[1. CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:08]
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN IT IS TUESDAY,
[2. EXECUTIVE SESSION]
JANUARY FOURTH, 2022 AND WE ARE IN WORK SESSION. AS AUTHORIZED BY SECTION 551.071 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, THIS MEETING MAY BE CONVENED INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEEKING CONFIDENTIAL LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY ON ANY AGENDA ITEM HEREIN.THE CITY OF ROWLETT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO RECONVENE, RECESS OR REALIGN THE REGULAR SESSION OR CALLED EXECUTIVE SESSION OR ORDER OF BUSINESS AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO ADJOURNMENT. TO PROVIDE COMMENT FOR THE MEETING (IF YOU ARE NOT ATTENDING IN PERSON), PLEASE SEND AN EMAIL TO CITIZENINPUT@ROWLETT.COM BY 3:30 P.M. THE DAY OF THE MEETING. PLEASE SPECIFICALLY STATE WHETHER YOUR COMMENT IS REGARDING A SPECIFIC CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA ITEM.
ITEM 2A. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, ?551.071 (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY) AND ?551.087 (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT) TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY AND TO DISCUSS COMMERCIAL OR FINANCIAL INFORMATION THAT THE CITY HAS RECEIVED FROM A BUSINESS PROSPECT THAT THE COUNCIL SEEKS TO HAVE LOCATE, STAY, OR EXPAND IN THE CITY AND WITH WHICH THE CITY IS CONDUCTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT NEGOTIATIONS, REGARDING THE NORTH SHORE CENTER FOR COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY. AND THEN 2B. THE CITY COUNCIL SHALL ITEM CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, ?551.071 (CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY), TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY REGARDING?FRANCHISE FEES AND VIDEO STREAMING SERVICES. ALL R HAVE CONCLUDED THE USER HAVE SECTION AND NO FORMAL ACTION WAS TAKEN AND WILL MOVE ON TO
[3A. Discuss the City’s participation in litigation relating to the collection of franchise fees from video streaming service providers, and the engagement of outside counsel. (15 minutes)]
OUR WORK SESSION ITEMS. WERE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 3A.DISCUSS THE CITY?S PARTICIPATION IN LITIGATION RELATING TO THE COLLECTION OF FRANCHISE FEES FROM VIDEO STREAMING SERVICE PROVIDERS, AND THE ENGAGEMENT OF OUTSIDE COUNSEL.. I'M GOING TO HAVE MAYOR PRO TEM COUNCILMEMBER MATT GRUBISICH TO READ THE ITEMS.
>> I REQUESTED THAT ROWLETT NOT JOIN THE BOARD FOR THE STREAM OF INCOME AND THE ROWLETT CITY COUNCIL DO THE RIGHT THING FOR THE CITIZENS FYI UNITED STATES DISTRICT OF AN NEVADA ORDER FILING IN SUMMARY WAS BOTTOM LINE IS YOU SHOULD NOT HAVE TO PAY FRANCHISE FEES TO THE CITY AND COUNTY. THE CITY ALSO FLEET CURRENTLY HAS TO PAY TAXES ON INTERNET DATA WHY ARE YOU PICKING ON NETFLIX AND DISNEY AND WHY ARE YOU NOT USING OTHER SERVICES? LISTING. JUST TO NAME A FEW. THE GOOGLE TV SERIES 100 PERCENT OF THE INTERNET OFFERS ALL MAJOR PROGRAMS FOR SERIES AND DVR SERVICES. I PERSONALLY USE MY CELL PHONE TO WATCH VIDEO AND PNOT THE INTERNET CABLE FROM TH GROUND AND CITY OF ROWLETT. PLEASE DO THE RIGHT THING FOR CITIZENS AND NO NOT THE LAWYERS CHASING FEES. THERE CHEESY STATEMENTS. I WOULD LIKE ITEM SEVEN DELAY 7A REMOVED. I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE CONTRACT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED TO ENTER INTO WITH THE ASHCROFT SUTTON RISE LLC
FOR SERVICES. >>> CRISWELL CUT. JUST ANOTHER
GRAB AT OUR MONEY. >> MARK KIM GENS. THIS SHOULD NOT HE CONSIDERED AT THIS WILL MAKE SERVICE PROVIDERS TO INCREASE ROWLETT CITIZENS STREAMING OR DIGITAL SERVICE BILL. ROWLETT DOES NOT PASS THE DEBT INCOME TO ITS ROWLETT CITIZENS JUST BECAUSE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING THIS. IS IT THE RIGHT THING FOR ROWLETT CITIZENS? > THANK YOU VERY MUCH MATT. WE HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER.
