to .

Hold on.

Mr. Cornwell, yes, we're working on getting you an update. Staff are here right now, though, and would love the opportunity to talk with you and clarify where we're at today. So if you have a moment in the lobby, we'll have the appropriate staff out there for you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Okay, next up is item K2, conduct a public hearing and consider adopting ordinance number 4008 for a zoning amendment establishing a planned development district PD 110 for multifamily residential development on approximately 3.286 acres of property located 14330 Midway Road, currently zoned, light industrial, and take appropriate action.

All right, good evening, Mayor Lin and City Council. My name is Brett Mangum. I'm the lead planner with the Planning Division here at the City of Farmers Branch, and I'm here to present to you the zoning amendment for 14330 Midway Road. Thank you for the opportunity this evening. This is item K-2, as Mayor Lin stated. We'll look at the subject site, which is indicated in green on your screen. This is 3.286 acres at the northeast corner of Midway Road and Proton Road in Council District 4 on the east side of Farmer's Branch. The site is currently developed with two single-story office buildings that were constructed in 1978, and there is a high-voltage electric transmission line to the north and a drainage easement channel to the east. Current zoning designation on this property is LI Light Industrial. applicant is clint nolan with caltera group and he's requesting to create a new planned development district or pd that will accommodate a podium style multi-family development this zoning amendment would have the effect of creating a framework for future development introducing a concept site plan landscape plan and building elevations If it is approved, a detailed site plan would be brought forward at a separate zoning case for a four-story, 242-unit multifamily community with a ground floor parking garage. I do want to take the opportunity here to point out that, again, the current zoning on this is light industrial, meaning that multifamily apartments are not currently entitled by right on this property. Tonight's zoning amendment is the first step required in building such a development. For the second step, as I mentioned earlier, that would necessitate a detailed site plan. We did want to go ahead and give you a preview of that using all the information that we've been provided by the applicant up until this point. During the secondary round of public hearing reviews and approvals the city will have an additional layer of details to review to ensure compliance with both adopted City ordinances regulations as well as the City Council's vision for this particular parcel So I won't read all these details verbatim in the interest of time But again, I just want to point out this will require detailed site plan review recommendation by Planning and Zoning Commission followed by final consideration approval by City Council and With any zoning case, we always consult our adopted 2045 comprehensive plan that was passed in 2023. You can see the subject site indicated by the blue circle on your screens. The orange color indicates future mixed use for this particular place on the midway road corridor. It is consistent with the comprehensive plan because it is introducing a new type of land use into an area that is predominantly office light industrial currently. So you would be adding a residential component where there is not one presently. And then just want to cover our public response. We have followed all of the protocols and procedures for public notice. On July 2nd, we mailed out 15 letters to surrounding property owners within 300 feet as required. And we also posted a zoning notification sign on the property to notify the public of this zoning request. As of tonight, we have received zero opposition letters and we do have one letter in support. I would point out that it is from a property owner within 200 foot of the subject parcel. And on July 13th, Planning and Zoning Commission met and unanimously recommended approval of this request as presented. So that will conclude my portion of this presentation. We do have the applicant here tonight if you have any specific questions regarding this development. There are four options before the body tonight. You can choose to approve this, you can approve it with conditions or modifications, you can table the item for additional details, or you can deny. I thank you again, Mayor and council members, for your time and consideration this evening.

So, Councilwoman Villafranca, this is in your council district. Do you want to hear from the applicant?

Yes, thank you. I'd like to hear, are there any speakers?

I have nobody signed up to speak.

I'd like to hear from my colleagues before I make any comment. Thank you.

Okay.

Hi. For parking, so they're doing the bare minimum with 291 spaces?

Yes, I can provide you a little bit of additional detail on the parking. This is proposed to be a PD, which is a standalone zoning district. They won't be following the written standards from the comprehensive zoning ordinance, which is 2.25 per unit. So PD, you can kind of create and craft your own standards for what you think you'll need. What they're proposing is what's on the screen, a parking ratio of 1.2 spaces per unit. It's up to the discussion between you and the developer on whether that is appropriate number. It is a PD, so it is subjective. It can be modified if the need arises, but this is what they're proposing at the current time. I believe the applicant does. We do have a supplemental slide in the presentation. If there's additional questions, the applicant is prepared to answer those regarding parking.

OK, yeah, I'm just concerned about the parking. That's going to usually be my thing with the multifamilies, because if they have parties, friends, relatives, whoever that comes over, then where are they going to go? Are the businesses around going to have an issue with somebody coming into their space after hours? Yeah, that's just my question right now, but thank you.

Certainly. Councilwoman, parking is always a top concern of ours as well.

Can you pull up a map of that area?

This is the map that we have, but I can get a larger one if you need.

Well, it's cut off, and that's the reason I'm asking. Because you've, that is a drainage ditch, if I'm not mistaken. On the eastern portion. Right. So there's no parking there. So where's the overflow parking? That's my concern because we've denied this, not this specific project previously, but one similar to it very specifically for that reason.

I will share with you just what I'm aware of. Obviously, Midway Road is an arterial, so there's definitely no parking on that street. Proton Road as well is a narrow road, so there's no provision for on-street parallel parking like you would see sometimes in multifamily developments. The latest site plan that I've seen, it does have a ground-level parking garage, and then there's parking around the perimeter of the site. The only other thing that I'd like to mention at this point is we're really just, at this phase, it's a two-step process, so we're just looking at the land use entitlement. Parking would certainly be looked at more in depth during the detailed site plan phase if they apply for that, presuming this zoning amendment is approved tonight.

Do you know, with the units across the street, how many parking spots they have for their 800 units?

You'll have to clarify which...

Directly west.

It's in Addison. I would have to research that to find out since it's outside of our city limits.

Thank you, that's all. Councilman Reed. Yeah, parking was an immediate concern of mine. At 1.2 spaces per unit, that is far from sufficient. But that is something that can be addressed later on when we go into... if we go into reviewing site plans. But that is something I think the developer should take away from this meeting, regardless of what happens, is that parking needs to be paramount in there. We're already crowded. It's great to have diversification in the area, adding a residential aspect to it. However, if you're not going to be able to provide parking for it, who's going to want to rent a place where they can't park their car? And there's nothing else around there where they can find supplemental parking. So that's a concern for me. Yes, sir. Councilman Neal.

Yes, I'm also concerned about the parking. I'm just wondering, and maybe it's too early in the process, but I'll ask anyway, has there been any sort of a traffic study done in and around that area regarding traffic flow, any impact that this might have?

Not to my knowledge. The city engineer does evaluate all incoming applications. What I've seen is a request for whether a TIA was necessary or not. And the city engineer, at the time this application came through, did deem that there was not a requirement for a traffic study based on the number of units that was being presented.

Okay. And in the similar mindset, there's been no address or remediation or engineering regarding the drainage issues and concerns that were brought forth, what, two years, three years ago, as far as you know? Is that...

The engineer also is part of our development review committee, DRC, and has taken part in the review of this process. Basically, his comments were that he's going to withhold any additional comments until the detailed site plan comes in. But we are aware of it. Engineering is aware of the flooding concerns in that area with the drainage ditch.

Okay. That's all I have for the moment, Mayor. Councilwoman.

Thank you, colleagues, for your comments. I have a 90% of the apartments are one bedroom. Is that correct?

That's the information.

And I understood that you said the developers here and is ready to talk about parking. Can we have him do that now? Absolutely.

Good evening, Clint Nolan, Calterra Capital Partners, 1845 Woodall Rogers Freeway, Dallas 75201. I am the developer and I'm here tonight. So I appreciate you guys having me and hearing me out. I had anticipated that this question would come up because the same question was asked during planning and zoning. And so in the event that I needed to address it, I wanted to be prepared to do that. Yes, if you don't mind. So just to cover some talking points. So we're obviously a developer and this is what we do. I heard the comment that I think it was Mr. Reid that made the comment. We absolutely don't want tenants that don't have a place to park. We don't want to develop and operate a property that's insufficiently parked. So that's always a concern of ours. I wanted to just highlight a couple of things and Brett mentioned it. The operative metric that you typically hear in multifamily is the parking ratio you know, comparing parking spaces provided as compared to units, but our tenants don't rent front doors, they rent bedrooms. So from an operational metric, a per bedroom metric is much more applicable. Our average portfolio typically runs about .641 bedroom units. This property is unique in that we're 90% one bedrooms. So on a per bedroom metric, we're actually about 1.1 you know, space per bedroom. So what that means, and forgive me, my phone keeps falling asleep. You know, we're in line with the last several projects that we actually, this is, these are all the projects that we've developed in the last six years. So you can see You know, we're right in line with a lot. We're actually, we have two that we still own and operate. One is Arden 231 in San Marcos. The other is Arden at Coler's Crossing in Kyle, Texas. Both of those happen to be within about 10 miles of a university. So even though we're not a student housing developer, Inevitably, we do get some students in those, and we're much more likely to have two people trying to cram into one bedroom in that market than we would be here. Those properties are operating well on a per bedroom basis. We're about 1.03, so we're actually lower, lesser parked on that one, and about 0.98 on Coler's Crossing. We've done this study. We're confident that we can do what we need to do. We also don't have to actively manage the parking in those properties on this property. All of the spaces that are within the podium parking garage are gated and secured. So you actually have to have a key fob to get into that. You have to be a resident. We actually have the ability to put some additional gated entry for the surface level parking that surrounds the site to protect parking spaces specific to tenants and to specifically carve out spaces for guests and or prospective tenants. So point being, we study this a lot. We do this often. I just wanted to show you some actual developments that we've done and how this compares to those. And, you know, again, just reiterate that we don't want to develop anything that's going to be under parked.

Since you're here, Mr. Nolan, are you able to address the whole flooding, the concern with flooding?

Absolutely. We were eyes wide open about that from day one. Kimley Horn almost exclusively does our civil engineering for our multifamily developments across the DFW Metroplex, even some that we've done in Central Texas. We have complete confidence in them. We knew that we had to make sure that we're properly supported on the site, so we engaged them early. We did a full drainage study. We're actually anticipating having to do some underground retention on this site from day one. So we're going to do whatever we need to to engineer this site to handle our water needs um also while you ask that question uh since I mentioned Kimberly horn um it was determined by the city staff that a full TIA was not required um and and we didn't even have to do a what's called a traffic counter or traffic letter we went ahead and paid Kimberly horn to do that anyway and we submitted that to the city nonetheless so

Oh, so we do have a traffic study.

It's not a full TIA. It's called a traffic letter or a traffic count letter. Any other questions?

Council, any other questions? Yes, ma'am.

Just a comment, like I know you mentioned that you have other properties that are around universities, but I'm still kind of on the fence because those could be just students that don't have cars and maybe they do live there because they're closer to walking distance for their university. But I am still a little concerned that maybe this is a starting home for a young couple and they both have a vehicle. So that's why my main concern is the parking. And I think that would be the only thing that I was like maybe if we can. squeeze in a few more in there.

But other than that, absolutely, we're motivated to do that. But we, for what it's worth, when we initially submitted our case, we were five over one and we were 300 units parked, parked the same, right? We didn't change parking. We actually pulled off 58 units in a story in the top story. So we're confident you make a very valid point. And I want you to know that we have studied that for what it's worth, the San Marcos and the Kyle properties are not by any means, and I welcome you guys to look them up, of walking distance to campus. They are not walkable. And we've actually gone and specifically studied the number of tenants that are doing that on those properties compared to other things that we've developed. We've studied it exhaustively. We do not want to under park it. So I just, I can't emphasize that enough. That's not what I want. So, and one other point I wanted to make is, we typically operate our assets and most multifamily operates this way, not at 100% occupied, right? We typically run about a six to 7% vacancy. So again, that was that's part of our analysis. And even at 100%, we're still at a 1.1 per bedroom. So we feel good. You bet.

Brent, I have a question. Do we have a stated city standard goal for parking?

I believe what you're requesting, and correct me if I'm wrong, is the comprehensive zoning ordinance requirement for just standard multifamily, which is 2.25 spaces per unit. So that would result in a high number in the 500 or 600 range if it's applied to this. Sure.

Okay. And so is your company, is this, or do you traditionally... own your developments or you build and hold or are you a seller?

Both, all of the above. So for starters, we only develop Class A multifamily. That's what we develop. Our ownership horizon really depends on our capital and our investors. Some want to do what is called a merchant build where we develop it, we lease it up, we operate it for about a year and then we sell it. Others want to be in it for seven years, for example. LIKE I SAID, THERE'S TWO PROPERTIES THAT WE CURRENTLY OWN, 231 COLER'S CROSSING. WE ACTUALLY ALSO OWN OUR MIDTOWN GP, THAT'S PART OF A 55 ACRE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE NEGOTIATED A PD WITH WORK WITH THE CITY FOR ABOUT 15 MONTHS TO DO THAT. THAT PROPERTY We're trying to stay in that long term. Our investors were actually in it for a shorter term investment, but we really like the investment. It's an awful time to try to sell multifamily, so we're actually trying to recapitalize it and stay in it much longer. We very much like the assets that we developed. Whether we hold them long term or we do not, our name is on them. And it doesn't look good on us if after we're out, the next guy is getting hosed. So that's, you know, hopefully that answers the question.

I just have a quick question for city staff if nobody has any more questions for Mr. Nolan. So I've heard in the community there seems to be concern. I don't know about if it's just this project in particular or just any kind of development. There seems to be concern that perhaps there isn't enough police or fire or infrastructure. Are you able to address that? I feel certain and I feel confident that we have all of these things in place, but I would like for you to address that.

That, I would like to research that and get back to you. It's not within my typical area of expertise. All I can really tell you is what I'm aware of and that the Development Review Committee, which does include police and fire representatives, do look at these. They did not have any comments at the time this went through and all development review comments were addressed. So I don't wanna speak for those representatives, but I can tell you that all the comments were cleared and that they were a part of that discussion.

Okay, so since Planning and Zoning wanted to go ahead and recommend that we move forward, I would like to make a motion to approve Ordinance 4008.

I'd like to close the public hearing, make a motion to close the public hearing. Yes.

Let's do that first. I'll second. So I'm going to ask you to retract. I'll second. Okay, so we have a motion to close public hearing. Then we'll come back to you, Councilwoman. And it's been seconded. All in favor of closing public hearing? Public hearing is closed. Council, any final comments or discussion on this item?

Yeah, I'd just like to mention... that I do represent District 5 which is downstream from a lot of this flow that's coming from Addison and this area as well. I have not seen and I don't see in our documents any of the drainage plan or drainage management work to help mitigate particularly our community of Wooded Creek is quite impacted by a lot of the stormwater flows that are coming from that area. As a general comment, we can't do much about what Addison is doing, but they have continued to construct more and more multifamily in the area, removing a lot of the surface area which could absorb some of the water. So it seems to be more of a problem downstream into the district that I represent, but I also want to be mindful of the city as a whole. Secondly, I am too very concerned about the parking as well as the traffic. I understand there was some type of a traffic study, not necessarily a full TIA, but there was something. I also do not have that in my materials either for reviewing, so until I can have such information, I would not really be in favor of moving forward.

Council. Again, right now, we're just voting on changing the zoning. We're not approving the site. We're not approving any of the planning. We're not voting on any of that. That's still information that's going to be coming down the road. Right now, we're just looking at changing the zoning. We still have the opportunity to review those very valid concerns. in more detail and more depth once we have the information.

