[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:02] So our regular city council regular meeting. It is 6 p.m. Tuesday, September 15, 2026. We are at
[0:11] Grandbury city all 116 was bridge street and Grandbury, Texas. I will remind you again that you may
[0:17] watch this meeting live or later on www.grandbury.org slash live. I also want to announce that council
[0:26] personal alum is appearing via a video conference to Texas local government code section 551-127.
[0:35] And the quorum of the government body is physically present in the room at Grandbury City Hall 116
[0:42] West Bridge Street, Grandbury, Texas 76048. And with that, we're going to go ahead and get started.
[0:50] I'm going to call it to order. The first thing we'll do is I will ask Mr. Hague if anybody got
[0:55] But with you today to ask if you would open us up with prayer.
[0:59] Thank you.
[1:00] We'll stand and then we'll do the pledge of allegiance, we'll be right back.
[1:04] Pray with me, please.
[1:06] Our gracious Heavenly Father, we're so grateful for the blessings that you've given to us.
[1:10] The blessings of our freedoms, the blessings of living in this wonderful community.
[1:14] The blessings of caring for each other.
[1:16] Father, we've discussed the business of our community this evening.
[1:20] We pray that your spirit of peace and love will be upon us.
[1:22] We pray that you grant wisdom not just on the decision-makers, but on those who are in attendance and that people will listen with love and kindness and
[1:30] Treat each other as Christ to treat us with love. It's in his name that we pray. Amen
[2:02] We
[2:10] have proclamations, declarations tonight, presentations, go ahead with the proclamation
[2:24] right here.
[2:47] I have statements that I need to make tonight and this is pretty important, this note, please.
[3:02] Presentations and proclamations. For tonight, Council persons,
[3:05] Olam, Corrigan, Overdeer, Parker, Mayor, Pro Tem,
[3:10] Wadley, and myself, Mayor Jarrett, have all received certifications of
[3:14] recall petitions as to Council persons, Olam, Corrigan, and Overdeer, Mayor,
[3:20] Pro Tem, Wadley and Mayor Jarrett. So pursuant to section 4.08 of the city
[3:26] charter, any council person who receives a petition for
[3:30] recall has the right to request a public hearing in writing by presenting to the council.
[3:38] I have received such a request in writing from Councilperson Corrigan, Councilperson
[3:44] Olam, Councilperson Overdeer, Mayor Proteum Wadley, and I, Mayor Jarrett, I'm also submitting
[3:51] to the City Council my formal written request for a public hearing.
[3:56] This public hearing will be scheduled within the time period as required by Texas Law and the Grand
[4:03] Berry City Charter. So we had to make that announcement tonight and so now we're ready for proclamations and
[4:11] you ladies make them one up please. Thank you I
[4:25] remember five years ago when I was asked to do this
[4:27] I say, you kidding me, now I look forward to it so much.
[4:34] This is an official proclamation as well, whereas the monarch butterfly is the Texas state
[4:41] insect and is known as the ambassador of the Americas for its multi-generation 3,000-mile
[4:48] migration across Canada, the United States, and Mexico, whereas thousands of monarch butterflies
[4:55] as fastly Texas each fall on their journey to Mexico, including Grand Beres.
[5:00] Green spaces, where they seek nectar, rich flowers, and whereas monarch butterfly populations
[5:07] are declining, in part due to habitat loss, making the preservation and creation of suitable
[5:12] habitat increasingly important, and whereas the Lake Grandbury master gardeners promote
[5:19] monarch butterfly conservation through their demonstration garden, educational programs,
[5:24] and annual outreach encouraging the planning of milkweed and nectar producing plants throughout
[5:31] Grandbury and Hood County. Now therefore I, Jim Jared, Mayor of the City of Grandbury,
[5:37] Texas, to hereby proclaim the month of October 2026 as Monarch Mutterfly Migration Month in Grandbury
[5:44] and encourage all citizens to support efforts to provide habitat for Monarch butterflies during their
[5:51] migration through Granbury and Hood County.
[5:54] This is given under my hand in the seal of the City of
[5:56] Granbury on this 15th of September, 2026.
[6:00] Now, I'm going to get you the good looking plaque.
[6:03] Because it's just,
[6:07] yeah, I do.
[6:10] Let me get that good looking plaque.
[6:12] We'll take pictures.
[6:13] You go right ahead.
[6:13] OK.
[6:15] So Mayor Jarrett, City Council, I can't tell you how much this
[6:19] means to us as late Granbury Master Gardener's as we
[6:21] partner with the City of Granbury.
[6:23] It is our quest to make the City of Grandbury and Hood County a stopping place, a place on the map, so that people know to come, to spend the night, to monitor butterflies are going to fly in during their migration anyway.
[6:38] Hood County is right in the funnel where they come for the migration.
[6:44] Without getting into a science class, we're getting generation number three that's coming into Grandbury right now.
[6:50] Mama is laying her eggs on milkweed.
[6:52] It's those babies.
[6:54] It's those monarchs that end up in Mexico.
[6:57] They're born in Granberry.
[6:58] Woohoo.
[6:59] So we roll out the welcome mat.
[7:01] We welcome the monarch butterflies to Granberry.
[7:03] We want everybody in Granberry to understand
[7:05] that October is monarch migration month.
[7:10] So we are encouraging everyone to get your milkweed growing,
[7:14] get everything in your nectar plants growing,
[7:16] and you're ready to welcome the butterflies as they fly in.
[7:19] It's very important to us, this proclamation, to continue this effort for
[7:24] Granberry to be on the map for the place for the migrating monarchs to be and
[7:29] for people to observe that migration. So thank you.
[7:31] Thank you.
[8:22] Thank you.
[8:23] Thank you.
[8:23] Thank you.
[8:24] Thank you.
[8:25] We appreciate you.
[8:27] Thank you.
[8:40] So I have heard that some parts of that.
[8:43] On Saturday I have moved to third.
[8:45] I am going to ask Robert.
[8:46] We are hosting the Romance in the Monarch.
[8:48] Romance in the Monarch Butterfly Festival.
[8:50] Every year it is the first Saturday on October.
[8:53] Please join us for this free event.
[8:54] It is in the Lake Remberay Master Gardener demonstration garden from 1.30 to 4.
[8:59] or we release up to 200 live monarch butterflies.
[9:02] We've got all kinds of things for the kids to do,
[9:04] face painting, lots of educational items
[9:07] about the life cycle of the monarch butterflies.
[9:09] We have a three minute rule.
[9:10] We have a three minute rule.
[9:10] We have a three minute rule.
[9:10] And we have a three minute rule.
[9:10] We have a three minute rule.
[9:11] And we have a three minute rule.
[9:13] Thank you.
[9:14] Thank you
[9:17] so much.
[9:29] Okay.
[9:32] Continuing on the agenda here,
[9:36] we have the city council, city manager,
[9:38] is you encouraging statements and recognize city staff
[9:48] this and next yeah yeah I've got a couple
[9:53] videos if we could thank you Carla.
[10:01] We've
[10:26] had 51 days in a row over 100 degrees.
[11:04] There you go.
[11:39] Pictures worth thousand words. We have one other video as well.
[11:54] Oh, I'm supposed to be reading something. Yes, please. I didn't bring the script.
[12:03] What you're seeing here took place last week at
[12:06] Perot Field at Alliance Airport, which included our Mayor, Council Members, Skip Overdeer, Deputy City Manager, Michael Ross, Assistant City Manager, John Copeland, and Director of Aviation, Cody Mathis.
[12:23] They were invited to the field to see the demonstration of a new generation of vehicles, EVTOLs, electric take-off and landing airplanes.
[12:36] This is the future, it was a text.sponsored event and this is being shown to you tonight, not because it's coming to Grandbury Regional Airport tomorrow, but to let you know that our council and our staff are interested in the latest technology and what is possible in the future, including Grandbury.
[12:57] Thank you, sir.
[12:58] Thank you appreciate y'all going to that very important meeting and I will say that we are seeking to have this technology
[13:08] to be placed in Granbury at our airport the program the council government is trying to set up five different locations throughout the 16 county region utilizing airports to develop the FAA regulations associated with this type of vehicle
[13:27] and we want to be a part of that and, you know, we're looking forward to the day
[13:31] when you can come to Grimberry Airport, park your car, and get on one of these
[13:36] and fly to another airport. And maybe it's DFW, maybe it's Lovefield, maybe it's
[13:44] San Antonio, maybe it's Austin. This is what the future's beginning to look like.
[13:50] And ten years, the technology's already here. The only thing holding this back
[13:53] right now are the FAA guidelines. And so that's what's going on. So it's pretty exciting stuff.
[14:00] We'll see how progress is. And obviously it'd be a big draw for our airport for people to be able
[14:08] to drive here from Comanche. You get on one of these and fly on into the DFW Airport to get on their
[14:13] bigger plane to go wherever they're going. So it's the shape of things to come. George Jetson, thank you.
[14:20] I appreciate the video to appreciate y'all go on. Mayor, I'm sure you've got some words about what you experience and the others might want to say something.
[14:31] This was an invite only event and Grandbury got invited. Now, that does not mean that we have somebody coming into our backyard tomorrow the next day with one of these EVTOs.
[14:43] Although, I will say that City Councilman Copman has, and this is going to be the first time he finds out, he has signed up to fly first.
[14:57] Well, skip wanted to be first.
[15:00] Okay. Okay. Anyway, we are actively pursuing this. There are a couple of grants that have been written that we are looking at at this point in time for the battery operations that would be necessary to plug these in. One of the battery guys was at the show, and they showed the battery that plugs into this unit and charges it fully in about 24 minutes. And I thought about that.
[15:29] But literally, the head of the plug is bigger than my head.
[15:36] It's huge, so it doesn't fit on my watch or phone or anything like that.
[15:42] But yeah, I guess that would charge us up at about 24 minutes.
[15:47] So I say that the future is already here.
[15:51] It's just a matter now, mapping out the FAA airspace and testing, testing, three-year testing
[16:00] program, testing, testing, and then see about how this really impacts Grandbury coming
[16:08] down the road.
[16:09] One of the things that you saw a couple of three planes there, one was a six-passenger,
[16:14] one was something like a four-pasture, and one I might call a panel truck because it delivers
[16:19] There's medication supplies, it delivers emergency equipment, it's like a 750 pound payload
[16:28] and can get into places that, you know, half the size of this room.
[16:33] So it's going to be fun over the next few years, for sure.
[16:41] And all of this story, what, 15 years ago, somebody started the airport 15 years ago to get
[16:48] just where we are today.
[16:51] Council, skip, you were there, Bruce.
[16:53] No, you were there.
[16:54] Well, I'm going to let Mr. Kaufman be the first one
[16:58] to ride on that.
[17:00] But I'm wrestle.
[17:01] So I've got a little bit of experience
[17:04] with unmanned aircraft when I was in the Air Force.
[17:07] Although the only ones that I have to work on,
[17:09] I think they delivered was missiles and bombs.
[17:11] So this one will be a little bit different.
[17:13] It will be a lot more friendly to us.
[17:15] And certainly at some point it'll be very convenient for our citizens to be able to get on an airplane like that and actually go to DFW or one of those fields.
[17:23] And instead of having to drive from here to Dallas, as you know how long that takes, this probably take you about less than 30 minutes in that.
[17:29] So it's going to be a lot safer and a lot faster.
[17:31] But it like the mayor said, it's not going to happen tomorrow.
[17:34] This is just something that's probably many years down the road.
[17:37] But they're working on it and we're hoping that we're going to get it here in Grandbury.
[17:42] other comments? The video does say it all with that 103 degree temperature out there and seeing the
[17:50] men and women that you know they're there they're making it happen. I do have before we go to
[17:57] public comments on agenda items for non-public I want to note that agenda item 8.3 which is section 551.087
[18:06] and deliberation regarding economic development negotiations, Project Patriot has been withdrawn
[18:12] from the agenda and will not be discussed this evening.
[18:16] I don't see anyone that signed up to speak on that, so I'm going to go ahead and go to
[18:22] the public comments.
[18:26] Number five, on agenda items for non-public hearing agenda items, speakers have a time limit
[18:31] of three minutes allotted for comments regarding the agenda items that are not listed as public
[18:37] public hearing comments we recognize when the public hearing is open I don't
[18:41] believe we even have any public hearings tonight. Possibly one. I don't know. Okay.
[18:48] Very good. Okay I'm gonna go ahead and open up the public comments here. Are the
[18:53] for non-Jim Adams. Mr. Todd Hayes.
[19:03] On 7.1 if you'll just give us your name and your
[19:06] address? It'll be great.
[19:14] Todd Hayes, 23, 0, 5,
[19:16] Wynton, Terrace Court, Grandbury, Texas, 7, 6, 0, 4, 8.
[19:23] Mayor and Council, thank you. My name is Todd Hayes. I'm not here tonight to
[19:28] argue for Oregon State of Centers. I'm asking that we be very precise about what
[19:33] item 7.1 does and does not protect. I understand the mayor's explanation that the
[19:38] The setback discussion is being considered in mind of existing state and TCEQ requirements.
