[CALL TO ORDER ]
          [00:00:08]
          COUNSEL AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND BEGIN OUR MEETING AT 5:00. STRAIGHT UP, A SPECIAL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, MAY 26TH, 2026. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING BEFORE A LITTLE BIT OF HOUSEKEEPING BEFORE WE GET STARTED. THIS SESSION IS GOING TO START WITH A BRIEFING FROM OUR TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ATTORNEY, JIM JEFFERIES, WHO'S HERE, AND OUR CITY ATTORNEY, ROBERT HAGER. SO THEY'LL BE TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHY WE'RE HERE AND WHERE WE MIGHT BE HEADED. AND AFTER THAT PART, WE WILL ENTER INTO DELIBERATION, WHICH WILL GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AND MAYBE ASK SOME QUESTIONS. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEYS. SO ONCE WE GET TO THAT POINT, I'LL ANNOUNCE IT. SO EVERYBODY WILL BE CLEAR. NOW, IN THE MEANTIME, AFTER THAT, WE HAVE CITIZENS INPUT, WHICH IS A SESSION THAT MANY OF YOU ARE AWARE OF THAT ALLOWS YOU TO SPEAK FOR UP TO TWO MINUTES, BUT WE CAN'T COMMENT BACK. SO IF YOU SIGNED UP FOR THAT AND YOU'D PREFER TO SPEAK DURING THE DELIBERATION, LET US KNOW. WE'LL BE ASKING IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK. AND WE HAVE A FLOATING MICROPHONE THAT WE CAN PASS AROUND. AND IF YOU PREFER TO COME TO THE UP HERE TO THE PODIUM, FEEL FREE TO DO THAT AS WELL. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET AS MANY QUESTIONS ANSWERED AS POSSIBLE. SO WITH THAT AND NO OTHER BUSINESS WILL MOVE INTO THE BRIEFING ITEM A UNDER 
          [WORK SESSION / BRIEFING ]
BRIEFING AND DELIBERATION AND ATTORNEYS. WHO'S GOING TO BEGIN? ALL RIGHT, MR. HAGER, MAYOR AND COUNCIL AND THOSE OF YOU IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT, CITIZENS CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, YOU ARE FAMILIAR, I BELIEVE, WITH LIFE SCHOOL LOCATION IN COCKRELL HILL AND DANIEL DILL ROAD AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. AND THAT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE COUNCIL FOR A COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 15TH, 2025. AND AFTER THAT COUNCIL MEETING, LIFE SCHOOL. THE APPLICANT IN THAT CASE, AFTER BEING TURNED DOWN, SUED THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE AND SUED INDIVIDUALLY ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. AND SO THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TONIGHT, WHERE WE ARE WITH THIS. AND WE WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND AND HEAR THIS FROM US BEFORE ANYTHING ELSE HAPPENS. WHAT THE STATUS OF THAT LAWSUIT IS, WHERE THE CITY FINDS ITSELF AND WHAT WE THINK WILL HAPPEN. AND WE WILL LATER TALK TO THE COUNCIL TONIGHT ABOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTLING THIS MATTER. ALL RIGHT. BACK IN LATE 2022, EARLY 2023, THAT PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THE CORNER OF COCKRELL HILL AND DANIEL DELL ROAD, WAS BOUGHT BY THE LIFE SCHOOL. AND PRIOR TO THEM BUYING THAT PROPERTY, THEY HAD COME TO THE CITY AND SAID THAT THEY HAD VISIONS OF PUTTING A SCHOOL THERE. THEY DIDN'T SPECIFY WHAT THE SCHOOL WAS NECESSARILY GOING TO BE AT THE TIME, SAID THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP A SCHOOL SITE ON THE PROPERTY, AND THAT THE REST OF THE PROPERTY COULD BE COMMITTED TO COMMERCIAL USE ADJACENT, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT FROM COCKRELL HILL, MOVING, I BELIEVE, EASTWARD, AND THAT THE THE FRONTAGE WOULD BE POSSIBLY DEDICATED TO COMMERCIAL. AT THAT TIME THEY HAD THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT. IT HAD NOT CLOSED AND THEY ASKED THE CITY WHETHER THEY WOULD. IF THEY HAD ANY OBJECTION TO US OR TO THEM POSSIBLY DEVELOPING THE SITE. AND THERE WASN'T A LOT OF SPECIFICITY AT THAT TIME. THE COUNCIL SAID, WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM NECESSARILY WITH THAT. 
          AND ULTIMATELY THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 2024. THEY FILED A ZONING APPLICATION SEEKING TO PUT A HIGH SCHOOL AND JUNIOR HIGH ON THE PROPERTY AND NOT TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY FOR COMMERCIAL USAGE ALONG DANIEL DALE ROAD, BUT HAD TAKEN THAT PART OUT. THEY SOUGHT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. AT THAT TIME, IN MANY OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAD PROPOSED WERE PROBLEMATIC. DURING THE SUMMER OF 20 2024, THAT APPLICATION WAS WITHDRAWN, AND THEY FILED A NEW APPLICATION IN THE FALL OF 2020. 
          I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE FALL OF 2024, MOVING TOWARDS 2025. AND IT'S THE PROPOSAL THAT WE HAVE BEFORE US NOW. AT THAT TIME, IT WAS REVIEWED BY STAFF. AND AT THAT TIME, WHEN THAT NEW APPLICATION CAME, WE WERE CONCERNED AND WE'RE CONCERNED FOR THE REASONS THAT I'M GOING 
          [00:05:02]
TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT TONIGHT. AND WE TALKED TO THE CITIZENS THAT LIVE IN THAT IMMEDIATE VICINITY. I BELIEVE IT WAS DOCTOR SASSER WHO BROUGHT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LIVED IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE CITY. AND WE SAT IN THE BRIEFING ROOM, AND I'M GOING TO READ YOU WHAT I TOLD YOU THEN. IT IS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY HAS REQUESTED A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ZONING RIGHTS OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS IN TE&AS, INCLUDING THE LIFE SCHOOL AND OPEN ENROLLMENT STATE CHARTER SCHOOL. SPECIFICALLY, THE COMMISSION SEEK CLARIFICATION ON WHAT THE CITY CAN AND CANNOT REGULATE WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING, LOCATION, BUILDING STANDARDS AND OTHER SITE DEVELOPMENT MATTERS FOR SUCH SCHOOLS. TEXAS LAW REQUIRES THE OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL BE TREATED THE SAME AS PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR ZONING AND LAND USE PURPOSES, AND UNDER SECTION 12.1058 OF THE TEXAS ELECTION CODE, OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOLS MUST BE TREATED AS SAME AS TRADITIONAL PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEN IT COMES TO ZONING, PERMITTING, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, AND OTHER RELATED SITE REGULATIONS. THIS SECTION ALSO MAKES CLEAR THAT A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION MAY NOT TAKE ANY ACTION THAT PROHIBITS AN OPEN ENROLLMENT CHARTER SCHOOL FROM OPENING IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL, A PUBLIC SCHOOL CAMPUS, EDUCATION SUPPORT FACILITY, ATHLETIC FACILITY OR ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE WITHIN THE POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS JURISDICTION IN THE CITY OF ADDISON VERSUS DALLAS ISD, THE COURT CONCLUDED THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT MAY PLACE ANY SCHOOL FACILITY WITHIN A AREA ZONED RESIDENTIAL, UNLESS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ACTION IS UNREASONABLE OR A NUISANCE PER SE. BECAUSE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AUTHORITY IS PARAMOUNT. OUR OUR RESPONSIBILITY, OUR OUR REGULATIONS ARE SECOND TO THE SCHOOL. WHILE THE CITY MAY NOT IMPOSE ZONING REGULATIONS TO PREVENT A SCHOOL FROM OPERATING, IT CAN IMPOSE REASONABLE REGULATIONS RELATED TO SAFETY AND HEALTH CODES. IN AUSTIN ISD VERSUS THE CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT EMPHASIZED. WHILE A SCHOOL DISTRICT COULD BE SUBJECT TO MUNICIPAL SAFETY REGULATIONS AND BUILDING CODES, A MUNICIPALITY CANNOT USE ITS ZONING POWER TO EXCLUDE SCHOOL BUILDINGS FROM ITS BOUNDARIES. SIMILARLY, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS ALSO CLARIFIED IN G. A 967 THAT CITIES MAY ENFORCE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND ORDINANCES FOR ESTHETIC AND MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY VALUES AS LONG AS THOSE REGULATIONS DO NOT PREVENT A SCHOOL DISTRICT FROM REASONABLY SELECTING A BUILDING SITE. THAT'S THE LAW IN TEXAS, PERIOD. THE SUNSET VALLEY CASE IS 70 YEARS OLD. THE ADDISON CASE WAS DECIDED IN 1982. I HAPPEN TO KNOW ABOUT THAT CASE BECAUSE I WAS THE LAWYER. AND SO I'VE BEEN HERE AND DONE THAT. AND SO THAT'S THE LAW. WHETHER WE LIKE IT OR WHETHER WE DON'T LIKE IT. THAT'S THE LAW IN TEXAS. AND THAT'S THE LAW THAT GOVERNS THEIR APPLICATION. AND THAT'S THE LAW THAT WAS PRESENTED AT THE TIME, OR THAT WAS THE LAW AT THE TIME. THIS CASE WAS HEARD BY THIS CITY COUNCIL. 
          DESPITE ALL THAT, THE COUNCIL TURNED DOWN THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE OF AS I RECALL, THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT TRAFFIC, AND THERE WAS AN ISSUE ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS. THE TRAFFIC ISSUE HAS BEEN RESOLVED, AND IT'S. AND WHAT THE CITY HAS DONE AT THE NIGHT OF THE HEARING, AS YOU RECALL, THEY HAD A TRAFFIC STUDY. WE DID A PEER REVIEW. THIS COUNCIL WAS NOT HAPPY WITH THE PEER REVIEW. THEY WANTED THEIR OWN TRAFFIC STUDY. WELL, WE'VE DONE ONE. 
          AND FROM A REPUTABLE ENGINEERING FIRM IN DALLAS, FORT WORTH AREA, FREESE AND NICHOLS. AND THEIR TRAFFIC STUDY IS THE SAME RESULT AS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S TRAFFIC STUDY. 
          SO THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN IS NO LONGER A REASONABLE IMPEDIMENT TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. 
          YOU MAY NOT LIKE IT. I DON'T LIKE IT. I DON'T THINK ANYONE UP HERE LIKES IT. BUT WHAT WE 
          [00:10:02]
DID, WHAT I DID WHEN I BECAME A LAWYER AND WHAT THEY DID WHEN THEY BECAME COUNCIL MEMBERS, THEY TOOK AN OATH TO UPHOLD THE LAW. NOW WE'LL GET TO THE IT'S OKAY TO CHALLENGE THE LAW. 
          DON'T GET ME WRONG, LAWYERS DO IT ALL THE TIME, BUT I HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO FOLLOW THE LAW AS WELL. ONCE THAT LAW HAS BEEN DECIDED. SO THAT'S WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES THIS EVENING, BECAUSE WE WERE SUED. AND THEY CLAIM THAT OUR DENIAL WAS A DENIAL OF THEIR PROPERTY. RIGHT? AS A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS AS OWNERS OF YOUR PROPERTY, BUT THE PEOPLE THAT BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY ALSO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS. AND THEY SEEK TO PUT A SCHOOL THERE. AND THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, OF WHICH DUNCANVILLE IS A PART, HAVE SAID THE DECISION WHERE THE SCHOOL GETS TO PLACE THEIR FACILITIES IS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S ALONE AND THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO KEEP THEM FROM SELECTING THAT SITE. SO THAT'S ONE THING THE SITE'S BEEN SELECTED. THEY DO, HOWEVER, HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR BUILDING CODES, OUR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING, OTHER HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE REGULATIONS, THE TRAFFIC. SO WHEN THE COUNCIL HEARD THE CASE AND THEY HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT AND ABOUT THE TRAFFIC, I BELIEVE THEY WERE WITHIN THEIR BALLPARK. BUT THOSE ISSUES AS A RESULT OF THE LITIGATION ARE NOW GONE BECAUSE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING IS 35.5FT. THE HEIGHT OF THE FOOTBALL STADIUM, MEASURED FROM GRADE, IS 35.5FT. AND THAT'S TWO AND A HALF STORIES. AND THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED IN S 13 DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS. NOW I'LL LET OUR LITIGATION LAWYER THAT TML INTERGOVERNMENTAL RISK POOL HAS APPOINTED TO DEFEND US IN THIS CASE. AND HE'S GOING TO TALK SOME MORE ABOUT CONSTITUTIONALITY QUESTIONS AND ABOUT SOME OF THE LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT WE'VE LITIGATED FOR YOU ON AS YOUR REPRESENTATIVE ON THIS DENIAL. BUT WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES NOW IS IN A WEAKENED LEGAL POSITION THAN WHAT WE HAD WHEN WE DENIED THE CASE. AND IT WASN'T ALL THAT GREAT TO BEGIN WITH. AND I TOLD YOU ALL THAT WE MAY COME HERE TO THIS DAY, AND NOW THIS DAY IS HERE. AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN HONEST WITH YOU WHEN I TOLD YOU, THEY GET TO DECIDE WHERE THE SCHOOL GETS TO GO. WE DON'T GET THAT TO MAKE THAT DECISION, BECAUSE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT HAS TOLD US THAT DECISION BELONGS TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. THE LEGISLATURE PASSED THE EDUCATION CODE FOR CHARTER SCHOOLS AND SAID THEY ENJOY THE SAME BENEFITS AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL. WE CAN. I'LL ARGUE THAT ALL DAY LONG WITH YOU THAT THERE'S NO ACCOUNTABILITY FOR A STATE CHARTER SCHOOL. I THINK IT'S AWFUL THAT THE STATE GETS TO DECIDE WHERE THE SCHOOL IS TO, TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY AND PAY THE TAXES. AND I'M WITH YOU 100%. BUT THE TEXAS LEGISLATURE TOOK THAT AWAY FROM US. NOW THERE IS SOME CONSTITUTIONAL. 
          MR. COOKS, WHAT CAN I DO FOR YOU? SO THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY ATTORNEY, WOULD YOU REPEAT THAT FIRST ANSWER? YES. CITY OF ADDISON VERSUS THE DALLAS INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. 
          AND I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE FACTS ARE AND THE FACTS ARE, THAT'S WHERE LOWE'S ATHLETIC FACILITY NOW SITS, IS THAT THAT'S ACTUALLY IN THE CITY OF ADDISON. AND THEY ALSO HAVE A BUS BARN ON THAT LOCATION. AND IT WAS CHALLENGED, AND THEY MADE THE CASE, AND THE COURT AGREED WITH THEM THAT IT WAS A FACILITY NECESSARY FOR THE EDUCATIONAL MISSION OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND THEY GET TO DECIDE THE USES. AND LEWIS NICHOLS, WHO THE PARKS NAMED AFTER ACROSS THE STREET. HE AND I TRIED THAT CASE AND ARGUED AT THE FIFTH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS AND LOST BASED ON AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT VERSUS SUNSET VALLEY. 
          YES, SIR. THANK YOU. THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. THE 
          [00:15:13]
TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS DONE. WHAT WAS THE BOUNDARIES OF DALE AND ALL THE COCKRELL HILL ALL THE WAY TO 67. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'LL FIND, AND I'M SURE THERE'LL PROBABLY BE AN OPEN RECORDS REQUEST FOR IT TOMORROW MORNING, BUT THE STUDY DOES IN FACT INDICATE THAT THAT INTERSECTION AT DANIEL DALE AND 67 IS RATED E, AND IT'S JUST LIKE SCHOOL EASE. NOT GOOD. IT'S IT'S DEEMED A FAILURE. AND IT'S REALLY I CAN'T ASK THE SCHOOL DISTRICT TO FIX IT BECAUSE IT'S ON IT'S BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THEIR PROPERTY. I CAN ONLY ASK THEM TO FIX THE THINGS THAT THEY ARE IMMEDIATELY CONTIGUOUS TO OR ADJACENT TO. NOW THEY HAVE AGREED TO DO SOME RESTRIPING. I THINK IT'S EASTBOUND SO THAT THERE'S ONLY A TURN LANE TO GO BACK DOWN THE SERVICE ROAD. AND THEY'VE AGREED TO DO THAT. THEY'VE AGREED TO PUT THE WARRANTS AND TO MAKE SOME ADJUSTMENTS AT THE INTERSECTION OF COCKRELL HILL AND DANIEL DALE. THAT WAS THEIR MITIGATION PLAN THAT THEY OFFERED. ARE FREESE AND NICHOLS ALSO SAID THAT THOSE WERE APPROPRIATE AND WARRANTED IN THEIR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND SHOULD NOT I DON'T WANT TO SAY MAKE IT GREAT, BUT IT WOULD IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC. AND I KNOW ABOUT TRAFFIC STUDIES, AND I KNOW THAT IT'S ENGINEERS THEORIZING WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN IF PEOPLE FOLLOW THE TRAFFIC LAW. BUT PEOPLE BEING PEOPLE, THEY DO THINGS ALL THE TIME THAT TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ARE NEVER GOING TO AGREE WITH HIS APPROPRIATE CONDUCT FOR THEM TO OPERATE THEIR VEHICLES. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, IT PUTS US IN A WEAK LEGAL POSITION BECAUSE OUR OWN ENGINEERS HAVE SAID THAT IT'S APPROPRIATE MITIGATION FOR THE SCHOOL. 
          ANOTHER QUESTION. THIS IS A QUESTION FOR THE ATTORNEY AS WELL, BUT IT'S BROAD. I'M JUST SAYING THAT IN ADVANCE. THIS MEETING IS AT 5:00 RATHER THAN THE NORMAL TIME THAT IT IS. AND SO A LOT OF US I KNOW ME PERSONALLY, I TOOK OFF TILL I COULD MAKE SURE I WAS HERE, ONLY TO GET HERE AT 501 AND TOLD ME I COULDN'T READ MY COMMENT BECAUSE IT WAS ONE MINUTE LATE. SO IT IS MY HOPE THAT WITH THIS EXTREME CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE HAVING WITH THE PUBLIC, THAT THOSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SPEAK LIKE MYSELF, GET THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, AND WE DON'T GET PUNISHED BECAUSE THIS MEETING IS AT 5:00. WHEN WE TOOK OFF TIME AND WE WERE ONE MINUTE BEHIND. SO, SIR, SIR, SIR, I'M GOING TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND I APOLOGIZE THAT YOU DIDN'T HEAR THE OPENING REMARKS THERE AFTER THIS BRIEFING BY OUR ATTORNEYS. THERE'S GOING TO BE A DELIBERATION. AT WHICH TIME, OUTSIDE OF THAT CARD THAT YOU NORMALLY WOULD HAVE FILLED OUT. ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE THAT YOU WANT TO ASK OF THE ATTORNEYS, YOU CAN FEEL FREE TO ASK THAT QUESTION. WE'LL OPEN THAT UP RIGHT AFTER THE BRIEFING SESSION, WHERE THEY CONTINUE TO EXPLAIN HOW WE GOT HERE TONIGHT AND WHY WE'RE HERE UNDER UNDERSTOOD. AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS EVERYBODY, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE. WELL, WHEN YOU SAY EVERYBODY MEETING OR DURING THE OPEN SPEAKING PART WHERE WE TYPICALLY FILL OUT A CARD, WILL WE BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY? WE WOULD, WE WOULD LOVE WE KNOW THIS IS TOUGH. AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT IN ADVANCE. I RESPECT EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DO. I JUST DON'T WANT TO BE PUNISHED FOR ONE MINUTE BEHIND YOU. YOU'RE NOT BEING PUNISHED. YOU'LL HAVE A FULL. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR, TO TALK. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. I APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO OVER THE COURSE OF THE TIME PERIOD SINCE THE INITIAL FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, OUR ABILITY TO FILE THE ANSWER, TO DO THE DISCOVERY, I'M MR. JEFFRIES, WHO'S HERE TONIGHT, HANDLED ALL THAT. BUT IN THE MEANTIME, WE'VE BEEN DEFENDING OUR POSITION. BUT THEY HAVE BEEN MAKING CORRECTIONS TO THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH I. 
          THAT'S JUST WHAT HAPPENS DURING LITIGATION. OKAY. YOU DON'T LIKE THAT? WE'LL FIX IT. AND SO AS A RESULT, WE GOT TO THE POINT IN MID-APRIL WHERE WE POINTED OUT THINGS WE DIDN'T LIKE. THEY FIXED THEM. AND AT THAT POINT, WE HAD TO SIT DOWN WITH THEM AND DISCUSS WHERE THIS WAS GOING. I'M NOT GOING TO I DON'T WANT TO TAKE MR. JEFFRIES UP. TIME AND HIS 
          [00:20:11]
EXPLANATION OF WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES, BUT I NEED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THEY ARE THREATENING TO SUE THESE PEOPLE FOR MONETARY DAMAGES. NOT THE CITY, THESE PEOPLE. THAT'S ONE THING. 
          TWO, THE CITY FOR DAMAGES AND TO PAY FOR THE DELAYS. AND THEM WANTING TO GET THIS BUILT LAST YEAR, NOT THIS YEAR. THE INCREASED COST OF CONSTRUCTION PAY ALL OF THEIR LAWYERS FEES, WHICH ARE WELL OVER SIX FIGURES. AND OUR INSURANCE, I CAN SAY THIS HE CAME FOR THIS IS LIMITED TO $150,000. AND IT'S CALLED AN ERODING INSURANCE POLICY. AND WHAT THAT MEANS IS EVERY DIME I SPEND TO DEFEND THIS IS LESS MONEY. WE HAVE TO PAY DAMAGES IN THE EVENT WE ARE FOUND LIABLE. NOW, THE DAMAGES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE NOT SIX FIGURES. THEY'RE SEVEN FIGURES, MILLIONS OF DOLLARS. AND IT'S MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF OUR TREASURY THAT SUPPORTED BY YOUR AD VALOREM TAXES AND THE SALES TAX OF THIS CITY. I KNOW THAT THIS IS YOUR HOME. I LIVE BEHIND A KROGER. I WISH IT WASN'T THERE. AND I REALIZE THIS IS TOUGH, BUT IT'S NO TOUGHER FOR YOU THAN IT IS FOR ME TO HAVE TO SIT UP HERE AND TELL THIS TO YOU, BECAUSE I AM SYMPATHETIC TO THE PLIGHT WE FIND OURSELVES IN. WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THE SCHOOL TO BE HERE. 
          THEY ASKED TO BE HERE. THEY HAVE THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PUT IT THERE. SO WE'VE DONE THE BEST WE THINK WE CAN DO AND SUSTAIN IN COURT BY NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT. IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SETBACKS. IT MEETS THE MASSING, IT MEETS THE HEIGHT. THEY'VE AGREED TO PUT UP A SCREENING WALL ON THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY NEAR WHERE THIS FOOTBALL STADIUM IS GOING TO BE. THEY'VE AGREED TO ABIDE BY THE USUAL RULES OR UI L RULES, WITH REGARD TO USING THAT FACILITY. AND THE TIME. YOU HAVE A QUESTION. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND ATTORNEY HANGER. 
          QUESTION FOR YOU IS, IS ZONING GUARANTEED? SO I'M LISTENING TO THIS AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY WERE ALREADY, YOU KNOW, ABLE TO BUILD A SCHOOL, BUT THEY REQUESTED ZONING CHANGES. SO THAT'S THE PRIMARY REASON WHY THEY CAME NOT TO BUILD THE SCHOOL, BUT FOR THE ZONING CHANGES. WAS THAT GUARANTEED? WE WELL, THEY WENT THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS. AND THE REASON THEY WENT THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, INITIALLY, THERE WAS SOME REQUEST THAT THE SCHOOL NEEDED TO BE HIGHER THAN IT IS NOW IN THE PLANS THAT THE FOOTBALL STADIUM WOULD BE LARGER AND HIGHER, AND THEY WOULD NEED RELIEF FROM THE ZONING REGULATIONS THAT WERE IN PLACE. SO THEY ASKED FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND THE FIRST TIME SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SECOND TIME A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO RELAX THE RULES ON HEIGHT AND SETBACKS AND FACILITIES, BUILDINGS UNDER AND AND OR USES UNDER THAT ZONING ORDINANCE. AND SO THEY FILED THE APPLICATION. THEY COULD HAVE JUST COME AND GOTTEN A PERMIT, BUT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOT THEY WOULD NOT HAVE RECEIVED ANY CONCESSIONS WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT SETBACKS. THEY COULD HAVE PUT EVERYTHING A LOT CLOSER. SO BY GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS, I DON'T SAY A GREAT DEAL. WE GOT A BETTER DEAL BECAUSE WE MADE THEM MOVE THE STADIUM FURTHER AWAY FROM THE NORTH, NEIGHBOR, THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THEIR SOUTH, MOVED IT A LITTLE BIT, MOVED IT UP A LITTLE BIT, AND NOW THEY'VE AGREED TO PUT UP A SCREENING WALL. WE ASKED THEM TO BERM IT, BUT THAT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE BECAUSE IT THE THE WAY THE PROPERTY DRAINS IT MAY HAVE ACTUALLY MADE IT WORSE FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO, TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE GOT IN. YES, SIR. THANK YOU. 
          CITY ATTORNEY AND MAYOR. CITY ATTORNEY, IF YOU KNEW ALL OF THIS AHEAD OF TIME, WHY DIDN'T YOU INFORM THE COUNCIL BEFORE WE WENT THROUGH ALL OF THIS? THAT'S QUESTION NUMBER ONE. I DID I READ THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HEARD. SO LET ME LET ME FINISH. LET ME LET ME FINISH. ALL RIGHT. 
          [00:25:07]
THE SECOND PART IS WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT SUING, BEING A FORMER CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, AS YOU JUST MENTIONED, TMAO IS NOT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO PERSONALLY HAVE TO PAY OUT OF THEIR POCKET IF THEY'RE SUED. THAT'S WHERE YOU JUST MENTIONED TML COVERS THE CITY. AND I DON'T I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, SO I DON'T KNOW IT ALL. BUT THAT'S WHERE TML COME IN AT TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE FOR THOSE WHO ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH IT. AND SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GETTING SUED PERSONALLY. THEY'RE REPRESENTING US. THEY'RE GETTING SUED PERSONALLY, BUT THEY ARE COVERED BY TML. THE OTHER PART IS, I HOPE YOU PROVIDE IT TO THE COUNCIL, BECAUSE I'M READING SOMETHING DIFFERENTLY FROM THE ADDISON AND DALLAS DISPUTE. I HOPE YOU PROVIDE WITH THE COUNCIL SOMETHING IN WRITING VERSUS VERBALLY. I KNOW ABOUT THE THE TWO SUITS BECAUSE WHAT I'M READING IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THAN THAT, BUT I'M JUST HOPING YOU PROVIDE IT TO THEM AS WELL. ADDISON. I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE CITY OF ADDISON PIECE WAS NOT WAS NEVER PUBLICLY SAID, PUBLICLY SAID IN THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. AND SO I WAS JUST WONDERING, THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HEARING IT. MAYBE THE COUNCIL HEARD IT BEFORE. I'VE NEVER HEARD IT BEFORE FROM YOU. AND SO I WAS JUST ASKING FROM THIS POINT, WHY WOULDN'T IT BE BROUGHT UP TO THE PUBLIC AT THAT POINT AS WELL TO GET IT TO GET IT COVERED? THANK YOU. WELL, WHEN I GIVE LEGAL ADVICE, AS YOU KNOW, MR. COOKS, I GIVE IT TO THE COUNCIL IN CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT LEGAL ADVICE. MR. MR. ATTORNEY, WHAT'S NOT WHAT'S NOT LEGAL ADVICE? YOU JUST SAID THAT WAS PUBLIC. YOU SAID IT WAS PUBLIC ABOUT THE ADDISON AND THE DALLAS CASE. THAT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION. IF IT'S PUBLIC INFORMATION, THAT'S NOT GIVING THEM LEGAL ADVICE. BUT I WON'T ARGUE BACK AND FORTH. I JUST MAKE NO, NO, I NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ACCUSING. YOU UNDERSTAND IT. YOU UNDERSTAND CITY ATTORNEY, I DON'T. ALL COURT CASES ARE PUBLISHED IN WESTLAW. THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO WHOEVER CAN FIND THEM. WELL, I JUST FOUND IT. I DIDN'T READ IT THE SAME WAY. AND I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. OPEN. 