And I would just add to that that we did have this discussion regarding this general maybe not this specific PD zoning change several years ago in which it was denied primarily because of the drainage issue and water issues stormwater that I've just now expressed and I'm somewhat saddened that we haven't had that type of input into this zoning change at this point knowing the history there. So

If I could ask just a left field question. At one time we had talked about development on the east side needing to install vaults or some type of water collection system to slow down the flow of water in the creeks because that's where it's all ending up. And that, I have not seen that required of any property. I've not seen any detention or anything that would help to slow that down. Is that in our code or where does that stand?

I can just speak for what I know. It's not anything that I'm aware of. That doesn't mean it's not a requirement. It's just not something that I'm familiar with because we don't typically look at that in zoning.

Okay. If I could maybe put the city manager on the spot because I believe you were in the room when we had all those discussions. Is that something that went into practice or was it just all discussion?

That was a long time ago. We'd have to do some research to confirm.

That being said, I'd like to make a motion to approve Ordinance 4008. I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. If you would please indicate your vote accordingly. Motion passes. Thank you.

Thank you, counsel.

OK. Next up is item K3, conduct a public hearing and consider a request to amend Plan Development District Number 18 to remove the age restriction requirement in Subdistrict B on approximately 6.1 acres described as lots 1, 2, and 3 of Block C in the RHD Medical Center 2, Platte, and commonly addressed as 1, 2, and 3 North Medical Parkway and take appropriate action.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council Members. My name is Tara Bradley within Community Service in the Planning Division, and I will be presenting the zoning request for a medical parkway brought forward by the Planning Division and will briefly cover the background of this request in its alignment with the comprehensive plan and the public response. The subject property is 6.11 acres within PD 18. Sub-district B, which currently permits multifamily senior restricted units. The applicant is requesting to remove the age restriction to allow multifamily use. Within this, today's request, it is requesting to remove the age restriction, but there is a two-part process, as would be today, would be to remove the age restriction and then move forward with a detailed site plan if this item is approved. which would come back to city council in planning and zoning. As outlined in the farmers branch 2045 comprehensive plan, this area is designated regional commercial intended for large commercial and high intensity service uses. The item was previously tabled on August 10th at PNZ, which they voted five to two, recommend of denial. And also with, in relations to the public response, notices were sent out within the 200 foot radius, which was a total of 64. Received was 16 from that 200 foot radius. And within the 300 was the remaining amount. And then we also received notices from different areas within the city regarding this application. With that, this concludes my presentation. I'm available for any questions you have and also the applicant is available as well too.

Okay. This is a public hearing and I have a number of people that signed up to speak. And so before we get into all that, let me just say I have 10 that have signed up and yielded their time to David Koch. So I just need to make sure that they're all here. I'm just gonna call name, if you would just raise your hand. J.K. Barber? Claire Conley? Joe Yakimovich, that's all you. Mary, thank you. Norma Carlson. Yadira Girda, there you are. Sean Averitt, thank you. Rick Johnson, Ashley Valdez, okay, thank you. Mary Rogers and Matt Gore, he's here. OK. Well, I saw him sitting here. OK. So with that... Mayor, point of order.

I just want to address numerous comments that I've received from constituents and other people within the city in regards to seating time, where it It just seems like a bad precedent to set moving forward. I know we did it at the last meeting where someone was given six minutes to speak and I just wanted to voice the opposition that my constituents have shared with me. Okay, Councilman Neal.

Mayor, I'd just like to add to that. It is my understanding and the city attorney can correct me that it is the Chair who controls the time of speaking is that correct?

Generally, the rules provide three minutes per speaker. There's no rule that provides for swapping time. So there's no rule that prohibits it, nor is there a rule that allows it. And the rules also say that the mayor, the presiding officer controls the meeting subject to points of order made by the council that can overrule.

so that being said then it's the chair of the meeting that can determine how much time a given a person could speak if it goes beyond the three minute again the rules provide for three minutes but the presiding officer can waive the rules or okay so it's the mayor's decision then as well as any other chair okay yes all right thank you i'd like to mayor just one point of point of order on this um my concern with not allowing on this specific topic

It's this specific topic that it has been allowed on previously. I am perfectly okay if we set the precedent after tonight, but because this is the actual specific topic, I'm concerned with changing that standard midway through because of other issues that could come from that.

Sure. So I will tell you this is not something new. I've served on council for six years and this was done a number of times when I was on council where residents were able to yield their time to another speaker. And so that is what some residents have elected to do this evening. So with that, I'm going to move forward and call David Koch. And I understand he's only going to use about 27 of his 30 minutes. So he'll have a little time for follow up.

Thank you, Mayor, Council, staff. I do appreciate your time. I appreciate your efforts. David Koch, 3243 Bryncrest Drive, Farmer's Branch, 75234. Councilman Reed, I appreciate your concern, and I appreciate everybody's allowing, or at least considering this, because this is a complex issue. There's a lot at stake. things to unpack and for citizens to be able to do that. It is extremely impossible to do that without somebody being able to spend a few minutes more than just three minutes talking. So I appreciate the opportunity to do this and I appreciate the the citizens also agreeing to allow this time. So this is a somewhat complex and long process, and so I'd like to start with a little bit of history because I believe there's a lot of information that as I go back and look at all the things that have happened since 2019, all the hearings, all the meetings, all the documents, and then fast forward to this, there's a lot of information that doesn't appear in the packets that came to PNZ and to council that really should have been shared, I believe, so that you have a full understanding of what's going on and why what is being requested on the surface is not really what is being presented to you and what the outcome of a simple vote of removing an age restriction actually triggers a whole lot more based on several things that have happened over time. So on a historical perspective, in 2019 there was a collaborative effort between the hospital a developer and the citizens the neighbors in in my area I happen to be one of those at the time when there was a discussion about changing the zoning for a part of the hospital because there was a discussion we knew the hospital has never been a really strong hospital and there was an effort to try to help financially the hospital and one of the ideas was to allow multifamily age restricted so that since the hospital already had services for seniors. It was a symbiotic relationship that would help the hospital and would be good for the neighborhood and good for the hospital. And so we all got together and ultimately what came from that was the zoning change and ordinance 3556 PD 18 amended to have three separate sub districts as it relates to this particular issue. uh sub-district b is what we're focusing on and under sub-district b it allowed this this 55 and older project to go forward what is also important to know is that it included 9.3 acres it had two different property owners and as we get into the ordinance 3556 you also see that we had a a comprehensive conceptual plan that was a I'm sorry, was approved by and recommended approval by P and Z and by Council. And this, this plan is part of and you can see it in some of the old documents, although it's very hard to read. This is what sets forth on the 9.3 acres. What is 2 buildings on 2 separate properties and it clearly provides that. Building A, which is what is being is the subject of this discussion tonight, is limited to 239 units, which was ultimately bumped up to 250 units when Council approved the detailed site plan. But building A is limited to 250 now under the detailed site plan and building B, which is owned by a separate property and this is going to be affected by this potentially was allowed to have 67 units now. Ultimately, everything was passed and the development started. And as we all know, it went into bankruptcy. There's a little history there that I shared at the P&Z meeting is that the main person, the key person behind that company that was doing development died suddenly. And ultimately, what I found in my research through the bankruptcy was that they could not find the right person to fill in. The family also got into a big battle in probate, and this thing spiraled into bankruptcy. And the issue was not because it wasn't a financially viable project, but we had an untimely death and a family that couldn't come together to figure out how to make it work. So that put us in bankruptcy. And that's the basic history. Now, the history of the company and the companies that are making this application, FB Multifamily is a single asset entity that was formed by, is it Sive or Sive, I'm not sure what is the actual pronunciation, the applicant for this. Single asset entity basically is just owning the property. They don't have any other businesses. It's an asset protection move. The real driving force behind this is Sive Inc., which You should know Cybe Inc. was intimately involved in this development with the original developer. They were the general contractor. They are the people that were constructing this project and overseeing the development, the site work, the garage, and they would have done everything else. they would have known the nth degree of detail about what were the restrictions and limitations on this property. They would have known that it was a 250 unit project. They would have known, based on the fact that they have the detailed site plans, they have all the construction site plans, they have all that paperwork, they would have known this was an age restricted property. Nonetheless, in the bankruptcy, as a creditor, they made a play to buy this property out of bankruptcy. They paid, ultimately they won that right, and they paid $9.425 million for this property. Now, in the town hall meeting, when asked to confirm that that was what they paid, it was an affirmative. And then a follow-up question was, certainly you did your due diligence as to what the restrictions are on this property. And the answer, surprisingly, from the representative, who is here today, was no, we did not do our due diligence. Now, I would ask you, is that an answer that you actually can buy or that you would find is actually Believable? Who puts $10 million down on a property and doesn't do their due diligence? Who is so intimately involved in this project as general contractor they did not know those restrictions? I think it strains credibility for us to hear that this developer says they didn't do their due diligence. That raises a question. If they didn't do their due diligence, why should the citizens, the neighbors, or the city be the ones asked to bail them out of a bad decision? I would tell you that as a neighbor, I don't think that's our responsibility to step in and help them out. If they really did make that bad decision, I don't believe they did, I think they knew exactly what they're doing, but if they did make that bad decision, they need to be the ones that bear the responsibility. Now, if you look at what we see, the developer's application is benign on its face. It says all we want to do is remove the age restriction. However, we know that's not the case. We can see that in three separate documents that staff has produced throughout the time of this, June 22nd, July 27th, these are to P&Z, to a city council meeting that was supposed to go forward on the 4th of August. In all of these, it is clearly stated that the developer intends to also build 301 units on the property, not the 250 that was restricted. If you look into it also, you'll see that the applicant proposes to construct 301 multifamily units that would enclose a structured parking. Now, the interesting part or an interesting part is it says these components would be consolidated into a single building because they already referenced above that they acknowledge that there were two buildings that have been approved. But this applicant now has come forward and has indicated the components will be consolidated into a single building. that encloses a parking structure, incorporates parking located in the front building, in front of the building. So we know in three of these documents that have been made public, they have already planned on doing substantially more than what is stated in their document. So why, number one, are we getting another statement that would suggest what they tell us is not what they intend? Interestingly, Once this came to light and we started talking about it as neighbors, the documents that have been presented no longer have any of that information in it that's been redacted. The other thing that is really important to know, and it goes to several of the issues we've talked about today, is with 301 units, that's an increase of 51 units. But if you look at the plans that were attached to another document that is in place, which is on February 17th, we have an agreement to agree between the city and the developer And in that document, there are some components that if this restriction is removed, they immediately lock in place. And that's where these additional changes come into play. And I'll get to that as I go further into this. But the 301 units are going into the exact same footprint as the 250. That means they're not adding one square foot to this structure. So how are they going to get another 51 units in there short of doing nothing more than make many, many smaller units out of it? By my calculation, they're going to have to reduce the size of units by approximately 25%. So what was originally planned with one and two bedroom units. Now if you look at what's in the documents attached in the February agreement to agree, they've changed the unit mix from one and two bedrooms to studios and one and two bedrooms. And if you're inclined, I can provide a copy to each of you of this developer agreement so that you actually see exactly what we're talking about and you can see where I'm pointing to so that it's not a mystery. So the unit mix changes substantially. It also throws a monkey wrench into our parking. If we follow the city's rules, parking should increase with 51 units by 76.5 units. But if you look at what's in the documents that were presented and where it was identified, they're only proposing to increase the parking by 30 units. So now what are we going to do with the additional parking that's there? Are they going to go over to the hospital? Are they going to park on the street? Are they going to park in the neighborhood? But we have a second element that is a change, a clear change based on the combination of the application and the agreement to agree with the city from February 17th. I did a calculation or looked at it and see if I can find that note. The number of two bedrooms dropped by over 30 units in this project. The number of studios, which weren't in place, jumped up to 32. And the number of one bedrooms jumped by almost 100 units when you added the 51. So what we should have had was the 150 single or one bedroom units. What we should have had is almost 102 bedrooms. Now we're down to like 52 bedrooms and 178 or 192 one bedrooms and roughly 45 studios. But you have all of these extra units still crammed in that same footprint. with no concession or no increase in the size of the building or adding a story. So you're going to have a lot more wear and tear on your property. It's going to require much more upkeep. But what this shows is that what we're being told in this application is not what you're actually going to approve if you do this. The other thing is when you look at the the agreement to agree, the city development agreement. And Councilman Reed, I think you indicated a concern, and Brett showed and talked about this process. P&Z and staff are intimately involved in the development of the conceptual site plans, the detailed site plans, to make sure that buildings that are constructed comply with our requirements, the city requirements, the national, international building codes that are applicable, This document has an attachment to it that already approves a conceptual site plan and has another building site plan or mattress site plan already approved as part of this document if you remove that site plan. So you have now, what would happen is our P&Z and staff would not be as involved in this process going forward as they normally are. That is concerning to all of us. Now, perhaps even more concerning is this document talks about defaults by the developer and what can happen. also talks about there's being money potentially paid sorry by this developer to the city in terms of covering potential costs there are fees there are costs there are inspection fees if this developer defaults and doesn't correct the defaults and it could be in the quality of construction, it could be in that they don't put up the restricted access, it could be any number of things that they don't do that they're required to do under this document, the site plan, but if they default and we have to declare a termination under paragraph 6.5, the city has to immediately pay back any money they have paid us. Now think about that. They default. We have to pay back the money they paid to us. Why? Why would we hitch ourself on our agreement that would allow them to default and then we pay them back? What we really need is for this project or this application to be denied. Because this document, if you remove the age restriction, you have just given them the keys to the kingdom. And we don't have a way to stop it. And I'd urge you to look at it, think about that. Is that what we really want? Do we want to have a developer that has given us information that doesn't appear to be correct? We had the developer at the town hall meeting when asked, well, what happens if you don't get what you want? And the answer was pretty cavalier. We'll just let it sit there. And that ice will remain there. That's what they told us. I'd like to ask you, is that the kind of neighbor that we need? Is that the kind of developer we want to be doing favors for? Look at what have they done so far. They bought the property. December 24, 2025, nine months ago. They have not lifted one finger to make that property look any better. They have not cleaned it up. They have not made it safer. The safety fence, it was down when they bought it. It is still down. I believe if we check with the police officer, the police chief, I think he will confirm there was a suicide there because somebody was able to get in, get into the parking garage. and committed suicide. Had there been a parking safety fence, that might have been avoided. This is not somebody that is a good neighbor. This is somebody we need to say, you bought the property knowing or you should have known about these restrictions. And if you didn't know about it, that is on you. And if you do know about it, then you need to develop it as is with these restrictions. Either way, what we ask you as your neighbors and as our neighbors is that you vote no on this application. Send the message that the farmers branch. You do the right thing. You do your homework. You work as with us. You be good neighbors. And if you don't, if you make bad decisions, you bear that responsibility. Do not make the citizens do not make the city do not make The neighbors bear the responsibility. So our request is you vote no. And you follow what PNC recommended five to two is recommend denial on this one. I grew up in that neighborhood. It's important. So I'd appreciate that you guys listen to what we all say. And I do what I say. We asked for proof and the NPNC asked for proof about financing because that was supposedly an issue. We got two letters finally. I think though what we'll find out is their focus was not in the right place. There was a lot of financing available through public private funds for these kind of projects. They went to two regular banks. I do find it interesting and these letters, that they're very similar in format, similar in wording. So if they came from two different banks, to me it's questionable whether you'd see very similar wording, very similar formatting. So it makes me concerned what we have here. PNZ had denied or had postponed, tabled the decision on the 22nd of June to give them an opportunity to prove what they had done in the way of financing. And at the PNZ, they had not produced these letters. They have not produced anything that really shows other than these kind of similar letters who they applied to and did they apply to the right people. And so this last-minute bid seems to be, what I would say, too little, too late, and we shouldn't be fooled by it. Long and short of it is I don't think they've done their homework or they thought that they can get something that they didn't buy. And as I said, we'd ask that you tell them, no, not on our time. You bought it. You build it the way you bought it under those terms. And if they come back and say, we'll let it sit, then I'd ask that you code enforce them and you make them comply. You've got a lot of ability to force them to make this property look nice, whether it's just a parking garage or they actually start building. But we do have the ability to force them to work and do something right. I appreciate your time. I know that you've got a long day, and there's a lot more people to talk. So I want to give back three minutes. I'll reserve a couple minutes if need be.