[19:43] My first question is straight forward.
[19:47] If a state or TCEQ standard is the reason a local setback is considered unnecessary, could
[19:52] we identify the specific rule?
[19:54] What equipment or facility it applies to, how the distance is measured, and what impact
[19:58] that rule is actually intended into...
[20:00] I ask because the state of Texas itself is currently looking at data centers much more broadly than
[20:06] property line distance. The governor's data center audit calls for information on power
[20:10] demand and generation, water consumption, water sources, and cooling technology. And
[20:15] neighbor impacts including noise, lighting, setbacks, traffic and emergency response. And just
[20:21] yesterday, the governor directed the water development board to enforce water use reporting
[20:25] requirements for major users including data centers. So what I'm really trying to understand
[20:30] is the division of responsibility. What is the state regulate, what is TCEQ regulate,
[20:36] and what does ERCOT, or the PUC regulate, and what remains the city's responsibility.
[20:41] For a future large project, I also think the public should understand what numbers will actually
[20:46] be measured and verified. Water source and use, what is delivery or withdrawal versus consumption
[20:51] for use in wastewater or return flow, power demand and generation and neighborhood impacts
[20:56] such as noise.
[21:00] Ranberry is also making a major long-term investments in its water system.
[21:04] I'm not alleging those investments are connected in any way to any particular product or project.
[21:08] I'm sorry.
[21:09] I simply want to understand whether prospective large industrial loads are included in the
[21:14] demand forecast used to size that infrastructure.
[21:16] And if they are, how incremental infrastructure costs would be allocated.
[21:20] My request is simple, show us the applicable rule, show us what will be measured, tell
[21:25] us who verifies it, and show us where the public can see the record.
[21:29] That gives developers clear expectations, gives citizens reliable information, and gives
[21:33] everyone the same set of facts.
[21:35] Thank you.
[21:37] Thank you Mr. Hayes,
[21:41] Ms. Carolyn Fawber,
[22:01] if others have handouts, if you go ahead and get
[22:04] with us to miss Walker over here, that would be appreciated.
[22:14] I'm going to follow with Mr. Mark Bennett or Mack Bennett.
[22:20] Actually, Mrs. Meredith Bennett will be first, and then Mr. Bennett, Ms. Faubert.
[22:28] Carolyn Baubert, 2560, Metta Wood Road.
[22:32] Metta Wood Road is where the Monarch butterflies migrate across from one side to the other.
[22:36] Unfortunately, I have smashed a few on my windshield in years they're heavy in their migration.
[22:41] We are also in the flight path of our great new airport.
[22:45] Agenda item 7.1, I'd like to preface my remarks with Proverbs 13-11.
[22:51] Wealth gained by dishonesty will be diminished, but he who gathers by labor will increase.
[22:58] So here we are, finally, talking about data centers.
[23:01] January 6th, when the chamber was packed and overflowing into the parking lot, Mayor
[23:06] Jarrett interrupted anyone who mentioned data center.
[23:09] You can only talk about the annexation.
[23:12] Coffin and Cerelles boldly stated on camera, we have no idea what will be built there.
[23:19] We don't know, not one plan has been submitted to this council.
[23:25] But on January 6th by Lateral Energy, whose website boasts purpose-built power for multi-gigawatt
[23:31] campuses already had a TCEQ permit. In fact, in November, they had submitted a master
[23:37] campus plan to the city. Mr. Kaufman said he had never seen that map. Yet on July 2nd,
[23:44] he had sent a letter of support, promising a, quote, seamless annexation and permitting process.
[23:50] Yes.
[23:51] And everything was going seamlessly until the city made a mistake and put the wrong address.
[23:57] Attract owned by the city itself, but they were in a hurry.
[24:01] So instead of correcting it, they ploughed ahead.
[24:04] And that illegal zoning is still under litigation, as is the legitimacy.
[24:09] Are you going to talk about that before one?
[24:11] Yeah, data centers.
[24:14] The legitimacy of five, six of this council and the mayor.
[24:17] We talk about data centers as if they are quiet buildings with computers inside like the one the council visited in Dallas or the one Mr. Kaufman drove around in Roanoke and showed at the Chamber luncheon those get their electricity from the grid.
[24:33] By lateral is open cycle gas turbines, jet engines, and they just ask TCEQ to expand their permit for more of them.
[24:45] To put this in perspective, I look at-
[24:47] Tell you what, when we start talking about data centers, we're going to get back to you, but right now you're interrupting all of the folks behind you, and I'm going to ask that you go ahead and start-
[25:00] Start talking. Start talking. And I'd like to see the audience to refrain, please. I am talking about data centers, data centers and their power plants. This data center on how to withdraw. We're talking about the ordinance has a power plant and we need an ordinance for it. A data center power plant is like a diesel generator that's running next door to you 24 or 7.
[25:28] It's
[25:43] been at 3530 Daniels Court, I'm thinking about what we are and are not supposed to be
[25:49] talking about tonight.
[25:53] So we are not allowed to talk about standards, EPA, anything like that on data centers or
[26:00] gas power plants.
[26:02] The, no.
[26:03] You can talk about that.
[26:05] Do you have this hold?
[26:06] I don't know.
[26:07] I'm just going to leave.
[26:08] 20 pages here of the ordinance.
[26:10] But if you're just talking about data centers we're not talking about data centers
[26:14] We're talking about the ordinances that we need as a city and as a community to control the operation of those
[26:22] The one that we have stuck on here is basically how far do you want to go with
[26:29] To get to the property lines
[26:31] Okay, okay, and maybe let me let me let me interrupt them, okay, and you get all your time
[26:36] The interruption on this is that there is a rule passed in the Texas House last year,
[26:44] House Bill 2127, it's called the Texas Regulatory Consistency Act.
[26:51] It is another one of the Texas State Legislature's attempts to take everything from the city
[26:58] as it relates to how we manage our own business as close as we can to our own citizens.
[27:06] and make it look like the county.
[27:09] In the past, the city has been able to govern local matters unless the legislature clearly
[27:15] says it cannot.
[27:17] This legislation says if the state has entered this regulatory field, the city cannot regulate
[27:24] there unless the legislature has expressly, expressly authorize the city to do so.
[27:31] So, in other words, if they have a legislation in one of the fields and that's one of the
[27:38] issues with it, then we can't do anything.
[27:42] It supersedes.
[27:43] Now, move forward to January,
[27:48] let me say,
[27:58] January 30, 2025.
[28:02] It's the air quality standard permit for natural gas, electric generating units, effective
[28:07] January 30, 2025.
[28:13] Engines must be located at least 25 feet from the nearest point on the property line.
[28:19] The maximum number of engines that may be authorized under this standard permit depends on
[28:24] the distance from the property line to the nearest engine but may not exceed six engines.
[28:31] And the minimum distance to the property line for six engines is 900 feet.
[28:36] So that now is Texas legislation, which we follow, we follow Texas legislation.
[28:44] So if you want to talk about the legislation, talk to me about the particular, the specifics
[28:51] so that we can have a conversation.
[28:53] Okay, well, I don't know how specific it is.
[28:56] You know, I just went to the EPA.gov website today and talked about fossil fuels and power
[29:04] Our plants create emissions of the sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, carbon
[29:10] dioxide, mercury, and other pollutants.
[29:13] These emissions can cause serious health problems for health of those around it in foreign
[29:19] distance and impacts our environment.
[29:24] And who wants all that in our lungs, where all these families here are living next to or
[29:29] to it?
[29:32] Well, and I would turn the page, I choose not to read all of the specs that are in this
[29:38] document.
[29:39] In fact, January 30, 2025.
[29:42] Well, I do know that Texas has really lax rules, you know, as far as what is a good
[29:49] standard for people, you know.
[29:51] So, these pollutants travel long distances, they impact, well, they just impact locally.
[30:00] Mill miles away. So I live about 2,000 feet from where the power plant is going to be. And everything
[30:11] I have read says you shouldn't be in within one to two miles because these pollutants will
[30:17] travel one to two miles. There's people that live right in the back door and it goes to sound,
[30:25] It goes to water,
[30:31] it just, I'm just having a hard time understanding where you all are
[30:36] protecting us, you know.
[30:38] My husband's volunteer firefighter, he's been one for decades and he's recovering from
[30:44] a ankle replacement and he protects this community for decades, 24-7, along with all these other
[30:51] or police officers, EMS, and y'all are sitting out here
[30:55] and I don't feel protected.
[30:57] I feel like, you don't care.
[31:01] And these families have children.
[31:03] And they're living in the back of these places
[31:07] with pollution that is going to harm their health
[31:11] and their future.
[31:13] And to me, I don't know.
[31:15] It's just sound, water, air, and y'all have been lax on coming forward to making standards
[31:25] to protect us, and that's all I have to say.
[31:28] Thank you.
[31:35] And I appreciate your patience with me.
[31:37] Thank you.
[31:39] Mr. Billing.
[31:45] Mac, been at 3530 Daniels Court.
[31:48] I'll follow up on what my wife said, you know, look at your concept plan, and I actually
[31:52] Google map from my back porch to the energy campus is what it's labeled on the
[31:58] concept plan. To the center of that to my back porch is 2,063.5 feet. If you take
[32:05] like second-chance farm Sandy Walker from her back porch to the center of
[32:10] that's 520 feet. You take like sawing your bird. You take for more her house is
[32:16] going to be that's 783 feet. I mean in the list goes on with everybody else up
[32:23] down the matter would like said it's not defined into concept plan what the
[32:27] energy campus is I'm assuming it's the generators but you know it can be
[32:33] something else but I just want to bring that to your attention it's even I know
[32:38] you all was talking about a setback roll 500 feet you know well they'll move it
[32:42] 500 feet, but the buffer, depending on what they use for buffer stuff, may not make a difference
[32:49] because they have where I live and I know everybody else that over to Tollor, over to Railyard, over the
[32:56] sand plant stuff is you can actually hear when they're hooking and I'm hooking cars at 3 o'clock
[33:01] in the morning. I met that's how much the sound carries in our neighborhood around there.
[33:06] So, you know, I think that 500 puts not enough, a thousand would be better, a mile would
[33:12] be better.
[33:12] I mean, not even there would be better, you know, because that is pristine land.
[33:17] I worked there back in the said, because I can't avoid permissionals there when it used
[33:21] to be the Knox Ranch when it was owned by the Scottish Rides.
[33:25] I mean, the trees and the wildlife and stuff that run down rough creek there, I mean, unless
[33:31] you've actually been out on that land, you don't know how beautiful it is there in which
[33:35] Once this what's the stuff comes in I'm that they're just gonna level it out
[33:39] They're gonna be nothing there. Yeah, they'll plant some trees there, but
[33:42] Down there where the water compins or down are all for rough creek
[33:46] There's some of the oak trees and stuff that four people can't put the arms around
[33:50] I know this call be hundreds and hundreds of years
[33:53] I've been here as long as the counties even been established
[33:56] So you know one of the other things is you know the water con you know
[34:00] They say closed-loop system this that and everything else you I don't know if you've done it research
[34:05] starts on the closed loop system stuff there's actually six different closed loop systems.
[34:10] You know, it depends on which one they use if they go with the cheapest one, even the
[34:14] state art one that is not even available for the next 22 years.
[34:17] That's how much back order there is on it.
[34:20] You know, even with the TC department with the power plant stuff, they actually put on the
[34:26] permit that they'll use 150,000 gallons of water a day.
[34:30] So, if you time that out, that's 55 million gallons of water a year that they'll use.
[34:36] Very fine.
[34:37] Thank you.
[34:38] Thank you, sir.
[34:44] Mr. Kenneth Meader, and then the Miss Sharon Meader.
[34:58] If you guys would bring it to me.
[35:00] May I bring these up first? I would appreciate it.
[35:06] Mr. Mayor. Mayor council. My name is
[35:08] Mayor. 99-1-Poluxi Highway, Bluffdale, Texas, which I actually live in Poluxi. When we're
[35:15] talking about the ordinance that is being proposed, the city staff had drafted an ordinance to
[35:23] deal with regulating things for the city for this development and any other future potential
[35:30] developments of this type. When that went to the Planning and Zoning, the
[35:35] citizens had also came forward and presented to Planning and Zoning their
[35:41] version of what they thought was going to be a good ordinance to deal with
[35:47] this. After Planning and Zoning looked at both, they came to the conclusion that
[35:54] they thought that the citizen-submitted version was better. So that came
[36:00] before this council once and it was taken under advisement to kind of look
[36:07] at it. So there's actually three versions that are listed as a staff version,
[36:13] the citizen version and the citizen original. My understanding is the citizen
[36:18] original is what was presented and then what is being presented as the citizen
[36:22] version is cleaned up in proper language and format for use as an ordinance. I recommend
[36:33] that you go with planning zoning's recommendation. They've looked at everything in there already,
[36:40] made their recommendation. And that's what these people do for you is these people you have on
[36:46] on the planning zoning are there to advise you
[36:49] to give you recommendations on different things
[36:53] to do with zoning and planning for the future
[36:56] of this community.