          AN ATTORNEY WILL ADDRESS THOSE TWO CASES THAT YOU JUST MENTIONED. WHAT ABOUT IT? DO WHAT? THEN TELL ME WHAT YOU DON'T, HOW YOU READ IT. DIFFERENT FOR YOU, MR. ATTORNEY. 
          I DON'T NEED IT PRINTED. I KNOW WHAT THE CASE IS. I WANT TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. YOU'RE YOU'RE AN ATTORNEY, YOU KNOW. SO LET ME STOP. I'LL STOP FROM THERE. ANY MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY. 
          AT THIS POINT. OKAY. GO AHEAD, GO AHEAD. SIR. YES. MR. HAGER, YOU SAID EARLIER THAT THE LIFE SCHOOL IS SUBJECT TO SOME SORT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT. COULD YOU CLARIFY THAT? NO. WHAT I MEAN TO SAY IS THEY HAVE THE SAME STANDING AS THE DUNCANVILLE SCHOOL DISTRICT WITHIN THE JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDARIES. SO I CAN NO MORE TELL THE DUNCANVILLE OR LIFE SCHOOL WHERE TO PUT THEIR SCHOOLS THAN I CAN LIFE SCHOOL. AND THAT'S PART OF THE STATUTE. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO? YES. NOW, IS THAT STATUTE EVER BEEN CHALLENGED AS APPLIED TO A CHARTER SCHOOL? WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. OKAY. AND SO MY QUESTION IS, AND MY PROBLEM IS, IS WITH THE CHARTER SCHOOL, THEY ARE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, A SCHOOL, BUT THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEMOCRATIC CONTROLS AS A SCHOOL BOARD. AND SO NOW WE HAVE AN ENTITY WHO CAN COME INTO OUR COMMUNITY, ISN'T SUBJECT TO THE DEMOCRATIC CONTROLS THAT WE HAVE IN THE FORM OF A SCHOOL BOARD, AND THEN ALSO HAVE ESSENTIALLY CUSTOMERS WHO DON'T LIVE WITHIN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO YOU GUYS ARE COMPLETELY INDIFFERENT TO THE NUISANCE THAT YOU GUYS ARE CREATING. THERE'S NO ONE FROM LIFE SCHOOL HERE. WELL THAT'S UNFORTUNATE. YES, I UNDERSTAND AND WE'VE POINTED THAT OUT. AND THAT WAS RAISED, AS YOU WILL HEAR IN THE LITIGATION. AND HE'S ALSO GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT THE ASSESSMENT OF IT IS. BECAUSE WHO DID PASS IT OR YOUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES AND YOUR STATE SENATORS, THEY PASSED THAT STATUTE. I WAS WRONG, I WAS AGAINST IT. I'M STILL AGAINST WELL, SENATOR WEST, I KNOW NOT EVERYONE VOTED FOR IT. YES, SIR. PASSED BY THE LEGISLATURE? YES, SIR. DON'T SAY YOUR STATE SENATORS AND STATE REPRESENTATIVES, I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. BEFORE WE GO ON TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS, BECAUSE WE WERE IN IN OUR BRIEFING PORTION. AND RATHER THAN FIELDING ANY MORE QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT, I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND AND HAVE MR. JEFFRIES COME UP, BECAUSE HE'S GOING TO FILL IN A LOT OF THE BLANKS TO QUESTIONS YOU MAY ALREADY HAVE AND THAT YOU MAY NOT NEED TO ASK AFTER HE EXPLAINS IT, BUT YOU WILL GET 
          [00:30:03]
AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASK MORE QUESTIONS. MR. MAYOR, BEFORE I KNOW THIS QUESTION DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH THAT ATTORNEY, STILL HAVE TO DO WITH THE LEGAL GOVERNING BODIES OF THE CITY. 
          SO I DO WANT TO ASK ONE LAST QUESTION. WELL, OKAY. LAST LAST QUESTION, BECAUSE WE NEED TO GO ON WITH THE REST OF OUR BRIEFING. SO IF WE SET IF THE PRESIDENT HAS BEEN SET BY THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE FOR ALL OF THE NORRIS ORDINANCE THAT WE'VE ISSUED CITATIONS TO FOR ALL OF THE ALL OF THE BUSINESS OWNERS THAT WE'VE SAID NO TO BECAUSE YOU COULD NOT HIDE THE BUILDING. 
          ARE WE ARE WE NOT SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR FURTHER SUITS? NO. THIS IS PECULIAR TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, MARK. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT PECULIAR TO ANYONE. THE SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS THAT SUPREME COURT CASE, AND THEY'VE GOT THE LEGISLATURE TELLING US THAT WE HAVE TO TREAT STATE CHARTER SCHOOLS AS IF THEY WERE OUR SCHOOL. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS OR PRIVATE OWNERSHIP, OR EVEN A PRIVATE SCHOOL. THANK YOU. MAYOR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, MR. JEFFRIES, ARE WE READY? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK AT THE PODIUM? I'D LIKE TO SPEAK. I'D LIKE TO SPEAK, SIR. SIR. NO. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S. OKAY. WE'RE PAST. WE'RE PAST THAT POINT, SIR. NO. 
          MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO CALL. POINT OF ORDER. YES, SIR. THE MAYOR RUNS THE MEETING. HE NEEDS TO CONTROL IT. YOU WILL HAVE. YOU WILL HAVE TIME TO ASK ALL YOUR QUESTIONS, SIR. WE WILL GET TO YOUR QUESTIONS. BUT RIGHT NOW, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD WITH THE REST OF OUR BRIEFING PORTION FROM OUR TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE ATTORNEY. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JIM JEFFREY, AND I'M THE ATTORNEY THAT'S BEEN HIRED TO REPRESENT THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE AND THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND MAYOR, WHO ARE ALL BEING SUED IN THIS LAWSUIT, AND THEY'RE BEING SUED PERSONALLY, AND THEY'RE BEING SUED IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS WELL. AND I AND I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THESE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO GIVE THEIR TIME SERVING THE CITY ARE DEFENDANTS IN THIS LAWSUIT. I'M GOING TO ECHO A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT CITY ATTORNEY HAGER HAS SAID ABOUT SOME OF THE KEY ISSUES IN THIS CASE, AND THE KEY ISSUE IN THE CASE IS REALLY, DOES A CITY HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO TELL A SCHOOL THAT IT CANNOT SELECT A LOCATION FOR ITS SCHOOL, ITS CAMPUS AND OTHER STRUCTURES THAT ARE CONSIDERED INTEGRAL TO THE SCHOOL'S OPERATION AND EDUCATIONAL MISSION? AND THE COURTS HAVE DETERMINED THAT BUILDINGS, ATHLETIC FACILITIES, IF THE SCHOOL WERE GOING TO PUT IN A BUS DEPOT AND PARKING FACILITIES, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE COURTS AS INTEGRAL TO THE MISSION OF EDUCATION AND THE ADDISON CASE MR. HAGER CITED AND RELIED UPON HAS BEEN CITED MANY TIMES IN DISPUTES BETWEEN SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CITIES. NOW, CHARTER SCHOOLS, UNDER THE STATUTE THAT OUR LEGISLATURE HAS ADOPTED, CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE ENTITLED TO THE SAME STATUS AS A SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR PURPOSES OF THESE LAND USE RESTRICTIONS AND REGULATIONS, AND THE LIST OF WHAT A CITY CAN OR CANNOT DO. AND I THINK THAT'S CRITICAL TO KEEP IN MIND, BECAUSE THE CHARTER SCHOOL, WHICH I AGREE WITH YOU, DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME METHOD OF OPERATION. THE THE PEOPLE THAT RUN THE SCHOOL AND ARE ON THE BOARD OF THESE SCHOOLS ARE NOT ELECTED OFFICIALS. AND I RAISED THAT IN THE LAWSUIT, AND I RAISED SOME OTHER ISSUES ABOUT THE STATUTE ON HOW THESE DISPUTES ARE DECIDED, AND THAT'S UNDER LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. SECTION 22.902. THERE'S A PROVISION THAT'S LITTLE KNOWN, BUT IT BASICALLY STATES WHEN A CASE LIKE THIS GOES TO LITIGATION AND A SUIT IS FILED, THERE'S A PROCEDURE WHEREBY THE. AND SIR, IF YOU'RE GOOGLING THAT STATUTE, I MIGHT HAVE SAID IT'S 22.902 OR MAYBE 912. I'M SORRY. I'VE I'VE SLEPT SINCE I 
          [00:35:01]
LOOKED AT IT LAST, BUT THE THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE PROVISIONS SET A PROCESS FOR HOW THESE KINDS OF LAWSUITS ARE RESOLVED. AND IT'S AN EXPEDITED PROCESS WHERE THE JUDGE APPOINTS AN ARBITRATOR, AND THEN THE ARBITRATOR MAKES A DECISION AND THE PARTIES ARE BOUND BY THAT DECISION. SO WHEN I RAISED A CHALLENGE IN THE LAWSUIT TO THE STATUTE USED ON HOW THESE PROCEDURES ARE DECIDED, INSTEAD OF EVEN LETTING A JURY DECIDE THIS AND CERTAIN KINDS OF ISSUES IN A LAWSUIT LIKE THIS INVOLVING COURT ORDERS AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, THOSE ARE DECIDED BY THE COURT. THE FACTUAL BASIS THAT THE COURT USES TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS ARE OFTEN DECIDED BY A JURY. CITIZENS, PEOPLE WHO SERVE THEIR CIVIC DUTY BY BEING PUT ON A JURY. WELL, THE STATUTE DOESN'T GIVE A JURY A ROLE IN THIS KIND OF A CASE. AND SO WHEN I WHEN I CHALLENGED ON BEHALF OF THE CITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS, THE STATUTE FOR HOW THE DECISIONS ARE MADE, AND THEN DID NOT FILE THE CHALLENGE. 
          BUT WHEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL GOT INVOLVED BECAUSE OF THE CHALLENGE THAT I RAISED, I HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ABOUT THE UNDERLYING FUNDAMENTAL STATUTE THAT CREATES CHARTER SCHOOLS AND EVERYTHING THAT ONE OF THE GENTLEMEN IN THE BLUE COAT POINTED OUT IS SOMETHING THAT I DISCUSSED WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE THE CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE NOT RUN BY AN ELECTED SCHOOL BOARD. THEY ARE. A GROUP THAT GETS TOGETHER, FORMS THE CORRECT KIND OF LEGAL ENTITY UNDER. IT'S CALLED A 501 C THREE TAX EXEMPT ENTITY. AND THEN THEY GO THROUGH A PROCESS OF REVIEW WITH THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY. AND IF THE AGENCY APPROVES THEIR SELF-CREATED DOCUMENT AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER STEPS, BUT THEY GET THE STATUS OF A PUBLIC SCHOOL AND THE STATUTES THE LEGISLATURE HAVE ADOPTED GIVE THEM THE SAME STATUS AS IF THEY'RE A SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THESE PURPOSES. THEY EVEN GET ACCESS TO TAXPAYER MONEY. THEY EVEN GET ACCESS TO THE RIGHT TO ISSUE PUBLIC FINANCE BONDS FOR BUILDING THESE IMPROVEMENTS ON THEIR SCHOOL DISTRICT. SO, FRANKLY, IN THE LAWSUIT, WE KICKED OVER A HORNET'S NEST BY CHALLENGING THE STATUTE THAT CREATES THIS EXPEDITED PROCEDURE FOR RESOLVING THESE KINDS OF CASES. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENED IN THE LAWSUIT ON BEHALF OF THE LIFE SCHOOL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL I AND LIFE SCHOOL ATTORNEYS. 
          THEY, IN EFFECT, ATTORNEY GENERAL INTERVENED AND BASICALLY SUPPORTED LIFE SCHOOL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. AND I HAD AN INFORMAL DIALOG ABOUT WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO FILE NEXT? AND I SAID, WELL, IF I FILE A CHALLENGE TO THE UNDERLYING STATUTE. I COULD NOT FIND ANY COURT DECISIONS THAT UPHELD OR STRUCK DOWN THE STATUTE INVOLVING CHARTER SCHOOLS GETTING THIS STATUS AS EQUIVALENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID, YES, THIS WOULD BE WHAT THEY WE IN MY PROFESSION CALL SOMETIMES A TEST CASE AND A TEST CASE CAN CAN LAST FOR A VERY LONG TIME, COST A LOT OF MONEY. AND THERE'S, OF COURSE, RISK ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. SO I, I, YOU KNOW, I, I WILL SAY I'VE BEEN A LAWYER A LONG TIME. I KNOW HOW TO RESEARCH. I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THE WORK I DID IN EVALUATING WHAT IS THE LIKELIHOOD OF A SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO THE STATUTE THAT GIVES THIS SCHOOL THE SAME STATUS AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND I THINK THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A VERY LIKELY SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE, IN MY VIEW, THE LEGISLATURE WAS CAREFUL TO. MA'AM, CAN YOU HEAR ME BACK THERE? OKAY. IN MY VIEW, LOOKING AT THE STATUTES ON HOW THE LEGISLATURE WENT ABOUT AUTHORIZING LIFE, SCHOOL OR CHARTER SCHOOLS AND DEFINING THEM AS PART OF THE PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM, IT'S LIKE THE LEGISLATURE HAD A A CHECKLIST OF THE THINGS THAT CAN BE THE BASIS FOR A SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE AND TRY TO ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE POTENTIAL CHALLENGES WHEN THEY PASS THE LEGISLATION. NOW, I'M NOT SAYING IT'S WISE LEGISLATION. I'M NOT SAYING I LIKE THE LEGISLATION, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I THINK CHARTER SCHOOLS ARE ALWAYS A GREAT IDEA. THEY CAN BE INCONVENIENT BECAUSE NOT 
          [00:40:06]
ONLY DO THEY HAVE THE SAME EQUIVALENT POWER OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT IN THIS KIND OF A MATTER, BUT THEY'RE NOT ELECTED. AND SO THEY THEY DON'T ANSWER TO PEOPLE LIKE THE CITIZENS IN THIS ROOM. BUT THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS CHOSEN TO DO. THE THE PROCESS FOR CREATING THESE LIFE SCHOOL LIKE ENTITIES, THESE CHARTER SCHOOLS, AS I SAY, THEY HAVE TO FIRST ORGANIZE THEMSELVES. THEY HAVE TO ADOPT A PLAN OF OPERATION APPROVED BY THE TEXAS EDUCATION AGENCY. AND THEN THE AGENCY MAINTAINS SUPERVISORY REVIEW OF THEIR METHOD OF OPERATION, THEIR CURRICULUM, THEIR SUCCESS RATE, HOW THEY SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS. AND THAT'S A STATE AGENCY. AND THE. THE DECISIONS AND COURT DECISIONS ON OTHER TYPES OF CHALLENGES TO STATE STATUTES INVOLVING WHETHER THE STATE HAS IMPROPERLY DELEGATED AUTHORITY TO PRIVATE, EITHER INDIVIDUALS OR PRIVATE ENTITIES. THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO SUPPORT THE VALIDITY OF THAT STATUTE, THAT AUTHORIZES CHARTER SCHOOLS TO OPERATE AS THE EQUIVALENT OF A SCHOOL DISTRICT FOR THESE LAND USE DECISION MAKING PURPOSES. SO THAT CHALLENGE, I THINK, WOULD HAVE BEEN UNLIKELY TO SUCCEED. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPENSIVE. AND THEN I DO WANT TO CHIME IN HERE. CONTRARY TO WHAT BOB SAID, I'M PERFECTLY WILLING TO TELL YOU HOW I GET PAID. I GET PAID BY THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE UNDER THIS ERODING 150 ZERO ZERO $0 WORTH OF COVERAGE. AND IN OTHER WORDS, EVERY DOLLAR THEY PAY ME AND MY FIRM IS REDUCED FROM THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE PAID EVENTUALLY TO COVER THE LAWSUIT, COVER THE CITY, COVER THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING SUED HERE TODAY. SO THE ONLY PERSON THAT WOULD MAKE MONEY ON THE CASE, IF WE FIGHT THE FIGHT, THAT WOULD HAVE LIKELY NOT BEEN SUCCESSFUL, TAKEN A LONG TIME AND TAKEN A LOT OF LEGAL FEES, THE ONLY WINNER WOULD BE ME. I'D GET PAID FOR FOR FIGHTING A FIGHT THAT'S NOT ALL THAT LIKELY TO SUCCEED AND TAKE AWAY PROTECTION FROM THE CITY AND THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE BEING SUED, AND I DON'T DO THAT. MY MY INTEREST WHEN I'M HIRED, REGARDLESS OF WHO HIRES ME AND WHO PAYS ME, IS I REPRESENT MY CLIENTS AND MY CLIENT IS THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE AND MY INDIVIDUAL CLIENTS WHO ARE ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND EVERYBODY SITTING UP HERE EXCEPT FOR MR. DAVIS AND MR. COOTS ARE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY MANAGER. 
          THEY'RE ALL BEING SUED OVER THIS. THEY FACE PERSONAL EXPOSURE, AND THE CITY FACES EXPOSURE. AND EVERY DOLLAR SPENT BY THE TEXAS MUNICIPAL LEAGUE RISK POOL THAT GOES TO ME TAKES AWAY PROTECTION FROM THE CITY AND THOSE INDIVIDUALS BEING SUED, AND THEY'RE BEING SUED FOR DOING THEIR JOB AND PROBABLY VOTING THE SAME WAY I WOULD HAVE VOTED UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND. WE GOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL INVOLVED. THEY HAVE WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL UNLIMITED RESOURCES TO FIGHT THIS FIGHT AND LIFE. SCHOOL WAS MAKING A CHALLENGE THAT IF THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL, THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN NOT ONLY MONETARY COMPENSATION IF THEY PROVED THAT THEY REALLY HAD LOST MONEY OR THAT THEIR PROPERTY HAD BEEN TAKEN OR DIMINISHED IN VALUE, THAT COULD HAVE COME OUT OF THE CITY'S POCKET. AND THEY WERE CLAIMING WHAT I'M GOING TO CALL A DAMAGE MODEL. THAT COULD HAVE BEEN A SEVEN FIGURE AND NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, $1,000,001 SEVEN FIGURE, BUT SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS POTENTIALLY. AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS GOING TO BACK THEM ON THAT FIGHT. AND IF THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THAT FIGHT, WHETHER THEY GOT MONEY, WHETHER THEY GOT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, PART OF THE RELIEF THEY WERE ASKING FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF IS WHEN THE COURT TELLS YOU TO DO SOMETHING. IF THEY WERE SUCCESSFUL IN THEIR FIGHT, NOT ONLY COULD THEY HAVE GOTTEN MONEY FROM ESSENTIALLY THE CITY COFFERS, BUT THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES, PAID THEIR ATTORNEY'S FEES, ACCORDING TO THE LAWYER WHO'S 
          [00:45:03]
THE LEAD ATTORNEY ON THE CASE, WERE ALREADY PUSHING CLOSE TO $200,000, AND THE THE FRANKLY, I'LL TELL YOU THE NUMBERS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SHARED WITH YOU THE $150,000 OF ERODING OR SHRINKING COVERAGE, THE AMOUNT THAT WE'VE NEGOTIATED, IF WE RESOLVE THE CASE, IS $80,000 AND WE'RE NOT LED. WE DON'T AT THIS POINT, IF THIS DEAL GOES THROUGH, IT'S NOT $80,000 IN ATTORNEY'S FEES OR DAMAGES. IT'S HERE'S $80,000 PLUS SOME OTHER FACTORS THAT I'LL TALK ABOUT IN A SECOND. YES, SIR. THIS IS JUST A CLARITY QUESTION. 
          AND ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL. IS THERE ANY RULE IN ACTUALLY STATING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S NAME? AND IF THERE'S NOT, I WOULD LOVE FOR THAT NAME TO BE STATED SO THAT WE ALL HAVE THAT. FOR THE RECORD, OUR ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHO HAS HIGHER ASPIRATIONS IS KENNETH PAXTON. AND NOW HE'S HE'S HE'S GOT HIS SUBORDINATES AND HE'S GOT HIS LITIGATION GROUP. AND SO HE'S NOT PERSONALLY HANDLING THE LAWSUIT. A GENTLEMAN NAMED PHILIP SMITH IS HANDLING THE LAWSUIT. AND MR. SMITH IS ACTUALLY COLONEL SMITH. HE'S IN THE ARMY RESERVE HAS BEEN VERY DILIGENT ABOUT THE WORK DONE ON THE CASE. BUT YES, IT IS. I'M NOT HIDING BEHIND THE NAME, BUT. BUT IS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH. THEY WE ALL JUST REFER TO THEM AS OIG, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL. BUT YES, KEN PAXTON'S THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. HE, AGAIN, MIGHT NOT BE FOR LONG, DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS. AND. WELL, I TRY TO AVOID DISCUSSION OF POLITICS, BUT HE'S HE'S HE HE'S NOT RUNNING FOR REELECTION TO THAT OFFICE. BUT YES, THAT IS WHO'S INVOLVED. AND SO THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, THEIR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THIS CASE WHEN I RAISED A CHALLENGE TO THE STATUTE ON HOW THE CASE WOULD BE DECIDED GOING FORWARD. AND IF WE RESOLVE THIS CASE, IT'S GOING TO BE RESOLVED, FRANKLY, USING THE JUDGE AS THE RESOLUTION TO THE CASE AND THE JUDGE IS AN ELECTED OFFICIAL, UNLIKE AN ARBITRATOR THAT THE STATUTE CONTEMPLATES. SO THAT LEADS UP TO WHERE WE ARE. AND THE THE RESOLUTION OF THE CASE, IF THE COUNCIL APPROVES IT AND DIRECTS ME TO GO FORWARD. I CAN SPELL OUT THE CONCESSIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS THAT WERE. 
          PROBABLY THE REASONS FOR THE COUNCIL TURNING IT DOWN AT THE FIRST GO ROUND AND LEADING US TO WHERE WE ARE TODAY. THE HEIGHT OF THE STADIUM WAS UNCLEAR. IN THE PACKAGE THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE CITY AND WHAT THE CONCESSION IS. JUST AS MR. HAGER STATED, IT'S GOING TO BE MEASURED FROM GRADE ABOUT 35.5, MAYBE 36FT. YOU KNOW, I THINK SIX INCHES DOESN'T MATTER ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NUMBER OF STORIES AND THE HEIGHT THAT CITY CODE ALLOWS. AND THE STADIUM STRUCTURE ITSELF IS ACTUALLY GOING TO BE LOWER THAN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 35 OR 36FT. WHAT IS IT, TWO AND A HALF STORIES, BOB. YES. SO THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS APPROXIMATELY 30FT FROM GRADE. THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT OF ROUGHLY FOUR FEET IS BECAUSE THE THE HEIGHT, THE TALL PART OF THE STADIUM IS THE PRESS BOX, AND THE PRESS BOX IS GOING TO HAVE A GUARDRAIL AROUND IT SO THAT PHOTOGRAPHERS AND VIDEOGRAPHERS THAT WANT TO GET ON THE ROOF OR A BETTER VANTAGE POINT DON'T FALL OFF. BUT THE STRUCTURE ITSELF IS ROUGHLY 30FT, SO SEVERAL FEET BELOW GRADE. AND THE HEIGHT OF THE THE GUARDRAILS PUSHES IT RIGHT AT THE LIMIT. SO THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED. THE STADIUM WILL HOUSE APPROXIMATELY A THOUSAND PEOPLE TOTAL. THAT'S BEEN CLARIFIED. THE MASONRY FENCE OR SCREENING WALL THAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED. THAT IS GOING TO BE, AS MR. HAGER STATED, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE PROPERTY LINES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THE 
          [00:50:05]
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SOME OF THEM ARE HERE IN DUNCANVILLE, AND SOME OF THEM ARE NEXT DOOR IN DESOTO. BUT ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINE, THERE WILL BE AN EIGHT FOOT TALL MASONRY FENCE, AND LIFE SCHOOL HAS COMMITTED TO SPEND APPROXIMATELY A HALF MILLION DOLLARS TO BUILD THAT. 
          AS MR. HAGER POINTED OUT, THE BERM WON'T WORK FROM AN ENGINEERING STANDPOINT BECAUSE A BERM TRAPS AND HOLDS WATER. I GREW UP IN NEW ORLEANS. I I KNOW ALL ABOUT BERMS. WE CALL THEM LEVEES. A LOT OF TIMES. AND WATER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GO THROUGH A BERM OR A LEVEE. 
          WHEREAS WITH A MASONRY FENCE, THEY CAN DESIGN THEM AND THEY HAVE AND WILL DESIGN THIS ONE SO THAT WATER CAN FLOW UNDERNEATH AND IT WON'T. AND BACK UP ONTO THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. SO THE, THE, THE WALL WILL HAVE EITHER WE'VE ALL SEEN THEM, THE, THE PLASTIC PVC PIPE ALONG THE BASE OF THE WALLS THAT THEY BUILD AROUND IT, WHERE WATER CAN FLOW THROUGH. SOMETIMES YOU REFER TO THEM AS WEEP HOLES, OR SOMETIMES THEY RAISE UP THE BOTTOM ROW AND THERE'S A STEEL SUPPORT HOLDING UP THE FENCE AND WATER CAN FLOW UNDER. SO IT'S PROBABLY, IN MY OPINION, BETTER LOOKING THAN A DIRT BERM. AND IT ALLOWS WATER TO FLOW THROUGH WITHOUT TRAPPING IT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD NEXT DOOR. SIR, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO, THANK YOU, MR. ATTORNEY. LET ME LET ME ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION. WE KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE SCHOOL ITSELF. I THINK MOST OF OUR CONCERN IS THE STADIUM. SO WHAT YOU WHAT YOU CLARIFY IS THAT CAN THOSE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS CAN BE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS. DOES THE STADIUM MUST COME WITH THE SCHOOL OR. BECAUSE I THINK THE SUP WAS STATING THAT THEY NEED THE SUP FOR THE STADIUM. SO WOULD YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR THE STADIUM FOR US PLEASE? OKAY, I'LL I'LL TRY TO BREAK IT INTO PIECES. OKAY. TO MAKE SURE I COVER EVERYTHING AND I HAVE I HAVE A QUESTION AFTER THAT. JUST. YES, SIR. PIGGYBACK. WEAR ME OUT. I KNOW. YEAH. ALL THAT BIG MONEY. YEAH. AND YOU'RE TAKING MONEY AWAY FROM THE PROTECTION THAT THESE PEOPLE GET. BUT OKAY, SO LET ME TALK ABOUT IT A PIECE AT A TIME. AS I UNDERSTOOD IT UNDER. AND SOME OF THIS, BOB MAY HAVE TO CHIP IN BECAUSE HE'S MORE FAMILIAR WITH THE CITY'S CODES THAN I AM, BUT I WILL, I WILL TRY AND BOB CAN CORRECT ME. MR. HAGER CAN CORRECT ME. SO UNDER THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE UNDER OUR ZONING CODE, THE SCHOOL IS ALLOWED TO EXIST. AND AND UNDER. IF THEY IF THE SCHOOL HAD PURSUED THAT PROCEDURE AND THEY INITIALLY WERE GOING TO AND THEN BACKED AWAY FROM IT, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ENTITLED UNDER OUR OWN ZONING TO BE LOCATED THERE. NOW, THEN, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO MEET CRITERIA THAT WE CAN IMPOSE THROUGH PART OF THE PERMITTING PROCESS. AND IT GIVES FLEXIBILITY, BOTH SIDES. 