I have time in reserve for you. OK, thank you very much. I do have some other folks. I do have some other folks that have signed up to speak on this issue, so as I call your name, please come up. Again, state your name and address. First one will be Art Ortiz.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Otto Ortiz and I live at 12123 Brisbane Avenue, excuse me, with my wife and our two young sons, ages seven and three. We are the closest family with young children to the proposed development. I want to start by saying that I'm not opposed to development. I understand this property shouldn't sit vacant forever. What I am opposed to is changing the original plan from a 55 and over community to a conventional apartment complex. We purchased our home in 2023 so our boys could attend the German International School since my wife is from Germany. We knew this site was planned for a senior living center. That was part of our decision to invest here and raise our children here. We chose Farmers Branch for safety, for stability, and for a family environment. I know some people are frustrated by the unfinished parking garage. I understand it's an it's an eyesore, but that's a temporary problem. A permanent zoning change is something that will shape this neighborhood for decades. And I would rather live next to a temporary eyesore than accept a permanent shift that changes everything we've invested in. I'm also concerned about the current conditions of the property, overgrown weeds, standing water. Our city has had mosquito concerns in recent years, including West Nile virus. Being a good neighbor means taking care of the property now, not just later. As homeowners, we're expected to mow our lawns, pick up our toys, and meet city code. Large property owners should be held to at least the same basic standard. During the last PNZ meeting, they were asked what would happen if this request was denied. The response was that they would simply sit on it. That concerns me because being a good neighbor means being responsible today, not just after you get what you want. I respectfully ask that you preserve the original vision of the site, deny the zoning change, and continue protecting the character and safety of the neighborhood so families like mine that call it home. Thank you. Thank you.

I have next Nathan Sanchez and I guess followed by Shaylee Sanchez.

My name is Nathan Sanchez. I live at 12117 Brisbane Avenue and I would like to defer my time to Shaylee Sanchez.

Shaylee Sanchez. Shelly, I'm sorry.

Yes, my name is pronounced Shelly Sanchez, but I'm very used to it having numerous pronunciations, so no worries there, Mayor.

Pardon me.

Good evening, Mayor, council members. My name is Shelly Sanchez. I live at 12117 Brisbane Avenue, and I appreciate the opportunity to come and share with you what has been considered over numerous hours of conversation among our neighborhood and residents. This is a request that is being considered tonight that will vastly impact our neighborhood, but not only our neighborhood, our city. And I ask you to respond to the applicant's request with an absolutely firm no. I want you to remember, please, that the applicant bought this land knowing exactly what the zoning and site plan allowed. The city, our city, is under no obligation to alter the 2020 site plan that was approved simply to maximize their profit margin. Common standards for amendments or site plan modifications by an applicant require proof that conditions in the area have drastically changed since the original approval, not simply that they couldn't get funding or that they won't have the profit that they want. In case the question is still nagging at any of you regarding why it is important for 12150 Medical Parkway to be developed as a 55 plus independent living complex, there are five reasons I will quickly highlight for you at this time. Number one, The current population of Farbridge Branch is approximately 31% over the age of 55, meaning that over 11,000 residents in our city qualify for a 55 plus independent living facility. Maintaining the age restriction will give these residents a quality place to downsize while continuing to enjoy the city they love. Number two, statistics show that multi-age tenants generate more water usage, wastewater, and solid waste than senior tenants. Removing the age restriction would require the city staff to recalculate whether the planned pipe diameters and tap sizes are sufficient. Number three, keeping the 55 plus age restriction adds no additional burden on Chapel Hill Preparatory School. However, if there were families that had children in this apartment complex, then that would directly impact the school. So removing the age restriction would require that the applicant attain a formal impact letter from the school district confirming capacity. Number four, impact on the neighboring streets, parks and structure itself with a age restriction of 55 will be low intensity. However, with a apartment complex that has families that are moving in and out, because statistics show that there is a much higher annual turnover rate, frequently 50% or more, with families that have children, causing much more wear on the property and the surrounding area, because they will have access regardless of whether the vehicle access will be restricted or not, they will have access to walk and use the parks in our neighborhood. Number five, it will put more burden on our first responders, police and firefighters. That information is confirmed by apartment complexes that are in Farmers Branch. based off of the 2025 information that was given. Crosby at the Brickyard had 101 police calls for service, including burglaries of buildings and vehicles. There are more apartment units that would be in this property than are at Crosby. At Aspen, Aspen that is at Mercer Crossing had 274 police calls for noise complaints, thefts, and so there would be a much bigger burden on our first responders. Can you confirm if that is the time that I'm allowed with the six minutes? One more. Okay. So what I would like to end with is a reminder that we are here for our city's mission to improve the quality of life of our residents. This is a book by Robin Sharma, The Wealth Money Can't Buy. When you look at the residents that are in this room, we are here because We care for each other and we care for the quality of life that we get to enjoy where we live. And as our representative, Councilwoman Villafranca, there were 106 that opposed this. We ask you to please voice that opposition.

Thank you. Next up is David Rogers.

My name is David Rogers. I live at 12239 Brisbane Avenue, just down the street from the development. Thank you, mayor and council members for allowing us to. be here this evening. I'm an architect. I've been on the side of the table with owners and developers, making variance requests, that kind of thing. Typically, you try to put your best foot forward, win over the opposition, sell the project to the locals. We've seen a few pretty pictures, but it hasn't really been convincing to the neighborhood as why it's such a good deal for us. And you've heard a lot, and we'll hear more from others as to why we're opposed. I thought I'd take a look at who the development team is. We all know the applicant is an LLC, FB multifamily, made up of the previous builder, SIV, and I suppose a money partner, LXG, or Level Capital. Both are Houston companies, nothing wrong with that. I went to school in Houston. It's pretty typical to form a separate LLC for a project. That's not really the concern. Looking at the LSG website, I see that they have several business verticals. They've got capital, development, hospitality, construction. No specific focus on multifamily, although there is a small apartment complex of about 70 units in suburban Chicago on their website. Civ's website has a few more examples, mostly in design of multifamily projects, mostly class B, along with a couple of class A, some student housing also, all in Houston from what I can tell. As a previous builder, Civ was obviously aware of the development restrictions of age, density, unit mix, parking that are in place. We are told that the lifting of the age restriction is the only request, but as Mr. Koch has pointed out, it has a lot of legs with these other issues. Can they build it? Can they complete it? Maybe. On paper, they seem to have their credentials. Not sure if they've worked together before. Maybe they can get it done. If they don't perform, again, as Mr. Koch has pointed out, it seems like they're entitled to a pretty sizable return of fees that they have invested. That doesn't seem like a good deal for the neighborhood or the city. My biggest concerns, as you'll hear echoed by others, revolve around not just the removal of the age restriction, but the inherent change in density. If you allow this building to go to 301 units, while the approved development plan consisting of this building and the future building along the access road is capped at 317, we're gonna have to face even more density in the future when the next applicant wants to develop that leg of the site. FB Multifamily may think it's not their problem, but for the multiple farmers branch families that are living right next door is definitely a problem. Please deny the request to lift the age restriction and follow the requirements, including density restrictions and parking requirements that have already been cussed and discussed, discerned and established by the approved development plan that is currently in place. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up is Cheryl Howerton.

Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Cheryl Howerton. I live at 3657 Morningstar Circle. I echo what everyone has said before me, kind of put a dent into my comments this evening about the crime, about being a good neighbor. However, I want to point out that this facility, being a senior citizens, would bring multi-generational families that already exist in Farmer's Branch. The seniors would move out of their big homes. their families would take over their homes. We have extended family, which benefits the grandparents, parents, children, cousins, many people. I would also like to say that I don't want this area to be overbuilt. We already have enough multifamily units. More multifamily units are coming in, especially on Midway. I would like to see that stay over there. You protected a neighborhood this evening earlier. Please protect mine. Thank you.

Next up is Carol Roberts.

Good evening. I'll try to make this short, but no promises. I'm Carol Roberts at 3243 Brinkrest. I work at a medical office, and I'm security officer for OSHA for protection. And I also handle navigation apps to make sure people can get to our facility. I'm here to talk about safety and traffic. With regard to crime, you can find statistics to support any position, but the FBI's own website notes apartments have an 85% higher rate of being burglarized than homes. The proximity to 635 substantially increases criminal access and escape and less community oversight. Highway proximate properties are insular, neighbors don't know neighbors, and management isn't visible. This increases criminal activity, ask any police department. Removing the 55 plus restriction will also substantially increase traffic from the apartments. Delivery drivers such as Amazon, Lyft, DoorDash, Grubhub, and Uber will also have access. There are numerous safety issues by this type of traffic increase. The emergency access will appear on navigation apps like Google and Waze. Once that emergency access is noted, it's very hard to remove. The access road, oh sorry, they don't care if the streets are residential or if they can absorb the traffic. These drivers will try to take any shortcut they can because time is money. Apartment complexes become de facto Amazon distribution points. Delivery brands idle and create traffic patterns that the neighborhood traffic studies don't account for in their planning. The pressure of the delivery drivers keeping tight schedules leads to higher rates of traffic violations, collisions, and injuries. Adding emergency access roads that appear on navigation apps turns a residential neighborhood into an uncontrolled traffic corridor. And what happens when or if the Maverick Stadium moves to Valley View? This will increase traffic on the 635 access road. What is the closest DART station? Farmer's Branch. You guessed it, the one in Farmers Branch will be used by Uber, Lyft, Waymo to get to the DART station. Increasing traffic on 635 and on Valley View. And also the access road is shared jurisdiction by the Farmers Branch police and by Dallas. That's all I can say.

Thank you, Carol. Next. Next is Evan Klarner.

Hi, Evan Klarner, 12220.

Wait a minute. I'm sorry. Start over.

Evan Klarner, 12220 Brisbane Avenue. So I'm going to speak as a first-time homeowner just a few hundred feet from the development. I purchased the home a few years back for the purpose of getting away from conventional apartment complexes and the problems they bring. So I've lived in several of these Class A developments, just like the one being proposed. And they're all overrun with crime issues with property upkeep. The management struggles to maintain the property and the infrastructure around it. There's constantly traffic going in and out and a whole slew of other issues. And on the contrary, I've been in a lot of 55 and up developments, whether it's visiting grandparents or the clients I work with, and there's, it's quite obvious they don't have issues to this degree. So I encourage you to consider all of that with the traffic. Myra Lane is already extremely backed up. There's cars parked everywhere. This would only make the issue worse. And yes, I just encourage you to consider all these factors before coming to a decision. Thank you. Thank you.

Next up. Jessica Knowles.

Jessica Knowles, 12322 Amsterdam Road. I am here to beg for you to say no to this. I have my husband and my two-year-old living with me and we've walked the streets at three o'clock at night with a screaming baby, felt safe doing so. Couldn't feel safe doing that if we had all kinds of traffic, all kinds of movement throughout the community. The apartment itself We just had finals last week at Parker. Several people live in the apartments over at Luna, and they've said, you guys got a car pull here because there's just absolutely no way we could get all these cars parked. We have restrictions. Well, at Myra, there won't be restrictions for pool parties if we have a 55 restriction removed. People can park all along Myra and walk right into the apartment complex. There won't be a gate, there won't be anything stopping pedestrian traffic moving in. So that just brings a lot of pedestrian traffic for people who are not in the 55 plus community. Also, we know that the community has been fighting this for a while. We moved on to a Castleton Drive rent house back in 2013, and we heard all about this. We said, well, it's not our immediate neighborhood, so we should not get involved in somebody else's opinions. Well, in 2020, we absolutely had to buy our house in Farmers Branch. We told our realtor nowhere else. We don't want to look at any other houses, only Farmers Branch. And we picked this neighborhood because it was safe. We got up at late nights to make sure our bedtimes weren't going to be affected. It was so close to the highway. But then we thought, how amazing is this neighborhood? And so we put down our offer, got a house. And with the mortgage we got, we cannot leave until 2050. So we would love to keep our home, love to stay where we're at. And the best way to do that is to make sure our neighborhood continues to keep the culture and environment that it currently has. And that's by keeping the 55 plus on this particular property and making sure our neighbors are as well unified as we have been lately. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Kells Koch.

Good evening, my name is Kells Koch. I live at 3247 Brain Crest Drive, Farmer's Ranch, Texas. I'm here because I work in financial analysis, meaning the financial performance of a business segment that does approximately $20 billion in revenue, $15 billion in cost. My job requires me to challenge assumptions and determine whether evidence supports conclusions being presented. I applied the same approach that I use at work to the applicant's claims that a 250-unit, 55-plus active adult community is not financially feasible. First, 55-plus active adults should not be confused with assisted living. The National Investment Center defines active adult as age-restricted multifamily rental housing focused on lifestyle, wellness, and community. NIC's second quarter 2026 data shows 93.5% occupancy for stabilized active adult properties. Second, local rents raise question about the assumptions behind the applicant's conclusions. Everleigh Forestwood, a 55 active adult in Dallas, currently advertises approximately 1,827 for one-bedroom units and 3,869 for two-bedroom units. Evita Carrollton, right around the corner, advertises approximately 1,889 to 3,523 respectively. So before accepting that 250 units are financially infeasible, councilors should know what rent do the applicant assume, what unit mix, what occupancy and operating expenses, what return threshold do they find as feasible, and most importantly, how do those assumptions compare with market data? Construction costs raise another question. A recent 370-unit multifamily development in Carrollton filed with the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation at an estimated construction cost of $53.2 million, or approximately $143,800 per unit. Importantly, that scope includes a precast parking garage. In this case that we're looking at, the land has already been purchased, a five-star parking garage has already been constructed, and that makes the applicant's actual remaining construction budget particularly important. We all know from the application that the proposed 301 units unrestricted would average approximately 1,800 in rent. If 301 conventional apartments are feasible at 1,800, while 250 active adult apartments are supposedly not, despite the rents we see in the surrounding area, council deserves to see the assumptions that reconcile those two positions. This is not about proving the applicant wrong, it's about recognizing that the financial evidence necessary to independently verify their claims has not been presented. Ultimately, the applicant purchases property subject to a 55-plus restriction. Before the city removes it, the applicant should demonstrate with actual numbers and clear assumptions that the existing entitlement cannot reasonably work. Based on the evidence presented to date, they have failed to answer this fundamental question, and I challenge their assumptions.