[36:58] And that's what they're for.
[37:00] Use them.
[37:01] And when this was being discussed
[37:04] in council a little while back,
[37:07] Mayor Jarrett, you asked me one question.
[37:10] Because in the citizen version,
[37:12] we're talking about 1,000 foot setback.
[37:14] And you asked a question,
[37:15] and well how many acres is that?
[37:18] Okay, I'm pretty good at math and it depends.
[37:23] If you've got 10,000 acres in a complete rectangle
[37:27] or square, then that thousand feet
[37:30] is going to be a certain amount of acres.
[37:33] If you're talking about 2,000 acres,
[37:37] then it's going to be different acreage in comparison
[37:40] with as far as your percentages,
[37:42] because it's not taking into the same amount
[37:45] of property. So you have to look at what the percentages are of what's usable property
[37:51] after that. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Smith.
[37:58] I think if you guys have time or already
[38:02] looked there is a map in the back of the 7.1 year that details what a thousand what a hundred
[38:14] 300-500 and 1,000-foot setback would be, sorry.
[38:29] Greetings. Can you hear me?
[38:30] Good morning.
[38:31] Greetings. I'm Sharon Metter, lifelong Hood County resident.
[38:36] I'm here to talk about the distance.
[38:40] The data center proximity to people would affect their health.
[38:44] The sound effects of noise and air quality, some known, some still being discovered,
[38:48] should be far, or still being discovered,
[38:54] they should be far from schools, nursing homes, and residents.
[39:00] Do not put the residents in danger.
[39:03] Studies should be done and redone to ensure safety.
[39:07] Public safety should be your main concern.
[39:11] If you're going to approve, no matter the opposition,
[39:14] the least you should do is have them as far away from neighboring property lines as
[39:20] possible. They were their first and have the right to live in peace. How close
[39:27] would you want it from your own property line, your bedroom window, your
[39:33] elderly parents, your grandkids? You have the responsibility to protect the
[39:39] people, not over extended resources.
[39:43] Do not do residents in danger.
[39:45] Thank you.
[39:46] Thank you.
[39:51] Mr. Farber and then Mr. Herbal.
[40:09] I'm Dan Fauber, 2560, Madam Wood Road. Didn't you want to see the irony of the city announcing
[40:15] Monarch Migration Month as it raises three square miles of native rent to build a data pool?
[40:22] Question for the city. Does the city think that bilateral energy is already vested under
[40:27] the current and inadequate data center zoning regulations? Please explain and public hearing
[40:35] exactly why in legal terms is agenda 7.1 that I'm speaking on on data center
[40:43] zoining zoning a pointless discussion for Project Patriot. You can answer that
[40:51] after I speak. This is key because bilateral energy does not own the Knox
[40:56] Ranch. The current owner is Dr. Ready of Houston through Readyland Partners which
[41:03] is not express public support for a massive data project.
[41:07] Biolateral energy has less legal standing in this case.
[41:11] The citizen amended zoning ordinance is helpful
[41:15] as the approach of proposes 1,000 foot setback
[41:18] from property lines and a special use permit
[41:21] required for data centers and power plants.
[41:24] This is what a 1,000 foot setback looks like on the NOx range.
[41:29] You can see this is completely reasonable.
[41:33] We need you, the City Council, to pass this amendment and apply it to Project Patriot.
[41:41] The city proposed ordinance and requires us the special permit, special use permit for a
[41:50] daycare center but not a 932 megawatt power plant.
[41:54] Why?
[41:55] That's illogical.
[41:57] All of these proposed amendments are inadequate for the following reason.
[42:01] The Grandbury noise ordinance only considers a noise violation to occur at a public roadway.
[42:07] That means the noise limits can be exceeded if the neighbor feels, and the neighbor's back
[42:12] yard at the neighbor's house, but it doesn't violate until it occurs exceeds at the road,
[42:19] which may be 500 feet.
[42:20] The proposed violation has no teeth, the $2,000 a day, 365-day violation of the proposed
[42:29] ordinances is less than .01% of the expected profit from this data center.
[42:37] In citizen terms, that's like a $10 a year fine for blasting your music 3-4 hours a day.
[42:45] The criminal screening doesn't work, the city has no idea what data center projects and
[42:51] the county will come to fruition, that makes your construction and the traffic management
[42:56] plan a sham, even only a few of the data centers were built.
[43:01] And this project will occur during 377 YD.
[43:04] The county isn't risked in being non-compliant, please hit the brakes, give us real regulations.
[43:11] Thank you.
[43:18] Mr. Herbal, I may not like what was said, but I sure did like the way it was presented.
[43:26] Quick, concise, but data, thank you.
[43:33] Mr. Herbal.
[43:44] Jacob Herbal at a wood road.
[43:48] I hope my speed just here, you're liking, Mayor Jarrett.
[43:52] please consider adopting the thousand foot setback ordinance in April when we
[44:00] pointed out weaknesses in the data center ordinances it was stated that we
[44:04] could later amend these ordinances to make them stronger there's lots of
[44:09] boasting about how the city can regulate more than the county so let's let's see
[44:17] here we are. Our neighborhood is surrounded by what you like to call project
[44:24] patriot that you named. Our family's health and well-being is at stake. We have
[44:30] concerns about air, sound, water, pollution near our homes.
[44:37] Again you just
[44:41] announced the proclamation for modern butterflies and
[44:45] Grandbury, consider planning milkweed in some of the setback space.
[44:52] And related to the data center ordinances, it took the city council longer than the
[44:57] a lot of 15 days that the city chartered.
[45:00] Councillor Gives to recognize the recall petition. So I'm not an expert on the matter, but I question if this city council is legitimate right now to be making decisions anyway. But with that said, or I'll end with this. We pray in the invocation that we would treat others the way Christ would have us treat each other with love. So I ask, please love your neighbor.
[45:32] consider how close you would want a power plant, data center complex by your home, by your property, by your family.
[45:42] Please consider that when you vote for this ordinance.
[45:47] Thank you.
[45:48] Thank you.
[45:55] Anybody else?
[45:56] Ms. Walker?
[45:58] Okay.
[45:59] All right, we're going to move along to number six, Consent Agenda.
[46:05] And all items on the Consent Agenda or Routine are previously discussed and will be approved
[46:10] with one motion.
[46:11] However, should remember, the City Council wish to discuss any item, said item may be removed
[46:15] from the Consent Agenda and considered under the deliberation agenda.
[46:20] Ladies and gentlemen, any one want to take anything off for further consideration,
[46:29] Mr.
[46:30] Ollum?
[46:31] No, sir.
[46:32] Okay.
[46:34] Then do I hear a motion to approve the consent agenda?
[46:38] Some move.
[46:39] Mr. Ollum makes the motion.
[46:41] Second.
[46:42] Second.
[46:44] Mr. Parker makes second.
[46:46] All in favor say aye.
[46:47] Aye.
[46:48] All opposed say nay.
[46:52] Aye.
[46:53] six and a, we do get to count Mr. Oliver because he's here, right?
[47:03] Okay, now we'll move to 7-1,
[47:08] I'll go ahead and read through this.
[47:09] Consider adopting ordinance number 26-51, amending the City of Granbury's zoning
[47:14] ordinance articles for the General Purpose System and Supplemental Standards for
[47:19] Data Centers and Power Generation and Mr. Kaufman.
[47:24] Thank you mayor. I'll turn it over to put you know in our director community development at this point for this agenda item. It came from planning and zoning and we heard it a month ago. I guess and here we are bringing it back.
[47:39] I would like to add that there was a lot to be discovered as mentioned earlier.
[47:48] and the death star bill has known impacts what we do.
[47:57] So I would like to have a discussion here tonight to help us understand what you want to put in the ordinance.
[48:06] Thank you.
[48:07] Go ahead, put me.
[48:11] Just a brief recap.
[48:13] This is what we had presented back at August 4th and to the PNZ.
[48:17] This gives it outlines the citizen's draft of the proposed SUP requirement and 1000 foot setback for the power generation and data center land uses and breaks that down further to what was actually written.
[48:37] This
[48:40] is what staff had proposed with a supplemental standard number two that is already existing with a site plan process, a 500 foot setback and a 300 foot setback for power generation and data center land uses.
[49:00] And so getting back to what was requested of staff looking at from the August 4th meeting, defining an SUV.
[49:07] and NSUP is a tool to evaluate land use that is more intense in a zoning district or could be a nuisance for adjacent properties with similar zoning or uses or completely different.
[49:20] These requirements associated with NSUP include site plans, landscape plans, parking, building size height, construction materials, visual screening, and allow for planning and zoning commission in the city council to request additional information such as engineering analysis system.
[49:37] cases, expert evaluations or testimonies, and this allows for the planning and zoning
[49:42] and city council to make informed decisions when recommending approving or denying land
[49:46] use in a location that is not harmonious with adjacent properties.
[49:51] And number two, outlining the pros and cons of an SUV, and these are what staff concluded
[49:57] to be pros of an SUP.
[50:01] It allows for further review by PNZ and council, if there are concerns, PNZ and council can require additional conditions of a proposed use regulated by the approved site plan and document submitted. Public notice allows for neighbors to be informed of what the use is. Any deviation from the approved plans can result in the certificate of occupancy to be enjoyed and requires a new public hearing of both Planning and Zoning Commission and the city council if any changes from the original approved plans
[50:30] are requested. And the cons of an SUP additional land uses requiring SUP can
[50:37] slow down staff and bog down public hearings. For example, when short-term
[50:41] rentals required a SUP they were coming in in the boatloads and it was
[50:49] requested by P&Z and council to remove that requirement so that they would not
[50:53] have that many public hearings in one city. Now those are processed through a
[50:59] different permitting process through building permits and evaluated in a different way, but
[51:05] that is one downside of an SUP.
[51:08] That is the only downside that staff concluded could be a con for an SUP.
[51:14] And three, this was requested, a chart showing all the current land uses that require an SUP in any zoning district across the board.
[51:23] And there is a lot of them and I tried to get this as big as I could and
[51:27] and try to be legible.
[51:38] And number four, defining a regulatory taking.
[51:41] There's no clear definition to a regulatory taking
[51:44] in the terms of acreage percentages of a property,
[51:48] and an evaluation is needed on a case-by-case basis
[51:50] to show overall impact of a setback relative
[51:53] to the size of the parcel and or the proposed land use.
[51:57] A land use attorney or land use engineer
[51:59] could provide an opinion on whether a specific setback
[52:02] for a specific project would constitute a regulatory taking.
[52:06] We also identified by Cornell
[52:13] University, their definition of a regulatory taking, identifies
[52:19] this relating to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but further goes on to say
[52:25] there is no clear definition or identifier of what the regulatory taking could be except
[52:32] on a case-by-case basis.
[52:33] And staff prepared as well, a industrial park setback on just the random piece of property here in the city and this shows the one hundred foot current setback, the three hundred to five hundred foot and the thousand foot setbacks that have been proposed.
[52:53] Let me interrupt.
[52:54] But that is the industrial park that's already owned under PD.
[52:59] It's not at risk of this applying to that.
[53:02] This is an example for the public to see how one tube does not fit all.
[53:06] Thank you.
[53:07] Correct.
[53:07] Yes sir.
[53:10] Let me do that.
[53:11] Okay.
[53:14] Explain what the red inside the red is.
[53:17] So inside that red would be the usable area from the thousand foot setback, all the property
[53:24] within the green and between the red and green would be the 500 foot setback. Everything
[53:31] from the black in would be the 300 foot setback and the 100 would be the blue in.
[53:39] And the table in the bottom left illustrates the usable area left after the setback is
[53:46] established for each respective number. So it kind of gives you a visual of how a 300
[53:54] take your track of land would be different than a larger track of land or a smaller track
[54:01] of land depending on your setback. So that's part of it. This is the track of land
[54:08] large enough to accommodate what you're wanting to do.
[54:18] In step recommends consider the various options and their impact on a given project and adopt
[54:23] an amending zoning ordinance for data center and power generation. And at the July 13th,
[54:29] 2026 PNZ meetings, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the
[54:34] SUP requirement and the thousand-foot setback by 6.0 vote.
[54:39] And the voting options approve the zoning ordinance amendment, approve the zoning ordinance
[54:43] amendment with changes or deny the zoning ordinance amendment.
[54:48] And that is all I have, Mr. Mayor.
[54:54] I want to go back to the legislation, the House bill.
[55:00] May 21, 27. It says, it states entered into this regulatory field, which they have, it's called data centers. The city cannot regulate there unless the legislature has expressly authorized the city to do so. So this standard permit has the,
[55:25] you know, so you can't start until we tell you that you can start.
[55:29] They need a copy of the manufacturer's design operation specs of all emission-related maintenance
[55:35] requirements.
[55:36] They need records of the performance testing.
[55:39] They hold those records for five years.
[55:41] They have continuous monitoring of the emission-related maintenance, they have records of self-content,
[55:50] visual emissions observations, sampling performed.
