[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6500919,"mediaKeyId","5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9","parentId",5676840,"title","Plano council debates proposed tax‑rate ceiling; several members back using the voter‑approved ceiling to add one‑time buffers","audioSeconds",730,"startMs",13594000,"endMs",14324000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9&start=13594&end=14324","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9/thumbnail_13594000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6500919/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Plano-council-debates-proposed-taxrate-ceiling-several-members-back-using-the-voterapproved-ceiling-to-add-onetime-buffers","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500919-653442ae343f8604126b8a3a71d7daeb/orig.mp4?Expires=1770762281&Signature=DC05J5-5lq~W0XOh~iEh160Lyt5aI5Wtrgea3bip0GUnhTt0nIF4WCtYs4GTIwnzhe5FMltjSnMSNCrD7ZUTDacj9YkCOJzQsCV4OkctYXO8LiuswfjFsZZhbXkUMiE0gBE7y~Mx~Xhol3twgz1xfVJnEhQDJJQ6KJ2DaXZYkFTxGmxKWudM9Z9y8MIQYqnD2juUcambDvfsTNhM6~xRW~rIGI1m1D146I5HC41w5xWVhmbgA0nxCYr~AofawqE1xMVPcjHNT4ZxMDXFWOabCmRkAXQLXjWqdTNPVZByYkEG4qQ7K76di3p90OYtxCaQC70je-6jkVh66WxN2I809g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Plano, Texas","date","2025-08-26T02:21:48Z","article","Plano City Council held a public hearing on the fiscal year 2025–26 recommended budget and discussed the proposed ad valorem tax rate ceiling on Aug. 25. Staff presented a total recommended budget of $788 million and a Community Investment Program (CIP) of $319 million.

Budget Director Karen Reitz Whitley said the city posted a tax ceiling of 44.06¢ per $100 of assessed value as required; the rate serves as a ceiling and council may adopt a lower rate by the Sept. 8 meeting when the council will adopt the operating budget, the CIP and set the tax rate. The city’s currently proposed operating rate in the package is 41.76¢.

City Manager’s office noted one outstanding item — potential funding for a downtown Mammoth Jack Festival — and said the Legislature was still considering measures (including a proposed change to the voter‑approved tax‑rate mechanism) that could reduce the voter‑approval rate from 3.5% to 2.5%, with carve‑outs for public safety under discussion.

Council discussion centered on whether to use the posted ceiling or a lower rate. Several members — including Council member Levine, Council member Horn, Council member Kerr, Council member LeBain and Council member Downs — spoke in favor of publishing and considering the higher 44.06¢ ceiling so the city could preserve one‑time funding for stream‑bank stabilization, public safety equipment, replenishing land‑acquisition funds, economic development and a rainy‑day reserve. Deputy Mayor Pro Tem and others also emphasized the need for fiscal buffers because state legislative changes are tightening local revenue options.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem described the city as needing business‑style buffers to handle shocks and pointed to recent cost pressures and the potential for further legislative restrictions on local revenues. Council member Downs estimated that the increase to 44.06¢ would cost her household about $257.30 a year and said she supported the increase to maintain service levels and support one‑time needs.

The council did not finalize the tax rate on Aug. 25; staff will return on Sept. 8 with ordinances for budget adoption and tax‑rate decisions. Council members asked staff to present options and impacts for adoption and to identify funding sources (for example, using hotel occupancy tax for specific downtown events) when possible.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of Plano - City Council Meeting | 08-25-25","oneSentenceSummary","Council members discussed the recommended FY2025–26 budget and proposed ad valorem tax rate ceiling of 44.06¢ per $100 valuation. Several members supported publishing the higher ceiling to preserve one‑time funds for rainy‑day reserves, stream‑bank work, public safety equipment and economic development.","taxTitle","Plano, Collin County, Texas","taxId",2776,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6500924,"Council discusses park‑fee program, zoning of fee use and appeals process; staff to meet Parks and Recreation Planning Board",192,6848000,7040000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9&start=6848&end=7040","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9/thumbnail_6848000.jpg","/articles/6500924/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Council-discusses-parkfee-program-zoning-of-fee-use-and-appeals-process-staff-to-meet-Parks-and-Recreation-Planning-Board","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500924-f2bed6cf05fafab5567fa623ab129b53/orig.mp4?Expires=1770762281&Signature=nOpGHA-Mb55vEjfoRbgN~syUQ2c4QTOu2k0Rm2~fC5TnHjQc3xRdBUIkHLLTyPuxQVAzHZZG0JeWRU-j1jtJXbfV8j9fMBuwfjSMzfyZWLGORDhEBlPhqbYtb77fHBOlGzmNUlJfogJn1GP1LBHtQ2zEfidcIBN5zQFPeXRF7ByHzLzKfqd3pfgYsKuoDHhzooHAni9~W4uD3JwaOWoVxOvy5G1D0A4dfQkXiL~3E66BmEm3t-DdQkqpK~8ScYWXhX8LBTiqpDoq3lSBAwgbR9PN66T0XkzJpoKOKEznJcyXtGyygyeaJjgrFdZizVi79ZcNsjjpuYykZlAcKn6Www__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plano City Council on Aug. 25 heard from Ron Smith, director of Parks and Recreation, on the city’s park‑fee program established in 1993 and used to fund neighborhood and linear parks in 14 zones across the city.