          AND THAT CAN BE THE THE SUP PROCESS CAN BE USED TO EFFECTIVELY TAKE CARE OF THINGS THAT MIGHT NEED VARIANCES. NOW, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I'M LOOKING AT THIS HISTORICALLY BECAUSE I GET I GOT IT AFTER IT WAS ALREADY IN LAWSUIT, BUT AS I UNDERSTOOD IT, THE THE NEXT APPROACH THEY USE WAS SEEKING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE. THEY DON'T GET THE BENEFIT OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS OF A SPECIFIC USE OR SUP PROCESS, BUT YOU CAN DO SOME OF THE SAME THINGS WITH A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. AS FAR AS THE CITY CAN WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THAT WOULD BE THE SAME WHETHER IT'S A SCHOOL OR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WORK WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO TRY TO HAVE SOME GIVE AND TAKE ABOUT HOW WE WANT THIS WHOLE PROJECT TO BE BUILT. MY UNDERSTANDING FROM LOOKING AT ALL OF THE PLANS THAT I'VE HAD TO HISTORICALLY REVIEW, IS THAT THE STADIUM HAS ALWAYS BEEN PART OF WHAT THE SCHOOL WANTS. AND SO THE THE FACT THAT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES RELATED TO THE STADIUM BECAUSE THE STADIUM'S THE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY IT'S GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC AFTER HOURS AND BE NOISY AND ALL THE THINGS THAT I WOULDN'T WANT TO LIVE NEXT TO EITHER. BUT THE STADIUM IS THE SOURCE OF, I WANT TO SAY THE WHEN I GO THROUGH IT. THE LIST OF THINGS, THE CLARIFICATIONS. 
          THE STADIUM WAS THE SOURCE OF MOST OF THE CONCERN THAT WAS GOING ON AT THE TIME. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WAS TURNED DOWN BY COUNCIL. SO THAT WAS REALLY THE FOCUS OF WHAT WE'VE TALKED TO LIFE SCHOOL ABOUT AND TRIED TO GET CLARIFICATION ABOUT. SO THEY'RE REALLY TIED 
          [00:55:02]
TOGETHER, AS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM DAY ONE. DOES THAT TAKE CARE OF. IT DID TAKE TAKE CARE OF QUESTION. THE LAST QUESTION WITH THAT IS THAT DOES IT ALSO MEAN THAT THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM ANY NOISE ORDINANCE? I KNOW DUNCANVILLE HAS THAT NOISE ORDER, SO THAT MEANS THEY'RE TOTALLY EXEMPT. THEY CAN JUST DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO BECAUSE THEY'RE A CHARTER SCHOOL. AND SO WHEREAS WE HAVE A NOISE ORDINANCE HERE IN DUNCANVILLE, IT WOULD BE NO NEED FOR ME TO CALL AND SAY, I CAN'T HEAR MY OWN HOME. SO YOU'RE SAYING THEY'RE EXEMPT FROM THAT AS WELL? NO, I'M NOT. BUT I WILL ALSO TELL YOU THAT THAT NOISE ORDINANCES ARE ONE OF THE HARDEST THINGS TO ENFORCE. I, IN ADDITION TO BEING HIRED TO DEFEND LAWSUITS FOR CITIES ALL OVER, FRANKLY, ALL OVER TEXAS EXCEPT WEST TEXAS AND DEEP SOUTH TEXAS. I ALSO SERVED AS A CITY ATTORNEY AT TWO LITTLE BITTY TOWNS IN TARRANT COUNTY. AND SO I'M FAMILIAR WITH HOW YOU ENFORCE OR HAVE SOME DIFFICULTY ENFORCING NOISE ORDINANCES. BASICALLY, YOU WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE NOISE IS UNREASONABLE AT A GIVEN POINT IN TIME. AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU ALMOST HAVE TO CATCH THEM IN THE ACT, SO TO SPEAK. NOW, IT'S EASIER IF THERE'S A FOOTBALL GAME GOING ON AND THEY'RE BLARING STUFF ON THE LOUDSPEAKER AND SO FORTH AND SO ON, BUT I THINK THE ENFORCEMENT WOULD HAVE TO RISE TO SOMETHING THAT'S CALLED, IN THE LEGAL WORLD, A NUISANCE. AND THAT'S WE ALL KNOW WHAT A NUISANCE IS. I MEAN, I GOT THREE SONS, I KNOW WHAT A NUISANCE IS, BUT BUT A NUISANCE LEGALLY IS SOMETHING MORE BURDENSOME THAN WHAT YOUR SONS USUALLY PUT YOU THROUGH. IT HAS TO INTERFERE WITH YOUR NORMAL USE AND ENJOYMENT OF YOUR PROPERTY. IS IS A BROAD DEFINITION. AND THE, YOU KNOW, OUTBURSTS THAT HAPPENS BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S GOT A TOUCHDOWN MIGHT NOT QUALIFY AS A NUISANCE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT THE THE CITY HAS ZERO TOOLS TO USE AGAINST THEM ON NOISE ORDINANCES. WE'VE GOT THE SAME TOOLS THAT WE WOULD HAVE, WHETHER THEY WERE PRIVATE ENTITY, A PRIVATE BUSINESS HOLDING A FESTIVAL OR AN OUTDOOR CONCERT. IF IT'S IF IT'S TOO LOUD AND IT'S ONE OF THOSE, YOU KNOW IT WHEN YOU SEE IT, YOU CAN ISSUE A TICKET AND THEN THEY CAN TAKE IT UP IN MUNICIPAL COURT. AND, AND THEN FROM THERE, THERE COULD BE FURTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. SO IT'S, IT'S A TOUGH THING TO ENFORCE, BUT IT'S NOT UNENFORCEABLE BECAUSE ANY SCHOOL IS SUBJECT TO. ANY RESTRICTION AND REGULATION THAT KEEPS THEM FROM BEING A NUISANCE. IN FACT, IF IT'S EXTREMELY HARD TO SHOW, BUT YOU COULD THEORETICALLY SAY, WELL, HAVING A SCHOOL AT THAT LOCATION OPERATES AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE. MAN, THAT'D BE TOUGH. 
          AND I DON'T THINK IT'S EVER BEEN SUCCESSFUL. BUT NUISANCE IS ONE OF THE AREAS WHERE COURTS ALLOW REGULATION OF SCHOOLS, SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND CHARTER SCHOOLS. YES, SIR. ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LOVE TO FOR YOU TO SPEAK TO, BECAUSE THIS HELPS US TO BE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING THAT RIGHT NOW WE'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING. AND THE CONTEXT IS I WANT TO THANK OUR STATE SENATOR FOR BEING HERE, AND ALSO THANK THOSE THAT VOTED CORRECTLY ON THE LAST TIME THAT, YOU KNOW, IN THE WAY THAT THE CITIZENS WERE WERE ASKING. SO THE PART WE WERE HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING IS HOW CAN ANYONE INDIVIDUALLY BE SUED FOR MAKING A VOTE THAT IS IN LINE WITH CITY ORDINANCES, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THEY THEMSELVES CAN THEN FIND A LOOPHOLE TO GET AROUND IT? HOW CAN AN INDIVIDUAL BE SUED INDIVIDUALLY FOR FOLLOWING CITY LAW? THAT THAT THAT'S A THAT'S A HARD THING FOR US TO TO GET GRASP BECAUSE THAT'S THE MAIN THING WE WANT. WE, WE WANT OUR PEOPLE TO REPRESENT US. THAT. AND SO I WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO SPEAK TO THAT. I'LL HAVE QUESTIONS LATER, BUT THAT CAN HELP US IF YOU CAN EXPLAIN THAT PART, IF I CAN EXPLAIN THAT AND, AND CONVINCE YOU I'M RIGHT. I WISH YOU'D BE A JUDGE, A LEGAL CONCEPT THAT SOMEBODY CAN BE INDIVIDUALLY SUED FOR DOING WHAT THEY TOOK AN OATH TO DO. YES, SIR. I I'M WORRIED THAT WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT PART. OKAY. 
          THAT I LITIGATE IN LAWSUITS ALMOST EVERY DAY. SO LET ME LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN IT TO YOU. 
          AND LET ME TELL YOU, IT'S SOMETHING THAT COURTS WRESTLE WITH AND HAVE TROUBLE WITH. SO I'M GOING TO, WHEN I EXPLAIN THIS TO YOU AND I'M TRYING, I'M GOING TO TRY TO BE FUNDAMENTAL. 
          IT'S NOT BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO TALK DOWN TO YOU. IT'S BECAUSE JUDGES HAVE TROUBLE WITH IT TOO. 
          [01:00:04]
AND, AND THEY'RE THEORETICALLY EDUCATED IN THE LAW AND PEOPLE DON'T UNDERSTAND THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK. SO, SO THERE'S A, A DEFENSE, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DEFENSES AVAILABLE TO THESE INDIVIDUALS. ONE IS OFFICIAL IMMUNITY, ONE IS LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY. THEY ARE LEGISLATORS. 
          SO WHEN THEY'RE PERFORMING A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION, THEY ARE ENTITLED TO ABSOLUTE LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY. AND THAT'S COMFORTING TO KNOW. SO THEN AS PART OF DETERMINING ARE THEY ENTITLED TO LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY FOR THEIR ACTIONS? YOU START WITH ASKING, WERE THEY PERFORMING A LEGISLATIVE FUNCTION OR SOMETHING ELSE. SO THE EASY ONE IS PASSING AN ORDINANCE THAT'S LEGISLATION. SO IF THEY VOTE ON AN ORDINANCE, THAT'S LEGISLATION. GRANTING OR DENYING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, I WOULD CONTEND, IS LIKELY TO BE LEGISLATIVE BECAUSE YOU'RE EFFECTIVELY AMENDING YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE. SO THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE A POTENTIAL IMMUNITY DEFENSE IS SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T OVERLOOK IN THE CASE. BUT THEN YOU GET INTO OTHER FUNCTIONS AND THE COURT COULD DECIDE, WELL, THAT ISN'T LEGISLATIVE. 
          AND THEREFORE THEY MIGHT BE NOT ENTITLED TO LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY FOR SOMETHING ELSE THEY MIGHT HAVE DONE. SO SOME OF THE ACCUSATIONS THAT ARE MADE IN THE LAWSUIT, WHICH I DON'T THINK COULD BE PROVED BUT WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPENSIVE TO DEFEND SOME OF THE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ACCUSED OF WERE STEPPING OUTSIDE OF THE LEGISLATIVE ROLE THAT THEY WERE TURNING DOWN LIFE SCHOOL AND MAYBE AGREED SOMEHOW IMPROPERLY TO TURN DOWN LIFE SCHOOL, NOT SITTING AT THE PODIUM, VOTING ON A PIECE OF LEGISLATION, DOING SOMETHING ELSE THAT MAY NOT BE LEGISLATIVE IN FUNCTION. THEY'RE PROVE THAT THAT THAT EXISTS. NONE THAT I'VE COME ACROSS. I MEAN, I'LL BE CANDID WITH YOU, BUT AGAIN, PART OF THE LAWSUIT PROCESS IS WE THERE'S A PROCESS CALLED DISCOVERY. AND, YOU KNOW, YOU SERVE EACH SIDE WITH WRITTEN QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE TO BE ANSWERED. DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE PRODUCED. THERE'S A DISCLOSURE PROCESS WHERE DISCLOSURE HAS TO BE MADE AND AT TREMENDOUS EXPENSE TO THE CITY. AND I'M TALKING ABOUT PAYING EMPLOYEES TO DO A LOT OF WORK IN ADDITION TO PAYING ME, WE RESPONDED TO DISCOVERY REQUESTS. THEY WERE SEEKING LOTS OF EMAIL, AND WE THERE WAS AT ONE POINT, I THINK WE PRODUCED OVER 20,000 PAGES OF MATERIAL. I'M NOT AWARE THAT ANYTHING SUPPORTING ANY KIND OF IMPROPER CONDUCT WAS EVER DISCOVERED, BUT THE PROCESS OF DISCOVERING THAT IS EXPENSIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, EVEN IF THE INDIVIDUALS ARE ENTITLED TO SUCCESSFULLY DEFEND ULTIMATELY, AND I HOPE AND THINK WITH A LAW APPLIED CORRECTLY, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN TRUE. AGAIN, THE SAME MONEY THAT'S PAID TO DEFEND THAT IS TAKEN OUT OF THE CITY'S COVERAGE FOR ULTIMATELY EXPOSURE THE CITY MIGHT HAVE BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T GET LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY. INDIVIDUALS CAN GET LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY. AND THEN THIS OTHER POTENTIAL DEFENSE OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY, THAT'S A BIT NEBULOUS. AND THAT'S WHEN THE COURTS HAVE REALLY GOT SOME PROBLEMS WITH. AND THE AN OFFICIAL CAN HAVE OFFICIAL IMMUNITY FOR DOING SOMETHING IN THEIR OFFICIAL DISCRETIONARY AUTHORITY, ACTING IN GOOD FAITH AND GOOD FAITH IS THE HARDEST THING FOR THE COURTS TO DEFINE WHAT IS OR ISN'T GOOD FAITH. BUT THERE'S A LEGAL TERM. I MEAN, AND THAT'S A LEGAL TERM. IT'S NOT WHAT YOU AND I MIGHT ORDINARILY MEAN AS GOOD FAITH GENERALLY, IF THEY BELIEVE A GOOD TEST OF GOOD FAITH IS THAT THEY GENERALLY BELIEVE WHAT THEIR ACTIONS WERE DOING WAS LAWFUL. AND THIS IS A FIVE SECOND FOLLOW UP. IT'LL BE FAST. SO AGAIN, THE REASON WHY I'M HARPING ON THIS PART IS BECAUSE WE WE TEND TO MIX ALL THESE THINGS TOGETHER. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT RULES IN REGARDS TO A NOISE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT'S ALREADY IN, IN, IN EFFECT, AND HOW BUILDING A STADIUM IN SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD 
          [01:05:03]
WOULD BE A NUISANCE. IT WOULD SEEM VERY CHALLENGING TO SAY THAT THE IF, IF THEY SAY WE'RE GOING TO UPHOLD IT, THE NOISE ORDINANCE THAT THAT NOISE ORDINANCE PUTS THEM IN A SITUATION WHERE THEY CAN BE INDIVIDUALLY SUED. THAT THAT THAT'S HARD FOR US TO GRASP THAT CONCEPT. AND IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE MIXING THAT IN WITH THEIR ABILITY TO BUILD A SCHOOL THAT SEEMS FLAWED. AND LET ME TRY TO BREAK THAT INTO SEVERAL PIECES. AND I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU. I'M, I'M SAYING THESE ARE THE LAWSUIT ACCUSATIONS THAT I'M DEFENDING. YEAH. OKAY. SO I'M NOT SAYING THAT. ENFORCING A NOISE ORDINANCE IS SOMETHING THAT INDIVIDUALS WHO ENFORCE IT IN GOOD FAITH CAN BE SUCCESSFULLY SUED FOR. BUT WHEN YOU WHEN YOU'RE DEFENDING A LAWSUIT AND YOU RAISE A DEFENSE, LEGISLATIVE IMMUNITY IS A TYPE OF DEFENSE. OFFICIAL IMMUNITY IS A TYPE OF DEFENSE. YOU HAVE TO PROVE THAT DEFENSE. SO SOMEBODY SUES YOU. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THE THE COMMON COURTHOUSE JOKE IS ANYBODY WITH $200 CAN SUE ANYBODY THEY WANT FOR ANYTHING THEY WANT. CAN THEY MAKE IT STICK? BUT HERE, WHAT WHAT I'M TRYING TO TALK ABOUT IS. I TRY TO BREAK IT IN A COUPLE OF PIECES. FIRST, BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE. I THINK THAT THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE AND AND FRANKLY, THERE'S EVEN PROBABLY EVEN BROADER ORDINANCES THAT IF SOMEBODY IS BASICALLY BEING A PAIN IN THE NECK TO THE POINT THAT IT INTERFERES WITH YOUR REASONABLE ENJOYMENT OF YOUR PROPERTY, YOU CAN CALL THE POLICE. AND IF THE POLICE FEEL LIKE THERE'S GROUNDS, THEY CAN ISSUE A CITATION AND TAKE ACTION, IF IT'S BAD ENOUGH, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY ARREST PEOPLE. SO THE THAT'S A TOOL THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR ENFORCEMENT ONCE THE STADIUM IS BUILT. I DON'T THINK THAT THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE ACTUALLY ENFORCING THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THERE WASN'T ANYTHING REALLY IN PLACE TO ENFORCE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT'S A TOOL. IF IT'S BUILT, THAT COULD BE USED. WHAT I THINK THE COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE BEING SUED FOR IS BECAUSE THEY VOTED TO TURN DOWN THE LIFE SCHOOL PLAN AND THE LIFE SCHOOL PEOPLE ARE SAYING THEY LEGALLY DIDN'T HAVE GROUNDS TO TURN IT DOWN BECAUSE THE. AND THIS AND I'LL GET TO YOU IN A SECOND WHEN WHEN YOU'RE VOTING ON SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND YOU'RE EVENTUALLY GOING TO HAVE TO POTENTIALLY DEFEND IT IF YOU GET CHALLENGED IN COURT, THE IN THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE CITY AND CITY OFFICIALS TO SHOW THAT THEY HAD SUFFICIENT REASON FOR TURNING DOWN THE APPLICATION AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE LIFE SCHOOL, THEIR BURDENS ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE DEFENDANTS WOULD BE, BUT THE DEFENDANTS WOULD BE PUT TO HAVING TO SHOW THAT THEY HAD SUFFICIENT REASONS RECOGNIZED UNDER THE LAW TO TURN DOWN THE APPLICATION. SO THE THE NUISANCE ORDINANCE IS A A TOOL TO USE ONCE THE SCHOOL'S IN PLACE. BUT THE WAY THE LAW IS WRITTEN BECAUSE A STADIUM AND THE. AND THE SCHOOL CAMPUS ITSELF, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE NECESSARY FOR THE. CARRYING OUT OF THE SCHOOL'S MISSION ARE ALL THINGS THAT. THE SCHOOL GETS TO DECIDE WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IN A CITY. AND THE CITY IS VERY, VERY LIMITED ON WHAT THEY CAN DO. AS FAR AS NUMBER ONE, THE FIRST QUESTION, CAN YOU OR CAN YOU NOT PUT IT IN THE CITY WHERE YOU WANT? ANSWER IS GENERALLY THEY CAN. IF WE COULD SHOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THEY WANTED TO TRY TO BUILD IT IN THE MIDDLE OF A FLOODPLAIN, WE COULD SAY NO. IF IF THEY WANTED TO BUILD IT AND NOT COMPLY WITH BUILDING CODES FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY PURPOSES, WE COULD SAY, YOU CAN'T DO IT THAT WAY. BUT AS GENERALLY THE ISSUE OF CAN THEY EVEN PUT IT IN THE CITY AND CAN THEY PUT IT THERE FOR THEIR THEIR CAMPUS IN THAT LOCATION? WE DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A RIGHT TO SAY NO. NOW, IF WITH ON THE CAMPUS, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING IN A FLOODPLAIN, WE COULD SAY NO. 
          AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS LOOKED AT. AND NONE OF THE ASSETS, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE 
          [01:10:04]
SCHOOL BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ARE GOING TO BE IN A FLOODPLAIN. THEY AND THEY'VE GOT FLOODPLAIN. 
          THEY'VE GOT DRAINAGE PLANS. OKAY. I'M SORRY. LET ME PUT IT UP HERE. IS THAT BETTER? OKAY. 
          SORRY. SO THEY HAVE PLANS IN PLACE TO DEAL WITH DRAINAGE ON THE PROPERTY AND TO KEEP IT FROM FLOODING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THOSE ARE THE THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT CAN BE USED. IF THE SCHOOL IS NOT GOING TO PROPERLY ADDRESS THOSE KINDS OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES. SO CAN THIS CAN THE EVENTUALLY SUCCEED IN A LAWSUIT AGAINST THE INDIVIDUALS? I WOULD HOPE NOT, BECAUSE I THINK EVERYTHING THE INDIVIDUALS DID WAS IN THEIR LEGISLATIVE CAPACITY. BUT BUT GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION TO PROVE THAT IS EXPENSIVE. AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU'RE SUCCESSFUL IN DEFENDING THE INDIVIDUALS, YOU STILL HAVE TO DEFEND THE CITY BECAUSE THE CITY DOESN'T HAVE THAT KIND OF AN IMMUNITY DEFENSE. I HAVE MORE, BUT I WANT TO BE FAIR. OKAY. WELL, SHE HAD HER HAND UP FIRST. 
          PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IT IS TO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PROPERTY THAT LIFE SCHOOL PURCHASED WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO? SO THE ANSWER IS YES. THEY BOUGHT IT FROM AN ENTITY THAT HAD BEEN FORMED TO CREATE OR TO BUILD A CHARTER SCHOOL ON THAT PROPERTY. IT HAD BEEN VACANT FOR A LONG TIME, I THINK ABOUT EIGHT YEARS. THE PRE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD BOUGHT IT WITH THE SAME PLAN OR CONCEPT OF A CHARTER SCHOOL. WERE THEY GIVEN ANY GUARANTEES FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT THE ZONING WOULD BE CHANGED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY? EVER SO PRIOR TO THEIR PURCHASE? AND CAN I ASK YOU FOR CLARIFICATION? YES. OKAY. SO ARE YOU IS YOUR QUESTION WILL ANY PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THE LIFE SCHOOL PROPERTY EVER BECOME COMMERCIAL? IS THAT IT, OR WERE THEY GIVEN ANY GUARANTEES THAT THE CURRENT ZONING THAT THEY PURCHASED IT UNDER WOULD CHANGE? AFTER PURCHASE SO THAT THEY COULD COMMENCE THEIR PROJECT? JIM. JIM, LET ME ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE YOU'RE ASKING HIM A QUESTION HE DOESN'T KNOW. ONE NO. TWO IT'S STILL SPH. 13 WHAT MR. JEFFRIES IS TELLING YOU, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT GETS TO MAKE THE CHOICE WHERE TO PUT THE SCHOOL. THEY CAN PUT IT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. COMMERCIAL DISTRICT? IN THIS CASE, A SINGLE FAMILY. 13 DISTRICT, I THINK, IS WHAT IT IS. SO THEY WERE ENTITLED TO PUT THE SCHOOL WHERE IT WAS. THE REASON THAT THEY HAD TO COME THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS WAS TO GET RELAXATION ON HEIGHT, BUILDING MASS, THE STADIUM, THE PRACTICE FIELDS, THE SETBACKS. 
          THAT'S WHY THEY CAME THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS. NOT REALLY. MAYBE TO TWEAK THE BECAUSE IN THAT DISTRICT, THAT'S THE TWO AND A HALF STORIES. WE DIDN'T CHANGE THAT. THE SETBACKS WERE ONLY TEN FEET, AND WE GOT THEM TO MOVE IT MORE THAN TEN FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. 
          AND THE BUILDING MASS AND THE ARTICULATION. SO THOSE ARE THE KINDS. AND WE SAID WE COULDN'T ADDRESS THAT IN SF 13 DISTRICT YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH. SO THE BASE ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY IS STILL SINGLE FAMILY. IF LIFE SCHOOL DECIDED THEY'RE GOING TO PACK ALL THEIR STUFF UP AND WENT HOME, SOMEONE COULD GET A BUILDING PERMIT OR FILE A PLAT TO SUBDIVIDE IT TO SF 13. 
          AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE BOARD WAS JUST SIDING WITH THE CURRENT REGULATIONS AND VOTING AGAINST THE LIFE SCHOOL PROJECT. WELL, TO TO MR. JEFFREY'S POINT IS IT WOULD THERE WOULD WE WOULD LOSE OUR IMMUNITY IF THEY MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND THE STATE LAW SAYS, I'VE GOT TO GRANT YOU THE USE. AND IF YOU MEET ALL THE REGULATIONS FOR THAT USE. NOW, I DON'T HAVE A REASON TO TURN YOU DOWN. THEN THE IMMUNITY ISSUE BECOMES TO THE FOREFRONT. SO WHAT DID YOU 
          [01:15:03]
USE TO TO TURN DOWN THE ZONING? OTHER THAN YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE THE SCHOOL? THANK YOU. THIS IS GOING TO BE REALLY QUICK FOR CLARIFICATION. THERE WAS NOTED THAT MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY VALUE WAS A PART OF THE CASES. SO IN AUSTIN MAINTENANCE PROPERTY VALUE. SO I JUST WANT TO KNOW AS A HOMEOWNER IN THE AREA, IS MY PROPERTY VALUE PROTECTED JUST LIKE THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS? THE SHORT ANSWER IS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IMPACT IT MIGHT HAVE ON PROPERTY VALUES, BUT BECAUSE THEY GET TO BECAUSE THE SCHOOL SCHOOL DISTRICT GETS TO CHOOSE WHERE THEY PUT THEIR SCHOOL, IT CAN IMPACT YOUR PROPERTY VALUE. THERE'S THERE'S NO DOUBT OF THAT. I GUESS WHAT I'M ASKING IS AS THEY GET TO SUE FOR THEIR DIMINISHED VALUE, IF OUR VALUE IS DIMINISHED, DO I NOW HAVE THE RIGHT TO SUE? I HATE TO GIVE YOU LEGAL ADVICE, BUT I THINK THAT'D BE A TOUGH, TOUGH CASE FOR YOU TO MAKE. AND THE, THE THE THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. I'M SORRY. THE LIFE SCHOOL IS NOT CLAIMING THAT THEY'VE LOST VALUE OF THEIR PROPERTY. THEIR LEGAL CLAIM IS THEY'VE LOST A RIGHT PROTECTED BY STATE LAW TO USE THEIR PROPERTY THE WAY THEY SEE FIT, AND THAT IT HAS COST THEM MONEY BECAUSE THEY COULD HAVE AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE, ACCORDING TO THEM, BUILT THIS A YEAR OR MORE AGO. AND THE OLD SAYING TIME IS MONEY IS PART OF THEIR ARGUMENT. PLUS, THEY HAVE INCREASED COST OF CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING. IS OUT THERE IN THE WORLD. ONE THING THAT JUST THE PEOPLE INVOLVED IN THE CONSTRUCTION WORLD HAVE TOLD US, ME INCLUDED, IS THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN GOING UP AROUND 4% A YEAR. 
          WHO KNOWS WHAT THE ECONOMY IS GOING TO DO NEXT YEAR. BUT BUT COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS GONE UP. SO THEY'RE SAYING BY DELAY THE CITY SHOULD BE ON THE HOOK FOR ANY INCREASED EXPENSES TO THEM. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WOULD FLY OR NOT IN COURT BECAUSE THEY'D HAVE TO PROVE IT. 
          BUT THAT'S THE KIND OF MONEY THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, WHICH COULD BE A LOT OF MONEY ON A PROJECT THAT COULD BE $100 MILLION PROJECT. SO. THEY'RE NOT EXACTLY SUING FOR LOSS OF VALUE OF PROPERTY. THEY'RE SUING FOR LEGALLY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, IF THAT MAKES SENSE TO YOU. I'M SPEAKING TO THE CASE. I BELIEVE IT WAS THE AUSTIN ISD CASE WHERE IT WAS MAINTENANCE OF PROPERTY VALUES WAS PART OF THE CASE. SO I'M NOT SPEAKING TO LIFE SCHOOL WITH THEIR SUING FOR. I'M SAYING LIFE SCHOOL GETS BUILT IN, MY PROPERTY VALUE GOES DOWN AND NOW I HAVE DIMINISHED VALUE. DO I GET TO SUE LIFE SCHOOL? I CAN'T ADVISE YOU ON THAT, MA'AM. 