>> THANK YOU. DEBORAH SCHINDLER.SINCE THE SILENCE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA I DON'T KNOW IF THE CITY'S MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP BUT I'M GOING TO MAKE MY STATEMENT ANYWAY AS IT SOUNDS LIKE SOME PEOPLE IN THE CITY ARE FEELING THIS WAY. 20 YEARS AGO CABLE TV WAS ALMOST UBIQUITOUS. IT WAS ADDED FREE TV YOU PAY MONTHLY FEE AND DON'T HAVE YOUR CONTENT AND REP BY COMMERCIALS. IT DIDN'T LAST LONG AS YOU KNOW. SOON WE HAD MONTHLY FEES. AS CABLE REPLACED THE RABBIT EARS LOCAL GOVERNMENT ALL REVENUE OPPORTUNITY AND CAME UP WITH A FRANCHISE FEE SPECIFICALLY A CABLE COMPANY WAS GRANTED AND FED A LOCAL MONOPOLY IN INTERRED PAY THE CITY A FEE. THIS WAS JUSTIFIABLE AS COMPENSATION FOR THE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY LAID PUBLIC CABLE. THEY PASS THIS FEE ON TO THE CUSTOMERS ALONG WITH ANY
[00:05:05]
OTHER BUSINESS AGENT I CUT THE CABLE CORD BACK AND PAID $8 A MONTH FOR BASIC CABLE TO AROUND $10 AT THE TIME FOR NETFLIX AND IT HAS SET UP THE FILLING STATIONS. IT MADE FINANCIAL SENSE. NOW SONY PEOPLE USING INTERNET STREAMING SERVICES TO WATCH TELEVISION CONTENT INSTEAD OF CABLE TV THE CITY SEES AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE REVENUE BY CHARGING THOSE SERVICES SIMILAR TO THE FEE. ON THE SURFACE THIS MAKES SENSE. IF YOUR CABLE BILL INCLUDES A FRANCHISE FEE SHOULDN'T YOUR NEIGHBORS NETFLIX BILL? ALSO OTHER PEOPLE WATCHING TV PROGRAMMING? NUMBER INTERNET STREAMING'S ARE NOT USING PUBLIC PROPERTY TO LAY INFRASTRUCTURE WHICH WOULD SEEM SENSIBLE FOR THE CHARGE. IF YOU HAVE CABLE INTERNET YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING A FRANCHISE FEE IMPOSED ON THOSE LINES. IF YOUR INTERNET SERVICE IS 5G IS GOING OVER THE AIRWAYS THERE'S NO LINE THAT'S USING PUBLIC PROPERTY. UNOPPOSED FOR THE CITY TO JOIN TO THE SNOOT STREAMING SERVICES TO PAY CABLE COMPANY FOR ISP. THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY REJECTED ARGUMENTS AND FULL STREAMING PLATFORM SHOULD HAVE TO PAY. HERE IN TEXAS THERE'S A LAWSUIT AGAINST NETFLIX AND HULU IN SEPTEMBER OF 2021. MY NETFLIX ACCOUNT IS NOT TIED TO ANY PHYSICAL POST I DON'T USE IT AT DELAY JUST AT HOME I CAN USE IT AT A HOTEL OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS. WHY SHOULD THE CITY GET A FEE FOR MY USE OF THE SERVICE? AFTER ALL THE CITY DOESN'T WANT TO CHARGE ME IT WANTS TO CHARGE THE STREAMING PACKAGE. THAT ALONG WITH EVERY OTHER CONSUMER OUR COSTS WILL GO UP THE CITY WILL EFFECTIVELY BE TAXING ITS CITIZENS FOR STREAMING.>> ANYTHING ELSE LAURA? >> ALL RIGHT BRIAN, I THINK WE
>> ALL RIGHT. WE WANT TO DISCUSS THE POSSIBILITY OF ROWLETT PARTICIPATING IN LITIGATION AND INFLECTION OF FRANCHISE FEES OF VIDEO STREAMING SERVICE PROVIDERS.
WE HAVE SEEN THE ARTICLES AND THIS HAS BEEN SINCE 2018 SOME CITIES IN MISSOURI WERE THE FIRST ONES TO START RECOGNIZING THIS ISSUE OR AT LEAST BEGINNING TO LITIGATE IT.