[55:53] They have stack parameters how high, how low, how hot, what kind of velocity comes out
[56:00] of them.
[56:01] Where you can put a piece of equipment, they have all of the specs here.
[56:06] My point being, we cannot decide that we will have stricter requirements than the state.
[56:18] state. The state is like 900 feet for a perimeter, if you have six engines and they don't
[56:29] have a, there is not, there are no more. So why, why would we have a different ordinance
[56:37] than the state when the state will come in and supersede us?
[56:45] Yeah, you're right, you won't.
[56:49] And this is, you know, this is new, came in January 30th, 2025,
[56:58] yes it did, it's under litigation, but it passed.
[57:03] It's still out there, and that's, yeah, it's the law today, and I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about this TCEQ permitting process, the standard permit for natural gas electric generating units, effective January 30th, 2025.
[57:21] 5. Why would we put something in that is different from what's here?
[57:32] You know, I get yes.
[57:38] Here's a question. If we were to go against what the legislator, legislator, they've
[57:47] got control and if we were to say we're going to cut heads with you and do something different
[57:52] and what would be the consequence to our city?
[57:55] What are we putting our city at risk for?
[57:59] Litigation?
[58:02] At least.
[58:03] At least.
[58:05] Another question, a follow-up question.
[58:08] I saw two examples here of the 1,000 foot setback.
[58:14] In the property that you had an example of,
[58:16] there was about 11% usage.
[58:20] And this gentleman's illustration,
[58:22] It looked like a much larger use that have we done a nox ranch at a thousand can you share with that with can you pull that up?
[58:30] Thank you.
[58:30] You have it.
[58:32] So the nox ranch, the picture they all traded by the gentleman, Mr. Farber, does not include metalwood road, which would cause another a thousand foot barrier or buffer on both sides of that.
[58:46] Okay.
[58:47] So the math was 48% of the property would be usable drawn the way once that's all.
[58:55] Okay.
[58:56] So if only 48% of that property were usable based upon a previewing a thousand-foot setback,
[59:04] again, my question is what consequence could that bring to our city more litigation?
[59:13] That's where we were talking about it with previous meeting, a taking, where the government
[59:19] would be responsible to pay for that land.
[59:24] Now that if TCQ has adopted a 900 foot buffer, that's the buffer.
[59:31] We don't have to worry about what we do, that's the state buffer, I mean, we have to deal
[59:39] with state laws.
[59:40] We, you and I, took an oath to obey the U.S. Constitution, follow the Constitution, and not violate the Constitution, and follow all state and local laws.
[59:50] And that's our job.
[59:52] And the state has a job to pass laws, and they've done that.
[59:56] And we have to obey those laws.
[59:58] If we pass it ordinance.
[1:00:00] More restrictive than we are not following the state law, especially when they tell us that you can't follow, do anything besides what we tell you in the state law. If we adopt something less than that and don't make them adhere to the state law, then we're in violation as well. So we have to follow the law. The laws are the laws. If the speed limit says 65 and we're going 70, we subject to a ticket.
[1:00:28] If we're going 45 on an interstate and it says minimum speed is whatever, if you're going below it, it's something to a ticket.
[1:00:37] But we do have regulations that we have to follow.
[1:00:41] That's why we're being careful here.
[1:00:44] We're being careful.
[1:00:49] So please step up to the microphone.
[1:00:52] So how does this affect what we've already adopted?
[1:00:57] The one that this we're supposed to be amending right now, is that even valid?
[1:01:02] Can we adopt it a few months ago?
[1:01:06] Questionable.
[1:01:07] Questionable.
[1:01:09] Well, I was just wondering what the state law is then.
[1:01:13] How many feet does it say, or it doesn't say anything?
[1:01:16] I'm confused.
[1:01:16] 900?
[1:01:17] The mayor read the statute.
[1:01:20] That's good.
[1:01:22] For six generators.
[1:01:24] Okay.
[1:01:24] Under the Permit Regulation Adopted in January of 2025.
[1:01:30] As soon as the authority of the Texas Clean Air Act, TCA, A, Texas Health and Safety Code, THSC, 382.05195, Standard Permit, and 30 Texas Administrative Code, TAC, Chapter 116 Subchapter F, Standard Permits.
[1:01:48] As I say so many times, I really need to get a life.
[1:01:50] If that's the law, which
[1:02:00] is the mayor?
[1:02:01] Yes.
[1:02:02] So, are we saying that if we change this from 1000 feet to 900, then we're okay, we're
[1:02:07] legal.
[1:02:10] Yeah?
[1:02:11] If we meet all TCEQ standards, why wouldn't we just say that we meet Texas Law and all
[1:02:17] TCEQ standards?
[1:02:19] I mean, if we supersede it, you know, we have litigation and you know, what do you want
[1:02:28] to bet?
[1:02:30] I would just I would just add that we're already required to meet the state law. You don't need to codify that in your city code.
[1:02:39] Simple as that. We have to follow state law. You can put in our ordinance to add that we're going to follow the state law if you want, but why?
[1:02:49] I mean, we're going to do that anyway, but if that makes everybody happy, that's why I want you to tell us what you wanted in this ordinance.
[1:02:56] We can't just magically go away as staff members and come up with stuff beyond what the state law requires.
[1:03:06] So I think the Lord for what Mayor are doing is do diligence and providing that information to us as we went through this process.
[1:03:15] And here we are tonight not even more equipped to do this change than we were 45 days ago.
[1:03:23] And we still have an engaged engineer in the process as well.
[1:03:28] I'm not sure we need an engineer whenever the state law is very clear about emission standards and all those things that we're concerned about.
[1:03:35] But the bottom line is, is the state of Texas is in control.
[1:03:40] They're campaigning politically that they're going to pass laws in the next session to regulate this even further.
[1:03:46] We're probably reducing cities and authority even further than we already have adopted it anyway.
[1:03:54] So we'll probably end up like the county with no ability to do anything other than what the state will allow.
[1:04:01] That's probably where we're headed.
[1:04:04] Mayor, I didn't see anything in the law that pertained to the SUPs.
[1:04:12] We've been talking about the distance, I think we all understand that.
[1:04:16] but as far as requiring an SUP or not requiring an SUP,
[1:04:20] I didn't see anything in there that regulated that one
[1:04:23] where the other, on SUP's.
[1:04:27] What are the special conditions for the SUP
[1:04:29] that's been proposed if you could review that again, Cody?
[1:04:33] That would answer that question, I think.
[1:04:49] The foot, the setback, in that right?
[1:04:57] This portion of it, sir?
[1:04:58] This is the supplement.
[1:05:00] Government standards, one or two or 53. Okay, so one is the SUV requirement and that would require a site plan. It would require a, let me get to that. There we go. The requirements associated with the SUV could be site plans, landscape plans, parking, building, size and height, construction materials, visual screening, and allow for planning and
[1:05:31] zoning commission and council to request additional information such as engineering, analysis, or expert evaluation or testimony, and this would allow them to make informed decisions when recommending approving or denying land uses requiring an SHP.
[1:05:51] I understand that part of just remember seeing anything specifically and they were talking about state law superseding what we're doing.
[1:05:59] So,
[1:06:01] no, no, that, not my point, my point is that the, where we had, we wanted to limit
[1:06:09] it to a thousand feet or two, five hundred feet.
[1:06:12] Right, but there was two, two portions of this.
[1:06:14] There was the distance, and then there was whether or not we required an SEP.
[1:06:22] Okay.
[1:06:26] Certainly, you don't need an SEP to adhere to state law.
[1:06:31] Right.
[1:06:32] So, okay, and by the way, the state law does not say it says 900 feet if six engines, six
[1:06:40] generators are there, and saying that, it says that it doesn't distinguish between
[1:06:49] school, a hospital or anything like that, it's property line, just the property line.
[1:06:59] So my point is I just keep making the point, look, why are we, why are we arguing about
[1:07:06] the state law?
[1:07:07] We're not going to change the state law unless we all go to Austin and I'm happy to go
[1:07:12] do that.
[1:07:14] Let's go do it.
[1:07:17] This is a law of 2025 like to live in that occurred.
[1:07:24] You're going to need to come in and sign up and speak if you want to do this this way.
[1:07:28] I
[1:07:31] don't you know I've made my point yes and this is make I don't think we're
[1:07:37] arguing I think we're educating all of us and what are the consequences if
[1:07:45] we decide that we're more important than the state law we can't make those
[1:07:52] decisions as a city we can't opt to say you know what 377 I know that
[1:08:00] text, but we think with the speed limit should be 100 miles an hour. We can't do that. Think
[1:08:08] about it, but just we can't. You may not nod your head and say we should, but we can't.
[1:08:24] Sure, and I'll get to you, Scott.
[1:08:30] Mayor, I've sat here and listened to the comments and the
[1:08:36] presentation and I think there is a tremendous amount
[1:08:39] of convolution here.
[1:08:43] Convolution.
[1:08:44] We are talking about two separate issues.
[1:08:48] The guidelines set out by TCEQ are governing
[1:08:53] a power generation facility.
[1:08:55] And what if it doesn't have six turbines?
[1:08:57] Then the 900 doesn't apply.
[1:08:59] So it's not even applicable.
[1:09:02] So the other side of that coin is the data
[1:09:04] the center facility itself is not governed by that.
[1:09:08] It would be governed by the standards that we are trying to put in place.
[1:09:12] So if one of these comes here, we have something in place to have whatever the best protections
[1:09:19] are in place when the legislature tells us, we don't care what you think it's coming.
[1:09:25] At least you can have some sort of governments.
[1:09:27] I mean, my goodness, if anybody's paid any attention, we can't even tell people how to
[1:09:31] their homes anymore. They can go build a metal building for blocks from here on an empty vacant lot
[1:09:38] if they want. There's a continued use of patient of local authority that no one is acknowledging here.
[1:09:43] We are trying to do the best that we can and work with everyone to put the best protections in place
[1:09:50] and we're just getting slapped for it. We cannot dictate to the legislature what we are going to do.
[1:09:56] they dictate to us, they dictate to the county just like
[1:10:00] The federal government minus some 10th amendment protections will dictate to the states what they will do. We can, as the state of Texas say, we'll just decide our own voting parameters when we elect the president. No, those are federal laws. It all flows downhill. We're trying to put things in place to protect both on the data center side and on the power generation side, the best that we can. So yes, we have these certain parameters in place. We have these 900 feet and these things out here.
[1:10:29] There are so many other ways that we can look at this.
[1:10:32] We can look at percentages.
[1:10:34] I was looking at some stuff.
[1:10:36] University Park has a 10%.
[1:10:38] So you measure out what the property is
[1:10:40] and the setbacks are 10% of what it is.
[1:10:42] So if you have a 60 foot wide lot,
[1:10:44] your setbacks are six foot on each side
[1:10:45] and you can figure out formulas for all of this.
[1:10:49] The other thing is we have to stop looking at this
[1:10:53] and saying we're trying to put together
[1:10:54] an ordinance for a single project.
[1:10:56] In fact, this has to be for any and all data center applications that may come through the city,
[1:11:04] power generation facility, permits that may come through the city.
[1:11:08] We have a commerce park that it's impossible.
[1:11:12] Every time someone comes in and says, I'm going to put a data center here, a small scale one.
[1:11:17] You can't stop me.
[1:11:19] Oh, well, you've used up a thousand foot setback, the entirety of this property.
[1:11:24] So we're going to have a taking analysis done and you've taken it and the tax payers are going to pay for that land because we have an absurd setback requirement.
[1:11:35] This is not something that can be resolved today. This ordinance will not be completed today. This is going to take a significant more in-depth search.
[1:11:45] Working with folks like Scott, I worked with him for years on things like this.
[1:11:50] Going through, continuing to compile information and find out one, what works best for the city as a whole in almost every situation, not limited to one.
[1:12:00] What works best for the power generation, excuse me, I've been talking all day, my thoughts a little drive, not works just for the power generation facilities.
[1:12:08] not works best just for the data center facilities and who knows the next
[1:12:15] session they may come back and tell us you guys did all this work for
[1:12:18] nothing this is what you're going to do I don't know but I know that the
[1:12:22] president is on board with it and I know the governor's on board with it and I
[1:12:26] know they keep putting out a lot of information talking about well if it's
[1:12:29] this and if that then we're going to regulate this and I haven't seen any of
[1:12:33] these facilities that are tying in to Erkott or any of these things that that
[1:12:37] They're actually getting audited correctly, so I don't know what's going to happen with this.
[1:12:42] But the point here is we have to stop arguing.
[1:12:44] We have to stop yelling and screaming each other and calling each other names and putting all of this stuff out on social media that's false.
[1:12:50] Okay, we want to put the best protections in place.
[1:12:55] We have to follow the guidance from the legislature, and we have to also take into account, we cannot look at this as one project.
[1:13:03] In fact, this is going to affect every parcel in the city that could potentially ever house any of these type of operations.
[1:13:12] My suggestion to you is that we continue to work on this, continue to work with the public,
[1:13:18] get more input, figure out what works best in an overall perspective, and implement that.