          I JUST SIMPLY CAN'T. MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE AUSTIN CASE THAT WAS RAISED AS AN ISSUE, BUT THEY LOST. NOW YOU HAVE PRIVATE, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOUR PROPERTY IS DIFFERENT FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS, YOU'RE DIFFERENT. SO ON A ON A CASE BY CASE, THAT'S YOUR INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY, RIGHT? TO SUE THE SCHOOL. IF YOU THINK IT IS A NUISANCE AND ITS OPERATION, AND IT'S A NUISANCE PER SE, BUT THE MERE PLACEMENT OF THE SCHOOL IS NOT A NUISANCE PER SE. THE OPERATION OF THE SCHOOL MAY BE, BUT THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE RIGHT. THAT WOULD BE YOUR PRIVATE RIGHT AS A PROPERTY OWNER OR AN AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNER. YOU'VE BEEN VERY PATIENT, MA'AM. THANK YOU. HAD A GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT EXPANSION, POSSIBLY OF THE STADIUM. I KNOW IT'S REGULATIONS AND DIMENSIONS AND SO FORTH THAT HAS BEEN TALKED ABOUT THROUGHOUT THE MEETING, BUT WHAT'S THE POSSIBILITY OF THEM WANTING TO LIFE SCHOOL, WANTING TO EXPAND THE STADIUM PAST WHAT THEY INITIALLY QUOTED? IF THEY ARE GOING TO EXPAND THE STADIUM, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME TO THE CITY AND SUBMIT PLANS. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET APPROVAL OF THE PLANS, JUST NOT JUST THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS, BUT BUT SHOW THAT THE I WANT TO CALL IT THE PHYSICAL CONFIGURATION OF THE PROPERTY WOULD SUPPORT AN EXPANSION IF IT IF THEY WANTED TO TRY TO BUILD COWBOYS STADIUM AT THAT LOCATION, IT MAY NOT BE BIG ENOUGH TO TO HANDLE THE TRAFFIC AND SO FORTH. SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS THEY WITHIN 
          [01:20:03]
REASONABLE AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS, CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS, THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPAND IT. NOW, WHETHER THE FUTURE HOLDS THAT THEY WOULD WANT TO EXPAND IT, I DON'T KNOW THE THE STADIUMS THAT THEY'VE POINTED TO THAT EXIST ARE. THEY THINK THAT THE THOUSAND SEATS IS GOING TO BE ADEQUATE FOR THEIR NEEDS, AT LEAST INDEFINITELY. DO YOU REMEMBER THE THE LOCATION THEY POINTED US TO? THAT'S ANOTHER PRIVATE SCHOOL, NOT TERRIBLY FAR AWAY. I WANT TO SAY WAXAHACHIE. AND THEN THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS IN NORTH DALLAS COUNTY, BUT I DON'T RECALL THE NAME OF IT. ONE OF THE STADIUMS THAT I THOUGHT THAT WERE COMPARABLE WAS JOHN PAUL THE SECOND, WHICH IS A PRIVATE PAROCHIAL SCHOOL AT THE CORNER OF COIT AND PARK, AND IT'S ACTUALLY IN PLANO IS SIMILAR SIZE. AND THEN JESUITS FOOTBALL STADIUM AT JESUIT HIGH SCHOOL AT NORTHWEST HIGHWAY AND ER, THE TOLLWAY AND FOREST AREA, THEY'RE ABOUT THE SAME SIZE. THOSE ARE A LITTLE BIGGER THAN WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED, BUT THAT MIGHT GIVE THE PUBLIC SOME CONCEPT OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THEY'RE NOT ENCASED IN ANYTHING. THEY'RE JUST METAL STANDS. THE ONE NEAR MY HOUSE IS LEGACY CHRISTIAN SCHOOL, AND IT'S A LITTLE TALLER THAN THIS, BUT IT'S JUST METAL STANDS WITH A PRESS BOX ON IT AND LIGHTING THE. SO THOSE ARE SOME THAT ARE COMPARABLE. YOU CAN GET ON GOOGLE AND LOOK. LIBERTY CHRISTIAN JESUIT AND JOHN PAUL. SO THAT'S EXCUSE ME, THAT'S A CONCERN I HAVE WITH THE EXPANSION BECAUSE THEY, YOU KNOW, LIFE SCHOOL IS PRESENTING ONE THING. BUT THEN THROUGHOUT THE YEARS, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THEIR POPULATION, IF THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME WILL EXPAND, YOU KNOW, SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY CONCERNS I HAD. AND WHAT, WHAT TYPE OF I DON'T KNOW WHAT COUNCIL WOULD ACCEPT AS. A WAY FOR THEM TO EXPAND. LIKE, WHAT WOULD THEY TAKE IN CONSIDERATION FOR? YES, YES, THEY NEED TO EXPAND ONCE IT'S PRESENTED. I THINK THAT THE, THE, AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THE COUNCIL WOULD BE USING THE SAME ANALYSIS THAT THEY DID FOR THE ORIGINAL STADIUM IS IT IS THE PROPERTY ITSELF, INCLUDING PARKING, TRAFFIC LANES ON THE ON SITE, OFF SITE. WILL ALL OF THAT SUPPORT AN EXPANDED STADIUM? AND I THINK, AGAIN, WE'D BE GOING THROUGH THE SAME ANALYSIS AND PROCESS GENERALLY THAT WAS DONE TO THIS POINT. SO THE ANSWER IS THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO EXPAND, BUT WE'D HAVE TO SEE WHAT THEY BROUGHT FORWARD AT THAT TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU. IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING. THEY'D HAVE TO FILE AN APPLICATION. THEY'D HAVE TO GO TO PLANNING AND ZONING. THEY'D HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE COUNCIL. PEOPLE WOULD HAVE TO RECEIVE NOTICE. YOU WOULD GET TO PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCESS. HOPEFULLY IT CAN'T EXPAND TOO MUCH JUST BECAUSE WHERE IT'S SQUEEZED IN TO WHERE IT IS. BUT THEY WOULD AT LEAST HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND THEN I WOULD ASSUME THEIR OPERATION OF THE CURRENT STADIUM WOULD HAVE A LARGE IMPACT ON YOU ACTUALLY SPEAKING ABOUT WHAT THE NOISE IS AND WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE THROUGH THEIR OPERATION. AND THEN IT MAY GET TO THE POINT WHERE IT IS A NUISANCE. OKAY, SO MY QUESTION WAS THAT I KNOW THEY PURCHASED THE LAND FROM ANOTHER CHARTER SCHOOL. AND WHAT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS BEFORE I MOVED TO THAT LOCATION, AS WELL AS GOT OUR HOUSE BUILT FROM THE GROUND UP, THAT THAT CHARTER SCHOOL WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BUILD A SCHOOL ON THAT PROPERTY. THE REASON WHY IT HAD BEEN SITTING DORMANT ALL THIS TIME. IS THAT TRUE OR IS THAT FALSE? I DON'T KNOW. CAN SOMEBODY ASK ANSWER ON THE ON THE DAYS UP THERE? CAN ANYBODY ANSWER THAT QUESTION? I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN APPLICATION BE FILED ON THAT PROPERTY FOR A BUILDING PERMIT OR ZONING CHANGE UNTIL LIFE SCHOOL OWNED IT. OKAY. SO 
          [01:25:02]
YOU'VE NEVER SEEN ANYTHING, NO BUILDING PERMIT, NO ZONING CHANGE. BUT WE ARE GOING TO ALLOW THIS ZONING CHANGE FOR THIS SCHOOL. IS THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING? IS THAT WHAT YOU YOU GUYS HAVE AGREED TO? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND. ASK ME IF THERE WAS A PRIOR CHARTER SCHOOL AND YOU ASKED ME IF THEY COULD NOT BUILD ON THAT. CORRECT. I NEVER SAW ANYTHING WHERE THEY FILED A BUILDING PERMIT, OR THEY REQUESTED SOME KIND OF ZONING CHANGE TO BUILD SOMETHING. OKAY. DID YOU CHECK? NO. WHY NOT? I HAVE NO REASON TO CHECK BECAUSE WE ARE THE CONSTITUENTS. WE ARE YOUR. YOU GUYS REPRESENT US. AND SO. NO, NO. AND YOU HAVE A LAWYER HERE THAT IS REPRESENTING YOU ALL BECAUSE YOU SAID OR FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD, THAT YOU GUYS ARE GETTING SUED INDIVIDUALLY AND THE CITY IS GETTING SUED. CORRECT. SO IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHY DIDN'T WE DIDN'T YOU GO BACK AND REVIEW TO SEE IF THAT DOCUMENTATION WAS IN PLACE AND WHAT WAS THE OUTCOME? I CAN TRY TO ANSWER THAT BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT HIRED, RIGHT? JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR. SO DID ANYBODY ELSE BECAUSE YOU JUST GOT HIRED. THAT'S WHAT YOU SAID WHEN YOU CAME UP HERE TO REPRESENT THE PEOPLE ON THE PODIUM. SO MY QUESTION TO THE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT WE'VE ELECTED, DID WE GO AND CHECK TO SEE IF ANYTHING WAS SUBMITTED AND WAS IT REJECTED FROM THE OTHER PRIOR SCHOOL DISTRICT? BECAUSE WHAT I WHAT I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING IS BECAUSE I'M AN EDUCATOR, 25 YEARS. WHY WOULD A SCHOOL DISTRICT BUILD OR, EXCUSE ME, PURCHASE SOME LAND AND THEN LET IT SIT DORMANT WHEN THEY EXPANDED MULTIPLE AREAS OF THEIR OLD SCHOOL. SO FOR THEM TO GET THIS VAST, BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY AND NOT BUILD ON IT, BUT EXPAND IN OTHER AREAS, WHY WAS THAT? WHY DIDN'T THEY BUILD ON IT? AND THEN TWO. DID YOU GUYS GO BACK AND REVIEW THOSE DOCUMENTATIONS AND SEE IF IT WAS REJECTED? AND IF IT WAS REJECTED, WHY WAS IT REJECTED? OKAY. EXCUSE ME, EXCUSE ME. THE CITY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO RESPOND. I CAN'T RESPOND. OKAY. WELL WHO CAN WHO CAN? EXCUSE ME? YOU DON'T GET ANY RESPONSE FROM THE COUNCIL MEMBERS UP HERE THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDER SUIT, BECAUSE THAT THAT ISN'T GOING TO BE RESOLVED FOR SOME TIME. SO WE CAN'T WE CAN'T RESPOND. 
          SO INTERIM CITY MANAGER'S GOT AN ANSWER FOR YOU. WELL, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND. EXCUSE ME. 
          CAN EVERYBODY HEAR ME? OKAY. SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS YES, THERE WAS A PRIOR OWNER THAT HAD A THAT WAS WANTING TO BUILD A SCHOOL. THEY SUBMITTED PLANS TO THE CITY, BUT NEVER REALLY FOLLOWED BACK UP OR TOOK ANY FURTHER ACTION. SO NOTHING REALLY EVER CAME OF IT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. AGAIN, IT'S BEFORE MY TIME, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING WAS PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, BUT NO FURTHER ACTION WAS TAKEN AND THEY DIDN'T FOLLOW UP. OKAY, SO THAT'S WHAT YOUR UNDERSTANDING WAS. YOU DON'T REALLY KNOW. SO YOU'RE JUST SPEAKING IN GENERAL. 
          AND MY QUESTION IS, WILL WE WILL YOU, THE BOARD, THE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT BEING SUED, THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO CAN GO BACK AND SEE IF THAT WAS FOLLOWED THROUGH OR IF THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED, AND THEN IT WAS REJECTED? BECAUSE I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, I THOUGHT AGAIN, LIKE THIS NEIGHBOR OF MINE ASKED ABOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY, AND I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE WERE VOTING ON TO SEE IF THEY COULD CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO WHATEVER IT IS, WHATEVER THE LAW IS FOR BUILDING A SCHOOL DISTRICT, A SCHOOL, AND TWO, WITH THE PLANS THAT LIFE SCHOOL HAVE BEEN SUBMITTING, THEY'VE SUBMITTED SEVERAL PLANS. WHEN ON THE LAST VOTE THAT WE HAD, THEY SAID THEY WERE ONLY GOING TO BUILD A HIGH SCHOOL. IN THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, HOWEVER, THEY HAD AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL THAT THEY SAID IT WOULD BE AN EXPANSION PIECE TO, THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A STADIUM AND ALL OF THESE THINGS, AND MY GATE THAT WE EXIT OUT OF EVERY MORNING BECAUSE I'M A SCHOOL TEACHER, I'M AN EDUCATOR. I HAVE TO GET OUT OF THE GATE. WHAT PARAMETERS IS THE CITY GOING TO DO TO ENSURE THAT I CAN GET OUT OF MY RESIDENTIAL AREA IN TIME, SO THAT I CAN SUPPORT MY STUDENTS IN MY COMMUNITY, THE COMMUNITY THAT I PURCHASED LAND IN AND I SERVE. SO WHAT COULD YOU WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO DO FOR US? BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY SEEN THERE'S BEEN FOUR ACCIDENTS WITH THE SINCE THE LAST MEETING, I THINK THAT WAS SIX MONTHS AGO OR WHATEVER, AND WE COULD NOT GET OUT OF OUR GATE AND NO ONE WOULD ALLOW US TO GET IN AND OUT OF OUR GATES. I THINK THE QUESTION WAS ABOUT 
          [01:30:15]
THE TRAFFIC PLANNER WHAT WHAT TRAFFIC MITIGATION THEY'RE GOING TO. IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION, I THINK SHE WAS ASKING WHAT THE MITIGATION WAS FOR FOR THE INCREASED TRAFFIC, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. I HAD THREE QUESTIONS. THE FIRST ONE WAS, ARE WE GOING TO CHECK TO SEE IF THE PLANS WERE REJECTED AND IF THEY WERE REJECTED, WHY WAS WHY WERE THEY REJECTED? AND IF THEY WERE REJECTED BACK THEN, WHY CAN'T WE HOLD ON TO THAT SAME REJECTION? THE SECOND THING WAS, WHAT IS THE CITY GOING TO DO IN ORDER TO ENSURE. LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. 
          OKAY, I GAVE YOU ONE. ALRIGHT, I WANT TO ANSWER. I'M GOING TO ANSWER ONE. BUT YOU SAID YOU WASN'T HERE, SO I'M, I'M WELL I WAS HERE ALRIGHT, I, I HEARD WHAT THE MANAGER SAID AND FROM THAT I CAN GLEAN THIS, THAT I, AS A PROPERTY OWNER FILED AN APPLICATION AND IF I NEVER DID ANYTHING WITH IT, I'M NEVER GOING TO SEE IT BECAUSE IT'S NEVER GOING TO GET TO P AND Z. 
          IT'S BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT. THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. 
          THAT'S WHY NOTHING WAS DONE. UNDERSTOOD. I UNDERSTAND YOUR ANSWER AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT ANSWER. HOWEVER, HE SAID THAT HE DIDN'T KNOW. HE'S JUST GENERALIZING THAT THAT WAS THE CASE BECAUSE HE HE DEFINITELY MENTIONED THAT WAS BEFORE HIM. AND I ASKED SPECIFICALLY, DID ANYONE CHECK? AND HE SAID, NO. BUT WHAT I THINK IS WHAT HE SAID AND IT'S ON RECORD BECAUSE WE'RE RECORDING THIS. SO MY QUESTION IS, CAN YOU GUYS GO BACK TO REVIEW THAT AND SEE WHY WAS IT REJECTED? AND IF IT WAS REJECTED, WHY THEN WE NEED TO HOLD TO THAT SAME STANDARD. I UNDERSTAND, MA'AM, I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO GO OUT ON THE LIMB. I'M GOING TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. I WAS THERE, I WAS IN POSSESSION OF THOSE PLANS. THEY WERE SUBMITTED WITH NO APPLICATION AND THEY NEVER RETURNED. NOT A PHONE CALL, NOT AN EMAIL. THEY NEVER RETURNED TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT. SO IT WAS NOT REJECTED. IT WAS THEIR CHOICE NOT TO GO THROUGH WITH THE PROJECT. OKAY. AND SECONDLY, HOW CAN THEY CHANGE? AND YOU MAY HAVE SAID THIS ALREADY, HOW CAN THEY CHANGE FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO WHATEVER THE LAW IS FOR TO BUILD A SCHOOL? WHAT IS THAT LAW AND HOW IS THAT APPLICABLE? HOW CAN THEY DO THAT? BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I MENTIONED IS THAT WHEN I PURCHASED MY PROPERTY, I HAD TO FOLLOW THE RULES OF THE HOA. I COULDN'T BECAUSE I BOUGHT THE PROPERTY. I COULDN'T CHANGE SOME OF THE HOA RULES THAT I THAT I DIDN'T LIKE. AND THOSE PEOPLE WHO PURCHASED THE PROPERTY, THE REASON WHY THEY CAME TO US ORIGINALLY IS BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO WHATEVER THE WHATEVER THE CHANGE WAS GOING TO BE ALRIGHT TO COMMERCIAL. SO MY QUESTION WAS HOW. OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEIR ORIGINAL PLAN WHEN THEY CAME TO YOU GUYS WAS TO CHANGE THE, THE SINGLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL. WHEN WE WERE OVER THERE IN THAT OTHER BUILDING IN THE CIVIC CENTER, THAT WAS THE FIRST MEETING. 
          OKAY. I'M GONNA EXPLAIN THAT TO YOU. YEAH, I WILL. ALL RIGHT. WHAT THE LAW HAS TOLD US THAT THE SCHOOL, IN THIS CASE, THE LIFE SCHOOL, YOU NEED TO MOVE SO I CAN SEE HER OR SHE CAN SEE ME. IT'S A IT'S COURT CASE. TEXAS SUPREME COURT, TEXAS SUPREME COURT. IT'S. AND IT IS THE CITY OF SUNSET VALLEY VERSUS THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. IT WAS DECIDED IN 1966 BY THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. AND THE SUPREME COURT TOLD US IN THAT CASE THAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND AS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS. THE DECISION ON WHERE A SCHOOL IS LOCATED, EVEN IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, IS THE PROVINCE OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT AND EVEN THE CITY ZONING AUTHORITY IS SUBSERVIENT TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT'S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE WHERE THEIR SCHOOLS ARE GOING TO BE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE LEGISLATIVE PLAN FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS, AS GUARANTEED BY THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. AND THE SCHOOL HAS THAT CHOICE. OKAY, NOT THE CITY. SO THEY CAN PUT THAT SCHOOL IN A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. THEY CAN PUT THAT SCHOOL IN A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, THEY CAN PUT IT IN AN INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, THEY CAN PUT IT IN A RETAIL DISTRICT. SO WHY WERE WE VOTING ON THAT? IF THAT'S THE CASE, WHY DID WE WHY DID WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE CHANGE OF THE ZONE? LET ME EXPLAIN TO YOU, IF I PUT THAT SCHOOL IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT, 
          [01:35:02]
I HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE ZONING DISTRICTS REGULATIONS. WHEN I BUILD THAT SCHOOL, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE USE AND THE REGULATIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SO IF I MAKE A CHOICE TO PUT MY SCHOOL IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS, THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ALL APPLY TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE THOSE ARE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE REGULATIONS, WHICH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, PLANNING AND ZONING IN THE CITY COUNCIL HAS NO CREDENCE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU'RE INTERRUPTING. YOU'RE INTERRUPTING ME NOW. I DID, I DID, I'M THROUGH. ALRIGHT. SO YOU HAVE NO CREDENCE. ALRIGHT, SO THEY GET TO DECIDE WHERE TO PUT IT. I GET TO DECIDE WHAT THE REGULATIONS ARE WHEN THEY BUILD IT. SO WE. SO I'M SORRY AND I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. I JUST WANTED BECAUSE YOU MADE THAT POINT. MA'AM. MA'AM. 
          EXCUSE ME SIR, I'M GOING TO HAVE TO ASK YOU. WE'RE TRYING TO CONDUCT A A RESPECTFUL. I MADE MY POINT. I MADE MY POINT. OKAY, BUT THIS IS THE SECOND TIME PEN AND ZONING AND. OKAY, OKAY. THIS IS THE SECOND TIME. IT'S A MOOT POINT. OKAY, IF YOU'RE DONE SPEAKING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. GO AHEAD. MA'AM. YES. SO MY SO WHAT I'M SAYING, WHAT I'M WHAT I'M ASKING IS THAT ANY. SO THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE HAS NO STANDING, NO LEGAL RIGHT OVER ANY SCHOOL THAT PURCHASED SINGLE FAMILY LAND. AND THEY CAN BUILD A SCHOOL. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES. OKAY. AND THE AND THEN MY QUESTION, MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS WHY WERE WE VOTING ON THE CHANGE FOR THE ZONING? THAT THAT'S MY QUESTION. BECAUSE IF YOU GUYS KNEW THAT ORIGINALLY, WHY WAS WHY DID WE HAVE TO COME AND WRITE ALL OF THESE LETTERS AND SAY THESE THINGS? BUT YOU GUYS KNEW THAT, BUT YOU NEVER TOLD US. SO WHY IS THAT? WHY IS THAT NOW? WHY IS THAT? THE STANCE NOW WAS, AS I RECALL, THAT NIGHT. AND YOU CAN GO BACK AND WATCH THE TAPE. 
          WE DIDN'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DECIDE WHERE THE SCHOOL WAS GOING TO GO. WE COULD DECIDE HOW HIGH IT WAS GOING TO BE, HOW MANY LIGHT STANCHIONS THEY WERE. IF IT CREATED A PROBLEM HERE, THE SCREENING, RIGHT? THAT'S WHY THEY WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS. THAT'S THE THINGS THAT WE WE WERE ATTEMPTING TO NARROW IT DOWN TO VOTE ON. UNDERSTOOD, UNDERSTOOD. BUT WE HAD TO HAVE A FOLLOW UP MEETING BECAUSE THE BECAUSE THE COMMUNITY MEMBERS NEVER KNEW ABOUT THEIR PLAN, THEIR PROCESS OR ANYTHING. THE ORIGINAL LETTER THAT WAS SENT OUT TO US WAS THAT WE WERE VOTING ON OR WE WERE THE LIFE SCHOOL WAS TRYING TO GET A ZONING CHANGE. 
          THAT WAS THE FIRST MEETING THAT WE HAD OVER IN THE COMMUNITY CENTER OVER THERE. AND THEN BECAUSE IT WAS NOT HANDLED PROPERLY, WE HAD TO HAVE ANOTHER MEETING. AND THEN IN THE SECOND OR IN THE FIRST MEETING, THEY HAD ALL OF THESE PLANS AND NO ONE KNEW ABOUT IT IN THE COMMUNITY. AND SO WHEN I GOT MY ORIGINAL LETTER, IT SAID ON THE LETTER, THE CHANGE OF ZONE FOR LIFE CHARTER SCHOOL. SO WHY WAS THAT DOCUMENTATION SENT OUT FROM THE CITY WHEN YOU ALL KNEW WHAT THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT VERSUS AUSTIN, 1966? WHY DID WE WASTE OUR TIME ON THAT WHEN YOU GUYS ALREADY HAD YOUR HANDS TIED ON WHAT COULD BE DONE ON THE PROPERTY? I'M JUST STILL I'M STILL CAUGHT UP ON WHY DO WE HAVE TO VOTE OR, OR VOICE OUR OPINION ABOUT THE CHANGE OF ZONE WHEN YOU, AS YOU STATED, THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT VERSUS AUSTIN 1966 CASE WAS ALREADY IN PLAY BECAUSE THEY WANTED SOME RELAXATION OF THE SF 13 ZONING REGULATIONS. SO WE'RE GIVING THEM RELAXATION, WE'RE GRANTING THEM RELAXATION, AND THE TAXPAYERS ARE BEING ARE HAVING TO JUST ACCEPT BECAUSE YOU GUYS ARE ALLOWING THEM TO RELAX. I'M GETTING FRUSTRATED BECAUSE WHY YOU'RE GETTING FRUSTRATED WITH ME, SIR. I'M BEING CALM. I'M ASKING QUESTIONS. I'M YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING. I'M RESPONDING TO YOU AS A COUNCIL MEMBER. HOW WOULD YOU TELL ME THAT? WHY WOULD YOU EVEN SAY THAT? THAT'S SO UNPROFESSIONAL. THAT'S NUMBER ONE. THAT'S UNPROFESSIONAL. SIR, I'M GOING TO CALL POINT OF ORDER. I DID 
          [01:40:03]
NOT RAISE MY VOICE, MAYOR. I'M GOING TO CALL POINT OF ORDER. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. FIRST OF ALL, I'M NOT A COUNCIL MEMBER. I'M I'M THE CITY ATTORNEY. OKAY. SAME DIFFERENCE. YOU ARE STILL WE STILL VOTE. I UNDERSTAND, I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN. YEAH, BUT YOU SAID YOU'RE GETTING FRUSTRATED AS A AS A AS A GOVERNMENT OFFICIAL. YOU SHOULD NOT TALK TO ANYBODY LIKE THAT. 
          AND IF THAT'S THE CASE, YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND GET SOME PROFESSIONAL GUIDANCE ON HOW TO TALK TO YOUR CONSTITUENTS. WHO PUT YOU AT THAT SEAT, MA'AM, THERE'S A THERE'S A POINT OF ORDER THAT'S BEEN CALLED OUT. AND IN LARGE PART, IT'S BECAUSE IT'S BEEN A LOT OF REPETITION. 
          I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ME WHEN I'M ASKING HIM DIRECT QUESTIONS ON SOMETHING THAT HE SAID. I'M TRYING TO GET CLARIFICATION. AND HE'S FRUSTRATED FROM MY STANDPOINT. HE DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. YOU SAID YOU WASN'T HERE WHEN THE FIRST ORIGINAL PLAN CAME ABOUT. SO WHAT I WANT IS FACTS. NO, MA'AM, I WANT IS WHAT I WANT IS FACTS. AND YOU GUYS ARE JUST REGURGITATING THINGS THAT ARE BEING SAID AND WHAT LIFE IS SUING THE CITY. AND FOR ME, IT'S LIKE YOU'RE DISREGARDING WHAT WE SAID BECAUSE WE HAVE SPENT OUR MONEY TO BUY A HOME IN AN AREA THAT WAS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILIES AND NOW, BECAUSE OF SCHOOL DISTRICT IS THREATENING TO SUE. YOU GUYS ARE ARE TUCKING YOUR TAILS AND RUNNING AND NOT REPRESENTING YOUR COMMUNITY MEMBERS. I'M SORRY, BUT YOU HAVEN'T BEEN LISTENING. THEY'RE NOT THREATENING TO SUE. THEY HAVE BEEN SUING US. OKAY. THERE'S A COURT HEARING TOMORROW, SIR, AND THAT'S WHY. AND THAT'S WHY THE CITY HAS LEGAL COUNSEL. THE COUNCIL NEED TO DO HIS JOB. WE'RE DOING OUR JOB. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO. I'M GOING TO HAVE TO CALL ON BECAUSE I'M GETTING BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING. I'M IRRITATING YOU NOW. POINT OF ORDER. BECAUSE I'M IRRITATING YOU. NOW CALL ANOTHER POINT OF ORDER BECAUSE SHE'S OUT OF LINE AND, AND HER AND HER STUFF AND SHE'S REPEATING HERSELF AND STUFF. SHE'S INTERRUPTING WHEN WHEN WE'RE ASKING. SO WE NEED HER TO STOP. YES, WE WE NEED TO KEEP DECORUM IN HERE AND RESPECT AND, AND SPEAK IN A RESPECTFUL TONE. SO AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION RIGHT HERE, LADY IN THE GREEN RIGHT HERE. 