Thank you. Next up is Caroline Renger. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Yes, my name is Caroline Binger, 3283 Bryncrest Drive. In the essence of time, I'm just going to cut it short and say I want to officially say I oppose the lifting of the age restriction. I think all of my neighbors And the people that have spoke have just eloquently said why we oppose it. I don't think I can add to that. And I just would ask that you consider all those comments and all the arguments and all of our concerns and vote no to lifting the age restriction. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Lucy Gore.

Thank you. Lucy Gore, 12254 Brisbane Avenue. Mayor, council members, I respectfully oppose removing the 55 plus age restriction from this development based on the argument that senior housing cannot be financed. That simply does not align with the facts, for lack of a better word. Nationally, the population age 65 and older grew nearly 39% from 2010 to 2020. And by 2030, one in five Americans will be over 65. Demand for senior housing is expected to continue growing as the baby boomer generation ages. We heard from Shelley. Here in Farmer's Branch, more than 11,000 residents are in that age stage. These are our neighbors, parents, longtime residents. I personally know a lot of them that have lived here 50, 60 years. They're my neighbors. I serve them as their advisor and I help them and they do not want to move from Farmers Branch. I am speaking for them as well tonight. They love the city. We all love Farmer's Ranch. This is why you see all these people here, okay? If we didn't care, we would have not spent countless hours just going through this. The need for senior housing is not disappearing, it's increasing. And one little fact that anybody can Google Since 2010, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have lent billions of dollars to senior housing and assisted living as well, but specifically 55 plus. So the... It makes me irate that somebody will say something that is not a fact. So when somebody says and presents two letters that are the same exact format on the same exact date, that raises a flag for me because in the United States, there's more than two banks. So if you really want it, If you really wanted to make this development work, you would get more, you will do more research, I would say. So I will ask you that tonight you uphold the original commitment made to this community. Maintain the 55 plus restriction. And send a clear message that development approvals and community expectations matter. Thank you very much.

Next up is Cassidy Lamb.

Hello, good evening. My name is Cassidy Lamb, 3247 Brittencrest Drive. I did not grow up in Farmer's Branch, but have recently moved here, and I can tell you I moved from Dallas. And so being in my 20s, people want to move here to get away from multi-family apartments. They want to move here to raise a family. And so, you know, people move to Farmer's Branch because it does feel like a small town, because of its community, because of its people, and the slower pace of life. There is a place for multifamily, I just do not think that place is at this property. Removing the 55 plus restriction is risking changing the very character that makes Farmer Branch so special. I recently lived in a Class A multifamily apartment, so I have experienced firsthand what that label does and does not guarantee. The gates were constantly broken, which I want to point out this property would only have one access entry point. So I don't know if they have a gate. I would hope they would for security reasons. But with the increase in density, the gate I would most certainly believe would be broken. Pet waste was left throughout the property, which would lead to throughout the neighborhood and throughout the park and not picked up. Pool rules were not enforced, so the noise becoming an ongoing issue. And guest parking was constantly overflowing, which other neighbors have already touched on. But overflow would end up at the nearby hospital or neighborhood. So, Why the 55 plus restriction matters? A 55 plus community is much more compatible with the pace and character of this neighborhood while providing housing for residents who want to remain in Farmer's Branch without the maintenance and responsibility of owning a home. We already have plenty of conventional multifamily apartments. The one previously mentioned this evening sounds like a much better option than this one. And I do appreciate that that builder had some evidence to back up his case and had some evidence on the parking, which was not provided to us from this developer. There is only one other comparable 55 plus community and farmers branch that I am aware of. I am a new resident, so I'm not sure there's many others for other 55 plus residents to go. So, you know, that point in itself is a strong evidence that this type of housing is needed. The developer has also argued that the 55 residents cannot afford this project. My time's up, so I oppose this project. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Robert Burke.

No, okay. Council Mayor, my name is Robert or Bob Burke. Nice to meet you and thank you for the opportunity and time to speak today. I'll be honest with you all. I've only spoken at the PNZ meetings twice and I've been one of the first people called. I love the fact that I am not the first person called. Here's the reason why. I think everybody today has made some good points and a lot of issues that we have with this project. We could talk about the developer agreement. That seems quite scathing to me. I would rather talk about the positives of the community and the positives of what a 55 plus community can bring to our area. And it ties directly to our neighborhood mission statement, if you will. For us, our goal and mission in this neighborhood as neighbors is to help each other in any way we can. that means the aging population too. It means making sure that they can stay here. And I don't think I've told Mr. Koch this directly, but when I moved to the neighborhood in 2021, one of the things that really made me decide to go forward with this offer for the home versus another home in another city that's yet to be named, is that his family lived here and he lived down the street. Now his son lives down the street. That's the type of community I would like to live in. And I think the participants in this community already, some major partners that are in our district are helping prepare us to be able to do that. That partner in particular, Dallas Medical Center, right there in the community, right down the street, right on Medical Parkway as it's named. I'm not gonna go into details on all the services that they provide that are related to an aging population, but what I will say is that Dallas Medical Center in their actions and their words have stated that taking care of an aging population is important to them, which is important to us in the community as well. In June 2025, Dallas Medical Center announced that they had received geriatric emergency department accreditation, which helps prepare them with specialized training to their physicians and nurses, implemented new care processes directly related to seniors. and prepared resources for the community, such as fall prevention strategies, things of that nature, all things that we really want for ourselves and for our families here locally. I would love to see Dallas Medical Center grow, expand, do well, have great quality work. I'd love to be able to go there more often if I needed to. Let's say I don't want to in terms of health. That statement there, that action they have, the statement from their CEO of wanting to provide services to the community, that aligns with our mission as neighbors too. I just wish to see that. And I think this is an opportunity for that. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next up is Esquivel. Okay. Okay, some of this is not due to me. Penmanship does play a part in some of it. That's fair, that's fair.

Hi, my name is Ezequiel Cuevas. I live at 2952 Primrose Lane. I used to live at 2839 Millwood Drive, and that's relevant because my wife and I actually met overseas, and she grew up here in Farmer's Branch, and then we moved here to raise our family, young kids. Let's see, I've gone overseas many, many years as the canine unit, explosive detection dog, looking for bombs in all the fun places. At the end of 2022, my family and I were living on Millwood Drive, where we had for many years, where my children grew from toddlers to preteens. I deployed for work to the Middle East for the better part of a decade, finally come home for good. School, neighborhood, and community reminded me of my own childhood, one of unlocked doors, blocked parties, and my babies able to play in the adjacent park or run into a neighbor's house as if it were their own. Truly a dream come true. Three months after leaving Iraq, I was doing some puttering around the house. I was waiting for a friend to go to the Mavs game. I let my dogs outside to potty. I stepped into my backyard and found a man standing there. Initially, of course, not alarmed. It's a great neighborhood. Again, unlocked doors, unlocked fences, no problem. I assumed it was a friend of a friend who had borrowed my table saw and that he was returning it. Sometimes you gotta borrow stuff. Before I could tell him that my dogs, who had run up to him, wouldn't bite, I realized he was holding a firearm. I told him to put it down. When he did not, instead advancing upon me, I retreated into my home, grabbed my weapon, told him again to put his gun down. He fired at me, striking the sliding glass door next to me, missing me by six inches. I was able to put him down. And... You'd think I would remember what I did. Um... Farmer's Branch Police Department were excellent. They gave me some shiny new bracelets for a while until they figured out what happened. And the reason I bring this story up and share it is because they found out that the guy had come from the multi-family neighborhood, excuse me, apartments near 635. The dream home that we had raising our family immediately shattered and now the same thing is kind of trying to happen again. In short, I obviously have real experience in this, and I oppose it. And that's it. Thank you. Thanks.

Thank you. All right, two more. William Glancy. Bill Glancy. All right, though I see him coming. All right, thank you, thank you. Last speaker, Joe Dingman.

He was in the back.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council. I'm Joe Dingman. I live at 13223 Gladiators Drive. I want to start by saying two things that are relevant. One is, if I had any sense, I probably would say everything has already been said. The second is I want to thank, and I think you owe David Koch a debt of gratitude for really getting his teeth into this and disclosing a lot of stuff that otherwise would simply not be known. I'm opposed to the idea of retraining the use category of the property. The present regulations burdening the property were well negotiated several years ago. There's really no compelling reason to change them from my perspective. Certainly the property's had a sordid history. The developer had some bad luck, and I guess death is the ultimate bad luck. And then the process of going through bankruptcy is certainly not an advantage. But that's not our problem. That's the landowner's problem. The people that bought the note did so with their eyes wide open. And to the extent that there's an economic discount attributable to senior housing, they should have well known that at the point where they bought it. Again, it's not our problem. Nobody's speaking for this, and I think that's significant. PNZ has denied it, none of the speakers tonight is for it, and I'd urge you to reject the proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you. And thank you for your public service. Thank you, thank you.

That is all the speakers that I have signed up, so.

I'd like to make a motion to close the public hearing.

All righty, is there a second?

I'll second.

All right, we have a motion and a second. All in favor of closing public hearing, please indicate your vote. Public hearing is closed. Council discussion. Councilwoman Villafranca, this is in your district, so.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd like to give my colleagues an opportunity to express themselves before I address it.

Very good. Councilwoman Gonzalez.

So I attended that town hall for a little bit. I do remember what Mr. Koch mentioned, and it really stood out to me. You bought this knowing there was a restriction, and they asked you if you were able to complete it, and you said no. So that's a big red flag for me. You try to bring in the fact that, you know, you're going to bring more children, but we can't. make that a big factor in this. That's a Dallas ISD. We cannot confirm that they will be joining Carrollton Farmers Branch, although we are an open district. We don't know that they're going to come to us. Secondly, you are going on about how making it a multifamily that they'll be able to come shop and bring more businesses, our seniors can do the same. They still need to eat. They still have to shop. They still need to do their business around our area. So, you know, and my same thought, as some of the others have mentioned, They're eventually going to not want to be in their big homes anymore. They're going to want something smaller, opening up those homes to their families, to their children, grandchildren, or just selling it right out to others. So I'm also just not in favor of this. I think that you should have done a little more research. If you didn't have the finance to keep it as the 55 and up, then it should have just not been bought. That's just my two cents. Thank you, yes.

Yeah, I was going to have Council give their positions first. Sorry, my apologies. Then have you come up so you could hear and address what you've heard. So, Councilman Bennett.

Well, I lived in that neighborhood, so these are my people. And I was there during the time that this was being negotiated for the 55 plus. So I will side with them every day of the week because I know what we agreed to, what we didn't agree to, and why. Because we fought it. We didn't even want the 55 plus, to be quite frank. So I know, and I lived on the corner where they had to redo the infrastructure. I can't tell you how many times because it just wouldn't drain and there'd be eight inches of water when it rained. So that's my two cents worth on that. But to remove that, and I did my research, I watched some NLC stuff and on whatever it was, developing, understanding housing development and finance. So I would be better versed on this. And I can see where it might be a struggle to get financing for the 55 plus. if you weren't really looking. Because even if you, by my research, even if you struggled with getting the financing for that, there are other mechanisms that are within the city's purview. They're actually state and federal purviews as well. that low income housing tax credits, most of our 55 plus as I did the research, they hit the AMI where they could qualify for that. And so you'd get the 4% tax credit for that. There were just layers of things I just didn't really understand. when I'm being told that you can't get the financing for that. And then I had asked the city manager, I don't know, a month ago, six weeks ago, eight weeks ago, about that strip along the service road. Who owns the strip? And I'd gone and looked it up, and who owns each parcel? You hadn't purchased that. And that's why I was like, well, wait a second. If they don't own that, then you're adding that density to that back part. And so I asked about it because I wanted to better understand that. Well, turns out you add that density to the back part, that front part doesn't go away. They're still allowed that density. So it's not just the density on your property. It's the density that the hospital didn't sell to you as well that increases along that corridor. And quite frankly, TxDOT hasn't been brought into this for any traffic study to exit or enter through that access road right there. And if you go up to wherever it is up there where all the fun stuff is these days, the colony, it's a four-lane access road with one lane, very specific, turning right. and none of that has been addressed. And if we're adding that much density, knowing that other is going to be added as well, we need to include TxDOT in this conversation. Go ahead.

Councilman Reed.

My understanding is that the site plan is tied to the land, not to the owner. Is that accurate? Okay. So with that, if something where they have to change everything, they would have to get a new site plan submitted, approved, all that. Is that accurate?

Yes, there's an existing site plan that was approved a number of years ago. The proposed ordinance that is in the agenda packet includes not just a revision or an amendment to the development regulations to remove the age restriction, but also the approval of a conceptual site plan. It'd be the first step in the next phase, which would be, if approved, the submission and review and approval of a detailed site plan. The agenda packet contains the conceptual site plan as part of the ordinance that shows a density of 301 units on the track.

Right. So point I'm making is there's still multiple steps to go through. If this is approved tonight, they still have to submit the site plan. It has to go before P&Z, has to be approved by us. Is that accurate?

Pretty much. The next steps, though, become less discretionary and more mandatory. The review and approval of a site plan is somewhat less ministerial than a plan application, but similar in that if they check all the boxes and meet the criteria, you have less discretion to approve it, less discretion to deny it. Okay. If, by the way, if the plan is denied tonight, there's a preexisting site plan that was approved years ago that shows density of 250 on the northern part of the two tracks.

Right. And it's still in effect. Okay. So the point I'm, or what I'm trying to understand is, there's still a mechanism in place if we wanted to limit it to, instead of 301, to 250, regardless of age?

The existing site plan has a density of 250. You can increase that. The conceptual site plan that's a part of the ordinance on the table tonight, though, increases density to 301. If you approve it tonight, The detailed site plan can contain a lower density, but you can hold them to 301 and prevent them from increasing the density above 301.

Right. But it's approving it up to 301. Yes. OK. That's the clarification. I just wanted to get confirmation from what Mr. Kocut said earlier. That's definitely a concern because under normal SITUATION IS KIND OF LIKE THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER ON MIDWAY. THERE'S MULTIPLE STEPS FOR IT. SO AS WE GO THROUGH IT, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS PARKING ISSUES LIKE WE HAD PULLED UP. BUT IF THIS AUTOMATICALLY SKIPS ALL THAT BECAUSE OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S OUT THERE, IT KIND OF TIES OUR HANDS AS FAR AS WHAT what future options we have. Now, one of the things I did want to point out is people talk about crime, okay? 55 plus is still going to be apartments. It's still going to be an apartment complex, all right? Typically, the crime is not, why are folks shaking their heads? It's going, it would be an apartment complex of 250 units, okay? Crime is not the folks that live there. It's attracted by, you know, other folks are attracted to it. So it's approved to have, it's approved to be a multifamily apartment complex. So what we're talking about tonight is whether it's gonna be 55 plus or not. So the idea of traffic The idea of crime. Things like that. Even though they're valid concerns are kind of inconsequential because it would still be there with an apartment complex. So that's just a distinguish. I just wanted to distinguish that it's not going to. change that component of it. There's one other point I want to make. Oh, so I was talking about emergency vehicles going there, police and such. Statistically, It's higher for 55 plus communities because of higher medical needs. So someone was talking about X apartment complex over here having 250 calls for emergency personnel, whether it's police, ambulance, EMS, whatever. That's not gonna change if it's 55 plus and actually there's a great chance great chance that it would increase because of increased medical needs. So those are things that we still need to consider. They're not separate from this conversation. That's all I have for now.

Councilman, I'm sorry, Councilman Neill.