[1:13:24] My take,
[1:13:29] Mr. Subject, you will speak.
[1:13:30] Thank
[1:13:40] you mayor. Councilor Mr. Manager and especially mayor for you allowing me to speak
[1:13:46] and add to the conversation, the flavor of the conversation. If I can ask Cody to turn
[1:13:54] back to the citizen portion of it that was highlighted in yellow, while I was back there listening
[1:14:01] I was thinking maybe a good point for your consideration is where we itemize all those
[1:14:08] things or the citizen, you know, power generation power plants, battery storage locations, you can add a little statement at the end unless otherwise preempted by state law.
[1:14:22] So that gets you where you need to be with state law and if there's any subsequent state law that comes in down the pipe, your codes are fluid enough to say hey we're sensitive to the concerns of the residential neighbors.
[1:14:38] We want, we, we, we as a city want to articulate to you that we preserve the sanctity of single-family residential
[1:14:46] habitation. That's a very, very protected land use classification for us. We understand that the
[1:14:53] the adjacency issues that some industrial uses offer.
[1:15:00] To those adjacency problems. And so, you can add that in there being sensitive to the fluidity of whatever state legislation comes down the line. If you have state preemption, your code addresses that. You got kind of an outdoor attract door in your code. Just food for thought. Pardon me? Okay.
[1:15:26] Okay. So you've got that state preemption, but again, you can codify just
[1:15:32] to take, give a tip of the hat to it.
[1:15:34] Could you give me those words again?
[1:15:36] Unless otherwise preempted by state law.
[1:15:41] So, and then-
[1:15:42] Let's exactly what we did on the masonry requirements.
[1:15:45] Oh, yeah, absolutely.
[1:15:46] Remember those days?
[1:15:47] Yes, absolutely.
[1:15:49] We had great masonry standards in the state,
[1:15:51] pulled the rug out from under us on commercial masonry standards,
[1:15:55] and-
[1:15:55] More residential.
[1:15:57] Absolutely, yeah.
[1:15:58] And the other thing that I wanted to mention very quickly,
[1:16:01] and I appreciate everybody's indulgence on this
[1:16:04] is with smaller tracks and use the industrial park as an example
[1:16:10] where things start to close in a little bit.
[1:16:13] You mentioned that was a plan development.
[1:16:15] Well, plan developments have a latitude
[1:16:16] to offer PD variances as a part of the PD structure
[1:16:22] to set back requirements.
[1:16:24] So, again, you're signaling to these people,
[1:16:27] hey, these are our standards up front
[1:16:29] to protect those adjacency uses for what we consider protected classifications but if you want to do a PD and you want to do a PD variance to a setback requirement then the burden falls on you to prove it up through detailed analysis and public hearings of why that setback needs to be adjusted.
[1:16:46] Just food for thought. Thank you for your time.
[1:16:48] Thank you so
[1:16:57] what are the recommendations again
[1:17:10] approve of the zoning ordinance amendment approve of the zoning ordinance amendment with changes or deny the zoning ordinance amendment.
[1:17:19] So
[1:17:34] approving the ordinance or approve the ordinance amendment with changes and adding unless otherwise pre-empted by state law.
[1:17:46] It's actually being redundant because we're not going to.
[1:17:49] It's already preempted, but if that makes people happy, that could be a suggested change,
[1:17:56] right?
[1:18:01] Yes, ma'am.
[1:18:02] Yes, please.
[1:18:03] I would make, is it time?
[1:18:06] My logic?
[1:18:08] You're right.
[1:18:08] Yeah.
[1:18:08] I'd like to make a motion to approve this zoning ordinance, which changes with the verbiage
[1:18:14] unless otherwise preempted by state law which
[1:18:21] ordinance the one that was
[1:18:24] re-recommended by the P and Z or the one by staff the one by P and Z is the
[1:18:32] thousand foot basically the difference and the other one was 500 feet so we
[1:18:36] need to clarify which one okay I would go with P and C because and I go with the
[1:18:44] P and C. I'm sorry. Yes. No, no, excuse me. The staff recommendation, unless otherwise, no, no, no, it's a P and C with a thousand. That's what I'm trying to forgive me all. I'm trying to get my mind wrapped around this having poured all day myself.
[1:19:03] The thousand-foot, unless otherwise preempted by state law.
[1:19:11] I hear a motion.
[1:19:12] Do I hear a second?
[1:19:15] I'll second it.
[1:19:17] Second.
[1:19:19] Mr. Over to your seconds.
[1:19:21] Good.
[1:19:22] Is there other discussion?
[1:19:25] Yeah, I said this last time.
[1:19:28] I saw a large industrial project and there was a facility, not a nursing home,
[1:19:36] but I think it was a belt milling challenge and it was about 600 feet away and it didn't
[1:19:42] look like it was too close so I like the thousand feet from residences but I said this last
[1:19:53] time it doesn't necessarily need to be a thousand feet from a railroad track or a highway or
[1:19:59] or another industrial-
[1:20:02] And that would reduce the taking, or whatever you want to call that, a lot. I mean, at our industrial park, there's nothing around it. And even with this 2000 acre property, there's highways on a lot of it. There are houses on part of it, but not all of it. And I just, I think that, say a thousand feet, just the whole thing. It's going to cause problems down there.
[1:20:29] road because the industrial park the drawing that was that was a good example and
[1:20:35] again a wash said oh somebody says because you did you that was out there
[1:20:40] that that means our next data centers going in our industrial park I'm like
[1:20:44] where do people get this stuff but anyway but that was the show that it wipes out
[1:20:50] that piece of property there were two little triangles of red left that we're
[1:20:54] you know we could do something so you can't do the thousand feet there it wouldn't
[1:20:58] work. You couldn't build anything there. Anything industrial.
[1:21:02] So do you want to amend the motion or even?
[1:21:10] Well, and also all this information about the state laws has come up tonight.
[1:21:15] That needs to be taken into account. So maybe we need to table it.
[1:21:19] I think the SUP is an important piece. We have these for all kinds of stuff.
[1:21:24] why wouldn't we have one? So I like the SUP idea. But the blanket 1,000 feet that didn't set well with me at all.
[1:21:38] If I recall that 1,000 foot buffer, if you had it before you could read it, I believe it included, it had to be from parks and everything.
[1:21:52] So, the Commerce Center, located where it is across the railroad track, is the Frisbee
[1:21:58] Golf Park, and so, you know, you're dealing with that area as well.
[1:22:03] You said that you were just worried about the houses or something like that, but our
[1:22:09] ordinance that's presented actually covers every use close to it, and that's what your
[1:22:18] Our heartburn was about, as we talked about the day, the 1,000 foot was too aggressive for next door to another industrial part,
[1:22:27] but our commercial building, or it also prohibit, from way under red the ordinance, was it prohibits any building basically.
[1:22:37] You couldn't have a well house in that buffer zone providing well water to your irrigation system there.
[1:22:45] There's just so much there to consider in that thousand-foot buffer that's being used or not used that I think needs further refinement.
[1:22:54] You can pass anything you want tonight and we can always bring it back and do something else with it later.
[1:22:58] It's just another public posting and another public hearing because it's a zoning issue.
[1:23:03] And a further thought is does it need to be a thousand feet from any use of the property or a thousand feet from sound producing.
[1:23:14] producing parts of the property.
[1:23:17] Like what if you had office buildings,
[1:23:18] maybe the 500 feet would be plenty for office buildings,
[1:23:22] or even less than that, because it's an office building.
[1:23:24] And a administrative building, like they're doing at Propel,
[1:23:27] for example, are vultigrid now.
[1:23:31] They have plans in their future to build an office facility
[1:23:35] close to the highway, you know.
[1:23:38] Well, my problem was with the motion is made,
[1:23:41] like I think the SUP is a great idea.
[1:23:43] I think the blank of thousand feet, without further refinement, it doesn't make sense.
[1:23:49] There's just too many, the person who makes the motion, the person who makes the motion, can always withdraw.
[1:23:56] I'm not saying what to do with it, I'm just saying go ahead.
[1:24:02] No, thank you, you brought up some good points.
[1:24:06] I'm reading this in a straight line from all buildings.
[1:24:09] So, you're leading to the fact that if we were to say vote and approve on the motion and there was a well house, that something is small as a well house, we would have to be a thousand feet even further.
[1:24:26] You couldn't have the well house in that thousand foot.
[1:24:31] You couldn't have a storage facility, housing, material for the data center or the power plant within a thousand foot of that property line.
[1:24:45] No storage, anything related to that project is the way I read it, so I can be wrong.
[1:24:52] It's been there too, it's been out down.
[1:24:54] It says that we get any birds.
[1:24:58] Any bird?
[1:24:59] Yeah, so that's...
[1:25:00] That's a pretty hard buffer. And it certainly would add to their taking claim if you prohibited every single type structure. In other words, you'd town set apart kind of as a permanent easement. They can't do anything with except Moa and landscape. So. Mr. Mayor. Mr. Over there. So. Well, I'm here and we're trying to comply with what the state said. What does the state say? Or are they just going to say?
[1:25:29] You can't, you've got to be either 900 with a, we say a thousand or better, but is the
[1:25:35] state's requirement the same thing as what you're saying that we shouldn't do?
[1:25:44] Yeah, they're only dealing with the power generation in the 900 feet.
[1:25:48] Okay, so, all right, remaining buildings.
[1:25:51] Turn your speaker on it.
[1:25:55] Yeah, that's just for the power generation facility.
[1:25:57] The remaining buildings, we need to determine what the setbacks going to be for those.
[1:26:02] And I think the example that Councilperson Wadley is giving is if you have an industrial use
[1:26:07] and then there's going to be another industrial use and then at some point there may be a data
[1:26:12] center or a power generation facility goes in okay for the power generation facility.
[1:26:16] We looked at ECQ, we look at the number of turbines and they're going to tell us what that's
[1:26:20] going to be.
[1:26:21] But if it were maybe a data center that was going to connect to a grid, maybe that's a different
[1:26:27] story and if it's in between two industrial uses already do you need a thousand
[1:26:34] foot setback for those I think is the point that he's trying to get to just
[1:26:45] need no work oh yeah I think whatever if you adopt something tonight it's gonna
[1:26:55] require another round of notification in the newspaper and that kind of thing
[1:27:01] and public hearings and start all over again
[1:27:07] if you don't table it and give us
[1:27:10] some other six weeks or something to work on some more.
[1:27:15] We're happy to do whatever you want.
[1:27:16] That's why I open the meeting with.
[1:27:19] Please tell us what you want so we can make sure it happens.
[1:27:28] So I guess what you're saying is that the motion can be amended.
[1:27:32] The motion can be amended or the motion can be withdrawn.
[1:27:36] Or it can be voted on.
[1:27:37] Or it can be voted on.
[1:27:38] Yeah.
[1:27:43] Do I hear it?
[1:27:44] Good.
[1:27:44] And one more thing.
[1:27:47] Because of this introduction of the state law tonight and 900
[1:27:51] That means that the ordinance that we pass the staff had recommended with the 500 feet violates state law, the 1,000 feet would violate state law.
[1:28:03] Other than that, it's almost there so that's really a good deal.
[1:28:08] You know, I don't see how we can vote for any of these right now.
[1:28:13] They don't meet state law.
[1:28:14] Well, unless, I mean, we can do, we can do, if we did, okay, if we denied the zoning
[1:28:22] ordinance amendment, then we have what we had.
[1:28:26] And my understanding is that that, isn't in accordance with state laws, is that correct?
[1:28:30] Do you know what I mean?
[1:28:31] But the one that we, but the one that we've adopted now.
[1:28:33] Yep, no.
[1:28:34] So, again, back to the convolution, the particular, the particular rule from TCQ that the
[1:28:43] mayors looting to as 900 feet for a particular amount of
[1:28:46] turbines.
[1:28:47] So it's going to vary depending upon the project.
[1:28:49] Got it.
[1:28:50] And so in this case, we're talking about 900 feet.
[1:28:53] If this is what they have, six turbines, right?
[1:28:56] Well, that could be in the middle of the property.
[1:28:58] The buildings could still be a different set back around it.
[1:29:02] And that's what I was saying a minute ago, so the 900 feet
[1:29:04] is from the turbines, not from anything on the property.
[1:29:08] Correct?
[1:29:09] Well, the way that this is drafted, it's
[1:29:12] building would be. No, no, no. I'm not saying the way what we're doing. What the state is saying,
[1:29:16] then I don't see. Yeah, just for the turbines, not for any building. Okay.
[1:29:24] So Cody, what do we have
[1:29:25] for setback for an industrial prop property already on our code currently in effect?
[1:29:44] I think it's a
[1:29:45] hundred foot buffer in it with landscaping buffer on that. For just plain industrial. For like we
[1:29:51] adopted. Okay so yes this is a hundred foot landscape buffer from the
[1:29:56] property line a hundred foot in. That's what the the block
[1:30:00] The black line was showing on that map. Right. Okay. Thank you. Yes. So, so that's what we currently have adopted. As of April, we put that standard in requiring that landscape buffering with opaque landscape. With standards about the tree dies. I got to replace it within six months and all that kind of stuff. So there was a lot of protections built into that ordinance that we felt that we were going as far as we could at the time.