INDIANA, GEORGIA, THERE'S MULTIPLE STATES AND CITIES THAT HAVE ALSO PARTICIPATED SINCE THAT TIME. ONE THING I DO WANT TO SAY IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT HOW STREAMING WORKS YES, WE HAVE OUR PHONES AND IPADS AND THERE ARE MANY WAYS THAT PEOPLE WATCH STREAMING SERVICES BUT IN ROWLETT WE HAVE FIOS FOR EXAMPLE. WHEN I STREAM WHETHER IT IS AMAZON PRIME OR NETFLIX IT IS GOING THROUGH MY HARDWIRED SYSTEM TO BE DISPLAYED IN MY HOUSE WITH MY SERVICE. AND SO, THAT IS EQUIVALENT TO WHAT A LOT OF PEOPLE IN ROWLETT ALSO DO.
IT'S NOT SAYING THAT PEOPLE AREN'T ALSO WATCHING ON THEIR MOBILE DEVICES OR GETTING IT FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR A LOT OF OTHER ROWLETT RESIDENCES COMING THROUGH FILES WHICH IS HARDWIRED TO THE CITY AND INTO OUR COMMUNITY. ROWLETT COLLECTS A LITTLE OVER $600,000 PER YEAR RIGHT NOW OR HAS BEEN -YOU CAN SEE THE DECLINE. THIS HAS ONE OF THESE THINGS WHERE WE NOTICE A TREND AND WE TALK ABOUT BOUT IT DURING THE BUDGET PROCESS. 16 PERCENT OVER THE LAST FIVE YEARS ALMOST OVER $100,000 OF WHAT WE SEE. THIS TREND WILL CONTINUE TO OCCUR AS PEOPLE CLIPPED THE SERVICE AND MOVE TO STRICTLY STREAMING.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE MONTHLY FEES THAT THESE SERVICES ARE PROVIDING GENERALLY SEVEN TO $20 PER MONTH MANY CUSTOMERS SUBSCRIBE TO MULTIPLE. I HAVE PNETFLIX AND PRIME VIDEO AND OTHERS MULTIPLE ONES, TOO. SOMETIMES PEOPLE DO THAT TO JUST WATCH A SERIES AND THEN THEY CUT IT RIGHT BACK OFF.
BUT IF YOU TAKE THE NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS IN ROWLETT INCLUDING MULTI FAMILY APARTMENTS AND HOMES WE ARE TALKING POSSIBLY $100,000-$300,000 PER YEAR IN FRANCHISE FEES EVEN IF EACH OF THOSE HOUSEHOLDS ONLY SUBSCRIBE TO ONE. AGAIN, I THINK A LOT OF THEM SUBSCRIBE TO MULTIPLE. SO, THIS IS THE NATIONAL FIGHT
[00:10:02]
AND WHAT WERE TRYING TO DO IS RAISE AWARENESS OF REALLY THE FREE ADD-ON THAT THESE SUBSCRIBING SERVICES STREAMING PROVIDERS HAVE RIGHT NOW BECAUSE THEY ARE USING INFRASTRUCTURE THAT IS USING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY AND AGAIN WE MENTIONED FIOS AS AN EXAMPLE. IT STREAMS IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT YET THEY ARE NOT PAYING FRANCHISE FEES FOR WHICH THE CABLE COMPANY IS. I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TELEPHONE COMPANY, CELL PHONE SERVICES, THERE FRANCHISE FEE IS BASED ON A PRESCRIBER CHARGE. FOR CABLE IT IS BASED ON A PERCENTAGE OF REVENUE. THIS JUST SAY, FOR AN EXAMPLE LET'S JUST SAY YOU ARE PAYING $100 A MONTH FOR CABLE. THE CABLE COMPANY PAYS THE CITY FIVE PERCENT FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF BEING ABLE TO USE OUR RIGHT-OF-WAY. A SICKLY RENTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DELIVERING THEIR PRODUCT. BUT, ON THE OTHER HAND IF YOU ADDED A COUPLE OF THESE AND YOUR PAYING $20 PER MONTH FOR THE STREAMING SERVICES ON TOP OF THAT IT IS A FREE RIDE. THEY ARE USING THE SAME INFRASTRUCTURE, USING THE SAME RIGHT-OF-WAY YET THEY ARE NOT PAYING FRANCHISE FEES TO COMMUNITIES IN TEXAS. THE CITY IS FOCUSING ON SPECIFIC PROVIDERS BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF THEM OUT THERE. ACORN, PARAMOUNT PLUS, DISNEY PLUS, OBVIOUSLY WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT. THE ARGUMENT REALLY IS THAT THERE IS NO CURRENT FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH ANY CITY THAT REGULATES THE USE OF THIS AND YET, FRANCHISE FEES THE PAYMENT OF FRANCHISE THESE IS COVERED BY THE TEXAS PROVIDERS ACT WHICH IS UTILITY CODE SECTION 66. IF SUCCESSFUL THE CITY RECEIVES PAST AND FUTURE FRANCHISE FEES.THIS IS AN OLDER CHART I'M GOING TO ADMIT THIS UPFRONT BUT I THOUGHT IT WAS INTERESTING EVEN BACK IN 2018 2019 PEOPLE WERE ALREADY STARTING TO SEE THIS TREND OCCURRING AS PEOPLE STARTED TO LAUNCH MORE INTO STREAMING SERVICES LIKE NETFLIX AND HULU AND SOME OF THE OTHERS AND THE PREDICTION WAS THAT CABLE SERVICES WOULD CONTINUE TO DECLINE. GOING BACK TO THE CHART WE SHOWED YOU THAT THAT HAS OCCURRED IF I GO BACK TO THIS PARTICULAR CHART AND LOOK AT 18 IT HAS DECLINED EVERY YEAR SINCE 2018 AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT THESE PRODUCTIONS WERE SAYING EVEN BACK THEN. THIS TREND WILL CONTINUE AND MAY CONTINUE FOR QUITE SOME TIME EITHER CABLE IS GOING TO REINVENT THEMSELVES TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OR, YOU ARE GOING TO START TO SEE THIS TREND CONTINUE. WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS PARTICIPATING WITH OTHER TEXAS CITIES THAT ARE COORDINATED LITIGATION EFFORTS WITH THREE SEPARATE LAW FIRMS INCLUDING COLE SMITH, ASHEVILLE SEVEN AND CHORION UTILITY.
THIS IS A CONTINGENCY FEE ARRANGEMENT SO, IF SUCCESSFUL THEN THEY GET PAID AND THE CITY WOULD RECOVER A PORTION OF THOSE AS WELL AS YOU TO REVENUES AND IF DONE SUCCESSFUL THE CITY WOULD PAY NOTHING TO PARTICIPATE. IT WOULD BE A 30 PERCENT CHARGE IF THE MATTER IS CONCLUDED PRIOR TO TRIAL AND IT WOULD ONLY GO UP TO 33 A THIRD IF IT GOES TO TRIAL AND OF COURSE ALL THE CITIES THAT ARE PARTICIPATING ARE IN THE SAME ARRANGEMENTS AND THAT'S HOW THE COST WOULD BE PAID. SO, WE ARE SEEKING GUIDANCE ON THE FOLLOWING IF THERE'S CONSENSUS FROM COUNSEL TO PARTICIPATE WE DO KNOW THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF OTHER TEXAS CITIES PLANO, DALLAS, GARLANDS, OTHERS THAT HAVE JOINED TO PARTICIPATE AND SOME OTHER STATES HAVE DONE IT AS WELL. RIGHT NOW THERE'S A PRETTY GOOD BALLOT IN GEORGIA THAT ARE DOING THE SAME THING AND ULTIMATELY IT MAY NOT BE A LITIGIOUS ISSUE. MAYBE IT IS ASA, SOMETHING THAT HAS TO HAPPEN AT THE STATE LEVEL OR EVEN THE FEDERAL. BUT, IF WE DO NOTHING WHAT WERE GOING TO CONTINUE TO SEE IS A LOSS OF REVENUE FOR THESE FRANCHISE FEES OVER TIME AS PEOPLE SWITCH TO OTHER MEANS AND YOU KNOW, ONE ANALOGY THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE IN THE PREVIOUS THE CITY COLLECTED ITS OWN SALES TAXES AND WE DID OUR OWN AUDITS AND EVEY ONCE IN A WHILE WE WOULD FIND A PROVIDER IN TOWN FOR RETAIL BUSINESS WHO WOULD DRIVE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY LIMITS JUST OUTSIDE AND DELIVER A PRODUCT THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO COLLECT SALES TAX ON.