          OR WAS THERE SOMEBODY AHEAD? I'M SORRY. BEFORE SHE GOES WE HAVE THIS GENTLEMAN STANDING RIGHT HERE. NO, I WAS I WAS NEXT. OKAY. YES. ALL RIGHT. PATIENTLY WAITING. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I WILL SAY THAT THIS IS QUITE DISTURBING TO ME AS A CITIZEN OF VOTER OF THIS CITY. AND I JUST I KNOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN OPEN MIC TO TALK LATER, BUT I JUST WANTED TO SAY THIS ABOUT THE THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE NOISE. AND I KNOW WE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE'VE SHARED OUR FEELINGS ON THAT, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE NO ONE IS SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF OUR COMMUNITY. THOSE CONCESSIONS THAT THEY TALKED ABOUT, THAT LIFE TALKED ABOUT MAKING FOR US, BUILDING TREES, BUILDING TREES, BABY TREES. THAT'S GOING TO BUFFER THE SOUND. I'LL BE DEAD IN 20 YEARS. BY THE TIME THOSE TREES GROW TO BUFFER THE NOISE, THE NOISE AND THE TRAFFIC ARE THE TWO HUGE THINGS THAT WE HAVE SHARED. THAT'S THAT'S REALLY CONCERNING FOR US. AND I WILL SAY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE STAND UP FOR OUR COMMUNITY. WE DID IT THE RIGHT WAY. WE CAME BEFORE YOU. WE RALLIED THE TROOPS. WE RALLIED OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WE DID THE RESEARCH. AND THIS IS WHAT WHEN WE SAY WE TELL PEOPLE TO VOTE SO WE CAN HAVE A VOICE, WE WANT TO KNOW THAT OUR CITY COUNCIL STANDS WITH US. BECAUSE WHEN WE HAD THE LAST VOTE, THE SUPERMAJORITY SEVEN OUT OF EIGHT SAID, LET'S NOT MOVE FORWARD. AND IT'S VERY DISHEARTENING TO SEE THAT WE'RE GOING TO APPEARS TO ME, AND I KNOW IT'S NOT DECIDED THAT WE'RE GOING TO LOSE EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING THAT WE FOUGHT FOR, WE DIDN'T WANT THE STADIUM, WE DIDN'T WANT THE SCHOOL. WE DIDN'T WANT ALL THE TRAFFIC. WE DIDN'T WANT ALL THE NOISE. AND IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ALL OF THAT. IT APPEARS NOBODY IS STANDING UP FOR OUR COMMUNITY. IT APPEARS THAT NOBODY THAT HAS THE AUTHORITY CAN FIGHT FOR WHAT WE HAVE, WHAT WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. I JUST WANT, I FEEL LIKE WHERE WE ARE NOW IS DOING THE RIGHT THING. IT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING. THIS COMMUNITY SAYS THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE. WHO CARES ABOUT OUR QUALITY OF LIFE WE CAN'T GET ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD WE'RE GOING TO BE HAVING ON FRIDAY NIGHTS. WE CAN'T ENJOY OUR FAMILIES ON THE ON THE PATIO, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE COMPETING WITH A STADIUM. THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF MEDIUM. THERE HAS TO BE SOME TYPE OF CONCESSION. SOMEBODY HAS TO SAY, WHAT CAN WE DO FOR THAT COMMUNITY SO THAT THEY WON'T BE TOTALLY AT LOSS? BECAUSE IT APPEARS THAT WHAT EVERYTHING YOU'RE SAYING, THERE'S NO CONCESSION FOR US. AND I KNOW 
          [01:45:01]
YOU'RE GOING TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. 
          AND I'M DISHEARTENED BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE NOBODY IS SPEAKING UP FOR US. SO, MR. HAGAN, CAN YOU I GOT A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS. I WAS WONDERING IF YOU COULD ANSWER THEM JUST, YOU KNOW, SERIOUSLY. SO MY UNDERSTANDING AND LISTENING TO YOU AND BY THE WAY, I'M AN ATTORNEY, SO I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM IN TERMS OF YOUR ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTE. SO WHAT I'M HEARING FROM YOU, MR. HAGAN AND MR. JEFFRIES, IS THAT IF A SCHOOL DISTRICT BUYS A PIECE OF LAND, THEN THEREFORE THEY CAN DESIGNATE THAT LAND AS A SCHOOL. IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES. AND OKAY. AND SO THEN IF TOMORROW I SET UP AN LLC OR A 501 C THREE AND SAY, COREY JOHNSON'S SCHOOL SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND I GO BUY A PIECE OF LAND, I CAN BUY MY OWN HOUSE. I CAN THEN JUST DESIGNATE THAT AS A SCHOOL. NO, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CHARTER FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS. OKAY, SO AS LONG AS YOU SECURE A CHARTER AND BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE STATE OF TEXAS AND YOU HAVE A CHARTER, THEN BY DEFINITION, AT LEAST UNDER THIS SUPREME COURT CASE, YOU CAN DESIGNATE THAT AS A SCHOOL. IF YOU HAVE A QUALIFIED TO, TO BE A CHARTER SCHOOL. AND ONCE IT'S DEEMED A CHARTER SCHOOL AND THAT BOARD OF DIRECTORS IS APPOINTED, THOSE BOARD OF DIRECTORS COULD DECIDE THAT THE PROPERTY THAT THEY OWN THAT GETS DESIGNATED AS A SCHOOL, THAT'S WHAT THE LAW APPEARS TO BE. OKAY. AND THAT GOES UNDER THE HOLDING OF THE SUPREME COURT CASE, THE SUNSET CASE. WELL, IF THE STATUTE, IT SAYS FOR THE PURPOSES OF LAND USE REGULATIONS, THEN WHAT APPLIES TO A SCHOOL DISTRICT APPLIES TO THE CHARTER SCHOOL. THE THEORY BEING THAT THAT'S THE STATE OF TEXAS. CONSTITUTIONALLY, THEY ARE CHARGED WITH PUBLIC EDUCATION AND BY LEGISLATION. THEY'VE CREATED SCHOOL DISTRICTS, AND NOW THEY'VE CREATED CHARTER SCHOOLS. AND THEY SAID THE CHARTER SCHOOL ENJOYS THE SAME STATUS AS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. AND THEN YOU TAKE OVER THAT. YOU LAY OVER THE AUSTIN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT CASE. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE DIFFERENCE WAS AND THEY SAID, WELL, IT'S POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE, AN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAS LOCAL TRUSTEES, LOCAL ELECTION, THEY TAX LOCALLY FOR TO PROVIDE FOR THE SCHOOL. BUT THAT'S ALSO BY LEGISLATIVE FIAT, RIGHT. THERE'S LEGISLATION THAT ALLOWS THE TO CREATE INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICTS. SO NOW WE HAVE CHARTER SCHOOL DISTRICTS. THAT'S WHY IT'S A DIFFICULT ARGUMENT TO MAKE. SO SO BASICALLY WHEN A.W. BROWN BOUGHT THAT PROPERTY, THEY COULD HAVE EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR AN IMMEDIATE CHANGE OF ZONING, THEY COULD HAVE BECAUSE THEY WERE A CHARTERED SCHOOL, THEY COULD HAVE JUST BY, YOU KNOW, FALLING THE THE REQUISITE PROCESS JUST DECLARED THAT AREA A SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY OWN THAT THAT PARCEL OF LAND. RIGHT? YES. OKAY. AND SO, AND SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE GETTING AT IS UNDER THE THIS IS THE STATUTE OR UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, WHATEVER. ESSENTIALLY EVERY CHARTER SCHOOL, ONCE THEY BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY, THEY DON'T HAVE TO DECLARE IT TO THE NEIGHBORS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD A SCHOOL THERE. BUT ONCE THEY BUILD, ONCE THEY BUY THAT PROPERTY, THEY WILL, THEY HAVE THE INHERENT RIGHT TO THEN CHANGE THAT PROPERTY TO A SCHOOL, ESSENTIALLY. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. I DIDN'T HAVE THAT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO PLAT THE PROPERTY IF IT'S UNPLATTED. SO THE BROWN PROPERTY WAS UNPLATTED. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO FILE A PLAT TO PLAT THE PROPERTY. THEY COULD DECIDE TO PUT A SCHOOL ON IT AND LEAVE THE ZONING EXACTLY AS IT IS, BUT THEY COULD NOT DEVIATE FROM WHATEVER THE BASE ZONING WAS ON THE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF SIZE, OF BUILDING SETBACKS, THOSE KIND OF THINGS. I SEE. SO THEN WHEN WE WERE HERE BEFORE, AS THIS YOUNG LADY, AS THIS YOUNG LADY WAS POINTING OUT, WE WEREN'T VOTING ON CHANGING OF ZONING, DID WE? WAS THERE EVER A VOTE TO CHANGE THE ZONING? IT WAS IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING. 
          WHAT YOU SAID, JUST SO I CAN SUMMARIZE, IS THAT WE WERE VOTING ON A PLAN, A DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OR THEY WERE SEEKING A SUP AND WE WERE VOTING. THEY WERE VOTING ON THAT. THAT'S A MISUNDERSTANDING. OKAY. PLAN DEVELOPMENT MEANS IT'S A ZONING CATEGORY UNDER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO DO ANYTHING. SO SF 13 ZONING HAS LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS. IT 
          [01:50:06]
HAS BUILDING SIZE REQUIREMENTS. IT HAS LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS, IT HAS SETBACKS, ALL THOSE THINGS. WELL, TO BUILD A SCHOOL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO BUILD SOME PROPERTY OR A BUILDING THAT'S LARGER, RIGHT. AND IT COMES WITH ALL KINDS OF OTHER AMENITIES, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, BECAUSE THEY GET TO DECIDE THEY CAN PUT A SOCCER FIELD THERE. THEY CAN PUT A BUS BARN THERE, THEY CAN PUT AN ATHLETIC FACILITY, GYMNASIUM, BUT THEY CAN ONLY BUILD IT TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT. THEY CAN ONLY BUILD IT TO A CERTAIN MASS. SO FOR THEM TO BUILD A HIGH SCHOOL, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY NEEDED. SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO ASK FOR THOSE CHANGES. AND IN ORDER TO GET THOSE CHANGES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CHANGE OF ZONING. AND THEY CHOSE THAT ZONING PRODUCT AS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. SF 13. TO SEEK A DIFFERENT SETBACK, A DIFFERENT BUILDING HEIGHT TO ALLOW. WE ONLY ALLOW ONE ACCESSORY BUILDING RIGHT IN A, IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. SO THEY NEEDED THAT REGULATION RELAXED OR CHANGED FOR THEIR BENEFIT TO BUILD THEIR SCHOOL. AND SO THE COUNCIL HAD NO AUTHORITY TO JUST SAY NO TO THE MASS OF THAT BUILDING. YES WE DID. WE HAD WHAT I TOLD THEM WAS, YOU CANNOT DECIDE ON THE USE THAT'S BEEN TAKEN AWAY FROM US. YOU CAN CITE ON THE BUILDING MASS, YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE TRAFFIC, YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE LANDSCAPING, YOU CAN DECIDE ON THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, BUT YOU CAN'T TELL THEM THEY CAN'T BUILD A SCHOOL THERE. NOW, WHEN THEY GET TO BUILD A SCHOOL, THEY GET TO BRING ALL THEIR TOYS WITH THEM. THE ATHLETIC FACILITY, THE CONCESSION STAND, THE STADIUM, THE BUS BARN, WHATEVER IT IS THAT THEY CAN JUSTIFY IS INTEGRAL PART OF THEIR EDUCATIONAL MISSION. SO IS IT YOUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THE CITY STILL HAS THE RIGHT TO CONTROL OR REGULATE THE MASS OF THAT SCHOOL OF EACH BUILDING? YES. SO IF THE CITY DECIDED TO SAY THEY ONLY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE TEN ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, COULD THEY COULD THE COUNCIL IMPOSE THAT THAT UNLESS THEY SAID, WELL, FOR A HIGH SCHOOL, I NEED 200 ZERO SQUARE FEET, AND THAT'S AN INTEGRAL PART IF THEY COULD MAKE THE ARGUMENT SO THE CITY DOESN'T CONTROL ANY HIGHER THAN 35.5FT, WHICH THIS ONE'S NOT I DON'T KNOW THAT I CAN TELL THEM I CAN LIMIT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO THAT STILL MAY BE A POTENTIAL OPTION. NOT NOW. NO PROBLEM. OKAY, WELL THEN I CAN'T GO BACK AND READ JUSTIFY WHY I TURNED IT DOWN WHEN WE TURNED IT DOWN BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC AND BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT FACTOR OF THE BUILDING. 
          WELL, THEN LET ME ASK THIS MUCH. ARE WE PUT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU GUYS HAVE NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT ALREADY, OR THE TERMS LIKE ESSENTIALLY LAID OUT. HAVE YOU GUYS NEGOTIATED A SETTLEMENT? I DEFINITELY THINK THE OUTLINE OF A SETTLEMENT. THEY'VE MET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS AS TO HEIGHT. THEY'VE MET ALL REQUIREMENTS TO SETBACK. THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS TO LANDSCAPING. THEY'VE MET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCREENING FOR THAT SITE. SO IF THEY HAVE MET AND THEY HAVE MITIGATED THE TRAFFIC BASED ON A TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WE COMMISSIONED, AND I CANNOT SHOW THAT THEIR TRAFFIC MITIGATION PLAN AND TRAFFIC IMPLEMENTATION PLAN IS NOT ADEQUATE FOR THEIR LAND. OKAY. SO AS PART OF THIS NEGOTIATION, NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING, RIGHT? I MEAN, YOU GUYS HAVEN'T SIGNED A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, HAVEN'T SIGNED ANYTHING. SO AS PART OF THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, WHY WOULDN'T YOU GUYS AT LEAST IMPOSE SOME FUTURE RESTRICTIONS, SUCH AS EXPANSION OF THE STADIUM, SUCH AS IF IF THEY'RE RIGHT, ESSENTIALLY COMES FROM THE FACT THAT THEY ARE A SCHOOL UNDER THE REGULAR REGULATED STATUTES. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEN THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A STADIUM AND THEN INVITE THIRD PARTIES TO PLAY AT THE STADIUM INDEFINITELY ON DIFFERENT DAYS AND AND DIFFERENT SEASONS. CAN WE AT LEAST GET THAT AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATION OF THIS SETTLEMENT, SINCE THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE THE POSITION THAT THEIR HANDS 
          [01:55:02]
ARE TIED? BECAUSE THAT TO ME, THAT SEEMS LIKE A LEGITIMATE REQUEST. IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT WHAT WHAT WE AS THE RESIDENTS WANT IS TO LIMIT THE IMPACT. IF YOU GUYS SAY YOU DON'T HAVE THE POWER TO STOP THEM, IF YOU GUYS SAY THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED, CONCERNED ABOUT YOUR PERSONAL LIABILITY, WHICH I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT TOO. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE HAVE A CITY THAT DOESN'T BUY ENOUGH INSURANCE FOR OUR COUNCIL PEOPLE TO BE, TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH OF THAT, BUT THAT'S NOT THE CASE. OKAY. WELL, THEN LET ME AS A LAWSUIT, THAT'S OKAY. GET COVERAGE FOR CAN I MAKE A SUGGESTION AS PART OF THE SETTLEMENT? CAN WE GET SOME ADDITIONAL FUTURE RESTRICTIONS ON THE GROWTH OF THIS FACILITY AND TO ITS USES BY THIRD PARTIES? IF FINE, IF THE IF THE LAW SAYS UNDER TEXAS, I'M A SCHOOL, I CAN DECLARE ANY PROPERTY. I OWN A SCHOOL, AND I CAN USE IT AS A SCHOOL. AND I'M ONLY SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AND ZONING AS OTHER ENTITIES IN THAT FACILITY. IN THAT MUNICIPALITY. WE CAN. AND I THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH LEVERAGE BASED ON WHAT MR. JEFFRIES IS SAYING, TO AT LEAST ASK FOR FUTURE RESTRICTIONS, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM ACTUALLY GETTING DAMAGES IS LIMITED. THE LIKELIHOOD OF THEM ACTUALLY COLLECTING ATTORNEY'S FEES IS LIMITED UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN MY EXPERIENCE. I MEAN, IT'S A LEGITIMATE THREAT, BUT IT'S UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN, RIGHT? I THINK IT'S A LEGITIMATE THREAT, AND I THINK IT'S POTENTIALLY LIKELY TO HAPPEN BECAUSE BUT NOT 100%, NOT 100%. BUT YOU NEVER COLLECT 100% ATTORNEY'S FEES. AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU COULD YOU COULD APPEAL IT ALL THE WAY TO THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT. THOSE FEES. LET ME GET A SIP OF WATER. SORRY. IT'S A IT'S NOT A IT'S NOT A REAL LEGITIMATE THREAT. SO THE IN TERMS OF ITS IMPACT, IN TERMS OF THE DECISION MAKING, OF HOW MUCH WE CAN FIGHT WITH THESE GUYS. SO LET ME TALK STARTING THERE AND MAYBE GOING BACKWARDS, HOW MUCH CAN WE FIGHT WITH THESE GUYS AND WHAT CAN WE LEGITIMATELY EXPECT TO PUT INTO A NEGOTIATED OUTCOME? BECAUSE THE BOTH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. WELL, LIFE SCHOOL AND THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARE TAKING THE POSITION THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO AGREE TO ANY RESTRICTION THAT WOULD BE IMPOSED ON THIS SCHOOL, DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WOULD BE IMPOSED ON A ANY PUBLIC SCHOOL. SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK YOU'RE SUGGESTING ARE POTENTIALLY ASKING FOR ARE THINGS WE DON'T REALLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE. AND SO IF THE AS AN EXAMPLE, IF WE'RE GOING TO SAY, WELL, YOU CAN'T RENT IT OUT OR LEND OUT THE STADIUM TO SOME OTHER SCHOOL OR GROUP FOR DAYS WHEN YOU'RE NOT USING IT AS A STADIUM, WE COULD ONLY JUSTIFY THAT IF WE COULD ALSO SHOW WE WOULD IMPOSE THE SAME KIND OF RESTRICTION ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL. AND, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE. PUBLIC SCHOOLS OFTEN AS A WAY OF GETTING MONEY, WILL RENT OUT THEIR FACILITIES FOR DIFFERENT PURPOSES. AND IF THEY'VE GOT THE FACILITY IN PLACE AND IT'S CONSIDERED INTEGRAL TO THEIR MISSION, THEN I THINK THEY GET TO USE IT IN A MANNER THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THEIR MISSION, WHICH IS, OF COURSE, GOT TO HAVE FUNDS. THE CITY'S BURDEN. THAT'S THE CITY'S BURDEN TO PROVE THAT FACT. I THINK SO, YES. THE. I DON'T FINE, I'LL TAKE YOU AT YOUR WORD ON THAT. BUT IT'S WHAT I HEARD FROM YOU WAS THAT IT WAS THE SCHOOL'S BURDEN TO SHOW THEIR USE. THIS IS A CENTRAL USE. AND SO IF IT'S IT'S IT SEEMS TO ME OR YOU CAN LEGITIMATELY ARGUE THAT IT SHOULD BE THE SCHOOL'S BURDEN OR IN THIS CASE, LIFE, THEIR BURDEN TO SHOW IT'S AN ESSENTIAL USE FOR THEM TO ALSO RENT THIS OUT TO THIRD PARTY. BECAUSE THEN TO ME, IF, IF, IF LIFE SCHOOL IS NOW ABLE TO JUST DECLARE, HEY, WE HAVE A RIGHT AS OUR STATUS AS A SCHOOL TO BUILD A SCHOOL HERE, FINE. WE DON'T HAVE TO THEN ADHERE TO THE SIZE, NO MATTER WHAT THE CITY SAYS, BECAUSE ALL WE DO IS WAVE THE FLAG OF THIS ISN'T CENTRAL SCHOOL AND THIS IS ESSENTIAL. OH, WE NEED A STADIUM, SO THIS IS ESSENTIAL. OH, NOW YOU'RE ALSO TELLING ME THAT. OH, IT'S ALSO ESSENTIAL THAT WE CAN ALSO INVITE IN THIRD PARTIES. SO NOW EVERY WEEKEND THEY CAN HAVE SOCCER GAMES, THEY CAN HAVE LACROSSE GAMES. THEY CAN HAVE WHATEVER GAMES THEY WANT YEAR ROUND AT THE STADIUM, THIRD PARTIES. AND YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT'S ALSO ESSENTIAL? I'M SAYING I DON'T I 
          [02:00:05]
DON'T HAVE A DEFINITIVE ANSWER, BUT I DO KNOW THAT IF THE ALL OF THE PARTS OF THE LIFE SCHOOL PLAN THAT HAVE BEEN PRESENTED HAVE, IN ONE FASHION OR ANOTHER BEEN RECOGNIZED AS ESSENTIAL OR INTEGRAL TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL, THE BUILDING, THE PARKING, THE STADIUM, THOSE HAVE ALL BEEN RECOGNIZED AS INTEGRAL TO THE SCHOOL'S MISSION. SO IF THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN PLACE AND ALLOWED TO OPERATE AND HAVE THOSE FACILITIES, THEN IF THE CITY WANTS THEIR IN PLACE, IS GOING TO TRY TO IMPOSE RESTRICTIONS OR REGULATION ON THEM, WE WOULD HAVE THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS NOT TREATING THEM DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT WE WOULD TREAT AS A PUBLIC SCHOOL. AND SO THE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO IMPOSE THE SAME THING ON A PUBLIC SCHOOL, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO IMPOSE ON LIFE SCHOOL BECAUSE THEY'RE PART OF THE THEY'RE RECOGNIZED AS PART OF THE STATE'S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM. WELL, AND I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YES, YOU'RE IN THE THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. NOBODY'S LOST ANYTHING YET. YOU CAN GET THESE RESTRICTIONS AND LET THEM AGREE TO THOSE RESTRICTIONS. WHAT IS PREVENTING YOU FROM EVEN ASKING FOR THESE RESTRICTIONS? THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING YOU AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FOR ASKING FOR THESE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS, WHICH THEY CAN ARGUE ABOUT, BUT THEY CAN JUST SIGN A CONTRACT. PLEASE HELP US. YOU'VE ESSENTIALLY WHAT YOU I THINK YOU AS YOU POINTED OUT EARLIER, YOU GUYS ARE ON OUR SIDE. HOWEVER, YOU GUYS CANNOT JUST LAY DOWN AND LET THEM. 
          WHAT YOU JUST TOLD THEM YOU'VE GIVEN UP THE WHOLE GAME JUST BECAUSE THEY'VE PLAYED A LITTLE BIT OF HARDBALL. AND I GET THAT KEN PAXTON DOESN'T WANT TO SUPPORT THESE THESE ENTITIES THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO ANY DEMOCRATIC CONTROL. THESE CHARTER SCHOOLS SUPPORT THE REPUBLICAN PARTIES BECAUSE THEY ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO AND SIT HERE AND BRING IN ENTITIES OWNED BY PRIVATE PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND CAN BUILD IT HERE, DON'T CARE ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, WOULDN'T LIVE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. BUT MY SIMPLE POINT IS, YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE TO LAY DOWN. AT THE VERY LEAST, YOU CAN ASK FOR SOME RESTRICTIONS, PERIOD. AND I'M TELLING YOU NOW, I'VE BEEN A LITIGATOR FOR 20 YEARS. I'M HAPPY TO WORK ON THIS CASE PRO BONO. I WORKED ON THIS. I IF YOU GUYS ARE WORRIED ABOUT MORE MONEY OR MORE RESOURCES, I'M HAPPY TO HELP. BUT FOR US TO JUST LAY DOWN, THAT'S. I'M. I JUST DISAGREE WITH THAT. ONE LAST QUESTION. JUST WHO, WHO'S ACTUALLY MAKING THIS DECISION IN TERMS OF AT THE TRIAL LEVEL? IS IT A ARBITRATOR? IS IT A JUDGE? DO YOU GET TO GO TO A JURY? SO THE SHORT ANSWER IS IF THE STATUTE IS FOLLOWED, IT'S DECIDED BY AN ARBITRATOR. IT'S NOT DECIDED BY A JUDGE OR A JURY AS AN ARBITRATOR. BEEN I'M ASSUMING THE ARBITRATOR HAS ALREADY BEEN CHOSEN. NO, HAS NOT BEEN CHOSEN. IS IT AN ARBITRATION PANEL? NO. AN ARBITRATOR. IT'S A THE STATUTE IS, YOU KNOW, BACK TO ONE OF THE THE CHALLENGES THAT GOT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S ATTENTION WAS THE STATUTE IS FAIRLY VAGUE ABOUT WHO THE ARBITRATOR WOULD BE AND AND HOW THE PROCESS EXACTLY WOULD WORK. IS IT IS IT BINDING ARBITRATION IT BY THAT, I MEAN, SO IF THE ARBITRATOR DECIDES IT, IS IT THERE'S NO APPEAL. IS THERE AN APPEAL? THE SHORT ANSWER IS YES, THERE WOULD BE AN APPEAL. BUT THE ARBITRATOR IS THE ONE WHO MAKES THE DECISION. IS IT IS THE ARBITRATION JUDGED ON THE NUMBER, THE NORMAL STANDARD OF ARBITRATION, UNLESS THERE'S LIKE SOME SORT OF MALFEASANCE, FRAUD, THEN WHATEVER THE ARBITRATOR SAYS GOES. IS IT THE SAME STANDARD? YES. SO NOW I'M REALLY CONFUSED. WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN TO THE POINT WHERE WE FOUGHT TO MAYBE GET AN ARBITRATOR WHO MIGHT LEAN IN OUR FAVOR. WE HAVEN'T EVEN WE HAVEN'T EVEN CHOSEN AN ARBITRATOR YET. NO, WE HAVEN'T CHOSEN A NOT CHOOSE, BUT, YOU KNOW, SAID, HEY, ALL RIGHT, LET'S ARBITRATE. NO, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE TO GET SOME COURT RULINGS TO GET TO THE POINT, TO RULE THE STATUTE UNCONSTITUTIONAL. AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'VE SPENT ALL THIS TIME DOING INITIAL DISCOVERY, AND WE'VE EATEN UP A LOT OF OUR COVERAGE THROUGH THAT PROCESS. WELL, WE'RE IN 
          [02:05:07]
ARE WE IN FAVOR OF ARBITRATION OR NOT? WE'RE THE ONES THAT RAISED IT. WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE USED THAT THREAT TO GET THEM TO AT LEAST TALK TO US, BECAUSE THEY WOULD NOT TALK TO US. THEY WERE GOING TO THE MAT. SO HERE'S SO IS THERE AN OUTSTANDING RULING ON WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN COMPEL ARBITRATION? IS THAT NOW A MOTION BEFORE THE COURT? NO. 
          THEN WHO'S WHOSE COURT IS THIS IN FRONT OF NOW IN THE 1/34. WHAT'S A JUDGE. HILARY TILLERY, JUDGE TILLERY WELL, I HAVEN'T AT THIS POINT WE WAIVED THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATION. NO, IT'S BEEN RAISED AS AN ISSUE. IT'S NOT A TRIAL TOMORROW. OKAY. IT'S NOT TRIAL SETTING. IT HAS TO BE RAISED IN SOMEONE HAS TO MAKE A MOTION AT LEAST ON TO GET A WHAT I SAY AN INTERIM RULING AS TO WHAT'S GONE ON AND THERE. AND WE'RE LOCKED INTO A HEAVY, HEAVY, HEAVY PRODUCTION, PRETRIAL PROCESS. AND WE'RE EATING UP ALL OF OUR COVERAGE WITH PRETRIAL MATTERS FOR DISCOVERY. AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THIS CASE WOULD BE TRIED. IT MAY BE TWO, THREE YEARS, AND I KNOW THAT YOU WOULD BE HAPPY TO KNOW THAT IN 2 OR 3 YEARS THAT PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED. BUT WHEN WE DO THAT, WE'RE STARING DOWN THE BARREL OF NOW THEY DON'T GET TO BUILD THEIR SCHOOL. AND THE COST TODAY VERSUS THE COST 3 OR 4 YEARS FROM NOW MAY BE 4 OR 5 TIMES MORE. WELL, THOSE ARE THEIR DAMAGES. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. THEIR LIKELIHOOD OF COLLECTING THOSE DAMAGES ARE ALSO FAIRLY LOW, IN MY RESPECT. RESPECTFULLY, IN MY OPINION, IN ASSESSING A CASE LIKE THIS, I ALSO WOULD HAVE IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ARBITRATION, THEN YOU COULD YOU COULD HAVE JUST FILED A MOTION TO ARBITRATE AND WE'D BE IN ARBITRATION. AND YOU'D HAVE A LOT MORE LEVERAGE IF WE CAN GET THE RIGHT ARBITRATOR. JUST RESPECTFULLY, I BUT AT A MINIMUM, YOU GUYS ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATING A SETTLEMENT. THEY HAVEN'T WON ANYTHING YET. TILLERY IS AN ELECTED JUDGE. THEY'RE EASY TO GET RID OF THE JUDGES IN TEXAS, AND HE KNOWS THAT ENOUGH OF US SHOW UP AND SAY, HEY, WE DON'T. HEY, WE'RE IN DUNCANVILLE. JUST WANTED YOU TO KNOW THAT TILLERY MIGHT STRONGLY CONSIDER THE POSITION OF THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE. BUT AT A MINIMUM, YOU COULD FIND AN ARBITRATOR. IF IT'S ONE ARBITRATOR THAT COULD GIVE YOU GUYS MORE LEVERAGE TO NEGOTIATE A BETTER DEAL WITH LIFE. IF IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT EVERYTHING ELSE. IF YOU'RE RIGHT ABOUT, HEY, IF I'M A CHARTER SCHOOL, I CAN DECLARE THE USE OF ANY LAND I OWN TO BE A SCHOOL. AND THAT THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW. ONCE AGAIN, I'M FREE TO HELP YOU GUYS IF YOU'RE TRYING TO DEFRAY SOME COST. THANK YOU. ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THEMES THAT HE BROUGHT UP, AND I JUST WANT TO ALSO PIGGYBACK HIM. IT'S MY BELIEF I'M ONLY SPEAKING FOR MYSELF HERE THAT I BELIEVE THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE WHO HAVE HAD OUR BACK. AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I DO BELIEVE PEOPLE HAVE VOTED THE RIGHT WAY THAT HAVE DONE THE RIGHT, THE THE RIGHT THING, THAT HAVE MADE THE RIGHT VOTES EACH TIME. WHICH BRINGS US BACK TO, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS YOU'RE HEARING FROM THIS COMMUNITY IS WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO SEE NOW IS A LAY DOWN. WE DO NOT WANT TO SEE A LAY DOWN. YES, WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE RULES AND LAWS THAT ARE IN PLAY, BUT WE KEEP ASKING THESE TWO QUESTIONS THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE CONVINCED ABOUT, WHICH IS HOW DOES SOMEBODY INDIVIDUALLY GET SUED? FOR WHAT? FOR? FOR FOLLOWING THE RULES? BECAUSE WE DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT YET. AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR NOW IS, HEY, THERE ARE ORDINANCES, ORDINANCES, AND WE DO WANT A FIGHT ON THIS. WE DO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO IT. YOU CAN'T. THIS ISSUE ABOUT THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS ARE THE SAME RULES. THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS DOES NOT COME IN. IF THEY WERE AN ELECTED BOARD AND BUILD A 17000 SEAT STADIUM AND GO WATCH 1000 A DAY, NOW IT'S 17. BUT YOU CAN'T RESTRICT ME FROM GOING TO 
          [02:10:04]
1 TO 17. NO, THERE SHOULD BE RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE ALLOWED THAT ARE PUT IN IN ORDER FOR YOU TO AGREE. AND IF THEY'RE IF THEY DON'T WANT TO DO THAT, THEN YES, THERE SHOULD BE AN ARBITRATION. THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHAT WE JUST DON'T WANT AT THIS STAGE IS FOR THE MOMENT THAT THEY PLAY HARDBALL, THE CITY LAYS DOWN. WE NEED TO HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE FIGHTING FOR US. BECAUSE KEEP IN MIND, ONCE YOU GO IN AND SAY, OKAY, YES, WHERE IS THERE RESTRICTION? THERE'S NO MORE RESTRICTION BECAUSE THE CITY GAVE IT TO IT. TO THE POINT ABOUT THE, THE, THE, THE VALUE OF OUR PROPERTIES. WHERE IS OUR WHERE IS OUR WAY TO GO AS THE CONSTITUENTS TO BE ABLE TO PROTECT OURSELVES? IF THE CITY JUST GO AHEAD AND ENDORSE IT. 