[1:30:29] And we also admitted that this ordinance needs more work, but we were getting a toe-hold,
[1:30:35] so to speak, on regulations as this topic was such a pressing issue.
[1:30:40] So here we are wanting to add to that ordinance by this amendment.
[1:30:47] I just want to make sure we understand we're adding to that ordinance that's already in place.
[1:30:53] And that ordinance, by the way, is what everybody voted on that caused the recall petition.
[1:31:02] And so here we are developing guidelines to make things rougher on a developer, and yet the council is
[1:31:11] experiencing recall petitions over that increased standard.
[1:31:17] So it's crazy to me how we got to where we are today.
[1:31:19] And here we are talking about making it even better, and we have to observe the state
[1:31:26] laws as well.
[1:31:27] So,
[1:31:30] how are we going to do that?
[1:31:32] Okay.
[1:31:34] Well, I think my job is to say that we have a motion and a second.
[1:31:40] Any more discussion?
[1:31:42] And the motion is that we would approve the zoning ordinance amendment.
[1:31:51] and this would be the zoning, the PNZs, zoning ordinance amendment, the one with a thousand
[1:32:02] foot, and we would amend it with, at the end, unless otherwise pre-empted by state law.
[1:32:14] Very clear?
[1:32:15] But the motion was the second one improving the zoning ordinance that amendment with changes what changes are those we add
[1:32:35] So this would be voting for the thousand feet for any industrial
[1:32:40] Property in the city any industrial property where a power
[1:32:47] would be located,
[1:32:56] or cooling towers, or battery storage locations, anything to do with
[1:33:01] those projects, storage of computer equipment,
[1:33:07] buildings, housing, operation, or storage
[1:33:10] storage computer equipment. You know, we've got a data center out over here on Bluff Street.
[1:33:17] I don't know if anybody knows that. There's covers all city block. They couldn't put that
[1:33:23] there.
[1:33:30] I have a motion. Have a second. All in favor say aye.
[1:33:38] All I hear one aye. All opposed say nay.
[1:33:42] Nay. Nay.
[1:33:45] Okay. So that will fail five and one. And we'll move on. I'm sure we'll hear more
[1:33:56] about this later, right?
[1:34:02] Okay. My job's to keep the meeting moving. 7.2. Consider
[1:34:11] submitting an official ballot for the election of places 1-4 at the Board of
[1:34:17] Trustees for the Texas Municipal League Intergovernmental Research School.
[1:34:23] Mr. Colton, if you want to move forward. Thank you. I would like to clarify a typo in the
[1:34:27] The agenda item, it's places 11 through 14 of the TMLRP board, which is our insurance risk pool, basically.
[1:34:38] I remember that organization that board on the trustee, and I would recommend that staff that you
[1:34:49] elect or nominate the incumbents that are serving on that board.
[1:34:56] Happy to answer any questions, I know Bruce has one.
[1:35:01] I know you're familiar with these people. I want to get your recommendation. Yes, or it's the incumbents. Each
[1:35:09] place has an incumbent and it's listed there beside their name. I can go through it individually, if you like.
[1:35:31] Brandy
[1:35:32] people signed up on place 12. So I don't know what happened to pair that down
[1:35:37] the floor but I guess they withdrew. It was a highly contested region or place.
[1:35:47] And I know some of these other people that have been put them put themselves
[1:35:51] forward and some of them I don't know but I do know the existing board that we
[1:35:56] have is doing a great job. I read all their bios and there's some really qualified
[1:36:00] by people.
[1:36:01] Absolutely.
[1:36:07] Any discussion?
[1:36:08] Questions?
[1:36:09] Mr. Oliver?
[1:36:12] Yes, sir.
[1:36:14] Okay.
[1:36:19] All in favor of submitting an official ballot for the election in place is 11-14 to the board
[1:36:25] of trustees for the Texas Municipal League and Intergovernment Risk pool, naming all incumbents.
[1:36:32] Please say aye.
[1:36:33] Go ahead.
[1:36:34] We need a motion.
[1:36:36] That's the motion.
[1:36:37] I make that motion.
[1:36:38] Motion.
[1:36:39] Second.
[1:36:56] The next is, consider authorizing the city manager to negotiate, finalize, and execute an internal
[1:37:03] agreement between the city and Hood County for police disparate services.
[1:37:09] Thank you, Mayor.
[1:37:10] I was out of town when this item came up.
[1:37:12] But there was a agenda item on the county commissioners agenda that I was notified basically
[1:37:20] we're currently paying about $148,000 a year for dispatch service for emergency dispatch.
[1:37:28] That's a ten-year-old contract.
[1:37:32] I'm going to let Deputy City Manager Michael Ross walk you through the whole saga of this
[1:37:38] event.
[1:37:39] And I may add some color to it when he's through.
[1:37:41] thank you. Thank you, Chris. Mayor City Council. As Chris will give you a little background
[1:37:49] and the agenda item itself. We just kind of left that open for your discretion this evening
[1:37:55] to authorize the city manager to take whatever action you've deemed appropriate.
[1:38:01] In March of 2016, the City of Granbarian Hood County approved an interlocal agreement
[1:38:06] that outlining the annual payments from the city to the county.
[1:38:10] Per the agreement the city paid $48,908 in 2016, $97,816 in 2017, and $146,723 from 2018 to the present.
[1:38:28] As part of the agreement, a corporation called the Hood County Dispatch Advisory Board was
[1:38:33] This required to be formed and that board was required to oversee the operation of the
[1:38:39] dispatch services and make appropriate recommendations regarding dispatch-related
[1:38:43] policies and procedures.
[1:38:46] This group should have been part of this evaluation and proposed changes to the interlocal agreement.
[1:38:53] The city has no record of this board ever being formed or having a meeting over the last
[1:38:59] 10 years.
[1:39:00] years. The term of the 2016 dispatch agreement was to run until September 30th of 2026 with
[1:39:09] three year terms automatically renewed after that, if not terminated by that date. A one-year
[1:39:16] notice of cancellation was required by either party to terminate. On September 26th of 2025,
[1:39:23] the county provided a one-year notice of termination of the existing agreement to the city. Therefore,
[1:39:29] for this agreement was not automatically renewed
[1:39:32] and will expire on September 30th of 2026.
[1:39:38] During the past year, the county has not communicated
[1:39:40] with the city regarding a new interlocal agreement
[1:39:43] for Dispatch Services.
[1:39:45] A couple of weeks ago, the city noticed
[1:39:47] an upcoming County Commissioner's core agenda item
[1:39:50] scheduled for September 8th of 2026
[1:39:54] that had a new proposed agreement for Dispatch Services
[1:39:57] between the city and the county.
[1:40:00] City staff attended the commissioner's court meeting and respectfully requested that the item be pulled from the agenda and the commissioner for precinct one made that request and the item was pulled. The New County agreement proposes an increase in the annual cost of dispatch services to the city from the current amount of $146,723 to $697,575.
[1:40:29] This represents an increase of more than $550,000 annually, or approximately 376%.
[1:40:39] And is a significant and unexpected change from the existing financial arrangement.
[1:40:46] This is especially disturbing giving the fact that City Council just adopted our budget
[1:40:50] and a tax rate, and that rate does not include the two and a half additional cents, it would
[1:40:57] take to fund this increase. It is important to note that the taxpayers of
[1:41:02] Grandbury have paid the county approximately $100 million during the term of
[1:41:08] the existing agreement and the county received about $11.5 million just
[1:41:13] during the last recorded tax year. The city believes this substantial
[1:41:18] contribution more than pays for any county service provided to Grandbury
[1:41:22] citizens including dispatch services. The city believes the county is effectively double
[1:41:28] taxing the Grandbury citizens for dispatch, dispatch services. Accordingly staff recommends
[1:41:36] the following. Request the county to come present their new proposed interlocal agreement to the
[1:41:42] city council and explain and substantiate the proposed annual charge including the methodology,
[1:41:49] policy, costs, assumptions, and justifications supporting the proposed amount.
[1:41:56] Address the significant lack of communication regarding the proposed changes during the
[1:42:00] past year.
[1:42:02] Determine the status of the Hood County Dispatch Advisory Board, including whether the
[1:42:06] board has been formally established, and if so, why is it not met as contemplated by the
[1:42:12] existing agreement?
[1:42:12] and work collaboratively toward an amicable and mutually acceptable agreement that fairly addresses the costs of dispatch services while recognizing the significant county tax contribution made by Grandbury taxpayers.
[1:42:29] I'm happy to answer any questions.
[1:42:32] Michael, do the other cities in Hood County, Leipan, Toler, Cresson, do they pay anything to the county at all?
[1:42:43] out to my knowledge.
[1:42:48] So I was in a conversation with one of the commissioners and my understanding about
[1:42:53] where that number came from was they took the total cost for the whole project.
[1:42:59] The employees, the equipment I guess everything and they came up, I think I believe it was
[1:43:04] about $2 million.
[1:43:07] And I'm guessing that that number.
[1:43:10] And then they said the city's emergency calls accounted for approximately 30% of the total.
[1:43:20] So they just said we're going to take that $2 million and make the city pay 30%.
[1:43:23] Not at all taken into account that we do pay property taxes also.
[1:43:28] So I don't know why we pay anything extra.
[1:43:30] I'm surprised that this agreement 10 years ago was made.
[1:43:33] I mean, my understanding is accounting by law is required to provide emergency services
[1:43:41] for the entire county, right?
[1:43:43] That is our understanding, correct.
[1:43:45] And they have the equipment issued by North Texas Central Council government to provide
[1:43:51] 9-1-1 emergency dispatch.
[1:43:53] They have that equipment.
[1:43:55] We cannot dispatch for our own city because we cannot get that equipment.
[1:44:00] Because our population is not sufficient, and then is this available for the public to see that you just handed out?
[1:44:08] Yeah.
[1:44:08] On the slide in there.
[1:44:10] Oh, okay, go wait.
[1:44:12] No, not that one.
[1:44:14] Well, that one shows the 100 million.
[1:44:16] I'll put it back on that for about a hundred million dollars.
[1:44:19] Yeah, this does show the last 10 years payments in property tax and sales tax that equaled that 100 million.
[1:44:28] $1 million total dollars by dance
[1:44:34] favor was kind enough to put this together for us.
[1:44:39] Yeah, the sales tax is the tax on goods sold within the city limits as determined by the state.
[1:44:47] Yeah, the half-send sales tax.
[1:44:50] And the state then remits to the Hood County Journal fund.
[1:44:54] The property taxes are properties that we sit on within the city limits.
[1:45:00] That H can't remit to the Hood County General Fund. Yes, sir. And it's uncommon, generally, work that counties collect any sales tax. That typically is a city tax to be from a sales perspective. There's a city tax to be collected. Right. But in 1988, for whatever reason, maybe it was the economy at the time. The city and the county both adopted that half-sent property tax reduction.
[1:45:30] right.
[1:45:35] Go to a quick question. I know that outside of the county is this
[1:45:40] standard? What is the standard? Texas-wide on cities paying in to this
[1:45:48] service if the county's responsible for it or is there a standard? We have not
[1:45:54] had the time to do the deep dive on statewide what everybody does. What I did see
[1:46:02] in the last few days doing a quick look at cities surrounding us is any almost
[1:46:07] any city that reaches the population where they can begin handling their own
[1:46:12] dispatch it appears that they are. Ben Brook, Cleaver, Mansfield, weather for all
[1:46:23] those cities that have reached those population thresholds have begun to handle
[1:46:27] their own dispatch services. There are some like Johnson County that provides the service
[1:46:34] for the cities around them. They have some kind of a financial arrangement that appears
[1:46:39] to date back similarly to goods. But the city's cleaburn and such appear to have their
[1:46:48] own within Johnson County. I'll
[1:47:05] start over. I've managed small cities my
[1:47:15] entire career and this is the only city that we've ever been responsible for
[1:47:21] making a payment for dispatch services to the county. Another city that I
[1:47:27] that was similar to the size of Grandbury actually did the dispatch for the entire county and all the other entities and we charged fees to them based upon the formula that you just explained because we were providing services to people outside our tax base and the and that amount that was calculated into the county's portion was considered how much they also contributed the tax payer.
[1:47:56] so they weren't being double taxed and that's what I'm trying to get at.
[1:48:01] The other cities that I managed receive free dispatching service from the county because
[1:48:07] they had the equipment and that was the way it was set up when I got there.
[1:48:11] I've never negotiated one of these until I came here.
[1:48:14] We had an agreement previous to my arriving here in 2015.
[1:48:19] it matured in 2016 and the commissioner in precinct 2 was on a on a tear to review every
[1:48:30] contract that the county had and make sure that they weren't having to pay for anything
[1:48:35] they didn't have to pay for and so they renegotiated this contract and it was like $48,000 a year
[1:48:42] and then they stepped it up in the increments in your packet and they stepped it up to the
[1:48:51] 148,000 to include hiring another dispatcher for the facility and they felt like that was fair.