Smith said the fee is calculated separately for single‑family and multifamily residential development and that, under the ordinance, fees \"must be spent in the zone in which it is collected, and it can only be used for neighborhood and linear parks.\" He noted the Trust for Public Land data showing 81% of Plano residents live within a 10‑minute walk of a park, and the Parks and Recreation Planning Board has requested more frequent reviews of the fee.

Council members asked about several practical issues. Council member Levine and public commenter Bill Lyle raised transparency concerns — Lyle said maps presented did not show current park locations or existing fund balances by zone, and urged the city to show balances so developers and the public can see what is available. Smith and staff said they will provide a five‑year look‑ahead of projects financed by the fee and meet with the Parks and Recreation Planning Board in two years for further review.

Council member Renee (last name not specified on transcript) asked whether the ordinance allows variances or appeals when there is little feasible park land in a zone; staff confirmed that the ordinance provides an appeals/variance process and that the burden of proof is on the appellant. Staff clarified that park fee funds cannot be used for maintenance or repairs; they can be used for erosion control only if it is part of a new trail construction project.

Council discussed the principle that fees collected in a zone should provide benefit in that zone; several council members said the fee helps preserve neighborhood amenities that attract residents. Staff will provide additional information about fee balances, projected projects (Glasscock, Los Rios, Moore, Ravenglass, Rowlett Creek), and the appeals process as requested by council and members of the public.","Council discussed the city’s 1993 park‑fee program, which requires that fees be spent in the zone where collected and used only for neighborhood or linear parks. Parks staff said appeals, variances and exceptions exist in the ordinance; council asked staff to continue outreach and two‑year review with the Parks and Recreation Planning Board.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6500929,"Council approves subdivision, street design and fees to align with state law; adds narrow‑lot and infrastructure study steps",1054,12603000,13657000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9&start=12603&end=13657","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9/thumbnail_12603000.jpg","/articles/6500929/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Council-approves-subdivision-street-design-and-fees-to-align-with-state-law-adds-narrowlot-and-infrastructure-study-steps","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500929-d02d6f29adc873e0050b8472400d838c/orig.mp4?Expires=1770762281&Signature=V9LpE14Fd28-9TukhxxYK9t6gRwGtzsivgrQ~vC1vM1VDnWUMyHPepc3gcM2MZfFgo2Lg4WOEFIzCSmNESDPVWtAbn1BiIQvPsoTRWVzFINivL~eewyp86RBnD5pVSj~x6RhnIKyMgWZMiunT6AQUoQMx~htiz7FisoyJAl67Qy2JHghWo-HGv18vlT~PBuhP~xE63EssX5Ioy9Nkoxs~dwXp699tq0BqVZXqIDuetonNjaTvjtSwy3Zv14Yf4YSx2-93bONRvi6y-1AcbdoUNWu9GYmZp8cC2x2S-MqrQWCLXMVNfSr415QI23ovShY3QsD7aB4Gi3Q5m6NxMjzNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plano City Council on Aug. 25 adopted changes to the subdivision ordinance and street design standards and approved two fees tied to implementation: a per‑notice mailing fee and a water and sewer study fee.

Planning staff described several substantive amendments to subdivision rules, including creating a narrow‑lot residential definition for lots under 50 feet that requires rear access alleys (wider alleys where needed), mixed‑use street design and shorter block lengths for denser neighborhoods. For larger multifamily and mixed‑use sites staff added requirements for internal street networks to ensure circulation.

The ordinance also adds an early engineering requirement: developers must submit an early water and sewer study during conceptual or preliminary review so the city can assess capacity and (where appropriate) vest capacity to the project. Staff said the water and sewer study fee — set at $10,000 — covers consultant and engineering review costs. A $5 per‑notice fee will be charged to recover costs of mailed zoning notices.