So I have some questions for city staff, city manager, and city attorney, most directly.

Do you want to wait and hear from developer first, or do you want to go ahead and ask questions now?

Sure, I'll listen to the developer.

Okay. Is that okay?

I have a few comments. Everything that needs to be said has been said. I could not agree more with Councilman Reed. It's not the apartments. It's not the crime. It's not the traffic. I think we were sold a bill that it was just to change the age restriction, and that is not the case. it's much more tangled than this. And so when they were originally approved for the 250 units and now it's jumped up to 301, my understanding is that they're gonna be stealing units from building B. So building B is gonna somehow end up with 17 units. The Honorable David Koch did such an incredible job in taking everything apart and putting it piece by piece by piece. I'm very concerned about the money. If they fold on the deal or they sell it or whatever they do, they fold on the deal, then we are going to be in default for our money. There are just too many things that don't make any sense. So at this time, I really would like to invite the developer to come up and see if there are any questions. But I feel really uncomfortable. I'm not afraid of apartments. And, you know, David Reed makes such a good point. There will be more EMS calls to a 55 plus apartment building. The crime is not coming. A crime is coming from people outside. So it's still an apartment building at the end of the day. I think for me, the Honorable David Cokes, And the evidence is just very compelling. So if you could come up, I think that would be great.

Mayor, if you don't mind, I have a few comments I'd like to make. I'm sorry, given my colleague's comments here. You know, earlier tonight there was a lot of discussion about maintaining the character of our neighborhood. And we heard from the residents. And I think this is of similar nature. And in order to try to maintain a character of nature and I'm just, it's not clear to me why we would have, why would we make an attraction for additional crime? Why would we do apartments, as you so eloquently stated, that the apartments attract the criminals? And if we were to try to maintain our neighborhood as the way our residents have clearly spoken tonight, I don't know. that's a smart move. Now I know we're not here to decide on the apartments or not apartments. It's more generally the lifting the age restriction. So I would have to discount those comments. I just don't feel that we should be putting into place locations that attract potentially crime and even though those residents are not the criminals so to speak. So And secondarily, I don't ascribe to the comment that this is these types of things are inconsequential. These are very consequential to our residents in the neighborhoods. This is very concerning to them, these types of things. So I just want to make those few comments and I'll have a few more a little bit later after I hear from the developer.

Councilman Reed.

When I said inconsequential, I meant there's no difference between 55 plus or not 55 plus. Crime, traffic, all that are all very valid concerns. Thing to remember is if it's 55 plus, it's still gonna be apartments. It's still gonna attract crime as apartments tend to do. So it's not like we're putting, it's going to be, a development of single-family homes. It's still going to be an apartment complex. The only difference is the age at which you can live in it. So all things being equal, that's what I meant by it being inconsequential.

So in light of those comments then, are you in favor of removing the apartments altogether?

Number one, removing apartments is not before us today. Number two, based on the PD, apartments, that's what that property is approved for. So what we're talking about is just an age restriction. So whether it's 55 plus or not, it's going to be any building on there, unless we get a request to change something, Any building that's going to be done on that property are apartments.

Okay, understood. And I made comments to that effect that I realized this is not apartments or no apartments. But given your comments, these types of things being inconsequential, I just disagree that they're inconsequential, particularly to our residents. That's all.

Okay. And let me reiterate, I'm not saying that they're inconsequential in general. It's inconsequential between whether it's 55 plus or not 55 plus. There's no difference between the two. There's still gonna be potential crime. There's still gonna be a traffic increase.

I'm happy to agree to disagree.

Okay. All right, I'd like to invite the developer up and you've heard a lot of this dialogue. Let us hear from you and then we'll come back to council.

Well, thank you, everybody. Good evening, Mayor and Council. I appreciate your time and effort being here late night on a freezing cold room. And I know this evening you could be with your family, so I appreciate your time being here tonight. You know, I'd like to name an address. Sorry, Jamel Verani, 5202 Ivy Stone Court, Sugar Land, Texas. Now, I'd like to address all of your concerns and also some of the mentioned comments from the opposition. So I'd like to go through a quick list and then I can open to any questions, comments from there. So let me start with the most important thing, because again, I do think that we came here purely to get the 55 and up age restriction lifted, not to approve 301 units. And speaking with the city prior to, along with the attorney, I think there may, can we clarify that a little bit? I don't want to say that this is approving 301 units. This is only voting to approve the 55 and up age restriction and then therefore working with PNZ and the city to therefore then go on to site plan afterwards.

be clear and i'll say this one more time the conceptual site plan submitted by you i think it was by you that is attached to the ordinance that is on the table for tonight indicates 301 units on the northern the northern lot of the two separate lots the the overall tract is two lots within one block and it clearly says 301 if the council were to approve this ordinance with the conceptual site plan attached to it it kind of locks it in at 301 where they have a difficult time changing our minds and rolling it back to the existing 250.

I'm going to add to that because I was made privy to a copy of the developer agreement so I too have seen that and I don't ever remember this council approving that and as well as other conditions that were in the developer agreement.

Sure. So to clarify from our end, now it is a pure conceptual site plan, right? Sorry, go ahead.

Okay. I don't want, I hate to interrupt you. No, please. But I believe that if you are asking for, the rescinding of the age restriction, that should be on its own. Nothing else. No site plan, no conceptual site plan, no 301 or anything. The property stands at 250, which was allowed on the property based on the original developer's agreement with MarketSpace. We're not here, we're not in any way proposing to give approval or denial to that fact.

That was my understanding as well.

Well, that's not what was written in this developer agreement and which has been signed by city manager and representative from your company.

Mayor, I plan to get to those questions when I have my chance to speak with city staff and attorney.

Thank you. So I'll go and move on to the rest of it. So look, All we're asking here is to lift the age restriction right now, right? We want to build a high-quality community open to everyone. That's including young professionals, working families, empty nesters, and yes, seniors too. We are not removing the age restriction to get rid of a place where the senior community can live. We are still including them. We are just including the young professionals and families and other individuals who want to move to Farmers Branch the opportunity to do so as well. If you agree and vote in favor of removing the age restriction, then it goes in plan or in hand with what the plan is for the city, right? It's community. We want to build a local community where even, like people mentioned before, they want to live where their grandparents are living. This allows a family to move into the same complex as where their grandparents are living. Now there were made a couple of points that the opposition made that frankly are humbly incorrect, right? One, which is the previous owner, which is Market Space Capital, their deal fell apart because of a death. That is not true. The death happened to the GC that Market Space Capital hired prior to even starting the project. All they did is replace that GC with CIVE, who was this GC for them, and then they started the project. As they started the project, the lender pulled the loan on them because it became unfeasible as the economics changed on age restriction. multifamily. Now, yes, you've heard a lot of statistics and there are a bunch of statistics nationally that you can look up to provide or prove that, hey, there is a demand for age restricted multifamily. Specific to farmers branch, yes, there is a slight demand as well, but the rental offset that you go from being a traditional class A multifamily to a senior living with the same economics does not make sense because it's not just the rent, it's the expenses that come along with it. And the rent for a Class A multifamily allows us to to kind of cure one of the other concerns, which is safety, right? Now, if we have a higher rent and a higher revenue, we can then hire security. We can hire a better staff. We can build a better quality product. We can have a gated community that is staffed 24 seven. So again, to kind of clarify, the previous deal did not fall apart because the GC died, but it's purely because the economics just do not work anymore for age restricted multifamily. there were comments made about at PNZ last week and also now about how it's coming off in a a stern manner when i say hey we are just going to sit on the land if this is not approved and the age restriction is not lifted now it's not a threat by any means it's just a matter of the fact it's truth right if we cannot develop this land as a senior living age restricted family multifamily complex because we don't get financing well there's nothing more we can do at this time we cannot develop it with hopes and dreams we need cash to actually develop this and if the banks are staying no then there's not much more we can do other than sit on it yes we can comply to code and you know have security gate fencing up and and clean up the landscaping but we've already done that before and the gate was broken into multiple times right it's a security risk it's a security concern it is an eyesore but outside of that we just we just done much more we can do which is why It's not just, it's not a threat by any means, right? It's just the reality. And then onto the financing. Yes, the two bank letters have the same date on them, right? But as you all know, you guys have worked with developers for a very long time now. When a bank says no, they don't give you the courtesy of a letter, right? We've had all the banks that we applied to, which is more than 20 banks that we worked with on this deal. Now, All the deals I've ever done with, frankly, within three, we find a lender, right? Yes, there are governmental programs out there, HUD financing and different types of financing out there for age-restricted multifamily. But those have different covenants that do not apply to this law. You cannot just say, hey, because HUD finances multifamily development for age restriction that we can get it done here. No, it doesn't work like that. There's different boxes that we have to check off that completely change development. It's not gonna be even a class A development. It's not gonna be a senior living facility that you envision. It's gonna be affordable, which kind of takes away from what this community is going towards being. and the kind of high-quality product that we would like to bring to this community. Yes, we did know about the age restriction when buying this land. We did. We never said we didn't know, right? When buying the land at a bankruptcy, the due diligence time is very limited. We can't go get financing during diligence while buying a land. It happens after the fact, right? And that's not the normal case we carry out in all of our other developments, but that's just how this deal played out. It was a quick deal. We wanted to buy it because the location is amazing. We want to be part of this community and we want to build beautiful product for this community. And going to lenders after the fact, What happened to the previous developer is still holding true today. Banks are saying no because the economics do not work. It's not just the rent, it's not just the occupancy, it's the expenses that come along with it. It's pure bottom line. When the bottom line does not meet a certain standard that covers their debt to the senior lender by a certain amount, they just don't finance it. Hence why the letters are saying, hey, as long as it's senior living, we will not finance this. Now, parking, which honestly, all these issues are going to be kind of separate what we envision to come back to you all and work with the city's design and planning team to actually finalize the site plan if this was approved. But parking, we have 469 spaces of parking. That is 1.55 per unit, which is significantly more than the one that was brought today. We have 1.28 per bedroom, which is again significantly more than the one brought today. That was 1.09. So parking is not an issue here on this space. Sorry, I just want to gather my notes real quick. So look, overall, what we'd like to do is build a Class A community here, which the garage will be wrapped around with the building, which again will help the security concern because we will have a gate around the building. There won't be in and out access for anyone to just come, which helps offset the security risk that we're have issues with. We have set aside 35,000 square feet, roughly a fifth of the entire site as landscape open space, which is more than the city's requirements. There's a central courtyard, a dog park, a fitness center, a clubhouse, a co-working lounge, work from home pods, and professionally staffed front desk. We want to build a great community to add to Farmer's Branch. Now, Councilman, you mentioned earlier that, you know, it's 55 and up age group still spends. Yes, they do, right? But traditionally, the 55 and up spends 73,000, while age 35 to 54 spends about 96,000, right? The amount that they spend at income is a wide disparity. There's a 30% difference in that, which does matter to the city. And on top of that, whenever we are able to or if we are able to lift the age restriction, the property tax matters too, right? It helps with the funding of the police force that everybody's concerned about, which we are as well. Property tax offsets that issue right there. When we have children coming in, yes, we can't guarantee what school they're going to, but it allows them the opportunity to go to schools in Farmers Branch. Now, everybody here knows there's a big issue going on with public schooling in Texas today. There's multiple articles about it. There's a big push on schools being closed down because there's not enough kids going to public schools anymore, which offsets funding. If we are able to open this up and lift the age restriction to allow families to come in, that helps with the funding on the schooling as well. So at that point, I feel like I've covered a little bit of each of the concerns, but I'm happy to answer any specific questions.

One second. Councilwoman Gonzalez, do you have anything you'd like to?

Nothing, Mayor. Thank you.

Councilman Bennett? I have nothing. Okay. Councilman Reid?

You had talked about the cost. My understanding is that 55 plus apartment complexes cost more because of additional requirements, things like zero steps, hallway width, things along those lines. Do you have a percentage tied into that?

With me today, I do not, but that is true, right? The bottom line, the cash flow down to the bottom line on a senior living facility is less because of the layout, the design, the amenities. They cost more in every aspect, which does not help when you're trying to get financing on this.

Okay. And do you have any statistics in this area, the potential tenant pool? because, well, number one, we're not precluding folks who are 55-plus from renting, so there's still an opportunity there. But typically, if you're dealing with a smaller rental pool, there's less of an opportunity to get up to or close to full occupancy. I was telling... David Berman earlier, but it reminded me of an old SNL sketch when SNL was still funny about a dying mall because of the stores that were in it. And one of the stores solely sold items for left-handed people. So if your target audience is much smaller, you're not going to be profitable. Correct.

So it just made me think of... Yeah, so on that specifically, they say it takes about 18 months longer to even hit a stabilized occupancy when doing 55 and up versus a traditional multifamily class A. Now, specific to farmers branch, there's no studies on that, but that's kind of the general market, along with you have run into issues with rental collections because the income is a little bit less on that aspect. So even if you're trying to charge the same rent on 55 and up in Class A multifamily, collecting that is very different, which you have to then account for bad debt, which then, again, affects your bottom line.

And that's all I have right now. Thank you.

I just feel really uncomfortable with all of the tangled situation, the $800,000 for infrastructure. If you fold, we have to give the money back. They're just things that make me feel really uncomfortable about this deal. My neighbors are adamantly opposed to the program. I personally am not opposed to apartments. I agree with Councilman Reed about you know, the crime is coming from outside, but you know, we get that in our homes too. So I don't believe that that is really, but for me, honestly, I just feel really uncomfortable with the whole tangled

thing with the contract and then the 301 and then the 250 and then the um you know the 800 000 it just it just makes me really uncomfortable it does councilman i completely understand that um again i wish we um could have probably handled the paperwork on that aspect of the 301 versus 250 our assumption was it was just a conceptual site plan and we were coming here for to remove the age restriction uh and then the site plan is therefore approved afterwards uh in a different follow-up meeting uh but in terms of the 800 000 frankly we weren't paying attention to that because our goal is to develop this we want to be part of this community we want to bring a Class A product here so that's kind of a back thought for us we want you in the community too so I hope that you'll be able to work with us and just honor you know honor with the original

a plan for that space was. We don't know what the company from California that owns the other building B, we don't know what they're gonna do, but we really wanna work with you, and we just hope that you'll be able to honor what the original stipulations of the contract were.

Yeah, I mean, look, I'd love to work with you as well. And specifically for that, again, happy to work with on the site plan after this. But the age restriction at this point, we've spent almost a year trying to get financing on this. It's just not working. It's not happening. And so as much as you and I would love to work with each other, we can't. Like I said, we need financing to develop any multifamily product. When comparing it to other Class A traditional multifamily or even other 55 and up age restriction, people are buying complexes below replacement costs. So what that means is they're buying already built product that's cheaper than building brand new. And so they're able to go on and do and skew the statistics that we're looking at today, right? In terms of rent collections and demand. But when building a brand new, it's looked at with a different set of eyes when it comes to financing.

Regardless of what we decide this evening, I really would like to urge you to please take care of the property. It is really nice. I'm sure there's rats and snakes and other stuff in there. The overgrown weeds, the fallen fence, like we really need it. Yes, ma'am.

Landscaping for sure after this will take care of it immediately.

Councilman Neill.