[1:48:59] The City Council at the time got tired of arguing with them and told me to sign the agreement.
[1:49:05] So that's where we're at today.
[1:49:06] we've never had that committee meeting has spelled out of a board meeting. Let me
[1:49:13] look at your deal. This is for the benefit of the community that's here. I want
[1:49:24] to
[1:49:24] read the Hood County Dispatch Advisory Board Incorporated. So this is an
[1:49:29] incorporated board that was supposed to be created. That's a separate entity
[1:49:34] than the local government okay. That's an incorporation filed with the
[1:49:38] Secretary of State. This is a board that's supposed to be created, shall oversee the operation of the dispatch services and make appropriate recommendations regarding policies of procedures.
[1:49:49] There's a whole listing here of classes of members. The corporations shall have three classes of members established by the articles of the corporation and bylaws.
[1:49:58] The designation of the
[1:50:00] Presentation of such classes and qualifications of the members of such classes are as follows. Full members, general membership shall include Hood County Sheriff and one delegate representing each one of the following. Hood County Area Police Departments, Grandbury Police Department, Hood County Emergency Management Coordinators Office, Hood County Area Volunteer Fire Department, Hood County Area EMS Operators, Plural, Hood County Commissioners Court, and
[1:50:29] city of Granbury. When we received our termination notice in September of last year we asked what's
[1:50:37] been going on with these meetings. Well, they hadn't been happening. The City Council appointed Greg
[1:50:43] Corrigan to be that person to represent the city of Granbury. There's a at-large membership shall
[1:50:48] include four Hood County residents. That means Hood County. That means anybody in Granbury could
[1:50:54] serving that capacity too, their hood county could be nominated by the Hood County Sheriff
[1:51:00] and confirmed by a vote of the full membership. Each at large member shall be allowed to
[1:51:05] vote on issues before the board. And then there were honorary membership.
[1:51:09] Honorary memberships may be granted by the board and encouraged participate in discussion
[1:51:15] and will not be able to vote on issues before the board. So that's the structure that was
[1:51:20] set up for our 9-1-1 dispatch, an independent, non-profit,
[1:51:26] incorporated board was supposed to be established to regulate what goes on.
[1:51:31] What's happened for the last 20 years, the best I can tell,
[1:51:35] because I've never seen the corporation, is the sheriff has been running the show.
[1:51:39] It doesn't matter who the sheriff is, that's what's been happening.
[1:51:41] So we're here today trying to figure out what to do.
[1:51:46] they've cut off the dispatch agreement, it will be effective October 1st, the
[1:51:53] discontinuation of the service, or the contract. My point of contention is,
[1:52:01] I've got $146,000 or $148,000 in our budget, budgeted for next year's
[1:52:06] dispatch service, and you know what in October, I won't be able to wrap that check as
[1:52:12] your city manager to the county for that dispatch service because we don't have an agreement.
[1:52:20] So we need to hear this in some way and we need the county to come to the city council
[1:52:25] and present something that they want and they're asking for instead of just backdoring it
[1:52:31] through an agenda at their meeting and expecting us to show up and respond and all of a sudden
[1:52:37] know this is the deal.
[1:52:38] So I can't sign a contract without your authorization if it shows up at my doorstep between
[1:52:44] now and October 1st.
[1:52:46] I don't want that responsibility.
[1:52:48] I want you all as the City Council, the governing body, to have a say so in this, just like
[1:52:54] the county commissioners and the county judge have a say so in this.
[1:52:59] And so I'm going to be quiet and express that I believe that we should be getting the service
[1:53:04] for free.
[1:53:05] If they are worried about the non-emergency calls, I'm sure we can work out some kind of arrangement around that.
[1:53:12] Very few non-emergency calls go to the 911 center, but if they do, maybe there's a path forward that we could reconcile the expense that they're occurring for that.
[1:53:24] Mitch is the recipient of that more than anyone in our community and he has expressed great concerns over this whole issue.
[1:53:34] Yes,
[1:53:38] to piggyback off of that and to kind of clarify what you were saying earlier, the county
[1:53:44] Leely has to dispatch all of our 9-1-1 calls. So the emergency calls.
[1:53:49] It don't legally have to dispatch the non-emergency calls. So if we're going to pay anything
[1:53:56] and I agree with Chris, it shouldn't be it should be zero, but it has been
[1:54:02] agree to in the past that we would pay something, those calls are the only calls that should
[1:54:08] be considered. I don't care how much it costs to run dispatch or to add new employees
[1:54:14] or whatever the case would be, that is the only amount of calls that should ever be taken
[1:54:20] into consideration for an amount to be paid and the fact that we're the only ones that
[1:54:26] pay it is a little concerned. Mr. Woodland? Cody, can you put the other slide back up please?
[1:54:34] Are Michael?
[1:54:37] No?
[1:54:50] What really stood out when I saw this is that the city population is 17 and a half percent
[1:54:55] of the county and our contribution to their total expenses.
[1:55:04] I'm not saying we're not supposed, we should pay 17% because we are 17%. I'm just saying the city population is paying their fair share and then some. I'll go back with more than their fair share. But I'm like, next month, you don't write a check. I'm good with that.
[1:55:25] If they want to come and bring them and present something to us and
[1:55:29] and have a reasonable argument for why we should pay extra.
[1:55:33] I'm certainly willing to listen to it.
[1:55:35] A previous council 10 years ago apparently did.
[1:55:38] But, or whatever it was, they just paid it.
[1:55:41] Oh, but they need to come and tell us what they want
[1:55:46] and why they want it.
[1:55:48] A comment on the 17% population.
[1:55:52] That's I think Tammy will tell us,
[1:55:54] Monday through Thursday of Friday on Friday, Saturday, Sunday, we have a big population
[1:56:02] because trying to get through my head, how do they take 30% of the calls out of 17%
[1:56:07] of the population get, deal out 30% of the calls? Well, we have a lot of visitors to come
[1:56:14] every weekend.
[1:56:16] And we have at least two crashes on Highway 377 every day, statistically. Those are county
[1:56:22] residents, those are state residents, those are people just driving through town that our police
[1:56:27] department responds to and they're penalizing us in the formula by saying, oh, we need to charge
[1:56:32] you more because there was a wreck in your city. Right. And just to know they are and waiting on
[1:56:41] the results of a study regarding radio systems and dispatch. They don't have the results of that
[1:56:48] That study had, that's one of the things Commissioner Precinct 1, Commissioner Andrews mentioned
[1:56:53] that they are waiting on to see what the results of that are.
[1:57:00] We've mentioned numerous times to county staff members and commissioners that we have built
[1:57:07] a section of our dispatch, a section of our police station as future dispatch.
[1:57:13] we've offered it up in various ways that we could talk about the city and the county together,
[1:57:19] ways to share and possibly stand up as the county might need additional staff,
[1:57:26] ways that we could share in that instead of just having empty space until the day we reach
[1:57:31] a population where we can stand up our own piece of location and so those are things that we've
[1:57:39] We've even reached out to this consultant independently and gave this information to them the things that we're willing to talk about, didn't commit to anything, obviously, but just the willingness to chat.
[1:57:52] So what was really frustrating for me with this and so I took a week of vacation or tried to and I get noticed that there's a agenda item on the, I get noticed from my staff, not from the county.
[1:58:07] that there's an agenda item on Tuesday's Commissioner Court meeting that wants us to pay $690 something thousand dollars for dispatch and they're going to vote on it.
[1:58:16] And so I asked Michael to attend that meeting and try to represent us as best we could to understand that this is not how a deal like this should go down.
[1:58:30] Unfortunately Commissioner Andrews pulled the item as it was his item on the agenda, but I reached out to the county judge and called left message his friend of mine he didn't call me back.
[1:58:45] He did send me a text with a information that basically said they've been working on this quite a while and you've been contacted several times and had several meetings and
[1:58:59] I was supposed to have had all these meetings with Commissioner Andrews and those never
[1:59:05] happened.
[1:59:06] And so I responded to him that, you know, there was going to be a meeting in June, please
[1:59:12] was June, what did Jeremy, did you all set up?
[1:59:15] Jeremy had been working with the sheriff's set this meeting up to sit down and have Mr.
[1:59:20] Corgan, council member Corgan go to that meeting and represent the city and talk about this
[1:59:24] dispatch agreement.
[1:59:26] and they canceled that before the meeting
[1:59:29] at the direction of the Commissioner's Court.
[1:59:32] So this has been a deliberate
[1:59:37] action by the Commissioner's Court
[1:59:39] to wait till the last minute to address this.
[1:59:43] And I've had one meeting with Commissioner Andrews
[1:59:47] about a month ago, maybe three weeks ago,
[1:59:50] that we talked about the dispatch,
[1:59:52] and he said, I think it should be free like you do.
[1:59:54] and we didn't talk any more about it and so I'm very
[2:00:00] We've talked of the misinformation being shared at the county level about how many times Michael Ross, Chris Collins, and Chris Kaufman have been in communication related to this patch agreement. And they're all false statements. Chris Collins has a Grandbury Regional Radio Network meeting every month with the stakeholders. It's not on their agenda to talk about this patch service. They have not been talking about it. But that's not what's being communicated
[2:00:29] to the county commissioners and the county judge particularly.
[2:00:35] So we've got some misinformation being shared among folks in the dispatch service to the emergency management coordinator, to the county judge, it's misinformation.
[2:00:47] And I for one don't want to get in the middle of all this, but
[2:00:51] I will tell you that whoever is going to represent the county needs to come to stand right there and
[2:00:56] And tell y'all what they're asking for if they want a half million dollars more than
[2:01:01] what we budgeted for.
[2:01:03] Simple as that.
[2:01:04] They shouldn't just come up and put it on their agenda to pass an ordinance or pass a
[2:01:10] agreement and say, we're going to hand this to the city.
[2:01:12] City manager, by the way, he's been talking to everybody, they know all about it, which
[2:01:17] is completely inaccurate, and I'm not going to get in the middle of all that.
[2:01:21] I'm going to tell y'all that they need to come here and speak in an open meeting and explain what they're asking for to the tax payers of Grandbury, why they think they need another half million dollars to provide emergency services that they should be providing for free.
[2:01:36] That's all I'm going to say. I'm done.
[2:01:38] Well, Mr. Coveman, you keep saying providing for free, and I'm sitting here looking at a city limits inside the city limits property tax of six million eight hundred and seventy two thousand two hundred and forty dollars.
[2:01:49] We are buying something and we're buying county courts. We're buying, you know, I'm not saying that it's not an appropriate amount for what we get.
[2:02:01] But if if I move out across the city limit and I don't have to pay for the this service, but I move back in and I have to pay for it, and our taxes are no, I think you know, no.
[2:02:19] Well, you have a separate road tax, one's the county tax, one's the last time the county did a city road of any kind.
[2:02:27] I don't know, the county does the city road, I mean that just doesn't happen.
[2:02:32] Well, the, it
[2:02:38] is a dilemma, it has to be resolved.
[2:02:42] We cannot have, we can't be double taxed, in my opinion, and we're paying, we're paying
[2:02:54] 25% of the county total budget, as it is, with actions and goods that come out of the city limits.
[2:03:03] So we're like this.
[2:03:06] We've got to work this out, one way or the other.
[2:03:09] But starting at $650,000 for something that used to cost $148, and still paying 24% of all of the taxes
[2:03:22] is, all of the property taxes that go in for county goods, I think we, I think we
[2:03:31] had, I think we might have to get them.
[2:03:34] We would have had to, have levied another 2.5 cents to our tax rate to cover that half
[2:03:41] million dollars.
[2:03:42] Right.
[2:03:43] And it's other, another point, the advisory board is mandated under state statute that the
[2:03:51] the county provide that, and all the counties that have similar arrangements have those similar advisory boards that actually function other than Hood County.
[2:04:01] Yeah, I went online and started looking at the same thing you did and how do you do, who's paying what, and either the city's taking it over, the girl to the point where they can get the equipment and we continue to forget to remind people that because the city does have, or because the county does have the equipment they get what,
[2:04:20] 50 cents a month from everybody that has a land line and I think that's even
[2:04:25] extended and to cell phones at this point. So it's not like they're not getting
[2:04:30] some kind of referrals and the cog in the state bought the equipment. It's not
[2:04:36] a purchase so it's an operating expense. We should be able to get hold of them.
[2:04:41] From a call center standpoint, which is where I live for about 15 years, getting
[2:04:45] in a call, knowing where it came from, how long it is, who had it and where it went, is
[2:04:50] basic math, so we can keep track very easily of what calls are non-emergency calls that
[2:04:57] are routed to, I think the-
[2:05:00] We'll go to the chief's house so they can be taken care of there. Well, the segue on that, my question is not emergency, not one one calls, but approximately how many calls a day are we talking about from the city non-emergency calls, approximately how many? They haven't shared that information with us. So my next question is I'm a numbers person to mayor and they're asking us for almost $2,000 a day.