[00:15:05]
MY POINT IS, THE STORES AT TOWN, PEOPLE WENT INTO THE STORE TO BUY THE PRODUCT AND THEN THEY HAD THE DELIVERY TO THE OUTSIDE CITY LIMITS ONLY TO BYPASS SALES TAX. IN THE CASE OF FRANCHISE FEES OUR PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ARE BEING USED TO PROVIDE THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND PATH FOR ELECTRIC AND GAS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS, CABLE, ALL OF IT. AND, FOR YEARS NOW, THERE HAVE BEEN NO FRANCHISE FEES PAID BY THESE COMPANIES WHO ARE USING THAT PRIVILEGE. THAT IS WHAT I WOULD LIKE US TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE DEBATE THIS AND DELIBERATE.>> ICS GOING DOWN THE ROAD OF INTERNET SALES TAX. THERE IS AN ISSUE OUT THERE AND IT'S BEEN PERCOLATING FOR YEARS. IT TAKES A LONG TIME FOR IT TO GET RESOLVED AND IT HAS A LOT OF LITIGATION AND IT FINALLY GETS RESOLVED WITH LEGISLATION. TO OUR BENEFIT IN ROWLETT, AND GOODNESS, BUT, IT WAS ALWAYS THE RIGHT THING TO DO WITH THE SALES TAX. YOU KNOW, ROWLETT JOINING IN THIS SUIT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THE OUTCOME OF THE ARGUMENT. THIS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN GOING ON NOT JUST IN TEXAS BUT ACROSS THE COUNTRY. SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING IS GOING TO BREAK REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO. I AM PERSONALLY IN FULL SUPPORT OF JOINING THIS LAWSUIT BECAUSE I THINK IT IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO FOR THE CITY. I WOULD HATE FOR THIS TO GO DOWN A PATH THAT WE ARE NOT AT LEAST A PLAYER IN THE MIDST OF IT HERE THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. OTHERS?
>> I'M THINKING ABOUT WHAT BRIAN SAID. WHAT HAPPENS IF THIS LINE BREAKS? DO WE HAVE TO GO FIX IT? OR SOMEONE ELSE HAS TO FIX IT SO THEY CAN GET THEIR PRODUCTS DOWN THE LINE.
DO YOU SEE I'M SAYING? THEY WANT TO RIDE ON THE ROAD BUT THEY DON'T WANT TO FIX THE POTHOLES.
>> I WAS MAKING THE SAME COMPARISON OF THE SALES TAX DISPARITY AND THERE IS AN OBVIOUS DISPARITY. IT'S NOT THAT WERE TRYING TO INCREASE, OR TRYING TO PRESERVE REVENUES SO WE CAN JOIN IN THE PATH THAT WE SEE DECLINE. IT IS BECAUSE OF THE SHIFT IN THE MARKET. TO ME, IT IS ALMOST UNFAIR TO A FIOS, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT HAS TO PAY THE FRANCHISE FEE AND COMPETE AGAINST THE STREAMING SERVICES THAT AREN'T HAVING TO PAY THAT. I THINK IT'S KIND OF A CHINA DEAL. NO? I DO SEE IT AS A TREND. IT IS A DISPARITY. IT WILL GET FIXED ONE WAY OR ANOTHER BECAUSE THAT IS THE TRAJECTORY OF THAT SERVICE. I THINK THAT IT WILL BUT THEY WILL ALWAYS NEED TO YOUR POINT, ROUNDY, THEY ARE ALWAYS GOING TO NEED THAT BASIC SERVICE TO RIDE ON BECAUSE OF THE BASIC SERVICES GONE YOU LOSE ALL THE OTHERS. AND SO, I AM INCLINED TO SUPPORT THE MAYOR IN HER SUPPORT OF JOINING THIS LITIGATION BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING AWAY. AND I LIKE FOR THINGS TO BE FAIR WHERE COMPETITION IS CONCERNED AND I DO THINK THAT IS WHERE WE ARE
HEADED WITH THIS. >> SO, JUST TO CLARIFY, THIS WON'T COST ANYTHING TO JOIN THIS LAWSUIT? AND HYPOTHETICALLY DOWN THE ROAD IF THIS WERE NOT TO BE SUCCESSFUL THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SUING THE CITY?
>> THE ANSWER IS NUMBER THE CONTINGENCY AGREEMENT HAS TO BE APPROVE BY THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL AND THAT AGREEMENT IS IN THE PACKET. A STRAIGHT 30 PERCENT OF ANY RECOVERY PRIOR TO TRIAL AND IF AFTER TRIAL OR EVEN ON APPEAL THE PERCENTAGE IS 33 A THIRD PERCENT THE GO TO THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL. THE WAY IT WORKS IS THERE FEE WHATEVER THE GROSS RECOVERY IS THERE FEE IS DEDUCTED FIRST. AND THEN THE COSTS ARE THEN TAKEN, THEY ARE PRORATED AND WE GET WHAT IS LEFT OVER. THE CONTINGENCY ONLY PERTAINS TO PAST-DUE FRANCHISE FEES NOT FUTURE FEES.