Thank you, Mayor. I'd just like to circle back a minute to the schooling situation and just maybe make a comment that you said by opening this, it would allow those families with children to attend the public schools. And it is true that the public schools are somewhat challenged and are being closed because of low enrollment. But I think that thinking is somewhat flawed. Just because we open it up doesn't mean that those students would go to the public school. They would still potentially be homeschooled. So we can't really make the case that just because we allow more families that they're going to go to the public schools. I mean, they have an option to go to private or stay at home. So I just wanted to... I believe that thinking is... It's a little bit skewed, and I don't know that I agree with it. In addition to that, I understand that there are potentially additional costs with the senior housing. But as you know, there are at least three or four different levels. There's the 55 plus, and there may be some parameters around that. Then there's also independent living for seniors. There's also assisted living. And each of those have a varying level of requirements uh whether it's ada or wider hallways something like that i don't know i i it's my understanding that 55 plus is at the lower end of that um so there's some credence to that but i don't know that is it is a significant one um it is on the lower end but it's still more than classic yeah so um you know i'm still concerned that the other property owner if we were to approve this that property owner would have no uh They would have no capacity because your complex would have consumed all of their... They're 67. I think it was 67 was spoken earlier. So I'm concerned that we haven't been able to get in touch with them or reach out with them. But, you know, and frankly, you know, with all due respect, sir, it's not our fault that you bought the property with the restriction. You knew that the restriction was there. And so now it just feels like you're coming to us to bail you out. It just wasn't our decision. It wasn't our business decision. to buy the property, you should have maybe done a little bit better research on that. It's not our fault that you've gone down. I'm sorry you're in that position, but it's not our fault.

Sir, look, I appreciate that. And frankly, I'm not saying it's my fault or your fault. We know back when we bought it, again, we knew the age restriction was there in place. We would have liked to develop it as such, but today the economics have changed. Again, coming here, I'm not asking for a bailout. I don't think that's the right way to look at it, frankly. I'm asking to get something done here, right? I'm asking to work hand in hand with each other to actually develop something versus leaving it as a huge risk. Somebody mentioned earlier suicide. Yeah, again, we can clean up the landscaping. We absolutely will. We have fixed the security gate there. People will continuously break in. It's an abandoned parking garage. It's not... it's not uh the safest thing to keep around a community especially like i have you know two kids at home too i would never want to live next to an abandoned parking garage i've lived in multi-family complexes my whole life and i would absolutely rather have that than an abandoned garage which again it's not a threat it's not i'm not asking for a bailout it's just a matter of fact i'd like to get something done um and that at this point in time would be restricting the age or lifting the age restriction um so we can actually i understood i applaud you for coming here and taking all this input from everybody so sure the only questions i have left are mainly for city staff and city attorney city manager but thank you very much absolutely sir thank you okay

I feel compelled to say a few things because I was on the City Council way back when, when this was first brought up. The only reason I voted at the time for this development, not your development, but the original development, was because I saw it as being age-restricted and having a financial benefit to Dallas Medical Center. We all know, it's no secret, that seniors, they end up, they're in the doctors once a month or whatever. They're always in the doctors. I take my parents when they were alive. to the doctors all the time. And so Dallas Medical Center had made a commitment to bring in elder care physicians specifically to be of benefit to the original development. So I wasn't interested in anything else going there other than that. Now, I wanna talk about some things that you said and my thoughts are gonna be a little bit random here because I was just trying to write down. You said it takes 18 months longer to achieve a break even for 55 plus versus a open market development. Well, that's something you plan into your pro forma. Okay, so I'm not buying, that necessarily. You talked about families. Families are not going to live in studios, okay? You have a high number of studio apartments, that means that's only going to be one person, maybe two, but certainly no kids living in a studio apartment. So any benefit to the public schools? There is none. There's no benefit to public schools based on what you have said. I don't even know the unit breakdown, and that's what I wanted to see. How many studios, ones and twos were you planning to build? And I know we're getting a little ahead of ourselves here. We're supposed to be talking about the age restriction, but I'm trying to build up to a point here. So I don't have that information. You know, when we talk about access, Medical Parkway and LBJ Service Road are really the only two ways in. I still don't know whether you have a deceleration lane planned coming into the property or an acceleration lane leaving to go on to 635. You're talking about traffic that's traveling, supposed to be 40, but they're doing 60, 65 on the service road. Okay, so that's just a fact of a design issue that needs to be accounted for. You said you're not going to be able to bring a high quality product if it is age restricted. That is a huge issue for me because what you just said is if it is age restricted, I'm interpreting your statement to be it's going to be substandard. It's going to be below standard. It's not going to be high quality. Now, you might be able to tell us something different, but I owe it to these people. I owe it to the future residents. I owe it to the seniors who live in Farmer's Branch who want to get out of their homes because they're tired of taking care of all this crap and want to move someplace where all that is provided or taken care of for them. And now I'm having some doubts as to whether it's going to be nice enough because it's not gonna be class A. You said that you can't afford to build that if it's age-restricted. I find that as a salesperson, that would not be the way I wanna sell my product.

I think, Mr. Mayor, I apologize. It's not what I meant to say. It's the level of Class A versus what we have envisioned. Even though the 55 and up age restriction property would still be high quality, the Class A of traditional multifamily is just a different level of high quality. So it would not be substandard by any means. It just would not be the same level of, you know, I'll say A versus A plus or B plus versus A plus.

Okay. When you talked about opening this up with lower, rescinding the age restriction, you know, one thing you said, young people, middle-aged people, seniors, seniors don't want to live where there's young people making all sorts of noise and coming and going and whatnot. They want to be around their own kind. And again, They're sick and tired of us young people. But again, it's... You're talking about two extremely different lifestyles and trying to live in one place. And some are not going to want to be in an environment like that. And so there is the issue... and I will stand corrected. The city manager showed me where the city council did approve developer agreement. What date, February 26?

On February 17, 2026, the council came out of executive session and made a motion to direct me to sign the developer's economic development agreement.

All right, so I stand corrected on that. That's our fault. So we need to have discussion about that. What I would suggest is if this does not, if it does not pass tonight and the age restriction is left in place, my suggestion would be that you put together a working group, a representative, several representatives from your company to meet with our community, the community that is most impacted, and try to gain favor, find out what they want, find out what would be workable in their mind, and take that into consideration, and then noodle on it, and then come back with something that would, would be more acceptable to the neighborhood, to the community, and more appropriate for farmer's branch. I want it to work. None of us want any business to come here and fail, okay? But I think it's gonna require more homework than what has already been done. So that's my two cents worth. And I'll let you.

Mr. I appreciate the comments and kind of going back to the beginning, you know, frankly, with ingress egress, like I mentioned, whether it's, you know, senior living or whether it's traditional, it's still going to have those same concerns. And we'll work with Texas following this to, you know, our plan was to get the age restriction lifted and then work with Texas to then do the studies and and figure out what the ingress egress can actually handle and work with them on that. And like I mentioned earlier, the quality, either way, our name is still gonna be on the product. We still have investors, we still have a good quality product we wanna deliver and still do well. So it's not, like I'm saying, if we do 55 and up, we're gonna develop a sub quality product. is just going to be different level. And on top of that, you know, like I said earlier, I've lived in apartment complexes my whole life and I've lived in, you know, started off and be worked my way up to class. Eventually, as I got older, I could afford it. Living in the class a products that I have over the past few years, Yes, there are some, some seniors who don't want to live next to, you know, younger generations, but there are some who do because it's more active, it's more exciting, there's more community events going on that invite them to be more out there and vocal, you know, 55 is not as old as it used to be anymore. So they are more intertwined with the younger generation.

Well, that's true. And just because they're 55 doesn't mean they don't have sufficient assets to live in a 55-exclusive community. So, you know, if you had 301 units, and I'm using your numbers, and I think you said a one-bedroom, and I'm just basing this off a one-bedroom. So 301 units at $1,850 a month, that's $556,000 a month that you all would be collecting in rent. to service your debt and provide maintenance and overhead, whatever. So, but if they're only 250 units, then to achieve that same 556 each month, that would necessitate a $2,227 a month rent.

not necessarily out of the reach for seniors.

You're not talking about destitute people here. And people, seniors, many seniors pay much more, $5,000, $6,000, $7,000, or even more a month for true senior living where meals are provided. And there's other services. more so than just a room to sleep in.

Absolutely. And, you know, frankly, look, on paper it's easy i can argue it you can argue it on either direction right but that's on paper frankly there's you know 30 40 people here in opposition we're talking about 250 to 300 units you know it's going to take a lot more than just everybody's here as parents who are going to move into the space or they themselves there's a lot of supply that 250 units versus age restriction units that we're talking about there has to be a lot of demand for that and yes some maybe most can even afford that but not all in order to achieve those economics that we would need to achieve

But you haven't even surveyed Farmers Branch to know what people in Farmers Branch want. You can get mailing lists and send a mail or direct mail piece to anybody that's 50 years or 55 years or older and say, hey, would you be interested? Or we're planning this. Come to our Active Adult Center and talk to people. That's, I mean, I think you would be surprised in terms of the demand. I hear from these people all the time. That's my job. I hear from them. And I know that we have an awful lot of seniors in our city. I'm not saying there's 250 to fill up your development. You're gonna have to get people from Dallas, Irving, wherever. But we have people that were aching to get out of their homes. And they were counting on that site to be developed for senior housing when it was originally proposed. And I have difficulty myself, it's up to my colleagues here, but I do have difficulty in taking that away from them. That's what we plan for.

And again, we don't want to stop them from having a place to live, we just want to open it up to everybody.

I understand.

Okay.

All right. Councilman.

Mayor, at this time, I would like to make a motion to deny Ordinance 4003.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. If you would please indicate your vote accordingly. Motion passes. Thank you very much. At this point, we have regular agenda items to go over and then some other study session items to finish up. I'd like to take a seven-minute break, if possible, and we will be right back. Thank you, we are back. And our next item of business will be item L1, which is consider approving resolution 2026-108. Authorize an agreement with an independent contractor to perform construction management services and timeline remediation efforts for the Valwood Park Housing Replacement Program with Dallas County for an amount not to exceed $50,000 and take appropriate action.

Good evening, Mayor, Council, Aaron Flores, Senior Management Analyst, and also present is Chris Lewis, CEO of Builders of Hope. And tonight, we are discussing the resolution that would allow us to employ an independent contractor for an amount up to $50,000. So just a little background, the Neighborhood Housing Replacement Program has been going on for the last, it's been in discussion for the last several years. The project officially got started in February of this year, and we are now into August. There has been some delays. Several different factors weather delays there was some soil remediation that had to be performed before foundation could be poured those issues have been addressed and At this point builders of hope does not expect any further delays They have made significant progress in the last several weeks to get the project up to speed We did have our first ribbon cutting yesterday for the house on Nestle. It was completed and the homeowners are set to move into that home and So at this point in time, a little over $965,000 has been expended. We do have a current invoice that we'll be processing that's around $500,000. So they're spending a significant more amount that will get us up to the $2.4 million that we've been allocated for ARPA through the grant. And we're continuing to just support Builders of Hope. We're helping them to get to the finish line of completion for this project. This step for tonight is really just a safeguard in case there's any further delays, in case we need to step in a little bit more. We have not chosen a contractor yet. This will just give us the ability to get one if we need one. And that is really it. So any questions for me?

Council Any questions Councilwoman good Thomas No, my only concern was kind of the timeline of the house is being finished, but you addressed that so thank you, okay?

That's one Bennett Councilman read Help me understand why this falls on us to pay it I

When you say it falls on us, so we have until September 31st to complete the project, but we actually have until December 31st to fully do all the expenditures, get reimbursement from Dallas County because they give a 90-day grace period. September 31st was the deadline that the project should be completed, which all signs indicate that should occur. So if for some reason we were not able to complete the project by December 31st, then the remainder of the project, we would have residents that wouldn't have a home. But we don't anticipate that happening. And at this point, it's not a concern.

So are we going to be reimbursed for whatever the expenditure is?

Yes. So the ARPA grant through Dallas County, all of the funds are being reimbursed to us, yes.

Okay, so it's prepayment. We're going to get reimbursed down the road. Yes. Thank you.

Councilwoman Villafranca.

Thank you so much, Aaron. Chris, amazing. The mayor and I and Councilwoman from District 1 were there at the ribbon cutting, and it was incredible. Beautiful home. The new residents. Thank you so much. Thank you for all you're doing.

Councilman Neal.

Can you help me understand again, why do we need an IC, independent?

Again, this is just a safeguard to allow us to get one if we need one. At this point, so the money was allocated in the fiscal year budget for 2025. I don't know the specific account name, but I could get that information for you.

Okay, but if we don't use it, it stays with us wherever it's residing right now.

So the money that's being billed to us from Builders of Hope, we are reimbursing them for those costs, and then we get reimbursed from Dallas County. So any funds that they are not, I'm sorry, we have $2.4 million allocated in the budget. So money that is not spent from that $2.4 million, it would be up to city manager, city council, what happens to that money.

But we anticipate using all of it.

Yes. We have a drawdown that it should all be spent.

Okay. Just to clarify, these are grant funds, so they are restricted. And so what's happening is in every grant, there's administrative overhead that can be utilized for different reimbursements. The money can't be just spent or not spent. It had to be allocated towards the project. So the money is already allocated. We're just making sure we're hedging that this project has no opportunity for failure. It did fall behind. We had the necessary meetings with builders, I hope, to correct. And this is an action to make sure city staff, should there be any other missteps or we start to fall further behind, the city will step in and make sure the project gets across the finish line.

Okay. Everybody good? This item is marked for action.

Okay, Mr. Mayor, I make a motion that we approve resolution number 2026-108. I second.

We have a motion and a second. If you would, please indicate your vote. motion passes thank you very much thank you next up is item l2 consider approving a motion to place a proposed a proposal to adopt a maximum property tax rate of 0.068 512 cents on the City Council agenda for September 15th, 2026, and schedule a public hearing on the property tax rate for September 15th, 2026. Both meetings to be held at 6 p.m. at the City of Farmer's Branch City Hall Council Chambers located at 13,000 William Dodson Parkway, Farmer's Branch, Texas, and take appropriate action.