[2:05:30] That's when it will stop you. You are a number first. So it's not $1552 a day. So if we're
[2:05:37] talking we're getting ten calls, my question to my constituency, do you think non-emergency
[2:05:44] calls are worth $200 each?
[2:05:50] Are you willing to pay $200 for a non-emergency call? I'm seeing
[2:05:55] a lot of headshaking back and forth. That doesn't make sense to me either. So, I've won,
[2:06:00] I'd like to know how many non-emergency calls because they're obligated to take the emergency
[2:06:07] calls. And that's it.
[2:06:12] Well, this was a discussion item. Do we need a motion or we just don't pay
[2:06:17] the bill next month?
[2:06:21] Well, there's no authorization to pay the bill.
[2:06:25] If council would like us to have those communications that Chris mentioned, I mean you can, council could just direct or whatever you think Chris tell us to go have those communications and request that the county come present their proposal to the city council.
[2:06:43] So
[2:06:55] I make a motion that the city manager set the set it up where the county can come make a presentation
[2:07:04] thus regarding dispatch services so we can understand what they want from us.
[2:07:12] Do we have a second?
[2:07:13] Second.
[2:07:14] Mr. Corrigan.
[2:07:16] Second.
[2:07:17] All in favor say aye.
[2:07:19] Aye.
[2:07:19] All opposed.
[2:07:24] So do you sleep.
[2:07:25] All the policy day, I hear no nays and Mr. Carlton, Michael thank you and if you need help on that from anyone on the council, I'm sure that you feel free to just reach out because we will do that.
[2:07:45] Yeah, we do need them to kind of let us know what they're thinking here.
[2:07:50] all right
[2:07:53] okay
[2:08:09] could you do it quickly yes
[2:08:19] sir it's bedtime it's so I don't
[2:08:25] want to waste any base I'm sorry sir sonny bird I have a property at Indian Creek
[2:08:31] Trail and another one being built at Rick Baugh or 3574 Rick Baugh which is
[2:08:36] the meta-wood. A couple of questions, and I appreciate the banter back and forth to
[2:08:42] not the information that we were given. One thing we couldn't, we can't change some
[2:08:47] of this because of the state law, but could we have protected ourselves by not changing
[2:08:51] the zoning originally? Like, are you guys forced to change zoning? Because PNZ asked for it
[2:08:58] not to be changed. I think it went five-one. So is that something that can protect us in
[2:09:03] in the future as a town.
[2:09:11] So the issue with that particular zone, as to that specific piece of property is that
[2:09:17] there was a permit that had been secured from the state.
[2:09:23] And when that property was annexed in, there is a provision in chapter 43 of the Texas
[2:09:27] local government code that expressly states when a municipality annexes a property that already
[2:09:35] has a vested use and in that case it was an industrial use. The city cannot divest that
[2:09:42] property of that use. So in essence what the city did is when we annexed it we took it
[2:09:48] in as interim holding because that's what the staff normally does. They didn't have knowledge
[2:09:54] of that vested permit once it was brought to our attention. The city effectively didn't
[2:10:01] We went back and said, oh, when we took it in, we made a mistake, we just fixed an error. It was a house cleaning thing. It was not an intentional. We're going to go in and rezone this and make it industrial. We were protecting ourselves and the taxpayers from litigation because the developer that had that vested use threatened, well, we'll sue you, and they would win. Now, we could have said, okay, we're not going to rezone it to industrial.
[2:10:29] it'll just be a non-conforming use, but that's not going to change the use of the land, so you look at it and say, well you have a non-conforming use, we can't stop you from using it in an industrial way, or we can make it consistent with the plan that we already had in place.
[2:10:46] So it just made it cleaner and easier to go ahead and do the zoning, but that was merely specifically to that property was a housekeeping issue so that we were legally compliant.
[2:10:58] I hope you all understand, we're not here to argue, especially myself, Mac, Bennett mentioned, I have two little girls, Logan and Andy, they're 10 and 7.
[2:11:08] We live next to what will be second, or we, we're building next to second chance farm, she had to leave.
[2:11:15] We're concerned, and I've said both things can be true.
[2:11:19] I can very much respect each of you, and I can still feel disappointed for myself.
[2:11:25] Mr. Kaufman, you've said you've had numerous talks with bilateral.
[2:11:28] Y'all, I have tried since January to get someone to respond to me, and no one has.
[2:11:33] And the city posted a politician that said there are bad actors out there.
[2:11:39] One that doesn't represent us, we didn't vote for them.
[2:11:42] And now, I feel like there are bad actors.
[2:11:45] I just need some information, right?
[2:11:47] right? My property will never sell, you know, no one's going to want to live next to
[2:11:52] this, what it could be. And so we're scared. And I don't know how to get in contact with
[2:11:57] them. And then the city again posted. How do we get in contact? We posted a website. I've
[2:12:03] tried that. I've tried not to post anything that is not true, right? And I saw the TCEQ
[2:12:11] now we can get on there and, you know, put new public comments.
[2:12:18] And like I said, we're just really scared.
[2:12:20] I'm not a data person.
[2:12:22] I think come up your rule, nice that Mr. Dan did, but I'm a human person.
[2:12:26] And we all are.
[2:12:28] So please know that it's not hate, you said, he'll be hate.
[2:12:32] It's not hate, it's fear.
[2:12:35] And so I just asked you, Dr. Bruce, I heard you in the hallway, come talk to me.
[2:12:41] you know, talking to someone else.
[2:12:42] And then Mr. Greg said, I can't talk to you
[2:12:45] because it's in litigation.
[2:12:46] We said that several months ago in an email.
[2:12:48] So I'm just trying to do the right thing.
[2:12:51] Have you seen their website?
[2:12:54] Yes, sir.
[2:12:54] That's all we know, too.
[2:12:58] So some of that's scary because we said in the one,
[2:13:03] you know, we talked afterwards several of us did.
[2:13:07] And we felt as though, and I'm not
[2:13:09] speaking on everybody. When we had to do open records to find out what was
[2:13:13] happening, it's like what do we trust? And I keep looking at Carla, she's done a
[2:13:18] wonderful job and I thank you, I feel like you've been thrown under the bus, just
[2:13:21] thank you for everything you've done. So we don't know like what is the truth,
[2:13:28] right? What is what's been done in back rooms? What's an NDA?
[2:13:33] You know if you have
[2:13:34] more information, you said you've been on the phone. I don't know what you can
[2:13:37] share with us. Come out, come see where we're building our land, our home. We bought the
[2:13:43] land because we buried our dog out there. Honestly, we have a soul that friend of ours
[2:13:48] owned it and she sold it to us because our dukes out there. So again, Mr. Jeff, it's not
[2:13:54] an argument towards you. I appreciate your website and everything you've done. Council,
[2:13:58] I appreciate you. I want to work with you. Let me ask you. Have you been to bilateral
[2:14:04] lateral energy's website. They're paid, they're paid for project
[2:14:08] pages. Yes, sir. Okay. That's the information we have as
[2:14:11] well. Okay. And you can see that on our website as well. We've
[2:14:15] got that link provided. Yes, sir. But we just got that like a
[2:14:17] month ago. Yes, sir. I went to it as soon as we've been asking
[2:14:21] for information forever. So they're not providing it to us
[2:14:26] because whatever reason they have. But I would like to just
[2:14:30] Let's remind everybody that it's within earshot of what we're saying.
[2:14:34] That project was designed and on track to be built in the county long before they asked
[2:14:42] to be in the seller of the property, asked to be annexed.
[2:14:46] That was a blessing because we can put development standards in place like we've done to keep
[2:14:53] whoever builds there from building junk.
[2:14:56] We're trying to protect our community.
[2:15:00] And you're part of our community. We feel like even though you're in the DTJ, you're who we want to protect. And that's why we adopted those additional standards in April. Before we did the zoning change. And so we're trying to use all of our abilities, work through the state laws, the matrix, the obstacles that the state puts before us, to get something that when it is
[2:15:30] built if it is built that that we can all be proud of and say well that's not
[2:15:35] what we wanted there we'd like the pasture but we couldn't afford to buy the
[2:15:39] land ourselves and somebody else bought it and they've done what they wanted to
[2:15:43] with it but if we can if we can put some parameters in place that makes it
[2:15:48] pretty that makes it safe that makes it not a nuisance I think John Copeland said
[2:15:57] at best we don't want to hear it and we don't want to see it.
[2:16:00] Yes, sir.
[2:16:00] And I have fears with the construction.
[2:16:02] And that's what we're trying to accomplish if we can ever get them to the table when
[2:16:07] we're ready where it's able to be brought forward and that's kind of where we're at.
[2:16:12] So I don't see this moving very fast if at all, but that's just my perspective.
[2:16:18] So take take heart that this group of people up here are sincere about protecting Grand
[2:16:26] in our community and maintaining our quality of life
[2:16:29] and our historical preservation.
[2:16:33] You know, that out there out in the county
[2:16:35] was going to get developed, the land owner,
[2:16:39] thank goodness Dr. Rady and his team asked to be annexed.
[2:16:44] To my knowledge, the property still is owned by Dr. Rady.
[2:16:47] And to my knowledge, it's still under contract
[2:16:50] to be sold to this bilateral group.
[2:16:54] That's on the website, that's all we know.
[2:16:57] And yeah, we'd love to learn more and learn to do more,
[2:17:01] but there are obstacles in our way
[2:17:04] from being able to accomplish anything.
[2:17:06] So, thanks for coming to that.
[2:17:08] Well, I appreciate this.
[2:17:10] And if we ever had a town hall and we sat down
[2:17:12] in Mr. Sirell, I was going based off of the thing
[2:17:16] on the website, you'll know I'm not well versed in this.
[2:17:19] This is not my well house, you know, and well house.
[2:17:22] And when you look at what had been planned, you know, in the book, we never thought this would happen, and I get that.
[2:17:29] And we're in uncharted territory, but please just know it's from fear, we're your neighbors, we love you guys, regardless of where our address is, and so please help protect us.
[2:17:39] If you had told us two years ago that there was going to be seven to ten data centers proposed in Hood County, we would have said, what's the data center?
[2:17:47] right correct yes we were unprepared just like the rest of the nation right and so this isn't just
[2:17:54] us it's all over and unfortunately I've got five people up here are going to be on a recall ballot
[2:18:02] if they stick around you know Greg won't be because he's not running for reelection but he got
[2:18:08] recalled anyway doesn't make sense why you'd recall somebody that's not running for office but
[2:18:13] That's what they did, so here we go, and we're trying to follow the law and do what the City Charter says, do what the State Law says.
[2:18:23] Well, thank you for this conversation.
[2:18:25] Thank you.
[2:18:25] Thank you all for staying after for me.
[2:18:27] Thank you.
[2:18:28] All right.
[2:18:31] Do we have other things?
[2:18:33] Anyone else?
[2:18:34] Okay.
[2:18:35] I'm going to now declare that the City Council is convening an open session.
[2:18:39] The minimum of members are, Quorum of members are present.
[2:18:44] Councilperson Olam is appearing via video conferences advertised.
[2:18:48] The City Council will now go into closed session, pursuant to provisions to Texas government
[2:18:52] code in accordance with the authority containing the following sections.
[2:18:55] 551, consultation with attorney pending or contemplated litigation, and 551-072 deliberation
[2:19:03] regarding real property.
[2:19:06] and Mr. Goodett, Mr. Olam will be in the executive session with us as for the code. Thank you.
[2:20:42] Okay. I now declare that it's, what, 10 to 10? I declare that the Grandbury City Council
[2:20:48] recommends an open session. There was no action taken in closed session, and the
[2:20:54] Court of the Members are present with the Councilman. Councilperson Ullham is
[2:21:00] continuing to appear via video conference as we advertised. Council, any other business?
[2:21:10] I make a motion to reconsider agenda item 7.1.
[2:21:17] I hear a motion to reconsider agenda item 7.1 and I have a second, do you have more
[2:21:25] to add to that or just do we consider moving on to that first?
[2:21:29] Okay.
[2:21:31] All right.
[2:21:32] All in favor say aye.
[2:21:33] Aye.
[2:21:33] I hear
[2:21:38] no nays that will pass 6 to no.
[2:21:42] Additionally?
[2:21:43] Yes, sir.
[2:21:44] I make a motion to postpone definitely item 7.1 till February 2nd, 2027.
[2:21:51] Do I hear a second?
[2:21:54] Second.
[2:21:56] Because second.
[2:21:58] Motion is to postpone definitely till February 2nd, 2026.
[2:22:07] February 7th.
[2:22:08] Second.
[2:22:09] Second.
[2:22:10] 227.
[2:22:11] Oh.
[2:22:11] Second.
[2:22:12] 2027.
[2:22:15] So do I hear a motion and I have a second to postpone the motion that we just recalled
[2:22:25] until February 2nd, 2027.
[2:22:31] All in favor say aye.
[2:22:35] All opposed say nay.
[2:22:37] The two will pass six and no.
[2:22:41] Other business?
[2:22:43] I hear no other business. I announce this meeting adjourned.