IF SUCCESSFUL WE WOULD RECEIVE ALL OF THE FEES.
>> HOW FAR BACK DO THEY GO ON PAST FEES?
[00:20:02]
>> I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR BACK THEY ARE LOOKING. MY GUESS IS FOUR YEARS BUT TECHNICALLY STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS DON'T APPLY TO THE CITY. SOME THINKING FOR YEARS. THE ROUGH ESTIMATE THAT WE GOT SO FAR IS ABOUT 750,000 TO A MILLION TO THE CITY OF ROWLETT AND WHATEVER IT MAY BE IN FUTURE FEES. I DO WANT TO SAY THIS THAT THE OTHER CITIES THAT ARE PARTICIPATING INCLUDE HOUSTON, DALLAS, AUSTIN, ARLINGTON ABERDEEN, FRISCO, PLANO, SUGARLAND, AMARILLO, GRAND PRAIRIE AND CITY VALLEY. IF, HYPOTHETICALLY WE DID NOT PARTICIPATE BUT THE RESPONSE IS REALLY IMPORTANT. IF WE DON'T PARTICIPATE IN LITIGATION WAS SUCCESSFUL OUR CITIZENS WOULDN'T RECEIVE THAT BENEFIT. YOU UNDERSTAND NETFLIX, HULU, DISNEY PLUS THESE PROVIDERS WILL NOT BREAK OUT THERE FEE AND CHARGE LESS TO ROWLETT CITIZENS AS THEY DO TO DALLAS AND HOUSTON. IF WE DON'T DISSIPATE IN THE LITIGATION IS SUCCESSFUL WE HAVE LOST A LOT OF MONEY THAT WE COULD SPEND ON SENIOR SERVICES. IF WE DO PARTICIPATE THOSE STREAMING SERVICES AREN'T GOING TO NOT CHARGE A FLAT FEE. I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT, I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE RESOLVED BY LEGISLATION AND FOR THE TIME BEING, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS BEING DONE AND BEING PURSUED IN A HOLD BUNCH OF DIFFERENT CITIES NOT JUST TEXAS. THERE'S DIFFERENT LAW FIRMS AND DIFFERENT LITIGATORS AND A DIFFERENT
JUDGE. >> IS TOUGH. THIS GOES BACK TO WHEN THEY STARTED STREAMING MUSIC AND HOW IT ALL CHANGED AND THEN BACK OFF FIGURED OUT AND THE INTERNET SALES TAX AND THINGS LIKE THAT THIS IS JUST THE NEXT EVOLUTION OF THAT AND BEING PART OF THIS HELPS PUSH THAT FURTHER AND QUICKER TO GET TO THAT RESOLUTION WHICH GETS THE BENEFIT TO ALL CITIES NOT JUST ROWLETT. TO ME IT'S WORTH DOING SINCE THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO THIS FOR US. IT'S A NO-BRAINER.
>> ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS?
>> ALL RIGHT. LET'S DO IT. [LAUGHTER]
>> BROWNIE DESERVE THAT! SO, IS EVERYONE OKAY LEAVING IT ON
[3B. Discuss the establishment of a Stakeholder Engagement Group to guide, solicit and review public input for the update of the Rowlett Development Code and Form-Based Code. (15 minutes)]
THE CONSENT AGENDA? ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ITEM 3B. DISCUSS THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GROUP TO GUIDE, SOLICIT AND REVIEW PUBLIC INPUT FOR THE UPDATE OF THE ROWLETT DEVELOPMENT CODE AND FORM-BASED CODE. YOU CAN'T SEE ME LAUGHING AND I HAVE MY MASK ON.[LAUGHTER] HELLO! YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT ARE YOU?>> NUMBER THIS IS SOMETHING ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. MAYBE LATER! I WILL DO SOME MORE OF THIS BUT.