Staff removed references that implied automatic city facility participation in improvements; City Manager staff said the city may still fund work through development agreements on a case‑by‑case basis depending on available funding and engineering analysis. Planning staff also clarified that plat vacations still count as plats on record so they cannot be used to evade statutory platting requirements.

After public comment from downtown developers reiterating concern about removing a downtown streets fund language from the subdivision ordinance, council discussed fiscal and implementation trade‑offs. Council member Horn said the change does not preclude funding downtown improvements but shifts funding decisions to negotiated development agreements and the budget process. City staff said leaving an obsolete or legally inconsistent provision in the ordinance could create liability.

Council voted 8–0 to adopt the subdivision and street design amendments and to approve the fee ordinance establishing the $5 notice charge and the $10,000 water/sewer study cost‑recovery fee. Staff said storm‑water mitigation standards will be addressed in the rewrite later in the year and that they will return with implementation materials and an updated web page for applicants.","The council approved changes to the subdivision ordinance, street design standards and two new fees (notice mailings and water/sewer study) to implement the zoning changes and create an early infrastructure review and capacity‑vesting process.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6500933,"Plano council adopts zoning ordinance amendments to comply with new state laws; council sets design standards pending rewrite",3468,8464000,11932000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9&start=8464&end=11932","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9/thumbnail_8464000.jpg","/articles/6500933/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Plano-council-adopts-zoning-ordinance-amendments-to-comply-with-new-state-laws-council-sets-design-standards-pending-rewrite","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500933-c959d84e99cf828137a7d88459c54459/orig.mp4?Expires=1770762281&Signature=czg9efOq0N~vYpZucSJ4-oR7O47843GervySFnk56lJ1cX~pnQA-MCBljMJxVNg6EYFTiekVt0y0NOM3mnhvzoQE5rVA1sL56VDLDA4A2Pdq8Kj0M-~aqbtDXrNdeaFAlsCM6TjiIG-kmQ-AcxXe1cbTMCSifboXpjGjDdFWZZfm21DQ5qmlQ8l~Y7JclH6lGSY8kZXeFc2rEuOZumvri0lwaVthBMquqCbommLbPRn2m9oFmqblopylUx5nu0zjveg14c-~BCeMeqhj-XLSgXgTdtYr1BdacFLRXcq2J561fEuTrZUCObNPjo6vnfGhcIJPufPNzY~uDaxigEFCGA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plano City Council on Aug. 25 adopted a package of amendments to the comprehensive zoning ordinance to comply with multiple bills passed by the Texas Legislature and to preserve local development quality through new design and parking standards.

Christina Day, director of Planning, presented the ordinance changes informed by recent legislation she identified as \"House Bill 24,\" \"House Bill 2464,\" and several senate bills she listed during the presentation. Day said changes include updated notice requirements — including requiring zoning signs on all sides of affected properties — new protest thresholds for certain residential additions, a new \"no impact\" home‑based business category, and adjustments to how the council must act when Planning & Zoning (P&Z) denies a case.

\"House bill 24 is effective Sept. 1 and this changes the notice requirements for zoning cases rather substantially,\" Day said. She explained the law increases thresholds for neighbor protests in some residential situations, creates a category for cases without protest rights, and removes the city’s option to require a council supermajority when a P&Z denial is appealed.

The package also implements Senate Bill provisions that allow multifamily or mixed‑use development in many nonresidential districts and set statewide limits on local regulation of these projects. Day said staff recommended citywide design standards for multifamily and mixed‑use developments, minimum parking of one space per unit, elimination of compact‑only parking allowances in downtown districts, and a requirement that some projects pursue LEED certification as an initial sustainability standard.

At the public hearing, developers and downtown property owners urged caution and more stakeholder outreach. William Pierce Cravens, who described a long development history in downtown Plano, said several discretionary additions (LEED, minimum unit sizes, landscaping, possible changes to downtown street‑funding language) would increase development costs and deserved more public input. Architect Corey Reinicker said the state bills are \"a call to action\" but urged the city not to layer additional barriers onto new housing.

Council members debated the balance between complying with state law and retaining discretion to shape development quality. Several members — including Mayor John Muns, Council members Horn, Kerr and LeBain — said they support rules that preserve building quality and protect neighborhoods while acknowledging the state has reduced some local controls.

By unanimous vote (8–0) the council approved the ordinance as presented, with staff amendments noted in the staff report. Planning & Zoning recommended approval earlier by a 7–0 vote. Council members instructed staff to continue outreach during the upcoming zoning rewrite and to return with implementation materials for developers and the public.