          YOU GUYS ARE OUR PROTECTION. YOU ARE OUR PROTECTION. THAT THAT'S AS SIMPLE AS IT IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE STATE DOES AND MAKES THE RULE OF, YOU GUYS ARE OUR PROTECTION. THAT'S JUST AS SIMPLE AS IT IS. THAT'S WHY YOU WERE ELECTED. SO IT IS OUR HOPE. WE'RE NOT COMING TO YOU SPEAKING NEGATIVELY. I PERSONALLY AM SPEAKING POSITIVELY. I CELEBRATE YOU FOR DOING THE RIGHT THING UP UNTIL NOW, AND I'M LOOKING FORWARD TO US FINDING OUT THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO THE RIGHT THING GOING FORWARD. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HOPING FOR. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE ATTORNEYS BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION ALREADY GOING TO BE HAS YOUR MIND ALREADY BEEN MADE UP? YOU'VE HEARD ALL OF OUR COMMENTS, YOU HEARD ALL THE STATEMENTS. BUT BASED UPON WHAT WE SAID, IS IT TOO LATE? HAVE YOU ALREADY COMMITTED TO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO? BECAUSE IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY, WHAT I JUST HEARD IS THAT YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT WHETHER YOU MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE TOMORROW IS TOO LATE. SO THEREFORE, WHAT THAT MEANS THAT YOU'RE UNDER THE GUN TO GO BACK INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AFTER ALL YOU HEARD AND DECIDE 1 OR 2 WAYS. DO I REFUSE TO GO WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING, OR DO I GO AHEAD AND SAY YES? SO I'M ASKING THE ATTORNEYS. YOUR RECOMMENDATION RIGHT NOW IS, AND I KNOW THAT'S YOUR LEGAL OPINION FOR THE COUNCIL TO MOVE FORWARD WITH SIGNING THE AGREEMENT AND PAYING THE $80,000 AND PUSHING IT ON DOWN THE LINE, IS THAT WHAT I'M HEARING? YOU WANT ME TO? I'LL ANSWER FIRST. I'VE NEVER VOTED. I'VE NEVER HAVE VOTED. YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS VERY STRONGLY IN I UNDERSTAND, I EXPLAINED TO MY CLIENTS ALWAYS WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR DECISION ARE AND WHAT, IN MY BEST VIEW IN JUDGMENT WILL HAPPEN IS. IF YOU CHOOSE IN WHICH WAY YOU CHOOSE. I NEVER MAKE A DECISION. THEY MAKE THE DECISION. AND I DON'T MEAN TO PUT THAT OFF FOR THEM. IF THERE'S THINGS THAT YOU WANT, WHAT IS IT YOU WANT? YOU DON'T WANT THE STADIUM TO BE LEASED OUT. YOU DON'T WANT IT EVER EXPANDED. WHAT ELSE DO YOU NOT WANT? WE DON'T WANT. 
          THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. THAT'S WHY WE CALLED THIS MEETING, BECAUSE WE WANT TO TELL YOU WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT SCHOOL WILL BE BUILT AT SOME POINT IN TIME. NORTH DISTRICT. WHAT KIND OF RESTRICTIONS? HOW ARE WE GOING TO MEASURE IT? THE SAME WAY YOU MADE YOUR MOTHER WHEN THEY WHEN THEY GOT COMPLAINTS ABOUT. NO, THE SAME WAY YOUR OFFICERS. HAS YOUR OFFICERS SUPPOSED TO HAVE SOME GADGET THAT TELLS THE NOISE LEVEL. WE KNOW THAT MOTHERHOOD IS AN EXAMPLE. SO SO WE WE WE KNOW YOU HAVE A METER. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S THE SAME WAY. LET ME JUST TELL YOU AGAIN, BOB, THIS IS IN MY BACKYARD. I UNDERSTAND, MARK, I UNDERSTAND AND SO I JUST ASK YOU, I JUST ASK, I KNOW WHAT YOU JUST SAID, AND I RESPECT WHAT YOU JUST SAID. SITTING BACK WITH THE EXECUTIVE COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION MYSELF. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU GIVE US YOUR RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON YOU GIVING US A RECOMMENDATION, GIVING THEM A RECOMMENDATION. IN MOST CASES, YOUR RECOMMENDATION ARE ACCEPTED BY MOST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. BUT I'M ASKING YOU, IF WE'RE ASKING YOU BASED UPON WHAT ATTORNEY JOHNSON JUST SAID IS TO REALLY I'M THINKING IT'S MAYBE TOO LATE. I'M THINKING YOU'RE ALREADY READY TO SIGN ON THE DOTTED LINE. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M. THAT'S WHAT I'M AFRAID OF. BECAUSE HAD HAD IT NOT BEEN THAT YOU WOULD HAVE CALLED THIS MEETING MONTHS AGO, YOU WOULD HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE GOT WE GOT SUED. AND WE WANT 
          [02:15:06]
TO MAKE SURE THAT BEFORE WE GO IN AND START TALKING TO LIFE, SCHOOL, COMMUNITY, WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHTS? BUT RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ON THE YOU YOU'RE THE BORDERLINE AND THE BORDERLINE IS I EITHER SIGN TONIGHT AND AUTHORIZE THE COUNCIL TO SIGN TONIGHT OR TOMORROW. I'M SUED. 
          SO ALL THE INFORMATION WE GIVE YOU IS GOOD. YOU'RE SUED. WELL, THE ANSWER IS TO SETTLED. 
          YOU'RE READY TO YOU'RE READY TO SETTLE ON ON THE DOTTED LINE TO SETTLE. ALL RIGHT. SO WHAT ELSE IS THAT YOU WANT? TELL ME NOW. ALL RIGHT, I GOT IT. NOISE. METER LEVEL. THAT THING THAT THE THE STADIUM IS NOT CONJUNCTION RIGHT BACK UP TO OUR OUR PROPERTIES. IT IS WHERE IT IS THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S EVER GOING TO CHANGE. WE'VE ASKED THAT I'VE ASKED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS TO MOVE THE STADIUM. IT CAN'T BE MOVED OTHER THAN WHERE IT'S LOCATED RIGHT NOW. I'M SAYING THOSE THOSE SIX FOOT TREES THAT THEY'RE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THINKING IT'S GOING TO BLOCK THE NOISE, INVEST IN SOME DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT TREES. 
          THAT'S THAT'S MORE MATURITY TREES. IF YOU SAY THAT'S GOING TO BLOCK THE NOISE, THAT'S MY COMMENT. WITH THIS SCHOOL BEING BUILT AND OUR RESOURCES BEING SENT TO EMS, FIRE AND POLICE, HOW IS THE CITY GOING TO MAKE ITS MONEY BACK FROM THIS SCHOOL? BEING IN THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE, WE'RE NOT. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO COST ALL THE TAXPAYERS TAKEN. IT'LL COST ALL THE TAXPAYERS. IF IF THEY DON'T PAY TAXES. RIGHT. I UNDERSTAND WE UNDERSTAND THAT. WHAT? LOOK, I, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY UP HERE THAT'S HAPPY ABOUT THIS AT INCLUDING ME. 
          THIS IS A HELL OF A WAY TO END A CAREER, TO HAVE TO SIT AND TELL YOU WHAT IN THE HELL THE LAW IS. BUT IT IS THE LAW. SO IF YOU WANT HELP AND YOU WANT ME TO ASK FOR THINGS, YOU GOT TO TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT AND I'LL ASK. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'LL GET IT, BUT I'LL ASK. I, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS FOR WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT PRO BONO ATTORNEY HELPING THERE, THAT WHAT I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IS BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE THE WALKING UP ON THE DAY BEFORE IS FOR ABILITY FOR US TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO PROVIDE A LIST OF OUR EXPECTATIONS. BECAUSE BY ITS LEAST, I'M EXPECTING FOR THE ZONING AS IT EXISTS TO BE THE NOISES I GET THE PART ABOUT THE SCHOOL I'M WE'RE NOT ARGUING. I'M NOT ARGUING ABOUT THAT. BUT ALL THE ISSUES OF THE NOISE ODOR ORDINANCE AND THE RESTRICTIONS OF CHANGING, OF EXPANDING OF THE TO THIRD PARTIES, ALL OF THAT STUFF SHOULD BE IN PLACE AND SHOULD BE A PART OF WHAT IS NEGOTIATED. AND TO BE FAIR, YOU DID JUST THROW IT SAID OUT LOUD, YOU'RE RIGHT, THEY PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO LIKE THAT. RIGHT? BUT THE DELAY THE GENTLEMAN FROM LIFE SCHOOLS WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED, WHY DON'T Y'ALL BUILD THIS IN NORTH DALLAS NEIGHBORHOODS? AND THEY SPECIFICALLY SAID, BECAUSE IT'S NOT WORTH IT TO THEM BECAUSE THEY DON'T THINK THERE'S THERE'S A NEED THERE OR WANT THERE. AND THEY KNOW THAT THERE'S, THEY DIDN'T SAY THIS PART, BUT IT WAS IMPLIED AND WE UNDERSTOOD IT. THEY KNOW THAT THE PUSHBACK WOULD KEEP GOING AND GOING AND GOING AND GOING TILL IT'S NOT WORTH IT. AND WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS, IT BETTER BE WORTH MAKE IT WORTH IT TO THEM. MAKE THEM HAVE TO DECIDE THIS IS WORTH IT. BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, LAYING DOWN AND GIVING THEM EVERYTHING THEY WANT THAT, THAT IT YEAH, THAT'S AN EASY BATTLE. BUT IF THEY IF THE WHEN HE MADE THE POINT ABOUT HOW BIG THE BUILDING COULD BE, RIGHT. IF OUR RULES ARE. IT'S THIS AMOUNT. IT HAS TO BE THIS AND RESTRICTED TO NEVER EXPAND IT. YOU HAVE TO MAKE IT SO THAT THEY HAVE TO REALLY THINK A. IS THIS WORTH IT? AND IF THEY DO LISTEN, WE KNOW Y'ALL FOUGHT. BUT DON'T LAY DOWN. DON'T LAY DOWN. I WILL SHARE WITH YOU THAT WE ASK ABOUT THE NOISE. THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULD FOLLOW THE RULES. THAT WAS THEIR RESPONSE. BUT UIL RULES ARE FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE BUILDING STADIUMS IN FRONT OF STREETS, NOT IN NEIGHBORHOODS. RIGHT? WELL, AND YES, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE STADIUMS IN NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT THEY BOUGHT THEIR PROPERTY. 
          WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, WE BOUGHT OUR PROPERTY UNDER THE RULES THAT EXIST. SO FOR THEM TO COME IN NOW THAT THAT, THAT DON'T PLAY THAT THAT THAT DOESN'T WORK ON THE STADIUM, NOT THE SCHOOL ITSELF, THE SCHOOL. I GET THAT ISSUE. YEAH, THAT'S THE DIFFICULT PART ABOUT 
          [02:20:05]
THIS. GIVE IT TO ME. YEAH. OKAY. IS IT OKAY? I KNOW THERE'S OTHER SCHOOLS THAT DON'T HAVE STADIUMS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO TELL THE JUDGE AND THEY'LL GET SOMEONE TO COME AND TESTIFY THAT THE STADIUM COMES WITH A SCHOOL. WE ALREADY HAVE ASKED THAT. WE'VE HAD THAT FIGHT WITH THEM FOR 8 OR 9 MONTHS. IT. RIGHT. AND IF THEY IF THEY DO AND THEY KEEP GOING BACK IN AND THEY HAVE TO SAY, WELL, NOW WE HAVE TO, BECAUSE NOW IT IS THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT THIS IS ESSENTIAL. ALL WE'RE SAYING IS, YEAH, THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT FIGHT. THEY NEED TO MAKE THAT NEED TO DETERMINE THAT IT'S THAT IT'S WORTH IT. AND AGAIN, MY PROBLEM IS FROM THE FROM THE MONEY SIDE OF THINGS IS WHEN WE'RE SAYING, OH, YEAH, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO ALL OF THAT, BUT WE SHOULD DO IT BECAUSE MISS GOODIN MIGHT GET INDIVIDUALLY SUED THAT JUST DON'T THAT THAT THAT'S NOT I DON'T I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THAT ARGUMENT THAT THAT'S THE PART THAT THAT I'M MAKING. I DO AGREE THAT THEY MIGHT WIN. WHAT I DON'T AGREE WITH IS THAT THESE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FOUGHT FOR US THIS WHOLE TIME NOW HAVE TO STOP FIGHTING FOR US BECAUSE THEY MIGHT INDIVIDUALLY GET SUED FOR FOLLOWING THE LAW. THAT THAT'S THAT'S A CHALLENGE. 
          BYE BYE. AN HONEST CHALLENGE. YEAH, THEY DID GET SUED. SO THEY FOUGHT THAT FIGHT FOR YOU. 
          BUT HOW MUCH PAIN DO YOU HOW MUCH PAIN DO THEY GET TO? THAT'S WHAT WE DON'T WANT. 
          THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO. WHAT DID THEY DO WRONG? OKAY. I, YEAH, I, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE LAWSUIT THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR MOMENTS AND WE HAVEN'T NOT TRIED TO. I MEAN, IF WE WERE GOING TO CAVE, WE WOULD HAVE JUST VOTED FOR IT THE FIRST PLACE. AND THEN THIS WOULD BE OVER AND THE SCHOOL WOULD BE BUILT. MAYBE NONE OF US WOULD BE UP HERE, BUT THAT SCHOOL WOULD BE THERE. YEAH. AND FOR OUR TROUBLE, HERE WE ARE. AND I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU, I TOLD A NUMBER OF YOU WHEN WE WERE TOGETHER IN THAT BRIEFING ROOM BACK THERE. EXACTLY WHAT I'VE TOLD YOU TONIGHT, I, I DID. I SWEAR TO GOD I DID. I'LL GO TO MY GRAVE TELLING EVERYBODY WHAT THE CONSEQUENCES OF WHAT WE DID ON JULY 15TH, 2025 AND THAT THIS DAY WOULD COME. AND IT'S NOW HERE. AND WHAT I SAID IS THEY GET TO DECIDE WHERE THE SCHOOL IS. THEY GET TO DECIDE WHERE A SCHOOL IS LOCATED. THEY GET TO DECIDE WHAT'S INTEGRAL BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE. DID IT TO YOU. IT'S DONE IT TO WAXAHACHIE. IT'S DONE IT TO RED OAK. THEY HAVE SCHOOLS IN OTHER PLACES. ARE YOU NOT SPEAKING? IS SHE NOT SPEAKING? THEY HAVE A STADIUM IN WAXAHACHIE. ARE YOU NOT SPEAKING AT ALL? NO. OKAY. BUT THEY GET TO MAKE THE DECISION, NOT THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE. THAT'S THE PROBLEM THAT I'M. THAT'S THE DIFFICULTY. 
          NO, NO, I TOTALLY GIVE IT TO YOU. YES, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT SOME RETORT. YEAH. SO WHAT IS THIS HEARING TOMORROW? IS THERE A HEARING TOMORROW? YES. WHAT IS THE WHAT'S THE HEARING IS POSSIBLY INDICATE THAT WE'VE REACHED A RESOLUTION ON THIS CASE. AND WHAT IS YOUR POSITION AS WE GIVEN THE. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU. YEAH. I THINK YOU SHOULD GO. YET THEY WANTED THE HEARING. THEY LIFE SCHOOL. THEY SET THE HEARING. WE AGREED TO TRY TO WORK TOWARDS A SETTLEMENT. AND WE DECIDED THAT WE NEEDED TO TELL YOU BEFORE IT TRANSPIRED WHAT WAS GOING ON. 
          AND SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO WE'RE HAVING THIS MEETING, SO YOU'RE GOING TO GO IN THERE TOMORROW. 
          WHAT TIME IS THE HEARING? 1:00. AND SO I THINK A NUMBER OF US WILL BE THERE AT 1:00. AND I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU'RE GOING TO TELL THEM THAT, NO, WE HAVEN'T REACHED A RESOLUTION BECAUSE THERE'S SOME TERMS THAT MAY THAT NEED TO BE DISCUSSED, MAYBE OR MAYBE NOT, UNLESS YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE. I JUST. OKAY, THEN LET'S LET'S SIT HERE AND TALK ABOUT THE TERMS. I THINK THERE SHOULD BE RESTRICTIONS ON THE BUILDING, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING. AND WHAT ARE THEY? ALL RIGHT. LET'S. THEY SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 20,000FT■!S. HOW BIG IS THE BUILDING, JIM? I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SURE. WHAT IF THEY DISAGREE? THEN IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE A SETTLEMENT. AND WE TELL THE JUDGE WE GOT TO MOVE ON. AND THAT PERHAPS THE CITY IS CONSIDERED WILL NOW GO SEEK AN ARBITRATION, A BINDING ARBITRATION, AND THAT EVERYTHING ELSE SHOULD BE STAYED, INCLUDING THIS EXPENSIVE DISCOVERY UNTIL AN ARBITRATOR IS A DISCOVERY TO GO TO ARBITRATION. NO, YOU DO NOT. YOU COULD HAVE FILED A MOTION TO ARBITRATE. I COMPEL ARBITRATION, AND THAT WOULD HAVE STAYED EVERYTHING. THE 
          [02:25:01]
ARBITRATOR IS GOING TO MAKE THAT DECISION. CHOICES. WE BETTER HAVE DONE THE DISCOVERY. 
          I'LL DISAGREE WITH YOU THERE. IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO TRIAL, WHICH IS ALL THIS IS THE TRIALS IN FRONT OF AN ARBITRATOR. IT'S NOT SOMEONE JUST TO DECIDE YOU'RE RIGHT AND YOU'RE WRONG BASED ON NOTHING. YOU BETTER HAVE DISCOVERY DONE. YEAH, BUT YOU COULD HAVE HAD DISCOVERY DONE WITHIN ARBITRATION, THE CONTEXT OF ARBITRATION, NOT WITHIN. THERE'S NOTHING IN THE STATUTE TO SAY WHAT THE RULES ARE. SO WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY WE'VE ALREADY PRODUCED 3500. 
          SEE, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN EVEN BETTER. I WOULD HAVE COMPELLED ARBITRATION AND THEN TOLD THEM THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY DISCOVERY BECAUSE THERE'S NO NOTHING UNDER UNDER THE ARBITRATION STATUTE REQUIRING DISCOVERY. YOU COULD HAVE SAVED A LOT OF MONEY. NO, I'VE DONE I'VE DONE THIS A LONG TIME. THIS IS DIFFERENT. OKAY, FINE. IT'S DIFFERENT TOO. THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS ARBITRATION CASE. IT'S VERY SIMILAR. YOU'RE DEALING WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY. 
          YOU'RE DEALING WITH A PRIVATE ENTITY DOESN'T SET ANY RULES FOR ARBITRATION. IT DOESN'T REFERENCE ARBITRATION STATUTES. IT IS A UNIQUE TO THIS PROCEDURE STATUTE. IT BASICALLY STATES THE JUDGE APPOINTS AN ARBITRATOR. THE TWO SIDES PRESENT A PLAN, COMPETING PLANS, AND THEN THE. THANK YOU. THE JUDGE APPOINTS THE ARBITRATOR. UNDER THIS STATUTE. THERE'S NOT RULES OF ARBITRATION. IT'S NOT GOVERNED BY THE GENERAL ARBITRATION STATUTES. THE PARTIES PRESENT COMPETING PLANS. THEN THE ARBITRATOR SELECTS WHICH PLAN HE'S GOING TO USE, OR A BINARY CHOICE OR OR DEFINES A PLAN I GUESS YOU COULD PICK AND CHOOSE. SO THE ATTEMPT THAT WE'VE MADE IS TAKING THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY RAISED AT, I GUESS, THE MEETINGS THAT HAVE OCCURRED IN THE PAST, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED BY STAFF AND OUTSIDE EXPERT CONSULTANTS, AND GETTING THOSE CONCERNS ADDRESSED. AND THE IDEA IS WITH THOSE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED, THOSE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED, THAT THESE PLANS HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY EXPERTS THAT ARE PAID TO DO SO AND THAT DO IT BOTH IN-HOUSE. AND WE'VE USED OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS, AND WE'VE GOT A A SET OF PLANS THAT, IF IT'S RESOLVED BY SETTLEMENT, IT'S RESOLVED BY THE CITY HAVING A VOICE IN WHAT'S SELECTED. AND AS OPPOSED TO HAVING AN INDEPENDENT, THEORETICALLY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY MAKING A DECISION FOR US. SO THE CONCERNS. THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY RAISED ABOUT TRAFFIC HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. THE CITY HAS PAID CITY HAS ACTUALLY DONE TWO TRAFFIC REVIEWS. ONE IN THE ORIGINAL PROCESS WAS A PEER REVIEW OF TRAFFIC, NOT AN INDEPENDENT STUDY. IT. AN EXPERT WAS HIRED. AN ENGINEER WAS HIRED BY THE CITY. I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT. SO. AND THEN THE OTHER I UNDERSTAND THAT I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. MR. HAGAR JUST TOLD THE PEOPLE HERE THAT WE NEED TO TELL HIM RIGHT NOW WHAT WHAT OUR DEMANDS ARE AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT. I'D LIKE TO GET TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR THAT WHEN YOU GO BEFORE THE LIFE TOMORROW, YOU LET THEM KNOW THAT THE PEOPLE WHO INVESTED THEIR HARD EARNED MONEY IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AREN'T GOING TO SIT HERE AND LAY DOWN EASILY. 
          AND SO THE DEMANDS, IF YOU WANT TO KNOW THE THE DEMANDS, WE'RE GOING TO. WELL, LET'S GIVE YOU A LIST RIGHT NOW OF EVERYTHING WE THINK IS REASONABLE. OKAY. SO THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING SHOULD BE LIMITED, BUT YOU GOT TO TELL ME WHAT? I JUST CAN'T LEAVE IT OPEN. WELL, WHAT ARE THEY CURRENTLY ASKING FOR? AND CUT IT TO 50%. WELL, AND CUT IT TO 70%. 90%. AND IN THIS PROCESS, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIFIC PLAN, OKAY, THE THE PLANS HAVE ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SITE WOULD SUPPORT. ALL RIGHT. SO HAVE WE CREATED A COMPETING PLAN? I DON'T MEAN TO CUT YOU OFF. I HAVE WE ALREADY CREATED A COMPETING PLAN OR IS THEY THEY'VE ONLY SUBMITTED THEIR PLAN. THEY'VE SUBMITTED THEIR PLAN. IT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND IT MEETS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS FOR SIZE, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NUMBER OF EXPECTED OCCUPANTS AND THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURES AND INFRASTRUCTURE FOR THAT SIZE. BUILDING IT MEETS THE CITY'S NEEDS. AND WHAT IS AND IS THAT FOR A HIGH SCHOOL AND A MIDDLE SCHOOL, THE CURRENT PLAN IS FOR A HIGH SCHOOL. THEY'VE INDICATED IF THEY. AND WE'VE MADE IT CLEAR, 
          [02:30:02]
IF YOU TRY. IF YOU COME BACK TO EXPAND THE CAMPUS STRUCTURES ON THE CAMPUS, YOU WOULD HAVE TO MEET WHATEVER STANDARDS ARE APPLICABLE TO THAT SIZE BUILDING. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE RIGHT INFRASTRUCTURE. YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IN THAT BUILDING. AND SO THE THE ANSWER IS, UNTIL THEY SUBMIT A PROPOSAL OR PLAN FOR EXPANSION, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT SIZE WOULD BE. YEAH. SO WHAT WE WOULD SAY IS WE'RE NOT WRITING YOU A BLANK CHECK. WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO AVOID A FIGHT IN THE FUTURE, HERE'S THE SIZE OF YOUR SCHOOL. YOUR SCHOOL, THIS IS THE SIZE OF THIS SCHOOL IS GOING TO REMAIN. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO. SO I THINK THE SIZE OF THE SCHOOL HAS TO. WHATEVER THEY PUT IN THEIR PLAN. I'M KIND OF A LITTLE BIT FRUSTRATED THAT WE DIDN'T SUBMIT A COMPETING PLAN. IT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATE, BUT IF THEY HAVE THEIR PLAN, THEN THEY SHOULD BE LIMITED TO THAT PLAN WITHOUT ANY EXPANSION FOR 30 YEARS OR SOMETHING. RIGHT? THEN THEY SHOULDN'T BE ALLOWED. FOR EXAMPLE, IF I'M ON THAT SIDE OF THE OUR RESIDENTS, I DON'T WANT THEIR BUSSES BECAUSE THEY HAVE BECAUSE ALL OF THEIR STUDENTS COME FROM OUTSIDE OF DUNCANVILLE. I DON'T WANT THEIR BUSSES UP PARKED UP AGAINST MY FENCE. I DON'T WANT THEM IN THE MORNING WHEN THEY START OFF TO GO PICK UP THEIR THOUSANDS OF STUDENTS TO MAKE ALL THEIR MONEY, THEIR BUSSES PARKED UP AGAINST MY NEIGHBOR'S FENCE BEFORE THEY START AT 6 A.M. IN THE MORNING. THEY NEED TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE A PLAN WHERE THOSE BUSSES ARE AS FAR AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS AS POSSIBLE. AND THEN THEY SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAVE THIRD PARTIES. 