>> GO AHEAD, I HAVE ALREADY READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. YOU MAY RECALL THAT BACK IN SEPTEMBER YOU AUTHORIZE THE EXECUTION OF THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CLARIION SERVICES FOR THE UPDATE OF THE CITY DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SO, ONE OF THE BIG PARTS OF THAT IS OF COURSE TAKING SURE WE GET IT RIGHT THROUGH CONSISTENT AND CONSTANT PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT AND INPUT. AS PART OF THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A STANDING WORKING GROUP THAT WE ARE CALLING A STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GROUP. THAT WOULD BE, THAT GROUP OF PEOPLE THAT WOULD HAVE THE ROLE OF MAKING SURE THAT WE THE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS ARE MAKING SURE THAT WE ARE KEEPING THE PROJECT ON TRACK AND WORKING IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY AND THE PUBLIC. SO, WE ARE SEEKING FROM YOU THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT ARE CITIZENS THAT ARE BUSINESS LEADERS, THAT ARE NONPROFIT LEADERS AND REPRESENTATIVES OF CONSULTANTS I'M SORRY DEVELOPERS AND THEIR PROFESSIONALS THAT HAVE RECENTLY WORKED HERE IN THE CITY AS WELL AS A COUPLE MEMBERS DRAWN FROM THIS BODY OF CITY COUNCIL IN A CUP FULL
[00:25:01]
MEMBERS DRAWN FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO BE ON THIS GROUP OF NINE TO 12 INDIVIDUALS THAT WOULD HELP US IN SHEPHERDING THIS PROCESS. IT WOULD HIT ON THESE THINGS SPECIFICALLY AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A GOOD SOUNDING BOARD FOR THINGS THAT WE, THE STAFF AND CONSULTANTS WOULD RING FORWARD.ALSO, TO MAKE SURE WE ARE HITTING AS MANY DEMOGRAPHICS, GROUPS, INTEREST GROUPS AND STAKEHOLDERS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE OUR BASES COVERED THROUGHOUT THE PROCESS AS WELL AS TO ALSO SERVE AS A BIT OF A PROCESS CHECK FOR US IF THEY NOTICE SOMETHING THAT WE MIGHT HAVE MISSED OR A DIRECTION THAT WE FEEL MIGHT NOT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE DIRECTION FOR US TO BE AT. WE HAVE A LIST OF FOLKS THAT WE BELIEVE WOULD BE KEY MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP SEEKING A MEDIUM-SIZE GROUP OF 9 TO 12 PEOPLE THAT WOULD BE A BROAD RANGE OF INTERESTS AND BACKGROUNDS. WITH THAT. SO, I GUESS OUR REQUEST RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR THE COUNCIL TO PROVIDE US CANDIDATES FOR THIS STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT GROUP SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS 18 MONTH PROCESS OR SO TO GET THE UPDATE OF THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AND AT A FUTURE DATE THESE FOLKS WOULD BE OFFICIALLY APPOINTED BY YOU, THE COUNCIL, TO SERVE IN THIS ROLE. AND, WITH THAT, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE? ASK WHAT ARE YOUR IDEAS OF HOW WE DO THAT? DOES ANYONE HAVE
SUGGESTIONS? >> WE'VE DONE IT IN DIFFERENT
WAYS AT EVERY TIME. >> I CAN SPEAK FROM PAST EXPERIENCE WHERE WE HAVE A PROJECT LIKE THIS WITH THE COUNCIL AND THE COUNCIL WOULD COLLECTIVELY GIVE US THE NAMES AND THE STAFF WOULD APPROACH AND SEE IF THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SERVE IN THIS CAPACITY. ON THE FLIPSIDE WE COULD COME BACK AT ANOTHER MEETING IN A MORE FORMALIZED WAY OF THEM POINTING OR ENGAGING ONCE WE ASK IF THEY
ARE INTERESTED TO DO SO. >> I THINK IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER A LIST OF ATTRIBUTES OR QUALIFICATIONS OR DESIRES BECAUSE THIS ONE IS TECHNICAL.
>> YES. >> YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE BASE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE INTEREST AND EXPERIENCE LIKE PREVIOUS PNC CHAIR MIGHT BE A GOOD ONE.
>> I THINK WE ALL HAVE THAT ONE DOWN. WERE NOT GETTING OUT OF
THIS ONE.[LAUGHTER] >> ANYWAY, I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW FROM YOU WHAT WE SHOULD BE FOCUSED ON.
>> EXPERIENCE. >> AND THEN, MAYBE ONCE WE GET BACK WE COULD SHOOT 2 TO 5 NAMES BACK TO YOU EACH ONE OF US COULD AND THEN BEFORE YOU GO DO ANYTHING WITH THAT I THINK WE NEED A WORK SESSION? I DON'T KNOW. CAN WE DO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THAT? NO? YEAH, WE DO FOR PNC. I THINK WERE GOING TO HAVE TO DO A WORK SESSION OR SOMETHING BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO JUST THROW NAMES OUT ON THIS ONE.