Good evening, Mayor, City Council members. My name is Jay Patel. I'm the finance director for the city. And the item before you today is one of the required steps in the city's annual budget and tax rate setting process. Tonight's item, you're not adopting a tax rate. What you're doing is setting a ceiling for the tax rate that will be that is proposed and will be discussed throughout the budget process. You're setting a maximum tax rate which will be considered throughout the process. This ultimately will allow staff to begin its publication requirements to publish the proposed tax rate and the date of the public hearing on our website and all other avenues that we're required to post, such as the newspaper as well. All of these requirements are derived from Senate Bill 2, and specifically the truth and taxation components of that Senate bill. And all of those calculations related to our truth and taxation calculations can be found on pages 267 to 277 in your proposed budget book. It's 11 pages of calculations, but ultimately what it does is derive the no new revenue rate and the voter approval rate for all municipalities. No new revenue is the rate that it would take to derive the same amount of revenue from like parcels in both tax years. Just like that seesaw effect that I've been discussing throughout the budget presentations, as values go up, your noni revenue rate goes down, as this seesaw effect, essentially. What your voter approval rate is, which is calculated by the tax assessor collector, is the M&O portion, the maintenance operation portion of your noni revenue rate, times your statutory growth factor, which is 3.5 percent, is how much you're able to increase your M&O percentage by. You add in our interest in sinking rate, which is our debt service rate, which is also provided by the tax assessor collector. And then you add in the unused increment, which, as you can see on your screen, is approximately a point zero seven nine seven three nine cents in addition to calculate the voter approval rate. And those publication requirements on there you'll see on the far left of your screen requiring us to publish the no new revenue rate, voter pool rate and that hearing date and locations as it relates to when the tax will be considered for adoption for public notifications. Historically, council has proposed the voter approval rate as the proposed tax rate in recent years. And that's ultimately for those reasons you'll see on the right of your screen. And primarily it's to preserve the flexibility of council throughout the budget process. So you have all levers available to you all to increase the current tax rate, decrease, but all of the gambit of options are available to you all. It is extremely helpful to note that Your current budget that has been proposed to you all is based off of the current tax rate. So the 0.5435, that's what your budget is balanced based off of. You're setting the maximum tax rate above that amount to preserve your flexibility as citizens review the budget, as you all review the budget, should any priorities tend to shift, allowing you all to make the full array of decisions that you have available. Tonight is effectively about preserving your flexibility. Your rate that you adopt can be lower than the rate you set today, it just cannot be higher. So it is that ceiling. And I would like to note that although the same tax rate in our current budget book is raising a slight amount more in revenue year over year, that amount does not outpace the operational increase that we're having to absorb as a city. So you're constantly seeing your city staff doing more with less, making effective use of taxpayers dollars. There on your screen currently are the two motions available to you all this evening. You'll see the top one replicated from our historical motion in terms of adopting the voter approval rate, listing the time, date, and location for where that hearing is to occur. And the bottom motion is should you all choose a different rate to propose as your maximum tax rate for this budget process. And before I end, I do wanna invite all of our citizens to attend our budget town hall one week from today. It's an excellent opportunity for our community, our residents to understand what's proposed within the budget. You'll receive a budget presentation. There'll be budget boards available. You'll have your chance to communicate, ask questions to staff, council members. This ultimately is our community's budget. And it's important to have all the voices heard as it relates to who will be impacted by the budget. So I encourage everyone to come. Ask your questions and have your voice heard. If for any reason you're unable to make it that evening or you have a question that you would like answered, Send a message to that email address there at the bottom of your screen, fbinfo at farmersbranchtx.gov. We do our best to answer those as soon as possible, but it's very important to us that we maintain that constant level of engagement to make sure that our community members are included and they're having their voices heard and their questions answered. So if there's any questions, comments, please direct them to that email address prior to the town hall meeting. If you're able to make it to the town hall, we'd love to have you. And with that, I'd like to conclude my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have.

Thank you very much. Councilman Gonzalez.

So we're not raising the tax rate. We're just kind of adopting a maximum of what it could be.

You're proposing the maximum tax rate.

OK. And then what's the difference from where we are now to the proposed?

So in the budget book, it's built off of 0.5435, so your current tax rate. But you're proposing a maximum of 0.608512. OK.

That's all right. Thank you.

Absolutely. Councilman Bennett.

I think what she's asking is, has that changed in the last few years?

No, we've maintained that 0.5435 level. Thank you. Sorry. You're good. Councilman Reid. I'm all set. Councilman Villafranca.

Can you tell me what the current rate is?

Yes, 0.5435 per $100 valuation. Thank you. Yes, ma'am.

Councilman Neal.

Thank you. Jay, what was the last year's proposed maximum rate?

It was 0.62. It was very close to the level that you're proposing, I believe slightly higher than this level. 0.61 or 0.62. I will double check and provide you the exact rate.

Could you just revisit the calculation as to how you came to the 0.608?

Absolutely.

Real quick, if you could go over that again.

Yes, absolutely. So your voter approval rate is derived from the maintenance and operations portion of your no new revenue tax rate. So the

So you're taking some numbers and you're adding them together and you're coming up with 0.608.

It is 3.5% over M&O rate. You add in your debt service rate.

So the M&O is how much?

It is point... I should have this right in front of me. Give me a second. One thing I had... It'd be around 0.46, but let me get you the exact number.

No new revenue of 0.509.

Correct, but that includes the interest in sinking portion as well. Oh, okay. So I'm just trying to deduct that from that total tax rate. Our interest in sinking is around 5 cents, so approximately 0.46.

Yeah, I'm just trying to do the math on how to get this 0.608. That's where I'm... So it'd be that- In simplistic terms.

I agree. So it'd be that 0.46 number approximately, multiplied by 1.035, so adding that 3.5% growth factor, adding in the approximately five cents for your debt service rate, and then adding the 0.079739 as our unused increment for prior years. Okay, thank you.

Any further questions? This item is marked for action.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion.

Yes, you need to read it. You need to read it from the screen.

Yes, sir. I make a motion to approve considering the adoption of a maximum property tax rate of 0.608512 on the City Council agenda of September 15th, 2026 and scheduling a public hearing on the proposed maximum property tax rate for September 15th 2026 both meetings will be held at 6 pm at the city of farmers branch city hall council chambers at 13 000 william dodson parkway farmers branch texas 75234 i'll second thank you we have motion in a second if you would please indicate your vote

Motion passes, thank you very much. I think you'll, okay. At this time, we are going to go back to our study session items and we're gonna resume study session starting with item C10. And Councilwoman Gonzalez would like to start off.

Okay, so first I, sorry. I did a TML Ethics and Public Service webinar, Mayor 101 Powers, Duties and Boundaries Under Texas Law. I did an Open Meetings Act. I also did a public information training. I attended the Builders of Hope ribbon cutting for Nestle. I met with the resident over flock camera concerns. I attended Vivian Field Middle School for the first day to welcome students back. I had a town hall, so thank you for Mayor and Councilwoman Tina for attending. And then I also have my apology. I want to take a moment to address the language I use in connection with the events of June 2nd. Regardless of the differences, accounts, and circumstances surrounding the incident, I recognize that the use of profanity, particularly the F word, fell short of the standard of professionalism I strive to maintain. To my residents, I sincerely apologize for using that language. I have the great respect for the people we serve and for the responsibility that comes with my role. This apology is limited to my use of profanity and is not intended to characterize, concede, or admit any disputed facts regarding the underlying incident, the context in which the language was used, or the intent behind the language.

Yes, Councilman Bennett.

Okay, I attended the National League of Cities filling the gap to understand unlocking housing finance, development and housing finance, reducing the project's cost, utilizing direct subsidies and reduce the cost of capital.

Councilman Reid.

I had nothing since last meeting.

Perfect. Councilwoman Villafranca.

Thank you, Mayor. I attended the Spooky Dash 5K and Fun Run Community Meeting, MetroCrest Area Chamber Economic Development Summit. I just want to give Darren Harris a shout out. He did a phenomenal job, and I was so proud. I felt like a peacock. I was so proud of you. You did a great job. Thank you, Darren. I attended the CFB ISD Board of Trustees first meeting of the year, and Mayor Lin did a great job of reminding everybody about speeding, especially in Farmer's Branch. Attended the Summer Sunshine Carnival I was able to attend State Representative Rafael Anchia's backpack preparation where we loaded some trucks with backpacks and bicycles. I met with Councilman Marlin Willison from Addison to discuss redevelopment on Midway. I attended the State Representative Anchia's back to school fair backpack giveaway in Oak Cliff at Halperin Park, which is really nice. attended the Leadership North Texas Reception and Orientation. There were only 33 students that were accepted, and I'm really honored to be a part of it. I also want to give Cody Duffy from Economic Development a shout out. He was accepted to the Emerging Leaders program, and it's just so nice to see people trying to learn and serve the community better. I had my office hours. I also attended a memorial for Jo Beth Collier at MetroCrest Services who passed away at a very young age. Went to see Grease at the Firehouse Theater. And I was at the Builders of Hope ribbon cutting housing replacement program yesterday and was just so well attended and was so nice. I had lunch with County Commissioner Andy Summerman to discuss our unhoused neighbors. And I took some classes, TML, using parliamentary procedure for more efficient meetings from Texas Municipal League, economic development basics from incentives to impact. And I also took ethics in public service. And I something that I really liked that it said, do right and risk the consequences. Sam Houston said that. I was able to go to Janie Stark today to pass out some backpacks. And I just want to give a shout out to our police who were able to rescue the the duck and made it to the news. And it was really a great story. I don't know how much time I have, but I was able to learn about the Athenian oath. I don't remember reading about it in school, but it was used more than 2000 years ago. And it says we will never bring disgrace on this our city by an act of dishonesty or cowardice. We will fight for the ideals and sacred things of the city, both alone and with many. We will revere and obey the city's laws and will do our best to incite a like reverence and respect in those above us who are prone to annul them or set them at naught. We will strive unceasingly to quicken the public sense of civic duty. Look it up. Thank you.

Councilman Neal.

I just went to Oak Brook HOA meetings and a couple of resident meetings that I've been having periodically. That's it.

I'm not going to reel off. I've had about 22 thanks that I've done since last, but one of the biggest was there were 660 companies there trying to fill 68,000 excuse me, 58,000 open positions. Close to 50,000 people attended. There may have been over 50,000 people attended. So this was a tremendous event and I'm just glad that I was able to attend, represent our city, and I'm glad that our city was there to participate and hopefully we recruited some people. I don't know. Jeffrey? Yeah? All right, good. We got some success from it. So good deal. That's all I have for this evening. So next up.

Mayor, this might not be the appropriate place, but are you able to clarify the ethics complaint? I did hear the apology, but it was an apology with a caveat. And I do believe that she was found

guilty of violating the code of ethics at our last meeting to clarify my attorney had to approve my apology say that again please I didn't my attorney had to clear clear my apology she had to take a look at it since I'm having to be put in a position of legal I had to run it through my attorney okay

Well, I would say, I was hoping that you would say, personally, I was hoping that you would say something that was more heartfelt, not written by somebody else. But we're not going to belabor that point now. We can have additional discussion on that in executive session, if need be.

With all due respect, you asked for an apology. That's what I did. And again, because of the position she put me in, I had to run it through my attorney.

I want to move on at this point, finish this meeting. We can take this matter up later. Next up will be item C5, discuss current mulching program and feasibility of alternative options.

Good evening, Mayor. Good evening, Council. John Porter, Solid Waste Manager.

And Alex Firmick is Sustainability Manager.

So we're going to go over our mulching feasibility study. This was requested by Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Neil. So I know this is kind of a busy slide, but the current program consists of our green grabbers. We have a $65,000 a year grinding or mulching cost, and we grind about 6,500 cubic yards a year. We take this to a facility that's about 4.4 miles total trip, 8.8 miles away from us, and total trip times about 20 minutes. Our total transportation costs are about $11,132, so total program cost excluding personnel is about $76,000. We looked at a couple of different options, and one of them is if we were to do mulching within the city limits. We obviously would need to find land, so we're looking at about a million, an estimate of a million to three million equipment purchase of about 630,000 to 1.35 million. annual costs, and this would be for two employees, about $114,000, and then operational costs on top of that between $80,000 and $130,000 a year. We also looked at if we were to hire a company and just have them come in quarterly or yearly and grind our mulch. So we did look at that, and that would change the amounts. But the positive from this would be we could sell our final product. We also looked at mulching at the Camelot Landfill. This was looked at probably about 2019, 2020. And at that point, we did have some property, but we'd have to do improvements between about 450, $550,000. Operational costs, this is our transportation to the landfill of about $34,408. And then we were going to partner or had some interest with a private company to partner, but they wanted a assurance of $35,000 a year. I mean, excuse me, a month. So that would be a cost. If they didn't make that, we would be on the hook. So it would be about $420,000 a year to guarantee that. Unfortunately, the situation's changed. The landfill is going to have a new cell development that's going to start. PROBABLY EARLY NEXT YEAR, 2027. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STAGING AREA FOR THAT CELL CONSTRUCTION. SO THAT PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN LOOKED AT BACK IN 2020 IS NO LONGER GOING TO BE AVAILABLE BECAUSE OF THIS NO CELL DEVELOPMENT. AND THEN WE ALSO JUST LOOKED AT WHAT IF WE DIDN'T DO ANY OF THIS GRINDING, WE JUST DID THE WAY I THINK how farmers branch used to do it, which was just take it to the landfill. And that would be our cost of 34,000 just in transportation. And this would reduce landfill life expectancy. Obviously, we'd be putting our brush in, so we would be losing out on the revenue opportunities. And then again, it's kind of a contradiction of the stated sustainability goals of the city.

Within the request, we were tasked with researching some of the other models for brush diversion composting in the area. So we found an individual city model through the city of Mesquite. That's funded through the commercial tipping fees. You'll notice that they process a lot more brush than we currently collect in the city, so they have a much larger scale. So that kind of seems to be the key for a lot of these on the individual city models, that large scale. But they utilize a private grinding contract. And they do receive some revenue from the sale of compost and mulch. There's also multi-city models. So there's the Texas Pure Products, which is five member cities within the North Texas Municipal Water District area. They have their compost collection site up in Melissa. They have the brush collection by cities. They raise revenue through the tipping fees and then the sale of the finished product underneath that logo. So that's an enterprise model with a multi-city approach. So having more cities involved, more opportunity for brush, that tonnage is increased and kind of the economies of scale. But there, as noted in some of the other ones that we already saw John provide examples, very significant startup costs with the land equipment and the staffing of those.

A few more things to keep in mind is obviously permitting registration that would depend on the size of the property. If the city were to go that way, we definitely have a stormwater permit that we would have to obtain. And then because of the grinding air quality permits. Of course, it would require planning and zoning, city council approval, make sure we're in the right land use area. And then we also looked at possible funding sources. And so the COG does have solid waste grants. However, it's... you know, a relatively small amount of money. And then the fact that we would be competing against the private sector would mean we would have a less competitive grant in this case.

And then the last few items that were asked in the request were just some additional opportunities, pilots, and ways to remove brush or divert brush from our landfill. So one of the items that we could look into would be attempting to amend our landfill contract to alter that contract with the public to prohibit loads of clean brush from entering the landfill. The market kind of does that already for us. So if you have a trailer full of clean brush, you can take it to a grind site like we do, and the tipping fee is much less than at the landfill. Clean brush is a very small percentage of what's landfilled. A lot of what we see that comes in is mixed waste, so it's bulk mixed with brush. So there's potentially opportunities with working with other people that are using the landfill for education or that we could provide to basically separate those things if that's possible, but we could look to see with the contract with the Republic if there's a way that we can at least those full trailer loads of clean brush if there's ways to prohibit that. Unsure if that would be a feasible option because our contract is pretty static with them, but that's something that we can explore. The other item as a potential pilot is to divert additional green waste that's collected in Farmer's Branch. So this would be kind of the conundrum of having you know, leaves fall on the ground, put them in a plastic bag and send those to the landfill. The tonnage is not a lot, but there is a contradiction there. It's frustrating for a lot of people. I think we get that complaint. So it could be looking at a pilot to collect leaves, grass clippings, other green waste, collect that and send that to a compost yard so there's things that we can look in for collection cost for contracted collection to remove those materials we control that a lot more because that's waste that's created in the city whereas you know a lot of the other brush that's entering the landfill is coming from other cities so those were on the request a few other items and i believe at this point john and i can take any questions you have thank you councilman neil

Thank you all. I brought this up because I'm having a hard time with us paying for somebody to take our brush, mulch it, and then paying them again to bring it back to put into our parks and our community. So I'm trying to come up with a creative way that maybe we could save on that. I like the idea that you described about a pilot program. We could probably do some salesmanship with our residents to see if they would participate a little bit more by helping us with the clean brush and whatnot. I'm a little surprised by the extensive numbers here. You mentioned that utilizing an operator would require $420,000. Can you help me understand what that means?