          PARTICIPATE IN OR USE THEIR FACILITIES FOR ANY EVENTS, SPORTING ACTIVITIES, OR THE LIKE. YEAH, THE BOWIE HIGH SCHOOL IN AUSTIN, WE LIVED THERE FOR 30 YEARS, AND THE FIGHT WITH SUNSET VALLEY, THE SCHOOL NOW LOOKS LIKE A COLLEGE CAMPUS. THEY HAVE A THREE TIER GARAGE, THEY HAVE TENNIS COURTS, YOU NAME IT. IT'S ON THAT HIGH SCHOOL. SO IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR US TO PUT SOME LIMITS ON THIS. YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'LL USE IT AS A PROFIT CENTER IN OUR BACKYARD. 
          WE DON'T NEED BOB KNIGHT'S SPORTS FACILITY RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOUSE AGAIN. THIS IS THIS IS REALLY SERIOUS. THIS WAS THE FIRST HOUSE I EVER BOUGHT. I BOUGHT IT IN 2008, WHICH TELLS YOU THAT WHEN I BOUGHT MY HOUSE FOR FOR $413,000 BACK IN 2008, THE PRICE OF THAT HOUSE WENT DOWN TO $280,000 A YEAR LATER DUE TO THE COLLAPSE, I'VE NEVER CAPTURED THE GAINS ON MY HOUSE AS AS IN OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS. AND, YOU KNOW, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE DON'T GET THAT IS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T FIGHT THE WAY OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS FIGHT. THIS IS A VERY PROSPEROUS, HARDWORKING SET OF PEOPLE WHO WORK IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS IN ANYWHERE ELSE, THEY WOULD BE FIGHTING AND THEY MAINTAIN THEIR VALUE OF THEIR HOUSE SO THEY CAN GIVE IT TO THEIR KIDS AND BUILD WEALTH AND GENERATIONAL WEALTH. 
          AND THIS IS A VERY SERIOUS ISSUE TO US. AND I APPRECIATE EVERYONE ON HERE WHO IS TAKING THE HEAT TO BE NAMED IN A LAWSUIT, WHICH YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO PAY FOR, BECAUSE IT RARELY, IF EVER, HAPPENS. I'VE DONE THIS 20 SOMETHING YEARS. THEY NEVER COLLECT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES. BUT MY POINT IS THIS IF YOU'RE GOING TO COME IN HERE AND TELL ME THAT YOU'RE WALKING IN TOMORROW TO TELL THE JUDGE THAT THAT WE'RE CLOSE TO A SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED TO THE PEOPLE YOU PURPORT TO REPRESENT ARE TELLING YOU, NO, NO, NO. HERE'S SOME OTHER BULLET POINTS THAT BETTER WELL BE IN THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, OR AT LEAST STRONGLY NEGOTIATED TO SOMETHING CLOSE TO IT IN THE VERY IT SHOULD AGREEMENT EVER BE REACHED. SO THAT THIRD PARTY USAGE IS A BIG DEAL. THE LIMITATION ON SIZE IS A BIG DEAL. THE LOCATION OF THE BUSSES, WHEREVER THEY'RE GOING TO PUT THEM IS A BIG DEAL. AND ZERO ABILITY TO EXPAND FOR SOME SIGNIFICANT PERIOD OF TIME. AND I'M TALKING DECADES. AND THAT'S ALL WITHIN THE POWER OF THE CITY COUNCIL. YEAH, YEAH. WHAT ELSE? WHAT ELSE? YEAH. GIVE US A MINUTE. JUST GIVE US A MINUTE. 
          I MEAN, YOU KIND OF PUTTING THIS ON US. I JUST WOULD LIKE TO SAY ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE 
          [02:35:11]
CITY COUNCIL THAT REPRESENTS OUR CITY COUNCIL. MR. DAVIS, AND ALL OF THE OTHER CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THERE. I WANT TO KNOW, IS IT POSSIBLE WHEN YOU GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND YOU MAKE THAT DECISION, WILL WE KNOW HOW YOU VOTED? WILL WE KNOW IF YOU VOTED YAY OR NAY? WILL WE KNOW WHAT YOUR POSITION WAS? BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO US AS RESIDENTS OF THE COMMUNITY THAT YOU DID NOT STAND WITH US. THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO US WHEN WE GO TO THE POLL TO SAY THAT THEY DIDN'T LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY, SO WE WILL KNOW WHO VOTES WHAT, RIGHT? WE'LL KNOW WHO VOTED, ANY ACTION THAT'S TAKEN, PARDON ME. ANY ACTION THAT WILL BE TAKEN TONIGHT WILL BE DONE IN PUBLIC. OKAY, SO WE'LL KNOW WHO VOTED WHAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU ASKED FOR SOMETHING ELSE, WHICH I FEEL LIKE IT'S IT'S VERY INAPPROPRIATE TO ASK US AT THE NINTH HOUR FOR A LIST OF THINGS. 
          THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE MONTHS AGO. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT BECAUSE WE LIVE IN METAL. 
          DANIEL DANIEL FILMS. SO RIGHT THERE THERE IS A GATE. SO WE NEED SOME TYPE OF PROTECTION OR SOMETHING ONGOING BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET OUT OUR GATE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT I DON'T KNOW IF I THINK THEY SAID THEY LOOKED AT THE POSSIBILITY OF A RED LIGHT, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S ALREADY WE'RE WITHIN 500FT, THERE CAN'T BE ANOTHER RED LIGHT THERE OR WHATEVER. BUT I DON'T WANT TO WAKE UP AND TRY TO GET TO WORK AND CAN'T GET OUT, BECAUSE ALL THESE BUSSES AND ALL THIS EXTRA TRAFFIC IS IN FRONT OF OUR GATE AND WE CAN'T GET OUT TO GET TO, LIKE SHE SAID, TO GET TO OUR RESPECTIVE JOBS OR SCHOOLS OR WHATEVER. SO WE NEED SOMETHING THAT COULD BE IN PLACE TO THERE. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO PUT A TOWING SIGN. YOU WILL BE TOWED, BUT WE DO NOT WANT THEM BLOCKING THAT GATE BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY WAY IN AND OUT OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. WHERE DO YOU LIVE? DANIEL FARM, RIGHT ON DANIEL DALE. RIGHT. THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S GOING TO BACK UP TO THIS MONSTROSITY, BASICALLY. OH, RIGHT. WHERE THE BUS IS GOING. SO YEAH. SO HOLD ON. ALL RIGHT. I WAS JUST ADDING TO HER POINT. THAT'S OUR GATE IS RIGHT WHERE THEIR EXIT STRATEGY FOR ALL OF THEIR TRAFFIC, RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE EXIT FROM THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. YES. THAT THEY WERE THEY WERE GOING TO MAKE THAT RIGHT. AND COMING OUT THAT LITTLE GATE, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE THE RIGHT. AND OUR GATE IS RIGHT THERE. 
          AND LIKE I SAID, PREVIOUS, WHEN THERE'S A WRECK ON THE FREEWAY, EVERYBODY DIRECTS, DIVERTS THEIR TRAFFIC. AND WITH THE NEW LIGHT, WE WE ALREADY CAN'T GET OUT. AND THE TRAFFIC IS BACKED ALL THE WAY UP TO COCKRILL 67. OKAY, IT'S JUST A TWO WAY STREET. I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          THANK YOU GUYS FOR LISTENING. HAVE HAVE Y'ALL VISITS WHERE WE LIVE? HAVE YOU BEEN OUT THERE BECAUSE YOU COULD SEE WHAT MARK IS TALKING ABOUT. IT'S IT MAKES A SQUARE. IT'S JUST A SQUARE. 
          AND THEN THERE'S A STREET DOWN THE CENTER AND ON THE BACK WALL. THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE TRYING TO BUILD THIS SCHOOL. AND THEN ON TOP OF THAT, WHAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU COME OUT OF OUR GATE, IF YOU MAKE A LEFT, THEN THERE'S A GATE THAT ENTERS INTO THAT PROPERTY WHERE LARRY JOHNSON USED TO OWN, AND IT GOES ALL THE WAY BACK BECAUSE I WAS THERE WHEN HE STILL OWNED IT. IT WAS A HOUSE THERE. BUT HAVE YOU VISITED OVER THERE TO SEE WHAT WE'RE SAYING? BECAUSE IF YOU JUST GO, LOOK, YOU'RE GOING TO SAY, WOW, I WOULDN'T I WOULD NOT WANT THIS SCHOOL BACK HERE. BECAUSE IT IS LITERALLY WHEN I SAY IN THE BACKYARD, MARK GOING TO HAVE SOME PARTIES, I'M TELLING YOU BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S LITERALLY, IT'S JUST ALL OF THAT IS LAYING IN THE BACK THEN ON THE SIDE AND WE'RE JUST SMUSHED IN. AND RIGHT NOW, IF YOU LEAVE AND TRY TO GO TO DOWN DANIEL DALE TO THE HOSPITAL AT 430 FOR THE NEW SUBDIVISION THAT'S THERE, THAT TRAFFIC IS BACKED UP ALL THE WAY TO CONQUER HILL. AND SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO ADD ALL OF THEM. I MEAN, YOU JUST REALLY JUST I EMPOWER YOU TO JUST DRIVE BY THERE IN THE MORNING AND JUST SEE IT AND YOU'LL SEE WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AT THIS POINT. I'M GOING TO I'M GOING TO INTERJECT QUICKLY BECAUSE THE NEW DISTRICT REPRESENTATIVE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WHO HAD NOTHING TO DO PRIOR TO HIM BEING ELECTED JUST RECENTLY, BUT HE'S HAD A COMMENT THAT HE'S WANTED TO MAKE FOR SOME TIME. SO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND ALLOW HIM TO SPEAK FOR A MOMENT. I REALLY MY QUESTION WAS DIRECTED. THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. MY REALLY MY QUESTION JUST FOR THE RECORD. SO IT'S JUST SO WE'RE ALL IN THE IN THE IN THE SAME BOAT HERE. MR. HAGGARD, COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN WHY PERHAPS SOME OF US MAY HAVE BEEN INCLUDED OR JUST ME 
          [02:40:03]
PERSONALLY WERE INCLUDED IN THIS OR NOT? YEAH. THE PEOPLE THAT WERE INCLUDED WERE THE PEOPLE THAT VOTED AGAINST THE ZONING. YOU WERE NOT EITHER A MEMBER OF THE COUNCIL, ALTHOUGH YOU WERE A MEMBER OF THE P AND Z, AND ONLY THE MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL MADE THE ULTIMATE DECISION. RIGHT. SO ONLY THOSE THAT VOTED AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE WERE NAMED IN THE LAWSUIT. AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THOUGH, THE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THE TIME WAS DENIAL IN TERMS OF OUR RECOMMENDATION UP TO THIS UP TO THIS COUNCIL AT THAT TIME. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. AND ALSO, I'M GOING TO ASK MR. JEFFRIES AT THIS POINT IN TIME TO ALSO EXPLAIN, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIMES, THE THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LED UP TO US ONLY HAVING A LIMITED WINDOW, AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AND SPEAK BEFORE YOU, BECAUSE I GET WHAT YOUR SUSPICIONS ARE. I GET WHAT'S BEEN SAID OUT THERE. BUT JUST TO CLEAR THE RECORD AS TO WHY WE ENDED UP WITH THIS SMALL WINDOW, IT REALLY WASN'T SOMETHING THAT WAS WITHIN OUR ABILITY TO DETERMINE ON OUR OWN. 
          SO I'M GOING TO LET MR. MR. JEFFRIES SPEAK TO THAT. THANK YOU. MAYOR, IN A LAWSUIT, THERE IS A PROCEDURE CALLED A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. A PARTY IS ASKING THE JUDGE TO RULE IN THEIR FAVOR ON LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A TRIAL OR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS. SO A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS FILED IN THIS CASE, AGAINST THE CITY ON THESE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT. AND SO WE WOULD BE. UNDER THAT PROCEEDING, HAVE TO SHOW THAT THE LEGAL ISSUES THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, THE FUNDAMENTAL ISSUE OF WHETHER WE CAN KEEP THE SCHOOL FROM GOING AT THAT LOCATION IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THAT WE HAVE A RIGHT TO KEEP THEM FROM GOING AT THAT LOCATION. 
          THEY'VE ALSO ASKED FOR THE COURT TO RULE THAT THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THE PLAN THAT THEY SUBMITTED. THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE CITY. AND AGAIN, IT WOULD BE THE CITY'S BURDEN IN THE CASE TO, AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE AND EVENTUALLY AT TRIAL, TO SHOW THAT WE HAD ONE OF THE GROUNDS FOR REJECTING THE PLAN THAT'S RECOGNIZED BY LAW. AND THOSE ARE THE PRIMARY ISSUES IN THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PROCEEDING. AND THEN THE REMAINING ISSUE, IF THE CASE GOES FORWARD AND THE JUDGE RULES AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ON THOSE LEGAL ISSUES, THE REMAINING ISSUES TO DECIDE WOULD BE WHAT KIND OF ORDER IS THE JUDGE GOING TO ISSUE AS FAR AS THE PLAN THAT WOULD GO FORWARD FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND POTENTIALLY, WHAT KIND OF DAMAGES WOULD BE ASSESSED IN FAVOR OF LIFE SCHOOL AND AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS? SO THAT MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WAS FILED. I NEGOTIATED AN EXTENSION OF THE PERIOD FOR RESPONDING. COUNSEL WOULD UNDERSTAND THE NEW RULE, EFFECTIVE ON MARCH 1ST, GIVES A VERY TIGHT WINDOW FOR THE COURTS TO RESOLVE THOSE KINDS OF MOTIONS. MOTIONS FILED. YOU GET 21 DAYS TO RESPOND. THE THE OTHER SIDE GETS SEVEN DAYS AFTER THAT. TO REPLY, THE JUDGE HAS TO HAVE A HEARING NO EARLIER THAN 35 DAYS AFTER THE MOTIONS FILED AND NO LATER THAN 60 DAYS AFTER THE MOTIONS FILED TO ISSUE A RULING ON THESE LEGAL ISSUES. SO LIFE SCHOOL HAS FORCED THE FORCED OUR HANDS, SO TO SPEAK. WE HAD BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH LIFE SCHOOL AT THIS STAGE OVER THE PLANS THAT HAD BEEN SUBMITTED, AND WE WERE ASKING FOR SOME CLARIFICATION. 
          WE WERE ASKING FOR SOME CONCESSIONS, AND WE'VE GOTTEN CLARIFICATION. WE'VE GOTTEN SOME CONCESSIONS, AGAIN, SUBJECT TO FINAL BLESSING OF THE COUNCIL, ON WHAT WE DO AT THIS STAGE OF THE CASE. BUT WE HAVE A VERY TIGHT WINDOW TO GET THIS ADDRESSED AND RESOLVED. 
          AND THE THE LEGAL ISSUES, AS MR. HAGER HAS POINTED OUT, ARE A TOUGH FIGHT TO FIGHT. AND SO THE THOUGHT IS BECAUSE THE CITY HAS ALREADY PUT IN THE PROCESS AND ACCOMPLISHED REVIEW OF A LOT OF THE PLANS, INCLUDING GOING TO THE EXPENSE OF GETTING AN INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC STUDY DONE, HAVING OUTSIDE CONSULTANTS LOOK AT THE PLAN SUBMISSION TO MAKE SURE THAT IT 
          [02:45:07]
MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES AND STRUCTURAL ISSUES. THAT'S ALREADY BEEN PARTIALLY ACCOMPLISHED. AND AGAIN, LIFE SCHOOL HAS MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALMOST EVERYTHING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY RAISED AS A CONCERN. AND THEN THEY GAVE SOME CONCESSIONS ON MATTERS THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GIVE CONCESSIONS ON. AND SO THE THOUGHT IS, PARDON ME. THE THOUGHT IS THAT RATHER THAN HAVE A JUDGE RULE AGAINST THE DEFENDANTS ON THESE LEGAL ISSUES THAT ARE, I THINK, WELL SETTLED IN THE LAW, AND THEN THE JUDGE IS LEFT WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF JUST SIMPLY RULING ON THE REMAINDER OF THE CASE BY TRIAL, WHICH WOULD BE THE DAMAGE ISSUES AND INJUNCTION ISSUES. THE THOUGHT WAS, WELL, LET'S SEE IF WE CAN WRAP UP NEGOTIATION AND GET AN AGREEMENT AS TO THE PLANS THAT WOULD BE USED TO GO FORWARD WITH THEM COMPLYING WITH THE CITY'S PERMITTING STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION, AND USE A DEFINED SET OF PLANS TO GET THE PROJECT BUILT. AND THE PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE THE TRAFFIC STUDY, THE TRAFFIC MITIGATION OR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN RAISED ABOUT HEIGHT, SIZE, LOCATION OF FACILITIES ON THE PROPERTY, ISSUES REGARDING THE STADIUM, THE REQUEST FOR SCREENING PROCEDURES OR STANDARDS. LIFE SCHOOL HAS ADDRESSED ALL OF THAT. LIFE. SCHOOL HAS MET WHAT OUR OWN EXPERTS INDICATE ARE THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD WANT TO ENFORCE. SO IF WE CAME UP WITH A PLAN AND IT HAS TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT LIFE SCHOOL IS ENTITLED UNDER THE LAW TO GET ON THE PROPERTY. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT PLAN WOULD BE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE WORKED THROUGH, AND ARE ON THE BRINK OF TRYING TO BRING TO A CONCLUSION. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE. THAT'S THE REASON FOR A TIGHT WINDOW OF GETTING SOMETHING DONE, OR ELSE WE HAVE THE VERY LIKELY CHANCE SOMEBODY'S GOING TO DECIDE FOR US AND DECIDE IT WITHOUT ANY CONCESSIONS, DECIDE IT WITHOUT ANY OF THE CLARIFICATION THAT WE SOUGHT AND OBTAINED. SO THAT'S WHERE WE ARE GOING TO FILE A RESPONSE. NO, I'VE GOTTEN AN EXTENSION TO THE RESPONSE DEADLINE WITH THE IDEA THAT WE WOULD HAVE. CURRENTLY, IT WOULD BE THE FIRST THE FIRST WEEK OF JULY. I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT DATE IN MY HEAD, BUT IT WOULD IT WOULD FALL DUE IN EARLY JULY TO BE DECIDED ON OR ABOUT THIS, I THINK JULY 17TH. 
          AND AGAIN, DEPENDING ON THE JUDGE'S AVAILABILITY AND SCHEDULE. BUT WE WE GOT AN AGREED POSTPONEMENT OF THE PROCEDURES BECAUSE OF THE NEGOTIATING WE HAD BEEN HAVING AND BECAUSE LIFE SCHOOL HAD ALL IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS, ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT HAD BEEN RAISED AT THE TIME THEIR PLANS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY A YEAR AGO. MISTER, MISTER, MISTER, MISTER. COUNCIL, LET ME. MAYOR, YOU MENTIONED ONE THING. YOU MENTIONED THAT COUNCILMAN NEW NEWLY ELECTED COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS, WHO I VOTED FOR. OH, YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY VOTES, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. WHO I VOTED FOR, HOWEVER, DID HAVE SEEN THE PROPERTY. MAYOR PRO TEM GOODEN HAVE SEEN THE PROPERTY. MAYOR GUTIERREZ HAVE SEEN THE PROPERTY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, MAYOR. AND BECAUSE THE CITY ATTORNEY KEEPS ASKING US WHAT DO WE WANT? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE ADJOURN FOR 15 MINUTES, GIVE US TWO FLIP CHARTS, AND LET US, SINCE WE ARE PRESSED AGAINST THE WALL, GIVE US TWO FLIP CHARTS AND ALLOW THIS BODY TO COME BACK WITH YOU OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR YOU TO ASK FOR US ON, ON OUR BEHALF. SO THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION. I'M NOT. I KNOW WE HAVE TO ROLL UP OUR SLEEVES BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TOMORROW TO DO THIS. I'M JUST ASKING IF YOU IF EVERYBODY WOULD CONSIDER BE BE APPROPRIATE FOR WHAT, A 15 MINUTE RECESS GIVING US TWO FLIP CHARTS, SOMETHING TO WRITE WITH. AND LET US COME BACK AND WE CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. CITY ATTORNEY HAGER, TO WHAT 
          [02:50:03]
WE'RE ASKING FOR TO AN EXEMPTION. AND. WERE THEY GOING TO ANSWER? I WAS WAITING. 
          AND WELL, WHILE Y'ALL DELIBERATING, I HEARD YOU SAY THAT COUNCILMAN COUNCIL MEMBER DAVIS IS BEING SUED BECAUSE HE WASN'T IN HIS POSITION. NO. OH, HE'S NOT OKAY, I'M SORRY, BUT YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE OTHERS ARE BEING SUED BECAUSE THEY VOTED AGAINST THE ZONING CHANGE. I'M GOING BACK TO THE ZONING CHANGE. I KNOW WE FIGHTING FOR WHAT WE DON'T WANT OR WHATEVER, BUT I'M GOING BACK TO THE ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE WHEN I MENTIONED IT EARLIER, YOU GUYS SAID THAT SCHOOLS THAT WE DID NOT VOTE FOR ZONING CHANGE AND THAT SCHOOLS CAN DO WHAT THEY WANT. AND I DID GOOGLE RESEARCH, WHATEVER. NO, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT IT SAYS DALLAS ISD TRIED TO BUILD A SCHOOL FACILITY WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE CITY'S ZONING PROCESS. THEY CLAIM THAT THEY WERE A SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THEREFORE DIDN'T HAVE TO FOLLOW THE SCHOOL ZONE. THE CITY OF ADDISON SAID YOU MUST FOLLOW ZONING LIKE EVERYONE ELSE. THE COURT AGREED WITH THE CITY OF ADDISON. THE COURT RULED SCHOOL DISTRICTS DO NOT HAVE AUTOMATIC OR A TOM EXCUSE ME, AUTOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM CITY ZONING LAWS. THE COURT SAID SCHOOLS MUST FOLLOW ZONING UNLESS LEGISLATOR CLEARLY SAYS OTHERWISE. THE LEGISLATURE HAS NEVER SAID SCHOOLS CAN IGNORE ZONING. THE FINAL RESULT FROM THAT CASE WAS DALLAS ISD COULD NOT BUILD UNTIL THEY COMPLIED WITH ZONING. THUS, THE CITY HAD THE RIGHT TO REGULATE WHERE THE SCHOOL COULD BE BUILT. THE SCHOOLS MUST FOLLOW ZONING JUST LIKE ANY OTHER LAND USE. SO MY QUESTION IS, WHAT IS THE LEGISLATOR LEGISLATION THAT WE'RE RESPONSIBLE THAT YOU GUYS ARE SAYING THAT LIFE HAS IMMUNITY TO BUILD ON A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY? WELL, THERE'S MANY ASPECTS TO THERE'S MANY ASPECTS TO ZONING. OKAY. SO I DON'T EXPECT THAT WE'LL BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE ASPECTS OF ZONING, BUT ZONING. LET ME FINISH. PLEASE LET ME FINISH. 
          YES, SIR. ZONING IS IN THE TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ATTORNEYS HAVE EXPLAINED TONIGHT ABOUT LIGHTING, ABOUT THE STADIUM, ABOUT A NUMBER OF OTHER THINGS IS DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT IN THIS CASE THAN ZONING THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. AND THAT'S BEING THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY, THEY'RE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ZONING DISCUSSIONS. OKAY. SO YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T WE CAN'T MIX THE TWO THAT THAT IS THAT IS THAT MAKES MY CASE RIGHT THERE. CORRECT. SO WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY IS THAT IT ALSO STATED THAT THE DALLAS ISD HAD TO DO. THEY ONLY HAD TWO OPTIONS TO CHANGE THE VOTE, THE ZONING, OR EITHER GET A SPU. WHEN WE FIRST CAME, IT WAS CHANGING THE ZONING. THEN THEY CAME BACK BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET A SPECIAL SPU FROM THE CITY. SO MY QUESTION IS NOW WE APPROVED THE SPU FOR THE LIFE SCHOOL BECAUSE BASED ON ADDISON, THE CITY OF ADDISON AND DALLAS ISD, WHICH IS A LARGE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT HAS A, A, A WHOLE LOT MORE MONEY THAN A LIFE CHARTER SCHOOL. WHAT HOW IS THAT CASE DIFFERENT FROM OURS? HOW IS THAT CASE DIFFERENT FROM OURS AS OPPOSED TO ZONING? BECAUSE ORIGINALLY I'M GOING BACK, WE WERE VOTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL. THAT'S WHAT THE YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU. BUT SOMEONE JUST SAID, CONGRESSMAN DAVIS WAS NOT BEING SUED, BUT HE DID VOTE AGAINST CHANGING THE THE ZONING. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT IS THAT NOT WHAT WE JUST SAID, MR. DAVIS, COUNCILMAN DAVIS, WERE YOU EXCLUDED BECAUSE YOU YOU DID NOT OR. EXCUSE ME, YOU VOTED AGAINST DOWN LIFE SCHOOL CHANGING FROM SCHOOL ZONE SINGLE FAMILY TO COMMERCIAL. SO 
          [02:55:06]
THANK THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. I WAS NOT AS I THINK WE WERE PREVIOUSLY ADVISED BY OUR CITY ATTORNEY. I WASN'T MENTIONED IN THIS PARTICULAR LITIGATION BECAUSE I WASN'T IN THIS CAPACITY AT THAT TIME. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THAT A A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, ALL SEVEN OF ITS MEMBERS, SIMPLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION UP TO THE COUNCIL. BUT THE THE FINAL ABILITY TO PASS A PIECE OF ORDINANCE THAT WOULD FACILITATE THIS APPLICATION AND EVERYTHING WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING NOW FOR ABOUT THREE HOURS IS RELATED TO MAKING SURE THAT THIS BODY WOULD MAKE THAT DECISION. AND I WASN'T I WASN'T YET HERE. IT WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THAT ZONING APPLICATION IN THE FORM ONE MOMENT IN THE FORM, IN THE FORM THAT IT WAS IN THIS BODY SINCE TOOK THAT UNDER THEIR ADVISEMENT, AND THEY MADE A DECISION SIMILARLY, QUITE FRANKLY, TO THE DECISION OF THE CITY COUNCIL. AND NOW WE FIND OURSELVES THIS EVENING IN THE SITUATION LEGALLY, WHAT WE'RE FACED FOR. I REALLY THINK IF I COULD JUST GIVE YOU MY TWO MY $0.02 IS THAT WE WE REALLY TAKE A HARD OPPORTUNITY TO ROLL OUR SLEEVES UP HERE AND YOU ALL BE ABLE TO PUT DOWN THE THINGS THAT YOU STILL HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT OR THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY AND THE LEGAL TEAM TO TAKE UNDER ADVISEMENT AND BE ABLE TO BRING TO THE TABLE THAT FURTHER EXPRESS YOUR YOUR CONCERNS AND AS A MEASURE TO SAFEGUARD YOU FROM WHAT YOU FEAR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY WOULD BRING TO BEAR AS IT RELATES TO YOUR TO YOUR QUALITY OF LIFE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE US TO DO AND TO THINK ABOUT, GIVEN THAT, I HATE TO SAY IT THIS WAY, BUT THE HORSE IS OUT OF THE BARN. 