>> IF WE PROVIDE YOU THE MOLLIFICATION SET CAN WE PROVIDE THEM TO YOU VIA EMAIL AND THEN WE CAN GET SOME COMMUNICATION BACK FROM YOU AND THEN HANDLE THAT IN ANOTHER SESSION? IN THE MEANTIME WE WILL GO AHEAD AND START READYING THE PROJECT WITH SOME OF THE SKELETAL FRAMEWORK ASPECT OF IT SO WE DON'T LOSE ANY TIME WITH IT BUT WE WILL NOT PROCEED WITH ANY SUBSISTENT TO ACTIONS WITHOUT THE
STAKEHOLDERS? >> WHAT I WOULD PREFER NOT TO SEE IS PAM GETS ONE AND WHITNEY GETS ONE I WOULD LIKE SUGGESTIONS TO COME FROM ALL OF US AND THEN ALL OF US DECIDE AS A COLLECTIVE BODY WHO TO ASK. WHAT DO YOU ALL THINK?
>> THAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF THIS CONVERSATION TODAY BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT ANY SURPRISES. WE WANT TO BURYBE VERY UPFRONT WITH WHAT WERE DOING AND WE CAN APPROACH WITH THIS DISCUSSION TODAY AND WILLING TO COME BACK.
>> OF GOT A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL. DO YOU THINK THAT WE NEED
[00:30:06]
TO CHECK WITH OUR SUGGESTED NAMES BEFORE WE PUT THEM IN AN EMAIL BACK TO MUNAL AND THE TEAM?>> ABSOLUTELY. CONSIDERING THE TIME REQUIREMENT.
>> I UNDERSTAND. WHETHER WERE CHECKING FIRST OR SECOND, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I COULD DRAW 3 TO 5 NAMES RIGHT NOW AND WE MIGHT HAVE THE SAME NAME. WE MIGHT COLLECTIVELY DECIDE THAT'S WHO WERE GOING DOWN THE PATH WITH AND THEN THEY ARE OFF ASKING THOSE FOLKS IF THEY WILL PARTICIPATE. THE PROBLEM WITH US ASKING OUR FOLKS IF THEY'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IS IF I THROW OUT FIVE NAMES NOT ALL FIVE OF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AND THEN WE MIGHT BE HURTING SOMEONE'S FEELINGS GOING, I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO GET TO DO THIS. THERE'S A DOWNSIDE BOTH WAYS.
>> YES. >> I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME CROSSOVER. I THINK WE CAN JUST TURN IN THE NAMES AND SEE HOW MANY WE HAVE AND THEN WE CONTACT THEM AND SEE WHERE WE
ARE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST.
>> AND THEN ANYONE LISTENING OUT THERE, BRING YOUR NAME
FORWARD IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. >> WE COULD HAVE THIS MEETING IN TWO WEEKS. CAN WE APPROACH THEM AND PUT IT ON THE AGENDA.
>> I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR YOU WHO?
>> EM. >> FOR DEVELOPMENT CODE?
>> TO LET THEM KNOW? >> YOU CAN LET THEM KNOW IT'S HAPPENING BUT I DON'T KNOW IF WERE DRAWING THE NEED OUT.
>> THEY COULD GIVE US SOME GOOD SUGGESTIONS TO BE INVOLVED.
>> THAT'S TRUE. >> IN THE MEANTIME WE WILL CIRCLE THE WAGONS AND PUT OUT SOME CRITERIA THAT WE COULD SUGGEST AND THEN WE WILL SHOOT THAT TO COUNSEL TO START THE
CONVERSATION. >> I DON'T HAVE THE CRITERIA OR DEFINITIVE DATE OVER GIVING NAMES BACK AND LET'S START THIS AS A WORK SESSION ITEM IN THE JANUARY MEETING. AND THEN YOU CAN START CONTACTING THOSE INDIVIDUALS IF THEY ARE WILLING. DOES THAT SOUND GOOD?
>> YES. >> MAY I ASK THAT WHEN YOU SUBMIT YOUR NAMES YOU SUBMIT THE CONTACT INFORMATION ALONG
>> THAT'S NOT TOO MUCH TO ASK. >> GOOD. THANK YOU, GUYS.
EXCITING! >> WERE VERY EXCITED IS A GREAT
PROJECT. >> OKAY COUNSEL, LOOK AT THIS.
CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS YOU WANT TO REMOVE IT FOR CONSIDERATION? NOTHING? ALL RIGHT. IT IS 7:34 WERE GOING TO TAKE A
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.