If that was the, let me go to the slide, on the second option under mulching at Camelot.

Mulching at Camelot, yeah.

Right, so this was something that the city had talked with LIVING EARTH WITH BACK IN 2020. AND THE 420 IS WHAT THEY WANTED A REVENUE GUARANTEE OF $35,000 A MONTH. SO IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT, LOOK AT IT, WE WENT WORST CASE SCENARIO. WHAT IF THEY DIDN'T MAKE ANY SALES OF THAT BRUSH? WELL THE CITY WOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR THAT 420,000 IN GUARANTEED REVENUE TO THEM. That's an unknown. I don't know how much, A, I don't know if that deal is still on the table, but B, I don't know what their revenue would be. But it could be, worst case scenario, $420,000 in liabilities to the city just to guarantee that revenue.

Can we mulch it ourself? We bought the equipment and staffed it with an employee or two?

And so that's what the other scenarios look at, mulching within the city limits?

Outside, but at Camelot.

At Camelot? The land is going to be the major issue. And again, the land, I think, if there was space that we could identify, first of all, it's all in the floodplain. So we would have some issues with developing in the floodplain, probably have to raise that land, do a Clomar, Lomar, in order to have a site to do the mulching on. And so, yes. The development of that site is going to be, I think, within that amount that I'm putting for that $450,000 to $550,000. So we develop the site for $450,000. We buy the mulching equipment ourselves. much would that and the mulching equipment 630 630 to 1.35 million um and yeah there's a big range there in you know the size of the grinders that you need um Also, auxiliary equipment, front-end loaders to put it in the mulcher. So, there's a wide range of things like that. And I did not price this. This was just to do grinding. If we're talking about high-quality mulch where you have to run through a grinder multiple times, that's going to add to the expense. And then this also doesn't include a tumbler to do dyeing. So when people think of this mulch, they're thinking of dyed mulch.

I'm talking about the equipment purchase you have here of 630 to 1.35 million. I understand there's a range of equipment, right, that you could... And so I did not price in that dyed mulch.

I just was looking at what would it take to get this ground. So that would probably be an additional expense if we're looking at high quality dyed mulch.

So if I were to do some quick math here, it would seem roughly about a $1,050,000 plus two staff members. Just barely over a million plus whatever the staff would be. Obviously there's $420,000 to develop the area you talked about. A $630,000, $600,000, $700,000 purchase of equipment plus two. So we're just over a million to do that ourselves at Camelot. Plus I think there's a 34,000 operational transit cost or something, what was it?

And that would, yes, that would increase our transportation costs to the landfill. And the biggest issue that I see with that is the, it's not necessarily the money, it's the loss of service because it's at least an hour to get there and back. And then especially with corporate opening up, I think that corporate's going to slow down traffic into the landfill. And so I think we're gonna see those trip numbers or trip time increase. And so that is where I think we are going to see a reduction in service because of just the distance that we have to go there for.

Okay, and how much do you think if we were to mulch it and then sell it either to other cities or anyone else, what would that amount be?

So the mesquite, they sell theirs for $6 per cubic yard. Mulch isn't really profitable. I think they make $75,000 a year on their mulch. Where cities make their money is in composting, and mulch is just kind of a byproduct.

Yeah, I'm just talking about that the branches and the trees and just leaves and just shredding it up and into some degree for either resale or reuse. I'm trying to put a number on that. Can you help me?

So again, yeah, Mesquite sells theirs for $6 per cubic yard and then that We don't have as much brush as Mesquite, right? They're doing higher tonnage.

Are we talking $50,000 here that we'd sell it worth? $100,000? Where are we at here? Well, if we look at 16,500 cubic yards and let's say we get a yield of 75%,

So yeah, 75% of 16,500 and then whatever the price of the market would be for that.

But we could then use it for our city parks and that sort of thing, right? 12,375 cubic yards of mulch if we get a yield of 75%.

Okay.

That's all I have for the moment, Mayor. I need to run some math here on my notes.

Thank you. I made a mistake. This is, I do have one person signed up to speak, so I'm going to take a break and allow our speaker who signed up, Bill Glancy. You get more.

My name is Bill Glancy. I live at 3808 Wooded Creek Drive in Farmer's Branch. And I've had an interest in this a long time. I've talked to Roger about it and other things. And I in no way think we're doing anything wrong as a city. I think there's a lot of things that we could put the puzzle together and come up with a lot better solution. If you can find a fault, it's kind of with the whole recycling mulch industry. They have an unusual marketing philosophy. And my career, I worked as a marketing and sales direction. And, you know, the problem with this industry is... They don't understand the supply and demand curve. There's a ton of supply out there of mulch, and we don't have the distribution going out to get it out. I went around and looked at these vendors that we have that we deal with now, and every one of them has a mountain of Malt sitting there that they're not selling and I'm afraid a lot of it all it ends up in the landfill You know the guy I use who trims my tree is right at the interns our Landfill and he will give me the malts back and he has a mountain full of it and I'm Suspecting style hauling a lot of it over there. And so I think this the process is is we need to have to do a marketing program to our citizens to get them to use the malts. There's a new process. We've worked with malts for years. I have a pickup truck loader brought to my house every year, and they put it around the shrubs. But the new thing is to put it on the lawns and cut back on water runoff and irrigation. And that's the new trend. And that's what we need to focus on. And in this present, I've got you. I've got a little contract for you. And I would like you to give me 90 days to bring you back a marketing program of how we can get the citizens to buy in to doing the marketing or doing put this on their lawns and do that. And I think we can make a real fun project out of it. I don't think it'll cost us any money. You know, I would wait on making any expenditures on this till we create the market out there that drags the product through the market rather than trying to force it through. It's just not a good business model. And I just think we can come a program and I'd like to get our youth involved in it. because they're the ones that are really into sustainability. And I think we could teach a lot of our youth, a lot of gardening and a lot of landscaping things, create an interest among them, get them off electronic devices. And I'd like for you to, Give me 90 days. I've got a contract with you. I want to charge the city $1 for it, and I will bring you back a recommendation on how we can proceed. You're not obligated to do it, but I will give you some calendar of how to do a marketing program of getting mulch to our citizens to accept. Okay? Thank you. Thank you, Mayor.

Okay, lift off with Roger Councilman Gonzalez.

At the end was one of your options possibly composting?

Are you talking about the pilot? Yes. So that would be finding a similar vendor, how we have for the brush collection, to take these leaves and grass clippings just within the request that we were kind of tasked with pilots or any sort of other ways for diversion. So those are materials that could be diverted for the landfill that most of the time are not. We don't collect leaves because if the grabber picks up the bags, they tear and go everywhere. So those are currently going to the landfill. So they would if this is a pilot that we would look into, there would be an opportunity to divert them and get them turned into compost. Now it would probably be in a similar way where the vendor, part of their business model and the price that they charge us for a tipping fee is kind of based on their sale of the mulch and the compost. So that would be reflected in the pricing. It wouldn't necessarily have the compost come back to residents.

Okay. My concern with that could be because it wouldn't become compost if some trash got mixed in there, correct?

Yeah, that's correct. If there's contamination, often it goes into the trash.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Bennett.

I had similar questions about the composting, but I guess I wonder, I mean, if we're putting them in the landfill and they're going to compost themselves there, why are we going to go to the expense to send them somewhere else to compost.

So when it goes into the landfill you have anaerobic digestion so that's going to be creating a lot of like methane CO2 so we have to pump that out of the landfill. So it is a greenhouse gas emitter whereas if it is sent to a compost yard is actually going to digest aerobically so you're not going to have as many greenhouse gas emissions associated with that plus you have the you know, kind of that circular economy of a usable product, a waste product being turned usable within a location, whereas when you send it to the landfill, it's done, you know. So that's kind of from the sustainability perspective on that.

Okay. Hold the mic closer.

I'm sorry.

I thought he was talking to me. I'm sorry. So do you have any idea of what that would cost us?

We haven't gotten any pricing on this. We were just curious if the Council would give us that direction.

Councilman Reed. Nothing for me, thanks. Councilman Villafranca.

Thanks for your presentation, I appreciate it. Would this ever be a revenue maker or would it always be an expense?

I think it's economies of scale and land. If Farmer's Branch had an enormous amount of land, I mean, that's what's needed for a lot of this. But then the second biggest factor is you need a lot of mulch for it to make sense. I mean, these grinders, the windrow turners for composting, it's expensive equipment and it breaks down, it fails, you have to maintain it. and you need to be able to sell something and to be able to fully fund the operations of that and I just don't see the numbers of 1,650 cubic yards collected a year where those numbers work out. Again, I think Mesquite had half a million or 250,000 cubic yards and so It really would require land and much higher quantities.

Is sharing the expense with another city within the realm of possibility sort of like the Antec of mulching?

I think if other cities were willing to do that, we did look at the other cities around here. The only city that does what we do is Irving. Of course, they have a landfill. They have a landfill on their city limits. and they've restricted that use only to Irving residents. In fact, I asked them, I said, could we bring our stuff there? They said, if it's not being produced in Irving, you can't come to the landfill.

Well, I'm really disappointed. This has been something I've been harping on since I was elected to council. And I find that I know it's a lot easier to say no or come up with a whole lot of ideas. One, this wasn't necessarily meant to be a revenue generator when I brought it up. It was meant to be a diverter of material to extend the life of the landfill. But as I was told by a city manager, Republic, who manages our landfill, doesn't want to play ball. They're not interested in doing it. It would only work if we could restrict what goes into our landfill, which means the customers that are using our landfill Republic would have to strike different agreements with them. It just seems like every obstacle has been thrown up to not make this work. So I don't know whether we have to go back to somebody like Living Earth, who's local, and work a different deal, or some other processor of material. I don't know who else there is. I just know of living earth. But I'm just really frustrated with this because I feel like we're doing our part by mulching our material and keeping it out of landfill. At the same time, we're buying dirt to put in the landfill, right? Right?

I can't speak about before I came on board, but they've actually been bringing in a lot of dirt from some utility projects and they charge $20 per cubic yard of clean dirt at the landfill. So they are bringing in dirt, but they're being paid for that.

Okay. And yet it's our landfill. And we have very little control over it. And so I'm not sure how you make this work. Based on what I'm hearing, I'm not seeing any way to make it work, which is the frustrating part to me. I will, at the mayor's meeting on Thursday, I'll talk to the other mayors and see if they have any interest. I would like to sort of model NTECH and get a group of cities together. And maybe the mulch site isn't in Farmer's Branch or maybe it's not at our landfill. Maybe it's at some other site at some other city. Who knows? But... having gone and toured another operation over in Fort Worth, they seem to be making it work. Granted, there's a lot more volume over there, and we need the volume in order to justify spending the money, but to Councilman Neal's point, mulching machine is about a million dollars, It's probably 60 to $80,000 a year between fuel and maintenance just for that one machine. You probably need a grabber and a front end loader, big one. So it's not a small investment, I realize that, but it could probably serve multiple communities

it's structured properly I don't know so it's all I have so my little quick math here I think we agreed that just for prepping the land at the landfill and maybe seven hundred thousand dollars worth equipment but just roughly two a million fifty thousand call it 1.1 million just to get that equipment and prep the land. But then we have recurring costs, right? Which is the transportation of the material, hiring one or two people, maybe staff to run it. Call it $146,000, $150,000 to do that. And that's if I were to triple the amount we pay now when we go down to, what is it, organic recyclers, $11,000. So if I tripled that, I just tripled that and used 33,000. And you mentioned above in the current program that we have about 16,500 cubic yards per year that were taken to the organic recycler, right? So if I do the quick math on that, 16,500 cubic yards, that's say roughly $6. If we were to sell it for $6 a yard, there's about $100,000 worth of revenue. It's not necessarily a money-making program, but that puts us down in the neighborhood, back down in the neighborhood to run this operation of just getting the equipment around $1.1 million, right? And then about $146,000 worth of recurring, call it $200,000 if you want. But we can sell and maybe we can get 100 000 back so it cuts that in half question becomes is how much would that extend the landfill by if we were to do something like that so for one and a half million dollars we could we could probably do this operation it's just is it worth it how much longer time would we get out of the landfill by being able to do that operation of course We could always scale that up if other cities want to participate and bring their mulch in or buy it from us. Maybe other options available to us. But yeah, the intent for me was to try to extend the life of this landfill as well as cut back and paying somebody to take our stuff and then paying them again to get it back out. So those are sort of the two thoughts I had.

More to follow.

Yeah.

so maybe we need to gather some more information i don't know if you want to talk with some other mayors i don't know okay any other comments on this thank you gentlemen all right uh councilman neil i think the next uh items are yours Would you be okay if we tabled those for this evening, just because I'm trying to get people out of here and not have us stay all night long? Table for the next meeting? Well, I want to ask and see if it's...

I'm sorry, where are we now? 6789.

Yeah?

That'd be okay with me if you want to do that.

Yeah, I don't.

Okay. All right. Let's table 6789 if you all are fine with that. Just in the interest of time. We'll move to C11. Review and discuss future agenda items. Councilman Gonzalez.

I'll pass for now, Mayor, sorry.

Councilman Bennett.

I would like to amend my request for my requested future agenda item regarding an RFQ for legal services to include contractual language, defining the scope of legal services, conflict of interest provisions and billing standards. Additionally, I would like to remove any expectation that the city's current law firm participate in the RFQ process, given my dissatisfaction with its legal services. I also request that this item be placed on the September 1st, 2026 agenda.

Councilman Reid.

Nothing for me.

Councilwoman Villafranca.

Yes, thank you. I received an email from a kind neighbor regarding sustainability. Her name is Hannah Schwab, and she I would like for us to discuss adding a tree ordinance and sort of going along with sustainability. I also had last year requested a composting sort of portable bins, and I'd like to have sort of a discussion about that. Also, I would like to have an update on the minor home repair program, where we are, how much money we've spent, how that's going, as well as an update on code cares from city staff, so we know exactly what is going on. Also, I would like to request an agenda item just for a report on the spooky dash 5k when the mayor and I went to the meeting over at venue 1842, he and I were the only ones that showed up for the meeting and I think it would be more effective if we had it here at council as well. I also would like to add a future agenda item to discuss the status of street banners that we discussed last year. Thank you.

Councilman Neill.

Nothing mayor.

I have one, and that is I request that city council of City of Farmer Springs consider placing a temporary moratorium on the acceptance of new ethics complaints under Section 2-284 of the City Code of Ordinance, including consideration of the duration, scope, legal implications, and any appropriate exceptions to such a moratorium while the City reviews its ethics complaint procedures. Okay, we got that. All right. So with that, we will adjourn the meeting at 1050. I'm sorry, I'm sorry, we can't do that. Hold on. There is one more item. Forgot about that. Item D3, which is an executive session item. I don't know that based on events earlier this week, I don't know that we need to have that, but I will defer to council right now if you have an opinion on that item and see reason to have further discussion on that. Anybody?

So who requested this item?

This is an requested item. This was a placeholder should the council want to utilize it to further discussion on that topic.

We can move it to the next meeting also. I think we probably have more information at that time. Okay. We will table D3 to the next meeting. There was no action as a result of executive session on items D1 or D2. So with that, we will adjourn at 10.52.