          AND SO IF THERE'S STILL SOME UNADDRESSED CONCERNS, AND GIVEN THE TIMING AND THE SEQUENCE OF THIS, I THINK THAT I WOULD REALLY ENCOURAGE THE BETTER USE OF TIME WOULD BE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS THAT YOU STILL ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT ARE A PART OF THIS VERSUS THE OTHER? I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME MENTION, AND I'M GOING TO TAKE JUST A COUPLE LITTLE LIBERTIES, IF YOU DON'T MIND. MR. MAYOR, I KNOW THAT WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT WHERE BUSSES ARE LOCATED AND CERTAIN THINGS AS IT RELATES. AND SO I DON'T KNOW, MR. MANAGER, IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO EQUIP FOLK HERE WITH WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT ARE ON PAPER TODAY IN TERMS OF WHAT THAT ZONING, BECAUSE FOLK ARE PROBABLY SLEPT AND DOESN'T HAVE THAT RIGHT AT THEIR FINGERTIPS EVEN TO BEST UTILIZE THEIR 15 MINUTES. SO I THINK THAT'S ONE COMPONENT. AND ALSO ADDITIONALLY, MR. MANAGER, SOMETHING BY WAY OF A SITE PLAN SO THEY CAN BE ABLE TO SEE SO NEIGHBORS CAN BE ABLE TO SEE WHERE THINGS CURRENTLY ARE LAID OUT ON THE SITE. TO THE EXTENT IT ADDRESSES CONCERNS ABOUT WHERE BUSSES WILL BE QUEUED, STORED AND OTHERWISE PUT INTO MOTION EACH EACH DAY. AND SO, I MEAN, BECAUSE SOME OF THAT HASN'T CHANGED IN THE ZONING APPLICATION, I THINK, FROM ITS INCEPTION. AND SO IT MAY BE HELPFUL JUST BY USE OF THE SHORT TRUNCATED WINDOW THAT THAT THESE NEIGHBORS HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GIVE THAT FEEDBACK TO, TO US AND TO THIS LEGAL TEAM. THANK YOU. CITY MANAGER IS GOING TO PUT A COUPLE OF PICTURES UP ON THE SCREEN SO EVERYBODY CAN SEE THE LAYOUT OUT THERE. AND I WILL TELL YOU THAT WE DID, WE DID GET A CONSENSUS UP HERE A FEW MINUTES AGO TO RECESS FOR 15 MINUTES. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO PUT A TIME CLOCK ON IT, BUT WITHIN REASON SO THAT YOU CAN GATHER AND, AND MAYBE COME UP WITH THAT LIST THAT YOU WOULD HAD MENTIONED. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT RIGHT NOW, SINCE WE'RE RIGHT UP ON THE 8:00 HOUR. IS THAT IS THAT ENOUGH TIME, SIR, FOR YOU TO DO THAT? YES. OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. OKAY. IS THE MIC OFF? CAN Y'ALL HEAR ME? OH. WHAT WE MAY NEED IS MAYOR. 
          COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR GRANTING THAT REQUEST. APPRECIATE IT. ONCE THEY PRODUCE. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE A QUORUM. WE'RE NOT READY. QUITE READY TO GET STARTED. BUT I AM GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RESUME OUR REGULAR MEETING AT 820. THANK YOU MAYOR. THANK YOU, COUNCIL MEMBERS. 
          WE'LL WE'LL GO AHEAD AS SOON AS THE ATTORNEY GETS BACK. WE'LL GO AHEAD. AND ACTUALLY, THERE HE IS. YES. THIS LIST IS REALLY FOR HIM. I TAKE YOUR. ALL RIGHT, MR. HAGER. WE'RE BACK IN 
          [03:00:10]
SESSION NOW AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR. THE SUMMARY OF OF THOUGHTS THEY WANT US TO PASS ON TO THE LIFE SCHOOL TOMORROW, TO THE LIFE SCHOOL FOLKS AND CITY SECRETARY. YOU PREPARED TO KEEP THE NOTES ON THIS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND BEGIN. OKAY. SO WE WERE ASKED, AS THE CONSTITUENTS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD TO, AS YOU STATED, MAKE A LIST THAT WE THINK ARE APPROPRIATE TO MAKE AS PART OF A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE FIRST. DEMAND WE'D LIKE TO MAKE IS NO USAGE OF THIS PROPERTY BY THIRD PARTIES. I THINK THAT RESTRICTION MEANS NO USAGE OF, FOR EXAMPLE, A BASKETBALL. PRIVATE ENTITIES OF THIS FACILITY AS TENANTS OR TEMPORARY. YOU KNOW, RENTERS OF THIS FACILITY. OUR CONCERN IS, IS THAT BECAUSE APPARENTLY WE'RE SUBJECT TO A SCHOOL BEING ABLE TO JUST DECLARE ITSELF A SCHOOL AND THEN INVITE ANYBODY THEY WANT TO, TO AND CREATE A STADIUM THERE. AND THEN IF IT IS, IT'S ALSO THE CASE THAT THEN THEY CAN INVITE PEOPLE EVERY WEEK TO RENT THAT FACILITY OUT. WE THINK WE'RE STILL IN A POSITION WHERE WE CAN WE CAN ARGUE OR AT LEAST SEEK SOME SERIOUS RESTRICTIONS ON HOW OFTEN THEY HAVE EVENTS AT THIS FACILITY, AND WE CAN LIMIT IT TO ONLY EVENTS DIRECTLY WITH THE DIRECT PARTICIPATION OF THE OWNER OF OF THE FACILITY, IN THIS CASE, LIFE SCHOOLS. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT TO US. WE DON'T WANT 50 WEEKS OF EVENTS EVERY YEAR AT THIS FACILITY. OKAY. THEN WE WE BELIEVE IT'S ALSO APPROPRIATE TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF THIS FACILITY TO ITS CURRENT PLAN. I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE ASK AS WELL. I THINK LISTENING TO MR. HAGAR, THAT'S ALSO WITHIN THE POWER OF THE COUNCIL TO LIMIT THE CURRENT SIZE OF THIS FACILITY. WELL, LET'S BE CLEAR BY GETTING CONFIRMATION ON THAT FROM MR. HAGER. I THINK THAT THERE'S TWO PHASES. AND I THINK WHAT HE'S SAYING, ANY EXPANSION OVER WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN WOULD REQUIRE PD AMENDMENT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. 
          WELL, I THINK WHAT I'M ALSO SAYING IS AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR THAT THEY NEED TO WRITE IN A RESTRICT. WE NEED WE WOULD ASK FOR AN ACTUAL RESTRICTION IN EXPRESS AGREEMENT NOT TO EXPAND BEYOND THIS CURRENT PLAN. FOR 30 YEARS. I THINK YOU COULD I'LL BE HONEST WITH YOU. I THINK YOU COULD ASK FOR IT. BUT IF IT'S THE STATE OF TEXAS, IT'S PROBABLY UNENFORCEABLE. 
          WELL, IT WOULD ONLY BE ENFORCEABLE. AS TO THIS OWNER. I MEAN, IT'S A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. IT'S A IT'S PRIVATE. YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA WRITE THE CONTRACT. THERE'S THINGS I UNDERSTAND I'M GOING TO GET. I'LL ASK I THINK THEY WILL REJECT THAT. AND I THINK THEY'LL REJECT IT BECAUSE THEY VIEW THEMSELVES AS BEING THE STATE OF TEXAS. AND I COULD NOT GET THE STATE OF TEXAS TO AGREE THAT THEY WOULD NEVER USE PUBLIC PROPERTY FOR AN APPROPRIATE PUBLIC PURPOSE. AND IF YOU WERE ASKED THE CITY TO DO THE SAME THING, IT'S PROBABLY UNENFORCEABLE. I'M JUST SO I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE A FALSE EXPECTATION. I WILL ASK IF THEY'LL AGREE TO A CONTRACT. WE'LL WRITE IT IN THERE. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S ENFORCEABLE. WELL, THEN WHAT ARE WE PREPARED TO DO IF THEY REJECT THIS TOMORROW? ARE YOU GUYS PREPARED TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT? YOU KNOW, I HAVE ASKED THE LAWYER THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, NOT ME. ARE WE PREPARED TO WOULD WE BE PREPARED TO FILE A RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND CREATE SOME SORT OF FACT ISSUE THAT WE COULD AT LEAST GAIN SOME LEVERAGE WHERE WE COULD SAY, HEY, WE'RE WE'RE GOING WE'RE GOING TO TRIAL. MAYBE YOU GUYS SHOULD AGREE TO SOME OF OUR REQUESTS. IS THAT AN ACTUAL POSSIBILITY? SHORT ANSWER IS, I CAN PREPARE A RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. HOW SUCCESSFUL WOULD BE COULD BE UP TO THE JUDGE. AND I DON'T SEE A LOT OF 
          [03:05:05]
PROSPECTS FOR CHALLENGING MOTION BECAUSE IT'S ONLY LEGAL ISSUES ABOUT. THE MOTION AS PRESENTED ONLY ADDRESSES LEGAL ISSUES. AS FAR AS CAN WE RESTRICT THE LIFE SCHOOL FROM GOING AT THIS LOCATION AND CAN. WHAT RESTRICTIONS THE CITY HAS ASKED FOR? DO WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK FOR MORE? AND ESSENTIALLY, IS LIFE SCHOOL'S PLAN AS PRESENTED SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CHALLENGE? AND THE SHORT ANSWER IS, I THINK THAT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT TO SUCCEED. ON. THE REMAINING ISSUES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO TRIAL. SO THE THE THE MOTION AS PRESENTED IS REALLY ON THE FUNDAMENTAL LEGAL ISSUES IN THE CASE. AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A FACT ISSUE YOU CAN RAISE ON THOSE LEGAL ISSUES. EVEN AS IT RELATES TO THE SECOND ISSUE YOU MENTIONED IN TERMS OF THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO AT LEAST MODIFY THE PLAN. SO THE RIGHT OF THE CITY TO MODIFY THE PLAN, THE BURDEN WOULD BE ON THE CITY TO SHOW A BASIS FOR DOING SO RELATED TO HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES AND OR A NUISANCE ISSUE WHICH IS TIED IN OR UNREASONABLENESS. RIGHT? YEAH. UNREASONABLENESS. AND SO UNREASONABLENESS USUALLY IS A FACT QUESTION. WELL, ARE WE NOT PREPARED TO COULD WE NOT BE PREPARED TO PRESENT EITHER EXPERT TESTIMONY OR SURVEYS FROM THE THE RESIDENTS OR SOME SORT OF EVIDENCE TO CREATE A FACT QUESTION IS WHAT I'M ASKING. I MEAN, WE'RE PREPARED TO HELP AND ASSIST IN ANY WAY TO CREATE A FACT QUESTION. WHEN YOU SAY THAT THE RESPONSE ISN'T EVEN DUE UNTIL JULY, AND I'M MERELY SUGGESTING THIS IN ORDER TO. BECAUSE THIS IS HOW YOU THIS IS HOW LITIGATION WORKS. 
          AND I'M JUST EXPLAINING. I KNOW YOU UNDERSTAND THIS. WE CAN GAIN SOME LEVERAGE IN NEGOTIATING WHAT WE WANT IF WE FIGHT BACK. AND IF WE TELL THEM THAT WE'RE JUST GOING TO LAY DOWN, THEN OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO SAY, HEY, THANKS, THIS IS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. 
          WE'LL WE'LL GIVE YOU AN UPDATE WHEN WE WANT TO DO MORE. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT. IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESTRICT THEM NOW THROUGH AN AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD PREFER TO DO. AND IT'S NOT AND IT'S WELL WITHIN THE BUDGET TO DO A RESPONSE TO A SUMMARY JUDGMENT. 
          AND THE SHORT ANSWER IS, IF I DON'T GET DIRECTION TO BRING THIS TO A CONCLUSION, I WILL FILE AN APPROPRIATE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. I, I WILL BE OKAY IF I DON'T GET DIRECTION TO. OKAY IF I DON'T GET DIRECTION TO BRING THIS TO AN AGREED CONCLUSION, I WILL FILE A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. I AM NOT OPTIMISTIC THAT I CAN SUCCEED IN THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT THAT IS PROPERLY PRESENTED, WHICH IT CHALLENGES MAINLY THE LEGAL ISSUES OF WHETHER THE CITY CAN CARRY ITS BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE CITY IS ACTING TO DENY THE DENY THE LIFE SCHOOL PLAN BASED ON HEALTH OR SAFETY ISSUES. YOU'RE GOING TO BE ENTITLED TO A HEARING, RIGHT? YES. WHEN THAT HEARING TAKE PLACE. WELL, IT HADN'T BEEN SET. 
          YES. SOMETIME BEFORE MID-JULY OR AROUND MID-JULY. AROUND MID-JULY? YES. AND I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF JUDGE TILLERY, AND I'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF A LOT OF THESE JUDGES. THEY ARE NOT INCLINED TO GRANT MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES. NOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS A PURE LEGAL ISSUE TO SOME EXTENT. I WOULD KIND OF DISAGREE WITH THAT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT IF WE WERE TO SHOW UP AND SHOW INTEREST IN THIS CASE AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT HEARING, A JUDGE LIKE JUDGE TILLERY, WHO I'M FAMILIAR WITH, WOULD LIKELY FIND A FACT ISSUE AND SAY, WE'RE GOING TO TRIAL AND WE WOULD AT LEAST DEFEAT THEIR MOTION ON ITS FACE AND GET TO TRIAL AND HAVE SOME LEVERAGE, WHATEVER LITTLE IT IS, TO GET SOME CONCESSIONS FROM THEM. AND THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO THE TO THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE INVESTED THEIR BULK OF THEIR INCOME IN BUILDING THIS, THIS, THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I MEAN, THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT. THAT'S ALL WE'RE SAYING. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE AGGRESSIVE REPRESENTATION UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING, WHICH TO ME INCLUDES AND VERY 
          [03:10:07]
LIKELY INCLUDES AT A MINIMUM, A FILING OF A MOTION, A RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THAT'S WHAT YOU GUYS CAN DECIDE. I'M JUST TELLING YOU, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD DO UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES. LET ME FINISH THE LIST. SO THE FIRST ONE LIMIT USAGE TO THIRD PARTIES. NO USAGE BY THIRD PARTIES. THIRD, PRIVATE PARTIES LIMIT SIZE TO CURRENT PLAN FOR AT LEAST 30 YEARS. AND THEN AS FAR AS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF NOISE RESTRICTIONS. NO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES AFTER FIVE, NO OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES ON WEEKENDS, NO PA SYSTEMS IN USAGE AFTER 5 P.M. AND A BETTER PLAN FOR MORE MATURE TREES. IN ORDER TO BLOCK OUT NOISE. AND WE WOULD ASK FOR A SETBACK OF 50FT AS OPPOSED TO TEN. WE'RE THIS IS THESE ARE OUR ASK ON ALL THE ROADS. THE. 
          SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE PLAN, YOU HAVE THE ROADS, YOU HAVE THE BASKETBALL COURTS, YOU HAVE THE PARKING LOT. WE WANT ANY ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION OR DEVELOPMENT TO BE 50FT AWAY FROM THE ACTUAL SUBDIVISION, AS OPPOSED TO TEN FEET. ON. I WROTE YES. AND AS WELL AS THIS ROAD. YEAH. AND I HAVEN'T AND I'LL GET TO THE FENCE AND THEN THIS PARKING LOT, AT LEAST THE CORNER APPEARS TO GET FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE SUBDIVISION. AND ANY ROADS EXITING OR ENTERING INTO THE FACILITY SHOULD ALSO BE AT LEAST 50FT AWAY FROM THE FENCE OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE FENCE. WELL, THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE FENCE ARE EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING AS MY UNDERSTANDING. WELL, THEN THE FENCE. OKAY, THEN THE FENCE. I THINK THE FENCE IS FINE. YEAH, I THINK I THINK I MADE HER FENCE BECAUSE WHAT I'M LOOKING. 
          I HAVEN'T ASKED, I HAVEN'T MENTIONED THE HEIGHT OF THE FENCE YET. 
          SETBACKS ARE FOR ANY DEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY. FOR EXAMPLE, THE ROADS, THE INGRESS, THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTED ROADS, THE PARKING LOT, THE PRACTICE FACILITIES. 
          AS WELL AS DO WE WANT THE FENCE 50FT AWAY? YEAH, 50FT AWAY FROM. THEN. AND I'M I'M ALMOST FINISHED. IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO OFFER A PLAN IN WHICH THE STADIUM IS SET FURTHER BACK. OR GO AHEAD, WE REALLY WANT TO MOVE THE STADIUM FROM THE ORIGINAL DRAWING. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECALL, THE ORIGINAL DRAWING WAS OVER ON THE DESOTO SIDE. SO IF WE CAN MOVE THAT BACK ON THAT SIDE VERSUS BEING BEHIND THE BRADLEY STREET, WHICH IS THE BACK STREET, I WILL TELL YOU THAT I ASKED. BECAUSE IT'S WHAT THEY'LL INITIALLY MOVE IT THOUGH. THEY. 
          [03:15:05]
YEAH, THEY DID AT ONE TIME AT SOME POINT AND THEY MOVED IT BACK. I ASSUME THAT'S A FLOODPLAIN. I WOULD I, I'LL JUST ASK, OKAY, OKAY, MAYBE NOT THAT SPOT SOMEWHERE ELSE. AND THEN. AND THEN AS. OH, AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE FENCE, A 15 FOOT FENCE OR A WALL, AS OPPOSED TO A EIGHT FOOT WALL. AND THEN THE BAND PRACTICE. OH YEAH. AND THEN UNDER NOISE, NOISE RESTRICTIONS AS WELL. NO BAND REHEARSAL BEFORE 7 A.M. OR AFTER 8 P.M. THEN I THINK THERE'S ONE MORE THING. I'M SORRY. AND THEN WE WANT A TRAFFIC COP AT THIS ENTRANCE ON DANIEL DALE COMING INTO THE GATE. YEAH, COMING IN AND OUT OF THE GATE. RELEVANT. YOU KNOW, TIME PERIODS. THE DANIEL DALE EXIT. IT'S ONLY ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT OF OUR GATE. AND WITH THE STREET, IT GOES STRAIGHT UP. IT GOES STRAIGHT OVER INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S CALLED. YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE MAP HERE. NOW THE COURT, THIS MAP DOESN'T SHOW THE CORNER OF DANA DALE AND COCKRELL HILL. 
          AND. THAT'S OUR LIST. ONCE AGAIN, I, YOU KNOW, IF I CAN JUST ADD. I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE CITY TO MAKE A FULSOME EFFORT TO AT LEAST POSTURE AS STRONGLY AS POSSIBLE FOR A NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT. I THINK THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN, CAN SECURE THAT NEGOTIATED SETTLEMENT WITH ANY SIGNIFICANT CONCESSIONS WOULD BE TO MAKE PUT A FEAR IN LIFE SCHOOLS THAT. THERE ARE ACTUAL OPPORTUNITIES TO WIN THIS CASE. ONE OF THE WAYS THIS CASE COULD BE WON IS SIMPLY FILING, IN MY OPINION, AS PART OF A MOTION RESPONSE TO THEIR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT WOULD BE A DEMAND TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. I ALSO THINK IF IT'S IF THERE'S STILL TIME, IF WE CAN COME UP WITH SOME SORT OF. REBUTTAL PLAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU CALL IT A CITY'S OWN PLAN. I THINK YOU PUT A JUDGE OR AN ARBITRATOR IN A, A SITUATION WHERE THEY COULD AT LEAST SAY THEY PROVIDED SPLIT THE BABY. AND WITH THE CITY'S PLANS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHICH IS OFTEN WHAT OCCURS UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A JUDGE KNOWS HE CAN'T OUTRIGHT SIDE, AT LEAST ACCORDING TO YOU GUYS CAN'T OUTRIGHT SIDE WITH THE CITY. BUT HE WOULD UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, A JUDGE OR AN ARBITRATOR WOULD BE WILLING TO ENTER INTO A COMPROMISE PLAN IF WE SO PRESENTED ONE. AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MY LEGAL ADVICE. 
          IF I WAS HANDLING THIS CASE, I WOULD ALSO, IF NECESSARY. I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE ALREADY SOUGHT A CONTINUANCE, BUT. I'M. I AM STILL SOMEWHAT CONFUSED THAT WE HIRED A TRAFFIC EXPERT 
          [03:20:05]
WHO DIDN'T. MOORE, WHO DIDN'T FIND. IN OUR FAVOR THAT THE TRAFFIC CAUSED BY THIS FACILITY WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE DETRIMENTAL. IF I'M PAYING AN EXPERT TO HAVE AN OPINION, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD AN OPINION THAT MORE CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH WHAT I WANT. SO THOSE ARE MY $0.02. 
          [1.CITIZENS' INPUT ]
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. AT THIS POINT, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM ONE. 
          CITIZEN INPUT. AS I SAID EARLIER, SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE SPOKEN IN LIEU OF IF YOU'VE FILLED OUT A CARD, CITY SECRETARY, HOW MANY CARDS DO WE HAVE? ALL OF THEM ARE. OKAY, WELL, LET'S JUST GO AHEAD AND CALL UP THE NAMES IF THEY'RE STILL HERE AND YOU STILL WANT TO COME UP, REMEMBER, THE RULES OF CITIZEN INPUT ARE TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF BY NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES. AT THE END OF THAT TWO MINUTES, YOUR SPEAKING TIME IS OVER AND THE COUNCIL CANNOT RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS OR ADDRESS ANY ISSUES YOU BROUGHT UP. SO IT'S STRICTLY LIMITED TO YOU MAKING A COMMENT OR COMMENTS FOR TWO MINUTES. SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND READ THE NAMES ONE AT A TIME AND SEE WHO'S STILL HERE AND WHO WANTS TO TALK. OKAY, ALICIA. BROWN. YOUNG. OKAY. DOCTOR SIMMONS. AND I THINK EVERYTHING HAS BEEN COVERED ALREADY. YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE. EXCUSE ME. NAME AND ADDRESS, DOCTOR SIMMONS. I LIVE ON 939 FAIRWAY DRIVE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THE ONLY THING THAT BOTHERS ME BESIDES THE NOISE. WE HAVE ALL THESE AMBULANCES COMING THROUGH. IT'S LIKE SCHOOL GOING TO MAKE ANY ALLOWANCE. HOW? HOW IS THE AMBULANCE GOING TO GET REROUTED TO THE HOSPITAL? THIS IS PEOPLE'S LIFE. WHAT IS WHAT ARE WHAT IS THE COUNCIL DOING ABOUT THIS SITUATION? SEE, I, I LIVE CLOSE TO THE TO QUAKER HILL. SO I KNOW WHAT GOES ON ON THE STREET. THIS IS VERY SERIOUS. 
          THEY COME FROM RED OAK DESOTO AND THESE ARE NEIGHBORS. I THINK FOR NOW, THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY. YOU KNOW, OUR BACK IS AGAINST THE WALL. I CAN HEAR I CAN IMAGINE THE NOISE. 
          EVEN IF YOU PUT A RAZOR WIRE ON TOP OF THE WALL, IT'S GOING TO GO THROUGH. WE DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, BUT PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE. OUR NEIGHBORS, OUR FRIENDS. I'M A PHYSICIAN AT CHARLTON. WHEN THIS IS NOT A GOOD ISSUE. THANK YOU. OKAY, DOCTOR. NEESA SASSER. GOOD EVENING, MR. SASSER. HARTFORD, 1531 MACARTHUR DRIVE, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS. JUST I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH THE SPIEL THAT I HAD ORIGINALLY PREPARED BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING THAT'S HAPPENED TONIGHT, BUT I DID WANT TO MAKE YOU ALL PRIVY IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW ABOUT. 
          ALSO THE APARTMENTS THAT ARE PLANNED FOR THE CORNER OF BOLTON, BOONE AND DANIEL DEAL, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL. I KNOW THIS IN DESOTO, BUT SINCE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT CHARLTON METHODIST, I WANTED TO BRING THAT UP BECAUSE IT WILL HEAVILY IMPACT TRAFFIC AS WELL ONCE THOSE APARTMENTS ARE THERE. SO I WANTED TO JUST MAKE NOTE OF THAT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. 
          STEVE MADISON. I AM STEVE MADISON. 514. SHELLEY COURT, DUNCANVILLE, ABOUT A MILE NORTH OF OR WEST OF THAT SITE. THE THE I'VE BEEN LISTENING TO YOU FOLKS. I DIDN'T ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND HOW BAD THIS WAS. THIS IS A TERRIBLE SITE PLAN. I'M A REGISTERED ARCHITECT IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS WORK FOR OVER 40 YEARS. I'M ALSO A LAND BROKER 
          [03:25:03]
WITH CENTURY 21. I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD FIGHT THIS. I THINK YOU SHOULD PARTNER WITH THEM. I THINK YOU SHOULD USE THE RESOURCES OF THE DUNCANVILLE COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, WHICH I SERVED SIX YEARS ON FROM 2000 TO 2006, TO PARTNER WITH THEM AND ENHANCE THIS PROJECT, HIRE YOUR OWN CONSULTING ARCHITECT THAT WOULD DO REDESIGN THIS THING SO THAT IT THAT IT HAVING THAT STADIUM IN THAT LOCATION IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. HORRIBLE IDEA WOULD NEVER DO THAT. YOU CAN REDESIGN THIS THING, $100 MILLION CONSTRUCTION PROJECT IN THE CITY OF DUNCANVILLE IS A TREMENDOUS OPPORTUNITY FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS ANOTHER $100 MILLION PROJECT EVER IN THE CITY. I'VE BEEN LIVING HERE FOR 28 YEARS. MAYBE THE HIGH SCHOOL MIGHT HAVE BEEN 25 OR $30 MILLION. OKAY, 41 SECONDS. 
          DON'T FIGHT IT. GET IT OUT OF THE COURTS. PARTNER WITH THEM. USE THE RESOURCES OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. MAKE THEM A GOOD NEIGHBOR. GOD BLESS YOU. THANK YOU. MARK COOKS. 1106 BRADLEY DRIVE, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS. CAN'T HEAR ME RIGHT? NO. THAT'S HOW I FEEL WHEN I'M IN MY IN MY LIVING ROOM TRYING TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON. I'M NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO HEAR, ALRIGHT. MARK COOKS, 1106 BRADLEY DRIVE, DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS. THANK YOU, MAYOR AND COUNCIL FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND LISTENING TONIGHT. CITY CITY ATTORNEY AND FOR THOSE THAT WE TALK VERY STRONGLY TO ABOUT OUR FEELINGS, I JUST WANT TO STAND TO REMIND YOU THAT THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE SCHOOL FOR ME. THIS IS ABOUT THE STADIUM. SO WE'RE NOT LOSING FOCUS ON WE KNOW THAT THE SCHOOL AND I'VE ALREADY SAID THIS FROM DAY ONE, BEING A PREVIOUS CHARTER SCHOOL PRESIDENT AND AN OAK CLIFF LOCATION, WORKING ON THE BOND COMMITTEE FOR DUNCANVILLE ISD, FROM BEING A BANKER WHO SAYS, OH, WE CAN'T GET OUR FUNDING OF FUNDING IF WE LOWER THE SCHOOL AMOUNT, THAT WE TAKE THE STADIUM AWAY. ALL OF THAT IS NOT TRUE. BASED UPON MY EXPERIENCE, DIRECT EXPERIENCE OF HAVING THIS. SO I JUST WANT TO GO ON THE RECORD TO SAY, AGAIN, THIS IS NOT ABOUT LIFE CHARTER SCHOOL. FOR ME, IT IS ABOUT PUTTING A STADIUM IN MY AND OUR BACK YARD. PLEASE HELP US, COUNCIL BY LISTENING TO WHAT WE JUST TALKED ABOUT AND SEEING IF YOU REALLY TO TO HIS POINT, SIT DOWN AND TALK THIS THROUGH JUST LIKE WHEN I WHEN I GOT ON THE COUNCIL IN 2012, THE FIRST ITEM I HAD WAS TO SETTLE A LAWSUIT FOR RAILROAD CROSSING. THAT WAS A THAT WAS A PROJECT THAT THAT WAS SUING THE CITY. 
          MYSELF AND ANOTHER COUNCIL MEMBER SAW THAT THROUGH. AND NOW WE HAVE WHEATLAND PLAZA BECAUSE OF IT. ALSO, THE LAST ONE I HAD WAS A RESTAURANT THAT THE CITY WAS SUING. I WAS ABLE TO SIT DOWN ACROSS THE TABLE. THAT RESTAURANT IS STILL HERE TODAY BECAUSE WE SIT DOWN AND WE WORK BOTH SIDES TO MAKE IT WORK. I'M SIMPLY ASKING YOU AND OUR ATTORNEYS TO DO THE SAME FOR THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. DENNIS PRESTON. HARRIS. PRESTON. AND JAMES TECTOR. NO. THAT'S ALL THE ONES I HAVE. SO THAT WOULD CONCLUDE OUR CITIZENS INPUT 
          [EXECUTIVE SESSION ]
PORTION. AND WITH THAT, WE WILL RECESS INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE WILL RECESS THIS PORTION OF OUR MEETING AT 8:49 P.M. AND
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.