The ordinance contains findings required by the comprehensive plan process and updates to definitions, residential adjacency/height treatments, parking and notice procedures. City staff said additional implementation items, including updates to the website, administrative procedures and training for permitting staff, will be completed during the rewrite process.","The City Council approved comprehensive zoning ordinance amendments to implement recent state legislation affecting notice, multifamily and mixed‑use approvals and home‑based business rules while adding design and parking standards intended to preserve development quality.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6500937,"Plano Council agrees to pilot hybrid nighttime road work for arterial intersections",1245,5675000,6920000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9&start=5675&end=6920","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5676840-ef25057f2bdd4880543b8785f13425a9/thumbnail_5675000.jpg","/articles/6500937/Plano/Collin-County/Texas/Plano-Council-agrees-to-pilot-hybrid-nighttime-road-work-for-arterial-intersections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6500937-b03832d900dafe12d2c5f9a4ffc8d8e1/orig.mp4?Expires=1770762281&Signature=fU4rlyk2SHeWjLU3uFWQmCT9j80nErB2PEwrHhTGI21jpUeJJl8YdcwJ7w7SRmPIhVIocQtToOKjLPf9Yx4eKN02zw2E2D8WJiwSIIhHRgJkgNVu7A5~JXHDznzJz2u5ASo8P996PBtS2t2SFwo66RI16jYI1CSJiH-gWZI5IlIxXo70YSPvj0foPVoZdjU~03WEdPnwzscV6SPDs2zfHtR880nR-RYE4pLtiFgS~NN7A-le9hTXaUjq2TtmDCUtdshCfPU7ubD3iejMBuYNWI4L9KLUCqeL1e3eDcK-21XzYLdfRy1nLdvPN4ilSxUA9CBl-kpf-a63EzHRnum-ow__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Plano City Council on Aug. 25 directed staff to pilot a hybrid nighttime construction schedule on selected arterial streets and intersections, with restrictions intended to limit impacts on nearby residences.

The council heard a presentation from Abby Owens, director of Public Works, who outlined benefits and trade-offs of expanding night work beyond current practices. Owens said the city typically limits noisy activities to daytime and restricts lane closures to less busy hours, but that overlays, utility relocations and some paving tasks are already done at night to take advantage of cooler temperatures and lower traffic.

\"In the summertime, it's better temperatures for the contractors,\" Owens said. \"With lower traffic, we can have more of the work.\"

Owens presented a hybrid option that would combine daytime work with targeted night shifts to accelerate projects such as intersection improvements and utility relocations, and suggested a selection framework: limit night work to arterial roadways and intersections, avoid residential areas, and exclude locations with residential uses within 500 feet unless a director-level exception is granted. She proposed collecting data during the pilot on construction speed, contractor participation, cost line items (day vs. night), contractor feedback and community reaction.

Council members pressed staff on past complaints and implementation details. Council member Levine asked whether Midway at Windhaven, a location that drew complaints from neighbors, was part of the work; Owens confirmed it was an existing overlay project and said resident perceptions sometimes made projects seem longer than actual contractor schedules. Council member Horn urged focusing night work on intersections in warmer months and noted nighttime pours can compress schedules enough to recoup premium labor and equipment costs.

Deputy Mayor Pro Tem asked how the city would notify nearby residents; Owens said the city would use Nextdoor and the communications and outreach team, plus website notices and targeted outreach, similar to current practices. City staff said they could scale back planned night work for a given contractor or intersection if complaint volumes were excessive, because they phase work so not all lanes are removed at once.

The pilot would begin with arterial segments identified in the presentation (including the Spring Creek to Hedgcoats section) and include intersections where blue-highlighted segments lack residences within 500 feet. Staff will report back to council with measured results.

The council did not adopt a change to the city noise ordinance; rather, it authorized staff to test a pilot under the existing ordinance framework and return with data. Mayor John Muns and eight council members signaled support for trying the hybrid approach with caveats about complaints, costs and seasonal limits.","The Plano City Council directed staff to pilot a hybrid nighttime construction schedule on selected arterial intersections and stretches to reduce daytime traffic disruption while tracking costs, contractor availability and community response.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Plano council debates proposed tax‑rate ceiling; several members back using the voter‑approved ceiling to add one‑time buffers

Council discusses park‑fee program, zoning of fee use and appeals process; staff to meet Parks and Recreation Planning Board

Council approves subdivision, street design and fees to align with state law; adds narrow‑lot and infrastructure study steps

Plano council adopts zoning ordinance amendments to comply with new state laws; council sets design standards pending rewrite

Plano Council agrees to pilot hybrid nighttime road work for arterial intersections